8 p.m. on Thursday, April 16th, 2026. Please silence all cell phones. If you would like to join us, I will give the invocation and the pledge of allegiance will be done by Eustace Elementary, Eustace Heights Elementary and Simol
Springs Elementary School students. And so, please join us by standing. [clears throat] Heavenly Father, we come before you today with humble hearts as we gather for this city commission meeting. We ask for your guidance and wisdom for each
commission member as we make decisions that impact our community. Grant us clarity of thought, compassion for our constituents, and the courage to act justly. May our decisions be filled with respect and collaboration. And may the
outcomes reflect your will for our city. Bless these beautiful children, our futures with your love [clears throat] and protection. Surround us with your peace and help us all to work together for the common good. In your son's holy name we pray. Amen.
>> Amen. Amen. >> Okay. 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. >> Great job. [applause] Good job. >> Ready. >> Okay. We have u we have here Mr. Oakley
Stevens and Mrs. Silus Griner. Grryer. Uh this is autism month. April is autism month. These young men volunteered to come in and So, let's give them a big hand. [applause]
This the city of this is what uh means a lot to us. Inclusion uh from the littlest to the oldest for inclusion. And we want to thank them for coming and being part of our city. And we have certificates
And it reads um for Sam Oakley Stevens. The city of Houston proudly recognizes and congratulates you for the pledge of being a pledge of allegiance leader. It gives us great pleasure to recognize your participation
in the Thursday April 16th city commission meeting by leading us in the pledge of allegiance. May you continue to represent the city of Houston for your commitment and to your civic duty and community involvement. In witness thereof, I have here to set my hand and
cause the seal of the city of Houston to be a fixed this day 16th day of April 2026. [applause] >> [applause] >> I won't read again, but Mr. Silus, this one for you and thank you for your
participation. [applause] [applause] >> One, two, three. For those of you for those of you here that have time, and I see a lot of retired people that have time, our kids need you in their schools. So, if you have time to go read uh to spend time
with them, I do it. There's nothing [snorts] uh I think is more important than what they're doing here. Remember, they're going to be the ones taking care of us in the senior. [applause] >> I used to tell my mom, "Be careful. I'm the one who's going to pick your nursing
home." [laughter] The next generation is important. >> [clears throat and cough] >> Thank you to our students who participated. We're proud of you. We will officially call this meeting to order. Christine, is there a quorum
present and proper notice been given? >> Yes, Mayor Lee. >> Is there a agenda um update? >> Uh yes, there is Mayor Lelay. um items 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9
which are ordinance 2026 14, 15 and 16. Um and additionally 4.11, 4.12 and 4.13 um which is ordinance 2026, 21, 22 and
23 have been removed as they were not uh transmitted from the OPI. >> Next we'll have approval of minutes for April 2nd, 2026 city commission meeting. >> Move approval. >> Second. >> Roll call, please.
Commissioner Holland. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Asody. >> Hi. >> Vice B. Mayor Ashcraftoft. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Hawkins. >> Hi. >> Mayor Lee. >> I. We'll move on to um audience to be heard. If you have comments this
evening, please complete a card from the city clerk. And uh please approach the podium and speak directly into the mic. State your name and whether or not you're a resident of of uh Eustace. And keep in mind the commissions may not um
respond to you, but staff will be directed to get back to you. Most importantly, remember you have three minutes. Three minutes. Thank you. Uh the first card I have um is Scott
Roger. Okay. >> Uh second is Daniel Deanza. Greetings to all. Daniel Dvenanzo, local business uh business owner, EUs business owner and always uh somebody looking for
bright tomorrows in the city of Eustace. Thank you uh for your commitment and your time. Uh just as a curious point, if anybody has an opportunity should go back and watch the city commission meeting from July 15, 2025. It's just interesting. Uh I would like to address
uh continuing the relationship between the commission, the community, and our current city attorney. Uh I have followed up with in looking into the cost for putting somebody permanently on staff. I have confirmed uh three various
amounts, 150,000, 185,000, and 220,000. The 220,000 was a top dog, much bigger community than this. Uh, and this all stems from, you know, I just can't let go of things. So,
you know, we had a presentation by our previous city manager which I thought was really unique on his last day uh in the in the public setting with regard to the purchase of the Bank of America building. So, um, before Bob Goss died,
I'd actually spoken with him and I' I'd looked at the potential purchase of the the building, but also I knew there were issues with Bank of America, uh, because I knew the manager uh, intimately. Her son worked for me. The time dropped very quickly just then, by the way. Uh, so
coming back to I just want to mention a couple things to you. first um in that presentation, you know, it was actually quite convoluted in that, okay, here's a purchase price, but then we're going to get an appraisal and here's another purchase price and potentially could come out at this. And I'm like, who put
this up? Because you know what? They were not represented by a broker at that meeting. So I assumed since Tom was ready that the staff had somehow put this together and I assume that they consulted with our city attorney in did they consult with our city attorney?
Interesting developments. So I was still interested in the building but then I thought okay it's under contract with the true leave guy or the marijuana guy. I found out it's not. So I knew the building was in foreclosure. It's pretty much public knowledge. I reached out to First National Mountaora and guess what?
Lo and behold, it is in foreclosure. I don't know if any of us were made aware of that. So, I don't know where these numbers came from. Also, I found it interesting that Bone and Stroth what is First Nationals legal representation. And now we have an attorney, our same
city attorney with Bowen and Stroth who's also representing the uh foreclosing mortgage company somehow working with the staff to put down put out this convoluted purchase contract and at the same time I don't know that she ever disclosed to you that
she was that her corp company was representing essentially all the parties. The reason I got a problem with that is and I have since then looked into uh putting a backup offer in the backup the offer that made came in so at
1.450 and then a guy came in at 1.5 million. >> Yes, we missed out on an opportunity here. >> I I I wanted to hear the rest of what he was saying. >> How much more time do you need? Daniel
>> 10 15 seconds. Madam, will you consider that? >> Is that proper? >> It is completely up to you, madame mayor. >> Okay, >> let's be honest. The city would benefit have benefited from owning the parcel. Not to use it for an annex for the city
services, but the property's location. We all know the condition of it. You can actually go online and look at it. The overview, the roof shot, it talks about a new air conditioners. only one has been replaced. They're antiquidated. They've got termites. But the thing is, if we had understood the real situation
up front, we could have made a much more realistic offer and acquired the property before another person got in the door. I I got a problem with that. I got a problem with that. >> How do you know for sure that they represent the bank? That's a pretty bold
>> Excuse me, sir. >> How do you know for sure they represent the bank? That's a pretty bold statement to make. [laughter] >> All right, fine. Don't answer. >> Well, first of all, I met I met with First National. >> Okay, so >> I I hope you're wrong.
>> Uh, second one, Martin Honeyuk. >> Good evening, folks. name is Martin Honeyuk and I am vice president of the board at Country Club Manor. So, and this has nothing to do what the planning thing was. Um, I'm sure you guys all know where it's at. And what I'm here to
ask you tonight is that we have a pond out front. I'm sure everybody's aware of the pond when you're driving on 19 across from Ace. We have a water leak there and it's been there ever since they Duke Energy went
and put the new poles in. We've contacted the water department um quite a few times. Uh last time was about two weeks ago and we were told that somebody would come and look and um we haven't had anybody come. Nobody's called. Um so
we're reaching out to you guys. See if you can get somebody to come and take a look. And the reason we think it's leaking, as dry as it's been, it's really, really wet. Right from uh from the corner of the road to our pond, it's overflowing our pond. And we have
major problems with that. From beyond there, it's I mean, you can't even walk. You go up and in your to your knees. We've um went out, we've rented a pump, we pumped it down, and it just fills back up. Places where you could walk or drive a golf cart through, you can't. I
mean, it's just I mean, as dry as it's been, we haven't had that much rain, and it's really [laughter] bad. So, I guess what I'm asking you guys is, can you speed it up to get somebody to come and take a look at what's going on out there? Because we have a major problem.
And it's not only that, it's city water. And if that's what it is, there's no way this is groundwater. If it's city water, we have a major leak and the city's losing water. >> Is this a good number for you? >> Yes, it is. I will have Greg Dbins reach out to you tomorrow.
>> That would be great. Thank you very much. >> I still got an hour and 1 minute and 20 seconds. Watching your watching your calling. [laughter] >> Thank you. >> I'm in the club so I get it. [laughter]
>> Next card is Brian Kerstein. My name is Brian Kursin. I'm a city resident. I've been for 30 years. I'm here today once again about my house at 307 East Floral Avenue. Uh as you guys have been way aware in the past, uh my
house on October 26 was flooded with raw sewage. I have videos of four to six inches of raw sewage seeping into my home. It was not flooded with flood water as some other people may have
experienced. My flooding came from the inside of my house and destroyed my house to the tune of $67,500 that I've had to come out of pocket. Nobody will speak to me. Nobody will
tell me what happened. They told me about some rain event that happened that was 19 and a half inches of rain over three and a half hours, which means it roughly comes to about 1.5 inches of water every 15 minutes. If the
infrastructure of our city can't handle that load, that's [clears throat] considered an act of God. And we have a bigger problem on our hands and maybe I should have other types of involvement. But right now, all I want to do is get back the $67,500
that I've come out of pocket to fix and repair my own home. I've I've asked on many occasions. I've asked to speak to different people with the city and I get gatekept the entire way. So, I have no other way than to come here. And I'm
$67,000 into this. So, I'm not going away. I'm going to show up here every two weeks until something gets done. I know what my timelines are and I'm not waiting five years for my case to not be
applicable to go to court. If the city had brought up before that they thought they they they thought I had legal representation from Anthony Sabatini's office and I told them that that was not the case and it's still not the case. I
I implore any of you commissioners to contact Mr. Sabatini's office. He wrote a letter of demand and on there was the word represent and all that did was give him permission to write the letter asking for you guys to fix my house. So
I haven't retained anybody's services as of yet. I don't want to have to get to that. But as a taxpaying good citizen of the city, I've elected all of you to watch out what is in my best interest as one of the city.
I just don't feel that's happening. So, I'm going to show up here every two weeks and remind people how my family has been victimized and how nothing is being done about it. If I you have any questions, I'd be more
than happy to answer. >> Okay, >> I on a followup to that. I wouldn't mind if somebody I volunteered to sat down with Rick and had some kind of discussion about this
um if he's not represented and if we could do that without the conflict of him being represented or not. But I I think it it should probably deserve a couple minutes of our time to to to talk with
him and somebody from public works if not Rick. Uh I just wanted to share that. >> Yeah. I think the problem is and I get it that word represents. We don't know where that stops. >> Subject to that. >> Yeah. If he if he is has an attorney in place, I don't want to talk to anybody.
>> Yeah. And see and yeah, that's that's the big issue. Yeah. >> So, madame uh city manager, if you can clear that conflict, then I I would like to sit with him and and Rick >> uh for or whoever for a few minutes and
and and try to at least communicate. The answer might remain the same. >> We need a letter from Sabat. He was saying, >> "Yeah, we need a letter from >> I I'll let the attorney tell us if she if that is the case, but uh >> I'd like if I got a letter from Anthony
letting you know that he has never represented me other than doing me the favor of writing a letter of demand, would that help?" >> If you have a letter saying that you're not repres that he doesn't currently represent you, yes, in this matter >> or or he I've never hired Anthony for
anything. Anthony is just a family friend. And when he heard what happened, he said, "Let me write you a letter of demand." Right. >> But I've signed no legal contract with Anthony. >> We got that. You said that a time. >> Yeah. We just want to make sure we're covering our bases. >> I I will be more than happy to go and
get a letter from Mr. Sabatini saying that he he doesn't represent me and and and never has. >> Well, just so he doesn't represent you in this matter. And if the commission is fine with uh Commissioner As having the the meeting with Rick and and um the
homeowner, then that's he will be your designated point person and then that's >> or I don't have to be designated by them. I'd like to just hear and ask some questions, but I'd be >> well that way you can inform them at another meeting about what happens >> and this and we are represented by PRM
PRM's attorneys in this case. Um, >> but if he's not represented by an attorney and you're represented by an attorney, we can still talk, right? >> You guys can still have a conversation. PRM only um handles claims and we have our risk management >> person as well.
>> Okay. I just wanted to say that we we need to give our residents an opportunity to chat uh whatever the outcome might be. >> That's all I've ever asked for. >> Is that it? >> I think that was it for this. Yes. No.
>> Now we have Miss Rivas. And >> so you guys okay with that? >> Yeah. I mean, but but um shouldn't the city attorney be the one reaching out to Anthony to make sure that there's >> I don't know that procedure. Let her tell us what to do. >> He's going to bring us a letter. >> You're the one that's going to make the determination if he's a representative
or not. >> Or the letter or the letter will why pay her? >> No. No. Okay. >> Rick, at the last meeting, did you receive a letter? >> Yeah, I have the letter and I have the letter here. I can forward to you, but I will reach out um to our resident [clears throat] person will reach out to
PRM and their attorneys and u make a decision on that. >> It has been um forwarded to PRM. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Sorry. Sorry, Miss Rivas. >> And I'm happy to do it as well if you'd like, but
>> No, it's okay. If we can do it, it's fine. >> Are you ready? Good evening, Mayor Lee and commissioners. Um, I wanted to take a moment tonight to recognize something really truly special that is happening right here in Eustace. We and I've been
up here many times talking to you about what's going on over at Mega Workplace and the UCF um entrepreneur excellence or FastTrack or 1 million cups. And we're really excited because at Mega Workplace we've made a lot of intentional um decisions to bring along
key partners, you know, SBDC, UCF, LEAD, 1 Million Cups, um and other entrepreneurial resources. And it's working. And it's really exciting to see how it's working. And we're really excited about the ecosystem that has been created there. And entrepreneurs are gaining access to mentorship,
education, real opportunities. New businesses are being launched, existing businesses are scaling. Perhaps more importantly, it's a strong sense of community. When you walk in there and you see everybody just working together to help one another, it's it's an exciting place. Um, and I want to say a
special thank you to my favorite Commissioner Ozbody for >> Thank you, [laughter] you too. All of you are actually. But um just for the vision he had and the resources he poured into making that happen. And I want to say thank you to all of you sitting up there because without the city of Eustace, without
Lake County, without Lake County's devel economic development, without our economic development, this public private partnership went to work. And so I'm saying all that because it is working and it's working bigger than you think. So, and it's I'm reading verbatim
from an article that just went out. The US Small Business Administration, SB, SBA, has announced the winners of the 2026 National Small Business Week Awards. And the Florida Small Business Development Center, the SBDC, at University of
Central Florida has earned top honors from more than 10,000 centers nationwide. The SBDC has been selected as SB SBA's national small business development center of the year. >> Eustus is one.
>> Yes. So, we're pretty we're pretty excited about that. Recognizing its outstanding performance, innovative programming, and leadership and supporting Central Florida's entrepreneurs and small businesses. We are doing some big things here. And I know um John Dormis who is um over at
the SBDC since his relocation from our neighboring city down the road Mount Dora he has grown 400% 400% in helping business small businesses and now the quality of the
entrepreneurs that are being helped to scale through UCF is um tripled. So great things are happening and I wanted to thank you guys for being a part of that journey. >> Thank you. >> You know, number one out of a thousand is and number one in the nation in the
United States is something Eustus needs to be proud of. >> Yeah, very much so. >> I'm sure a lot of people don't look at that and say, "Where's Eustace?" >> Yeah. >> Any more cards? >> Uh yeah, one more. Uh, Lindsay Bionis, >> you see my last name, so
>> I do. Um, good evening, commissioners. Um, thank you for your time. Lately, I've been thinking about a song called Dirt Cheap. In it, a couple of the developers knock on an old farmer's door. They tell him the neighbors have all cashed out. They've got subdivisions all mapped out, and he can leave town a
rich man. But the farmer looks at his land and sees something the developers can't put on a spreadsheet. He sees a white oak tree where his kids played in the ground where his best buddy is laid. My family has property out here where they're trying to sell it now and I'm trying to buy it. Um he
tells them that you can't buy that land dirt cheap. We are at a crossroads in Eustace, including Lake County as a whole, where we are treating our land like it's just dirt cheap. something to be paved over, divided, and sold to the highest bidder. But we have to remember
Eustace wasn't built on subdivisions. It was built on citrus groves, cattle farms, and homesteads. In 1876, the settlers didn't come here to build a strip mall. They came here to plant a grove. The city was forged by people who understood that once you pour concrete
over prime Florida soil, that agricultural heritage is gone forever. You can't unpave a neighborhood when you realize you need to grow food again. When we approve these developments, we aren't just adding houses. We are subtracting our ability to be self-sufficient.
Loss of soil integrity. Every farmland lost to a housing development is an acre of food production we will never get back. Fragmented land needs space. Agriculture needs space. When we pepper our rural areas with subdivisions, we create isolated islands of farmland that
become impossible to manage or protect. As our 2026 impact fees update shows soon, growth is expensive. It strains our water, our roads, and our rural character. Agriculture is our insurance policy for the future. It's our history and our local economy.
This land gives you God gives you this land to hold on to. This land, this used to was given to us by generations of farmers who worked it, protected it, and passed it down. I am asking this commission to stop the cycle of endless approvals for now and in the future.
Don't let us use become just another mapped out subdivision like what's going on in Claremont. Deltona Daytona. I had to move from Deltona because they built so much in this little area that my home flooded. Um let's hold on to the dirt that
actually matters because once it's gone, no amount of money can buy it back. Thank you. And that's all the cards I have. >> Is there anyone else who would like to speak who did not sign a card? >> Okay. Then we'll move on to the
ordinances. Okay. First we have resolution number 2026-22. A resolution by the city commission of the city of Eustace, Florida, approving a promisory note to document interfund financing from the city's general fund
to the city storm water utility fund, authorizing execution of said note and providing for an effective date. Miss Carr will be presenting. Sorry about that. Um, We have before you um it's going to
be a three resolutions presented to you regarding the storm water utility fund. Um to kind of explain how the storm water utility fund works, it's what's considered a special revenue fund. And
what that means is it is supported by user fees and those users receive a direct benefit from the services provided from that fund. So storm water fees are charged on all developed properties within the city. If they're
not developed, there is no storm water fee. And uh currently we have a flat fee of $6 for uh residential and $12 for uh commercial prop or non-residential properties. So, um, as we know, we had,
uh, a thousand-year flood back in October, and we did experience, um, some significant infrastructure damage. And we uh, came to you at that time, and we did um budget amendments for the work
to be done in the road fund, the storm water fund, and in the utility. And we uh, we did a lot of those projects in house. There was one project that we had thought could be handled in house, but it was just too much for us. So, we
contracted those services out to get it fixed, and it's a 509 Pine Lane, I believe. Um, and we'll show you some pictures of it in a little bit. So the first resolution is to approve a loan
from the general fund to the stormwater fund because as was explained to you when we did the original budget amendment that that depleted any fund balance that we had in the storm water fund. So at this point we have no excess funding um for emergencies
and we obviously had an emergency. So, um, here we say we've got the three different resolutions you're going to see tonight, and these actions together will provide for short-term and long-term financial stability of the
storm water system. We need to bring the system up to speed. We have not raised rates since 2014. This uh loan that we are proposing is for um Oh, I should have put the amount. I'm sorry. Um, it's going to be at an
interest rate of 2.875, which is the same as the internal loan that we just did from the general fund for the CRA for the remaining balance on the three lots next door. U, the amount is for 174,810. Uh, it will be a 10-year term and the
payments will be$1677 a month for the next 10 years. And this provides immediate funding for those emergency storm water repairs that we had to um contract out. So um on the left you can see the before
pictures and then on the right you can see the after pictures. So, as you can see from this, it was quite an extensive job and staff just overestimated when we thought we could do that in-house when we did plenty of projects in house, but there
were some that were just beyond our capabilities. And that's it for that resolution, Sasha. Okay. >> Are there any questions from Miss Carr from the commission? >> Actually, I have one just maybe procedural. Is the general fund the only
fund we could have got the loan from? >> Uh yes because the other funds are also special revenue funds meaning those revenues go for specific purposes >> purpose. Thank you. >> Nothing further. Do we have any cards,
Rick? >> Uh no we don't. >> Would anyone in the audience like to speak on this item? Mr. Deanzo. >> Daniel Deano. I have a question for the presentation. She she mentioned $612 of dollars. Was that per year per month?
And I also noticed um you said a payment of $1671 per month. How does the money that you're going to put on the residents calculate out to what you're going to collect monthly? >> We are going to be having a presentation by uh Raf Telis who has done a rate
study for us when we get to the actual rate increase and they will be explaining a lot of that. Anyone else in the audience wishing to speak on this item? Seeing none, I will close public input and give it back to you, Madame Mayor. Madam Mayor, I move approval of
resolution 2026-22. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Commissioner [clears throat] Holland, >> I. >> Commissioner Esbat, >> I. >> Vice Mayor Ashcraft, >> I. >> Commissioner Hawkins, >> I.
>> Mayor Lee, >> I. The next resolution is resolution number 2026-23. A resolution by the city commission of the city of Eustace Lake County, Florida, amending the budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2025
and ending September 30th, 2026 for the general fund and the storm water utility fund and by adjusting expenditures, repealing all resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict with and providing for an effective date. Miss Carr.
Okay. So, this is really just providing for the uh accounting mechanics of this to happen. We need to have a general fund amendment because this is an unfortuned expense that we will be uh having by doing this loan. And then it will also
account for in the stormwater fund the liability to repay the loan. It will cover the first um the remainder of this year for the debt service payments back to the general fund. And it will also allow for the budget to actually pay for the bill that needs to be paid.
And what this will do is just it it's just all the accounting mechanisms that go along with this internal loan. >> Any questions from commission? Any cards? >> No cards. >> Okay. Anyone in the audience wishing to speak on this item?
Seeing none, I will close public input. Back to you, Madame Mayor. >> With approval of resolution number 2026-23. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. [clears throat] >> Commissioner Holland, >> I. >> Commissioner Asiat, >> I. >> Vice Mayor Ashcraft,
>> I. >> Commissioner Hawkins, >> I. >> Mayor Lee, >> I. And the last component is resolution number 2026-36. A resolution of the city commission of the city abused Florida establishing storm water utility rates pursuant to
chapter 94 article 3 division one of the city code of ordinances providing for legislative findings setting monthly storm water service rates for $8 for of $8 for residential customers and $16 for non-residential customers superseding
all prior resolutions establishing storm water rates providing for an effective date and providing for related matters. So, uh, this one will actually be to, um, increase the rates. And just a reminder that these are fees that are charged to support the storm water
utility system. This is not a tax in any way. There there's a direct benefit for the users of the system, meaning flood control and and mitigation and things of that nature. Um, the fund does need to be self-supporting, which is what we're what the goal is because now that the
fund has no no excess reserves for another emergency that may come along. Um, and this adjustment is needed to address the um co from the recent storm and to ensure that the system can continue to operate and continue the
needed maintenance and capital projects that need to be continued. And with that, I'm going to introduce uh Joe Williams and Tristan Townson from Rafelis. Rafelis performed Oops, I guess it's just Tristan. [laughter] Hi, Joe. And uh she's going to um discuss the
results of the study and how they got there and how they had derived it and explain more of the mechanics of where they came up with this rate increase. Uh, good evening, mayor and commissioners. Thank you for your time. U, my name is Tristan from Rapellis.
I'll be walking you all through the storm water rate study analysis that we performed. Um, so just to walk through the agenda for you all, we're going to talk about the background and the study objectives. We'll talk about our revenue requirements that were identified. Um, we'll run through the revenue
sufficiency to provide for those identified revenue requirements. We'll talk about some findings and recommendations from the study. And then we'll also have time for a Q&A at the end. So, just want to talk about the background here. So, as you all know, the city owns and operates a storm water
utility. Um, you all serve approximately 12,000 customers. Um, your current rates right now are um charged monthly on the utility bill. It's $6 for residential customers and $12 for non-residential customers. So, this is a flat fee um for
these customers. Um, it's been unchanged since 2014. So, as you all may um be aware, there's been a lot of inflationary increases since then. Construction costs have risen significantly. So all of those things are factors into um the analysis that
we're we're looking at here. Um the storm water utility is undergoing a master plan right now, master plan study. And so the results of that are going to you know look at areas of concern, flooding concerns and also identify some additional capital
projects that um will be able to address those concerns. Um, initially we were planning to wait for the results of that study to include in our our rate forecast. However, given the flooding that occurred in this past fall, um,
there was kind of a more time-sensitive need to address the the fund balances more quickly. Um, so given that, we're kind of looking at things on sort of two phases is kind of how we're presenting it here. Right now, we're kind of um doing this phase one, a more targeted
rate adjustment to address the depleted cash reserves. And then in the future, once the master plan's completed, we have those capital projects identified, we'll be able to incorporate those findings into a more comprehensive multi-year uh rate plan. And then also
um potentially look at modifying the rate structure. As I mentioned previously, what you all have right now is a just a flat fee charge to all of your customers. um what's kind of the industry standard today for storm water is um potentially charging on by impervious area or having a tiered
structure so that way it kind of reflects different customers impacts to the system um a little more um equitably in that sense. So again, talking about our study objectives, we're just kind of on this shortterm um two-year study is
what we looked at just for fiscal years 26 and 27. Um just given the time sensitive nature of things. Um we did still look at your operating expenses. We looked at um debt service, your capital improvement plan, and the funding strategy around those. Um we are here to recommend rate adjustments to
support the revenue uh requirements and the reserve needs of the storm water utility fund. and also here tonight presenting our findings and we've also uh provided a summary report as well for you all. So talking about the revenue
requirements. So again this is just um brought down to a two-year analysis. Um so just fiscal year 2026 the year we're currently in and fiscal year 2027. Um we uh relied on the current fiscal year 2026 budget to uh create our operating
expense forecast. So, what you can see on this chart here, and I apologize the legend is missing the dark blue, which is your operating expenses. Um, that consists of kind of all the typical things you might think of. Um, salaries, benefits, insurance, maintenance, things of that nature. Um, you also have
transfers to your street improvement fund and transfers to the general fund. Um, so those are what is shown here on the the chart on the right. and we came up with our fiscal year 2027 operating expense projection just by looking at the current 2026 budget. We look at each
line item and we escalate that. Um so we're getting into the details there. Uh we also included debt service in our forecast. So the inter fund loan that Lori mentioned previously has been incorporated into our analysis. Um we're basically relying on the debt proceeds
from that to help stabilize the cash reserves as Lori was mentioning before and just the terms of the loan are here um shown in this table. For the capital improvement program um you all create a five-year uh CIP and we
relied on that published CIP for our analysis. We included the capital improvement projects that were in fiscal year 2026 and 27. It's a little over a million dollars across those two years. Um the projects that are passed FY 2027
are very few and we are expecting that the master plan will have additional projects identified. Those are not funding for those are not in this plan right now. This is just sort of looking at the short term addressing the cash uh needs for right now, but that capital will be included if we come back and
look at a more comprehensive rate study and we'll include the funding for those projects later on. So here is a table that kind of details all of the projects that were included in our analysis for the two years. So you can see that there's some you know addressing some pipe uh replacements,
covert replacements, equipment purchases, the flood repairs and so that totals to around the 1.1 million there. So now we'll talk about the revenue sufficiency. So this is us looking at the revenues that are generated from the customers and seeing how sufficient
those are to provide for the funding needs of the system. So right here on this slide, we're just going to show you the the rates that are existing and what's been proposed because we are proposing a rate adjustment. For residential customers, we're proposing a $2 per month increase. So going from $6
per month to $8 per month. And for non-residential customers, we're proposing a $4 rate increase per month. So, $12 up to $16. So, for the revenue sufficiency, yeah, existing and proposed rates, there's a chart here on the right that has a lot
going on. The two bars that have different colors stacking up show all of the different revenue requirements that we just walked through walked through. So, we have your operating expenses, the various transfers, the debt service, and the cash funded capital needs. So those
kind of stack up and then there are two lines. The black line represents the revenues at your existing rates which you can see are not going to be sufficient in either year to satisfy all of those funding needs. And then the pink dash line shows the revenues at the proposed rates. You can see that in the
current fiscal year, even though it does add a little bit of additional funding above the existing rates, it's not going to be enough to cover all of those expenses. And that's why we need the the debt proceeds from the inter fund loan. that's going to help us um for the next fiscal year. The proposed rates do cover
all of the funding needs. So, it helps kind of address our cash needs and everything. And the rate increase we are expecting to be effective May 1st of this year and that's going to help us with our cash reserves. So, here is the ending cash balance forecast for the two
fiscal years. So, the debt service and the rate adjustment are going to help deal with our cash deficiency. uh we're laying a little bit above $200,000 in the fund at the end of both of those years. That that's about 120 to
150 days of cash on hand. So it's important to have uh cash to address emergencies to be prepared for, you know, operations or things that might come up in that sense. Um so we'll move on to the rate comparison.
So, we did look at your existing and proposed rates relative to other communities nearby. And so, what you can see for a residential customer, what they pay per month for storm water. Um, right now you're at $6. We're expecting you all to go up to $8. And you can see
you're still uh relatively low compared to other communities nearby. And so, you're remaining very competitive in that sense. And just to run through our findings and recommendations. So, just going to reit reiterate again, the cash balances have
been depleted due to the flooding that occurred last fall. Um, some rate adjustments are going to be necessary in order to address that and stabilize the cash reserves. Um, we are recommending that you all increase the monthly uh residential and non-residential rates to
$8 and $16 respectively. And also we would recommend that upon completion of the master plan, you all incorporate any of those findings into a rate plan. Make sure any capital projects in that are um funded and also consider reviewing your rate structure um to modernize that and
make it more in line with the industry standard. So if there's any questions, we're happy to address those. >> That's a lot. Um this question for what was our balance prior to the uh the storm?
>> Prior to the storm. >> Do we have an idea? >> I think that your starting cash balance um as of So that would be your B balance as of September 30th. >> Um which I think was before your storms that happened in October. I think was around $630,000.
>> Have to reference maybe something for that specifically, but I think around 600,000. So you guys have operating expenses that you have to pay for throughout the year and then addressing any capital and things like that. >> And Rick, a lot of the work and probably Lori, a lot of the work that we did, we
did in-house. Correct. As much as we could other than 174. >> No, there was there was additional work that was brought to you back I believe in January. Um the the big road wash outs that we had
>> um that was done through the use of an emergency contractor Cart Construction. >> So they did like Marietta um >> right >> and hazard. So >> the that was all brought and the budget adjustments were done. We funded it from
the different the different problem areas that we had the different appropriate accounts. Um, but the work we had, we were hoping that our public works guys would be able to do the Pine Lane one that we discussed at prior two resolutions
>> and they were not able to get to it in time. There was a water mane that was leaking and it completely washed out a a culvert crossing. >> So based on our in-house, we still saved a lot of money. >> Oh, yeah. We did a lot of work in a lot
of the smaller jobs. >> Okay. All right. So, our balance could have been further in the hold if we hadn't done the right. >> Yes, it would have been. >> All right. Um, >> Commissioner Hawkins. >> Okay. Uh, yes. Uhu. >> Uh, our fund balance at that time when
that happened was right around 200,000 after all the operating expenses for the year were taken into account. And that just covered the repairs that we brought to you at that time. >> Okay. That's why that we're asking for the loan now is because there is nothing left in the storm water fund.
>> Okay. All right. Yeah. What I was trying to get at, Lori, is if we had outside people to do it, we would have been a lot >> it would have been a lot bigger loan. >> Okay. Thank you. Would you have made this suggestion had not the flood occurred or the rain would have been
okay and not have to go up on the rates had it not been through? >> No, we'd already had a storm water rate study in process because it has been 12 years since we've last raised rates. >> Okay. So, it wasn't necessarily because of the Okay.
Anybody else? >> No. >> Would anyone in the audience like to speak on this item? >> All right. Seeing none, I will close public input. Give it back to you, Madam Mayor. >> Roll call, please. >> I have a motion.
[laughter] >> Will y'all wake up and make a motion? [laughter] >> It's funny. >> So moved. Who made it? >> Okay. Second. Welcome. Now,
>> Commissioner Holland. >> I. >> Commissioner Asody. >> I. >> Vice Mayor Ashcraftoft. >> I. >> Commissioner Hawkins. >> I. >> Mayor Lee. >> I. >> All right. Next, we have resolution number 2026-40.
A resolution of the city commission of the city of Eustace, Florida, confirming compliance with section 166.045 Florida statutes for the acquisition of real property located at 21 North Grove Street. Making detailed legislative findings, approving the purchase price
as fair as reasonable, confirming completion of due diligence, appropriating funds, authorizing the interim city manager, city attorney and finance director to finalize all conditions proceeding and closing requirements. authorizing the execution and delivery of closing documents and
dispersement of funds, approving permitted title exceptions, providing for implementation, and providing for an effective date. Don't have a presentation on this. Rick, did you >> No. Since Since the last time we spoke,
we brought this to you um the beginning of last month. Um we have completed our due diligence. Um we had no no unexpected findings. Um we have obtained our second appraisal um which came in at
the 1.4. So at this point we are asking for the release of funds and we'll continue through with the um the closing on the property. There are some um some small items we need to work um
we've looked at the survey. we're accepting the survey and and I think um maybe our attorney's got a couple uh title things that are customary to to cover in the closing, but um we're asking at this point to be able to release funds and move forward with
closing on the building. >> And the um the funds are coming from various funds, correct? Not just general >> building. Uh no, the the funds for this are coming from the uh the building fund, the building inspection fund.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, let's pick it up to tab. >> The um we did do the title review. Of course, there's a mortgage and so those leans will get satisfied once we have payment made um as well. But um we have
confirmed we have the funds available in the um city's budget for the building department and um the appraisals we have both that are required. uh they came back at the same um price confirming that it's a fair price and we are
accepting one of the two appraisals and that which was certified as um independent for for purposes of the city being able to rely on it since it did come from the seller. Um and yeah, essentially there's nothing um too
complicated left to do to just kind of close the deal. And this may be premature. Uh Rick, are we going to try and do a lot of it in-house or >> um as of now we're doing the design in house. Um there's some there's some
remediation work we need to do and some waterproofing that's outside of of our skill set. >> Um but we're looking at at probably entering into a Seymour contract. Um we have some time constraints on some of our fund sources. What's Seymour?
>> Seymour is construction management at risk. >> Okay. >> So, it allows us to negotiate a fee. >> Um, and at that point when we do that, we'll be bringing those fees to you. That'll be a separate um approval that I'm going to need. >> Thanks, Rick. >> Yes, sir.
>> And where will the funds for um renovation come from? >> Um, some of it will come from the same building fund. Um but also the fire admin is moving over, engineering is moving over and each of those departments will be responsible for
their buildout for their areas. >> Okay. [clears throat] >> Any questions for >> would anyone in the audience like to um ask questions on this item? >> Mr. Dano, you have three minutes.
>> Daniel Danzo again. So, I I'm just going to assure you this was an excellent purchase. Uh the parking spots alone are probably minimally worth 400 to $500,000. The construction of the building, which I examined thoroughly when I was working
with the current owner, um is is I mean, you you couldn't touch that building for the price you're paying for it. So, to to rebuild it. So, I just I just want to tell you I think you've made a very good choice here. and the idea that it's right across the street and it's very similar. Um, it's not
neocclassical like city hall, but there is a certain, you know, governmental look to the facade. So, I think you really made an excellent choice. >> Thanks, Daniel. >> Would anyone else like to speak on this item? Seeing none, I will close public input
and give it back to you, Madam Mayor. >> Madame Mayor, I move approval of resolution 2026-40. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. Commissioner Holland. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Asbolland. Wait, could you repeat that? Commission
>> Holland. [laughter] >> I'll be whatever tonight. >> It's that accent draw. [laughter] >> Vice Mayor Ashcraft. >> I. >> Commissioner Hawkins. >> I. >> Mayor Lee. >> I.
Next we have resolution number 2026-43. 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 209 West Badger Avenue authorizing implementing actions and providing for
an effective date. Mr. Martin. >> Good evening, commissioners. Resolution number 2026-43 approves a code enforcement board order reducing an outstanding code enforcement lean totaling $18,000
to $0 and releases a lean against the vacant lot located at 209 West Badger Avenue upon approval by the city commission. The resolution also pro provides the city commission an opportunity to consider a compromise regarding the fine reduction. The
additional options proposed are as follows. The lean shall be reduced to an amount determined by the city commission payable within a amount of time as determined by the uh city commission or the lean shall remain at the full amount
of $108,000 due and payable to the city. So, uh, in February 2023, uh, the city demolished, uh, an unsafe structure on this property and conducted a nuisance
abatement at the cost of $16,500. Uh, we recorded the leans. There were two code violations, one for the unsafe structure and one for the nuisance conditions. The nuisance conditions are the ones the case that got the the fine
up to $108,000. So in January 2025, the property was sold at a taxdeed sale to uh GRP Enterprises Realy. Um and [clears throat] there was a total of $16,633
and some change that the city was able to uh submit a claim for for the surplus funds available from the tax deed cell. So, it took almost a year to get uh to to recover that claim. Uh but
the um the city recovered just shy from the surplus and then the applicant covered the rest in a tune about $170 just so that all our total cost from our demolition was recovered. So, we're whole in that that
account. Um, so on March 2026, the new property owner submitted the code enforcement board reviewed an application and approved the request from the new property owner to uh reduce
the fines to $0. Since the city's already recovered all its money in this case or these two cases, staff recommends uh that the city commission approve resolution 26-43. >> Eric Yes. >> Quick question for you. If we demolish
the house in 2023, why did the fines continue to acrue if it's not there anymore? >> Okay. the uh the board order was issued in
so like I said there were two cases >> 2021 >> the um so in November 8th of 2021 the code enforcement board issued the demolition order plus they imposed a $250 per day fine
>> uh for the nuisance conditions >> and Um, so they [clears throat] they put a provision in that order and found that the violations presented a serious threat to public health, safety, and welfare, right? >> Which allows us to go in and um make all the repairs.
>> Well, it was it was it made more sense to do everything at the same time. So, we got we only had to do one bed. So, the the $250 per day acrewed up until the point where the city demolished the house. >> So, that's where
and the plant it just it the conditions were so bad I didn't want to have to [snorts] send public works in there to just to clean up the yard which would have taken probably five or six or more dump truck full. So by doing it by one I
think it saved the city some money it but it did cost the daily fines for the uh for this case and that we're speaking of today. It did cause the fines to get, you know, pretty high, >> but after it was demolished, the fines stopped,
>> right? Because we evaded the violation. >> Okay. All right. Okay. Why did it take a year to go to come back to the code enforcement? >> It was held up by the code enforcement board. There was um a third party buyer interested in the uh property.
>> Mhm. So, the code enforcement board delayed the the demolition order to try to allow that third third party buyer to buy it to keep the city from having to having to to expel the funds to demo it and clean the property up. So, it there
was some delay there. >> But once we determined that's, you know, that third party buyer, that deal fell through. So, once it fell through, we moved forward as fast as we could. And then there, you know, obviously once we have the demolition order, we have to do
the bids. We had to do the asbess survey. There had to be an asbestous abatement and then scheduling. Of course, the matter had to come before the city commission for approval because when we do a when we do a demolition, once we get all the bids in and and lock
in what we're going to have a contract for, we bring that to the city commission for two reasons. for the funding of course. So the city commission approves the funding and at that time it's notifying the the city commission what we're doing because up to that point the commission has no
knowledge usually. Uh so we we use that that purpose for the funding to serve too you know notification and to secure the funding. >> Okay. Thanks. But so it can it's a it's a it's a timely process and unfortunately we're going to be doing a
couple of them this year most likely >> after um the structure was taken away. [clears throat] Were there other violations that continued? >> There was basically just overgrown grass and uh someone had been dumping on it
and that was about the same time the property transferred hands. So, uh, we sent a notice to the new owner and he immediately corrected those and then he reached out to see if anything else needed to be done, uh, so leans would not be imposed against the property he
bought. That's when we informed him that there were already some leans and we are in the process of recovering those tax surplus funds. So that we couldn't process a fine reduction for him until we were if we knew we were going to get that money from the clerk of court to
recover the city's costs because we don't want to release our leans and then before the before we get our money from, you know, before because when when you do a tax deed claim, it goes to the
it goes to the tax deed department and then uh they hold it for 120 days to see if there are going to be any more interested parties submit claims and then it goes to the county attorney for review. >> Thank you, Eric. So, we the city has
been made whole. >> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> Anything further from the commission? Would anyone in the audience like to speak on resolution 2026-43? Seeing none, I will close public input.
>> Mayor, I move approval of resolution 2026-43 as recommended by the code enforcement board. >> Second. >> Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Holland, >> I. >> Commissioner Asbat,
>> hi. >> Vice Mayor Ashcraft, >> hi. Commissioner Hawkins. >> I, >> Mayor Lee, >> I. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay. For second reading, we have ordinance number 2026-20 and ordinance. >> Madam uh
Madame Mayor, if I make a quick statement before we get started on this item. I'd like to make statement on the record uh to the clerk uh that I have spoken to the um commission. >> Yeah. I want to make sure I'm talking on
the right one. Commission on ethics uh regarding my ability to vote and I will be voting on this item ordinance 202620 today for the record. >> Thank you. Ordinance number 2026-20, an
ordinance of the city commission of the city of Eustace, Florida, amending the city of Eustace land development regulations providing for the prohibition of medical marijuana treatment centers dispensing facilities within the city pursuant to section 381.986
subsection 11B Florida statutes providing for legislative findings in support thereof providing for definitions non-conforming uses and enforcement providing for conflicts severability codification and providing for an effective date. Um, we did have
presentation on this item at our last meeting on April 2nd. Um, so if there are any questions on this item, I'd be happy to try to answer those again. >> Well, I I know there were some
I know there was some discussion about being at non-performing and conditional conditional use, >> right? I I think can we take a moment to really understand what each of those means? Nonconforming as opposed to conditional
use. >> So, it would be illegally non-conforming use, which means that they can continue to operate in their current capacity. It's almost the equivalent of being grandfathered in. So, they're not penalized. um they uh
so they will continue to be operating but the use itself for future businesses would not be permitted. The conditional use approach would be permitted if we allowed it for all of them um all medical marijuana treatment centers. Uh
that's because the statute has a very binary framework. it doesn't create that caveat for conditional use solely for current businesses. Um, and that of course has to do with due
process. I mean, you are essentially uh creating favoritism for the current operators. Um, you are there could be a potential Bert Harris action. There's u as a conditional use. It's discretionary, which would require those businesses that are already in business
to seek permission from the commission to operate in that use as well, which is a bit backwards because they're already legally operating um as it stands. So it's not um
it doesn't provide the equal protection and the and the constant treatment that the statute envisions and that would protect property rights. Um it you know I am just providing obviously the the the legal framework that is in the
statute. um if you were to try to do the conditional use there there are legal risks of course it's your decision and um that would require readvertising it as a conditional use and in that case again I don't we have
>> um Rick I know you and I talked about this um a lot you mentioned something that was some law that was taking effect in July that could affect this am I am I right on that >> um there's I is that the one we spoke about?
>> Yes. I I don't know that that one has um when I last checked it I it didn't actually pass it through both ch through both chambers but basically it was just limiting locations for MMTC's
within parks um and adult uh uh like day centers certain other places that are a bit uh for vulnerable um uh you know populations. Right now we only have the limitation with um schools like it's very So they were just going to add a
few more places that you can't have them within 500 ft. That was the intention there. Um >> and we can't are we are we not allowed to do that >> as far if we restricting where they are. >> Yeah. >> Uh any treatment that you give the
>> medical marijuana locations you have to also give toarmacies. That's the issue. So, >> well, you mentioned um grandfathered. I had a property and um and it was grandfathered in, but that meant I
didn't have to abide by any of the codes that had been the recent and new codes. So, um why would if it's grandfathered in, why would they not just be able to operate under the old guidelines? >> Well, they would be able to operate.
It's just deemed a it's a legal non-conforming use because we will no longer have that use available in uselessness. That's what it is. And of course, once the code changes, if it does in the future, if you decide to um you know uh revisit this and and make
them available um or restructure where they make sense based on studies. I mean that can always change. Like I said earlier, well not earlier but earlier presentation, we initially had a ban and then we removed the ban. So we've seen
both sides of of that. You know, 2017 there was a ban, 2020 it was removed. Um and now we're based on the instruction of commission. >> Yeah. when I was speaking in terms of um last week I believe they can't expand or
if something if it burns down or something isn't there wasn't there some >> is that yeah there's no expansion no relocation um you know because the whole point is you know you want to not impact the businesses that are currently there but
you're also not trying to just allow for those to >> um you know propagate without giving that opportunity to others So >> now when you say not to expand, is that on other properties or on
>> that property? >> It's it's on that property and on other properties. So it's basically they can continue to operate as they exist today. >> We don't want to impact any of the businesses that are currently active and
what operations they have. Now, if again, um it's a binary statute the way it's written. Um so that's how you know we're we're pretty uh limited, but if you
wanted to look at certain options, I mean that does come with Rick's risk. >> Well, sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. Um actually, you were read you were kind of reading my mind is like I said, are those our only options? We don't have there's not a hybrid or anything else we
could consider >> a hybrid approach. Um it's not in the statute. Uh and you would have to indicate what does that look like? I mean are we just isolating it to specific instances where let's say there is a fire and you can and you're looking
to expand that particular facility because of the you know there have to be justifications. Um and and there could be a workaround um that we could put in there, but we would have to get specific as to what that looks like because we
can't get too open with the conditional use and then not allow someone else that comes into the city of us and say, "Well, no, they can do it, but you can't." >> So, let's let's actually take that scenario and just kind of maybe work it through. So, what if there was one and it completely burnt to the ground
and that particular business decided, well, it's we've had our time here and we so another marijuana place could come in, but no, >> no, it would have to be the same the same owner and the same business. So,
they could rebuild uh with the insurance money or if they however it works, they could reestablish. >> Is there a timeline on that? on the goal non-conforming. >> Yeah. Yeah. Is there a timeline? They have to have it back in six 60 days, 90 days a year. >> It typically is whatever our building
department um has in place for those types of >> Can they make a larger building? >> Well, I you know what I mean this this is this I mean this is a lot to consider and I think I I really think we should look at some other other some some other
options that would you know that satisfy everybody. truly not a grandfather. So, I mean I I mean I think I think it needs further I think it needs further discussion. I mean I mean we can address the elephant in the room. I mean George is a
resident of the city as well. So, um, you know, he's he's he's got a right to protect his his property and his in his in his business. So, I think there's I think there's got to be some further discussion on this. >> Madam City Manager, uh, city attorney,
can we go to public input and then come back? Yes, >> madam. >> Oh, I'm sorry. It's actually to the mayor. You're right. Um, why not? >> There's some speaking. >> So, when you're saying that you have some >> Yes. >> Okay.
>> Do you want to call for that or >> Well, um, I just want to make sure you you mentioned the property interest, but you're saying you don't have a conflict based on the earlier statements. I just want to make sure >> statement I read. Yes. >> Okay. All right. >> So, the commissioners in agreement with
>> So, open it. >> Any issue with that opening to public? come back to discussion >> on this. >> You have cards? >> No, I have no cards. >> Okay, we'll go ahead and open it for public input. >> Let um He put his hand up first behind
you. >> First of all, I should let you all know I am a licensed real estate broker. And also, I should let you know that I did put an offer in on the Bank of America building. Let's move on. Uh I'm big about property rights. I'm big about property rights because I'm a property
owner. And so here's the thing. Um I don't like medical marijuana distribution, but I will tell you I know a number of people that do benefit from it. Real life cases. Um it kind of agitates me a little bit, but that's because I'm not sick. So it is what it
is. So this is what I want to say. I think I got a problem because let's say the guy and in this case um that rents from one of the commissioners, he decides he wants to sell his business. If I'm understanding it correctly, he
would not be able to operate because he is no longer the business operator. Is that correct? It's a legal non that's a private matter that they would have to address >> a a private matter. But I thought we were talking about an ordinance. >> It's a legal non-conforming use. I'm not
evaluating the terms of his lease. I'm just saying >> okay let's say it's not him. Let's let's talk about another say I had a medical marijuana uh location in my building. Okay. And the guy decides I'm talking about the location. Yeah, I think his
question is about the land use will convey >> the location where it's currently stated. We have two two facilities right now, >> right? But okay. And the tenant wants to sell his business. Is he going to be able to sell his
business for it to continue as a medical marijuana? >> The as long as it's in that location. >> Okay. So now another consideration I was following along with uh Gary Ashcraft. If somebody had a fire and because it's
in an existing building and it doesn't meet the current ADA requirements, but now they want to rebuild, the building department is going to require that they meet the current ADA requirements, which could in fact require substantially more space. You're talking about ramps, ADA
restrooms, um aisles and and WIS, you know, type measurements, door openings. So, uh, wouldn't we want to wouldn't you want to be able to accommodate if they needed to actually need more space? >> Well, that's for safety reasons and to
allow for others to for access. That's different. Um, when I mean expansion, I'm talking about, you know, basically getting the suite next to it to make it a bigger facility and a much bigger facility and and making the operation much larger. >> So, that would be >> compliance with building code. So it' be
a clarification if they needed more space if something happened and they needed more space to meet the current code >> to satisfy the code and safety. Yes, of course. That's health and safety. I >> I I understand. I think >> but I mean but but is that in the resolution? >> It just indicates that the use itself
would be a legal non-conforming use. But it doesn't say that in there anywhere that unless she can point it out where extra growth can occur if uh ordinances require a building code requires that it does not. But maybe we'll go on to the
next one and she could help us. >> Good evening. My name is Sheri Setfin and I'm with the firm of Roper Townson and Setin in Orlando and I am here tonight representing Mega 2901 LLC.
I'm not here to threaten legal action, but what I am here to do is to explain the legal impacts and ramifications of adopting this ordinance here tonight in its current form. So, I was able to plan for what I was
going to say to you all tonight, but you really weren't able to plan for me. So, if while I'm speaking you have any questions about what I'm saying, please stop me because sometimes I think if you don't ask your question right when you have it, you lose your train of thought. So, I appreciate that. In preparation
for tonight, I listened to your March 19th, 2026 meeting where you all were questioning why this change had not come forward. And your city attorney appropriately told you that she was waiting on Senate Bill 180. Um that that
was the delay and that the reason she was waiting was there were some relief bills that were in the legislation right now. Well, unfortunately, none of those relief bills passed and the regular session is over, but the
ordinance was still brought before you in the form that it was drafted in, and it's it's inappropriate. Um, I also got the impression from listening to that meeting that despite the existence of Senate Bill 180, you all were looking
for a fix and you didn't want the downtown area to be overrun by medical marijuana facilities. Um, and I'm not here to undo that and I'm not here to stop that progress because I think that that is important progress. But Senate
Bill 180 is very much alive because you all were impacted by hurricanes Debbie, Helen, and Milton. And unfortunately, the com the the provisions that are within that Senate bill that has been made law, I'll still refer to it as Senate Bill 180, but it's laws of
Florida 2025 190 or something. Um, but the the approach of this ordinance just needs to be adjusted. Just a a simple adjustment. But if it's not, you will be met with lawsuits. I promise you. Um
because of the structure of of the ordinance. So the way that Senate Bill 180 was structured, it says that anything that you adopt that is inconsistent with that Senate bill is void abonio. And what
that means is void from the start. So even if you adopt it here tonight, it's void and it does not matter. Now, will it take some lawsuits to get that determined? Absolutely. But it is void. Um, and specifically the parts that pertain to you all and this particular
ordinance that you're trying to adopt are that anyone who was listed in the federal disaster declarations for those listed storms, I know my time is out. I would ask for some more time. >> Yeah, please go ahead. >> Okay. um they um you you may not adopt a
restriction that is more burdensome um on any development. Now you can't adopt something from now until October 2027, but you also anything you had adopted retroactive back to August of
2024 would also be void. So, there are a lot of jurisdictions who have adopted ordinances that had to pull back on them because of this legislation and nothing got fixed at the legislative session this year. Um, you do have a staff
report that says that adoption of this ordinance provides for that all lawful existing uses are being preserved. But unfortunately, they're not. I take existing lawful uses to mean
a vested right. And a vested right in property, what that means is that your property owner has earned a legally protected entitlement to develop under existing regulations and that they won't be affected by future regulations that
are adopted. So I would say to you that any property that is in the city of Eustace right now that has a zoning that allows for a pharmacy and is currently operating as a
pharmacy that any of those facilities and it has to have the operation already. I would I would tell you that those properties have vested rights and some of those
aren't even being operated for medical marijuana purposes. You've probably got Publix and Walgreens and Walmart and potentially CVS. >> I I I agree with you. I think the confusion is, and correct me if I'm
wrong, is the use over the location. Does the location have the right or just is the use have the right? So the location >> I'm not an attorney but >> it is the location that has the right and that property that property right
it's at that location and so any of those existing facilities that you have they technically have the pharmacy right under the existing definition and so they could technically expand to include medical marijuana because they have that
vested right right Now, >> how do we how do we clarify that? >> Well, I'll tell you. [laughter] >> I think you can really easily fix this because the framework of the ordinance, it's it's fine. But the problem with it
is it's inconsistent with itself. In section 7, you make a blanket statement that says that legally established vested rights as determined under applicable law that nothing in the ordinance can affect them. But there's no mechanism within the ordinance to
help with that. So you are inviting a lawsuit to be filed because in order to protect my vested right, I have to file a a chapter 163 lawsuit to get that vested right. So that lawsuit has to be
filed against you all. So you number one invite that lawsuit if someone wants to try to vest those rights. But then I think it's inconsistent with itself because if you get to section seven, section seven gives you only a
nonconforming use right. That's not a vested right. >> I know, but I thought, and correct me if correct me if I'm wrong, I thought that this resolution was separating a pharmacy from America America um marijuana dispensary. Am I Am I incorrect in that?
>> What it's doing is changing the definition of pharmacy. So if it changes the definition of pharmacy, that means it affects everyone who has the vested right to operate a pharmacy under the current def definition.
So it it's inconsistent with itself because a vested right is way different from a a non-conforming use. >> So now we so now we have another issue of over separating pharmacy from America marijuana dispensary. There's
there's too many uh there's too many variables in this right now. We we need we need further >> but I think you can fix it. And I was I'm sorry I was kind of getting a little verbose but but getting there and I'll
I think you could create what's called a vested rights procedure and it would be simply adding another section. You could even leave the non-conforming section in there. You create a vested right section and you make people apply for that and
if they've got a vested right, they go through the process, they get that determination. That determination gets recorded in the public records. It does two things. It protects that property owner who earns that vested right, but it also protects you all because then you know which properties out there have
a vested permitted use as a marijuana dispensary under the definition of pharmacy today. But by creating that I'm sorry, go ahead. No, I can say so would pharmacies have to do this as well because I have some really good friends that are pharmacists including me
>> if they want to have the vested right for the medical marijuana dispensary use. Yes. >> But I'm talking traditional pharmacy. >> No, they would not because >> they're going to fall under the new pharmacy definition. >> What am I missing? Well,
>> because I because I thought we just thought we're we're we're separating, but we're not separating. >> We are. It's a few things. And of course, I don't want to get into, you know, legal debate. I want to hear everything that um has been stated, >> but um essentially what is being
described by this vested right is is a conditional use because that's also recorded in public records and they would have to apply for it. >> But it's it's not a conditional use because it doesn't it doesn't have conditions. It gives them the right. So if your Burndale example, they can build
it back because they have the vested right. >> Now, if I may, this ordinance was written again at the direction of commission because they wanted to ban these future >> uh future medical marijuana facilities. And while Senate Bill 180 and I did
state that at the prior meeting is in effect and it's affect it's impacting a lot of things. This is this statute is not written sorry this ordinance is not written with SB 180 in mind. This has its own separate statute which wasn't
affected by >> SP 180 in the same way that the other uses were when we talked about the massage parlors and uh the hookah lounges and things like that. this has its own statute and and it's binary. So, >> but I mean, but there there is actually a pharmacy owner in town that's that's
worried about this as well. So, we're you know this is not just medical marijuana. This is this is this is this is something else as well. So, that's why I think it it needs it needs some further discussion. Well, and if you if you don't um move forward with it
tonight and you do go go with moving forward with it, because I think you probably could with the right mechanisms in place. Um and because you're some some jurisdictions have a a separate code that is a vested rights code that
allows you to go through that process. If you don't have that process, your process is filing a lawsuit under chapter 163. >> But isn't isn't isn't a vested a vested right is essentially coming to us for a conditional use for a for a use at a certain location. So what's the difference?
>> Because a conditional use has conditions that can be lost. A vested right under zoning. So, if you you currently have you live in your house, but say you have um a a house in an older part that it can be made into a business
>> and but you live in it and it's been your house forever. Other places around you are businesses, but there are some homes as well. So, what a conditional use is is if you stop living in it for six months, you can't live in it ever again. You you
just have to make it a business. That's what you're saying and that's not fair because you are removing crucial property rights from these properties that have this designation. Now if you you know do nothing then that's fine
then they stay where they are but I know you're trying to accomplish something also. So I think you can accomplish it but within the framework of what you're trying to accomplish create this separate vested rights procedure that does the
same thing and protects you from Senate Bill 180 and the ramification. >> So vested rights take care of current locations but what about future locations? future future locations do not get the same right because under
>> can they can they come in and and try to apply for a vested right as well? >> No. >> Okay. >> Because under what under the case law for vested rights you have to show that you've done something and further it. So
that's why I'm saying any of thesearmacies that you have that are operating even though they may not have a medical marijuana dispensary inside them. they still would be protected by this vested right. >> So, this is actually going to be you're
actually Thank you for making my point. So, you know you know the public's uh pharmacy u the the building at Woodlands is being tore down. >> And is there is there traditional pharmacy in there? So it it could if
they would go if the property owner decides to go through your vested rights process, then they get it. They preserve it. It's recorded. If they don't decide, then it doesn't matter. You could even put a time frame in there. You could say, "Okay, you've got to apply for your
vested rights within, you know, 180 days, a year, or whatever, and then it expires." But you're giving yourselves the opportunity to beat Senate Bill 180 and those ramifications. And also, Berta Harris, that is a very dangerous
statute. And the way that this looks, it looks as though you are taking someone's investment backed expectation and you're pulling it out from under them. >> And this doesn't separate medical marijuana fromarmacies. >> No. >> Okay. I I yeah, this definitely needs
some further discussion and we need to come up with something better because if what you're saying is true then then Publix they tear down their building and their pharmacy. You're telling me they can't they can't rebuild their pharmacy? >> They can rebuild their pharmacy. They could not add medical marijuana the way
this is drafted. >> No, I understand. >> Under the current >> which is >> under your current draft >> which was the intent of >> the right the ordinance. Um, >> this is not impactingarmacies at all. And I want to reiterate 386 is the
statute that governs these maritico mariju marijuana facilities. It just states that if we are going to regulate them, we need to treat them the way that we treaties. Meaning, we need to regulate them the same way that we regulate pharmacies. Ifarmacies are
permitted in a certain section of the city, then they should be permitted there. If it's a conditional use for a pharmacy to be in a certain section of the city, same thing for uh for these facilities. If there's a distance requirement, any restrictions we place on pharmacies, we would have to place on
the American marijuana facilities. We just can't um we can't basically if we're trying to ban them, it's either one or the other. Like we it's very binary. And again, I'm not referring to Senate Bill 180. I'm
I'm citing the statute that deals specifically with this and I had put it in the presentation and there's other um uh presentations that were done. Again, we had a previous ban and then we had a unban and reband and all of that. Um so
it's it's the vested rights issue here. Um, it's also a concern in the sense that you are also binding future commissions because conditional uses do have a condition that you're meeting and if they stop then they've lost the opportunity to do that because they've they've come to you discretionarily
asking for permission. But if you are making a decision today for future properties, you're binding any future commission. >> I mean, we happy to do whatever the >> you're binding a future commission by changing zoning today, too. That I mean, that's not a fair statement. We can't be the only municipality that's going
through this right now. Has any We're not >> We're not there. There's other municipalities that have done this. Um, as far as as far as doing uh the ban >> and allowing the existing facilities to stay. >> Um, forget the city uh because I
mentioned it at the with presentation that I did last year when we covered the options. They have done that. But again, the statute that I'm speaking of is very is it's binary. So what are you suggesting is the remedy? >> So I think that the remedy is to kind of
pump the brakes. Don't adopt it tonight. Make some make some additional changes that protect both the city and these individuals who do have vested rights. And I think by doing that and just looking at it again, get getting some
more um research done about it and then making your decision after you're you get all the research and you have all the information and you can try to skirt Senate Bill 180. I think that there is a way to do it, but I think you have to do
it properly. >> I agree. I um are after public uh input I'll make my motion. >> Thank you. Would anyone else like to speak on this item? >> Um Sherry, did you want to mention
anything about the failing to um do it properly, then it gets overturned as a result of a three two fiveyear lawsuit million dollars later in legal fees. And then what happens to everything and
everybody who's had that looking back three to five years are are we liable? >> So it's not really liable, but what it does do it opens kind of the floodgate for you because if it like I I said earlier, it's void.
If you adopt it today, it's void today. And so once you go through a deck action and you have you thought by adopting this ordinance you were stopping anyone from submitting applications for a development order or submitting an
application for um a zoning change because you're void today. All of those people who put those in, you've given them more time. So, I think addressing it as quickly as you can, getting the right provisions in
place, you're not going to open yourselves up to that. Thank you. >> Madame Mayor, would you like to hear from anyone else? >> Yes. >> Who you want to hear? >> From anyone else? Did you want to hear from anyone else?
>> Yeah, we can. Don't you? >> Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to speak? Okay, I'm going to go ahead and close public input. I'm going to give it back to you, Madame Mayor, um to you for discussion and for you to choose what you'd like to do. I stand by the recommendation I made to the commission.
>> Would you move with the commission? Well, I uh I make a I make a motion that we table 26 2620 till we can get some some further information and clarification on what we can do and what we actually can't do to satisfy
satisfy the u you know the the the conditional use nonforming what what are we allow what are we allowed to do so I think I think it deserves further discussion So my motion is a table.
>> I think it would be wise to close any further loophole from Bird Harris and from Senate Bill 180 without defying Senate Bill and the
Senate and theirs. And fine, in the words of Dr. Levy, I think we're a lot closer than we think and I think all five of us here want to um end [clears throat] any further um medical marijuana and that's what we
were moving to in good faith. Um actually Sasha was correct several weeks ago when she said we didn't want to move forward on this because of the liability. I didn't understand that otherwise I would have brought that up
more uh rather than being so aggressive in wanting us to take it into place. We had some potential develop purchasing that might have resulted in some very negative impact on us. Fortunately, that has gone away. Um which is kind of what
Daniel's talking about. Uh Bone and Schro is representing the buyers. I'm sorry, not the buyers, the sellers of the property and they know who the buyers are and it is not um a medical marijuana company anymore. So that's
refreshing to know. So I think we just hurry up, pump the brake, fix our house, address Bird Harris so we have no violations. Bird Harris especially brings all legal fees being paid by the filer and address the 180.
I mean, is is there a possible compromise in all this >> in your opinion? >> Um, >> no, >> not without legal risk. Everything has risk. >> There's legal risk in us passing this >> and I'm again I'm happy [clears throat]
to proceed with the direction that the commission would like if they would like. >> All right. So, we we have a motion. >> I'm going to second it tonight from the standpoint when I was elected in 2008. I spent the first four and a
half years on this commission on a lawsuit because the city commission changed land use regulations on a development that was approved. I want to make sure that we're not going
down that road again >> and putting the taxpayers of this city in jeopardy. I want this fixed and I want it fixed quickly. >> Definitely quickly. But I want to be very careful. >> That's the only reason I'm seconding
this tonight. >> Thanks, man. >> I think that when we came up with this a month ago, there was a reason why we came up with it. >> And if what we're hearing is true,
we may be able to slow it down a little bit. Um, I don't want to stop it. Uh, and and I'm like you. I want to get it done right away. Um but if if that has kind of gone to the
wayside and we can sit think and Sasha kind of [snorts] well if he intended to is to table it. What I would um ask the commission for is um authority to prepare a legal memorandum to clearly explain the vested
rights component here because what happened with that litigation is very different than what we're looking at now. So I want to make sure that we have all of the pieces >> that are necessary. Give you a chance to digest it if there's another component that we may need to look at before you
move forward. Could we possibly look at other municipalities and see what they've they've done? They've all kind of they all can have done the same thing. So maybe there's some >> there's some value there of looking and seeing what's the some of them. >> I'm happy to do that. Um I will say I
did preliminarily >> you did a couple of them, right? look at those and most of them um follow the the structure of the statute just because of that. >> We like being leaders >> there. But I'm happy to, you know, like
I said, I'll happy to look at it and and perhaps there may be a way to build in certain protections for certain >> um current entities that are operating. >> Okay. >> That may not be considered um a due process issue for future businesses. >> Okay. I think we were moving quickly
because we thought we were under fire with the Bank of America building. Yeah. >> And so since it it didn't materialize, it isn't. So, um, we can slow our role a little bit. I also wonder if it would be possible for you to to talk the two
attorneys to get together to really hash this out and see what's best for us. Would that be asking too much? >> I'm fine. Absolutely. >> Okay. Sure. Happy. >> Madam Mayor, you have a first and a second. I call the question.
>> Thank you. >> Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Holland. >> I. >> Commissioner Asbat. >> I. >> Vice Mayor Ashcraft. >> I. >> Commissioner Hawkins. >> Hi. >> Mayor Lee.
>> I. Madame Mayor, I'm gonna ask for a break for you now, but just before real quick before the break, I did want to say um while this is being tabled, any future applications, our current code is in place. So, anything that
comes in, you know, will be processed as it comes in. There's no there's no hold on whether it's uh one building in particular or the other. Um so, I just wanted to make that clear. And I was going to say this later, but since it was brought up again, I just wanted to
be very clear because I take um my ethical responsibilities u seriously and this mention of the Bank of America contract and bow and trough and all of that. So I wanted to address that concern. Um, first of all, my role with the seller well with the uh contract as
far as a real estate component had um to do only with review of it and um compliance with the statutory requirements for municipal property sales. I had no involvement in negotiations. I had nothing to do with
the pricing. That was all done at um the city manager and staff level. So, I never participated in any of that. Um, I don't have any vote or decision-making authority as you know. Um, each of you had questions that you wanted answered based on the conditions of the property
and um, that's what we had the meeting for. So, I had no way of influencing the the transaction as the outcome rests with you. Um, now as far as the uh the mortgage being held by First National Bank, it uh Bowen and Shroth, I
confirmed to Derek, we do represent the bank. They're the mortgage holder. We don't negotiate mortgages. If the property weren't forclosure, and that's litigation at the juncture that we were at, we it wasn't there. But um I did out
of an abundance of caution inform staff. Uh I told city manager I also um in addition to advising management checks for a potential conflict with the Florida bar because again since we're I was on negotiating we're not negotiating for either side. It's um confirmed that
there was no conflict in that particular scenario under the Florida bar uh rule. >> You're saying you told staff but you never told commission. You never told commission who you work for about that
potential conflict that you you're saying. You told staff. >> I didn't have a conflict. I contacted the Florida bar. >> But you talked to the staff >> and I told staff about this in case they wanted to secure >> but you didn't tell the people you report to who you work for.
>> I wasn't asked to do that. >> You have a fiduciary to us. we would have would have been not a bad idea for us just to know. >> Well, again, I >> because you're ne you're you're you're working a contract for us to pay even more and more. Meanwhile, the bank that
you're representing >> negotiate the price. I want to be clear. I just looked for terms and conditions. I'm sorry. Okay. No, no, no, no. But I just just a question of clarification. Is it is it is it the firm that has a conflict or just you? >> No, I don't. the firm.
>> I mean, you're working for the same firm that's that's negotiating the >> I was not involved in the transaction and I was shielded from it. But regardless, because it's it's the firm, I did contact the Florida Bar in case that they it was best for there to be a substitute council and they that deemed
that that was not necessary because the transactions in my involvement were not related. And I did, >> you know, that >> no um >> no no disrespect, but you know, you you seem overly cautious about everything that we're trying to do when something
like this, you don't give us the input. It seems like you're so conservative about things that we're trying to do, but something like this, you decide not to, you not to tell us. So, um I don't know. I I've got a slight slight problem with that. >> What would have changed? What would have changed?
Fair question told us what would have changed? >> I mean again we represent the bank in general. I don't know anything about I mean in totality we represent First National Bank of America the firm. >> Okay. >> As far as that particular building and that transaction I had I don't know any of that.
>> That's fair. I was just >> I did not negotiate the contract. I just looked at it for compliance with municipal requirements. Nor did I So I had no involvement and Miranda is the only one that can speak to it because Tom is gone. So, >> so who, so who did negotiate it? Was it Tom? >> Miranda,
>> was it was it Mike? Was it Gman? Was it Gman? Did he know? >> Gman was involved. >> Good evening. Miranda Burroughs, deputy city manager. What is the question? >> Who who negotiated the contract for Bank of America? >> Tom and Mike. >> So, Mike Mike negotiated.
>> I mean, he was involved. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Tom and Mike Omen. Correct. >> And I will also confirm this was disclosed very early in the process. confir disclose to who? >> Tom and I and Michael and Mike Omen. >> Well, unfortunately or unfortunately,
she does not have a fiduciary to just you, if she even has one. She has a fiduciary to us and she let us down. >> That's your opinion. I understand your opinion. >> It is. >> Yeah. >> I again, what would have changed? >> What would have changed?
>> Yeah. What would have changed? I don't think we want to get into that right now unless you want to. But the main factor here is that an attorney who's supposed to be representing us has a conflict disclos.
>> She stated there is no conflict. >> There's no conflict. >> That has been stated. >> That's her opinion. >> Just like you just said in her opinion, that's her opinion. >> I think that was a Florida bar's opinion. >> I contacted the Florida bargain again. The firm represents them and I had nothing. >> I want to know not just staff. You have
a fiduciary to us and this diminishes my confidence in you and continues to diminish it. This along with so many counts through the time that I've been up here and to hear what Daniel said and to bring this up. This is not
not good. And they're buying it for 1.4 or 1.5 million. Why didn't >> What? >> I'm sorry. >> There isn't a current contract on the building. >> I don't know. >> You don't know? >> No. >> You don't know. >> Okay. Can we move on? >> Yeah.
>> All right. We got that on record. That's I wanted that. So, that's good. >> For the record, I >> I called the Florida Bar just like you called the ethics commission. The commissioner body. >> I'm talking about your statement. You didn't know anything. >> Hold up. Hold up. Hold up. >> I don't know what the transaction is involved. >> No, you said you don't know nothing
about it. >> This right now. and let's move on. Um I I like the idea of the proposal that we the two get together, we hash this out, we come back, we figure it out. But to stay here arguing and going back and forth, it's not going to solve anything.
So um we should move on from here and I believe we had a first and a second two. So it's done. So let's move on to the next please. >> I think you wanted a break for restroom. >> Okay. We only got one item left. We got
five minute break. No, no, no, no, no. >> We only got one item left. >> We got one item left. Let's finish. >> Okay, let's do that. >> Okay, try it. Okay, Kyle got it. >> Ordinance number 2026-9, an ordinance of the city commission of
the city of Eustace Lake County, Florida, amending the city of Eustace's comprehensive plan pursuant to 163.3187 Florida statutes. Amending the city of use's comprehensive plan changing the future land use designation of approximately 0.2 acres of real property
at alternate key numbers 1761310 located at 1430 Morren Street from suburban residential to residential office transition. Mr. Wilks. >> Thank you mayor commissioners. This is your last uh item for new business this evening. It's ordinance 2026-9,
a request for a future landing map amendment at 1430 Morren Street, AL Key 1761310. Property owner is Janice Wilson, represented by Julie Cavalero of Patriotic Mortgage. The parcel the parcel acreage is 2 uh and the current
use right now is a hair beauty salon which has been in operation since 2002. The request is to go from suburban residential to residential office transition to allow for other uses that are permitted within the residential
office transition category or district. This shows the aerial location of the property along Morren Street in Barnes Avenue. As you can tell, it's a transition area between more intense [clears throat] commercial uses and the
residential community surrounding. This is the current land use of suburban residential. This is a proposed land use of residential office transition. Noting that there is RT to the east as well as some on that same uh blocks to the
north. There are utilities available to service this site and currently do. This is the uh recharge for the site 4 to 8 in a year and there are no soils uh no soil issues with the site as it is
developed and urbanized. So we re we reviewed this application uh based on chapter 163 for statutes our future land use element appendix and chapter 102 of the LDRs. We found that there are there are services to meet this requirement. There
there are no wetlands present. No issues with flood planes. Uh transportation of service was not uh evaluated but water and sewer capacity is available. Uh we did find that it is consistent with future land use element and comprehensive plan as well as the
surrounding land uses in that area. And we uh advertised this on April 6th and 13th in the daily commercial. It was posted on April 6th and the mailings were sent out on April 3rd. Uh after that uh we did recommend that
uh staff does excuse me staff recommends approval of this future land use map amendment uh for 1430 Morren Street and I'm available for any questions >> didn't ask you did you get anything from any of the neighbors? No.
>> Anything further from commission? Anyone in the audience like to speak on this item? >> Seeing none, I will close public input. >> Mayor, move approval ordinance number 2026-9. >> Second. >> Roll call, please.
>> Commissioner Holland. >> I. >> Commissioner Asody. >> Hi. >> Vice Mayor Ashcraft. >> Hi. >> Commissioner Hawkins. >> Hi. Mayor Lee. >> Hi. >> Is it >> okay?
Future agenda items and comments. >> Do you want to start? >> I have nothing. Good time. [laughter] >> Commissioner As um I really just had a question. I I at the
uh at the workshop that we had um I saw um Mr. Gleman there and I just wanted to clarify I guess he came there on his own or did
you direct him to go there? Are we >> No, he came on his it was public >> so we didn't pay him to be there. Have we given him any direction since you told me we stopped doing anything with him for now? Have you given him any direction or Miss Burrow's given him any
direction to go do any work? >> Um, >> sure. >> Well, first, have you given him any >> I have not released any work orders for him? >> Would you like me to respond? >> Yes. >> Good evening. Miranda Burrows, deputy
city manager. Yes, we have asked him to pull some figures on Sharps Park. >> So, >> and so he is still he is still engaged in working with the city. >> My conversation with you
and your commitment to me was that I would let the commission know if we do anything else with him. Otherwise, you put a stop on everything. So, I would have liked that to have happened. We're 90 plus
headed toward $100,000 with him and uh I think that's a lot. and uh he has caused some significant costly
damage in the last couple days uh that will cost the city hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars. And I would like to see that contract ended, given notice, and us continue to
work in the great positive direction that we've been going um with Dr. Levy. This is not working for us. We ruined the Methodist church. We're ruining more.
I don't know what the addiction is to to GMAN, but it has cost us now hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars. The price has changed as a result of his contact. Taxpayer money just went out
the door. Other than that, thank you for what each and every one of you do up here. It's never not always easy, but thank you. >> Okay. Uh probably Rick and
Yeah, probably you. Um the the Lake Yale project uh that's being proposed >> is that is that coming back to our treatment plant? >> Right now we have no agreement with them
at all. >> Okay. All right. >> That's a county one, right? >> Uh yeah. >> Yeah. Um the at the last meeting uh you know we had the conversation about SDS the the
SD storm water project possibility. Uh we were sent by um uh uh Congressman Fine's office emails on direct uh direct ask where we don't need the
city I mean uh the state we don't need the county. Can we start looking into that now to see if there's something that we can do to get started? >> I've got to look into it and research it. >> Yeah, I started looking at the the stuff
that she said. It's all >> Yeah, it's >> Yeah, it's awesome. >> I need to dig in. >> Yeah. Um, thank you all for um uh kind of acknowledging the kids that that came here. It it made their day. um they were looking forward to it and I got down
there just in case there may have been a meltdown and luckily I was the only one that had a meltdown. So um uh prior to coming in uh I had uh I reached out to the high school um and uh for cleanup
community cleanup. We had over 50 kids to show up right after school to come and clean our community. uh if there isn't a better partner uh a better relationship
uh in this this county I don't know what is um we had ROC we had cheer uh we had softball but they all came out and not one kid complained uh so uh you know if
if you see a kid thank him um this past weekend we had the sparkle and shine um a special needs prom. Um it was it was quite a quite an event. Um
had you know one high schooler that came and uh he danced so hard that you know he split his pants below the knees. So I don't know how you do that but he he did it. But um you
know again um you know we we have the community our kids. If anyone that's listening thinks that our kids are lost come to some of the events that we do here in the city of Eustace. There is no
one else that does what we do. So uh thank you all. Vice Mayor. >> Um just uh just one thing. Um the marketing the marketing RFP, have we have we've gotten that out yet? >> Yes, sir. >> We have.
>> Yeah, they've got that. There's been a selection committee and um I need to find out where the status is on getting that issued. >> Can can that be incorporated into the big picture that Dr. Levy and the consultant and and you
guys are doing? Kappy, he does marketing for I think Claremont and several other is involved in that. Not directly him doing it, but have you talked to him about that? >> I let him know it was out there.
>> Okay. And he didn't have any offer to of anything >> to contribute. Okay. Thank you. >> That's it. >> City manager. Um this morning, uh deputy city manager
and myself had the opportunity to um witness an effort by our PD and a uh multi-jurisdictional group and it was pretty amazing to watch it and to be a
part of it. And with that, I'm going to ask Captain Fanning to um to speak on what what happened this morning. >> Uh good evening. I know everybody's in a hurry to get out of here, so I'll try to be quick. I'm Captain John Fanning, our I'm our criminal investigations division commander and I'm also our agency SWAT
commander. Uh for those who don't know, our SWAT team is attached to a group called Mid Florida SWAT um which is um us, Leburg, Mount Dora, uh Groveland. Anyway, so it's a municipal it's a municipal SWAT team uh that we're all
associated with. Um, and we executed a search warrant this morning, uh, with the assistance of Lake County Sheriff's Office. So, our detectives have been conducting an investigation for several months on a property that you're all going to be familiar with. And, uh, we got an opportunity today, um, to
hopefully, uh, put a stop to the drug activity that's kind of been a thorn in our side for a really long time. Uh, so at about 7 o'clock this morning, us, the Lake County Sheriff's Office, executed a search warrant at 10:22 and 1024 Mren Street. Um, for those that are familiar,
uh, that's a significant drug operation that's running not only those two residences, but it's also running, uh, to the motel across the street. So, it's been a a notoriously difficult nut in the crack. Um, but we were able to finally get in there. Um, and with that, um, we didn't get kilos or anything like
that, but, uh, we were able to get methamphetamine, cocaine, fentanyl, morphine, and some marijuana out of it. Uh, >> I think there were rough I'm sorry. Do you have a question? >> Fentanyl. >> Yes, sir. fentel pills, too, which is especially concerning. >> Very, very dangerous.
>> Uh, we also got three firearms out of there, a rifle and two handguns. Uh, we made five arrests, so they were all all five were adults. Those charges um were all felony drug possession charges and a couple misdemeanor paraphernelia charges, and we're still working on some other stuff in reference to some other
individuals that were there. Uh, so there are going to be some more charges coming in the future. [snorts] So, we're pretty excited about it. This has been an issue for us for a long time. Um, and I want to give Lake County a lot of credit. Um, because their special investigations bureau, which is where we have a detective assigned to. Our
detective is the one that worked the case. Um, so it is a Eustace detective that put it all together. Uh, with that Lake County, because it's a Lake County unit, they're actually responsible for executing the search warrant with their SWAT team. Um, they notified us through Mid Florida SWAT to come help out. Uh,
when we got there, they had a perfect plan in place. Everything was, uh, well organized, well structured. So kudos to Lake County for having everything uh you know in in the absolute best way possible for us to carry this out. And then um you know this isn't 20 years ago. We we take our time. We conduct
operations very differently than we used to. Uh we ran dry operations all day yesterday uh to make sure we had a good plan in place. And I can't get into the tactics of it, but I can tell you this. Um when I first got on SWAT, we would kick doors open. We were running in there uh you know grabbing people up and
stuff like that and accidents happen. And I can tell you that the way we do things now with modern technology, robots, drones, um we're not [clears throat] doing that anymore, which is mitigating the risk to not only our operators, but also the citizens. So when you see the news and you see incidents where SWAT teams are going in houses, bad things happen, somebody gets
hurt, an innocent bystander that's in there um gets hurt, I can't say it's zero, but certainly with our new practices and our new way of doing things, um that is as low as it could as I could conceivably see it. So, um, I'm just happy to say that our tactics are
evolving. They're modernizing. We're using the most up-to-date technology. Um, and I know the sheriff's office has got some stuff they're going to put out later, which will kind of give an idea and shed some light on what that technology is. But, um, we're we're very happy with the progress. Uh, after we executed the search warrant, made those
arrest, pulled all the people out, um, we then brought in we noticed some some code violations, so we brought in the, uh, building officials and code enforcement. So those two properties are now condemned. Pro the power is disconnected and uh so we're going to start that whole process to make sure
not only is a drug operation shut down, we're taking people to jail for doing that. Um that the entire operation as far as their facilities that they're using are also not going to be operational as well. So hopefully um this is going to take a problem that's lasted almost my entire career and is going to put an end to it and and uh
certainly we're not going to get any more complaints and uh I hope that the hotels also put on notice. Um, it got a lot of attention this morning and people noticed. So hopefully those things happened and uh, you know, everybody else gets the clue and uh, I also want to thank Rick and Miranda for coming
out. Uh, you know, it's good for everybody to see our city leadership and see them out there and know that, you know, their police department is supported. I know some deputies actually pointed out that that they were out there and they're pretty impressed. So, um, overall it was a great operation. I I just can't uh express enough how
grateful I am to the sheriff's office, to our guys that showed up out there, our detectives, um the entire SIB unit, everybody that was involved. These are complex operations that take months and months and months to make happen. Um so I I do appreciate the opportunity to kind of come up and explain um that even
though our citizens don't see what's going on when they do make a complaint, a drug house or something like that, it doesn't mean that nothing's happening. you know, we have to be clandestine when we do this stuff and make sure we're doing it right. So, um, again, I appreciate the opportunity to kind of come up and and talk about what we're
doing and if you guys have any questions, I'm more than happy to answer them. If not, thank you for your time. >> Did they board up the house? >> So, I haven't been by to see if it's been boarded up. >> Uh, but I'm I'm going to go there. Well, I won't go there, but I'll have somebody go there first thing in the morning because I'm taking tomorrow off. It's
been a long day. >> [laughter] >> But uh other than that, again, thank you all for your support. Good job. >> We're happy to be here. [applause] >> Yeah, I think we all see that that that our PD is is, you know, hands above,
heels above uh above some of the best the rest. So, good job. >> Anything else, Rick? And uh just again the to see the teamwork and the precision was just stellar. So it was it
was something experience and kudos to you guys. >> Very well done. >> Okay. >> That's all I have. >> Attorney. >> Okay. >> Well, I've had a couple of good experiences. one um pastor Renee
organized groups to every entrance of the city to to pray over the city and throughout the city and all of that and I was able to participate in that. It was quite and um yeah, >> Commissioner Hawkins was there. It's quite unusual experience, but it was it was
very kind of spiritual and serene and and uh it was it was something that I'm glad I had an opportunity to participate in. And [clears throat] also um I wanted to let you know we have butterfly wings at Liberty Circle, Elizabeth Circle, and Palmetto Plaza.
And Marissa and Michelle are doing a wonderful job of creating a brochure that will out have also a map outlining all where all of the um all of the uh butterfly wings are. And uh that was so timely because I met people from Wisconsin and that was what they asked
me. They were taking a picture uh at Pocket Park and um and they asked me, "Do you have a map?" because they wanted to go to every butterfly wing. So, we have that in the works and we're very happy about it. Um, [clears throat] at the League of Cities lunchon,
I I found this information that we had and and I thought I don't know, I didn't know about it and I thought maybe our people should know about it. This the uh Lake County Sheriff's Office has a a camera registration. So, all of your door cameras, if you register them there, they know that it's there. so
when something happens they can contact. I thought that was good. And then they have a a safety net and it's a tracking system for people who may get lost or wander off. Um and and I thought this is >> I need that
and it'll come up in a minute. >> Okay. And then and then um they have the community engagement where um they have a lockbox program. So, um they um it provides emergency personnel access to your residence in the event of an emergency where you can't open the door.
That was pretty cool and different. And then um they have the 911 smart and um you you can add key information about members of your household. You can um have um the responders would would know that you're
there. So, I thought these were all really great programs that I knew nothing about, but I thought the community should know something about and maybe we could get more brochures or something that would be available to our people. >> I got a couple things I forgot uh
autism. Uh this Saturday at 12:30, we're having a uh an autism walk uh starting at Palmetto Plaza and it's only going to go a couple of blocks. It's 12:30 to 4:00. Uh it's the first event this mom
who has two kids that are nonverbal, she started uh uh this year, two blocks, um you know, bounce houses, things like that. Uh ID uh to ID the kids, >> get some of these brochures,
>> right? So So we're going to try and have them out there. And also Saturday morning at 9:00, we're going to have a volunteer expo event at the community center. There are organizations that are coming out that are looking for people to volunteer. So that'll be a clearing
house for those. And the 24th and the 25th, uh, we're having the motorcycle event, uh, downtown Eustace. Uh, starts at 5:00 and it'll go through, uh, Saturday night
at 10 or 11:00. That's it for me. >> Okay. I I ran across something that was just mentioned, but last um meeting I asked about the um um the uh utility compatibility and and uh
I think you said you'd look into it. Did you find out anything about it? >> I've I've got a a uh Mike Lamb prepared a letter for you guys. I've got to tweak it a little bit and I'll get it over to you. >> Okay. because if it if it's going to impact or it had should have impacted
before and if future plans are I'd like us to be more clarify this and know what we can and can't do. So um basically that's all I have and um I thank everybody for being here for the patience and great job to the PD. Thank
you for that. And um on that note a meeting is adjourned.