Good evening. We will call this meeting Monday meeting on Monday, April 13, 2026 for Carver Heights Montlair CRA Commission. Would you please stand for our invocation and our pledge of allegiance?
Heavenly Father, we come before you today seeking your presence in a time when our nation and our world are facing uncertaint uncertainty and conflict. We ask for your peace and to and to rest upon this country and your wisdom to
guide those who lead. Father, in times like these, remind us who of who we are, one nation under you. Help us to lead with kindness, to speak with respect, and to stand together even when the world feels uncertain around us. Bless
this commission, this community, and every resident we serve. Let our work today be rooted in purpose, guided by integrity, and reflective of your grace. All this we ask in your precious name. Amen.
>> Amen. 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. Um,
can we get our approval, please, for >> I'll make a motion to approve the January 12th minutes. >> Second. >> Roll. Any questions? Roll call. >> Commissioner Peterson. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Reese? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Connor? >> Yes.
>> Commissioner Alderman? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Conell? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Bry? >> Yes. >> Chairperson Barry? >> Yes. Excuse me. Would someone please introduce um resolution 3
A? >> I'll introduce resolution 3A to be read by title only. Resolution of the Carver Heights Montlair Area Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Leburg, Florida, authorizing the chairperson and secretary to execute a resolution
approving fiscal year 2026 facade sign and landscape grant awards for the Carver Heights Montclair area CRA and providing an effective date. >> Move for approval. >> Second. >> Discussion. I do have one question. Um once this is
approved, um the people that are getting this, do they keep up the signs say if their tenants leave, is that their responsibility to >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And I just need to mention I will have to abstain on this one. Uh I benefit uh
from K. I do the commercial leasing there. Okay. Any more comments on it? >> No. >> Roll call. >> Commissioner Eastman, >> yes. >> Commissioner Connor, >> yes. >> Commissioner Alderman, >> yes. >> Commissioner Connell,
>> yes. >> Commissioner Bur, >> yes. >> Commissioner Peterson, >> abstain. >> Chairperson Bry, >> yes. Are there any roll call from any commissioners? >> I'll introduce 3B degree by title only.
>> Yes, please. Resolution is the Carver Heights Montlair Area Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Leburg, Florida. authorizing the chairperson and secretary to execute an intergovernmental agreement with Lake County, clarifying community
redevelopment agency tiff payments by the ambulance and emergency medical services MSTU and providing an effective date. >> Move for approval. >> Second and commission any comments, questions
and reference. >> I I do have a question. Um, so this won't decrement the services that they receive right now for medical and all that. It'll still be the same. >> No, it it it so just give you a little background. So that the answer to your question,
Commissioner, is no, it does affect the the funding. Not by a great deal. Um, what they what the what the county has requested or is an agreement. Um, frankly, I don't even know if you really need an agreement, but they've asked for it. they they have found and I think
probably this problem germinated with the water management district. I think the statutes is pretty clear um on when the political subdivision is required to pay the tiff the incremental uh finance
or the incremental revenue on a a community redevelopment agency. And in in this particular case, the county had a history of paying the their general fund millage, their EMS, which is uh emergency management services.
They they have an MSTU, a special taxing service unit, and they also used to pay um a special district through the water management district. The water management district last year uh provided us a letter that said, "We're not going to pay this the the increment
anymore." uh because they're a special district. I think technically that's the correct interpretation. That was actually only a couple of thousand dollars impact because that millillage for the for the water district was extremely small. Um the county now is
also has continued to pay in their general fund as well as the MSTU for the EMS service. So their position is, hey, this is an MSTU. It's not eligible for the increment payment.
We agree with that on a staff level. So that impacts the Carver Heights CRA about $32,000 this year and we're estimating about $53,000 next year. Uh the the the TIF the entire CRA, you
know, it's about a million bucks. So you're looking at about 50 grand out of a million bucks short. Now, does that ultimately affect programming in the CRA? Yes. Is it is it detrimental? And
no. Um, does the county have the right in our opinion to not have to pay that? Yes. So, this agreement simply states back to the county that you're capitulating that this year and in future years, the county doesn't have to
pay the increment for the MSTU for EMS. some better clarification from myself. I I I think I understand there's impact on the funding what I was talking about the the services that we get from you know the emergency services. That's what I was really
>> Oh yeah. No, I I can't answer that question because I'm not in touch with the EMS budget, but it but my local answer for you would be this puts more money in the EMS pot. >> Okay. I just want to make sure that we still get the same services. You know,
>> I can't answer that. Okay. Because I'm just not in touch with with that management. But this does put more money in the EMS fund. >> Understand? Thanks. >> And it is a countywide issue. That's not just this is not just Leburg tax increment issues. It's it's
countywide. The county doesn't want to pay the increment on the EMSTU for any redevelopment district. Do you >> so to help Commissioner Alderman out I'm going to guess it's going to be it's going to be in the millions at least at least one to2 million dollars
>> maybe >> I mean if it municipalities depend I I don't know the answer to that question I don't I don't know if the number is that big but you know I maybe it's in a million I don't know how many districts there are throughout the county >> I was thinking every city >> you know if every so if there's 14 and
every city's coughing up you know about 50 grand >> you know there's Yeah, we're paying 275 between the three of them. >> Between the three, right? But that Right. >> Okay. >> Do you think this is a way of um prioritizing critical needs to determine
what will be called for? I mean, a way of a start to say >> if if I'm in if I'm in the county manager seat, I'm looking for revenue so I don't have to increase your MSTU for the EMS. So, I'm looking for all
available revenue streams. So, we would definitely probably need to start looking at some type of other funding, grants and stuff to use >> for the CRA. >> For CRA, >> would that be an option? That would be more money to generate. >> Yes.
>> May perhaps on different projects we want to see grant money >> for projects. Yeah. >> Any other comments? Okay. Um, roll call. >> Commissioner Connor, >> yes. Commissioner Alderman, >> yes.
>> Commissioner Pineell, >> yes. >> Commissioner Bur, >> yes. >> Commissioner Peterson, >> yes. >> Commissioner Reeseman, >> yes. >> Chairperson Barry, >> yes. >> Roll call. Carry. >> Commissioner Peterson. Just a another reminder, I think in the
last meeting I just brought up uh I'm not seeing any movement on the vacant lots. I just want to keep that front and center and get those moving. I know I've been like a broken record on that. >> Commissioner Eastman, >> just want to thank Miss Diane Yuckle for her hard work on the FSL grant, so
that'll be it. Thank you, >> Commissioner Connor. >> Yes. I just had some concerns of the address 1011 Georgia Avenue. That house has been up for I guess to be destroyed because it is in
a condition that needs to just be taken down. I see the uh notice sitting out there from code enforcement. So, I just kind of want to know where are we sitting with that. And my other thing is um the retention ponds at Berry Park um
before summer come if we can kind of get those cleaned up before the rainy season cuz they'll refill up again and they're kind of grassy. I just don't want any unknown accidents in that in those ponds. >> Commissioner Connor, what's the address on Georgia Avenue?
>> 101. Okay. >> Uh just to respond to you back in that um on the retention ponds. I do we will be getting some attention to those retention ponds and it's also uh we I think Cliff is finishing up an engineering plan to make some improvements in there. So we'll get that
back to you and or the commission depending on how we go on funding that here shortly. Um and I will follow up with you on 1011 Georgia. I don't I I'll follow up with code enforcement and I'll get a memo back out to the CRA tomorrow. Commissioner,
Commissioner Alderman, >> nothing at this time. >> Commissioner Conell, >> nothing. >> Commissioner Bur, >> nothing tonight. >> Chairperson Barry. >> Um, yes, I have one thing. Um, follow up with um um Commissioner Peterson, I've
gotten calls in reference to the lot, but I've directed them to housing for further information. Hopefully, um, the nonprofit was a legitimate nonprofit. I didn't I didn't recognize the name or the person. So, I'm hoping something
will happen because we do have a process, but it's not being used. And secondly, I would like to ask for um just a reminder that we are ready to roll out our next um third phase of the
home improvement. And I just want to make sure that we're in line and have completed everything with the second phase that we don't have any homes still pending that needs things done before we start the third phase. If we could just follow through with that.
If that's no further comments meeting, make it a motion for a journ please. >> Second. Thank you. like to call to order >> our Monday meeting for Greater Leburg CRA. We've done the invocation and the
pledge. Um, we have Yes, we have 3A that we need to get approval of minutes, please. May I have a >> I'll make a motion to motion, please. >> Yep. I'll make a motion to approve the January 26th, 2026 meeting minutes.
>> Second. >> It's been moved and second. Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Reeseman, >> yes. >> Commissioner Ponder, >> yes. >> Commissioner Soal, >> yes. >> Commissioner Conell, >> yes. >> Commissioner Bur, >> yes. >> Commissioner Peterson, >> yes. Chairperson Barry.
>> Yes. Would someone please introduce resolution 4 A? >> Uh, I'll introduce 3A to be ready by to >> Oh, 3A. Excuse me. Good luck. >> Resolution of the Greater Leburg Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Leburg, Florida, authorizing the
chairperson and secretary to execute a resolution approving fiscal year 2026 facade sign and landscape grant awards and providing an effective date. Move >> for approval. Second. >> Are there any questions or comments,
please? >> None. Two second. Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Ponder, >> yes. >> Commissioner Soal, >> yes. >> Commissioner Conill, >> yes. >> Commissioner Bur, >> yes. >> Commissioner Peterson, >> yes. >> Commissioner Reeseman, >> yes. Chairperson Barry.
>> Yes. Would someone please introduce resolution 3B? >> I'll introduce be right by title only. >> Resolution of the Greater Leburg Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Leburg, Florida, authorizing the chairperson and secretary to execute an
intergovernmental agreement with Lake County, clarifying community redevelopment agency TIFF payments by the Ambulance and Emergency Medical Services, MSTU, and providing an effective date. Move for approval. Second. >> Are there any comments or questions?
>> I have a question. >> Um my question I was listening to the prior meeting and in discussion um I think they said in our office the um they believe that they didn't have to pay us that. Have we talked with the city attorney to see if the attorney says this these are funds that they are supposed to pay us just for
clarification before we do vote? >> Yes. >> And he said that they do not. >> Yes. >> Okay. So then my next question is could it be tabled where um could we maybe look at it and say we vote each year
based upon our needs and our budget and what's needed in our community because it looks like we're doing it for this year and then all subsequent years like we're just >> you could do that. I you know I think at the end of the day it's going to be
where the county ultimately wants to go >> and I think that that's a real I can understand that. But my question is just so that we have the opportunity based upon what the need is for our budget. >> I would this would this not be in the
yearly every budget cycle we would see this? >> No, I think the written the ordinance or the resolution the agreements written in that this is how it is from now. >> Yeah, that's what I read from now on. >> But this is this is basically the county telling us they're not going to pay us
this. There's no uh >> negotiation. Yeah. I mean you so you could that's I mean so I answered your question. Yes, you can do that. Does it mean it will flow that way? I don't know is the the next question. >> Well, they could come back and say we want past year's payments back
>> potentially they could >> but I think they're playing nice with us and saying starting fresh. >> Sure. >> I think that's their angle. Yes. >> Going forward versus going back. Well, we don't want that to happen. Come back. >> Can I ask a question? Mhm.
>> So, so that what's is are they the only ones that can do this or can this start to be a slippery slope where the county says we're not going to pay this taxing district, we're not going to pay this tax before you know it because like our CRA, we're already giving half that money away and we're already at a point where we can't fund stuff until the next
year. So, you know, it it only seems like a small amount, but the fact that we give away 50% of our budget all the way court mandated, it's kind of a big amount that we're giving away. Well, the amount that we're forced to give the CDC is a court order. It's not it's not a
county issue. So, that's not a county problem. >> And, you know, again, the county ultimately is is is, >> you know, it's their determination on how they're going to define what the incremental payment is. >> Can they do that on other things, too? Fire, police, school. Can they do that
on all of them? I mean, could this start to >> No, this this is it. This is this action is reference to the county share of the incremental >> Okay. >> growth in each of the community redevelopment agencies in the county.
>> Okay. So, no, it won't. It it it it it hit the county in two it it hits the it hit in past tense the county in three different funds that they had where the county ultimately paid the increment which they have determined they don't
have to. So, it hits them in the general fund where they have they're continuing to pay the increment out of the county general fund which is the lion share of the money. the water management district, although it acts as a district, you know, it's still it's now
formally under the control of the BOCC. So, that district didn't believe that the the statutory language applied to them and now the county's coming back to you and saying that the statutory language doesn't apply to an MSTU. >> Okay. Thank you. For me, it's just where
it says allowing the Lake County EMS because to me, it sounds like allowing implies that there's um a vote and choice and what I'm hearing is it's not really. >> I think that's written nicely. >> Do you think that there's going to be
ways? I think Mayor Barry brought it up to find other ways to to fund that because like I says our CRA is already as you had mentioned at the last meeting next year there's really not a whole lot of money left in the CRA and we were looking at projects like the east side to do things like they do in Carver
Heights where they have those grants available to some of the houses over there. So do you think that I mean this is 50,000 this year or something like that 54 next year it's even more. Are we going to be able to find other sources to make that up or is it just >> the count the the the revenue sources
are the revenue sources? >> Okay, thank you. >> Because I'm looking at I'm like, okay, if this is, you know, a small amount, this small amount could be used for the home improvement grant I've been asking for and talking about and trying to figure out how to fund. So,
>> yes, it has been. >> So, that is, you know, difficult. You're getting a 50 grand hit for me to accept very difficult. >> Wow. Any further? No. Roll call.
>> Commissioner Soal, >> I guess. Yes. Since we don't have a choice. >> Commissioner Con? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Bur? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Peterson? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Reeseman? >> Yes. Commissioner Ponder. >> No. >> Chair Fenberry.
>> Yes. >> Roll call. >> That's roll call now. That was briefing. Commissioner Reeseman. >> Just want to thank Miss Diane Yuckle for her hard work on the FSL grants. Again, >> Commissioner Ponder, >> Commissioner Sokl, >> I have nothing at this time.
Can I double back? >> Um, I did look on the I'm sorry, excuse me for saying nothing. I did think of something. I did look on the website to see if um any information had been posted on the way where um people in the community can know how to reach us if they had concerns and I hadn't seen that updated. >> We'll address it.
>> Thank you, >> Commissioner Conal. >> No, ma'am. >> Commissioner Bur? >> Nothing tonight. >> Commissioner Peterson, >> nothing tonight. >> Chairperson Barry, um nothing further tonight. Thank you. >> May I get a motion for roll?
>> Motion to adjurnn. Second. >> Meeting adjourn. Thank you. We will call our Monday, April 13, 2026 commission meeting to order. We have had our invocation and our pledge during our CRA meeting at 5. We have no
proclamations today, but we do have a presentation from the electric department for safety awards. Please Thank you, mayor, commissioners. Uh, my name is Brad Chase. I'm the director of the uh utility department here at the
city. Um, recently the city of Leburg Electric Department had the honor of being presented two safety awards. One is the uh American Public Power Association 2025 diamond safety award and the FMEA Florida Municipal Electric
Association um safety award. Um both of these awards recognize the the city of Leburg Electric Department for demonstrating outstanding commitment to safety, protection of our employees and the community that we serve. In 2025,
the safety department or electric department, apologies, had no uh zero safety incidents, zero accidents, no lost time, events or reported cases. Uh line work listed as one of the top 10 dangerous jobs. Um in order to provide
reliable power, line workers are frequently engaged in dangerous work that can place them at risk or serious or fatal injuries. For these reasons, public power utilities place significant emphasis on safety and training. Our
team has a strong commitment to safety and over the years had developed a strong safety culture and we strive for excellence. So again, safety being one of our foundations for electric reliability. Utility operations is a cornerstone to employee protection.
every task, every routine maintenance, emergency power restoration that we perform must be committed u to hazard awareness, proper procedures and accountability. So again, just an opportunity to share today from the electric department um job well done
over the past 12 months. Thank you. >> Congratulations. At this time, the public may bring matters to the city commission's attention. Please note that issues raised during this time will not be discussed, but your comments will be referred to the appropriate staff or
scheduled for consideration at future city commission meetings. If you are speaking about an item that will be considered later in this meeting, your comments will be heard during public hearings. Each speaker is allocated three minutes. kindly adhere to this time. Limit to ensure equal opportunity
for all participants. Thank you. Are there any public comments at this time? Please state your name and address. >> Uh Daryl Crane, District 2, Leburg. I would like to request that the commission at a future meeting take up
the maintenance and beautifification of West Main Street from U Highway 27 to the South Street. um connection. Um I think it's been a long time since we've discussed that. I know the city took
over maintenance of that area on the road and I I would like a chance to discuss that with the commission. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you. James James Hoggood 410 I think it's 410 South Street Breakfast at Tiffany's. I just want to say thank you to uh the
police department. Uh they did JAG this weekend uh which is all the area. If you guys don't know what JAG is, all the local elementary schools get together and do a um Olympic style games from prek all the way through fifth grade. Uh I got to MC that and be the guy up in the booth doing that. I've done that now
three or four years. Um, I just want to publicly thank them. It was a welly really welloiled machine. Um, and it's something I actually participated in when I went to skiing when I was a while ago. Um, so uh it's just a really cool thing that that they do and it was done really well and it seemed that the kids
and the teachers and what uh really had a good time. So, thank you. >> Moving on to our consent agenda. Routine items are placed on the consent agenda to expedite the meeting. If the commission staff wish to discuss any item, the procedure is as follow. Pull
the items from the consent agenda. Vote on remaining items with one roll call and discuss each pull item vote by roll call. Are there any items the commission would like to pull? >> 5B2
and 56 C. 56 56 C6. >> Would someone please introduce motion? No. No. I'll make a motion to approve uh remaining items on consent agenda.
>> Second. Roll call. >> Commissioner Connell. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Bur? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Peterson? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Reeseman? >> Yes. >> Mayor Barry? >> Yes. Would someone please introduce
5B 2? >> I'll introduce and ask be read by title only. Resolution of the city commission of the city of Leburg, Florida, authorizing the execution of a $650,000 change order with Kingdom Construction
Services, Inc. for completion of the Susan Street Sport Complex and providing an effective date. Move >> for approval. >> Second. >> Go ahead. >> Yes. had several questions.
Um going going through the um change orders, you've got um $175,000 overrun for construction, $252,000, I guess you want to say overrun for bleachers and scoreboards and field
goals, and $140,000 for mitigation storm water. I guess I'll start with the storm water first. Um, I understand there was some changes to the district on I'm guessing on how you accommodate storm water. So, my my
several of my questions are when did those changes take effect and when did we submit our civil plans to the the district versus those dates? I'll start with there. >> Let me get half to answer those the
specific date questions for you, commissioner. >> Absolutely. Excuse me. Uh Brett Tobias, half uh Tavar's operations manager, 902 North Sinclair Avenue. I'm here with Alistister Bryce, also with our office. We're the civil engineers for the uh site permit. Uh as far as specific
dates, I will allow Alistister to answer those as the engineer record. >> Uh we made an initial submitt to St. John's in October of 2024, if I'm not mistaken. Uh permits were finalized in July of 2025.
And when when did the changes with the district take place? Um sometime in the spring of 2025. >> So the submittal in 24 should have accommodated these changes. >> So the initial submitt went in with an aggressive uh design. Uh it was
originally a playfield. We kind of converted it into a different type of playfields. Originally was baseball fields. Um the redesign was more uh grass sports fields. Um, so we were trying to get some compensation there, but the initial design went in with a
submitt to the district. Um, after we had a pre-lication meeting, the district said that there was no impaired water bodies that we were discharging to. The first rounds of comments came back saying that we were in fact discharging to an impaired water body. Therefore, there would have to be additional treatment included as part of our
design. So, so the district changed from the original submitt to the second submitt on the impacted water body. The initial uh pre-application meeting we had with them, they stated that it
wasn't. When it went into review, there's more detailed review that came back saying that we had to accommodate for that. >> So, they gave us bad information which is causing us to resign for $140,000. They gave us information that they later
contradicted upon a substantial review >> and they don't hold any responsibility for this bad information. >> Unfortunately, sir, no, they do not. If you read any water management district permit that is issued to a private organization or a public organization, there's actually language in there that
says if the district finds any fault uh with their own permit uh even errors in their own reviews that they are held harmless from that and that they can resend the permit and require the applicant to resubmit with new application through no liability or cost to the district and all cost to the
applicant. >> Okay. Okay. So, let me ask you another question because I I'm not familiar with I I I was familiar with there was some changes in the district as far as their design criteria, but reading the agenda memo for tonight, it
says the I guess the rock that was estimated that was going to need was 100% miscalculated. Their their criteria changed by that much that we missed that mark by 100%. Uh I don't believe it was 100%.
We had to increase the rock. The rock is your storm water system. >> Sure. >> Uh it's your underground storage. The water stored in the void space. >> Um >> Alistister, you can correct me if it's 100%. But the difference between impaired and non-impaired is a very
large difference in criteria. It's going from what was the old presumptive criteria, which is a volume over the drainage area, to a nutrient calculation based on a set of different things. If you want me to get into the minutiae of nutrient calculation, I'll be happy to do that. But, uh, I think everyone might
get a little bored with it, but um, >> it's a much more stringent criteria when you have to do nutrient. Anything that is discharging to an impaired water body by statute does have to do the nutrient removal calculation. Yes, you can see dramatic increases in the treatment
volume required to be uh retained on any given site based on this calculation now having to be done. >> Just just for my own curiosity, what what water body is this impacting? >> Uh Lake Griffin, I believe. >> What what >> Lake Griffin?
>> Lake Griffin way over there. quit. So way over there, I think speaks to the disconnect between what the district originally informed us in versus the criteria they ended up at. Um they determined in formal review that there
was a series of ditches, canals, pipes, etc. through a very long flow path that led to Lake Griffin. Um, as an engineer, I have my own concerns about a flow path that long really providing a nutrient
discharge to something that far away, but that's not the way the rule is written. The rule is written if you eventually end up in the impaired water body that you're subject to that criteria. Um, but I think that because it was a long flow path that led to perhaps the district giving us the erroneous information in the
pre-application meeting. >> Okay. So, just so I'm I'm understanding that we submitted the plans prior to the the rule change, >> but you're saying you submitted the plans based on your conversation with the district and didn't make the adjustments to the rule change coming into effect.
>> No, sir. So, the the impaired versus non-impaired wasn't a rule change. That's a criteria that's in the existing rule, but the existing rule allows for different design criteria based on which of those two buckets you fall into. So, we're operating under the same statutory rule, but there's different design
criterias based on which of whether you're impaired or not impaired. If you were not impaired, then we would have been one set of criteria, which would have required uh much less volume withholding for treatment. Once we were put into the impaired criteria, your
treatment volume increases dramatically. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. >> Yes, sir. >> I'll stay up here in case any other council has questions. I don't have any more questions for you, but I do have some other questions, but >> there any other
>> I I I have several others just not it's just not for the the civil engineers. >> Um my next question is what is the $175,000 as it's shown in the agenda memo? 175
thou 175,000 overruns for construction. >> So in in the packet there's that list from Kingdom Construction. We originally went into bid or we we went into contract with the with Kingdom Construction for 10.5 million. Of the 10.5 million about 960,000
was a contingency in the project. Um we kept it a large contingency for the for the reasons that we we kind of tried to expedite some permitting. We went into a bid process at 90% design complete because we're trying to meet certain debt grant deadlines so on and so forth.
So in the in the project there there we submitted a list that's in the packets that shows all the areas where we were credited and the debited. So that $175,000 is reference to how much we're over relative to the contingency. So what so
where we come up with the 650 request I is that 175 plus the items that we were planning to spend out of the contingency the 252,000 for the bleachers the scoreboards and I think there was something else in there plus we already
paid for the mitigation that was the 140 you re referenced so we paid and I think that this body approved the payment to St. Johns for the mitigation the 140 and then what'sever remaining to get the project done. So that's where we're coming up with the difference but
there's the detail is in the packets on all the things we're over and there I think there was like 24 items on that list. Some are credits some are debits but of that the lion share of the overage is directly related to the additional rock and excavation that we
need to put in the additional filtration system for the championship field. And the championship field is designed as the turf, not grass, but artificial turf field. That's kind of the centerpiece of the park. >> So you're saying the part of the 175,000
of the estimated overruns includes the mitigation. >> So say I'm looking I'm looking here at mitigation payments 140. >> So there there's there's there's two areas of overages. So the the commission
approved the construction project of $10.5 million that's exclusive of the engineering. >> So from the $10.5 million the first expense that we put in that was the mitigation payment $140,000.
>> Okay. So you the commission approved that expenditure that took off 140,000 from the contract price which would fall into contingency. But now that other items from the contractor excavation and and the rock is pushing us up over that
960, I'm I'm providing examples of where the overages to justify the 650 ask. >> Okay. So So the the kingdom estimated overruns at 175 and the mitigation bank
payments at 140. Those two go hand inand to address the district's issues. >> No, the mitigation payment was separate, but because there's other overruns inside the project, I need to come back
to you with all the overruns so that we can ask for the proper overage. >> Right. But I guess where I'm getting confused now is you got the kingdom estimated overruns at 175 and you got the recreational estimated overruns at 252. So, what I'm trying to explain to
you is that everything on the kingdom list >> plus the scoreboards the plus the >> bleachers >> the the yeah, it's the bleachers, the scoreboards plus the mitigation claimment. You add all those things up,
you need the extra 650 to complete the project at an approved budget. >> Okay. >> Okay. So basically because the contingency is absorbed by kingdom expenses, I need to find another home for that mitigation payment. So I
need to increase the budget. So that's why the conting that's why the mitigation bank payment is now out of budget. Well, I mean, I I I guess I'm I'm trying to fully understand is the the recreational estimate and overruns,
which includes scoreboards and goalposts and bleachers, that wasn't included in Kingdom's bid. >> It was not. We anticipated you spending those monies out of the contingency.
There was I think there was a hundred or is about a hundred for scoreboards in the kingdom bid that we ultimately didn't use because we used those monies for other overages which are on that list. So as as things increase they kicked out
of the overage box and so it's the kingdom list plus that request. Those are all the overage items. >> So the all listed out for you >> but the championship scoreboard was paid through a donation. Correct. But there's there's four other fields that need
scoreboards. >> The project just keeps giving. Um I don't know I'm fully clear, but uh Okay. >> Now with the overages, uh how does this this project still cheaper than the second bid that we got? bid was 12.5
million with the requested overage. I think we come in around 112. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I I guess the there there was I think an alternative in the agenda memo. if we don't go with
this. >> Yeah. So, um the alternative is to complete the project for 10.5 million. >> Okay. So, if we if we go with the 10.5 million, what we'll end up doing is we'll end up cutting back on other things in that contract. So, we won't
complete the project to fruition. So, we would cut out the bleachers, we would cut out the scoreboards, we'd cut out some of these other things to get us into the budget parameters, but then the thing is is the the result will be a you won't complete the project to the design standard. you'll have to make some
pretty draconian cuts that I would be back to you next fiscal year looking to solve uh in fiscal year 27 using discretionary monies or CRA monies or or cash to go fix because the items that we need to do to complete the project
within the scope need to get done. So the the option is you you cut way back but you're you're going to have a product that I don't think you'll be happy with. Well, what I mean I think one of the options was to not go with the turf field and go with the grass field and the championship field. Wasn't
that >> that you could I think at this stage you probably could do that but I but I think then you're going to put yourself into the category of having a a field that that was marketed that people are looking at. We're already getting inquiries. You know, people want to come
and play on the turf field. So from the sports marketing aspect that was a big part of this project which is linked back to the the money that the county is giving through um the TDC money part of the part of the concept was to have a regional facility that's going to be a sports marketing promotion. If you don't
complete a turf field for the championship field then we think we're going to take a big hit on how we can market the facility. So I think that that you know so yeah that's an option. you could go back and and and build the grass field, but I think it's going to provide a product that that's not going to live up to the standards and then the
the incumbrances that we put on the TDC money >> in. >> So, so in essence and and I, you know, there's the potential that okay, you build grass now, you don't get the scheduling for the outside market. If you don't get the scheduling for the outside market, you're going to hit the crawlback provision of the county money.
So, you might end up paying the county a million bucks instead of the contractor 650,000. the the county's money is tied to we we use artificial turf. >> The county's money is tied to promotion and use of the facility. Use of the facility is tied to the type of turf.
>> That don't make any sense. I mean, you got the facility whether it's turf or grass. I don't really know why >> because marketing there was a mark. Let me explain it again. There's a marketing promotion to bring in sports tourism based on the type and quality of
championship field we build. So, we got a million dollars of TDC money from the county that requires that that field is used regionally at X number of events. So, if we don't build a turf field, then
X could be X minus something. If we don't meet that X number, then we could be on the hook for paying back TDC money. So there is a correlation between if you downgrade the field, you'll downgrade the type of events you get in.
If you don't meet the standard of what we said to the county, then that could equal the crawlback provision. So yes, constructing a grass field is an option. I don't think it's a very good one because you could be on the hook for a million versus 650.
Well, I mean, I would think most athletes would probably prefer to play on grass myself, but what what is the difference in cost if you want? >> I didn't even look into that number uh because when it came back that the facility is not going to be built to the
standard that we want. I stopped my research there. >> Are there any more comments, questions? Okay. Well, >> I just want to go on the record and say that this project started out at like 5.5. I supported it. It went to 7.5. I supported it. Um, it went to 11.5 or
10.5 and I I did not support it, but I will support this because I the commission has heard me say before, if you're going to do a project, do it right. Um, so I will support this increase. >> Commissioner Bur, >> yes. Commissioner Peterson, >> yes. >> Commissioner Reeseman, >> yes.
>> Commissioner Cono, >> no. >> Mayor Barry, >> yes. Would someone introduce please 5C6 by tunnel only? >> Resolution of the city commission of the city of Leburg, Florida, authorizing the
mayor and city clerk to execute a water and wastewater utility pioneering agreement with Trinity. Excuse me. Trinity Land Company LLC and all and providing an effective date. >> Move for approval.
>> Second. >> Any questions? >> I do. Um that's pioneer agreement. My understanding of it um is that they're proposing to put the utilities in and in return
we reimburse them through city impact fees for the utilities as they pull permits. I I believe if if somebody's going to come to the city and and ask for their property to be annexed in and developed, they they should foot the bill to pay
for the utilities to be run to it, not basically be reimbursed back with their own money. Um I think they should they should pay to run the utilities to their subdivision and the impact fees that are paid as they pull permits the city can
use towards wastewater capacity treatment or whatever. not basically reimburse them to to run the system to their development. Uh so and in that case I mean you know if you want to develop in the city and you want to develop in the city because you need the
utilities because they want the density they should have to pay that bill not not basically offset the cost to get their impact fees back. the city should keep those impact fees and spend it in other parts of of our infrastructure capacity, like I said, treatment, what
have you. So, I I would like the city to consider not approving this pioneer agreement. If they want to run the utilities, have them run it, but they don't get reimbursed through the pioneer agreement as they pull permits and get their util get their impact fees give given back to them.
Now, do we have any history with pioneering agreements to compare or you know? >> Yeah, I I will give you my opinion and and then mind you, it's it's not a legal opinion. Um
I I'm not one for precedent per se. Um so if we've done something in the past, I don't think that necessarily means you have to do it in the future. Yeah, >> our history has been to do pioneering agreements. Um, and out of the out of
the premises that that's the purpose of impact fees. There's there there there is a bonafideed the the law allows for, for lack of better word, sharing of impact fees if there's a bonafide public
purpose. Um, so having pioneering agreements tied to sharing impact fees because of a bonus bonafide public purpose is a is a legally accepted principle that we have followed from time to time. And in case in point, this doesn't just happen with water and sewer
impact fees. It happens with dare I be blasphemous and say road impact fees. So the county is actually leveraging impact fees at that at at the intersection of at 470 and 33 to make those improvements. So there is a history that
we have done this. I would further say um that part of the holdup in this particular agreement I know handover I I know handover's acronym that there's a this specific there's about three different companies that's listed so for
just for clarity because we've dealt with handover I think it's referenced as Trinity and a couple different other company because each PUD that's affected has a has a different company name which is not abnormal but to the where I'm headed is Um,
I did not want to have the commission consider such an agreement if the impact fees didn't provide the city the financial ability to pay and and leave us holding the basket for what would be a liability for a public improvement where the where
the rate payers from their rate fees would have to finance that construction. So we probably put handover on pause six months until you maybe even a year. Mr. Snyder probably would say we held them up longer than that. Um but but but
the concern was is that when water sewer impact fees come in there there's two major uses for those monies. collection or distribution on the water side, collection on the sewer side, and then treatment. Um uh so um I I I think
our fees can we're not writing an agreement for a check that we can't cash. So in English that means we're not paying out impact fees uh that we don't anticipate collecting that leaves us in a deficit. I we did that chart for you
and I think you know if you count up potential collectible revenue we're in the neighborhood of of $50 million all units in South Leburg less about $20 million including this agreement of of
impact fee uh assignments that we that that we're proposing water a little bit less but each side you still walk away with significant cash I'm not going to say significant cash I'll just I think the number I put in the packet was about $25 5 million bucks. So after all
obligations are paid, if they don't time out, then the city potentially has $25 million. So that would go in our accounts and sit for pro at this point um treatment. So I mean the So back to your question, have we done this in the
past? Yes. is commission you didn't ask this but commissioner Canel's question is maybe we need to stop making that a policy and you know if developers want to develop make them pay their own way and you know I think that's understandable and it is a policy um
that you could do we have not done that to date for most of the major expansions which I roughly call the silver lake region we went into a number of developers agreement for water and sewer to basically
loop uh water so that there's a big giant loop in the system that goes from up 44 down Radio Road and then back to 441. So we create a continuous water loop and then we've designed the the collection or the wastewater treatment system. So roughly from the north side
of Radio Road, it goes up and around down 44 as a collection standpoint. So really that northeast side of the city, the southern leak region I call, we've really got contained and good design philosophies I think on water and sewer
to get those areas tackled. And then on the south side between the NVR agreement, which is the sewer bypass agreement, and if you do this agreement with handover, you've got the 33 and 27 corridors pretty linked in. So from a water distribution and sewer collection
standpoint really our ISBA box is now covered when you do this agreement. >> So I think you you've got two philosophies there to continue down the path that we have or to change and say developers you need to cover it yourself.
>> So is this a relationship we should would promote with um the agreement with the developers that we should try to withhold? Am I hearing you? >> You put you put me on the spot. Should the city do the agreement? Look, my
recommend Look, my recommendation is yes, I think you should do the agreement. That's been our history. >> Um, but um, you know, but I don't want that to underscore Commissioner Canel's point where he's trying to get you guys to go a different avenue. So, I certainly understand that perspective.
Um, and I I think either either either way is legit. Uh the only thing I would say is this particular pioneering agreement with handover is craftfully written so that we pay our obligations
and we actually make handover's um development subordinate to other agreements. So what does that mean? That means as developments come in who who are going to be utilizing I'm I'm not going to go into the detail but I'm so I'm just going to say it. I think everybody up on this panel understands
what I'm saying for lack of time. Everybody who ends up dumping into the bypass, they will. Whether you're on in this 33 corridor or whether you're on the 27 corridor, there is a certain amount of your waste water that's going to go through section A of the bypass,
which is the Oklahoma intersection roughly back to the turnpike. So, everybody is going to be dumping into that bypass. So therefore we need to make developers agreement that makes who's t who's fronting the development of the bypass superior to
other agreements. So that's a big part of this agreement. So even I I if you choose to pay the agreement or and go the route that we have gone it's written in a fashion that now we kind of subordinate is that a word you know we
kind of subordinate whose whose fees are paid first. Um and so handovers obviously agreed to this. Um and there was communication between all the developers involved to explain the rationale of this agreement. So um I so
a the you know commissioner canel's way hey forget it if you're going to come in build it yourself or b you know do it with the pioneering agreements which we have done. And this p this particular pioneering agreement has kind several
layers in it that make it subordinate so that we can meet our obligations, collect enough impact fees to be able to meet what outstanding payments are out there and still have some impact fee money left for future improvements.
>> Any other If not, roll call. Commissioner Peterson, >> yes. >> Commissioner Reeseman, >> yes. >> Commissioner Connell, >> no. >> Commissioner Bur, >> yes. >> Mayor Barry, >> yes.
>> Um, we've already have a motion and approval for the remaining >> good. So, yes. >> So, let's go ahead and move to 6A1, public hearings and non-rine items. During public hearings and non routine items, the commission requests that
those in attendance respect the process and maintain order. As such, in accordance with Robert's rules of order, please refrain from speaking out, cheering, or applauding during these proceedings. Your cooperation helps ensure fair and respectful hearings. Um,
do we have any >> want to swear? >> I say want to >> swear for >> Yes. Thank you. I want to swear first to ask I was trying to ask you to quickly. >> Yes. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh if anyone here in the audience this evening
plans to present any evidence or testimony on item 6 A3, which is the Lake Bright Brighurst PUB reszoning, if you would please stand and raise your right hand so we can swear you all in. Do you swear or affirm
you swear or affirm that all testimony you'll give tonight will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> All right. Thank you very much. You're all set. Madam Mayor, someone please introduce 61. >> I'll introduce 6A1, two, and three to be
read by title only. >> Thank you, Madame Mayor. Dan Miller. >> 6 A1. And oh, sorry. >> An ordinance of the city of Leburg, Florida, annexing certain real property consisting of approximately 202.6 six
plus minus acres being generally located east of County Road 33 and south of Lake Bright Street and west of County Road 33 and south of Desert Lane, lying in section 3, Township 21 South, range 24 East, Lake County, Florida, provided
that said property so annex shall be liable for its proportionate share of the existing and future indebtedness of said city. provided that such annex property shall be subject to all laws and ordinances of said city as if all such territory had been a part of the city of Leburg at the time of passage
and approval of said laws and ordinances providing that such annex territory shall be placed in city commission district 4 and providing an effective date 62 an ordinance amending the future land use map of the comprehensive plan of the city of Leburg changing the
future land use map designation of certain property containing 202.6 plus minus acres from Lake County Rule to City of Leburg Estate Residential for property generally located east of County Road 33 and south of Lake Bright
Street and west of County Road 33 and south of Desert Lane, lying in section 3, Township 21 South, Range 24 East, Lake County, Florida, and providing an effective date 63. An ordinance of the city of Leburg,
Florida, changing the zoning on approximately 202.6 six plus minus acres from Lake County Agriculture to City of Leburg PUD planned unit development to allow for 502 single family residential lots for property generally located east
of County Road 33 and south of Lake Bright Street and west of County Road 33 and south of Desert Laney in section 3, Township 21 South, range 24 East Lake County, Florida and providing an effective date. Move >> for approval.
Second. >> Okay. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Dan Miller, planning and zoning. This is for the Lake Brightite Brighurst annexation larges scale comp plan and plan unit development project. This project consists of an annexation largescale comp plan and reszoning on a site of
approximately 202.6 plus or minus acres. It's generally located east of County Road 33 and south of Lake Bright Street and west of County Road 33 and south of Desert Lane. The request is for future
for approval for a future development consisting of 502 single family dwelling units. Under this request, the future land use application for the project is requesting a change from Lake County Rural to City Estate Residential and the
zoning application is requesting a change from Lake County agriculture to city of Leburg PUD, which is plan unit development. Under the responses for the city departments, there have been no substantiative comments from the city
departments. The property is outside of the city of Leburg electric service area. Uh water, waste, water, natural gas, all indicated the ability to service the project. Uh the project has gone to the school board, Lake County school board as required, and the
project is subject to the school concurrency uh review. Lake County Public Works had several comments on the project, including for County Road 33. Uh, access management requirements must be met for access points off County Road
33. Left and right turn lanes have to be provided on County Road 33 at the proposed entrances, and development will need to accommodate a land area for the West Lake Trail along the property CR33 frontage. There will also be off-site
road improvements, road drainage, and future widening of for saving space for future widening of County Road 33 along for Lake Thomas Road, which is located within the PUD, the proposed PUD. Um, any road that could potentially be
vacated must maintain accessibility and provide new rightway for any impacted property. the concept plan that is shown that is being shown would need to be revised to show access to the western parcel which is just west of their
property on the west side of 33. Um and this access would need to be a rightaway and road meeting local paved road standards under there is a roadway agreement that I would like to note here. The developer has a roadway
improvement agreement with Lake County to improve the intersection of County Road 470, 48, and CR33 in Oka Humpka. A copy of that agreement is in your packet. It describes improvements to include widening and turn lanes and
improving the intersection. Since this is a contract with the county, the applicant can provide you with more specifics on that topic. We do know it's about approximately $2 million uh request at excuse me a $2 million project at this intersection. It should
also be noted that if this project is approved by this commission, both the staff's recommendation and the PUD conditions do require the developer to initiate, construct, and complete the intersection work as described in that
contract or the property will revert under the zoning as in other PUDs to 1acre lots. Under public responses, we have received, as you are aware, many public responses to this request. In summary,
their concerns were wildlife peace and tranquility that is offered currently in the county, leaving the area intact for agriculture, concerns about neighboring cattle, uh requests for larger buffer and solid walls, too many houses and
small lots in the areas. One person did request that the conditions would be changed to one unit per acre or one one, excuse me, one acre per home site. Again, that's just a summary, but there were significant responses to this request. Under the terms of the PUD
agreement, the proposal consists of 502 multifamily residential, excuse me, 502 single family detached units on 202 plus or minus acres. That gives you a a density gross density of 2.4 units per
acre. No other uses would be permitted here. It' be single detached single family only. No town houses, apartments, uh duplexes or commercial uses. That would leave 299 50- foot wide lots and 203 60 foot lots for the total of 502.
Project is planned currently for design in four different phases. Um the proposal for the project includes design and zoning standards such as architectural requirements 35% open space, dark skylighting, maximum height
on the buildings of two floors, gutters for sideyards less than um 7 and 1/2 ft. Code compliant landscaping. A split rail fence is required along County Road 33 at a height of 4 feet. And of course the usual bea or Bermuda grass is required
instead of St. Augustine. There is also a 25- foot wide buffer tract with plantings required in the PUD and this is required along all property boundaries that are not adjacent to an existing wetland or preserved area.
Access is shown on the site plan in three separate primary access points. All of these will have to have a boulevard access which is generally considered a wider street with an 8 foot uh wide landscaping
uh burm or landscape area in between the lanes. The PUD also requires the developer to provide any and all expansions or upgrades required to those access points and roadways as needed and required by FDOT or Lake County. We stated earlier there's a 25- ft buffer
required around all property boundaries not adjacent to existing wetlands or preserved area along with the split rail fence and those buffers are required to be either undisturbed or completely replanted per the PUD. Uh Lake County of course is mandating because it's county
road mandating all of the roadways and roadway improvements and that's backed up by language in the PUD. So the developer will end up having to add turn lanes, XL del lanes, additional rightway, etc. There is 2.3 acres of park and recreation land required. That
includes two primary recreation areas, one on each side of County Road 33. That would include a swimming pool, cabana, on-site parking, and in addition, other uses could include things such as a children's pool, dog parks, children's playgrounds, excuse me, dog parks,
gazeos, and these primary recreation areas have to be constructed by the time 50% of the single family residential homes are completed. Uh, all the utilities would be in place. All the development has to be on city water and
waste water. um natural gas as well for 80% of those homes at a minimum. Um finally, we have the phasing or expiration clause which requires that the development would move forward with substantial commencement within four years or the property would have the
automatic reversion to the RE1 zoning standards which is one acre per unit. In addition to that, the contract with Lake County and the city recommendations and the PUD require that the intersections intersection improvements would be
completed within 18 months or the project would again revert to 1acre lots. So, there's some pressure there. Uh the planning commission did recommend a denial. That was a three to three tie vote and a tie votes a denial. um they cited they didn't feel like there would be enough of an improvement in the
traffic pattern and they wanted the area to stay more rural in character. Uh finally I have Mr. Ben Snyder, Mr. Tony Iorio of Hanner Holmes and Mr. Andrew McGau of GAI Associates who are here to
present represent the case and answer any questions that you may have. Thank you mayor. >> Thank you. Other comments from the petitioners presentation. >> Good afternoon. Andrew Macau with GI
Consultants. Uh our address is 618 East South Street, Orlando, Florida. I'm here on behalf of Handover Land Company, the um developer. And I do have the presentation. It's the presentation that you uh saw last time we were here about two months ago. As a refresher, I'm
happy to go through this again or else we can just jump uh to any questions you have. Your preference >> anything you do with your pleasure. >> Good to go to questions.
>> Questions? >> Yes. What about question? I I do just have one question that sure um for my information when I'm looking at the uh impact fee credits >> um the county said in here it's it's stated that they are going to off give
you 2 million and $6,489 worth of credit. How where does that number come from? Is that per unit? uh a a so the county is is has told you
that you get this up to this amount of credit >> and that is based on the number of units you're building. No, >> no, that that's based on >> that's based on the the cost of the improvements to the intersection. >> So So the
>> So it's just a tradeoff in that respect. >> Correct. Okay. >> Yep. >> Huh. Well, I don't know because usually traffic impact fees. >> Okay. So, that was I'm just going to reconfirm what you just told
Commissioner Bur here that the improvements to the intersection. All you're really doing is is taking the transportation impact fee money that you would pay as you as you pull a permit. You're just putting it up front to put the improvements into the intersection.
You're not really paying anything more up and above or anything else. need developer actually would pay. >> It's for it's pre-un. >> It is Ben Snider's 605 Commonwealth Avenue handover land company. It is uh a credit back of the impact fees. However,
uh it ensures that the impact fees that we pay in Leburg stay in Leburg as opposed to being at the discret discretion of the county to be used wherever in the county. When we approached the county about this agreement, the county didn't have uh funding to do these improvements on these intersections. So, we thought it
was a good um thing to partner with the county on to ensure that the um worst intersection on this side of the county was improved in a timely fashion before any of the units in this corridor would even hit it. So, we thought that would be a good way to address the majority of
the concerns from our neighbors from the commission on PNZ and city commission. So, that's the rationale for the improvements. the project, this project alone generates far in excess of the amount of money that it takes to improve that intersection. >> Okay. I was I was thought I was under
the understanding that that intersection was already on the county's books to to be addressed at some point. >> They had designed improvements and did not have funding to complete those improvements. >> Okay. Another question I do have uh is this
would this project have a CDD? It would be incorporated into a CDD. Yes, sir. >> Okay. And would the >> Well, it could be. It's not required to be. >> Would the CDD then for take responsibility and ownership of all the roads in there and maintain them or are
you proposing the city accept those as part of the platting process? >> That could be just um >> the PUD Commissioner PUD is written both ways. >> Exactly. Yes. And I I'm looking for a clarification. I I don't want a may. I
want a yes or a no. >> Okay. >> It could be, you know, it could be dedicated to the city. It could be incorporated into the uh CDD um at a later date. >> At a later date. What do you mean later date? >> Like at the during the platting process.
>> Okay. >> And Commissioner, just to add on to your first question about the impact fees. So the the 2.3 million that you saw in the agreement >> it if there are additional impact fee required of the development
>> um the 2.3 is a credit that >> exactly so if there's any addition to that they would still be required to pay anything in addition >> I I understand thank you though >> are there any comments from the public. >> Thank you.
>> No worries. Good evening. Kayla Phillips, 3956 Lake Bright Street. Uh the map that I provided to you, um on the left side is circled Lake Bright Street. Uh laterally in just a smidge north would be the prop
9.26 acre property that you had discussed on the 323 meeting that you had declined to annex into the city. due to the location of it from my understanding. Um I do have a couple questions. Um
how does this property differ from the Dewey Robbins Road? And then also um is this property visible to any existing city property because to me it's quite far to get here in the evenings. And then did you receive the letter from
Lake County commissioners regarding opposition of the annexation into the city of Leburg? >> I can go in time and time and again about safety, about the reasons why we move to this area for the five acres per residence and just go at nauseium.
But at the end of the day, this is where we live. You know, the people here, we live there. We chose to live in an area where it did not have the city hustle and bustle in all these neighborhoods. Our infrastructure cannot handle it. Our roads cannot handle it. And it is
extremely unsafe for new drivers of these people that would be living in those homes to drive down that road. If any of you haven't, I suggest that you do so. And we talked about that before, but um my biggest thing is just safety
concerns for the drivers, for my family. We wanted to live in a rural area and that is now being threatened and it is quite concerning. Are you able to give any response to my questions about the Lake County
Commissioners? >> Yeah, on a staff level, I think you asked like three questions there. I remember two. Um, one was, "Have we received the communication from Lake County?" Yes, >> agnosium, we have received all the
county's recommendations to deny. Second, you I think it's something about roads and can you see this area from, you know, so something like that. My response is it's within the city's ISBA interervice boundary agreement. So, this is developable potential developable
area and the city has planned accordingly. What was your third question? >> Um, how does this property differ from the parcel at Dewey Robbins Road in term in terms of the annexation considerations? >> I don't think it >> Dewey Robbins was pulled. >> You're talking about the the most recent
Dewey Robin >> from on the 323 meeting. Now, remind you >> Oh, yeah. It was pulled. >> Developer pulled >> that small one you're talking about. >> Yes. I thought you guys had made comments about it being too far outside of the >> No, when the developer got up for his presentation. I don't
>> I wasn't at that meeting. I'm sorry. I don't mean to interrupt, but at the 323 meeting, it you guys had discussed that and it was too far. >> Yeah, I think the bottom line summary is that they pulled it. >> Okay. >> Yeah, they >> Okay. >> And we don't know why they >> Okay.
>> Or I don't know why. >> Okay. All right. >> I'll I'll try to answer. give you at least my logic. I voted against the projects off off of Dewey Robbins Road because it was at the time a dirt road. Um and I was consistent there. We had
the one development that was off of Dewey south of Dewey Robbins, but it fronted 27. So I supported that one just um I just want to clarify that. But Dewey Robbins to me was a dirt road. This is a pave road. That was my big difference. Okay. If that helps or answers your question, >> it does.
>> Thank you. Are there any other comments from the public? Please state your name and address. Gerald Robinson. I live at 3520 Desert Lane. My property borders uh the development
and the intersection being improved or fixed. We have a at AB Merit Road. There's a red light now. The other day the traffic at that intersection was backed up beyond Rogers
Industrial Park almost to 48 where it was gridlocked. Those cars had to come from somewhere. The intersection is part of the problem. When I went to pull out of my driveway, there must have been 20 cars and trucks
going north. So, it took me a while to get out. Um, another thing I noticed is 33 was just repaved within the last seven, eight years and it's already got the longitudinal cracks in it where the road's separating from all the traffic
that's on it now. So, the road is going to have to get improved at some point in the near future, especially with these big trucks that's going to be delivering uh building materials, that kind of thing.
So, the congestion in our area is already a lot without there even being houses. In our particular area, in this development, most of the traffic is going to head
south. I believe there was a traffic study that said 75% is going to be going south. If that holds true for the other 300 or I'm sorry 3,600 homes that's going north of the bridge
on 33. If only 25% of them are coming south, we're going to have even more traffic on a two-lane road and that's taking up way too much space. Um, what we're looking forward to, I believe the last meeting they said something
about they've had a game changer. The way I see it, my game changer is I'm going to have more traffic. I'm going to have light pollution, so I can't use our telescope anymore. Um, we're going to lose endangered species. I've already got gopher turtles moving into my field
because the areas around it's been developed. So, I think there's a lot to consider and I I think that it should be voted no, but I have a kind of a bias because I've lived there 30 years and
now I'm fixing to see it, excuse me, go complete the opposite direction. Thank you. Hi, my name is Mario Nappa. I live in Legacy of Leburg. Um, I have the letter that was written by the county, the board of county commissioners, and it
was signed by Leslie Campion, the chair, and I assume you all got copies of this, and you understand that they are against the uh this proposal. Now, I'd like to share my own uh comments. I would like to share my perspective regarding the proposed annexation. It is my
understanding based on this letter that board of county commissioners would prefer that this property not be annexed. However, anticipating the possibility of approval, they entered into an agreement with handover to make improvements to the intersection of 40
4733 and 48 because given this commissioner this commission's history of routinely approving such requests, this appears to be a precautionary step rather than a solution. In my opinion, the planned intersection improvements amount to a temporary fix where a much
more comprehensive solution is required. These limited upgrades are not sufficient justification for adding more residential development to an already strained area. As you heard from the NO last month, current funding is inadequate to meet existing infrastructure infrastructure demands,
let alone future ones. Adding more homes will only intensify traffic congestion and infrastructure challenges. As was once stated by uh Commissioner Peterson on Lakefront TV when he was mayor, we build the houses then we worry about the
roads. I'm sure you remember that comment. >> I assure you I did not say that. >> Yes, you did. I I'll I'll get copies of that for you if you like. I I'll send you a video of it. clearly quoted me out of context. So that I know I remember that interview very well. I would love to play it one
day. >> I'll send you a video. >> That approach was flawed then and is even more problematic now. There must be a shift toward more deliberate and responsible growth. Continued annexation without restraint is not sustainable. And there is no external solution coming
to resolve these issues. There's no night and shining armor that's going to come out and and bail the city uh to make the roads more usable. I urge you to make thoughtful, responsible decisions in the best interest of your current constituents. And uh Mr. Miner,
correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe impact fees have to be used in the area in which they're collected. So even though they're collected in in this part of Leburg in Leburg, you can't use them down in South Leburg if you wanted to despite what the uh developer stated or
else they would have used money in South Leburg to fix the roads in in I mean South Lake County to fix the roads up here. I believe that's the way it works. >> Yeah. Okay. So on Yeah, I will. So there that question is specific to road
impact fees. Yes, there are. So, the road impact fees and and I I'll say that that Mr. Snyder subtly misspoke the the the the in while the money that's collected from this development being
used on the Okahunka intersections can't be spent countywide, which is what he said, they the there they are focused in Leburg. However, the the differation I think that you're seeking is that there there are I think there's five
transportation districts in Lake. I believe we're in the north what they call the west central district uh which encompasses pretty much Leburg, Fruitland Park, and Lady Lake. So impact fees that are collected in Leburg could
be spent in any of that area. It couldn't be spent down in Claremont. So I I I think the intent of Mr. Snider's question was correct because it does capture those impact fees and it makes them have to spend them in Leburg versus
the North Central District. >> Thank you. >> Hello, my name is Donna Robinson. I live at 3520 Desert Lane. Um I I don't see it. I just I don't understand why.
I stay up at night wondering why that people just want to keep pushing and pushing. All these homes coming in down 27 going toward the turnpike. It's horrible. And on these little roads, the villages are right on top of
us. I don't know if you ever go out that way. Take a drive out that way. Used to be it was all nice country cows and all that stuff, but right now with the villages coming and going toward our grocery stores in Lake Harris Landing area,
you can't get out. I mean, it's it's dangerous and they're not paying attention. I mean, if you're not on your toes. The other thing is like I don't I don't even know if I've even talked to all these folks, but right there where they're wanting to put the two exit lanes to come out of their parks is
right over the tip edge at the very tip of that where the the fire tower was. They're wanting to put it there. When you're coming from one way, you can't see it drops off so quick you can't see that part. So you're going to if you got a light there, you're going to be on top
of somebody before you know it. And that thing down at the intersection of um AB Merit, I think it is. They had so many wrecks down there. But all I know is the traffic's terrible. I don't know how in the world they're going to improve that intersection down there without a bundle
of money because you've got a gas station here, a barber shop here, and then the other three other two lots on the other side are open. But that gas station has uh underground tanks and you're going to have to if you make that a roundabout or expand that
intersection, you're going to have to do something with that BP there. I don't I I just don't see how it can be done at a at a certain price. And then we come on down to where where the yellow caution light is. I'm done sweat my brain about
what road it is. I see it so much. But they're putting some kind of a business there. a retired um nursing home for dementia patients or whatever. I'm not really sure. That's going to be right there on that corner. You go up a little bit more, they're opening a brand new
business building in there. You go past the sod place and past where Lester Coggins used to be and then they got the new plantation site and then right across the street here comes new homes coming soon. They're already selling out in that area right across the street.
So, I don't know how, you know, and and the last thing I want to say is usually when there's a wreck on the turnpike or something happens or they're evacuating, 33 is one of your main roads that they come up when there's a a wreck on the turnpike
from from down on by the Claremont way. They come up 50 and then they cut over on 33 to get to Leburg because I've seen it backed up many times. So, I thank you very much. Appreciate you. Brantley Merritt 3213 Desert Land Grove
in Florida. I like to begin with stating that I'm a seventh generation born and raised Flidian. We don't always think about what's beneath our feet, but maybe we should. Homes are about to be placed on a land that was known as a landfill. A place where trash, chemicals, and waste sat for years. And now we're expected to believe that it's safe to
live there, raise family there, raise families there, and breathe that every day, that air every day. But if that wasn't enough, here in Florida, the ground is naturally fl fragile. It's made of limestone, which can slowly dissolve and create empty spaces underground. That's what
causes that's what causes sink holes, sudden collapses that can damage homes, roads, and put lives at risk. Now, think about this. We're not just building on fragile land. We're building on the land that's already been filled with waste. That waste doesn't just disappear. It seeps into the soil. It can reach
groundwater. And that ground water is a part of our aquafer, the source of our drinking water. So what happens if that water becomes contaminated? It doesn't just affect one house. It affects entire communities. It affects people's health and it creates problems that are nearly impossible to fix. And yet construction will continue. Homes will be built and
home and families will move in. But many don't fully take a second to realize what's beneath them. Both the unstable ground and the long-term environmental risk risks. This isn't about development. It's about responsibility. We just because we can build somewhere doesn't always mean we should. We can't
predict when a sinkhole will happen. We can't easily clean a contaminated aquaort and we can't guarantee safety on land that's already been compromised. People don't People deserve better than that. We deserve to feel safe in our homes, not worried about our water or the ground beneath us. So before construction begins, we need to stop and
think about the risks we're taking. Not just for today, but for the future. Because once it's built, there's no going back. No room for regret. I'd also like to state that my grandfather is a handicap. And if he were to fall, me and my brother, we're not strong enough to raise him up because he'd be dead weight on the ground. And if I'm at school, my brother cannot do that by himself. And
my brother's usually not not even home either. And if there's an ambulance that has to get out there very quickly from Orlando Health and there's traffic and or if it's um if there's everybody's getting off work, how are they going to get out there in time before he's sitting there and he's having a heart attack or he can't breathe? Or maybe
he's cuz my grandfather, there's many times that he has caught on fire, nobody's been home to help him. What if they can't get out there in time and he's just sitting there burning and I have to walk home and find that out that the ambulance couldn't get out of there in time because all the traffic that from all these people that are getting
off their work. Thank you. >> My name is Lee Barnett. I'm at 3205 Thomas Cove Drive. Um, just a couple of things just when you talk about impact fees, just so everybody is aware, to build a house on Thomas Cove or Desert Lane right now to this size will
actually cost you 16 to$165,000 in impact fees. So, I just want you to be aware you're talking of an $8 million in impact fees where only $2 million is being invested into the junction up there of 470 and 48. So, I'm sure we
would all like to know where all this extra money is going as well. On top of that, the um the all these projects that are going in um the city of Leburg back in 2015 had a
population of 21,785 people. In 2025, you got a population of 40,487 people. You are looking at putting in around about 10,000 homes in this entire area that you are annexing in on in this
actual area. and the Florida state is 2.3 people per home. You're put pulling in another 20,000 people into the city of Leburg and the city of Leburg can't even handle the population that it has right now and none of its roads can
handle the population that we have. You're going to be putting another 10,000 cars on the road in total. On top of that, you're going to be looking at unemployment. unemployment. The state average is 4.3% right now. The city of
Leburg, their unemployment rate is 6%. Now, you're going to bring in all these extra people that are from like the villages as the villages expand into this area. The villages uh unemployment rate is 9%. Sumpty's unemployment rate is 9% because they have a large portion
of the villages and they also have a much higher foreclosure rate. The villages has a 9% foreclosure rate. It is going to make Leburg so unattractive. With a higher unemployment rate and a higher foreclosure rate, our homes aren't going to be worth nothing because
nobody's going to want to move down here. It's It's crazy. It it it really is. I mean, I understand that money is going to go somewhere else. Um, but I think that you are taking money and you are
taking it from one person and giving it to another and taking it from one person and giving it to another. Why can't these developers just give you the $8 million so we can see full transparency of it and then see how it's spent? Because all this is going, you're
handing you're going to let them do this for $2 million. You're going to let them do this for this. You're going to let them do that for that. We can't see that. We have no documentation to see where any of that $8 million is going and even if that full $8 million is being paid.
>> Thank you. >> We've heard from the staff. We've heard from the petitioners and the public. Does the commission have any Oh, excuse me. Are there any more that would if you would kindly get in a line? Could
you kindly get in a line if you have others that you'd like to speak with speak for? >> Uh I'm James Rebels. I live at 3430 Desert Lane right there. And I own about
10 plus acres in there. My Gerald's right there, the person spoke. It borders my property right there. I got a question for you. Right here is a landfill is owned by Huitt, but Huitt sold it. Part of the village is out there. How is these big heavy trucks, if
they opening this up, is going to get through here, through this subdivision to the land behind it? Okay. You know, in the past, we talked about a wall. Developer don't ain't going to do that.
Um, this year I've been living in like 35 years, you know, this year and we talked about schools. We talked about everything in the past. Okay. The first time they sprung up, the
commissioners voted down on it, I think 3 to two, and then it got voted down on it again about reszoning. Okay. And now here we are again. Okay. You know, we done said all we can say, but we talk about it. We talk about it.
Mrs. Mayor, you once said up here that y'all are really listening to us. Okay. Well, these people out here are here. They got better things to do and we hope that y'all listening to us and they'd be very grateful. You know, we talked about
the schools to um two schools got tore down in Leburg here. Best I can understand, a county appropriate some money for new schools. Best I understand, I might be wrong. Okay. But but if the county ain't
got enough money, best I can understand, to deal with this intersection, how are they going to build schools? You know what I mean? And you're talking this right here is not going to be a retirement thing. It's going to be a workingass neighborhood. And there's going to be a lot of kids in there and it's going to be an island in it. It
it's just an island separated from the city by rural land. Another question is what about the surrounding agricultural land? How is that going to affect us? Is that going to be annexed in the future if we
don't sell? You see what I mean? It's just an island. It serves no purpose whatsoever. So, only thing I'm asking y'all to do is just vote down on this for the sake of the people. You know, we put y'all in
office to help us and we hope y'all do. Okay? I mean, maybe I'm asking too much, but these people spend a lot of time coming here. They're stressed in their homes at night. They think about this all the time. And in back of their minds,
they're hoping, "Hey, listen. Maybe y'all just vote down on this because it's too far out of the city. There's too much rural land in between it. The city stops at AB Mer Road anyway. >> James, I do have a question for you. You've testified in the past through, as
you said, this has been up numerous times. I believe you had you you've said in in in past hearings that you you have you have pigs. >> Yes, sir, I do. >> And you still have those? >> Yes, sir, I do. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. >> And you know, if anybody wants to come
out and look out and they may they be just more of my guests, but problem is my pigs join. It borders that fence line. >> That that's what I thought. >> A and what's going to happen here? These people are going to come up to me. They're not going to want to smell. They're not going to want to deal with the flies. And if it rains a lot, the
pins fill up. Okay. >> Mr. Rebels, your time was at three minutes. >> Right. >> Hey, thank you. Are there any other comments from the public? Please come up front. Come. He's already spoken to.
>> It's um You can go ahead, sir. Yes. >> Gerald Robinson, 3520 Desert Lane. Um can we see the slide of the layout of the development with the uh acreages? Uh the one that Yeah, there you go. Um there should be another slide that has
it a column down the side with the number of homes, lot sizes, that kind of thing. This is a 200 200 and something acre uh development. And if you take away the green space and
all that stuff, it's going to crowd 52 homes into a little over 102 I think it is acres. When I calculated it was 90, I think it was 98 acres of it is going to be green space and
recreational. So the 500 homes on 200 acres doesn't really show that it's 500 homes on a little over a 100 acres. Thank you. >> Are there any further comments from the public?
>> Question for the petitioner. >> Yeah. the uh the concern that was voiced uh with the road that goes into the uh and I understand it's not it's a construction debris
landfill. Correct. So h how has that been addressed or what what's the current plan for that road? So the current plan, if you can pull it up, we are showing that there is access from a road in the project to >> to the south.
>> It's to the directly to the west. So if you could go down a few slides, >> keep going to the site plan there. Yeah. So the the property they're referencing is to the west and so there is um an access
to city road standards leading to >> the the development schedule is proposed to be um not developed that phase until that CND is completely closed out and capped. And so we have it in our projections and we've met with the new
property owner and told them you know we will provide you public access and we won't develop down there until you are completely done filling that. So we won't be building directly adjacent to a active CND. >> Thank you. >> Yes sir. >> Ben Ben, if I recall you're granting
them an easement to cross it for a period of time. >> It's already a public road. So we just we told them we are not going to ask you to reorient your public road. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So uh that would be phase four. Is that what this was going to be? So could we
put some language in the PUD that says exactly what you just said that section 4 will not be developed until the landfill is capped. Was that >> I don't >> so that way the you know the road is
>> or the road is closed or abandoned? >> Yeah, >> it's developed in four phases and this would be the last phase here where the landfill >> the CN Do you oppose if we were to do that? Is there any reason? >> No, that's that's the development plan. >> That's what your plan is anyway, right? >> That's what our plan is anyway.
>> Yeah. So, I'd like to make a motion that we amend the PUD to say that the Let's see. Does it have a name? on the P >> or on the Yeah, this is Let's wait. We're going to have to wait on that. >> I'll withdraw it right now. We'll wait till we're talking about P.
>> So, this is >> as part of the proposal, you would be vacating Lake Thomas Road and creating a new road to this landfill >> at a later point when we develop phase four. Yes, sir. That's the plan to
continue to allow him public access to his property. So, Lake Thomas Road is is not part of any of your initial phases. >> It is through phase 4, but not contemplated in that plan because we
contemplated waiting until it was no longer needed for the CND public facility or CND facility in order to propose vacating it. >> So, the proposed access to the landfill additionally will be in phase one, two
or three. No sir, there proposed access to the landfill remains exactly as it is until the landfill is closed out. It's a road through phase 4, >> which is like >> which is existing. Yes, sir. And we didn't propose to do anything with that until we get to phase four to develop it
and we propose to develop phase four after uh the CND is >> So when you get to phase four and you abandoned Lake Thomas, how where's the access to the land to this property that landfill's on now? Where's that going to be? exactly where it's shown on the 50ft rightway on that layout.
>> What phase would that be >> in phase four? >> In phase four. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> So, that's a south road that comes off of 33. >> It's the south Yes, sir. The south road that comes off of 33 and then punches to the west. >> And when you say they're done with it,
you you don't you don't have a time frame on when the landfill will >> That's up to how they run their business. I mean, it could be I mean, it really is their business. So, >> so you're willing to roll the dice that
this landfill never closes down. You just never develop phase four or five. >> We would hope that it eventually closes down. Most of them close down, commissioner, and we think that this one will do the same. >> Okay.
>> Okay. >> A question. You don't mind? >> It concerns this. >> Oh, go ahead, sir. Okay, >> I got a question here because I live out here. All my name is James Rebels live
at 3430 Desert Lane. This Thomas Road, are they talking about Thomas Cove Road? >> The reason I'm saying is there's is this uh Thomas Road going to be inside the subdivision? Is that what he's saying? I was going to
say because there's a road north of it right here that is Thomas Cove Road and you can't get around to this landfill because it's separated by a marsh. So the only access forever
is going to be through this subdivision and this could take years. >> South end of >> Yeah. Well, the south end of it down here at the bottom is actually a uh greenhouse thing and there's no road there. Not unless they put a road. See,
right there is where I'm pointing at the south end and and there's houses right there. I don't see no road there. I think what the petitioner is saying is if they need to move the provisional road that is in their development to the
south end of their development, they so that the person behind them still has access. >> Well, that means they're going to have to redo these homes in here at the south end because it looks like it's all houses in there at the moment. I can only tell you what the
>> I mean because these landfills could take years to fill years. I mean look how many years the landfill has took in the villages. They still put it in there. And and this right here, I live there and there's gas vent pipes that's
coming out of it. And that landfill caught on fire one time best that I can remember cuz fire trucks are going for days and days in there because they had a above ground burn pit there. A and if memory serves me right, don't
quote me on it, but I think it caught fire. And then all the methylane gas that's coming out of this landfill through PVP pipe sticking on above it and and and he's going to put houses right there to all that.
That just that's bad. My opinion here is that this thing is zoned agricultural, right? 5 acre tracks, 202 acres. Let the let them sell it. I mean, if the landowners don't want it, put 40 houses in there. I mean, because it's gonna be
less impact and everything and and and then this landfill right here. I just it it it's not good sense. It's not good sense. And the road issue. Well, this road issue must I can hear it's all over the place.
I mean, are we going to put it at the south end? I see houses there. You see what I mean? And you can't come around it because of the marsh from the north end. And that's protected by St. John's. Thank you.
If you could go up a few slides to the aerial. So this kind of white line you see here, this is the existing road that accesses uh the site to the west. So that that
will remain in place until phase five phase four commences which will be the last phase of the project. So the access will remain just as is until as you are suggesting the the the landfill closes
and then at that at that time it would be replatted into the subdivision >> and the property owner of the land would still have access. >> Yes. Exactly. >> Yep. With the new the new road system.
been going over the road improvements at 470 33 and 48. >> Absolutely. If you could go down towards the bottom to the >> one question, please before you go, before you do that, can you state when
you went and when you requested from this county to make arrangements to provide the road improvements after I think that was our second meeting, third meeting? >> You mean when >> back? Yeah. Yeah. A year ago. Yeah. For
presentation. >> You mean when Hanover engaged the county? >> Yes. Just curious before you go there. I'm sorry. >> Last year sometime, Mr. Mayor. I mean, I don't remember the exact date. I can look it up. >> Oh, I just wanted to know time frame. Go ahead. Yeah. SE. Okay.
>> So, uh just as a quick summary of uh and reminder of the improvements that are proposed. So this is the intersection of 470 and 48 and 33 and um it will consist of uh new turn lanes in so in some
directions where there were not turn lanes before there will be new turn lanes installed. Um the entire intersection basically the the entire area you see here will be mil and repaved. Um it'll be restriped. There
will be crosswalks added on all of the legs of the intersection. The overall geometry of the intersection will be improved to become uh safer geometry. So the the radi of the turns will be
improved. They'll be softened. Uh there will be new shoulders installed. Um overall the there will be widenings. So overall in in certain places the intersection will will be widened. Uh, and then the drainage will be improved
over the the full intersection. >> Will this require new lights as well? >> Uh, I believe there are new lights to be installed. >> Will they be the what did the MO call them? Smart lights or smart intersection? >> I didn't know. Well, with we're putting new lights here, I didn't know if
there'd be that. >> Joe Zabalero, um, traffic mobility consultants, 988 Woodcock, um, road, Orlando, Florida, 3283. So um when you're talking about smart lights, are you talking about the detection of the of the of the um
because from my perspective there they they'll have improved detection for the the light so that they can um accommodate the whatever is coming into the intersection and adjusted the lights and the timing with that. >> The last meeting the no Mike Woods
mentioned something about that and I was just curious. Okay. Any further questions? >> I have a few for staff. If you're done with public comment, >> are there any more public comments, please? >> Go ahead,
>> Dan. I just want to recap a few things that's been discussed tonight. Yes, sir. Just for staff to be on the record, the to the west of the subject property, a buddy of the subject property to the west is is is indeed a landfill. >> Yes, sir. That's correct.
>> Which I believe is called CR33 Landfill LLC. >> Believe that is correct. As James has testified tonight, that would be to the north, I think, of the property of subject property. North,
James, North. >> No, you your property. >> Oh, >> yes. >> Okay. So, so the north of the property is pigs. >> That is correct. >> Okay. So, we have a landfill on the west side, pigs on the north side.
And the access to the landfill will remain in effect off of Lake Thomas until they get to phase four, I believe, is what's been testified to. >> Yes. Yes, sir. >> So, it'll it'll remain an active landfill through phase one, phase two, and phase three.
>> Yes. Um, and did he did the developer testify that they would not develop phase four or phase 5 until the landfill was completely out of business? >> I believe he did. Till it was closed.
>> Until it was closed. >> Just closed. Yeah. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. But with no date at all when that might be. But anyway, so phase one, two, or three will operate with a landfill in their backyard and pigs to the north of >> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. That was that that was the clarification I wanted to get from you. >> Okay. Anything else? >> No, sir. I think that >> Yes, sir. >> Any further questions? >> I just want to recap if I mean I I don't want to be redundant here, but uh one
other question I do have for Dan though, if you don't mind. One other question I do. >> What what is the the the zoning basically around this whole this whole subject property? What is the what is existing zoning that surrounds this property? >> Um the property and all the property
around it right now is zoned agriculture. >> So it's all a everything out there, >> which would make sense with a landfill and pigs. Thank you, sir. >> Yes, sir. >> Um okay, I just want to recap on a couple things. We get landfill to the
west of the property. We have pigs, hogs to the north of the property. Um, we have proposed 502 units still going onto a two-lane road.
the intersection improvements. As I said earlier, you know, I I know it's being proposed that they're doing all this the intersection, good Samaritans, whatever, but all they're really doing is taking the impact fee money and paying some of it up front and throwing some money in the intersection. I've looked at the
improvements. It's some turn lanes. I really don't see it's almost like a band-aid on a knife wound. uh based on the amount of traffic we're going to be putting on this road with all these developments. I I really don't think long term it's it's going to do much of anything. Um and they're getting credit for putting the money up front. So
they're really not doing anything any other developers not doing. It's just paying couple million upfront versus as they go. They were non-committal on the CDD if this project were approved. They were non-committal on the CDD taking and maintaining ownership of the roads for
maintenance. Um, we don't know what's going to go on in the rear the property, the west, when the landfill actually stops, I guess, but we have to that road's got to be maintained to get back to that property. We have no idea what's going to go on
it. And I and the whole the whole area all the property surrounding it to include the subject property is all agg. I mean can we not in Leburg have any
rural property left in Leburg that's not covered with rooftops and asphalt? I mean I I asked the commission to really consider all these factors when we get ready to vote here in a minute. Thank you. May we have other co commissioners to
deliver it? You okay? You okay? Let's call the vote 4618 annexation. >> Commissioner Eastman, >> yes. >> Commissioner Conell, >> no. >> Commissioner Bur, >> yes. >> Commissioner Peterson, >> yes. >> Mayor Barry, >> yes.
Motion for 6 A2. >> So moved. >> Commissioner Conneal. >> No. >> Commissioner Bur? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Peterson? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Reeseman? >> Yes. >> Mayor Barry?
>> Yes. >> Motion for 683, please. So moved >> second >> discussion. >> Any further discussion? >> Yes. >> Uh I would like to add a uh to that PUD
that uh I think it's partial 1701414 must have that continuous access. Uh phase four cannot be commenced until the landfill is closed pursuant to all regulatory agency standards.
>> If if you make that amendment that probably you probably want to stick that in the transportation section, Dan. >> Yes. >> Somewhere in paragraph 8 of the PUD. >> So you have a motion on the >> I just made that. >> I'll second that motion. >> I I Okay. Well, I just want to add to
you if you if they're going to move forward with this then I think the PUD should have in there too that the CDD has to be responsible for the roads in here too. We shouldn't we shouldn't take these roads as part of the plat
>> and I understand your concern Dan the PUD reads may. Is that correct? >> That is correct. On roads have be every road has to be built to city standards. built the city standards, but the city may. >> Right. But hold on. Commissioner Canel may want to exact and and be specific
and take he he alluded to that during discussion. I >> So he So let me commissioner just bear with me one second. There's a paragraph in there specifically that you will want to strike >> and I I I believe it's 8 H1, but let me
let me look at it real quick. >> Dan, if you can help me out here. Yes, 8H1. >> It It's 8. So, you'll want to strike 8H1 because that gives the contemplation of dedication and 8H2
is the one that talks about you have to create a CDD. So if you take out paragraph 8H1, there will be no dedication of the road. Do you agree with that? >> I agree with that. >> Okay. So you would So So you here, let me suggest this to you. You have a
motion on the floor to amend it with the language that's spelling out um specific criteria that affects Lake Thomas Road. Why don't you vote on that and then come back and Commissioner Canel, if you want
to add a a change to the PUB that strikes that paragraph, let's do that in the second round of modifications to the PUB. >> There's a motion. >> So, the motion on >> on the floor is to amend the specific um
specifications for Lake Thomas Road >> as as as stated by Commissioner Bur. >> Commissioner Bur. So, we have a second. So, roll call. >> Well, here's one question just for clarification. >> This PED will vote on is is basically allowing the 52 units.
>> Yes. >> Okay. So there's a motion on the floor the mayor asked for which is the amendment that Commissioner Bur stated which were the second >> which states that the the parcel to the west which is identified as number 170
414 that must have continuous road access. And part B of that is section phase four of the development cannot commence until the landfill is closed and closed pursuant to all regulatory
standards. So that that's an amendment to the PED that's on the floor. It's been seconded and now you need to vote on that. >> Commissioner Bur? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Peterson? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Reeseman? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Connell? >> No. On the amount of units. >> Mayor Barry,
>> yes. Mr. Canel, if you wanted to add an amendment that strikes section 8H1. >> May I would make a motion to strike H81 in the U in the PUD and it so by
striking that that means if this passes the C the CDD will have to be responsible for the roads. >> Yes. >> Okay. I make that motion >> and I'll I'll second that. Um >> just for discussion because >> one point of clarification if I may. >> Yeah. >> Does that require it to be a CDD or can
it be an HOA or >> could be an HOA? >> Does it make any difference? >> Say whoever whoever has whoever's going to take the responsibility. >> Thank you. >> It's been moved and properly second to amend the um PUD for CDD or HOA. Am I
stating that right? >> Pretty much. Yeah. I my question is to Grant and it's it's not that I want to take the roads. I I like the fact that new development should pay for itself and I like how that is done and that's
this body making that decision. My only concern is that eight years from now when none of us are here and it's a different set of minds, if we take the word may and make it a no, then it's
it's a cut and dry thing. A different commission may want to decide differently with the wording may. And from a legal standpoint, it's probably not a good word, Grant. I don't know. But I just think it gives the body an
opportunity to say, "Yeah, we'll take the roads or no, we won't take them." >> It does. That does allow the option. Yes. >> And I thought we were we are taking roads back now, even from subdivisions
that were built, you know, before we even monitored the roads. My point is, I know I started this on a prior another handover development where I wanted them to take responsibility for a boulevard that went through the project because I thought it would be heavily traveled by the public. But we didn't I guess other
than that, we've been pretty consistent in saying when it's built, we'll take responsibility for the roads. I mean, this is a whole change in policy for what we've been doing the last five years if as long as the commission understands that. >> Yeah. Dan is, you know, I know our uh PUDs have evolved with under, you know,
this commission quite a bit. Um, is that word may put into the road question, is that a new thing or is it always been like that? >> It's been in there for the last several years. It's actually the word the wording is should the permitty or designate choose to retain the roadways,
they shall establish an appropriate legal density. And then it goes on to say that would be a homeowners association. Um, and it does not deny them the opportunity to plat the development and turn the roads over to
the city. So, >> when we first started, we first started this, we had a big debate on being sure the roads were built to, you know, properly and all that. Um, as long as they're built properly, you know, we were willing to take them back is my understanding, Al.
Yes. >> Yes. >> Need more explanation than yes. I think the this I think the struggle has been with the the the PUD's I is is both Commissioner Canel's and Commissioner
Bur's concerns tied together in subdivisions where we have said we ain't going to take it. We we as a city, we lose a little bit of track as far as construction management. So the roads get built, they go in and
then sure as we're sitting here, there's issues with the roads and then those residents come to the natural source to get the roads fixed, which is the city. And that happened in Lake Denma estates >> because the HOA doesn't have the money >> or or whatever because the HOA doesn't
have the money or they're still phased. So that becomes problematic. And then the residents look to the city to fix the roads. As a result of that process, we started going, "Yeah, we'll we'll accept dedication." And some PUDs, I think, have been very specific that we're going to dedicate it. But then
some of the PUDs have had to stay under boiler language that have gone back and forth. In this specific case, I think Commissioner Canel's position is the this overriding factor which over which which supersedes the discussions that we
had is we don't want to take the roads. So therefore, keep them outside the city's maintenance requirement. Hence the concept and the discussion we're having. So it really becomes up to you all
whether you want to leave the you you've added the restriction about >> the west property. So that's in the that's been adopted. Now the question becomes do you want to be more specific? I'll also indicate that if you do strike
paragraph 1A, then we probably need to change the language a little bit because the intent by striking paragraph one, the intent is we won't accept dedication. So, we probably need to add some language into paragraph 8H2,
renumber it, and say there shall be no dedication. Therefore, the the the PUD is required to have a CDD, HOA, or an entity that has the responsibility of future road care and maintenance. >> Probably we need to add that in.
>> I think we could probably strike out that first part of the sentence in H2. Should the permit or designate choose to retain the roadways, strike that out. So it starts with the permit shall establish an appropriate legal entity that shall accept >> and I pontificate that if you pass this
that gives Grant the a little bit of flexibility to scribner changes that make a pursuant to the motion which is we don't want to take these roads. So therefore, grant will touch up the PUD
with we're not taking dedication to the roads. >> I I agree with that. >> Probably if we're going to add that, we probably should say road and storm water improvements as well >> because then then next we're going to get next we're going to get the complaint. Well, we'll fix the storm
water but not the road. So you guys probably should be clear that the intent of and Commissioner Canel's nodding we're not going to accept dedication of storm water and road improvements and stick it in that paragraph H 8H something.
>> Yeah. So, when all this came up, I don't know, three, four, five years ago, um I mean, how this how this evolved to help me out, Al was we had a subdivision where the developer turned it over to the HOA, was not maintaining the roads, and we
had to come in. Yeah. Because residents were upset. So, we came in and had to take over the So, we made a decision to repair the roads. >> Actually, you're let me I don't Cliff, help me on the in Lake Denim. I don't believe actually I don't believe we
coughed up any funds to fix those roads. So in that in that spe that's a no. >> We have not. >> Yeah for that >> there was. So we so with lake denim estates. So you know in in that particular case I think you know the
process worked. >> Let me interrupt you. I may be going back further because >> well I think it was a subdivision before that one. I don't I don't remember. Let's >> because I'll stop, but I was going to say was the issue was we also amended our policy where we want we had to be in
more involvement in the roads. They had to be built to certain specs because we found out that we were taking roads back from old subdivisions where they weren't built properly. Does that all >> I I I think we have a similar recollection. I think our intent is the same. I I have
it spec specifically framed to Lake Denim Estates is where we ran into that issue because we've got a we got a number of residential complaints. So, while the residents aren't going to say the process worked, I think the city
will say the process worked. And the process worked in that when we started getting complaints from the Lake Denim state HOA, my office and Cliff's office, we worked with the HOA, we worked with the the the developer and we we
obstensively the city I think we were able to force the correct improvements. I think we might have done that with the deed of dedication like we're never going to take these pursuant to the agreement if you don't do this fix. and I don't think we've accepted dedication of those roads, but they got fixed. So,
at the end of the day, the residents had some pain, but the city was able to leverage our position to get the roads fixed. I think from that experience, we started saying, "Ah, they're going to come to us anyway." And so there was one or two subdivisions that we were and I
don't PUDs that we did specifically say we're we'll take them but then I think we started to back off that and the boilerplate language of A or B kind of weave itself back into PUDS. So on this
in this particular case um I I don't have a recommendation for you. I it um ultimately I I I think what's going to happen is is is residents who live in a PUD that has failing
infrastructure, their position is going to be to come to the city to get the city to fix it and eventually we will or you know we'll we'll do our best to leverage that improvement.
It it's not easy if we don't own the street. Um the other side of the equation is if we own the street, yeah, we'll fix it because it's ours to fix and that and that's what we do. Um and that method is cleaner, but it doesn't necessarily say that the issue won't get
fixed. Does that make sense? So, it's cleaner, it's cleaner, it's easier to take dedication, >> right? There's still some some punch to not dedicate roads to the city and they still get fixed, but that road's a
little bit harder. But what you get on the flip side is you get the certainty that the road impacts aren't going to hit your general fund budget. >> You said it much better than I did. So, >> so I think there's a motion on the floor
to strike paragraph >> H1 and modify paragraph 8H H2 so that it doesn't take dedication of the roads and that the roads remain in ownership of
the CDD or another agency that has ultimate responsibility for maintenance of the road for the prepared opportunity of the subdivision and storm water >> and storm water. >> Yeah. And I already seconded that. But shouldn't we >> and that's Commissioner Canel's motion. >> But but shouldn't >> and you seconded it.
>> Yes, I did. Shouldn't we hear from the petitioner whether they'll even accept those changes to the PUD? >> My suggestion is you don't need to hear from them. It's your decision to make and if they don't like it, they're going to withdraw their petition. >> And they're not.
Roll call, I guess. >> So, there's a vote on the motion, which is to strike the the the >> H1 and modify H2H H2 >> and add in the roads as well as the storm. >> Yes. So,
>> roll call. Commissioner Peterson. >> No. >> Commissioner Reeseman. >> Yes. Commissioner Conell. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Bur, >> no. >> Mayor Barry, yes. >> So now you're into motion. So now you're
on the the PUB as amended vote. This is this would be the final vote. >> Okay. So we're voting on 683. >> 683 as amended. as amended. >> But no, this is the this is the one
that's approving the the the amount of units. So, >> yes, that's all in there. Yes, sir. >> Welcome. >> Commissioner Eastman, >> yes. >> Commissioner Conell, >> no. On the density. >> Commissioner Bur, >> yes. >> Commissioner Peterson, >> yes. >> Mayor Barry,
>> yes. Would someone please introduce ordinance 6 A4? >> I'll introduce ask by title one. >> An ordinance of the city of Leburg, Florida, amending chapter 4, aircraft and airports, article 2, standards for
operate operators and airport tenants. section 4-19 parentheses C leases of the code of Ordinance to authorized approval of standard lease forms and rent rates for certain airport rentals and to authorize execution of standard lease
forms by the city manager providing for inclusion in the code of ordinances providing for severability and conflicts and providing for an effective date >> for approval. >> Second. Any comments? Anyone comments? Roll call. Thank you.
Commissioner Reeseman. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Conell. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Commissioner Bur, >> yes. >> Commissioner Peterson, >> yes. >> Mayor Barry, >> yes.
And next one is 6B1. Will someone introduce? >> I'll introduce aspir total only. 61. An ordinance of the city of Leburg, Florida, dissolving the Terara Oaks Community Development District pursuant
to section 1 190.046 046 parenthesis 10, Florida statutes, finding that the district has no outstanding financial obligations and no operating or maintenance responsibilities, providing for repeal of ordinances in conflict, providing for severability, and
providing for an effective date. >> Have a motion. >> Uh yeah, just a question and more a question for Grant. Um why do I want to get out of of uh holding them to a
you know a development standard? You know, we've approved about seven of the I think of these in the Le, you know, greater Leburg area. And you know, it was my understanding that they were like, you know, we don't have the burden
of the new infrastructure on our taxpayers. And there was a lot of good things for the city while you approved these. And so all of a sudden, they don't want it. Well, they already got it. So why should I be voting? You know, you know what I'm saying?
Yes, sir. There's been some uh family issues, some people that have passed away, and what they want to do is uh they they've decided that at this time the district is no longer necessary. We anticipate that they will have to come back in the future once the new ownership is settled because there's
nothing for them to do at this time. >> Dan, is there language in that PUD that they have to get a CDD as well? >> No, sir, there's not. Um, in though that's a very old PUB, went back to 2005 and I think we amended it around 2017 or 18.
>> Um, what we're anticipating is that they will need to uh redo a new CDD or HOA, one or the other, but I believe they'll want a new CDD. We will contact their legal firm and find out. I
understand that because there were deaths in the family that they don't have the right people to make up the district anymore, but we'll find out more for you. >> Yeah. I just I you know, my question is what's in it for us? >> We can on this until Dana has more information. >> It's a first read.
>> It's first reading. So, >> I know, but do you want to set the first reading up for or the second hearing? We don't have to do it at the next meeting. They >> may may we call their attorney's office in the morning because I noticed I
didn't see them here and um they have advertising requirements that they have to meet that are outside what the city has to do per chapter 190 of Florida statutes. >> They have to advertise hearings. >> We can march forward. If Dan doesn't have your your answers at the next
meeting, you guys can kick the can then. >> Yeah. So keep moving forward on this with that question being answered before your final vote. >> Generally I don't know if there's a good reason why >> missing something. I don't >> concerns understood. We'll dig into it.
A great question. Um yeah we'll >> we'll try to satisfy your answers before this comes back to you on second reading. >> Yes sir. >> So this is >> to learn something. The pe stays in place. This is just >> Yes. >> I guess that's where I thought you were going with this. Maybe tying them together. We'll we'll get more info for
you for the time this comes back. Otherwise, you could >> I was looking at Commissioner Bur when he said, "What's in for us?" I didn't know if we wanted if there's any issues with the PUD. We can talk about the second read. >> We'll we'll make sure to express the gravity of the situation to the developers and we'll have better answers
for you. I It'd be the next meeting when this comes back. >> Yeah. So, >> we understand if you're not happy it could be a no and Dan will express that. >> Well, maybe I can explain it. You know, >> understood. There's more information >> and just call me in the morning. >> Understood.
>> So, do I need to make um what's the statement to understand at this time? >> Until we can move to next item. >> Okay. So, will someone please introduce um 6C1? >> I'll introduce and ask be by title only. >> Discussion item. May meeting falls on
the observed holiday of Memorial Day, May 25th. We we just need you to make a motion to have the meeting on the 26th >> so we're so we're compliant with the the the charter >> charter >> motion to uh move the >> what's the current >> regular meeting
>> the regular meeting on Memorial Day May 25th to the following Tuesday May 26 >> roll call >> Commissioner Conal >> yes >> Commissioner Bry >> yes >> Commissioner Peterson >> yes >> Commissioner Eastman >> yes >> Mayor Barry Yes.
>> Um 61. Would someone please introduce >> introduce be title only? >> Resolution of the US Highway 44127 Community Redevelopment Agency of the City of Leburg, Florida, authorizing the chairperson and secretary to execute a
resolution approving fiscal year 2026 facade sign and landscape grant awards and providing an effective date. approval. >> Second comments. >> This is the same issue that you hit
before. Grant and I during meetings, we kind of had a little bit of a sidebar. I'm under the impression that this is being applied equally to everybody throughout the county. So, I'm going to ask you to approve it. If I find out different, I'll be back to you.
So, we had to do this in three capacities. the downtown CRA, the Carver Heights CRA, and the 44127 CRA. And because this body is the 44127 CRA board, you can do this as the city commission. >> I just want to say it's a breath of
fresh air that that Southside Shopping Plaza's getting some long-standing issues resolved. >> Oh, the save a lot. >> The save a lot, the dumpsters. Um, I'll say it at my ending, but thank you Diane for all your hard work. >> Yes. Roll call. Commissioner Bur.
>> I'm a yes. >> Commissioner Peterson. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Reeseman. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Conell. >> Yes. >> Mayor Bry. >> Yes. >> Informational reports. No action for charter.
Um move to city attorney items. >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. I have no reports this evening. Thank you. city manager. >> Just two quick ones. First, my apologies there because I think Commissioner Reeseman just saw I messed up and I did.
I was talking at the on that last item on the on the CRA. You guys were approving the FSL grant. I think y'all knew that. I was still talking about the Yeah. So, and that is and and actually, you know, Commissioner Peterson's been on me forever about that. So, uh just want to point that out. Next issue, too.
And I don't want to belabor the Susan Street thing. I it it was in the packet, but you you're getting that that additional money from shifting money from overage in the Main Street project. So that we were about a million and a half over. So you're just shifting those
DST monies that were fiscical year 25 monies and you're shifting that into that was part of the recommendation in the staff report. So you're not digging into your pocket for cash or future year special revenues to do that project. So I I just wanted to to for the public's
edification really and other than that I don't have anything else >> and we are going to make best efforts to keep those remaining budgeted funds to improve downtown >> or as the commission may deem appropriate. >> I I was talking to my fellow commissioners right there commissioner
who has an idea where to spend some some of that but that's you know we will take care >> and let me let me explain why I said that comment. You know, the the money's been I'll be careful how I say this, not a criticism, but the downtown money has been over the years every was continually spent elsewhere, elsewhere,
elsewhere. And the parking garage and other downtown improvements got kicked down the road and luckily this commission came around and and you know, we finally got it done. So, thank you. >> Roll call. >> Mr. Bur. >> I thought I had something, but I can't
think what it was. It must not have been important. Sorry, >> Commissioner Kaneo. >> No, I guess not. >> Commissioner Reeseman, >> I did talk to the city at city manager about this. Uh, one of the boards is expiring and they just got going and
their funding and things like that. So, I asked the city manager if I could do this if you guys would be okay. Um, before I make a motion, I would like to make a motion about extending the Bloom Leburg and Bloom's term till our January 6th organizational meeting just to give them a little more time. They're just
now getting going if you guys would be open to that. >> So, all right. So, I'll make a motion to extend the Leburg and Bloom appointees to the January 6th organizational meeting. >> January 6, 27. >> 27. >> The beautifification commutation. >> Okay. >> And a second.
>> I second that. >> It's been moved and properly second to May. We get >> ma'am. Roll call. >> Commissioner Brie, >> yes. >> Commissioner Connell, >> yes. >> Commissioner Bry, >> yes. >> Commissioner Peterson,
>> yes. >> Mayor Barry, >> yes. >> Thank you. And a couple other things. Um, obviously Leburg Bikefest will be happening soon. So hopefully everyone comes out for that. It'll be a great time. Um, again, I've said it a couple times. Thank you Diane and her team and for all the hard work on the FSL grants.
Um, regarding the parking project, if staff could maybe do like some PSA or door knocking with all the downtown businesses just to let them know what's happening, when it's happening, the timeline, all of that stuff so it doesn't catch any of the downtown businesses off um off catch them off.
And then um I don't think we hear it enough and I said some I've heard it twice in the last week and uh just talking to people around the community. Um I know we get a lot of negative, but I think it's also good to say the positive from different demographics from young to senior citizens to young
couples to people that just moving here. City of Leburg thinks they think we're doing a great job and to keep doing what we're doing. So with that, that's it for me. >> M Peterson, >> nothing tonight. Mayor Barry. >> Um, I just want to say thank you to the
commission for your patience and continue to continuing to strive to making Leburg better. Um, making suggestions while we work and meet here together and listening to all the constituents as they come through. That's very important. And believe it or
not, we are listening. Um, and I just want to ask you all, thank you again for your patience with me as well. That's it for me, >> Madame Mayor. I I did think of what I >> what I wanted to say. Uh when Mike Woods was here uh last meeting, he mentioned
that there was grant money available for some type of a position that would work as like a professional staff with traffic light synchronization. >> That's what I was referencing earlier. >> It was smart.
>> And that I want us to follow up on that to uh you know, >> my understanding was that was in the future. Uh you talking about >> I don't know when it is. You want to be on it because that's the only way we're going to move traffic. >> That's actually >> I talked to Al about that. >> We Cliff and I will get you a report.
Okay. >> Yeah. He didn't give us a timeline. He just did say >> yeah it was something. So I just want to call wanted to follow up on that. >> No card motion to Yes. second. >> Thank you.