ready. >> We'll call the Monday, November 10th commission meeting to order. If you would please stand for the invocation and pledge. Dear heavenly father, we come to you this evening. and we ask that you give us wisdom to make the best decisions for our city of Leburg in your precious name. Amen.
>> I pledge algiance 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. >> We have no proclamations or
presentations. We will move to uh public comments. This section reserved for members of the public to bring up matters of concern or opportunities for praise. Please note that issues raised during this time will not be discussed in detail during the current meeting. They will either be referred to the appropriate staff or scheduled for consideration at a future city
commission meeting. Each speaker is allocated three minutes to provide their comments. Kindly adhere to this time limit to ensure equal opportunity for all participants and to support the efficient conduct of the meeting. Thank you. Are there any public comments this evening? Seeing none, we'll close public comments and move to the consent agenda.
Routine items are placed on the consent agenda to expedite the meeting. If the commissioner staff wish to discuss any item, the procedure is as follows. One, pull the items from the consent agenda. Two, vote on the remaining items with one roll call vote. And three, discuss each item pulled and vote by roll call. Are there any items the commission would
like to pull this evening? Seeing none, I'll take a motion to approve the consent. >> I move that we accept the items listed and this consent is listed. So, we have a motion. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Any public comments?
Seeing none, roll call. >> Commissioner Cono, >> yes. >> Commissioner Bur, >> yes. >> Commissioner Peterson, >> yes. >> Commissioner Barry, >> yes. >> Mayor Reman, >> yes. Moving on to public hearings and non-Rine items. During public hearings and non-Rine 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 a fair and respectful hearing. I would now ask that our city attorney swear on anyone speaking on any of the first or second readings this evening. >> Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Anybody
here who's present this evening who would like to speak on item 63, which is the Oakidge PUD resoning first uh second reading or uh 6B1 banning 5 PUB reszoning uh first reading. If you would please stand, raise your right hand so
you can be sworn in. You swear affirm that all testimony you'll give tonight will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. All right. >> Thank you all. We're ready, Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you, city attorney. Would someone please introduce 6 A1, two, and three to be read by total only?
>> Introduced as be read by title only. Thank you. >> 6 A1, an ordinance of the city of Leburg, Florida, annexing certain real property consisting of approximately 596.29 29 plus minus acres being generally located east of County Road 48
and south of Ronald Reagan Turnpike lying in sections 28, 29, and 32, Township 20 South, range 24 East, Lake County, Florida, providing that said property so annex shall be liable for its proportionate share of the existing and future indebtedness of said city,
providing that such annex property shall be subject to all laws and ordinances of said city. As of 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 3 and providing an
effective date. 6 A2, 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 596.29 29 plus minus acres from Lake County rule to city of Leburg
estate residential per property jerry located east of county road 48 and south of Ronald Reagan turnpike lying in sections 28 29 and 32 township 20 south range 24 east lake county Florida and providing an effective date 6 A3 an
ordinance of the city of Leburg Florida changing the zoning on approximately 596.29 29 plus minus acres from Lake County Agriculture to City of Leburg PUD planned unit development to allow 910 single family attached and detached
units for property generally located east of County Road 48 and south of Ronald Reagan Turnpike lying in sections 28 29 and 32 township 20 South range 24 East Lake County Florida and providing an effective date.
Motion to approve. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Thank you, uh, Mr. Miller. >> Thank you, Mr. Miller. Dan Miller. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Dan Miller, planning and zoning. This is the uh Oakidge PUB. Under the background
for this this project, generally located east of County Road 48 and south of the Florida Turnpike, the project does include an annexation, large scale comp plan, and reszoning to PUB. The site consists of approximately 596.28 plus or minus undeveloped acres. The
request is for future development of 910 attached and detached single family residential units and associated amenities. The overall proposal gives us a comp plan request of county rural to city of Leburg
uh low dens uh excuse me estate density residential and the zoning request would be from Lake County agriculture to city of Leburg PUD. Under the PUD requirements, the proposal consists again of 910 single family units split into two two home types. There'll be 642
detached single family units plus 268 villa units which are the uh duplexes. There are no other uses permitted. For the detached units, there will be 83 of those that are scattered around the exterior boundaries on 60 and 70 foot
wide lots with 17 and800 square foot houses. And this is again around the perimeter of development. And then the remaining 559 units will be on 50-ft lots with a 1500 square ft living area as defined under roof. There are architectural
and design standards required and that are shown in the exhibits that you have in front of you. Two floors is the maximum height. Each house has to have a minimum of two off- streetet parking spaces. 35% of the property is required to be in open space. Uh there is much
more actually than that. The dark sky lighting is required and trees in each yard. There's a 25 foot landscape buffer required along the entirety of the property boundaries except where it is not needed due to an existing wetland area where the property backs up to a
marsh. There's a 3-ft burm, 4ft fence along County Road 48 and also fence along the perimeter again except for where there's a burm or a wetland present. It's not needed. There will be sidewalks throughout the development. Use of BA or Bermuda grass is required in place of St. Augustine.
Under site access and signage, there is access shown along the county road 48 on the site plan and will be required to have all the applicable requirements for turn lanes, axel, del lanes, etc. from Lake County. The main access point in the front is required to be a boulevard
type roadway with a landscape median of at least eight feet in width and enough width on each of the lanes in and out to allow emergency vehicles to maneuver. There will be signage in the front which is required to be a decorative entryway
feature concrete brick or stucco that is at least 5 feet in height on each side of the entryway or they can have that within the landscaped area at the boulevard entrance. there is interconnectivity between this subdivision and the
adjacent subdivisions. Um, and I wanted to point out that to the north of this proposal, there is the intersection of County Road 470,48 and 33. Depending on the time of day, as all of you have heard, this is one of
the busiest intersections and most difficult intersections to get through. At this time, while I don't have specific details, we staff is aware that there are developers who are working on this intersection of County Road 33, 470, and 48 in that area. Um, we do know
that they are working together to have some studies done, some signal warrants, and review of potential funding mechanisms. So, the development community itself is working toward planning for improvements for that intersection. um in the long haul that will require
coordination between the city, the county, and developers working together. But um and staff will provide you with updates as we get them, but just want to let you know that there's a lot of thought being put into that. I believe the county also has some ear some money earmarked for that intersection as well.
Under recreation, uh this PUD does require 4.18 acres with a pool, cabana, children's park, playground, dog park, those kind of things. And there's a walking nature trail which is designed to blend into the neighborhood and the wetland areas. For utilities, everything
is on city of Leburg water and wastewater. So you have no well or septic on the property. And then finally, of course, there is the phasing or expiration clause which requires that the development move forward with substantial commencement within four years or it reverts to a 1 acre per unit
zoning requirement. Uh Mr. Mr. Logan Opsel of Lounge Drossstik Doster Caner and Reed of Orlando is here to represent the the case and answer any additional questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. >> Thank you, Mr. Miller. Any questions for Mr. Miller before we proceed to the developer?
Thank you, Mr. Miller. Would the developer like to say anything? [Applause] >> Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Commission. Uh Logan Opsaw, 215 North Yola Drive. Good to be with you on a chilly evening. Um, y'all know this project and have seen a
couple two three times. So, uh, I'll be brief. Um, first and foremost, I want to address we're we're here tonight. We continue to date certain from our last second reading. Um, we received a a county letter addressing various
maintenance obligations on 48. Um, you you have I know you've discussed and and have likely been updated as well from the city attorney that the city has provided a response to that letter. uh the applicant team did as well because much of it was project specific. Uh so
we are in a agreement on our interpretation of those items and our understanding is the county will maintain ownership of of 48. So we're mindful of those things. Um again I I addressed some project specifics uh which included other matters specific to
this project uh in relation to the ISBA that was cited by the county including the uh intent and design of which to to remove uh enclave areas uh such as this property. Um Madame Clerk, would you
mind pulling up just the the slide? I'll sh again, y'all have seen this, but I want to just touch on one or two and then I'm happy to answer any specific questions and and leave some time to to respond. It's thinking about it. >> Thank you,
There we go. Thank you. So, so Dan touched on his staff presentation, the amenities being u provided here for this activity. We have minimum just shy of five acres of amenity space for the pool cabana. The
main amenity here uh is the nature trail and the multi-use trail throughout the project uh which showcases the the wetland areas um and the areas of wetland that will be created as part of this project. Uh these things amount to
70% open space across the property. uh and adding additional landscaping, uh natural vegetation to uh really set out some some proper storm water management out there that that does not previously exist. Uh and again, the creation of
some wetland and and expansion as well. Um with that, I'm happy to answer any specific questions. Again, I know y'all are well verssed in this project and happy to uh respond to any questions or comments we receive from the public as well. Thanks for your time. I did have
one question. I read the uh letter that uh you guys sent uh commissioner camp. Did you have any response back from >> No, sir. >> I did not receive sir. >> Nothing. Okay. >> No, sir. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Yes.
>> And we got one letter from the attorney. basically saying >> no we got we yeah so we we got chair chairman C chairpion's um letter and then that was returned
with my email to the county manager and then she returned an email >> which we submitted to you and and that's what we so we've seen everything that has been generated basically. >> All right, any other questions for the developer? All right, we're going to
open up to public comments at this time. Are there any public comments regarding these items? No public comments. We're going to close public comments before we bring it back to a vote. Any final comments from the commission? I did have one thing I want to mention
on Dan had noted that the intersection of of 33 and 470 and 48 is really bad and it's absolutely horrible, especially in the morning and afternoons. Uh, and there is some, I guess, some talks going
on and maybe addressing that intersection. I think it'd be a good idea not to put any more traffic on that intersection till it's actually addressed and corrected. Um, talking about another thousand homes here at that intersection. I mean, there may be some talks, but who knows how far down the
road that is that intersection is to be addressed. I'd like the rest of the commission to consider not putting any more traffic at that intersection until it is completely redone. um versus putting another thousand uh units going through there.
>> Any other comments from the commission? >> All right, we will vote on 6A1. >> Commissioner Bur, >> yes. >> Commissioner Peterson, >> yes. >> Commissioner Barry, >> yes. >> Commissioner Conell, >> no.
>> Mayor Reason, >> yes. So, we'll take a vote on 6 A2. We need a motion to approve 6 A2. Okay. Motion to approve 6A2. >> Second. >> We have a motion in a second. Any
further discussion? Any public comments? Seeing none, roll call. >> Commissioner Peterson, >> yes. >> Commissioner Barry, >> yes. >> Commissioner Connell, >> no. >> Commissioner Bur, >> yes. >> Mayor Reese, >> yes. Can I get a motion for 683?
>> Motion to approve 683. >> Second. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? >> Any public comments? Seeing none, roll call. >> Commissioner Barry, >> yes. >> Commissioner Conell, >> no. Not to allow 910 units. >> Commissioner Burray, >> yes.
>> Commissioner Peterson, >> yes. >> Mayor, >> yes. Would someone please introduce 684? >> I'll introduce and has to be read by title please. >> Thank you. An ordinance of the city of Leburg, Florida, amending the boundaries and changing the name of the Grace Key
Groves Community Development District established pursuant to ordinance 24-33 to Grace Grove CDD providing a severability clause addressing conflicts and providing an effective date. >> Motion to approve.
>> Second. >> We have a motion and a second, Mr. Miller. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is request for an ordinance to amend the boundaries of the Grace Key Grows Community Development District. This was established under ordinance 24-33 in July of 2024. This CDD does serve the
Bar Key subdivision which is located off of Dewey Robbins Road lying generally east of US Highway 27 and south of Dewey Robbins Road. This is basically just adding in uh 39 acres. The request will revise the area of the community development district from 691 to I think
718 give or take acres. Um the property in question is 39 plus or minus acres. It's fully contained within the Barke project. It was recently zoned under the bar key conditions as bar key 2 under ordinance um I have down here as 2267. I
think that was the original uh bar key but we did another one after that for this specific property. So, it's simply adding to the existing bar key. It's not changing the number of units or anything like that. >> Thank you, Mr. Miller. Any questions for Mr. Miller?
Um, any public comments on 64? Seeing none, roll call on 64. >> Commissioner Connell, >> yes. >> Commissioner Bur, >> yes. >> Commissioner Peterson, >> yes. >> Commissioner Barry, >> yes. >> Mayor Reese, >> yes. Would someone please introduce 6B1?
>> I'll introduce to be read by title only, please. An ordinance of the city of Leburg, Florida, changing the zoning on approximately 103.14 plus minus acres from City of Leburg PUD to City of Leburg PUD planned unit
development to allow for 494 single family detached units consisting of 241 50-foot lots and 53 60-foot lots for property during located east of County Road 48 and north of North Austin
Merritt Road lying in section 32, Township 20 South, range 24 East, Lake County, Florida, and providing an effective date. >> 2414. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> 494.
>> All right, >> Mr. Miller. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This is the Banning 5 PUD zoning uh reszoning only, generally located um east of County Road 48 north of Austin Merit Road. It's 103.14 plus or minus acres. They're requesting
approval for future development consisting of 294 single family dwelling units. So the request is simply a change request for a change in the zoning from city PUD to city PUD with revised commissions with revised conditions. Um,
if this is approved by the commission, this will create a spine road interconnecting County Road 33 and 48 via the other Banning Ranch projects, which are all similar to this one, which have been previously approved on this property, back east to County Road 33.
Again, 294 units on 103.14 acres. The lot sizes are six 50 and 60 ft wide. The 60footers are on the exterior as we typically do. Um, we have all the same PUB features, including the five design features that have to be
selected from the PUD architectural standards list. 35% open space, dark sky, landscaping plan, buffers around the project, which is 25 ft around the entirety of the project ex basically except where it's not needed due to existing wetlands. Um, two floors, 35
ft. Sidewalks required under site access. Uh again, County Road 48 under uh Lake County jurisdiction. The developers will be required to make all uh improvements as required by Lake County and as normally written in our
PUDS to support that. Main access will be a boulevard type roadway, landscape median. Uh signage will be the the standard with the decorative entry feature that we described in the previous project and interconnectivity with the other subdivisions will be
available on this plan as well. 1.35 acres of park and recreational land is required which does include one primary recreation area with three amenities. That means a swimming pool plus two more such as barbecue grills, play areas, ball courts, picnic tables. Again, um
everything has to be on city water and wastewater. And then we have the standard expiration phasing clause which reverts the property if substantial commencement is not begun within 48 months. And Mr. Andrew Macau of GI
Incorporated in Orlando is here to uh answer any other questions. >> Before we move to the developer, any questions for Mr. Miller? >> Thank you, sir. >> We had a PUD on it, right? >> Oh, yes, sir. Um the current PUD had um the same I think 300 units.
>> So, this is a reduction in >> this is a slight reduction in units and it's all single family. The previous PUD had town houses and single family. So this lot match the other banning. >> This mix of lots matches all the way all the way back to 33 with all the other
banning projects. Yes, sir. >> Thank you, Mr. Miller. Would the applicant like to say anything? [Applause] >> Thank you, Dan. Andrew Macau with GAI Consultants representing Handover Land. Um, and uh thank you for tonight and
I'll take those extra 200 units if you're offering. So this will be a quick presentation. Um maybe if the uh contraption will work. >> The other one.
>> There we go. >> Okay. Just a little bit of context. You can see the site indicated by the blue star uh in between uh County Road 48 and County Road 33. And zooming in a little bit more, this
is a recent aerial of the site. And as Dan mentioned, uh this was a previously approved PUD, 103 acres, 300 DUS, uh which broke out to 148 single family homes and 152 town homes. But it
also included up to 30,000 square ft of commercial. And that plan when uh previously approved had 2 acres of recreation and about 31% open space. So since then, this is the uh new proposed PUB plan. Uh 294 DUS, a reduction of six
units, but as Dan said, all single family homes, no town homes, which um just by itself means a reduction in traffic generation from the previous approved plan. Also the uh elimination of the commercial program also a reduction in in traffic generation. Uh
this plan proposes two and a half acres of recreation which is an increase of.5 acres over the previous plan and uh significantly more than the 1.7 acre minimum based on the 200 square ft per unit. Uh and then there's um over 41%
open space as opposed to the 35% required in uh recent PUDS. Uh so this is the the connection of all of the Banning Ranch phases uh that Dan mentioned before going all the way from County Road 33 in the east to County
Road 48 in the west. Uh you can see the the phases proceed uh from the east to the west with the phase five being all the way to the west uh adjacent to 48. And highlighted in blue is the new spine
road that will connect all of the phases together um from one county road to the other. And some of the benefits that uh the city gets from this new spine road is uh that it obviously will help distribute the traffic uh more effect efficiently between the two county
roads. Also allows a much shorter route to the turnpike from County Road 48. So instead of having to go all the way up north uh to that intersection that everybody hates and then coming back south, um you can actually cut through to the to the turnpike through the Spine
Road. Uh it it'll also function as the utility corridor between the two county roads and also will be an alternative emergency services route between the two roads. Instead of having basically one option now you'll have um additional
access. Zooming in um just to the development uh the phase 5 development you can see we're planning two phases of the same number of units 147 units in each phase. Uh and the uh lot split you can see at
the bottom 241 50-foot lots and 53 60 ft lots. Some of the highlights you'll see the amenity center on the um the eastern side of the phase. Um and and this phase
would be constructed first before phase B. Uh you can see the connection to the spine road going out to the east and then the connection to the adjacent project to the south which I believe is called Blake Ridge. Uh and then the main entrance on the west with the uh
boulevard style entrance. Looking at the open space breakdown, you can see there there um is a significant amount of wetlands and storm water on the site. um and also those two and a half acres of parks that I mentioned and then uh over 10 acres of other open
areas that include flood plane and tree safe areas and um also a significant amount of of landscape buffers. And at this time I would mention that all of the phases will be essentially part of the same HOA and will have
access to all of the other park amenities in the previous four phases that are that are to the east. So when uh you see that the amenity and the two parks there um the residents here would have access to all of the other parks
and amenities in the previous phases. As far as traffic goes, the directional split um is anticipated to be about 70 and 30. 70 going to the west and uh County Road 48 and 30% across to uh
County Road 33. And looking at how that breaks down uh by existing traffic and and approved projects. The uh the green there is illustrating the existing traffic on the road in terms of peak hour trips. And
then the the tall orange one is every other approved project including uh the project approved night. Um so the Oakidge project is included in those numbers. Uh and then the red is the Banning Ranch phase 5 contribution to the peak hour trips and the blue would
be the um all the rest of the available capacity by the year 2031. And then likewise, um, since this, uh, it does have the connection out to County Road 33, we looked at that as well. And this is how, uh, that intersection breaks out. Uh, the green
being the existing traffic you can see. And the and again, this is peak hour traffic. Uh, and then the orange being all the other approved projects for that road. uh the red being the banning ranch phase five contribution and then the blue being the available capacity left
in year 2031. So the last slide I have um is uh basically a description of the changes to the ordinance that you received in your packet. Um, we had originally requested a um, 115 foot minimum lot
depth um, for both the 50-ft lots and the 60ft lots. And in the draft ordinance, 125 ft got in there. And so we're requesting that that um, be reduced back to the 115t lot depth, which would result in those um, various
minimum lot size changes as well. uh because those minimum lot sizes were for the 125 foot uh deep lot. So that concludes the presentation. We have representatives from the owner and the traffic consultant and we're here to answer any of your questions. Any
questions for the applicants? >> I have a couple. Um this is not a gated community. >> Not gated. No. >> Okay. So, and this I think you refer to as a spine road. >> Spine road. Yes. It's going to be a regular road that's going to cut through
between 33 and 48. >> Correct. >> And is it going to be maintained by the CDD or the city of Leburg or >> it it would be maintained by the CDD. I
presume >> 14 foot travel instead of a typical 11. >> Ben Snider, handover land. For the record, um the spine road is contemplated to be uh dedicated to uh the city and constructed per city
standards like every other project we've done. It actually is a little bit wider uh with 14 foot travel ways to accommodate the add additional traffic and um help people move between 48 and 33 to relieve um traffic on the other
roads >> and and it's going to allow sand trucks, semiis, everything else run right through the subdivision. >> Uh we don't restrict who uses the public roads commissioner, >> but Okay. So, but it you're proposing
the city of Leburg would be responsible for the maintenance of it. >> We propose to dedicate the road to the city and um I think it would be maintained like all the rest of the public roads. Yes, sir. >> I don't know. We want to take in more
roads but >> and this is it's already in the city now. What you're this >> Yes, sir. >> When was that PUD done? And you remember the year >> 2008 I believe >> 2008.
So is it not expired then? >> Oh it is expired. Okay. So an expired PD and we and how how many miles is this spine road? >> I don't know the number. I don't know the number off the top of my head. Commissioner,
>> I'm just trying to think how much roadway you're proposing that we we take over. >> Is that >> I bet it is. >> That is probably >> We're happy to get that number for you for the next um reading.
>> Okay. Thank you, sir. >> Yes, sir. >> Any other questions for the applicant? >> Seeing none, any public comments on this item? Did you have one, Commissioner? >> No, not for the applicant. I kind of wanted to go back to Dan on that. >> We'll go back to Dan real quick. So the 2008 PUB
has expired. >> Yes, sir. >> All right. So >> I don't mean I don't mean I don't want to jump in, Jimmy, but that would mean since it's expired, it goes back to the one in one ratio. >> No, because we only started doing that
about a year ago. So >> what's it go back to? What What's the deal with it? >> It would it would ideally Let's see. I don't know if I have that copy with me, Mr. Zelwood. It's the same question. So, >> okay, there you go. >> Actually, it's supposed to go back to
the if anything else happens, if it's expired, then it should go back to the planning commission who would um consider whether to reszone it to PUB or change it to RE1. There was some different wording back in 2008. So, it was treated differently back then, but
basically what that's what they've done is gone back through the process. >> But this didn't go back through the process. >> Yes, this did go back to >> what was planning zoning recommendation? >> Uh the planning commission recommended denial. Planning staff recommends approval.
>> Okay. What was the uh what was PNZ's? They give a a reason on their denial. >> Um on this one, let's see. I have it in the notes cuz we have so many. Commissioner, I'm sorry I can't remember all of them. >> Not enough open to increase traffic on
county red 48 and 33. >> Max, go ahead. >> Oh, okay. Sorry. That was the reason for the denial. >> They cited concerns as you said about open space and increased traffic on 48. Those were major concerns listed
>> from the baiting. The last thing I just want to say on this, I know it's first reading, but I mean this board just approved 900 and something homes already. Here's another this. So with this one, I mean you're talking about over 1,200 homes.
We're putting back to 33, 470, and 48. All these roads out there are two-lane roads. I mean, it's just going to create a a major traffic problem. We keep adding this. The PUB's expired. We got a road that's being proposed
three to five miles or however long it is through this subdivision that they're wanting the city to take basically ownership of and maintenance of. I I really hope the commission at the second reading takes all this in consideration. [Applause]
>> I I have a question just in general from our planning side, I guess. So uh what importance to city services, city uh meaning police,
fire everything is having that spine road >> for all the in the first place? >> Yes sir. For all the reasons that Andrew brought out, Mr. Macau brought out that that road is very important. It will one of the one of the issues is emergency
access. the other interconnection between 33 and 48 to alleviate traffic that needs to go south either way without having to go up to that intersection. So, um there's there's a number of reasons that we do need that
spine road um that we that we have to keep in mind. Um in addition, under the current zoning, which is expired, that's true. But uh it was still this is a better much better plan and it allows that spine road to go through and
interconnect 33 and 48 which we've never had and will need. It will take a number of years for all this to come to fruition. It won't be uh certainly overnight. >> Any other commissioner comments? >> Just one comment. I I've heard a mention of uh you know tractor trailers and so
forth. Is there a way to restrict that on this road? I see no reason why the city couldn't say no through trucks. >> I would ask the developer what they want. I'm just throwing it out for discussion. I mean, it probably won't be as big of an issue when construction, you know, like the villages is moved further along and so forth, but uh I'm
just sitting here looking at that road cutting through residential. I would I just bring that up for discussion between now and second reading. >> Yes, sir. >> Any other questions for Mr. Miller? Commissioner Morris? Uh Tim Morris, County Commissioner,
District 5, Leburg, Florida. Y'all are in the cat bird seat right now. Um you can ask for about anything you want. 48 is going to be a nightmare. 80 and 80 trips
and 147 houses is ridiculous. I don't know where their traffic study came from, but I know at the county level, I'm requesting that we hire our own traffic study people to do the traffic study and get it out of the developer hands. We're working on that. Ask them
to take care of 48 all the way to 33. I mean, 1,200 homes in there, they're making a lot of money. So, if they take, we're doing this with Howie right now. Howing the hills is has taken some of number two road and they're redoing the road all the way into 19. Ask them to
take care of 48, widen it, whatever needs to be done. And uh help us with the traffic because it's going to be a nightmare. It's already a nightmare in Okaha. I couldn't imagine this and and 33 is going to be the same way. So I just wanted to put my comments on on the
record. Thank you. >> Thank you, Morris. >> We're going to open it up to public comments. any public com >> Yes, sir. >> You just kind of triggered one more comment and I I appreciate your your comments, Commissioner. Um, once again, just throwing out for discussion between now and second reading. Uh, but rather
than say take rather than the developer take over 48, can we not push back on the spine road and have the developer maintain that road to the city's standards? I I just put that out there. We're going to open up the public comments. Any public comments on these
items? Yes, sir. If you would please state your name and address for the record, and you will have three minutes, sir. >> My name is Tim Casey. Address 12198 West Golf Breeze Court, Crystal River. Uh me and my sweetie bought a lot in uh
Clearwater Lakes about a year ago. And I I got a crude picture I can use, but that little orange dot is the lot that we bought. And just really kind of tying with the traffic coming in in the area.
All the blue, as you know, are are um approved developments coming into that area between 33 48 and 33. I added them up. This is crude crude numbers, but um that comes out to 30,000 units where you
see just where the numbers are in that area. So, that's really the point I wanted to put out there. You're talking about traffic 30,000 units in there, not just this one and not Oakidge, which you just approved. Thank you. >> Any other public comments on this item?
Seeing none, this item will lay over to December 8th. We have no non-rine items, informationational reports, city attorney items. >> Yes, sir. I've got something to go over with the commission this evening. There
is I don't know if everybody has heard about POS litigation that is ongoing around the country. Uh but basically there are some lawsuits going on relating to POS which are man-made
chemicals that are commonly found in non-stick cookware and some other things. Uh particularly in firefighting foam. It was very prevalent in that and widely used. I don't believe it is, you know, it's a it's it's a lot more
controlled than it was years ago. And so anyways, all of these PAOS chemicals have sort of found their way into groundwater. And so there is damage and sort of degradation and extra expenses
and cost incurred with water system operators treating the water to remove POS from the water. And so, you know, many years ago, there were a number of companies that were involved in
producing these. Uh, two of those are 3M and DuPont. Now, there is multid-dist federal litigation going on against DuPont and against uh 3M. And
so, what 3M and DuPont have done is they have created an allocated settlement fund. and they have gone through and there is a list of water systems that would be entitled to claim money from this fund. Now, this is not a fund where
you need to prove causation. Uh it's it's simply an allocated settlement fund and if you're on the list, then you're entitled to money from the settlement fund from DuPont and for from 3M. The settlement fund only relates to
drinking water. It does not relate to sewer and it doesn't relate to airports. There are potential claims in the future that might be available for those as well, but right now I'm just talking about water system, drinking water. And
so that fund right now, I believe, is $13 billion. There's a lot of money in there. And this is a nationwide claims fund. City of Leburg is on the list. And so the city of Leburg does have or sort of is in position to claim money from
these settlement funds. The the way that it generally works is the source wells would be tested. Then the POS level would be scored based on those tests. And then there's sort of
a matrix of sorts where you would sort of take those test results, take the number of wells you have in and these things, run it through the formula, and it'll spit out a number that the city is likely entitled to. Um I have spoken to
and so I'll sort of backing up there are some national law firms that are driving this train on the multidist litigation and there are some local law firms that have reached out to me uh who are working with the national law firms in
regards to these claims asking whether or not the city would like to sign up for their assistance. Um, and so the way this fund works is this was an opt out claim against DuPont and 3M. So the federal court said you
put up the $13 billion in this fund, then that's it. You guys are free and so you're not going to be sued by other people. The city does not have the ability to go sue DuPont and 3M for the water system at this point. So from my
perspective, there's money there. If the city doesn't make a claim on that money, whatever is left over goes back to DuPont and 3M. And so to me, it really seems like a no-brainer um to make a claim here. The funds are unrestricted
and so it could go into the general fund. The city could spend it on water system, could spend it on whatever the city wants to. Um, but basically kind of where we are is I've had a couple of law firms reach out to me, like I said,
about signing up. These are all contingency deals. So, the city would not be paying money out of pocket. The attorneys would be looking to share in the proceeds of money that they obtain for the city. Uh, typically that
percentage is around 25 or 30%. Uh so it's a pretty hefty percentage, but um one of the benefits is they're obviously motivated to try and get as much as they can uh out of that fund for the city. Um so at this point, I think what what I'm
looking to do is a kind of inform you guys about what the situation is. And now there are other companies. There are uh 3M and DuPont are not the only ones. uh BASF uh was another one that had recently put up a fund that I understand
the time has passed for claiming under that fund, but there may still be a way to to get in there. So, um from talking to the other attorneys, what I understand is basically what they would like to do is make a claim for the city
under the drinking water fund, the DuPont and 3M, and try and get as much money. I understand the uh the outlook is seven figures uh is what the estimate is. So we're talking significant money that the city could likely be entitled
to. And so we would get what we might get out of the DuPont 3M drinking water fund. They believe that it's a good idea to probably file claims for sewer and for the airport as well because they
believe there will be settlement claim or settlement funds that are established for those as well. Right now I understand the federal courts are more interested in dealing with drinking water and then dealing with the other stuff after they figure out the drinking water. And so really we would be making
a claim uh against the DuPont 3M fund, but I think one benefit of sort of being tied in with these attorneys is they know the other claims that are going on. They know the other chemical companies that are potentially exposed
as well. And so there could be, you know, this could be sort of the first domino. There could be other settlement funds and and a lot of things out there. But I think, like I said, I wanted to let you guys know about this and I wanted to see if you would like me to
continue down the pathway of potentially trying to find us an attorney to help uh make claims under these funds. Um, with regard to the DuPont and the 3M fund, there's only one deadline that's looming, and that is an endofthe-year
deadline to sign up and make your claim. If you make your claim by the end of this calendar year, then you would be entitled to have testing reimbursed out of the settlement fund. And I understand those tests are about $800 a whack. I
don't know how many wells, how many source wells we have and would need to test, but if there's 20, then, you know, 800 bucks times 20, it's something. Um, if everything's not signed up by the end of the year, again, really the downside
is that you would not be clearly entitled to claim reimbursement of test cost from the settlement fund. You would still be in line to claim the larger sum for the damage to the system. Um, but the test cost would not be reimbursed. there still might be an outside chance
of getting it reimbursed, but the clearest way to have those reimbursed would be to sign up before the end of the year. Um, so like I said, I happy to field questions to the extent anybody has any. Uh, I think what I'm looking
for is really just sort of approval to continue down this road and either, you know, bring a retainer agreement back to the commission for you guys to look at and decide on at an attorney you would like to use, um, or to retain an
attorney. I frankly would prefer to bring it back here and let you guys decide who you want to use. Um, but uh I do think this is really a no-brainer and I think that continuing down the road of trying to find uh one of the local
attorneys to help us with the national law firms and make the claim is really probably the right thing to do. Um, and so I would encourage all to do that. But like I said, I'm looking for your direction on whether you would like me to continue down the path and uh
potentially bring a couple of retainer agreements here before you all so you can make a decision on uh what you'd want to do with that. >> Any commission comments? >> I have a question. Have there been other cities that have been on involved in the area or the county?
>> Yes. um they are actively talking to all of the cities right now that have water systems and airports um about these claims and informing everybody and trying to get everybody signed up. Yes, ma'am.
>> I don't know anybody that I could sit here and say has signed up >> right now. Um >> I guess I would say I know St. Cloud has through talking with one of the attorneys. Um, but outside of that, I don't know a specific Lake County city
that has signed up. I know several that are talking uh to attorneys right >> and if we didn't meet if we didn't meet the deadline by the end of the year, will there be another roll out with others or is this >> Yeah, this is only DuPont and 3M. Okay. So, there could like I said there I
don't know how many chemical companies were manufacturing this stuff. Um, but they basically said we did it. We know it was harmful to water systems and so we're going to put up a gigantic chunk of money to pay for the harm.
>> Yeah. And just a a comment uh the POS uh that is the chemical that in layman's terms everybody talks about forever chemicals had nothing to do what we were doing last year with our water system.
Totally different set of chemicals. >> That's right. But there was a lot of trying to mash that together. Just these are these are man-made things like Grant said that you can't break them down. They just they have such tight bonds.
And so when we as people introduce them into we put them down your garbage disposal or whatever, our water treatment facilities have a hard time treating that and it ends up back in the the water source. So that's the forever
chemicals. >> That's that's >> and I'm all for pursuing that. >> Yeah, that that's exactly right. And from what I understand really the firefighting foam was a large contributor of this and that's why the airports are part of this discussion and
analysis because they were that was used widely on airports for training and so um a lot of a lot of the POS chemicals have have ended up in those areas and so um again we're just really preliminarily
the 3M Dupant fund they were talking seven figures just for the drinking water just from those two companies. >> I agree with your your recommendation. My my question um if I hear you right, I
guess our risk really is if we did the testing the wells and we don't have the chemicals. I'm guessing we already know we have this chemical in our water. >> Well, potentially. And there was a list that essentially said if you're on this list, then you're in the in the in the game
essentially. Okay. And as I understand, even if you tested a zero on your source wells, you still might be entitled to compensation. >> Okay. Yeah, I didn't want to get bogged down there. I still want to move forward with it. My other question is probably directed more to Al. It's probably not a fair question. Um, are we making efforts
to get this out of our water now? And I look at this fund as a re reimbursement of our efforts to get it out of the water. I mean, is there a way for us to to get it out of the water? I understand what Jimmy said, >> and that that's a tricky thing. So, we're not ready to say tonight it's in the water. You know, we've passed all our tests. All our our water is clean.
You know, our water's passing test, so everybody shouldn't wig out, >> but it could be. So, part of this part of this is testing our water to examine whether or not it is in there. Okay. >> Um, >> which we which we have. Okay. >> And there there could there could be dimminimous amounts in there that
wouldn't make us worried. So there's like three levels, right? There's like super high level where oh, we got to take care of this and then that settlement money is going to go towards taking care of it, right? >> It could be a little bit where we could need some of the settlement money to take care of it. It's taken care of and
and then we have it the rest of it. Or it could be like a dimminimous zero level, but we're still entitled to get money, but we don't have to do anything with it. So I mean, the first thing really we need to jump on board and and start start the testing and find out. I I agree with that entirely, but in the
interim, nobody should lose any sleep. >> Yeah. And and to tie on that, we're talking about to testing the source as well, right? So, this is before it goes through the city's cleaning process. So, it it very well might be that the city is is eliminating all of this before it
gets into anybody's drinking water. But um again it it really what their focus is is on the source and looking there testing that seeing if basically the city's being forced to draw water that is contaminated with PAS and then have
to spend the money to clean it out. >> I think you already answered this question, but is there technology today to to take it out of the water at the city level? >> I assume so. >> Okay. Okay. >> You know, >> but I'm fine. I I didn't mean to get bogged down on that. I know I asked them
I know I asked them different questions but I'm I I agree with your recommendation. >> So as long as we do it before the end of the year get on the train we'll be our fees will be covered for the testing >> the testing fees. Yes sir. That's right. >> So we'll have no out-of- pocket expenses as well. >> That's correct. Okay. >> And the attorney's fees again are contingency. So it would not be that the
city's paying hourly rates or anything like that. Okay. And if they recover zero dollars then the city pays 0. >> Thank you for that clarification. I misunderstood that. Do you need a motion from us or you just >> uh Yeah, I think a motion would be fine if somebody uh would make a motion basically just to authorize uh further
exploration and potentially bringing back a couple of retainer agreements for consideration. >> So moved. >> Second. >> Have a motion and a second on the floor. Any further discussion from the commission? >> Any public comments? Seeing none, roll
call. >> Mr. Peterson, >> yes. Commissioner Barry, >> yes. Mr. Conell, >> yes. >> Commissioner Bry, >> yes. >> Mayor Reese, >> yes. >> Thank you all. Thank you all. >> That's all I have. Thank you, city. Uh, city manager items. >> Uh, just a couple things. Um, if you
guys recall, I don't know, maybe two months or so ago through Lake 100. We uh brought on the um services of of Ley Consulting as a countywide to examine this subsidy question with tax revenues
and that type of stuff. Um, Mr. Levy kind of finished his preliminary report and presented it to the city managers at our monthly lunchon on Thursday. Um, long story short, he's finishing up that report which he will provide to the cities and the counties. Uh, but at a
high level, the there he did consider that there was a subsidy of municipal. If you're in a let me say this so it's it's accurate. Um it it obviously if you are in an incorporated area in the county, you pay incorporated as well as
unincorporated property taxes. So whatever city you pay, you pay a millage rate and as well as the county and you pay a county property tax whether you're incorporated or uninccorporated. Long story short, through those general services provided by county or city, uh
Dr. Levy found that there was about a $25 million subsidy of incorporated uh cities in total in Lake that goes over to the county. Um no solutions on what to do with that but just we had
speculated about that. I think the number that I brought up was 50 million. Um I and I spoke with the county manager about that you know kind of as a catapult into this study. Uh I think Jennifer felt like the subsidy was about
12. So there you go. So but you know Dr. Levy split the baby. I don't think that wasn't that was not intended. That was you know so more on that study to come but that that that those numbers may be floating out there if you hear from it. Um as well we also had an I think an
extremely good discussion at the manager lunchon. Um, and we've made a little bit of progress on the no annexation zone concept, which I brought to your attention, I guess, a couple of meetings ago now. Um, I've received some positive feedback back from the county manager about that. Um, we got again some good
feedback um, uh, from the manager's lunchon. So, where we're at right now is our our draft concept is on the county manager's desk. Uh, it's only been there a couple of days. I think I sent it to her Thursday last week. Um, so she'll get back to me with some feedback in the
interim. Um, actually today I had Pam start we'll try to put together kind of a local meeting. So everybody who's a party to the 2013 ISBA agreement will need to come back and and and have a joint meeting um on the concept. So that
would be the cities of Mascot, Minnola, Groveland, Leburg, Howy, and the county. I think I named everybody. So, we'll try hopefully, you know, hopefully before the holidays. Um, I don't know. I don't know if we'll get before Thanksgiving, but certainly before, uh, the holidays
in December, uh, we'll be hopefully able to get everybody together and get at the table. So, I think that that concept seems to be gaining some positive traction. So, more on that to come. And then I wanted to wrap up my comments today with congratulations and and uh pointing out Anna Roderman, our deputy
city clerk. Um the city clerks have a couple of courses they go through uh where they get their a as uh m we we nicely say get your ticket punched. So Anna's ticket has now officially been punched.
>> Um and she has now obtained her mastering municipal clerk certific certification and she received that on October 22nd this of this year. So congratulations uh to Anna. Congratulations, Ann.
>> That's all I got. >> Thank you. >> Roll call. >> Commissioner Bur. >> Uh, nothing tonight. >> Commissioner Peterson. >> Nothing tonight. >> Commissioner Barry. >> Um, yes. I have a couple things. I'd like to first thank um the West CDC had
their third fall festival on Saturday, which was a great success in bringing the community together. Um, thanks to a thank you to Lakefront TV for capturing that footage for us as well as kudos again to the Lake County School Foundation for another successful year
of the um, Lady of Lakes Renaissance Festival. It was very, very, very, very crowded. So, a lot of people were there. So, I just want to add that and I'll let you add the others. I know you have it. No, you go ahead. I know it's on your list.
>> Commissioner Con. No, ma'am. >> Mayor Leeman, >> couple things. Uh, thank you to the Leman Special events and their team for putting on a fantastic Veterans Day parade this weekend. Um, also, uh, this coming Friday, uh, wishing the best to Officer Huer and K9 Nick. They'll be
competing in a K9 competition again. Um, also this coming Saturday is our Flapjack 5K downtown for all you runners. I know we all are. And then, uh, thank you, Commissioner Morris and Allison. We attended two grand uh openings here in the city of Leburg this
morning and also a happy early birthday to our city manager which is this Thursday. Uh with that I will take a motion to adjourn. I I do have one other thing I forgot. >> Um is I've spoke to Al and Grant about
this on the the uh the shuffleboard court property. I mean I think the the the properties posted as closed, what have you as of November the 7th. Um, and I have spoke to Allan
and Grant about what the timeline was going to be on conveying the property to Forward Path. Um, with the pending lawsuit is going on. I don't believe we should
turn the property over to anyone until the the pending lawsuit has been settled by the court system. I mean, in essence, I believe the basis of the the suit is we have the authority to give it away. So, I don't think we should proceed to give it away until the the lawsuit has
been settled. And um I don't know the time frame of when the city manager or city attorney's recommendation was to to to execute this deed, but I just don't think we should until the lawsuit has been settled.
>> Uh yeah, let me just add on to that. Uh because Commissioner Canel did bring that to my attention. It it was and I think we spoke on the 6th or something like the Wednesday before the Thursday about a day before and and actually I hadn't given it much thought.
>> So you all approve. So just let's revisit timeline because what we do need is some clarification on when you would like the official deed to be signed by the mayor. So um the mayor signed the deed to for
point of order and and we destroyed that document uh because subsequent to your all's direction to dedicate the property I don't remember what meeting that was it would you know three or four meetings ago um we received contact from the
shuffleboard court and I think this chronology is important so bear with me um shuffle board court contacted me directly said that they had a couple of events planned for November Um and and they asked if they could
still use our court for for that event because there's a lot of planning involved with the concept. You know, the concept was the donation to the property to forward paths. You know, forward paths had a lot of work to do as far as professional services, surveys,
planning, engineer, you know, yeah, all those things. So there was considerable time between when Ford Pass really needed the property and continued use. So I used my administrative adjudgment. I think I reached out to each of you um
and said, "Hey, let's let's make the official deed November 7th." Um the shuffle board seemed happy with that. Y'all seemed content with that and we were able to oblige that request. So while the shuffleboard court was happy
with that, they then file filed suit against us uh after we extended the deadline. And then um the day I think it was I think it was on the 6th um the the attorneys uh Mr. Sabatini representing
the shuffleboard court filed an injunction. Okay. So the injunction at that time, you know, Grant took it as uh to scrambled off to set a date, a hearing date to speak about the injunction. So
an injunction, a court action would officially stop action from the court. So anything that we would do to the property or or forward pass or whoever owned it, that injunction sought to stop any movement on that transaction. So
Grant started prepping and got dates out and as he was doing that, Grant received a second notice from the court that not only was an injunction filed, but then Mr. Sabatini amended his injunction
filing to file a emergency injunction. So that action was then quashed by the court. So we're back to square one, which is there is an injunction on the property. So that hearing is now set to
whe for but I'm going to turn this over to you in a second but let me get this out Grant. So so because I'm going to give you my recommendation as your management and then hear from Grant and then you can kind of blend the two together. So we are now back at there is a question for an injunction on the
property. That hearing is set for November 13th I think at 10:00 a.m. if if if I'm correct. Yeah, that's >> we anticipate that the judge based on that hearing that day will determine
whether to grant the injunction or not. I think Grant has also filed a motion for dismissal. That motion isn't heard until January. So pretty much from November 13 to January, barring any other
motions or actions filed by each side will sit still. My suggestion for the commission and then grant opine is you probably shouldn't do anything with the property until the motion on the injunction is
settled. So, if a motion on the 13th, if the motion for the injunction and the injunction is dismissed, my suggestion to you all is to have the mayor execute the deed and put the the ownership of the property in the hands
of forward paths once the question about the injunction is settled. I do not see risk in that for the city. If if we go through this lawsuit, we lose the city's not out anything. We
don't have we don't have finances involved. We don't have any planning. it. So, whatever the determination of whether you acted correctly pursuant to the charter as the mo as the as the lawsuit alleges, you guys don't I don't I don't
see you have any financial or legal or other type of risk because in your your worst your worst sum game is going to be the court orders that forward paths gives the property back to you. I don't think that's the same risk for forward
paths and and I've talked with Denise Bur about that um and um express to her my opinions on the matter but I think the important thing uh from from this body is that um I kind of you know
depend on where you want to go and obviously it's you know the vote was a four to one I don't see the conversation that that flavor of the commission changed so in in the affirmative I think that the quicker we can get forward paths onto the city side and
have them attached to that property, I think it does nothing. I think and Grant, I'm not going to speak for you. You're going I'm going to stop here in a second, but you know, I I I I think we have a very good case. I think Grant feels that I think that we have a good
case on its own. I think if we encumber uh forward paths into the case by signing that deed, then our case becomes even better. So, I think we're kind of I think we are stopped until the 13th. Um
see where the injunction goes. If the injunction is awarded, then I think we probably still need to stay a stop and see what the term of the the the case is. But if the injunction is is overruled, then I think we need to move forward. So Grant, why don't you throw
in the legal stuff now? >> Yes. Thank you. Uh thank you, Al, for for going through that. Um I think you know, a lot of of what Al said is is pretty much right on. I'll just just to clarify a couple of things as far as the procedural posture of where we are. So
they have filed a complaint asking for a declaratory judgment that the city violated the city charter by transferring the property alleging that that is an activity of the city prohibited by the charter without a referendum and they have asked for an
injunction broadly uh to prohibit the transfer of the property. Now filing these things on their own doesn't stop anything. It's just somebody filing a lawsuit and making allegations. Um, and that's where we stand right now. We have
somebody filed a lawsuit and made allegations. There's no there's no court order that says you can't transfer the property. Uh, there could be a court order on Thursday that says you can't transfer the property temporarily.
Um, but we don't know. Um, and so, you know, I think perhaps there's some wisdom in waiting and and seeing how that hearing plays out, but honestly, I don't know that it really matters. Um, as far as where we are procedurally,
there's nothing that prohibits the transfer right now, unless and until there's a court order that does prohibit the transfer. Um, you know, I question why a temporary injunction wasn't sought sooner. Um, and waited
until basically the transfer was about to occur. I I think um probably they would have done themselves better had they asked for it sooner. But um that's where we are. We have a hearing Thursday and we'll see what the court says at
that point. I agree with, you know, what Al said as far as the exposure. I think it's pretty minimal for the city. Um, you know, I really I don't see if the injunctions entered, if there is a um
declaratory judgment that the city violated the charter, then I think the worst day in court is the property goes back to the city. Um, doesn't hurt the city. As Al said, there's really no money into the deal. the city's agreed to donate the land. Um, so I don't know
what the downside is. Maybe there's some uh just extreme worst imaginable day where the court would order the city to reconstruct the shuffleboard courts. But I I think that's almost a non-existent
possibility. Um, even if you go with their argument that the shuffleboard courts is an activity of the city, nothing prohibits the termination of an activity of the city in the charter. So, the city could could shut down the shuffle shuffleboard courts whenever
they want and there would be no referendum requirement. though for the court to send it back and then require the city to reconstruct if forward pass had demoed it. I just really don't see that as as any kind of possible outcome.
Um so I think the worst day in court is the judge says the city was wrong and the city gets the property back. Um so you know I don't know where everybody is. I certainly I I agree. I think that this is a healthy discussion for
everybody to have. um for Commissioner Canel to bring up because I do think again it's worth everybody understanding where we are and what currently is in place and where we could end up uh and
make a decision before things are transferred. Um, but I um I think the risk is pretty minimal to move forward and I don't think it matters whether you wait until after. Um, honestly, I think
there's an argument it could be harder to undo it if the deed is delivered than uh if it's not delivered. >> So that's so that's different than my advice. You're saying go ahead and execute. I think that that that it's harder to unwind the injunction or it's
it's harder to unwind the transaction if it's already done. Typically, injunctions are prospective. They're not undoing things that have already happened. >> Well, I mean, you got you got the the injunction thing
coming up Thursday. >> Yes, sir. >> And then you've got the regular lawsuit thing in January. >> Yes, sir. So, we're talking what, a couple months. If you went ahead and transferred the deed, you're saying, you know,
Leburg, you know, basically held harmless on anything. You know, we just take the property back. But if if the shuffleboard courts were were demoed during that time period, we're going to get a piece of property, a raw property back that all our courts have been removed. Why? I don't understand why we
would even take that risk. Why wouldn't we just wait the two months and let this be resolved one way or the other versus taking the risk of giving the property away then find out we have to get it back and we've lost what half a million dollar worth of shuffleboard complex. I
mean it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. It doesn't seem like it's worth the risk over two months. >> Yeah, you are right to point that out that if the courts are demoed then the city gets the property back sands. >> Exactly. Yes. shuffle board and yes, so
I don't know why would we risk potentially half a million dollar worth of improvements removed to find out just wait two months. >> Well, I think that'll be solved in two months. We So, the temporary injunction hearing is Thursday. We'll know
something about that obviously at that point. Uh if a temporary injunction is not entered, >> then um I don't know what the timeline is on this lawsuit. You know, January 28th is our motion to dismiss hearing. If we prevail on that motion, they will
most likely get another 20 days to refile. Then we'll get our 20 days to respond once they refile, which could be another motion to dismiss depending on so, you know, maybe we answer and then we move into discovery, move into trying
to get a trial date. Um, it's not entirely clear sort of what the end date might be on the litigation. You know, it's it's very unclear, I guess I would say. Um, it did take four months
to get a 15-minute hearing. You know, we were able to get the emergency hearing scheduled sooner. It's a little bit different circumstances, but sort of a normal procedural hearing, uh, the time frame seem pretty pretty far out, uh, to
just get 15 minutes with the judge. So, um, not real sure how long that might hang on. >> CR, so am I understanding transferring a deed, does that mean transferring and demolition or that's just transferring the deed title? >> That's just trans. So, the city's, you
know, voted to transfer it. what Ford Paz ultimately would need to demo the courts in order to improve the property and do what they're trying to do. Um, but that's completely on, you know, up to Forward Pass. Once the city has signed the deed, delivered
the deed, and recorded it, or just delivered the deed to Ford Pass, honestly, um then it's up to them what happens to the property at that point. As long as it's in it's consistent with the covenants because it it would be going over with some covenants and
restrictions on it. So, as long as what they do is consistent with the restrictions that you all approved previously, then they can do what they want. So the purpose of the injunction was to stop. Correct. No, >> there is no injunction. There's a request for >> request for injunction. Okay. Thank you.
>> So in essence, you could give it away, Commissioner Barry. And then they could demo the courts out and you find out in six months from now they have to give it back and now we get the two acre 1.6 acres back with no shuffleboard courts on it.
I can't speak for the whole commission, but um I I would take your recommendation on, you know, doing a transfer now or after the injunction. I mean, part of me I would say wait for the injunction, but if you say you're comfortable doing it now, I would support that. Whatever you recommend on
that. As far as the shuffleboard courts, yeah, this whole lawsuit is just I don't know the right word, ridiculous because they can they can stop us from transferring it, but if we if we don't transfer it, we still own it. We're not gonna build. We're not gonna resurface or do the shelfboard courts. So, I have
no problem transferring it. I don't care if Forward Pass knocks them down because we're not gonna build shelfboard courts. That's my position. >> Well, you wouldn't build them. They're already there. You just put >> I'm not going to support resurfacing them. >> Why What is your issue with the shuffle boards, Mike? I mean, seriously, you you're want to spend a million dollars
coming up here on 12 pickle ball courts and we already have 12 in town at Par Park, but you don't want a single shuffleboard court in this city. I I just don't understand. your your your your issue with the shuffle board. >> Well, I'll start with how they handled the first meeting by coming here and
demanding that we have the shuffleboard courts resurface by October. >> I don't know there was any demand either. >> A gentleman pounded his fist on that podium demand. So, I'll just stop right there. I'm not going to argue that with you with you. >> Well, yeah, go back and look at the video if you need to. Um, >> yeah, I don't think they handled this
very well. Um, we finally determined the only people using it is the uh shelfboard club. I believe we determined there are six members that live in the city and pay taxes. I think there was an argument it might have been seven. Whether it's five, six, seven, it's a very nominal number. Um, they secured
the the shelfboard courts. I realize it was first it was locked, then it was a dummy lock. We went through all this. Um, but my point is in my seven years on the commission, I'm not aware of any anybody complaining that they couldn't access the shelfboard courts. So the residents in my opinion don't care about
shuffboard. They're not playing in shelf board. Yes, we have a club and I have some sensitivity to that club, but they have other other courts in Leburg. Uh um not in the city limits, but there are courts available. So um I yeah, I supported the transfer to forward pass.
I just want to move forward with it. Uh I am overshelf board whether you agree or not. They lost me a long time ago. >> Well, let me ask you a question because you're talking about there's only five or six of them live in the city. Well, you're building an 11 million sports complex at Susan Street for rugby. How
many how many rugby players do we have in town? I mean, you know, I mean, we get silly with this thing. We don't live in town. >> For the record, I voted for the record. I vote against that. Okay. I voted I voted against that. For the record. >> Yeah. I would just like to make a comment if it's all right.
The difference in shuffleboard and in Susan Street is that your youth, all your youth programs, all your w programs are going to be run through Susan Street. So the usage by your taxpaying
families here in Leburg on those facilities is going to be >> we we have rugby here in >> we just are building rugby fields if we can recruit those kind of tournaments. That's the largest field that you need. Rugby fields, lacrosse fields, soccer
fields, football fields. Makes it >> I get what you're saying, Jimmy. And I said I and I don't have any difference. Let me just finish. Go ahead. >> There is no one playing recreational shuffle board
from Leburg. There was on their membership. There was five of, you know, five or six. That's it. >> But you're bringing people into the city. That's that's the whole concept of some of this stuff. That was a concept of the Susan Street was sold. You're bringing in economic tourism into town.
>> You're also spending half a million dollars to do that. >> Half a million. All they wanted All they wanted was resurfaced. >> No, they did not. >> Yes. All they wanted was the courts resurfaced. They were going to resource the tennis courts and you were going to build some pickle balls. >> Read their proposal that they sent in.
>> Whatever their proposal was, that's not what was was spoke about. Me and Al have spoke about this. It was resurface the courts, resurface tennis courts, and build some pickle ball courts. We're going to make this the Palm Meadow Recreational Complex. >> I I agree with you. We're getting off of it, but anyway.
>> So, we have two different recommendations on the floor from our city manager and our city attorney. >> Yeah, I I'll just clarify again briefly. I mean, I think, you know, again, the city there was a decision made. Um, I don't think that the fi
I think I understand the idea of waiting until after the hearing. It's it's two days from now and seeing what happens before doing anything um and seeing what the court decides. I I can understand that perspective. I don't think that's unreasonable. Um
I think that again the risk is pretty low. um barring, you know, receiving property back with demo courts and and what do you do with that? Is is there harm to the city there? You know, I I understand that. Um but I think that most of the downside is really on
forward paths. I think if this comes back to the city, um the city gets the property and and again, it may not have the shuffleboard courts, but you get the property back. uh you're not paying fees and you're not paying a bunch of money to somebody for doing anything wrong
necessarily. There's no development cost sunk into it. Um so I I don't know if if it's a harmful decision if the judge says send it back, particularly if it's been a couple of days since it was signed. I doubt um they would be
building anything in the next two days. Um, but I think also, you know, there are advantages to just continuing down the path that you started. You know, there was a decision made. Um, there's a lawsuit filed with allegations, but
there's nothing that says that you've done anything wrong. And so, if you continue forward as though you had always planned, then it looks like you're just, you know, again, moving along and going with the plan you always had. Um, but again, if you want to wait
until after the hearing, it it doesn't bother me. I'm happy to report back to everybody. Um, but from my perspective, it it doesn't really make much difference whether if the decision is to go ahead and sign the deed whether you do it now or whether you do it uh
Friday. >> In the essence of time, um, I'm I'm going to move forward and make a motion that upon the injunction being dismissed that we go ahead and transfer title to a forward pass. the injunction just um to clarify that I'm sorry commissioner but
uh dismissal is unlikely the injunction I use the wrong lingo I meant the prevailing on the injunction >> if the temporary if the motion for entry of the temporary injunction is denied then you would recommend signing the deed at that point >> that that is my motion I'm sorry I have
all the legal jargon correct >> you're good I understand a motion on the floor we have a second >> I'll Second. >> So, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Any public comments? Seeing none, roll
call on the motion on the floor. >> Commissioner Barry, >> yes. >> Commissioner Connell, >> no. >> Commissioner Bur, >> yes. >> Commissioner Peterson, >> yes. >> Mayor Reesemith, >> yes. >> Yes. Now that we have had this discussion
there, there's honestly this discussion's brought up another matter which leaves that that I need direction on. >> Okay, so there is and Commissioner Canel talked to me about this as well. So you guys need to direct me
what you want done. The fiscal year 26 budget allocates $1 million for what we dubbed the Palmetto Street Sports Complex. When that concept was introduced in July, that concept was to
resurface shuffle board, build pickle ball, and resurface the tennis courts through the summer. It is my opinion through discussion that the commission changed that direction when you donated
the property of the shuffleboard courts to forward path. Therefore, when we contemplated and approved the fiscal year 26 budget, there was $1 million for, as I would interpret it, shuffle board,
sorry, pickle ball and resurface the tennis courts. There was no contemplation of anything to do with the shuffleboard courts because potentially it's going to forward paths. So, we have sent into the
marketplace an RFP to start design of pickle ball. I need to know if that is the direction of this commission. Do you want to include shuffleboard in any part of the $1 million allocation?
Yes or no? >> My answer is no. And I just want to piggy back off the uh the pickle ball and the >> and on this one, I would prefer a motion to vote on So, it's clear the direction and the motion would be something like
move to instruct the city manager to move forward to procure an engineer to design the the Palmetto Street Sports Complex, which includes resurfacing the tennis courts and constructing new pickle ball.
>> And I was just going to add, I believe it includes some parking if there's space available >> associate and associated parking. Okay. >> So, the motion would include direction to start on pickle ball construction, >> resurfacing tennis courts,
>> and associated parking. >> Is that your motion? >> Yes, that is my motion. So, >> discussion before we make a motion. Have a motion to debate it. >> So, moved. >> So, we have a motion on the floor. Do we have a second? >> Oh, I second.
>> All right. Now, we'll open it to discussion. >> Okay. I mean, was there a mill or 1.5 million? >> Okay, it is a mill. >> You've got 12 pickle ball courts in town now at Fair Park, >> not to count, not counting the other
retirement communities that all have pickle ball courts in them. I can think of at least three just off hand in South Leburg. But I don't see to spend a million dollars on pickle ball courts and and completely shut out the shuffleboard people. I
think if you if you want to spend the million dollars, I think the money should be split between 50% pickle ball and 50% shuffle board. I I just don't think you dump it all into pickle ball and shuffleboard people get nothing. I mean, I just don't think
it's fair. I mean they have no courts at all now and we have none publicly in the city. You have 12 pickle ball courts but you have no shuffleboard. I think the money should at least be split. >> Commission I just like to make an comment if I might I can recall in our
budget discussion it was tennis courts and pickle ball. >> No ma'am the original proposal was to resurface the shuffle board. This came up before the discussion with forward path came about. >> Yeah. This was during the budget meeting. That's what I'm referencing to
the notes. Yes. I don't recall. >> It was resurfacing of the shuffle board. The original proposal of the Palmetto Sports. >> I'm not going to All right. I have to refer back to the minutes, but I just thought it was. >> She's correct. >> Okay. >> So, so just for clarification, when you say there are pickle ball courts in the
city of Leburg, you're talking about Pear Park, which is not the city of Leburg. >> It is the city of Leburg. Pair Park is in the city of Leburg. Okay. >> It's It's a county park. It's a county park, but it's in the city limits. >> Is it? >> I'm almost positive it's in the city limits.
>> Wow. That's new to me. >> Uh, but closer to Leburg, there are multiple shuffleboard courts >> where >> Hawthorne. >> Those are private communities you can't go to if you're not a resident. >> So, a third of the shuffleboard club
that lives in the villages, they've got tons of shuffle board. Well, how about the people then you don't you everybody's assuming nobody uses these shuffleboard courts, but this group of people that that play in this this club. I I would think other people would play. I do think other
people play. You've got 12. I I just don't understand the the resistance to to give something back to the shuffleboard people. You take 18 or 20 courts away and now all of a sudden they get nothing. But we're going to put a million dollars into pickle ball when we already have 12
courts in the city. >> Um >> it's real simple for me. The residents of Leburg want pickle ball >> in my opinion. Mike, have you done seen a referendum done throughout the city? >> I'm not going to argue. I made a motion. >> It is the feedback you got the feedback you got from the recreation board which
is the board that you appoint. This the never went to the recreation board. >> Recreation board said they wanted pickle ball. >> I know, but it never went to the recreation board to even do away with the shuffle board. >> That never even went to the board. That was one of my my issues that that that's we never even got a recommendation back
from the parks and recck board on giving the the the shuffle board property away. So, we have a motion and a second on the floor. Any further discussion? Any public comments on the motion on the floor? >> Well, what what is the motions? Tell me
again. >> The the the motion on the floor is that the Palmetto Streets Sports Complex milliondoll allocation for fiscal year 26 includes >> pickle ball
>> resurfacing the tennis courts and associated parking. >> It has nothing to do with shuffleboard. That's the motion. >> Yeah, >> correct. If there was an order, Mike, uh, would the order be tennis court resurfacing for sure and then whatever shuffle board or I mean whatever pickle
ball >> that's what I would like >> we get. Yeah. And I don't think we need we don't we don't need to compete with pair park. We don't need some big number of pickle ball courts. So I mean I'm hope I trust >> what we can get. >> Yeah. We'll see what we squeeze on this uh on this parcel with you know uh adequate parking.
>> The tennis courts are still utilized by the high school. >> Yeah. That's the first and foremost that I'm just want to make sure I'm understanding for my point of reference. And the pickle ball ball courts were to be added because that is a popular and most
needed and requested sports. So that's where I'm understanding and that's where I thought we were going when we first started the conversation. So >> and that's what I thought too. >> Okay. Public comments. Any public comments on this item?
[Applause] Josh Brewster. Um 1515 Crest Avenue, Leburg, Florida. I've been in this city for 20 years and I had no idea that there was a shuffleboard court in this city until the shuffle board people came
and started their stuff. So, and I know pickle ball is huge for all kinds of people. So, that's all I got. Thank you, Josh. Any other public comments? Seeing none,
we will have a roll call on the motion on the floor. >> Commissioner Connell, >> no. >> Commissioner Bur, >> yes. >> Commissioner Peterson, >> yes. >> Commissioner Barry, >> yes. >> Mayor Reason, >> yes. >> Any other things for the good of the order of the meeting? All right. Take a
motion to adjurnn. So moved. Second. >> Meeting adjourns. 703.