Good evening. We will call our Monday, March 23rd, 2026 city commission meeting to order. Would you please stand for the invocation and the pledge of allegiance? Heavenly Father, we come before you today to do the business of the city. We
ask that every voice be expressed and heard with dignity, respect, and understanding. Guide our discussions and our decisions so that they continue to lead to economic growth, opportunity, and prosperity for our community now and
for generations to come. 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 proclamations today. um to designate April as our water conservation month. >> Do I go up this please? Someone come in. >> Pervis. >> I know. Mr. Pervvis, would you please
come forward? >> Do I need to stand and read it to him or just read it from here? >> Just read it from >> Okay. If I would just stand, I'll read it from here, please. Whereas water is a basic essential need
of every living creature. And whereas the state of Florida water management districts and local governments are working together to increase awareness about the importance of water conservation. And whereas the city of Leburg and the state of Florida have
once again designated April, typically a dry month, when water demands are most acute. as Florida's water conservation month to educate citizens about how they can help safeguard Florida's precious
water resources. And whereas the city of Leburg encourages and supports water conservation through a variety of educational programs and special events. And whereas every business, industry,
school, and citizen can make positive contributions to decrease water use and protect Florida's resources, thus promoting a healthy environment, economy, and community. And whereas outdoor irrigation comprises a large
portion of water use and the city of Leburg encourages citizens and businesses to focus on improving outdoor irrigation efficiency. And whereas 2026 marks the 28th anniversary of water
conservation month in Florida and its important message about the significance of a clean, safe, reliable and sustainable supply of water. Now therefore, I Allison E. Barry, mayor of city of Leburg, Florida, do hereby
proclaim the month of April 2026 as water conservation month and call upon all members of our community to help preserve this precious resource by practicing water saving measures and becoming more aware of the need to save
water. Thank you. >> Pam's gonna take your own picture, too. >> [applause] >> We've have presentations. s from Lake Sumpter MO update and local roads and intersections. >> Good evening, uh, mayor, commissioners,
Mike Woods, uh, director of Lake Sumpter MPO. I've got a [clears throat] brief presentation and I'd be happy to answer questions afterwards. So, we have a clicker. So, I'm going to talk about our 2050 long range transportation plan. We just
adopted that in December. It's uh federally mandated. We update that every five years. Uh our 2026 call for projects. That's how we implement the plan. We do a call for projects from all our our partners and we submit that to DOT on an annual basis and that's how
they develop the funded five-year work program. I'm going to talk about a new tool we developed, transportation improvement program dashboard. The the tip is our five-year funded program. We approve that every year. Uh right now it's about $ 1.5 billion for the next five years.
Um I've got a couple slides on impact of growth on our transportation network. Uh and then I'll finish with our vision zero safety action plan. We partnered with the uh UCF, the civil engineering department, and we did a 10-year and a five-year analysis of all the crash data
in Lake Sumpre counties in a imple a countermeasure plan to help resolve that. Okay, let's start with the long range plan. Uh we just adopted it in December. Uh we did something different this time. It wasn't a vision plan. It's more of an
implementation plan. Our top priorities have not moved forward in five years. And so we really focused just on our top priority projects, one of them being the US 441 and Leburg project, our number two project. And we implemented those projects of the plan and nothing else.
We're able to fund 13 of our top 20 uh projects. Um we are able to fund 14 projects through some phase but not not through construction. And we have a new uh funding source uh transportation alternative funding. federal funds for
smaller projects, bike ped, complete streets, uh safety, technology upgrades, uh you could enhance a a resurfacing project on a county or state highway. So, it's 2.5 million a year. Uh it's a good new funding source for us to to
use. And I'll go through how we're doing that. Let's start with the the financials. This shows the difference between 2020 we did this update and 2025. So 2020 is on the left, 2025 is on the right. There was a difference in $185 million in our
revenue forecast is the money we can use to plan projects out for the next 20 years. There's also a big difference in the type of money and I'll go through that next. So state funds significant decrease in state funding. We went from about 650
million over 20 years to about 161 million. Uh we increased our federal dollars um by about 80%. Um and that does have some some consequences for us. Federal dollars are
more expensive to f to spend. Um especially on county roads if we haven't done the the PD&E or design to meet federal guidelines. we have to go back and redo those before we can move forward with uh construction or rightaway phases. So, it does have a uh implementations moving forward. Then, uh
big increase in the transportation alternative funding and we're going to use that for our car call for projects every year. 2.5 million in and federal uh planning funds for, like I said, complete streets, uh technology improvements, uh bike ped, sidewalk
gaps. Um, so here's our our new long range plan. I don't expect you to be able to read this, but we separated each project into each phase and implemented each project as we had funds accumulated in our budget. So, this is new. Usually, we
just put all the project in a five-year bucket. You know, we got 31 through 35, 35 through 40. And that gives D2 a lot of leeway of of skipping our projects. So we only so we uh did every project by phase and so if D do doesn't want to
follow this they have to tell us why and get us to amend our plan. So we're kind of holding their feet to the the fire on funding our plan. So here's our 26 uh list of priority project. This is how we implement the plan. We give DOT a wish list. Here's
our top priority projects. Uh your your 441 project is number three right there. Um funded we could fund that in 2033. So so we adopt this in December. A lot's happened since then. So for 44 in Mount
Dora, the county uh loan DOT $10 million and they're going to implement half that project this fiscal year uh and probably move the rest of it forward way before 2032. Um, State Road 19, the Grove project from State Road 50 to 455,
DOT just announced that project is funded for PDE and and design in this fiscal year. So, we move that one forward. Uh, the US 301 corridor enhancements in in downtown Wildwood. Uh, the city uh loaned or donated $5
million to the department to move that project forward. It's a resurfacing project, but we enhanced it with three roundabouts, uh, midblock crossings, and, uh, big wide sidewalks on both sides of nice main street for, uh, city of Wildwood, which is now the third
largest city in Lake and Sumpre County, right behind you guys. So, going to your project, uh, number three there. So, we were able to fund that for construction in 2033. Uh I think it that project it I think it was
2008 we we first designed that project. Um >> they were buying property in 2003. >> Right. Right. Uh then we had to turn it down I think for utilities. We tried to bring it back in 2014 or 15 but it's going to need a re-evaluation.
Um yeah we just resurfaced that whole section. It looks really nice right now. [laughter] They're working on the turn for Dixie there. So, they're doing a lot of improvements and I guess I ask the city um we would you be uh willing to help finance the
reevaluation? It's probably going to be about $1.8 million. Look at the design, see if the design still fits what's out there today and what what you see in the future there. You know, we have the citrus plant closing down. Is it is that something that's going to affect this roadway? Do we want to look at the
design for that? So, it's kind of question. It's not immediate, but we need to start talking about that. And then you does the city want to advance that project? Do do we want it? Is it still your top priority? Do we want to advance that with some local funds? Get it implemented in 2029 or
2030? Is that something that's desirable to the city? You don't need to answer me now. Just something we should talk about with the with the department. But first phase is, you know, let's get the reevaluation moving forward. Oh, here's a I'm sorry. This is a um you
can probably see this one better. You know, by by the time we've get number five funded, we'll be updating this plan again. And so, um this was a short-term implementation plan to get our top priorities on the books and funded. And so far, it's worked really
well with the influ infusion of local funds. the rest of the list. There's four county projects in Sumpter, uh, US 441 in, uh, Mount Dora, and Wellness Way in in South Lake. So, that that's our 2026
list of priority projects, and it probably won't change for a couple years. So, we're also going to do a coffer project for the TA funds, really specialized funds, federal federal dollars, like I said, sidewalk gaps, um,
median improvements, access management, existing roadway enhancements, safety, operations, technology improvements, complete streets, trail projects. Uh, this is not for capacity. Um, and the money is coming in 30 2032, the new
fifth year of the our funded work program. So, it's it's out there ways. Um, and this will happen every year. We'll have $2.5 million every single year. And the call for project is going on right now. So, we we opened it in January. We're looking for applications
through March. We'll have a draft uh for the board to look at in April and a final in June. So, May I go ask a ask a question? Can we please go back one slide? Um it it surprises me. Well, it surprises
me that State Road 27 is not on on here south of Leburg. >> I mean, it it we get a lot of complaints about it. I drive all over the county, Central Florida, and it it it is not a it's it's over. It's a mess. It's I don't know how to describe it. Um I just
I just bring it up. It's not a criticism. I just bring it up for discussion. It just surprises me, you know, it's not even on the 10 year, 15 year radar. I mean, >> that's got to be corrected in some form or fashion. >> Yeah. So, that's that's a question. What are your top priorities moving forward?
So, these are kind of legacy projects we we're trying to get funded. They've been on our books for this project, you know, 12 years. It's it's consistently been voted as a top priority. So, >> the 441, I mean, that's been talked about, you said what, 2003? I remember
the state, you know, the state bought all the land and it was helped me out. Jimmy was our leazison to NO. It was on the MO 5-year plan and it fell off. >> No, it's always >> I thought it was off and on the top. >> Okay. Okay. >> It's a long process.
>> Okay. Yeah. I I just look up here. I'm just surprised Leburg doesn't have more on the radar and that's not directed at you. It's just the whole system. So >> So we're going to talk about that a couple. >> Okay. Great. Thank you very much. >> That that's the point of this. We we need to talk about what are the priorities moving forward. >> Yeah. And and Okay. And that's what I
was say. I was just I got big eye when I did not see 27 up there. So, I'll stop right there. So, um we've been doing this party list of party projects for a long time. It used to be like a billion dollar list. Every year we'd submit a billion dollar list to DOT and they'd kind of scratch their head. So, [laughter]
hey, we got 20 million we can spend. So there we have a lot of projects we've already cataloged probably for you on uh some of the table list safety and operation tismo complete streets trail projects bike ped so you don't have to re reinvent the wheel well we've been collecting projects from our partners
for for years and years so that you can use that okay let's move on to a new tool we developed so I'm sure your constituents want to know what's going on right now so this is our Transportation improvement dashboard.
It's one page. This is the whole thing. It's an interactive dashboard. This is every funded project in Lake Sumpre County right now that are using state and federal dollars. 140 projects right now. Um on the far left, that's all 140 project. You can you can that's a you
can scroll that list, click on it, expand it. All the data is right there. What year things funded, funding types, um when is when is it funded? Uh you can the map you can uh zoom in zoom out of the map and as you zoom in and like say
you focus on Leburg the middle column on the left of the map will just list the projects that are in your map extent. So you can focus on LeB. Here's what's here's what's funding quickly. It's a great tool. It's always updated. Uh we amend our tip probably every meeting. So
I have a toggle switch. It'll adopt it and draft. So if we have an amendment coming up in April, you can see what that amendment is going to be. And so it's pretty transparent and easy tool to use. I we have a video about two and a half minute video training video how to use it, how to make it your tool. You
can expand in each little section. you can make bigger or smaller, you know, to meet your needs. It's a great tool. You can always be up to date with your citizens on when they ask you questions. So, here's some of the impacts uh of
growth and population increase in in our area. And this is from DOT, you know, looking at the volume to capacity ratio in our our network. uh in uh increases in employment, increases in population.
The three big areas that do says are are concerning are uh South Lake and Minnola, Claremont, Minnola, uh Southwest Villages and Wildwood area, and north of Leburg. So you guys have you're kind of the epicenter of all the the transportation
needs and growth in Lake and Sumpre County right now. So, so what you're feeling is you're correct. It's uh there's a lot of impacts going on right here. So, what's this mean? You know, our our funding is decreasing. You know, uh gas
tax revenues, our main source of funding for transportation are continual decrease. um the number of of needs in you know are growing and so D5 is looking for district 5 DOT is looking for interim
improvements something that improves congestion right now uh intersection improvements technology improvements we're almost to the point where we need a traffic traffic uh management center that's manned with you know traffic experts they can adjust signals on on
the fly. So, it's going to be a combination of adaptive and manned uh surveillance of our traffic signals and corridors. That's that we're almost there. Probably five years away from that. Um but funding is still decreasing
even as our population increases. So, they're looking for smaller projects moving forward. So, maybe we do the top five intersections of Leburg area and, you know, submit that as a project. What's um >> I'll make one comment on that. I mean, I
I talked about State Road 27 or or I guess US Highway 20 US >> US Highway 27. Um if if we could get if we could fix the intersections at 2748 and 27 Dixie South Street. That's what's causing a big portion of the the
backlog. Are you saying this funding could become available sooner? >> So, if we work together? So it's a partnership. Yeah. So it's local funds, state funds, federal funds. >> Okay. >> And as we fund the top priorities on our
2050 plan, our next one should look different. >> Are these ranked right now? The intersection I mean this these improvements are they charted like the >> this is what they want us to look at. >> Okay. Okay. Great. I'll be quiet. Thank you. >> No, no, please interrupt all time. It's great. [laughter]
So it just we have to be realistic about the funding and so we have to design a new set of projects moving forward and I got a new tool for that too. We're going to show that next. So so I didn't that state 19 project Groven that's our number one freight project in Lake
County. We got that we got that one moving forward. 20% truck traffic on 19. Um I did a little study in uh Webster 471. We did try to do a complete street project there. 45% truck traffic on that road.
Um but so we were able to fund the number one freight project for Sumpter, the the interchange at uh K Road 514 near Coleman. This is going to service the Monarch Ranch industrial complex. 7,000 acres of trucking and logistics.
So big big uh project down there. We're able to get that. It it's the PD is getting finished uh this month right now and go right into design. So it's a big project for Septer and big project for our region here. This will be like an
inland port and had access to Turnpike 75 to CSX. So it it's a big deal. It's really going to be big for our region. Uh we're still working on 75 from Wildwood North. Uh they're building the auxiliary lanes right now. Uh then the
next uh stage of uh improvement there is they're going to look at the the the median special use lanes in the medium at 75. That's the next improvement for that that section there. So go right into safety. So uh UCF approached us. They wanted to partner
with us. Uh we're kind of a unique area. uh fast growing rural roadway network, large uh population of seniors. So, we're a pretty desirable place to study. Uh we've had three or four um projects through with UCF. And
one of them is our um vision zero safety action plan. And so, they studied the 10-year and five-year historic crash data for both Lake and Sar County for all the roadways. and we came up, we did a policy element in our long-range plan and we're looking at the fatal and
serious injury crashes and how can we reduce those. So, here's the uh and we're presenting this in April as a draft to the committees and board. It's um April 8th for committees and April 22nd for the
board. It's a draft. We'll come back in June for final approval. But the numbers aren't great. So right now our our fatal and serious injury crashes are about 4.4% of our total crashes. That beats
the state average by of 2.4%. It beats Orange County which is 3.1%. So um it we we have an issue with with safety and so it's something we have to address with our our planning moving forward.
The types of crashes, there's four types of crashes that that uh constitute uh 85% of the uh crashes. Uh off runoff road, left-hand turn, rear ends, and angles. And those are those are rural roadway crashes usually. And uh we have
about 70% of our network is rural. And so we have a rural uh roadway network problem. Uh and we're beating the state average on that. So we we're identifying three types of
uh seg uh cor three uh elements of the network corridor segments and intersections. So corridor segment is just a smaller part of a a a corridor. So um we're identifying the high injury network. We'll be able to use this in our
planning efforts. Uh we're going to take our congestion management uh process which is our traffic data, volume data, combine it with the safety data and come up with uh we can identify all the hot spots in our area and uh do
countermeasures to help uh fix that. So here's the the corridors you see in Leburg. We quite a few in Leburg. The whole county is you know we have problems all through the county. Here's the intersections.
Uh the top 10 worst intersection in the area all in Sumpre County. So So for every um corridor segment and intersection, we come up with a a countermeasure uh strategy how to fix it for for every one.
And it's all going to be uh contained in the vision zero dashboard kind of like the tip dashboard. It's all going to be right here. one one page. We have all the data, easy access. All we need is the money to implement. And what's the schedule? So, we did the
call for projects in January. We're taking applications right now. Um in April, we're going to have the a draft lop. We're going to have the draft uh congestion management process tool. We're going to have the draft um transportation improvement program. So,
a lot of things coming before the board in in April. We'll go for public review in in in May and final adoption in June. So, I know I I said a lot of different things. So, any questions or clarifications?
>> No, no, thank you. It was very informative. I mean, I've been on the commission what, seven years. I think this only second time I've seen this presentation. I I do appreciate it. Um Leburg residents are complaining a lot about traffic and I'm not going to get
longwinded, but you know, I do go I do drive all over the county and um it just seems like it just surprises me that 441 and 27 aren't higher up. And I know that's not your fault. I'm just saying it really surprises me just just someone at my level who's you know in the
trenches driving around the county all the time. And I'll stop right there. But I I do appreciate your efforts. >> So there was an issue an issue districtwide that our model is not completed yet. We we have a a traffic uh forecast model,
the CFRPM. It's not done yet. It's it's year it's a year out uh it's a year late and so we're probably wrap that up in June. And so we were doing our long our new long range plan without the the model which is you know unusual. So, we'll we'll
have that now and uh we'll be able to move forward soon as that's done and working on a new list of priority projects. >> Thank you very much, >> Mr. Woods. I have a question. So, in order for if Highway 27 has been the
major concern and complaints, how do we get that on the listing if this is the list of projects now and the same dollar amount will be allocated again for next year? Correct. Or is that what we're concerned about? The funding
>> 27 would be a capacity project. So, >> um, right now, like I said, we're funding the top priority is probably the, you know, number two, three, four. Um, but we should probably amend our long-range plan and look at look at it
again. Um, our goal this time was get these legacy projects off our list. Um, but if that's not the priority of the region, we need to change it then. So, our goal is fund these legacy projects that have been top of our list for
since I've been there and and start fresh next time. So, >> and bring some more money to the table. So, be a be a partner with DOT. Yes, sir. >> Mike, could you go back to the slide where you had the circles? Yeah.
>> Uh kind of the Futland Park uh then the village. Yes. So, get Say again exactly what this represents, you know. >> So this is a a demographic representation of impacts to our
transportation system based on uh volume to capacity ratios on existing highways. Uh employment increases in employment and increase in population in these areas. And this is areas that concern
DOT and the NO. So if I'm looking at this, 27 south of Leburg is not a problem according to this. Is that correct? >> On a on a big picture, bigger picture. Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah.
>> That's so this is this is this is really an important point. Okay. because I I and so I'm not advocating we have traffic problems or don't have traffic problems with this statement, but I think it's one that everybody in the room needs to
at least have a perspective on and what we're battling against. So, we're battling against growth in the region. We're battling a road network in the region and we're batt leaning on the state for funds to improve the roadways
as these get bad. And so all those things are in conflict with each other. Obviously, the state doesn't have enough money to go around to fix roads and they're focusing on areas in the region that are the worst first. So if you look at the map, let me take you quicker.
[laughter] >> You know, so funny. So what we don't want to see on the map is the is the yellow and the red segments, right? That's where we're identified as bad areas.
So what we have in Leburg is historically bad areas that we've always talked about right in here, Singleary Park and then of course the ever popular 2748 or 44 South Dixie interchange. So these
have been a problem forever. So all the PUDs, all the growth areas that we've talked about are outside of the circle. So obviously this circle is intensified by villages growth. Same with this circle. And then this circle down in
South County, Orlando growth. So that's not saying we don't have problems in the future, but it's saying for right now pretty much our segment of 27 from from so this is our you know so our ISPA is coming down into this area right down
into these little dots which almost represents um we this is the interchange here right 19 where so the the little uh medical clinic is right here about that red dot that everybody knows right so we got we got green sailing
along this this tributary until we get up to this area. So again, that's been a historical problem. So when you take these problems and you put it into the region where there's higher priority issues, you you see that and then and
you you see as well that 441 that the 441 widening project, which is this segment right here, is still green. So, you know, it's been a project that's been on the books since 03. I would probably argue that the city killed it
in ' 08 >> and and the city brought it back and Bob Bone was really instrumental in the one talking to the to the commission about making it a priority again and that happened 1415 time frame to where we did
update our PDNES for water, sewer, electric relocations. And so that project has has always been on the books since we brought it back, but I would argue that it hasn't really made it to the top because it at the end it constantly gets beat out by other
problem areas. 466 villages, 441, now Dora. So I would look at that map completely different. You know, I wouldn't say I wouldn't say we have humongous traffic issues. As I say, it's it's a concern, but I think when you take the Lake and
Sumpter region and you look at it cumulatively with the limited funds, there's other pressing issues that and that's why 27 and and Dixie get passed up. That's why Single Terry Park
that gets passed up because those funds are going other places for now. And I'm repeating myself, but if we could fix the intersections, that would solve a lot of it. I mean, >> I agree. >> Yeah, I'll stop right there. Um,
I won't go down that path. Okay. >> One other question, Mike. You talked about uh traffic signalization. Is that something that could potentially fall in that $2.5 million?
>> So, if you know, we want to be the pilot project. So we uh did a gap a gap analysis in our long range plan or or tismo element traffic systems manage man management operation. That's the new term for technology upgrades. So we we mapped the gap analysis where we need
fiber. Um you've got a TISMO project right now north of Leburg on on 44127. They're probably filling the gap and they're doing new signal hardware. I'm sure they don't advertise a lot what they do, but that they're upgrading
equipment and that's that should be one of our main priorities moving forward. >> That and start discussion on the traffic management center where we have some control of what's going on. Um >> I will you go back to that one that that slide again. >> Which one?
>> The one more back >> that the circle one. >> Okay. >> So this is this is 50 here. Is that right? >> Yeah. >> So this this is 50. >> Yeah. So, so the big >> So, so that's and that's why So, this is 27, >> right?
>> So, that's that's why that's 33. That's >> that's 33. Yeah. >> 33. This is 33. >> Okay. This is This is 27. >> And this is 50. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> So, the big yellow swath. >> Yeah. That So, that's where 33 is an
issue south of 50. >> We're projecting there right now. And then on 50 also in Sumpter County. We're we're four lane 50 all the way from Hernando County to Mascot. And we're in phase three of four phases. So we're almost almost into Lake County right
now. Fully fully funded. That's what took over in 2015. We agreed to the state priority in 2015. So [clears throat and cough] >> Mike, I do have something to say. I mean, I've listened to everything up here tonight.
There is a traffic problem on 27 from from 48 down to Dixie, >> especially in in peak hours. There is a problem there north and southbound. Um if there if there's an accident, forget about it.
There's there's and there's no way to bypass that that stretch. That's just a complete bottleneck from South Leburg into if you want to refer to it, older Leburg. There's no way to bypass it. Um and [clears throat] the and the more traffic is going to be added to that
stretch of road through annexation is just going to magnify this problem more and more and more. Um I do think that it's it's a project that's worthwhile to look at. I don't know how you really fix it. I mean you
can't really widen the road in some parts and you'd be in a lake. I mean, the best way to fix is to create a bypass across Lake Harris, but that's [clears throat] not going to happen, I'm sure. But that would alleviate a lot of the issues. But there is there is a major traffic issue there. And like I
said, there's no way to to bypass it with any type of accidents or anything else. And like I said, that road's going to continue to get busier and busier. So, I'm not sure what we would need to do to get it more of a priority on y'all's radar to take retake a look at that strip.
So we did analysis uh there gosh 2018 maybe I think we recommended a roundabout at 44 and 27 and or or main street in 27 and some other improvement. A lot of it was um
enhancements though. Um but I think technology is going to be our our friend on that corridor. You make sure we're we fixed all the gaps and have latest uh traffic signal equipment. That's going to be our fix especially when there's no place to go and a bypass is it's not not
feasible at this point. So >> I mean there one other intersection too still still the 27 Dixie but on Dixie coming up on Dixie to turn left if you will to go south on 27. That turn lane is is is terrible. I mean you sit there
at the intersection 10 10 12 minutes just to get through to the to turn. >> It's been bad for quite a while. >> Oh absolutely. Yes. And it's getting worse. Yeah. >> Do you understand you say that the state decreased funding?
>> So funding is decreasing, not the state >> increasing. >> Decreasing. >> Oh, that's what I thought you said. Okay. That >> So gas tax is just on a continual downward spiral. So I mean our cars >> our cars get better miles than they used to. So >> Okay. >> Okay. I just want to be sure I was clear
on that. Okay. So state gas tax is indexed to inflation, federal gas tax is not. That's probably >> and that's that's like been a phenomenaish since like COVID. I think like COVID is probably the first one. >> They've never indexed federal gas tax since '92. So
>> CO is I think where we started seeing sales tax and gas taxes started dipping because people stayed home and it kind of never really rebounded after that. It's all so gas taxes has had always been uh a a a growing revenue source in
reconstruction, but pro I would say the last at least since COVID at least we've seen that those gas tax dollars are are not elastic. They've been shrinking. >> One last note, K Road 44, you know, there's an active project on there right now. It's in your packet. I I provided
that. So, um they're adding safety. It's a safety project. Um I couldn't find any information on Lake County website, but there's a study on there under their complete studies on engineering section and they detail what they're going to do. Um it goes from uh numerous lefthand
turn lanes to pave shoulders, clearing and grubbing to the rightway line, better signage. And so they're doing a it's $2.7 million uh federal dollars, 72,000 in local funds. So improvements on that one. So, I remember we we tried
to forlay that 10 years ago. It's $100 million. I don't don't think it's ever going to happen at this point. So, [clears throat] it's going to need technology improvements and more left-hand turns, maybe a few threelane sections or something, but um it's constrained by the electric poles in
there. So, >> and I think if if there's anything I can underscore, especially Commissioner Canel, I'm not advocating that we don't have a road problem. >> Okay? That's not what I said. Comparatively, we are at the end of the
line because when these datas are shared with the no and other people outside our region and [clears throat] then we have to vote on projects, then we have to vote on limited resources, stuff is getting shifted to priority projects that make the list where you see the
yellow and the red. That doesn't that so that don't don't say men are said that we don't have road problems. Men are said what men are saying is we have a political issue because our problems aren't as comparatively bad as the
region. Therefore, when the region through the NO votes on priority projects, our projects don't get as much weight because they're not yellow and red. They're not supported by an equivalent population base >> and it's limited dollars. So that means
even though we're annexing all this stuff, our population base hasn't grown to where we're going to pull dollars away from South County or the villages, >> right? >> That's the problem. >> Can I use that? That's good. [clears throat]
>> I I would I would say adding additional property to the city, which is adding in the long run more traffic does create more of a problem. Stop. >> Any other questions? >> Thank you. It's been very engaging. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mike.
>> Frank Magazine. So, is it the problem of the legislature not fixing the gas tax for the governor or what's what's the issue here? >> So, the state the state gas tax is fine. Um, it's indexed to CIP.
Um, the reason reason for the down The reduction in the state funds was moving Florida forward. The big initiative by Governor Dantis. I mean we were beneficiary of that 301 I75
24 project across the state. 7 billion took all the state revenues to take all the re the reserves. And so that's why our state dollars are are down. But we got 24 really needed projects. They got fasttracked, you know. um to
construction phase. So >> I [clears throat] guess I mean is it just not meeting though? >> Oh, okay. I'm sorry. Second part. The federal gas tax is not indexed to to inflation. >> Okay. >> It never has been since it's created in 1992. So So we've lost about 40% of our
buying power for federal gas tax. >> Sorry. >> All right. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. Woods. I'd be happy to come back at at your pleasure. So, >> thank you. >> At this time, we'll move forward with
public comments. 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 for future city commission meeting. 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 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? Please state your name and address. Thank you. >> Hi, my name is Mario Nappa. I live in Legacy of Leburg. Uh, mayor, this is I want to make a request uh related to the proceedings later on. Mayor Barry has
received three letters from the Lake County commissioners and the remaining commissioners here received emails regarding the three applications scheduled for consideration this evening. I respect uh respectfully request that these recommendations be read prior to the vote on each of them.
If that is not preferred, I have obtained the letters from the commissioner Smith and the county attorney to read them during the public uh comment portion. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Max Parker. Address 7822 Slowwood Drive, Leburg.
I just want to come to do a couple [clears throat] of things. I want to um thank the city of Leburg for two events we had downtown. The first one was um on March the 8th, we was granted permission to have [clears throat]
a celebration birthday 100y year birthday from Miss Agnes Berry. Um at that event, it was very very it was supported well for the city and a lot of participants. We had um also want to thank the deput city manager and
commissioner Borie and also Commissioner Risman for their support. Um also during this time I also like thank Travis and his team of Ray and uh Tim for what they do. Thanks for setting up and everything. The second event was this past Saturday. We had an event of
uh V-Max One Community. We brought um a nonprofit organization from Spring Hill. They brought in a lot of people, a lot of talent young people that also uh executed very well on the stage. I want to probably I'm suffering with a cold so
I apologize for my voice. Uh so [clears throat] at the same time this event we want to thank the uh businesses of up of third and market and also Main Street for allowing us to have the event there. It
was again it was well attended. Uh the folks from Spring Hill, majority of them had never been to Leburg before, so they enjoyed downtown Leburg. They spent some money here and they enjoyed uh going back to Spring Hill, talking positive about this great city. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you. Are there any more comments, please? Moving forward 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 follows. One, pull the items from the consent agenda. Two, vote on remaining items with one roll call. And three, discuss each pulled item and vote by roll call. Are there any items that the
commission would like to see pulled at this time? >> Uh, five. 5C6 and 5C9. And I would like to see I think there was one more 5C6 5C9
and excuse me one second C10 and Yeah, I think that's it. I'll >> make a motion to approve the remaining consent agenda. >> Thank you. Second. >> Roll call, please.
>> Commissioner Conell, >> yes. >> Commissioner Bur, >> yes. >> Commissioner Peterson, >> yes. >> Commissioner Reeseman, >> yes. >> Mayor Barry, >> yes. >> Would someone please introduce? I'll introduce 5C6 to be read by title only.
>> Uh, city commission approval of the budget calendar for fiscal year 2026-27 which includes dates for commission workshops >> for approval. >> Second I pulled just I spoke to Val earlier. I
I don't know [clears throat] that was one of the things you never got back with me on >> Friday meetings. >> Okay. So that's been changed. No, that that's not that's an administrative note. It's not a meeting. >> Okay. Okay. >> And so we get the budget out to you on Friday, June 26, meaning you'll get an
email or you'll get a draft document. >> Okay. >> That's not a meeting. >> Is there any? [laughter] >> It's that was your only comment. Okay. Um, can we get someone to introduce um
>> Oh, roll call, please. Excuse me. >> Commissioner Bur, >> yes. >> Commissioner Peterson, >> yes. >> Commissioner Reeseman, >> yes. >> Commissioner Conell, >> yes. >> Mayor Barry, >> yes. >> Would someone please introduce the next >> I'll introduce 5C9 to be by title only.
Resolution of the city commission of the city of Leburg, Florida, authorizing the mayor and city clerk to execute a road transfer agreement between the city of Leburg and Lake County and providing an effective date. >> Move for approval. >> Second.
>> Uh yes. Um I [clears throat] spoke to Al earlier today about this and let him I'm going to let him just open it up and tell us about it. Then I I do have a few more questions. So this agreement is pursuant to the
ISBA agreement, the the 2013 ISBA agreement. As part of that agreement in the transportation section, the city agreed to annex or not annex, the city agreed to accept dedication of certain county roads um that we would have
annexed 50% of the road frontage. So, that's a little bit of an odd oddity in the way the language was written. Um, and we had had a public discussion on this several months ago. Um, and and
pending your your feedback to me that was presented to the county and these were ultimately the roads pursuant to the ISBA agreement that the county that the city rather needed to adopt. Let me kind of veer off. I think that the
greater concern was in the discussion with the county at the time there was the county's want to shed many of their county road networks. The greatest being those that are major county roads uh such as 48 33
um 19 that really doesn't affect Leburg. Um, but at that time we we internally had that discussion with the county, I think a little bit publicly with you that the the intent of the ISBA was not
for the county to shed major what I'll call arteria roads like 3348. Those specifically those roads because they, you know, cut through Leburg um and some of our development is over them. I think the intent in that was
that the county saw through the agreement those roads being county roads. So local roads being city roads to get you from city to city, county roads or let me say that over. Local roads being roads that get you within
the city, not city to city within the city to a county road. County road get you city to city and then obviously state network roads get you outside of that. So 48 19 th3 those being county roads I don't think the the ISB ever
really contemplated that those roads would be shifted as we reviewed the language in those agreements um and some of the way it was date specific because much of the annexation like for example the county wanted us to to adopt all of
county road 48 from 27 to the to the terminus which is the county line our our position I think we discussed that publicly was no that's not our road and and moreover we already have 50% of that road annexed and we annexed uh um secret
promise back in ' 03 or ' 06 that already locked in 50% of that so that agreement came after that so I think the intent was yeah county road network so I think the county ultimately agreed to our interpretation of that and their
road request list pursuant to the ISBA significantly shrunk to roads that aren't regional transportation or arterials. Um, so what was left on the list was the the roads that are that are
in your packets. portions of Busby, portions of number two, portions of Dwey, portions of roads that I there I I won't list them all off, uh but many that aren't transversed, but we had annexed 50% of that road total between
it. Um so a um I think we are contractually obligated to take on these roads um pursuant to the ISBA. Should you fail to annex them, um I I you know, I don't know what the ramification of that is. You know, I I
think you would be uh not in compliance with the agreement. And where does that lead you? I I you know, I don't know. And you know, pontification on what the county will sue us and, you know, are they going to take away the annexations that we've done? Probably not. But the cure
is probably going to be some big long litigous process where we're forced to take what's before you tonight. So, so a we have to do it. Uh B, what is the concern um with, you know, what kind of cost do we have associated with taking
these roads on? Um that was the the specific conversation with Commissioner Canel this afternoon. Um the number that we came up with was about 20 to 25 grand annually to take on these roads. Um, but I think that's a bit of a misnomer, too.
Most of these roads, um, and and I I let me say that that's probably a reasonable number, but it's a misnomer in that it's not it's not going to be on an an annual basis that that those funds going out. So, budgetarily wise, it's not going to
have an impact. But when these roads do, say, five, ten years, when this road needs an overlay, you're going to see us spend a hundred or 300 grand on this road all at once. You divide that over the course of the life of the road. You're you're looking at that that that
number. Um I don't think that this is a financial burden for us. Um a it's contractual, and b um you know, over the course of time, um I don't see that these are are major concerns. Um I I won't speak to Commissioner Canel's
concerns. He'll bring those up. I do think that that the commissioner was concerned about uh you know what if we have to widen these type of roads. Um those type of concerns. I don't see that that is a as a greater concern. Most of most of the design of the concepts that
we have, we see we see exits major primary exits onto other county roads or the 27. Um, so I don't see we're going to have a backlog as a a major problem of a take or a force to take. Um, and if we do, then I think we probably have
other planning processes or other PUDs that will come up along these roads where we can do a take or a sign widening or other projects. So I, you know, I'm not saying we don't have that exposure, but today I'm not overly concerned about it.
So, the action is to accept these roads which were triggered by the ISBA. >> Well, thank you. [clears throat] Uh he he touched on several of my concerns. I mean, it's there's an annual maintenance 2025,000. He said an overlay of one of
maybe $300,000 [clears throat] if the roads ever need to be widened. My understanding through conversation with city manager is that the county transportation fees would not be available to us to widen these roads since they're not county roads.
So therefore, that cost would fall 100% on our taxpayers. It goes back to what I've been saying for years is growth is not paying for itself. Uh if we had to widen these roads or even overlay them, those
expenses are coming from our taxpayers. the majority of our taxpayers don't want all this growth and to burden them with forcing them to pave roads or widen roads to accommodate growth they don't want is is is ridiculous. Uh, I understand we're we're stuck here
because of the the agreement we have with the county, but I I really would caution the city in the future on annexations to really keep this in mind that you're you're absorbing forever cost by taking these roads by annexing all this property on on these these
these roads and you're you're you're you're saddling the our taxpayers with with paying for them that the taxpayers don't want them to start with. Um, so I mean I I I'm guessing Grant, we don't
have the option to not accept these roads, but in the future I I really would like the commission to consider on all these annexations. It it's just not the traffic that's one of the issues that all these houses cause, but it's
the additional incurring cost every year to to to accept these roads from the county and to maintain them and to widen them or whatever we might have to do that's going to be charged to our taxpayers to take care of it.
>> Yeah. And just to to touch on that, that's as as Al had said, there is a provision in the ISBA that addresses annexations and roads that need to be taken on by the different cities that are parties to the agreement with regard to the annexations and when
they hit that 50% trigger. And and we did look at that with the 48 issue that came up, you know, before and kind of examine that provision. And so, yeah, it is it is in there and it's something that we've got to comply with. I don't recall if maybe there's a dispute resolution process, if there's a a
disagreement among the the parties as far as how that plays out. I don't don't have the ISBA in front of me. I apologize. But um but but it is true there is that provision in the agreement. That's what triggered this. And so um there is that obligation on
the city's part to comply with with what it said it would do. So, would you feel like in your opinion, legal opinion, we have to accept these or is this something we can postpone for a couple weeks for you to research it to see if we can have a way to not accept them?
>> Um, I mean, if we postpone it for two weeks to look at the ISBA and and everything, it doesn't upset me. I don't think it it necessarily upsets the timing on anything. Um, I do think as we sit here that we're probably up against
the wall on that. I'm not very hopeful that I'm going to going to find anything from what we looked at before, but I'm absolutely happy to look at that deeper in in the next couple of weeks and report back at the next meeting. >> Okay. Well, then I would anybody else
>> at least have one question. Um, does the agreement deal with the split of impact fees? We're taking on the roads because we've approved >> development. The No, the the impact fees are county road collector road impact fees. So that squarely goes to the county. They're the county's impact
fees, not the cities. >> And the agreement is pretty explicit. It says we will take the roads. >> You see where I was going with with that question? >> Well, I think >> we're taking responsibility for the road. I was trying I wish the agreement spoke to uh some kind of share on
revenue. >> [laughter] >> I think from the county perspective, you know, the the the concept, look, this this portion of the ISBA was approved by nobody sitting at this table. Okay? It was I think tech it was approved in
October of 2013 was when the date that actually Commissioner Campion as chair signed the document and in 2013 the contemplation was not massive growth. The contemplation of that agreement was
as the the county seeking growth as well as the county being not the political subdivision of Lake County but the region of going through a recession going through a no growth time period. Understanding that at that time construction the construction industry
and the service economy of the region was significant that the agreement was birthed with the concept of how do we plan. So contrary to popular belief, the ISBA is actually a planning document and and it shared
responsibilities of how to plan for future growth, how to and and and its major contemplation was how to plan for fire services. it. And so it was if the knowing that the city's not in the or excuse me, knowing that the county is
not in the utility business, you know, let's form these boxes, we call it interervice boundary agreements on what city is going to take care of these areas and through annexation, the city would do this, the county would do
that. So it it was a quid proquo. So one of the tradeoffs was non-ontiguous annexation provided cities are going to cover some of the roads and I think that that docu my opinion is that that document contemplated that it wasn't
shifting arterial roads it was shifting smaller roads so if you go look at the name of on that list Jimmy you've got it so you know these roads you know I understand the concerns Bridges road from US 27 to the turnpike that's a libby little stubby section right now
that there's not a lot of growth on and that probably won't need widening because it's a transversal road. Busby Road again, Dewey Robbins, Dunk uh Duncan Road, Farnney Road, number two PO Windmill. So, you know, I'm not poo
pooing that there's not a potential problem, but the contemplation is these are these roads in the future are going to work more like local roads, which would be our responsibility to manage. So, that that's the contemplation of the agreement. Um,
did I answer your question? I don't know if I did or not, but but at the end of the day, I mean, you we agreed to that in 13 and and you know, there's there's really no getting out of that. >> Yeah. No, not all I was asking. >> And so we can we can put it off for two weeks, but we're going to come back with
the same answer. You got to you got to take the roads. >> Yeah. I mean, there's absolutely a component of having to take roads in that agreement for sure. It's just >> and and so we've beat the county up, I think, pretty successfully on what roads we are willing to take. And if you
notice, this list is substantially shorter than the one I think we presented to you back in August is or September sometime this late summer, early fall, we presented you a road, a a road, a list of roads that you know, my hair was on fire in a couple and and and
we had a long conversation about that's a county road. That agree that agreement being the ISBA doesn't contemplate 48. That that's a county road. It stays a county road forever. I think the county has now accepted that. And so the list
that you have is after our response back to them, you know, four months later, so unfortunately it's not fresh in our minds, but four months later, okay, the countyy's like, "Okay, we see what your point. Here's the road you need to take." Upon our review, we're like, "Yep, those are the ones we need to take."
>> No, I think you've done a good job on it. And if if I just want to bring up the funding issue, be sure we were crystal clear on that in this agreement. If if you're clear on that, there's no way no way to share revenue. Then we don't need to kick this thing down. >> The there is no contemplation in the ISBA about money. Okay.
>> So because there is the lack of contemplation about money in the ISBA that means we go the course and the course is they collect counter they collect impact actually we collect it for them technically and then we deliver it to the county. Then the county spends
it on roads. And remember, they have the district plan. And again, I keep harping back to this. You know, you don't see massive county road construction because the county hasn't collected massive amounts of impact fees in our district. We're the biggest city in our district
and we still grow at about 30 units a month. So, that's not a whole lot of collector road impact fee money to go towards these improvements. Now, if you look at South Lake, that's a totally different animal. They've collected millions of dollars and and you see in
their five-year program how they programmed it out. So, the agreement doesn't speak to money, which means they get to keep their collector road impact fee monies that we collect and transmit to them for their roads. And we have to
use our general fund dollars or our local option gas fund dollars to do road improvement projects or maintenance or improvements or widening or you know our strategy is to try to get as the developers to do as much road construction as possible.
>> Yeah. >> Through the PUDS which that is in your PUDS. >> So we are we are pushing off road construction as much as we can in our PUDS. Um, no, I appreciate that. You you helped me right there. Um, so there's no reason to kick this can down the road.
Um, if we were able to renegotiate this ISBA in any form or fashion, I would hope we can maybe try to tweak the impact fees and splitting taxes differently, but that's another day. >> Well, I'll just end it with that open-ended. Let me The ISBA retires in
33, >> 2033. >> So, is it possible to have more roads added to that by then? Within that time frame? Yes, the the as [clears throat] you know there is a possibility as we continue at annex that you that we're going to trip the 50% threshold. There's
a couple roads on here technically where we don't trip the 50% threshold. I think PO road is one of those but we know but we know that we will or it's arguable that we already have that frankly that that was brought to my attention by
planning and zoning and and my administrative recommendation to you is we've already tripped that threshold. We, you know, there's certain roads that we might as well go ahead and take now. And th those are dimminimous on the list, by the way. But the the the roads
that are on your list are are bonafideed roads that were tripped by the ISBA that need to become city roads pursuant to the agreement that was dated back to October of 13. >> Thank you very much. >> Uh, by the way, too, I understand and commissioner, please don't take offense.
I understand the want of a delay, but I also I'm also going to tell you I think if you delay that, you know, I I don't think that sends the right message to the county. Um I've been asked on more than one occasion about the status of this since I received the email from the
county attorney. Um I told her we would expedite it. It's it's been on the table. So I think if we try to stall it, I don't the answer is there are roads to take. I just want [clears throat] 100% opinion
that we have to take these because I'm I'm obviously I'm [clears throat] I'm opposed to taking them. It's additional burden on our taxpayers to maintain, widen, resurface or whatever these things forever and the developers are long gone. So, our existing taxpayers are going to have to pay for these
things. But, um I mean obviously if we have to do it, we have to do it. But, I want to know make sure 100%. question I had for Al at the last meeting was whether or not we've tripped the 50% threshold on those roads. >> We've tripped the 50% >> and that was really I mean it again was
pretty clear that once you hit that 50% you've got to take the road. >> We we've weaved out the questionable roads. So I I just I mean like I said my my main thing was because it was talking as though this is all being this is all IBA roads wanted to make sure it was all
IBA roads and that the threshold was there and if we were there I didn't really didn't really have any concerns >> not to muddy the water too much but um we have about what is it about seven community development districts within
PUD's we've planned Well, that got right. >> Pretty much every pretty much every PUB that we have done is flipping over and then we're forming a CDD. >> Yeah. So, in those CDDs when those roads start to have problems, are they the
city of Leburg's problem? >> It depends. You know, unfortunately, the answer is it depends. Some of the PUDs were written such that we didn't take dedication. >> Right. That's what I thought. Then we got into kind of a pattern where we we
have start where the the langu the the language in the paragraph has always been may um and so some PUDs Arlington Ridge for example >> inside the >> yeah Arlington Ridge for example I I don't think we have those roads but that
was a one that was a May Lake Denim Estates those are ones I think where we where again we haven't taken dedication we forced the developer to fix some stuff but I assume they're probably going to be coming to us now that they have been fixed. >> Um, and then there's been different
subdivisions where we we've set it up. So, it it's it's a may and and it's really incumbent upon the developers to come in and remind us that, hey, dedicate these roads and and and that answer back to you is going to be it depends. Some of some of the projects,
public works, since we've kind of taken a different approach of, you know, it's all going to be our problem someday. we might as well just take these in. We've paid a little more attention to road construction just so so we know that when it's taken that it's it's it's done. So it it at this stage I'm going
to say it's incumbent upon those developers that once they get their sign off and their CEOs on housing that they come back and execute their deed to dedications. >> Can we get a motion and second for >> was already done? Okay. So 5C9
um will someone >> Oh, excuse me. Roll call, please. >> Commissioner Peterson, >> yes. >> Commissioner Reeseman, >> yes. >> Commissioner Connell, >> unfortunately. Yes. >> Commissioner Bur. >> Yes. >> Mayor Barry. >> Yes. Would someone please introduce the
5C10? >> I'll introduce 5C10. The great title one. >> Um yes. I pulled this. >> Can I read it? >> Go ahead. Gentlemen, >> resolution of the city commission the city of Leburg, Florida, waving and releasing a code enforcement fine and
lean against the property located at 1215 West Dixie Avenue, Leburg, Florida 34748, alternate key number 1653916, owned by Robert G. Hicks, trustee,
authorizing execution of any documents necessary to release the fine and lean and providing an effective date >> for approval. >> Second. >> Um, yes. I was just trying to ask if there was an error or something on our
end far as code enforcement and why were we pulling this and do we have a dollar amount of fines or >> I don't have the dollar the dollar number is pretty high at this point. This one's been going on for a little while, probably about a year and a half,
something like that. We've had a couple orders. We've had an appeal. We've got arguments about whether notice was given. We've got arguments about whether he was originally directed to put the vehicles there to assist with some other
problems that were ongoing on the property. a lot of arguments, um, a lot of time, a lot of money to be spent if we continue arguing about all of these things. And so the discussion was
basically had of trying to encourage this property owner to fix the problem that the city had, which he's now done, uh, thankfully. And so the the problem's been solved. And the suggestion was if
you'll solve the problem then we'll try and solve your problem or or we'll at least bring your problem to the attention of the commission and see if the commission's receptive to that. So really it's just been a latigious situation. We've kind of found a point
now where the property owner has has come into compliance. They've kind of come come around here um done what we've asked them to do. And so the request was to wave the fines that had been uh acrewing against the
property and avoid the ongoing dispute basically. >> But we don't know how much the fines were. >> Uh it's it was $100 a day. It's been going for >> it was a big number because it went on for a while and a big numbers probably we're talking thousands tens of thousands.
>> Oh, okay. Was it a situation where the person wasn't notified? >> No. We we we will argue about that. And so just >> so here's where we're at. You know, remember the code enforcement fines are
are a tool to get compliance. They're not a revenue-making tool. I don't think a governing body should look at code enforcement fines to be a general revenue of the city. It's a punitive issue. we are going to find you x number
of dollars a day until you fix that problem. And when that problem is fixed, it's right and it is appropriate for the governing body then to wave those fees. Where we start getting into circumstances where I hate to say this, but I'm going to coin it this way, where
the financial beneficiary of code enforcement problems has been a death, a change in ownership, something that stays on title where the problem has never been fixed. And then that's where the long arm of government reaches out and grabs you and and we foreclose on a
property and we take it in lie of the fine. That is not this case. This case is for lack of better words but to just communicate clearly stubborn property owner not working with code enforcement. Code enforcement doing their job.
Ultimately code situation correct and abaded. Therefore, the fine should go away. And the only authority who can remove fines is this body. And that's why this matters before you. So, our our staff recommendation is to follow the
attorney's advice and wave the fines. >> Yeah. And fixed the owners, too. So, he can, you know, it doesn't he's an attorney, so he can argue it, you know. I mean, it's still opportunity cost, but doesn't cost him money out of pocket. >> Yeah. I think that's a reasonable point, too. He is a lawyer, and so that that
keeps this on. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Well, I guess my my question would be is I and I agree. I mean, the ultimate of code enforcement is to gain compliance and not really looking code enforcement to drain somebody of all their their
money. But something that struggle for a year and a half that obviously the owner was aware of it at some point and failed to address it. I don't think it's unreasonable to say, "Okay, we'll reduce the fine." But the fine goes down to to offset the
cost of the city of what we have in administrative cost on on employees. I mean staff time at attorney legal legal stuff mailing. I don't think that's asking too much for him to at least satisfy what the city has in it to get
to this point. >> That's a good point. >> Do you want a rough number? >> Yeah, if you're going [clears throat] 1500 bucks. >> Okay. Well, how much y'all? >> 1,500 bucks. Okay. Well, then then reduce it down to 1,500. But I think you should reimburse the city for what the
city hasn't expense in this. >> I think you >> Well, I was just asking. I mean, if it was an issue where um there was an error on code enforcement or something, but if like if they never received the information, that's one thing, but >> I don't think so. I mean, again, everybody says different things. I I
support code enforcement on on what they've done throughout. Um, [clears throat] then I'd make a motion to reduce it down to the 1,500 to to cover the cost to what the city has involved in it. >> Second. >> Second. >> Just before you vote, that would be an
amendment to the motion on the floor. >> Yes, it would. >> Um, on favor. >> Yes. So, there's been a motion and a second. All in >> on a >> on the amendment. Can we get a vote, please?
>> Commissioner Reeseman. Yes, >> Commissioner Conell. >> Yes, >> Commissioner Bry. >> Yes, >> Commissioner Peterson. >> Yes, >> Mayor Barry. >> Yes. >> Now, may we get a motion on the amended >> make Can we make a motion on the amended? >> I'll move
>> the amended motion. Approve it. >> Yeah. Second. >> It's been moved and properly second. And may we have a roll call, please. >> Commissioner Kell, >> yes. >> Commissioner Bur, >> yes. >> Commissioner Peterson, >> yes. >> Commissioner Reeseman,
>> yes. >> Mayor Barry, >> yes. >> Oh, you want to do it now? Okay. Oh, all right. I'd like to I need to make motion. >> Yes. I did not pull I failed to pull one of the um
>> items on 5C 7. Chad asked, I just had a few questions in reference to so I'd like to make an amendment to the motion to pull 5C7 for questions.
>> So, >> can we have a roll call, please? >> Well, we can we have to vote on that. >> Yeah, this is this is on that. >> Yeah. So, this is So, the mayor wants a motion to reconsider item number seven, >> right? >> That's the motion. >> We have a motion in a second. >> He's got a first. Yeah. So, you got a
vote on the reconsideration motion. A motion to reconsider items >> 5C7. >> 5C7. >> Okay. >> C7. Okay. >> Okay. So, vote on that. >> Yes. >> So, did we get the motion? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Who Who did you check in?
>> Did you I made it. >> I Okay. Okay. Okay. >> Commissioner Burray. >> Yes. Commissioner Peterson. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Reeseman. >> Yes.
>> Commissioner Conell. >> Yes. >> Mayor Barry. >> Yes. >> But we have no discussion. >> Okay. So I let So number seven is now unapproved. >> So we need a motion to read it. >> Approve. >> I'll introduce 5C7 to be right by title
only. >> Andy. >> Yes sir. >> Read again. [laughter] >> Read number seven. >> Okay. He made a motion. Who does second? >> I did. >> Oh, okay. Oh, you introduced. I'm sorry.
>> Uh 5C7, resolution of the city commission of the city of Leburg, Florida, establishing rental rates for sports complexes throughout Leburg and providing an effective date >> for approval. >> Second. >> Now I'm back. >> I have a question, please. Very short
minor. Um in the presentation that's in the um detail I it was a notice um a note stating that um for the proposed rates for Sleepy Hollera estimated revenue would be
20,000 and Susan Street 40,000 and this was all based on estimates in which we're looking for far as rental fees and I just would like to know far as the um recorded would this would these dollars come back to the general fund or will
they go back to CRAAS where we >> that's a general revenue general revenue of the city. >> Okay. >> Yes. So that's >> won't go back to the CRAAS >> even though Even though the CRA is paying for it. It's located within the CRA district. It's allocated the
construction project with CRA dollars. So that is a CRA operation, but the maintenance and operation of the facility is in SOP, standard operating procedure, which would fall under recreation, which is in the general fund. You could ultimately probably peck
out some maintenance dollars from the CRA and and plug it over into do a transfer, but I'm going to recommend forget all that. You you you grab the capital dollars. That was a reasonable expense. It's going to be operated and run through the general fund. So those
revenues should go into the general fund of the city. >> So far as whatever TIF money comes through, would that still go to the CRA or would that come to the general fund? Just trying to figure out >> the TIF money stays in the CRA and is paying for the capital dollars. >> Yes. And then
>> and then that's it. It's done. >> So what >> the operation goes to the general fund. So the miscellaneous revenues they pick up from user fees would go into the general fund of the city and then subsidize the recreation department for the
maintenance and operations of the park. >> And as we grow and the um the area gets populated and more people come and visit, that's more revenue for a general fund that we can then pay back
some of the funds that's on the CRA area or do they remain only in the CR? I'm That was a double question, right? So, let me I will answer it double. Yes, >> the money would be eligible to go back to and repay the CRA.
>> You will never collect enough re revenue to do that. Even if we grow tremendously, that those projects are always going to be a loss leader. Those honestly are nuisance fees, but we have those fees in place for use to help cover some of our costs. I don't think
you will ever see a day and time where any of our recreational facilities cover their own costs and they are subsidized by other general revenues of the city and probably will in perpetuity. >> Okay. And even though there were two CRAAS, it doesn't matter. We just still
have to put everything in general funds far as how we anticipate it. >> I don't like the way you asked that question because you said have to. And as soon as you say have to, that changes the answer. So, no, we don't have to put
it in the general fund, but our recommendation is to put it in the general fund. >> Okay. All righty. Just want to be clear on that >> because it's it's a loss leader and you'll never get back the capital investment. >> Yeah. Okay. That's all I needed to know. Thank you. So, are there no more to be
pulled? So, we need to do a roll call. >> Commissioner Peterson? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Reeseman? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Khan? Yes, >> Commissioner Bur. >> Yes, >> Mayor Barry. >> Yes. >> And now, can we move on, please, to our
public hearings and non-Rine items? [laughter] 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 refrain from speaking
out, cheering, or applauding during these proceedings. Your corporation helps ensure a fair and respectful hearing. Um, city attorney to would you please swear any participants wishing to? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Uh, anyone here
this evening, city staff or in the audience, if you plan to present any testimony this evening, if you would please. Uh and the uh hearing cases are 6A3 Lake Margaretta phase 2 PUD reszoning 69
Cronin Dewey Robbins residential spud resoning. If you would please stand, raise your right hand so you could be sworn in. 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. Very good. Thank you all.
So read the ordinances one, two, and three. >> So I please >> I'll introduce >> We're on >> six >> 6 A123. >> I'll introduce 6 A123 and be read by total only. >> 6 A1 an ordinance of the city of Leburg,
Florida, annexing certain real property consisting of approximately 25.07 07 plus minus acres being generally located south of County Road 48 east of number two road and west of Trippy Road lying in section 20 township 20 south range 25
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 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 3 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 real property consisting of approximately 25.07 07 plus minus acres. Being generally located south of County Road 48, east of number two road and west of Trippy Road,
lying in section 20, Township 20 South, range 25 East Lake County, Florida, and providing an effective date 63, an ordinance of the city of Leburg, Florida, changing the zoning on approximately 25.07 07 plus minus acres
from Lake County R1 rural residential to city of Leburg PUD planned unit development to allow for 75 single family homes for a property generally located south of County Road 48 east of number two road and west of Trimpy Road
lying in section 20 township 20 south range 25 east lake county Florida and providing an effective date move >> for approval Second >> Dan, will you please do presentation, please? >> Thank you, Madam Mayor. Dan Miller, planning and zoning. This is the Lake
Margaretta phase 2 project. It consists of an annexation, small-cale comp plan, and reszoning of about 25.07 plus or minus acres, generally located on the south side of County Road 48 and east of number two road. Project is contained
entirely with the existing approved Lake Margaretta phase one project. The request is for approval of a future development for single fam family dwelling units at the that blend into the density of the surrounding approved project. Kind of filling a hole in the
donut as you can see here. Lake Margaret phase 2 and the uh burnt orange color up there. Under this request, the future land use application for the project is requesting a change from Lake County Rural Transition to City of Leburg estate residential. The zoning
application for the project is requesting a change from Lake County R1, which is their rural residential to city of Leburg planned unit development. We received no substantiative comments from the city departments. The school board noted the applicant will be required to
obtain a school concurrency reservation uh letter which reserves capacity for the schools and if at the time of development uh adequate school capacity is not available, the project would be subject to a school board city of Leburg
mitigation agreement. Uh Lake County Public Works did not have any comments on the project. Under public responses, we actually received no written responses to the ads and letters that were sent out. Under the terms of the
SPUD agreement, the project consists of a total of give or take it's going to be 70 residents as long and and what we're saying is as long as it mixes into the same level of density as the Margarita one project. So, we're anticipating around 70 in that within that number
depending on the engineering. Uh no other uses are permitted. These are all single family detached. The project proposal will include design standards for the architecture which are included and are shown in the exhibits. A minimum 35% open space, dark sky lighting, code
compliant landscaping are all required as well as the use of either bea or bermuda grass which is reduces water consumption compared to this St. Augustine standard. The maximum building height is two floors. There are gutters required for sideyards of less than 5 ft
and there are facade samples in your packets. Uh under site access, it's shown on the plan. Again, as it integrates into the larger product project, they'll be using um the same access points. The PUB does require the developer to provide any and
all expansions or upgrades to the access points and as needed and required by FDOT and or Lake County. And if the city takes that road, then I guess it'll be the city at that point. Under recreation, there's 2.7 acres of recreation required. And this includes
the primary recreation area with the three amenities, which are a swimming pool, children's playground, and dog park. And that's also a part of the larger make Lake Margareta Pedro. All the utilities have to be on city of Leburg water and wastewater. So there's no wells or septic. and our utility
services have indicated that there is capacity to serve this project. And then finally, there is a phasing or expiration clause which requires that development move forward with substantial commencement within four years or the product the property zoning
will revert to the RE1 uh zoning standards. It won't revert the zoning won't revert just the standards and that would be one acre per unit. So they have four years if approved today to move forward. Um planning commission
did recommend approval on this one and I believe Mr. Tom Dailyaly of Daily Design Group is here as well. If you have if there are any comments or questions >> uh no sir I told you the wrong one. I apologize that this one was approved.
The other two were the three threes. Good evening. My name is Tom Dailyaly with Daily Design Group at 913 North Pennsylvania Avenue and I'm here on behalf of the applicant. Um, I gave a brief presentation at the first reading. Dan's pretty much said everything, so I'm here to really answer any questions
you might have. >> Does anyone have any questions? is the Gospel >> Gospel Road runs through this subdivision. >> Uh, no. Go. Well, Gospel Road was a a
county easement. That's an access to the orange property >> that's there. Now that we're incorporating that into it, we're going to vacate that easement. The only properties that are accessed by Gospel Hill are the areas that are in the orange um Lake Mar, which is what
we're talking about tonight. Okay. And then the two parcels then the other two parcels are access off the other road. >> 48. >> Everything accesses off of uh the main entrance. >> 48. Right.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> No. to public comments. >> My name is Marion App. I live in Legacy of Leburg and I would like to read the letter from um Kirby Smith to Mayor
Barry and I think you all receive comments as well. I mean an email as well. Dear Mayor B, Dear Mayor Barry, on behalf of the board of county commissioners, I am reaching out to you regarding concerns associated with the annexation of the abovementioned
property. And the rest of that paragraph just discusses the uh the location of the property. Then it goes on to say Lake County is is opposed to the annexation of this property into the municipal limits for the purpose of increasing res residential density in
the area. Leburg previously annexed a significant amount of property along number two road, including Lake Margaretta phase one and Eagle. If the city council determines that the annexation is appropriate and that the infrastructure is needed to serve this level of overall density will be
provided, understanding that the city council will be considering accepting jurisdiction and ownership of number two road from County Road 48 to the terminus of the ISB ISBA boundary. Uh, I guess that happened tonight. The board is requesting that Lake Margareta property
provide 50% open space in lie of the proposed 35. Your consideration of the Lake Countyy's concerns is appreciated and I look forward to working with you um to make Lake County the best it can be. Let me know if you have any questions or need any additional information. Kirby Smith,
I have a couple of comments of my own. When the excuse me, when the original project was presented before the PNZ commission, Dan Miller stated that the county was requesting a traffic light be put at County Road 48 and number two road and that number two road be widened
for the entire length of the development, but I never heard anything since, but now that's number two road is going to be a city road. Are you going to still require that traffic light? And I'd like to know the status of that. And then at the um county council meeting last year, there was a proposal
made by the developer to add a section to Margaretta Estates in the unincorporated section of Lake County to the right of what you see there, which is contiguous with the section in Leburg in their earlier map had a point designated which said potential
connection to Lake County. According to Kirby Smith, this has not moved forward. For transparency, I would like to hear from the developer what their plans are for this since it will add to traffic and infrastructure demands on the city of Leburg. Thank you.
Is there anybody else or can I >> You can go ahead. >> All right. Thank you. I I was not aware of the email that Commissioner Smith put out and I'm also not aware that the county board of county commissioners came up with any action. Meaning I I
think Commissioner uh Smith, my understanding of what I've just heard was this is an opinion by one commissioner, but the the board of county commissioners did not take a formal action. I would have been notified, I would hope. Um, but anyways, again, this is all within
the ISBA, clearly within the ISBA, and it just kind of fills out the um the center portion of this property, and so we're here to seek approval. >> What about the land to the east of this
potentially? >> We can't annex that property because it's outside of the ISBA. We had shown access to that property for the benefit of that land owner, but we cannot annex that into the county, into the city. I shouldn't be talking back and forth. I understand that.
>> Questions to the commission. Yes. >> I'm sorry. His question was about access to the east. Um, and we had shown access to the east uh to the benefit of the land owner there, but we can't annex that into the city. And so that's not really part of a part of this uh
process. Okay. Are there any more public comments, questions? >> Seeing none, >> I have a question [clears throat] for Nan. >> Absolutely. >> Um, clarification, Dan, because there was two different statements made. the
the the the letter that Commissioner Smith wrote, was that on his behalf only or was that on behalf of the the county commission? >> I have not seen that letter. >> Does anybody have a copy of it? >> I I watched them. Yeah, I >> Yep. >> I went out to that's why I left. I went
out to grab the letters because at the request of Mr. Nappa, he and I'm assuming he read the whole letter. >> Yes. >> Pretty close. Okay. >> We all got copied. >> Yeah. you the the comm and just for the public that yeah we received a letter and I'm going to answer your question commissioner. Okay. So just
>> in spirit of full disclosure so yet we did receive a letter from the BOCC in opposition to the annexation that we're discussing at hand. There wasn't a formal that I recall a formal vote. I saw a clip of the meeting. It was done
by consensus basis on the BOCC that there was a general consensus of yes, let's send it because it's been SOP the last year or so for the BOCC to review all annexations throughout the county and then they opine on it and send a letter out if they're in opposition to
such. So while there wasn't a formal make a motion to send Leburg a letter, it was done by general consensus of the BOCC. So in this particular case on this letter I would assume that the letter represents the entire opinion of the
BOCC. >> I don't think that's the case for all the letters but on this one yes. >> Can we go ahead and move for a roll call? >> Yes. Is it possible to make >> Can you make It's up to you.
>> It's yours. You can. So >> Jay had a question. Yeah. Another three minutes. >> I was not suggesting that you're going to try to annex that land into the city. Obviously, it's outside the ISBA, but there was shown a connection point so that if you develop that land that you
would access through the city of Leburg. That was my question. I want I would just like to know if that's going to happen or you're thinking of that happening. It's not. They took it off the uh off the drawing here. Your previous drawing showed that location. You're familiar with that? >> Yes.
>> And so my question is, if you do develop that land, would you access it through the city of Leburg? That was my question. >> We have no intention of developing that land at this point. The access was shown for the benefit of that particular land owner.
No. Her qu did you have another question? >> Um yeah, I did want to make a statement before you before you take it to vote. I don't know where you're at with it. >> Um >> again, we're we're talking about I think it's 75 75 more units
um on a two-lane road. Again, so it's adding additional traffic issues. The NPO was up here tonight basically saying that they have no long-term plan at all to address 27 from 48 to Dixie. No plans at all in the books. And we're going to
I mean, every one of these little subdivisions is adding additional traffic to a stretch of road that at least some of us tonight acknowledge is a problem. And the NPO has no no answers for it at all. There's nothing on the
books for it. The county commission has asked us not to do this. Um, I think with all that said, with the NPO having no long-term plans to address South 27, the county commission is asking us not to do it. 48 is another two-lane road, I
just don't think we need to continue to annex property down in this area and continue to add to a problem that we acknowledge we have. Are there any more comments from the commission statements?
>> None from the public. Seeing none. >> Can we do a roll call? [clears throat] >> Commissioner Reeseman? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Conell? >> No. >> Commissioner Bur? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Peterson? >> Yes. >> Mayor Barry? >> Yes. Would
someone please introduce 684 685? Oh, >> two and three. Excuse me. >> So, you've already read that. So, >> yes, I'm going to go ahead and do a call roll call for 682, please.
>> Commissioner Cono, >> no on the density. >> Commissioner Bur, >> yes. Commissioner Peterson, >> yes. >> Commissioner Reeseman, >> yes. >> Mayor Barry, >> yes. >> And would you also do roll call for 683? >> Commissioner Bur?
>> Yes. >> Commissioner Peterson? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Reeseman? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Conell? >> No. >> Mayor Barry? >> Yes. >> Yes. I'd like someone to introduce please 6A4, 685, and 66. I'll introduce
ask by title 6 A4 5 and six. >> 6 A4, excuse me, >> an ordinance of the city of Leburg, Florida, annexing certain real property consisting of approximately 202.6 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 three, township 21 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 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 65 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. 6 A6 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. motion to continue this till uh April 13th, 2026 at 5:30 here at
city hall for 6A45 and 6. >> Yes. And can I turn it over to our city manager at this time? >> Second. >> Yeah. Just for a brief explanation, we counted our days wrong. As long as short of it, so we we we I think we had enough
time for advertisement, but in our in our count, we didn't include the time we needed to hear back from the state. So, we just we scheduled this hearing too early. Um, so just as a matter of procedure to preserve the proper process, we're you open this item this
evening and we're asking you to table it. That that preserves the time frame, but I'm also going to instruct Dan to send out another public notice. >> We have been working with the city clerk office >> and that that's on us. That's not on the developer because staff errored. We made the but I don't want the public to think
that, you know, this is a trick. We we we messed up. up. We counted days wrong. So, we're doing both processes. We're preserving it by opening it and tableabling it to date certain in the public hearing, but then we'll also send out another public notice. So, we'll
deal and this for those in the audience, this is concerning obviously the brick the brickhurst uh annexation and land use on 33. So, it will be heard in its final chapter um on the on Monday, April 13th. So unfortunately you got to come
back >> at 5:30 >> at >> 5:30. So and with that if you vote on the on the matter to to table it >> till date certain Monday April 13th >> Leburg City Commission chambers
get a roll call. Commissioner Peterson >> yes. >> Commissioner Reeseman. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Kell. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Bur? >> Yes. >> Mayor Barry. >> Yes. Would someone please introduce 6 A7? >> I'll introduce 6 A7 8 and
>> 9 by title only. Thank you. >> 6 A7 an ordinance of the city of Leburg, Florida annexing certain real property consisting of approximately 9.26 26 plus minus acres being generally located
north of Dewey Robbins Road and east of US Highway 27 lying in section 31, Township 20 South, range 25 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 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 68 an ordinance amending the future land use map of the comprehensive plan in the city of Leburg changing the future land use map designation of certain property containing 9.26 plus
minus acres from Lake County rule to city of Leburg estate residential for property generally located north of Dewey Robbins Road and east of US highway 27 lying in section 31 township 20 south range 25 east Lake County
Florida and providing an effective date 69 an ordinance of the city of Leburg Florida changing the zoning on approximately 9.26 26 plus minus acres from Lake County Agriculture to City of Leburg SPUD small plan unit development
to allow for single family residential uses for property generally located north of Dwey Robbins Road and east of US Highway 27 lying in section 31 township 20 South range 25 East Lake County Florida and providing an effective date. Move
>> for approval. >> Second D. Please. >> Thank you, ma'am. M madame mayor. This is the D Cron and Dewey Robbins residential project consisting of annexation smallcale comp plan and reszoning on 9.26 plus or minus acres
generally located north of Dewey Robbins Road and east of Highway US Highway 27. Uh request for future development consisting of 26 single family units. Under this request, a future land use application. project is requesting a change from Lake County Rural to City of
Leburg estate residential. The zoning application is requesting a change from Lake County A agriculture to city of Leburg Spud. We received no substantive comments from the city departments. We did receive from the public numerous written responses to the request um from
the from the advertisement, posted signs, and SPO letters surrounding property owner letters. Among their concerns and comments were 99% of the residents that live on Dewey Robbins and Turkey Lake Road enjoy wildlife peace and tranquility. Hodgees reserve isn't conforming to Dewey Robbins Road or the
area. You're ruining Dewey Robbins Road. City of Leburg's ruining our area. Leave the county areas alone. Number of homes and lot sizes are too small. Ranch style homes on 1acre lots would be better. Again, that's just a summary, but there was more than that. Uh, under the terms
of the SPUD agreement, you'd have 26 single family detached detached single family homes on the 9.26 acres. No other uses are permitted. The project proposal a standard PUD um which includes uh the architecture 35% open space dark
skylighting code compliant landscape plan and Bermuda or bea grass maximum height two floors gutters required on any uh any side lot less than five excuse me less than seven and 1/2 ft uh sixoot privacy fence required on the
east and west 4oot split rail on Dewey Robbins Road there's one access point on Dewey Robbins Road and the PD would require the developer to make any improvements to Dewey Robbins Road in the access point as needed. Uh there is a requirement for 5200 square ft of park
and recreation land. Uh of course all the utilities as always are on the city water and wastewater. So there's no wells or septic here. And then finally we have the standard uh phasing clause which is after four years if you haven't substantially commenced one acre per
unit. Um the planning commission did recommend disapproval on this one by a 3 to3 vote um saying that it was not adjacent to existing development and that it should wait for further development of the area prior to annexing and developing the property. Uh
Mr. Mike Ranken of LPG and Tavaris is here to uh speak tonight on behalf of this case. >> Yes. >> Good evening Mr. Ranker. >> Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Uh, for the record, Mike Ranken, managing
member for Land Planning Group, uh, 9013 Silver Lake Drive, Leburg, Florida. I'm here representing Mike and Kim Cronin of 6531 Dewey Robbins Road. At this time, I'm going to respectfully
uh, request or withdraw this project. Um, This project has a great deal of history. Started with 48 town homes. Uh in eight buildings with two commercial
buildings and then one daycare. Uh we withdrew that and focused on the 26 lots, the 50s with um a uh dog park and a trail.
Uh the difficulty for me to do this is you know I love this city and I want to see uh uh good development occur. I am aware that in the area there are other property owners that have reached out to
us. So my hope is withdrawing this project we can look at the larger picture of infill as uh we all realize with the city taken on Dewey Robbins Road that uh there will probably be
additional development there and I am aware that there are those that have sought out to sell their property near uh the Cronin speed. So, I respectfully withdraw my application this evening. Be happy to answer any questions you may
have. Thank you, your honor. >> Do they need to do anything? >> I don't think so. I mean, I think if they want to withdraw their application, that's their right to do that. Um, I don't think that there's any vote or action necessary on the city commission's part. Um, you know, appreciate Mr. Rankin coming up and
going through that, but I I think if they're voluntarily killing their application, there's nothing that the city needs to do. I didn't want to flip the chicken switch and send an email or do it over the phone. I wanted to do it in person. I'm man of integrity and I wanted to stand
in front of you with an explanation as well as the public. [clears throat] >> Items six, seven, eight, and nine automatically are sunset. So, we'll move on to the next items. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Mr. >> Thank you.
We'll go to our first [clears throat] reading of ordinance. Would somebody please introduce 6B1? >> I'll introduce 6B1 to be read by title only. An ordinance of the city of Leburg, Florida, amending chapter 4, aircraft
and airports, article 2, standards for operators and airport tenants, section 4-19, parentheses C leases of the code of ordinances to authorize approve 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 forcl inclusion in this code of ordinances providing for severability and conflicts and providing for an effective date. >> Yes. Um >> yeah, I'll just
>> I would like to city manager would you please explain? >> Yeah, I'll give you a quick debrief on this. Um actually we have been operating at the the airport as far as execution of smaller leases incorrectly and we've been doing that for about 13 years. So
here's here's how we uncovered the issue. Um the airport advisory board has been very active in terms of reviewing our leases, wanting to increase rates, ma making sure that the airport is maximizing as an enterprise fund its profitability. In doing so, we noticed
that section 4-9 of the code of ordinance is is incorrect pursuant to our procedure. Um so how'd that occur? Um, prior to I think even me becoming your city manager, uh, the then airport
director, Leo Traggy, I believe Lee, that was Leo's last name, um, made a couple of operational changes in that article, article 19. Before the change, the process was that that this body
approves major leases. So when you did land deals, when you did longer hanger deals, um the airport advisory board made a recommendation. You all acted on that. Then the city manager pursuant to this ordinance before it changed
executed standard leases on tea hangers and box hangers. Those are those are simple simple leases. there's a lot of turnover or I don't want to use a lot but there's more turnover that it's operational you know somebody coming and going with uh needing a tea hanger for
their airplane or a box hanger for their airplane typically these leases don't include employment they don't include the bigger operational per purposes but it's typically a person and an airplane so the code allowed the city manager to
sign off on those smaller leases so you all wouldn't have to deal with the typical tea hanger lease and that and that's good for operations. So we've been operating in that function and we noticed that Leo not throwing Leo well we're throwing Leo under the bus.
[laughter] So we're throwing Leo under the bus. He changed that and then this body changed that but we never changed our action. So this ordinance so the change that Leo made actually made it so that the city commission had to approve everything.
So this change actually changes it back to the way that we operated previously and that we continued to operate even though nobody on staff realized that that change was made. So this ordinance promlgates that the commission will approve leases. Um and it says that the
city manager will approve leases for tea hangers and box hangers pursuant to prices that the commission will fix pursuant to a resolution. So obviously this is an ordinance that
promulgates the process on first reading. So next meeting you will have this ordinance on second reading and public hearing as well as the corresponding resolution that promulgates what the prices are for tea
hangers and box hangers. So when you get that resolution and this ordinance at the next meeting we're going to ask you to increase rental rates pursuant to the recommendation from the airport advisory board. Um,
I will leave it at that for now. >> Explanation. >> Well, the web's been untangled. You'll argue about whether you want to do the increases or not. >> Are there any further questions for >> Okay. So, we can move to non-rine items.
We have none. Noformational reports. None. Um, city attorney, any items? >> Uh, I don't have anything. I I I'll just quickly say I'm I'm still looking at some PIFA stuff and trying to get everything in line. We've got a filing
deadline of July 1. Um, so we should be in good shape by then. I'm talking to several people and I'll come back and talk to you guys again when I've got some more information, looking for some approval on some things. All right. Other than that, I've got nothing and I wish everybody a a great time until we
meet again. >> Thank you. City manager, >> no items. >> Welcome. >> Commissioner Con? >> Nothing tonight. >> Commissioner Bur, >> nothing tonight. >> Commissioner Peterson, >> nothing tonight. >> Commissioner Reeseman, >> you know I always do. [laughter] Um,
tomorrow is the Safe Haven Baby Box Blessing at the fire station at 1 p.m. Chamber breakfast is this Thursday at 7 a.m. See everyone there. uh April 2nd, we don't have another meeting before then is the fish fry at Mo Morris. >> So mark your calendars, April 2nd. And
then also uh if you haven't been following what Leburg and Bloom is doing, that board is a very active and fastmoving board. And uh I think they're working with the Lake County Bee Association to get the hives put on the library. So that is happening very soon. So with that, that's all I have. >> Mayor Barry.
>> Um yes, I have something please. Um this past Saturday, um downtown Leburg was busy. The weather was beautiful, the streets were full, and parking spaces were hard to find, which is a always a good sign. The blooms and bruise drew a group great crowd. The line stretched
down past Fifth Street, almost to the side entrance of city hall. And over on Third Street, V-Max for the Community and Stir Up the Gift had our youth um proudly showcasing their talents through singing, dancing, and modeling in Candy Land. It was great to see people
enjoying the sto our stores and shops and being drawn in the big energy downtown. While the turnout was great, I had um one concern. There could have been more visibility support for the young children that were performing. Encouragement matters. Applause matters
and these young people are our future and they deserve to feel that we are behind them 100%. I understand everyone's busy, but we must do better to ensuring unity. It takes all of us, city leadership, business owners, and residents, everyone who understands the
meaning of one Leburg. We cannot move the city forward without each other. So let us continue working together to put this lakefront city on the map as a place where people come to jo come not just to live but to connect support and
grow together. Thank you. >> Any more comments? None please. Yes. Second >> meeting adjourn. Thank you.