Rise for silent invocation followed by pledge of allegiance led by the blue young Bernie. Amen. >> Amen. >> Amen. >> Yes, sir. >> I pledge allegiance 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. Good job. >> Thank you. >> Young Marine, before you guys uh leave,
if you guys would take just a moment to introduce yourselves and tell us who you are right here at the microphone, one at a time, please. >> My name is Young Marine Lance Corporal Van Orman. >> Thank you. >> My name is Young Marine Private Caldwell. >> Thank you.
>> My name is Young Marine Private Van Orman K. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Much appreciated. We appreciate you guys being here tonight. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. >> You're welcome. Thank you. Appreciate it. >> All right. Will the clerk call the role, please? >> Councilman Foley, >> here.
>> Councilman Gford, >> here. >> Councilman Green, >> here. >> Vice Mayor Grubs, >> here. >> Mayor Stler, >> here. Everybody is in attendance this evening. Item four, public comments on consent agenda items. I know there are some folks who wanted to speak to item nine. Now would be the opportunity for
that. >> Robert's got one. >> Come on, Robert. Mayor, council members, Robert Reinhagen, 1425 Dexter Drive North, Port Orange. Uh I want to speak about B11
resolution approval for the YMCA to apply for a Valuchia echo grant application. Uh this this thing says that um echo grant funding mandates that funded facilities must provide unrestricted
public access. Unrestricted public access. You know that is totally inconsistent with the business model of the YMCA. They're a private membership organization and and then now you're going to say
that you're going to have this playground that's available to the entire public. Well, I don't think it's ever going to happen. What assurance do we have that the Y will create the processes and procedures necessary
to reach out and let the general public know that they are welcome to use this facility, this echoed facility. The MAI may be starting out with good intentions, but over time, this public facility use
will be buried within the membership structure that they use. So, I'm asking you to reject this. Reject being a party to this effort. Thank you. >> Thank you, Robert. >> Thank you, Robert. >> Anybody else wish to speak to consent
agenda items only? Consent agenda. Three. Is there Carolyn Denny? >> You wanted to speak to item nine, right? >> Okay, go right ahead. Welcome. >> Good evening. I'm Carolyn Denny from Countrywalk Subdivision, 3432 Spring Oak
Lane. My question is simple. Um, on resolution item number nine, uh, utility fee adjustments for the final year of a 4-year implementation. When the increase goes in, which I doubt we can fight
that. We know money is tight and it's impossible to keep the same agenda for 20 years. When that is implemented, it's a 12.75% increase. For me personally, I'm in usage number one. Um, that's about a $7.50 50 cent a
month increase. Will it be progressive in stages or will it be all at once? That is my question. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> And I believe there was a I apologize if I mispronounced Alicia
Troilo that also wanted to speak on item N. We're close. >> Close. >> All right. Go right ahead. Well, >> hi. >> Uh, as a retired civil servant, I'm also a widow of eight years, so I don't have the luxury of a second income anymore. Uh, with the current economy economy,
I've also found myself having to work two part-time jobs just to make ends meet. If you raise the utilities at the percentages outlined, it would cause a hardship not only to me, but to many of my neighbors and friends that live in a retirement community who live on a small retirement budget that doesn't grow as
everything else around us continues to rise. We simply cannot afford another raise in our utilities. Please consider the lives you will be affecting before your vote. It will mean food on the table, medication, or paying the water bill. We are already living meager
existences. So, please consider that as you consider raising another bill for us. >> Thank you. >> Was there >> Hi folks, my name is Mary and Carol. I am at 4100 Clock Tower Drive here in
Port Orange. And I just, you know, this um utility increase is not huge. I took my own bill. I took the numbers. It's about $50 a year increase, but as you know, one of our members said before, a lot of us are on fixed incomes. And
already we've got Florida Power and Light that's planning to really skyrocket. And it's hard. You're looking at five, six, $700 power bill. And now you're talking about another $2, $300 on top of it. and then another $50 on our
utilities. I understand that we need money, but I do want to make sure that we're doing the right projects and we're doing the right projects for our community. And I also want to make sure that you guys are holding our developers accountable to that, too. It shouldn't just go to the community. A lot of the
critical infrastructure that we need should be going to the developers who want to develop and build homes here. I'm all for us to continue to grow the environ or the community, excuse me. But I just want us to do it smart and it shouldn't be on the backs of our retirees, lowincome people. And thank
you so much for your time today. >> Anyone else to speak to consent agenda items? That's 5 through 14. 5 through 14. Come on. >> Good evening, my brothers and sisters. >> Hang on till you come up here. >> Good evening. >> I'm the honorable John Deilski. Um,
I gave a nine-page dissertation to all of you, so I'm not going to cover that. Um, as well as you, my council. Thank you so much for hearing me. What I'd like to discuss here is
does our Treasury have the money to do the the improvements that we're trying to do or as my sister said before me, is it being done just to cover primarily just to cover the new
construction that was here? And was tax breaks given to these folks that are the builders of these new uh properties that house all these people that are actually impacting the community that weren't part of the community for the last 40
years as I I spoke to several of you and um I'd like to uh make it so it's fair and just for all. That being said, the only way I know possibly that this can be done is to table this until a future
period where we all have what is available in the treasury, the tax structure that is uh written that um for people that have been here for 30, 40 years and have been paying all along and
then now these new interests in the community come in, build this new enterprises and cause all of our citizens, not just the ones here. Many of I've
talked to many people. I live right over here in Kingswood. I've talked to many of my brothers and sisters, my neighbors. They they all share the same ideas as I do, but nobody, oh, I'm not going to get involved. No, I don't I don't even want
to read your dissertation, John. And I you know, if we don't all work together, as we should like brothers and sisters, like I try to promote every day. That puts unity in the community. Unity
is strength. If there's a lack of trust, it's shameful. We all need to hang our heads. We haven't done our jobs. It doesn't matter what title you have, what seat you sit in. This is for the good of
all. And if it's going to be for the good of all, it everybody should have a vote. That being said, that's why I move to table this until a future period is it can be presented by the council, all the members of the council in an orderly
manner. Thank you for your time. My brothers and my sisters all good. >> Anyone else wish to speak to consent agenda items only? >> Seeing none, we need a motion to approve items 5 through 14.
>> I'm I'll make a motion. Um I'm assuming uh we probably want to pull item number nine for discussion. >> Is that your motion? And so I'll make a motion that we pull item number nine from consent and approve items 5 through 8 and 10 through 14. >> I'll second.
>> We have a motion in a second to approve consent agenda items 5 through 14 with the exception of pulling item number nine. Will the clerk call the role? >> Councilman Fley. >> Yes. >> Councilman Gford. >> Yes. >> Councilman Green. >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Gr. >> Yes. >> Mayor Stilton.
>> Yes. 5. That'll bring us to item number nine. We'll start with Councilman Foley. Yeah, Wayne, can you just explain a little bit um obviously um I've actually gotten a few emails about this um from some from friends and from residents and
can you just explain what we're actually doing here, what's being proposed and and how specifically speaking in terms of this is actually year four of a plan I believe um that we this started back in 2022 or 23. Just just some more background for everyone so they know
what we are actually considering up here. Our water sewer utility is an enterprise fund which means that it's it's funded solely through the user fees that are collected. There's no tax dollars that support the this utility. So it it is not used through tax dollars. There are impact fees that are
collected from the developer. So you're allowed to take impact fees to expand capacity. You can't use impact fees to maintain the existing, but you can grow. So we do have impact fees. In the study in 22, the impact fees for the utility were increased as part of that as well.
So those are there. The uh the last time we had raised fees before this cycle started was about 2014. It had been close to a decade by the time we did that. We had a series of four or five meetings here at council as that study
was going through. We had our financial advisor in here who talked about the utility itself, the soundness of the fund. Uh the purpose of the study is they took a look at the cost of providing water and sewer to the community and said these are the fees that are necessary to run it. It doesn't
make a profit. It is a it is to cover the cost. It's straight in run the facility. So we have two a treatment plant for drinking water, a treatment plant for waste water. We have reclaim water facilities. We have a ton of lift stations. We have the wells and we have all the pipes in the ground. So it's the
largest set of infrastructure we have, the most expensive component of infrastructure that we have. And the study was set out basically to determine what would it cost to run that to cover the cost of running it. And then as they came to council, laid out what that dollar amount was, council had the
choice of of doing a one-time only fee increase or spreading it out over the course of the four years. So the council elected to spread it out over four years. We're now in year four of that four-year plan. Um, as one of the speakers noted, it's approximately $10
per build is what it's gone up over that time. So, there's a $100 a year that this is a typical single family house with three people in it. So, the fee is structured. There's a base fee and then there are blocks based on usage. And it's intended to try to discourage like
don't use the drinking water to sprinkle. So, if you use a lot of water, the higher you get in gallons, the more it costs. So, uh, like any kind of product, if you want to lower your cost, lower your consumption. So, it's structured in that way to do so and and so it was a is a very fairly moderate
fee increase for what it took to run the utility. So, we are in year four, a number of the capital projects that we have. So, we use this to to pay the cost of all the construction and maintenance and operation. Um, one of the questions, I think you guys have gotten some of those questions too. What have we done
to make the utility more efficient? So, it's not just a matter of of taking more money, but we have had a presentation. Well, you guys have heard a couple years ago, we were issued a 20-year consumptive use permit, which allows us to pull drinking water out of the aquifer for 20 years. We're one of the
very few organizations that has enough statewide respect to be allowed that long of a period, which shows how well we take care of the drinking water. uh we had the utilities director come give a presentation on how we handle the the the treatment process for drinking water
and the precision with which we put the components in it that treat the water so we save hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in how we put the chemicals in so precise so we don't waste money. Uh we have had uh we have an in-house testing lab which saves us tens of thousands of
dollars a year and having to pay outside people to do that. Uh we had another presentation and discussion. So what part of the water treatment process, one of the byproducts for softening is lime. You used to be able to make money selling lime for people. Now the state laws have changed. Lime is going to be a very expensive byproduct. So we're
looking at and running a test right now on switching to an Actina treatment system for water, which would create a sand byproduct. So instead of paying to get rid of it, we would have a usable byproduct without cost. So these kind of efficiencies are going on constantly in the utility to try to find ways to run
it. Part of the original study analyzed our fees compared to like 15 other jurisdictions that provide water and sewer. And at the time of the study in 22, we were the lowest. We are still in the bottom end of cost. So it's still a really good deal. I don't want to call
out any individual cities by name, but we have employees who live in other cities, and they routinely say where I live, it's way more expensive to have water and sewer than it is in Port Orange. So, it's still a really good deal. We are still one of the lowest priced utilities in the region, and the
price is based off the cost to run it. >> All right. And I I appreciate you just kind of going through that. I know that was a lot for people to to digest. Um, just want to tell you guys where I where I'm at with this. Um, I think everybody in our community is feeling financial
pressures of just everything going up. You know, we had a um $15 an hour minimum wage mandate and that result in us having to raise, you know, um, wages across the board for our employees. And we've also had issues um, when it comes
to supplies and materials and everything else. But uh you know it's not just you know people like oh it's I don't want to hear someone say oh it's just $7 right like it's not money is money and at the end of the day is you know it used to cost me 40 50 bucks to fill my truck now
it cost 85.90 right that hurts all of us um from my position sitting in this seat what I try to do it's it's not do I or do I not spend money it's for the city it's is the money being spent efficiently when I give it to these employees and and since this study was
been pres presented to us. You know, um I've been really impressed by what Wayne staff has brought forward in terms of finding additional efficiencies and find ways to provide high quality at a at a good price. Um this is part four of
raising the place. We did have that option. I know some of you weren't sitting on this council, but Scott was. We had the option to just do this all at once and we thought it would be better to do it in a stairst step so it wasn't as much of a shell shock to people when their water bill would go up by whatever percentage it was over four years. So,
um I just want to kind of express how I'm feeling about all those things and let you guys know that I I I feel your pain. I understand why this is a really why it's a concern for people. uh you know it doesn't it doesn't get lost on me that we are all paying more across
the board in almost every category of our lives and then and I think that um while we do need to look for efficiencies I think that's our job sitting here on this dis um that's our our staff's job and I think they do a pretty good job of it I just don't know that I believe in my heart of hearts
that there's any efficiencies to be found in this particular fund and in this particular rate um but I will continue to look for them elsewhere as we get ready start the budget process actually with an item later on tonight. >> Yeah, I echo what Councilman Foley says
here. Um when it was first brought to us, I was just a fledgling councilman sitting up here at that point. Uh the meetings that came through talking about these funds was enlightening that it was over a decade
that anything had been changed. Inflationary cost, cost of living, everything goes up. But a decade nothing had been touched with the water plant and the water uh production. Um the proposal at the time was almost
20% one lump sum. council at that point in time said absolutely not. We're we're not going to do that. So, it was spread out over a four-year period of trying to be 5%. And I know when you look at the form
that came out to you in the water bill, if you add up all those percentages, that's not 12%. I know some of that came out that way, it was 5% overall of what that percentage is. It is about on a single family household about 3,000
gallons about $10. $10 is a lot today. I'm not disagreeing with you, but it is the the infrastructure making sure our quality of the water, the water's taken care of, and uh the sewer is taken care
of also. So, the Aquatina that uh city manager was talking about um if y'all remember back last year was the implementation of that. That's an $800,000 savings to the water plant.
That's even with the raisings of all this. It was an $800,000 savings. They are constantly evolving and trying to make adjustments and finding ways to get the cost down. without those type of savings. The question is is what would
the increase be with another study down the road? And I don't even want to think about that. We're just trying to sustain so we do not have these big jumps, leaps and bound like they proposed four years ago being 20%. Um so I I feel for you.
Um and Councilman Foley is right. C gas prices, food prices, it's everything making a living. It's it's going up. Um, and it's inflationary. So, Scott, >> excuse me, mayor. We need a motion for
this item before you guys will continue to discuss. >> I thought we'd put one on the floor. >> There was a motion to pull it and approve the others. Go >> ahead and make your motion. >> Yeah, I'll make a motion to approve uh resolution number 2026 or sorry, 26-32. >> I'll second. >> Have a motion and a second. Sean, go
ahead. So, very well said, Reed, and uh Councilman Grubs, and thank you, Wayne Clark, for bringing it all back to us. Um, I've looked at uh the information that the staff has provided us. Uh I remember these conversations in these
chambers uh four or five years ago and the tough decisions that council had to make at that time and was to spread the cost of this out over a four-year period or four rate increases over a period of time so we wouldn't all be hit with it
all at one time. But you know they they sought the expertise of a consultant about this and they came back and said you need to do this if you want to continue to provide the services and be able to pay for them without it being
a lot more down the road. So we've gradually increased this over the years. It's never fun having to pay more. Um, but that's just the way things seem to be moving with this uh this this state.
Just the cost of living is going up and we have to we have to make sure that we have the financial tools to do the things that are right for our citizens and which is to provide clean water for them and remove it when they use it. And we've done a really good job of that. That 20
year take permit is is typically five. We got it for 20 because of all the things that we've done and our staff and all the things that they do to try and cut costs and and do all the right things. They have to have the tools to do that as well. And we talked about our budgets coming up. That's that's those
are those are the tools that we the the money is the tool that we have the right people doing the right things for the citizens and we have to make the tough decisions to unfortunately what will be a rate increase for most of our citizens
here to use their water but at the same time they'll have those services working will have the funds to do the repairs that are going to be needed and um just to mention lift station rehabs that's very important the reclaim lake improvements. That's very important. Um
the treatment plant improvements. Uh we just made a decision at our last meeting about our water treatment plant and taking on additional property to save us money in the future. We're doing all the right things to help the citizens make sure that everything's working because
when it stops working, this room's a lot fuller and they're standing out in the hallway. And we've seen that and I don't want to see that again. So, we've got to do all the right things now. The wa the wastewater force main replacement across the Halifax River, that's something that has to be done.
And uh the treatment plant generator, these are all things that we have to pay for. We're we're doing it by taking these incremental steps. So, I'm in favor of it. >> Thanks. >> I mean, there's no good way to say an increase, you know, is is good, but
again, this is year four of this of this of this program. And so again, let's unfortunately we're going to have to get through year four of it and um and you know and and let's and work from here. So that's these guys pretty much covered everything. So, I was the only one on on council
when this study in 2022 was presented to the council. And and the short story of it is is that for almost a decade, the city did not incrementally raise rates to to to maintain a sound fund fund to
not only take care of the existing infrastructure, but also being able to have a fund for ongoing maintenance and replacement of things as things become more and more expensive. And we, as we all know, just like it is with our automobiles and our personal homes and our businesses, whatever you were paying
10 years ago to change the tires on your car is not what you pay today. Re-roofing a house 10 years ago, totally different cost. Municipal government is not immune from those cost increases. We are not the federal government. We cannot print money. We don't we we don't
have the access to do that. We we are we are all all of us us every resident all in this together trying to figure out what kind of a quality of life and what kind of a city do we want to have and how do we do those things that are
responsible to maintain it. The water and the sewer systems in the municipality here are critical critical. There are things in your home I promise you you don't use every day. You might not watch TV. You might not use the
dryer. You might not use the oven. You might not put something in the microwave. But just about every single one of uses water and sewer in our homes every single day. And it is a massive critical infrastructure and it has to be maintained. It has to be planned for.
Widgets don't last forever. They just don't. And this is a lesson for all of us. Uh, some of us will be up here longer than others and some of us will only be here for a couple more years. But the lesson here is is that if you
don't stay up with your funding on maintenance, if you do the proverbial kick the can, you can only kick it so far before it comes due to have to pay for those things, right? And so that's reality. That is just reality. Um, and
so we went a long time as a city. Maybe we should have incrementally been raising those rates smaller. We had the lowest water and utility rates in the entire county. In fact, some of the graphs had us in a different color because when they did the study, they
were like, "This is not sustainable. You're going to have a major problem soon. If you have a massive critical infrastructure failure or something goes wrong, you're not going to have the funds and the maintenance to fix it. And you're going to have people without water and utilities and things like that. One of the things that comes to
mind, and I don't remember the number, but it was shocking when I saw the number of what it cost to replace a generator system for our util our our infrastructure so that when we have these storms and power is lost.
>> Um, and we can still operate, make sure people can get water in their homes and they can get utility service and things like that. >> Those numbers are massive. They are incredibly expensive and we have to be prepared for that. our residents expect that. I I truly appreciate those that
reached out. I truly appreciate those that spoke here tonight. Um that doesn't fall on deaf ears. We we totally appreciate that. We understand all of those concerns, but we also believe that as residents that you expect us to maintain the infrastructure of the city.
you expect us to make sure you go home tonight and you sleep well knowing that if something catastrophic happens tomorrow, we can respond and deal with it and that we're doing what we can to prevent that from even happening so that that discussion never has to happen. And that's what this rate was about. And and
and I was on the council and and they're right. The decision was do we hit the residents with this huge increase all at one time or do we spread it out? We thought it would be in the best interest of the community, and most people that attended those meetings thought that
too, is to spread this out in smaller amounts incrementally over a four-year period of time. That's what this vote is tonight is for that fourth year period of time. So, um I I think it's the right thing to do to to invest and maintain our infrastructure and and I can assure
you these rates keep us still well in the lower amounts of of Valuchia County comparatively to our neighboring cities. So, >> there were a couple things I forgot if you want me to staff remind me. So, two other things we did. So, one of the main projects we were doing in the sewer side
is lining the sewer pipes. So, rain water is not supposed to go in the sewer system. Rain water goes into the storm water system, you treat sewer water. Rain water leaks in through manholes in the sewer system, you're paying to treat it at the plant. The lining projects that have been done as part of the maintenance to the system have saved us
on rainy days approximately 2 million gallons a day and rainwater being treated. So that saves you the chemicals and the wear and tear on the parts. And on heavy rain days, it keeps your lift stations from being overwhelmed by rainwater so that you don't have problems with them pumping what they're supposed to. And in another large thing
as far as trying to leverage resources so that it's not all just our rate payers in the last four years, we've got three and a half million dollars in legislative appropriations thanks to Senator Lee, Senator Wright, Representative Traymont for the Commonwealth pipe upgrades and the the
pipes under the the Halifax River. So $3.5 million of state money in addition to that to help us do these things. So those were two things the staff provided me to add. >> Thank you. >> Anything else? council. >> I just want to uh because because of one more short thing because of one of the
comments that was said u Wayne said the word enterprise fund in case no one understands exactly what that is. You can imagine like a bucket all all of the utility money that we're talking about here in this it goes into one bucket. It cannot be touched for anything else. There's there's no nobody is taking like
the this money that from these rates there's not reaching in for parks. There's not reaching in for fire, police, for anything else. it is to stand alone and it has to pay for itself. And if you can kind of imagine it's it's either toothpaste now or its
cavities later. And so, you know, when he says enterprise fund, not everyone knows what that is. Is it it we have to have this it operates on its own. It's its own account. And so there there's no way we're taking money from this for anything else that's going on at the
city. It is strictly for our our water and our wastewater. Okay? Okay. And I just want to make sure that that's clarified because there was one resident that kind of spoke to that and not everyone knows what the word enterprise fund means. So, >> anything else? >> No, sir. >> Good. Good.
>> Amanda, can you call the role? >> Councilman Foley? >> Yes. >> Councilman Gford? >> Yes. >> Councilman Green? >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Grubs? >> Yes. >> Mayor Stner? >> Yes. 50. Bring us to the public participation uh portion lead from Walman Street.
Come on up. Welcome. Look what I've got. So, as you all know, every one of you, I think, received an email from me. Um, regarding the whole cat community that I didn't sign up for.
Um, wanted to know the status. Has anything been rewrote? I assume not. So on that at the end of the ordinance it mentions cats creating a nuisance as defined in section 103 per your all's definitions
disturbing the peace and quiet of any person by habitually or continuously barking meowing crying whining screaming or cat fights every night outside my bedroom window. I can't sleep. I didn't sign up for this.
Or causing damage or destruction or threat of damage or destruction to any property existing in an unsanitary condition. I've picked up three dead kittens out of my driveway. That's sick.
I didn't sign up for this. They've destroyed my truck. They've damaged my house. So, I want to ask you guys, who's liable? The city for the ordinance? the person doing it illegally got caught now does it legally or
um yeah it I mean the the person doing it the business that approves it now or the city who's catching that bit >> somebody's going to pay for it so hopefully y'all can point me in the
right direction >> thank you >> thank you >> I'm sorry I did not get his name >> Lee >> Lee What is it? >> Lee. Lee. Lee. >> Yeah. Is his name? >> Yeah. >> All right. That'll bring us to comments and additional items. Council members,
I'm going to start tonight. Um, received this letter tonight from the president of the Royal Palms Homeowners Association. uh just a really nice complimentary uh letter that uh they wanted to uh to have us recognize some
city employees that were involved um in water distribution services of all things in their community and the repair of 27 fire hydrants. And apparently these employees left an incredible favorable impression on the president of the Royal Palms Homeowners Association specifically. She wanted to mention uh
Keith Gunter, water distribution service supervisor, Wayne Reed, Michael Yun Yunko, Daniel Lond, and David Tilman. So, great job by those guys. I'll pass this down here to the uh city manager and making
sure copy ends up in their employee personnel file. So, great job on that. Also, great job. Uh this past weekend, the Port Orange Community Trust hosted an event here at the city center uh facility. Great job, well attended, nice concert. A little warm, but there was a
there was a breeze and uh so they do a great job with their events. Lot going on this past weekend, so I'm I'm going to probably guess the attendance may not have been been as much as it is sometimes, but there was a lot and and they got some favorable weather this
year. So, uh, that was good to see. Um, also wanted to say congratulations to Vice Mayor Tracy Grub and Councilman Lance Green on being reelected to the city council unopposed. So, congratulations to both of you. You uh, know what you'll be doing for the next
four years. And, uh, I wanted to say a a special congratulations to Stan Schmidt who's in the room this evening. Stick your hand up there so everybody knows since uh, the good news is is that Councilman elect Stan Schmidt has been
elected to fill the district one seat soon. Um and to the benefit of the community, he was going to do campaign signs with his picture on the sign. So um we appreciate that that didn't have to occur. So he was he was uh also
elected unopposed. But I in all seriousness I want to just say this about uh Stan is that um he comes to a lot of meetings. He has involved himself in the community in a way that I think deserves credit and
recognition. A lot of times people all of a sudden just for the wind blew a certain way today they want to run for an elected office and that's fine and great and there's a process for that. But when I see people like Councilman Elect Schmidt who come to meetings, who apply to get involved in community
service boards, who tries to learn the process of municipal government, which is pretty complex, and goes through that process and then puts themselves, as they say, in the ring uh to to be considered for an elected position in in
your city. I I just think that goes uh that deserves some congratulations and thanks. So, thanks, Stan. you. We look forward to your your service in district one here on the city council. >> Lance, we'll start with you down. >> Yeah, I'm good tonight. Thank you, sir. >> All right. Very good, Sean.
>> Yeah. Just uh congratulations, Lance, Tracy, and Stan. Looking forward to working with you. Uh a couple things in reference to uh the the issues with the cats, the feral cats. Um we all got that email and and I can't recall
we talked to staff about that. Is there something being done about that? Because that that is a it's a real nuisance. Something's got to be done. >> Nothing's being done about that. We can't I can't >> I'm just I'm I'm trying to help you. So,
let me help you. Um and I and I didn't realize this was going to be a topic of conversation. So, I hate to hit you broadsided there, city manager, but >> the chief can update. What I understand is there was a neighbor behind him that was feeding the cats that animal control told him to stop, but I don't have more
depth. The chief can >> Yeah, it's Thank you, sir. >> Hi, good evening, Chief Marino, Port Orange Police Department. Yes, that's the last update was as well. They went back out to the property. Evidently, there's more than one structure. Uh originally, the complaint was that the
person from the colony was feeding the cats on that property. It turned out to be the neighbor directly behind him. our animal control officers did go over there, advised them they needed to stop. Uh I believe Sergeant Harrison was out there, but that's the last update I received as well. So, I'll follow up and and find out where we're at. >> Thank you.
>> And I appreciate you bringing that to our attention. >> Thank you. >> Only so much we can do. Um the other thing uh it was brought to my attention that um in a particular area there was a accumulation of uh yard debris piled up
that waste pro uh did not pick up and then they tried to go on our civic uh reporting device that we have which is awesome and then it got directed to waste pro and it got beat around the bush. But the
problem uh is and I think everyone needs to understand in our city is the waste probably will pick it up if it's in front of your property. I put debris out on a weekly basis. There's a lot more probably coming as we get ready for hurricane season and trimming trees, but if you pile it up down at the end of the
road with everyone else, they're not instructed to pick it up there and they're going to go right by it and it becomes a big problem. So if you if we just want to make sure everybody is if you're taking debris out of your yard, put it in front of your house so they have that opportunity to pick it up because that's what they're contracted
to do. I know in my neighborhood it's on Wednesdays. Sometimes they'll do it even before Wednesday. So a truck's going by, they'll grab it. So I've been very happy with the way they've done it and um I just want to make sure our citizens know, put it at your address and make it
as high as you want, they'll get it. But if you put it out where they're not supposed to pick up, it's going to sit there. What we noticed out on Taylor Road for a while and finally that's done. I think they know now not to put it there. So, thank you staff for that. So, we had a a pile growing out there
and we removed it and they put another pile out there. I was like, you got to be kidding me. And uh but it hasn't been there. So, thank you for that. And uh that's all I've got. We got a long agenda. >> Just a quick comment on the wakes. One of the nice things is most if not all of
their trucks have uh video cameras in them. And so one of the things I have found over the years is that as we get complaints and stuff, we look into them. Sometimes it's not always what came back, but it is nice that they've taken the uh effort to to respond to our concerns and and having those video
cameras definitely help. Tracy, what you got? >> So I had a citizen uh reach out to me um dealing with uh cameras and dual barrel cameras and cameras on the back of the house. We had some uh intruders at night uh that were going through and trying to
pop locks on car doors, backs of houses, cut screens out, trying to steal stuff and things of that nature and neighborhoods. All I'm going to ask is call the police department first. You want to put it on Facebook, that's
fine, but the police department's not Facebook. And and I hate to have to have to say this. I mean, if you want resolutions, police department first, then we can get with our neighbors on neighbors and
Facebook to help out and be able to police it better. But you have to get law enforcement involved. So, please help that out. Uh the individual was caught. Um he has been charged. Um so policing does work when it goes the
right appropriate channels. So just help us in that aspect. Um St. John's River uh to sea loop has now been opened up. Um that trail is those that don't know extends from South Florida all the way
to Maine. And there's sections of it that's still broken and whatnot. We had one of those sections here in uh our our neighborhoods of Port Orange. Uh, some of the beauties of this is that the Florida Department of Transportation's funding was $1.7 million putting that
together inside our city for the citizens and it was only $51,000 cost to the citizens for that area. So 1.7 million came from Florida. So when you're looking at these things wondering where the funding comes and why things
take so long is we're trying to get funding from other areas. it's not coming off the taxpayers's burden of the city. Um and then uh one of the beauties of last week was the county soil and water conservation meeting that I had.
Um y'all would know Chris Cunningham as the environmental chair for us. She's also the chairman or chairwoman uh for the soil and water conservation of the county. uh they have a reforestation program that's coming out that is funded
in grants uh by the county. Uh the reason I bring this up is with all the properties that we're acquiring through FEMA and transform 386 and resilient Florida, all these things. We have approximately 44 properties that the
city's going to have to maintain that we can't do anything with. But we could come in with grant money from the county and be able, it's an 8020 match where 20% to us, but 80% of all the trees and everything else provided by the county
to replant these lots. Um, does a couple of things. Uh, first off, it puts micro parks inside areas that would just normally be grass that we have to maintain and and mow, but we now have shade trees inside these micro parks
that you put a park bench on. Just food for thoughts down the road. That now is a lesser RAI for us to have to maintain because the trees grow and the grass will slowly be dissipated down at the same time. in the forestry division is
what the trees do to the property is it allows urban sheltering of heat sources because we got shade, but it also allows water to be mitigated into those trees and soaking it out of the ground. So, it's it's a huge project um that is
available through grants. Um so, that information will be coming along to you guys shortly. um and passing it along to Wayne and Robin uh next week with all that information. So, you'll be seeing that come up in front of us. So, just a way to take care of our community and
beautify it so it's not a patch of grass and help out the other n the neighborhoods that we have now. Okay, >> read what you got. I also want to say congratulations uh to Lance and to Tracy
and and to um Stan. Um Stan, I have no doubt you'll do a great job here filling in for me and I'm looking forward to watching you from home a little bit, spending more time with my kids. No, it was hard decision
not to want to run again, but um our work schedule hasn't allowed that. So, but it was it was awesome to see you three uh get elected unopposed, too. I thought that was um that was really a testament, I think, to uh to the city and our council and and to staff and everyone that um no one felt the need to
oppose this. So, that was really cool. Um, quick little note here. Our, uh, county councilman, vice chairman, actually, uh, Robert or Matt Reinhardt, reached out to me and, um, he's, he's been talking to me about this project that he has going on that I'm personally
getting kind of excited about. Um, it's called the Valuchia County Domestic Violence Database Transparency Initiative. That's why I got this email in front of me. Thank God. Um people don't realize but actually the state of Florida ranked or Val County
ranked number four for domestic violence incidents in the state of Florida and um there's a the state of Tennessee actually has a persistent domestic violence offender registry and Matt got word of this of course he worked in the department of
corrections for many years prior to his service um and he reached out looking for um at first my opinions but then secondarily our support possibly uh as a count as a council and as a city maybe a letter of support for this. Um the
proposal is to create a dedicated public database that would contain basic information on domestic violence offenses. Um making it easier to access and more public specifically uh for repeat offenders. Um it it's it's quite
an interesting initiative and I would encourage you guys to um I I will forward the email he sent me to all of you and let you read it and if you want to reach out to him to questions um that you might have but um I believe I believe his heart and his mind are in the right place with this and I think
that it could be of a great service to our residents um to be able to access that information in the way that he's uh proposing to do so. And so, um, I I'm not sure what the process would be or if there'd be any any, uh, will to possibly
draft a letter and, uh, of support eventually, but, um, I'll send this to you guys via email for consideration and bring it up again in council comments at another time. >> That's it. >> That's it. >> All right. City Attorney Matt Jones,
>> nothing for you tonight, >> sir. Mr. City Manager, >> the Riverwalk update is in substantially different than the last time. We do have a meeting coming up next week with one of the groups that showed interest. They're going to bring conceptual plans. We're going to talk about some of what
they plan to do and what they might hope our part of the deal would be. Uh after that, we will likely do a call last time. You know, this is it in some date July is the cuto off. Submit your offers to us and then we'll bring them to you later in the summer. So hopefully
there'll be a couple of options this time going forward. What we've seen so far at least has been promising. I know we we talked about at one point there were a lot of proposals for apartments. We've weeded those out so that they're we're really only looking at mixed use projects. Uh as far as the storm water
projects go tonight on the agenda, you had a an item for the FEMA grants. We're now starting to see the Ian and Nicole money come in. You we always said that once the hurricane hits, it's usually two to four years before funding starts coming in from FEMA to help. So there are 14 homes tonight that will be
elevated. 13 elevated, one demolished and rebuilt at an elevated level. So we're now starting to see that money come in in addition to the larger scale project. So storm water moving forward there. As far as the transform 386 projects, Portona and Powers, which are
the two of the smaller ones, so the ponds, the the pond on the north end and Powers over there by FPL, both of those are sort of on the same path. So they had kickoff meetings last week. the county who's in control of those projects with that funding is doing the mandated HUD assessment because that's
the funding source for that money. Uh and then they will start property acquisition in the summer. Once they have the property acquired, the design starts. So it looks like we we believe they will be finished with the design of those projects next summer and construction would start next fall on those two projects. So those are the
first transform 386 projects moving forward at this point. Moving to the parks pond projects. Uh pre-construction on the city center sports complex expansion is next week. Uh we are close to doing the Seymar process similar to what we did with the utilities building
as well as what we did tonight on the utility crossing. Uh request is coming up on that soon. That may be a conversation we need to have as we go through the budget process as to what you want to do before we we actually sign on to doing that. And then the the Karasi part that's existing has some
water issues. the the fields get wet and the the soils underneath them don't drain very well and so when they get rain they're sometimes out of service for a couple of days. It doesn't dry real quick. Uh so we're working on a process to to and you've approved this. It's come forward. Right now we're
getting ready to do I think within next week we're going to be out there doing a test. So we're going to go into the outfield of one of the fields and run a test with this new drainage system to see if we can't pull the water out of it. we won't quite get to the level of the Augusta National Greens, but to the the the ability to get in there and do
some work to pull that water out so that when we have rain, you can get back there and play and you don't lose days. So, that's the first part of the Karasi improvements that are going on out there. And we're still working with the land owners who are here tonight uh on the purchase of between the school district that owns 25 acres and and the
75 for them. So, we think we'll have something to talk to you about in the next couple of weeks related to those purchases as well going forward. And that's what I have for those updates. >> Good. Thank you. >> All right. Brings us down to board appointments, interviews, and reports.
Item 18, citizen advisory committee for the TPO. >> Bobby Ball. >> How are you, sir? >> Good. How are you? >> Bobby Ball with the CAC for the TPO. Um, normally I'm really good at rearranging my schedule and avoiding meetings, but I couldn't do that this week, so I don't
have a I wasn't able to attend, so I don't have a a report for you. So, I apologize for that. But if you've got something, I'll take back and and pursue. >> Hey, listen. You got to get to know the boss. >> You got to look in the mirror. >> Working hard, >> right? Yeah. >> Working hard. >> No, I I get it. You got your hands full
so you can catch us up. >> Thank you. >> You got a long meeting anyway. >> Yeah, we do. >> Hey, Bobby, what was uh Ian's score I saw on on Instagram? Uh, three under. He's qualified for the next round. >> He's warm for Saturday. >> Yes. >> Yeah, that's pretty solid. Awesome. >> I've already made a space on my mantel
for some hardware. >> Break a leg, Bobby. >> Brings us to the public hearing portion. First reading, uh, item 19, first reading of ordinance number 2026-8. It's an ordinance of the city of Port Lucha County, Florida, amending the land development code, chapter 17, zoning
district regulations relating to updating the PCA zoning district regulations in response to changing market demands by revising locations of where certain uses are allowed within the PCA district while keeping consistent with the current plan uh community westside future land use
designation relating to minor revisions for clarity and developmental standards, removing redundancies to improve consistency in the application of the code, providing efficiencies and development review process all in support of future development within the PCA district providing for repeal of conflicting ordinances seability and an
effective date. >> Can I get a motion to approve and a second of ordinance number 2026-8 >> u ordinance number 2026-8 approval to approve >> I'll second it for discussion all
batched up. Sorry. >> We have a motion and a second on the floor. Hi Tim Burman, community development. Just a little bit of background on this area. Um so this is the PCA district that we're talking about for um where the LDC applies for the changes that would occur here. It's basically about 1,200 acres that's located on the west
side of I95 between Pamoka Farms Road and then you see the FPNL easement below there. That's basically the what we call the PACA district. And in the code land development code there's chapter 17 section 17 of zoning there applies just to this area. Um, back in 2002, this
area was adopted through a series of agreements that were reviewed by Lucian County, Lucia County Growth Management, and the city of Port Orange. Involved an interlocal agreement between the county and the city regarding the eventual annexation of this 12,000, 1200 acres in Port Orange. Also establishing the
future land use for the property and the zoning within that future land use and zoning um that approved and also the interlocal agreement. There are a number of standards that were established for that property which still apply today and are not being proposed to be changed with this code amendment. Um just for
kind of the key developments of our standards that were approved in 2002. Um basically allowed for a maximum of four dwelling units per acre for the 12,000 our 1200 acre property. Maximum trip um capacity for average daily trips of 62,600
in that 1200 acres when it's developed then much easier. It also established basically a mix um at buildout in terms of the percentage of the land that could be developed with different uses such as a maximum of 60% of the PCA district can be developed with residential um up to
25% commercial and so on. It also required development pattern of having a town center uh roadway network and also to having a um concentrating the more intense uses near 95. Again, all these items that were approved in 2002 are not
being changed with this code amendment and are still um effective then. And also the changes to the proposed code also align with these state these parameters that were established in 2002. So also part of the PCA district in 2002 again it established basically
four different categories of where certain uses would be located on the property. Then um you can kind of see the green area is called the neighborhood. This is your traditional single family subdivisions that go from single family up to multif family. For the most part, this whole entire area has been built out between 2004 and
2013. We also have the purple area which is the workplace district. This has been developed in the southern end uh with uh byite has been developed there. Uh Thompson Pump has purchased the property in front of them to eventually build on there. We've had the senior apartments complexes built there and also to the
Aldi's at the commercial area at the south end recently been developed in. For the most part, the northern portion of that purple area has remained vacant along with the areas that were designated for residential um and a west town center which is a mixeduse concept then. So again, in 2002, this is how
they envisioned in the future this property would be developed there with these types of uses. It also envisioned a connection from Shunts Road out to I4 uh which would allow for better access into those warehouse office areas for truck traffic. Um there again 2002 that
was a plan. Fast forward 25 years from now or 25 years things have changed in terms of basically how things have developed out specifically along this area Daytona and Port Orange there. We've seen a lot of that industrial use that would had envisioned to go there, kind of that transportation into kind of
the Amazon and delivery services that has all gravitated toward the I4 I95 interchange area due to accessibility. Um, and for the most part, if it was developed in this area, we're not going to have that direct access to I4 through Shunts Road. And also two, the
development of th those uses would require them to travel through residential neighborhoods, which would not be beneficial. So we see the kind of a market change in terms of those uses that were envisioned there going up to that I4 corridor and you can see those being built right now. So the applicant is proposing a code amendment to adjust
some of the land use category land uses in here to basically adjust to the market conditions then. And what that would be basically is about 240 acres of the office industrial area which is the purple area would become the community district. and that is more of a
residential development um district along with commercial that supports it then. And this would be the new map that would basically replace that then. So you can kind of see that long stretch between McInness and um I95 which was the office warehouse would be going to
more the residential um community district and then the west town center was shifted slightly um over there. So that mixeduse center is still there um on there then. So those were that was the main shift in the code amendment uh was basically kind of shifting from the
um sorry the workplace district to the community district. Then the um code amendment also gave us an opportunity to look through the text that was provided there and clean up some of the um redundancies that were there uh in terms of basically making the code more efficient then. So again that's the
proposed main proposed change is basically going from the workplace to community. Again, the limits that are in place in terms of the amount of residential that can be built and the trip cap does not change with this. Um, also too, the percentage of area that could be developed as residential does not change either. Uh, the applicant's
also here to further discuss. Sorry, one more point then too. The applicant has also requested to amend the lot width requirement in the community district which I believe we indicated there as a discussion item from the current lot width in the that district is 50 ft and the applicant is requesting a 40ft
minimum lot width um in the community district. Then so the um that's the the main significant changes to the code amendment. >> Any questions for Tim? >> Not yet. >> Yeah. Um I'm sorry.
>> Go ahead. No, I have you didn't have anything. >> So, first thing, uh on the new map, >> uh the first thing that's pointed that I I look and see is uh we this is this is not consistent with what the previous map was was residential units up to 16
units per acre. >> Yeah, there's one area here that they proposed that could be potentially be up to 16 units per acre in that area. and 16 acres per uh 16 units per acre. And how many acres? >> Uh 7.4 I believe. >> And how many units does that put there?
>> Um 70 42 >> basically a fulls size apartment complex that we would see out on Williamson now. >> Well, I mean full size complex like 300 330 then along Williamson then. >> So this would be you know 10. >> So close to that possibly
>> close to that. Yeah. And then um the other thing that I saw that was the big one that u we just approved a huge uh apartment complex on the corner of Meline and Williamson that's going to be built which I don't want to see I don't
really care to see another one. Uh there's plenty of them being built up in Daytona and I'm sure there's going to be plenty of them built in the Daytona side of Williamson north of Meline because that's all they're doing up in Daytona right now is putting one one huge apartment complex after another. And we're going to have, you know, the
innovation center up there on Williamson and and uh basically uh Beville coming down towards us. And then we have a potential huge residential opportunity that we have no control over because it's Daytona. And I've seen what
Daytona's done. They have no problem building hundreds uh two 300 units on land up there. They have zero problem with that. So I don't want to see another >> um apartment complex, especially in this
area. Uh right now today I went and I looked at a house that's over in um Westport that the house itself is 40t wide sitting on a lot right on top of another
person. So we're not we're going to go from 50 to 40. That house is only 40. So I I this is not what I envisioned Towns West to look like. Back in 200,
you know, when 2004, I actually owned some of the property that we bought through a group on the corner of Towns West Boulevard in Williamson. I hadn't that's not what I envisioned. And then the homes that are out there now, I know they're they they came in, they're affordable, and they sold out. Every
every single subdivision in Port Orange sells out. There's a few that are several million that are probably a little slower, but eventually someone will have the wherethal to be able to build the $2 million house over in King's Landing. And certainly this council as well just
ran a local developer through the ringer on a development he wanted to do about 113 homes. Now he's down to 58 >> 50. >> So or 50 >> 50 >> on 58 acres. So, I want to be consistent and this isn't consistent. This
50 is I wish we didn't have that. So, that's that's my feeling on it. And the feedback I've received uh leading up to um me being on this council was just that that the citizens in this town are
tired of it. and uh >> well green space. >> There's there's plenty of green space out there and and we've done a good job of green space in neighborhoods and actually we're putting more trees out on the 58 acres than are there now. So, uh
we're pretty good about trees in Port Orange. Um that's not ever been a concern of mine. What I'm concerned of is slapping houses right on top of each other for whose benefit? It's certainly not to the benefit of this city because
I've driven through just today towns West Boulevard. I'm not thrilled with it. Um I know there's we need places for people to live. We don't have a problem with people wanting to live in Port Orange and uh we don't have a developer
coming to us begging us to do 50 foot lots or 40 foot lots. You know, this is going to be sold to a developer and it's going to look like something that we're going to regret. Need to beat it any further. Anybody else? >> Not in favor.
>> Just remember Tim's not the applicant here. Tim's just presenting it. So, you probably some of these questions would probably be better for >> I just want to I just want to share something with you, Tim. I'm more than impressed with that you do for our city. We are you are a huge ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass ass asset to us and I don't want anything that I ever say up
here to for you to think any differently. You're a phenomenal uh planner and we're thankful to have you and you're just doing your job. Thank you >> Tracy. >> Nothing for Tim at this time. >> Reo, >> there you go.
>> I want I want you getting off that stand in in with a smile. I was going to comment that in 2002 that was the year that Ohio State went undefeated and beat Miami in the national championship. I got to go back, but I decided to hold that in. But just for references, then we won two other championships.
>> Speaking of references, do we do we have a community where the lot widths are only single family home lot widths are only 40T? >> We have a few within Port Ort. >> Battle Commons has a few uh a number of lots that are 40 ft there. >> That's what we would be looking at >> in that that case there. And there are
some of the lots within the Royal Palm community have the smart lots there and I think you know some of our older subdivisions too like Riverwood we have some there and most like those are you know the longer the houses are very you know long there and narrow and kind of how they're configured then but there are some there is not preleent um you
know development pattern here in Port 40 ft though. >> Yeah. Okay. >> And again like kind of the same Andrew and K that was just the applicants request then um and they might have more information to kind of support why they made that request for the council. Actually, Tim, then I do have a question. That 40 foot, is that apply to all residential in this entire
>> It would just be the blue area, the community. >> So, so the the one that's uh tucked in between McGinness and 95 and Williamson. >> Yes. This whole area right here. >> Okay. >> So, but it also that would include the ones on the outside there as well. So,
so anything in blue is what I'm saying. Any of the residential. Correct. >> All right. That's Thank you. >> Thanks, Tim. Uh, would the applicant like to speak to this? I'm sure they would. >> Yeah, it's great. Thanks, sir. >> There you go.
>> Okay. Uh, good evening. Uh, for the record, Mark Watts of the law firm of Cobb Cole, 231 North Woodland Boulevard, Dand. It's good to be back and to see you. And, uh, it's been a minute since I've been over here. Jessica told me I had to speak tonight. She was supposed to be at county council, as was I, but we both got out early. So, uh, in any
event, it's good to good to see you all. We we've got a handful of folks, um, with us as well. I want to introduce Jonathan Fox with VCOR Property Management. Um, they're the the owner of the properties. Um, Claire and Chris Roelly and, uh, Mallerie Tatum with Zeb Cohen and Associates who've been working
with us through the the process here. And then Jessica Gal, my partner, um, who's also been really instrumental and and, uh, has driven a lot of the work here with your staff. And I'd be remiss if I didn't thank um, Tim and Penny. Um, Sean, I'll I'll echo your comment that
you've got a phenomenal staff. I I'll tell you a secret. Years and years ago, I tried to get Dand to poach Tim, but um, you know, it never worked. Um, but in any event, uh, you've got a phenomenal staff here and, um, we we appreciate the work that they put into kind of updating this with with us over
the past year or so. Um, one of the things that, you know, I'll play the the gray hair uh, here um, tonight. I remember when this you I came back to Valuchia County and started practicing land use law in 99 and I remember going through with the PCA uh district being
amended and I remember being impressed as a you know kind of someone who likes planning, someone who you know has been involved in you know land use through you know college and and law school that you had a city and a and a large property owner that were willing to work not just on planning for kind of the the
large scale you know future of the city but also for the infrastruure structure and everything else that goes along with it. And you know, as with any plan, um you know, every now and then you've got to come through and you've got to update to see how does the plan need to be adjusted based on what's occurred. And that's really, you know, 25 years is
probably a little bit of a long period to to do that. We used to be required to do it every eight years when DCA was still an active agency with the state. Um, but you know, I think what we've really tried to do is go through and and as as Tim mentioned, um, take into account, you know, how market conditions
have changed. I mean, I think when the PCA district, think about it this way, when the PCA district was adopted in 2002, Amazon didn't exist. Um, and so our economy really has changed a lot. And I think one of the most relevant things that we looked at as we were
working through this update was the comment about, you know, now if you've got this work displace district in an area where the truck traffic has to go out Williamson or up, you know, make its way out to Tamoka Farms Road and go north to get to, you know, that interchange where that traffic is going
to want to go. You really start to create some inconsistencies in the land uses. And so, you know, we felt like the the overall shift and change uh was entirely appropriate um as far as, you know, kind of updating things with with regard to current conditions. So, I
won't go into to detail on a lot of the cleanup changes because I think that was another thing that we we saw an opportunity here working with your staff to get rid of some duplication to make the overall code um efficient with regard to how they have to go through and look at it and apply it, you know,
as as you get individual projects or property owners coming in to to move forward with with development. But, um you know, the key things were obviously, you know, kind of changing uh some of the the allocations around the map. Um, one of the early targets that we set in
our conversations with staff was to keep all of the land use allocations the same. So, we weren't changing that mix of uses that was always envisioned. We weren't changing the the maximum amount of development that would occur out there. We're keeping all those caps in place with the the proposed amendment
that's in front of you. Um the one tweak and and you know we we had this conversation with planning board on the the 28th of May as well because we heard a lot of the same comments about the 40 40ft lots and and I'll tell you that I have seen a lot of jurisdictions struggle with you know those proposals
where you come in and you take an entire neighborhood and you just make it 40 foot lots and nobody has a place has a place to park. You've got pickup trucks that are sticking out over sidewalks and keeping things from being able to keeping people from being able to walk by and things of that nature. So, I want to walk through a little bit more of what we envision here because I think
it's a little bit more targeted than that and it's aimed at creating, you know, something that I think would ultimately be an enhancement as long as it's, you know, deployed and approved in an appropriate way. So, we put together some examples for you to look at and consider. Um, and these are all from
other places within Central Florida. So, um, the community district is the area that we're, you know, kind of looking for that change to be applied to. And so the purpose of that district is really to serve as a transitional district between your town center area that's
that's part of the you know core part of the plan and the neighborhood districts that you know are further to the south. So that community district does have a mix of things that can occur there residential, commercial, civic space, all of those things. And so we tried to
look around and and give you some examples. So, for example, this is the area down in Lake Nona where you've got um civic space, you've got parks, you've got some of the the smaller lots. Again, these are set up with um you know, kind
of green space along the backside to the civic area, and you've got some town homes also in the mix. So, you've got kind of that variety that ultimately is provided there. And one of the comments we heard from the planning board was, you know, some of the members said, "I don't like it. I wouldn't live there, but somebody would want that in our in
our community. And so, it does serve a purpose to serve some element of the community and provide that housing opportunity. Um, this is another one, Lake Baldwin, uh, or Baldwin Park down in Orlando. Uh, for those of you who've been around for a while, this is the old Naval Training Center. Um, and the
redevelopment that occurred with the the Naval Training Center back, you know, in the early 2000s. But again, here you have a mix. Town homes, park space, larger lots, smaller single family lots, all kind of mixed in together in that area that's transitioning kind of
between uses. Here you've got that village center, that town center type use. So, I think this is really the the standard that we're asking to be included in the update so that we can accomplish things like this as we move forward. Um, this is just an example of,
you know, what some of those smaller lots look like when done well and done appropriately. And one of the things I'll point out to you is in the change that we're requesting, we're not simply saying, you know, let us shave 10 ft off of the lot. We're keeping we're asking to keep the lot size consistent with
what your current standard is. So, we're not asking to reduce the lot size. We would actually be making the lots deeper as a minimum standard. um that'll accommodate things like rear alley uh access where you can have a garage behind the the home, you can push the um the front of the home closer to the
street. Those are actually specifically some of the goals and and purpose and intent descriptions in your community district um explanation or or definition in your land development code. So, trying to kind of lean into that overall characterization and that overall
design. Um, a couple of other examples. This is another one over kind of in the Winter Garden area. Again, you've got park space. You know, we know and we've been working, you know, quite a lot with your staff and your your legal staff on, you know, the the um expansion of Karasi Park. There's a great opportunity here
to be able to front um some of these clustered, you know, smaller um homes and home sites adjacent to that green space, which I think is important. Um, so here's an example of that over, you know, kind of in between the Celebration and Winter Garden area in Orange County.
And then, um, Avalon Park, again, you've got that mix where you've got some commercial, uh, town center areas, you have town homes, um, you've got some of the smaller, uh, residential lots that then, you know, kind of tear down and reduce intensity as you leave that, you
know, town center core area. And this is one that, um, this this one always kind of surprises me a little bit. Um, this is one that I've worked on for the past 10 or 12 years over in in Deerry. Um, and if you've been over there, if you've ridden Sunreil, this is just across the
uh the cooling um canal from the the power station uh from the Sunreil um station. Um these are actually 30 or 32 foot wide lots that are part of the the Rivington um development Rivington layout that have alley access that front
onto these muse and and dedicated green spaces and parks that are part of the overall design. And so, um, you know, um, Councilman Gford, to your to your point, I completely understand the desire to to want to stay away from
conc, you know, concentrating houses like this, lots like this, you know, and having everything develop in that in that way. But I do think it does provide a good opportunity to provide that mix um whether it's, you know, some of the areas adjacent to the park areas or intermixed within um, you know, within
the overall developments that occur. And it occurred to me that I I kind of, you know, when we were putting together all these examples of newer things around Central Florida that g gave you examples of this, I can probably give you a much better example just in in my own
neighborhood. Um I live two blocks behind the courthouse in in Dand in an old, you know, historic neighborhood. Um we have lots along our street that range from 32 feet um to 150 ft. We've got a mix in there. I've
got um 55 plus condos and town homes that you know about but my house on three sides. Um, so I think that mix and if you think about it in the context of that traditional neighborhood development, that traditional how do you build a city, um, where you've got that town center like downtown to land and
you transition from that to a civic use like a court, you know, a courthouse and then you transition into the neighborhoods and we've got a tier of commercial along the front part of our neighborhood and then we go into the smaller lots that are, you know, there behind the commercial and then we transition as you, you know, continue to
move away from that traditional town center area. Um really this is I think an opportunity to emulate that and to include that again not as the entirety of what we're what would come back and be proposed with it within the community area but as an element in it that allows
for some of that design flexibility. And so that's you know kind of what we're proposing. Again we're not asking to change caps. We're not asking to change allocations. We're just updating the plan and asking to to include consideration of a standard that would let us do some interesting things like
this. Um particularly in and around the civic spaces that I think we're all working hard to try and bring forward in in Port Orange. So I'll stop there. I've got a whole lot of smarter people behind me um that I can bring up if you've got any questions that that um that I can answer, but appreciate your time and the
opportunity to be here this evening. >> Thanks. >> Anybody specific questions for the applicant at this point? We'll hear from the public and we'll give them a chance to come back up again. >> Good. >> All right. Thanks. Thanks. >> Anybody from the public wish to speak to this?
>> Well, that'll be up. >> I'm sorry. Come on up. No, no, no. >> Yeah. >> Okay. My notes for two weeks from now. >> Hey, listen, man. For you, you can come up >> sign up and everything. Um, this is uh well, it's kind of absurd. This is one of the funniest things I've heard in a
long time that we're gonna go from Oh, sorry. Adam Dovy. >> Gotcha. >> Am I in there? All right. Sorry. Port Orange resident. >> Everybody resident. Um, it is that's lipstick on a pig. That's the most mind-numbing thing I've seen in in years. Um,
to say going from a 40ft lot or a 50ft lot down to a 40 foot lot or maybe a 30 foot lot because we did it years ago in the land. Correct me if I'm wrong. You have 4,800 houses on your street. This is a different scope of scale. All I say is for what we're destroying Port Orange
for, no matter where you put it, you're cramming this many people into a city that's already packed just alone. Think of the traffic at Williamson and Taylor. >> I can't fit there. And I have to go back the back way, which is now going to be overwhelmed the other direction trying
to go down Meline or God help me, Willow Run. This is the the the strangest thing in the world, regardless of how we're destroying the aquifer and all this stuff I've said before over and over again. But to to use Lake Nona as an example, my buddy lives right behind the new VA clinic in Lake Nona. It is
garbage. He has 30 lot 32 foot or 35 foot lot lines. Everything is soaking wet all the time. And they did the same thing. They extended it to say, "Hey, we'll get a little more square footage. We're not losing square footage. We're going to, you know, take it from here, get it from there." And he has a back alleyway that nobody can fit on that
cars are sticking out. His kids don't go outside because when it's said and done, they got a little kind of a peep head version for kids. Like when you take your dog out in the city, it's not a real city. It's a way for developers to milk everything, extort our city, milk
our lands, and leave. It is mind-numbing what this is. And the fact that 25 years ago, some slick talking attorney came in and said, "Hey, we're going to do four houses per acre is absurd. Why don't we put our foot down and say for what we did and and by the way I think you did the right thing with the uh previous
development from earlier this year go the other direction have some wherewithal have some gumption say that's no longer a thing it's ridiculous to say we're going to they could have planned or seen how congested Port Orange would get or Dunlton would get or
Williamson's now going to get in all directions or Clyde Morris with the overflow and say you know what two houses an acre I still think That's way too much. But why are we not going the other direction? Why are we trying to concede and give up more for what? The
developer, the banker, and the attorney. All they're going to make a lot of money. Everybody else, all Port Orange citizens are going to sit here and scratch our heads. Why our water infrastructure stressed? Why why everything floods more? Why do we have to do so many crazy things to offset
this this a lot of stuff? So, I thought I had two weeks to plan for this. This was 2 minutes, but this is kind of absurd to say we're going the other direction. Please don't destroy the last little bit of of of Port Orange that we have out near Karach Field and develop with some wherewithal. Thank you, guys.
>> Thanks, Adam. >> Anybody else? Anybody else from the public wish to speak to this item? >> No. Once, twice, back to council. All right. Read comments. >> Oh, boy.
might be a Tim question, might be for the applicant, but we're you're talking about how the um the overall structure of this is to keep the caps that were there before and to keep the same
ranges. So, same I'm assuming that means same residential, per commercial, per etc, etc., etc. Why would you not want to change some of those percentages? Um, the world is not what it was in 2002. I I I I get why we're here. I understand why we're
saying, "Hey, look, let's move this part here and that part there, etc." Like, that makes sense to me, right? You have all this big land and and you're going to build a shed here and now you're going to put the shed on the other side of the house, right? That's that'll I understand that being part of the ask. What I don't understand is like you
said, Amazon was not a thing. Like the amount of industrial that's needed now, especially here in Port Orange, like we're mostly a residential community that likes to go out to restaurants and and go golfing and things like that. You know, why would you not want to adjust some of those percentages, spread out
the number of units per acre and the lot size and then, you know, and not be forced to have this property sitting there that's going to for industrial that'll probably never sell anyway. like I I don't understand the thought process there and and you're welcome to speak to that. You know, I'm sure you're going to want to hear everybody and come back up
here and answer some questions. Um the problem that I that I see, you know, sure, we can go you go down to 40 and you add 10 feet to the back. I mean, I I understand where people are saying that we just got from from where we're at here is the
current residents of Port Orange are voicing to me that these new developments coming in are not providing any value to them and that they feel like they are being just completely ignored so that we can continue to add
more residents. And we both know like Williamson is not ready. Now, hopefully that bridge gets widened, we get four lanes, it's going to make everything better for all residents. Like, I like to envision and try to think 10, 15 years down the road. But the thing that I'm hearing from residents is that we're
not doing enough. Not not that they don't want to see anything ever get built ever, but they want to be something more inclusive and provide more quality, and they want to feel like it benefits the city as a whole. And and from the first draft of this proposal that I'm seeing here tonight, I don't
know who I can look in the face and say I I truly see that yet. But I also I I believe in you. Obviously, we've we've worked on things before in the past. I think we've gotten a few good projects. I believe that you guys can can work on this and get it somewhere a little more acceptable, but for me, I'm really
having a hard time with it coming out of the gate right now. It's crazy. >> Yeah. Looking at what uh 2002 held, you know, you had 610 acres of
about 610 acres of the 1,200 acres was set aside for conservation. Now, I know that was in 2002, half conservation. So when you're looking at this land flip and putting things where it needs to be and whatnot, my question is is right off
the bat, where's the conservation? >> It's not in there. So that's that's a problem right off the bat. And uh then you go into the 40 foot versus 50 foot. Not to name a community, but I got a community that's behind me that is on
40ft lines and short driveways. And you cannot drive through that community. It is absolutely horrible and I think Port Orange deserves better. I do not believe that should ever be built again like the
community that I'm I'm referencing to. Um some of us know it and it shouldn't be. It's in my mind when you go down that road and you make the mistake of turning onto that road. I can just see fire and police having issues because
there's car cars parked on both sides going all the way down it. Cars get mirrors knocked off of it. I hear that phone call and emails every now and then. So to say that and make things smaller and shrinking and and those natures for me it's not absolute no.
um the community that you guys have brought forward to us before off of Madlin and Williamson that project we've talked about hashed out and did things with it and it was coming together beautifully but I don't even see any of
that vision in something of this. So my question is is the vision got lost. Um I agree with Reed though. I understand flipping the land around to make sense of residential homes versus
the commercial. Putting the land properly in place to sell it, I I get, but how we sell it is my concern. Um, so yeah, I it needs to be restructured.
Thanks. >> I don't see this as just a little flipping of of you know colors especially when it comes to the commercial the industrial all changing to residential.
So when I see that I mean I look at how many more houses I'm about I'm about the impact and the impact that each house has on the system. May it be water meters, fire trucks, ambulances, garbage, what have
you. So you go and you pack 40 foot lots and you're going to pack garbage cans and every other thing down these streets. This just doesn't it's this is not what I have visioned for this. So So my my basic thing to this is I'm absolutely
against any of this density. Okay. Nevertheless, we've already changed the layout of residential into the business area north of Williamson there, which I never never envisioned that being houses there myself, but I I will never agree
to a 40ft lot and I'll never agree to I don't like 50 foot lots. So, we need to come back to to something less dense and and and that's all I'm going to really agree to is less impact to the system, not more.
It's all I got. >> So, there I am. I just moved up in my seat and my elbows are on the counter. staff. Uh we're taking um what's currently being asked of us is to take 75 plus an
additional 73 of of a combination of office industrial and commercial retail which is totaling overund almost 150 acres and turning it to residential with eight units per acre. and then
being asked to reduce it to 40 foot lots. That's along the 95 corridor along McInness that whole section that was going to be if you look at the previous map. So, um, and looking at the previous map
already approved, right, we could go out and develop this >> right now. >> There's eight units on 61 acres. and then another eight units per acre on 31 acres.
And then of of course there's the 45 acres and the 55 acres of the Westtown Center. I don't know what the zoning on that uh really is. Maybe staff can help me on that. But we're taking and adding we're removing the
commercial, removing the the industrial and then and then being asked to add eight units per acre on 140 plus acres. That's adding a lot more homes than what the eight units per acre on 61 acres is
now. Unless on this other map, correct me if I'm wrong, we're we're we're keeping 8 acres on 53 8 units per acre on 53 acres. We're shifting
eight units per acre on 46 acres. So, that's going to be there. And then adding another 40 plus acres of eight units per acre. and then another
16 units per acre on 14 acres. I've never envisioned Port Orange to look like this ever. >> Let me try to maybe try to help it. It seems like you're headed towards voting no on more than just the 40 acre or 40 foot lot. So just help a little bit.
Matt can help if I get off track on this, but they have rights right now as you just mentioned for a certain amount of density. And what they're asking for doesn't increase the density of the,200 acres above what they're already allowed to do. So different than the PIS property where you went from a a piece
of land that was allowed 10 or 12 houses and he asked for 120. These guys are allowed I'm just going to use some round numbers 3,000 houses and they're offering they're just trying to shuffle it. So and because I think I understand where where Councilman Green was coming from. It's not the overall density. It's
I don't want it that dense in any one area. Even if you were allowed 3,000 homes, I don't want 3,000 of them clustered on top of each other in a tight area. Not so because they're not asking for increasing the density of what they were allowed in the past. You don't like how they're laying it out in
the PL. At least I'm trying to understand where you're coming because the town center area there now is allowed 16 to 24 units an acre. It's more dense than what they're asking for. So, so they have an area for high density in there now where where that was going to be that road Tim mentioned
where if you loop down the off I4 and come in that way that was going to be the town center and it was going to be very high density. So that it was set up for that. They're just reshuffling the deck and moving them around. What I'm hearing council say very clearly is we don't want to see some small lot single
family developments with stuff crammed in. At least one of you said I'd rather not see any apartments. So I'm trying to help them. If you go down the path of saying no, because you're not saying, hey, this is more density than it's allowed. You're saying and you have a right to say as a legislative body, I don't like the way it's being laid out.
I I would rather you do something that's better for our community that fits better with the vision that's still consistent with that. And if I'm reading that correctly, I just trying to make sure that I'm I'm helping you with the details because you could you could spend a lot of time going into the the weeds of this this piece and that piece,
but we can help probably guide them better if if your direction is we we just don't like how you've come back with reorganizing it. And it sounds like there's not really a problem with we don't expect to see a bunch of US foods and Amazon's lining the interstate. You you seem to that that doesn't seem to be
the problem. The problem is how do you put the houses out there? What do they look like? What do they feel like? How do emergency vehicles get around in there? What does the community feel like? That seemed like that was what I'm hearing as the concern, if I'm correct. >> Well, I can speak for myself. I'm
completely against a 40ft lot. I can't stand 50 foot lots. You want to know what I >> got that I just thought you were also heading towards denying the whole thing. So, I was trying to >> Well, it's not going to have an approval from me because the the way it sits right now. Um,
no. I I mean, I I don't I don't like I'm not against the layout. I understand it. I'm against the 40ft lots completely. >> They will be able to get an apartment >> and I'm against that as well. I do not want an apartment complex in there.
>> And and the applicant may want to get up and and clarify and rebut some of what I was trying to say, but I was just trying to help as you were going down that path if if we're going to send them back to the drawing board. >> That's it for now. >> So, my
>> That's okay. No. Um I don't give you I'm going to give you a chance here in just a minute. you know, um, as as a council and as residents in the city, we we have seen what comes in projects in this format,
right? And you're you're you're seeing these diagrams and these visions and things like that. And we can appreciate the amount of work that goes in, but we also see what turns out to be the result. And in in our community,
these smaller lots that create density in a smaller spa uh area, even though yeah, you might have got a nice bigger open park. The they're very problematic for us. They're problematic for pedestrians. They're problematic for
parking. these these more dense communities and even our especially especially our apartment complexes are a much higher draw on our community resources for public safety, police, fire, EMS. Like it's I don't know what
the actual numbers are, but it doesn't make I mean you just we see it and it's it's massive difference. Also, our community as the the city has grown over decades and decades and decades, we have become
used to being kind of the bedroom community of Valuchia County, right? Similar to a lot of places in Orman Beach, but the structure and the desire of our neighborhoods are a little bit more elbow room, a little bit more space. I I've never had not one time
ever ever ever ever ever had a resident come up and say, "God, I wish we had more apartments. We just need more apartments. We need more town homes, close together town homes with tiny streets and nowhere to park. We just never get that right. And I understand there's a whole discussion about
affordable housing. I can appreciate that, too. Um, so I I understand all the complexities, but right now, and it's been very consistent in our community, that density thing is a problem. Um, we're looking for ways to get away from apartments. We're looking for ways to
get away from 40 and 50 foot lot neighborhoods that just don't work. It's funny, Tracy mentioned the one where he lives. I was thinking the exact same thing because I just had a conversation last weekend with a gentleman in that neighborhood. And the problem is is once the neighborhoods are built, there's no
fix. There's there's no space to go back and fix what those problems are and they are just neverending frustration. So anyway, that that's that's what you're seeing up here and that's what you're feeling from us. Um we are also extremely aware that come November,
there could be a lot of changes in how municipalities see projects because you're going to have to figure out how how to how to fund resources for these types of things. So, we're going to I think selfishly we're looking for projects that we believe we will see a
lesser need and draw heavy draw on resources and and when I say resources I'm talking public safety and all the utilities and all those kinds of things. So, and and and I do, you know, I I travel all over the state of Florida and I see where there are communities in our
state where that high density in a small area with, you know, commercial on the bottom and three levels of or four levels of residential and and I see that it does work in in some of those places, but those communities seem to have desired that, whereas our community
doesn't desire that for for this community. So that's some of our reservation and some of our thoughts and as you guys can see you guys have definitely provoked some pretty deep thought. >> Mayor before you turn over because I think it's important as to what the initial presentations was and you were talking about the other cities in
Florida. I think this is probably the biggest challenge but two of the examples you used. Okay. Um Lake Nona was acquired in 1996 right and was developed in 2001 is when they first started breaking ground. It was 2005
when that medical city got done, right? And then Baldwin Park, uh, 1998 is when it was actually founded as a city and it was 2002 when they first started doing or 2001 they started doing development there, right? Port Orange was founded in
1867, right? and and has there's such an old part of the city here because there are neighborhoods where that idea of of having smaller lots and everything else where it can work and be great for a young family community and all these other things. It's just we've you know
we're not a 30-year-old city, you know, we're we're technically 1560 year old city here and it just that's what makes it so challenging. So, I just I want to point that out because I think that's a key detail in the presentation is we're not comparing apples to apples. We're comparing apples
to Port Oranges, right? So, no pun intended, but >> for the record, Jessica Gakop one Daytona Boulevard, Daytona Beach, Florida. I don't like to claim that a land office, although I hang out there a lot. Um, I just wanted to touch on a
little bit of what council member Foley touched on, which is kind of the bigger picture first and then kind of diving into what we're looking at. um which is that this property is owned by the same family corporation that originally planned for Williamson Edel right and so when we look at planning overall we are
looking at bros we are looking at recreation we are looking at that master plan this is not a group that is obviously they've been holding it for a very long time as noted um and it is not because they could not have sold it somewhere along the way it is that there is a kind of exacting level of vision that they are trying to implement um
that we have worked really closely with staff and we want to kind of describe that this site layout the vision behind this is a vision around a 100 acre park dedication in the core of it that we are working with staff on and we've been working with staff on this for two years um that is informed every kind of design
iteration that this has gone through this project will include the extension of Kasi Boulevard from existing road point out tomoka farms and this will also include the eventual extension to Meline over to Shuns across the interstate um this family is the same family that has ensured as development
has moved forward on both sides of 95 that corridor for the Meline extension exists. So the landing pad that was negotiated when Walker's Green was sold um where they had two paths kind of coordination with the county. We talk about Williamson the the widening. The
current phase of Williamson Boulevard is using another property owned by this family for the storm water for the current expansion and we've already met with the county about the storm water needs for the bridge widening um because that will be located likely on our client's property that they also hold in Port Orange. And so it is not lost on us
that the overall vision and infrastructure needs is something that we have to coordinate very closely with the city and county on. Um, and this developer has continued to do that for over I am not that old, so I will let others speak to it on the gray hair aspect. Um,
but they have been doing it for decades. Um, I think that as it relates to the benefit, obviously it will be a separate item, but that contemplation of the park expansion kind of informed that development program. When you ask why we did not change the allocation of uses percentage-wise, um you know, I think
that one there's a hesitation to change this to a kind of a core residential area because there are changes coming at the state level where a mix of uses can be helpful. Um I I want to point out that that workplace district and I think it's not shown on the map so it's not really clear but it's in the backup. The
workplace district allows multif family development. So that change we are making to remove workforce and change it to community reduces density. That density currently there is 16 units an acre. So all of the workforce acreage that district allows multif family up to
16 units an acre. So when we're looking at this change that overall density cap remains like we said and I think what we're looking at is not >> could you say that again? I want to actually write that note down so because I that I think that's important. So the workplace that is on the 2002
version >> allows multif family up to 16 units an acre. >> Okay. >> That high high density and that's in the backup of the the LDC where you can see the workplace district >> and that allows department 16 units per acre. >> Correct.
>> And so the the shift and you're looking at take take the map up there. >> Where's your your >> presentation? We don't want to open the cities. So I think that's that's a key distinction. When we came in, the workplace district contemplates multif
family and it contemplates town homes. Now your town home lots are allocated at 20 feet in width. So the areas that we are looking at that smaller lot size that 40T um you know it is not a distinction of estate lots
versus a 40. It is the vision is adjacent to that park. If you have supporting retail, you have a community park and you've seen those examples and I understand that Port Orange is unique, but I think that when you prove that residential works beside public spaces, it's a smaller product. So that smaller
product is either apartments, which would be threetory high density, town homes, which are permitted. Um, or a 40ft lot product that is twice the width of a town home lot and you're you don't touch your neighbors. Um, I think we can certainly work with staff on, you know, this is first reading, it's an
introduction. Um, we have heard some concerns loud and clear. If the the concern is if we approve this in the overall community district, we can't control where it goes in that vision, even it's what we intend. As a lawyer, I'm intend I'm inclined to say with
language, you can make almost anything happen. Um, which is that we could work on some restrictions on implementing those 40s where the town homes adjacent to kind of the public spaces, that vision piece that we're looking at. um because we don't want to be in a
situation where 20 years from now we have an entire neighborhood along the interstate of 40 foot lots. That's not the vision. That's not the intent. Um so we are we're happy to work with staff on that vision statement and it is just adjacent to that park and kind of that
coordination where you can have 20 foot town homes. Why do you hate 40 foot single family in lie of a 20 foot town home? Why do you like attached product versus that detach small product? um and kind of acknowledging that 16 units an acre that exists now. And I know right
now it is it's undeveloped and so the conceptual comparison of 16 units an acre across the workforce district um versus what we're proposing is is a little bit hard to kind of put your head around. Um, but I think that that is where we are, right? When this came in
from the county under the county, which is very rare as Wayne noted, the exact entitlements that are there today are what existed under the county zoning when it came in under the inocal agreement. So, they match the trip cap for those entitlements and it hasn't changed since 2002. No increase in
density, no increase in allocation of units or trips. That's why we want to keep that. We want to keep the mix of uses so that the city has kind of a backup of non-residential use types in case there are changes to tax revenue sources or anything like that. Um so we
kept that in place and we're we're really asking for the city to invest with us in a vision and if we did not do a good job of outlining that vision by text we are happy to do that and bring it back. >> Yeah. And back in again Mark Watts. Um, and I think one of the things, you know,
as as Jessica said, you know, this is kind of unique. You you don't typically have a property owner who usually you're here talking about a resoning or an annexation or a PUB or something of that nature. You have an entire section of your code that governs this section of the city. Um, one of the I think
significant benefits and to the um Mr. Doy's comments about, you know, I experienced the traffic coming over here, my eye doctors over at Airport Rhoden and um and uh Taylor. So I'm over here for appointments and things of that nature. We're over here. I've got, you know, nieces and stuff that come over
and go to soccermies and stuff at Crossy Park. One of the things that I think um I see in kind of the long, you know, speaking to the to the point of planning for, you know, kind of that long range vision, that long range future.
To give you some of the the historic context, my dad worked on the original Williamson um agreements with the county. um this has been going on and it was with the Karasi family. Uh it was with their predecessors, the you know the cousins estate. Um so this you've
had a long-term opportunity here to kind of work through how we plan for this area. But one of the biggest benefits I see in what happens out here is I think consistently when I'm over here working on on projects or even over here going shopping or you know going to to
meetings um you know we all experience the traffic. We all are the traffic. But what you have when you do a plan of this nature is you have the opportunity to also plan for those alternatives. And you know, Jessica mentioned a minute ago the extension of Crossy Boulevard and the planning that's gone into this with
the Meline extension and reserving those corridors. Those are there. Those are dedicated. Um they they will continue to be dedicated as this moves forward. But this connection to me, you know, listening to a lot of the the long-term discussion of Dunlton and Taylor and
Williamson and some of the the the choke points that we all experience there is that this is one of those points, you know, I think, mayor, we we talked, you know, some some couple years ago about the cost of that overpass widening over Williamson or the cost of that Matteline
um overpass to get it from the east side to the west side. Uh this is probably the lowest cost opportunity that we all have to move traffic out to another north south corridor that isn't Williamson by making those connections with Meline by making the connections with Graasi Boulevard. And that's part
of this overall plan moving forward. And I think the only way we do that is through the through the partnership that's been in place for at least three generations now um between the family and the city. So we're happy to continue working on that. >> Anything else? Thank you.
>> Back to council. >> Final comments, Lance. >> Well, again, man, I I I I commend the the Kasi family. They've been a great partner over the years and and and I appreciate everything they've done. Uh they've also seen this city grow and
they've seen this city mature. And I think that uh that this is an opportunity that um that we need to to set something aside that is going to be better when it's matured. Um I would like to see them decrease density
straight up decrease density. Let's decrease impact. Impact is uh width of lots. And so if we can work on those two things, I I I would say bring it back. But as of right now, I'm I'm not good. >> Okay, Sean.
>> So, I'm a little confused. Um on the map from the previous map, >> you want to take >> Yeah. No, I uh if I can have maybe the attorney come up, board staff, whatever is easiest.
>> Sorry. This this and and here's here's why I'm passionate about this and I love what you I think you guys are fantastic. You you're explaining it very well. And same with our staff. Uh, this is our last piece. This is it. We're built out. I mean, we obviously South Williamson is
spoken for with ICI. Got the other side. He owns that. They're doing a fantastic job. We got a great opportunity with a commercial piece coming off a 95 interchange that's going there to help. We don't have a traffic problem. We have a patience problem. I've driven it east to west 100 times filming it all times
of the day. We have people who are impatient. That's it. We don't have failing intersections. Uh, so I'm not worried about the traffic and and we know that the density is not that the number of trips aren't changing. We we we've they're already in place. I get that this is
and I know the Crossy family has done a phenomenal job working with this county on a lot of projects and I'm I'm kudos to them, but they don't build the houses. >> They sell them to some builder who's not from here. And if you're gonna tell me
anyone from that family that they're real happy with Westport, I got a real problem. That's not what we that I I'm furiated that this was approved 20 years ago. Now, my question is the office industrial on the old map, you're
telling me right now, right as it sits, it says it's it says office industrial 75 acres. You can actually drop an apartment complex in that. >> So, there are two levels to the PCA district. Uh the regulations that are in the LDC backup that we are modifying
relate to the what we call kind of the major districts. So the major districts are the Westtown Center, community, workplace, and neighborhood. >> Hold on one second. The Westtown Center, >> okay, is the orange. >> Yes. >> Okay. So what can go in West Town Center
is uh define that because the blue says clearly residential. West Town Center. What's that makeup? >> I'm sorry. >> The problem is the broad categories. That's what it says. But you've got it's like a 20page code section. It's got a
ton of detail in it and it's 20some years old. So it's written I mean at one point I knew that but I haven't been in this thing and it hadn't been my role. But just to give you an example, the purple section, White Palm and the Springs are in that purple section. There's two big apartment complexes in
the purple section right now. Yeah. >> So when you go down there and look, it's it clearly says multifamily. >> Like it was zoned for multifamily. >> Well, it was zoned for workplace or whatever it was called. I can't but it it just allowed the the problem is it's a mixeduse district and so there were
ranges. If you look in there, there's a series of, you know, between 30% and 60% has to be that and 20% and 30. So it allows you to move the things around and fle it's a it's a planning concept that's been around for years that when I started in Hilton Head SE sea pines and
all those places are built off the same form of planning with a large plan development background where you can move parts and pieces around in them. So it's it's hard to follow without understanding the the depth of it. So, >> but he can give you the density. The brown area, as I understood, that's the
one that goes 16 to 24 residential units. It also allows a whole bunch of commercial options, >> correct? >> And so, you can you can make it way more dense apartments. You could have made it way more dense commercial or you could find something in the middle. It allows you to have a whole whole lot it's again the challenge is going to be because you
really don't know what you could get, but it allowed the flexibility to work with the market. >> Yeah. And in the backup just kind of on the the track changes, um it's page eight of 38 is the density. Um and page seven of 38 is the Westtown Center District overall. Um you're going to
love this answer that it cross references other zoning districts. So it's not a a clear list, which is lovely. Um but permitted uses, right? They range from general public use, um agricultural uses, anything allowed in your R3H, which is your medium density residential, um up to multifamily. Uh,
your community commercial district I think is what CC is. Multi-use buildings, so that's your multif family and then your commercial above it. Uh, bed and breakfast ends, sorry, apartments above commercial on the ground floor. Parking garages, community recreation. Um, and it says densities as
noted are allowed at a maximum density of 16 units an acre. They can go up to 24 units an acre in that town center. Okay. >> Um, and it has the workplace. The only the main distinction on workplace is it has the industrial district included. Some of the heavier commercial districts
included as a base zoning and that workplace district only allows 16 units an acre. There's not that provision for up to 24. >> Okay. So, we're going to be moving that to residential neighborhood commercial. So, there could be some small commercial piece in there
>> to accommodate the houses and all right. Um, well, I mean, when if this got approved tonight and then next thing you know, a developer came in and said, "We want to do a 16 unit apartment complex there, we we're
we're we have nothing. We're done. They can do it." Okay, Wayne. And it might be a question to you as a council. Can we reszone this? Can we can we change the densities in this as a council? >> No.
>> So what was done in 2002 is set in stone. >> Those are entitlements. They they have they own the land with the entitlements to use the land. >> Very good. >> And I ask these questions so that the public can hear this and understand why we have to make decisions we have to make up here. Yes, sir. >> It's an education for me. It's an education for them. And then all them
guys just getting paid by developers, right? No, we can't change what someone else did in 2002 when it comes to this, but we can do things to make it better. >> All right. I I want to tell I want you guys to understand I'm not in favor of
40 foot lots. Okay. Maline Commons behind the elementary school, which I knew you were kind of against. Remember the planning board? >> Drive through there. I can show you pictures now. >> It's it's not something I'm interested in. Not and and if that's what we're going to get out there because someone else made that decision in 2002, it's on
them. But I'm I'm not for 40 foot lots. I mean 50 Yeah, I'm not for 40 foot lots. I'm stuck with 50 right now, which I'm very disappointed about, but there's nothing I can do about it, obviously. I was just in a house that's 40 foot wide. >> You guys have anything else?
>> Um, yes. >> Go ahead, Tracy. Right, Jason. >> Jessica, >> anytime you want to come and ride a bike or walk through Sunset Cove with me, I will show you a hundred residents that would disagree with a 40ft lot.
Saying that the issue that we have is y'all have visions of places over in Orlando. We're not Orlando. We're not Wendir. We are Port Orange. So saying that is single family homes is
what we need, what we're looking for. So 40 foot I'm just dead against. I I agree with Lance on density. How how we get away from the density is is crucial for approving things.
Um, and talking about the the West Town Center, what came to mind, and you probably would agree with this, is the concept of Venetian Bay, >> the bottom floors of all the businesses
and then all the apartments above it. That's that's what your thoughts are if I was picturing what as a possibility. >> That is not I will say that is I think what is contemplated in the code from 2002, right? that is not the vision of the development team. >> Okay.
>> So the work port the we think it's important to have a town center set aside. >> Um I think that in the current working concepts the town center concept um the use kind of allocation doesn't change but in general and this is my thought
but as you saw in Venetian Bay and as you see elsewhere Marina Grand anywhere that tries it the actual vertical integration of commercial and and residential doesn't work in our market. Um, it works in college towns. Um, but other than that, I think they struggle. So, that is not something that we
typically advise. >> Okay. >> All right. Well, that's the concept and like you said, 2002 is what the concept was. So, there's a lot of stuff I believe missing
for the ideal what you're trying to propose for us. Um, yeah, I'm just going to leave it with that right now. Reed. >> All right. Um, well, first off, Mark, Jess, thank you guys. It's obviously not the first project you brought forward, and you're having to you're having to
really work hard for your money tonight, but um Karassi's been a great part for the city um for probably as long as I've been alive or maybe longer, right? Um that's not lost on me. Um, and I it's
also not lost on me that there there is a need for a a moving around of the Legos, if you will, right? Taking them off the board and find a new place to put them. >> Um, clearly my counterparts have voiced
they're not okay with this 40 foot lot thing. What I want to ask you, we have a motion up here to approve that or or and which you know I think we can all we we can see where it's going. Is it more beneficial because this is
not something um as I understand this and anyone Matt speak up if this was to get denied there's no waiting period as to how soon they could bring something else back because it's not the same thing we were dealing with last month. they would be able to bring it back with
a different proposal as soon as they have a new proposal together. >> So, I would say that I think that does restart a little bit of a process and you just have to go back to planning board who recommended approval. I think that motions can always be amended. >> I that's what I'm getting at and that's what I want to ask you and and Mark. I'm
trying to again you guys have been great to work with in the past. I want to be great to work with with here because in the end I think we can get somewhere that's going to work and and could be a benefit for this not only the Crossy family and everyone here on the team but
also as well as for the residents. Um, would you prefer it be tabled? Like what what's going to give you the best process to go back to the to go back and be like, "All right, let me bring something more amendable to to council." And I I just want to get your thoughts
on that here and give you a chance to to say because I think we can all see what's what's going to happen. >> And Mark has been doing this longer than me, so I will let him weigh in. Um, but I have found that the the vote on first reading is not necessarily
um a vote to approve the project. It's a vote to move it forward to a second reading. And if the motion was, you know, move this forward beyond first reading with the direction to work with the applicant and staff to look at boom boom boom, that gives us the our marching orders. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Yeah. And then the directive I
think from staff standpoint is when these things are done and when we've addressed those points that are raised from the the council then it gets scheduled for the second week. >> Okay. And that's what that's where my head was too as well. Um but I wanted to make sure I gave you a chance to kind of
speak on that. >> Um because it's and I know I'm about to Oh, go ahead. >> Well, I was just say I mean one one of the thing you know this is where this process occurs, right? I mean, we can we can all, you know, sit in a conference room with staff and look at planning manuals and and look at what the code currently says and how we think it makes
sense to tweak and a lot of the changes in here came from from that process. But you ultimately are the ones that, you know, make the decision and this is the opportunity that we get to come in front of you and have that conversation. So, I think that's, you know, extremely helpful if if that direction is kind of given to us in in the context of the
first reading. Reed, if I can say something just to help you along with the if you were thinking about adjusting your motion. >> I didn't make the motion, but >> Yeah, that was me. >> Oh, okay. Tracy. Um, or whoever would be willing to amend the motion. Uh, I would
be in favor of the way it sits without the 40ft lots and the removal of the 16 residential units per acre that you have in the middle of there. >> And then I just want to clarify the location. And you're looking at that little strip which is beside the town center right below. >> So it's like a Yeah, there's an arrow
and it says residential up to 16. >> Put the map back up so we can make sure we're all talking about the same piece of property. >> Sorry, I'm referencing with >> So basically my thought process is it it it helps them make this a more marketable piece of property for today's markets.
>> It keeps us off 40 lot 40 foot lots, which I am a no. I'm telling y'all right now. You made it very clear to me you were too and I don't want to see another apartment complex out there. Now what you do in towns west town center and stuff like that. I guess there's no control over that because
um you know but that that would be I would be in favor. So then I would certainly be in favor of that. Remove the apartment the the residential up to 16 uh units per acre and go to 50 foot lots
as it is now. and then it didn't make sense to me because there's really nothing else we can do. >> And and I'll say um from my perspective, you know, we all have different visions for what we'd
like to see. Um I don't have the biggest concern when it comes to apartment complexes. Um I have concerns when there's not a lot of green space, right? I personally have have stated many times and and I know there's
conf conflicting opinions, you know, that's what makes this great is we all work together. Um I I'd rather go a little vertical than to go out because that gives me more natural grass, more more land, more natural water, you know, uh when it comes uh to to storm water.
So So my vision has always been to actually go up, not out. >> And so that's the same reason I have similar concerns with 40 foot lots. um you know when it comes to width um I don't really have the concern on the units per acre. So what like if you were
to bring me that back but you were to increase the amount of minimum conservation those are trades that I'm willing to make. I mean we have five different opinions up here but just just as you're thinking through the process of what might come back in the event that Tracy
decides to amend his motion just lets you know where my head is. >> No that's fair. And I think part of part of what you lose when you're looking at a planning map like this also is some of that. I mean there there is green space included in the overall plan. There are green space standards within your code
language as well. I think it's a 30% minimum uh in this entire district that has to be maintained. There's a 10% conservation, you know, um in when we're talking about that cluster of uses and those range of uses, there's a 10% conservation requirement that's in there
that's not changing. So those things are in there. And as Jessica said a minute ago, and we're working with your staff to plan this around a a 100 acre park expansion. So I think coming up with the illustration that you know maybe shows you that as we move forward as well would be helpful.
>> It would probably help. Okay. >> Across the board here. >> Okay. Good. >> So Matt, make sure I'm doing this right. What we're looking at proposal here is to amend the motion on ordinance 2026-8
to negate 40 foot lots and to make sure that it stays at the 50ft lots or >> would it be more straightforward having withdraw the motion and make a brand new one that says approval with >> without the 40ft lot and and that one specific section at 16 units an acre
removed. >> If you remove your motion, I'll be happy to make a new one. Okay, I'll move the motion on amendment 2026-8. >> Second, >> John withdraw your second. >> Yeah, >> we're removing it.
>> Second. Do you agree to? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, we have a removal of the motion and the second. >> All right. And then I will make a motion for approval um with the condition of coming back with at least 50 foot width
on the lots. um and to for you guys to continue to work with staff uh on the feedback that you were provided here tonight >> and to bring us something else at second reading. >> Second it cover what you were looking for?
>> No, it didn't. It covered half of it. >> Um like I said, we have an apartment complex out there. There are actually three of them out there and um my son lived in one. It's a disaster, a
complete disaster. Um so I'm completely against that. I'm not in favor of an apartment complex or 16 units on an acre. So >> Okay, that's your motion. That's your second.
>> Great. Any other comments from council? The clerk call the role. >> Councilman Foley, >> yes. >> Councilman Gford, >> no. >> Councilman Green, >> no. >> Vice Mayor Grabs, >> no. >> Mayor Ster, >> no. 41. >> All right.
Do I can we is the That was the motion. >> That was the agenda item motion. >> There can be another motion. >> You have another motion? >> Yeah, I I certainly would. Okay, because I like where we're headed here. Um, I
apologize. I'd like to make a motion to um approve ordinance number 2026-8 requiring that the lots would be remain at 50 feet wide and that there would not
be a uh 16 units per acre allowed. that specific section that identif >> So that we're making sure we're clear. >> Yeah, it was intended as the area where the the those units would be adjacent to the park. >> I kind of feel like for the motion we we
need to make sure we're properly identify what we're talking about. if it's the the pocket along McGinness Avenue labeled as residential up to 16 units an acre >> and and that's the only place that says that that there's 16 units per acre on this map.
>> Correct. But noting that the town center does permit that. >> Correct. Correct. And there's nothing we can do about that. So this motion would be keeping what you want to read in uh the town center. >> What's the max density on that 16? take
it down to something like eight or 12 or >> well consistent with everything else. Eight units per acre. >> I'll second that. Um I I was just going in good faith like but but if you want to you want to do go >> that's why we have this >> you want to do more at the apple now that's fine. I I believe they're going
to bring that back forward anyway with my motion. So but >> okay so we have a a motion and a second. >> All right. Is the applicant good with that motion and second? >> Yep. >> Any other comments for council questions? No. or call the role on that motion. >> Councilman John or Councilman Foley?
>> Yes. >> Councilman Gerard, >> yes. >> Councilman Green, >> no. >> Vice Mayor Grubs, >> yes. >> Mayor Stler, >> no. 32. The motion passes. >> Thank you, guys. >> Appreciate the time tonight. >> No problem, guys. >> We I know it's uh I know we got more to
do, more work. I promise this will be brief. We're going to take a 5m minute recess and we'll be right back. All right. Sorry to break up the social gathering, but we got a few more things we got to get taken care of. We're going to be on item number 20, first reading
of ordinance number 2026-6. >> That's an ordinance of city of Port Orange County, Florida, proposing amendments to the city of Port Orange charter. Setting a charter amendment referendum, amending the charter of the city of Florence to change the qualification requirements for city council members, including the mayor, amending the residency requirements,
providing for authority to resolve disputes related to qualification and election. Provide for an ele election to be held November 3rd, 2026 on qualified election. Electors of the city may vote for or against the charter amendments. Providing for ballot questions, providing for public notice, providing
for severability, scriveners errors, repeal of conflicting ordinances, and an effective date. Can I get a motion and a second to put this item on the floor, please? >> Get a motion for ordinance number 2026-6. >> I'll second. >> A motion to approve ordinance number
2026-6 and a second. Um, I'm going to have uh Matt walk us through this a little bit more, but this was something that uh I had asked him to look into quite some time ago. Interestingly enough, it while it sounds very simple in the concept that the people of a city
expect the elected officials to be residents of the city, uh it turns out there has been some pretty odd stuff all over the state of Florida. And so this is more so just cleanup and making it what what a lot of us would say is
common sense, but as we all know, it's not spelled out. there's always going to be an avenue or a way of somebody trying to circumvent what the intent is. So, I had asked Matt to look into this. I had I had seen a few things, not only locally, but but around the state, and I'm like, "Okay, that this just doesn't
make sense." So, Matt, can you kind of walk us through what this is really about? >> Yeah. Or spell it out for us on what we're looking at. >> Yeah. And it seems really complex, and that's because you're changing the charter. Normally, uh if this was just a a code in your ordinances, this would be two readings and we'd be done. and we wouldn't have anything else to do
because this is a charter requirement that's changing. Uh that's why there's the need for the referendum. So this would have be placed on the ballot in three distinct questions. Uh like the mayor kind of foreshadowed the the biggest thing was that our charter is uh it clearly states that you have to be
here for 12 months. You have to be a resident of city for 12 months. We assume that means just before the election, right? Or or you know even beyond there. But it doesn't state that anywhere. So that the problem is uh you know with that language um the court's bound to to that language. So in the
event of a challenge they're not going to read that things into it that aren't there. And right now it's not there. So ironically uh if somebody just randomly kind of stopped in Port Orange for for 12 months there's an argument to be made uh that that would actually meet the qualification which is not what we think
the intent was. So, this is uh to the mayor's point, kind of a cleanup in our minds in that we we all think the intent was that it was the 12 months immediately preceding the qualifying period that you live in the city of Port Orange. So, that's what it does. Um, secondarily, on that qualification period for the residency, we we don't
really have anything in the charter either that says you got to submit something. You know, there's there's no submission of proof or any affidavit. So this what it adds to not only is is it defining what that period of time is, it also says, you know, you actually have to provide proof and an affidavit says,
"Yeah, I've been here. Here's, you know, some justification for it." We we put a a few different ways you can prove that in there. Um, we also uh it's it's also silent to who decides disputes related to qualification election. So, we're just making that clear as well that that's the city council that would uh
solve those disputes if the dispute comes up. Um, so because these are are kind of, you know, cleanup items, we we try to break them down and and make them as simply stated as we can. So you'll see in the ordinance, you have the three different uh ballot questions. You'll actually see them again if approved here
tonight, you'll see those again on in November um on the ballot. And if those uh go through and and they're uh you know, a majority of the the voters agreed to these amendments to your charter, then those will actually go into place um January 1 of of 2027. It's just a mechanism for actually amending
your charter. We haven't done so in a very long time, but as the mayor mentioned, this was kind of one that came up on a question. I done some research on the case law. It was very clear that like uh we've seen similar language go in a different direction where the court said, "I'm sorry, that's
what it says in your charter. You know, he's qualified." And it's and it's kind of an absurd result uh based on what we all think is the intent of that provision. So hopefully this is um you know, going to going to clean that up. Hopefully the voters can understand that. We've spent a lot of time, but you
only get 75 words to explain all that and you get 15 words in a title and and that's that's the limits we got to live by on a on a ballot. So hopefully we we did that and uh and we'll we'll see what happens in November. There was there was uh there was one
that that and I don't have all the details but there was one in Florida where somebody ran or or or qualified to be elected in a city who didn't live in the city but because of of ambiguous language was able to say well I used to
live there years ago so I so theoretically the concept here would be somebody could say well I used to live in Fort Orange like seven eight years ago and they could get on the ballot and run for a seat. Now, they were elected, they'd have to have residency here before they're sworn in. But clearly,
that's not the concept. That's not what the intent and what most people, in fact, you know, as I've asked people about this and I'll say, "What do you think?" They're like, "That's absurd." Well, I I agree, but you got to have the language that clarifies that. So, that's all this is is just to say, "Hey, listen. If you're going to seek election
to the city city council, you need to live in the city at least 12 months prior to qualification. Show some kind of proof or documentation of that and that the the the governing body or am I saying that right? Or the the body that
would review that if there was a dispute would be the current city council for something like that. So anyhow, that's what that's about. Any questions for Matt on this? No, I think it's um just as as best as we can clear this up is is better than leaving it ambiguous. So, um
I'm all good with this. >> Sean, >> if this passes and it goes on the ballot and someone asks us as a council member, are we allowed to speak on it? >> Uh yeah, you could you could speak on it. I mean, there's certain electioneering requirements. So, like we can't spend public funds once it once it
is approved and placed on ballot. We can't expend public funds to do some sort of campaign for it. Someone calls me on it. the exceptions to it. Actually, if you're inquired on a specific, you know, proportion of any any portion of this, you can answer the question. >> Thank you.
>> The nice thing about this one is is all this is is us giving the voters a chance to say, "Yeah, we agree with the council." >> Is there a certain percentage required for that to pass? >> Just 50%. No, no super majority, right? >> Okay. Thank you. >> What? I'm good. It's surprising we even
have gotten this far already. >> Nope. >> Anybody from the public want to speak to this? No. All right. Back to council. Final chance for questions. Clerk. Call the role. >> Councilman Finger. >> Yes. >> Council Gford. >> Yes. >> Councilman Green. >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Cre. >> Yes.
>> Mayor S. >> Yes. 5 Z. >> Item 21. Approval historic approval of historic tree removal requests for the Harbor Landings subdivision. >> Welcome back, Tim. >> Thank you. Been a while.
We need a motion on this first. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you very much. Can I get a motion and a second to put the item on the floor, please? >> Motion to put the approval of the historic tree removal request for Harbor Landings and subdivision. >> Second.
>> So, a motion and a second. All you >> Tim Bourbon, Community Development. Just for a little location, the project is located on um Bridgewood Avenue um in Audi Riverside Drive just north of Seminal. I think anyone who's driven down Ridgewood knows this is the vacant property that has the concrete wall along Rididgewood known as the wall
property then. So um this was reszoned or basically a PUD was on this property since 1999. Um in 19 or 2019 city council approved the Harbor Landings um master development agreement concept plan which established the framework to develop 10 single family homes on this
property along with 16 town homes in and this subdivision layout. Fast forward, subdivision plans have been submitted. Um, and once the tree survey was um, submitted, it was determined that there was at least 10 historic trees on this property. Um, prior to the recent submitt, there was a
subdivision submitted two or three years ago, um, which staff had reviewed and got up to planning commission. Um between the time between planning commission and this time the new submitt there at least three of the trees had went from a specimen tree under 36 in to right to 36 in and crossed into the
threshold of being historic. Um those trees are of course located within infrastructure of the subdivision or uh proposed lots um and single family home locations there. There was also two trees that um per the arpist report um are damaged or either leaning and
basically propose um possible risk to um improvements in or also to have a um a there's one that has the split is basically three trunks growing out of one and that basically is showing signs of damage. So um the intent is to request by the applicant is to remove up to seven of the 10 historic trees. Um
we've got the backup information in the staff report kind of each tree and the justification or the request and reason why. Um just wanted to point out that there um there will be the three trees that are currently historic are shown to be in common areas of the subdivision. And also too there are a number of trees
I believe there's close to 5 to six along that area of Ridgewood that are close to either 34 to 35 in right now. So over the course of time those are in common area. Those will eventually grow into being historic trees and they will be in part of the common area which will be protected by conservation easements.
Um on that one then the applicant is here to explain their request in more detail and I'm happy to answer any questions. >> First of all, any questions for Tim? >> No. >> No. >> All right, let's hear from the applicant. >> Welcome.
Good evening, mayor, commissioners. Harry Newkerk, Newkerk Engineering, 12:30 North US Highway 1, Orman Beach. Glad to be here tonight. Hey, we've been working with Tim and planning staff for a while on this project. And um things
have changed over time like you just mentioned. Uh we did a tree survey and some of the trees got bigger um slightly, you know, it gained an inch and then become historic trees. Um also, uh as everyone knows, storm water rules have changed. So you got to do a little
different storm water stuff to make these sites work. Now we got a site that you know buts two roads. One road's pretty high, the other road's pretty low. Riverside Drive around two and a half elevation two to threes and uh US
one's at nine nine. So that's kind of like the topography of the site rolling to the back. So Tim did a really good job explaining this. We had a propos we have a proposal in for taking up to seven out seven out of the 10. Now two of them are diseased.
So you're really looking at eight historic trees. And by looking at the plan, we can make that adjustment to remove five. So we could keep two more of them. Um so it would be a total of five coming off this plan. We can make
that work. And you know, from a perspective of driving down US1, the way this is laid out with the driver retention ponds up front, you get the look of all those trees. So that's what you're going to see when you drive on US1. You're going to see the the wall that's been there. Um the trees are
going to stay in these uh these units will just blend in. This will be a unique development where most of the time, you know, we're doing the big pods like the one was being explained just a minute ago. You take down every tree, you mow it all down.
That's kind of standard 101 with a big old piece of property. But this one, we're working within, you know, a small area. We're going to save as many of these trees as much. It's going to have a high character value to this development. It won't look like cookie cutter. This isn't a cookie
cutter. This will look unique. It'll have the grand entrance with these big trees, which you don't typically see. But we would like the uh city's support uh for removal of you know it's a touchy subject when you take down big trees I
know that and the trees have the word keyword historic to it which also gets a little it's not it's difficult word to deal with with trees but we're trying our best to make it work and have a
development that still works within this piece of property and I'm available to answer any questions We also have the owner here also too. >> Okay. So, I want to make sure because it looks like we probably need to alter the the recommended motion. So, what what
you're offering now is uh instead of a motion to remove seven, you you guys can do with five. >> Five. Yes, sir. >> Okay. So, we'll need to make we'll need to adjust that motion. So, five removal of of the 10 historic
um and I get the two of disease and then um there's going to be a replanting of 41 trees. >> Is that right? >> Yes. >> Okay. And those will have at least a 4 inch caliber on that. >> They have a mixed route to the side. >> Okay. Um
Okay. So, we'll need to we'll need to adjust that motion. Any any questions for Sean? >> So looking at the tree lot that what you're looking at as far as the structural defects on tree number two and number eight and then you have tree
number three that you're looking at root compro composition uh being compromised the stability of it. So that brings you down to three trees right off the bat. And I I see that with no issues at all. My question is, if you're sitting here telling us
which other trees and we're looking at your site plans and you're trying to keep five, my question to you is which one are you looking at to take out? >> So, the ones I was mentioning, the two that we would keep would be uh tree four and tree 7,
>> right? And the ones that are coming out are in the middle of the lots and uh towards the uh riverside where the topo drops off. You'd have to build a tremendously tall 6 foot like say 5 foot
tree well and that's not a good idea. You'll save the tree and then it it'll come down in four years. So when it it just would don't have high success on that uh small
of an area putting a tree well in. It's not a good idea. High likelihood of survival is not great. >> No, I just uh this is another opportunity uh this is an opportunity to to uh have something in a redevelopment
area that'll just help us. Uh, I'm really excited about this development in the sense that it's been a vacant lot and so many different developers have come and gone and not been able to pull the trigger and get it done. Um, in
reference to the trees, I understand what we have to do. Um, it just I mean, thank you for keeping the ones that we can and not mowing the whole thing down. I know you're going to put trees in there as well. So, we're going to we're going to net more trees, >> correct? something that, you know, I'm excited
about and the layout looks great and I see why you have to remove a couple of these, make it work. So, in favor of >> plants, >> no, I'm okay with taking down the few that that need to come down. What I'm not okay with is um I don't want a
payment to the tree bank of $12,000. What I want is I want the 41 trees put on the property. So, um, I'm not looking I'm not looking at the money. I I'm looking at maturity of this project when it's grown by you
adding 41 plus trees. That's what I'm after. >> Okay. He said the the the cost it'll go down with saving two more trees. So, it won't be exactly that number. I don't know if Tim knows what it is off the top of, but it'll be different with two more trees. >> But, it says here though, Wayne, 41
trees or a payment. I don't want a payment. just stating that if it um we go we're only taking five trees down the number replacement will go down there because the replacement number of trees based on number of um historic trees we remove so it be a little bit less than that >> but not a payment. One thing we do like
to have that that option then is because they have they will have to plant all the trees that are required by code for the subdivision which includes the number of lots on the lots the buffers there and we like to have that flexibility because when we start adding more replacement trees onto a site is already densely with trees in we run the
we've run this in the past where we've done that then and then we have to go back and thin those trees out a few years later then. So we can work to make sure that we get the most replacement trees on there to have the greatest success. But we like to have that option in the mitigation just in case we're not able to fit them all onto that site then. >> Okay. But it's not something he can
choose. >> I think basically the priority will be to get as much replacement trees on that site then and then what we basically have if there's a balance left then then that can be paid the mitigation. But the priority will be replacement trees. >> Thank you. >> All right. So we're gonna Thank you.
Thank you. >> Don't go too far in case we have more questions. Anybody from the public want to speak to this before we come on? I got you. >> Robert's like royalty, so we we give it first. Go ahead, Robert. >> Mayor, council members, Robert
Reinhagen, 1425 Dexter Drive North. Um my concern is um flooding. Um if if we're going to tear these trees down and then fill in to to put houses on them, um where's the water going? And so, um,
and I don't have a lot of sympathy for cutting down historic trees. So, um, I would like to see all the healthy ones remain. And if they have to modify the layout, um, so be it. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Robert. >> Anyone else want to speak this? >> I appreciate you guys. the council. I'm Dave Gibbs with GK Real Estate and Development. Um, I'm the new owner and developer and uh, you know, when we
first looked at this property, um, uh, you know, Tai is a good friend of mine and and we kind of u took it upon oursel to kind of restructure it as far as the kind of homes. So now we're going to be and I don't know if you have that hand,
excuse me. But um so the town the 10 single family, they're going to be uh $3 million homes and 6,000 square foot. Um they're going
to be all modern property, big windows. >> We got a render in here. >> Oh, they look just like city hall. >> Yeah. >> Surprise. >> There it is. >> There you go. So, uh, as you can see, the 10 single family, threetory, uh,
very modern, uh, and then even the the town homes, uh, these are 3600 foot town homes. So, these are also high-end town homes. Uh, and this is going to be a very unique kind of little neighborhood. Uh, and hopefully it'll be uh, nothing
but good things for Port Orange. So, that's all I got to say. Thank you. >> All right. Thank >> Thank you. Anyone else want to speak to this? >> All right, we're going to come back to council. All right, so council, we we need to restructure this motion just a little bit and uh between maybe Wayne
and and uh and Matt, you guys could keep us on track here because what I'm hearing uh from the applicant, we're going to go from uh the rem from the removal of seven trees down to five, which is great. And then I think there's also some interest with the in the
either or portion of this which no longer will be 41 trees if I understood Tim be a little bit less uh with the idea of focus more towards every single tree we can put back on the property versus the dollars. >> Did I say that right Lance? Yeah. So how
do we can we get some guidance on structuring that motion? >> And I don't think you have to know the specific amount of trees. I think you can say that it's the the required amount of trees to mitigate the removal of five >> with and and maybe word it to say that the the intent is to maximize the
replanting and only use the payment is as a last resort option if they can't be fit on staff >> based on or fit on site based on staff's analysis. So you're having staff make that decision. >> Somebody say so moved. >> So move >> do we need to take the first motion off
>> or do we already have a motion? Okay. Yeah. Who who who made the >> withdraw the first? >> So we'll withdraw the motion of approval of historical tree removal. >> Second. >> Yeah. >> All right. The initial motion and second has been removed. Now we're going to put
a new motion on there. Wayne, I'll get you to say it one more time and see if somebody moves that. It's a removal of five trees allowed with the subsequent appropriate uh required amount of mitigation through replanting on the site to be maximized and that payment in
lie of the replanting is only allowed if staff determines that trees can't be fit on the site. >> So moved. >> You need a second. >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion and a second. Council, anything else on this before we vote? Uh, no. Ju just a quick
comment and we're going to vote, but I just want to say that this is one of those pieces of property, man, for for for 40 years, I've always felt like somebody is missing it. So, I'm glad that you see the value and and truly this is an area of our city on the far
east side where we are very excited to see folks start reinvesting. We've seen that a lot on the north end and and I know it's only a matter of time to see it on the south end because there's so much potential there and reinvestment in the older parts of our city is really
important. So we're we are grateful that there are folks that that see that vision as well and that are willing to make those kind of commitments. So have the clerk call the role. >> Councilman Foley, >> no. >> Councilman Gert, >> yes. >> Councilman Green, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Grubs, >> yes. >> Mayor,
>> yes. 41. >> Good luck. Thank you so much. >> Thank you guys. >> Item 22, fiscal year 2026 2027 budget discussions preliminary 5-year capital improvement plan and fleet replacement.
>> So Rob's going to get PowerPoint. So >> perfect. >> Nothing like starting after 9:00 on a budget conversation. feel the energy in the room from the the department heads or everybody can't wait to get into this just to start while she's getting it set up. So this is the traditional start of
the budget process for us. So we always start with capital um and and then we so we bring capital to you first and then in July we come back with the operating with all the departments the total budget when we set the max millage. One of the reasons that we do that is that we don't have all the
revenue sources known yet at this point. We do have a preliminary tax ro information, but we don't get final until July. And then state revenues, in addition to that, account for a good bit of our funding. More than half the general fund actually comes from other state revenue sources, and we generally
don't know those until later in July. But it's important to bring capital to you. It is the largest chunk of your budget outside of your personnel cost. And it's one where you probably have the most ability to to really control and shape your budget. So you make decisions on either construction projects or large
pieces of equipment that are being bought and this ch this gives you the chance to do that. Tonight we're not asking for a vote or any formal decisions. It's a presentation of a lot of information and then we'd like you to give us some feedback and direction to help us do a better job coming back in July with specific recommendations.
You're going to see the CIP presented in a five-year format. that is the best practice to do so just like you would want to do at your house when you're looking at largecale purchases and projects. What you don't want to do is have a year where you've got to change the roof on your house, buy a new car,
and have a kid's wedding in the same year. Same thing here. You don't want to go into one of your funds and have all these huge things. Having spikes in the budget is a bad way to do it. You're trying to keep it smoother. We haven't really done the the best job of five-year planning in the past. we with
the transition and finance staff we are going to go down that path now. So we're where in the prior years if somebody came up with a good idea today they just throw it into the next year's budget and the discipline of a five-year plan as you go into outear number five and work your way up. So council knows through a
full five-year window what your costs are going to be and what your projects are going to be going forward. And having said that, what's currently showing in year one, the fiscal year 27, which is the upcoming budget, is what's funded. The other four years are planned but not actually funded. And what you're
seeing in there are are not formal recommendations. It's we sat down as is all the staff and came up with these are ideas of what will help the city run, do better for the citizens and the community, but at this point, they're not all recommendations. I can tell you we don't have enough money in the
general fund based on the current millillage to pay for all that. So some of those things are going to have to get done in later years. So right now I just wanted you to be able to see them and get your thoughts on them and then when we come back we'll decide what we can and cannot afford. But at the current
millillage we can't get there. Um one of the things so at the end there there's a bunch of slides we go through typically the way this works and go to the next. So the table of content shows the order. So normally there's a little opening I give and then we go through
each one of these categories with all the projects in there. But it's important at the end, one of the things we put is a summary sheet of all the general fund projects because instead of trying to go back through 14 or 15 slides and go, can you go back to slide six and look at that one thing? I grouped them all on one slide to help
facilitate the discussion because that's really where the challenge in the funding is is the general fund. And so you could stop me as I go through if you've got questions, but probably the detailed discussion on what we might prioritize and not will be at the end
when I get there. So moving forward, I I don't a lot of times people will spend a whole bunch of time talking about the e economy and how it affects your budget, whether you want to talk about inflation or or or mortgage interest rates or anything like that. I just wanted to hit a few key points here for us tonight
that we know we were nearing buildout. When we had that conversation, even when I went when I was hired five years ago, we talked about the fact that we expect flattening revenues. A lot of cities live off of telling people they didn't raise their millage rates, but that's because they're getting a ton of growth and they're living off new development, paying for it. So, you get 16 new
apartment complexes, you got a whole bunch more money. You don't have any growth, you don't have any more money. Uh so we have not had and I know we've heard conversations about growth but we have been really low. Uh in fact the last almost 17 to 20 years we've had just about 10,000 people total move
here. So it's like 400 people a year. That that's close to stagnant growth. That that is you know fastmoving cities are 2,000 plus people a year. 400 people a year is not. But looking back at the trends that are shown here the tax base is the one column. We we used to get
double digits when I years ago we were when we would have these meetings with all the other cities. Port Orange was routinely in the upper half of the cities with the most growth and the most taxbased growth. That's that's pretty well done now. You can see that number 12% when we got that high. That was
mostly inflation driven though. Those were the years when inflation was like seven and 8%. So when we got the property appraisers information we had as much growth based on an existing house being taxed at a higher level than we did from new development. But what what it resulted in is if you look on the far right column, that's how much
extra money we took going into each budget year to run the city. So the higher number there, the first year at $3 million, that was the year we we adjusted the police department's wages. And so that covered all of that in that year. And then that number has steadily decreased since then. And and there's
always that conversation about going to roll back. What is roll back? What is the percent over roll back? The state law requires you to state that when you do your budget adoptions. So last year that one a little over one $1.6 million that was higher than the year before was about a 4% over roll back number. This
year the preliminary number came out $800,000 is all the new money we have to run the city with. And that is less than a percent over roll back. So you're you're almost at roll back with with what we've got. So we have to go into next year with $800,000 more dollars to
address wage contracts that range from 4 to 8%. We anticipate an 8% insurance increase. We have other contractual obligations and just general inflationary impacts. And that is that is a hard target right there. Inflation that dropped down closer to two, then it went back up a little bit, then it came
down, then it went back over four as part of the war. If the war ends, it may come back down. I don't think it's going to go anywhere near the sevens of the past, but we're we're trying to deal with funding the the general fund projects with very little new money going into this year. So that's that's
just an overall start to what we're facing. And before I got into the new ones, we did want to take a little bit of time to thank the people who put together the projects this year. So we did complete a large number. Uh over 40 projects now. Some of them aren't finished today, but
they'll finish in this fiscal year. A couple of highlight projects in there. We talked about that earlier with utilities. That North Commonwealth water upgrade that was we did that whole Commonwealth area in the last few years. went from 2in water pipes to 6 in. Now they've got fire hydrants. They've got
better flow, better safety, better quality water in that area. Very big positive project to be done in that area. The Jackson project is completed. Another big positive. You can see things for parks and u public works has gotten a few things done as well.
So I'll just start going through the categories. So this is the showing the five-year plan on a pie. You can see the the total number on the left. It's in the what would be funded. The 57 million is what we would have to fund. The 284 is all is the the other years. So it's
it's a little bit more like the other out years are like 70 or 80 million where this one's 57 million. The pi is showing you how they're broken out. Water and wastewater is almost always going to be the bigger one just because the utility is the most expensive thing we have. This pie though includes the
$170 million sewer plant upgrade that I'll show you later. And it also has a big wedge for the parks bond. Uh in the future when the parks bond projects are done and the utility major upgrade is done that the pi itself will shrink. It won't be a pi of 284 million but it will
still be probably similar ratios. It will usually be dominated by water sewer. So the first category is park bonds. And we did give you the u the a hard copy to look at for people trying to look on the monitor. I'd suggest looking at the higher density ones because the resolution's better. the the outer ones
are kind of light and hard to read. Uh so on the positive side, the park staff has done an outstanding job. The the bond got approved and they have moved really fast to get these projects out there to the community. One of the last things you want to do is is have the voters agree to give themselves
amenities and tax themselves and then take forever to give it to them. So Fort Lauderdale is currently getting beat up pretty bad because they did a bond about a decade ago and they haven't even gotten halfway through their projects. So, so they are moving along. As you can see, everything on here but the Karasi Park expansion and the trails is ready
for construction in the next fiscal year. Uh the Karasi Park, we don't own the land yet. So, we've got to own the land, design the park, and then go forward. And the trails, we're holding on because we're using the TPO project process where we can leverage some money from the TPO in order to get there. And
so, when we get that feasibility, we'll start working towards some of those projects. understanding what's out there for the public to vote on considering uh property taxes. We may want to talk about this as we go forward throughout the summer on what we do with requests and karasi because if
you build them, they will have ongoing operational costs. They they will the bond will cover the cost of construction, but there will be staff, there will be electricity, there will be mowers, there will be fertilizer. You know, those projects are going to cost us money to run when we move forward. But congratulations to the staff. This
is one of the most effective one-year movements of a bunch of bond projects that I think I've ever seen in all the bonds I've done. They're also out there leveraging with echo funds. Uh so we we already you've already authorized us to apply for echo grants to try to add to it. So it would give us the ability to
build more than we have the idea that they've switched land. We came up with the idea to switch land with the schools to build a park here. A lot of positives coming out of the staff to make the most of that bond. I'm not going to go through all of these because you've seen them, but they're concept plans and where they're at at this point. And then
for each category, we also have a map that helps for when you're looking at it between now and then. The next category, the regular parks projects. So whether or not we built bonds or not, we own a bunch of parks facilities and they have to be taken care of. So this is their regular stuff. Typically every year you see them somewhere between a half a
million and a million dollars of request. This is probably one of the ones where I was talking about how we haven't fully disciplined ourselves on the five-year budget. Everything is in year two. So there's a giant spike in year two. Normally you'd like to see this a little more spread out over a five-year pattern. Uh but the notable
projects coming up in the funded year would be the wreck sound barrier which is being designed now. And then the north causeway park. Councilman Green and I were talking about this earlier today. It's pretty beat up over there on the north side. Uh and that project would come in to to do improvements in that area. The Y project is being funded
out of that wreck facilities fund. So there is basically a savings account to do improvements to the Y. That's not a general fund project. Parks has got ongoing maintenance. This is going to be a theme throughout as well. One of the things we haven't emphasized, I don't think enough in the past. Uh everything we do, we have to
take care of when we get it. And so parks isn't always thought of as that department. Like people are used to us paving roads and fixing sidewalks, but not necessarily this, but we own, if you look at the bottom, we have like 32 facilities. So we probably don't go more than a year or two without at least one
park being redone or one field being redone. So there is a non-stop maintenance cost as well. Uh and and deferred maintenance comes back to haunt you. I think the mayor mentioned that earlier. What happens if you don't do your job on maintenance? You pay more for it later. So I'll I'll show that
with all the other categories. Facilities is our buildings that are nonparked. The highlight on our facilities here are the generator replacements. And oddly enough, a couple things at city hall. The air conditioner here is is kind of junk. Uh the thermostats don't work. you have to go
up on the roof and make adjustments up there to change the temperature. And you all can see the the high quality AV system that we have here from the 1980s. Uh so those though may end up being the things you decide not to do, but it it's there to see. We've had those conversations about what what's coming
up with our facilities. Ongoing maintenance from the facilities division. They're also responsible for making sure all the parking lots that we have are paved and taken care of. Fire doesn't normally have projects like this. They they're they're typically fleet. You see them when we when we
replace firet trucks and and ambulances. Once in a while you build a station. What's unique about this year is so uh the public utilities department we're building their operation center. We're consolidating three or four different sets of people over into one facility by the police station and they will be leaving the building that they're
currently in on the north side of the public works property over by Oak Street. And right now fire trains at the tower and they train at that small building up there by the annex. And the idea had been as part this is like a long-term out multi-year project that
this was planned was fire would then leave that small building allow either parks or or public works or somebody engineering to use that facility and then they would move over to this facility and use it for full training in that one area. So the request here is to upgrade that building because it it's a
building building used by utilities field crews to something fire can train in. And then the the pavilion is basically a shade structure. So if you've been out there, I think all of you have had the chance to go out there and see the training tower. It's not real they're wearing heavy equipment. There's nowhere to be in the shade. So it's a little hot. So that was the
request for that. And then fire's got a couple outyear capital where we're coming up on having to replace radios in the future and some of the breathing apparatus. Transportation projects are our TPO funded. Uh in good years, these are 90%
money from federal state funds and 10% hours. Occasionally, some of them are a little different. Uh in this upcoming year, the two big highlights are the Dunlot and Yorktown bundle. That's construction. That's why it's a higher number. That is the total cost. Down at the bottom, you'll see the note our cost
next year is $1.5 million. And then the Clyde Morris project will go into design with construction a couple of years out. This is pretty well spread out. Now, some of this because it's not in our control, we have to follow the TPO process for the funding, but it's it's a pretty good job of spreading out the
projects over the years. We do get heavy in the outer years because you you put them in the plans and one of the things that's required in order to get fair share money to get basically get money from developers when they're building to help them pay for it. You have to have them in your plan. If you don't put them in the plan, you're not allowed to get
money. So, we show them in here so that that qualifies. But we recognize that when you get out to the out years, uh it's not really going to they may they may keep moving. They may show in year five, but they may stay in year five for six or seven years. We go on to maintenance and
transportation. This shifts over to public works. So public works handles all this stuff. If you look at the funding source, it's all local option gas tax. So historically, the city has not funded these this maintenance beyond what we get out of gas tax. The gas tax
is not sufficient. give you an idea that that everything that we put in this, if you give that money to public works on October one, they will spend it all well before the end of the fiscal year and not finish everything out there that needs to get done. To council's credit, you've asked me in Baz, well, how much money do you need to do it right? And I
can't answer that question because we didn't do asset management very well in the past, but when we switched over to Tyler, we have asset management software and we are on the way to being able to answer the question. We still may not be able to afford it, but we can at least give you the answer of what it would take to catch up. We have the last
couple years, council has actually taken some money out of fund balance and and supplemented this to allow us to catch up. So, this is that's the first council I think that's actually added to that money to help catch up in that area. But our objective is to get you data on what it will take to be caught up and take
care of those as we go forward. But I think we've talked about this before, the striping budgets like two two little areas and you're out of money. paving gets you a couple of roads. Uh, one of the things that they do though is that we don't spend it all. We have planned up to about 70 probably at 80% maybe
85%. They hold a little bit back till the summer in order to pick up an emergency if something comes up because what you don't want to do is be completely out money and unable to fix something that's bad. >> I'm sorry. Wait, let me So you can grab a quick drink of water while I interject something.
Um perhaps on this particular slide, your transportation ongoing projects as we update this moving forward in the project description, if it's possible, this is just something that that came to my mind. If you could put a notation in there on what the anticipated, like I
know with roadways there's an anticipated cost per linear mile. Same thing with sidewalks per foot or something like that. Just so when we see the number, okay, $800,000. Well, how far is that? outcome, you know, how far does that get us? So, that might be helpful if if that's possible. I know
TPO talks about that, uh, you know, in their meetings and stuff like that. I don't know where that number comes from, but I know that some of those numbers for paving and concrete has gone up >> and they have to have they do cost estimation because that's how engineers bid the projects for. So, or the
contractors bid them and and we'd be able to say it'd be different. Like cost of Herbert Street is going to be a little cheaper than than doing something that's a fourlane with a median, but we can give you those basic cost. >> Just might be a good reference to have on that slide. >> Thanks. >> The down under project didn't really fit
a specific category, so I put it in here separately. It was originally envisioned in the ballpark of $5 million to be you to be basically funded when we sold Riverwalk. So part of the assets of the Riverwalk sale would pay off debt to the town center CRA. The other half would would go to this. When that project
didn't close last year and we went back, staff came up with a really good idea of trying to split it because they knew we don't have $5 million just to put into this project. So what they did is come up with a phase one idea because we've been working with the business owners down there. They've been really good partners and very positive and they're
really hoping for something to come out of this to to grow that momentum. And so the phase one would would focus on this turn lane which is the the road out to peninsula from the south of the bridge. So it's where the causeway comes in to signalize. If you've been down there basically people down there have created
their own right turn lane in the dirt. So this would formalize that and put in a sign. So it it's an affordable phase one that shows goodwill and progress to the business owners down there and probably makes a good safety impact going forward. So, I thought that was that was very creative of them when I
said, "I don't know that I can go ask for $5 million." And they said, "Well, how about we do this instead?" Storm water projects. We've got a couple different ways to look at this. We we started off with a stack bar showing five projects with the colors are by who where the funding is coming from. The
the one on the far left is Cambridge. That's a hurricane repair from the damage and the coal. Uh and and then the other four are master plan projects that are coming up in current years. there the there's another large project Nixon that's in outear as you'll see in one of the other charts but it isn't isn't far
enough along to show here uh this is 62 plus million dollars worth of drainage projects it is incredibly expensive to go into the old part of town and retrofit the old part of town to stop them from flooding that's a lot of money than twice what we have in the parks bond for five projects so that that's a
a a big hit and we don't have all the money for the pink part right now uh you can see the couple grants on the bottom. We really hope Resilient Florida will work for us. We're going to continue trying uh transform 386 to see when their next phase come out. Brick is a
federal program through FEMA that the current administration doesn't really like. So last year, president's office stopped it, but then a court reinstated it. Uh so I don't really know. They they were valuable. Finally, people got a lot of good projects out of brick, but then the money went away. So some cities are
reluctant to touch it because you don't you go to all that effort and then you don't get the money. So I think it's still worth trying because it's a it's a pot of money we need to have. On this slide we put it in a pie. U the reason for this is I think it's really important. So it's been less than four
years. We got hit by Ian in September of 22 and less than four years for $62 million of projects. We have almost $40 million of other people's money in less than four years to do these projects. And we still have 20 million to fill,
but 40 million in 10 years is a huge amount of outside money. So the people who go out and get other people's money to do this have done a heck of a job because that that's a that is more than we have in the parks bond in four years. They went out and got that from somebody else's source. Uh so again, it's going
to require some work. We we have the ability to borrow parts of that and pay debt on it if we get to the point where that's a decision council wants to or we can continue working until we get the grants to fill it in. We I put them here and this is your standard five-year plan
version that we were showing from the others with the sources and then we add this one adds the Nixon project in there so you can see it in the out years. It's a little less expensive because it tags on to the sugar forest one. So, it's not as much money as that one, but this also
adds the the generator at Virginia Monroe, which is one of the smaller pump areas we have on the east side of town. And the two smaller projects you authorized for design last summer, the Devon Street one and the Sweetwater project are both shown there. So, that's
what's going forward. And moving on to their ongoing projects and the maintenance. U so you see a couple things with with drainage. We've talked about this. It's an ongoing project to basically replace all the corrugated metal pipes that rust and rot. Going through that uh the the down in the
bottom right it shows how many miles that we're responsible for maintaining with that. On the left side I put in a little summary of the storm water fund. So $160 per dwelling unit. It generates a little over almost $6.5 million. The expenses we have exceed that. So we've
been using storm water fund balance to kind of chip away at those things. uh that fund balance at 1.7 million for this much work is is small. It's way too small. Uh the point of showing that is that that this fund is not designed for $62 million of capital projects. It
twothirds of it or half more than half is used up by the the people and the machines that maintain the stuff that we have. There's a little bit of money in there. We're still paying debt on some old stuff related to the '04 storms. that debt will eventually retire, but it's still got like I think it's 2035
when that retires and then we have money set aside for debt service on future. Uh and I probably got some of this wrong that Sue will have to correct some point for me in the future, but we've been chipping away at it using fund balance. So, the point of that just at at the $160 per dwelling unit, we can't we
can't build $62 million worth of projects. We definitely need other people's help and we need we would probably either have to borrow or or find some other revenue source to build all of this project. Water and sewer is the last of the major categories of these. Uh we talked about this earlier with the fee. All this is
down in the bottom left corner is the uh all the the accomplishments of that that group of people to say they have done an outstanding job of making sure that it costs as little as possible to give you high quality water and and reliable infrastructure for water and sewer. They they do this constantly. They're they're
coming in to see me regularly with ideas about how to do things better. Uh the highlights on this budget, uh the the upcoming $175 plus million dollar sewer plant upgrade that will probably be it will be the most expensive project we do may be the most expensive one ever because who knows what technology when
this thing's out of date exists. But 170 million is a gigantic project. Uh it is mandated by the federal government. The treatment standards are going up. We aren't going to be able to treat at the level we currently treat. And we do pretty good. We we send quite a bit out. We we do reclaim and that's why we get credit through the consumptive use
permit because we don't draw as much. We use reclaim for irrigation. We have a very good system and we still have to make it better. That number is big. There are loans out there that are forgivable. If you remember, we had to do a master plan before we did this project and then we also did the first
phase where we talked about the generators and redoing the electric and we were able to get forgivable loans for portions of that. So, we're going to go after forgivable loans for this as well. What we don't get in the forgivable loan, the state revolving loan fund is really low interest, like 1 to 2%. So
you're may pay paying mostly principal. So the fund is healthy enough to Toby and our financial adviserss came in here when we talked about the fees last time. He came in and did two or three different presentations. Our debt levels are such that this is this is something we can afford. It's in the system. It's
planned for and we're going to be able to do that. But it is a huge project going forward. Now, that's why we also purchased that land and the area around it because we talked about how that's going to actually save us money as well because we're going to be able to move some of the operations center out of that, keep it running up here. That was
another several hundred,000 of savings on this project just by acquiring that additional land. And then down at the bottom, I just would draw attention we to the meters coming up. So, some people been around long enough remember the last time we went through a full meter replacement. Uh they're they're reaching the end of the life. So, we're going to be trading out the meters coming up in a
few years. technologies improved quite a bit since then. The benefit of that is that these things have much fewer moving parts, so they break less and they provide much more accurate readings, so you get better revenue because you're getting more accurate readings going forward. Same thing with all the others. They've got a fairly large ongoing maintenance
budget as well. Uh so you avoid deferred maintenance. The when I got here, we we kind of got picked on for being a duct tape and and uh WD40 kind of maintenance program. And we are not doing that now. we are taking care of our infrastructure. And then they have
something a little bit unique. They do have a lot of capital requests which is oneoff things like whether it's a in this case there's different parts of the water plant. So most of these are water plant parts whether it's a a pump or various gearbox units that these things are more out of water because the sewer
plant's going to pick up that kind of stuff when we do the full plant. So in the upcoming years you'll see capital being a lot of water stuff as we go forward. And then fleet. So this is a typical year of fleet. This is replacement. So all these are things we already have.
It's being paid through by a fleet replacement fund. So you buy a truck today for $50,000. And then you the department that owns the truck pays you think it's got an eight-year life. So they pay 1/8 of that cost over the next eight years. So when the truck's due, you have the money there for it. You
don't do it at the 50,000 today's cost. You anticipate the inflation. So they may be paying 1/8 of $60,000 so that that fund is there in the future. So you're not this is not new money. It's it's it's replacing itself like we do with computers and things like that. U so and one of the things that we're
doing is it's not just if you think it's going to be eight years, they don't just replace it at year eight. So year six they'll start looking at the vehicle and go has it been heavy use? Is it light use? Can we get two more years out of it? you know, so it it you stretch it as far as you can to to to where it doesn't
cost more money to keep it than it does to replace it. A couple of other things they've done pretty nice with this is occasionally we'll have a vehicle like public works had a bucket truck and the bucket truck was done for them. They they couldn't take it out daily to get out there and work in the trees, but parks was paying people to use bucket
trucks to replace all the banners around city hall and help with the lights. So parks was like, "Well, we don't you need to use it weekly or daily. we can use it four or five times a year. So, they took the the truck that was going to be surplused out of public works, put it into parks and let them use it for a while and they show up as a now they're
on one of the new replacements or new new requests because they've determined by having it that it's cheaper for them to own the truck and do it themselves than us to pay somebody to come in and do it for us. But that's the benefit of having somebody in fleet paying attention to instead of we just auction
this thing off, can somebody else use it for a couple of years and figure out maybe it helps you run your operation before we buy something going forward? Service enhancement. So this is people basically saying I would like to up the level of service beyond what we have. So
there's there's an ongoing continuation budget which is do what we do now at the same level whatever it costs going forward. service enhancements. Three departments have requested more than what we do now. Stepping up to something else. Uh these are going to be
challenges to fund. I just want to go over them so you can see them. Now that'll be part of the conversation as to what we do with them going forward. Starting with parks. So the outears, we knew that we were looking at park staff that would be necessary to staff all the bond projects going forward. as they
were looking at how they maintain the structures and we own 25 different park structures that are not part of what's maintained by the engineering building maintenance team. Uh they currently maintain these buildings but through either contracts or with people who who work there now working on the field go
check the toilets or something. Uh the request is to build a parks maintenance team like like we have in building maintenance. I've had a couple conversations with council members as we were going over the draft of this that maybe there's a value in creating a a unified citywide maintenance and put it
all under engineering and have them maintain every single building and maybe there would be a way to make this work with fewer total people. But but their their point I think all three of these are valid business requests is that we don't have the people right now to maintain the parks building the way they should. They're going to not get the
right life out of them the way we're currently maintaining them. So we need to do better. uh and this was a this was a good idea from them to start the process of thinking through how do we maintain them better. It came out of our pro our process improvements when we started looking at asset management and where where are we not getting things
where we want to. So I think it was a it was a good idea whether we whether we go down that path or not. We'll see what you think as we talk about it. The public works request. So they in addition to fleet and solid waste they have these four key divisions. This is kind of what they're known for. like this is the go out and take care of
everything we own section. And when I first got here as the manager, we had a bunch of vacancies in public or like over 10 people were vacant. They couldn't staff the four key divisions. So, we just kind of pushed them together and then they would hit projects based on what what was most important. But there's a different skill set in a guy
that can run a a machine like a mensy muck and get in there and dredge versus a mowing guy versus a guy who's an expert at paving versus the people who are good at climbing in trees and cutting them down. So we have operators at both the high level and the middle level and we have different types of machines and then we also have
maintenance worker levels that don't operate the machines at the higher level. When we started restaffing and rebuilding public works after Christmas this year we put them back into their specified areas and what was happening is that storm water and grounds don't have enough people to fully get out and
do their job. So they were having to cannibalize by grabbing people from streets or signs and help them out on busy days which then gets in the way of these people doing their job. So what they've requested is to these two maintenance workers which are pure boots on the ground. These are their our entrylevel maintenance people that get
out and help with those two people in those two divisions. You fully staff all four components of public works going forward and they don't have to cannibalize unless there's a really good reason to do that. uh and and it's not all that high cost because of the level of that. The final one is fire services
and the proposal is for a rescue truck at station 73, the one that's right over here at city center. It is our busiest call center location. Ladder truck is this is the current truck that's there. Uh and the proposal is to shift or to add a rescue truck to that that would
run first response medical. So right now the there are as calls come in that ladder truck is so busy that about half the calls that come into that station end up being picked up by somebody from a different station because the ladder trucks out and busy and we don't have somebody there. So that obviously
reflects your response time because somebody's got to come from somebody four or five minutes farther away to get there. And we've talked about this for years and and you've seen it in probably some of the other areas that if you have a a truck that's got a paramedic on it, so it can be advanced life support. Ideally, you can you can bring it down
to basic, but it's still better to have a paramedic. So, you put two guys on the truck, they run all the first response for medical calls when they come in. It will dramatically increase our response time. And this zone is the area where we have the most assisted living facilities, nursing homes. So, there's a lot of medical calls that come out of
the 73 area. So from a business standpoint, it's a really good idea going forward. It is an expensive idea because it requires two firefighters per shift. So you've got to have six firefighters and the truck in order to do this. So I understand that. But I I
think all three of them came in as valid responses to serve a need to solve a problem. Now the the question and the challenge is going to be for us to figure out how would you pay for that if you do it. How much? >> I would make that 1972. I don't think truck's going to cost that much. I wondered who was old enough to remember
that TV show. >> Mike might probably find >> There's only like three of us. >> Is that that rescue truck? Is that a transport truck or just just >> It's a pickup truck with with back. It's show I'll show it in the next slide. I'll show you when we get to the the vehicles. But so it's it's here. That's
the truck up at the top. That's a 110k truck to to get it. So there's also some additional fleet that was shown in there. The parks crews would need trucks for theirs. The the public works request is a roadway marking machine. So the striping we talked about right now we do mostly manual thermoplastic. This would
allow us to get more done by having a machine instead of manual. Uh the the um the utilities has got a vacuum truck. So we have two. This would be a smaller scale vacuum truck. It would allow us to do better getting into the smaller areas. We struggle with our large trucks
to get into everywhere and vacuum it up. So they've seen a need over time and in parks is that bucket truck I talked about. So after they had a time to use the the leftover truck from public works now that that thing is really at really at its end of life uh the the savings of
not paying so it's cheaper to own the truck and operate it than it is to pay a company to come in and put all those banners up throughout the course of the year. So that was what the request for that is. So that's the those are the new requests in addition before I'll get to the summary sheet just to follow up. So,
we've got July 21 scheduled for the next meeting. We hope that council meeting doesn't have a giant zoning hearing on it. Uh, so we can get to it sooner. If we if if you prefer not to do that or if that meeting we end up talking about tall fences or zoning, uh, we can we have the 28th as well set in there. We
wouldn't need to set max millillage by then because the trim notices are due in early August to submit that out. There's a unique thing with the budget hearings this year. There's a a statute that requires a certain amount of days between when we get the tax money from the from the appraiser and when you can
hold first reading and because the oddity of September with the first being a Tuesday, it threw everything out of whack with Labor Day. So, these are the two dates we we are hoping to get all of you together to vote on first and second reading. It doesn't have to be decided tonight, but feel free to give me
feedback on it if if doesn't work. And then what I said here, we summarize. So what I put in here is these are all the general fund N27. So they're not recommendations from us at this point. They are good ideas from people that we want to get your feedback on. You can see the total over on the
right down at the bottom says total general fund 5.7 million. Uh and then the enhancements that hit the general fund are the additional five 1.5. So a little over $7 million of requests in this year that hit the general fund. uh what I put down at the bottom when we
lowered the reserve to 23 to 28% we dropped that number to 19 million. So what happened is we had extra money in fund balance. Some of it was from selling Allen Green Center. Some of it not the man some and some of it was from
FEMA reimbursements and then some of it was the excess funds that was in fund balance. So that ended up being your $10 million. We don't fund general fund capital. I've worked in cities where you take a mill rate and part of your millillage is set aside specifically for
general fund capital. So you will say if our village is 5.1 five of it runs operating 0.1 runs capital and that way you constantly have money to you don't end up deferring maintenance. We've never done that. Port Orange has always tried to squeeze it all out of there and basically what we did years back is we
we just took leftover money in fund balance and went hey we got 2.2 million. Which one of these 10 projects do you want to do? And and that leads to deferred maintenance. That's what got us in trouble. That's why we have duct tape and and WD40 reputation in the past is
that there's no reliable funding source for general fund under that method. If you have a year, which if you're Manny is a bad year because you get 20 vacancies in the police department, it creates a bunch of money in the general fund to pay for general fund projects. So, but he's done an outstanding job and so has Joe. We don't have those
vacancies and even with the turnover, they're immediately filling them back. So, I don't see us taking that $10 million savings account and growing it a whole lot. We have a property off Reed Canal to sell that maybe get us $750,000. It's got a pond in the middle
that's making it a challenge to sell. Uh we may I think there's a small piece of FEMA money we don't have back yet, but I don't see that that's not going to just keep growing. So, if you spent 7.2 million of it, you're going to have two and a half left and not a whole lot more coming in the future. So, I'm pretty
sure some of these things are going to be hard decisions that we just can't do now uh going forward, but we wanted you to at least see them and be able to comment on them before we started making decisions. And I was the one telling you what not to do. Uh but at least we got that out there so you can you can see
that as a whole. And then the last slide is the maintenance because I still want to stress that if we own it, we need to take care of it. We shouldn't have stuff and not take care of it. Uh we have seen that with the generator at the police department where we lost a decade of use on it. We've had the when when wreck got
built uh nobody added a generator big enough to actually handle the additional wreck. So there there's things like that roofs that didn't last as long. Uh we really need to make sure that we take care of what we have going forward. So we don't want to lose the maintenance as well going forward. So those are the two
key decision points. I'd be happy to answer any questions. I'll look back over here to see what I got wrong. staff can correct me with their corrections text when I get stuff wrong. But other than that, I'm done talking if you guys have other comments.
>> Wow. Well, that's uh that's a lot of information and and as the city manager talked about, this is kind of the first step in the annual budget process. Pay attention, Stan. And uh I know he's a numbers guy. He's already over there. His head's spinning. Um, you know, th
this is this is without question the most unique budget session that we're going to go into since I've been on council only to probably be surpassed ne possibly next year. So, uh, former mayor
Green used to say all the time, it is not about that initial purchase for buildings, equipments, or whatever. It will always be about maintenance. That's the cost that really is going to need to be something you you you wrestle with and come to terms with and have and you
plan for and and and I will like I said earlier in the meeting tonight, you know, kicking cans and kicking maintenance is going to catch you. It is going to catch you and it's probably going to catch you when you're not prepared to compensate for it. Um,
we we we have seen really important infrastructure in the past unexpectedly break, burst, you know, what, whatever. Um, and you got to be able to respond to that stuff. You got to have the funds and you got to be able to deal with that. And, um, so
kicking the can cost you a lot more. All that just to say, my my comments are pretty simple tonight. I one of the fears that I have and this probably comes from not only being a a past employee of the city but sitting up here on the city council. One of the hardest
things that I think an elected official in this dis could potentially ever have to do is cut services andor cut personnel when you know that it's not good for the community. But if you don't have a way
to pay for it, something's gonna have to give. So, um, this is this is the city manager's job and this is the staff's job to make these recommendations to to forecast for us where we need to be, what we're going to need to have to
maintain the quality of life and the services in the city of Port Orange that our residents have come to expect. Um, the reality of it is is that we know coming November, the residents are going to an opportunity to speak as to whether or not that is still what
they want from us. Um, so as we work through this year's budget, it's going to be very difficult for us not to have in the back of our mind that there is a significant risk that if we start adding more new things
to this budget and to what we do as a city, there's a very strong possibility that the following year you're going to have to remove. >> So just keep keep that in mind. I know that's not anything any of us want to have to do. Uh but it it will definitely
be something that we will have to be considering. So, um I I think that like the city manager said, this is this is just the first step to lay this out for us. I do like the five-year increment. Look, Wayne, I think that's um that's the right way to focus and look at this.
Some of those project numbers are huge. When you said Iard when you said $170 million, >> I'm like, man, I I missed that. I'm I'm looking back at that I'm like, "Holy that is a $170 million project. That's amazing uh that we're talking about
that." But here again, you know, that's part of, I guess you would argue, unfunded mandates, right? These are these are mandates that are being made upon municipalities at higher levels of government >> where you have to do it. And it's easy
to say, "Well, we might get a forgivable loan. That'd be great." We're not the only city that are going to be looking for those unforgivable loans to to meet these these these higher level government mandates. And then even if you have, like you said, maybe you just get an interest in and it's favorable at
1%. That's great. You still got to pay it back. You got to have a plan and a funding mechanism that pays it back. >> Um so anyway, all all that just to say that that's what's on my mind. um is, you know, I I really want to see us work
hard to continue maintaining what we already have in this city. Um and that in of itself is a challenge not knowing what you know the next whatever four months may may may dictate to us. So Lance, we'll start with you.
>> Oh, I'm good. I've been through this thing already. got rolled through it several hours last night and again I'm I'm just I'm worried and I'm worried about what's going to happen in November. Honestly, I'm just I'm worried. So, but other than that, I'm
we'll we'll keep progressing with with what we got. >> John, >> I want to say thank you very much. Your presentation was uh incredibly uh very well to understand. I've always felt like when you talk to me, I
understand what you're saying. I hope that our our our citizens can see this and unfortunately there's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 in the audience right now. The absolute most important thing we do as
an elected official is this budget and no one shows up for it. It blows my mind that I've had more people in front of us for fluoride in our water than the most important thing and that's paying the operating costs of this city. And
what it tells me is that the people trust us and they trust us because we provide the information and you did a great job doing that and I really appreciate that and we need to get this information out to everybody so they understand the importance of where the
money comes from and what we spend it on and it's quality of life and it's services. It's firefighters and police officers and parks and rec everything everybody wants and why they live here. It's the streets. It's the setbacks. It's the the everything. The trees. All
cost money. I didn't see anything in here, Robin, in reference to the lights on Taylor Red. >> It's all I got. >> It needs to be in there. >> Tracy >> Wayne, thank you for the five-year plan. Um, and thank you to all your staff for
putting this together. I know it takes an army of individuals to do this. um previous budgets over the last couple of years, me sitting up here and reviewing this was a way easier process. So, thank
you staff for that and putting this together. It's always about a five-year plan. We've we've talked about buildout uh coming and how that's going to affect the city. We have to have a plan in in motion. And by seeing this now come into fruition, it shows me that you and your
staff is planning for that. So, thank you. Cuz the future's going to be hard. November is going to put a kink in things, I believe, and that makes it even harder. But for right now, what this is is if we go forward, we have a
plan in place to be able to take care of the citizens, the infrastructure, but also the staff. You know, that a lot of people don't think about, you know, you got 500 people that we we answer to, but 65,000
people that we definitely answer to. So, these plans and budgets have to be spot on. So, thank you for this. >> Yeah, Wayne, as uh I feel like these presentations have gotten easier to digest each year and and I appreciate you and
staff and staff tonight. I know it's not fun for y'all to sit here for a three and a half hour meeting. Appreciate all the hard work you guys do, you know, 247. So, um I think Scott said it best and I think we all know, you know, the elephant in the room with with, you
know, whatever is going to happen with uh this this voter opportunity um with the state suggestions and and this piece of legislation. So, it's it's going to be a a very interesting thing to watch. I think we have to be very
careful um because Scott's right. the last thing you want to do is have to peel back and start making cuts. So, um you know, there's there's a time to spend, there's a time to save, and there's there's a time to stand pat. And um this year might be one of those times
that we we want to be a little more on the cautious side because um we don't know what is going to happen come, you know, after November. So, >> Wayne, I I think um I'm going to give you a chance to close out the
conversation, but I think you're going to need more, you know, obvious direction from council, not necessarily tonight, but I I I think that what I would encourage and challenge council to be having the one-on-one discussions with Wayne and his team, is is provide
the direction that they need from us. look at some of these projects specifically. You know, right right off the bat for me, the the parks and wreck bond projects and how quickly and fast do we want to advance those knowing they
could get hung out to drive and and and that that sucks for lack of a better way because our voters have already spoke to that. >> Yeah. >> But our our voters won't have complete control. the state voters will have complete control. And so, you know, I I've already talked to Wayne that, you
know, no matter how the vote shakes out sometime, and this will come later after the vote in November, that we will be able to go in by precincts and look specifically at what our voters say. So, we will do that. you know, we will be able to do that and and so you'll be
able to see obviously whatever happens with the statewide vote, that's going to dictate state uh constitutional changes or not, but we'll still be able to look and see what did our voters want and um so we'll we'll be doing that. All that to say that's well after the next budget
gets passed. >> So we've got work to do trying to to to forecast what we think the future may hold. We just need to approach that with caution. Um but but keeping what we do know about our community is that our residents look for a high quality of
life and they do expect high quality services. We're just going to have to figure out how where that line is exactly and how to provide that. So just be be mindful of that. Have these conversations with Wayne and his staff and then Wayne, you let us know, hey, I
got to know this. Where do you guys want to be on this? You know, and I think you can feel it. I mean, you know, you're a resident taxpayer of the city of Port Orange, too. So, yes, you're the city manager, but you also can see what's going on right now in our state and our community. So, um, just keep us in the loop what you need. Any other comments
you want to make on this tonight? >> Just to make sure to thank the staff that that dealt with me. We met twice a day for the last couple of weeks with several meetings going after five o'clock and Sue and Petra were at a at a conference learning about the tax stuff and drove all the way over here from
Orlando to do it just to go back again. So, uh the staff has been very patient. I don't know. We're on revision 30 35 or something. Uh just but all the questions on what is this, why is this, help me with that information. They they've been there for the answers. If you guys if
you see a project you want to know more about, let me know. If it's something you want to go physically see, if you want to walk in the building and look at it, that it helps understand it. Let us know what we need to do to help you understand it to help with direction to us going forward. >> Yeah. And >> Mr. Mayor, I'd like to just go through every page one more time.
>> One more time. >> Said some caffeine. I I know I know it's getting to be a late meeting and we're running along, but I I just want to say this to staff and I mean this to not only the staff that's here tonight, but your staff's, you know, all the way down. >> There is absolutely in my mind nothing
in this presentation tonight that I look at and go, that's utterly ridiculous. So, I I I think all of this is is stuff that is holds a lot of merit. it it holds true to what the vision and the focus of our city and our residents have
looked for and and asked for. And so I I appreciate that. I also appreciate that the staff is well aware of this discussion we're trying to beat around the bush a little bit with because we just don't know what November is bringing and and I know that all of you are very experienced and very seasoned
and you understand exactly what we're trying to say. We just got to have a way to pay for it, right? There has to the the investors of our city have to be able to pay for it. What does that mechanism look like? If this is what
they want, how does that occur? And uh the complexity of the budget, Sue, thank you for what you do. The complexity of the budget, because I'm going to promise you this, Facebook doesn't have a clue how stuff gets funded in municipal government. Not a clue. I have yet to
see one single person, a lot with opinions, but none of them have a clue what money comes from where and what restrictions and certain money is is and how that plays out in municipal government. It's it's very complex. So, we appreciate what you guys do. All right, enough on that item. Um,
moving on to item 23, council committee reports for step shelter. >> Yeah, this will be about an hour, so uh sit back and relax. >> 17 slides. >> Yeah. Uh so uh Monday we will be interviewing four candidates for the replacement of the executive director.
Uh looking forward to that and uh Firstep Shelter is doing really good financially. They have a great team uh that that person will be able to oversee. So we're excited about uh moving on. Uh the chamber has a
wonderful fundraiser next Friday. It's their casino night at Riverside Pavilion. Um, so one of their larger fundraisers for the chamber and they're doing fantastic. A bunch of different new members. A lot's going on. There was a mega mixer last Thursday where five chambers all came together in Embry
Riddle and had a really good turnout and a lot of good stuff going on there for our small businesses and the chamber support. That's all I've got. >> Thank you. >> Excellent. >> Thank you. >> Anything else to come before us tonight? We got got another 50 what are we 56 and
12 minutes before you know. All right. Have a good night. Thanks everybody.