Amen. >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to theublic nationice for all. >> Call the role. >> Councilman Foley. >> Councilman Gford
>> here. >> Councilman Green >> here. >> Vice Mayor Grubs >> here. >> Mayor Stilner >> here. Welcome everybody. A little bit warmer in here than uh than it is outside. So we'll hold the meetings inside tonight if that's okay with everybody. >> All right. Item four, public comments on
consent agenda items. These will be public comments on consent agenda items only. I probably don't even have to look up. And Mr. Ryan Hagen would already be making his way to the Hey, Robert. How are you? You look warmer than the last time I saw you.
>> Council members, mayor, Robert Reinhagen, 1425 Dexter Drive, Port Orange. Uh I wanted to talk about item nine and 10 with regard to the mitigation bank. One of them is with Webster Creek and the other was with
Farm. And what I found in reading through the one on Farm item 25 says the agreement is not recordable. This agreement shall not be recorded in
the public record of any county and any attempt to do so shall be null and void and of no force. So that raises the issue is what level of confidence do we have that that property is now goes into
some sort of conservation category? We just paid money and does that give us any right? Is there a piece of property that's sort of cordoned off that says Port Orange, this now belongs to Port Orange? And um I
don't know that we have any believe any confidence that that happens. And um so they have all these uh credits that they're selling. So when all the credits are sold, what happens? Does the land then become property of a government
entity that categorizes it as some sort of a conservation uh property or does the uh owner the property owner who has unencumbered access to that property does he then say
walk away from the mitigation agreement and sell the property and if he dies what happens does his heirs have the right to just sell because that land is unencumbered by this mitigation agreement. So, um I don't know. I'm I'm
just a little concerned that we're getting taken for a ride here. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Robert. >> Thank you, Robert. >> Any other Anybody else want to speak to consent agenda items 5 through 11? Seeing none, back to council. Can I have a motion for approval consent agenda
items 5 through 11? >> Go ahead. Move to approve the consent agendas items 5 through 11. >> Second. Have >> a motion and a second with a clerk call the role. >> Councilman Gford. >> Yes. >> Councilman Green. >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Krabs. >> Yes. >> Mayor Stilner.
>> Yes. 40. >> All right. Moving on to item E, public participation. Sandra Snodgrass. >> Hi Sandra. Welcome. >> Thanks. Good to see you guys again. Sanders Snodgrass, 980 Canal V Boulevard.
I was here last meeting and the meeting prior. Back in 2017, the League of Cities meeting, the big issue was septic tanks and the effect on our
drinking water, leakage into our drinking water. Now we're faced with actual treated sewage being injected into the aquifer chemicals along with fecal matter. So we
came here with let vote to ask each one of you to participate like Edgewater Orman Beach. It's on the agenda for Daytona to have you help and endorse the petition. Let Valuchia votes petition to
stop this. Daytona Beach actually did at one point have toilet to tap water. It was shut down. Why? Water quality. Our aquifer is at a very severe level of
terrible, terrible quality. And you've seen where the sink holes are now developing because it's being the water's being pumped out. So Sunday we released the petition which I will
have if anybody wants to sign it. But I really want to stress the fact that we really need to consider to quit overdeveloping. Overdeveloping is causing the flooding. overdeveloping is causing the lack of quality water.
And as citizens, we elected you guys for our greater good, not the developers. And any of us can go look up who contributed to your campaigns and know
where your true where your true heart is. So again stressing, did you when you were in Tallahassee speak to any of the legislators about the
the bill 718, House Bill 479 where they're preempting city municipalities. They're preempting the ability for us to control. We still have time and we
really need to protect our water. We really do. If you go to the springs and you dive in the springs, you can see all the algae at the boils. Back 20 years ago, it wasn't like that.
Why? Because of what's in the water. So, please, please consider signing the petition to give the voters a chance. >> Thank you, Senator. >> Thank you, guys. Council comments. We're going to start with Councilman Green tonight.
>> Um, I'll keep it short. I got two things. I just want to just make a note that on that consent agenda um was the approval to start design on two smaller storm water projects that are are within our city. And uh and just for the people
to know that you know regardless of u you know the the size of the project that we are committed to to working on on on the storm water and and the Devon Street project and the other little I mean again I know they're smaller areas and small projects but at the same time
uh it has a big effect on everybody that lives in that area and that uh we are in fact still you know we do care. So, and then um on um on Robert's comments regarding the mit mitigation bank, I I'd
asked Wayne about this as well, and again, it's uh I guess it to me it's a farce, but um I'll leave it at that. We're we're buying mitigation on some other property that probably doesn't even exist. We don't even know what
we're buying, but unfortunately, we have to to be able to do the project we want to do. So that's all I got. >> Definitely in process. >> So I want to u address uh the comments made about the St.
John's Water Management District and their mitigation credits. We don't really have control over that. Can you help me out there, Wayne? In reference to what St. John's water management district requires us to do.
>> We were per this is all related to the Cambridge drainage project and and as we are impacting some wetlands by pumping we're putting a pipe under the train and then under the train tracks and putting the water out on the east side instead of going north. So those impacts require some kind of mitigation. The mitigation
is through a bank. I can't speak to how everybody's mitigation bank is set up but we own we have one ourselves. We have a piece of land and it is in perpetuity going to stay that way. So we don't get heirs don't get to sell it. Nobody gets to sell it. It will always be there. That bank when it was created
is worth x amount of credits. You can sell them off in pieces and when you run out you run out. But that land stays exactly the way it is forever. We can never do anything to that land for our credits. Now there's like six or seven different types of credits. I can see
the frustration because we own a mitigation bank. We have wetlands that we have protected forever and in exchange for protecting them because you can go get a permit to disrupt some of them. So let's say you could build on half of that land, we chose not to develop on any of that land. So we got
credit for preserving the entire thing, but we these two types of credits aren't the type of credits that our bank has. So we've got to go to somebody else's bank and buy credits in order to get permits to do those projects. So the the the positive on this while it's it's mainly been a conversation about wetland
mitigation banks is these are two of the final steps in order to get the permit so that we can start construction on that Cambridge project this spring so it will be under construction before the hurricane season starts. There's a huge positive in that is that that as we're getting here these are the last handful
of things that have to be done and we're going to put that project out and you'll you'll see construction starting on it here this spring. >> What else you got? why I supported the consent agenda. Thank you for clarifying that. I have another question since it was brought up now, this is the second
time in the I think the last two meetings uh in reference to um sewer water going into our aquifer because the way I understand it is we're not doing that as a city. We're we're not pumping sewer water into our aquifer. Am I
correct? >> We are not correct. >> We're not and we we never have that intention. >> Correct. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that that the the citizens of Port Orange understand that we're not doing that and
we don't plan on doing that and that if we ever had to do that, that would come to us as a vote and I can guarantee you that I would not vote for that. So, uh, we do a very good job of taking care of the water treatment and sending it out to our retention areas. Correct. Out out
west. We we as a city bought property out there to where we could take treated water and it could sit out there and do what it's supposed to do and we can reuse it in the form of reclaim water which we do in a lot of our instead of pumping it into the river. Correct. So I
think as a city the city of Port Orange uh a long time ago thank God our uh the gentlemen or ladies that sat up here decided hey we're going to protect our drinking water. We're going to go and own that land out there. So, our well fields are in good shape and we're
taking good care of our water. We are not pumping sewer water into our aquafer. Not here. Thank you. >> Uh going on the consent agenda dealing with the 6D dealing with the BRM uh for
the police uh shooting BM restoration. One of the things I want to point out there, as much as we do as far as getting other dollars that are out there, this one was in the budget from last year coming into this $340,000, but
out of that 50% was still FEMA supplying the monies to that. So, I think that needs to be uh known that city going out and getting money from other entities is not just water mitigations. We're still fighting hard for everything we do inside the city. So, out of $340,000,
50% of it came from another entity. Um, uh, update on Jackson and Oak Street, uh, we're hoping that, uh, we'll have completion by the end of March. And that's repaving, not just top coat, but actual
granulating it, pulling it all the way up, and putting it all the way down to a hard pan on the road. We're not just going to gloss it over. It's going to actually be done completely right the first time. Uh, with all the sewers and the drainage and everything that's going in, it actually should be sidewalks and
stuff here in the next couple of weeks. So, we're hoping by end of March for our citizens that live out there. And then lastly is I got to go to a an event that every time
uh I go to different things. It's it's one of these things I don't even know how to say it is how much parks and recreation does for our city. And uh I got the opportunity uh to be uh opening up the Kings and Queens dance for
special needs. And if you've never been to one of those, it is absolutely amazing. Um, the city's patrons that came out to that and the food that was provided for that by other businesses is
is huge. Um, but to see that event kick off the way it was and and how the the smiles of everybody was out for there, it was just it set you back. It it's amazing thing that uh Parks and Rex does and it takes everybody to make these
events do and I know sometimes I lean on Parks and Rex on what they do but that one was a wow factor. >> Mhm. >> So that's all I got. >> That's it. Huh. All right. >> All right. I've got a few things I just wanted to touch base on. First of all, I
wanted to to uh report back that um we we had a a great trip up in Tallahassee recently um and and were up there meeting with some of our state legislators and house representatives and and the folks in the Senate uh
advocating for appropriation dollars again for the city of Port Orange. Um it is a very eye openening experience. Uh and um it's I've gotten to do it I think now nine nine nine years and um it still
is it's a unique experience and every year you go up there it's a different environment in Tallahassee and it is most certainly a different environment in Tallahassee this year with a governor that's term limited and everybody jockeying and positions to who's going to run for what next and and all that
kind of stuff. And it's, you know, not that that has a lot to do with with us, but it is a very interesting thing to see and watch because >> the appropriations part does have something to do with us and and we've had this conversation before and and people will say to me, you know, how do you like being in politics? And I say, I
don't know. I've never been in politics. I don't really consider what we do here political, you know, but there is different. There is politics in Tallahassee. here. We just we're decision makers try to make decisions that are in the best interest of everybody else in our community because we live here. You know, it's almost like
business owners. They do the best they can day in and day out. Sometimes they make a decision, turns out it doesn't pan out, they got to change it and do something different. That's just part of the process, right? Things change, decisions change, and all that kind of stuff. But up there it is different. And uh so it's very interesting. You know, we go up there. By the way, I want to I
want to again thank our staff. I know they've heard me thank him numerous numerous times. It is not us that do the heavy lifting. It is the staff that makes the contacts and makes the the uh does all the stuff behind the scenes so
that when we go up there and we're talking to a state senator or a state house representative or a high level aid, they already know why we're there. They've kind of got the nuts and the bolts and we're kind of trying to polish that up and and and get us across the finish line. And um you know, we went up
there with three project asks this year. We did extremely well last year, the best in the history of the city of Port Orange. In fact, uh more appropriation dollars than anybody else in Valia County. Um that's that's that's not to say that that'll happen year after year after year, but last year was a very
good year. And this year, we hope for more of the same. Uh we seem to get very good positive response uh from folks on both sides of the political aisle, by the way, up there. They they really like Port Orange. They like our approach. They like the the way that we present
and do things and they like that when appropriation dollars come to Port Orange, we we put them to work. We we don't, you know, we move government as fast as we possibly can, which is never fast enough for any of us. So to that, I just want to say thank you again to our staff and the legislative staffs in
Tallahassee. Um our, you know, our our our team is a good team. In fact, we hear from a lot of folks up there, more cities need to do it the way Port Orange does it. We don't want to tell all the other cities how to do that because it's very competitive trying to get all those
do dollars. But but uh but but again thanks to the staff and we'll see how that goes. It's a long haul. There's a lot more in the process. We never really know until with the 1 of July wing till the governor's done with the pin, right? So uh we'll hold our breath till then
and we will continue to continue to to seek out other opportunities for funding on a lot of these very very important storm water projects. Um, that's just that that we're not going to rest on that. We're going to keep looking for money wherever we can find it. Uh, one of the things I did want to touch about because I've started getting more and
more people ask me is what's going on with the property tax discussion. Well, we don't know and neither do most of the people in Tallahassee. You know, there's this this this idea that has that has grown a lot of of momentum to do
something with property tax. the state uh basically taking control and saying either we're going to completely get get away from property taxes. We're going to modify how property taxes uh can can can be um can be exercised by municipalities
and all that kind of stuff. Right now there was I think they're down to seven or eight kind of concepts and ideas and um but but when we talk to folks up there they're not really sure how it's going to work. And that's the big thing is is all of the ideas leave a massive
void in funding. And unlike the federal government, municipalities and counties can't print money. So when you have to run your city, that money comes from you and I. It's real money. It's not this just, you know, we just keep raising the debt. That just doesn't work in city and county government. So you know, you want
to have full service cities. You want to have your police departments and fire departments and parks and wrecks and all those things. There is a cost to that. There is we are not immune from other costs. the cost of things like concrete for sidewalks and payment for roads and and get fuel for police cars and fire
trucks and all those things. We pay them just like everybody else pays them. You pay them. In fact, when I say we, that's you. Um and so we're not immune from those costs. Health care costs go up, salaries go up, all those different things. So that's our that is our question. We we will all tell you flat
out we don't want to pay any more taxes than anybody else. We'd love to not pay property taxes, but how are we going to pay for the services we all want in our municipality? And that seems to be a heavily unanswered question and we're waiting. So, what's going to happen is
is eventually possibly they will come up with a concept or two out of the House and then it's a wait and see if something's going to come out of the Senate uh to have a companion bill and then something maybe ends up on the ballot. Uh, but you know, a lot of folks
are going to be asking us. They've already been asking us. I've been getting a lot more and more questions now. I wish we had more answers. We just don't have those answers yet. So, that's definitely out of our control, but we will keep the ear to the ground. With regards to uh Sean's comments about this
wastewater um some attention to that, first of all, I would I would strongly encourage you to talk to the city of Daytona. Daytona has never had a toilettotap service for their residents. They had a pilot program to see if they had the capability of treating
wastewater to that level that the state dictates. They never serve their residents toilets to tap. Um what what so what one of the things that's going on in the state of Florida is that when municipalities and county governments produce a fluent, which is treated waste
water, right? You flush a toilet, it's got to go somewhere, right? Where does it go? Well, a concept for so many decades in the state of Florida is you treat it to a certain standard and you pump it in the river, you pump it in a lake, you pump it in some other body of
water, right? As if it's now gone. Well, it's not gone. It impacts the environment. And so, the state of Florida has already passed legislation. That didn't happen this year. This is previous already passed legislation that has told municipalities and county governments that you have to submit a
plan to no longer discharge treated affluent into surface water bodies by the year 2028. If you have not submitted that plan to stop doing that, you have to immediately stop doing it. If you submit a plan on how you will
eventually stop doing it, you can have till 2032 What Councilman Gford was talking about is many, many years ago, the city of Port Orange actually became a one of the first cities in the state of Florida to
already stop doing it. We acquired property. We decided we never didn't want to discharge into the river anymore and we treat our waste water and it goes to very large retention pond systems where it becomes reusable for things like irrigation. Those are the kinds of
things that the state of Florida is going to now mandate cities and counties do. You're going to have to do something. Cities are going to have to do something. And there are only so many things that you can do. There only so many places you can put it. Putting it into the river is no longer going to be
an option. Uh, one of the cities, and I'm not a big finger pointer at cities, one of the cities in Valuchia County puts almost 12 to 15 million gallons of affluent waste water into the river. I've had people say, "Well, I'd rather put it in the river than to inject it in
the ground. When you put it in the river, it is you still compromise the aquifer." And when people talk about aquifers, there are different layers of aquifers. And deep well injection is a concept. Tampa is one of the the newest cities to do this because they had a
failure in their previous system and plan and they had 200 million gallons of I believe it was untreated waste water, wasn't it? Untreated waste water discharged into Tampa Bay. they have now gone to a deep well injection and they
they they process it and treat it and they inject it thousands of feet into the ground below the drinking water aquifer. So I I believe that there are a lot of discussions out there that could be had.
There's likely a pros and cons to everything and and and the speaker earlier was right. Leaking septic systems have been a huge topic here in Valuchia County and we have made lots of strides on getting people off of septic systems that were unreliable and onto
municipal and county sewage. And that that has proven to be a very very good thing. But ultimately what's going to happen is is the state is going to have the say environmentally in the state of Florida on what those options are going to be. And then you're going to have to
meet those standards to be able to exercise those options. And you will have to do those with permits that are issued by St. John's Water Management and Florida Department of Environmental Protection. And that's that's what those things are going to be. That being said, there's there's a lot of of of talk out
there and and I watched the segment of the county council meeting today. I've got to go back and rewatch that just to make sure I heard some of the things that I did here because it seemed to me that there was staff that was telling the elected body certain things that were not what the feedback was they
were getting. So, I'm a little bit confused on that um in in terms of of of what has, you know, caused some of that discussion and it's and it is discussion worth having. There's no question about that because, you know, ultimately things are going to change and how that
process works is definitely going to be changing. So, um, all right. What do you got, Matt? >> Nothing for you tonight. >> All right. Very good. City Manager, >> I just wanted to reemphasize a couple things that you guys had brought up because I think it's important. First, thank Councilman Green for bringing up
those two projects tonight. Uh those came about as a result of field visits after starting with the original hurricanes Ian and Nicole and following up. So you guys know we've talked about this before. We had people from public works, engineering, manager's office go out and meet probably 50 or so people in
their neighborhoods and talk to them. Another probably another 75 to 100 on the phones. And then as we've talked about this before, a lot of the major drainage problems are really result of regional canals. We don't own the full storm water system in the city. This is one of those ones where some's state, some's county, some's private, and some
is. So, everybody has to work together to solve the problem, but the majority of the areas that flooded either flooded off of the Nova Canal system and its inability to to handle what gets into it and get out during high tides in Cambridge. Uh so, but what we're doing is we've heard that and everybody said it's not enough just to do the big
projects to do the others. And residents brought up these issues uh as part of the field visits. And so, we went out there, they were modeled in as part of the storm water master plan. and they were on the city system. Some of you may remember you're when I first started, we were working on a project on Bogsford
Road and as Bogford went down the hill and makes a curve. Our drainage system was supposed to turn the water, but it kind of overwhelmed at the turn and went over and into this guy's yard. So, we we were finding things like that on our system where we can make those fixes and repairs. And the two projects that Councilman Green was talking about are
similar to that. One of them is a pond uh off of Devon that that is supposed to drain in one direction and one corner of the pond isn't exactly working the way it's supposed to and it kind of overflows the other direction. So, one of the projects will fix that. The other one is Sweet Water, which is one of
those long streets off Taylor Branch going by the high school and it has a similar problem to Bogsford Road where the the storm water system when it's full doesn't hold the water in the system and it comes over and out. So the project would build an outfall where it naturally is trying to go and get it out
and get it in the canal. And so those are smaller scale projects. As those come up on our system, we solve our own problems as we're waiting on the bigger projects to occur. In addition to that tonight, uh there was a a what shows up as a Department of Environmental
Protection grant, but that is the legislative appropriation that we got last year with Senator Wright, Senator Leak, and and Representative Traymont's help. That's the 1.4 4 million. That's the first one, which is the Pon Inlet master lift station and and pipe replacement. So, while it's not
specifically related to drainage improvements, it does create resiliency on the coastal barrier island, creates brand new pipes in an older area and will be a much more resilient lift station. So, that protects that part of the system as well going forward. Another big positive. And then next
week, we have several more items. We have the acquisition I think it's three properties next week which are part of the original FEMA acquisition programs. I think it's HMGP one of one of those. Uh and and those are projects. One of them is on Trailwood and then near the Cambridge area as part of that system.
And the other property is in Sugar Forest which is part of helping get those projects to work. And then there's also a property acquisition Bears Trail which helps with the Nixon project that we brought up for acquisition this time. So, in in addition to all that, with Cambridge moving forward with the wetland mitigation credits and under
construction, we're going to start building everything we're trying to do to help with the hurricanes and be prepared for flooding so that when May comes and everybody does the welcome to hurricane season stuff on TV and and everything, we will be able to list a bunch of things that we've done and show
progress going forward. So, I appreciate that both of you brought up things that are on this agenda tonight that are helping get us there and there will be more next time. In fact, we took the land acquisitions off of consent for the next one, even though they could go as consent because it'll give Robin a chance to explain where they are and how
they help. So, you'll see that in the next week. So, I just wanted to draw attention to those things as we as we talk about them tonight. >> Very good. What else you got? >> Nothing else. Um if you could at some point uh additionally in the county council meeting today was a considerable
lengthy agenda item on their policies on uh Valuchia Forever and Florida. So when you get a chance if you can kind of watch that however you can get that information and maybe at some point give us back a a shortened shortened
briefing. There was a lot going on. I tried to watch a little bit today and it was it was a lot. So, um, but when you get a chance, I mean, I know that's not within our policy control, but I know we utilize those programs a lot to to to partner with different things that we do within our community. So, it probably be nice to get a little update on what what
the changes are, what they may or may not be for us going forward. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Item 15, planning commission appointment. We have a vacant seat on the planning commission and we have a single applicant who I believe is here tonight. Angela Doo Ludoop,
>> come on up. So when you when you are the single applicant for one position, I'm not trying to put a lot of pressure on you, but you know, if you don't get this job, this could be damaging to your resume forever. >> Well, it seems to be a trend because
>> tell us only the good things about you and why you want to serve your residence. Well, in I was um I went to Spruce Creek High School and I ran unopposed um for senior class president, >> so that was pretty easy. >> Um I I moved here when I was 10. I was
one of the first students at Horizon Elementary. I got to pick, you know, we were going to be the Eagles and the colors and everything like that. >> Went to Silver Sands, went to Spruce Creek. Um I've started a couple businesses here.
one home health agency. Um that's with my family. You should never go into business with your family if you want to stay family. Uh so we dissolve that. Uh now I'm a co-owner of Infinis which is a we do multifamily technology. So we're
all the brains that go into apartment buildings. And um we recently just moved that from Daytona Beach to South Daytona. So we're now on Reed Canal which is nice because I can ride my bike to work which will be good. And um I was
recently married and he came with a 11-year-old daughter. So I get to be stepmom and now I really just want to participate in the community that now I successfully finished my first fifth grade science project with her. So >> right on
>> that's where all the gray hair came from. >> Well, if you can get through fifth grade science project planning commission board should be a breeze for you. Well congratulations on all that and and sincerely thank you for your interest in serving the community. I think it's one of the best things we can all do is is to step forward and put ourselves in
these roles. Speaking of which, fair warning, any commission is an incredibly important board and it doesn't come without its very tough meetings. So, um be prepared for that. Um sometimes you will not always be popular. Uh sometimes
you will be very popular and it will be, you know, a lot of folks who will have very heartfelt interest in certain decisions that are being made. And and so the the advice that I could give you if you get appointed to that board here in just a few minutes is go go with your
heart, listen to what everybody's got to say, and you'll make one decision at a time and and keep just keep moving forward with that kind of stuff. So, but again, thank you. Anybody have any questions? >> Thank you for your consideration. >> I had a talk with her and I let her know what the pay was starting pay. I told her though, the good thing about it is
it doubles every year and uh and and and you'll be very successful after 20 years. Thank you for stepping up though. >> Yeah, some of the characters on that board um in the past were like probably
11 11 year old science projects. No, we spoke earlier tonight and I'm excited and thank you for serving our city. We appreciate that. Well, >> thank you. We talked earlier right before the meeting and uh he got a great reference
and if somebody believes in you and he's been great references for other people that have done great jobs for this city. So I am wholeheartedly glad that you're stepping up. >> Thank you. >> One of the best things on that board is is that the board rarely ever is
unanimous in their decisions. And that might sound weird coming from me. That's actually a good thing. and that lets us know that we that we've got some diverse perspectives and it's and that's okay and so you know um >> you know that that that would be nice having your background and your experiences on the board and and and
adding some more diversity to that. So again, thank you. Well, can I get a motion? >> Thank you. >> Get a motion to approve the appointment of Angela Luk >> for planning commission. >> I'll second that. >> We have a motion and a second. All in
favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> Any opposed? >> You have been you have been appointed unopposed and your streak continues. So, >> thank you. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate you stepping up. >> Don't be late for the first meeting.
>> Item 16, parks and wreck advisory board report. Speaking of uh public servants who seem to have a bigger than 24 hours clock and seven days a week in their life, welcome. I uh thank you uh Bobby Ball with uh make sure I get it right
parks and rec board tonight. Um we had our quarterly meeting and I won't repeat a lot of the things you guys hear about the updates with the bond projects and things like that, but we get the same updates and it's pretty exciting and that things are moving along. Um, one new item that was kind of brought up by the board was the Palmer building is no
longer the Allen Green building and we talked about possibly making it a naming something else in the city center complex um after Allen Green and uh we came up with the idea of Lakeside uh center and uh then of course that goes to you guys and for other things. So we
had a lot of good discussion about that. So I I don't I don't remember the exact next steps but I think it'll come to you guys and and for your consideration. Um, and then really the last thing was uh new new information is opening day baseball is on March 7th and it is not at city center. It is at Karasi. So I
guarantee I'll go to City Center first and then I'll go to Crossy and I'll probably be about five minutes late soon. Um, but uh, for what it's worth, that's where it's at this year. >> I'm glad you said that because I'm pretty sure that was in the email that I got. I overlooked that part when I put the date and time in my phone.
>> So I appreciate that pretty much. >> That's all I got. >> Thank you, Bobby. Anybody questions for Bobby? >> Thank you. >> We appreciate you. >> Thanks. >> Moving on to the regular agenda portion. Item 17, resolution number 26-10.
>> You got a stone? >> Yeah, we don't read those. >> We don't read them. >> I'll make a motion to approve resolution number 2610. I just second that. We have a motion and a second to approve resolution number 2610.
Anybody comment on this one or >> we don't have an extensive presentation. It's relatively straightforward. It was approximately 70 acres. We've been talking with DOT about this probably since I got here as a manager. There's a vast shortage of parking spaces for trucks along I 95, I4 and interstates in
Florida and they've been looking for places for years. It's out there at the edge of the property that we own. Um the Daytona Beach is also selling a piece of property on the other side that would cover eastbound I90 or I4. This covers the westbound side just for truck
parking. It's not a rest stop. It's not for public or citizens as a truck. The price is based off an appraisal. Uh so it's a fair price. >> All right. Any discussion with council? >> No, I discussed this with Wayne and um again I I look at this like this if it's
possible because it is 70 acres. It is Port Orange's land and you know what what would be the best uh reinvestment of this money into into Port Orange and you know obviously land purchases is or
something difficult but um here's a perfect opportunity to take these funds and potentially fund um a couple of these upcoming storm water projects that we have uh may be acquiring at least couple pieces of property uh to to on
Lane or however we need to. I'd like to just see as a year earmark this if we could to to immediately reinvest right back into the city in a in a project that uh we have on the books. >> Not a bad idea. >> No. Anything else >> good with it? No. >> Yeah. The the the for for those that
don't know there was 20 I don't know maybe 25 maybe even longer. forget how long I've been involved in some of the city stuff, but many many decades ago, there was this concept of a of an accessory or an arterial exit off of I4. >> Mhm.
>> That would that was past the old out there by the old truck stop for people that remember where that was at. And it would flow through all this property and eventually connect to the corridor to go down Dunlton and at one point even talked about maybe a Matteline a secondary Matteline major artery.
And um the last thing we want to do is filter more traffic into and through our city. So that that ship has long sailed and that vision no longer exists and this property really is most people would have have a clue that this was even in the city limits or owned by the city of Port Orange and and I like your
idea. So we can have that discussion later, but um I think we're on to something with that. Any any public comment on this particular item? >> Back to council. Last >> comments clerk call the role. Councilman Gford, >> yes. >> Councilman Green, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Gross,
>> yes. >> Mayor Stler, >> yes. 40. >> Item 18, first reading of ordinance number 2026-1. >> I'll read this one. Uh, an ordinance of the city of Prince Orange, Luc County, Florida, amending section 7433 requiring
a deposit for master meter installation establishing a new section 7434 requiring the installation of a master meter for campground, recreational park, mo motel, hotel, mobile home, park, apartment complex, or other multifamily residential units and providing for the method of billing for master meter
accounts. Amending section 7439 setting forth the responsibility of maintenance of private water systems, including emergency maintenance. providing for repeal of conflicting ordances, severability, and an effective date. >> Can I get a motion to put this on the floor?
>> It's coming. >> Get a motion to uh open up 20 26-1. >> You have to put a motion approval for >> for approval. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second on the floor. I know I've got some uh folks that want to speak to this. We will get
to you here in just a couple of minutes. Uh but first, staff. I've got a brief presentation on it. I'll try to frame it first. We do have staff. Steve's here from public utilities finance staff and also the city attorney's office that were critical in getting this put together in front of you. Uh if we have
questions for that. Essentially what this ordinance does is that it clarifies that master meters are required for private water systems such as mobile home parks, RV parks, campgrounds, hotels, etc. I've got a graphic up here. I know that that a lot of people do know this and understand, but I just thought
to make sure we're all on the same page as what a master meter is and how they work. So, this is a traditional single family neighborhood example. It shows the blue as a public utility water line running down a rideway and then the meters coming off of it. And the st what what most people are familiar with is
how water meter works at your house. And everything that's in the public rightway in the meter belongs to the city. We control, we read, we run. Everything on the private side of it is the responsibility of the private land owner. So the next slide is is showing you it's it's an example of a mobile
home park that is which should be off a master meter. So very similar. You can see the blue line on the left showing that's where the public utility is. So that's the water pipe. The master meter being right at the edge of the private property. Everything on the private property is supposed to be the
responsibility of the private property. So it's the same concept as a meter on a single family home. It's just larger. In this case, there's multiple tenants in there. So that that's how master meters work. It means that it's a one meter that we build for everybody behind it.
The private land owner can choose to submeter inside of that, but it's their responsibility to operate, maintain, and bill, not ours. Because this master meter concept has been the city standard for a number of years. the the ordinance
tonight affects a relatively small number of the total people on our system. So the utility system's fairly large. We have people and customers outside of the city limits even. We have about 37,000 meters in the city serving over 70,000 people. This ordinance would
affect about 1,200, 1100 or so of the meters in the system where we currently are not we we're not using a master meter to bill. um to to put a little bit in context related to that. So, there's about 24 RV parks, campgrounds, things like that
in the city. The vast majority of them have a master meter at either in the rightway or in an easement right at the edge of the property and everything behind that master meter is handled in private. There are a couple of projects that were built decades ago where they built their internal infrastructure to
city standards, dedicated it to us, and we accepted it. So in those cases, we own the we own the pipes, the meters, and we have easement. So while that's not the standard, we don't do that anymore. Uh but we at least in those cases, we have legal access to doing
that because we own it, have easements, and that's how that was built. What that leaves is the remaining five or so parks have all private property, no easements, and and we have we don't own any of the infrastructure in those areas yet. We
have been billing for 30 40 plus years in these areas. So the cost of of all of this billing has been borne by the rateayers of the entire system. So we're essentially doing the private billing of a private land owner in these in these parks. And what this ordinance will do is clarify that if you're in that
situation, you have to use the master meter. Now, if the ordinance gets adopted by council, in certain cases, some of them may want to go in and do some upgrades to the park. So, what we've proposed is a one-year period to allow the parks to get that transition
set up in place. So, it's not going to be something that tomorrow we're going to go out there and enforce. The idea is to give them plenty of time to set up the and they all have master meters there. We but they're it's we're still reading the ones behind it, but they would some of them may want to go in and
put their own private systems in place and that gives them a full year to to be ready to do that. And it's important to know too that when we go to billing at the master meter, the by state law, the park owners cannot put an upcharge on the fee. So whatever we charge per thousand gallons of water into that
master meter, that is the charge that has to go to to the landowners. They cannot charge more money for the water. So uh be happy to answer any questions or the staff that that's done more of the technical work on this. I know there's some people that want to talk. So if you'd rather hear from the people first and then let us answer all the
questions together at the end, we can do that as well. >> I will, but I just want you to clarify a couple things for So when you say so we're go in in these particular communities, we're going onto private property and reading their their private
meter and infrastructure. It's not ours. So, so over time, so originally when it was all manual, we would go in there and read the meters and then we some of the meters got upgraded, some did not. Some of them don't work now. So, there's a decent number of them that don't work at all. So, we're having to average because we'll tell the park owners, these meters
don't work, but they're not our meters, so we can't fix them. So, we're averaging and then charging the difference to their master meter. This really should have been something that was done 15, 20 years ago. why we are and I there are no agreements that I'm aware of that says why the city of Port
Orange is doing this there there's no there's no platted things there's no easements I can't find an agreement as to why we've been doing it but we should not be and and and moving forward and and again it's a bit of a shock if but we we can't be in private property where we don't have any legal rights to be on
the property we don't own the infrastructure and then actually basically creating an administrative function where city employees are are doing the administrative building at the cost of all the rest of the rate payers on the system. So, it's a it's a pretty good gift to to to be doing the building
systems at that at the cost of all the rest of the system users >> and but the cost of the water doesn't change. >> It does not cost with this particular meter. It costs the same amount. >> No, no change to the actual water cost. >> Okay. >> Can I qualify that question? Um,
Wayne, does the does a master meter do they get built at a bulk rate versus a residential rate? >> They will go on to a bulk rate, which would probably save them some money if they use a ton of water. It it at the base rate, I don't think it has it we're talking about small amounts of dollars. So, but if if for the bigger water
users, the bulk rate has a benefit. But yeah, the bill the bill will go to the master meter on a bulk rate charge. >> Okay. Gotcha. >> All right. Well, let's let's let's hear what these uh folks want to talk to us about and then we can kind of bring it back here for a little bit more in-depth
discussion, maybe answer some questions. Lisa Morris. >> Hi, Lisa. How are you? Welcome. Come on up. >> Hi. >> Introduce yourself. >> Hopefully, you'll be able to hear me. I'm Lisa Morris from 64 Andrew Street in
Tanglewood Trace. I'm also the vice president of the HOA for that community the past two years. So, I understand all the reasoning. That makes perfect sense. You need a master meter to come in and that there's a lot of broken meters. Talking to Steve earlier, that's great.
We got a lot of broken meters. Unfortunately, in doing this, these private property owners that have had this land and now have this land are not having to um adhere to any kind of guidelines for
the water pipes in those private neighborhoods. while being private are also uh it's not just the land owner living there it's all their tenency and in the past year in Tanglewood we had
two water main breaks who's going to pay that bill if we don't get meters on our houses and since you're not mandating the private equity group that owns that property to put those meters in we have no way of knowing what the historical
bill because we have no way of knowing when there's a water main break what the effect is without access to those records. Um, and we I do have a water meter in front of my house and when I first moved in 2018, somebody was reading it and
then nobody was reading it and the park ownership came to me a little while ago and said, "We're going to measure 10 houses and see how much water you use." I said, "Well, I don't use much because I'm single. I work uh 70 hours a week. I'm off shooting billiards and
everything else the rest of the time. Measure me. Tell the city about me. And I realize now that they didn't measure my water because I'd be bad for the way that they're going to average the bill. When we approach them, they they they're surprised. They didn't know this was
coming. That's a lie. And because you put the cart in front of the horse, in my opinion, by not mandating that the private equity ownership groups have a responsibility to the maintenance, to the metering, to the fairness of the
billing, that you're doing this before making sure I don't care if it's 1100 or 37,000 people are being treated fairly. But that said, I realize now what the catalyst for all this was. But the other
thing that I'm concerned about is we already pay for our amenities in our lot rent. The pool, the sprinklers in the common areas, all those types of amenities. If you do a master meter and I don't have a breakout, then I could be double build for that water usage. And
that's a concern to me. And it'll be concerned to mainly cedar senior citizens whether their bill is going to go up, down, sideways, what it's going to be. We had a 12% rate in rent increase this year. >> Thank you. And and and I I think some of
your questions will probably get answered here by the city manager. And there may be a few there, Matt, that I think got put in your uh your court because I'm I'll have the city attorney talk about what we can and can't mandate private property or equity holders or however that works to do because we
don't own the infrastructure that's not owned by the city. So, we'll come back to that. How about um Sue? Is it Sue Burns? >> Did I get that right? >> Yes. >> All right, come on up. >> Sorry, my right hand's broke, so >> that's okay. >> Don't worry, S. >> You can talk. You can talk left-handed.
>> Thank you. >> Go right ahead. >> I'm Sue Burns at 228 Chris Drive in the Lamplighter community at 55 and over um residence. We um Lamplet lighter we are the home owners. Uh we buy we lease the
land uh we bought and paid for our homes or and are the users of the utilities that are hooked up to our homes. Any damage to our homes we pay for not the land owner who in this case is some communities. We thank you for the letter that you sent out notifying us of the
possible changes to our utilities. Upon receiving the letter, I called the city for clarification and then voiced my concern. For many of our residents, affordable housing is a main issue. Further asked why the change. I was told lampider is a private land and the city needs permission to come onto it and
read the meters. The city has not been given permission. So, the city's solution is to put one main leader um as they explained tonight that they can read and leave it up to the land owner to charge the individual homeowners. I pointed out all land the city goes on to
read meters is private land. I was told I didn't understand. I am a realer. I do understand easements. I do understand hold harmless agreements. Uh, further I was told as we stated in the city's letter, the land owner could not charge us us more for
them taking over the service from what the city charge. I pointed out they may not charge more for the gallon or the unit of water, but we the homeowner will be charged more for the additional costs that the landowner will incur for the city's charge, which requires additional
services from the landowner. I was told I didn't understand. I countered Sun Communities as a for-profit corporation. They don't work for free, but I got nowhere. I then called Sun Communities and was told that what the city told me about not being allowed on the property
is simply not true. If the city needs waiver, they would be accommodated. The city has always been allowed on the property, I was told, never prevented from being on the property and is on the property many days. He further said and
and named a third-party for-profit company that Sun could possibly hire to install all new equipment and take care of the individual billing of the residents. Many of the homeowners in this park are some of the city's most vulnerable. putting their water usage
bills in the hands of two for-profit companies can expose them to cost increases the city, the land owner or and certainly the homeowners cannot measure at this time. Or should I say the proposed hard cost has not been shared with us, the ones that would be
paying it at this time. I am and many of the residents are asking you not make any changes nor pass any ordinances at this time. Let us all take the time to work together, not just the city and some communities, but include the homeowners, those using the utilities,
and ultimately paying the bill. Let's work on a solution that can accommodate all and discover all the bottom line costs before jumping in. >> Thank you, >> Mike. Mike Bellanik. >> Hi, Mike. Welcome. >> What's that? >> Welcome.
>> Yeah. How about a clock reset? >> Gentlemen of the city council, my name is Mike Bellick. Today I'm representing Parkwood. I was last before the city 20 years ago. The city is good at changing the rules of the game during the game. 20 years ago, they wanted to burden the
property with a landscaping bid of $80,000 when all Parkwood wanted to do was to upgrade the existing damaged wood fence due to Hurricane Charlie to a white vinyl fence at a cost of $100,000. The city took the position that a fence was a structure and it had to be brought
up to current building code. New structures required landscaping. A fence is not a structure. Parkwood was built in three phases. Phase one and two in the mid70s with city individual water meters. Phase three, the senior side,
was built in the late7s with a master water meter originally named Palm Castle. My father purchased the property in 1979 and changed the name to Parkwood. Per original blueprints, the city provided water meters. Starting day
one, the city maintained the entire distribution system, including water meters and vaults, and build the tenants directly. 30 years later, rule change. The city wanted to change the rules, stating, "Switch to a master meter and subbill the tenants or upgrade the man
read meters to second generation touch read meters at part's expense." And the city will maintain the meters and continue to build the tenants directly. The city had already started to do this at its expense. Parkwood chose to upgrade at our expense. 10 years later,
rule change. The city change the rules again, making Parkwood responsible for maintaining and repairing the water meters at its expense. Now, after 11 years, the city wants another rule change, stating Parkwood will be built on a master meter. Parkwood will then be
responsible for billing each tenant. For the last 50 years, half a century, the city has built Parkwood and its residents at the same rates as the rest of the city. Today, all city customers except manufactured housing communities have a third generation smart meter. Why
is Parkwood and its tenants being treated differently? Is this service discrimination? The city needs to honor the original agreement, provide water meters, billing, maintenance, reading, and free upgrades. After all, that's what we've been paying for.
>> Thank you. >> Is there anybody else that wants to speak to this agenda item? >> Nobody else. Okay. Back to council. >> All right. Do Do you want to weigh in on answer few question? >> You want to get Matt to talk a little bit about the legal differences in easements and and permission?
>> Well, yeah. I I think the first thing I want to point out is the ordinance as it's prepared um here tonight changes a couple things definitionally, but the the obligation for the park to maintain its private water system is already a requirement in our code and it's been that way
for a long time, decades. Um so that that's not something that's being changed here today. That's already an obligation that they have. Um the statute we we all keep referencing is 723.045 045 Florida statutes that makes it illegal for a park owner to to
upcharge the water that we're selling to the park by 1 cent over what we charge to the park. That's it. You can't mark up any fraction of a cent over what we bill the park owner for the water. The only thing they can charge to residents
would be actual cost. So they can't even you know do a percentage over for for maintenance or administration. It has to be actual cost. That's the only pass through that can happen uh to actual tenants is you know incurred cost. So so
no percentages uh nothing like that. Um that's that's it. I mean those are the limitations that they're going to have to follow. Uh this obviously h uh has a one-year tail to it. So, there's going to be a plenty of time for them to prop up the uh necessary administration to to
take over what the city's been doing for, you know, the last so many years. Um, so this should be uh with that time a smoother transition to give them the time to find the, you know, private individuals necessary to to take that on. >> When you when you talk about the the the
additional like other costs, you're talking about infrastructure costs, >> correct? their infrastructure, not that's private infrastructure. It belongs to them, not the city anyway. >> Absolutely. >> Not the taxpayers. That's private infrastructure. >> And one last point, the you know the because there was a talk about like
amenities and and that sort of the the park has already the parks uh this that this is impacting um which are just the few remaining that we're talking about. Uh they're already being built the difference from what's being used and and what's actually being buil from the
master meter. So, you know, any kind of water use for amenities and that sort of thing that's already being incurred and that's that's being captured. Um, we've we've that step has already been completed. The city's not out money because once the water passes through the master meter, the the park is getting the differential. The park is
having to pay that currently. >> Anything else? >> That's all. >> I don't know if there were any questions that you didn't have answered. Did you like me to touch on that? that basically covered as all the other parks are already done the way we're we're suggesting the ones that don't that they
they are running their own systems behind it. It's only these five that haven't been caught up to what everybody is the vast majority of the mobile home parks, campgrounds and everything in the city are already doing what this ordinance will clarify these five need to do. And and I I you know I know from
just recollection many many years ago this this was talked about as as a concern that the city was doing something probably with good intentions that it really should not be doing because it's a private community and it's a it's their infrastructure. It's
not taxpayer infrastructure. Same thing with the roads. Those are their roads, their sidewalks, different things, you know, >> and it's an enterprise fund. So, this isn't about generating revenue to build a park or hire a police officer. It's an enterprise fund. All the money goes back into the water and sewer fund. And we
have bond obligations for the the the it's expensive to run a water and sewer system. That's why South Daytona and Pon Inlet and these people don't have them and and we run them. So, we have borrowed money to run water plants and sewer plants and put pipes in the ground. Just tonight, 1.4 million for
one lift station. That infrastructure. So, so the rateayer funds go back into this only into this. It all it does is support providing clean water to drink and and getting rid of waste water as it moves forward. So, the the the the the
subsidizing of the billing cost for for these five parks by the rest of the users. You could have people from the other 20 parks show up and be mad. We spent 40 years paying for free billing for people. Why Why did we not get free billing an hour? So it it's not a you're just trying to be fair to everybody
that's on the system, but it's not a matter of going this isn't being done to make more money for us. It's being done to be fair and equitable to to everyone. There there is no public in the public can't be on private property providing funding to support a private park interest.
>> Gotcha. Tracy, what do you got? >> It's just, you know, we we go back into history and we look at this and it's how did we get here? You know, it's always the concerns. Every time we come up here, we got these hard decisions to make. It's stuff from 30 and 40 years
ago. Every time we turn around, I know we got to clean it up. Um, and it it is private property and I get that, but still it's uh it's it's our citizens and we're trying to figure out how to uh make this right and uh for the city,
make it right for everybody. what you just said, um, Wayne, was, you know, we got other parks that this doesn't exist on. You know, how did we get to those parks that that process didn't exist and
we still have these left? Is there >> There is no record. There's no agreements. Somebody mentioned one that we have found zero agreements. There's no records as to why these five parks aren't being handled the way everybody else is. And and all new stuff, we do that. We do it with most of the commercial devel.
That's how it's done. You master meter in what's behind it. If you're building a hotel, if you're building an apartment complex, same kind of thing. That that's what we've been doing for decades. >> We don't have an agreement that says why these five parks are treated differently.
>> Okay. And then we get to the legalities. You know, we've went now full circle that we weren't supposed to be on people's properties, but we were. and now we're going to back back off of that and master meter it. So, there's any
legality issues with how that was and now we're changing it. >> Yeah. I mean, I you know, all I can tell you is it's my advice. We we stopped that immediately and and this is the the best way to to do that. I mean, you're not going to correct what's been done. Um but this is the best way. It's the
most fair way by giving enough time to to make this transition. We know that that's a big change and and you know we want to be fair on on how long is it uh the transition takes but um we we can't be in there and we need we need to end that practice.
>> Okay. >> Go ahead. I'll come back. Come back to me. >> This is something that needs to be done to clean up the mess that was created many years ago. Not to fault to any one person or one council or management of how the city was. just things weren't
done right and and as time goes on you find ways to do things better and this is going to be a better way to do business for the the city in whole. It's I I hate the fact that
when if this ordinance passes, then the park company that the owner of the park is going to have probably some expenses because they're going to have to probably fix some pipes and probably fix some meters and there's going to be some
costs. And usually those costs are passed down to the uh the tenant in this case. And um you know that's that's unfortunate, but um we can't let that
dictate how we're going to operate our city in a uh we have a responsibility to everybody in our city to operate it in a way that it's efficient. And this way is not. And to estimate what one's water
bill is is ridiculous. They don't do that to my house. I pay what the water is I use. It's not estimated. So, we have to correct this. This is this ordinance corrects it. It's painful. It gives we are giving time for the owners
of these uh these parks to to get it right. And um it's just something we got to clean up unfortunate. >> So, so Wayne, just a quick question. So, if are you saying that we have some parks
that have master meters, but then they have individual meters on the property as well? Is that correct? >> All those parks have master meters. Even these have master meters on them, but we were reading them. The other ones that have submeters on the property are owned
and operated and built by the actual park owner. >> So, there are >> So, the city's only reading the master meter. >> Correct. We're not estimating that. What when we talking about estimating >> on on the parts that are done according to the way the standard is these five we
were we were reading meters. We were manually read them when they were manual. Some of them got upgraded where you could drive by and read them. I don't know how many of them got upgraded to radio read where they just send in. But there are more than half of the meters in these five parks do not read anymore. But they're not our meters. So
we can't go fix them. So citywide the 37,000 in the whole system we we have a meter failure rate below a 1% which is a really good overall uh so but we these aren't ours so we can't go replace them. So, you tell the park, "Hey, these five houses, the meters aren't reading on
them." And they'll go, "We'll get on it." But while they're not, we just have to average the use and and let's say if a thousand gallons is going through the master meter, we we we average whatever's there. And whatever the difference is, we charge back to the master meter at the front and it goes
back to the owner of the park to make up the difference in averaging it. So, we have an obligation not to lose money because it's an enterprise. Back again, it's not this. It's not money for parks or police. It's because it's an enterprise. We have we have to build what goes through that meter. And and we
are we are doing that. You can sense the frustration in some of the residents if they're averaging it that they're not paying as as as Councilman Gford said, they're not paying some of them may not be paying exactly what they use because it's being averaged because they're but they're not I don't
have to. >> Right. It's true. You're saying they're being build for the differential and that could be also be put into the rent then >> the park is being charged for that. >> Right. Right. I got you. Okay. It's a tough it's a tough situation. But again, if we can't read the meters and we can't
access the property, then that creates a business problem. So, >> well, I and I think that there's there's several problems. One one of which is uh it shouldn't have been like this in the first place, but but maybe the intentions were good and it just it was never supposed to be like that for long and it just time went by
and the next thing you know it's that concept that we hear from time to time. Well, it's always been that done that way and nobody really knows why. Even though it's not the right way, it's not the legal way. The other thing is is is to Councilman Gford's point like you said, sometimes there's there there can be infrastructure cost that gets passed
on to the tenants. Well, guess what? infrastructure cost gets passed on to taxpayers that don't live in private communities. If we got to go in and we got to replace 10,000 meters, that cost gets passed on to them, too. It's not that we don't get meters for free. So, those those costs get passed on. And so,
the the you know, you've got a concept here of a private community. And when you are going to live in a private community, I can't show up and use the pool. I can't show up and use the amenities, things like that. I don't live in there. and they can restrict all that and they
should do that, but the infrastructure is private as well. And and and what you can't have is taxpayers funding the cost of infrastructure maintenance, repair, and oversight in a private community. You can't do that. That's just fundamentally, it's just wrong. I mean,
it's just not the right way to do that. I think I think anybody of any sense of reason can kind of grasp that, you know, and and that's so there's pros and cons to living in private communities. This this is really about it is it is time to fix something that was has been getting done for a long
time the wrong way. And I do think that you know having a year of time for the communities the these five communities to kind of get that make those adjustments is seems pretty reasonable. So anybody did you have anything else you want to add Wayne Matt? Anything
else? Did you guys have anything else you want to add? >> No. Okay. All right. Have a clerk call the role. Councilman Gford, >> yes. >> Councilman Green, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Krebs, >> no. >> Mayor Silver, >> yes. 31.
>> All right, moving on to agenda item number 19, council committee reports. And that was going to be Flaggler, TPO, for Councilman Foley, who is not here tonight. So, we'll move that to the next agenda item. Anything else to come before us tonight? No. All
right. With that, you guys have a good night and try to stay warm. I just did and I made sure