Please rise for invitation by Reverend Melissa France of Daytona Beach Drive-In Christian Church and will be followed by the pledge of allegiance. Uh before you start, uh Reverend, I just wanted to to to make an announcement that unfortunately uh today in the city of Port Orange, we lost uh what I would
describe as someone who's been an icon in our city uh serving our community for over 40 years. Mary Whitmer uh passed away today at the age of 101, who we should all be so blessed. Um she is a a volunteer that many of you have gotten
to know and many of you have seen us um praise her and and seen her serving in this community for over 40 years with our police department uh volunteer program. So I would just ask tonight uh also as we hear these words that you
keep Mary and her family in your thoughts and prayers tonight. >> Thank you. Let us pause in prayer and acknowledge the weight of this moment. We especially remember Mary's family tonight as a city who loves her and
thanks her for her service. We give thanks that she is enjoying her crown today. We gather in a city shaped by resilience and by pain. Twice major flooding has upended lives and the frustration is very real and the call to
respond is urgent. But Lord, we give thanks for all who have worked to restore what was lost and to prevent future harm. For those offering solutions, rebuilding trust and guiding recovery. As we consider hurricane recovery
funding, park improvements, and safety for pedestrians and cyclists, may we act with clarity and care. As we monitor wetlands and reclaim lakes, may we honor the land that sustains us. As we review
fair wage agreements with those who serve and protect this city, may we uphold dignity and justice. And as we prepare for future storms, may the choices of this council reflect foresight, compassion, and shared
responsibility. May this council and all our city leaders listen deeply to one another and to the community and respond not just with policy, but with action and empathy. Amen.
>> Amen. 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. >> Thank you.
>> Report to call the role, please. >> Councilman Bley >> here. >> Councilman Ger >> here. Councilman Green >> here. Vice Mayor Grubs >> here. Mayor >> here. All of us here tonight. All right. Item four, public comments on consent agenda items only. Any public comments
tonight on consent agenda items only. All right, seeing none, I will entertain a motion to approve consent agenda items. >> Everybody jump in at one time. >> Yeah, I'll go ahead and move to approve the consent agenda items. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second to approve
the consent agenda. U call the role. >> Councilman Balding, >> yes. Councilman Gford, >> yes. Yes. Councilman Green. >> Yes. Vice Mayor Kubs. >> Yes. Mayor >> Yes. Agenda item passes 50. Bringing us to public participation non-aggenda items.
How about we hear from Cameron tonight in the art house. How are you? Welcome. >> Good evening, Mayor, Councilman, staff. Uh thank you for letting me present tonight. This is just a small little update for you. Uh we're still waiting to be scheduled for our annual update
for you guys. Um I do want to brag a little bit about our summer camp program. It has come to a close, successful close. 9 weeks of camp, 9:00 a.m. to 400 p.m. Monday through Friday, each a different theme. Over 543
students, 4,286 works of art walked out the door. We retained 600 between six and 700 works of art. We're still counting for the exhibit this Friday night. We asked that please come and take a look at some of this amazing artwork that these kids
have created, ages 5 to 16. They've done a wonderful job and I kind of told them that maybe some of our really important superstars on our governing body for Port Orange will show up. They're very excited to show off their work. Thank you very much for being given the
opportunity to serve the community and for calling our home Florida, Port Orange, Florida. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. >> And can you just make sure that our PIO has copy of this? Absolutely. Check that on our same web page. We already have our >> Absolutely. We would love that. Thank you.
>> Thank you, >> Donna Kurts. Yorktown Boulevard vandalism. It's actually on my my comments for tonight as well. So, yay. >> Go right ahead. Introduce yourself. >> Good evening. My name is Donna Curts and I'm the president of the Oakbrook HOA.
I'm here tonight requesting help from the city regarding the ongoing damage to the city right away along Yorktown Boulevard starting at Hawthorne Village Apartments and heading north to Horizon Elementary. I've lived in Oakbrook for over 17 years and this damage has been going on for many years. However, not to
the extent that it is currently happening. The damage that occurred sometime overnight on July 17th was the worst it's ever been. Since then, we've had at least four more incidents in the same area and one further north. Sometime overnight this past weekend, even more damage was done. On July 18th,
I went to the CClick Fix website to request the city fill in those deep ruts as they had done once prior and was, excuse me, was told that Tom Dulio had denied that request. I appealed the decision, received a phone call from Chip Kent, and he said he would try to help us and I never heard back from him.
So, I emailed Sean Gford and received no reply. The last month Monday, I emailed Wayne Clark and received a reply from Robin Fenwick stating that this was an ongoing issue in Port Orange and to call the police. When I did call the police after a similar incident last year, I was met with the response of, "Why do
you care? It's not your property. So, I was not inclined to call the police." Also, the residents have let me know that they've heard vehicles spinning their wheels out there around 2 to 3:00 a.m. and therefore by the time police were to be called, the offender would be long gone. After the incident this past
weekend, I did call the police Saturday morning after a neighbor let me know about the latest damage as he had followed the mud trail to a home in our neighborhood and found a truck with mud all over the side. I advised a responding officer of this and he told me if the truck owner did not admit to the damage, nothing could be done. He
also stated the damaged area was city property and it wasn't Oak's Oakbrook's responsibility to fix. I requested a call back from the officer after he made contact with the resident and did not receive one. Our community landscaper maintains our common areas on Wednesdays. Therefore, this mess will
remain until he can at the most attempt to blow up all the debris from the sidewalk. The dirt and mud on the sidewalks could be dangerous to school children from the apartments riding their bikes along Yorktown to Horizon as it can be very slippery with all the rain we've had lately. Our community landscaper works very hard to maintain
Oakbrook and the area he does maintain along Yorktown is meticulous. This vandalism has caused damage to the irrigation system along the rightway. What I'm asking for the city to do is to please fill in these ruts that are over a foot deep now with the proper equipment and then place some type of
deterrent along Yorktown. Suggestions from our residents have been curbing trees, signage, metal posts, delinators, not bombs, and or something to stop vehicles entering the city right away and doing damage. Also, if possible, maybe a unmarked police car posted at the assistant living center on Friday
and Saturday evenings to try to catch the offender. And I have photos of all our damage if anyone wants to see them. And thank you for your time. >> Thank you, Donna. >> Thank you. >> To stick around. I'm going to talk about it a little further. My comments in a bit. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Robert Reinhagen.
>> Welcome, Robert. >> Thank you, Mayor. >> Mayor, council members. Robert Reinhagen, 1425 Dixster Drive North. I want to talk about uh Senate Bill 180. It's entitled an act relating to
emergencies and it proposes to support rebuilding after a hurricane but it includes a blanket prohibition to enact any moratoriums on construction, reconstruction or
redevelopment. In addition, the law forbids more restrictive or burdensome amendments to its comprehensive plan or land development regulations. So, it goes much beyond just helping
those people that were got damaged from a hurricane. And um at the last council meeting, you heard a citizen discuss the impact of Senate Bill 180 on home rule. And I was
very disappointed that you that no one made I was disappointed no one addressed the citizens concern during the council comments. You also had Representative Traymond here that day and none of you questioned
him about his understanding of SP 180 which he voted for. To me, after a hurricane is when a moratorum might be appropriate so that you can evaluate what went wrong and correct any
regulations or deficiencies. And so I'm asking you to lobby your leg legislators to modify SB80 to exempt any property damaged by the hurricane from being included in any
moratorum or any new changes to the land development code other than you totally prevent them. Thank you. >> Thank you Robert. Thanks. >> Thank you Robert. >> Derek Lomontain. >> Welcome Derek. >> Thank you. Thank you for having me. Thank you mayor. Thank you, council. Uh
my name is Derek Montaine, Geer Drive, Port Orange, and I'm here to talk to you uh on behalf of myself and the Sweetwater Coalition of Valuchia County to ask you to do everything in your power to hit pause on the wetland destruction happening right now uh at the Pioneer Trail I95 interchange site.
Um as many of you are familiar, uh it's been a project that's been in the works for a long time. But I'm asking uh this uh because we are concerned about the irreversible environmental damage uh and especially the wetland impact, the flooding that might happen, especially if they're starting now in the rainy
season. Um and I'm asking you uh for several other reasons uh to again contact agencies perhaps uh see if some redesign alternatives can be included that will u be a better uh project if it has to be built. But there's several concerns I did want to address here that
uh in case the public uh needs to know this and and for yourself as well, although I'm sure you guys uh have been following this as as well. So there's a lot of issues uh including uh the flood risk, the increased induced traffic uh demand and the high cost to taxpayers.
You know, this as estimated between 80 to$120 million uh coming from various parts of the state, maybe federal government. Um but um I'd also like to say that the as you also know that this uh project has faced some court
challenges recently and uh it's true that uh from what I've understood and I follow this very carefully the FDOT who's kind of leading this project has really misrepresented the benefits uh and in order to kind of get this project through and they've reallocated again
all this money from other more worthy projects and uh the reason for that is is uh complicated but I think it's it's the wrong thing to do at this time. Uh so again, having participated in several of these hearings, I can tell you that not only uh did they kind of rush this through and do a poor job, but these
agencies actually kind of may have uh may have lied uh to some people, including yourselves, about um some of the benefits, including I I would say that they did not um uh really incorporate the public interest and and that's what a judge had at some point
found that it was not clearly in the public interest. Uh so why did they say that? What what is the reason? Well, because there are are alternatives. You're supposed to minimize impact to, you know, the environment. You're supposed to maximize taxpayer dollars. And that really wasn't happening. That as we know, there's going to be dozens
of wetlands impacted. There's going to be um you know, the traffic induced that isn't really going to benefit Dunlop as much as they say it will, like maybe a few seconds. But uh also the water pollution, there'll be direct water pollution from this project into a tributary that goes right to Spruce
Creek. and we want to protect the connectivity to the Spruce Creek preserve, stop the flooding that, you know, is already facing that area. And so, again, asking you to do everything in your power, and if anyone wants to learn more, they can visit uh saved don't pave spruce creek.com. And we're really trying to just get the word out there to make a better redesign to
protect uh the environment and and our citizens. So, thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Is that moving on to council comments? Let's start with Councilman Foley this evening. >> Uh we got a long Yeah, good to be here. Um, no, we got a long agenda. So,
nothing except that uh thinking of Mary and and her family. Um, an awesome person if you got to spend any time with her at all and uh her service to the city cannot be overstated. Um, and so she'll be dearly missed by a lot of folks especially in our police
department. So, um, you know, just thoughts and prayers for her and her family. Otherwise, we got a long agenda tonight. And and just a note on that, I be remiss when once it has been written out and approved, we will read her obituary into the permanent record here for the city.
>> I think that's wonderful, >> Councilman Grubs. >> Yeah, I think uh Councilman Foley and uh Mayor Stolmer has already talked about Miss Mary, but it's pretty amazing. Uh I would say young lady because she spent 40 years with the VIPS
and the police department. That's longer than most people do for a normal job. >> Just amazing person. Um I do want to touch on uh one of the consent agenda items 6C that was uh pretty pretty unique thing. uh it's collaboration
amongst the departments inside the city and I I think it got uh overshadowed by everything that was going on for the consent agenda and uh that's between the parks and recreation and engineering for them to come and uh hold up and ask for a little bit of money to be redesigned
so that it actually saves money in the long term that we're not having to redig up a complete pavement project that was supposed to be laid out. um spending a little bit of money up front saves us hundreds of thousands of dollars down the road. So, thank you for the
collaborations inside the departments from engineering and parks and recreation. That was was a great job and great savings for us in the long term. Um hopefully, weather permitting uh by Labor Day uh the sports complex dealing
at city center for the kids playground will be completed. So, take a look at that. That's going to be coming up. It's about 75% done now, but uh we're hoping by Labor Day coming that we'll have that to be open up for Labor Day weekend for the kids. Uh also,
uh notes for agendas, it always if we don't talk about it now, it always gets missed. September 20th is White Place renovations of the park. This is where we are going to have boards up of what uh proposals are there
for the community to come out and uh vote on ideals that will be presented at uh White Place. So that's September 20th at 9:00 a.m. Um if you live in that area or you visit that park, this is a great
way to put your input in for that area. And then uh lastly is August 22nd from 5 to 7:00 p.m. I know Cameron was just here. She was talking about it for Art House. Uh over 500
kids went through the program this summer. And if you haven't seen what these kids produce and artwork, it's it's absolutely amazing. And I and I highly suggest come out, join the fun and the event from 5 to 7 uh coming up on August 22nd.
>> Awesome. Yep. >> Sean, >> I don't have anything tonight. >> All right. Why don't you yield your time then to Councilman Green? >> Thank you. My your extra three minutes. >> Go ahead. >> Um I just got one thing I want to just touch on on the uh consent agenda and
that was item 6A and um I've had some conversations with with staff about uh here's three houses that are floodprone that are going to get bought and several things happen with this. You know, obviously the homeowner has has wanted to do this and so this is something that
the program allows. It's been going on for a while. People buying their FEMA's buying houses and they're being torn down. Uh so with that though, you know, there is a loss of tax revenue. There is also now the requirement for the city to
maintain this piece of property. Um and so it's kind of twofold how it's kind of going from a positive to very much now a negative. Um and and what I asked was again, first and foremost, if the property being surrendered has any
benefit of storm water management, that's obviously what we would do with it first. And and then out of these three, one of them does. One of them really helps the Cambridge basin and our ability to do better do better at flooding on there. The other two, not so
much, and they're going to become basically grass lots. Um, what I asked was like, you know, could we go in there and plant trees on it and make it where it's maintenancefree and just turn it back over to a lot? It's gonna be owned by the city, but I don't want to have to
now go cut grass. So, again, it now has other maintenance factor. So, um, just just want to make note on that that, you know, with these houses being sold and and they kind of kind of flipped from being a uh a tax revenue to now a a cost
to the city. So, uh, but I do want us to turn them back to nature if we can. If we can put trees on them and not have to mow the grass, I think that's probably the ideal way if it doesn't help storm water first. So, thank you. That's all I got. >> That's it. Yeah, those are uh those are
good thoughts and and and keep those in mind because we're going to have to be having those. This sounds awful loud, so I'm going move that back a little bit. Um we're going to be having to have those. >> Well, that program's still on and it's still out there. So, >> and you're right because, you know, I think if in that particular
neighborhood, if they still had a functioning HOA, we might have other options. Uh but they don't. And that's kind of sad actually because now it's it's in their neighborhood, right? And so it's it's the thing that's going to impact those homeowners the most. >> And um it's it's going to be a challenge
because you know some of the homeowners in there take really good care of their property. They cut their grass every week and it looks really really nice. And and we've got to decide how to how now to maintain that property um with the least amount of cost but also the least amount of impact in that
neighborhood. And and I like your idea of of of perhaps, you know, giving it as much of a natural >> Well, I don't think these are going to turn into holes in the ground. People think, "Oh, I'm going to sell my house to build a hole in the ground. It's going to help." It's not. No. >> You know what I mean? So, now it goes back to being a field or a lot or
whatever it is. And so, if we can put less burden on the city to have to maintain it, I think it's better. >> Sure. Sure. Anything else? >> No. >> Okay. Good. Couple couple of things I just wanted to touch on. I appreciate uh Mr. Ryan Hagen's comments uh this evening on Senate Bill 180 and the concept of home rule. It was actually on
on my list to touch base on. Everybody on uh council, I had received a letter from uh County Chair Jeff Brower uh with his thoughts and him uh wanting to share with us the the position that the county council had decided to to take um and
and and on Senate Bill 180 and speaking and communicating with our state representatives. So, uh, I would encourage I've I've already done that with with Jayce Traymont and, uh, we'll be doing that here soon with, uh, Senator Tom Wright, just having those
conceptual discussions about those. You know, the the home rule, people hear home rule and not everybody really understands what that means. That's a that's a concept. There's no there's no legal binding thing that says, "Okay, these particular items the state legislature has to stay hands off and
these particular items the municipal governments have full control over." And so the concept of home rule is is allowing those biggest decisions that most impact your residents locally to be made by your local folks. And and a lot of times that's the case and then other times that's not the case. And so it is
important for us to have those constructive conversations uh with folks that that serve us in in Tallahassee. Um and and they're willing to hear them, by the way. Um I I've never reached out to any of them and them say, "Hey, I don't want to hear that." They're always willing to have those conversations. And
we may have to agree or disagree sometimes, but it's still worthy of having the conversation. And our responsibility as representatives in municipal government is to carry back the the feel and the messages and the information that we get from our residents and make sure that we can be that channel to those folks and pass
that information on. So I continue encourage you guys to continue to do that. Another item I wanted to bring up this evening. So when somebody wants to uh file a litigation against the city, typically uh only a few folks get
notices of that. The city attorney's office gets a notice. Many times the city manager gets a notice and the mayor gets a notice. So those will come to me and I know you guys don't always get to see those. Um but I wanted to let you know that that
that we received two of them last week pertaining to sidewalks. However, what is really interesting is both of them had nothing to do with anybody walking on the sidewalks. They both had to do with ebikes. That's what I wanted to touch on. So, I'm not looking to make
any decisions or make any suggestions or recommendations. What I want to make sure is from the city attorney's office, from the city manager's office, our police department, um that we are collectively on the same page that we need to make sure we're gathering information that at some point this may
be something that our city council has to review. Um and and and it may be something in early 2026 we can workshop and have those discussions because I don't know how much data we have. I don't know what what uh mandatory um reporting is looking like. I know, you
know, I've seen folks on ebikes that just wipe out and crash on their own somewhere around the city. A lot of times our fire rescue folks are going and providing first aid. And I don't know how that information is going to get compiled back to where, you know, if the police department goes out and does a crash report, but those folks just do
an injury report and the city attorneys getting information, somehow we want to make sure that it's all going to be compiled centrally so that council can get a good idea and a grasp on this. Um, I had a resident reach out to me. He actually filmed somebody on a on a uh on an ebike on a sidewalk the other day. He
guesstimated a speed. I think it was pretty high, but I I know for a fact that a lot of these ebikes will do between 22 and 28 m an hour. Um, and there are there are videos out on the internet that will show you how to modify the chip in the ebike, make them even go faster than that. And the point
I want to make to that is the municipal sidewalks in the city of Port Orange were never designed for any object on the sidewalk to be moving that fast. They were designed for folks riding bicycles, maybe a skateboard, walking. So, we're going to have to This is going
to be an evolving thing. A lot of cities are tackling this, >> having really difficult discussions, and it's just something just like I said, not looking for discussions tonight or decisions or anything like that. Just want to make sure that we're being aware of it. We're being in tune. We're listening to the feedback from our
residents and then, you know, we're compiling data. And at some point, we need to look at this and evaluate it and see from the safety perspective. Um because by the way, they don't always just hurt themselves. They crash into cars, they crash into people, pedestrians are getting hurt, things like that. So, just something I wanted to be wanted to uh put out there tonight
and uh make sure that our our our top city staff is is collectively um looking at that. You look like you wanted to make a quick comment. Yeah, mayor. What I would suggest if we could as a council is um not to put the chief on the spot, but uh >> But you're going to
>> I'm going to if if chief if we could get uh uh traffic in charge of those fields dealing with ebikes, if they could come and present to us the information that is current rules and regulations of
ebikes. And I happen to be one of those ebikers and also a mountain biker when I was riding. It's coming back, but uh we're getting there. But uh there's a lot of regulations to that E1 E2 series bikes and it deals with speeds and what can be on a road and what can't be on a
road. It's it's an education thing and I think that if we could hear from our law enforcement on that, it will give us a better chance as a council to look at the regulation as we go forward. And and I just want to be clear, I'm not anti- ebike. I actually like them. I think
they're pretty neat. I I think we're going to see more and more of that. My my concern is from a community safety perspective, the design of our sidewalks and our roadways and how these things are going to integrate into our lives at what seems to be an exponential pace. Um they're they're the cost of them are
coming down. They're more affordable. That's that looks like a trend that's going to continue. They are they're a great way for of transportation. I know as I visit other places around the the United States and the state of Florida, you I mean they're just in mass everywhere. You go up to to Gainesville,
Florida and I go up there for to watch a football game and they are everywhere. I mean there it's it's it's it's cool. I like it. But somehow we're going to have to be mindful of how that impacts our community. Um we we heard from a resident tonight, uh Donna Curts, on the concern on the on the on the ruts. Um I
will share with you that is not unique to that area. That is a problem we are seeing all over the city and the county right now. It is it is so some of the feedback that I'm getting is that I'm not a Tik Tok person. Okay? And if you don't know what that is, it
is a social media platform that becomes wildly popular with teenagers being challenged to do something, video it, and repeat it over and over and over and over and it becomes like the cool thing to do. And that is something that
may be behind some of this because they are doing this. They are videoing the destruction and the damage and then they are putting this out there on social media which then the next kid needs to one up that kid and tear something else up something something something. So we are seeing this all over the city of Port Orange. We we do care by the way.
The the the thing is is is it cost money to go in there and fix that. We will do that. But what we don't want to do is go out there and fix spend all that taxpayer money, fix it today, and it gets torn back up. I will tell you that having served in law enforcement, this is something that's
gone on for decades. I know my past experience, we have made cases when we do catch them, and we will. We will prosecute them. We have impounded vehicles. We have I don't know if we've done a full forfeite on a vehicle, but I think we've come close to we started the
process and maybe decided to be a little kinder and gentler, but we will hold them accountable. the state attorney's office will hold them accountable when we make those cases. So, the reason I'm I'm saying that is we are aware of it. We have been having this discussion this week with our city staff. Um, I know that the police department is aware of
it and they are putting, you know, efforts out there to try. We're This is one of those things where we need the public to help us. If you see it happening in your neighborhood, don't just write it off as, oh, that's just some kid tearing up a little bit of grass. No, it's probably not. It's
probably this thing that's going on and they're tearing up a lot of stuff and it's not just grass. They damage sidewalks. They damage irrigation systems. They damage street signs. Uh they'll sometimes they end up crashing these vehicles. Um so it is something we are aware of. I do appreciate your
comments. We do care about it and and I will and I I will share with you even probably for the last 40 years I know I'm looking at Councilman Green because he's aware there was an area off of Central Park every time it rained every time it rained they'd go out there and
tear it up and it took a really really long time the city had to go in and put a very unique curbing that in my opinion aesthetically doesn't look good doesn't fit in the area but they had to do that they would even jump the curbing we had vehicles go out there that go to do it, they don't realize the curby's there.
They're hung up on the curbing, which makes it easy to catch them. But they, you know, so I just I wanted to let you know I appreciate you coming tonight. I appreciate your, you know, bringing this forward. It is something we are aware of. We are working on it. Um, and again, just a plea to the public, if you see
this, if you're, you know, talk to your teenagers, you know, it's not always teenagers. I get that. It's not always kids at the high school. History has shown more often than not that's what it has been. So, if you have kids that are high school, talk to them. If they know who's doing this, we'd love to have that information. Uh, and they can report
that and their police department will follow up on it. >> Mr. Mayor, can I comment on that? And this is just going to go back to my my my previous comments and and again, Wayne, I would like for us to to to talk about this is the non-emergency line. Okay. In reality, they don't need to be
calling 911 when somebody's out there planting the grass. But we need a non-emergency line that's getting answered. And currently, we're not we're not getting that. And I just think that this is something that needs to be addressed is at least somebody answered
the damn phone that we can say, "Look, somebody's out here now or if there's somebody nearby, but not to call 911." So, I just I really think we need to make sure that we've got some kind of non-emergency response. And this is just part of it. >> Okay. >> And and and and I do want to comment on
this too because this this kind of draws full circle to the seriousness of it. This isn't a minor thing. This isn't a minor criminal violation. The amount of damage quickly totals up to a felony amount. This is a felony crime in most
of these cases. And they are going to be charged with felony crimes. So, this isn't the minor things that a lot of us are aware of, having been kids ourselves, raised kids, or whatever, the little thing here or there that if that happens, it's a it's a minor issue. That's not what this is. This is pretty
serious stuff. So, they need to be mindful of it. Um, and I just want to make a quick comment on on item seven uh that we passed in the consent. I want to I want to just express that uh our police department has been doing a really good job. They made a great case last night. Some of you may have seen
that on on social media. our leadership in our police department has has come a long long way in terms of recruiting, hiring, retention, and I want to say thank you to uh this council. I know for a lot of you it's your first time going
through um contract negotiations and and and and I think that the council acted very responsibly and making sure that you know our police department is is competitively paid and that they have benefits and that we have a package that
will allow the chief to continue to recruit the best and we can retain them and keep them here. And I and so I just want to say thank you to you guys and I want to say thank you to the police union and their professionalism in negotiating. Um this may be August 19th.
This may be one of the fastest, smoothest negotiations that I've seen since I've been on council where we got to work early. We cut through a lot of the whatever we went on and I sure what to call it, but we got to the the the nuts and bolts of this thing and and
focused on it and they did as well. And so I I truly truly appreciate that. So got two more to to get wrapped up. Hopefully we can get those done here pretty soon and I'll move on to those next things. So that's all I've got for the evening. >> Mayor, uh one one more quick. >> Why don't you go with one more thing? >> Yeah, just just because of the
conversation. Uh I know you said you you mentioned you reached out to Councilman Gford and this is not necessarily about that one subject. It's more about an overall thing when you're reaching out to us and I'm probably opening uh Pandora's box a little bit, but our email filters on our city emails are
very strong. Um, there's a lot of times that I have people who I converse with where their emails will go to spam and I'll have to go in there and find them. Sometimes they don't even appear in spam or junk. They just miraculously vanish. So, don't hesitate to try to contact us more than one way. if if you can't get
us via email or we do have phones as well for the city that are on the website and and we are here to serve you. We are here to help. So, and not like I said, not just for you, but for anyone who's having an issue. If you reach out to an email and you don't hear back in a week, follow up with another
email or go on and shoot us a text message or call us. Either way, we are here to serve you. And so I just want to make sure I say that because I've had dozens if not hundreds of emails I've had to go fishing out of my spam folder there. Get um it's just an over we're
very we have to be very protective here at the city because we have a lot of information on our servers and things. So just be aware of that. >> I'd like to follow up on that. >> Go ahead. >> Yes. Um, so Yorktown, you're not the first person that's contacted me and I apologize for not getting back to you, but someone's
talking about the speed on that road as well needs to be addressed that people are taking that u from Will Run out to Yorktown out to Dunlotton at an excessive speed. I've witnessed it myself, but I want to uh go back to uh
the police negotiations and thank our staff for making it easy for me to understand >> what we are navigating through. So, I really do appreciate the staff uh when we were in our meetings there. And uh that's that's all I have. >> I appreciate you picking that up. >> Oh, and back to the email.
>> I don't know. And I think I mentioned it to him. I'm getting emails, but they're not from citizens. I had I want to I want to say 54 emails on healthcare this week. Have any of you received the same thing? >> I don't think spamming.
>> No, these these are coming these aren't going to my spam. That's the problem. I'm having to >> They were now they're not. >> Now they're not. >> When I first got on council, it took me months of unsubscribing to things because whenever you first get elected, there is automated software that just
signed you up for everything that may or may not interest a government official. So, just pound that unsubscribe. >> I had less fluoride emails than I had for my skin care in the last week. >> It It is brutal. I will tell you when I first got on council, they decided we
decided to just utilize my previous email from when I worked for the city and law enforcement because it worked easy. I I was still up until just last year still getting emails about police equipment from stuff 20 years ago and um and the amount of advertisement and spam
and junk emails is horrendous. It has helped that I've transitioned now to a new simpler email, but they're starting to pile up quickly. So you're not alone in that. >> All right, Mr. City Attorney, correct us on all the things that we may have misspoke about. >> Misconrue.
>> Well, we we had a long meeting, so I'll I'll spare you that and yield my time to the gentleman from Augusta. >> Okay. All right. Mr. City Manager, >> just really briefly, since you mentioned the the union negotiations, the firefighters and the general employees are both really close to being done. We
expect to have I think firefighters to you the first meeting in September. Maybe I don't know whether Nagege is going to make first meeting. They they might both of them all of them have done the same thing. Very professional, very well done. Principally, I want to thank Michelle in HR and Linda in finance who who took that through and and Matt's
help towards the end to make sure that it all ends up coming together. So, good team, good group of people and I look forward to bringing the other two groups and having 500 employees all under contract and ready to go. >> Excellent. Excellent. >> And then the only other stuff I have we'll talk about during the fund balance part of >> Okay, perfect. Perfect. All right, let's get to work on some other things.
Special reports presentation of vulnerability assessment. [Applause] >> Welcome. >> Hi. Good evening, Mayor Council Junior Reed, city engineer. I'm happy to be here tonight to give you guys a presentation on our vulnerability
assessment. Probably heard mention a few times in the master plan presentation mentioned it. Um, basically the vulnerability assessment is kind of a akin to the master plan. The way I like to explain it is master plan. We took a look back, saw what happened. Vulnerability assessment, we take a look
forward for for out planning period. So, and with that said, we have uh Chris Neperados and Chela from Kelly who are going to be providing the presentation tonight. Um, and we'll be available for questions afterwards. So, with that, Chris. >> Excellent. >> Thank you. Thank you. Uh, good evening.
Thanks for having us again. I'm Chris Nas with Kimley Horn project manager and we go to here was project engineer on this on the study. So introduction this project uh was made possible through the city of Port Orange and collaboratively funded through the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection's uh resilient program. The project objective is to conduct a vulnerability assessment focused on flooding uh that's uh consistent with the Florida statute and how it's delivered. And what is a vulnerability assessment?
Vulnerability assessment is just a is is a planning tool to look in the future and how to manage u u flooding in terms of the impact of flooding on the city's critical assets. The purpose was to identify the risks associated uh with flooding and sea level rise as well as
search to identify vulnerable property or infrastructure prioritize high-risisk areas and to devise resilience-based strategies to target those risks to lessen those risks moving forward in the future. And what is included? It's an inventory of all city- owned critical assets. So
your roadways, your utilities, bu buildings, parks, and more. It's a planning level flood risk analysis that looks into the future in terms of future stresses that occur from from the flooding and rainfall and sea level rise and surge. And also this was done uh
with public outreach and community engagement. We had two stakeholder meetings as part of the process and two uh public outreach meetings. And why is this important? Well, it's uh required uh by FD. And the biggest I think the biggest takeaway from this
slide is doing this vulnerability assessment sets you up to be able to go after future funding for implementation projects. So, uh, having this done really puts you, you know, get gets you on the line for those implementation projects and again supports long-term
uh, planning efforts, building more resilient, uh, community and understanding what those future risks could be. So, this was our project schedule in terms of where we're at. I highlighted a public presentation. They're close to wrapping this up with a final vulnerability assessment and then
moving into the adaptation plan. Yes, sir. >> I apologize. I should have asked you this as you're going through this. Would you prefer if you get to a section where >> one of us may have a question that we >> know that we'll talk about it then or do you want to go all the way through or >> I'm I'm fine either way you want to do it.
>> Okay. You folks good with that too. >> I'm good. >> So So I'll go first. All right. >> So on on that comment that you just made and I want to be clear for those that are that are going to rewatch this and and those that have lots of questions for us that vulner vulnerability assessment. It is not a suggested thing
for a lot of these funding mechanisms. It is a required element. >> It's a required element if you want to get funding from D for implementation project. >> Okay. I just want to make sure because I'm aware of that but I want to make sure that that is clearly stated because a lot of folks you know they they want
to know why why why they some sometimes they don't understand the process but there is a process of okay >> thank you carry forward any other questions all right go right ahead >> okay so this is project schedule um first part of this project was the
data collection and that's where we really compile and build the report card for the project we're pulling together topographic information which is the digital elevation model that was acquired. We get we obtain the flood scenario data from rainfall, sea level
rise and storm surge. And then we do an inventory of city-owned assets uh which are typically the transportation assets, evacuation routes, critical infrastructure such as your treatment plants and lift stations. uh community facilities and uh emergency
facilities and looking at natural, cultural and historical resources which predominantly for the city were your parks. And this the intent of this slide is just to show you the number of risks that we looked at in the future looking
at uh rainfall, sea level rise, surge, compound flooding, you know, combining those events together. So that was about a dozen or so, excuse me, two dozen so uh scenarios that we looked at. And the next step from this was doing the
exposure analysis. Basically taking all those different events and putting them on a map where where those flood depths were the extents of those uh uh events and where they line up. And again it was looking at rainfall induced or what's called pluial flood plial flooding sea
level rise high tides storm surge and then compound flooding which is taking some of those events and stacking them on together combining them. >> Any questions? So on this particular slide, >> yes sir.
>> Is this the this is based on what has already occurred >> or >> this is based on the statistical rainfall event which is called the 100year rainfall. So that's the 1% chance of uh was it 13 in
>> 14 around 14 inches. So it's a statistical chance of that happening 1% within the year. >> And we had that happen twice in two years. >> Yes. >> This is 14 in over 24 hours. So like where Milton's case it was 14 in but
like nine of them were in two hours. >> You had a high high intensity with Milton. >> Yeah. And then to to uh council Gford's question and and on this this also takes into account that sea level rise the
tides all of that collectively >> what's shown on the map is just the rainfall. >> Oh okay >> but there was we had a host of other I think 130 maps that show all the different events. >> Okay. >> And then this is just other examples of
the of the uh rainfall. Actually, the one to the left is the 100red-year storm surge uh that we're looking at. The flood extends over there. And then you're looking at the 500year rainfall event. >> Okay. Looking at the 100redyear storm surge. Um and this is Spruce Creek
coming in here on the left screen. And that particular creek went over one of our roadways. Is that calculated into this map as well? Did that. So, what I'm getting at is that roadway
didn't flood because of it had more to do with storm surge and less rain? >> Yes, sir. >> So, I'm going to ask you again that had that road flooded because it had more to do with storm surge than the amount of rain we had.
>> Well, I think more extreme. Uh I would say that that that that Richmond underwater combination was >> of of extreme rain event plus storm surge at the same time. >> Gotcha. >> And one of the storm events that we looked at within this assessment is the
compound impacts of the 100year rainfall with storm surge. And that's where we're seeing a lot of the extreme flooding with the roadways as well. >> And that's within this slide here too is >> that that one's just the that one's just the hundredyear storm storm surge. >> Just a surge right here. >> Just a surge. This is just a surge which flooded
>> the road. >> But there are other maps that show the surge with the rain. >> With the rainfall. >> Yes sir. >> Okay. >> That's still not taken in fact of king high tides full moon phases to the high tides. >> That's just the surge. Yes. >> Still search. Okay.
>> Plus the elevation of moving bridge is low. >> Yeah. >> Just so so folks that are watching stuff like this >> define storm surge for us. So storm surge simply put is when we get high wind activity pushing that water >> from the ocean
>> from the ocean >> through the inlet through the ICW into our canals, creeks, drainage, stuff like that. >> Yes, sir. Yep. >> Thank you. >> It's helpful for us to be able to do it like this. >> Yeah. No, it's all good. It's all good. Uh and the next slide here is the
sensitivity analysis. So we had the exposure analysis which essentially put lines on the map and the sensitivity analysis looks at the criticality of the assets and the events of which they occurred. So anything in red uh meant that it was a high u high sensitivity.
Anything in yellow was medium and something that was low was kind of like u kind of the lower color there in the low. So it varied per assets. So structural assets were high in that the finished floor elevation was over top
during an event. Something that was medium was 6 in below the finished floor and up to the finished floor but not exceeding the finished floor. And something that was lower was within 12 in of the finished floor. Now that's for struct that's for structural assets. Something like your
parks. We looked at them as a ratio. What percentage of the park was flooded in terms of the overall area. So it kind of kind of varies on on what we do there. But what we see on here on the slide, as you can see, is the treatment plants in particular are are vulnerable.
Uh the area in and around uh this area has been deemed vulnerable from some of the from some of the feedback that we got. And then uh a lot of the lift stations particularly in the northeast part were deemed vulnerable as well too at a at a high at a high sensitivity.
When we when we say an area is is vulnerable vulnerable, are are we largely acknowledging the fact that we live in Florida, that we're a coastally based community, that we have a relatively low elevation to sea level, things like that? >> Yes. That factors into your
vulnerability based on the lay of the land and then how high the flooding gets. >> Got it. Thank you. >> Yes, sir. And then from that after we had developed the uh sensitivity analysis we did what's called the focus areas. These
were broken up uh six areas throughout the city. This was also vetted through as part of the public engagement process uh looking at some of these areas. So this gives you some laser sharp focus in terms of where uh to look at future uh
adaptation plans from which you can develop interventions for in the future. So this is kind of the breakout of the six areas. We also did this in conjunction uh with the stormwater master plan that Juno was talking about. So we weren't doing the siloed. A lot of the stuff that we came up with flanged
up really well with the master plan and some of those projects do in fact occur in those focus areas. The next part uh this is after today we're going to move right into the adaptation plan and that's looking at strategies or interventions that are
going to increase flood resilience and typically we look at those those types of uh interventions look at three things. That's your gray infrastructure. That's your raising raising of infrastructure, upsizing pipes. Uh green infrastructure which looks at
nature-based solutions. And then of course blue infra infrastructure which looks at regional stormwater facilities and passive parks. And a lot of times it's a combination of these three things in terms of how you can reduce the risk moving forward in the future.
And uh just rounding this out, the next steps are to submit the final vulnerability assessment which will happen this week. Uh complete the adaptation plan, participate in some LMS meetings, and submit uh for uh future FDP funding as part of the
implementation. And uh that's it. >> All right, Lance, let's start with you. >> I'm good. I don't think this is right up my alley. >> Yeah, I think you get it right. John, go ahead. >> No, you clarified some things for me and
thank you, >> Reed. >> Well, I understand it. Appreciate what you guys have been doing and looking forward to next steps. >> Say the next steps what we're looking for. Thank you. >> No, we appreciate you guys coming tonight and and the work that goes into
doing this. It's I think we've all we get it and um but we know we need to have this element uh in our toolbox and and to be able to utilize to to work more towards resiliency funding all these different kind of things and and u the one question I I I did have I wanted
to to ask and I'm not I'm trying to figure out my brain how to frame it in a in a way that I can ask it but when you're doing these vulnerability assessments you h you're obviously picking metrics to work from. And and like, you
know, we've had two significant historic storms that have brought volumes of rainfall and short periods of time that nobody living in Port Orange has ever seen living here at least. And so, you know, we get asked a lot about, you
know, can the city can you keep my house from flooding again? and and and I am always very realistic and say no I can't because you know as we look at things like this those metrics that you're using or we're using or or whatever a lot of times they don't align with
storms that will produce 20 inches of rainfall you know and so can you speak to that a little bit like when you're doing that how does that how does that go in line with what we have had it in the recent experiences here in our city in terms of how us to assess that because we're not really assessing on
how to top a 20-in storm rainfall event that brings 5T of storm surge and impacts us in the middle of an incoming tide, right? So, I mean, that's that see that that pretty much is unrealistic. Is am I right? Or or are we using metrics
to say if you get another 20-in storm? We've plugged in the metrics with 20 inches of rain in 24 hours, incoming tide, all these scenarios that that we can assess your city and you can start working towards X, Y, and Z and guarantee certain things or or is that
not really how it works? >> So, we look at several things. We look at metrics based on what's rigged. you know, properties and uh structures, it's usually the 100red-year rainfall event, but we take it with with these vulnerability assessments where, you know, resilience is planning for an
uncertain future. So, we're able to look at some of these reggg events, but then we're also able to cast a net further. So, we're looking at the 100red-year rainfall, but we're also looking at the impacts of storm intensification. Is the hundred-year rainfall really the hundred-year rainfall anymore? Think you
could probably say probably not. So that looks at adding something like rainfall change factors where we put like 20% on top of what historically has occurred for the 100red-year rainfall and then again we look at combining all the different elements sea level rise surge pluial rainfall and what those effects
are. So um you know 25 of those we we did cast a net further and looking at those some of those events beyond what's in regulation >> and and are we correct in understanding that like in my mind the last two storms the significance of water was from
rainfall not as much from storm surge having having been born and raised in Florida you know and and obviously being in tune with watching how storms impact all over the United States it seems that it is very possible to get significantly
less rainfall but much more storm surge and all of the efforts to to to address storm water and flooding there it it's just going to happen. I mean if the storm surge hits right >> or or am I not am I not thinking about that correctly?
>> No, no, you're correct. And and say as you move more kind of upland it becomes more pluial based. So more rain that you get, more flooding that you get. the higher intensity rain that you get, the more flooding that you get as you move more towards the east and the coastal elements that's more surgeon surge
induced and also uh sea level rise uh with that you know coming out sunny day flooding and seeing all that that's there. So that's it's again it's a combination of things that that this study looks at in terms of planning for an uncertain future. And and and last
question, I don't mean to put you on the spot with this one. If you don't know, it's okay. But recently I I heard an elected official from another municipality make mention of a study that they had received that indicated that sea levels more uh aligned with
what we would look at as inter coastal waterway in our river here um have are about 5 in higher at high tide over the last I can't remember but a certain amount of time than they used to be let's say 20 years ago. Is is that correct or
>> that that's on par? Yeah. >> Okay. >> Yeah. So is that so if we're saying that if we're sharing that with our community that at high tide now that river is 5 inches higher than it was 20 years ago that's pretty accurate. >> It varies where you are in the state because if you move further south like Miami area it's actually because water's
so dense 62 pounds per cubic foot you actually have subsidance because water's coming up and sea levels are rising. It's we have land subsidance in South Florida. So uh yeah it does it does vary in the state but there it has been rising over the past 20 years and there
are there are resources that are out there US Army Corps uh US Army Corps and um is it uh Noah have uh gauges on the sites and you can see historically what the rise has been and those have been g geographically corrected. And the reason
I asked that out obviously is, you know, as we have these discussions in the community, you know, I I'm always talking about, you know, we have to get water out of the city. It's not just putting in a ditch or a retention pond because that's only going to help us so
much. Ultimately, we got to get it to the river. It's got to go out of Ponet to help us. And so when you're fighting against higher levels and storm surges and certain tidal flows and moon phases, all of those things play a factor that I
don't know that a lot of folks really understand. And I don't understand them all, but I understand it enough that you know that they are significant factors on how we're going to be able to move storm water and keep it out of people's homes. >> Yeah. And it's it's really understanding
the risk and it's really about accepting what happens and then maybe building smart building smarter or building more resilient. You know I often say people say what's the I got the solution to all this stuff and people say what's that? And I was like, well, but highrises, but
>> sure, >> but who want who wants does everyone want to live in a high-rise? And and you think of the flooding in some cases. We talked about, hey, it's above the finished floor elevation or it's near the switch gears of the lift stations. It may not be there and your structure
may not be flooded, but it's still flooded in and around the area. >> Yeah. Well, and I tend to I think we all tend to have a look and and we understand that we're okay with with roads temporarily being flooded. We don't want water people's homes and structures. And that's, you know, when
we say when we say flooded, that's what we're talking about. If it's in your home, >> that's what we're we're heavily concerned about. If your street is flooded for 12 or 16 or 24 hours in a lot of our neighborhoods, that's where the design retention is from a you know, a neighborhood that was built 40 years
ago. It's designed for the streets to take the water. Hopefully, we can keep it out of the home. So, did you one more bite? Did you guys want to >> Yeah, I just um back up I don't know how many years it was. Um one of the former police chiefs mentioned something about
a storm surge and depending on the size of the storm and it came from the Atlantic side, most of our storms seem to come up I4 and not, you know, into I4. We don't normally get hit in Daytona from a direct hit from the east side. So, our storm surge isn't hasn't been
that impactful like I don't know if you recall Hurricane Ivan up in the panhandle and it came up there and it pushed six miles. Storm surge did. If we had a Well, we have a storm category 4 couple hundred miles to the east of us.
If that hit us directly, h have you calculated what the storm surge would be and where it would end up at? because my I heard it would go to 95 and rainfall wouldn't matter at that time because we'd have a push of storm storm surge. Has there study doesn't
take into consideration that kind of storm surge, does it? >> No, we we looked at the storm sur from which what is really published data from FEMA and we took that information and projected it with a tool to see where it pushes out to. So we looked at the
100redyear storm surge. So, so we have a scenario where we can get a direct hit from the east and it changes everything. That storm surge could be 10 to 12 feet and that's going to flood >> way past 90 Nova road. >> Yeah. I mean, Fort Myers >> without without rain.
>> Yeah. And Fort Myers Beach was 20. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Anything else, Jim? >> Thank you guys very much. We appreciate you. Did you want to weigh in on anything, Jeff? >> Yeah. I just wanted to just make one more comment so that you know in the in
the the light of making everybody understand. So the vulnerability assessment >> was done with a 100% grant from D. So we didn't pay for this. This was done through a grant from D. So we're grateful to them for to provide us with a grant in order for us to do the assessment. >> Great. Thank you.
>> Absolutely. Thank you guys very much. Appreciate you. >> Thank you. >> Item 14, Citizen Advisory Committee for the TPO, Mr. Bobby V. gentleman who might know a little something on elevation
and the need for more of it. >> How are you Bobby? Welcome. >> Good. Bobby Ball with CAC for the TPO. Uh we had our first meeting in a couple months because we had off in July and um pretty standard meeting updates on the TI tip and the UPWP. Uh but um nothing
really to report there. But I did want to say that we had a presentation on the long range transportation plan and uh it's getting pretty much done. And so now they've opened up a comment period and a and a review period to review the whole plan. And so um it's open until September 17th. You can go to the
website. It's on the left side near the bottom. You should be able to click on it and read the whole plan. Then really the most important part is the cost feasible plan. If you look at that, that's really something that they're planning to build with the with the funds they're expecting to get. So if uh if you have any real comments on it, um it's
probably a good time to do it now. And I know um Tim knows about it too, so staff might have some thoughts, too. What website is that, Bobby? >> TPO website. Okay, >> that's all I got. >> Between you and Tim, and I've actually been having this conversation lately with uh the city manager, but maybe
something you could put an ear to and and talk about on a future visit is the sidewalks gaps program uh that they've done over the years and whether or not that looks like is forecasted to continue. Um how much money is going into that? Are they changing the parameters to that? And uh I know we've
taken advantage of that. um and and continue to look to take advantage of that. And I'm just kind of curious what that forecast looks like over the next several years if that's something we think is going to want to keep heavy on our radar and and and uh if the
parameters for what they're looking for is changing or whatever. So any insight either you or Tim uh can bring back to us, that's a conversation I think we're going to be having. >> Forward. >> Thank you, sir. Good to see you. >> Thank you. >> You're well. >> Thanks, Robin. Item 15, first reading of
ordinance number 2025-20. How about it, Mr. City attorney? Bear with me on this one. Okay. An ordinance to the city of Orange County, Florida reszoning approximately 46 acres from community commercial to neighborhood preservation located at 412 Jefferson
Avenue, 414 Jefferson Avenue and 416 Jefferson Avenue resing approximately.18 acres from Ridgewood Development to Neighborhood Preservation located at 117 Fleming Avenue reselling 77 acres of acres uh from neighborhood preservation
to office residential transition located at 608 Rosalie Street in parcel number 634-07-0760 generally located on Dunlop Avenue resing point approximately 2.24 acres from neighborhood preservation to government public use located at 413
Herbert Street reszoning approximately 1.07 7 acres from planned commercial development to government public use being identified as parcel numbers 6304-07-00-182 and 6304-07-141 generally located at Spruce Creek Road and Dunlot Avenue resoning approximately
1.66 66 acres from multif family residential to government public use being identified as parcel numbers 6341-05-10 and 6341-4-3-142 generally located at Roo Street reszoning approximately 31 acres from
single family residential R10SF to government public use located at 5797 Devon Street authorizing revision of the official zoning running atlas and providing an effective date. >> You really should have technology to to record that so you can play it back at
the second reading. Um, can I have a a a motion and a second to approve ordinance number 2025-20 so we can put this on the floor? >> Move to approve ordinance number 2025-20. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Welcome. Good to see you. >> Thank you. Good evening, Penelopey Curious Planning. Thank you, Matt, for
reading that. Um the proposed administrative resoning is to change the zoning of 12 properties generally located on the east side of the city east of Nova Road. Um to correct some zoning inconsistencies. I've personally spoken to all of the prop private property owners and
received their authorization to move forward with these resonings um and they were all very happy and thankful that the city was um doing this administratively on their behalf to correct these inconsistencies. So staff prepared this um primarily to bring these properties into compliance
with the city's future land use map to ensure consistency with the surrounding areas as well as um to address the historic or intended use of the properties. So there's four properties that are proposed to be resoned from um to neighborhood preservation all of which have been historically developed
with single family homes. Uh, two of the properties are proposed to be reszoned to office residential transition to establish consistency with their current future land use designation along Dunlton um and bring that into compliance with the zoning. And then six of the properties are proposed to be
reszoned to government public use um zoning district. These are properties that are owned by the city of Port Orange and are either currently developed or planned to be developed for public purposes. So, with that, um, the staff report, um, addresses in detail, as did the the
ordinance title block, the the 12 properties and what they're going to and from with mapping exhibits in the staff report, exhibits one through three. Um, staff is here to answer any questions you may have and is recommending approval. >> Thank you very much. Questions?
>> I believe I heard you say it, but you've already spoken to all the private residents and and they are all in favor for this. >> Yes, I have. Um, I have signed original signed authorizations for all of them. >> That's what I wanted to hear. >> Beautiful. >> Tracy, anything? >> I got nothing. >> Sean? >> Nope. >> Lance?
>> No. >> Did the cleanup work? I think I don't I don't really have anything. Makes makes perfect sense. We appreciate you guys always looking for opportunities to do the little clean up and break some things up to date where they need to be. So, >> thank you very much. Let's go to the public. Anybody from the public wish to speak to this?
Oh, okay. Back to council. Last chance. Anything passing on that clerk? Call the role. >> Councilman, >> yes. >> Council Ger, >> yes. Councilman Green, >> yes. >> Gross. >> Yes. >> Yes. 50. Item 16, reading first reading of
ordinance number 2025-21. Why don't you try this one? An ordinance of the city of Orange Lucia County, Florida, amending chapter 82, article 1 to establish a new section 82-6 authorizing an adoption a private aids to navigation patent plan for the purpose of establishing jurisdiction to
install and maintain uniform waterway markers to safely guide voters to and from the Riverwalk day do. Authorizing the city manager to sign all required environmental and navigational permit applications necessary for the Riverwalk Park Day do project. providing for codification, repeal of conflicting
ordinances, severability, and an effective date. >> Move to approve ordinance number 2025-21. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. >> Community development as part of the uh finalizing the permitting for the Riverwalk day do. This is one of the requirements that we are having for the outside agencies to establish this plan
for the um patents where they're going to be located. So, it also requires that we adopt the actual location map in our code. So, this amendment will adopt the map that's shown on the in the attachment there in our code with the exact location where those are to be located. Um, and again, it's just kind
of a requirement to have to check them off there to get those permits um, finalized and issued. >> Just quick question. So, I looked at the map and and and thinking about where this orient is this illustrating a a channel that
will go straight out from where the day docks would be all the way to the ICW? >> No. There's actually an existing channel that basically kind of goes like right in front of that area generally >> about 100 200 feet yards off of it then. Y >> so our project is to construct a channel
about 200 yards to connect to that then. Got it. >> And then that extends you out to the ICW and then all we are doing is putting the barkers into the area that we are construct or dredging and then of course the um the signs near the dock then to let them know shore is coming soon. They see that at that time.
>> Yeah. Got it. Got it. Okay. That's that's all I wanted to know because I just the way I was looking at the map I was trying to judge I guess that distance and and and u if that just continues but what you're talking about makes perfect sense. I know exactly the channel we're speaking >> that channel's 1 foot deep at low
district for vessel will do just fine >> 1 foot and 5 in according to the latest studies. >> Lance anything? >> No it's good. >> No gentlemen. >> No >> no we're good. Tracy is not deep enough to scuba. I know >> you can struggle it if you want. >> You might not be happy with the bottom
contour, but you can start it. >> It's muddy. >> I got nothing. All right. Anybody uh anything else, Tim? >> That's all. >> Anybody in the public wish to speak to this? >> Seeing none, back to council. Last chance. All right. Clerk, call the role. >> Council, yes. Council Ger,
>> yes. Council Green, >> yes. >> Yes. Mayor, >> yes. 50. >> All right. Item 17, administrative amendments to the land development code. >> Welcome back. You look just like the last guy that was here.
>> Think I have a little more hair than the last guy. >> Little more shine. Let's get it up here. So Tim Burman, community development. Similar to kind of what um Peneli presented here on the administrative resoning cleanup item, we also did a
cleanup item on terms of the land development code. This was kind of based on some things that came forward through a Senate bill and also some um requirements on our code that we have been um had had past variances on or master development agreements come through and basically had those items
voted to um reduce these or reduce um with them. Um so we just want to kind of bring those forward as a possible code amendment um before you then. So we've got four of them and we're going to do is go through each one individually, stop questions, then move on to the next one and then at the end of that that then we'll vote on them whether we move
forward or not. to the first one we're going to speak about. >> I'm sorry. P pause pause just one quick second. Is there any benefit or procedure, Mr. City Attorney, to open all of these at one time? Have you read them all at one time or why do we need to do that? >> Uh I mean they're going to have to be voted on individually. So um I I think I
can read all the blocks. If you'd like to go ahead and get that out of the way, it'd be nice. >> You want to go ahead and do that? >> Yeah. >> Stand stand by. >> All right. >> Right ahead, my friend. So, first one's ordinance number 2025-22, an ordinance of the city of Orange County, Florida, amending the land development code chapter 12 relating to design standards
for off- streetet parking and loading areas to amend the minimum dimensional requirements for off- streetet parking spaces. Providing for uh conflicting ordinances, severability, and providing an effective date. We have ordinance number 2025-23. It's an ordinance of the city of Pornish County, Florida, amending the land
development code chapter 3 administrative uh development code uh subdivision relate chapter 5 subdivision related to plat approvals procedure to ensure consistency and compliance with the recently adopted state legislation amending section 177.071 071 floor
statutes requiring certain plats and replplat submitts be administratively approved without further action by the governing body requiring the designation of an administrative authority for the plat review and approval process setting forth the review time frame and notice requirements related to the approval
process for plat and replplat submitts com conforming section 177.11 Florida statutes to be consistent with section 177.0714 0714 statute providing for repeal of conflicting ordinances severability and an effective date.
Ordinance number 2025-24 is an ordinance of city porn Florida amending the land development code chapter 15 relating to digital signs and string lighting amending the message display time providing for repeal of conflicting ordrances providing for severability and effective date. Ordinance number 2025-25,
an ordinance of the city of Port Lucia County, Florida, amending the land development code chapter 16 relating to special setbacks for elevated wood decks, providing for repeal of conflicting ordinances, seability, and an effective date. >> All right, let's go ahead and get a motion for each one of these and a second. We'll go in order starting with
uh 17A. Reed, you want to >> I'm not I'm not going to be doing that one. >> Nope. >> Someone else can do the A. I'll go ahead and make a motion that we approve on first reading ordinance number 2025-22. Do >> I have a second? >> Second.
>> We have a motion and a second for ordinance number 2025-22. Want to just keep on going? >> Yep. I'll make a motion on first reading that we approve ordinance number 2025-23. >> So, I have a second. >> Second. >> A motion and a second for ordinance
number 2025-23. Go ahead. >> I'll make a motion on first reading. to approve ordinance number 2025-24. >> Second. >> A motion and a second for ordinance number 2025-24. >> And I'll make a motion on first reading for ordinance number 2025-25.
>> Second. >> We have a motion and a second for ordinance number 2025-25. Thank you, gentlemen. Go ahead. >> All right. Then B community again. So again, we've got four proposed code amendments here. We're going to go over them individually there and answer any questions then then move on to the next
one. The first one again is something that we've basically done a number of variances on that have been approved and also matched development agreements that have come before the city council have been approved to reduce the parking width space from 10T to 9 foot. Then um typically when you look at basically the number of variances that go forward and
they are approved and MDA events kind of approved then you kind of look at your code and see is there something that needs to be adjusted on that then as you keep on getting these requests they come before and presenting and are approved kind of triggers the need for us to go back and look at that then. So that's what we did. Um we recently had a variance that went to the planning
commission for the Dutch brothers which is proposed on the gas station corner of Taylor branch and um Dunl and that was a request for the 9 foot spaces and as we were writing the staff report, you know, we joke around like pull out the pull out the 9 foot space um staff report basically just change the address then and that got us to think and looking
into the other codes of other cities and basically once we started looking around the other cities there we found that basically we're one of the only cities that have the 10 foot wide spaces. All the other ones have adjusted to 9 foot over the years. Um and basically when we looked at kind of you know the way Port Orange is developing with more and more our development is going to be re
redevelopment infill lots then so we're going to be dealing with more constrained lots the ability to reduce the parking space while it does seem minimal one foot then that does allow for a little bit more flexibility in the design of the site then um so the staff is recommending that we approve the um
code code change to reduce the minimum widths for parking space from 10t to 9 foot. Um on the screen are just a few of the locations that have been approved and installed with the 9 foot wide spaces. Um again those are you know throughout the the city both larger shopping centers and also smaller infill
lots than that we've done over the course of the time. >> Okay. Keep on going or you want us to vote on that one? >> I thought we could do question and answers on that one. >> Okay. Let's do that. Read. >> Yeah. I um all four places that you've
given here as examples, Tim, are just places I hate that I have to park my truck. And I will tell you, as someone that now has a two kids, I have the 8-year-old and I have the year and a half old. I also can't stand when I pull into one of these places and I have to let my wife get our son out of the car
in the car seat because they're just so cramped. And I know nine's kind of standard, I guess, or there's a lot of stays around, but um I I think we should stay at 10. Um, I I if we stay at 10, then I wouldn't be entertaining uh making amendments to
future agreements either, just because I I can't stand when I got to park my truck. You drive a 350, you know what I'm talking about. Uh, I mean, even in these pictures, you know, you see a lot of four-door sedans like uh you see a
>> looks like just a Prius and Toyota Corolla. I mean, yeah, those are great for 9 foot spaces, but I mean, we live in Florida and a lot of people drive big trucks and SUVs. So, for me personally, I'm a no on this. I I would like to see us stay at 10 ft. >> Tracy,
>> it's difficult. I'm not going to disagree with Councilman Foley. You know, the difference if looking at Ford product from a Maverick Ranger to a F-150 to a 350, it's uh it's challenging. We still live in a
community that still has rural base that has horse farms out on 415 that is dealing with superduties and uh diesels and big trucks. So having those and community base coming into the township and having difficulties to park or don't
want to think about it park at the very far end because there are no parking places close enough because the parking place is too smaller. It's uh I have to agree 10 foot versus 9 foot. This goes back to I think we voted on something
kind of crazier to to make the similarity, but uh housings with the lot lines being so close, we had to put AC units on the back of the house because the AC units on the side of the houses were on the zero lot lines and they were
burning up. So now we're going to put cars even closer I grant you're showing me examples that it's already there, but I don't think it needs to be free will that every one of them is that way. Just my opinion,
>> oh, I'm so glad you showed me these pictures cuz I was always wondering why it was so darn difficult to back in and I was like, what is going on here? I I just never could understand it. Now I understand it. We made an exception to what we were I guess what we were doing.
And I hate to make you work harder and um but this this and I've witnessed this down in South Florida as well I believe somewhere where I just find it very difficult to park and um so I'm I'm not
in favor of it. >> Thanks. >> So Tim just a couple things. So in in this report you state that there have been no documented operational or safety issues with parking lots developed with 9 foot spaces. What does that mean?
>> We have not received any complaints basically in our department basically after a project's been approved and build about that then. >> Okay. If you're >> you got some tonight. >> Okay. But I I would be curious to know as the police department how many how
many fender benders we have in these parking lots. That would just be my statistically speaking. >> I think we've had fender benders in parking lots that have 10 foot spaces. >> I get it. I get it. >> That's more of a driving issue on that point. >> So, um I'll just say this. I'm of the
mindset that if if we had a redevelopment project on a piece of property that was challenged, I would be more adapt to to the a review of a variance than I would be to just say, "Let's just go throw them on all 9 ft."
>> So, I I would look at it as if it was a redevelopment issue, Tim, I would I would agree to it. But something brand new, I not really. Who's it benefiting? It's benefiting the developer to squeeze more spots in there than it is to to the people.
>> And respectfully, if anything, I I mean, maybe there's a way we can look at the maximum number of required spots, lowering that if we need to help the developer, you know, but I'd rather have I'd rather have 10 foot wide and let them not put one spot in there than to try to cram it in at 9 ft.
>> I agree with you 100% on that. I I don't know if it's a state law that you have to have certain amount of you know I I don't I don't know that's why >> no no there's a code yeah there's a formula how many how many spaces that we have most most of the time you know they are wanting to put less spaces in at 9
foot I mean one compromise I think one reason why we're trying to do this too is in terms of when we're doing redevelopment infill basically the ability to basically approve those and not have to go through a public hearing process in terms of timing there is one of the issues that we're trying to streamline that >> I would rather do I would rather do Yeah,
>> maybe we look at basically a code me that gets set up for the redevelopment projects to fall for that versus new newer developments then and come back with a different proposal. >> But that way in terms of the variances if it's a re like the Dutch brothers one that's a good example of basically a very constrained site which basically in
order needed the 9 foot spaces to make that work then if they didn't get the 9 foot spaces it was not going to work and may have just been left at that um gas station there. But could we have not given said, "Hey, we're willing to give them a variance of less required spaces because that's our code. We can't can't we have that variance option."
>> They were they were going to walk away from that one because they their model required a certain number of spaces. >> Okay. >> On there then. So that was a case where our code was requiring >> but again >> more they required more on theirs than our code. So that's what we you deal with sometimes on that. >> But again, Tim, that's a challenged
piece of property. That's a unique piece of property. So, I I could understand let's let's try and work with them on on something like that, but I don't want to go and and lay down the groundwork of the code to say they're all going to be nine foot no matter what. >> Well, not to mention, I mean, we're we're near full buildout. I mean, at all
reality, if if people want to do business in Port Orange, which I I think is a good place to do business. You know, maybe your policy is not as important as what we have going here. We know what our residents want. We've been the way we've been for years. It's a reason why people want to live in Port Orange. So, I'm not interesting in
lowering my standards. >> No. >> Yeah. I So, this this particular one I kind of figured would be a hard sell on a council where all five of us drive trucks, but um there's probably some interesting video footage out there at certain businesses of me being the little guy that I am trying to squeeze
out of a truck in a in a parking space. Some of them are are are kind of tight. So, I get it. I mean, very very valid points. But, let's just Anybody in the public want to want to speak to this >> coffee shop? I I I was Come on, Robert. >> Robert can fit his
>> I was thinking Robert's going to get here and say I want to see the mayor getting in and out of his truck in these 9 foot spaces. Go ahead, Robert. Welcome. >> Mayor, council members, Robert Reinhagen, 1425 Dexter Drive, Port Orange. Um, I do have a car
and it's it's only a Mitsubishi, a little Mitsubishi three-cylinder Mirage. And I hardly use it, but I already have two dings on it. >> It's not for my truck, I promise. >> And so, um, yeah, I I think you should
leave it at 10. And if anything, stop giving variances for nine. >> Thank you. Thanks, Robert. >> Thank you, Robert. >> I thought for sure he was going to come up here and say we need to all switch to ebikes. >> So, anybody else in the public wish to speak? Come on up here.
>> Welcome. >> That's okay. You're >> We're glad to have folks here that engage us here. So, >> and I'm Patricia Miles and I live at 1508 Palm Drive in Fort Orange. and in listening to all of this and of course tonight I brought my cane because of the
uneven floor. But as we get older, we have times where we can't we have to either have canes or walkers or wheelchairs. And I know we have handicap spots at different places, but we run out of those very quickly.
>> And it's easier for us, the seniors, to have that extra space. So, I would appreciate your considering that as well. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. >> All right. Back to council. Any any other comments? I think I know where this one's going. The proverbial writing
on the wall. Uh we'll go ahead and take a vote on this one. Clerk call the role for ordinance number 2025-22. >> Councilman Fing. >> No. >> Councilman Ger. >> No. Green. >> No. >> Vice. >> No. Mayor >> No. 50. We're going to leave him 10 ft.
>> Go right ahead, my friend. He did that one first because it was a sacrifice. So you'll support all the rest of >> all good. So it in all seriousness, these are the kind of things that's that's it's the responsibility of staff to bring this kind of stuff to us. So >> and we appre we appreciate that.
>> That's that yeah, it's any go ahead. >> All right, we'll go on the next one here. This one um came from from the state um in terms of basically direction from a Senate bill that basically essentially it states that for the subd plans those are to be approved now administratively no longer come before
public hearings then. Um so what this code amendment does is to revise the pro process for approving a plat. It's basically administratively and to designate the staff member who has to sign off on the platin. So it does two items. Um it does not change any of the requirements for designing a
subdivision. still has to meet all those requirements there. Does not change anything about just change the approval process of not having to come before a public hearing. >> And since uh Mr. City attorney, did you want to weigh in? >> Uh please vote yes on this one.
>> So this is more of a ministerial uh type of obligation on behalf of our city to comply with with state law. Uh anybody here want to make a comment on this one? No. Good. Anybody from the public wish to speak on ordinance 2025-23?
We will do our best to continue to comply legally. Back to council. Call the role on ordinance number 2025-23. >> Council. >> Yes. Council. >> Yes. >> Councilman Green. >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Gross. >> Yes.
>> Yes. We can do a 32 guys as long as gets done. So go right ahead. Ordinance number 2025-24. Next one is about the um LED signs. About 15 years ago is when we first introduced into the LED signs into our code and it seems like every year we kind of you know as technology increases
we're kind of going back every 5 years and kind of updating our codes there. Um went from just having initially just the shopping centers be able to have the LED signs like advertised tenants. Um when we did the last sign code update about 5 years ago, we said that basically single um commercial businesses could also have
the LED signs. Um we've always had kind of a 60-second time period on there. Um, and as we basically getting more and more inquiries about signs or people who have signs, the question comes up in terms of speeding up that display time period from 60 seconds um, on there to,
you know, what other cities have. So, we of course went back and looked at some of what the other cities in the area have and they have kind of a range between 5 to 15 seconds. Um, so what we've recommended is a 10-second display time for an LED sign. Um, our code still prohibits the kind of the scrolling, the
flashing, so that would still be in place. It can just be a simple transition. Um there it would just other than so this code amendment would change the display time only from 60 seconds to 10 seconds for the LED signs. >> Anything else?
>> That's all. >> We'll start at this end. Lance, go right ahead. >> As a young lad, I was on the planning board when this first came in front of us. >> Full servant. So was I. >> Yes, you were. Um but but I thought that we set that rule for a reason and that
reason was like traffic and the interference of cars driving down the road seeing something flashing too fast. Was this not a subject back then? >> I think we talked about that then and we put in the requirements about the no
scrolling, no flashing as part of the message. It can just be a static message which this would still be. It'd be basically just the static message and every 10 seconds that message would change then. But you are correct. There was concerns with having like you know the flashing and the scrolling like display on those signs.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Not there. That was put in place there and I think we set that 60 time 60second time there. Honestly, we didn't think it was going to prove 15 years ago. >> Well, I think we did that because it was gas stations. Gas stations were changing their price every minute. >> So, I think that's why we had that. But
yeah, one of the keys was basically that really on that one was really the the scrolling and making sure that you didn't have the flashing which we put in our code and we've kept that in the code and that would stay with this too. >> So what's the difference between flashing and and and the 10 seconds? >> Well, basically in 10 seconds it's a static message and then it would
basically transition to the new message. Then um this this flashing would be kind of like the mult strobe lights >> on there or you know kind of having like you know the old jumbotron thing where it shows a guy running across it. Then that would be more the flashing scrolling which we tried to which we
basically prohibit and was one of the issues that basically were cited in those studies as basically that is distracting to drivers. >> So we're at 60 seconds now and you want to go to 10. >> The proposal is 10 seconds for the message to change. Is that what DOT uses for their electronic billboards on on
the internet? >> Theirs are either 8 seconds of the DOT uses >> and and you've seen when you drive down I4 when they do those transitions. I'm going too fast. >> That's basically >> the thing too with most of our signs basically the corridors that they are located on are arterial corridors where basically you know Dunlot and Clyde
Morris Nova. So the the corridors where basically you are traveling at least 45 miles an hour then. Um so really the only time you're actually seeing that method change is if you're at a traffic light. Okay, >> that's all I know. Sean, >> so um no, I'm perfectly good with this
actually. Um I've come the I I didn't like it early on and when I remember when this debate came, I wanted it I didn't want the scrolling and the flashing and uh but now I'm waiting for that next ad to come because I look at I pay a little more attention to that. It
just doesn't happen fast enough. So 10 seconds I'm good with it. Yeah, I I I'm okay with it. I want to be a I want to be a businessfriendly city and if this is something that helps our businesses, if this is I mean I I don't think this is a huge ask. Um a little
surprised that the new director of the Chamber of Commerce isn't here advocating for it tonight. We'll all start. >> Oh, okay. I'll follow up with him later. Tracy Reed, anything? >> I I think it's just phenomenal. I mean, we came up and we asked about this uh couple weeks ago and have staff bring
this forward to us. Thank you. Um for businesses, this is huge. And what it does for businesses, it will enhance and allow for plazas to be able to have more kiosks to be able to maintain what a business is inside some of these strip
malls that you're not having to have these huge monument signs. It'll have a single sign and it flips every 10 seconds. It saves space, more green space at the same time so they can be found. So >> those points, >> good idea.
>> Read >> only scrolling I'm worried about people doing or involving driving is people scrolling on their phones, not what's going on signs. >> Um, no, I think this I 60 seconds seems extremely too long. Um, and I don't
really have an issue with going down to 10. Um, yeah, as long as there's no flashing and scrolling, I think it makes a lot of sense. It's good for businesses and good for getting that information out there. Um, I had one more thing, but I I've dropped it out of my head and can't find
it. So, >> well, we're going to come back in just a second. >> All right. >> Uh, anybody from the public want to speak to it other than Robert? Come. >> Nothing. All right. Anybody else? No. Okay. Back to us. >> So, so, so is this time debatable? I
mean, is this now remember? Is this time debatable? We're going from 60 seconds to 10 seconds. Can we go to 30? >> I mean, I'm just asking. >> Well, >> I think we're going pretty extreme from from >> Can I piggy back on that and ask a question? >> Go ahead.
>> Cuz I I was thinking about this. When we have events, the city will put the trailers up that have the LED signs that'll be like fireworks, Fourth of July, and you know, kind of like usually in front of Walmart. >> Do we know how fast those change when we set them up? Cuz they do. They usually change message. I feel like they change
about every 15 seconds and and to me that was kind of the number I was circling if we're going to debate what the seconds are going to be. No answer, no idea. >> I'm just curious if it was if it was if the number was debatable, but if you're >> we looked at kind of what other cities
use and also too we kind of indicated the studies that we looked at too and basically kind of went that middle point of that which was that 10-second area. I just think we should give our business owners the same opportunity. If if we're changing our signs every eight or every 10, then why shouldn't they be able to?
>> Well, and I think I think we should, you know, depending on the business, they may still want to keep it at 15 or 20 or 30 seconds. And I want to give them some flexibility there, too. And and then other businesses may, like to Tracy's point, they may want that to change every 10 seconds. And while 10 seconds is a short amount of time, it doesn't
take 10 seconds to look at both signs and go, "Okay, I got that." And then it goes to the next thing. So, um I'm I'm okay at 10 with >> I'm good with anything. >> Yeah. >> So, I want to just talk about this isn't for existing signs. This is actually for
anyone that now wants to install a sign because it makes sense to them to have multiple messages every 10 seconds. >> This would basically be for existing signs could basically go down to 10 seconds per message then because the code would be now 10 seconds. And then anyone who got a new sign would also
have to follow this rule if it went to 10. >> Okay. So like down on US1 where there's multiple businesses located and they don't have these signs, they can start having these signs installed. >> Mhm. >> And and is there a certain size? Are they signs that could be in the window?
>> I mean, are we open enough? >> Basically, the only the LED would be on the monument sign and basically is um regulated by 25% of the allowed sign area then. So >> Okay. So all that stays the same. on Ridgewood you'd have be a 32 or 48 square foot sign. So the max you get is like a probably 12 square feet. I think
one example on Ridgewood would be um I think it's the Eagles Club. It's on on there. They have one that's on there then >> and um they're and >> and I think you know Culver's is another example of why um >> Culver's was the one I was thinking of >> and you're not going to see you're not
going to see a lot of these cuz you know Ridgewood corridor is is a lot of mom and pop local businesses and these signs aren't cheap. signs that are going to do this are considerably different than the standard static sign that doesn't have that kind of technology, but you're going to see a few and and and those
folks down there could do this now anyway. U they just only change every 60 seconds. So, >> cool. >> All right, I think we're good here. Let's uh have a clerk call the role on ordinance number 2025-24.
>> Can Sorry, just point of clarification. We're going with 10 seconds is what we're voting on. >> That's the motion. Councilman Ger, >> yes. >> Councilman Green, >> no. >> Vice Mayor Cros, >> yes. >> Mayor, >> yes. 41. >> Let's try this one. >> All right. See if we can get
>> Ordinance number 2025-25. >> So, this one is something that comes up quite a bit in terms of as we are working with um property owners who are looking to make improvements on existing homes and looking to build um wooden decks on their home. So the current code
requirement that we have states that an elevated wooden deck the setback for that is 5 foot from the property line and then every foot that that deck is above 1 ft above grade is basically another twoft setback then. So the
example that we have right here is basically is a house here which you can see the outline of the home and then you can see the wooden deck that's proposed here. This is a two-story wooden deck. So on the first floor is a wooden deck and on the sec then they have it elevated 10 ft above the 10 ft and they
have a 10ft deck on the second part which you're seeing right here. Then so this deck is technically the floor of the deck is elevated 10 ft from the property or 10 ft from the ground. The way the code reads this deck requires a 23 ft side setback from the lot line.
Now the homeowner could basically essentially build a second story room or second or basically addition onto his house and put the deck on top of that house and then that setback would be 7 and 1/2 ft. And we get quite a few inquiries about doing these projects and once they find
out because the side step setback for the deck elevated deck is so much further than basically the a residential like doing a porch I mean basically a screen room or a porch there then they go with that option and put the deck on top of it. then or they scrap the idea.
The other area that we have some problems with too is that more and more of our homes are basically being built on stem walls. So basically the home is sitting about 3 ft above the um the ground and in cases where we have what we talked about are smaller setbacks then where you have a 5ft to 7 and 1/2 ft side setback and they want to put a
deck off the back of their house that is basically at the level of where come out there. Like in this case, 3ft deck, a 3ft above ground would probably 9 foot set back. But you might have a home that has 5T setback or 7 and 1/2T. So you're having to bring that deck in, but they come in,
they want to build an addition onto a home or a screen room or a glass room or like you can build the 5T then. And that's where kind of the questions come in like why can I build this type of structure and put a deck structure on top of it, but you won't let me build a
wooden deck? And you know, we typically get quite a few of those that come in here. Um, we've not had any variances come through. We usually have people either scrap the idea or they change it and basically go with an addition on the home. So, this code amendment would kind of put us more in line with the other
accessory structures that we have in our code, which are all pretty much in terms of the um setbacks required to be equal to what the building setback of the side structure side setback is what the structure is. So, five and a half or seven and then equal to the rear setback then. And also too, the formula does get
messed up quite a bit in terms of calculating that. I commit when I first started, I probably screwed that up a few times um on that then. So, this would basically give us a more easy followed formula. So, basically contractors or homeowners that are looking at our code can also kind of calculate what the setbacks might be if they want to do this type of
improvement. I'm going to uh I'm going to have to say that I learned something tonight realizing that you're saying that we get that many people that are doing this because I was >> I think we start seeing more and more on Riverside Drive just because you get the views. Yeah. >> But we are seeing kind of, you know, the the decks, you know, and and then with
the new homes being on built on there with the stem wall. We're starting to see more and more inquirers come along that corridor >> um for those types of decks. >> All right. Well, let's uh let's see what our resident contractor has to say. >> I think it's a great idea. You >> have the way to go, huh? >> Yeah. >> Okay.
Me too. Fantastic. >> 25%. >> It's hysterical that you know what you just said as far as building the deck at a a second floor height got him to that other setback. >> You know that's that's a oops.
>> All I can think is as I was talking about this with Wayne today over lunch is that the intention had to be that they didn't want people to be able to build onto a floor to be able to see like into neighbors yards or something to that effect. But but the code is outdated. It makes no sense. I mean, I
think this absolutely makes it's a great idea. >> I will admit as I've tried to make sure I understand this. So, it's it's 7 and 1/2 ft side. That's per side. So, from either side >> or but it does have to be 7 and 1/2 ft from both. And then, but the rear is
still 25 ft. >> Yeah. They basically put it be 25t then on the rear. Then >> that just seems excessive to me. that that actually I I don't know why and this was the thing kind of became the sticking point when I was talking to Wayne. Why are we why is it okay to be
seven and a half feet from the side from your neighbor's house but you have to be 25 ft from the back of your property. Get whoever wants to go for it. >> You want me to answer that one? >> I was going to say >> the contract. I mean, general rule of thumb though, right, Tammy, is that that
structure is is a different structure, but then you would still have room to put a pool in behind that house in that 25 ft and you could have a pool within 5t of the property line. >> Yeah, it's it's a all the cities I've worked in, it's fairly standard. The front and backyards are your big yards, your side yards are your small. So, you
have a big backyard so that you can put playground stuff and pools and trampolines and things like that. So, and park cars and driveways in the front. sides are always narrower. Everywhere I've been, that's the dimensional. >> Well, and maybe it's just the the fortunate or the the lot that I have. If
you were to walk from, you know, my house to my property line in the back, I I probably have all of 15 to 20 feet on the back of mine right now. So, I could never build a deck back there at all because I'll never have 25 ft. And so, I just don't know that
that's 25 ft shouldn't also be looked at to be brought down just a little bit. If you can go seven and a half to the side, I don't know why you have to be 25 from the rear. I feel like we should allow our residents to have a little more flexibility on on the rear as well and lower that number, but >> they could always apply for a variance.
>> Always we're not going to approve one for you. >> No, I'm just tell every lot's different. I mean, every every lot is different and every neighborhood's different as well. I mean, Sleepy Hollow might have been built with different setbacks. >> That's true, too. >> Okay. So, you got to go with whatever's in the zoning of that neighborhood when
it was built. >> Yeah, good point. I think also on that one the rear basically the way we set it up too was it's um if you we keep we're keeping the formula there and basically either use a formula or what basically the required setback of that zone district is. So in terms of the rear yard kind of in your case then if you
wanted to put one that's elevated 3T above the ground then that would only be a 9 foot step setback would use whatever is less than. So you and I are required to eat the 25 foot then. >> No, >> as long as you understand it, Tim. >> So as long >> the intent the intent was basically kind
of to your point then if you wanted if you had a backyard and you built your home to a 25t rear setback then you're going to be like hey I've got no room to put this deck on here then. Right. But if you wanted to put one that was you know 2 feet above ground basically then we basically wrote the setback. So basically, we could still use that
current setback because the current setback would be more beneficial than using your >> your your setbacks for your structure. So we got the either or option in here and we go with whatever is less than. >> As long as as long as it's pro homeowner, then I'm I'm good for voting for it. >> All right. Anybody from the public wish
to weigh in on this one? No. All right. Back to council. Call the role on what is this one? 20 ordinance 2025-25. Councilman Fley. >> Yes. >> Council Gford. >> Yes. >> Councilman Green. >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Graves. >> Yes. >> Mayor,
>> yes. 50. On to our only regular agenda item for the evening. Item 18, fund balance policy discussion. All right. So, uh to kind of frame this one and uh we'll get
moving forward on this. So the city has a fund balance and we uh about 10 years ago for the first time we implemented a fund balance policy. I think back then because my first year on council my recollection was our fund balance was
over 50%. Um and it was just time to establish a policy and a and a and a and a reason why to that. And so we did that and we've stayed with that current policy all the way up until tonight. We can stick with it if you guys want. So the purpose of this particular
discussion is going to talk about specifically to that policy. Now we're not talking about how to spend fund balance tonight or voting or on any of those kind of of things. I know in the in the packet it's got some examples of things that you can do with it which
kind of will help us as we go through this discussion. But for tonight, the the the what what we are focused on is is do we want to change our policy and what does that mean? Um I will let you know that
in my discussions with the city manager um that you know the policy is done or has been done to to this date by a percentage. Um that's how we set that policy. But in setting that you don't
really know what does that mean in real dollars, right? So we have unfortunately had a couple of very significant historic events and now we have even a better opportunity to have a discussion in terms of real dollars. What does it
really mean? So that you can say okay well is 7 million enough to have in in fund balances 15 million what we need based on what we have actually learned and based on our experiences which I wish we had not ever had them. So um I I'm going to let the city manager did
you want to weigh in first Wayne talk about what we're here and kind of frame this up a little bit make sure we're all on board and understand what we're what we're looking to do here tonight. As the mayor pointed out, the the GFOA, the the financial people who tell you how you
should run a city effectively, want you to have some form of savings account off of your operating costs, no different you would at your own home. So, you're always being told, make sure you've got some extra money for your mortgage, for your car payment, for your groceries, uh your utility bills, so that if something
happens, you can carry on and operate in an emergency situation. This same thing, much bigger scale. uh they generally say about two months if you're not in an area prone to to major disasters. That's how you get the the 16.7 because it's two months divided by 12. U is the the
point is the the percentage helps you as your because your general fund operating costs change over time. And so we're in the ballpark of $60 million general fund operating. Our policy requires you to add transfers in there. So things that we transfer out for one times are
included. So we have we're working off of about a $67 million total and that's where we get the 30 to35 for us is currently real dollars about $20 million to 24 million. So where we're at today when we brought you the draft budget
back in July balanced at a 5.03 millage rate council set max down at five. When we started looking at how to get down to the five, one of the things we did was look at fund balance and figure out, are there some things in there that we can do, what we had determined is that a few
years back, the finance director at the time shifted our policy for how we pay for some of our public safety vehicles, and we were doing short-term financing for fire trucks and some police cars. Don't really have to do it that way. You don't save tons more money than you
would keeping money in fund balance at the interest it earns. Uh so what we what we have done to balance the budget for you is we're going to pay those off in cash using fund balance which what we and we also know when council sets max most of the time the council's really asking us to find something a little bit
lower than the max. So, when we were looking at the the fund balance and what to do, we can get it down to the to a flat where it is right now at the 4975 by by basically paying the debt on those trucks and those police cars. And that what it will leave you with is today as
we're here, we have an estimated fund balance just a little under 20 million. So, it's right at your 30%, the bottom end of your threshold. So you're today you're sitting at without going through the the audited process of finishing this year and adding whatever will be not spent in this year's budget. So we a
little bit over a month left to go and then that money will then go back into fund balance. But right now you're looking at about 20 million um from that. The other thing to to frame from is what what do we typically see spent in in a case of an emergency. So, we've had a number of hurricanes recently,
unfortunately, going all the way back to the Matthew Irma era and through. So, what we found in the in the the original two or three is that we spent about $7 million fairly quickly on the hurricanes. The bulk of that is is debris removal. So, about four, a little
over four maybe is is the cost of getting people in here to pick up all that trash off the street, haul it off, get rid of it. uh you spend between equipment, staff time, things like that, you get another million or so. And then the rest of the funds are typically
things that got beat up by the hurricane and you it takes a while to rebuild. So the memorial park where we just redid the pier. So that's Ian damage that we just did this summer. So that's the last that you usually see coming back. So, if you have a $7 million hurricane, the the
four four and a half uh in recent years, they have been way better at getting it to us. So, you know, 10 those people have been around for hurricanes for 10, 15, 20 years. It could be 5 years or more before you saw some of your money back. Uh now that they basically monitor it. So, when you go do debris removal,
you have preset contracts. You have contracts on where to take it. The companies that come in have preset prices. They have a company that follows them around and checks everything they pick up and checks everything they dump. So that speeds up the process of getting your money back because they're already
kind of doing the things that in confirm that they're not paying you for something that didn't get done. So that that while it's a pain in the to do that, it has it has gotten our big bulk of our money back quicker. So we're now seeing this money coming back in under two years. Most of it is is 15, you
know, 12 a little over a year. I wouldn't sound like we've ever got it back in 12 months, but somewhere between like 14 and 16. You get the bulk of the money back. Within about two years, you're getting your personnel money and then the projects just depend on how long it takes you to permit them and get them done and get them reimbursed afterwards.
>> Now, on the go back and touch base on the projects because my recollection was uh the way it used to be um like you you noticed you you talked about Memorial Park. though the way it used to be, you could you could expedite that, spend money out of your fund balance and then
file and wait on your reimbursement to come back. But now, isn't aren't some of these projects, they're not allowing us to pay for them first, they won't reimburse you, >> right? So, >> you got to get them approved. They will you will pay for them first >> ultimately, but you have to go through their process and have them approve them
for >> you don't want if you spend the money on your own and then go, "Hey, we just fixed this for $2 million. Can we get in your cycle to get reimbursed? That they won't. But if you bring them along the entire way. So Cambridge is one of those projects. So we're designing Cambridge
with a reimbursement from FEMA in mind. So we're that's part of what's making that take longer is because we are making sure that every eyes dotted and te's crossed so that when that project goes forward and we spend our fund balance money and our capital money on it, FEMA will give us the money back. So
that that's that's how that works. you still pay it upfront, but but you you you definitely you have to go with them in order to get any chance of getting it back. >> So, I I would I would just offer um from a position of having been up here the longest that a lot of this has
definitely changed over the years. The the rate at which we would get our money back has significantly gotten better and and increase. We get things back a lot faster. like Wayne is talking about, you know, 10, 11, 12 years ago. When I first got on council, we were still getting money back from things that happened
when I was still a police officer. Uh that's how long it was taken on some of these storms, but now that money comes back into into the city much quicker. Um and then the change he noted there, I'm glad he talked about that cuz cuz that's different as well. So before we were
spending pretty much everything. we were we were outlaying that money to get things done and then going through that process and hoping for reimbursement which we usually did pretty well on that but that process took a lot longer as well. So I just think it's important to
as we consider this policy to to know what that means. So Wayne, what else you got? Other than we we are also part of the state's FROCK process and I'm blanking now what rock stands for but uh it basically is a backs stop financing
mechanism so that if you do happen to not have money you can go get it at was it zero or low interest zero interest loan. So we you can go instead of having to go to a bank and pay interest and borrow money like some people did during the other hurricanes. If things are really really bad we have never needed
it and never come close. We have always been able to pay our own debts and cover this cost. But but that is at least there and exists as a backs stop through the state that there's a program. So for everybody just in in the event you have three or four in one year there they have at least got a program as a backs
stop to help the local governments with with some emergency funding. >> And we also are a favorable city to loan money to. So we uh we set pretty good standing with that. Reed questions for city manager. Uh, I don't have any questions for him. >> Okay.
>> I understand what we're doing here. >> It's pretty straightforward. >> Lance, questions? >> I do. Um, so so Wayne, if if I'm picking up what you're you're telling me is a storm cost us $7 million, but now because we're getting better fin getting
reimbured, it's only really going to cost us $4 million. Is that what you're saying? >> It still costs seven. Okay. >> You just get your seven back. >> It's a lot faster than it used to. >> What does that have to do with this? What does it have to do with the fund balance? >> This is your savings account. You're using your savings account. So you you
would normally use up if you had two hurricanes in a year, you'd use 14 million and it may be 5 years before you got it back and your fund your savings account would be zero. You'd have no money. >> So you can't really afford to be in a position where you've got zero fund. It also affects your credit rating. If you if your fund balance gets too low,
people don't want to loan you money. >> That that was going to be my next question. Does it affect our bond rating? >> It would. Yes. If you go too low, it would >> depend on how much cash you have. Correct. >> Yes, that is clearly one of the things when we did the parks bond that they looked at. >> So you you definitely don't want to go below the GFOA recommendation for sure.
That would that would not be favorable. We get dinged on an audit for that and guarantee it. The the relevance to the storm thing is merely an example because like when I first came on council, we first set this policy. We we we didn't have that. We didn't know, okay, well,
if if we have a hurricane Ian, what can we expect to spend? So we were we were formulating a policy without knowing what that real dollar really meant. Now unfortunately you've had two historic storms in the last three years. We know what that number is. So when you say
well how do I know if I need 20% or 30%. Well now we can say well listen if you had two Ians in the same year you can plan on spending about $14 million. >> Right. Okay. >> Right. Right. >> Any forgot Milton was a little little
bit less. Milton was under six. So it it we a lot of bad flooding, but I think there were some of it was we've been hit enough times that a lot of the debris from the tree. It wasn't a heavy windstorm. A lot of the debris wasn't there from the trees and I think our
people after Ian there was some decent resilience done individually. So we didn't pick up as much debris from the houses second time either. So the total amount of debris removal was probably what lowered that cost down to to >> Well, realistically, let's be honest, God forbid you had two storms in the
same storm year. Your debris is still out there. You're picking up the same debris. >> So when I'm just asking the question, so okay, so let's just say we got $20 million in checking account and storm comes and we got to we got to we got to spend six million. >> We're going to get some of that money
back. >> Almost all of it. >> Okay. But you're going to get it back. So I guess I'm just trying to the fund balance does this as your money out money in kind of reimbursement kind of thing I guess is >> does your fund balance fluctuate based
on reimbursements and you know I'm guessing >> well go ahead do you want to >> so some of that will if you're using it let's just say you don't have a hurricane and you have $20 million in there is you're going to keep the $20 million at the next year but at the end
of the year you have $220 million budget you have60 millions. 70 million of it is general fund. So at the end of the year, vacancies in your big departments that are funded by general funds, so fire, police, parks, uh those vacancies, those dollars don't get spent. There's side there's side dollars associated with
them not being there. So there's uniforms, vehicle, uh other things, operating costs that don't get spent when there's vacancy. So at the end of each year, you never spend a 100%. Most people do not budget to the 100. somewhere between 85 to 92 or so, you
know, so you're always going to have some rollover of unspent money. In the years past, some of the times where we had the really high fund balance numbers, you have 20 empty positions in the police department, six in the fire department, 15 in public works, you know, you're you're putting three and
four million into fund balance at the end of the year because it just didn't get spent. Uh during the COVID years, we had a whole bunch of capital projects that were general fund capital projects. You saw this year when we looked at you had, you know, 105 million in general fund capital projects. That money didn't
get spent at all. So that rolled over as well. Now, if it's allocated to capital, it doesn't show as unallocated funds. So, one of the things that's happened with us changing finance directors is you have different approaches to how they show the money. So, the the fund balance that the auditor is going to
look at what it is at the end of the year and tell you what it is. But if a finance director has moved some of that money into a project, then it's it's not listed as fund balance. It's listed as allocated to a project. So in the past, we've had some of that money that we all knew. Wreck, when wreck came through, there was wreck money that was just left
in fund balance. So a couple of the years when the fund balance showed really high, it was money that was going to go finish the wreck project. It just happened to have been still showing in the fund balance. So it it will fluctuate up and down depending on what you spend. you know, if you you budget
$100, you only spend 90. $10 of it gets added to your savings account. Uh but if you $10, if the $5 of that $10 is really, you know, you're going to have to go out and buy something with it, you really don't have 10. You only have five, but it still will show is adding 10. So there's a there's a lot of art to
to how fund balance gets done. >> Okay. So then when we do when we do annual budgets, do we budget a certain amount of money to go do fund balance? No, you don't. >> We don't put certain amount in savings. >> Not not as as long as you were meeting your policy. That that's I got you. If
you were to fall below the policy, we would have come to you and said add get it back up there. >> If I give a very quick example, during the co time, uh we had a lot of vacancies in both fire and police and general employees. So, as those salaries weren't spent, that money at the end of the year would get added to the general
fund and then we can find ways to expend it. >> But you're going to expend it when you hire them people. >> Yeah. But but that's the next budget cycle. Okay. >> So it's like a once if you imagine like a once a year whatever you didn't spend goes into this savings account and you spend it on other things that are one
time expenditures ideally. >> Yeah. And keep in mind too so historically where has large amounts of money needed to be used. It's it's during storm seasons. >> And so that's that's really what this is mostly about >> and fire trucks, >> right? So, and the the other thing is
keep in mind that there are there are ways for us to also react to making financial decisions. We're going to go to the bud we're going to go through the budget cycle every year, guys. Right. >> Okay. So, I mean, there are there are other ways to react. So really what what what we the kind of the way I see to
focus on this is getting our fund balance into a realistic perspective so that there is money that's out there to be utilized that we can reinvest into our community, get caught up on some projects and still feel very safe based
on what we've seen historically that we're making a good decision but yet we're going to get caught up on some things and we're going to make some investments. And so that's kind of way I would I would recommend you look at it. You know, if you look out here, like Orund, Orman carries 9.9 million. So,
we've got 24 million or 23.45 million roughly sitting in our fund balance compared to Orman at 9.9 million. By the way, some of them don't actually have policies. They This is just where they're at, right currently. So, I I remember watching an actual council discussion in Orman. They use the GFOA
minimum. That is what they actually will acknowledge is there's their thing. So they might be a little high at the moment, but their minimum is just to stay above that GFOA recommendation. So you look at New Smr, they basically have $18 million. Deltona, I'm not sure I understand the Deltona thing. They do a
specific thing for hurricanes. >> Two of them have a specific set aside for hurricanes and then they have their other fund balance and then they have they have a lot of money set aside in a savings. So very large amount of money in a savings account. >> Well, that's how we had this conversation. >> Miller rate.
>> Yeah, we're going to move this forward, guys. I promise. That is kind of how we had this conversation over 10 and a half years ago is people were saying what is all this money for? Like what is it there for? It needs to be serving a purpose. If it's not serving a purpose, you need to create a policy and you need to invest that money back into the
community. So that's kind of the discussion to have with that. So all right, >> anybody have any more specific questions on what we're trying to do here, Sean? >> So I think u my conversation at our last meeting may have sparked this conversation here. Am I correct? Uh well, it's actually a conversation we've
we've actually had for a while, but yes, we need to get it going. We need to get the policy going. >> Yeah. So, so right now we're at uh uh 30 30 to 35. If we went to 25 to 30, does that free up money to get the things
that you just mentioned done, projects done, because we we don't we're not obligated to be at 35%. we have the money above the so if we if we we obligated ourselves to be at 25 to 30 does that free up that money to get
these things that are important done. So, so in anytime, yes. And so, anytime you we we adjust this policy or we establish this pol a new policy tonight, anything that's over that will become now part of the discussion to say, okay, you have X dollars. What do you want to
get done? What do you want to get done with it? And there I will tell you like these are some these are some ideas, but these are not everything. There is there's going to be a great discussion on that night. That'll be a good time. Um but but yes that so once we establish that policy that will then dictate once
they close out this year's fiscal year right wing step in if I'm if I'm saying this wrong close out this fiscal year they will now be able to come back and say okay you have this much over your fund balance policy give us direction what does council want us and expect us to do to invest this back into the
community get some of these things off of our list that we want to work on >> the current policy says 30 to 35 if you go below you have I think it's 3 years to come back and you have to develop a plan to get it up to the minimum. If you go above, the current policy says take the above and spend it on general fund
capital. So that's the current approach is what we do is like if if you were to say tonight you want to go to 25 so you drop it down to about 17 million that that's 3 million more than we we bring you a budget and you adopt a budget at 4.975 millillage. That's going to be 3
million above what you're set at. You it's completely your call as council as the mayor said. What do you want us to do with that three million? You can leave it in the fund balance. You can tell us to allocate to a capital project, but but it's going to be up to you to decide where you want that money to go. We'll bring you a lot of ideas and our recommendations, but you'll get
to decide. >> And and you're wanting this to be a range like this or ideally the fund balance is not a number or a hard number. It's more of a range. >> You definitely need a minimum. the top helps in that it gives us an idea when we're too high, which was, as the mayor pointed out, when you when if you're 30 to 35 and you're seeing 40s on a regular
basis, that's the need for a conversation. There there ought to be a really good reason that you drop six or seven more million dollars in the fund balance. There's got to be some some some kind of conversation to be had if you that's the only reason for the top is just to make sure you're not building it up to that huge number. >> Okay.
>> So, I I I will just so I'll say this and frame it because I can't make a motion. One of you guys will have to put this forward, but so I I'm good at 22% being our minimum and 27 being our our max. And the reason being 22% puts us 5% above GFOA recommendation on the minimum
and 10% on the max. And historically looking at what that equates to in actual dollars, even if we're at the minimum with $14 million in the bank, we've never spent anything close to that on a major catastrophic storm. So, I I
feel very good with that. I feel like like what the city manager just also spoke about that, you know, hey, if for whatever reason this year we we it's the year to do it, we need to go down to that minimum, then we'll build back to be in the middle part of that range or or what we need to do. If for some
reason that the unthinkable happens and we go below that minimum, then we know that what we got to do is over the next three years, we got to build back to get back within our policy. So, that's kind of the way I look at that and and think about that. So, >> so one of the things that I want to talk
about is the GFOA is 11.2. That's 16.7%. Um, that's 2.5 months of running funds to function the city. >> Correct. >> It's operating fund. >> Okay. Operating funds is 16.7. That's what the GFOA says that we need to have.
So, that that is the barebone minimum. When you go in there and you look at two hurricanes back to back, $7 million a piece, and it takes the government a year and a half to fund us back. And granted, you talked about it saying that it take
four and five years at some point. So now we've sped the process up a year and a half. Two hurricanes, that's $14 million. You take $14 million and you look at the GFOA, it says it's approximately
$25 million, which is above the 35. I'm not saying we need to be above a 35, but you do need to be sensible about having the two and a half months go GFOA and one major storm, $7 million. If you look at that,
that's $ 18 million. That's 27%. that is keeping our GFOA in line and one major storm cleanup and then hopefully we get repaid in a timely manner before if and when another storm comes.
>> What's the GFOA money for? >> That's the function of the city without having the storms we're talking about. >> No, no, no. That's Let me just interject. That's not correct. that the the the the fund balance, the reserve for that is for having those storms and
critical incidents and unexpected. It doesn't have anything to do with the day-to-day operations. Operating fund stays the same. You still function the city. You still have your salaries for your employees and all those day-to-day things. So, it's the the the reserve fund. >> So, you're saying
>> and and I apologize interrupting you. I just want to make sure you're saying 14 million then. >> Yes. >> For two storms. >> Yeah. What I'm saying is is conceptually we're having a policy discussion. What is this money for? >> Well, and historically it is it is for
storms. We don't we don't have Look, you've got one major bridge. Well, we have two, but one major bridge. It's not ours. So, if you had a collapse Gosh, you you're making me do this, man. But if you had a collapse on the Dunlton Bridge, that's not ours. We don't pay for that. That's that's somebody else.
A lot of the major major high expensive infrastructure that you have in this municipality, it is not ours. >> It's not ours, but you still have those citizens on the other side of the river we have to take care of. >> We don't not with our money. >> It's going to take how long to get the
money here. >> We won't use any of that money, Tracy, is what I'm saying. That's what And I think that's important to make sure we all understand. We don't use this money for that. We we use this money to pick up debris historically. That's what we've used.
Wayne, correct me if I'm wrong. I mean, have we have we had something of a of a brick andmortar concrete high infrastructure expense other than docks and >> we've had boat ramps and docks, parks damage. That's that's the majority. We we've had floods in our utilities that
the pay, but they're not paid for out of general fund. So the general fund stuff is is our principally our our parks and and you've seen that kind of damage coming before you. The other thing is like when you >> the worst case scenario is you get a hurricane pick up all the debris and then another one comes. The two times
we've had dual hurricanes and so the first year was Ian with Nicole right behind it and then last year we had Helen and then we had Milton behind it. Helen everybody forgets because it was a bigger North Carolina problem. We had a bunch of limbs on the ground. We had
people yelling at us up to Milton, everything's going to flood because you haven't picked up all this trash. We were heavy duty in it. So the debris removal for backtoback storms is lumped in as one cost. So we did certain things got broke in the coal. So Cambridge failed in the coal. It did not fail in
Ian. So those are separate costs uh for those two storms as far as the reimbursement, but the the debris removal for both of those years was one lump sum. So the 7 million and the 55 58 or whatever the Milton was, those are that's debris removal for both storms
together and then we and and the the separate part is the repairs like Cambridge being separate from the other. So >> So $12 million on the two storms. >> The worst you can do is if you have a storm in August, get it all cleaned up and you have a storm in November and you do it all over again. Uh that that's
that's that's your full that's that's going to be your gigantic cost. But if you're doing them all together, >> Yeah. But you're talking $12 million, two storms. >> I think we just I think we just voted on uh a boat dock and ramps and everything under the bridge to be redone at what
was that? 1.6 million. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, we have 1.6 million. Took us a million dollars to get Memorial Park reset back up. So, right now we're at 14.6 without any buildings being touched. if we have damage inside our
buildings. >> Could I just ask what you're thinking as far as a range out of curiosity? >> My range should be 25% minimum. >> 25 to 30 then. So >> if you're doing a range 25 to 30. Yeah. >> I was just curious. Um, >> and and
so did we did we spend money out of our reserve fund for the memorial docks or did we have to sit and wait until that that federal >> we transferred fund balance to pay for it and then the money comes back in. So >> we couldn't do anything until the federal dollars came in or or moved or
something. Right. >> We had to pay upfront but we had to get the authorizations. >> Right. Okay. All right. All right. So that money didn't go out right away. And that's the other thing too is when we talk about infrastructure versus property investment in my mind that dock going across the retention pond is not critical
infrastructure and if it needs to wait it waits. So do boat ramps by the way. Um critical infrastructure to my mind buildings, >> roads. I don't think we own any bridges. >> We did get lucky $12 million being spent out. We had no buildings damaged.
>> Right. Right. >> What's what's the building cost, Lance? Well, after a hurricane, a lot more than it does now. >> Okay. So, my my question is is you you go in there to a policy, you better make sure the policies high enough to take care of parks, recreation buildings.
This building that we're sitting in right here, police department, fire department, there's quite a bit of buildings that can have some major damage. We got lucky enough that it was don't want to say it storm water, but could have been storm water and wind
blowing roofs off a ton of buildings here. >> Yeah. >> And then we' have had a whole different story on what this dollar amount would have been. It wouldn't have been 12 million. >> But Tracy, this these buildings are insurable. Debris is not. >> They are. And how working with a lot of
customers right now trying to get the insurance policy paid out in a timely manner. This is this what the fund balance is for is for us to move forward with daily life to get things done until we get reimbursed. >> I'm agreeing with you. So if we don't get reimbursed anytime soon and we run
dry, >> we have to go get a loan. >> That's that's what we're talking about here. You run this account dry, city has to go get a loan. Granted, we have that now available with
FROCK to be able to do that, but it's the process to be able to do that should you have to. And we're and I know it sounds like a lot. We're talking about literally you
were talking 22%, I'm talking 25%. We're talking $2 million. >> And currently we're at 30 to 35. >> Correct. But what we're talking about between me and Scott right now is $2 million. >> Can I get and and here
I don't want to interrupt you because I don't know if you're finished or not, but I talked to Wayne and Robin about this today. >> The storms that we had, I've been in Florida my whole life. Grew up in South Florida. These hur these weren't hurricanes. I
mean, they were once a hurricane, but by the time they got to us, they weren't giving us what a hurricane gives us. We talked about it earlier tonight. We have not had a direct hit from the Atlantic with a real hurricane. Hurricane Andrea. Yeah.
You know, we we we've had Francis was hit, I think, further south. We have not this this region has not felt 150 mph winds. And that's what I've witnessed all up in all over the You see
what happens when that kind of wind hits. We had flooding in homes because of the large amounts of rain. We had debris cuz we had 65 to 75 maybe high 90 mph winds recorded for Hurricane Charlie. We have not been hit with a
major hurricane that's sitting off our coast right now. We were so lucky. >> Yeah, we're blessed. >> But when one does hit, 7 million, that's nothing. You can triple that probably. You might even quadruple that. the amount of
debris that will be because it won't just be trees. It'll be houses and I'm not talking the interior homes. So, I'm I'm I I want to reduce it, but I'm more in the line with the 25 to 30. So, if
something like I just mentioned does happen, we're well prepared. But, I do want us to start focusing on things that are already broken. And I don't know how this all works and I'm learning, but there's things that just are not acceptable. So, if this frees up money
at the end of the year to fix those things that are unacceptable to me, I think that's that's what I want to make sure we're focusing on. Like, you know, we talked about at the last meeting. >> Yep. >> Absolutely. >> So, but that's how >> and the other thing that and all great
points this is why this is discussion needed to happen tonight. So, having been part of a massive disaster response, I can tell you that your municipal fund balances won't be in won't they won't put a dent in it. >> That's where you're going to see massive
response like they saw in Andrew down in South Florida where the state of Florida and FEMA is coming to town and your your city hall can go to the ground. You there's nothing in fund balance that's going to help you with that. You're going to be looking for state and FEMA
resources that are immediately coming. And I will tell you, I don't know that there's anybody that does it better than the state of Florida. When Governor DeSantis sees a city or a county or an area that has over and above the normal, uh-oh, this was really bad, the response
is massive and and and the money is there and and they will support those communities and things like that. So, I don't I don't necessarily worry too much about that. Your city may not be the exact same it was for the next 6 to 12 months, but I know that that stuff does
come and the the the critical things to support your community are going to be there and you're going to have a reasonable fund balance. And that's just that's realistic. That's how it works. You know, if if we start looking at having a fund balance to be able to replace municipal buildings on our dime
in that kind of short time, you're not going to get there. So, what do you got, Lance? I guess we'll hear from >> only one thing I really want to ask about out of his seat >> Wayne is u from from a fund balance standpoint what does it do to our bonding and our
financial I would I would be curious to know that that implication um if we if we drop down in the savings account is that going to affect our ratings >> I don't know that I can I I don't know
well enough to say exactly what number would put you there. Definitely going below GFO8 would uh I don't know that something above it would. There there are a bunch of factors that they take into account. So when we looked we just went through a rerating and and they looked at a bunch of things and it's one
of the factors. It's definitely important that you have that and that you have at least the GFOA, but I couldn't tell you whether or not 17 million or 18 million is going to make a difference. There's too many other factors. >> Just curious if it does. So, I I had this conversation with Zach many years
ago and and during one of our audits, and the my recollection was is he said, "Listen, >> you you can't go below GFOA. That's you're just not doing that." >> Oh, yeah. >> But you have you need to have a policy. You need to adhere to and follow your policy. And if you're doing that, then
you're acting reasonable and and your your city is going to be looked upon favorable. It's when you start doing things outside of that norm, like saying, "Okay, we're going to go down to 8% or 10%." You're you're going to be in trouble. You're going to be in trouble. And then he he always told me, he said,
"Being a coastally oriented community, it is reasonable that you need to be above the minimum for GFOA." So that's that's kind of the concept. Now, he's not going to tell us what to be at. That's our that's our decision to make. But that's kind of what the >> So, where are we going with this tonight?
>> We So, we need to set our policy. either we're going to leave it where our policy is, which is currently 30 to 35%. Or you guys are going to make a a recommendation to change our policy and and give our our staff and say, "Hey, this is our policy. This is the minimum. We don't want to be below this. This is
our maximum. We don't want to be above this." >> And then at the end and so we'll establish that policy tonight. After the end of the fiscal year, they're going to come back and go, "Okay, here's what the real numbers mean." And then we'll have a disc we'll have another really lengthy discussion. I'm sure as to, you know,
they're going to bring back the dollars and say, "Okay, these are the real dollars. You have $4 million. How do you want to reinvest this back into the community?" And you can use that $4 million and still stay within your policy. >> And by being in percentage, it probably gives us a little bit of wiggle room
because you can be between the two parameters. You don't have to be at the maximum. We certainly won't want to go below our minimum. So, >> okay, >> Mr. Mayor. Um, >> I can go after public comment. Yeah, let's get let's get some public comment real quick. >> Thank you, sir. >> Anybody other than Stan want to
>> come on. I know you want you got you got some wisdom to impart on us. >> Welcome to back. >> We moved you to the edge of the seat with this discussion, man. >> Didn't get any. >> I thought Robert was going to push you. >> Didn't take much. >> Yeah.
>> Stan Schmidt, 5574 Trailside Drive. >> Good evening, Mr. Mayor and council members. Um, one of the things that people get confused about with fund balance is that it is not a cash account. There is no account in your son
trust. I think it's right at True, whatever it is. There is no account that is sitting there with checks there you can write checks on. It is really just a factor of uh what is left over when your assets and you subtract your liabilities. That's your fund balance.
Now, a lot of it in government tends to be cash. But it doesn't necessarily have to be. And you mentioned uh what does it do to your financing? It does have an impact. The other thing you have a problem with is insurance. When I was on the school
board, you know, our biggest problem is we've got a lot of buildings out there and we couldn't get insurance. And so we had to rely on our fund balance and on FEMA. So we could take that money to get the buildings back in place because we couldn't stop. We had a place put those
kids. So we had to fix the building. So for the school district, it was important that we had to have that so we could do it. Now the interesting thing is if you look at the school districts, their fund balance tends to be a lot less than this. And we were always getting dinged
by the auditors going, "Hey, this isn't great." And of course, we really weren't in a position where we were borrowing any money. Now you guys, it depends on what you want to do in the future. Do you have projects that you know that you're going to have to borrow money for? Um, we've got a firet truck for
what is it? $400,000 more than that. No, it's got a two year >> twoyear lead time before you even get it. >> Mhm. >> So, you can order it now. You don't have to write the checks for a couple years. >> Or maybe you have to give them a little bit for it up front. >> We got to pay for it up front. >> Oh, really? >> And then we wait three years, I believe. Right.
>> That's in their three years. >> That's in their fund balance. So, that's the biggest thing is remember the fund balance is on your balance sheet. It's on your assets. assets, liabilities, fund, balance, draw there. Your income and your expenses are on the income
statement, P&L. Okay? When you're doing your budgeting, you're looking at your P&L. This is how much money we've got coming in this year. This is how we're going to spend it. And the interesting thing, if you pull out your financial statements, if you look at them, it starts off with the beginning fund
balance, adds in the income, subtracts the expenses, and then it has the ending fund balance. So it the change in what you do and this this always amazed me because I had school board members going yeah we have a balanced budget and I go we really don't
we're bringing in 100 million well whatever the number is 100 we're spending 115 and the reason it's balanced is because we had the beginning fund balance and the ending fund balance so that changes in the balance that's where you that's what you have to look at so I would challenge you to go back
and look at the financial statements to kind of get an idea of what's going on. Um, back in the old days, and this has changed now, when they used to have the the caffer, they now shifted the numbers around in fund balance, you used to have
unrestricted fund balance, temporarily restricted fund balance, and permanently restricted fund balance. So, a temporarily restricted one would be, let's say you were, you ordered a bunch of police cars and weren't going to pay for them for 6 months. That would be in the temporarily restricted fund balance.
It was unrestricted. There's nothing there. You can do whatever you want to with it. So, it's there for you to play with. >> But, >> you may want Linda to help because this is not how the city everything's not exactly the same. But, we don't if we go too deep down an accounting lesson, you should probably hear it from your finance director.
>> We have. [Music] >> Thank you, Stan. >> All right. >> Anybody else want to Anybody else from the public want to weigh in? >> No. All right. Back to council. Did you want the finance director to weigh in on anything or >> only if you have questions? I mean, we
we covered it generally. >> No, I think I'm I think I'm good. Okay, back to council, gentlemen. >> All right, >> let's uh >> let's get this wrapped up. >> Okay. Um just so I want I want to make sure I understand one thing, Wayne, before I start talking over here. Uh as
far as fluctuation goes, this is the unmarked funds. This is money that is not set aside for anything. That's that is what this is >> cuz I know there were years where we saw extremely high numbers but it didn't change this percentage base. It was just because we didn't write the check etc.
So >> that's how the policy is written. It's supposed to be for anything you do not have allocated to anything specifically whatever whichever word people choose to use. >> Absolutely. All right. Thank you. Uh, I like that everyone up here seems to be in agreeance we need to do a percentage,
not a dollar amount because I the dollar amount scared me when I heard thought someone was going down that direction. Um, my hesitancy as far as this general fund conversation as as to lowering it
is just it is unforeseen, right? Yes, we're we're we're saying a storm and and we're thinking about that. It's what other things could happen? What other storms could be on God, that's the worst analogy. What else can be on the horizon that we aren't seeing that could cause
us to need to dip in for money in order to keep the city functioning? And I'm not I'm not very concerned about lowering this at all. In fact, I thought I pretty sure I said this before that I thought we need to do this. Um,
especially now knowing that we have FROCK available with 0% interest in the event we do need to borrow money. That is a tool that was not here when I first arrived on council. It certainly wasn't here when this policy was set in 2015 and we're members of that now. So, that
gives me even greater confidence to go lower on that. Uh, where I'm at, and I don't know if mayor if you're ready for a motion or not, but I'm I'm ready to make one. >> Right ahead. I would like for us to adjust our general fund policy to be
range between 22 and 27%. Um I I like those numbers. 22% right now is over 14 million. God forbid that's two storm cleanups. Like even if it was backtoback years 27% gives gives the gives us some range to
be in. I don't want to come up with just a sing a single number. That's $18 million. I feel really good about being there. So that my motion would be to change the policy to be to be a range of 22 to 27%. >> You have a motion on the floor for uh a
change in the policy to have a 22% minimum with a 27% maximum as our policy. Do we have a second? Anyone to make a second? All right. We got to have a motion and a second to make a vote, guys. So we have no we have no seconds of that motion.
>> I'm close to you, Reed. I mean, >> hang on, hang on, hang on. I got a motion on the floor. So, we don't have a we don't have a second, right? All right. So, that that motion dies. Go ahead, Jason. >> So, I'm close to you, Reed. I was thinking 25 to 27 having a tighter
range. It gives us 2% fluctuation in there. So, my my motion would be from 25 to 27%. Is what I would look at. >> We have a motion on the floor for a range of 25 minimum to 27% maximum. Do
we have a second? Once twice. All right, that motion will die on the floor. Why don't you take a stab at it, Tom? >> Everyone gets a turn. I'd like to make a motion that we leave it as it is. >> We have a motion on the floor to leave
it with a 30% minimum and a 35% maximum as our current policy dictates. Do you have a second? Guys, I can't help you out here. You're going to have to make motions and seconds even have a vote. So, and further discussion, but uh All right. So, that motion will die on the on the
table for lack of a second. I just want to clarify something before I come to Sean and or whoever else wants to try to make another motion. The the the dollar amount thing was was just to give you an idea of what that number actually represents. So, I I do agree
that I think we need to stick with percentages. Okay. Um, you know, >> sorry, I misunderstood that. >> And it's No, no, no, you're good. And and in concept, guys, so so keep in mind, >> this is about expectations and and and realistic versus unrealistic. And
there's this concept of stockpiling taxpayer dollars >> that can become very unrealistic, saying, "You're taking my taxpayer dollars, you're not investing in my community, you got it stockpiled over here, and you don't even know what you're doing with it." And that so that's a concept that I think we need to be aware of and avoid. So these are
taxpayer dollars that are that need to be either invested or we need to adjust what we're what we're what we're doing and and and roll that back so to speak. No pun intended, but you know what I'm saying? Like we we we that's what that's what this is really about because without a policy it gets out of control.
It's unrealistic. And that's how we got to having a policy discussion 10 years ago. And we're just here tonight to say, hey, do we need to adjust it? Do you know, how has it worked out? How has it shaped over because we we've got 10 years now of having this policy and we know what we've seen. We've seen a lot of storms. We've seen the use of it.
We've seen the recovery of it. We see it still get above the maximums and us having to bring it back in perspective. So, just keep those things in mind. >> Mayor, I'll make another motion. Let's go for a range of 23 to 28%. Just trying to again trying to circle. It seems like everyone talked about 25% being around
that number. So that keeps 25% in play. >> I'll second that. >> You have a motion and a second for a minimum of 23% with a maximum of 28%. >> That your motion. >> That was my motion. >> You have a motion and a second.
Discussion. Tracy, >> I'm okay with that. Uh, your 3% inflation is, just so you guys know, is just shy of $400,000. >> We talk about 3% being the magical number. As things increase, these storms are going to increase in cost to us.
>> Well, that's keep keeping this a percentage based policy that then that's going to take that always into account, right, >> Lance? Comment. Sean, >> no comment. >> No, sir. >> And and I've got no comment. Uh, we have a motion to second public comment on the motion.
Back to councel. >> Seeing none. Anything else? Clerk, call the role on a motion and a second for a 23% minimum fund balance and a 28% maximum for our policy. Keeping the policy the
rest of the policy stays the same that if we fall under the minimum um >> three years, >> three years to bring that back into perspective. Okay. >> Councilman Fley. >> Yes. >> Councilman Gford. >> Yes. >> Councilman G. >> No. >> Vice Mayor GS. >> Yes. Mayor.
>> Yes. 41. And that will be our policy moving forward until >> just want to help clarify that the policy is structured as an administrative policy of the city manager. We have just historically come to you. So I just wanted to make sure Matt and I were talking about how to make sure we uh get this formalized
correctly. So that'll be I I'll take that policy and make the update based on council's direction. >> Perfect. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you. And then um the the really interesting discussion will be coming later for sure. Yeah. >> So, but good stuff. Good good job tonight, guys. These are not these are
not easy. And so, um I I appreciate all of the the angst and the conversation and the questions and all that for policy like this. Item number 19, council committee reports. First step shelter, Councilman Sean Gipper. >> So, I hope you're comfortable. It's going to probably take about another hour or two.
>> I got another Firstep Shelter is doing very well. Uh they are actually on September 21st inviting the public to come out to Firstep Shelter to celebrate the fact that they have placed their 1,000 person
who was once without a home is now have shelter and has a place to live. So um that's uh good news there. Um amazing things happen out at First Step Shelter. It's not for everybody, but it is certainly uh a step for the people who
need it. And uh I think that's the important thing to know. There are a lot of people that probably never want to go there, that probably enjoy the way they live out on the street corners living that life. Um but there are people that
are doing everything they can to find shelter, their own shelter, and a place they can call home. and this has been uh helping them. So, they're celebrating that on September 21st, which uh would be nice to have everyone there if they could. Uh also, uh Port South Daytona
Chamber of Commerce. Um a couple weeks ago, their executive director resigned and u most of you all know that our former mayor, Don Bernett, was hired to be our new CEO. And uh that's very exciting uh having someone who with
local knowledge, a collaborator, and someone who just loves local business. I think he'll be a huge asset uh for the future of the Porter South Daytona Chamber. And they are having uh an event here tomorrow night at 4:00 at Lakeside Center. It's our uh annual business
expo. Will double as their uh business after hours as well. So if you can go over there and support those businesses, that'd be wonderful. >> Southern. >> Yeah. 4 to 7 at the Lakeside Center. >> And Don and Don's doing that for now, huh?
>> Uh I also had the fire pensioning quarterly meeting. So if I could just give that report to you guys. Uh that was last night. Uh I wanted to let you know that for the quarter the fund was up 6.8%. Um which puts it fiscal year up 4.7 and on the one year it's up 10.2 2, which
means the fund's value currently has 50 million and some change net of fees. So, seeing some improvements there. Um, I want to also let you know that we did have a discussion that'll continue in 3 to 6 months about lowering the expected rate of return. FRS currently is
expecting 6.7 and currently we're at 7.25 on that plan. And as we reduce that number, we're talking about a glide scope or a glide uh glide path down uh don't want to hit that all at once
because as the pension board lowers the expected rate of return, the city's contribution as a percentage of payroll is going to increase and that will be a budget item that's going to affect our numbers. It's something that needs to be done though because if you are too high from FRS, if you're over because they're
expecting 67, they want to know why you're so much better at investing than they are. You have to explain that if you start to get too far away from where their number is. So, we need to start working our way down. Uh the board and I the conversation was generically we want to do that gradually so as not to have
any sticker shock to the city budget, which I appreciated everyone's conversations in that yesterday. that won't even be something that takes action for another 3 to 6 months, but um it sounds like it'll be moved nice and slowly down and eventually working probably towards 71 if not 7% flat.
>> And and on that note, you know, this is probably a discussion we need to have the finance director present one night because th this is a concept that all of the pensions are are looking at and so it's not just one pension fund. So it's all three. Everybody's trying to bring
that that number down, which means the city's contribution cost goes up. We need to know impactfully and strategically how do we really want to do that over the three plans. So, you know, you if you take too big of bites
of apple all at one time, it can be it can hurt. >> Well, and I think it's our responsibilities as the members of this council who serve on those pension boards because council does not set those rate of returns. We don't we have no say in that policy as this body, but each one of us as representatives on the pension boards do have a say and we need
to make sure we're doing our part to kind of just educate and and inform this what the impact would be to the city because a large jump would result in a I'm I'm talking a multiple last night the the difference between 725 and seven
is $2 million to the city's budget annually. So these are very important conversations and you know we have some great people serving on our pension boards who are really putting in the homework. So we got to make sure that we are on our respective boards just
explaining where we're at and and I think they're willing to work with us at least everyone on the fire board was last night. Well, I'm sure, but that's why I say like we need to collectively have this discussion so that as we all serve on these different boards, we can carry this back to say, hey, look, this
is, you know, where we and and our finance director has a say on all these boards. You know, they they need to be part of the discussion to say that that's just not going to work if you go too aggressive or you're not, you know, you're not going aggressive enough or whatever those things are because
ultimately that's where the dollars are coming from. And so we have to have that discussion and do that. So at some point, Wayne, that's probably going to be pretty relevant for us to kind of circle that, bring that before all of us so we can kind of better understand what we're trying to do with all the different plans.
Anything else come before us tonight? Thank you guys. Great job tonight. Have a good night.