Clermont City Council Transcript 9/8/26

5:48 I call this uh city of Clermont uh workshop uh council workshop and and to
5:54 order. Uh city council workshop meetings are for information gathering discussion purposes only. Uh the city council will
6:02 not vote on any issues at workshop meeting. The council reserve the right to discuss additional items or delete item from the attendive agenda. Uh think
6:12 only thing I see on the agenda tonight is discuss tenative budget for uh FY2026-2027.
6:20 Um I understand this is be streamed but not on teams and before we go any further Mr. Van Wagon will you mind leading us in prayer please?
6:29 Sure.
6:30 Father we ask for your wisdom today. We ask for you to lead and guide us. Help us to make the best decisions for our
6:37 community. And we just thank you for your continued blessing in our in Clermont. And I pray your blessing on our citizens, our businesses, our
6:47 council. Just be with them and watch over each and every person. And thank you for all you've done for us. In Jesus name we pray. Amen.
6:54 Amen. Thank you.
6:57 Yes, sir. I just wanted to let y'all know I wanted to have one more discussion before we went into our
7:04 meetings on Thursday just to make sure we're all on the same page to let you look at the budget again. If you want to
7:11 talk about the millillage again, whatever you want to discuss. I just wanted to give you an extra discussion before we got into that because I felt
7:19 like there were probably more questions and there was a lot of moving parts with the budget from the last discussion. So Scott and I have had numerous
7:27 conversations and uh want to invite Scott to just come and share with you some of the things we were looking at. Thank you.
7:34 Thank you.
7:43 Thank you Rick and thank you councel Scott Bore finance director. got a short uh few slides here just kind of reset
7:51 where we are in the process and what the uh budget is looking like at this point and then um as Rick said we'll open it
7:58 up to Q&A and discussion points whatever the council sees fit. Uh quickly as you'll recall we had our workshops in
8:05 July July 7th and 8th and then later in the month city council uh passed the maximum millage rate of 4.29.
8:13 Um then our first of two trim hearings is scheduled for this Thursday, September the 10th. That is a 5:30 meeting and we'll follow that up with
8:21 the final one on September 24th where we'll adopt the final millage rate and the final budget.
8:30 Uh couple uh notes on the postworkshop updates. You'll recall at the quarterly
8:37 uh budget report at the last city council meeting, I gave you an initial estimate for the general fund. We believe conservatively we're going to
8:45 have a roughly a $4 million surplus at in the general fund at the end of this current fiscal year. And then citywide,
8:53 um we're going to be returning a fund balance really across the board uh to a large degree because of our capital spending. We had a $51.7 million capital
9:02 budget this year. we're going to end up spending in the neighborhood of 1820 millions for this year. And what that means is that all of our fund balance
9:09 policies across the uh uh spectrum will will be in good standing and in solid position at the end of this fiscal year.
9:18 After those meetings in July uh on August 16th to be specific, we did distribute a packet to the city council providing you with updates that came out
9:26 of those meetings. Uh these were updated rates on contracts. This was updated projections on revenues due to the decrease in the millage rate so on and
9:35 so forth. Um that was our schedule of changes and then um as of today our tenative budget book is available online
9:43 as well on the finance department's uh budget portal. It looks very similar to what the proposed budget uh format was.
9:51 And then once uh we have the final adopted budget, we will expand that into a full-blown online budget book in
9:58 compliance with the GFOA's recommendations, but that is available as of today.
10:06 Terms of the general fund status, uh you recall in late spring, maybe June, uh we did pass a uh pol or a comprehensive uh
10:16 policy that included a definition of what our budget balance definition is.
10:20 And uh that is in compliant that is conforms with the GFOA recommendation that governments maintain structurally
10:28 recurring revenues that are greater than or equal to reoccurring expenditures in adopted budget. And the reason that is important is because it helps you zero
10:36 in on reoccurring versus non-reoccurring uh revenues and expenditures within your general fund budget. So on paper, the
10:43 general fund, it shows a a budget deficit of $5.6 million as we sit here today. If you drill down past that
10:51 non-reoccurring items, it's a structural deficit of $870,000, which on one hand, sorry, mayor.
10:59 So, is that a change? It is a change. Yes, sir.
11:02 So, I have what I have here in front of me is is this correct? I'm I'm showing 6.3 million the total debt.
11:09 We emailed updates two days a two business days ago and you should have an update package available to you in hard
11:17 copy. Did that not make it to you? What did Okay.
11:22 What's being projected here, sir, is updated numbers.
11:27 Total budget deficit of $5.6 million, a structural deficit of $870,000.
11:33 Um on on one hand, having a structural deficit of that amount is a long-term concern. On the other hand, in the
11:42 context of TRIM in the state of Florida, what they care about is whether or not you have avail resources available to
11:49 fully cover what you anticipate in your budget. And in our case, that is a resounding yes.
11:55 That leads us into a conversation about the status of the general fund reserves.
12:00 On this slide here, this is a a a snapshot or a snip of our balance sheet in the general fund at the conclusion of
12:07 the most recent fiscal year. And if you go all the way down to the bottom, you see we had a total fund balance of $44.5 million. Now, some of that has already
12:17 been assigned or it is in a non-spendable format. But the number that we typically refer to in discussions of fund balance is that
12:25 unassigned fund balance number of $36.6 million. So that's where if we adopt a budget with a with a deficit or a
12:33 structural deficit, that is the line that is uh most applicable and covers whatever that deficit is in a planning p planning context, planning perspective.
12:48 This slide here takes that status as of the last fiscal year and now we're incorporated into the plans for this
12:55 current year and what in projecting out what that will look like at the conclusion of the uh fiscal year 2627.
13:03 So starting at the top there's that same $36.6 million.
13:07 You add into what you think is going to uh occur in the current fiscal year.
13:13 We're projecting then a starting unassigned balance of $40.6 million.
13:18 Then moving down, you start deducting off of that. You factor in a 25% balance fund balance requirement, which is the
13:26 our rainy day fund, if you will, to cover uh operations uh in um
13:33 if necessary in a in a uh in a worse consideration format. Uh that equates to
13:41 about $13.8 $8 million. You factor in our structural deficit. And then thirdly, you factor in um something I'll
13:49 speak in a lot more detail here in a moment, and that is a proposed resolution to assign a portion of that fund balance to future projects. You
13:58 factor those three things in, it brings that unassigned fund balance projection for the end of the fiscal year down to
14:04 $5.4 million. Still a very strong position to be in in the general fund.
14:12 So, I'm going to go backwards a moment and I want to talk more about the sun assigned fund balance resolution and this has come about through prior
14:19 discussions with city council including the uh budget workshops back in July.
14:24 So, I'm back on now on that that snapshot of the fund balance and you'll see these last two categories down here an assigned line and an unassigned line.
14:34 So, what one option available to the council for using that 36.6 6 million is
14:42 to make a state public statement via resolution saying we've identified programs, we've identified projects that aren't quite ready to the point of
14:50 including in the budget, but we want to set aside dollars and resources towards these purposes in the future. So, if
14:57 council moves elects to move forward with something like that, what that all all that means is on the balance sheet, you're moving money from 36.6 up into this assigned category of $3.1 million.
15:11 So now I'm going to move forward.
15:13 So what we've done in conjunction with attorney wall is we prepared a draft of a resolution for the September 22nd meeting to where we assigned $15.8
15:22 million of existing cash reserves towards the three future programs and projects that you see listed here. EMS transport, parking garage, and uh potential land purchases in the future.
15:33 Now this is a starting point. This is a draft format. It can be anything and everything or nothing that the council likes to do. You don't have to do this,
15:41 but again, it's an option available to you to make a public statement that this is how we intend to utilize these uh unassigned fund balances in the future.
15:51 One alternative option I threw out here just for a discussion and I actually brought this up in the past um is
15:58 pension stabilization funding. Um, you know, you could one thing that is becoming more and more popular in
16:05 government finance is is you utilizing a program to where um you you open escrow
16:12 investment accounts for specific long range purposes. Um, this could help stabilize as the name says um what the
16:20 impact on millages in the future through investment returns. So, for instance, if you took a million, $2 million, whatever
16:27 we deem appropriate, and invest that into this specific purpose, um that would offset future growth in pension
16:35 liability going forward. And in our case, it could be something that we want to look closely at given the tremendous numbers that we're talking about with
16:43 additions, particularly on the fire side.
16:50 That prepares uh my that that concludes my prepared remarks. Um you know again we'll just open it up for questions and
16:58 uh we have most of our directors here and uh respond to any inquiries that the council has.
17:06 Okay. Before I open up the council u workshop but we this is a public meeting. Anyone in the in the chamber
17:14 that wish to speak this item may come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes.
17:20 This is a public forum. Anyone in the chamber that wish to speak to the light may come to microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes.
17:29 Seeing no one I close close down public comment. Uh Mr. Wayne, we have nobody online. Anyone? Okay. So, bring it back
17:38 to council. Let's say you Mrs. Council Member Strange I have a question for staff Mr. Bor
17:48 and it relates to Do you want to do questions? Are we following the same format? Questions first and then statements. How do we want to do this? Yes.
17:55 Yeah. Okay. So, questions first. Um in the most recent budget presentation,
18:02 Mr. Bore, we were at the 75% mark of the fiscal year. If I recall correctly, our general fund was operating with
18:09 expenditures at the 65% mark across the board. Um, I acknowledge I have not dug into each individual
18:18 department to see where those particularly might have been, but my question to you is,
18:27 do you think we could use those numbers, the actual numbers rather than the budgeted numbers from fiscal year 26 to
18:36 build a budget for fiscal year 27? that would show how to make up that deficit of 890,000.
18:46 I'd answer that question in two broad ways. One is is I've already stated we believe we're going to return 4 million
18:54 plus uh to the general fund. That's predominantly lack of capital spending, but some of it does include operating.
19:02 Second way is that keep in mind in the fourth quarter we do have another pay uh another month with a third pay period in it.
19:10 So that 65% is probably more because of that is more real realistically closer to 70 because
19:18 of that. Um so in short I would say no I would stay with the budgeted numbers. Um but
19:26 uh there is going to be some operational expense obviously returned to the to the fund balance.
19:33 So can you speak to or guide us on any direction on how we make up the 870,000 structural deficit?
19:42 Well uh first I would go back to my comments earlier. uh in the state of Florida's mind in the context of trim we
19:51 have excessive fund balance available to make up that if that is not an approach that council wants to take and you do
19:58 want a truly structurally um balanced budget uh
20:07 it's more than likely going to have to come from the expenditure side whether it is a a capital uh a vehicle a project
20:16 whatever it might be and more than likely would have to come on the expenditure side and related to
20:24 I like the way that you presented the structural deficit and the unassigned versus assigned. I think that's really
20:31 helpful for purposes of us balancing the budget. I think the end results that's a great way to do it. Thank you. Um, what
20:40 the way I'm approaching this budget is looking, as you said, at the recurring revenues compared to recurring expenses,
20:49 what you've defined as a structural deficit, imagining if we didn't have the general fund reserves,
20:56 and so if we didn't have those general fund reserves and we were just looking at a structural structurally balanced budget, my
21:05 question to you is knowing the numbers as Do I'm going to add more context.
21:13 We have had conversation publicly and in private about capital funds being 10% of
21:20 your budget. That that would be a healthy target. So my question is when we have a structural deficit of 870,000
21:29 recurring revenues compared to recurring expenses, does that 870,000 include the 10% capital that would be best practices.
21:50 So, our budgeted capital outlay for 27 is $7.1 million in the general fund.
22:00 Is that included in the calculation of the $870,000 structural deficit? Yes. And what was that number? Well, some of it is.
22:08 Okay.
22:08 Um, so we have vehicles that we've classified um as reoccurring.
22:15 Um, there's couple other minor things as well. Um but general uh the f first thing that comes to mind is in the
22:23 police department we do have a sizable budget item for vehicle replacement that is obviously capital.
22:31 Okay, I'm with you. So for if you take out the unassigned fund
22:40 balance and you look at what we have allocated right now for capital and you compare it to the recurring revenues and
22:49 expenses, do we have currently in the budget 10% towards capital?
22:58 It is likely less than 10%.
23:04 But I don't I can't sit here definitively and say one way or the other, but my hunch is that is below 10%.
23:14 And do we have a capital fund that exists outside of general fund reserves or within general fund reserves?
23:23 Yes, we do. Um that that could capital spending could for governmental activities can come from a few different sources. We have of course recreation
23:32 impact fees whenever it's applicable we can utilize those. Similarly on fire and police impact fees. Um we also have that
23:41 was written in within our policy uh city manager has discretion through the budget process to include um dollars in
23:51 excess of our fund balance policy to move into fund 320 for governmental capital spending. This current budget
23:59 does still have a $1 million transfer for that purpose. So theoretically, that's where you could reduce that
24:08 number to get to a true structurally balanced budget. But that would come at the expense again of some eliminating or
24:16 deferring some projects that are currently planned next year within fund 320. So, and when I look at the paperwork that was provided, the
24:23 citywide summary, I can see fund 320, capital projects and expenditures. We're
24:31 anticipating starting fiscal year 27 with 1.219 and looking to add 1.11.130.
24:40 That's the proposed way to handle 320. Yes.
24:45 And to just distinguish so that I'm clear in the context of capital, we are looking at different types of capital.
24:51 One being recurring, for example, police cars and police and uh fire vehicles that we have to purchase every year versus capital that might go towards
25:00 fixing a pier, for example, once every 20 to 40 years.
25:05 Uh yeah. Uh fixing a pier, um a sidewalk uh or extension. Um, it could be any
25:13 number of different things that are periodic in nature.
25:16 Okay, that's all I have. Thank you so much, Council Member Bay.
25:23 Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Boore.
25:26 Um, question with uh regard to the citywide capital budget. I'm looking at slide three, I
25:33 believe, the uh postworkshop updates. Um so the citywide capital budget 51.7
25:42 and our actual uh projected expenditure is 18.1 is that not in the current year that we're still in.
25:51 Yeah. In the current So what accounts for such a dramatic difference from what was budgeted to what's being spent?
25:59 And let me also further clarify that um the bullet point above it might be misleading. Those two numbers are not just specific to the general fund. That
26:08 is citywide. Citywide. So, our enterprise funds are included in there. Okay.
26:12 And some of the larger capital projects on a citywide basis that immediately come to mind that were budgeted and
26:19 we're not getting to this year are the Hartwood Marsh um extension or reconstruction or the utility relocation
26:27 I should call it. Y um it is a meet in the middle projects.
26:31 Uh there are a couple others, but those are two examples, larger examples that come to mind. Okay.
26:36 Um so it's it's hard for me in my role to sit here and say why we didn't get to those. Sure.
26:43 Um I'd have to defer to the other department directors who oversee those items, but but those are a couple glaring examples.
26:50 Okay. And um so 52 million minus $18 million
26:58 obviously what it there's a there's quite a bit of difference there. What what happens to the remaining dollars
27:05 because that's obviously more than 4 million that's that's going back. So what happens to those other dollars that aren't being used in this fiscal year that were budgeted for this fiscal year?
27:16 The majority of that goes back into the applicable fund balance. Now, there was one item this year, uh, $15 million that
27:24 we did anticipate for a loan issuance for the parking garage. So, that $15 million since it was bond proceeds as opposed to cash reserves just goes away.
27:34 So, if you factor that in, that $18 becomes 33. So, we're actually talking 33 about $18 million that will go back into the applicable fund balances.
27:45 Okay. So, that bond just does it. It it was we budgeted for it but we didn't take it. So correct it's essentially zeroed out.
27:53 Correct. It's on both the revenue and expenditure side. So it's neutral.
27:56 Net zero. Net zero. Neutral. Yes. Thank you. That's the terminology I saw in some other documents.
28:01 Um Mr. City Manager, is it possible for us
28:08 to get um a list of what equated the 51.7?
28:16 What equ so what was budgeted to total that 51.7 and then what was actually
28:25 being estimated to be spent of the 18.1 to get that those two lists for us before the before we take any other action. Is that possible?
28:35 Absolutely. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Those are my questions. Council member Myers. Good afternoon, Scott.
28:43 Hi. You already answered the question I had was concerning the deficit. So I thank you for your hard work that you and your team are doing for us. Thank you.
28:51 Thank you. Council member Peterson.
28:55 Previous we had a a meeting where we discussing what would the uh effects be if the property tax vote goes through?
29:02 Is this being is this showing here it not going through or do you have a secondary one showing that what would be the effect of that?
29:11 We did not place we we made a decision at the start of the cycle in the spring not to incorporate a proforma
29:19 um one way or the other into this current cycle. And the reason that city manager and I felt confident in that was because of the status and the strength
29:28 of our general fund reserves. Now, we did an internal analysis as to what that might look like, but we did not incorporate that into any of our budget planning this year.
29:40 Thank you. Oh, thank you.
29:46 Uh on your last slide, you got to assign 15.8 million of existing cash reserve
29:53 toward future programs and projects. And underneath that, we got 5.3 million for EMS, uh 6 million for downtown parking garage, and 4.5 million for future land
30:02 purchases. Is there a reason why we don't ever show the 9.1 million for the me meet us in the middle project?
30:10 No reason, sir, other than um this is the three that uh Mr. Van Wagner and I
30:19 identified in our preparations based on prior um conversations, directions, if you will. Um that could certainly be
30:28 added. It's that this is again at the discretion of the city council.
30:33 Okay. Well, we add that. Well, how did that affect our bottom line if we start showing that 9.1 million?
30:40 Well, that would exceed what we're projecting it to be. Um, now if you want to get into a discussion
30:49 andor debate as to what items should be on there or even if you should do this at all, uh, that is amongst the five of
30:56 you. Um but if you would add just if you would just simply add $9.1 million now you're into a projected um deficit in terms of the unassigned fund balance.
31:07 Yeah. Well, I was just curious when we we've u got $9.1 million that's been basically approved by this council. Um
31:16 and we never we never even show that on our budgets or anything. I'm just trying to figure out why we don't we don't do that. Part of the discussion you guys
31:24 have had is that's coming out of the parks and wreck impact fees and this is the general fund. So that's why so if
31:31 you wanted to change that you could but all of our discussions have been this is a new project so it qualifies for the
31:38 impact fees. We've had numerous discussions with Christian and with everybody and it does qualify for impact
31:46 fees if that's what you choose to do for the meetings in the middle. Yes.
31:50 Yeah. Well, I I've always been under the impression that we were going to use general fund as well as impact fees. And of course, we have already have uh some
31:58 grants that's already been allocated for that.
32:01 We do have some monies set aside for that, but I have no direction from you guys on percentages, numbers, what you
32:10 want. And I'm I'm not even sure it it could be lower. It could be a higher number than 9.1. I I don't know until we
32:16 get that in what that is. So, I I would need some direction from y'all once I get some hard numbers for you, which
32:24 Freddy believes will be uh November and be able to be presented to the council in December is what he's planning on.
32:32 Right. But the exact Well, we looking at November maybe the exact price, but I know it was approved for 9.1. So, um I
32:39 would think if we not showing that in our budget somewhere in some kind of way, breaking it down and showing it in the budget somewhere, is our budget
32:46 accurate? Okay. in there because it's there, but I I keep going through everything and I never see anything on on the 9.1. And it doesn't have to be
32:54 the whole 9.1. As you say, if only we using three or four million from the general fund, hey, that need to be
33:01 shown. Okay. Uh we just say uh the other piece of it coming from impact fees, that's fine. I know the whole project
33:08 cannot be funded by impact fees because the whole project, if I'm not mistaken, Mr. W doesn't qualify for impact fees.
33:16 it. I don't think that's the analysis. I mean, it depends on how much we have in impact fees and where they come from.
33:23 So, for example, my understanding is that the idea behind the project is that it would be a benefit to everyone in the city, right? And if it is, then we can use generously from our impact fees.
33:35 Generously.
33:35 Yeah. Yeah. Well, because you know there's case law that says look when an impact fee comes from the wellness way area for example
33:42 probably should have a direct benefit to wellness way and so on wherever we get it from. So we're trying to be more sensitive to that in how we allocate the impact fees.
33:53 What I mean, mayor, is put it simply, if all we had was $9.1 million in impact fees, then I don't think we could use
34:00 all 9.1 on that one thing because I'm not sure that it's necessarily a direct benefit to some of the outlying places
34:08 that we get impact fees from, but I think a high percentage could be.
34:13 Well, I don't know how much we have. Well, and I don't think if it even come in at 9.1 million. A little high. Yeah. I've never It was never my intention anyway to use
34:21 all impact fees for it. I always suggested that we use uh impact fees as well re as well as general funding plus
34:30 whatever we get from uh grants and everything which we I know already we got 2.5 million in grants. Okay. But I
34:38 would just like to see that so we'll have a more accurate.
34:42 I apologize. I didn't hear every comment that was made in the last two minutes, but I did verify with our budget manager. Um, we do have $900,000 plus in
34:51 the proposed budget of the general fund for dock replacement, which is one component of the meet in the middle project.
34:59 Yeah. Well, that's that's the one component of of the uh project I think we can actually use impact fees on is on
35:06 the dock and everything. when we did this whole thing. Um, that's what made us somewhat do the project the way we
35:13 did because by shifting the dock from where it was at to where we're doing it now, it help us qualify for uh impact fees. So, so that's the one area uh I'm
35:23 really looking to use impact fee wherever that portion come in at because that's the one portion that actually qualify for for impact fees that I know
35:31 of the whole project when we put it out there. But I'm just I'm just saying, hey, I think maybe that we need to sit down and make a determination what we
35:40 need to show because to me uh we've allocated this way. I've said it in council meeting and uh for 9.1 million,
35:48 we're not showing that anywhere. So we we need to make sure we we all um accounting for that some somewhere, I think. Okay.
35:56 uh whether it's impact fees or whether it's general fund a combination of grants course uh I know I'm not
36:05 expecting to come in at 9.1 million so it's I'm expecting a little bit le less than that of course I know one portion
36:12 of the original bid at 9.1 million we've already uh taken care of this out of there over $300,000 the removal of the
36:19 docks okay uh of the old pier uh which FEMA took care of for us so that that little portion is gone away as well already. Okay.
36:28 Um, other question you mentioned about, um, reoccurring expensive, vehicle, police,
36:36 uh, fire. Uh, what do we have? I guess I need to talk to chief about this. What about PPEs for for the fire department?
36:44 Are that in in there? Are we accounting for that replacement every so often? How often we need to replace that?
36:51 I'm going to have to defer to Chief. And would that would that fall under reoccurring? Um,
36:58 you know, so cuz I think when we start trying to do these capital uh requirement budgets years ago, we and
37:06 doing the vehicles and everything, I thought PPEs was in there and everything and I Yes, Chief.
37:13 Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Uh, yes, we do. We uh we actually have established an account just for bunker gear replacement. Uh, one of the things
37:21 I ran into, uh, 7 years ago when I came into the department is we have a mandate by the manufacturer that the gear has to be replaced every 10 years.
37:29 Okay.
37:29 So, with that, we're able to plan it out. Each firefighters issued two sets.
37:33 At the time, we had 75 firefighters, 150 sets of gear. So, just for replacements, we knew we had to buy 15 sets per year.
37:40 So, we've built that in in addition to accommodating new hires, occasionally having a set that can't be repaired. So, that money is in there. the I don't have
37:48 the exact figure, but we're somewhere in the neighborhood of about 200,000 a year for bunker gear replacement.
37:53 And you say 15 sets is what we I know we we went through this exercise.
37:58 We've increased this year with the additional firefighters we have on.
38:01 We're now at 96 firefighters. So that's a that's a higher number that we have in the budget. Uh but we plan to replace onetenth of our bunker gear every year,
38:10 plus a few sets in addition for hiring new people that we can't fit into older gear and everything else.
38:15 Okay. So, so that is we already have it allocated as part of the recurring. Yes, sir. Capital is a cost of doing business.
38:22 Yeah. Well, I just I just hadn't heard much about cap PPEs lately and everything and want to make sure we we taken care of that as well because I
38:29 know we went through that exercise here a couple years ago to try to get that taken care of along with the vehicles and all. So, thank you.
38:34 Yeah, I believe we we've had it in the budget now for three to four years.
38:37 Okay. Thank you. Uh that's all the questions I have.
38:43 I had another question come to mind. Can I have council's permission to ask it?
38:47 It's just one. May may I interject first real quickly? Uh give you an update on the meet in the middle discussion. Kyle once again um
38:54 also confirmed that a million dollars is included in the general fund for the tiered seating project. Which the tiered seating?
39:03 Okay.
39:03 Yeah. So that brings our general fund total for project related expenses to be in the middle to $1.9 million.
39:14 Thank you.
39:15 Uh what about the if I'm not mistaken, it's another grant out there for 1.5 million for that area as well. Right.
39:22 State Florida. State of Florida.
39:24 Yeah, I don't know the status of that, Mr. Mayor. I don't remember the status on that. We'll have to But there there
39:33 was a 1.5 million we were pursuing with the state. Okay.
39:38 And Scott, that's in the recurring general fund operating revenue. Those that one 1.9 million as as capital projects. Uh this type of
39:47 capital project, it would not be reoccurring.
39:49 Okay. So it's already listed under capital. Yeah.
39:52 The fund 320. In other words, no. Uh general fund general fund.
39:59 So but it has been taken into consideration. It's been removed from the expenses to calculate the 870,000.
40:05 Correct. Yes. Thank you. That's what I wanted.
40:08 Um, but I did have a question. Um, Christian, there was a reference to $18 million
40:15 being going back into some enterprise funds.
40:20 Assuming those numbers could be assuming those monies could be used, and I don't know if they can, and I'm not asking today because we're in the public workshop, legally, could we use those
40:29 funds that we're sending back to the enterprise fund as they might relate to the bond that we have on our utilities?
40:36 Could we use those funds to pay down a portion of that bond?
40:45 I don't see why not. I mean, Scott, do you have an opinion on that?
40:50 It would depend on the bond covenant and the agreement that was in place. That's my default answer.
40:56 Well, the covenant would protect the bond holders from us defaulting, right?
41:03 Oh, yeah. No, Scott's right. because there are scenarios where you have to have a minimum.
41:08 In other words, sometimes bond holders acquire it for a specific term and that's part of why they're in it.
41:15 The reoccurring revenue streams that come with it. So, we'd have to review that.
41:18 So, related to that, could we dedicate those monies towards payment of the bond
41:25 to perhaps help our utility rates go down?
41:30 That also would require a review of these specific covenants because even though the ma that might math so to speak, right?
41:37 Uh the covenants may do you say that? I said it last week.
41:41 Um the I think it's just a general English. Um but I said it first.
41:46 The covenants may require that we keep rates at a certain rate. And
41:54 um I was just curious.
41:56 It's an interesting idea. I'm just saying that usually when we engage in this kind of thing, the city is required to maintain things at a certain rate.
42:05 Uh so I I don't know. We'd have to review that unless you know off the top of your head.
42:11 No, that's the best answer I could give right now. But I would offer this as well. Um keep in mind that just because we didn't spend the money on a capital
42:20 project this year doesn't mean that the need for that project goes away, right? you know, we could utilize that money in in next year's budget or
42:28 perhaps the following year depending on the timeline of of those projects. So, I was just wondering if legally it could be done. Yeah. And then we get into the
42:37 that was that was it. I have comments if if we want to start that. Yes, ma'am. Go ahead.
42:45 We're currently looking at a 4.29 29 millillage with a deficit when we consider the operating expenses of
42:52 recurring revenues and over expenses of $870,000.
42:59 For context, that's a $63 million budget. And $870,000 on a $63 million budget is it's a very small percentage.
43:09 It's a big number, but it's a small percentage. I believe we have extremely competent staff. I have all the confidence in the world in our staff. We
43:16 have not done anything to cut this budget so far. And to be sitting at 4.29 with an $870,000 deficit.
43:25 I believe that staff can get us down to that 4.21 target that at least I ran on.
43:31 And it's important to me, but it must be important to the citizens of Clermont or I don't think I'd be sitting up here.
43:37 So my goal will be for us to get to 4.21. I will remind the council and staff that at the workshop we did ask
43:44 staff to come back to us with a balanced budget of 4.21.
43:48 Regardless of what number we're at, I encourage this council to ensure that the budget is balanced, that our recurring revenues and expenses um be
43:57 equal so that the citizens have a clear path moving forward.
44:03 I believe that we should fund fund 320 with 10% of whatever we decide to be this year's operating expenses. I
44:12 believe we can do that from the general fund reserves and I would support that to help us get to 4.21.
44:19 I think in the future that the fund 320 should be funded from any surplus from the pri prior year and that
44:27 we should ensure that the fund 320 is always at 10% of the operating expenditures.
44:35 I can support $6 million to be earmarked for a six minute response time which may include EMS. Those can be broken out or
44:43 put together. It makes no difference to me. I like six for six, six million for six minutes. if it feels right and I think that we can explain it to the
44:50 people quite easily. For context, that would include opening fire station 6, anticipating fire station 7, ensuring
44:58 fire station 5 is properly funded, and continuing to work on the transport question. I think that we should consolidate the existing funding from
45:07 our general fund reserves that relate to downtown to a simple downtown grants program and identify a number that we're happy with for that number and not get
45:15 into the minutia that we should refer to the CRA and our partners in the downtown area to identify what those projects should be. And finally, I wanted to
45:23 comment that meet us in the middle was never funded. It was sent to engineering so we could get a final number. We did
45:30 not have a plan in place for how to fund it, where to fund it, or what numbers, which is which is why it's not funded.
45:36 Um, I think that would be one of the downtown projects that should be included in whatever we agree is appropriate to spend from the general fund towards downtown projects.
45:48 Yes, sir. Mr. Bang. Thank you, Mayor.
45:54 Thank you, mayor. Um, my time's up. No, just kidding.
46:00 Um I think that staff has presented um
46:07 has worked with what we have asked them to do in terms of presenting um the consensus of what the council has
46:16 asked which which we gave them a 4.29 and they presented us with the 4.29.
46:22 Um that lowers our tax bill for our residents. Um and I support that.
46:29 What I'm not willing to arbitrarily support in theory is arbitrary numbers
46:38 of where we think we should be um without context and without data. Um
46:47 we have made cuts uh I believe there was a a document that was emailed to us uh from Mr. bore back in October um that
46:56 that showed that um if I'm reading this correctly um it was a a net reduction of $545,100
47:06 um from changes uh based off the proposed tenative budget and of that 491 was to adjust the lower millage of the
47:14 4.29 29. And so we we have made some cuts. Um I think that we are um we have
47:22 a lot of unknowns relative to amendment three that um I think we need to be judicious and
47:29 cautious of making um making allocations to specific items
47:38 without knowing the outcomes of that and how it could affect us. I had a conversation earlier today with the city manager that um you know depending upon
47:46 the outcome of amendment three, we may start the budget process in January of next year because we're going to have to
47:54 really look at things depending upon the outcome of that. And so I think um it would behoove us to give ourselves
48:01 maximum flexibility going into next year if need be. And if not, um, any resolution that would earmark things for
48:10 projects, um, we could entertain in January. Um, I'm also very concerned
48:16 about, uh, using one-time money for ongoing expenses. Uh, that's not a best
48:23 practice when it comes to, uh, fund balance. Fund balance is to to, you know, we have an opportunity. Let's
48:30 replace that dock. I know there's some ongoing expenses with that doc, but it's not ongoing staffing every year we're adding to the general fund. Uh we got to
48:39 be conscientious of that. And then finally, I think too, if we're going to start earmarking, um we need to have a whole earnest conversation of what all
48:46 projects might be considered for that and have the public weigh in on what they would like to see as a part of that
48:54 earmarking rather than us just saying we're earmarking that. Thank you, Council Member Mars.
49:03 Thank you. I I agree with a lot of what um Mr. Bane said and what Miss Strange
49:09 said as well. Um with this amendment three hanging over our heads, we really aren't able to make um I think
49:18 definitive um cuts uh expenders spending money here, spending money there or whatnot until we know for certain how the voters are going to weigh on this.
49:30 And um that's just kind of where I'm at on that. We just I think we're in a holding pattern truthfully on when it comes to spending more money at this time. Um but that's all I have for now.
49:41 But thank you. Thank you, Council Member Peterson.
49:46 Meet in the middle project keeps on coming up and I I my understanding was it was impact fees were the primary funding source for the uh meet in the
49:53 middle project. At any rate, we keep on hearing, you know, from that we were going to split it off because the veterans keep on coming to us. When is
50:02 it coming? When is it coming? When is it coming? We do have we do have a lot of grant money that came from uh uh we got
50:10 1.5 from the state, another one from uh South Lake Hospitals Fund, Livewell Foundation. And uh I I I think it would
50:18 be nice to show the the citizens that we're not just, you know, talking about this year after year, but show some some
50:27 kind of an improvement somewhere in the system. Whether it be the tears, whether it be some of the pavilion, may maybe it could be the the the uh the fountain
50:36 that was going to be going there at the end of uh of the walk, even though the walk's not there yet, but it can be an anticipation. I think it'll be a good
50:44 point to show that that we are not just talking about things, we're doing things also. And with that, thank you.
50:52 Thank you. Uh Mr. vein. I'm not going to repeat a lot of the things you said, but uh one of my real concerns is as well
51:00 when I look through this here um seemed like we've allocated funds and we
51:07 budgeting for use some reserves for ongoing expenses and that always scares
51:14 me when we use reserve uh for ongoing expenses. My philosophy has ever always been you never use uh reserve for ongoing expenses, reoccurring expenses.
51:25 year after year after year. One-time projects I have no problem with using uh reserve for uh but to commit ourselves to
51:34 to funds expenses when we already at a deficit and we have to use reserve to do it. I think that's a bad bad practice.
51:42 Okay. Um and I keep hearing everybody everybody concerned about what's going to happen with the tax bill that's hanging over amendment three and
51:49 everything. Of course, that's not affecting this budget. However, I do feel like we need to be judicious in what we're doing here and make sure we
51:57 we uh handle the taxpayers dollar wisely.
52:03 Okay. Uh as Mr. Bane said, we've already we've asked staff to go back go to 4.29 and uh
52:11 I can support that. Um, now we asking now here we want to try to even cut it a little bit further. And while we already
52:19 in a deficit, why are we looking to even go even lower and put us further in a deficit and still allocate more have to allocate more money to um reoccurring expenses? I I just I can't support that.
52:31 Okay. uh for us as to meet us in the middle. Um my understanding and and we if I'm not
52:39 mistaken the the the motion was to uh move forward with me in middle middle at $9.1 million and if things changes
52:48 within the next two years, we'll come back and re revisit that. Um you want to go back and look at your October minutes, October 28th minute, that's
52:56 exactly what's in there. So that's why it keep coming up. And you're right, Mr.
52:59 Peterson. It has always been said we will use a combination of funds, not just one fund. It was going to be a combination of funds. Uh we never went
53:08 down sat down. I think my original proposal would use half impact fees and half uh general fund. However, that
53:17 would before we start getting grants in as well. And I do know there's other funding that's that's going to probably be available for that. So, I think we
53:24 need to be look looking uh serious consideration. And with you along with you, Mr. Peterson. I do believe we need to be looking at moving that project
53:32 forward as soon as possible. Um so we can show the people we we mean business and and get them off our back for the last almost 10 years now we've been
53:40 working at this project. So we need to move it forward and that's all I have to say. Okay. Anything else?
53:51 Just for clarity. It's kind of clear like mud. So I appreciate that.
53:57 I'm c I heard a lot of things and I just want to see where I have consensus and where I don't have consensus if you all
54:05 wouldn't mind the resolution. Do you want us to wait or go forward with that?
54:10 I've heard yes and I heard no from everybody. So the fund balance allocation designating
54:18 funds for different things. Well, I for me I'm not I'm not like I say I think one of the things need to be in there if we going to start allocating all these
54:26 funds and everything. um meet us in the middle need to be in there as well for for the resolution right if you if you're going to do I'm
54:34 not I'm not too thrilled about doing a resolution allocating all these fun and most of the projects I see on here basically uh we got EMS well we
54:42 allocating funds there in the resolution $5.3 million there for a project that we don't even right now we're not sure whether we're going to even be able to
54:50 have the project we still got to wait for uh approval from the county to come back and I don't know where we are on that but yet still we're allocating parking garage. We're in the talk for
54:59 that. Um, but we allocating $6 million for that. Okay. Land purchase, downtown land purchase.
55:06 Okay. I know we in the process of uh trying to trying to get that across this finish line and everything. So, I have no problem with that. But then, like I
55:13 say, it's another project sitting at the 9.1 million that we have in procurement and everything else, but we're not showing any any funding and having
55:20 anything set aside for it. So, I have some concern for that. I just need some direction if I could. some more specifics.
55:29 Yeah, I would say my my my advice to you or or my vote would be to to not have that resolution come forward
55:37 without additional conversation and workshopping to decide what should be included. I support a resolution.
55:46 I'm willing to vote to approve 6 million for EMS fire station 6 minute response time. I'm willing to support up to six
55:53 million for downtown projects. I'm willing to support 6 million for future property tax um deficit balance if
56:02 amendment three takes over so that we have some flexible okay reserves in there and that should leave about 6 million for additional projects
56:10 to be determined in the future. But I think we need to show the people what it is that we're working on and not keep holding on to over $20 million of public
56:19 money without having some sort of direction for it. Ditto.
56:27 Ditto. For which one?
56:33 So, yes. I I like what you said, Allison, with um the EMS because I support EMS. I
56:40 support parking garage and future land p uh purchase because this is just allocating it for that. Um Yeah.
56:50 So, to Mr. Bane's point but to point I was going to say that's not what she said. So I don't think there's consensus.
56:58 So what I was saying was I mean frankly I think that the idea of the land that we were going to purchase downtown is not going to happen in the business
57:06 world. It's been almost two years since we approved that and they haven't come to the table to sign the contract. So I'm simply saying rather than stating
57:14 that project instead of saying this much for a garage, this much for a land purchase we say a number. I propose six
57:21 million, but a number for downtown projects that we would use in partnership with the CRA to have whatever the CRA identifies. We've got
57:30 the parking garage, we've got meet in the middle, we've got, you know, land that might be purchased or sold. I mean, all those things. But I think that's in partnership with CRA. So, so what I'm
57:39 suggesting is that we move forward to say there's a certain amount of money from the general fund reserves that we're willing to spend downtown.
57:48 That project that all that needs to be figured out. It might be all six million goes to meet me in the middle and that might be what the council decides and and maybe nothing goes to the garage or
57:57 maybe, you know, maybe we sell the land that we've been talking about selling and we use that. But my point is to earmark that. That's where I'm coming from is if we say six million for EMS,
58:05 six million for downtown, six million in reserve specifically for anticipating the losses of amendment three because
58:14 that's looks like it's going to be 5 million over five years of our existing money. So, and that still leaves something like another 3 to six million
58:23 that we would have for other projects as the year goes on, but it at least identifies subbuckets for the money. that that's
58:32 where I'm coming from. So for clarity, if you're if you're saying you would support 10 million to be spent downtown in the CRA, I would not support that. I
58:40 think that's too much for one area of the city without further discussion. But what I would but that doesn't mean that couldn't come into play in a future
58:49 discussion. I'm willing to go up to six in general in the CRA is what I was saying.
58:54 And I I guess my point back to what I said before is like we can do this.
59:00 There is no need to do this in September. We can do this in January if we know that the amendment. We can do it in December if we know that the
59:08 amendment has passed or not. Uh but we have an opportunity to engage the public to find out what are the opportunities
59:16 that they want us to earmark these funds for. And I don't think we have to to the city manager's question, do we have consensus of what this resolution speaks? I don't think we have consensus.
59:26 So it's what what I'm hearing is Council member Strange's proposal, Council Member Peterson agreeing with that.
59:36 I am not agreeing with it. The mayor's not agreeing with it. And Sean and Council Member Myers is agreeing with pieces of it. I don't think we have
59:43 consensus to have a resolution on the agenda for the 22nd to earmark this. Why
59:51 are we rushing to earmark our reserves when we have opportunities to discuss this with the knowledge of how the outcome of amendment three vote goes?
1:00:03 Well, let me see. And I I always have a problem with trying to allocate funds or just pull some
1:00:12 arbitrary number out of the air and say, "Hey, we going to throw this money here without doing some type of financial analysis or whatever to see what we actually getting into." Okay. And that
1:00:20 seemed like what we're trying to do here. We just pulling the funds out. I know EMS, they've been through the exercise and come up with the 5.3. Well, I thought the last information I got on
1:00:29 them was 5.6, but I see it's changed to five uh 5.3. Uh parking garage. We throw 6 million out there allocated towards we
1:00:36 don't even know what the parking garage going to be or what you even have a concept of the parking garage yet. Okay.
1:00:41 So, we just pulling number arbitrary out of number without really going through the exercise asking as Mr. debating and say asking the public what they think
1:00:50 and where they think we should be uh spending this money and all and uh I I totally agree with that. We need to go through those exercises uh before we
1:00:58 just start willy-nilly throwing figures out and put big uh things on on the paper here. Um to answer Mr.
1:01:05 Miss uh Miss Strange, I don't think it's been two years since we uh offered that land purchase. I only has it even been six months. I think we just did their
1:01:13 land purchase, try their land purchase this year, not two years ago. Okay. Um, but are we not doing an order anymore? Just jumping in everywhere.
1:01:22 But this is uh we we're coming up on the close of our uh time here. So to try to Well, we we have a agreement that three
1:01:30 people want to allocate funds towards the project. Three people said that they wanted to move forward with the MS and that would be allocating and giving our
1:01:38 fire department the the certainty that they need to continue moving in the direction that they're moving. It doesn't mean we have to allocate every penny,
1:01:46 but if we have projects that we do think and and here's my take on it for for public and council. If we're going to
1:01:53 hold on to $20 million of the people's money when we're collecting 27 million in taxes each year, as far as I'm concerned, we need to be cutting this
1:02:00 millillage down to 3%. three mills because there's no reason why we can't do that and we'll just use it as the fund balance for the next three years
1:02:08 while we figure it out. But we've taxed the people this money. We've taken their money and if we hold on to it just a little bit longer because we're afraid
1:02:15 to take action, then we're not doing our jobs. We're up here to make decisions.
1:02:19 And on the issue of EMS, specifically the six-minute response time, fire station 6, that's an issue of lives. And I am not it's not something I want to
1:02:27 compromise on because I don't want that to be my family. So, I think the question is, should staff move forward with a resolution? At least three of us
1:02:36 have said yes, we like the idea of a resolution. We all seem to agree on the EMS if we don't want to be general with
1:02:43 downtown. Well, we can leave the rest to be determined, but it sounds like we have an agreement that yes, we want to move forward with at least a commitment of the EMS.
1:02:51 Well, um there were not going to be a vote taken here today. So, um if we
1:03:01 Well, I I'll be I'll continue to be in communication with the five of you. So, thank you. I will not support it uh at this point.
1:03:08 Not not with those type figures and not going through proper exercises. Um anything else?
1:03:16 Seeing nothing else, we going to adjourn this meeting.
1:03:34 Oh yeah. Oh yeah.
0:01 Today we gather here not just individuals but as neighbors who share something simple and powerful. A responsibility to one another. The work
0:10 of a city is not abstract. It lives in roads that are maintained and parks that are cared for and decisions that shape daily life in quiet but lasting ways. It
0:19 is at its core about pe contributions people have made through their labor.
0:24 It's also a fitting reminder that progress rarely comes from a single grand act, but from steady, thoughtful effort, from showing up, from listening
0:33 even when it's difficult, from choosing cooperation over division. That same spirit is reflected in the responsibilities undertaken in this room today.
0:43 With that shared commitment in mind, it's worth reflecting on the words of Jane Adams.
0:49 The good we secure for ourselves is precarious and uncertain until it is secured for all of us and incorporated into our common life.
0:58 Her words remind us that the well-being of any one of us is tied to the well-being of all that decisions that
1:06 the decisions made here do not exist in isolation but ripple outward into the lives and families and neighbors and future generations of the city.
1:15 May this meeting be guided by clarity, fairness, and a shared commitment to the common good. May the work done here
1:23 reflect not only good governance, but also respect for the dignity of every person in this community. And may we leave this evening a little more
1:30 connected and a little more determined to build something worthwhile together. Thank you.
1:36 Thank you to the flag of the United States of America and to the for which it stands,
1:45 one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Please be seated.
1:57 Sure.
2:08 Okay. Okay.
2:16 Um I will just inform all the projectors in the in this uh ceiling is working but the one behind me will not be working.
2:23 Okay.
2:26 Uh this afternoon we have a fire department fire department awards fire chief EEL.
2:58 Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. It's my pleasure today to be up here to present some awards that we had for a call that we had back in July of this
3:05 year. Uh it's what we would call one of those once in a career type calls that we have. Uh it was a rapidly developing
3:12 scene. Uh there was a imminent uh risk to uh to life of one of our citizens and your personnel did exactly what they do.
3:20 they they rose to their level of training and they affected a positive outcome in a matter of just a few minutes. It was a really amazing work by everybody on the scene, but we have a
3:29 few folks we're going to recognize and stand out. So, just to give you a little background, um today we're recognizing some of our men and women uh to
3:37 recognize their courage, professionalism, and decisive action demonstrated during a structure fire that occurred on July 5th in the area of
3:44 Fifth and Pit Street. Uh, a call came in at approximately 10:59 p.m. Our dispatcher received the call from one of
3:52 our community members seeking to help report the fire and had a report that there was a possible uh three people trapped inside the house. Uh, one of the
4:01 people that was trapped in the house called 911 moments later to state that they were unable to escape the house.
4:06 The door had gotten too hot. There was too much smoke, too much fire, and they were screaming for help. uh Clermont uh Fire Department was dispatched and the
4:15 first units arrived on scene 3 minutes later at at 11:03. Uh they then completed a rapid scene size up and immediately advanced crews with hose
4:23 lines into the house to attack the fire while simultaneously executing a search for the trap victims. After locating the
4:31 victim, Lieutenant Jason Nes directed his firefighter, it was just himself and the firefighter. The third member on their team was running the pump back at
4:38 the truck and he asked his firefighter to continue the attack on the fire so that it would provide cover while he worked to remove the victim from the
4:45 fire. At 4 minutes into the scene, Lieutenant Nest successfully removed the track victim from the fire and every member on that team contributed to that
4:53 positive outcome on that scene. Uh to understand the depths of the emergency, we would like to share a video clip of the fire incident that occurred on the
5:01 evening of July 5th. The footage highlights the conditions the crew faced and the remarkable professionalism they demonstrated throughout the response.
5:30 burning down fire.
5:56 What's going on?
6:09 engine and 89. Oh my god.
6:50 Oh my god.
7:03 Street people
7:31 from other
7:56 I need you guys to come to the police time.
8:30 That I was chilling listening to that tape. So that was all footage from dispatch, the the caller, the dispatching information that went out over the radio. So that's how the guys
8:38 were receiving that information that night of the call.
8:42 So tonight we're going to be recognizing the complement of the units assigned at the structure fire. That was battalion 101, battalion 103, engine 101, ladder
8:51 102, heavy rescue 1, engine 103, tower 103, Groveland engine 95, Minnola engine
8:58 89, and our Lake County Fire Rescue uh EMS unit. Uh each of these units played a critical role in the success of this operation. Their coordination,
9:07 communication, and commitment to duty exemplify the highest standards of fire service. Their actions de demonstrated exceptional teamwork, dedication, poise,
9:16 and control under intense pressure. The professionalism commitment shown by our our department members exemplifies the highest standards of fire service. And
9:25 we are here to recognize some of those heroes that risk to save a life. So, we're going to be doing a couple of awards and going back to talking about
9:34 Lieutenant Ness and what he did. Um, he was with a firefighter that had less than six months worth of experience. So with that little time on the job, he had
9:42 to have complete faith that that firefighter was going to be capable of being effective in controlling the fire to allow him to get the victim out.
9:49 Secondly, uh one of our cardinal rules is we do not split teams, but that was a decision that he had to make under those circumstances. We had limited resources
9:58 on scene at that point. We only had our incident commander, their unit, and one other truck that was there. And the other unit was uh engaged in doing something other on the other side of the
10:06 house. So, the lieutenant made that decision to split the crew up. Um, that's something that puts him as well as his firefighter at extreme risk. And
10:14 for that, we're going to be uh recognizing him with a medal of valor tonight. So, one thing I'd like to do, I ran across a uh a recent award that was
10:23 done. Uh this was a similar type event except this was a trench rescue and this was uh fire captain Gus Stewart and he
10:33 was awarded the Ben Franklin Award of Valor back this past August for saving life in a trench rescue event that happened. And the reason that
10:42 I want to read this is that he did an amazing job when he accepted that. And with the exception of changing his speech from a trench call to a house
10:50 fire, I'm going to read what he what he spoke u word for word. It just it captures the whole essence of why we're here tonight
10:58 and just how this isn't about the people that were there, but about the entire department and who we are as a culture and and an organization.
11:07 So, this is Fire Captain Gus's uh acceptance speech for the award. Before anything else, I want to make something
11:13 clear. This story is not about a rescue because moments like that don't belong to the person who happens to be standing
11:20 there when they happen. They belong to the badge. And the fire service has never needed more heroes. It has always needed more firefighters worthy of the badge. What the badge really means.
11:31 Spend enough time in this profession and you have eventually learned something about the badge that most people never see. From the outside, people may see courage, heroism, extraordinary moments.
11:42 Firefighters know it means something different. The badge represents responsibility. It represents the quiet understanding that when someone's worst
11:50 day arrives, someone has to step forward. Not someday, not when it's convenient, right then, right there. And
11:58 none of us knows when that moment will come. Because we are never more than one set of tones away from our darkest moment or our finest hour. That is why
12:07 we train. That is why we prepare. That is why we push each other in the firehouse day after day. Because by the time the tones sound, it's too late to train.
12:17 An extraordinary promise. Stay in this profession long enough and you will see things that most people will never have to see. You will stand in someone's
12:25 living room while their world falls apart. You will walk out of a hospital at sunrise knowing someone didn't make it through the night. You will drive
12:32 back to the station in silence after a call that no training could have ever fully prepared you for. Somewhere along the way, you begin to understand what
12:39 this job really is. The profession is not built on extraordinary people. It is built on ordinary people who made an
12:46 extraordinary promise. We made that choice the day we took our oath.
12:50 Everything afterward is simply learning to live accordingly. And if we are honest with ourselves, none of us gets it right every day. There are seasons in
12:59 this profession when we fall short of the character that the badge deserves.
13:03 But the badge has a way of calling us back. It reminds us who we are supposed to be. And eventually, every firefighter has to confront a simple truth. The
13:11 badge is only as good as the heart behind it. Maybe that is one reason we keep it polished. It shines brightly enough that every once in a while, we
13:19 have to see ourselves reflected in it and decide whether the person looking back is worthy of wearing it. The currency of humanity.
13:27 That is why humanity ma matters so much in this profession. Arrogance has no place in a calling built on service.
13:33 Arrogance is the antithesis of compassion and compassion is the currency of humanity. Every call we run, every life we touch, every moment we
13:42 step into someone else's crisis, we are spending that currency. The fire service remains one of those rare places where people still spend it freely. We enter
13:51 homes where we weren't invited because someone desperately needs us there. We meet strangers on the worst day of their lives. We see people frightened, broken,
14:00 angry, embarrassed, grieving, and sometimes completely helpless. And for however long they belong to us, we serve
14:07 them. That is the job. The higher we climb, stay in this profession long enough, and something else happens. We
14:15 gain experience. We take on responsibility. Maybe we promote.
14:20 Eventually, people may start looking to us for answers. But the longer we serve, the more obvious another truth becomes.
14:27 The higher we climb, the less we matter.
14:30 Because leadership in the fire service isn't about standing above people. It's about standing behind them. Making sure they succeed, making sure they grow,
14:39 making sure they are prepared, and above everything else, making sure they go home. Our shift means the world to us for that reason. They are our second
14:47 family off duty and our first family on duty. Every firefighter understands what that means. Because perhaps the greatest responsibility we carry isn't the call
14:56 itself. It's the firefighter standing next to us making sure they go home.
15:00 Every shift, every time. Someone's worst day is coming. Somewhere out there tonight, someone's worst day is coming.
15:07 They don't know it yet. Neither do we.
15:10 But eventually, the tones will sound. A fire truck will arrive. A firefighter will step off that truck and they will look at whatever is waiting for them.
15:17 They will see what needs to be done. and they will move forward. Not because they are the only person that could could do it, but because someone has to be standing there. There is an old truth
15:26 that says there is no greater love than laying down your life for someone else.
15:30 The fire service is one of those places where that kind of love still shows up in the world. Sometimes loudly, more often quietly, perfect timing.
15:40 The firefighter in the house. That's why story people might expect to hear about a rescue doesn't really belong to the firefighter who happened to be standing
15:48 there because the firefighter standing there in that house that day was replaceable. That doesn't diminish the moment. It honors the profession.
15:57 Because if we were doing the job the way it's supposed to be done, any one of us could have been standing there. The decision to act wasn't made in that house. It was made long before that.
16:07 It was made in the firehouse on the training ground during the drills that we didn't feel like doing. During the
16:14 repetitions that seemed pointless, during the conversations around the kitchen table, during the corrections from senior firefighters, during the
16:22 days when nobody was watching because when someone's worst day arise arrives, we don't rise to the moment. We fall back on who we've already become.
16:31 This is the responsibility every one of us carries. Not merely to make sure we were ready, but to make sure the firefighter standing next to us is
16:38 ready, too. Because every firefighter understands something the rest of the world rarely has the reason to think about. We are never more than one set of
16:46 tones away from our darkest moment or our finest hour. Today, it might be one firefighter standing in that moment, but
16:53 it could have been any one of us. And perhaps the single greatest beauty of this profession is knowing that tomorrow it will be. Thank you.
17:02 Thank you, Chief.
17:09 So, we have three groups of awards we're going to do today. And we're going to start off with the Medal of H valor, uh, which is the second highest award that we have in the department. This award is
17:18 given out to an individual for exceptional bravery at imminent risk of serious bodily injury or for excellent
17:25 courage for performing a voluntary act in an extremely dangerous situation. So, I'd like to invite Lieutenant Jason Nus to come forward. Awesome.
17:57 So, mayor, council, if you'd like to come down, I'd invite you down for a picture with Lieutenant Ness.
18:03 I'm also have senior staff come up for photos.
18:55 two. I'm gonna get a video.
19:30 Ladies and gentlemen, I'm Lieutenant Ness. Uh, this is comes to a a surprise to me. Um, I appreciate it. I appreciate
19:38 the I I appreciate the opportunity to uh be a part of Clermont Fire Department.
19:42 Um it's been um God's grace that I was able to be here for uh this long and the way it's gone through my life. Um and
19:50 there's no way we could have gotten this the outcome that we did without everybody that was on scene. So it wasn't just an individual. This was a
19:58 whole team effort. And uh I appreciate you guys. Thank you.
20:32 So, the next set of awards we have is the distinguished service award. Uh this is uh given out for highly credible accomplishments bringing public acclaim
20:40 to the department or fire service as a result of devotion to duty or service to the public above and beyond normal duty
20:46 functions. So one of the other things that was interesting on this call uh we had a lot of new things happening. Uh
20:54 one of our newly promoted battalion chiefs, he was the one that sounded really calm and collected in the background calling in the EMS unit to meet meet the victim on the Bravo side
21:01 of the fire. Uh that's battalion chief John Fagan. He promoted to battalion chief on June 1st. So literally 30 days
21:09 plus a few days later he's on, you know, the fire of a career and he performed flawlessly. And the balance of
21:17 Lieutenant Nessa's crew, we had uh firefighter Grant Kelly who like I said was in his first six months on with the Clermont Fire Department. And we had
21:26 now engineer Jacqueline Collazo. She was riding up as the engineer that day. So she was riding out of position out of position running the pump on the truck
21:33 to ensure that they had a they had an effective fire stream while inside something that they absolutely needed to that was to keep them safe and being able to affect the rescue. So for that
21:42 reason we're recognizing these three for their uh distinguished service. So I'd like to invite Battalion Chief John Fagan and firefighter Grant Kelly to
21:51 come forward. Unfortunately uh Engineer Colazo could not be with us today.
22:22 What's that?
22:52 Okay. One, two, three. One, two, three.
23:25 And our last group of awards is going to be our unit citation. That's going to be for the balance of the folks that were on the alarm. Uh the unit citation is
23:34 awarded to a company for performing beyond normal expectations in an emergency situation, exemplifying a company's teamwork, dedication, poise,
23:43 and control under pressure and expertise in the field. And that was pretty much everybody on that scene tonight. And like Lieutenant Nest says, in order for us to be able to effectively go in there
23:51 and do the job of pulling somebody out, everything else has to be happening outside the house. And we never know who that person's going to be that's going to be in the spotlight, but you know, it
23:59 could be any one of us. So, I'm going to start with ladder 102. We have Lieutenant Nickerson,
24:07 Engineer Sanders, and Firefighter Brown Hearth.
24:33 We also had firefighter Lux on ladder 102, but unfortunately he couldn't make it to be here with us today. Uh, next we have engine 103. We have Lieutenant
24:40 Watkins, firefighter Raone, and firefighter Kostas.
25:13 and engineer Floyd who was on ladder or engine 103 that day is unable to be with us today. Um, and I'm also going to mention Heavy Rescue 1. Unfortunately, none of that crew could be here today.
25:22 That was Lieutenant Wnjak, Engineer Green, and Firefighter Liki. Uh, last up, we have Tower 103. Uh, that was with
25:30 Lieutenant Tim Smith, uh, who's with us here today, and Engineer Jimenez and firefighter Navez, neither of which were able to attend. Lieutenant Smith.
25:53 And also last but not least, we had Battalion 103, which was Russ Stroberg.
25:58 Uh he was unable to be here with us today. Uh but these are the folks that are receiving the unit citation award today. Thank you.
26:32 Yeah.
26:58 One, two, three.
27:16 That's it. I'll just I'll just
27:35 Thank you, Mayor Council. I appreciate the time today to be able to recognize some of our folks. And like Captain Stewart said, it's not about standing above people. It's about standing behind
27:43 them. That's that's what's important to me and my team. So, I I thank you for your time today.
27:48 Thank you, Chief. And uh I thank all before before you all leave, I noticed a lot of them have family members here.
28:00 Okay. And I would like to give them an opportunity to come up and take get a picture with their family members that has one here because while they out there making the sacrifices
28:09 uh and making sacrifices and risk to save our lives and protect us and everything, the families at home uh making sacrifices as well. So we need to
28:17 make sure we make them feel just as welcome because it's all a team effort and family thing. So So if you want we I would like to take a few minutes and
28:25 just hold off for a minutes. Anyone want to take pictures with their family member? Please come on. We give you time to do that. Thank you.
29:04 Thank you.
29:33 You're welcome.
29:57 You're welcome.
30:28 It's okay.
31:27 Again, uh thank you from the residents uh and
31:39 the members of the city council. Thank you all for all you all do and the sacrifices you all make every day uh protecting the city and the residents
31:47 have come out and as I said the families make those sacrifices as well. Um even though you are there they're they got
31:55 your bike when you get get home. So, uh, we appreciate them as well. Uh, the next item on is the public comments. If you
32:03 wish to address the council in person, please come to the microphone and state your name and address. Once in-person comments have concluded, we will move on
32:11 to virtual comments. If you are participating online on Microsoft Teams and wish to provide comments, please
32:19 raise your hand and you will be called on to unmute your microphone when it is your turn to speak. If you are participating by phone, you will press
32:28 star five on your phone to raise your hand and when called upon, you will press star six to unmute your microphone. For all virtual participant,
32:37 if you wish to comment on other items on the agenda, please stay on Microsoft Teams or on your phone and raise your hand when the item comes up on the
32:46 agenda. This portion of the meeting is only for items that are not on the agenda. In the interest of time, efficiency and ensuring that everyone
32:54 who wishes to address the council is given an opportunity to do so. Each speaker will be permitted three minutes to address the council. To avoid disruption of the meeting, speakers
33:03 should avoid inappropriate language, personal attacks, and derogatory statement and direct comments to the city council. Everyone is requested to
33:12 be respectful of each other even when we disagree. Yes, sir.
33:19 Hello, my name is Mark Preston. and I live at 381 Sky Valley Street here in Clermont.
33:25 I've come today to discuss the surveillance cameras or artificial intelligence cameras that Clermont
33:33 currently is supporting. Um, and I want to say that those who oppose
33:39 surveillance for improper purposes reminds me of what Ulissiz Grant said as he walked out of the courthouse at Appamatics.
33:49 I quote, "I believe their cause is one of the worst for which a people ever fought and one for which there was the least excuse."
33:58 And then Mark Twain comes to mind when people say to me, "Well, you've got nothing to hide. You don't have to worry about surveillance." And Mark Twain
34:05 said, "Clothes make the man. Those who go around naked in society have little influence."
34:12 I had um asked the city clerk um for some information about the surveillance
34:19 cameras. One of the things I asked was for the emails. Turns out there were 62,818
34:27 emails involved with setting up these surveillance cameras. Um I don't know how many people read them or wrote them
34:34 but uh if it was a hundred people or no if it was 50 people that would have been
34:41 about um 1,256 per person because the clerk had to redact them.
34:48 It would seem to me that Clermont has something to hide but that's a story for another day.
34:55 Um, it seems odd to me that that localities, municipalities like these like these
35:03 things and don't seem to have any understanding that literally will become a a civil rights violation.
35:11 We weren't given a the Bill of Rights as well, that's the word they use in a
35:18 legal sense, but u those were things that were inalienable in the sense of human nature.
35:27 And every time somebody drives by one of these cameras, they're under surveillance as though they're a
35:34 potential criminal. I find that to be detestable.
35:40 Um, I know there's not a lot of support for this in in cities, but as I said in my email to all of you, except for Mr.
35:48 Law and Mr. Wagner, I didn't know I should have emailed them. It went from 90 to 120 cities in two weeks that have
35:55 canceled their their surveillance cameras. The the state of Florida, Miss Governor DeSantis has canceled them. And
36:03 the Lake County commissioners have now cancelled their surveillance cameras contract. And I'm asking you all to give
36:10 some serious consideration to putting the Fourth Amendment ahead of what seems to be public safety because at what point is there enough surveillance to make us safe? Thank you.
36:21 Thank you, sir.
36:26 Good afternoon. Before you start my clock, is there a way I can show pictures?
36:31 Just keep in mind, ma'am, any pictures you show, you have to turn them leave with the clerk. Okay. Oh, shoot. I didn't know that. Okay. Well, that's all right.
36:40 Here we go. Good afternoon, mayor. You all know me.
36:45 Uh, members of the council and city manager, my name is Lisa Bjinsky and I reside at 2196 Caxton Avenue in the
36:52 Kings Ridge community and I'm here today representing Kings Ridge in my role as the HOA president. I'm here to clarify a
37:00 statement that was made at the last council meeting and to share a really positive update regarding our community landscaping.
37:07 First, a really quick clarification. It was implied that Kings Ridge is currently passing guidelines for under eave permanent lighting. I know that
37:16 came up last meeting and that's not entirely accurate. To clarify, the under the eve permanent lighting has only been
37:23 discussed by our architectural control committee. The matter has not yet been put before the board for any discussion, let alone a vote. So, in fact, our our
37:33 ACC committee is holding this topic for any further discussion until the city has made a decision on the dark sky
37:41 ordinance. So, don't worry about Kings Ridge. We're not lighting up the town. Okay.
37:46 Secondly, um a comment was made at the last meeting that the council rarely sees the results after a variance or
37:53 permits are approved. That's going to change today, but I can't show you because I didn't know I had to submit
38:01 it. So, Kings Ridge, those of you who've been in our community know we have these very large trees along the Kings Ridge Boulevard, Danbury Mill, Chapel Hill,
38:10 and it those trees are enjoyed by our residents and they're a major selling point for our community. However, as
38:17 Kings Ridge has matured, those oak trees have also matured. Those that were planted in our parking lots have been
38:24 dying due to lack of water and nutrients because they're so large that their drip line uh is too large to get all the
38:34 nutrients. It's covering the parking lot. So, right now we have distressed and dying trees at our east wing and
38:42 north spa parking lots. We have a lot of parking lots over there and it's a really sad site which unfortunately you
38:48 can't see. Um, however, um, in 2025, Kings Ridge did have this exact same
38:57 situation in our main clubhouse parking lot, and the city did grant us permission to replace 31 dying trees
39:03 with 34 4in caliber Muskegee crepe myrtles. Thank you, Kurt. And our parking, our clubhouse parking lot now
39:12 looks really nice. Again, yes, it does.
39:15 You wouldn't be able to see it. The trees are thriving. They're beautiful and it's a much better fit for the space. Thanks to the permit we recently
39:24 received from the city, we can now move forward with that exact same plan for our east wing parking lot and our north spa parking lot. We're going to be
39:33 removing 15 trees that have been identified as dying across those two parking lots and replacing them again with those crate myrtles. And on behalf
39:42 of Kings Ridge, I want to I'm sorry. I want to thank you and the city staff to help with this permit. We're excited to
39:50 restore the beauty of our community and thank you. That's really all I wanted to say. Thank you for your time and thank you for what you all do for Kings Ridge.
39:59 Who can I leave this with? How many pictures you have?
40:02 I've got only four pages.
40:06 Okay. U Tracy, can we make copies of those?
40:08 Go ahead. I'm gonna give you a minute to go ahead and show them real quick if you How can I show them?
40:16 You you insist on us seeing these pictures. So right here they can see that. Oh, look at that. Yeah.
40:24 Now, can they hang We'll adjust them. I'll adjust them. Zoom out.
40:28 Now, if I knew that, I'd have just handed him. There we go. Bravo. Okay.
40:33 So, thank you for the additional time, Mayor. I appreciate that. Um, these are the trees along Kings Ridge Boulevard, the main boulevard in Kings Ridge.
40:43 And this is Danbury Mill and Chapel Hill.
40:48 These are all our association roads. We have 15 sub neighborhoods. These are just the main roads.
40:58 And these are the extraordinarily sad trees that we have in the East Wing and North Spa parking lots. You can see
41:06 terribly thin. I mean, no oak tree should look like that. We feel sorry for them. And they're going to to meet their maker.
41:14 Wow.
41:16 For this is our clubhouse parking lot now where we have the crepe myrtles and you can see how it is so much Well, you
41:23 probably can't see or can't do you have little perfect.
41:27 So you can see how it's a much better fit for the space and our other parking lots will look the same way. So thank you very much.
41:35 Thank you ma'am. And if you would get them to our clerk over there and she would try to get you some copies.
41:42 I don't you don't need them. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you.
41:50 Hi, my name is Aminta Quintterero Jackson. I live at 13219 Olison Court here in Clermont 34711
41:58 and I'm here to introduce myself as the co-chair of the Braver Angels Alliance of Central Florida. If you're not
42:05 familiar, uh, Braver Angels is the country's largest crosspartisan volunteer-led organization working to end toxic political polarization.
42:16 Uh, we promote courageous citizenship, which means building relationships and increasing trust across political and
42:23 societal differences. Um, we are our goal is to strengthen civic action and democratic function. So, we help our
42:32 members and our meetings um members of our community develop skills to listen, speak, and connect, not to change each
42:41 other's minds on issues, but to change how we view each other when we are together. We meet the second Saturday of every month at 9:30 a.m. at Cooper
42:50 Library. As you know, questions, opinions, correct and incorrect information about the amendments on this November's ballots have been rampant on
42:59 different social media pages in our community. One of the most divisive has been amendment three, which would end homeowners taxes except those designated
43:07 for schools. And so, in an effort to heal partisan divides and encourage in-person dialogue, our alliance wants
43:14 to bring people together to help clear up misconceptions. To do that, we are hosting a panel about the amendment and
43:22 all of the amendments on the ballot that will be held October 15th at the Clermont Arts and Recreation Center at 6:30 p.m. Kesha M. Dawson Harris, who is
43:32 the founder of the Resilient Tax Group and an enrolled agent with the US Department of the Treasury, will be there representing the League of Women
43:39 Voters and will give an overview of each bill on the ballot. and Saddaf Knight who is the CEO of the Florida Policy
43:46 Institute which is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing policies and budgets that improve the economic mobility and
43:55 quality of life for all fidians will also be on the panel. Um we also have a reporter from the Orlando Sentinel and
44:02 I'm hoping one of our representatives from Lake County, one of the candidates that was running for office. I'm waiting to hear back from them. Um, we will also
44:11 have time for moderated Q&A at the end of the panel and seating is limited. So, we're we are requesting registration by
44:18 using the link on the code on this handout. I'm not sure how you guys handle handouts if I can leave some here
44:25 if that's the policy. Um, we do accept donations, but there's a code on the Eventbrite page that will make the event
44:33 free. Thank you all for all that you're doing to help our area thrive and hope to see you there.
44:39 Thank you. Yes, ma'am.
44:46 Valerie Shuitt, 931 West Montro Street.
44:50 Um, Strong Towns has written quite a bit about a phenomenon they call the cult of the fantasy pedestrian. The basic idea is that we often design our cities
44:58 around the convenience and efficiency of cars first and then ask pedestrians and cyclists to behave perfectly within whatever is left. So, the fantasy
45:07 pedestrian always walks however far out of the way we ask them to find a crosswalk. They press the button and patiently wait. They never walk
45:14 somewhere we haven't explicitly told them to do so. Meanwhile, we might design a wide, comfortable road that naturally encourages a driver to go 40 m
45:23 hour, put a sign that says 25, and assume that drivers will behave perfectly as well. or we'll look at a dangerous crossing and say, "Of course,
45:32 pedestrian safety matters, but we can't put a crossing there because that would interrupt traffic." And eventually, you realize how backwards the order of
45:40 operations can become. So, I do want to be careful with that statement, especially here in Clermont. Traffic is the biggest frustration our residents
45:48 have. And I agree that moving people efficiently matters and we should not create unnecessary congestion. But there's also another side of that coin.
45:56 When we make it safer and easier to walk and bike, we give people a viable transportation alternative. So, improving bike and pedestrian
46:05 infrastructure isn't in competition with addressing traffic. It's a part of how we do it. There's an important distinction between saying that traffic
46:12 flow matters and saying traffic flow can never be inconvenienced. And that's what I want you to hear. Because if every safety improvement has to pass the test
46:20 of will this have absolutely no impact on drivers and parking, then we're not really treating safety as a priority.
46:27 We're treating it as something we can do with whatever space and capacity are left over. So, I'd like to offer a different order of operations as you
46:35 make these decisions. First, what does the street or intersection need to be so that a kid on a bike, a vulnerable pedestrian, and someone driving can
46:43 reasonably use it safely? And then within that constraint, how do we move vehicle traffic as efficiently as we reasonably can? Sometimes the nature of
46:51 a road and what's around it means cars should move quickly and nothing needs to change. But sometimes making a place meaningfully safer will mean a driver
46:59 has to slow down, wait a few seconds or experience a small inconvenience. And I think we have to be become comfortable saying that not every inconvenience is a
47:08 transportation failure. So, when this tension comes up in Clermont, and it already has even in our discussions at East Avenue, I'd like to encourage us to
47:16 notice it and just check our starting assumptions. Can we ask ourselves, are we appropriately prioritizing and actually balancing pedestrian safety and
47:25 traffic flow here, or have we already decided that cars cannot be inconvenienced, and therefore everyone and everything else should work around
47:32 them? I appreciate you giving this thought. Thank you. Thank you.
47:43 Yes, sir.
47:46 I am Farmer Banks Hellfrick. I live in the Clay Road District. Farm tip of the day. Did you know that worms, earthworms
47:54 consume all organic matter? Kitchen scraps, uh, actually bark, trees, cardboard, paper. Believe it or not,
48:03 many of the clothes that we're wearing right now are cotton and worms will actually eat the cotton. Uh they produce
48:09 black gold, um black soil, very rich. Um and uh this would cut down our landfills.
48:17 Mayor, council, distinguished guests, can political discourse contain kindness, compassion, and decency?
48:28 Kindness. On our last bed, at our last breath, everything we have acquired, cars, wealth, homes, toys, and gadgets will not go with us.
48:40 We will not be remembered by what car we drove or how many houses we had. We will be remembered by the kindness we the
48:48 kind words or the kindness we were to others, especially those who are strangers.
48:55 at compassion. At an early age, we are taught to love our neighbor, love our enemies, clothe the naked, house the
49:04 homeless, feed the hungry, welcome the stranger. Because when we help the less fortunate than ourselves, we help all.
49:13 This is empathy and compassion, both qualities we will be remembered for. Decency.
49:21 Decency is that trait we all use in the face of ignorance. Decency is our sword
49:27 to ward off toxicity. Decency is the patience we have for others in states of
49:34 fear. Decency is the calm we can offer in times of duress.
49:41 As for me, kindness is my armor, compassion is my shield, and relentless decency is my sword. So to answer the
49:50 original question, yes, kindness, compassion, and relentless decency can exist in our political discourse. In fact, it already is.
50:01 I am Farmer Banks Halffrick, candidate for state house district 25. I am kindness. I am compassion. And I am
50:08 relentless decency. With the remainder of my time, I'd like to talk about something else. Who funds our safety and security departments? our police, our
50:17 firef fires, our EMTs, our paramedics, and our dispatchers.
50:23 We all love a tax cut. I have never met someone who does not. In fact, in support, I support property tax cuts,
50:32 yet not at the expense of our first responders.
50:36 I stand before you in opposition of amendment three and stand with our first responders like Lieutenant Ness.
50:44 Thank you. Thank you.
50:58 I did pull my item. I'm only here for the public comments, okay?
51:03 Due to most of y'all know, my husband's days are numbered and I've got to meet with some doctors. Reason why I came back here today and I will address my stuff in two weeks.
51:14 I sat here in just disbelief two weeks ago. I got up and pulled mine because of all here. This was a 4-hour meeting that
51:22 lasts six and a half hours. And I know every single one of you. I helped with some of your campaigns, addressed your
51:29 envelopes, ran to the post office, believed in you, and I want y'all to hear me from my heart right now. There
51:37 are people that are sitting here that may be in just as bad a shape as what I'm having to deal with right now. I've come to terms with my situation.
51:47 My husband's days are numbered here on this earth. Our love story is about to end on this earth.
51:53 But to sit here and watch that y'all have beat to death issues
52:01 and I sometimes I look at and I get a good telling not because I love her so much but with Shandra and she's like can't we go ahead and vote? Let's just
52:09 get it over with. We got a lawyer sitting here with a great mind that can help out with stuff. Bill Peterson sits down there like a deer in headlights.
52:18 What are we going to do now? Everybody's still just fighting, you know.
52:23 myself and probably about 20 people 25 years ago opened up this hall to the public that was not invited. Tim, you
52:31 know that. And if you were of color, you really should not come in here. And we fixed that real quick. My story is not
52:40 about that police department. It's what happened afterwards.
52:44 And that is my phone. But it's okay. I have to let it ring.
52:49 I watched y'all beat stuff to death, including at the reports that are supposed to be, "I went to the Kowanas.
52:58 The chicken and the baked beans were good, and there's going to be something coming up, but y'all turned it into some of you
53:05 like something that's supposed to be on an agenda." And Mr. Bane, I'm looking at you and I like you.
53:13 The mayor is the mayor and runs the city. I mean the business in here because we have Robert's rules of order and I know you've taken over. You don't
53:21 like some things that's going on. But you got to be respectful too. You can't just micromanage everything. I know you're like most new people. I I see a
53:30 lot of some of y'all years ago. I just wanted to take on the world. I wanted to save everybody when I found out what was really going on in this town because I
53:38 don't deal with that kind of crap. And I'm real proud of the things that some of us some of these people are dead and gone that that stood by me and all of us
53:47 in a group. But I want you to understand there are people sitting in here that's got real life 101 at home. I know
53:57 they may have a disabled child. Maybe they've got just like my neighbor with four stage breast cancer. Been fighting it for two years. I saw people get up
54:04 and leave here and going I ain't thought sitting here. So out of respect for y'all I pulled it. I did today because I got to go. But I would hope for God's
54:12 sakes, you know me. You know what I'm going through to lose a husband after 50 years and to
54:20 sit here and have to be delayed, delayed, delayed when there's important business to run this city. And Tim, I know you're frustrated. I got that, too.
54:30 I'm the one that asked you to run, didn't I? In my front yard. I did that and stood by every single one of you.
54:37 So, please, you need to police yourself.
54:39 And if somebody's getting out of line, speak up. I know, Shandra, it's hard for you, but speak up. You You could do that. You've got it in you.
54:49 But don't do this anymore. A 4-hour meeting at 6 and 1/2 hours, guys.
54:56 Not cool. Thank you.
55:10 Well, on a positive note, good evening, good afternoon, uh, city council. My name is Vincent Neck. I would like to
55:17 thank the entire city council and especially our city manager for listening to the concerns of South
55:25 Clermont when it regarding to the traffic. I showed you pictures. I gave you some solutions.
55:33 and you guys actually improved it. So, I'd like to thank you from the residents along Hartwood Marsh. I also want to
55:40 give a big thank you to the police chief and his entire department. All right? Because he did an outstanding job.
55:48 Matter of fact, on the way here, there was another police officer exactly at the location which the city council, all
55:55 of you, Bill, Shandra, Tim, Brian, and Allison recommended. I think you're
56:02 doing an outstanding job when it comes to listening to the citizens. So, I'm not here to beat you up. I'm here to praise you for Thank you for listening to the residents along Heartwood Marsh.
56:14 Thank you. God bless. Thank you. This is public commenting.
56:27 Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, members of the city council and folks on the audience. Uh, my name is Ronaldo
56:33 Kamar, 1212 South Grand Highway. I was fortunate to be here for the second half of the budget hearing and I want to
56:43 uh support like some others have came here. Whatever it is that we can do for it was a very moving video by the by the
56:51 emergency by the emergency readiness that we have in Clermont and for our police. I myself, my family has been
57:00 very supported by the Clermont police and paramedics and u I also hope that when you look on
57:09 the budget and uh Mrs. trying to saw you trying to work things around on on creatively, but
57:17 let's not uh let's support what we need to support for the service of the community, but let's also not let the
57:26 meet us in the middle project become the Clermont version of the California
57:32 speed mag trail. We need to we have been kicking that can I believe from two councils before this
57:42 one maybe two or three years going to this one. Um we need to to come to a conclusion to this you know uh our city
57:50 deserves that the the plan is beautiful the citizen needs that and is a an attractive uh part of our city and what
57:59 attracts people to our community. Thank you very much. Thank you.
58:08 Good afternoon, mayor, members of the council. Paula Hoisington, 564 East of Sodto Street. On Saturday, the the
58:15 residents of Lincoln Park held a community meeting to talk about DPZ's um comprehensive plan review and just
58:23 what's going on in that whole review. I want to thank Nathan for coming out, taking his time to listen to the people.
58:33 Um, we're going to work on an additional meeting to where we will just address Lincoln Park. I want to thank the mayor.
58:39 You came there representing as a resident of the community, Councilman Bane and Councilwoman Strange for coming out and listening to listening to what
58:47 the people want to listening. They may not even know what they want. Some of us want this, some of us want that, but you were there to listen. So, that I appreciate
58:56 very much. Um, as we move forward and we see that when you look at the information, it has Lincoln Park as
59:04 number one and it talks about redevelopment.
59:07 Community members are concerned about what does redevelopment means? Not building off of land there. But when you say redevelopment, that means you're
59:16 tearing something down to build something else.
59:19 That's a serious concern. If we're number one as a area in that quadrant,
59:27 what does it mean when you say redevelopment? What areas are you looking at to redevelop? What's going to happen to those things that are there to replace whatever there is to replace?
59:38 So, I would hope that we can continue this conversation so that we don't wake up one morning and say, "What happened to the community?" So, that we don't wake up one morning and say, "We did not
59:46 know." So I encourage when we have the next meeting that if you can I know because of sunshine law you can't talk but you can all come there and listen
59:55 because holding a meeting and I'm going to piggyback off of what Charlene talked about about the meeting because we ask that you look at the at least have a
1:00:04 compromise the gentleman that spoke with the prayer he said the decisions that you make don't just stay here they ripple out into the community when you
1:00:13 hold meetings at 3:00 and they last after N it appears that you don't go to your
1:00:21 agenda review because some of the discussion was unnecessary discussion.
1:00:25 If you would have had your gender review with staff, you wouldn't have had that much dialogue. That's just my opinion.
1:00:32 It didn't make any sense. And when you have people that come up for public comment and they state their comment, they can't stay here till 9 10:00 to
1:00:40 hear if you all are going to address what they just said.
1:00:43 Think about what you're doing. Make a compromise. If you need to have one at three, then have one at 6:30.
1:00:49 As a as a person who managed staff, and I had staff that wanted to listen to
1:00:57 their city council because there are issues that are being discussed.
1:01:02 I cannot afford to keep my business running and have them sitting at their computer on their phones listening to a
1:01:08 meeting for four hours, six hours. Give me a little bit time there. I'll I'll be done. It doesn't make sense. So, you've
1:01:16 made it available on YouTube, but you don't make it available for the working people because they're at work.
1:01:24 And you ran for an office knowing that the meetings were at 6:30 because it serves a group of people to be able to
1:01:31 come here and be a part of this decision. I really don't understand why it's taking you all this long and why you're so stubborn that you won't consider making a compromise.
1:01:43 your meeting that went on and on.
1:01:48 I'm just asking you to have your agenda review. So this because some of the questions like did y'all just get this packet today when you sat down?
1:01:57 It really doesn't make sense. And if you want to reach the people, have it within a reasonable time so that everyone who
1:02:06 pays taxes have an equal opportunity to participate. Thank you. Thank you.
1:02:14 Yes, this is a public forum uh public comment. Anyone in the chamber wish to speak to anything that's not on the
1:02:22 agenda may come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes.
1:02:26 This is public comment. Anyone in the chamber that wish to speak to item that's not on the agenda may come to the microphone, state your name and address and have three minutes.
1:02:34 Seeing no one else in the chamber, we have anyone online, sir?
1:02:38 No one online. We'll close public comments then.
1:02:42 All right. Before we move on, Mr. Van Wagner, is there any changes to the agenda this evening? There are some changes, Mr. Mayor.
1:02:51 Item number six, ordinance 2026-014.
1:02:56 That's an introduction. Staff is asking that that is tabled to October 13th of 2026.
1:03:04 And also item seven, ordinance number 2026- 025 the final hearing. And finally, item
1:03:13 number nine, resolution number 2026-022R. Are we tableabling that one?
1:03:22 All three of those.
1:03:23 All three to October 13th, the 13th and item number eight as well.
1:03:29 And item number eight's being pulled and has been pulled put back on the agenda at the next.
1:03:34 We don't need to do nothing with that, right? Okay. uh entertain a motion on what was it?
1:03:41 She read it.
1:03:44 Ordinance 20 26014, an ordinance of the city council of the city of Clermont, Lake County, Florida, amending chapter
1:03:50 125 to establish procedures for the review and approval of mobile food dispensing vehicles pursuant to section
1:03:57 509.102 102 Florida statutes providing for conflict severability codification administrative correction of scrimmers error publication and effective date.
1:04:08 Okay. Entertain a motion.
1:04:10 I'd like to make a motion to table uh item number six, ordinance 2026 014 to the October 13, 2026 meeting.
1:04:20 A second. Have a motion and a second to table item number six ordinance number 2026-014 till 13 October 26. Any further discussion?
1:04:30 No. Hear none. All in favor let me be known by saying I. I. All oppose and the chair vote I as well. Motion passes 5.
1:04:39 Ordinance number 202625.
1:04:42 An ordinance of the city council of the city of Clermont, Lake County, Florida, amending the code of ordinances by repealing section 2412, lighting of
1:04:49 property and section 11512, lighting facilities in their entirety. Creating a new chapter of the code of ordinances
1:04:56 titled outdoor lighting and dark sky standards providing for purpose and intent, applicability definitions, outdoor lighting standards, including
1:05:05 measurement methodology, prohibited lighting, hours of operation, and adaptive controls. Phototric plant submitt specific use applications
1:05:14 exemptions phased implementation and retrofit variances enforcement and penalties in conflict with other
1:05:22 provisions. Amending section 101352 site plan submitt requirements to harmonize existing photoometric plan
1:05:29 requirements with the new dark sky standards. Amending section 1179 sign illumination to add color temperature
1:05:37 and shielding requirements for illuminated signs. Amending section 11723, changeable copy and electronic message
1:05:44 boards to add a color temperature cap for electronic message board signs.
1:05:49 Amending section 119 311 electric power lines and street lights to require subdivision street lights to comply with
1:05:57 the new chapter providing findings of consistency with the comprehensive plan providing for conflict severability codification the administrative
1:06:05 correction of scrivener's error publication and an effective date.
1:06:10 I'd like to make a motion to table item number seven, ordinance number 2026-025. I second.
1:06:18 25. You said 25. No, you said 26. Not at the beginning.
1:06:25 Uh, okay. We have a motion and a second to table ordinance number 2026-025.
1:06:33 Any further discussion?
1:06:35 Hear none. All in favor, let it be known by saying I. I. All oppose and chair vote I as well. Motion carries 50. Item number nine,
1:06:43 resolution number 2026 022R. A resolution of the city council of the city of Clermont, Lake County, Florida,
1:06:50 adopting a schedule of maximum total outdoor light output values expressed in initial lumens per net acre for purposes
1:06:59 of implementing section 129 for parend D of the code of ordinances outdoor lighting and dark sky standards
1:07:07 providing for findings implementation future amendment by resolution conflict severability administrative correction
1:07:14 of scrivener's error and an effective date.
1:07:18 I'd like to make a motion to table item number nine, resolution 2026-022 Romeo.
1:07:27 I second.
1:07:28 I have a motion and a second to table resolution number 2026-022.
1:07:34 Any further discussion? None. All in favor, let it be known by saying I. I.
1:07:39 All oppose. Cho I as well. Motion carries 50. And for anyone that was may have been here for item number eight, it has been pulled as well. Okay.
1:07:48 To make a motion for that.
1:07:49 No, we don't need a motion. Uh, it was pulled, buddy. And so we need no motion there.
1:07:55 Is that any other changes, sir? That's it. Okay.
1:08:00 So, the next portion of the meeting is the consent agenda, which contains items that have been determined to be routine and non-controversial.
1:08:07 If anyone in the audience wish to address a particular item on the consent agenda, now is the opportunity for you to do so. Additionally, if staff or
1:08:14 members of the city council wish to speak on a consent item, they have the same opportunity. The consent items for consideration tonight is items one through five.
1:08:24 Anyone wish to have any items pulled? I would like to have item two pulled. Number two.
1:08:33 Any other items one through five? Item two been pulled. Is there any other? Seeing no
1:08:41 other, I entertain a motion for item one and items three through five. So moved. Second.
1:08:49 I have a motion for approval of consent items one and items three through five.
1:08:54 Any further discussion? Hear none. All in favor? Let it be known by saying I.
1:08:58 I. All oppose. Chair vote I as well. Yes sir.
1:09:05 I I had to pull item two because it it was it would raise the utility bill and I have to have a firm no on anything that's going to raise the utility bill.
1:09:19 Is it? Okay. Um this is a public form.
1:09:23 Anyone in the public wish to address the site may come to the microphone and state your name and their address and have three minutes.
1:09:36 Yes, Vincent, Regency Hills. Uh, I'd like to remind the council, uh, this is
1:09:43 regarding item two. At the March 28, 2023 council meeting, all right, which I
1:09:50 watched over and over and over, okay, the council discussed having the water and sewer utility rate re-evaluated every 3 to 5 years.
1:10:02 At any time council can, this is quote, can amend the ordinances
1:10:10 or the ordinance with the rate adjustments to move forward in a different direction. That's quoted.
1:10:18 That's what they said back in 2023.
1:10:22 All right. And for the record and the people listening, the council members on that that voted for that was Councilman Pervvis.
1:10:32 All right. He set the motion and I believe Councilman Gonzalez backed
1:10:39 it with a second motion. The council members at that point that voted for it was Michelle Pines.
1:10:47 This is for the record only. It's not a political statement, your honor. It's for Michael Gonzalez. He voted for it.
1:10:55 Michelle Pines voted for it. Jim Pervis vote for it. And unfortunately, Mayor Murray, you voted for it. The only
1:11:02 council member that did not vote for the utility raise was Ebel.
1:11:09 Let me see if I can get his name right.
1:11:11 In sewer. Okay. So, please I mean this water I mean we went three
1:11:18 years from 2023 to 2024 and 2025.
1:11:27 every year was a 16.5 raise in the water tax. I'm not going to turn around and look at them, but how
1:11:35 are your water how's your water bill? I just got mine. I just received mine again. I can't believe how high it is.
1:11:42 Plus, the sewer rate went up 8% every single year for the next 5 years. We got two more years coming to us. So you
1:11:51 raised all our taxes by 16.5 and then you raised it again on top of that 16.5 to another 16.5. Then you
1:12:00 raised it for the third year for another 16.5.
1:12:04 And now you're gonna sit here and you're gonna vote if you're gonna pass this in a consent
1:12:11 agenda, which I find very unusual that it was in the consent agenda for another 3% on the 45% increase that we just took
1:12:21 for this year and next year and also the 8% on the sewer tax. I don't know about you, but my um it's not a cup of coffee.
1:12:32 Okay, this is very simple. My bill went up $80 in one month. All right, that is a and I
1:12:40 have a very small home that is affecting my way of life and my household expenses. Thank you. God bless.
1:12:48 Thank you. This is a public hearing.
1:12:50 Anyone in the chamber wish to speak to this item may come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes. Anyone in the chamber
1:12:59 wish to speak to this item may come to the microphone, state your name and address and have three minutes.
1:13:04 Seeing no one in chamber, anyone online, sir?
1:13:08 We have no one online, so I close public comment. Bring it back to council. Uh, Miss Meyers, you have question time.
1:13:16 Well, I'm not for raising um water and sewage on our residents. um they've already complained heavily this past
1:13:26 year about it being high already. So I feel like we need staff to find another way to bring this cost down for our citizens.
1:13:39 Oh no question just a statement miss you have any question Mr. Peterson? No this is yours. So Mr.
1:13:47 More of a statement but we'll wait for the statement board.
1:13:49 Yeah. Okay. Miss Strange Mr. Tran Wagner, when will we get the utility rate study back that we ordered last over the summer?
1:13:56 I should have it by the end of this week. That's all I have. So, yeah. Okay.
1:14:01 For questions, Mr. Bane.
1:14:05 Thank you, Mayor. You said end of this week.
1:14:08 When would that be? When will that come back before us for presentation workshop?
1:14:15 Stony, can you come up?
1:14:25 I'll personally review it for the first time. Sure. Yeah.
1:14:28 And then I would expect that you would have a chance to review everything, but I'm just curious when what the schedule is moving forward.
1:14:35 Good afternoon, council.
1:14:37 It would the plan would be we're going to get it this week and then we're going to sit down with the city manager and the deputy city manager and go through it. Whatever comments are made, they'll
1:14:46 adjust it and then it'll be presented to the council. And will that be through uh a workshop or will that just be an item
1:14:53 on the agenda? How what's the plan moving forward with that? Because I know we had them here I think previously
1:15:01 um but they didn't give us any specifics about the actual rates for post 2027.
1:15:10 I can't speak for this round but in the past they have presented it at a council meeting.
1:15:15 Okay. So, it'd be up to the council. If you want a workshop, we can schedule a workshop. If if you wanted a council meeting, we can get a council meeting.
1:15:24 Thank you.
1:15:25 Thank you. Um I I don't know, Mr. City Manager, I'll
1:15:33 ask you uh this question. I don't know if it's going to be you or or um a different staff member, but when I
1:15:41 talked about this in the agenda review, it was brought to my attention that this this is not
1:15:48 actually the resolution that there was some confusion or or or
1:15:56 clarification as to what we're actually doing with this rate schedule fee. And I can can we get some clarification on
1:16:05 that and how this council can go about making changes to the rates and what are the
1:16:13 implications to the bonding and current structure we're under that ends in 27 if we did make those changes to the rates.
1:16:24 Sure.
1:16:26 A resolution was passed in 2023 allowing these changes in rates. So staff has a
1:16:34 responsibility to go ahead and take what's given to them by the council and to make that happen. So in following in
1:16:42 accordance with the former resolution in 2023, we presented to you the comprehensive fee schedule based on what
1:16:50 was passed before you. So, you can't vote today and you can talk to our attorney to change that just through the
1:16:58 comprehensive fee schedule. However, you could ask staff to go back and present
1:17:04 to you a new resolution if you so deemed you wanted to change that. So, that that's my understanding from our
1:17:11 attorney, but I'm certainly not going to play his role, so I'll get out of the way. Thank you.
1:17:18 Well, council member, I think one of the implications is if Well, let me confirm.
1:17:24 I I agree with everything the city manager just said. Um, this is a memorialization of exist rates that are
1:17:32 going to exist on your utilities already. In other words, this memorializes as a schedule all your fees. So, we do this on a regular basis.
1:17:43 um the the rates already legally are enacted for your utilities. So, this resolution will not be the enacting
1:17:52 resolution to raise the rates if that makes sense. Um now, if the city council
1:17:58 wanted to look at that, we are there's there's no Can I ask a When you say look at that, you mean changing rates?
1:18:05 Yes. Okay.
1:18:06 Yeah. Um especially potentially lowering them. Um because due to debt obligations the city has I'm concerned and haven't
1:18:15 reviewed the covenants yet to be able to advise you as to what the con consequences would necessarily be. They
1:18:22 could be for example you know if we lowered it we'd have to make up the difference of the money we pay the bond holders that would affect our budget.
1:18:31 How much where does that come from? We don't know the I don't know the answer to that. Um, it could affect our credit rating, which then could affect our
1:18:38 interest rates on other things. Uh, it could be that we could get sued for specific enforcement that we just can't do it. So, I'm not able to advise you on
1:18:47 that. However, if the city council wanted to look at that, we could look at how to achieve that. You know, when you tell us to do something, our mission
1:18:54 becomes how do we achieve that? So, I hope that answers your question.
1:18:58 It does. So I guess then for further clarification, if we vote if the vote ends up being in favor of the fee
1:19:07 schedule, it implements the fee schedule. All of the ones that are in here. Yes. If we vote if the vote ends
1:19:14 up being no, none of these fees are implemented at a new rate. So the the the continued
1:19:23 rates, so like how what it costs to rent a pavilion or you know all the because that's all included in here. What
1:19:31 happens to all those other things if we don't approve this fee schedule?
1:19:34 That's right, council member. If if there's a change, for example, in the pavilion rental rate, that will not change if you vote no.
1:19:43 Okay.
1:19:43 Um but the way I view it is it would not change what we have to do on utilities.
1:19:47 Okay. So even if we this this resolution failed, unless there's specific action through a different resolution or
1:19:56 vehicle, the rates would still go into effect as presented in the fee schedule for the utilities. For the utilities.
1:20:04 Yes, sir. Okay.
1:20:07 I think those are um my only other question to the city manager uh in in final is um with these fees I think it's
1:20:16 important to understand the perspective of staff and um to particularly uh all of these other fees that are included in
1:20:24 here. I mean we've got gosh um 20ome pages of of different things. Are these all fees reasonable, adequate, and where
1:20:33 they need to be from a staff perspective to operate the city and cover the costs? Yes.
1:20:39 Okay. Thank you. Those are my own questions. Okay.
1:20:47 Well, let me uh let me start with, you know, yes, I voted I voted um for this resolution back in 2023 and everything,
1:20:56 but here here's something I guess I I need everybody to understand.
1:21:01 In 2023, we hired a professional company organization to come in and do a rate
1:21:09 study on our utility rates. At that time, our utility rates hadn't seen an increase. haven't did too much with our
1:21:16 utilities in about 15 years I think it was at the time. So they came in and their recommendation was basically what what we voted on and what we presented
1:21:24 was was their recommendation based upon the fact that um our infrastructure wastewater infrastructure was in need of
1:21:33 repair. Uh impact fee was so low that we weren't incurring many impact fees at
1:21:39 the time. Um, so basically based upon their recommendation of rates and everything, we voted to raise these
1:21:47 rates because why? We end up with having a $49 million uh wastewater impact uh wastewater improvement project that went
1:21:55 on and we only had 22 $20 million in impact fees. Okay. So, with that being said, you know, we we're sitting here
1:22:03 talking about uh making it may I guess to me it sound like you just trying to say the council just got up here and made voted out of nowhere for this, but
1:22:11 it was a professional study. So, my question to you, Mr. Mr. uh to all of you, is it? Did you go back and even
1:22:18 read the study from 2023? What the study said? Any of you?
1:22:24 See, yes, but you you didn't reference that.
1:22:29 See, because the study basically, as I said, it identified our shortfalls and our needs and and why why we needed
1:22:37 to raise them rates. Okay? And of course, if you read anything, if you read my my next question to you would be what in that study specifically in that
1:22:46 study that you disagree with. Okay? Now that we sitting here, we want to debate this. See,
1:22:53 and it it's not like I heard com I heard other comments earlier today about impact fee, but we wasn't charging impact fees. We were charging impact
1:23:02 fees, but impact fees um basically the study was saying they was too low. Okay.
1:23:14 So I I you know it's just it's it's kind of strange to see here we sitting here and say we just council members just
1:23:22 made this mis this mysterious motion and raise raise the rates but to understand what we did you need to go
1:23:30 back and look at the study from February actually they presented it to us in February of 2023 we voted on it in March
1:23:37 of 2023 and yes it said we're going to raise the rate 16 I think it was 16 and 12% in in April or so, another 16% in
1:23:46 October, another 16% in 23 and then it would gradually go down. This rate is only 3%. And this is the final this is
1:23:54 the final rate increase under that study. of this process.
1:23:59 This is supposed to be the final rate under this under the study. My understanding and we're in the process of doing another rate study which was
1:24:05 spoken uh they they spoke to earlier at that time they found when they did the study and the reason they
1:24:12 recommended this is they found that our study our rate was so low that we couldn't afford to do the uh upgrade our infrastructure.
1:24:24 We couldn't afford to continue operating. You got to understand these impact fees and the thing that pays for for the personnel. It pays for the
1:24:31 infrastructure. They pays for all the different things. Impact fees can only pay for so much. You cannot pay for everything. Okay. So
1:24:40 my thing is um another question I have for you. If you went back and looked at the study, what what's changed since 2023?
1:24:49 Okay. Now we talking about we want we we we can't raise anything. Okay. So I think we need we need to need help. I
1:24:57 have no problem giving a a reduction but one of the concerns I have well I'll leave that from my statement. Okay. But that's some of the question. Um so if sorry was that not your statement time?
1:25:08 No I'm asking one other question I'm asking you are this council really ready to reverse the decision that was made by the previous but by the previous
1:25:15 council. That's is that what we're looking to do here today? Yes. Okay.
1:25:24 Well, the question I asked and then if that's the if that what we doing, the next question I have is if that's the case, where did the money come to do the operate to operate with?
1:25:34 Well, we've hired a firm, Mr. Mayor, to do a study. Ever since this was done, we've added about 3,000 people to our list of persons being served. And if you
1:25:43 count the annexations or the JPA agreements that the county's been approving as of late, we've got an awful lot of servicesers that are going to be coming online who hopefully are paying appropriate impact fees and user fees.
1:25:53 So I think that it's fair to reevaluate it. It's been three years. The prior council said they would reevaluate it in three years and that's the process that
1:26:01 we're in. So yes, I would love to roll back that rate. I'd roll it back to 30% and then look at a cost of living over the last two years and start there. And that's where I would suggest that we start.
1:26:11 That's my answer to that question and I have no problem with that. We can sit here, we can roll it all back, but guess what? Like other people come in.
1:26:18 Guess what? The cost of operating that infrastructure and providing that service to people, the cost went up as well. Okay? See, we sit here, we say we
1:26:26 want to roll back cost and everything because we get all these extra people in, but it cost us extra to provide that service to the people as well. So that's
1:26:35 one of the thing I asked, where would the fund come from if we decide to roll it back? And I have no problem. I Hey, we we can cancel it all, but as Mr. Mr.
1:26:43 W said, hey, we may have some pinity to pay with the bond debt that was established with um and of course if you
1:26:50 can like you say, well, I guess that's what you was just telling me, alternative financial plan that we can put in place. I guess if we were to roll it back, I would like to see that. Okay.
1:27:00 You know, so so that those are of my concerns. Hey, I I have no problem rolling it back
1:27:07 if we feel like we can sit here and put another financial plan that we can recover the cost and we able to continue
1:27:13 to operate our system uh with without going going back to where we were in 2023. Okay. And one of the reason one of
1:27:22 the reason No, that's that's all my question. You have a statement, Miss Meyers?
1:27:31 No statement, Mr. Peterson.
1:27:34 I mean, I I concur with what council member Strange is saying. I think we should bring this to staff and let us let them figure it out. We, you know, I
1:27:42 don't know about you, but I get multiple complaints about the utility bill, especially that huge increase that happened in the past. And I cannot I
1:27:51 cannot vote yes to this now. I I mean I would I have to give a super firm no to this and bring it back to staff and let them re-evaluate it. See what they can
1:27:59 come up with to to you know bring it back to at least level and we if we have to reeval you know as
1:28:08 council you I mean as our our city manager I know he's he's very capable about doing that. You know he's he's he's a very smart and reasonable person
1:28:16 and I think you understand what we're saying. You know bring it back to staff.
1:28:20 let them let them figure out what to do and you know let them do their jobs at at getting it done with that.
1:28:28 I don't know if you want to call for a vote.
1:28:30 Well, Miss Mark miss strange I have a couple comments that could affect a motion on this. So the first is
1:28:37 as our staff has shared with us this is really an truly an administrative function. Um there are a couple decisions that need to be made in here.
1:28:46 For example, bulk collections is something that wasn't in the original 2023 um report. We've got some cemetery
1:28:54 changes. There's a hard drive charge and then use of the the disc golf at H Highwatha Park. And those are kind of the the changes. And so technically,
1:29:02 we're approving those, but we're rubber stamping the utility bill increase. Um I don't like the idea of causing confusion
1:29:08 for the public. I think that having uh a set plan and a published fee schedule is good. I don't I don't want to go back
1:29:17 and forth. I I'm not interested in approving one and then changing it later because we have the final budget hearing
1:29:25 in at the end of this month. um whether we would consider tableablings to the first week of October or looking at it at the end of September. Knowing that we
1:29:34 have the water utility report coming back, the feast study is coming back at the end of this week. Um we had agreed to do a workshop on the cemetery fees.
1:29:44 There's changes to the cemetery fees in here that I feel like I mean they're not a big deal maybe, but we haven't workshopped it, so I don't know. Um, and
1:29:53 then the bulk collection, we had asked staff to come back with a plan to make bulk collections easier, communicate that more to the public. All I'm seeing
1:30:01 is the rates going up, but I'm not seeing a policy that goes with it that says, you know, what are how do we communicate that? So, I think there's some other things that we can give staff
1:30:09 direction on. And my suggestion today is going to be to table this to either the end of September or the first week of October so we have time to see what
1:30:18 happens with the study and then the old rates stay in effect until we get that.
1:30:22 And I think most people look and say, "Oh, well, it's October 1st and they can wait a week or two." So I don't think that would cause the same confusion as
1:30:30 adopting it today and then changing it in two months. So my suggestion would simply be to table it for now while staff figures out steady
1:30:38 because we've talked about can we apply the the overage that's going into some of the enterprise funds. Can we refinance that bond? You know the new
1:30:46 study's going to come. We don't know what's going to happen. It's all going to happen in the next two weeks. So I would say it's probably prudent to just table it for anywhere from three to five weeks.
1:30:57 Okay. Thank Yes.
1:31:03 I agree that this fee schedule isn't the appropriate venue or vehicle to to actually address the rate per what the
1:31:11 city attorney has indicated. Um, I I guess I I would want to know from
1:31:19 staff if we do make a motion to table this because the budget is built
1:31:29 as such that these are going to go into place at the at day one of fiscal year 27.
1:31:37 What does that mean for us financially?
1:31:40 Um because again it whether this gets tabled and please city manager or city
1:31:49 attorney correct me if I'm wrong. I asked the question if we vote yes they're implemented. If we vote no I'm
1:31:59 I'm talking utility. If we vote no they're implemented. If we table I'm assuming the same is still true. they're
1:32:06 getting implemented on October 1 until such different resolution or vehicle is approved by this council to change those
1:32:15 those rates and then and then at that point it would be in a new fiscal year in a new billing cycle.
1:32:26 Yes.
1:32:26 Okay. And I guess I want to add an additional clarification to your statement, council member, which is the way I see it, unless you have an
1:32:35 affirmative vote to keep the rates the same and not change them on schedule, as I think we're bound to do, they're going up.
1:32:44 Yeah.
1:32:45 And I don't um often urge you to do something. Yeah.
1:32:50 And I've never begged you to do anything. Um but this is pretty serious actually because
1:32:57 it will affect our ability to um operate in the future like when cities start
1:33:05 messing with the ability to fund their infrastructure especially utility infrastructure. So I would just um ask
1:33:14 that you not do the vote to force us to lower the rates at this time.
1:33:20 Yeah. And I I so I I feel like u my recommendation we we approve the fee schedule
1:33:27 um and then we address the the rates. We address the rates whether it's in the current fiscal year through that
1:33:34 appropriate vehicle or and I read this as this is through fiscal year 2627. So
1:33:42 they end at the end of this next fiscal year that there's the fee schedule is no longer going to be in place after this
1:33:48 budget that we're putting in place at the end of this month for fiscal year 27. So we have the ability then to really address the fees moving forward.
1:33:58 Um I don't think I we should be putting the city in a position for bonding and uh leverage purposes for future issues
1:34:08 um related to this. I am open to having the conversation about what can we do through the appropriate vehicle to do
1:34:16 it, but our city attorney and our city manager are telling us this is not the appropriate vehicle to do that. And I
1:34:24 think we need to listen to them for the bigger issue related to bonding and and
1:34:32 structures in that way. So approve the fee schedule is what I would recommend and then we deal with this through the appropriate vehicle. Thank you.
1:34:41 Thank you.
1:34:41 Is it possible that we could just remove the utility rate and approve the rest?
1:34:48 Excuse me. Um yes.
1:34:53 Let me say uh as I stated earlier this this this wasn't just done out of out of nowhere.
1:35:01 It was done because of a professional advice we received from a professional company which we are doing the same thing right now and getting professional
1:35:08 advice. Uh it wasn't up to staff to sit down and determine these rates and everything. This is what recommended through a professional company. One of the other things I I I need to add here
1:35:17 is that fact is we were sitting here when one of the things I found when I came in I was told that we we got a waste we uh need to improve our
1:35:24 wastewater treatment plant. However, it was it was operating at 97% at the time.
1:35:30 Okay. state I think state law say once it's at 85% you should be doing something with it and it hadn't been done so we didn't have the money sitting
1:35:38 here so that's one of the reason this study was done and we we came up and we said hey to get this done we got to get it done right now so we passed the fees I have no problem rolling back these fees however I do understand what Mr.
1:35:49 what I was saying about the fact that because the bond is tied with this, a $29 million bond I think was tied with the uh with the wastewater treatment plant, that can hurt us seriously. Okay.
1:36:02 Now, if we only talking about dropping back this 3% and everything, I I can I may be able to somewhat support that,
1:36:09 but it's still I would like to see where we going we going to make up these funds at, okay? because these funds are what's you utilized to support our
1:36:18 infrastructure when we have to have improvement. That's one of the reason right after after this study was done, we went to the county and we got an improve increase in our impact fees
1:36:27 because they was too low as well. We had to fight to get an improvement in impact fees. Okay. Now, as I said, my question
1:36:35 is where we going to make up the money if we roll it back? If you can show me the numbers and show that show that to the people where the numbers g we gonna
1:36:42 make up and it's not going to hurt our bond ratings and all all our uh ability to bury I have no problem with rolling
1:36:49 it back. I just I just like to see a plan what we how we're going to do it.
1:36:55 I just I I just want to interject if I can. Mayor, I I know you're on the clock here. Uh I disagree that we can just
1:37:02 roll back and not have it affect our credit or issues because it's really up to the bond holders. we'd have to negotiate with them and there's ways of
1:37:09 doing that. I mean, I could imagine a situation where we set aside collateral that maybe it satisfies them. I mean,
1:37:17 but then again, we're talking about allocating funds to the side that, you know, if we ever have a default, it gives them some comfort that we're ready
1:37:25 and then that wouldn't affect us. But we're kind of speaking in the dark just because we haven't spoken uh with them or engaged in any kind of technical
1:37:34 discussion on that. So, I think where there's a will, there's a way. It's just we can't tell you unless we do go to the drawing board and report back.
1:37:40 Right. Well, and I understand I understand that we take that chance if we do these because and I just finish like this and say basically, you know, I
1:37:49 sit up here as elected officials and sometime we had to make tough decision when it comes to these these type of things and that's that's part of our job and that's what we elected to do. Um
1:37:58 when I voted to do this, guess what? It didn't just increase your rate. It increased my rate too cuz I'm a resident as well and I'm be honest with you. I'm one of those that complain about my
1:38:06 rate. Okay, I saw an increase but still I understood what what went on there and I'm ask myself how are we going to uh
1:38:13 replace it? Um so sometimes responsible decision is not to be a popular decision. That's what we have to do up here. Sometime residents may disagree
1:38:21 with us and sometime the decision is is the best for the long-term financial health for our community and may not be the decision of of our political beliefs or whatever.
1:38:32 But we have to make those decision as elected officials and I made that decision and I am not I'm not afraid of it the fact that I I voted voted for it
1:38:39 based upon the facts that were presented to me at that time. Thank. So, uh, I'm going to move to table this item to the September 22nd meeting.
1:38:50 I second.
1:38:52 Have a motion to move this item to SE September 22nd uh, meeting. Is there any requirements you
1:38:59 I'd like staff to bring us options to reduce the rate based on the new rate study and or the bond status with any
1:39:07 funds that we have available in the enterprise funds. So, I'd like staff to take a stab at lowering this rate before we adopt the final budget and publish the final fee schedule. Okay.
1:39:15 So, we have a and you second on that.
1:39:18 Okay. We have a motion in a second and asking staff to come and bring us some uh uh a possibility of rate reduction.
1:39:25 Uh what is it? September 22nd. September 27th. Next meeting.
1:39:29 Next council meeting in September 27, 2026. Any further discussion?
1:39:35 None. All in favor, let it be known by saying I. All oppose. and chair I as well. Thank you.
1:39:47 All right.
1:39:54 Item six was table seven was table eight was the pool nine. And so we at item 10, a varance request.
1:40:07 Good afternoon, mayor, city council members, and guests. Justine Day with development services.
1:40:16 The applicant, Robert Herrell, is requesting four variances to the land development code in order to develop a
1:40:23 residential subdivision. The property is bisected by old Highway 50 located south of the Florida Turnpike and north of South Lake Trail.
1:40:35 Upon reviewing the conceptual plans, it was noted that the property has some environmental concerns such as significant changes in topography and
1:40:42 wetlands. To address the existing site constraints and develop the property, the applicant is requesting the following variances.
1:40:52 Please note that the applicant has revised their original application and is no longer requesting any waiverss regarding retaining wall heights or secondary access to the subdivision.
1:41:05 So the first request is to allow for up to 16 ft of cut and fill over more than 10% of the site. Majority of the
1:41:12 regrading would occur in the northwest area of the property to work with the existing topography rather than flattening the hillside. To maintain the
1:41:20 landscape buffer along the turnpike and ensure safe transitions between lot elevations and street grades, the applicant is proposing to regrade the areas depicted in green.
1:41:33 Secondly, they are requesting to wave the sidewalk requirement on areas designated as open space. There are only two areas this would affect, which are
1:41:41 depicted in blue. These areas are along portions of the subdivision that will not serve residential lots and are adjacent to wetlands and landscape
1:41:49 buffers. Safe alternative pedestrian routes are still being provided for access between the north and south sides of the project as well as to the close close to home um park.
1:42:03 The third request would be to wave the tree mitigation requirements in exchange for donating 2 acres of land to the city. While the applicant is proposing
1:42:12 to pre preserve or replant a portion of the trees on site, the request does not meet the intent of the tree removal replacement standards within the code.
1:42:23 Lastly, the applicant is requesting to provide private gated streets for the residential subdivision. The applicant states that this would increase safety
1:42:30 in the community and eliminate the city's expense for street maintenance.
1:42:36 Under land development code 101246, a variance may only be granted with a positive finding on all review criteria.
1:42:43 Staff recommends approval of request numbers 1, 2, and 4 and denial of number three. This concludes staff's presentation.
1:42:52 Thank you. Is the applicant present?
1:43:00 Good afternoon, Mayor Council. Rick McCoy, McCoy Associates. Um, I don't know if any of you have driven by this
1:43:07 property. You're familiar with it on Old Highway 50 on the north side of Costco.
1:43:13 It's a scenic highway. We've doing our best to try to maintain as many trees and keep everything natural and and uh scenic as possible.
1:43:24 I try not to ask any variances, but here I am. Um, this is unique on the north
1:43:31 side. I've got 65 ft of fall from the wetlands to the top of the the cut and and there's a cross-section through
1:43:39 there if you look at it, if you understand it. But as you go up the hill, they cut the turnpike and it drops almost 20 feet back down to the turnpike level. We'd love to keep that buffer.
1:43:51 Um, and that's the whole reason we need fill at the bottom to to do the balancing act. Um, I can I can keep in with the 10T, but I got to take the 10
1:43:59 foot off the top and that's where the trees are and that's where the the buffer is to keep the noise out of the subdivision and go up and over. So,
1:44:07 that's our first variance request and I appreciate your consideration for that.
1:44:12 I do have Mr. Harrow in the audience and uh we have um Tom Daly with Daily Design Group is here too to discuss the trees.
1:44:20 Um the sidewalk area is the same thing.
1:44:23 We have sections through there that we want to keep it, you know, Green Mountain and um it doesn't make a whole
1:44:30 lot of sense to take trees out and and put in sidewalks where we don't have houses. Any place we have a house, we'll
1:44:38 keep all the ADA, but if we don't have the house in those open spaces, we would like to not have to build. Now, one of
1:44:44 ours we're we're asking for um private streets, so it doesn't really cost the city, but if whether it's a city or HOA,
1:44:54 sidewalks that nobody uses are still a maintenance item.
1:44:57 And uh Tom can talk about the trees. I've worked very hard to try to keep trees in the retention ponds getting and
1:45:06 basically keep the retention pond bottoms because they're dry ponds at the tree level and save the trees that are there and we bur them up then and
1:45:14 because we've got good perking soils out here that'll go back down. So if you have any questions for me I'll be happy to answer them and Tom.
1:45:25 Okay. You have anything to answer, Tom? Yeah.
1:45:34 My name is Tom Daly. I'm with Daily Design Group, 913 North Pennsylvania Avenue in Winter Park. Uh I'm a licensed landscape architect and a certified
1:45:42 urban planner. We actually did this project, reszoned it, and annexed it into the city about two and a half years
1:45:49 ago, and now we're here at the the final end. I'm here to talk about the trees and the the purpose of our request.
1:45:58 Like Rick said, you know, you got 60 feet of drop over this site. The ability to build roads and houses and preserve
1:46:07 trees is limited just because of the nature of the site. But what we've been able to do is with the top of the hill,
1:46:14 we saved them. Bottom of the hill, we saved them. and in between we weren't unable to because of
1:46:22 engineering constraints and you know the ability to put utilities in and houses and driveways and everything else. So
1:46:29 right now there is about six 1685 trees on the property. Uh we did have someone go out and evaluate to see if there was
1:46:38 any that were seriously diseased, you know, uh and there was a there was a handful of those, but the end result is 1685.
1:46:46 As part of that, we're plant we're saving for over 400 trees, 405. And we're planting an additional 633 trees
1:46:56 on the site. So the total trees that are going to be on the postdevelopment site is going to be a little over a thousand,38.
1:47:06 And so we felt that's you know pretty good considering the site constraints and and the the condition of of the
1:47:13 vegetation out there. So the delta the 600 and some odd trees between the removal and the planting is what the
1:47:23 variances we're asking for. Um as part of that because you know I mean when you look at your fee schedule and I don't
1:47:31 want to talk like that but if you look at your fee schedule the the cost of replacement of those trees can get very
1:47:38 high. those 600 trees that we're talking about here. Uh in this particular case, it's uh well north of a million dollars
1:47:46 in just check cash to the city. So we thought that maybe we could come up with a way to alleviate that cost a little
1:47:54 bit at least. There's a 2acre site that's got about 800 foot of uh frontage on the West Orange Trail that we own.
1:48:04 that is the site that's uh that we would like to go ahead and offer as a a donation to the city of Clermont as for
1:48:12 a park for purposes of park uh in order to kind of start to balance out that what we can plant and what we just
1:48:21 physically cannot plant on the site. Now that two acres has got about 40 trees on it. Um most of them are big ones, you
1:48:29 know. um they're all in good shape. And so in addition to that, and again, this is just trying to figure out what's the best for all of us in this situation.
1:48:41 In addition to that, Mr. Harold, who's the land owner, um has wants to offer to
1:48:49 pay for or contribute to the payment of improvements to make it a park so that it's not a burden upon the city. and he
1:48:57 would like to go ahead and offer u $500,000 as a contribution to the improvements of
1:49:05 the park in addition to the donation of the roughly two acres of land. And so I
1:49:13 mean we see it as a as a win-win. We're not just trying to give you a piece of dirt and just say well it's on you. Um but it's got like 800 foot of frontage
1:49:22 on the West Horns Trail. So, it really is a pretty significant piece that can be utilized by the residents. The
1:49:30 programming of what would be put in there. That's really all up to the city.
1:49:34 That's not something that that we, you know, feel that we would be appropriate to decide if it's a parking lot, if it's a picnic, if it's a bathrooms, any of
1:49:42 the the types of things that your parks department want. But that's why we're just offering uh a donation of of uh
1:49:50 land and a contribution towards those improvements of $500,000. Any questions?
1:49:59 Not at this not for me. Not at this time, sir. But if uh you hang around for a little bit, I'm going open up to the public and if anybody then we'll come back if we have any other questions.
1:50:09 Okay. Uh this is a public form. Anyone in the chamber wish to speak to the item may come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes.
1:50:20 Valerie Shu at 931 uh West Montro Street. I think it might be too late for some of my questions, but I'm going to throw them out there anyway because
1:50:28 maybe we can think about them the next time when we're approving these subdivision plans. And I feel a little picky about this one because it's right
1:50:34 off the South Lake Trail. Um, questions that I have, I hope some of you will ask, is how is access to the trail
1:50:42 provided? Right now, I see that it's a lot of it is along the back of the homes. Are there fences back there? Um,
1:50:49 what is that like? I'm sure there is access to the trail, but it seems more like an amenity that was pushed to the edge um rather than what I would have
1:50:58 seen as a great opportunity for a trailoriented uh development with very good connectivity to the surrounding areas which would do a whole lot for
1:51:06 their land values. Um and then what access is provided to the neighboring commercial plaza? They're right along
1:51:13 that. I think it's Plaza Kina. Can they show the shortest walking route from the neighborhood to the nearest Plaza Kina
1:51:20 businesses? Do people who live there have an easy, safe, and comfortable way to get there without having to become traffic? Might be too late for this
1:51:28 question. These are questions we should be asking. Um, I do love the idea of the city having that land along the trail for a park. Um, I don't think it should
1:51:37 buy you any variances, but I love that idea. Um, and I have to speak on that point later.
1:51:43 Okay. Yes. I I don't love how it's being presented here, but I love that and I think that would be a great community
1:51:50 benefit. Uh sidewalks. Um not wanting them on the sides. I see one of them at least is on a side that's open to
1:51:57 nature. So, okay, fine. Maybe they don't have to pave a sidewalk, but can they do um a natural trail that goes to nature?
1:52:04 Why are we saying, "Oh, there's no pedestrian value over there. That's that's not a human-friendly way to think about this development." Uh cut and fill
1:52:14 I think has more to do with the style of the development. Uh this is a development pattern that has led to many of our hills being flattened before. So
1:52:23 what alter alternative site plans were studied before concluding that this degree of earthwork was the minimum necessary? And is the council being
1:52:31 asked to relieve a hardship created by the land itself or one created partly by the applicant's preferred subdivision design? Thank you.
1:52:40 Thank you. Vincent Emic, Regency Hills.
1:52:50 I started listening to his presentation until the second gentleman came up. And it's funny because the people sitting around me, we all said the same thing.
1:53:01 If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
1:53:07 So, please don't let that $500,000 dingle as a carrot as a bribe.
1:53:17 Okay? Cuz that's what we call in New York. It's a bribe.
1:53:22 Straight up. It's not a good gesture. I want this built. Here's $500,000.
1:53:29 So, please don't let it influence your vote on this. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else?
1:53:36 Anyone else? This is a public forum.
1:53:38 Anyone in the chamber wish to speak to this item may come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes. Anyone else? Seeing no one in chamber, I'll close the chamber.
1:53:48 No one online and we'll close it online. What say you, Miss Mark?
1:53:52 Well, let me um let me address some of those questions.
1:53:56 The sidewalk we're asking for I don't know which one to to call it.
1:54:02 the one I call phase two, which is the lower one. There are no there's we're going to have a retaining wall and it drops down the wetlands. So, you can't
1:54:11 get down in there and do any I guess you do boardwalks, but um there won't be anything there. But on the top of the
1:54:17 hill at the peak, there is a walkway in lie of the concrete sidewalk on the drive on the roadway. There is a walkway
1:54:26 that goes up to the community park on top of the peak. Um, these are going to be private streets, so it's going to be private, but that's for the the residents.
1:54:37 What was the other question, Tom? Trail connection to Plaza.
1:54:41 Oh, yeah. I've been working with the trail with the ground uh Lake County Trail folks. We do have a connection and
1:54:48 actually since this is Scenic Highway, what um the county has agreed to let us do in lie of going in there and clearing
1:54:56 the trees on both sides of because we own both sides of of old Highway 50.
1:55:00 Rather than clearing all the trees and doing 5-ft standard sidewalks, we're doing an 8-ft pave trail on the old
1:55:08 railroad rightway. And that 8 foot is pedestrian and bike, and it will connect to the to the uh rail trail. So, and
1:55:17 this is only this this park we're we're talking about providing the city is only a half mile from the county line which
1:55:26 is the Oakland already or it has a trail there. So, I don't know that you really need a full restrooms and everything there. But it
1:55:34 is a nice place to say welcome to Clermont and it's beautiful. Y'all haven't been out there and taken a look at it. We have some gorgeous, gorgeous
1:55:43 trees and in my vision we would keep those and keep that rolling hill look and uh you know maybe put a gazebo or
1:55:51 something out there but I don't think you need to have a you don't need another trail head like they have in Oakland is my thought. But again, it's
1:55:59 the reason we thought we would, you know, open it up to the community and let the community see what would be needed and we're, you know, how can we help?
1:56:08 Okay. Anything else? No, just I'm sorry.
1:56:14 Just something that I did not state was that the value of the land, the current market rate value of the land we're
1:56:21 proposing to donate is about $700,000 and that would be in a separate from the
1:56:29 the value of the the improvements that we proposed to uh fund. So the total package is about 1.2 to $1.3 million as a benefit to the city.
1:56:41 Okay. Thank you. Uh Miss Myers.
1:56:45 Yes. So, you're offering your offer that mayor, I'm sorry, council member. I I just wanted to jump in. Okay. because I think what I have to tell you probably
1:56:53 may inform your questions and concerns and I don't know if it'll be helpful for applicant or not but um normally local
1:57:00 governments cannot accept this type of a donation and and the reason the reason why is it creates
1:57:09 uh perverse incentives and if other cities are doing it if you've done it in other cities they shouldn't do it um because it does offer difficult
1:57:18 incentives for cities to consider. In other words, your standard on a variance has nothing to do and must have nothing
1:57:25 to do with any proposed donation. It has to do with the criteria that are in our code section. You know, does it satisfy the five things that's in your staff
1:57:34 report or or for you to judge based on the evidence that the applicant's given you. Um and you do have the ability to add conditions according to your but
1:57:42 what you cannot do is accept a donation um as part of this. Now, um if you adopt
1:57:49 a policy in the future that says um if you create a public benefit, you might
1:57:57 get a higher uh condition or something like that's something we can kind of like the community benefit plan that we did. That's an option that you can have
1:58:06 with variances. We do not have that for this as it sits before you today. And the only time we can,
1:58:16 the city can do something like this is when the proposed donation has a direct connection to the effect of what they're
1:58:23 getting. In other words, uh you can sometimes require a curb cut or a u a
1:58:30 turn lane be paved or implemented if the use that you approve will lead to more traffic in a certain intersection. Does
1:58:38 that make sense? that here I I don't think this will pass the legal test based on the essential nexus that you
1:58:45 have to have and I'm not trying to I mean you could still agree to this but we would not be able in my legal opinion to take the donation.
1:58:54 Can I ask a question even though you weren't it's up to the council? Sure.
1:58:58 When you say the donation are you talking about the donation of the land or the donation of for improvements or both?
1:59:06 Definitely the land. Um, I would want to talk to you more about how the the other part of it that I may not be entirely clear on, but the land is a no-go.
1:59:15 Okay. So, this board could setting that aside, this board could approve the variance
1:59:23 request, right? um without the offers that that the donation of land and that given the fact that we have topography
1:59:32 issues, given the fact that we've planted every square foot that we can possibly plant and given the fact that
1:59:39 the amount of trees that we would need to pay for is well north is I don't say
1:59:49 it's a burden for lack of a better word on this 120 lot development.
1:59:55 when you think about like the the size and scope and scale of this. So, the board can approve that, but you're
2:00:02 saying and and maybe it's a developers agreement where we could offer to donate that land because we still would like to give it to us. We think it's a community benefit.
2:00:11 Wonderful. It just can't be part of a variance application.
2:00:14 Okay. So, can can I suggest that we maybe table this so that our attorney has a chance to review this and meet with the
2:00:22 applicant? And I'll point out too, we've talked about the development and design center and it feels like this being kind of the gateway to to Clermont Lake
2:00:30 County, right? There might be something that staff could come up with and bring back to us because I what I'm hearing is not we're trying to bribe you. I'm hearing we're trying to get along.
2:00:39 And I'm not accusing you guys of doing that.
2:00:42 And I'm just going to say I think we're all going to walk into some real hot muddy water if we go down too far on this. That's just my suggestion. I agree with you.
2:00:51 I agree with you. Can I ask Mr. Wall one question? What's the difference between what we what they just offered to do and what we did with the Volkswagen deal?
2:01:00 Which part of the Volkswagen? Uh the the park?
2:01:04 Yeah. Well, they donated two two acres of land and everything to us as well.
2:01:08 And I don't but they didn't get a variance.
2:01:12 Me I'm not Yeah. They asked for some variances, but I don't sit here and try to prove a variance on what they donate or whatever. I I call it you can't
2:01:21 Well, one of the things I always ask what is the give back to the community and everything when when you come in here uh I'm not a hey
2:01:29 well I hate for develop I don't like developers to come here develop and then just run off le what else are you going to contribute to the community rather than just do your development and and
2:01:37 leave us high and dry to take care of everything okay and you say we lay and everything same thing
2:01:44 and and this has been going on for well ever since I've been in as mayor I've been asking that of developers and and and I'm not there
2:01:52 should be a public things should be in the public interest. Everything you do that you pass should be in the public interest on that. I believe it was a conditional use permit and there was a
2:02:00 finding that probably shouldn't be opining on that one. Right. I'm just trying I think it's important I mean I'd like to I think it's a good question. Um
2:02:10 but but the issue is um I believe there was a finding that because of the actual use of the land up in front
2:02:18 that that was going to mitigate the effects of having a car dealership in that area.
2:02:23 So just so here I mean there might be scenarios and I would like the opportunity I think to to work this out.
2:02:29 I don't want to deprive the city of what could be a great deal and I think it is a great deal that's being offered but you I hope I've explained why generally
2:02:38 we can't it it it may unintentionally or unconsciously even affect the decisions we make
2:02:45 right so thank you for that well thank you one question I would like to take we need to take can we because the staff has put these
2:02:53 variances together as number one two three and four can this council approve one, two, and
2:03:01 four tonight and table or continue number three.
2:03:05 The council can do whatever it wants and I it always has the prerogative except take the two acres of land and no even that it could do against my
2:03:14 advice. They're totally free to do what they wish.
2:03:16 Well, didn't it say one, two, and one, two, and four meet.
2:03:20 Those are the ones that Rick Those were the ones that Rick had had brought forward. Is it one, two, and four? One, two, and four. degrading.
2:03:27 Three didn't meet all the criteria. No, three.
2:03:30 Well, but but if we hold on, if we start getting into cutting and filling, we're going to be talking about cutting down trees. And what we're basically doing in that scenario is approving the proposal.
2:03:40 And and I just think given the way the way this record would read and the fact
2:03:47 that our attorney has like I'm I don't want the answer actually of how we got here without you seeing this, but I was in trial all week last week. So I
2:03:56 apologize. I I would have liked to have this.
2:03:58 Well, Miss Miss Strain, didn't you have you had a motion? No.
2:04:01 Yeah, I was going to suggest tableabling it, but I was going to ask if the applicant I don't know the process on that because it's their application, so
2:04:09 they might need to table it, but I know I if I can't get a clear picture on everything, I I would not approve
2:04:17 anything. And so that's just so you know kind of how my brain works. So I don't want to put you in I don't want to put either of us in that situation if we're
2:04:25 talking about tableabling it. And then again, I just don't want any of us to forget. We've talked about a development design center which could be incredibly useful in this particular project. So
2:04:34 that's the city working with you as well. And so I don't know how much time any of that might take and I'm hesitant. Okay. To put a timeline on it.
2:04:41 You tell me how we buy more time without causing more problems. You can do a motion to table.
2:04:45 Just a motion to table to a date certain something that you if you feel comfortable. I mean all the options are on the table. You want to table it to October.
2:04:54 Yeah. We we we would if if you're looking at tableabling it to a date certain, we would request at least October 13th because that would give us time to
2:05:03 have Christian meet with them and get to report back.
2:05:06 How how about October 27th? Gives us even more time. Would you would that work with you? October 27th.
2:05:12 Yes. But we've been we submitted this in May.
2:05:15 So we've been waiting for a while already. Please respect that.
2:05:18 Mr. Harold has you got in there in November 24. So, well, the the trees well, yeah,
2:05:26 have to come off whether we do whatever we do, we still got to have to deal with the tree replacement coordinates.
2:05:34 Sure.
2:05:35 With or without a variance. I would I would beg you to please go ahead and approve my grading so I can move ahead with the grading, the 15 foot of fall,
2:05:44 the 16 foot of cut and fill greater than 10 feet. Sidewalks, that could wait. I mean, that doesn't matter until they get
2:05:50 ready to build sidewalks. um the private the private drive doesn't really affect the city, but it does affect the the
2:05:58 buyer from moving ahead and and making a decision. So, a partial would be appreciated. You know, hold the tree,
2:06:06 hold the park and the and the tree ordinance. Let's let's discuss that further.
2:06:11 And and I'm only one of five, but I can tell you I'm against the thing you want.
2:06:14 So, if you want us to move forward, I'd be happy to be one of the five. But I think I'm just asking if you if you would
2:06:21 consider that approve part of them. Let me you know, I would prefer for us to table it so that they can really research it and
2:06:28 come back so that it's really fair. I know you're tired of waiting, but you run the risk of us just saying we're not going to do it, period. I
2:06:37 I can talk I can take the top off. I don't need the variance. I can take the top off. We just don't want to lose the buffer there along the turnpike.
2:06:45 Yeah, we've heard we've we've seen the outcome of that before. It definitely affects the resale value.
2:06:50 I have too, and I don't want to see that. I've worked very hard on there to avoid it and and I didn't quite I didn't quite hear relative to the tableabling. Are we
2:06:58 talking uh continuing to a date certain or are we talking I was making a motion for October? Okay.
2:07:05 I don't know if there was a second. I think second it. Yeah.
2:07:07 So So we had a motion, a second to table October 27th.
2:07:11 Cool. So, we got a thumbs up from the applicant. Can we go for a vote? I have a motion. Do I have a second?
2:07:19 Yes, I second it.
2:07:20 I have a motion to table item number 10 to October 27th. Yes. Is it the 27th?
2:07:28 Mhm.
2:07:29 Well, if there's 13 then any further discussion hearing none. All in favor, let it be known by saying I. I. All oppose. And chair vote I as well. Thank you.
2:07:43 Item number 11, city manage evaluation.
2:07:46 So, Mr. Mayor and Council, this was a um based on resolution 202615R that you guys adopted to come up with the
2:07:54 criteria and the evaluation process. So, what you're doing tonight is in your packet, you have all of the results from
2:08:01 all five council members. And so you're what what you're looking to do tonight is to discuss the evaluation and come up
2:08:10 with a merit increase if if you feel warranted and the amount of that as well as help set the or set the priorities
2:08:18 established the priorities and expectations and goals for the city manager for the next year.
2:08:26 Okay.
2:08:30 This is a public hearing. Anyone in the public wish to address this item may come to the microphone and state your name, address, and have three minutes.
2:08:50 Joe Famasi, 2693, Jumping Jack Way. I'd just like to show appreciation for the work and uh service to the city here.
2:08:59 Uh, I'd like to thank the police department, fire department, streets department, and also the city manager's office for the outstanding work and
2:09:07 service that I've received in my interactions with them. And I hope that you will appreciate the service city
2:09:16 that has emerged from this leadership and that you will reward that. Thank you.
2:09:23 Thank you. Anyone else? This is a public forum. Anyone in the chamber wish to address this item may come to microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes.
2:09:32 Anyone else? Seeing no one else. Hold on.
2:09:47 Paul Hoisington, 564 East Soda Street. I concur with the gentleman that just spoke. Um I think it's time for us to put this to bed.
2:09:56 Make sure Mr. Wagner is aware of what is expected of him. You have his evaluation and let's just keep moving down the road and keep running the city. This should be settled. It should have been settled.
2:10:09 But can we like bring some closure to this? He's been working hard with staff.
2:10:15 Let's just get this done. And so he knows where you stand. The city knows where you stand. The public knows where you stand. What's expected of him? And
2:10:23 he has guidelines. Let's just let's get it done. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else?
2:10:31 Anyone else? This is a public form.
2:10:33 Anyone in the chamber which addresses it may come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes. Seeing no one else, I close the chamber.
2:10:41 No one online. So I bring it back to council. What say you, Miss Mars?
2:10:49 Um I looked at the evaluation and it looks like pretty much the majority of us um feel that Mr. Van Wagner has been
2:10:58 doing a very good job in his role. Um and I believe that he uh should receive
2:11:07 a merit pay increase and um trying to find my notes.
2:11:16 I would say um about four and a half% is what I would um suggest for his merit pay increase.
2:11:30 That's it.
2:11:31 Yes, Mr. Peterson.
2:11:33 Um I think we you know it's two years now since we've had him as our city manager.
2:11:40 So I think his evalu Oh, his evaluation is uh is by what he does, what he's been doing, how he communicates with us, how
2:11:49 he communicates with staff. We would we would hear if there was negatives from staff. He's doing a a good job, a phenomenal job as far as I'm concerned.
2:11:59 Uh and uh I guess we can see that in the ratings here, too. Even even if people didn't like them, they still they still
2:12:06 we still got a four or a 4.5, which is pretty good. With that, I I would say I would do a 4.5 also.
2:12:16 Thank you. It's strange.
2:12:19 Yeah. Real quick question. Rick, are you accepting any benefits currently?
2:12:23 No, I didn't think so. Um, so I averaged the scores and Mr. Van Wagner averaged a 4.01, 01 which is exceeds expectations.
2:12:34 Uh there were four areas for the public watching that that somebody felt he he fell below expectations. Um and then
2:12:40 there was one area that related to um procurement which we've talked about publicly before and I think that both
2:12:49 and I've talked to Mr. Van Wagner about my evaluation. and he he knows which one is mine. And um one thing that I suggested so then you'll all know which
2:12:57 one is mine is um that we have some sort of task management software. Um this actually came up recently. A public member said, "Hey, can we get the city
2:13:06 manager's reports?" And I know we're working on software. And so I think that's something that if we had that, I think a lot of these scores might even
2:13:13 be higher because people would really be able to see what it is that he's managing and where those projects are.
2:13:19 So that being said, I think a exceeds expectations across the board of five people, especially as different, unique as we are, is extraordinary. Um, I'm
2:13:28 sure you want fives across the board, but I just want to remind you, as I did with my own evaluation, that three is
2:13:34 meets expectations. So four is pretty remarkable. So I'm in support of a four and a half% increase, but also I just
2:13:42 want to point out for the last two years, this gentleman hasn't accepted any benefits from his contract.
2:13:50 I'm asking him to take the benefits that are in the contract already. So I'm in support of the four and a half raise%
2:13:59 increase for merit and also to instruct him to accept the benefits that are listed in his contract.
2:14:08 Thank you. Yes, sir.
2:14:10 Thank you, mayor. Um, is the 4 and a.5% is that a, if I can
2:14:17 ask council member Myers, uh, I think you were the first one to bring it up.
2:14:20 Is that based off of what, um, a a merit increase that we've given all staff or is that a number that you came up? I'm
2:14:29 just curious how you came up with that number because I was going to ask a question about what we did for staff and and department heads for staff. for staff. Um I was told that
2:14:37 it's um about four is about average for staff. So the percentage. Yeah. Okay. Yeah.
2:14:44 We we go as high as five if we feel like there's an exceptional situation. So we've given staff the liberty the directors to do it that
2:14:52 the directors to for their staff go up as high as five.
2:14:55 Okay. Um, and then I agree with um, uh, Council Member Strange, uh, her
2:15:02 comment about the, uh, project management. Um, you know, I think there's a couple different things that
2:15:09 we talked about trying to accomplish in in this process, which was potentially
2:15:16 doing an evaluation for a merit increase. And then also, do we want to set goals, some sort of specific goals for the next
2:15:25 calendar year, so that moving forward when we do this, the city manager can actually report back, here's how I accomplished what you asked me to do,
2:15:34 and here's also what I accomplished on top of that, so that going into the evaluation process, we actually have that achievement piece of that. And then
2:15:43 we can actually use that in the ratings and future merit increases and so forth.
2:15:47 So, um, I have zero problems with a 4.5 merit increase. Um, and I just don't
2:15:54 know how we want to go about having the conversation of what if we want to set goals and what goals we want to set. Um,
2:16:02 and I don't I'm not married to the idea that it has to be done right now in this moment. But I I do think if we commit to
2:16:11 that, we need to commit to the process by which we would go about doing that so that he knows not too far in the
2:16:18 distance what those goals might be for the following year so that he can start to plan that going into January.
2:16:25 But I support the 4.5.
2:16:28 Okay. And in in your evaluations, all of you filled out what the goals would be or what what I I should say all of you
2:16:36 filled out that that check box. So we you can go over those and see if those if you want to include them all, if you
2:16:44 want to include some of them, if you want to add to them.
2:16:47 Yeah. And I mean, I think they're all good ideas because they came from us and we have a Well, but I mean, okay, that sounded
2:16:55 that sounded I didn't mean the way that sounded. I did not mean the way that sounded.
2:17:01 What I meant was is that obviously we cared about what they meant to us to put that in a goal. And so I I think that's
2:17:09 important to recognize. However, I also don't want to give a list of I don't know how many there are here, but even if it's eight or 10 goals that are
2:17:18 pretty intensive, I don't think that that sets him up for for success. So, um
2:17:25 I don't know if there's a way for us I'm open to hearing ways for us to be able to discuss that section. And maybe it starts with I'm I'm open to the idea.
2:17:35 I'm just throwing this out there. could could the deputy city manager synthesize these and and pres and present something
2:17:42 in a in a non-biased way so that then we can kind of talk about it um or because I don't necessarily gosh I don't want to
2:17:50 sit here for an hour and a half and and create goals and try to build that consensus but obviously we have some things here maybe if if we just ask the
2:17:59 deputy city manager to synthesize that for us and bring it back for us to be able to then create one two three or whatever goals I'm open to that idea.
2:18:07 If I can contribute briefly on this, I think whoever evaluator three is um gave five really good targets for
2:18:16 next year. My I don't know, but I thought those were good.
2:18:21 Uh let me Mr. Mr. Van Wagner, you say we go up to 5%. Isn't it isn't that with the uh performance as well?
2:18:32 They can get up to 5%. It's based on staff is 3%. Uh plus we can do a 2% performance.
2:18:40 We we went as high as 5% if it was somebody that was doing a good job that the director wanted to reward five altogether.
2:18:48 Right, Mr. Yeah.
2:18:52 I thought we we we cut it down to three with a performance and did we take performance out?
2:18:59 Performance is a criteria, but it wasn't I don't recall it being set as a minimum of three and up to five. I think it was just as I it was explained to me it was
2:19:07 just up to five based on performance but yes performance isn't well that's what I'm I I thought that's what it was set up it was set up at 3%
2:19:14 uh for staff but they can do another 2% for performance and get up to 5% is what it what it was um another question uh
2:19:23 police and fire didn't we just do 4% for them wasn't their contracts yeah it was much higher than that
2:19:31 well the first year well the first year the contract Police got I think police got 18% and fire got 15% but then we set
2:19:39 everything else for the next two or three years at 4%.
2:19:44 Okay. I'm thinking Mr. Mayor the police was 8% in their contract if I remember right.
2:19:49 I'd have to look at the number union compared to right for the union.
2:19:52 Yeah that's that's union. Yeah. But they was they would say that if I'm not mistaken what we approved was 18% for fire in the of last year
2:20:01 15 for uh no fire was 15% and police was 18% because that bought them up to the minimum pay uh equal to everybody other
2:20:09 agency around to get them up to that that level. Okay, that's why we gave them big boosts. Then each year after that probably been 4% for each one of
2:20:17 them if I'm not mistaken in that contract. But anyway, uh I was thinking more 4% because that's where we we had went with with everybody else and uh trust me when it come to pay increases.
2:20:28 Anything over 2% for me is is is crazy is a high. Okay? Because all my
2:20:36 all my life, most places I worked and everything, you very seldom got anything over two to 3%. Okay? So, um, and took
2:20:45 me some to get up get the fire fire up to 4%, but, um, everybody good with four
2:20:51 and a half% that's okay with me. But I just I just want to make sure we we we're somewhere in the
2:20:59 same range with everybody else, what we doing with everybody else. And like I say, other other uh employees and everything, but if I'm not mistaken, police at four and fires at four. Okay.
2:21:08 Mr. Mayor, if I if I can help this at all, we look back at the last 20 years at the city manager's evaluations and their their rates and it averaged as low
2:21:17 as 4% and up to 4.8% is what they got over the last 20 years.
2:21:21 I know most of them I've done was around 4%. Okay. Not four, anything over. So, and that's what I'm saying. Um, okay. Next. But I entertain a motion.
2:21:34 I'd like to make a motion to uh increase the salary for the city manager to 4.5%. I second.
2:21:42 Have a motion and a second to in u to approve four 4 and a half%.
2:21:50 Uh merit increase for the city manager.
2:21:52 Any further discussion? May I just ask are we how do we want to handle the goals piece of this?
2:21:58 Do we want back on?
2:22:00 Well, we didn't decide. That's why I'm asking if we want to just make Council Member Strange brought up
2:22:06 Sorry. Uh the five items under evaluator 3. There's another one for project management. There's another one about
2:22:14 community outreach. I just don't know if we want to set that here if we're or if we're asking for something to come back to us. I just don't want to not do
2:22:21 anything and then we I like your idea when you suggested for our deputy to look at it and comprise them and then we
2:22:29 synthesize. Yes. And then we decide yes what the consensus is for the top three because I don't want us to be I don't
2:22:37 want us overburden him with um goals and he has a job with very very many uh responsibilities. So if we could do like
2:22:46 maybe three we come down to we narrow down to of goals.
2:22:50 You don't want me to narrow it down though. No, no. Well, let me let me let me synthesize these.
2:22:55 Synthesize it. I think what you're going to find you're gonna find those five and then you're going to find a couple repetitive ones that talk about the same theme, right?
2:23:02 So, I I think I think those five actually captured pretty much what everybody said.
2:23:08 Well, I was going to go back and if I'm not mistaken, when we did this evaluation, it asked us to list improvements or goals you wanted to do.
2:23:16 So, every when you did the evaluation, you should have done that already.
2:23:19 Correct. in the evaluation. So, I don't know why we got to come back now and have a whole another meeting on goals when we was supposedly when you did the
2:23:29 uh evaluation did that. Now, are some of repetitive? I think so. Okay. So, maybe the city manager uh deficit city manager
2:23:37 and Tracy or whoever can go through and narrow them down and get rid of them and just hey, here's the goals. But I don't think we need to have another whole workshop on on on goals and everything.
2:23:47 The only thing I would add for you is some of them are polar opposite from each other. Some of the comments and that's been one of my concerns from day
2:23:56 one is it's hard to serve everybody if we're going in a different direction.
2:24:02 And with all transparency, not everything is all on the same page in some of the evaluation after as I went
2:24:10 through it. So I can't do what all five of you are asking in some of these items. So, I appreciate wanting to vote on it and get over with it. And that's
2:24:18 okay, but when it contradicts what you're asking me, that's not realistic an expectation because somebody loses
2:24:26 and somebody wins and you're all asking for everybody to win. So, just in all cander, if we could make it so everybody is in unity, that would be amazing.
2:24:36 Yeah. So, Mr. Mr. Peterson, you you might consider amending your motion to accept the valuations of the council and
2:24:45 approving a merit-based pay increase to 4.5% in the amount of 4.5% with specific instructions to the city manager to
2:24:54 bring back what resolution. What do we I'm not sure where you're headed
2:25:01 to pursue the specific goals for the next year as identified by evaluator number three.
2:25:05 I mean, that's all good. I mean, isn't that what we just did for this evaluation? Right. That's what I'm saying.
2:25:11 Are we just aren't we just doing saying, "Okay, so Dixie, let's come back and do an evaluation." So, I think to Mr. Bane's point, and I
2:25:18 actually do agree with it is we've done the process, but if the motion is simply the pay increase, there's no one
2:25:26 acceptance of the evaluations which support the pay increase. And two, there's no direction. And so, I I hear everybody and I agree. I don't necessarily feel we need to workshop it.
2:25:35 I think we're on the same page. I think evaluator three, uh, I might words word smmith it a little bit, Frankenstein it, but um, I think evaluator 3 nailed the
2:25:44 top five kind of targets for 2027 in their proposals for the next year.
2:25:50 I think some of them in evaluator 3, some of them were unrealistic for him like this true balance budget where expedentials do not outpace revenues. I
2:25:59 think I I I think it needs to be um either we come up with three goals unity
2:26:07 that is out of what we have we already filled out um or we just table it and think about it because
2:26:14 I know I don't want to spend two hours debating back and forth nitpicking because that's micromanagement. I don't want us to micromanage. I feel like we
2:26:22 already evaluated him is a consensus to give him the um pay increase. So, I'm happy with that going on that because he
2:26:30 knows from this evaluation what is expected of him because I think we all have put our notes on here that he got to read. So, I kind of feel like he
2:26:39 already has an idea of what is expected of him.
2:26:42 That's Yes, I I agree with I agree with that.
2:26:45 Okay. the fact that you know we've given all this to him what our expectation is and if either one of us feel he's not meeting
2:26:53 our expectation I think we need to have a one-on-one with him to express that rather than trying to sit here and say okay we're going to check evaluation
2:27:01 number evaluate number three goals and imply then you trying to dictate to me how I'm supposed to up a person okay
2:27:10 except accept the uh evaluation as it's been given anybody have any problem that not he don't think they're meeting his
2:27:17 his expect your expectation his or her expectation then you need to have a one-on-one with him okay but I don't I I think trying to sit here and say okay
2:27:26 force me to agree with this this goal when it may not sit well with with my perception of my my style of and my
2:27:34 expectation is is asking a little much okay and that's why when we did the evaluation that's one of the reason we've took taken so long to do this
2:27:42 evaluation because we could never come to agree We've been on a lot of these things.
2:27:46 Well, and yeah, the the three-pager performance evaluation tally form really does I mean, Mr. Vaner, do you feel um
2:27:54 do you feel like this form this three-page form was fair? Do you think that this process gave you I mean, how
2:28:02 do you feel about this process? And do you feel like you have the tools that you need moving forward for fiscal year 27 based on what we've provided with you?
2:28:10 I would prefer not to answer your question if that would be okay.
2:28:13 Okay. cuz it gets me into an uncomfortable conversation that for the most part. Yes.
2:28:21 Is there anything that we can provide for you today that would give you clarity moving forward as we go into fiscal year 27?
2:28:31 I I'm comfortable with understanding my role and some of the comments that have
2:28:37 been made. Just for clarity, I average about 74 hours a week from the first
2:28:44 month till now. So to put any additional responsibilities on me seems a bit daunting, okay?
2:28:53 And something would have to give if I'm going to keep a healthy work, family life. And I really enjoy staying married
2:29:01 and my grandkids and my kids. So I would just say that. So, okay, I I just would have to make some changes
2:29:09 to how I do business here if I were to add a bunch more responsibilities. And I'm not above making changes and doing
2:29:18 things. Just I just got to be careful if I'm going to be successful and keep my body in a good spot, too, cuz I I I
2:29:26 press it sometimes too much. I got to be careful cuz my desire is to make the city look good, to please you, to please
2:29:34 the residents, and I work really hard at that because it's a big deal to me because I love this community, however long I'm in this role. So, I want to make you all proud and do a good job.
2:29:44 So, well, I just want to point out that if those twos that are on there were fours, you would have had a 4.0 4.5 one score. So, that's pretty darn good.
2:29:54 Yeah. So, I hope you take it that way. Um, I think you're a perfectionist. I I can be a perfectionist.
2:30:02 So, I like that about you. I just want to make sure if there's something we need to do today to give you clarity and and make you feel more at peace that we're doing that for you.
2:30:12 I I feel better about it. But if if it like the mayor said, if it was piled on me, I don't think I could fulfill all
2:30:19 your expectations. And I don't want to I don't want to disappoint you all or the citizens that I have this list that I'm not accomplishing. I mean, any given
2:30:28 day, guys can be a 17-hour day or a 12-h hour day, and it's just you don't know what the needs are. Yes.
2:30:35 At any given moment.
2:30:36 So, I I think hearing him say that, I think accepting just the motion of accepting the evaluations and issuing
2:30:44 the 4.5 merit increase for this year is is absolutely justified and warranted. Good.
2:30:51 Okay.
2:30:53 So, that's the motion and a second. to accept the um form's evaluation as presented and
2:31:02 award a 4.5% merit increase. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor by saying I.
2:31:10 All oppose. Sher vote eyes as well. Motion carries 50.
2:31:16 Uh ordinance number 2026-01 9. Introduction Lake Louisa.
2:31:25 Here we go again.
2:31:28 An ordinance of the city of Clermont, Lake County, Florida, adopting the smallcale comprehensive plan amendment for the city of Clermont, Florida, pursuant to the local government
2:31:36 comprehensive planning act, chapter 163, part two, Florida statutes, setting forth the authority for adoption of the small-scale comprehensive plan
2:31:45 amendment. Setting forth the purpose and intent of the small-scale comprehensive plan amendment. Providing for the adoption of the small-cale comprehensive
2:31:53 plan amendment establishing the legal status of the small-scale comprehensive plan amendment providing for conflict severability administrative correction
2:32:02 of scrivener's error publication and an effective date. Thank you.
2:32:07 Anyone on the st on council have any serious questions or concerns about this introduction?
2:32:14 No. So, do we we are you telling me we don't need to do a public form? No. Okay. No.
2:32:21 All right. So, I entertain a motion.
2:32:23 Like to make a motion to accept ordinance number 2026-019 intro. Second.
2:32:31 I have a motion and a second to uh to approve ordinance number 2026-019
2:32:39 intro. Luzy Lake. Louis Granny. Louisa Grand. Uh, Louisa Grandandy.
2:32:47 Any further discussion? No.
2:32:49 Hearing none. All in favor, let it be known by saying I. I.
2:32:52 All oppose. And chair vote as well. Uh, item number 13, ordinance number 2026-020.
2:33:00 An ordinance under the code of ordinances of the city of Clermont, Lake County, Florida, amending the official zoning map of the city of
2:33:07 Clermont, referred to in chapter 122 of ordinance number 289 Code of Ordinances, reszoning the real properties described
2:33:16 herein as shown below, providing for conflict, severability, administrative correction of scrivener's error, recording, publication, and an effective date.
2:33:27 Okay.
2:33:29 Again, any serious question there? Not in that case, I entertain a motion.
2:33:34 I'd like to make a motion to accept ordinance number 2026- 020. Intro. Second.
2:33:40 Have a motion and a second for acceptance of orders number 2026-020.
2:33:47 Any further discussion? Hear none. All in favor, let it be known by saying I. I. All oppose and chair vote I as well.
2:33:54 Item number 14, council member request candidate form advertising. Okay.
2:34:00 Yes, this is um the meet the candidates that is going to be happening on September 14th, which is Monday of next
2:34:08 week. Um, I heard some grumbling of people not wanting it to be posted on the city website and I wanted to get my
2:34:17 um fellow colleagues um viewpoints and uh see that they would support it being put on the city website so that our
2:34:26 citizens would um know where it's at and that they would come and participate because the point of having the
2:34:33 candidate form is so our citizens can meet the candidates that are running that want to represent them to see if that's who they want to represent them.
2:34:43 Okay, this is a public form. Anyone in the public wish to address this item may come to the microphone to state your name and address and have three minutes.
2:34:53 This is Here we go. Here we go.
2:35:14 Go.
2:35:15 Good evening, city council. Uh, my name is Vincent Neim from Regency Hills. All right. I'm speaking today regarding the
2:35:22 proposal to advise to advertise the September 14 candidate forum on the city
2:35:30 clamount website. A cand, you know, just to let you know, a candidate forum gives residents the opportunity to hear
2:35:38 directly from the candidates themselves about their visions, about their priorities, about their ideas for the
2:35:45 future of Clermont because this involves an election and the public access to this information, I believe, is transparency regarding the city's
2:35:54 decision and making progress, especially the important ones. All right. The only thing I'm a little taken back by is I
2:36:03 recall when this first came up at a city council meeting and it was intro in introduced uh unfortunately I hate saying your name
2:36:11 again but Mayor Murray you opposed this for your reasons. So I would like to
2:36:17 direct a question to the appropriate city staff members including their IT department and the counselor.
2:36:29 So, I respectfully ask that the nature of this communication I'm sorry. All right. Did any city council members
2:36:38 communicate with the staff regarding whether the September 14 candidate form should be not advertised on the city website?
2:36:48 That's number one. If so, I would like to ask the nature of the communication and the basis for the decision to be
2:36:56 disclosed to extend to the extent of the law. Okay? If there is a policy, please let me know why it shouldn't be on the
2:37:05 website. All right. I just received my water bill that I talked about.
2:37:10 This I'll show you. It has all the advertisements in the world from council meetings. Thank you. from council
2:37:19 meetings, lunch with the mayor, have a bagel with Bill Elvis himself.
2:37:25 Okay, thank you. I'm getting a little motion sickness there. All right, so seriously guys, come on.
2:37:32 This is the first time I ever heard about a debate. So, please, if you could answer my questions from the IT
2:37:39 department or the council. All right, this is not supporting or opposing a candidate. It's about ensuring the residents have access to the election
2:37:48 information and decisions concerning and informations that are made transparency and consistency.
2:37:56 Did I say that right? Yeah, consistently. Thank you. Have a blessed evening.
2:38:02 Thank you. Anyone else?
2:38:16 Joe Famasi 2693 jumping jack way. Uh this is an idea for the public to meet
2:38:23 the candidates and to interact closely with them. And I just want to bring up the point that when you qualify as a
2:38:30 candidate to run for office in the city, you post it on the city website. So what's the difference of posting this event? It's the same thing to let the
2:38:40 public know who's qualified and who they can talk to to find out what their points of views are. So legal legally I
2:38:49 feel that this is a first amendment issue that we have a right to advertise this because if you're going to put up
2:38:56 the candidates when they qualify, why wouldn't you put up an event that invites the public to come meet them?
2:39:03 It's the same premise. So thank you. Thank you. Anyone else?
2:39:17 Oh goodness. Hello. Sorry. Jenny May, 4062 Greystone Drive.
2:39:24 I just wanted to uh thank Councilwoman Shandra Myers for providing the public
2:39:30 an opportunity for the public to see who the candidates are. a lot of them weren't able to go to the hobnob and
2:39:38 honestly a lot of the candidates that are running for council didn't attend. Uh so this is a second time opportunity.
2:39:45 So I want to thank you. I think it's very important. Um I think it's very important that the publications go out
2:39:53 website Facebook but as long as it goes out to the community as long as they're able to see and have their choice. So thank you. Just wanted to say that.
2:40:03 Thank you. Anyone else?
2:40:07 Paula Hois Paula Hoisington 564 East Sod Street. I agree with I don't think it's on there.
2:40:13 Oh, sorry about that. Paula Hoisington 564 East of Soda Street. I agree with what the last two speakers have said. I mean, if we can put lunch with the mayor
2:40:21 on the site, bagels with Bill on the site, why would we not put debate with those who are running for office?
2:40:29 Everybody can't come here at 3:00. Some people don't know how to sign on, you know, but why would we not want to
2:40:37 advertise so that everyone who can will have an opportunity to come and listen firsthand? When I saw that agenda, I was
2:40:44 like, surely there's not going to be like a real discussion on this. Seems like a no-brainer. So, thank you.
2:40:52 Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone else?
2:41:00 Anyone else? No one else in the chamber.
2:41:02 I closed down public comment in the chamber. We have anybody online, sir? No one online. I bring it back to council.
2:41:09 What say you, Mr. Peterson?
2:41:12 I mean, I'm I'm in favor of of putting it, you know, advertising it. I think the key word is transparency. We keep on talking about and uh you know, a lot of
2:41:21 people, you know, aren't on the internet, aren't on Facebook, aren't on Instagram. There's a there's a big
2:41:29 population that comes to these type of events. Is there a question there?
2:41:33 And I think I'm Yeah, I'm in favor of getting it done. Okay. Thank you, Miss Strange.
2:41:39 Uh yeah, I actually would like the question requested by the public to be answered by staff um whether there's
2:41:46 been some communication by any member of council. I mean, I'm I would also direct it to Miss Meyers like why is this on
2:41:53 our agenda tonight? Did somebody ask to take this off of our website? Are we not promoting it on Facebook? Like what caused this to happen?
2:42:02 I I can provide some feedback on that. I mean, there's a statute, Florida statute section 106.113, which talks about expenditures by local
2:42:11 governments. And so it makes hosting a candidate form tricky unless it follows the right procedures. So other cities do host candidate forums and that's okay.
2:42:23 But the key thing and there's subsection two which says that nothing in this code section prevents a city from hosting a
2:42:30 public forum. Um but if public funds are used and it is
2:42:38 in any way partisan. Okay. So it makes it tricky because sometimes when cities host events um it could theoretically if a majority
2:42:47 of incumbents had control over staff influence the way that such that's not a concern here. Um there hasn't been any
2:42:54 of that. So the the effort from my end has just been to make sure that it follows the statute. And I I don't have any concerns at this time.
2:43:03 So you're the one who pulled it from the website?
2:43:06 I didn't pull it but I I expressed a concern. I want to make sure it follows the statute. And you inserted yourself into that? Oh, yeah. No one on council asked you to do it?
2:43:14 No. Okay. Clear. I didn't hear your question. Okay.
2:43:20 Well, the question was, did someone on council direct staff?
2:43:24 And so, I've not been directed by anyone on council. I mean, I respect when when members of the council do want me to do something. It's
2:43:33 not to say that I wouldn't, but um also even if I did have conversations, I wouldn't disclose them in a council meeting,
2:43:40 right? Attorney client. Yeah. Um is there anyone else on staff that feels the need in full transparency to
2:43:48 disclose any information to answer the question of the member of the public?
2:43:55 I I haven't had any direct communications with anybody personally.
2:44:00 So, okay. No emails.
2:44:04 No, I Okay, I I have to Okay.
2:44:07 listen to Mr. Wah, but I will say this, too. Um, we're we feel in a very awkward, weird position as staff, and
2:44:16 we're not trying to we're trying to be Switzerland, but we get accused of not being Switzerland frequently,
2:44:24 and you know, it feels weird to even go to a debate that's supposed to be a neutral ground. So, I I need the council
2:44:31 to understand. I think they're citizens, too, and they the staff should be able to go to a debate just to watch or be a participant. So, did did somebody say you couldn't?
2:44:40 No, no, no, no, no. I'm just I'm just saying it out loud. Yeah. No, that's good.
2:44:44 Cuz there's just been this feeling like we don't want to we don't want to buy snacks for the public because we don't want to come across that we're
2:44:51 supporting this or we don't want to do any we don't want to spend a dollar.
2:44:55 will help me because my recollection which I prefer to look at black and white and I apologize I'm not prepared.
2:45:03 Miss Myers brought up in a report two months ago was it something like that? Yes.
2:45:10 Two months ago asking if we as council supported this and I thought there was a general sense of yes. Yes. Did am I misremembering?
2:45:17 No. No, your memor is right. There was only one person that wasn't for it.
2:45:20 So is there something Mr. law that are there are there funds that are necessary for advertisement? Is there some sort of
2:45:28 approval that you need that Miss Meyers is needing? And I and I reiterate, I appreciate you hosting this. I can't think of anything better for use of civic space than for civic engagement.
2:45:37 So, is there something that is necessary that we can help move this forward with?
2:45:41 Like what I I think that on my part there was a little confusion in the beginning. I thought that there might be a private organization sponsoring it and
2:45:48 so I wasn't sure if we were supporting a private or whether it was illegal women voters or CL I I wasn't sure. Okay, that concern has been totally remedied.
2:45:58 My understanding is that this is a city organized event with an a mediator or moderator isn't
2:46:06 a city employee um coming up with questions. And so now I will say that I mean the questions must be impartial.
2:46:15 They can't be designed to hurt or harm any candidate, right?
2:46:19 Um but there are concerns when you look at candidate form. So it's it's a it's a little bit of a minefield for me as a city attorney because take for example,
2:46:27 you have two incumbents running for office.
2:46:30 What are the sunshine implications of that? And if you look at the sunshine manual, it does say the uh government and the sunshine manual, it does say
2:46:38 that candidate forms are okay so long as they don't directly interact.
2:46:44 But see, it's scary because what if someone offhanded says, "Well, you know, I just heard so and so say this, that would be a sunshine violation." So, they have to notice it.
2:46:54 They have to keep um No, then we have to obey all the I mean, yes, theoretically we could, but then we have to obey all the other formalities. That's not what a
2:47:02 candidate forum is. So, a candidate forum is something where the candidates show up, they handle questions, and if they're incumbents or currently on the
2:47:11 council, they don't interact with each other. So, it's it seems simple, but from a legal perspective, there's a lot of potential minds. So, I've worked
2:47:18 through those. I don't have any issues with it as it stands, FYI.
2:47:23 But wouldn't it be similar to Hobnob if you had Oh, yeah. everybody, you know, we had everybody there and it, you know, there was no interaction between incumbents.
2:47:33 Yeah. I mean, knobs are normally sponsored by private organizations.
2:47:37 That's usually the best practice, so to speak, but because then you don't you you ensure there's no city
2:47:45 potential issues with that. Um, but like I said, based on how this has been designed, I don't have a legal issue.
2:47:52 So, you don't not to do it. The city is who is anyone is there staff on the city dedicating time to coordinating it and setting it up?
2:48:01 No, I thought it was the moderator Doris. Yes, Doris is she's done all of that.
2:48:05 Yeah, Doris is doing all of it. All All we're doing is just Well, that it's at the city center, but we're not I I believe there's no cost in
2:48:13 that at all. Doris is volunteering her time, so there's no city cost in that.
2:48:18 South Lake TV is going to stream it, so there's no cost from the city perspective on any of that.
2:48:23 I mean, even if there was cost, that doesn't make it illegal. What would make it illegal is an expenditure that had the effect of um being partial in some
2:48:32 way or endorsing someone's speech or position. Then that would be a problem.
2:48:39 Okay, I have all my questions answered. Yes, sir.
2:48:43 I got one of my two questions. So, the other question is, do we currently have a policy or procedure in place for items like this?
2:48:52 Okay, I'll save the rest for comments. Thank you.
2:48:56 Okay, it's always been my understanding since being here. Um, the city didn't get
2:49:04 involved in these kind of things. This is my first time in all the years I've been around here that we had the city uh get involved with this. Uh, to clear the
2:49:13 record, I did call Mr. Mr. W and ask him uh some some questions about it. One of my question was about uh the legality of
2:49:22 it far as the fact that we hosting this and then what could concern me when some taxpayer dollars is
2:49:31 involved that brought up a legal question to me. So that's why I called Mr. W about it. Uh I had nothing to do with I don't know what went on with the
2:49:39 the internet or the Facebook page or whatever. I have nothing to do with that. But my concern with Mr.
2:49:45 question was, is this legal when you're using taxpayers dollars for the city to host one of these events? I hear
2:49:53 everybody say the facility isn't costing us anything, but normally if there was a private organization using the facility,
2:50:00 we will be charging them. So, in other word, we as a city facility, we're not paying for it. So, then there's another legal to me that was another legal form.
2:50:10 Okay. Um, other big concern with me, uh, which Mr. W hit on was the sunshine law.
2:50:19 Okay. Um, I can be there. My understanding I couldn't be there. Mr. Miss Peterson couldn't be there at the same time and
2:50:28 no other council members could be there is the way the law was explained to me.
2:50:32 So I call Mr. water to let him explain that to me because say for instance we sitting there in the candidate form when the question come to us um parking
2:50:41 garage if I answer that okay that's something that we as a council member
2:50:48 may have to vote on later see and so now I'm commenting on something that's before that may be come before the
2:50:55 council in a nonpublic form so that was my concern and I can remember two years ago when we when we was had a uh meet the
2:51:04 candidate form set up. I had to cut it short because of that same sunshine law came in into effect and I was threat we were threatened that we were they going
2:51:12 to file a motion and ethics law audits for doing this candidate form so we cut the form short. So yes uh that's one of
2:51:19 the reason um I've bought it in question concern about the city. Uh by the way let's set the record straight for the record. I did not oppose this when she
2:51:28 asked me about it. I told her I would not be there. There's a difference between opposing and not being there.
2:51:35 I'm talking about when she first Well, yeah, you did.
2:51:40 Please. Okay. Um, but anyway, I I did not did not oppose it. Hey, if this is what you want to do to find and reason,
2:51:48 I will not be there because basically you pull a date out and of course my schedule's already full. I had something going and so the 14th I'm not available.
2:51:56 Um, okay. I looked at trying to do some other things to change my schedule, but uh after I called Mr. Wall and waiting to answer for him, but at this point I I
2:52:05 decided, hey, I'm going just stick with what my schedule was. Uh and I will not be there. Uh I just heard something on
2:52:12 the hobnob. The hobnob is totally different. It was done by a private organization and two people, two candidates not sitting there answering
2:52:20 question for the public to hear in a hobnob. you at your own station and you ask an individual question to everybody else. Okay. So, there there's a
2:52:29 difference in this in the candidate form. Um, I have no problem with it. Mr.
2:52:34 Mr. War, we've had our conversation. He explained everything to me even though I still think there's a little bit of gray
2:52:42 area there with the financing and the taxpayer money and everything else because it was actually another lawyer, two other lawyers that brought it to my
2:52:49 attention about it and everything. Of course, that's why I came to my my attorney and see what he says and cuz if anything come out of it, he has to
2:52:57 defend it. Okay? You know, but it's a little gray area there because of the funding that's involved. We the city is
2:53:05 actually funding the the refreshments and all this and then we're not charging for the facility and everything. My understanding was if you're not
2:53:12 okay and everything. So, so that's that's where I stand with it. You have I have no problem putting on the on the website if that's what you all want to do.
2:53:22 I mean, you know, it would be nice since it's next week. So, I mean, if this could have been done two months ago, that would have give notice to people.
2:53:31 But, uh, you know, I'm in favor of putting it on now.
2:53:39 Yeah, I I think that I I think that I I do feel, you know, Mr. mayor if you're not going
2:53:47 to be there. It's unfortunate would be one word to use. I
2:53:54 mean, I think the purpose of a town hall is that people can come and they can engage and they can meet the
2:54:03 candidates. I remember the meeting that you're talking about. I was running for election and I wasn't invited to that meeting, which was the issue with Sunshine. It wasn't an open public
2:54:12 meeting um back in 2024. So, you know, this one's open to the public. And so, it's tough that um
2:54:20 it's not advertised the candidate, right? We have the problem of, you know, has it been um are people planning on coming? I mean, if people are planning
2:54:28 on coming, then it sounds like it's been vetted and it's been if people are planning on coming and it's been advertised, I I think it should move
2:54:37 forward. I personally I think public spaces are for public meetings. I will never oppose any public meeting in a
2:54:44 public place ever. So, I'm stunned that there's a problem here. Um, I want to
2:54:52 make a just decision if there's a decision to be made, but it sounds like we're moving forward in a direction and and I think the only decision for me to
2:55:01 engage in is am I going to stop it? And the answer is no, I'm not going to stop it. I I don't think I'm sitting here being asked for approval. I think we
2:55:08 already gave approval two months ago and I I'm not inclined to stop it, but I do think it's unfortunate that it's not getting fully participated in.
2:55:18 Well, well, you you when you just set up a date, you don't know or inquire with anybody else what's on their calendar
2:55:26 and everything and then just schedule something and expect somebody to just drop everything. It doesn't work that way. respectively, mayor. Um, Miss Doris
2:55:33 asked you and the other candidate for alternative dates and nobody ever got back with her on that.
2:55:40 Um, so there's that.
2:55:44 Well, you know, just like I I didn't make the hobnob because I was out of town and everything doing the hobnob. So So, but it's not my I'm not point.
2:55:55 I'm not sitting here to try to stop this or do anything with it. Um, like I say, I I know I can't be there if this what
2:56:02 you all want to do. And my city attorney done told me that everything is okay and he he's vetted and everything and we're not getting oursel any legal trouble.
2:56:12 That's the only thing I I'm ever concerned when I look at things like this. What legal ramification of
2:56:19 drawback can the city be facing when we do things like this? Okay. And that's all. And of course, like I said, he's the attorney. if he's assure me that hey
2:56:27 we okay and if something do come up and he can defend it that's fine okay but I know what what was brought to my attention and I was just I just needed
2:56:36 to satisfy my my soul and everything that we was okay and legal here okay I entertain a motion if this
2:56:44 may may I make my comment please um thank you um my my only concern about this was if there's a policy for
2:56:53 advertising if it's not a city event because what I don't want to do is create a we advertise these but don't advertise these over here and hearing
2:57:02 that it's a city event. I don't think that there's an issue. However, I will say I think it probably behooves asking
2:57:09 our city attorney for future so that if there is a majority of the council up here that could enact away through not approving or approving even though
2:57:17 that's not the case this year, let's go ahead and put a policy or procedure in place so we don't have that happen. I I think that's a reasonable thing to do.
2:57:27 Um, and I was I was fully ready to say no because I didn't think it was a city event and I just didn't want to open
2:57:34 this can of worms of advertising some non city events and some some non city events and then we create this how did
2:57:43 you make this decision? Now we're in that jackpot. It is a city event. Let's put it on the calendar. I honestly wish we would have had this. We had this
2:57:50 every year. I wish our League of Women Voters, whether it was Orange County or the tri area or our Chamber of Commerce
2:57:58 public policy committee, um would host a forum or several forums that it wouldn't
2:58:05 even be incumbent upon the city council or the city to have to do it. But we don't have any civic organizations who have done that yet. So without that,
2:58:14 barring that, I think this is a good opportunity for people to see as long as it's done within the rules and the laws for folks to meet and hear from the
2:58:23 people who want to run and serve the city.
2:58:26 Brian, I would like to say something to you on that point. I did bring it to Chamber of Commerce to ask them to do it and they said no.
2:58:33 Let me let me see. We used to have council meet the candidates years ago and they was all city never did them.
2:58:40 They was always done by some private organization. The chamber used to do them. They do the hard. They do all these meet and greets and everything. It was never done in the city. And to go
2:58:49 back to kind of like what Mr. Wagner was saying earlier and somewhat to your comment that you made a few council meetings ago, Miss Strange, is the fact
2:58:56 that now you're asking somewhat asking city staff to get involved and they trying to remain neutral and all and now
2:59:03 we the city is sponsoring an event and staff how do they feel about it? Uh can they attend it like Mr. Van Wagner saying can they attend it without being
2:59:12 accused of of being one side or whatever. See and as you may uh when you try asked
2:59:20 couple months ago about we not accept endorsement from city per person personnel you know because it make them uneasy
2:59:28 then this is what same thing we doing here when we city host the thing that's one of the reason in the past the city have never hosted to try to keep the city employees in a neutral level. Okay.
2:59:39 Um, and I I know it was great. I You talk about town hall. I do town halls every day just about. Okay.
2:59:46 I do that's that's he put the city mayor's lunching. That's what that's all about. Town hall. I'm out there meeting people every day.
2:59:53 Not just, you know, come here, you know, cuz I'm running now. I want to run out here and meet, but I'm out here talking to them every day.
2:59:59 Okay. So, I have no problem doing but my schedule will not fit this date and I I'm sorry. I just can't be there, you know. So, Miss Myers, is there anything
3:00:07 you're asking for from us as a motion or just for it it to be on advertised on the website? Website.
3:00:15 I move to advertise it on the website and social media. Sorry. Thank you.
3:00:19 Have a motion and a second to advertise uh the approval item number 14 for advertisement on the website. Any further discussion? Hear none. All in
3:00:28 favor? Let me be known by saying I. All oppose. Chair vote I as well. Motion carries 5. Item number 15, consideration
3:00:36 adopting a physical year 2027 park and recreation policy.
3:00:40 Yep. So, this one is mine and um full disclosure, I think this kind of upcoming year, what you'll be seeing from me is a lot of attempts at policy.
3:00:50 Also, full disclosure, I've never written a policy in my life to my recollection. So, they're probably really poorly done, but I'll get better.
3:00:56 I promise. Um, one of the things I noticed is, bless his heart, and I don't mean that in the southern sense, I really mean it.
3:01:06 I ran into Brian Foreman at the Ark. Um, and he said, you know, I I came to that meeting, sorry, I'm just calling you out. U, I come to that meeting and I
3:01:14 asked like, can I can I work on the development ideas for the ark? And then the meeting went a thousand different directions, and I just don't feel like I
3:01:20 know what I'm supposed to do. Now, those are my words. He said it much better.
3:01:26 And um but it touched me in a way that you know I thought I need to do something about this. And so I've taken
3:01:33 a stab at a parks and recreation policy for fiscal year 27. Um one is I don't
3:01:40 like what I've observed in the last two years of um a lack of clarity for me as a council member of what are our top
3:01:49 priorities? Um how do we approach different projects? I'm taking a stab in parks and wreck because I'm familiar
3:01:56 with that. Um, we just had the NRPA, so, you know, I feel like I can speak to some of this, but what I'm trying to do here is this is another one of those
3:02:04 areas where we have over 11.5 million dollars in recreation impact fees. Um, you know, we don't have a we don't have
3:02:11 an adopted plan. And so, I know we're still waiting on some information from um from the ADA for us to go over. And I
3:02:20 don't think that adopting a policy for this next year keeps us from making informed decisions as we move forward.
3:02:25 I'm just looking to to see if I can get consensus if staff can get consensus on, you know, what are the targets because
3:02:33 staff has to go out and be creative frequently. And so for purposes of the record, the intended outcomes and aspirations that I've included are to
3:02:42 long-term uh ensure each citizen has safe access to parks within five minutes of their homes. This condition may be met through public or private parks
3:02:50 accessible by road, trail, or sidewalk within the state of time by foot, bike, scooter, or golf cart. To equitably distribute the park's impact fee fund
3:02:58 balance, um, and to require 60% of the fund balance to be allocated to specific projects consistent with this policy within six months of adoption of the
3:03:07 fiscal year 27 budget. And I want to define equitably so that everybody is aware. equitably to me is a fair distribution under the circumstances.
3:03:17 And what that means is there's going to be flexibility. It's not equal, it's equitable. Um to ensure that each quarter, and I've defined quarters uh in
3:03:24 the city has a minimum of one active park and one natural park, each being 10 acres. The goal here as I'm trying to
3:03:33 present it is that each section of the city have two big parks that have that nice choice of champions concept going
3:03:40 on, but also that connectivity to nature. So, we're getting both of those.
3:03:45 And I think that those are really city level type activities, whereas neighborhood parks maybe would be things that people in neighborhoods, however
3:03:53 we'd want to define neighborhoods, could apply for. So maybe having a grant program and again having staff bring this back to us. I'm just looking for us
3:04:01 to have highlevel kind of direction so staff can bring us the details. Um and then to identify and implement a safe, purposeful, interesting, and comfortable
3:04:10 city-wide bike and pedestrian trail system. So these are the aspirations. Um I've defined the quarters so that we have them. Define an active park. Define
3:04:18 a natural park. Define a neighborhood park. So for staff, what I'm asking is for them to continue with the NRPA ABA
3:04:26 community survey with a target of collecting a thousand signatures um or survey responses from Clermont residents by the end of this calendar
3:04:33 year, December 31st, 2026 to give us quarterly reports that would identify where staff is consistent with this
3:04:41 policy, making recommendations, including preparation of a map that shows all of our community parks. And that might also include private parks
3:04:51 that are closed to members of the public so that we can see who has access and who doesn't have access because a lot of people have access that aren't city
3:05:00 parks. So that's good to know when we're deciding where parks should be. Um and then to present programming and maintenance proposals. Every park's
3:05:08 different. I mean, we heard the little league here during the Bishop Field workshop saying, "We've got maintenance issues. We're happy to help." So there
3:05:15 might be parks where we have a community user that's happy to help and maybe we maybe we want to say that's okay, maybe we don't, but every park might be
3:05:23 different. The Performing Arts Center obviously has different maintenance obligations than um Hancock Park. And then specific projects and and again
3:05:32 just trying to get the ball rolling. We have already started Bishop Field. We had 600,000 in the budget for this year. That's going to roll over for next year.
3:05:39 So my proposal was we not only roll it over, but we identify this is for Bishop Field. doesn't mean that that's the limit on the project. It just means
3:05:47 that's what we're budgeting. Grants are obviously an opportunity. Um we have received two proposals now, one from the ABA, one from DPZ relative to the ARC
3:05:56 and what it could be as far as you know building it out, adding more services.
3:06:00 Staff specifically asked us if they could move forward that. So that's item number two directly related to that.
3:06:05 Item number three, the waterfront. We're going to have a master plan, comprehensive plan coming before us in the next 60 days. you know, whatever
3:06:13 that is, but also not to move forward until that comes forward. So, let's be consistent with whatever plans we adopt.
3:06:20 Um, we talked at the last workshop about using the quarter million that we had dedicated for Victory Point as a grant opportunity for Main Street. I got a
3:06:27 bunch of head nods. Yes, we can take that and turn it into more money. So, can we move forward with that? And then finally, we approved it today, the purchase of the property at Lake Filter.
3:06:37 So, that's already been done. Item number five. Um, so that's my direction.
3:06:41 That's what I'm trying to do. And honestly, I see and I've heard we need policy and procedure um on a number of items. Tonight, I wrote down development design center and advertising of events.
3:06:51 So, I'm willing to make that kind of my task for this coming year to just start if you like it, start bringing them. If you hate it, I don't need to do it, but
3:07:00 I'm offering my time, talent, and treasure. So, that's my presentation. Thank you. This is a public forum.
3:07:08 Anyone in in the chamber wish to address this item may come to the microphone to state your name and address and have three minutes.
3:07:25 Jenny May 40 again. Jenny May 4062 Greystone Drive. I must be asleep. My goodness. Um, first of all, thank you to
3:07:34 you two for the policy. I mean, this is a great start. Um, I did look it over, um, you know, especially with the trust
3:07:42 for pep plans, you know, between the 10-minute versus the five minute. Love the five minute. I think it's, uh, doable. Um, especially with some of the
3:07:51 existing parks that we have here. Um, some things that I would like to add.
3:07:59 Um, I love the specific zones that you added. The historic Clermont College Quarter, ARC Quarter, Hancock Quarter,
3:08:09 um, and then of course Wellness Way. I think those are great ways to kind of separate, uh, the sections uh, specific
3:08:16 zones in our city. And then I think the good way to do it as well as a goal is to try to push for projects within each
3:08:23 zone so that we can kind of say, hey, we have one for historic Clermont, which is Main Street College Quarters. We
3:08:30 still haven't had one yet, but I know that the college is doing something around their um I guess their master plan. Uh ARC, I think that that was
3:08:40 added in there. Hancock Quarter um and of course Wellness Way. Um, you know, there's things that come up to
3:08:47 mind on that. Um, which is, you know, basically the collaboration again of with with the county because the county
3:08:54 is doing a lot of these new new um many cities. I guess what you call Allison, I
3:09:02 know you call them many cities, but these many cities, I think we need to follow them, especially since I feel that annexation is something that
3:09:09 happens all the time. I see it in front of the planning and zoning. I know you guys see it all the time at the city councils, but we need to also collaborate with them to make sure that
3:09:18 specific, you know, these natural parks or these um active parks are also included so that that comes once it
3:09:26 comes our way, it's also part of our, you know, this park plan. Um
3:09:33 maintenance. Um I know that there's some conflicts between who maintains what. I know the public works and then parks. So
3:09:42 there's there has to be some collaboration there as well in that policy. I didn't see any public works. I know I saw a lot of maintenance uh
3:09:51 language in there. Um but I didn't see anything any mention of any future amenities. Um I go to some of these
3:09:58 parks. I do have, you know, a 13-year-old. Um I sometimes love to have a picnic and I would love to have a
3:10:05 place to sit. Um, so I think amenities um as part of that maintenance policy. I wasn't sure if that was included or not,
3:10:14 but um that should be also added as well. Um, in regards to funding, I think it's great. 60% of funds, 11.7 million
3:10:23 for parks. Um, we also should look at tree funds. I think a perfect if I have some more time, I move to give the speaker 60 seconds.
3:10:31 Thank you. Um, going back to the funds, 60% of the funds I see, 11.7 for parks. Uh, there's
3:10:39 another fund that I think that we really don't kind of fail to recognize is our tree fund. And I think in a good example
3:10:46 of the tree fund could be this green mountain subdivision that
3:10:53 you know uh fee I guess for every tree that they, you know, tear down. I think there were 1,000 trees versus 1,600 plus
3:11:01 trees. there's that $600, you know, 600 delta. Maybe that fund could be used, you know, the 600 delta can be used in
3:11:08 the tree fund also for parks. So, that's a little bit extra funds there. Um, I think that is it. But all in all, thank
3:11:17 you so much for uh starting up a great policy. So, baby steps. Thank you.
3:11:22 Thank you, Valerie Shuitt.
3:11:31 Valerie Shuitt, 931 West Montro Street. Um, I love this discussion, of course.
3:11:37 Um, not an expert on policy by any means, and I don't really know what the options are that are out there for like a good parks policy. So, this is a very
3:11:45 man on the street take. Um, but I like this because it's a lot of action on things that have already had a lot of
3:11:54 public input. When you look at the things that that are in here, there's been a lot of input. There's been a lot of buy in. um and consensus around this.
3:12:01 So, it puts staff into action mode um on some of the great planning that we've been doing for a year to two years, the last year to two years. So, I love that.
3:12:12 I think um giving staff permission in the form of policy is also very helpful, especially when we're talking about
3:12:20 acting on some of these kind of big moves and big ideas. I think I have seen and understandably so at times with
3:12:27 staff a hesitancy to make big moves there's a lot when you start moving people's cheese people get mad you know so having your permission uh in the form
3:12:36 of a policy like this I think will be very activating and that's what I hope would come from something like this and
3:12:43 so that's why I love that it is specific and it is bold um we've had a lot of conversation around these things um I
3:12:52 also think as a council you do have a serious responsibility to be equitable in your investment in parks and wreck being elected by the people for the city
3:13:01 as a whole. So, I love the emphasis on that and I think that I'm surprised that's not something that we already have in a policy form in some
3:13:09 way um in our city. So, I think that's just super important. Love, love, love the ARC. I'm glad that staff are excited about that. Um I think that is just it's
3:13:18 a really big opportunity. Um, and it's there's a lot of work that will go into it, but it's also very low hanging fruit
3:13:26 for the city to have a high impact. So, I love that. Um, the question I would have is
3:13:35 how much we want to say or how much of a blanket statement is it that all right act on the ABA ethos recommendations or
3:13:42 DPZ or whatever. Um, how do we go about there's a lot in there. For example, well, let's narrow it down to the waterfront. There was a lot of suggestions in there for the waterfront.
3:13:52 How do we go about choosing which ones?
3:13:54 I would just love some clarity around that because there were some things I saw that I loved and some things I saw that I I didn't love so much and we couldn't do it all, you know? So, how
3:14:02 are we going to choose that and how do we kind of make sure the policy isn't a blanket statement of permission on all of those things would be a concern. And
3:14:09 then I can't remember if uh Jenny I think she might have touched on this a little bit, but having shade as essential infrastructure, not as decoration or landscaping.
3:14:20 We constantly are putting shade in spaces that aren't functional. We spend the money on the tree. This is I think more the county I'm ranting on the county thing right now, but we spend
3:14:28 money on trees and we plant them in a median while leaving the walkway with no shade. So when it comes to our parks, how are we being functional and intentional with shade? Thanks.
3:14:39 Thank you. Yes, sir.
3:14:46 All right. My name is Patrick Bianke 810 West Montrose. I am the president of Clermont Main Street. So, I want to touch on that a little bit before I put
3:14:54 my personal hat on. But um we we definitely welcome the opportunity to be involved um as what we would consider a
3:15:02 nonprofit arm to the city even though we are a separate entity um to help and aid in the creation of what parks look like
3:15:11 within the CRA boundary. We are limited to the CRA boundary and that map could change but um it's actually pretty big.
3:15:18 Uh if you remember we did a tot lot event. Uh Councilman Bane was there. um you can see the joy on people's faces
3:15:27 and I think for two reasons. One they love the engagement of creating things doing that but I think the other is the
3:15:36 fact that at the end of the day when this comes to fruition they're going to have something to enjoy. So then it becomes the quality of life
3:15:44 conversation. And with Main Street and kind of our initiatives in down in downtown in 27, a lot of our focus is on
3:15:54 the Florida native plantings that we're doing as well as parks. We had that budgeted in 27 already as far part of
3:16:01 our statewide work plans. So I'll just say we welcome the opportunity to collaborate. Um any grant that you're willing to provide us, we'd love that.
3:16:10 Yes, we can do a lot with it. one because we have corporate partners and sponsors and we'd have to figure out how that works in a public space. You know,
3:16:18 if we tell Orlando Health they can buy a park bench, what does that look like right? but you can allow us be the sales conduit to get that done. Um, and these
3:16:27 parks implemented specifically in the CRA. Now, as Patrick personally and a and a member of this community
3:16:36 going back to the quality of life perspective is that I think every member of the public here in Clermont should have access to parks and I think this is
3:16:45 a great step forward to implement a policy to do that. I know Councilman Bane and I were talking over coffee one day about having a plan for parks, a
3:16:53 multi-year maybe fiveyear identify these parks and how you're going to rest restore the ones that we currently have, what new ones are going to come online.
3:17:02 you know, if you're dividing it out with boundary lines and stuff, that's great, too, because I think that also allows for a Main Streetesque
3:17:10 per corporation or nonprofit like, let's say Kuanas, if they're in that one sector, maybe they're the ones that are
3:17:17 involved in in those parks. I think the amendment three is going to be challenging for parks and recreation. I
3:17:24 say that um I think that's the one thing that you're going to see cities and counties start cutting is from there. So
3:17:31 corporate sponsors, nonprofit relationships are going to be imminent with respect to parks. So I think that's
3:17:38 a great idea. I love the fact that this policy is coming forward. I think it is a step in the right direction. So uh thank you so much for letting me speak.
3:17:46 Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone else?
3:18:00 Joe Masi 2693 jumping jack way. Uh I appreciate you uh bringing this forward.
3:18:07 Proactivis proactivism is not a thing of government. So for you to do this and put the energy behind this policy is
3:18:14 amazing to get ahead of the game. I think that this uh provide an opportunity. Uh Council Member Bane, Council Member Strange, when you came
3:18:22 out talked about the comp plan with my fellow residents, you felt that they were looking for stuff like this.
3:18:29 They're looking for better opportunities, parks that are within the nature, not only trails. And I think that here's our chance to keep some of
3:18:38 the beautiful lands protected in a way that we everybody can enjoy it. And I just want to thank you for bringing this policy forward. Thank you.
3:18:46 Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone else?
3:18:52 This is a public hearing. Anyone in the chamber wish to address this item may come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes.
3:18:59 Seeing no one else I close and I have one online caller online please unmute yourself.
3:19:14 Hey, can you hear me? Yes.
3:19:17 Okay. Uh Danny Paige Clermont. Um I think one thing that's missing from this conversation is um is adding a
3:19:26 playground in the city. even if it's just one. Um, that's all inclusive. And I don't mean a playground that, you
3:19:34 know, like simply meets ADA requirements because ADA compliance is like just the minimum legal standard. I'm talking about like a playground intentionally
3:19:42 designed, you know, children with disabilities and even adults with disabilities. You know, they like to enjoy playgrounds. Um, and able-bodied
3:19:51 children can play together at the same time in the same space. Um, I actually did some research on this. There's a nonprofit called Unlimited Play that
3:20:00 specializes in this. They actually work with municipalities to plan and develop inclusive playgrounds that go well be,
3:20:07 you know, well beyond these ABA compliance. Um, and promote what they call parallel play. Um, which just means
3:20:14 children of different abilities being able to participate alongside one another instead of a disabled child being limited to one or two accessible
3:20:22 pieces of equipment. Um so like wheelchair several play structures and ramps, adaptive equipment, sensory and
3:20:29 musical components uh for autistic children, accessible surfacing, quiet areas for children who become over stimulated and also different types and
3:20:38 levels of play so children with wide range of physical, sensory and developmental abilities can participate.
3:20:44 Um and I'm not, you know, suggesting that the city actually use this nonprofit unlimited play. I mean, you could use them, you could use somebody else, but put it out to bid or
3:20:52 something, wherever the city uh needs to accomplish that. But my point is that if we're establishing a policy uh moving forward that we would want our you know,
3:21:01 how we want our parks to look like moving forward, then let's actually establish that kind of a goal. Um and again, it could just be one playground.
3:21:10 Um and they also do grants and all of that kind of stuff. So, um I I just don't think asking that one of these uh
3:21:17 playgrounds that we have in a park be designed so every child can actually play is really asking too much. So, I I would I really think that there's a
3:21:24 need. I've seen comments online from uh residents that have disabled children that ask about this a lot. And
3:21:33 so, again, not just a simple ADA compliant. I'm talking like an all-incclusive um in this parallel play thing where
3:21:40 where able-bodied and disabled children can work or excuse me uh can play together uh side by side. Um I think
3:21:47 this is a great idea. So um and I thank uh Councilwoman Strange for for bringing this um forward. Um but I think this
3:21:56 this should be added into the policy that we establish at least one playground within a park that is all-incclusive. Thank you.
3:22:05 Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone else? No one else. We close down public comment and bring it back to Council, Miss Meyers.
3:22:19 Well, I like the initiative that you took for doing this and you have my support and um I read through it and I
3:22:27 heard you. I really don't have any questions for you though at this time.
3:22:30 Thank you, Council Member Peterson.
3:22:34 I think that last comment was something that I haven't even heard of before, but it was something that a lot of people that have children like that need and I
3:22:43 think it's something we as a council should address. And I think it's great that you you came up with this idea of putting it into quarters and and having
3:22:51 that done, especially if we can get the CRA involved because they can multiply our monies that that come out. They're phenomenal. I forgot the uh the
3:23:00 assistant that was here last time that was a grant writer. you were talking about. Yeah, she was like phenomenal.
3:23:06 And so we can really do other things with this and you know and we could be the spearhead in Central Florida have
3:23:14 these type of parks. I think it's a great idea and I'm 100% for it. Cool. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Bane.
3:23:22 Thank you, Mayor. I don't have any questions, but I do have some comments. Okay.
3:23:31 All right. Um, I do have some questions. Uh, but first I think we already have a, if I'm not
3:23:40 mistaken, we have a park and recreation policy already. If I'm not mistaken, they're required to have 10 acres of park
3:23:49 for every 1,000 residents. Is that not our compreh in our comprehensive plan already? That is that's our level of service.
3:23:56 That's our level of service. We already have established in our comprehensive plan to have 10 acres of park per 10,000
3:24:03 residents. Okay. Uh and currently we have what 443,000 443 acres give about give or take of parks.
3:24:13 All right. I'm going to trust you on that. I don't know the exact I'm just I I'm just trying to verify this before and because I do have some
3:24:20 question but I want to make sure I I get all this before Well, I can I can speak to that a little bit. Um, one of the questions that the ABA had when they did the NRPA
3:24:29 assessment was how to calculate any lakefront access as park access.
3:24:34 Um, and so there's the opportunity to shortcom ourselves or oversell parks. I mean, you it can get tricky because we
3:24:41 do have so many lakefronts. Um, not in a bad sense tricky, just a little more complex than the average neighborhood or community. So, the reason why I've
3:24:50 proposed one active park and not treated that as necessarily a lakefront is so that we're actually intentionally
3:24:58 creating spaces that the average person in the average city would consider a park. And I have a a definition in here
3:25:06 that would allow the consolidation of multiple parks to comply with the 10 acre. For example, we have two two miles
3:25:14 of waterfront park in downtown that collectively could could be consolidated if intentionally done to be one 10acre
3:25:22 park to meet that active park requirement. Um, so yes and no, Mr. Mayor. We theoretically
3:25:30 we have met our requirement with the lakefront, but I think from a meaningful perspective from the citizens, I don't think most people would consider all the
3:25:38 lakefront that we have satisfactory of that condition.
3:25:43 I agree. Um and of course this policy that we you we will only well replace the current
3:25:51 policy with you creating five geographic quarters, right? 10 acres like you say 10 acres of active 10 acres of passive
3:25:59 natural park. Um and then here's other thing in there. You say five minutes
3:26:06 access within five minutes. But then in in the policy you you state walking uh automobile bicycling and everything.
3:26:14 So what standard are we using to measure that five minutes?
3:26:17 Yeah. So parks are unique like any piece of real estate and every every child right is the five minute is actually
3:26:24 simply having access to a park of any kind. It can be a private park. It can be what I'm proposing. It could be a private park. It could be a public park.
3:26:34 But the point is everybody who lives in Clermont would be within five minutes of a place they can go and be connected to nature or play outside in the sun in
3:26:44 the elements. Now the active park natural park component of this would be these are going to be big spaces. You
3:26:51 start dealing with a 10 plus acre park and you're you're it takes a lot of coordination and effort and that's where I think the the power of the government
3:26:59 can be helpful. So we would have a minimum of 100 acres of park space that's definitely managed by the
3:27:06 government, but we could also have three or 400 acres of park space that's managed by private neighborhoods or
3:27:14 private entities. Like we think about the National Training Center for example, it's going to meet some sort of active park requirement, but if it's not
3:27:21 accessible to everybody who's five minutes from it, then it won't check that box. So, every park, this is not a six-month plan or a or two-month plan.
3:27:31 This my goal here is to get us aspirationally moving forward in a direction where there will be some lowhanging fruit like the Lake Felter
3:27:39 Park. That would check the natural park minimum 10acre requirement for the southeast quarter, which already has active parks. So, we might not think we
3:27:48 like it until we see Lake Felter Park come along and go, "Oh, we need an active park there." and it allows our staff to look and say, "Where do we need an active park? Where do we need a
3:27:56 natural park?" And so, it's giving them a target rather than just shooting bullets. Okay. Well, I'm just looking at
3:28:04 what you proposing here. Like I say, if I'm not mistaken, our comprehensive plan already provide for a citywide acreage
3:28:11 and level type park and we want to go from that to a geographic distribution of parks and all. Um so one other
3:28:19 question question another question is will this this policy apply equally to every park all the parks and recreation part projects?
3:28:30 I'm not sure I understand the question.
3:28:32 If we put this in here, will will we be able to apply the the standards or whatever we every park and recreation
3:28:39 part project that we have in the city or looking at in the city will we be able to apply these standards and take a look at it from from these this policy.
3:28:48 So I didn't go that deep into each parks for example the basic amenities. I
3:28:55 didn't address the basic amenities. So it's actually great that that came up. I would suggest that that could be done
3:29:02 later than this. This is more of a 10,000 foot view looking at the city as a whole and first and foremost ensuring
3:29:11 access and then what happens at each one of those parks and how they look is going to vary greatly and I think that
3:29:19 evolves over time where it becomes more obvious what is necessary. But this policy is I I intentionally wrote it so that it would be high level except where
3:29:28 I got into the specific projects. So I'm starting very wide and I'm narrowing it down so that we can we can agree or
3:29:35 disagree on the core aspirations and intended outcomes. And really I think if we don't agree on those that's where we
3:29:43 should start so that we can narrow it down into the more specifics. But I think we have a tendency to operate within the specifics instead of having a
3:29:51 highle policy. So that's what I'm really trying to do here. But we have done a lot of things. So I wanted to include them since we're coming up on fiscal year 27 budget.
3:29:59 Okay. Well, I guess I guess what I'm getting at is making sure that every pro project we have, for example, uh meet us in the middle where they can it be
3:30:08 evaluated on the same on the uh under this policy using the same objective and criteria that's set aside in this pol in this policy.
3:30:17 Yeah. So, meet me in the middle would fall under item three, direct staff to pursue options for activation of the waterfront between the boat ramp and Hayawa consistent with the adopted plan.
3:30:26 And then, you know, that's that's actually not even at the 10,000 foot at that point once we adopt the master plan
3:30:34 for downtown. We're we're getting into kind of the 2,000 foot level. And so it's just executing that plan, but it is actually giving staff instruction and
3:30:42 direction to execute the plan so that they know this is something you're going to be measured against, which can be a curse, but I think it's probably a blessing.
3:30:52 It's probably a blessing.
3:30:54 Yeah. To to know what you're going to be measured against.
3:30:56 Well, am I right, Mr. Van Wagner? Well, I get well I I I'll get to that in a little bit, but uh
3:31:05 I just want to make sure that the other thing is excuse me under this policy that meet us in the middle will be able it
3:31:14 won't stop this policy won't stop meters in the middle of being able to be funded. Right. Okay.
3:31:19 Well, you know, my position on meet in the middle is it's not funded and I mean I'm just going to put that skunk on the table. I don't think that we have the
3:31:27 funding for Meet Me in the Middle and and we haven't approved the final design or the final drawings. We move forward to get more information, but as I sit
3:31:36 here today with what I've seen, which is limited compared to yourself, Mr. Mayor, I would not think the citizens of Clermont would appreciate a a concrete
3:31:44 focused park that rips out trees rather than installing new trees. That's my position. I'm only one vote. I have been outvoted on that issue before. Um, but
3:31:53 this does not preclude meet me in the middle to move forward as intended. What it would potentially limit is spending impact fee funds that were paid by
3:32:01 citizens in other quarters to be spent in that quarter. That is a possibility.
3:32:06 And also, you know, my position on the CRA funding itself and using general funds, but you heard me tonight. I proposed using $6 million to fund CRA
3:32:16 projects. So I think those are again details but nothing about this policy precludes the construction and moving forward of Mimi in the middle.
3:32:25 Okay. You just said you said something that really caught my attention there.
3:32:28 It precludes impact funds being spent in this quarter if it wasn't paid in this quarter.
3:32:35 Yeah. Well that's the law. That's not my opinion.
3:32:37 Well I guess that's one of the problem I have with that because basically you take this quarter this quarter which is the northwest quadrant. How many impact
3:32:45 fees are being paid here today in this quadrant because it's totally developed.
3:32:49 Impact fees here are pretty much utilized. So any of these park you right now talking about developing in the downtown and everything. Uh where's
3:32:57 their impact fees coming from if they're not coming from other quarters? Okay.
3:33:02 Well, do you think it's just for them to come from other quarters?
3:33:05 Well, I I think the impact fees should be put out there and if a park desire is there, we we we fund the park. Okay. Of
3:33:12 course, I know in your in in here you're saying um you want the policy to require 60% of
3:33:19 the recreation impact fee balance to be allocated within six months. Yeah. Okay.
3:33:25 I I'm just trying to figure out why is that? I first of all, we
3:33:32 want to allocate it within six months, but yet and still we don't have any uh parks or anything else that we've actually sat down and agreed upon that
3:33:40 this is what we're going to do. So completely wouldn't that be putting staff under a little bit of strain there?
3:33:45 I hope so. Um we have and I don't really say it to be funny. I think it's a very serious issue
3:33:53 that we have over $1 million and our impact fees for parks without a plan.
3:33:57 And so look, we're all going to be here in six months. Well, God willing, but you know, in six months, that's a short
3:34:05 period of time. If in six months staff has been hustling and they've negotiated deals and gee they got $10 million worth of land for $3 million and we've got
3:34:14 grants and donations and they've only allocated 30% of the funds then we can evaluate it then. I mean these are aspirations and targets so that we can
3:34:22 move projects forward. But yes, my intention in bringing this forward is to move projects forward and not having them sit. Now Mr. Bane, you said
3:34:30 something earlier that I do want to address. I do want to be cautious that we're not creating long-term recurring expenses, which is why part of this is
3:34:38 every time a project comes forward, including existing parks, that staff bring us both a programming and
3:34:45 maintenance schedule, so we know exactly what is supposed to be happening at the park, when it's supposed to be happening, who's doing it, and how is it
3:34:52 paid for. And so, future parks would have to bring that with them prior to approval, but existing parks would have
3:35:00 to bring them within How many days did I say? I don't remember how many days I said.
3:35:06 60 days. I think I said 60. 100 days.
3:35:10 So, they have 100 days. So, staff would have 100 days. And look, if they say we're still working on this one, then we listen to them and we work with them.
3:35:19 Well, I just like I say, you you you're talking about allocating 60% of the what was that 11.7 million or something like
3:35:27 that. 11.7 million. So if it's 60% of that is like 707 $7 million. So we've talking about committing approximately
3:35:34 $7 million uh before we necessarily know any projects that provide the greatest return to our residents. Uh which
3:35:43 projects have outside funding any of these things with it. We just going to willy-nilly say, "Okay, we're going to
3:35:50 arbitrarily throw 77 million to the part uh the projects without any analyses or
3:35:58 anything which is best best to do." I am glad you say it that way because that it's a fair concern and I want to address it is
3:36:05 I'm not picking parks. I'm saying staff is directed to go spend money and they're directed to spend money on parks that meet the following criteria that
3:36:14 ensure access for our residents and that staff would have to come back to us, but they are being directed to spend the money the same way that we t you know we
3:36:23 tax the taxpayers and say we're going we direct staff to go build fire departments and save lives. We're directing the the the parks and wreck to
3:36:32 spend the money that has been paid. I would be very interested in seeing an audit of this account and seeing how many years we have been collecting and
3:36:40 how many citizen this city have paid for impact fees that don't have parks. It's it probably is shocking.
3:36:49 Well, I'm not going to say the citizens in in Clement don't have parks when we have 20ome parks in this city all over this city.
3:36:55 They don't have parks they have access to.
3:36:56 Well, well, they have well they access all over the city. Uh you know, I guess that bring me back back to the question I asked before. You say five minutes.
3:37:05 Accessing five minutes. And I'm I'm a little still confused on that. When you say five minutes, I can walk to this park. It may take me 20 minutes to walk
3:37:13 five minutes to this park. Okay. But uh you also have in the automobile. It may only take I didn't put automobile. Scooter. Scooters. Auto transportation.
3:37:22 Scooter. Golf. I did put golf cart.
3:37:24 I guess I'm trying to define what you mean.
3:37:28 What transportation and fivem minute access? Yeah.
3:37:31 Is it walking? Is it by scooter? Is it by any of those golf cart?
3:37:36 Any of those qualifies. So if staff comes to us with a plan and they can say, "Okay, the people in this area need a golf cart." So let's say for example,
3:37:44 let's just use Verde Ridge as an example. There are no public parks in the northeast section of the city.
3:37:51 There's the National Training Center, so that's cool. There's the the view, so that's cool. So they have access to some recreation, but there are no public parks currently. Now, there's a group
3:38:00 here who wants to give us land. So, that makes it that makes it interesting because there's no public parks in the northeast corridor. But if I live in
3:38:07 Verde Ridge and I want to get out of Verde Ridge because of the way that community was designed, I better be on a bike or a golf cart if I'm going to be
3:38:15 five minutes from anywhere because the community is so big. Kings Ridge is going to be very similar. Now, what's nice is in those communities, staff can
3:38:23 check the box and say, "Well, they have access to a park because there's a park in the community." So that's good, but it's making it it's saying, does every
3:38:30 citizen have access? The people in Wellness Way don't have access to any public parks. There's no public parks down there right now at all. Now, we
3:38:38 might look at the map and say, "Yeah, but they have 12 parks in in their neighborhoods." And then we might say, "Well, do they have do they all have access to those parks?" You know, so we
3:38:47 just haven't gone down that low. But I think our staff is more than capable of doing that, especially with what we have from the ABA. So what I'm trying to do
3:38:55 is give them direction to bring this back to us and then it would be the filter through which we look when we're making decisions about how do we fund
3:39:02 meet me in the middle. If the meet me in the middle design is the one that we all choose and that's the direction that we go. We might say well we like it but we can't fund it because it would be unjust
3:39:11 but we can apply for grants. So let's go get grants. Yep.
3:39:15 Okay. Like I say I'm still trying to define what you mean by five minutes is if like I say I can get in my car and I can drive to a park.
3:39:22 It's not about cars. You can't drive. Huh? Excuse me.
3:39:25 That's not part of the policy. Not driving.
3:39:26 Well, I can get on my schooler and drive to a park in 5 minutes. Okay. However, if I saw a walk-in, it may take me longer to get there.
3:39:33 Yeah. But you can get there by scooter or golf cart. In places that have golf carts, that would work.
3:39:37 Well, I guess like I say, that's that's that's what I'm trying to define exactly. What do you mean by fiveminute access? By scooter, by walking or whatever.
3:39:45 I mean, we could make it walk, but it's going to be much if you're telling me I need to have a park 5 minutes from my house by scooter. Okay, we got to park here.
3:39:53 But if it's by walking, the park is way over here when I live here. See?
3:39:57 Okay, let let's redefine all that. Uh I think we we kind of getting a little little tough there when we start saying
3:40:04 within five minutes. Uh and we give all the some oxygen to get there. Um ABA heard the ABA
3:40:10 um I think they said I think ABA said we had about 530 acres of park when I looked at their report. Uh, and I think
3:40:18 our our statistics say 443 acres. Okay. Um, but I guess my my
3:40:26 question is the ABA, did they? Well, I went to look it up because I was trying to figure out in their study where it
3:40:34 actually recommended we allocate 60% of impact funds. Oh, no, that's me.
3:40:40 Okay. Well, I was just I was just curious if ABA was that where it came from. how we we just pull 60%. And all
3:40:48 where it was uh and start spending 60% and everything. So that's just a random number you pull.
3:40:54 Yes. I wanted to say 100, but I thought that might be too much for staff.
3:40:57 Yeah. Well, well, and like I say, here we go. You know, as we stated in other talks earlier in uh this afternoon, we
3:41:06 just randomly pull numbers out here in Thoso without really analyzing everything and going to spend money. Um
3:41:13 well, I do want to be clear. I'm not author I'm not proposing that we authorize staff to spend the money. I'm looking for them to bring us projects
3:41:21 that collectively would be 60%. So they would have to bring that to us not move forward with the projects. So this is
3:41:28 this is policy not other than the specific items this is a policy so that they can bring us back ideas.
3:41:38 Okay. In AVA, I guess they define us as being a little deficiency in parks, right? AVA the quality and number. Yes.
3:41:47 Okay. Yeah.
3:41:51 So, um would you say we should first the D uh council should first determine what the
3:41:58 400 actually 443 acres? Hold on, Brian. Do me a favor. Give me an accurate. Can you give
3:42:06 me an accurate number of what how many acres we have because the city website say 443.9 acres.
3:42:13 Yes. So that's actually bullet point number one under staff obligations to provide by October 15th is a city map that identifies all parks and
3:42:21 designating them as active natural or neighborhood. I think identifying the acreage would be great. Might be too much on the private parks though.
3:42:29 Mayor I could get the number on the city parks for you. I don't have it with me though. You don't have it. Okay. I don't I don't I didn't bring it.
3:42:37 Well, I I I went to the website and it's saying four four3 points.
3:42:42 I have it. I know where it is on my computer or I just don't have it with I just I just want to make sure we're using the right figures. So, my thing is
3:42:49 shouldn't we of that 400 something acre we what actually consists already within
3:42:56 that 443 acres before we go out here and just start jumping on everything else, right? uh allocating other parks.
3:43:05 Yeah, that's the point of bullet point number one.
3:43:07 And of course, uh ABA recommended we we maximize the existing parks first.
3:43:17 Right.
3:43:18 Well, that was my suggestion at the workshop as a potential target, but I didn't feel like we had an agreement, so I thought I'd take a stab at a whole
3:43:26 policy instead. So, don't you think that should be in in in this new policy that we maximize existing parks before we would start worrying about new parks?
3:43:36 Um, I would not suggest that. Um, I would suggest those two processes proceed simultaneously. And now that you say it, I do think an intended
3:43:44 aspiration of meeting the NRPA requirement of parks at an A or B level would be that all parks meet an A or B
3:43:52 level for NRPA standards would be a great aspirational goal.
3:43:57 Okay. Well, I think one of the things we need to be doing here is identifying what we have first, what we have out
3:44:05 there and so we can determine what what we're missing out of the after park or the natural parks that you that you uh
3:44:13 looking proposal that we do. Of course, ABA did their study and of course we can go back and look at all these studies with one of the things they did was uh
3:44:21 uh identified waterfront and arts and recreation center six most active you know when I go back
3:44:28 and look at their studies right um so then that argument for improving and
3:44:37 activate activating existing access rather than automatically prioritizing acquisition of other additional parks Shouldn't you shouldn't you say we
3:44:45 should we since they did recommend these things. Shouldn't we be looking at doing these things before we start talking about buying other parts uh land and all this?
3:44:54 Well, they did not give us a task list.
3:44:57 They just identified everything. So, that's what I'm looking for us to identify what we think we want to direct staff to do. I mean, we have the funds
3:45:06 in the impact fee. So I I guess my question to all of you would simply be you know how do we feel about the
3:45:14 intended and aspirational outcomes because at the end of the day that's where the policy is going to be driven from and do we feel like these are good
3:45:23 goals for staff. I do think at least I'm speaking for you that we would like some sort of direction on where to move with
3:45:31 some parks you know some specific projects. Yes.
3:45:35 Yeah. So, so and a uh ABA recommended parks in the wellness waiver area, right?
3:45:46 Um specific part there. They just identified that there weren't any. So, I'm looking at the access to parks.
3:45:55 Well, I guess when I went in there, I looked at it and read the report again.
3:45:58 I looked at it as saying they recommended that we do do some park development in the Wellness Way area, right? Um,
3:46:07 so is it simply to buy more parks everywhere or is AB ABA recommending
3:46:14 that we uh strategic develop parks in the needed areas right now?
3:46:20 Okay. Like Wellness Way where where we have the most growth. Wellness Way as you stated doesn't have any parks or anything there.
3:46:27 Yeah. So the last I saw was an assessment, not a recommendation or a master plan for parks. Are they working on a master? They were just updating the assessment from our last meeting, right?
3:46:36 Correct. Yes. I I spoke with Shane today. So he's updating those parks that were under that were categorized underwater park.
3:46:43 Yeah. So he was up. He's doing that. He's doing that now.
3:46:46 So So they did the assessment and so what I'm doing is I'm looking at the assessment and saying, "Okay, what where do we want to go? What do we do now that
3:46:55 we know where we are? Where do we want to go?" So my suggestion is that we look at the city holistically and a very I
3:47:05 mean we could talk we could negotiate you could negotiate me to 10 minutes where everyone has access within 10 minutes walk or 10 minutes bike I mean
3:47:13 those are details that I think but the point would be does everybody have access by bike by scooter by golf cart
3:47:21 safe access and then what is safe access we're in Florida you start getting lunch beyond 10 minutes and and you don't have real access at that point. You've got to
3:47:29 get in your car and go wherever you're going. So, you know, do we want to give every citizen do we want to make it an aspirational goal that every citizen has
3:47:37 access? Do we want to spend the money the citizens have paid and at least have a plan for it and then what might that plan look like? So, my suggestion is
3:47:46 each quarter have one active and one natural park, big parks, so people can go do something a connectivity with the trail system. That's been a big part of
3:47:53 the conversation. And then and then to help people do little things, little parks, we might say, "Hey, of that 11.7
3:48:01 staff might say we want to allocate 1.5 million towards a grant program." And we spin off 150,000 a year. Maybe we could
3:48:09 give I don't know, Christians walking out, but maybe we could give it to the community foundation as a grant program and and now people can apply for grants for their neighborhood. I don't know.
3:48:17 Those are the details. But the question is, you know, it would take it off staff's plate to have to deal with pocket parks and let folks like Main
3:48:25 Street handle pocket parks, you know, potentially. You know, I'm not that's not in here, but it would create that opportunity.
3:48:35 Okay. So, and then one of the other thing that you mentioned connectivity, you have always talked about connectivities and all this to the
3:48:42 trails and all. So when the these uh
3:48:50 then with the project improve are any of these projects that we looking at right now improve the bicycle uh connectivity and everything to the trail between
3:48:59 downtown the waterfront trails and all that. And of course the other thing I I have I'm concerned with you saying all these parks within 10 minutes in these
3:49:07 quadrants where we gonna get the land a lot another concern where where's all the land coming from?
3:49:14 You know I couldn't have predicted 42 acres at Lake Filter.
3:49:18 No, I couldn't have predicted it. So you know there's there's a lot of land around in the city around the city um
3:49:27 that we wouldn't even necessarily know unless we are seeking it out. I mean, people like to donate people. There are
3:49:34 people who love this community who might leave us land that we didn't expect if they know that this is the vision for the city. You know, there might be people who say, you know, I want to
3:49:43 write a check. We don't know if we don't publish and say this is our goal. And as far as allocating the 60%, you touched on that briefly. You know, you saw Main
3:49:51 Street when I said, what if we just gave you a grant for 250,000? and they're like, "We could make that more money." Because part of the challenge in the private sector when you go to do a
3:49:59 project involving parks and recreation is having matching funds. For example, you're going to hear me in reports, the tourism is opening up their capital
3:50:08 fund. It closes November 1st. So, we have to have 50% matching, but depending on what project we're doing, we might be
3:50:15 able to apply for tourism funds for a 50% match. So having that those funds allocated are what allow you to go make
3:50:23 more money in other grants. So that's what I'm trying to do here is empower staff with direction, with tools, and
3:50:30 with the funds necessary to execute a vision or something. Technically, it's not even a plan at this point. It's really more of a vision.
3:50:39 Yes.
3:50:41 Does uh ABA recommend activation of Clint's waterfront and mixed use opportunity?
3:50:49 Right.
3:50:51 I I think everybody has recommended that. Yeah. Yeah.
3:50:54 Okay. I was just And meters in the middle include the waterfront components. Correct. That all those components, right?
3:51:00 Well, it's certainly between those those locations. Yes.
3:51:06 So, uh, and they also also look at using parks as economic economic development assets.
3:51:15 So, there's two, right?
3:51:16 I mean, I when I go back and read, I pull all this stuff out of out of their recommendation and everything. So, yeah. So, active parks definitely can. I
3:51:24 mean, if you look at Hancock Park, there's no doubt that's a community park. It supports, I think, 250 kids in softball and something like 400 kids in
3:51:32 soccer. And yet it's also the number one economic driver outside of Waterfront's festival park or what I call festival
3:51:39 park in the city. So a well-designed park can satisfy both recreation and tourism needs.
3:51:49 Well, I just I just want to make sure with this policy because we actually have a policy in place now. you looking to rewrite the policy and we take taking
3:51:57 us in a whole different direction of what's already in place where I thought we was meeting most of most of the requirement for our parks and recreation
3:52:05 and and according to our understanding how many how many square miles we have in the in the in the in the city right now about 20 point something square
3:52:12 miles and I think we got like and we got we got like one square mile
3:52:20 uh for the number of parks we got we got one park that for each square we have.
3:52:25 So, yes, our existing comprehensive plan you might look at as a 15,000 foot view to say 10 acres for every thousand residents. This is saying yes, we still
3:52:34 want to do that, but getting down even closer, we want to say we want the parks located in equitable distribution. And
3:52:42 so, we still want at least 10 acres per thousand residents. And the lakes can qualify for that. But we're saying if
3:52:50 people in one section of the city don't have access to any parks, then maybe a conversation might be had about where we should be spending our money.
3:52:58 Mhm.
3:53:02 Well, you're right. And what that that's bring me to that area. Are we making the wisest choice here and obligating
3:53:12 funds to parks that we we basically according to what I'm reading in your in your proposal is to say we're going to spend $7 million within the next six
3:53:21 months obligate $7 million in the next six months but we don't know where we what parks or what condition what return or anything no analysis been did done on
3:53:29 any of these parks yeah that's the target that's the aspirational goal and I'm open to discussion on what might be more reasonable But why hold on to the money?
3:53:39 I these these this $1 million was paid in $5,000 chunks.
3:53:43 Well, don't you think we need to maybe know what what what what operating costs or whatever we committing we committing to uh
3:53:52 recreation impact fee before before we just will say, "Hey, we going to automatically commit six 60% of this fund." Yeah. And that's why each park has to
3:54:01 have a programming and maintenance plan adopted 60 days prior to opening. So, we could change that to prior to approval
3:54:08 by council, but I mean that would be but the goal I 100% agree with you. I think that we need to have a complete picture before we approve parks. This is just
3:54:17 giving staff direction to go seek parks programming activation
3:54:25 and to bring it back to us. Well, well, see, I guess I'm concerned with the fact that, you know, once we go out and we start buying all these parks, we start
3:54:34 doing all these all this land purchasing these parks and everything, we adding reoccurring costs and all but maintaining these parks and all these things. See, and all and yet and still,
3:54:42 we still sitting here talking about reducing millage and reducing revenue, intake, and everything, but we want to sit here and add all these parts. and
3:54:49 you committing right now like another $7 million to new parks which mean more cost more current. So how it's going to
3:54:58 be funded is is one of the things I'm trying to pitch in the long run once we create all this. Yeah. And it's not going to be easy.
3:55:04 That's why the sooner we get started the better. But when you think about like Main Street for example, we already have a willing partner stepping up and saying
3:55:10 they want to help. Um I don't want to commit them but live well Foundation is another local grant provider. There are
3:55:18 different grants. You heard the caller who said that there's different programs for um parallel parks. I love that name.
3:55:24 I'm going to continue to use that. Um so I think that if staff knows what the target is, it allows them to seek those relationships and grants.
3:55:34 Right. So I Well, that's the last thing.
3:55:38 Yeah. Basically, I feel that uh I don't think we need a policy change. I think we just need to uh let
3:55:47 staff go ahead and do what they normally do and recommend everything and then they come back to us to determine you know which one receive funding and maybe they give us recommendation on the
3:55:56 funding of park. First of all, before we change the policy, it's my opinion that we need to maybe get give staff
3:56:03 authority to go out, find these parts, do the study, do the analysis and everything with no six months commitment, then I think that's putting
3:56:11 them under uh we like to you say committing six 60% of impact fees for land and parks and everything. We don't even know what we have out there.
3:56:21 Okay. So that that I have a problem with automatic committing 60% to these. And of course in your in your report you
3:56:28 specifically mention um in your pro uh policy you specifically mentioned the the a
3:56:36 mhm felner park and all these. Okay.
3:56:39 Yeah. But there's nothing and that's one of the reason I asked about uh uh meet us in the middle because meet us in the middle you know a lot of things and
3:56:47 goals that you identified ABA identified for connectivity and and I think in their report they specifically talk
3:56:55 about the use of the waterfront um underutilizing of the waterfront. Yeah.
3:56:59 Okay. But yet still meet us in the middle wasn't part of your your project here. Okay.
3:57:03 Yeah. It's actually fiscal year 2027 specific projects item number three. But I'm just I'm just concerned with with we
3:57:11 sitting here and committing and changing our whole policy, parks and recreation policy when we have one that's in place that's been working for us. I think we
3:57:19 have 20 a total of 22 23 parks all over the city in the public place. I have no problem with saying, "Hey, can we partner with some of these other
3:57:27 subdivisions to utilize some of the private parks and all to uh give access to some of the people?" Um, I think it'd be tough, especially when you have gated
3:57:36 communities and everything, uh, to try to utilize some of them. Um, I think Wellness Way, yes, we need to focus on Wellness Way. They have no
3:57:45 public parks down there and that was really identified in ABA study, you know. So, so these are the areas I think we need to be focused on where where there is a deficiency at right now.
3:57:54 Okay.
3:57:55 We have a park at Felner. Okay. Um, you know, and this they are very well take care. We just purchased what? More land down there. I understand we uh it just
3:58:04 went through today. I was told 42 acres down there for Felner. Okay. Exactly.
3:58:08 So now we even got more parks. I mean that's that's making almost 500 acres of park right now. And I think ABA ABA
3:58:16 standards was uh 10 acres per resident and they based that upon so they've seen 530 acres of parks based on a population
3:58:24 of 53,000 is what they when I look back at their studies. Okay. Well, that was all the question basically. Like I'm just I'm just, you know, I just find it
3:58:33 hard to really want to change this policy and give all this authority and not make sure we look at parks like uh
3:58:41 other projects that's already been on the books for years and then uh they not give them proper consideration. Okay.
3:58:47 like meet us in the middle and all the other and the standards in the this policy should relate to all projects that we have out there and relate and
3:58:56 when they do the rating and analyzing they should check do the check box on every one of them accordingly. Okay. So that that's one of my concerns about your policy about the policy. Okay.
3:59:08 All right. Anyone else?
3:59:11 Um so we making a motion to adopt this policy. No, you m you got a statement. M Mr.
3:59:19 Brian said I think he said he wanted a statement. Okay. Sure. Please.
3:59:24 If you guys don't have a statement, I'm happy to to just move this forward. Um
3:59:32 so at the risk, here's my concern. I want to vote yes on
3:59:40 this because I love the idea and the concept, but we're this talks about an adopted downtown plan. We haven't adopted a downtown plan yet. I'm very
3:59:49 concerned about implementing a policy that references a document that hasn't been approved. I I think I I love the the conversation that this has started.
4:00:00 I'm not sure this is the the vehicle you use the term we talked about earlier um
4:00:07 for pol for this policy uh or or what is included all here is what should
4:00:15 be included in the policy because there's also some fiscal allocations that are included in here that are one time that aren't policy they're one-time
4:00:24 fiscal um uh resolutions if you will and So I I
4:00:31 I really want to support the idea and the concept behind creating ideas of active parks versus
4:00:40 natural parks. I think we need to reook at the quarters and also maybe consider what what is the actual population
4:00:49 within that quarter because there are some quarters that are heavier non-residential than residential
4:00:56 and does that mean that those quarters of the city need to actually have a a slightly different lens that be looked
4:01:05 at for residential parks because they're more residential or even go take it a step further. What kind of
4:01:12 residential is there? So, I really want to support this. I can't support it as it currently is on the agenda. I do
4:01:19 think it's a little premature in that respect, but I think it's an excellent start of the conversation. Um, I think
4:01:27 it's specific in some areas. It's bold in some areas. Um, I I I just I think we need to approve a ma a downtown master
4:01:35 plan and a comprehensive plan and an ABA parks and wreck plan or or just a parks and recck plan before we put policies in
4:01:43 place to implement those. And I think that it should come to us with not expenditures included in policy, but
4:01:52 rather just be policy and bring those expenditures elsewhere. Um, but I applaud the conversation starting point
4:02:01 and I um I'm I'm sorry that that's coming after a lengthy Q&A, but that's just where I'm at. And I really do if
4:02:09 it's if we have to vote on it tonight, I have to vote no simply for those reasons, but I I support the concept. Thank you.
4:02:17 So, what if I work with our attorney to come up with, as I acknowledged, I'm not a policy writer, but what if we work on coming up with a better policy so that
4:02:26 we can give staff direction for fiscal year 27 so they have action items for fiscal year 27? I mean, is that
4:02:34 something we am I Yeah. I I think our job is to not I don't know if I'm sorry, were you asking me? Yeah.
4:02:41 Okay. Um, I don't think our job is to necessarily write policy at a staff level. I think our job is to provide
4:02:48 direction to the city manager to work with his staff to create the policy and bring it back to us. Um, and so, um, I
4:02:57 think this is also a shining example of why we need a parks, wreck, trails, and waterways board. Uh, because this should this should be workshopped by citizens
4:03:04 who are passionate about parks and trails and waterways. And this could have been this could be vetted in all kinds of different ways at at that level
4:03:13 where citizen input is there and it's not that you know at least there's some sort of coordinated or or message that's brought forward that we're trying to
4:03:22 accomplish. Um I think we just kind of had a workshop within a council meeting.
4:03:27 Um and and I'm okay with that, but it I'm not okay with implementing the policy as
4:03:33 a result of that yet here. Um I I would rather see a resolution that comes forward identifying what that policy is
4:03:41 and and and fully understanding what we are actually committing to in policy and then bring forward any expenditures or
4:03:51 one-time ongoing kinds of things that relate to specific projects or initiatives to not be included in that policy if that makes sense.
4:04:02 Yeah. So, how do you feel about the intended outcomes and aspirations on page one?
4:04:06 Um, I don't know how I feel totally about the 60% fund balance piece. Forget that part.
4:04:13 Yeah. But I like in terms of the aspirations of having access quickly in a in a nonvehicular dependent way.
4:04:24 th000% thousand%. To ensure that we have active and natural parks in all areas of
4:04:33 our city, thousand%. Um safe, purposeful, interesting, thousand%. Um
4:04:39 uh uh where here neighbor neighborhood parks through grant sponsorship.
4:04:44 Absolutely. Um those are those theoretical conceptual I'm fully on board. I think some of the
4:04:52 other pieces where it can get like, oh, am I okay with 60%. I'm not sure because I I am concerned long term about putting
4:04:59 that kind of thing in a policy where what if a future council is presented with a once-ina-lifetime opportunity for
4:05:08 preserving space and it doesn't meet that piece of that, would that mean we would have to pass that up,
4:05:16 right? you know, so does it then belong in a policy or are those overarching goals or initiatives every year that we
4:05:26 put in a resolution on a yearly basis to say this is what we're doing this year? I don't know. Right.
4:05:30 Um but I support the idea of bringing and working with staff to create a policy.
4:05:36 Okay, that's where I wanted to come. Sorry that it I'm not trying to derail this. I really am not. I hope that I hope my intent is being heard here. Uh it is and I appreciate it.
4:05:45 Thank you. Okay.
4:05:47 you wasn't going to make a statement as Miss Miss Strange.
4:05:51 No, I appreciate everybody's input and I know this took a lot of time. I didn't actually mean for that to happen, but I I do appreciate it. So, I'm going to get
4:05:59 with Miss Van Wagner and uh Christian and see if we can come up with something that we could bring back so staff has some clarity for next year. Um that also
4:06:07 takes into consideration the points that were made. I took copious notes.
4:06:11 Let me let me let me wind it up with this then. uh cuz I I see I existing comprehensive plan already established
4:06:20 standard of 10 acres land per 1,000 resident.
4:06:24 So I don't think the question is uh do we climat need parks? Uh the question is what parks do we need?
4:06:30 Where do we need them and what's the best way to use them use the assets and dollars we already have. Uh that's why I
4:06:37 think the ABA evaluation is extremely important, okay, to us because they laid out a very good plan to us. ABA told us
4:06:45 our parks are one of the most valuable assets that we have. Okay. Uh they identified the waterfront, they identified arts and crafts, how and late
4:06:55 Felner as the most uh active parks we have around here. So um they emphasize
4:07:01 activation, connectivity, events, all these different activities, everything going on, tourism, public, private because they also identify wellness way
4:07:10 as a major a major opportunity for future destination. So that's why I think we really need to be looking at
4:07:17 well wellness way because that was truly brought out in ABA evaluation. Um they
4:07:25 didn't just tell us simply to acquire more land. They told us to maximize what we have improving connectivity activate
4:07:32 our existing access and make strategic investment where the data support them. Okay, that's why I
4:07:40 have concerns with acquiring 60% of our pro uh requiring 60% of profit approximately $11 million in recreation
4:07:49 impact P to be allocated within the next six months. Uh that's about $7 million that we just going to say we're just going to willingly uh allocated in the
4:07:57 next this month. I support investing the dollars, but I do not don't believe we we should establish a spending deadline before
4:08:06 full council receive a prioritized capital plan showing the need. um the cost, the
4:08:13 geographic benefit outcome outside funding opportunities and the future operating cost which is a big concern to
4:08:20 me and I believe the same standard should apply to every projects not not just one but every project that coming
4:08:27 before um parks and rec that the city is evaluating that you need to use the same standard for all criteria uh should meet
4:08:35 every project and I asking council to write a policy that doesn't prevent council from making a good decision decision on any of the parks. Okay. Uh
4:08:44 make a policy that and with criteria that general criteria that all the parks have to find it fall in just like we did with the evaluation. We had criteria we
4:08:52 we went by and did that. Um so let's evaluate everything on it on its own merit. Each park on its own
4:08:59 merit and like ABA said it's not a matter of whether we need parks. It's just where do we need them at and we need to identify them thing and know how
4:09:08 much it going to cost. So here's what I'm asking you. uh to make three changes in your policy. First, replace the mandatory 60% spending requirement with
4:09:17 a prioritize prioritize parks and recreation capital improvement plan.
4:09:22 Second, prioritize prioritize uh maximize existing city assets before acquiring additional land when the need
4:09:30 can reasonably be met through what we already have. Okay? Um we have some parks out. In other words, I'm saying let's give some attention to the parks
4:09:38 we already have. Can we make some improvements to them parks and meet some of those need? And third, give priority consideration to the projects that
4:09:45 accomplish multiple objectives and that and referring back to all the objectives that uh ABAC our park should be meeting
4:09:53 which is what act activation connectivity event sport tourism private uh p public private partnerships and
4:10:01 strategic investment. Okay. So let's make these are the three things I would like to see changed in your policy. Um
4:10:08 they simply preserve C and I would like to simply preser preserve council's ability and responsibility to make the best decision with Climouth based on
4:10:16 facts priorities and the return on our residents the return our residents receive from their investment. I mean,
4:10:24 and don't get me wrong, I strongly support parks that and you might hear me say this is what I did or this is one of the areas I
4:10:32 I I had to work with in the military with parks and recreation. But it need to be a policy that give this council better choices, not one that make those
4:10:41 choices for us in in make the choices for anybody. So, I'm proposing that we go back and redo this. Give ch we set up
4:10:49 criterias and standards. let staff go out here and make a determination what parts we
4:10:56 need, where we need them, and everything. And based upon uh the criteria that we set set up in in this pol in the policy, bring them back to us
4:11:05 in the priority in a prioritized manner and let's fund them that way, not just willy-nilly spend se uh $7 million.
4:11:12 That's that's what I'm saying. Okay.
4:11:14 Just for the record, nothing was willy-nilly about this proposal. So, I just don't want it to be unsaid.
4:11:21 Well, when you just I'm sorry I I use a bad ter. I won't say willy-nilly, but just pulls pull a figure out of air and say we going to allocate this kind of
4:11:29 this kind of money just with no analyses, no no data to back it up and anything that is that's what really needed. We just going out and we just
4:11:37 going to spend this kind of money simply because we have it there. I I agree we need to invest the money uh instead of
4:11:44 sitting there. And the reason is the real sitting there because we've always had problem finding projects to invest in. And that's why uh like I'll go back
4:11:53 to meters in the middle. That's how middle meters in the middle came along because I really searched high and wide and found that project and found out hey we
4:12:01 got a pro we finally come up with a project we can do. Okay. But every project I introduced uh trying to use impact fees when I first became mayor.
4:12:10 Everybody say the money isn't authorized. It's not authorized. It's not authorized. Okay.
4:12:15 Now, um I'm glad we bought that piece of property today. I'm hoping we can create another another park down there. Uh
4:12:22 Felton Park. Uh that reminds me, I think the caller said something about u
4:12:29 inclusive park. All-inclusive park. We do have an all-inclusive park. Isn't that am I not right in Falner Park? Didn't we convert that to inclusive?
4:12:37 All-inclusive in partnership with Kowanas. Yes.
4:12:40 In partnership with Kowanas. Yes. So, it does exist already. We have one here.
4:12:45 That's Can we do another? We I think they looking at trying to do a couple other parks in in the city of Clinton with Kuanas, but uh that's been out there for about a year now.
4:12:54 Uh about that about that time. Yes.
4:12:56 Yeah. Felner Park was converted to all inclusive uh Kuanas of South Lake um put the fundings up and the city put in
4:13:03 everything for us about a year ago. So, if anybody looking that's all in supposed to be all inclusive now. We did the ribbon cutting about a year ago. So,
4:13:12 uh, the caller said that one curious about that. So, that's where I'm at.
4:13:16 Yes. Motion, please. Unless somebody else has.
4:13:20 I I don't think there's a motion. I'm going to get with staff and come back with an updated policy to address as many concerns as I heard and wrote down.
4:13:28 Well, thank you, ma'am.
4:13:29 And if I could just add, Mr. Mayor, super quick. I hear you saying a number of you to look in wellness way. And I
4:13:37 think I should start searching with the staff and seeing what kind of options are out there and just come back and let you know we found this or that because
4:13:45 it's land's only going to get more expensive. So if that would if you all would be all right. I'd like to just poke around and see what else is out there like we just
4:13:53 found Lake Felter. We don't know what's out there, but I just think that was a good idea.
4:13:58 Don't forget about the the seex is my understanding is the 100 acres as well.
4:14:04 So that would be a county conversation, but Well, the thing is, like I say, I went back and I looked at ABA report and they
4:14:12 specifically really hammered wellness way as a great opportunity. Okay? So, I I don't want to miss out on the opportunity just like they talked about
4:14:19 waterfront and when I go back and look at theirs um in comparing this this uh policy what she's trying to do with ABA.
4:14:27 Um I kind of like agree with hey okay we can do this but I think it need to be some parameters set there and criteria
4:14:35 set there on how we decide where we going to put parks because as I say we have a lot of parks in this city already a lot of them and
4:14:43 and buying new parks and create new parks we we we f to create more funding.
4:14:49 Okay and that that's one of the thing that really concerned me how we going to continue to uh fund these parks in the future when we do them. Uh, is it better
4:14:57 for us to just make sure what we have is is meeting our goals and parameters before we just go willing out there just start buying new parks. Okay.
4:15:06 Yeah. So, yes.
4:15:08 Great. I'm ready for reports. How about anybody else? All right. I'm good. Thank you, Brian.
4:15:14 Mr. W, Mr. Van Wagner, rather three minutes and less. Thursday this
4:15:22 week, September 10th, we have our first public hearing held in the sit chambers here beginning at 5:30 p.m.
4:15:30 And then the following week, we're going to see a lot of each other is Tuesday, September 15th. We have a CRA meeting held here at 2:00 p.m. And then we have
4:15:40 a scheduled workshop the same day at 300 p.m. What are the subjects of this? CRA was to go over the budget.
4:15:47 Okay. And the workshop was originally going to be food truck, but we're asking to put that
4:15:57 off and possibly have a discussion regarding DPZ and what they've come up with, but I haven't gotten with Mr.
4:16:06 Norris to see if one of their representatives can be here or not for that meeting. So, so I do want to point out we have a CRA meeting next week. Um, and one of the
4:16:15 items on the parks proposal was to treat that 250,000 as a grant that we talked about in the last workshop. Is that
4:16:23 something that we want to give staff direction on at this point or no?
4:16:38 I don't think so. I'm not me. I I would like to see what we what we what we got in the workshop first. I mean, that part of the workshop.
4:16:45 It's not a workshop. So, it's a CRA meeting. And if we're adopting the CRA budget, then what I would suggest is that we do a fund a transfer as a grant
4:16:54 from the general fund reserves to the CRA to be used for a parks program. I'll
4:17:00 remind everyone that 250,000 was in this year's budget to do a park at Victory Point. So, I'm simply trying to move
4:17:08 that forward, which allows the CRA to potentially make an agreement with Main Street.
4:17:12 Well, in my view with what with the policy that you're trying to establish right now with parks and reccks, I think we need to just hold on to that until we decide where we're going with with the
4:17:21 new parks policy and everything. And sorry, I'm I'm viewing it right now.
4:17:27 Yes, sir. Mr. I mean, we already allocated that money a year ago, so I don't see why we wouldn't just now move it as a grant to the CRA and let the
4:17:35 grant, however, it legally needs to be done. Um, I'm not keen on just waiting. Like, I'm
4:17:44 not trying to spend money. I just if we're not going to spend it, I think we should give it back to the people.
4:17:51 To answer your question, um, I think we I thought there was consensus to do that. I thought so too.
4:17:57 And so I I would support just having the resolution and having the CRA vote on it.
4:18:04 Yes. I got a thumbs up from Miss Myers for the record. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, however you guys need to do that.
4:18:12 Okay. What else you got, Mr. He shaking? We just only meet quarterly.
4:18:20 There's a 911 ceremony at the Ark at Friday, September 11th from 10:00 a.m.
4:18:26 to noon. And then September 19th is Simpson Salsa at Waterfront Park from 5
4:18:32 to 11 10, excuse me. Thank you, Mr. W. No report.
4:18:39 Uh, Council Member Peterson.
4:18:43 Um, I was very impressed with the the fire awards this, you know, that were presented today. I mean, I was involved
4:18:50 in EMS for 20 for 20 years, and it's, you know, people run to danger as opposed everybody's running out and it's
4:18:57 those firefighters very brave to go into that that situation and that they saved a life. It was an incredible thing. So,
4:19:04 you know, I can I really feel for that because I experienced that type of thing when I wore younger man's clothes.
4:19:15 But now, like CPR is not going to happen on the ground.
4:19:18 And the other thing is uh you know I was happy with Kings Ridge that we were able to expedite that uh single store crate
4:19:25 myrtles that you know it was a it was a simple thing that we were able to do and I think it satisfied that that whole community. They're very happy about
4:19:32 that. And then the third thing is we'll be discussing meet in the middle again.
4:19:36 It keeps on coming up and coming up. But I I think it's important that maybe we can split that off and get some kind of a machines out there to show the public
4:19:46 that we're we're not going to talk about it for five ten years. We want to start, you know, get something moving with it.
4:19:52 You know, whatever. You know, I know Jeff Pal is working on the plans and I think we asked to split them off. We made it smaller. We made it whatever.
4:20:00 But see if we can get something done with it.
4:20:03 You know, talking and talking just almost like we did tonight. you know, we talked for 45 minutes about something and then they didn't accomplish
4:20:10 anything. But it was interesting the way we talked about it so long, you know, and especially when we constantly repeat ourselves on the same thing over and
4:20:18 over again. And I like you said, we had the money, we voted to spend the money, and yet we were fighting about spending the money, you know, and it's it's
4:20:27 spending the money for good, you know. I mean, these are for children's parks.
4:20:31 And I mean, at some point, somebody's got to make the bold move. And you did it. you said, "Okay, let me make a policy." And now everybody's rejecting.
4:20:38 No, no, no, we can't. But I mean, I think it's important that we we do that, you know. I mean, that's our function as
4:20:45 a government to, you know, protect the, you know, help the innocent, the children, help the elderly with EMS, and this is something we need to start to
4:20:54 do. Thank you very much, Council Member Strange.
4:20:59 Yep. I mentioned it briefly, but just by way of a reminder, the Tourist Development Council or the Lake County
4:21:06 Capital Fund for Tourism will close on November 1st, 2026. Those are not easy applications. They do take a great deal
4:21:14 of work. Um, so I'm going to work hard with staff to see if we can come back with both a policy and some specific
4:21:22 targets for fiscal year 27 that might meet the TDC criteria so that we can try to leverage some of those funds. Um,
4:21:30 it'll be interesting to see what happens at the next meeting. That'll be in October. Um, the policy that was given to me looks
4:21:38 very much like the old policy. So, I'm curious. I'll have my meeting on October 1st with staff to find out what they're
4:21:46 proposing that we do different. I'm also interested in seeing the budget for the TDC. My recollection was that there was something like $12 million available
4:21:54 potentially for capital funds and that's a number that the Lake County and TDC has never ever spent anywhere near that
4:22:02 on anyone or multiple projects at the same time. So, I'll I'll let you all know what I find out in October on that.
4:22:08 Uh, and then like I said, I'll start working on policies and I'll get better at it so that I don't I don't screw them up. But, um, if you have particular
4:22:16 ideas and you want to let me know, I'm happy to make that something that I'm working on for everybody. So, that's that's it. September 11th on Friday. So, keep that in mind.
4:22:27 Otherwise, I'm I'm good. Okay. Council member Bane.
4:22:32 Thank you, Mayor. um to reiterate about the 25th commemorative 9/11 event at the
4:22:40 Arts and Recreation Center on Friday at 10:00. Um if you have never attended before, I strongly encourage you to
4:22:48 attend. Um I'll be the first to say I feel like attendance has gone down since
4:22:55 uh since the city um since I've been going. Um, and so I I would love to see
4:23:02 all of those chairs filled to honor and um remember
4:23:09 that day and those who were directly affected by what happened. Um,
4:23:16 on Sunday, September 13th, on a slightly uh more uh jovial note, there's the farmers market. But what makes Sunday,
4:23:25 September 13th, farmers market even more special is that you have an opportunity to meet the artists who are involved in
4:23:32 the Main Street project. Um that is the the they're doing the postcards from Clermont uh art artists. You have an
4:23:40 opportunity to meet them on the 13th at the farmers market. So I strongly encourage everybody to come out. I hope everyone gets an opportunity to do that.
4:23:48 I know a couple of the artists. They're super excited about the work that they're doing. And thank you, city, Mr.
4:23:54 City Manager, uh, for agreeing to host one of the works here in city hall so that we can as city hall and the city
4:24:01 participate in that and be a part of that, similar to what we did with the flag walk that Main Street did. And then
4:24:08 also um along those same lines as the uh um 911 event on Friday the 18th of of uh
4:24:18 September also at the Ark is the the chambers first responder breakfast. So if you're a chamber member and you
4:24:26 haven't RSVP for that, I encourage you to do that. If you want to sponsor, I I would assume the chamber probably would still accept some opportunities for
4:24:33 sponsorship for that. Um, but it's just another opportunity to recognize our first responders. Um, and I think it's appropriate based off of, uh, what we
4:24:42 did here this evening. And, uh, I appreciate that. And I hope everyone had a safe and prosperous Labor Day. And, uh, hopefully you considered and andor
4:24:51 thanked, thought about, um, the backbone of our economy, the laborers that do exist and the work that they do, particularly here in the city of Clermont, making this a great community. Thank you.
4:25:02 Thank you, Council Member Myers.
4:25:05 Good evening and I echo what um council me council member Brian Bane said about Labor Day. I hope everyone had a great
4:25:13 and safe Labor Day. Um what I want to say is about the length of our meetings.
4:25:20 Um I would like for us to adjust how we do our meetings where I know we have unlimited time of asking the applicants.
4:25:30 Um, I would like for us to have a limited time of two to three minutes and to go around and then if for some reason your question wasn't asked or answered,
4:25:39 then maybe to come back. But I am strongly disagreeing with us spending 20 one council person spending 25 minutes
4:25:46 with an applicant. Robert's rules of order is to have order and to make the meetings move. Our meeting should not be
4:25:53 6 hours and 40 minutes like our last one was. Um, we need to be moving. um we have business to take care of and yes there are questions that we need to ask
4:26:02 but I think sometimes we get too much in the weeds of the questions or whatnot um we need to look at overarching on things
4:26:10 um and I agree with um Miss Paula Hoisington when she made that remark on that as well and I also want to remind
4:26:17 everyone that Monday September 14th at 6:00 p.m. across the street will be meet the candidates. Everyone is welcome. I
4:26:26 hope all of you all can attend. It will be streamed. Um this is your time to ask the questions of the people who want to
4:26:33 represent you. So please make it a point to attend. And thank you and I hope everyone has a good night.
4:26:39 Thank you. Uh Mr. Matthis, I I have nothing to report. Thank you.
4:26:46 Uh sorry. Uh of course. Now for my report I want to address something that was brought up in public comments and that's about answering uh questions that
4:26:53 is brought up in public comment as I stated before and all when we move public our reports back to the end of
4:27:01 the meeting that took away our ability to address the questions that is being brought up in public comment. Okay. Um
4:27:09 now and I totally agree with the comment that was made. the person coming here for public comment shouldn't have to sit here to the end of a meeting to hear
4:27:18 they get an to get an answer to their questions. Okay. So, I would like for us to take a look and move public our reports back to the beginning. Um I
4:27:27 think we got it set for three minutes or whatever and we can address some of the issues when they come in or we can take the time doing public comments and
4:27:35 address them which I I guarantee you if that happen we'll be here a lot longer at night. Okay. That's why I've always
4:27:42 tried not to address questions when they when they at public comment and just take the question and address them later in in our during our report. So I can
4:27:51 just answer the question whether if we try to address them while they at at the podium there. We'll probably get in back and forth. Okay. And I I don't want to
4:27:59 see that happen. Uh so I want us to maybe consider that and I I totally agree with the comment that was made earlier tonight about uh somebody
4:28:07 shouldn't have to wait till the end of a 4-hour meeting here to answer to their question from the beginning of meeting.
4:28:11 Um uh you already talked about 911. Um I got a call this afternoon uh Brian and
4:28:20 Mr. Peterson. I guess you all didn't sign up for the FLC lunchon for Friday.
4:28:26 Okay. Well, they move they they started they going to start it at 12:30 because they do realize we have a 911 ceremony.
4:28:33 So, they moved start time to 11:30. I mean 12:30. Moved it back in half an hour. So, uh but they called me want to know uh nobody signed up and they wanted
4:28:42 to uh get a report if they can on who all going to be there. Okay. I I actually did submit that to Debbie.
4:28:50 Yeah, it's in Webster last week. Yeah. Okay.
4:28:56 Yeah. So, I maybe it just got which is totally okay, but I just wanted to make sure I'm fine either way.
4:29:03 Okay. And the last thing I really have, well, I haven't uh well, I attended a quilts for valor ceremony
4:29:11 last Friday out at South Lake High School. That was very touching. You know, of course, I've actually received a quilt of valor couple years ago, but actually go there to witness ceremony.
4:29:20 And I guess the biggest thing about that was I was in the auditorium. It was of a battalion of sea cadets, young sea
4:29:27 cadets, about 50 to 60 of them sitting there watching the ceremony and it was it was very touching and to hear them come up afterward and and and see what
4:29:36 they had to say about it because their commando, the ROC was the one being awarded the valid valor. If you haven't ever attended one, I suggest I ask that
4:29:45 you attend one. I think we have one right here on the 28th 27th of September. We have a quilt of valor
4:29:52 ceremony right here. So that that's all I have. Anyone else has anything?
4:30:00 I'm not I'm not sure the date on that quilt val. I think it's either the 27th or 28th of September. We'll be doing one right here. Okay. If nothing else.