Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the August 28, Monday City Council special meeting. If
we could please rise for a moment of silence and the pledge. Mr. Bryant.
I'm going off topic for one quick second we didn't add fun fact to the agenda and that's
my fault because I didn't have a fun fact but our interim or acting city manager just
gave me one. So tonight's fun fact is the meaning of Idalia in light of what's
coming towards us. It is Italian in origin and it means behold the sun.
That's
my bit for you. The sun.
Is there a public comment? Anybody wish to make a
comment on something not on tonight's special agenda? Not seeing any. We'll
start with action items. The first one is council direction related to the
Lindsay Green investigation, Ms. Uppin.
Yes, so I've contacted each one of you
and given you the background on what Ms. Green has asked.
So when we have this discussion,
I would ask that you not use names
to the extent that you know them
or that you not use any specific information.
But basically what has occurred
is there was a claim that was submitted to the city.
It was started, the investigation had been started by the HR director,
and then when the direction was given to no longer perform any investigations, the investigation had stopped.
The particular investigation has come up on multiple occasions during interviews that are being conducted by Miss Green,
and she has asked whether you all want her to expand the scope of the investigation to include the outstanding and claim that had come in prior to the existing whistleblower claim.
And if so, how you would like the report to be handled with respect to both investigations.
When I spoke to each one of you, a lot of you had really great ideas, but they were kind
of all over the place, so I thought it was probably more appropriate for you to discuss
it amongst yourself and give me the direction to be able to give back to her with respect
to this additional claim.
Go ahead, Ms. Reinhardt.
Well, I think probably what I'll be doing is just somewhat repeating what we visited
about. And that is we retained, is Ms. Green here? No, I do not believe so. Oh, okay. That's,
I just assumed she was going to be here and be presenting a report. But at any rate,
we retained Ms. Green's services so that she could move ahead with the whistleblower
complaint that had been received and my understanding is I have not visited with
her I don't have any preliminary reports or actually no information at all but
and that's why I thought we were going to be receiving something this evening
but that's that's that's my misunderstanding but we return we
retained her to do an investigation she has moved ahead with that
investigation. I'm looking forward to seeing the results of that investigation.
And so I'm not terribly anxious about the idea of expanding that investigation
with a lot of tentacles, and I mean potentially a lot of tentacles. It could
go in other directions. I could see that happening. I would like to see the
results of this investigation first and then we make a decision. Do we want to
move ahead with expanding the investigation at that time.
And I know we had hoped that Ms. Green would be retaining
the results of investing.
She would be returning the results of investigation post
haste, and that's like I say, I thought we'd be receiving
that this evening.
But if not, I would hope that we'd be receiving that in
the very, very near future at the next meeting.
And that then we can make a decision as to whether or
we want to expand that investigation, but I would like to know the results of the
initial investigation first. I can speak to that. She did say that she initially
thought that the investigation would just be including three or four people and
because during the investigation additional names were given, the
investigation has been expanded to include additional individuals that she
not originally contemplate.
So I think that that's probably the length of time
that has added to it.
And she had actually asked me to deliver that to you all
as well.
So as far as a final report, I don't
believe she's ready at this point
because she didn't want to schedule interviews
and then have to call individuals back
if you wanted her to do both simultaneously
because they do involve where both matters, the matter had come up multiple times,
so she didn't want to run the risk of calling someone having that interview now
and then you all saying, yes, I want you to go forward,
and so then her having to call that person back to talk about this other investigation.
So I think her investigation has been a little bit on hold,
maybe the last three or four days not including the weekend because of her
waiting to know where where you all wanted her to go with this this evening.
I also do real quick have Mr. Cattaldo emailed me and asked that I provide
information about his thoughts. I don't know when you all want those if you
want that now or after you all speak. Let's go for it now. Okay. So he has
indicated that because Ms. Green is receiving data from individuals pertaining to the other
investigation while doing this investigation, he does not have a problem with her collecting
information on both of those, but he would prefer that if the findings are, if she has
findings on both, that they be recorded into separate reports and to separate billing
statements.
That seems to square with what I was going to say.
I think the reasons for expanding it beyond the whistleblower complaint seem both logical
and clear, not only that, necessary.
Leaving it up and leaving then non-whistleblower matters up in the air would kind of be as
harmful to the city as well as to this council as ever everyone should want it
cleared up including Patrick especially should want to know what those issues are
right now they're out there looming kind of dancing around based upon
opinions of one person or another and it's kind of festering and hanging out
there I think that's unfair to the city and it's unfair to the council and
was unfair to those that have expanded or complained or expressed concerns. The positions
taken by the public that have reached my desk are, they vary one way or another, and to
avoid vague speculation as to the truthfulness of all of those allegations. It seems to
me really silly to leave that out there, do one, then come back and say, well, let's
decide whether we want to do another or not.
It's an independent investigation.
Everybody here, as I remember when the Vice Mayor recommended Ms. Green, everybody that
had a comment expressed it as positive, as I recall I certainly did, as being an
an investigation that would have integrity because of her background and doing this for
the city in the past.
And she certainly is a neutral party.
The cost of continuing it, I have no problem with separating the costs, and I have no
problem with separating the reports.
reports, I believe it would be silly to put it, bluntly, to stop it when it is so intertwined
with some of the other things that have heard, seems to me, including the HR department that
has expressed issues beyond that one issue, seems to me I can understand Ms. Green wanting
to cover, assuming she wants to cover both at the same time.
So I would support doing that, urging her to continue the investigation on the other
matter as well.
Mr. Krill.
When I was asked to contact the
other attorney who led us to Miss Green, it was, I was
told and I agreed to frame this as a one-off investigation that this would not
be one thing lead to another and so on and so forth. Now so that's how I couched
it. My preference would be I'm also anxious to hear the results of the
investigation that's been going on for three or four weeks now my my thoughts
are that it would not be silly it would be the correct thing to do to wrap up
one investigation give us a report and then if council is amenable and wants
to go on with a second investigation on this other matter that's fine I'm not
arguing one way or the other on that but she's been tasked with you know all do
haste to get this first investigation taken care of and I think that's what
we ought to do and then if we need to do the other one we can consider that
separately. Thank you. Mr. Dawson. Yeah I would agree with that also I would say
let's focus on the one investigation first let's get that one done and then
if we need to do the second investigation, let's do that.
My comments when Sherry called were just sort of similar to say that I think the priority
was to handle the whistleblower investigation.
But if simultaneously while she was interviewing one employee, if they had comments that related
to the other complaint or claim, that those questions should be answered because remember
I don't know the complete, the other claim, the details of the other claim, but remember
we have an employee out there who has filed a claim and I imagine it's a sensitive issue
and it's been put on the back burner because of, you know, unforeseen circumstances.
So just, I would, you know, also kind of keep that in mind that somebody's sitting
out there with potentially and assumably a very valid claim against someone within
the city within City Hall. I don't know what the claim is, but someone's not happy at work
right now is what I'm trying to say. I would imagine. So I would be okay with her doing
them simultaneously so long as within the process the whistleblower complaint isn't
put on pause to interview somebody specifically and solely about the other complaint.
If
Mr. Walker, if you don't have any.
I'll just make a quick comment.
Sure.
Not really a comment to question.
Do we have a time frame and how wide, somebody said tentacles or something, but how wide can
this go?
And I guess with that, how long can it go on?
So the length of time has driven by, so far, has been driven by the one whistleblower
claim. Now the request for permission to expand it was at the request of Ms. Green
because of this other claim that keeps coming up. So if that claim is not made
part of it then I think she finishes with the whistleblower and she issues
to report. And so whether that's a matter of two weeks or one week, I don't know the
time frame on that because I don't know how many more people she has just for this one
whistleblower claim. I haven't asked that information. Now, as far as how much wider
this can go. If she had something else that came up, I would imagine she would do the
same thing she did here and ask permission, not just do it. So I think everything that
she has done up until this point is strictly related to the whistleblower, but because
because the other claim had been.
Had come up more than one time is why she reached out and asked permission on whether the scope expansion was something you all wanted or something you all didn't want.
She just needed direction and it wasn't direction that I could give.
Would you say that she is requesting to have this expanded or doesn't?
She did not. She did not say, I want to do this. She said, may I do this?
Do you want me to do this? She was not advocating one way or the other
But if she asked me I do it she saw a need she
knows that the the claim exists and
I don't know how she knows the claim exists if it was brought up
How it it came up or whom brought it up in their
interviews but I know it came up in these interviews specifically and she did
not say to me that there was another complaint or something that came out of
this. She specifically said this claim had been made prior to this particular
whistleblower claim that I'm investigating and it has come up in my
investigation of the whistleblower claim. And for clarification what you read
from Mr. Councilmember Cattado that was just a statement he's not voted in
abstentia. He cannot vote in abstentia he just wanted to be able to let you know
what he felt about the issue. Can you say in you know I'd say an exact date
maybe just months or weeks when the other claim was filed the other claim
that's been brought up and is now potentially simultaneously investigated. I mean is it six
months old? Is it six weeks old? No I believe it was possibly a month or so maybe a little longer
prior to the whistleblower claim maybe a little less because it had and the reason that I'm giving
you that time frame is because the claim was made the investigation had started on the claim
by the HR department and then when the directive came in not to do any further investigations
of any type, the investigation stopped.
There was a period of time I think that it had been stopped and then the whistleblower
claim was filed.
So the claim isn't necessarily against the city manager, it was just that the investigation
stopped because HR was directed not to continue investigations, can you say that?
I know why it stopped, that it was because of the directive.
I think we're kind of split, so yeah, Mr. Bryant.
Just a question here, and that is, the second complaint, it's been some period of time now.
I gather since it was filed.
filed. I'm not sure I knew there was an actual complaint that was filed with the city. Not
that something couldn't have slipped my mind. That often happens. But going back several
months, there's a formal written complaint filed on this matter. I mean, I think all
of us have heard bits and pieces, discussions here and there and that sort of thing. Whereas
Because the whistleblower complaint, we did receive a file, HR, that sort of thing.
With this other complaint though, and like I said, I didn't even know it had the status
of a complaint, I would like for one, maybe to receive a copy of that, I'm not ready
to necessarily direct Ms. Green to move ahead today, but we were able to do that with
the whistleblower complaint and judging by your body language, there's a problem.
So the whistleblower complaint was sent directly to you all.
The other claim, once an investigation starts, it is exempt from public records until the
investigation is complete.
Technically the investigation started when it was started by HR.
It was stopped by the city manager, but it had been initiated.
So I don't know that I feel comfortable turning the claim over to you.
Now, I have given you some summary of what it is that I know,
because I don't know a lot.
I've only been told a summary of what it is as well.
I have not seen it.
We don't see every claim anyway, right?
We do not.
I think there are many claims that are made to HR that we don't ever see just because
it's operation.
That is correct.
No, but they don't rise to this level either.
Well, we're all certainly aware over the last months of some of the issues that the
HR department has been involved in, so it goes beyond the whistleblower complaint.
And the only reason I am being a little cryptic with you all, especially here,
is to protect the individual who has made the claim, and that's what you're supposed
to do when the investigation starts.
You need to try to protect the individual who has made the claim, so I can certainly
talk to you about, again, what I do know, but, again, what I know is very limited as
well.
Vice Mayor Krill.
I think this is a matter that should be discussed at a regular city council meeting.
So I'm going to suggest, and I don't know when we're going to get to report on the whistleblower
claim, but let's hope it's within the next week, and even if it's not, at a regularly
scheduled meeting with better or not better with prior that it's been on an
agenda and the public knows that I'd like to I feel pretty strongly that we
ought to wait a week or two and hopefully we'll have the one mapped up
and maybe that will suffice and maybe it won't.
In that case, is everyone in favor of Lindsey Green moving forward
with just the whistleblower complaint?
Not focused at all on the other complaint at this time.
You've heard me express my view.
I think we should not waste her time or any further time.
I don't have any problem with having the whistleblower
complaint report first.
I think I'm parroting what you're saying, Amir.
But I think it should be.
It's unfair to everybody to let that languish unless we want to debate it again after the
whistleblower complaint and go through the same thing again.
Consensus to move forward with just the investigation of the whistleblower?
Well, there's a motion.
You all can make a motion because I'm asking for directions.
Oh, you want a full-on?
If you will let me know how you want to move forward, then that will enable me
to tell her if it's that you want her to just focus on the current whistleblower
and that the other claim will be handled at a separate time. That's completely
fine. I want to give her clear direction though because I need her to be
since you all are expecting a report as quickly as possible on this whistle
I need her to be able to start back with her interviews regardless of what she's going to be doing,
and she'll need to be given that clear direction.
I'll make a motion.
Sorry, can I just say one more thing really quickly?
I also want to be clear, if you all have read your email today late last night,
we got an email from Patrick regarding, I guess, what could be considered an additional claim.
I just want to be clear that that's not the claim we're talking about, the additional claim
we're talking about, the personal devices thing, is not the other claim that's, I'm
just thinking in my head about.
No, this is a written complaint that came in prior to the whistleblower claim.
Correct.
Okay.
Vice Mayor Krell.
I'd like to make a motion to instruct Attorney Green to complete as soon as
possible her investigation on the whistleblower claim and once that's done
have a discussion with City Council as to whether or not to task her with a
second investigation on this.
Second. That's clear as mud, huh?
No. Mr. Dawson seconds.
Genie. Oh, sorry, do we need a public input?
Yeah, you do. Anyone from the public wish to make a comment?
Madam Mayor, honorable council members, I think the motion that's been made makes
good sense. You started a process, see it through.
And based on what that report tells you, what the investigation tells you, you will be better informed to take next best steps.
I can also tell you that I have first-hand experience that sometimes what Ms. Sutton thinks she knows is not necessarily the facts.
Thank you very much.
Anyone else wish to make an unrelated or related comment?
Not seeing any?
Yes.
Councilmember Dawson?
Yes.
Councilmember Rolfson?
No.
Councilmember Walker?
Yes.
Councilmember Bryant?
Yes.
Mayor Steyl?
Yes.
Okay.
Request approval of the pre-annexation agreement.
Vince.
Or Ms. Sutfin, do you need, is there something to read?
Vince?
No.
Good evening.
City Manager, Mr. Kaminsky had a family.
member and I drew this short straw and great opportunity to be acting city
manager through the deliberations of tonight and we do have a pending
tropical storm and maybe at the end of the meeting Mr. Langley can have a
little discussion on that but the item in front of you is piggybacked with a
couple more public hearing items ordinances and this is the first
precursor it's a pre-annexation we've done this before on some properties
that are in the county. You're familiar with this particular property. It's had
numerous discussions in the past. As a matter of fact, we've wrapped up on August
8th a discussion going over a draft agreement looking at the provisions of
the pre-annexation ranging from utility, the annexation clauses. We looked
through the capacity issues, the development standards, and so forth. Just
to bring everybody up to date again this is the Mount Orgro's property located
north and south side of US Highway 441 it's over 220 acres in sight part of
that includes the Loch Levin on the north side there's a water body it's in
the middle of our city really at this point it's a between Donley Limit 441
and there's a project that was approved with the plan unit development
in the county and that has approved its zoning and this agreement ratifies those provisions
and we move forward with an annexation.
The reason this is a little more voluminous than a couple we've seen is because uniqueness
of the property, there's two sides to it, there's two different plan unit developments.
We did include the entire packet I think twice in here to some of the drawings when
I received them, they were blurry so I included more master plans but they're all adopted
by the county, but this effort to show transparency of the previous PUD, which was important.
So it did seem like a voluminous packet, but the agreement is included.
We worked after the August 8th, as we kind of hinted this would go back a couple times
with staff, and then the city attorney, myself and the public works, a lot of this dealt
with some of the infrastructure needs in the future.
So we worked those out in that agreement.
It did take a couple versions, and it was very amenable type of discussions.
We did have a Zoom meeting to ratify everything, so it did come a little close to the end,
and we were finding the agreement is fine.
We went through the provisions.
There's no issues from staff level.
We've marched through all the various components.
I think this will get us where we need to be for the annexation of the north and
south side and move forward the developments occurring the city should
take advantage of this from a standpoint of there's impact fees there's future
property tax the citizens they'll be part of our town so we want to you know
we need to embrace these as part of our community and and that's a wonderful
thing in the heart of our town so we've seen the development plan we've
kind of workshopped this is what it what it is and there are some
commercial components on 440 on the south side, so it has some mixed use items to it.
There's no changes from what we have from staff and the stuff in as well.
We recommend approval of the annexation agreement, and then we can move forward with the two
ordinances for annexation, if so be it.
I can go through the details, but we did summarize some of the concerns and talking
points in the memo, and we resolved all those issues have been for our best of
our knowledge, we believe this is appropriate for continuing on.
That concludes City Manager's report and the Planning Director as well.
I am pleased with our acting city manager's report. I am pleased that we have come to this
point for the benefit of those sitting here listening to us live or on television, on video.
I'm pleased that the tens of thousands of unseen unknown people that never show
up will benefit as citizens of our city. I am pleased that we have come to this
point albeit it has taken an inordinate amount of time for various
reasons and I fully support the recommended agreement and the motions
and it will go along with that. The as we've talked about was at the last
council meeting all of the what tens of millions of dollars of tax benefit to
the city the tens of millions of whatever potential tax increment financing
available to the Murthy CRA that is a CRA built for the absolute purpose of benefiting from these
TIF dollars. And then the impact fees that will help fund the additional cost to this city for
the development. We may have to do some other things as we have water issues and wastewater
issues and they will go along with that. We talked about that last time. So I think it's
it's a great will be a great addition to the city both north and south and I
support it without qualification based upon your recommendation.
Mr. Wright?
I
think that probably most of us have some reservations about the pre-annexation
agreement. We all know the the history of how this came about and would we have
rather had this come a different route through the city of course we would
but the route went through the county and you know so we we we were putting a
lot of faith into the negotiations the regulations have been put in place the
approvals that have happened with the county up to this point I think maybe
the underlying you know I when I was looking at this I came here thinking
thinking, we might be talking about a cart path or something, but I'm not going to even
bring that up at this point in time.
What I'm, I guess, more concerned with, and part of this came about, some or all of you
may have received a phone call from a resident here in the city, and it's, I don't know,
maybe I buy into it, maybe I don't, but I went back and looked at the agreement.
we want to know that this property is going to be annexed.
I mean, that's the bottom line right now.
We may not like some of the terms,
but we want to know that this property is going to move ahead
and be annexed into the city.
We're going to be providing utilities,
and then it's up to us, the city,
to expand, for instance, the Northeast CRA,
those sorts of other provisions.
But, you know, I went back and looked at some of the terms and in the, well, this is in the discussion actually, Vince, by our acting city manager.
It does say this action will trigger the annexation process.
And then you get into the annexation agreement itself.
It says, and I'm just quoting some phrases here, final annexation adoption timeframes.
frames, final annexation adoption time frames, final annexation triggering dates, understanding
an agreement related to annexation of the property.
But then you get down to this provision 2E, as has been pointed out, where it says it
may be annexed, and that's up to the developer.
I don't know if I'm asking a question or just any thoughts.
I think what we want as council, we would just like, you know, as much assurance as
we can get that that annexation is actually going to take place.
Council Member Bryant, because this is a pre-annexation agreement, it doesn't have
and necessary to say anything about annexation at all, technically.
But the assurances with the developers that we're going to proceed with the annexations
on the next agenda items from the first reading, and those are separate.
They only actually we could take as an annexation ordinance.
They filed the applications for those, and the property owner, the Simpsons, and the
other owners have committed and fund signatures for the annexation.
So because of the procedure, this agreement outlines that, which is spelled actually clearly
as an annexation process for Florida Statutes.
So it may seem like it was a lot of verbiage and conditions, but it's spelling
out everybody who reads this understands that you go through a first reading,
then you go through adoption, it's done.
So from our take when we reviewed that, that was following Florida Statute.
So we had no issues with that timing of it because of an annexation agreement.
And that was the summary of how we came to those conclusions of this language.
So we're, and Sherry, you want to help me a little bit, too, on some of the legal?
And I think that what the agreement does is say we're voluntarily annexing,
not forced, being forced to annex.
So we're voluntarily annexing.
So there are events that would cause them to not want to voluntarily annex if the developer doesn't buy the property.
I mean there are some things that are reasons why probably the trigger event.
We're all friends here, so I'm going to be honest with you.
There's some concern that has been expressed by the developer about being gun shy, about
coming forward in front of the city.
So they were asking for some things to be put in place and they can certainly, if you
have specific questions, they have a representative here, they're here, they can speak to those.
But it was kind of a give and take.
they wanted assurances from us that we were gonna follow through with these
things and that we weren't going to pull their pud out from under them and make
them change their zoning after it had already been approved in the county and
then start pulling building permits and then us change up on them what the
the PUD requirements were going to be.
Does this stop us from force annexing them?
No, we could have forced annexed them
because they are contiguous.
But this enables us to do it within the timeframes
that will help us benefit from the CRA and the property being
put into our Northeast CRA.
So really this agreement, it's not required and it's not something that they had to do to be able to develop their property or that we had to do for any particular reason other than to expand our CRA.
And the timing comes in with we want to have it in and have it in our CRA before the property closes because we want to experience those TIF dollars.
So really, we wouldn't have to do an agreement at all.
It could just go away and they could start developing and at a later time we could force annex them in,
but we will not reap the benefit from the CRA dollars that would come in.
So that's the only reason for the annexation agreement because it enables them to have a level of comfort,
but it also gives us what we want in order to expand our CRA.
already.
You know, we had that discussion at the last meeting or whichever meeting about utility
capacities and that was probably the item that was probably discussed the most and it was
probably the biggest concern, I think, amongst the council members and I'm gathering that
that has been somewhat resolved now to the satisfaction of staff, but like you say, that's
one of those contingencies that's built into the agreement.
If we can't provide the capacity, they certainly have the right to back out of the annexation
agreement at some point in time.
My question is whether or not timing-wise we may not know about capacities until further down the line as the development progresses,
but we want the annexation up front.
So this is supposed to secure the time period within which we do provide guarantees related to water and wastewater.
water. And it's a three-year period and their development occurs within that
three-year period to get to have that security. So we are in essence securing
that water and sewer by this agreement and they can it also says that they
can seek water and sewer elsewhere if for some reason we can't provide it. But
But it's my understanding that staff has said that we are at a place right now with the
way that this is structured that we can accept and we can guarantee water and sewer for this
development during this three-year period.
Let me ask one follow-up question if I might.
That is, is the expectation that the annexation will move ahead, and I say right away.
In other words, that's going to happen in the next six months.
And if capacities cannot be met, then that allows them to go to City of Eustis or some
central system, but they would still be annexed already.
They would just simply have the right to finish their project with another provider.
That is correct.
Okay.
So I have a question for Vince and Sherry.
So the process is, so we approve this agreement here.
And they've already filed for annexation.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
So, and we're going to vote tonight on reading one.
When do we expect to do reading two?
And that would finalize the annexation.
This is the first reading and then the second reading would come based on the trigger
date.
And those are our I'm assuming and their attorney can probably speak to that better if she wants to say something different than what I'm saying.
But I'm assuming it's related to their closing and what they're doing to get themselves ready to move to the next phase of the development as well.
Then when they provide us with those trigger dates, they'll tell us and then we will get
it on the next immediate possible agenda for the second reading and the final reading.
And then does, because there's that one line that Councilman Bryan mentioned about the
developer has a right to the discretion annexing.
So we go through this, we approve this, we go through the reading one and then something
happens and then they could pull the annexation. And that can happen in any
voluntary annexation. That's why it really, for my purposes, for planning, you
have the first reading. If we went ahead and scheduled the second reading, the
applicant can say, well, we withdraw. They have that full right to do that. So
this gives insurances that we're proceeding when they give us notice to
go to the second reading, that we act on it with City Council's blessing,
obviously, but it can happen on any application. We just again spelled it out
clearly in this document. Anybody, and they did, and that happened on one of the
applications we had annexation at the meeting. They stood up and said, well, we
withdrew. That's, we're back to square one. And then there were, but does this
agreement stand if they withdraw their annexation? No, if they withdraw the
annexation, then I mean the agreement is going to go away, but that to me
tells me something has occurred to where they're not purchasing the property or
some of those things are going on behind the scenes but then that doesn't stop us
from going through a forced annexation process if that's something that you all
want to do but if this agreement doesn't if they were to pull back and
not go through that second reading we're in no different position than we
right right this minute.
Mr. Olson. Remember this developer and and the
Simpsons wanted to come into the city two years ago and for the reasons we were
familiar with stop they couldn't or didn't and so to think that they might
renege on some deals this would be a surprise to me but I appreciate our city
attorney telling us that we still have wiggle room to be able to force annexation.
Now that's a much longer process.
Of course.
I think the clarification is to the gentleman's concerns, if we make this, if we approve this
action here that if
They did allow the city, it's not held accountable for anything. So I think that's the assurance
that they were looking for. I would assume. That is correct. And we aren't guaranteeing
water then at that point or sewer at that point. These are guarantees. So there are
an equal balance of benefits here to both sides because there are guarantees about
the water and sewer capacity. There are guarantees that we aren't going to pull away their
approvals that they already have in place, but then there are guarantees that we're
going to be able to expand our CRA and realize those tip dollars.
Mr. Olson.
The pre-annexation agreement we're considering currently on page nine. Does
that cover just the north or the south or can you can a motion be made to
consider both pre-annexation agreements if they're separated? Okay, there's
only one pre-annexation agreement and then there will be two ordinances because they
may be annexed in at separate times, which is fine with us because only a certain, the
south side, can be put into the North, the ECRA anyway.
And there's two council member districts separated?
Yes.
So it did make it a little cleaner to separate them out as well.
Thank you. That's all I have.
Vice Mayor Krill.
I think I understand that, and we each party needs to trust in the good faith of the other,
and I think it's going to work out.
In my most recent electronic communication with Ms. Tedro,
So I mentioned my concern that we haven't come to a good, in my opinion, a good resolution
to the golf cart path situation.
We know that SICO has easement and so on and so forth, but that just seems to me to
to be such an obvious benefit to the residents of the groves and the residents of the country
club of Mount Dora to have easy golf cart access to go back and forth and to get to what
I'll call the Loch Levin or public's plaza and so on and so forth.
I think each party should do everything possible.
And I know it's not in here, but I still think it can be done and should be done.
It would add value to the developer's product on the south side.
And it would also add convenience and value to the families who are going to purchase those homes.
I just think for a pittance this could be and should be taken care of.
That's not going to, I'm not going to not vote for it on account of that,
But boy, that's such an obvious benefit to all concerned that I sure hope that can happen.
Thank you.
You go to the public first.
Are you ready for a motion?
I was going to make my comments first and ask my questions.
That's on my list as well, the golf cart path.
It's just such a huge, I mean everything Vice Mayor Crowell just said, it's just such
a huge benefit to not only the future residents of the Mount Dora groves or whatever it's
to be determined what it's called, but also to the lakes of Mount Dora and the
as well for that path to be completed and then I just had a couple of questions
within this agreement and I hope this is an okay time as opposed to waiting for
the ordinance. On page, oops, on page eight of our packet which is page I don't
know the map doesn't have a yeah this map.
There's a little box off to the
side that talks about landscape buffers and one of them says on the
west side, which is what will be adjacent to our future public works building, is a
Mount Dore Resolution 2019-40 where the city of Mount Dore will provide at the city's expense
both the landscape buffer and security fence along the eastern property boundaries satisfactory
to the landowner.
I just had a question if that's something that we would have to do anyway.
I know we do a landscape buffer, but the security fence is...
The city is working on the public works complex, adjacent to this property, which fronts limit.
We're about 17 acres and our staff is working those site plans, so we will be providing the buffer.
The reason is the Grandview extension transforms to the north-south along the city's property line,
so we can have access in Grecy Grece, and so we're providing the buffers, though it's appropriate.
And that was placed in the PUD ordinance in the county, so there's no issues with that
provision.
Okay.
And then, obviously, I couldn't think of a reason why anybody on the Northeast CRA Advisory
Committee would not want this project to add to the Northeast CRA boundary.
But we haven't had a Northeast or a regular CRA meeting in months.
And so I just wondered if we heard from the Advisory Committee to be sure that
everybody has any questions, anything about this project.
Adam has not taken, have you not taken the redevelopment plan amendment yet?
Mr. Sumner, Adam is our CRA manager.
Yes ma'am, we have shared it with the advisory committee multiple times actually and they
are in support of anything that increases the revenue to allow us to carry out the plan.
The only thing we have to take back at this point is to the governing board is the plan
amendment that the only thing that's going to change in the plan amendment is the
legal description.
Everything else in the planning state is exactly the same.
And the advisory committee had blessed that quite frankly a year and a half ago to get this project moving forward.
So the advisory committee absolutely supports it.
Okay, thanks.
And then on page nine in one of the whereas clauses, the third one down.
This is maybe just nitpicking, but for a legal question, I guess it talks about Florida Statute,
chapter 80 utility area all persons or corporations should that be businesses instead of corporations
because what if we're not a corporation not we the city what if the business that moves
in there isn't technically a corporation I don't know if that matters if it's even important
to anybody which
on page nine on page one of the actual pre annexation agreement the
third whereas clause down talks about Florida statutes chapter 180 utility area for all
persons or corporations living or doing business it just says the property is
located within the city's Florida Statue's chapter 180 utility area
it says it to the very first page so
that in the second whereas clause oh I'm
I apologize.
I'm like, mine does not say that.
Yeah.
I was like, oopsie.
Our city attorney needs to memorize these agreements before.
Third paragraph.
Second, wear ass clause.
Is it not important?
I think it's fine the way that it's because of the or doing business within that we've
covered.
And then this is really a dumb question, but water and sewer comes as a package,
right?
We couldn't provide water but not provide sewer because it's sewer that we're...
all utilities and have available reclaim.
OK.
And then I forget what project we did some time ago.
I'll say it's maybe one out on 46, but when or maybe it's
Timberwock when they started doing construction, we said,
hey, at the same time we want to upgrade our pipe sizes.
I didn't see anything in here about.
We have the ability to do that and pay the difference,
but is that something that's been discussed?
We would do a separate agreement if that were the case
because we would do that as an impact fee credit agreement if that was
something that we're needed but I I don't need we're not contemplating any
up-sizing off-site too for that it's not contemplated now if that happens we'll
we'll address it through engineering but it's not been okay on our radar okay
we will go to public first if that's acceptable anyone from the public
wish to make a comment on this item your
name and address and we have three
James
Homage, 621 East Fifth Avenue. I've heard from the city attorney that says this agreement just goes away if they don't annex.
That is patently false. This agreement, once you signed it, is binding on the city and is binding on the developer.
Now, the developer has full control on whether they annex or don't annex.
You are giving them utilities whether they annex or don't annex.
I think that, I mean, you know, the 1,000 homes is ridiculous, but we're there.
But this agreement, you sign it tonight, go ahead and improve the first reading.
they never have to finish the annexation. And guess what that means? No Northeast
CRA money, no taxes. And it's interesting that they put in here, they put in here
that their businesses will only be charged inside city rates.
Why do you need that if they're annexing?
There's a lot of other language in here that is very burdensome on the city.
They talk about trigger events. I haven't seen how those are defined.
I don't see where this goes away if they don't annex.
I'd like the attorney to point that language out to me, and I've only had today to look
at it for a couple of times, so maybe she knows where it goes away if they don't annex.
The only, if you go to the very back of the agreement,
paragraph C on page eight of the
agreement, I don't know what it's on your agenda, that's page 16 on your agenda
back.
It is expressly agreed and understood that this is the entire agreement between the developer
and the city and that there are no other written or verbal agreements applicable to the subject
of this agreement between the developer and the city.
This agreement may be modified or amended by a written.
Nothing that's said here means anything when this is signed.
The assurances by the developer that they're going to annex means nothing.
This is a contract, and you will be obligated as a city to provide those services as agreed here
and to accept the conditions they've put in here.
And if you don't, you'll get sued.
And guess who will win? The developer.
All I think that needs to be in here, instead of in this place since they had,
was pointed
out in page 5, paragraph 4, Roman numeral, annexation of the property shall occur at the
sole and exclusive election of the developer.
If you sign this tonight without changing that language, they are under no obligation
ever in the future to finish the annexation.
Thank you, Mr. Hummich.
Anyone else from the public wish to make a comment?
There are any questions I'd be happy to answer them.
Not seeing any.
Mr. Olson.
Thank you.
I move approval of the, pardon me, of the pre-annexation agreement as set out in
page 9 of the agenda packet. Is that good enough?
You don't want to read all those words? Sure, I think that's fine.
Mr. Walker seconds, Jean Ann.
Before we both hope. Sure.
Ms. Sutman, can you speak to that again for clarification?
So, if they choose not to annex, this is a voluntary annex agreement.
So if they choose not to annex, we could always force to annex them.
But again, there's a trust factor here with respect to the annexation of the property and the giving on the part of the city.
But we are not guaranteeing capacity without the annexation.
It's give and take. So just as Mr. Hommage suggested, and I will not debate legal issues
on the dais, I just will not do that with him. But just as he has suggested that the
developer could sue us if we don't provide water and sewer, we could sue the developer
as well and we are expecting.
There to be the annexation into the city limits voluntarily, which is why we are
guaranteeing the water and sewer within the three-year period. If they didn't annex, we
wouldn't be guaranteeing the water and sewer. So no, it doesn't just go away. We
would have to go through termination and those sorts of things. So I apologize for
misspeaking what the agreement goes away. It was figuratively speaking. It goes
away from the standpoint of they haven't agreed to their part so we don't
have to uphold our part. Yes we would have to do some go through some
formalities in order to exercise that right but the essence of the agreement
and the material of parts of the agreement would be gone and so the
agreement itself would be gone and the city could take measures toward not
honoring the water and sewer. And I do believe that you would not have to honor
the water and sewer if they do not annex it. So plainly put, again, we're under no
obligation if they decide not to annex. That is correct. Other than, I mean, we do
have to follow some formalities to get out from under the agreement, but I don't
think we're in any different position than we are today. Thank you. I was just
wondering if it would be appropriate for someone on behalf of the developer to speak about what
their thoughts are on this.
Maybe a little reassurance.
Good evening, Tara Tedro, Lowndes Law 2 and 5 North Yola Drive, Orlando, Florida here
on behalf of the developer.
This would have been quite the expensive endeavor to pull a trick on the city that
we're not going to annex.
Sherry said it is a very clear agreement that there are triggers for our annexation.
In the event the city doesn't provide us utilities, we don't annex.
I mean, that has been the exact reason we are doing this agreement is because we didn't have that assurance previously.
So now we have a reservation period where we have to get everything on our end done.
We've talked to your staff about this.
We're processing certain site plans right now in the county.
We have already talked in the agreement about how we get building permits issued
by the city that we pay the city impact fees that we're going to annex into the
city upon those triggers. The only reason there isn't a very specific or
definitive date for what those triggers are going to be is because I'd love to
tell you how long it was going to take for the county to give us some site
plan approvals. We don't know how long that's going to take so that's why
it says that we will give that notice and then we will immediately be
placed on that next available agenda. We have filed an application to annex. There will be a first
reading of those ordinances this evening. We have been working in good faith with your city
now for five months on this agreement to try to come to terms for a voluntary means of coming
into the city. And Sherry is correct that you are in no different position than if you didn't
sign this agreement except for you would not have the guaranteed payment of impact fees
because we will pull all building permits in the county and we will pay
them impact fees and then you can go through a process to force us to annex
but not have any of those impact fees or we do this agreement. The other benefit
is that you have all of the monies from the CRA expansion which is
guaranteed by this agreement. So we have to have that trigger in place
because that trigger is also tied to our private contractual agreements on
the closing of the property so we put it very specifically that we do that
trigger so that we know we're giving notice to the sellers, we're going to have 45 days
essentially to close is what we think it will take to get on that next available agenda
at the longest.
And then you all know you'll have that second reading.
So you're annexing prior to our closings to realize the benefits of that CRA expansion.
So all of this has been done with full transparency.
And again, perhaps some of it was an attempt to be too transparent to say, yes, this
is a voluntary annexation agreement. So any language that says it is at the discretion
of the developer is synonymous with saying this is a voluntary annexation agreement. Nothing
more than that. Happy to answer any questions you may have. Just to clarify to that section
2E, the language just says they may be annexed at different dates. And that's just so everybody
knew that the north and south could come in on a first reading tonight. But your
second reading might have the north sooner than you had the south because we don't necessarily
close on the north at the same time as we do on the south. So we wanted to be clear that
those could be different final readings. But what really matters for your purposes is that
we are annexing prior to closing again for the benefits to the Northeast C.R.A.
While you're there, Ms. Tedra, we received an email today from a resident with some
questions and one being says the developer has agreed to pay city impact
fees but does not require those fees to be paid to the city. I'd be surprised to
find out where we could pay those. That was my question. Where else could you pay
them? To the city and if you actually just read the entirety of that sentence
it's rather short. It says when building permits are pulled for
respective portions of development of the project the developer or its
successors and or signs shall be required to pay city impact fees at
the rates in time, at the payment of the same is required, pursuant to the city's
normal course of collection. So unless you change your course of collection and ask us
to write a check to somebody else, the only way that we can pay city impact fees pursuant
to your normal course of collection would be to write you a check and allow you to
cash it.
Thank you.
Sure.
Thank you.
Any other comments, questions before we go to Jean in?
I would make this statement, and I alluded to it at the workshop.
I spoke with the developers a year and a half ago, and there was some back and forth.
But overall, I do believe this is going to be a benefit to the Mount Dora,
certainly to the Northeast community.
And I'm happy that we're here tonight, so I'll say that. Thank you.
Gene
regional
environmental services related to emergency debris hauling and disposal services.
it actually was set to be on the September 7th agenda and it was moved up
because of the circumstances that we find ourselves in to make sure that we do
have our debris hauler in place so this extends that agreement term and allows
this to continue. There was in fact it had lapsed as of April 16th and I
I think staff had all intents of bringing it back to you all
and for whatever reason it was missed,
but the extension, the way that it was originally
going to be done was that it would enable extensions
on a month to month to be brought back
through December 31st, 2023.
So when I spoke to Marilyn in purchasing,
we decided that it would be best for you all
to just extend it yourselves through December 31st, 2023
at this point, and then in that time period,
they're going to be working on a solicitation to have new, to go out for a new debris hauler
contract. It may ultimately be the same person, but they're going to solicit for it. So this
just gives us this season's extension.
Questions, comments?
Anyone from the public wish to
make a comment on this? Not seeing any. Walker, so move. Oh, Vice Mayor Brown. I'll second.
Okay.
Jeanine.
Council Member Walker.
Yes.
Vice Mayor Creil.
Yes.
Council Member Rolfson.
Yes.
Council Member Dawson.
Yes.
Council Member Bryant.
Yes.
Mayor Steyer.
Yes.
Okay.
First public hearing request approval of first reading of ordinance number 2023-16,
Mount Dora Grove's North Annexation for Simpson Family Partnership.
Ms. Uffin.
Ordinance number 2023-16 in ordinance of the City of Mount Dora, Florida pertaining
to the Voluntary Annexation of Property, generally located on the north side of US Highway 441
and east of State Road 44, providing for legislative findings and intent, providing for voluntary
annexation, providing for effective annexation, providing an amendment to Chapter 2 Code of
Ordinances, providing for filing requirements, providing for the implementation of administrative
actions, providing a savings clause, providing for limited codification in Scribner's
providing for conflicts, providing for severability, and providing an effective date.
Mr. Sandersfeld.
The city received the petition for a voluntary annexation.
The properties located on north side of US Highway 441 and east of State Road 44,
south of, it's north of the, excuse me, south of Lake Loc-11 Lake.
The properties about 143 acres and change.
It's really an enclave in the middle of the city and eligible for annexation to be subject
to the pre-annexation agreement that was just approved earlier on the agenda.
Staff recommends approval of the voluntary annexation and we'll hold for second reading
when we get notification per the agreement by the owner-applicant developer.
Questions, comments, anything?
I forgot to ask this at the last one.
My only question is assuming everything's going to be removed obviously for development,
how do we, what do we do about all the burning?
During the construction phase, they're required to have a, if they still have a burn permit through the forestry division,
coordinate with the fire department for coordination, but I don't know how they're going to, if they're going to remove any sort of,
kind of incineration technique or really be hauling them away. That's a construction activity that will monitor when the plans come in.
Anyone else before we go to public?
This is a public hearing. We'll open to the public.
Anyone wish to make a comment on this item?
Not seeing any.
Yes. Miss Christine King Harris.
Good evening.
My comment this evening has to do with number one, the idea that the property owner
and clear title do not pass to the Simpsons, so you are not working with the parties who own the property.
The second is we already have developments on the property, so it's very easy to discern who owns what.
You have the publics and all of those big supermarkets and others who have bestiture.
And I would guard that you change your vote.
you're making a wrong decision. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else from the
public wish to make a comment?
Not seeing. Anyone close public hearing back to
council? Mayor, I move approval of the first reading of ordinance number. Your
microphone on? Mr. Olson. I'm sorry. Your microphone. I apologize. I move approval
of the first reading of ordinance number 2023-16, Monterey-Groves North
more than excision for Simpson family partnership, LLT, LLD, excuse me.
Seconded.
Mr. Dawson, seconds.
Jean Ann.
Council Member Alson.
Yes.
Council Member Dawson.
Yes.
Council Member Walker.
Yes.
Council Member Bryant.
Yes.
Vice Mayor Creil.
Yes.
Mayor Steyl.
Yes.
On to request approval of first reading of Ordinance number 2023-17, Mount Drugrove,
South annexation for Simpson family partnership, Ms. Sutman.
Ordinance summer 2023-17, ordinance of the city of Mount Dora pertaining to the voluntary
annexation and property generally located on the south side of US Highway 441 north of
Limit Avenue in the east of Donnelley Street. Providing for legislative findings and intent,
providing for voluntary annexation, providing for effective annexation, providing an amendment
to Chapter 2 code of ordinances, providing for filing requirements, providing for the
implementation of administrative actions, providing a savings clause, providing
for limited codification, scrutiners errors, providing for conflicts, providing
for severability, and providing an effective date. Mr. Sanderson. This
city received the petition for a voluntary annexation. The property is
located on the south side of US Highway 441 east of Dolley Street and north of
Limit Avenue, containing just over 80 acres. This is a companion ordinance of
recent one we just heard. It's part of the Mount Dore gross project. It's considered an enclave
and eligible for annexation to be subject to the pre-annexation agreement we just considered
earlier in tonight's meeting. Staff recommends approval of the annexation of this ordinance
for the 80 acres and recommends approval.
Anyone? Anything?
This is a public hearing.
We'll go to public for any comments.
Not seeing any. We'll close the public hearing back to
council for a motion.
I request approval of first reading of ordinance number
2023-17 on the rule of south annexation.
Second. Rolfson second.
Jeanette. Councilmember Walker. Yes. Councilmember Rolfson. Yes. Councilmember
Dawson. Yes. Councilmember Bryant. Yes. Vice Mayor Creil. Yes. Mayor Steyl. Yes.
Request adoption of resolution number 2023-39, state of emergency related to
Tropical storm, Adalia, Adalia.
Behold the sun.
Adalia, Adalia.
Oh, I forgot.
I've got to make my joke about the debris company. Their tagline is Behold the Sun.
No, it's not. No, it's not. Oh. I'm like, how weird and ironic.
Resolution number 2023-39, a resolution of the city of Mount Dore, Florida pertaining to the local state of emergency,
stemming from tropical storm Idalia, providing for legislative findings and intent,
providing for the declaration of local state of emergency, providing for the inapplicability of emergency event response pay,
providing for the duration of the local state of emergency,
providing for implementation of administrative actions,
providing a savings clause, providing for scriveners errors,
providing for conflicts, providing for severability,
and providing an effective date.
Vince, would you like to give an update from our EOC meeting?
This was not a test as the acting city manager to be involved in a storm event.
And just coincidence, but in that vein, through our city emergency operation center and through
the decoration through the governor's office with executive order, it's prune for us to
continue with our decorations of city, which will trigger some of our payroll and purchasing
and those abilities and for the pending storm, if so, at the end of the meeting, like
Like I said, maybe Mr. Langley can give a quick update on it, but it's really a procedure
we've done on all of our tropical storm events and precursor to be the prunes of the city.
And we recommend approval as read by the city attorney to adopt this declaration.
Questions, comments?
Anyone from the public wish to make a comment on this item?
Not seeing any.
Back to council.
I'll make a motion to adopt a resolution 2023-39 state of emergency related to tropical storm.
Eudalia.
No, he has to say it.
Oh.
Can you say it again?
Eudalia.
Is there a second?
Seconded.
Mr. Dawson, seconded.
Gina.
Place, Mayor Creil.
Yes.
Council Member Dawson.
Yes.
Council Member Rolfson.
Here.
Council Member Walker? Yes. Council Member Bryant? Yes. Mayor Stile? Yes. For the record that was a guess.
Okay, discussion item response to the Lake County legislative delegation letter. I'm sure by now you all have read it.
I simply did not want to respond on behalf of this council without your input. So this is just, this could be as simple as leave it alone
or give me some of your thoughts and I'll be happy to craft a letter if you'd
like to read the letter before I send it if there is a letter I'm happy to do
that so it's up to you if you want to leave it alone it was I received an
email late last night actually this morning from our actual city manager
with his opinion that we let it go so it's up to you guys if you'd like to
to give a response. I'm happy to put some type of letter together. I did hear from a resident
who went to the delegation meeting in Leesburg on that next morning after we received the
letter and in the letter admittedly was very short notice. So none of us were there. We
were actually at the very same time we were receiving the being dedicated as a trail town.
So I was at that meeting at the same time at 9am. Otherwise I would have been there.
but a comment again this is just from the resident that was there a comment was
made that they were surprised that nobody from the city of Mount Dora was
there and again we had less than 24 hours notice so that to me I feel like we
should respond in some way but I'm happy to let it go and if that's if that's
the desire of the council I don't know who was first just go I think I would
just say leave it alone I mean this is you know you know where as a city
we have the rights as a city to kind of make our own resolutions until they make some law
at the state that would prevent us, but, you know, and, you know, we belong to the League
of Cities, Florida League of Cities, because of home rule issues, and this is a home rule
issue, and I say we just leave it alone.
Okay.
Vice Mayor Krell?
I'm not sure.
I think it might be a good idea to reply just out of courtesy.
What I feel very certain of, I've talked to Chief Gibson a couple of times, and I think
I think everyone involved seems to be willing to tweak and to make this effort safe places
as expansive and kind of a big tent to include all sorts of groups of people who may need
extra support from the city I think that's going to happen and and and I don't
think we're done with the good intent of this initiative initiative yeah so if we
respond I think it ought to be pretty generic and you know we're still working
on it. And we have, I certainly have heard good suggestions from, and really my communications
have been about 50-50 pro and con, but I think there are some things that we can do that
doesn't that does not diminish the purpose of safe places but would enhance
and make it better and I feel very confident that we can that we can do
that moving forward so I don't think we can tell the whatever it is the Lake
County delegation.
I don't think we can give them a product right now, but I think we're
working toward making it as good a product as possible and as all-encompassing as possible
without diminishing the intent, the original intent, which I think is very good.
Mr. Alston.
Thank you.
Let me update you a little bit, and it shows the Sunshine Laws in North Dakota and at least
in this city are alive and well because I was at the Venetian and Mayor didn't know about
it, and that's fine.
She shouldn't have known about me going under this issue.
It's – I thought you had letters that I prepared in front of you.
Okay. If you read that, you'll see I was contacted by the delegation, by one member, Representative
Yarkowsky, less than 20 hours after we had passed that resolution, and we passed our position
on that, and it was a resolution, I don't remember the number, but 2023 dash something.
And he questioned me as to why we did that.
And I explained to him just what you, Vice Mayor, explained to him on the telephone
at about 5.30 the following day, and explained to him that it's intended to be all inclusive
who were trying to highlight or brag about LBTGQ citizens of
Montdora or guests of Montdora like that we were intended to make it all
inclusive and in fact the resolution specifically stated that and he said
well I would like the delegation would like to meet with you and I said well
I'll be happy to meet with you.
I can only do it on my own.
I can't do it as a representative of this council for obvious reasons.
So he set up an appointment that I would meet with them at 8 o'clock that following
morning when there was a lake, the lake-downy delegation was holding hearings for all political
subdivisions and others in the county area and he explained to me he had 75 people
who wanted to talk on the 73, excuse me, that wanted to speak and express their views.
I had done that in years past on behalf of the city to get them prepped for what we might
want in terms of funds or support on some issues.
So he agreed to that, and I showed up at quarter to eight, and I got a call about
815 that, and I'm explaining this for the public, it's in the letter, about 815
saying he had some family emergency and couldn't make it on time and that oh by
the way representative Baxley could not make it either on time so I said thank
you can you tell me when we might I may be able to come in because I want to
certainly fulfill my promise to you that I'll be happy to meet with you
the delegation and explain the broadness of our resolution and it's all
encompassing scope and so forth.
So he said he would call me half an hour to
45 minutes before the end of the program and I would drive back drive back
there. I wasn't on the agenda and so I didn't stay for the program for the
meeting.
So I met with the chief and we discussed this issue at some length and it was in his
office and it was about 11.30 and still hadn't gotten a call so I said chief I think we need
to go and see if they've forgotten to call me but they'd still expect me to be there.
And we did, right there about 11.30 or quarter to something like that and the building
was empty. And so I decided in order that I wasn't going to be personally accused of
not following through with my promise to meet with them and explain to them our home rule
issues as well as our broad intent for all to include everybody in a safe place issue
in Mount Dore, as we did in 2016 with our equal rights ordinance, and it was just a companion
to that.
And so I wrote that letter to make sure that he knew I wasn't re-nigging on their promise
to be there because I expect to have the best relationship I can with that delegation.
As you all know, we received from – through that delegation and the political people that
approved that, what, $500,000 for Donnelly?
And the implication that we maybe need – shouldn't be attentive to Senator Wishes for future.
I was concerned about it and I felt a need to respond for obvious reasons.
I don't need to explain further.
So, in the letter, I also told him that, well, I intend to support a correction of that ordinance
to make sure that it's clear.
It does not just apply to LGBTQ citizens of our city, we have the same rights that
everybody else has, and we insisted on that in our Equal Rights Amendment, and it should
remain that way, and that we can phrase it better so it just doesn't highlight them,
but it includes everybody, including LGBTQ citizens of our city.
So that letter explains that, and you might want to look at that.
I should have gotten it to you earlier, and I apologize for that.
I brought it up this morning, but I needed to emphasize that this was just me.
There's nothing to do with any position of this council.
I needed to make sure that it was only my thoughts and I wasn't superimposing my wishes
on anybody else.
So it's exclusive to me and I stand by that, of course.
I think it would be a good result that we look at that, as our Vice Mayor said.
and maybe at a future meeting and modify the perceived impact of that for the entire city
and state, for that matter, because it got a leg of its own – got legs of its own
thanks to the delegation and the early announcement – actually, that publication of the announcement
that we had done that was a bit premature because we hadn't completed – the chief
had not completed his analysis of the sticker and all those other things he
was going to come back to us as you will all recall. So it started getting a leg
of its own because of that and I think I don't have a feeling Mayor whether you
should send a letter following up with what you believe is what we believe as
a council is best or if this is sufficient that I sent out and you
may modify that or not any way you wish it be fine with me. I believe I needed to
absolutely protect this city's image through that process because I got the
call. Thank you. Okay. Sure. Mr. Bryant. Well you know it's probably first of all
thank you Councilman Rolfson. I appreciate your following up and doing
that.
I think as time has progressed, I think that calmer heads will prevail here.
There certainly was an initial response, which we don't need to, you know, go into that.
But it has a lot to do with home rule and interference with the inter-workings of our own city government here.
But Vice Mayor Creil, I do think that a response would be appropriate.
I think we need an acknowledgement of receiving the letter.
I think we need, it's a courtesy, I think, to those who submitted that.
I would be hesitant to make any kind of commitment whatsoever to make any changes.
At the time, Councilman Dawson, there were probably some things I would have preferred
to have changed, and I think we all talked about that that evening, but that's for
us to decide. And we will and do course if we choose to. But I don't think we want to
make any sort of commitments in any shape or form to the legislative delegation because
I don't think we owe them a courtesy of response. We don't owe them, you know, much further
than that, frankly. And I agree, Councilman Rolston, we do need to preserve the relationships
for obvious reasons and it's it's unfortunate this this this happened but but
I guess we need to pay attention to our diplomacy here too thank you ma'a 60
years ago today was the March on Washington in that March there were
were black people, white people, Hispanics, no doubt Asians, they were male, female, young,
and old. Everybody in that march that participated were not
racially,
they didn't have racial
things happen to them. And, but they were there as allies. And the only thing we are
here from my position. I stand by the vote I took. I'm not a member of the LGBTQ plus
community, but I want to be an ally. I want to be an ally to the Jewish community. I want
to be an ally to the Muslim community. I want to be an ally to all communities. And so
the position I took then were the position of many people and they estimate the crowd
of 200,000 60 years ago today and I said at the last meeting when we discussed
this that some of those people no doubt many years ago weren't in my opinion
it's my opinion weren't on the right side of history that believe that a black
man couldn't drink from the same water fountain as a white man that a black
child couldn't sit in the same classroom as a white child. And I said two weeks ago that
when my grandchildren look at this in history, if they ever do, I just want them to say that
GPAT was on the right side of history. I believe that when I voted on that. I believe
that tonight. I don't think anything we did was divisive as that letter states.
I don't like being in anybody's cross hairs.
I'll make that clear.
Just using language like that, in my opinion, is what's divisive.
I understand we have a relationship that we have to protect, and I'm willing to do that.
But I'm one that's inclined to respond.
I sit here and I try to be measured and, you know, we get people saying things from the audience
and I don't think I should go back and forth with them.
I don't think that's respectful to them as a citizen.
But I think we should respond.
It should be measured and it should be direct because, again, we took a vote
unless someone wants to change their vote and I respect you if you do that.
But again, 60 years ago, this very day, August 28th, 1963, there were over 200,000 people
in Washington, D.C. for that march, a very diverse community, a very diverse population
at that time in D.C. that went to that march.
And again, they all were not racially profiled or they all weren't told, you can't sit
here your child can't go there you come through this back door but again there
were allies and so my vote that night and if I had to vote again tonight my vote
would be because I just want to be an ally for all communities thank you anyone
else wish to make a comment
so the direction is to craft some type of
response and would you all like to have a look see and sign it before we send
That's perfectly fine by me.
I can do it through Genan.
I mean, there's nothing, I won't put anything regarding the resolution.
It's just simply received and.
If you, do you want, are you, maybe I misunderstood.
Were you asking, does everyone want to sign the letter with you?
Does everyone want me to craft the letter, craft a response?
And then yes, they can look at it and sign it.
So we, do you want to send it before the September 7th meeting?
I would like to.
I think we got that letter a week ago so okay so then yes if you will and we
can send it out absolutely that and now if there are comments then those
comments need to be made to G&N so that we can make sure that we're not doing
anything but if the general I'd like you to make a motion that you'd like the
to draft it and send it through Genan and if there are any major changes that
those be directed through Genan but once there is a final product that you all
have permission to sign the final product and then what we'll do is put the final
product as an informational item on the September 7th meeting so that the
public will be able to see it as well
yes sorry if for some reason one of the
seven does not want to sign it then what do we do if we just have you do it just
what I would hate to send it and we're not all in agreement and and council
member Cataldo is not here this evening and he he would need to be able to make
sure that he's comfortable with it as well. So you can either do that or you
can have the mayor sign on behalf of everyone once it's sent out. Jeanne
and or myself could make contact with Council Member Cattaldo to make sure
that he understands what has happened. How about we all not sign it but know
that contents in the mayor sending the letter indicate that this is on
behalf of myself and all my fellow councilmembers and it's not going to be
detailed in any way just just a as somebody said just that courtesy of yeah
the acknowledgement of their letter I'd suggest on with me so Sherry needs a
motion or Jeanine needs a motion you wrote the letter I moved it we direct
are the mayor to craft an acknowledgement of receipt of the delegation's letter dated
whatever it was, and that each council member through Jean Ann or our city attorney have
a chance to review the mayor's draft before it's sent out.
I'll second that.
Council
Member Robson?
Yes.
Council Member Walker?
Yes.
Council Member Dawson?
Yes.
Council Member Bryant?
Yes.
Vice Mayor Craio?
Yes.
Mayor Steyer?
Yes.
Okay, I will take a motion to adjourn.
So moved.
Second?
Second.
All in favor?
Aye.
Maybe 745?
Back for our next meeting.
Welcome back to the August 20th, I won't say 6.30 but that'd be a lie, budget workshop.
Our final budget workshop, yeah, it is 7.47 and we're all still here, we don't need a
new and other roll call and we will begin with a budget overview Mr.
Mayor would it be appropriate for the just a brief update?
Come on Steve, I'm sorry.
Tropical storm update from our EOC team.
Tropical storms.
We just love Annetta so we're going to keep her here all night.
Yeah she loves that.
Okay well I would like to give you a little bit of update on Hurricane Adalia.
So it's forecasted to move as most of you know forecasted to move up the gulf,
hit the Big Bend area as a major CAT 3 hurricane,
and we expect this to occur Wednesday morning.
As far as Mount Dora, what we're doing to get ready for it,
we're expecting tropical storm force winds here,
and so that's what we're planning for.
They could be strong tropical storm force winds.
Of course, when you talk about tropical storm force winds,
that's from 39 miles per hour up to 73 miles per hour.
So we could get some strong tropical storm force winds here.
And with that, we're preparing.
We started today.
We had our first EOC meeting discussing and starting the plans.
We're having another meeting tomorrow
to finalize some of the plans.
We are planning to have a partial open of our EOC
since it's not a large storm.
We're doing this partial open.
And we're going to have some folks come in.
They will be coming in Tuesday night, tomorrow night, and working through the morning as we
expect the winds to start to pick up early in the morning and then get really heavy 7,
8 o'clock in the morning.
Something like that is what we're projecting the winds will be.
So we will be here starting late tomorrow night all the way through the storm and trying
to respond as quick as we can and get people back in power.
Or we anticipate it being mostly an electrical type issue where you have trees down, wires
down and so forth with the wind blowing and so we will have somebody here ready to respond
for that.
And that's about it if there's any questions.
Schools are closed on Wednesday, right?
Schools closed on Wednesday, Lake County offices are closed on Wednesday as well.
And are we open on Wednesday?
We're going to evaluate that after the eight o'clock summary in the morning.
And highly likely we anticipate we'll be looking at that Wednesday as well, but we'll make
that determination with the team.
Got it.
Thanks, Steve.
Steve, any projections for that moving to the right of the event area, meaning we would
be in the cone?
Well, it could shift.
Right now, it's tending to shift the other direction, which is good news, because it's
tending to shift north.
North, and the last couple of notices that have gone out, it has shifted more to the
North.
But it could, there is a shift, and that is why we have to be ready because it could
shift and cause higher winds and more difficulty for us.
And we are on the better side as it were of that, I take it, as I remember, correct.
The left side is a little loose.
No, we are on the bad side.
Oh, okay.
Minority.
We are on the bad side of it.
So it's the northeast quadrant of the storm that's usually the worst.
And so that can spawn tornadoes as well.
They're still likely for some tornadoes.
Thank you.
OK,
so this is our last budget workshop.
So if you have any questions, just stop me as I go through it and just shoot away.
So, we're going to go over our budget overview.
We're going to go over our general fund.
It's going to be just a short summary.
Some of the position budgeting so you can kind of have idea of what was added to the budget
or removed.
We're going to talk about other general government, enterprise funds.
We touch up on the capital outlays and CIPs and then we go through the next processes
in the budget.
So this is our overview, obviously our biggest fund is the general fund with 30,379,903, it's 23% of our total budget.
The second biggest one is the capital project fund.
We also have Northeast CRA because of the project that we are going to start and our water and wastewater utility.
The total budget is 131,522,350.
I balance this budget with our current millitrate of 5.9603 mils.
But there is some monies that we're pulling from fund balance to balance it at that level.
So general fund revenues, the majority of the revenues coming from our ad valorem tax,
tax, of course. It's $10,215,000. We have also sales and use taxes. Our indirect cost allocation,
I'm going to go through a little bit of more details in a minute. Rafteles was helping
us evaluate that cost allocation, so I'm just going to give you a little update on that.
the ROI, the Intergovernmental Transfers that we do,
all the transfers, charges for service.
This pilot fund balance, as you can see, the $681,370 is what I'm pulling from fund balance
this year. We have also other miscellaneous revenues, total of $30,379,903. Here's the
indirect cost allocation. That was last year. You have directed me to review that. We should
be doing those every five years.
So we did go through this process.
In direct cost allocation, those are the monies
that other enterprise funds, paying us in general fund
for services we provide for them.
So that's your finance, that's your HR,
that's your planning department, warehouse,
and all the other support services
that we do for all those enterprise funds.
This is very common.
This is not unique to Moundora.
All the businesses do that because there is huge administrative burden of splitting every
person that works for those funds 50 different ways, so therefore we do discuss allocation
to make that accounting much easier for ourselves.
The allocation goes down by $364,000 roughly, $364,000 from last year.
That means that that much less money is received in general fund.
And the reasons are mainly it's associated with the employees that work for this fund.
Maybe we remove positions like we remove one of the clerks position.
Now it's all adding up with all the different employees.
We have reviewed how many purchase orders we do, how many other things we support those
funds.
Therefore, the allocation was decreased a little bit.
If we have more detailed questions about that, I can bring Raftelis in to explain you exactly
the whole process, how it is to create this allocation.
But that was not really something that R.C.
I just wanted to go into details, so unless you tell me otherwise, I think if you have
any detailed questions, and I won't be able to answer, we can ask them to come in to the
next meeting and explain that to you, if that's what you wish to do.
Any questions on that?
Okay.
Yeah, go for it.
Later one question, Annetta.
Yes.
To make this all balanced, and I couldn't find it right now, but I think it was
It's like 681,000 that's being pulled from reserve fund balance.
Is our percentage of fund balance, I mean I'm assuming we're still fine, but did that
change anything?
Yes.
So, yes, so we are required by our current resolution to have 17% of our operating budget
in fund balance, and we're still meeting that.
Actually on the meeting, I think it was last meeting when we have auditors, they
said that we actually have a little bit more fund balance than we should because our current
resolution says that we can have between 70 and 25, which in my personal opinion and my
experience with other municipalities, that should be at least 25 percent because you
can see when we have our last hurricane, it took over $1.1 million in costs, which
I'm still waiting for FEMA to reimburse.
so one small hurricane like the Ian could cost us a little bit over million
dollars so you always want to have this money in the fund balance to use for
things like that but by me pulling this money's up it does not really make that
much change in the fund balance percentage we are still at our minimum
required so I can't pull anything unless I have my minimum required in
there and right now it's 17% so we're will be okay pulling those funds it's
It's not ideal situation because what you typically want to do, you want to, as part of like operating
budget, you want to ensure that you collect enough taxes to pay for your operations.
That's your ideal situation.
You don't want to pull money from fund balance every single year because you do pleading
this fund balance that it's there for a reason.
At times like these, we have only really few choices.
We can increase the military to 6.1 mils, which is our maximum as we establish on our meeting.
We can reduce some of the possibly capital projects.
Really, those are removed the raises from employees.
We can do a lot of manipulation here to reduce it, but something will have to get cut.
So I have either option to pull from fund balance to get us to the next fiscal year or we can
do a combination of those other things.
Right now we are okay pulling the 681,000 knots from fund balance to balance this budget
this year.
And so that leaves us, I think you said this will be about 17 percent, but you'd like
to see us get up to the 25 percent.
Yes, because it's something that we should think about when we do those things that
that we should probably keep this balance a little higher.
This is just my opinion.
This is not something, a lot of municipalities
have 25% the minimum balance,
and they don't actually establish the maximum.
They only have a minimum,
because that's what really is required.
So if you have extra,
it's always good to have for special projects
that maybe come up,
or like we have one of the,
we have that sinkhole,
I don't know if it's sinkhole,
but we have this big issue with the EM
that was roughly $877,000 crater that got created.
It was something that we have to, as a CD,
have ensured that we have money for those kind of things
because FEMA is, they remember us, we got money obligated.
There is a big lack in time between when you receive
actually those funds from them.
So we need to protect ourselves in some ways.
Can I ask, while we're talking about General Fund,
so at the August 15th meeting,
it was the General Consensus of Council
to move forward with a vision plan as one of the residents brought up and so I mentioned it to Patrick
and he said that it costs about 250 or $300,000 to do a vision plan and that would come from general
funds so it wasn't in there. It wasn't part of that? No. I just got the email from Patrick maybe
a few days ago when this actually went out already and I didn't want to make changes. I
want to get all your information and make it just once. So that will be in addition to the
$681,000 if we want to do it.
He actually suggested to put half of a million dollars.
So that's gonna be roughly $1.1 million
pulling from fund balance.
Thank you.
I'll have questions later on when you get to the salary.
Okay, so general fund.
So here is just showing you how we divide
our general fund by different categories.
So this is personal services.
This is obviously the biggest piece of our city, we have a lot of employees.
The second biggest one is our operating and then it goes down from there for transfer
to capital.
So we have roughly $2.5 million worth of project this year.
Tax increment, it's what we have to pay to our CRAs because how the money is collected,
it comes from the taxes to the city and then the city has obligation to write a
check to North East CRA and the CRA, which is total $1.4 million.
We're spending $765,000 on capital outlays, and then we have our debt service obligation,
and we have grants and aides, and those are the monies that we have for the chambers,
for our food pantry, and those activities that maybe throughout the year you want
to support.
So, that's where the Grants and Aids piece comes from.
Okay.
Any questions here? No.
So, this is the position budgeting.
Quite frankly, I can't really speak to it.
This is not in my preview to make those decisions.
So, that's really, if you have any questions,
I can show you what we have approved in the budget
and what was declined.
But if you need to know any more details,
I think when Patrick gets back,
I think it will be opportunity for you to discuss with him because I don't really know
the reasoning.
In terms of the term position budgeting, is that employees?
Yes.
Thank you.
Yes.
So we have a finance.
We have added the purchasing coordinator position.
It's actually added this year.
I'm going to extend the offer to person after Patrick approves that.
We have changed the aquatics lady.
I'm not sure.
the person that does aquatics from going from part time to full time. We have added the full
time detective to police and I have been asked to add also the code enforcement person. Right now,
that position is split 50-50 with water and wastewater. It might be something that we
might change if needed, but right now that's how it's in the budget. And then we have the
other positions from parks and recreation, police and fire that got declined. Yes, sir?
Over
the course of the last month or more, I have heard about, usually from various second-hand
sources, the number of unfilled slots that currently exist in our city, positions,
And I validated that with you and I want to go through that.
Sure. I actually make some copies if you guys want to go through this, so hold on.
So while you're passing that out, let me share this with you and the public.
The following departments have been budgeted for staff positions but have not been fulfilled.
We budgeted them a year ago, if I'm correct, and they've been withheld, I'm assuming by
our city manager, is that correct?
So I think there will be a combination of things.
I am not sure why can we hire those positions.
I can only imagine that some of it is the salary requirements of the new people that
are looking for jobs.
Some of it is possibly withholding some of those positions for some reason.
I'm not sure.
That's pretty subtle, but I think I understand.
Yes.
So this is what we have opened right now.
So we have unfilled positions in the city.
So let me go through that.
The police department is 12 short, and if they have 48 employees, that's 25 percent
right on the nose.
water and wastewater are six staff people short that were budgeted by this
council. Roads and streets and storm waters five short, Parks and Rec four
short, information technology two, library two, building two, fire two, public
relations one, finance one, human resources one, planning one, and the
and the project manager one that totals 40 unfilled staff positions that this
council if I understand it correctly has approved for hiring and if if the
main reason is and by the way my view I could I'm only one but my view is if we
budget for the hiring of position we think it's important because it's a
policy position that we take that we want that to be hired and if they're
not hired, we would expect, at least I would expect, somebody would come back to me and
to us and say, well, I can't fill this position or these positions because of XYZ, we're short
of money or whatever it might be.
And so that's a big time concern for me when I found that out.
it was, I would say I was not more than surprised, shocked maybe, that we have
40 staff slots that are not filled. And some of them may be for valid reasons,
but my understanding is, it's only my understanding, is that they are used as
leverage by the city manager or by somebody to say I don't want to fill
that position because whatever and we don't even hear about it. And here we
are one month left of the fiscal year and there are 40 short that haven't been
hired that we approved a year 11 months ago. I would like to know from our city
manager if he can share why we have that many unfilled positions that are a surprise to me.
I don't know about it. I'm not sure any of us here know about it,
that there are that large a group that we've approved and are not filled.
And I just like to know why. Now he's not here. I wish he was. I did not know until
I read an email yesterday, I guess, was that he's not here.
So I'm not being critical, except what's the explanation for why 40 slots, 25% of our police
department is unfilled that we said please fill as a policy in our budget process.
And if it's to save money, the chief has to, just using the police chief as an example,
he has to fund, he has to spend time and over time, time and a half over time with his regular
employees and that's not saving money.
And I just, it escapes me why we don't know about that, why I don't know about
at least, and I would like to have some explanation, and so if you can convey that or somebody or
the mayor can convey that to him when he comes back, I'd like to have a response to that at
a council meeting as to why, maybe at the final budget hearing, or sooner, hopefully.
Yeah, maybe on September 7th, when we have the first reading.
That'd be great.
And?
I'm sorry, I don't have an answer for you.
Of course.
And of course I know, and I, the, one more, one more comment if I'm...
Um, if it's, if it's to save money and in order to, we have spent money we shouldn't be spending
perhaps when, other than funding these staff positions, directors can't manage without appropriate
at staff. I'm appalled that our police chief is 25 staff short, 25% short, 12 staff.
In
my department standpoint he's no special, more special than anybody else, but the point
is all staff if you go through this are short for some reason. Now if the staff have come
and told the manager or you, I don't need to fill this one. I understand that, but we
should still know about it because it's deviating from our policy budget and I don't think anybody
has the authority to tweak our budget without the council. It's the council's budget.
So let's keep that in mind. I think that's another issue that concerns me. I keep
I hate to ramble on but you can tell this was a big time surprise to me and I need some
answers at least I need them or I think this council should have them because he's deviating
from our council orders that is our policy and we don't know about it.
Vice Mayor Crow.
Now I'm going to take some exception to what you said Mr. Ralson.
And our police chief has brought initiatives to City Council in the past several months
to help us recruit police officers to fill these positions, the tuition and so on and
so forth.
I think there isn't a business owner or an employer in town that isn't struggling to
to find and fill positions at the restaurant, at the store, at the whatever.
So some of this is,
some may be as you assert, but some may also be that there aren't a whole
lot of people that are anxious to become a police officer given the climate, the danger,
the pay and so on and so forth.
So I agree, we should have a report, but I don't think we got to go so far as to make
accusation that these are being purposely unfilled.
Okay, that's a good point, Vice Mayor.
But I'd add this.
If there isn't going to be unfilled positions for any valid reasons, am I the only one
that thinks that the city council doesn't need to know about that since we created the policy
that is the budget. I know there should be flexibility in the departments. I think that's
a good idea. But 40 positions, 16 or 18 percent of the entire staff of 400 and 200 and whatever.
You know, who's someone who's out there trying to hire professionals. I don't find
this surprising, 16% especially in this market. And then when we were at the
League of Cities two to three weeks ago, they had, I forget what his name was, but
he was talking about AI. And one thing that he pointed out is when you're
dealing with city local governments, is they don't pay as much as the private
industry and that's where people are going. So if I had a choice
between a city salary or in the private industry, I'm going to go to the private industry.
So I think we have to think about those things as well, and it's happening everywhere.
We have very low unemployment in this country.
And the first place people are going to go, they're going to go to the private industry,
not into public.
I agree with both of you, by the way, but I think that all I ask is, why?
should we not have some way of knowing that we're 40 short and here's why when
we're coming upon another budget year or should that be just a surprise to us? I
don't know. It seems to me we ought to know and from what I'm hearing by some
of the directors it's it's not because it's city versus private industry but
who knows but at least we should have a report. I'd like to know what I'd like
to know why and I think we as a council since it's our budget deserve to know why that what
is that a million dollars for all of that or half a million dollars for all of that I don't
know what the total may be it's certainly in the hundreds of thousands okay thank you
that's all I had so this is our general fund it's by division so I group some of the
division, so this is not such a long report, but we have legislative, the support services,
which is your HR, your finance, team, IT. We have leisure services, library, planning,
and development, law enforcement, fire protection, public works, and then we have this other
general government, which is other general government, which is everything else, which
doesn't classify to everything else. It's one big pile, so you can see that it's
the same as you saw on the previous charts, it's $30,379,903. It just split a little different
way to just give you a different direction of how you're looking at the data.
Special revenue funds, let's see. I'll go back for a second here for the general fund.
So one thing that we did in this year is we moved all the software to IT budgets
So, we have control over some of the software that we are acquiring with all the new rules
we have for security.
It is nice to have IT looking at these things in the beginning.
So we move all the software from all the other departments into IT's budget.
So if you see that IT's budget went tremendously up, some of that software got shifted around.
And also, one of the things I have in the budget already program since I heard some of you talking
on the previous meetings, I have a personal percentage, I move it from 3% raises to 5%.
We can always move it down if that's what you want.
But I think I got on last few meetings, I kind of got more of your support to do 5%.
If you want to change that, we can also lower that if that's what you want to do.
if you see that fit.
So those are the changes that I made since we talked.
I'd keep it at 5%.
Absolutely.
So that's what I thought kind of read the room the last meeting,
but I just want to tell you that I actually incorporated
what you asked for in this budget.
Special revenue funds.
So those are others are discretionary sales tax,
which is one of the biggest funds we have.
Then CRAs, of course, regular CRA,
North DCRA, we have a building division, police impact fees, fire impact, library, parks impact,
those are restricted. Our fire assessment fee, I just want to tell you that since we talked last,
I have, we approved 219, but I lowered it to 209 to be the same as last year because we don't
really need the extra funding unless you see that this is something you want to keep at 219.
Last year we have a 209, so I went back to what we have last year just like I did with
the military, so I just kept things the same as previous years.
So that's already incorporated in the budget, if that's what I kind of heard on the meeting
as well, that we want to keep those things the same.
Next meeting on September 7, we're going to approve our final resolution for that,
so I just want to make sure that 209 is still what we want to keep it as from last
time.
And then the only other thing I have changed here a little bit around since our last meeting,
the CRAs, the indirect cost allocation, changed a little bit.
It's actually lower, so I incorporated that in the CRA.
And we have quite a bit of an increase in our discretionary sales tax.
I have initially, you're going to see on the later on the slides on the discretionary sales tax.
We had their police vehicles. I kind of moved things around a little bit
because we want to have a $2 million worth of money for our project for Donnelly Street.
So I moved those vehicles to General Fund and I will be paying for them from our internal service fund,
which is our vehicle replacement fund to then to leave them roughly $500,000 for
Donnelly Street and the addition so the whole project can be paid from the
discretionary sales tax so this was just a little housekeeping we still having
those projects in it's just how the funding source can be shifted that's
part of what I do I make sure that we can use the more restricted funding
for more restricted items and less restrictive for things we actually feel
like using it. So that was a little shuffer, but I want to disclose that for you as well.
Our enterprise funds, there was the only changes where the indirect cost allocation change,
the personal adjustment that I have made, impact fees that are paying the same on those
funds. One thing I want to mention to you is the sanitation utility. So this is our
garbage pickup. Since we don't approve those rates till normally end of November, December
timeframe, I'm going to review this. I believe that we need to increase the rates slightly.
I do not know exactly what the rates are going to be from waste management, but at that
time we review it. So if I need extra dollars at that time, we then going to update the
budget as well. Right now, I just don't know what the rates are, so I can make those big
adjustments, but I think we're going to have to increase that rate. So just heads up for
that.
So I understand under the contract with waste management, they can adjust it upward based
on percentage?
Correct. I think they have up to 3% part of their contract. I also, there is a smaller
piece that we also keeping in that fund for operation of that fund. This year,
There's one of the things that you see the general fund increase because I moved the positions
from that to general fund.
So therefore, leave us some wiggle room with money for that fund to be to ensure that we
have fund balances and everything.
It's kosher there.
I have to make some little adjustments.
I think we're going to have to increase slightly that percentage that we keep for
ourselves in that fund to make it work.
But if I need those rates first to come in so I can make that math.
Now, stormwater utility, there is actually change.
I already know we're going to have an issue.
We have our rate right now, it's $15.50.
I have discussed it with Patrick and we believe we're going to have to increase it.
Right now in the budget, I have increased, 15% increase, which is $17.83, but it might
go to upwards of $20.
dollars. One of the reasons why we remove also employees from that fund and move them
to general fund, we have a big adjustment there. It's because we're trying to not increase
this rate dramatically and also have built up some funds for all the projects that
need to be done with our store model system. So that's the reason why we have to make
those kind of adjustments and have a little bit more hit on general fund this year.
And that's why we have to pull all the funds from fund balance to balance.
So there is a few things that we're doing here to ensure those other funds are also solvent.
So that $2.6 million in stormwater includes already that increase, obviously given you
approve it in January when we take those rates out to you.
If not, we will adjust the budget accordingly as well.
Internal service funds, yes, so I didn't do much changes here.
The self-insurance increased.
I did have meetings with our insurance company, this is health insurance, because we are partially
self-insured.
We pay a fee to have a stop loss, but we also have, we pay our claims.
This current fiscal year, there has been a huge uptick on claims.
This is something that is typical.
You have meetings with our actuaries for health insurance, which was very educational.
I have learned how the insurance works now.
And that is you always have a good years and you have a bad years.
We are hit those bad years right now.
The projection is that it's going to continue for another two years.
Those are actuaries, they know a little more than I do about the markets and they also see
our claims so that insurance is going to go up yet again why I have to adjust the general
fund because that's where the majority of employees are to cover expenses, those increases
in expenses.
So those are our increases this year, unfortunately it is the market, the health costs increased
dramatically.
It's not only just our case went up, but also cost of help is much higher.
So that was one of the things that I have to change here since last our budget meeting.
And then the vehicle replacement fund will pay for the vehicles for police department
this year.
That's the whole reason why we have this fund.
For the years that we can accommodate them in regular budget, we use those funds
to pay for the vehicle replacement, because we have to replace the vehicles when they
are no longer in good shape to be used.
So this is just, this is typical how it's done, we're not doing anything unusual here.
So that's service.
So this is all our...
That's that we have to pay. So this is very boring, a lot of information, but it's all
our bonds and other SRF loans, payments. So you can see two of the loans are paid by CRA,
rest of them are paid by Gena fund. You can see $1.9 million, roughly. And then enterprise
funds have their own respective, those are mainly, let's see, I think all of them
water and waste water and it's roughly 1.5 million dollars so if you add those
together we have the payments for of 3.5 million dollars a year and it's our
outstanding of 68 million dollars still to go so this is our that this is very
boring information here capital so I have put on this presentation only
general fund because it's always a hot topic but I also give you those
little guys and that has everything so since I mainly want to talk about general
fund when it's the most it comes from the taxes which it's high topic so as you
can see nothing changed since last meeting the last you can see those
hybrid vehicles for police and then upfitting for the police vehicle and
two hybrid small pickup trucks beginning as spurs from the warehouse
all those going to be paid by our Vehicle Replacement Fund this year that's
just how it was changed since last time we talked about so this is the change
from that everything else stayed the same let's see I have oh no tasers so we
have decided that our tasers you can see that 37,893 actually I discussed
us with CHEV and there is an option of having a payment plan, which that's what we're going
to go with.
Instead of paying $250,000 upfront, we can pay roughly $40,000 a year for next five years,
which this is the option we chose to do for this year's budget because $250,000 is quite
a bit of money.
What's the interest rate?
There is no interest rate.
No, this is just how the company does it.
It's fairly easy to do and it's not like a loan.
Makes sense.
Yeah, so they do this for a lot of other municipalities, I guess.
Yeah, I guess, so yeah, they don't show it's separate.
But it's roughly $40,000 a year.
So that's what we chose to do here.
Any other questions?
We have, let's see, the body and vehicle camera updates.
Upgrades still going to go from our discretionary cell
stats, the library collection from library.
We have the fire assessments going
to pay for all the fire stuff and then we have the fire impact we'll pay for the jet
ski, the watercraft, which it's expansion of service, which it's allowed. This is
something we don't have right now so it's a new service we as a city gonna
provide so it's all fine to be paid by impact fees and all the other items are
staying the same. Question on that? A number third, fourth line, CRA, future
your phases for the downtown streetscape of 350,000.
Is that put in a pot of some kind
to save for an eventually have enough money
to do the fourth streetscape?
It's just design.
It's all Adams budget.
All right.
Very good.
Thank you for that answer.
Sorry.
Did we go off of?
Yes, we did.
Capital Outlet?
Yes.
The very last thing on your little guys list, the small street sweeper for $210,000, I mean I know you've worked hard to get this to balance.
I know that for a fact because of our prior budget workshops and I just, I mean, if it helps, I would be in support of not purchasing that street sweeper at this time.
I mean, we just bought a Mac Daddy street sweeper. I saw it yesterday for the first time. It's a limo.
It was $331,000 so I just you know in light of raising fees for other things
and I mean I realize that goes to a different fund but I would be in
support of wiping that out to help with you know our expenses in the stormwater
fee.
We're trying to get – we tried to have two street sweepers, right?
And didn't – aren't we retiring a street sweeper?
Yes.
The one that we currently have, we have to retire because it's been a challenge to
keep it up running, and it's quite expensive to keep preparing, from my understanding.
That's just what I recall, is we were just trying to – we're not increasing the
number of street sweepers.
We just retired one and replaced it.
No, no, no.
This is an additional.
This one is additional.
This is a small one.
The one that we have right now, we're retiring.
Yes.
So right now we have two.
We have an old Street Sweeper and the new one
that we just purchased.
One of them goes away because it's old
and needs to be replaced.
And then we will have this as an addition,
a smaller version that can fit in smaller places.
So we'll have two.
Yes.
Which is what we've had, right?
No, we only have one right now.
Yeah.
So just because we're struggling to meet stormwater, I mean, it's $210,000.
So I have an option for you.
So I will leave it for now.
It's in the budget.
If you don't want to purchase it, we still have to get your permission to purchase.
So I will say when we get to our rate review of our rates in November, when I know a little
bit more information and we actually voting for rates, at that time I can give you
a little example of if we remove that item of 210, it's going to go down by whatever that
number might be at that time when we have all the numbers.
If you promise to be here to remind us of that, I will make a deal with you.
The minutes are being taken.
I will be here to take a look for you.
We should also have asked either Patrick or preferably the department head himself
to give us their comments as to why because they're the ones that want it in
there but I I can find good reason to support them from the mayor's position
too but I'd like to hear from the department head. Mayor quick question on
that though. Yeah. I'll use your phrase the Mac Daddy. Can the Mac Daddy
maneuver downtown as a smaller one could? My understanding it will go to the
big one right now goes to downtown so I'm guessing it does. I'm just I don't know
the small one what it's different than the other one. The reason why is the
smaller one you don't need a special driver's license to drive it so anyone
could drive it I guess is my understanding what Patrick explained to me.
Where if you drive the big one you need a special CDL. So there's a
position on the on the budget positioning there was a part-time
street sweeper driver under stormwater so that's that's another expense if we have
a second unless we need it anyway for the for the original guy I don't know the
guy's name who drives it now but I know it's only one guy yeah we have a person
now that is full time I believe yes he's got to be full time away that runs yeah
and then there is a bud yeah there is a position for part time position for this
the smaller street sweeper while we're on the stormwater conversation
because I was thinking when you went on but it's okay that we move the
positions just to general fund just to help the bound because I feel like we're
just like your sanitation conversation or like your yes because we have that
indirect cost allocation and as I spoke to Raf tell us I we explained to them
that the employees gonna be there but their function are still gonna be
split you can actually I believe go to this but you can see that our storm
water, the increase to accommodate for that portion. I just don't need to physically split
each person 25%. It's done by that cost allocation. And you can see in stormwater it increased
about roughly $200,000. So that as we going through those indirect cost allocation, those
are things that I tell them and then they build it in to make sure that I'm still
covered. I just don't need to physically split every person. So there is some money
that it's exchange is just not showing that this position is 75% here and 25% in some different
way.
So we still accommodate having some of the payout for those jobs to general fund is just in
different form.
Okay.
Yes.
So this is all the changes.
Any other questions?
Is the fire chief, is your roof training thing on here?
The thing you first was in it, is that the 85,000, the fire event mobile unit?
Okay, thank you.
Just making sure you're awake.
Okay, so the capital outlay. So this is our CIPs now.
So this is our general CIP, so you can...
I have one here so I can see better.
There was... I have made all the changes that you guys suggested at our last workshop.
CRA and Northeast CRA are budgets, so they're just typical how they do things.
I believe we have added public
works that $100,000 of Eleven Avenue Pedestrian and
Traffic Comic Solution, Sylvan to Hilltop Engineering Only.
I have added that. That was requested for me to add.
so that was the addition to budget and I
think and then Frank Brown Park
renovation was also added since last budget and I think that those are the
only two projects that got added to the to this list. If we're budgeting $100,000
for the 11th Avenue pedestrian and traffic calming that will come to us
before we spend any money, right?
Yes.
Even though it's engineering only, it will come to us?
Yeah, because there has to be some contract
correct to do this work, so yes.
It's over the city manager's limitation.
Right, yes.
And there is another million dollars
for the following year to finish that.
So this is, we're paying $100,000 for engineering,
and then we're gonna need to find another million dollars
next year to do this, whatever that is.
Was the Frank Brown renovation addition taken out or not included and just added on later
because I thought it was out?
Yes, that's what I added.
The Frank Brown renovation, the 481.
There will be grant money that's going to pay for that and because there's expansion
there will be portion of that's going to be also paid by impact fees.
So there will be split between general fund and those other funding sources.
Very good.
And, Troy, that's a good number.
Some of us looked at that area, and it's really pathetic and needs significant improvement.
If I'm correctly remembering our tour, okay.
Yeah, and also, this morning I spoke with Kathy Landy and at the Simpson Farmhouse
Expansion.
The 15,000 is going to be removed.
she won't need that so I'm also gonna remove that from the budget I just
didn't have a chance since this morning to I want to tell you about that change as
well. So that's the changes. Kathy you're okay with that?
So can I leave this the
way it is?
So now we have electric it there was no changes everything it's
like as we talked on July 10 meeting as everything has been incorporated in the
budget already. Waste water and water. I think there was a change. Just give me one second.
So I have changed the name of the wastewater treatment plan to project to RIPs because apparently
that means something to somebody I don't really know what that is. I just know that it needed
to be there and then also let's see and we added the water treatment plant one
high-speed service pump replacement to that so those are the little changes
that I made yeah this is it so we have five point nine million dollars worth of
project in in capital and they've been already incorporated in the budget so
So they're all okay to be done.
So I have a concern about, we just passed some ordinances, first reading with regard to the
groves which we all unanimously support.
And part of that is the need to work hard at making sure we don't run short of water
and wastewater, especially wastewater issues.
And so my suggestion I can defer to our acting city manager,
but my suggestion is that we consider at our next meeting,
giving some direction to maybe on the hearing on the 31st,
to add a mirroring of the wastewater treatment plant number 2
to increase and essentially double the capacity,
which has been in the plans anyway for what a year or more, and we need to start doing
that now because it's going to be another year or two years rather before we have the
water capacity and wastewater capacity.
So I think we need to start the discussion and start the motions to have that capacity,
that wastewater number two doubled in capacity.
And we could use, as we talked about last time, bond funds and so forth to do that.
Yes, so I do have a in the five-year plan. So not this current not this 23 24 by the 24 25
Roughly 30 million dollars for me roaring with a plant. I'm guessing it's gonna be higher, but I'm not quite sure what exactly I was
Should we start now? Yeah, they could be considerably higher for some discussions around
50, 55 million. There's a baseline. Okay. So shouldn't we start, shouldn't we start this
budget year to put that in our plans? Would it help if it were in our plans for grant
money as well? Is there any grant money? It would help us with the study on the wastewater
by Raffa-Tellis is currently conducting an impact-by-study rate and basing it on
capital improvement capacity enhancements to the wastewater so yeah I also think
we are working heavily on that alternative water plan for the wastewater
one and I that's just me I don't think we can do all of those things all at
once well it's a big hit there's no doubt about that are there any other
ways Mr. Acting Manager to do that George can you get some Mr. America
Public Works Director utilities guru yeah I share your concern about the
wastewater capacity and I would just want to let you know that we already have
a study underway we've hired Kimmy Horn to produce a study for us they're
looking at a five- to 20-year horizon, considering all the future development activity that can
occur as I say outside the Beltway, you know, towards the Innovation District, and we'll
be expecting a report from them. Probably not too many months from now. They'll be
coming back and telling us, well, do we need to mirror the plant? Do we need to put
a plant in a different location? Can we get by with the smaller incremental improvements
over time, they're going to look at the broad span of what we can do and make recommendations
to us.
And then those are the figures that we'll eventually take to RAF tell us to do the impact
via justice.
So depending on that, we could wait until we get that report and if we need to amend
the budget to do so, we can do it at that time once we know what the direction is
better.
We're paying good money for that report and we'd like to be able to rely upon
it for good decision making.
My only point is we need to get ahead of the curve on that, and it sounds like you agree
with that, so I can understand waiting to let study comes in, but I'm sure we'll look
forward to your recommendation and to the copy of the study so we can see what that
is.
Right.
George, while you're there, can I change the subject to the Udora Roundabout Utility
relocation just timing-wise, so that'll be take place in the new fiscal year, the round
about itself.
Do you think the county will, once we've relocated the utilities, maybe the next year?
No.
And let's understand the counties, unless the county has changed anything unbeknownst
to me.
Their plan is to have a contractor on board shortly after October 1st of this year
and then proceed to construction.
We've committed so many funds to the relocation.
We're on the hook if it's more than that.
If it's less than that, we're not going to get charged that much.
But in this instance, instead of doing the relocation ourselves with our own contractor,
we'll be giving the county the funds so that they can pay out their contractor to do the work.
So, that will just be an early stage of the whole project that probably will take place
in the fiscal year.
That will typically happen first before the roundabout is completed.
That's good news.
All right.
Last I saw they were planning to start in January.
Actual construction in January.
And completion in the summer.
Sometimes they get a little behind the traffic light on Brit Road and...
All right.
George, can I go back to the last topic, which was Kimley Horn?
Is there another city where they have completed such a report, a city that was looking to
expand in the different options?
Is that proprietary information or could you find out?
I can find out.
Okay.
I would love to see that.
Thanks.
Right.
Thank you.
Okay.
Thanks George.
All right.
Thank you.
Kiddook, stormwater.
So nothing changed since July 10th meeting.
So those are two stormwater projects that we're going to start.
This is just engineering costs, and then we'll have some construction costs in 24-25.
That was the reason why we want to increase the rate to be able to pay for those construction
projects, the construction next year after that, which is roughly $2.9 million that
it's projected to be at this time.
Okay.
So this is just some budget factors.
I try to put them all together to kind of give you a gist of what we have spoke for last
hour over.
The main factors that created this budget, making this budget a little bit challenging
was the increases in health insurance costs.
We updated the indirect cost allocation which lowers some of the portion that's going
to general fund.
We have moved the stormwater and sanitation employees to general fund, although we still
get some of the indirect cost allocation monies it still create a problem you know
let's create an increase in the general fund. I have also eliminated the
annual vehicle replacement allocation since I'm buying vehicles from that
fund I'm not gonna put money in there to just take them back again makes no
sense to do that and then our appropriation from fund balance is right
right now, $681,370. If any of the adjustment we need to make, the money is for the COMP
plan or any other adjustments, that's just going to come from the fund balance unless
we want to reduce some projects or something like that. But on my next budget meeting,
that's going to be our first public hearing. I just want to stress to you that this
This is only new money.
So we try part of our budget process is that we first want to show you what are we collecting
from tax dollars.
This is a new money that's coming in every year and versus our operating costs.
And then on the second budget workshop we want to have all the carryovers.
So those are the unused funds that from this year will go to the next fiscal year to
accommodate for things we already allocated to be bought.
So we're just going to move them to the next year because we want to expense them
this year.
So that's how we kind of split the budget process at two different things to show you how we
can balance money with our revenue and then what's unused we move to the next year to operate.
This has been done for maybe 20 years of City of Maldora, so I continue doing the same thing
here.
And those meetings are on Thursdays, not Tuesday, it's a little change, so don't show up
on Tuesday, just on Thursday.
That's all I have.
Anything, anyone?
Just a comment, as usual, for the wonderful work you do to teach us what we can and can't
and shouldn't and shouldn't do, should or shouldn't do, and the wonderful time you
take to put all that together for us with Rita and everybody else that is participating
in your office.
It's a marvelous thing in my opinion that you do and I'm grateful.
And I also wish our EOC coordinator, Eve, and our police department, fire department, the
best wishes for the storm coming up, we'll be thinking of you.
Thank you.
Mayor.
Okay.
I also wanted to thank you and your team for all the hours and hours of hard work
and listening and so on.
And I guess just to comment, I am so thankful that you and manager and everybody else understands
that the big inflation number over the past year absolutely required more than a typical
cost of living increase over the years is probably 3%. Some years 3% is more than the
rate of inflation. Think about during the pandemic and so on, nobody was going anywhere,
there was nowhere to spend money, interest rates were crazy low. 3% was a bit of a
bonus. But this past year has absolutely required that we do more and I think that
It was very good planning.
Hopefully we won't have to do it again for another 15 years.
But thank you for making that happen.
That's very important to Mr. Ralfson's point
before, to keep our great staff members in place.
It's so much better to do that than to try
to get new people who also expect higher wages and better
benefits and things like that.
So that was very crucial and good planning.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Mr. Walker?
Just like to echo those comments from Councilman Rawson
and Vice Mayor Krill.
But I did have a question.
The 5% increase, is that top to bottom?
Yes, so we...
The directors and everyone?
Yes.
Thank you.
There is also CD manager discretion
to possibly do what he see fit as well,
but that's what we agree upon right now
that we're gonna put across the board 5% and that's what is there in the budget
right now. That does the police and fire have separate contracts and that's a
little different. Correct so they're they're gonna negotiate to whatever that
bargaining agreement is and then we will adjust those accordingly. I just
want to say why I have the mic that this is not just another it's a lot
of work from the department heads. It's been challenging year. There's a lot of things
that we hit straight head on with increases in salaries and things that we see in the
budget that there was a lot of cutting going on. So I just want to say thank you to all
my directors for helping me getting through this because it's been challenging year.
So we're here. We're all hopefully all will be good. And I just want to say thank you to them because without them
I won't be able to put this all together. So, thanks.
Absolutely. Well, thank you because you're here.
Thanks.
Thank you, everyone.
Okay, Mr. Acting City Manager, we have one more.
Moving on.
Yeah. Right. It's your show. Go for it.
Oh.
This summer has a PowerPoint presentation of the, this is an opportunity, she will drive
the speed limit shuttle topic.
This PowerPoint packet is wonderful.
You can see various options and it really highlights of what the city can do if we
look at some shuttling and some transportation opportunities to evaluate the downtown parking
needs and opportunities.
So, at this point, the summer is going to go over the PowerPoint and maybe give some
feedback, opportunities for grants or how we want to feel this topic, thumbs up, thumbs
down, move forward with it or that and so forth.
No further ado, grand finale.
Thank you.
Just a correction, there is no PowerPoint.
Those were your attachments, so I won't do that to you at this hour.
So is it too late to talk shuttle service that's what that's a real question and good evening misty summer director of economic development and public information.
So as you may recall the downtown parking study suggests the city implement a shuttle service between downtown and our fringe areas to encourage the use of all of our parking resources.
services.
So a little history, talking of shuttle services is not a new topic.
We, you know, tried a golf shuttle pilot program in the past.
We had a great group of volunteers.
We've also put out several RFPs for both shuttle and valley services that were unfortunately
the return on investment just wasn't there quite expensive, so we moved on.
So what's changed? Why are we here tonight talking about it? So the local
trolley company approached staff and asked if the city was still interested in
offering a shuttle service. Because of this local interest, staff would be
willing to put out another RFP to request bids, you know, through a formal
solicitation for a one-year pilot shuttle program to operate one trolley
every Saturday from 11 a.m. to 7 p.m.. Now this would have the option to enter
into a multi-year contract should the pilot program be successful. So that's
option 1A. Now again that's just one day a week. So if we start talking about
multiple days. Saturday is not enough. Let's include Friday, Sunday. At some
point we have we look at the bigger picture. Is it time to buy a trolley? So
So I made a couple phone calls, that's in your option 1B.
The cost is approximately $207,000.
That is for an ADA gas trolley.
I want to emphasize gas because I did inquire
a bell in electric trolley, and that's in the millions.
So not including the battery and charging.
So I kind of compromised.
I know our brand is, you know, indicative of sustainability, but I feel like we don't
go diesel and not so much on electric.
The gas is a fair compromise in that regard.
Anyhow, I digress.
So that figure does not include the price of drivers, maintenance, fuel, storage, insurance.
So kind of keep that in mind as well.
So once I had this information, I say I, it was we, Mr. Komiski, we had a team of people.
Once we had this information, we reached out to
the late county office of transit services to see if we could accomplish this same goal
by adding a additional bus stop. So they agreed to provide one to three 23-foot buses. And I
say one to three because in the PowerPoint that was an attachment from them, you'll see
a sample timetable. So that really comes down to what level of service we want to provide,
How quickly we want people to be picked up versus waiting.
So those would come in around $50 to $100 per hour per vehicle.
So the estimated total on that is anywhere from $21,000 to have
one up to $124,000.
And this is annually for up to three.
So another service they offer, it's through FreeBee.
It's an on-demand electric cart or vehicle they had you know that was also included in your packet
They have different models those come in at around forty dollars per vehicle per hour
So then we're looking at seventeen thousand versus are up to fifty thousand for that option
So these are both really great options through them the good news is
we could apply for a grant.
They agreed to help us apply for an FDOT service development grant.
It's a 50-50 grant with funding up to three years.
Now the downside of this is that we wouldn't even be able to submit the application until
May of 2024.
And then it's awarded in July of 2025 with implementation in October of 2025.
So it's a great plan.
It's just not coming to fruition anytime soon.
But I did want to note before we open it up for discussion that for all of these options,
you know, again, the estimates I provided are annually for one day.
So the option to add a number of vehicles, the day of operation, the pickup drop-off
spots, and also the service boundary area that you've seen in some of the maps, that's
customizable. So all of the entities involved have agreed, you know, they'd be
willing to do whatever to accommodate the level of service we're looking to
provide. Unfortunately, someone from the Lake County Transit Office was supposed
to come this evening. She's under the weather, so I'll do my best to answer any
questions relative to their programs.
Vice Mayor Krill. That's good work, Misty.
What I was thinking was that if the trolley provider, your option 1A,
if they were, yes, if they, if we could contract with them for a year or two,
and then move to the final option of getting the grant and so on and so forth,
with, the vehicles would change, but the service would have practice. The other thing that occurs
to me is if people are going to be waiting for a shuttle, it's got to come regularly
and fairly quickly. Nobody wants to stand there for 20 minutes. Where's that shuttle
it's hot out here, it's raining out here or whatever. So I think we better plan on two or three to make
the schedule reliable and fairly frequent. Thanks.
Question? Speaking of what and I
make some good sense our vice mayor mentions to me at least. If they're standing in a parking
a lot of waiting for a shuttle. Will there be cover for sun and rain and so forth?
I don't think, I think most of these are either our parking lot or one of the churches. I don't
believe there's cover. You'll sit in the car and wait for the shuttle to come. Okay.
I can confirm that for you, but off like I know the one on Highland doesn't.
The portion of the Baptist Church I don't think will be covered. The Methodist.
I can't think of one that does, can you?
No, I can't.
We're just thinking of the inclement weather issue, but you just have to sit in your car.
Do they have an app with these?
So you can see where they're shut?
Because I know some cities where I've used these shuttles, these free shuttles.
It'll be there in three minutes.
You know it shows you're actually on the map.
Yes.
So the freebie option through the Office of Transit Services, the freebie option did have that.
And the app also includes the availability
for businesses to market.
So there's ad opportunities there.
But yeah, it's even, it was very versatile.
So we could make it kind of how we wanted to.
It could be on demand or they could run an actual shuttle
based on specific time.
So they were really open to a lot of things.
But yeah, that was the one with the app.
Mr. Bryant.
Mr. Yeye, in response to Vice Mayor Creil, I think you were asking about whether or not
the pilot program, you know, could be done for a year or two or whatever, you know,
to get by and tell there might be time for the grant to come through.
In your discussions with the county, I assume that that conversation was there as far as you said
their bus service, though, for this interim period of time?
Yeah, I think that would complicate the grant application.
So you can't show that there was an existing service and then apply.
It's more you're applying to have that additional service.
So, any option, as far as preceding the grant program, could be a problem.
I don't know.
I can...