##VIDEO ID:pTiI7aMknqY## good e agenda review at 6: p.m. could I have a roll call please yes commissioner dollison here commissioner Mercer commissioner danler mayor ptim Yates here and mayor bson here okay we will have an invocation and then we'll have presentations developments of note and then uh I will will make a mayor statement and then we will have uh the ordinance's first reading and public hearing on the avalor tax millit rate and fiscal year 24 to 2025 budget and I I think we've already reviewed all of these and so uh been no changes nothing has changed on Monday on Tuesday we will have to have the city uh attorney read by tile on and oh I'll read the entire ordinance for those two versus by title yes so he'll we'll we'll we'll just dispense with that until Tuesday night correct all right all right and the same is for adopting the budget and uh then we'll have comments from the audience and then we have audien's second reading and since these are second readings we've already heard these a couple times so um I would just like to see the uh manager to go through and if there and just if we have questions if there are no questions we'll move forward yeah there's the first two are uh companion ordinances tied to land use and Zoning that's on a piece of property on dundy Road Buckeye Loop Road area going from a PUD for storage to uh multif family um 11c which is ordinance 2441 is the um schedule one R that's your water waste water uh reclaimed water and miscellaneous fees um that we we discussed at length last time um and schedule one R actually those it sets those fees for the next five years and then the 2442 is the um water and sewer connection fees which we just had a workshop on no no there's been no changes on any of those items since they were presented are there any questions okay moving on to the consent agenda the uh pul Regional water Cooperative uh conservation project agreement uh could we have someone just to give a uh I think that's a great idea um we have with us uh Eric de Haven with P Regional water cooperative and Gary hubard um so ask either or both of them to come to the podium and just give a quick overview of what that agreement is for welcome Eric thank you thank you all I'm Eric DEH Haven I'm the executive director of the prwc and the prwc board as you all know is composed of members from pole County and they've talked for ever since I've been executive director about conservation and the need for conservation obviously when we are implementing alternative Water Supplies through our projects if we can make our existing supplies from the upper Florida and last that much longer it kind of reduces the need for alternative water supplies and at least pushes it out so we don't have to do it so much so the the idea behind our our conservation implementation agreement that's before you for approval next week is each member will sign up for conservation that will be done regionally through the prwc uh the the the the the program will occur every year so there'll be an annual budget item that we would ask for members to support uh the first time we asked for members to support was for this fiscal year 2024 and basically how we're funding the program is 75,000 from Heartland Headwaters Grant funds from the state and then 75,000 from Members themselves and I think for Winter Haven that works out about $10,000 each year that you'd be contributing to the conservation implementation agreement what we would then do is is is utilize a third-party consultant to then Implement conservation around the pole County region through the prwc and it can take several forms we can Implement direct through our contractor we can help to assist your individual programs because we recognize that several members had robust conservation programs in place specifically Winter Haven po County and Lakeland all have their individual programs so we can help to defay the cost of your program as well and then the other idea behind this is some of the smaller municipalities that don't have the staff to put the conservation in place we can come in and help to uh put that conservation in place so the implementation agreement is is very similar to say the southeast wellfield implementation agreement you sign that implementation agreement it allows us to move forward and put the project in place and try and Achieve additional conservation within P County thank you Eric there any questions you have something to say Gary yeah I think U one of the most important things you know our IR our current irrigation runs about 38 to 40% of our overall total water usage so anything that we can do to reduce that amount of irrigation is going to save us money in the long run I think one of the biggest things that I've advocated for with the prwc is a public education program so I think that's really where we need most of the help so that that is something that can be looked at also so um anything we can do from a conservation standpoint and we're making good progress here too I get a weekly report on how much water we save every week okay thank you any questions all right thank you all we are going to actually have a uh a presentation on the uh State Housing Initiative partnership ship yes sir so um as you know we received State Housing Initiative partnership or ship funds uh here in the City of Winter Haven in order to receive those funds we are required to submit an annual report which encompasses three years so this year our closeout report will consist of the ship fiscal year 2021 2022 and data for the interim report year of 22 23 keep in mind City operates on a fiscal year that starts in October ship operates on a fiscal year that starts July 1 because it's state fund so I'm going to ask uh Cedric Cox and also Diane dur with us this evening both of them uh work within uh our Economic Opportunity Community investment Department uh Cedric is our assistant director to give us a quick overview of what I think is some pretty fantastic information on how we have been able to help people with our ship funds um good afternoon uh mayor City uh City commissioners good afternoon everyone um the last time I stood before you um I presented to you a a budget and we were standing on about uh 1.8 million um we originally started with a marketing campaign with Katrina Hill this has been updated as of August the 30th 20124 um since that time of April 5th we received the total applications uh received of 82 we have down payment assistance of 31 and owner occupi rehab at 51 um we since uh completed Community uh presentations the last presentation was in June of 2024 since that time I've done another Community presentation at the uh senior Adult Community Center 43 residents were in in attendance I also myself and Angela um with the CRA went to Winter Haven hospital and we visited with 49 U employees and provided them information for DPA o and CRA this is the budget the last time I stood before you we had approximately $1.8 million in the coffers um as you can see that has been drastically reduced and I'll go over the the numbers with you for 20 uh 2020 21 we had $992,000 is as you can see we've totally um expended that we have a negative of $39 4345 which is a a positive note that's nothing of negative um 2122 we had 426 457 since that time I've encumbered myself and dandur $310,000 we've expended 105,000 um we uh also spent uh expended a th000 in admin funds we're leaving a balance of 10,4 uh 57.95 for uh physical year 2122 for for 2223 we had a total funds of 5779 since that time we've encumbered 395,000 we've expended 148,50 n0 we also expended 7,223 in admin funds leaving a balance of 27,999 for ship year 2324 we had a total amount of 785,000 23021 we've encumbered $670,000 we have yet to expend any of those funds yet due to the contractor not being able to get to those individuals to perform the work we expended 16,640 47 and admin funds leaving a balance of 98 58674 the total remaining balance um for combined with all of those program years is 132,000 $193 which I want to clarify that number is kind of uh um shaky and I'll say it's shaky because I have individuals already in the pipeline approved and ready to go and that money will be expended as soon as the contractor can get with the uh tenants to do the work we also have funding for 2024 25 that just was received in July we received $422,400 NOA notice of funding availability that'll be uh posted on next Wednesday next Wednesday it'll be posted on next Wednesday we have to post that for 30 days after that I have enough indiv individuals already in the pipeline and process to have that money um expended as well so in a nutshell if you go back can you go back to that for a second um you know we started when um we really started digging into this in 2023 had about $1.8 million in ship funds to help people did with down payment assistance with owner occupied rehab um and it it had just kept building up and building up and building up uh through some very aggressive marketing um some uh utilizing the contractor that we brought on board we have encumbered which means we have have isolated out projects that have been approved the 1.375 million dollar in encumbered funds that means soon as that contractor has the the the available time and manpower to get out and take care of those people I mean these are projects that are lined up that money goes from encumbered to expended um and they've expended 353,000 you know to go from 1.8 million in in funds available to now only having 132,000 that is a just a Herculean effort and I think it um very proud of what what Cedric and and Diane have been able to do to make that happen it is I didn't know that we would get to that number that quickly but this is exactly what that money is for is to help people in um with their rehabs with their their down payments um and really I think the marketing is a big piece of that absolutely that's a quick question yes Cedric or Diane would one of you guys speak real quick to what down payment assistance actually means and give us some examples potentially of of how it actually works so we so we get that down pavment assistance is a program for first-time home buyers to purchase a home they can receive up to $50,000 in down payment assistance to put towards the purchase of the home and it goes towards the overall cost use Simple numbers if the home is $2,000 you take $50,000 off of that it's now $150,000 the only caveat is the home must be within the city limits of Winter Haven and there's a 5-year lean the only reason for the lean is to keep the individual from purchasing a home flipping it and making a profit off of ship dollars after the five-year term the lean is satisfied and it's the individual's home to do whatever they wish to do with so they could get 50,000 or 5,000 50, 50,000 up to 50,000 it's based on the income it's an income based ratio the higher your income the lower the down payment assistance the lower your income the higher your down payment assistance okay and Cedric is that income um that isn't that calculated by number of people in the household number of people in the house hold up to 120% of the area meeting income and Diane just also re um reminded me too we're working on the local housing assistance plan we're going to be increasing those numbers by $10,000 for each category okay good job all right the last is just the disaster mitigation nothing has changed there it's just to let you know during the time of hurricane that we can assist individ individuals with um you know tree removal uh anything that's disaster related to keep their home safe sanitary and secure last question oh I'm sorry um the contractor that you have to do your work is it just one firm or do you have several it's it's one firm it's called enviral build um and they have a large contracting company and I currently have approximately 25 Pro projects with him right now lined up that he's working on are they based in Winter Haven or were they based they based out of Tampa but they it was a contracted contractor that the City of Winter Haven already had because the contractors that we were trying to seek out didn't have the financial capacity to handle the workload because of you know when you go in and you do the work you have to you know spend the funds and then you have to wait to be get reimbursed and those the smaller contractors just didn't have that Capac capacity for financial and the capacity the volume of jobs that I'm sending them so clearly I always feel like we should get bids and all those kind of things but a situation like that this is probably difficult are you do you feel like you're getting a real good bang for your buck I mean ABS absolutely he Rick and I at envir Bill talk daily I spoke with him today you know to talk about you know the status of the projects how many he has that's how I know I have about 25 with him right now he's working on about 10 15 that he has yet to get to just due to the volume and I got approximately 10 to 15 in the pipeline ready to send to him but he returns your phone calls when you call absolutely I have his personal phone call his personal number and commiss I was going to add that is a competitively big contract that yes it was it was yes absolutely any complaints or concerns how are they filtered through I mean if you know if any of the homeowners have any concerns or challenges with uh with the workmanship or any anything of that nature who they go through they they the Contra the homeowners I um advise them to contact me if there are any type of issues they have Rick mercot and I have sat down and had a long conversation and he is in it with his heart I can honestly say he's doing this because he enjoy helping individuals at times I have to reel him back in to let him know you know those are things we can't do Rick even though he wants to do it out of the goodness of his heart now you you talked about uh Building Homes so existing homes or to purchase a home uh I guess in terms of numbers uh how many of those did you did we probably realize if you have any idea how many homes in the last six months yeah well we since we've actually you know tried to uh try try to you know make the D what's your DPA number DPA number I would say we've helped at least 10 at from varying ranges because of the you know the from 50,000 down to 20,000 one of the things that we've um actually done which is kind of interesting and used to be that you know there's a there's a certain threshold of of check that we issue that has to have a manual signature by my office and um people would be doing their down payments or their closings and they need that check and it was a rush oh we got to get somebody signed this check so we can get it to the bank and actually changed some processes with CJ's help that we do now use a um I guess it's a electronic Clearing House type process that we can expedite getting that check to the banks to help these people you know navigate one more hurdle in the closing process um and that was a direct result of of trying to get checks in the hands of the right people for these closings but I know that I've in fact the day of our Retreat last spring um I think Cedric brought me a check that day that need needed to be signed right then because somebody was closing on a new home that day so it's it's happening and that's that's exciting to see that commissioner doson I can get you that exact number okay I have it on a report any other questions guess average rehab what what kind of numbers were they in on average yes they averaging about 40,000 the condition of the homes in Winter Haven they really need it that hence the reason we're in inreasing it by 10,000 we we don't want homeowners having to decide do I get a roof or do I get an air conditioner do I do electrical or do I do plumbing that's the reason we increased it by 10,000 due to the cost of supplies and labor so no um no type of mobile homes or anything involved in this no sir mobile homes are not allowed Exempted from that they're Exempted that's per ship statute okay proof of ownership of they had to have have own the home or buying the home is is that yes they have to um either be owning or purchasing the home no no rentals anyone else great job man fantastic this is turn turned around tremendously yeah good job thank you very good all right um the next item is the uh Planning Commission membership yep you have two seats there that are um that are available there and uh there's a recommendation for uh the appointment of Lorena Alvarez Cordo and to appoint Robert Bob lanfer uh one of these seats was the seat that was previously um assigned to uh Rick hemway uh he has shortly after being appointed to that seat um said that he would not be able to serve and then uh Elizabeth Davis who's been on the Planning Commission for number of years uh submitted a resignation once her replacement can be made right all right okay then we have an annual contract for public parks and restroom cleaning this is a competitive bid this is for assistance with the cleaning of our public restrooms in our Parks as you know our staff and parks and grounds is a small But Mighty team um and that's one of the the responsibilities they have is the maintenance and upkeep of all those restrooms well one of the things that does takes us away from cleaning the and maintaining the beautiful spaces that we have so um one of as we expand our Park system over the years we've just we've had to get creative in how we do that so we're going back to a a contract for that service again competitively bid this is a um a 4-year agreement uh for it's set up for the first two years at $42,000 per year and then uh there's a contract extension for an additional two years okay thank thank you then the uh Cultural Arts advisory committee Cultural Arts advisory committee has um uh two seats that are coming due for either new appointment or reappointment Briana hemp and uh Dan Dan chesnik and those both those individuals expressed interest in being reappointed to that there was also an application through our Sol regular solicitation process submitted by Matthew Logan Crawley um after review of all those applications the cultural arts advisory committee is recommending that the commission consider reappointing um Brion hemp and Dan chesnik for an additional term all right and then the next item is the Second Amendment to the uh interlocal agreement between the CATE of w Haven and Pope County so we talked a little bit about this at the a recent commission meeting I think commissioner dancer had commented on uh very successful TDC meeting I point out that Mark Zimmerman with the p County bard of County Commissioners and and tourist Development Council P County Sports Marketing is with us this evening um TDC and bccc have been great partners with us on recent improvements in our Recreation spaces particularly the Advent Health Fieldhouse last year we entered into an interlocal agreement with them for the refurbishment and Rehabilitation of the uh uh uh chain Lakes Park the outdoor elements under the that interlocal agreement the city would contribute $10 million towards the project the county would contribute 10 million that's a split between cash and then principal and interest uh Debt Service on uh a bond issuance that we did last November that project has increased in cost uh due to some geotechnical issues and just some site conditions we had approached the TDC if there was any capacity for them to further assist us in the development of that project through the additional costs they were uh agreeable to um picking up an additional uh principal and interest Debt Service on on 2 million more and the city will match that so it brings the total funding for that project to 24 million this inter local agreement basically memorializes those terms and conditions and um allows us to continue to move forward uh just want to express appreciation for the TDC and Mark and his team for everything they did to help us move that through it's a it's a great partnership and um it's nice to see that project happening so I'm certain if commissioner dancer wants to add anything from that meeting or not not really um I'm thrilled and I'm thankful to mark for being here and for the chance we get to vote on this and this is it's going to be a real win for City of Winter Haven and uh going to help complete our project down there and uh only thing we have to do next is come up with money for a parking garage but we'll deal with that next year cuz parking down there is bad when everything goes on at once well and it's really bad right now because we lost all the parking because of the construction project so that's certainly having some impact but we'll we'll muddle through hopefully it's only until February it's all good oh yes we thank you thank you yes regulate it was marked by himself let that happen yes uh the next item is the uh Lake Silver Western uh Shoreline stabilization project uh so you guys will probably remember we carried a request for funding to Tallahassee the year before last uh for this project to stabilize the Western Shoreline of Lake Silver uh we received $250,000 from the legislature that is uh administered through a a grant agreement with FWC that you all approved earlier this year uh the project was bid and Shoreline Shore Builders Incorporated was the lest responsive bidder of seven uh this item is to award that bid so uh the total cost is $ and the the difference in the funding will be offset from funding available within the storm water fund uh if approved the project would start in the next month or two and probably take about 90 days to finish so okay moving moving that legislative initiative forward all is that primarily seaw wall you're going to put up or what are you going to do it's a it's in a it's a rock abatement and I'll I'll uh if Andy has anything to add but it's uh it's if you ever seen like a jetty Shoreline with big rocks it's it's more that style of a stabilization than a seaw wall okay oh okay all right read that then the final uh consent agenda item is the uh crane carrier yes sir yes so this is um our commercial garbage Operation uses about eight trucks running six days a week to service every single business within the city uh some of these trucks are nearing 15 years in age and they are they are used hard daily um so that is that is pretty old for a garbage truck uh one of these trucks is scheduled to be replaced in fiscal year 2526 but a need exists today uh the lead time for these vehicles is usually about 18 months uh but a truck very similar to two that were purchased in 2021 and have been very reliable for us um is available for purchase it's a demo truck that uh one of the vendors we've worked with previously had available uh and they're willing to sell that truck to us at a $20,000 discount um that means there's only about a $30,000 funding Gap and there's a there's an ability to offset that from um funding available within the solid waste operations savings this year uh so this truck would be immediately available and able to be put into service before the end of the year which would enhance the um operation's ability to provide a reliable service to customers um so in response to an ongoing shortage of available vehicles in the existing Fleet due to mechanical issues coupled with community health issues that can stem from not being able to provide consistent commercial Refuge collection uh there's an urgency to address uh this existing resource therefore the city managers begun the issuance of a purchase order and staff is seeking the commission ratify the approval of that purchase and authorize the city manager to take any additional action that's basically it's an emergency purchase we get a great deal on a garbage truck we get it in probably two weeks versus 18 months and we can get it operational and you know stay up with the demand that we have and most of the funding is already available for the replacement of that other vehicle so all right any questions all right and we'll move on to uh our first resolution R 2441 and this is sort uh we've been looking forward to this to for the governor to finally approve the uh the plan that was submitted y by the TPO and so we get a third member yep yep spot on so um we were informed that we'd be afforded that additional seat the governor has approved that uh now it's time to appoint a member to that seat So currently right now mayor song mayor protim Yates are the current voting members and commissioner Mercer is an alternate uh so we will need to add an additional voting member and make sure we still have an alternate as well yes and we're not making a recommendation on that we fig we' leave that to the to the commission to tell us who you'd like and then we'll I think and I think the next TPO meeting I think we said Eric was in October um so that person you know that new voting member will be a part of the TPO at that point yes okay all right and then uh we have an audin uh first reading 02 2433 this um this is an interesting one this pertains to some new legislation uh again a little bit of preemption at the state level regarding how we approve uh site plans and the platting of land and issuance of permits ask Eric Labby to give you an over on overview on this because it this again something that just came out of the 2024 session that takes effect going forward October 1st yeah so um mayor Commissioners bear with me on this one there's a there's a little bit here but um as you may recall Senate Bill 812 uh was passed by the Florida legislature um in an effort um to facilitate and uh expedite um the construction of homes the state legislature uh passed this bill um requiring a preliminary plat process be adopted by um all local municipalities and uh counties uh in Florida and so in order to comply with that we had to revise and rewrite several sections of our Land Development code um the major modifications include revising section 2183 to allow for model homes to be constructed on up to 50% of the building Lots um within a subdivision under certain requirements specifically those requirements being the preliminary plat process that we've uh developed and outlined um in our in this ordinance uh adding more detailed standards to section 2183 related to Temporary sales office offices and residential subdivisions um establishing the preliminary plat process um and for City commission review and approval of preliminary plats providing for a one-year period to submit and review um site plans setting forth the subdivisions required infrastructure um should a site plan not be submitted with one one one year of preliminary plat approval preliminary plat uh will become null and void um updates uh to section 21315 to provide for concurrency at the preliminary plat approval stage as appropriate uh if a subdivision goes through the preliminary plat process we need to be able to account for the concurrency management uh at that point instead of at the final plat which is how we currently do it now and makes uh General updates to uh article 6 uh to address outdated language regarding concurrency and adopted levels of service so um there is no Financial impact um and it was heard by the Planning Commission so at a high level what this does the city of commiss the City of Winter Haven used to have a preliminary plat process that was our our standard process that was eliminated in I think 2000 um and we we got rid of the preliminary plat process our normal process now is site plan review um you you get your permits for the land development side of it you build your infrastructure and then you do your final plat and you have your final plat recorded and our concurrency management is tied to the final plat now we've developed a an option in Our Land Development code uh whereby if you want to utilize this this process as a state legis lure says developers can the reason they would go through this process is so that they can pull building permits for single family homes prior to final platting and they're allowed to pull those permits for up to 50% of the Lots within that subdivision essentially allows them to get their product on the on the ground and and out to Market quicker in theory and um so we had to develop this process the process now would be um that they can go through the preliminary plat get that approv approval go through the site plan process for all their infrastructure and at the time they get their preliminary plat approved they can pull permits and start building homes we cannot under the law um issue a certificate of of occupancy for those homes until the final plat is recorded all the infrastructure is built and the final plat is recorded um and so they they can begin construction so they will be building the subdivision infrastructure and up to 50% of those Homes at the same time and then once everything is done we can issue certificates of completion for those homes and they can sell the Lots once the final plat is approved I know that's a lot yes it is so so what that kind of if you think about a subdivision that goes in and you see see this happen all over town so you they clear the land they go in they they put in the roads they put in the Curbing and the sidewalks they put in Street lighting all the utility infrastructure they get that and that's part of getting your final site plan your your final plotting right so we we sometimes require them to bond for that and and we release that Bond when those improvements are done but once they have that final plat then they start pulling permits to build homes under this preemptive you know Bill what it now does it says that while they're building those roads and those sidewalks and putting in those utilities they can also be building 50% of the homes in that subdivision at the same time can't seal them you can't get a certificate of occupancy until everything is completely done but it allows them to more quickly have a product to put on the market than they would otherwise I will tell you that this has never been an issue this has never been something that's come up in Winter Haven uh to my knowledge and I don't think Eric would would disagree with that I think that this is the result of of of preemptive legislation that was rooted in um some counties where the process to get to final plat approval was taking longer uh and therefore people were were you know not not being able to keep Pace with getting to the market with new homes and it was impacting bottom line so here's new legislation says you have to do this it is not an automatic It Is by request so a developer would have to come in and say I'd like to go through the preliminary plat process all it does is says you can begin constructing those homes sooner than you would otherwise you can't sell them any faster you can't Co them any faster but as soon as you have all your infrastructure and your final plat it's simply a matter of getting the co and having a product ready to sell okay go ahead um Eric doesn't it take commission action to approve a final plat yes yes sir and and under this process you would also approve the preliminary plat y but then before we we would approve the preliminary plat with the final plat this to me seems like there's there's some risk there because what if we have an election for example and we have three new Commissioners up here and they don't want to approve the final plat and they've already started building homes out there well the final plat is more of a and John can we on weigh in on this it's more of a legislative formality at that point all of the infrastructure is is constructed the um it's in compliance it's already been certified to be in compliance with the site plan it is the legal mechanism to actually create a lot uh that can be sold and so um you know it is and John maybe you can speak a little clearer to this but it is the legal mechanism by which a plaque can be recorded and a lot can be sold so at that point it's it's it's really too late for uh a city commission or or elected body to say ah we don't like 200 single family lots we want to change it or or change the site plan or go go back to 150 Lots because we've already approved the site plan um the infrastructure has already been built it's it's more of a legal formality what's conceivable to me that you could have three people up here that would vote to throw a monkey wrench into the thing to really confuse things and really make it tough if they all vote no you can't get final PL approval what do you do John well I think it number one Eric is writing to expound on what Eric said in this process under the statute and which will be available October 1st it's optional the quidd proquo that you have for this is if a developer chooses to proceed under this manner they have to hold harmless the city for anything that results in you know construction defects or anything that might happen liability that might happen between the granting of the preliminary plat and the granting of the final plat doesn't answer doesn't answer your question the big difference is this preliminary plat process if the developer chooses to to to go through it they get vested rights and their rights vest at the time the preliminary plat is approved so have there's really no legal basis on for a subsequent commission if it's different to deny a final plat they can still do it well sure then they get sued but they're going but hopefully they're going to have good lawyers that they will listen to and that they will hear and heed heed their advice a recommendation on want and and we live to it I for one will will be here to tell you if I have that privilege that that is not really an option as Eric said it's more at this at that point it becomes almost a legislative formality to clearly so when we give a preliminary plat we're approving it so exactly I'm I'm just telling you to me it seems there's there's potential for risk there but there is I I don't disagree with you I why we have to whatever but I think it's but the the but the risk that that we we would be exposed to I'm talking is different than the risk you're talking talking about the risk that I see is that we Grant someone preliminary plat approval we give them vested rights and then they build a house that's not quite on the lot or they have something that's constructed it's not occupied there's no Co and there's damage there's a bad storm there's you know all these kinds of things that could happen someone has an accident or someone has you know that that they don't they're not public yet in other words the roads the streets to the extent they would be they they hold us harmless from they being the the the applicant the developer so from that standpoint there there's some some quid pro Crow built into it I don't know how many of the developers are going to use this or not it's I my gut I can't get Coos so I mean my gut is that many of the developers that we're familiar with that we we do business with in the City of Winter Haven will not choose this option because to be quite honest I think our traditional option is just as fast or faster and the only reason that somebody may choose to do this is that they want to go ahead and pull permits and start constructing uh you know up to 50% of those homes while they're developing the infrastructure um but as city manager you know indicated we we generally have not received any complaints about being slow at the City of Winter Haven I could see where this would be very attractive to a developer because they get their vested rights at the time of plinary plat approval so that could be something that would that would drive all these people out on 544 right if there's a if there was a road that would that would drive people to go through this process not because they want to get the homes built sooner than they otherwise would but they get locked in to their vested rights sooner than later yeah so I think that's the big take that's my big Takeaway on this is that this this really greatly accelerates our allocation of capacity and and and those those kinds of concurrency question that the attent from the beginning was to expedite the process was that the reason for you giving that option um in speaking with some of our legislative um delegates and seeing some webinars I think the intent around the the state legislature adopting this bill um was around the provision of affordable housing uh that's what I thought in in an effort to just get more units in the marketplace to help keep prices down Speed Market right so this really feels like it's a South Florida rule honestly I mean it feels like that's where this is coming from is for that that particular Market at the end of the day we can't do anything about this because this is what the state legislature has has moved forward on and and put forth irregardless of the amount of overdevelopment that may or may not be occurring in Florida as a whole so you know there again for the constituents that yell at us on a daily basis for approving all this stuff like here's a here's a prime example like we don't have any control over this state of Florida is implementing it so start yelling at Tallahassee and and it goes up to 75% in the year of 2027 so so my concern comes along the lines of protection and thinking of 2008 so let's say a builder comes in and takes this provision puts up 50% of the house has a 400 house subdivision builds 200 houses the bottom falls out of the market they can't give the houses away can we put a layer of protection for us as a municipality to say a larger Bond requirement or like because who is done to maintain 200 houses that are sitting there empty that squatters are now moving in to or so what what extra can we do to put a layer of protection for the City of Winter Haven let me let me add a an additional question to that to Eric if I could mayor protm Eric the preliminary plat is there a requirement for them to have so much infrastructure into the ground at the time they start pulling permits for those first 50% so that's part of the that's part of the pickle there because you can't bond your project for for infrastructure until you have 50% of the infrastructure in so if I'm a developer and I start throwing up houses is I'm building infrastructure and I've only got 40% of my infrastructure in and the and the bottom falls out I've got half-built houses on half-built infrastructure I can't bond it what happens then so that that's where some of that risk Falls in and that's the reality of it they do have to post 125% of a performance bond to get a preliminary plat based on the engineer of Records estimated you know construction cost so we do have a preliminary plat there's a requirement for the applicant to post a bond in the amount of 125% of the costs and the preliminary plant's only good for three years um it does not answer your question necessarily but there is a requirement in the code and that is in the law that requires them to post something to the tune of I think it's 125% yes up to 130 and we right 125% make it consistent with our platting so it's 125% so in the event that that were to happen and hopefully it never does but it's happened once history repeats itself so I'm sure it'll happen again at some point hopefully not in the community of Winter Haven but if it did can can we is that a is that an event where we can cash in on that Bond and then fund you know services to keep the locks on the doors and an extra officer to drive through there and make sure that squatting is you know I mean it's just there is there is so many bad things of unintended consequences with something like this and that that's my biggest concern and my next question is what if we said no what if we said no what would it to to appro the PL application no what if we said no to this we said state passed it but we don't like it it doesn't fit our community what if we said no you would be in violation of state law and we would probably be up subject to suit by a developer that wants to proceed under this method I say we do it I mean I'm ready to start saying no on some of this stuff it's crazy yeah I I I understand the the the the idea of that and understand that that's you got you know you want to take a stand but take a stand where there is an appropriate Level Playing Field this is not one of them I don't know when there is an appro playing field that's there's a Level Playing Field maybe at The Ballot Box CU we know that this does not work in our community we we know it but we're forced to pass it yeah that's what preemption is all about that's what they're all about I mean that I you're right that's what we're fighting that's why there's the Flor leag cities that's why exactly you got to be active and that's why we got to have legislators that understand what's going on I never even I never even heard of this through the league I don't I don't recall this this was a big one maybe I missed it but I I don't this was I I I belong to one of their their legislative think tanks was under a different code name and I trying to figure out what the impacts of it are but yeah certainly it's um it's tough and in the and the question of can you use those bonds to do some of the things you're thinking of I don't believe you can mayor proam I think that you know certainly that bond is tied to infrastructure completion of infrastructure you could call that bond to do that but I mean at that point it's still private property um I don't know that you would be able to come in I mean that's a situation we would need to address but I I would I would I would say that the Bond as the city manager would note would be require improvements that are set forth in your site plan to be constructed and the reason why they're giving it 125% is because it may cost more you know if you had to come in and come behind someone with a developer I I I understand exactly what you all are saying um but at the end of the day it's my job to advise you what the law is and this is what the law is and um and staff's recommendation I just wish there was an extra layer of protection something that we could put on here just to discourage it in some way or I don't know all right 0 2435 let's go to something a little more positive Eric V3 Haven Square retail LLC is a petitioner on this um this is a request to amend plan unit development 0 uh 0927 uh it's located south of Avenue R west of US Highway 20 27 this is the old Vigoro site across from the the Fieldhouse um as you know the previous use was a fertilizer processing um and distribution facility um it is a identified uh Brownfield has a uh you know a plan associated with that um the uh the existing PUD 0927 generally allows for uh retail restaurant and office uses um on 11 of the proposed 16 Parcels uh the Pud also allows for the development of up to 277 residential uses So based on the future land use designation the primary mixed use Hub um that has the potential to be developed with 2616 million square fet uh and 277 residential units the petitioner is proposing to redevelop the property with one primary anchor site intended for a big box retailer with two smaller out Parcels um they're proposing four access points uh including three on US Highway 17 and one on Avenue R Southwest the requested access is from US Highway 17 will be subject to review and approval by Florida Department of Transportation the primary anchor site is expected to contain a 148,000 ft commercial space so the major modifications to this PUD uh as requested by the petitioner uh include uh including five additional adjoining Parcels that weren't included in the original PUD uh that the petitioner has uh since acquired elimination of minimum lot width and lot area requirements uh of course determining setbacks uh from the overall project perimeter um allowing uh prvious payment pavement materials to count as uh perious surface on the site uh elimination of entrance median and Landscaping requirements revision to uh the architectural design increase the amount of permitted signage uh revisions to the Landscaping requirements to allow for impervious surface to Aid in accommodating the soil management plan that's associated with the site due to the Brownfield and revisions to parking requirements to allow for a certain percentage of smaller parking SPAC spaces and an exemption from our maximum parking requirements um staff's review view um concludes uh that this will be beneficial to the development of the subject property um and we've made some uh conditions in the in the ordinance um from some of the requested changes from the petitioner um so that they would not conflict with certain portions of City's code um you are famili very familiar with the site and the surrounding uses um there is adequate capacity and infrastructure in all infrastructure to handle um the proposed development again it's a reduction from a potential maximum of 2.61 6 million square ft of commercial and 277 residential units to 300,000 squ ft of commercial and up to 120,000 Square ft of storage space uh significant reduction in all um capacity um so in conclusion the proposed uses and development intensities are consistent with the future land use the request will result in a reduction of potential impacts uh the requested signage changes uh have Merit uh given the subject subject's area location on a six Lane US Highway 17 and visibility issues resulting from the adjacent US Highway 17 bridge and the subject area has been subject to the existing PUD for 15 years with limited development um inquiries um staff does recommend approval of ordinance 0 2436 um specifically at a high level the the petitioner has a specific user uh identified and um due to the soil management plan and the um the existence of the the Brownfield conditions uh we had to get creative with the Landscaping requirements we're allowing uh through this PUD Landscaping uh trees and canopy uh coverage in the parking lot to be provided uh within large Planters instead of um instead of actually in the ground um and and some flexibility around the perimeter buffers um that really was the main impetus for this PUD um request uh before you to today so the residential component is gone going away completely yes sir do you know if they're going to have any sort of um the microbiology aspect of remediate remediation of like treating the soil with organisms to break away some of that I don't know that specifically I think that the the majority of the site is going to remain impervious um they don't want to disturb the soils um I think that that is a more costeffective way um to manage the the soils on the site is simply not to disturb them and so there's a there's a project of eminence that is is causing this request to to move forward yes sir they have an end user that they're working with a client um that uh was the impetus for this P request I'm intrigued Derek um do you is this really going to happen I mean do you feel like do we are we uh I let me rephrase the question um who's the developer can we is it the existing owner or is it somebody else that's coming in it's V V3 uh Haven square is the owner and as I understand the velop ER they will they will develop the property for the for the end user so they purchased this from Taylor for sale it's the same group essentially the same group that's this is their company name V3 yeah so it's still Taylor for sale and probably binge too I would imagine I would think but I I'm not going to ask that question because it doesn't matter yeah it doesn't matter do we know who the end users going to be will they tell us or can you not tell us you going like Bruce and I tell you I'll kill you you they don't they don't have a formal confidentiality um agreement I would prefer to let the applicant perhaps on Monday okay decide if they'd like to disclose who that is only only out of an abundance of caution I would I think John would concur that I think we need to make the decision based on the proposed uses and not who the potential tenant is yeah my main concern Eric is the three entrances and exence on Highway 17 and and clearly do is going to have to weigh in on that and and give us that but do you know where they're talking about that sir there's a concept plan in the um oh there is yes in the packet it just it doesn't lay out the Lots but it shows the entrances oh I didn't see that uh in the ordinance and one of them is just generally right across from the US 17 entrance into the field I know I know Taylor wants a light right there so maybe they're G to get one but the rest of them have to just be right turn right in right out okay yes sir yeah and you think dot will go along with that I think they've seen similar Concepts before okay so I don't think it'll surprise them that's a good answer that's a really good answer it's good that's really good you're learning from John well so is there no there's no Hotel possibility under this this request or designation so there they so they could so so the the approved uses within this PUD would be any uses that are allowable within the C3 um zoning District minus um several uses that we struck now permitted uses shall be those uses permitted within the commercial Highway C3 zoning District or its successor zoning district with the exception of multi-unit residential buildings sale of of automobiles boats or recreational vehicles nurseries cemeteries or Standalone parking lots and so a a hotel is a permitted use with nc3 so if one of their projected um clients or one of the out Parcels if a hotelier you know comes along and and would like to locate there they could as a as a by right okay you said that the existing concrete's going to stay they're just going to go over the top of it not tear it up is that what mean yeah and I I don't know all the details but they would somehow um finish that and probably do you know overlay of asphalt over top of all of that and I and I'm not an engineer I couldn't speak to exactly how that would happen I know they don't want to tear up any of the ground CU then they start they want to put everything on the top they just don't want to dig down that's why they want the planners I get that right I can't imagine them using that existing concrete it's so yeah I just can't imagine I'm sure there would be some demo involved and you know leveling of the of of the site um and with overlay asphalt um but I'm not sure exactly you know how that would exactly how would I'm intrigued I hope they can pull this off this is give us a way out of with that particular property it sure needs some work so sure see that made all that preemption talk just question all right 0 2438 um again Eric this is uh our our efforts on ML for the neighborhood yes sir this is a staff is this is a staff request to amend the future land use on 63 Parcels from traditional neighborhood area and um and neighborhood support future land use to primary mixed use Hub future land use um this is an effort to um Foster Redevelopment along MLK that's consistent with our Florence villea CRA plan um as well as some of the community um concerns we've heard um in know the previous land use um of traditional neighborhood area is primarily a residential land use um but it had MX zoning on it and so the commercial uses that are allowed within the MX zoning um were not consistent with the future land use and so as uh in an effort to allow a mix of uses as was traditionally along this area as well as along um First Street within the Florence Villa District um and Amendment to the Future land use would allow those that mix that true mix of uses that's allowed within the MX zoning District um it does not render any parcels non-conforming and it doesn't take away any development rights that anybody currently has on these Parcels um along the stretch of of MLK it simply allows some more flexibility as to use and how much um floor area ratio for uh commercial uses can be developed in the area um this uh the Planning Commission did hear this on August 6 2024 um there were five individuals who spoke um both in favor and in opposition um those opposed to the request indicated concerns with traffic noise and potential number of businesses as well as um some what I think that they said sewage but I think they were talking about drainage um uh issues in the area um those in support indicated a Community need for a grocery uh and or Health Care Centers um staff's review uh re reveals the following conclusions uh within the central Urban core of the city primary mixed use Hub future land use is assigned along all of the east and west running collector roads uh in arterial roads between uh First Street and 6th Street except for Martin Luther King Boulevard and Avenue K um so this would be consistent with the rest of our future land use map uh uh in the area prior to 2011 the parcel subject to the request had some sort of commercial future land use in 2011 that changed to the traditional neighborhood area which um diminished some of the opportunity in the area um during this time a handful of businesses were established the primary mixed use Hub future land use will preserve these businesses while allowing um for the established residential uses as well assignment of primary mix use Hub future land use will Aid in the implementation of the 2022 Florence V CRA plan specifically goal one by enabling the retention and recruitment of businesses along Florence uh uh excuse me along Martin Luther King Boulevard and the assignment of primary mixed use Hub future Lane use will allow the current MX zoning assigned to the area to be fully utilized by the property owners and we do recommend um approval any questions 02439 it's the Eric lab night see he puts all these items on the agenda then he has to present it my apologies um this is another administrative request um to make a Citywide update to the official zoning map uh in order for consistency with the 2035 Winter Haven comprehensive plan uh the city adopted the comprehensive plan uh in August of 2023 most properties in the city retained their uh same future land use from the 2025 future land use map however some properties were remapped for various reasons including matching long-term existing uses so we saw existing uses that were not consistent with the future land use or smoothing of boundaries um in an effort to bring the city's official zoning map into conf into consistency with the adopted future land use map staff has undertaken the exercise to identify those Parcels which have zoning conflicts with the adopted future land use um so we're making these changes really for the following reasons the smoothing of boundaries um to follow uh to more closely follow streets alleys and midblocks resoning to reflect the historical use of a property um provided the use is consistent with the adopted future land use uh rezoning old or obsolete plan unit developments with standard uh zoning in cases in in the cases where standard zoning District aligned with lot sizes uses are other development requirements I'll explain this real quick there are a lot of old old puds um within the City of Winter Haven that that really were just a standard zoning district and the only reason that it was a PUD was because we wanted to require an additional sidewalk or we wanted to require um an additional um pocket park or something to be developed within that community and those communities are all built out sidewalks are in um all of the Lots conform to an existing zoning that is that we have in the city today so we looked at those we analyzed them and so those old puds where all the development requirements have been met and it's consistent with an existing zoning District would rezone them to that appropriate zoning District um assigning zoning to properties which never received a zoning uh District at the time there were um a handful of properties that were annexed into the city some of them over 20 years ago that never received zoning or land use we never got a request from the landowner um we need to assign a land use and Zoning to them and and so in the U adoption of the comprehensive plan we assigned a land use and now this would assign the appropriate zoning to those Parcels uh in no case in any of these um rezoning requests did staff recommend a rezoning which resulted in a down zoning of property it would take away any of the bundle of rights that existing property uh currently uh enjoy uh there is no Financial impact the Planning Commission did hear this on August 6th and voted to recommend approval of this no members of the public spoke we do recommend approval this is one of those ones where there's just a lot of little loose ends that are out there if you look at the maps and there are a number of maps in the attachments you can see all these small Parcels it's a cleanup of things that have existed Ed out there and really getting some consistency and um some accuracy with what needs to be assigned to those so right all right questions all right 02 2440 last one Eric okay administrative requests to amend um the code of ordinances with respect to the city's Urban Forest um so as you know um in November of 2023 the city commission adopted the urban forestry master plan to address the management of the city's Urban Forest uh the master plan performed an in-depth analysis of the city's trees uh within the rights of way uh following up on this analysis the master plan sets forth Direction on tree maintenance and planting guidelines makes recommendations for types of trees to be planted and addresses uh mitigation and penalties for remove trees which are not dise uh diseased or dead the master plan also recommends updating the city's code of ordinance is to adopt language supporting the urban forest and that's what we're doing um with this proposed uh ordinance 02 2440 um we did uh ask for assistance from kimley horn and Associates to help us develop um this section of of ordinance uh with this collaboration uh proposed changes to chapter 21 article 3 division 7 um are as follows we are proposing to add sections 21 181 through 21188 to the code of ordinances focusing on the city's uh Urban Forest what it does is establishes a definition section which defines applicable urban forestry um terminology establishes requirements for tree protection during construction projects and provides a system to mitigate uh the removal of protected and specimen trees as well as providing penalties for removal of trees without obtaining a permit um big picture is this is specifically towards uh tree protection within the City of Winter Haven and it's for development sites um as is consistent with um Florida law um single family residential U properties are exempt if you own a single family residential property you have a tree on your property um this ordinance would not apply you can plant trees or remove trees at your will which is consistent with Florida law um what this does is set up um a system by which we can identify specimen trees um trees of um that should be protected and it develops a uh uh would require a tree permit in order to remove those um specimen trees and trees of of specific types um uh you know from the City of Winter Haven um specific to commercial industrial um non-residential non- single family uh produ projects um Andor um you know the development process for a for a subdivision and so um it defines them sets up the permits that are required and it also establishes uh penalties for removal of trees without re getting the required uh permit um again this was developed in consultation with uh kimley horn and uh and some Consultants um and staff does recommend approval so mayor Commissioners if I could just add a note on there again this probably most specifically pertains to properties that going to be developed Commercial Business um somebody's going to come clear a lot put in a shopping plaza or something like that and they want to go out and clearcut all the trees off there it's designed to protect those trees on that on that property certainly safety measures to safeguard trees during construction and if trees are in the way of where the building needs to go it can be removed with permit but there is a mitigation for that in terms of replanting um we you know we we joke all the time about um you know commissioner dancers's desire for us to plant so many trees and we we certainly working towards that but really in all seriousness urban forestry is a major aspect of our strategic plan MJ just reminded me um this particular ordinance change um aligns with uh one of your goals Within environmental stewardship and more specifically one of the action strategies which is to review and update relevance relevant sections of the code to further protect and enhance the urban Forest so we talked about that that strategic plan and how does that play in does it you know how do we actually use that this is one of those things that exactly aligns with with what was adopted by the commission so um there's more work to do in that category but this certainly speaks to those commercial properties that could be developed and how do we Safeguard our trees I want you to also consider how in the world we can get these whenever people build a house that they put bigger trees in there all you have to do is go out and look at the subdivision across from the from the airport there's not one tree in that whole place hardly I'm being a little factious but it's awful we've got to figure out a way that when these when they come in here and build these big massive subdivisions that there's trees in there it just can't be like that we've got to make the code tighter with the got to have be 6 in trees or something you know so so this will help in in a sense with those uh new residential subdivisions in that if there are existing trees on the site they would get credit for preserving those trees um and you know as they um because it's not developed into a single family lot yet right so it's it's a it's a it's a development lot and large gr right um and so they will get credit for preserving the protected tree specimen trees Heritage trees and they will need to get a permit to remove those types of trees um and and there will be mitigation required they'll have to plant a certain amount of trees to replace you know that particular tree that they they removed so we'll help in some regard with that the the bigger picture on those is is once a single family lot is sold now we do require trees to be planted in subdivisions one in the backyard one in the front yard but once that lot is sold to a single family homeowner they can do what they want with that tree and many of them pull it out ah preemption another state law preemption there's a state law that prohibits the city from a local government may not require a notice application approval permit fee or mitigation for the pruning trimming or removal of a tree on a residential property but couldn't you put it as an overlay in a PUD can't apply to a residential property may not require property owner HUD can't supersede state law right I was just saying if it was in the Pud then they could go into the HOA we've been trying to just put a 6in oak tree in each front yard and okay we're trying everything we can I know know our committee that's one of the guys it we've and we've got we've got a really good urban forestry well over six seven years yep yep okay all right so then we'll be down for uh no new business and so I think we have one item from two quick things um as it relates to items 11a and 11b I should have asked this earlier but is there a way to include what that is currently approved for like it's a PUD commercial like can we have can we see what that site plan looks like from what it was was when it was originally went through as a PUD yeah so I don't believe they ever submitted a site plan um for construction but it's a it's a PUD that uh allowed for um a self- storage facility up to three floors or 42 ft in height um on that property um and so I will note that also um the requested R3 zoning if you look at the if you look at the zoning map associated with with that project um R3 zoning is directly across the street and to the South um of the property and the property that is in the county that is immediately adjacent to this property um on the South Side on the south side of palm Nut Drive is zoned RM which allows in the county multif family residential buildings and the property to the north is the um the County's facility facilities maintenance Barn of some sort um and it's zoned uh rl4 in the county so this was an area that that has been identified first through the county um and then as we've annexed into the area for urban growth okay um I was just hoping to see if that if that had been submitted what was submitted back then but if if not I'll take a look and see if there was a concept plan with that PUD okay that' be great yep yes sir so the last item I've got is our my preemption of our own that I mentioned several meetings ago and that has to do with our process of potentially putting a Clean Air Act in place for our parks and public spaces have we made any progress on that or there there's now um some legislation kind of moving through the state level to do that very same thing but I don't want to leave it up to them again you know we we know what's best for our community here in Winter Haven and I think preemptively with some of the other things that could potentially be on the horizon whether it's this election cycle or a future that's something that we really need to look at implementing because you know if our public spaces wreak of Seattle or larger metropolitan cities we're going to lose people from visiting downtown town and our parks and other areas that should be enjoyed by all so um let me make sure I understand the request mayor PM um is it to to bring forward a no smoking in public parks ordinance yeah we had talked about that putting forth an ordinance there certainly that's something that that we can bring forward I want make sure that there is agreement amongst and consensus amongst the the commission to to bring something back for consideration or further vetting of that um so that I'm responding to all all Commissioners in that regard which we we had that okay yeah then then that's that falls on me I apologize that hasn't happened and I'll work with Julie Adams to uh to you have some information on that so this past week excuse me this past week we had our Florida Recreation and park association annual conference and I was able to connect with some of my fellow directors uh on this topic and I have um just we had conversation but I've asked for some additional information on enforcement what their actual documentation looks like what is forward facing what the expectation is and so I'm awaiting that from my colleagues um I don't expect anything this week but it was it was the conversation that we were all having about these shared challenges and and mayor PRM I think you know certainly there precedent set for Park spaces the public realm in terms of sidewalks and things of that nature you mentioned downtown I certainly see the issues with that you know somebody walking down the sidewalk you're exposed to you know odors and Aromas and such um I'm not sure what what we can and can't do there we'll have to explore that but we'll you know understood we'll bring that back for consider a and I think some of the concern amongst the commission when we talked about it was the enforcement aspect of it and and I get it but I mean there's enforcement issues with speed limits and there's enforcement issues with robbing houses and there's an Enforcement issue you know so I mean you can make that argument all day long but if there's nothing in place then you don't have any mechanism to try to control the issue agree thank you else anyone else emergency matter is not received for the agenda motion to ajin move pleas stand adjin --------- ##VIDEO ID:Mi9v-oS-U8I## e to go get B medicine you know what I did e commission uh Workshop can I have a roll call please yes commissioner dollison commissioner Mercer here mayor Pates here and mayor B song here all right we have uh just one item on the agenda so uh discussion on amending the schedule of water and sewer connection fees city manager I'll just turn it over to you and you going to turn it over to Gary thank you Mr Mayor um this is our second workshop on um our recommendation and our report regarding utility connection fees we have again with us this evening Joe Williams from raap Tellis uh we also um this evening have Gary Hub our our water director I think just um although I don't see any any public in the audience I think the appropriate thing would do to do would be for Joe to uh go through the presentation again in case there people that are watching uh via the stream um so that we can can share that information certainly it can be somewhat refined from what it was uh two weeks ago but Joe if you want to come to the podium and uh offer your presentation and then Commissioners will be happy to stand for any questions you may have I will note that this item is on the agenda for Tuesday evening of next week for second and final reading good evening you mayor Commissioners thank you for having me back Joe Williams with ref Tellis and we're here for the second version of the extraordinary circumstance uh workshop for the connection fee study and I know we've we've talked about this previously so I'll give the the slightly brief version but still go through the presentation um so we completed a study on in Mid August of this year that recommends increasing the utility connection fees based on various factors primarily expansion upgrading of your current water and wastewater systems to meet the needs of new development and these these connection fees are paid One Time by new connections so new new builds they're most often paid by developers and pass through to the buyers who are buying the homes um so it's a it's a new development activity and this is for new homes new businesses all all those connections that require Water and Sewer capacity from you and right now you're in a situation where growth is uh very high and the cost of providing additional capacity is also very high it's much higher than it has been in the past so you'll see as we go through this um presentation that the connection fees are being calculated relatively significantly higher than they currently are charged ask a quick question yes is the um is a connection fee considered the same as an impact fee or is it to different things I will aine and then I'll ask the City attorney to aine um they are not the same uh however this Workshop that we're doing this evening and the workshop that we did the last time is really a built- and suspenders approach in in in so much that if somebody ever challenge the fact that a connection fee is an impact fee we are going through the same process for review as you would for a transportation impact fee or Parks and Recreation impact fee um impact fees I guess in the sense of connection fees to impact fees the the basis for them is generally the same in that you're trying to accommodate new growth in the area you know we do Parks and Recreation impact fees you're paying a fee on top of uh your permits and everything else that is set aside spe it's held in a specific fund it can only be used for expansion of your Parks and Recreation assets you can't use it to go you know put a new floor in an existing gymnasium you can build a new gymnasium but you can't uh just do maintenance and repair on existing and so it's very similar with utility John anything you would add yeah the only thing and done a very very good job of explaining it a non-legal ease way um but I would suggest you that the screen you see before you this is comprised of two components of treatment and a and a transmission part and essentially the connection fees are for expansion of that system both treatment and transmission and the statute the is codified under 163 31801 of the Florida Statutes is is referred to as the Florida impact fee act it specifically carves out as an exception that it does not apply to Water and Sewer connection fees however it does not define connection fees and so we have the the lawyers and the people that have interpreted these matters or have not interpreted them have opined uh that we should probably follow the requirements set forth in the Florida impact fee act law just in case a Judicial decision down the road later says those are impact fees and they should have been adopted in accordance with the requirements basically the statute says that if you're going to increase it more than 25% or phase it in more than once every four years that you have to find extraordinary circumstances in a study that's recent done within 12 months and and that's what I was alluding to was that my understanding is and studying this kind of while P county is looking at at this as well is are these excluded from that 50% requirement where an impact fee cannot increase by more than 50% over a 4-year period so is th is this being a connection fee carved out from that that my first line if I were in a court would say that these are not impact fees they are connection fees and the statute explicitly and expressly excludes them okay but if the court doesn't believe that that or if they aren't persuaded I would say but not withstanding that we have gone ahead anyway voluntarily and have adopted these particular uh fees in accordance with all of the requirements in the impact fee act just in case with the exception of the because these are greater than 50% extraordinary circumstances are so we're we're making that extraordinary circumstance case to yes we we are making the extraordinary that's why they we're having these workshops so that we we we focus on the fact that the the extraordinary circumstances the growth rate costs you know just the significant Capital Improvement that we have to do those we consider to be extraordinary circumstances which then take you outside the limitations that are in that so so that's our our legal Theory anyway I just wanted to be sure we were legal and and mayor protim I can't speak with any Authority on this but I believe in what I've seen in recent discussions Cly through the media and others um with the county looking at at their impact fees not their connection fees but their impact fees that they are uh of the same ilk in that the extraordinary circumstances stemming from just you know significant growth in the area is justification to go above what the the minimum or the the maximum typical adjustments could be so we'll wait and see how that plays out at the end of the day for them but thanks there is no there is no spelling out of those extenuating circumstances per se oh yes we've we've sped we've spelled it out in the study and Mr Williams is relating them to you he's making the case for that yeah I got yeah and the the third test on top of what's been identified is that if we if we weren't to increase the connection fees to the amounts that have been identified that's millions and millions and millions of dollars many tens of millions of dollars that the utility would not be collecting from development but you'd still have to provide the projects and that would be picked up by rate payers your other Revenue source for the utility so it's it's going through this process to make sure that we're meeting all the legal requirements and you know recommending that you set the rates that's still coming on next Monday up for your choice to set the rates to the maximum calculated level maximum justifiable level to get the revenues needed from new development to pay for the expansion of the facilities that they're going to be benefiting from and again we we start with a we use a hybrid approach for calculating the fees so there is existing capacity in your water system and your Wastewater system that new development will benefit from and in addition you're at over the next 5 to 10 years years you are doing major upgrades and expansions to the existing system and providing new facilities so we've taken a hybrid approach we wait those costs together so new development does get the benefit that there is existing capacity that was constructed at a lower cost they they get benefits of that and they pay their portion proportionate share of those new facilities as well so that's why the existing system is included in the analysis the capital Improvement plan um there's there's new water plants there's major upgrades to existing water plants there's extensions of your transmission system the major backbone lines that get water from the plants to the customers those are identified at almost $58 million over the next 10 years that need to be funded and your participation in pul Regional water Cooperative so this is going to be where you're actually getting the new water from um the first phase about 760,000 gallons per day that's the far right hand column and you can see that that's your your share of the phase one and the buildout cost analysis for PK Regional which we know those cost analysis are changing they have not been finalized because the projects are still uh in in process they're kind of getting started on those bids and things like that so it will change but this is the best information we have available right now and the city is also participating in the west P project to a to a small degree uh that has been factored in in addition and the net cost per gallon you can see on the bottom right corner $31 per gallon of construction and financing costs for pul regional uh this is significantly higher than anything you've done in the in the past for your water system and and if I could on that Joe just to interject because I want to make sure the commission you you all have a good grasp on this not assuming that you don't but that net cost per gallon is the capital cost to build the the the facilities and the transmission systems per gallon you know of what's coming out of that of what it's maximum potential can be when we see that you know that's not what we're charging the customer but that's the the real cost if you're going to provide water what it's going to cost you to build the facilities and the infrastructure to do so I'd also say that um I would expect those numbers to rise significantly um certainly the longer it takes to build a project the more cost increase you're going to have just inflation in general we see that with our projects so I think that uh these these costs in this case are very conservative or very low I think the reality is we're going to see that those that net cost per gallon will be significantly higher than that when when everything is said and done yeah and it it would be prudent once these projects are constructed and final costs are known to come back and update um or you know kind of around the times that the plants are nearing completion uh so that would probably be four five years based on current projections of water being delivered in 2028 time frame and the and the cost on the water side so this is prwc you know water but when you think about your connection fees you have a water connection fee and a sewer connection fee certainly in this study the biggest impact that we have the biggest need we have at present day is the is the sewer side we know that from plant three and need to expand that um but as Joe said once this this project is built out we know cost truly within that it may be appropriate to come back and look at connection fees on the water side specifically to offset some of that impact yes and then to get into the calculation we take each of those different pieces the existing facilities and this is a portion of your existing system based on existing capacity available the prwc improvements the other improvements to your existing plants upgrading providing additional capacity line extensions and we divide it through by the capacity that you charge and then we have a standardized way of assigning the cost to new units 275 gallons per day for a new home and the result is $3,671 for water and at the end we'll go through waste water and then we'll show you existing proposed for for your fees and then how you compare to others and for Wastewater the Highlight is that wastewater treatment plant 2 is eventually going to be repurposed turned more into a lift station type facility and all flood is going to go to wastewater treatment plant 3 and wastewater treatment plant three in turn is reaching nearing the end of its useful life it needs a major upgrade and with continued development throughout the city it needs expansion as well so those costs have been considered um you can see on this page down at the bottom treatment treatment assets of the water Capital Improvement plan over $230 million um so it's a a very significant investment that's being made in your wastewater treatment and Disposal activities and with those improvements that's really driving the fee increase on Wastewater and while we while we include that full cost in the connection fee calculation and we include the capacity along with it not all of those costs are going to be paid by Future develop M there is a mix between benefits to existing residents and future development but as future development connects they're going to pay their fair share of those Capital costs your existing residents are going to pick it up through the increased rates that were recommending that's a separate issue to fund the debt service that goes along with that with that plan Improvement so it's all interrelated and on an existing and calculated fee you can see your existing fees 5 866 increasing to $1,846 it's a little bit more than double on a single family home and on a local comparison um again you'll notice you'll notice a few communities in here not not necessarily immediately local um we've added a few that are in a similar situation where they're growing they're having to to expand water Wastewater facilities and have recently gone through this process so that would be grovelin Coler County Port St Lucy um looi Mount Dora some of those are not not quite in the local comparison that we normally do but have taken recent actions on connection fees um so you will be going from lower range um lower middle range in the county to definitely upper upper within the county with these actions and next steps uh this coming Tuesday I believe September 10th um it's the second reading for the connection fee ordinance and with that happy to answer any questions or you back up to the yeah to that one right there and Commissioners we've talked about this in in Prior meetings um you can see where it's proposed to go uh from where it was by the two red arrows that are there and if you look at some of the other communities around us that are experiencing significant growth as well I think the um really the the northeast corner of of PK county is where there's significant growth occurring Davenport lofman area um hanne City Point Siana and you can see that in and even in Lake Alfred um Lake Alfred's fees were adjusted a few years back to get to the 11,354 Davenport is at 11,660 Joe do you know when that took effect by chance not exactly but I I can find out and have that available for so these are the the reason I point that out is these are fees that were put into play certainly I'd say you know 12 months prior or farther back um and and you know we're proposing to go is based upon what we're seeing as actual costs for projects today and looking ahead for the next five years um it does put the cost of the improvements and the expansion of the system squarely on new development that comes into the area and in doing so as I mentioned during our our regular City commission meeting uh that is one of the ways that we're able to keep our overall user rates low that we are we are recommending separate from this and it's not part of this discussion but we are recommending some adjustments to our user rates but I think it it moves us from the very bottom or the second to the bottom in terms of uh comparison to other cities in P County to maybe third from the bottom so doesn't really push us high up in there but part of that is because we're expecting new development to pay for its need to connect to the to the system and its impact on on capacity and and future expansion um I think it'd also be safe to say that if you looked at any of these other communities that are on here and certainly there's a couple of them that show proposed Lakeland being being one of those I guess it's the only other one that does say proposed um I don't know if they have voted on their uh fees as of yet but they're also in the case of going from a fee of just under $3,000 to more than doubling their fee uh to account for new growth in the area um certainly they're getting a lot of press as of late on on looking at a multiple uh multiple fees and impact fees uh for development um I say all that just to you know I think where we're proposing to go it does align with trying to put the the burden back on new development to pay its its its fair share of the gate to get in um I don't know that it's going to have any impact on the the pace at which grow gr happens it could slow it to some degree some residents may feel that that's you know a positive outcome of this but I think that um you know ultimately everybody would feel that if you have new people coming into the system they should pay their fair share to to connect into it so just wanted to offer that bit of uh commentary I'm just wondering if uh between now in the meeting if we could at least find out the the municipalities that are in pop County if they're under looking at revisions or if what we are seeing is fixed and so that we at least I'd like to just know that if you can if you can absolutely okay any other questions Joe would can you follow up on the question that commissioner Daner had brought forward about portability and any anything you've been able to find in that regard I I would say just kind of on a a final comment on that is that the the equitability of it you know the trying to keep track of transferring the capacity from home to home and giving credits to to existing residents or offsets um well without going into all the details of the administrative challenges and things like that the you know the capacity really is with the the the home or the piece of property as opposed to the actual resident and if we were considering uh moving it there may have to be other considerations on the property that was vacated and um how the capacity may move with it and legally I don't know if that would even be applicable uh or administrative could be administrated so I think there's just enough challenges that from from our perspective it wouldn't be something to pursue um but you know the city has the ability to do things outside of what we would recommend so that I think that's what I really have to offer without going into great detail all right the only other comment I'd make U Mr Mayor certainly will bring back some information on what other cities are currently engaged in in rate studies and you know to the extent that we we have access to that information or that are contemplating rate studies okay it's probably um it's always a a bad idea to assume but I can certainly fathom that many of these cities um particularly those that are tied in with uh pul Regional water Cooperative um which everyone is is we see what final cost will be on some of those projects uh may end up having to go back and look at what their connection fees are in response to those costs certainly that's something that we have contemplated initially within our study but I think those that haven't done a connection fee study in quite some time may see that that's something that they're going to have to do um and that I think is as we see some of those cities experience more and more growth where they have to expand their infrastructure they're going to have to look at that as well because the cost to build this stuff is it changes I won't say daily but certainly year over-year continues to escalate in cost so but we will get that information prior to Tuesday evening okay thank you and now the question question s if not motion to ajour We Stand ajour okay for