The meeting’s most critical agenda item was the public hearing on the proposed budget and millage rates. The city manager outlined the request to adopt the tentative millage rates and budget, referencing a prior resolution that had already approved a tentative operating millage of 5.954 mills and a general obligation bond debt service millage of 0.121 mills. The total proposed millage rate was set at 6.75 mills, resulting in a citywide tax increase of 18.17% over the rolled-back rate of 5.387 mills. This tentative budget projected ad valorem revenue of approximately $23.2 million, an increase of over $3.9 million from the previous fiscal year.

Key budget highlights included a 6% salary increase for general employees, additional increases for police and fire personnel, and funding for new full-time positions and fixed costs such as utilities and leases. The city aimed to meet best practices for reserve fund balances, targeting a 16.67% reserve while complying with its policy of maintaining a 15% reserve fund balance. The city manager recommended the council read the resolutions adopting the tentative millage and budget by title only and suggested scheduling a second public hearing for September 16, 2024.

During the public comment segment, Randall Lee expressed concerns regarding the proposed tax increase, highlighting the substantial increase in the contingency fund from $337,000 to $1.59 million and the 49% rise in benefits costs. Lee characterized the situation as indicative of a “spending spree” that could become unsustainable, urging the council to reconsider the millage increase due to its impact on residents, particularly seniors on fixed incomes.

Joanne Beck also questioned the justification for raising the millage rate while other taxing authorities in the area did not. Beck emphasized the challenges faced by families and seniors due to rising costs and suggested reconsidering expenditures, such as $55,000 for Christmas trees, in light of budget constraints. Mayor Megan Sladek interrupted Beck to clarify that this was not a question-and-answer session, emphasizing that the council would address such comments later.

Following public comments, the council discussed the proposed millage increase further. A motion was made to adopt the tentative millage levy resolution, setting the rate at 5.954 mills. Some council members highlighted that this increase was necessary to ensure adequate funding for essential services, particularly public safety, and to address ongoing union negotiations regarding salaries. Others expressed concern over rising taxes and expenditures deemed unnecessary.

Ultimately, the council voted on the motion to adopt the tentative millage rate of 5.954 mills, confirming it as 18.17% higher than the rolled-back mill rate of 5.387 mills. After the vote, the mayor reiterated the importance of understanding the reasoning behind the budgetary choices and the need for public participation in such discussions.

In another discussion, the council addressed the tentative budget resolution number 45002 for the fiscal year 2024-2025, amounting to approximately $90 million. A council member expressed concerns regarding specific discretionary expenditures, such as a $155,000 investment in the OVO Winter Springs Chamber of Commerce and the holiday tree, questioning whether these items represented needs or wants in the budget. Despite the debate, the budget resolution moved forward to the next hearing.

The session also covered development projects, particularly one involving the St. John’s River Water Management jurisdiction and a wetland buffer area. The developer proposed mitigating buffer encroachment through measures approved by St. John’s River Water Management, including constructing a retaining wall and establishing stormwater facilities. Deviations from city code, especially regarding terminal islands in parking spaces, were discussed. Staff highlighted that while some areas did not meet the requirement of a terminal island for every ten parking spaces, the project promised sufficient buffering and landscaping, including street trees and pedestrian amenities around the retention area.

Tree preservation and replacement requirements per the city’s Land Development Code (LDC) were also hotly debated. A property owner sought clarity on tree mitigation requirements, emphasizing that the current code might incentivize clearing land rather than preserving wooded lots. The council deliberated on whether to approve a deviation from the requirement to mitigate for 176 trees, which would otherwise incur a $44,000 fee. The legal perspective on the council’s options was discussed, particularly regarding compliance with existing code interpretations and the potential for setting a precedent for future cases.

In the end, the council recognized the complexities of tree replacement regulations and the need for potential code adjustments to ensure clarity and fairness. A motion was made to revise condition number four of site development order 527-2410, allowing for the resubmission of the tree calculation sheet based on the new Land Development code before the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. This motion was supported and passed unanimously.