##VIDEO ID:Ny7pRHn9ydk## e you e good evening welcome to Ovito City Hall before we get started if you would please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance United States stand and justice for all the first thing on our agenda is the budget for uh the budget public hearing to adopt the 20124 2025 tax rates and budget Mr cob if you please get us up to speed uh yes thank you mayor this is a request for the city council to conduct a public hearing to adopt ATT tenative Mills rates and ATT tenative budget for fiscal year 2425 uh if you recall at July 29th 2024 meeting city council adopted resolution number 4486 d24 and that approved the tenative operating millage of 5954 Mills or $5.95 95.4 per $1,000 of assessed valuation and attentative general obligation Bond Debt Service millage of 0.121 Mills or 12 cents 12.10 cents per th000 of assessed valuation Prof fiscal year 2024 25 the total milit rate the operating milit rate of 59540 plus the general obligation bond milit rate of 01210 is 6.75 Ms the tentative fiscal year 2425 budget is balanced using the approved tenanted millage rate of 5954 Ms for the city's operations the tentative operating millage rate of 5.95 four Mills will result in 23,2 $ 4,672 in adorm Revenue to support the general fund this will be an increase of $ 3,933 142 over the fiscal year 2324 adopted general fund budget additionally $10,000 is budgeted for delinquent collections bringing the total adorm revenues to 23,123 672 the tentative operating millage rate of 5.95 four Mills is will result in a Citywide tax increase of 18.17% above the rolled back rate of 5387 Mills resolution number 4499 24 adopts the tentative operating millage rate of 5.95 4 Mills and a tenative General obligation Bond debt millage of 0.12 one0 Mills for a total millage rate of 6750 Mills to be levied for fiscal year 20242 resolution number 45002 adopts the tenative 2024-25 annual budget for the fisal year beginning October 1st 2024 and ending on September 30th 2025 the tenative budget is the culmination of City council's work throughout April July and August work sessions these work sessions promoted open discussions and of the issues that we're facing the city and we we want to thank you for your input your willingness to participate with us in the direction that you provided just some highlights of the tenative budget it does maintain the level of service for that was from the 23 24 level service there is a 6% salary increase for General employees there is also salary increases for the police and fire bargaining units uh based on our current negotiations uh there is A3 new full-time equivalent person in finance uh we're taking a part time and making it full-time is what we're doing there's increases in benefits costs increases in res in uh insurance rates uh we're funding all of our fixed costs such as telephone utilities uh leases those types of things we have funding for the vehicle replacement plan there is some funding for Capital uh we're covering the debt service requirements as well we meet the G uh government financial Officers Association best practice of 16.67 Target Reserve fund balance and we also comply with the city's budget policy of a 15% budget fun Reserve fund balance it is recommended that city council read resolutions 4499 d24 and 45004 by title only that you conduct a public public hearing on the tenative millage rate which is 44.99 d24 and the tentative budget which is 4500 d24 and we recommend that you adopt resolution number 4499 d24 that for the tentative millage and resolution number 4500 -24 for the tenative budget lastly we recommend that you schedule a second public hearing for Monday September 16th 20124 and Council since we do are recommending this millage increase uh I have Mr Bo prepared to present the why about why we're recommending this millage increase and so I have him here ready we we've got it up on the screens the good thing is we can put it on the screen as well as the TV screens and when we tested it out today you can see it on everything so I'd like to Mr Cobb um we've we've seen this presentation multiple times and seen him in the council chambers um can we just forego that presentation and just and and move on as far as what is statuto required I've fulfilled those statutory requirements for the tenative Mill and budget uh it's up to you if you want us to do presentation we will we're more than prepared and ready to go uh if you don't then whatever Council decides what's the pleasure of council is it the same presentation we saw on the 29th ref yes then I I don't need to see it again I've seen it a couple times is there any interest from Council for in seeing a presentation that shows what the budget would look like with a point uh 4005 mil increase not for me already seen it okay well with that i' like to open the public hearing on the tenative fiscal year 20242 millage rates and budget I do have one request to speak from the audience and that is from Randall [Music] Lee thank you my name is Randall Lee I live at 450 South Lake Jessup here in Ido when I first saw the millage increase uh notification come by I thought that it was the 11.7% increase was initially driven by inflation and as I started looking into the budget documents I noticed that uh it wasn't broad-based it was uh you know with inflation running 3% over the last 12 months it has decreased but I also found that the increases in the expenditures in the in the budget document is focused in just a few areas one is the um excuse me here I'm going to ignore salaries because you got to give your people pay increases I'm not going to count that as is something that I see as excessive but I did see that in the contingency fund you were raising the number from 337k to $1.59 million so a 337 per increase is noted in your document seems pretty excessive so another one that's a 1.2 million increase on top of of everything else we also have the uh operating expenditures just generally running up uh by was it 1.7 million and then of course benefits up 49% up 900k over the year before those are all pretty alarm ing numbers to me I mean I've done a lot of budgets at work so I was wondering why these were coming into play those three comprise 86% of the proposed increase in the general fund expenses that you want for this year I appreciate all the hard work that goes into defining a budget especially something of this complexity but my overall impression is that the expenditures that the it's going on a spending spree that's starting to careen out of control a little bit we've got 11.7% increase in the I think I have that number right uh over the last or the mill rate for this year uh 16.1% over the last three years and you look at the prior six years it was 1% total over entire six-year period now I get it that inflation's here we see an increase in budget there's all these other things but it doesn't bode well when your forecast in five years comes up 5 million short over 5 milli million short in 2028 according to your long-term forecast so I'm here to Simply ask you to not accept this increase sharpen your pencils a little bit better uh and consider the future because the with these increases and the cost of insurance a home owners's insurance certainly falls disproportionately on seniors on fixed incomes and I think that having one of the best small towns or best small cities in America is a great thing but with these increases I think what's going to happen is you're going to have the best small City only for affluent folks so with that I simply ask you to reduce the amount of your millage rate increase thank you thank you I have no other written requests to speak is there anybody in the audience wishing to address council at this time come on up and after you get to the microphone if you could please state your name and your address for the record hello my name is Joanne Beck and uh I uh have my homestead exemption at 16003 P LLY way in Ovito and to expand upon uh the previous person that was was speaking um I'd kind of like to have an explanation on um and I understand uh mayor you had uh voted against the increase why with the sharp price increases that we've had families struggling to put food on the table uh senior citizens uh you know of limited income why how can you justify the fact that all of the other taxing authorities have not raised their millage rate we had a minimum probably 3% most people did in their property assessments and some people up to 10% so how can we justify only the city of Ido for our taxing area raising their millage rates when everyone else from the school board to the um um county has not raised the millage rate since last year and why do we need to pay for things like $55,000 for Christmas trees and and we we have new buildings that have been renovated I don't understand why we're paying for these things that we we don't have within our budget when we're struggling to pay for other things please correct me if I'm wrong but I'd like an explanation for that uh me Council this is not a question and answer session you're not required to answer we we don't it's not a dialogue with Council this is a public here and you're I understand that I understand that but why can't we stay within our budgets when when just as as food for thought if you don't want to answer this why can't we stay with it our budgets like the other taxing authorities have thank you I'm hoping we'll address that when we get to our discussion time is there anybody else in the audience hoping to address Council anybody wishing to address Council all right with that we will close the public hearing Madam Madame mayor you forgot to read number four into the record ah okay uh the tentative millage rate for the city of Ovito of 5954 Mills is a tax increase of 18.17% over the rolled back tax rate of 5.38 7 Mills thank you and we did have public comment give one more opportunity for that seeing nobody wishing to speak we'll close public comment and uh ask the City attorney to please read the the title of the tenative millage Levy resolution number 4499 d24 absolutely Madam mayor resolution number 4499 d24 a resolution of the city of Ido Florida establish the attented millage rates to be levied for fiscal year 2024 to 2025 by the city of lito government adopting the tentative millage rates for the 2024 2025 fiscal year for the city of Vito at the overall rate of 6.75 Ms with 5.9 9540 Mills for the city's obligation and 0.121 1311 1210 Mills for the payment of the general of the 2003 General ad General obligation bond issue providing for legislative administrative finings and attent and providing for implementing administrative actions scribers are conflicts sever abilities and an effective date at this time I would be delighted to entertain a motion to adopt the tenative millage Levy resolution number 4499 d24 setting the tentative millage rate at 5.75 45 Ms Which is 14.20% higher than the rolled back rate of 5.38 7 Ms and combined with a general obligation bond issue of 0.121 MS the overall millage rate is 58755 and before anyone makes the that suggests that I I you know what I'm just going to make a motion um uh I I I don't think you're going to get a second are you is anybody going to second that okay so let me just make the let me exp to the audience real Qui as the presiding officer I would like to explain to the audience that I just proposed a motion to raise the millage rate by by 0.45 Ms instead of 0.6 Ms and at this time I'll entertain a different motion okay I'm going to make a motion to adopt the tenative millage Levy resolution number 4499 d24 setting the tenative millage rate at 5954 Ms Which is 18.17% higher than the roll back rate of 5.38 7 Ms and combined with the general obligation bond issue of 0.1 to one Mills the overall millage rate is 6.75 is there a second second any discussion no we've we we've gone through this multiple times um we we've gone through the budget um this supports all the needs that we have for the city uh for fire and police and and uh parks and wrecks so I'm I'm done discussing this Mr Brittain um we have discussed it and we've taken into account the priorities of the city which is Public Works not in this order Public Safety police and fire Public Works parks and wrecks and this is the budget we've come up with and this is the milit rate that will allow us to implement the budget Miss duer um yeah and I did want to add something that we didn't talk about last time so actually last night was CNO um so for those you don't know that's a meeting with all the local jurisdictions and it was at Winter Springs this last time and they started off talking about their park system which was a great presentation but it ended up being a one and a half hour meeting from every single City talking about doing what we're doing tonight um everybody's going through what we're doing alamont raising their millage by 0. n um Winter Springs is raising their millage um I mean we went through the issues and we all the same one and it's we have to pay our First Responders and our Public Safety um cast Barry said they just raised their um fire salaries to 54,000 and the next day someone raised theirs higher so what we're doing here is we're trying to ensure that we're paying our Public Safety sectors we're undergoing our Union negotiations right now so those aren't done but that's what this plan does this is absolutely to your point um you brought up here you know I understand paying salaries that's what this is doing this is paying them and not just this year but for the next three years so the cost of that changes over the next three years and that's what we're negotiating right now are those Union contracts so um as far as the room in the budget for Capital items Now versus three years from now now that changes and this plan accommodates for that to make sure we can pay them within the next three years so I just wanted to add that in because I think last time we talked we weren't aware of what other cities were doing and I'm I'm here to say that every single city has gone through this exact um issue and discussion and and most cities around us are going through these increases and that's all add uh well I get to bring up the rear here uh the city of Sanford did not raise its millage simal County did not raise its millage the school board lowered its millage so we are in the minority in simal county and raising the millage and staff has Stanford's millage rate is two points higher than ours but they did not raise it this year I I get that but they did not raise it this year and staff has been incredible transparent and hardworking and hats off to you guys for trying to help us be very transparent and navigating this with the community and in calculating the rate that is actually needed to cover the salaries we know mathematically that that number is 0.45 Ms to cover market rate wages the additional is for things that some people believe are our needs and others believe our wants so there's there's philosophical difference there and uh I can kind of see how this is heading because we've got a different motion than the one I proposed but I do think it's important for us to know that it was discussed thoroughly and that we did make an effort to reach out to all to everybody in oito to try to come and speak let your voice be heard and make sure that when this is concluded everybody understands fully the reasoning for why it why it went that way and had a chance to try to to influence it so with that um we've got a motion on the table and we might as well go ahead and vote all those in favor signify by saying I I I and all those opposed nay and at this time need to be sure to announce that the tentative operating millit rate for the city of Ovito is set at 5954 Ms Which is 18.17% higher than the rolled back mil rate of 5.38 7 Ms and combined with the general obligation bond issue of 01210 Ms the overall millage rate is 6.75 Ms um City Mr City attorney if you could please read the title of the tenative budget resolution uh number 4500 d24 absolutely May Madam mayor resolution number 45002 24 a resolution of the city of Ido Florida adopting the city of Vito's tentative annual operating budget for the 20124 2025 fiscal year beginning October 1 2024 and ending dece September 30th 2025 providing for legislative administrative findings and intent and providing for implementing administrative actions a savings provision scribers errors conflict separability and an effective date thank you uh I will entertain a motion to adopt resolution number 45002 adopting the fiscal year 2024 2025 tenative annual budget of $90 million 55437 net of interfund transfers so moved second all right any discussion Mr Britain no M duer well as always I have some thoughts uh I would like to see a few things that seem to be arguably once instead of needs removed from the budget uh including a $155,000 investment in the OVO Winter Springs Chamber of Commerce um the holiday tree I'm not I'm not sure if that is something that everybody values equally uh but there's no no need to line item do it if everybody is excited about it except for me but suffice it to say I think there is a significant amount of discretionary spending in here that it it bugs me um to see the government taxing people taking money out of your pockets to collectively spend it on things that we can't 100% agree are an appropriate role of government so with that we'll take the vote all those in favor signify by saying I I all those oppose nay and our budget moves forward to the next hearing uh so at this point oh I guess we didn't excuse me mad we need a motion we need a motion to schedule for another hearing okay at this point uh would like to entertain a motion to schedule the second public hearing for Monday September 16th at 6:30 p.m. uo City Hall uo city council chambers 400 Alexandria Boulevard Ovito Florida 32765 so moved second all right all those in favor signifi by saying I I I that one I can agree with and uh it was unanimous so there are no names um any discussion I guess we already voted we're good on that all right at this time public comments are closed but at the end I'm sure all of us would be glad to speak with you all right let me get my computer pulled up again here because we are moving on to the first reading of ordinances ordinance number 1750 no we we've got the approval of the minutes oh the approval of the minutes oh I'm I'm like far behind here back up here the approval of the minutes for July 15th 2024 regular session I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of July 15 2024 regular session second any discussion no all right all those in favor signify by saying I I I and that was unanimous at this time uh we're opening the floor to public comments is there anybody who would like to address Council on any matter including a matter that may already have been spoken about yeah come on up and please also state your name and address again for the public record my name is Joan Beck and my um uh residence is 1603 peace LLY wayoo Florida um I just have a clarification the um taxes that we just uh had this meeting on they were non they were ADV vorum is this rate the going to be the same rate for the non adum taxes that will be added that are not on our tax bill so property taxes are it's it's a percentage multiplied across the the assess value of your home so non adalum fees we don't we don't have non adalum taxes we have non-ad valorum fees so those are a completely separate thing okay so they won't be at the same millage rate that that we just they those will be set based on a different formula that's not related to a percentage of the properties value thank you for the clarification all right thank you is there anybody else hoping to address city council at this time all right with that we'll close public comments and move on to the consent agenda what's a pleasure Council I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented so second any discussion no Mr Brittain no ST all right all those in favor signify by saying I I I and that was unanimous we do not have any public hearings but we do have a first reading of an ordinance and now we're back to the place where I was on my screen a second ago and this is ordinance number 1751 um if we could have the City attorney please read that by title only absolute Madam mayor ordinance number 1751 in ordinance of the city of Ido Florida granting the people's gas system its accessor and signs a non-exclusive natural grass franchise agreement to use the public rights way of the city of Ovito Florida and prescribing the terms and conditions under which said franchise may be exercised making findings providing for conflicts separability codification as well as the correction of scrier errors and an effective date thank you Mr cob if you could get us to speed hi yes thank you mayor mine can we pull that uh I have two slides for you and this is if you'll recall back in March we you can we can we drop the screen oh yes thank you officer Fel [Music] okay uh if you recall back on March back in March you adopted ordinance number 1738 and that was to approve the franchise agreement for Toco people's gas during the public hearing for for that ordinance uh Council made a made a change and it was basically it was to the second paragraph of section n and what it say was section 9 said this is the favorite Nations Clause is what it is and that if another local government gets a benefit that's higher or gets a uh percentage higher than what the city gets the city can ask for the the same higher percentage the ordinance was proposed to say that another government entity located in Simo Lake orang BL County Council said we would like it to be Statewide unfortunately there wasn't a a representative from TCO gas here that night and so the ordinance passed I we later found out they contacted the city attorney's office and said look this is not something that we can agree to and what so they have proposed M if you go to the second one what they have proposed is to put it back that we would go with the regional uh Favored Nations clause for seminol Lake orange and Bia uh they've had discussions with the city attorney's office regarding uh that that this is a um it's a it's it is a wider one than they normally do but not they cannot agree to the State of Florida is what they cannot agree and that's really the biggest difference between this ordinance and the one that was adopted back in March and so it's recommended tonight that you you've already read it by title uh and to schedule a public hearing for September 16 2024 thank you uh is the applicant president and if so if you'd like to say a few words you're welcome to do so at this time thank you Madame mayor and council members my name is Spencer pilant TI people's gas 600 West Robinson Street Orlando Florida 32801 uh just wanted to thank uh staff the city manager and City attorney for their tireless efforts on this would ask for your favorable support and uh here for any questions if any members have any thank you um so so why so what's the reason behind not allowing a Favored Nations clause for the state I mean what what are you anti participating giving another entity in the state that you're not giving us here thank you for your question council member Pollock um it's our practice to do Regional most Favored Nations agreements uh there's different costs of business across the State of Florida here versus South Florida the Panhandle I can say that the franchise fee that's in the proposed agreement is at the highest percentage that we have for franchise fees so it' be 6% on those bills that goes to the city in the form of that fee so there's not one that's higher than that so you're saying that there there there could be some that are higher than that there's not one the ti there's not one the tire but but then why wouldn't you why wouldn't you give us the state then are you thinking that there's going to there there could be a higher franchise fee down the road um within the next 10 years it would not be of you know something that we'd like to have happen but um we keep it Regional because that's what our since the last time this agreement was passed before the city we had different ownership and different leadership it's been prioritized by that new leadership and ownership to do Regional rather than Statewide okay if I can jump in it's my understanding too and I just got in on tail liit that um their business plan or not necess bu plan but they want to be able to preserve if they want to sell off a chunk to somebody else they were concerned that if they agree to uh tie our Fe the Statewide they may not have control over one one area and and they could that could be then you bootstop us into something for them that they have no control over so it's my understanding going through the file that that was a concern expressed if they if they in their business plan to sell decide to sell off an area or a region that this would could potentially damage that okay any other questions for the applicant that up here all right thank you thank you for your time and protocol I'll suggest that we would entertain a motion at this time but I would like to first ask if there's anybody from the public who would like to address Council related to this and with that we'll close public comment what's the pleasure of councel um I'll make a motion uh to read ordinance number 1751 by title only and schedule a public hearing for Monday September 16 2024 second any discussion over this way Mr Britain all right all those in favor signif by saying hi hi hi and it passes unanimously next up we have resolution 448 9-24 and Mr Hall if you could please read that by title only absolute Madam mayor resolution number 4489 d24 a resolution of the city of oido Florida approving site development order number 57224 for Orlando for oo multifamily Sugar Mill authorizing the mayor to execute s site development order and providing for implementing administrative actions scribers errors conflicts separability and an effective data thank you Mr cop if you get us up to speed uh thank you mayor actually uh uh Mr Burns CAD is going to give the presentation tonight hello um where's the uh mayor council members uh Harris Burns C devot review manager with the city of Vito here to present uh the Ido multif family development we also call it Sugar Mill Apartments it's a site development Order final engineering which is a fancy word for site plan uh getting into some of the facts of the case it's located uh to the east of uh State Road um 426 also known as Broadway north of VTO M Boulevard and to the east of uh 417 it's north of the Dwell Apartments which recently closed out uh the future land use is Gateway West the zoning district is R3 the a the total acreage is 13.8 acres in size however the developable area is around 11.6 Acres uh because they have some Wetlands on the site we'll go into that a little bit later in the presentation the project proposal is for 252 multif family dwelling units with uh some four-story and two-story buildings along with uh Maintenance building dumpster enclosure and other amenities for the residents and also some that are Public Access and so there's two primary reasons that this site of own and Order final engineering is before Council today ordinarily site development Order final engineerings or at administrative approval in this particular case there uh it's a gated development and gated development needs to be approved by the city council and the second Port is any deviation that is above 20% threshold uh goes for city council approval the primary issue that we saw when this application first came in is that that multif family developments uh with 50 dwelling units or more are required to have at least two access points and the primary access point for this facility is uh sugarm Mill Road and there wasn't another access point to the site so we conducted an analysis and we're going to go through that analysis so uh sugarm Mill Road you can access it from Ido M bouevard or you can access it from uh Broadway using Cardiff Lane to go to the East and and then traveling north on Sugar Mill Boulevard once you hit the roundabout um when we we were hoping to create a north south connection uh to create connectivity between Ido Boulevard and Winter Springs Boulevard but unfortunately there's a 10 foot conservation easement um that doesn't allow for any improvements to go over it uh the only way to amend it is to have uh City Winter Springs uh city council to amend that document uh so we looked to the East and talked about kind of traversing the fdot stormw water Pond and utilizing an easement that goes to the North and then out to property number one we consulted with the property owner from that uh about this proposal and they didn't like the idea of losing their ability to be able to utilize that area for storage they they utilize it for storage and then fdot every once in a while use uses that area area for maintenance so they just moov their stuff out of the way and so they just weren't open to the proposal and so we looked at a different area uh which was to the South this would require at least a little bit of site modification but the property owner wasn't open to that either and the other part to consider is that when we were in discussions with fdot uh for us to be able to utilize the pond for a pedestrian facility or any other type of facility fdot would ask us to acquire the property guarantee existing and future capacity for the pond and maintain the pond and so that's another consideration and we determined that it wasn't uh an access an available access point at this point so the developer and staff concluded that stub Out locations to the north east and to the South where the unapproved dwell uh properties are located would be the best way to ensure that there's at least availability for access in the future if something were to be available moving on to gated access we're going to kind of zoom in on this area that's highlighted in red which is the entrance of Sugar Mill uh again Sugar Mill running North and South here although it's a little bit angled once you get to the uh to the throat of the development if you want to get into the Gated portions of the site you either take a right or a left depending on which units you want to go ahead and access if you want to go to the leasing office you go to the parking area over here or if you made a mistake and got to the end and found out that this is not your destination you take a U-turn and you get out of the development uh the developer provided autoturn analysis uh and uh staff reviewed and approved of the availability for us to be able to maneuver with our Emergency Operating uh Vehicles the appropriate amount of stacking was provided and uh that the level analysis was provided for the Gated access so we'll discuss the site layout briefly so there's three four-story buildings one of the four-story buildings is located along Sugar Mill Boulevard and uh next to the retention area and then the other two are nestled next to the pool and Cabana area then there's three twostory buildings the two to the South they have garages on the bottom and Residences on top the one that's to the north of the entrance is garages on the bottom and just storage on top and then the refu area or the dumpster enclosure is located uh to the south of the site or on the South Port part of the property okay quickly going through some Landscaping sections it's broken up in the plans so we're going to kind of go to these different highlight portions of it so there is a buffer to the east that was provided that's next to the fdot stormw water Pond and then obviously to the north and to the West uh that will continue to run on the next section that we look at uh but one item that I want to point out but isn't in the city's jurisdiction is that uh the project goes into the Wetland buffer this is St John's riverwater management uh jurisdiction the Wetland flag is located here the improvements are to the outside of that Wetland area but it's in the Wetland buffer and the staff has been told by the developer that they're going to St John's river order management to mitigate that buffer area to be able to develop the retaining wall uh some storm water facility and or the the pipe and then the balcony area as well mve into the next sheet uh which has a buffer located along 417 on the west side of the project and then one other thing I want to identify because it's a deviation that's been provided the code requires that a terminal island is provided for every 10 parking spaces in some of the locations on site 12 parking spaces were provided with terminal islands and so here are some of the locations highlighted in red uh where the these increase in spaces between the terminal line were provided uh and moving towards the south of the property here are some of the street trees that are provided um the code requires one large tree per 50 linear feet the spacing between the parking spaces on street and the parking uh Island that was provided in the uh street skipe that that that was proposed is around 85 ft in separation so they provided some of these buffer tree or some of these Street trees in the buffer area but they also provide shade to The Pedestrian facility that's provided on the RightWay and then I failed to include a portion of the buffer that actually borders the dwell over there but you can see that that area is buffered as well and then The Pedestrian facility that goes around the the retention area which is pretty well landscaped another deviation provided in the package is for a sign the setback is required to be 10 ft the reduction is to 0 feet in this particular location you could see the sign you can see the property line um it's outside of the facility any pedestrian facility there is no line of sight issue uh and staff approves of the deviation open space requirements uh the code requires 25% they provided a little over 25% manyi Park requirements they provide a little over th000 square fet of what uh the code requires in dog park um passive Recreation Area that's located uh adjacent to Sugar Mill Road and the pool Cabana and Clubhouse areas for the residents the comprehensive plan requires Mobility strategies for this project it requires two Mobility strategies the developer has proposed uh three public benches along Sugar Mill Road this is an example one that's on the Southeast corner of the project uh and also an indoor bicycle uh facility that provides a capacity of 14 bicycles and so here's a list of the deviations we discussed many of them it's mostly you know reduction of parking parking size landscape Island landscape trees uh and the access points that we discussed one notable one that we didn't discuss in the in the uh presentation is a reduction of the Eastern uh side setback which is from 20 to 15 that's the setback that's adjacent to the FD storm water facility I just want to point that out and then finally these are the mitigation techniques that were provided uh they provide bicycle repair station payments to the tree Bank uh EV charging station shaded seating the Stout access stub outs uh in L of access points um and that's pretty much it so the next steps for this application uh are a lot aggregation to aggregate the lots and then development permit site permits and building permits to be able to move forward with uh horizontal and vertical construction staff recommends approval of the res resolution 4489 24 for R to multif family development and here to answer any questions that Council Council may have thank you any questions at this time can you can you talk a little bit more about the the requirement for the tree Bank yeah so some of the some of the requirement for the tree bank is for deviations for the landscape islands and reduction of landscape size and some of it is for the tree mitigation for the amount of trees that were removed and how many replacement trees that they provided are you talking about the lad um I'm talking about the $44,000 that's being requested of the applicant M would you go ahead and uh thank you perfect so provided some slides that talk about how we calculate and how and then we'll go into this specific project and explain what the numbers are so tree mitigation is basically the trees that are removed minus trees preserved equal the amount of replacement trees that are required uh we have a tree cap it's two times the required laot trees so for example and this is a one toone relationship not necessarily with the weighted range that we have and we'll talk about that in a minute uh if you have 25 trees reserved and there's 100 trees removed and you would have 75 replacement trees that are required wait am I understanding this correctly that there is a onetoone replacement of trees not not necessarily okay that's that is my understanding that we are not replacing onetoone trees necessarily so this is just an example and I'll get into I'll get into the ranges and explain that in a moment but great question thank you uh so the required lot trees is defined by the amount of trees that are required per acre uh and so for instance if you had 30 trees that are required 30 lot trees that are required it's two times that it's 60 so in this particular scenario that's outlined the cap would go in place and so instead of 75 Replacements it would be 60 replacement trees and then finally you can provide replacement trees either on the site plan or you can provide them into the tree Bank as payment and so you can do that by either adding an additional tree or you can provide increased caliper and the increased caliper is listed down here below if for a 2.5 in caliper you get one 4 in you get credit for two and then 6 in you get credit for three am I reading our code correctly or rather interpreting it correctly to to think that if you were to say have a clear-cut Orange Grove M that none of those trees count you could clear them all all down and as long as you did not allow any additional trees to grow your cap would be 30 instead of 60 no your your cap would be 60 not 30 but the the required lot trees is 15 trees per acre for two acres in your example up here so the cap would be 30 as long as you never allowed another tree to naturally grow there I mean I'm I'm just looking at this thinking that there's an accidental incentive to never allow trees to naturally grow because doing so would penalize the person who allowed the trees to naturally grow versus chopping them down when they're little babies and nobody's going to get mad at them over chopping them down well just to be clear the the tree replacement is double the lot tree requirement so in this particular scenario the 30 is the lot tree requirement and so but the replacement is only that because there were more than 60 trees to begin with but if there were zero trees to begin with then the replacement would be 30 so I'm just noting that it seems interesting and and if this is how our code is written that's this is how it's written yeah but I'm noting that it it seems like you have double the tree replacement requirement if the lot happens to have regrown 60 or more trees so you have 61 trees on there then you have to put 60 trees back but if you had you know 200 orange trees because we classify orange trees differently then you only have to put 30 trees back is that a correct interpretation of how it is no you're so the tree replacement cap would be 60 trees but why is is at 60 so mayor mayor can I can I jump in please do okay yeah I think I I'm I'm not understanding how I'm not correct pull up can you pull that up for me please all right to Let's address the Orange Grove question first okay because those don't count as count trees orange orange trees are agricultural products they're not consider they're not trees they're not Tre they're not trees yes you could clear out every one of those orange trees Zer and your mitigation is zero yes okay now you have a landscaping requirement if you were to develop property if you were able if you were to develop let's say we let's say we cut out all the orange trees okay there's no tree mitigation for the orange tree but we do have when we do new development we have we have Landscaping requirements okay and so the Landscaping requirements we carim you know trees within the buffer yards trees within the parking lot you know things like that but we also have a minimum requirement so many trees per acre as part of that landscape plan okay so the only thing it would require is that the new development would have to meet that landscape requirement yes there is no mitigation for that okay so now let's get to the let's get to the um now it's not an Orange Grove now it's a virgin Forest okay so now uh one of the things that the reason I asked meline to put this up in and mine can we yeah that that actually works to be honest with you uh bigger can you go up a little bit uh just just go up a little bit because one of the things that we were talking about is that what the the Land Development code what it requires is that when you remove a tree okay it says that the trees will be removed based on this table that's that's there below and it's all based on size okay but there is a key part about this that up there where it says that the tree replacement will be based on the schedule in the table except that the the required number of replacement shall not exceed two times the number of large trees which once again that's that per acre okay but the thing about it all is is that how do we determine that number of large trees okay and what the staff has done is that we we apply if you mine if you could go down to the table your the replacement trees are you can see there that anything below 8 in you can take out and there is no mitigation requirement you can remove every tree on that property that is less than 8 in and your mitigation is zero okay so we start counting at eight from 8 to 12 it's one tree from 12 to 18 it's two you know that's the value mine can we go down a little bit further there's another table I'd like to show if you preserve a tree okay now this is one of the things that Pro this is one of the things in the Land Development code update I hope we we're going to fix this part too but if you preserve an 8 in tree you get credit for that tree if you preserve a 12 to 18 inch you get credit for two trees and and up and up and up and the thing about it is is so you take the number that you calculate from the table above that was the replace replacement subtract out the number that is the credit and then that number there the net the net you compare that to the two times the minimum number now if two times the minimum number is the lower number that's the number you go with if you if the yet is the lower number that's the number you go and so that that's how we apply it and so to answer the question you know in the Orange Grove obviously we settled that that's zero but in a new development if they were to go in and remove trees out of a a naturally growing you know one of the re that we would apply these tables is what we would do based on it now the neat thing also like I said anything below s in anything below 8 in there is no mitigation for it does n uh but the one thing about two any trees you preserve not only helps you with your replacement but it also counts towards your your Landscaping requirements and once again it can credit it can credit towards your Landscaping requirement so if I if I if I saved an 8 inch tree that can I don't have to plant you know that's a tree I don't have to plant you know so that's one of the things about that as well so it does the if you preserve them it can help you it can really help you as far asow but in that whole thought process so let's say you have this scenario and you remove these trees and then you you have these replacement trees that you have to replace what what the what and this is a difference in my interpretation of the code than staff's interpretation is the the um required trees should go towards be netted with the replacement trees and and I haven't I haven't found in the code where it it says that because like you just stated now if you save a tree it goes towards your required trees but if you remove it and you replace another one now you got to replace that tree plus you got to repl you got to the required tree so now you you you get hit twice and you know and so I I feel like you're you're you're double counting or you know double counting this so um that's that's where my issue kind and you won't you won't find it in there because they are two separate things the way that the code is structured your minimum Landscaping trees the ones that you have to do to meet your Landscaping requirements they are different trees from the trees that are your mitigation for the tree removal they are two different things you're not going to find somewhere where it says you can't count that you know landscape trees count towards your tree mitigation so I am understanding correctly then that this is a point of ambiguity and staff concurs that is a point of ambiguity um actually no mayor because um so I was not here when the LTC from um 200 five was uh six was written but we count on the staff that was here and we have Mr Cobb who was in my position and um um Deborah Pierre um and jov foret who already left that um um in their interpretation and I read the code the same way these are two different set of requirements so Article 15 talks about the replacement trees right how to how to preserve and how to restore the the trees um the only Connection in article 12 talks about minimum landscape requirements that if you have a lot with no tree and have the same side plan of of one that has wooded lot if we only apply the landscape plans they would come with the same the same level of of final trees but the tree replacement Article 15 wants to account for the removal of trees if you're removing and we know development destroys trees and that's part of the game but there is every city has some math to adjust how can we balance out the environment and that is this calculation we are changing the code to make it pretty Prett clear now how how to calculate but today these are two different set of requirements the only connection is that we establish a cap so in this particular project um I don't remember the um the number of the trees the physical trees being removed but when we apply the scheduled it it goes to 800 and something trees that were removed for the schedule we give several breaks to that one is the cap so you're not going to account for all the trees removed we have a cap and if you preserve that's a second you know um um pass because we that's that's that's the intent of the code if you remove trees and you preserve they balance out so if I have 100 trees initially and pres I remove 15 I preserve 50 zero replacement R but in addition to that you have to do the minimum land ape requirement on top of that is that am well if you preserve a tree and the tree functions as above a tree that counts so it it's where the tree happens to be growing also plays a role in the calculations by staff yeah the problem is that today most of the projects remove all the trees right in this case there were zero preserved okay here none are preserved none are preserved so for them we apply the cap right and Mr um cob said we have a third pass is that any smaller trees so when you plant you plant a 2 and a half inch tree that's the minimum requirement but if you remove a 7 7 and a half up to 8 in um um tree we don't count so that's another pass so it's it's a it's a but so they hit the cap and so we're requiring the cap and we're requiring all the required trees as well that's so that's that's where you're that's what I'm trying trying to to distill the two different places in the code to understand how we're getting this now so if you preserved zero you have to account for the cap yeah 60% and you have to account for the landscape trees now you can bump the the 2 and 1 half to 4 in it counts as as two trees or to 6 in it counts at three so you have also the possibility of using the landscape trees to bump or the preserved trees so in this case they preserved they not preserved they replace 176 right so if they bumped um uh those trees to 4 in tree they would have reached the cap so these are these are the rules I mean that we have applied so far so we've applied this all the time we we've never deviated from that so I was in the in the email that you all received there is you know information that two two projects in 2006 and 200 I don't know n um did not follow the code um it's before my time and I would have to research that so if that's the case I assume it would be a mistake from from staff because that's the way we have been applying you know the code that that's how the dwell was was um reviewed that you know the Allington all the projects that we have in the city so if this happened to have been a and this is totally theoretical but I'm just trying to better understand how the code is applied if this had happen to be orange grows instead of woods would it be 60 trees required or zero would be required there is no replacement tree so you subtract the 60 that doesn't apply at all only the landscape trees apply only the landscape Tre so if you if you have zero trees to be replaced right if they don't count if you have counts or um trees that do not count as large trees for us then it's zero replacement you have nothing to repl and some projects have that so so like you said the code it kind of incentivizes you to keep your land clear clearcut and it also devalues wooded lots for developers because they know they're going to have to come in and and and pay pay penalties penalties if they clear it so I I I i' dis I disagree with that and you know I feel like they should be the replacement trees should be part of the the required or the required trees should go towards the replacement trees but that's that's been my opinion All Along on on a lot of these and and but and I guess I'll try them in here too so I agree with this whole discussion and I think we've brought it up a lot of times so with our LDC code going underneath I know we've made this a lot more clear correct going forward that's that's the proposal we think it's more clear right problem in the future that's that's what we're trying to avoid so we we hearing everything to be able to but in the in the revised LDC code are we doing it this way or are we going to put the replacement trees or the required trees part of the replacement so it's a different math but we are counting the landscape it's a different it's a different math right but we are count so trees um um um cities usually that have a cap they do not count landscape trees some that um um do not have caps they count everything we now have um that you have to account for a percentage of um I think it's 20 25 and 30% and this is a proposal this you're going to listen to that proposal in the work session that we it's coming at the end of the month so you have to account for a percentage depending on the caliber of the trees and um but we count um the L landscape lands as tree replacement okay so we're going to count the required trees the landscape trees rep as neutri so so if that's the code in progress why can't we apply that to this project well we cannot apply because it's not approved yet we haven't even seen the proposal but um so by October the end of October we may be able to do that uh but at this time it sounds like the code is what it is and that none of us really like it as it is but it is what it is so thank you for that you're welcome any other questions before staff steps down and I know we also have the applicant and the audience would you like to share a few words yes uh Madame mayor councel uh appreciate your uh hearing this tonight and uh we would agree with staff's recommendation of can you you state your name and address oh I'm sorry I'm sorry uh Eric Halverson uh 250 International Parkway sweet 108 Lake Mary Florida 32746 uh again Eric alerson the with um broad broad Pursuit LLC and um again we agree with st's recommendation of approval aside from sdo condition of approval number four um but myself and and uh our civil engineer are here to answer any questions and then um Dave axel one of the property owners is here to um address the trees all right thank you thank you I have no written request to address Council but if anybody else would like to please come on forward state your name and address for the record David Axel 1757 West Broadway Street Suite 1 oo here in two roles this evening uh I am an owner as trustee I represent the other owner who's Trustee of the property and we're cooperating and working together with the applicant um I stand in front of you today objecting to uh site development order 5 2724 condition of approval for which requires a payment into the tree Bank of $44,000 uh you heard the staff analysis I don't think it matters if I agree or disagree with how the code's written that's their position uh it was not always that way but in an effort to move this matter forward uh we're asking that you consider an alternative wording to condition of approval number four in the site development order and take whatever other actions are necessary to have the staff do what it needs to to make make it so it is our view that with the number of trees being planted which based upon forign trees counting double the number of trees uh being planted is not 176 it's 352 now technically it's 360 but the staff also takes the position that street trees uh of which there's four in what's going to be public right away simply don't count and those four trees are forish trees so that's eight which reduces us to 352 we're not arguing that but oddly those four trees are on the 11.76 Acres or 11.67 that's being calculated uh in in this math that's being used tonight so what we're proposing and I sent you something in writing earlier today for condition of approval number four I'm sorry just flipping through here the developer shall not be required to make a payment to the tree Bank providing no less than trees counting as 352 large trees are planted regardless of whether such trees are considered required trees or replacement trees now I believe the staff will consider that to be a deviation from the code I don't want to argue that point I've heard some of the discussion amongst the council aren't we fixing this well to give you you a sense of the anxiety on the sellers side and on the applicant side uh typically you expect a transaction of this nature uh with all things being equal should take maybe a year Well we allowed for a year and allowed at the beginning of the contract for two extensions we're now on our fifth extension uh the deadline and the current extension for all the approvals is I believe sometime next week we're not really in a position to keep waiting and waiting and waiting with with this project so I'm just requesting that the council take what action it can to eliminate the $44,000 payment whether with the language I suggested or otherwise and I'm here for any questions about the tree matter if any of you wish with regard to the rest of the project that would be Mr Halon and his civil engineer thank you right thank you is there anybody else hoping to address Council on this matter with that we will close the public hearing uh what's the bud of council all right I'll make a motion to approve resolution 44 or adopt resolution 4489 d24 um with the caveat that the de developer shall not be required to make a payment to the tree Bank providing no less than trees counting as 352 large trees are are planted regardless of whether such large trees are considered required trees or replacement trees I guess I'll second that for discussion at least all right discuss what are your thoughts um you know I I've had a difference of opinion on the the way the codes calculate in this and and as we discussed we're we're modifying and put adding some clarity to the Land Development code and the Land Development code will have the required trees are the count towards replacement trees and that's what they're they're they're doing in this whole calculation so so um I'm you know I'm making this this motion and I'm kind of you know moving on with with kind of our new Land Development code so I mean we can approve deviations we're approving this if if we want to consider that a deviation Mr Brittain well I lost my place on the uh mitigation plan it seems like the the issue is the number of trees uh and it doesn't really say in the uh mitigation plan whether that 44,000 is really 44,000 because they can they can adjust their Landscaping plan and adjust it and it so it doesn't seem very clear to me um I've heard all the discussions tonight I think it's fair to to use uh required trees as replacement trees because you're you are replacing a tree when you do that uh I'm just not real sure how how the math is going to play out with the with the revision um that's that's all I have right now I'm I'm still trying it's a lot of numbers right yeah uh miss duard any thoughts um it's really hard to see where to go on this when our Land Development code isn't approved yet so as far as going with a new code that doesn't exist you know we know we're changing it I also know that whatever is going to be presented to us I'm sure we'll have a discussion and that won't be the final version um I just haven't seen it so I also can guess that the new code is not just going to be nothing like there would be a requirement I don't know if we have a I guess sample of what their impact would cost if any to the tree bank I don't know if you're I mean I understand it's like at this point it's a fake number it's not approved but just to get an idea of where we're going with this yeah we're like totally making stuff up from the bench here and it's problematic well per per the um proposed version of the tree mitigation that will be in the proposed code that we presented the LDC and LPA for this particular project um for the balance would be seven large trees uh will be required in addition so it would actually be a reduction from so right now there's the balance is 176 large trees and the balance will be seven large trees and the reason is that uh the plantings would count count towards the uh towards the replacement and uh 183 replacement trees would be required as part of the the calculation and they provided 176 already the balance being seven there's a lot of numbers being thrown out here and I heard different numbers from Mr Axel that I've heard from staff can you we've got some members of the audience and I'm sure somebody's fallen from home can you explain why we're hearing different numbers of trees stated for what what the what they count for like are they planting things that they think should count for more trees or like because they're different caliber and we're no I think what Mr Axel is proposing is is to deviate right so he's saying regardless of how we interpret the code what he's asking is that it would be like a deviation of 176 trees to be planted as a replacement trees so that the the balance is zero make it like an orange he wants he wants to make it like an orange Grove is that essentially what the he wants to make it no contribution to the public uh to the public um to the tree bank with the balance that is is there so he's asking a deviation to 176 um trees to be replaced for the calculation today and what he's mentioning is that um on the street trees um again Street trees are required trees um so we do not count as replacement again we don't have buffer trees four and what size um and he's he's um um doubling it so he's putting two uh four um inches so it would count as eight but we we do not I mean but so you were saying the difference in the calculation was seven and there and if we counted those Street trees they would be negative one or we he's that for the proposed yes yeah well for the prop yeah I haven't seen the calculation for the proposed because we the last minute we try to see what would be the propos but the propos is still a you know a little bit in the air but what he's asking is a deviation of 176 trees to so that the balance is zero that's what he's asking so as far as the current code staff all agrees that they would owe 40 whatever thousand doll to the bank if we apply the code as we have been applying the code number substantially reduced to something I guess it sounds like up here we would see more reasonable but as far as currently our current code this is what it follows the code and every other applicant has had to follow now I have a solution that I would like to propose I haven't discussed with anyone but one thing that we could do is approve as it is today put the condition that this $40 $40,000 is going to be um approved or paid in a later moment and then they can revise you know they can bring back the SEO to us is an amendment when the new code is is is approved they have to pay half of the fee of an SEO and we be revised by the new code no because that just delays it even more well that gets no it's not delay we approved today the SEO yeah but they've still got this $44,000 on the you know on the hook well but then we resolve today well I I think that's part of the problem anything else Mr stert you Canad I I think that is the problem so this is a quas j hearing and though all of us may disagree with what the code currently reads it sounds like staff has equally applied it to every similarly situated person from 2007 on that's a long time and it has been stated that any deviations from that prior to that were probably an an error uh Mr Axel I if you have different evidence I it's quas judicial I want to make sure we have full evidence so I sent an email to the council and the staff today that included um a couple of items one of those items was a letter from the L Law Firm which had attached to it an email I received from the staff quite some time ago interpreting the code in a different way the different way being every tree you planted counted as a replacement tree so before the the current group of folks were there and back in 2007 and 2008 I know of because I worked on them two instances where it was done differently I share those uh matters with staff and I think you heard tonight they view those things as errors so I don't want to debate what the the code says but just to clarify it's not always been a certain way and and this Falls more heavily on certain parties than others this particular property is relatively heavily wooded you heard testimony from uh Mr Harris Burns cadle about un under the current proposal as last seen by the ldcc uh the numbers would be reduced the reason for that being there's an attempt to make larger trees count more than they currently do and this site happens to have a lot of smaller trees the the simple fact of life is in this particular instance the standard planting rate for some unknown reason for multif family with the same open space requirement is 15 whereas for commercial it's 12 I think for industrial it's 10 the same piece of land the same open space requirement and the requirement is 25% higher so you take the 25% higher you take what I think reads you plant double when you take trees out becomes triple 25% higher triple we end up with a payment of 44,000 so the solution proposed sounds interesting just come back under the new code well I'll tell you resubmitting is not just an application fee it's redoing the plans it's resubmitting two or three times it's paying your engineer it's coordinating all that time it's after you've already started building and working on this project you're going to spend more than $444,000 just resubmitting I promise you so we're not trying to be treated special so to speak we're just trying to be treated Fair punishing people for cutting their trees down for a legitimate use when they're planting 352 trees and I've already said forget the street trees it's it's just eight here 352 trees is 30 trees an acre basically if that's not enough trees on this property I don't know what is it's it's it gets ridiculous so the idea that you're going to be punished because you developed your property it just sticks in my craw and and I will tell you that it sticks in the craw of the other owner and we took some control of how this process would go with with the applicant and I have the privilege of standing up here and talking about this because this is my property today and it's just a big number to pay when you're doing nothing wrong in my opinion uh so I can talk about the math as much as you want to talk about the math but it's simply the point of it and we're asking I would agree with the staff if their view is that this is a 176 tree deviation then that's what we're asking for without mitigation a 176 tree deviation call it what you will thank you thank you uh at this point I think it this is a legal question Mr Hall what are our choices well I yeah obviously the council can do what the counil wants to do well we I don't think we can not in a qua judicial situation yeah it was and the point I was going to make it's it's in Mr Axel's final um point was it's a deviation uh the if they're asking for a deviation of the number of trees which would which would then negate them having to pay $ 44,000 tree into the tree Bank tree mitigation Bank staff uh has given you an interpretation of the code and staff's interpretation of the number of trees required and replaced and so forth uh there's a gap or a deficit uh that has that was that they were allowed to be made up with with a dedication or a donation to The Tree Bank U the applicant is asking for a deviation that they not have to um be responsible for 176 trees over and above what is what they're paying and that would then negate the monies they would have paying for the tree bank so it becomes a deviation and and I have to caution you about precedence and so forth somebody else comes do the same thing you can't R turn down so you have to be careful about that well that that is a concern so it sounds like there has been a past situation where essentially this has happened where Council has granted in 2007 or8 a deviation on the Fly based on you whatever we we can call it a different interpretation of the code different staff recommendations somehow it happened um so where does that leave us now if if we are to you I look at this and think well we could just arbit contrarily pick pick some number of discount some number between 0 Z and 44 that's I find that problematic uh from a sitting in a quasi judicial spot and I I don't know about you guys I don't really want to do that uh to pick an arbitrary number I would rather I I like Dr K's suggestion I I understand what Mr Axel's saying that it's going to cost more than the $44,000 to actually attempt to not pay the $44,000 uh but I I don't know based on this how to navigate forward because it sounds like you're cautioning us against doing it so actually you're sitting you're sitting in the role of a judge of a panel of judges and and staff has pointed has has given you a scenario of what the and their interpretation of the code says I don't think that is challenging that I didn't hear Mr a challenge that he's just saying okay on those numbers uh we want to propose this as a deviation and and if we poose this we don't have to pay in the tree bank so I I have an argument that's not what the code says heard AR we don't want to we don't want to comply with the code because it would require the payment of $444,000 we don't want to do it so we want a deviation of the number R trees which eliminates that obligation so that's what you're faced with in my opinion does everyone have enough background information to appreciate but I also don't want to hold up this project and there's four of us so I would also like to discuss an option forward um as far as the code now versus reapplying they're worried about a fee how would that work just so we can explore that for a second um a resubmission fee would this be a full resubmission or just we can put it in there we're just reevaluating same property just the trees we would not have to if you all so maybe the condition would be that um they can only apply for the landscape they can revise the landscape plans so we we approve today the side plan we defer the the uh payment of the uh tree contribution to a later stage and they can revise the landscape plan you know but as far as revising the landscape plan that's just redoing the calculation it's it's not different it's going to be the identical plan it's just identical plan it would not be new engineering plans so there's not going to be no change at all they would just just pay a fee less than $44,000 for staff to say the code's different now this is okay and you don't for to recalculate the the the replacement and what would Fe be just it's half of the um side plan s plan is 5,000 talking $2,000 2200 okay look if if I could jump in just one second uh uh taking forward what Dr cig said you could um take a suggest and defer to co if you wanted to which would be down the road at that point the new code will be in in place you all will have approved the new code because you're the one that has to approve the new code that seems very reasonable so that's not doing any of this it's just deferring the tree calculation requirement to co and that would not open this can of worms is that correct well we are just at this point deferring and that would give them time to um revise the landscape plans but there's no revision necessary only I think we all agree there's no revision that will take place this is the plan can't we just approve the deviation and and move on it's not our code it's yeah it doesn't it doesn't comply with I totally agree with you and our code is going to change but we don't have it an effect and we've had tons of projects come here and pay these fees so the fact that we're on the edge of being able to have new code that would allow this that's fair to me but this is qu quasi judicial and I don't think like our current code if this is how we've been calculating it's not right to charge someone and not the next person even though I don't agree with it but this would kind of fix that problem even though it's inconvenient but we're talking $44,000 so it's up to the applicant at this point yeah it'll save him 41,000 it's it's a pretty solid could you give us five minutes so that we can talk to the applicant absolutely okay all right we recess For Recess for five minutes while go ahead and do that I just have a question for Mr Hall I'm I'm just now reading the letter from uh the ls Law Firm it got blocked uh underneath something they're using the term prohibited exaction meaning I think they're referring to that that any of this is should not be required can you explain what that term means yeah we went through that presentation at the uh LDC and the LPA uh an exaction is when the government requires you to give them something uh just to get a permit and there's no reason for it all exactions aren't bad uh the there are there's a several Supreme Court cases have gone through exactions and the break standard and so on and so forth so for instance uh the the first cases that came out were Dolan Nolan out of California and someplace South West that the municipality wanted uh the applicant wanted to rebuild a beach home and the city said okay you can do but you have to provide an easement for people get to the beach and they said no that doesn't make sense and the court said there's no public purpose reason for that uh but in in the pen Central case which is out of New York they wanted to go up with the building City said no Supreme Court said okay that's a legitimate public interest but uh the the terminology means the city or a municipality government requiring either payment of money or giving a proper is over without a without a justification for the for the basis so that is what developers mostly use hav been on the development side we argue that you can't require us to do that but but the PIN Central Case established established a three-prong thing is their public purpose is it U legitimate and does it affect the reasonable investment back expectation of the property so um there's a lot of like I said there's there's a lot of litigation on it court is not real clear but when they talk about exactions that means you can't get your build credit until you pay us this or whatever which is out of the norm out of the realm okay so if this is a a gated private Community could that argument be made in this case that all of these trees don't really serve a public purpose that argument is starting to gain some traction um there is a case that came down in the uh Federal six circuit Court appeals in Michigan uh the court sits soio but the case in Michigan it was a city called Canton Michigan that uh was regulating trees removal and so much like we're doing here and the the Court held that trees are public property and therefore the city can't regulate so in that decision they they said the cities can no longer regulate trees you can move take now that hasn't that's not applied to us because we're not in six circuit but at some point if case goes through to another Circuit suem Court might have to look at what what I'm Larry about is taking a 44,000 or in this case a $76,000 uh payment and turning it into a $2 million payment after the the lawyers get done with it so I'm a little concerned about that but we we are you know it is in our coat now and unless somebody were to challenge it uh we're following the code it's not it's not like we're in but I think I think we can agree that the code is there's some ambiguity to the code just because it was applied to other people it doesn't necessarily mean that it was applied correctly to those other people we have to assume it was it was discuss yeah I thought they were going to do that all right let's do a a seven minute recess or whenever you guys get back can we can we just move on to the discussion item and then go back to it okay let's head on to discussion item we've got the reappoint appointment uh to the firefighter pension trust fund Board of Trustees Mr cob if you could get us up to speak on that uh yes thank you mayor uh this is an appointment to the fire pension board uh Board of Trustees there's five members there's five trustees on this two of which are legal residents of the city appointed by Council two are members of the plan in other words the the bargaining unit and then uh a fifth trustee is appointed by the Ford and then confirmed by Council tonight uh what you're asked to do is to appoint one of your members uh one of the two that is appointed by Council and that that trustees uh term expires at the end of this month uh that that trustee is Kyle Deer uh he has requested reappointment there are also two other folks that have applied one is Eric R and one is Molly Gibson uh like I said Mr Diner has uh requested reappointment to the board and we just need to know who you wish to appoint since this is one of your appointments i' say reappoint them yes I agree all right sounds like there's consensus reappoint the current uh reappoint yes okay all right all right you You' got Direction on that now from a logistical standpoint can we head on to reports and then revisit the uh resolution when everybody concludes or should we just pause for a second we should probably pause pause I would say pause all right we're gonna have a five minute recess or however long it takes sh e e e e e e e e e all right the time is 8:07 and we are reconvening and we'll be going back to item number nine which is resolution 4489 d24 we had a motion and a second on the table and then everybody took a break to to have a discussion so uh I guess we'll defer to Mr Hall what would be the appropriate Next Step let me like one one um interjection here uh Mrs Ross took a look at this from our office and she did deted it was not that that it was not exaction so we have the leop office that it is not an exaction public exaction but yeah if if um I guess as a discussion if um you want to approve the deviation you would need to you would need to have the the U the motion or amend uh he or she's motion and then the the person second would have to do it to to if you wanted to go with the deviation so so could we ask staff or the applicant to share if any any mutually agreed upon you're still you're still in discussion so yes you you can have them report the results of their discuss I'm I'm going to do my best here subject to uh the staff telling me if I got this right or wrong based on our discussion outside and as as well Mr Halverson who's the man writing the checks okay so if we look look back at the actual um condition number four as it's written today and I believe we we what we heard suggested from at least uh one of the council members that could conclude this was to find a way to allow the new code when adopted to alter the the dollar figures there there's some complexity in how the project functions and works and here's what I believe we came up with so the language that is proposed today uh where it says Revis based on the field revision we want to add the language Andor resubmission of the tree calculation sheet based on the new Land Development code then in effect uh before the first certificate of occupancy on what page of the PDF is that uh so it is condition number four of site development order 527-2410 of the development order I let me let me read let me read the condition for you it says prior to a building permit issuance developers shall pay a total of $44,000 into the tree Bank fund for the 176 replacement trees and then it has the calculation $1 176 time $250 per tree equals $44,000 the above Tree Bank payment amount may be revised based on the field revision to the landscape plans subject to staff's approval and so Mr Axel that last sentence there is the sentence that Mr Axel is recommending a revision to and I I I got to the part where it said revise based on the field revision but I that's where I got so after the comma So based on the field revision right where it says field revision we're we're going to add add a couple and or and and this is subject to working out the final language here Andor resubmission of the tree calculation sheet of the landscape plan um after adoption of the new code before the first certificate of occupancy on the project now just so everyone understands and I don't know whether it has to state this the idea is the $44,000 will be paid to get the building permit if in fact one or both of two things happens there's a field revision being planned anyway updated landscape plans that would happen as a matter of course anyway what's here is is code minimum they're going to look at these things and refine them which may alter some things that was already provided for in the staff um condition that already been worked out so what we've settled on I believe outside is an opportunity to resubmit the actual tree mitigation calculation sheet only which is where the math is okay um and that may be of the field revision or it may be of the plan in front of you probably it'll be of the field revision if that results before the first Co and there's a new code in a lower fee uh there'll be a refund simple as that if it doesn't result in that the $44,000 is it did I did I get that right I think Teresa is agreeing with the premise we're trying to accomplish and I'll just see if if that was where the council was trying to go that seems fair to me I don't know how you feel about that I just I just need to know how to amend my motion uh what he said M Mr Cobb's good at these things should I try to repeat that or did you get it well I I know I know first of all my my motion included that other language so I would like to remove that other language off of it I secondary agree with that yes you're you're amending your Mo you're fine okay okay so yeah basically Mr poock what I would recommend is it's a motion to adopt which you've already done uh and that condition number four be revised uh to add the language uh after the word after after the word revision that the following be added to be Andor resubmission of the tree calculation sheet of the landscape plan based on the new Land Development code before the issuance of the First Co can I and we have to have in the event there's a reduction there's a refund inde yeah you can add it add a sentence that then of course uh that would be added to the end of the is this something that would be easier if we I think we all agree on the general gist but we may need to finalize the language not tonight and I could sign this tomorrow or do we need to have the exact language contemplated and literally spelled out right now how about I do this and if he says it's okay um I'll read it you can say I stated by the city manager he says that if he says that okay seconder I'll need you to say I I agree and then we can call the motion how's that okay all right so what I'd ask you to do is do your motion to adopt subject to the revision of condition number four if you'll say that okay I'll make a motion to adopt resolution 4489 das24 subject to the revision of number four what is it condition condition condition number four and then what condition number four will be revised to say prior to the building permit issuance the developer shall pay a total of $44,000 into the tree Bank fund for the 176 replacement trees parentheses $176 * $250 is equal to $444,000 the above Tree Bank payment amount may be revised based on field revision comma Andor resubmission of the tree calculation sheet of the landscape plan based on the new Land Development code before the issuance of the First Co comma subject to staff's approval period and and that if the recalculation results in a reduction of the 44,000 a refund will be granted like um like the city manager just stated I agree but I have a question uh the 44,000 will that be put in some sort of escrow until such time as the refund is normally what we do is we just go ahead and deposit it and then if we have a refund we write a check for the refund out of the tree fund yes all right so you got to make sure there's enough in the tree fund oh there's PL money okay right I agree okay you got your motion all right that motion second do we have any more discussion all right that will'll call the vote all those in favor signify by saying I I I and it passes unanimously we are on to discussion items um Mr cob you're up first uh thank you mayor uh I just want to let me let me get this real quick I have a couple of things for you um the first one is we're not going to have an executive session on December the 9th or on September the 9th um we're trying to find a date for you uh Mr loen our actuary is not able to get us the information that we need by that time he's looking at not being able to get it to us before the 12th and so we're going to try to work something out to get you we're our goal really is to try to get the contracts done before the end of the month if not the end of the month and the first meeting in October that's our goal and so we're going to be looking looking for a way to get get this executive session in there so we can go over everything between now and then so we'll figure that out and hopefully I'll just ask please be flexible on your calendars that's one thing I'll ask um Mr Kelly also has a request for you and while he's coming up I wanted to let you know that I'll be out of the office next week uh I I have some leave that has to be used or I lose it and uh so we can we can like bring up all of our questions next week that's it yes Mr Kelly will be in charge absolutely that sounds like fun even though I will be I will be in town and uh but anyway I want to let you know that we'll be out so Mr Kelly has has something for you uh good evening mayor counsil um uh I'd like to request uh if you would be available uh to participate in a town hall meeting for the police Bond referendum on October 3rd or somewhere thereabouts everyone be in town I know um Deputy Mayor bord is not here I'll follow up uh via email with him is it necessary for us all to be there I I think y'all might rather I not be there because I have other hopes for how I can not be there on the third unfortunately is there is uh close proximity date that we can uh weigh second I we would probably want to Target somewhere the 10th of next Thursday so we can uh Dodge other public meetings that might be scheduled for this room uh so we are able to do a video broadcast again tough month for me um I think the eight but that's like a Tuesday that would be I do not see anything that Monday is like Columbus Day scheduled for the chambers uh at least on the chamber's calendar that day council meeting that night too on the sth chief you here on the eth yeah I don't think I can make the ninth I can do the ninth you know what I'm actually going to be I'm going to be out of town the 8th through the 11th I've got a conference that next week uh would be a 17th be a good day for the council I mean that the the problem is is that we're getting we're getting really close or we're I mean um vote by mail is already I think vote by mail the earliest that can go out sometime that first week of October I think that would be time to do it trying to to Target that area I mean do the 17th it's just you want earlier let's see yeah I we we couldn't do anything the the week of the September 30th through the 4th you you said you I can do the 30th um and what about October September 30 we have we have a work session sched yes of course I can do it that's my uh yeah I just have like C and it's it's Russ it's like the high holiday what do we have on the 30th we have a work session oh we do yeah no I'm my I could do Friday but that's not the best day of the week no I've got football games that night is is Wednesday the 2 yeah W uh it it actually Wednesday the 2nd currently there's nothing scheduled on the calendar yeah I just have c book it book it book it Dan well you got C on W I have C but we don't all need to be there it sounds like we can't make that happen so yeah so as long as one or two are there that's that's plenty of meeting okay yeah okay we will we will go forth uh and begin advertising October 2nd for the uh police Bond referendum Town Hall October 2nd okay thank you Council all right Mr Hall oh wa know I guess back Mr cob you got more I'm good okay Mr Holly I have nothing else to to uh discuss tonight mayor all right oh I guess I'm next up uh so this afternoon I was uh one of the speakers at the kuas club and uh want to give a shout out to uh Miss McDonald and Mr Kelly for helping put together a little presentation that I've been going on the road with this thing for months now and uh today was just another example but they sent this fabulous little bit of candy here so everybody who has made it all the way to the end I hope you will come grab a sweet treat compliments of the Kanis club uh what else is going on oh we've got here on October 24th the Tri County League of cities we're we're hosting the meeting so hooray for Ovito I think this may be the this is the first time in ovo's history that I'm aware of that we have uh at least since 2016 maybe that was when it was yeah yeah it hasn't happened since since i' I've been involved up here that's all I've got happy birthday Mr cob sorry I miss singing to you so thank you I'm not gonna do it now though either um so I'm I'm glad we have these these conversations up here and we we have these discussions and I know sometimes they can get a little bit heated and stuff but we you know I feel like you know we come to a decision and we are a council overall and for to for people after the fact on Council to to go out and and say you know oh well I didn't vote for this and the you know the other four and and like throw everybody in the bus I feel like is is inappropriate you know you you stand by the council decision the council did this you know regardless of who voted for what the council overall made these decisions um so I I just I feel like you know and and I'm G to be out of here in another month or two and so but I feel like going forward you know the council needs to stand together when they're when they're you know when a decision's been made you know whether you you agree with it or not I mean we've all been on the losing side of decisions but at the end of the day you know you you stand you stand behind the decision of the entire Council and I feel like sometimes that doesn't occur and you know and I just you know I just really recommend that you know council members moving forward um kind of adhere to that and and kind of lead and you know and and support the decision of the entire Council so um other than that that's all I had Mr br I don't I happen to agree with you Bob but U I don't really have anything else to add to that but uh one item next Friday Patrick yes they are uh the new greens at the golf course are going to be uh opened and they're going to have a ceremony to uh I guess a putting contest or something to open them at 9:30 okay so I'm looking forward to that and I think that's going to be a great thing for the the course that's it Miss stup uh I just wanted to shout out to Lake Mary little league um pretty awesome that they won worlds and I know a lot of those players are not just in Lake Mary that're around so um some of those coaches and and parents and team members are from Ovito so that's pretty impressive so shout out on that um for I mentioned before c meeting last night so was at Winter Springs um so mayor mccan hosted it and they went through their whole park system and it was it was actually pretty impressive um what they've been able to do with their Parks some of that stuff inh house um they've been pretty good about building their boardwalks out and using their in-house staff so that was that was interesting to see and something maybe we could ideas here on how they're they're doing that and and they're planning on putting a um there's a place off of Lake Jessup right now where you can go and see like the sunset and they pretty much said if you're from out of town it's like the go-to place to show Gators off so um they're always out there but they're they're expanding that a th000 ft around Lake Jessup and it's a pretty cool project coming um but yeah like I said before um that me meeting started with that and and we saw some of the cool things they were doing in the Parks and and really turn into a very interesting and educational session on City sharing on the the problems we're seeing and the the issues we're facing with budgets and budgetary issues um the biggest one being the one we all have it was shared amongst all cities with uh Public Safety everybody's raising the starting salary and then being out bid and we keep losing people to to Orlando and they keep raising their rates so um it was it was a good discussion but it's I just want to make sure we all know like it's it's not just us it's it's every city in seminal County and that's all I had all right anything else for the good of the order with that we've got upcoming oh yes I was say future dates yeah future I was going to say that but for future dates we have Monday September 9th 2024 6 p.m. an executive session which we won't have H which we will not have we are not having that anymore but we are for real having a meeting on Monday September 16th 2024 at 6:30 a regular session and that's also where we will have the second hearing for the approval of the tax rate and the budget Monday September 30th 2024 5:30 p.m. is a work session that's tentative it's it's for sure happening now we're going to have it and Monday October 7th 2024 6:30 p.m. for a regular session all right here in city city council chambers and with that we are turned e