Planning Commission - public_hearing

All right.

I'd like to call to order the Apopka City Commission meeting for the tentative budget hearing. Today is September 3rd, 2026 515 at the Apopka Community Center. We'll open up with the public comment period. I wanna remind the public to make sure they're filling out their comment cards pursuant to our updated policy. Make sure you're getting your cards in and for any public comment throughout the agenda as well as general public comments. So Mrs. Bone.

I have Rod Olson.

Rod Olson, 3156 Rolling Hills Lane. Good evening, staff, department heads, commissioners, mayor, and members of the public. Thank you for your time and effort on behalf of APAPCA. We have at least 20 years of historical infrastructure deficits that have not kept pace with the growth this community has. While this budget lacks essential information for fact-based decision-making, I believe it will be the best budget in the last 12 years. Our parents' wedding gift to us was a down payment for our first home. Older home, had squeaky doors, how do we fix it? Prior to owning a home, I knew the back end, what the right end and wrong end of a hammer and a screwdriver, but far more than that. My father-in-law started off with GM as a mechanic, wound up running experimental engineering division for Oldsmobile division of GM. He came over with this toolbox, safety glasses, work gloves, screwdrivers, hammer, drill, and bits, sandpaper, wood plane, variety of wood screws, toothpicks, wood glue, WD-40, and a bar of ivory soap. First you check the hinges, couple tightening screws, simple fix, just do it. Door sticks a little bit, guess what? Run that ivory soap over the outside of the frame, the inside of the frame and the outside of the door, slick as a whistle. Screw doesn't go into the wood, run the threads through that ivory soap, slides right in like slicker than a whistle. At any rate, you have to have the right tools in order to do your job. The point is you must have the tools. Our department heads were lacking the tools. They didn't have timely and accurate historical information, and you didn't up here either. Critical tools laid out side by side so you can see the flow, you can see the ebb, you can see what happened, what the anomalies are. On top of that, during budget season for the second time in three years, our department heads had to divert their attention to load information into the new counting system. It's my hope that this will be the last time that that will occur. You cannot fix 20 years in one year, but you can fix 20 years of shortcomings over several years. The budget is the start. This budget is the start for that fix. Our commitment to making POPCA better will be measured on your actions. These actions should include, one, taking immediate control of the overtime issues. 2,400 hours a week is incredible. There's at least a bare minimum of $1 million in savings there alone, probably more like $1.5 to $2 million of the $3.4 that we've been going. You need to assign someone now to load the historical data onto a site so you can pull up five years in a row, and it'll take some time because you've had at least three different accounting, which means there's different numbers, different titles, to get it together so you can have it for next year. Beginning November 10th, department heads should serve in financial reviews. Why they're over, why they're under, and a plan to fix it and hold them accountable for that. Starting the second meeting in November, you should conduct P&L review or call it financial review each meeting, the second meeting of the month, why you have the numbers then. Just briefly go over, bullet points, the top five areas, the bottom five areas that are over, under, where we stand right now, that way taxpayers know how our money is being spent. I'm going to want to thank the staff. I know that was an incredible job that you have. Budgeting is one of the worst times of the year, and we compounded that with other stuff that was on your table. Thanks for everything you do, and that's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Olson.

We have Dr. O.

Hello. I have a couple of things, is that most people don't bring recommendations, they bellyache. And I think that that's something that needs to be impressed upon people coming, is have a solution, or have a recommendation, or a way to deal with an issue. And I see that with a lot of people that come forward as they're bringing recommendations, but you have some that bellyache, and they do that online. One thing is that we don't need to base the budget decisions on politics. When you get in a political squabble, then that affects your budget and your time and your employees. It needs to be based on facts, data, research, history, like Mr. Olson said, and doing a projection. And even on our board, which we handled at the meeting we held here, was a five-year projection. You're not budgeting for five years, but you're giving a projection for five years so the citizens can see where they've been and where they're going. And you know how many Contractors are out there wanting to build over this period of time. You can guess the number of houses being occupied and the number of businesses going in. That's my biggest concern is don't politicize it. and project and then make things available. I've got outstanding requests on budget information for six months now, and I've not received my request. And it would have affected the decisions and what I had to share here today. But six months of that request being in and not having the results. And it happened two years ago, same request. So making things visible, having it available on the internet so we can see it, and be able to have those numbers large instead of what is put on a little tiny screen in a big spreadsheet. Because if they're online and a table, we can open it up and look at it. Thank you.

Thank you.

That is all I have.

Is there anybody else that would like to fill out a card to speak right now? If not, we'll close public comment and move on to our public hearings. Resolution number 2026-39.

Resolution 2639, a resolution of the City Commission of the City of Apopka, Florida, approving the fiscal year 2026-2027 non-advalorum assessment role for the Emerson Park assessment area, directing certification of the assessment role to the Orange County tax collector, repealing all resolutions or parts of resolutions in conflict herewith, providing for severability and providing for an effective date.

Ms. Sherman.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Commissioners.

Good afternoon.

This item, as Susan just mentioned, is resolution number 202639, approving the fiscal year 2026-27 non-Avalon assessment role for Emerson Park area. The City Commission adopted an assessment resolution to provide for the construction and funding of Emerson Park improvements, which comprise the pavement repair in our improvements, new asphalt installation to replace brick pavers in certain areas, and repair and improve and install curbs, sidewalks, street lights, and traffic signs, and the funding of such improvements through the non-advaluam special assessment. This is an annual process that we must go through to collect those 15 annual installments. Therefore, each year I'll be coming before you with an approval of this assessment. That's it.

Thank you. Any questions from the dais?

So for 15 years? For 15 years you'll be bringing this before us? Not me, somebody else, not whoever. That's how long we had agreed to, 15 years?

Yes, it's a 15 year period. OK.

Any other questions? Do we have any cards specific to this? Okay. Is there anybody in the public that wishes to fill out a card to speak on this? We'll close public comment and I will look for a motion to adopt resolution number 2026-39. Moved by Commissioner Anderson.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Barron. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Next up, we are announcing and adopting tentative millage rate of 4.6761, which is a 10% increase over the rollback rate of 4.2510. Ms. Sherman.

Thank you, Mayor. Again, as mentioned, this is to announce and adopt the tentative millage rate of the 4.6761, which is a 10% increase over the rollback rate of 4.2510. In accordance with the truth in millage, compliance requirements as set forth in Chapter 200 of Florida Statutes, the city must adopt a tentative millage rate and advise the property appraisal of such. The tentative millage rate is hereby set at the 4.6761, which represents the 10% over the rollback rate of 4.2510.

Thank you. Any questions from the dais? Any comments? It's a shame we had to go there. But we are here now. Anybody from the public or any cards that have been filled out? No cards. Anybody from the public wish to fill out a card and speak? If not, we'll close public comment. I need to read a compliance statement and then I'll ask for a motion for this. In accordance with truth and millage or trim compliance requirements as set forth in chapter 200 of Florida statutes, the city must announce and adopt the tentative millage rate. The operating millage rate used in preparation of the tentative budget of 4.6761 is 10% higher than the rollback rate of 4.2510. A mill is the tax rate for each $1,000 of taxable property value. The final budget hearing is scheduled for Wednesday, September 16th, 2026 at 515 in the city commission chambers. I will now ask for a motion to announce and adopt the tentative millage rate for fiscal year 2026 through 2027 at 4.6761, which is a 10% increase over the rollback rate of 4.2510. Moved by Commissioner Ruth. Second by Vice Mayor. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

Aye.

Motion carries four to one. Commissioner Anderson in opposition.

I would like to say that this 4.6761 rolls us back to where we were two years ago, correct?

It's almost back to where we were last year at 4.6876. So it's a little lower than where we were last year before that two year ago before the rate was lowered. Thank you. Before it went to the 4.4376. So yes, it was at 4.68, I believe 76.

So we're still where we were two years ago and we're looking for a brighter future. Thank you for all your help.

But we have increased, what was the property increase in value? So how much additional revenue have we taken in from property taxes? I'll be able to show you on this presentation. So we have taken in more money as well.

Like that one point, we're a million. One million fifty-four. One billion fifty-four. I do it every time. One billion fifty-four million. Seven hundred eighteen, six hundred sixty-four.

It was an increase.

And the staffing services required to support that increase is still two years behind. And the personnel we needed for it is still going to fall two years behind.

Well, I don't think that's a... Because there was a lot of things that was actually built into that. It just wasn't staffing. So I don't think that's a true indication of what it is. Because it was different things within that budget.

No, it's an exact representation of what we are. It is not.

I mean, that would make sense if it was the whole entire thing was staffing. We're talking over each other. Correct. One at a time. Thank you.

One at a time. I'm going to ask that Sam Ruth say his opinion, and then we'll go over to the... No, Sam Ruth started. No, I should start first. No, Sam Ruth started. Everyone...

I'm fine. Is out of order right now. Yeah. We're gonna reel this back in. Do you have a final comment, Commissioner Ruth, before we move on? I said what I needed. Commissioner Anderson, do you have a final comment before we move on?

Yes, I just think it's important that we don't try to paint a picture that is not correct. There has been a increase in taxes that have taken in. So I think it's important to say that. And this budget that was proposed was not just staff. That is 100% not accurate. That's all I have to say.

Thank you for your comment. Any other comments before we move on? Next step, adopt a tentative budget and any adjustment resulting from the public hearing. Ms. Sherman.

Thank you, Mayor. The tentative budget, I'm gonna give you a quick PowerPoint, then I'm gonna go into some of the details that were discussed at the workshop. Again, this slide illustrates where we stand by fund based on the tentative budget before any changes that were discussed at our workshop on the 1st. from general fund all the way through the community redevelopment fund, where we stand from a fund balance standpoint, okay? This is just a summary. We kind of went over that at the workshop in detail. So these next few slides will show you a different format for that same information, starting with the general fund. As you can see, it's a decrease down to 21,932, same thing. The streets fund, basically, this is a fund where we try to stay within the revenues that are in that for the year. And so there's like a zero impact. And a lot of this, as you know, is a transfer from the general fund. Transportation impact fees, again, we stay within the revenues that we anticipate to be generated in FY27. So there's a zero impact on the reserves. law enforcement trust these are this is the federal one and it's pretty standard to use the reserves and so you see a reduction of about 11.96 percent recreation impact fees again we're trying to stay within and we kind of identify several projects not only did we use the current year reserves but the anticipated um fund balance from the prior year as well so that's why you see the negative 100 percent Law enforcement trust this as a state, same as the federal. It's pretty standard to use those reserves. You collect the money and you plan it out in the future. Discretionary funds functions in the same way. That's why you're looking at a 24.33% reduction there. Fire impact fees, just the 51%. We do kind of still have some funding set aside because we're trying to move forward with either fire station one, public safety building, and doing the design and other things like that. But we do have money in the budget for the design. Police impact fee, same concept as the fire impact fee. Stormwater, or did I skip one?

Nope, I did. Let me go back up. Sorry about that.

Stormwater. Stormwater, again, that's one of the funds where we're trying to make sure we stay within the revenues as best as we can. We did have some use of that, so it's going down about 56.88%. The grant fund is just a fund where we just put all of the grant funded projects and it's a timing issue in regards to that negative balance. It's a matter of when that expenditure take place and that revenue is recognized. Special assessments similar to the discretionary funds and the law enforcement trust funds. And these are the special assessment to the non-Avalon special assessments. So it's only a slight use of the reserves at 1.63. Emerson Park is the one we just approved the resolution on. And as you can see, that's like zero. We try to make sure the revenues are covering those debt payments. Streetlight assessment, similar to the other assessments, we've got a slight use of 11.21% change. The 401 fund, again, one of the major projects that we have, as we discussed the other night, is that $10 million for the large pond liner repair in Golden Gym. So that's showing using a significant amount of reserves to help with that, as well as revenue. sanitation fund we know the financial position on that particular fund we try to stay within the revenues we're trying to build reserves in this particular fund based on the rate structure and the plan that's in place from 25 to 29. so you see a zero impact there the impact fee fund just a slight use of of the reserve you see a change of a negative 12.19 percent there And the CRA, you're looking at 100% because, again, according to certain state taxes, we have to carry those appropriations forward and to plan to spend for them in the upcoming year. So with all funds, you're looking at a net, before any changes, of a reduction of about negative 26.85.

How much does that come out to in terms of reserves? How much is coming out of our reserves to balance this?

See that net change right there for general fund? Without the changes that we're going to talk about after this, you're looking at the 6.2. And you go down, you'll see each fund. That represents each fund. The street fund, you see zero. The next one, transportation impact fee, you see zero. And law enforcement trust, you see the slight use of reserves there. But that column that says net change, and you have that sheet, that tells you that impact.

So that's $25,698,254? No.

In total, and this is not counting the rollover for CRA, it's the 29. Okay. You got it?

I got it now. Thank you.

You're very welcome. So this is a summary that kind of shows how we balance back to the reserves from where we start with the audited financial statements as of 2026. So it's kind of going forward two years because we're in 2020. This was 2025. My bad on that because I was like, wait. Okay, that's audited financials of 2025. So then you have the budgeted plan reserves in 2026 is what we plan to use. What we did use in the 26th budget was a $7,401,847. Then you have budget amendments throughout the year and we have to account for those. That includes, a lot of that includes our rollovers year to year. That 12 million, a lot of that is some of our rollovers and that 2 million down at the bottom. So at this point in time, including the last budget amendment that we just did for 365,000, it's that 14,761. So the proposed use right here, like the 6,230,124 that we're talking about now for 27, leaves us the balances that you see here. okay at the 23 482 that's the unassigned that's the one the other stuff is committed or assigned or restricted and you know you use them for those particular purposes So that total, without these adjustments that we're gonna be talking about here, we had the 23, 482, 394. As you can see, we're using 400. That committed is the tree bank. A million, we had a million left for capital for anything in 27. And the 150 is when we added the Duke money for the resource center. Okay. So at that point in time, the 25% was like 27.9. So that's why we were at the 21% at that point. And in regards to the millage, this is the information pertaining to that. But again, we've already said it. Any questions before I go into the items we need to look at that were discussed at the budget workshop?

Any initial questions? All right, let's get into what we adjusted from the workshop.

They try to give me pointers. Okay. So the first item, and the mayor, I think we discussed the approaches. We're gonna take each item and look for a vote on each of the items.

So that's correct. I think that'll be better to do. Go line by line, have a brief discussion on each one, make a decision and keep it moving.

So the first item is the legal services, and this is something Commissioner Anderson brought up in saying that she would like to remove that position until a decision is made regarding in-house or external. And that amount is 297,565, including benefits.

Do we have any comments on that?

Yeah, so we're committing to, so that means that if we remove this, then we'll be committing to outside legal services. we won't have a choice to have an in-house at all if we remove this.

There's still an opportunity to. It doesn't lock us in one way or the other, but it comes down to how you want to budget effectively. Do you want to budget with an in-house in mind and also with the thought that we may need some outside counsel as well as needed or exclusively pick one side or the other, which we haven't had that discussion.

me it makes the most sense to have both in right now and adjust as needed down the road if we need to move those funds around my position is is that the in-house attorney we are budgeting for one position we're not budgeting for department so we're not properly budgeting budgeting so to have an in-house one attorney cannot do the job so if we're looking to actually do that do we need to budget for budgeted properly we need to staff it properly we need probably three attorneys probably two paralegals, executive assistant, so that this is just not accurate. It's just not accurate. That's just like budget for like 25% of a department.

Any other comments? Okay. Everybody needs to make a motion. Yeah, I'll look for a motion to either keep that in or take it out.

You do public comment or no?

Public comment or no?

I'll do public comment on all of these items. So does anybody have any specific public comments or have they filled out any cards? So nobody's filled out any cards. Is there anybody from the public that wishes to speak and fill out a card about any of these line items that were discussed Tuesday? I need you to fill out a card first, please.

we can't see any of this even from up front the in-house city attorney position not saying anything bad about the current city attorney if substantial savings can occur by setting up an in-house department and you know it's going to mean computers and staff if it's going to make a financial difference for the city, do it. I haven't seen all the breakdown of what it would take to form a department as opposed to what we're currently paying. I haven't seen a full comparison, but you should be aware of that. And it would make sense that it's going to save.

Thank you. Are there anybody else from the public wish to fill out a card and speak?

Rod Olson, 3156 Rolling Hills Lane. Regardless of what we work and look at, we need to build for in-house counsel. If that means two plus a paralegal and a staff member, the savings will be unbelievable. I mean, we're paying close to a half a million dollars right now. You're always gonna need outside counsel, so you need a budget line for outside counsel. There's gonna be specialties in labor, specialists in liabilities. There'd be specialists that you just can't hire Lawyers can be jacks of all trade, but masters of none. And so we need to find availability for you guys to walk in the office and say, this is it, rather than, hello, well, Cliff's not available. Go to one of his partners. And then the meter's running from the time you make that call. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Olson. All right, I'll close public comment. I will say we did send out originally that cost comparison between an in-house full office. I wanna say it was about $650,000 all in. That's okay for right now. I know we provided it previously. So that was provided and until we make that decision, I think that's why that was still stated because we still need to have outside council budgeted. And then if we have that for in-house as well, that'll be there, so.

any final comments i have a question so i'm looking here it says 314 896 for the legal services for that that is it's 297 565 so is it the risk the risk person is in there as well fourteen thousand for the risk risk person is included only fourteen thousand that'll leave fourteen thousand seven

Includes the benefits as well. So you got to look at all the benefits below instead of just the 314. You need to look at all the benefits as factored as well.

I'm looking at it. So it's a regular salaries and. So the risk, so that risk position that's in there is the, that's the risk specialist.

Risk manager.

Manager, not the specialist. Okay. Thank you.

Mm-hmm.

Any other comments from the dice? If not, I'll look for a motion to either keep in the attorney, in-house attorney budgeted position or to not keep that in.

At our current budget, I make a motion that we keep what we got.

Okay, motion to keep the in-house attorney position budgeted. Do I have a second?

Second.

Motion by Commissioner Ruth, second by Commissioner Barron. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed?

Aye.

Motion carries four to one with Commissioner Anderson in opposition. Next, the risk specialists. Yes.

The risk specialist position was brought up by Vice Mayor Velazquez. In order to support the only staff that is in city risk management functions, she thought that two would be more adequate.

Absolutely. Do you know i'm here almost 12 years and our population has grown and the demands on the staff, the one staff member. If she takes vacation, if she's out sick, there's no one in that office and that should not be. We should always have someone covering in that office. And that is something that I have expressed in previous administrations. So it is a needed position. we need to start staffing our offices where there's one person handling one job. We need to start having someone as a succession rate and someone to cover that office when they're on vacation.

Any other comments? All right. I'll look for a motion to either add in or keep out the one additional risk specialist.

So moved.

Move to add in. To add in. Motion by Vice Mayor. Second. Second by Commissioner Ruth. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Next, the non-profit grant program.

Yes. Commissioner Anderson believes and feels that this is a valuable program for the city, for the non-profit organizations. So she has requested to add that back to the budget at $100,000.

Thank you. Comments on this?

I just prepared a statement I just want to read and the reason why this is important to me. If public funding for nonprofit human service organizations is reduced or eliminated, there is a reasonable expectation that the underlying community needs will not disappear. They will shift to a higher cost government system. The city should anticipate increased demand for police calls for service, fire and emergency medical responses, juvenile justice involvement, homelessness intervention, behavioral health crisis, child welfare, and family stabilization services, emergency room utilization, and other public safety and social service responses. Each of these carry a direct or indirect taxpayer cost. In practical terms, reducing investment in prevention and early intervention may lower one budget line temporary while increasing expenditures elsewhere. Therefore, nonprofit funding should be evaluated not only by what it costs to provide services but also by the reasonable anticipated public costs of those services being absent.

That's all. Thank you. Any additional comments on this one? I will say for this one specifically, I know it was a first year, last year we actually did it. Obviously, many groups took advantage of it. Yes. it was valuable it impacted many people on many different levels what i think is key is something that we can do is come back to this once we see how 2026 finishes out and if there's funds available then and the commission chooses to for any savings that we've had from this year into next year any of the rollovers anything we want to reallocate we can choose if we want to from there put money back into this program or make it robust in some capacity uh right now it's it's It's a tough decision to make. And I know that personally, I still contribute to these nonprofits and will continue to do that as much as I can. And it's tough to take that out right now. But via social media and comments that I've seen and heard, residents are not wanting us to do a grant program right now.

Every tax dollar needs to be defined in public purpose. We need to be careful, especially with November right around the corner. Every dollar needs to be accounted for right now. And like you said, we can always come back.

Which I do anticipate to be able to do that. It's just we'll be able to reevaluate it then. All right, well, I'll look for a motion to either, well, to add back in or to keep out the nonprofit grant program.

Move to add back in the nonprofit grant program back into the budget.

Got a motion to add the nonprofit grant program back in at 100,000. Do we have a second? Not hearing a second, that dies on the floor. Do I have any other motions? If not, then it will not be added back in. All right, move on to building. Removal of the city hall second floor renovations.

Can you just? Can I talk about that? When we discussed renovations, what did that include? I don't remember paint chips or things like that. Do we know what we were doing with renovations?

Specific to the second floor? Yeah. If you've been in many of those offices up there, they're not real walls. So a department actually or a manager brought this to my attention that if they're doing an employer review or something that nature, they have to basically whisper about employer reviews or anything private because they're not real walls up there. The carpet is old and aging. Plumbing is problematic up there. One of the first months that I became mayor, you could smell a specific scent upstairs that wasn't great coming from sewage. So it's an old building. I mean, it's an aged building that has not had...

So we're not talking about cosmetic paint and things like that.

I mean, there will be new paint, there'll be new carpet, but also real walls, things of that nature.

running plumbing because some there's faucets that are not working things of that nature you also have in hr you got seven people you know when when um residents walk in the staff members in there have to turn their computers off because employee information is relatively available for it's visible and it's visible And we're talking about a risk management person. So now we're going to have overcrowded offices in that area. So there's a lot of behind the scenes stuff that needs to be taken into consideration. We are growing. The staff is growing. And remember, that was Apopka High School. That was our high school.

Oh, the city hall?

Yes.

Wow.

years and years and so it never was intended to be used like this. If we want our city to be modern, we need to modernize our city hall. We need our employees to be happy to come to work, feel safe, feel comfortable because they spend a lot of time here, maybe sometimes more time than they spend with their own families. So I need them to want to be here. And also there's some ADA compliance stuff that we need to make sure is taken care of as well. Again, it's an old, old, old building. We need to make sure that's taken care of so that it's accessible to all. So those are the things that we need to take care of and pushing this off till next year, it's only gonna get more expensive. It still needs to get done at a higher cost.

So just to be clear, the $75,000, we're gonna be re-plumbing, we're gonna be adding walls, we're gonna be ADHD, we're gonna do all that for $75,000 on a commercial building and putting in flooring for $75,000?

That's gonna be a start to it. These are gonna be coming in phases. Every year, excuse me, I'm answering your question. But I wasn't speaking. Every year we've done phases. Last budget was approved to do city hall. So we're finishing out in phases, renovating properly city hall to make sure that is ADA compliant and things of that nature. So yes, 75,000 will not finish it, but is the phase that in order of what we've done.

So to be clear, this $75,000 is a general budget for renovations. We have not identified exactly what we're going to do with that, and we don't have an itemized list of things we're going to tackle for the $75,000?

We have.

And what is that list? Can we have a copy of that list? Yeah, it's actually right here. Can you give us the dollar amount that equals the $75,000?

No, it's not broken down by dollar amount.

So how do you know what it costs?

I have it in the budget. I trust my employees that created this budget.

So I know you trust employees, but we still need to know for transparency how much it's going to cost. We are spending taxpayers' dollars. So we're saying that we're doing seated hall renovations. We're going to construct, frame, insulate interior walls, new furniture, new carpet, make passageway between the kitchenette and breakdown. rework the interest, main rooms, additional employee, create space for their, for sensitive operations, rework the public interest, handicap access, enclosed pets, like building division, building the office code, like really how much it's gonna cost. It's gonna cost more than $75,000. So if we have a number, I don't understand why we can't disclose what that number is now. If there's a number, I'm asking you, Mayor, to please allow the public to know how much these renovations are gonna cost the taxpayers. And I don't understand why that number is a hidden number. You said the staff had that number. Can we have that number?

I don't know if the staff does have that number. This is the next phase of that.

You stated the staff had that number and you trust staff. So can you please identify which staff member that you spoke to that you just said that the staff had that number? What is the number? And which staff member that you spoke to said they had the number? Because you just stated that. That was your own words.

Don't interrupt you, is that the end of your comment?

No, I just, so to make it clear that you did say on record that you have a number, what it costs, and you trust staff with that number. And when I asked you to identify that number, you then said you didn't have the number. So it's very clear that this list that you just typed up, that you don't have a, actually, you don't have a clue how much this costs because you can't tell us what it costs. I just think it's ridiculous that you present a piece of paper and cannot tell the taxpayer how much it's gonna cost. That's all I have to say about it.

Thank you for your comments. The numbers provided were from staff. The number is 75,000. This is the next phase in the renovations. If you'd like a breakdown, we have our facilities team that created these numbers. So you are more than welcome, as always, as I've said from the day I got elected to right now, You have every opportunity, and it's in the city charter. Reach out to get the information that you're requesting. So the number is 75,000 for the next phase. If you would like a detailed number, feel free to reach out to staff. These numbers have been available for months at this point. We've done- Bye. Thank you. So if there was questions, concerns about that, we could have provided details in that, and we still can. So feel free to reach out to staff for those numbers. Any final comments from the dais?

This is not in the budget. $75,000, it's gonna cost more than $75,000. We do not have a list of what this costs. That is 100% inaccurate.

Thank you for your comments. Any final comments from any other commissioners? If not, look for a motion to either keep the second floor city hall renovations out of the budget or to add them back in.

Motion we add them back in.

Motion made by Commissioner Ruth to add the second floor city hall renovations back into the budget. Do I have a second?

I second it.

Seconded by Commissioner Anderson. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Next up, removal of the office furniture replacements.

Okay. Again, this is another one that was brought up by Commissioner Anderson. She brought this item up to remove in order to support the recreation athletics community event programs as an offset.

Understood. Thank you.

Do we have a list of the replacement of which office furniture that we're going to be replacing and which location, which buildings?

Staff has that somewhere. Facilities will.

Is facilities available to tell us which is $210,000? I think that will help us make a decision.

Facilities would be happy to provide that and present that.

Well, if we're going to be voting on it now, we need to actually know what that entails. We don't know what that $210,000, what office furniture is. That's very vague. That could be one piece of furniture. We don't know what that is. It's a large expense, 210.

Any other comments?

I can't blindly vote on, because I don't know what we're spending the money on. One piece of furniture, two pieces of furniture, I don't know.

To restate, these numbers were provided back on July 8th. If there was any questions during any of that time, staff is always available. Per the city charter, commissioners have access to ask any and all questions. No information can be not provided to commissioners in the course of their duties.

So any additional information, excuse me, you're out of order.

Any additional information that is needed is always available to every commissioner. And if that information was needed then, could have been asked then, Nothing has been added in since then. And if it has, it's been brought up and discussed and always available for staff to provide details.

If we're going to spend $210,000 on taxpayers' dollars for furniture, I think we should know exactly what we're spending $210,000 on. And I'm not confident in voting on $10,000 blindly and not sure. I can't tell a taxpayer what I'm spending the money on, a piece of furniture that we don't know.

Any final comments? I'll look for a motion to either add back in or remove the office furniture replacements.

I move to remove the office furniture replacement out the budget until we know exactly what we're spending the $210,000 on.

Motion made by Commissioner Anderson to keep the furniture replacement out of the budget. Do I have a second? No second. That motion dies. Do I have any other motions that would like to be made? I'll make a motion to add it back in. I have a motion from Commissioner Ruth to add the office furniture replacements back into the budget. Do I have a second?

So moved.

Seconded by Vice Mayor. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed? Aye. Motion carries four to one with Commissioner Anderson in opposition. Next up, we have the four commission discretionary funds.

Yes, and Commissioner Anderson actually brought this up. Again, she considers it to be a valuable program from the city's nonprofit organizations.

I'll go ahead and I'll remove that for me because I've actually already have other organizations that have already agreed to assist with that. So for me, I remove my recommendation. I actually follow recommendation to take it out of the budget. I'm fine with that.

Any other comments from the commissioners on that?

Our last, if we could reduce it to at least half, 5,000, that still allows the opportunity for commissioners to still support those organizations, but obviously we're still providing some savings towards the budget. So I would ask just for this, for 2026, 2027, to have our discretionary fund reduced to 5,000 each.

Okay. Any other comments specific to that?

No, I would say that I agree with that because since we're not doing the grant fund and there are some local that we do support. So I agree with reducing it to 5,000.

Okay, I'll look for a motion to add back in the commissioner's discretionary contributions up to $5,000 each.

I make a motion to reduce the commission discretionary contribution fund to 5,000 for fiscal year of 2026, 2027. Second that.

Second. Motion from Commissioner Barron, second by Vice Mayor. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed? Motion carries four to one with Commissioner Anderson in opposition. Next up, we have the six firefighter positions.

And this was brought up by Commissioner Ruth, if I can recall the conversation correctly. I know that the fire chief mentioned that he does need, I think, at least three of those for the tire truck that is already, I believe, on order. And so a decision was made to try to request authorization to add all six of those positions back.

Thank you. Any additional comments on this one? All right, I look for a motion to add in the six new firefighter positions. Motion by Commissioner Roof.

I'll second.

Second by Commissioner Barron. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Next up, tree care and maintenance. This is specific to the cemetery.

Yes, it is. This is, and Commissioner Roof brought this item up. He thought it might need an increase, so we got with staff, and staff is recommending an additional 20,000 be added to the, I think the other amount was 25. Okay.

So instead of being 20,000, it would be 20?

Instead of being 25, it would be 45.

45. Mm-hmm.

Any final comments on that one?

It's important to keep the cemetery in tips option.

Maintained, yeah. We don't want the residents mad. The cemetery residents get it. All right. Do I have a motion to approve or add in the tree care maintenance into this budget?

So moved.

Moved by Vice Mayor, seconded by Commissioner Ruth. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Next up, the Saturday Sounds Concert Series. This one was brought up by me. If you've seen social media or talked to anyone, this was a big one.

Yeah. And I will say this because you know, I've gone to almost every Saturday sounds. We have a big community from Zellward that supports it. We have a lot of outside communities that do support Saturday sounds and yes, I know social media. And of course, you get to see them and they're at the supermarket and they were asking me please keep Saturday sounds. And so I agree. So thank you for putting it back.

And I do want to detail too, so this breaks it down to only one time per month, but what it'll do is it'll make that more of a robust event. Yes. So that it's more of a kind of checks the boxes for anybody that wants to come on some level, it'll hit that for them. So any final comments on that one?

Is there any way that we could create matrix to where we can find out funding mechanisms that we could at least make sure that we're covering our staff costs?

Yes, we can definitely do that. Something we're actually looking into too is to see if we can start to get sponsors for these type of events. Just something that, hey, a headline sponsor, that's November's headline sponsor for Saturday Sounds is this. to help reduce that. That's something that we're gonna be doing on a lot of, including our events coming up that we're about to be discussing. So yes.

I'm a huge fan of it. I also go out there, but I think it'd be negligent on our part not to try to find funding mechanisms.

Absolutely. We gotta try everywhere. At least break even on them. Yes, absolutely. Any final comments?

So this will be once a month?

Correct.

Okay, they'll be happy.

Well, I'll look for a motion to either keep out or add in the Saturday Sounds Concert Series. I'll make the motion that we add in.

Okay, I'll second.

Motion by Commissioner Ruth, second by Vice Mayor. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries unanimously.

I know Blanche is not looking nicely at us because we're adding money back to our already laboring.

It's okay. We'll make it. We'll make it.

If we may, can we add, unless there's another conversation that needs to be had, can we add, can we do a motion for all the events that are listed here in one vote? Yes. All the events.

It was the other events that Commissioner Anderson and Commissioner Velasquez brought up.

Likewise with those, can we make sure that we can fund funding mechanisms?

Absolutely. I think it's important that we do that.

Any final comments on these then so i'll let's see here so i'll start with the woman health and fitness fast, all the way through. I guess the scholarship revenue from Advent Health Sponsorship? Correct.

Okay.

I just have a question in reference to the Community Events Grants Program. That's $75,000.

Obviously, that's in addition to the $100,000 that's died on the floor right now. But I just want to make sure we're not doing the same exact thing with these funds.

I think the community event program is a little different.

I figured it would, but I wanna make sure that we're clarifying that.

So the community grant program has not actually run yet, but it is structured in the same fashion as the nonprofit grant program. It'd be open for nonprofit organizations to apply for grant funding to help run community events.

To run the community events.

Is there any matching funds?

We haven't even presented that program to commission for final approval. With the changeover in commission and kind of the budget coming in, we held off on that. We do have a draft that could be presented. It's structured very similar to the non-profit grant program.

So whereas the non-profit is for their business and this is just for an event?

This is specifically for events.

Okay, thank you for the clarification.

All right, so I'll look for a motion then to add back in the Health and Fitness Fest event all the way through on this list to the scholarship revenue from AdventHealth sponsorship.

I'll move.

Moved by Commissioner Anderson.

I'll second.

Second by Commissioner Barron. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

That was regarding the dei do any of these programs fall into that member dissenter says as of January 1. And I believe our attorney was supposed to clarify that for us.

Yeah, the attorney's office did provide a memo that was sent out a couple months ago. I can resend that to everybody. And basically the recommendation, I can let Cliff speak on this, but the recommendation out of that memo was that we do need to evaluate these events on an event-by-event basis, but that national holidays, recognized holidays are eligible still.

Yeah, they're eligible, okay.

It's state and Florida holidays. And that's important because Florida recognizes holidays that are not federal.

So that passes unanimously. And then the other two is basically just moving some money around, I believe. Yes.

Mr. John Hanson brought up something as we were developing this, and he wanted more money for his legal advertisement. So we're transferring it from one line to another, reducing one line and increasing another.

So we'll either approve or deny that all at once, but it's just a...

Zero impact.

Thank you, that's what I mean. So I will look for a motion to approve the changes to the building department inspections legal advertising.

Last one, yeah.

Moved by Commissioner Ruth.

I'll second.

Seconded by Commissioner Barron. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries unanimously. CRA?

CRA? We only have a few things for CRA. And these items were discussed at the CRA meeting. So I just want to get those incorporated in the final budget. And it included taking funds from land. And it was like $299,000 that was put in land for new land and FY27. The CRA committee requested that we remove that and add in some improvements for Alonzo Williams Park that includes sidewalks and bathrooms.

Thank you.

Any comments on this? The only thing that I, with the bathrooms, should that be, should that come out of the rec fund?

Again, I think they already doing some bathrooms.

It could. I think the strategy here is it's coming out of CRA dollars to benefit the CRA area versus... It could.

It could. Any parks stuff could come out of that. But I think they're now already doing something with Alonzo Williams where they were giving them water that came out of CRA.

Yeah. Which is completed, I think.

Yeah. So there are other improvements that are going on at the Alonzo Williams Park that's coming out of the CRA.

Is there any public comment cards for this one? Would anybody from the public wish to fill out a public comment card and speak? If not, close that. Look for a motion to approve the CRA proposed reductions and additions.

Number one.

Oh, we're gonna do it as one.

So you want me to talk about the other one?

I thought that was... No, no, it's two. There's two. There's the sidewalks underneath. Okay, so we'll just do the first one, sorry. Excuse me. To approve the change from the new land for fiscal year 2027 to the Alonzo Williams Park sidewalks and bathrooms. So moved. Moved by Commissioner Anderson.

I'll second.

Second by Commissioner Barron. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed? Motion carries unanimously. One in, yeah, correct.

So the next item is we're taking funds out of the contingency in the amount of $126,000 to add sidewalks in the CRA area. Commissioner Roof, I think this is one of your recommendations. And so that would increase the improvements for the sidewalks in the CRA area. There is a note on this, and you probably cannot see it, but it says that staff have confirmed with public services that there are

Okay, it says the CRA recommendation, staff have confirmed with public services that there are no sidewalk projects planned for the CRA.

What that tells me is effectively we need to, either we as the commission and really the CRA board needs to provide some direction to what those sidewalks exactly look like. Where do you want them? How do you want them? All of that. So that's a CRA discussion, not this discussion, but just keep that in mind that that needs to be discussed and planned out so there's clear direction to staff from there. Any additional comments, questions on that?

So we're not saying yes, no, we're not voting on this. We are.

Oh, we are? Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Because it's just the budget and then we'll add a plan once, or the board, the CRA board will provide some type of staffing or plan from there. Does anybody from the public, is there any cards filled out for this? Would anybody like to fill out a card and speak on this?

Rod Olson, 3156 Rolling Hills Lane. Whether it's fits under CRA or outside CRA, sidewalks are an issue. As you know, October 10th, I had a fall, a broken piece of sidewalk. I already poured a month before, well, actually two months before the fall and a year before the fall, and it wasn't rectified. hit a bad piece of pavement. Fortunately, it was just a broken collarbone. But the fact the city should be conducting an audit of every 323 miles and identify areas where there's slip and fall hazards and or broken sidewalk. It's a hazard. Fortunately, Mine was a minor fall, it was only five months of therapy. Great, the most common injury for falls are brain injuries, brain injuries. That could cost the city millions of dollars. So the audit, probably an ongoing quarterly review of all the sidewalks. We have people on the road, we have our inspection people, we have police, we have fire on the road. Assign everyone a mile and have them look at it at least quarterly, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Olsen. Thank you.

I mean, I'd like to also add that in the CRA area, like Commissioner Ruth had mentioned, there are areas that don't have sidewalks that children are walking to Apopka Middle School or Dream Lake Elementary, Apopka Elementary as well. So those areas that we need to consider what's the most highest traffic in terms of our children walking to school. So we make sure that we are installing sidewalks so they can safely get to and from school.

Let me ask you, is Lake Avenue part of, I believe, the CRA? Yeah, because that's one street that we have one resident that comes in all the time and reminds us about Lake Avenue. But I think Michael Ortiz has it on his list. Is it Mike Ortiz?

It would be Michael Ortiz, but I think we confirmed with Public Works that they do not have anything in the CRA as planned.

And not all of Lake is CRA, so just keep that in mind as well. So there may be some outside of it.

CRA only goes to Oak, but even from two-thirds of the CRA is without sidewalks, so... I mean, just pick a road in the CRA and you'll find something. Very few have sidewalks.

Any final comments? All right, I look for a motion to approve item number two on the CRA proposed reductions and additions for sidewalks.

So moved.

Moved by Commissioner Barron, second by Vice Mayor. All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed? Motion carries unanimously. So Ms. Sherman, we're done with those then. So I will move on to the final motion.

Yes, to adopt a tentative budget and any adjustments.

I will look for a motion to approve the tentative budget and add any adjustments resulting from the public hearing.

So moved.

Moved by Vice Mayor, second by Commissioner Ruth. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Next up, announcing the final millage rate and budget hearing for September 16th, 2026 at 5.15 p.m. Do we have any public comment cards on this? Would anybody from the public wish to speak on this? Here we go. You invited that. Please fill out a public comment card beforehand.

I am going to give you my- You want those steps, I'll make you get them. I'm gonna give Mr. Olsen my- Next date, 9-19? 9-19. 16th. 16th.

Just need to know what you're speaking on. It's per our policy and we're gonna be following the policy.

Just put ditto.

Just before the meeting adjourns, I just wanna thank all the staff, department heads, the commission, mayor, vice mayor, all of you, the incredible amount of work that goes into a budget process. As flawed as it is, Just make it better, and thank you all very much for everything.

Thank you, Mr. Olsen. Thank you, sir. All right, I will look for a motion to... There's no motion needed for the announcement. I'm just announcing it. All right, we did it. All right, any final comments?

No, thank you. No, I ditto. Thank you, everyone that's in the room, all the directors, everyone that took part. Thank you, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners, for your input in all of this. Thank you. No, we could have not done it with Hallie. And most importantly, thank you.

You're very welcome.

Yes, thank you to the team. Have a great long weekend. Be safe. We'll see you the 16th.

Oh, so we off tomorrow?

Please.

I thought it was Groundhog Day.