City Council - Regular Meeting

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to our council meeting for June 9th, 2026. Virtual participation and council meeting are available on your computer or smartphone via Microsoft Teams or by telephone. You can learn how to participate virtually by visiting our website at www.clemmoutfl.gov and search for attend council meeting online. In the interest of time efficiency and ensuring that everyone who wishes to address the council to give an opportunity to do so, the following will apply to all comments made by the public in person and virtually. Each speaker will be permitted three minutes to address the council in an effort to be respectful, During the meeting, please make sure your cell phones are set to silence. Thank you for participating in the city government. Tonight's invocation will be given by Jocelyn Williamson from the Central Florida Free Thought Community. Please rise and remain standing for the pledge.

Good afternoon, Mayor, council members, city staff, and neighbors. As we gather today, let us recognize the responsibility of public service and the trust placed in this room. June gives us much to reflect on. Juneteenth reminds us that freedom, though promised, has too often been delayed, denied, or unevenly protected. This month also asks us to consider dignity, safety, mental health, and the burdens many people carry quietly. Pride Month reminds us that people should be able to live honestly, safely, and without fear. PTSD Awareness Month, National Safety Month, and Men's Health Month remind us that strong communities are built not only through laws and budgets but through care, awareness, and a willingness to look out for one another. James Baldwin once wrote, not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced. That is a worthwhile consideration for public service. A community grows stronger when it makes room for every resident to be seen, heard, and considered. Today as this council considers budgets, services, public resources, and the practical needs of a growing city, let its work be guided by facts, fairness, and a care for the people of Claremont. Let public dollars be handled with wisdom, disagreement met with patience, and public concerns heard with respect. And may all of us remember that self-government asks something of everyone, honesty, humility, participation, and concern for one another. Thank you.

Thank you.

with liberty and justice for all.

Amen.

Please be seated. This afternoon we have two presentations. The first presentation is a Deputy City Clerk CMC recognition.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Thank you for the opportunity to recognize our Deputy City Clerk. I am speaking on behalf of the Florida Association of City Clerks as a past president. It is my pleasure to recognize Deputy City Clerk Nicole Wisniewski for earning Certified Municipal Clerk CMC designation. through the International Institute of Municipal Clerks and the Florida Association of City Clerks. Achieving this designation requires extensive professional development and a commitment to excellence in local government. Nicole successfully completed the rigorous Municipal Clerks Institute program. through the Florida Institute of Government at Florida State University, along with additional educational, professional, and service requirements. The CMC designation represents a significant professional achievement and demonstrates Nicole's dedication to serving our community of Claremont with the highest standards of professionalism. This accomplishment is only the beginning of a lifelong commitment to professional growth. And I have no doubt Nicole will continue pursuing excellence through advanced certifications and leadership opportunities within our profession to include Master Municipal Clerk Program. Nicole is now part of an elite group of municipal professionals, and this achievement would not be possible without the city's support for continuing education and professional development. On behalf of the Florida Association of City Clerks, its board of directors, professional education committee, members throughout the state of Florida congratulations Nicole we are incredibly proud of your accomplishment please congratulate deputy city clerk Nicole Wisniewski on becoming one of Florida's newest certified municipal clerks Nicole display your certificate and wear your pin with pride as symbols of dedication professionalism and commitment to public service

Tracy, I just have one comment on that, if I may. With all that newfound knowledge, did that pay increase come with that?

Yes.

I'm happy to say Nicole is now a supervisor in the clerk's office.

OK. Thank you. The second presentation is the quarterly budget report for fiscal year 2026, quarter two.

Good afternoon, Mayor, City Council. SCOTT BOER, FINANCE DIRECTOR, AND THANKS FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT TO YOU OUR QUARTERLY BUDGET REPORT FOR THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR 2526. AS A REMINDER TO EVERYONE, THIS REPORT IS AVAILABLE ON THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT WEB PAGE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE. And it does include, I'm gonna go through this report rather quickly, but this report does include, with all the data tables presented in here, drill down capabilities for additional detail in the lower right hand corner of these reports. And at the conclusion, I'll be glad to answer any questions that you may have. So with that introduction, this first data table that you see before you is a citywide presentation of total revenues and expenditures grouped by various fund types. Beginning with our revenues up in the middle portion of the data table, you'll see our comparison for where we were the year to date 2025 and the current fiscal year. Currently we're at $76.9 million in revenues received. WHICH IS SLIGHTLY LESS, $3 MILLION LESS THAN THE SAME POINT LAST YEAR. THAT IS BECAUSE OF INTERFUND TRANSFERS RELATED TO REIMBURSEMENTS FROM A BOND FUND THAT EXISTED AT THAT POINT FOR A CAPITAL PROJECT. AND THEN MOVING DOWN BELOW TO THE TOTALS ON THE EXPENDITURES, IT'S A SIMILAR STORY. YEAR TO DATE, WE'RE AT $55.3 MILLION IN TOTAL EXPENSES ACROSS ALL FUNDS, BUT IF YOU GO UP A COUPLE LINES, YOU'LL SEE A SIMILAR DECREASE IN EXPENDITURES IN THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS FOR THAT SAME REASON. TAKING THE SAME PRESENTATION ON A CITYWIDE LEVEL AND SAME DATA AND LOOKING SPECIFICALLY AT THE REVENUES. IN THE LOWER RIGHT-HAND CORNER OF THIS DATA TABLE, YOU'LL SEE YEAR TO DATE, WE'RE AT 54% OF OUR REVENUES AT THE MIDPOINT OF THE FISCAL YEAR, SO THAT'S A GOOD SIGN. BUOYED BY THE VERY TOP LINE, OUR GENERAL FUND, WE'RE AT 70% AT THE MIDYEAR POINT. That's primarily due, as mentioned in previous quarterly reports, because of the seasonality distribution of ad valorem taxes. But in addition to that, we've received a few FEMA reimbursement grants in this first year that was unbudgeted. So the next budget amendment we bring before you will reconcile that likely at the next meeting in the end of June. The 54% year-to-date across all city funds is trending well in terms of our budget plan. Still looking at a city-wide presentation by fund group type. We're now on the expenditures. You'll see in the lower right-hand corner, we're at 34% of budget across the entire city. The primary reason for that is our capital spending. If you look solely at our capital spending, year to date, we spend $6.9 million of our $51 million budgeted for capital projects. Now, that being said, in the third quarter, we have brought several capital projects before you in contracts. Those have been approved. So incrementally, we will see an increase in the third quarter. But at the mid-year point, which this report reflects, we were lagging behind in our capital spending. The outlier in this group, third line down, is our debt service funds. You see at 107%. I touched on this in the last quarterly report. That is due to higher than anticipated carryover of the accounting related to the closeout of the wastewater treatment plant project. I can happily tell you at this point the accounting on that has been completed. So that'll be incorporated into the next budget amendment before you as well. We will reconcile those final expenditures. All right, now moving on specifically to the general fund for the next few tables. This first one, much like the citywide presentation, is simply showing you the totals on the revenue side by account type, and then down below by expenditure grouping. In the middle of the table, you'll see fiscal year 26, year to date. We received just over $41 million in revenue, which is slightly higher than the same pace last year. And of course, that is primarily tied to ad valorem receipts. And then down below, year-to-date, $26.2 million in expenditures year-to-date, about $3 million higher than this same point last year, and that's primarily due to the anticipated operating costs within the general fund. Looking at it percentage wise, again, 70% of all revenue has been received in the general fund. The tax collections, as you see on the top line, 81% of our ad valorem has been received year to date. So there's still some outstanding that will get up through the month of July typically. One thing to bring to attention that is embedded within this report is something that I look at closely, and that is our sales tax distributions from the state, which appears in the intergovernmental revenue line. Primarily, specifically I'm referring to the local half-cent sales tax rate. Those distributions year-to-date are right on target. We're right at 50%, but again, as I've mentioned in other budget presentations and in our budget planning, sales tax distributions to the city is flat. There's very little growth year-over-year on sales tax, and that's continuing so far this fiscal year. Then the last slide specific to the general fund is on the expenditures. Lower right-hand corner, as you see, we're at 41% of our total year-to-date expenditures budgeted within the general fund. All spending categories, as you see to the far right, personnel, contractual services, professional services, which is not displayed, but all of those categories are below 50%. And then as you see there, all of the department groupings are below 50%, which is a good sign with the slight exception of our smallest by far area, that's economic development, which is slightly ahead of budget. But all in all, General Fund is in really good shape in terms of the pace of spending our expenditures. Last data table within the report is our fund balance summary. And there are several things on here that I would like to point out to you. Starting on the far left corner where it says beginning fund balance, as you recall, we completed the fiscal year audit in March. during this third quarter. So all the figures you see within that quarter have been updated to reflect what those audited numbers are. And in the case of the general fund, this number presented on here is net of what our fund balance policy is. There's a discrepancy. Again, we're showing you publicly during this presentation the report that is embedded on the city's website. Unfortunately, and I apologize, there's a discrepancy in the PDF version that was attached to your packet. That language was not updated in that PDF version in your packet. But this is correct, and I can assure you that that number is net of that fund balance policy. So as you read across here, you'll see we are currently projecting that at year-end, our fund balance, our unreserved fund balance, above and beyond that policy requirement, will be approximately $24.1 million. And that's a number that we'll continue to refine and update as we go through the budget planning exercises, which we currently are. And we'll be distributing that proposed budget to you on or around July 1st. But that's where we stood at the six-month point of the fiscal year. That concludes my prepared remarks. I'd be glad to answer any questions that you may have.

Mr. Barr, do you have any concerns with us collecting all of the taxes? We're at 81%. Do you think we'll get to 100%?

Historically, we are in the 94% to 98% range annually. So if past performance, and that's been consistent for more than a decade. So as long as that holds true, no, I won't have any concerns.

And what was the issue with judgments? There was a line item there on judgments and collections. That one jumped out at me.

Probably in the general fund, I assume.

Yes. Judgments, fines, and forfeitures. What is that?

Off the top of my head, I am not sure.

Okay. Well, I don't usually get to catch you. Can you speak briefly to our debt service? I noticed we had a large contribution last year to our debt service. We're ahead on debt service this year. Are we getting ahead on our debts and paying off the debts, or what's happening in the debt service funds?

Well, there's a couple things at play there. One is there's certainly a seasonality effect. All of our principal debt payments are done early in the year, in the month of December. And then we follow it up with some smaller interest only payments in July. So when you're looking at a Q2 report, the figures and percentages do look skewed. BUT WE'RE CERTAINLY RIGHT ON BUDGET AND THAT'S FRANKLY AN EASY BUDGET NUMBER TO PLUG INTO THE THE BUDGET CONVERSELY OUR SECOND POINT IS THAT A REMINDER THAT IN THIS CURRENT BUDGET WE DID PLAN ON A DEBT ISSUANCE RELATED TO A CAPITAL PROJECT DOWNTOWN THAT HAS NOT OCCURRED AND AT LEAST FROM WHAT I'M AWARE OF THAT WON'T OCCUR THIS FISCAL YEAR SO WE DO HAVE THAT IN THE BUDGET THAT WE COULD THEORETICALLY reserve in a commitment form or just altogether take out of the budget at this point assuming my information is still current is that amount included in the 24 million surplus no thank you appreciate all your hard work of course team's doing a great job thank you anyone else

Okay, I just, you, sales tax, you say that's flat? Yes, sir. We're not, it's not, it's all this increase in commercial coming in town, but basically it's not increasing or anything, it's still remaining flat?

That's correct. That's what the data shows. I very much, sir, would like to have a better understanding of the state's allocation calculations and methods.

I guess that was going to be my next question. Is it flat? Is it remaining flat? Or is it just the way it's being allocated to us?

That's the question.

That's the question.

But in terms of what we receive, it's definitely flat year over year.

Okay. All right. Well, if you don't mind, let's check in the way they allocate now because it seems a little strange for it to still remain the same year after year with all the growth and everything we have. So I think it more or less may be doing with the way they allocate and everything.

Will do. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Thank you, sir. Great job. All right, next is public comments. If you wish to address the council in person, please come to the microphone and state your name and address. Once in-person comments have concluded, we will move on to virtual comments. If you are participating online, Microsoft Teams, and wish to provide comments, please raise your hand. and you will be called on to unmute your microphone when it is your turn to speak. If you are participating by phone, you will press star five on your phone to raise your hand. Then when called upon, you will press star six to unmute your microphone. All virtual participants, if you wish to come in on other items on the agenda, please stay on Microsoft Teams or on your phone and raise your hand when the item comes up on the agenda. This portion of the meeting is only for items that are not on the agenda. In the interest of time and efficiency and ensuring everyone who wishes to address the council is given the opportunity to do so, each speaker will be permitted three minutes to address the council. To avoid disruption of the meeting, speakers should avoid inappropriate language, personal attacks, derogatory statements, and direct comments to the city council. Everyone is requested to be respectful of each other even when we disagree. Yes, ma'am.

Good afternoon, Mayor, members of the Council, Paula Hoisington, 564 East DeSoto Street. A couple of meetings back, I made a comment about the no parking signs at Bloxham and Scott. And I want to thank Stoney and his team. Um, I did call him. We met the next day. He brought his team out. I got a neighbor that was directly on the corner to meet us there. We looked at the area, discuss the area and the sign was put up. So I thank him very much and his team for doing that right away. I also want to thank chief Gray sick and the police department. Um, one for continue to host. the community meetings where the community can come in, find out what's going on in their community, ask questions, and they provide data. It's starting to work if you see something, say something. The chief is making it more comfortable for folks to feel comfortable saying what's going on. We had some activity about a week ago. I think I was in Boston then. Anyway, we had some activity on some areas that we were concerned with. And the community cannot thank the chief and the police department. I know it's not the end. It's just the start. But we really do appreciate them paying attention to the area, listening to the community, and taking action. So I'd like to give them a hand, and thank you very much.

Thank you. This is public comment. Anyone in the chamber wish to address anything that's not on the agenda may come to the microphone, state your name and address and have three minutes.

I am farmer Banks Helfrich. I live in the Clay Road District farm tip of the day. It's watermelon season, and this is a super cool hack on when to harvest watermelons. The vine that goes from the plant will go to a vine which will go to the actual fruit. Where they intersect on the opposite side, there will be a curlicue. That curlicue, when it turns brown, your watermelon is ready to be harvested. Mayor, council, distinguished guests, is our country ethically and morally bankrupt? Are we a country that is only transactional and we only do something for our own return on investment for ourselves rather than for the community? There's an old adage, you never see a hearse pulling a U-Haul trailer. which means you can't take it with you. If you ask any hospice nurse what the reoccurring theme is, it is on our deathbeds, I wish I would have not worked as much. I wish I would have spent more time with my family and friends. I wish I was more compassionate and kind and decent. 20 college students were given $10 each. 10 of them were told to go spend it on themselves. 10 of them were told to go spend it on someone else. Those that spent it on themselves came back, and their happiness was flatlined, stayed the same. Those who spent it on someone else, their happiness increased. Joy is found in serving others. During World War II, Oskar Schindler, a factory owner, saved over 1,400 Jews. At the end of the war, the 1,400 survivors came around and thanked him for saving their lives. He broke down, he kicked his car, and he said, I didn't need this car. I could have saved 20 more of you. I began this speech with a question, and I'm going to end with a question. If we are not here to serve each other, why are we? I am Farmer Banks Helfrich, candidate for State House District 25, and I serve. May you all be blessed. Thank you for allowing me to speak. Thank you.

Anyone else? Sir? Can you put the camera on?

Good afternoon. My name is Kurt Shue. I'm retired military. I have a restricted address. Mayor Tim Murray, council members, distinguished senior staff. I want to say thank you for the great state of Florida. I've been here a little over 13 years now when I retired from the military after 33 years. I love living here in this community. I founded about 15 years ago, and when I was getting plated in my retirement, I wanted to come here. I thank the state, the veterans organizations for the opportunity to serve. I think military service is often underrated. But this is about Flag Day. Flag Day is this coming Sunday. It's a very important holiday. People miss a lot. The most important part about Flag Day, though, is actually that Flag Day is actually the Army's birthday. And so if you served in the Army, would you please stand up? I know we've got a Marine here.

Adjust the council, please, sir.

Thank you, sir. I know there's other service members. I just want to recognize them. Today is their day. The Army is the only service that predates our country. Without the Minuteman, without those members who left their families off in the freeze, cold and outside, houses being burnt down by the British, we would not live in this country today. I had the honor of serving in multiple contact tours with Army bosses. Probably the most distinguished two were, one's kind of famous, Colonel John Mulholland, fifth group commander, 12 horsemen, Afghanistan when I was over there in 01 and 02. And General Carl Steiner, he was a famous Green Beret, was my boss in Lebanon. My father served in the Army in World War II, was drafted in December of 41. My uncle was a Marine. Two of my uncles who were born in the late 1800s, my grandfather was born in 1870, served in World War I. And so people said, oh, you were going to go in the military. I had no idea. I got a GED, and I had nothing to do in the late 70s because I started working when I was 14. The Army provides a lot of people opportunity. There's amazing men and women that come out of the Army. Some come out of West Point. Some are just enlisted basic training. But those people who have the courage to put their hand and take that oath to bleed, sacrifice, and die need to be recognized. All those that serve need to be recognized. I thank you for what you do. God bless America. God bless you all.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else? This is public comment. Anyone in the chamber wish to address anything that's not on the agenda may come to the microphone, state your name and address, and have three minutes. Anyone else? Anyone else? Seeing no one else in the chamber, I'll close the chamber. We have no one online, so I'm going to close public comment altogether. Mr. Van Wagner, before we go any further, do we have any changes to the agenda?

Yes, Mr. Mayor, we have one change. Item number 10 is being removed.

Item number 10. So it's completely removed. Which is withdrawn. Okay, so we don't need any actions. We don't need to take any action. Okay. Okay. All right, the next portion of the meeting is the consent agenda, which contains items that have been determined to be routine and non-controversial. Yeah. If anyone in the audience wishes to address a particular item on the consent agenda, now is the opportunity for you to do so. Additionally, if staff or members of the city council wish to speak on a consent item, they have the same opportunity. The consent items tonight for consideration are items one through... 11 with the exception of number 10, which has been removed. Okay, so any item need to be removed from the consent agenda I'd like to pull the items number four and nine four and nine And any other seven and eight Any other Hearing no other, I will entertain a motion on item 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 11.

So moved. Second.

I have a motion and a second for approval to consider agenda item 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 11. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, let it be known by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed? Chair vote aye as well. Motion carries 5-0. All right. Item number four. We can, oh, okay. Want me to talk about it? You pulled it, right? Yeah, yeah. I mean, foreign, I mean, foreign,

It goes together with the other one. I'm pulling it not for the merit of the project, but for the timing of the project. I think what we really need to do now with the upcoming property taxes vote that's gonna be coming in November, we should look at all of these projects as a whole, maybe make a workshop meeting about it, and then we could discuss what we have to do, because obviously our pool is gonna be shrinking, and we should think where we wanna spend our money on. And I think it's important, so that's the reason I'm doing it.

Okay Do I want to give the public a chance yes And that goes for item 9 also This is a public hearing anyone in the public wish to address this item Item number four in the consent agenda may come to microphone state your name and address and have three minutes Anyone address want to address this item may come to microphone to state your name and address and have three minutes. I seeing no one in chamber, anyone online? No one online? I'll bring it back to council. What say council? I tend to agree with you on that, even though I think this is a project that I would kind of like to see move forward. I don't know which way the vote is going to go on the property taxes, and I'm thinking if we have the fund in this area, and listen to what I just heard in the budget report to go ahead and do this project. I would like to see this go ahead because even if the tax is eliminated, that won't affect this upcoming budget, okay? It will affect the next year's budget. And I know we need to probably be looking at everything, and I would totally agree with the fact that we probably need to be really looking at the fact that not – looking to fund too many new projects right now. And maybe even looking at what we're going to do, set two or three different budgets for the upcoming future. But I do know right now we do have a little bit of funding that this will be in. And this has been a project that's been in the making for a number of years now. If we could move it forward, I would like to see that one move forward.

I see what you're saying on with it, but it's in my opinion, I think it's a need versus a want. And with the uncertainty with how the voters are going to vote for property tax, I think we should only do needs and not wants. And that's a that's more of a one, in my opinion, than a need.

Yes, sir.

Thank you. This is tough, because we're talking about potential hypotheticals and what ifs. And if it does pass as written, it will have effects. At the same time, we also have a community to care for and make investments in, and we have to balance that. I don't know, I'm torn on this because we don't currently have a stage over here. And so I have different feelings about this than I do the other item, Council Member Peterson, that you polled, the number nine, because it's currently existing. And it goes to a maintenance thing versus a new item. But I also think that... If we find ourselves in a situation where we're able to do this project, we're not going to have any architectural or engineering services done on it. And that price is only going to get more expensive from today. I doubt that's going to go down. And so this architectural and engineering design, as I understand it, and please, Mr. City Manager or someone, correct me if I'm wrong, is just authorizing, not just, but I should say, it is authorizing the architectural and engineering design. It is not actually approving full expenses for the project. It's to find out what that project would look like, what it would cost, and what would all involve, a timeline, et cetera. And so I'm torn, I could go either way on this item, but I certainly recognize the uncertainty and the concern and the kind of unknown related to any kind of property tax amendment in the future, but I also don't wanna see us just not do anything for this community because of that. we do have some operations and some obligations that we need to fulfill. And I'm not sure if this one rises to that, but I think there are going to need to be others, maybe similar to the other item, that we need to still invest and make sure we're taking care of our resources and our community members.

I share your thoughts. In fact, I share everybody's thoughts. I am mindful that we have a workshop next week where we're getting the National Recreation and Parks Assessment. And I think if the objective is to look at the 10,000 foot view, we'll have that next week. I would support a motion to just table this until the next meeting of June 23rd, in part because one of the elements of the proposed constitutional amendment is potentially, we don't know yet, restrictive on expenditures in parks and recreation. So I don't necessarily want to wait too long for projects that we had anticipated in fiscal year 26. That being said, this didn't come to us in December, it is coming to us in June. And so I think if the council would support a motion to table this to June 23rd, it gives us the opportunity of the NRPA presentation next week before we make a final decision on June 23rd on this item. So that'll be my motion is to table this to June 23rd.

I'll second that motion. We have a motion and a second to table this item to June 23rd. Any further discussion? Yeah. I just want to add this. Mr. Van Wagner. For the workshop next week, can you go back and with finance and everything and look how much money we've been spending each year? Renting stages and all that to put out. Sure. Okay, because we continue to spend money each year out there putting these stages up and all. And so to me, I'm looking at the cost factor here, saving here as well. So if we can have all that information for us at the workshop, we would appreciate it. Any further discussions?

No, sir.

If not, all in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Chair vote aye as well. Motion passes 5-0. Item number seven.

I pulled this one. My only real reason for pulling it was we have a pattern of approving a number closer to 10 in the range of professionals that are on our lists and our roster, so to speak. And in this case, there were nine that qualified, if I read the packet correctly. And so I was, I guess, curious, but I would be supportive of approving up to 10. based on each of these categories, if that's a possibility. So that's the reason why I pulled both seven and eight, not necessarily strong opinions, but for some reason, we're restricting the numbers and the numbers feel arbitrary. So seeking clarification on that why we wouldn't just go for 10. Or the maximum in this case was nine.

Okay, this, this is a pub in one. This is a public hearing anyone in the public wish to address this item may come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes.

This is a public hearing.

Anyone in the chamber may come. I want to speak on this item. May come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes. Item number seven.

Seeing no one in the chamber, no one online, I will close it.

One of the questions I would have on that, Ms. Strange, is the fact that I guess it goes back to Freddie and whoever did the scoring of these. Did they just go with six because the other three they felt like wasn't qualified?

Right. Exactly. That's why I was seeking clarification. I don't know if Mr. Mathis can speak to it.

Yeah, we'd have to call Freddie up here. I wasn't on that panel, so I wasn't part of the discussion at all.

Good afternoon. Yes, the committee decides on their own how many they want to select. There's no pattern. There's no number. It's based on pure decision on how they want to achieve that goal.

Was the committee comprised of electrical engineers from the community who are familiar with this subject matter?

No, none of the committee members are from that experience.

And it was my understanding that we instructed staff to use professionals whenever we were doing an assessment of professionals. Is that not accurate? I thought we agreed that we were going to do that.

I don't recall . I've always, my thing is I've always left procurement office.

It says in the policy that they can, and they can seek outside experts on committees. But there's been no, that's in our policy. It's in our procurement policies, but it's not a mandate. Mandate, right.

I thought we discussed at the workshop on procurement that any time a professional service provider was being assessed that we would get professionals in the community because our policy did allow it and that we gave that direction at the workshop so that we could ensure that we actually have qualified people doing the assessment of the qualifications of the professionals that we're assessing.

Well, I do remember we had a discussion, but if I'm not mistaken, I wasn't too thrilled with that because my question then is, okay, how do we go about selecting which expert to be on the panel? Then we have to set up a whole new procurement process, I guess, a selection committee to determine which expert we're going to use.

Well, it's already in our process. And frankly, I'd rather have community members who are qualified who are donating their time than having department heads who have no qualification in the subject area who are taking their time to do these assessments without the experience to back it up. And my recollection was we had a majority agreed that that was prudent and practical. And this is now the second time that it's happened since that procurement meeting. And so I want to bring it to the council's attention. I mean,

Well, maybe what we need, you know, is an amendment to the policy or to have a discussion on an amendment to the policies because right now it's not required.

I don't think we have agreed on changing the policy and everything we talked about. But I don't think we agreed to make that. We gave them an opportunity to. Okay.

I think what you're talking about is changing the can to a shall. Yes. Exactly.

I'd be happy to work with. Freddie on amending or improving the policies the only thing I would say is that with a requirement like that it may not be possible or feasible all the time on everyone to obtain that kind of subject matter expertise especially for free and so it may be that we would also need an escape hatch kind of certification that we've made a good faith effort to seek them but I think that's why we'd have to have really put our heads into that

Well, my understanding that when you are part of procurement, you know how to actually do the assessments because you don't have to have expertise in that field per se. What it is is to make sure that everyone has an opportunity and it's fair across the board. That's the purpose of it, not to necessarily say, oh, you're an engineer and you're a scientist over here. It's if you have the qualifications to actually assess it fairly. That's what the whole purpose of this, from my understanding, with procurement altogether.

And some of the questions are very much check the box, but others are an actual assessment of the qualifications of the individuals in the firm and their career experience. That's where I have concerns that we may not be getting the highest quality.

Yeah, but I understand what you're saying, Ms. Strange, but in this process, when they submit the application, how do we go about, even if I'm an expert, how do I look at a piece of paper and tell whether a person in this company or these people they have in the company is actually qualified or not? I don't have all that in the package they submit.

That's the license. So the people assessing these professionals don't have the license that they're assessing the professionals for.

But don't they have certification? Because you have to have warrants in order to do certain contracting and whatnot. So they do have training in that. They're not just people just pulled out the air necessarily to assess it.

It's just department heads that are pulled out for a project to assess electrical engineers, people who have never done electrical engineering and don't have the license for it. That's my concern, not the items. Did they have their license? Are they insured? Those things, I don't have any problem with procurement handling those. But on the assessment of the qualifications of the applicants and their experience, I would much prefer to see people who have the license that we're assessing doing an assessment of their peers than asking somebody who's never done it before to make a qualification determination of the individuals that are professional.

Again, they are trained in order to know how to do it because the purpose is to be fair for everyone to have a fair shot at doing it. And from my understanding, because my husband does this for a living, it's never been you have to be the scientist in order to evaluate another scientist. It's do you have the contract, you have the training, you have the award, so to speak, certification to be able to assess that. And maybe that's more of what you want to have, what you're saying is to make sure that they have that certificate, that award, that they are qualified indeed.

Correct, yeah. Well, and you see they're ranking them on a scale of 0 to 10. So when you start ranking a professional's experience in a field, if you don't have the experience in the field to judge that person's qualifications, you really can't. That's the nature of licensed professions is that they're often self-regulating for that reason. So I thought we all agreed on that. If we didn't, then maybe I'm out of line. I really don't remember. I thought that we had an agreement.

I don't recall. I remember the discussion, but I don't think it was an agreement because it was a similar thing. For example, Freddie.

That's easier than that.

In this process, right, if I were a professional resident, what I would be doing is actually going through all the applications that everybody else go through and try to make the determination, right?

Correct.

So, I mean, I don't think we can all sit down and read. the package that they submit and determine about where they're going without having to be experts. I mean, I've sat on committees many times without even having any expertise in the field, but I was able to read the package and determine which was what. which I thought was best. And I do it all the time at home because when I make purchases at home, I do the same thing. I'm not an expert in electrician, but I know how to sit down and have a different electrician come in and tell me, and I make a determination of which one I think is best.

I try to select the committees that have some experience in that field that we're evaluating. They've done it before in the past. It's not the first time for them. So that's why I do my best to get the best that we have in the city to evaluate these proposals. Right.

I don't to council member Strange's point I don't recall a consensus conversation I do recall talking about it in that but I don't recall the consensus piece and I actually agree with the city attorney I think if we're going to change policy it should come as an amendment to the policy and not just more of a conversation. So we actually have a record of what we're actually wanting to have changed. But Mr. Suarez, can I ask you who was on this one? Who served? Because I don't see it in our packet. So I think we're making an assumption based off of without even in our packet knowing who was on the review committee.

Normally it's on there. This one is not. Yeah, I know. That's why I was asking. When it's done through OpenGov, the software that I use is on there automatically. This is on an Excel spreadsheet because the RFQ itself was so massive, so bad I couldn't get the program to work. I do have the list. I don't have it with me. I can provide it to all of you. OK. No issue.

OK. And when we go about the procurement process, national standards, is it a national standard to have people in the field be the review? No. Or what's the guidance, I guess I should say. I don't want to ask that leadingly. What is the guidance on... WHO SHOULD SERVE ON A PROCUREMENT COMMITTEE?

RIGHT. SO IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THEY'RE EVALUATING AT THE TIME. FOR EXAMPLE, IF THEY'RE EVALUATING SOMETHING TO DO WITH STREETS, CIVIL ENGINEERING, IT WILL BE POLIT WORKS, OTHER DIRECTORS, MAYBE SOME FINANCE, DEPENDING WHAT IT IS. OKAY. IT ALL DEPENDS. THERE IS NO SET Yeah, I could definitely invite people from the public. I mean, one party to serve in the committee as well. That's not an issue at all. We can definitely do that. But until today, we haven't just done it in-house.

And then my other question would be, so if an evaluator is on a committee, Are they charged with the task of reviewing only the materials presented and the information answered and not based off of, well, I know this entity and I know their knowledge or I know their work?

Yes, if there's a conflict of interest, that's why I try to keep them separate. For example, if a civil engineer is on the committee, it's evaluating some of the work that he could be doing in the future that definitely would not be part of the committee. Right. So it's a conflict of interest how to look at each one individually. Okay.

Yeah, I think I'm comfortable with our process unless we change our process, and then we should have that conversation. I think, too, when we're looking at the numbers, one of the things I always do when I review these is I just look at, if it's 6, 8, 10, whatever, I look at where the break-off is in points. And staff is recommending 6. Between number 6 and number 7, there's a 12-point difference. Between number six and number nine, there's nearly a 20-point difference. That tells me that the folks who reviewed this really did feel that it wasn't in our best interest to award this to seven, eight, and nine. And so I'm inclined to support staff on the six at this point and have the conversation about process if it comes forward.

Mr. Wah. For example, this is engineering. We have engineers in the city. In this process, we could have called one of our staff engineers and said on that committee we would have been okay. Would that have been okay? We have a lot of these experts in the city that work for us. Why couldn't we use some of our own people on some of these committees? In fact, yes, sir, Mr. Watt. Thank you.

Well, again, I think that is something that's within the purview under our policies. We can.

Okay. In this case, if we could have called, because I know we've got plenty of electricians and everything that I would say they're well qualified. I hope so anyway. They're working for us and everything that we probably could have done. Do we need to change our policy to put in the policy that basically when it comes to things like this that maybe need an expert, we can use some of our own people?

Well, that's up to y'all. I mean, you know, I think that the process as it stands has to have some level of discretion with the department head in order to move quickly and efficiently and to keep the paperwork moving. And so I think that's what was done here. And to Council Member Myers' point, you know, from the legal perspective, the overriding concern is the fairness of the policy. And there is a public policy for the competitive bidding. And there's no real stricture on who we can have because sometimes you get really small cities, I mean way smaller than Claremont, where they don't have the capacity to get. And the best they can do is maybe a department head and the clerk or something like that. so um there's also that overriding public concern is that we need to move the process but in answer to your question i mean just directly mayor yes we can and it's up to you all if you want to amend the policy to have to raise the you know the requirements of what you want to see in the qualifications of your committee um i mean i'm in agreement with what miss council member strange is saying about this you know you want to have criteria that people are judging

an item or making a decision on knowledge they might have. I mean, if you're like trying to talk about computer programs and you're not a programmer, you have no idea whether that's good or bad. If you're looking for a brain surgeon, you're not gonna be going to a plumber to give you advice on who to go to. I think that's what we're trying to find out. How do we come up with this happy medium as to how do we define, I know we have can, if we make shall, that makes it, a big block then. So is there a happy medium that you had suggested that we can do something and then bring the funnel down to a finer point?

Well, I'll tell you this, and I don't know if it's a direct answer to your question or not, Councilmember, but I think the recommendation here is six, is that right? Yes, six. I, as the city attorney, always like a higher number, and the reason is that the less discrimination we do, the more insulated we are from anyone ever saying that we – did it wrong, you know. So if you approve everybody, I'm always happy with that. And it gives staff more discretion. But even with six, I mean, there's a lot of choices. I mean, this is not really narrow. If someone doesn't work out, you work with the other person on the next go-round. So, you know, in terms of wanting to get it right, I understand that. But I think when you are approving six, we're always going to be close to the bullseye.

Yeah.

Okay. Did you make a motion, sir?

I'll make a motion to approve item number seven.

With six? Yeah, as presented. As presented. Do I have a second?

A second.

I have a motion and a second for approval of item number seven as presented. Any further discussion? All in favor, let it be known by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed?

Nay.

I didn't hear you down there, Mr. Peterson.

Nay.

Nay, okay. Chair vote aye as well. Motion passes three to two. Item number eight.

Same issue. To the point, I'm looking at this one. Again, now we've picked five instead of six. It feels arbitrary to me, and I point out that numbers six, seven, eight, and nine are all within two points of number five. I don't know how we're making these decisions. I have speculation. I haven't been happy with what I've seen from the quality of coming out of procurement as of late, and so I am objecting. So I think that I can't support it.

All right. This is a public hearing. Anyone in the public wish to address this item may come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes.

Anyone in the chamber wish to address this item may come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes.

Seeing no one, I close the chamber. No one online, so I have a closed public comment. Yes, sir, Mr. Bain.

I was just going to move to approve it, but I'll wait to see if there's any other discussion. I don't want to do that right away. OK. OK, seeing no other discussion, I'll move to approve item number eight.

Do I have a second? A second. OK, I have a motion. And a second for approval of item number eight. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor let it be known by saying aye. Aye. All opposed?

Nay.

Ms. Myers? I said aye. Aye, okay. Chair vote aye as well. Motion carries three to two. Item number nine.

I mean, this is similar to the other item that, you know, I think we should table this item and discuss it as a whole, all our capital projects that we're going to be doing. Because I know, like you said, well, let's not worry about it, but it is only five months away. We're not talking about years. And I think we really need to plan ahead because we don't want to be caught like the Titanic, where we steer ourselves into an iceberg. I mean, if you know it's coming ahead, it's not like, well, five years from now. We know it's five months from now. So let's, I would say, table it and have a workshop to discuss all of our projects, and then we can make decisions from that point forward.

I support tabling it for all the reasons we previously discussed.

So that's what I'd like to make a motion. I second. Oh, I'm sorry.

I think you're all getting ahead of yourselves. I'm sorry. Okay. This is a public hearing. Anyone in the public who wishes to address this item may come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes.

This is a public hearing.

Anyone in the public who wishes to address this item may come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes. Seeing no one and no one online, I bring it back to council. What say council now? Make your motion, Bill.

I'd like to make a motion to table item number nine and bring it to a workshop meeting to discuss further.

And I second.

OK, I motion to second for the table item number nine. Is there any further discussion?

Yes, sir. So is this a table to the next council meeting as the previous? Because tabling, we have it usually as a date for clarification.

Well, we have it for the next workshop meeting. I don't know if that's too soon to get our discussion, but it could be something we can start our discussions on.

Well, I think we have to table the item, though, to another agenda. You have to identify what agenda you're tabling it to.

Yeah, like if you want to move it to like the end of June, you want to move it to July meeting.

I would say move it to the July or August meeting and we'll get closer to finding out what's going on.

I'm glad you bring it up, Mr. Bain, because Mr. Peterson, for what this is worth, I think that, I think Mr. Bain and I share a similar perspective on this, that this was a 26 funded project. It's in many ways a maintenance issue. what I would suggest to you if you would consider it is that we table it to the June 23rd meeting and if we get to the workshop next week and we all feel like we're just not gonna do this we can always amend the agenda item if that's cut if that makes you come table again yeah it'll be on the agenda but we can table it again yeah is that something you would be willing to agree to

I would agree with that.

Will you amend your motion then?

I'm going to make a motion to table it and bring it to the workshop meeting on the 23rd. The council meeting on the 23rd. The council meeting on the 23rd.

Great. Can you second that, Ms. Meyer? Yes, I second that.

Okay, a motion is a new motion to table item number nine to the workshop next week. for any further discussion.

Actually, I think the table is the table to the meeting of the 23rd. This agenda item will go on the agenda for the 23rd.

OK, to the 23rd. I think so. Let me say this. As Ms. Strange said, this is a budgeted item. We already put it in the budget for 26. OK, so it's not like we're looking at new and expensive. And I totally agree with you, Mr. Peterson. We should be looking at new expenses. But this is an item we already have in our budget. In the long run, it's going to save us a lot of money to go ahead and do this process because right now we're spending hundreds of thousands of dollars every year to re-saw these fields. And the problem with it is when we re-saw the fields, we cannot use them for three, four months at a time. So then we get all these complaints from residents that our fields are down. So the whole purpose of this, and the reason we budgeted it, is to store it... natural turf in on our field so we don't have to shut them down every year to resurface and and create a problem with uh not enough facilities to go around and in the long runs we again we'll be saving money in the long run and since it's already been budgeted i i have no problem with moving ahead but i totally agree with you with not knowing what's going to happen uh in november i don't think we look it should be looking at no new expenses and i know we already have this in the budget so i have no problem moving here

But I think just because it's budgeted doesn't mean it's needed. Well, it is needed. Let me take that word back. It is needed. But is it something we want to do?

Yeah.

And that's why I asked the question about where we're taking.

You know, we're in a flux right now. And I mean, everybody's concerned now with what's going on. Yeah. You know, and it's an uncomfortable position to be in for a lot of people.

Yeah.

You know, so we want to, you know, especially like you said, there's going to be cities that are going to be destroyed probably by this. Yeah. Unless they make decisions today for five months from now.

I think two weeks is prudent.

I mean, then we'll know the answer.

I think two weeks is prudent considering we have such a big presentation next week. If we didn't have that, it would feel different to me. But knowing that's coming in and we can get the guidance and we can see what other projects there might be, I don't think two weeks would keep us out of this fiscal year to get it done. So that's why I'm OK with it.

agreed and that's why i asked about the clarification on that because i'm not in favor of just putting it out there and postponing it forever if it's a finite it comes back at the end of the month because two weeks shouldn't delay the overall project that much but infinite uh tabling and and moving it would um and i do see the difference between this and say something new um so i'm willing to support it for tonight okay

I'm just throwing out there how I feel about it. Oh, absolutely. And the reason we're doing this, and we've been trying to get these things done for a couple years now, and we finally got it into the budget. So I don't want to see it just go away, and we still have these hundreds of thousands of dollars expensive, repeat expenses every year, doing the same work over and over and over, okay, when this was eliminated and saved us money in the long run. But I do have a motion. The table is to June 23rd. June 23rd. And a second. Any further discussion?

No.

Hearing none, all in favor let it be known by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Chair vote aye as well. Motion carries 5-0. That's everything, eh? That's everything. I think we got them all. Okay. All right. So item number 12.

Good afternoon, Mayor and council members. Appreciate the opportunity to come before you and address some of the concerns that were raised at the last council meeting. John Gracek, Chief of Police. I also have with me today Mr. Duffy from Axon. He's going to do a brief presentation on what the product actually does and what it doesn't do, and then I will cover the financial impact. We'll go from there.

Thank you, Chief, and a pleasure to meet you, council members.

Is this slides on this?

We can talk through this. We really only need... Sir, can I get you to state your name?

Oh, yes, sir. Teddy Duffy from Axon. Okay, thank you. We really only need one slide. What this tool and software does is translate languages. So say there's a missing child and the parent only speaks Haitian Creole or Mandarin. This software is going to allow you to translate immediately versus losing time in the critical event of an emergency. It's not writing any reports. It's not transcribing anything. All it's doing is translating in the moment. Another important thing is that when an officer is out in the field, you don't want them looking at a cell phone. You want them looking at a potential suspect or knowing what's going on around them. And today, really the best tool for this is a Google Translate or ChatGPT when you're looking at your cell phone and not looking out. So that's really what this tool enables you to do.

very straightforward i'd be curious you know any questions on what it doesn't do anything that was you know top of mind for concerns in your presentation can you please speak to the issues raised by the citizen at the last meeting about this software and how it may or may not feed into reporting or any documentation because that was the issue that was raised and why we tabled it

Okay, yeah. So it doesn't feed into anything like it's, you know, the body cameras recording when an officer speaking to a citizen. So it's recording the translation in the conversation. It's not feeding anywhere. It's stored with all other evidence, treated the exact same way protected the exact same way. It's not contributing to anything separate than that.

And in other words, it's not altering the underlying data or anything like that. If there was something created, it's not going to modify it. Whatever is stored isn't going to be modified. There's nothing like that.

Correct.

Because I heard that concern as well.

No, that's a separate tool we offer called Draft1 that is like report writing based off of the transcript of an interaction that a body camera recorded that is totally separate from Axon Assistant.

Is a future thing going to be like face recognition with the software, or is that way future?

I don't have the purview into that, but it's certainly not a part of this.

With everything that's going on with AI and everything else, you would think we would want to have the best tools possible for our police officers to be able not only to communicate, but to recognize that somebody is a threat.

I mean, I think it would be inappropriate to comment on that. All this tool does is just provide translation services in the moment instantly with over 50 languages, nothing about facial recognition, altering reports or evidence, et cetera.

Now, is this going to be sent directly to— Hold on, Mr. Peterson. Hold on. Hold on. Before—let me stop you there. Before we go any further, let me have the public come up and—okay. If he was still with his presentation—

Yeah, this is it.

All right. But this is a public forum. Anyone in the chamber that wishes to address this item may come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes. Anyone in the chamber that wishes to address this item may come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes. Is there no one in the chamber? No one online? I close public comment. Now, Mr. Peterson, go ahead, please.

I'm sorry. The question I had is, it's all self-contained. It's not like a data link where if they lose a data link, the system doesn't work. So it's like, you know, let's say for whatever, you know, is the communication, is the software all embedded in the body of the camera?

On the body camera, yes, sir. And it communicates via LTE.

And then there's a secure data link where it's getting stored in a permanent basis. So it can't be adulterated or anything like that.

Yes, sir. It'd be stored in Claremont.

That was the question. Evidence.com. Our city attorney had said, right? Good.

I'm typically not excited about technology, so I'll preface with that. I do think it's necessary, and I live in 2026, so I'm not on a farm somewhere. I'm in Claremont, Florida. But I do want to feel comfortable because I don't have in my packet or available to me any sort of contract or other description than what you're seeing here today and the costs so i'm very interested in our attorney and in you and in chief speaking to we're authorizing the purchase of axon body four and could that ever in the future for what we're paying without an amendment to the contract that i haven't seen would that allow the expansion of the services from body four to data one

Draft one? Draft one, thank you. No, ma'am. Okay. Not without an amendment, no.

It's a separate contract? Yes, ma'am. Okay.

Okay.

Anyone else? I'll speak to the financials real quick. It's a little bit over $151,000, and we're using federal grant funds that are allotted to us through the designated immigration officer program to pay for this. So there is no money coming out of the general fund. That was one question that was raised. The way grants work, grants come into the general fund, and they're assigned a special project code. So one, two, three, four, five, and then there'll be five more numbers, and then there's a third set of numbers. That third set of numbers is our special project code. That's how the grant funds are tracked. That's how it's audited and how it goes all through that. So if there was any confusion about general funds being used, that's where it would be. But this is all federal grant fund money.

Is that for the duration of the contract or just year one? Correct.

We are paying for the remainder of the axon contract with the 151.

Sorry. So it's 151 this year paid by a grant?

No, it's a five-year. Over five years. Five years. All covered. Yes, ma'am.

All paid by the grant? Correct. So the citizens of Claremont aren't going to have to pay for this?

No, ma'am.

Chief, how old is our present equipment?

How old is our present equipment? We just switched to the Axon equipment in December. this is six months old six months so it's just the upgrade technology technology is advancing way faster than anyone would expect um so it i am well aware of the concerns the community has when we go into uh technology i've had conversations with council members had conversations with the public i'm well aware of those concerns we will do everything we can to progress the police department and make sure we're using the best practices and safest practices right WITH WHAT THE COMMUNITY FEELS COMFORTABLE WITH US HAVING. LIKE, THAT IS MY PROMISE TO THE COMMUNITY AND TO THE COUNCIL.

WELL, YEAH. I UNDERSTAND THAT. AND WITH TECHNOLOGY, EACH YEAR, I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE SPENDING THIS MONEY TO UPGRADE, BUT I'M HOPING WITH THIS ONE, Over a five-year period, we don't have to worry about too much upgrading. It includes upgrading as things come along, is I guess what I'm asking.

Correct. The axon contract that was approved does include an upgrade package year two and a half, three. If they came out with axon body five, body camera five, then we would get the axon camera body five. Draft one, correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Duffy, draft one would still be a separate product. So based on the cost, I would assume that I'm going to have to come before council if we ever wanted to move forward with draft one. Okay.

Okay. But this package includes over the next five years any updates and software and all that?

Correct.

Okay. Thank you.

I just want to, and thank you for being able to allocate funds and utilize them so you're not really doing a burden on the citizens, but we're getting state-of-the-art equipment right now, and it's not costing us anything, and we're making the city safer because of translation. I can imagine this has to be a frustrating thing when somebody is stopped, doesn't speak English, and they're getting threatened, you know, especially a foreigner or something, and God forbid they had a weapon or anything, this is going to avert any kind of problems like that. And I just want to thank you for bringing it in, and even thank you twice for having it cost us nothing.

Yes, thank you for that. You're welcome. Thank you guys for your support. We couldn't have gotten these grant funds without your support, and you guys are proving us to participate in the designated immigration officer program. We've had a successful program. I think we have withstood the test of time with that program thus far. And if there's anything that changes, I'll bring it back before the council.

Just one final question, sorry, Chief. Do you have a, remind me, since I'm new up here, newer up here, do you report back to the council or to the city manager through the city manager to the council on how your technology's working through the year, like a look back at the year assessment of that technology and the information that was utilized and approved and how that benefited or maybe needs to be changed moving forward?

Yes, we do. I communicate with city manager and the deputy city manager all the time about technology. So far, we've all been pleased with how it's performing. So people think of tech as just the body cams of this. We just rolled out e-bikes. E-bikes are really, they've been good. So we're continuing to look at different ways that we can be effective, efficient. And again, the e-bikes were paid with seizure funds. So that wasn't out of grant money. So we're looking for ways that we can move the mission forward, not always hitting the general fund.

Wow. I just want to echo and say thank you for taking the concerns and worries of some out there who want to make sure that we're doing right and doing just and treating people equitably and fairly through the police department and through that interaction. And I think you have instilled in this community that degree of trust. So thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. If the council will indulge me, I'd like to take a stab at a motion here. And if I don't have support, I don't have support. But I'm going to move to approve item number 12 with the condition that if the service that we are approving is ever upgraded or changed in such a way that the service exceeds translation services, that it come back to council for approval.

So we're approving the five-year.

proving the five-year with the condition that if the service ever changes to exceed simple translation services, that it come back to council for final approval.

I think we'd have to do that anyway. That would be additional cost anyway.

We don't know. Five years, technology is going to change a lot, and that's why I'm simply saying I don't think any of us have an issue with the translation services, but if they have a great product that ultimately in the next upgrade they want to incorporate, I would like that to come back to the council. That's my motion.

I agree to that.

Is there a second?

And I second it.

Thank you. Okay, you have a motion and a second for approval of item number 12 with the addition of any changes in translation services that need to come back to council for approval. Did I say that about right? Yes. Okay. Any further discussion? hearing none all in favor let it be known by saying aye aye all opposed and the chair vote aye as well motion passes 5-0 item number 13 surplus city property yes sir good evening mayor city council members Curt Henschel planning development services director

Steph is proposing to surplus city property that does not serve a purpose for public use. The 1,335 square foot parcel is leftover property between the new lift station at the lumber yard and the private property to the west. Initially, Steph thought this parcel was included with a larger surplus property to the south donated by the lumber yard. But when surveyed, it was discovered this was a leftover parcel owned by the city that did not serve a purpose and would only create a maintenance issue for the parcel. Once the new lift station is constructed, the parcel would sit between two fences approximately 100 feet apart. That yellow area is the parcel in question, the 1,300 square foot. This request was brought to City Council for consideration at their regularly scheduled meeting on May 12, 2026. Council directed staff to get with DPC co-design to determine if the surplusing this piece of property would unnecessarily disconnect the trail or limit its future use. And then bring the, bring the request back to city council for future consideration upon discussion with our economic development director and reviewing the site area. DPZ concluded that the proposed ownership transfer, uh, does neither, uh, disconnect the trail or limit its future use. And arguably, arguably it generates revenue for the city while eliminating maintenance. Based on staff and DPC's reviews, our recommendation is that the 1,335 square foot parcel does not serve a purpose for public use. Therefore, staff recommends the city surplus this property. The city will retain an easement over the parcel for any utilities that remain underground. And that's staff's report.

Thank you, sir. This is a public hearing. Anyone in the public wish to address this item may come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes. Does anyone in the public wish to address this item? Seeing no one in chamber, a closed chamber, no one online. Wow, easy for this visit from right on through. I'll bring it back to council. What say council?

I appreciate staff working with DPZ and getting that additional information. I was in support of this at that meeting last month, and I'm in support of it now, and I'd like to see us move forward and approve this. So I have a motion, but if others have conversation. If not, then I would move to approve item number 13. I second.

And if I may, I just want to clarify what I'd ask the council to in its motion if it does want to approve. It's just that staff recommendation there along with the city retaining an underground or a utility easement.

I would make that motion to approve with the city retaining an easement over the parcel for any utilities that remain underground.

Thank you, sir.

Second.

Second. I have a motion and a second for approval of item number 13, and it's presented with the stipulation that the city maintain easement underground, of course. Any further discussion? I just wanted to, I'll just add in there, I don't understand how we can sit here and say this is a surplus piece of property when we have an easement, the city has an easement running through it, okay? And I guess I'm still trying to understand why we just Going in, we cut down this little sliver of piece of property, the whole thing. We own that piece of property all the way down the line to the east and west as well, so why didn't we surplus the whole thing and sell it off? So I'm having a problem understanding the purpose and why we're surplusing, especially when we have easement with equipment running in there that we would need to get to from time to time, so.

I understand your concern. I share it. My recollection is I was the one who created this problem last month. What I understand is we continue to retain ownership to the east of where the lift station will be or whatever the I've heard people, yeah, the water treatment.

My kids will love what's in my head, and I can't get it out.

But this being 100 feet kind of in between the two fences, the two uses, there's no meaningful use. And I think staff made a valid point. And so I share your concerns, and I appreciate that staff you know, went back and got the third opinion. I like that we're getting opinion from the consultants that we have. I think that's good. And I feel like it puts us in a really good place that I'm comfortable moving forward now. As am I.

Can we call the question?

I have a motion and a second on the floor to approve item number 13. Any further discussion?

No.

Hearing none, all in favor let it be known by saying aye. Aye. And chair vote nay. Motion carried, four to one. Item number 14.

ordinance number 20 260 23 an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Claremont Florida amending chapter 1 article 2 division 3 of the Claremont City Code to create section 1-1 0 1 providing for administrative fines cost of repair cost of enforcement and liens providing for conflict severability codification the administrative correction of Scrivener's error publication and an effective date

And again, this was something that is requested by, I think, both the council as well as staff, and it would create a new section. It's not actually going to amend anything in your code. It's going to create a new section in your city code uh... that does several things which it'll allow us to charge for the enforcement costs uh... I know I explained this at the last meeting but just for the record uh... you know if if someone goes out and a violator brings the property back into compliance it seems unfair that we shouldn't be able to charge for the costs of the investigation that occurred uh... similarly if there is a violation that happens we should get those costs in the order uh... if the board finds that there's a violation but primarily it recognizes the fact that the city of Claremont now exceeds 50,000 persons in population and therefore we can double the amount of fines charged. Part of the reason that we have to create a new section for this instead of amending prior code sections is that it actually doesn't spell out amounts in your city code right now for code violations. It spells out amounts for other types of violations but not code violations. It also adds some authority to the code board. So for example, in subsection C, if the code board finds that the violation or condition causing the violation presents a serious threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, or if the violation is irreparable or irreversible in nature, the city may secure, repair, or demolish the property and take any other necessary action. Again, part of this is due to recent cases where we felt like hands were tied a little bit. And residents, the public has spoken, and you have spoken, and so we're trying to address this concern.

Okay. This is a public hearing. Anyone in the public who wishes to address this item may come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes. This is a public hearing. Anyone in the chamber who wishes to address this item may come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes. Seeing no one, no one online, bring it back to council. What say council?

I have a few questions, if I may, for the city attorney, I guess. You said one of the questions I'm going to have is current amounts. So current fines are not defined in our current code.

Correct. It refers to Chapter 162, the Florida statutes, where we borrow this procedure, but it doesn't actually say $250,000 and $500,000 for this specific thing.

Okay. But $250,000 and $500,000 are what we typically have been doing at the Code Enforcement Board level.

Actually, I think the regulation now, ordinance now says you can't find up to those amounts. Right, up to.

Yeah.

That's right.

So this is a new section. If we wanted this section to apply to multiple or subsequent issues and not first time issues, as it's written, is that allowable? Because where I'm coming from is that I do want the city, as we tackle, I think something that comes with growth and maturity of a city is bigger issues. Sometimes things just get more complicated. And I want to make sure the city has the appropriate tools. But I also, I don't want to lose track of the focus of, it's my understanding that nothing is changing with relation to compliance being the ultimate goal. And if compliance is the ultimate goal, I do think we could, if we have the ability, differentiate between those first-time incident versus a multiple repeat subsequent incident.

So I guess I would say two things in response to that. Yes, it does apply to repeats, except now it's up to $5,000 a day for repeat violators. Yes. A day. In other words, this is the statutory maximum. This is what the statutes allow you to do. You don't need to. But in subsection E here... E, I see that. Yeah, and this is... consistent with what most cities and counties do that do have more than $50,000. And I'll say, I mean, I operate as the special master for code enforcement in Citrus County, so I do this with the higher fine amounts, and I've never gone up to $1,000 a day on anything. And I think in practice it would have to be truly terrible to do the maximum. And if your board did run amok, we'd have to have a conversation about it. um but you you do say i mean it's a great point compliance is the goal and based on what i've seen from your code board they do keep that in mind now there's going to be situations where uh finds a crew in a manner that it is a larger fine than the value of the property and when that happens your city staff does look at this and work to consider fine reductions with the board this happens as a matter of course everywhere in the state of florida I would have some real constitutional concerns if that wasn't done So I think we have the mechanisms in place to address what you're talking about.

Okay.

Do you have any language? You'd like us to consider mr. Bain.

No, I think I Realizing hearing Hearing where we're at with that with regard to first time second time. It's it actually is included in here in this language I think and that's where I I understand that it's a new section, but one of the frustrations that I've had with how this has been presented, and I think I shared it at the last council meeting and shared it in my agenda review, is typically when we're dealing with something like this, we have a current proposed and we can see where we're making changes. And even though it's new, we're making changes. And it's not been real clear to me in my packet where those changes actually are currently listed or where the current is and how this one changes that through a tracking change or through we're striking this, we're adding this, or how this complements that. I think this has just been more of a we can find more if we want. And so I think it actually involves a little bit more than maybe what at least I heard in terms of how it was presented. So I appreciate the additional clarification.

Yeah, if I could have amended the sections, I would have. It's just it's, frankly, very, very badly drafted. So I think the reason why it's a new section is because, frankly, it's just an inadequate code. So we have to have a big upgrade.

And I can kind of agree with you that because when I served on it, I think we made many changes. And I just have one question. We talk about repeat offenders. I know one of the changes we made when I was on the board was the fact that when I first was on the board, Each time it was a new case, and we made that change to say, hey, now if you've been fined and out of compliance once and we determine you was out of compliance, the next time we fine you out of compliance, we don't bring a new case. We fine you right away as a repeat offender.

right so can we apply that same principle to since that's a new yeah that doesn't change i mean that is absolutely the case so okay just to explain it since you already speak the language fluently but for the public i mean the way it normally works so the repeat violator well with a first time violators normally they get a time to comply before the fine begins 30 days and then it's 250 a day for a repeat violator it's often the time from when it was discovered until the hearing and then so let's say a thousand dollars a day and then You can now go up to $5,000 a day from the date of the hearing onward. So what this represents is the city getting very, very serious about its code.

Okay.

I just want to make sure that since you said new section that we can see how to apply that portion. Okay. Good.

I think my understanding was we were replacing the old section. What is happening to the old language?

We're keeping all the other sections that exist, which are primarily procedural. But addressing Councilmember Bain's point is it refers to Chapter 162 for a lot of this. Chapter, the Florida legislature years ago created this Chapter 162 as a model for cities and counties to adopt for its code procedures. And Claremont did that, just like most cities and counties did. But the manner in which it adopted it left some gaps. In other words, it didn't say 250 and 500 specifically. It said, you know, the fines available, you know, consistent with Chapter 162. Now we're making it explicit. if that makes sense, but we're not altering anything about what's already in your code.

Is there a section in here that basically says if the old statute in any way contradicts this statute that this one, or this ordinance, excuse me, that this one controls? Am I worrying about something I don't need to worry about?

Well, there are no conflicts, but I don't know that, yes, it says any ordinance or parts of ordinance in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. Where is that? Section 3, page 4 of 5.

Okay, I'm good.

Did I have a motion?

I did not.

I say, did I have a motion? Did he have a motion?

Did anybody make a motion? No.

No, I was just asking the question. Oh, okay.

Okay. I make a motion to approve item number 14, ordinance number 2026-023. Second.

I have a motion and a second for approval of item number 14, ordinance number 2026-023. Any further discussion? Roll call. Council Member Strange.

Aye.

Council Member Bain. Aye. Council Member Myers. Aye. Council Member Peterson. Aye. And the chair vote as well. A motion passes 5-0. Long time coming. Thank you, Mr. Watt, for getting this done. Item number 15 is for variance requests.

Good afternoon, mayor, city council members, and guests. Justine Day with Development Services presenting the variance for 2099 Ibonito Circle. The applicant, Gerald St. Tilma, is requesting three variances for his property at 2099 I Bonito Circle due to a pending code enforcement case involving installed pavers. The property is in the Bella Terra subdivision and zoned R1 single family medium density residential district. The first variance request is to reduce the required 7 and 1 half foot side yard setback to allow the existing AstroTurf to remain at 0 feet from the property lines on both sides of the property. The proposed reduction would also allow the existing paver patio to encroach into the west side yard setback and remain at 3 feet from the property line. The second variance request is to reduce the required 25 foot rear yard setback to allow the existing AstroTurf to remain at 5 feet from the north property line. During review of the variance application, the applicant worked with a civil engineer to address stormwater concerns and reduce the impervious surface area on the property to come into compliance with the code. As a result, the third variance request that was originally anticipated is no longer needed. The applicant stated that the backyard has a noticeable slope which created drainage and erosion concerns during the construction of the pool. Improvements such as redirection of the gutters to a stormwater drain and the installation of AstroTurf were implemented to prevent erosion and minimize stormwater runoff. The applicant mentioned a practical hardship due to the property's unique conditions. I am not sure what is going on. It does not want to move. Okay.

Technology, technology, technology.

While he works on getting the slides back up, slide four is just to go over the review and the recommendation. Hold on one second. Thank you.

That's a whole different presentation.

Upon review, staff cannot support the requested reduction to the setbacks. The variance request is more than the minimum in order to make reasonable use of the land as the paver patio could meet setback requirements if reconfigured. The city's engineer reviewed the improvements made to the AstroTurf and noted that it would require strict ongoing maintenance to ensure the sub-base functions correctly. Without proper maintenance, the stormwater runoff could increase and negatively affect neighboring properties and the overall drainage system. Under Land Development Code Section 101-246, a variance may only be granted with a positive finding on all review criteria. Staff finds the application fails to meet two of the five required criteria. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the variance request. This concludes staff presentation.

Thank you, ma'am. Mrs. African present. Please.

Good afternoon, Mayor and members of the City Council, distinguished staff. My name is Fran Santelma, and my spouse and I, we reside at the property 2099 Aibonito Circle in Claremont. We are here this afternoon to sincerely apologize for permitting oversight regarding our backyard, and we respectfully request your approval for variance. Following the completion of our poll, we upgraded our backyard with artificial turf, and a small paver area. Our primary motivation for this project was the health and safety of our two young children who are three and five years old. Our youngest son suffers from severe pediatrician confirmed environmental allergies to grass, trees, and pollen. To allow him to play safely outside with his sister, we needed to create an allergen-free environment. In addition to our son's medical needs, the project addressed significant site constraints. The builder originally installed non-irrigated bahia grass, which was failing due to our unique slope in the backyard. causing ongoing concern with erosion and drainage. To prevent that and minimize stormwater runoff, we redirected the water from the left side corridors to our stormwater drain at the edge of the property before the improvements. We want to emphasize that we are firm believers in regulatory compliance due to our professional backgrounds. Furthermore, we interviewed eight different contractors, and unfortunately, none of them indicated that a city permit was required for artificial turf. We did our due diligence by obtaining full HOA approval. We were completely unaware of the specific city code restriction, and we deeply regret the oversight.

Additionally, we want to assure the council that we fully understand the implication of having this improvement within the easements. As homeowners, should any future utility or city maintenance require access, we accept the responsibility and will cover the cost of removal and replacement. Please, thank you for your time, your understanding, and our family's unique situation, and your consideration of our advance request. We sincerely apologize.

Okay, sir. I'm assuming that's your engineer behind you? Yes. Did he have anything to add before I open up to the public?

My name's Julian Quintana. I work for the engineer that did the report for Highland Engineering. I'm just here to answer any and all drainage concerns. All right.

Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anyone in the public wish to address this item may come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Indira Arvizu. My address is 2093 Aibondito Circle in the subdivision of Bella Terra. And I am the neighbor of Mr. and Mrs. St. Tilma. And I'm here to support the approval of the variance request. Thank you.

Thank you. I think I have a letter from her, right? Hello.

My name is Claude Tito. I live, I'm a homeowner, 1609 Presidio Drive. And Joel sent him out for my company. And I approve that variance. Thank you.

My name is Lovely Pierre. I live in 2024 in Robles Road, the same community of . I'm here to approve the proposal of the variance.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Good afternoon. I'm Maria Gutierrez. I live on 2093 Ibonito Circle in Bellaterra. development and I'm here to support the approval for our neighbors thank you thank you anyone else yes sir

Good afternoon. My name is Kurt Shu. I'm a retired military officer. As someone who's filed 150 claims with the VA for Americans with Disabilities Act, I'd like to remind the council, the attorneys, and everyone on the city staff that under the American Disability Act, someone asks for a reasonable accommodation. It's actually provided for in federal law.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? This is a public hearing. Anyone in the chamber that wish to speak to this item may come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes. Anyone else? Seeing no one else, I close it. No one online, so we will close public comment and bring it back to council. What say council?

I have a couple questions. I don't know if this is for the engineer or the homeowner, but my question is what is the expected useful life of the AstroTurf?

That's more of a manufacturer kind of detail, but if I had to guess, about 20 years.

And staff mentioned that there was some required maintenance that perhaps is sensitive. What might staff be referring to? And can you speak to the maintenance requirements moving forward?

In the report, it didn't necessarily mention a maintenance to the turf itself. I think that's more of... issue if you ever need to do maintenance on that wall and if they needed sorry yes the easement yeah correct so you'd have to you'd have to excavate all that 57 stone all the turf so it would kind of be a maintenance cost in that respect but if the homeowners willing to cover the cost I mean Yeah.

Thank you. Did you want to comment on that?

No, just in other words, in this type of a situation, we would ask that a hold harmless and indemnification agreement, if you did deem fit to approve it, be signed by the owner so that if we did have to make use of the easement or tear something up, that they're not going to sue it. I'm not saying they would, but we usually get a document signed to protect us.

And I have one more question. I think it might be for Mr. Mathis or Mr. Van Wagner. In a recent hearing, we talked about an administrative variance, if I'm using the right terminology. Staff, is that the right word? Correct. Would this item have been one that would have met the criteria of an administrative variance on any or all of the requested variances?

it all depends on how we write it in the future code so it could be written like i've seen jurisdictions where they give like a 20 percent administrative they call it relief administrative relief for any dimensional standard so setbacks height things like that i've seen them as high as 50 percent and as low as probably five to ten percent so it's all depending on how we write it in the ordinance but they're under their overall impervious surface area here correct so they wouldn't need a variance for that it would just be the setbacks of the pavers and pavers in the side setback and the astroturf in the rear and side.

So I want to speak to the council. Where I'm at on this is I'm generally of the opinion that as long as the neighbors approve a zero setback, I'm not sure I care so much if the neighbors are on the same page. Obviously, they are here. I commend you for that. AstroTurf is not an approved material. And I think they do have, in this case, a valid reason to have a different kind of material. My inclination would be because we have neighbors in support, because they're under the engineering impervious surface area, I would be fine with the setback issues. The AstroTurf, I would ask council to consider to put a useful life limit on the CUP that we say within 20 years, the CUP would end and they would have to come back. by then their child will no longer be a child 20 years from now and so they would be able to make an informed decision so rather than it run with the land in perpetuity that's kind of where i'm at on this but i'm open to other people's thoughts so approving a variance for the 20-year yeah sunshine

I'm fine with that too because this is important for their child to be able to play outside you know it's unlike some of our others for real health issues I was just gonna add I researched the AstroTurf and the average lifespan of AstroTurf for residential yards is 10 to 15 years with good maintenance so I might say 15 the child is 3 yeah so that would get the child to 18

Well, I think the that depend upon the type of actual care to write because it's different great and there's different yes is that did and I'm sure they asked her it says that they go up to 20 years.

Up to 20 years up to 20 residential backyards generally 10 to 12 or 10 to 15 depending on pets children and weather.

And there's also a really also depend upon how much use you put on that. Yes, sir, Mister bank.

thank you uh mr mayor i to to piggyback on council member strange's question i think um i think there might be something more than maybe what the engineer mentioned there so i don't know if city staff can address i i think you guys made a concern about the turf being maintained for water runoff not necessarily for access to the easement that was what that that Second to the last paragraph on page 199 indicates.

That is how the email has read, and I do have it if you want me to put it up on screen.

Yeah, that would be good if you can.

Can you enlarge it? Okay. Okay.

What section are we looking at?

So I believe it's going to be section three.

Yeah, it says, however, I think it starts, however, over time.

Where is that at?

The second line, or second line of that last paragraph, however, over time. Okay, thank you. Do I think downstream of this lot might contribute to more runoff? I do. So I guess that's where, this is my rub with AstroTurf, is like... it's not really a great product for our area in our yards because of that concern. So for what it's worth, if you all remember this development, this development had some grading issues that delayed its start for quite some time. And so it's a sensitive area. And I'm hyper aware of that fact, like that voice Speaking saying but hey this this could be a this had a this had a lot of concerns By city staff when the developers were bringing this forward that it kept having to go back to the drawing board to make sure that it was Gonna work and and now we got it to a point that it works and we're now potentially starting at least one because variances are only supposed to be for the property but We can't control what word of mouth does that's potentially going to change what we finally got to approve in water runoff and drainage and site planning. That's my biggest concern. I think it's lovely. I think it's beautiful. The pictures are amazing. It looks like an oasis. And I am sensitive to the fact of, and I would, you know, if we need to get into that conversation, I'd defer to our city attorney to talk to us and advise us on the ADA regarding federal and state law. But I'm worried about, right now it may work great, but in two years, that sub base, how do we know what that sub base is doing. And if that sub base isn't performing like it's supposed to, and over time it starts to run into one of the neighbors who actually came up and said, I support this, what do we do then at that point? They've got a variance. There's nothing we can do. We're held harmless. But it could affect the overall neighborhood long term. And we're also getting rid of, in addition to that, we're essentially giving zero setbacks on the side and rear of the yard. So essentially, we've got pavers and or turf going right up to the lot line. No room for any additional kind of drainage without ripping all this out. I'm really concerned about that. And I just, I don't... I'm not convinced that it should be approved, but I'm also not convinced that it shouldn't be approved, if that makes sense, because I do feel like there's some valid points being made, and I think there could be some compromises potentially on setbacks, but I'm really worried about that turf and that substance being used under it while it's the preferred substance, the maintenance of it, and what is that gonna do over time?

I'd love to hear our attorney's response to what we could do to address that.

Well, one of the things I want to come back, and I hope it may answer one of the questions, if I'm not mistaken, when I read the package, along that one side of the fencing where you see the kind of like brownish material, if I'm not mistaken, that is drainage, right? then along the back edge of the property all the river rock and everything is in there is the rear drainage which was storm uh drained right into the storm water if i'm not mistaken so there is drainage there and of course yeah everybody in here probably know how i feel about seven and a half feet setback uh size setbacks and everything i don't i i take them very serious but when i looked at this project and i noticed they they went back they put it in and began it without knowing um All the requirements, they spend extra cash to go back and redo the sub-basis so they have better drainage. They get it back down under the 55% pervious surface. And they took the engineering, I guess, I think, I would say he did a great job in putting in drainage on the side and then making sure everything on the back side of the property drained into the drain that's the storm water there. So I don't see any problem with drainage and all that. And I just want to commend them for going back and getting permits and working with city staff, working with engineers to redo everything and spend extra money to make sure it met our specification and our requirements and all. So I have no problem with the project and I do understand about your child and everything as one that suffered with asthma and as my wife can contest, a couple weeks ago that grass got to me and I was down for about two weeks because the grass got to me. So I have sympathy for that and understand that as well. And having kids that also had allergies to grass and everything, so I can commend it. I can support it.

I can support it, too. I think they did a wonderful job as well. You've got your engineer, you've got all your neighbors supporting, and you went to your HOA first and foremost and got approved from there. A lot of people don't do that. They just do what they want to do. And then, oh, I should have did A and B. You actually went to your HOA, you know, before you did anything, you know. And getting the news of your child being allergic to all of the different things that we have growing here in Florida is, you know, very disconcerting. So I'm for it, for it to be approved.

But I think when you're talking about setbacks, setbacks are for pavers. But turf can go right up to the property line. And grass will die too if it's not maintained. Your house has to get painted or the stucco is going to crack. So everything has to be maintained. AstroTurf isn't a bad thing. You know, you think about water conservation. It's a good thing. And I think, you know, everything has to be maintained. And I think if we put a 15-year, none of us are going to be here in 15 years to, like, come on and pull it out now. Speak for yourself. Speak for yourself.

Okay. You mean on council. We're going to be alive.

We're going to be alive. I know I'm going to be alive. Thanks a lot. You mean city council.

You mean city council. Is that a threat? That's something we don't know.

I'd like to make a motion to approve the variance.

And I second it.

Okay, I have a motion and a second to approve the variance as presented. We need no... Did you want to put the 15-year?

We'll make it 30 years then. No, no 15 years. I don't think we can because I don't think you could ever hold anybody to that. Okay.

So the motion's without that?

Yeah.

Okay. What about the hold harmless agreement to be included that the city attorney?

Yeah, that needs to be in there.

Put that in there, yeah. That notwithstanding. All right. So give me the motion. Okay.

to approve it with the... On condition that the hold harmless agreement that we use in these situations be executed.

There you go, that right there. And I second it. And no 15 year, okay. All right, we have a motion and a second with amendments to the material presented. Is there any further discussion?

I would like to, before we call the vote, if that's OK. First, to Mr. Bain's point, there is a language in the HOA approval that says the owner is responsible for any flooding caused by the turf on their neighbor's property. So I don't know if that addresses your concerns. But as you raised them and I shared them, I looked through again, and that does address mine. on that issue. It becomes a private issue, and I think that everybody has notice of it as they're coming into this. I will tell you, Mr. Peterson, I can support your motion as it addresses the setback variances. I'm having a difficult time supporting it with the AstroTurf. I would like you to consider the possibility of amending the motion to limiting the AstroTurf to 15 years so that it can be revisited at the time that the AstroTurf might need to be replaced anyway. The reason why I feel that way is it is not an approved material. This is an exception due to an ADA issue. The person at issue presumably becomes an adult in 15 years, and so I'd like you to consider that.

Can that be enforced? I don't know if we can enforce something like that. But can we? I mean, you know, you could put a 15-year in there. I mean, yeah, it can be enforced. Is somebody, like, tracking it? I don't know if people are tracking it. If they are, then I would be amazed. I could add that in.

Mr. Wall, let me ask you this question. We put a 15-year in there, and 13 years from now they sell it.

or how we enforce it on the new homeowners no i mean technically it can be whether it's a good idea or not yeah i don't well my thought process is that astroturf does have a useful life and it's going to have to be replaced at some point and when that happens presumably if it's these property owners they'll know because they're here if it's a future probably property owner hopefully they will ask the city you know what are the requirements We'll be able to see what are the new materials by then. I think it addresses their need for the variance for the material change. And like I said, I continue to remain of the position that if the neighbors approve a zero lot line, I think that's between them and the neighbors. And a future property owner would come to it and be able to see it when they came to it. That's why I'm okay with it as it pertains to the setbacks. And I would simply ask that you consider putting 15 years on the AstroTurf. That's all.

Well, here's the other question. I guess with the 15, even after 15 years, they come back, do we disapprove it?

They could come back and ask the council then. I mean, nothing's stopping them from doing that. Do we?

Like I said, you sell it at 13 years. Do we grandfather this in and the new owners in two years come in and say, hey, we want to continue to have the AstroTurf and we relocate it all again? Do they automatically get grandfathered again? and be able to just go ahead and upgrade the astroturf.

I think it's part of owning property, is doing your due diligence on what the materials are, if there's any conditions.

15 years from now, who knows what materials are going to be. So you amend everything as artificial.

Is the motion being amended, though?

Mended with 15 years. On the astroturf.

On the astroturf, and a new second. OK, with the amendment, motion and second. With a 15-year life, and all harmless.

All right.

Any further discussion? Well, not all in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? And chair vote aye as well. Motion passes 5-0. Good luck.

Thank you.

item number 16 resolution number 2026-011RR a resolution of the City Council of the City of Claremont Lake County Florida granting a conditional use permit to allow for a mobile food dispensing vehicle to operate on an improved parcel located in the C2 general commercial zoning district providing for conflict severability administrative correction of scrivener's error publication and an effective date

Yes, sir.

Good evening, Mayor, City Council members and guests. John Cruz Development Services. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow the operation of mobile food dispensing vehicle or a food truck on an improved parcel designated within the C2 General Commercial Zoning District. The proposed location is 477 East Highway 50 within the Sunoco Texaco parking lot. And on your display outlined in yellow is the parcel. The applicant proposes to operate a single food truck. My Amero would take out service only. The food truck is proposed to be located on the east side of the property adjacent to the convenience store. The final location will be confirmed during site review to ensure compliance with all applicable building and fire safety codes. Currently, there is an existing food truck operation approximately 800 feet to the west, located at 300 East Highway 50. My Amero will operate in a similar fashion. The applicant has provided written authorization from the property owner allowing the use of the property, including access to the restroom facilities for patrons. Proposed hours of operation are seven days a week, 4 p.m. to 10 p.m. The applicant will comply with all city regulations, Lake County Health Department, and state licensing requirements and standards. Additionally, the applicant has indicated that Food Truck will stay on the property overnight and will go to a commissary to drop off waste. The city's land development code does not identify food trucks as a permitted use within the C2 General Commercial District. As such, the use requires approval of conditional use permit for this type of operation. The C2 General Commercial District permits restaurants and food establishments when conducting an enclosed structure. Staff finds the proposed use is compatible with the district and would not be more objectionable than other permitted uses. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval four to one with the condition that the hours of operation are in accordance with the existing business. And if city council decides to approve the resolution, we would have to make a change in the resolution for the hours of operation. Currently, we verified Monday through Saturday till 9 p.m. and Sunday till 8 p.m. And that was verified through one of the city employees today. staff has reviewed the application and submitted in accordance with the development standards criteria and finds proposed use can meet the general criteria for granting a conditional use permit rose use will not be detrimental to the health safety and welfare of the surrounding community staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the conditions contained in resolution number 2026-011r that concludes staff's presentation thank you is the applicant present

Good evening, audience and council member Sebastian and he's my father and he's my brother, Romel and Alexander. And we're here to ask to allow us to work here with the permit of course. And me and my brother will be translating to my father and we'll answer to our best of our abilities.

Can I just get you to give me an address, please, sir?

Oh, yeah. Oh, where we live? Yeah. 430 Overpool Avenue. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. We're ready. That's it, the presentation? Anything else you want to add? No?

No?

Okay. If we have any other questions, we will call you back a little bit later. But this is a public forum. Anyone in the chamber wish to address this item may come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes. Anyone in the chamber would like to address this item may come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes. Seeing no one, no one online, we close it back. What say council?

I know that... The Planning and Zoning Commission staff presented some language to address these so that we have some actual codified information moving forward. And in fact, I believe, isn't it tonight, one of the intros is that amendment to the Land Development Code. think in the near future we'll be able to have some additional guidelines and information to help us here but we obviously have to work with where we are right now and and and I'll just say given the location and what's currently on the on the parcel I'm inclined to support the the request for this. And I think my question for staff or my recommendation based off of what staff is saying is would it be okay to say if we were to approve this and amend number three in section two there, to say the hours of operation will be consistent with the current business hours of operation, but not to extend beyond, and we put a a.m. and p.m. time there, would that suffice your request and suffice legal?

Yes, it would.

Okay, so with that then, staff, what would you have a recommendation to not extend beyond for the a.m. and p.m.?

I mean, in terms of the AM, it says 4 p.m. in here already, and that's what was requested.

But if we're saying the current hours of operation, what time is the station open right now? What time is it open? That's why I want to clarify, because if the hours of operation is 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., then that means the food truck is 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., unless we alter that a little bit.

But I think in his application, he said his hours are going to be from 4 to 10, right?

Right. They said they were unsure exactly when the business opened.

I think it opens at 6 if I must say, 6 a.m. Well, they're saying 4 p.m. Yeah.

I thought staff just said Monday through Saturday the gas stations open until 9 p.m. and Sunday until 8 p.m. So if they're saying 4 is the start.

About 8 to 10. 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. That gives a reasonable window.

Okay. So if my fellow council members would be inclined, if I could make that motion when it comes time to amend that item to say hours of operation will be hours consistent with the current business hours of operation but not to extend beyond 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. So basically, it's 8 to 10. But I don't want to do that and stifle conversation. So that's all I have for now.

My concern with this, first of all, I'm in support of any sort of incremental development. I think that's really good. But the nature of incremental is that it's short term and temporary. And so I would like to see a sunset on this. I also believe that we're going to have a food truck ordinance within the next six months to a year. And so what I don't know is what that's going to look like right now. they came here first so i don't want to deny them the opportunity to be heard but i would like us to consider doing the cup for a limited period of time with the understanding that there will be a food truck ordinance as i believe and so it would then fall under whatever that ordinance restrictions are at that point. So those are my only real concerns. And related to Mr. Bain, when I was preparing for this, I would like to make sure that the access to restroom facilities is basically everything on page 250 are things, facts, that it's a single food truck. It's authentic. diverse food options and a clean, safe, and professionally operated mobile kitchen. They've got operating hours. They've got restroom facilities for the patrons. I think that all of those conditions should be included in the CUP because there are things upon which we're relying in making our decisions. And not each one of those is identified in the CUP as it's currently written. So I just want to make sure those conditions are met, and if we're open to having a sunset with the belief that we're going to have a food truck ordinance. If we believe that, and if we don't, please let me know. It might change my opinion, but I think that we'll have one. So I'd rather see them under the umbrella of the existing ordinance than having a CUP that runs with the land that might have differing terms.

Right. You know, Clement is growing, and we're getting, it's really good to see new entrepreneurs. This is a great way to start a business. You know, it goes from this to a brick and mortar. So it's a way for them to start. It's a great Venezuelan restaurant. Is that what it is? Yes. Venezuelan. So, you know, it'll be something unique. It'll be something that I think would be nice. And as long as we're following the ordinance, I don't think... If we change their times to 9 o'clock, I don't think that's going to affect you, right? No, not at all. I didn't think so. So I'm in total support of this. I think it's great that we're getting new businesses into town. Like I think we said it previously, we want to have Claremont a place that you're going to live, your children can live and raise a family and work in Claremont and not go the 50 route out of Claremont every morning. Right. So I'm in favor of this, and I would vote yes to the food truck right now. I would too.

I would vote yes. And Ms. Strange, I understand, and I know we've been working, we've been talking about a food truck ordinance for years. Yes. For a couple years. uh but i have a problem with with a sunset on this one uh because we have one across the street that we put across the street and i don't think we put a sunset on that they have three across the street right across the street one of the things i would like to see in here is the fact that if they decide they want to try to put an additional truck getting any additional trucks that they need to come back to us okay and the fact that and as i think In the presentation, they show it being on the pavement over there, located on the pavement, set up on the pavement. I want to ensure that it be on the pavement and not in the grassy area behind the station and everything over there. If you look at where they have it set up.

I think, Mayor, to your concern, in Section 2, Number 1, it does say that it only allows one food truck. And it also indicates that the – I thought it had a requirement of where the truck would go. It's in there.

Okay. It's in there, a little red box that says identify its location. It's on the pavement, and I want to make sure that that is adhered to, okay? And like I say, make sure if they decide to try to do another one, even though it's in there, make sure they have to come back to us, okay?

Well, it's in there as one. Huh? It's in there as just one, so they would have to come back. Yeah, so...

Well, with that being said, I'd like to make the motion then to approve the ordinance number, I'm sorry, resolution number 2026-011R with the following changes. One, section two, number three, the hours of operation to be consistent with current business hours of operation, but not to extend beyond 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. So the 8 to 10. And second, to include the conditions in the staff report in the resolution, in the actual CUP, as Council Member Strange brought up. I don't want to include the sunset because I don't think that that's equitable to this. I think if we do a sunset, we should do a sunset for every single CUP we've done. And then bring them back under the new ordinance But I do not want to see us do that just with one and that's where I would not why I would not want to include that in the motion I So is that your motion?

Yes. Okay, I second it then.

Okay, and the condition that you're, Mr. Ranger, talking about, and that was included, the restrooms and all that?

Yeah, the items from the staff report that talked about the restroom, it's one, it's all the other items that were in there that are not currently addressed. Let's make sure that they're addressed specifically.

So you're more to move them from the page where they say they are available into the CUP? Into the actual CUP. Okay.

Okay, Agnes, but I think the time you said was, you said the closing of the other business was nine o'clock Monday through Saturday, and eight on Sunday, correct?

Correct.

So we that's what we want to, we want to stipulate that they have to maintain their closing hour to the adjacent business, not 10 o'clock.

Right, but not to exceed 10 p.m. Not to exceed.

So it has to be within the consistent, but then not to exceed. So if that business were to change their time to 11, the food truck could still only be until 10. A gas station could very easily stay open until 11.

But I actually didn't think they were open until 11. that late at night over there. No, I thought they closed around 6 or 7 o'clock over there, but if not, that's fine. And on the other business, real business there, well, you've got the auto parts place up the road and what's that restaurant up the road, but other than that, the jeweler's store right next door. But okay, we have a motion and a second to approve resolution number 2026-011-ARA. with the added conditions no sunset right no sunset any further discussion hearing none all in favor let it be known by saying aye aye all opposed nay and the chair vote aye as well motion passes four to one good luck sir you did a good job speaking for your dad young man Item number 17, ordinance number 2026-014, intro.

An ordinance of the city council of the city of Claremont, Lake County, Florida, amending chapter 125 to establish procedures for the review and approval of mobile food dispensing vehicles pursuant to section 509.102, Florida statutes, providing for conflict, severability, codification, administrative correction of scrivener's errors, publication, and an effective date.

Okay, this is an introduction, introduction, intro.

It is an introduction, Mayor. However, the Planning and Zoning Board had several conditions and things that they wanted you to consider along with this. I'm not sure if they're all in the staff report, but I know they're not integrated into the text of the ordinance. And as part of the recommendation, it had wanted a workshop. So what I'm concerned about is you approving the ordinance tonight on first reading, but then just incorporating changes on second reading. which would require, in my opinion, because the changes are material, I think it would require a re-advertising. I don't know if the council would consider it or not, tabling until after the workshop, but that's my recommendation. That's what I'm asking for as city attorney.

Is she asking for a workshop because of additional stipulations you want to put in here?

Or that you might want as well. You'll see there's a lot of detail here. There's a lot of different things.

So the one they know, outdoor dining? But I mean, if somebody wants to put a picnic table, that would not be allowed. But I know there's places along 27 that there's a food truck there, and he's got some picnic tables.

Well, I don't want to miss. The ordinance got good reviews from the commission. Everyone was happy that it was presented, but there were several potential, I think, material things. So long story short, I just don't want to add them at second reading. I'd rather add them at first reading after you've had an opportunity to consider those things.

I move to table item number 17, ordinance 2026-014.

Second. I have a motion and a second to table item number 17 to win.

Until after we can workshop it.

I'm going to recommend August because July, we're very busy doing the budget.

So no later than the September, the first meeting in September?

August 18th is our next scheduled workshop and then September 8th would be our next council meeting in September.

But we could vote to the intro and then have the workshop and then do a final vote.

No, that's right. He doesn't want an intro. September 8th, you say?

Yes, sir. Is that okay, Miss?

Yeah, that works for me.

September 8th.

I know we have to do the budget, but I appreciate the request by P&Z and I think that it's important that we meet with them.

Okay. All right, I have a motion and a second to table item number 17, ordinance number 2026-014 until September 8th. Any further discussion? Not all in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? And share vote aye as well. Item number 18, ordinance number 2026-021, intro.

ordinance of the city of Claremont Lake County Florida adopting the large-scale comprehensive plan amendment for the city of Claremont Florida pursuant to the local government comprehensive Planning Act chapter 163 part 2 Florida statutes setting forth the authority for adoption of the large-scale comprehensive plan amendment setting forth the purpose and intent of the large-scale comprehensive plan amendment providing for the adoption of the long large-scale comprehensive plan amendment establishing the legal status of the large-scale comprehensive plan amendment, providing for conflicts, severability, administrative correction of scrivener's error, publication, and an effective date.

Okay. Oh, you're going to do a presentation?

Only if you would prefer.

Sorry, because of the transmittal, we have to.

Oh, we have to. Okay, my bad.

Oh, that's right, transmittal. I'm sorry. Okay.

Good afternoon, Mayor, City Council members and guests. Justine Day with Development Services. The city as the applicant is requesting a large-scale comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning of the subject property following a staff-initiated annexation. The approximately 88-acre property includes the Hammock Point and Hammock Reserve subdivisions, which are fully built out and contain 196 existing single-family homes. The parcel has already been plotted, developed, and is receiving city wastewater services. On October 28th, 2025, the city council approved the annexation with the understanding that the appropriate future land use and zoning designations would be established at a later date and time. Staff is now proposing to complete that process.

Sorry, one second.

The property is currently designated with the urban low density feature land use category under Lake County. When reviewing the subdivisions under the city's requirements, staff found the low density residential feature land use category to be the most compatible. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval 6-0 for ordinance number 2026-021. Staff recommends transmittal of the large scale comprehensive plan amendment. and the introduction of the rezoning ordinance number 2026-022. If approved, the state will then have 60 days for review to provide comments back to the city regarding the proposed map amendment. Once complete, the findings will be presented to the city council during a regularly scheduled hearing sometime in August for final determination. This concludes staff presentation.

Thank you.

That's an introduction. We have it, and so now it's ready for transmittal if we so desire. I'll entertain a motion.

I'll move ordinance number 2026-021, intro, transmittal. Second.

Okay, I have a motion and a second for item number 18, ordinance number 2026-021, intro, transmittal. Any further discussion? All in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Chair vote aye as well.

I would move ordinance number 2026-022, intro rezoning.

We've got to read it in the records real quick.

I thought she just did, didn't she? No. Oh, I thought she said it in there.

I heard her say it in there, so my bad. Sorry, sorry. Item number 19, ordinance number 2026-022. It's OK. You're not alone.

I've done that too.

Do you have anything else?

An ordinance under the Code of Ordinances of the City of Claremont, Lake County, Florida, amending the official zoning map of the City of Claremont referred to in Chapter 122 of Ordinance Number 289C, Code of Ordinances, rezoning the real properties described herein as shown below, providing for conflict, severability, administrative correction of scrivener's error, recording, publication, and an effective date.

Okay. I entertain a motion.

I'd like to make a motion to accept.

I've lost it, sorry.

I went ahead of myself. Orders number 2026-21. No. No, it's 22. 22.

I second.

I was in the right spot.

I have a motion and a second for approval of ordinance for introduction of ordinance number 2026-022. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor let it be known by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Chair, as well, motion carries 5-0. Mayor, can I request that? I was about to ask you. You was in a rush to do that, and I think that means you need a break.

Well, I don't need one, but I think we should take one because I don't want a break in the middle of the presentation, and we're getting to that point where we typically ask for a 10-minute.

Right, that's fine. 10 minutes, we'll be back at 5.30, 5.30. Great. Thank you. Yeah, yeah, yeah. We'll come back to order and move to item number 20. Okay.

Ready, Chief? Yep, I'm ready. Good evening, Mayor and Council. David Ezell, Fire Chief with the Claremont Fire Department. I kind of want to just preface what we're going to be doing tonight, kind of go over what it is and what it's not. We will be bringing an item back for consideration by Council on the 23rd for us to move forward with an application for a certificate of public necessity. convenience and necessity of Lake County. What we're going to talk about tonight is just our analysis of going through that process, the costs, the different time elements and everything else in there, as well as take into consideration a lot of the questions that came up in the last workshop. So we've worked that into the presentation, so hopefully we answer that. We've also supplied each of you with some supplemental documentation. Included in that is the proposed budget for the transport for next year. That is a worst-case scenario, so we've got everything broken out by line item. And we also included the analytical model that we ran when we started first having conversations with the county about 18 months ago. And that involved us taking our model and dropping ambulances at different locations within the city until we were able to achieve that 10-minute response time for an ambulance on scene at the 90th percentile. So that's just in there to give you a little additional information, and we'll go along and have time for questions if anything comes up. but just wanted to just kind of put it out there that today is information only we're not looking for a decision or anything else that'll be done at a later date after there's been time for further conversation if needed and for you to take all the information in and absorb it so you get the clicker okay So the Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity, what that is, is that is the first piece that is needed before we can approach the state and request an ALS license. By state statute, that is governed by the counties. The Board of County Commissioners is the sole authority in issuing COPCNs either for non-transport or transport services. That includes basic life support. and advanced life support. So currently we operate under the county's license and we have, our trucks are stickered to be able to provide ALS non transport services. So what we looked at is uh, the reason we did this, this was something that came up as a priority of council. Well, as I stated 18 months ago, we were looking at the operational demand and the system performance, mainly that at that point in time, we were over 17 minutes at the 90th percentile for emergency responses from our ambulances, and we were looking to get those times down. We went through the revenues, the expenses. We had a lot of conversations with the county on how we might do that with a partnership, and we still, to this point, have not made a lot of progress going forward with those conversations. we're looking at going in a different approach and looking to get our own COPCN so that we can operate and then have the options to do whatever we would like to do as a, as a council for meeting those goals. So one of the things that we talked about a little hard to see on this slide, um, the operational demand, we were talking about the different volumes of calls that we have with our, with our different service programs. Looking at this, you can see that our EMS calls have increased a little bit each year. In 2023, we were at 5,451. And last year, we were up to 5,829. So we're seeing modest increases there. And between those years, we saw an overall increase of about 12.5% in our annual call responses. So I believe we're trending to about 9,000 calls this year.

Did you say 9,000?

9,000. Total calls, not just EMS. That's all service demand.

Can you go back one slide?

Sure.

Okay, so from 8,500 to 9,000.

Yeah, so we'll probably be over 6,000 on the EMS. You can see we were at 5829 last year. That'll probably be up a little over 6,000 this year.

Okay, thank you.

And this is a breakdown on the performance that we were seeing prior to ambulances being added. And then what we're seeing now with additional ambulances that have been added by the county. So for the ones that we want to look at is the Bravo and echo 90th percentile. Those are what we call emergent responses. The alphas are considered lower priority. So we separate those out. Uh, what we saw in the, in the last couple of months of 2025 is that we were at about 1554. So just under 16 minutes for an ambulance to arrive. What we have year-to-date through May 25th, we were looking at 12 minutes and 24 seconds to get the ambulance on scene at the 90th percentile. So while we've seen an improvement, we still are not at the number that we need to get to 10 minutes. And that was something that our model showed. Our model showed that we needed to add six additional ambulances to get to that number, with the county adding four additional units. So we've seen time drop, but, you know, our – data is telling us that two additional ambulances are needed to get those numbers to where they need to be.

Can we go back?

So, and just one other thing to note, um, the last, uh, two and a half months of 2025, uh, there were a total of 99 responses that exceeded a 15 minute arrival for the ambulance, uh, compared with this year with the additional ambulances being added, uh, with, you know, almost a five full months of, uh, responses. that that number is down to 83. So there's definitely an improvement in the system. Okay, so the EMS funding structure, the residents from the city of Claremont through the MSTU are currently contributing approximately $2.9 million annually that goes to the county through the county MSTU. The MSTU and transport revenues are collected by Lake County and used to support countywide ambulance services. Ambulance deployments decisions remain under the control of the county. That's something that we do not have a seat at the table as to how that takes place and where priorities are given. We currently have no direct control over how the MSTU has billed funds and to improve services within the city. And our existing interlocal agreements remain in effect and include provisions governing the MSTU participation. If we elected to assume EMS transport responsibilities, the city would assume associated operational costs, including dispatch, medical directions, supplies, communications, and fleet support. And a key question here is should we continue to fund EMS transport exclusively through the county system or preserve the ability to directly manage our resources in the future? So when we started looking at why we would want to do fire transport services, we looked at, first off, that EMS is about 70% of our overall business volume. It's by far our biggest service delivery program. Ambulance times remain above the council objectives, part of what we looked at inside of our strategic plan that we brought to council for approval. and Claremont residents contribute millions annually through the MSTU to the system, and local deployment decisions are, they're not within the purview of the fire department of this board, so we have no say if we want to change those metrics. So the question is no longer whether EMS transport is feasible, the question is whether Claremont should preserve the ability to control its own EMS future. So as we're getting into the financials, I'm going to let Assistant Chief Casler step in and talk a little bit to those ends.

Assistant Chief Rick Casler of administration with the Claremont Fire Department. So, counsel, the EMS financial assumptions, just as we go through these numbers, it's going to be the assumption that we're going to have two frontline ambulances, two reserve ambulances with the asterisks that are existing. Ambulance that we have would be included in the fleet. The startup costs are going to include outfitting, radios, our MDTs, all the equipment necessary to provide day-to-day operation. And then some of the assumptions concerning collections are based off of numbers provided to us when we started talking with the county 18 months ago about what the average COLLECTION RATE WAS FOR PER TRANSPORT, WHICH IS 423.58. SO YOU'LL SEE THAT. AND WITH THE ASSUMPTION OF TWO TRANSPORT UNITS WITH AN AVERAGE OF FOUR CALLS PER DAY, THAT BRINGS US TO 29.20 IS WHAT WE BELIEVE THAT THOSE COULD REASONABLY ACCOMPLISH IN A DAY. FOR REFERENCE, WE HAD 5600 TRANSPORTS IN THE CLARIMONT AREA IN THE LAST YEAR APPROXIMATELY. So with that the projected annual revenue of the program starting with two ambulances would be 1.2 million Staffing to do that would be our division chief of EMS and EMS training lieutenant an additional 15 firefighters paramedics for 24-7 coverage with two units So with an independent system, uh, what is it going to cost? Right? Like year one and recurring. So, uh, year one costs and recurring salaries are going to stay the same, uh, plus or minus, uh, any adjustments based on the collective bargaining agreement, a year one operating costs are going to be about 1.5 million. That includes some minor equipment necessary to outfit our personnel plus the units. And then the recurring operating costs for both of those units, is going to be about $957,000. That includes what we anticipate having to pay to contract for ancillary services such as medical direction, medical supplies, and communications. Capital equipment, that's to buy all of the big trucks, 1.5. So our gross program costs for year one, what is it going to cost in our budget? approximately $5.3 million with a recurring cost of about 3.2. If we modify that and less our expected revenue, we get a net program cost of 4 million on year one and a little over 2 million on year two. if we add in the mstu collection and the city chooses to break away from the system and collect the 2.9 million from the mstu that leaves us with a net cost year one of 1.15 and then we would actually show revenue in the recurring annual cost of about 878 thousand dollars so cost per resident with the impact if we are fully independent starting with two units barring that we collect the mstu at four transports a day it's 22.65 a year for per citizen or a revenue of 1721 per citizen for years two and on So this is just kind of looking at it the same way. The key advantage here is that that does provide local control and its independence and has the ability for us to transport and provide any operational decisions necessary. So do you want to take over the timeline?

Yeah.

So in this slide, what we've done is we basically, we've taken a look at all of our current and future plan facilities and identified, you know, where, where do we have the capacity to be able to add ambulances? I know in their conversations with the County, that was one of the things that came, you know, continually came up is, you know, when can we get an ambulance in one of your fire stations? And the reality is over the last year, Claremont has continued to grow and the county is just now starting to grow. So what's happened over that time period is we have expanded our footprint within our stations and we don't have the space to house any ambulances anywhere. Even if we were to do it today, we don't have anywhere to put them. Uh, case in point to that, there was a, there was a letter sent from chief Bishop back in 2017 to the county, um, in regard to fire station number two. And he is, he effectively terminated the agreement to house ambulances and fire station two because of the growth that we had more units there, more personnel, and we no longer had the space in that facility to house the ambulance crews. So what we did is we looked out going forward and looking at Fire Station 1. Right now we don't have the available space to put an ambulance in without doing some major renovations there and some restructuring on where crews are located. We don't see a future provision for them to be able to be there. Looking at Station 2, which we're getting ready to start construction on and anticipate that it will be ready to be operational on or before June of next year. Uh, that will be built so that we could possibly put an ambulance in that location. Um, that, that will, the accommodations there will be for up to 10 people. So that is an option. Um, station three is another location where it would take six significant modifications in order to create the room. to be able to put an ambulance there. Station 4, that is currently a shared station with the county. And without one of the suppression units, there's one from us and one from the county that's in that station. Without one of those suppression units being relocated, we do not have capacity to put an ambulance at that location either. Two other opportunities that we have, the fire station down at Wellness Way, Station 5, we are intending to plan that. that we can have up to 10 personnel in there so that would facilitate providing the space for an ambulance crew and then we are looking at the land on old highway 50 that we just purchased and that station there we are looking at the putting capacity to have both an engine and a ambulance crew there so you know as we work this out over the timelines, there will be capacity in the future, but today it doesn't exist. And I think that's one of the key components here. When we talk about why we want to look at getting a COPC in, attending some of the county's presentations, one of the things that they shared is that frustration with the lack of infrastructure. While they've added the ambulances, they are moving them up to key locations within the city to get the response times down. but they don't have the infrastructure to have those ambulances there 24-7. And our plan is to build that. So that's something that we can provide with the plan that we've got, is to have that and ensure that they're going to be available on a 24-7 basis. So looking at a timeline, phase one would be authorization and planning. That would be council approval of proceeding with the application, getting the budget approved. You know getting the personnel on board as soon as the phones are appropriated and that's going to take us about 18 months to get those personnel ready to go out into the field and a realistic timeline on that is having them Start probably around January of 2028 is what we're looking at So we're gonna we're gonna have to spend about a year getting them up to speed Getting them through paramedic school getting them trained up as firefighters so they can function as they is a dual certified person on the ambulance and And then looking out, we're looking at adding a couple ambulances each year as we're going out, working towards getting to having those six ambulances within Claremont to provide that model that we built out. And also anticipating that we're going to have some additional growth. And as we have more people and the call volumes go up, that there may be more of a need for additional ambulances. So looking at a fully independent system, like I said, this is a worst case scenario. With six ambulances being in service, estimating transports at 5,600 a year, our total operating costs would be at about $8.4 million. So projected revenue from that would be $2.4 million. And if we were to receive the MSTU funds from that, that would be $2.9 million in revenue back to the city and with a net cost of $3.1 million. And we're looking at a cost recovery of about 63%. One other important thing to note, if you have six ambulances out there, that will be effectively adding 12 additional firefighters to each shift. So for that cost, uh, that's something that is a tremendous benefit. I mean, currently, uh, we're, we're operating, uh, with the minimum staffing of what is it? Uh, it's gonna be 23. Yes. So it'd be 23 when station five goes online. So we're almost, it's almost a 50% increase in the number of firefighters we'll have out there. That'll be available for, uh, you know, not just the EMS calls, but also fire calls and other things that are happening out there. So, Actually, it's a really, really attractive price point, and that's kind of what we've been looking at for our model is putting our engines along with an ambulance in the fire stations is to be a highly effective way to have the crew size that we need to be effective out in the field, not only with the first response unit, but with getting the ERFs there. You want to go through dispatch?

So currently for dispatch, it's provided by the county. They do a fantastic job. When we look at their times and how they provide their service, they are shaving minutes off of our response time. Based on what Claremont PD pays to contract with the county for an independent dispatch, we're estimating that that would be about $600,000. approximately fifteen thousand per year for the additional radios and maintenance agreement that we already currently have with the county that they provide so that's about six hundred and fifteen out of that nine hundred thousand on the ongoing operating costs we have no desire to leave the county when it comes to communications they have one of the best in the country it would make no sense it would make sense for us to contract with them And then we were asked at the workshop what our historical agreements were. Historically, county ambulances were housed in the fire stations. When I first started in my 19th year, we did have ambulances at our fire stations. They have changed throughout the years as growth. We have had to grow our fire suppression units to meet demand and maintain our ISO. And as that time has gone, we've grown and the buildings have not. Um, as chief said on our timeline, we are working on dealing with that. Um, so that's our challenge. We we've run out of space for the, for the ambulances. Um, and then it asks the question, if we're going to invest in infrastructure, do we invest in it for ourselves or do we invest in it for somebody else when we're already paying?

So the 2025 County proposal that we, uh, it's from October. Yeah. So this was back in October when we approached the County, uh, Lake County proposed a shared EMS transport partnership with the, with, with Claremont, uh, the city would fund staff and equip and operate the transport units with the County EMS system. And just in the discussions also included dispatch, medical direction, uh, billing, deployment and operational oversight. Um, the proposal require Claremont ambulances to be fully integrated into the county's deployment models. So what, what I mean by that is the county was wanting us to cover countywide. So with Claremont being a little over 20 square miles, um, it didn't make operational sense to us that we would commit ambulances to serving a 1200 square mile area. You know, very easily, especially with challenges in the system, if an ambulance was, say, to go to Leesburg, they could very easily be tapped for another call in that area and literally spend their time anywhere but Claremont. So that was something we were looking to put some limitations on. We were okay going a little outside of Claremont where it made sense, but that was really the main piece where things fell apart. It was kind of an all or none deal how it was proposed to us. So we're not in agreement that they could be assigned anywhere in the county based on system need. And if we're going to be covering a lot of the cost of those resources, we need to make sure they're closer to home. So one of the areas that we've looked at, um, actually, um, Mr. Peterson shared this with us and I've had a chance to talk with their mayor and some of the other folks down there with the city of Venice. Uh, that was a very similar situation to what we're dealing with here. Uh, Venice was having challenges with Sarasota County and Venice, uh, after several years of going back and forth with the county has finally secured a COPCN for them to provide transport services. And I believe they're, I believe it's two ambulances they're operating now. So, um, after five years of having those ambulances in service, uh, they are actually showing their operation being in the black. So they're, they're actually revenue positive. So compared to what they were paying with, you know, with the County running the, uh, running the setup. So that was something that was very, uh, enlightening, uh, you know, that, uh, you know, you can do something a little different, uh, within a system. It doesn't have to be a one size fits all for the entire County, especially for a, uh, for a, An area like us where we're a lot more populated than other areas of the county. So the key findings, like we said before, EMS is now 70% of our total business volume. Our ambulances, the response times remain above the council adopted performance objectives. Even despite recent system improvements, the residents contribute almost $3 million to the system and We feel we get less than that in return for what we're receiving. The analysis demonstrates that a municipal EMS transport system is operationally feasible and can be implemented through a phased approach. So at full build out, EMS related revenues and projected costs to offset are approximately 5.3 million annually, reducing the city's share of operating costs to about 3.1 million for the entire program. And a COPCN will be required for Claremont to move forward with any type of an independent operation. So next steps, tonight was just a presentation to provide information, answer any questions that may be there, determine if there's a need, determine if we had a viable solution, if it's financially achievable, and then to answer any questions that council may have. Like I said earlier, this is primarily about access to care as well as local accountability and having the transparency of the operation. So we've provided the additional information in the packets. What I would offer to council is if there are additional questions between now and the June 23rd meeting, please reach out. We'd be happy to have you come in, sit down for a deeper dive on any of the numbers in the presentation, the budget, or anything else that we provided. We've got more stuff that we can sit down and go through with you on it.

That's it, Chief.

What's that?

That's it.

That's the presentation.

Okay. Give me a minute before I bring it back to council. This is a public hearing. Anyone in the public wish to comment on this, you may come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes. This is a public forum. Anyone in the chamber wish to address this item may come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes. Seeing no one. Anyone online? Okay. What state council?

One of the things you said is that the MSCU is 2.9. My understanding was that represents 20% of the revenues, 80% is through billing. Did you mention billing in here at all?

We used the county's average. That was information that was provided to us from Lake County. And I believe it was based on 2024 data. And that's where we came up with the average of being $473 per transport. It's going to vary based on the type of transport. And we have to also understand that not every transport is going to result in revenue. There are going to be people that are going to be unable to pay. So it's not going to be 100% collection rate. So we were going off the data that the county had for the countywide system.

But I mean, if you would just, let's say, let's assume you get everybody. So if it's 2.9 in the MSCU, I calculate it would be 11.6 million for billing them, if that's 80%. Let's say you cut that down some. Let's say it's 11 only, or 10. So now you've got 10 plus 2.9. That's 12.9 annual. So wouldn't that cover everything at that point?

Not 100% based on our projections, and we are trying to stay a little bit on the conservative side.

Breaking even is still a good thing to be.

I'd love to be wrong and come back and say that we made a lot more money than we thought we did. But, you know, we're basing it off of four transports, and we're using the average for collection. So, I mean, they could easily run five or six transports a day. You know, that's something that we can't predict. So we're going with safe numbers on the projections.

One other thing, you said, like, your personnel, you know, If we're responding now, primary, you get a call, you know, a beta to an echo call, you respond with a truck, correct? Correct. A truck. In the event that you didn't respond with a truck, that truck would stay in house. There's a cost for doing that, too. as opposed to just taking the ambulance out on the call. Is that correct or no?

That is correct. I mean, with an echo-level call, which is the most severe type of call that we get, we would still continue to send out both the ambulance and the fire truck. A lot of times on those calls, you need more than two people to adequately be able to treat that patient. So we would maintain that model. But if we were operating independently, we would have the ability to go in there and take a look at it. Where does it make sense and where does it not make sense to send both units out to a call? So those are things that we could have conversations with our medical director on and make those determinations as to where are we willing to accept risk and where are we not.

Related to that, Chief, there's a couple different numbers. And I want to make sure I'm tracking with you. On my page 8, it shows two transport units with 2920 transports. Do you feel, are my numbers accurate on that? 2,920 transports if we have two units?

So that's only based off of each of those units running four calls a day. OK. So we're estimating that they're only going to run four calls a day. That's a reasonable number to expect based on our call volume or with simultaneous calls, because that's the other one is we're busier during the day, and so we have a lot of simultaneous calls. what's the estimate that we could reasonably expect that unit to do so that's completely low um the realistic is it's probably going to be six seven eight right um per day but for a safe number we went with four four transports per day per unit so that's where the 29 20 comes from out of that 5600. well that's what i wanted to understand so the county is currently running 5600 calls with two units now now they've added an additional four but prior to with the previous deployment 5600 were covered by the majority of basically two to three units and i know chief simpson has a breakdown of what those those call types were when we went through this exercise he was able to tell how many calls were run by these units in their city because they do track that but you were looking at i believe your question was for the total number of transports during that year correct yeah okay so the county currently has six units dedicated to claremont

There are six units in the Claremont area. They are countywide units.

But they're countywide units. Okay. So I see. But we know we have 5,600 calls in Claremont. So presumably if we have four units, we could cover the next couple of years of calls if we had four.

Yeah, if we added two today, you'd see we'd be at our numbers. If the county left their six in place and didn't move them, we'd be pretty much at our benchmark.

those six aren't dedicated to claremont again those are countywide okay that's what um all right uh give me some numbers advanced life support we want to be under a six minute for emergency response right for the first arriving we want them there in six minutes that's so we can start that definitive care and we want the ambulance on scene ninety percent of the time no more than ten minutes and what is a fire response time

Uh, pretty much the same thing. We want the first arriving crew with four personnel on scene inside of six minutes and we want the entire compliment the effective response force, which is more like 16 people. We want them there inside of 10 minutes.

And then have you taken into consideration in this presentation the possibility of reallocating or saving funds at fire stations 2, 5, and 6 by being able to have an ambulance and a fire truck at those stations versus having two fire trucks at those stations?

That is actually one of the more attractive things when it's getting into transport. That is one of the things we're looking at. with having the dual certified personnel. Like station six is a perfect example. If you had an engine company there with three people and you had an ambulance with two firefighters, you've got a crew of five operating out of that station.

So you have not taken operational savings on the fire side into the presentation you gave us today?

I touched on it lightly with explaining that we could be adding 12 firefighters to the shift with six ambulances at a very, very low cost compared to what the traditional model would look like with putting an engine company out there with a lieutenant engineer and firefighter.

But your black and white numbers don't include that?

They do not.

Okay, that's what I understood.

This is purely transport.

And then on the subject of, is it BC-90, the Mineola Fire Station? That's just north of Lincoln Park. Am I saying the right, it says BC-90 on the map.

Yes, that is a... Yeah, that's that that's the depot the ambulances are operating out of so I'm looking at this map My understanding is that Mineola is going to be pulling out of BC 90 or moving it to a different location I believe they're completely moved out now, but just for awareness these maps were built before the ambulances were in there so these responses do not include those ambulance units being in that location and

But for purposes of our current fire response, when this was printed with BC 90 in effect, we were in the 420 to 540 time for 199 calls in that region, or in those regions, excuse me, not just the Lincoln Park area. But what's going to happen to Lincoln Park, if anything, now that BC 90 is gone?

That is one of the areas we're looking at, and that's one of the locations that we've identified as an opportunity for us to look at placing a unit in between fire stations. And we've got a few other locations around the city where we've seen that same data coming up.

I would like to see that addressed by June 23rd. What's going to happen there in that region since they're pulled out already? And then... I guess I'm looking at basic math, and please tell me if I'm wrong, but if there's currently an MSTU for $2.9 million that the citizens are paying, and that pays for six ambulances, presumably, not entirely for us, but presumably that pays for six ambulances, and 5,600 calls should be producing something like what 2.4 million in revenue. So that's 5.3 million in revenue between the MSTU and the collections, which you've said to be low. And you're looking at four ambulances could serve our needs. The numbers that it seems to me with conservative numbers that you're looking at a break even if we have four ambulances. Because 5.3, you're looking at 3.2 million cost for four ambulances, but four ambulances, that would cover four ambulances with 2.9 in the MSTU and 2.4 coming in from collections. It seems like it's a net positive.

Yeah, the other piece we'd have to look at would be the workload on the crews as far as the number of utilization hours that the crews are doing to achieve that number. It's always more attractive to do more with less, but there's a break point to where you're grinding your staff into the ground because of the amount they're working. we're looking at, you know, optimal utilization numbers for, for the units to be out there. And that's part of what we'll be doing is we're adding, you know, we'll be taking a look at, you know, what's the, you know, what's their percentage of time commitment to actually running calls. And, you know, is that within a reasonable timeframe? And there, there's some guidelines out there that, uh, you know, we follow when we look at that as the determinate with the determinations for adding additional units.

Do we have a way of knowing how often the six ambulances that are designated for Claremont by Lake County are actually leaving the city of Claremont? That's something we could look into I know we've got access to a lot of the data I could have a chief lugan bowl look into that and I know he's he's done some early models taking a look at you know When they are being relocated to other areas and in your conversations with the county has there ever been a commitment or a willingness to discuss a commitment by the county to designate a certain number of ambulances specifically for Claremont and have them not be countywide whether we operated or they operate it and

I think the conversations that we've had with the county is the system is the system. They have a system in place that provides countywide coverage, and they don't want to deviate from that.

OK. Thank you. That's all I have for now.

Mr. May?

Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to take you up on your offer to come back. Absolutely. I want to just, I think I, these presentations coupled with the two that we had at the workshop, I want to make, I don't want to sit here and keep going back and forth with all the questions. So I want to compile them all into one list. But I do have a couple of upfront, just clarification, because it'll inform like how I read this and ask questions. So the net city cost on slide 13 on page 13 for us, you have is 3.1 million. On the next page, you talk about some dispatch costs of 615. Is that 615 in that 3.1?

it's everything's included okay so i just want to make sure that that because it was on a separate slide so i wanted to make sure it wasn't a add-on the 8.4 that you're seeing for total operating costs is inclusive of all of the 615 and everything else maintenance and all the other things we got to do okay supplies and like i said this is a worst case scenario this is with us doing 100 of the work and and the lift and having no partnership with Lake County. So there's a lot of room there for conversations to be had. Just because we get a COPCN doesn't mean that we have to break away and do our own thing and not share or work together or anything else. Those partnerships can still exist. And to be honest, the majority of what's in place today could remain. If the partnership was there and if the numbers look good and it was going to be something that was going to be equitable to all parties, why wouldn't we look at something like that? So that's the great thing about the COPCN. It brings the power for us to make the decisions on what direction we go.

Do you know when Venice got their COCPN and started their two ambulances?

I know, in talking with the mayor, they've been operational down there for about five years. But I'd have to get some information to find the exact date.

Approximately. OK. Because I was actually looking at some data on Venice to try to see, because I didn't know anything about the city of Venice overall. It's a city that's about 20,000 or more fewer residents and about three to four square miles less. Yeah, it's a smaller area. And so I'm just concerned about comparing a smaller community with a median age much smaller. older than ours. I think Venice's median age is like 69 and ours is 42 compared to most recent. And that's where we've been very cautious about the revenues. I'm just concerned about using that as an example really in any way because I don't know that it's apples to apples in that regard.

It was more about showing that it can be done. And it has happened elsewhere in the state. You've got municipalities operating underneath of a county system.

Okay, that's why I wanted to try to get some background information on that, because I've heard that mentioned a couple of different times. All right, I'm going to compile all of my questions from all the different presentations so that I can discuss those with you before our next meeting. Thank you.

All right, I know we've just slightly scratched the itch, so when you're ready, please reach out.

Yeah, thank you. I appreciate it.

Okay, all right. Let's see. I guess I'm I'm I'm a little confused because basically you said I think when the biggest thing is to get a response time down. But you say you saying that we can do this with to have this but yet still we got we got forward in the county right now and we had we say we still have in trouble getting response time down when they they provide us with 4. So how we how you propose to keep the response time down with just 2.

Well, that's something we're going to have to watch. It's going to be a year-to-year thing. I mean, if we add two and the county leaves the four there and we don't see significant population increases and the times stay around the 10-minute mark, then there's no need to go further. But like I said, we can't control the county system. And if some of those units get relocated to other areas of the county, that's going to have a negative impact on our community. And as we see those times start to climb, that's when we're going to come back and present that information and say, we need to look at adding more ambulances to our system so that we can account for, you know, the lack of resources and being able to cover it. The same would be true if the population increases and we don't add ambulances, which is effectively what's happened over the last decade.

Okay. And the other, other concern, another, well, quite a few concerns I have with it with the MSTU, we're doing 2.9 million right now. Um, And you keep talking about we get the $2.9 million MSTU back from the county, but if they're still providing service and we partner with them, you think they're going to give us that $2.9 million back? How are we going to make up that? I don't see that happening.

That would have to be a council decision as to whether you wanted to change the agreement. One option is that there is an exit clause for that. Another option would be just a partnership where we come up with some other form of how we're going to operate. I know under the model that we were talking with the county back in October, they were gonna let us operate under their system and there would be a, we would collect a portion of the MSTU plus whatever we collected as a transport. That could still be done even if we had our own COPCN. The county has that exact relationship with the villages where they come into certain areas of the county and provide services. So those types of things could take place in both directions. So if they ran a call in Claremont, we could give them a piece of the MSTU based on the previous year's transports and allow them to build and collect what they can collect. So that's something that could be reciprocated both ways.

Yeah, well, I think maybe we need to look at the figures. And if we still have to be in the bond county, is that how much of that 2.9 million we getting back? Because basically everything you're showing here is showing the whole 2.9 million. OK, and I don't see them getting back to 2.9 million if they still happen to provide service.

It's a five year agreement. We're in year three of the agreement. It's it'll be up for renewal in 2027 or 28. Sorry. So at that point, you know, council can make the decision or you could exercise the exit clause on that if, you know, county wanted, if the city wanted to look at doing the MSTU just for, you know, us specifically if we were under that license. So, I mean, that's something that the council is going to have to have a conversation on and take a look at. But like I said, there's a lot of options out there on how we can proceed once we got into the business of transport.

I guess another one of my concerns, if we're only doing two ambulances, Is it, do you have any data on how many actual call each ambulance is making every day?

Well, we do. And that's where we provided those numbers in there. That was the, you know, the 2,400, roughly 2,400 calls per year for the, you know, for the, you know, for those ambulances running. And that's how we came up with the anticipated revenues. And that was, you know, anticipating that they would run four calls a day per unit.

Well, that's anticipating the way you run four calls per unit. But if I have this ambulance here and you're saying he's running four calls, What happened if we end up with six calls he'd need to run today? How do we compensate for that? And besides that, if he's out on a call, you've got two ambulance sitting here, and both of them is tied up somewhere. Of course, I guess that's where county come in at, right? And I know in part of your presentation, you really just said we need six ambulance.

Correct. Based on the model, we needed six additional in total.

eighteen months ago we first are looking at this uh... you know and i mean if you want to know what i've seen you present me here is going to depend upon a big partnership with lake county is what i'm saying uh... because i don't think i'm giving back all this two point nine million dollars and if they still got a provide amnesty resource uh... other concern ahead you say station number one will not have a house okay where is the closest emma unit that would be Uh, we are looking at other areas.

Uh, you know, we've entertained the possibility of, you know, is there, is there an opportunity to do something at 12th street? That's something we're looking into. We've looked at, you know, like we talked about Lincoln Park. That's another area where, you know, we're looking to see is there a location over there where we could locate something. And I think Station 6 is a great example of what we could look at. I mean, that's something where we'll be doing a, you know, what's called a box modular building. It's a hurricane-rated structure, but it's not a traditional fire station. So that's something that could be built relatively quickly at a lower cost than a traditional brick-and-mortar building. have enough there to operate the the station out of so for station six the proposal we've got in next year's budget It's basically nine hundred and thirty three thousand dollars It's turnkey for that and that's for a station to house six people and that includes the building to park the the engine and the ambulance in There well and that when you mentioned twelve three because that would be my concern if we don't have a unit in station one Where is the closest one to 12th Street be located?

And if it's right now, even if we put one at Station 2, which is always down in Kings Ridge, or one out of Station 3, which is another question I ask, have we even looked at any data to see how much time is added to response time due to the traffic they have to incur? For example, I just sit down at the waterfront on Saturday, watching the ambulance try to get into the waterfront during all the festivities down there Saturday. And it ended up taking them about 12 minutes, but most of them were fighting just trying to get through the traffic.