City Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat up here. Heat. Heat. N. Heat up here. Our chairman will take

excuse me if I can get your attention please starting our meeting. Okay. All right. 8:20 and our chairman.

Okay. Thank you very much. A meeting a meeting of the municipal boards committee is scheduled for December 12th, 2025 at 8:20 a.m. in the city commission conference room. The purpose of this meeting is to receive and act upon the following recommendations. Number one on the airport advisory board recommendation from airport director Chris Holstan to appoint Steve Strickland at citizen at large to serve a three-year term beginning January 1st, 2026 and ending December 31st, 2028. Mr. Strickland will be eligible to serve an additional three-year term. We want to do these one at a time since we have questions. Yeah, I'm doing them one at a time.

Okay, perfect. Sorry.

Yep. No, you're fine. Number two on the beautifification board recommendation from the horiculturist Stacy Smith to appoint Maria Carver to full fulfill the expired term of Stephanie Karns beginning December 15th, 2025 and ending May 20th, 2027. Miss Carver will be eligible for an additional two full three-year terms. Oh boy, this one hurts. On number three, code enforcement board, a recommendation from code enforcement manager Senator Marshall to appoint Stephanie Karns to fulfill the unexpired term of Lolita Barryian. Beginning December 15, 2025, ending May 30th, 2028, Miss Karns will be eligible to serve an additional three terms. Uh for the public's record, if anyone did not know Miss Lolita Liberian, she served the city in her capacity for many, many years, and she will be deeply loved and deeply missed. Number four, the firefighters pension board recommendation from city manager Sean Shrauss to appoint Tim Spivey to fulfill an unexpired term of Christopher Hammond as commission appointed member beginning December 15, 2025. and ending December 16, 2028. Number five, on the Lakeland History and Cultural Center Advisory Board, recommendation from Liberian Supervisor Lannne Mims to appoint Anna River Akassio to serve a three-year term beginning December 15, 2025 and ending December 14, 2028. Missio will be eligible to serve an additional three-year term. Number six on the mayor's council of

arts recommendation for mayor Bill Nuts to appoint the Stra Center as full member organization located outside of the Lakeland outside of the city of Lakeland to serve on the council. The change we recently made as a provision within the bylaw. Okay. B Sylvania Knight to serve the unexpired term of Betsy Bohair

Ber. Thank you very much. Beginning December 15, 2025 and April 16th, 2026, Miss Knight will be eligible to serve an additional two three two full three-year terms. Number seven, public improvement endowment fund board recommendation from mayor Bill Muds to appoint oh boy GA Oang to fulfill unexpired term of Paul Hatfield beginning December 15th and ending December 31st 2026. Mr. Oane will be eligible to serve an additional two three two full three-year terms. Number eight on the zoning board of adjustments and appeals recommendation from senior planner Todd Vargo to appoint Wernner Foman to fulfill unexpired term of Gregory Kent beginning December 15th, 2025 and ending April 18th, 2027. Mr. Fman will be eligible to serve an additional two full three-year terms. For information, General Employees Pension Board of Trustee member Rufing Gray was reelected without opposition by the City of Lakeland employees to serve a second three-year term beginning January 1st, 2026 and ending December 31st, 2028. on the civil service board. Member Barber Jordan was reelected without opposition by the city of Lakeland employees to serve a third three-year term beginning January 1st, 2026 and December 31st, 2028. As a reminder, the city is always accepting applications to all boards and committees. Anyone interested, any interested residents may apply at ww.lakeland. lakegov.net department city clerk municipal boards

and committees not entertain a motion. Well, are you did you want to revisit the No, I think I got clarity because I was I just with Barbara Jordan's I know we're not in charge of that but it said DC by went through the packet online. There wasn't one. So, right. Yeah. So, I just that kind of threw me off. Okay. Just a brief explanation on the firefighters pitching report. Uh Christopher Haymon uh has been I think ser that board for a while. Has a lot of knowledge experience but he has moved outside of the city limits.

So he's no longer eligible to be the city commission appointed member of that board. Uh so the intention here is that Tim F who does live in the city limits will be appointed by the city commission. Uh the way that board's set up like the pension board is that you have uh three members appointed by the city commission, three by the employees, and then the those board members that appoint a seventh member. The intention is that Chris Chris Hammond will be appointed by the board as a seventh member. So he will remain on the board. And that and there's no residency requirement for that seventh member. Yeah, that's very interesting. And he's now in the future any reason to try to take each one of these into

Well, that's so historically we've done that once in a while. Well, sometimes when there's so many and we've read through it, but when I said one, sometimes we would do it one like we would take the first one, do a motion and a second and then do that one. But it's fine. I just it was answered. I'd like to make a motion that we make that we approve all of the recommendations. Second. All in favor? I. All oppose have in three minutes we'll start our agenda setting. This be my last agenda study.

No other than agenda study. Heat. Heat. Heat up here. Heat. Heat.

We will begin our agenda study and for the meeting on the 15th at 9:00 we'll have a Christmas parade award that we do annually from that that Bob Don and team will eat. We'll have a RC award which we do annually and the United Confederacy recognition. So those three presentations will take place. Um we have a proclamation then um for the 100th birthday and we'll provide uh there are no requests for the uh permission for the from the general public. We have five um asterisk items for consent on this agenda and the first one will begin of course with the uh minutes and and then opportunity for the other four. We'll do discuss this as we go through this meeting. Make sure you want them reconsented and we will have guy do the municipal boards and committees report equalization board and then we'll get to public hearings A1 and thus will be second reading.

These are all second readings that you heard about at first reading. I know Chuck, I think he's behind me here, is prepared to go into any of those that you want to. Uh the first two relate to the uh solid waste transfer station, the expansion of footprint for that on off of CY Road. Any interest in hearing more about that? Speed on that. Let's go to three. Three is the text amendment to just one caveat. Um, I am curious about the potential for a a water storage reservoir that we've heard about. I don't know if that can be if that's in the presentation at all. Not for today necessarily even, but just that's going to be something I'm going to want to hear about.

It's not part of it. It is not. It is not. Okay. Uh, how do you want to handle that going forward? Um well, you know, even in conversation, I think that sometimes like things seem like a surprise. We don't get enough information, but when we're on one topic, often we will bring some history or bring additional information so that we can also be kind of grappling with the whole piece, you know, like all the pieces of the puzzle. I mean, I know that is Chuck aware of, you know, where the water reservoir will will be or is considered at all? We haven't uh I know that hasn't been part of the conversation. part of the community economic development that has been part of the discussion is related to the commission use permit or the zoning.

Um and so that's a that's a new item for me and it doesn't need to be as we're as we're thinking about the zoning. Her question is should it be something we talk about like later when we say we want to have a reservoir on this area. Does that have anything to do with the zoning that we're doing now? Um, I don't believe it does, but I'll also look over I think I think you're talking about what Lori mentioned in the stormwater presentation where she was talking about using the the existing ponds in that area. We're currently doing a study, okay,

in that area. Um, so we're going through the process of doing that study and seeing how that'll work. The portion where the um, uh, transfer station is going to sit is not necessarily impacted by uh, is not impacting that area. There is some future expansion out there. I think the LPD has plans to extend their um their track out there and also for us to use those ponds potentially. Yeah, it depends on if it will work. Okay. Um how how significant what kind of impact it would make, but we are considering that in that area, but it's not part of the um transfer station site. Okay. So, whatever we do here will not prelude anything that we were hoping to do with regard to storm water. It will not. Okay. And when you do your study, it's certainly going to take the transfer station into consideration.

Absolutely correct. Okay. Good. Good catch. Very nice. All right. The next item is is modification to our subdivision flat approval process in land development code to recognize changes to state law that require that that approval to occur on an administrative level. Uh so that's transfer of responsibility from the planning zing board to city management to to handle that process. Uh there's some other provisions as well about allowing early construction of of a certain percentage 7 up to 75% of homes prior to plat approval. Uh next item stop me you know if anything you want to discuss. Um what number are we on? That was number three. Okay.

Number four is um in a situation where a portion of a property has been taken by imminent domain. This allows that non-conforming lot to still be built on regardless of that provided you know certain minimum setbacks in lot size can be can be met. Uh number five is allowing security fencing on vacant undeveloped property. So if you have a vacant residential property you can you can completely fence that with some kind of nonopaque fence such as a chain link fence. I think the intention behind that is illegal dumping is probably the main catalyst for that that change. Uh, any problems on going forward on any of that so far?

Six. Six, uh, allows rolloff containers to be put on property for non-construction related activities. You you currently can put a roll off on on property if it's if there's a building permit, active building permit. This allows something to be put on a property. For example, if you're moving and throwing a bunch of stuff away, there's an eviction process, that type of thing. Not putting your Christmas decorations back in the attic. Well, there's it's a was it a 30-day limit? Correct. 30-day limit for for that roll off container for non- construction related activity.

Uh number seven, you we did not because of the length of the the meeting. I think this is fairly straightforward. This is the conditional use to allow a duplex at 420 Plum Street. So, do you want Chuck to go through that? Let's do that, please. Okay. Well,

good morning. Uh again, Chuck Rob with human economic development. Um, this is a a conditional use permit for property located at the northwest corner of Iowa and Plum Street. And the reason why the duplex here needs to have a conditional use permit is that in multif family dwelling or multif family zoning districts in the land development code, duplexes require a conditional use permit. And so the site um is.17 acres. The subject property is um scroll through here. Um so it's is right there. Corn Iowa is on the right. ones on the south or the bottom of the screen. The uh the the living area is 1888 square feet. Um we have renderings that would be adopted as part of the conditional use permit. And so uh this is very straightforward. Um we've had a number of these that have come forward for commission action here over the past year or two. Um and so you see the see the site here and the kind of the uses that are nearby. um compatible with the with its surroundings. It's right off of off of Massachusetts Avenue. And so this is just another type of infill um housing option in in uh the mass market area u Midtown uh just north of downtown.

Any questions on that? All right, next. Thank you, Chuck. All right. Uh the next two eight and nine are the PUD uh and smallcale uh uh comp plan amendment for the uh uh redevelopment of Wedgewood. Uh we didn't go through that at the last meeting. It's going to get a lot of attention. So I don't know if you want to go go through that this morning or have questions. We'll do this thoroughly on Monday. Okay. Yes. And I'm just curious. I did have um a call from the developer side that they were asking to meet with us. I have not had an opportunity to meet from the developer side. I've been focused kind of on the residential side, but will the developer be uh presenting on Monday?

Yes. Yes. Okay. Perfect. I received the call also mayor and I won't be here Monday, but just for a point of clarification, this is the entitlement Chuck, right? So this is from the developer standpoint is they want the entitlements to do these different changes to the land use in an effort to when they there's a purchaser down the road they can build these things. So it's not that these are happening immediately. It's not that this developer potentially is building these things on site. This is a land use change that is for the entitlement on the property

to potentially sell it. And and and so that's so terms of the actions that the commission will be asked to actually approve on Monday will be the land use changes. And so the land use changes are for tracks 9A and 9B. And so those are the areas within the current landing development zoning ordinance that were defined as future land use areas. And so those are on either side of Lakewood Estates Boulevard. and the addition of 2.48 acres in what is track 12. And so that's immediately east of the Savannah Cottages assisted living facility on the north side of Carpenters Way. That's intended to be the amenity center for the future multif family uh and single family uh development uh program. But that's correct. the the the intent and this is what we've heard from the developer and he can certainly clarify on on Monday is that uh their intent is is to sell tracks off to other developers who actually uh build uh build the and also just to add into that the second developer we've that has come to us and asked for land use change. So the first one was John Hall when they purchased the property and he was the broker on the deal to get these different entitlements changed. It wasn't that that entity or group was purchasing, changing entitlements, and building. So, it's flipped once. So, I just want that to go on public record because I'm not here on Monday. But, just for a point of clarification, this is really packaging for someone to either sell to a to different segments to build in different arenas sort of like Riverstone. So, Riverstone was developed and you had different builders that came in and built different spots. Correct. And then but this is the entitlement process and I'm just saying that for the public at large. It's the entitlement process. It is it says what can be built where with land use and code. Correct.

The the the the the land use gives the kind of the minimum and maximum of what can be built and then the PUD really gets into the specifics of the unit types, unit count, and the locations of those individual unit types. And so, and this is this is an update or major modification to a PUD zoning ordinance that was approved back in 2022, right? And so, what we'll do is we'll kind of highlight that again is is that there's some modifications to the layout, of course, the additional lands uh for track 12, the development program for track 9A and 9B. Um, those will all be spelled out. There's a new layout uh or revised layout that actually works a lot better. Um, there's a net increase of 19 uh dwelling units. Um and so this is an incremental change to what was approved by the city commission back in 2022. So the land use and zoning action uh will will occur the the action would occur on Monday and then there's a separate development agreement which gets into the concurrency vesting the concurrency entitlement and that's where there will be a lot more detail on the runway dedications impact fee credits and impact fee uh and proportionate share payments that will be transportation based and that will be uh what is scheduled or what will be continued to January 5th and then January 20th for first and second hearings.

Right. I just want clarification for the public so that it's not necessarily an imminent we're not breaking nobody's breaking ground like this is just a step in the process that is multiaceted that allows for these things to happen but there's not necessarily a purchaser or buyer or developer that's ready to break around and and start pouring concrete and rebar and curving and all that kind of stuff.

Correct. Okay. you know the the next steps following the zoning the zoning action and the development agreement would be the submittal of site plan or subdivision plat and construction plan package. So it depends on if they want to move forward, you know, if if the developer ultimately whoever is building is ready to move forward with say the town home product or the single family detached product or the apartment product, then they would submit either uh subdivision plan and construction plan uh for review and approval, technical review and approval by staff or the site plan for review and approval by staff and by uh and for permitting by uh agencies like Swift. I'm just trying to clean it up. Yeah, that's

I just want to clarify one thing. SJD Development has been the corporate owner and applicant throughout going all the way back to when they acquired the property in 20121. You mentioned John Hall. John and his son Jonathan were affiliated with SJD Development and Scott House. The Halls have since exited. Okay. But Mr. House has been the principal behind SJD Development all along. So it that's close to what you asked or described, but I wanted to make sure it hasn't changed hands. The ownership hasn't changed. The the parties behind that ownership have changed a little.

Well, I thank you for that clarification. This is more my comments are more for the public to understand how the process works because sometimes what appears in the media and what appears online in different places is that this is not a step in the process that's allowing future use to have that many units. some it feels sometimes like this is a a we're breaking ground tomorrow and I just want to have that clarification in there that it it h it does entitles whoever is doing this to be able to build these things on that property and the developer and his engineer just join us as well. So I I don't have questions for them. I'm just doing point of clarification for the public.

And there's a full technical review that will be following the the zoning approval for whatever phases move forward. Back in 2022, was there a lot of opposition, I think, on on some of this area, wasn't it? There there was. And and and you will hear from members of the neighborhood on Monday as well, uh that have concerns and comments um you that we've heard through the planning and zoning process. We've believe that we've addressed those concerns through the conditions of approval for the for the PUD. Um, and we also believe that we are addressing those conditions through the uh development agreement on the transportation side that is still under development and that would be going forward on January 5th and on January 20th

and some of which relates to the delay in this entire process and the anxiousness that comes along from that because you can conceive all kinds of things in the meantime and with including with respect to movement on the property. Commissioner Man, since we're refreshing our history on this particular uh project, could you remind me of the the special kind of HOA that allows you to kind of collect and and make So, is that still intact and is that still part of this? That that's that that's still in place. That was approved by the um that was developed uh was approved through the state and and by the by the city commission. So, that that structure is in place.

Okay. and and and that's in my opinion when we went through that process and talked about that it was reassuring with regard to the financial capa capacity to do the improvements and to do some of the things. I know I know when it's been sitting there some of the neighbors are worried about you know kind of a code enforcement situation of things not being mowed or you know taken care of after the storm. Those are the emails that we get. Could you just explain again how that when that is applied to this property what that means

and and so that'll be something we can we can get into on Monday but that will be for the you know depending on the housing type the product you know it's the the structures in place but my uh my understanding is is that that you know would not necessarily be triggered and be functional until a particular developer comes in a particular area that is covered by the CDD and has infrastructure needs or other things that would be covered to that community development district. And if if portions are sold off, how does that affect the CDD? The the CDD, you cover certain areas, covers all these these new areas to be developed. So, as those are sold off, they would still be subject to the CDD. Okay. Each individual sticks with it. I'm sorry. Each individual developer would be

Yeah, it covers the area that was described in the ordinance that the city commissioner approved, which was the whole new development. not the not the existing areas obviously but okay um the existing areas that are already built on and so the way the CDD works just real quickly again is you know once you start selling lots you know that then the CDD assess assesses the owners of those lots it has a robust collection mechanism in that you can actually put those assessments on the tax ro so it has a much higher collection rate than just a regular HOA collection uh so it is just a more robust best way to finance uh the necessary improvements in a in a development. Thank you, Palmer. That's exactly what I was looking for.

Wonderful. Yes, commercial.

Yes. Uh so, and just for for public clarification, something I'm trying to understand, we'll we able to talk to him about all FA assist and to commissioner McCor, Madame Mayor. I get too many titles until you get there. I'm so sorry. we're just honored to have, you know, that we're going to get you in that. So, that's an honor. But I know that some of these concerns I know that we are going to want to address, you know, with and to Commissioner Madden's point, I know that there have been at least 37 code enforcement violations. Some of the ones that are more concerning are like a 4137 derby with this since there's been a different change in flow by the overgrowth than allowing that. Part of the reason why I voted yes on that CDD is that they were going to address some of these maintenance issues. This one gentleman, he's about to lose his pool. It's going to cave in. So, I don't know how we we get to talk to them about that. And

that that can all be discussed during the public hearing, you know, through that through that process on Monday. Okay. Um I know right now there are no outstanding code enforcement cases uh on the you know in the overall development and you know in terms of what is causing I mean there's there's a lot of analysis that would have to occur to determine exactly what's causing the seaw wall um failure you know and so there's we we don't know exactly the cause of that and so there's there's a lot there that's really separate from the zoning and the land use action that the commission will be asked to take care of on on Monday. So the developer is aware of those issues, can address specific questions that the commission has, but it's really separate from the zoning and the land use actions that we're that we're talking about.

Just want to make sure that we can still ask all. Thank you, sir. Absolutely. Sure. And and this needs to be a more robust time on Monday and so we will want it to be so it'll take some time% and and we'll do that then. Um it is an great picture though that delay brings complications and activation is what solves those matters.

Takes us to 10. All right. 10 is the second reading of the uh proposed amendment to the storm water utility fees which would include an increase in the actual fee for the different land use categories. Reduction of the equivalent residential unit uh measurement from 5,000 ft to 350 ft and then reduction of the storm water credit for on-site storm water facilities from 75% of the storm water fee to 50% of the fee. So, we heard a lot about that last time.

We talked about it. And I want to really set up our thinking for this particular vote uh to some degree, at least with a recommended opinion from my vantage point, and that is that we have one of two things to do here. Um none of us are debating whether or not we'll have a storm water need in terms of funding. So we either have as you think about this going forward we have the opportunity to approve the what is in place because it'll take us probably easily till March before we be reconsidering this again um and get it in place with the anticipation of the fact that that begins collection in March through the year do additional study or recommend on how you might split that and modify that plan that had been approved. food going forward or you say let's just do it one time in which case you're going to start to collect these funds in 27 never in 26 by the time it gets done that would be my prognostication. So the urgency of getting started is really what you're thinking about because the permanence of this is probably not something you're going to want to do because there's some concern that we have overcorporated the split between residential and corporates. And so that's part of what you would be studying. So, I'm going to take less of a leadership role in this other than to suggest to you that you think about it. And is this something you want to get the clock started on in terms of collection in 26 or do you want to wait until 27 until uh you do that? I think I just may have said 28 a minute ago and about 27 in terms of getting that started because it's it will take you a year to get this done if if we don't do a poll on uh Monday. So just from a legal perspective, the one thing you can't do is make a substantial change between first and second reading of an ordinance. So

you're you're kind of stuck with what's in this ordinance at this point. In addition, if you make a change, it has to be supported by the consultant's analysis that that meets the legal standard for a valid special assessment. And Lori is is is our consultant consultant is here. Yes. So maybe you would like to weigh in on this just a little bit. If you'd like me to please stand and say your name. Thanks.

I'm Sandy Newbirth with um Anzer Advisory. We've been working with Lori um and her staff since 23, the end of 23. Um we did an um an analysis of your single family residential parcels. Okay. First of all, throughout the state of Florida, the impervious area methodology is tried andrude. About 72% use an impervious area methodology. The courts have upheld that methodology and I'd say about 58% of those programs base the unit the billing unit um on the average single family house. Okay. So what we did is we measured the impervious area for a um a stratified random sampling technique is what we use. It's the most accurate. Um, and what we did, we found that the average imperous area associated with your single family residential parcel is 3,850 square ft. So that's the base filling unit. Like like I said, most of the programs throughout the state use a base filling unit. So then the nonresidential would be built based off of this the average size of the single family house. Right now you have it as 5,000 square ft. So, so basically that is saying that the average single family house has 5,000 square ft of imperous area and they get one billing unit and then non-residential gets the number of billing units based on their actual impervious area divided by that 5,000 square ft. So the new analysis has shown that there's really 3,850 square feet to every single family residential house. So that means that now the nonresidential their impervious area because they've been charged based on their actual

impervious area would be divided by the 3,850 square ft. So where they were getting one eru before they'll get 1.3 erus now. So yes, it is saying that I mean it's not really saying that they're paying more than they should, but they're now going to be reanalyzed based on the new size um that is the single family residential house. And that's that's the basis of how do we create a billing unit that's fair and reasonable because that's what the courts have said. Um they've said storm water does whenever you charge one of these fees you have to say how does it benefit property. The courts have said storm water does benefit property because that's who you're pay you're charging. So then you have to have a fair and reasonleness to make up that building unit. So it can't be arbitrary. We can't just say, "Okay, well, we we don't like this, so we're going to charge residential more." Because then you'd really be overcharging them for their burden that they're placing on the um on the city's storm water system. So, the impervious area says the amount of runoff that a property contributes to the storm water system is based off the imperous area because impervious area is hard surfaces that doesn't let the storm water run into the ground. So it runs somewhere and it has and then the city has to deal with it um through flooding and through water quality. So um that is what that base building unit is. And I and I know it's it's a hard hit um for the non-residentials to hear it, but it it is an accurate reflection of um of how they should be built. But they've already paid millions of dollars for storm water ponds and other mitigation for their storm water. So it see and houses don't do that.

So and and that's so that's where your mitigation credit comes in because you have that mitigation credit right now. You have a very um generous mitigation credit. So you're saying that if they just reduce their runoff and they have that on-site system, they don't necessarily have to contain it at 100% or anything like that, but they reduce it. So they've reduced that burden. They're getting a 75% credit. Um what we're suggesting is that it get moved to 50%. So that's saying that there's a lot of things. So they're they're reducing their runoff, but they're not necessarily completely um

Yeah. And so so they should have to pay for something. and and even if they did completely eliminate it, there's a lot of things that the city does just by having a storm water utility and that permits and the water quality issues and things um access to their property. Um so there are a lot of other things that come into play with managing a storm water system that they get the benefit from. So that's why the recommendation is to go to a 50% credit. Um so

just to add to that we we do have a complete exemption if you if you retain 100% of your storm water um you are completely exempt from our storm water feeds only if you do not retain all of it that you get this partial credit. Okay. And my last question is with regard to um when you do studies.

Yes. um you know certainly there's a threshold at which the percent should increase I would think and so you know 1.3 would be 133% but there are some because of the tax relief going uh lower that it's almost it's 300 uh% increase and so how do you handle that in other areas where certain people are are experiencing such a high increase and not really only having a couple weeks to grapple with that with regard to their budgeting and their finances is so if I didn't think it was 300% I thought that so that analysis that you guys saw the other day that was based off of the end five years that was not based off of what you you're anticipating going to at the $1127 that was based off of the five-year analysis. So So that was a little bit skewed because he represented that it was 133% increase for for his members. It's actually the first year without a mitigation credit. It's a 50.58%. Yes, it sounds high. Um but um that encompasses the fact that you're going to increase the rates um and the fact that the ERU value has been changed. So for those without a mitigation credit, it is about a 50.58% increase for non-residential. So residential, they've all been paying one anyway. So, it's not like they're going to realize anything has changed except for the charge went up and it's going up like a $155. Um, these rates were designed to spread out the cost. Um, I think you've been at the $9.72 rate since 2021. That's a long time to go without increasing it. And because you stayed stagnant so long, now you got to make a hard decision. you know, whereas if if we would have been

increasing it every year, it wouldn't be such a hard, you know, increase impact. Um,

the gap of need would not be so great because we'd have had funding correct earlier. So, so, so while these rates that are projected show that without a mitigation credit, it's a 50.58% increase for the non-residential, after the first year, it's like a 13% and then a 12% and then a 10% and then a 9%. So, then it's saying, okay, we're going to we're not going to get into this situation again. We got to get out of the situation we're in right now. Um, but then after that, we're going to make a plan so that we don't get back into that situation. And so we're going to gradually increase it every year. And so that's what this plan is designed to do. Now, you're right. The ones with the mitigation credit because of the ERU value and because we're um suggesting changing the mitigation credit from 75% to 50% those would see the first year about a 200% increase in their charge, but they're paying very little right now. um as far as on a per eru basis like $2 and something or something like about four and

there's and this yeah and it's only about 4 and a.5% um that actually have those on-site systems um that maintain or reduce the burden on the city's storm water point and it's 9 months the first year so they're on a budget basis it's not a shock

but anyways what you're saying I I don't know um that that's going to be the individual property owners I I mean, as your tax bills go up, you just have to adjust your budget. I There's not anything that I've seen that says, uh, we feel sorry for these ones that that are taking a bigger hit than the others, and so let's give them a break for the first year or two. I I've not seen anything like that because it's these are based off of the burden that's placed on the city's storm water system, you know, and so it has to be fairly unreasonable. But if you start shifting that burden over to the other property owners, they are paying more than their share. And so it's not fair.

It just seems like the business community is paying more than their fair share because I was saying if you took drone footage of the city, especially the houses that were built before we had land code. They're the ones flooding. The Mop home parks like Bonnie, all these areas that are the ones wanting the improvements so that they're not flooded have no storm water mitigation that they've personally paid for, invested in in those areas. And then the folks building the new, you know, businesses and providing jobs and they are hit with the biggest 300% increase bills to pay to help these residents. And, you know, not that they're cold-hearted and and don't care about the flooding. It just seems to me that just paying $1.50 more a month for the resident who's flooded versus thousands and thousands of dollars extra at a 300% increases, it it just doesn't seem as equitable as I thought that we should be able to do.

I add a thought to that. I would say growth and development though has increased the amount of support that we've experienced in the city. So if you look at the overall growth of the city back then as compared to now, there's a lot less impervious area. So that impervious area has affected how storm water is handled in our city. So that growth has even though they are paying for it has put impact additional impact on the residential neighborhoods in this area. Just another thought to okay layer to add to that.

So that's enough and I really appreciate that input into this meeting. you can relax the um the the uh because I think it helps to build the thought of what do we do on timing which was which is because this is malible over time. Uh it's whether or not you want to get started now with a plan that you can then continue to vet the reasonleness of or wait until you extend that. is just we're going to probably delay another year and it's going to create more complications and costs in storm water. So give that some consideration as you uh think and pray through that weekend. Yes.

I have a question. So I don't know who to direct it to. Maybe he I don't know. Um, so when you think about impervious surface and you think about all of our roads and everything that we do infrastructure-wise, this helps us catch up on the impervious connectivity that we have throughout the city.

Correct. Um, Lori Smith, manager of laces storm water. So, there's a lot of areas within the city of Lakeland that actually don't have significant storm water drainage. Um, one of the studies we're doing right now is in South Lake uh, Lake Hollingsworth neighborhood. There are um, you know, we get some flooding there even during some heavy afternoon storms, not even a severe event. And there just aren't the, uh, the storm water drainage systems in those those residential neighborhoods. They were built before there were storm water systems. So, those residents are are uh being impacted because of the additional roadways and everything else that's going on. and there's no storm water drainage to drain away their their systems. And um that's common throughout the city that there just wasn't the storm water infrastructure when a lot of these residential neighborhoods were developed. Um

Eastston is a perfect example of that.

So how the bricks and stuff are washed out, there's no drainage there. So the water is just flowing over and through time and has moved the base of those bricks and stuff. And just to add on to that, I think, you know, like water wins every time. So, and wars are fought over water and clean water. So, I think it's really important that it's a it's we have to cobble it together to figure out how to do it. So, you think about Eastston and you think about how that's getting washed out and you have a hundredyear infrastructure system under the ground that's not necessarily drawing it to where it goes. and then you add impervious higher up somewhere else because we have a multif family unit or we have something else is going to water's going to win like water's going to end up pooling wherever we can't pull it away. So, I just just to add that in to the discussion and again for Monday. Um, just to think about that since I won't be here to echo that again. I I don't I'm not I I can't vote on this, but I think that we definitely have to do something. And I think even the business community that I've talked to because someone, you know, pushed all our cell phone numbers out to all their over 200 members last week, which most people have my cell numbers, that's fine. But, um, I really think it's important to be considerate of the impact. We all want to think about our own impact and like, well, I have a house and it's this much impervious area, but I'm on higher ground and I don't affect the storm water elsewhere. Well, yeah, everybody does. Everybody pitches into the storm water piece and we're trying to retrofit just like what we talked about with road diet years ago. We're living through the mess of having to retrofit and do a redo on all this aging infrastructure. So, we have to do something. And I'm not hearing a whole lot of other ideas than what was presented already. Now, we can stretch it out to the eight-year mark, which one organization didn't like that idea either, but we have to do something. And I and I think you know

this is the best information we have to date. If there's other information I would defer to you all who are going to be here on Monday to make that decision. Um if there's more information we can garner and then move forward. that something has to be done and I don't know that pushing it if if we can go back legally bummer and like in the future re revisit reshape you know look at the numbers then I guess we can do that and change not change our minds but you know pivot and be nimble and and tweak as we go along the way or are we locked into this forever? I mean once you issue bonds or some other form of finance and that kind of locks you in as that as a a floor for what you can do

the aggregate spending uh but until that time you do have more flexibility sorry yes I hear you're urging mayor I think there's more to talk about on Monday to really work through Oh absolutely yeah so my my preset for you on this is just to think about timing and availability yes

you're But we will have more time on this, but I would like to share, you know, concur. Everyone here has made some very good and strong points. The one thing that we're not saying is today it's $68 million. Next year it's going to be more. The next year it's going to be more. By the time we get to five years when it is a well for most 133%. The cost of the $68 million project is probably going to be somewhere around 120. Yeah. In the hundreds. So I mean we need to do something. We are also beholden to all constituents as well as our business owners. So Okay. Any other weigh? Sorry. Yes.

Just I just like to add on to what Commissioner McCarly said. Um just like with the Wedgwood property that any action you take on Monday if it were to get approved does not mean we're going out and bonding. There is so much time that's required. One, it can't be implemented until March 31st because of all the programming that goes into changing the the mitigation credit if if you adopted what has been proposed. And the other piece is changing the ERU. Okay, that takes takes a good bit of time, but also there's a lot of time that's got to get put into the design work and those types of things. So there is no concern that if for some reason it's it's adopted that down the road you can't with the new commissioners go in and change it somewhat to then spread it farther because we're not going to be going to the bar mark bond market anytime soon

if that helps in in your decision-m you can always come back with the new commissioners and tweak what you've adopted. All right. Thank for a pre-commission meeting discussion that's pretty well worked through. All right. B1 resolution. B1 is uh the first step of the two two-step process to put all the different lots cleaning, clearing, and demolition assessments that you adopt during the year on this year's tax role. And this kind of ties back to the election discussion. This is the exact same collection process that the CDD would be entitled to use uh once they become active. And number two,

number two is uh supporting a particular build option for a roadway in Northeast Lakeland. I'll let truck uh walk you through this one.

Um good morning. Chuck Bar again with the community economic development department. So, um, last October, uh, city commission received a presentation from the DOT project consultant on a a U study for a new road corridor between State Road 33 on the south side of I4 and Walt Williams Road along the north side of the interstate. And so, you know, kind of the the genesis of the study goes back over 25 years in that uh we've got a a large run uh along the interstate between Okubby Road and exit 38 where we don't have a crossing of the interstate. So there are a lot of a lot of the traffic north of I4 particularly as we want to get to Williams Fort area the innovation district long term have to you know it's like squeezing toothpaste into different ends of the of the tube and so there it's pushing traffic side and what we do have now are known level service efficiencies of course on circular loop road uh north of the interstate is also part of the city's high injury network between Fernery kind of the boat ramp and up towards north side of of San Piper and then exit 38. Even with all that construction that's underway right now, um there are some concerns that long-term there are going to need to be additional improvements along the seg corridor unless we don't do something else. And so in recognition, uh you know, Bridgewater was a former development, regional impact um and and and now it's a PUD, but it was part of a much larger regional development back um 25 years ago. And in 2000 uh the development order I included a condition uh to study and and and reserve a corridor from 33 to Walt Williams road. Problem was is that we didn't know what the corridor was going to be. And so as we started to see development occurring, you know, like the Bridgewater Golf Course, uh Bridge Villages, Bridgewater itself, and then the first first park industrial complex, we started to execute reservation agreements with individual property owners starting in ' 06. The problem with that approach was it's very peacemail and and the way we structured

those agreements as well is that they were also um uh not only for a road and if the road was determined not to be feasible, it would be for for a bike or bike pedestrian facility. So, kind of jumping forward to um uh a little less than 10 years ago, uh University Park at Bridgewwater, which is between it's on the former golf course property. between First Park and the villages uh uh updated the reservation agreement to include a much cleaner uh 100 foot wide corridor from 33 back towards the interstate along its property. And it's got a reservation uh period until uh July 31st, 2032. So there's there's a clock that's still ticking. It's not loud yet, but we know that we need to land on a corridor, be able to get it in public ownership to keep a viable corridor moving forward. and we've got uh about a little less than seven years to to do that. That development built the first,400 ft of Tradeport Boulevard um as a concurrency mitigation requirement um you know until the Moving Florida Forward project that's under construction now was programmed and and and and began. Um there was also we've we've got and you'll hear me kind of toggle back and forth uh between Traport Boulevard and Tradeport Drive. Tradeport Drive is a backage road that runs parallel to 33 behind the new HCA warehouse that connects that complex to the traffic line by University Boulevard uh which will soon soon be soon be a roundabout. But um you know the um um the city actually was moving forward with soliciting proposals for a uh feasibility study because the corridor involves a crossing of the interstate. Uh DOT really wanted to kind of take charge of that process. But the good news was is that they were also bringing half the funding for the study to the table. So the DOT kicked in half a million. The city kicked in half a million to to conduct the study. The study uh has been conducted has been completed. Um the corridor is in the comprehensive plan. It's in the long

range transportation plan that was adopted by the PO this week and actually um going back a couple of iterations of the longrange plan. pathways corridor um is is also in the comprehensive plan and we do have the resolution that would be asked for consideration on Monday um also includes language that states our intent or the commission's intent to restrict truck traffic north of Tradeport Drive. So we don't want the new corridor to be a trade uh to be a truck route because of the neighborhood impacts north of the interstate window and and and everything you know kind of heading towards north side of Lakeland. So, we've got a couple of u u uh exhibits here that just show the corridors that were studied by uh by DOT. You know, I'm sure you heard a lot of concern from the residents of the Lake Luther corridor um because it would be going right through an existing neighborhood and so there were concerns about resident residential impacts. As you get further north that uh a lot of the uh corridors 2, three, and four really somewhat over overlapped with each other. Uh it was just a matter of what was the best kind of the best alignment overall uh when we're start talking about the north side there. Um most of what we heard through the study were either a no build, you know, why are we doing this or um corridor 2. And so we'll get into corridor 2 here real quick because that's really what the resolution is is expressing support for. Uh so the next slide uh shows and I'll step out of the way here but uh adjusted corridor 2 uh comes comes up the corridor that was res has been reserved by University Park and of Bridgewater crosses the interstate and then comes up with Malt Williams Road south to Watson Elementary uh there's a conservation easement north of the villages of Bridgewwater this alignment of voids um and so there is going to be an ample buffer between this road corridor and village 14 that was constructed here in the past couple of years the cross-section uh that's also part of the resolution. It's a two-lane

cross-section with a trail uh on one side and that mirrors very closely what exists today. And so the next uh couple of slides here show these are from yesterday. So you see the corridor, see the ongoing state 33 construction. This is looking from 33 back towards um towards interstate villages of Bridgewwater is on the left. University Park for Bridgewwater is on the right. And then the next slide just shows the the the kind of the ultimate two-lane cross-section um that exists today. And then you've got the um um you've got a 10 foot concrete trail on one side of the road. So the intent is is to carry that carry that cross-section forward. Um and so really that's um um kind of the the the background, the details, and be happy to answer any questions that you have.

Exciting. Any comments or questions? All right, we'll take that up Monday if there are. Thank you.

Thanks. That brings us then to um I'm sorry the uh development agreement with SJD as as Chuck mentioned in the presentation on the PED ordinance that we're requesting to continue with that until the first and second meetings of January. I think we're very close at this point to an agreement on the terms of that. We had a very good meeting last week with the developer and his team and I think we're we're there with impact fee credits and land donations and concurrency vesting periods. So, I mean there just some minor remaining details on what rideway needs to be uh donated for, you know, straightening out the uh realigning the uh misaligned intersection at Wedgwood Boulevard and Heather Point and Carpenter's Way. So,

will this be an approval point at the meeting or just a discussion? just uh for all for for money, we're just going to request that it be continued until the first and second meetings of of of January, but we feel like we're getting very close u to to an agreement with the developer on this. That then brings us to CRA right outside the door. Yeah,

all right. The first item is a task authorization with uh Dix Height Partnershire master plan and I don't know Valerie do you want to present that Alex or if you don't have a chance to stay here please.

So good morning Valerie B manager this is the master plan for Lake Wire and Freedom Park. So if you could hit the next slide, we can describe just what are those study areas. And as you all know, we have analyzed a lot of connectivity issues within this area and Lakew Wire Drive being one of those, but also with the Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue corridor and just how do we make sure we are honoring the Palm Arboritum and all of the features that Lake Wire has and making sure we can bring those connections back. So this study is in in three areas. Red is primarily the lake wire frontage and the freedom park area. Then we go into how do we bring those connection points back and that's the primary study area. But we couldn't forget the secondary area which is of course our new Prospect Lake Wire residence as well as Bonis Springs Park. So all of the concepts and visioning that we did as a CRA through downtown west as well as all of our other departments where they've had concepts of how we can bring these points together. This will be a master plan that not only brushes those off but sees what is feasible and then it will give us a path forward on how we construct the appropriate connection points in in this central area.

That particular slide illustrates how imperatively close all those issues are to one another. That's correct. That's great. So with this proposal, the consultant will be providing urban design and landscape architecture, architectural visioning, civil engineering, which is probably one of the biggest components, as well as cost estimation to tell us what is the estimated cost for all of the connection points, the park improvements, the lakewire frontage improvements, and in each of those, we can evaluate further what we should act on first. and they have expertise in figuring out like different CSX.

Yes, CSX, FDOT, as well as working with our stakeholders. We know we have two schools um in very close proximity, one immediately next door, Freedom Park. So, ensuring that we're answering all of those stakeholders concerns and questions as well as working with the other regulatory authorities. This is a consent item for consideration. So comments. Yeah, I Yeah, I was just I was just curious because I was having a conversation with Chuck the other day about to get a crossing over CSX. It's not even just the difficulty of getting a crossing. It's also then you have to remove a crossing or silent zones. There's just so much that goes into that that I just, you know, want to make sure I'm sure that these consultants are fully aware of all those complexities.

Anything else? This is not a concern right now. Sorry. Oh, I'm off. I'm off. I'm sorry. Yes, it is not a consent. I apologize. Mayor, nothing is on. Yes.

Well, founder, could you speak to the role that your community and economic development peers, public works, and parks and recreation have and will play in this and and sort of the CRA's role in funding the study, but but bringing along some pretty heavy expertise from our other departments on this. Yes, and Brian is correct. We are just taking the lead on this because we're funding the study, but we are certainly leaning on parks, recreation, cultural arts as well. Parks, excuse me, and public works because these are all elements that they've already envisioned and seen, but they are hitting that same roadblock. How much is this going to cost? What is really feasible? And this master plan is really a concerted effort between three different departments, and the CRA is is just taking the funding portion to get it accomplished. Any other questions or comments? Yes,

thank you Valerie. Maybe on Monday, Valerie, if you could just talk about we do a lot of what seems at times plans, master plans and studies. And just as a reminder, I think a lot of us know where this is going, but I think it would be a good refresher on where does this fit into the the bigger scheme of some of our other master plans and and future steps, long range plans. Just if you can talk to that on Monday. Absolutely. That'd be great. Thank you. Excellent. Good tip. Anything else? All right, we'll go to item B.

All right. B, C, and D are the the mass market properties. And as as you know, this is these are transactions that staff, I think the commission, all the parties involved have struggled mightily with over the last several months. Uh, this initially was a fairly forward straightforward transaction. You can disagree about the amount of credits to be provided on the different transactions. uh uh but it was still fairly straightforward in its in its concept. This became very complicated. However, when the consultant came back with, you know, a preliminary uh study result that that identified the parking areas that are being utilized by 820 and 8:30 North Massachusetts Avenue as a potential site for a parking garage. Uh so so you the discussion then became well let's just sell those tenants with the buildings and then we'll do a lease agreement with uh for the for the property that they're currently using for parking. The problem with that though is unless you're willing to guarantee parking on those properties that has a severe impact on the property values of the structures themselves. And as you heard at the last city commission meeting, we were working with an appraiser to try to figure out what that impact was. Uh, and here is what the appraiser has indicated the impact to the the appraised value is for house uh the the 820 uh north mass property. Um, it's the uh reduction in appraised value due to parking. So, our appraiser has indicated that uh you know, if you if you ultimately build a parking garage on the property being utilized for their parking currently and and then require that they you leave spaces in that parking garage and the market rates for that parking garage, that reduces the appraised value

of 820 North Mass by $1,190,000. There's certain assumptions with that. Uh the assumption that we're using is that the parking garage is built in 10 years and I think the the tenant has indicated that they need 80 parking spaces. So those are built into that that appraisal. Uh so if you pull the parking out of that transaction out of that sale and you and then you have this parking garage uncertainty associated with that that reduces the appraised value by $1,190,000. So, here's there's the breakdown of of how that affects the transaction. Um, per the city commission's request, you know, we looked at future capital improvements and I think the city commission wanted to see what that looks like if if that's just focused on remediation from from storm damage as opposed to, you know, other future improvements. And you know, we're using a $60,000 figure that that is the figure that was provided by an insurance adjuster to fix the damage in the collective space, which is is is still, you know, I believe there's drywall missing and and other issues. So, that's where that $60,000 figure is. I know that the the the the owner of of House 820 is requesting additional capital improvements, but we're just providing you what I think you wanted to see from the last meeting. So that's where that $60,000 figure is coming from. So that's what that transaction looks like when you throw that parking garage question in the middle of that.

And we might as well going at least through 8 8:30 uh because it has the same issue that's where they're currently using with the property they're using for parking is again have been identified as a potential site for for parking garage. And under the same analysis, the the appraiser has come back indicating that that, you know, if you build a parking garage on there, that will reduce the appraised value of 830 North Mass by $610,000. We again are using a $60,000 figure for storm remediation. I'm not sure if that's the exact number and and you know, and and the tenants can provide additional information on that. That's the best information we have right now for that. It would be what it is. Correct. Then whatever it takes,

right? And I think that they already actually remediated most of the damage. So, and I'm sure they have some expenses that that they could point their finger to, but that that's really not the focus of staff staff. The thing staff struggling with is the effect of the parking garage uncertainty on the appraised value. So, that that's the effect on on Dell's 8:30 North Mass. Then 310 Plum Street is is is a very different situation in that uh they have the required on-site parking that they need. So they do not need off-site parking. So that's uh you know, we're just we're just showing you what that looks like uh um without additional

without without future capital improvements. Uh so there's no there there's not that same parking garage var variable in this. So, uh, you know, that that's what staff is struggling with is it makes a huge wild swing if you introduce the parking garage into this equation versus, uh, what we were originally looking at with when it was at the advisory board and it was being negotiated at that time. I I I think that the neighbors may be proposing something different for moving forward with the purchase of their property. Um, and I don't know whether we want to go into that right now or wait some money to get into that. And I think they're look looking at potentially more of a straight purchase of their property at this point. So that's my introduction to that. Um, you know, you know, staff feels like there's just too much of an uncertainty for us to be able to make a recommendation for sale at this time. Parking garage question out there.

So let me make a comment on top of that.

Okay. So the fact that we have so much staff uncertainty is because we don't have staff direction in terms of what they want to do for protection of the property of that's non-developed today. And um so there's a couple ways to be able to approach the parking scenario. The parking scenario could be a deduction like that. Uh it could be a lease commitment of let's say 10 years for spaces for the two properties that need them and in an unknown configuration that maybe those 80 or 20 ford do would be spaces that are um uh within a th00and ft of the property that'll be protected depending on how we develop because within a 10ear period of time the likelihood of having a parking garage and having not having 100 spaces is within 1,000 ft of those two facilities is probably pretty low, you know, and so there I mean is high that we wouldn't have a uh parking garage done by then. We could doesn't necessarily even go in that those spaces, but the flexibility to be able to move lots for those spaces if that were acceptable would lessen the credit mitigation because of the commitment it would make. There's a concern perhaps for transferability if you decide to move somewhere else. you know, in terms of those spaces and what would happen if they were selling property that they had acquired because and that would probably have to be tended to a seller, too. Yes.

Yeah. I understand all the this is some things that that uh really stayed up and read this thing. How about I mean isn't there a way that we can just um for a good example house 820 wants to assume where artifacts is and where do houses right now they're wishing to obtain the area that was there. So instead of remediating one, we just draw new contracts, new temporary contracts, adjust the value notice, she could be each everyone will have the space that they want or originally wishing and still seeking to purchase. you know, we're going to get them. Then we make them whole, make the proper corrections instead of maybe investing $60,000 to redo the walls that do that house, which are no longer needed because house 820 will be relocated where artifacts is, and spend that money there to make them whole. It was just

give them the spaces that they're wanting, build it out the way it's necessarily needed. So maybe it's not necessarily looked at as a capital improvement, but since we are technically in a a way to not really sell it responsibly and probably needs a lot more time to configure a a proper purchasing agreement to allow these businesses to be made whole and operate in the spaces in which they are intended to buy in. In other words, instead of she having her, she's wanting artifacts. She doesn't need to be here the collective. We don't need to refix the collective. We need to get that and make that for what do bake house needs to be. So maybe that's not looked as a capital improvement, but actually as a remediation and then giving do house the space in which they need to fully operate and to expand in. Same thing with HOS 820. And then just reconfigure the leases and honor their current parking leases. So we can mitigate a proper con I really think the staff is going to need more time to I like your suggestion but I think the biggest thing and Stephanie Madden had mentioned it and I had honor to visit all of the locations. We do need and I think we feel I we all may feel we have a due diligence to make these businesses whole in the spaces that they wish to reside in and do business in. I mean, some people uh know how 20 had already used a lot of additional capital improvement money to put in suites. Uh so they're not needing $60,000 to put up more drywall where they're no longer going to be that they may

follow what I'm saying here. Well, new contracts, new make them whole. When you say contract, you mean new leases?

New leases. Yes. Or is it be new leases? maybe make them where they're a little beneficial. I mean, they're going to be acquiring Dough Bake House will be acquiring approximately 5,000 more square feet. They may not necessarily want where the walls are are at right now. He may be wanting, you know, I don't need that wall there. So, whatever he needs to remediate him as well as the flooding they experienced. And then House 820, they're wanting to acquire the surveys. just rewrite these leases, guarantee them fair market value for the lease parking spaces until we can move down and approve a contract that's honoring to all. But I do think we owe due diligence to making them whole, making them operational so they don't need to experience another season of uncertainty and trying to do like hot 20 being an event place and then do bake house staring at 5,000 square feet that they could definitely utilize. That's what the plan is. So that would you certainly would change the lease proper as an addendum to the spaces that they're in and then the remediation can take place. They already have a lease for those parking spaces for the next six years. That's not going away.

My concern is for the public to understand that we would modify the leases for the spaces in which they desire to be in which we would do anyway through the CRA. Correct. You know, as the CRA, right? as is here. Yes.

I'm looking at Mike Rosart. Not that you sharpened your pencil and came in ready about the Heritage Garage, but uh similarly I'm just curious because to me the parking is a big deal, you know, and trying to, you know, envision what that area becomes in 10 years is difficult. But I it is my understanding that like Heritage Garage the parking surface parking was part of that property and when it was given as a part of the garage condoing that out did Heritage Garage pay did they I I think they pay in perpetuity for maintenance but didn't they get the commensurate number of spots that they gave to the garage back as their possession inside the garage? What we did was uh Mr. Beck valued had it had it appraised and that value was added to the total price of what it cost to build a garage. Okay. This buyer is still paying a monthly lease for space on those. Right. So, I've actually I did that math when you guys were talking about it last last meeting. Um, and and inquired about what it would cost to build a garage today and it's 27 to 27, $30,000 of space to build one today without just assuming that you own the land.

Winter Rhand 610 is 35,000. That's their number. They're using the people that are building it are going to sell it to them for 35 space. understand but the cost to build it is is is is less. So I don't want anybody using 35 cuz that's

that's that's higher. We're probably in the $30,000 range if you started today. Okay. Well, just quick math if if we need 150 spaces if that's still correct as a number I did a while back. That's 5.25 million at 30. That's at 35. But if we use 30,000, that's $4.5 million that we'd have to borrow over 20 years. That's that's costing these businesses $192 per month per space. That's a lot. Mhm.

That's that's that's important for everybody to realize is if you decided that you wanted to put a garage on this space, it may become untenable for these folks to to be able to afford it because we'd have to get that amount of money out of those spaces if we wanted to build that garage and simply break even. That's assuming four and a half% interest rate 20 years the whole question. So my question is how I'm trying to see they need the parking. I mean they can't not have the parking. We can't fence it off and not let them park there. We can't have you know dedicated parking required for that that like you know but it seemed to be that there were options in our land code to be more like the downtown area where it's not necessary for purchase of the property. You know like downtown. You know you can buy a building. You don't have to have parking included, but you have to have access to some kind of parking. There has to be a garage nearby or $2 parking on the streets. So, you know that my main concern from the beginning is to try to think with the end in mind

to the mass market area. How do we as a city envision parking? It's like we can't not think about that. It's essential to the businesses to flourish is that there's available parking or predictable parking whether it's a garage or you park on the street when you go there. However you do it, if if you know, House A20 has to say, "I always have to do valet." That's a part of their p their package, you know, because it's going to be putting them on the streets, you know, around that neighborhood 10 years from now because there's not going to be surface lots because surface lots are going to be built into whatever. To me, that I feel like is the unanswered question. And we can be hypothetical about a garage, but we aren't even fun we are not even funding garages downtown where we need them, you know, on the north side of, you know, downtown now when we we actually would probably have a study tell us we definitely need another garage there at that side, but because of the cost, we're not. So to this imaginary, you know, garage that we might need on this particular spot, it's not that I want to eclipse having a garage one day. I just need us because of the struggle of downtown parking. How long has it taken us to get predictability of parking? Where do people park when they go to our restaurants? They go, you know, how do we get the green light, the red light, which lots and the squeeze? I mean, we've spent a lot of time on parking to make our downtown flourish. It doesn't seem like we've done as much due diligence on this area with regard to envisioning parking. And I only say that because you know Sally and the well, you know, they're trying to pivot with their business plan with what the market is bringing and it was more event space, but then that was like thwarted because it was supposed to be an office space. Well, everyone who starts a business knows you got to be nimble and this business you start isn't always the business that you end up on based on the market and based on your conditions, but we precluded that, you know. So, as a government agency, we're trying to invest in this neighborhood, but we're not business. And so that's there's the

frustration, right? And we're not landlords, so there's the frustration. So these are not typical real estate deals if you were like in real estate. These aren't typical businesses with contracts based on if you're a business because there's strings attached because you're getting a great deal to go into a blighted area. So we're trying to cut some of these strings and to set people free. We want it to be fair. We don't want the city to lose. But this is not like regular business. This is not like regular real estate. This is like I got a brick building that hosts events. They got to park somewhere. Can we promise them that if they bought this brick building at a price that we could stomach and they could afford do can as a city are we going to say, "Oh, you bought the building. Sorry, we're going to start fencing off lots and you can't park anywhere down there." That that is what we cannot do. And so from the beginning, I'm not opposed to looking at that building house 820 and saying, "Okay, with what they've invested and they were first to the first to the market, I feel what 900,000 fair price based on like a real estate like you would sell your house and you say, I wish I could get 2 million because I've put I've put 750,000 in." And people go, "Well, I don't like the marble you picked and I don't like the stuff you did, so I'm not paying your 750. I don't care what you put into it. I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. So, it's not as much about to me these costs of rent reduction, future hurricane. If we look at these buildings and we think in our mind, what do we think is a fair price for that business? What have they invested to the quality of life and the safety and the aspect compared to what we've invested? What's a fair price for each individual plot? That's what I was hopeful that today we could take care of. And I know that parking is a big deal, but if my city can say we are going to make sure they can park, how do we legally do that Palmer to say we're going to have, you

know, like downtown, they can park wherever or we're going to let them have that surface lot for free for 10 years, you know, and if and when there's a there's a public need, just like we do with rightaway acquisition for a road, we have to get that lot back for a for a garage, then there's something in the contract that says they're going to have to morph and be be nimble and you know and if they can't pay for it at that time they might have to sell their business to another user who doesn't need 120 spots but we can't predict the future we have a lot of cash into this and a CRA functions best oh and by the way it's sun setting in in 2030

to reinvest and to put invest into more businesses to to build parking garage to build another business on all these other lands that we've been assembling in my opinion is better than just holding the cash hoping we get a better ROA sometime in the future and then we're just letting this all kind of plateau here and and then we lose the momentum that we had before co that that made all these uh spaces special. Commissioner Mccurley.

Um I appreciate and echo everything Commissioner Han just said. Um in addition, I have a philosophical issue with hypothesizing about a parking garage that's non-existent while while holding the

people who want the buyers to a hypothetical idea that it just is contradictory to me. So, we we're telling the buyers, "Yeah, but this might be worth more later. We're going to amp up the cost on you and the price on you, but we're also going to hypothesize about a garage over here, but that's our prerogative as a government to say, well, we might want this land as a it just is counterintuitive to me and it clashes." And I would have been happy to sign the agreement and do the deal two weeks ago when we first started talking about just like Commissioner Madden like like like let's go. These businesses are thriving. And why we want to put more hurdles in front of them when they were the front runners in the area when they have committed to hiring people locally when they have the neighbors organization is actually being the hands and feet and taking care of the most vulnerable and and providing an option to our community that is a social service that a lot of other people don't want to be really candid. But Brian steps up and says I'll do it and this is my calling and this is what I want to do. I don't think we should be continuing to penalize. One of my questions of this legally is we had an agreement. We had contracts drawn. We had discussions 6 months ago. I'm not really sure then when a consultant comes in and we have we use you know guard on mass to reimagine you know this area that then we decide as a government like that's a good idea. Let's put a parking garage there. That wasn't in the discussion. That was never in the discussion when we first started this process through the CRA with these businesses to draw up contracts. And I think the whole idea of CRA is for people to buy the businesses and buy the land and so it isn't a miss and so it isn't blight because they are having skin in the game. So I'm I'm more than frustrated that we are saying two

different things out of the sides of our mouth as a government. And by the way, government's we're good at roads and we're good at stop lightss and we're good at other things. We are not necessarily the best business people in the world. To be brokering deals like this. And so I think you know where we started six months ago historically how we got here is just striking to me and and a little frustrating. I want to see these businesses thrive. I want to to sign these contracts. I want to do it based on, you know, I think a lot of it was verbage. I said this two weeks ago that future improvements is a misnomer. These businesses have poured their heart and soul in fixing things. I got to visit Bake House the other day and see all the work they did to mitigate on a Friday over when the storm hit to deal with all the storm water and, you know, texting with Valerie and and them working through all of that, which is commendable on both sides. Um, it's just I I feel like we're in the Twilight Zone and I and I just am having a hard time. It's just not palatable to me that we have gotten to this point and now we're saying hypothetically there might be a garage. Well, there might be rainbows and unicorns on that piece of land in 20 years. I don't know. But that's hypothetical. But then, so I don't think we can apply hypotheses to future use for these businesses if we're trying to do it ourselves. It just doesn't it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. So I you know I'm again unfortunately but you know I would say to my fellow commissioners I hope you take this to heart while I'm not here and in my absence that I would have signed this deal weeks ago and and and help these businesses thrive especially event spaces that you know make the bulk of their money in the fourth quarter of the year and I just feel like we have hamstrung them and if we're going to be a business friendly city I don't think this is the way to do it.

Coming from the cloud.

Thank you mayor. Um, I think it does bring us back to where are we trying to decide on Monday? Where is that? If we can maybe zero in on that, that helps us at least um know what the objective is overall. And I do think this is uh an example of why it's very difficult for a commission to try and parse out details and negotiate. And so the way that this has unfolded has not been ideal. Um, and there there are just questions throughout the process that we all bring into it and opinions and visions. And so trying to settle that is extremely difficult. Um I would you know Palmer you mentioned that market loss there's an offer for a straight purchase price. I think that's something that I would want that to go through you all to evaluate and bring to us whether that's Monday or not. Um but just in terms of direction for me that's um only one but um I was interested you know when you mentioned that. So um but for the other I don't know I I I don't know where on Monday and again Commissioner Musk's not here but he mentioned this the last time there is an element of feeling like we have to make this decision now um where for some of us there are still questions about this is this is this the right decision if we were to sell these businesses for the CRA. Um so yeah I I would ask us all what what is it that we what are we trying to do on Monday? Okay. So, let me clarify some things. We are in a commission here. This is a CRA meeting. We are see we are the people that are responsible to determine the value and approve. Staff's not making a recommendation. They're not going to.

So, so let me finish. So, as a result, we become that recommendation. We make that decision. It doesn't go to someone else, feed me what it ought to look like. It goes to the buyers telling us what they would accept. So, forget being a commission right now because we ain't one. We are a CRA without a staff recommendation because of a future protection of an unknown certainty taking away a vital provision of an existing customer who's taken risk as part of the consideration that they can go to in a negotiation of purchase. Now, we have to all be grown-ups and decide either we let them buy those properties with the parking spaces as originally proposed or and and 8 years from now, 10 years from now, those parking spaces that flat lots going to have value. Those businesses might change. There can be something that happens. We're not smart enough, nor do we use crystal balls in this area to do this. We have to decide. No one's going to send us a document. And all I I mentioned for the market loss seeing that as a recommendation and I hear you on we are the CRA but we have different opinions on what that looks like.

So the recommendation board made a unanimous opinion to approve it. So that so that piece was done and I was present as a commission line for that meeting. So we saw that approval take place without values applied with the and and the commission that then converted this area in the last meeting approved

applying the rent and applying the the prepaid capital the what they' done today. So that's done. So now we in simplification have to simply get to the piece that is the future value if any that we want to provide for remediation only that we can do if it was beyond that that we can and we have to have consideration for parking um that we make the decision of that they are willing to accept or they've got a lease they don't have to do anything and so for six more years those parking spaces are theirs and they can continue to use them and that's about the time it would take by the way for us to get anywhere where we decided what to do with that space if we wanted to. Or we could provide as a CRA a a recommendation to Palmer to create a contract that says these are the spaces that'll need to be required for x period of time by number by buyer. Um that we'll just have to make available and they'd have to be willing to accept that and some amount of reduction in purchase cost as a result. Nobody's going to do this for us and I'll be gone. you know, and you will still be the nope. Staff is not going to come to you with a recommendation because I have worked this hard on the inside. They don't have one. They don't want one. I I shouldn't say they don't want one. They aren't going to create one. So, we now need to really be a CRA like we are and ask the buyers, at least those latter two, what they'd like to do and what they'd be willing to take a look at.

And that's what needs to come to us on Monday. So, just to focus the discussion and the decision a little bit more, I don't see a really the the the idea of leasing the parking areas to the tenants doesn't seem to really accomplish what we originally thought it would given that we still would have that option to kick them out of that parking and force them to buy spaces in the parking garage. Really, I think the decision is whether you just renew their leases for the buildings and the parking spaces or sell the buildings and sell the parking spaces. And then at some point in the future, if a parking garage materializes, you have the option of either condemning it through imminent domain to build that parking garage or we could structure some kind of a deal where um you have an option to purchase in the future at some kind of agreed upon value

which gives everybody the flexibility they need to protect their interests both the CRAAS as well as the buyers. So really I think the distinction is between extending the current lease lease agreements or selling everything. But to that point we go back and name now you're now you're kneecapping businesses. I I mean you you're cutting them right off at the name.

Well look at how much em I agree I agree with you. But now you're talking about firmly established businesses six years from now. I still think my strong opinion is that we need more time to develop. That is my hope to hopefully somehow persuade my fellow commissioners that we no matter what happens here, these businesses need to be made 100% whole so they can be operational and get done. I mean, I understand why one approach wasn't taken while they're trying to put things together. I get it. But if my strong opinion is we rewrite the leases, we let them have the parking space and we start moving forward with a responsible approach allowing them to purchase their properties and get the bank money because we are going to have to work through a lot more but feel rushed to work through that. I don't feel comfortable with that at all.

Rush wouldn't be the word. This started a year ago. This started a year ago that all but but it's before us now. the leaders make decision when other people have already done it for us. It's I get that. But but to that point is decision before us now. Yeah. I'll tell you why it's before us now. Because we weren't making any decisions on it and we weren't listening to the advice and the vote from the board meetings you and I both attend. And so we aren't the commission here. We are a CRA board. Don't you think of your role as a commission? I don't think of my role as a ser. So, as a CRA So, and no, I'm don't interrupt me. I'm talking my lips are still moving. Yes, sir. Okay,

I'll remember that.

As a CRA, we have a responsibility to be able to recognize what was created in the beginning as an opportunity for risktakers to have the fruits of their reward in allowing them to purchase businesses. This is not a business transaction per normal. This is a a reward for gentrification. bad word may be in some arenas of an area so that we can establish value and future opportunities in that area they have a lease that has parking spaces they don't need a new lease for that so their parking spaces exist we only if there's an addendum to leases it's collective to do bake house correct you know and and housey 20 those are addendums our responsibility from remediation is already existing and so we need to do that so Now we are. So none of those things are things we're talking about except for what would they be willing to buy the businesses for if they were going to own the property. And that to Palmer's point is they get the building and the parking that they had as part of that and they that's what they buy. We just talk about item three, the amount of the remediation if there's anything beyond remediation that we want to do and the deal is done as long as they're willing to do that as buyers. Okay. for us to continue to kick this down the road after over a year of negotiation six months ago that they've been talking to bankers is irresponsible on our part and we can be irresponsible and we can say I need more information and that's what staff has ended up saying that's why I can't do a deal now because we don't know what the elements of the deal would want to be and that's the problem and we put three buyers Brian excluded we put two buyers in a position to have to make a decision on something that is moving around like an amoeba and that's ridiculous. So I'd be interested in knowing what they'd be

willing to accept or keep them stay in their leases and we'll flip the antibodums on them be done for a day and that's what this area decides. And I would encourage you not to say that I need what are we going to study more? What what other elements are missing in this? Well, it depends on which scenario we're we're looking at,

right? Well, so what would you want to see? You define a deal because you can't buy a car without knowing what you get for a trade in. Well, and you know, again, I go back to why this is it's difficult for the seven of us to do that. I would counter and say it's not irresponsible. It's we're trying to be diligent and make sure we're making the right decision for the city. We all are in agreement of wanting to support these businesses and and 100% for them. Um, when we get into details, we have different visions or different opinions on what that looks like. And so, I think we can uh disagree agreeably. I'm not I've never said I'm not for a sale. in the initial when it was presented to me, I said, "I have questions about the future capital improvements. I know we're working through that." Um, and again, Monday is is really where a decision or not is made. Um, we're we're studying the the item now, but I did want to I don't know if you would want to to ask if anybody

wants to to share from the business owners, but I just want to kind of refocus, Mr. We can apologize. We can share a different opinion on this and and it may not I wouldn't classify it as irresponsible. It's we're trying to make the right decision and so we're I think we're closer than maybe we

My comment is it's irresponsible for us not to make a decision as a CRA. That's my irresponsible decision. This isn't going to be somebody else's decision. It's going to be our decision as a s we've already had a unanimous approval to move forward. But I feel like you're saying that the decision needs to be this. So it may we may have a different feeling on what that is. No said I think there's three elements here. There's three elements of decision.

One is leases stay intact. Two is we sell the property with the the flat lots that they service lots that were included in the appraisals. Three is we do a a contract that for parking that they'd accept or or whatever their third option is of something they want to be. I don't know how many more options are going to be beyond that. Do you It's that probably is correct. Okay. So, all I'm saying is that we get to one. Okay. Okay. Um would you like to make Yes, Commissioner? I say we say we hear from them. Okay.

Uh Kevin uh what's his name? Kevin Shannon and I just have one quick question to clarify. Did you say that there is a offer of full market for a building that you heard from Palmer? Homer, you mentioned a straight purchase. That was for marketers. Okay. So, that's not for just clarifying that. Freak you out. I'm Yeah, no, you're good. You're good. No, I did not say that. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. That was all like clarify that as well. Yeah.

Uh Laura Shannon, house management. Um I think for me where I'm sitting is we have we have been working on this for a long time. The emotion for me is still I know that the urgency is hard to stomach for the commissioners because it does feel fast. But like all of you have seen that have walked through the space, the urgency is real for us to be able to move or be nimble. Sorry. Um, in retrospect, I feel like me acting in good faith is to my detriment with the city. And I don't want to paint a bad narrative because sorry I get myself together. Um I love the redevelopment of Lakeland and I want to be part of it to go back and now say the best that we can offer you is a building and jeopardize the parking that is necessary for my business to operate. I cannot move the brand of House 820 somewhere else. The brand is the building. Those brick walls are what we do and what we offer. I can't say at the end of my lease, I'm going to take my business somewhere else. So, if the decision is to not sell to us, to me that feels like there needs to be a recognition in that remediation of the building that you are not just replacing the $60,000 worth of drywall. You are replacing what I had by contract in artifact and or in the collective and moving it into artifact. Does that feel like the best use of the city's money? I

don't know. And I can't make that decision. But I think for me the the hardest part for me is knowing what we have walked through and what Diana and David and Brian and I have walked through in all of these meetings feeling like we are moving forward step by step in good faith with the city. And again, I don't want to paint a bad narrative. I have I love the city. I love the staff. I'm so thankful for the way that they have supported me for seven, eight years. I mean that's the nature of the CRA is we have loved hosting them and being an advocate for them but it does feel like if if this the staff can't make a decision how do I explain the business loss that we've had. How do I absorb that? How do I absorb the attorney fees of trying to work this deal for the past year on top of hurricane loss? I don't know. So I would on the side of understanding that a parking garage could go in there someday. I want to be a team player and I want to be at that table saying let me help. Let me host it. Let me be part of that. And if you take it away, the business fails and that's nuts and bolts for me. I can't I would love to be able to take cookies and go put them somewhere else, but I can't. And I want Diana to expand. She has no reason that she needs to stay and I know she wants to. My lease is technically up in August of 26. So for the past year, I have been working with staff to try and figure out can I promise our clients that are booking a year and a half out a building. And I haven't been able to. And in the beginning of 25 it was okay.

A year and a half out was middle of next year, which is still within my lease. I am now at the end of 25 looking at the 26 being around the corner, and I can't book past my lease with my clients. There's not a building for me to offer by contract right now, and it's not even a whole building that I'm trying to offer. So, I would just appreciate for staff to understand that business loss. And there's an auto renewal that I can opt into in April if I want to. and I understand that. But how am I if you were in my shoes, how would you accept a auto renewal of a lease when you've been in my shoes for the past year and a half in the situation that I've been? So, I think that's all I've got unless you guys have any questions.

Um, if you were looking at the elements on that screen, um, what's important to you? Um, I think for me in the discussions that we've had, I think we we know what it would take for us to be able to personally make the deal happen. If you're going to take B rent or business loss, they're about equal. So, that doesn't really matter to me whether it's a base rent credit or a business loss acknowledgement, they're about equal. I think the previous capital Oh, go ahead. Yeah. Well, the base rent and the previous capital investments are already approved. So, they're in

um previous capital investments feel important. Um and then for us, our we know that the remediation cost is much higher. Our 544 number that we gave you, we've shared that proposal with anybody that's asked for it. That number is the true number of replacing what we had in artifact into the collective or I'm sorry, from collective into artifact. Um, and that is absolutely necessary for us to be able to do it. Okay. Thank you guys. Thank you. Diana.

Hi. Um, Diana from Dough Bake House. Um, if you ask me the same question, what would be important for us? Um, it's the parking mostly. So if we could just make the first deal that we have a contract with um for both lots whatever was initial. Um we also brought a contractor inside to check what had happened inside the collective and what would be the price to just rebuild um what was lost with the water and it's about the $60,000. So we are okay with that credit for remediation and we could move forward with the deal. Okay. So, could we any questions for either of them? Anything else you want to ask? I apologize if I was too harsh, sir. Um I I don't want us to not take responsibility for what is our responsibility. That's all. And and act act like this is going to become a stack record staff recommendation. That's what I want to circle and underline. So, I would recommend we take their two comments, put them on a sheet, you know, a bulleted sheet that they agree on and approve and send those to us um today or um on Saturday so that we have that as at least the basis for discussion when we get to this point on all three of them.

More like a purchase offer. So it's like a purchase off offer that they agree on at least for us to be able then to entertain those discussions. Yes. Okay. So I'm kind of looking to Palmer for this because it sounds like you know Commissioner Maharly is amanable to a sale and she's not going to be here. There's no way to get her vote outside of her being here Tuesday. Okay. So then that means we need four votes.

And so I'm just a pragmatist. I'm I think I'm the only one on the dis count my votes every time. We just say how you're going to go so we know that we what we'reing um so it sounds like the mayor and I would move forward with a purchase and then to me the only next best thing would be just you know the lease just lease and lease get them back to order. The problem is most severe for house is that they also they can't not make some improvements. So then that's going to cost the city money. That's to me it's it's like, oh yeah, let's just go back to the happy lease. If that was as easy as it was, we would all be doing that. The thing compl complicating it is it can't go back to the happy lease because of the hurricane. Um, so I don't know what my uh commissioner colleague here wants to do on his last meeting on on Monday. Um, but is it just the mayor and I who would move forward with the purchase on Monday?

If you want me to speak blunt, I would love to find a way to work deal, but the mayor's even said it himself. You sell it now. Me person, I think it's irresponsible to sell it at these value prices. I understand our importance and our role as a CRA. I have the pleasure of serving on that board. Not as long as he has. But we also are still governed to be good stewards of money. And I want to be good stewards to these businesses as well. I own a business. I understand mitigating losses. I've been hit by the hurricane. I had flooding. I just lost a garage door this last week. That was seven grand. Had a forklift go through a piece of cement. That was $2,500. I get it. And I know that he gets it as far as when things have to move. And I understand that you understand business, but I'm talking about when things break,

no one's coming and saying, "Let me fix it for you." That comes right out of your profile. I understand that. But let's also be blunt and be honest. They went 11 months and it should have already been fixed. If we're going to be blunt and honest, you know, we're sitting here talking about storm water and raising rates and stuff. He wants affected by that storm water. the businesses that so the bottom line is you would rather pay for these improvements and keep them leasing to even the mayor's point I just whether it is now cut to the chase

you want to count a vote I'm going to tell you why where my vote is if it stands the way it is right now I would be a no vote do I think something could come comparable out of this yeah sooner or later 10 years from now 15 years from now that business is going to double triple as I hope it does Okay. You're saying a no vote. So, so, but you would be you would be for just going to the lease. Like you got to be a yes for something. So, you'd be a yes. I'm working longterm like my business would and like their business. And this is not our numbers cuz we're taking the parking valuation out. I understand that. But take the parking evaluation out

and we come in 10 15 years now and now let's say they're doing a million dollars worth of doing a business. They're blowing out the seams. They're knocking business as they should be doing. We don't get that money that long guy. This is a different deal, not just like the Lincoln Electric building. Tell you that. Let me finish. Yes. And I should be stopping one of you. So, I apologize. So, what I'm trying to say to you, we either find a way to deal with it now, much to his point, or we're going to kneecap them later on when that parking garage. Someone's getting kneecapped. Either way, the way it sits now, we're trying to deal with it. I'm just saying. We're wanting to deal with it. That's all I want to know. out of the office.

Well, then that would should have been the question that's asked. If it was me, I would write a contractual agreement, restructure their leases, make them 100%. I would build her out exactly the way that she needs to be built out. Even if it did cost us more money, even if it did cost us more money, I would build her out so she is 100% fully functional. I'd make sure they are remediated and stuff so they can get and I would extend their leases and and I would make sure that we made a proven plan that we're looking wholeheartedly each and every single day on a way to make a way for their parking to exist 5 years down the road, 10 years down the road, 15 roads. I operate in the exact same business that they do. Exactly. I may not own the space, but believe me, I deliver to this space. I love their space. For me to sound like I'm against them, that's a horrible thing to say.

I think you're against them. I'm just trying to give you a decision. No, but I I agree with you. And I'm not saying that. I just want a decision. All right. Well, you know, sometimes we get more than what we ask for. So, may I make a recommendation that at least you'd be willing to take a look at this revised for consideration? He wants to sell at any price, only lease and do the improvements. So, what about you, Chad? No, no, no. Let me ask question. Is it something you would would you evaluate purchase options for our discussion on Monday if there were some and if if they were reasonable? I mean like right from the get-go I was sort of against all the rent but you know

right so at least you'd evaluate I would always evaluate everything. Thank you mayor. Um Brian Cely may want to say something. Um but but I did have a comment to Commissioner Madden's question. I don't know um uh to counting votes in that. I don't know, but I am always willing to look at consider an updated purchase offer and and see what that looks like. Perfect. Yeah. And I think that's what's I think that's reasonable. I'm not trying to advocate anything beyond that. Okay. I'm just suggesting that nobody else is going to do this for us. That's if I'm being harsh on a on a semifinal agenda study, it's because this probably wouldn't have even happened otherwise.

And you understand the CRA the best. and I was on the original. So, I would love to see us do what we need to do here. And it's a different rule than a commission. It's a completely different rule and and it isn't a business decision like we would necessarily hope to be selling our own property, which this is the city's property. But that's because there was a total different intent and the tax valuation that's going to come out of this over time that we're not even talking about which is extremely important to the city not just their properties but everybody else around them. And that means by the way I say all of everything I've said that's any costicness in it at all. So grateful for the staff that I get to serve with so thankful for Brian's leadership. So thankful for Valerie's leadership. So thankful for a complete city manager team. Um from uh uh uh Sean to Rob to Ashley. I can't imagine having a city that doesn't work that works more conscientiously than this as a staff. We put staff in a bad position. And so our job is to take staff out of that position. And so if there's anything that is less patient in me that has been communicated in an unkind way, I apologize to anyone who may have been offended by it. But I want you to know I'm a strong advocate that we finish our business. That's all.

All right. Anything else? Yeah. Thank you. This is this has been a real uh dile we've had for a long long time. It's unfortunate and of course I'm more of a real estate guy, right?

And I have been for all my life and it's unfortunate, but it's still the facts are the facts and the things are the way they are. I kind of agree more with Mr. the lawn on the most part about some leases and stuff like that. But I want them to have their building. There's no question in in my mind. I want I want them to have their building. is I looking I look back from the citizens perspective at what number is a fair number

for them to get it and us to have got chastised for our lifetime cuz we've been we've made bad decisions in the city in the past and it's city commissioners been fired and all kind of stuff has happened in the years past and we don't want that to happen to this group and It's it's a it's a hard dilemma. You know, we're in a bad situation and it's not your fault. It's not it's more our fault than anybody else for but it's it's a tough one. And of course that's but I'm I'm leading more this way, but they're that's not going to say that you're not going to be the right decision for us if you make a recommendation too. you know, it's

it's a it's a juggling question right now until comes up, I guess, Monday, we're going to have to make a decision what we're going to do. And I hope it will satisfy them, satisfies the citizens of Lakeland and the CRA is is we don't have to go through these things. Some more affirmative information should have been gotten to begin with, but uh that's my decision. And I think everybody has made a good decision at this point. May not have been at the right timing, but invariably I feel that's correct. And Sarah, I'm wish you could be here. Mike's not going I'm not Mike may not be here. I'm not sure who's going to be here. Mike will be back

Monday, but there's going to be some decisions to be made and it it may not go the way we want to go. I The parking lot is critical in in my opinion. Uh, and I want them to own the building as well. And at whatever number it is, it's it's you want to give it to them, give it to them. But I want to know what we don't have. No, we're not. I know that, you know, but I'm just saying, you know, that's what you decide. We are the all, right?

But um, and of course, it's it's just tough and we've made a lot of decision. There's a lot of verbiage going around and it's somebody going to tomorrow it's going to be about say let's do this we're going to go yes or we're going to do this but not do and not do that. So we're going to have to it has to be a multiple strong bill. It can't be just all or nothing. I think some initial proposals they had made I didn't like them and I'm hoping they're willing to shift that but I think the the the vote has gone that way. we were going to make a little bit of modification in some of those leases and stuff like that, but uh it's it's it's a tough decision for everyone and I think we've all struggled with this and unfortunately zero is not going to be here on uh next one next meeting that we're going to have to make a decision on. And so

Mr. Celely, I know you want to make a comment. So if you would like just introduce yourself please. Hello my name is Brian. Can I hand this out? Yes. do the deal.

I guess I could just do that. Um, if you don't know,

um, so the reason I've kind of put together a proposal and have handed out to you is you really kind of just demonstrated why like you you guys were very focused on housing 20 in the big house because of the parking dilemma, which I totally understand. That is not um a com an issue for my purchase. Um I've been listening to you all. I've heard the feedback on feeling as though this incentives are too much and that sort of deal. What kind of precedent does it set? Um that's another reason that I kind of just developed this proposal is it doesn't include any incentives. is just an offer and it is asking for direction on if this doesn't feel appropriate to you then you know what does and let's go ahead and move forward with with a deal that we all feel comfortable with. Another reason that I'm choosing to do this is in the agenda for Monday in the asterric next to 310 Plum Street it said that they were recommending to extend a lease with me. um and that because they don't know that the incentive which you guys approved will still be valid once you've determined what you're going to do with house 820 and do bake house. So essentially um kind of dismissing that as as a thing that was confirmed um or calling it into question and I uh I'm prepared to move forward with the purchase. So I'm not really interested in you know extending a lease. I've been in this process now for a year and a half or more maybe. Um the properties have been subdivided to purchase. Um so I appreciate the city's um staff's willingness to like do a lease with me, but that's really not, you know, what I like to do. I like to move forward with the purchase. I'm prepared to do so. What I've um and I up here, I don't have any previous capital investments. I have made previous

capital investments. the deal that we had approved unanimously at the CRA meeting was, you know, good and I didn't feel the need to, you know, add previous capital improvements to that deal. But I can like I could show you estimates of things that I've done and even I have record of some of the things that I've done above and beyond my lease um for previous capital improvements. If you wanted to see that, I can I provide it to the CRA. So, I have had some of that. Um, my the value of the apartments are what they are. My proposed purchase price is 1,56,000. It's it's approximately 20% below the appraised value. This accounts for um my desire to maintain affordability there. This would allow me to do that. It also would give me some wiggle room with the bank to be able to do some of the improvements I'd like to do. Um, we have a boiler there from 1994 still. Everything in those apartments are from 1994. Um, and that's outside of what I'd like to do as far as preparing the other space to serve people as well. So, that's I'm accounting for all that for the, you know, contribution I made over the last decade there. Um, and I'm asking for you to consider the proposed purchase price. However, um if you don't deem it appropriate, um you know, I I would like to know what you do and I'm prepared to move forward with a, you know, price that you guys

So, you would like us to use this illustration in the three proposals that we put together to send back? Yeah. Okay. I think so. All right. We'll do that just be and because it's it's uh you know I don't have the same some of these other things you guys are dealing with and it's it's uh yeah I'd like to perfect do that. Anything else? There's a question. Oh yes, Commissioner. Yeah, I want to commend you. Thank you. This is very well worded and very well done. I like this and I like this. I would live without it. All right.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Ruis. Who has been very very patient by the way.

Very patient. I'm more than willing to not speak at all, but I need to clarify a couple of things. One is is with regard to Commissioner Madden's comments about the CRA investing additional monies in the buildings were they to be leased, repaired, remediated, altered, you know, and built out to meet a particular occupant, whether that's a a tenant or a buyer's uh occupancy that they're really, but for the disparity between what it might cost the CRA to do the exact same work that the tenant buyer would do to the degree the commission were to grant credit consideration against the sale price, it's a distinction without a difference because the CRA then is essentially funding the improvements, repairs, remediations, alterations. So whether they're coming out of pocket CRA to make the the the changes or they are seeing a sale price credited for those things, the CRA is paying either way. to Brian's proposal, and this applies to all three, do not sell at below appraised value. So Brian's offer of 1.056 million. If if you are to get there, do it with credit for the buildout that he wants to perform, the improvements, and the additional four units, so that the sale price remains the appraised value. And I'll tell you why. Because you will do a disservice to the values of all the other properties in the mass market area and surrounding neighborhoods by selling at below appraised value. You want to start there. And if you if you must

decide what level of credits for base rent, for prior improvements, and for future improvements and repairs and remediations is appropriate to land at the net proceeds to the seller in a transaction like that. But in all three scenarios, please let that sale price at the top be the appraised value. Excellent. Both inputs. Anything else at all? Not for me. Okay.

No, I mean I think we can bring a table like this for different properties on Monday with different scenarios. you know, one where you what's there now with the the parking garage impact, eliminate the parking garage and just assume you're going to sell them, have the different, you know, I know there's a $60,000 future credit for house. She mentioned 540 or so. We can show you both of those scenarios and what that does to the bottom line. So, you can at least see the implications of of the various different approaches. and he'll get us that if we so we haven't and and on our finance director's part any comments with respect to disposition and the CRA?

No, I mean you're going everybody's still rowing on the right direction cleaning up the blight and I mean what what these folks have done now versus what it was and what it could have been is is 180 degrees. So, it's really just I I say it all the time, but it's just math. That's what it comes down to. Whether it's the base rent, whether it's few, but I think what you're going to land on is what the parking number, the parking credit, or do you sell the property, that's where your nexus is. That's what's going to get you guys to the finish line is what's the dollar transaction amount that's going to get the nose to ass.

So to to his point, you've got to know if you took a parking lease or a parking agreement in L of the service space for the numbers of spaces you think you need. What would that have to look like to you to be able to know that at the termination point of that uh what you are going to do with you that you're going to be in a position where you have to talk about negotiating with being in a garage or what might ever be developed at that point in time and finding a finding spaces for that. That has to work into your willingness or not, you know, in which case you may not want to purchase it that way. Or

you could do what Commissioner McCarly was talking about is because you don't know where that parking garage is going to end up in that area. But if you craft something in there that says you're going to buy your spaces for X amount with us to be able to purchase them back at some point, some future commission that may be 20 or 30 years from now can buy them back with an accommodation of some sort that they would be able to occupy at some rate. Right. It's an option and they'd get first right of refusal if they whatever, you know, whatever you guys come up with. But I think that's what's going to get you guys to a to a landing spot on Monday. Okay. I'm trying to figure out we need to order lunch.

Let's order it. Let's do You probably need to order dinner. You know what? That's okay for this because leadership takes courage as you know. I just get hungry. Yeah. Let's make sure nobody gets angry. That's right. And it's okay. And and how we get together, how we get to a place together matters

and and nobody's voice is being disrespected here. It's just a willingness to get it done and to consider what we need to do to be strong and or walk and say this is whatever I'm saying here. I can't in good conscience hope for I'm all in on that, but doing nothing is where I want to go back to being irresponsible and that's the only place I want to point in that and and so um I want us to work in a responsible way. Commissioner M.

So I I feel like I'm totally in agreement with everything you said. I'm so grateful for all of your clarification and to me too that's that's the spirit in which I'm approaching this like to get to the decision. I know we have a lot of feels and we have a lot to express but they leave and if it's a no on what's presented then they are in the same morass that they've been in. So my goal is not to just count votes to get a yes for what I want. It is we have to figure out a yes to something like so if it is I think it's incumbent upon y'all to come with your favorite lease agreement on Monday as well because that's what I was trying to get to. If my colleagues cannot get to a yes on a but then they leave and then they don't know if there's the repairs they don't know. So we can feel great about all those things and I know your passion for that but that doesn't help them know where to go after Monday. So that was my my clarification is not to care about any of our feelings or to get everyone online. I'm just trying to assess so that Monday they come with either I either am leaving with a lease and improvements or I'm leaving with a sale that is palatable you know something like there there needs to you need to know that of the three things that we that we can get four votes for yes for something that is the thing you know like and it didn't seem like we were coalescing on anything in particular and that was the frustration for me

commissioner Leon Well, I will add to that. So, I believe we're all in the green. So, that my number one approach is to ensure that these businesses, no matter how it works out, that they are successful. I may be not aligned on certain things, but believe me, I feel every aspect and every pain and I've gone through many of those, some of them this week. And I get that. So, I think we're all in agreeance. They took the risk. Whether we agree all the numbers and stuff, I agree to what Commissioner McCarly said. Have two views. No matter what, you're walking out of here with something because you need to thrive. You need to grow. You need to expand. I did cheat. I tried one of your cookies. It was great. You know, you know, I love your space. You know, we use it. So, we want you to be made whole. I just want to say I know that I'm sort of the antagonist here. I guess I'm trying to be a businessminded guy, but at the same point in time, I want them to be honored. I want them respected, but more so in all, I want to see them grow three times than what they are. I want her to be booked out two years in advance where they're like, "I'm so sorry. I can't have you. Um, no, I'm not open until January of this." That's her goal. That's his goal. And that's where they need to be at no matter what expense if we need to remediate it.

Right. The other thing that Brian made a good point about the appraisal

because it, you know, of course in the media they're the reason when people are justifying should you give base rent, should you give these capital future imprisonments that we all thought was like buying them luxury items in their new space. That's the thing that gets that get looks like you're giving stuff away for free. And so we really needed that clarification. I don't think it does us any good politically to be able to say it still looks like we're giving this huge discount, but in my mind I just p I've purchased property, you know, commercial and residential. And at the end of the day, we come to a a price that's palatable for both sides. And it's not we don't at the end of the day go, "Well, gosh, they didn't really pay. They didn't I had the inspection done. I needed all these things. I use that as leverage to get my price down. I may or may not have to get those things done, but they actually do have to get these things done and it's actual cash for them to have to invest into the property. So, but it looks like they're just getting this deal and we're giving it away when it's written with the purchase price like this. So, that that's the we're dealing with the political issue of how it looks and how much we're giving away. You're dealing with an improvement of the area and the property values issue. So we we need to see why we have two different goals here uh on on how we phrase it and and what we market here on our our pricing.

Well, it's why I used the phrasing distinction without a difference. The end result is the same to the buyer, to the tenant, to the public that will evaluate your decision because the bottom line at the very end of the transaction will end up in whatever place you decide it needs to be. But the impact to the comps in that area will be dictated by the sale price. Right.

Well, but this looked simpler to and more palatable when you go, oh, they've offered me a figure for a price that's appraised at a certain thing. I can now know, do I want to go down that 20%. I am not saying, oh my gosh, it's we shouldn't give rent away. Then we're the next time we'll have to give rent away. We shouldn't build out their space because next time we have to build out their space. Do you see the difference of just knowing we are doing a real estate deal and what we're willing to give or take versus what we're setting a precedent for as a government? I do and it's why I explained how to get there if you want to get there

in a way that won't negatively impact other properties and values in the area. That that was all I wasn't taking a stand on credits or show the settlement statement to get to my deal. Right. Right. I feel like singing kumbaya right now. You have a contract with a price. Okay. Um, anything else on this at all before we go to item E? Thank you all for being here. I just got one more thing. I just want to add to what she said. I the the proposed price there is a higher um cash to city than what was presented in that.

I just you were being generous in the process. But we're all being generated. We're restating this. I get I just want to clarify that. It's not exactly anything else. Anything else? Anybody? Not anybody. Any anyone on the CRA would like to express chat? You heard? You're not.

Okay. Thank you, sir. Because you are and I would not want to risk not having you feel know that that's true. Okay. And again, anything that was offensive in my comments, I apologize for I my goal in this is to just be as insistent as I hope we can be together. And um uh so we'll see how we can end that on Monday. We have a very important last CRA consideration and um that's item E which terminates the acquisition and redevelopment of Onyx.

Yeah. Another challenge CRA is read here. Uh back in May of 2022, the the CRA and the city entered into a a redevelopment agreement with Onyx to build the Oak Street parking lot. Uh Patrick, I'm not sure if there's a photograph of the No. Okay. Well, I think you all know where just east of McKill downtown. Uh it's approximately 150 space parking lot. Uh under that agreement, they were going to develop a multif family retail office mixeduse development. They were to close within 12 months of the effective date of that agreement, which was in May of 2022. However, the agreement did provide them several different extension extension options. Uh they were allowed two free 30-day extension options and then if they wanted to exercise extensions at the closing date subsequent to that, they would have to pay $10,000 for each 30-day extension. Uh they have with the two free ones now requested 20 different uh extensions in the closing dates. Uh they've made $10,000 payments. Uh however, they stopped making those $10,000 extension payments on December 9th of 2024, so approximately a year ago. uh they met with uh staff uh I think the last time was in May of 2025 and expressed continued interest in in in developing the project and but there were significant modifications that they needed to make. Uh they have not made any extension payments uh after that meeting either. So the last extension payment was about a year ago. Uh so to date we have $180,000 in extension payments that are sitting with the escro agent. This is your $25,000 initial deposit. So 200 $25,000 in deposit. Uh we haven't heard anything from them in quite some time. I believe Valerie, you correct me if I'm wrong, but um you

know um so it's staff's opinion that we need to cut the tie here uh and move on with probably a new RP when that's appropriate. So that's that's staff's recommendation. I think that uh the developer is aware of this action and and plans to be here on Monday to address it.

I will tell you I met with them as well in May and modified the um recommendation saying come back to us with reduction in parking so that the numbers work for you. They would agreed that they would get that done. I have never received a thing and so as well as they've never made any additional payments and we talked at that time about the fact get caught up on payments at which time they indicated they would. So there has been a nonresponse and we originally met with them with the warmest of of uh regards because we really thought that they were a perfect fit for what we're going to try to accomplish there. They were cooperative in terms of some of the changes made. We pushed to get some affordable housing pieces in those units as you recall. We extended tiff generously and in terms of the pad offer. So this is a nonperformance that I feel uh we have been very disappointed by and surprised by because of their Tampa presence and some of the other work that they've done otherwise and may be very good reasons for them internally with respect to their business but they have not performed contractually to what they said they would do. I think what you're going to hear on Monday is they're going to say, "We've been continuing to work on this, but you know, the contract requires $10,000 payments every month, and we have not received those." So, they've been working at their risk at this point. If they have, I I I don't know.

Mr. You will likely hear what Palmer just described and you will also likely hear details about the impact of interest rates and market forces and things on the development program to their assertion that they can't make the deal work that is in the agreement that they agreed with and executed in May of 2022 to change the details of that agreement materially by removing moving significant numbers of parking spaces that were essentially the first requirement when we advertised now twice for proposals were that the 150 roughly spaces that are on the Oak Street surface parking lot right now have to be replaced and provided back to the public in a structured parking scenario. They agreed to that. They're now saying that it can't be done that that the math will not work. And that's fine. That may not be inaccurate, but either way, we can't just agree to change the agreement to that without readvertising for new proposals so that all the other developers who might have an interest and might be able to bring the the the the deal breaker details of this proposal project to bear would be cut out of that and and would have a legitimate, if not legally legitimate uh objection to us amending it without readvertising member Loland.

Yes. Uh so your recommendation is to terminate this and then we will keep uh the deposits that's would be our right under the contract. Yes. So that's all I need to hear. Commissioner M. Thank you. If we reissued the RFP, do is it are we planning the same one that we did several years ago or do we take that I mean what is that? Sure, we will take into account our experience through now two rounds. Um,

but there is a level an inherent level of risk in this that it when when we advertise and we get proposals, they'll be based on what developers know at the time and and a lot of it is outside of their control and ours. But that's, you know, sort of the risk they run and and and you know, with in communication with Onyx was additional investment that they have made since December of last year without having gotten formal closing deadline extensions that require those $10,000 monthly payments was awfully risky on the part of the developer. Thank you. Yes,

I'm trying to remember. Did they do another project in town or No, no, these are Okay, this is it. That's all the same and it's just been Yeah, they are. I mean, it's one of those things if it sounds too good to be true, you know, when we first it didn't sound too good to be true, but you know, market change, things change and you know, just like co and so things change all the time, but this is y'all have been very we have all been gracious and hoping they would extremely gracious. I agree. I think you the extension of time Yeah. and consideration and even come back to us with something that does work and getting nothing back. Um, and we have a contract, they have a contractual responsibilities. Developers know that,

you know, that's part of the risks and um, you walk away from some of those things sometimes and it's cheaper for us to walk away and I think we'll probably be that for them and we'll give them the opportunity to certainly represent whatever they want to say on Monday. Anything else on that one? Okay, we see S is a CRA and back to the commission meeting where we have Ashley performing her role brilliantly in light of the uh absence of her contemporaries.

Um okay, so the first item is for the approval of the 2025 report of local affordable housing incentives. This is a report that's required by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation um in Tallahassee each year. Um it has been approved by the affordable housing advisor advisory committee of the city and it needs to be approved by the commission. Its importance is that it helps to fund the shift pro program the state housing initiatives partnership program and those are the funds that provide housing for families at or below 140% of the area median income. So it's a required report. Mike, anything on this for us?

You've been so patient. I hate to have you. Mike Smith, housing programs manager. Um, the only thing was there was no recommended changes from our um from the incentives that they reviewed the 11 incentives. There were some comments on just tracking the legislative uh session upcoming with some of the things that got pulled last year that I think will come back up this year. So, I did take note of that. And also, one concern that has been come up last couple years is the rising impact fees. So, right now we have the means to with our incentives to kind of offset that, but we are looking at potentially maybe some changes in the future as those continue to increase, but right now there's no recommended changes. Um, so we're good with what we're doing now.

Just quick question. What is our AMI right now like as of today? the area median income. Um I we'll get a new update in April, but I think it was for family of four it was uh 67,000 I think

67 I think it was 67,500. So we based it off it'll go up a little bit in April and then we'll make our adjustments based on that. And just a quick kudos, I had um uh personal like contractual people I was working with at my home for something and one of whom works in the real estate industry and I told Theresa Mayo this um a couple weeks ago, but Mike Smith, you helped one of their clients do something over with housing in Orlando. there was some kind of issue with one of the vendors and they could not speak more highly of Mike and Teresa and the team here at the city of Lakeland of helping with that issue and I just wanted to say that publicly too.

Wonderful. You're another perfect example of our great staff and we are so thankful for you. You do a marvelous job. All right. Um that brings us to B which is in the purchase order.

Yes. Um, this is the purchase order with the redesign group for hardware upgrades and extended support of the virtual server infrastructure. The IT department received a proposal from the redesign group um for the city's virtual server infrastructure, VXL. Um, VXL is the hardware platform that hosts most of the city's servers. um by extending the support um the city will save approximately 500,000 annually over replacing the entire system. The total um estimated cost of the tier con contract is a million64,54. Um and this would be utilizing NASPO value point cooperative purchasing program.

And for clarity purposes, she said VX block, not VX box. So, we're I don't want to think we're playing any games in the IT department. Um, great. Um, that any questions on that? Wonderful to see it's saving money. Uh, but by the way, that then takes us to item C, which is consent. And do you want to leave item A on consent? All right. Yes. So, let's go to C.

Okay. So, item C is the approval of change order with Strong Trout for seven wetlands education center project. the change orders for $10,372. Um the original contract with John Trout included um schematic design services, design development services, construction document services um and administration services. Um that the original contract was $96,782. This change order is for um site planning planning and permitting expenses which includes incorporating Pulk County utilities requirements for fire and portable water supply lines, fire flow calculations and gopher tortoise information onto plants. Um the funds have been budgeted in the fiscal year 2026 budget and um and those funds are actually being paid for by a grant from FD that was awarded in 2023.

Any questions on this at all? Leave it on consent. All right. Good. Next.

Okay. So this next one um there's a little more to it. It's a task authorization with Atkins Realis for design permitting and construction services for um phase one construction for the southeast quadrant water main extension at Lakeland Linder International Airport and corresponding appropriations. Um the southeast um quadrant water man extensions um extends the water man into the southeast quadrant of Lakeland International Airport. Um, and it also will replace a 6 in water mane line along Airside Center Drive and upsize it to a 12-in water man. And they will complete the loop system um and enhanced fireflow. Um, this task authorization with Atkins Realis is for $231,900. Um, and it's basically for the design, permitting, and construction phase and includes bidding services um, and inspections. Um so the task authorization um with Atkins Realis is under the city's continuing contract for professional engineering and consulting services. So part one is the task authorization. Um part two is about the appropriation of funds. Um we're seeking the appropriation of funds from water utilities for the construction of phase one. And um the scope of work will be completed um under a task authorization with register construction engineering and that is for the construction of the line and that's again for $230,000 and it's um utilizing the continuing contract um with register construction engineering and um the other part of the request is the appropriation from funds for water utilities. The total amount which includes the amount for register to construct and it includes the amount for

Atkins realis for design and permitting um is 461,900. So that's the total amount of appropriations. So that's for both task authorizations. One task authorization with register was already approved and the second one is the one we're asking you to approve from Attakans realis in this um agenda item. So the 461,900 um um basically that amount of money um will the Lakeland Lender International Airport will reimburse water over a 10-year period um with a 4% loan. The total amount of that is $369,140. And um then the other portion will be paid by water utilities in the amount of 92760. Um so we are um asking the commission to authorize and appropriate authorize the task for authorization for Atkins Realis and appropriate the funds from um the corresponding appropriations listed on page two. And if you want me to go over the three appropriations I will but they're all from water utilities.

Okay. Um are there any questions on that? I have a question on why you do on a financial basis. Um Mike for why we have the why we allocate it over time on payback to the airport. I mean it's our property. I I can Yeah. Unfortunately I'm not familiar with this one. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Director. So actually because of the development can you go back a slide please?

Sure. um because of the development coming off of here out of the rightway and then around oops sorry I touched it um we're creating this development um and and we have a lot of the spots already sold um or leased so that's for our infrastructure from here down to the lift station that's down here the station that's down here um that would be through the maintenance fund of water utilities I believe is how they're paying for that but because this is for our infrastructure for our development. We're paying it and frankly it's a loan, right? We're we're we're paying it back over time as a loan just like any other internal loan would be

and they're not because of common maintenance fees or other things that you're applying to those lees. No, like some of the lees they are paying essentially like what we would call in a city like an impact fee or hookup fee or something like that to us. Um, we've done that to help us kind of offset some of the infrastructure cost, but it'll be nowhere's near the cost of infrastructure. Okay, got it. Question. All right. Um, thank you very much for that item. Uh, one ordinance for first reading. That is annexation of a piece of property into the boundaries of the Lakeland area mass transit. Oh, was item E? That was E. No, there's I'm sorry.

Okay. So item E is an amendment um to a contract with Atkins Realis for professional engineering services. This is for taxiway a shoulder project at Lakeland Linder International Airport. Um the amendment to the contract is for $458,653. Um, and it's for the the addition the taxiway A1 is a 30 foot wide paved shoulders and it's between runway 523 and taxiway A1 and um the amendment includes bidding and support and construction phase services um and resident project representation services. Um the reason this amendment is coming before you um now is because um the city received an additional grant from the FAA um for this project. And so um the total cost for and the existing contract was for a million um $9,40 bringing the total amount of the product to one,467,793. And um so we are recommending approval of the amendment to the contract with Atkins Realis.

Okay. Questions? Ask Commissioner Lant. Yeah, I guess I'm trying to understand. Maybe Chris can speak to it. It was a million dollars, but then we got a grant price went up. Is that because we're adding the

Right. So, um once again, Chris Alan, your airport director. What what happened is is normally when we get our grants from FAA, they're like one grant that covers design, bid services and construction and then the bid which is coming up next, the contract to build the actual physical uh project out. But what happened was there was two. So the design was alone standalone all by itself. And now we're adding the which we selected in the RFQ process, the bid services and the construction oversight uh services. That means there's somebody out there standing there saying contractor, yes, you did this correctly. Um as we go through projects. So that's what we're paying for in the second grant that we got.

That's 45% and it's all funded by grant except for our 5%. 5% of dot and 95% of a I appreciate I just wanted to get some clarification. You'd love those deals, wouldn't you? I wouldn't deal. All right. Any other questions on that? All right. Seeing none, that then brings us to our city attorney. Thank you, Ashley.

Um the first reading ordinance is for the annexation of lands into the Lakeland area mass transit district's boundaries. It's already in the city limits, but this would just be into the C connections boundaries. This is property's located uh I think you put the or Patrick's put the location of the property on the map there way up in the northeast section of of of the city at the intersection of epicenter boulevard and pul city road. Uh so this will just simply uh that the property owners has agreed to this uh and this will subject the property to the connections aborn I believe it's 2 mills uh uh five it's five mill 4.5

okay does that include any adjoining um this one is is is kind of unique in that it's more for like a outdoor storage uh location but it's tied to or related to some of the other business parks nearby that are in unincorporated county. Just trying to figure out why this property looks so familiar. Can we just that the truck line and then the the is gator freight? Gator freight. Yeah.

Um the uh Amazon uh on the old drag strip site or city road and 33 is down below. And so this one came through the uh to the Citrus Connection board of directors I think last month and is now coming forward for ratification by the city. Yes. Well, but you're right and and so you think about that. This is a great way for employees to get up there that wouldn't have an employment center. Absolutely. So, it' be terrific. Uh any other questions on this one or comments? All right. Next. Thank you, Chuck. My god, this takes a 71.

Good morning. Ramona Serani for the city attorney's office. Uh we have an agreement with Wolford, Inc. This is an update uh to the airport's business plan. The last uh airport business plan um that was developed was back in 2014 and since that time all the recommendations have been implemented um therefore the need to um develop a new um updated airport business plan. This will provide a a detailed analysis of the airport's business opportunities, its financial health um operating structure um in order to uh help develop key target areas uh for future growth and improvement of the airport. Uh the city's purchasing department issued an RFQ. Um in response to that, we had three uh contractors or consultants that uh provided uh proposals and Walper, Inc. was selected as the most responsive uh responsive uh um consultant to provide those services that best met the needs of the airport. That was comprised of a committee that included the airport assistant director uh the air the airport planning manager, airport customer experience manager and also the city's assistant finance director as well. Uh the following some of the key components of that will be to look at the mission value mission vision and values. Do a a SWAT analysis, strength, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Look at goals. Um a financial analysis of the airport including budgeting and accounting controls. also take a look at the airport's debt structure and future funding opportunities for future capital improvement projects and re review uh the airport operating structure and governments um as well as well as the economic impact to the overall community from the airport. Uh the term of the agreement would be effective upon city commission approval and it will continue

for a period of 12 months. The total cost is $345,000. However, that cost will be funded half of which 172,500 is through the public transportation grant agreement funding from FDOT and then the other for the remaining 50% cost will be provided from the unappropriated surplus of uh the airport's operating funds and we would ask for your favorable approval for this. I would add to this because you might think about why are we having to have an additional recommendation and study when we've just done the Atkins realis um master plan. This is completely different from that. This is this is about internal operations and internal um vision and missions. And you might want to just round this out a little bit Chris. I apologize.

Yeah, once again Chris also board director. So this is the business plan that we had talked about a little while ago. Um after executing our previous business plan uh fully in in a short period of time, we really need to look at how are we going to move the airport forward on the business side of the house, administrative side of the house. We do a lot of planning, you know, like terminal area master plans and and airfield master plans. This is like our business plan part. Um, you know, and especially with some of the future, uh, projects at the airport, they're being larger, bigger dollars. You know, we we are going to have our partners from finance come in with us and we're going to sit down holistically and look at our debt, our debt structure, how we're going to pay debt, how what's good, what's bad, you know, at what point can we get a bond rating of our own, right? And that kind of stuff. So, it's an opportunity to really look inward on our operation and and our business side of the house and see where our opportunities are moving forward. um paired with everything else we're doing at every one of these projects kind of pieced together to make one big picture of how we need to move forward with the airport as we move in the future

in a very responsible way. Thank you. Appreciate that. All right. Uh next item is the termination agreement with the FDOT uh for the New York Avenue pedestrian overpass project. Uh you probably remember that one from back in uh it's actually May of 2025.

Yes. that uh the city commission took that up and and and authorized entering into that agreement. Under that agreement uh CSX had had was going to allow the FDOT to construct an overpass over over their rideway at New York Avenue. Uh the DOT was going to pay all the cost of constructing that bridge and then the city just had to accept jurisdiction and many responsibility in the future going forward after it was constructed. Uh unfortunately a couple months later the legislature defunded that in their budget. So there's no money to for them to construct that project. The contract did provide and had a nonappropriation clause. I said if legislature don't appropriate money we can cancel cancel the contract. So that is what's happening now.

So for us to redo this we'd have to pass this again later if we thought the appropriations were going to exist and maybe not even in that location. Um oh it's years in the making I know I know

chip army human development um can kind of as we discussed previously I mean this this all goes back to the corporal study so from about 2009 to 2013 we were trying to figure out ways to mitigate the impacts of additional freight rail traffic through downtown Lakeland um and so New York Avenue is a part of that um part of that commitment from DOT to mitigate the the those impacts tax. Uh New York Avenue is also part of um uh it's not a standalone I mean it's it's really serves its own unique demand but it's also part of a larger network of bicycle pedestrian facilities downtown Lakew Wire and part of routes to get to B Springs and West Lakeland. The other thing that's strategic about York Avenue as well is is that it also connects the cycle track with Lake Wire and you know the Dicks Heights study that is will be uh discussed on Monday but also the West Lake Hunter Trail and connections as we extend further south and and west into um into throughout all parts of Lakeland.

So this is this is a very this is a very short section but it's very strategic. Um also a great separation across a busy rail line. Uh we were uh certainly disappointed that uh you know since the project was ready to go to construction or the construction contract was going to be let in March that we lost 11 to$13 million. Um the the hope is and and staff's recommendation is is that the commission also requested DOT refund um this project at its earliest available opportunity. Um, this legislation also really worth noting and the two field board members heard this the other day is is that it not only do we lose New York Avenue but also the city 60 overpass south of the uh the ILC in Winter Haven was also removed from the war program. So this was 11 to 13 million but there was another almost 70 million that was removed as well as well as other rail projects across the state including Tri Rail. Um, so there's there there are some implications uh throughout the state with losing uh this dedication for rail funding.

So it would go back your request if there was one later would be in the very same correct. Correct.

And we could wait another 10 years. Well, and that's and and that's no problem that that's you know the hope is is that we can make the request of DOT to refund at the earliest available opportunity and also you we've had conversations with the TPO as well of how do we how do we get this back on the on the priority list and then also are there other things can be done in the interim um to provide other connections and other routes you know uh throughout the downtown and lakewire area. So, um, you know, we're trying to have conversations with the TPO. Um, you know, this is very unfortunate, but we also want DOT to understand this is still important and we we still need to keep moving and not let it just completely drop off the plan.

I'm sure this is very Yes. And and it has to be very disappointing for you, too. Oh, it is. Um, no. And there's and and there's been, you know, I also don't want to underestimate the significant amount of investment and public input that's been put into this. There was the there are the feasibility studies, the partial development environmental study. There is some rightway uh funding that was also budgeted for the aerial rights over the rail line. Uh as well as the engagement on the design and the approaches and so there's still a lot of value on this a lot of value on this project and and we don't want those previous investments to be lost.

Thank you very much for that. This is a consent item because it's Oh yes, Commissioner B. Just curious with the lakewire study with the CRA if you'll kind of tie this into that. Absolutely. Absolutely. And in fact, we have we have have an exhibit, Commissioner Mccarly, we've got an updated exhibit that shows how all of this ties in together because once you get from New York or from you know this overpass to the cycle track, you're a,000 ft from the interotal center site and the Citrus Connection heard the other day the award of the contract for the environmental analysis for that. So everything in here is is all connected to each other.

So I would ask the staff to create kind of a very simple diagram of the pieces of the puzzle that we look at. Yeah. Because if you can only cross it once,

is that the best place? You know, better to know now than in 10 years, you know. So if we have a study on it and this is you know denied it's a good time as good of time as any to say if if this is the most strategic way we can all and and this is and this is something too that is the as the scope of the you know of the lake wire master plan was being discussed. We did add information about New York Avenue the interotal center all these other things that they're all built into the built into the into the program. Well, we can we we can certainly have um have a map that we can send around to show I know this is on right now on on consent, but we can we can have a map to send around to everybody that shows how this all plays out together.

Well, and even I mean it seems so simple to for me just to go right and then go down Missouri and you go right to Swan Brewing that way on my bike. But, you know, as Missouri you know gets more traffic that will be the thoroughare. New York is sort of saved for pedestrian bike, you know, friendliness. So, but you got to keep repeating that otherwise it does seem like the

bike and and with the quiet zone, you know, that's the other thing, too, is is that just we want to keep as much, you know, seal seal off the airport or downtown as much as possible. So, this is all, you know, also related to the quiet zone and and and so there's there's just a lot of different levels here that we want to we want to protect. If you felt like you want to take this off consent for purposes of just annunciation of I think it pairs well with the link wire study. It's also a lot more the lake wire study I think will be shared on Monday as well too. Correct. Right. I know part of freedom park wasn't discussed remediation of that property that would be necessary. That gives us an opportunity to talk about all that

and it's about connectivity. You want to take it off consent? I mean you think it's a good idea. Yeah, I do. I mean, yeah. Okay, good. Say it over and over over 10 years. Thank you very much. Okay, we take that one off consent. Thank you very much. And I'm sorry for the disappointment, but I appreciate the persistent pursuit. Well, we keep working at it. Number three,

uh this Ron County for the city attorney's office. This is an agreement with Napo Napa Auto Parts. They serve as the in-house parts uh store to manage the first of the inventory. Uh Ford fleet is an integral part of our our fleet um for parts, materials, and other items that includes fluids and tires. Uh we are seeking to um cooperatively purchase through the Hillsboro County uh Sheriff's Office RFP. Uh Napa has been our on-site supplier for services for fleet since 2010. So, this is a continuing relationship, just an an additional uh new piggybacking contract off the Hillsboro County Sheriff's um office uh uh contract. By utilizing this um the technology that interfaces with the the city's fleet software systems, we are gaining a number of efficiencies, a reduction in pricing and markup um markups due to Napa's national buying power. In addition, we take advantage of cost reductions through agreements between NAP and other companies for non-Napa parts, and we're also able to keep stock available um in the amount of $500,000 at no cost to the city um until work orders are issued. The term agreement will be effective January 1st uh subject to city commission approval. It will continue through 2029. Um, it also contains five additional one-year renewal options upon mutual written agreement of the parties. Uh, the total estimated spend that fleet um uh has every year is about $2.8 million and that is contained in Fleet's FY26 budget. Uh, any additional renewals that would be exercised would also be uh required to have uh budget approval by the city commission in those subsequent budget years.

This is, by the way, a fabulous arrangement uh in in so many regards because we make a commitment to them to keep uh half a million dollars worth of inventory uh or at least within that range and they have passed that on at 10%. And Gary Mlean's here.

I mean, I I as a former parts guy, I look at that and go, I don't know if they make any money. Gary, any comments on this? Uh yeah, Gary Mlean, fleet manager. Um this this contract shift, we're we're moving from Sourcewell to the Florida Sheriff's Association's bid. It's more predictable. There are a little couple more benefits, but it's mostly the same thing we've been doing, but we now we have a long-term agreement and nothing's changing and we're we're constantly falling in and out of contracts using source. This is nice and predictable and I'll probably retire before I have to worry about doing it or die, one of the two. So, great. And they supply, correct?

Oh, yeah. That's terrific. Okay. Any questions on this at all?

Uh, that would bring us to meetings. Uh, we're at Bentley Systems number number four. Number four. So, 74.

All right. Alex Landback for the city attorney's office. This is an agreement with Bentley Systems Incorporated for purchase of software subscription under their enterprise 365 public sector program. This is a multi-year purchase order uh that's going to be governed by the terms that and conditions that uh were recently amended last December. Uh the city us utilizes this suite of software across multiple departments. And so this is going to be getting us 88 software licenses for about seven applications. Purchasing is approved Bentley as a sole source provider for these products. This would be a three-year deal effective January 1. Total cost for all three years at the end is $455,945. Year 1 of 144,630 is included in its FY26 budget. Funding for years two and three would be subject to future approval.

Is it all water and sewer primarily? All right. I have water, utilities, electric, public works. Um I don't know anybody. Tracy Scott, Tracy Kurt Patrick, GIS manager. Uh, a lot of departments use it. Public works uses it some. Electric uses it for certain things. Substation design is often done with the software as well. Uh, there's water modeling, wastewater treatment modeling as well. But the primary product is MicroStation from excuse me from Bentley which is a CAD software similar to AutoCAD. Okay.

So primarily for design. There are quite a few software products there. We're using about seven of them today. We have access to a lot more though if we need to and we can try them out without additional cost. Uh some of it is for design, some of it is for modeling purposes. Got it. So do you tie so you use GIS as an integration to it or not at all? At times yes. Yeah. Okay. But most of this is for the engineering teams and controlling switches and and what would happen? Uh there's no control access through these software products. Okay. Those are typically done through SCADA systems uh from the wastewater treatment plant.

So it's modeling primarily modeling and and design. Okay. Interesting. And it is a subscription service. Gotcha. Any other questions or comments? All right. Thank you. I appreciate that. What's next?

Okay. uh lease agreement with Appraisal Central, Inc. This is for 3,000 square feet of hanger space that's located on the south side of the airport and on the eastern side of Airside Center. Appraisal um central has been a tenant at the airport since 2012. That particular lease agreement with Appraisal Central expired at the end of November of this year. So, the parties are now requesting to enter into a new lease agreement uh for an initial term of five years that would have a retroactive effective date of December 1st upon uh city commission approval. And it also contains two additional one-year renewals um upon mutual written agreement of the parties. That base rent for year one will be $1,317.50 per month or $15,810 annually. And then beginning on December 1st, 2026, base rent will be subject to an annual 2 and a half percent increase. And that 2 and a half% increase will also um occur for each renewal period as well if they are exercised. Uh in accordance with the lease, the airport will be responsible for paying all utilities that includes electric water, waste water, storm water, refuge collection, and heating, air conditioning as well. Uh Chris, any comments on base rent and per square foot and what's happening? And this is 527.

Yeah, so with this with this uh facility and he has to have there's no back wall, so it's like open bay. There's a fence that separates tenant space right there. It's been in there a long time. Um at that five uh at that 527, it's reasonable for what that space is. Um, and also a very long-term tenant who has never missed a payment in all those years, by the way. And that's value. Very good. All right. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Location.

Okay. We're from the city attorney's office. Um, again, uh, this is an agreement with Hubard Construction Company. This is for the construction component of the pave shoulders long taxiway A at the airport. You've heard the engineering component um change order that Ashley presented earlier. Um in accordance with FAA design standards um in accordance with the FAA advisory circulars uh TDG5 taxi ways require that 30 foot wide paved shoulder that was previously referenced. Uh so the city's purchasing department issued a bid in May of 2025 for construction services. They received only one bid and that was from Hubard Construction Hubard construction company. Uh the airport's engineer record Atkins Realis along with airport staff however evaluated the bid and determined that it met all the city's uh requirements. Uh pursuant to the agreement, Hover Construction Company's scope of work will include that installation of 30 foot wide paved shoulders along taxiway A and also will include the installation of new LED taxiway edge lighting, airfield directional signage, um some storm water drainage convey conveniences, some pavement markings and also grading of the airfield infield areas and also sought installation. The term of the agreement upon city commission approval, it's expected that the project will be completed in about 165 days. The total cost is 6,825,96725. However, that funding is uh allocated through a number of grants. The FAA airport improvement pro program grant will cover $3,761,17.95

cents. The city commission did approve that grant back in September of this year. Then there's also an FAA um program grant that covers $2,723,560.93 of that. And also lastly, an FDOT um aviation work program grant which will cover $170,649 which leaves the remaining of that to be covered from airport airport um surplus funds in the amount of $170,649.37 and there are no additional appropriations needed for uh this project for the services.

Grateful for that and expensive Yeah. Wow. That that's just because it bears so much weight potentially. Craig's item. Am I correct him to talk about this? Yeah. Uh good morning. Uh Craig Stewart. I'm the assistant director here at uh Lakeland Airport. Um yeah, this this project is to uh bring us up to uh FAA compliance um and the uh uh pave um shoulders um for the duration of alpha. Um shoulders were completed on the east side on our previous project. uh several years ago as part of the Alpha Bravo Charlie uh project. So this is just to bring the the rest of tax alpha up to up to standards and minimize f

minimize f generation and minimize f generation. Okay, interesting. Anything else questions? Thank you very much and thank you for the funding. All right, before I go to the next item, we're down to two commissioners. you just remind me we have a project workshop after this. So yeah, we got people I'm sure that are out there waiting and we apologize for that. We did not need realize we'd have the commission shrinkage we have today and so um we're rather than to waste people's wellprepared time we'd like to move that to a later point. Okay.

All right. So the uh next item is uh a couple of agreements uh recycle recycle materials processing agreements. Uh uh we're doing something a little different this year. We did an RFP. It had four different respondents to that and uh we are recommending that we split recycling into commercial residential. Uh so the city's recycling trucks will continue to pick up all residential commercial recycling at the at properties, but they will take that recycling to different MURF facilities. And MURF is a materials recycling facility. Um so you this will not affect you know the customers, they won't see a change to this. Will this affect where Salt Waste takes the recyclable materials? Um the way these these contracts are structured is we pay a fee to the different uh providers and different mers for the right to take our materials to them. They then clean, bundle and market our recyclables on a secondary market and that brings that raises money, you know, that creates money and whether we're in the red or the black depends on the balance between the fee that we pay versus what secondary market is bringing for those materials. Um so that's the way these contracts are set as well. the the residentials with with Republic which it which is has been for some time now and we have a new contract with recycling services of Florida for the commercial um and and Jean can briefly discuss you know the the recycling market has been very soft lately but uh we maybe we're bottoming out Jean

I hope so address the you know it's not just a question of what we pay to recycle material But yeah, to compare that to what we have, what would we pay county, we just land this material to Jean?

Jean Gin, solid waste manager, solid waste and recycling manager. Uh, so just to kind of give you a brief uh scenario of how it works, I know when you hear $154 a ton for recycling processing, that sounds like a big number. Uh, and in a single month, that does total $93,000 uh for processing. But what Palmer was talking about was what we call an average monthly value. Our recycling over FY25 had an average monthly value of $112 a ton based on its composition. Aluminum cans, paper, cardboard, all the different things that make up our recycling program. Um, which gives us $67,000 to work with. Of that, we take 85% which is $57,000. uh which has a so our our processing cost nets out at about $36,000 a month

for processing. It does cost us money. It's $59 a ton to have our recycling process. So you hear the $154 or $155 a ton. It actually costs us once all the uh value is added back in $59. But when you compare it to the landfill, the difference, we still have to haul the material somewhere. So the landfill would cost us about 28,000 uh and the processing is 35,000. So we end up at about a $7,500 to $8,000 difference uh in uh the recycling cost. So and you'd be filling a lot more the landfill faster. Correct. Correct.

Which has a big issue. Mhm. So yeah, you like I said, you hear that big $150 a ton price to take it into the door, but you back out the values and it and it takes it down to $59 a ton and by FY30, the landfill is going to be $56 a ton. So it it kind of narrows that gap and it gets closer and closer as time goes on. Yes, there's an important part to that, too. We also collect revenues from the residents, correct, and the commercial customers. They're paying rates. So, please don't assume that we're losing money. Last rate case you did, you bumped the recycling up a little bit. So, we're not losing money anymore. Okay. I know that we were

close to that. We were losing money before you raised the rates, right? And and I remember that trumpet over the balance. So make sure that that piece doesn't get forgotten that we also everybody's paying for their service as well. So when you add that in, we're not losing money. We're not make, you know, our goal is to break even. That's our goal is to break even or stay a little bit ahead because you're going to have those you're going to have those times where it dips even the commodity market dips even lower. Yeah.

And so we want to have that buffer in there. But but the rate change you made um made made the difference. Just to give you an idea, October we were our value our material is worth about $79 a ton and uh November it was worth 83. So we're getting a little bit back. I think we're heading in the right direction. Um why is that?

Uh just the commodities market, the secondary markets for uh fibers have gone up a little bit which is the cardboard and paper and all those things. Um yeah, Amazon about 50% of our stream is cardboard now. So, um, and then we did change the rate. Uh, so it's $3.60 per household is what people pay for residential recycling, which makes us whole. Uh, and with this contract, it it it gives us a little bit of uh breathing room.

Should we not be collecting something? Um, everybody always talks about glass because it does subtract from our value, but then we would have to take that tonnage of glass, which is the heaviest material in recycling, and move it over to uh uh to the landfill side. Uh, and so that's why we do that primarily. That's why we do that. I always wondered that we still recycle it. We still take it to either strategic or it's used for different applications and construction and things like that. So, and concrete. Um, so yeah, it's it's still recycled. Uh, it's just a negative effect. What about the cleanliness of our recycling at the present time? Contamination.

I have Nick lay with me here. He works very hard. He's our solid waste programs coordinator. Also handles all of our outreach and education. And our contamination rate for our residential program is right just under 18%. 17 point. We were in the 20s. We were in the 20s. That's above the national way. Naturally, yeah, the average is probably in the 30s or 40% as far as contamination. Ours is down around 17. Is film or a big contaminator? I mean, like bags and stuff. Yes, sir.

Yeah. Plastic wrap. Uh that, you know, I always try to equate it to you've got plastic water bottles, you've got the cardboard container that holds it, and then shrunk wrap in plastic. That plastic is shrunk wrapped in is not recyclable. If it is film, plastic film of any kind, it should not be in your blue container.

No, I see that you do a lot of educational stuff. Is there something that we do that certain times during the year? It seems like as we come at the beginning of a year, you know, a lot of people try to create, you know, new year, new year traditions or whatever things we like to do. Is that usually an optimum time to party send out a mailer is what's clean as opposed what's dirty.

So Nick Lace always program coordinator. Yes, commissioner. We do uh annual mailers um to talk about what is acceptable, what's not acceptable, but we also do um social media blast on a monthly basis as well as we do connect with all Lakeland residents via email. Um as well as we do offer um tours for local groups to go visit the Republic Murf. Um we do have that great relationship with them and they have offered to have you guys come out there and see the facility. Um as long as we can connect those together. I appreciate that. Was more for my wife to hear. She We got a little sticker on our little trash can. She'll take the recyclable bag that's still in the plastic

and then put it in undo the bag. you killed all the effort of everything you tried to tell. Sorry. Well, that's this is so common and people just don't realize it, but the sticker that we put on the can that has the pictures, that is the big winner. And I do my This is an OCD thing, but I do my neighbors trash cans all around me. I separate them to the opposite corner to the driveway so it's nice for the trucks to pick them up, you know. Yeah, I the rental fee I charge is that when my trash is over, it goes into theirs as well.

But but I'll when I'll pull them I'll pull the film out of their bags and put it in the other candy because it's so common. I do that and then you have to tell them and the picture because people mean well they just don't know. grab the bag of recycles and put bag our program I will say our program when you compare it to other cities and other you know agencies that do the same thing we do uh we are leaps and bounds ahead of everybody else and that's why we that's why we had four biders because our material is so clean good deal lot of hard work a neighborhood competition and ours can win

it's hard to move that needle. It sure is. Great. Congratulations. Glass doesn't count. Glass is not a plastic bag does. Yep. Which is so common. Okay. Uh that's that's finance. That takes us then to the next section. And we have a consent item there appropriation. So this one is is pretty straightforward. uh water utilities back in November got a F grant agreement approved for the Western front gravity sewer project. Uh this is simply appropriating that $1 million.

Okay. Couple utility items. Um I have a tax authorization with Geocentech Consultants. This is for the ground ongoing groundwater monitoring support out at Macintosh uh power plant. This is to comply with the coal combustion residual CCR rule for byproduct storage area out at the plant and geocent will be providing sample collection from the groundwatering monitoring wells. semianual detection and assessment monitoring support. Um preparing an annual groundwater monitoring um and corrective action report for the byproduct storage area. Uh conducting CCR landfill inspections and then just providing overall uh CCR support including regular meetings with Lakeland Electric staff. Upon approval, GSINTEC will uh commence the work which is anticipated to uh can be completed by the end of January 2027. All the services pursuant to the task authorization are going to be uh in accordance with the continuing contract for environmental consulting services that um the city commission approved back in November of 2024. All the reimburseable expenses will be paid in accordance with the city's consultant expense reimbursement policy. And then the total cost of the work is estimated to be 186,200. That is included in Lincoln Electric's FY26 budget as well.

Is it shared with or it's only about 112,000 with pay 60. So you see phase 40 because they own land. Good. Which might be something we would want to include in that I think just because it keeps it as a matter of record and keeps it forefront in people's minds and and liability. Not that it changes any of that. Okay. And then I anything else in that? No. Number two.

No, it's good. We're good. Last but not least, um an agreement with AI-S um Inc. This is for intelligent vegetation management systems for Lakeland Electric. This is for a platform to uh reduce the vegetation related risks across Lakeland Electric's transmission and distribution network. Um the goal here is to basically use AI, artificial intelligence, um remote sensing and analytics tools to enhance Ellie's ability to manage vegetation impacts on system reliability. We currently have almost 1500 miles of overhead lines that are on three-year uh trim trim cycles. And so there's often issues with hyperrowth of um vegetation, trees falling. And we currently use the Maximo uh system that we have for trim work management. But this would be uh a change. And this particular um AI- company, this would basically be a pilot project for a one-year period. They would be using satellitebased vegetation analytics, multi-year planning and budgeting tools, mobile workforce workflows, and a unified data dashboard to perform the services. The one after the one-year pilot project, uh, this would include four additional one-year renewal options upon mutual written agreement of the parties. The one-year cost for the pilot project is $99,900. If we were to exercise four additional options of renewal for a total of a five-year uh contract, we would be looking at just under $500,000, $499,500 to be precise. The cost for the uh pilot project uh term of one year is included in LE's FY 2026 budget and then the

remaining uh years should those rules be exercised and be subject to um city commission approval of the budget in those years. How comprehensive on the lines is this? I mean how comprehensively did we cover our technical expert Scott?

Scott Bishop Electric. Um just to set some boundaries real quick. I know this is the last one of the day. It's been a long I go fast. Uh we spend $9 million on men and chainsaws. This year we're going to spend cutting trees. So it's a huge part of our reliability. It's a significant effort. This thing takes our GIS GDB file analysis and does a threedimensional rendering of all of our circuits. Three-phase, single phase, all that lays on satellite image on top of it and based on chlorophyll coloring uh weather growth pattern satellite imagery determines a um nexus for where you need to be. So tactically we can move our time and materials crews around faster and maybe even move our trim cycles away from three years to two in some areas and four in others. The idea is to get more efficient one at how we spend our dollars and two at stopping outages before they happen as a result of trees. So we're excited about this one. Uh we're not the first people to use this. Tallahassy's got it in a pilot phase. There are other utilities in Florida that are using it. Uh the big IUS like Energy and stuff out the Midwest are saving millions of dollars a year. Of course they spend more than we do. So the idea is that this thing becomes the catalyst for uh efficiently managing trees, driving reliability and driving efficiency of the dollar we spend. So we're going to pilot this thing first and hopefully it works out. So far it it seems to in other spaces in the industry. We're going to grab it uh utilize it uh in May. I'm coming back before we do our uh storm kind of preparedness and readiness that we always do and I'll give you how this thing is rocking for us or not and show you what's what it's capable of and how we're getting ready for storm hardening reliability with this thing coming forward. We're expecting this thing to make a market difference in our reliability numbers and not just efficiently how we spend money. So, and I'm going to bring that back in May, right before storm season, because I expect some results to actually really happen

fast in terms of being able to assess. I can move chainsaws and men like that. So, this is using a static satellite picture of at some given point in time. It it snaps and then we get updates. So, it's not a we not all the time. It's not a real-time satellite map. They'll give you an image and then right now we're set for once a year. Got it. Right now, we're set for once because of the price we got. You you can scale that. get it monthly and then the price is insane. But I want to see it work first before we go what we need to get on this. Would you cut back more in some of the areas even than you would normally cut back as a result of this as well? Not only that you'd be in there, but that this area grows faster. So we're going to go two/3 or I mean another third

potentially. Yes. And get further out in those areas that got to come back more often because the truck roll cost dollars. So lessen truck rolls, keep reliability up and efficiently spend money. That's great. Good stuff and affordable and we kept under 100,000 which is really good. I do deal. He does. Okay. Anything else at all from utility? Anything else from you uh guy or myself with respect to the good of the Thank you very much for all your patience this morning as we went through these things. Everybody's leaving very happy.