City Council - Regular Meeting

Today we gather here not just individuals, but as neighbors who share something simple and powerful, a responsibility to one another. The work of a city is not abstract. It lives in roads that are maintained, in parks that are cared for, in decisions that shape daily life in quiet but lasting ways. It is at its core about contributions people have made through their labor. It's also a fitting reminder that progress rarely comes from a single grand act, but from steady, thoughtful effort, from showing up, from listening, even when it's difficult, from choosing cooperation over division. That same spirit is reflected in the responsibilities undertaken in this room today. With that shared commitment in mind, it's worth reflecting on the words of Jane Addams, The good we secure for ourselves is precarious and uncertain until it is secured for all of us and incorporated into our common life. Her words remind us that the well-being of any one of us is tied to the well-being of all. The decisions made here do not exist in isolation, but ripple outward into the lives and families and neighbors and future generations of the city. May this meeting be guided by clarity, fairness, and a shared commitment to the common good. May the work done here reflect not only good governance, but also respect for the dignity of every person in this community. And may we leave this evening a little more connected and a little more determined to build something worthwhile together. Thank you.

Thank you.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic

indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Please be seated.

Okay. Okay.

I will just inform all the projectors in this ceiling is working, but the one behind me will not be working, okay? This afternoon we have a fire department awards. Fire Chief Ezell.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. It's my pleasure today to be up here to present some awards that we had for a call that we had back in July of this year. It's what we would call one of those once-in-a-career type calls that we have. It was a rapidly developing scene. There was an imminent risk to life of one of our citizens, and your personnel did exactly what they do. They rose to their level of training. And they affected a positive outcome in a matter of just a few minutes. It was really amazing work by everybody on the scene, but we have a few folks we're going to recognize and stand out. So just to give you a little background, today we're recognizing some of our men and women to recognize their courage, professionalism, and decisive action demonstrated during a structure fire that occurred on July 5th in the area of 5th and Pitt Street. A call came in at approximately 10.59 p.m. Our dispatcher received the call from one of our community members seeking to help report the fire, and it had a report that there was a possible three people trapped inside the house. One of the people that was trapped in the house called 911 moments later to state that they were unable to escape the house. The door had gotten too hot, there was too much smoke, too much fire, and they were screaming for help. Claremont Fire Department was dispatched and the first units arrived on scene three minutes later at 1103. They then completed a rapid scene size up and immediately advanced crews with hose lines into the house to attack the fire while simultaneously executing a search for the trap victims. After locating the victim, Lieutenant Jason Ness directed his firefighter, it was just himself and the firefighter, the third member on their team was running the pump back at the truck, and he asked his firefighter to continue the attack on the fire so that it would provide cover while he worked to remove the victim from the fire. At four minutes into the scene, Lieutenant Ness successfully removed the trapped victim from the fire. and every member on that team contributed to that positive outcome on that scene. To understand the depths of the emergency, we would like to share a video clip of the fire incident that occurred on the evening of July 5th. The footage highlights the conditions the crew faced and the remarkable professionalism they demonstrated throughout the response.

Ma'am, what's going on? Jenny I Street and West Pearl Street, Tower 103, Engine 103, Battalion 103, S.U.S.G.

1, Battalion 101, Engine 95, and Engine 89.

Oh, my God. Please. May I have the fire confirm and take this? Stand by if you have any more information, okay? Are you losing it now? No. No. Oh, my God. Now, maybe... Make sure you have a closed door. No, we can't. Please help me. Oh, my God. What? No. Oh, my God. I'm getting closer. Just get me out of here. I'm getting dirty. I'm getting dirty. I'm getting dirty. I'm getting dirty. I'm getting dirty. I'm getting dirty. You're going to be a system engine 101 in the pickup. I need you guys to come to the seat.

We will take notes.

I was chilling listening to that tape. So that was all footage from dispatch, the caller, the dispatching information that went out over the radio. So that's how the guys were receiving that information that night of the call. So tonight we're going to be recognizing the complement of the units assigned at the structure fire. That was Battalion 101, Battalion 103, Engine 101, Ladder 102, Heavy Rescue 1, Engine 103, Tower 103, Groveland Engine 95, Mineola Engine 89, and our Lake County Fire Rescue EMS unit. Each of these units played a critical role in the success of this operation. Their coordination, communication, and commitment to duty exemplify the highest standards of fire service. Their actions demonstrated exceptional teamwork, dedication, poise, and control under intense pressure. The professionalism and commitment shown by our department members exemplifies the highest standards of fire service. And we are here to recognize some of those heroes that risked to save a life. So we're going to be doing a couple of awards and going back to talking about Lieutenant Ness and what he did. He was with a firefighter that had less than six months worth of experience. So with that little time on the job, he had to have complete faith that that firefighter was going to be capable of being effective in controlling the fire to allow him to get the victim out. Secondly, one of our cardinal rules is we do not split teams. But that was a decision that he had to make. Under those circumstances, we had limited resources on scene at that point. We only had our incident commander, their unit, and one other truck that was there. And the other unit was engaged in doing something on the other side of the house. So the lieutenant made that decision to split the crew up. That's something that puts him as well as his firefighter at extreme risk. And for that, we're going to be recognizing him with the Medal of Valor tonight. So one thing I'd like to do, I ran across a recent award that was done. This was a similar type of event, except this was a trench rescue. And this was Fire Captain Gus Stewart, and he was awarded the Ben Franklin Award of Valor back this past August for saving a life in a trench rescue operation. event that happened. And the reason that I want to read this is that he did an amazing job when he accepted that. And with the exception of changing his speech from a trench call to a house fire, I'm going to read what he what he spoke word for word. It captures the whole essence of why we're here tonight. And just how this isn't about the people that were there, but about the entire department and who we are as a culture and an organization. So this is Fire Captain Gus's acceptance speech for the award. Before anything else, I want to make something clear. This story is not about a rescue because moments like that don't belong to the person who happens to be standing there when they happen. They belong to the badge. And the fire service has never needed more heroes. It has always needed more firefighters worthy of the badge. What the badge really means. Spend enough time in this profession and you eventually learn something about the badge that most people never see. From the outside, people may see courage, heroism, extraordinary moments. Firefighters know it means something different. The badge represents responsibility. It represents the quiet understanding that when someone's worst day arrives, someone has to step forward. Not someday, not when it's convenient, right then, right there. And none of us knows when that moment will come because we are never more than one set of tones away from our darkest moment or our finest hour. That is why we train. That is why we prepare. That is why we push each other in the firehouse day after day. Because by the time the tones sound, it's too late to train. An extraordinary promise. Stay in this profession long enough and you will see things that most people will never have to see. You will stand in someone's living room while their world falls apart. You will walk out of a hospital at sunrise knowing someone didn't make it through the night. You will drive back to the station in silence after a call that no training could have ever fully prepared you for. Somewhere along the way, you begin to understand what this job really is. The profession is not built on extraordinary people. It is built on ordinary people who made an extraordinary promise. We made that choice the day we took our oath. Everything afterward is simply learning to live accordingly. And if we are honest with ourselves, none of us gets it right every day. There are seasons in this profession when we fall short of the character that the badge deserves. But the badge has a way of calling us back. It reminds us who we were supposed to be. And eventually, every firefighter has to confront a simple truth. The badge is only as good as the heart behind it. Maybe that is one reason we keep it polished. It shines brightly enough that every once in a while, we have to see ourselves reflected in it and decide whether the person looking back is worthy of wearing it. The currency of humanity. That is why humanity matters so much in this profession. Arrogance has no place in a calling built on service. Arrogance is the antithesis of compassion, and compassion is the currency of humanity. Every call we run, every life we touch, every moment we step into someone else's crisis, we are spending that currency. The fire service remains one of those rare places where people still spend it freely. We enter homes where we weren't invited because someone desperately needs us there. We meet strangers on the worst day of their lives. We see people frightened, broken, angry, embarrassed, grieving, and sometimes completely helpless. And for however long they belong to us, we serve them. That is the job. The higher we climb, Stay in this profession long enough and something else happens. We gain experience. We take on responsibility. Maybe we promote. Eventually, people may start looking to us for answers. But the longer we serve, the more obvious another truth becomes. The higher we climb, the less we matter. Because leadership in the fire service isn't about standing above people, it's about standing behind them. making sure they succeed, making sure they grow, making sure they are prepared, and above everything else, making sure they go home. Our shift means the world to us for that reason. They are our second family off duty and our first family on duty. Every firefighter understands what that means, because perhaps the greatest responsibility we carry isn't the call itself, it's the firefighter standing next to us, making sure they go home, every shift, every time. Someone's worst day is coming. Somewhere out there tonight, someone's worst day is coming. They don't know it yet, neither do we, but eventually the tones will sound. A fire truck will arrive, a firefighter will step off that truck, and they will look at whatever is waiting for them. They will see what needs to be done, and they will move forward. Not because they are the only person that could do it, but because someone has to be standing there. There is an old truth that says there is no greater love than laying down your life for someone else. The fire service is one of those places where that kind of love still shows up in the world. Sometimes loudly, more often quietly. The firefighter in the house. That's why a story people might expect to hear about a rescue doesn't really belong to the firefighter who happened to be standing there. Because the firefighter standing there in that house that day was replaceable. That doesn't diminish the moment. It honors the profession. Because if we were doing the job the way it's supposed to be done, any one of us could have been standing there. The decision to act wasn't made in that house. It was made long before that. It was made in the firehouse, on the training ground. during the drills that we didn't feel like doing, during the repetitions that seemed pointless, during the conversations around the kitchen table, during the corrections from senior firefighters, during the days when nobody was watching. Because when someone's worst day arrives, we don't rise to the moment, we fall back on who we've already become. This is the responsibility every one of us carries, not merely to make sure we are ready, but to make sure the firefighter standing next to us is ready too. Because every firefighter understands something the rest of the world rarely has the reason to think about. We are never more than one set of tones away from our darkest moment or our finest hour. Today, it might be one firefighter standing in that moment, but it could have been any one of us. And perhaps the single greatest beauty of this profession is knowing that tomorrow, it will be. Thank you.

Thank you, Chief.

So we have three groups of awards we're gonna do today, and we're gonna start off with the Medal of Valor, which is the second highest award that we have in the department. This award is given out to an individual for exceptional bravery at imminent risk of serious bodily injury, or for excellent courage for performing a voluntary act in an extremely dangerous situation. So I'd like to invite Lieutenant Jason Ness to come forward. So, Mayor, Council, if you'd like to come down, I'd invite you down for a picture with Lieutenant Ness. Also, I have senior staff come up for photos.

One two three, one two three, one two three.

I'm gonna get a video.

There you go.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm Lieutenant Ness. This comes to a surprise to me. I appreciate it. I appreciate the opportunity to be a part of Claremont Fire Department. It's been God's grace that I was able to be here for this long and the way it's gone through my life. And there's no way we could have gotten the outcome that we did without everybody that was on scene. So it wasn't just an individual. This was a whole team effort. And I appreciate you guys. Thank you.

Thank you.

So the next set of awards we have is the Distinguished Service Award. This is given out for highly credible accomplishments, bringing public acclaim to the department or fire service as a result of devotion to duty or service to the public above and beyond normal duty functions. So one of the other things that was interesting on this call, we had a lot of new things happening. One of our newly promoted battalion chiefs, he was the one that sounded really calm and collected in the background, calling in the EMS unit to meet the victim on the Bravo side of the fire. That's Battalion Chief John Fagan. He promoted to Battalion Chief on June 1st. So literally 30 days plus a few days later, he's on the fire of a career. And he performed flawlessly. And the balance of Lieutenant Ness's crew, we had Firefighter Grant Kelly, who, like I said, was in his first six months on with the Claremont Fire Department. And we had now Engineer Jacqueline Collazo. She was writing up as the engineer that day. So she was writing out of position that running the pump on the truck to ensure that they had an effective fire stream while inside, something that they absolutely needed. That was to keep them safe and being able to affect the rescue. So for that reason, we're recognizing these three for their distinguished service. So I'd like to invite Battalion Chief John Fagan and Firefighter Grant Kelly to come forward. Unfortunately, Engineer Collazo could not be with us today.

Okay, one, two, three, one, two, three, one, two, three.

Our last group of awards is going to be Our unit citation, that's going to be for the balance of the folks that were on the alarm. The unit citation is awarded to a company for performing beyond normal expectations in an emergency situation, exemplifying a company's teamwork, dedication, poise, and control under pressure and expertise in the field. And that was pretty much everybody on that scene tonight. And like Lieutenant Ness says, in order for us to be able to effectively go in there and do the job of pulling somebody out, everything else has to be happening outside the house. and we never know who that person's gonna be that's gonna be in the spotlight, but you know, it could be any one of us. So, I'm gonna start with Ladder 102. We have Lieutenant Nickerson, Engineer Sanders, and Firefighter Brown Hurth. We also had Firefighter Lux on Ladder 102, but unfortunately he couldn't make it to be here with us today. Next we have Engine 103. We have Lieutenant Watkins, Firefighter Ramon, and Firefighter Costas. And Engineer Floyd, who was on Engine 103 that day, is unable to be with us today. And I'm also going to mention Heavy Rescue 1. Unfortunately, none of that crew could be here today. That was Lieutenant Wozniak, Engineer Green, and Firefighter Lewicki. Last up, we have Tower 103. That was with Lieutenant Tim Smith, who's with us here today, and Engineer Jimenez and Firefighter Nieves, neither of which were able to attend.

So, Lieutenant Smith.

And also, last but not least, we had Battalion 103, which was Russ Stromberg. He was unable to be here with us today, but these are the folks that are receiving the Unit Citation Award today. Thank you.

Okay, one, two, three. One, two, three. One, two, three.

That's it. I'll just, I'll just continue with the boards. Thank you, Mayor and Council. I appreciate the time today to be able to recognize some of our folks. And like Captain Stewart said, it's not about standing above people. It's about standing behind them. That's what's important to me and my team. So I thank you for your time today.

Thank you, Chief. Before you all leave, I noticed a lot of them have family members here. I would like to give them an opportunity to come up and get a picture with their family members that has one here. Because while they're out there making sacrifices and risking to save our lives and protect us and everything, the families at home... making sacrifices as well. So we need to make sure we make them feel just as welcome because it's all a team and family thing. So I would like to take a few minutes and just hold off for a few minutes. Anyone want to take pictures with their family member, please come on. We need time to do that. Thank you.

Thank you. 10-2-3 One, two, three. Thank you. One, two, three. Thank you.

Again, thank you from the residents and the members of the city council. Thank you all for all you all do and the sacrifices you all make every day protecting the city and the residents of Clermont. And as I said, the families make those sacrifices as well. Even though you are out there, they got your back when you get home. So we appreciate them as well. The next item on me is the public comments. If you wish to address the council, In person, please come to the microphone and state your name and address. Once in-person comments have concluded, we will move on to virtual comments. If you are participating online on Microsoft Teams and wish to provide comments, please raise your hand. and you will be called on to unmute your microphone when it is your turn to speak. If you are participating by phone, you will press star five on your phone to raise your hand, and when called upon, you will press star six to unmute your microphone. For all virtual participants, if you wish to comment on other items on the agenda, please stay on Microsoft Teams or on your phone, and raise your hand when the item comes up on the agenda. This portion of the meeting is only for items that are not on the agenda. In the interest of time, efficiency, and ensuring that everyone who wishes to address the council is given an opportunity to do so, each speaker will be permitted three minutes to address the council. To avoid disruption of the meeting, speakers should avoid inappropriate language, personal attacks, and derogatory statements and direct comments to the city council. Everyone is requested to be respectful of each other even when we disagree. Yes, sir.

Hello, my name is Mark Preston. I live at 381 Sky Valley Street here in Claremont. I've come today to discuss the surveillance cameras or artificial intelligence cameras that Claremont currently is supporting. And I want to say that those who oppose surveillance for improper purposes reminds me of what Ulysses Grant said as he walked out of the courthouse at Appomattox. I quote, I believe their cause is one of the worst for which a people ever fought and one for which there was the least excuse. And then Mark Twain comes to mind when people say to me, well, you've got nothing to hide. You don't have to worry about surveillance. And Mark Twain said, clothes make the man. Those who go around naked in society have little influence. I had asked the city clerk for some information about the surveillance cameras. One of the things I asked was for the emails. Turns out there were 62,818 emails involved with setting up these surveillance cameras. I don't know how many people read them or wrote them, but if it was 100 people, or no, if it was 50 people, that would have been about 1,256 per person. Because the clerk had to redact them, it would seem to me that Claremont has something to hide, but that's a story for another day. It seems odd to me that localities, municipalities like these things and don't seem to have any understanding that literally will become a civil rights violation. We weren't given the Bill of Rights as, well, that's the word they use in a legal sense, but those were things that were inalienable in the sense of human nature. And every time somebody drives by one of these cameras, they're under surveillance as though they're a potential criminal I find that to be detestable. I know there's not a lot of support for this in cities, but as I said in my email to all of you, except for Mr. Wong and Mr. Wagner, I didn't know I should have emailed them. It went from 90 to 120 cities in two weeks that have canceled their surveillance cameras. The state of Florida, Governor DeSantis has canceled them, and the Lake County commissioners have now canceled their surveillance cameras contract. I'm asking you all to give some serious consideration to putting the Fourth Amendment ahead of what seems to be public safety, because at what point is there enough surveillance to make us safe? Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Good afternoon. Before you start my clock, is there a way I can show pictures?

Just keep in mind, ma'am, any pictures you show, you have to turn them and leave them with the clerk, okay?

Oh, shoot. I didn't know that.

Okay.

Well, that's all right. Here we go. Good afternoon, Mayor, you all know me, members of the council and city manager. My name is Lisa Brzezinski and I reside at 2196 Caxton Avenue in the Kings Ridge community. And I'm here today representing Kings Ridge in my role as the HOA president. I'm here to clarify a statement that was made at the last council meeting and to share a really positive update regarding our community landscaping. First, a really quick clarification. It was implied that Kings Ridge is currently passing guidelines for under eve permanent lighting. I know that came up last meeting, and that's not entirely accurate. To clarify, the under the eve permanent lighting has only been discussed by our architectural control committee. The matter has not yet been put before the board for any discussion, let alone a vote. So in fact, our ACC committee is holding this topic for any further discussion until the city has made a decision on the dark sky ordinance. So don't worry about Kings Ridge. We're not lighting up the town. Secondly, a comment was made at the last meeting that the council rarely sees the results after a variance or permits are approved. That's going to change today. but I can't show you because I didn't know I had to submit it. So Kings Ridge, those of you who've been in our community know we have these very large trees along the Kings Ridge Boulevard, Danbury Mill, Chapel Hill. And those trees are enjoyed by our residents, and they're a major selling point for our community. However, as Kings Ridge has matured, those oak trees have also matured. Those that were planted in our parking lots have been dying due to lack of water and nutrients because they're so large that their drip line is too large to get all the nutrients it's covering the parking lot. So right now, we have distressed and dying trees at our East Wing and North Spa parking lots. We have a lot of parking lots over there. And it's a really sad sight, which unfortunately you can't see. In 2025, Kings Ridge did have this exact same situation in our main clubhouse parking lot, and the city did grant us permission to replace 31 dying trees with 34 four-inch caliper Muskegee crape myrtles. Thank you, Kurt. And our clubhouse parking lot now looks really nice again.

Yes, it does.

You wouldn't be able to see it. The trees are thriving, they're beautiful, and it's a much better fit for the space. Thanks to the permit we recently received from the city, we can now move forward with that exact same plan for our east wing parking lot and our north spa parking lot. We're going to be removing 15 trees that have been identified as dying across those two parking lots and replacing them again with those crepe myrtles. And on behalf of Kings Ridge, I'm sorry, I want to thank you and the city staff to help with this permit. We're excited to restore the beauty of our community and thank you, that's really all I wanted to say. Thank you for your time and thank you for what you all do for Kings Ridge. Who can I leave this with?

Ma'am, how many pictures you have?

I've got only four pages.

Okay, Tracy, can we make copies of those? Go ahead. I'm going to give you a minute to go ahead and show them real quick.

How can I show them?

You insist on us seeing these pictures, so. They can see that.

Oh, look at that. Yeah. Now, can they?

Hang on. He'll adjust it in just a moment. He'll adjust it.

Now, if I knew that, I'd have just handed him. There we go. Bravo.

Okay. Okay.

So thank you for the additional time, Mayor. I appreciate that. These are the trees along Kings Ridge Boulevard, the main boulevard in Kings Ridge. And this is Danbury Mill and Chapel Hill. These are all our association roads. We have 15 sub-neighborhoods. These are just the main roads. And these are the extraordinarily sad trees that we have in the East Wing and North Spa parking lots. You can see terribly thin. I mean, no oak tree should look like that. We feel sorry for them, and they're going to meet their maker.

Wow.

This is our clubhouse parking lot now where we have the crepe myrtles, and you can see how it is so much. Well, you probably can't see. Do you have a little picture?

Perfect.

So you can see how it's a much better fit for the space, and our other parking lots will look the same way. So thank you very much.

Thank you, ma'am. And if you would get the clerk over there, she was trying to get you some coffee. You don't need them? Thank you.

Hi, my name is Aminta Quintero Jackson. I live at 13219 Oleson Court here in Claremont 34711. And I'm here to introduce myself as a co-chair of the Braver Angels Alliance of Central Florida. If you're not familiar, Braver Angels is the country's largest cross-partisan volunteer-led organization working to end toxic political polarization. We promote courageous citizenship, which means building relationships and increasing trust across political and societal differences. Our goal is to strengthen civic action and democratic function. So we help our members in our meetings, members of our community, develop skills to listen, speak, and connect, not to change each other's minds on issues, but to change how we view each other when we are together. We meet the second Saturday every month at 9.30 a.m. at Cooper Memorial Library. As you know, questions, opinions, correct and incorrect information about the amendments on this November's ballots have been rampant on different social media pages in our community. One of the most divisive has been Amendment 3, which would end homeowners taxes except those designated for schools. And so in an effort to heal partisan divides and encourage in-person dialogue, our alliance wants to bring people together to help clear up misconceptions. To do that, we are hosting a panel about the amendment and all of the amendments on the ballot that will be held october 15th at the claremont arts and recreation center at 6 30 p.m keisha m dawson harris who is the founder of the resilient tax group and an enrolled agent with the u.s department of the treasury will be there representing the league of women voters and will give an overview of each bill on the ballot And Sadaf Knight, who is the CEO of the Florida Policy Institute, which is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing policies and budgets that improve the economic mobility and quality of life for all Floridians, will also be on the panel. We also have a reporter from the Orlando Sentinel, and I'm hoping one of our representatives from Lake County, one of the candidates that was running for office. I'm waiting to hear back from them. We will also have time for moderated Q&A at the end of the panel. And seating is limited, so we are requesting registration by using the link on the code on this handout. I'm not sure how you guys handle handouts. I can leave some here if that's the policy. We do accept donations, but there's a code on the Eventbrite page that will make the event free. Thank you all for all that you're doing to help our area thrive and hope to see you there.

Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

Valerie Shewitt, 931 West Montrose Street. Strongtowns has written quite a bit about a phenomenon they call the cult of the fantasy pedestrian. The basic idea is that we often design our cities around the convenience and efficiency of cars first, and then ask pedestrians and cyclists to behave perfectly within whatever is left. So the fantasy pedestrian always walks however far out of the way we ask them to find a crosswalk. They press the button and patiently wait. They never walk somewhere we haven't explicitly told them to do so. Meanwhile, we might design a wide, comfortable road that naturally encourages a driver to go 40 miles an hour, put a sign that says 25, and assume that drivers will behave perfectly as well. Or we'll look at a dangerous crossing and say, of course, pedestrian safety matters, but we can't put a crossing there because that would interrupt traffic. And eventually you realize how backwards the order of operations can become. So I do want to be careful with that statement, especially here in Claremont. Traffic is the biggest frustration our residents have. And I agree that moving people efficiently matters and we should not create unnecessary congestion. But there's also another side of that coin. When we make it safer and easier to walk and bike, we give people a viable transportation alternative. So improving bike and pedestrian infrastructure isn't in competition with addressing traffic. It's a part of how we do it. There's an important distinction between saying that traffic flow matters and saying traffic flow can never be inconvenienced. And that's what I want you to hear. Because if every safety improvement has to pass the test of will this have absolutely no impact on drivers and parking, then we're not really treating safety as a priority. We're treating it as something we can do with whatever space and capacity are left over. So I'd like to offer a different order of operations as you make these decisions. First, what does the street or intersection need to be so that a kid on a bike, a vulnerable pedestrian, and someone driving can reasonably use it safely? And then within that constraint, how do we move vehicle traffic as efficiently as we reasonably can? Sometimes the nature of a road and what's around it means cars should move quickly and nothing needs to change. But sometimes making a place meaningfully safer will mean a driver has to slow down, wait a few seconds, or experience a small inconvenience. And I think we have to become comfortable saying that not every inconvenience is a transportation failure. So when this tension comes up in Claremont, and it already has even in our discussions at East Avenue, I'd like to encourage us to notice it and just check our starting assumptions. Can we ask ourselves, are we appropriately prioritizing and actually balancing pedestrian safety and traffic flow here? Or have we already decided that cars cannot be inconvenienced and therefore everyone and everything else should work around them? I appreciate you giving this thought. Thank you.

Thank you. Yes sir.

I am farmer Banks Helfrich. I live in the Clay Road District, farm tip of the day. Did you know that worms, earthworms, consume all organic matter? Kitchen scraps, actually bark, trees, cardboard, paper. Believe it or not, many of the clothes that we're wearing right now are cotton, and worms will actually eat the cotton. They produce black gold, black soil, very rich. And this would cut down our landfills mayor council distinguished guests Can political discourse contain kindness compassion and decency? Kindness on our last bed at our last breath everything we have acquired cars wealth homes toys and gadgets Will not go with us We will not be remembered by what car we drove or how many houses we had. We will be remembered by the kind words or the kindness we were to others, especially those who are strangers. Compassion. At an early age, we are taught to love our neighbor, love our enemies, clothe the naked, house the homeless, feed the hungry, welcome the stranger, because when we help the less fortunate than ourselves, we help all. This is empathy and compassion, both qualities we will be remembered for. Decency. Decency is that trait we all use in the face of ignorance. Decency is our sword to ward off toxicity. Decency is the patience we have for others in states of fear. Decency is the calm we can offer in times of duress. As for me, kindness is my armor, compassion is my shield, and relentless decency is my sword. So to answer the original question, yes, kindness, compassion, and relentless decency can exist in our political discourse. In fact, it already is. I am Farmer Banks Helfrich, candidate for State House District 25. I am kindness, I am compassion, and I am relentless decency. With the remainder of my time, I'd like to talk about something else. Who funds our safety and security departments, our police, our firefighters, our EMTs, our paramedics, and our dispatchers? We all love a tax cut. I have never met someone who does not, in fact. I support property tax cuts, yet not at the expense of our first responders. I stand before you in opposition of Amendment 3 and stand with our first responders like Lieutenant Ness.

Thank you. Thank you.

I did pull my item. I'm only here for the public comments. Okay. Due to most of y'all know, my husband's days are numbered and I've got to meet with some doctors. Reason why I came back here today and I will address my stuff in two weeks. I sat here in just disbelief two weeks ago. I got up and pulled mine because of all here. This was a four hour meeting that lasts six and a half hours. And I know every single one of you, I helped with some of your campaigns, addressed your envelopes, ran to the post office, believed in you and i want y'all to hear me from my heart right now there are people that are sitting here that may be in just as bad a shape as what i'm having to deal with right now i've come to terms with my situation my husband's days are numbered here on this earth our love story is about to end on this earth but to sit here and watch that y'all have beat to death issues And sometimes I look and I get a good telling, not because I love her so much, but with Chandra and she's like, can't we go ahead and vote?

Let's just get it over with.

We got a lawyer sitting here with a great mind that can help out with stuff. Bill Peterson sits down there like a deer in headlights. What are we going to do now? Everybody's still just fighting, you know? Myself and probably about 20 people, 25 years ago, opened up this hall to the public that was not invited. Tim, you know that. And if you were of color, you really should not come in here. And we fixed that real quick. My story's not about that police department. It's what happened afterwards. And that is my phone, but it's okay. I have to let it ring. I watched y'all beat stuff to death, including at the reports that are supposed to be, I went to the Kiwanis, the chicken and the baked beans were good, and there's gonna be something coming up. But y'all turned it into, some of you, like something that's supposed to be on an agenda. And Mr. Bain, I'm looking at you, and I like you. The mayor is the mayor and runs the city, I mean the business in here, because we have Robert's Rules of Order. And I know you've taken over, you don't like some things that's going on, but you gotta be respectful too. You can't just micromanage everything. I know you're like most new people. I see a lot of some of y'all years ago, I just wanted to take on the world. I wanted to save everybody when I found out what was really going on in this town. because i don't deal with that kind of crap and i'm real proud of the things that some of us some of these people are dead and gone that that stood by me and all of us in a group but i want you to understand there are people sitting in here that's got real life 101 at home i know They may have a disabled child. Maybe they've got, just like my neighbor would, four-stage breast cancer, been fighting it for two years. I saw people get up and leave here and go, and I thought sitting here. So out of respect for y'all, I pulled it. I did today because I got to go. But I would hope, for God's sakes, you know me. You know what I'm going through. to lose a husband after 50 years and to sit here and have to be delayed delayed delayed when there's important business to run this city and tim i know you're frustrated i got that too i'm the one that asked you to run didn't i in my front yard I did that and stood by every single one of you. So please, you need to police yourself, and if somebody's getting out of line, speak up. I know, Chandra, it's hard for you, but speak up. You can do that. You've got it in you. But don't do this anymore. A four-hour meeting at six and a half hours, guys, not cool.

Thank you.

Well, on a positive note, good evening, good afternoon, City Council.

My name is Vincent Nemec. I would like to thank the entire City Council and especially our City Manager for listening to the concerns of South Claremont regarding to the traffic. I showed you the pictures, I gave you some solutions, and you guys actually improved it. So I'd like to thank you from the residents along Hartwood Marsh. I also want to give a big thank you to the police chief and his entire department, all right, because he did an outstanding job. Matter of fact, on the way here, there was another police officer exactly at the location which the city council, all of you, Bill, Chandra, Tim, Brian, and Allison, recommended. I think you're doing an outstanding job when it comes to listening to the citizens. So I'm not here to beat you up. I'm here to praise you for thank you for listening to the residents along Hartwood Marsh. Thank you. God bless.

Thank you. This is public comment.

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, members of the City Council and folks in the audience. My name is Ronaldo Camargo, 1212 South Grand Highway. I was fortunate to be here for the second half of the budget hearing, and I want to support, like some others have came here, whatever it is that we can do for, it was a very moving video by the by the emergency readiness that we have in Claremont. And for our police, I myself, my family has been very supported by the Claremont police and paramedics. And I also hope that when you look in the budget and then Mrs. Strange, I saw you trying to work things around on creatively. But let's support what we need to support for the service of the community. But let's also not let the Midas in the Middle project become the Clermont version of the California Speed Maglev Trail. We have been kicking that can. I believe from two councils before this one, maybe two or three years going to this one, we need to come to a conclusion to this. Our city deserves that. The plan is beautiful. The citizen needs that and is an attractive part of our city and what attracts people to our community. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mayor, members of the Council, Paula Hoisington, 564 East DeSoto Street. On Saturday, the residents of Lincoln Park held a community meeting to talk about DPZ's comprehensive plan review and just what's going on in that whole review. I want to thank Nathan for coming out, taking his time to listen to the people. We're going to work on an additional meeting to where we will just address Lincoln Park. I want to thank the mayor. You came there representing as a resident of the community, Councilman Bain and Councilwoman Strange for coming out and listening, to listening to what the people want, to listening. They may not even know what they want. Some of us want this, some of us want that, but you were there to listen. So that I appreciate. Very much. As we move forward, and we see that when you look at the information, it has Lincoln Park as number one, and it talks about redevelopment. Community members are concerned about what does redevelopment mean? Not building off a land that's nothing there, but when you say redevelopment, that means you're tearing something down to build something else. That's a serious concern. If we're number one, as an area in that quadrant What does it mean when you say redevelopment? What areas are you looking at to redevelop? What's gonna happen to those things that are there to replace whatever there is to replace? So I would hope that we can continue this conversation so that we don't wake up one morning and say, what happened to the community? So that we don't wake up one morning and say, we did not know. So I encourage when we have the next meeting that if you can, I know because of Sunshine Law, you can't talk, but you can all come there and listen. Because holding a meeting, and I'm going to piggyback off of what Charlene talked about, about the meeting. Because we ask that you look at, at least have a compromise. The gentleman that spoke with the prayer, he said, the decisions that you make, don't just stay here. They ripple out into the community. When you hold meetings at three o'clock and they last till after nine. It appears that you don't go to your gender review because some of the discussion was unnecessary discussion. If you would have had your gender review with staff, you wouldn't have had that much dialogue. That's just my opinion. It didn't make any sense. And when you have people that come up for public comment and they state their comment, they can't stay here till 9, 10 o'clock to hear if you all are going to address what they just said. Think about what you're doing, make a compromise. If you need to have one at three, then have one at 6.30. As a person who managed staff, and I had staff that wanted to listen to their city council because there are issues that are being discussed. I cannot afford to keep my business running and have them sitting at their computer on their phones, listening to a meeting for four hours, six hours. Give me a little bit time there. I'll be done. It doesn't make sense. So you've made it available on YouTube, but you don't make it available for the working people because they're at work. And you ran for an office knowing that the meetings were at 630 because it serves a group of people to be able to come here and be a part of this decision. I really don't understand why it's taking you all this long and why you're so stubborn that you won't consider making a compromise. Your meeting that went on and on. I'm just asking you to have your gender review so this, because some of the questions are like, did y'all just get this packet today when you sat down? It really doesn't make sense. And if you want to reach the people, have it within a reasonable time so that everyone who pays taxes have an equal opportunity to participate. Thank you.

Thank you. This is a public comment. Anyone in the chamber wish to speak to anything that's not on the agenda may come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes. This is a public comment. Anyone in the chamber wish to speak to an item that's not on the agenda may come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes. Seeing no one else in the chamber. We have anyone online, sir? No one online. We are closed public comments then. All right, before we move on, Mr. Van Wagner, is there any changes to the agenda this evening?

There are some changes, Mr. Mayor. Item number six, ordinance 2026-014, that's an introduction. Staff is asking that that is tabled to October 13th of 2026. And also item seven, ordinance number 2026-025, the final hearing. And finally, item number nine, resolution number 2026-022R. Are we tabling that one?

All three of those.

All three? Okay. To October 13th.

To the 13th?

And item number eight as well?

And item number eight is being pulled and put back on the agenda at the next meeting.

We don't need to do nothing with that. Okay. Entertain a motion on what was it?

Chipper hit.

Ordinance 2026014, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Claremont, Lake County, Florida, amending Chapter 125 to establish procedures for the review and approval of mobile food dispensing vehicles pursuant to Section 509.102 Florida statutes, providing for conflict, severability, codification, administrative correction of scrivener's error, publication, and effective date.

Okay, entertain a motion. I'd like to make a motion to table item number six, ordinance 2026, there's 014 to the October 13th, 2026 meeting.

A second.

I have a motion and a second to table item number six, ordinance number 2026, there's 014 to 13 October 26th. Any further discussion? No. Hearing none, all in favor, let me know by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? And the chair vote aye as well. Motion passes 5-0.

Ordinance number 20, 26025, an ordinance of the city council of the city of Claremont, Lake County, Florida, and many of the code of ordinances by repealing section 2412 lighting of property and section 11512 lighting facilities in their entirety, creating a new chapter of the code of ordinances titled outdoor lighting and dark sky standards, providing for purpose and intent. Applicability, definitions, outdoor lighting standards, including measurement, methodology, prohibited lighting, hours of operation, and adaptive controls. Photometric plant submittal, specific use applications, exemptions, phased implementation, and retrofit. variances, enforcement and penalties, and conflict with other provisions, amending section 101352, site plan submittal requirements to harmonize existing photometric plan requirements with the new dark sky standards, amending section 117.9, sign illumination, To add color temperature and shielding requirements for illuminated signs, amending section 117.23, changeable copy and electronic message boards. To add a color temperature cap for electronic message board signs, amending section 119.311, electric power lines and street lights. to require subdivision streetlights to comply with the new chapter providing findings of consistency with a comprehensive plan providing for conflict severability, codification, the administrative correction of scrivener's error, publication, and an effective date.

I'd like to make a motion to table item number 7, ordinance number 2026.

025. I second. 25.

He said 25.

No, he said 26.

No, at the beginning. Okay. We have a motion and a second. The table ordinance number is 2026-025. Any further discussion? If none, all in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? And chair vote aye as well. Motion carries 5-0. Item number 9.

Resolution number 2026-022R, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Claremont, Lake County, Florida, adopting a schedule of maximum total outdoor light output values expressed in initial lumens per net acre for purposes of implementing Section 129-4-D of the Code of Ordinances, Outdoor Lighting and Dark Sky Standards, providing for findings, implementation, future amendment by resolution, conflict, severability, administrative correction of scrivener's error, and an effective date.

I'd like to make a motion to table item number nine, resolution 2026-022, Romeo.

I second.

I have a motion and a second to table resolution number 2026-022, Ara. Any further discussion? None. All in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Chair, aye as well. Motion carries 5-0. And for anyone that may have been here for item number eight, it has been pulled as well. Okay.

Don't you make a motion for that?

No, we don't need a motion. It was pulled, buddy. And so we need no motion there. Any other changes? That's it. Okay. So the next portion of the meeting is the consent agenda, which contains items that have been determined to be routine and non-controversial. If anyone in the audience wish to address a particular item on the consent agenda, now is the opportunity for you to do so. Additionally, if staff or members of the City Council wish to speak on a consent item, they have the same opportunity. The consent item for consideration tonight is item one through five. Anyone wish to have any item pulled? I would like to have item two pulled. Number two. Any other? Item 1 through 5, item 2 been pulled. Is there any other? Seeing no other, I entertain a motion for item 1 and item 3 through 5.

So moved. Second.

I have a motion for approval of consent item 1 and item 3 through 5. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, let it be known by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed? Chair vote aye as well. Yes, sir.

I had to pull item two because it would raise the utility bill, and I have to have a firm no on anything that's going to raise the utility bill.

Is that it? Okay. This is a public forum. Anyone in the public wish to address this item may come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes.

Yes, Vincent Nemec, Regency Hills. I'd like to remind the council, this is regarding item two, at the March 28, 2023 council meeting, all right, which I watched over and over and over. Okay, the council discussed having the water and sewer utility rate reevaluated every three to five years. At any time, council can, and this is quote, can amend the ordinances, or the ordinance, with the rate adjustments to move forward in a different direction. That's quoted. That's what they said back in 2023. All right, and for the record, and the people listening, the council members on that that voted for that was Councilman Purvis. All right, he set the motion. And I believe Councilman Gonzales backed it with a second motion. The council members at that point that voted for it was Michelle Pines, and this is for the record only. It's not a political statement, Your Honor. It's for Michael Gonzales, he voted for it. Michelle Pines voted for it. Jim Pervis voted for it. And unfortunately, Mayor Murray, you voted for it. The only council member that did not vote for the utility raise was Ebo. Let me see if I can get his name right, Ensua, okay? So please, I mean, this water, I mean, we went three years from 2023, to 2024 and 2025, every year was a 16.5 raise in the water tax. I'm not gonna turn around and look at them, but how are your water? How's your water bill? I just got mine. I just received mine. Again, I can't believe how high it is. Plus the sewer rate went up 8% every single year for the next five years. We got two more years coming to us. So you raised our taxes by 16.5. And then you raised it again on top of that 16.5 to another 16.5. Then you raised it for the third year for another 16.5. And now you're going to sit here and you're going to vote. If you're going to pass this in a consent agenda, which I find very unusual that it was in the consent agenda, for another 3% on the 45% increase that we just took for this year and next year, and also the 8% on the sewer tax. I don't know about you, but it's not a cup of coffee. Okay? This is very simple. My bill went up $80 in one month. All right, that is, and I have a very small home. That is affecting my way of life and my household expenses. Thank you, God bless.

Thank you. This is a public hearing. Anyone in the chamber wish to speak to this item may come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes. Anyone in the chamber wish to speak to this item may come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes. Seeing no one in chamber, anyone online, sir? We have no one online, so I'll close public comment and bring it back to council. Ms. Myers, you have question time.

Well, I'm not for raising water and sewage on our residents. They've already complained heavily this past year about it being high already. So I feel like we need staff to find another way to bring this cost down for our citizens.

No, no question. Just a statement. You have any questions, Mr. Peterson? No, this is yours.

I think we have a statement, but we'll wait for the statement.

Okay. Ms. Strange.

Mr. Van Wagner, when will we get the utility rate study back that we ordered over the summer?

I should have it by the end of this week.

That's all I have.

So, yeah. Okay.

For questions.

Mr. Bain.

Thank you, Mayor. You said end of this week? Yeah. When will that come back before us for presentation, workshop?

Stoney, can you come up with one? I'll personally review it for the first time.

Sure, yeah. I would expect that you would have a chance to review everything, but I'm just curious what the schedule is moving forward. Good afternoon, council.

The plan would be we're going to get it this week, and then we're going to sit down with the city manager and the deputy city manager and go through it. Whatever comments are made, they'll adjust it, and then it'll be presented to the council.

And will that be through a workshop, or will that just be an item on the agenda? What's the plan moving forward with that? Because I know we had them here, I think, previously, but they didn't give us any specifics about the actual rates for post-2027, right?

I can't speak for this round, but in the past they have presented it at a council meeting.

Okay.

So it'd be up to the council. If you want a workshop, we can schedule a workshop. If, if he wanted a council meeting, we can get a council meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you. I don't know, Mr. City Manager, I'll ask you this question. I don't know if it's going to be you or a different staff member, but when I talked about this in the agenda review, it was brought to my attention that this is not actually the resolution that there was some confusion or clarification as to what we're actually doing with this rate schedule fee. Can we get some clarification on that and how this council can go about making changes to the rates and what are the implications of to the bonding and current structure were under the ends in 27, if we did make those changes to the rates. Sure.

A resolution was passed in 2023, allowing these changes in rates. So staff has a responsibility to go ahead and take what's given to them by the council and to make that happen so in following in accordance with the former resolution in 2023 we presented to you the comprehensive fee schedule based on what was passed before you so you can't vote today and you can talk to our attorney to change that just through the comprehensive fee schedule However, you could ask staff to go back and present to you a new resolution if you so deemed you wanted to change that. So that's my understanding from our attorney, but I'm certainly not going to play his role, so I'll get out of the way. Thank you.

Well, Councilmember, I think one of the implications is if – well, let me confirm. I agree with everything the city manager just said. This is a memorialization of rates that are going to exist on your utilities already. In other words – this memorializes as a schedule all your fees. So we do this on a regular basis. The rates already legally are enacted for your utilities. So this resolution will not be the enacting resolution to raise the rates, if that makes sense. Now, if the city council wanted to look at that, we are— Can I ask real quick?

When you say look at that, you mean changing rates? Yes. Okay.

Due to debt obligations the city has, I'm concerned and haven't reviewed the covenants yet to be able to advise you as to what the consequences would necessarily be. They could be, for example, if we lowered it, we'd have to make up the difference of the money we pay the bondholders. That would affect our budget. How much? Where does that come from? I don't know the answer to that. It could affect our credit rating, which then could affect our interest rates on other things. It could be that we could get sued for specific enforcement, that we just can't do it. So I'm not able to advise you on that. However, if the city council wanted to look at that, we could look at how to achieve that. When you tell us to do something, our mission becomes – How do we achieve that? So I hope that answers your question.

It does. So I guess then for further clarification, if we vote, if the vote ends up being in favor of the fee schedule, it implements the fee schedule, all of the ones that are in here. Yes. If we vote, if the vote ends up being no, none of these fees are implemented in at a new rate. So the continued rates, so like what it costs to rent a pavilion or, you know, all that, because that's all included in here. What happens to all those other things if we don't approve this fee schedule?

That's right, council member. If there's a change, for example, in the pavilion rental rate, that will not change if you vote no. Okay. But the way I view it is it would not change what we have to do on utilities.

Okay. So even if this resolution failed, unless there's specific action through a different resolution or vehicle, the rates would still go into effect as presented in the fee schedule.

For the utilities. For the utilities. Yes, sir.

Okay. I think those are, my only other question to the city manager in final is, with these fees, I think it's important to understand the perspective of staff and particularly all of these other fees that are included in here. I mean, we've got, gosh, 20 some pages of different things. Are these all fees reasonable, adequate, and where they need to be from a staff perspective to operate the city and cover the costs?

Yes.

Okay, thank you. Those are my own questions. Okay.

Well, let me start with, you know, yes, I voted for this resolution back in 2023 and everything, but here's something I guess I need everybody to understand. In 2023, we hired a professional company organization to come in and do a rate study on our utility rates. At that time, our utility rates hadn't seen an increase. They haven't did too much with our utility in about 15 years, I think it was at the time. So they came in, and their recommendation was basically what we voted on and what we presented was their recommendation based upon the fact that our infrastructure, wastewater infrastructure, was in need of repair. impact fee was so low that we weren't incurring many impact fees at the time. So Basically, based upon their recommendation of rates and everything, we voted to raise these rates because why? We ended up having a $49 million wastewater improvement project that went on, and we only had $20 million in impact fees. Okay. So with that being said, you know, we're sitting here talking about making it. I guess to me it sounds like you're just saying to say the council just got up here and made – voted out of nowhere for this, but it was a professional study. So my question to all of you is, did you go back and even read the study from 2023? What the study said? Any of you? See? Yes, but you didn't refer to that. See? Because the study basically As I said, it identified our shortfalls and our needs and why we needed to raise them rights, okay? And, of course, if you read anything, if you read them, my next question to you would be what in that study, specifically in that study, that you disagree with? Okay, now that we're sitting here, we want to debate this, see? And it's not like I heard other comments earlier today about impact fees. We wasn't charging impact fees. We were charging impact fees. But impact fees, basically the study was saying it was too low. Okay. So I, you know, it's just... It's kind of strange to see here, we sit here and say we just, council members just made this mysterious. motion and raise the rates. But to understand what we did, you need to go back and look at the study from February. Actually, they presented it to us in February of 2023. We voted on it in March of 2023. And yes, it said we're going to raise the rate 16, I think it was 16.5% in April or so, another 16% in October, another 16% in 2023. And then it would gradually go down. This rate is only 3%. And this is the final This is the final rate increase under that study. This is supposed to be the final rate under the study, my understanding. And we're in the process of doing another rate study, which they spoke to earlier. At that time, they found when they did the study, and the reason they recommended this is they found that our study, our rate was so low that we couldn't afford to do to upgrade our infrastructure, we couldn't afford to continue operating. You gotta understand, these impact fees are the thing that pays for the personnel. It pays for the infrastructure. It pays for all these different things. Impact fees can only pay for so much. It cannot pay for everything, okay? So, my thing is, another question I have for you, if you went back and looked at the study, what's changed since 2023? Okay, now we're talking about we can't raise anything, okay? So I think we need help. I have no problem giving a reduction, but one of the concerns I have, well, I'll leave that for my statement, okay? But that's some of the questions.

I'm sorry, was that not your statement time?

No. I'm asking, one other question I'm asking you, are this council ready to reverse the decision that was made by the previous council? Is that what we're looking to do here today?

Yes.

Okay. Am I on the question I asked? And then if that's what we're doing, the next question I have is, if that's the case, where did the money come to operate with?

Well, we've hired a firm, Mr. Mayor, to do a study. Ever since this was done, we've added about 3,000 people to our list of persons being served. And if you count the annexations or the JPA agreements that the county's been approving as of late, we've got an awful lot of servicers that are going to be coming online who hopefully are paying appropriate impact fees and user fees. I think that it's fair to reevaluate it. It's been three years. The prior council said they would reevaluate it in three years, and that's the process that we're in. So, yes, I would love to roll back that rate. I'd roll it back to 30 percent and then look at a cost of living over the last two years and start there. And that's where I would suggest that we start. That's my answer to that question.

And I have no problem with that. We can sit here. We can roll it all back. Guess what? Like other people come in, guess what? The cost of operating that infrastructure and providing that service to people, the cost went up as well. Okay? See, we sit here and we say we want to roll back costs. and everything because we get all these extra people in, but it costs us extra to provide that service to the people as well. So that's one of the things I ask, where would the fund come from if we decide to roll it back? And I have no problem. We can cancel it all, but as Mr. Waugh said, hey, we may have some affinity to pay with the bond debt that was established with it. And, of course, if you can, like you say, I guess that's what you were just telling me, an alternative financial plan that we can put in place, I guess, if we were to roll it back. I would like to see that, okay? So those are my concerns. Hey, I have no problem rolling it back. If we feel like we can sit here and put another financial plan that we can recover the cost and we're able to continue to operate our system without problems, going going back to where we were in 2023 okay and one of the reason one of the reason now i that's that's all my question you have a statement miss myers no statement mr peterson

I mean, I concur with what Council Member Strange is saying. I think we should bring this to staff and let them figure it out. I don't know about you, but I get multiple complaints about the utility bill, especially that huge increase that happened in the past. And I cannot vote yes to this now. I mean, I have to give a super firm no to this and bring it back to staff and let them reevaluate it, see what they can come up with to bring it back to at least level. And if we have to reevaluate, you know, as council, I mean, as our city manager, I know he's very capable about doing that. You know, he's a very smart and reasonable person. And I think you understand what we're saying. You know, bring it back to staff. Let them figure out what to do. And, you know, let them do their jobs at getting it done with that.

I don't know if you want to call for a vote.

Ms. Strange.

I have a couple of comments that could affect a motion on this. So the first is, as our staff has shared with us, this is really truly an administrative function. There are a couple of decisions that need to be made in here. For example, bulk collections is something that wasn't in the original 2023 report. We've got some cemetery changes. There's a hard drive charge and then use of the disc golf at Hiawatha Park. And those are kind of the changes. And so technically we're approving those, but we're rubber stamping the utility bill increase. I don't like the idea of causing confusion for the public. I think that having a set plan and a published fee schedule is good. I don't want to go back and forth. I'm not interested in approving one and then changing it later. Because we have the final budget hearing at the end of this month, whether we would consider tablings to the first week of October or looking at it at the end of September, knowing that we have the water utility report coming back, the fee study is coming back at the end of this week. We had agreed to do a workshop on the cemetery fees. There's changes to the cemetery fees in here that I feel like, I mean, they're not a big deal maybe, but we haven't workshopped it, so I don't know. And then the bolt collection, we had asked staff to come back with a plan to make bulk collections easier, communicate that more to the public. All I'm seeing is the rates going up, but I'm not seeing a policy that goes with it that says, how do we communicate that? I think there's some other things that we can give staff direction on, and my suggestion today is going to be to table this to either the end of September or the first week of October. So we have time to see what happens with the study and then the old rates stay in effect until we get that. And I think most people look and say, oh, well, it's October 1st and they can wait a week or two. So I don't think that would cause the same confusion as adopting it today and then changing it in two months. So my suggestion would simply be to table it for now while staff figures out how to- Because we've talked about, can we apply the overage that's going into some of the enterprise funds? Can we refinance that bond? You know, the new study is going to come. We don't know what's going to happen. It's all going to happen in the next two weeks. So I would say it's probably prudent to just table it for anywhere from three to five weeks.

Okay. Yes.

I agree that this fee schedule isn't the appropriate venue or vehicle to actually address the rate per what the city attorney has indicated. I guess I would want to know from staff if we do make a motion to table this because the budget is built as such that these are going to go into place at day one of fiscal year 27, what does that mean for us financially? Because again, whether this gets tabled, and please city attorney correct me if I'm wrong, I ask the question if we vote yes, they're implemented. If we vote no, I'm talking utility. If we vote no, they're implemented. If we table, I'm assuming the same is still true, they're getting implemented on October 1 until such different resolution or vehicle is approved by this council to change those rates. And then at that point, it would be in a new fiscal year, in a new billing cycle.

Yes. Okay. And I guess I want to add an additional clarification to your statement, council member, which is the way I see it, unless you have an affirmative vote to keep the rates the same and not change them on schedule, as I think we're bound to do, they're going up.

Yeah.

And I don't often urge you to do something. Yeah. And I've never begged you to do anything. But This is pretty serious, actually, because it will affect our ability to operate in the future. Like when cities start messing with the ability to fund their infrastructure, especially utility infrastructure. So I would just ask that you not do the vote to force us to lower the rates at this time.

Yeah. And so I feel like my recommendation, we approve the fee schedule and then we address the rates. We address the rates, whether it's in the current fiscal year through that appropriate vehicle or not. And I read this as this is through fiscal year 26, 27. So they end at the end of this next fiscal year. The fee schedule is no longer going to be in place after this budget that we're putting in place at the end of this month for fiscal year 27. So we have the ability then to really address the fees moving forward. I don't think we should be putting the city in a position for bonding and leverage purposes for future issues related to this. I am open to having the conversation about what can we do through the appropriate vehicle to do it. But our city attorney and our city manager are telling us this is not the appropriate vehicle to do that. And I think we need to listen to them for the bigger picture. issue related to bonding and, and structures in that way. So approve the fee schedule is what I would recommend. And we deal with this through the appropriate vehicle. Thank you.

Thank you.

Is it possible that we could just remove the utility rate and approve the rest?

Excuse me.

Yes.

Let me say, uh,

As I stated earlier, this wasn't just done out of nowhere. It was done because of professional advice we received from a professional company, which we are doing the same thing right now, getting professional advice. It wasn't up to staff to sit down and determine these rates and everything. This is what we recommended through a professional company. One of the other things I need to add here is that the fact is we were sitting here, and one of the things I found when I came in, I was told that we need to improve our wastewater treatment plant. However, it was operating at 97% of the time. Okay, I think state laws say once it's at 85%, you should be doing something with it. And it hadn't been done. So we didn't have the money sitting here. So that's one of the reasons this study was done. And we came up and we said, hey, to get this done, we've got to get it done right now. So we passed the fees. I have no problem rolling back these fees. However, I do understand what Mr. Watt is saying about the fact that because the bond is tied with this, a $29 million bond I think was tied with the wastewater treatment plant. That can hurt us, seriously, okay? Now, if we're only talking about driving back this 3% and everything, I may be able to somewhat support that, but still, I would like to see where we're going to make up these funds at, okay? Because these funds are what's utilized to support our infrastructure when we have to have improvement. That's one of the reasons right after this study was done, we went to the county and we got an increase in our impact fees because they was too low as well. We had to fight to get an improvement in impact fees. Now, as I said, my question is, where are we going to make up the money if we roll it back? If you can show me the numbers and show that to the people where the numbers we're going to make up and it's not going to hurt our bond ratings and all our ability to borrow, I have no problem with rolling it back. I'd just like to see a plan how we're going to do it.

I just want to interject if I can, Mayor. I know you're on the clock here. I disagree that we can just roll back and not have it affect our credit or issues because it's really up to the bondholders. We'd have to negotiate with them. And there's ways of doing that. I mean, I could imagine a situation where we set aside collateral that maybe it satisfies them. I mean, but then again, we're talking about allocating funds to the side that – You know, if we ever have a default, it gives them some comfort that we're ready and then that wouldn't affect us. But we're kind of speaking in the dark just because we haven't spoken with them or engaged in any kind of technical discussion on that. So I think where there's a will, there's a way. It's just we can't tell you unless we do go to the drawing board and report back.

Right. Well, I understand that we take that chance if we do this. And I just finished like this and said, basically, you know, I sit up here as elected official, and sometimes we have to make tough decisions when it comes to these type of things. And that's part of our job, and that's what we were elected to do. When I voted to do this, guess what? It didn't just increase your rate. It increased my rate, too, because I'm a resident as well. And I'll be honest with you, I'm one of those that complain about my rate. I saw an increase, but still, I understood what went on there, and I asked myself, how are we going to replace it? So sometimes a responsible decision is not to be a popular decision. That's what we have to do up here. Sometimes residents may disagree with us, and sometimes the decision is the best for the long-term financial health of our community and may not be the decision of... of our political beliefs or whatever, but we have to make those decisions as elected officials. And I made that decision, and I'm not afraid of it, the fact that I voted for it based upon the facts that were presented to me at that time. Thank you.

I'm going to move the table of this item to the September 22nd meeting.

I second.

I have a motion to move this item to September 22nd meeting. Is there any requirements you're going to...

I'd like staff to bring us options to reduce the rate based on the new rate study and or the bond status with any funds that we have available in the enterprise funds. I'd like staff to take a stab at lowering this rate before we adopt the final budget and publish the final fee schedule.

And you second all that?

Okay. We have a motion and a second. And asking staff to bring us a possibility of rate reduction, whether it's September 22nd, September 27th.

Next meeting.

Next council meeting is September 27th, 2026. Any further discussion? And all in favor, let me know by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? And share vote aye as well. Thank you. All right. Item six was table seven, was table eight, was four, nine. So we had item 10, variance request.

Good afternoon, Mayor, City Councilmembers, and guests. Justine Day with Development Services. The applicant, Robert Harrell, is requesting four variances to the land development code in order to develop a residential subdivision. The property is bisected by Old Highway 50, located south of the Florida Turnpike and north of South Lake Trail. Upon reviewing the conceptual plans, it was noted that the property has some environmental concerns such as significant changes in topography and wetlands. To address the existing site constraints and develop the property, the applicant is requesting the following variances. Please note that the applicant has revised their original application and is no longer requesting any waivers regarding retaining wall heights or secondary access to the subdivision. So the first request is to allow for up to 16 feet of cut and fill over more than 10% of the site. Majority of the regrading would occur in the northwest area of the property to work with the existing topography rather than flattening the hillside. To maintain the landscape buffer along the turnpike and ensure safe transitions between lot elevations and street grades, the applicant is proposing to regrade the areas depicted in green. Secondly, they are requesting to waive the sidewalk requirement on areas designated as open space. There are only two areas this would affect, which are depicted in blue. These areas are long portions of the subdivision that will not serve residential lots and are adjacent to wetlands and landscape buffers. Safe alternative pedestrian routes are still being provided for access between the north and south sides of the project, as well as to the close to home park. The third request would be to waive the tree mitigation requirements in exchange for donating two acres of land to the city. While the applicant is proposing to preserve or replant a portion of the trees on site, the request does not meet the intent of the tree removal replacement standards within the code. Lastly, the applicant is requesting to provide private gated streets for the residential subdivision. The applicant states that this would increase safety in the community and eliminate the city's expense for street maintenance. Under Land Development Code 101-246, a variance may only be granted with a positive finding on all review criteria. Staff recommends approval of request numbers one, two, and four, and denial of number three. This concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you. This is African Press.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Council. Rick McCoy, McCoy & Associates. I don't know if any of you have driven by this property. You're familiar with it on Old Highway 50 on the north side of Costco. It's a scenic highway. Okay. We're doing our best to try to maintain as many trees and keep everything natural and scenic as possible. I try not to ask any variances, but here I am. This is unique on the north side. I've got 65 feet of fall from the wetlands to the top of the cut. And there's a cross section through there if you look at it, if you understand it. But as you go up the hill, they cut the turnpike and it drops almost 20 feet back down to the turnpike level. We'd love to keep that buffer and that's the whole reason we need fill at the bottom to do the balancing act. I can keep in with the 10 foot, but I got to take the 10 foot off the top and that's where the trees are and that's where the buffer is to keep the noise out of the subdivision and go up and over. So that's our first variance request, and I appreciate your consideration for that. I do have Mr. Harrell in the audience, and we have Tom Daley with Daley Design Group is here, too, to discuss the trees. The sidewalk area is the same thing. We have sections through there that we want to keep it, you know, Green Mountain. And it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to take trees out and... put in sidewalks where we don't have houses any place we have a house we'll keep all the ada but we don't have the house in those open spaces we would like to not have to build now one of ours we're asking for private streets so it doesn't really cost the city but if whether it's a city they're hoa sidewalks that nobody uses are still a maintenance item and uh Tom can talk about the trees. I've worked very hard to try to keep trees in the retention ponds and basically keep the retention pond bottoms, because they're dry ponds, at the tree level and save the trees that are there and we burn them up then because we've got good perking soils out here that will go back down. So if you have any questions for me, I'll be happy to answer them. And Tom?

Okay.

You have anything to answer?

My name is Tom Daley. I'm with Daley Design Group, 913 North Pennsylvania Avenue in Winter Park. I'm a licensed landscape architect and a certified urban planner. We actually did this project, rezoned it and annexed it into the city about two and a half years ago. And now we're here at the final end. I'm here to talk about the trees and the purpose of our request. Like Rick said, you know, you got 60 feet of drop over this site. The ability to build roads and houses and preserve trees is limited just because of the nature of the site. But what we've been able to do is with the top of the hill, we saved them. Bottom of the hill, we saved them. And in between, we weren't unable to because of engineering constraints and You know, the ability to put utilities in and houses and driveways and everything else. So right now there is about 1685 trees on the property. We did have someone go out and evaluate to see if there was any that were seriously diseased. And there was a handful of those, but the end result is 1,685. As part of that, we're saving over 400 trees, 405, and we're planting an additional 633 trees. on the site. So the total trees that are going to be on the post-development site is going to be a little over 1,000, 1,038. And so we felt that's, you know, pretty good considering the site constraints and the condition of the vegetation out there. So the delta, the 600 and some odd trees between the removal and the planting is what the variance is that we're asking for. As part of that, because you know, I mean, when you look at your fee schedule, and I don't want to talk like that, but if you look at your fee schedule, the cost of replacement of those trees can get very high, those 600 trees that we're talking about here. In this particular case, it's well north of a million dollars in just check cash to the city. So we thought that maybe we could come up with a way to alleviate that cost a little bit at least. There's a two-acre site that's got about 800 foot of frontage on the West Orange Trail that we own. That is the site that's that we would like to go ahead and offer as a donation to the city of Claremont, as for a park for purposes of park, in order to kind of start to balance out that what we can plant and what we just physically cannot plant on the site. Now that two acres has got about 40 trees on it. Most of them are big ones, you know, they're all in good shape. And So in addition to that, and again, this is just trying to figure out what's the best for all of us in this situation. In addition to that, Mr. Harrell, who's the landowner, wants to offer to pay for or contribute to the payment of improvements to make it a park so that it's not a burden upon the city. And he would like to go ahead and offer $500,000 as a contribution to the improvements of the park, in addition to the donation of the roughly two acres of land. And so, I mean, we see it as a win-win. We're not just trying to give you a piece of dirt and just say, well, it's on you. But it's got like 800 foot of frontage on the West Orange Trail. So it really is a pretty significant piece that can be utilized by the residents. The programming of what would be put in there. That's really all up to the city. That's not something that we feel that we would be appropriate to decide if it's a parking lot, if it's a picnic, if it's bathrooms, any of the types of things that your parks department want. But that's why we're just offering a donation of land and a contribution towards those improvements of $500,000. Any questions?

Not for me, not at this time, sir, but if you hang around for a little bit, I'm going to open it up to the public. Then we'll come back if we have any other questions, okay? This is a public forum. Anyone in the chamber wish to speak to the site may come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes.

Valerie shoe at nine three one West Montrose streets. I think it might be too late for some of my questions, but I'm going to throw them out there anyway, because maybe we can think about them the next time when we're approving these subdivision plans. And I feel a little picky about this one because it's right off the South Lake trail. Um, Questions that I have, I hope some of you will ask, is how is access to the trail provided? Right now, I see that a lot of it is along the back of the homes. Are there fences back there? What is that like? I'm sure there is access to the trail, but it seems more like an amenity that was pushed to the edge rather than what I would have seen as a great opportunity for a trail-oriented development with very good connectivity to the surrounding areas. which would do a whole lot for their land values. Then what access is provided to the neighboring commercial plaza? They're right along that. I think it's Plaza Kalina. Can they show the shortest walking route from the neighborhood to the nearest Plaza Kalina businesses? Do people who live there have an easy, safe, and comfortable way to get there without having to become traffic? Might be too late for this question. These are questions we should be asking. I do love the idea of the city having that land along the trail for a park. I don't think it should buy you any variances, but I love that idea.

And I have to speak on that point later.

Yes, I don't love how it's being presented here, but I love that. And I think that would be a great community benefit. Sidewalks. Not wanting them on the sides. I see one of them, at least, is on a side that's open to nature. So, okay, fine, maybe they don't have to pave a sidewalk, but can they do a natural trail that goes to nature? Why are we saying, oh, there's no pedestrian value over there? That's not a human-friendly way to think about this development. Cut and fill, I think, has more to do with the style of the development. This is a development pattern that has led to many of our hills being flattened before. So what alternative site plans were studied before concluding that this degree of earthwork was the minimum necessary? And is the council being asked to relieve a hardship created by the land itself or one created partly by the applicant's preferred subdivision design?

Thank you. Thank you.

Vincent Emick, Regency Hills. I started listening to his presentation until the second gentleman came up. And it's funny because the people sitting around me, we all said the same thing. If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck. So please don't let that $500,000 dingle as a carrot, as a bribe. Okay, because that's what we call New York. It's a bribe. Straight up. It's not a good gesture. I want this built. Here's $500,000. So please don't let it influence your vote on this. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone else? This is a public forum. Anyone in the chamber wish to speak to this item may come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes. Anyone else? Seeing no one in chamber, I'll close chamber. No one online will close the land. What say you, Ms. Marsh?

Let me address some of those questions. The sidewalk we're asking for, I don't know which one to call it. The one I call phase two, which is the lower one. There are no, there's, we're going to have a retaining wall and it drops down the wetlands. So you can't get down in there and do any, I guess you do boardwalks, but there won't be anything. But on the top of the hill at the peak, there is a walkway in lieu of the concrete sidewalk on the driveway, on the roadway. there is a walkway that goes up to the community park on top of the peak. These are going to be private streets, so it's going to be private, but that's for the residents.

Oh, is there another question, Tom? Trail connection to Plaza Plana.

Oh, yeah. I've been working with the trail, with the Lake County Trail folks. We do have a connection, and actually, since this is scenic highway, what... the county has agreed to let us do in lieu of going in there and clearing the trees on both sides of because we own both sides of old highway 50 rather than clearing all the trees and doing five foot standard sidewalks we're doing an eight foot paved trail on the old railroad right away and that eight foot is pedestrian and bike and it will connect to the to the rail trail so And this is only, this park we're talking about providing the city is only a half mile from the county line, which is the Oakland, or it has a trail there. So I don't know that you really need a full... restrooms and everything there but it is a nice place to cape welcome to claremont and it's beautiful y'all haven't been out there and taken a look at it we have some gorgeous gorgeous trees and in my vision we would keep those and keep that rolling hill look and uh know maybe put a gazebo or something out there but i don't think you need to have a you don't need another trailhead like they have in oakland is my thought but again it's the reason we thought we would you know open it up the community and let the community see what would be needed and we're you know how can we help okay anything else no i'm sorry

Just something that I did not state was that the value of the land, the current market rate value of the land we're proposing to donate is about $700,000. And that would be separate from... the value of the improvements that we propose to fund. So the total package is about 1.2, $1.3 million as a benefit to the city.

Okay. Thank you.

Ms. Myers.

Yeah. So you're offering your offer.

I'm sorry, council member. I just wanted to jump in. Okay. Cause I think what I have to tell you probably may inform your questions and concerns. And, and, I don't know if it'll be helpful for applicant or not, but normally local governments cannot accept this type of a donation. And the reason why is it creates perverse incentives. And if other cities are doing it, if you've done it in other cities, they shouldn't do it because it does offer difficult incentives for cities to consider. In other words, your standard on a variance has nothing to do and must have nothing to do with any proposed donation. It has to do with the criteria that are in our code section. Does it satisfy the five things? That's in your staff report or for you to judge based on the evidence that the applicant's given you. And you do have the ability to add conditions according to your – but what you cannot do is accept a donation as part of this. Now, if you adopt a policy in the future that says – If you create a public benefit, you might get a higher condition. That's something we can, kind of like the community benefit plan that we did. That's an option that you can have with variances. We do not have that for this as it sits before you today. And the only time we can... the city can do something like this is when the proposed donation has a direct connection to the effect of what they're getting. In other words, you can sometimes require a curb cut or a turn lane be paved or implemented if the use that you approve will lead to more traffic in a certain intersection. Does that make sense? I don't think this will pass the legal test based on the essential nexus that you have to have. And I'm not trying to, I mean, you could still agree to this, but we would not be able, in my legal opinion, to take the donation.

Can I ask a question, even though you weren't?

It's up to the council.

Sure. When you say the donation, are you talking about the donation of the land or the donation for improvements or both?

Definitely the land. I would want to talk to you more about how the other part of it that I may not be entirely clear on, but the land is a no-go.

Okay. So this board could, setting that aside, this board could approve the variance request, right? Without the offers that the donation of land and that given the fact that we have topography issues, given the fact that we've planted every square foot that we can possibly plant, and given the fact that the amount of trees that we would need to pay for Is well north is, I don't know, it's a burden for lack of a better word on this 120 lot development. When you think about like the size and scope and scale of this. So the board can't approve that. But you're saying and maybe it's a developer's agreement where we could offer to donate that land because we still would like to give it to us. We think it's a community benefit.

It just can't be part of a variance application. Okay, so.

Can I suggest that we maybe table this so that our attorney has a chance to review this and meet with the applicant? And I'll point out, too, we've talked about the Development and Design Center, and it feels like this being kind of the gateway to Claremont Lake County, there might be something that staff could come up with and bring back to us. Because what I'm hearing is not we're trying to bribe you. I'm hearing we're trying to get along.

And I'm not accusing you guys of doing that.

And I'm just going to say, I think we're all going to walk into some real hot, muddy water if we go down too far on this. That's just my suggestion.

I agree with you. I agree with you, but can I ask Mr. Wong one question? What's the difference between what they just offered to do and what we did with the Volkswagen deal?

Which part of the Volkswagen? The park?

Yeah, well, they donated two acres of land and everything to us as well.

But they didn't get a variance, though.

But they didn't get a variance. Yeah, they asked for some variances, but I don't sit here and try to prove a variance on what they donate or whatever. And you can't. Well, one of the things I always ask, what is the give back to the community and everything? When you come in here, I'm not a... Well, I hate for developers. I don't like developers coming here and developing and just run off. What else are you going to contribute to the community rather than just do your development and leave us high and dry to take care of everything? Okay.

you could say we'd land and everything same thing and and this has been going on well well ever since i've been in uh mayor i've been asking that yeah and and i'm not there should be a public event things should be in the public interest everything you do that you pass should be in the public interest on that i believe it was a conditional use permit and there was a finding that we probably shouldn't be opining on that one right i'm just trying well i think it's important i mean i i'd like to i think it's a good question um But the issue is, I believe there was a finding that because of the actual use of the land up in front, that that was going to mitigate the effects of having a car dealership in that area. So just so here, I mean, there might be scenarios and I would like the opportunity to work this out. I don't want to deprive the city of what could be a great deal. And I think it is a great deal that's being offered. But I hope I've explained why generally we can't. It may unintentionally or unconsciously even affect the decisions we make. Right.

Thank you for that.

Well, thank you.

Got one question? I would like to take one.

Can we, because the staff has put these variances together as number one, two, three, and four.

Mm-hmm.

Can this council approve one, two, and four tonight and table or continue number three?

The council can do whatever it wants. And it always has the prerogative.

Except take the two acres of land.

No, even that it could do against my advice. They're totally free to do what they wish.

Well, didn't they say one, two, and four meet all the standards?

Those were the ones that Rick had brought forward. Is it one, two, and four?

One, two, and four. The grading. Three didn't meet all the criteria. No, three didn't.

Hold on. If we start getting into cutting and filling, we're going to be talking about cutting down trees. And what we're basically doing in that scenario is approving the proposal. And I just think given the way this record would read and the fact that our attorney has... I don't want the answer, actually, of how we got here without you seeing this.

I was in trial all week last week, so I apologize. I would have liked to have handled this.

Well, Ms. Strain, didn't you have a motion?

Yeah, I was going to suggest tabling it, but I was going to ask if the applicant – I don't know the process on that because it's their application, so they might need to table it, but – I know I if I can't get a clear picture on everything, I would not approve anything. And so that's just so, you know, kind of how my brain works. So I don't want to put you in. I don't put either of us in that situation if we're talking about tabling it. And then again, I just don't want any of us to forget. We've talked about a development design center, which could be incredibly useful in this particular project. So that's the city working with you as well. And so I don't know how much time any of that might take.

And I'm hesitant to put a timeline on it.

You tell me how we buy more time without causing more problems.

You can do a motion to table.

Just a motion to table?

To a date certain, something that if you feel comfortable, I mean, all the options are on the table.

You want to table it to October?

Or later? If you're looking at tabling it to a date certain, we would request at least October 13th because that would give us time to have Christian meet with them and get a report back. How about October 27th?

Would that work with you?

October 27th. Yes, but we submitted this in May, so we've been waiting for a while already. Please respect that. Mr. Harrell has. You got in there in November of 24. Well, the trees have to come off whether we do whatever we do. We've still got to have to deal with the tree replacement. coordinates. Sure. With or without a variance. I would beg you to please go ahead and approve my grading so I can move ahead with the grading, the 15 foot of fall, the 16 foot of cut and fill greater than 10 feet. Sidewalks, that could wait. I mean, that doesn't matter until they get ready to build sidewalks. The private drive doesn't really affect the city, but it does affect the buyer for moving ahead and making a decision. So... A partial would be appreciated. You know, hold the tree, hold the park and the tree ordinance. Let's discuss that further.

And I'm only one of five, but I can tell you I'm against the thing you want. So if you want us to move forward, I'd be happy to be one of the five.

But I'm just asking if you if you would consider that a proof part of them. Let me know.

I would prefer for us to table it so that they can really research it and come back so that it's really fair. I know you're tired of waiting, but you run the risk of us just saying we're not going to do it, period.

I can take the top off. I don't need the variance. I can take the top off. We just don't want to lose the buffer there along the turnpike.

Yeah, we've seen the outcome of that before. It definitely affects the resale value.

I have too, and I don't want to see that. I've worked very hard on there to avoid it.

And I didn't quite hear relative to the tabling. Are we talking continuing to a date certain, or are we talking tabling?

Yeah, I was making a motion for October 27th.

Yes, she was about to make a motion. Okay. I don't know if there was a second. I think you seconded it, yeah. So we had a motion and a second to table October 27th. Cool. So we got a thumbs up for the applicant.

Can we go for a vote? I have a motion. Do I have a second?

Yes, I second it.

I have a motion to table item number 10 to October 27th.

Yes.

Is it the 27th? Mm-hmm.

Well, if there's 13, then the 14 is in there.

Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? And chair, vote aye as well. Thank you.

item number 11 city manager evaluation so mr mayor and council this was a um based on resolution 2026 15r that you guys adopted to come up with the criteria and the evaluation process so what you're doing tonight is in your packet you have all of the results from all five council members and so you're what you're looking to do tonight is to discuss the evaluation and come up with a merit increase if if you feel warranted and the amount of that as well as help set the or set the priorities established as priorities and expectations and goals for the city manager for the next year okay

This is a public hearing. Anyone in the public who wishes to address this item may come to the microphone and state your name, address, and have three minutes.

Okay.

Joe Fomasi, 2693 Jumping Jack Way. I'd just like to show appreciation for the work and service to the city here. I'd like to thank the police department, fire department, streets department, and also the city manager's office for the outstanding work and service that I've received in my interactions with them. And I hope that you will appreciate the service city that has emerged from this leadership and that you will reward that. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? This is a public forum. Anyone in the chamber wish to address this item may come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes. Anyone else? Seeing no one else.

I concur with the gentleman that just spoke. I think it's time for us to put this to bed. Make sure Mr. Wagner is aware of what is expected of him. You have his evaluation. And let's just keep moving down the road and keep running the city. This should be settled. It should have been settled. But can we like bring some closure to this? He's been working hard with staff. Let's just get this done. And so he knows where you stand. The city knows where you stand. The public knows where you stand. What's expected of him. And he has guidelines. Let's just, let's get it done. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone else? This is a public forum. Anyone in the chamber which addresses, I may come to my phone, state your name and address and have three minutes. Seeing no one else, I close the chamber. No one online, so I'll bring it back to council. What say you, Ms. Myers?

I looked at the evaluation and it looks like pretty much the majority of us feel that Mr. Van Wagner has been doing a very good job in his role. And I believe that he should receive a merit pay increase. And I'm trying to find my notes. I would say about 4.5% is what I would suggest for his merit pay increase.

That's it? Yes. Mr. Peterson?

I think it's two years now since we've had him as our city manager. So I think his evaluation is by what he does, what he's been doing, how he communicates with us, how he communicates with staff. We would hear if there was negatives from staff. He's doing a good job, a phenomenal job as far as I'm concerned. And I guess we could see that in the ratings here, too. Even if people didn't like them, we still got a 4.5, which is pretty good. With that, I would say I would do a 4.5 also.

Thank you. That's strange.

Yeah, real quick question. Rick, are you accepting any benefits currently?

No.

No.

I didn't think so. So I averaged the scores, and Mr. Van Wagner averaged a 4.01, which exceeds expectations. There were four areas for the public watching that somebody felt he fell below expectations. And then there was one area that related to procurement, which we've talked about publicly before. And I think that both – and I've talked to Mr. Van Wagner about – my evaluation, he knows which one is mine. One thing that I suggested, so then you'll all know which one is mine, is that we have some sort of task management software. This actually came up recently. A public member said, hey, can we get the city manager's reports? I know we're working on software. I think that's something that if we had that, I think a lot of these scores might even be higher because people would really be able to see what it is that he's managing and where those projects are. So that being said, I think a exceeds expectations across the board of five people, especially as different and unique as we are, is extraordinary. I'm sure you want fives across the board, but I just want to remind you, as I did with my own evaluation, that three is meets expectations. So four is pretty remarkable. So I'm in support of a four and a half percent increase. But also, I just want to point out for the last two years, this gentleman hasn't accepted any benefits from his contract. I'm asking him to take the benefits that are in the contract already. So I'm in support of the 4.5% increase for merit and also to instruct him to accept the benefits that are listed in his contract.

Thank you. Yes, sir.

Thank you, Mayor. Is the four and a half percent, is that a, if I can ask Council Member Myers, I think you were the first one to bring it up. Is that based off of what a merit increase that we've given all staff or is that a number that you came up? I'm just curious how you came up with that number because I was going to ask the question about what we did for staff and department heads.

For staff, I was told that it's about four is about average for staff. The percentage? Yeah. Okay.

We go as high as five if we feel like there's an exceptional situation. So we've given staff the liberty, the directors, to do it that way.

The directors for their staff? To go up as high as five.

Okay.

And then I agree with Council Member Strange, her comment about the project management. You know, I think there's a couple different things that we talked about trying to accomplish in this process, which was potentially doing an evaluation for a merit increase. And then also, do we want to set goals for Some sort of specific goals for the next calendar year so that moving forward when we do this, the city manager can actually report back. Here's how I accomplished what you asked me to do. And here's also what I accomplished on top of that. So that going into the evaluation process, we actually have. That achievement piece of that. And then we can actually use that in the ratings and future merit increases and so forth. So I have zero problems with a 4.5 merit increase. And I just don't know how we want to go about having the conversation of what if we want to set goals and what goals we want to set. And I don't I'm not married to the idea that it has to be done right now in this moment. But I do think if we commit to that, we need to commit to the process by which we would go about doing that so that he knows not too far in the distance what those goals might be for the following year so that he can start to plan that going into January. But I support the 4.5.

And in your evaluations, all of you filled out what the goals would be or what I should say, all of you filled out that check box. So you can go over those and see if those, if you want to include them all, if you want to include some of them, if you want to. add to them.

Yeah. And I mean, I think they're all good ideas because they came from us and we have a real, well, but I mean, okay, that sounded, that sounded, that didn't mean the way that sounded. I did not mean the way that sounded. What I meant was, is that obviously we cared about what they meant to us to put that in a goal. And so I think that's important to recognize. However, I also don't want to give a list of I don't know how many there are here, but even if it's eight or 10 goals that are pretty intensive, I don't think that that sets him up for, for success. So, um, I don't know if there's a way for us – I'm open to hearing ways for us to be able to discuss that section. And maybe it starts with – I'm open to the idea. I'm just throwing this out there. Could the deputy city manager synthesize these and present something in a non-biased way so that then we can kind of talk about it? Yeah. Because I don't necessarily, gosh, I don't want to sit here for an hour and a half and create goals and try to build that consensus. But obviously, we have some things here. Maybe if we just ask the deputy city manager to synthesize that for us and bring it back for us to be able to then create one, two, three, or whatever goals, I'm open to that idea.

If I can contribute briefly on that, I think whoever Evaluator 3 is gave five really good targets for next year. I don't know, but I thought those were good.

I mean, Mr. Van Wagner, you say we go up to 5%. Isn't that with performance as well? They can get up to 5%. It's based on performance.

Basically, staff is 3%, plus we can do a 2% performance. We went as high as 5% if it was somebody that was doing a good job that the director wanted to reward. Five altogether, right? Yeah.

I thought we cut it down to three. We're a performance, and then we take performance out.

performance is a criteria, but it wasn't, I don't recall it being set as a minimum of three and up to five. I think it was just, as I was explaining to me, it was just up to five based on performance, but yes, performance is.

Well, that's what I thought. That's what it was set up. It was set up at 3% for staff, but they can do another 2% for performance and get up to 5% is what it, what it was. Another question, police and fire. Didn't we just do 4% for them? Wasn't there contracts?

Yeah, it was much higher than that.

Well, the first year of the contract, police got 18% and fire got 15%, but then we set everything else for the next two or three years at 4%.

I'm thinking, Mr. Mayor, the police was 8% in their contract, if I remember right. I'd have to look at the numbers. But that's union compared to administration.

Right, for the union. Yeah, that's union, yeah. But they said, if I'm not mistaken, what we approved was 18% for fire last year. Now, fire was 15% and police was 18% because that brought them up to the minimum pay equal to everybody other agency around to get them up to that level, okay? That's why we gave them big boosts. Then each year after that, it would have been 4% for each one, if I'm not mistaken, in that contract. But anyway, I was thinking more 4% because that's where we went with everybody else. And trust me, when it comes to pay increases, anything over 2% for me is – It is crazy. It is a high, okay? Because all my life, most places I worked and everything, you very seldom got anything over 2% to 3%, okay? So it took me something to get the fire up to 4%, but everybody good with 4.5%, that's okay with me.

But, you know, I just want to...

Make sure we're somewhere in the same range with everybody else, what we're doing with everybody else, and like I say, other employees and everything. But if I'm not mistaken, police is at four and fire is at four. Okay.

Mr. Mayor, if I can help this at all, we look back at the last 20 years at the city manager's evaluations and their rates, and it averaged as low as 4% and up to 4.8% is what they got over the last 20 years.

I know most of them I've done was around 4%, okay, not 4. Anything over, so. And that's what I'm saying. In action. But I entertain a motion.

I'd like to make a motion to increase the salary for the city manager to 4.5%.

I second.

I have a motion and a second to approve 4.5%. a merit increase for the city manager. Any further discussion?

May I just ask, how do we want to handle the goals piece of this?

We'll come back on that.

We didn't decide. That's why I'm asking if we want to just make... Council Member Strange brought up Sorry. The five items under Evaluator 3. There's another one for project management. There's another one about community outreach. I just don't know if we want to set that here or if we're asking for something to come back to us. I just don't want to not do anything and then we...

I like your idea when you suggested for... our deputy to look at it and comprise them. And then we synthesize. Yes. And then we decide, yes, what the consensus is for the top three, because I don't want us to be, I don't want us overburdened him with goals. And he has a job with very, very many different responsibilities. So if we could do like maybe three, we come down to, we narrow down to a goals.

You don't want me to narrow it down though. No. Let me synthesize these and put them in bullets and bring them back. You're going to find those five and then you're going to find a couple of repetitive ones that talk about the same theme. Right. So, I think those five actually captured pretty much what everybody said.

Well, I was going to go back and if I'm not mistaken, when we did this evaluation, it asked us to list improvements or goals you wanted to do. So, when you did the evaluation, you should have done that already. Correct. the evaluation so I don't know why we got to come back now and have a whole nother meeting on goals when we were supposedly when you did your evaluation did that now are some of repetitive I think so okay so maybe the city manager deficit manager and Tracy whoever can go through and narrow them down and get rid of and just say here's the goals but I don't think we need to have another whole workshop on

own goals and everything the only thing i would add for you is some of them are polar opposite from each other some of the comments and that's been one of my concerns from day one is it's hard to serve everybody if we're going in a different direction and with all transparency not everything is all on the same page in some of the evaluation as i went through it so i can't do what all five of you are asking in some of these items. So I appreciate wanting to vote on it and get over with it, and that's okay. But when it contradicts what you're asking me, that's not realistic an expectation because somebody loses and somebody wins, and you're all asking for everybody to win. So just in all candor, if we could make it so everybody is in unity, that would be amazing.

Yeah, so Mr. Peterson, you might consider amending your motion to accept the valuations of the council and approving a merit-based pay increase to 4.5% and the amount of 4.5% with specific instructions to the city manager to bring back. What? A resolution? What are we?

I'm not sure where you're headed.

To pursue the specific goals for the next year as identified by evaluator number three.

I mean, that's all good. I mean, isn't that what we just did for this evaluation?

Right. That's what I'm saying.

Are we just saying, okay, so actually let's come back and do an evaluation.

So I think to Mr. Bain's point, and I actually do agree with it, is we've done the process, but if the motion is simply the pay increase, there's no one acceptance of the evaluations which support the pay increase. And two, there's no direction. And so I hear everybody and I agree. I don't necessarily feel we need to workshop it. I think we're on the same page. I think evaluator three, I might wordsmith a little bit, Frankenstein it, but I think evaluator three nailed the top five kind of targets for 2027 and their proposals for the next year.

I think some of them in Evaluator 3, some of them were unrealistic for him, like this true balanced budget where expenditures do not outpace revenues. I think it needs to be either we come up with three goals unilaterally that is out of what we have, we already filled out, or we just table it and think about it. I know I don't want to spend two hours debating back and forth nitpicking because that's micromanagement. I don't want us to micromanage. I feel like we already evaluated him. It's a consensus to give him the pay increase. So I'm happy with that going on that because he knows from this evaluation what is expected of him because I think we all have put our notes on here that he got to read. So I kind of feel like he already has an idea of what is expected of him.

Yes, I agree with that. Okay. The fact that, you know, we've given all this to him, what our expectation is. And if either one of us feel he's not meeting our expectation, I think we need to have a one-on-one with him to express that rather than trying to sit here and say, okay, we're going to take evaluation number three goals and apply. Then you're trying to dictate to me how I'm supposed to up your person. Okay. Yeah. accept the evaluation as it's been given, anybody have any problem that he don't think they're meeting your expectation, his or her expectation, then you need to have a one-on-one with him, okay? But I think trying to sit here and say, okay, force me to agree with this goal when it may not sit well with my perception of my style and my expectation is asking a little much, okay? And that's why when we did the evaluation, that's one of the reasons we've taken so long to do this evaluation because we could never come to agreement on a lot of these things.

Well, and yeah, the three-pager performance evaluation tally form really does, I mean, Mr. Van Wagner, do you feel... Um, do you feel like this form, this three page form was fair? Do you think that this process gave you, I mean, how do you feel about this process? And do you feel like you have the tools that you need moving forward for fiscal year 27 based on what we've provided with you?

I would prefer not to answer your question if that would be okay. Okay. Cause it gets me into an uncomfortable conversation that for the most part. Yes.

Is there anything that we can provide for you today that would give you clarity moving forward as we go into fiscal year 2017?

I'm comfortable with understanding my role and some of the comments that have been made. Just for clarity, I average about 74 hours a week from the first month till now. So to put any additional responsibilities on me seems a bit daunting. Okay. And something would have to give if I'm going to keep a healthy work family life. And I really enjoy staying married and my grandkids and my kids. So I would just say that. So I just would have to make some changes to how I do business here if I were to add a bunch more responsibilities. And I'm not above... making changes and doing things just, I've just got to be careful if I'm going to be successful and keep my body in a good spot too. Cause I, I press it sometimes too much and I got to be careful because my desire is to make the city look good, to please you, to please the residents. And I work really hard at that because it's a big deal to me because I love this community, however long I'm in this role. So I want to make you all proud and do a good job. So yeah,

Well, I just want to point out that if those twos that are on there were fours, you would have had a 4.51 score. So that's pretty darn good.

Yeah.

So I hope you take it that way. I think you're a perfectionist.

I can be a perfectionist.

So I like that about you. I just want to make sure if there's something we need to do today to give you clarity and make you feel more at peace that we're doing that for you.

I feel better about it, but like the mayor said, if it was piled on me, I don't think I could fulfill all your expectations, and I don't want to disappoint you all or the citizens that I have this list that I'm not accomplishing. I mean, any given day, guys, can be a 17-hour day or a 12-hour day, and it's just you don't know what the needs are at any given moment. Yeah.

I think hearing him say that, I think accepting just the motion of accepting the evaluations and issuing the 4.5 merit increase for this year is absolutely justified and warranted.

Good. Okay. So that's the motion and a second to accept the performance evaluation as presented and award a 4.5% merit increase. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor let it be known by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Shareable, aye as well. Motion carries 5-0. Ordinance number 2026-019. Introduction, Lake Louisa. Here we go again.

An ordinance of the city of Claremont Lake County, Florida, adopting the small scale comprehensive plan amendment for the city of Claremont, Florida, pursuant to the local government comprehensive planning act chapter 163 part 2 Florida statutes. setting forth the authority for adoption of the small-scale comprehensive plan amendment, setting forth the purpose and intent of the small-scale comprehensive plan amendment, providing for the adoption of the small-scale comprehensive plan amendment, establishing the legal status of the small-scale comprehensive plan amendment, providing for conflict severability, administrative correction of Scrivener's error publication, and an effective date.

Thank you. Anyone on council have any serious questions or concerns about this introduction?

No.

So are you telling me we don't need to do a public forum? No. Okay.

No.

All right. So I entertain a motion.

Let's make a motion to accept ordinance number 2026-019 intro. Second. I have a motion and a second to approve.

to approve Ordinance Number 2026-019, Intro Lousy, I hate Louisa, Grandy. Louisa Grandy. Any further discussion?

No.

Hearing none, all in favor let it be known by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? And Chair vote aye as well. Item Number 13, Ordinance Number 2026-020.

An ordinance under the Code of Ordinances of the City of Claremont, Lake County, Florida, amending the official zoning map of the City of Claremont, referred to in Chapter 122 of Ordinance No. 289C, Code of Ordinances, rezoning the real properties described herein as shown below, providing for conflict, severability, administrative correction of scrivener's error, recording, publication, and an effective date.

Okay. Again, any serious questions? No. In that case, I entertain a motion.

I'd like to make a motion to accept Ordinance No. 2026-020, intro. Second.

I have a motion and a second for acceptance of Ordinance No. 2026-020. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, let it be known by saying aye.

Aye.

All opposed? And chair, vote aye as well. Item No. 14, Councilmember Request Candidate Form Advertising.

okay yes this is um the meet the candidates that is going to be happening on september 14th which is monday of next week i heard some grumbling of people not wanting it to be posted on the city website and i wanted to get my fellow colleagues viewpoints and see what they would support it being put on the city website so that our citizens would know where it's at and that they would come and participate because the point of having the candidate form is so our citizens can meet the candidates that are running that want to represent them to see if that's who they want to represent them.

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

Good evening, City Council. My name is Vincent Nemec from Regency Hills. All right, I'm speaking today regarding the proposal to advertise the September 14 candidate forum on the City Claremont website. Just to let you know, a candidate forum gives residents the opportunity to hear directly from the candidates themselves about their visions, about their priorities, about their ideas for the future of Claremont, because this involves an election. And the public access to this information, I believe, is transparency regarding the city's decision in making progress, especially the important ones. The only thing I'm a little taken back by is, I recall when this first came up at a city council meeting and it was introduced, unfortunately, I hate saying your name again, but Mayor Murray, you opposed this. for your reasons. So I would like to direct the question to the appropriate city staff members, including their IT department and the councilor. So I respectfully ask that the nature of this communication, I'm sorry, all right, did any city council members communicate with the staff regarding whether the September 14 candidate form should be not advertised on the city website? That's number one. If so, would like to ask the nature of the communication and the basis for the decision to be disclosed to extend to the extent of the law okay if there is a policy please let me know why it shouldn't be on the website all right i just received my water bill that i talked about this i'll show you it has all the advertisements in the world from council meetings thank you From council meetings, lunch with the mayor, have a bagel with Bill, Elvis himself. Okay. Thank you. I'm getting a little motion sickness there. All right. So seriously, guys, come on. This is the first time I've ever heard about a debate. So please, if you could answer my questions from the IT department or the council, all right? This is not supporting or opposing a candidate. It's about ensuring the residents have access to the election information and decisions concerning that information that are made transparently and consistently. Did I say that right? Yeah, consistently. Thank you. Have a blessed evening.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Joe Famasi, 2693 Jumping Jack Way. This is an idea for the public to meet the candidates and to interact closely with them. And I just want to bring up the point that when you qualify as a candidate to run for office in the city, you post it on the city website. So what's the difference of posting this event? It's the same thing, to let the public know who's qualified and who they can talk to to find out what their points of views are. So legally, I feel that this is a First Amendment issue, that we have a right to advertise this. Because if you're going to put up the candidates when they qualify, why wouldn't you put up an event that invites the public to come meet them? It's the same premise. So thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else?

Oh, goodness. Hello.

Sorry. Jenny May, 4062 Greystone Drive. I just wanted to thank Councilwoman Chandra Myers for providing the public an opportunity for the public to see who the candidates are. A lot of them weren't able to go to the hobnob, and honestly, a lot of the candidates that are running for council didn't attend. So this is a second time opportunity. So I want to thank you. I think it's very important. I think it's very important that the publications go out, website, Facebook, but as long as it goes out to the community, as long as you're able to see and have their choice. So thank you. Just wanted to say that.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Paul, what's next? Paula Hoisington, 564 East Soto Street. I agree with what the last two speakers have said. I mean, if we can put lunch with the mayor on the site, bagels with Bill on the site, why would we not put debate with those who are running for office? Everybody can't come here at 3 o'clock. Some people don't know how to sign on. You know, but why would we not want to advertise so that everyone who can will have an opportunity to come and listen firsthand? When I saw that agenda, I was like, surely there's not going to be like a real discussion on this. Seems like a no brainer. So thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone else? Anyone else? No one else in the chamber? I'll close down public comment in the chamber. We have anyone online? Certainly no one online. I'll bring it back to council. What say you, Mr. Peterson?

I mean, I'm in favor of putting it, you know, advertising it. I think the key word is transparency we keep on talking about. And, you know, a lot of people... You know, aren't on the internet, aren't on Facebook, aren't on Instagram. There's a big population that comes to these type of events.

Is there a question there?

I'm in favor of getting it.

Okay. Thank you.

Yeah, I actually would like the question requested by the public to be answered by staff, whether there's been some communication by any member of council. I mean, I would also direct it to Ms. Myers. Like, why is this on our agenda tonight? Did somebody ask to take this off of our website? Are we not promoting it on Facebook? Like, what caused this to happen?

I can provide some feedback on that. I mean, there's a statute, Florida Statute Section 106.113, which talks about expenditures by local governments. And so it makes hosting a candidate forum tricky unless it follows the right procedures. So other cities do host candidate forums, and that's okay. But the key thing, and there's subsection two, which says that nothing in this code section prevents a city from hosting a public forum. But if public funds are used and it is in any way partisan, so it makes it tricky because sometimes when cities host events, it could theoretically, if a majority of incumbents had control over staff, influence the way that such, that's not a concern here. Um, there hasn't been any of that. So the, the effort from my end has just been to make sure that it follows the statute and I don't have any concerns at this time.

So you're the one who pulled it from the website.

I didn't pull it, but I expressed a concern. I want to make sure it follows the statute.

And you inserted yourself into that.

Oh yeah.

No one on council asked you to do it.

No.

Okay.

I didn't hear your question.

Well, the question was, did someone on council direct staff?

I've not been directed by anyone on council. I mean, I respect when members of the council do want me to do something. It's not to say that I wouldn't, but also even if I did have conversations, I wouldn't disclose them in a council meeting.

Right. Attorney client. Yeah. Um, is there anyone else on staff that feels the need in full transparency to disclose any information to answer the question of the member of the public?

I haven't had any direct communications with anybody personally, so.

Okay. No emails.

No, I, I have to.

Okay.

listen to Mr. Waugh, but I will say this too. We feel in a very awkward, weird position as staff. And we're not trying to, we're trying to be Switzerland, but we get accused of not being Switzerland frequently. And, you know, it feels weird to even go to a debate that's supposed to be a neutral ground. So I need the council to understand. I think they're citizens, too, and the staff should be able to go to a debate just to watch or be a participant.

Did somebody say you couldn't?

No, no, no, no, no. I'm just saying it out loud.

Yeah, no, that's good.

Yeah. There's just been this feeling like we don't want to buy snacks for the public because we don't want to come across that we're supporting this or we don't want to do anything. We don't want to spend a dollar.

Well, help me because my recollection, which I prefer to look at black and white, and I apologize, I'm not prepared. Ms. Myers brought up in a report. Two months ago, was it? Something like that?

Yes.

Two months ago, asking if we as council supported this, and I thought there was a general sense of yes.

Yes.

Am I misremembering? No, your memory's right. There was only one person that wasn't for it. So is there something, Mr. Waugh, that... Are there... Are there funds that are necessary for advertisement? Is there some sort of approval that you need that Ms. Myers is needing? And I reiterate, I appreciate you hosting this. I can't think of anything better for use of civic space than for civic engagement. So is there something that is necessary that we can help move this forward with?

I think that on my part, there was a little confusion in the beginning. I thought that there might be a private organization sponsoring it. And so I wasn't sure if we were supporting a private or whether it was illegal women voters or I wasn't sure that concern has been totally remedied. My understanding is that this is a city organized event with an, uh, a mediator or moderator isn't a city employee. Um, Coming up with questions. And so now I will say that, I mean, the questions must be impartial. They can't be designed to hurt or harm any candidate. Right. But there are concerns when you look at candidate forms. So it's a little bit of a minefield for me as a city attorney. Because take, for example, you have two incumbents running for office.

Mm-hmm.

what are the sunshine implications of that? And if you look at the Sunshine Manual, it does say, the Government and Sunshine Manual, it does say that candidate forums are okay, so long as they don't directly interact. But see, it's scary, because what if someone offhanded says, well, you know, I just heard so-and-so say this. That would be a sunshine violation.

Well, can we just notice it?

They have to keep – no. Then we have to obey all the – I mean, yes, theoretically we could. Then we have to obey all the other formalities. That's not what a candidate forum is. So a candidate forum is something where the candidates show up, they handle questions, and if their incumbents are currently on the council, they don't interact with each other. So it seems simple, but from a legal perspective, there's a lot of potential minds involved. So I've worked through those. I don't have any issues with it as it stands. FYI.

But wouldn't it be similar to the Hobnob? We had everybody there, and there was no interaction between incumbents.

Yeah, I mean, Hobnobs are normally sponsored by private organizations. That's usually the best practice, so to speak. Because then you ensure there's no city... potential issues with that. But like I said, based on how this has been designed, I don't have a legal issue. Who's hosting this? The city is.

Is there staff on the city dedicating time to coordinating it and setting it up?

No.

I thought it was the moderator, Doris. Yes, yes.

Doris, she's done all of that.

Yeah, Doris is doing all of it. All we're doing is just, well, it's at the city center, but we're not, I believe there's no cost in that at all. Doris is volunteering her time, so there's no city cost in that. Southlake TV is going to stream it, so there's no cost from the city perspective on any of that.

I mean, even if there was cost, that doesn't make it illegal. What would make it illegal is an expenditure that had the effect of being partial in some way or endorsing someone's speech or position. Then that would be a problem.

Okay. I have all my questions answered.

Yes, sir.

I got one of my two questions. So the other question is, do we currently have a policy or procedure in place for items like this? Okay, I'll save the rest for comments. Thank you.

Okay. It's always been my understanding since being here. The city didn't get involved in these kind of things. This is my first time in all the years I've been around here that we had the city get involved with this. To clear the record, I did call Mr. Waugh and ask him some questions about it. One of my questions was about the legality of it as far as the fact that we're hosting this and then what could concern me when some taxpayer dollars are involved. That brought up a legal question to me, so that's why I called Mr. Waugh about it. I had nothing to do with it. I don't know what went on with the Internet or the Facebook page or whatever. I have nothing to do with that. But my concern with Mr. Waugh's question was, is this legal when you're using taxpayers' dollars for the city to host one of these events? I hear everybody say the facility isn't costing us anything, but normally if there was a private organization using the facility, we would be charging them. So in other words, we, as a city facility, we're not paying for it. So then there's another league to me. That was another legal form. Okay. Um, other big concern with me, uh, which Mr. White hit on was the sunshine law. Okay. Um, I can be there. My understanding, I couldn't be there. Ms. Peterson couldn't be there at the same time. And no other council members could be there as the way the law was explained to me. So I called Mr. Wilder and let him explain that to me because, say, for instance, are we sitting there in the candidate forum and the question comes to us, parking garage. If I answer that, okay, that's something that we as a council member may have to vote on later. And so now I'm commenting on something that may be coming before the council in a non-public forum. So that was my concern. And I can remember two years ago. When we had to meet the candidate form set up, I had to cut it short because of that same Sunshine Law came into effect, and we were threatened that they were going to file a motion in ethics law on us for doing this candidate form, so we cut the form short. So, yes, that's one of the reasons. I bought it and, of course, I'm concerned about the city. By the way, let's set the record straight. For the record, I did not oppose this when she asked me about it. I told her I would not be there. There's a difference between opposing and not being there. Well, please. Okay. But anyway, I did not oppose it. Hey, if this is what you want to do to find a reason, I will not be there because basically you pull a date out and, of course, my schedule is already full. It has something going. And so the 14th, I'm not available. Okay. I looked at trying to do some other things to change my schedule. But after I called Mr. Wall, I'm waiting to answer for him. But at this point, I decided, hey, I'm going to just stick with what my schedule was. And I will not be there. I just heard something on the hobnob. The hobnob is totally different. It was done by a private organization and two people, two candidates not sitting there asking questions for the public to hear in a hobnob. You're at your own station and you're asking an individual question to everybody else, okay? So there's a difference in this and the candidate form. I have no problem with it. Mr. Waugh, we've had our conversation. He explained everything to me, even though I still think there's a little bit of gray area there with the financing and the taxpayer money and everything else, because there was actually another lawyer, two other lawyers that brought it to my attention about it and everything, because that's why I came to my attorney and see what he says, because if anything come out of it, he has to defend it, okay? You know, but... It's a little gray area there because of the funding that's involved. The city is actually funding the refreshments and all this, and then we're not charging for the facility and everything, my understanding was. If you're not, okay, and everything. So that's where I stand with it. I have no problem putting it on the website if that's what you all want to do.

I mean, you know, it would be nice since it's next week. So I mean, if this could have been done two months ago, that would give notice to people. But, you know, I'm in favor of putting it on now.

Yeah, I think that I think that I do feel, you know, Mr. Mayor, if you're not going to be there, it's Unfortunate would be one word to use. I mean, I think the purpose of a town hall is that people can come and they can engage and they can meet the candidates. I remember the meeting that you're talking about. I was running for election and I wasn't invited to that meeting, which was the issue with sunshine. It wasn't an open public meeting, um, back in 2024. So, you know, this one's open to the public. And so it's tough that, um,

It's not advertised properly.

Right. We have the problem of, you know, has it been – are people planning on coming? I mean, if people are planning on coming, then it sounds like it's been vetted and it's been – if people are planning on coming and it's been advertised, I think it should move forward. I personally – I think public spaces are for public meetings. I will never oppose any public meeting in a public place ever. So – I'm stunned that there's a problem here. I want to make a just decision if there's a decision to be made, but it sounds like we're moving forward in a direction. And I think the only decision for me to engage in is change. Am I going to stop it? And the answer is no, I'm not going to stop it. I don't think I'm sitting here being asked for approval. I think we already gave approval two months ago, and I'm not inclined to stop it. But I do think it's unfortunate that it's not getting fully participated in.

Well, when you just set up a date, you don't inquire with anybody else what's on their calendar and everything and then just schedule something and expect somebody to just drop everything. It doesn't work that way.

Respectively, Mayor, Ms. Doris asked you and the other candidate for alternative dates, and nobody ever got back with her on that. So there's that.

Well, you know, just like I didn't make the hobnob because I was out of town and everything doing the hobnob.

As a point of order, it is Mr. Bain's turn to speak.

I'm not sitting here to try to stop this or do anything with it. See, like I say, I know I can't be there. If this is what you all want to do and my city attorney then told me that everything is okay. And he's vetted it and everything, and we're not getting ourselves in any legal trouble. That's the only thing I'm ever concerned when I look at things like this. What legal ramification or drawback can the city be facing when we do things like this? Okay. And that's all. And, of course, like I said, he's the attorney. If he's assured me that, hey, we okay, and if something do come up, he can defend it, that's fine.

Okay.

But I know what was brought to my attention, and I needed to satisfy my soul and everything that we was okay and legal here.

Okay.

I entertain a motion.

May I just make my comment, please? Sure. Thank you. My only concern about this was if there's a policy for advertising if it's not a city event. Because what I don't want to do is create a, we advertise these, but don't advertise these over here. And hearing that it's a city event, I don't think that there's an issue. However, I will say I think it probably behooves asking our city attorney for future so that if there is a majority of the council up here that could enact a way through not approving or approving, even though that's not the case this year, let's go ahead and put a policy or procedure in place so we don't have that happen. I think that's a reasonable thing to do. And I was fully ready to say no because I didn't think it was a city event. And I just didn't want to open this can of worms of advertising some non-city events and some non-city events. And then we create this, how did you make this decision? Now we're in that jackpot. It is a city event. Let's put it on the counter. I absolutely wish we would have had this. We had this every year. I wish our League of Women Voters, whether it was Orange County or the Tri area or our Chamber of Commerce Public Policy Committee, would host a forum or several forums that it wouldn't even be incumbent upon the city council or the city to have to do it. But we don't have any civic organizations who have done that yet. So without that, barring that, I think this is a good opportunity for people to see as long as it's done within the rules and the laws. for folks to meet and hear from the people who want to run and serve the city.

Brian, I would like to say something to you on that point. I did bring it to Chamber of Commerce to ask them to do it, and they said no.

Let me say, we used to have council meet the candidates years ago, and the city never did them. They were always done by some private organization. The chamber used to do them. They do the harm now. They do all these meet and greets and everything. It was never done in the city. And to go back... to kind of like what Mr. Wagner was saying earlier and somewhat to your comment that you made a few council meetings ago, Ms. Strange, is the fact that now you're asking, somewhat asking city staff to get involved and they're trying to remain neutral and all. And now we, the city is sponsoring the event and staff, how do they feel about it? Can they attend it? Like Mr. Wagner saying, can they attend it without being accused of being one side or whatever, see? And as you may, when you try to ask questions, A couple months ago about we not accept endorsement from city personnel, you know, because it make them uneasy. Then this is the same thing we're doing here when we city host these things. That's one of the reasons in the past the city have never hosted to try to keep the city employees in a neutral level, okay? And I know it was great. You talk about town halls. I do town halls every day just about. Okay. He put the city mayor's luncheon. That's what that's all about. Town hall. I'm out there meeting people every day. Not just, you know, come here, you know, because I'm running now. I want to run out here and meet. But I'm out here talking to them every day. Okay. So I have no problem doing it. But my schedule will not fit this date. And I'm sorry. I just can't be there.

So, Ms. Myers, is there anything you're asking for from us as a motion?

Just for it to be advertised on the website. On the website.

I move to advertise it on the website and social media. Sorry. Thank you.

I have a motion and a second to advertise the approval of item number 14 for advertisement on the website. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, let it be known by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Chair vote aye as well. Motion carries five-all. Item number 15, consideration of adopting a physical year 2027 parks and recreation policy.

Yep, so this one is mine, and full disclosure, I think this kind of upcoming year, what you'll be seeing from me is a lot of attempts at policy. Also, full disclosure, I've never written a policy in my life to my recollection, so they're probably really poorly done, but I'll get better, I promise. One of the things I noticed is... Bless his heart. And I don't mean that in the Southern sense. I really mean it. I ran into Brian Foreman at the ARC, and he said, you know, I came to that meeting. Sorry, I'm just calling you out. I come to that meeting, and I asked, like, can I work on the development ideas for the ARC? And then the meeting went a thousand different directions, and I just don't feel like I know what... I'm supposed to do now. Those are my words. He said it much better. And, um, but it touched me in a way that, you know, I thought I need to do something about this. And so I've taken a stab at a parks and recreation policy for fiscal year 27. Um, one is I don't like what I've observed in the a lack of clarity for me as a council member of what are our top priorities, how do we approach different projects. I'm taking a stab in Parks and Rec because I'm familiar with that. We just had the NRPA, so I feel like I can speak to some of this. But what I'm trying to do here is this is another one of those areas where we have over $11.5 million in recreation impact fees. We don't have an adopted plan. And so I know we're still waiting on some information from the ABA for us to go over. And I don't think that adopting a policy for this next year keeps us from making informed decisions as we move forward. I'm just looking to see if I can get consensus, if staff can get consensus on what are the targets currently. Because staff has to go out and be creative frequently. And so for purposes of the record, the intended outcomes and aspirations that I've included are to long-term ensure each citizen has safe access to parks within five minutes of their homes. This condition may be met through public or private parks accessible by road, trail, or sidewalk within the stated time by foot, bike, scooter, or golf cart. to equitably distribute the parks impact fee fund balance and to require 60% of the fund balance to be allocated to specific projects consistent with this policy within six months of adoption of the fiscal year 27 budget. And I want to define equitably so that everybody is aware equitably to me is a fair distribution under the circumstances. What that means is there's going to be flexibility. It's not equal, it's equitable. To ensure that each quarter, and I've defined quarters in the city, has a minimum of one active park and one natural park, each being 10 acres. The goal here as I'm trying to present it is that each section of the city have two big parks that have that nice choice of champions concept going on, but also that connectivity to nature. So we're getting both of those. And I think that those are really city-level type activities, whereas neighborhood parks maybe would be things that people in neighborhoods, however we want to define neighborhoods, could apply for. So maybe having a grant program. And again, having staff bring this back to us. I'm just looking for us to have high-level kind of direction so staff can bring us the details. And then to identify and implement a safe, purposeful, interesting, and comfortable citywide bike and pedestrian trail system. So these are the aspirations. I've defined the quarters so that we have them. Define an active park. Define a natural park. Define a neighborhood park. So for staff, what I'm asking is for them to continue with the NRPA, ABA guidelines. community survey with the target of collecting a thousand signatures or survey responses from claremont residents by the end of this calendar year december 31st 2026 to give us quarterly reports that would identify where staff is consistent with this policy making recommendations including preparation of a map that shows all of our community parks. And that might also include private parks that are closed to members of the public so that we can see who has access and who doesn't have access. Because a lot of people have access that aren't city parks. So that's good to know when we're deciding where parks should be. And then to present programming and maintenance proposals. Every park's different. I mean, we heard the Little League here during the Bishop Field workshop saying we've got maintenance issues. We're happy to help. So there might be parks where we have a community user that's happy to help, and maybe we want to say that's okay. Maybe we don't. But every park might be different. The Performing Arts Center obviously has different maintenance obligations than Hancock Park. And then specific projects. And again, just trying to get the ball rolling. We have already started Bishop Field. We had $600,000 in the budget for this year. That's going to roll over for next year. So my proposal was we not only roll it over, but we identify this is for Bishop Field. Doesn't mean that that's the limit on the project. It just means that's what we're budgeting. Grants are obviously an opportunity. We have received two proposals now, one from the ABA, one from DPZ. relative to the arc and what it could be as far as you know building it out adding more services staff specifically asked us if they could move forward that so that's item number two directly related to that item number three the waterfront we're going to have a master plan comprehensive plan coming before us in the next 60 days you know whatever that is, but also not to move forward until that comes forward. So let's be consistent with whatever plans we adopt. We talked at the last workshop about using the quarter million that we had dedicated for Victory Point as a grant opportunity for Main Street. I got a bunch of head nods. Yes, we can take that and turn it into more money. So can we move forward with that? And then finally, we approved it today, the purchase of the property at Lake Felter. So that's already been done. Item number five. So that's my direction. That's what I'm trying to do. And honestly, I see and I've heard we need policy and procedure on a number of items. Tonight, I wrote down development design center and advertising of events. So I'm willing to make that kind of my task for this coming year to just start. If you like it, start bringing them. If you hate it, I don't need to do it, but I'm offering my time, talent, and treasure. So that's my presentation.

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

Jenny May, 406, oh, again, Jenny May, 4062 Graystone Drive. I must be asleep, my goodness. First of all, thank you to you two for the policy. I mean, this is a great start. I did look it over, you know, especially with the Trust for PEP Plans, you know, between the 10 minute versus the five minute, love the five minute. I think it's doable, especially with some of the existing parks that we have here. Some things that I would like to add, I love the specific zones that you added, Historic Claremont College Quarter, ARC Quarter, Hancock Quarter, and then of course, Wilderness Way. I think those are great ways to kind of separate the sections, specific zones in our city, and then I think the good way to do it as well as a goal is to try to push for projects within each zone so that we can kind of say, hey, We have one for Historic Claremont, which is Main Street. College Quarters, we still haven't had one yet. But I know that the college is doing something around their, I guess, their master plan. ARC, I think that that was added in there. Hancock Quarter. And of course, Wellness Way. And, you know, there's things that come up to mind on that, which is, you know, basically the collaboration, again, with the county, because the county is doing a lot of these new mini cities, I guess what you call, Allison, I know you call them mini cities. But these many cities, I think we need to follow them, especially since I feel that annexation is something that happens all the time. I see it in front of the planning and zoning. I know you guys see it all the time at the city councils. But we need to also collaborate with them to make sure that specific, you know, these natural parks or these active parks are also included so that that comes, once it comes our way, it's also part of our, you know, this park plan. Maintenance. I know that there's some conflicts between who maintains what. I know the public works and then parks. So there has to be some collaboration there as well in that policy. I didn't see any public works. I know I saw a lot of maintenance. language in there, but I didn't see anything, any mention of any future amenities. I go to some of these parks, I do have a 13 year old, I sometimes love to have a picnic and I would love to have a place to sit. So I think amenities as part of that maintenance policy, I wasn't sure if that was included or not, but that should be also added as well. In regards to funding, I think it's great, 60% of funds, 11.7 million for parks. We also should look at tree funds. I think a perfect, if I have some more time, I move to give the speaker 60 seconds. Thank you. Going back to the funds. 60% of the funds I see 11.7 for parks. There's another fund that I think that we really don't kind of feel to recognize is our tree fund. And I think a good example of the tree fund could be this green mountain subdivision. That fee, I guess, for every tree that they you know, tear down, I think there were a thousand trees versus 1600 plus trees, or is that $600, you know, 600 Delta, maybe that fund could be used, you know, the 600 Delta could be used in the tree fund also for parks. So that's a little bit extra funds there. I think that is it, but all in all, thank you so much for starting up a great policy. So baby steps. Thank you.

Thank you.

Valerie Schuett, 931 West Montrose Street. I love this discussion, of course. I'm not an expert on policy by any means, and I don't really know what the options are that are out there for like a good parks policy. So this is a very man on the street take. But I like this because it's a lot of action on things that have already had a lot of public input. When you look at the things that are in here, there's been a lot of input. There's been a lot of buy-in and consensus around this. So it puts staff into action mode on some of the great planning that we've been doing for a year to two years, the last year to two years. So I love that. I think giving staff permission in the form of policy is also very helpful, especially when we're talking about acting on some of these kind of big moves and big ideas. I think I have seen and understandably so at times with staff a hesitancy to make big moves. There's a lot when you start moving people's cheese, people get mad, you know. So having your permission in the form of a policy like this, I think helps. will be very activating and that's what i hope would come from something like this and so that's why i love that it is specific and it is bold um we've had a lot of conversation around these things um i also think as a council you do have a serious responsibility to be equitable in your investment in parks and rec being elected by the people for the city as a whole so i love the emphasis on that and i think that I'm surprised that's not something that we already have in a policy form in some way in our city. So I think that's just super important. Love, love, love the arc. I'm glad that staff are excited about that. I think that is just, it's a really big opportunity. And it's, there's a lot of work that will go into it, but it's also very low hanging fruit for the city to have a high impact. So I love that. The question I would have is, how much we want to say or how much of a blanket statement is it that, all right, act on the ABA ethos recommendations or DPZ or whatever. How do we go about, there's a lot in there. For example, let's narrow it down to the waterfront. There was a lot of suggestions in there for the waterfront. How do we go about choosing which ones? I would just love some clarity around that because there were some things I saw that I loved and some things I saw that I didn't love so much and we couldn't do it all. How are we going to choose that and how do we make sure the policy isn't a blanket statement of permission on all of those things would be a concern. Then I can't remember, Jenny, I think she might have touched on this a little bit, but having shade as essential infrastructure, not as decoration or landscaping, We constantly are putting shade in spaces that aren't functional. We spend the money on the trees. This is, I think, more the county. I'm ranting on the county thing right now, but we spend money on trees and we plant them in a median while leaving the walkway with no shade. So when it comes to our parks, how are we being functional and intentional with shade? Thanks.

Thank you. Yes, sir.

All right. My name is Patrick Bianchi, 810 West Montrose. I am the president of Claremont Main Street. So I want to touch on that a little bit before I put my personal hat on. But we definitely welcome the opportunity to be involved as what we would consider a nonprofit arm to the city, even though we are a separate entity. to help and aid in the creation of what parks look like within the CRA boundary. We are limited to the CRA boundary, and that map could change, but it's actually pretty big. If you remember, we did a Tot Lot event. Councilman Bain was there. You can see the joy on people's faces, and I think for two reasons. One, they love the engagement of creating things, doing that. But I think the other is... The fact that at the end of the day, when this comes to fruition, they're going to have something to enjoy. So then it becomes the quality of life conversation. And with Main Street and kind of our initiatives in downtown in 27, a lot of our focus is on the Florida native plantings that we're doing, as well as parks. We had that budgeted in 27 already as part of our statewide work plans. So I'll just say we welcome the opportunity to collaborate. Any grant that you're willing to provide us, we'd love that. Yes, we can do a lot with it. One, because we have corporate partners and sponsors, and we'd have to figure out how that works in a public space. You know, if we tell Orlando Health they can buy a park bench, what does that look like, right? But you can allow us to be the sales conduit to get that done in these parks implemented specifically in the CRA. Now, as Patrick personally and a member of this community, going back to the quality of life perspective is that I think every member of the public here in Claremont should have access to parks. And I think this is a great step forward to implement a policy to do that. I know Councilman Bain and I were talking earlier. Over coffee one day about having a plan for parks, a multi-year, maybe five-year identify these parks and how you're going to rest, restore the ones that we currently have, what new ones are going to come online. You know, if you're dividing it out with boundary lines and stuff, that's great too, because I think that also allows for a main street esque. corporation or nonprofit, like let's say Kiwanis. If they're in that one sector, maybe they're the ones that are involved in those parks. I think the Amendment 3 is going to be challenging for parks and recreation. I say that. I think that's the one thing that you're going to see cities and counties start cutting is from there. So corporate sponsors, nonprofit relationships are going to be imminent with respect to parks. So I think that's a great idea. I love the fact that this policy is coming forward. I think it is a step in the right direction. So thank you so much for letting me speak.

Thank you. Anyone else?

Anyone else?

Joe Famasi, 2693 Jumping Jack Way. I appreciate you bringing this forward. Proactivism is not a thing of government. So for you to do this and put the energy behind this policy is amazing to get ahead of the game. I think that this will provide an opportunity Council Member Bain, Council Member Strange, when you came out and talked about the comp plan with my fellow residents, you felt that they were looking for stuff like this. They're looking for better opportunities, parks that are within the nature, not only trails. And I think that here's our chance to keep some of the beautiful lands protected in a way that everybody can enjoy it. And I just want to thank you for bringing this policy forward. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else?

Anyone else? This is a public hearing. Anyone in the chamber wish to address this item may come to the microphone and state your name and address and have three minutes. Seeing no one else, I have one online. Caller online, please unmute yourself.

Hey, can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay. Danny Page, Claremont. I think one thing that's missing from this conversation is adding a playground in the city, even if it's just one that's all inclusive. And I don't mean a playground that, you know, like simply meets ADA requirements because ADA compliance is like just the minimum legal standard. I'm talking about like a playground intentionally designed specifically You know, children with disabilities and even adults with disabilities, you know, they like to enjoy playgrounds. And able-bodied children can play together at the same time in the same space. I'm actually doing some research on this. There's a nonprofit called Unlimited Play that specializes in this. They actually work with municipalities to plan and develop inclusive playgrounds that go well beyond these ADA compliance and promote what they call parallel play. which just means children have different abilities being able to participate alongside one another instead of a disabled child being limited to one or two accessible pieces of equipment. So like wheelchair accessible play structures and ramps, adaptive equipment, sensory and musical components for autistic children, accessible surfacing, quiet areas for children who become overstimulated, and also different types and levels of play for children with wide range of physical, sensory, and developmental abilities and participate. Um, and I'm not, you know, suggesting that the city actually use this nonprofit unlimited play. I mean, you could use them, you could use somebody else, but put it out to bid or something or whatever the city needs to accomplish that. But my point is that if we're establishing a policy, um, moving forward that we would want our talk, you know, how we want our parks to look like moving boards and it must actually establish that kind of a goal. Um, and again, it can just be one playground. And they also do grants and all of that kind of stuff. So I just don't think asking that one of these playgrounds that we have in the park be designed so every child can actually play is really asking too much. So I really think that there's a need. I've seen comments online from residents that have disabled children that ask about this a lot. And so, again, not just a simple ADA compliant. I'm talking like an all-inclusive program. And a parallel play thing where able-bodied and disabled children can play together side by side. I think this is a great idea. And I thank Councilwoman Strange for bringing this forward. But I think this should be added into the policy that we establish at least one playground within a park that is all-inclusive. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Anyone else? No one else? We close down public comment and bring it back to Council. Ms. Myers.

Well, I like the initiative that you took for doing this, and you have my support, and I read through it and I heard you. I really don't have any questions for you, though, at this time.

Thank you. Council Member Peterson.

I think that last comment was something I haven't even heard of before, but it was something that a lot of people that have children like that need. And I think it's something we as a council should address. And I think it's great that you came up with this idea of putting it into quarters and having that done, especially if we can get the CRA involved because they can multiply our monies that come out. They're phenomenal. I forgot the assistant that was here last time. That was the grant writer that you were talking about? yeah she was like phenomenal and so we can really do other things with this and you know and we could be the spearhead in central florida have these type of parks i think it's a great idea i'm 100 for it cool thank you thank you councilmember bain thank you mayor i don't have any questions but i do have some comments okay all right um

I do have some questions, but first, I think we already have, if I'm not mistaken, we have a park and recreation policy already, if I'm not mistaken, that required to have 10 acres of park for every 1,000 residents. Is that not in our comprehensive plan already?

That's our level of service. That's our level of service.

We already have established in our comprehensive plan to have 10 acres of parks per 1,000 residents. Okay. And currently we have, what, 443 acres, give or take, of parks? I'm going to trust you on that. I don't know the exact number. I'm just trying to verify this before, because I do have some questions, but I want to make sure I get all this before.

Well, I can speak to that a little bit. One of the questions that the ABA had when they did the NRPA assessment was how to calculate any lakefront access as park access. And so there's the opportunity to short-come ourselves or oversell parks. I mean, it can get tricky because we do have so many lakefronts. Not in a bad sense tricky, just a little more complex than the average neighborhood or community. So the reason why I've proposed one active park and not treated that as necessarily a lakefront is so that we're actually intentionally creating spaces that the average person in the average city would consider a park. And I have a definition here that would allow the consolidation of multiple parks to comply with the 10-acre. For example, we have two miles of waterfront park in downtown that collectively could be consolidated if intentionally done to be one 10-acre park to meet that active park requirement. So... Yes and no, Mr. Mayor. Theoretically, we have met our requirement with the lakefront, but I think from a meaningful perspective from the citizens, I don't think most people would consider all the lakefront that we have satisfactory of that condition.

I agree. And, of course, this policy, we will replace the current policy, which you're creating five geographic quarters, right? Ten acres, like you say, ten acres of active, ten acres of passive natural park. And then here's the other thing in there. You say five minutes. Mm-hmm. access within five minutes, but then in the policy you state walking, automobile, bicycle, and everything. So what standard are we using to measure that five minutes?

Yeah. So parks are unique, like any piece of real estate and every child, right, is the five minute is actually simply having access to a park of any kind. It can be a private park. It can be what I'm proposing. It could be a private park. It could be a public park. But the point is, everybody who lives in Claremont would be within five minutes of a place they can go. and be connected to nature or play outside in the sun, in the elements. Now, the active park, natural park component of this would be, these are going to be big spaces. You start dealing with a 10 plus acre park and it takes a lot of coordination and effort. And that's where I think that the power of the government can be helpful. So we would have a minimum of 100 acres of park space that's definitely managed by the government. But we could also have three or 400 acres of park space that's managed by private neighborhoods or private entities. Like we think about the National Training Center, for example. It's going to meet some sort of active park requirement, but if it's not accessible to everybody who's five minutes from it, then it won't check that box. So every park, this is not a six-month plan or a two-month plan. My goal here is to get us aspirationally moving forward in a direction where there will be some low-hanging fruit, like the Lake Felter Park. that would check the natural park minimum 10-acre requirement for the southeast quarter, which already has active parks. So we might not think we like it until we see Lake Felter Park come along and go, oh, we need an active park there. And it allows our staff to look and say, where do we need an active park? Where do we need a natural park? And so it's giving them a target rather than just shooting bullets.

Okay. Well, I'm just looking at what you're proposing here, and like I say, if I'm not mistaken, our comprehensive plan already provides for a citywide acreage and level type park, and we want to go from that to a geographic distribution of parks and all. So another question is, will this policy apply equally to every park, all the parks and recreation park projects?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

If we put this in here, will we be able to apply the standards or whatever? Every park and recreation project that we have in the city or looking at in the city, will we be able to apply these standards and take a look at it from this policy?

So I didn't go that deep into each park's, for example, the basic amenities. I didn't address the basic amenities, so it's actually great that that came up. I would suggest that that could be done later than this. This is more of a 10,000-foot view looking at the city as a whole and first and foremost ensuring safety. And then what happens at each one of those parks and how they look is going to vary greatly. And I think that evolves over time where it becomes more obvious what is necessary. But this policy is I intentionally wrote it so that it would be high level, except where I got into the specific projects. So I'm starting very wide and I'm narrowing it down so that we can we can agree or disagree on the core aspirations and intended outcomes. And really, I think. If we don't agree on those, that's where we should start so that we can narrow it down into the more specifics. But I think we have a tendency to operate within the specifics instead of having a high level policy. So that's what I'm really trying to do here. But we have done a lot of things. So I wanted to include them since we're coming up on fiscal year 27 budget.

Well, I guess what I'm getting at is making sure that every project we have, for example, meet us in the middle. Can it be evaluated under this policy using the same objectives and criteria that's set aside in this policy?

Yeah, so Meet Me in the Middle would fall under item three, direct staff to pursue options for activation of the waterfront between the boat ramp and Hiawatha, consistent with the adopted plan. And then, you know, that's actually not even at the 10,000 foot. At that point... once we adopt the master plan for downtown, we're getting into kind of the 2,000-foot level. And so it's just executing that plan. But it is actually giving staff instruction and direction to execute the plan so that they know this is something you're going to be measured against, which can be a curse, but I think it's probably a blessing.

It's probably a blessing.

Yeah, to know what you're going to be measured against.

Am I right, Mr. Van Wagner? Well... Well, I'll get to that in a little bit, but I just want to make sure that the other thing is, under this policy, that Meters in the Middle will be able to be funded, right?

Well, you know, my position on Meet Me in the Middle is it's not funded. And I mean, I'm just going to put that skunk on the table. I don't think that we have the funding for Meet Me in the Middle and we haven't approved the final design or the final drawings. We move forward to get more information. But as I sit here today with what I've seen, which is limited compared to yourself, Mr. Mayor, I would not think the citizens of Claremont would appreciate a concrete-focused park that rips out trees rather than installing new trees. That's my position. I'm only one vote. I have been outvoted on that issue before. But this does not preclude Meet Me in the Middle to move forward as intended without What it would potentially limit is spending impact fee funds that were paid by citizens in other quarters to be spent in that quarter. That is a possibility. And also, you know my position on the CRA funding itself and using general funds. But you heard me tonight. I proposed using $6 million to fund CRA projects. So I think those are, again, details. But nothing about this policy precludes the construction and moving forward of Meet Me in the Middle.

Okay, you just said something that really caught my attention there. It precludes impact funds being spent in this quarter if it wasn't paid in this quarter.

Yeah, well, that's the law. That's not my opinion.

Well, I guess that's one of the problems I have with that because basically you take this quarter, this quarter, which is the northwest quadrant, how many impact fees are being paid here today in this quadrant? Because it's totally developed. Impact fees here are pretty much utilized. So any of these parks you're right now talking about developing in the downtown and everything, where's their impact fees coming from if they're not coming from other quarters? Okay.

Well, do you think it's just for them to come from other quarters?

Well, I think impact fees should be put out there, and if a park is there, we fund the park. Okay. Of course, I know in here you're saying – Do you want the policy to require 60% of the recreation impact fee balance to be allocated within six months? Yeah. Okay. I'm just trying to figure out why is that? First of all, we want to allocate it within six months, but yet and still we don't have any parks or anything else that we've actually set out and agreed upon that this is what we're going to do. Completely agree. Wouldn't that be putting staff under a little bit of strain there?

I hope so. And I don't really say it to be funny. I think it's a very serious issue that we have over $11 million in our impact fees for parks without a plan. And so look, we're all going to be here in six months. Well, God willing. But in six months, that's a short period of time. If in six months staff has been hustling and they've negotiated deals and, gee, they got $10 million worth of land for $3 million and we've got grants and donations and they've only allocated 30% of the funds – then we can evaluate it then. I mean, these are aspirations and targets so that we can move projects forward. But yes, my intention in bringing this forward is to move projects forward and not having them sit. Now, Mr. Bain, you said something earlier that I do want to address. I do want to be cautious that we're not creating long-term recurring expenses, which is why part of this is every time a project comes forward, including existing parks, that staff bring us both a programming and maintenance schedule so we know exactly what is supposed to be happening at the park, when it's supposed to be happening, who's doing it, and how is it paid for. And so future parks would have to bring that with them prior to approval, but existing parks would have to bring them within, how many days did I say? I don't remember how many days I said. 60 days? I think I said 60. 100 days. So they have 100 days. So staff would have 100 days. And look, if they say we're still working on this one, then we listen to them and we work with them.

Well, I just like to say you talk about allocating 60% of what was that 11.7 million or something like that, 11.7 million. So the 60% of that is $7 million. So we've talked about committing approximately $7 million before we necessarily know any Projects that provide the greatest return to our residents which project have Outside funding any of these things with it. We just go ill it will it nearly say, okay, we're going out arbitrarily those seventy seven million dollars to the park Projects without any analysis or anything which is best best to do I

I am glad you say it that way because it's a fair concern, and I want to address it, is I'm not picking parks. I'm saying staff is directed to go spend money, and they're directed to spend money on parks that meet the following criteria that ensure access for our residents, and that staff would have to come back to us, but they are being directed to spend the money the same way that we tax the taxpayers and say we direct staff to go build fire departments and save lives. We're directing the parks and rec to spend the money that has been paid. I would be very interested in seeing an audit of this account and seeing how many years we have been collecting and how many citizens in this city have paid for impact fees that don't have parks. It probably is shocking.

I'm not going to say New Citizens in Cleveland don't have parks when we have 20-something parks in this city, all over this city.

They don't have parks they have access to.

Well, they have access all over the city. You know, I guess that brings me back to the question I asked before. You say five minutes, access in five minutes. Yes. And I'm a little still confused on that when you say five minutes. I can walk to this park. It may take me 20 minutes to walk five minutes to this park. Okay. But you also have in the automobile. It may only take me a minute.

No, I didn't put automobile. Scooter.

Scooter is automobile.

Foot, bike, scooter, golf cart. I did put golf cart.

I guess I'm trying to define what you mean. what, transportation and five-minute access? Is it walk-in? Is it by scooter? Is it by golf cart?

Any of those qualify. So if staff comes to us with a plan and they can say, okay, the people in this area need a golf cart. So let's say, for example, Let's just use Verde Ridge as an example. There are no public parks in the northeast section of the city. There's the National Training Center, so that's cool. There's The View, so that's cool. So they have access to some recreation, but there are no public parks currently. Now there's a group here who wants to give us land, so that makes it interesting because there's no public parks in the northeast corridor. But if I live in Verde Ridge and I want to get out of Verde Ridge because of the way that community was designed, I better be on a bike or a golf cart if I'm going to be five minutes from anywhere because the community is so big. Kings Ridge is going to be very similar. Now, what's nice is in those communities, staff can check the box and say, well, they have access to a park because there's a park in the community. So that's good. But it's making it saying, does every citizen have access? The people in Wellness Way don't have access to any public parks. There's no public parks down there right now at all. Now, we might look at the map and say, yeah, but they have 12 parks. In their neighborhoods. And then we might say, well, do they have do they all have access to those parks? You know, so we just haven't gone down that low. But I think our staff is more than capable of doing that, especially with what we have from the ABA. So what I'm trying to do is give them direction to bring this back to us. And then it would be the filter through which we look when we're making decisions about how do we find meet me in the middle. If the meet me in the middle design is the one that we all choose and that's the direction that we go, we might say, well, we like it, but we can't fund it because it would be unjust, but we can apply for grants. So let's go get grants.

Yep. Okay, like I say, I'm still trying to define what you mean by five minutes. Like I say, I can get in my car and I can drive to a park. It's not about cars.

You can't drive. That's not part of the policy. Not driving.

Well, I can get on my scooter and drive to a park in five minutes. Yeah, that's fine. However, if I start walking, it may take me longer to get there.

Yeah, but you can get there by scooter or golf cart. In places that have golf carts, that would work.

Well, I guess I can say that's what I'm trying to define exactly. What do you mean by five-minute access? By scooter, by walking or whatever?

I mean, we could make it walk, but it's going to be much tougher for staff.

Because if you're telling me I need to have a park five minutes from my house by scooter, okay, we got to park here. But if it's by walking, to park it way over here when I live here, see? Yeah. Okay, let's redefine all that. I think we're kind of getting a little tough there when we start saying within five minutes, and we give all the oxygen to get there. ABA, heard the ABA. I think they said, I think ABA said we had about 530 acres of park when I looked at their report. And I think our statistics say 443 acres. Okay. Well, I guess my question is the ABA, did they, well, I went to look it up because I was trying to figure out in their study where it actually recommended we allocate 60% of impact funds.

Oh, no, that's me.

Okay. That's me. Well, I was just curious if ABA, where it came from, how we just pulled 60% and started spending 60% and everything. So that's just a random number you pull.

Yes. I wanted to say 100, but I thought that might be too much for staff.

Yeah. Well, well, and like I say, here we are, you know, as we stated in other talk earlier this afternoon, we just randomly pulled numbers out here and those are without really analyzing everything and going to spend money.

Well, I do want to be clear. I'm not author. I'm not proposing that we authorize staff to spend the money. I'm looking for them to bring us projects that collectively would be 60 percent. So they would have to bring that to us, not move forward with the projects. So this is this is policy, not other than the specific items. This is a policy so that they can bring us back ideas.

OK, an ABA policy. I guess they define us as being a little deficiency in parks, right?

The quality and number, yes.

Okay, yeah. So would you say we should first, the council should first determine what the actually 443 acres, hold on. Brian, do me a favor. Can you give me an accurate number of how many acres we have? Because the city website says 443.9 acres.

Yes, so that's actually bullet point number one under staff obligations to provide by October 15th is a city map that identifies all parks and designating them as active, natural, or neighborhood. I think identifying the acreage would be great. It might be too much on the private parks, though.

Mayor, I could get the number on the city parks for you. I don't have it with me now.

You don't have it?

Okay.

Well, I went to the website and it's saying 443.9.

I have it. I know where it is on my computer. I just don't have it with me.

I just want to make sure we're using the right figures. So my thing is, shouldn't we, of that 400-something acre, we actually... What actually consists already within that 443 acres before we go out here and just start jumping on everything else, right? Allocating other parks.

Yeah, that's the point of bullet point number one.

And, of course, ABA recommended we maximize the existing parks first, right?

Well, that was my suggestion at the workshop as a potential target, but I didn't feel like we had an agreement, so I thought I'd take a stab at a whole policy instead.

So don't you think they should be in this new policy that we maximize existing parks before we start worrying about new parks?

I would not suggest that. I would suggest those two processes proceed simultaneously. And now that you say it, I do think an intended aspiration of meeting the NRPA requirement of parks at an A or B level would be that all parks meet an A or B level for NRPA standards would be a great aspirational goal.

Okay.

Well, I think one of the things we need to be doing here is identifying what we have first, what we have out there, and so we can determine what we're missing out of the active parks or the natural parks that you have. looking at proposals that we're doing. Of course, ABA did their study. And of course, we can go back and look at all these studies, which one of the things they did was identify waterfront and arts and recreation center. I'm on the six most active, you know, when I go back and look at their study, right? So then that argument for improving and activating existing access rather than automatically prioritizing acquisition of other additional parks, shouldn't you say we should be, since they did recommend these things, shouldn't we be looking at doing these things before we start talking about buying other parks, land and all this? I don't understand.

Well, they did not give us a task list. They just identified everything. So that's why I'm looking for us to identify what we think we want to direct staff to do. I mean, we have the funds and the impact fee. So I guess my question to all of you would simply be, you know, how do we feel about the intended and aspirational outcomes? Because at the end of the day, that's where the policy is going to be driven from. And do we feel like these are good goals for staff? I do think, at least I'm speaking for you, that we would like some sort of direction on where to move with some parks, you know, some specific projects.

Yes.

Yeah. So.

So an ABA recommended parks in the wellness way, right? Right. um specific part they just identified that there weren't any so i'm looking at the access to parks well i guess when i went in there i looked at it and read the reward again i looked at it as saying they recommended that we do do some park park development in the wellness way area right um so Is it simply to buy more parks everywhere, or is ABA recommending that we strategically develop parks in the needed areas right now? Okay, like Wellness Way, where we have the most growth. Wellness Way, as you stated, doesn't have any parks or anything there.

Yeah, so the last I saw was an assessment, not a recommendation or a master plan for parks. Are they working on a master? They were just updating the assessment from our last meeting, right?

Correct, yes. I spoke with Shane today. So he's updating those parks that were under, that were categorized underwater from park.

Yeah, so he was updating that.

He's doing that now.

So they did the assessment. And so what I'm doing is I'm looking at the assessment and saying, okay, where do we want to go? What do we do now that we know where we are? Where do we want to go? So my suggestion is that we look at the city holistically and a very I mean, we could talk. We could negotiate. You can negotiate me to 10 minutes where everyone has access within 10 minutes walk or 10 minutes bike. I mean, those are details that. I think, but the point would be, does everybody have access by bike, by scooter, by golf cart, safe access? And then what is safe access? We're in Florida. You start getting lunch beyond 10 minutes and you don't have real access at that point. You've got to get in your car and go wherever you're going. So, you know, do we want to give every citizen, do we want to make it an aspirational goal that every citizen has access? Do we want to spend the money the citizens have paid to and at least have a plan for it. And then what might that plan look like? So my suggestion is each quarter have one active and one natural park, big parks. So people can go do something, a connectivity with the trail system. That's been a big part of the conversation. And then, and then to help people do little things, little parks, you know, We might say, hey, of that 11.7, staff might say, we want to allocate $1.5 million towards a grant program, and we spend off $150,000 a year. Maybe we could give – I don't know. Christian's walking out. But maybe we could give it to the community foundation as a grant program, and now people can apply for grants for their neighborhood. I don't know. Those are the details. But the question is – you know, it would take it off staff's plate to have to deal with pocket parks and let folks like main street handle pocket parks, you know, potentially, you know, I'm not, that's not in here, but it would create that opportunity.

Okay. So, and then one, another thing that you mentioned connectivity, you have always talked about connectivities and all this here to the trails and all. So when these, uh, Then with the project, any of the projects that we're looking at right now improve the bicycle connectivity and everything to the trail between downtown, the waterfront trails and all that. And of course, the other thing I have, I'm concerned with you seeing all these parks within 10 minutes in these quadrants. Where are we going to get the land? Another concern, where's all the land coming from?