Okay, so we're going to go ahead, and we're going to go ahead and get started. If we can please have the city clerk do the roll call, please. Commissioner Villa-Vasquez. Commissioner Caldwell. Here. Commissioner Howington. Here. Commissioner Nobick. Here. Commissioner Santiago. Here. Vice Mayor Harriet. Here. Mayor Villa. Here. This time, if we can please stand for the pledge, and I'll ask Commissioner Howington to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. ...flag of the United States of America. ...to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. All right, we're going to go ahead and enter into discussion items. If I can please have, I was going to say Commissioner, if I can please have Ms. Wallace do her presentation. So to bring everybody kind of up to speed on what this presentation is on, back in May, Commissioner Harriet had asked during the workshop, during the budget about extending sidewalks to District 1 and street lighting to District 1. We started that evaluation. We pulled that all together. We decided it might be more prudent to present all the districts, what the cost would be to do all of that, both individually by district. And then also, we added in, there was some interest in Lake Spring, so we kind of put that all together. So that's what the start of this is. This is just meant to bring to the commission some information for a thought process. Where would they like to go with this? What is the will of the commission as far as wanting to proceed with any and all or part of this? So we evaluated the, let's see if I can do this right, street lighting, street lights by district. And the street lighting was only calculated using these type of street lights, which are typically called a cobra head, on existing poles that we have throughout the city. We didn't evaluate decorative lights and poles. We didn't put that into consideration at all. So we also could not at this point, oops, pull together any costs relative to those streets where we have power in the rear of the properties. So if you drive down Deltona, through the Deltona, you will find there are certain streets, quite a few of them, that there is nothing out at the right of way. That would require pulling power to the front, establishing a pole, installing a pole, and a light fixture. So we did not consider that in there. Generally speaking, it's been my experience over the last many years to do poles like that is typically about $2,000 a pole. So I just wanted to keep that on everybody's schedule. For the sidewalks, we looked at and calculated out adding five-foot-wide sidewalks throughout every district where sidewalks are missing on both sides of the roadway. So if it's the will of the commission that they do want to consider this, maybe we start with one side of the roadways and not both sides. It also does not include, if the city were to undertake this citywide, in all likelihood, we would have to provide stormwater maintenance somewhere along the line. The net new impervious runoff from citywide installation of sidewalks could create an issue with the district for permitting. So we talked a little bit about street lighting. Most of the street lights that you see throughout Deltona on our residential roads are 40-watt LEDs, and those are sufficient for residential side streets. Your Howland Boulevard, Saxon, Lake Helen Osteen, El Cam, those roads you would like to see maybe a little bit better illumination. So we could look at upgrading the lighting that's there now to 150-watt illuminations. And you might want to also consider, as you evaluate all this information, at your key intersections, maybe those are areas you want to focus in where either there's high traffic counts, maybe there's been an uptake in accidents, maybe you want to illuminate those a little bit more than a 40-watt. For the lake spraying, I run some rough calculations, and I say that because we did not get our contractor out here to evaluate every lake. I took into consideration how the city established, to help establish for the residents on Lake McGarrity, their lake spraying district. Lake spraying can include both your herbicides and grass carp, which help as well. And there are three lakes that get sprayed currently in the city of Deltona. We have Lake McGarrity, which is through a special taxing district established by the homeowners out there. We have Lake Gleason, which is the only publicly accessed lake that we have, and that's sprayed with Florida Fish and Wildlife through a grant. And we do have Lake Lorain, which we spray as a city due to issues with that lake from previous years of having algae blooms. So the city decided that it would be prudent for the city to undertake the spraying of that. So for Commissioner Harriet's district, sidewalks would be approximately $17.2 million. Street lighting would be approximately $30,000 monthly, or annually $360,000. And that is based on basically a light costing $10 a month. Once you have the light up there, the power companies expect you to pay for that and continue to pay for that, typically in perpetuity. For lake management, I did alter the fees slightly from what the agenda is, and I apologize. I decided to use $25,000 per lake as an initial treatment and then approximately $1,000 a month for monthly treatment. And with Lake McGarrity, what they found is that initial treatment did a wonderful job the first year. The second year, they could start scaling back, and each year thereafter, they've scaled back. The initial assessment for Lake McGarrity, as an example, was originally estimated at close to $800 per property owner for the first year. They were able to get that down to around $450, and now we're at $60 a month, a year, excuse me. So as you treat the lakes, there is a positive outcome of that. The next slide is for District 1. It just takes into consideration what is your one-time installation cost. You know, that's what it costs you the first time, and then what your annual cost would be in perpetuity. So for District 2, the sidewalks would be $27.1 million. Your street lighting would be $40,800 monthly, or I think I have a typo there, $489,600 annually. And with your lake management, not everybody has the same number of lakes in their district. So it would only be Shelby Lake in District 2, which would be $25,000 initial treatment and approximately $12,000 annually thereafter. District 3 has $19.4 million worth of sidewalk installation. Street lighting would be $38,400 monthly, or $460,000. My math must be really off on this, and I apologize. I think I've calculated something wrong. I'll have to go back, and I'll do that correctly for you. With the lake management, we have approximately $50,000 annually for the lakes there and $24,000 for the second and thereafter. District 4 is $22 million in sidewalks, $41,200 monthly, or $494,400 annually for street lights. And for the lake management, they've had the largest number of lakes, but they do range in size from almost what looks like a little, you know, teacup saucer to large lakes. But I did use $25,000 and did that across, so $250,000 for the first year and then $120,000 annually thereafter. District 5 for Commissioner Caldwell is $29,700 for sidewalks, $29 million, excuse me, we're getting off cheap this evening, $37,800 monthly for street lights or a total of $453,600 annually. District 5 has a number of lakes, but some of these do cross into different districts, so I just allocated it to one, not to both, and we would recalculate that if the commission was the will to pursue this. It's $125,000 annual first-year installment and then $60,000 for the second year and thereafter. And for District 6, $23 million for sidewalk installations. Street lighting would be $46,400 monthly, $556,800 annually. And for the lake management, $200,000 for initial treatment and then $96,000 thereafter. And I would mention with the thereafter costs, if you're treating these lakes, the cost will go down. I just can't guesstimate what it's going to be in the years to come based on the treatment and how the lakes respond. So just for the impact and understanding of what these combined totals are, the sidewalks would be a one-time installation of $138,400,000. Your street light annual cost would be $2,815,200. Lake spraying, your initial treatment is $725,000, and your annual cost would be $348,000. So your one-time cost totals $139,125,000, and then your ongoing annual cost would be $3,163,200. What I have not calculated into this is our long-term maintenance. Now we've added all these new sidewalks, so we have to kind of figure out what are we going to put towards general fund for sidewalk maintenance. I estimated 10% of the total cost. That certainly would be something we can evaluate as we go forward on which sidewalks we add, if we add any sidewalks. And I do talk about the Twin Lakes special assessment down here because I will be going into that once this discussion is over. So there's benefits to sidewalks, great opportunity for more people to get out and about, provides maybe a safer route for children and maybe even our elderly that want to get out a little bit more. Street lighting can also enhance public safety. It increases visibility and roadway illumination, I think, as Commissioner Novick would say, does help with our first responders trying to find something in the middle of the night that they can't see. And maybe there isn't a big sign that says, you know, I'm at 123 Main Street and that's where I need to be. And lake management also can control your invasive plants that choke your waterways, can provide a healthier environment. For those that are familiar with Lake McGarrity, that lake has had a tremendous response to the treatment, tremendous. The wildlife that has come back there, the use of the lake, the overall maybe pride and ownership of those that live on the lake now. I've seen an increase in that. But so you can also include with Lake Spring, you can introduce your grass carp if you'd like. So final tips and takeaways, how do we fund this? Lots of different opportunities out there to consider. I've given you a couple of thoughts that just kind of came off as I was putting this presentation together. You could do non-advalorum assessments. We could look for grants. We could possibly look at new impact fees, public-private partnerships, a ballot initiative. I think we need to also take in mind aligning our needs and our wants with our state and county to make sure that we are being properly represented by any opportunities that may come that way. Are the improvements cost beneficial? I'm old school. We have to figure out are these costs beneficial. And you have to run that mathematical equation. Do the improvements provide fair and equitable benefit to the taxpayers or to the folks that are paying for this? We'd have to take that into consideration. Are these improvements desired? Are they wanted? I was just asked to put the data together. I don't take a position one way or the other as far as whether people want these improvements. That's what I can share with you. Sidewalk installation has become more and more difficult for staff. We find the place to put the sidewalk, and we'll be going down the road, and there'll be a handful of people who don't want the sidewalk. Street lighting, that's another thing. That's kind of almost a personal choice, whether you want street lighting or you don't. Not everybody likes to have a street light on the pole in front of their house. They don't like that backlighting. And can you mitigate that? Yes. But overall, some people don't particularly care to have street lighting. And for Lake Spring, I can tell you firsthand, for every person that likes the Lake Spring and Lake McGarrity, there's just as many people who don't like it. They want it to operate in its natural manner without any influence from man of any kind. And then how do we manage expectations? What does the commission want? What do the constituents want, and how can staff implement that so that we end up with the right product at the right place at the right time? And that's all I have. Commissioner Avila Vasquez. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Phyllis, for that presentation. Going to the light poles, are those the old, well, not, well, yeah, old light poles that they have in front of the older houses? You know how they have those light poles in front of their homes? Is that what we're referring to, or are we referring to the street light poles that are run by Duke or the other electric companies? We would be looking at our power providers, depending upon which district you fall in, and these would be the lights that they put on their poles, which also have power, cable, your phone, not the lights that I think you're referring to, Commissioner, that will be at the end of somebody's, like, sidewalk before they get to the road. Correct, that the residents are responsible for their own bill and stuff like that. Yes, ma'am. So this is not, has anything to do with that? No, ma'am, does not. Okay. The current lighting response, oh, that's it. So I know that you mentioned about the lighting for what makes it accessible to the fire department and stuff like that. I can tell you that having spent time in New Mexico with my kids, they're required to have their street number on the mailbox with the glowing numbers, as well as sprayed on the end of their driveway. I don't know if that's something to be considered, which we have to probably start from scratch, but that's what makes it easy for that part where we were, because it was a private community and it was very dark. And when you drove by, as soon as the light hit it, you saw the numbers on the road. The spraying of the lakes, do we have a contract with the county for that? No, ma'am. We contract with Applied Aquatics, and they are our current, excuse me, our current contractor for both Lake McGarrity. They also do Lake Leeson, but that's through Florida Fish and Wildlife. That is a separate, but they are the vendor for them. And they also come into the city and spray our canals and our ditches and other conveyances of stormwater. Okay. I have a question for Doc. Doc, so when we were voting on the military, there was a project in that budget workshop, and when it didn't pass, the military, nobody was agreeing on any numbers. One of the things that, when I agree on a number, one of the things that was taken out to bring it, to be able to have the 7.0 was the treatment of the lakes. Is this it? Correct, yes. So why are we bringing it back if it was taken out? This was asked. Well, the lakes is only part of the presentation. It's really about sidewalks, but the concept was if you wanted to do all the lakes. Now, that was just for that one budget year, but that wasn't forever. But it was removed because it was discussed at a workshop. There was interest by the commission was the reason we added it to the millage, but then we removed it at the last minute. So I don't think it's a debt issue by any means, but it's not in the docket right now, no. Okay. So this is something that was decided before the military was approved? Is that this project was required? Yes, ma'am. I had already started working on this before. Yes, ma'am. And we didn't know what the final numbers were at the time. I think at that workshop, it was just discussed. Is it 50,000 or 500,000? We didn't know. So now we have a good idea what the numbers are. Oh, okay. Because I know that project was removed. And it was considered to go back to where the residents might want to take it up, just like the McGarrett, is it, that the residents pick up after themselves and pay for the cleaning and stuff like that? Yes, ma'am. Another question I have is the sidewalks. So I know District 3. I mean, it's one of the first old residents, and I just can't think, driving by, practically every street has a sidewalk. So I'm just concerned that it's going to be so much money to spend on whatever little sidewalks. I can see District 6, District 1, because they're new and they're coming up in the world, if you want to say. But I'm telling you, some people, some people do not, like you said, some people don't even want sidewalks. They want to keep it country looking. I guess if it's closer to city, more traffic, car traffic and stuff like that is by school areas. That's where I hear my residents complaining about the sidewalks, being near the schools and stuff like that. But other than that, I think I cover all my questions. If I find something I didn't, I'll bring it back. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Vice Mayor Harriet. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Phyllis, and for your team putting this together. The idea behind this is not necessarily to put sidewalks on both sides of the road. The idea originated because a lot of residents have reached out and said that we don't have a lot of sidewalks in District 6, as Commissioner Villavasquez just mentioned. We also don't have a lot of street lighting in District 6. And when I had spoken with our FPL rep about this, about the street lighting, the discussion was not for the – I'm sorry, Phyllis. What did you call that type of lighting, the 40-watt bulbs? It would be a 40-watt LED on a Cobra headlight. The Cobra. It would not be the Cobra lights. What I'm envisioning and what I've discussed with a bunch of residents are the 10- or 14-foot fiberglass poles that are more of a residential style with the light on top. And then the plan with Friendship Elementary being the primary elementary school in District 1, having just under 500 students and less than one bus full of students that actually ride the bus, everybody else is a walker, rides a bike, or is dropped off, that we would focus in the area around the school and then the thoroughfares that feed into the school. And it would be – it would have to be a coordinated effort between sidewalks and streetlights because you would want streetlights on the same side of the road as the sidewalks. I don't really think that we need to continue looking forward at two sidewalks, the sidewalk on each side of the road. I think that might be a bit excessive and just exacerbate any stormwater issues. So if we could look at one sidewalk on one side of the road and what side makes sense with existing sidewalk infrastructure with the potential for electrical infrastructure to put in street lighting corresponding to that, that's the idea behind it. It's not a come in and put sidewalks on both sides of the road throughout the entire district. I have had many discussions with the neighbors around Montecito, Montecito, El Cam, Little Farm, Quintilis, and the overwhelming consensus is support for it. Streetlights would be done on a basis, an MSBU, Municipal Service Business Unit, or taxing unit where the residents are the ones that pay directly for that. Sidewalks would be obviously coming out of the sidewalk fund as much as possible to the extent that they can. And if they can't, then that would be a discussion, a further discussion that the commission needs to take up to understand. As far as weed control, the discussion for aquatic weed control that Phyllis and I have had, even as recently as last week, was the possibility of putting together a plan for the city to control aquatic vegetation within a certain distance of the conveyance, the stormwater conveyance system. And then any aquatic weed control outside of that would be charged back to the property owners that benefit specifically on the lake. You know, and that way, there is a piece of it that is aesthetic for the property owners on the lake. But I think the majority, from my perspective, and what I've talked to a lot of residents and heard from a lot of residents on, is for the stormwater. So that's where I'm coming from. I would like to see us look a little bit more into a focused plan and see what it starts to look like. I hear the numbers from today's presentation, and I just don't think they're representative of what the actual cost would be, just knowing that we would never put sidewalks in on both sides of the street and on every street in the entire district. So, yeah. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Commissioner Santiago. Thank you, Mayor. Phyllis, thank you so much for that presentation. Just a few notes or questions that I also have. First one being for the sidewalks. Do we currently have a program for the sidewalks? The city had a program to add sidewalks, first within a half mile of all the schools, then within a mile of the schools. Then they got to the two-mile area, which I believe was about 2018, if my memory is correct. There was a tremendous amount of pushback, and that pushback came to the commission. And the commission at that point said, let's not do the schools, around the schools anymore. Start looking at connectivity. So, staff went out and looked at where do we have sidewalks where maybe we have two or three blocks, and we're missing a section that maybe connects out to, I'm just using an example, Fort Smith. Let's make that connection out there. So, they've been working on that, and that program will probably get us through the next two years with what we have identified right now to do that. But we will be looking for the commission to give us a direction on, do we go back to the schools? Do we look at somewhere else? How do we move forward? And it's not just a staff decision on where do we put the sidewalks that are maybe missing throughout the city. Yeah, I agree. I think we need to focus first on making sure we have sidewalks on one side of the street. I think it's important for the school children to have, to be safe, to go to school. So, I think we need to focus on that first and then worry about connectivity. And I understand it with the connectivity, because where I live, there's a house that has some, and there's a couple of houses that doesn't have them. You know, I've paid into the, you know, when we built our house 30 years ago, and we still don't have any sidewalks. But I'm good with the sidewalks across the street. So, I really think that continuing forward, we should look into just making sure everybody has sidewalks, right, on one side of the street, and they're close to the schools. In regards to extending it to both sides, it's just, it's too much money. It's ridiculous. I mean, we're talking $138 million. Where's that money coming from? So, I think we had a good program. We should bring it back. That's my thoughts on the sidewalks. In regards to street lighting, again, we do have a program. I think it's working very well with the street lighting program. I do know that some of the street lighting districts are, some are from the county, some are from street lighting districts that are here in the community, have come together to do their own street lighting district. If we do a citywide street lighting district, as you mentioned, what is it, $2.8 million at annual cost, that means we would probably have to do a new tax. And there is no way that I am in favor of doing any new taxes for the street lights. I think if the community wants it, they can get together and do a petition with the homeowners. I think one of the things that we need to do is educate our residents, maybe do an event here at City Hall about our street lighting, and just let them know this is how you can get it. Hey, if they want it, they want to pay it in their taxes, then let them do it. But for us to force that on our residents and do a new tax, I'm just not for it. I think our current program is currently good the way it is. So that's my intake on the street lights. As far as the lakes, obviously this is something that we did not budget, or we did budget and we took it out. However, for now, I think we should look into how we can, in the future, add it to the budget and maybe do like a phase one and look at which one needs it the most and then move on from there. But it's not in the budget. We would have to take it out from another project. And right now we just need to focus on the projects that we have now, specifically the stormwater projects we have. But that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you, Phyllis. Thank you. Commissioner Howington. Thank you, Mayor. Phyllis, this is great. Thank you for taking the time to put it together. As far as sidewalks go, how much money do we currently have in the sidewalk program fund? Does anybody have that number? We don't budget a tremendous amount. It's around $250,000 annually that we budget in. And now I know I've had residents ask, what's happened to the money that's been paid in over the years? We just heard Commissioner Santiago say that she paid for it but does not have a sidewalk in front of her house. So what's happened to all those people who paid when they purchased their homes? They should have been. I wasn't here then when this rolled out. They should have been told that they have the option to pay into the sidewalk fund or install the sidewalk. Why would somebody pay into the sidewalk fund versus construct the sidewalk? It all boils down to the dollars. How much does it cost them? Probably at one time it was less expensive to pay into the fund. The fund does not guarantee that that property owner is going to get a sidewalk. It goes into the overall sidewalk fund, and that's where some of this money has come from over the years to extend sidewalks throughout the city. So if it was paid at 123 Main Street, there's no promise that 123 Main Street is going to get a sidewalk. Thank you. I do agree that in front of the schools we need to have at least connectivity for the schools. I do live in a community that somehow ended up without a sidewalk in front of the school, but yet there's a sidewalk on one half of the school, and it doesn't make sense. So we have kids that are walking across the street, which is a busy street, down the street, and then back about a quarter mile because they have to go down beyond the school to come back because there is no connectivity. So I would like to look into that, but as far as doing the entire city all at once, I mean, I just – I can't agree to that. Same as Commissioner Santiago, that's just an astronomical cost that I don't think we can put on residents. And for the streetlights, is that possibly more of just education? Because there are programs available. If we know that we have communities that do want to come together, we have lots of HOAs that have community-paid streetlights, is that something that maybe we can work on education to help them understand what programs are available, whether we set it up, run it through non-ad valorem for their communities? Can we look into something like that rather than having it be city-funded? Right. We do have – if you don't mind me – we do have a streetlighting district program, and it's exactly what you described. The homeowners would come to the city. They would take – they would be the – they're the liaison, not the city, not staff. We'll help them out any way that we can. We'll run the demographics for them because they do need owner signatures, not tenants. But we can help them look at what the demographics are within whatever area that they would like to look at. And then we can run figures for them so that when they go out and try to get the signatures, they have as good of information as we have on what that final cost might be. And then that would come back and could be established on the non-advalorem taxes. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Yeah, because I think I'd like to pursue that option. And we have a good opportunity to – it is on our website. Maybe I can work with the PIO, and maybe we do an event, if you will. Maybe at some of the festivals that we have might be a good opportunity for us to be out there and say, hey, if you're interested, here's the process, and just advertise it a little bit more. That may get some of these communities what they're looking for. And because there's an opportunity for single homes to get lights, correct? Yes, ma'am. If you have a power pole in front of your house, you have the opportunity – I have one at my house, and I live here in Deltona. I can't get a street lighting district on my cul-de-sac because I only have five houses. So it wasn't going to be quite productive trying to do that. But I had the light put on my house, and it is oriented towards your home, and it actually is called a household light. It's oriented towards you, and that bill goes on your individual power bill. It is no more expensive than what I've calculated here. It runs about $10 a month, give or take, with the taxes, depending upon – and a 40-watt LED light illuminates from my front yard to my entire backyard. It is very bright, so that is an option for residents as well. And then for lake spraying, I do have a concern with the city pursuing that option in that Lake McGarrity is already paying for that. So I have residents that are paying to spray their lakes. And so that takes us right back up there to bullet point number three is what's fair and equitable. If the city is going to do this for all these other lakes, why are my residents paying for it? So I'd like to see something that's a little bit more like what we're doing for Lake McGarrity for all the other lakes. If this is going to be considered part of stormwater, then we need to factor that into our stormwater fees that we have every year. And that's – I just – I can't see charging my residents in District 4 because they opted to do the right thing, whereas other people might live on lakes and be unhappy with it, but yet haven't come to the city to say they want to pay for it. Why should the rest of the residents bear that cost? And then unfairly charging my residents. And the Lake Spring for Lake McGarrity was handled – it mirrored the street lighting district. 51 percent, the homeowners went out there. I believe Commissioner Novick was here when some of the homeowners on Lake Butler tried to get it. They just couldn't get over the threshold. I do believe it took the liaisons with Lake McGarrity at least a year, I think almost two years, in which to kind of go from point A to point B all the way around the lake, talk to everybody, get the signatures, get it back to us before the property owners changed hands. Now you have somebody else. But they were able to get just over the 51 percent that was required. I think they got 53 percent of the homeowners to sign up. Yeah, because I'd like us to take a look at that from more of a stormwater perspective because we have some lakes that are just landlocked and aren't really part of any stormwater conveyance system. So if we could do that, I'd appreciate it. I just want to make sure that we aren't creating disparity between District 4 residents and then everybody else. Yes, ma'am. That is all I have for this. Thank you. Commissioner Novick. Thank you, Mayor. So starting with the lakes, the way to handle the lakes, it has nothing to do with stormwater. The hydrilla and that, the vegetation treatment, doesn't have any effect about stormwater. What it has a big effect on is property values. And why should all the residents pay tax money to have lakes sprayed that's only going to increase the property values of those people that live on those lakes? So when this first came to me, it started in my district. Folks down off of Tanner Court, they wanted to do something about the hydrilla and that that were there. And we got some folks in, some professionals, and they said that this was the process, spraying. We could do mastication. We could introduce the carp afterwards. And there was a whole process. And so that process was decided on, but then we followed the street lighting district plan where just the residents on the lake had a process to go ahead and do that. And it's worked very well. And that hasn't had any effect on stormwater. I don't see where it would. However, it did increase probably the property values because now the properties look a lot more like the original lakes that were there. So I'm not in favor at all of spraying the lakes with the exception of like we're doing. Is it Lake Lorraine we're doing because of the algae blooms? Yes. So if there's a health and safety issue in the case of like Lake Lorraine, then that's a spot treatment. It's done for a period of time. It's not ongoing. That makes sense to go ahead and do that. And we should provide clear direction to staff and management if they don't have it of what those thresholds are, that they just go ahead and they get that contract and they get that done and have that lake sprayed for the algae blooming and that. So, again, for the lake spraying, that needs to be done at the property owner's request. And there's a process for that in place. Street lighting. There are street lighting districts in a process throughout the city for street lighting. The past practice has been that the city pays for all of the boulevards. So if it's a boulevard, those are our street lights. Saxon Boulevard, we pay for that. Humphrey Boulevard, so on and so forth. I will say the only other thing that should drive, two other things that should drive the city to install street lights outside of the street lighting districts would be as if law enforcement says, look, we've got a high crime area within the city. And we're saying that a contributing factor to that high crime is low lighting conditions. In that case, the manager should bring that to us for consideration to go ahead and put some street lighting in to try and drive down crime in that area if the sheriff comes to us and says that. The other thing would be if something is driven by crash data. I'll give you an example. I think it's in Commissioner Santiago's district. Normandy and Graves, crash data there is going to highly support street lighting, lighting that intersection. So, again, that's a boulevard, Normandy Boulevard, all by Amazon and all the way down to Furwood by Gold Choice. We need street lights there. It's a boulevard. Why are we not installing those? Howland Boulevard, not Howland Boulevard. Yeah, Howland Boulevard from 415 up to around Pine Ridge High School. That's another area that is lacking on street lights. So, we should go ahead and budget for and finish out the boulevards within the city and then leave everything else to the street lighting districts. While we're talking about street lights, I would also say to staff, we need to make a note about updating our land development code to address when we four lane a road. For instance, Howland Boulevard, when the county four lane that, we only have street lights on one side of the road. So, again, particularly intersections on those four lane roads should have street lighting, but certainly the whole corridor on both sides of the road should be looking at street lighting there. And that should be a land development code upgrade that we look at making when we undertake the land development code. Other than that, street lights are by the homeowners, and they can create the special districts. Sidewalks, I think the plan really needs to be incorporated into an overall strategic plan of where we want to see sidewalks and what the capacity of those sidewalks should be. Some places, a four-foot sidewalk or a five-foot sidewalk is adequate, and other places we may choose to, for connectivity purposes, looking at a master trail plan throughout the city to connect our parks, to connect other sites of interest, sites of economic opportunity within the city, and then develop an overall strategic plan, not just say we want to just put sidewalks willy-nary here and there. In the past, it surrounded public safety, again, with the kids walking to school, and certainly there may be some opportunities where street lighting could be combined with the kids walking to school at certain intersections. Again, I think the sheriff's office could weigh in on that, where we maybe have had some bicycle or some pedestrian accidents that data would support street lighting being supplied in low-lit areas where it was a contributing factor. But sidewalks, I think, is a big enough issue. And there's money available through the TPO for sidewalks and trails. So don't just envision that we need sidewalks in places. There's other places where we have the opportunity to connect to the trail system. There's a master plan for the state, for all trails in the state, and we can look at where we can make connectivity through certain places of interest throughout the city. We have some stuff that will be coming up in the future for the boat ramp to be reinstalled down on Lake Monroe. Certainly connectivity from the boat ramp coming off of Lake Monroe on Lakeshore Drive, maybe looking at connectivity up here to Lyonia, possible opportunity for a trail or something to take place there. So I think sidewalks is something we need to incorporate into a master transportation plan throughout the city and then look at where there's opportunities to, where there's economy of scale when a project, a road widening project or some other construction, if there's opportunity then to go ahead and do a sidewalk or trail system at that time, there's economy of scale to go ahead and install that section of sidewalk in that particular area. But we won't know that if we don't have that section of a master plan for a transportation plan dealing with bike ped and certainly mobility issues for the handicapped folks, if there's opportunity there where we see a need for that. So that all should be incorporated into a master transportation plan. Thank you, Mayor. Before I go back to Vice Mayor Harriet and Commissioner Avila Vasquez, the consensus I'm hearing, and the commission could correct me if I'm wrong, is, obviously, to prioritize the sidewalks closest to the schools in connectivity with law enforcement as well would be the second from what I'm hearing. And thirdly would be the completion of connectivity as a whole is what I'm understanding from this commission. So unless I didn't understand you guys, is that the route we're talking about more or less? Okay. Vice Mayor Harriet and then Commissioner Avila Vasquez. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner Novick's spot on with the sidewalk discussion is, you know, same with Commissioner Howington in terms of looking at the safety factor around elementary school or around schools in general, but also just in general prioritizing that. And then the need for a transportation master plan that incorporates connectivity of, pedestrian and bicycle connectivity would be something that we absolutely need to take a look at. He also mentioned the opportunity for funding through TPO, and there is a bucket of money there for that as well. But we have to have the plan. We have to have the safety data to show that it's needed. The thing with the street lights is I guess I'm in the minority on this one, quite frankly. I have one of those, the overhead lights in front of my house. I've got a couple of neighbors, a neighbor, a couple of houses down that has one, you know, and then another five or six houses down past them has one, and everybody dislikes them. They're obnoxious. They don't, you know, it doesn't give the feel of a neighborhood. It's not, there's not, there's not no consistency to it so that when you go and walking in the evenings, you end up walking in dark spots this time of year because there are, there's no, there's just no consistency to it. What residents have, have come to me, many residents have come and asked for are the 10 or 15 foot poles that you see in the HOAs. Everybody that has come and asked about them is more than willing to have a street lighting district. It wouldn't be a county-wide street lighting district. That's not the goal. It would be specifically for that area. And, you know, it, it would address safety as well as quality of life, quite frankly, you know, and instead of in the, the fall and winter time when the weather's the nicest, instead of having to go inside and being an insider or out in the dark, you know, by seven o'clock or eight o'clock, seven o'clock, I guess. Um, you know, you, you have more time outside with your neighbors, outside with your kids. Um, but I hear you guys, you want the residents to drive it all. I feel like that's the, don't take offense to this, but that's kind of the, the easy way out for us. Um, I know that that was something that's been brought up to me many, many times by residents and, uh, was hoping to help be a liaison for the residents and, and drive that for them. Um, but we can, we can go the other route. If that's the route that we want to go, though, I would like to see that policy, uh, brought back to us, clarified, made easy. Um, and then, you know, do everything that we can in our power to make sure that everybody is aware of what that resident, that policy is, the procedures for that, so that it's as easy as possible. Um, uh, and then on the aquatic weed control, um, Commissioner Knobbick, I, I agree with you to, to, you know, the most, most, mostly agree with you on, on the fact that it is aesthetics, which is why it would largely be based off of an MSBU. Um, there is a stormwater factor to it, especially when you look around Lake DuPont and Lake Angela and, and around DuPont Park, where those areas, uh, immediately to Elkian Boulevard are so choked up with lily pads that you could almost cross the lake without getting your feet wet. Um, and so there is, uh, I do agree with Commissioner Howington that we should look into using some stormwater funds to address those, uh, conveyance areas. And then the remainder would be addressed through MSBU's. Um, it is my understanding and, and, uh, Mr. Good can, um, speak to it a little bit more detail, but while they're, they're in the past have been, uh, resident led petitions to create those special districts. Our commission has the ability to do that, to simplify the process. So I would just, uh, I would like us to see, uh, I would like to see a little bit more of a plan put together, um, to see what that could look like. That's all. Thank you, mayor. You're welcome. Uh, Phyllis, from my understanding, we have plans already in place for both the lighting situation, sidewalks, and even some of the spraying for residents to be able to pay this in their own special districts if they want. Correct. We, we do not for the sidewalk. I mean, we have a plan for the sidewalks, but the residents don't. Well, for the other stuff, that correct. And there's a good opportunity, um, as Commissioner Harriet said, maybe we can refine, um, the street lighting district, make sure that it's clear, concise, route that through the attorney's office, um, make sure it's consistent with what our other agencies are doing, um, and start basically, you know, promoting the program, if you will. I think what I've heard from each of the commissioners, um, even from, from Vice Mayor Harriet is an education process for our residents, uh, for them to understand how they can create a lighting district. Maybe they don't know about the 51%, how they can create a lake sprain district. Um, and then the sidewalks. We just need to make sure that residents are aware of, you know, you guys have done a great job the last several years of telling us which sidewalks are coming up. Um, that helps out a lot, believe it or not, uh, you already have some direction from the commission on how we should treat it, which is going back, I guess, to your old plan of school safety first, then working with first responders, and then connectivity as a third option. Um, but as far as the lighting and the lake districts, what the majority of the commission is saying is education. Yes. So we can, we can let the, the residents know how to, how to get that done. Commissioner Vila Vasquez. Thank you, Mayor. Um, Commissioner Novick, when you say, um, the boulevards, if, if it's a county road, is the city still responsible for the lighting? Like Saxon Boulevard and stuff like that, is the city still responsible? We're paying that, that utility bill. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Um, so Normandy and Saxon, remember across the street from Walgreens? Yes, ma'am. Uh, the car hit the lady and when they make that right turn into a Normandy, it was very dark. They couldn't see. I know we had to increase the lighting in there. Was, did the city pay for that? Yes, we, we did. We contracted with, uh, Duke Energy. That's Duke Energy service area. They added an additional fixture at one corner of it that didn't have one. And then we, um, changed the wattage that was out there to a higher wattage. Yes, ma'am. Okay. All right. Thank you. Commissioner Howington and then Commissioner Novick. Thank you. Um, I've heard a lot of comments recently about sidewalk requirements when we repave roads. Is there any factual data behind that? Are we required to put in sidewalks when we repave roads? There is no requirement that I'm aware of. I know there was some question regarding milling and resurfacing and bringing the entire section of the right-of-way up to ADA compliance. And I know that our city attorney can weigh in on that, but our understanding is that if we do not touch the sidewalks, we're just doing strictly milling and resurfacing. If we're doing a roadway project, that's, that's a different project. Okay. But milling and resurfacing is a relatively simple maintenance. You take an inch and a half off and you put a new inch and a half on and put down new pavement markings. Commissioner Arlington, you okay with, uh, Zach, Mr. Good, kind of elaborating on that? Yeah, that'd be great. Uh, so Ms. Wallace is correct. Uh, there is not a requirement for the provision of sidewalks. So it is perfectly, if you, um, if the city does not wish to provide sidewalks, they do not have to. If the city is only performing work that impacts the pavement surface, it does not impact the pedestrian areas, then the city is not under any obligation to, um, bring those pedestrian pathways up to current ADA standards. However, if the city does disturb those areas, the city is then required to bring it up to the standard. Um, and as Ms. Wallace rightly pointed out, that may be appropriate in a broader roadway improvements project, but for milling and resurfacing, um, that generally doesn't disturb pedestrian pathways. Um, and also just while I have the floor for a moment, I did want to answer vice mayor Harriet's question, um, regarding the special assessments, uh, in chapter 54, the commission is generally empowered with the ability to, uh, create general, um, create service assessments, uh, and to create capital assessments, to create, uh, collection and use, um, assessments. So all of those are authorized under your code and, uh, may be properly enacted if it is the will of the body. Thank you for that. Um, I just wanted to make sure that as we are resurfacing the roads, that we're not overlooking any sort of ADA requirements. So I just wanted confirmation on that. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Um, um, I know we're currently working on our comprehensive plan if we can ever actually adopt it. Um, is there a master transportation plan built into that? Because I believe in the visioning sessions, that was part of the communication that we were asking people to kind of identify where they want to see trails and things like that. So is that going to be encompassed in the new comprehensive plan? I can't answer that. I'd have to check with planning and development services, but I can double check on that. Yeah. I can chime in and just, uh, advise that yes, your comprehensive plan does have a transportation element and that is being updated as part of the, um, overall comprehensive plan update. I would have to defer to, um, uh, Mr. Smith and his staff if they're as to any specifics though. Okay. Thank you. And then my last comment is about the street lighting and this is probably more for, uh, vice mayor Harriet. Uh, I know that I live in one of those districts that has the fancy light poles, not exactly the nicest light poles, but I believe we're paying about $25 a month per light. If I'm not mistaken, I believe Phyllis, that was what you had quoted me previously. And I think our neighborhood spends about 60 to $67,000 a year for about 200, 220 lights. Um, so that's just kind of some information. If anybody wants to start up a district with the kind of nicer HOA style lights, that's about what you're looking for, for ongoing costs related to those, uh, HOA type lights. Just as kind of a side note, that's all that I have. Thank you. Commissioner Novick. Thank you, Mayor. Um, with regard to your question about the comp plan, I think the comp plan, I'm going to oversimplify it. Basically, the comp plan is going to address what, what to do. And I think the strategic plan then is more of how to do it. So it's very simplistic. It's a little more complicated than that, but in general, um, I think that's, that's probably the easiest way to describe that. Um, the use of stormwater funds to do the lake spraying, I, I would not necessarily be opposed to that, but I would, I would put forth to the body for consideration. Some of us were around when the county initiated, uh, uh, an effort for a half cent sales tax for transportation. And part of that process was staff developed a list of projects in the city of Deltona that the voters could look at and said, if that half cent sales tax went through, these are the projects that the city of Deltona would do with that half cent sales tax. And that was very favorable to the residents. It, it, for the most part passed, uh, when the residents voted on that, it didn't pass countywide. So we don't have, they have some sales tax, but for the most part, Deltona's that voted were very, um, fond of that, that method and that idea of doing that. So I would put forth to you for consideration in 2005, the city, uh, was presented a stormwater plan, uh, to deal with stormwater issues throughout the entire city. And basically a master plan, a list of projects that has never really been funded. We've only completed one or two of those projects since 2005. And we know flooding is a problem in the city. And yet as a body, the commission has sat here and said, no new taxes. We don't want to raise the stormwater fees. Um, when that project list was put together in 05, um, the cost of doing those projects was X today, because the cost of everything that has got more expensive. If we were to go back and revisit those exact same projects, the cost now is XX. And so how much have we raised our, uh, stormwater fees to look at the ability to do these projects in today's costs? The need is still there. We just have to fund that need to be completed. Our stormwater fees barely cover our maintenance for our stormwater system. Our existing stormwater system. She has no money to put forth to do new projects unless we do some grants, which we've gotten a few things, both county, state, and federal grants to be able to move a few projects forward. But we still need to, I think the best way to do it is put together a list like they did with the half cent sales tax of stormwater projects that need to be done, set a three-year time, and put it to the voters. Put it on a ballot initiative to increase the stormwater fee by X amount of dollars that would fund this list of projects, and it would sunset on a certain date. And that way we have a revenue stream for a specific item to go ahead and at the voters' will, not our will, not politics, the voters' will, to be able to fund and do and complete these projects. And have some type of inflation figure in there to accommodate the rising cost of materials and labors in that three period of time. But that would all be factored in, as well as, I think, putting together, as they did with the half cent sales tax, a citizen's oversight committee where each one of us would pick a citizen to be on that committee to oversee it for transparency purposes, not to authorize, but to just look at the reports and things that these projects are being completed within budget and in target with what that was done. So that's an idea to fund some of these stormwater issues, and certainly the lake sprain could be included in that if there was a will to add a project on there like that. That could be for further discussion. So that's the only way that I would look at using stormwater fees for any kind of lake sprain. Thank you, Mayor. All right. We're going to go to Vice Mayor Harriet, then Commissioner Howington, then we're going to move on because the staff really has directions ready. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner Knobbick, I think I love everything that you just mentioned, but I do want to clarify that when I was thinking about the idea of using stormwater fees or stormwater funding for aquatic weed control, it would be within, say, 100 feet or 150 feet of those stormwater conveyance systems. Whatever distance determined by staff and our stormwater engineers determined would be the most effective. I do also want to clarify that when I hear the discussion over master plans for transportation, sidewalks, I will take that one step farther. It's not just a strategic plan. It's not a comp plan. It's a specific list of projects that will have real effects, real benefits, dollar amounts, how they work with each other, with other projects on that list, with the other plans that the city has to build infrastructure and replace infrastructure. And so it's more of a blueprint. The master plan is more of a blueprint than the strategic plan or what's listed in the comp plan. Other than that, Commissioner Howington, the figures that I got from FPL for the neighborhood-style street lighting were roughly $75 per resident per year, and that was for just what you talked about. It's not the most elaborate post in light, but nonetheless a more attractive post in light than what we've been discussing with the 40-watt lights on top of a wooden power pole. Thank you, guys. Commissioner Howington. Thank you. I love the idea that Commissioner Nabok had about going back to the voters with specific projects. You know, we heard in the last couple meetings that we have $100 million in projects out there, and I'm guessing that some of those projects are probably fairly old. And do we need to take a look at the projects that we have on the books and look at the ones that are not encumbered and can't be moved, but the other projects that are discretionary, and determine does that still fit the need of the city? And then maybe we do put something like that to the voters, because $100 million is a lot of money for a lot of projects sitting out there that may or may not fit our future vision of the city. So I would love to get voters involved in that. So if that's something that we can look at, I'd love to take a look at kind of the projects that we have existing, how long they've been there, and are they still viable. Thank you. All right. We're going to go ahead and move forward or move on. Can we do public comments specifically on city sidewalks and street lighting, city clerk? Tim Blodgett, please. Green light. Okay. Mayor, you're spot on. We need to go ahead and come up with some sort of priority list of what we're going to do and how we're going to do it. Somebody has been paying attention. We raised taxes twice in the last two years for stormwater, and now you're trying to think of a way to spend it other than stormwater. Way to go. It kind of reminds me of when I had a sidewalk slated to go in my front yard. I don't know where you guys got your figures from, but that was supposed to be paid for by federal funds that you received. I did not receive my sidewalk. Instead, I received a commissioner dry hump in my neighbor across the street with about five other city officials showing up to watch. I wasn't too happy about it. Not too happy about what I'm seeing here either. You're looking at at least 25 to 30 years, not a 10-year plan. And connectivity, the whole idea of why the public was interested in this was to connect the neighborhoods. Now, I don't like paying for school taxes 50 years after my kids have stopped going to school. So, if the older portions of the city don't want to pay for this, tough. You don't just represent one area of the city. You represent everybody. As far as water is concerned, there's a lot of different ways to go after algae. By the way, there are no lakes in Deltona. There are simply floodplains that got bulldozed back. There are a lot of ways that you can treat algae. And the cheapest way is with magnesium sulfate. And you'll also kill every pollinator within three to five miles of those lakes. So, you might want to take those things into consideration. I'm out of time. Thank you, sir. That closes public comments. Thank you. Now, we're going to move to Twin Lakes Subdivision non-advalorum assessment discussion for roadway repairs, maintenance, and stormwater repairs, maintenance, Ms. Wallace. And then, because this is specifically in Commissioner Villabasquez's district, I will give her the courtesy to go first. Several years ago, the Twin Lakes Subdivision approached the city about their inability to maintain or do the necessary repairs to their roadway system and to their stormwater system. Specifically, they're very similar to the city of Deltona in the fact that they have swales out there, a couple of retention ponds, but they do have two large lakes. Twin Lakes is a private subdivision. It is gated. The only people who have access are those that live there or those that have been granted permission to get into their subdivision, your power companies, your delivery peoples, all of those type of things. Their plat and their covenant and restrictions are very specific that they outline what they are responsible for, and they are responsible for their stormwater system as well as their roadways. Although I do believe that they have tried very hard to maintain what they have, the long history there and the change in maybe property managers and in board of directors and those type of things has probably not served them well. That's my opinion professionally. So, they approached the city on partnering with them on trying to establish a special taxing district. So, they did get a quote to do their milling and resurfacing and the stormwater infrastructure repairs of $582,505. They have proposed that they would up front the administrative costs for the years that would be out, that the city would manage this on their behalf. They wanted a 10-year payback period. And, of course, I don't have granny glasses on in this one. The font got really, really small. We have the numbers. So, just for clarification, we would up front all the money? We would have to up front all the money. We would also have to take into consideration that finance has identified the loss of revenue that the city would have if they up fronted this. And then it would be like special taxing district, like for street lighting, but it would be for a time specific. Yeah, but we're still up fronting all the money, right? Yes. I was just going to tell the commissioner up front I wouldn't support this. So, Commissioner Howington, you're up next. So, I agree with the mayor. I think that we're opening a can of worms. I mean, I have HOAs in my district that have roads that need to be replaced. And if we go down this road, we're going to have more subdivisions that will come in and expect the same treatment. Now, with that said, if we were to do this, I'd like to see a payback period closer to five years rather than 10, given that the cost per household looks like it's under $4,000. I believe it's just over $4,000. And if we go with the finance recommendation, shortening the length of time would help that a little bit as well. But I'm just concerned because we have a lot of communities in this situation. And, you know, it also brings to mind my concerns about the fact that we have HOAs that own their stormwater systems. And a lot of these stormwater systems feed into the city stormwater system. And if one of these systems fails because it's not maintained, what damage is that causing to the city system? I think we need to start looking at how many of those systems are privately owned. How do they impact the downstream basins? And would it behoove us to take those back into city stands? In point of order, we're talking about roads, not to stormwater. Just trying to keep you in line with that. Well, we are talking about stormwater infrastructure. It's right there in the second bullet there next to 582. So if we're talking about roadway maintenance and stormwater infrastructure, then it's very relevant. Because we have systems that do impact our basins. And I know that this one just received a Transform 386 grant. So we used one of our Transform 386 grants for a privately owned neighborhood because it impacts our stormwater system beyond the neighborhood. That's my concern. So we have residents now who are in need of assistance with privately owned stormwater systems. And I feel like that's a concern. And that's a concern for everyone in the community. So I think we need to go back to the drawing board, but I think there's a bigger issue at hand here. So I would definitely support helping the HOA because this is a big extreme cost to residents. But we need to recognize that we're going to have more communities that have this issue. And if we support one, we're going to have to support them all. Thank you. Commissioner Avila-Vasquez, and when you're done, can you, just for clarification, can we address the 386, the Transform 386 situation? Because they're totally different. We're talking about closed roadways to stormwater. So Commissioner Avila-Vasquez. Thank you, Mayor. So I wanted to hear other commissioners' opinion on this because this is in my district. I have four, maybe five HOAs in District 3. This is the only gated HOA community. So doing something like this, how would I, and I just want to make a point, as you know, Phyllis, not, some of our HOAs' roads are maintained by the city, but there's two that are not. They're not gated, but they maintain their own roads. Yes, ma'am. So what would happen if we get this done and that HOA comes back, who I don't know, spent I don't know how many millions of dollars upgrading their roads, and comes back and says, we want the same treatment. How am I supposed to answer this? And I can tell you that one of our former city managers, John Peters, was totally against this. This is not new. This has been going on for quite a few years. Am I correct, Phyllis? I mean, and I don't know how much they were affected by the flooding other than the roads around it. When we did have the storms, and I drove around there, I think the biggest flooding issue was at their back entrance. And it's my understanding that that water came from the retainer, the retention pond behind the streets of Leland Drive, I think it was. We had some flooding over there. Twin Lakes did not have any households that flooded. Right. They did have properties that held water, and they would be more on what I'm going to call their eastern boundary that backs right up to unincorporated Volusia County properties. And I have to agree with what Phyllis mentioned about management. Very poor, very poor management back in the days. And I can tell you that Mr. Peters went on his own spare time with our city staff, drove around their community, and gave them inside information and ideas on how to take care of those roads, not spending as much money as if they would have to start from scratch. Again, the change, there was change in HOA management. I don't know about the HOA management itself at the top level. I don't know how involved they have been in this. But, like I said, it's in my district, and I would love to help and say, it's giving the money. But what's going to happen would these other HOA come to me and ask me for the same, or ask the city for the same treatment? It's a private community. It's a gated community. You're not allowing it if you don't have a code. If you're not invited in it, you cannot go in it. Sheriff's Department needs permission to go and tour their HOA, just like they need permission to tour Edgewater, because I've seen the signed permission. So, I don't know how else we can help them, but I can't go with this just because I have to think of my other HOAs as well. Like I said, I have about five of them in District 3. How do I respond to them? Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner Novick. Thank you, Mayor. It doesn't matter if they're gated or not gated. It's what's in their HOA covenants. And so, again, this is another land development code issue. When a project comes in and they apply to be an HOA, there is a process, and we have in our land development code what that process is. And I'll go back in history. Glenn, you can help me out here. Maybe on the year, we used to allow package plants for sewer, and we no longer do that, okay, because what happened was we had an establishment where the package plant failed for the sewer, and that's an on-site, self-contained sewer system. And what happened was the city had to come in and deal with that, okay? So, we no longer allow package plants in our land development code. Stormwater, as Commissioner Howington said, you have fallout. You have stuff that goes downstream. So, we may want to rethink what future HOAs are allowed to do in terms of their stormwater. We may not choose to allow them to manage their own stormwater in the HOA. We may require that they pay the city a fee every year to do that specifically for them, or we just take it on and do it, and it's part of their stormwater fee that they pay in their taxes. So, really, the key is looking forward to the future. Let's address the land development code. Let's make a note and see about dealing with stormwater in the future. As far as the roads go and that, absolutely not. I am not in favor of paving them for them, loaning them money, or anything along that sort. They knew what they were getting into. They charged their fees to their homeowners to take care of the care and maintenance of those roads and everything else. That's their responsibility, and shame on them if they're not managing their money properly. I don't think you're going to come and put a new driveway. The city is going to come and put a new driveway in at my house if my driveway fails because I didn't take care of it or I parked too heavy a vehicle on it and it cracked. So, it's the same thing. In terms of what we're going to talk about with the stormwater grant and that process, I am in favor of moving forward with that. It serves a greater public purpose. It helps us with funds or credits to put towards our cup when we recertify for the cup. So, that makes sense. We're able to take some of that water away from there. That's going to certainly help that HOA, but it also serves a bigger public purpose in allowing us to take that water and mix it with reclaim. The only thing that I would say as we move forward with that, and legal is probably already on this, I want to make sure that we have some type of a document, a hold harmless document, that when we pump that lake down, we're not responsible for anything that may occur as a result of us pumping that lake down. Should a sinkhole happen? Should we not get the storm and the lake doesn't fill back up and now it's dry because we go into a drought and we had pumped it down? So, just legal, I'm sure you're going to make sure we've got a document that protects us against anything with that. Thank you, Mayor. Vice Mayor Harriott, then Commissioner Caldwell, then Commissioner Howerton. Thank you, Mayor. Mayor, I don't see why we wouldn't treat this like anything else and let the homeowners petition and get 51%. Because it's capital, we should collect the money up front, whether it's five or ten years, before even doing the project. So, other than that, just make sure that a dollar of the general fund doesn't get spent on it since we have the ability to help and make it easy. We know that they need to do it. We know that they want to do it, but we'd rather just put it back on the residents. Thanks, Mayor. That's all I got. Commissioner Caldwell. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to say that I agree with what you said. I don't think I can get behind this either. And I seem to think that that's the general consensus there at the dais. Just wanted to bring that into it. That's all I have. Thank you, Commissioner Caldwell. You have your hand up like two times, so if you can click on it again, I would appreciate it. Thank you. Commissioner Howerton, then Commissioner Avila-Vasquez. I just wanted to, to what Commissioner Avila-Vasquez was saying, I can guarantee that if we were to approve this, I have a neighborhood that would immediately be asking for the same thing. So, that is something that we just need to keep in mind. Thank you. Commissioner Avila-Vasquez. No? You're good? All right. So, Phyllis, unless I'm mistaken, the consensus is no. And then if you can just address the 386 situation, just for clarity, for the residents. Quick history on the Transform 386. The second round of applications, we submitted seven applications to the Transform 386 team with the county. Two of those were dropped out immediately as classified from their perspective as being maintenance. That left us five projects. Just quickly, Blue Heron, the pump station that's down there, do a permanent pump station. Sterling Park to do a pump station there. Sweet Gum, Lake Hell and Osteen intersection, and just forgot what the fifth one was. It's okay. You can move forward. Just make sure you send that information to us. I just lost my brain dump. The Transform 386 team said out of those five, pick four. We picked four, and we did drop off the Sterling Lake one, and there was a reason for that because we really felt that the Blue Heron Park one, we would get, without a doubt, a favorable outcome. And that would help with Sterling Lake. So we're trying to maximize where we were possibly going to be seeing our resources go to. Unfortunately, Transform 386 only approved two of our projects. One is the one for Sweet Gum and also for the Lake Hell and Osteen intersection improvement. So those are the two projects for this round. We will be looking at the city manager and discussing with him for the third round. Do we want to revisit ones that we didn't get, or do we want to just introduce all new projects to the program? Just for clarification, the one on Lake Hell and Osteen Road, that would be where the intersection also falls with Elkham, correct? Or do we get the sitting water? It's that intersection right there. The whole intersection. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Just for clarity. Which I think it was Thursday night. We had a little microburst. There was water. I drove through there an hour later, and it was gone. Okay. So you guys have your direction on both projects that we talked about. City manager, when the time comes, can you make sure that not only the commission, but the public also gets the information on both of the 386 projects so they're aware? Because I do see a lot of interest, especially on that Lake Hell and Osteen Road area. But there's always complaints about still water there, so that'd be great. Public comment, then we'll go to city manager comments. Hey, Mayor. I've got something, if you don't mind. Go ahead. I didn't see your handle. Go ahead. No problem. And I apologize for taking us back to the first topic real quick, but I was wondering if I could get consensus for the city manager to look into filling in some of the gaps and the street lights on the pole lights on Hallover. There are existing lights there. When I spoke with FPL, they said that it would cost about $10 or $11 per month to fill in the gap. There's no upfront cost. They do all the installs. But I think that if we could fill in some of those gaps, especially on Hallover and then even potentially Captain, that would definitely help with the safety aspect of those two corridors being an egress and ingress for a large majority of District 1. Would the Dias be okay with that majority of consensus? Just raise your hand if you're okay with that. Do you have – go ahead, Commissioner Navig. I'd like to extend that to all the boulevards, look at where we're lacking on all the boulevards and move all of those forward. Okay. Is that okay with those? I'm good at – I love that idea. Okay. Is that good with all – Yes. Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner. Yeah, I think that was one of your requests when you opened up on all the boulevards, which are the most. So, yes. Okay. So, you have consensus. All right. Public comment? Lori Warnicke, please. Good evening. I just – I come to these meetings to try to be – to try to educate myself and understand. And I realize that Twin Lakes – how come there's not a single person from that community here? If it was important to them, I would think they would have filled the room. That's just my observation. Thank you. May that close its public comments. Okay. City Manager, any comments? Nothing this evening, Mayor. Thank you. All right. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you.