Special City Commission Meeting on 2025-09-22 6:30 PM - Sep 22, 2025

Second 20-25, if I can please have the city clerk call the roll.

Commissioner Villa-Vasquez, Commissioner Caldwell.

Here.

Commissioner Howington. Here. Commissioner Novick. Here. Commissioner Santiago. Here. Vice Mayor Harriet.

Here.

Mayor Villa.

Here. This time, if I can please have Commissioner Howington lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Okay, we're going to go ahead and move from the Pledge to Additions and Deletions. Commissioner Santiago.

I would like to do an addition to the agenda.

What is your addition?

Our purchasing policies revert back to the March policies.

Is there a second on that? Yeah. Go ahead, and then I'll give you the floor.

I would like it if we could bring them back with a lot of those, you know, the way that it was back in March. But there are a couple changes that I would like to see made to it, if we could, specifically related to capital being allocated in its own cost center.

Okay. Commissioner Villavasquez.

I'd like to refresh my memory. What was the purchasing policy back in March when it was over $25,000? Is that what we're talking about?

Yeah.

Finance, director.

Good evening, Mayor and Commissioners. What was passed in March 3rd of this year, Resolution 2025-29 was for all goods and services budgeted and capital that's line itemed in the budget. The city manager had authority to purchase. His line item approval that was not budgeted was $50,000. Anything over $100,000 that was for a CIP, et cetera, that was in any one of the capital improvement funds was mandated to come back to commission for approval. And, Commissioner, I'm hearing it, all the capital is in its own cost center.

So, what Commissioner Santiago is asking, that it goes back to what it was before?

Yes, ma'am.

Which was the amount, again?

The city manager or his department has had $5,000 threshold authority. The city manager for items that wasn't detailed line item in the budget for goods and services or capital or exempt procurement, say health insurance, et cetera, then he could purchase it in any dollar amount as long as it was line itemed in the budget. Anything above that required it to come back to the city commission for approval, specifically anything related to our CIP programs, a park pavilion, a lift station improvement, a new city hall, a new fire station, all of that must come back to the commission for approval.

Anything over $25,000?

Anything over $100,000 that was not line itemed in the budget had to come back for approval if it was a CIP, et cetera. Anything else not explicitly authorized by the policy was $50,000 or more.

So, this was approved back in March, the way it is right now today. It was approved back in March.

No, ma'am. The purchasing policy was approved by the commission March 3rd under Resolution 2025-29, as I outlined just now. On June 23rd, there was a consensus vote done during a commission meeting that anything over $25,000, regardless of whether or not it was in the budget or not, had to come back for a commission for explicit approval. That's why, since the July 21st commission meeting on, we've had anywhere between 20 and 30 agenda items to purchase goods and services.

Again, my question. So, anything over $25,000 has to come back to the commission for approval?

Currently, yes, ma'am.

And that was passed. So, why are we coming back to this again?

No, ma'am. What was passed was the $50,000 or more. That was passed March 3rd. There was a consensus vote on June 23rd to reduce it to the $25,000. We never came back to the commission with a revised resolution.

We do a lot of resolutions that never come back to us until somebody brings it back at the dais to be approved, and I think we need to stop doing that. Thank you, Mayor.

You're welcome. Commissioner Howington.

So, has the city manager filled out Form 1?

I cannot answer that. That would be the city clerk.

The statement of financial interest. Yes. Everybody's filled it out, and it's been submitted. Oh, yeah. You can go to their website. The city manager has filled it out? Yeah, because if they don't, then I get an email that says, hey, can you help us try and contact this person so that we can get them to fill out the form? And I have not gotten it from anybody that hasn't filled it out. So, it's current.

So, I mean, I'm aware that all of us is elected officials, but the city manager does it?

Right, the city manager, the finance director, myself. Okay, perfect.

I have completed my Form 1, as required, since 2008.

Okay. And that's why my concern was making sure that we would be abiding by the statute that requires anybody who has signing authority over $35,000 to have filled out Form 1. So, that was kind of where I was headed with that.

So, myself, the city manager, and Kate, the purchasing manager, I know for a fact, has all completed it.

Okay, thank you. But, again, we do bounce around with these a lot, and it seems unnecessary. I'm not comfortable with changing it at this point, especially if the state sees fit to set a limit of $35,000. I don't know why we would exceed that. That's just my opinion.

Thank you, Commissioner Caldwell.

So, if the budget passes tonight, basically anything up to $100,000, the city manager does not have to bring it back to us?

The way the purchasing policy was adopted March before the consensus reduction, anything that was in the budget line item detail that we've discussed in any dollar amount was authorized for the city manager to purchase it for goods, services, and capital for vehicles, equipment.

Without coming back to it?

Without coming back. If it required a formal solicitation, which is anything over $100,000, that had to come back before the commission. So, that included anything that was of a CIP nature. So, as we discussed before, the pavilions, a lift station, new water lines, new sewer lines, a major improvement, you know, addition to city hall, anything that was in any one of the CIP funds, fund 301, 302, 304, 305, 402, and 422, was explicitly required to come back to the commission.

So, we're just going to open the checkbook back up there.

June 23rd, there was a consensus vote, not a resolution brought back before the commission, that anything over $25,000 had to come back before the commission for approval. So, that's why since July 21st, the agendas have increased significantly for the purchasing. We had to increase our annual cost for items in IT. We've had to come back almost every meeting for an increase to fleet. We had a fire engine that couldn't be repaired because we had exceeded $25,000 with that vendor. So, we had to bring that back before the commission for approval. So, everything we've done over $25,000, Gary Yeomans, Cummings, Freightliner, Napa, Ace Hardware, we've brought every last one of those items that we've spent more than 25. So, we spent $26,000 under the old policy, but when the consensus vote was done June 23rd, anything that was over $25,000, we had to bring it back explicitly. So, that's why we've been bringing the change orders for $3,000 and $4,000 and $10,000 back before the commission because I was given a consensus vote that nothing through my office could go out that cost more than $25,000 because that was the new threshold given to the city manager.

All right. Commissioner Howington and Commissioner – I almost called you Commissioner Lowley. I'm sorry. Commissioner Nabbick afterwards. And, guys, we're just voting to add this to the agenda, correct? Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner Howington.

So, just to clarify, when we initially approved it in March, it was only $50,000. It was not the $100,000.

The $100,000 threshold was for solicitation, and anything above that had to come back if it was a solicitation. The city manager's authority was limited to $50,000 if it wasn't in the budget. So, if there was a roof leak in this building tonight and it was $45,000 and it was not in the budget, then the city manager could authorize under his authority up to that $45,000 to get the roof repaired. Under the new guidelines, under the vote that was taken in June 3rd, which was not passed by resolution, it was consensus vote only, that he would have to do that as emergency procurement. But the way the vote was taken, it says all expenditures over $25,000 had to come back to the commission for approval. So, there's no state guideline on $35,000. The threshold can be what's set by commission. The majorities of the cities here in Volusia County, and I did not know all this was coming up this evening or I would have had it prepared, but DeBerry, I believe, is at $35,000. Port Orange, Edgewater is at $100,000. New Smyrna, I believe, is at $75,000. And I did, you know, I had it all prepared that I have the thresholds for every government agency in Volusia County, clerk of courts, property appraiser, Volusia County, school board, sheriff's office, and all 16 municipalities. So, I have all of that out there, and other than Oak Hill and Lake Kellen, we're the lowest threshold in the entire county.

I don't know that I agree with that statement, but that's okay. Okay, I'd love to see the list.

Yes, ma'am.

Commissioner Arnabek? I will board it tomorrow.

Commissioner Arnabek?

Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Joyce, for changing that already. The price of stuff is going up. The old $25,000 threshold that we had before doesn't purchase the same quantity of materials. You cannot have the water department have a water break on the weekend or the fire department have a fire truck broken, and it's easy to exceed a $25,000 cost on an item like that. The manager has to have the authority to spend a reasonable amount of money. I'm hearing $25,000, $75,000, $100,000. And, look, we pass a budget. That's how much money is in the budget. I believe we probably still get at least quarterly reports on where we're at on line items.

Since I took over as finance director, sir, I've provided a monthly budget report.

Okay, so we have a monthly figure that's put in front of us. If he's starting to dwindle down a particular line item and we have concern, we can call that into question, and we can always reel him in. But he has to get business done. We cannot have a blue tarp sitting on the roof of our main fire station for close to a year because we can't get the money authorized to repair that roof. He's got to have the ability to get business done. That's why we hired him. That's how this chartered form of city manager government works. We give him a budget. We give him the money. He writes the checks. He reports back. We look at the accounting of that. If there's a question, we call that into account at that time. But you can't hogtie him and staff to not get things fixed. So the number sounds like it's $100,000 is where we need to be or what's being proposed. I'm okay with $100,000 because what he's buying for $100,000 today, five, six, seven years ago, was $25,000. He's buying the same stuff. We need to be able to get business done. And by delaying it, by having the commission authorize it, sometimes we miss a good deal that he could have gotten if he'd have had the ability to purchase it. So I'm okay with the $100,000, Mr. Mayor. Thank you.

All right. Again, we're just voting to add it to the agenda. So Commissioner Avila-Vasquez.

Thank you, Mayor. As far as the emergencies that were mentioned, don't we have a budget for emergencies?

No, ma'am. We do not.

We do not.

No, ma'am. We've set monies aside for contingency that, if authorized, that can be transferred for a project. So we have $250,000 in contingency in the general fund, and I believe it's $500,000 in water sewer. If it's not designated to anything, it would require a line item transfer.

But if there's an emergency, you can go into that budget and take the money out without permission from the commissioners, without bringing it to the commissioners?

If it must have a life and safety and detriment to property, that it could be declared an emergency, and I take that very seriously, that it must fall within one of those three.

Water main line break, it's an emergency.

That is absolutely correct.

Okay. Thank you.

All right. We're going to go to a vote because this is to add it. If we want to add it, then we can further have the discussion. If not, we don't have the discussion. So please.

Commissioner Vila-Vasquez?

No.

Commissioner Pollard? No. Commissioner Howington? No. Commissioner Knobbitt? Yes. Commissioner Santiago?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Harriet?

Yes.

Mayor Vila?

Yes.

4-3.

Hold on. So it's going to get added as an addition to 5-D as in David as purchasing policy for the record. 5-D as in David.

Who seconded? Because we don't have anything. We don't have a second.

It was seconded by.

We didn't hear anybody.

It was seconded because there was a second. Okay.

I'll second it.

Actually, he did second it.

And it's just to put it on the agenda.

It's before public comment. It's right after 5-C, which is Guidance on Ordinance Review Committee. Then it would be 5-D as in David. It is recorded. All right. We're going to play this game. We're going to do this really quick. It's very simple. Commissioner Emma Santiago, you made a motion, correct? Yes, sir. Is there a second?

Yes.

There's a second. What are you seconding, Vice Mayor? Please turn on your speaker so he can hear you. Go ahead.

I'm seconding bringing the policy back to the commission, putting it back on the agenda.

Okay. Would you like us to do the vote again, Commissioner Caldwell? Okay. Can we please continue the game and waste everybody's time and do this again? Commissioner Caldwell, with all due respect, point of order, you consistently talk with the mic off, and I hear you, and I understand. And I know sometimes it's frustrating, but we have so much more important. We're talking about it in addition. We can have this discussion when we're speaking about it. So can we please do the verbal vote?

Commissioner Villa-Vasquez?

No.

Commissioner Caldwell?

Absolutely not.

Commissioner Houghton? No. Commissioner Novick? Commissioner Santiago? Yes. Commissioner, Vice Mayor Harriet? Yes. Mayor Villa? Yes. 4-3.

Okay. This time that gets added as an addition under 5-D as in David as purchasing policy for the record. All right. At this time I'm going to request, go ahead, Commissioner Villa-Vasquez.

Does somebody explain to Commissioner Novick how this new piece of work thing works?

Absolutely. So Commissioner Novick, thank you for bringing that up, Commissioner Villa-Vasquez. Whenever you need to speak, just click on the little guy with the microphone, and then your light will go from blue to green, and then that means you're live. So for motions and seconds, you just have to push it. On my screen, I show who put on there first, and then I just call you. When we're voting. I, yeah. No, no, no. When we're voting, I click. When we're voting. Yeah. So everybody usually, just before a vote, they click on it, and then we run that.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. All right. City Attorney, if you don't mind, please, action items 5A. Yes, Mr. Read the resolution.

This is resolution number 2025-133, a resolution of the city commission of the city of Deltona, Florida, establishing a final operating millage rate of ad valorem taxation for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2025, and ending September 30, 2026, providing for scrivener's errors and an effective date. And I'll also read into the record the title for item 5B so that you may have a collective presentation on both items and then take an individual vote. So the next item is resolution number 2025-134, a resolution of the city commission of the city of Deltona, Florida, adopting the final budget for each of several funds and departments of the city for a fiscal year beginning October 1, 2025, and ending September 30, 2026, approving the final capital improvement plan, providing for appropriation and procedures, providing for scrivener's errors and an effective date.

Okay.

Okay. At this time, because this is the Millerstuff finance director, do we do it like we usually do the motion and then the second? Go ahead.

Yes, sir. Would you like for me to do the presentation first?

Yes, please. So then we can hear from the public as well.

Yes, sir.

All right. At this time, do you want me to do the motion then? Yes, sir. So we can, okay. This time, I want to just send a motion and a second. Make sure your mic is on for both. Vice Mayor Harriet.

I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion to approve resolution 2025-133, adopting the city of Deltona, FY25, 2026, final millage rate of 6.7 mils per $1,000 evaluation.

Commissioner Santiago, you're up next. Second. There's a motion by Vice Mayor Harriet and a second by Commissioner Santiago. Mr. McKinney, if you can please start with your presentation.

Thank you, Mayor, Commission. So this evening, we're here for the final portion of the fiscal year 25-26 adopted millage and final budget. I'm going to go over the summary of the budget where we've transpired from our first public hearing to this evening. I'm going to go over historical millage and taxable value here within the city. I'm going to give the crosswalk of how we went from the tentative budget to the final budget to the final budget plus prior year rollover. The fiscal year 25-26 budget summary, which is new funding. The total citywide operating budget is $245,510,105. The general fund is $76,928,237. It is balanced, sir, at 6.7 mils. The investment in capital projects for new funding provides for capital improvement projects of $78,194,099 with a capital outlay, which is vehicles, equipment, et cetera, of $8,543,500. So the city manager asked for me to make sure that last year we adopted a general fund citywide budget of $147,000, and we've now, this year, it was $245,000 and change. Here are the $98.4 million in additions to this year's budget that we weren't providing for last year's budget, which has significant drivers. We have the Fisher plant upgrade of $44 million, $22 million of it was for grant funding. The other was for a potential debt issuance. We implemented the internal service funds for transparency so that we could appropriately account for, very transparent, our fleet, our health insurance, and our IT services. We had $8.2 million in various park improvements. Mayor, would you like for me to read all of them or just the highlight ones? Yes, please. Okay. Yes, sir. We're paying for the Elkham Boulevard Road elevation. That's $6.1 million. We have land acquisition for a new fire station of $4.4 million. Additional fire station relocation expenses of $4 million. The Alexander Ribs site, $3 million. A new fire ambulance brush truck and engine replacement, $2.3 million. The Catalina Boulevard Roadway elevation, $2 million. I'd like to point out the Elkham in Catalina, the majority of that was paid for by grants from the state. We were only funding a little over a million dollars from the general fund. We have the membrane replacement of $1.65 million. We had additional general legal services in litigation of $1.4 million. I'll provide later more detail that it shows that citywide, we already have over $2 million in legal litigation expenses. Now, the shares contract increased by $1.15 million. The generator replacement for city hall, $977,000. A good chunk of that, sir, was reimbursed by a grant. You had the pond water quality improvement for the G-6-4, $900,000, migrating to a SAS-based model for our ERP, $830,000. Six additional firefighters, $534,000. That was based on transport services, so the majority of that was being paid for by either a SAFER grant and or monies from the transport revenue. A fraud and compliance audit, $500,000. The AHAC that was approved for affordable housing, $343,000. The general fund debt reduction, $333,000. $250,000 for additional fire training complex, which you all approved in this year's budget. This is now part of phase two. And two additional code officers of $149,000, not to include the $72,000. It's also for the two new vehicles. So that's the major crosswalk, mayor and commission, over the big difference between last year and this year. With that done, everything, all the guidelines that have been given to me at all the budget workshops since May 3rd, we're still able to bring in a reduction in the millage to 6.7 over the current seven mills, which is a drastic decrease from the 7.85 mills that we were in just four years ago. So we are trending on the downward slope on the millage rate at 6.7. It's not working, mayor. I'll go over there.

We have a copy here. I just want to make sure the residents can see what we're looking at. Thank you. There you go.

I'm going to say it's frozen, sir, because it's not moving over here either.

There he goes.

There we go. So you can see now, mayor, I apologize, in that the historical trend for the 10-year millage rate has trended down successfully from the high of 7.99 to 7.85 in fiscal year 22, down to 2 point, I'm sorry, I'm starting to read the years of decimal, for fiscal year 26 at 6.7. So what I did for this, and this is just sort of showing it a different way from what we discussed at the last meeting. So going from we originally, as part of the maximum millage, we notified the property owners of 6.95 mils. So anyone that looked at their trim notice, it wouldn't be applicable to what we've now done for the final budget. So what we did is, is this is comparing the property, taxable property value for last year to the current year, using last year's 7 mils to this year's taxable value at 6.7 mils. So the average property in Deltona will see an $11.79 reduction in their tax bill. Then I looked at a random rental property. Now that rental property, because if you're homesteaded, you're capped at 3% increase. Non-homesteaded, which is your rental property or a second home, et cetera, is not limited to that 3%. It's capped at 10%. So this particular property that I looked at, they're looking at a $50 increase. Then I looked at a long-term resident here in Deltona, and their property tax is going to increase 67 cents. These are real properties in Deltona, and I can show all the detail if requested. Then I looked at another property that had a higher property value than the average. They're looking at a $15.46 decrease. Then I looked at another property owner that has no homestead. I can't tell you if it's a second home. I can't tell you any of the specifics on it, but they are looking at a $93.11 increase. Then I looked at an individual that last year, their assessed value was under $50,000. So when they got their double homestead exemption of $25,000 and $25,000, they paid no taxes here in Deltona. This year, their property now has an assessed value of $51,000. So if you take the two homestead exemptions of $25,000, their taxable value is $1,000. So they're going to pay $6.70 in taxes. Why is that important? Because 2,500 residents out of the 35,500 residential properties here in Deltona, 2,500 paid no taxes, whatever the reason is. There's another just under $7,700 that pay little to no taxes, like I just said on the previous slide, of $6.70 could be $20. I can't tell you why. Then we have 7,500 parcels that are between the $50,000 and the $123,000 average. Then we have 7,400 parcels that are valued between $122,000 and $194,000. But the chunk of where our taxes are coming from is the $194,000 to the just under $500,000. So those are going to account for the majority of the individuals that have recently built a home, bought into an existing home. So they're being taxed at the full value of the market value of that house. So obviously, it has a big change in what your taxes are going to be. Out of all the residential properties, there's only 34 parcels that are over $500,000. We have no single-family residence in Deltona that's valued greater than $1 million. So September 8th, Mayor, we brought to you what you see before you, a total citywide budget of just over $245.6 million. We were asked to make certain changes because this was based off of 6.75 mils. We were directed to revise it to 6.7. We made the required trim newspaper ad. This is what was posted in the West Felucia Beacon that was distributed last Friday. The difference between the previous slide and this slide is $269,000 where we reduced the lake and pond weed control. So that is what was posted in the trim newspaper ad and was reviewed and approved by the trim staff with the state of Florida. So then from last week to this week, we then received the notification that I shared with the mayor and commission on Saturday that we had to increase the budget, move it from one line to another for the litigation. We received the updated litigation backup where we had to spread it from what it was previously in the commissioner's budget specifically that we reviewed July 14th. And it got split between public works, planning, and a transfer to stormwater. So that's why the current year funding increased by $369,000 because we had to move the money from the general fund to the stormwater fund. There was no change to the general fund because it was an expense, was changed to a transfer, so nothing changed on the general fund side. It was the transferring of the money from the general fund to stormwater that necessitated due to fund accounting that the budget increased. So that's the crosswalk up to this point. I just want to share, because I know some of y'all have discussed this with me this past week, is what was presented to you in the July workshop had a commissioner budget of $2.4 million with the changes of $900,000 moving the legal and litigation expense out of the commissioner's budget to the other areas that I just disclosed. That reduced your budget from July to today by $1.2 million. The only thing that's really remaining in the commissioner's budget that was an enhancement over the prior years, we had the fraud and compliance audit of $500,000 and legal services and litigation, additional $150,000. And I provided all of that back up through the deputy city manager on Saturday. I just wanted to share that I know litigation, legal expenses have been a big conversation. Citywide budget, we have over $2 million. Outside of the city attorney's annual contract, we have other litigation and legal services. These are the various open litigations that's been provided, I'm told, to y'all since May. So these are the open litigations in the Seventh Judicial Circuit Volusia County Court. Then we have some open litigation in the U.S. Middle District Court, national litigation, and pending case matters. A lot of these are items that will show up that your auditors who are on site currently doing their interim field work, they will be having me send out to the auditors in October asking for any pending litigation that the city could have to put money aside for settlement. So these are just one of many items that the commission, the city attorneys, might be providing to the auditors that would be included as part of your annual comprehensive financial report. This is just, again, another crosswalk of even though we reduced the commissioner's budget by $900,000, we moved it $431,000 to planning and development, $100,000 to public works, and $369,000 from general fund to the stormwater fund. So let me get rid of this here so you don't keep seeing that. Oh, you can't? Okay. Well, I tried. So normally when we do the budget, we pass the new year budget, and with me, how I do, I always try and get as part of the final budget the year-end role. That's important because these are items that you have approved as the commission by resolution for whatever the item might be. We might have outstanding invoices coming in from professional services, CPH, Mead & Hunt, whoever. We have open encumbrances with them. You've approved vehicles that haven't been delivered, that have been ordered. You have CIP projects, et cetera. So I wanted to make sure that I was very clear in that there's $99,153,709 that needs to be moved from the current year budget to next year's budget. So we're just, the finance staff is just ahead of themselves this year that we're getting all of this done today versus last year we brought this back to the first meeting in November. So these, I've made sure I've listed all the resolutions and the dates by which were approved by you, the commission, of this rollover funds. There's not one item in this list that's not been previously approved. Nothing's increased over what you have already approved. Majority of them are the fact that this is just the remaining balance. Mayor, do you want me to read these three pages of items that add up to the $99 million? Or I can just highlight some of the big ones.

You can do the highlights. I mean, we've all received this before, unless a commissioner specifically wants.

Please just do the highlight. Road resurfacing, $4.8 million. They weren't able to mobilize before the end of this year. So moving that money from the current fiscal year to the next fiscal year. The remaining balance of the Rhode Island extension, we have just under $15 million accounted for on that. We have money that was set aside for the seed money for the Catalina Boulevard and El Cam Boulevard Elevation. The customer service enhancements that were talked about as part of customer service encode animal control moving between City Hall and 255 Enterprise. I can't see above that. $772,000 for ongoing parks and rec storage monument signs and renovations. $636,000 for general improvements. That's an adopted project. I can definitely provide more detail on that if you would like. The West Crow Park improvements, $919,000. The Dewey-Boster Park upgrades, $512,000. Other parks that are ongoing of $1.9 million. $8.4 million in equipment and machinery. This is all water sewer, so it's very broad from lift stations to water line replacements. We have $8.9 million for the Lake Monroe Reclaim Phase 4B, $4 million for the eastern upgrade sewer plant. $3.2 million for the AMR meters. That's going to be one that we're almost done with that project, so even though that's budgeted, that project will be completed over $2 million under budget. So that's going to be $2 million that will go back to fund balance. $3.8 million for water main replacement. $1.6 million for development projects that we're working on with developers here in the city. We have $1.2 million for the Teresa Basin Study. $3.3 million for the Lake Paton Clear Pump Station. $1.5 million for the Eastbrook Pipe Replacement. $1.6 million for the Lake Windsor Force Main. These are all projects, Mayor, that you will find on the monthly budget report. So the last page has a whole list of all the outstanding CIP projects. And all of this, Mayor, was based off of the actual remaining balance done on September 18th, right out of our ERP system. The final thing is we were asked to put our basic white fleet out to quote. So as stated, I sent this to the three local Ford dealerships because, you know, we have standardized with Ford. So we did that. Based on the quotes received, if we were to buy local, these vehicles would cost us an additional $183,962.20 more than purchasing through the state term contracts. I've listed all the vehicles. Based on the first column is what the Florida Sheriff's term contract would be, what Coggin Ford's quote would be, what Molinax Ford in New Smyrna would be, and Gary Yeoman Ford in Daytona Beach. You can see clearly if they chose to quote or not quote, but Gary Yeoman did not quote at all, and I will share that with you in a second. So buying local will cost the city more over term contracts. Per the Gary Yeoman Ford VP, they would never have a chance to beat the state contract or the sheriff's contract because they sell below invoice. The term contracts are based on volume. Gary Yeoman simply cannot compete, so therefore they chose not to submit a quote. So since December of 23, this is the third time that we have put this out in December of 23. We did it as a formal RFP that came back the same, could not beat the state contract. We still went with the state contract. Earlier this year, we were asked to put vehicles out to quote, same thing. They could not compete. So we still went with the state contract. So this is now the third time in under two years that we've done it. They just simply cannot beat the quantity versus, you know, what the state term contracts are. So we'll continue to do this, Mayor, as requested if you ask us to do this in the future. But they just cannot beat any of the state term contracts. And then finally, tonight is your final step. This is the final required action that must be taken by the commission in order to adopt a budget. We must first adopt the millage, which then, you know, relays what our ad valorem proceeds will be, and then we vote on the budget.

Thank you, Mr. McKinney. Yes, sir. If I can please go through public comment, and then we'll go to Commissioner comment.

Mayor, are you going to vote to both budget and millage or just budget?

We can just do one each. That way they can.

All right. So David Markle, please.

Good evening, Mayor and Commissioners. Dave Markle, Hanley Street, Deltona. I stand before you tonight to voice strong opposition to the proposal millage rate of 6.70%. At a time when residents are all already facing increased costs in every aspect of our lives, from housing and insurance to groceries and utilities, this increase would be an unnecessary burden to the people of Deltona. We all know that we have a revenue problem, but we also have a bigger spending problem. Raising the millage rate only avoids addressing inefficiencies, inflated salaries, and questionable budgetary priorities. Families and seniors in our city are forced to make tough decisions every day to live within the means of our city government. Our city government should be held accountable to those same means and cut and trim the budget. The citizens of Deltona deserve relief, not higher taxes. A full rollback of the millage rate is only a responsible decision. This is not the time to ask for more. It is not time to restore trust. I'm sorry. It is time to restore trust and practice fiscal discipline and prioritize essential services over fluff. I was going to bring a jar of fluff because I feel that that's what this is in the budget. I urge this commission to reject this proposal and demand a full rollback in order to protect our community over families and the financial future of Deltona. Thank you.

Thank you. Kathy Bryan, please.

Listen, Mr. Bryan's coming up. If you have a cell phone, can you please make sure it's on silent? There's been three other phones that have been going off, so thank you.

Kathy Bryan, Deltona. I get that we need taxes. We need taxes to pay for stuff. And I've said it before at this podium, and I'll say it again. It's not necessarily how you spend it. It's not what you spend, but it's how you spend it. You had options to make some compromises and move stuff around to get to full rollback. I understand when people are looking at we're saving this much or we're saving that much, we're not really. We're actually paying more in non-ad valorem taxes. So when you consider that—I lost my train of thought. Give me a moment. When you consider that that's going up a whole lot more than what you're saving with the current millage rate that you're voting on, why not bring it down? Why not take some of the money that's offered from one district, spread it around a little bit? I had a conversation with another resident earlier about needs and wants. And maybe my needs are somebody else's wants and vice versa, but there's stuff that the city all—everybody needs. And that goes to water. Like the Fisher plant, why are we going to put a whole bunch of money into saving that thing? It's old, decrepit. I'd rather see money put into something new. But let's work on the compromises, some of the stuff that we can do to get to that full rollback for your residents. I know not a lot of the money goes to the city in the full amount of taxes that you're paying, but any little bit helps, especially for those on fixed incomes. So thank you.

Thank you. Brandi White, please. Public comment on what?

At the end of the—she wants public comment at the end. On the agenda, there is public—

Charlie Kirk would always say, you know how we heal divides. By talking to the people we disagree with. You heal the county and the country when you allow disagreement and allow a microphone with people who have differing views. I start that tonight because for a city who held a vigil, you're not incorporating that wisdom and courage tonight in what I'm seeing. He was all about talking and debating and working through these things, but I see a lot of you that don't want to have those conversations. He once gave some kids some life advice. Learned something new every single day. Focused on what it means to be a good person and of strong character. Integrity is doing the right thing when nobody's watching, and some of you can't even do it while we're watching you. To commit to a life of courage, and since some of you lack that, I'll explain that courage is doing the right thing when you don't know how it's going to work out. Courage is committing yourself to the correct course of action regardless of the cost associated, and we're not talking just money. In fact, Aristotle said that courage is the ultimate virtue, and without it, there are no other virtues. If people aren't courageous, you don't have honesty, you don't have justice, you don't have beauty, you don't have wonder. So lastly, I'm going to challenge you to find the courage to do better and be better. What we've seen during this process is shameful, and it's too late now probably to do much about it. And I understand that some of you, or at least two of you, three of you, have worked hard at trying to make this work, trying to have the discussion only to be blocked and shut down by the others. So I hope that what you can do is find your courage moving forward after today because we already know today's a done deal. But moving forward, I hope we actually see a change and we actually see some courage because for a city who puts on a vigil to respect a man, you don't even follow what his teachings were.

So were you a no on the rollback? I just want to make sure.

Thank you. David Sosa, please.

All right, David Sosa. I'm a no on this current millage rate. It should go back to full rollback. Why? You already have the cost of everything going up for the residents. Now you're going to increase their taxes. I put an email out, and I probably got 100 different responses, and every one of them said, we do not want any more taxes. I've had stories from people telling me, hey, I'm a single mom. I've got two kids. I couldn't afford taxes last year. Guess what? I had to move back in my mom. Now guess what? Now we're having a hard time affording taxes there. So if you increase taxes, just because your millage rate goes down, which is a good thing, but guess what else goes up? The assessed values. So because one comes down, the other goes up, guess what? This one that comes down doesn't give you a big savings. It may give some folks a savings, but then what else did you do? You kind of, in a sneaky way, increase the stormwater fees. You're basically, since you took office of ELA, have doubled the stormwater fees over the next four years. We have the highest stormwater rates in the county, and what do we have? We have a lot of houses flooding, 200, 300, 100, most of them from simple rains. Now, I am all about going to the rollback. Now, the budget, we said we're going to a zero-based budget. The only thing I say zero's going to is the end of the last figure, because that budget just increased how much, Travila? How much did you increase the budget by? You don't know? Seven million dollars.

I believe you voted to increase the stormwater when you were a commissioner twice.

Negative. I did not.

The public record.

You need to get the public record. I never voted to increase any taxes, period. So that being said, Joyce. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Okay, Mayor, that closes for Millage.

Commissioner Howington.

So last week, I asked everyone here to consider, please, allowing me to do a give back from something from my district. I have put together a proposal that could get us to full rollback, and I would like for everyone here to consider it and respect it. We've had a lot of residents that have asked us for a full rollback. They've been asking for years. Several that have come up and even said that they were promised the past several years. So I'm going to share this with you guys. Please look it over. I would like for you to consider it. This could get us to a full rollback. So to go over the proposal, we had a capital project for Manny Rodriguez Park. I would like to take that $1.25 million and reallocate it. Here, I have extras. One being to the full rollback. So the priority would be the full rollback. That would impact all of the residents citywide. The next two or three items would be for stormwater. While it doesn't cover the full $269,000 for the lake remediation, I'd like to allocate $150,000 to the restoration improvement of the local lakes to clean them up. I'm not sure if we have any baffle boxes, but I'd like to look into baffle boxes and netting to help with the pollution control for stormwater, as well as adding storm drain artwork and marking. We do that once a year currently, and I'd like to see that a little bit more part of our focus to help. You know, we're seeing algae blooms and things like that, that I think that would be beneficial. Parks and rec, next two items pertain to that. One being I did have a request from one of our sports, our youth sports teams asking for lightning detection systems. And so I kind of looked into those, and I would like to recommend that we reallocate some funding to Dewey, Oboster, West Crile, and Van Park, because those do have a heavy focus on youth programs and things like that, as well as our major city events. And then given that I would be pulling this money from the Manny Rodriguez Park project, I still want to make sure that they get enhanced playground equipment. And so I've allocated to keep money there for the playground equipment. And then for arts and education, I'd like to see a citywide art tour and planet walk, just so that it kind of takes that funding and spreads it around for everybody. But the main focus of this is to get us to full rollback so that our residents get that relief that they're asking us for. And I would like for everybody to consider it. I didn't touch operating expenses. This isn't impacting services to residents in any way. It is simply just reallocating a capital project that is a nice-to-have. And I truly believe this is in the best interest of the residents at this particular juncture. And I hope that you guys would support me in that. Thank you.

All right. Ms. Gibson, I'm going to ask you to please put that on silent, because it's interrupting the meeting. I understand that. And I appreciate that. I understand that. It's not a debate. Thank you. Is there any more commissioner comments? Vice Mayor Herriot?

I appreciate Commissioner Howington's proposal.

You're a closer to the mic, please.

I appreciate Commissioner Howington's proposal for her district. One of the things that we've been seeing across the city is the increase in essentially crime cases, legal cases from the sheriff's office with kids. I met with the sheriff's office team a few months ago. And one of the biggest, one of the most successful ways of reducing the interaction of children with law enforcement is to invest in our parks, invest in opportunities for the children or for our kids when they're not on, to get them off the street. This is to keep them busy after school, to keep them busy until their parents come home. And this does the opposite of that. And for that reason, I can't support this proposal.

Well, Vice Mayor, it's your motion, correct? Are you willing to go back on your motion?

No, my motion stands.

Okay. All right. Seeing that there's nobody else on the dial, can we please vote? Commissioner Villavazquez, if you want to speak.

It's going to be a verbal vote, right?

Oh, okay.

So before I vote, I know that a lot of people have asked me why my change of position on the rollback at the last meeting. So it wasn't really a change of mind. I was caught in the middle of a battle. The rollback was never going to be approved, just like it's never going to be approved here. So my other option was to go with the lowest, which was 6.7, because the 6.75 that was mentioned was never approved. It was discussed at our last budget meeting, but we never, at least some of them, never agreed on it. So my way to make sure that we at least brought the millage rate down, not maybe the rollback, but down to less than 6.5, was to go down to 6.7. And that's why I changed my mind to go to the 6.7, because the rollback was never going to be approved then. It's never going to be approved now. So my motion for the 6.7 millage is yes.

All right. Just before we continue, before we jump up, Commissioner Colwood, do you want to speak before voting? Okay. Can you go ahead and read the legal terminology, and then the city clerk will do the roll call.

Mayor, I will announce what I'm required to by the Florida statute. The fiscal year of 2026 budget commences on October 1, 2025. It continues through September 30, 2026 for the city of Deltona. The city commission shall discuss the final millage necessary to fund the fiscal year 2025-2026 final budget for the city of Deltona. The city of Deltona is the taxing authority, and the current year taxable value for operating purposes is $5,671,597,678. The adopted final millage rate of 6.7 mills per 1,000 evaluation is 2.3% increase in ad valorem tax revenue above the rollback rate of 6.5494. This increase in millage over the rollback rate is for funding for the operations, debt service, capital outlay, and capital improvement programs of the city of Deltona. The major changes from last year are as follows. AHAC funding, $343,000. General fund debt reduction, $333,000. Fraud and compliance audit, $500,000. Additional litigation and settlement expenditures of $1,000,000. Two additional code officers of $149,000. Two additional vehicles for the above officers, $72,000. Six additional firefighters budgeted at 75% of the fiscal year, $534,000. The sheriff's contract increased by $1.15 million. We did, however, have some reductions. We reduced the general fund, the overall city open positions by 12 positions. This was a reduction of $1,000,000 citywide with a savings of $772,000 to the general fund. The capital improvements funded by the general fund are as followed. Land acquisition for repetitive lost properties, $1,000,000. Fire training complex, $250,000. And parks capital improvements of $4.25 million. Plus Catalina and Elkham Boulevard elevation, $1.04 million. All capital improvements and capital outlay for the current proposed fiscal year are funded by reserves. This budget includes all operating capital costs for fiscal year 2025-2026. This budget includes the general special revenue, debt service, capital, enterprise, and internal service funds. The final citywide fiscal year 2025-2026 budget for all funds is $245,510,105. And this resolution also includes the rollover funds previously adopted of $99,153,709, bringing the total all funds budget for fiscal year 2025-2026 to $344,663,814. The city commission adopts the citywide budget per the charter and ordinance at the fund level. Thank you, mayor.

City clerk, if you can please call the roll. We're right after the roll call. I'll take it because he read the legal request. We're just rolling on A. Yes, the millage. 6.7 millage.

Commissioner Avila-Vasquez? Yes. Commissioner Caldwell? No. Commissioner Howlington? No. Commissioner Novick? Commissioner Santiago? Yes. Vice Mayor Harriet?

Yes.

Mayor Avila?

Yes.

5-2.

All right. Before we get started, Commissioner Novick, could you please click on your button so I can turn you on? Go ahead.

I had a question for finance director. Earlier you, and I didn't jot it down because I was trying to write a lot of things, you said that we had a savings on the, with the water meters? Yes, sir.

So the water meters is related to the water sewer fund, so the rate payers versus the taxpayers of the general fund. So that savings of $2 million would not affect the general fund millage.

Okay. So that doesn't go back into the general fund? No, sir. I'm like there was an enterprise fund.

That is correct.

Okay. My next question is for the manager. Can you find $75,000 for this lightning detection someplace?

Yes. It's actually in the Parks and Recreation reconstruction we're going to be doing over the next year. That would be one of the items we've already discussed.

It is in there then?

Yes. In the office we've discussed that already. Okay. Thank you.

All right. City Attorney, if you can please read the next section, the next resolution, B.

Yes, Mr. Mayor, this is resolution number 2025-134, a resolution of the City Commission of the City of Deltona, Florida, adopting the final budget for each of several funds and departments of the city for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2025, and ending September 30, 2026, approving the final capital improvement plan, providing for appropriation and procedures, providing for scrivener's errors, and an effective date.

This time I'll entertain a motion and a second. Commissioner Santiago?

I make a motion to approve resolution number 2025-134, adopting the City of Deltona, fiscal year 2025-26, final budget.

Vice Mayor Harriott?

Second.

There's a motion by Commissioner Santiago and a second by Vice Mayor Harriott. Is there any public comment?

Carolyn Hickerson, please.

There we go. Mayor, Commissioner, City Manager, as we go into this budget, I want to appeal to our shared human dignity. In light of the events of the past three weeks or so, I'd like everyone to take a deep breath and a deep look inside ourselves. Dori may have some ideas worth discussing, and Emma may have some valid points. Folks, all of our faces are readable, and it's obvious divisions exist. Some don't like the mayor or vice mayor. Some don't like Emma or Dori or Mr. Caldwell. Some don't like the city manager. I left out Maritza, because who can dislike someone with so much passion for our community? And we are all community, each worthy of respect and dialogue. As we collectively take a deep breath and reflect on the school children murdered, the young woman killed on a commute, and the assassination of a father, let's think what the cost of speaking our minds is. As a community, we all want the same things, safety for our families, affordability to care for our families, building a healthy community where differences are celebrated and respected, and love offered to our neighbors. Sadly, a decent woman withdrew her name for consideration for seat six. And why? Because of personal attacks, threats, and spewed hate. I met with her. And though we don't share a D or an R, we share the loss of a husband and a child. And we found commonality, not based on politics, but on our shared humanity. I am pleading for all of you to find your shared humanity, find common ground, or compromises for our community. It's time for all of our entire community, especially all of you, to lead by example of love, respect, and shared purpose. Thank you.

Thank you. Gary Engelking.

Mr. Mayor, Councilman, good evening. I'm Gary Engelking, Deltona. I looked at your budget. There's a lot of flop in it. I don't see a lot of details. Equipment, vehicles, where's the maintenance, where's the tires? I know we have to have contingency. We have a threshold that has just been talked about being raised. We know we need that, but we also need relief for our people. We need it badly. There's just too many things I see here, computers and vehicles. I don't see any justification. How many of these are one-year-old, five-years-old? Where's the tires on these vehicles you need to replace? I'll bet you know it on your own vehicles at home. I do. I'm just saying, somebody really needs to dig a little deeper into this. Where are the department heads submitting this? This looks like somebody just grabbed some percentages and threw them out there. 100% increase? Come on. Something's not right here. And I'm not going to go any further and just say, we need some help. People are out here, and we know inflation's here, and our people are hurting. They don't need more taxes. They need relief.

Thank you. Taylor Kneeler, please.

Good afternoon. Neighbors, friends, and leaders of our community. My name is Taylor Kneeler. I'm a father, a husband, and a man guided by God's principles. Many of you may not know me, but you will, I promise. I stand here today because I believe it's time for the voices, the voices of the people who call this place home, to be heard loud and clear. We are at a crossroads. The decisions we make today will shape the future of our community tomorrow, not just for us, but for our children, our grandchildren, and generations yet to come. I ask you, our leaders, to take a step back and reflect. What are our intentions? Are we building a future that serves the residents who have poured their hearts into this town, or are we handing it over to the highest bidder? This new budget is disturbing. What's also disturbing is when posses of our lands are sold off to businessmen in suits, we risk pricing out the very people who make this community what it is today. The families, the seniors, the folks who have been here long before those deals were even a thought. If we keep down this path, how will our children have a chance to call this place home? How will they afford to live in the town their parents and grandparents helped build? I am not here to point fingers or divide us. I'm here to call us to a higher purpose. Our decisions must be made for the good of all, those who we agree with and those we don't. They must protect the families raising kids here, the seniors who have given their lives to this town, and the legacy we leave for our progeny. We need leadership that looks out for the soul of this community, not just the bottom line. And I'm ready to fight for that vision. If it takes running for a council seat or even mayor, I'll do it. Because it's time we put the people first, our residents, our values, our future. Let's build a community where our kids can thrive, where our seniors are honored.

Thank you, sir. Thank you. Matthew Burgans, please.

Sir, if you just click on the mic so I can turn it back on.

Good afternoon. I submitted to the commission last week kind of an outline of what I thought it was some concerns. One of the things was we have 14 organizations with similar associations that they go to. We have 17 organizations that go to the same travel funds. So why are they going to the same conferences with the same things? Can we condense that? We have a benchmarking tool that we don't use. We're using our IT program that we're paying over a million dollars when Altamont only pays $500,000. Sanford with an EOC pays $800,000 at the high end and we're paying over a million dollars. You know, why are we paying so much and we outsource it? Why isn't our contract paying for the pen testing and everything else? Why are we paying so much when we don't get even half of that? So, you know, there's a lot of things that we can look at. Why don't we have our own engineer? Why are we outsourcing that for $300,000 when we can hire our own engineer for $150,000? So there's a lot of things we can do to help our city, our residents, and then give back. Help our parks. Help our students. Help our kids. So there's a lot of things that we can do to trim. We're not going to have property taxes if things keep going away. What's going to happen when residents aren't paying property taxes? So that's something to think about. So, you know, if we don't have property taxes, then what are we going to do? So some of the things we can start looking at, and like I said, I sent that packet out to all the commission. I sent it to the DOC. It's something to start looking at. And then it didn't cover all the line items, so why don't we have all the line items available to residents? Like I said, I only found so much line items on the site. Why can't we get everything? I appreciate your time, and I appreciate everything you do.

Thank you. Christian O'Brien, please.

Hey, good evening, everybody. So my name is Christian O'Brien. I'm from District 6. I was one of the applicants for—

Excuse me, Mr. O'Brien. Guys, David, you know the rules. Can we please—we're trying to show him some respect. Can you start his time again, please?

Thank you so much. Yeah, my name is Christian O'Brien. I live in District 6. I was one of the applicants for the commission's seat. So first off, congratulations. Looking forward to seeing you work well with everybody. One of the things I wanted to bring up—there's a lot of things I want to bring up. First off, well, well, well, if you notice on the first item of one of the expenses was the Fisher Water Plant, which was for $44 million. Now, this was first introduced to me personally last March. It was at $61 million, based on the capital improvement plan from March of 2024. It was actually $62, if you looked at the estimated budget for one of the years. Anyway, getting on to that. That's one of the big line items that we have for the city. And if you will, it's like the Terminator. It's not going anywhere. It's not going to run. It doesn't listen to pity. It doesn't feel empathy. These are projects that are not going anywhere. They have to get done. And so luckily, our heroes behind the scenes were able to get $22 million, while everyone else was arguing over $1,800. The millage rate that we just discussed, for me personally, was a difference of $28, okay? So it was one large pizza with some breadsticks and a Coke deal. We need to start spending our time more wisely. We need to stop being so divisive. We need to be working together. We need to be exploring options of how and why we're making these actions. And they need to be very transparent to us, because we don't have time to sit around and do the research and the due diligence. So instead of empowered speeches and rhetoric, what we need is to see you folks bringing receipts, facts, and information that's going to help us understand why you're making your decision. So please think about that for the future and when you make this vote, because we all know how it's going to go because of past voting patterns.

Thank you, sir. Kathy Bryan, please. David Sosa, please.

I haven't even started speaking yet.

Can you start this timer, please?

Okay. First, Joyce, I'd like a public records request for the public records request Avila stated he had that stated I approved a stormwater increase as a commissioner. I'd like that as a public record request. And then I thought there was no back and forth Avila between you and the residents. I guess that doesn't apply to you. Maritza, while I may not always agree with you, I do appreciate you. And I respect you because I think you do what's best for the residents in your heart. And I respect that. Now, a lot of the slideshows up there today talked about 200% reduction, 100% reduction, 60% reduction. But what it did say was a reduction from what? A proposed to the actual. But it didn't actually compare the apples to apples, which was your actual this year to last year's and how much the increase was on that. Now, the Fisher plant, $40 million. I've already told you before from up here, there was a plan to sell, to send that water, the black water, gray water, whatever you want to call it, to DeBerry, to the Volusia County plant. We had money from that. Webster Barney brought a check up here for $300,000 to expedite that process. What happened to it? Fell through the cracks. Okay. Then, Harriet, a little disappointed in you. My wife did call you. And it was at the bequest of somebody else because they thought I would be a better person. And they thought, you and the viola thought I would get rid of this guy here. Mr. Sosa, this is about the. Quiet.

Listen. Would be about getting rid of this guy. Mr. Sosa, this is about the budget. Okay?

Now, that was in the discussion. And she said I was not going to get rid of it. Mr. Sosa, this is about. Which I said I wouldn't.

Okay, Mayor, that closes public comments.

All right, can you please go through the roll call? Go ahead, Commissioner Howington, go ahead.

So, in response to the park and the concerns, I'd like to point out that the park that I wanted to move the funds from is less than a mile away from Dewey O'Boster, which has two large-scale play equipment, one that's even accessible. So, to say that this park would keep our youth safe is unreasonable. I offered a path to a full rollback. One mile is nothing to offer our residents a benefit, especially when last year's vote included $1.1 million of unencumbered funds that now rolled into this year's taxes. The rollback didn't even include the taxes we're collecting from new construction. And yes, I feel that pain because I pay over $7,000 in taxes, probably the most out of anybody sitting up here. And you can tell me my taxes are going to go down $10, but when it's $7,000, does that really matter? Play equipment. Could have offered our residents a full rollback. You told me during the workshop, if I came to the table with something, that you'd consider it. And I did. We had an opportunity to offer our residents relief. And I hate to say this, but I have a feeling we'll get a rollback next year. And the reason being is because we have a lot of people up for re-election. This has become political. The mayor told me personally for the past two years that he would get us a full rollback. We've had other residents say he said the same thing. When somebody comes up here with an option, I hate the idea that people are playing politics. Just because you hate me and we get it, that's wrong to stick it to our residents that way. That's all I have to say. Good luck with the tax increase.

Vice Mayor Harriet.

Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner Howington, I have nothing personal against you. I quite frankly don't really even know you aside from sitting next to you on the dais. I appreciate the proposal that you brought, but we're literally at the second public hearing meeting and there's, I don't think that this achieves the, what is best for the residents. A mile doesn't seem like a long distance, but in a district, in district one, where you have an elementary school with 470 something students, plus or minus 30, depending on the week or month. And you have one school bus full of kids that ride the bus. Everybody else walks. A mile is a long way.

In your district. Not in mine.

All right, Commissioner Howington, he didn't interrupt you. Please. Commissioner Howington.

And so I think it's important that I uphold my promise to my residents and to the residents across the city that we invest into the parks. We invest into our stormwater. We invest into the city. And if we can reduce the millage, I understand that some people will see a minute increase, but we're reducing the millage rate. We're on the trajectory to come down even farther next year. Full rollback.

Like I said, Commissioner Howington, point of order. I get the theatrics, but it needs to stop. It really needs to stop. What are you talking about? Nobody can eject you. Nobody can. Excuse me. Excuse me. Sir, stop interrupting the meeting.

Thank you, Mayor. This budget accomplishes so much. It really does. It truly accomplishes so much from where we've been over the last five to 10 years. This is a phenomenal budget. And to the folks that have gotten up and said that they don't see the detail on the budget, I hear you. I understand. That's because these reports aren't the detailed reports. This budget was put together over the last few months. We have gotten those detailed reports. We have all worked with our city finance director. We've all worked with the city manager to come up with the budget that he has presented here today and last week. That's all I've got, Mayor. Thank you.

Commissioner Howington.

I'm curious, city manager. How many of these projects are going to be completed in the next 12 months? Well, no. I mean, we want to put $15 million into the parks. Let's talk about it. How quickly are those going to get done?

We can't answer that.

Because we're rolling over a lot of money.

We can't answer that exact question, Commissioner. I mean, that's a total guess.

So we're collecting all this money, and we likely can't even use it because we probably don't have the manpower to do it all in one year.

You're going to bid out. You're going to go through the process, and those projects will be brought back to the commission. So everything takes time from the beginning. We can't do anything right now because we don't have the funding. So clearly we're not ahead of the game at this point. We're waiting until the funding is there. So everything starts with the process.

And what was the capital roll forward this year?

Commissioner, $99,153,709. Those are all approved CIP and capital projects.

So $100 million in projects?

Yes, ma'am.

And that's all roll forward, or how much of that is roll forward?

100% of that is roll forward.

How much is new this year?

Total funding, all new funding, $245,510. I'm sorry, $245,510,105.

That's not just the capital, though.

That is correct. There is no capital or CIP funded by ad valorem proceeds in the current year budget. That is 100% prior year fund balance that's been designated for vehicle replacement and for CIP. And the CIP is one-time use. So it's very logical to utilize fund balance for that.

So the residents should expect to see a very considerable amount of improvement in our community in the next 12 months based on the amount of money we are collecting. All those projects are going to be done, completed, and improvements will be made. So that is a commitment that's being made here tonight?

I think I clearly, Commissioner, said I can't give you any number whatsoever. So there is no guarantee or commitment made tonight. But I think I've been clear with all the commissioners that the first year here, for myself, that's when the ball's starting to roll. The second year, a lot of things are going to pop, and that's what I'm expecting this next year. Yes, a lot of projects across the board, whether it's park projects, border projects, or anything else. Yes.

Thank you.

Vice Mayor. And then we're going to go to McKinney.

Thank you, Mayor. I just think it's important to point out that the nature of capital projects is that they're multi-year projects. And with multi-year projects, I think it's doing a disservice to residents, and it's, quite frankly, just inappropriate accounting in order to begin the process without having funding in place. It's disingenuous to our residents. It's also disingenuous to any potential vendors. And so if we're not going to put the funding in place, then we shouldn't be doing the project. And by the nature of a capital project, it's a multi-year project. So I look forward to seeing all of the impacts that are made next year, but also the impacts that are made in the year to follow, the years to follow, when these projects actually are completed and we get the opportunity to cut a bunch of ribbons on new parts.

Mr. McKinney, can you please read the legal requested?

I've already read all required readings for this evening, sir.

Okay, so just to get it from Zach, so we're going straight to a vote?

Yes, sir. We've already had the title and the required.

City Clerk, if you can please do the roll call.

Commissioner Villavasquez? Yes. Commissioner Caldwell? No. Commissioner Howington? No. Commissioner Novick?

Yes.

Commissioner Santiago? Yes. Vice Mayor Harriott?

Yes.

Mayor Villa?

Yes.

5-2.

All right. This time, if I can please have the city attorney read Section 5C.

Yes, Mr. Mayor. This is a request for guidance from staff regarding the Ordinance Review Committee, and Mr. Smith, the Planning and Development Services Director, will be presenting the item.

Go ahead, Mr. Smith.

Good evening, Mayor and Commission. On March 18, 2025, the Commission reached consensus to establish the Ordinance Review Committee on April 21, 2025. The Commission adopted Resolution No. 2025-51, which formally activated this committee under Section 1-17 of the City Code. And tonight's staff is seeking commission-direct guidance on the timing and scope of the committee's work. Just some further information, the Planning Department currently has a comprehensive plan update. That's going to come before this commission October-November, 2026. So we're just seeking direction on what kind of ordinances you want this committee to focus on. Is it the Land Development Code or just General Code of Ordinances?

Okay. I'll start since no one else has put up. So I think the purpose of it was to kind of give you guys relief. I know you guys are going through some of the ordinances right now. I think I was the one that made the request to put this on, to be followed through with, with obviously sun setting after a year unless it's the will of the mission to continue it. But the goal was to look at the old ordinances that are on the books since we've been catching a lot of stuff that are either redundant or are out of its time or whatever. And just helping, whether it's legal or staff, get all these ordinances up to date is the biggest request. That's at least what my intent was. Vice Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor. I thought that this idea, this committee would be a great idea when it was initially presented. Now I'm wondering if it's necessarily the best course of action to have a citizen's committee go through and review and determine which ordinances might be duplicative of each other or the technical components of ordinances. I wonder if it wouldn't be better for us to figure out some sort of outreach to residents for them to submit ordinances that they would like to see us look at, see us review, and then use possibly a contractor if staff doesn't have the bandwidth to review the technical component of it. But I think we should look at maybe a different method so that residents can recommend ordinances that they would like to see changes made to versus asking them to do the technical component.

So I think that kind of eliminates the purpose of this. I mean, number one, we've already voted for this. It's already gone through. They're just looking for direction. And more importantly, the whole purpose of it was to not nitpick what ordinance, but to go through all the ordinances, starting with the oldest ones, to be able to kind of bring them up to date. So Commissioner Howington, you're next.

Yeah, and we just voted to take $75,000, $80,000 from residents to cover this, and now you want to back out of it? That's rich.

Commissioner Villavasco is your next.

Thank you, Mayor. Didn't we have Joyce and Ordinance Review Committee before? I know, because I was a member.

Yes.

And nobody used to show up, and that's why we sunset it.

When we did it back then, it was the commission was going to provide the ordinances to the group to review. The commission didn't provide anything to the group. There were several members that were appointed that only had issues, like, say, I have an issue with the parking. I want to be appointed to the board. They were appointed the minute they got what they wanted. That was it. They got off the board. So it didn't last long.

Correct. So a lot of us who were dedicated to this committee were disappointed that it had to be sunset because those of us who were interested in it were really told bye. So, I don't know. And, you know, we've taken a look at the committees that we have right now, and not a lot of people show up for these committees, these meetings. So, again, I don't understand how successful this will be. Have we heard from residents interested in being part of this? Is it a large? Okay, well, if they want to continue, if they want to reopen it. So what do we call this? We're going to sunrise it? Because we had it before. So we sunset that committee.

So that's why you requested to do it again. We just want a little bit more clear direction, I think, is what the reason for the ordinance is. Because, like I said before, you would provide that group what ordinance is to review. That didn't really work in the past. So it's up to you guys.

You guys are the ones that voted to have the board. So, Mayor, are you looking for the residents to tell us how the ordinance should be or suggest or give an example?

So the intent, and I know Zach is looking at me, was for, do you want to answer that?

Yeah. So just if I can provide a little bit of guidance. So in this upcoming fiscal year's budget, there was $75,000 allocated for a consultant that could work with the board. So it is my understanding from the commission's intent and from the resolution that, I like that term, sunrises the committee, that there would be a consultant that would work with the committee and provide professional guidance. I think what staff and certainly legal, what we're looking for is, which area of the code would you like to concentrate on? Because the type of consultant that we bring on for land development regulations versus general ordinances would be different, likely. So that's kind of our process here is, which portion of the code would you like us to focus on so that we can be sure to onboard the correct consultant?

So this person that's coming on as a consultant, is he going to be trained on our ordinances? I mean, how is somebody that's new going to train our residents on our ordinance if they don't even live or know what we do? How is that going to be handled?

So that would be part of their scope is they would need to familiarize themselves with the code of ordinances, to work with the committee that is impaneled by you as the commission. Part of, a major part of that consultant's focus would likely be on ensuring that there are not duplicative or no longer statutorily compliant ordinances in your code. Certainly, direction as to what is right for your community is, at the end of the day, up to you, whether, for example, if, you know, whether you want hours of operation of businesses to be certain hours. And, I mean, that is obviously up to you all, and that really wouldn't be regulated necessarily through your code, but just as an example, right? That is something that is up to you all as what is a fit for your community. And, you know, certainly that would be – the consultant and we as staff would be deferential to you all.

Because the old committee that we had, staff was part of it as well, so I don't know how this is going to work out. But thank you for the information.

Commissioner Navick and then Vice Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor. When we had the Charter Review Committee, we had a facilitator and a staff member. And I think in this case, I mean, I would highly recommend that the first thing that this group tackled be the Land Development Code. We have a moratorium issue right now. In order to move away from that issue, we need to decide what in the Land Development Code needs to be tweaked. I think there's some urgency to that particular section of code. And then, as the attorney said, different consultants for different sections of the code. So, the facilitator and the staff member then would present to the citizens alternatives and then let them work off of that. Give them something to work off of. Don't just say, here's the Land Development Code. What do you want to tweak to it? Staff needs to guide that conversation, not just throw it out to them. Because if a citizen volunteers to get on the committee, they've got some certain buy-in to it more than likely. So, if staff organizes that and says, okay, we have been having a problem with trade-offs on zero lot line developments, okay, here's what's being done in Orange County, here's what's being done in Volusia, Daytona, so on and so forth, and bring them that. That's what we did with charter review, and it seemed to work very well, is we had staff bring back to us a bunch of alternatives, and then we tweaked some of those things and came to a resolution. So, staff and the consultant or the facilitator, I think, are key to it. I think the direction from the commission should be what section of the code do we feel is the priority to tackle first. And, again, my recommendation would be the Land Development Code currently. Thank you, Mayor.

Before I go to Vice Mayor, I think we had discussed, and Jordan, correct me, and I know this was before you were on the board, on the Dias Commission on Navig. Like, wasn't it general, because I know we're working on our Land Development Code now.

So, let me back up. And you'll be right next. So, currently, and, Commissioner, I agree with you 100%. We do need to look at the Land Development Code, but currently we're looking, doing the conference plan update. After that, it's adopted by this commission in October, November of 26th. Next year. Next year, correct. In fact, we're going to be doing an overhaul of the Land Development Code. So, I would hate to take a deep dive into the Land Development Code now when it's going to be looked at holistically later on.

Well, I think we need to take a deep dive into it ASAP with the current situation that we're in, because that is the only way out of that situation. So, that's a discussion for another evening, Mr. Mayor. But in terms of where we go with this committee, as long as we have a consultant facilitator that is geared towards that particular section of the code, and then a staff member that is boots on the ground and knows where staff is having a problem with it, I think those two components are essential to making that work. And then just let the committee pick the best option to make a recommendation for change to the commission. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you, Commissioner Novick. Vice Mayor Harriet, you are next.

Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner Novick, I couldn't agree more. I think that's a phenomenal way to approach this. I think with a deep dive into the Land Development Code coming as soon as the comp plan is updated and how those two components of code work together, I'd like to – this might push us back a little bit, but I'd like to see the committee weigh in on what portions that they would like to address. I mean, that's the whole reason we had – this discussion got started to begin with with a resident committee, a citizen committee, is to find out which portions of the code need the most update. For me, I think that that's most of the general provisions of the code, excluding, obviously, the comp plan and Land Development Code. But I think that there needs to be some way in from the committee after they've had an opportunity to kind of take a look and see what's going on.

I agree. Can we start opening it up as well just to kind of compile with – since it's already been approved so we can see how much actual interest there is in the public? I think that's also very important for us to know because if, honestly, if we get four or five people, which I highly doubt, I'm pretty sure we can fill up that board pretty quick, but can we open it up so we can see how many applicants apply? Jordan?

All right.

Any other comments?

There's a non-answer answer, but –

Do – I don't think they – you haven't opened it – hold on.

I believe we have somewhere between eight and ten applications right now.

Okay. And that's without even making it – it hasn't been opened yet, technically. Okay. I don't think – I think that's a decent number, right? I could be wrong. Go ahead, Jordan.

So for clarification, the city clerk has the application – or it's getting the applications, and then it's going to come to the commission for – the commission to appoint the members.

That is what we originally – go ahead, Vice Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor. If we could expedite that process and get this committee started and get them situated, then I think that we can get some input on this process from them. Okay.

So –

For your clarification, because I know you keep looking at me. So, obviously, you still have a question on direction, correct?

Yeah. So, I guess if I – if I'm understanding what I've heard tonight correctly –

And we'll go through all the commissioners to just take a clarification, correct?

The direction would be to appoint the board, have at least one meeting with them to get their input on focus area in addition to what you all have communicated tonight, which has been all. And then use that input, come back to you for a final decision, and then move forward with our direction. I get the sense that it may be focus on one area and then focus on the other just in order of priority, which we are happy to do.

All right. I'll go to Vice Mayor, but if anybody else has anything different than that that they want to add, just click on the mic and I can let you open your mic up. Go ahead, Vice Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor. Jordan, the consultant that is working on the comp plan currently, will they be the same – or likely be the same consultant that works on land development code updates? Not necessarily. Okay.

We would have to put that out.

Okay.

Commissioner Vila Vasquez.

Thank you, Mayor. So the applicants, will they be necessarily have, like, the qualifications that we request for the AHAC committee? So it has to be – why are you answering? I haven't even finished your question. So you know what I'm saying? So you know that for AHAC we need somebody who is a contractor. We need somebody who is in real estate. We need somebody – it's, like, different categories, so we can have each category's expertise to have an input into the committee.

The application is the same application used for AHAC, but AHAC is very specific as to what we want. We – you haven't discussed that you want specific people that we can kind of – that you'll get all the applications. It's up to you guys to decide.

Yeah, I think that's a good idea. I mean, you see how responsible AHAC members are. We always have a quorum, and things are running well. So just a suggestion.

Commissioner Arnabek.

I don't know that we necessarily want to have some professional people that might be trying to manipulate or create the code to their advantage. So we may not want a builder, an underground contractor.

We might just want the end user, John Q. Public, to be in that committee.

I've never had a problem with anybody hearing me, with or without the mic. So, I mean, we can certainly have some more discussion. But just right now, off the top of my head, I don't think it's a good idea that we have necessarily professional people. If the person happens to be a professional, that's fine. But I don't know what we want to limit ourselves to that. If we have ten applicants, how many people do we want to put on this? Do we want each commissioner to appoint somebody and then have the other three as alternates? That's probably would be a good idea because people tend to drop off. And we did that, again, with charter review. That seemed to work well. And we had a few people that did leave us on charter review. And the alternates had to step in. So, it's like I think Commissioner Vasquez said earlier, people tended to leave after they got their one issue addressed. So, I don't know that I would limit us just to seven people. I'd like to see some alternates on there. But as far as the professional goes, I can see where that might not be such a good idea, just sitting here giving it first brush.

Would it be okay with the commission that we at least ask their line of profession? It wouldn't qualify them or disqualify them. Oh, certainly.

I think it would be good information.

So, for example, I know where Commissioner Avila Vasquez is going with it. And I'd like to know as well. You know, it can help us determine who we're going to appoint. So, if that's okay with the commission.

It's part of the application, Mayor. Okay. Like any organizations that they've been involved in, where they were.

Okay. Are you okay with at least that, Commissioner Avila Vasquez? Okay.

Okay.

Anything else, Mr. Good?

Not this time, Mr. Mayor. Thank you.

I just don't know how yours is red and everybody else's is black. Okay. City Manager, any comments? Oh, I am so sorry. Okay. It's not a voting item. That's right. We have an addition, five days in David, purchasing policy. Thank you, Vice Mayor and Commissioner Avila Vasquez.

My mic's still hot.

Just push it again and it turns off. There you go. And I'm sure PIO will go through the whole process when they get a minute. Yes. Zach, if you don't mind.

Yes, Mr. Mayor. This is item 5D, which was an addition this evening to discuss the purchasing policy for the city of Deltona. The item as added is a discussion on whether to update the purchasing policies and whether to reverse the consensus vote that lowered the city manager's purchasing threshold to $25,000 and required all purchases that exceed $25,000 to come back to the commission for approval.

All right. At this time, I'll entertain a motion and then a second so we can get public comment and then discussion. Commissioner Santiago, you're up first.

Thank you, Mayor. Yes, I requested this to be added to the agenda for the reason of...

We're doing motions right now.

I make a motion to change the purchasing policy to revert back to the March of 2025 original approval.

Is there a second? Commissioner Navi, can you click on your mic so I can open it, please? There you go.

I need clarification. What is that?

I'm going to revert that because it's a lot.

And then, Mr. McKinney, when you're done, Commissioner Navi, can we get a copy of that to the clerk just for the public when you're finished? All right. Are you good, Commissioner Navi? Okay. So we got a motion by Commissioner Santiago, and we're just waiting on a second. If not, the motion dies. Vice Mayor Harriet?

Mayor, I'll second. But I'd like to also note that my comment earlier regarding the cost center was intended to be a unique cost center for capital expenses. However, I'm not sure that the purchase policy is ultimately the best location for that.

Okay.

That's better suited in the budget policy. So I'll second the motion as presented.

There's a motion by Commissioner Santiago, second by Vice Mayor Harriet. Is there any public comment on this item?

Kathy Bryan, please.

Can you restart my time? Thank you. Kathy Bryan, Deltona. There was a second. There was not. I mean, I take that back. There was not a second when you guys voted on this earlier. Commissioner Caldwell brought that out, and then there was all kind of frantic stuff happening up here. Commissioner Caldwell, please speak into the microphone. Commissioner Novick, speak into the microphone. You guys start turning. You turn, and you start talking to the people like this. And if I can't hear you in the back, I'm trying to tell you before, people can't hear at home when they're listening to the recording, which means if you get the transcript of the video later trying to watch it, you can't hear. Same thing, Ms. Raftery and Vice Mayor Harriet. Now, the purchasing policy. Every time they go, well, the city manager can't afford it if we have a leak in the roof, if we have this. And every time I hear explanations of why it needs to be increased, it's one of those life safety issues. Fine. So give him an amount that he can use for life safety issues. If you find that he's not using it for these type of issues and emergencies, then you're his boss, right? So you can take care of it from there. However, and maybe I have this mistaken, but is that money that he can spend per department head? Because then you're learning to a whole lot more money, and I'd rather see some of that come back to the commission. I don't want to deny him purchasing power for stuff that needs to be done emergently. Not a bit. So consider if you're going to extend it, do it for the emergency stuff and rein back on the stuff that's not emergent. Thank you. And speak louder into the microphone, everybody.

Matt Bergens, please.

Hello again. We just found out tonight that there's not even an emergency fund in the budget. So we talk about an emergency fund, and we heard tonight that there's not one. So if we want this emergency fund, let's start putting one in there, and then we won't have this issue. We found out there's in the budget tonight, and from what I found online, there's $6.8 million that gets moved from one budget, a one-line item, to a one-cost center, to another cost center that's unaccountable for. So if we start seeing these items get moved around, then we don't know where they're going from. That's why this issue is for this price issue. So that's why Commissioner Norbert, not Commissioner, Commissioner Caldwell started asking for it, because we started seeing that you can't account for it. And so that's what it is. So if there's an emergency, that's why it's there. If there's something that's not there, then that's why you would need to come back for it. So you just need to be a little more accountable for the budget, and I think you wouldn't have this issue. And so if we're already budgeting line by line, you won't have this issue, and so that would take care of it. Build an emergency fund and be more accountable for everything. This, you know, not knowing where everything's going or transferring from general fund to everything, there shouldn't have it that big of a general fund. You should be accountable for every line. Every other organization's accountable for every line. Why isn't it the commission? Why isn't the city accountable for every line they do? So, you know, every other organization I'm in is accountable for every line. There's not this just a vast amount of money just gets transferred out, and we don't know where it's going. So I think we need to be more accountable for where we're going, and we wouldn't have that issue. So I appreciate what you guys are doing. And like I said, if you need to raise it to $35, you know, like I said, the city's $35. If you need to raise it to $40, maybe $40. But, you know, look at it.

Thank you, sir. Allison Rue.

Good evening, Mayor and Commissioners. Thank you for bringing this up, because I have been curious, and maybe my understanding is totally off base. So I'm hoping maybe during your discussion you can clarify it. And I know he's done a great job of explaining it tonight. So my general put it in the layman's terms. Understanding us, our current policy is any spending over $25,000 comes back to this for approval. Even if it's in the budget, if it was an approved resolution, it doesn't matter. If you're spending over $25,000, it has to come back. And this is my understanding, because I keep seeing them on the agenda, previously approved. That seems redundant, and it seems like a waste of your time and a waste of staff time. So it would be great that if it's already approved by a resolution, it's already funded in the budget, why are they coming back for it? That does not make any sense to me in any kind of business perspective. Now, if the city manager wants to spend extra money that's outside of the budget, outside of the realm, whether it's emergency, whether it's a truck broke down, whether it's a fire truck broke down, whether we exploded the city again and we need to hire more people, get more vehicles, I can understand that coming back. Makes perfect sense. Makes perfect sense. But at the same time, he has to have the ability to run the city that you have given him that authority to do when you hired him and signed the contract. So I am in agreement that it should be up to at least $50,000. No offense to think $100,000 is a lot, but $50,000 of expenditure for emergency or anything that needs to happen right now. And then, like someone mentioned earlier, you're going to see it come back on your monthly reports. And if he's not spending it appropriately, well, then that's something that can be handled. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor. That's in public comments.

Vice Mayor Harriet.

Thank you, Mayor. Well said. I wanted to clear up the other misinformation that happened before that and explain the difference. We don't have necessarily an emergency fund. That's not how this works, regardless of whether there was an emergency fund or it's the way that it is now where it comes out of contingency or a currently budgeted line item. The purchasing policy is what a limiting factor is, and that's what was originally approved by resolution in March at the $50,000 mark, I believe, for unbudgeted purchases, $100,000 for budgeted purchases. And then within three weeks, two weeks, two meetings, three meetings, very, very, very, very shortly after it was approved by consensus or by resolution, it was then changed by consensus to a flat, anything over $25,000 has to come back. So, look, this is, regardless of what the number is, this is, the consensus change was a temporary change that, you know, that was only to get us until we got, brought this item back for the commission to approve. So, just wanted to clear that information up.

Mr. McKinney.

Thank you, Mayor. So, I have a couple of items that I've provided to you. So, we were going to have, the end of October, the workshop on the purchasing policy. So, I sent out a request to all local agencies asking for their thresholds, which, in our purchasing policy, was page seven. So, that dictated what was an informal versus three quotes versus three written versus a formal solicitation. So, that's what I provided to you, this document. This document here is what I provided to you all back when we were going through the policy review, the end of February, as part of the March 3rd agenda. What I subsequently added, and then for the record, Deltona, where it says $50,000, that was from when we passed it in March 3rd. What subsequently I was working on was I added all the constitutionals and the other units of government, school board, Volusia County, et cetera, supervisor of election. Then, what's down here in the bottom, Daytona has a very skewed way it goes. So, you know, depending on what the fund is, the city manager has a different level of authority. So, as Vice Mayor stated, March 3rd, the purchasing policy was adopted that all goods and services, if it's in the line item budget, regardless of amount, the city manager could go forth and procure, just as the lady said a few minutes ago. Any item that was exempt from competition, which is page 7 of the policy, also the city manager, if line item budget in the approved budget by you, could be procured by the city manager. If an item that was part of the CIP, we were explicitly stated by several members of the commission that all of those items were to come back for approval, regardless of the dollar amount. So, as I stated previously this evening, anything that's in fund 301, 302, 304, 305, 422, and 402, 100% of those projects have to come back before the commission for approval. June 3rd, no resolution was passed. It was only consensus vote was stated. Anything over $25,000, regardless of what it was for, had to come back for approval. I know behind several presentations from June 23rd on, on the very last page, we had several items for clarification because things that are over $25,000, that's the biweekly IRS tax payment, the pension payments, employee payments, FPL, Duke. So, all of those items are coming back at the October 6th agenda, and it will be probably well over $150 million, will be line itemed in there by the vendor, by description, that are all items that y'all approved this evening. So, it's our intent because we did the bids for the vehicles. Every last one of those would be on the October 6th agenda, that if we were reverted back to what was approved March 3rd, I could actually issue that purchase order tomorrow, which was the intent when we talked about it back in May, I'm sorry, March, is that we would get that because pricing goes up October 1st. So, if I had the ability, I could get this year's contract prices tomorrow, but we put in the budget an estimated 10% increase for every vehicle because that's how much those prices would go up over the last couple of years based on the prior contract. Oh, the comparisons, so to give an idea, the city of Daytona Beach, we're the largest municipality in the county, Daytona Beach city manager can approve up to $150,000, Daytona Beach Shores, which has a fraction of our population, $50,000, DeBerry, $35,000, the land's going to $75,000, Edgewater's going to $100,000, Holly Hill's $50,000, Lake Kellyn's $5,000, New Smyrna's $50,000, Oak Hill's $5,000, Orange City's $50,000, Ormond Beach is $75,000, Pearson didn't respond, Ponce Inlet's $50,000, Port Orange is $50,000, South Daytona's $25,000, the county's $125,000, the school board superintendents just under $50,000, clerk of courts $25,000, property appraiser $125,000, supervisor election $125,000, and even though I put $100,000 here for the sheriff's office, Ma, the chief of financial admin, has the authority to approve any and all purchases outside of the sheriff, and I've made sure I've also included the comparison of the annual budgets, and except for Daytona Beach adopted budget, not amended budget, adopted budget, we're the second largest municipal budget in the region. And that's all, Mayor.

Okay, thank you. And can you please start the voting process?

Commissioner Villa-Vasquez? No. Commissioner Caldwell? No. Commissioner Howington? Commissioner Novick?

No.

Commissioner Santiago?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Harriet?

Yes.

Mayor Villa?

Yes.

Aye.

The motion fails.

Mayor, I make a motion to raise the manager's spending limit without coming to the commission to $75,000. We've given him the responsibility to run this city. You now need to give him the authority to do the job.

There's a motion by Commissioner Novick. Is there a second?

Additions and deletions?

When a motion fails, we go to a second motion.

I just have a question, if I can.

So, Chief, oh, I was going to say Chief Novick. Old habits.

Old habits, yes, sir. So, we revert back to March of 2025.

I don't know about the reverting thing.

So, let me explain. What it'll do is the budget that was approved already, he has already the approval to move forward.

Absolutely.

Okay. That's, but your $50,000, what did you say? $75,000. $75,000. If there's anything else other than what's not in the budget, and it's over $75,000, he needs to bring it back here. Yes. I also, okay. Then, yes. I second.

All right. There's a motion by Commissioner Novick, second by Commissioner Santiago, Vice Mayor.

I just want to get clarification from the motioner. So, it would remain at $100,000 for items that are budgeted, and then unbudgeted items that are, were it's at $50,000, now go $75,000.

Mr. McKinney. Let me pull it back up, please.

Yeah, and sorry, if I may, I believe that maybe the form of the motion is to follow the purchasing policy that was adopted in March, which allows for the, anything that was budgeted to move forward with the caveat that the manager's threshold for unbudgeted purchases be raised to $75,000.

Yeah, I think that's the only, I think that's the only difference is that, that number, and I'm, I'm good with that other language, that previous language, it's just that number is too small. The cost of, Commissioner Santiago, you, you, you know how your hands were tied in the fire department's budget with the ridiculously low figures that we had to be able to operate on a daily basis. The cost of things have gone up. The authority, the authority is level. We're giving them the same amount of authority to buy the same widget. It just now costs $75,000 to buy that widget versus $25,000 that it cost two years ago. The man's got the authority to do, the responsibility to do the job, you've got to give them the authority. If you don't do that, then we've got a much bigger problem on our hands.

All right. Can we please do a vote?

Commissioner Villa-Vasquez? Commissioner Caldwell? Commissioner Novick?

Yes.

Commissioner Santiago?

Yes.

Vice Mayor Harriet?

Yes.

Mayor Villa?

Yes.

Okay, 4-2.

Okay. Motion passes. All right. At this time, we're going to go to public comment. City manager, comment?

Nothing, sir. Thank you.

All right. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you.