Special City Commission Meeting on 2026-06-22 5:30 PM - Jun 22, 2026

Good evening. At this time, we're going to go ahead and get started with special commission meeting for Monday, June 22nd, 2026. If I can please have the city clerk call the roll. Commissioner Caldwell. Here. Commissioner Harriot. Here. Commissioner Howington. Here. Commissioner Novick. Here. Commissioner Santiago. Here. Vice Mayor Villavasquez. Present. Mayor Villas. Here. If we can please stand for the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right. At this time, we're going to go through the consent agenda item. If I can please have a motion and a second, and then we'll, Commissioner Novick. I'd like to pull item 4B. Okay. Commissioner Harriot. I'll make a motion to approve consent agenda items A through F minus B. Give me one minute. Vice Mayor, your microphone. It responds on. Commissioner Harriot, I'll take your motion in just a minute. Yes. I'd like to pull item D. Commissioner Caldwell. I would like to pull item C. Which one? C. Okay. And the Vice Mayor pulled D as in Delta. D as in Delta, yes. Thank you. So I'll make a motion to approve consent agenda item A, E, and F. There's a motion by Commissioner Harriot. Second. Second by Commissioner Novick. Is there any public comment on the consent agenda? Okay. All right. Let's go ahead and vote. We're voting on the consent agenda. Is Commissioner Howington's on, right? So we'll have to do a verbal vote. Commissioner Caldwell. No. Commissioner Harriot. Yes. Commissioner Howington. No. Commissioner Novick. Yes. Commissioner Santiago. Yes. Vice Mayor Villasquez. Mayor Villas. Yes. It passes 4-3. All right. At this time, we're going to go to item B as in boy, and that was pulled by Commissioner Caldwell. Did you pull that? No, I didn't. Oh, Commissioner Novick. Go ahead. Thank you. What's the reason for the request for the reduction? Danny? Good evening, Commission, Mayor, Vice Mayor. A request came in from the property owner to do the reduction in fine from three cases that we had. There was a recommendation from the special magistrate to $9,000 from the original price of $20,000. She's in compliance now with those cold cases. And why did the magistrate recommend reducing to $9,000? I'm not sure why he's recommended, but we provided him how much cost for the city was, which came in about $7,500, and we did go, we come in after that, above that, which had $9,000. That's his recommendation. And how long was she out of compliance? According to the order of the special magistrate, the conditions were observed and documented by the city in February 2025, and the notice of violation was issued on February 17, 2025. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Commissioner Caldwell, you wanted to, you're on the board. Yeah, Danny's already answered my question. What was the cost to the city already? We're at about 7,500, you said? That's correct. And yes, it was 161 days, uh, came into compliance after 161 days from the ruling. That's it. Thank you. Commissioner Novick, since you pulled it, do you want to go ahead and do a motion? I'll make a motion to approve the reduction to $9,000. There's a motion by Commissioner Novick, second by Vice Mayor Avila-Vasquez. Can we please vote? Commissioner Caldwell? Commissioner Harriot? Yes. Commissioner Howington? Yes. Commissioner Novick? Yes. Commissioner Santiago? Yes. Vice Mayor Avila-Vasquez? Yes. Mayor Avila? Yes. Okay, 6-1. All right, this time we're going to go to sections, uh, C. Request Approval Resolution Number 2026-48. Uh, Commissioner Caldwell? Um, Zach, what is the reasoning for the foreclosure here? Uh, yes, Commissioner. This was requested by, uh, code compliance for the city attorney's office to go ahead and move forward with the foreclosure. Um, this property has been out of compliance and carrying, uh, liens and fines for some time and is non-homestead. So, what is the amount of the liens at this point? The, uh, lien, as of, uh, February 20th, on February 6th, 2023, code compliance officer, um, Larissi signed an affidavit of compliance, seeing the violator having come into compliance, and 1,079 days after the time designated by the special magistrate, and a fine totaling $54,450 was levied, and, um, fines have not been paid and lien, and the property has been liened. Do we have any intent for this property? What, what is our plan to use for it? Are we going to turn it over, or? Uh, so, that is, uh, more of a question for administration. Um, we've been requested to move forward with the foreclosure as a legal action. Okay. Um, don't we have a foreclosure already on the property, meaning the, uh, Enrico, or not Enrico, Toledo Terrace? Uh, yes, sir. We do have a foreclosure, uh, proceeding with the Toledo Terrace, which is a different property from this, um, that is proceeding. Why haven't we moved forward with that? That has been filed and is moving forward. Their next hearing is scheduled in August. In August. Thank you. Commissioner Caldwell, would you like to do a motion? Go ahead. There's a motion by Commissioner Caldwell to approve. Commissioner Harriot? Okay, go ahead, and I will. Uh, we, this is a, a non-homesteaded property. Have, has it changed hands been sold at any point in time since the, um, issue has begun? Uh, I, that is, it has not sold, um, it has not sold since the. There hasn't been a transfer of ownership? Uh, I will need to take a moment to check if there was a transfer of ownership. I know there was not a sale. Okay. Because there was no request for satisfaction of the lien. So I'll just need to pull that from the file shortly. The reason I ask is because I believe this is a property that, is this the property that just opened up as a, some sort of market, meat market or something to that effect? Oh, has it? Okay. I just want to make sure that this isn't a new business coming into the city that is, uh, taking on something from a previous owner. According to the file, um, that I have here, it has not changed hands. Commissioner Novick? Second. There's a motion by Commissioner Caldwell, second by Commissioner Novick. Can we please do a verbal vote? Commissioner Caldwell? Yes. Commissioner Harriot? Yes. Commissioner Howington? Yes. Commissioner Novick? Yes. Commissioner Santiago? Yes. Vice Mayor Villa-Vasquez? No. Mayor Villa? Yes. 6-1. This time we're going to go to section D as in David. Request for approval of resolution number 2026-50 for legal representation. Commissioner, or Vice Mayor Villa-Vasquez? Thank you, Mayor. So, I mean, I want to bring this up because somebody did ask me the same question that I'm going to be asking you, somebody meaning the resident. Um, can you tell me why, excuse me, why our insurance company did not want to take this case on? Yes. So, the case, once the city first learned of this case, although we have not yet been served, um, so we do not yet have an obligation to respond until such a time as the city has been served. Uh, however, we received notice of this case and forwarded to the carrier. The carrier issued a denial citing, uh, exclusions DD and QQ of our policy, which essentially amounts to, this is a request for declaratory relief, which is not covered under the city's policy. Okay. Thank you for the explanation. I'd like to make a motion to approve this, uh, item D. There's a motion by Vice Mayor Villa-Vasquez to approve. Commissioner Caldwell? Second by Commissioner Caldwell. Commissioner Harriot, did you have? No. Okay. We're, we're voting. We're doing a verbal vote. Commissioner Harriot? Yes. Commissioner Howington? Yes. Commissioner Novick? Yes. Commissioner Santiago? Yes. Vice Mayor Mayor Villa-Vasquez? Yes. And Mayor Villa? Yes. 7-0. All right. At this time, we're going to go into ordinances and public hearings. If I can please have the city attorney read the public hearing. Yes, Mr. Mayor, this is ordinance number 12-2026, an ordinance of the city of Deltona, Florida, amending Article 2, fire rescue impact fee, Article 3, park impact fee, Article 4, transportation impact fee, and Article 5, law enforcement impact fee, and creating Article 6, municipal impact fee within Chapter 94 impact fees of the code of ordinances, adopting updated impact fees for fire rescue, parks, transportation, law enforcement, and municipal, based on the 2026 impact fee study prepared by Rafatelis Financial Consultants, Inc., making legislative findings including extraordinary circumstances justifying an exemption from the phase and limitations of Section 163.31801, Florida statutes, providing for codification, severability, conflicts, and an effective date. At this time, I'll entertain a motion. I see Commissioner Colwell's on. I have a question first. We're going to do motions first. Okay. I'll motion to approve with the removal of the reduction of the non-residential transportation impact fee. There's a motion by Commissioner Colwell. To approve with the removal of the reductions of the non-residential transportation impact fees. Is there a second? I'll second. Okay. There's a second by Commissioner Howington. This time we'll listen to any questions or concerns that you guys have. Did you want to go ahead and go first, Commissioner Colwell? Yes. I've already voiced my concerns with staff in regards to the reduction. I do... Oh, can you turn it back on? It keeps glitching over here. Myself. Go ahead. Are we moving from two years to a four-year? Is that in this motion? Because I have an old. It's not? Okay. I just want a clarification. All right. We're going to go to Jordan. Did you have anything to tell us? If not, I'm going to go to public comments so then we can continue with our Q&As up here. Good evening, Mayor, Commission. So this is second reading. Staff updated the staff report in the Exhibit A, which you have at your table. Staff did hold two demonstrated need analysis workshops, one on June 8th, one on June 17th. I mean, that's June 17th. The one on June 8th was at 10 a.m. The one on June 17th was at 4 30 p.m. Everything in the commission chambers was presented at the workshop. So we are available for any questions. Okay. Is there any public comment? Yes, sir. Alice, Alice and Ruth, please. If you guys can step aside, Mr. Smith and Mr. McKinney. Thank you, Ms. Ruth. Thank you, guys. Good evening, Mayor, Commissioner, staff. My name is Allison Ruth, long-time Deltona resident and executive officer for the Volusia Building Industry Association. I am here tonight because I have concerns regarding the both proposed impact fee increase and the city's use of the extraordinary circumstance process. Last year, the Florida legislator made significant changes to the Impact Fee Act. Those changes were designed to improve predictability, protect housing affordability, and place meaningful limits on when local governments can exceed the standard statutory increase thresholds. One of my concerns is that the city's current impact fee structure appears to be based on a study from 2007, and public statements from commissioners indicate that the last increase occurred in 2015. If that is correct, then we are discussing an impact fee that has not been increased in approximately 10 years. The statute states that a local government may not use the extraordinary circumstance process if it has not increased the impact fee within the past five years. The legislator appears to have anticipated situations exactly like this and placed restrictions on when that exception may be used. There have been issues involving impact fee increases that are currently being litigated elsewhere in Florida, i.e. Palm Coast and Manatee that I know offhand, under the SB 180, and determining if increased rates, especially those above normal statutory limits, are considered more burdensome regulation. Whether you agree with those lawsuits or not, they demonstrate that these statutory requirements are being closely scrutinized. Beyond the legal concern, there is also the practical impact on housing affordability. Every additional fee becomes part of the cost of the home. These are not builder fees. They are fees for homeowners to utilize parks, fire service, roads, once the home is completed. Those costs do not appear. They are ultimately paid by future homeowners and families trying to enter the housing market. 2026 studies show that for every $1,000 increase in the price of a home, over 125,000 people are priced out of the market. My request tonight is simple. Before moving forward with a significant impact fee increase, please make certain that the record clearly supports the extraordinary circumstance determination. All statutory requirements have been satisfied and that the long-term impact on housing affordability has been fully considered. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Michelle Delaney, please. Good evening, Mayor, Assistant Mayor, Commissioners. I represent, I'm the President of the Volusia Building Industry Association. I want to read you what the law actually says as of today on impact fee increases. Under Section 163.31801 of the Florida statutes provides limitations on impact fee increases imposed by local government, school district, or special district. Any impact fee may increase only pursuant to a plan for the opposition, collection, and use of the impact fees as follows. An impact fee increase not more than 25 percent of the current rate must be implemented in two annual payments, beginning with the date on which the increased fee is adopted. If the increase is between 25 and 50 percent of the rate, the rate must be implemented in four equal annual installments. No impact fee may increase more than 50 percent of the current impact fee rate. An impact fee may not be increased more than once every four years. An impact fee may not be increased retroactively for any previous current fiscal or calendar year. So this is, my request is simple. Please review the findings from your study. Please make sure you are within the law, as that is, I'm sure, important to you guys. And we are begging you, please reconsider this increase. Thank you. Thank you. That is public comments. Before I go to the commissioners, I'm going to ask again to the city attorney. When we had the situation with SB 180, you guys were very clear that what we were doing at the time was not really lawful. Are we within the confines of the law before we take this vote? Yes, sir. So I'll start first with SB 180. You know, SB 180 prohibits the enactment of more burdensome or restrictive land development regulations or procedures. Impact fees are not a land development regulation and they are not a procedure. So they do not fall within the scope of SB 180. I do want to read from the statute in order to clarify because we did have those questions. So Florida statute 163.31801 subsection G provides a local government, school district, or special district may increase an impact fee rate beyond the phase and limitations established under paragraphs B, C, D, or E by establishing the need for such increase in full compliance with the requirements of subsection 4 provided the following criteria are met. A, a demonstrated need based, demonstrated need study justifying an increase in excess of those authorized in paragraph B, C, D, or E has been completed within the 12 months before the adoption of the impact fee increase and expressly demonstrates the extraordinary circumstances necessitating the need to exceed the phase and limitations. You all have that study. B, the local government jurisdiction has held at least two publicly noticed workshops dedicated to the extraordinary circumstances necessitating the need to exceed phase and limitations set forth in paragraph B, paragraph C, paragraph D, or paragraph E. The city has conducted those workshops. C, the impact fee increase ordinance is approved by unanimous vote of the governing body. We'll see. Going back to G2, an impact fee increase approved under this paragraph must be implemented in at least two but not more than four equal annual increments beginning with the date on which the impact fee increase ordinance is adopted which your proposed ordinance does accomplish that and three and this is the piece that I believe we've had some difficulty with as far as interpretation of base of the public. A local government may not increase an impact fee beyond the phase and limitations under this paragraph if the local government has not increased the impact fee within the past five years. So that piece the phase and limitations under this paragraph refers back to this paragraph G which would be the implementation in at least two but not more than four. So you can't if you have not updated in the last five years you cannot do one increase. You must increase in at least two and not more than four separate increases. Thank you Mr. Good Commissioner Santiago. Thank you Mayor. You know and in our last meeting I did vote no in regards to the increase. And after I looked at it a little bit more further and did some research and speaking to staff I spoke to the consultant along with the attorneys. Obviously we all want development to pay for itself right. We want the best for our future and I'm fine with the increase. However, I do believe that with the affordability I prefer to have it in a four phase instead of a two phase. And Jordan I don't I'm not sure I think the current motion states that it's two phases. Is that correct? The current motion is two phase and it has some some caveats for removal of commercial. Yeah, see and you know after looking at this more and more and going deep into it. I get it, you know, we need to take care of our infrastructure for the future as new development comes in. But I believe it should be done in phases and I'm all for the four phases. So at this point, I can't approve the two. I'm fine with the four. I think it's it's not like we're going to have the 4000 houses tomorrow. I don't even think we have even anything close right now in the books. So right. We don't Jordan. OK, so that's how I feel. And I would I'm not for the two, but I think we can do for. Thank you, Commissioner Santiago. Commissioner Novick. I need to hear from staff on Commissioner Caldwell's modification and what the impacts of that are. He said he spoke with staff and had discussion. I need to be enlightened there a little bit. Commissioner Novick, I'm going to direct it to Sean from Rafatilas. So the question being asked, just to make sure I'm I'm tracking with you, relates to the motion as adopting the residential side, but not the non-residential side. The modic of the modifications from Commissioner Caldwell. So, yes. So I think the the issue there would then be you have a study recommendation that's speaking to what these fee levels on a calculated basis would would need to be based on the cost of the city and the growth and everything that's being seen. If you were to do one independent of the other, you may end up with a mismatch in approach that could potentially present an issue there unless maybe further analysis is done on that side. However, that probably be more in the realm of the city attorney to speak to how you would go about implementation. And I I do have concerns about implementing only one side of a particular impact fee because your study does show and used a, you know, a need based analysis to calculate these amounts. I have concerns about only picking the one that has gone down if there are potentially costs that were missed or additional analysis that needs to be conducted. That's one thing I would defer to staff and the consultant on that. However, your your your your fee study shows the need for this fee as a policy matter, you could opt to adopt at a percentage rate. However, I would not recommend only picking one fee to not. So that's kind of what I was why I asked the question, because I think we're the motion doesn't reflect what the consultant provided in terms of his analysis. We don't we don't we don't have an analysis report, and I think it would provide an avenue for a legal challenge down the road if we were to modify what the consultant proposed here, because there's no analysis to support that with a with a not applying on the commercial side. Correct. I would not recommend moving forward in that manner. Thank you. OK, my question. Go ahead, Commissioner. I was going to call you next. Commissioner Howington. Thank you. So can somebody please explain what the difference in incremental increases would be if we select the two year option or the four year option so we know annually what the increase would be to that building permit? Because the incremental increase is just 2000, just a little over $2,000. I'd like to know what the actual impact is that on just one new build. Hello? Give them one quick minute, Commissioner Howington. They're looking up their information. Thank you. So we provided in the staff report the alternative of the four year. So it would go from the current for non residential. It would go from $63 for law enforcement to $130 over the four year period. So it would be split evenly by four versus by two. So the first year would go from $63 to $79.25. Second year, $96.50. Third year, $113.25. And the fourth year, $130. So I can go to the complete streets, for example. I'd like to hear just the residential, if that would be okay. Absolutely. Because that's really the largest impact. Okay. We'll just go to the total. Currently, the current total impact fee is $2,937.30. It's proposed to go to $5,070 over the four year period. So year one, it would go to $3,470.49. Year two, $4,003.68. Year three, $4,536.87. And year four, the $5,070. So we still accomplished the same increase over the four year period. Just divvied up into four incremental increases. Thank you. Commissioner Harriet. Thank you, Mayor. I'm trying to work my way through what the motion is. Is this removing the fees for the complete streets, the transportation component? Are we talking about residential side or non-residential? So on the non-residential. I believe the fees are currently in the $4,800 range. And we're talking about reducing them to $596 on restaurants and food services. Is that correct? Yes, sir. The current fee for retail eating and drinking places is $4,826. $4,000 square foot? Yes, sir. And the proposed fee is $576, a reduction of $4,250. So my question is the same. I'll go. Well, I think, is there a chance that we're missing part of the chart in the staff report? Because I've got non-residential impact fees and then it just lists law enforcement, fire rescue, and then municipal. It doesn't list. It doesn't have the... It's the bottom page of page three of the staff report. There should have been revised staff reports and ordinances at your seats. Senator Harriet, it's this one right here. So, again, one of the things that we looked at, Mayor, Commission, when we went through this with Rafa Tillis, is the fact that when this study was... The last major study that was completed was in 2007. When that took place, we had some major improvements, you know, Howland Boulevard, for example. That's where we had some major roadway improvements during that time period, which substantiated the street portion that's in our current impact fees. We have gone through all of the five-year CIP, all the upcoming 10-year projects with TPO. There's no projects that can substantiate maintaining the impact fee level for non-residential at the current level. Thank you, John. So, my question is to legal, and I think you already had answered it. I just want to reiterate the question, is that if we go ahead with the motion on the table where the proposed fee is lower than the current fee, because we've got an analysis that supports the proposed lower fee but we cannot support the current fee, we would be opening ourselves up for future litigation or for litigation on the entirety of this? Yes, sir. Your potential for litigation and for challenge would be greater under that scenario. Just a quick point of order. We're losing Commissioner Howington, so she's getting on a flight. Are you still there? Well, I would like to ask Steve if he would be willing to revise the motion. If so, then I would second this. And if we could vote really quick, I can vote, but I need to get off the phone. If we could revise the motion to go with supported impact fees and over a four-year implementation, I'd... All right. Would you be willing to retract your motion, Commissioner Howington, your second, Commissioner Howington? Not for a four-year. Okay. So, we have to go through with the vote. It's currently for two. We can't retract it because she doesn't want to retract her motion. Her second. I'll retract it if it's for two years. Was that Steve who said that or was that Commissioner Harriot? Okay. So, you're willing to retract your second? Yeah. Steve's going to change his motion just to change the transportation. Okay. In Robert's Rules of Orders, you can't dictate your retraction. Either you retract your second or you don't. And then Commissioner Caldwell would then be the one that would adjust his motion. Okay. I'll retract it. Thank you. Commissioner Caldwell, would you like to remodify your motion? Can I ask a question first? I have a question first. What is the pathway then to raise those rates moving forward from here? Because my concern is, you know, there's talks about Amazon coming in. The construction is going to go on if the Rhode Island extension comes through. We're going to be faced with some possible expenditures on infrastructure at that point. And I don't want to put in our new residents that are coming in. What is the pathway to modify that down the road? Do we have to wait four years? So your impact fees may only be modified every four years pursuant to statute. Several of the developments that you mentioned would most likely be subject to proportionate fair share or be part of PUDs with private roads. So that is one way to defer the cost to the private parties as opposed to having it be funded with public funds. However, the statutory limit is four years. I will modify my motion then to not include the reduction or the removal of the... And I'll second. All right, let's... Commissioner Caldwell, finish your motion and it's entirely, please. I'm going to go ahead and modify to redact the approval with the removal of the reduction of the non-residential transportation impact fee. Your request is to do it exactly how the... Exactly how the ordinance is written. Okay. Would you like to make your second now, Commissioner Howington? Yes. Yes. So the motion is to approve ordinance number 12-2026 amending chapter 94 impact fees to update the fire, rescue, parks, and recreation, transportation, and law enforcement impact fees and create a municipal impact fee at second and final read-in. And it was seconded by Commissioner Howington. Is this for the two years? Two years. And it is for a two-year study. So at this time, we're going to go ahead and do a vote. If the vote fails, then the party that wins that can redo another motion. So we'll start with... Can we start with Commissioner Howington who's about a border plane? Commissioner Howington? Yes. And I'm dropping. Okay. Commissioner Caldwell? Yes. Commissioner Harriet? Yes. Commissioner Novick? Commissioner Santiago? No. Vice Mayor... Vice Mayor Avila Vazquez? Yes. And Mayor Avila? Yes. 6-1. So the motion fails. At this time, we'll go ahead and entertain another motion. Let me turn everybody's mic off. All right. Commissioner Santiago. Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to approve ordinance number 12-2026 for the four-year increase on the impact fees. Is there a second? Going once, going twice. All right. The motion fails. So at this time, there is no increase of anything. Is that correct, Mr. City Attorney? Aye. Point of order. Excuse me. Point of order. We're not doing this. We're not in kindergarten. We're not doing that. Commissioner Harriet? I'll make a motion. Can we make the same motion as it's presented for ordinance? You were on the losing side, so the only person that could have made that motion would have been Commissioner Santiago. Is that correct? It had to be unanimous. Correct. So the, yeah, so because the, in order to prevail on this motion, it requires a unanimous vote. The nay vote is the prevailing, is the prevailing side. Because the statute requires the unanimous implementation. It's, I know, a little bit complicated. Yeah. Just for point of clarification, can we, because maybe some up here didn't understand that, are we allowed to do her motion again under the, under, so now that. I'd like to hear from the attorney. Yeah. Now that Commissioner Santiago's motion failed for a lack of a second, you now have a, you could reconsider that motion with someone on the. Other side. Other side. Got it. Okay. So Commissioner Harriet, who's still on, can make a motion now? Yes. Okay. Commissioner Harriet, go ahead. Commissioner Novick, what's your point of order? So, Zach, what happens if we don't, if we can't come to consensus tonight? Okay. So if you cannot come to consensus tonight, you are adopting no change, no increase. The statute provides that there is a non-extraordinary circumstances implementation, which would allow you to increase by a maximum of, let me just pull this quickly. Yeah. It's a. Commissioner Howington. Is now exiting. So yeah, your maximum rate would be 25% that you could increase. Excuse me. My apologies. Reading the wrong section. An impact fee increase may not exceed 50% of the current impact fee rate. So you could increase a maximum of 50% over four years. That could be accomplished tonight with your ordinance. We would have to allow staff some time to substitute this fee table exhibit. But that is something that could be accomplished tonight without a unanimous. So let me do a point, quick point of order and point of privilege. Do, do, does this dais think we can come to some type of consensus with at least meeting in the middle between all of us with a three year increment versus a four or a two? No. No. No. We cannot afford to wait. That's what I'm saying. We're leaving, we're leaving too much money on the table by going to four years. My. Commissioner Robbick, point of order. That is exactly what I'm saying. Instead of killing it, we would go from a four year to a three year. No, I want the two year and I'm not willing to compromise that. It is more than justified in this study. It is more than justified in this study. This is a matter of public safety. We have fire engines that are broken down on a regular basis. We have the need to expand up into district one with a new fire station to heat, to be able to hit our response times. When Chief Swisher was here and made the presentation on response times, he showed the lack and ability for the existing fire services to provide adequate services up into district one. We need the addition of a new fire station. We need the dollars to do that. And if we don't get it here in impact fees, we are going to get it in the budget. We are going to get it in the capital budget that is going to make every one of these existing residents pay for that. To leave money on the table to make it incremental over four years is irresponsible of this commission to provide for public safety. We need to go to the two years. The study demonstrates that. We're legally on sound ground to do that, according to the attorney. And if somebody wants to challenge that, then they have the right to challenge that. But we need to move forward with the best interest of our residents, and that is to do it as expeditiously as possible because we lack to gain these funds. Our water department is out on a daily basis right now hurrying up, getting information together at developers' requests because they're trying to come in under the wire. You say we don't have a lot of projects. Well, they're coming. They're coming because we're doing the analysis for the developers now from our water department to get them the information. So to do anything less than the two years is irresponsible of this commission. Commissioner Caldwell. I was going to second his motion. Commissioner Herriot. Thank you, Mayor. When the discussion earlier was taking place, there was a question to staff regarding the speediness of development and the expected amount of development coming over the next two to four years. The response that I saw was that there was not going to be much difference between two years and four years in terms of projects that came to the point where we were building. They were building houses. Sorry, not we. The city doesn't build houses. That the projects that are in the pipeline wouldn't get to the point where they were pulling building permits to build houses in the next four years. If that's the case, then there shouldn't be a difference between a two year implementation and a four year implementation since the since there's not going to be a lot that takes place in that timeframe. The purpose of me saying that is that if there's not going to be a lot of building that takes place between year two and year four, then I don't think that it hurts anything to implement a two year strategy and implement the building, the increase over two years. So my concern now for legal is do we need to reaffirm that the projects that we are proposing that were mentioned are not specifically based off of future growth, that these impact fees are going to go towards projects specifically needed to handle and account for future growth, not current lack of completion funding. You name it over the last 15, 20 years in the city. So your, your study is based on the demand that will be placed by new growth. And that is the basis for the proposed impact fees because an impact fee is for new development to pay for its impact and to pay for itself. The, that's what I was, that's what I was looking for from you because I want to make sure that when we approve, we approve something tonight, hopefully we can all, all get on the same page and approve something tonight. That it is explicitly for the needs of future growth. And it's not for as much as, as much as I know that we need a, another fire station in district one, another fire station is needed in district one because of development of the past and lack of past boards doing this. So I want to be very clear again, if there's not a significant difference in the building permits and, and building of houses where we would actually receive that impact fee revenue in years two through four, then what is the difference? Why can't we just approve, you know, get on the same page with approving a two year implementation period since those houses are beyond four years anyways, if those houses are beyond four years, then they're going to pay it whether we, the same amount, whether we implement two years or four years. Does that make sense? So I, that being said, is there a motion on the, I'd like to make a motion to approve ordinance number 12 dash 2026 as presented. There's a motion by commissioner Harriet, commissioner Santiago, you're next up. Are you going to second the motion? This is for the two year. Yes. I'm waiting for, no, I don't have a second. I'm not going to commissioner Novick. I just have a, I'll come back to you commissioner Santiago. I'll go ahead and second it. This is for two years. That is correct. That's presented. Two years as, as presented and to commissioner Harriet. I just, I just wanted to commissioner Santiago's first. I'll come right back to you. Go ahead. Commissioner Santiago. Thank you. The reason that I said no, and I'm going to say it again is because is that we, I understand I'm all for impact fees. We're trying to have an important discussion. We're not, we really are not going to do this. Go ahead, commissioner Santiago. Thank you, mayor. I am all about impact fees and I totally get it. I do. Thank you, commissioner Novick. And yes, we do need a fire department. We're not going to get that eight point something million dollars in a year to build that fire department. It's going to be a few years before we get there when it comes from impact fees. That is the reason I am saying we should do, I'm even good with three years. Let's go to three years. Meet halfway. By the way, it's at least impact fees that we can start collecting starting October. I do, I, I, that's the way I feel. I, I think this was a lot of, for two years, it's just a lot too fast. Um, yes, I agree. Growth and development has to pay for themselves. Remember, this money is going for new development. It's not going to help with the, the old infrastructure. Somebody put out there, we're going to get $8 million, 4,000 houses. We don't even have one of those 4,000 houses permitted or coming. And then, and then on the other side, we talk about development. We don't want development, but yet we're getting 4,000. We're not getting 4,000. Let's be real. You know, I want to increase the impact fees and I would like to do it in four years, but I will agree to three years. At least that is an impact fees and we can move forward with collecting those fees October 1st. Commissioner Novick, you were next. With regards, with regards to what Commissioner Harriot said and what Commissioner Santiago just said, yes, you are, you are correct. And I understand that the impact fees can only be used based upon new growth. The problem is, is that it will take three to four years to even begin to find property, build the fire station. A fire truck build time now is two years for an engine, about three years for a tower. You don't think there's going to be a lot of developers looking at being able to come in at 25% if we do a four-year implementation. They're going to, they're going to rush to come in and try and get in under the wire knowing that the following year it's going to be a 50% increase, the year after that 75, the year after that they'll be at 100%. They're going to try and get development orders in and rush everything through to get under the wire once this, if this passes tonight on, on three or four years. Why would you want to leave any money on the table when new development is going to give it to you? Why? It makes no sense to me. The, the, the result over a 30-year mortgage on a residential property is dollars per month. It's negligible. And we don't know what the economy is going to do. It might take a turn for the better. And all of a sudden there is a big housing boom. Then what? Then we're waiting and we're collecting less money and the impact is there. Well, guess how we address that impact immediately? We have to raise the tax. We have to raise the fee if we go to the fee schedule. So get the money. If it's, if it's one house that pulls a building permit, let them pay the full amount. I just, I don't understand why you would want to leave one single dollar on the table with as much discussion as we have with the public here about arguing over, over a couple, couple dollars a year increase in something. You're willing to leave a dollar on the table? I, I, I just don't understand that logic. I, I really don't. I'm sorry. I'm not trying to be disrespectful. I don't think we're going to come to an agreement on this. We just see this, this issue differently between the two of us. And so this motion again, just to affirm is for the two years. Correct. Okay. Commissioner Caldwell. My question or my comments were along the lines of Mr. Novick's here, and I'm just going to leave it at that. Commissioner Harriot. Thank you, Mayor. Can staff confirm what, at what point in time are, do developments or houses pay the impact fee? Impact fees pay, are paid at the time of building permit. If your question's about what is in the development pipeline, that will be a question for Jordan. So it leads, it leads to that. So we're not, we're not talking about, we're not talking about projects that are coming, that are right here today that. Correct. So we're not, what I'm trying to say is that we're not, this isn't an issue of whether developers are going to rush in tomorrow or next week to get a DO on a project, because the DO doesn't matter when it comes to impact fees. The DO initiates and is the building blocks for the development, but that is the first step likely years before the impact fee is actually paid on the individual houses that are built within that development. That's correct. Okay, so how, my, then my next question is, Jordan, we've got, I know we've, we've got a lot of, a lot of developments that have been discussed. We've got, um, Osprey Estates, uh, Vineland Phase 3, I believe that's been approved. Are there, what other residential developments do we have that have been approved? Those are the only two that I recall have been approved. The other projects that we have are in the infancy stages. We're either going through pre-apps or we're, um, reviewing the plans amongst DRC. Do you have an estimate on how many homes off the top of your head would be in each of those developments? Sorry, I can get that data for you, but I do not have that available. Okay, because, and the, the, the, where I'm going with this is we still have issues with the development, the Osprey Estates development, and they're, they haven't even begun building houses there? Correct. Okay, so, so they're not yet, they're not yet ready to build. Conceivably, they're multiple years away from building, or, you know, constructing houses there. Vineland Reserve Phase 3, is there any infrastructure in the ground? Have they started on Phase 3? Vineland Phase 3, the infrastructure is in the ground, yes. Okay, so they could conceivably pull permits tomorrow to start building houses? Correct. Okay. Outside of those two developments, all the other discussed or talked about projects, development projects, are in their infancy, and nothing has been approved. So, conceivably, I guess they could come in with the next six months, get a DO if they wanted. We're talking probably a few years from the time they get a DO to the time that they get infrastructure and streets and street lighting and utilities and, and everything, you know, into the, to the ground, and then probably another year or two after that, just going based off of the historical timeframe for developments in the city. John, can you add some context as well, please? Yes, Mayor. The other thing, you know, as a reminder is, you know, if you go back to the May 18th budget workshop on CIP, we talked about phasing in a lot of our projects to include, you know, new fire stations, replacement fire station, a new substation for law enforcement, et cetera, is that, you know, most of that will necessitate the issuance of debt. There's no other way to do it without issuance of debt. And one of the things that the collection of impact fees is expressly can be used for is the payment of debt service. So, as these projects come on in the next, you know, two, three, four years, five years, six years, where we've already got, you know, these, these impact fees phased in as they're collected there, that's going to be the funding source that we help to secure that debt with. So, as it's collected over the years, that's what's going to be paid, used to pay for the annual debt service. So, we will benefit from a phased in approach of the impact fees. And looking at it the last couple of weeks, we, you know, we don't see a lot coming in in the next one, you know, 12 to 24 months. We see it coming in in the 36 to 60 month timeframe. So, you know, in our opinion, staff's opinion, the four year, the three year or four year phase end would be sufficient to capture where we see the expenses will be incurred. What I'm trying to, what I'm trying to get, get to, and, and what I'm trying not to do is just throw out some arbitrary number, because then that number becomes, becomes, you know, reality on within the community for some, to some degree. Commissioner Eric, can you wrap up? I got it in two vice. So, so saying, saying that conceivably, if Osprey Estates had, is it fair to say they've probably got less than 300 homes in Osprey Estates? Vineland Reserve, I'm, I think it's significantly lower than that. Correct. Yes. A hundred and eight. A hundred and eight. So we're talking about 400 homes and we're talking about on the, the single family residential, single family residential impact fee. So the first year, the difference is about $500. So each year, the difference is about $500. So right now we're talking about, we're talking about $250,000 if they built every single one of those houses and came in for building permits on every single one of those houses tomorrow, which is highly unlikely. We're really talking about most of those properties wouldn't be built within, until year, probably three or four. The point that I'm trying to say is I, if we're, if the houses aren't going to be built until year three or four, then they would be paying the same amount, whether we phased it in over four years and they paid it in year four, or whether we phased it in, in year two, they would still be paying the same amount in year four. Does that, does that make sense? No. All right. Commissioner Herriot. I'm getting, I'm getting a yes from half the room. I'll come back. I'll come back to you. Commissioner Colwell, before I go to you, Vice Mayor hasn't spoken yet. So under Robert Trolls, we'll go to her first. Vice Mayor, go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to call the vote, please. All right. So Vice Mayor is calling for a vote. So respectfully, before we vote, I'm just going to say this one thing and it'll be quick. And we're in a special commission meeting. So we got to strictly talk about this for everybody on this dais. When the time came to vote for the road elevation on El Cam, I was the only one on this dais that did not want to vote for it because I wanted to see a bridge. I swallowed my pride and I promise you, I'm not attacking you, Commissioner Santiago. But sometimes on these things, we have to see what's best for everything as a whole. And even though it kind of goes against what we really want to vote for, at the end of the day, if it's going to benefit the community, sometimes we got to make those difficult decisions and vote that way. So Vice Mayor Avila-Vasquez has called for a vote. I'm going to go ahead and call for a vote and go ahead with the verbal vote. Commissioner Caldwell? Yes. Commissioner Harriot? Yes. Commissioner Novick? Yes. Commissioner Santiago? Yes. Vice Mayor Avila-Vasquez? Yes. Mayor Avila? Yes. Passes 6-0. Motion passes unanimously. All right. Thank you, Commissioner Santiago. We're going to go ahead and at this point, we have, I'll get to it. We're going to go to action items, fiscal year 2026-2027, budget discussion, special assessment. Commissioner Novick is requesting a five-minute recess. Let's go ahead and do a five-minute recess. Commissioners, if you can start making your way up, we have less than a minute. All right. Five minutes are up. We're going to go ahead and get started. Mr. McKinney, I believe you're the one doing the presentation. Mayor, Commission, this is our second portion of the budget workshop for this fiscal year 26-27. This evening specifically is regarding special assessments. This evening we're going to talk, you know, though I want to kind of lead into the assessments and talk about our pre-preliminary taxable value that has recently been released by our property appraiser, along with, you know, we keep talking about a potential ballot initiative coming up. So, you know, I just want to present some information that's readily available on the Volusia County Properties website and what's been disseminated by the Florida League of Cities. Then we're going to go through some assessments. We're going to talk about the new fire assessment that we spoke about during last year's budget workshops, the current assessments, some potential future assessments, public notice requirements, and then some other items on the horizon as it relates to the preparation of this year's budget. So, right now, the City of Deltona has a just value of just over $11 billion. Of that, we only have $5.88 billion that's taxable. This past year we had just over $28 million in new construction, which is down considerably from prior fiscal years. So, you know, I've got here some property exemptions, just value to taxable value, so that you can see where our properties, where they receive exemptions, save our home cap, senior exemptions, and other tangible personal property. Our taxable value represents 53% of the City's total taxable just value based on current established tax laws. So, just to kind of give discussion item only, staff is not recommending a 6.7% millage rate at the current time for next fiscal year, just using it as a talking point only. Based on the current taxable value, pre-preliminary taxable value, at 6.7 mills, we would bring in just over $37.4 million in ad valorem proceeds. This past year, the current fiscal year, that millage brought in just over $36 million. From next year to the current year, we're looking at just under $1.3 million in an increase in ad valorem proceeds. We all know we're in, you know, gasoline has gone up, food has gone up, et cetera. We also are on the, you know, required, the anticipated TIF that we give from the general fund to the CRA for next fiscal year is $492,000. So, let's go into our groupings of our taxable value. And I'm talking about this, Mayor and Commission, just because, you know, of everything going on, the city of Deltona, when we started looking at a fire assessment last year, based on what's been going on the last month, municipalities across the state are calling our consultant and other consultants, because this is a way that, you know, if we lose taxable value, this is one of only a few ways that we can still bring something to the parcel owners. So, currently, right now, 7.13% of parcels in the city pay no taxes. 47.18% fall below the average assessed value of $183,000 and may have exemptions of $50,000 or more. So, if you look at this, just looking at the first column residential, we currently have 9,600 homes within the city that pay zero taxes. They fall below a $50,000 taxable value because, you know, they're fully exempt. We have another 14,700 homes that have taxable value between $50,000 and $194,000. We have 11,146 homes that are between $194,000 and just under $500,000. We only have 28 homes valued greater than $50,000. Non-residential of 101,587 homes, there's no exemptions in there. They pay whatever their assessed value is. So, moving on, if we look at the proposed ballot language, increasing the exemptions to $250,000, we have 26,729 homes that have an average assessed value of $167,000. So, that means if this passes, just under 27,000 homes will pay no taxes to the city of Deltona. We have just over 8,900 homes that have no homestead. So, it means they're a second home, they're rental property, et cetera, that would bear the brunt of the taxes. So, where we're currently at 6.7, we would probably wind up having to go, without any serious reduction in service levels, go to the cap of 10 mils. The 1,587 non-residential parcels, their average taxable value is $876,847. So, they, again, start to bear the brunt of the taxes. And then we have just over 3,000 vacant parcels with an assessed value of just over 47,000. So, out of the 40,279 parcels in the city, 26,729 are almost, you know, 75% of all parcels would pay no taxes. So, you can see that it would just be a shift from one pocket to another. So, one way, you know, again, that, you know, parcels can still share, pay their fair share is through an assessment. And a fire assessment is one that's legally authorized by state statute because it benefits a particular parcel. Assessments must benefit a parcel. So, with that, I'm going to turn it over to Nilgen Camp, our consultant with Benish, who was highly recommended by Rafatilis and other governmental agencies that have used them before. So, let me pull up her presentation. Good evening, Commissioners. Nilgen Camp with Benish. Okay. I have a brief presentation starting with the background a little bit and then getting into the technical study. As you know, fire assessments are a form of non-advalorum special assessment with the purpose of funding fire department services. And they are very common in Florida and approved by courts in multiple cases. The city has a population of 100,000 and being serviced from five stations and has a high ISO rating, which results in insurance premium savings for its residents. And, again, the purpose of the study is to explore the option of establishing a fire assessment program. The methodology for fire assessments, again, need to demonstrate special benefit to property and a reasonable allocation of costs. Its two primary steps is to determining the assessable budget and then distributing that among different land uses. And in this study, the demand component, that distribution accounts both the availability of the fire department as well as the use of its resources. So, we take into account that even if a property does not use the fire department, that it does benefit from the fact that that fire department is there and ready to service. So, the study accounts for that. There are several components, and I'll go through them. We start with identifying the assessable budget. So, for that, again, by case law, we are not able to charge for any advanced life support services. So, we can only charge for fire protection and basic life support. So, those expenses are excluded. And any dedicated revenues for the fire department are also excluded. The study included two different budget options. The first one is the operating budget and vehicle replacement plan. And the second includes those two components and adds the capital budget as well. So, under those adjustments, the assessable budget under scenario one, which is, again, operations and vehicle replacement cost, is about $19.4 million. And under scenario two, which also includes the capital budget, is about almost $26 million. The demand from each land use is, again, established by reviewing incident data as well as the availability. So, using the incident data, we determine what portion of the resources are going to each land use. And, again, about 83% is going to residential land use, followed by commercial. So, those two are the highest users. And the budget is distributed among land users using those percentages. So, that $19.4 million and $26 million are distributed among different land users. And then we review the property units. That data comes from the property appraiser. It's dwelling units for residential and square footage for non-residential categories. And then the parcels for vacant land. So, we take the budget allocation and divide by the number of units in the case of residential land use. So, that results in a rate of $433 under scenario one per home. This is per home. And $579 under scenario two. In the case of non-residential, again, using the availability and as well as the resource utilization, we come up with rates that are tiered by size. So, there are about 34 tiers. So, you can see here some examples. So, under scenario one, a small commercial parcel would pay about $547. So, that's any parcel that has up to 2,000 square feet of buildings on them. And the highest in that category is about $123,000 for parcels that have $200,000 to $250,000 square feet. This is under scenario one. Under scenario two, that would be about $730,000 to about $165,000 and so on. Vacant land is, again, simply a single tier. It's simply taking the allocated budget and dividing it by number of parcels. So, that ranges from $35 per parcel under scenario one and $47 under scenario two. In terms of next steps, we are here today to get your input direction as well as answer any questions. My understanding is preliminary resolution will come to you on July 20th. So, that resolution will determine the maximum assessment rate, but it's not binding. You can always adopt something less than that. You just cannot adopt more than that. And then, after that, there has to be first-class notices mailed at least 20 days before the adoption. And then, the adoption hearing would be August, September, with the final roll is due to tax collector around September 15th. So, with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Vice Mayor, you have a question? Yes. Thank you, Mayor. The fire assessment calculation fees that you, with scenario one and two, is that $433 or $579? Is that per year, per home? Yes. Thank you. And, Mayor, we did this based off of a five-year smooth, so there would be no increase over the five-year period. Thank you. Commissioner Herriot. Thank you, Mayor. John, what is the millage value of the $579 on an average property? Two mills? No. So, if we were to implement just on the—let's only deal on scenario one, please. Yes. Because, right now, that's based on operations. We're looking at a three-mil reduction. Okay. Okay. So, at 6.7, we would go to approximately 3.7. The capital I didn't include in that, sir, is because that's on top of—we would—during the budget process, we would increase the millage rate to compensate for the increase in capital. I understand. Thank you. Please continue. Okay. Switch slides. Okay. So, and we just covered that, Commissioner. So, it is assumed that if we implement the fire assessment, there would be a reduction. I just want to just make the statement is that, as Nilgen stated, you know, we have to put the notice out. So, we will be utilizing the trim, just like we did last year with our assessments. So, when we come here on July 15th to do the overall operating budget, and I bring to you the necessary resolutions July 20th, then we would have to still set a millage rate. So, let's just assume 6.7. We would establish the fire assessment. It's not until we have our first public hearing on September 9th that we would establish the final assessment that's to be put on the tax bill in November, as well as the tentative millage rate. So, there's a timing issue that takes place over the next couple of months. So, moving on to our current assessments. It's staff's recommendation that we suspend the current Lake McGarrity annual assessment. We have $103,000 in fund balance between the maintenance fee and the administrative fee that we're allowed to charge. That would last us for at least 10 to 15 years. So, you know, we can't abolish the assessment. We can only suspend it after discussion with the city attorney's office. The maximum solid waste annual assessment. It's currently $260 based on the cost increase that we've received from Volusia County for tipping fees. The contractual increase that was adopted by the commission last year because we had a three-year annual increase that were fixed annual increases until 2028 when we go to the CPI index. So, overall, our costs have increased 10.56% from last year to this year. So, it's necessary to go to an annual assessment of $287.76. You can see that for, you know, this is the same slide that was presented last year. We just added the proposed. You can see we went for six years with no increase. And then, as y'all are very aware, we've had some substantial increases the last two years, and the third year now is no different. Here's the solid waste current proposed budget. We've taken into account all of WastePro, Redmond Consulting, Volusia County tipping fee. And we have three personnel that support solid waste directly. We have two people in customer service that handle calls on a daily basis, as well as one code enforcement officer, you know, out of all of them that we can say spends 100% of their time strictly on solid waste issues. So, there's only three individuals within this salary and benefit budget. We have a street assessment. Mr. McKinney, one moment. Commissioner Novick. I'll go back to the graph of the years for the solid waste. Yes, sir. Assessment. Do you know why we stayed flat for six years? I believe when they set the rate in 2019 that they anticipated they increased it to the level that was more than enough. We used reserves. That's correct. Yeah. I mean, our fee was up here, and between reserves, and they increased the fee higher than was needed in 2019. So, in 2025, the increase, it's not really reflective. Those three-year increases there, the six years prior to that, there were reserves that were used to keep that flat. So, the graph is a little misleading. I can add to the July 15th a presentation on fund balance over those years. Thank you. Okay. The street lighting assessment, Mayor, our costs are estimated to increase by 5% from this year to next year. That would necessitate an increase in the current assessment by the 5%. And these are all the street assessments that we currently have that would be divvied up to those individual parcel owners. We have three nuisance abatements. These are the three remaining properties that have the abatements that we would put on there at 100%. Our stormwater annual assessment, as y'all recall, two years ago, y'all had an updated stormwater feasibility study completed that recommended raising the impact, sorry, stormwater assessments over a period of five years to $250. So, this would be the third year, then they would increase from $190 to $210. Historically, there again, same thing. We were steady for five years. There were no increases. There was not really, there was some fund balance, not a lot. But over these years, the general fund has supported the operations extensively. We're up to close to $2 million in the current year budget to support for projects that have been underway. Commissioner Harriot. Thank you, Mayor. John, I just wanted to reiterate that that last slide doesn't reflect the fact that the general fund was supplementing stormwater operations. No, sir. That would be included in the July 15th workshop. Okay. And it is factual to say, much like with solid waste, that the general fund is supplementing stormwater operations. That is correct. Does this increase include operations operating only or operating and capital? Operating and capital. Those are the next two slides. Fantastic. Thank you. So, as you can see from the current year, we've gone from $7.4 million to a proposed $6.7 million budget. That's because we didn't have as much capital going into this current fiscal year to next. So, there is a slight reduction in overall operating costs. However, from the May 18th budget workshop for CIP, you can see that we have almost $18 million in much-needed CIP projects that more than cover the assessment that would be collected. So, again, looking at these projects, you know, they're not completed. That will be discussed at the July 15th budget workshop. But for us to complete these projects, it would require, on top of the available funding, a $14.5 million debt issuance to support it. And you can see that if you go and look at our current budget, you can see that we pay annually almost $572,000 in annual debt service. And that debt service will not be paid for a few more years. Again, that will be part of the July 15th operating budgets. It's going the wrong way. Future assessments. As I stated, over the last couple of weeks, all municipalities, counties, et cetera, are all looking at ways if the ballot initiative passes in November, how do we replace lost revenues for the current levels of service? So, other assessments that can be looked at. And, again, let me be clear, just like the impact fee study and ordinance that you passed this evening, the fire assessment study that you heard, any one of these assessments, if they were to be implemented, would require a study that's required by state statute. So, John can't come up here and say, I need $100,000. We divide it by the 40,000 parcels, and that's the assessment that requires a study. So, for public works, we could look at an improvement assessment that could pay for street paving. As you know now, we have local option gas tax that we're lucky if we can pave 8 miles a year when we should be paving 22 miles a year in order for us to repave all roads within 25 years. You have right-of-way improvements so that you could have an assessment that would pay for median maintenance, sidewalk maintenance, et cetera, along your roadways. We could implement a citywide street lighting. The streetlight assessments that we talked about a few slides ago, that was for particular individual neighborhoods. But we have streetlights throughout the entire city of Deltona. So, those streetlights could be set up as an assessment that they do benefit every person. You might live in District 1, but you travel through District 3, 4, and 5 to get to your in-law's house, et cetera. So, it's a benefit to everyone within the city having streetlights. So, we could do that. That would be well over a million dollars in utility fees that we pay for streetway lighting that could be assessed elsewhere. You have capital project improvement assessments that could be issued for building construction for parks on top of impact fees, fire stations, police substations, and support buildings. There's also park assessments that could be issued for strictly the operations of parks because parks benefit the entire community. And then you have community development districts. So, if you're trying to do something in a particular area, you can implement just for that area assessments. So, if you're trying to go in and do everything at one time for that particular area, build, you know, build parks, sidewalks, you know, any type of amenities, you could give just an area just like Lake McGarrity. Okay? Same exact concept. Our public notice requirement, as I stated last year when we did the stormwater increase, you know, the property appraiser and the tax collector, based on the way that they issue the trim notice and the timing that they do, it falls within complete statutory requirements as a necessary first-class mailing notice. So, we put it in there and that saves just on stormwater, if you recall, that was over a $30,000 savings by not having to do a separate mailing, you know. So, we already pay the property appraiser and the tax collector for the trim and the collection of taxes, et cetera. So, why not use something that we already pay for? The maximum rates have to be approved by July 20th so that we can get it submitted to the tax collector in a timely fashion to be put on the trim notice. It goes out in mid-August. And when we meet, the final rate approval has to be approved no later than September 15th by their calendar. By us having the final adoption on September 9th, that would be 23 days from the time it was mailed to the final decision. So, well within, you know, we exceed the 20-day requirement. House Bill 1329 went into law and it goes into effect January 1st of 2027. It requires a 10% budget reduction exercise for all funds, departments, divisions. So, all of the departments that met with the deputy city manager and I today, they heard that we're early implementing that so that we get this going so that, you know, they already have that exercise underway so that when we meet with you on July 15th for the operating budget, we'll have a column added on that 10% reduction. You know, this way it's a good exercise. It's already in law. We're just early implementing it. It will also require quarterly compensation postings for all employees. We provide that already to the city clerk on a consistent basis in case there's a public records request. So, we would just add that to our finance or HR slash website so that we're constantly putting it out there on a quarterly basis. It also requires a budget summary narrative to be posted. So, again, where we put that memo as part of our adopted budget, we would just have to do that as part of the workshops when we meet regularly, you know, during the budget development process. Where I've been coming to you in the first meeting of February to talk about the proposed budget calendar for the next fiscal year, I now will be required to post it no later than January 30th annually. So, I'll have to move that up, and that'll be the first meeting in January so that I make sure that I adhere to that requirement. Again, I stated already it goes into effect January 1st of 2027, but the city will early implement. Citywide fees, just as a reminder, you adopted Resolution 2026-24. It already has included within it the proposed, or not the proposed, the actual water-wastewater rates that will go into effect October 1st of 2026. You heard this evening the fire assessment and other items that would also be built into this budget based on scenario one or two, because I'll ask you that in a few seconds, which way y'all might be leading, so that we can build the budget based on that for the February 5th, I'm sorry, July 15th workshop. We're still working with Benish on the other miscellaneous fire fees, so that will be hopefully wrapping up in the next couple of months so that we have that as well. And then we will also be bringing, on the July 20th commission meeting, we'll also be bringing the updated fee resolution that will include the phased implementation of the impact fees that y'all approved this evening. As always, I just want to make a reminder, everything that we do during this process, mayor commission, is on the finance budget website. So if you go to the deltonafl.gov, go under departments, finance, budget documents, fiscal year 2627 budget, you will see that everything that we've discussed this evening and all the other previous meetings since March 3rd are 100% on the city website for your review. Consumer price index that was released last week, mayor, came in at 3.9% year over year. When we met with staff for the kickoff meeting back in March, we limited everyone to a 2% increase. So we're well below the CPI index. Again, we're trying to be mindful. As a reminder, last fiscal year, we did a zero-based budget, so everything had to be scrutinized. I can assure you that I'm scrutinizing everything as we've been meeting with the departments starting this morning. And we will continue to do so to keep everyone at no more than a 2% increase. Next steps, July 15th, we will have a budget workshop to go over all operating departments, divisions across all funds. We'll be back here on July 20th, based on that presentation, to set the maximum millage. Reminder, that should include the millage that would be required without the fire assessment, with the mind that y'all would implement the assessment at the September 9th first public hearing. We have slated, if needed, for August 19th for an additional budget workshop. And your two public hearings, Wednesday, September 9th at 6.30 p.m., and Monday, September 21st at 6.30 p.m. That's all I have this evening, Mayor. Is there any public comments? Thank you, Mr. McKinney. Yes, sir. Tim Blodgett, please. Thank you. As usual, John is right on time and right on target. I appreciate that very much. Everything is in there, including consideration for the taxpayers. Thank you very much. And that's it. Thank you. Brandi White, please. Brandi White, Deltona. I have a few questions. I noticed in the presentation, it talked about only if we lose property taxes would we put the fire assessment fee in. But what I'm understanding is we're actually putting that in whether or not we lose property taxes. Can we clarify that? Because there is a lot of confusion in the community on whether this is going to take place regardless if we lose our property taxes or not. Also, I may have missed it because I don't have the packet back there, but what is the average cost per capita now on our property tax for our fire services and what would it be under the assessment? If I saw the study correctly, it would be about 500 plus for the assessment when the Florida average is about 180 to 260. So, I just, I really want to look at these numbers a little closely. There was a big lack of information on the residents for this. We didn't have these packets ahead of time. They're not on the back table. They're not attached to the agenda. Some other things, could we get, now I have the pie graph from our last budget, but could we get the exact percentage of our full operating budget that goes to fire services? Because it's usually, obviously, along with some of our other services, one of the higher assessments. So, again, I, and again, I see now there's another slide that talked about miscellaneous fire fees on top of this. It just, I understand fees and assessments aren't taxed, but when they're ordered to be paid, they're taxes. So, I feel like there's a lot of double taxation going on if we're talking about doing this despite still keeping property taxes. Because now we're going to have an additional fee on top of the fire service fees we already do pay in our property taxes. So, if we could just kind of sort some of that out, I'd appreciate it. But mainly I'm looking for the difference of what our average cost per capita now just in our property taxes versus what it will be if we have just the fire assessment. And then preferably what it will be if we get smacked with both. And then if you know what these extra now miscellaneous fire fees that are being looked at will be, if you could tell us the total of that, too. Because this looks great, but on our agenda we got no numbers. We just got a title. So, numbers are important. Thank you. Thank you. That's the last one, Mayor. Mr. McKinney, just for the, can we at least get the question answered of are we implementing this whether we, the homestead exemption passes or not? It is my assumption, Mayor, that the commission will approve the fire assessment fee. That's a huge assumption. So, if you do not approve the fire assessment fee, then it stays as a non-ad valorem. I stated previously to you, Commissioner, that the fire assessment is roughly three mils of the current budget. You know, so, you know, we, the, the, the budget attributed that can be used towards the fire assessment is on this page right here. It's $16,123,245. So, again, you know, that's where the, you know, the three mils, each mil is roughly $5.3 million. The miscellaneous fire fee, as I have stated since sometime last year, it would be for all the other fees that we currently charge. So, we have fire inspection fees that do not cover our cost. So, we want to make sure that we are covering 100% of our costs related to the fire inspection process. We also stated at previous workshops that, you know, fire rescue goes on I-4. They go on Providence. They go on Howland. They go on 415 to automobile accidents. If we have an established fee approved by resolution, I could be billing the insurance companies for that. So, that helps to offset future costs to the city by charging a fee for the individuals, in most cases, are not residents of the city of Deltona. I am not trying to double tax any resident. I'm trying to make sure that I cover our costs 100% and where I can. Let's just say that, you know, there is an accident on 90, I live off of 95. There's an accident on I-4 that has hazmat material, et cetera. Then, if I have that hazmat fee on top of the vehicle accident fee, I'm able to, you know, recoup 100% of the cost for sending, you know, two ambulances, our heavy rescue, our hazmat trailer. You know, it's just, it's no different than FEMA. You know, FEMA provides a rate for everything. Well, this is what we're asking Beniche to do is that rate so that, you know, they show up on scene. I got that a la carte and I can charge it. I believe I've answered every question that was asked, Mayor. Commissioner Herriot. Yeah, I just want to point out this. John, do you remember when this discussion started last year? Yes, sir. If I go back, this was actually in the workshop the same time last year. Thank you. Yes, sir. Commissioner Novick. Thank you. For the fire fee schedule, how are they addressing the multifamily units? Is that based on, is that going to be on the commercial rate for the parcel or is it going to be taxed to each individual apartment? It is covered on the residential. It's charged per apartment. Per apartment. Yes. Okay. And then is there any provision in the study for, on the commercial side or even on the residential, is there any credit given for a fire sprinkler facility versus a non-sprinkler facility? Not in this study, and part of that is when we look at a fire department responses, 80 plus or sometimes 90 plus percent of the service is medical. True fire is pretty limited, and even in those cases what the fire departments are telling us, they still have to go even if there are sprinklers and so on. And, you know, it protects the property from burning down, but they still have to go and clean up and address it, so it doesn't save them that much time. That's a completely inaccurate statement. That's what we were talking about. That's a completely inaccurate statement. You have a sprinklered building. You don't have loss of use. You have a response of three engines, a ladder, an ambulance, and a battalion chief, and by the time they get there and the sprinkler has extinguished the fire to the room of origin, you're reducing the additional units that are incoming. You're only using one unit for about 20 minutes clean up and do paperwork versus four or five hours of overhaul on that. So I would take exception to that statement. But the fire fee is a very fair and equitable way to assess the costs of the fire service because it's spread out amongst everybody. When we look at some of the other fees that we are charging and then we're supplementing the cost, say, in stormwater, I don't understand why we're not applying the same philosophy to let the fee pay the cost, why we're supplementing it from because we have a lot of people that aren't paying then and receiving the benefit of the stormwater, where when we assess the fee based upon the actual cost, everybody is paying for that benefit. We're applying the methodology and the fire fee, but we're not applying it on the other areas that we're where we've gone back and we've used reserves or we are using reserves or we're using the general fund to supplement those projects. So I'll go back, Commission, to last year. We talked about the stormwater fee and the fact that we weren't covering the cost. We talked about at the May 18th budget workshop that the stormwater fee was not covering the cost. But there hasn't seemed to be a consensus to raise it over what the rate consultant provided three years ago. You know, we could sit here and say that for stormwater, we can absolutely increase it to $300 and we'd still be short. The difference is stormwater has to follow based on the way we handle stormwater by equivalent residential unit. So whether or not you are a single family, a multifamily or a commercial, we were provided from the property appraiser, the ERU. So that's how the stormwater fee is assessed on the, you know, the fire assessment fee. It's based on cost and the parcel count and the way that we did it so that it was trying to be equitable. The majority of the homes here in Deltona are roughly the same size. We don't have any, you know, real big sway in it is that it was the decision of staff just to be level. You know, there are some studies that are out there that will have a different rate for, you know, single story versus two story. And that was just, you know, becomes a lot more cumbersome for our average is single family, single story. I hope I answered the question. No, I understand there's different methodologies out there. It's just trying to find what's reasonable and customary, I guess, is what we need to look at what some of the other agencies, at least in Volusia County, are looking at doing. And the reason that's important, I think, is because we have closest unit response. So you will make up a structure assignment, will be a Deland Tower, a county engine, a Deltona engine, and a Deltona battalion. There probably should be some reasonable and customary way that we're all looking at charging those fees. Currently, Edgewater and Lake Helen are the only two agencies that I'm aware of that has the fire assessment. I can tell you that Holly Hill, DeBerry, have all reached out to me in the last couple of, well, the last three weeks. And I can tell you in speaking with Orange City, they're attempting as well. And Deland at this time has no appetite that I heard. You know, so, you know, there's, when we went through this methodology, Benish, Nilgen specifically, and Rafatilis, they all do these studies. And this was the benchmark approach that municipalities are using. We didn't try and do anything outlandish. We went with what's, we specifically asked Benish, when it was Chief Swisher and then now Chief Cousins, you know, what is the base of everyone's approach? And that's what we followed to the T. Yeah, I think it's going to be a, it'll be a better system, in my opinion, to go to the fee schedule. The actual methodology that we choose to use going forward after it's implemented, I think across the state, many of the different agencies that are looking at going to it, we'll discover pros and cons to it, then probably have to adjust as we get further into it. Once an assessment's established, we can make adjustments on an annual basis. You know, so, I mean, we will have it in play. You know, once it's implemented, you can make those adjustments. How often, Nilgen, or would an updated study be required? So, you would adjust the role itself to account for new properties every year, and then the studies are typically updated every three to five years. So, we would put it on the same, probably put it on the same schedule, then, as the impact fees? Yes, sir. And that's exactly what was promised during last year when we were doing all the fee resolutions, et cetera, is that we would look at, you know, fees annually, but no more than every four years. I mean, we do the rate study. You know, we don't want to do that every year. You want to do that at least every other year, but when we do it every other year, we're doing a five-year look forward, you know, but we're updating it every other year, because if you don't, Jim's cost, you know, today is one thing, but 18 months, you know, the economic, socioeconomic factors that take place, global factors, it can throw everything out of whack. We didn't expect in January, in February, for our fuel prices to spike the way they did. That has a huge impact on the operations of fire, water, sewer, stormwater, et cetera. I have one last question, then I'll be done. Do we have a number, you may, you probably don't have it committed to memory, do we have a number on short-term rentals in Deltona? No, sir. I know that we're working towards that. Okay, and from the consultant's standpoint, do you view those as commercial? No, they would be under residential also. They are the condo buildings. Not necessarily. Some are single-family. Or single-family, yeah. I mean, they function more like a residential. So the reason that, and for the attorney, the reason I bring that up is West Manatee Fire Rescue has all of their short-term rentals. They've been through the legal system, they've been through court and whatnot, and they consider them to be commercial. They're treated as commercial. And so that's something we may want to look at, look at what they're doing down there to be able to treat those as commercial. And I think Chief Cousins, your fire marshal, is very familiar with that program because her association is the one that provided a lot of support for that. So as we go forward, I don't know what the number is here in Deltona, but it may be something worth looking at and going through that process and qualifying all those commercial properties. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Novick. No one's on the board, so they're looking for approval as requested last year and this year to move forward with adding these to the next steps, correct? That's correct. All right. So I'm looking for a motion and then a second. We need a motion. Zach? Motion or consensus is fine. All right. So we'll do a simple consensus then. All those in favor? All those opposed? All right. We have consensus. Thank you, Mayor. Commission? All right. City Manager, comments? Nothing, Mayor? Nothing? All right. Meeting's adjourned.