[MUSIC] 
[MUSIC] 
[MUSIC] 
>>  Good evening everyone.  It is 4:00 PM.  We will start this June 17 County Council meeting.  I called to order.  We barely have a quorum.  We are going to start the evening off with our invocation which will be led by Angelo Parra from the Central Florida free thought community.  Followed by the Pledge of Allegiance and a roll call.  Stanford invocation.  Thank you.
>>  Good afternoon council members, County manager and all of you who keep Volusia ahead.  As a resident of DeLand it is good to be here representing the freefall community.  Yes, it is a mouthful.  This past week it was auspicious and Saturday was Flag Day that carburetor -- commemorate flags and all parts of this land as one nation.  Sunday of course was Father's Day of appreciation of fathers and their crucial influence on American family life.  Flag Day celebrate the unity -- unity of our nation.  Your work here today shaping the future of Volusia County recognizes the fact that our community is what you are representatives make of it.  Therefore, we constituents ask you to honor evidence over assumptions seeking solutions grounded in facts and fairness.  We ask that you listen openly to each other, avoiding easy division in favor of constructive dialogue.  We ask that you uphold justice by ensuring all voices are heard, especially those often overlooked.  I will close with a brief quote from the late great baseball star Jackie Robinson who said, life isn't significant except for the impact on our impact on the lives of others.  Thank you.  [INAUDIBLE] 


>> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic of which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all.


>> George, did you have a comment before we get started?  Before we call the roll, I will point out that it will be followed by public participation.  Anybody that submits a request to Carissa Green to my left ordered your right the yellow forms that need to be filled out.  You have three minutes to talk about anything not on the agenda or preferably something the council can address.  And please recognize the fact that to keep it clean, I will leave it at that.  Thank you very much.  Carissa, would you call the roll?  
>>  David Santiago.
>>  Here.
>>  Don Dempsey.
>>  Here.
>>  Jake Johansson.
>>  Here.
>>  Mr. Kent.
>>  Here.
>>  Mr Rinehardt.
>>  Here.
>>  Danny Robins.
>>  Here.
>>  Chair Brower. 
>>  Do we have any public participation?  The first public participation is David Hill.  Mr. Hill, you do not have the specified address but if you would just let me know what town you are in so your individual councilperson can know where the comments are coming from.  
>>  David Hill, Miller road, Orange City.  Don Dempsey is my representative.  Another two weeks has gone by with no action or communication to the Miller Lake taxpayers.  The asphalt mailings still remains on Miller Road.  No grass, buildings border is what we see every day.  I can't cut my grass or yours as Laura Morris cannot cut the mailings.  We truly feel abandoned bow demand by our elected officials.  You don't know what it is like to be dumped on with other people's water that you do not agree to take.  Miller Lake has never been this high.  The water is above the county drainpipe leading into the county retention ponds.  If we get a major rain event, we will flood.  When the county gave their letter of no objection in 2017 to receive Royal Oaks professionals underwater, the county agrees to take big lots which is 30 acres of rooftop runoff.  1 inch of rain in our area will equal 2 inch of rise in Miller Lake in a typical summer thunderstorm.  By the county agreeing to take this water, you opened our Lake up to hundreds of acres of commercial properties water runoff. Lake Wawa being ajacent to Royal Oaks filtration system has a direct path to Miller lake during a major rain event.  Miller Lake used to be 25 – 30 acre lake prior to 2017.  After the county gave their letter of no objection in 2017 the Royal Oaks professional center runoff water, we are now a 50 acre lake.  It has expanded and will continue to expand unless the county stops this water from coming into our lake.  I used to be 300 feet from the lake, I now have the lake in my front yard.  We need action.  You expect me to pay my property taxes and I expect you to fix a problem that you created.  Please do something or at least communicate to us.  You say nothing to us.  None of the wall.  You literally say nothing and you do nothing.  So all of that says to us is that nothing is going to happen.  And this is not a problem that we created.  You brought this on to us.  And did not discuss it with us.  That water is not our water.  We are taking water from properties that are 2 miles away.  And that is not right.  So you guys, you don't know what it is like.  I talked about the rain because I know what is coming.  If you for your time.  
>>  Thank you.  


>> DANNY ROBINS: Thank you Chairman.  County manager, do we have an update that we can give these folks on the status on Miller Lake?  If there is any information that we can give I would appreciate it.  Thank you.  
>>  There is litigation, I will say we have met with the Department of Transportation.  We have met with St. John's water management District.  Plans are in place should the lake receive heavy rain.  We will act similarly to what we did in the last record rain storm.  Thank you.  
>>  Peggy Hill?  I understand you have photos as well?  
>>  Good afternoon my name is Peggy Hill.  I live on Miller Lake.  The first photo is from 2017.  This is what Miller pond should look like it should look like now until the county gave her Royal Oaks 2017 storm water permit.  Notice it is a small pond just like his name.  The second photo is from this past weekend looking across the lake from the road.  It is still full and will flood with a rain event.  We will not need a hurricane or a flood.  The third photo's is looking at the lake in the culvert under Miller Lake.  It's still full of water and notice how full the lake is.  The fourth photo is my front yard which is across the road from Miller Lake.  There should be no water in my front yard yet it is still there.  We currently see very slow reduction in water level.  This is very slow and the level goes up when it rains.  Drought monitor shows where modern – severe.  It is significant during drought conditions imagine the increases will see in daily rain or a hurricane.  We need your help now.  We don't have time to wait for a study or wait for it to overflow again and then decide to pump it out.  The lake needs to be pumped out now before we flood again.  The lake has never been is full and the funding will be worse when it happens again.  In the past we have been told the St. John's River water management District is willing to help the county.  So let's get the pumping restored.  The 2017 Royal Oaks permit needs to be revoked.  Please tell St. Johns River management to remove the permit.  You can ask to have it revoked.  Also please stop any new storm water permits sending someone else's water to Miller Lake.  Please remember Miller pond is a wildlife corridor.  As I was leaving my home yesterday I saw a beautiful mother dear with the baby looking across the road at the water.  So much of her habitat is gone along with the residents of Miller Lake, the animals need your help to now not as there after it floods.  Thank you for your time.  
>>  Thank you for your comments.  Next up is Catherine.  And you have photos as well?  Thank you.  
>>  Hello everybody.  How are you guys today?  Thank you for listening today.  I appreciate it.  Catherine, Miller pond Orange City and I say that because this is the area.  You can't see it but in the left-hand corner is the dates.  This is 2008 and it shows you that the pond is two separate ponds.  We have two springs and it made two ponds and that is what this is showing you.  My house is the one with the red around it.  It shows you it is completely dry.  You can walk from my house property across.  You can walk that in 2008.  Here is another one, this is before the permit waterway was placed so the water goes into Miller Lake from the other place Royal Oaks across the street.  You can see the water starting to come in.  You can't walk across anymore.  This one is 2023.  This one is after hurricane Ian.  It took over Miller Road at the top three at my house now has some of it underwater.  This one is after Milton.  You can see all the red lines.  It came up to my next-door neighbor's house in regard all the way to her home.  He came to my back door if you see the rectangle.  These photos what is interesting about them is there are off of the County website.  All of them.  There is where I got them two days ago.  You guys have this information and you see the water was not there all the way back in 2006 and see there was no water there every single year.  The pipes were put in 2007 and the hurricanes came and the water was sent over to us.  The water is drowning us.  This is Milton and you can see that is January.  There's only five of them, I think.  The point is that there are off of your website so you can get these photos yourself and see how much the land has drowned.  This is the one and how dry it is.  It is happening.  The pipe that you approved is working.  It is pushing the water from Orange City, you are saving Orange City from Mill Lake from target.  You are saving Orange City but you are drowning us.  That is what is happening so please stop it.  You have the power so please do it.  
>>  Next is John Nicholson.  
>>  John Nicholson, Daytona Beach.  Why don't you get the permit to empty the lake?  We were told they had the permit and they were emptying the lake.  The permit ran out and they are still flooded.  So we have had two months to ask, can we continue to empty it?  Because there is a problem and we are going into the rainy season and we are still flooding.  You should really ask and I don't know why we are not asking.  Secondly, I know we cannot ask or make comments on the agenda but we always did.  We donate land Daytona Beach has a problem with affordable housing, the one they just put in that you all contributed to is having problems with the land owners supposedly.  I am asking you to look at your affordable housing, to look at who you donate land to, to look at who it is that is getting it.  Daytona Beach had housing that we built homes in the first house that we give away went to somebody from Jamaica who had been in the country two months.  I'm going to ask that you look at it and get the stats, what, when, where and how and make decisions.  I know Don keeps saying, why do we need for affordable housing?  No what you need to know before you make the decision.  Lastly, I know normally I have two people opposed to what I was going to say.  I think most of Volusia County would say, yes to sales tax for flooding.  The community absolutely knows we have a flood issue.  There's nobody in the community does not know it.  No one in the community that does not want you to kick the can down the road again.  I ask you to ask George, can we get all that we need free and from the government and the money will come out of our general fund.  That we will have never to have matching funds.  I don't think that is going to happen.  At some point, we taxpayers are going to have to put money towards it.  So I'm asking you if were going to do that, it is taxpayer money.  So I'm asking to share that taxpayer money with the Taurus whether it is 30 or 40% and make it an issue on the sales tax can only be spent on flooding.  
>>  Thank you for your comments.  Next up is, Mark.  
>>  Hi, how are you doing?  I live in Orange city.  2772 north, sorry, it is loading.  On June 25, 2025 the Thomas administrative building at 2:00 PM there is the historic preservation board meeting.  I am the chair of the board and I would encourage all of the people that are behind me, I encourage them to come to the meeting.  Because we are trying to get deceased fields.  We try to get as many people to come to the meeting.  I feel like as part of the border encourage people to come.  I am the chair of the board, I am also unemployed and seeking work.  If anybody has any kind of positions or anything like that, I would be willing to share my resume with you.  I am trying to get a job and I would like to be employed if I could.  Thank you very much.  
>>  Next is Jennifer Coolidge.  
>>  Good afternoon, Jennifer Coolidge Executive Director.  I'm here to invite you to the project that you supported to celebrate the 30th anniversary of Florida sister state relationship with Japan.  For over 30 years we have implemented cultural exchange and support the economic development, sent delegations to Japan and back to Florida.  We have an exhibition that opens on Thursday, June 26.  We have a Japanese harpist and we're doing activities throughout the exhibition all summer long in Atlantic center.  So our kids are learning how to make sushi, do origami and learn about our neighbors and friends in Japan.  You have this scanned in your inbox and you can join us as well as the public.  Thank you.  
>>  It is a great program.  Last up is James.  
>>  James, 2850 Edgewater Florida.  I'm here on behalf of my mother and father-in-law.  I'm trying to pull a permit to move a mobile home from Port Orange and it has been six months.  George is familiar with what is going on.  Six months for me to get to this point.  We still haven't gotten them electricity.  There were there today and everything is final.  They told me everything is good to go.  Now all of a sudden the air conditioner is an issue.  I sent them all the information.  They said that to the inspector today.  Let's keep moving forward, I do not want to lose my three ministries. I am here to ask for $984 that we had to pay for a variance that I feel was unjust, not needed and could have been administrative variance very quickly area because their trailer was 40 feet² and manufactured in 1977.  They have been paying taxes and Volusia County.  They held them hostage for $984.42 for a variance plus another two months of waiting time.  Emily Bush stated we should've never been there in the first place.  They had them research it at the hearing the land development code has not been updated since 1988.  It is on record.  I don't know if there's a possibility -- my mother in law and father-in-law are 72 years old and there are at their wits right now.  He is taking medication just to keep him from doing something dumb over moving a trailer.  It is ridiculous.  What you guys have been putting people through an and is not just them.  I saw and I have been over here eight times since April.  Eight times myself try to get this problem fixed.  It is ridiculous.  I think you guys are hearing it loud and hard.  Something has got to be done.  What about tiny houses?  Somebody wants to put a tiny house and he can't do it.  You have 740 feet² or seven 20 feet². That was brought into coating -- code in 1988.  
>>  We are done with public comments.  
>>  May we take a moment?  


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: If staff can provide a synopsis of what occurred along the lines of what he described just for our purposes?  And we can go from there.  At least a staff synopsis.  
>>  We will be happy to.  


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: Thank you.  
>>  First item is approval of the agenda.  Have a motion to approve the agenda.  Do I have a second?  
>>  Second.  
>>  Discussion, David Santiago?  Any discussion?  All those in favor say aye.
>>  Aye.
>>  All opposed say no.  Motion carries.  Moving on to the consent agenda.  Any items that council members wish to pull from the consent for a separate vote?  
>>  I and J.  
>>  For a vote?  
>>  Yes.
>>  Absent items I and J.
>>  Second.  
>>  Motion by Troy Kent and second by Danny Robins.  Most and second has been made for the consent agenda minus items I and J.  All those in favor say aye.  Opposed say nay.  Motion carries.  First item, I. 
>>  This is approval to donate property for affordable housing.  Remember I had given you synopsis in an email last night?  We brought these and 2023 the Council direction was to try to sell 18 of them.  We were successful with seven of those.  We came back in January 2024 with 11 that did not sell.  This Council approved us to put them on affordable housing list which was then put out with this RFP.  These are the result of the RFP and Council direction of January 2024.  I will be happy to answer any questions.
>>  Jake Johansson?  
>>  Etsy habitat of humanity or recipients, have we ever have a problem with them?  
>>  There are three recipients and two habitats and one land trust.  No, there has not been any complaints.  
>>  Don Dempsey?  
>>  I don't know if we have any aerials I know you put it in the agenda packet.  The location of these properties?  Basically they are in field properties?  They are vacant lots with the neighborhoods?  
>>  Yes, sir.  
>>  Guys I'm sure you've seen while we're waiting for it but I know you have seen the maps.  My thoughts and I've said this consistently and I think it has been brought up by John.  I am not in favor of more incentivized development especially on the west side with all of the flooding.  Here's another example.  We are talking about building 12 more houses and there still development I don't care what label you attached to it.  It is development.  My thought, I think I have a way of killing two birds with one stone.  If you recall, have been pushing for more parks for our kids to play in.  We need Little League fields, football practice fields, more areas for kids to get outside and do more outdoor activities.  I think it was a study that was brought up about six months ago that said that we need if the west side has a small majority of the youth outdoor sports like Little League and soccer and all of that.  But we have less than half of the playing field for these kids to play on so there is a division.  I think we recognize as efficient see on the website for kids to play.  I know we look at a place in Orange city but that is more economic driven.  We don't have enough of an what I've seen in area is sandlot's for kids to play on the neighborhoods.  I always remember going up there was always the one vacant lot in the neighborhood where kids would go and play football or go play baseball or whatever.  It is a spot within the neighborhoods for kids to play after school.  I talked to the doctor earlier today and he called it a pocket park.  I think it is a really good name.  It has been done in other areas.  I would like to send the staff back to look at these areas because, I look at them and it looks like the majority of them are vacant lots that are located within neighborhoods.  In these neighborhoods there is no place, no empty lot for the kids to congregate after school and play tackle football or play kickball.  Would you say these properties could also feel that void?  
>>  That is a policy decision.  The current direction from counsel was to put these out for affordable housing.  The Council wishes to go in a different direction, staff will do that.  
>>  Danny Robins, do you have questions?  


>> DANNY ROBINS: I don't see any of these lots that are too big.  What is the square footage of these residential lots 50 x 100?  
>>  I have acreages.  They range from the one in DeLand, so sorry the one in Orange city is quarter acre lots on average.  That is the vast majority of them.  One of the ones in DeLand is almost half an acre.  All quarter acre and have acre.  
>>  Nothing that can be used for baseball field?  Could they be used if we look at one or two of them if they can be used for a small children's park for the neighborhood?  
>>  If that is the direction of counsel, would say these are all wooded lots.  This is taking on a new park in our portfolio of management.  And the operations of the park.  I have asked Tim Bailey to run numbers for us if counsel would like to hear those what it would take.  As a policy decision.  
>>  Don real quick instead of throwing out a blanket, we have given them direction two or 3×3 years on this.  Come back and done pretty much everything.  I understand your standpoint of where you want to be at.  I understand.  Did you have any specific properties in mind that you wanted to target in those neighborhoods?  That way we can narrow these down and keep it moving?  
>>  The ones with the number Street or addresses, I think a third of them and the rest of them is on the street but doesn't give a street address.  When I was able to find vacant lots, it seems like just looking for this diagram they appear to be in field for for neighborhoods.  The Number St. in Orange city.  Again we have to get kids out of the houses, off the phones and off of Nintendo and get them out in areas that do not require driving.  Just somewhere where the kids can congregate and play ball.  
>>  Do we have numbers on those?  Any examples?  
>>  Good afternoon.  I was asked to put together estimated cost to get these lots into a shape where you can recreate on.  Most of these lots or pretty much all of the lots are wooded.  Probably have to remove the trees and add grass.  You can play kickball, Troy Frisbee, hit a baseball and play catch.  Those of the kinds of things even walk your dog.  The trees would have the wooded areas would have to be removed.  We would have to identify if there is any permit issues if there is a historical tree that we have to work around.  In general, you probably have to clear cut the lock.  I am estimating the cost, the startup costs would include clearcutting, estimated side cost of quarter acre I'm looking at 27 pallets of side to cover this quarter acre.  It would be when it is established, it will take care of itself.  We would have to get it established.  There's cost associated with that plus signage, a trashcan, dog bag station.  Looking around $24,240 for startup costs.  From an operations standpoint, we are looking at 0.05 FTE and that would include trash collection, emptying the cans.  You're going to have all piles you have to get rid of.  I'm estimating an hour and and a half a week and we contract out for mowing.  Contract out for mowing is $45 per cut.  31 cuts per year about $1395 for mowing.  Staff costs for staff would be $2334.  If I calculated, is about $5189 per year.  


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: Was that per lot?  I'm looking at the image with the red gods and blue dots.  Are these buildable lots and no problems with them?  
>>  Yes, they are buildable lots.  


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: Are we restricted in any way from wanting to sell them?  
>>  These were on the listen you sell them the money has to go to affordable housing.


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: Because?  
>>  The state statute.  
>>  I think you're missing that they are not for sale.  


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: And nobody is buying them?  
>>  We have put them for auction.  


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: Do we have reserve on the option is that is what is happening?  A minimum?  They're auctioning these off, is there a minimum?  I'm trying to figure out if someone auction it for $500.  I'm just throwing a crazy number.  
>>  We go through this we identify these are buildable lots, if they can be used for affordable housing.  We look at what the minimum tax rate is.  In other words what is old on these parcels and that is saying the minimum.  We look at them, we are trying to discourage the purchase of them.  But we do want make sure we can cover the cost that is associated with the past due taxes.  


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: Do we know what and I know you may not be prepared, what are we going on taxes on average?  
>>  Can range anywhere from $5000 – $30,000.  That is identified as part of the process.  We do identify minimum on some of these parcels.  On others where it is an astronomical amount, we just want to get them reused.  The number one goal is to get them back into use.  
>>  Brad can add to it.  The whole mechanism that is in place where the list of properties come to you to designate for affordable housing.  That is a requirement in state law that you do that and you have to listen for three years.  That is how they ended up on this list.  
>>  We have been at this for three years.  
>>  We have been doing this exact situation for the nine years that I have been here.  What has happened is we identified those that can be used for affordable housing and those that are not we put them out to bid.  As we said these were put out to bid because this Council directed us to do so.  These are the ones that have come back and we have offered them twice for bid.  Now it is at the point in order to get these parcels which are in field and the Council has given us direction to utilize in field development as an incentive to prevent Greenfield.  We are in here trying to follow through on that so that way we put the parcels back into active use.  


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: I am not opposed to Don's idea but we don't need six or eight pocket parks, right?  I would support an idea that made two pocket parks.  I think the concept is great.  Maybe the other six, we put it out to the affordable housing legislatively required process.  Like the concept that I think we should move or get staff direction to move forward.  For me I'm speaking for myself just pick two that you like to keep her pocket parks.  And I will support you.  Maybe spread out amongst this map.  Thank you, Mr. chair.  
>>  The comment I have is relative to what was said shortly after we came on as a counselor these were the properties that we identified and I made reference to it in the last meeting.  That was a lot better for that type of design that you are talking about.  When I look at this and I don't think or see any thing that connects to each other that we can make a larger.  I have not seen too many parks that are one fourth acre in size.  I love the concept.  I do love it, you're right we need more outdoor activity areas.  But I also understand the need for what this has been designated for.  The fact to the cost, we are all conservatives.  Look at what the cost would be too do a park.  If $5189 a year per lot on average is what I overheard.  I like the idea but I will be interested in what the rest have to say.  Is there any other questions?  We do have one member of the public that would like to talk.  
>>  How many of these have existing?  
>>  One in Seville.  
>>  These are quarter acre lots is that right?  
>>  There is one in DeLand that is not on this map.  An orange city of the large one is .34 acres.  
>>  The one on West Volusia in DeLand?  
>>  The one on 18th St. and the one on 20th St. down below.  Any other questions?  
>>  Troy Kent questions?  Jake Johansson any questions?  Danny Robins?  I would like to hear from the public first.  David?  Thank you.  
>>  Good evening gentlemen, my name is David.  I'm an executive director for habitat of humanity.  If you want to see what we do in DeLand area you are welcome to come to the open house.  It is on the 25th at 517 W. Garrison avenue Which is one block over from the property on Volusia.  If we did receive the prophecy -- property on Volusia if you come out to Garrison, you will see we have built three houses on Garrison Avenue and transform that street.  It is a very nice place to live.  We would do the same thing for the Volusia County.  The reason I wanted to speak is because one of the properties is in Seville.  There is a house and abandoned house and I have been up there.  Most of the properties that we see are not the desirable ones.  This particular property is in Seville on a dirt road.  It is behind another house actually and to get volunteers up there, we are actually going to if we receive this property, we want to do a partnership with Magnolia tree farm.  They are going to supply the volunteers because they are up that way.  It is almost impossible to get volunteers to drive up there every week on every Saturday to help build a house.  So these are not always the most desirable locations for these properties.  The property on S. Orange avenue that is also a more remote as far as having a park.  It is not near anything.  There's only one other house on the street.  These are not the most desirable properties.  We would love to have them.  We will put very nice houses on them.  Lori and I build nice houses.  We use a lot of volunteers and getting the community together.  We're going to have a nice community bash on the 25th of next week.  We're going to have the whole Street.  It brings the whole community together.  It brings the community together to build these houses.  We have people coming from all over showing love to someone they don't know to help us build these houses.  The last party we had a Garrison, the whole Street came to me their neighbors.  This is a community event.  People notice when the stuff happens.  If we can have these lots to build affordable housing, it does bring people in the area around.  They are going to become new neighbors.  I implore you to approve this and let us do our thing and build affordable houses.  For people who are deserving and to address the point of who is buying these houses, we have a two year waiting list of people who live in DeLand for these houses.  We do not have enough dirt to build these houses.  We have a minimum two year waiting list.  Thank you. 
>>  We do have one other member of the public.  
>>  To answer your question the city of Daytona Beach has six pocket parks throughout the city.  We have one four blocks from my house.  It is one eigth of an acre.  They are popular and there are all over pocket parks in New York are constant.  It is not unusual to have pocket parks.  You do not have to pay play baseball in all of the pocket parks.  Most of them don't.  They are used.  Secondly, Daytona Beach has a similar program for affordable housing.  Unfortunately, we use it for the surrounding five counties.  Five counties can use our affordable housing.  I don't want Volusia County to have housing for Seminole County or Lake County or Flagler County.  We have enough need and that is why I'm asking to find out who we have and who is in these affordable housing?  Because if it is not going to Volusia County residents that we should make sure it should be Volusia County residents.  The understand why want you to know what the stats are?  We in Daytona Beach, what is the Volusia County doing?  
>>  Thank you Mr. Nicholson.  Ms. Lori?  
>>  Good afternoon gentlemen.  Thank you for the opportunity to speak.  I am Lori the CEO of habitat for greater Volusia County.  Last July this County of Volusia offered an RFP to affordable housing developers for these properties.  I just want to talk about money a little bit.  Your staff members shared with you that these properties are wooded.  A lot of times I think people think like you just get a property and you just start building, right?  No some of you have been involved in land development.  It is involved.  We are going to if you allow us to have these properties, I can speak for Habitat for Humanity and I believe I can speak for my colleague, David.  We are going to come in and spend at least eight dollars for every dollar that you're giving us.  Our investment, let's say for arguments sake that the property has a value of $25,000.  If we are going to invest another $200,000, we are going to take the property from being paying minimal taxes to paying property taxes, buying utilities.  Also most importantly, it will be housing people who hold essential jobs in this community.  In Habitat for Humanity our home owners hold jobs as certified nursing assistants in skilled nursing homes and assisted living facilities.  Their home health aides, practical nurses, patient care technicians in the hospitals.  Were registered nurse who was able to finish her RN degree because she had the stability of our habitat house.  She was a CNA when she started with us.  Radiology technicians, they work and other jobs in the community.  Their school bus drivers, there are bookkeepers, member services specialists and some of them work for the school board.  Some of them work for insurance companies, manufacturing, restaurants.  The affordability in this community and in this County is beyond what they can handle.  And yet they are working productive people of our community.  Someone mentioned, who are they?  For our programs at habitat for humanity, they have to live in our area working here for 12 months before they are even eligible.  These are people right now in your community.  We will take that property and will turn it into an investment of eight times which are giving us.  Please allow us to have these properties but we have been waiting a year with this RFP.  Your staff is wonderful to work with.  We appreciate them.  We want to invite you to every dedication of every house that we build on this property that you allow us to work on.  Thank you.  
>>  First off before I called you Troy Kent because I went from a question right into the comment.  My apologies Troy Kent go ahead.  


>> TROY KENT: Gentlemen, I won't be transparent and tell you where I am on this issue.  I have always been a fan of pocket parks when they make sense.  I give you a quick example.  Years ago on the beach there was a push to give riverfront land to property owners on either side.  Just give it to them and do not charge them anything just put it on the tax rolls.  I advocated for turning at least three of those into pocket parks where you can actually go to a passive park.  Not throw a ball that you can sit and watch the sunset and enjoy a quiet moment on a park bench.  I am pleased that we did that.  I'm an advocate for it when it makes sense.  For me with the mass, I would have to see how far away the park is from these locations.  I appreciate staff did exactly what we asked them to do.  We sent this back and we give you marching orders and you came back with it.  I appreciate Mr. Don Dempsey to get more open space.  I am not saying I am only a yes if it is on the waterway.  If there's a park nearby, do we need a passive pocket parked next to a park that we already have?  That is something to float out there.  And then, I am glad Chairman that you brought it up.  There is a cost associated with this.  Every time you do something like that, you are adding to the bottom line.  Not only taking it off the tax rolls but the annual maintenance that goes along with it.  Thank you.  
>>  Thank you Troy Kent.  
>>  It occurred to me during this discussion, I hear the council to look into pocket parks.  These properties go through an extensive process that includes and review by the city's.  They are reviewed by the public works department that looks at them for drainage and training facilities that can be made park like.  What I was thinking is because I think you hit it right on Mr. Troy Kent.  Some of it makes sense and some of them don't make sense.  We never really analyzed it in that manner.  So my thought would be if you want to add pocket parks to the list that we go through these properties which we will have more.  When these things come in, we get several lots or more a year.  We can then add that to the analysis.  Tim and Brad steam would have the ability to really look at this and see if it makes sense.  We can establish criteria of what would make good sense to have a pocket parked and some of the criteria you just talked about.  How close is it to another part?  Is it an area that is well lit and maintain?  I'm sure neighbors would have a different opinion right now over pocket Park where kids hang out in.  Some will be fine with that and some may not.  I think we need to go through a little bit more study before we put it into a pocket park.  I would be happy to add that to our list going forward and we can continue to program and analyze it and properly budget it and pick up pocket parks to this matter.  My suggestion would be then to decide with folks that are here who have gone through the process and are here to put their projects on these lands.  
>>  Jake Johansson?  


>> JAKE JOHANSSON: I would hope George staff if they don't in the future bring forth all options for anything that comes up.  This being the land piece.  I would like to know the ones that make sense.  If they don't tell it wise -- tell us why.  I'm sure there's a bunch of stuff out there that we did not talk about if it is one fourth acre or a little bit more for lands.  I like the pocket park idea.  We have them in Port Orange and they are all over the place.  They are a pain in the neck and you have to get everyone almost every day or two times a week to get the garbage.  If you don't, the neighbors will let you know about it.  When you have 10 – 15 of them, it is logistically tough.  Especially, I think we are on our own.  You have to bring the trailer in.  I do think it is a good idea.  Having said all of that there is, I have not been involved with habitat but when I was a city manager, we dealt with Lori and her team.  I've been to a few of the openings on the west side and the East side.  The neighborhood in Daytona that I have been intimately not associated with.  I have been to a bunch of them and the energy and the community that you see that those things, I would say to you do you want to pocket park or do you want this feeling of community?  In a world where we may not even know our neighbor that doesn't happen for habitat of humanity.  I imagine that the company as well.  The value of that and the value of knowing your neighbor and maybe getting your neighbors together to go to the park to ride your bicycle or whatever is probably for me in this world right now worth more than not knowing your neighbor.  Even though the pocket park might bring the same thing.  I think it is important that we move forward for all the reasons presented previous to that.  We allow this to go through as presented since we did not tell them to move forward in this direction.  The last thing I would say about what I do know and habitat for humanity, we are not giving people homes.  There building their own homes with habitat help.  It is amazing, Lori mentioned the type of people that are getting these homes and she's shared a story about someone who who is a reservist who is not able to get her home yet.  They are going to wait and she is going to get it when she gets back.  You know what I think about the military so I'm going to be for this as written.  I will entertain the pocket parks in the future for land opportunities.  
>>  Motion to approve item I and give direction to staff to incorporate pocket parks when available.
>>  Motion made by Mr. Robbins and second by Trent A. Don Dempsey any other discussion?  


>> DON DEMPSEY: I am going to be a no vote only because I think it is an overwhelming sentiment from Orange City people more so we have them in the meeting.  Everybody else is talking about flooding problems and we are adding 12 more developments for a lack of better words.  More and more development and I do not care what name you attach to it.  Affordable housing or whatever, it is still development.  Habitat for Humanity, I am assuming you are Chris's brother because you are the splitting image of him.  I have seen their work off of Boston, great organization.  But again I think the feeling of the public is no more development especially in the Orange City area.  I don't know why habitat doesn't bid on these at these auctions.  I don't know where they're getting their wood and materials but I'm sure that cost somebody money.  I don't know why people were not bidding on these parcels as opposed to a selling them.  I guess the one with did sell was I have $1 million on them.  I think a lot of people would like to see these are auctioned off and have the money go to road improvements that Danny keeps pushing for.  Or strategic buyouts of properties.  I think a lot of people will be in favor of that.  But we are doing more giveaways and we are using tax payers potential money to do will more development which is the last thing we want.  Especially in the Orange City area.  I don't think the timing is right for more development.  I thought by doing these pocket parks, we would be able to kill two birds with one stone because we would not be creating impervious services.  Giving kids a sandlot to play on, I am not asking it for it to be a lit field.  I been pushing for more parks since day one on this dais.  I'm in my third year now and no disrespect I know wheels of the government turns low.  I'm just trying to find more places for people -- kids to get out of the house.  I don't care if it is an economic generator, we have all of the community help in creating houses for habitat which is awesome.  I bet you dollars to donuts you have just as many people in the neighborhoods and just as many dads were willing to go out and cut the grass and do what they can do more and take and clear the land so the kids have a place to hang out and play in their own backyard.  I believe that creates a sense of neighborhood when the families are taking care of the kids hang out.  I know what we built freedom playground and I think Chris was there.  Freedom playground which is a couple boxer here, you talk about a neighborhood builder.  The whole community turned out about 30 years ago to build the freedom playground.  It is a central part for kids and families to hang out.  I do think it is far-fetched that these public parks or pocket parks would create the same vibe.  Freedom playground has been a huge success.  That was built by the community.  That is just what I think is better.  I am not trying to completely wipe out.  The Seville property make sense because it has a building on it and flooding doesn't seem to be much of a flooding issue.  Orange City what you have the constant reminder of the flooding problems, I am not saying all of them but look into these pieces.  I know the number of streets in the city there is some troubled kids that come out of the neighborhood.  I wanted to see kids get out and play.  I think we need to give them some spaces to do it and that is all.  If we can direct staff to go look into that area to see what they come up with and then bring it back for a vote that would be my preference.  
>>  The motion is made.  
>>  I understand.  Thanks guys.
>>  I am going to yield to, Danny.  
>>  Danny Robins?  


>> DANNY ROBINS: Should I modify my motion and I will be more than willing to do so to exclude two parcels that you coordinate with staff and let's keep this moving.  Would you be open to that?  
>>  I think we are all on board.  The problem is we have been given direction on this over and over.  You may not be on the prevailing side but still the majority.  We can't take some of this money and to put into this program.  We are limited to what we can do with some of the funds.  Would you like me to modify my motion to exclude two properties out of what was presented?  
>>  I just know it was two properties.  
>>  I was going to put up the map with the same recommendations so we are thinking alike.
>>  We can hash this out obviously right now, it wouldn't work so just leave it open.  Coordinate with staff on what properties that may work for you and what may not.  If they can make it work, great.  If not, I can adjust my motion.  


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: Staff to put up what I've thrown up there I was going to suggest something along those lines.  It will still move us along.  I just looked at this map and I circled those two properties only because geographically they look like they're in between both sides of the community.  It takes one from habitat and it takes one from bright community.  My thoughts Danny was to approve the remaining suggest to approve the remaining ones to those organizations as lots for affordable housing.  The unknown is, we don't know these two lots are viable.  So the caveat is that with the motion that we can modify and we withhold these two sites until staff looks at them to see if they are viable.  For them to give us a concept and a budget for this council to approve or deny in the future.  If nothing moves forward with it then we put them back on the block and give it back to habitat for humanity or by communities.  I love your concept but is premature.  It gives you something to move forward.  I think otherwise, we have a motion to move forward.  I think this is -- I think this is my and Danny's idea to give you something in the community.  If that is acceptable, I think we should do that.  
>>  David Santiago, I would retract my motion.  You can package your motion.  Don, are you okay with that?  
>>  Can we make a four lots?  [multiple Speakers] 
>>  Like Jake Johansson said, I like your idea but we are in the ninth inning.  What we are doing having these individuals show up and they have done what they were supposed to do.  He had the recommendation that he gave for future reference if we want to do that and it didn't work.  This is not the end of the properties.  They're going to be more.  I just think we move forward and if not we are doing what I hate and kicking the can down the road.  Motion remains stated by Danny Robins is still the same.  That being said, Chris would you call the roll on this?  
>>  David Santiago.
>>  Yes.
>>  Don Dempsey.
>>  Jake Johansson.
>>  Yes.
>>  Vice Chair Reinhart.
>>  Yes.
>>  Danny Robins.
>>  Yes.
>>  Motion carries 5/1.  Staff, do you need a vote for future reference?  George?  You have direction for future reference correct?  The next item up is similar and that is the approval for federal grant funds from bright community transfer development of affordable homeowner housing on infield lots.  
>>  Motion approved.
>>  Motion by Jake Johansson.  Second by Danny Robins.  Any discussion?  All those in favor, I don't think we need a roll call.  All those in favor say aye.
>>  Aye.
>>  Opposed?  Motion carries 5/1.  Thank you.  Thank you, staff.  We are getting to the consent agenda.  Moving on to item number three.  This is open public hearing for budget resolution and resolution and position of special assessment against nonpublic hospitals.  
>>  Good evening County Counsel.  What you have here is the hospital directed payment program specifically our local provider dissipation fund.  This is a program by levying special assessment of hospital which through their consultant have asked for.  We can then send that money up to the state to be the state match to state Medicaid funding which ultimately makes his way back to hospitals.  Ultimately benefit the hospitals that pay for this.  They have asked for this.  This is a little bit early this year related to the timing of federal legislation but this is the same program we have done for the third or fourth year now.  I will take any questions if you have.
>>  Motion to approve.
>>  Motion by Mr. Robbins to approve.
>>  Second Jake Johansson.  
>>  Any discussion?  All those in favor say, aye.
>>  Aye.
>>  All those opposed, nay.  Motion carries 6/0.  Thank you very much.  Item number four contract amendment for solid waste collection and recycling services with SCC environmental services of Florida, LLC.  Happy birthday by the way.  
>>  Good afternoon as a chair and council members.  
>>  Moved to approve.  [LAUGHTER] 
>>  You have 10 seconds left.  [LAUGHTER] 
>>  I can just start.  There we go.  We have two things and one is adjustments CPI rate adjustment for the SEC collecting contract.  They collect the household garbage in unincorporated areas.  The contract allowed them to request CPI adjustment based on CPI index for garbage collection which was slightly over 5%.  It is capped at five and they are requesting 5%.  They are also requesting another increase to account for the disposal fee cost at the landfill that have gone up.  Because of the increase to the waste collection, we are recommending an increase to non-ad valorem for households within unincorporated area.  Last year's assessment was $288, we are recommending an interest that might increase to $297 a year.  It allowed for the CPI adjustment as well as the ad valorem.  I am happy to answer any questions.  
>>  Motion made by David Santiago and second by Danny Robins.  Do you have a question?  
>>  Did we increase the tipping fees?  When was the last time we increase those?  
>>  Earlier in the year we increased the tipping fees on CPI.  This is not the tipping fees.  This is the waste collection.  This is for the unincorporated area.  
>>  Jake Johansson?  


>> JAKE JOHANSSON: For the reserves do you know the cost of that?  
>>  If you don't amend the SEC could choose to continue to the contract.  If we did not approve the non-ad valorem assessment the $800,000 will come out of the reserves.
>>  Thank you.  
>>  Troy Kent?  


>> TROY KENT: Did you say the last time we gave a rate increase?  
>>  Last year.  


>> TROY KENT: How much was that?  
>>  It was slightly less than that amount, I believe.  It was right around the same amount because SEC required the same 5%.  
>>  And from small incremental increases in not hammering people where you go five – seven years with no increase and then all of a sudden it is a massive hit people.  I do not like that.  To me, I want you to know as far as my comfort level this is like, I am on the edge.  To me it is the max for me.  
>>  Understood.  
>>  Any other questions for staff?  
>>  My limit is $925.  [LAUGHTER] 
>>  Jake Johansson.
>>  The motion has been made by David Santiago and second by Danny Robins.  All those in favor say, aye.  
>>  Aye.
>>  All those opposed, say no.  6/0.  Aviation administration grant at Daytona Beach international Airport for security systems of grades.  Mr. Cyrus?  
>>  Motion to approve.
>>  Do I hear a second?  
>>  Second, Jake Johansson.  
>>  Would you at least like to say hello?  
>>  Is that the facial recognition stuff?  
>>  Only if you have access to certain areas.  It is included.  
>>  The motion has been made by Danny Robins and seconded by Jake Johansson.  All those in favor say, aye.
>>  Aye.  
>>  Motion carries 6/0.  Thank you.  We appreciate it.  Item number six contract with three pump station located along Rhode Island's across from the University.  Mr. Bartlett?  Motion by Danny Robins and second by David Santiago.  
>>  I just want to say this is a giant station that move wastewater in Orange City area.  It is much needed and we are going to get it built.  Hopefully soon it will be coming in with a grant agreement to offset some of the construction.  Thank you.  
>>  Thank you very much.  Before as for the vote just so people know, we are not just arbitrarily passing.  We had the opportunity to hear this presentation by staff beforehand.  I didn't want to make it look like we are just pushing it through.  Thank you very much.  Motion made by Danny Robins and second by David Santiago.  All those in favor say, aye.
>>  Aye.
>>  Any opposed?  Motion passes 6/0.  He is back up again.  Item number seven waterfront property services, gator dredging for the Rattlesnake island dredging project to help our citizens down there and South East Volusia County.  
>>  Motion to approve.
>>  Second by Jake Johansson.  Any questions for staff?  
>>  This is $25 million which will be funded from the grant we received earlier.  It is the same funding for the project which is south of the inlet.  We are putting more sand on the beach and placing the dunes that was damage in the storms.
>>  Thank you very much.  I know Mr. Kent is best in the business for our beaches is standing right there.  We appreciate all the hard work and I'm glad you brought up the point with respect to the funding that is coming from grant funding.  Thank you very much.  Have a motion by Mr. Robbins and a second by Jake Johansson.  All those in favor say, aye.
>>  Aye.  
>>  All those opposed say no.  Motion 6/0.  Moving on to item number eight.  Amendment to loan agreements for South State Bank for capital improvement revenue notes series 2017 series 2019.  
>>  Motion to approve.  Do I have a second?  
>>  Jake Johansson second.  
>>  Any questions for staff?  Hearing no questions, all those in favor say aye.
>>  Aye.
>>  All those opposed say, no.  Motion carries 6/0.  Excellent job.  Item number 10.  Consideration item 10 for try -- [INDISCERNIBLE].  I'm sorry.  I just felt it.  Item number 95 year forecast for the general fund.  No wonder I wanted to skip over it.  [LAUGHTER] 
Go ahead, Ryan.  
>>  I sense the mood so I will go as fast as I can.  I am not going to cover their revenue expenditures.  I'm going to go straight to the forecast.  We have the library fund at the Roback millage rate estimated at 0.369.  This fund has been at Roback for the fifth or sixth year the fund will be at a full Roback presuming that is a rate that is adopted.  We do estimate in 2027 it will lead to stay at a flat rate.  Although years that a Roback is catching up as far as covering inflation and personnel changes.  With another Roback in 2028 and another flat rate in 2029.  This fund can cover under those scenarios.  Sales tax trust fund would not present, it is more of an demonstrated fun.  It started in FY 24 and the budget for 25 FY 23 because you are budgeting in the middle of the year.  We saw the decreases in 24, we are now seeing what we estimate will be another decrease in 25.  You had a big divergence between expectation of increases but then the reality of decreases.  That translates into FY 25 budget of nearly $30 million for sales tax.  Where the estimates is 27.1.  In future years including 26 budget we use the state estimating conference as a guideline.  There's a group or people in Tallahassee and state taxes important to the state budget.  They had 3% increase which is basically for the next four state fiscal years.  What they did not know is that the state was going to do some changes to the sales tax this year and was notably the court exemption.  The value if that is estimated to negate the 3% increase that the estimating conference.  It is on par with the 25 budget but each out year is estimated to go up by 3%.  The transfers are done based off of the percentage of the text that comes in related to the unincorporated area versus the incorporated area.  Stop me if you have any questions.  Law enforcement fund this is a little bit different and we do not present a five-year forecast in this one because it is a little bit unpredictable.  In this budget we have a presented if lack millage rate.  If you may recall last year, the millage rate increased so this is an improvement from a taxpayers perspective as far as rates began stable.  The shares budget total request from $140 million – 154 million little over 10% increase but can be covered with a flat millage rate.  The transfer from municipal service district school board contracts are going up the same amount that the sheriff budget is going up.  The transfer from the municipal service decision for police like services.  In past years especially when we're talking about how much the sheriff charges municipalities, we heard some things like is there double taxation?  You look at how much is being countywide 101 million and you look how much is being levied.  There's a different level of service in the unincorporated area.  The sheriff response to 9-1-1 calls like a -- [INDISCERNIBLE].  One other thing I will point out.  We did move and this will become important on the general fund side.  it is a $800,000 college and we anticipate it will carry on.  Basically when the sheriff make request to the budget progress in the past we were paying out of the general fund.  We are moving that to the law enforcement fund.  
>>  On the law enforcement fund, I should've known this answer but I'm going to ask in case someone does know.  I understand it was potential in play for a budget allocation from the state for the Sheriff's building.  Do we know is that is in motion still?  
>>  It is in motion.  As of today, we did not have it.  
>>  It is not in the budget?  
>>  Nodded this year's budget.  We did not receive it.  Not this year.  
>>  We do still have, it is not a fun we are presenting today.  In the fund we are setting up the building for the sheriff something I mentioned last time rather than transferring $30 million over the course of two years from the general fund, we are recommending to take out that for that.  That fund has a budget of debt proceeds of $30 million in expenditures of $30 million.  The $10 million that you're referring to did not make it into the state budget for this year.  I do understand the sheriff's office is going to try again next year.  
>>  If it was, where is it allocated are projected?  Thank you.  
>>  If we got it grants are done in budget amendments.  Municipal service district this fund is presented also at a flat millage rate across all years.  This fund was a Roback rate, full Roback rate from three – four years and FY 24.  After the rate was adopted for FY 24 before the budget was set counsel began the process of unwinding the communication services tax.  Communication services tax was around $3 million a year for this bond.  Three rollbacks in four years plus the tax being gone with effectively like five rollbacks at that point.  This fund is now in a deficit and that is what the blue line shows you.  Not a deficit overall, a structural deficit from annual revenues versus expenditures.  I still have a lot of reserves.  The blue line where it says prior year it is estimated that we will be pulling from reserves each year to make this budget balance.  We are spending one time money on recurring expenditures.  It is not the best practice but that is where we are at this point.  
>>  I was going to ask you, how much was that communications tax?  
>>  $3 Million a year.  
>>  David Santiago?  
>>  You are presenting this and want to make sure our understanding the numbers.  Before we look at what numbers are being proposed by George or anybody else.
>>  This includes the budget request that the sheriff already made and the current staffing levels with current service levels.  This is all if we are looking for feedback for counsel on the backs there is a desire to address service levels are funding.  
>>  To keep the service level -- to keep the service levels the same in the municipal services district, we have the substance -- subsidize that?  
>>  Let me just get to the slide.  The reserves in this fund, I know them off the top of my head.  I wish I can present them to you.  It was an agenda posted to the website.  It is around $30 million.  $3 Million per year gives you a long time before this actually becomes a problem that has to be addressed with either an expenditure reduction for service level reduction or a millage rate increase.  I will point out look at the first line of revenues and expenditures.  The first line of expenditures is how much is being transferred to the sheriff's office for unincorporated area patrol.  Essentially the property tax doesn't cover the amount that is transferred to the sheriff's office.  We are using utility tax on top of that.  In the future what is happening is the amount that the ad valorem is not keeping up with the sheriff's fund is going by.  In the future you have the address that.  But it could be a matter of what revenues you assigned to what expenditures.  It can be looked at increasing to fund the sheriff's office.  An increase at that time or six years from now to fund the sheriff's office.  


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: The purpose of the reserves is not to continue MRI?  It is not to continue funding everyday stuff.  That is typically for emergency or one-off things.  This is a problem.  
>>  This is a problem.  But we are not here recommending a millage rate increase this year.  When the amount we are pulling from reserves is relatively stable.  The gap is not actually growing.  If you were or if we were to stand in front of you and say we need a millage rate increase but we are sitting on $30 million of reserves that is problematic from a taxpayers perspective.  


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: I get that.  It is going to grow exponentially.  It is a problem if we do not address it or whatever we address is going to continue to grow and diminish our reserves year after year, right?  
>>  The amount we pull from reserves actually if you look at the forecast does go down in the last year forecast.  It is down to 3.2 instead of 3.5.  It continues to eat and to reserves but the gap is not going.


>>  Do we add to reserves every year?  


>>  No, we are pulling from reserves.  The amount we are pulling from reserves is that blue line.  It is still a problem.  


>>  I Thank you are trying to be an optimist and I get it.  I don't have a problem with it.  But I see that is a problem we have to address somehow.  Whatever the decision is.  Sorry.  I will let you continue.  


>>  Mr. Robins?  


>>  DANNY ROBINS: Thank you chair.  Ryan, real quick just backtracking.  I think I had some questions earlier.  For the sheriffs millage rate, what is the cap or the ceiling for that?  


>>  The mechanism we are using in statute is called define and forfeiture fund and the statute was limited to Mills.  


>>  What happens when we get that to millage rate cap someday? Where does that excess come from?  


>> If the sheriff budget request comes in to the point the two mills doesn't cover it anymore than the general fund would pick up the balance.


>> That is By state statute?


>> The two mills is by state statute.


>> Is there any projection of raising that where does that have to come from us? Just so it doesn't affect our long-term general fund.


>> I'm not aware of any statewide initiative. It would have to be something we prompt the legislature can we increase this, this is how we used the fund. If you want to do that he would pursue it through your legislative agenda.


>> Mr. Johansson?


>> JAKE JOHANSSON: Ryan, can you explain to us how that -- not why it is so big about how those reserves come to be


>> How do the preserves get to the point that they are?


>> JAKE JOHANSSON: Even in general.


>> Our funds levied and not used.


>> JAKE JOHANSSON: So as an accountant can I say it is a politician we are overtaxed ever so little? Possibly?


>> For the amount excess reserves.


>> JAKE JOHANSSON: Sure but we have more than we need apparently. I know we don't like to use reserves for operational costs, but we are a little in excess. I know you don't want to go down to zero. What I am understanding from you is that for now you are comfortable, however, it is still a bad practice. But putting my politician hat on, can I say we already text people for the stuff that we didn't use so now we can use it and feel kind of comfortable with that for now. But in the long run we are either going to have to get rid of services or raise taxes. Those are our two options, right? The trajectory we are on, and I'm not staying it's going to stay this way and I'm not going to blame anyone department but at the trajectory we are on, eventually one day we are going to use all our money to pay for in this case sheriff. But it could be any case. It could be infrastructure, it could be personnel until we start getting rid of things. In inside five years, I think we are uncomfortably okay, but eventually we are going to have to do something here. So do we start doing it now and take a look at where we are going to trim? But you can't trim down to the bone if we are not there already. When I understand that there's a lot of people who will say there's always room to trim in government. But we might have to take a serious look at what we are going to start getting rid of to pay for the things we want. Public safety, infrastructure, and the other mandatory items. Thanks.


>> You hit on one thing. Comfortable. That's the word I took away from that. It's not a good place to be using reserves on recurring expenses, but at least in this fund you have four years worth about years you were looking at the amount we are pulling is not going up. It's not like it's compounding exponentially. We just have a structural imbalance that would take 3.5 million dollars a year. If you start loving it now you would have the reserves stay where they are at.


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: I got your response there, but we don't see 23/24 there. We will use the first line on the expenditures, right? And you look at 24/25 and then 25/26 what's that going to be in 26/27. If there is a trend there across, then that number will go up.


>> I don't follow you because there is a 26/27. You don't have to guess, it's forecasted.


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: I'm continuing from there. Hold on, let me just move down the thing. You did think of that. Thank you.


>> I don't follow, but okay.


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: I removed the section covering the right side of the graph. The answer to my question is yes. Thank you. Good job.


>> I will move on now. Emergency medical services. This is one of the funds that is a recipient of a general fund subsidy. Since this is a fund that depend on the general fund, the next two funds are both in that vein. We are presenting the in the lead up to the general fund, which is our largest tax levy dollar wise. The EMS fund is in a good place. To reduce the transfer. That is our recommendation. To reduce the transfer by $1 million. Why is that? Medicaid, Medicare, the PMT program and Medicare rates have increased due to inflation. Medicare sets their rates related to medication in the Medicaid revenues are coming in from the PMT program. This fund has been over the last 5 to 7 years the beneficiary of extra money from that program. So it has built some reserves along the way. We also reanalyzed. The ambulance fee revenues that we have been seeing over the last few years and we trued up our estimates to a little bit higher. This is in line with what we have been seeing. On the ambulance fees are coming in higher than we previously budgeted, that means in the future years we can afford to decrease the subsidy. That decrease subsidy plays a big roll in the general fund budget. The other piece we have done is the aggregate operation savings. New 1.$5 million negative number there every year. That's in line with we have done in the general fund. We have $5 million we count on savings every year to balance the budget. In the EMS fund where is that coming from. It's a mix. Personnel and operating. If you look at the services budget estimate there is a pretty big difference there and that is based off of our ERP system forecast out based off of current staffing levels and what occurred for the rest of the year. What is going to happen for the total for the year? Historically there have been 1,000,000 1/2 dollars every year so by taking that into account you get a better picture where this fund is going to go. What I'm trying to stress here is we are not shortchanging this fund by decreasing the transfer. Has more revenues and every year it is had savings and expenditures. One more thing I want to point out. You will see something not budgeted for. We do plan on bringing that back is a midyear budget adjustment and that is 6.8 million dollars transferred to the general fund. Why that amount? That is the amount Council approved in November of CBD GR dollars that are going to be used for the renovation of the new EMS headquarter facility. They were previously earmarked to go toward that building now that it is around to help pay for that. We can transfer that money and help pay the capitol expenditures the general fund has instead. Beach management fun. This fund is only fund you see the slightly different document here. This is not our five-year forecast because I want to make sure. Want something to follow along that typically we don't talk about budget versus actuals, but we need to. Beach access fees for 2024. Last useful five year were 5.5 million. At this point based off of the data through May, extrapolated based off of our prior collection, like our prior seasonality. I'm not saying June is going to be the same as January. Obviously June is in the summer but how do we expect June to be compared to the last June's we've had. We take that seasonality into account. We estimate we will in the right 6.4 of the dollars which is an $881,000 increase over last year. For parking off beach based off the data we have through June, sorry, through May, we expect to land around 2.9 million dollars. That is 2.9 million dollars we didn't have before, but as a bit of foreshadowing we budgeted in the 25 budget 7.1 million dollars so yes we have 2.9 million dollars in revenue. Is it where we thought we would be based off the budget if you thought the budget was where we would be? No, because we are short of the 7.1 million dollars. Question.


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: Thank you Mr. Chair. How does that shortfall correlate or play a part in our expenses that we projected to run the program as it is? Understand my question?


>> I think your question might be answered if I keep going.


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: Okay.


>> I have used the exact same format and same lines we used in the five-year forecast so you can see the revenues and major expenditures. Those expenditures, I think where you are going the expenditures for on beach collection and off beach collection, the fees, those are the expenditure lines two and three. In the fourth column where it says beach be related. Actually, let me back up your first column 24, second column is 25, the third column is the difference and unclassified the difference into three different buckets of the difference related to beach fees which is the new revenues minus the beach fee collection expenditures. The difference that's related to nothing else, not the beach fees and not the general funds. It's kind of like the catchall is the middle column of the three below orange. The additional general fund contribution. I set it in a different column for easy totaling. So net of the new contract we are collecting nearly $1 million more estimated for 25 and that is taking into account the new model where residents do not pay. It is also taking into account the new contract. Under the new contract there is increased cost because we are putting in equipment for automation which will lead to them being open so it is a high level of customer service than what we have right now. If we did not have the additional million dollars, the additional subsidy from the general fund would be that second -- [AUDIO LOST]




>> You said shortfall, right? The 15 million.


>> If you don't mind, we forecast 7 million to receive for off beach parking. We only got a million or just under a million? By the end of the year so that is what you are talking about the shortfall from was estimated? Does that answer your question?


>> The estimate of 2.9 will play into the budget but for here when you are just comparing year-over-year, how did this year change compared to last year. We are up $1 million.


>> I'm talking about the subsidy from the general fund. 15 million. Repeat that section and then I will hone in Mont my question.


>> The subsidy from the general fund is the last two revenue lines at the 9.3 million in the 6.2. So the total was 15.5 or 15.6 actually. The new estimate subsidies, the 10.4 or 10.5, the next column over. You follow the lines I'm talking about? Let me see if I can make this thing draw. These two lines put together.


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: Combined.


>> There 15.5 for 24. They will be 1.8 million for 25.


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: Subsidy from the general fund? Okay. We are transferring more money to support this particular operation. That's what you are telling me?


>> To support the beach as a whole which includes lifeguards, not just the change the Council made related to the tolls.


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: But the tolls made money if I understood? Extra money.


>> Here is your extra money right here. These two lines. Let me go to the next slide.


>> Ryan -- chairman, do you mind? Just to clarify that last piece, because of the new program we put in place, it's actually $1 million more that if we didn't have this program the County would need to find an extra million dollars because the contract was up anyway with the beach total vendor. That was, regardless. Is that correct?


>> We are earning an additional million dollars in revenue while giving residents free access to the beach and a new contract with automation that opens all the ramps all the time.


>> Are you saying that Troy was right? [laughing]
$1 Million man. That's what I'm going to call you from now on.


>> If we had the exact same model last year, in other words if the cost were relatively the same you would have $1 million less in revenue, the residents would still be paying the $25 annual pass and we would not be charging for beach parking for nonresidents and we would not have the automation that opens. I will let him explain but there are other costs irrespective of the parking.


>> I'm glad that was my idea. Trying to see if you can get the annotation cleared. I hit clear and it doesn't clear. Technology. All right. So here is where the budgetary gap comes in. I'm going to skip to the off beach parking because I think that makes more sense. 2.9 million is the estimate. We budgeted for 7.1. It was hi. It was based off a consultant. They told us what to budget. That is where the shortfall comes in. It is still 2.9 million we didn't have but it is not as much as it is estimated to be.


>> I have a quick question. We estimated that would be how much? We received how much?


>> We estimate to receive 2.9.


>> 2.9 that we didn't have. And we already allocated that additional money to something else in our budget? To operate the beach functions?


>> The budget for FY 25 is balanced. Based on the 7.1. Your hitting right on it. We balanced back a higher expectations when the revenue comes short of budgetary expectations although higher than last year we have to make a budgetary adjustment somewhere else where else is there to make a budgetary adjustment. It is the general fund subsidy. That is going up related to budget. The amount it is changing is $6 million. It's only like 1.8 million dollars compared to last year. It is the difference between actual, comparing the estimates. I know it can be confusing. I trying to put it out on the slides for easy reference. That's really the main story of showing this fund. If you look at the expenditure side, estimate versus budget. The estimate takes into account the new contractor the on beach and off beach did not. That's where your biggest changes. If you look at the difference between 25 estimate and 26 budget the total expenditures are almost flat. 28 million versus 28.5 million expenditures. It is really the revenue side that is problematic. From a budgetary perspective. General fund. Any more questions on the beach fund? We are clear? We have this presented at a flat millage rate and the revenues and external expenses are really the story of why that is. External expenses we will cover on the
. Revenues, the $6 million budgetary gap from our expectations is one piece of it, but there are additional lines. I covered the sales tax fund and how we allocate that. This is the general fund piece of it. It's a 2.5 million dollar budget cap. State revenue sharing, a $3 million budget cap if you're looking at the pink or the orange, whatever they come across on your screen, two different numbers. The next is hospital Medicaid contributions. The reason that is going up is required state contribution is going up. The revenue is 79 percent of how it much we have to pay the state because counsel allocate 79 percent of our state required Medicaid contribution to the hospital districts. If the state makes us pay more we will collect more from the hospital districts. The revenue is up but it is only because expenditures are up even more. I will skip a couple other lines and go to investment income. I will highlight this is the best story in the revenue section is the investment income. We budgeted for 5.2 million. I can estimate and budget around 7.5 million based off of where the market is going. Our current investment rates, we have scaled that down. You can see it going down in future years we use data from the Federal Reserve and their expectations of interest rates to do that. Decreasing by almost $1 million. I mentioned this at the last council meeting. This is because the FCC previously allowed for commissions to be made on inmate phone calls. They are no longer going to allow that effective December 21, 2025. Our contract has to be modified in the commissions will go away. The constitutional officer excess fees. That is a blend of the three different offices to provide access fees to the general fund. That is the tax collector, property appraiser and supervisor of elections. Sheriffs access fees go into separate law enforcement. The big reason for the decrease is the tax collector. He is forecasting to spend additional money on building facilities and when he spends additional money with his commissions being set statutorily, we get less excess revenues back. So I will boil it down. The tax collector spends more in his budget than there is less to come to us. That leads to the difference in the two green lines, two green numbers other operating revenues down by almost $4 million and that is with investment revenues to help offset it a little bit that is counting $1 million of hospital district Medicaid contributions that have an offsetting expenditure increase. Councilmember Kent, you asked about capitol last meeting and I took that back and thought about what could I do to show you what we are doing. This section was mainly meant to address your question and comment last time about our millage rate and setting aside money for capitol. And still remains as we have so many funds difficult to do that everywhere but I wanted to show you in the general fund how much of the money we are levying for property taxes is going through versus how much is going toward capitol and the amount looks like it takes a decrease in the last year but that is because the capitol requests are also a law lowered. I fully expect the amounts you see as additions to reserves the right now as we get closer to those out years, they will probably become part of the capitol budget as more capitol becomes known that will be needed in FY 29. So it's relatively stable the amount we are putting toward capitol. We are not avoiding capitol obligations. I tried to put that out there to address your concern. The interfund transfers, the 6.8 million dollars is from the EMS fund. The 10.8 is some projects left over in covid funds that are related to corrections that are moving back into the general fund because we will cover correction projects going forward. Almost trying to wrap up some of the covid money and blend it back into the general fund. And then there is interest that fund earned that is never appropriated that we are going to transfer back into the general fund as well. The blue line use of prior fund balance or use of prior your amount set aside as reserves. You can see the adopted budget was $48 million, that was all tied to capitol projects. We are estimating $30 million for the primary differences related to the sheriff's office. Recommending a change in strategy instead of setting aside 15 million of 25 and 26 recommending to fund that with debt. We have the use less of the general fund reserves which keeps them around and I will talk more about reserves when we get to that slide. Expenditures. The first section is the elected offices. Your constitutional officers in the judiciary clerk and Guardian ad litem programs. Property appraisers budget. He has submitted to the state based off of what he submitted to the state we enter that into our budget system. It is not just the general fund, it is all our taxing fund like the tax collectors funds are paid. However, the general fund pays the largest piece. His budget includes the reserve budget of 1.5 million dollars for renovation of potential future facility consolidation. He wants to look at establishing a facility that would consolidate and could Holly Hill officially, but maybe Daytona and Newsom are not offices. He submitted that to the state and when they get that submission they will approve or deny it. Typically the Department of revenue approves with little modification. We have to anticipate funding that request based off of that. The tax collector line here, this is the other side of the story. Access fees are where you see the bigger impact this is the commissions based off of the percentage of tax, ad valorem taxes. The next line is capitol project by facilities. This year we had a one-time project for downstairs in this building required by statute for the County to pay for the primary locations. So that's what that was. It is no longer in expense expected in future years so it does help decrease that, but it is related to capitol here in the building. The elections budget is relatively stable as you can see across the forecast. Of note she submits a budget for 26. We forecast based on growth rate for future years on our historical growth rate. These are not her requests. Office of the Sheriff are a few expenses we agreed as part of the transition. Counsel agreed for the sheriff's office. I mentioned the fact we were moving sheriff's office capitol projects into the law enforcement fund. That is why you see this line go to zero for future years and then there is the debt service on the Sheriff administration. This is related to the strategy change. Instead of using $30 million of reserves, keep those around and pay for it over a 20 year period which will match under the public administration complex of intergenerational equity. It will match future users to the future expense. The judicial clerk line, most of the increase is related to the clerks budget. She did have a $380,000 increase. Her office is in a downturn right now because she's primarily funded by recording fees and recording fees are down. External expenses. Department of juvenile Justice, Medicaid, Department health and CRA payments are all things out of our control. Their state mandates, state amounts that need to be funded on these are the amounts we have been told to expect or extrapolations off of the current amounts but that is a total of a form of the dollar increase. I have information on all these but I will skip past it to try to move forward. On the County departments I like to think of these as the areas George has control over. He doesn't control the elected officials. The constitutional officers. He doesn't control the state-mandated expenses or external boards appointed by counsel but these are the area within George's control. Skip to the headline, the green lines. This is where the County manager budget request is down versus the prior year. Not to mention is it down, but there is formula dollars and personnel increases baked in here with other offsets and still is down. In lot of that was the interfund balancing we did. Taking that transfer down by $1 million. Some of it is capitol related. The court facility maintenance and projects. That was a courtroom project completed in 25. They are not going to have to budget for that in the future.


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: I want to digress 45 seconds ago. Maybe you can clarify. Still the same graph. I Thank you opened up where this is discretionary or operating budget for County operations George manages for us. Spoke the reoccurring peace there is a capitol slide.


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: Operating basically. He said along the lines the other stuff we don't have to have any control over it. So compared to the other stuff, I will say constitutional officers. We are coming in proposed here 2 million dollars less than last year. 1.6 less than last year.


>> That includes overcoming 4 million. Increases, retirement increases. I skipped past the assumption slide but we have four percent wage adjustment in the face of the union negotiations. We have to overcome all of those and still present this.


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: With the exception of capitol projects?


>> Those are actually down versus the 25 budget as well but the sheriff's office desk you got a little bit.


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: What I learned of all the increases are coming from the constitutional officers.


>> Your increases are on the slide here. External and constitutional officers and then the other piece even bigger are the external expenses is some of the revenue shortfalls.


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: A combination of both. But from an operating government perspective, we are down. We are proposing to spend less. If we adopt this, County Council is proposing to spend less than last year? Every other County related government entity is spending more. I want to make sure because we are going to get blamed. Going to come on my soapbox here. Are getting pressure for going back to roll back. That is where the pressure is coming politically. The elephant in the room. We are reducing but we are confined and restricted because of other forces that we don't control. Is that a fair statement, George?


>> Yeah, you are correct. We are down some of the others and it's not just the constitutional. DHA is the state itself that charges us. Medicaid son rail and other things that are all up. We overcome that with our operation.


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: I'm glad to add that because I want to make sure the source of the increases should be clearly defined and the decreases should be happening should be defined as well and that is the area we control.


>> There's a couple things because I can foresee the future questions. This is the general fund we are looking at. We will produce a total operating budget. I haven't sat and tabulated all this stuff after we do the forecast first and work on the budget. We have a large capitol project. We talked about the landfill. There are other projects. The total budget might be an increase, but related to property taxes the areas George controls is going down.


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: That is what they look at. Anything related to property taxes.


>> Sometimes we get quoted on our total budget.


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: They know how to get it right. I have seen them writing it down.


>> The only other thing I will highlight on the slide is the operation savings. We are basically planning on here is all these budget lines where we are decreasing and on top of that, like we do every year, we are anticipating 5 million will get grants for it. We want to spend it because of operational efficiencies or personal vacancies. The transfers, you can see the different transfers per we spent a long time talking about the beach, but there is the impact. Homeless initiatives is based off of counsel direction. It is actually the next agenda item for this is the amount of money I estimate we will need to set aside. It is in the budget resolution if that is passed by counsel so we are taking that into account. The group insurance fund, health insurance is of continual challenge and we require an additional one-time transfer to make up for it 2 million dollar gap we are budgeting for. That's an area we stay tuned because those costs are hard to control. The impact fee administration fund, those are one-time cleanups of things charged or balances that needed to be carry over. They already approved the transfer. The airport fund will be brought to you at a future budget amendment. The capitol plan was largely the same items presented at the last meeting. Other than reminding the sheriff office strategy changed, the first line. The only other thing on here that is not in the presentation you got two weeks ago is the set aside for road funding. We didn't have that in the presentation, but we put it here. This budget is balanced the $5 million. Part of the balance. It is the blue line on the slide. We are seeing reserves but you have $90 million worth of reserves and $32 million of budgets. So we are using one-time money for one-time expenses so it is not the same story. The reserve summary is presented here. One thing I'm putting forward on this slide and recommending is something that is a counsel goal to have 10 percent emergency reserves in all the taxing funds. When we set up the taxing fund the amount of levee is expected and it has continued that way. Doesn't have the capacity to build a 10 percent emergency reserve. We are recommending to set aside an equivalent amount because the sheriff's office in the event of an emergency that is in large part of our operating budget and they could have additional needs as well, and it is also a way to acknowledge the need for additional reserves in the face of some of the things we are talking about FEMA. It was covered well in the press last time about FEMA. What I said there stands still. The memo FEMA put out called actions to rebalance rules and disasters, it does say it is discussion and not final. But we continue to see news articles out there about FEMA and scale back FEMA, the changing of FEMA. If that memo was implemented and beach walk over some beach ramps were no longer eligible, part how we recover is the public assistance. I want to make sure that doesn't get confused with DCB DGR grants. They have a totally different purpose. They don't let you use them for the same assistance grants. It is not like you can mix those two together. I want to make that clear. If we have to fund beach ramps, if it is a bad storm hit the beach side as opposed to what the west side, it is about $10 million worth of beach repairs.


>> Reserves can only give us probably one storm.


>> The total cost of a storm if FEMA were to go away is $25-$30 million on the typical size we have gotten.


>> Remember, we haven't gotten the kind of hits.


>> Mr. Kent you had a question.


>> TROY KENT: I was going to make a motion to approve the five-year forecast. You can still talk.


>> Second by Mr. Santiago. Please continue.


>> The last one really we are highlighting. This is a little bit different. This is the one where I'm going to hope you give us guidance in the motion because there is an option here. Rollback millage or flat millage. This is the fire service fund, this is the last one I'm presenting so thank you for bearing with me.


>> Remember, we are going to be bringing the trim the next meeting. You still have plenty of time after that. You are getting artificial budget and setting the trim in July. In August we can make adjustments down. You can't really go up. At the end of the day we are looking for that kind of direction to see how you want the millage to be presented in the July meeting.


>> At a high level in two different forecasts. You can almost see it as a flip back and forth. Not much changes. What we are changing as the tax revenue in the reserves because we are still funding the entire budgetary requests for personnel services, operating expenses, the amount we need to set aside for commissions and probably one of the bigger items, interfund transfer to the fire capitol fund. These were the fire stations identified two weeks ago. This is the amount of money required to set aside to fund those projects and they are the same in both these forecasts. The only thing changing is the amount of taxes we are collecting in the amount of money we had. Reserves provide flexibility to respond to union negotiations, to respond to staffing levels, to respond to future capitol needs. If you have more reserves you can provide more of those things. That being said based on other current amount presented, the only differences the top line where it says ad valorem taxes and the gray line where it says revenues less expenditures and how that affects your ending reserves.


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: I want to make it easy. I recommend we mend the rollback on that one. Looking for guidance. You were the motion or, right?


>> What does the rest of the Council think about that? Rollback we are bringing the same amount, flat millage rate how much more does that bring in, Ryan?


>> RYAN: 47.1 versus 50.1 so another $3 million. For the fire fund.


>> It is for the fire fund. I am not A known to that right now. I would like to know where they counsel thinks on that because you talked about negotiations and pay raises and things like that.


>> Isn't that baked into the contracts already? We have a raise structure in place that is negotiated, right?


>> RYAN: What is in the forecast is the same forecast we applied across the County. We are actively in negotiations with the fire union for a new contract.


>> You had a question?


>> No. We are in negotiation right now. We just started. We have the money that we would give everybody else. And that has really been always our operating. Is not necessarily what they are asking for, but we are prepared to do what we have done for the rest of the organization.


>> RYAN: That is already baked in the numbers.


>> That number is.


>> I would agree with you. I will withdraw my motion.


>> We have the first motion on the floor.


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: I withdraw my motion and create a new motion or the direction is to go to rollback for the fire service fee.


>> Second that.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Mr. Johansen, you had a comment.


>> JAKE JOHANSSON: Not anymore.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Motion made to go back to rollback for the fire fund, second by Mr. Santiago. All those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. 6/0. Go to rollback.


>> RYAN: That was the last forecast. Tumor items here. The final steps or preliminary values. They will change ever so slightly when the property appraiser gives us the July 1 values. We will be back at the July 22 meeting. All the rates will be the ones we presented here along with the rollback rate Council voted on. Any additional questions.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Any questions?


>> To say thank you to Ryan. Presentation was well done.


>> You did it just right compared to last year. We are still picking up the parks.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: We are going to take a break. 6:15 PM say 6:35/6:40. 6:45? 6:45 PM. [Recess]


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Testing? Here we go. Call back to order. Thank you. Moving onto items 10. Consideration of local agreement for for shelter operating budget five-year funding commitment with enhanced oversight provisions.


>> Motion to approve.


>> JAKE JOHANSSON: Second, Johansen.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Motion by Santiago. Second by Jake Johansen. Any discussion? Presentation. All those in favor. Oh, we do have a public comment. John Nicholson let's go.


>> John Nicholson Beachside. A couple things. At our last meeting I know there was controversy. I also have a problem with it, but you have to realize I know that the largest beneficiary of the shelter is the city of Daytona Beach. I realize it's basically the East side of the County. But you also have to realize the second largest user of that facility is the County. And you guys are the County. Secondly, all 17 municipalities benefit by having that facility. So there may have been some issues. The issues may not have been handled correctly. Most of the problem was the two biggest supporters a shelter didn't get the answers that they thought they were entitled to. That is basically where most of it came from. But the shelters were confined. It is doing better than I thought it would do and it is in area of those hardest hit it is better for them personally. It is better for us as a community. Thank you.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Next up. Mike.


>> Mike, Port Orange Florida. I have to tell you I have known John Nicholson for a while. You can't get much past John's we must be doing something right. I want to reiterate how committed we are at the shelter, our Board of Directors, our executive director to do things right. I'm big on statistics. Being a basketball guy everything us to be statistics for me. I wanted to make sure we were very open and transparent with our numbers. I am pretty proud of those numbers. Last month 31 for residents ended up in permanent housing. We are now at 900 71. The County gave us dollars, the city gave us dollars to do the job. I know you won't believe it's a beneficial operation in the not going to say too much more except that you are all invited pretty soon to our celebration, which is not coming out of the budget. Our celebration we get our 1000 individual we put into permanent housing. That is all I have to say. Thank you for your consideration.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Thank you for your comments. Victoria?


>> Good evening. First I want to thank you. That was very much appreciated. During that time since then I've had an opportunity to work with the Doctor on getting the contract ironed out, which is what you are going to be voting on tonight. I want to thank him and his staff. It was just really nice to sit down and have a really good conversation. And I felt like it was good for everybody involved. I wanted to say, as Mike said, either this month or definitely by July our 1000 person. We are planning on September 21 on a Saturday afternoon at 1:00to 4:00we are going to have a shindig at the shelter. We are going to be inviting the entire County. Anybody is going to come. We will have the current residents who ever is they are giving tours of the shelter we have former residents who are going to be there to speak and other people as well and we would really like you to come because the County has been a vital supporter of the shelter just getting the place built. You may recall this or maybe not. In 2020 there was a co-grant. Was federal funding but he came through the County. We were able to add on to the shelter. We were able to add a quarantine area we really needed. We used it numerous times for covid outbreaks. Once when we had a lot of people with the flu. But it added needed space to the shelter and we were able to build a storage area which had not been built. These are the new things we had that you would be able to see. Most of you were probably out for the grand opening in 2019. But it has changed and we would love to have you there because you have been such a vital important piece to having the shelter operate over the last five years. That is what I have to say.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Motion by Mr. Robin, second by Mr. Johansen. Mr. Kent?


>> TROY KENT: Just briefly. To Mike, I want to say publicly you and I might not always agree on everything, but I appreciate when you get behind something and you believe in it. You show up and you will sit here as long as it takes and you talk from the heart. I appreciate that about you. Thanks chair.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: You're welcome. Any other discussion? All those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries 6/0. Thank you. Moving to item number 11. Public hearing for ordinance 2025 19 revising the provisions of chapter 14 related to the classification of dogs as dangerous dogs and the subsequent requirements associated with each. Motion made by Mr. Robbins, second by Mr. Johansson.


>> Mr. chairman interjected I know we have a detailed agenda item here. Happy to do a presentation if you would like, but this is updating the ordinance to conform to the new state law that takes effect July 1 which the governor has signed. In previously change the insurance requirement related to dangerous dogs. That remains in this ordinance. Happy to answer any questions if you have them.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Mr. Santiago? Appreciate that. Thank you. Mr. Dempsey?


>> DON DEMPSEY: What was the final insurance requirement by the new state statute?


>> The state statute was 100,000. At least.


>> DON DEMPSEY: All right. Thanks. Do you know the vote on that? If you know.


>> I don't believe I have that with me.


>> DON DEMPSEY: That's okay.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Any other discussion or questions? Motion by Mr. Robin, second by Mr. Johansson. All those in favor say aye.


>> We went by discussion just like that. I'm not going to rehash everything we talked about last time but now that the law is in place I am a no on this because if you recall from the last meeting, I believe there were 18 instances a dangerous dogs in the County. There's been there recidivism. We have the minimum enclosure and restraint in place. I don't think there has ever been an issue that once a dog is deemed dangerous it goes out invites again. I believe the estimate was the most we saw and any claims or damages is under 100,000 are generally it is under 100,000. I think because we don't know what the premiums would be for half a million as opposed to 1000, the legislature invented this out as well. The governor reviewed it and they deemed 100,000 to be appropriate. I just don't know if there is any rational basis to go above $100,000 when we have 100 percent success rate on confining and restraining dangerous dogs. The upper limits of any type of fight was $100,000. Just for more rhetoric making it over $100,000 just doesn't seem to be rational, my biggest fear is this is going to cause a lot of dogs to get the death sentence because the dog owners can't afford the extra $400,000 in coverage and it's going to cause them to have to get rid of these dogs that otherwise statistically are not going to reoffend based on the best prediction of the future is the past and I think we have a really good program in place. I don't feel we need to expand on it more than the legislature. As I said last time I am a no on it and I instantly know.


>> Just to clarify, this does not change insurance. You already decided that the sole purpose is to comply with the new state law which we have to do other way.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: The other has been discussed and voted on.


>> That is not part of this ordinance?


>> It is the same subject the dollar amount is just not changed because he already changed it.


>> The ordinance has been enacted?


>> The amount was already voted on in the previous meeting. This just coincides with what the state requires us to do.


>> At this point we can't readdress it?


>> Counsel can always readdress their ordinances, but the decision on the dollar amount has already been acted upon.


>> That is all I have to say about that. Mr. Kent?


>> TROY KENT: Just a couple of things. If you were on the prevailing side you could bring it back up. That's not what I wanted to say. I'm not saying you are the favorite councilman appear. I'm just saying if we did a blind test I wouldn't want to go against you with everyone writing a blind test of who their favorite is. And I love how impactful you are. But I wanted to say this before we voted on it. I love how you are a defense attorney and I am even feeling it up here for the dogs. You are a defense attorney for the dogs. I know you do. And I just wanted to say I appreciate that. Thanks.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: All right. We will revote just in case. First by Mr. [Name] Second by Mr. Johansson. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Motion carries 5/1. Moving on to item 12. Ordinance 2020 4007 truck parking a.k.a. Danny's law.


>> Motion to approve.


>> Second Johansson.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Motion made by Robbins, second Johansson. Do you want to expand on it? No? We have public comment? No? Nothing? All those in favor say aye. Opposed say no. Motion carries 6/0. All right. Moving onto comments. First up County manager? We do. Nevermind. I tried to. I didn't see it here. I should have known better.


>> Jeff tries all the time.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: John Nicholson. Is he in the audience?


>> I may be short but I am higher than the top. A couple things. I thought you guys had paid someone to help people get through the system. Did you all okay that? There was a gentleman who came by earlier in this happens often and there are enough people come here and to the city of Daytona Beach. He said I have been coming for six months and there's one thing and another. If he has one, let the staff know they can send them to somebody to help them get through this. It happens too often not to correct it. Secondly, I had a feeling when you have the extra 11 lots that went out for sale and they weren't purchased and then guess what? You give them away. The same people that would normally purchase them. And they know if they don't buy if they get it free. So is there a way of looking at that? This is happened more than once and as happened with our city. They sit there and they don't buy it and I remember they did not buy a property he wanted. He sat back and a week before it closed somebody else bought it so he lost 3 million bucks on a building on Main Street. I don't want us to lose on something that I believe we can see the writing on the wall. But the small parks, the public does a lot. Rainbow Park where they came and built this park and it is extremely successful. Our church had 500 by 500 foot lot and they told him go ahead. They put eight baseball fields and and they had thousands of kids all week long and so maybe we could do that. Just turn it over to the public. It's a thought. What is happening with FEMA? We have $13 million through the locked on Beach Street. Do we lose it if FEMA goes away? Lastly we had a group sitting here and it happened several times. Remember the cultural counsel sat until 8:00 at night before we voted. Because we have these meetings with our own staff. Is there a way of moving it forward? It took little Kirk if we could see a staff report and something else following behind can we move them up? Thank you.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Thank you for your comments. County manager?


>> A couple quick items. Some good news. Recently the County passed the action plan. We sent it to HUD. Follow what you guys asked and most of the money is going to be an infrastructure and mitigation. HUD approved the plan 20 days early. The six year clock started as a June 19. Also I have been reporting when a new city as a request for stormwater master plan funding and Daytona beach shores has done that. Just about every city has some sort of a stormwater plan study going on as we speak which will result eventually and quite a lot of projects. Lastly to let everyone know, the end of the month June 27 through July 7 I will be on a little family vacation visiting my parents up in Western New York. Suzanne will have the helm.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Thank you very much. County attorney?


>> I have nothing.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Mr. Santiago?


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: I just have one thing. If staff could give us a quick synopsis on where we are at with the billboard ordinance and, if I'm correct we gave them instructions to look into the possibilities of negotiating opportunities for funding for the County as it relates to a 1/1.


>> Mr. Santiago I will start and then I will ask Mr. Soria to be available. As he briefed me that is in the legal department offices. They are doing research on the ordinance and other ordinances on the state as well as looking at the swamp down amount to talk with the company about negotiating that. We expect this will be back to you in 60 to 90 days.


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: I know there is one company, I will disclose it here. The attorney reached out and said to me that he was looking at options and it seemed positive. He didn't say go pound sand so I think there is an opportunity for a party to party agreement. However, there are two companies.


>> There are multiple companies. Clear channel and another that starts with, I can't remember. One of the concerns is because it is not a County asset. Could meander into that unconstitutional criteria because we are issuing a regulatory permit and exacting funds. We would have to prove that connection so that is one of the main stumbling blocks. We are in discussion with the previous company that was here. They sent a draft. We are looking at the draft to see from a regulatory site and if a 1/1 swap an additional revenue is permissible from a constitutional standpoint.


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: I'm with you. I did it, the forcing of it is where we have that constitutional question, right? But correct me if I'm wrong. This legislative decision on whether or not we go 1/1, 4/1, that is purely legislative. What ever we want, whatever we feel on that particular day. What I would encourage staff to do is get all parties in the room. I know this is going to be work but get all parties in the room saying you have a chance of a counsel of possibly going 1/1. What are you giving us? I see some smirks. The County needs potholes filled. You got me. But get them in a room. That is the best way to start. If you have pieces missing get them in a room. That is very lucrative. I want to think outside the box. Thank you. That's all and God.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Mr. Dempsey?


>> DON DEMPSEY: I was just curious if we could maybe have somebody, I don't know if you are free back there but can we get an update on the basin studies being done? How far along each of them are. I'm sure a lot of people are wondering how they are progressing.


>> I think we have close to half of them underway. They are basically in the data gathering mode. You approved quite a few of them at counsel. Some of them have been smaller so the manager could improve. Basically the first steps are the data gathering. Into establishing the existing model so they can model the storm events. The of the big ones, the larger basins we have the smaller ones in places like that. They are on their way. We are hoping by early next year we will have some of them finishing up and recommending a series of projects hopefully in time to utilize that money Mr. Reckenwald mentioned with the money just approved.


>> DON DEMPSEY: Having undergone the Westside basin studies?


>> There are a couple you will see shortly. To come through. We are still working through Lake Helen as well. DeBary has not requested one.


>> DON DEMPSEY: Thank you.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Mr. Johansson?


>> JAKE JOHANSSON: Thank you. Thanks for the update on the billboards. I would like clarification. Pour been just walked back up there. I'm very interested in Mallard Lake. We all are. We hear about it every other week. What confuses me is what we call it and what the citizens are calling it. I would like it to be the same. It means a lot to me. If Mallard Lake is called Mallard Lake I would like to treat it like a lake. If Miller Pond is a pond I want to treat it as a pawn. If Miller basin is a basin, I want to treat it as a basin. If it can be all three, let me know.


>> In front of you if you will indulge, this is an excerpt from the staff report from the water management district in 2012 when we apply for the permit to increase capacity at Miller Lake. They call it Miller Lake. They are the authority. This idea we can tell them to do anything, I don't know where that is coming from. They control the water.


>> JAKE JOHANSSON: I understand that. I know the citizens have gone up and talk to St. John's as well.


>> Real quick, the highlighted section. This is from 2012. This is after the 2004 storms. They talk about how historically it is basically dried. In other words it was probably exposed. But flooded almost its banks in the early 80s and during much of 2003 to 2006 and 2010. I want to point that out because that was before the situation they referred to add oriole Oak. The upper edges characterized by debt and declining live oaks following extensive upland flooding. Again, 2012. We have heard the folks talk about oaks. This is the chart you've seen quite a bit. February 1984. In lot of water in that lake. 86 a lot of water. 88 it is drying out. 94 pretty dry. 99 a little bit of water. 2003, a little wetter. Then again, if you look at the rain chart the pattern you are going to see is a lot of rain one ear, fold the next. A little bit of rain and then dry. That is February before the 2004 storms. May 2005 that is May after the 2004 storms. They talk about there's a lot of water in their then it dissipated after the storms. This is made. A lot of water in the lake. In 2005 roughly 6 months after the '04 storms. November still pretty wet.


>> JAKE JOHANSSON: Just tell me when the development came.


>> '06 still wet, dried out in '07, there is Faye pretty wet. That was the event that took out 1792. That is December. That is a full year after Faye. This lake drains slowly naturally. This is the decade of dry I talked about in a lot of my presentations. Dry, a little wetter. That is March '17. That is the year the Royal Oak situation started. It's also the year we started seeing an increase in rainfall. March 2018, after Hurricane Irma you have Matthew and '16, Irma in '17. Still pretty wet in '19. '21, '22. I want to look at '22. '22 is a lot drier. That area dug out, I don't know if it will let me. This area right here is where the County dug out and created extra volume completely dry. The reason I want to show that is its look at the year 2021. Right at our average rainfall. In 2022 it dried out and in '23 wet, October '24. The point in trying to make with this is going back to the 80s, it has flooded before in terms of it has filled up with water before. And those tend to correspond increased amounts of rain. They corresponds right there. I know there is pending litigation. I think that's all they want to say on that.


>> JAKE JOHANSSON: That is fair. I will request of the chairman. I guess I won't be here in July. If we come back in August if this hasn't been shown as a point of privilege after comments before people get up and leave. Not because I want to say I told you so. I want to make sure we don't get just a piece of the information. This is a yearly wrong of what it looked like showing even before the development that it did Evan flow. And I truly believe our water patterns are -- to begin with. And it will be dry again and people will be complaining they don't have any water anymore. I really would like to see this right up front soon after public comment so we could kind of discuss the reality of the history of the events.


>> Jake, quick question if you don't mind. I love that idea. My fear is after public comments they leave.
If we made an adjustment for one meeting and did it right before public comments.


>> Or made it an agenda item.


>> We would have to make an adjustment. Agenda item 3 Miller Lake discussion and they will stay for that and discuss it because it will be an agenda item.


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: Can I add something Mr. chair? I think that is fine as long as we can self-control ourselves and be careful what we say because of the litigation. Lets stick to what we did here today.


>> How about we just let staff do a picture show.


>> Can it be done as an agenda item just for staff presentation, no discussion


>> Or I could post that on the website.


>> JAKE JOHANSSON: Please do that at a minimum.


>> MICHAEL DYER: I don't speak because their attorney is not here. I'm not going to go back on fourth litigation publicly anyway. But everything you say and then says or anyone else from the County on this, you will be a witness. Just to say be cautious. Ben has already done it tonight. If you want to repeat that, that is fine.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Mr. Dempsey.


>> DON DEMPSEY: Because a litigation I don't think we should do it.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Understood.


>> JAKE JOHANSSON: Well, it's out there in the universe anyhow. Thank you very much for the history lesson, Ben. My last item, chairman, I was confused but I will not be at the July 22 meeting. I apologize for that but I will bring everybody home some salmon.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Very good. That's all? Mr. Kent.


>> TROY KENT: Just a couple brief items this evening before we leave. I wanted to publicly say you nailed it tonight. You did a really good job chairing this meeting. I know it for your first time doing that it is a daunting endeavor. If I didn't know it was your first time I would've thought it was here 500th time.


>> Is your favorite now?


>> TROY KENT: Don't make me write it down on a piece of paper. My next comment is to Mr. John Nichols in the audience. We don't always see eye to eye but I agree with 100 percent everything you said tonight. I felt like you were on fire so thank you for that. George and staff, the weekly update, I'm appreciative where showing pictures because to me it is important to see of the ditches being cleaned and cleared. We need to make sure we are getting that message out to the news outlets because it's important for our residents to know that we have been working on this month before hurricane season. We don't wait for hurricane season, we are prepared. We are clearing ditches we are making sure our residents are safe in the event any type a huge rain event comes this way. So I'm pleased we are doing that. I agree completely with Mr. Santiago two meetings ago when I needed your help with more beach lifeguards. We all know there are two ways to get something done. Political pressure immediate pressure. When I talked to staff and I wasn't feeling I was getting the support I was asking for, I agree with you. We should not be controlling staff from the dais. But when you are pushed into a corner and you don't have any other way to get it done, I brought it up and I'm not sorry I brought it up. I'm glad that I did. I want to say I am appreciative of staffs efforts. There has been movement, there are more lifeguards on the North Penn. Suzanne has her finger on the pulse and she's involved in the discussions and I'm not going to say that alone, but that puts me more at ease because you are a task manager. You hold people accountable and I Thank you have really good ideas and I'm appreciative of you being part of that. I'm sure George put you in that role for a reason. I want to give you an update and say there has been more lifeguard coverage. When you call it seven miles or nine miles, but when you have one or two lifeguard stations in seven or nine miles, not okay. I wouldn't be okay if it was in your district, and I'm not okay with that in mind. There has been in improvement and I appreciate that. Last but not least, remember a year ago tomorrow I wanted to tell my wife happy anniversary because it was 19 years but it only felt like 20. Remember that? Because I was reminded of it so I'm going to try to make up for that and say tomorrow I want to wish my lovely wife happy 20 years married and it only feels like 20.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Made up for it.


>> TROY KENT: With.have a wonderful evening everybody.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Thank you Mr. Kent. Mr. Robbins?


>> DANNY ROBINS: Thank you chairman. Counsel, a couple months ago you gave me the leeway to speak of their northwest solution when it came to Springs, and in doing so I met a group called mighty River recovery. Executive Director Joe belonged. They are one of the only private entities in group staff active permitting sites doing independent studies on the St. John's and in some of the lakes, Northwest Volusia. Pretty impartial group identifying issues with water quality in the St. John's. One of their main focuses regrouping vegetation, addressing management practices because honestly, they haven't changed in about 60+ years. I included just for staff, just for the Council and the public a little bit about them and what ultimately my goal is to see if we can help them out in any way. I'm going to ask the Council for support for, I think it would be very beneficial for each and every one of us to meet the people in this organization. Especially Joe, very knowledgeable. To have them come in the next meeting or two for a 15, 20 minute presentation showing people what they do. I can put that in the form of the motion to have them come in. Just a presentation.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Could they do it in 10 minutes do you think?


>> You saw my meeting tonight.


>> DANNY ROBINS: 15, 20 tops. Are you guys good with that? Ultimately guys, they are all self-funded and this might be something the County, we could partnership with them somehow in the next fiscal year to help out with the test sites and whatnot. I appreciate it. County manager, do you think come in the next meeting is probably already booked up.


>> Probably August. Do you have a preference of day or night.


>> DANNY ROBINS: I would say during the day.


>> Probably the first meeting in August.


>> DANNY ROBINS: I will forward you his contact information. The slideshow just gives you, touches on a little bit of what they do. We don't have to go through it all now obviously. If someone wants to get understanding of exactly what they do and have accomplished, it's all there and they are doing great work. Other than that, I think that's it.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Thank you. All I have is just a couple things. First off, NCA NDA, thank you for that. The national dance national cheerleading. We won the contract for four more years. That helps out the ocean center. Everything that helps them out. That was a huge undertaking so hats off to our advertising at the ready. They worked very hard. There was some competition out there. Vegas was talking about it and other areas were talking about it, all of which made presentations in Daytona one it.


>> Thank you chairman. You are right about all that but people who have not been to art ocean center, it's an absolute gem. The place is gorgeous. It serves the need of what they are looking for and they know that. That ocean center, the money mentioned, the right people you put in place, that is one of the reasons they made a good decision and locked it up for four years.


>> With respect adding the item moved out of that TDT tourist development tax was removed and so there is no threat of losing that this year. When we talk about our legislative asks we will address that for next year. The person behind that in Tallahassee has already made the comment we would trade again which would severely impact us for the operation of our ocean center. You stand a potential chance of losing that. Talk about that with three growing vegetation. We started a project some time ago. I'm sorry guys. We started a project in addition to many of the other aspects are part of it was growing mangroves. As you know they help clean the water and they will be doing a story on that this evening on the news and I will be doing an interview with good morning Orlando tomorrow morning about the mangroves and some of the second chance initiatives. That being said, thank you George for touring Marion County jail. I told you sheriffs Woods is a character. Leave a much smaller farm. It was perfect for them to go see. Brad, thank you for accommodating us as well. Was it 2500 chickens, free range and they lay an average of 1400 eggs per day.


>> A lot of scrambled eggs.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Imagine the food cost savings become very happy. Incorporated you for accommodating me on that and we will see more to come on that. It was. They do have cattle out there as well. A lot of pigs. There are only four out there on the of 55. But they also have a full-fledged farm. The inmates work it. It keeps them out of trouble. Excellent. That is all I have got. I won't say anymore. With that being said, 7:30 p.m. we adjourned.


.
























































































































What is the cap or the ceiling for that?  


>>  The mechanism is called the Finan forfeiture fund and the statute is limited to two mills.  


>>  What happens when we hit that?  Someday where does that excess come from?  


>>  If the sheriff budget request comes in to the point the two mills doesn't cover it anymore than the general fund would pick up the balance.  


>>  That is By state statute?  


>>  The two mills is by state statute.  


>>  Is there any projection of raising that where does that have to come from us?  Just so it doesn't affect our long-term general fund.  


>>  I'm not aware of any statewide initiative.  It would have to be something we prompt the legislature can we increase this, this is how we used the fund.  If you want to do that he would pursue it through your legislative agenda.  


>>  Mr. Johansson?  


>> JAKE JOHANSSON: Ryan, can you explain to us how that -- not why it is so big about how those reserves come to be 


>>  How do the preserves get to the point that they are?  


>> JAKE JOHANSSON: Even in general. 


>>  Our funds levied and not used.  


>> JAKE JOHANSSON: So as an accountant can I say it is a politician we are overtaxed ever so little?  Possibly?  


>>  For the amount excess reserves.  


>> JAKE JOHANSSON: Sure but we have more than we need apparently.  I know we don't like to use reserves for operational costs, but we are a little in excess.  I know you don't want to go down to zero.  What I am understanding from you is that for now you are comfortable, however, it is still a bad practice.  But putting my politician hat on, can I say we already text people for the stuff that we didn't use so now we can use it and feel kind of comfortable with that for now.  But in the long run we are either going to have to get rid of services or raise taxes.  Those are our two options, right?  The trajectory we are on, and I'm not staying it's going to stay this way and I'm not going to blame anyone department but at the trajectory we are on, eventually one day we are going to use all our money to pay for in this case sheriff.  But it could be any case.  It could be infrastructure, it could be personnel until we start getting rid of things.  In inside five years, I think we are uncomfortably okay, but eventually we are going to have to do something here.  So do we start doing it now and take a look at where we are going to trim?  But you can't trim down to the bone if we are not there already.  When I understand that there's a lot of people who will say there's always room to trim in government.  But we might have to take a serious look at what we are going to start getting rid of to pay for the things we want.  Public safety, infrastructure, and the other mandatory items.  Thanks.  


>>  You hit on one thing.  Comfortable.  That's the word I took away from that.  It's not a good place to be using reserves on recurring expenses, but at least in this fund you have four years worth about years you were looking at the amount we are pulling is not going up.  It's not like it's compounding exponentially.  We just have a structural imbalance that would take 3.5 million dollars a year.  If you start loving it now you would have the reserves stay where they are at.  


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: I got your response there, but we don't see 23/24 there.  We will use the first line on the expenditures, right?  And you look at 24/25 and then 25/26 what's that going to be in 26/27.  If there is a trend there across, then that number will go up.  


>>  I don't follow you because there is a 26/27.  You don't have to guess, it's forecasted.  


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: I'm continuing from there.  Hold on, let me just move down the thing.  You did think of that.  Thank you.  


>>  I don't follow, but okay.  


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: I removed the section covering the right side of the graph.  The answer to my question is yes.  Thank you.  Good job.  


>>  I will move on now.  Emergency medical services.  This is one of the funds that is a recipient of a general fund subsidy.  Since this is a fund that depend on the general fund, the next two funds are both in that vein.  We are presenting the in the lead up to the general fund, which is our largest tax levy dollar wise.  The EMS fund is in a good place.  To reduce the transfer.  That is our recommendation.  To reduce the transfer by $1 million.  Why is that?  Medicaid, Medicare, the PMT program and Medicare rates have increased due to inflation.  Medicare sets their rates related to medication in the Medicaid revenues are coming in from the PMT program.  This fund has been over the last 5 to 7 years the beneficiary of extra money from that program.  So it has built some reserves along the way.  We also reanalyzed.  The ambulance fee revenues that we have been seeing over the last few years and we trued up our estimates to a little bit higher.  This is in line with what we have been seeing.  On the ambulance fees are coming in higher than we previously budgeted, that means in the future years we can afford to decrease the subsidy.  That decrease subsidy plays a big roll in the general fund budget.  The other piece we have done is the aggregate operation savings.  New 1.$5 million negative number there every year.  That's in line with we have done in the general fund.  We have $5 million we count on savings every year to balance the budget.  In the EMS fund where is that coming from.  It's a mix.  Personnel and operating.  If you look at the services budget estimate there is a pretty big difference there and that is based off of our ERP system forecast out based off of current staffing levels and what occurred for the rest of the year.  What is going to happen for the total for the year?  Historically there have been 1,000,000 1/2 dollars every year so by taking that into account you get a better picture where this fund is going to go.  What I'm trying to stress here is we are not shortchanging this fund by decreasing the transfer.  Has more revenues and every year it is had savings and expenditures.  One more thing I want to point out.  You will see something not budgeted for.  We do plan on bringing that back is a midyear budget adjustment and that is 6.8 million dollars transferred to the general fund.  Why that amount?  That is the amount Council approved in November of CBD GR dollars that are going to be used for the renovation of the new EMS headquarter facility.  They were previously earmarked to go toward that building now that it is around to help pay for that.  We can transfer that money and help pay the capitol expenditures the general fund has instead.  Beach management fun.  This fund is only fund you see the slightly different document here.  This is not our five-year forecast because I want to make sure.  Want something to follow along that typically we don't talk about budget versus actuals, but we need to.  Beach access fees for 2024.  Last useful five year were 5.5 million.  At this point based off of the data through May, extrapolated based off of our prior collection, like our prior seasonality.  I'm not saying June is going to be the same as January.  Obviously June is in the summer but how do we expect June to be compared to the last June's we've had.  We take that seasonality into account.  We estimate we will in the right 6.4 of the dollars which is an $881,000 increase over last year.  For parking off beach based off the data we have through June, sorry, through May, we expect to land around 2.9 million dollars.  That is 2.9 million dollars we didn't have before, but as a bit of foreshadowing we budgeted in the 25 budget 7.1 million dollars so yes we have 2.9 million dollars in revenue.  Is it where we thought we would be based off the budget if you thought the budget was where we would be?  No, because we are short of the 7.1 million dollars.  Question.


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: Thank you Mr. Chair.  How does that shortfall correlate or play a part in our expenses that we projected to run the program as it is?  Understand my question?  


>>  I think your question might be answered if I keep going.


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: Okay.  


>>  I have used the exact same format and same lines we used in the five-year forecast so you can see the revenues and major expenditures.  Those expenditures, I think where you are going the expenditures for on beach collection and off beach collection, the fees, those are the expenditure lines two and three.  In the fourth column where it says beach be related.  Actually, let me back up your first column 24, second column is 25, the third column is the difference and unclassified the difference into three different buckets of the difference related to beach fees which is the new revenues minus the beach fee collection expenditures.  The difference that's related to nothing else, not the beach fees and not the general funds.  It's kind of like the catchall is the middle column of the three below orange.  The additional general fund contribution.  I set it in a different column for easy totaling.  So net of the new contract we are collecting nearly $1 million more estimated for 25 and that is taking into account the new model where residents do not pay.  It is also taking into account the new contract.  Under the new contract there is increased cost because we are putting in equipment for automation which will lead to them being open so it is a high level of customer service than what we have right now.  If we did not have the additional million dollars, the additional subsidy from the general fund would be that second -- [AUDIO LOST] 




>>  You said shortfall, right?  The 15 million.  


>>  If you don't mind, we forecast 7 million to receive for off beach parking.  We only got a million or just under a million?  By the end of the year so that is what you are talking about the shortfall from was estimated?  Does that answer your question?  


>>  The estimate of 2.9 will play into the budget but for here when you are just comparing year-over-year, how did this year change compared to last year.  We are up $1 million.  


>>  I'm talking about the subsidy from the general fund.  15 million.  Repeat that section and then I will hone in Mont my question.  


>>  The subsidy from the general fund is the last two revenue lines at the 9.3 million in the 6.2.  So the total was 15.5 or 15.6 actually.  The new estimate subsidies, the 10.4 or 10.5, the next column over.  You follow the lines I'm talking about?  Let me see if I can make this thing draw.  These two lines put together.  


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: Combined.  


>>  There 15.5 for 24.  They will be 1.8 million for 25.  


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: Subsidy from the general fund?  Okay.  We are transferring more money to support this particular operation.  That's what you are telling me?  


>>  To support the beach as a whole which includes lifeguards, not just the change the Council made related to the tolls.  


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: But the tolls made money if I understood?  Extra money.  


>>  Here is your extra money right here.  These two lines.  Let me go to the next slide.  


>>  Ryan -- chairman, do you mind?  Just to clarify that last piece, because of the new program we put in place, it's actually $1 million more that if we didn't have this program the County would need to find an extra million dollars because the contract was up anyway with the beach total vendor.  That was, regardless.  Is that correct?  


>>  We are earning an additional million dollars in revenue while giving residents free access to the beach and a new contract with automation that opens all the ramps all the time.  


>>  Are you saying that Troy was right?  [laughing] 
$1 Million man.  That's what I'm going to call you from now on.  


>>  If we had the exact same model last year, in other words if the cost were relatively the same you would have $1 million less in revenue, the residents would still be paying the $25 annual pass and we would not be charging for beach parking for nonresidents and we would not have the automation that opens.  I will let him explain but there are other costs irrespective of the parking.  


>>  I'm glad that was my idea.  Trying to see if you can get the annotation cleared.  I hit clear and it doesn't clear.  Technology.  All right.  So here is where the budgetary gap comes in.  I'm going to skip to the off beach parking because I think that makes more sense.  2.9 million is the estimate.  We budgeted for 7.1.  It was hi.  It was based off a consultant.  They told us what to budget.  That is where the shortfall comes in.  It is still 2.9 million we didn't have but it is not as much as it is estimated to be.  


>>  I have a quick question.  We estimated that would be how much?  We received how much?  


>>  We estimate to receive 2.9.  


>>  2.9 that we didn't have.  And we already allocated that additional money to something else in our budget?  To operate the beach functions?  


>>  The budget for FY 25 is balanced.  Based on the 7.1.  Your hitting right on it.  We balanced back a higher expectations when the revenue comes short of budgetary expectations although higher than last year we have to make a budgetary adjustment somewhere else where else is there to make a budgetary adjustment.  It is the general fund subsidy.  That is going up related to budget.  The amount it is changing is $6 million.  It's only like 1.8 million dollars compared to last year.  It is the difference between actual, comparing the estimates.  I know it can be confusing.  I trying to put it out on the slides for easy reference.  That's really the main story of showing this fund.  If you look at the expenditure side, estimate versus budget.  The estimate takes into account the new contractor the on beach and off beach did not.  That's where your biggest changes.  If you look at the difference between 25 estimate and 26 budget the total expenditures are almost flat.  28 million versus 28.5 million expenditures.  It is really the revenue side that is problematic.  From a budgetary perspective.  General fund.  Any more questions on the beach fund?  We are clear?  We have this presented at a flat millage rate and the revenues and external expenses are really the story of why that is.  External expenses we will cover on the 
.  Revenues, the $6 million budgetary gap from our expectations is one piece of it, but there are additional lines.  I covered the sales tax fund and how we allocate that.  This is the general fund piece of it.  It's a 2.5 million dollar budget cap.  State revenue sharing, a $3 million budget cap if you're looking at the pink or the orange, whatever they come across on your screen, two different numbers.  The next is hospital Medicaid contributions.  The reason that is going up is required state contribution is going up.  The revenue is 79 percent of how it much we have to pay the state because counsel allocate 79 percent of our state required Medicaid contribution to the hospital districts.  If the state makes us pay more we will collect more from the hospital districts.  The revenue is up but it is only because expenditures are up even more.  I will skip a couple other lines and go to investment income.  I will highlight this is the best story in the revenue section is the investment income.  We budgeted for 5.2 million.  I can estimate and budget around 7.5 million based off of where the market is going.  Our current investment rates, we have scaled that down.  You can see it going down in future years we use data from the Federal Reserve and their expectations of interest rates to do that.  Decreasing by almost $1 million.  I mentioned this at the last council meeting.  This is because the FCC previously allowed for commissions to be made on inmate phone calls.  They are no longer going to allow that effective December 21, 2025.  Our contract has to be modified in the commissions will go away.  The constitutional officer excess fees.  That is a blend of the three different offices to provide access fees to the general fund.  That is the tax collector, property appraiser and supervisor of elections.  Sheriffs access fees go into separate law enforcement.  The big reason for the decrease is the tax collector.  He is forecasting to spend additional money on building facilities and when he spends additional money with his commissions being set statutorily, we get less excess revenues back.  So I will boil it down.  The tax collector spends more in his budget than there is less to come to us.  That leads to the difference in the two green lines, two green numbers other operating revenues down by almost $4 million and that is with investment revenues to help offset it a little bit that is counting $1 million of hospital district Medicaid contributions that have an offsetting expenditure increase.  Councilmember Kent, you asked about capitol last meeting and I took that back and thought about what could I do to show you what we are doing.  This section was mainly meant to address your question and comment last time about our millage rate and setting aside money for capitol.  And still remains as we have so many funds difficult to do that everywhere but I wanted to show you in the general fund how much of the money we are levying for property taxes is going through versus how much is going toward capitol and the amount looks like it takes a decrease in the last year but that is because the capitol requests are also a law lowered.  I fully expect the amounts you see as additions to reserves the right now as we get closer to those out years, they will probably become part of the capitol budget as more capitol becomes known that will be needed in FY 29.  So it's relatively stable the amount we are putting toward capitol.  We are not avoiding capitol obligations.  I tried to put that out there to address your concern.  The interfund transfers, the 6.8 million dollars is from the EMS fund.  The 10.8 is some projects left over in covid funds that are related to corrections that are moving back into the general fund because we will cover correction projects going forward.  Almost trying to wrap up some of the covid money and blend it back into the general fund.  And then there is interest that fund earned that is never appropriated that we are going to transfer back into the general fund as well.  The blue line use of prior fund balance or use of prior your amount set aside as reserves.  You can see the adopted budget was $48 million, that was all tied to capitol projects.  We are estimating $30 million for the primary differences related to the sheriff's office. Recommending a change in strategy instead of setting aside 15 million of 25 and 26 recommending to fund that with debt.  We have the use less of the general fund reserves which keeps them around and I will talk more about reserves when we get to that slide.  Expenditures.  The first section is the elected offices.  Your constitutional officers in the judiciary clerk and Guardian ad litem programs.  Property appraisers budget.  He has submitted to the state based off of what he submitted to the state we enter that into our budget system.  It is not just the general fund, it is all our taxing fund like the tax collectors funds are paid.  However, the general fund pays the largest piece.  His budget includes the reserve budget of 1.5 million dollars for renovation of potential future facility consolidation.  He wants to look at establishing a facility that would consolidate and could Holly Hill officially, but maybe Daytona and Newsom are not offices.  He submitted that to the state and when they get that submission they will approve or deny it.  Typically the Department of revenue approves with little modification.  We have to anticipate funding that request based off of that.  The tax collector line here, this is the other side of the story.  Access fees are where you see the bigger impact this is the commissions based off of the percentage of tax, ad valorem taxes.  The next line is capitol project by facilities.  This year we had a one-time project for downstairs in this building required by statute for the County to pay for the primary locations.  So that's what that was.  It is no longer in expense expected in future years so it does help decrease that, but it is related to capitol here in the building.  The elections budget is relatively stable as you can see across the forecast.  Of note she submits a budget for 26.  We forecast based on growth rate for future years on our historical growth rate.  These are not her requests.  Office of the Sheriff are a few expenses we agreed as part of the transition.  Counsel agreed for the sheriff's office. I mentioned the fact we were moving sheriff's office capitol projects into the law enforcement fund.  That is why you see this line go to zero for future years and then there is the debt service on the Sheriff administration.  This is related to the strategy change.  Instead of using $30 million of reserves, keep those around and pay for it over a 20 year period which will match under the public administration complex of intergenerational equity.  It will match future users to the future expense.  The judicial clerk line, most of the increase is related to the clerks budget.  She did have a $380,000 increase.  Her office is in a downturn right now because she's primarily funded by recording fees and recording fees are down.  External expenses.  Department of juvenile Justice, Medicaid, Department health and CRA payments are all things out of our control.  Their state mandates, state amounts that need to be funded on these are the amounts we have been told to expect or extrapolations off of the current amounts but that is a total of a form of the dollar increase.  I have information on all these but I will skip past it to try to move forward.  On the County departments I like to think of these as the areas George has control over.  He doesn't control the elected officials.  The constitutional officers.  He doesn't control the state-mandated expenses or external boards appointed by counsel but these are the area within George's control.  Skip to the headline, the green lines.  This is where the County manager budget request is down versus the prior year.  Not to mention is it down, but there is formula dollars and personnel increases baked in here with other offsets and still is down.  In lot of that was the interfund balancing we did.  Taking that transfer down by $1 million.  Some of it is capitol related.  The court facility maintenance and projects.  That was a courtroom project completed in 25.  They are not going to have to budget for that in the future.  


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: I want to digress 45 seconds ago.  Maybe you can clarify.  Still the same graph.  I Thank you opened up where this is discretionary or operating budget for County operations George manages for us.  Spoke the reoccurring peace there is a capitol slide.  


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: Operating basically.  He said along the lines the other stuff we don't have to have any control over it.  So compared to the other stuff, I will say constitutional officers.  We are coming in proposed here 2 million dollars less than last year.  1.6 less than last year.  


>>  That includes overcoming 4 million.  Increases, retirement increases.  I skipped past the assumption slide but we have four percent wage adjustment in the face of the union negotiations.  We have to overcome all of those and still present this.  


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: With the exception of capitol projects?  


>>  Those are actually down versus the 25 budget as well but the sheriff's office desk you got a little bit.  


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: What I learned of all the increases are coming from the constitutional officers.  


>>  Your increases are on the slide here.  External and constitutional officers and then the other piece even bigger are the external expenses is some of the revenue shortfalls.


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: A combination of both.  But from an operating government perspective, we are down.  We are proposing to spend less.  If we adopt this, County Council is proposing to spend less than last year?  Every other County related government entity is spending more.  I want to make sure because we are going to get blamed.  Going to come on my soapbox here.  Are getting pressure for going back to roll back.  That is where the pressure is coming politically.  The elephant in the room.  We are reducing but we are confined and restricted because of other forces that we don't control.  Is that a fair statement, George?  


>>  Yeah, you are correct.  We are down some of the others and it's not just the constitutional.  DHA is the state itself that charges us.  Medicaid son rail and other things that are all up.  We overcome that with our operation.  


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: I'm glad to add that because I want to make sure the source of the increases should be clearly defined and the decreases should be happening should be defined as well and that is the area we control.  


>>  There's a couple things because I can foresee the future questions.  This is the general fund we are looking at.  We will produce a total operating budget.  I haven't sat and tabulated all this stuff after we do the forecast first and work on the budget.  We have a large capitol project.  We talked about the landfill.  There are other projects.  The total budget might be an increase, but related to property taxes the areas George controls is going down.  


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: That is what they look at.  Anything related to property taxes.  


>>  Sometimes we get quoted on our total budget.  


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: They know how to get it right.  I have seen them writing it down.  


>>  The only other thing I will highlight on the slide is the operation savings.  We are basically planning on here is all these budget lines where we are decreasing and on top of that, like we do every year, we are anticipating 5 million will get grants for it.  We want to spend it because of operational efficiencies or personal vacancies.  The transfers, you can see the different transfers per we spent a long time talking about the beach, but there is the impact.  Homeless initiatives is based off of counsel direction.  It is actually the next agenda item for this is the amount of money I estimate we will need to set aside.  It is in the budget resolution if that is passed by counsel so we are taking that into account.  The group insurance fund, health insurance is of continual challenge and we require an additional one-time transfer to make up for it 2 million dollar gap we are budgeting for.  That's an area we stay tuned because those costs are hard to control.  The impact fee administration fund, those are one-time cleanups of things charged or balances that needed to be carry over.  They already approved the transfer.  The airport fund will be brought to you at a future budget amendment.  The capitol plan was largely the same items presented at the last meeting.  Other than reminding the sheriff office strategy changed, the first line.  The only other thing on here that is not in the presentation you got two weeks ago is the set aside for road funding.  We didn't have that in the presentation, but we put it here.  This budget is balanced the $5 million.  Part of the balance.  It is the blue line on the slide.  We are seeing reserves but you have $90 million worth of reserves and $32 million of budgets.  So we are using one-time money for one-time expenses so it is not the same story.  The reserve summary is presented here.  One thing I'm putting forward on this slide and recommending is something that is a counsel goal to have 10 percent emergency reserves in all the taxing funds.  When we set up the taxing fund the amount of levee is expected and it has continued that way.  Doesn't have the capacity to build a 10 percent emergency reserve.  We are recommending to set aside an equivalent amount because the sheriff's office in the event of an emergency that is in large part of our operating budget and they could have additional needs as well, and it is also a way to acknowledge the need for additional reserves in the face of some of the things we are talking about FEMA.  It was covered well in the press last time about FEMA.  What I said there stands still.  The memo FEMA put out called actions to rebalance rules and disasters, it does say it is discussion and not final.  But we continue to see news articles out there about FEMA and scale back FEMA, the changing of FEMA.  If that memo was implemented and beach walk over some beach ramps were no longer eligible, part how we recover is the public assistance.  I want to make sure that doesn't get confused with DCB DGR grants.  They have a totally different purpose.  They don't let you use them for the same assistance grants.  It is not like you can mix those two together.  I want to make that clear.  If we have to fund beach ramps, if it is a bad storm hit the beach side as opposed to what the west side, it is about $10 million worth of beach repairs.  


>>  Reserves can only give us probably one storm.  


>>  The total cost of a storm if FEMA were to go away is $25-$30 million on the typical size we have gotten.  


>>  Remember, we haven't gotten the kind of hits.  


>>  Mr. Kent you had a question.


>> TROY KENT: I was going to make a motion to approve the five-year forecast.  You can still talk.  


>>  Second by Mr. Santiago.  Please continue.  


>>  The last one really we are highlighting.  This is a little bit different.  This is the one where I'm going to hope you give us guidance in the motion because there is an option here.  Rollback millage or flat millage.  This is the fire service fund, this is the last one I'm presenting so thank you for bearing with me.  


>>  Remember, we are going to be bringing the trim the next meeting.  You still have plenty of time after that.  You are getting artificial budget and setting the trim in July.  In August we can make adjustments down.  You can't really go up.  At the end of the day we are looking for that kind of direction to see how you want the millage to be presented in the July meeting.  


>>  At a high level in two different forecasts.  You can almost see it as a flip back and forth.  Not much changes.  What we are changing as the tax revenue in the reserves because we are still funding the entire budgetary requests for personnel services, operating expenses, the amount we need to set aside for commissions and probably one of the bigger items, interfund transfer to the fire capitol fund.  These were the fire stations identified two weeks ago.  This is the amount of money required to set aside to fund those projects and they are the same in both these forecasts.  The only thing changing is the amount of taxes we are collecting in the amount of money we had.  Reserves provide flexibility to respond to union negotiations, to respond to staffing levels, to respond to future capitol needs.  If you have more reserves you can provide more of those things.  That being said based on other current amount presented, the only differences the top line where it says ad valorem taxes and the gray line where it says revenues less expenditures and how that affects your ending reserves.


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: I want to make it easy.  I recommend we mend the rollback on that one.  Looking for guidance.  You were the motion or, right?  


>>  What does the rest of the Council think about that?  Rollback we are bringing the same amount, flat millage rate how much more does that bring in, Ryan?  


>> RYAN: 47.1 versus 50.1 so another $3 million.  For the fire fund.  


>>  It is for the fire fund.  I am not A known to that right now.  I would like to know where they counsel thinks on that because you talked about negotiations and pay raises and things like that.  


>>  Isn't that baked into the contracts already?  We have a raise structure in place that is negotiated, right?  


>> RYAN: What is in the forecast is the same forecast we applied across the County.  We are actively in negotiations with the fire union for a new contract.  


>>  You had a question?  


>>  No.  We are in negotiation right now.  We just started.  We have the money that we would give everybody else.  And that has really been always our operating.  Is not necessarily what they are asking for, but we are prepared to do what we have done for the rest of the organization.  


>> RYAN: That is already baked in the numbers.  


>>  That number is.  


>>  I would agree with you.  I will withdraw my motion.  


>>  We have the first motion on the floor.  


>>  DAVID SANTIAGO: I withdraw my motion and create a new motion or the direction is to go to rollback for the fire service fee.  


>>  Second that.  


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Mr. Johansen, you had a comment.


>> JAKE JOHANSSON: Not anymore.  


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Motion made to go back to rollback for the fire fund, second by Mr. Santiago.  All those in favor say aye.  Opposed say no.  6/0.  Go to rollback.  


>> RYAN: That was the last forecast.  Tumor items here.  The final steps or preliminary values.  They will change ever so slightly when the property appraiser gives us the July 1 values.  We will be back at the July 22 meeting.  All the rates will be the ones we presented here along with the rollback rate Council voted on.  Any additional questions.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Any questions?  


>>  To say thank you to Ryan.  Presentation was well done.  


>>  You did it just right compared to last year.  We are still picking up the parks.  


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: We are going to take a break. 6:15 PM say 6:35/6:40. 6:45?  6:45 PM.  [Recess] 


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Testing?  Here we go.  Call back to order.  Thank you.  Moving onto items 10.  Consideration of local agreement for for shelter operating budget five-year funding commitment with enhanced oversight provisions.  


>>  Motion to approve.  


>> JAKE JOHANSSON: Second, Johansen.  


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Motion by Santiago.  Second by Jake Johansen.  Any discussion?  Presentation.  All those in favor.  Oh, we do have a public comment.  John Nicholson let's go.  


>>  John Nicholson Beachside.  A couple things.  At our last meeting I know there was controversy.  I also have a problem with it, but you have to realize I know that the largest beneficiary of the shelter is the city of Daytona Beach.  I realize it's basically the East side of the County.  But you also have to realize the second largest user of that facility is the County.  And you guys are the County.  Secondly, all 17 municipalities benefit by having that facility.  So there may have been some issues.  The issues may not have been handled correctly.  Most of the problem was the two biggest supporters a shelter didn't get the answers that they thought they were entitled to.  That is basically where most of it came from.  But the shelters were confined.  It is doing better than I thought it would do and it is in area of those hardest hit it is better for them personally.  It is better for us as a community.  Thank you.  


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Next up.  Mike.  


>>  Mike, Port Orange Florida.  I have to tell you I have known John Nicholson for a while.  You can't get much past John's we must be doing something right.  I want to reiterate how committed we are at the shelter, our Board of Directors, our executive director to do things right.  I'm big on statistics.  Being a basketball guy everything us to be statistics for me.  I wanted to make sure we were very open and transparent with our numbers.  I am pretty proud of those numbers.  Last month 31 for residents ended up in permanent housing.  We are now at 900 71.  The County gave us dollars, the city gave us dollars to do the job.  I know you won't believe it's a beneficial operation in the not going to say too much more except that you are all invited pretty soon to our celebration, which is not coming out of the budget.  Our celebration we get our 1000 individual we put into permanent housing.  That is all I have to say.  Thank you for your consideration.  


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Thank you for your comments.  Victoria?  


>>  Good evening.  First I want to thank you.  That was very much appreciated.  During that time since then I've had an opportunity to work with the Doctor on getting the contract ironed out, which is what you are going to be voting on tonight.  I want to thank him and his staff.  It was just really nice to sit down and have a really good conversation.  And I felt like it was good for everybody involved.  I wanted to say, as Mike said, either this month or definitely by July our 1000 person.  We are planning on September 21 on a Saturday afternoon at 1:00to 4:00we are going to have a shindig at the shelter.  We are going to be inviting the entire County.  Anybody is going to come.  We will have the current residents who ever is they are giving tours of the shelter we have former residents who are going to be there to speak and other people as well and we would really like you to come because the County has been a vital supporter of the shelter just getting the place built.  You may recall this or maybe not.  In 2020 there was a co-grant.  Was federal funding but he came through the County.  We were able to add on to the shelter.  We were able to add a quarantine area we really needed.  We used it numerous times for covid outbreaks.  Once when we had a lot of people with the flu.  But it added needed space to the shelter and we were able to build a storage area which had not been built.  These are the new things we had that you would be able to see.  Most of you were probably out for the grand opening in 2019.  But it has changed and we would love to have you there because you have been such a vital important piece to having the shelter operate over the last five years.  That is what I have to say.  


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Motion by Mr. Robin, second by Mr. Johansen.  Mr. Kent?  


>> TROY KENT: Just briefly.  To Mike, I want to say publicly you and I might not always agree on everything, but I appreciate when you get behind something and you believe in it.  You show up and you will sit here as long as it takes and you talk from the heart.  I appreciate that about you.  Thanks chair.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: You're welcome.  Any other discussion?  All those in favor say aye.  Opposed say no.  Motion carries 6/0.  Thank you.  Moving to item number 11.  Public hearing for ordinance 2025 19 revising the provisions of chapter 14 related to the classification of dogs as dangerous dogs and the subsequent requirements associated with each.  Motion made by Mr. Robbins, second by Mr. Johansson.  


>>  Mr. chairman interjected I know we have a detailed agenda item here.  Happy to do a presentation if you would like, but this is updating the ordinance to conform to the new state law that takes effect July 1 which the governor has signed.  In previously change the insurance requirement related to dangerous dogs.  That remains in this ordinance.  Happy to answer any questions if you have them.  


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Mr. Santiago?  Appreciate that.  Thank you.  Mr. Dempsey?  


>> DON DEMPSEY: What was the final insurance requirement by the new state statute?  


>>  The state statute was 100,000.  At least.


>> DON DEMPSEY: All right.  Thanks.  Do you know the vote on that?  If you know.  


>>  I don't believe I have that with me.  


>> DON DEMPSEY: That's okay.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Any other discussion or questions?  Motion by Mr. Robin, second by Mr. Johansson.  All those in favor say aye.  


>>  We went by discussion just like that.  I'm not going to rehash everything we talked about last time but now that the law is in place I am a no on this because if you recall from the last meeting, I believe there were 18 instances a dangerous dogs in the County.  There's been there recidivism.  We have the minimum enclosure and restraint in place.  I don't think there has ever been an issue that once a dog is deemed dangerous it goes out invites again.  I believe the estimate was the most we saw and any claims or damages is under 100,000 are generally it is under 100,000.  I think because we don't know what the premiums would be for half a million as opposed to 1000, the legislature invented this out as well.  The governor reviewed it and they deemed 100,000 to be appropriate.  I just don't know if there is any rational basis to go above $100,000 when we have 100 percent success rate on confining and restraining dangerous dogs.  The upper limits of any type of fight was $100,000.  Just for more rhetoric making it over $100,000 just doesn't seem to be rational, my biggest fear is this is going to cause a lot of dogs to get the death sentence because the dog owners can't afford the extra $400,000 in coverage and it's going to cause them to have to get rid of these dogs that otherwise statistically are not going to reoffend based on the best prediction of the future is the past and I think we have a really good program in place.  I don't feel we need to expand on it more than the legislature.  As I said last time I am a no on it and I instantly know.  


>>  Just to clarify, this does not change insurance.  You already decided that the sole purpose is to comply with the new state law which we have to do other way.  


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: The other has been discussed and voted on.  


>>  That is not part of this ordinance?  


>>  It is the same subject the dollar amount is just not changed because he already changed it.  


>>  The ordinance has been enacted?  


>>  The amount was already voted on in the previous meeting.  This just coincides with what the state requires us to do.  


>>  At this point we can't readdress it?  


>>  Counsel can always readdress their ordinances, but the decision on the dollar amount has already been acted upon.  


>>  That is all I have to say about that.  Mr. Kent?  


>> TROY KENT: Just a couple of things.  If you were on the prevailing side you could bring it back up.  That's not what I wanted to say.  I'm not saying you are the favorite councilman appear.  I'm just saying if we did a blind test I wouldn't want to go against you with everyone writing a blind test of who their favorite is.  And I love how impactful you are.  But I wanted to say this before we voted on it.  I love how you are a defense attorney and I am even feeling it up here for the dogs.  You are a defense attorney for the dogs.  I know you do.  And I just wanted to say I appreciate that.  Thanks.  


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: All right.  We will revote just in case.  First by Mr. [Name] Second by Mr. Johansson.  All those in favor say aye.  Opposed?  Motion carries 5/1.  Moving on to item 12.  Ordinance 2020 4007 truck parking a.k.a. Danny's law.  


>>  Motion to approve.  


>>  Second Johansson.  


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Motion made by Robbins, second Johansson.  Do you want to expand on it?  No?  We have public comment?  No?  Nothing?  All those in favor say aye.  Opposed say no.  Motion carries 6/0.  All right.  Moving onto comments.  First up County manager?  We do.  Nevermind.  I tried to.  I didn't see it here.  I should have known better.  


>>  Jeff tries all the time.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: John Nicholson.  Is he in the audience?  


>>  I may be short but I am higher than the top.  A couple things.  I thought you guys had paid someone to help people get through the system.  Did you all okay that?  There was a gentleman who came by earlier in this happens often and there are enough people come here and to the city of Daytona Beach.  He said I have been coming for six months and there's one thing and another.  If he has one, let the staff know they can send them to somebody to help them get through this.  It happens too often not to correct it.  Secondly, I had a feeling when you have the extra 11 lots that went out for sale and they weren't purchased and then guess what?  You give them away.  The same people that would normally purchase them.  And they know if they don't buy if they get it free.  So is there a way of looking at that?  This is happened more than once and as happened with our city.  They sit there and they don't buy it and I remember they did not buy a property he wanted.  He sat back and a week before it closed somebody else bought it so he lost 3 million bucks on a building on Main Street.  I don't want us to lose on something that I believe we can see the writing on the wall.  But the small parks, the public does a lot.  Rainbow Park where they came and built this park and it is extremely successful.  Our church had 500 by 500 foot lot and they told him go ahead.  They put eight baseball fields and and they had thousands of kids all week long and so maybe we could do that.  Just turn it over to the public.  It's a thought.  What is happening with FEMA?  We have $13 million through the locked on Beach Street.  Do we lose it if FEMA goes away?  Lastly we had a group sitting here and it happened several times.  Remember the cultural counsel sat until 8:00at night before we voted.  Because we have these meetings with our own staff.  Is there a way of moving it forward?  It took little Kirk if we could see a staff report and something else following behind can we move them up?  Thank you.  


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Thank you for your comments.  County manager?  


>>  A couple quick items.  Some good news.  Recently the County passed the action plan.  We sent it to HUD.  Follow what you guys asked and most of the money is going to be an infrastructure and mitigation.  HUD approved the plan 20 days early.  The six year clock started as a June 19.  Also I have been reporting when a new city as a request for stormwater master plan funding and Daytona beach shores has done that.  Just about every city has some sort of a stormwater plan study going on as we speak which will result eventually and quite a lot of projects.  Lastly to let everyone know, the end of the month June 27 through July 7 I will be on a little family vacation visiting my parents up in Western New York.  Suzanne will have the helm.  


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Thank you very much.  County attorney?  


>>  I have nothing.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Mr. Santiago?  


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: I just have one thing.  If staff could give us a quick synopsis on where we are at with the billboard ordinance and, if I'm correct we gave them instructions to look into the possibilities of negotiating opportunities for funding for the County as it relates to a 1/1.  


>>  Mr. Santiago I will start and then I will ask Mr. Soria to be available.  As he briefed me that is in the legal department offices.  They are doing research on the ordinance and other ordinances on the state as well as looking at the swamp down amount to talk with the company about negotiating that.  We expect this will be back to you in 60 to 90 days.  


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: I know there is one company, I will disclose it here.  The attorney reached out and said to me that he was looking at options and it seemed positive.  He didn't say go pound sand so I think there is an opportunity for a party to party agreement.  However, there are two companies.  


>>  There are multiple companies.  Clear channel and another that starts with, I can't remember.  One of the concerns is because it is not a County asset.  Could meander into that unconstitutional criteria because we are issuing a regulatory permit and exacting funds.  We would have to prove that connection so that is one of the main stumbling blocks.  We are in discussion with the previous company that was here.  They sent a draft.  We are looking at the draft to see from a regulatory site and if a 1/1 swap an additional revenue is permissible from a constitutional standpoint.  


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: I'm with you.  I did it, the forcing of it is where we have that constitutional question, right?  But correct me if I'm wrong.  This legislative decision on whether or not we go 1/1, 4/1, that is purely legislative.  What ever we want, whatever we feel on that particular day.  What I would encourage staff to do is get all parties in the room.  I know this is going to be work but get all parties in the room saying you have a chance of a counsel of possibly going 1/1.  What are you giving us?  I see some smirks.  The County needs potholes filled.  You got me.  But get them in a room.  That is the best way to start.  If you have pieces missing get them in a room.  That is very lucrative.  I want to think outside the box.  Thank you.  That's all and God.  


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Mr. Dempsey?  


>> DON DEMPSEY: I was just curious if we could maybe have somebody, I don't know if you are free back there but can we get an update on the basin studies being done?  How far along each of them are.  I'm sure a lot of people are wondering how they are progressing.  


>>  I think we have close to half of them underway.  They are basically in the data gathering mode.  You approved quite a few of them at counsel.  Some of them have been smaller so the manager could improve.  Basically the first steps are the data gathering.  Into establishing the existing model so they can model the storm events.  The of the big ones, the larger basins we have the smaller ones in places like that.  They are on their way.  We are hoping by early next year we will have some of them finishing up and recommending a series of projects hopefully in time to utilize that money Mr. Reckenwald mentioned with the money just approved.  


>> DON DEMPSEY: Having undergone the Westside basin studies?  


>>  There are a couple you will see shortly.  To come through.  We are still working through Lake Helen as well.  DeBary has not requested one.  


>> DON DEMPSEY: Thank you.  


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Mr. Johansson?  


>> JAKE JOHANSSON: Thank you.  Thanks for the update on the billboards.  I would like clarification.  Pour been just walked back up there.  I'm very interested in Mallard Lake.  We all are.  We hear about it every other week.  What confuses me is what we call it and what the citizens are calling it.  I would like it to be the same.  It means a lot to me.  If Mallard Lake is called Mallard Lake I would like to treat it like a lake.  If Miller Pond is a pond I want to treat it as a pawn.  If Miller basin is a basin, I want to treat it as a basin.  If it can be all three, let me know.  


>>  In front of you if you will indulge, this is an excerpt from the staff report from the water management district in 2012 when we apply for the permit to increase capacity at Miller Lake.  They call it Miller Lake.  They are the authority.  This idea we can tell them to do anything, I don't know where that is coming from.  They control the water.  


>> JAKE JOHANSSON: I understand that.  I know the citizens have gone up and talk to St. John's as well.  


>>  Real quick, the highlighted section.  This is from 2012.  This is after the 2004 storms.  They talk about how historically it is basically dried.  In other words it was probably exposed.  But flooded almost its banks in the early 80s and during much of 2003 to 2006 and 2010.  I want to point that out because that was before the situation they referred to add oriole Oak.  The upper edges characterized by debt and declining live oaks following extensive upland flooding.  Again, 2012.  We have heard the folks talk about oaks.  This is the chart you've seen quite a bit.  February 1984.  In lot of water in that lake.  86 a lot of water.  88 it is drying out.  94 pretty dry.  99 a little bit of water.  2003, a little wetter.  Then again, if you look at the rain chart the pattern you are going to see is a lot of rain one ear, fold the next.  A little bit of rain and then dry.  That is February before the 2004 storms.  May 2005 that is May after the 2004 storms.  They talk about there's a lot of water in their then it dissipated after the storms.  This is made.  A lot of water in the lake.  In 2005 roughly 6 months after the '04 storms.  November still pretty wet.  


>> JAKE JOHANSSON: Just tell me when the development came.  


>>  '06 still wet, dried out in '07, there is Faye pretty wet.  That was the event that took out 1792.  That is December.  That is a full year after Faye.  This lake drains slowly naturally.  This is the decade of dry I talked about in a lot of my presentations.  Dry, a little wetter.  That is March '17.  That is the year the Royal Oak situation started.  It's also the year we started seeing an increase in rainfall.  March 2018, after Hurricane Irma you have Matthew and '16, Irma in '17.  Still pretty wet in '19.  '21, '22.  I want to look at '22. '22 is a lot drier.  That area dug out, I don't know if it will let me.  This area right here is where the County dug out and created extra volume completely dry.  The reason I want to show that is its look at the year 2021.  Right at our average rainfall.  In 2022 it dried out and in '23 wet, October '24.  The point in trying to make with this is going back to the 80s, it has flooded before in terms of it has filled up with water before.  And those tend to correspond increased amounts of rain.  They corresponds right there.  I know there is pending litigation.  I think that's all they want to say on that.  


>> JAKE JOHANSSON: That is fair.  I will request of the chairman.  I guess I won't be here in July.  If we come back in August if this hasn't been shown as a point of privilege after comments before people get up and leave.  Not because I want to say I told you so.  I want to make sure we don't get just a piece of the information.  This is a yearly wrong of what it looked like showing even before the development that it did Evan flow.  And I truly believe our water patterns are -- to begin with.  And it will be dry again and people will be complaining they don't have any water anymore.  I really would like to see this right up front soon after public comment so we could kind of discuss the reality of the history of the events.  


>>  Jake, quick question if you don't mind.  I love that idea.  My fear is after public comments they leave.  
If we made an adjustment for one meeting and did it right before public comments.  


>>  Or made it an agenda item.  


>>  We would have to make an adjustment.  Agenda item 3 Miller Lake discussion and they will stay for that and discuss it because it will be an agenda item.  


>> DAVID SANTIAGO: Can I add something Mr. chair?  I think that is fine as long as we can self-control ourselves and be careful what we say because of the litigation.  Lets stick to what we did here today.  


>>  How about we just let staff do a picture show.  


>>  Can it be done as an agenda item just for staff presentation, no discussion 


>>  Or I could post that on the website.


>> JAKE JOHANSSON: Please do that at a minimum.  


>>  MICHAEL DYER: I don't speak because their attorney is not here.  I'm not going to go back on fourth litigation publicly anyway.  But everything you say and then says or anyone else from the County on this, you will be a witness.  Just to say be cautious.  Ben has already done it tonight.  If you want to repeat that, that is fine.  


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Mr. Dempsey.


>> DON DEMPSEY: Because a litigation I don't think we should do it.  


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Understood.  


>> JAKE JOHANSSON: Well, it's out there in the universe anyhow.  Thank you very much for the history lesson, Ben.  My last item, chairman, I was confused but I will not be at the July 22 meeting.  I apologize for that but I will bring everybody home some salmon.  


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Very good.  That's all?  Mr. Kent.


>> TROY KENT: Just a couple brief items this evening before we leave.  I wanted to publicly say you nailed it tonight.  You did a really good job chairing this meeting.  I know it for your first time doing that it is a daunting endeavor.  If I didn't know it was your first time I would've thought it was here 500th time.  


>>  Is your favorite now?  


>> TROY KENT: Don't make me write it down on a piece of paper.  My next comment is to Mr. John Nichols in the audience.  We don't always see eye to eye but I agree with 100 percent everything you said tonight.  I felt like you were on fire so thank you for that.  George and staff, the weekly update, I'm appreciative where showing pictures because to me it is important to see of the ditches being cleaned and cleared.  We need to make sure we are getting that message out to the news outlets because it's important for our residents to know that we have been working on this month before hurricane season.  We don't wait for hurricane season, we are prepared.  We are clearing ditches we are making sure our residents are safe in the event any type a huge rain event comes this way.  So I'm pleased we are doing that.  I agree completely with Mr. Santiago two meetings ago when I needed your help with more beach lifeguards.  We all know there are two ways to get something done.  Political pressure immediate pressure.  When I talked to staff and I wasn't feeling I was getting the support I was asking for, I agree with you.  We should not be controlling staff from the dais.  But when you are pushed into a corner and you don't have any other way to get it done, I brought it up and I'm not sorry I brought it up.  I'm glad that I did.  I want to say I am appreciative of staffs efforts.  There has been movement, there are more lifeguards on the North Penn.  Suzanne has her finger on the pulse and she's involved in the discussions and I'm not going to say that alone, but that puts me more at ease because you are a task manager.  You hold people accountable and I Thank you have really good ideas and I'm appreciative of you being part of that.  I'm sure George put you in that role for a reason.  I want to give you an update and say there has been more lifeguard coverage.  When you call it seven miles or nine miles, but when you have one or two lifeguard stations in seven or nine miles, not okay.  I wouldn't be okay if it was in your district, and I'm not okay with that in mind.  There has been in improvement and I appreciate that.  Last but not least, remember a year ago tomorrow I wanted to tell my wife happy anniversary because it was 19 years but it only felt like 20.  Remember that?  Because I was reminded of it so I'm going to try to make up for that and say tomorrow I want to wish my lovely wife happy 20 years married and it only feels like 20.  


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Made up for it.  


>> TROY KENT: With.have a wonderful evening everybody.  


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Thank you Mr. Kent.  Mr. Robbins?  


>> DANNY ROBINS: Thank you chairman.  Counsel, a couple months ago you gave me the leeway to speak of their northwest solution when it came to Springs, and in doing so I met a group called mighty River recovery.  Executive Director Joe belonged.  They are one of the only private entities in group staff active permitting sites doing independent studies on the St. John's and in some of the lakes, Northwest Volusia.  Pretty impartial group identifying issues with water quality in the St. John's.  One of their main focuses regrouping vegetation, addressing management practices because honestly, they haven't changed in about 60+ years.  I included just for staff, just for the Council and the public a little bit about them and what ultimately my goal is to see if we can help them out in any way.  I'm going to ask the Council for support for, I think it would be very beneficial for each and every one of us to meet the people in this organization.  Especially Joe, very knowledgeable.  To have them come in the next meeting or two for a 15, 20 minute presentation showing people what they do.  I can put that in the form of the motion to have them come in.  Just a presentation.  


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Could they do it in 10 minutes do you think?  


>>  You saw my meeting tonight.  


>>  DANNY ROBINS: 15, 20 tops.  Are you guys good with that?  Ultimately guys, they are all self-funded and this might be something the County, we could partnership with them somehow in the next fiscal year to help out with the test sites and whatnot.  I appreciate it.  County manager, do you think come in the next meeting is probably already booked up.  


>>  Probably August.  Do you have a preference of day or night.


>> DANNY ROBINS: I would say during the day.  


>>  Probably the first meeting in August.


>> DANNY ROBINS: I will forward you his contact information.  The slideshow just gives you, touches on a little bit of what they do.  We don't have to go through it all now obviously.  If someone wants to get understanding of exactly what they do and have accomplished, it's all there and they are doing great work.  Other than that, I think that's it.


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Thank you.  All I have is just a couple things.  First off, NCA NDA, thank you for that.  The national dance national cheerleading.  We won the contract for four more years.  That helps out the ocean center.  Everything that helps them out.  That was a huge undertaking so hats off to our advertising at the ready.  They worked very hard.  There was some competition out there.  Vegas was talking about it and other areas were talking about it, all of which made presentations in Daytona one it.  


>>  Thank you chairman.  You are right about all that but people who have not been to art ocean center, it's an absolute gem.  The place is gorgeous.  It serves the need of what they are looking for and they know that.  That ocean center, the money mentioned, the right people you put in place, that is one of the reasons they made a good decision and locked it up for four years.  


>>  With respect adding the item moved out of that TDT tourist development tax was removed and so there is no threat of losing that this year.  When we talk about our legislative asks we will address that for next year.  The person behind that in Tallahassee has already made the comment we would trade again which would severely impact us for the operation of our ocean center.  You stand a potential chance of losing that.  Talk about that with three growing vegetation.  We started a project some time ago.  I'm sorry guys.  We started a project in addition to many of the other aspects are part of it was growing mangroves.  As you know they help clean the water and they will be doing a story on that this evening on the news and I will be doing an interview with good morning Orlando tomorrow morning about the mangroves and some of the second chance initiatives.  That being said, thank you George for touring Marion County jail.  I told you sheriffs Woods is a character.  Leave a much smaller farm.  It was perfect for them to go see.  Brad, thank you for accommodating us as well.  Was it 2500 chickens, free range and they lay an average of 1400 eggs per day.  


>>  A lot of scrambled eggs.  


>> MATT REINHART, VICE CHAIR: Imagine the food cost savings become very happy.  Incorporated you for accommodating me on that and we will see more to come on that.  It was.  They do have cattle out there as well.  A lot of pigs.  There are only four out there on the of 55.  But they also have a full-fledged farm.  The inmates work it.  It keeps them out of trouble.  Excellent.  That is all I have got.  I won't say anymore.  With that being said, 7:30 p.m. we are adjourned.