HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025 08 11 Public Input - Submitted by Art Gallo11 August 2025 Commission Meeting — Gallo Public Input #1
With reference to Regular AI# 500 concerning arbor fees, there is far too much attention on side issues,
what I call here "chaff lunches," that have no real relevance to this agenda item today, and like chaff,
have served to unnecessarily distract the Commission from the only real question: "Did the developer
pay all of their required arbor fees per the contract?"
Chaff launch #1: The Mayor voted or vetoed. The Mayor never voted on this issue or vetoed it. He only
expressed his concerns based on what he knew and believed to be true. As required by the City Charter,
he represented only the best interests of the Residents of Winter Springs as well as the entire City as a
whole. An agenda Item to reconsider was made, seconded, discussed, and legally approved by the
Commission.
Chaff launch #2: Roberts Rules of Order (RRoO) not followed: Per City Charter Section 2.27d, Robert's
Rules of Order shall be the "underlying foundation" for the conduct of commission meetings and will be
followed to the extent "practical and feasible" .... I argue here that that both relevant and critical
information was not presented to the Commission by the Developer's Legal Representative during the
23 June Commission Meeting (see Al 404), and that this is a case where strictly following RRoO was
therefore not required, nor in the best interests of the residents of Winter Springs or the City as a
whole.
Chaff launch #3: The Reconsideration Request Does Not Meet City Requirements. I have already
explained that RRoO need not be followed in this situation. The Burden of proof as detailed in City
Charter Section 2-30(5) states: "...The applicant seeking approval of an application has the burden of
proving that the proposed application is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and complies with
all of the applicable substantive criteria and procedural requirements of the City Code and other
applicable provisions of law...". The application in this sense is focused on the correct interpretation of
the contractual agreement as it pertains to the proper payment of arbor fees. That's it!
Chaff launch #4: A Quasi -Judicial vs Legislative Function: City Staff advised the Commission that the
arbor fee discussions were a "contract interpretation" issue (not a code or ordnance issue). The
Commission could rescind the prior action previously approved by a majority of the Commission, if a
majority voted to do so. Commissioners who originally voted "for" the original issue saw the new
evidence and rightly (and bravely I will add) decided on 14 July (Al # 501) that that a new look at this
contractual issue made sense. That vote was 3-2 in favor to reconsider the original vote.
None of these four arguments are relevant to your final decision today which is to review the evidence
provided and then interpret the contract as it pertains to arbor fees and answer this one question: Did
the Developer pay all of their required arbor fees per the contract?" Based on the evidence
provided, that is the only question that needs answering this evening! ...Nothing more. Nothing less...
Lessons/Learned from all of this: Write better contracts!
Thank ou. Art Gallo