October 6, 2026 Town Council Meeting — Agenda Breakdown

Resolution 2026-51: waiving Town fees on four CRA homes

What it would do. Resolution 2026-51 would waive "one hundred percent (100%) of all eligible fees and charges assessed directly by the Town of Eatonville" for planning, permitting, building and first occupying four single-family homes. The CRA plans to build them on lots it owns. The list attached to the resolution, Exhibit A, gives their addresses as 121 and 119 S. West St. and 280 and 300 People St. The CRA's earlier resolutions call this the four-parcel project at 119 S. West Street. Orange County's parcel map shows all four lots on the same block, owned by the CRA.

The resolution lists 20 kinds of charges it is meant to cover, "to the extent assessed by the Town and legally waivable." Among them are building and plan-review fees; zoning and development review; electrical, plumbing, mechanical and roofing permits; inspections; certificate-of-occupancy fees; water and sewer connection or tap fees; meter installation charges; and any Town impact fees. An impact fee is a one-time charge on new construction that helps pay for the public facilities, such as parks or water lines, that new growth will need.

Some fees are left out. School impact fees are "expressly excluded." So are fees set by other bodies that the Town has no power to waive, such as Orange County, Orange County Public Schools, the state, special districts and private utilities. The waiver does not loosen any building code or zoning rule. The request comes in a memo dated September 22 from the CRA's Executive Director, Michael Johnson. The packet does not show a CRA Board vote asking for it.

The case for it. The memo argues that the CRA and the Town are both public bodies working toward the same housing goals, so charging the CRA Town fees "can effectively transfer public resources from one public purpose to another rather than increasing the resources available for construction." Waiving them, it says, lets more of the project's money go into building the homes. It calls the approach "consistent in principle" with Orange County's own incentives for affordable housing.

The word "affordable." The agenda describes this item as "Waiving the TOE fees for the purpose of Affordable Housing." (TOE is the Town of Eatonville.) The cover sheet's legal summary begins with Florida Statutes §163.31801(11), and the memo cites it too. That law says a town "may provide an exception or waiver for an impact fee for the development or construction of housing that is affordable, as defined in s. 420.9071." A town that does so "is not required to use any revenues to offset the impact," meaning it does not have to make up the lost fees from other money.

Section 420.9071 gives "affordable" a specific meaning. Housing counts as affordable when the monthly rent or mortgage payment, including taxes and insurance, is no more than 30 percent of a set income level: 50, 80 or 120 percent of the area's median (middle) income, adjusted for household size. A household may pay more if its first mortgage lender is satisfied it can afford the payment.

The resolution and memo also cite §166.04151. The resolution says that law "recognizes fee reductions and waivers, including impact fees and water and sewer charges, among the incentives that municipalities may employ in connection with affordable housing." In the statute, that list appears among the incentives a town must offer a developer when a local rule requires the developer to include affordable units or pay into a housing fund.

What the resolution says about affordability. Its findings cite the state's affordable-housing laws, but they never find that these four homes will be affordable. They describe the project in terms of "quality single-family housing," "homeownership opportunities" and a stronger tax base. Section 7 is headed "Affordability Compliance, If Applicable." It says that wherever a waiver relies on the affordable-housing law, the CRA must keep records showing that the home qualifies. It adds that nothing stops the Town "from waiving independently authorized municipal fees that do not require an affordable-housing qualification."

Section 6 covers what happens when a home is sold. Selling a finished home "to an eligible purchaser" does not, "by itself," require repayment of "properly waived fees," unless the law or "a separate agreement governing the Project" says otherwise. The resolution does not say who counts as an eligible purchaser, and no such agreement is in the packet.

The memo goes further than the resolution. It says buyers will be "subject to the CRA's adopted purchaser and affordability requirements," and its summary of benefits runs to "Qualified Homeowners." It does not say where those requirements were adopted, and none are attached. It also recommends that the CRA "document the affordability requirements applicable to the project, including purchaser eligibility, household-income requirements, owner-occupancy requirements, sales-price methodology, and any required affordability or resale-control period."

What the CRA has said before. The CRA Board has called this project affordable housing since April 2025. That month, Resolution CRA-R-2025-19 authorized redeveloping 119 S. West Street "for the development of (4) single-family affordable housing units." It also authorized using money from the CRA's Infill Home Loan Program. That program's 2024 rules, in CRA-R-2024-14, say a home it finances "must be priced for sale in accordance with Orange County and HUD affordable Housing Home Sale Price Cap." They also say the owner must work with approved Orange County housing agencies to find "qualified first-time homebuyers who are Eatonville residents," who "should be given first right to purchase." Those rules are written for private owners of three or more lots. The packet does not say whether they apply to the CRA's own homes, or whether any program money went into them.

In July 2025, CRA-R-2025-27 said that developing the four West Street parcels "for the purpose of affordable housing" carries out the CRA's written agreement with HELP CDC, a community development corporation. The same resolution said the Board supports "both affordable and market rate housing," and that the West Street and Toni Street projects together make up "the market mix." These resolutions are in the Library's 2025 and 2024 volumes. None of them sets income limits, sale prices or resale terms for these four homes.

The money. The cover sheet's fiscal line reads "N/A." The memo says the cost "should be calculated by the Building Department, Planning and Zoning, Finance, Public Works/Utilities, and other applicable departments before issuance of the individual building permits." In other words, the packet asks the Council to approve the waiver first and work out its cost later. The packet prices none of the fees it would waive. The Town's impact-fee chapter says its fees pay for facilities for "police protection, parks and recreation, water and wastewater services, and general government and administrative services."

This site has covered one of those fees. In June the Council adopted Ordinance 2026-4, a water and sewer capacity fee: a one-time charge on each new connection "to reimburse utility systems for required infrastructure," as its cover sheet put it. The ordinance's opening statements offered two price options. The Council chose the one set at $4,620 for water and $2,440 for wastewater per "Equivalent Residential Connection" (ERC), the unit the fee is charged by. If each home counts as one ERC and the waiver reaches these fees, that is $7,060 a home, or $28,240 for all four. The ordinance took effect September 14, 90 days after adoption. It puts the money in two trust accounts that may be used "solely" for water and sewer improvements serving new growth.

What the fee is called. The Town's own paperwork names the capacity charge more than one way. The June agenda called it a "Water and Sewer Impact Fee." The ordinance calls it a "capacity fee," heads one of its sections "water and wastewater impact fees," and places it in the Town's impact-fee chapter. Its cover sheet said "Capacity fees or connection charges." Which label fits is a legal question the packet does not answer, and it may matter. The no-offset rule above is part of the Florida Impact Fee Act, and the next subsection of that law, §163.31801(12), says "This section does not apply to water and sewer connection fees." This item's own cover sheet notes the same distinction. The packet does not say whether the capacity fees are waived or, if they are, whether the trust accounts would be repaid from other money.

Keeping count. The memo's recommended conditions are firmer than the resolution. Town Finance "shall document the amount of each fee waived for each property." The Town Attorney "shall confirm the legal authority for each category of fee to be waived before implementation." The resolution says only that the Town "may record" each waived amount. It has no attorney-review step, apart from a catch-all that lets any of several officials decide whether some other Town fee "may lawfully be waived." Separately, if the Town waives an impact fee for affordable housing, state law has it report "Each exception and waiver provided for construction or development of housing that is affordable" along with its annual financial report (§163.31801(13)(e)).

A parcel-number mismatch. Every parcel number in Exhibit A — the county's ID number for each lot — begins "35-21-29." Orange County's public parcel map lists the CRA's four lots on that block as 36-21-29-1352-12-010, -020, -070 and -080. The rest of each number matches Exhibit A, but the first part is 36, not 35, and the map shows no matching parcels under 35. The body of the resolution never mentions Exhibit A. It says only that the Chief Administrative Officer "may maintain an administrative list" of the properties.

When the homes are sold. The state law on selling land a CRA acquired for redevelopment is §163.380, explained in Cheatonville's CRA brief. It lets the seller attach "covenants, conditions, and restrictions, including covenants running with the land." Those are rules written into the deed that bind later owners, such as a limit on resale price. It also says a sale for less than fair value needs "the approval of the governing body, which approval may only be given following a duly noticed public hearing." Nothing in this packet says whether the CRA plans to use either.

Background. The CRA's $1.7 million Seacoast Bank line of credit, approved in December 2025 under CRA-R-2025-53, covers six homes: "119 S. West St. (4) parcels and Toni St Lot 73 & 74 (2)." The two Toni Street lots are not in this waiver. On September 17 the CRA Board received the bid amounts for the general contractor who would build the homes. It was told bidding was still open, discussed them little, and made no decision. Cheatonville's finding on the program's project manager covers the $25,000-per-home management contract the Executive Director signed in November 2025.

Worth watching. The resolution does not require the four homes to be sold at a price that meets the state's definition of affordable, and it does not say what happens to the waived fees if they are not. Section 6 rules out repayment only on a sale "to an eligible purchaser," a term it never defines. If the Council wants the waiver tied to affordable sales, it could ask for the affordability terms, and a repayment rule for any sale outside them, before it votes or as a condition of the vote. Whether it asks for a dollar figure is the other thing to watch.

Resolution 2026-52: a deadline for answers on water and sewer bills

What it would do. Resolution 2026-52, sponsored by Council Member Jordan, directs the Chief Administrative Officer, the finance and utility billing staff, and the Town Attorney to review how the Town's water and sewer rates were adopted, interpreted, put into effect and billed. They would have to deliver written findings to every Council member within 14 Town business days. The resolution changes no rate and orders no refund. Its Section 4 says it "does not determine that any rate, bill, or prior Council action was lawful or unlawful; change any rate; order a refund or credit; or waive any right or defense of the Town or a customer."

How the rates got here. On December 3, 2024, the Council adopted Ordinance 2024-10. It repealed the two ordinances that had set water and sewer rates, 97-07 and 2016-4, and said future rates would be set by resolution. The same night, on the consent agenda, the Council adopted Resolution 2024-40. Its Exhibit A set base charges and usage charges for five fiscal years, 2024-25 through 2028-29, following a rate study by the Florida Rural Water Association. Ordinance 2024-10, Resolution 2024-40 and its Exhibit A are attached, with their December 2024 cover sheets.

Resolution 2026-52 says the original Exhibit A "listed usage ranges and dollar amounts but did not expressly state the unit to which each usage charge applied or how charges across usage ranges were calculated." The attached exhibit shows what that means. Beside "1,001 to 5,000 gallons," for example, it lists "$3.08" for a residential water customer in 2024-25. It does not say whether that is per gallon, per 1,000 gallons, or a flat charge for the range. It also does not say whether a customer's whole usage is billed at one tier's rate, or each tier is billed in turn. According to Resolution 2026-52, Resolution 2025-10 amended Exhibit A on July 1, 2025 "to state that usage charges are based on each 1,000 gallons used." Resolution 2025-10 is not in the packet, and neither is the rate study.

For the fiscal year that began October 1, the 2024 schedule as adopted lists these residential charges inside town, for a 5/8-inch connection, the only size the exhibit lists:

Because Resolution 2025-10 is not attached, this table is the schedule as adopted in 2024, not necessarily as amended.

Why now. The resolution's opening statements, its "whereas" clauses, give its sponsor's reasons. Since January 2025, they say, "Town staff has advised the Town Council that the issues concerning the utility rate structure, its interpretation, and its implementation remained under review." Because that review "has continued without final written findings or recommended action," the resolution would have the Council say it "has lost confidence that the administration will complete and act upon the review on its own without a firm deadline established by the Town Council." Another clause says that if the review finds "a billing or rate-implementation error that caused residents or businesses to be overcharged," the Town "has a responsibility to promptly reimburse or credit the affected residents and businesses in accordance with applicable law." The packet includes no response from staff. On September 1, Council Member Mack raised the water rate again, floating a $2 monthly credit for a problem he described as the Town's fault.

What the review must answer. Section 2 lists five questions:

• whether Ordinance 2024-10 validly let the Council set rates by resolution, given any Town Code provision that requires an ordinance;
• what the original Exhibit A actually required, "including a worked example for 40,000 gallons of residential water use";
• what legal effect Resolution 2025-10 has, and whether its per-1,000-gallon wording "may be applied to usage billed before its adoption";
• whether the Town gave the notice that state law requires before raising rates. Under §180.136, a water or sewer utility run by a local government must, before it raises any rate, charge or fee, notify each customer "through the utility's billing process" of the date, time and place of the meeting where the increase will be considered;
• whether customers were actually billed the adopted rates, how big any gap was, and the "legally available corrective options, including prospective clarification, credits, refunds, or other appropriate action."

The review must treat the period before July 1, 2025 separately from the period after Resolution 2025-10.

The deadline. Fourteen Town business days, not counting the day of adoption or days Town Hall is closed. If the resolution passes October 6 and Town Hall is open every weekday, the fourteenth business day is Monday, October 26. The Clerk then places the report on "the agenda of the next practicable public Council meeting." The Town's portal lists Council meetings on October 20 and November 3.

Which attorney. The resolution directs "the Town Attorney." On September 15 the Council hired Endow Law for six months on an emergency walk-on resolution. The farmers-market ordinance, carried over unchanged from the September 15 packet, names "TG LAW, PLLC as Town Attorney" on its signature line. Nothing in the meetings Cheatonville has covered, or in this packet, says what became of TG Law's engagement.

Ordinance 2026-7: farmers markets, back with a map

What it is. The first reading and public hearing that the Council tabled on September 15, before the hearing opened, because members wanted a printed zoning map. Ordinance 2026-7 would add farmers markets as a permitted use in the C-3 commercial district. They are already permitted in C-1. The Planning and Zoning Board recommended the change on August 13. The second reading is now set for October 20.

What changed. Not the ordinance. Cheatonville compared this packet with the September 15 packet, both the text and the page images. The ordinance and its exhibit are the same except for the first-reading date. The cover sheet adds one line: "This item/1st hearing was tabled at the September 15, 2026, Council Meeting to bring back at a later date." The one-page hearing notice now lists October 6 as the "(Rescheduled)" first hearing and October 20 as the second. What is new is attached behind it: a one-page "Town of Eatonville Official Zoning Map," the Clerk's September 22 request for a new newspaper notice, and the Orlando Sentinel's sworn statement that the notice ran on September 26.

The map shows C-3 in red. It is a single low-resolution image: the zone colors can be made out, but most street names, including those along the C-3 areas, cannot be read even zoomed in. Its certification line leaves the adoption date blank.

What the rule would say. The text is unchanged, so the September 15 breakdown's summary still applies. In short: a farmer's market is "a temporary, open-air use consisting of multiple vendors." Customer parking follows the code's general business ratio and may be off site; on-street parking is allowed, but not along residential streets. Each vendor booth needs one parking space. A market that is not a daily market may submit its own parking plan instead. The business impact estimate projects no costs and says "No impact is expected."

Dr. Phillips Charities: the standing Hungerford update

What it is. The charity's update on its plans for the Hungerford School property, which it has asked to give "during every town council meeting." Sponsored by Council Member Mack. Exhibits: "N/A."

Where things stood. At the September 15 update, the charity confirmed a community conversation and dinner on October 7 at 5:30 at Macedonia, the evening after this meeting. Asked when the groundbreaking would be, its speaker said that is still to be determined. Asked whether the purchase agreement with the Orange County school board was final, she said the goal is a school board meeting this fall. The lawsuit over how the property's sale was approved was reported on August 4 to be set for trial October 27. Resolution 2026-41, which would put the Town on record supporting that lawsuit, has been tabled since August 4 and is not on this agenda.

Worth watching. Whether the school board date has been set.

What the record still leaves open

HostDime is not on this agenda. On September 15 the company's chief executive said he would try to appear every other meeting and offered a community open house within about four weeks. Amendment No. 2 to the development agreement sets a $250 charge for each day after July 31, 2025 that the building lacks a final certificate of occupancy. On September 1 the Chief Administrative Officer put the total at $99,250. If no certificate has issued by October 6, the total is 432 days, or $108,000. The packet does not say whether one has issued.

The rental-homes ordinance is not back. Ordinance 2026-8 was tabled on legal advice on September 15. The Mayor directed the Chief Administrative Officer to prepare information on the code-enforcement route. Nothing on that appears in this packet.

Two questions from earlier remain open. Nothing in the record Cheatonville has covered says what became of TG Law's engagement as Town Attorney. And no Town packet has explained the $1,789,254 that the Town's budget worksheets record as paid to the CRA in the fiscal year that just ended (through May 31), against a $230,000 budget. The September 21 breakdown has the details.