June 16, 2026 Regular Council Meeting — Agenda Breakdown
What's on the agenda for the June 16 Regular Town Council meeting — each item in plain language, and what's worth watching.
Hungerford Planned Redevelopment District overview
What it covers. A review of the Hungerford Planned Redevelopment District (H-PRD) — the zoning district governing the Hungerford property — under Ordinance 2016-8.
Worth watching. Section 64-430 of the district code still describes ownership "transitioning … to the Town of Eatonville." The January 13, 2026 Purchase Agreement conveys the property to Dr. Phillips Charities — so the code language describes a transaction that is not the one taking place.
- The district code still describes ownership transitioning to the Town — should it be updated to reflect the Purchase Agreement conveying the property to Dr. Phillips Charities?
Water & Sewer Capacity Fees
What it is. The final reading of an ordinance setting water and sewer capacity (impact) fees for new connections, charged per ERC (equivalent residential connection).
Worth watching. The version published for the second reading leaves the fee amount blank in §43-73 and does not select between two options in the recitals — roughly $2,070 versus roughly $7,060 combined per ERC, about a 3.4× difference. A resident reading the noticed ordinance cannot tell which fee schedule is up for adoption. The published Orlando Sentinel notice also directs the public to the Denton Johnson Center, while the meeting is at Town Hall.
- The noticed ordinance leaves the fee amount blank and doesn't pick between two schedules about 3.4× apart — which fee is actually up for adoption?
Deputy Chief salary reallocation
What it is. A budget and personnel action moving funds tied to a frozen Deputy Chief position into salary increases.
Worth watching. The adjustment form is dated June 16 but states it takes effect with the June 14 payroll — before the vote. The action turns one-time savings from a vacant position into recurring salary increases that continue once the position is filled. The budget-adjustment form lists $14,963.35, while the salary spreadsheet allocates $69,000; the two packet exhibits do not reconcile.
- The budget-adjustment form lists $14,963.35 while the salary spreadsheet allocates $69,000 — which figure is correct, and why does the change take effect before the vote?
CRA board appointment
What it is. An appointment to fill a vacant seat on the Community Redevelopment Agency board.
Worth watching. Several residents have applied for the seat.
Hungerford development consultant (RFP)
What it is. Authorizes a request for proposals to retain a development consultant for the Hungerford redevelopment.
Worth watching. This item proceeds on the premise that the Hungerford sale moves forward — a premise Resolution 2026-37 takes the opposite position on.
Data center community engagement
What it is. A resolution addressing community engagement around AI / data-center development in the Town.
Worth watching. The operative "BE IT RESOLVED" clause names the Community Redevelopment Agency as the enacting body rather than the Town Council. A resolution by itself also cannot compel a private developer to disclose information — that requires a code provision or a development-agreement condition.
- The operative clause names the CRA as the enacting body rather than the Town Council — is this being adopted by the right body, and can a resolution alone compel a developer to disclose information?
Development Review Committee
What it is. Creates a Development Review Committee for the Hungerford redevelopment.
Worth watching. The proposed roster names the Association to Preserve the Eatonville Community (PEC) — an active plaintiff in litigation seeking to void the transaction the committee would review — and an unidentified "Infrastructure Developer" seat.
- The proposed roster seats PEC — an active plaintiff suing to void the transaction the committee would review — and an unidentified "Infrastructure Developer"; is that an appropriate committee composition?
Endorsement of the PEC / SPLC lawsuit
What it is. Would have the Town endorse the PEC–SPLC lawsuit against Orange County Public Schools over the Hungerford property sale.
Worth watching. This item seeks to stop the sale, while Resolutions 2026-31 and 2026-33 are built on the sale proceeding. Taken together, the three items reflect different positions on whether the development moves forward.
- This item seeks to stop the sale while Resolutions 2026-31 and 2026-33 are built on it proceeding — which direction is the Council actually taking?
You don't need to be an expert to be heard.
Citizen participation comes near the start of the meeting, and each speaker gets three minutes. You can speak on any item, and even a short, calm question on the record matters. You can also email the Town Clerk ahead of time to have a comment read into the record.
If even a handful of residents show up and ask the board to slow down on the items that move quickly, that alone makes the meeting more transparent.