Deltona commissioners signal reluctance to front $582,505 for Twin Lakes subdivision; ask residents to pursue assessment options

Commissioners discussed a Twin Lakes subdivision request asking the city to advance $582,505 for roadway milling/resurfacing and stormwater repairs, and they signaled general reluctance to have the city front the money. Several commissioners said approving one private subdivision’s request would set a precedent that other HOAs would expect the city to follow.

Phyllis Wallace, a city staff member, told the commission Twin Lakes — a gated, private subdivision — had sought a 10-year payback period and had offered to pay administrative costs up front; the subdivision’s contractor had quoted $582,505 for milling, resurfacing and stormwater work. Wallace said finance staff warned that if the city advanced the funds it would need to account for the loss of revenue in the city’s finances.

Commissioners said the city should not assume broad responsibility for privately maintained streets and stormwater in HOAs. Commissioner Howington said the city would then get many similar requests and suggested a shorter payback period if the commission were to consider assistance. Commissioner Avila Vasquez, whose district includes Twin Lakes, said she sympathized with the neighborhood but worried about the implications for other HOAs and emphasized that Twin Lakes is private and gated, with maintenance obligations noted in its covenants.

Commissioner Novick said the underlying issue points to the land development code and suggested the city examine standards and future requirements so new HOAs do not create similar problems for the city. Commissioner Novick said the city should not pave private HOA roads or provide loans of public money for private community roads and recommended handling stormwater concerns through grants that serve a wider public interest.

Commissioners also discussed prior city use of Transform 3-86 grant funds. Wallace summarized that Deltona submitted multiple Transform 3-86 applications with the county and received approval for two projects in this round: Sweet Gum and the Lake Helen–Osteen Road intersection project; two other projects were not approved in this round. Commissioners asked staff to provide the Transform 3-86 project list and follow-up information to the commission and public when the city manager schedules the next update.

Public comment on the Twin Lakes agenda item was minimal; at least one resident noted the absence of Twin Lakes homeowners in the chamber. The commission did not vote to advance city funds for Twin Lakes. Instead, several commissioners urged Twin Lakes residents to pursue the standard petition and assessment processes (for example, MSBU/non-ad valorem assessments) if the neighborhood wishes to proceed, or to seek grant funding for projects that serve a broader public purpose.