Hello. >> Hello. >> One second, Madam Attorney. >> Oh, okay. Good morning everyone. Welcome to our special commission meeting November 14th, 2025. The time is now 9:06. Madame
clerk, roll call. >> Commissioner Baz >> here. >> Commissioner Irvin >> here. >> Vice Mayor Kelly, >> present. >> Commissioner Santiago, >> here. >> Mayor Taylor >> here. as we stand for our invocation followed by a pledge of allegiance led by Vice Mayor Kelly. >> Eternal God of Father, we thank you for
all the many blessings. We thank you God for life, health, and strength. Continue to look on this city. Continue God to give us wisdom, knowledge, and understanding. Do those things which are pleasing in your sight. In Jesus name we do pray. Amen. >> Amen. I aliance of the United States of
America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Now I know what you need for Christmas gift. He needs that.
All right, we're going to go into our emergency ordinance, which is also a public hearing item. So, madame clerk, can you go ahead and read um it into reckon and we'll take a motion in a second and then we'll open up for public hearing.
>> Yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Item 51, an emergency ordinance of the city commission of the city of Opalaka, Florida, amending article 14 entitled landlord permit, specifically amending chapter 13-2743
entitled landlord permit required to delete all references to the requirement that apartment buildings with 150 or more units have an on-site property manager live on the premises. Amending section 13-278B
to delete all requirements that permit applicants with 150 or more apartment units complete a separate form containing the name of the on-site property manager and acknowledgement that a daily log be kept containing the name of the on-site armed offduty police
officer before a permit shall issue. Providing for adop adoption of representations. Providing for conflict and repealer. providing for severability, providing for inclusion in the code, providing for an effective date. This item is sponsored by the city commission. >> All right. Can I get a motion?
>> Moved by Vice Mayor Kelly, second by Dr. Bass. This is a public hearing item. Um, Madam Manager, can you quickly summarize it and then we'll open up for public hearing? >> Yes. This item is to amend um this section of the city's code to allow um
the offduty police officers. We we're going to amend it to remove that section that um requires the apartment complexes with 150 units or more to have an offduty police officer and we will be bringing something back in the future.
>> Got it. So this is a public hearing item and those that are speaking on public hearing you must remain remain to the topic. We'll open up for discussion in a few minutes. Public hearing is open. >> One second. Dr. Logan >> 490
blocker Boulevard 33054. Um represent CEO 10 North Group. Um, first of all, thank you very much for for understanding that this is an emergency, that the um the lives and futures of families of 216 residents and
their families of Opalaka were at stake and are at stake. And so we appreciate you moving with the urgency that you are moving to ratify what we think is maybe a well- intent but a misplaced implication of this ordinance that
you're repealing today. My my my one concern is is that the ordinance that's posted online crosses out section three, which means it deletes the requirement to have a
onduty police officer 7 days, 24 hours a day as the intent was stated by the city manager. However, the package that I've just been given by the city clerk, which may be the package that you have, does
not do that. It only removes the section that says we don't have to have a law for the police officer, but it keeps everything else in the requirement to have the police officer. There is no room, and let me assure you, there is no
room not to get this right this morning. And so if an amendment needs to be put on the floor, then that's what I suggest. But section three is what you need to delete and that would remove the requirement for units of 154 more to
have a police officer off duty at the premises 24 hours, 7 days a week for 365 days a year, which will result in us having to close the unit apartment building down. one which we're about to
put $25 million of rehabilitation, new floors, new appliances. Residents are looking forward to coming back to a new home instead. In 30 days, they be put on the street. And when it's rehab 15 months from now, who you think's going to be back up in there?
And so, let me just assure you, this is really, really critical and really, really serious. section. Now, I don't know where the city attorney is, but section three needs to be deleted. Not one paragraph that says we don't have to
fill out a form to tell you the name of the police officer. And that's all. Go to page seven, section B, sub section three, subsection B, second sentence, last two lines of that sentence is the
only thing that affects what we're asking you to do, which does nothing. And it says an acknowledgment that a daily log will be kept into in containing the name of the onsite offduty. That's the only thing you're striking. That does nothing.
>> Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Please delete section three. >> Thank you, Dr. Logan. >> Nikia Bowling. Um 675 Alaba Avenue 33054. I'm going to yield my time to uh Dr. Logan.
>> Got it. >> Hi. Good morning. >> Morning >> commissioners, mayor, uh city manager. Thank you for allowing me to speak. Kareem Brantley, 14803 Northwest 27th Avenue. Um, I am a
uh an owner of property that would be affected by any whether it's unit count or impositions of law on the property in the city of Opalaka. You know, I've lived in this city as a kid growing up or adjacent to the city as a kid growing
up. Um, I want nothing better than to have uh security um opportunity for living in the city of Opalaka. We want a city that's for everyone, not just for people with high incomes or low incomes, but mixed income
everywhere and around. I can assure you that these types of ordinances, whether well intended or not, are the types of laws that prevent developers like myself from wanting to come and do business inside of the city of Opalaka.
Um, it prevents the growth of the city of Opalaka. Um, when we built our building, the brand new building that's on 27th Avenue and 147th Street, how much time do I have, Mr. Smith? >> Okay. When we built that new building on 27th and 147th, they asked me that I
want to pay property taxes. And this is unusual for a developer. I said, I'm going to pay the taxes. I still have the right to opt out of paying those taxes through a 99-year lease uh obligation with the state of Florida. We're paying taxes to the city of Opaaka because I thought that was the right thing to do
for the community that supported me as a child growing up. When I see ordinances like this, I really find that they may again being well-intentioned. They're really putting a lot of burden. We as developers have to put a lot of guarantees on the line. We have lenders
and and financiers that are put the capital to really do these projects to run alongside of us. We're bringing the knowhow and the ability to execute to bring these projects to fruition. This is something I can assure you that any fund that I've ever worked with in the 20 years that I've been in real estate development or real estate in
general, they will say absolutely not. This will take a pre-development spend of a million dollars where we're trying to build a building in the city of Opalaka all the way to the point where the the lenders say I don't care how much you have spent, we are out of here. We will not take on this. This type of
ordinance goes on the operating budget. It's not on the development budget upfront that you spend the money and you develop the building. This is the ongoing operations where we're going to have to have staff. We're trying to do employment. We're trying to do hiring. This is not the way to enact these types of rules. Let me just wrap with my time
and say this. There are plenty of ways for the city of Opalaka to be very proactive approach to try to prevent something from happening. You have crime prevention through environmental design. We can work with the police department to make sure that we don't have crevices and places. We can design landscaping
where it's prohibitive for people to get in there, whether it's a cacti or whatever type of uh influence you have there. We have license plate readers and the the deal we just did on 14727th. We have license plate readers on both sides. We can coordinate with the police department and share that information of
those license plate tags. Make sure that we don't have, >> you know, people coming into the city abusing the city and looking to do negative. So be proactive. Don't be reactive. >> Thank you, Mr. Brown. All right. Um, public hearing is open. Public hearing
is closed. >> All right, >> Mr. Mayor. >> Um, Commissioner Santiago. >> Yeah, we can uh go to the comments. No, regarded about this ordinance. Um what I see it is
this is only to make more and to put more weight to the resident and owners of all these properties. What we do is implementing rules that they going to affecting is going to affecting the administration
on all these buildings and the people that they live there. It's like an an associate an association when place I have okay that they are implanting you know rules and all that and whoever play that is the people that they live there
and I don't think it's fair that we continue to thinking on it about uh creating some kind of rules that sometimes uh we try to forcing you know owners of property to do things the coming uh to
our legal department and sometime they tell you no you can't do that because that's a conflict implementing some kind of rule that I want the day hiding a police officer or hiding a company okay to uh security uh
the facilities that they have I believe that we the city the city the administration the police department they have to be in charge everywhere in the city when u uh uh take care of the crimes s everywhere that we have. is not
only in this type of places anywhere cry crying is going to be all over and that that that responsibility to us the responsibility of us as in this or
or not take section three is going to create more revenue to the administration of these companies that they try to make opa uh a better place for people to come here and and leaving
um myself what I see here the language that we use uh madame clerk uh re repairing is to take everything off what we have there and that's what I want to want to want
to say uh my colleagues and mayor I'm not going to supporting anything that is going to bring any situation, financing situation, especially for the residents, especially for the people that they leave layout because if we implementing something
like that, they have to go and get more money to pay all this company that they're going to hide in another security company, ven benefits company, private company or probably, yeah, we're not going to use the police, but with they we're going to foring it to do
something that is not a property. Uh I believe though we had to think in a little bit more before we bring anything like that and talk first to the resident of the city and to the owners of this
property to see how can we working together. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you um commissioner. Um so madam manager I'm a little confused. The commission was clear. I thought we were clear with that intent. So why isn't it removed that section?
>> The city attorney can explain that this item was prepared by the city attorney. >> Yes, m Mr. Mayor. >> Mhm. >> Good morning everyone. I apologize I'm not there. The >> can you can you take one second madam manager. Can you turn the volume up?
>> Go ahead. Madam Madam attorney. >> Yes. Good morning everybody. I apologize I am not there. I'm actually on the way there. Apparently, the express lane was closed on 95 and it's a big traffic jam and it traffic was moving at a snail's pace. Um, in any event, um, I want to
just I think there is some misunderstanding with um, this item. This was brought as an emergency item to deal with an emergency issue of um apartment buildings over uh 150 units
needing to require a um uh security and also a a a person on site um to to to a property manager on site. That's what it was uh dealing with and that was the emergency nature. the um the area that
is is being mentioned and that's why I say I think there's some misunderstanding. The city has a um has a public interest in requiring um landlords to have a permit and that it relates to other things. It's a revenue
source. It relates to other issues um within your code. Um so what we focused on based on the um the intent of the commission because what was mentioned in 2020-20 that was an amendment to deal with two
issues and so we pulled these issues out and we struck the issues that dealt with that amendment that was referenced to delete from the ordinance. So what is remaining and the commission still has an opportunity to delete everything if
it wanted to. I don't know and you may want to check with your manager first to see that if that would be in the best interest of the city. However, um that to deal with the emergency issue which has to fall under a specific purpose and you know of life, health, safety, etc.
that those issues were dealing with the issue of u Mr. Logan saying that residents would basically be homeless if he um if if this stayed on the city's books. And so the city was responding to
that issue by creating this emergency um meeting this morning and and us preparing the ordinance as as such. And so the ordinance does not deal with anything that's not the emergency issue. It deals with the emergency issue of
what was presented to the commission. how the city um generates um revenue or maintains um an understanding of what um businesses or are operating as complexes
that meet that requirement for registration is a different issue. And so, um, you know, again, I would invite you to, you know, speak with your manager. Um, but you do still have the opportunity if it is the city's desire,
we've already even prepared it to just strike everything in the ordinance. But when when some, you know, when you're being told strike three and there's a problem, no, that's already gone. The issue that you were concerned with is gone. You know, this is what we do for a
living. we do it well and we have prepared the ordinance as we understood um the task in front of us. So with that, I'll turn it back over to the mayor. Thank you. >> Okay, madam.
Mayor, vice mayor. >> Uh excuse me, madam attorney. >> Yes, sir. >> Based on the section that was referenced from um Mr. Logan that needed to be totally uh deleted. Can I hear your
response to that again? >> Ye. Yes. The response is that has nothing to do with his issue that there were there would be a an ongoing requirement for security um on on that
site and for him to have that as I understand the issue um and from the last meeting I I understand they're trying to get refinanced and that is a problem in terms of uh
having this is a condition because that would go I guess with their forma and trying to get this refinancing and they don't have the um the funds available to continue to operate to do that. That has nothing >> I'm listening. Go ahead.
>> That it it is it that has Can you hear me? >> Yes, I can hear you. That has nothing to do with letting this that has nothing to do with an application procedure where um you know the landlord is required to be issued an application um and and
state you know the different things that are required under that 13.278 that has nothing to do with that. We have addressed the issue that was the emergency issue that that the commission was concerned about which was in that amendment ordinance that was referenced
that you all wanted gone and that language is stricken through. That's all that amendment ordinance dealt with. It didn't change anything else. And so that language is stricken through. It's gone. And and so for his concern, you know, and again, I would invite you to ask,
you know, the manager how that affects her. um operations of running the city. But um you know th that those are management issues. But in terms of the legal issues, we we address the legal issues. But because this is an emergency
ordinance and your own um charter does allow for you to amend that emergency ordinance. It says right there in the you know in the in the charter that you can you can also amend this if you chose to do that. that is within the purview
of the commission for this meeting. >> Mayor has the floor. Go ahead. >> So, you're basically saying as you've prepared it, um, it does what needs to be done. Mr. Logan, of course, is saying >> it doesn't.
>> Yes, it does what needs to be done. Absolutely, it does. >> Okay. Um, so we have a difference of obstruction. I want to make sure we leave here with some resolution. And did did I hear you clearly and maybe I didn't saying that the other option or
something we could do was to total repeal or did I not hear that? >> You if you well you you have already basically repealed it because this is the only language that was the act of language that was addressed in that ordinance that you asked for um to be
you know to be repealed. So that this is the only language. So um if you have a uh if you wanted it all out, I'm assuming um you know this is the one that we sent to the clerk, but if you wanted it all stricken, even the area
that requires landlords to get a permit, then that could be taken out. But that wasn't the emergency issue that was before the commission. The emergency issue wasn't that the the you know landlords being required to get a
permit. The land the emergency issue was the issue dealing with the um apartment buildings within the city of 150 or more being required to have on-site property managers who have to live on the premises. >> Okay. Um Mr. Mayor, I I will yield for
the moment cuz I want the manager to think about that last part and be able to respond back to me in a second. So, I'll yield for a moment because I know my colleagues have question, but I want to be able to address that particular point of a total uh repeal while you're
thinking about it, Mr. Mayor. >> Okay. Um, Commissioner Kelly, Commissioner Santi >> Santiago. >> Okay. Uh, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I I heard the uh city attorney say that the community require that or what part of
the community require that you know type of rules uh to coming to us and we coming with all these uh items today what no mean the the people that they are
present here today requiring that I For me, I don't think so. I don't heard anything about that before. >> You know what was requested? What was requested from Mr. Logan when he came before he said that it was honorous for
him to have this requirement that over apartment uh buildings of over 150 or more units have to have these um on on on um onsite to uh property
manager and security. Right? That's what he is asking you to remove. That's what this ordinance removes. >> So I I think there was a misunderstanding >> probably. But another another question
that I have for the manager. Uh madam manager, >> we are the only city that's I heard around that that we we are the only city have that kind of of ordinance here in day county. >> That I don't know. I have
>> What do you mean you don't know? No, that's not I don't want I want an answer for that >> thing that all the other municipalities does not require the apartment >> all the not require it. Okay. >> All right. >> I have heard that. >> Good. >> And we are researching >> but I don't want to be the first one in
day county if we have rules already done in day in in day county and the state. I I believe this is something uh when we talking about permit what kind of permit that they would require for that they already have permit for uh buildings and all that here approved in the city. What
kind of permit they need for who to hide in private company? >> No, they this ordinance also deals with them having needing the necessary landlord tenant permit in its entirety. They will not be required to do that. And I believe that's what the city attorney was trying to say.
>> Yeah. But I I I believe that any units that I that I know here in Opalaka, they they must have they have in place, you know, that type of permits, many of them, everybody have it. That's a that's the law. Okay. Um
let me let me listen what my Cali had to say about it. But like I said again, I don't want to be the first city to rule, okay? that type of things here when uh the residents all the uh uh people that they own that type of business in
Opalaka. I don't think it's fair at all. >> Okay. Um Dr. Logan, what what section are you referring to? And madam madam attorney, I want to be clear. I understand where you all are coming from with the landlord permit, but the commission was
clear. We wanted to repeal the entire ordinance and then you all wait till today to spring this on us. That's that's okay. M >> madam I I'll give you this the section and the subsection. It's really just a
paragraph. It's not you don't have to delete the entire subse section of 13. But I think it's really important to say that in all due respect the city attorney is incorrect. We never ask you about the living property manager. We never ask you about the permit. We never
ask you about the requirement to submit the form. The only thing we ask you is to delete the requirement to have a offduty police officer 24 hours, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. to do that. And
I'm not a lawyer, but I have been a lawmaker. All you need to do is strike delete section 13-274 PN3. If you get rid of that, the problem goes away. And if that goes away, of course, we won't have to fill out the
the um the building permit for it because there's no thing that requires to have it. Of course, we won't have to fill out the form because there's no thing that have So, she's dealing with the symptoms versus the problem. The problem is the requirement to have to off the officer. You all were very
clear. I've read the tapes, heard the tapes, and have an audience of people here, the board and staff people who serve these folks. So, you all were very clear and it does not take rocket science to put strikes through three or four lines in a paragraph to get to the meat of what
we're talking about. It doesn't. And you know, sometimes sometimes you have to have things like this to come to root to understand where the clog in the pipe may be. >> Mr. Mayor, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
Section. Can you say what the section again, please? >> Section 13-274 [Music] per 3 in section three. to a subset >> that's reads all apartment buildings
within the city of 150 or more unit shall be stricken it's stricken it's stricken it's stricken >> it is stricken >> Mr. Mayor, >> Vice M, >> let me let me add some context cuz I I
know we went get to where we get to. I I was obviously the sponsor of this amendment back in um along with Commissioner Well, Vice Mayor Davis at the time because of the challenge we were having with um apartment buildings,
excuse me, with apartment buildings and the like. And and although um Mr. Logan was not in charge of that apartment building over there. Uh we were having challenge with a lot of apartment buildings and that's why the law was put there. And I I'm trying to be delicate
in my my response because even I heard Mr. Brantley come up. We still have some challenges but in order to deal with the current issue. That's why I propose um doing away with it and let the manager work on something to come back because
although you may have or you may do the right thing, I'm not convinced every owner is going to do it. So, I don't want to be a blanket statement thinking I want to be very clear. I understand we're trying to do which I support wholeheartedly. That's why I've been working at it. But there are owners.
They are folks who bill who plan to bill and tomorrow they're gone. and we're left with the challenge of public safety and all those issues. And at that point in time, that's why that was created. Um, so I just want to add that as context, not so much for this particular
situation because it's unique. Um, but I do want to circle back after my colleagues have any comments, Mr. Mayor, back to the manager on the uh answer I was looking for. >> Okay. Thank you, >> Mr. Mayor. Um, Commissioner
um, Irvin. >> Okay. Um, I like I I would like for us the part that we're going to stricken out. I would like for us to revisit it and I don't think it should be solely on the duties of the the manager to come up
with um answers for us because we have apartment complexes that we all know we not that need um police officers around the clock. We do have buildings that need it. So, um,
at some time we do need to come back maybe in a workshop form with the manager cuz it shouldn't be solely on her um to come up with a solution for us for um our apartments that definitely need security.
>> Yeah, you and Vice Mayor are saying the exact same thing. That's he wanted to address. >> Only thing is he said the manager to I don't agree with just the manager doing it. I think it should be a collaboration of all of us. Okay, Mr. May. >> One second. One second. So, what I'm
looking at here based on what the attorney gave and this is true. I will offer my apology, madam attorney. >> Thank you. I accept her apology cuz that was rough yesterday. >> Here it is. It is stricken. Um it says what she has um section 13274
um section 3. All apartment buildings within city uh the city with 150 or more units shall be required to have an on-site property manager who shall live on premises and be responsible for the residents for addressing life health and safety issues. In addition, armed armed
offduty police officer security shall be required to protect the life, health and safety of tenants. So that is being removed. May if I may, that's what I said was online when I first started. And I said what was online was that what I was
handed and what I was afraid in front of you all was something different and I just wanted to make sure you all were going by what was online and not here and I just wanted that said for the record. >> Yeah, it it front of you when I asked for a copy of this
>> Mr. Mayor. >> So just to clarify >> this wasn't. No, no. What I gave you, there's an attachment of a previous ordinance and you may be looking at that previous ordinance because I gave you the entire package I also provided to the commission
>> which is >> so >> which is an ordinance from 2020. >> So, madame attorney, I do apologize. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. That was very rough yesterday while I was sick. Thank you. >> I do apologize. So, for the record, it
is stricken now. Um I think um you're not the only apartment complex that is listening. So Opalaka agree with Vice Mayor and Commissioner Irvin. We do need to address this. And I know vice mayor has said he's going to bring it back, but I do like the workshop forum that we
do need to address this because security, we got to protect our people and we understand that we also have to support our business owners, but we also have fiduciary responsibility to our residents and safety is important here in Opalaka. So yes, we're doing this
well my I'm supporting. However, in the near very near future, we need to bring this back up as a conversation piece. All right, >> Mr. Mayor. >> One sec. Uh, >> um, I had motion to you to be acknowledged and it didn't happen.
>> Go ahead. >> But I wanted to say exactly what vice um, I'm sorry, Commissioner Urban said about workshopping this, pass it now, workshop it and we go back and see what's good for our community and not stipulate. the stipulations are so high
where we cannot have investors to come into our our city. I think it's imperative that we work together as mayor commission and the city manager's office to make sure that we do this and we do it well so we don't have to go through this again. >> Thank you. >> Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Mr. Santiago.
>> M the only thing that I know the gentleman there he is. It's okay. No, not a problem. uh with my colleagues and I'm going to supporting you know what uh commissioner Irving say that we had to be together but together with the community to discussing anything that we
try to do because it's not only the government rules we had to counter with them that this they are the taxpayer that's the people that we have to listen because they keeping us here >> thank you >> and I and you still had the floor vice may
>> I got I still got the flow >> you still got good things all around. Um I I do appreciate my colleagues and and the intent was Commissioner Irving Cous that we would have a workshop, but I wanted the manager before we got to that point to pull all the data out of all
the apartment complexes because we're not just talking about 150 uh or 99. And that's the reason I pulled the other one because we do need to have that discussion and and meeting with her and talking to CR director because we do recognize potential growth and
development. So the point is well taken. I just want to make sure we had a workshop. We got all the data in front of us because some of us know like you said the units that are and some of them may have challenges we don't even recognize. So as the mayor mentioned folks are watching um and so be on alert
that we are going to address this. Um so madam manager whenever you get to that point to have the data to have that workshop and of course the city attorney needs to be uh involved as well office and I would just say as a caveat because we're doing something uh holistic for
the entire city that we make the CRA a part of that uh workshop as well because we know they're doing some development potentially um to sit in at least make sure at least sit in. All right. Thank you Mr. Mayor. >> Open the question. >> All right. Yeah cuz it's been the long the longest fivem minute meeting. Yes.
Call. >> Yeah, man. >> I have to go back to words. >> Commissioner Irvin say we all go to her house. She got chicken in the oven. Madam clerk, can we call the question? >> Commissioner Irvin? >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Kelly? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Santiago? >> Yes.
>> Commissioner Bass? Yes. Mayor Taylor? >> Yes. >> Motion passes. 5 Z. >> All right. Second motion. >> Move it. >> Move Vice Mayor Kelly. Second by Commissioner Santiago. This meeting is adjourned.