What's that? Right. But, bye. I didn't know they left, but I had heard from I'll ask him what's wrong with these people. That's the they don't trust the city employees, so But, also
I don't think it has to be. If we can treat that we can stop violating something that's No, maybe we should do that. They have fun on that. Hi. Is anybody still repeating their Bible? Are you still living at your mom's house? >> Okay.
>> if there's no struggle with your dog. But, there's lots of We need lots of practice. sports history. I don't think my husband thinks anything of it. I don't know what he thinks. The very next day she sends this video.
Right to the Here she comes. But, you know, I love her. So, I don't know what to do about that. And my sister had the same thing with her dog. Her dog the price Yes, I totally just wanted to coach Say hey real quick.
>> [laughter] >> I saw. >> [laughter] >> Yeah, summer meetings. Yeah, summer meetings. I'm going to have quite a few this year. >> I'm going to have quite a few this year. >> Uh-huh. Oh, yeah. You guys >> Cuz there's no >> [laughter]
>> You going to do the do one presentation but in the four public hearings? Let me ask you this. Do we do one presentation, they do one public hearing? What do you mean before the I just thought I would ask. You never know. Okay. Well, before we start, I'll
I'll mention that, too. >> That's so not what we talked about. >> Okay. >> I started acting weird tonight. I had a really bad case of insomnia yesterday. And so, my wife looked at me like a dog all
weekend long. Thank you. I I had a few moments today where I sort of spaced out. I'm doing everything I I've had it before. It's not the first time I've had it happen. Okay. Sounds good. Okay. Actually,
can I show you something? The mirror The mirror has food. I I I made a stupid comment. And basically, It's It's not over here. >> Mr. Britton, I want to make sure you can hear us okay. If you can unmute your mic.
>> Oh, wait. I'm fine. Excuse me. >> Can you give us a quick mic check, Mr. Britain? 10-4, we hear you. You can mute the mic if you like. That was good. That's why I looked at you know, what I did was I looked at over here where it says this is what a special event is.
I said, "Okay. Well, if it's a non-profit non-profit and it's this stuff here, then I don't know." >> So anyway, I've got this. It's It's available at the front desk. But yeah, please do. It's going to >> I was sitting here going, "Well, I don't
hear it." Well, my hearing's gone anyway, so I think his change is already in here. >> It sounds like this one. Actually, it's a >> Okay. I heard he's a Okay. >> Okay. >> I I would I think he's here. I'm going >> He's going to speak about >> He's going to speak it.
Also, he he brought this up. Okay. Okay. >> But he's calling in. Where's he at? He's calling in from the Where's he been? >> Uh he's gone like a sabbatical for 2 weeks. He's gradually making his way to Wisconsin.
>> Okay. >> I thought I was later than I am. >> No, you're good. >> I'm I'm I'm all right. I think we're on. Check, check. You guys had a good vacation? >> Yeah, we had a great time. Just needed to like unplug on a mountain. >> Yeah, nice.
>> Yeah, so >> Where about in Colorado were you? >> We did a big loop. So, we flew into Denver, went up to the Rocky Mountains, then went out to Grand Junction. >> As long as it doesn't fall on you and hurt you. >> All right, but you never have the >> Get the You have to probably don't put
it on that. Ah, yeah, don't put it on there. Yeah, don't leave it on that thing. Yeah. >> [clears throat] >> I do like the dog I feel like it's we're like close to them leaving. I know, right? Like we we can all put some like little chickens balanced.
It's a good horse chicken. >> It could be yours. >> It could be. >> There's only No. [laughter] Somebody bought it. >> No, but I I love it. >> I think all but one are for sale. >> Which one's not?
>> One of them says not for sale over there. >> Wow. >> The the teacher told me the student the student Yeah, wanted to keep it, yeah. >> That is pretty cool. >> I like the City of Loveland pins that we got now. >> [laughter] >> I like that the coin was made in the
United States. Yeah, that's nice. I've got almost one I've got >> Yeah, you picked them up one day and you were like, "What is >> What is this?" Got two notepads this week, I guess. Guess I'm going to take a lot of notes.
>> And my my official pen where I put that I broke the topper out. >> Okay. Yeah, we should find out. We can put it in the report. >> Yep. >> Yep. >> Good evening, everyone. Welcome to Oviedo City Council Chambers. If you could all please rise for the Pledge of
Allegiance. >> I pledge allegiance to the flag 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. >> Please join me in a moment of silence. I'd like to call our meeting to order.
It is June 15th at approximately 6:30 p.m. and we have four members of council in person and one online, so we are all present. We're going to start out with our first item, which is the ceremonial item, so we're going to go on down and I'll hand this over to the mayor. >> Good evening, Oviedo. Tonight is a very
special night here at Oviedo City Hall because we have the state champions for softball from our very own Hagerty High School in the house. Want to invite in Coach Keeling so he can introduce the team and give us a rundown of all of their momentous successes this year.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you. If I take as long as I want, it's going to end up like one of my post-game speeches. All right. Um first off, Ms. Mayor, thank you. City Council, thank you guys for having us. Uh very proud of this season. So, to recap, uh we won the 7A state
championship. Thank goodness it was local. THAT WAS NICE. >> [applause] >> UH TO TRY TO TELL THE STORY about what happened this year, I think you got to go all the way back to what happened a year ago, last year. We had a second straight final four for the team, second straight second straight year of playing in the state
championship game. We just happened to go through a 7-hour rain delay last season. We ended up playing at midnight, and the game ended right before 2:00 a.m. So, for the girls to have the resolve to set a goal, to come all the way back 365 days later, a whole year later, and set
a goal to make it back to the state championship, very proud of what they accomplished. Uh 27 total wins, a third straight district championship, a second straight regional championship, two final fours, two state championship games, and one title. So, the real thanks is to these girls
right here. So, I'm going to introduce each one of them, starting with Mattingly Klein. She's our shortstop. >> [applause] >> Bree Rodammer, she was a utility player, catcher, infielder. >> [applause] >> Emily Wilkie, outfielder.
>> [applause] >> Riley Richards, outfielder. Janning Udine, outfielder. >> [applause] >> Uh Campbell Downing, our catcher and first baseman. >> [applause] >> Uh Sammy Gartner, catcher and outfielder.
>> [applause] >> Uh Addie Dilger, one of our pitchers. >> [applause] >> Addie Bell, outfielder and catcher. >> [applause] >> Uh one of this year's team a junior infielder, Alaina Gallagher. >> [applause] >> Uh, outfielder infielder Michaela
Bielenson. >> [applause] >> Uh, pitcher outfielder Tori Sambell. >> [applause] >> All right, the real stars of this season, the 2026 class, our seniors. Starting off with Alyssa Gutierrez, outfielder. >> [applause] >> Uh, Riley Oakley, outfielder.
>> [applause] >> Another one of this year's team captains, senior third baseman Nikki Thompson. >> [applause] >> Outfielder Abby Fitch. >> [applause] >> Infielder pitcher Nisa Fatsinger Rodriguez. >> [applause] >> Uh, and then a head coach is only as
good as the staff that he brings on, so I want to take the opportunity to announce my coaching staff, as well as they're just as much a part of this as anybody. So, we'll start with the longest tenured assistant coach, Wendy AC Seaman. >> [applause and cheering] >> Haggerty's
Olivia O'Quinn, state championships. >> [applause] >> And then Brooks. >> [applause] >> And Maya Murray. >> All right, and with that, we're going to the edge, because this is about you guys. So, y'all come to the middle, we're going to the edges. I want to get a picture with everybody. And if you
have like an official order you go in, and there's a two row situation happening, that probably would be awesome. >> [laughter] >> Let's give them another round of applause. And also, seniors, thank you again for coming back after your
graduation, so we could celebrate you along with the whole team. Well done, ladies. >> [applause] >> You good? >> Yep. >> Okay. Um moving right along, we're going to go on to your second order of business, which is the approval of the minutes. What is the pleasure of council?
>> I'll make a motion to approve the minutes for May 18th, 2026 regular session. >> Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? >> None. >> Okay. All those in favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> The motion >> I.
>> We got We got all of us. All right, we'll move on to public comment. I do not have any written requests to speak other than for specific items. Is there anyone looking to address council at this time? If so, please come up to the podium. Hearing none, I will close public
comment and move on to the consent agenda. What is the pleasure of council? >> I move we adopt item number five from the consent agenda and move item number four Uh or or I don't mind just discussing it. But there's a potential I might not vote for number four. So, I guess we should
remove that. So, I move that we approve item number four on the consent agenda. >> Did Are you pulling item number five? >> Yes, and we make No, we So, approve item number five and move item number four to item number 13A.
>> Okay, so item number four, resolution number 4733-26 is going to go down to 13A. >> Hold on a second. I have the wrong meeting up here. >> Okay. >> Sorry. >> So, now we've got the consent has just
>> I'm still good right now. Thanks. >> has item number five. It That's a motion. Is there a second? >> Uh Yes, second. >> Any discussion? >> No. >> Councilmember Britain?
>> I'm good. Thank you. >> Okay. I'll ask the clerk to call the roll. >> Mayor Slayton? >> I. >> Councilmember Ott? >> I. >> Deputy Mayor Tucker? >> I. >> Councilmember Boteford? >> I. >> Councilmember Britain? >> I don't know if you heard me. I. >> We got it. Okay, the emotion uh uh
carries. We are going to move on to item number six, which is our public hearing um ordinance number 1766. Mr. Bowes, would you read this by title only? >> Thank you very much, Deputy Mayor. This is ordinance number 1766, an ordinance of the city of Oviedo, Florida, amending the zoning map of the
city of Oviedo concerning approximately 63.16 acres of land generally located on the west side of Eastridge Drive and north side of East Mitchell Hammock Road from planned unit development PUD to planned unit development PUD and approving a second amendment to
Kingsbridge development agreement for the Kingsbridge planned unit development and providing for findings and legislative intent, implementing administrative actions, a savings provision, correction of scrivener's errors, conflicts, codification, severability, and an effective date. >> Thank you, Mr. Cobb. Would you provide a
brief intro? >> Uh thank you, Deputy Mayor. Dr. Correa will be providing staff presentation. >> Good evening, Mayor, um Deputy Mayor, council members. So, um well, this is the public hearing um for the Kingsbridge PUD
um Reformed Theological Seminary amendment. >> He stays. >> Okay. [laughter] >> He stays. I think we're good. Thanks. >> Okay. So, um next slide, please. So, this is ordinance 1766.
Um so, this the request is to amend the city's official zoning map um to change the zoning district for approximately 63.16 acres located on the west side of Eastridge Drive and the north side of East Mitchell Hammock Road
from PUD to PUD and approve a second amendment to the Kingsbridge um development agreement and approving also the CDP. Um the applicant is Derek Waters, P.E., from Catalyst Design Group. And next slide, please. So, the Kings
Bridge was formerly approved as Oviedo Groves and that was approved in 1988. And these were the entitlements for residential, commercial, and office,
and park. The parties were just Evans Groves and the the city of Oviedo back then. Next slide. In 1995, then the Kings Bridge PD was created. It was expanded for more
parties in the agreement. That was when the Reformed Theological Seminary became a party of the agreement and the uses were also expanded to include multi-family and institutional. And that was in 1995.
Next slide, please. This slide just By the way, I skipped all the historic, you know, uh uh perspective that we had in the previous presentation because we presented twice already. These slides
a comparison um from what the entitlements were in 1988 to the Kings Bridge 1995 PD and what the RTS is requesting today.
So, as you can see the multi-family was created in 1995 and it was to allow up to 120 units with a density of 20 unit 12 units per acre.
And then institutional uses. What they are trying to do now is to limit the the still 120 units, but realized by 163 beds. So, they are self-limiting
um um to beds now. And that is to be um developed in both tracks, F and H combined, up to 40 from this 163 up to 40 on um track F
as a dormitory. Dormitory, and I will show that was a prohibited use under the 1995 um um development agreement. So, that is what they are requesting in addition to single two single-family um detached
dwelling units, one in each lot in each tract, uh tract F and A H, um as the caretakers of the property. Next slide. >> So, this is the >> RTS um um
property. Next slide. An overview. Uh again, the um hatched area is the RTS property. There are two lots. Lot one is at the one in the bottom. Lot three is the um uh one in the north.
Next property Next slide, please. Um this is what um the DA in '95 um established um a maximum of 120 units, um commercial at maximum uh intensity of
10,000 square feet per acre, not to exceed 163,000, office at a maximum of 16,000 uh square feet per acre, not to exceed 63,000, single-family residential um
um lots not to exceed 800 units, and um for the tract H and F, the 12 dwelling units per acre, and uh and commercial um associated with that. But the note what is important is the note A that the
um development agreement did not allow um dormitory and that's what they are requesting now. Next slide. Um so they are maintaining the cap for the multi-family. They're restricting the
number of beds. Um they can do 163 beds in both tracks up to 40 in tract F and two detached single family units. Um one in each lot. Next slide. This is the
impact on the traffic. Um the original agreement had 750 students uh planned. They never realized that number of students. They are dropping to 163 now.
And um we use the off-campus student apartment IT category because there is no on-campus um student apartment category in the IT. And you can see the reduction in the
number of trips. And because they are on campus then you imagine the reduction will be even greater because then you have internal um capture. Next slide, please. So the CDP is
amended to reflect what is in the DA. Um there are no general changes on the general layout. We still don't have the footprint of the buildings they are going to going to bring. They are not going to be um major changes on the layout.
Um they still have the same access points. So one is Bridge Drive and another one in Mitchell Hammock Road. The open space uh requirement is still the same at a minimum of 30%. The maximum building height is still at 35 ft.
The protections on the conservation and the wetlands are the same. And we still don't have the the specific building layout. This will be addressed at the site development order level and there is adequate capacity for
recreation, solid waste, and transportation to accommodate the proposed use. Next slide, please. This is just to talk about the fence discussion that we had in the previous um uh meeting
this last um week. Staff managed to go on site. Um we had the deputy director going with the development review manager, another planner, the city manager went with the
environmental consultant in in the um representatives from the RTS as well. And they went through, you know, some heavy vegetation to check and they located um this berm that is on red over
there is earth and weir that serves as a physical barrier to prevent boat access. So, with that, we could confirm that the requirement that you have in the DA is still, you know, um
um valid without the fence. And with that, the city has no objection to with the removal of the fence. And no change to the DA is required because the the berm still has uh provides the
barrier that was um planned for. Next slide, please. So, the recommendation is for city council to um hold a public hearing and adopt ordinance 1766.
And I'm available to answer any questions that you may have. >> I just had a quick one on the the fence. We confirmed it Did we confirm it with St. Johns? It's all >> So, I reached out to St. Johns, you know, 2 weeks ago and uh
they did not have an issue with the with the with the fence. Um but there was a um comment from a resident that it might be a violation. It was never confirmed. I
heard now, but I did not have any confirmation from St. Johns any written confirmation from St. Johns that it was not a violation and they had no objection for the removal. So, there is no violation of keeping the fence, but they have no objection of removing the
fence. But that was verbal. It was not in writing. >> Got you. >> Uh Deputy Mayor, when we were out on site with the RTS representatives, they said they had also had conversations with St. Johns and they had no Uh St. Johns told them they had no objection to the fence as well.
>> Okay. Perfect. Thank you. >> I I I recommended they get it in writing. >> Yeah. All right, any questions while she's up? >> So, did we ask the the owners of this property about the fence that, you know, should be removed or suggested that it
doesn't need to be there? >> I think they are here. You can ask them directly in this >> going to ask them to come up next, so. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. And please just state your name. >> Uh Rob McAdams on staff at Reformed
Theological Seminary, 1231 Reformation Drive. Uh the fence, yes. Um we I I did get verbal confirmation from St. Johns that the fence is not on their easement. They were not opposed to the removal of it. They did understand that portions of it
had fallen down. That's where this whole conversation began. They gave me, again, verbally the okay to remove those as long as we were careful with any machinery. So, uh myself, a couple of our students, and some members of our staff were actually out there with uh the city staff uh last
week, and then again this morning um with just hand tools cutting and removing and and ripping out as much as we could. Um so, I believe the photos that were presented at the last meeting uh of city council June 1st, um that whole area has been cleared up, and that that fallen fence has been removed. Um
we're not opposed to removing the rest of the fence, either. So. >> Okay. And then, did you have any comments on what we're voting on here today? >> Uh I would say my only comment uh I just would sort of want to give some history, if I could, as to where this is coming from. We, when the property was being
conceived and developed back in the mid-90s, virtually 100% of our students were moving to uh Central Florida and going to our campus full-time residentially. Um and so, that's the language that's in in the in the uh in the agreement right now is that we would
have student housing. It would be multi-family, and it would be conceived for people who are moving here for 3-4 years to do a degree. Um we obviously have not built those uh to date. And in the last, what, 30 years, uh the education landscape has changed
in such a way that a number of our students, more than half probably, are now doing hybrid and online programs, where they're only coming to our campus once or twice a year for a week, maybe two. Um and one of their largest obstacles to coming and getting that
coursework done on site is in finding housing. They're looking for Airbnbs, they're going down to UCF, finding neighbors in Kingsbridge. I know there are a few who who host them for those weeks. Um some who are here. Um and we've thought, you know, we we
have this approval for housing, could we put up a facility that they could use just for a week or two at a time. We met with city staff, looked at the DA, saw it. We figured that our they were able to figure out that the closest language in Oviedo building uh
definitions was a dormitory, which was unfortunately disallowed originally. So, that's where we're coming with this dormitory, looking for short-term housing for students who are here for 2 weeks at a time. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. All right. Um this is a public hearing,
so I do have a written request to speak. Uh if you'd please come up and state your name. I have William Ryan. >> Hello, my name is William Ryan. I live at 458 Lake Park Trail. Uh I have a small I I I think it's a minor objection, but I I I think it's
rather important. So, if you could go to the next slide. So, when >> [cough] >> I guess the the the title of my talk tonight is protecting neighborhood stability. And specifically, I'm I'm speaking of tract J. Um of tract J, four four acres are are
owned by the seminary. The other 81.4 acres are owned by the residents of King's Bridge King's Bridge East. So, the current language you see and and and when when the developer updated the the text in the PUD, what
they did is they added some additional language for tracts F and H, but they did nothing for the language in tracts J. And so, you can see the current language is is on the left-hand side here, and it says architectural guidelines shall be created. Now, I guess this is what from the original PUD. I don't know. I've
never seen the original PUD. But it it still indicates a future action to be taken. And the close proximity to the tracts F and H statement could result in some confusion maybe in in the future. Now, I I up at the first LPA
meeting, and I was assured by city staff that there was no intention to do anything with tract J. Uh it was just F and H, but if that's the truth, then then why don't we put that in into writing in the PUD? I don't So, I've put my requested
language on the on the right-hand side here. So, I'd like to change the shall be created to the architectural guidelines for tracts J and J1 shall be unaffected by this amendment and shall continue to apply as set forth in exhibit E of the original PUD.
So, the the bottom line of all this is verbal assurances of intent do not bind future development. They basically mean nothing. So, the only explicit only the explicit text of the ordinance carries the force of law. So, whatever we do
whatever we plan to do with with with tract J, we should make sure that that's shown in the PUD and that's that's the intention is stated in the written text. That's it. >> Thank you. I do not have any other written requests to speak. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to address
council on this item? Hearing none, I will close >> You have another one? >> I will close public comment. What is the pleasure of council? >> I'll make a motion to approve ordinance number 1766. >> For purposes of discussion, I second it.
Okay. >> Any discussion? Councilman Bradford. >> Yeah, so I think it's interesting what uh Mr. Ryan just kind of brought up and I guess I wanted to ask Teresa, I mean, is there any objection to what he's suggesting? >> I would defer to the city attorney on
that one, but I can clarify why we added the language. Uh so, the city just to clarify in general, we the city doesn't have architectural standards for single-family homes in the code. We we don't have, we never had, we don't intend to have. Um
the Kings Bridge is already developed, uh, but we do have for multi-family. So, that's why we included, you know, the language for the RTS property. But, on the specific change that Mr. Ryan is raising, I will defer to
Mr. Voss. >> Mr. Voss. Thank you very much. Uh, so, just a couple things, uh, real quick. Uh, I alluded to this, uh, before at the last, uh, last meeting of this by Zoom, but of course I was breaking up a bit, so I'm going to go ahead and mention it again.
Uh, the entire uh, development agreement amendment that is before you tonight is, uh, targeted specifically to tracks F and H. As you've heard from the member of the public, um, tracks J
>> Ryan is speaking about? >> Tracks J and J1, uh, are not owned >> Councilwoman Britain, can you please mute? Thank you. >> Uh, tracks J and J1 are not owned just by RTS. If they were, we might be having a slightly different conversation.
Over 81 acres of it is owned by all the other property owners within tracks J and J1. A a single applicant, uh, that owns just a piece of a piece of property in a PUD cannot apply to change, uh, a portion of
a PUD that applies to property other than what they own. And so, this sentence that was that was mentioned there, uh, applies to all those other properties, which is the nature of his concern. Um, that here's a couple things I would offer to you with regard to this
language. Because this the the that single sentence there is not does not have either underlining or strike through. It's not being changed by this amendment. It is not being changed by this amendment. This amendment uh the the
state of the PUD with regard to those tracks remains as it was when the original PUD development agreement was adopted. All right? In addition, with regard to the language, it's a little clunky uh how it
was written back in '95, but what it is saying is architectural guidelines shall be created for tracks J and J1 as shown in exhibit E. Exhibit E is a static thing. It has a discrete list of things. Um it could be changed by a subsequent
amendment with all the, you know, potential, you know, all the property owners who would need to uh file an application to amend it. But um it's saying shall be created uh as shown in exhibit E, a static exhibit, and will
be incorporated into the homeowners association documents for Reese Village. That has, I can just share with you because we were looking at the um all the matters relating to the fence, we learned that that has in fact occurred. Everything that's in exhibit E has been incorporated into those HOA docs.
Um so even though it's it was speaking in the kind of future tense there back when it was first adopted, that does not leave it open that there would be some change or could be some
change to that exhibit E in the absence of an application coming before the council going through the entire process filed by all the property owners that would need to to make that change, which would be the property owners that would be affected by it.
Uh so as a theoretical concern, I I really want to caution you you don't want to go making changes to a single word of a uh PUD development agreement that affects property other than the applicants. It
runs contrary to the state statute that uh that allows this amendment to occur just on the piece and you'd be fooling with other folks property rights. So I mean I understand it's very innocuous change here. It's just basically saying this doesn't change anything, but that is the state of the
law right now. >> To clarify, are you are you >> Mayor, okay. >> No, I mean that's that's interesting. I didn't I didn't know that. So you know, appreciate that. So No, I mean it's only question in my head there.
>> Mayor Slayton. Just to clarify, 100% of the property owners in tracks J and J1 would have to all agree to change anything. That is correct? >> Yeah, either it would it would have to be one of it would be one thing
definitely and there potentially an alternative. It would have to be either 100% of the property owners apply to make that change, all right? Or if there's something tucked away and I haven't looked for this, if there's something tucked away in the HOA docs
that says the HOA can apply for changes to the PUD with respect to everything within it, that's something you find sometimes. You would then need the HOA plus RTS because RTS is not bound by the HOA. So you need one way or another something to legally bind >> [clears throat]
>> all those property owners to applying either directly or indirectly. >> All right, thank you. Any further questions? No? Okay, Councilmember Roth. >> Uh nothing for me. >> Councilmember Britton. >> Yep. Can you hear me now?
>> Yes. >> I'm good. I'm going to tap to unspeak. >> Okay. Um I'm good as well too. So with that I will ask the clerk to call the roll. Councilmember Butterfield. >> I. >> Mayor Slayton. >> I.
>> Deputy Mayor Tucker. >> Aye. >> Councilman Britton? >> Uh aye. >> Councilman Art? >> Aye. >> The motion carries. We will move on to item number seven in our public hearings, ordinance number 1767. Mr. Rose, can you read that by title
only? >> Thank you, Deputy Mayor. This is ordinance number 1767, an ordinance of the City of Oviedo, Florida, amending the land development code of the City of Oviedo, specifically Article 3, development agreements, orders, and permits, and Article 18, basic
definitions and interpretations, providing for conflicts, severability, codification, correction of scrivener's scrivener's errors, and an effective date. >> Thank you, Mr. Cobb. >> Uh thank you, Deputy Mayor. If you think back a few months ago, we had a discussion about special event permits,
and uh about uh um outdoor sales events, and some issues that the staff had experiencing and Council gave us direction to move forward with amendments to the land development code, as well as amendments to the code ordinances. Both of those
ordinances are on the agenda tonight. Uh land development code amendments do require two public hearings per state statute, so this is a public hearing. We will need you to not only read by title, but also conduct public hearing, and then uh we're requesting that a second public hearing be scheduled for
July the 6th. Uh Dr. Kraya will be uh presenting the staff's recommendations. >> Thank you. >> So, good evening again. Um the next presentation, please. Um so, as Mr. Cobb mentioned, we had a
work session um in February, and we got consensus um for the following, to amend the code to um allow special event permits to be issued for no more than three consecutive days, and no more than one
single special event permit per month for the same applicant property and event. And also to to treat farmers market as special events and not outdoor sales event permits. Next slide. So, this amendment um
accomplishes the following. We are clarifying when a special event permit is required and that is a proposal from staff. Um the second one exempts not only places of worship. Oh, and in the work session in February, we also got
direction um from council to work with the mayor to tweak a little bit the language on the the places of worship and and we did that. So, uh exempts not only uh places of worship
from special event permitting, but also organizations with events located on properties owned by places of worship. And the three allow special events to occur um um once per month instead of once per year
and reducing the time frame from 14 to 3 days. And then provide um consistency provides consistency with the definition of for special events. So, let's go over the the changes. So, the first section was
uh 3.5 um um section I um we changed uh and that is the requirements for a special permit, when we require them. And we added in the end and that comes from staff that the activity requires city services for
its implementation as determined by the land use administrator or designee. This is already practice, so we require when there is um a need for city services, but it was not clear in the code. So, we are, you know, um including that in the LDC.
Second slide, please. Um then we changed um the uh in the code it was written before that only events organized by um places of worship and by um schools would be uh
uh exempt. And now we are saying events organized at properties owned by places of worship and schools. And I'm just going to clarify the reason why we do that. It's not because of the uses, it's because those properties are um
were designed to accommodate assembly. So that is basically why we do that. Um so we we um remove um number uh It should be a not number I think the numbering is not
correct, but the activities organized by the place of worships or school because it can be that is not a requirement in anymore. If it's on property that um um belongs to a a place of worship or
school, that would be exempt as well. And then we changed the duration of the activity to be limited to three consecutive days giving the land use administrator the ability to extend it um
but allowing more events. So instead of one single event per year, now it's per month for the same applicant on the same property for the same or similar type of event. Next slide.
Um here we changed uh we removed farmers market um reference from outdoor sales event um because it's considered now a special event permit. Next slide. We then changed the definition of
special events to um reflect what the code says. And then the requirement also includes that activity requires city service services for its implementation as determined by the land use administrator or designee.
Next slide. I think that's the end. With that We recommend that council holds a public hearing and um schedule the second public hearing for July 6th. >> And I just wanted to clarify one thing. Is it section 3.5 or 3.4?
>> 3.5 >> Cuz when I look at it on our LDC online it's 3.4. >> The LDC online is not the >> Okay, that's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure. >> Unfortunately, it's the we codify it now. We just received the the the new
one to revise. So it's being codified now finally. Yeah. >> That's what I thought. Just wanted to make sure. >> It's 3.5. >> Okay. Anybody have questions while she's up here? All right. Thank you. Uh this is a public hearing. I do have one written request to speak. Um Mr.
David Williamson. >> Good evening, mayor, deputy mayor, council. My form has my address on file. I have no objection to the proposed language to the development code. I would just to suggest a friendly amendment. I think this is already circulated with um uh city manager and and and a couple of
you, but um you can see the red line document um you got that from the clerk, right? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> I don't have one of those, but >> That was on purpose. >> [laughter] >> Oh, it's up there. There we go. I guess I have three notepads now.
>> So the the red reflects my suggestions. The blue is is more or less what the staff is proposing. Um the current language uh exempts events organized by um places of worship or houses of worship under certain circumstances. My recommendation is simply to
replace that phrase with non-profit organizations, if that suffices. Um, places of worship should already be organized as non-profit organizations. So, this change would not remove any existing benefit from religious institutions. Churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, uh, other religious organizations would continue to qualify
for the exemption under the same standards as other non-profits. The advantage of this change is it creates a neutral and consistent rule. Um, the advantage, uh, or I guess the city would be regulating based on organizational status and land use impacts. I heard Dr.
Correa mention, uh, an occupancy of assembly. Right? That's a whole other category that's not addressed here. So, if if you're trying to equally apply this to a land use occupancy, then that's a different consideration altogether. I hadn't thought about that, but I appreciate that insight.
Um, so, if the purpose is to accommodate community-serving organizations conducting activities on their own property without city services, then all similarly situated non-profit organizations, religious or not, should be treated equally.
Um, whether that's the American Legion, the Oviedo Women's Club, or Hope Helps. And while they may or may not have place on site right now, may they may or may not have an occupancy as assembly hall, um, they deserve equal treatment under the law now and into the future. So, I leave the details to you and
capable staff to wordsmith that. As a related matter, um, you should also note that, um, several organizations, non-profit as well as religious congregations, lease their spaces. So, the ownership, um, is an issue for some of those organizations, and that may not be your
intention. Some of those organizations may be sharing common space with others, right? I can think of at least one non-profit and a a house of worship here locally that is leasing a space with a shared parking lot, shared frontage. So, those
considerations might need to involve the owner of the property. Um but again, I leave it for your staff and your capable selves to resolve. But thanks as always for your consideration. >> Thank you. I do not have any other written requests to speak. Is there anyone looking to address council on this topic?
Hearing none, I'll close public comment. What is the pleasure of council? >> I move we adopt ordinance 1767 with Mr. Williamson's amendment and perhaps another one. >> For purposes of discussion, I'll second that. What's that?
>> I schedule a public hearing. >> Sorry. >> Oh. >> On July 6th, 2026. >> Um okay. Oh, and schedule a public hearing for July 6th. >> So, instead of adoption, you propose scheduling a public hearing for July 6th.
>> Um Well, given that this is two public hearings and not a first reading, I'll say whatever you want. >> [laughter] >> Is there a motion to schedule a second public hearing on July 6th? >> Uh yes, so moved. >> And seconded. >> Any discussion? >> Um
I I like these amendments. Um I I brought this up last time, I think. Uh it's been a few months, but um I kind of like the idea of kind of opening this up as as broadly as possible for people to be able to do events at places that are
designed to do events without having to ask the city for a permission slip. Um so, I think this is a good step in that direction. Uh but I would like to hear um from Dr. Correa, is is there some As far as land development code-wise, is
is there a reason why places of worship might need a special carve out in uh for reasons like they would be required to have more parking or the setback or something would be entrance and exit that would be
different from maybe another non-profit. >> that are designed So, what we control and we try to um um we control is impact, right? It's impact on the city. So, if you have a property that can
accommodate >> Right. >> you know, a lot It was designed to accommodate large crowds. And so, schools and places of worship are that type of places that they attract crowds, right? We do not want them to ask for special event permits every time they
have, you know, an event, you know, in the in a school or in a church or in any place of worship, right? So, that that was why that is why they are exempt. Now, if they spill over to require city
services then that's that would be, you know, required. But, usually they are large enough to accommodate in their own facility without having impact on the city.
Opening too much and I I we don't want to to pick and choose, either. >> Right. >> Right? The thing is that if you have a non-profit that is using the parking lot of the mall, which is common for a special event, that was not a
place that was designed to have crowds. And you have an operational mall and an operational parking lot and also a crowd there, we need to protect that crowd, right? So, that crowd needs to be We need to secure the perimeter, police will be there.
That requires city services. So, on those situations, that is a special event. So, if we can >> That asked? >> If we can craft language that allow non-profits that have, you know, the same conditions as, you know,
places of worship or schools to have some criteria. And I think the the city manager may have, you know, already some suggestions. I mean, if you want to entertain that, I mean, we are okay with that. >> So So, the mall is is not owned by a
nonprofit. Right? The mall is not >> if it's rented by a nonprofit, right? Cuz it's If you you're giving the same conditions. This one is if you're renting. Um >> Well, so this says owned by. Is Is renting or leasing is that covered under
this language legally? Is that maybe a mispro- >> No, he did not propose that. And what was >> Okay. >> No, no, I I know, but but you brought up >> I didn't What is the proposal that he has? I haven't seen it. >> It does say owned by. >> [cough]
>> So, it it would be only events organized at properties owned by nonprofits. >> Yeah. >> Right, not lease. >> And And so, that would exclude cuz I was thinking, you know, place of worship could be as small as a place in a a strip mall, right? But that would not be
owned by. So, then it would not be covered under here. Um >> I have no problem with that, but >> Deputy Mayor, if I could cuz >> Yeah. >> Mayor Mayor's Mayor forwarded the email to me this morning this afternoon, and
so I did put some thoughts together. Uh if it's okay, I could I could show you those thoughts. >> Sure. >> Very simple. Uh Ms. Booth, if you could pull it up. Go all the way to the Go to the last page. Uh Mr. I, your question to me, I also put some thoughts together with your question about the duration. So, I've
got that in there as well. >> Okay. >> If you want to discuss it. Uh, what I've done here, uh, is to look at non-profit organizations. Uh, the one of the things that I noticed in the code as it's proofs as presented was that we were talking about events on on
uh, church properties, on school properties where they could be held without any type of city services. And but when when I received the email, I started thinking about, okay, how would we how would we treat non-profits? And the thing I looked at was, okay, how
do we set them up so that they don't they don't qualify as to require a special event. So, I looked at what was required for a special event. And the thing that I also looked at was I made it consistent with what's over in the
uh, code of ordinances for fee waiver. And so, that was one of the things that I looked at was, if it's self-contained on the property, whether it's owned by the non-profit or if it's leased by the non-profit, that's not a material. If it's contained on the property property where it's where it's located, fine. If it doesn't require any city
services, okay. Uh, if it doesn't require off-site signage, that's another one. If it doesn't if there's no food trucks, then there should be no no reason for it to have a permit. And so, what we would do is that we would add this in as a as a as a
individual exemption just for non-profits and leave the, uh, leave the part about the churches and schools, leave that alone, but create this as a new thing as a new exemption instead. So, that that was the thoughts that I had after I received the email
to create for them to say it's it's exempt from having to get a permit if it meets this criteria. >> So, s- um S- schools are government, right? They're not a 501 Yeah, >> [clears throat] >> so so we might have to add
>> So, the schools the schools the schools and the churches would stay over in the existing paragraph that's already there. >> Okay, so we're going to add we would add this. >> Did you go up? Did you go up, please? Uh keep going. Keep going. Okay, stop. Come back down. Come back
down. So, you can see here under D this is the events organized at properties owned by places of worship and public private middle schools and yeah, high schools. So, that would stay there intact as recommended. Mr. If you could go down. And then this would create a a new E
which would be just for the nonprofits. That's what it would do. And so, I was trying to maintain the the integrity of the public schools and the and the and the church uh paragraph, but then also come up with the idea that we could allow nonprofits
to be exempt from a special event permit. And you know, same same situation. If If it's If it's contained, doesn't require city services, doesn't require off-site signages, there's no food trucks that would require special inspections,
uh then then and it it won't matter if they own the property or if they if they're renting the property. >> Okay. So, since this is a public hearing and we have to have two, this is not a first reading.
>> This is a first reading cuz we Mr. Voss did read it into the record. So, it was a first reading. And this is the first public hearing. That's something that I turned to Mr. Voss soon as soon as we started talking about this, I turned to Mr. Voss and I said, "Is this a significant change?" And he said, "No."
>> Okay, that was the question. Do we need to move forward >> Yes, we can continue move >> It's not a change that would necessitate another first year. Right. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Um
Now, so Okay, so what should uh Hm. What should we do? Uh should I amend the motion to incorporate this language? >> If you if you get with that, yes, just give us direction and then follow with that. >> Um
Um, is is there does somebody have an opposition to that? >> You're the motioner, so >> I Well, I know, but I I I'd like it to pass. >> I I would uh second an amendment to I I would second a motion to have it be
this. >> Okay, I amend motion to include >> this language instead. >> Mr. Cobb's language. >> Okay. >> Is that it? >> Do we have a second? >> Second. >> All right, any discussion? >> Can I ask one other question? Mr. Mr. Ott, earlier today or actually yesterday
gave me an email asking about the duration language. And so that is if you look up there, I'll I'll just read to you the final product of it. And what it would say is that the duration of a special event permit shall be up to three consecutive days unless
additional time is granted by the administrator or designated as part of the permit issuance. And so what it means is is that it's a maximum of three days, but you can you can request additional like like in a we talked about in my response
about sometimes an event may go two days and so you need a day for setup, you need a day for breakdown, and then two days for the event. That's four. But at least the four days would be granted through the permit review process. It wouldn't be something outside of that.
And so that was the idea that I had for the duration and I know because you were talking about is there any way to make it one sentence. And that was the that was the only way I could come up with it. >> Okay. I I like that language, too. So Um, I'd like to amend my motion to
include Mr. Cobb's changes, too. Uh well, three. Wherever that's under under duration of activity. >> Okay. We have a second? >> Second. >> Any discussion? >> Uh nothing further. >> Mayor Slayton. >> I like all of the additions um and
clarifications and making sure that this is available to nonprofits and is a content neutral thing available to everybody. So, well done. It's about time we got this figured out and finalized or one step closer to finalized. >> Councilman Britain.
>> I concur. >> All right. Councilman Botterford. >> No, I like the changes as well. So, uh I think that covers what what was brought up. Um so, I'm good with it. >> Okay. And I also agree. These are good changes. Uh I'll ask the clerk to call
the roll. Councilman Ott. >> I. >> Mayor Slayton. >> I. >> Deputy Mayor Tuggart. >> I. >> Councilman Botterford. >> I. >> Councilman Britain. >> I. >> The motion carries. Um we're going to move on to items
[clears throat] number 8 through 11. Um we're going to do the uh presentation first, correct? >> Yes. >> And then we're going to go through title only by each one. So, if if uh we're confusing the audience a little bit, we're going to get through all of them. So. >> And Deputy Mayor, one thing just
procedurally, uh once Mr. Bose will do the he'll review all four ordinances with his presentation and then what we'll need you to do is read each ordinance by title, conduct a public hearing for each ordinance separately, and then take four separate votes.
>> Understood. Okay. So, Mr. Bose. >> I will go ahead and handle the presentation. Actually, if I could ask staff, do you have the PowerPoint for all four? The one that was used back in the work session. Or we can just go through individually as you want to string them together.
>> And if there's no objection, I I don't mind going a little faster than last time. >> I'm glad to go very fast. >> Okay, excellent. >> Well, let me go ahead and hit the uh first since we have it up. Uh so council members, good evening. I have before you tonight uh the four ordinances for
second reading public hearing for [clears throat] four charter amendments that have been proposed by the Charter Review Committee. The first of the four charter amendments is a uh city charter amendment changing the length of council terms from 2 years to 4 years as previously discussed. Uh this would
begin uh with the 2028 election. It would provide a transition uh with a 3-year term at the 2027 regular election so that by 2028 we would transition [clears throat] into uh 4-year cycles that coincide with the even-year presidential and gubernatorial
elections. Any questions on this first charter amendment? Hearing none, we can move on to the second one. This second charter amendment is a charter amendment uh revising council voting procedures for ordinances and resolutions. In particular, uh revising
the uh uh voting procedures for ordinances and resolutions by removing the requirement for a roll call vote as discussed previously. The ballot summary does have additional uh some additional language here to try to clarify for voters what is not going away by this uh change so
folks can feel assured that uh everyone will will still have to vote on matters that come before you. Any questions on this? Moving on to the third charter amendment uh before you tonight. This one is a city charter amendment revising the time frame for holding special elections. As previously
discussed, this was a uh charter amendment that uh originated in on the recommendation with discussions with your Seminole County Supervisor of Elections. Effectively moves out the time frame for holding certain special elections under your charter uh giving
the Supervisor of Elections an additional 30 days uh in a window uh from 90 to 120 days in order to make those things happen so that uh, all of the processes that supervisor has to go through uh, and also meet the
requirements of our charter will coordinate better with uh, current state election procedures and all of the best practices obligations uh, on the supervisor. Any questions on this amendment? Moving on to the fourth and final uh, charter amendment. This is a uh, charter
amendment moving the qualifying period for uh, running for city council from August uh, to June in uh, every year when election would occur uh, with a notation there to let folks know that the elections uh, even with this change would remain in November.
Any questions concerning this charter amendment? [clears throat] Right. With that, uh, those are the four charter amendments that have been recommended by the Charter Review Committee as uh, Mr. Cobb uh, indicated, we would ask you that with regard to each we um,
uh, have the title read, that uh, public hearing be conducted uh, as to the first, have a vote on the first and we proceed through on each. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rose. So, we will start out with number item number eight, ordinance number 1768. Mr. Rose, can you read that by title only?
>> Absolutely. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. This is ordinance number 1768, an ordinance of the City of Oviedo, Florida proposing an amendment to the charter of the City of Oviedo, Florida proposing a charter amendment changing the length of council terms from two years to four years, providing for a referendum on the
proposed charter amendment, providing for the ballot title and ballot summary for such referendum, providing for direction to the city clerk in coordination with the Seminole County Supervisor of Elections, and providing for implementing administrative actions, findings, conflicts, severability, codification, the correction of
scrivener's errors, and an effective date. >> Thank you, Mr. Rose. There are no public written requests to speak. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address Council at this time since this is a public hearing? Hearing none, I will close public comment. What is the pleasure Council?
>> I'll make a motion to approve ordinance number 1768. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? >> No, I think as we talked about this before on these charter amendments, we had a charter review committee made up of residents. Couple of them are here tonight. You
know, it was a very diverse group. They came up with these and you know, they want to put these to the voters and I'm all for it. >> Okay, Mayor Slater. >> I may not agree with all of these, but it is not my place to prevent voters from choosing their form of governance. So, on they go.
>> Council member Pratt. >> [laughter] >> Yes, it is, Madam Mayor. I will try not to repeat myself too much since this is the third time going through it. But, this is the public hearing. Um, but I will summarize. Uh, the state statute says that charter
amendments are made by referendum called by ordinances of the governing body. We are the governing body and that power is vested in the Oviedo City Council. The state statute does not mention charter review committees.
We created a charter review committee to give us advice as to what things we might put uh, to an ordinance. A delegation of that authority is an abdication of our responsibility
to do as our original resolution said, um, propose revisions and or amendments to the city charter as the city council deems appropriate and in the best interests of the city. So, we are called to put forth charter
amendments for referendum which are in which are appropriate and in the best interest of the city. And with that, I do not believe that uh is the first one, right? Yeah, changing length of council terms is in the best interest of the city. As we have it right now, we have
2-year terms. The proposal is to go to 4-year terms. Um right now, uh so there's a few reasons. Right now, we can uh if you don't like what's going on in the city council, you can vote people off every single year. Every single year you have
an opportunity uh to make changes uh to this governing body. Um the other reason for this one is that this went before the voters uh last time, 5 years ago, in a very clean uh charter amendment, and it was defeated. And I I don't think it's right to keep
going back to the voters every time we do this and uh try to ask for the same thing, especially something like this where it kind of looks like it's self-serving to us. Even though I concede that it may or may not be, because when you change the rules um of
something like an election, all kinds of things change. So, you know, that's that's not an absolute. But uh regardless, uh I don't know on this. [clears throat] >> Councilmember Britton. You're still muted. >> All right. >> There we go. >> I I have no comments. Thanks.
>> Okay. Um I want to greet and thank our Charter Review Committee. I think they did an excellent job. Um and as far as you mentioned abdicating um our role up here, and I completely disagree and just want to point out that this is one of
the few things that comes through council that affects council. So, I think if we even put our hands on it, um it could be taken as being in our own best interest. And I think that's why we kind of give that to a council of citizens to come up with how they want their city council to
operate. So, um but with that, I will ask the clerk to call the roll. >> If I could add one thing though that is important to have on the record, our charter itself calls for the creation of a charter review committee. So, even though having a charter review committee
is not required under state law and we are allowed under state law and under our charter to appoint ourselves as the charter review committee, we must have one. So, you know, our charter says we we've got to have a charter review committee. So, there it is.
>> I'll ask the clerk to call the roll. Council member Rutherford? >> Aye. >> Mayor Slayden? >> Aye. >> Deputy Mayor Teggert? >> Aye. >> Council member Britton? >> Aye. >> Council member Ort? >> Nay. >> The motion carries. We move on to
ordinance number 1769. Mr. Voss, can you read that by title only, please? >> Thank you, Deputy Mayor. This is ordinance number 1769, an ordinance of the city of Oviedo, Florida, proposing an amendment to the charter of the city of Oviedo, Florida, proposing a charter amendment revising council voting procedures for ordinances and
resolutions, providing for a referendum on the proposed charter amendment, providing for the ballot title and ballot summary for such referendum, providing for directions to the city clerk in coordination with the Seminole County Supervisor of Elections, and providing for implementing administrative actions, findings,
conflicts, severability, codification, the correction of scrivener's errors, and an effective date. >> Thank you, Mr. Voss. I will open up our public hearing. I do not have any written requests to speak on this. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address council on this item? If you could please come up to the
podium. >> Charles Zuber from 1064 Will Lake Circle here in Oviedo. Um, this particular uh, section kind of goes against the code of knowing who's voting which way.
If y'all are up there saying I together or nay, you get I I I nay and it's all coming together at the same time, you don't really know who's doing what. So, come voting time I don't have that selection
to find out who I need to vote out or vote in for what you're passing. So, that's still what's happening upstairs in the Congress and in the House of Representatives, you can still tell
who's voting which way. So, I'd like to know that kind of thing even locally. Thank you. >> Thank you. Is there anyone else who'd like to address council on this item? Hearing none, I will close public comment. What is the pleasure of council?
>> I'll make a motion to approve ordinance number 1769. >> Second. >> We have motion and a second. Any discussion? >> Yeah. Mr. Vera, don't when we do uh not the roll call, don't you actually have to acknowledge who voted which way?
>> Yes, I do. >> And you put it you put it in the uh in the record, right? >> Yes, I do. >> And it is available to the public. >> Yes, it is. >> Okay. That's all I had. >> Mayor. >> Nothing. >> Councilmember Roth. >> Yeah, so I I agree with Mr. Zuber. Um
I to that though, um I I did when this first came up it was at my very first meeting and and you brought it up uh Mayor that the charter required this and you wanted to follow the charter. Um one thing I did ask um Mr. Rivera is
that in trying to determine what the uh impetus might be cuz you know um didn't really know and uh ask. Um is that uh you I asked you whether it's difficult to separate our voices in
a voice vote, um if that was perhaps um the issue that was being uh brought up. And And you told me at the time that it it was not difficult to um ascertain our voices in a voice vote. Is that still uh >> That's the case. Yes, I
I recognize your voices very well. >> [laughter] >> Um okay. So, um with that uh even so, I still think this one's silly to take all the way to the voters, so I'm still out, but I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you.
>> Council member Britten. >> I'm good. Thank you. >> Okay. All right, then I'll ask the clerk to call the roll. Council member Butterfield. >> Aye. >> Mayor Slayton. >> Aye. >> Deputy Mayor Tuke. >> Aye. >> Council member Britten. >> Aye. >> Council member Art. >> Nay.
>> The motion carries. We're going to move on to ordinance number 1770. Mr. Bose, can you read that by title only, please? >> Thank you, Deputy Mayor. This ordinance number 1770, an ordinance of the City of Oviedo, Florida, proposing an amendment to the charter of the City of Oviedo, Florida, proposing a charter amendment revising
the time frame for holding special elections, providing for a referendum on the proposed charter amendment, providing for the ballot title and ballot summary for such referendum, providing for direction to the City Clerk in coordination with the Seminole County Supervisor of Elections, and providing for implementing
administrative actions, findings, conflicts, severability, codification, the correction of scrivener's errors, and an effective date. >> Thank you, Mr. Bose. Is there a public hearing? I do not have any written requests to speak. Is there anyone that would like to address council on this topic?
Hearing none and seeing none, I will close public comment. What is the pleasure of council? >> I'll make a motion to approve ordinance number 1770. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? >> No, we talked about this one before, so I'm good with it. >> Mayor Slater? Council member Ott? >> Sounds fine.
>> Council member Britton? >> I'm good. Thank you. >> I'll ask the clerk to call the roll. Council member Brodhead? >> Aye. >> Mayor Slater? >> Aye. >> Deputy Mayor Tuke? >> Aye. >> Council member Britton? >> Aye. >> Council member Ott? >> Aye.
>> The motion carries. We will move on to ordinance number 1771. Mr. Bose, can you read that by title only? >> Thank you, Deputy Mayor. This ordinance number 1771, an ordinance of the City of Oviedo, Florida, proposing an amendment to the charter of the City of Oviedo, Florida, proposing a charter amendment
moving City Council qualifying period, providing for a referendum on the proposed charter amendment, providing for the ballot title and ballot summary for such referendum, providing for direction to the City Clerk in coordination with the Seminole County Supervisor of Elections, and providing for implementing administrative actions, findings,
conflicts, severability, codification, the correct correction of scrivener's errors, and an effective date. >> Thank you, Mr. Bose. This is a public hearing. I do not have any written requests to speak. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address Council on this topic? Hearing none and seeing none, I will
close public comment. What is the pleasure of Council? >> I'll make a motion to approve 1771. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? >> No, again, the Charter Review Committee reviewed this. This was their their their suggestion, and I think from their
suggestion it should go to the voters and they make a decision. >> Mayor Slater? >> Onward. >> Council member Ott? >> No, just as before. Um moving qualifying, so on the on the on the substance of it, moving qualifying up to be equivalent to where the county
has it, which is last week. Last week or week before? Last week. Yeah. Um that is way too early for us. The county has it early because they have either a primary election in August, which we do not, um or they have their main election
in August and they have their runoff in November. Uh either way their qualifying is earlier because their election is earlier. If we move our qualifying this much earlier, we're going to have an even longer period between qualifying and election
uh than the county does. And that does a couple of things. One of the things it does is that it favors incumbents because incumbents are going to be more kind of, you know, tuned into the political process. Um and and the other thing it does is it makes it so that I guess this also
favors incumbents. So, it favors incumbents in a few ways. It makes it so that almost if the terms were to stay at 2 years, almost um 1/4 of your term is served in a period where somebody
cannot come to challenge you, right? You may have a challenger come before that, but no additional challengers could come after that that period. Um and I think that's far too long to have that type of um to be in that type of of mode, so to
speak. Um so I think we should leave qualifying as it is. As to putting it on the ballot, um this is one of those things where um most people don't speak in these terms about qualifying and all this kind of
stuff. Um you know, as I said before before I ran for office, I was, you know, vaguely aware that there were things you had to do to get on the ballot. Um I did not speak of them in the terms that would be on the ballot language. So, I'm not saying that this is a thing that's difficult to to
understand, uh but it is a thing that will take some some effort to understand. Um and so I don't I So, for those reasons uh I I don't think we should do it. >> Okay. >> Council member Britain.
>> I don't have any comments on this. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh, if the clerk can call the roll. Council member Bottsford. >> I. >> Mayor Slater. >> I. >> Deputy Mayor Tukur. >> I. >> Council member Britain. >> I. >> Council member Ott.
>> Nay. >> The motion carries. We'll move on to item number 12, which is a first reading of ordinance. We are up to ordinance number 17 1772. Mr. Voss, would you read that by title only? >> Thank you, Deputy Mayor. This is ordinance number 1772, an ordinance of
the city of Oviedo, Florida, amending the code of ordinances of the city of Oviedo, Florida, specifically chapter two, administration, article three, chapter two, administration, article 11, chapter 22, environment, article four, and chapter 28, impact fees by public
facility, article one, and providing for conflicts, severability, implementing administrative actions, a savings provision, codification, correction of scrivener's errors, and an effective date. >> Thank you. Mr. Cobb. >> Uh, thank you, Deputy Mayor. As I mentioned before, back in February
when we had our work session, one of the items that staff brought forward was some amendments uh, our concerns about some of the language in the uh, section 2-291, which deals with waiver of fees. And
Council gave us direction to move forward with changes. When staff was working on the changes, they also came across some things in our noise ordinance uh, as as well as with our public arts board. And one of the the public arts board was one where we had already
talked with Council about it, and you you said we can move forward with it as well. The changes to the um, the noise ordinance is more of a practice that we felt like we should actually put into the code. So, I'll I'll turn it over to Dr. Correa and let
her bring you the staff's presentation. >> So, good evening again. Um So, this is ordinance 1772. So, we have four amendments to the code of ordinances. The first one was a direction given by council during a work session last year and was to allow the
public arts board to have discretionary um spending authority up to um $1,500 per fiscal year from the public arts fund um to use toward expenses related um to an
approved project of any accessory um um um need um related to an approved project that limited or may include but not limited to any if you need a plaque, of lighting, landscaping, or mer-
merchandise again associated with an approved um public art installation. So, this is just to um codefine that uh um direction and that is in section 2-83.
Next slide, please. This is in the section um 2- um 20 um 291 and it's the waiver of development and special event and other fees. Uh we just um
removed um has the city manager has the authority to to say the city manager shall wave um in the in the table we remove that may to show that there is no discretionary
powers on the city manager. The city manager usually um always um waves the fees for um um those situations that described in the ordinance, so we remove that see fees to be waived. And we
clarified that for nonprofits um, we waive the special event permit application fee and sign permit fees, but not the tent permit fees because they are building permit fees and um, that needs to be reviewed by the
building services. So these are were the changes that we did to 2-291. Next slide, please. Um, this one is something that we wanted to include. We don't have the amendment showing here because it's a lengthy one.
It's in the memo and of course in the ordinance. Um, but this is just showing what it accomplishes. Uh, we already have um, uh, an exception for the noise ordinance for um, uh,
construction during 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Um, uh, every day except Sundays and um, um, holidays. Um, but in in some special situations we have to grant permission for
um, uh, uh, contractors to pour concrete specially if they are um, large concrete pads that they need to have continuous the pouring of the concrete during a lengthy
uh, period of time and to ensure that they are not hit by severe weather what you know, heats or whatever and they need to cure, you know, properly at least in the beginning. So they use usually ask
public works to um, the permission to pour the concrete during early hours. And the so this is already a practice, but it was not in the code. So we wanted to codify that and give the criteria
when that would happen. So how much time they would need to notify the city and also notify the residents up to 100 ft around the the property and
also limited to just those situations of large-scale concrete pours and curing processes. So it's not if the work is delayed for any other reason that they need to work overnight. These
are just the good reasons that we would make an exception to the noise ordinance. So this is something that staff is bringing and that is already as I said practice, but we wanted to codify. Next slide, please.
This one is to remove the indexation the the automatic indexation that we had in the code for the periods where we did not have the study for impact fees. So this is section 28-12.
We had in the code that during years that no update happens that in the beginning in the July 2020 we would have automatic indexation of the fees to
address inflation. With the new statutes, we cannot do that anymore and we have our schedule already planned for you know several years. So we had to remove. So this is something we cannot enforce anyway. So we wanted
to clean the code and remove that. So these are basically the four amendments that we are doing to the code of ordinances. Um this is the first reading and um we recommend council to
um uh schedule the public hearing for July 6th. And I'm available to answer any questions that you may have. >> Thank you, Dr. Pereira. Uh what is the pleasure of council? >> I move we schedule a public hearing for
July 6th, 2026 for ordinance number 1772. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? >> Yeah. Um so I um wrote an email about this uh the other day that started off with something pedantic, but um bear with me
on this. There is a point, I promise. Um can can we pull up the uh um let's see. Um Uh >> On the noise? >> Uh yeah, on the noise. Oh. >> I have thoughts on that, too. >> Where is Where's the best part to do
this? Staff report? Um Probably >> the ordinance attachment. >> Pull up the ordinance attachment. >> And it's page number three of that PDF. >> Ah, very good. Page three. Uh
>> Subsection >> Sorry, where is uh I'm looking for >> Yeah, so it's it's about halfway down page number three of five. Well, maybe not. That's the notification. >> That it would be the actual ordinance. I think it's quite Mr. Oxley again. That's >> Yeah, this is the actual ordinance. Yeah, this is the five-page actual
ordinance with the underlines and the strikeouts and all that. >> I'm just going to >> The memo has the the line to Oh, yeah. >> Yeah. I think the >> All right, so >> Yeah, so if if go to where you're looking at the second half of page two. Yes, that's what you just said. >> Keep coming down. A little bit further,
Ms. Booth. >> A little further. >> A little >> Okay, you're right there. So it started out with uh so 2C and then where it says I there, that that line where the mouse is. Um technical justifications, I started off by saying
um that IG or that IE should really be an EG because it's just an example of the situation where a continuous uninterrupted process is required by engineering standards. Um and I sent that to Mr. Cobb and he said, "Oh yeah, yeah, definitely EG."
And then I spoke to Dr. Korea who said, "Oh, no, no, no. We're not setting up a set of things that could potentially trigger this. We want large-scale concrete pours in the curing process to be the only thing that triggers this."
So, what I would like to do is to rewrite that so that that is clear because Mr. Cobb and I both read it the wrong way. >> I did. >> Yes. >> And could we say that so just instead of IE limited to
large-scale or large-scale pours and curing processes without the parentheses, would that work? >> If that works for >> Is the example even necessary because situations where a continuous uninterrupted process is required by engineering standards is pretty clear.
>> So So, Dep- Deputy Mayor, that that's kind of question I had as well, but I been talking with staff, it was staff's intention to actually limit it to that discrete circumstance there. And >> And they've contemplated internally, apparently, and worked with public works
and so on and basically came to the conclusion that that they want it to be narrow and that's the only one they reasonably understand could trigger it. So, they want to make it explicit. >> Do you have a preferred wording? >> I think I think something to the effect of limited to large-scale concrete pours
and curing processes. So, it's Latin confuses things if you can say it in English. So, limited to, I think would handle it. >> Okay, so I'd like to change my motion to change the i.e. in section I think I have it written
here somewhere. Uh >> Section 22 >> A limit to delete the i.e. perhaps. >> Well, to delete the i.e. and add limited to. And that's in section 22-123 >> 123
>> paragraph C sub paragraph two uh >> Wait a minute. Say it again. >> bullet C bullet I >> That's not what this I'm I'm looking at page two and it looks like it is section three C subsection C two
C again. >> Well, cuz it says >> That's what he just said. >> Is that what you Is that what you just said? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Can I say it again? Or do we have it? >> C2C >> Okay, yeah. >> We we know the language. >> [laughter] >> We know the language. >> Okay. >> It's fine.
>> I'm I'm not following with the ones and twos and the eyes one eye two eyes >> Well, then Mr. Vosel have to teach me how to say those. >> So we have a changed a motion do we have a second? >> Can I propose another friendly amendment? >> Sure. >> All right. Up there there is mention of
on page two five days notice to the city. I'd like to propose we move that to 10 days notice to the city. So that would be for two A. We're Are we on that We're not on that page. Down a little bit. It's that same
section section three. And then down on page >> Can we pause on that one? You want to change that to 10 and I guess I would ask why? >> Because on the next page I'm going to ask for seven days notice to neighbors not just 200 feet from the noise but
1,000 feet. I have been a neighbor more than 1,000 feet and I got no notice and I got on my bike at 3:00 a.m. and I went and I was standing in the middle of a continuous concrete pour with no notice of it. There's no reason for people not to be
told in advance about this so they can figure out how to not be there, figure out that they need brown noise, whatever that whatever the situation may be. It is incredibly loud and it is not fun. And I perhaps more than other people have gotten a lot of
emails from people who are adjacent to, for example, an apartment building being constructed and construction noise that is not to their liking. >> I don't have an issue with that as long as we're not rigid on if they say I'm
going to pour on this exact date because things change in construction. So, if they notify you 10 days before, it can be a week or two later. Or if you know what I mean. >> Well, I I would like there to be some way Yeah, if weather pushes it there's got to be some way
someplace like on the city's website somewhere that the that a person can go to sleep at 8:00 p.m. and be like, "Okay, I could be woken up at 3:00 a.m. I know this could be the night." Like, you just have to let people mentally prepare cuz I was very pregnant on that day and I will never forget it.
>> [laughter] >> So, Deputy Mayor, there is a subsequent request if an additional event or alternative date is required for the same activity and based on the same technical justification, written notice must be provided at least two business
days prior to >> Okay. So, if they tell you 10 days before and then it gets pushed a little bit, they just tell you again, "Hey, it's >> two days. Yeah. >> Okay, that seems fair. >> Wait, two days but they need but but the people should be notified seven days in advance, not 48 hours in advance cuz the
And here right now it says 200 ft 48 hours. I'm proposing 1,000 ft seven days. Cuz then you can order your brown noise machine. You can arrange to go stay at a friend's house. Whatever you need to do that gives >> one? What page is it?
>> That is uh subsection E, right in the middle of page three of the PDF. Notification of neighboring properties. >> Right there. >> And I I went to the property appraiser and I kind of did a a thing and saying you know how far out will you be able to
hear something this big and this loud? And it's beyond a thousand, but by then it's you know maybe a little farther away. >> And that's only if they're doing that in the morning outside of normal hours. >> Mhm. >> It's a very narrow very narrow thing.
And it's such a big deal like I would think they would know in advance we're going to have this many concrete trucks lined up like this is a big deal. You know you're doing it. >> The The only thing would be what What happens if it pours rain one day and you're delayed? That's >> Then then they just need to let They
need to let Somewhere in this notice there should be a thing that says and and I think it specifies that you should be able to contact super somewhere in here. So you can call and be like, "Hey, doesn't appear that this happened on this day. When are you going to do it?" So you'll at least have gotten notice. Yeah, it's There's there's a mechanism.
>> Okay. >> Uh I I I'm not sure where we're at on a motion. Where where are we? >> Amending it. >> Or she's making a friendly amendment potentially or asking for one on changing the amount of notice time if someone's doing a big concrete pour. So I guess we should wait for a motion.
>> Yeah, I'm okay with that. >> Okay, and then I second with all the amendments. >> All right. Do you have any further discussion between >> No. >> Councilman Rotmier? >> I'm good. >> Could you rephrase what the actual motion is now? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Uh the motion is um Hang on. Let me go read the the here. We're going to schedule. This is a first reading of ordinance. So, we are going to I move to schedule a public hearing
for July 6th, 2026 for ordinance 1772 with the following amendments. Um section 22-123 paragraph C, paragraph two bullet point C bullet point
one lower case I will replace the Latin i.e. with the words limited to. Additionally >> section A
just above that will be changed to uh the applicant must submit a written request at least 10 business days prior to the scheduled activity. So, that's just changing the number. >> Mhm. >> And down in section E
changing 200 to 1,000 ft and at least 7 days instead of 48 hours for the time prior to the commencement of activity for notice. >> Okay. Councilmember Britton?
>> I guess I have a question on on these changes. How how would we enforce it? What if someone came up and did something, gave a 7-day notice and did it in 48 hours? What's the enforcement mechanism? >> A pregnant person could show up on site,
walk out into the middle of the cement, and call 911, and the police would come and tell them they must stop. That would is what would happen. And then they would ask nicely, we continue pouring? Please, please." And she might say, "Okay, don't do this
again." >> So >> Mr. Cobb, I will let you answer this. >> All right. It gives the city the ability to issue a red tag, what we call a red tag, which is a stop work order to the construction. >> Thank you. Councilmember Britain.
You got me good. I'm laughing. >> [laughter] >> Nope. I'm I'm good. Thanks. >> All right. Any further discussion? Can the clerk call the roll? >> [clears throat] >> Councilmember Ott. >> I. >> Mayor Slayton. >> I.
>> Deputy Mayor Tucker. >> I. >> Councilmember Bottsford. >> I. >> Councilmember Britain. >> I. >> The motion carries. We'll move on to resolution number 4738-26. Mr. Cobb. >> All right. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. And I see Mr. Coons is already up at the
podium. So, uh this is a request for the council to approve the final design for the uh mural at Snively Park in the marina area. And uh this is on recommendation from the public art board, and Mr. Coons, our public art board chairman, is here tonight. So,
he'll I'm going to turn it over here to him for the presentation. >> Thank you, Mr. Coons. >> Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to bring this to your attention. We have uh been working on this mural design for some time. You may recall
that we had a first round uh call for designs, and brought some to for your approval, and you declined to choose at that point, and we redid the process. And in our second call, we came uh
we received 23 applications from 15 different artists. We went through a rigorous evaluation process that involved a blind evaluation of all
of our uh council members um our our board members uh and then we um looked at the top five and did a re-ranking of just the top five and decided to bring the top four for
your consideration. Uh the one that's up on the screen now is the top rated design. Uh which came in first place. It was artist number seven, Justin Herman. Can we go to the next one, please?
This is the second placed artist uh with this design by Carl Joseph. And the third and fourth designs actually tied in our scoring. So, this
is tied for third place by John Miller. And uh also tied for third place by John Lozano. So, we bring this for your decision. And we're happy to answer any questions. I have a couple members of the Public
Arts Board here this evening. >> Thank you, Mr. Coons. Uh does anybody have any questions right now? Okay. Uh what is the pleasure of council? >> I I kind of do have a question. How how strongly does the board feel about its
choice ranking order? Or is it kind of like So, like there's there's there are tables, but there's also the sort of the gist cuz you you have to assign numbers, but then there's the the feel I'm I'm asking about the
feeling end of it to the extent you can share. >> So in your in your materials you got the full scoring for the first round. You didn't get the scoring for the second round which was a ranking and as I recall this one came out in first
place by a good margin. >> Okay. Thank you. >> The theme by the way is Oviedo past present and future. And I can add that this top place design appealed to many of us because if
you'll remember the the setting for this mural is on the the little boat house thing down at Center Lake Park. And it was thought that this there at that location the large figure could
be seen from a distance. But then it would pull you in and then you could look at the smaller designs that has additional meaning for the city and the past present and future. >> Say that last part again.
>> You you see the See large figure from far away. >> Yes. Yes and then if you if you move up closer to it you can look at these it's meant to be like tile work. >> The tiles okay.
>> Yes and then there's smaller designs that have additional meaning. >> And now this faces the playground. >> It's the little boat house. >> Yeah. But it's it's the side of the boat house that faces the playground because
in the background of this is the water. >> It's as I recall it's on the side. I think it's facing the the building. >> It's on the back of the cantina. >> It's on the Yeah, on the side of that.
>> Oh, it's on the side of that. >> Yeah. So, you can see it in this in This artist This artist took the trouble to place the design in in the location. >> Facing away from the lake. >> Away from the lake, yeah. Facing the playground.
>> The playground's to the right of it, but yeah. >> It It It faces the other mural. >> Faces >> The other mural. >> Faces the other mural. Oh, it's in that little building. >> Yes. Okay. Okay. >> Cuz there's that other building that looks just like this on the other side, and yeah, you're right. >> You've got You've got the marina, and
then you've got the cantina. >> The marina, yeah. Okay, this is not the marina. This is the >> No, this is the marina building. >> That's the marina building. >> Yes, it's marina building. >> Yes, but the marina building faces the the back of the playground. >> I think you guys did a did a great job, you know. You You put a lot of time into
this, and you know, appreciate I like this idea. I mean, the artist gives us a background. We appreciate I know you get some of your members of the art board up here. Yeah, very in tile work with the connection with the, you know, Avida Spanish
namesake, you know, the the Greek and Roman goddess of prosperity, you know, and he switched her basket of oranges for abundance. I like it. I thought you guys did a great job of picking this out. >> Is there a What is the pleasure council? Cuz we don't have a motion on the table.
>> I like I like the first one. I don't know what how you make a motion to pick the first one. >> It is a resolution. >> Resolution 4738-20 26. >> So, I'll make a motion to approve resolution number 4738-26. >> Thank you. There's a motion. Is there a
second? >> For purposes of discussion, I will second that. >> Okay. Anything further? >> No. I Like I said, I thought they did a great job, you know, I appreciate, you know, what the art board does for us. I like the like the concept. I'm I'm good with their selection.
>> Mayor Slaton, I'm fixing to have an Alan Aut moment here. Okay, so we if we outsource this thing to the art board, >> [laughter] >> so part of me thinks man, we should pass this straight on through and we should not tinker with it. And also, it's an advisory board. And this, unlike our
charter, does not specify that we cannot intervene. So I'm I'm looking at this and there's a lot of things that I really like about the one that ranked first. There are some things about it that are kind of weird. One of them is that there's a pineapple palm. So we we don't naturally have any naturally occurring pineapple palms in
Oviedo. That would be the bottom left there. And then so I just looked at it before reading the explanation. And I was thinking, what's with this gypsy mermaid person? And you know, when you read, then you understand this is a person from Greek mythology. And you we
got a lot going on. We got Greek, we got Spanish. And then there's something I that struck me right away. I was like, is this plum what's that stuff called? Coontie? Is this a coontie branch? No, it's olive. But it looks not quite like an olive branch, nor a native coontie.
Um so I think it's supposed to be coontie, not coontie. Like you know, like pick one. If and it's supposed to be an olive branch according to the explanation. So if if council is wanting to move forward with this and it sounds like the art
board feels strongly about ranking this number one, it would it would be preferable from my perspective for for the palm tree to be something that's native to Oviedo. The olive branch, if it stays an olive branch, to look more
like it's got olives, because there are people like it is it is possible to grow an olive branch in Oviedo. And I think that's an interesting fact factoid that a lot of people don't know um that you can do it, but they're much twiggy-er. It'd be nice to have some
fruit on it, perhaps. Um and I I'm not sure what to do. But maybe the earrings are what's doing it for me, making it look like a gypsy and not like a Greek goddess. I think we're looking for like Is it a It's sort of like a Mediterranean goddess, which is okay,
too, if that's what we're going for. So, anyway, that's my two cents. Councilmember Ruff. >> Um I saw I was kind of recently thinking that if she faces the playground that she kind of looks like a mother
providing for the children on the playground. Perhaps. >> I I'm just worried about her ears. Like when when kids pull your earrings [clears throat] out. I think we're getting a little off topic. >> We're we're getting off topic. Like it or don't. >> Yeah. >> There might be three votes to just go
forward and nobody's concerned at all about the earrings but me and the harmed ears. >> Councilmember Braden. >> Well, I'm not a large expert and I don't claim to be one, but um I think the recommended one I
I'd almost need a a plaque in front of it to explain what it what it's all about. Is that Are they going to provide that? This is a I'm real by uh you know, the artist and explain what the symbology is in it. Or
if not, I I think I'd prefer the fourth one. I guess the fourth one. Hang on. >> And then I guess it's that a question for Dr. Korea on the >> Artist 13. Which is a little bit simpler to to appreciate, I guess, without having a a
lot of interpretation involved. That's just my two cents. >> So, I guess I'll ask Dr. Korea anything about a plaque first. >> So, we did not plan for a plaque. We can still have a plaque and now we have a $1,500, you know,
>> discretion? >> discretion um um from the Public Arts Board. Um so, we can do that. Uh we'll have to make a summary of the um of the narrative to be able to be in the plaque. Um the other thing that I was
going to say that this design um does not meet the the proportion of the of the wall and I provided that, you know, the the the size and the length and the height of the wall. So, when I
informed the the artist that he was selected by the Public Art Board um um depending on the uh confirmation from uh council [music] and I told him you would have to adjust the the design and he said, "Oh, the I
could do it side trim me." So, he will have to do some uh adjustments anyway. So, if council would like to have any suggestions for um changes in the design, that is a possibility as well. >> Okay. >> Um but a plaque if the
council decides to have a plaque, you know, explaining, that's a possibility to do. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> I I'm opposed to having a plaque. I I don't like plaques. Um I think art shouldn't need an explanation. You shouldn't have to walk up to it and go, "What the heck's all
this about?" Like, it should be something that is understood. Um so, if if we have to ex- if we think we have to explain it, then I would kind of rather not do it because if
I I mean, if people don't get it, they're going to laugh at us on the internet before they go read the plaque. It's kind of the way culture seems to work nowadays. If we think that that's a possibility, then maybe we should pick another one, is my opinion. >> I will So, I haven't gone yet, and I
want to just thank our Public Arts Board. I know that we've gone through this twice. The first time we went through it, we got a lot of AI slop thrown at us from applicants. So, I'm very thankful that the second time we got rid of that. We had a lot of artists put a lot of work into this. And if you do read the bio behind this, it does
have a lot of meaning to it. And sometimes you should look at art and think about it and try to figure out where they're coming from and what it means. And I think they did a great job here. Um I do think an easy fix would be to change the palm tree to make it a native one. I think that's an easy ask for the artist. I don't think they're going to blink twice at that. So, I do think that's something we can ask. But
as far as that, like I would like go forward with the Public Arts Board's recommendation. Is there any other further discussion on this? >> No. >> Okay. Then I will ask the clerk to call the roll. Council member Bottsford? >> Aye.
>> Mayor Slayton? >> I have to sign in still. See, that This is why it would be nice to do it all at the same time. Um I think I'm an aye. >> Deputy Mayor Teichert? >> Aye. >> Council member Burton?
>> Aye. >> Council member Ott? >> Aye. >> The motion carries. Thank you for the public art stuff. Uh we are going to move on to item number 13A, which was previously item number four. Resolution number 4733-26.
Um Mr. Cobb. >> All right, thank you, Deputy Mayor. Uh this is a request for the City Council to award invitation to bid 26-17 to KIB Construction Corporation for to renovate the three bathrooms at Fire
Station 48 uh for the amount of $67,500. I mean, I'm sorry, $65,700. Uh the the renovations, these are complete renovations of the different of the three of the three bathrooms. It will involve
removing all of the vanities, all of the mirrors, all of the the tiles. Uh re-converting the showers. I think even in one bathroom we're increasing the size of the bathroom. Uh and it's to also to
improve the ADA of the bathrooms. These bathrooms it's the original bathrooms from what I understand they're having a difficult they're difficult to work within. And so that's what this does. The one there was one item that the staff did do an add-on and that was to make all of
the showers zero entry. And so the the bid does cover both the all the the reconstruction of the showers plus making all reconstruction of the bathrooms plus making all the showers zero entry.
And so it's recommended that city council adopt resolution number 4736-26. >> Thank you, Mr. Cobb. What is the pleasure of council? >> I'll make a motion to approve resolution number 4733-26. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second?
>> Second. >> Any discussion? >> No. I mean looks like they got a bid to redo the bathrooms in the firehouses. I mean we're doing the floors, zero entry to the the the showers. Um No, I don't have any problem with it.
>> Councilmember Rap. >> Uh I didn't have anything, no. >> Councilmember Slighting. >> I obviously did have something and that is just that I found it a little bit comical that our firefighters need a zero entry shower upgrade price tag
add-on when we expect them to be climbing into burning buildings and all these things. So I just thought that was kind of an unnecessary thing in a season when people are asking for thriftier spending decisions. Um so, remodeling bathrooms to the tune of almost $60,000
in the first place is is pretty solid, but adding it a zero entry when nobody here is probably Yeah, it sounds like we're also getting them up to ADA compliance, which you know, that's a federal law. We have to do things like that, but we don't need to
make them zero entry. So, I'd I'd prefer to see that um removed. >> Council member Braden. >> I don't have anything to add. Thank you. >> Okay. Anything else? >> Yeah, can can you talk about the zero entry? I'm
>> It's like a $2,100 thing. So, you could just be like, what's $2,100? Or you could say, they don't need zero entry. You could walk your 3 inches up or whatever it might be. >> So, I'm sorry. I I don't know what zero entry means. >> Oh, it's where you can roll your wheelchair right on in.
Our firefighters will not be entering a wheelchair. So, there's not, in my opinion, a need to >> Mr. Can you Can you get back to >> correct. It is It is a flat floor. You don't have to step into it. You know, you just walk right in. >> Okay. That's what it is.
And so, that's an upgrade in here that's $2,700. >> That wasn't an additive. Yes, sir. 20 21. >> Okay. And are we required for that for for ADA? >> No, I I think the reason was one of the
It's It's more of a If you think about it, it's more of a safety provision so that you're not stepping up and over. There's no slipping. You know, you can just walk right in. >> And And the reason And so, these are these are decontamination showers, if I remember right from a work session a year ago. Is that what we're talking
about here? >> Possibly. >> So, >> Yes. >> Good evening, Mayor, Deputy Mayor, council members. Actually, part of the zero depth entry is in the two non-ADA shower and bathrooms at Fire Station 48.
We're actually going to extend the wall about 12 to 18 in and as part of that and removing the shower pan, that step up needs to be removed so they can replace the shower pan. So, instead of them reinstalling the step over, we're just
fire requested to have that added zero depth entry. So, with the extension of the wall, they can just turn the corner and walk directly into the shower. And as part of that in those two bathrooms, those shower heads are actually on the east wall or yes, on the
west wall and we're moving them to the north and the south wall for functionality because when they get in there, they have to turn the handle and then turn this way and it's pretty cramped in there. So, we're just sorry, trying to add more functionality for them when they're in their showers as well. >> And
and so, given that these are decontamination also, that I mean, there's a Help me if I'm right. I I can only just, you know, imagine what the situation the scenario is. So, help me if if I'm wrong. >> So, from my understanding >> in from >> They're come These are also for when
they're in their dormitories as well. So, it's also morning showers, evening showers, things along those lines. As far as the decontamination process, I could not speak on that process too much on this to what they is required for all of their equipment.
>> What questions would you have in regards to that? >> so I was trying to clarify like the the scenario is you come in from using the chemicals like fire foam >> going to take all their Yeah. All their gear and everything off and this is just to decontaminate their body. So, they're
basically taking a shower. We bought actually special soap that helps remove the carcinogens and things from them and that's what that is. That's the the decon aspect. We're not washing gear, we're not washing anything else off in the showers. >> The idea is you're moving in quickly to get
toxins carcinogens off of you. >> After every structure fire, they all come back, they decon with the with the the special soap that we provide for them. >> So, the moving in and out quickly and then the zero >> The biggest benefit from >> safe safety issue I'm trying to connect
these things together. >> The biggest benefit for the zero entry like like Mr. Whitaker said is that we're extending the walls, the showers. Two I think two of the three showers are way too small. The firefighters don't even use them cuz they're not even really big enough to get in and and turn and do things to get clean. We got some
pretty big firefighters. Um so, that's what this is doing is this is extending those walls and it would be it it's it's more efficient so to speak to not have to replace that threshold going into the showers and just have it as a zero entry going in with the walls. It makes it easier for cleaning, for
maintaining the grout lines and stuff like that in it. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> If it's easier, then why does it cost more? It sounds like it saves supplies and it saves labor. I'm I'm just I'm not understanding why it's a upcharge or is
it something like we have to do it because it actually would cost more and it's just put in put into the agenda wrong. I mean that could be it. >> I believe some of that has to do with the replacement of the shower pan in there as well and just having that zero depth with the shower pan. I believe that's where the added cost comes in. I
would have to double check with our facility staff on that matter. Um I do not have that information off the top of my head. >> All right, thank you. Okay. If the clerk could call the roll. Councilmember Botterud? >> Aye. >> Councilmember Ott? >> Aye.
>> Mayor Slayton? >> Nay. >> Deputy Mayor Tuckert? >> Aye. >> Councilmember Britain? >> Aye. >> The motion carries. We do not have any discussion items, so we are on to the city manager's report. >> I have no report, Deputy Mayor.
>> The city attorney's report. >> I have nothing to report, Deputy Mayor. >> Mayor Slayton's report. >> I also have nothing to report. >> Council member Rock. >> You've heard enough from me. >> Council member Boteford. >> Yes, well, I did want to recognize somebody who's in here in the room, Mr.
Zuber, who just informed me today that he has retired from his crossing crossing guard duties. So, we just want to say thank you for your service here in town. I appreciate that. And I see we have Mr. Jackson here. I know we have June Teeth coming up
this Saturday, Riverside Park at 10:00 a.m. >> 10:30. >> 10:30. So, that's always a a great event and great turnout for that. That's first time at Riverside or did we have we done at Riverside before? Second time? Great.
Also, we got a Liberty Tree planning, which I had to ask what that was today on June 25th at 9:00 a.m. So, apparently it's part of celebrating America 250 years. Uh it's at 9:00 a.m. here at City Hall.
It's a planning an oak tree. Was that right, Mr. Cobb? >> It's a hickory tree. >> It's a what? >> Hickory tree. >> A hickory tree. Hickory tree. Okay. So, and then I believe we have Commissioner DeLory speaking as well. >> Yeah, he'll give the keynote. >> Very nice. Very nice.
And then I know we also have uh the police summer camp. Does that continue on or is it just one week? It was last week. It's just a one-week deal. So, from what I saw on Facebook, and again, Lisa, great job. Um looks like it was a great event and a good turnout for the kids.
Um want to thank the art board uh for coming in tonight and presenting as you did. We appreciate everybody on our advisory boards. I appreciate what you all do for us. Uh it helps us out. To Mr. Britain's point, we're not really an artist, so, you know, it
helps to have your guys input to tell us what you see. And then lastly, July 4th fireworks. It's all at the mall. Festivities start at 5:00. And then fireworks at 9:30? >> 9:00. >> 9:00.
Very good. So, that's always a a great event. Hopefully, the weather is good for us as it has been in several times. So, you guys do a good job and looking forward to And that is all I got. >> All right. Councilman Britain. >> Uh first of all, thank you for letting me
dial in today. My wife and I are getting off the beaten path, you might say. We're driving off the interstate through this through the countryside and it's it's kind of refreshing to see the country uh as it really is. You know, the
farmlands, the farms, the small towns. So, uh I appreciate y'all letting me do that tonight. Uh Again, I'll I'll reiterate what Mr. Botefur said it for the art committee. Thank you. And and also for the charter committee.
I I saw a parallel in in both of those committees providing us recommendations and allowing us to to confer or not confer with them. Uh and that and their efforts are don't go really unnoticed. So, we we we appreciate that. And with that, I'll see you guys in a couple weeks.
We're heading heading north tomorrow. We'll see you. >> Drive safe. >> Okay, safe travels. Um I'm up next and you actually mentioned everything I was going to, so no report here. So, we'll go on to future meeting dates. Um Monday, June 29th at 5:30 p.m. we
have a work session. Monday, July 6th at 6:30 p.m. we have a regular session. And Monday, July 20th at 6:30 p.m. we have a regular session. Is there anything else for the good of the order? It is 8:28 p.m. and this meeting is adjourned.
>> Boom. >> Boom. >> [laughter] >> Yes.