Please stand for the pledge of >> allegiance. To the flag of the United States of America and to the stands nationy andice for all. Thank you. Please join me in a moment of
silence. >> I would like to call our meeting to order. It is November 17th at approximately 6:30 p.m. and we are missing Council Member Vodafford, but everyone else is present. We do not have any ceremonial items. So, we will move
on to the approval of the >> I'm here today representing Ovita Memorial Post 243, the Department of Florida American Legion. I'm their commander. Our post has served veterans and Ovito community since 1946.
We've been at our current location adjacent to Ovito High School at 491 West Broadway Street since 1957. Our membership has tripled in recent years and we need to expand our building to better serve the area veterans, their
families, local charitable organizations, and our growing membership. Recent changes to the city zoning code, which wasn't available yet. We were given two options. We could pay $8,500 for a special review or wait for
the city's anticipated glitch ordinance to be enacted in October or November. Just as information to remind you, we're a nonprofit. We rely solely on fundraising donations and do not have recurring revenue from sources like a bar or restaurant as other veteran ser
service organizations do. So, the fee is just so large it's it's unattainable. We >> Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> All right. So I I think I am a yes on
all of these. All right. So I I think I am a yes on all of these. But I also but I also think it is important to say out loud for think it is important to say out loud for everyone to hear
and perhaps if I have these questions everybody has these questions. I don't know. >> Good evening. So I will do my best to answer it. So most engineering projects are done in phases. Many times we're afforded the opportunity to be able to
encapsulate that all in one contract. Sometimes projects are more complex. And so you more often than more often than not um what we budget for engineering plans and studies is usually within what
we estimate. Not always, but this is a kind of a unique case. It's a It's a complicated project and admittedly when we estimated what it would take to do the engineering, we underestimated it. I mean that's that's a fair assessment of that. >> So follow-up question on that just for
logistics purposes. We have standing contracts where we have gone out to bid with multiple companies. Correct. >> Correct. We have five consultants that we selected under the stormwater contract. >> Okay. So the these are being these are being sort of >> the current scope that we're talking
about like I said I would I would imagine it's going to be in that 30 to 40% of the total range and then the design and permitting would would probably be another 50 or 60%. >> If that makes sense that that's a rough guess. >> So if I look at 120,000 for the preliminary study and the design is
something above that that's 30 or 40% of the overall project. >> I think I didn't understand your question. Okay. So that just to I brought that up just to give you kind of a scale of of how these projects work. This engineering effort is usually about
10% of the total project cost. And that you know you could do it one of two ways. You can use that as a number to estimate the cost or you can start with an estimate a ROM estimate and determine what your design cost will be. >> Right. Right. So then doing the quick
math you anticipate this to be a $2.5 million project. I I don't >> Mayor Mayor Fitic >> I. >> Council member Aut >> I. >> Deputy Mayor Dukert. >> Hi. >> Council member Britain. >> I.
>> The motion carries. We'll move on to item number 11, which is ordinance number 1760, evaluation and appraisal based comprehensive plan amendments. Let me open this up. Can the city attorney read the ordinance
by title only? >> Thank you, deputy mayor. This is an ordinance of the city of Ovito, Florida, amending the city of Ovidto comprehensive plan based on the city's evaluation and appraisal of the comprehensive plan pursuant to section 163.3191 Florida statutes providing for
conflicts, severability, codification, as well as the correction of scriveners errors and an effective date. >> Thank you, Mr. Cobb. Uh, thank you, Deputy Mayor. Dr. Craig will be giving the staff presentation. >> Good evening, Deputy Mayor, Mayor.
Um, according to our table of permissible uses in the LDC, it shows as as P in the in the table. We have secondary uses in the comprehensive plan that are allowed either as a um special
exception use order or as a uh if they are single use or if they are part of a mixeduse development. And then we have other uses that are only allowed under special exception. And we had the the categories but we did not have the
clarification what what they meant. So we created this policy to make it clear. Next slide please. The other change that we did it was to match you know to comply with the statutes and to include solar facilities under um rural um
future land use. And the next one, next slide please, is the floating solar facilities and that is to be permissible under rural institution and public um future land uses. And in the glitch ordinance that we are bringing um um
next month to council, we the LDC will um reflect those um those uses. Next slide please. Um we also um cleared or cleaned in the in the eld this in the
comprehensive plan um the references to the mobility plan because some references were still that the city will develop. This is already being adopted last year. So in the land use we clarified this one and we clarified also in the transportation element. Next
slide please. Uh we also um matching the statutes we are required to include resiliency facilities under as a permissible use in any commercial industrial future land use designations. Um and then I just put the definition
here of what a resiliency facility is. This is a public utility facility dealing with natural gas. This is also be going to be reflected in the LDC. >> Um, next slide please. On the transportation, the only thing that we
did is to clear the language to clean the language on the um concurrency. We do not require concurrency anymore. So um this is just to remove language um to uh match the mobility plan approved last
year. Next slide. Oh, this is just showing the the uh changes that we done. Next slide, please. In the housing element, we just changed um the deadline
of 2025 to 2029 to adopt a green building ordinance and that maybe we could discuss um later but um so these are to create to bring requirements for a green building ordinance. At this
point we already incentivize um green building and um the comp plan and the LDC have that as a criteria for density and intensity bonus. So we already um incentivize but we do not have requirements for new development to meet
um green building um um standards. So we kind of postponed that conversation for 2029. We could not adopt anything right now anyway because it would be more restrictive. Um and the statutes prevent us from doing that. Next slide please. On the
capital improvements element um the public works provide that there is this policy that needs to be included in the comp plan to allow for master um study to convert properties from septic
to sewer. uh if they have uh more than 50 dwelling units um and they they have septic. So that is a language that we included. The city is completing a wastewater septed to sewer master study
and this is just to um to reflect that um that we are in the process of bringing that and the other change that we did next slide please is to is update on all the projects for the capital improvement element. So the projects
that were already completed will be deleted and we included new new projects and this is to match the city's um capital improvement plan. And the last changes um next slide um reflect the future land use map. Um so
this is just showing seven properties but they are it's hard to see so I'll go over them um if we go to the next slide. So the first one is of those properties around Lake Park. So they are cityowned
properties and we are changing. So on the uh left side you have the existing map. So you have MDR and commercial is one, two, three and four properties and now we are changing them to public. So these are only city-owned property and
we are changing to make it compliant um with with the real use they have. Next slide. The next one are those two properties around Lockwood um Boulevard. They have rural um future land use today and then we are um making it compliant
to public um they are city-owned property as well. The third one is um the cemetery that we annexed um a couple of years ago. They have today a county um future land use. So we are also
designating public to that property. And these are all the um changes that we are proposing in this um uh year um amendment and uh and staff recommends transmitt to the Florida Department of
Commerce. Thank you. Uh I do not have any written request to speak. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address council at this time? that I will close public comment and ask what the pleasure of council is.
>> For purposes of discussion, I move we approve or are we adopting ordinance? Oh, wait. No, we're setting it for public hearing, right? We're going to set it for public hearing. >> Transmitting. >> Transmitting. >> Transmit it. Okay. We're going to transmit it, but I would like to propose
we change some of the language regarding the green building ordinance. uh for those concerns and how how they might be addressed. >> Right. Uh Meline, could you pull up that document that I put out there? >> Mayor did ask ask us today. She
mentioned the green building ordinance and whether or not it was really something that we wanted to impose as a minimum standard on on housing because one of the things about uh with a lot of um the movement today is more toward an
affordable um affordable housing and sustainable housing. And the thing about it is is that the objective that these policies Dr. prayer mentioned that they they changed it from 25 to 29 probably mostly
because of Senate Bill 180 but the objective was to promote green technology in housing is what it was that's the the objective and one of the things that we looked at was as Dr. Pria mentioned was that in the land settlement if you use green housing if you use green building standards or
green building technology that's a way to get a density bonus. So one of the one of the things that I thought about as it was as the mayor mayor mentioned that you know this this this could cause an increase in the cost really is what it could do especially with today's
technology. So what I looked at was okay what is the objective? The objective is to promote green technology. That's the objective. it's not really to require it. And so one of the things that I looked at was that we could encourage and promote rather than establishing a
minimum standard. And so that's what these do. The the first one, the 3.116 is to encourage the incorporation of energy saving design. And it does make it a requirement, but if they do come in with it, then it's something that we would encourage them to do. uh building
materials promoting the use of renewable and or local building materials. And then the last one as far as the green building certification, there's a number of certification programs out there. LEAD is probably the most widely known. And so what would be be promoting green certification of development within the
city obviously taking out the part as far as Florida administrative health because if you're just promoting it, not making it a minimum standard, then you really don't have to worry about whether they're developing a rule or not. the the Department of Commerce has not really been one to develop rules. So
that that was I hope that was what you were looking for and uh but this is something if you want to make it part of your motion basically it would be to amend those to remove the requirement for adoption of a green building ordinance and to revise as we've
presented it here. >> Okay. I would like to amend my motion to reflect these changes. Sure. >> We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion here? >> No, I'm I'm good with this. I I like the
idea of people choosing to use sustainable and renewable and I think that's the direction the market is heading. So, I think we'll get there, but um having us mandate this is is a little it we can't so perhaps we can't accomplish all the goals all at the same
time in all types of housing. who decides what's green. So, that's um new information up there. Um so, and if it's in there, I apologize. I didn't see it. >> It It's not in there. It's something
that the mayor and I worked on this afternoon. It's >> No, no. Well, sorry. >> 2029. >> Oh, as far as far as the policy is concerned, yes, that policy was is in is in the housing element. uh that's connected to the ordinance, but the only
change was to change the 2025 to 2029. >> Well, well, I think the question is when when we say green building materials like uh low solar absorption roof or something like that. >> It could be like that. It could be. >> Well, presumably there's a threshold
that says this is low solar. What does low mean? And and who decides what those thresholds are? And is there some kind of standard? Uh >> I believe yes there are there are construction standards out there. It's through different programs. One is LEAD. Uh that's probably the most commonly
known program where they establish they address all kinds of different ones as far as roofing windows, doors, uh different materials, paint, uh they have a whole menagerie of stuff. One of our buildings, actually one of our public works buildings lead certified. And but
I'll Dr. Gray if you want to cheat. >> Yeah, I was just going to add well Mr. Cobb is correct. So the lead so the the certifications is are very specific right and actually they are hard to get because they are so specific and usually the cost is an increased cost in our LDC
and in the comp plan we have for density bonus and we give some examples. So you provide anything in the as that is part of a green building and or in the on the site that if you go for um um um storm water you know that is low impact if you
have um um solar if you anything in the direction right of being more sustainable then it can be you have to de demonstrate that you are doing that and then you could get density or intensity bonus the the LDC details a
little bit what what those things could be. But the certification to get a lead certification or to get one of the certifications, it's very detailed. They have very specific standards. >> And then we would decide on a not on a case- by case basis. You said it's in
the land development code which how much green gives how much density bonus and the these are standards that are already existing. We have so we have some some um we quantify you know what that you
know whatever you're giving how much it will receive in density or intensity bonus but all of any density or intensity bonus comes with a development agreement. So that would come to council for a discussion. >> So it's not something that staff grants
and that is in the code that it's only granted through a development agreement and that's approved by council. Okay, >> the other thing that I was going to say that a Florida building code al also kind of updates you know those technologies. So there are some standards that come with the Florida
building code every time there is an update >> any >> um and I totally agree with this. So, as far as encouraging versus requiring, I actually talked to there is an organization that leadcertifies and does all this and they're at League of City
every year and I talk to them every year and they touted that they have cities adopt it so they can deny development based on it. >> Um, which is so unfortunate because we do want green initiatives. Um, but I think we have that in our code already. Um, and I do think we should encourage
it as much as possible, but I don't want it to be used as a tool in the negative. So, >> Deputy May, before you take your vote, if I could um and I was one of the things Mr. and I talked about this afternoon, this is a little bit different. We haven't done one of these in quite a while as far as this type of
comprehensive plan amendment. >> Uh this is a two-step process. And what uh what it is is that tonight we're asking you and the this isn't like your normal recommendation nor you know to adopt or deny. Uh tonight we ask you to
approve transmitt and what that means is is that this is the first this is the first of two hearings before the council. There was a hearing before the local planning agency. They made a recommendation that tonight's the first hearing. This hearing is to transmit to the state. We will take this package of
amendments. If you approve it, we'll take the package of amendments and we will send it up to the Department of Commerce. They'll review it. And I can't remember how long they have to review it. I was telling Mr. today. I remember back when when I was Dr. Korea, it was 60 days and then we had 30 once we got
everything back. Um, but they will they will send us back a review the results of their review and then we will bring it back to you a second time for another public hearing which will be an adoption hearing and that's when we will ask you to adopt the amendments. And so that's it's a little bit different than what
we've normally been doing. So I just wanted to just give you that information too as well. Council member Britain. >> I'm good. >> You're good. >> Good job. >> Anything else? >> All right. I'll ask the clerk to call the role.
>> Mayor Slick. >> I. >> Council member. >> I. >> Deputy Mayor Tugert. >> Hi. >> Council member Britain. >> I. >> The motion carries. We're going to move on to item number 12, which is the first reading of ordinance number 1761.
Mr. Rose, would you read the ordinance by title? >> Thank you, Deputy Mayor. This is an ordinance of the city of Ovidito, Florida, amending chapter 28, articles 1 and two of the city of Ovito Code of Ordinances updating impact fees for parks and recreation, fire and rescue,
law enforcement, and administrative facilities. Revising related definitions, processes, and methods of calculation. adopting an impact fee technical report for parks and recreation, fire and rescue, law enforcement administrative facilities,
revising definitions concerning mobility fees, and providing for conflicts, severability, codification, correction of scrier's errors in an effective date. >> Thank you, Mr. Cob. >> Uh thank you, Deputy Mayor. If you remember with your last meeting, we had a discussion item where Mr. Paul came in
and presented uh the technical study for the update for our uh law enforcement, fire, administrative services, and recreation impact fees. Tonight is the first reading of the ordinance. Uh we are recommending that you schedule a public hearing for December 1st, 2025.
Uh Mr. Paul is here tonight and is available to make a make a presentation to you if you'd like him to make the presentation or if you would rather wait until the public hearing, we can do that as well. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Cob. >> I guess I will ask if anybody would like
the presentation. >> Is it the same one we just saw last week? >> That's a yes. >> Can you make it briefer? We have a rather lovelysized audience today. And I'm seeing some people shaking their heads. Can you make it five minutes or
shorter? >> Yes, ma'am. >> All right. Thank you. >> All right. Thank you all. >> Do you need a minute to set up your >> No. Um, if they've got the presentation. >> Okay. Perfect. I >> I think there is value in everybody in the room knowing what it is we're voting on. >> No, thank you very much. Um Jonathan Paul, principal of New Urban Concepts,
I'm presenting an update of the city of Ovito's impact fees for fire, rescue, for parks and recreation for administrative facilities and police facilities. Florida statute requires these fees to be updated every four years and to be based on the most recent
and localized data. Next slide. Uh there's a detailed technical report that is available on the city's website that will go into all the technical bases and all the legal bases for the impact fee updates and their full calculated rates. Next slide.
Um these fees uh per Florida statute will be phased in over the next four years. the should the council elect to move forward um on the 1st with adoption, these fees would go into effect u March of 2026 and then the next
phase in and subsequent phaseins would go into effect each January 1st um 2027, 2028 and then ultimately in 2029 and the city by 2028 would have begun an updated study for their new fees. Next slide.
Um, one of the big changes is we did um include an update to small retail business. This goes all the way back to the mobility fee that was adopted last year. Our initial definition is five or fewer locations. Uh, it's non-chain retail use and it's 3,000 square feet or
less in size. This is basically providing some criteria to the language we've had before and I think it's it's a metric that the city staff itself's been using for the last year or so. Uh, next slide. There is significant growth being proposed within the city of Ovido over
the next u 10 years which is the horizon for the uh parks and the various impact fees and that played into the factor of the overall calculations. Next slide. We also looked at employment within the city. Next slide. And the share of that
employment that is within and without the uh the city limits and those all play into factors for calculating the fees themselves. Next slide. Um then we combine both employment and population together to help us project out what the future needs are. Next slide.
Um and then we look at what the city population is in terms of uh current employees to make sure that new development is not being held to a different standard uh than existing residents. Next slide. I'll skip this one as well. Uh so
basically we projected out a need for additional law enforcement personnel, fire rescue personnel, personnel for the park and recreation department and also administrative staff uh over the next 10 years. Next slide. And he just shows some of the existing park facilities uh
within the city of Ovido that were used to determine capital improvements for the future. Next slide. This just some examples of parks within the city. The city has a standard and its comprehensive plan to determine the parks needed for new development. We've
looked at this calculation and this is making sure that new development provides park space that it needs at the same rate as existing residents in Ovido have been providing park space. Next slide. And ultimately the the total
attributable cost to new development is roughly $6 million. Next slide. Um, and then it'd also pay for a share of upgrades to existing park facilities of roughly $10 million. Next slide. That
relates to an overall cost um roughly 10 million and their share of that is roughly uh $1.1 million ensuring that new developments paying the same as existing residents uh through various means. Next slide.
Next slide. Go to that. And ultimately that all this results in a park impact fee. This is something that new development only pays for. These are not taxes on existing residents. These are not assessments on existing residents.
If you are building a brand new home in Ovido and you come in for a building permit or a multifamily unit or a mobile home, then you would essentially pay uh these fees that are illustrated above on a per dwelling unit basis. Next slide.
Um, and parks fees are just paid for residential uses only. And this is just an example of how they'd be phased in over 2026, 2027, and subsequent years. Next slide. Um, this shows the existing fire rescue
facilities uh in the city. Next slide. Um, next slide. This shows the calculated need for fire station and vehicles attributable to new growth. Next slide. It shows our existing police facilities.
The calculations to determine what their fee would be in the future. Uh this also shows existing facilities such as the one we're all sitting in uh this evening for public facilities and the cast of the cost of calculations for the future need uh within the city.
sign. And then ultimately there's some other factors that go into play. And if you'd like to hear more about these, you could read the technical report or come to the uh the first hearing. We go into these a little bit more detail. Next slide. Actually, you can go through these until
we get to the fees themselves. And then these are just examples of the phased in rates for the various impact fees. And again, these are all fees that are paid by new development. The city has had impact fees for over 20 plus years now. So, this is not a new
program. It's not a new tax. It's not a new hit on development. It's essentially a requirement of Florida statute that these fees be updated every four to five years. And that this is a share of what new development would pay to help offset the cost for a new fire station, uh for
expansion of the police facility, for new police vehicles, for new parks, um and for new administrative facilities as well. And just you can just c cycle through these and these are all just the existing rates that are being updated for the various fees. And you'll see
each one of them goes into effect over a 4-year period. And again, all this information is available on the city's website. Um the city staff will put you in touch with myself or they'll answer questions that you may all have. This is the first
reading. If there's any specific direction from the council for us to make changes, we'll do so this evening. Um, and then we will actually have a second reading for adoption on December 2nd, uh, 2025. And I do believe there there was one comment about accessory
dwelling units, and I don't know if that needs to bring that up here for this. Okay. >> Mhm. >> We've had a recent discussion on accessory dwelling units, which is something that's currently allowed within the the city, but it's pretty recent. Uh the single family rate itself
would be relatively high for accessory dwelling units. So, we feel as of right now, the most appropriate would be for them to be under the multifamily or the the mobile home category, which is averages about 1.8 residents per dwelling unit. Uh that's
probably the one that's the closest to that in terms of the the parks, the fire. Um and then we have a further evaluation on that. But we are proposing to just add the label accessory dwelling unit behind mobile residents on the fee schedule.
Uh with that concludes my presentation. Be happy to answer any questions that you all may have. >> Thank you. Does anybody have any questions while it's up here? >> I think just one clarification. Are we going to is our meeting on December 2nd or December 1st? December 1st. >> December December 1st. Okay. It's just a typo. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you all. >> What is the pleasure of? >> I move we schedule ordinance number 1761 for a public hearing on December 1st, 2025. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? >> For everyone who just heard this fivem
minute thing. What we're talking about here is the thing that everybody says we want to do, and that is charge new people for all the problems we have. And the proposal here is to charge the highest amount we are allowed to under Florida law, which when you hear about
this phasing in, we're not allowed to just hop right away to what we have mathematically calculated the actual impact will be. So, we are doing our very best up here to accelerate the speed at which we do these studies and
hop our impact fees to the right place. That being said, um, quick clarification from staff that if somebody were to say want to expand a gathering place that might be near Ovito High School, that if
that application is in prior to March 2026, the new impact fees would not apply, but the old impact fees would apply. >> That is correct. >> Okay. And just another clarification, under Florida law, uh, we are not allowed to wave impact fees. Is that correct?
>> That is correct. >> Okay. So, impact fees cannot be waved and that is an important thing for people to know because there's a lot of times allegations that we are giving impact fee, you know, negotiating with
developers to let them off the hook to cover the cost of the impacts they're bringing. And we we don't do that. the the worst we can do is be stuck in a situation like this where the cost of inflation has has been so accelerated
that we're not legally allowed because of something that the state legislature has passed to charge the right fee. So the next four years you'll see on here that we're we're up in our impact fees but we will still not charge enough to cover the costs of the impact that the
new development will bring. But we're going to be staying on top of it as much as we can. So that's not exactly a hearing kind of a thing and we will have another hearing on this next time. But like it's the best we can do and I wish we could do better. So I I think that's
something that all of you guys need to know is that we we are not allowed to charge more and it's not because we don't want to. It's because the state will not let us. So if you want to fuss at your state legislators on this particular thing, I personally would be
grateful for assistance from everybody saying let the cities do what they need to do to not have the impacts of people coming in from out of town have to be born by the current people who already live here because it's not fair and I
recognize it is not fair. >> Anyone else? >> That that's enough. That's good. All right. I I agree. Ask the >> Oh, go ahead. >> Deputy mayor, could could you include adding accessory dwelling units to the mobile residence land use code?
>> Yes. I'd like to amend my motion to include uh accessory dwelling units, but can we call them backyard cottages >> instead of ADUs? Is everything else? We need to call three dwelling units and just we but >> for everybody in the audience, it's a
backyard cottage. That's what we're talking about. Okay, I'll ask the clerk to call the role. >> I'm sorry. Does a second agree to the unending motion? >> I will. >> Yes. >> Mayor Slick >> I.
>> Council member Burton >> I. >> Deputy Mayor Tuker. >> I. >> Council member >> I. >> The motion carries. So we don't have any resolution items or discussion items. So we will move on to the city manager's report. >> Thank you, Deputy Mayor. I'm sorry. I I just want to wish everyone a happy
Thanksgiving and hope you have a wonderful holiday. >> And congrats on being a grandpa. >> Thank you. Yes, >> I feel like that's some big news here. >> Yes, we're we're we're very excited. >> All right, the city attorney's report.
>> Thank you, deputy mayor. Um I understand from forward from the city manager that uh the council received an email last week from an organization uh called the Freedom from Religion Foundation. It was in reference to a letter that uh that organization had
sent to the city a number of months ago. It's relating to the uh Round Lake Park uh art installations that have been under development by the uh parks department. They've been working with the parks advisory board. Um, just
wanted to let you know that since the time that that letter initially came in, our office thoroughly reviewed the matter, looked at everything that was going on with federal and state law. So, um, at this point, because they have asked a number of times, I think we are
going to go ahead and, uh, send a brief response just letting them know, thank you very much for, uh, that letter. We've reviewed it uh and we believe we have uh done everything in compliance with first amendment requirements. So
just wanted to give you an update in that. Other than that, happy Thanksgiving. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Uh council member Butterford's not here. So council member Brit. >> Okay. Just a few things. Uh I'm glad you all are here because you had a great
ceremony on the 11th. It was a very very good Veterans Day ceremony. Appreciate all you guys do. Uh, and then while we're talking about the the American Legion, I know the mayor said there's no exception for impact fees, but this $8,500
study fee, Brian, is that something that we can get the study done without having to hit them with the cost or >> actually that that's the application fee for zoning map amendment. >> That's that's the fee. >> Yes. >> So, they'd have to do it no matter what. >> Well, >> they don't have to.
>> No, not with the zoning map amendment. the the other fee that was is was for a site development order application. >> Okay. >> To expand the building, >> okay, >> and I think that's around $6,500 if I remember correctly. >> So, they don't have to pay the 8,500. We're taking per person and 500,000 per
incident. >> And they want to raise that to 600 and uh no, they want to raise it to 301 million per incident. Um and eventually to 60 and 1.2 million per incident. What that means is if uh if that passes,
we're going to have to uh increase our insurance premiums by quite a bit. Uh one estimate I saw was up to like 50%. So my my testimony was to just bring that message to the the committee and advise them maybe they there's a better
way to do this either index the the current limits uh according to some index CPI or whatever. But right now that that would be very ownorous to every agency in the state um because they all come under the same sovereign
immunity uh limits. So that was that was my testimony. Another gentleman from Daytona Beach u went up there with me and the League of Cities uh also spoke and that's who I was representing. They the League of Cities actually asked me to go up there and do that. So
>> okay. Uh, next up is me and I actually want to see if Dr. Korea could you come speak to this art in our chamber a little bit. >> Should we hold We should hold these. >> I feel like we have some really cool art and it's the first time it's kind of been out here for a council. >> So, actually, so thank you, Deputy Mayor. U, we were going to have a
ceremonial um item today. >> This is the art of um Kathleen Safi um and um but she could not be here today, so we are going to have a ceremonial item on the on December 1st. But this is well it's already unveiled today. It's a
beautiful >> pivot to some butterflies then. >> Yeah. >> Well, a sneak preview. >> Well, yeah, the butterflies are here. We brought this iss the sample of the the real thing. So,
this is um um this is going to be the sculptures, the five sculptures that will come to Solari Park. Um each one is um a different butterfly and they will be double-sided. So, we have 20 panels and this is photography being printed in
metal and um and this was the sample the company sent for us to approve the coloring and the you know and I just thought it was cool to also to share with all with you all. >> Yeah, I just I love our public art and it's cool. I'm glad we started this program to see it cycle through. So
>> well and we have the also the other project coming which is the um Jolie project >> um parks and rack will provide the date. >> We're just ironing that out. That'll be I think on no December 11th I think is what we agreed to. That's a that's a Thursday.
>> Probably have it uh somewhere in the mid afternoon like 3:00. So that won't it won't interference with uh with the Santa run which I think is that week. >> Okay. And then it'll allow for some of us who would like to partake in a a pre-eremony around the golf to celebrate it. We can we can do that.
>> Yeah. And we're going to invite the artists carry them and also the public art board and you know there you know I know Rickley doesn't live here. I think Jolie was Rickley's uncle. But I'm going to reach out to maybe Tim Slatterie and see if we can locate some of the old
relatives and and have them, you know, attend the ceremony. >> Very cool. Well, I just like the art coming out. So, thank you for doing that. Um, I did want to hop back over to the post legion over here. So, from what I understand is they could do zoning right now, but they can't because
they're waiting on us. But if they wait on us, they don't have to pay the $8,000 fee, but they do have to pay the SDO fee, which is, you said around $6,500. >> I was actually looking it up. It's uh for a site development order, 0 to 20%
deviation is 67.49. Okay. So, I I mean I know we do not wave fees. That's not how we operate with any kind of nonprofit, but as far as what we can do to help this organization that does a lot for the city. I would like to
see if we can find something we can do to help them out here. Um I don't know if you guys have any input on that. >> Well, we could sponsor something like we we used to do a lot of the events. The city used to have paid city employees do
a lot of the things that the post now does, >> right? >> So, we could sponsor in a manner of speaking in that way. And I don't know if it would show up as waved fees or if it would show up of an actual changing of hands of money and then they give it back or how how it might work. But I
guess I would like to see if we have consensus to find a way to help them out in some manner because like you you were right, we just did the Veterans Day ceremony and they led that whole process and we don't pay them a scent. So they are an organization that helps the city out a lot. So if we have consensus up here to have staff look into some way we
can help them out. >> Absolutely. >> And yeah, seek private donations. >> Got to be someone out there that wants to help. >> Okay. Um, and that's all I have on this right now. So, I will say happy Thanksgiving and it is Mayor Slakes's
report. >> All right. Uh, so this board I I hopped down to the other side of the county because leadership seinal is was trying to get everybody to learn more about the Central Florida Pledge. And that is something that I signed over a year ago
whenever it first came out. It was uh inspired by everything that happened uh October 7th, 2023 over in Israel. And the idea is let's all be nice to each other basically. Um, and so I guess to
today I'd like to suggest that this become a discussion item for a later date because they have sort of shifted gears from individuals signing the pledge to asking organizations to organizationally consider coming on board. And um it's a it's a real basic
thing, but the first one is we will lead by example treating all people with dignity and respect, especially those with whom we disagree. And I think this board does a really good job of that. Uh we we have a lot of 3-2 votes, 4-1
votes, and who the three and the one and the two are, it shifts around. Like I I can't imagine a better makeup than what we have going right now. Um and I think we extend that to everybody and Ovito, too. But if there's a way to get access
to extra resources through this organization or it helps their mission grow in other jurisdictions where there may not be that kind of diversity of opinion that can coexist in the same place, I think it would be neat. So if y'all are cool with that coming back as a I don't know if it needs to be a
discussion item or a >> a work session >> work what what it would need to be, but >> could you send it out to us? >> Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. So, don't want to ask y'all's y'all to decide on it now because you haven't even seen the whole concept, but it's pretty basic. It's
it's like let's all agree to let everybody have their own opinions and let their opinions be heard, accept them, and be friends because we're all neighbors. >> It's a good program. Um, yeah. So, maybe send it out and then we can put it as a discussion item. >> Does that work?
>> Okay. Anything else? >> That's it. >> Okay. Council member O. So, I'm still a little unclear on what the problem is on the American Legion Post project. We So, we passed a Well, can somebody
speak to that? >> Like the glitch ordinance and what held up the glitch ordinance? Yeah. And what is the glitch? >> So, so let's go to the beginning. The issue with that they have is that the um fuchsia land use and the zoning do not
match. And this is not something that was recently done. This was not done by the comprehensive plan in 22. It was done by the LDC in 2024. I trying to research and in the 2003 co comprehensive plan that area shows as
public and and so they have a public future land use and they have um right now um >> RP >> what what is the zoning? RP >> herp >> RP residential professional zoning. So
the zone is incompatible with the future land use. So today I think it's the first time I understood what they why they are saying that we did not accept an application. I think what happened is that they came for a building permit straight because on their perspective
they have the the existing use there and that is okay. There is no problem with that. it's considered legally non-conforming at this point because of the inconsistency between zoning and an comp plan. And they went straight for a building permit. And they were told, "Oh, you need a site plan first of all
because it's not residential. So it's you don't go straight for um um a building permit. You have a have a site plan." And the site plan needs to be um um the reasonzoning has to happen first for us to be able to allow the um SEO.
But we would allow in the during the pre-application that occurred in April staff told you know the representatives from the American Legion that were there that they could apply right there right right now that in in April right then
and they would only have to wait for the zoning to be approved first staff gave the option either you can do your own resoning if you're in a hurry or you can wait for the glitch ordinance. The glitch ordinance is the ordinance that well we approved the LDC last year and
um and it's not uncommon after you approve it. It's a it was a whole rewrite. So there were standards that we think it's not very enforcable. There were things that we thought that needed clarification. Then we had you
know new things from the statutes that we need to update in the code. So we were you know this we started this process to amend the the the the LDC and then as part of that we decided to tackle all the zonings in the city that
were not compatible with the future land use. So we are going to do a massive reszoning. Um we are tackling 294 properties including the American Legion. So we told them back then that they could wait for the glitch ordinance. I think there was um an issue
of the expectation that you know um when the ordinance would happen but the issue is that even if we approve today if we had the power that today to approve the resoning they still need a site plan the only thing that will allow them to build
is a site plan and we haven't had a side plan yet so they can apply for the site plan they could have applied in April and they can apply today tomorrow and we will review because this is um Although we are not the approving authority for a reasonzoning, this is a resoning for um
PLI to P, it's the only really zoning that is compatible with public. It's PLI. It's not a situation that we have to decide, you know, in commercial. It's C1 or C2 in office RP or OC. No, in this case, PLI is the is the appropriate
zoning. So, it's kind of the chances of not being approved are very slim. That's why we are comfortable that they could apply and we would um review the um the site plan with the standards of PLI zoning >> and the clarification there too is they can apply for their SDO right now.
They're not waiting on the glitch orders. >> They can they could have applied in April. They could apply now. >> Okay. But we're not holding them up on that. >> No, >> even without a site plan, they can do the SDL. >> Aside is a site plan. They would have so the SEO is the
>> So they didn't have that. So they they've got to get >> they have to. Yeah, that's the only way for commercial property to be expanded is to have because we have to check parking, storm water. These are all, you know, part of the review. >> But there's no turning dirt until the
glitch ordinance is passed. Correct. So you can do all of this stuff but turn dirt prior. Well, I guess >> well there is no turning before the zoning is is is done, but that's already we already in schedule for that. >> Okay. and um before STGO is approved and
a building permit is reviewed and approved. Okay. >> So for a building to be you know >> so they can they can start the construction the site construction with SEO but the vertical construction only with the building permit >> and when is the I I know you sent it out but how many months until we get the glitch through if everything goes according to
>> well the tomorrow we are going to have the work session with LPA. >> Okay. Um uh December 1st we have a discussion with the council and um we are planning on the December I think 15th LBA um first hearing and then
January the two hearings with council. Okay. So the end of January we will have the >> the ordinance in the zone approved >> more likely that the STO takes longer than the >> the STO normally takes longer than that. So they are >> so we won't be holding them up in that
regard. Okay. Okay. Any more questions? >> Yeah. So, I don't have the zonings memorized. I apologize. Um, so RP, uh, it's it's residential professional, if I remember from the email. Yeah. So, um, is is the issue here that what they're
trying to do doesn't meet the zoning, >> but the existing building predates that zoning, and it's okay. What? >> Yeah, the existing building is okay. an expansion can only be done in in
compliance with the comprehensive plan. And we have the city attorney here to to confirm that. >> Um >> yeah. And and so what types what type of zoning is appropriate for the type of building they have? Community center
>> PLI. So PLI is publicution. >> Um okay. So >> well it's the it's the only one that is compatible with the future land use which is public. They already have public future land use >> and that was done back I don't know when.
>> And is public better than commercial? Is that what you're getting at? >> Well, I I don't know. But so we we changed uh some uh in the um the comp plan update today or we we set the transmitter, right, to change some to public that are publicly owned,
right? >> Um this is not a publicly owned piece of land. >> So you're asking why >> how does that work? I would have to go back to, you know, >> to the 2000 2003 ordinance to be able to
understand. I tried to um research. So I saw that in the 2003 comprehensive plan that area already shows as public. Why it was changed back then I I have no clue. >> Yeah. Because it was privately owned. >> It was >> since 1957.
Yeah. So, okay, Mr. If, if I could just add a little bit, the American leisure is considered an institutional use. Instit in institutional uses are a primary use of the public future land use
designation. They're not considered an office. They're not considered a business. They're considered an institutional use. All the all the different fraternal nonprofit fraternal organizations are considered. That's why the public land use is is the more appropriate use land use for them. The
residential professional zoning district is not compatible with future land use designation. So there's only one future one zoning district that is and that's public lands unless it's brought up to the code comp planning code. So to do
the expansion, we've got to get the comp plan, the zoning, everything in line to make that to so that it's done in a way that it's not con that is conforming is what we have to do. And so getting the zoning to match the comprehensive plan future land use is pivotal in order for
them to be able to do their expansion. So yeah, does that help? I >> is commercial better than PLI? Like it do they have more flexibility? That's what now now that we've been on this I like I want to know more >> from development standpoint from a
development standpoint as far as the standards as far as sighting of the location and all that. No, from as far as allowing the various if they wanted to sell it probably it would it would it would probably be better for them if they were looking to sell it. But they're looking to stay there. The public's probably the better. So they
could knock it down and put in an office park under the current zoning but not add to the existing building. Is that true? >> No. >> No, they can't do that either. >> They cannot do anything. >> Well, not with RP. >> No, >> they cannot do any expansion or any new
construction there because the zoning is incompat is inconsistent with the future land use. >> They can only do what they're doing. >> So, even though you have zoning since it's not compatible, >> right? >> You still can't use it. >> Yes, >> you can use it. You cannot expand >> it. Yes. Or put it into a use that is
not allowed in the in the public land use. All right. So, I think that's all I've got. >> Thank you. >> Anything else for your report? >> Oh, uh, no. I think I think you've all covered it. Uh, we have Oh, that's >> Do we need to talk about the parade?
Who's who's go who's going to be at various things? >> So, we have a tree lighting coming up. >> I I'm planning on being at the lighting, but not the parade. >> Okay. And then I don't think council member Bifford is going to be at the parade either. >> I don't know. >> That's what I was told. So as far as the
float situation, we will coordinate that. >> Okay. As long as we can coordinate off the disk. If Mr. Vos can confirm that we are allowed to talk about where we might be parading, >> standing on the parade and I think that's >> if you all are just going to be talking
about the details of who's going to be standing where. >> Yes, that is all we're talking about. >> That that I think we'll live with that so long as nobody has too many great concern. I I I had had a concern before because I understand it had been a matter of great discussion previously in the council. Uh minutia of of such
things not not the greatest concern of the world. So >> Okay. Okay. All right. Then we'll go on to future meeting dates. Uh we have Monday, November 24th. Is that a work session? That is not a work session. That's not happening. So enjoy Thanksgiving. And we'll be back December
1st at 6:30 p.m. And then Monday, December 15th, we'll have another regular meeting at 6:30 p.m. Do we have an agenda for the 15th? >> Uh, I'll find out tomorrow. >> Okay. >> Okay. Is there anything else for the good of the order? >> It is 7:39 p.m. and this meeting is
adjourned.