something. >> Oh yeah. Oh, now it's 30 here, but not on there. >> That clock's behind. meeting people. >> All right. >> Welcome to Oto City Council Chambers. If everyone could please rise for the pledge of >> allegiance.
To the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Please join me in a moment of silence. I would like to call our meeting to
order. It is April 20th at approximately 6:30 p.m. and we have all members of council present. We are going to start off with our ceremonial items. We have a annual comprehensive financial report. U Mr. Cob. >> Uh, thank you, Deputy Mayor. I believe
Mr. Boop's going to give the first presentation and then he'll be uh followed by Mr. Gnau, who will bring the auditor's presentation. >> Okay. >> Thank you, honorable mayor, uh, deputy mayor, council members. What you have before you tonight is a very brief
review of the major funds and the financial performance of the city of Ovido. As Kelly stated earlier in the CRA meeting, the important components of the financial statements to really review and read is the management discussion
and analysis, but also in conjunction with that, the fund financial statements and as well as the notes to the financial statements. Looking at the general fund, the general fund came in pretty close to plan. Very strong adorum revenues of 23 million
very predictable. Other taxes of 6.3 million. Uh let me see if I can get this to work. Other taxes of 6.3 million almost 6.4 million mainly comprised of uh the electric um utility taxes. The utility
taxes as well as the communication tax. The electric utility taxes came in at about four million. Utility taxes for water and sewer came in about a million. And communication taxes came in right about a million. Licenses, permits, and fees at about 3.5 million. The big
revenue generator there was fr electric franchise fees which was about um about 3 million intergovernmental revenues 5.4 uh excuse me 5.3 million. um came in with is com is came in both 2.9 I think
in revenue sharing and 1.9 in the halfsent sales tax. So both of those pretty much comprise most of the intergovernmental revenues. Uh looking at uh charges for services uh charges for services is comprised of my mainly
ambulance of 1.2 2 million, recreation of 1.5, and an SRO of approximately uh $550,000. One thing that I want to talk about here is our investment income. As you can see, over the years, our investment
income has been very, very strong. Going back about four years ago, uh we were only getting in about $30,000 a year. And now for the last few years, we've been averaging a million and a million plus. So after over the last three years
we have contributed to fund balance approximately 3.5 or almost $3.5 million in revenue primarily from investment income which is significant. Again if you go back four years ago we were only getting $30,000 a year. Now we're
getting approximately 1.2 one almost 1.3. That's significant. It's a significant contribution to fund balance that goes right towards funding of capital and capital equipment. Any questions about revenues. Moving on to the general fund expenditures. You can see here police
12.1 million, fire 10.3. The next biggest one is parks and wreck 9.3 almost 9.4. And then general government services comprised of the city manager, uh, y'all, uh, city council, finance, HR,
development services about running out about 4.6 almost 4.7 million. Looking at the variances from budget, this is something that we spent a lot of time on. We've already reviewed this with you once in the April work session, but you can see in looking at the um
revenue side, you can see that the variances are very small. Uh the largest component is charges for services of a is of $711,000 and that's primarily attributable to ambulance revenues. Ambulance revenues have come in much stronger this year
than they have in previous fiscal years. You can see where investment income is up 126,000 but you know when we start off our investment income we start at a very low number because we don't know what the feds are going to do with the Fed fund rate. So we adjust it throughout the year and even where we
thought we were going to end up we came in stronger. So very strong revenue return use of fund balance on the bottom here. This is what is pledged to basically cover um the uh uh the uh amount that we need to balance the
budget for the fiscal year as well as carry forwards going into the next fiscal year. Going in and looking at the expense side, uh we had a $423,000 positive variance on salaries and benefits. That's primarily related to
the vacancy factor. Uh the operating came in at a a 2.4 4 almost a 2.5 positive variance contribution to fund balance and that's primarily related to capital projects and not capital projects but projects that were carried
forward from the previous fiscal year to the new fiscal year that were that were not completed. So a lot of those a lot of that balance gets carried forward to the next fiscal year. When you take a look and sum all these numbers up we had a 2.9 almost a $3 million contribution
to fund balance. And again, I can't emphasize enough to us all the strength of the investment income that we have here uh in this past fiscal year. Next, let's see, next slide. So, taking a look where we where do we think we're going
to land with fund balance at the end of this current fiscal year? Well, as you can see, we just discussed uh we had a $2.9 million contribution to the fund balance for the this past 2425 fiscal year. So our current ending fund balance
is 2 23.6 and our 2526 current fiscal year we pledged an original use of fund balance of 188,000. We have carry forwards of $869,000 uh amendments to date of 64 almost
65,000. So we have a current use of fund balance of 1.1 million. So by the numbers our projected available fund balance right now is 22.5 million which is 65 56.51% of our current expenditures.
very strong general fund cash balance very strong 22 22 million um and again we've talked about this in previous budget se uh sessions very strong and we've grown significantly over the last 10 10 15 years
looking at the unassigned fund balance unassigned fund balance as Kelly said in the previous CRA session pretty much parallels um your cash balance and it's very strong in excess of 22 million and it represents uh 57 over 57% of your
expenditures. So very strong position. Looking at the proprietary funds, the water and sewer revenues, water and sewer revenues came in according to plan. Looking at the operating revenues, 21 million. Um intergovernmental revenues of 854,000 that you see here
are primarily reimbursements from FEMA. Investment income very strong 1.5 million. Again, that's very similar to what took place in the general fund four years ago. Investment income $30,000. Now 1.6 very strong contribution towards
the uh towards your uh capital uh improvements for that take place in the water and sewer uh revenues. Uh capital contributions 3.3 million approximately 2.3 million of that was developer contributions. uh 644,000 I believe was
water and the remaining was a sewer uh impact fees transfers in very small $229,000 looking at water and sewer expenses again you know according to plan um cost of sales and services 9.5 million
administration 3.3 depreciation expense which basically is the wear and tear that is associate associated with the use of the equipment plant equipment used to generate the revenues for the water and sewer funds. We had interest expense related to debt service of 1.3
million and transfers out of 4 million. Looking at the water and sewer cash balances, very common theme here. Uh water and sewer cash balances are growing. They continue to be very strong and which will significantly help us as we move forward into our capital
intensive um future. Looking at the water and sewer net position, water and sewer net position is very strong. You'll see that the under uh the unrestricted balance is in excess of 20 million approaching 25 million and there's there's a balance
for uh where's my pointer? See there's a balance here for unrestricted funds which basically is water and sewer impact fees. looking at storm water revenues. Uh storm water revenues came in according to plan. As you know, we had a rate a
rate increase last year uh in February and also in October. So, our operating revenues are growing. They're getting to where they need to be and over time they should end up to support the storm water uh fund uh the way that they should they are designed to be. uh intergovernmental
revenues uh of $734,000 or basically um that is um let me see for FEMA for reimbursements for Little Creek and McKinnon and we had transfers
in of $1.4 million uh here uh in the storm water fund. A million of that came in from uh the American Rescue Plan Act fund uh to basically from interest to support the
operations in the stormwater fund because we just really didn't have any operational cash. Investment income very low at 153,000. That's basically because we didn't have any cash in the storm water fund. Looking at the expenses, the expenses
are tracking, you know, pretty close to plan. Uh 1.2 2 million for cost of sales administration 373 interest expense 209 related to debt service debt issuance we issued a $9.5 million note last year
that's the cost associated with the issuance of that u $9.5 million note and then we had transfers out of 384,000 and then of course the depreciation basically is the wear and tear on the infrastructure that's associated with the uh storm water fund
Looking at our cash balances, as you can see, our cash balances are minimal, are tracking very, very low. And if it wasn't for the million dollars that we brought in from the American Rescue Plan Act interest income, we would not have had any cash balances in the storm water
fund. It's interesting to note as we go back and we take a review of the activities that have taken place in the storm water fund. One of the reasons why we don't have any cash is because we're expecting a $2.9 million reimbursement from FEMA for McKinnon. So that is
critically important for us all to understand. So once we get that money in, we can start acrewing a little bit of interest and as well as fully fund what the the operations in the storm water fund. taking a look at citywide investments. Uh city this past year we were very very
careful to make sure that we uh segregated our investments appropriately. Thank you for your permission this past June to hire Chandler asset management uh to help us manage our high level our core investments. Uh they started in late
June and you can see we gave them uh $20 million between late June. So between June and the end of September, they uh they accured about $433,000 in income for us. We have a very small
investment, a CD at uh Florida Bank. That investment's been out there for about three years. We've made about $500,000 um in that investment. Very strong return. Uh the rest of our liquidity basically is tied up with TD
Bank. Those were our operational funds we used to pay make payroll with and pay accounts payable with. And then we have a pretty much an even divide here between SBA which is really Florida Prime now and also Florida Safe. We use
them both as equal liquidity. Uh we get a bit a little bit higher return in SBA. So I try to keep as much in there as possible. The reason that the Florida safe balance is a little bit higher is because we have $9.5 million in there from the bond or the I should say the revenue issuance the revenue bond
issuance for the storm water fund and investing in the Florida SAFE we get free arbitrage services. So it's a very good return for us. So there's about 20 basis points return between Florida Safe and SBA. So over time you can make a
significant amount of money. Uh getting close to the end here. long-term debt as of the end of the fiscal year. You know, every year you we like to bring to you our reduction in overall debt. Uh this year for the uh general fund, we had almost a million
dollar reduction uh in paying off the general obligation note uh balances, the capital improvement refunding notes as well as the public improvement refunding notes. Over on the business side, we increased our util utility revenue notes
by 9.5 million which is directly related to the storm water issuance. But uh as you can see with the increase of 9.5 million, we still had a slight reduction uh when we paid off all the all these other notes that are active in the uh on
the business side and the utility funds. Overall 2025 uh debt is 52.7 million. 2024 debt was 46 million. Again, the increase in debt is directly related to the $9.5 million debt issuance note for
um storm water. Taking a look at a governmental uh debt payments by type, um the very top, the green is um the capital improvement revenue note that we refinanced back in
2012. Uh we only have a couple years left on that note after this year. Uh, this slice in the middle here, I don't know what color that is. I don't even want to guess at that, but that's the public improvement revenue note that was issued in 2013 for the completion of
Ovito on the Park. Then down here on the very bottom is the component for the um for the GO bond issue that was done back in 2003 for Ovito on the Park. Taking a look at our long-term debt
credit risk, very strong. I think we're we're close to another upgrade with the strong financial performance that we've had. And what's really important when we take a look at these numbers here for the utility bonds and the geo bond and that's standard and pores looking at
Moody's AA3 we're just one notch lower on Moody's on both issue issues respectively is that these are standalone underlying ratings which signify the strength of the city's financials. It's important to understand that we're not buying up our rating
through uh buying an additional insurance policy to get ourselves AAA rated. Uh basically uh we our financial performance is strong enough that we can go out to the bond markets or the or the revenue markets and get a very very
competitive interest rate. Our senior lean debt service coverage 2425 was 4.29. policy is 1.25 uh compared to the previous fiscal year 3.65 very strong
with that um I'll ask you if you have any questions uh in regard to the financial statement presentation if not Mr. Matt Gnu is going to come up here and give you an overview of the uh audit for the city of Avidito. >> Okay. Does anybody have any questions?
>> Just just a quick one. I saw a chart somewhere about the depreciation. I think it was in water and sewer >> depreciation. >> Yeah. >> Yes, sir. >> Is the are there uh depreciations in the other department, storm water? Yes, sir. >> General fund. >> Yes, sir. Um
go back. So yes, depreciation. >> Okay, I just sorry. >> Yeah, 652,000. And basically what that is uh Mr. Britain, that is the wear and tear on the infrastructure associated with the storm water fund.
>> Okay. Not necessarily equipment or also equipment >> there. Yes, there is a very small component of depreciation related to equipment that is used within the storm water fund as well. I don't know what that number is, but there is a number associated with that. Yes. >> Okay. >> So, we talk about equipment, you know,
rolling assets, things of that nature. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Any questions on here? >> My I had one question, but I don't know if it's for right now, but the 2.9 million we're waiting on FEMA for McKinnon. >> Yes. >> Are I mean, how long has that been? Are we still worried about getting that? not
worried about getting it, worried about how long it's going to take for FEMA to get reopened so that we can start having those discussions again. Um, as of right now, we don't have any concerns about getting that. >> Okay.
>> Until something else indicates that we should have a concern, but there's nothing out there to indicate that. >> Okay, that's it. Okay, >> thank you. Oops, >> I'm going the wrong way. I am so sorry. Is everybody cool calling that color
orange sickle? Dreamsicle. Let's call it dreamsicle. >> I didn't want to touch that one, Mayor. >> Dreamsicle. Yeah. >> Thank you. Oh, before before I step away, I just want to thank you for your guidance throughout the budget process, throughout the fiscal year, and all the
uh good advice you've given us. I also want to thank Mr. Cobb uh for his everyday guidance that he gives us and Mr. Kelly for his oversight of the American Rescue Plan Act funds and how he has helped us all throughout the fiscal year. And I have to give um
outstanding accolades to Miss Jones because she is the one who works directly with Pervvis Gray uh assembles all the information that goes into the art process and she also assembles the ACER and just reviews spends hours and
hours and hours of time reviewing the accuracy of that report and as well as Miss Nadia Tador who also assists us and and Kelly in getting the information uh together for the audit. So without those individuals, we would not be able to
present this report to you. They've done an outstanding job and I just want to make sure that they get recognized. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Good job. >> I'll just start by concurring with everything uh Mr. Boop just said there. Um he did a high uh overview of the financials and going through the
numbers. So I'm not going to do that. I'm going to stick to the audit results and the reports that we issue as part of our audit engagement. Uh my name is Matthew Cano. I'm an audit partner with Pervvis Gray and Company out of our Ocala office. Uh joined by Helen Painter who is the uh partner in charge of the engagement. And on this slide you can
see the leadership of the audit team that also includes Michael Sandstöm who's an IT audit director with the firm that over uh reviews the oversees the IT elements as it relates to the financial audit that's performed. We also have several other auditors that are in part of the engagement team uh senior staff
and supervisors as well. Um first before I just jump in a little bit further, the city does participate in the GFOA certificate of achievement award each year. Um this requires additional reports to be provided as well as addition uh all in the name of transparency and a more timely financial
reporting. Um the city does participate in this. They did receive the award for their um annual comprehensive financial report for the September 30th, 2024 year. Um hopefully we do expect that this year's report also to receive that same award as well.
Um, so just going to be touching on some of the reports that we issue as part of our audit engagement. There's several reports. I'm going to be going over each of those on the next several slides. The first section there that you can see there is referencing the independent auditors report in the annual comprehensive financial report. Uh, you
can find that on page one of that bound of the bound document. Um, this goes into the responsibility of management. It's management's responsibility for the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements. In that report, it discuss our responsibility which is to issue an opinion on the financial
statements based off of our audit procedures that the financial statements are free of uh material misstatements. In that uh report uh the very first paragraph the opinion paragraph you'll find our opinion which we have issued an unmodified opinion or a clean opinion. That's the highest level of assurance
that we can offer as part of an attestation engagement saying that in our opinion we believe that the financial statements are fairly presented in all material respects. Second item there is the internal control. Um this is another required report that we issue. Talks about the internal controls of the city. While we
don't issue an opinion on the internal controls of the city, we are required to review the internal controls of the city during the preparation of our financial audit. If we run across any significant deficiencies or material weaknesses while we are reviewing those internal controls to assist with our planning, those would be mentioned in that report.
Um as such, it is a clean report. no specific items that are required to be written and issued in that report uh related to any material findings. We also issue a report as required in Florida statute 218415 with the city's
investment policy um in compliance. There were no material um in uh material findings or issues related to the compliance of the city's investment policies with that Florida statute. Finally, we also required to issue what is called a management letter. Uh this is required of the rules of the auditor
general. A few items are discussed in that, but uh if there were any material uh material audit findings or um uh significant going concerns issues with the city, any of those type of items would be mentioned in that letter as well. Happy to happy to say there was no items that rose to the level of being
required to be written findings in that letter. The last report um it pertains to the single audit that is performed since the city expends more than a million dollars in federal awards that triggers a special compliance audit that h also has to be performed and apart separate from
a financial audit that's focused on the preparation and the fair presentation of a financials. This is looking more at the compliance elements related to these federal awards to ensure they are spent properly and in compliance with the grantor of the grant that we've selected that year based off of requirements for us to be testing. this year was the um
Corona state and local fiscal recovery the ARPA funds essentially u no findings or issues noted in that report as well just two significant items just wanted to quickly bring to everybody's attention just mentioned the ARPA funds um so the city did receive $21 million
originally of tanches related to that funding uh currently the ARPA funds are required to be expended by the end of the calendar year December uh this December 2026 unless the federal government does anything to change that require retirement. Those funds do need to be spent by the end of this year.
Also, if you are running through the independent auditors report, you'll see an emphasis of matter paragraph in there as well as a note one. It talks about a restatement that's pertaining to a new Gazsby pronouncement that was required to be implemented this year by the city. So, it's not an error or an issue necessarily. It's just the change in the
accounting requirements. So, that was implemented this year that did require a restatement for the current year's financial statements. Um, also separate from the issued financial statements, we do issue a separate bound or separate letter that is not bound that is addressed to the
council members directly. Um, a lot of this is boilerplate language, but if we did come across any significant findings or anything else that we needed to specifically bring to your attention, difficulties in performing the audit, disagreements with management, material audit adjustments, also um the general the estimates that are utilized by the
city in the preparation of the financial statements, those would be mentioned in that letter. nothing really to draw to your attention in that separate letter um titled communication of those charges of governance. Um this is just something these are some upcoming pronouncements in the future.
Um 103 is going to be 103 and 104 does require to be implemented ne the September 30th 2026 fiscal year. Gazsby 103 will change some of the presentation of the financial city's financials going forward to be in compliance with this new accounting standards primarily affecting the MDNA kind of streamlining
that a little bit as well as your proprietary funds are going to look a little bit different primarily just terminology on some of the item line items that are in your financial statements for proprietary funds as well as some changes to the budget to actual schedules and then the other two are just kind of on the horizon not going to have a significant impact expected at
least um on the city um so I would I know Jerry's said this, but I would just like to take a second before answering any questions to thank um Jerry and Kelly and the rest of the city. We do send a request list when we show up for our planning, another request list when we show up at year end, and then we show up and ask a lot
of questions about the stuff that was provided um and and everybody that we work with is always timely um getting back to us as soon as possible. So, uh allows for a smooth audit and allows the city to get their financials issued before the required deadlines. I'd be happy to answer any questions anybody
may have. Good. >> Not so much a question, but a clarification for anybody in the audience who might be wondering what time frame this covers, if you could. >> So, this does cover for the fiscal year ending September 30th, 2025. So, it's
from >> October 2024. >> Yes. >> Through. So, anybody who's like, wait a minute, why are we talking about this in this month? We do a look back this time each year for the previous fiscal year. So, we're sort of six months behind
confirming but but like not that's not the right word. Behind isn't the right word. Uh but we do always do a look back about six months after the fiscal year closes to re review officially settle up all of the financial things from the previous year.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So financial financial audit is of course a historical snapshot in in nature. Um, it is required. Y'all are required to issue your fin audited financials to the state nine months subsequent to year. And since y'all participate in the GFOA certificate of achievement award, you actually have a tighter turnaround that requires the
city to submit it uh by the end of March 31st. So, it's a six-month turnaround as well. So, >> thank you. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> We will move on. The next thing we have is our public comment. Um, I don't have any written requests to speak. Is there
anyone in the audience that would like to address council at this time? Hearing none, I will close public comment and move on to the consent agenda. >> I move we adopt the consent agenda. >> Um, I'd like to remove number five from
the consent agenda. >> And >> okay, >> I move we adopt Okay, we I move we adopt items four and six from the consent agenda. >> Okay. Okay. And we're going to move item number five, which is resolution number 4714-26,
down to item number 10 A. 5 10 A. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Uh, second. >> Any discussion? >> Okay, I'll ask the clerk to call the role.
>> Motioner, Mayor Megan Slidic. I >> seconder. Council member Alanaut. I, >> Deputy Mayor Natalie Tugert. >> I, >> Council Member Keith Britain. >> I, >> Council Member Jeff Bodford. >> I, >> the motion carries. We'll move on to item number seven, which is ordinance
number 1763, a zoning map amendment. Mr. Bose, will you read that by title only, please? >> Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Ordinance number 1763, an ordinance of the city of Ovito, Florida, amending the zoning map of the city of Ovido concerning
approximately 3.23 23 acres of land generally located on the west side of Sugar Mill Road and approximately 405 ft north of Avita Mall Boulevard from plan unit development PUD to plan unit development PUD and adopting an amended
and restated non-stutory development agreement for Dwell and Ovido conceptual development plan and providing for findings and legislative intent implementing actions a savings provision correction of scriveners errors conflicts codification sever ability and an effective date.
>> Thank you, Mr. Cob. >> Uh, thank you, Deputy Mayor. If you'll recall at your April 6th meeting, you conducted a first reading for this ordinance, and I know it's it's it's classified as a zoning map amendment, but it's really more of a an amendment to the development agreement and conceptual development plan for the
property. Uh, at the first reading, you did have some questions for staff, and I'm going to turn it over to Dr. Korea and she'll she'll update you on the things that they uh they did as far as answering those questions. And uh at the end it's recommended that the council
conduct the public hearing. This is your second reading. So this will be a public hearing and then adopting ordinance number 1763. >> Thank you. >> Good evening, mayor, deputy mayor, council members. So, I'm not going to go over the presentation that I already
did. Um, this is really um um an amendment to achieve four things. We want to establish a new use um the self- storage use. We are um establishing new standards for this new use. We are correcting um the future land use that
was described in the um development agreement as mixeduse. uh that was um before the 2022 um comprehensive plan. Now it's gateway west um corridor and then we are also recognizing the split of the office parcel into two parcels.
So I will go over to um slide number 10 because we had some questions um in the last presentation and I just did the comparison here. So um we were asked about height. Um so the original
agreement had 78 feet as height. Um and the that's the same that we are proposing for the amended um DA. Uh it was called out before because that was the would be the new standard for the self storage. And just a comparison on height on the surrounding um uh
properties. Um the dwell which is the multifamily uh portion of the dwell uh was approved for 78 but they only have four stories. So the actual wasif 57 feet in the height. U Broadway oak
apartment which is the property to the north. It's not part of the dwell but it's a joining u was approved to a maximum 60 ft but they um also um they are being built um it's four stories as well and the actual is 56 um feet in
height. Um and the self storage that is being proposed has a maximum allowable of 78 but per the CDP they are proposing three stories. So it's going to be lower than the surrounding um buildings on the no then still on that one on on
the parking uh we have um so office parking what was um in the agreement before one one space per 250 square ft and that is the same standard that we are proposing for the amend amendment and the self storage these are the
standards are being proposed one space per 10,000 square ft plus one space per employee. The mayor had requested last time for me to for us to do a comparison between, you know, the different uses. Um, and I explained to her, it's very
easy to compare two site plans, but it's difficult to compare a site plan and a use that can be developed in different ways. So what I did here the comparison on parking I got a very tangible standard which is parking and compared
how much parking is required with this new use at the maximum that they are allowed in the uh development agreement and that would be 15 parking spaces and this and the square footage of the parking spaces alone because that's
again it's very tangible we are not talking about driving aisles because then I need a side plan to calculate that um would be 2,430 square ft of parking spaces given that one parking space 9 by8 is 162 square ft for the
office at the maximum which is allowable in that parcel which is 49 uh,464 square ft. That would require a minimum of 198 parking spaces and that would be
in parking spaces alone three 32,76 square ft. So that gives you the magnitude of the difference between one use and the other. Um the open space again that is a also the requirement for us that the minimum is 25 that would be
required from any use in the in the um um development agreement and that is actually the minimum that the city requires um and the CDP of the for the self storage that is being proposed right now they are at 28.4% 4% so they
are more than the minimum and they are not counting the upland or the storm water that they could count a little bit. So the final engineering plans would tell us exactly how much u uh open space but I thought that was just to give you a comparison you know and
which is something very tangible. Um so these are my updates on the um notification. We notified and we had notified before the management company but this time we sent a notification to the management company um asking
requesting them that they could if they could um um share with the residents of the dwell. So we made that extra um uh effort there. Um, with that, um, I would
read the recommendation, which is the last, um, slide, please. It's recommended city council read ordinance 1763 by title only and conduct a public hearing. The applicant is here as well, and I am available to answer any questions.
>> Okay. Thank you, Dr. Gray. Does the applicant want to say any words? >> Good evening, everyone. for the record, Jessica Gow with Cobb Cole Law Firm that is located at 1 Daytona Boulevard in Daytona Beach, Florida. Thank you for having us here tonight. Um, we listened to the discussion on first reading and just have very minor things to add.
Staff has done a comprehensive review of this site and we appreciate working with them through this process. Um, the proposed storage use that we are looking to add for this site on a portion of that office layout. Um, the original approval in 2014 did not contemplate that storage use. It is typically
associated in your code with office uses um in that OC standard office zoning district. It's called out as a special exception in there. So you can see the compatibility for office. Um we think it's appropriate for this site based on the integration with the multif family kind of the residential units around it
for that storage support. Um and the storage use really has um kind of a similar construction value and value overall of the site but a much lesser demand on services. So, you've seen the um backup in that staff report that shows that this use has over less than
half of the trips that would be associated with a standard office development on that site. Um much lower water and sewer demand and all of that that structure and layout. Um there was a discussion of the open space on first reading. We did want to note as stated by staff, our current concept plan has
28%. Um that does not include the storm water and the buffer. if those are accommodated. Um, we confirmed with our civil engineer that would bring the percentage over 30% of the site. And there is also a wetland that's being preserved on site that's about 0.59
acres in the rear there that you see on the concept. So that is an additional about 18% of that footprint of that parcel. Um, the overall changes as noted are mostly cleanup and then adding in that storage user um and clarifying the criteria associated with that. With
that, we are happy to answer any questions. We do have the proposed developer and our civil engineer here as well. >> Thank you. Does anybody have any questions while she's up here? >> No. >> Okay. >> Thank you very much. >> This is a a public hearing. I don't have any written requests. Is there anybody
in the audience that would like to address council on this topic? Hearing none, I will close public comment. Uh what is the pleasure of council? >> I move we adopt ordinance number 1763. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second.
>> Any discussion? Mayor Slick, >> I appreciate the the followup on the amount of open space. It sounds like up to 48% of this site will remain open and if quick nod if I'm if I'm adding correctly. Okay, that's confirmed by by legal counsel for this site. I think it
is a a great opportunity to keep as much uh absorption back into our aquifer as possible. uh reduce traffic and it does seem like a a pretty compatible use next to apartments uh as people are in transition and and looking to someday
move into the home ownership situation. So, thank you for um making the effort to keep more open space and I'm glad there's less less traffic. We're always looking for that. >> Council Britain, >> I'm good. Thank you. Council >> Bradford,
>> I've got nothing. >> You said how many% >> 48% So it's 28% uh per staff's numbers not including the conservation plus the storm water. So the civil engineer calculated up those
additions and that was an additional 18%. Wait a so maybe I'm not adding that right and buffers >> 28 plus. Yeah buffers. >> Buffers too. >> Okay. >> Any further questions? >> All right. Also clerk call the role. >> Motioner. Mayor Megan Slick. I
>> seconder. Council member Keith Britain. >> I, >> Deputy Mayor Natalie Tukurt. >> I, >> Council Member Jeff Bterford. >> I, >> Council Member Alan. >> I. >> The motion carries. We will move on to ordinance number 1764. Mr. Bose.
>> Thank you, Deputy Mayor. This is ordinance number 1764, an ordinance of the city of Ovidito, Florida, amending chapter 26, fire prevention and protection of the city of Ovido Code of Ordinances to create section 26-4, collection of delinquent firerevention
inspection fees on utility bill, providing for collection of delinquent firerevention inspection fees on utility bills under certain circumstances. implementing administrative actions and providing for conflicts, severability, codification, correction of scrier errors, and an effective date.
>> Mr. Cobb. >> Uh thank you, Deputy Mayor. This is uh once again, this is the second reading and public hearing for uh ordinance number 1764. And what this ordinance does, it creates a new section of our uh code of ordinances in the fire prevention
section to create a process for the collection of delinquent uh fire inspection fees. We are required to annually perform uh what we call life safety inspections uh for various businesses. And so what this would do is that when a bill when a we issue an
invoice for the inspection and when it's more than 30 days uh in a rears then what would happen is is that it would be placed on the business's utility bill and so that it would be paid for through the utility bill is what it would do. a backup procedure that once these uh once
if we if we're not able to collect uh through the invoice then this gives us a second avenue for us to pursue. And so with that with that uh if you have any questions obviously uh Chief Woodward is here and it's recommended that you conduct a public hearing and adopt
ordinance number 1764. Okay. >> Thank you Mr. Cobb. I don't have any written requests to speak. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address council on this topic? Hearing none, I would close public comment. What is the pleasure of councel?
>> I move we adopt ordinance number 1764. >> Second. >> Have a motion and a second. Any discussion? >> No, we talked about it during the first reading. I think it's a it's a good thing and to try to recoup some of the the charges that are out there that outstanding. So, >> Council Member Britain,
>> I'm good. Thank you. Um, I did have one question actually since I just did my fire inspection over at my business. Um, the late fees on here, which I don't know that we talked about before. Um, what are the late fees? Like if they don't pay within a month and then we put
this on their bill, >> typically the late fee after 30 days um is equal to the amount of the initial inspection. So if you had a say a $50 inspection and it goes beyond 30 days uh delinquent, then it basically doubles. So, it adds another $50 to the total
bill. >> See, I guess that was my question. We're So, we're doubling the bill if they don't pay in 30 days for the fire inspection fee. >> Mr. Deputy Mayor, I would just note one thing. What uh the chief just mentioned to you is currently in your fee
schedule. >> Correct. >> That is not being implemented by So, that's been adopted in the fee schedule. >> Okay. So, we're not changing anything as far as matching. >> Okay. >> The fee structure was adopted this way in 2022. Um, it ranges from about $50 for a 0 to 3,000 foot business up to
about $200 max uh for 100,000 square foot plus size building. And when that uh the way our process works is when they conduct the inspection, they will uh send uh invoice via email to the email that they have on file for that
and they verify the email during the inspection cycle. Um we also uh recently or 2024 we implemented a online payment portal so that way when they receive their electronic um email invoice they can actually go online and pay their
invoice and it's also on the city website they can go and pay their invoice. So we try and make as as easy as we can on the business community to be able to to do that. Um and when they do go beyond the 30 days it's basically that fee doubles. >> I guess that all makes sense to me. I just want to make sure we're warning them. If you don't pay in 30 days, your
fee doubles. So, >> it is it is very clearly stated. Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Got it. >> So, I feel like I heard it both ways. It is it it's 30 days from the date of the inspection or the fee doubles when you're 30 days late.
>> So, the date of the inspection occurs, they have 30 days to make their payment of the inspection. >> Okay? >> So, once it goes 31 days, then that fee doubles. So, the 31st day after the inspection, >> you're building the day of their inspection, they receive the invoice. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. Okay. >> I've got a quick logistical question because I I pay plenty of invoices for for my day job. Uh, and there's a button and it says, "Click here to pay your invoice." Is that what it looks like when the invoice comes by email? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Give you an online payment portal and then you can also access it through the city of Ovita website. >> Okay. It's pretty straightforward. >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. I just didn't know how straightforward it was. Like you you have to read the print, but it's very obvious because you've seen it lately. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. I'll ask the clerk to call
the role. >> Motioner. Mayor Megan Slick. >> I. >> Seconder. Council member Jeff Bterford. >> I. >> Deputy Mayor Natalie Tukurt. >> I. >> Council member Keith Britain. >> I. >> Council member Alan. >> I. >> The motion carries. We'll move on to
item number nine. Ordinance number 1765 amending traffic and vehicle rules. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. This is ordinance number 1765, an ordinance of the city of Ovito, Florida, amending the
city of Ovito Code of ordinances, article 4, record qualifications and allocation system of chapter 50, traffic and vehicles to amend section 50-82 titled scope and purpose, section 50-84 titled call allocation system rotation
list and section 50-85 titled response to calls amending certain distance and response time requirements for local record operator qualifications, implementing administrative actions, providing for conflicts, severability, confiscation, and correction of scri scriveners
errors, and an effective date. >> Thank you, Mr. Grab. >> Uh, thank you, Deputy Mayor. Uh, Miss Madison, could you pull up that on the screen? Just make it it'll just make it much easier for us to to go over it. This this is an ordinance that amends three sections of, uh, section 50. And
section 50 deals, this part of section 50 deals with our uh with record service. And so the current code requires that uh a record company in order to be on what we call the tow list to be 5 miles from the intersection of Mitchell Hammock Road and State Route
434 and they have to be able to respond within 20 minutes. Uh currently we only have one company on the record tow list and so we were actually someone contacted us about it and one of the things that we're trying to accomplish with this ordinance is to increase the
number of companies that we can have to provide the tow service. And this is providing services for when there's an abandoned vehicle or if there's an accident or something like that where we're calling and needing them to come and tow the vehicles out of the rideway. I actually can you go down just a little
bit. The first uh a little bit more right there. That's good. We'll stop right there. The first the first uh the first proposed revision to is section 50-82. And you can see there it changes the time from 20 minutes current code
which is 20 minutes to 30 minutes. So it would allow for the record to uh come to us within 30 minutes. And the second one that 50-84 is to increase the the area in which these uh record companies can be located in instead of being five miles from
State 434 Mitchell Hammock Road intersection to 15 miles from the intersection. And if you could scroll down just a little bit further, the third request once again is that if if they can't make it within the new 30 minute requirement that it requires them
to notify the dispatcher that and give us an estimated of time about when they will be on site. And so those are the three uh three proposed revisions to this section. And I have Deputy Chief Foley here. He was the he's been the one that uh that put this together for us.
He's here to address any questions tonight. This is your first reading. So, we have two readings of the ordinance. This is your first reading, and it's recommended that you uh schedule a public hearing for May 4th, 2026. >> Thank you, Mr. Cobb. Does anybody have any questions on this? All right. What
is the pleasure of council? >> I'll make a motion to schedule a public hearing on May 4th, 2026 for ordinance number 1765. >> Do we have a second? >> Second. Any discussion? Um, go ahead.
>> I uh I I talked to Mr. Cobb and uh Chief Coleman today uh about it. The only concern I really have about this is that 15 miles is an awful long way. Um thinking about, you know, people having to go get their cars. One thing that we did discuss is that when people have
their cars um towed in an accident, if if the city does it, they play a they pay a flat fee. And uh uh did you confirm that that's $150? Is that >> Yeah. Oh, >> good evening. So, yes, a flat fee of
$150 and uh $6 per mile. >> Oh, it is per mile. >> Hold the mic up, too. >> Sorry. >> It's per mile also. >> Yes. Okay. >> So, it could increase by 60 bucks going the extra 10 miles. >> Yeah. >> Yes. And that was taken into
consideration uh because the initial issue was there is only one company that services us right now that we didn't want to take it to 30 to inconvenience citizens. We figured 15 would be a reasonable number.
>> Yeah. Um so 15 from that intersection. I just did the you know a little bit of the mapping on the computer. Downtown Orlando um the other side of I4 you know if you go west. So, west of Altimont, um the 528 if you were to go straight south
and the other side of Lake Monroe and Ostein if you go north. Um that's it just seems like an awful long way to make people, you know, pay pay for a tow and then have to go get their car uh at some point. Uh, one other thing that the
chief confirmed is is that this doesn't apply for um having cars towed for illegal parking or or things like that that we don't we don't do that. We'll just issue them a citation. Um, you know, illeg illegally parked on the curb or something like
that. So, it doesn't apply for that. >> Correct. >> Um, but correct. >> But even in this case, uh, I don't know. I'm I might be more comfortable with 10. >> 15 miles is pretty far, too. Is this because we looked at how many businesses there are? >> So it is hard to estimate how many would
actually qualify because for example if you do a simple Google search of how many tow companies are in the area or close to you they still would need to be inspected by the police department to make sure they have the required facilities and also the required equipment that the rest of the ordinance
requires. So it it is possible the ordinance as Mr. says is uh currently states radius which if you do draw a straight line from the intersection um there are plenty of tow companies that would qualify um within 10 miles as
well. We just didn't want to run into the same issue down the road that we're currently in and increase it to 15. >> Sure. And then I guess my my other question there because I'm on the same line of thinking is if you get stuck at this intersection and then someone responds from 15 miles away. I feel like
that could be like an hour. Um, >> yes. And another reason, >> so how does it dispatch? >> Another reason why we would want to increase the amount of companies that we would have available. We would then be able to go to the next company that's on the list and say, "Hey, you're not able to respond in the required time. We're
going to the next company and therefore hopefully would have more companies that would be able to respond in that required 30 minutes." >> Okay. So, the only way we would get someone an hour away is if no one else was available. >> We'd have to be in really bad shape. Yes. >> Okay. Got it. So, is the policy to start
close and then go farther away? >> Uh, >> how how would this work? >> You the company would be on what we call a toe a tow rotate uh excuse me, tow rotation >> tow rotation list. And if you were first on the list, you would get the first call from dispatch, drop down to the
bottom of the list for the next call. >> And 100% of the companies that are within 15 miles that qualify, like how how do you get on the list? Do they have to proactively seek out the opportunity to be on the list or >> Yes, they would have to contact the police department. Okay. And say, "Hey,
I believe my company qualifies for your your ordinance. I have the required equipment and facilities." And then we would go out and inspect them and make sure that they do comply. >> All right. Thank you. And also as far as getting on the list, one of the things we talked about today was that since the requirements for this
are extensive. Um it's not just having a tow truck. You got to have all this other equipment and and all that stuff that the companies who do this we expect would proactively seek us out because that's their business. Correct. And to your point, one of those things would be you just can't have an open lot. You'd
have to have a secure facility. Has to have a fence around it to protect the vehicles and stuff like that. Yes. >> Yeah. Okay. Any other questions? All right. I'll ask to call a vote. >> Motioner. Council member Jeff Bterford. >> I.
>> Seconder. Mayor Megan Slick. >> I. >> Deputy Mayor Natalie Tukurt. >> I. >> Council member Keith Britain. >> I. >> Council member Alanaut. >> I. >> The motion carries. We will move on to item number 10, which is resolution number 4719-26,
the declaration of restrictive covenants for Twin Rivers golf course. Mr. Cobb. >> Hi. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. Uh, Miss Madison, if you could um pull up that attachment as well. Uh, this is a request for council to
approve a declaration of restrictive covenants for the Twin Rivers golf course. If you'll remember back at your March 2nd meeting, you had a uh a very uh comprehensive discussion on a an initial draft that was presented to you.
Uh at the meeting, uh we uh what we our our understanding was was that you had questions about uh there was a thing there was some questions about on en on oncourse restrooms. Uh those have actually that has been added uh to the
uh to the covenant. There was also some discussions about variations of golf and types of golf games that may be played on a golf course. Uh with there has been we've added language as well. And one of the things uh that and we'll walk through the the covenant in just a
second. And then that there was also some discussion about uh passive recreation uses. Uh we've included that too. We felt that we were supposed to the consensus was to bring back a proposal for that. And then the last one was to they we were requested to
investigate the schools of the Big 12 and to see if there is uh lodging being able being provided at the uh on on their home courses. We did find out that two of the universities actually do their uh University of Arizona uh at the
Suelo Golf Course uh located at the Casino Del Soul uh in Tucson, Arizona. Uh they have they can you have the option of staying at the at the at the resort. Uh though teams also stay in area hotel area Tucson hotels at
Oklahoma State University. There uh their course uh Carsten Creek Golf Club. Uh there are three what they call guest houses uh there that can seat I believe they sleep like 8 to 12 individuals uh they're on the course and they can stay
at one of those um those guest houses or they can stay at local Stillwater area hotels. Uh UCF what we learned was that uh teams can stay at the Celeste Hotel on campus or any of the hotels around campus or they may stay uh let's say
that they're playing at Lake Nona. they may stay at a hotel down near Lake Nono or if they're playing at Isleworth, they may stay down at a hotel near Isleworth. So, um we uh the direction was to bring back some uh proposed language which we
did. We did that as well. And uh so one of the things we've added in, Miss Madison, if you could go down the um There we go. Keep going down just a little go back up just a little bit first. Uh what we did was under golf
course uses we uh added in the information regarding games that can be played on a golf course. Uh we also added in the encourse restrooms and and then also parking related. That was one of the things that we also added on there to make sure that uh we had well we moved that one more than anything. Uh
if you could go down just a little bit more uh with golf course uses. Stop right there. This is where we added in the transit uses. And what we tried to do, we tried to make it as narrow as we could. And um if you have questions, I'm going to turn it over to Mr. Mr. Vos for the questions. But we tried to make it a
narrow uh use such that the accommodations had to be owned by a government entity, i.e. the city, and then uh that we would be providing overnight accommodations to uh for the golf teams basically conjunction with
university athletics. And so uh we also provided a rec a uh definition for passive recre recreation uses. These it was to mainly set this up that if the golf course the discussion at the time during the meeting was about the if the
golf course did not pan out basically uh that we would give us the ability to convert the course to a passive recreation area that did not have a ball field on it that wasn't structured recreation. and it was more passive open
so that people could go and we got very detailed. We did a lot of research on what was passive recreation uses. We did a lot of research and but we also felt it was important to say what it's not and so that was one of the things that we provided. We a number of things there that what it's not as far as passive
recreation uses. We added passive recreation uses to the permissive use permitted uses uh within the within the property. And uh Miss Madison, if you could go on down just a little bit more. I believe Oh, there under the prohibited
uses as Mr. If you'll recall back on March second, Mr. Vos used the the saying of the exception to the exception. And so this is where transit residential uses are still prohibited unless it's something that is being done
by a governmental entity uh to provide overnight accommodations in conjunction with the athletic uh athletic program. Uh those are the what that is the update to the restricted covenant. It's recommended that the uh city council
adopt resolution number 4719-26. >> Thank you, Mr. Cobb. Uh, I do not have any written requests to speak. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address council at this time? >> I would. >> Sure. >> If you could please come up to the mic, sir. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> No, you're fine.
>> My name is uh Doug Holmes. Uh, I work at Twin Rivers. I was at the meeting, initial meeting. Uh, the restrooms were discussed. There was also a discussion of infavorability towards
expansion of the clubhouse. There was never any discussion about passive use horse riding, general public benches. There was discussion about the restroom. I want to know where all why the clubhouse
portion was left out and why the passive um portion was put in. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. Is there anybody else that would like to address? Sure. >> Good evening, Mayor, Deputy Mayor,
Council, uh Daryl Lopez, 1015 South Maggie Creek Court. I am the HOA president of Twin Rivers. I am in favor of most of everything on there except for the passive hotels. I think that needs to be removed completely. I think the homeowners would go in an uproar and file a lawsuit with the city.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> I didn't understand you said passive hotels. >> No hotels. >> No. Okay. >> I think that's already in there, right? >> Anybody else would like to address council at this time? >> I will close public comment. Uh, what is
the pleasure of councel? >> I move that we adopt resolution 4719-26 with the following amendments. striking the clause in section 2 A
which reads quote but does not include transient residential uses owned by a governmental entity that provide overnight accommodations in conjunction with a university athletic program. >> Hold on. >> Unquote. >> Page one. What page you >> page two.
>> Page two. Okay. Yeah, I see it. Page two. And additionally striking similar text in section 3B, which reads, quote, sorry, 3B 2, which
reads, quote, but excluding transient residential uses owned by a governmental entity that provide overnight accommodations in conjunction with a university athletic program," unquote. And that's at the bottom of page two.
>> Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> All right. Any discussion? So, Council Member. >> Yeah. So, I basically feel like the uh sections there about adding uh transient overnight accommodations. It kind of
makes the kind of hole that you could drive a truck through. Um, it it seems to me like this would include, well, we build a giant hotel and sometimes we rent some rooms to a university athletic
program and we would be allowed to do that, right? Um, to build something a lot more than what might be required with that. And then you could imagine that, well, hey, maybe we need a pool and maybe it kind of turns into a a resort, which would be
allowed here because it does provide overnight accommodations in conjunction with an university athletic program. So, for me, I I would like to take that out. Um, and that's uh I I'd also like to uh address the um the the other comment
that was made. Um >> I know that >> Sorry, I shouldn't have What? What's that? >> I know where that comment came from. or where where we came from for the like the horseback riding and the >> Oh, uh, is that what you're talking about? >> Yeah. Well, yeah. Um, yeah, if you'd like to speak to those things. So, some of the Well, I guess I'd just like to
say that not everything that's in this uh restrictive covenant was read just now. Um, only the changes from the last time this was was brought up. So, um, as far as the clubhouse, um, a clubhouse is
still allowed to remain, um, to be, uh, let's see, permitted permitted uses that falls under golf course uses and golf course uses is defined, um, to mean well, a lot of things in in section A or 2 A. >> I think he was asking if he we could
expand the clubhouse or remodel it. Correct. >> Yeah. And we talked about that at our work session. Yeah, we can still do that according to what it says in there. >> Yeah, it's an allowed use under golf course uses. >> Um I don't remember the other things. >> Um the other >> the other thing in there was where is
this uh these passive uses coming from? And I think that's what I brought up um as far as some cities where their their golf course stopped making money. What they decided to do was turn it into like a storm water park or something like that. So, um it's it's no part of the
plan, but um I didn't want to take it off the table in the future if if one day we needed to retrofit what it was. Um that's not the intent here, but it's not to handicap us um to turn it into a park that still serves as a flood plane. So, I think that's where all those
correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Vos, came from for the passive uses as far as why we put that in there. >> That's correct. Yeah. >> Okay. And did you have further questions, comments? Uh, I didn't I didn't have anything else. I don't I don't remember what else was brought up if I missed something.
>> Okay, Mayor Slick. >> Well, this is about nine years in the making. I have asked at least four times that I'm so grateful to to all of you for being willing to make good on the promise we made when we bought this for
the city of Ovido, for the residents of Ovito. We we bought it saying it was going to stay mainly empty forever. And uh I'm glad that our our legal council was able to isolate the portion that still had building rights that remained
and that we've got an opportunity now to just take those building rights off. It floods. We all know that it floods and it is time to just put this to rest forever. That we do not have to every single election ask everybody up here, hey, do you support keeping development
off the golf course? Because now instead of it being uh at the prerogative of five people up here, it will take a vote of the entire the entire voter population of the city of Ovido to change the restrictive
covenants that will be on here. Um assuming it it passes. So I'm really excited for the opportunity to to finally bring this to a close and give everybody the assurance that we deserve. Council member Britain.
>> Well, this is uh I don't know if this has been nine years in the making, but it's it's certainly not putting a conservation area over the golf course that would restrict any kind of development. So, this is kind of a compromise uh from what was going on previously. Um
we already clarified about the clubhouse. Uh there was something in here I saw about uh restrictions of continuous property and uh to the golf course and I'm wondering Brian is it are there any other uh other than home owners home uh
homesteads continuous to the property? Is there any any area that is uh zoned business or commercial? And I'm more thinking about the Windixie property or anything along 419. >> You're asking contiguous property
property that immediately abuts it. >> Yeah. I'm just curious. Uh I saw something in there about restrictions on >> Right. There's Well, what it is is that in the enforcement there is language that the adjacent property owners can
participate in the enforcement of the covenant. >> Yeah. It it it provides that any owner of real property contiguous to the golf course property if there is a violation of the restrictive covenants here a uh
new multif family apartment complex you know goes to get installed there any contiguous uh property owner to the golf course can enforce these restrictions. >> They can enforce it. >> That's correct. >> Okay. >> Okay. I didn't want to restrict someone
who had property rights from doing what they want to do with their property. >> Yeah. Oh, yeah. It it imposes uh no obligations or and no restrictions on any property outside of the golf course property. >> And to address your question, I was trying to visualize in my head as far as
the very very north of the golf course where it wraps around with four and five and starts to head back. Um the it is just uh the AANA uh neighborhood there that uh the gated neighborhood is what's
adjacent to the uh to the golf course. It actually is in between the golf course and the Wind Dixie property and it does on the north side. Yes, it does. Uh uh with County Road 419 is is adjacent to the very very extreme north
of the golf course, but the AANA neighborhood does uh is in between the commercial and the golf course. >> Isn't it up from hole number four where off to the right where that that pond is? Isn't that Windixie right there? >> Uh no, sir. It's uh
>> it's on the other side of the neighborhood. Are we are we saying that the only people who can enforce are people in a kind of green because the edges of the golf course are owned by the HOA? >> No. What we're saying is is that >> uh I'll let I'll let Mr. Bose do it, but
what we're saying is that the adjacent property owners can be part of the enforcement of the restriction. >> Can we loosen that? I I guess I'd like to ask the motion maker if if we could just let anybody in the whole city of Ovidto enforce if for some reason no adjacent property owner wants to enforce
down the road >> or is that too far because they're they're >> I >> we've all been paying for it. >> I would I would probably recommend against that. The reason the reason being when you when you open up a right
to sue to a wildly broad category of folks um you're increasing the possibility that you're going to end up with uh spurious litigation, unfounded or or litigation without merit. um when
when you're opening it up to to that breadth. We you do have attorney fee shifting in here and the ability to recover if somebody is, you know, doing that to waste the city's time or what have you. But there is an old saying in the law, you can't get blood out of a turnup. Uh sometimes folks uh will, you
know, go cause all sorts of problems and uh not really have to pay the consequence of it because they don't have anything to get. Uh so as a general matter with regard to the enforcement of real estate covenants, you usually tie
that to uh a uh a right in folks who are either contiguous or otherwise adjacent or or something like that. And so that's that's why it was drafted in that instance there. Well, 100% of the city of Oto has bought this benefit that
mainly occurs to the people who are in fact adjacent to it. Uh so to only allow them to enforce doesn't make a whole lot of sense. So we've all participated. >> Well, it's not only them, it's the city of Oto, Florida, and any owner of real
property contiguous. >> Uh Miss Madison, could you scroll down just a little bit further to section five? Four. Section four. Yeah, there we go. And that's that's what Mr. was just uh was just speaking about. Rights, covenants, terms, conditions may be
enforced by the city and by any owner of real property contiguous to the property and the property being the golf course, >> but then the city plus all the adjacent property owners could just choose not to enforce. >> So, >> hypothetically, like I I doubt that would happen very much. I doubt that
would happen. Um, >> one additional thing to keep in mind kind of the the uh one of the benefits of of this being a restrictive covenant recorded against the property is presumably any use that folks wouldn't
like on the golf course property would be something if they're going to be building something big, all right, and expensive, they're going to get title insurance. and they are never going to be able to get title insurance with a very clear restrictive covenant that says you can't build apartments here and
they're coming in to buy the property for millions of dollars to build apartments there. So it it does have the additional effect of they are not going to be able to get title insurance from any insurer in Florida for a multi-million dollar purchase of the
property. just an additional thought to keep in mind. >> And they would also need a comp plan and reszoning change >> would have to come through the city in way. >> That's exactly right. In in any event, yeah, uh there would need to be changes coming through on on comp plan and
zoning uh with regard to that. So yeah, it would be it would be coming through uh before the city council at some hypothetical future. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rose. Uh Council Member Broadford, >> that wasn't done. Oh, sorry. Continue.
>> I I have uh the passive recreation uses. I've got a a problem with how specific it is or how broad it is. I think it diminishes from from the the strength of what the deed restrictions were intended to do. Um,
you've got all these specific items that are passive uses when why don't we just uh say a passive use is something that does not uh does not increase the pvious impervious areas or or something to that nature. I know we might have talked
about it, >> but it's it's presuming that the golf course is going to become a park. And I don't think that's the intent here. I think the intent here is to is to strengthen the golf course as a golf course. And if we want to change it, why not just have it part of the the
referendum process where you need all five of council members to approve it and then go to a referendum to put whatever passive uh uh uses you want out there. >> Yeah, that's fine with me. I just uh I think at the work session we were just floating over not limiting us if we got
in a bad situation. >> And along those lines, I I don't think we had a consensus for the the transient uses whether it was for UCF or not. So, I don't know why that was in there. I I brought it up. I thought it might be a good idea, but you know, there's other places close by they can build a a lodge
or or whatever. Doesn't have to be on the golf course. I think we we all came to that conclusion at the the workshop. So, >> and I think that's what he just took out. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> So, >> so, okay. So, what would we like to do
uh with the passive uses language? Well, it does >> any passive use would be uh would require uh the same referendum process as as any other change. >> Well, it does say including but not limited to. So, it's kind of just a a
list of things like like these >> dilutes you can not limited to could mean anything. That's kind of the point that if for some reason the the golf course can no longer function and and just to be clear with everybody here that we only have
one park in the city of Ovido that covers it covers its own cost. And not only does Twin Rivers golf course cover its own cost, it spins off enough extra to have reinvested in the course and turned a profit. So we are making it better. So at this time there is zero
interest I think from anybody up here in changing the use. I don't in the foreseeable future see there being an interest in changing use. But yeah, we're putting something in place that's going to take a vote of the entire city after the entire council unanimously
agrees to let it go to referendum. So to build in some expectations for what could happen in a passive use situation if for some reason golf falls out of favor and is no longer able to keep this space fully utilized to the best uh you
know to the best advantage of all of the residents of Ovido. This at least explains what we mean by passive use. And and I'm grateful for the deputy mayor thinking of this. So we don't have a situation where we're locked down and it can only be used for golf course use unless we go out to a co a full
referendum. Then we could end up with something that, you know, I I wouldn't mind it eventually being a wild space, but it's profitable as it is not likely to change. and if it does need to change to give this body the flexibility without going to referendum to change it
to something that will benefit our community as much as the golf course does right now and likely will for decades to come. U I think it makes sense to leave it as it is. >> So, you know, I'm proposing that we require any passive uses changes that
are passive uses require the same referendum process. And I don't know, I'm looking for consensus on that. So you you want us to all have to vote to stop using it as a golf course. Am I understanding that correctly? >> And to add any other passive uses. I >> I don't think that's a good change to
put in here. >> Do we have a consensus or discussion on it? >> I'm thinking on it. I mean, I I agree with what the mayor said is my intention is never to change it from what it currently is. It's it's the failafe on
that I hope never happens. I just don't want to be hamstrung on what do we do if it can't be >> but if there's an initiative to to do what you know maybe outside initiative to close the golf course for whatever reason >> that it should be a deterrent from uh
making it another use and it's you know >> I could also see if we ended up in the situation we're talking about I do think it would be unanimous to do something differently and then it would go to the voters >> it would be it would Is there a clarification that Brian Mr. Voss, that
if the golf course closes, any other change of usage requires a referendum or or can you just say go fly kites out there like it says here? >> Yeah, I a adding a
introducing a mechanism about closing the golf course. I I understand it's the implication of of these, you know, two pieces being in there, but having something operationalized into this would be adding a whole new lever into
this in a way that I I would suggest would would take a lot more of a rewrite. Um >> to the Yeah. So, as of right now,
nothing in Let's assume for a second this didn't have the passive recreation uses in here. All right. Nothing Nothing in here mandates that the golf course stay open for forever. Why? Because it has the
listed in golf court uses and then it has conservation and storm water uses. All right. Now mind you, those are exceedingly passive, more passive than passive recreational uses. Just water falls on it and it storm water recharge. Okay? So there's nothing that
affirmatively mandates the golf course stays forever here. Having the passive recreation uses effectively says um if that use does discontinue for whatever reason, you have these ones
effectively already pre-authorized waiting in the wing waiting in the wings. So, if I understand that right though, if I just scenarioed this, if we closed the golf course and then if we took out this passive part, it could just be a big green field and then we could come up here and have unanimous
vote to do something with it and send it to the voters if they want to do something with it or leave it as a field, that would still be okay. >> That's exactly right. Yeah. If if you if you completely took the passive recreation uses out of this and it came to be at some point in the future that
uh it was the rational decision that the golf course, you know, not be a golf course anymore, stop operating, um then it would not be in violation of this for it to just sit as
uh storm water recharge land. And in fact, that's precisely what it contemplates as one of the allowed uses. And then as you said, if it was the desire to put it to uh some additional use, whether that's, you know, among these list of passive recreational uses
and so on, then the council could discuss that and with a 50 vote, put that to the voters to say, "Let's open up this land to do X, Y, and Z." >> I'd almost prefer to what you just said. If the golf course closes, it becomes a a storm water recharge area. And then if
we want to do something, if the council wants to do something with it, I'm sure there'll be a study and a plan and a you know a that that was good for me. I'm cool with taking it out because my worry was we'd have to under no circumstance be stuck
in a bad situation, but it does seem like we wouldn't be. But would would people be disallowed from going there because it was they were not going there to play golf? Um, I get the the benefit
potentially of just saying, "Okay, well now we have a wild area, but to say we have a wild area where people are not allowed to go unless the entire city votes that people are allowed to go there." If we had just like a little thing in there that well, if it stops being a golf course, people can
>> it'll still be a storm water recharge area. I don't I'm >> so I guess if we're allow if people are allowed to go to storm water recharge areas then >> some yes some no >> hold on you were >> let council member finishes >> it it'd still be a uh storm water
recharge area I'm not sure if people are allowed to wander among in any other storm water area in the city I think they do but I'm not sure it's a >> well the the Orlando wetlands are are an outstanding example of a storm water
style area that's actively managed that people go and they recreate and and they're not digging holes or causing damage or anything. So, as long as people are allowed to go there, I'm cool with the change. >> Yeah, Mr. Vos, if if this closed down and the golf course was nothing, we could decide if we allowed people on
there or not. That wouldn't violate this. It's still a golf course just not being used. Correct. >> It would be it would be in the the council's uh decision discretion. Yes, absolutely. So, so long as it fit within, assuming for a second we take out passive recreation uses, that whole
paragraph there. Uh, so long as it uh fit in conservation and storm water uses. And again, um, you as you get into some of the more intensive uses, uh, listed in, and I
recognize the the contradiction there, but slightly more, uh, intensive uses and passive recreation uses. That may be a little closer question, and those would have to be discussed at that time. >> Okay. So, so um, this has been said before, um, in
various things, probably in previous meetings. Um, you've used the term mayor storm water park. Is that a term of art that specifically is something that would be considered a conservation and storm water use?
>> I don't know that it is a a term of art such that it has a concrete statutory definition for example. It is certainly a a a category of things that exists, but I I don't know that there would be absolute unonymity as to what all its
elements are. >> Okay. So, um as far as passive recreation uses, um it it occurs to me also that passive recreation uses isn't just if the golf course closes. It means that is in theory allowed right now
also. Right? So if if we wanted to have uh for example you know frisbee golf or foot golf not not saying that we necessarily want to do that but right now but passive recreational uses is this future contingency if the golf
course be falls out of favor and you know I mean one of the things um Mr. Britain said last time was, you know, golf has been played for a very, very long time and that you don't foresee it going anywhere in the near or medium future. However, a specific golf course
could fall out of favor, right? Like if people decide for whatever reason that they don't want to play here anymore and it's more fashionable to play somewhere else, then the question is what happens then, right? So
with I I just want to tease out what the the cases are because I think there's only about three or maybe two, right? So if sometime in the future we decide that we just can't support golf anymore because it's uh not making
money or or whatever cost us too much. Then under the current or as it is written, we could with three votes make it any of these things B and C, right? Conservation and storm water uses, passive recreation uses. Sorry,
I'm a couple pages up where the lists are. Um, but you guys know what I'm talking about. If we were to take out passive recreation uses, then if the golf course were to um you know fail financially,
then it could go only to conservation and storm water uses, but would take five votes plus a referendum to do anything else with it. >> Well, only technically, legally, probably. Mr. those should probably
answer this if we delete from the very first part the second whereas clause that says that it can be used for passive recreation uses. So I think what Mr. Britain would really like is to completely remove the possibility that be used for passive recreation uses
which I think is problematic. >> You're not reading my mind. I'm just saying if we want to do that use the same process as we would for any other use on there the the vote and a referendum. I would think we if we wanted to do it right if that ever
occurred, we'd want to do some sort of a comprehensive plan or a a master plan for what we'd want to do with that area. And and it it probably take some money to do it and we'd probably I don't know if we could pay for it ourselves or we might want to go to a referendum to to
do a bond for it. >> It would be very passive if we're having to spend a lot of money on it. >> Well, >> yeah, but there's no guarantee it wouldn't. So, I'm good removing it. Um, >> are you wanting to remove the second whereas clo clause and say that we
cannot use it for passive recreation uses. We can only use it for storm water and conservation. >> Uh, he was looking at C. Correct. >> Correct. >> Mayor, you you you Miss Madison, if if you could scroll back. I'm cool if everybody I should have spoken up
because then we'd have a page perfectly flawed legal document in play that did allow passive uses that didn't have a definition for what a passive use was. >> Yes. If you if you remove the passive recreation uses then yes you would need to remove it from the second whereas you
would need to remove it from the definitions list and then remove it from the permiss permitted uses list. You would need to do the whole thing >> and redo the whole thing. You said >> you would need to remove passive recreation uses completely from >> but it doesn't say that doesn't mean we
wouldn't be able to do it. It just means it puts a >> it would have you say a lever on it to to go forward with something like that. >> I'm fine removing it but we're going to have to change the motion. >> The wilder the better.
As long as Mr. OS can confirm that even though there may be a wilderness area here instead of a golf course that it is within the authority of the city council at a future date to allow residents to wander in the wilderness area. That is
would then have to be a conservation and storm water use unless it went to a referendum of the entire city. >> Yeah. So, the ability to walk through a uh uh conservation area or an environmentally
supportive area or what have you. There are broad examples of of where you have instances where you do have uh conservation areas where people merely walking through is permitted and then other ones where they're not permitted.
Okay. So, I I think uh having just within the definition of of what had been the pre-existing conservation and storm water uses uh the city council deciding to allow folks to walk and wander through there, I think would be consistent with that. >> Okay. I'm okay with that.
>> Okay. >> Okay. So, walking and wandering through >> and flying kites are allowed. Many of the things in the permissive per the passive recreation uses could be allowed without a full referendum because they are sufficiently allowed without building a park.
>> Well, you you changed the facts a little bit from what Mr. Vos just said. I I think what I think what the mayor is I think what the mayor is suggesting is uh there is uh some overlap conceptually between what you have in conservation
and storm water uses and what's listed in the first part the permitted part of passive recreation uses. Um it's not complete uh overlap. I would suggest to you that that um uh
building out uh picnic areas and shelters may get a little dicey under B under conservation and storm water uses just as one but you'd otherwise probably call that passive use but um but there is overlap.
>> Okay, >> you commissioner. So >> sounds like kind of everybody wants to do that. Is that true? One, two, three. You you can still fly a kite. >> I Yeah. Okay. So, um >> All right. How do How do you want to do this? So, I will amend my motion to
remove >> I would just say remove all references to passive recreation uses. Would that >> That's clear enough. Just remove all references to passive recreation uses. >> Okay. So, I amend my motion to remove all references to passive recreation
uses. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Okay. Any further discussion? >> Council Rob, >> you got it. Yeah. >> I'm scrolling through real quickly. >> Okay. >> I still would like to see a limit on the
amount of additional square footage that could be added in the form of imperous surface. Is there any appetite to do this? >> No. >> All right. It's it's I I had to try because that is the reason we why we bought this was for storm water and
anything we do that increases impervious surface is counter to that. But this is a solid improvement over the what's going on right now which is hypothetically a buildable uh situation. So removing the building rights is definitely a step in the right direction. >> Okay. Council member Britain. >> I'm good.
>> Council member Potterford. >> Good. Call the vote. >> All right. And deputy mayor, just to make sure we're clarified for the record that the motion as it's been amended includes now removing the references to past recreation uses and also removing
that uh those sets of exceptions for uh transient residential uses owned by a governmental entity for overnight accommodations in conjunction with the university athletic program removing both of those things. >> Yes. Are there only two sections uh for the >> trans? There's there's only two.
>> Okay. Yes. >> So, we got them. We got them all. Very good. I just wanted >> because this is >> this is very final once it happens. >> I just want to make it go. It is very fine. >> Once this happens, we can't change it without the entire city of Oto >> saying, "Okay."
>> Okay. >> Yes. >> We'll call the vote. >> Motioner. Council member Alan. >> I. >> Seconder. Mayor Megan Slick. >> I. >> Deputy Mayor Natalie Tuker. >> I. >> Council member Keith Britain. >> I. Council member Jeff Bifford. >> I.
>> The motion carries. All right. We will move on to item number 10A, which was previously item number five, resolution number 4714-26, award of a request for proposals. Mr.
Cobb. Uh, >> thank you, Deputy Mayor. Let me get back over here to it. The city currently as far as this is really based on our intraet and the city
uses SharePoint and it's uh SharePoint I believe it's circa 2016 I think if I remember correctly. >> Well I'm sorry Mr. up. Didn't we Sorry. What was your issue with this resolution? Right. We were going to start that way when we started. >> That that probably Yeah, that's probably the best thing. Let's start with that first. Yeah, it's very very technical.
So >> So um >> well to be completely honest, I I I don't like deviating from the procedure like that. I know we did it last time um and and perhaps it would save us some time. Um but I I will go ahead. So we're
basically updating the SharePoint sites for internal. >> That's right. We have we have two sharepoint sites. Yes. >> One for uh >> city staff for police for police >> and um we have to have a separate one for police to comply with what they call
sieges and that's their certification uh all the things has to do with their accreditation and but uh it probably best to go ahead and just get to your question. >> Yeah. Yeah, that's fine. Um, so I went through reading through the um the
contract for this and uh as you know software is what I do. So um there were some specific things I was looking for. I spoke with Mr. Cobb and Mr. Vose uh earlier today. Um what I what I wanted
to see in the contract was um language that talked about who owned the um the deliverables to the city. There was talk in the contract about documents delivered to the city. Um it seemed very much like it was a a template contract that's that's used for civil engineering
and and things like that we usually deal with. Um, so I was looking for um language uh that would be something like the um uh the the contractor gives us a uh perpetual irrevocable and royaltyfree
sorry royalty-free and fully paid up license to use the software that they deliver. This would this would prevent there from being something like, "Hey, well, we built you this thing. We use these proprietary plugins and now you owe $100 a month to some other company,
right? Or even to them." Um, this is pretty standard language in software contracts. I spoke to Mr. Vos about it. Um, did you have anything you'd like to say about it? >> Uh, no. The um, uh, in this instance here, we we had the opportunity to
discuss it. Uh and the um the concern while I believe Mike and IT staff are are going to be addressing it by virtue of the fact that they don't want any proprietary third party software involved here. They just want straight
Microsoft stuff to the extent that there is uh anything that would constitute software that that goes along with just implementation from this implementation vendor. Uh we thought it was a good idea to to throw in some language that I uh
offered to council member to uh add to the contract to make crystal clear that if um there is any additional software added by the vendor that it will come with a perpetual license uh fully paid up uh in favor of the city. So we don't
have to worry about third party uh licenses or anything like this. >> And that's not in there right now. It's not because uh because ultimately what is being contemplated in the services here is not software itself. Software is coming from Microsoft. Uh this is
implementation setting it all up. All right. But sometimes in this instance here as I understand it and I've I've gathered this from Mike as well. Uh there can be a little bit of in the implementation some third party software creeping in there to make that all
happen. So, it's one of these instances here where where a pure service contract may have that come in, which is not a normal circumstance we deal with in a service contract. So, so I have some language here. Uh, I
move to approve resolution 4714-26 with the agreement revised by the city attorney to clarify that any software added by the vendor will include a perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, and fully paid up license to use such
software in favor of the city. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. Okay. Any discussion? >> I'm I'm glad you noticed all that. I I don't have the background knowledge to have realized that that was a potential
uh you know pitfall. So glad glad you brought that up. >> Council member Britain. >> I'm good. >> Council member Bradford. >> Good. >> I also think that was a good catch. All right. We'll call the we'll call the vote. >> Motioner. Council member Alan. >> I. >> Seconder. Mayor Megan Slidic. >> I.
>> Deputy Mayor Natalie Tukurt. >> I. >> Council member Keith Britain. >> I. >> Council member Jeff Bifford. >> I. >> The motion carries. We don't have any discussion items, so we'll go on to the city manager's report. >> I have no report. Deputy mayor, >> the city attorney's report. >> Deputy Mayor, I have nothing to report.
>> Council member, >> had fun at the tree giveaway. It's a great uh great event by uh public works and staff. So, keep it up. That's all I got. >> Council member Brford. >> Yeah. I was uh wondering when will we get update on the audit uh that's being
done that we just approved another amount of money for that >> forensics team. >> We uh we're going to be meeting with them this week. >> You're going to meet with them this week? >> Yeah, we're having a having a second
conversation with this this week and I have a feeling I'll be able to have a better better guide on where they are at and when they'll be able to come before you. But I at latest I would anticipate May sometime. >> Okay. But we haven't heard anything so
far otherwise. >> No. >> We we know they've conducted their interviews. We know that they they're going through the whatever documents they have and we know that they're uh doing their analysis. So, and uh they said they wanted to have
another meeting with staff. >> Okay. All right. Um I guess also on the arbor day a great job by public works. What' you say was 30 trees left? Yes. So that's 570 trees that we uh we gave out. So that is
great. Appreciate you know everything you do there uh to make sure that happens. Also on uh Friday did the u tour to force uh with the police officers. Uh it's a great event. It's a five-day event. um starts in Miami each
day as a segment as it works its way up to Daytona Beach. It is in uh to make awareness of officers that have fallen in the line of duty. Uh it's pyonomically a a bunch of u law enforcement, but a couple of us that were on the foundation had the
opportunity uh deputy chief uh was out there with us. I know uh Joel there he did on Thursday. Uh so we had uh I think it was 15 or 16 uh of us in uh in the Ovido. >> Good representation.
>> It was a great reputation. We had the largest group, you know. So great event. Um obviously I mean the the support of the people that are out there on the side of the road and everything uh was was just great to see. So other than that, that's
all I got. >> Okay. Council member Britain. >> Uh yeah, ditto on the Arbor Day. That that's that's an event I look forward to every year. And we've given I don't know how many trees away. It'd be nice to know how many trees we've given away over the years.
>> Okay. >> Off the top of your head. >> Let's see. Uh we give away approximately 600 per year. We've been doing it for >> We did was a thousand. >> We gave away a thousand last year. So uh we've been doing it for over 20 years.
>> A lot of trees. >> I know that. A lot of trees. I mean, we actually we've been doing it for more than 30 years because unless there was a year we skipped, but they were doing it before I got here. >> So, >> well, for those who haven't been here that long, uh I remember Alfa Woods,
Twin Rivers, Little Creek, uh all were clearcut out of pine forest. And my point is that trees will grow back. takes takes some time, but I've got uh probably 60 trees in my backyard that I planted over over the years, and they're they're
a great source of shade and keep me cool in the hot summer days. So, we need to keep that up. Uh we have a new uh business in town called Kids United. It's a soccer uh soccer uh event place for young kids and not so young kids,
and we toured it. Uh Mr. Bford was there with I with me and uh that that looks to be something really cool for families who want to help nurture their kids into a new sport that'll keep them busy over the years. And finally, I I didn't say
it, but thanks to staff on the the caffer, uh Jerry, uh I don't see Kelly, but I know you guys put a lot of work in with that that group and and we've been doing it for more years than I can remember, and we've always been top-notch with that. So, thank you very
much. That's all I have. >> Okay. And I'm up next. And I also want to say we have a really sharp finance team. So, they do an excellent job. So, also thank you guys. Every year they come out and we get awards and it's does every city get this award? And the clear answer is no. So, we're doing something
right continuously. So, um hats off to them. Uh next month in May, Calo is meeting in Ovido. So, if you guys want to stop by the Calo meeting, it's the first Wednesday of the month. So, I believe that's May 6th. So, we'll be doing that one here. >> What's the topic?
>> Um, we're going to be talking about how we structure our storm water and how we're going after it with our program up front with our bond we just went. >> A lot of people are interested in how we do that. >> A lot of people are interested and I think it's a good topic to share with other cities like as a teaching thing
which is what Ken is all about. >> Um, and then also uh the mayor could not go so she recommended me for the American Flood Coalition. So, I'll be doing that next month in May. So, I'll be missing the May 18th meeting to go to that. And that's all I have. Mayor
Slated, I've got almost no report, but I did want to give a shout out to the kids from Pardon, the fourth graders from Mission Ovito. They went to 22 different stops on their scavenger hunt this last weekend. There's a lot of history and a lot of culture and a lot of cool stuff
in Ovido. So, if you've never gone and seen all this stuff, go Google Mission Ovito. And as a grown-up, it is a really cool way to get to know our town. >> Okay, we have future meeting dates. Um, Monday, April 27th at 5:30 p.m., we have
a work session. >> We do have a work session. >> We do have a work session. >> Um, Monday, May 4th at 6:30 p.m. we have a regular session. And Monday, May 18th at 6:30 p.m., we have a regular session. >> I have one more thing, Deputy Mayor. Uh, we got this letter on the table. I have
two of them. >> Yeah, this is mine. Yeah. Um this was about the um uh Lockwood uh a resident was asking about um perhaps putting uh Ballards up on Lockwood uh
near uh near the park there. I'm sorry. Where where am I looking here? North and southbound Lockwood between the tennis courts and the bridge. Uh we discussed this a just a little bit maybe before. I'm having a hard time remembering. >> I'm glad you brought it up. I forgot.
We actually I I'll I'll let Mr. Wyatt get into the details, but we did we did take us we did take a comprehensive look into it and have some ideas about what we can do on that curb. >> This is the area just where the bridge basically ends and as it transitions around towards Riverside Park. We looked
at it. The resident has requested they're concerned about a head-on crash. There's never been one there in the entire history of the roadway. The problem is is that the area the the width and some of it's restricted by where the bridge comes off. There's not
enough room to install proper ballards or a basically a concrete median. So all you're left with basically are delineators. And if you're familiar with those delineators or flex stakes, they're basically they're about this this wide about 4 in wide by
three three feet tall at the most. >> Okay. uh basically glued down to the roadway basically in between the the double yellow stripes. Now, those of you who might be familiar with them, we had them on West Mitchell Hammock and they got destroyed and so it's a constant maintenance nightmare. So, we got a
price to install these things, something similar over here on at by that location. It's like $50,000. And the problem is is not that it not that it shouldn't go in, but this is going to be a constant maintenance problem for something that's that hasn't happened. Now, I'm not opposed to
installing them. It's just it's a lot of money for something that's going to be a maintenance issue because they're going to get hit. >> Well, if there's never been a head-on collision, then maybe they won't get hit at all. Maybe it won't be a maintenance. >> Maybe they're not maybe they're just not necessary at all. I think is a reasonable thing to wonder.
>> We had a consultant look at it and the consultant said it's not needed. However, I understand the concern. My concern as public works director is here's one of these issues. Again, it's one person complaining. >> No, I complain too. them. >> Well, okay. >> I read that.
>> The more unsafe a space feels, the the more safely people drive. So, people feel unsafe here, they are driving safe enough to have never had an incident at this location. >> Well, I had I had a thought about this though. So, from a from a engineering perspective, we looked at we evaluated as engineers do. There's there's not
really a what we would say is it's it's our recommendation not to do it. However, if council wants to do a safety improvement, you know, staff can look at it as a safety. >> Weren't you going to lower the speed limit in that area, too? >> We can lower I think 35 now. Yeah, >> we can take it down to 30. >> Yeah,
>> 30 is 50 the way they go down that road now. >> Yeah, we are adding some um roadway pavement marker, the reflectors along there that'll make them heavier so it'll be easier to light up at night and be more visible for the where the lanes are. I don't know if that work has occurred yet. I don't believe so.
So, I know there's a lot of deterministic things about traffic and roads from an engineering standpoint. Um, are you able to identify what it is about that particular piece of road that makes it feel dangerous? Is it the width of the lane, the radius?
>> It's the curve and there's no median and you're basically, I believe, as you come around the corner, you you don't really see the traffic coming at you. So, yeah, it's a field that there's oncoming traffic right at you. And if you think about it, and people don't, of course, follow the speed limit. You got high-speed traffic that kind of comes
right next to each other on a curve. >> Yeah. There's no suicide lane like they have in Havoc. There's usually a turn lane in between the the two. >> So, you're right on top of each other. Normally, you know, you get on a two-lane road >> and there's there's it's it's the same, you know, you're right on top of each other as you pass, you know, as cars
pass. But, this is on a curve and line of sight. So, with all of those things given in the uh traffic manual for a lane that wide, a radius of of that uh
number of feet, whatever. Um, is is 35 the appropriate speed limit for that? >> That I couldn't speak to as far from a as a professional transportation engineer. >> As I said, our consultant looked at it and they didn't recommend a lowering, but that's something we can do. I mean, it is a good countermeasure for traffic
calming is to lower the speed. Yeah. The problem is in my mind, the rest of Lockwood feels so slow. Anyway, >> what >> I would hate to be the one to >> When was the last time you drove on Lockwood? >> I I use my uh I use my cruise control on
Lockwood cuz my foot wants to go 45. I'm just sorry. >> It is built like a racetrack. It's just wide open. It looks like you should be going. >> I would say there are a lot of people that go 45 in that section. I I agree there is there is something but then on all of the rest of it this
>> especially if you're if you're southbound yeah >> is that south yeah so southbound coming towards the park you are kind of restricted as for how far you can see in front of you because there's there's woods right before you get to the park so you know people are coming right around that corner and if you're in that inside those inside lanes yeah it feels
a little restrictive >> and in that area isn't the lane width >> yeah it's like 11 feet >> 11 feet then I understand what you're saying may when you come out of it and then you get into the median. >> When there's a median, it makes it look bigger than it really is. >> Yeah. So, >> okay. But I guess to get back to this
email, we're still looking into it is where we're at. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Okay. >> That's I spoke to Paul. >> It'll come back to do we want to allocate $50,000 to put up something that will require $50,000 additional every year to put them back because they're going to be run over.
>> I don't think it would cost $50,000 a year. It would just require continual maintenance and then we have to we have to >> have maintenance of traffic which has a cost to it to do every time to to protect people who are repairing it. And then people are going to uh turn it turn it into the insurance and say I hit this
thing that you have placed in the road and we want the city to pay to repair my car because I hit this thing >> like we got actually got a lot of complaints for the ones in Mitch Hammock about aesthetics. >> Because think about these things are like you know right next to each other six six inches to a foot apart. you take
out three or four and you've got a hundred of them there begins be they begin to slowly you know be missing and then they're unsightly and then >> oh we we have a resident that calls us anytime the ones on Mitchell hammock the resident actually calls us to let us
know and asks us can you please get those replaced because it looks so horrible and even to the point like if one's leaning they will call and and let us know so yeah we have a resident that keeps track of >> the ones on the hammock right now are a little bit I'm sorry.
>> I think I think we're good on this topic for now. Thank you, Mr. Wyatt. Is there anything else for the good of the order? >> It is 8:22 and this meeting is adjourned.