To the flag of the United States of America and to the rep 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 October 20th at approximately 6:30 p.m. and we have all members of council present. We do not have any ceremonial items. So, we will move on to the approval of the minutes. What is the pleasure of council? >> Go ahead. >> I move we approve the minutes for
September 4th and September 15th. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? >> All those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. >> All those against? Motion carries. We will move on to our public comment section. I do not 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 our consent agenda. What is the pleasure of council? >> I make a motion to approve the consent agenda as is.
>> We have a motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second. Any discussion? >> No. >> Okay. I'll ask the clerk to call the role. >> Council member Bford >> I. >> Council member >> I. >> Megan Slater >> I.
>> I'm sorry. Um Deputy Mayor Tukurt >> I. >> Council member Burton >> I. >> Motion carries. We do not have any public hearings or first reading of ordinances. So we'll move on to item number 10 which is a resolution number 4654-25.
the call to artist for Ovito Arts and Entertainment District logo. Mr. Cop. >> Uh, thank you, Deputy Mayor. Dr. Cray is going to provide the staff presentation. Good evening, um, Deputy Mayor, um, council members.
Let me get my right paper here. So, this is a request for city council to approve the final design for the Ovido Arts and Entertainment District logo as recommended by the public arts board. At its June 16th, 2025 meeting, the city
council adopted resolution number 4610-25 approving a call to artists request proposals for a logo to represent the Ovido Arts and Entertainment District. The call to arches was advertised on the city's website and additional websites
and it was um open for um a little bit over um than a month. The city received 66 um applications. That was incredible. and uh with different proposed logo designs um and uh all designs are
provided in attachment one. At its August 19, 2025 meeting, the city overview the public arts board evaluated the proposed designs and ranked the candidates according to the advertised criteria which was creativity and narrative
in addition to the entry requirements. So the four top arches uh with their respective points according to the ranking um recommended are the following. Kathleen Safy um got 644
points. Scott Herrick 61, Brian Demitz 61. There was a tie but then the public arts board discussed and they ranked um Mr. Heric as number two and Mr. the meter as as number three and Lisa Sun
Filippo as number four. We have uh I believe um an attachment showing the four top designs. So this is number one in color and in black and white. This is
number two again in color and black and white. number three and number four. Following city council's approval, um staff will negotiate an agreement with the selected artist to grant the city
the right to utilize and dispose of the selected logo design. Resolution number 4654-25 provides that for city council delegation um to the city manager to sign the agreement and we have a template of the agreement um as provided
ex as in exhibit one of the resolution staff concurs with the ranking recommended by the public art board and recommends it approval. Um the public art fund has sufficient funds to cover for the cost of the arches stipend of
$1,000. Um a budget amend amendment is provided in exhibit 2 of resolution 4654-25 using fund balance to cover the stip end of thousand of $1,000. Um the strategic impact is to stimulate
creativity, citizen learning and cit city statics strategic goal um and collaborate with local artists to increase public art. It's recommended that city council adopt resolution number 4654-25. And I'm here to answer any questions. We
have um board members here from the public art if you have any questions on the process. >> Thank you. Uh, I don't have any written requests to speak forms. Um, is there anybody in the audience that would like to address us on this topic? Then I will ask what the pleasure of
council is. >> I'll make a motion to approve resolution number 4654-25. >> Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Council member Botford. >> I think um it's great that you had so many applicants come in. Uh I think the all the designs are great. I'm perfectly
fine with what the board has picked. I mean, you guys are much more artistic than I am. >> Mayor's lady. Well, our our top ranked artist just walked through the door, and I love her design. So, I'm very excited that u that you're you're here to hear
the final vote, which I I have a feeling I see how this is going. >> Council member Rock, >> I don't have anything to add. I I think it's amazing we got so many and and and so many of them are really really great. I'm good.
>> All right. And yeah, 66 people did some logo design. So, and I know we have a lot of art board members in here and and uh artists and designers. So, thank you for your time. Uh and once again, I think we have an incredible arts board that is actually getting a lot of things done. So, uh with that, I'll ask the
clerk to call the role. >> Deputy May or sorry, Council Member Bford. >> I mayor Slick. I >> Deputy Mayor Tuker >> I. >> Council member Britain >> I. >> Council member >> I. >> The motion carries. >> Congratulations.
>> We will move on to item number 11 which is resolution number 4658-25 which is the work order for state lobbying services. Mr. Cobb. >> Uh thank you deputy mayor. Mr. Kelly will be giving the staff presentation.
>> Mr. Kelly. Uh, good evening, mayor, deputy mayor, city council. Uh, this is a request to approve work order 26-008 for FY2526, state lobbying services. Uh in that work order uh you will find the the uh
numerous items that are listed uh annually as well uh primarily uh for Grey Robinson to attend meetings on the city's behalf um monitor legislation, provide reports of activities and work with the city c city council and city staff on shephering state legislative
requests through the process. Next slide, please. Um, and speaking of uh appropriations, just like to give you a recap of the recent appropriations that uh have been uh awarded to the city.
Uh back in 2024, uh we did receive uh additional funding for the high water rescue vehicle and $275,000 as well as uh West Mitchell hammock uh corridor safety improvements and that is on the um sidewalk and streetscaping
improvements. Uh and uh back in 2023, we received uh uh addition previous funding for the um high water rescue vehicle that because it was reverted back to uh the budget due to the amount of time it had taken
to produce the vehicle. So that funding uh then was rolled over and uh we were granted additional funds for that in 2024. Um 2023 we have septic and sewer study that was $250,000. Uh Ovito Boulevard Trail Connector
$300,000 and then 2019 2020 both uh were for Solari Park uh for $700,000 total. And then way back in 2015 uh $400,000 for the Ovito uh city parking lot in Ovito on the park. So $3.7 million have
been brought back to the city and state funding uh since uh working with Gre Robinson. Next slide, please. Um so uh for 2025 obviously we were very lucky with that uh million plus uh
appropriation. We also uh applied for and were granted uh the appropriation in the budget uh for the Ovido public uh safety training center which was uh fire training facility. Um and uh that was approved in the budget but again uh
vetoed by Governor Dantis. Um, also again as we previously mentioned the high water rescue vehicle. Next slide. Uh, so looking forward for 2026 requests, we're uh looking at doing the public safety training center once
again. And then uh a little bit of a change from this presentation. Uh Lockwood Boulevard may not be pedestrian highway beacon. You may be familiar with that in front of Oto High School. Uh but we may be looking for a dual uh request for Broadway crossing 434.
uh to Boston Hill Park and uh Lockwood Boulevard as well, but not being a pedestri pedestrian hybrid uh uh beacon, but we are currently evaluating that. So, that's a little change from that presentation when we uh put that in. Uh
>> you said switching Lockwood to in front of Boston Park. >> Uh well, actually, we'll still be doing the Lockwood uh at minimum. will be doing the Lockwood crosswalk there at Fbrook if you know where that is. Um and
looking at a additional crosswalk at Broadway, sorry, boardwalk crossing over by the fire station in Boston Hill Park. Thank you. Uh next slide, please. So, uh any questions on that?
Go ahead. >> Yeah. Um, so I mean appropriations is one thing. Um, uh, maybe more about that on the next one, but um, I was looking here in the the state lobbying services in the
contract exhibit A scope of services responsibility of the consultant and uh, >> I I was looking at the verbs in it, right? So we have advocate for city and city's positions on issues with the governor, state legislature, seminal county, delegation as well as key
members of state departments, agencies, other level, etc. Right? So then the other some of the other ones they say monitor monitor legislation addressing defense of home rule, monitor legislation addressing city council elections and other local referenda.
Maybe this is more part of the discussion or or should be, but I um I almost feel like I'd like those to say advocate. >> Well, let's keep those for discussion. So, questions on >> Maybe the question. Yeah. So, sorry. It was the question is do we um Okay. Well,
why don't we make a motion and then we can say whatever. Yeah. >> Do you have any questions for Patrick? They're always up here. >> Well, just that one. >> Okay. So, don't go far. Uh well, in that event, uh it's recommended that city council adopt resolution number 4568-25.
>> Thank you, Mr. Kelly. >> Uh I will ask what is the pleasure of councel? >> I'll make a motion to approve resolution number 4655-25. >> Second, Council Member Butterford. >> No, I mean, I think from what uh Mr.
Kelly has shown us here, I mean, they they've done a a lot of good things for us um over the past couple years. Um, I think we're very appreciative of that. I mean, it's not something I think we could have done on our own. Um, I mean, high water vehicle, I mean, we had it
and wasn't able to get it and then they were able to go back and get it again. That's phenomenal. I mean, 1.5 million for West Central Hammock Safety Corridor. Um, 250,000 for sewer study, the Beetle Boulevard Trail Connector, Solary Park. I mean, there's a lot of
lot of projects on there that seem to me add a lot of value. Okay. Council member. >> Yeah. So, um, yeah. So, back to the other issue. Is is there a reason that we don't say um advocate on our behalf uh in regards to legislation addressing
uh the defense of home rule or city council elections and other local referenda? >> It's certainly something that they do and it's certainly something that we can uh alter going forward. Um Chris is on the front line. our our team Chris Cardy
and Kylie uh they're always uh texting back and forth, calling back and forth. I know with uh not only with myself and Mr. Cobb, but with you all when you have issues that arise that you see. Um I know they're very they're very active on that front. They work with the Florida
League of Cities very closely um and have even spearheaded uh some meetings and interventions with on their behalf as well um to try to uh at minimum uh lessen the impact of some of
these uh bills that have come through tellas but yes it's certainly something that we can uh make a change for you. >> Okay. Yeah, I mean it defin definitely seems like you know appropriations are great and but uh when they want to come
after us and say hey you can't do these things to you know raise your own money then that becomes a problem right >> oh council member just wanted to mention uh one thing four and five listed in the state lobbying services there uh might
be well read with six because uh further down there advocate for the city and city's positions on issues with the entire list their governor uh governor legislature and so on. Okay. I I I think the monitor three and four uh probably
more addressed to the discrete function the important function of keeping an eye on things that we may not even know about. And so they may be the first to hear it in the halls before it's even filed or what have you and then give us an early heads up and then they can shift to the advocacy role.
>> Okay. >> Just a thought. I think that might be addressing two different pieces of the same uh full spectrum there. >> Yeah, that sounds good. >> Okay, Mayor Slated. >> Well, generally speaking, I I tend to be
able to appreciate and notice when the state lobbyist delivers some money uh or through our our state legislators. Um, so I I like that we have added in, and this was a couple years ago, advocacy for grants. So I'm glad that's still in
there. Looking forward to leaning even more on that because it seems like we're getting vetoed because the governor and the team that's in Tallahassee right now wants us to get certain types of money via grants instead of other stuff. So hopefully we can work with with Greg
Robinson to better understand how to make asks that are achievable this next season. >> Thank you, >> Council Member Britain. >> Uh yeah, you know, I if anyone's paying attention, I guess there is a best word
for describing what's going on in Tallahassee right now is total chaos. I don't think anyone knows what's really happening up there. uh especially as regards to property taxes and insurance and the the third one is the election dates and I I can
report on that in my report but uh if you read Mr. Cardy's reports I think he is doing a a great job of keeping his pulse on the on what's going on up there and it's really just monitor because no one
knows what's coming down the pike with this stuff. So, uh, I'm all for this and I think, uh, now more than ever, you know, the appropriations are nice, but we need someone up there to watch out for for our best interest and and home rule is what's really under attack up
there. So, >> and I fully agree with that. So, I will ask the clerk to call the role. >> Council member Bodford, >> I. >> Council member, >> I. Mayor Slick, >> I. >> Deputy Mayor Dugert, >> I.
>> Council member Britain, >> I. >> The motion carries. We'll move on to item number 12, which is resolution number 4659-25, the work order for federal lobbying services. Mr. Kelly. >> Thank you, Deputy Mayor, mayor, uh, city council members. Uh, good evening once
again. Uh this is a request to approve work order 26-039 for FY2526 uh federal lobbying services. Uh in addition to the items in the work order uh primarily uh I'll call Dan Fay
uh our team in Washington DC uh provide periodic reports to the city. They identify uh and assist uh with the application for federal grants and coordinate uh our uh community project funding request with our legis with our
congressmen and uh typically those were uh called earmarks uh if you remember back in the day. Uh next slide please. And speaking of those, uh we've had a couple um approved uh since Congress has allowed uh community project funding
into the budgetary process. Uh back in 2022, uh Congresswoman Murphy uh helped us get a bless you a uh appropriation for $900,000 for the force main construction. Uh and that is uh to help us get off of the percolation ponds uh
behind us. And uh right now uh Miss Stewart and uh primarily and myself have been working with EPA to uh finalize the use of those funds and uh there will be used uh in the construction process for under direct purchasing of the
construction uh materials in that project. Uh also uh back in 2023 uh we teamed up with the uh folks in Semino County to apply for $2.4 4 million uh community project funding for 426419
uh phase three and that uh funding will all intents and purposes go towards planning and design. Next slide please Maline. Uh so we have a couple that are pending as well that we uh applied for back in 2024. Congressman Mills shephered those through the process and
they are teed up and ready uh whenever uh our uh uh Washington uh legislators um get together and negotiate the budget process. Now there $500,000 for police technology and that's primarily uh for
your body cams and your training equipment. uh the the request was written with a lot of options into it uh just so that we had uh some flexibility when we go to DOJ to work with them for those funds. We also have uh the Sweetwater Creek restoration and that's
from uh uh Don Street all the way down to Franklin Street and that's for you know leveling out the subbasin and uh doing some flood protection and also the uh mo possibility of a multi-use trail running from Franklin uh to the north.
And so both of those are waiting for budget negotiations to uh continue in the Congress. As you may know, uh right now we're in day 20, I believe, of a government shutdown. So that's one of the three options you typically have in a budgetary process in Washington. Uh it
is uh you can either pass a continuing resolution where it keeps the same budget framework for a limited or often short period of time or you can get together and pass a new budget which is how this funding uh sees its track uh to
get approved. Next slide please. And then uh also back in 2024 uh the city was given a authorization for $10 million for a water resources development. Just a little uh caveat here. Authorization verse appropriation.
Authorization either creates a new federal program on the books that would go to be administered by a federal agency or uh it modifies an existing program. In this case, uh it modified the water resource development bill to program but not spend $10 million for
the Ovido lower fidian Flidian aquifer wells. Uh so that funding is in law, but we do have to go to our legislature and apply for the appropriation when that test well is done and we're rolling. Uh we get those results back. And so that
uh funding's teed up for us to make that appropriations request somewhere in the future. And with that, I'll uh pause for any questions. >> Anybody have any questions? who wrote the grant applications that you were
referencing for you know Sweetwater Creek and if you click back a few slides there's well all all of the things that are that are on there >> um for well for these for say Sweetwater Creek Mr. your gain and I uh work together to write them. We send them up
to our team Maurice Kurlin uh with Alad and Fay. He marks them up. He sends them back. We make some changes. We go back and forth. He floats them to his contacts on the hill. And then from there uh we make the application uh to the to Congressman Mills. Uh police
technology. I worked with Wade Weaver who's our training officer. Um and uh he assisted in the application with same same process. um we work together with the lobbyist to get the language sort of dialed in to where uh the folks up there
it can be most effective. And uh additional caveat with 426 419 we worked with uh the deputy county manager's office to get those uh as well as I'll call day to get those applications in and force main a little while uh
2022 doesn't seem like that was that long ago but uh uh same same process for all intents and purposes. Well, I remember talking with uh Representative Murphy about the force main uh project and it seemed like she had a certain number that she was allowed to just pick based on her knowledge of the area. So,
I'm I'm curious if that remains the situation where each congressperson is able to pick now that earmarks are back in the uh back in the mix. Uh is is that how it's working or are these different things that are not
necessarily well the the 10 million for the the aquifer that is not that kind of funding that seems like it's completely different bucket of money. >> Yeah. I would call a completely different bucket. It's completely different process. >> Yes. Um but uh to answer your question,
Mayor, uh yes, members have flexibility uh to decide which projects they want to pick. Um but most of them are on their merits and are typically ranked, they have, you know, their favorites in their areas that they want to have an impact
on. And then uh from there, that still has to go through the budgetary process. It still has to go through like our appropriations in Tallahassee. they still have to go through markup. They still have to sit in front of the committee and either get yay or nade there as well. So there's, you know, a
little further along. Um, you know, the members love to tout that they've they support your project. They'll probably tell you they support every single one they get, but you know, when we get down the field, that's where things get a little more dicey. >> Now, on the one that is teaming up with
the county for the 2.4 4 million. I know that the county also has a federal level lobbyist. Is that the person who is sort of heading things up from that angle for this project >> at the time? Same firm. >> Same firm.
>> So, it was they um they had a different uh representative, Perry. I cannot remember his last name, but Maurice and Perry worked together uh on this project and as well we did with the deputy county manager's office. And on the Sweetwater Creek issue, is the county
does the is does the county have an interest in that as well, such that perhaps the county's federal level lobbyist would take that on much as they did the 2.4 million? Because that to me seems like it it leaves it leaves a veto. So, it's
something that we have a common interest in and that the county ought to be able and willing to to you just take under its umbrella. It's It's not something honestly I' I'd consider previously, mayor, but thank you for the suggestion. Um we 426419 is a totally different
bailey. It's in Ovito, but it's county right away. >> Yes. >> Uh this is pretty much all ovito uh as far as you know. >> Oh to de Leon. Okay. Then it keeps on going to >> But our project would stop at dayon. >> Okay. >> Um but if there's an interest in work past that point, that'd be something we
should we should very well take up with the county. Thank you. And on all of these projects, how did we come to make an application and know that they existed? Did staff discover these programs on their own >> for the appropriations uh community
project funding? Uh we get noticed uh by uh the team at Alcal. They're the first ones usually that at least get the information to me. >> Okay. >> Um and then we we start the process. >> All right. Thank you. >> Any other questions?
What is the pleasure of council? >> Make a motion to approve resolution number 4659-25. >> We have a motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Any discussion? >> No. Similar what we talked about before. I mean, different projects, but again, I
mean, they're advocating for us up there and uh being able to help us out and um I mean, I think it's a money well spent. >> Council member Britain. Uh yeah, I've uh worked with uh Alcadian FA personally when I was up there in DC and
it was really really cool the way they open doors and have access and and worked with with Mr. Mills and or Congressman Mills. And just to share a story, when we were in his office, he did have a list of projects that he's
allowed to submit. He can submit like five projects. He had 15 of them and I think three or four of them were for Oto. And so that's what they do for us. They they get in there and they they get on the list and then it's it's really a a negotiation, but you know, we might
get one or two. We might not get all four, but that's what the process does for us. Council >> member. >> Yeah. I mean, as much as I generally hate the idea of earmarks in the federal
budget, um it's kind of one of those where you it's like you're playing poker and everybody has to Annie up and the question is whether you're going to take any cards or not. And
there's not any way to not do it. Um I don't quite buy the argument that well the money's going to go somewhere instead. It might or it might not. But um yeah, I' I'd much rather not have to do this. But it's
it's the system we live in. You know, I hate the idea that we send money to Washington and then the people there the cities, counties, states that get the money. It's based on who has the best lobbyists, right? Instead of merit or anything else. But I
mean, maybe they're making the argument for the merit and, you know, all that kind of stuff. Um so um and I we talked uh earlier uh Mr. Cobb and Mr. Kelly and um
just about how you know having somebody who's up there um I mean h how you need to have somebody in the building and even though we do a lot of the work that is is an important part of it. I do think the state level is a lot more
important because, you know, the state is actively attacking home rule in a way that the federal government is not. Um, so yeah, I guess that's maybe I guess that's maybe all my thoughts on it.
>> Okay, Mayor Slicky, >> I I just I can't wrap my brain around it. Um, I am relieved to hear that Alcalfe is now generating some ideas for grants that is new. Um, I hope they continue to step up, but I'm just not
convinced that in this season with the the federal government closed and with any project like I cannot with a straight face argue that federal funding should come to something that the county could not also advocate for on behalf of
O veto. If it's not something that's of at least countywide interest, perhaps federal funding should not go to it. So, you know, maybe that's not how it works, but in an idealistic world, that's how I think it ought to be. So, you guys know where I stand on this.
>> Why do you Sorry. >> Yeah. No, that's it. >> Why do you think the county would do that? >> Advocate for a project that also benefits the county. >> Well, >> because it's in their best interest. It's in everybody's best interest for the whole county. >> You're saying because the water flows
into the county or the water on the one >> we all pay county taxes. It makes sense for us to have access to the county's lobbyists for things that don't just benefit Ovito, but also benefit the county because we all of our residents
in OTO chip in to make it possible for them to have that lobbyist. >> Okay. And uh Council Member Britain, you had a comment as well. >> I just had one more suggestion. I don't think it's in the uh proposal, but I would like to suggest we ask their
representative Maurice to do a face to face with us down here uh and and give us a chance to meet with him and get get his uh int, you know, input on what's going on and help us uh understand that process.
>> Yes, Mr. Britain. I'll I'll certainly reach out to him. Okay. First opportunity I have to request him to come down. I've met with him up there and and he is very much engaged, but I' I'd like to see him down here to to show us what's what's going on with with all of us.
>> Or or perhaps by Zoom if he's going to charge us for the the airfare and the hotels and all the things to come. I I would >> fix contract. >> Uh we do have a work order for a fixed price contract. I'm not uh >> I think that Yeah, I think the contract
specifies. Hold on. Let him answer. Okay. What what I will do, Mr. Britain, is I know that they uh come down for conferences and we're our popular uh vacation destination as well. So, I'll see if I can't figure out a way if if he's going to come down here to get him over this way.
>> Okay. >> First and then we'll discuss uh other options if that's acceptable to the council. >> I'm not a Zoom fan, but uh I like to be face to face. >> I think face to face is a good idea. it. >> So, I would also say as far as, you
know, we have a lot of discussion on how the the system works, that's not really what we're discussing. Um, yeah, I think all of us can agree it's not ideal. But as far as going without an advocate, I don't think that's the way to go. And I think they've been doing a really good job working in the system that we have.
So, that's where I'm at. Is there any further discussion before we move to a vote? Uh, it does say in here, attend meetings or work sessions of Obito City Council and meetings with city staff as necessary. >> Um, >> yeah. So, we'll let Mr. Kelly reach out
and see what we can do there. I think that's a good idea. >> Okay. And I'll ask the clerk to call the vote. >> Council member Bford >> I. >> Council member Britain. >> I. >> Mayor Slick. >> Nay. >> Deputy Mayor Tukurt. >> I. >> Council member >> I.
>> The motion carries. We will move on to item number 13 which is resolution number 4667-25 the call to artist for mur mural design representing the 100th anniversary of the city of Ovido and beyond. Mr. Cobb
or Dr. Ket Dr. Ket >> thank you deputy mayor mayor council members I'm again going to introduce Mr. Keith Coons to do the presentation. Good evening. >> Good evening. >> It's my pleasure to represent the public
arts board and to present this request for the city council to approve the advertisement of a call to artist for a mural design to represent the 100th anniversary of the city and beyond Ovido past, present, and
future. We have the specifications laid out and it is our recommendation that the city council adopt resolution number 4667-25. >> Thank you, Mr. Coons. What is the pleasure of council?
>> I move we adopt resolution number 4667-25. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? >> No. >> All right. I will ask the clerk to call a vote. Mayor Slick >> I. >> Council member Brford. I'm sorry. I
>> deputy mayor Tukurt >> I. >> Council member Britain >> I. >> Council member >> I. >> The motion carries. We'll move on to item number 14 resolution number 4668-25. The call to artist first sculpture representing the fauna andor flora of
Oido. >> Mr. Coons. >> Yes. Again. Um thank you. And it's our request from the public arts board that the city council approve the advertisement of a call to artist for a sculpture to represent the fauna andor
flora of Ovido. Please note that this the the actual subject of the sculpture would be up to the artist presenting the proposals to include fauna or flora. >> Thank you. What
>> and it's our it's our recommendation that this uh resolution be adopted. >> Thank you. What is the pleasure of councel? >> I make a motion to approve resolution number 4668-25. >> Second. We have a motion in a second. Any discussion?
>> No, I mean we just talked about this during the CRA and again I think we need to see what comes up what comes out of this um and see what the auditors come up with. So this is really just for the uh the call to artists to come and give their proposals. Mayor Slate, >> I think we talked about it before.
Looking forward to some flexible and interesting designs. >> Nope. For me, good. >> Good. All right. Then I will ask the clerk to call the role. >> Council member Bford. >> I. >> Mayor Slick. >> I. >> Deputy Mayor Tukurt. >> I. >> Council member Britain.
>> I. >> Council member. >> Hi. >> The motion carries. We will move on to item number 15. discussion of an update to the city's impact fee technical report. Mr. Cobb. >> Uh, thank you, Deputy Mayor. I Is Mr.
Paul here? >> Tonight, we have a request for you to have a discussion on the uh latest impact fee uh technical report. Our consultant, Mr. Jonathan Paul, is supposed to be here tonight to uh give a presentation to you.
Okay. >> Okay. >> Can we take a recess? >> Why don't we take a five minute recess and come back at 7? Let's say 7:15. >> All right. >> This is [Music]
All right, we're going to go ahead and get started and you have the floor. >> All right, thank you all um this evening coming this evening. My name is Jonathan Paul. I'm the uh principal of New Urban Concepts. Tonight we're going to discuss an update of the city's um impact fees
and the technical report associated with it for parks, recreation, fire and rescue, law enforcement, and administrative facilities. Uh this is just a workshop tonight. The council's not taking any official action. They're not voting on a first reading. Um
essentially, this is forformational purposes. Ask questions. um give us direction to make any changes and um and if you also elect to uh we'll we'll then come back with a reading uh and a prepared ordinance to implement the
updated fees. Um so the purpose today is to um discuss an update of the overall fees to meet statutory requirements to review the phased in rates for each one of the fees and to request any input or direction
related to the technical report. Um the technical report does cover four different areas law enforcement fire rescue recreation parks and administrative facilities. It is a rather long document. um we are working on ways to try to pare it down a little
bit, but there's a lot of backup information that goes into it. And part of that is because there are a lot of legal requirements that go into the um development of impact fees. Um one of the main drivers for impact fees or mobility fees for that matter,
um and just for any members of the the public, an impact fee is an assessment on new development only or redevelopment that has an additional impact. So, if you're additional, you're existing homeowner, you're existing business owner, and you're not doing anything,
you know, to upgrade your homes or add capacity or add rooms to it or you're not expanding your business, these impact fees don't apply to you. uh they are only for new growth and then redevelopment that has an additional impact to the overall um system whether
it be parks, school, fire or parks, fire uh law enforcement uh or administrative facilities. So the basis for a fee is that you have to demonstrate growth in your community growth in terms of both population and employment. And so we
look at that. Um there's multiple time frames you can look out either a 5year period, a 10-year period upwards to a 20-year period. Typically for most impact fees, you look out for a 10-year period for mobility fees, what the uh city adopted last year. We took a little
bit longer time frame because of the cost of those projects. And that was a 20-year horizon. So there is growth anticipated within the city of Ovido both in terms of population and employment between now and 2035.
And one of the things that we have to do in terms of the the fees themselves, oftentimes if you look at the city's budget items, it will just show um per capita employees or per capita breakdown um of services that Ovito provides just
for residents only. Um because impact fees are assessed both to businesses and to residents, we also need to count for employment when we're looking at those overall numbers. Um, and employment's a little bit different than than a
resident. A resident's really intended uh to have a full-time impact upon all services of the city. Whereas somebody that just works in the city, they don't necessarily impact the services throughout the entire day. So, we have a couple of different v um variables we
have to look at. One is how many residents live and work in the city, then how many work and then commute elsewhere or live elsewhere. And there are some formulas that we use in a lot of different fees to account for those. And so essentially for employees that do
not live in the city, we largely adjust that number overall by 50%. So that says they have roughly a half uh half-time impact on city services, not necessarily a fulltime impact such as a resident. And then that gives us a functional
equivalent population that we work for. And this is specifically for the fire, rescue, police, our law enforcement, administrative facilities. Um, parks are only assessed towards residents. So for parks, we're just looking at residents,
both existing and future. These are just some of the factors that we look at and there's all the documentation uh is in that technical report. I'm not going to go into a whole lot of it unless any of you have any specific questions regarding it, but we do need to demonstrate. we did need to
show how we come up with future growth um and then how we use those factors to project out future needs within the city. Um so this is just a breakdown. A lot of this information is within the the city's current capital improvements
programs or current budget items. This is roughly a breakdown of the employees per per department um over the last five-year period. uh we do not include uh uh employees that are in your utility department. Those tend to be um funded
through an enterprise fund. So they're not necessarily covered under specifically under these four fee categories. So that number may look a little bit low to you saying, "Hey, we have more employees than that." The the difference between that are those employees that work in your public works
department specifically within your utilities department or division, I might say. Um and then we break down those um the growth and basically come up with a per capita number that includes both population and employment to determine how many um
employees you've had per department over a 5-year period. And then that helps give us an average to make a projection out into the future. And with that projection and with that need basically we came um across there's
roughly a need for 15 additional law enforcement personnel between now and 2035. Uh the need for additional 10 fire rescue personnel over the next 10 years. For park and recreations 11 personnel and for your general government your
administrative facilities uh upwards to 13. So this is just based on what the city has historically provided and then using that to project out into the future. So that's not necessarily a hard and fast requirement. You don't have a
standard in your comprehensive plan saying we have this many employees or this many uh people per thousand residents or p per thousand employees. It's just saying what the city's done in the past. This is roughly what it would have um in the future as well.
And uh let's see here. Let's kind of jumping over. And so one of the things that we're looking at in terms of um overall numbers is we have existing impact fees that the city already has. They have those for parks, for fire, for
administrative facilities, for police. And you'll see for parks and recreation, there's just three categories: single family, multifamily, and mobile homes. and then it's sort of blanked out for the rest of the land uses. All those other uses have different fees
associated with them. The way the Florida statute now reads and why these existing rates are important is any increase in your fees is capped based on these fees themselves. So, you can't
exceed 50% increase and then any increase in the fees have to be phased in over a 4-year period unless you do a finding of extraordinary circumstances and we'll get into that uh in a little bit more detail.
So, here are just um one of the things that we look at is what are the existing facilities that the city has and then what are the plans for the future. Uh so you have a pretty robust park and recreation system and it's largely been guided by a master plan over the past 15
plus years or so. Um and you've done a number of improvements throughout the city um that any residents or any visitors that clearly have been here over the past few years have seen the park facilities that you have been building within the community.
Um, so one of the factors we do look at in your comprehensive plan is you do have a standard for community parks. Um, basically that's 10 acres per 1,000 residents. Um, and then that applies to your existing need and then also to your
future need. So just looking at future growth, not how many acres you all have today, but just looking at future need, there's roughly an increase of 5,600 residents. That would translate to a need of acreage of roughly 56 acres over
the next 10 years. And again, that does not account for any of your existing facilities because this is just new developments impact on your current infrastructure. We have a lot of uh different variables that we look at in terms of land cost,
equipment costs, structure cost. Um, and we've basically used those variables to come up with a cost per acre for different types of amenities you'd have in your facilities and different types of um, associated cost. One thing the city doesn't have, and it
is part of your strategic plan, is to update your parks master plan. Um, you've had one that's guided your vision for the last 15 years. This is the horizon year this year, 2025. Um, so absent that, there isn't really a whole lot of guidance in terms of what you're
planning on doing to parks over the next 10 years. You have a couple of capital improvements in your current parks plan, but those generally go out for two or three years, not necessarily for the 10-year horizon. So, in terms of associating a need with new development,
we've looked at what has it been historically, and we've used that as a gauge to what that would be in the future. Um, and then we've also looked at at your parks master plan. Um, we've also looked at your capital improvements program. We looked at some of the
facilities. Um, one thing you all do a very good job of is taking care of what you have today. Um, you are very adequate in terms of funding that, identifying funding for it, accounting for it. Um, one thing that's not as quite clear is because your capital
improvements program and your master plan aren't extending beyond this horizon. There aren't a whole lot of new capital facilities planned over the next 10 years. And the whole basis for an impact fee is you have a need for
capital facilities to collect a fee. So if you don't have any capital facilities identified, you're in essence saying you don't have a need for any types of improvements. We know that's not necessarily true. Uh the city's been growing. You have a lot of
um improvements already identified. It's just you've only identified those out for a two or three year period. Uh so what we've done is some of the common features that we'd see looking at your existing parks, some of the existing improvements that are out there. There's some reoccurring themes. One is the need
for a master plan update and park specific plans. Another is for upgrades of playground equipment, a need for shade structures, a need for lighting in a lot of your parks, and a need for upgrade in terms of accessibility for parking lots. So, we've extrapolated
this out uh for the 10-year period to come up with basically a number to use in the update. Ultimately, the next time you go through this, you'll have a parks master plan that will help guide some of this in terms of overall infrastructure and need.
um the existing improvements and the existing upgrades those benefit everybody. Those aren't specifically tied to new development itself. So because of that we look at the entire population and we divide it by that amount and then there's a share that's
attributable just to new growth. So that ensures that new growth isn't paying more than existing residents in terms of their parks facility needs. We do that because it's actually a legal and statutory requirement that you can't hold new development to a higher
standard than what you're holding existing development to. And with all that information, we basically compile it together and determine a cost. Um, one thing because we are limited in terms of Florida
statute in terms of how many years you can update these. Um, and you're also limited to basically depending on how you determine it or um, interpret Florida statute, you can't increase fees more than once every four
years. So, some local governments have taken that means to mean you cannot make adjustments for inflation. um other local governments have interpreted that you can make adjustments for inflation. What we've been doing is we've been adding that up
front. So all the dollar amounts we use are present day dollars. They're not future year dollars. So essentially is the date of this paper, you know, these fees are already dated in terms of the overall cost, you know, because inflation keeps going up. So we have
included um an inflation factor. We've kept it on the lower side um for reasonless purposes, but we have included a three and a half% annual inflation upfront and then we've phase that in over a 4-year period. So that way we're consistent with statute
because you're adopting your full number should you elect to adopt it and then you're phasing that in over a multi-year period. What statute says is you can't adopt a number and then increase it every year unless you go do a new study. So, a lot of what you've seen in this
report and a lot of the documentation you'll see is because of new requirements in Florida statute in terms of how you implement fees, how you raise them, and how you overall implement those fees. So, with all that information uh stated,
it comes up with a rate of $1,500. And this is $1,500 per resident. Uh so we look at different household sizes um through a variety of sources but in essence within Ovito there tends to be a
little over three people living within a single family home. A multifamily dwelling unit is 2.62 dwelling people per dwelling unit. And to the extent that there are still some mobile homes left I think the last count there's less than 50 of them within the city. So
there's really not a whole lot of those within there, but it is an existing category uh in your land use. So we take that rate of 1,500 per household member and multiply it by the overall household size and that gets
us a park uh impact fee per dwelling unit. One of the things the statute says is you cannot unless you make a finding of extraordinary circumstances and I'll get into a little bit more of that uh here shortly. Your fee cannot be more than
50% above the rate today. And then any increase has to be phased in over a certain amount of time. So if it's less than a 25% increase, it has to be phased in over two years. If it's between a 25%
and a 40 a 50% increase, it has to be phased in over four years and then it's capped at 50%. So, your fee today is $2,877 for a single family residence. The
calculation says it should be $4,700 per uh residential dwelling. A 50% increase is $4,316. So, the maximum you can increase the park and recreation fee is to $4,316.
And then because it's the maximum rate, that increase has to be phased in over a 4-year period. So, if you choose to adopt these next year, it would be adopted at $3,200. In 2027, 3600
in 2028, 3,900. And then ultimately in 2029, 4,300. and then by by the time 2029 comes, you will have begun an updated study. Um, one of the reasons we're not recommending extraordinary
circumstances at this time is that you all are intending to do a parks master plan update. And I think that parks master plan update is going to give you a far more legitimate basis to make a claim for extraordinary circumstances.
There has to be a significant amount of outreach. There has to be a lot of discussion on the projects that are in there, the costs that are in there, and then ultimately the overall u implement implementation of the plan itself. So, should you adopt a plan in two years and
you find out that you all a sudden have $50 million in park needs, you could revisit this fee again and say, "Based on our new plan and increases in population growth, we believe we have an extraordinary circumstance to relook at these
numbers." Because you don't have that plan today, I don't really feel comfortable in recommending it. While you all do have growth in the community, it's not extraordinary growth. Um, some of the communities we're doing fees in right now are Cape Coral, Palm Coast, Port St.
Lucy. You know, Port St. Lucy between 2020 and 2025 added 60,000 residents in five years. Cape Coral added 45,000 residents. That's pretty much your entire city added in a 5-year period.
That's extraordinary growth. Um, so you know, Semino County is a growing community, but I don't know that you'd say any community, whether it be Alultimont, Sanford, um, or a veto has the growth that you're seeing in St. Ocola County or Flagger County or St. John's County. You have steady overall
growth, um, but it doesn't necessarily reach the level of extraordinary. So that that part of my recommendation to you all is should you move forward with this um I would recommend that you increase it uh per statute. So I don't necessarily know that you'd have a
strong finding today absent a plan uh to move forward with extraordinary circumstance. And I say that because when we did the mobility plan the mobility plan was replacing the county's fee, replacing the city's fee and you had a 20-year plan. you know, you had a
pretty extraordinary basis at that time to move forward with the fee. Um, here you're not replacing a county fee. You're just updating your fee and you don't have a plan to back it up. So, I'd say, you know, wait until you have the plan and then make a decision um at that
point. Um, so with that, I believe that is Yeah. So, we have four different fees to cover and that sort of concludes the park one. So, I'd like to open up to any questions that you have related to the parks. Um, you know, that way we can
answer some of that stuff and then as we move on to fire, as we move on to police and administrative facilities, it would probably be a little easier to tackle them one by one as opposed to going all the way back and trying to remember that. >> Does the same logic apply to the other three?
>> No, it's a much different methodology because we have to also account for employees um and and there's a lot of other factors that go into it. So parks is just these three specific uses. All the other fees have all your other non-residential land uses in addition to
those fees plus they have a different calculation as well. >> What is the timeline we're looking at for I mean I know this is preliminary and more on the educational side of where we're going or maybe not going. Um what is the timeline on getting to where
we're actually deciding on this? Well, should you all you depending on what happens this evening, we're prepared to come back with an ordinance in a few weeks for first reading. Um, they need to have that ordinance. It would have all this documentation as part of that.
Um, they need, you know, make a decision to move on, yes or no, for a first reading, and then you'd implement or direct us to hold a second meeting. Um, and then 90 days after that hearing, these new fees, well, the 2026 number
would become effective. And then each year there on, it would um update whether you uh either do it January 1st or whatever that you do a year from the date of adoption. Um, that's it's really up to you all. But in terms of should you move forward this year and adopt it
this year, that 2026 number is the rate that you would be looking at. Any questions? >> Yeah. >> Say the uh you have the you compute the number of people who work in Ovito. Is that from I know you mentioned American
Community Survey in here, >> but so that's kind of an estimate, right? >> It is. Okay. >> It is. It's the best numbers that we have available to us at an OVTO level. >> Okay. Um, a lot of the stuff that the state provides and economic development departments provide, it's all at the
county level and you have to sort of aggregate or interpret it down to the the city level whereas the US Census on the map actually provides it by u by a city. >> Okay. Um, you talked in uh uh I guess it's in the it's in the report in the
presentation about um the >> believe so >> something like that. >> It's a sizable golf >> something acres, right? It kind of seems like including that in the amount of acreage per person that we then want to maintain. Um that that doesn't quite seem right to
me because we're not going to build another golf course, right? And it's going to skew it toward non-golf things, right? Which we already have a lot of. How does how do other cities manage that? method. >> Well, I mean, in some in some
communities will recognize, you know, they already have existing acreage and they'll give the the new development a credit for that, which basically means new development would be have the opportunity to take advantage of what you've already paid for. So, they would not be paying for any new acreage um
associated with that. That's one way to calculate the fee. Um, historically, you've always calculated based on need for your future residence. So, it's been in addition to what you have. Um, but if you accounted for your existing golf course, these fees would actually be lower.
>> Well, I mean, that wasn't quite what I was getting at. I was saying that you are uh computing a fee with the goal of maintaining the same amount of acreage per person for parks, right? But we have this large thing that kind of skews that
amount of acreage per person higher than >> what maybe other other cities have or consider to be parks. I mean because >> Go ahead. >> Yeah. No, good question. I'd probably have to defer to your your planning folks because you have in your
comprehensive plan you account for all of your acreage and you for better or worse you as a community have come up with a standard of 10 acres per uh thousand people in terms of community parks. So that's what your goal is every
year to be able to maintain that. How that was derived at I don't necessarily you know know all the detail behind it. city manager probably knows a lot better behind that. But in terms of that's the standard that we look at to apply to new growth. Um so if you have new growth,
your standard is 10 acres per thousand people. >> I'm not sure that's our standard. Brian, if I remember right, uh back years ago, the the average in the county was like three acres per thousand people and we were up at around five or
six. we were always much higher than what the the uh average was in the county and then if if the golf course added that much. I don't know if that's our standard. That's just what the number is right now. >> Uh actually the we hit 10 acres. I'm trying to remember which comprehensive plan. It may have been our first
evaluation and appraisal report when we we did an analysis. Actually it was before the golf course to be honest. Uh that we did the the analysis and at one point I know when I first came to the city we were at two acres per thousand. >> Yeah. for a community park and uh I
think it was it was either the first or second evaluation and appraisal that we did and when we started doing the calculations as far as acreage was concerned we came out that it was actually 10 acres per thousand that we were providing and that was our level of service and >> that's before the golf course
>> is before we bought the golf course. >> So what is it now? It must be higher. I I haven't I haven't done that calculation in so long I couldn't tell you. But >> 436 square ft of open space per person at 10 acres per thousand. But what I what I think you guys might be getting
at is uh and and I was looking at how do you how did you calculate the total and the biggest portion was for land. So, I think what you're what you might be wondering or hoping is could we get a higher number and a higher impact fee if we were to say that we're not buying land, but we're instead enhancing the
land. And the answer to that, I believe, would be no. That we are better off that we can legally justify these numbers, but that the numbers used to enhance the land, whether we buy new land or we add, you know, add to what's already there, like we're not adding that much. So, the
land is the main cost contributing to the ability to collect this. Is that am I recollecting that correctly >> in terms as it relates to new growth? Correct. You are correct in that manner. Um should you have a master plan that master plan would likely detail far more
improvements per your existing facilities that are out there today. That would then be a stronger basis to to look at that. But absent that, we don't really have it by park facility. So we've had to roughly estimate what you provided per those parks. Um and and
that's that's as good a guess. You know, we use what you've provided today as our guide to look at what you provide for the future. Um in terms of how you've done that. So, you know, it and then if you relook at your standard, you know, if you look in your capital
improvements, there's a policy that says the policy is a community standard of 10 unit 10 acres per thousand residents. And then you have a separate one for neighborhood parks. That's a little bit lower. I think it's two acres per thousand residents, but
then you allow development to provide half of that internal to their site. So, we we have not included neighborhood parks at all. We're just using the 10acre standard because the other one's not quite actually a standard itself.
Now, with regards to the state level law and the requirement to justify what we're charging, uh there was mention of I I think it's like a $475,000 estimate on a master park, a power parks master plan. I look at that and I think, wow, I
would much rather reinvest that in the actual parks. um to what extent can we allow our staff to come up with a plan and working with we've got people on a parks and recck committee and there the the brain trust that we have is is big.
Do we have to hire this out? >> Well, I would say you you have a couple of different items there. You have a parks master plan which I think is $250,000 and then you have two or three park
specific facility plans that are about $100,000 each or so. Um, you know, is your staff capable of doing it? I'm sure they certainly are. Um, I will say given the outreach and given if you look at your existing plan, Glatting Jackson was
a firm that did it. They put a lot of time into it. They put a lot of effort into it. I know a lot of the the the plans that we see nowadays, you know, they're 100 200, you know, plus pages and there's a lot of details, a lot of outreach. There's a lot that goes into it.
To me, having a good plan, just like having a good mobility plan, makes you open for other opportunities for funding. And, you know, you kind of get what you pay for in some respects uh in terms of that level of detail. And I and
from what I've seen, a plan is a good investment. You know, I know it is a lot of money, but in the grand scheme of, you know, a $20 million, $30 million capital improvements program, it's a relatively small component of it, but it
does provide a vision for that. Um, >> but it sounds like there's no legal requirement that we hire an outside firm to do it. >> There's no legal requirement you have, you know, to to outside to do it. Um, ultimately you have a list of projects and you have a detailed capital improvements plan that goes into it.
What you all don't have is, you know, your improvements go out two or three years because that's really what your your typical CIP looks out to three years in funding and says, "Okay, we have this much revenue we believe is going to be available. What do we have for need for it?" There's a seven-year
gap really out into that window that really you should be identifying. If funding became available or this opportunity became available, what will be we envision for this type of facility? >> And I think we should move on at this point. >> Okay. >> Continue the presentation.
>> Yes, we're only on page 20 of 70. >> All right. Uh then we have existing uh fire stations. >> Pages. >> Um you've got two fire stations today within the city uh that are providing fire rescue services uh for the
community. Um we've basically been talking to your fire department in addition to the you know the needs analysis that we have roughly you know 10 new employees your standards roughly 15 hires per station. So with fire there's always kind of a
little bit of a lag between when you provide a new station and then the additional growth that comes up behind that is then accommodated by it. But essentially what we found is there's a need for for uh a new engine, a new station, a new rescue vehicle upwards to
to equipment from 15 employees. Um that basically comes up to a total cost of $13 million. Divide that by the projected growth of the population um both employment and existing residents. Roughly it's about 58,000 is our base
number and it comes out to a fee of $229. um per functional resident. And so for police, we go through a similar methodology. Um you have your existing police department. We've identified a need for
well you've all identified a need for police station expansion. Now that not that cost some could range anywhere from 10 million to uh to $15 million. We've used 12.5 in it. There's a need for 15 additional officers, uh 15 vehicles, new
equipment. All that factors into a calculation of roughly uh $15.8 million or $271 uh per equivalent resident. Public buildings like the facility that we're in right now. Um, we've identified
a need for just basically uh additional space for uh 13 additional hieries at roughly $5.8 million. You've got a um training facility that's potentially going for public safety and multiple city departments. Um possibly could use
that at roughly $8 million. um a share of the public works facility that you would share with the utility departments at 875,000. Uh the potential for an EOC center and emergency operation center of roughly $5
million for a total cost of roughly $24 million over the next 10 years. Again, because you all don't have an existing facilities master plan, we sort of compiled this together and coordinating with your staff and coordinating with the uh the different departments, but
we'll get into a little bit more of the fees in terms of what that all means dollar-wise. Um, so these are some factors that we look at. We account for both existing residents impacts and then visitors or guests or customers to the site to come
up with an equivalency factor for all land uses for single family for community serving uses, industrial uses, um outdoor commercial, office, retail, and I'm going to go through
these and then there's something you all want to um grasp on to just just let me know. Um, and then some of the other uses, the schedule you see is different than your current schedule. We've based it on the one that we did for the mobility fee. So, going forward, should
you all like to adopt this, these schedules will be all equivalent across all of your fees. And so, then what this means, uh, in general, again, similar to parks, we you have to use the existing fee as our
baseline. So, your existing fee for a single family home is $472 for police, $480 for fire, and $731 for administrative. As you see, the the facilities that we
looked at in terms of your capital improvements need, they were higher for administrative facilities. That tends to be your highest overall fee. Um, previously in in police and fire, um, those fee estimates were kept relatively minor and a lot of the facilities were
actually included as overall administrative facilities themselves, which is why that fee is higher than both your police and fire fee today. And so these are just all the existing rates per year fees. So these rates, and
the reason I'm showing them, these are our baseline numbers. So this is a number that we would calculate an increase from. So when you plug all that in, the calculated rate for a single family home
for fire and rescue is $955. That would be a new station, a new engine upwards to 15 personnel. Um, and the cost associated with that. Your existing fee today is $479.
The maximum your fee can be is $719 for single family home. And then you have to phase that in over a 4-year period. Unless you made a finding of extraordinary circumstances. If we were never to make a find an extraordinary
circumstance based on that formula, could we in 2030 I don't think we could we still couldn't get to a to charging full freight, could we? We have to make a find an extraordinary circum circumstance. I think >> you would also mean well
>> this one really bugs me even more than than parks and wreck not be to be able to charge what actually is impacting us. It's not right for the residents, >> right? If your next update were to come in, say you adopt your you adopt either a capital facilities plan or fire rescue
plan, you identify the needs, the cost, go through all the the process to do that, you then may say, you know, we can come back with a request for extraordinary circumstance or you may actually be able to catch up to it in the next goound depending on how your
costs go. So without redoing the study, it's hypothetically possible that if we were quick, we could use the existing study, ask for uh to apply the extraordinary circumstance criteria and pop it to full freight >> except you don't have an existing study.
That's why we don't again let's move through the presentation. I'm just trying to figure out >> go over actions after >> and that's one of the you know that is one of your strategic plan goals um and objectives is to update and have a capital facilities plan have a public
safety plan. So you know those numbers that we came up with those are compiled out of a lot of different needs. Um you know the fire department's probably got a little bit more detail that goes into it because they have certification processes that they have to meet. So those numbers are are, you know, pretty
solid on it. Um, I would say couple those numbers with a master plan, you've got a really strong basis for it. Um, absent that master plan, I'd still say your your best bet is to go with the statutory requirement at at this point.
But again, and then that flows through all the different land uses. So unlike um for the other fees for the for the parks fee, you've got to say for a place of worship um or a gathering place would be $265
um per thousand square feet. The maximum per statute is $143. Um, if you get to some of your office uses, your office use the calculated rate $710.
The statutory limits roughly $400. So, it's it's about half of what that would would be. Um, for your retail use, for small retail, it's roughly half of that amount. For general type of retail use, it would calculated that's $861.
Uh the maximum you can charge per statute 581. Um similar with high impact convenience retail. Obviously when you have convenience you have a lot more impact in terms of um one the potential of you know fires associated with those type of
facilities but also accidents traffic um and a lot more demand uh for those overall types of facilities. So that you know some of those higher impacts the limitation of statutees definitely a big u prohibition for residential it's not
so much but for some of the other uses um it is and then kind of go through these uh there's a few categories because they are brand new categories they are not limited per statute um but if you have an existing use an existing
category and an existing fee you do have those statutes limits. Similarly, for um law enforcement, the fee would roughly be $1,130 based on the station cost that we projected the the 15 officers, the 15
vehicles and the equipment for those officers. Um the maximum fee you can charge per statute is $78. Uh for a multifamily, it's calculated at 916. the maximum you could charge is 603.
Um, and again, you know, you you've got, well, actually, you've had a lot of debate about funding your police expansion facilities. Um, and it's not actually specifically in your capital improvements program today, but there's been a lot of discussion related to it.
There's cost estimates for it. I believe at the last budget item you given direction to your staff um to consider the expansion of the police facilities, but again there's not a capital facilities master plan. If you were going to go down the extraordinary
circumstance route, you'd be much better justified with that plan with more detailed cost estimates uh and with a little bit more uh robust public outreach as part of that. Um similarly I mean this is pretty
consistent across your different land uses. Um you know for your office calculated fee is 841. Um the maximum you can increase it by statute is 363. Um similarly with retail calculated be
roughly $1,000 and the maximum you could increase it is to 531. And then finally we end up with administrative facilities. So with the the projected you know whether it be a emergency operations center or share of
training facilities those different types of uh improvements that we had identified plus the need for additional staff and equipment. That calculated rate comes out at roughly uh $1,700 per thousand square feet or or per dwelling unit for single family. Um, the maximum
per statute that you could charge is roughly $1,100 or $1,970. Uh, for multifamily, the maximum you could charge is for 935. For administrative facilities, I would definitely say that you would need a capital facilities plan if you were
going to do extraordinary. We did compile a lot of different categories as part of that that fee and as part of those calculations. So if you were to go down the path of extraordinary, I would definitely suggest um you know something
you know far more sign significant in terms of a capita facilities uh master plan. And similarly for office uses again the calculated rate is roughly $1,300. Uh the administrative facility rate, the
maximum you charge per statute is 560. Uh for retail, uh $1,590 and roughly $816 is what you'd be allowed to do for per statute. So, I know that's going over a lot. I know there's a lot of detail in the
report itself. Um it's a big presentation. There's a lot of items to discuss. Um, you know, there could be an additional meeting that we come back after you've had a chance to digest this to ask some more questions. You could have a whole list of questions available for first reading that you then provide
us direction on. Um, I will say, you know, the parks comes in roughly. Um, even for your other facilities, your calculated need is significantly higher than what statute allows um for those. So, your parks, you're you're probably,
you know, right in that ballpark. Uh the other fees, you definitely have some um you know, some additional needs that are associated with that. Um but again, in terms of all what I'm doing, you know, you again, you have growth. There's
nobody denying that you have growth. Um the growth in and of itself doesn't necessarily reach extraordinary. Um the capital improvements program has been coordinated with a lot of great input from all your departments and a lot of feedback from them. But in terms
of if you're going to go down the approach of a extraordinary, it's much better to have something like your mobility plan which separate analysis, separate outreach detail that went into it pre provided a very strong nexus between growth and the need for
facilities. That's something that a master plan and any of these facilities would actually provide for you all. Um, so with that, I know it covers a lot and I'm happy to answer any questions that you all may have. >> Questions? >> So, as far as extraordinary
circumstances, the fact that we haven't done this in so long, does that does that count? >> I mean, because I'm looking at some of these things, they're they're four times what the state is going to allow us to go to, right? and and that's that's at
50% over what it is now. >> Yeah. Actually, you know, you have you know, you all have done a very good job in keeping up with your fees. Um but you know, the very first thing legislator says if you haven't kept up with your fees, that's not an excuse for extraordinary. >> You all have actually kept up with them.
Um but you know what I think this is reflecting is you know just in terms of transportation costs have doubled and tripled in a 5-year period for facilities
you know and again you know we've used a lot of different other factors. A master plan would be able to pull back saying hey five years ago this is our average cost estimate. Three years ago this is our cost estimate. five years from now, this is our cost estimate. Here's the
straight line number. If you look at our mobility plan, mobility fee, we've got all that documentation associated with it. Here, I don't necessarily have that same level of detail. You would have that in a plan, but what you're seeing is the increase in cost. Five years ago,
you know, you probably could have had that police station expansion for five million, six million bucks. Now, you're lucky if you can probably get it for 15 million. just being honest with you in terms of how much costs are are escalating everywhere. And that's what a lot of communities are experiencing right now. And to really dig it into
you, the legislature said as of this year or as of January 1st, 2026, extraordinary circumstance goes from a supermajority to unanimous vote of city council. And if you haven't updated your fee in five years from five years from
last time, you cannot claim extraordinary circumstances. So, you know, the legislature is cracking down more and more on this and then you've also got, you know, the 1080 out there and you have all these bills floating around. Um, so you know,
>> we haven't it hasn't been that long since we've updated them. >> Even the No, no. That's what I'm saying. you you're you guys have been doing your fees. >> When is the last time we updated our fees? >> 2019. So, right before COVID and right before all the inflation started, right?
>> Just like it hasn't been like 15. >> No, no. Some communities, you know, been 15. Some communities have actually been 15 years. >> You all have been keeping up with it. It just so happens that it was pre-COVID. Um, and that's really where we've experienced the the massive increases uh
since that time frame. But it's now six years, which is over the five years of that the state will allow us to >> Well, that's as of January 1st. So, you still have a little you still have a little bit of time. But again, I don't
>> some of these communities that I work in with extraordinary growth, the builders have already filed legal challenges on extraordinary growth in communities that are doubling in population. So, I'm advising all my clients, you have a master plan, you have your growth, you
have all your ducks in a row if you're going to go with the extraordinary circumstances because the builders associations, you know, Wade or um, you know, the city manager probably weighing a little bit more on that, but everybody's watching, you know, in terms of development association and they're
very watching whenever you claim extraordinary circumstances. They've been very receptive of phasing per statute. If you're going to claim extraordinary, they're going to look at it. They're going to document it. And you know, you know, at least two of them that we've gone through, you know,
they're proposing to challenge them, and they're challenging them all across the state, regardless of who does them. Um, >> are you recommending that we go to extraordinary services? >> I'm not recommending until you all have adopted master plans for your facilities, I would not recommend it.
>> All right. >> Well, so are you looking What kind of direction are you looking for tonight? Well, I mean, you are already at the five-year six-year window since you last updated these. So, per statute, you need to make a decision whether you adopt the
study and you keep the rates the same, whatever, that's fine. But, you need to have your fees based on the most recent localized data. Your fees were last updated in 2019. So, your fees were going to be even more out of compliant. um not that they're out of compliance
today, but if you go beyond this year without taking an action, you know, then your fees start to become more and more dated and your options start to go down. So then if you wait till next year, then your first year is going to be 2027 and then you're going to fall a year behind
further and further uh with those. So the reason we are here is because you have a statutory requirement to keep your fees updated. Um, so whether you want to update them per the phasing, whether you just want to accept the study and keep your rates as is that, you know, that's a policy level
decision. Um, but what I provided to you is what the maximum you could phase them uh per statute. You want to lower them, you can lower them. Well, I'd like to see us charge as much as we are legally allowed to do and then take steps to
potentially get us up to where where we're actually charging people full freight as soon as we can. But that is a math question probably for our staff whether the differential between what we could charge per statute versus what we
would be able to charge. If that differential is not bigger than the cost of doing the study in the first place, then perhaps it should not be done. But yeah, for now I think the only logical next step is we move forward as quickly as we can and start charging closer to
the right rate. >> And I believe actually all these studies are within your strategic plan and within your CIP in the next two. You know, it's an initiative that you all talked about doing. um you know it's
just it's you know coming now but that's not already done. So >> I think if there's one thing I taken away that we need to do a parks and recck master plan and we have been asked several times and we've not moved forward with that but that sounds like that is kind of a big piece
of information we're missing here. It it is and what I've seen is a lot of the communities that have them, you know, they've also gotten a lot of other funding from other sources and public private partnerships and sales taxes. So, I mean, there's b there's benefits beyond the plan as as opposed to just
having pretty pictures. Um, you know, and that's quantifiable and and you go to different communities that have them. Um, you know, that's a result of it. >> Well, and what you said earlier, I think is very true. In government, you don't get grants or funding for things if you don't have a written plan. So,
>> correct. Um, some of that pays back itself, but I would like to see us move forward with funding a parks and rec master plan as part of this as well. >> Where are we with that, Brian? >> Uh, right now it's not we're not doing anything.
>> We got to find some money. >> I believe it may be in the CIP right now, but I mean it's not funded. But do we have to have a comprehensive one that includes public safety and facilities? >> I would recommend that you have you know your parks master plan. Correct.
>> Right. But then you know >> some people do it as a um capital facilities. So it doesn't have to necessarily be >> a separate police fire capital facilities. It can be all together um but some type of master plan for your
capital facilities where you have input from your police department. We have input from your fire department uh and for your capital facility people. >> What was the master plan we passed like in December? Comprehensive master plan. >> I believe it was an update of your
comprehensive plan. >> Strategic plan. >> Yeah, that was the strategic plan. >> City. >> Yeah, >> that wouldn't qualify for it. >> Doesn't qualify. I mean, >> of course, lighter on detail, but like >> it >> how far down do we have to go? It actually made the It actually made the recommendation that we do the other
master plans is what it does. >> So >> So are you looking for consensus for us to move on with the >> doing parks and rec master plan as well as going on with this? >> I Yeah, I hadn't addressed the other
one, but I am looking for consensus to move forward with the parks and rec master plan and looking into how we fund that and do it. I think it's important. So >> in terms of our specific item, the direction would be >> yes, you want to move forward with the first reading or
>> I think everybody said yes on that. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Do we have consensus on that? >> Yes. >> Yep. So we So we do on that. >> All right. Yeah. I just, you know, everybody's everybody's workshops are a little bit different. Some have a formal vote, some have things. I just, you know, I'm defer to
>> I threw a wrench in there. I wanted a twofer. Yeah. So, uh, are you guys, um, I mean, I know we have three, but what are your thoughts on a on a parks and rag master plan as well, too? Looking at ways of funding that? >> I'm inclined to let staff give it a go
since it's not legally required to be sourced out to somebody else. I I think we can come up with a spreadsheet. >> Don't you have the >> advisory committee that we established just to help with that? >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, maybe I leave that. Mr. Cob,
can you look into avenues there on if it's staff or if we can consult it and what our options are? >> Um, and then as far as what direction you're looking for tonight, we would like to move forward with the first ordinance. >> Correct. >> And that's to set the the rates as they
are in here. That's what you're asking. >> To set them as high as is legally allowable per the study presented >> based on what you just told us >> without extreme circumstance. >> Correct. Basically, basically what it'll be, it'll be the max the the maximum calculated rate, which would be the 50%
cap, and then it would be phased in over the four year period. And that's what your that's what your study supports. >> Yep. >> And that would be the ordinance that we would bring to you is based on what the study supports, which once again would be the 50% cap phased over the 4-year period, and that's what statutoily
allowed. >> And this is for new growth. >> This is for new growth. >> Correct. It's not a tax. Citizens aren't gonna get up in arms. This is >> new growth. >> This is not >> probably be welcoming this. >> So, >> okay, I think we're good. Thank you very
much. >> Thank you all very much. >> Thank you. >> All right, we're up to the city manager's report. >> I have no report. Deputy mayor, >> city attorney's report. >> I have no report. >> Council member Barat. >> Uh, well, we had uh Viva Ovito
yesterday. That was a a pretty great festival. Um, and uh, yeah, just had a had a great time there. Um, and that's uh, that's all I've got for right now. >> Council member Potterford. >> Yeah. So, since last time we met, uh,
there was National Night Out. Uh, was a great representation. Uh, >> Burn Police and Fire out there. Um, great turnout. I mean, obviously weather related. I mean, to have everybody come out like that. Um, you know, I think it's it we do our best to to promote it.
Um, I did hear some feedback, too. They didn't know about it, but I mean, how often can you put a sign out on the road and put it on Facebook and everything you can? So, but it was a great representation. Um, glad to see, you know, everybody come out for it and appreciate everything you guys did with
that. Um, Bobby, uh, I wanted to tell you that Mr. fish from Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick Chick-fil-A gave you guys kudos for everything you did to speed up that process of the utilities and blocking that entrance. So, he was much appreciative of the effort you guys put in there to get that done and taken care
of so it wasn't too much of a disruption for his business. So, please uh let Mr. Gang know that. So, appreciate what you guys did there. Bark and Brews coming up first uh weekend in November. Always probably one of our best events. Um dogs
and beer. I don't know how you can go wrong with that. And then speaking of dogs, great uh story on Nitro, our K9. Uh so I love that. And then uh I also saw Officer Pierce um had a thing where
she's selling Xander shirts at the uh at the middle school. So I thought that was a pretty cool thing there. And then u lastly, I think we just talked about it. It was this week we we got to do the the parks master plan. And that's all I got. Okay, Council Member Britain.
>> Okay, just a couple things real quick. And while I remember it for the uh National Night Out, I I don't know how we would do this, but it used to be in the past that we had the HOAs show up. You know, in the old days, we we went to the HOAs
and toured each neighborhood, but when we started it as the event at the uh cultural center, the HOAs each represented themselves out there, and I didn't see many of that uh this year. I'd like to see if we can, you know, engage the different neighborhoods and
and the ion group, too, and see if we can get that out there. Just a suggestion, but, you know, it was a good event, but I' I'd like to see that, and I think that would draw more people from the uh the other neighborhoods. Um, along with that, I had two meetings this week. One was the Tri County uh
League of Cities meeting and they did a presentation on the American Flood Coalition, which is a national uh coalition that works to try to make uh identify flooding risks and uh strategies for being more resilient. I
thought it was a pretty cool presentation. You're supposed to send it to me and I'll send it out to you. But it's a voluntary uh thing. It doesn't cost anything to join and I'm thinking maybe you know maybe we can uh individually or as a city join the group. One of the things they have is a
database on various grants available for uh flood flood type resiliency projects. So, and then at the uh Friday meeting was the U League of Cities Policy Committee uh which was interesting and that's where I you know we got a report that
it's total chaos in in Tallahassee. But the the big thing is the property tax uh referendum that's going to come down. I think it's going to be on a a referendum. Uh what what it's going to look like, I don't know. Uh the other
thing in my committee was uh a move to require all election dates for city and county officials to be on the November general election day. And that's on even years. What that means for us is we'd have to go to probably four-year terms
uh to uh to make sure that we have the staggered elections. So that's kind of up in the air, but that's it's being talked about. So they don't know what's going to happen with that. And with that, that's all I got. >> That's some interesting stuff there. And I guess that that got my brain going
with the flood plane stuff, getting grant money for that. That's something we can tap into when we get basin studies going, which I guess my question is, Mr. Wyatt, is do we have a timeline and when we're going to start doing the first one? >> You know, I'm always asking about it.
>> All I can tell you is that Mr. Gurgane had a meeting uh last week or the week before that with our new five u storm water consultants and he was starting to disperse work. As far as the basin study, I have no idea yet. >> Okay, >> Mr. So, >> well, and while you're standing here,
one of the things I wanted to say is thank you to your team. Um the Alfa Woods has like gotten a facelift in the past month. So, it's pretty incredible how they've come through and paved as many roads as they did and now they're going through and doing a lot of the sidewalks. So, um, it's it's way faster
than I would expect. You come home one day and the road's ripped up and the next day it's all back. So, >> you wouldn't think how paving and new sidewalks is like an aesthetic upgrade, but it is. >> Yeah, I would think so. But now that it's done, it like makes the whole street look nicer, but it's also a smoother ride. So, uh, your team's doing a great job with that.
>> Thank you. >> Um, as far as National Night Out, if people saying they didn't get the message, I thought it was packed. >> Oh, it was packed. >> It was a I thought it was a really well attended and great event. There were still a lot of people that came out and said that they didn't know but just kind of stumbled into it and well again I
don't know what more you can do. I mean >> um and I think that that's all I have for tonight. So Mayor Slick >> I got a lot of feedback that there was better promo for this national night out than ever before and I kind of totally missed it. So you know I think we just
hit people at different stages of the week or whatever it is. Uh but well done police and fire for that. It was spectacular. Uh, Stinstöm hosted a bike rodeo for all of the elementary schools and our police department came out. The
sheriff uh sheriff's I guess it's the crossing guards mainly were were doing all of that and it it was fantastic. They had an obstacle course where you rode your bike and people threw like the the explorers through things that you would you know presumably run over and maybe fall if you hit them. So it was it
was very well done and lots of helmets for kids who did not know that their helmets were not properly fitted. So it was a really great event. So thank you for for helping make that happen. And as council member mentioned, Vivo Veto was phenomenal. Uh cost the taxpayers no
money. They had it packed out. Um so keep an eye out for for pictures of that. like it it was like you could only stand up all the way back to that 100th Ovito 100th anniversary sign and and it stayed that way for a good long while. So thank you to the Viva O committee
Viva Oto committee for doing it. They uh brought in the bag pipes to kick it off. The bag pipes from Ovido Spain to kick it off. uh all it was all local people who were were kind of celebrating different cultural aspects that are
represented here in Ovido and a lot of people came up to me and said that they they've lived here for you know 10 20 one person said 21 years and that she didn't really feel like she belonged here until this festival happened here and it was really just an impactful thing for the people who have lived in
our community for so long who had an opportunity to celebrate food from their country dance from where where their roots are, but also they belong here too. And it it just it the theme was really neat because half of it was in English, half was in Spanish, and it
just kind of seamlessly went back and forth even internal to a single sentence. So, well done to the committee. Thank you for hosting that. I I hope that they will have it again here. And because of the name, I think it almost has to be here in Oto. But yeah, that's what Center Lake was built
for. And it's exciting to see a private group come and bring something like that to our city. Uh we've got the homecoming parade coming up and I did want to make sure so nobody gets caught off guard that you guys know that I will be uh coming in
costume as a greenskinned misunderstood magical person, also known as Alphaba, riding on a bike. So I will see you guys there on Thursday. And I'm looking forward to celebrating the Wizard of Oz themed homecoming parade. >> Rising.
>> Oh, and the rising. Um, so you guys know that one of my elaborate hobbies is historical uh recollections and reenactments. And this Sunday at 6:00 p.m. at the Ovido Cemetery is the I want to say it's
probably the 18th annual uh Twilight Tour, which is where we bring uh bring to life people from Ovito's past. Some of them are buried there and some are not. Um as you may or may not know, back in the day to be buried at the Ovito cemetery, you had to be Baptist or
Methodist and also white. So, we do have a lot more diversity in our community and we have gone out of our way to make sure that everybody is represented and the the show that we do, it's sort of a theater in the rounds. It is never the same. So, if you have seen this once,
you have seen it once and we guarantee that you will learn something new and see new people portrayed. We have, I want to say, five new scripts this time, so you won't even have heard about them even if you come to every single one the last 18 years. So 6:00 goto cemetery.
It's free and uh community theater at its finest. Okay. Future meeting dates. We have Monday, October 27th at 5:30 p.m. we have a work session. Uh Monday, November 3rd at 6:30 we have a regular session
and the 17th at 6:30 we have a regular session. Is there any changes on that, Mr. Cub? >> No. >> Okay. Is there anything else for the good of the order? It is 8:20 p.m. and this meeting is adjourned.