Heat. Heat. I'm good, man. One more test before we start. Can you hear me? I will be >> on until I need pop. >> Give him a thumbs up. That'd be it. Give
him a thumbs up. >> It's a good picture. Very, very serious. >> Uh, >> what's my password on this thing? The weekly game. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. The weekly game.
>> Weekly. What? >> Weekly. Yeah. See your password. >> Hang on. Hang on. >> It's got to be what? Oh. Yeah. >> In Yes. I swear I typed that record.
>> Here we go. >> Regular meeting final. >> Oh yeah. You have to know such things. >> I know. There we go. >> If uh Yeah, probably if you ask him. >> I feel like this is on it really loud. audit. Yes.
>> All right. Yes, definitely. >> All right. >> We still have We have still have three minutes. >> Yeah. Guys, don't try to don't try to fool with it too much at this point. Uh we'll >> we'll uh as the old saying goes, we'll
do it live. >> Just had that in Oakland last week. >> Fantastic. >> Where did he say he was? Is that North? >> New York. >> Wait, he's in New York. He he said he didn't know why I forgot
that because his wife and daughters are singing, >> but he's here, >> but this coming Saturday I think they're practicing all
kinds of >> I didn't know. >> I wonder if we can do this with Mic. So yeah, >> he's just pretending he can't hear us. >> So hopefully >> keeping his face so still, you know, >> they get the details right. Make sure we
make sure we get it out straight. >> I got like on YouTube now probably. >> I don't think she unesc they probably have that blue screen. >> Yes. like where it says the meeting when I watch the video. >> One never knows. >> I mean I hear some stuff. I don't I
don't listen to meetings much. >> Oh, I always go and always I sometimes go and listen to the beginning to hear like what was said. >> Yeah. How much did I say? >> You should do a portraits when you're an epic serious face like that. Just like
just like glare, you know, like tried to get everybody to do like different colors. >> It's my fault. I looked out >> less than that cuz this one's already This one's already clicked over. >> Working on my
You guys good? >> Yep. >> Good evening everyone. Welcome to Oido City Council Chambers. If everybody could please rise for the pledge of allegiance. And I will invite troop number 58. If you guys want to come up and lead us in the pledge, you can come right up here.
>> And then we'll start when you do. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
>> Please join me in a moment of silence. I would like to call our meeting to order. It is June 1st at approximately 6:30 p.m. We have all members of council present. Um we have Mr. Olsen in tonight and our city attorney online as well. We're going to start off with the first
order of business. So we're going to come on down and do our Pride Month declaration. All right. Is this This is on. If anybody is here for Pride Month, I'd love to invite you guys to come on up as we read our declaration here tonight. >> You guys hands?
>> Yeah. Yeah, I can do it. >> Okay, I can see you. >> You okay? Nice and cozy. Nice and chosy. >> So, we've been doing this for a while here in the city of Ovito. And there's a good reason for that because um every time I run, I say this and it's true and it's important that the most important
thing about almost everything in life is community and people and loving your neighbor and being kind. So, thank you for those who join me up here tonight. So, I'm going to go ahead and read our declaration here. So the declaration of the city of Ovidito whereas the city of Ovido accepts and welcomes people of diverse backgrounds and cultures and
believes a diverse population leads to a more vibrant community. And whereas the city of Ovido is dedicated to fostering acceptance of all people and denounces oppression and discrimination against people on the basis of sex, gender identity or expression and or sexual orientation. And whereas the city of
Ovido believes in working together with all community members to facilitate the relationships and provide safety, dignity in a welcoming environment for city residents, businesses, and visitors. And whereas the city of Ovido believes that every person has infinite dignity and worth and encourages the
people of Ovido to embrace this principle and work to eliminate prejudice whenever and wherever it exists. And whereas the city of Ovido believes everyone should be able to live without fear of prejudice, discrimination, violence, and hatred based on gender identity or expression and/or sexual orientation. And whereas
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer questioning individuals contribute to the cultural, civic, and economic successes of the city of Ovido. And whereas the city of Ovito supports visibility, dignity, and equality for LGBTQ plus individuals. And whereas Pride Month is an entire month dedicated
to the uplifting of LGBTQ plus voices, the celebration of LGBTQ plus culture, and the support of LGBTQ plus rights. And whereas the city of Ovito joins LGBTQ plus community in celebration of diversity and unity and the commitment to treating all people with fairness and respect. And whereas the recognition of
Pride Month raises awareness for the city's LGBTQ plus community as an opportunity to take action and engage in dialogue to strengthen alliances and build acceptance and understanding. Now therefore be it declared that the city council of the city of Ovito, Florida
thereby recognizes the month of June 2026 as Pride Month and encourages all residents of the city of Ovido to celebrate and build a culture of inclusiveness and acceptance during Pride Month as well as every month of the year. And this is signed by myself, Council Member Britain, and Council
Member Botifford. So, if we could take a picture and let me also >> we're going to thank you guys for coming out. They forgot what you're talking. Maybe tomorrow.
All right, we will move on to the next item, which is the approval of the minutes for the April 27th work session and a May 4th regular session. What is the pleasure of council? >> I move we approve the minutes for April 27th and May 4th. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any
discussion? >> You know, I I had one question for you, Deputy Mayor, on uh uh the >> it was on the work session minutes. Um I guess I was on the fence about whether to say anything because you know it was
about something you said. Uh let's see. Um >> give me a page and uh yeah. So April 27th work session minutes item two. Uh second from the bottom. >> Item two. >> Yeah. And it was your comment. Are are
you okay with the way that that was phrased? Because I didn't think that was quite what you said or meant. No, that's what I meant. >> That is what you meant. >> Yep. >> Oh, okay. All right. >> But I'm happy to clarify. Okay. >> For for anybody in the audience
wondering why we tinker with this stuff, it's not the video and what we said that counts as the legal record of what happened. It is what is actually reflected in the minutes. So that's why sometimes we mess around with the words up here. So >> no, that sounds like it's spot on, though. Okay. >> Nothing wrong, Claire.
>> Sorry about that. >> Anything else? >> No, that's it. >> All right. All those in fa favor, please signify by saying I. >> I. >> The motion carries. We will move on to the public comment section. I do have three written requests to speak. So when I call your name, please come up to the
podium and you do have three minutes to speak. The first person I have is Mr. Charles Zuber. My name is Charles Zuber. I live at 1054 Willow Lake Circle, Obito, Florida. Been a resident in the city for over 39
years. Uh I'm here to speak mainly make this short and sweet uh to have you really consider about putting on the table or tableabling the building of the annex for the police department. And I know that's going to make Chief Goldman
upset, but >> thank you, Chief. And uh you know, because of the what's going on in Tallahassee with the property tax could put us in a deep hole come
down the road. And uh I'm not looking forward to that battle at all cuz uh it will put us in a deep hole and we could possibly lose our police department and part of our schools with this silly thing. And we've got to get
it stopped. And if you can do anything with our influencer up in Tallahassee to have them get as many people as they can to see what this thing's really going to do to us, us the small cities, all the small cities is going to be heard. Thank
you very much. >> Thank you. Uh the next person I have is Mr. William Ryan. >> Hello. My name is William Ryan. I live at 45 lake the 458 lake park trail. Can we put up my slides? I'm here today
to speak to an environmental violation that affects the southern boundary of Kingsbridge east. Next slide, please. What you see here, the top half shows an aerial view. The bottom half shows a cut and paste from the PUD. The thing I'm talking about is this blue line, the
1550 ft chain link fence. Uh you'll see a green star. I took a picture and you see the picture location. I've taken a green star from that or a picture from that green star. You'll see that next. I'm Oh, not yet. Not quite yet. Sorry. Um and I'm also going to talk about this
100 foot section that's been removed from the it collapsed into track J wetland has been and has been removed recently. Next slide, please. Okay. So, here you see the fallen fence that was taken from the green uh star. Um clearly it's just fallen. I don't not much to
say about it. It's being swallowed by the the wetlands. Next slide, please. So, I walked it off. It's about 175 ft of chain link fencing that has collapsed into the protected wetland vegetation. Uh, this fence has been abandoned to the elements for decades and is a persistent systemic maintenance debris problem
along the boundary. Additional unseen or imminent failures are almost certain to exist. Calls to the seminary to replace this fence have g or repair this fence have gone unanswered, leaving the residents to maintain it over the years. One example of this is the 100 foot f
section of fencing that has fallen into uh track J and has l laying there collapsed for over two years. The seminary was con contacted several times regarding this failure. Only now have they taken action. Um last Tuesday there was a meeting uh between the city
attorney, city manager and city staff. City staff from this meeting issued a written directive authorizing a total fence replacement under the category of repair which functionally attempts to circumvent state permitting requirements. So I've opened an environmental resource comp compliance
violation with St. John's River Water Management District. Uh this complaint demands a full regulatory audit of the entire fence. Hence any immediate physical construction work on that boundary line carries the risk of a state level environmental violation. So, I formally request that the city manager
immediately freeze all administrative coordination directives and building clearances specifically regarding the perimeter fence infrastructure within tracks H&J until the S St. John's River Water Management District completes its official environmental compliance audit. Next slide, please. So, in summary, the
key takeaways are the seminary abandoned the fence years ago. The fence is an ongoing maintenance and debris issue. A total fence replacement now bypasses state rules. The city must let the state investigate and complete fence removal is the only sound solution. It is not
needed to prevent motorboat access to long long lake, nor does it serve any hydraological or environmental purpose. Considering 300 ft of this fence has already failed, removing the remaining fence eliminates the ongoing maintenance burden and costs significantly less than attempting a complex permitted reconstruction inside a protected
environmental zone. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Uh, next up I have Mr. David Williamson. Thank you. Thank you to the city uh of Ovidito and council members Tukurt Bterford and Britain for tonight's recognition of Pride Month. To Mayor
Slick and Council Member Aut um who didn't sign a proclamation or sign on to the declaration. I understand many of us, including me, have had moments where we didn't fully understand why pride matters. So, I feel the need
to speak to that tonight. Pride isn't a proclamation or parade. It's a promise. It's a promise that no matter how many people try to push LGBTQ people into silence, we will keep showing up for them. No matter how many laws are written to erase them, no matter how many
classrooms are forbidden to say their names, no matter how many families are told to be ashamed of the people they love by their congregations, they and we will not disappear. Pride matters because there are young people watching.
Somewhere right now, a kid is wondering whether the world has room for them. They're listening to the jokes, the political speeches, the news stories, and the whispered warnings. And when they see pride, they see people living openly, joyfully, defiantly. They see
proof that survival is possible. More than survival, they see that a full life is possible. Pride also matters because it remembers. It remembers Stonewall. It remembers Pulse. Pride remembers the names that became
headlines and those people whose names were never spoken enough. Pride is often a celebration, but it sometimes it's simply saying their names and acknowledging that they matter. Pride is grief carried in bright colors. It's the refusal to let loss be the end
of the story. And pride matters because freedom is not guaranteed by our creator or anyone else. Rights can be challenged, safety can be threatened, and progress can be reversed. That means pride cannot be passive. Pride has to vote. Pride has to
organize. prize has to defend trans kids right here in Ovido, project drag artists across Central Florida, support queer families, and stand with every person whose dignity is being debated by people in power. That's why I needed to say this tonight,
because somewhere in Novito, there's a kid who will never read the minutes of this meeting, but they will feel the message this city sends. At its best, Pride says, "You are not alone. You are not broken. You are not a mistake. you belong here. And until that's true for
every kid, every family, every neighbor in this city, pride still matters. Thank you. I do not have any other written requests to speak. Is there anyone that would like to address council at this time? Hearing none, I will close public
comment and we will move on to the consent agenda. What is the pleasure of council? >> Make a motion to approve the consent agenda. >> Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? >> No. >> Okay. I will ask the clerk to call the
role. >> Council member Bford >> I. >> Council member Britain. >> I. >> Mayor Slavic. >> I. >> Deputy Mayor Tuker. >> I. >> Council member O. >> I. >> The motion carries. We do not have any public hearings. So we will move on to our first reading of ordinances.
Starting with ordinance number 1766, zoning map amendment from PUD to PUD for the Reformed Theological Seminary. Uh Mr. Olsson, can you read that by title? >> Absolutely. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. This is ordinance number 1766, an ordinance of the city of Ovido, Florida,
amending the zoning map of the city of Ovido concerning approximately 63.16 acres of land generally located on the west side of Eastridge Drive and north side of East Mitchell Hammock Road. from planned unit development PUD to planned unit development PUD and approving a
second amendment to Kingsbridge development agreement for the Kingsbridge planned unit development and providing for findings and legislative intent implementing administrative actions savings provision correction of scrier's errors conflicts codification severability and an effective date
>> thank you Mr. Cob. >> Uh, thank you, Deputy Mayor. I would, uh, excuse me. I would, uh, want to ask council, we've been, I know in first readings, we've been doing presentations a lot lately. Um, and quite frankly, the presentations are actually more important at the public hearing. And so,
I wanted to ask you if you wanted us to do, we've got five ordinances here tonight. if you wanted us to do the presentations at this first reading and do them a second time at the second reading public hearings or if you wanted to just defer to them defer the full presentations to the public hearing on
the 15th because they all all the ordinance are requesting that we schedule public hearings for June 15th and so just wanted to find out if you all wanted some form of wanted the presentations tonight or to defer to the 15th. So, I will say I definitely want them at the public hearings, but I will
leave it open to what council wants to do tonight as far as if you want the presentation tonight or the first reading. >> I'd like to hear it. Uh it is challenging to explain to people who have come out why we would not okay uh see the presentation and make sure that
all of us have prior to the actual vote as much information as we can possibly have even though it is not an official public hearing and we can't use anything stated today to determine our >> vote. So, that is an important thing to to share that if you say something
tonight, even though it feels on the record, it's not contained within the official public hearing. So, you'll want to make sure that all of that continues to stay in the record. So, >> is that true? >> It it is. It is for the zoning
ordinance, which is a quasi quasi quasi judicial >> action item for your uh for your charter ordinances. Those are legislative. So, but yes, the mayor is spot on for the first ordinance. >> So, I guess you have our answer. We'll move forward with the president. >> We'll move forward with that. Uh this is
a request to amend the uh Kingsbridge plan unit development development agreement and the uh conceptual development plan. And the purpose of this uh this amendment is to provide for dormatory housing on the reformed
theological seminary property. Uh and so what I'm going to do is turn it over to Dr. Korea and she has a presentation for you to walk you through the amendment. And uh when she gets done, the recommendation is for city council to schedule a public hearing for June 15th,
2026. >> Good evening, mayor, um deputy mayor, council members. So, I'll go over um our presentation. This is the same presentation we had for the LPA uh public hearing. Um so this is a just a
um overview of the uh the Kingsbridge um PUD. Next slide. So today the request is to amend the city's um zoning map from PUD to PUD and to approve the second amendment to the Kingsbridge planned
unit development development agreement. The applicant is Derek Walters PE from Catalyst Design Group. If I could just pause for a second. I'm I'm seeing some conf like we got a lot of scouts in the area. So, I just I want to make sure yall know what what's going on because
it says we're changing it from PUB to PUD and you're like what what crazy pants nonsense is that, right? Well, a plan unit development is basically it's zoning specific to what's outlined in red. And you're allowed to as a developer go in and negotiate your own
rules for whatever's in red. And those are the rules unless and until you change it to different rules. So basically what's happening here is the developer like all this started out in like 1995 and here we are 2026 and they're like well these rules aren't
don't they don't make sense for the property anymore. So they're coming back asking for different rules but they want to have their own custom rules all over again and that's why it's going from PUD to PUD cuz it's PUD with these rules to PUD with those other rules. So now now you know why we're talking about this.
>> Yeah, the mayor is absolutely correct. So the difference is that the PUD um zoning does not have standards in the land development code as would have any straight zoning like R1 R2. So um we changed from PU to PD just to change the
development agreement and provide the new standards. So a quick uh overview of the Kingsbridge history in the area. So it started um the development started as a vido grows and that was approved in 1988.
Um this is just showing the um the entitlements. It was um for a maximum of 800 units and then you have the entitlements for commercial office and parks. And you see that um the residential units did not change but some other um um entitlements changed
over time. Next slide. Um, this is just showing what was at the the same time being approved in the city. So, in the north you have McKillian's Mill also from 1988 and then the south Little Creek also from 1988.
And in the middle you have the King's Bridge and then the number three um is the uh RTS the uh u the Reform Theological Seminary. Next slide. Uh please. This is a a fun picture to see, you know, how was Mitchell Hammock in um
1989. Um the city had a population of 8,000 and and 800 um residents, but it's kind of shocking to see that 89 we had just a dirt road. Next slide. 1990 then is Mutual Hammock um um the construction
of um Mutual Hammock um started and the population was already 11,000 and change. Next slide. This is a fun um article that Deborah Deborah Pierre is the one that did research on the history. Um and this was a fun article to read that um we were the first
government in Semino County to impose impact fees for road for police recreation and um and and fire. So that was a a fun fact. Um this is also uh from ' 89 but showing
Lockwood Boulevard boulevard in East Mitchell Hammock um um road um starting the construction in 1990 and then um the next slide will show today the difference um with the with the area. So
that's fun for especially for the young folks to see. Um next slide. So this was the Kingsbridge um PUD um adopted in 1995. So you see there are more parties involved and um it had two phases west
village and east village and um and in the hatched area is the RTS property. Next slide. This is a comparison between entitlements from the Ovido Gross, the Kingsbridge and then um now the
amendment and we are going to focus on the the the new amendment compared to the existing um and we'll go over what they are really um u requesting. there is a um uh an a correction on the developable
land um in the agreement and that was corrected from 25 to um 31.1. Next slide please. So this is the RTS property. Next slide. um an overview um in that um
it was approved to be u a religious campus that includes existing office and institutional um use. Next slide. Um so this was what were the uh entitlements in 1995. So it's it's
considered um to be in the flexible land use area. um the maximum they were approved for a a multif family um uh development that never happened to a maximum of 120 units. Um the commercial
at a maximum of 10,000 square ft per acre, not to exceed 163,000. Office at a maximum of 16 um,000 ft per acre, not to exceed 63,000. And then um the single family
residential um uh lot sizes um uh or single family homes not to exceed 800 units. And um um again track age and a half would be the ones that had the could have residential and educational
institutional and then commercial office and residential. The thing that um the PUD from 1995 brought for the RTS property was that it could not prohibited dormitory um uh buildings on
site and that is what they are trying to change now with this new uh proposed DA. Next slide. Um so they are maintaining what they are doing something that is simple. They are maintaining the 120 um
dwelling units um cap u and that is just to be used as um the maximum density but they are restricting how they are going to realize that 120 um um dwelling units
by the number of beds. So they are establishing that the maximum that they can reach the 163 beds and from those 163 up to 40 as a dorm bunk bunk house in tract F. So whatever they have left
so if they build 40 at track F they would have 123 beds to um to be placed in track age. It is a reduction because um code today doesn't establish beds or
bedrooms. When we talk about units, you can have 120 units and you can have four bedrooms. So if you have four bedrooms, you could expect one bed, one bed per bedroom, 480 beds. But now they're
establishing that the criteria would be number of beds. So they are self-limiting themselves to um u request the allowance of being dormatory um permissible use. They are also asking to have two detached single family
residential dwelling units for care um takers on the property each one in um in track F and track H. We were asked in the LPA why the prohibition of um dorms in 1995.
We don't know exactly the reason but uh we would imagine it would be you know the the idea that college kids you know would not be a desirable you know um u maybe use at that time but this is has a
different demographic. These are for graduate graduate students. So it's completely different than the college um students uh from UCF or any other university. Um next slide. This is just showing the the complete um CDP for the
area. Next slide. This is showing the the impact on on traffic and um the existing uses is what they have uh approved in in their plans.
It's the university college use. It's for 750 students. They never realized that. So in the proposed use, they dropped to 200 students. And the church is the same um square footage. So um you have the new
uses um um described here in the trips that will generate and we don't have in the it an onampus student apartment use so they use the off-campus but on campus
would you know in theory even use less trips because you have the internal trips right you don't have to go um to the road to go to the site that you are going to study. So this shows a reduction in the number of trips. Next
slide please. So this is what they are um asking and what they are um committing. So um they are changing the conceptual development plan to reflect the proposed language in the DA. There are no changes to the general layout of
the property. Um the access points remain the same. The open space remain the same at a minimum 30%. The maximum beauty height remains the same and the protections of the conservation areas through the conservation tracks are the same. So
they are not encroaching in any conservation area of the site. Um because the plan is conceptual you know we only will know the footprint of the building um that they are proposing or buildings that they are proposing when they propose the site plan and there is
adequate capacity for recreation solid waste and transportation to accommodate the proposed use. Next slide. So uh we had two meetings two public hearings at the LPA. one I think was May 5th and the other one May
19th and on uh May 5th meeting LPA requests that the developer met with the residents and they held a meeting on May 13th to hear the community um and then in on the um second public hearing LPA
recommended approval. it was um unanimous and today is the first reading and we would have the second reading public hearing on June 15th 20126. So um that concludes my presentation if I'm ready to answer any questions you may
have. >> Thank you. Does anybody have any questions before we go forth the motion? >> I I do have a question. Um the uh presentation there that Mr. Brian uh came up. He mentioned there was a environmental resource compliance violation that was filed to the St.
John's River Water Management District. Does that have any impact on this at all? >> Well, they are not impacting that area at all which is track J. Um we have been you know communicating with Mr. Ryan and
and um the fence um there is a code enforcement issue with the fence not being you know maintained and we have been telling uh RTS and we have been working with them they would have to repair the the the fence. Now the issue that he's bringing is really a water
manage St. Jones water management district issue. We have some um um slides here to show the the fence history because the the fence was permitted in 2001. And there is a a language in the
agreement talking about the requirement to have some kind of barricade um to protect the access to the canal. That was the language that was already in the in the 1995 um DA and that has not been proposed to be changed because they are not
impacting that area. >> They're not but there's a code enforcement issue with >> well our code enforcement issue is that if you have a fence you have to maintain the fence. So the fence >> and obviously it looks like it's not being maintained >> is not being maintained. So that that is a code enforcement issue and we are working with them.
>> Okay. Council member, if I could uh to answer your question, uh that defense does not have an impact on this application. >> No. >> Well, he made a comment that, you know, I guess the St. St. John's River Management has to come out and do an
investigation of it. So, this what's happening here would not have an impact. >> Would not be in that same area. >> Okay. >> Any other questions before we go to a motion? >> Yeah. So on the on the fence, um, one thing that was asserted uh in that email
chain was that if if this uh change in zoning uh was done that it would uh in some way uh codify or or validate um something about the fence. And I
>> I guess I'm just looking to hear that that anything having to do with this resoning has nothing to do with anything on the fence. The reasonzoning does not change any requirements that may or may not be on that fence.
>> It does not. >> I've got Deputy Mayor, Council Member. >> Sure, Mr. Vos, we can hear you. >> Can you all hear me? I'm so sorry. Yes, I just >> I just wanted to very briefly reiterate what I believe Teresa just told you. Uh
the uh uh hearing of this uh this PUD amendment that's before you uh tonight will be um scheduled for a future public hearing. The potential adoption of this PUD uh amendment has no legal
interaction um with the uh fence issue that you've heard raised and it it doesn't ratify or or anything like that to uh your concern coun or the concern you uh uh indicated there council member
uh has no interaction with uh ratifying any concerns anyone may have about the fence. All right, I've got one more question. Um, does the city have any issue with removing in this new developers agreement the requirement for the fence to be there at all? Because what I heard
stated was that if the fence is simply not there, then there ceases to be an issue. That would save RTS a bunch of money. It would make the adjacent neighbors happy. And perhaps that is the more more elegant thing to have a
discussion about behind the scenes between now and the final hearing. >> Mayor, there is a requirement for a barricade. But why >> in the development agreement, >> but we can change it. We can change the developers agreement because the reason we're switching from a PUD to this other
PUD is because we are changing the words in the developers agreement. I need somebody to explain to me why one of the provisions changed cannot include not having a fence. Well, it has to be negotiated with the added >> I think Mr. Rose has something to say up there.
>> Yeah, I'm I'm so sorry. Just trying to to jump in here real quick. So, the tracks that are uh at issue for um for revision of their rules in this PUB amendment are is not the track where
this fence lies. It's a completely different track. uh it's it's a completely different part of the property and ultimately it would end up being a a completely different le uh PUD amendment of completely different legal
substance to go changing rules on a completely different tract in the in this PUD when it's already gone through the uh process with the LPA and now before you uh here in the whole application process by the uh property
owner to request those changes is on completely different tracks. So, I I would offer to you, I'm not saying that the um uh that the city council in working with the property owner couldn't potentially do that. I would just offer
to you that this vehicle at this stage is has been noticed as relating to uh and has has been in relation to completely different tracks in this development the entire application and hearing process. So, is the issue that
the things that is it the issue the notice or is the issue that we're not allowed to touch the developers agreement in this way because there's a different developers agreement that applies to these various tracks because my understanding was this developers agreement applies to all the tracks
affiliated with RTS. the a the application that's before you is to amend the rules with regard to exactly two tracks and neither of those tracks or the is the tract where the uh fence lot was. >> Okay. So, it's partly because of the
application not having the foresight to know that this would be an issue >> and partly because as a result of the application saying that we have noticed it not to include the fence. Is that >> mayor mayor if I can add to >> I would >> if I could add something.
>> I would offer to Oh, go ahead Theresa. I'm so sorry. >> Well, my my only concern and and Deborah just um reminded me here. So, the original fence permit. So, the fence was permitted in 2001. We have the records of that it was
permitted, but we don't have the documents. So, so, so I was going to say I don't know if this was a requirement of St. John. >> Yes. because 1995 was the developers agreement and the fence didn't come till 2001. So that's what I'm trying to isolate is what is the timeline here and what's actually required because if it's
not required there's an easy fix for everybody. >> So we would have so because it was not a part of the review right with the St. John's um issue we never you know we I contacted St. Jones I managed to talk to them today but they did not have time to review and I did not know there was
already a formal you know um um complaint to St. Jones, but they would do the the investigation and there are and they were explaining to me um there are many reasons why they would require you know um a fence you know either to protect for safety purposes for um so we
would have to understand that if this was something that came as a condition from St. Jones or why this this or if they just only did not oppose to the to the to the fence. If I could just jump in here. Has the applicant asked to
remove the fence? >> No. >> So I think this is a totally separate issue. Um and we got clarification that we can't even debate it in the issue at the table right here. So it sounds like we can dig into if the >> um applicant wants to remove this at a later time. Um but I do think we've all
agreed that >> the applicant's here. >> Did the applicant want to come up and speak to that? Thank you, ma'am. >> And please state your name for us. >> My name is Michael Grind staff lawyer with the law firm of Shuts and Bowen, 300 South Orange Avenue, Orlando,
Florida, uh 3281. here tonight on behalf of RTS the applicant. We will do with the fence whatever you would like done with the fence including removal or replacement. Our pre our
preference would be to remove if if we could satisfy the condition that says that there's got to be some sort of barrier. I think the language is there's there's got to be some sort of protection to prevent access via the
canal to Long Lake. It would be almost impossible. We have videos showing that access or the absence of the access to the to Long Lake via the canal. We don't think the fence is needed to be part of that. If
you will let us remove the fence, we'll do it. If you say leave it there, we'll do that. We'll do anything you tell us to do. We just we'd like for somebody to tell us what to do and to and to make sure that we don't get in trouble for doing whatever it is we're told to do. >> Thank you, sir.
>> Thank you. >> Um, so I think with that in mind, I think we're all in favor of letting staff sift through this and see what they can do about the fence. But as far as the topic on tonight, are we good with moving on with a motion? >> Let's set the Oh, sorry. I'm sorry.
Never written. I had a a few questions and regards uh these changes to the PUD and Theresa, I don't want to put you on the spot, but there I recall being on the LPA for years that there have been several changes to this PUD over the years and
the one I remember was on Eastbridge Drive where they they were building commercial property where the understanding was that wasn't going to be commercial and they came to an agreement on that. So, this isn't really anything new. Now, the question I have, I'm just trying to connect the dots here.
>> The earlier presentation called out >> tracks H and J on the fence issue. And then on your your presentation, you say they want to have two detached single family homes, uh, one on track F and one on track H. Is that are those two H's
the same tracks? >> So, let's let's put the the map. So I did not understand your first connection because they always have um they are only affecting um tracks H and
F. >> H and F and in the present the presentation we had in public comment referenced H and J. I just want to ask are those the same H's same tracks? >> Well because they are talking about the fence issue the fence issues and is on
track my understanding is is on track um J on the top of the and we have >> someone's shaking her head. No. So, >> so they are they are proposing to affect tracks. Oh, tracks F goes up to
>> um >> Yes, >> the top of of the Yeah, >> I'm going to have to ask the audience to stay quiet because this is for staff right now. Thank you. >> So, tracks um >> are they the same tracks? >> Track F is the same track, not track J.
I'm talking about tract H. >> H. The track H is the same. >> Are you asking if there's going to be a dorm and also a single family house on the same tract? >> No, he's asking. >> No, I'm asking if if the one presentation earlier reference track H
and in staff's presentation references a track H. Are they the same tracks? >> So that >> track H is the same track. Track J is the one that is not is not affected here. the fence moves from um the
beginning so the east portion of track J up to you know almost connecting to the lake I mean stops you know where the residential portion stops >> so when Mr. Voss and everyone says that the fence issue is separate from the the
change before us. It's related to track J. But >> track J track J has >> but track H does have a fence, right? >> Track H has a portion of of of track H has >> why can't we you know we're talking about track H. Why can't we put in this
agreement? It's related to track H to >> I I'll let the city attorney talk about that. Again, this was not something that was discussed with the developer before. I heard we heard them um now, but I that is something that um um we would need to
listen to the city attorney what he recommends. >> Seems like there is some sort of connection between what was presented earlier and what what we're getting from staff now. >> Just a portion of track age. You're right. Not track J. And then I'll I'll also add if we if we can do something
with that fence tonight, is that something we need to add to the first reading or is that something we can add at the public hearing? And I'll let Mr. Bose answer. Uh yeah. So um I think we can uh proceed with just the uh in scheduling the
public hearing giving uh giving direction to staff to uh look at whether either uh an additional change to the PUD agreement or a a different way to comply with that requirement or what have you um would be
appropriate. and um we can bring that back to you when it comes before you on uh for public hearing. Uh if you'd like it to come back uh at the public hearing and you have direction that you'd like a provision added to also completely remove that requirement, we can
certainly bring that before you. I think you can give us that uh direction tonight and come before us for second reading and we'll be all right at least from a title standpoint uh without having to notice additional hearings. >> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rose.
>> And I would just caution the to so that we can hear from St. Jones if this would be a requirement from St. Jones because then if it is then it's a different matter, right? >> That's why I asked if we could have some time. So, it sounds like we have until uh when we can do the public hearing to get to the bottom of this. So, do I
think we should move forward with a motion now? Um, do we have a motion to schedule the public hearing for June 15th, 2026? >> I had one more question. >> We'll have more to schedule. Let me vote on it. >> Okay. >> I'm just going to move on. >> Do we have a motion to schedule? >> I'll make a motion to schedule a public hearing for June 15, 2026.
>> Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? >> No. >> I I am curious what has Okay. I I want to hear today. >> Oh, okay. You meant today, not Okay. I'm sorry. Um, I'm now >> Yeah, I don't I don't like surprises that the very last
>> I guess we can talk about it next time. >> No, no, I'm in right now. Go ahead. >> Okay. Uh, all right. So, I I guess I somehow missed that this is quasi judicial and not legislative. Um, can can somebody explain that to me how
going from the the uh future land use on this is PUD also. So, what is it about this that makes this not legislative, >> Mr. Rose? >> Uh, yeah, I'll go ahead and handle that.
Uh, it's because what is what is being changed here is the it's the actual zoning. You're correct that the that the future land use designation the way it's structured in Odo is such that you future land use designation that
basically allows for um uh PUB uh on that property but we are not doing for example a text amendment to the comprehensive plan right now which would be a legislative matter uh when we are doing amendments or adopting an
initial PUD uh development agreement or We're doing amendments to a PUB development agreement. Uh we are as the title of the ordinance was styled effectively reszoning it in that we are uh changing changing the zoning rules
but it is only with respect to a discrete set of properties here. Okay. Um, so that that's that's a very short way of of just trying to jump to the fact that a an amendment to a PUD zoning agreement
is quasi judicial. Um, and there's a lot of case law to go to that point. Effectively, you're look making uh decisions about uh the uses allowed on a particular piece of property. And as such, that's just what the law is.
Sorry, I don't have a more satisfying answer than that's what the law is. >> So, so even if you are increasing rights, that's still quasi judicial then. >> Oh, whether it is Yeah. Whether you're increasing rights or taking rights away or whatever. Um that does not change the
the character of the hearing that you're or character of the decision-m that you're engaging in. The question ultimately is whether or not you're making um uh you're making uh decisions implementing policy with
regard to one or a discrete set of pieces of property. That's that's the fundamental hallmark of quasi judicial determinations. >> Well, I guess I'm saying >> whether you're giving them more or less >> an increase of rights that aren't uh indicated by the future land use
designation. Even so, still quasi judicial and that because that's where we are today. Is that correct? >> I think what's bugging you is that we're we can like make the rules whatever we want and that feels kind of legislative.
Is that what you're kind of trying to wrap your brain around? Okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Because at this point >> Yeah. No, you you get you get to a good point that there is historically over the decades been a lot of discussion about um the nature of again um plan unit
developments and PUD developments agree development agreements and so on. Here's here's kind of the the distinction. Um while PUD uh development agreements and PUB
zoning, the decisions in those are quasi judicial, the latitude is a fair bit greater than you tend to find in uh a lot of land development code regimes where you might have only two zoning
categories that are consistent with a future land use category. All right. In that instance, you only got two choices and you are uh sitting there making a quasi judicial decision. You're going to make one or the other. Effectively, in a PUB situation, you're still making a
decision about zoning. It's still quasi judicial, but your spectrum is a lot more um uh granulated. You can make a lot more decisions. You can make it you can come up with a bunch of different things that can be done. It nevertheless has to be
consistent with uh the comprehensive plan designation. That's easy when it's pretty broad, but uh nevertheless, it is quasi judicial. It just happens to be that uh for any little decision that's made, it may be a little bit more
difficult to say that uh it was inappropriate for a given governing body to make that decision if the developer didn't like it. Um but nevertheless, it is still quasi judicial. You just have more options on the table that you can
um probably implement without having a problem. Again, I know that it's it's kind of a deep subject. I hope that helps a little bit. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Are there any other questions before we move to a vote? >> Okay. I'll ask the clerk to call the vote. >> Council member Bterford,
>> I. >> Mayor Slick, >> I. >> Deputy Mayor Tuker, >> I. >> Council member Britain, >> I. Council member >> I >> Okay, we will move on um to items number 10 SL 10 through 13. I think we're going to be doing this as a presentation for
all four if that's correct. Mr. Cob, >> that is correct. Deputy Mayor. >> Um did you want do we want to read it by title only first or how do you want to do this? >> I just what I would recommend to you is that we do the presentation first and then that way once the presentation's over because uh Mr. Vos will review all
four of the questions at hand and then we can go through and read each title. Scheduled public hearing. Reading the title schedule public hearing. Do it that in in that format. >> Well, then let's do the presentation. >> Lisa, can you pull it up? Mr. Vos, can
you see everything? Okay. >> Uh I ah I can see uh it now. Thank you very much for zooming it out. Uh yeah, council members, good evening. Um as uh you'll recall from your work session
last week I guess it was uh the charter review committee has completed its work and has formulated four uh charter amendments uh to recommend to you to recommend to the or to put before the voters of the city for consideration at
the November election. the uh charter uh amendments that the uh charter review committee has put together have been formulated in four questions. Uh and because uh we did have that work session uh last week, I'm just going to step
through each of them and uh just to give a little bit of information and uh ask if there are any questions and then as uh Mr. cop indicated we can go through and uh have the reading of the title and the scheduling of public hearings uh for
each in turn. The uh first of the four charter amendments that the CRC has recommended is a city charter amendment uh changing the length of council terms from 2 years to four years. As we previously discussed, this would be a
charter amendment that would uh start this transition beginning with the 2020. action. Uh it would uh um it would uh have
transition to four years 2020 all of this in order to transition to an election cycle that coinc >> Mr. Vos we're breaking up a little bit >> presidential and gubernatorial elections. I'm so
sorry. Uh >> uh >> maybe if you turned off your video. >> Let me let me go ahead. Would you like me to go ahead and uh >> I'm sorry. Yeah, let me turn it off. >> Let's give that a go. Maybe that'll give me a better chance. Can you hear me right now? >> Yeah. >> Yes.
>> All right. Fantastic. Um I I'll just go ahead and briefly summarize this once again. I'm very sorry for that. So this is the first uh amendment uh proposed to you is a charter amendment changing length of council terms from 2 years to four years. Uh this would uh uh have
four years beginning in the 2028 election and provide for a three-year term in the middle um in the 2027 regular election in order to transition the election cycle uh to a 4-year cycle that uh would coincide with the evenyear
presidential and gubernatorial elections. And uh along with the uh ballot summary you see on the first slide on the second slide you see the uh corresponding charter amendment language that has been
recommended by the uh CRC uh to go along with this question. If you could go to the next slide. Uh this is a table uh that has been put together to more easily visualize and conceptualize how these terms would um stack out over the
number of years to uh get to four-year terms. Any questions about this uh first proposed charter amendment? >> No, I think you're good to go. >> Hearing none. All right, we'll go ahead and move on to the second uh proposed
charter amendment by the CRC. This is a city charter amendment revising the council voting procedures for ordinances and resolutions. In particular, this charter amendment would remove the requirement currently in the charter for
roll call votes for the uh for the adoption of ordinances and resolutions. As we discussed at the work session last week, this is an instance where we do have a little bit more explanation in the ballot summary than you actually see
in the charter amendment language which is very brief. It's just striking one clause from a particular paragraph. The additional explanation in the ballot uh summary for this item were to try to
preemptively uh dispel uh any potential confusion that a reasonable uh voter might come to when they uh see the idea of removing the requirement for a roll call vote. The ballot summary indicates that it
will nevertheless maintain the requirement that each council member present cast an affirmative or negative vote and maintains the requirement that the clerk record the individual votes of each council member in the meeting minutes. So that uh members of the
public and voters don't uh mistakenly believe that removing the requirement for a roll call vote removes the requirement for votes on the record. generally. So, any questions about that proposed charter amendment?
>> Nope. You're going to continue >> hearing? None. We'll move on to the third proposed charter amendment from the CRC. This is a city charter amendment revising the time frame for holding special elections. Uh this was
as we discussed at your work session last week. Uh this charter member had its origins in a recommendation from your seminal county supervisor of elections uh upon inquiry from uh the clerk's office, the city clerk's office
initially and uh my further conversations with the supervisor. Uh currently there are windows uh there uh multiple instances of windows of 60 to 90 days when certain special elections
have to be held by the supervisor of elections uh when they are triggered. Uh upon inquiry with the supervisor, uh we perceived the strong suggestion that that was kind of a tight time frame with all of the current and increasingly
ownorous requirements that come from both state and law to um all the different things that a supervisor has to do leading up to an election. uh for uh overseas ballots and
and different notification to voters and so on. And so the recommendation was to move out those uh time frames by 30 days so that they are in a 90 to 100 day 20-day window so that the supervisor's office was not put in a position of
having to uh uh make compromises between state and federal law or best practices and the requirements of the charter. So, uh, that is the third charter amendment, uh, before you. Do you have any
questions? If I could, could I add for the scouts that are out there? This is a proposal, four proposals actually, to change provisions of what is essentially the constitution for the city of Obito. So, this is like big time stuff that uh that
like controls overall government. I don't know if y'all are following what it is we're doing here. You're good to move on, Mr. Rose. >> All right. >> I I apologize. I I heard I think I heard everything the mayor said, but were were there any questions concerning this
amendment? >> No, there were not. >> Okay, fantastic. Uh, moving on then to the uh fourth and final proposed uh charter amendment from the CRC. This is
a uh proposed charter amendment uh moving the qualifying period to run for city council in particular moving it from August to June. And as you'll see in the as you'll see in the ballot summary uh
uh added a parenthetical in there to make clear to the voters that the elections uh would nevertheless remain in November. effectively. Uh right now, as you'll recall, your um uh qualifying
week is uh scheduled in August, roughly 2 weeks before the state primary election date. This charter amendment would move the uh qualifying week to back to June and in particular uh
setting it uh in June as the uh same week for qualifying for county office under state election law. Are there any uh questions uh con concerning this proposed charter amendment?
>> No, there's not. All right. Um, so those are the uh four charter amendments that the uh charter review committee has recommended to the uh city council and staff would recommend that with regard to each of
the four ordinances that uh the title be read and that uh that a public hearing as to each of the four charter amendment ordinances be scheduled for June 15, 2026. >> Thank you, Mr. Rose. Mr. Mr. Cobb, did you have anything else?
>> Uh, no, deputy mayor. >> Then I will ask Mr. Olsen to read ordinance number 1768 by Title One. >> All right. Thank you, Deputy Mayor. This is ordinance number 1768, an ordinance of the city of Ovito, Florida, proposing an amendment to the charter of the city of Ovito, Florida. Proposing a charter
amendment changing the length of council terms from 2 years to four years. Providing for a referendum on the proposed charter amendment. Providing for the ballot title and ballot summary for such referendum. providing for direction to the city clerk in coordination with the seminal county
supervisor of elections and providing for implementing administrative actions, findings, conflicts, severability, codification, the correction of scrier's errors and an effective date. >> Thank you. What is the pleasure of council? >> I'll make a motion to schedule a public hearing for Monday, June 15, 2026
>> for ordinance number 1768. We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> Second. Any discussion? >> No. on on this as in all of them whether I agree with the substance of it or not I think the right thing to do here
because this does impact the voters's right to decide how we are governed here no veto I think whatever the committee says should go straight on to the voters and all of you should decide what to do and then each of us gets to cast our vote yay or nay whether we like it or
don't like it at the ballot box same as every other resident at the city of Oko Anybody else? >> Yeah. So, uh I took some grief at the work session for uh disagreeing with that particular idea. So, uh >> well-deserved grief.
>> Sorry, but away we go. So, if we start at Florida statutes number 166.031, 031 charter amendments states that the governing body that's us of a municipality may by ordinance which
is what we're doing now or the electors of a municipality that's the voters right by petition signed by 10% of the registered electors um may submit to the electors of said municipality a proposed amendment to its charter. So we are submitting to the
electors by ordinance. Um the charter says that we have to do this once every 5 years. It goes on to say that we should create a charter review committee uh to recommend ordinances. We did that late last year with resolution 4684-25,
a resolution of the city of Ovito, Florida, establishing a charter review committee. Um, skipping down. Whereas, city council desires to appoint a charter review committee of city residents to review the city charter and make recommendations to the city council
for revisions and/or amendments to the city charter. And skipping down, city council may accept in whole or in part or not accept proposed revisions and/or amendments to the city charter recommended by the committee as the city
council deems appropriate and in the best interests of the city. And whereas the city council may propose revisions andor amendments to the city charter as the city council deems appropriate and in the best interest of the city. Now therefore, uh charter review committee
is established. Uh, skipping down to section 8, the city council may cause to be prepared such ordinances or ordinances as it may deem advisable to revise and or amend the existing city charter. Skipping down, the city council may
accept, revise or reject any committee recommendation in whole or in part. And that was the resolution that we made back in December that was passed by 50. So my assertion was that um that it is our job to take the recommendations from
the charter review committee and decide whether or not we want to do that. And of course I mean if if you know if you want to just pass them all through I mean that's certainly the it could be the prerogative of of anybody up here. But I do believe that based on the
resolution that we passed that um it is not wrong for us to take a critical look at them and uh and recommend you know whether we want to to put them to council. So uh on that uh I guess we have read the first one which is um
changing the length of council terms. Um I'm I'm I'm opposed to this one. Uh, and I'd also like to correct the record or uh or clarify something that was said uh at the last meeting um not the last meeting at the work session. So at the work session we talked about um how this
has come before the voters many times most recently uh 5 years ago the idea of extending term limit or extending the terms for city council members from 2 years to four years. Uh and it was rejected uh with 54 plus% of the vote uh
5 years ago. The discussion was that this has been recommended by charter review many times over the last 25 years and that some of the times the amendment may not have been clean um and may have been bundled with things like extending
the term that people were currently serving right as opposed to doing it um at terms that would need to be voted on later. uh we got the language uh for that from uh Miss Rivera after the last meeting and the language from 2021 was
was nearly identical to this. Um there was not any kind of uh poison pill in it so to speak. And so given that I mean we're we're taking the same thing back to the voters again that they rejected
uh four years ago or 5 years ago. And uh I I just don't like that. I don't think it's uh I don't think it's right to keep giving them the same thing. I don't think it uh yeah, I don't think it helps. So, uh so I'm a no on that as I was last time, but uh that's all I got.
Thank you. >> Anybody else? >> Great. >> Call the vote. >> Council member Bterford >> I. >> Mayor Sladic. >> I. >> Deputy Mayor Tukurt. >> I. >> Council member Britain. >> I. >> Council member. >> Nay.
>> The motion carries. Mr. Olsson, can you read by title only ordinance number 1769? >> Absolutely. Thank you, deputy. Uh this is ordinance number 1769, an ordinance of the city of Ovito, Florida, proposing an amendment to the charter of the city of Ovito, Florida. Proposing a charter
amendment revising council voting procedures for ordinances and resolutions. Providing for a referendum on the proposed charter amendment, providing for the ballot title and balance summary for such referendum. providing for direction to the city clerk in coordination with the seminal county supervisor of elections and providing for implementing
administrative actions, findings, conflicts, severability, codification, the correction of scrier's errors and in effective date. >> Thank you. What is the pleasure of councel? >> I'll make a motion to schedule a public hearing for Monday, June 15th, 2026 for ordinance number 1769.
>> Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? same as before. Whether I disagree or don't disagree and y'all will find out before we vote on this in November, um I I do not know what the point of the charter review committee is. If not, to
make recommendations that regardless of if the politicians agree that these rules should apply to us, we pass along to the voters. >> Anybody else? >> Do you want an answer to that? Whereas the city council deems
appropriate and in the best interests of the city. >> It's allowable for that. >> It is allowable for us to interject ourselves and replace our opinion for the opinion of the citizens committee that we asked to give us their advice. I just don't think it's right. And I said
that as we were passing that. I totally said that out loud that whatever they said I was going to rubber stamp it to send it straight to the voters. So this should be no surprise. >> And I agree with you on that, too. Uh, I'm not big on this one either. Um, I think it's a very small thing to to
send to the voters. However, I am on the fence. So, maybe I'm Yes. >> I guess we'll find out. Can we call the Can we call the vote? >> Oh, you didn't ask him. >> Oh, did you have any? >> No, I did. You know, we could have marbles and we put the marbles in their
hands. Like there's there's ways that >> Call the vote. >> Council member Bford >> I. >> Mayor Sladic. >> I. >> Deputy Mayor Tuker. I, Council Member Britain, >> I. >> Council member Aut >> I. >> The motion carries. >> Mr. Olsson, can you read ordinance
number 1770 by title only, please? >> Absolutely. This is ordinance number 1770, an ordinance of the city of Ovito, Florida, proposing amendment, an amendment to the charter of the city of Ovito, Florida. Proposing a charter amendment revising the time frame for holding special elections. Providing for a referendum on the proposed charter
amendment, providing for the ballot title and balance summary for such referendum. Providing for direction to the city clerk in coordination with the siminal county supervisor of elections, and providing for the implementing administrative actions, findings, conflict, severability, codification, the correction of scrier's errors, and
an effective date. >> Thank you. What is the pleasure of councel? I'll make a motion to schedule a public hearing for Monday, June 15th, 2026 >> for ordinance number. >> Ordinance number 1770. >> Second. Any discussion? >> No.
>> All right. That's good. >> Can you call the vote? Council member Bford >> I. >> Mayor Slavic. >> I. >> Deputy Mayor Tuker. >> I. >> Council member Britain. >> I. >> Council member. >> I. >> The motion carries. Mr. Carlson, can you read ordinance number 1771 by title
only? >> Yes, this is ordinance number 1771, an ordinance of the city of Ovito, Florida, proposing an amendment to the charter of the city of Ovito, Florida, proposing a charter amendment moving city council qualifying period. Providing for a referendum on the proposed charter amendment. Providing for the ballot title and balance summary for such
referendum. Providing for direction to the city clerk in coordination with the seminal county supervisor of elections. And providing for implementing administrative actions, findings, conflicts, severability, codification, the correction of scrier's errors and an effective date. >> Thank you. What is the pleasure of council?
>> I'll make a motion to schedule a public hearing for Monday, June 15, 2026 for ordinance number 1771. >> Second. Any discussion? I am hoping that we can do a demo of the way that we would vote if we were to
approve the thing two thing to item number 12 or 11. >> Well, I got to follow. >> We got to follow the charter. But if we can on principle meeting minutes, >> voice vote for the meeting. >> That's true. Okay. But I want to make sure everybody out there knows what the
what the distinction is. So sometimes you say, "Okay, we're going to call the vote." Everybody just all at the same time yells out I or nay and then the city clerk just kind of writes down what everybody did because we are all required to vote on all this stuff and we can't just like if you don't vote if
you if if your voice is not heard like you actually don't make any sounds the default under Florida law is yes. So what you may be noticing is you know have you noticed that we're not all voting in the same order. It's whoever makes the motion goes first. Whoever second goes second, and then I think it
might be like mayor or number like there's some there's some kind of rational order. I don't know what the order is. Um, but we only kind of recently realized that our charter said that we had to do this. So, there was some interest in going back to everybody
just hollers it out. So, notice that as we are voting in this interesting way. But yeah, I have no other comments about this particular thing. So, thank you for the interlude. All right. So, this one's different. Um, and I have a lot more problem with this one. Um, I believe
that the ballot language is um is not very easy to understand. Not because it's badly written, Mr. Vos, I think it's written fine. However, I think that most voters don't understand
what that means, that qualifying period means. And you know, I'll say even, you know, before I ran for office, I was aware that, you know, there's things you have to do to get on the ballot, right? I mean, you hear it on on TV, uh, you know, national things a lot of times like minor parties trying to get on the ballot in certain states and every state
has different rules and and whatever, but uh, I'll say the word qualifying period was not anything that I was that I was aware of. Um, I think it's a term of art that really implies
a certain amount of inside baseball that is it's not difficult to understand. It's just not something most people have studied or honestly care to study. Um, I think one one other big thing here is
that moving qualifying to when county does qualifying, it works for county because county um offices are either partisan and they have a primary in August, right? Or they have their election in August. So for school board
or the others, right, they have an election in August and then they have a runoff in November. So either way you qualify in June for an election in August, right? Our election is not in August. Nothing about our election is August. It's not it's not all the way
till November, right? So if we move qualifying to June and we we continue to have a 2-year term, which if history is any guide, that's what the voters are going to give us. then that means that fully for one quarter of your term um
somebody is not able to decide to run against you. It it is a long time to have qualifying closed between June and November. And so I think perhaps the ramifications of all of these things are
more complex and nuanced than are in the small number of words that are on this ballot language. So I don't like it. That's all. >> Okay. Anybody else? You can call the vote. >> Council member Bterford.
>> I. >> Mayor Slick. >> I. >> Deputy Mayor Tuger. >> I. >> Council member Britain. >> I. >> Council member. >> Nay. >> The motion carries. We do not have any resolution items or discussion items. So we are on to the city manager's report. >> I have no report. Deputy mayor.
>> The city attorney's report. >> Uh, good evening. I I don't know if we still have Wade, but I do not have anything to report at this time. >> Deputy mayor, I just wanted to thank you uh uh very briefly for the council's indulgence uh for me uh coming in by
Zoom. You're in outstanding hands uh there with Garrett. Uh sorry to be here to step on his toes in the slightest bit. It was just I was trying to see this charter review committee matter uh through to the end, but I will be back there with you for your council meeting on June 15th.
>> Thank you, Mr. Rose, we are up to council reports, so I am actually up first and bear with me. Mine's not short this time. Um, I will start out. I did get an email for the United Arts Celebration on June 10th. I'll be out of town, but I wanted to make sure you guys saw that. Um, they're a good
organization that does a lot. So, if you didn't see that in your email and you want to go, let me know. Um, let's see. I'm going to go into the American Flood Coalition. So, I went to DC uh a couple weeks ago thanks to Mayor Slickic passing that off to me. Um, and I had a
really good experience. So, the American Flood Coalition got together like 65 mayors, deputy mayors, council members from 10 different states that have had issues with flooding. Um, some of them incredibly severe such as the June 4th floods in Texas or the North Carolina
floods down the mountains and then some of them more what we're seeing with inland flooding. And then we also had about I think it was 16 of us from Florida, so a lot of coastal cities. Uh Mayor McCann from Winter Springs was there as well too. Um and it was it was probably one of the best conferences
I've ever been to. Um so the good news is I heard a lot of what we're doing right, which is nice. Um, some of the things they shared uh was to be proud of our infrastructure and ribbon cut it and make sure citizens know that like almost
half of the money we invest here is infrastructure that you don't even see that's beneath your feet. Um, and that's something we've been doing as well too. Uh, big one was debris haulers and being prepared ahead and having contracts ahead. That's also something we do. So, I do want to thank our staff for being ahead on a lot of the ideas they were
throwing out there. Um, but the big overarching point of all this was to get people into the room to share ideas. Um, and one of the things that came to mind, there was a mayor over in a small town in Iowa, Riverdale, Iowa, that actually
had a river with no gauges on it, which I don't know if that sparks your sparks your memory about the econ during hurricane, but we had kind of a lack of gauges and awareness of the river and they were able to get in much lower cost digital gauges than what the national level did. So small things like that I
think we could look into and implement to help our resilience in here. And there was a lot more where that came from and I will talk to staff about that. But uh the big thing we did was go over the new FEMA act that the federal government is looking at. And um if you haven't dug into it, the big crux of it
is that the how FEMA currently operates is that we fix a project and we hope they refund us and they asked everybody to raise their hand if they were waiting for funding for more than a year, more than two years, more than 3 years, more than four years and it was more than half the room. So more than four years were waiting from FEMA to reimburse
approved projects. So what they're doing with the FEMA act, hoping it passes, is kind of flipping the script on that. So right now we go through the process at the federal level and then we go through the state level which is almost just as long and excruciating. So this would cut
out the federal level and really put it in the states. Um it would fund projects upfront. Um again this is just federal so we would still have to go through the state and then the only way they'd be able to claw it back is if they could prove that there was fraud and how we
applied for that funding. Um so I would recommend you all dig into it. Um, I did meet with a bunch of congressional staff and reps. And then the other thing I did is I met with uh Congressman Mill staff and went over East Magnolia Street project and how we are having troubles
getting that funded with FEMA. So, they're looking into that as well. So, overall a really good experience um looking at the FEMA act and there's more to come from that, but I just wanted to share with you with that and I think that's all I have for tonight. So, I will go on to Mayor Slate. Well, thank
you for going to that. Um, of of everybody up here, I think you were probably the most logged on and added a lot to that. So, I'm glad you could wiggle that back. On the fence issue, I I sounds like there is a code enforcement action going right now. Uh,
I am hoping that our timeline is not such that there may be duplication of expenditures going on with fixing and not. So, hopefully we can stall that. But I think everybody up here would be in agreement with that until the developer and neighbors and staff,
whoever can figure it out. Okay. >> Um I I read a lot of stuff and I just have to share with you guys this voting idea. So there's lots of things we could do that could make it kind of more fun. Like we could get little light up frogs that light up green or red and we could like do our secret color and then reveal
our frogs or any number of things that could make this a more vibrant and exciting place to vote. and even a more exciting place to watch us vote because then we would vote kind of all separately and all at the same time,
which I think is kind of >> I feel like you're trying to get us on John Oliver. You know, >> it could be super fun though. So, I'll just throw that out there. Um, and uh Mr. Zuber did mention waiting until we have some more
information before we borrow anything for the police station. uh just want to reassure everybody in the audience that staff has actually already made that recommendation. So we are spending savings at this time. Um and and I personally believe that the right thing
to do is continue in this direction until we are given some clear indication that we will not have a way to operationally fund our police department. So it is a very hard call to make when we have all these moving parts and we don't have all the information.
But as long as a veto has its own police department, and we have an outstanding one, uh we need these people to have windows that don't leak, toilets that flush, light switches, and all the electrical that's that's right. We don't have enough space. And and this is a lot
lower budget than was originally discussed by about $30 million. So we went from 48 millionish down to $18 million. So hopefully everybody can wrap your brain around it. We're all kind of in this together. Nobody wants to get
stuck in this weird way. Uh I am expecting to get the latest amendment proposal sometime tonight from our state house rep Susan Placencia. So she's going to be sending that our way. Um as some of you may be aware, the uh state
legislators are in Tallahassee right now. All day they were going back and forth talking about uh tax reform and I don't know where it landed. Uh my internet went out with the rain. So, it landed somewhere. We're going to get an update tonight. Um, and stay in in really good communication with everybody
in Tallahassee. And last thing on here. Oh, that's it. All right. That's it for me. Counc. >> Yeah. So, um, a lot of that, if you aren't following, was about the, um,
the proposal in Tallahassee right now to, uh, eliminate a lot of our ability to collect property tax. Um, and also limitations on what how we can spend the property tax that we do collect. Uh,
which would basically, um, kind of turn everything over, upside down, something. Shake a lot of things up. I think that's what I'm looking for. shake a lot of things up in uh how we fund uh government. Mr. Cobb and I talked about it some today. Um
one of the things that uh that we discussed is um how the Florida League of Cities is is, you know, encouraging people to call their representatives, right? And uh all of this stuff is kind of it's been kind of fluid over the
last, you know, uh however many months. uh the details of it, right? Um and I just kind of had a thought that maybe um so for example, um one of the things in the proposed bill, the the J2 bill,
unless it changed sometime this afternoon. Yeah. Yeah. So I'm going to go by this morning, right? is um that there's a list of things that we can spend advora money on, right? And uh one of those is um well the one that's not on that list that's a big one for us is
is parks and wreck, right? And that is, you know, one of the things that we spend advorum tax money on. And uh you know it would be it would be interesting uh perhaps and maybe some of you agree and and we can do something like this is
to have staff come up with some I don't want to say some talking points but some things like what would things cost or what would funding the city look like under this uh J2 bill, right? So things
like, hey, if we were going to run parks and wreck um at 100% cost recovery rate as opposed to, you know, the the 30 or 50 depending on the the program. Now, what would it look like to swim at the pool or what would it look like to play
in a volleyball league or any number of of other things uh that we do or, you know, other other things like um you know, how we fund, you know, public safety and uh and things like that. So, I don't know. I feel like this is a place where we should
get the the voters engaged with Tallahassee and come up with something to help them in that respect. Does anybody have any thoughts about anything like that? >> So, I I actually talked to Mr. Cob about something similar >> and it's still changing all the time right now. So, I do think that there
should be a discussion, but I think we should see where they land. Um, I think we need to call our reps and talk about what we, you know, think we need for our city. But I think as far as determining what we would cut or change or how we would fund things, like that needs to wait until we actually know what we're
looking at. >> Yeah. Yeah. That that's the thing, right? Because it's there's almost not enough time to do it before they will probably pass something, right? Because they're expecting to pass something this week. >> There's not. >> But yeah. Um, and then it's to Okay, it's going to go on the ballot in
November. I guess then we'll have plenty of time to to deal with it then. But um I guess it is a an example of it would be better if it didn't go on the ballot in November. >> But that's all I have. >> Okay. Uh Council Member Butterford.
>> Uh yes. So um I was glad we did the declaration uh earlier today. Um I think that's obviously a great thing again as we uh you know bring our community together. Uh Mr. Zuber gave me a a uh a little handout here with the uh Boy
Scouts and the American Legion doing the flag retirement ceremony at the u at the American Legion post uh here in Ovido. It will be June 14th. Um is there a time? Oh yeah, 2 to 4. Uh they're going to have games and entertainment and uh
do some education on uh on the flags. Uh so flag retirement ceremony, American Legion Boy Scouts are obviously going to be there as well. Um we also have uh Junth coming up on June 20th. Um
Deputy Mayor, you're part of OCIA. Is it at 11 11 to 3 at >> 10:30 to 2:30? >> 10:30 to OCIA. >> Yeah. Is that is it still at Rand Lake or is it uh >> It's at uh Riverside Riverside. So you can swim. So,
>> yep. Come and cool off. >> Very good. And then, of course, we are doing our July 4th celebration u the 250th uh at the mall on on Saturday. And that goes What time are we starting on?
>> I think it's five >> 5 to 9:00 >> 9:00. So, obviously that will be a uh a special event. You guys have done a very good job with that in the past. And that is all I have. >> Okay, Council Member Britain. >> Uh, you guys covered just about
everything and I am as concerned as everyone else about the uh property tax proposals. Um, and I think it's prudent to just wait and see what happens. I'm not sure what's going to come out of that. Um, scouts, thanks for coming out. You be careful what you wish for. You
you got a good civics lesson today, so it uh it's tough to listen to sometimes. And on the flag uh burning, there's a there was a scout a few years ago that came in and and asked if he could save the grommets from the flags and they
give these out at the American Legion uh so that no flag ever dies. So, uh I've got my grommet. You guys should get yours. >> Got it on my keychain. >> Oh, yeah. It's in my pocket. Okay. Hold up your grommet if you got a grommet. >> My grommet. >> Grommit check. Gromit check. There we go. >> Y'all know how grommet checks work. You
got one. He's He's digging. Okay. Excellent. So anyway, thanks for coming out. Uh I think you got a good lesson tonight. Sometimes it's not this uh this dry. So uh that's all I have. >> Okay. Uh future meeting dates, we have
Monday, June 15th at 6:30 p.m. is a regular session. We have a work session >> that uh the work session will be June 29th and we will have it >> June 29th. A correction from what's up there? >> Yeah, Monday, June 29th. >> Okay. at 5:30 p.m. will be a work
session and Monday, July 6th at 6:30 p.m. will be a regular session. Is there anything else for the good of the order? >> Want to give a shout out to Susan Placencia's aid who just sent me the text to the amended bill that is waiting in your inboxes, guys. I sent it to you
about 60 seconds ago. Thank you. >> It is 8:00 p.m. and this meeting is adjourned. >> Can I approach and clarify some stuff?