I have to finish this before school. >> Good. How you doing? >> Hey, John. >> I'm good. >> Guess I'll give you one guess. >> Really? Wow. That's a >> only one. >> Of course there is.
Because we just like rehash everything and make it in a different form. >> Yeah. >> Past where we were at. >> Mhm. >> Keep losing the internet. >> Oh, really? >> Yeah. >> What are you on Spectrum?
We we our internet went out constantly with spectrum and Ben works from home. We swapped >> I remember something like the 187 >> there's only >> I think it's because so many people were like on the same >> Did they slow down? So we like they did the >> Oh, no. Well, I guess it I guess it
started earlier than I thought it started. >> He didn't work with >> 199 or 88. 1981. >> Yeah. Simpsons. >> Is that what it started about? >> I don't know. I've watched a lot of Simpsons.
>> Yeah. >> She's letting you sit by her. This is This is good. >> You know, >> you're letting him sit by you. That's good. >> Really? >> Yeah. Look it up. You'll be like, "Really?" >> Okay. Sometimes
>> they Yeah, >> some of them get that way eventually. >> You know the stuff I believe now that I would not think in fourth grade my one of my teachers had a Bart Simpson up on the like the board and her play
about apostrophes and its >> and it said is it uh >> well maybe it was just about s it said something like is it plural or possessive man
>> we're learning about grammar >> something >> with Bart Simpson >> go ahead Saturday. >> Not our cat. That was serious. >> Oh. >> Oh, no. I love >> We were home by 25 till
>> Oh, no. I think mine's good. Well, I always liked it in school because it was the only thing in English class that was actually objective. >> That's true. >> And I was like, I can learn this and I can do this on the paper. >> I guess I like to use >> Yes. describing things for a lot of
>> Yeah. >> Yes. >> What I liked about Hail Mary >> because it was written by a software engine. >> He didn't write to just hear himself right. >> I don't know how that was enough smoke. >> The movie was
>> the movie was not >> loved it. I hate to be that guy that says the book is better, but like they changed enough things that changed like >> the character of the main character is the way I felt about it. Like that is not the guy that was written about in the book
>> and he didn't do those things like he was anyway. Sorry >> more than that. You were you were going somewhere with that >> or forgot. Okay. We need we need real data on that. >> Or if you like look out, we can just
like we can write it down. >> I know. But >> if I stand up right now, >> I'd like to like to see the regression on the the graph. calculate the standard deviation. >> I don't know might be some observation
bias going on. >> Yeah, it didn't it didn't it didn't look like it poured. At least we didn't hear it. We got a good crowd. You should have a letter opener up be seen, you know. Something feel like very American
Revolution about it. >> Hell yeah. We're good online. >> I mean, if you were up here with the the old fashioned the one that looks like a sword. >> Yeah. >> No, no, no. >> Yeah. No, we had one of those when I was
a kid. >> No, no, no. But it looked like a little sword, but Yeah. >> Good evening everyone. Welcome to Ovidito City Council Chambers. If everyone could please rise for the pledge of >> allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. >> Please join me in a moment of silence. I would like to call our meeting to order. It is uh July 6th at
approximately 6:30 and we have all members of council present. So, we're going to start off right away with our ceremony items. So, I'll hand this over to the mayor. All right. As we are heading down, want to invite our parks and recck staff to come up. If you did
not experience the 250th anniversary of our country up at the Ovito Mall with the amazing festival that this crew here put on, you missed out. So, hope you make it next year. It was fantastic. Let's give them a round of applause. It really was standing room only. It was
It was phenomenal. So, well done everybody. And with that, this is a proclamation of the city of Ovido. Whereas parks and recreation is an integral part of communities throughout this country, including the city of Ovido. Whereas parks and recreation promotes health and
wellness, improving the physical and mental health of people who live near parks. And whereas parks and recreation promotes time spent and outdoors, which positively impacts mental and physical health. And whereas parks and recreation encourages physical activities by
providing space for sports, passive enjoyment of outside spaces, swimming pools, and many other activities designed to promote active lifestyles. And whereas parks and recreation programming and educational activities help members of our community be more
healthy and connected. And whereas parks and recreation increases a community's economic prosperity through increased property values, expansion of the local tax base, incentivized tourism and the attraction and retention of businesses
and crime reduction. And whereas parks lands serve as adaptable infrastructure that make our communities more resilient in the face of disasters and climate change. And whereas our parks and natural recreation areas ensure the
beauty of our communities uh and provide a place for children and adults to connect with nature and recreate outdoors. Whereas the uh United States House of Representatives has designated July as park and parks and recreation
month. And whereas the city of Ovido recognizes the benefits derived from parks and recreation. Uh now therefore I Megan Slate declare it parks and wreck month. So thank you for all you do. Thank you very much.
It's a new phone. I don't >> Yeah. Hold the side. >> All right. >> Okay. We're going to move on to the approval of our minutes. What is the pleasure of council? >> I move we approve the minutes.
>> Second. Any discussion? >> Uh, my change made it in. Is that true? >> It did. >> Okay. I thought it. >> All right. >> Anybody else? All right. All those in favor, please signifi signify by saying I. >> I. I. >> The motion carries. We'll move on to our
public comment section. I do have four written requests to speak. As I call your name, please step up to the podium and state your name. The first one I have up is Mr. William Ryan. >> And I believe we have a presentation to go along with this that everybody.
>> Hello, my name is William Ryan. I live at 458 Lake Park Trail. I'm here tonight to talk to you about restoring track JPUD integrity. Next slide, please. Okay. So, yes, I'm here to talk to you about the fence again. Um, I'm also here
to talk to you about the text in the gray box again. If you remember from last meeting, I said shall be created should be changed to something else. And at that point, Mr. Vos was kind enough to clarify the legal reality of this clause for us. He said the actions are are fully executed and recorded. These
guidelines are a permanent mandate bound to the geographic footprint regardless of owner and any amendment requires a joint agreement of Kingsbridge East residents and RTS since both are bound by these standards. Well, what does that mean? Well, exhibit E specifically prohibits chain link fences. This means
I can't put up a chain link fence. This means my neighbor can't put up a chain link fence. And this means RTS can't leave one up. The law is black and white for track J. The existing fence on track J is a direct violation of city law and must be removed. Next slide, please.
Now, you might say, why is he here talking to us about this fence? Well, I brought this same legal interpretation to the LPAA board in May. And when I did, development services countered with the following flawed arguments as official city staff positions to avoid
admitting a to a 25-year-old permitting error. The first two of these were eliminated by Mr. vote in June. The third one uh the the boat barrier narrative we all realize we know that that all turned to be a waste absurd waste of everyone's time. Um the final
one uh fails due that because an administrative error cannot override a legislative mandate. Oops. Since these are all basic principles of municipal law, I believe they must have known the fence was illegal but but defended it anyway by strategically shifting the narrative.
They tried to force me to give up. That development services is still actively defending an illegal fence after more than two months proves their priorities are no longer aligned with the citizens they are paid to serve. They have other priorities. Well, foot dragging time is over. The city must immediately issue a
notice of violation and enforce fence removal to bring track into compliance now and restore PUD integrity. Next slide, please. So, this is the view from my back patio. It's a daily eyesore. If I put up the same fence, the city would require immediate removal. Why is it
still there? This is purely a question of does the city of Ovidito equally enforce its laws or are they selectively applied? When will the notice of violation requiring removal of this fence finally be issued? The city needs to do its duty tonight. The misdirection needs to stop tonight. As an Ovito
citizen for 27 years, I expect a one-month NOV to be issued tonight. 21 days ago, Mr. Bose confirmed that RTS is bound by exhibit E. The fence remains an ongoing violation. Further delay ignores your own council to give a give preferential treatment to a violator.
The fence wasn't there when I bought my house and it was installed illegally. The law requires its removal. Will the city do its duty tonight or will they choose continued inaction? >> Thank you, Mr. Ryan. Next up, I have Mr. David Bear.
Good evening everybody. My name is David Bear. I'm speaking as president of Sabal Seminal. I live in 921 Tuscalillaa Trail in Winter Springs, Florida. Why am I here as a resident of Winter Springs? Well, there's an idea that can march Winter Springs and Ovido together. And
as the president of Saver roll seminal, one of our primary motives is to preserve the rural boundary through the ecological preservation of Seminal County and that side of the county. There's an idea you guys spoke about last week which I wrote down is the Royal Boundary Protection Charter Reform. Um I think there might be a
different idea to it, but that's in effect what it does. In order to understand the value of this reform, I think it's very helpful to understand the history of the Royal Boundary as well as how the world rural boundary has worked so effectively the last 25 years. The history of the Royal Boundary is that it was created to stop Ovidito and
Winter Springs specifically. At the time and the 1015 years prior, Winter Springs Nova were marching endlessly out into sprawl towards the east. The world boundary was an idea to stop that. It's worked. It's worked really well for 25 years. There's been almost no effective
uh intrusions on it. Many attempts, but none effective. The reason it's worked is because while residents can annex land or while cities can annex land in the world boundary, the land use control remains with the county. That's why it's worked. But for that provision, the
Royal Boundary would be nothing. It just be a piece of paper. Tallahassee, as we've all seen, has an endless list of creative ideas out of how to undermine our home rule plans. You guys, the county have come up with great plans, great ideas, and you've implemented what the citizens want in order to control
how we grow. One of those creative ideas by the state and the lobbyists up there is to prohibit counties from maintaining land use control even if a city annexes that land. Effectively undermining that very
tool and reason why the rural boundary works. Hence this idea being incredibly powerful and basically preempting their preeemption. We're getting a step ahead of them. And so what this does is it makes it not impossible for the city of Oto to annex land in the rural boundary.
It makes it a little harder. It makes it so that this commission, which I'm not worried about, but any future commission would think twice or three times about it because they don't just need a supermajority to make a change that they can't undo. They don't need a simple majority, they need a supermajority to
do that. Which again doesn't make it impossible. just makes so that you're sure that what when you're doing something it's going to have a longlasting effect that you really want to do it. I am also telling you that as a member of the Winter Springs Charter View Commission I will be bringing this
forward to them at our next meeting. The idea is that like I started with I said the history of the royal boundary was to stop Winter Springs and Oto that both Winter Springs and Ovido can be working in lock step here to put these same
protections and structural uh guardrails in place through the citizens voting on it. And so I think this is an incredibly valuable reform that the city can implement and I hope you guys all consider doing so. >> Thank you.
Next up, I have Rafaagani. >> Good evening. My name is Rafa Ghani and I'm the founder and CEO of MSF My Skill Former. Next slide, please. Did you know that one in every four kids suffer from a mental or physical health issue? This
is because of a widespread nationwide issue, electronics. Kids nowadays spend endless hours of staring at their screens, whether it's their phones, iPads, TV, or computer, and they sit all day around doing nothing. But MSF can
help with that. With MSF's platform, it will be a life-saving aid for parent and child. Parents will be able to navigate through all the locations near their home deciding what will be best for their child and the child will be able to see all the activities they could do
such as sports, arts and crafts, music and they'll be able to build passion and have sources of recreation. They'll also be able to develop life skills which is very important for them and elevate their academic performance. Next slide please. Currently through customer validation we
have three businesses who are willing to take part in this. These are all the Ovido locations which are championship martial arts, Silvin Learning and Mathnasium. Next slide please. This is our team myself Ghani. Currently we are looking for a solutions architect
and developer to help us excel further in MSF. Lameia Ghani and Wajani. Next slide please. This is a video demonstration of the platform. It is a prototype. As you can see, there are many categories listed below. There are
filters as to age range, um the city and where they live, if that your child has special need support. You can go ahead and put in the zip code and city and where you live in and you could see all the locations near your house. You can
click view details, learn all about that location as to their schedule, pricing and etc. Lastly, we have a AI matchmaker which you tell us a little bit about your child. So, for example, we have John. He's 7 years old. He's interested in science, arts, and dance, and he
lives in Orlando. What our AI will do is pull up the nearest locations that are related to science, arts, and dance, and you'll be able to view all about them. Next slide, please. Let's build a healthy nation for our
community. And my once again, my name is Ra Fagani, founder and CEO of MSF. Thank you for listening to my presentation. >> Thank you. Uh next up, I have Rob McAdams. >> Hi, good evening. Uh I'm Rob McAdams. uh
here just to provide some information uh related to uh Mr. Ryan's presentation as far as I represent RTS and what we've been doing with the fence and what we plan to do with our fence. Um as you know, we did a lot of clearing work uh in the last month of clearing out the fence. A lot of that was done by our own
staff. I had intended to keep working with our maintenance staff to do that throughout the summer, but then quickly realized it was way too big a job for us to do. So to that end, we've got a meeting uh this Friday morning. I've communicated that to uh Mr. Ryan with local uh fence outlet to come out, take
a look at the fence line and uh figure out what the best options are forward for cleaning it up. And um yeah, we still uh our desire is to remove it based on its bad condition. But um I would if we're able to get some clarification um as to whether or not
RTS is in fact uh beholden to those architectural guidelines in exhibit E. Um I think there's some misunderstanding or disagreements there as to whether we are uh needing to remove the chain link fence because of that or because of the condition. Either way, willing to do it. Um would just like some clarification
there. So that's all. >> All right. Thank you. >> I do not have any other written requests to speak. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address council at this time that has not already addressed council? Okay. At this time, I will close public
comment and we will move on to our consent agenda. What is the pleasure of councel? >> I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda. >> We have a motion. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Okay. Any discussion? >> No.
>> Okay. I'll ask the uh clerk if you can call the role. >> Council member Bford >> I. >> Council member Britain. >> I. >> Mayor Slick. >> I. >> Deputy Mayor Tuker. >> I. Council member Aught. >> I. >> The motion carries. >> Deputy Mayor. >> Yes.
>> Um, in accordance with the uh email that I sent to you all uh this week, I would like to amend the uh agenda to add uh consideration um of a first reading of ordinance, the one that um is on the desk that is so
far unnumbered. To add that to first reading of ordinances number 10. >> Mr. Vose, do we need a motion for that? That would it would need to be a motion need to be seconded and then the council can act on that motion to add it to the agenda. >> Okay. So, would you like to make a motion?
>> Yes. Um I move to add the um Okay. I move to add a first reading of the unnumbered ordinance that is on our desk um to >> number 10.
>> Number 10 on the agenda. Second. >> Okay, we have a motion in a second. Do we have any discussion as far as adding this? Not voting on it, just adding it to the agenda. >> Uh yeah, so this is related to the one that we uh that we talked about uh at at
the work session. Um at at the work session, there was uh not a majority to move uh that one forward. Uh so uh this past week, I worked with uh Mr. Vos and and Mr. Cob um we came up with something uh a little bit different. Um this is uh
what Mr. Bearer was was speaking about has to do with um uh basically a an amendment to the charter uh to require um an affirmative vote of at least four of the five members of city council to
annex uh property that is um currently behind the rural boundary or in the Simol County uh rural area. What we talked about last time was uh a proposed charter amendment to uh require four votes to um annex any land and there
were some concerns about that and so this one uh changes it to be just land that's outside of the the rural boundary and um uh I've gotten good support from this uh online from people I've talked to uh and uh and in fact um it it may be
it may get a little confused here because um the uh clerk sent an email to the members of the charter review committee about the uh proposed amendment from uh the work session and uh not very many of them had come back
by the time we had the last meeting but at this point um there are uh uh 12 12 have come back uh with a response. um eight of them are in the affirmative. Uh
a ninth um said that he agrees in principle. So whether you count that or not, that is an outright majority. Um three have uh indicated uh opposition to it. Um and I'll I'll add to that there is um another one who is in opposition
to it who has uh spoken uh on the internet but did not return that email. So, uh, I want to count, uh, that member as well. Um, so a majority of the charter review committee, uh, is in favor of it. And so, um, for that and
for other reasons, I think it warrants some consideration tonight. >> Mayor, I agree with all that. Okay. Council Britain. >> And this is just to put it on the agenda. >> Just to put it on the agenda. Okay. All
right. Let's put it on the agenda. >> Council member Butterford. >> We can put it on the agenda. I I guess I just I don't understand what the rush is. Um it's almost as if there's something going on that we don't know about and I don't know what it is. Um so
I don't know. We can have a discussion on it. >> Okay. I'll ask the uh clerk to call the role. >> Council member >> I. >> Mayor Slick. >> I. >> Deputy Mayor Tuker. I council member Britain. >> I council member Bford >> I.
>> The motion carries. Uh Mr. Vos, do we need an ordinance number for this? >> We do. And I was going to ask the clerk if uh she happens to know what the appropriate ordinance number would be. >> It's going to be 1774. >> Thank you so much. >> 1774. Okay. So, we will add that to the
agenda as item number 10. So, we're going to move back up to our public hearing item number seven and start with ordinance number 1760, evaluation and appraisal based comprehensive plan amendments. Uh, Mr. Bose, can you read
this by ordinance by title? >> Absolutely. Thank you very much, Deputy Mayor. This is ordinance number 1760, an ordinance of the city of Ovito, Florida, amending the city of Ovido comprehensive plan based on the city's evaluation and appraisal of the comprehensive plan pursuant to section 163.3191
Florida statutes providing for conflicts, severability, cotification, as well as the correction of scrutiner's errors and an effective date. >> Thank you, Mr. Cop. >> Uh, thank you, Deputy Mayor. uh the city every every I believe it's seven years or so the city's required to do an
evaluation and appraisal of its comprehensive plan and then once we get through that process we have to come back and do what we call the uh earbased amendments and ear is a is an acronym for evaluation and appraisal report. Uh if you'll recall back in November of
last year, we did a transmitt hearing uh to the Florida Department of Commerce uh for these amendments uh and the Florida Department of Commerce reviewed the amendments uh and thankfully did not find us not in compliance, which was
great. They found a they've been finding a number of cities who are doing comprehensive plan amendments not in compliance. Instead, for us, they issued an objections, recommendations, and comments report uh which gave us some things to look at. Uh the staff has gone
through the report, a copy of which was provided in your packet. And so tonight, we're here to present the uh earbased amendments uh for adoption. Uh this will require public hearing. And so I'm going to turn it over to Dr. Korea and let her walk you through the amendments.
Good evening, mayor, deputy mayor, um council members. Um so this is ordinance 1760 for the evaluation and appraisal report, the adoption of amendment to the comprehensive plan uh comprehensive plan. Can we move? So as Mr. Cobb um um
described we had the first public hearing in November. uh we transmitted to um the state and they um the main comment they had someformational comments to us but the main comment is uh we submitted the we transmitted in
November of 2025 and they replied to us in January 2026 and they asked us to uh review the horizon the planning horizon because we were already encroaching on the 20 year planning horizon so they requested that we review the planning
horizon for 2046. Um staff decided to go to 2050 to give us more time. So that that's basically the new amendments that we are providing is to make sure that uh we have this new planning horizon in all the policies and
the maps. So we'll go over that next slide please. So an interesting thing that happened when we projected we did the same methodology. >> Could you talk a little closer to the mic please? >> Sure. It's >> Thank you. >> It's >> If you wouldn't go like all out like Yeah.
>> rapper style, pass this one off. >> We might need to swap mics. >> Oh, that's true. >> She's like right at the mic. >> Do you want to give her that one? >> It's just the rain's kind of loud. >> Yeah. >> Is this better? >> Yeah, that's much better. >> Yeah.
So when we did the analysis for the new horizon um and we have to then forecast the population for 2050 and we use the same methodology we used to forecast the 2045 which was based on Bieber estimates
by doing that. Um and you can see in this um table uh I2 um the original one for the high for 2045 we had a projection population of 56,600 653 residents in the city but when we um did
the same methodology for 2050 we got the number of 55,753. So actually the projection is that we are going to grow at a lower rate. So we had a decrease in the population the forecast population between 2045 to 2050
of 900 residents. So with that it was in a way easier adaptation of the comp plan because if we had capacity to serve a higher population we were within the capacity for um to serve a lower population. So um it was really just
adjusting the the the time time horizon. Next slide please. for the land use element. Um the changes that we did uh and this was already proposed in November. Uh we clarified the difference between primary permissible uses,
secondary permissible uses and other uses. So primary permissible uses are uses that are allowed by right in the land of government code. Um the secondary ones are the ones that are allowed either through a special exception use order or uh as part of a
mixeduse development and the other um uses are the ones that are only allowed under special exception use order and they cannot be used to claim a mixeduse development. Next um uh slide please. So these are
just the the um oh this is the um uh the change that we did to include the floating floating solar facility per the statutes. So we allow that in rural industrial and public future land use designations.
Next slide please. Um we changed because we adopted the mobility plan we changed all references to concurrency in the code. So that was another amendment. This is all proposed um in November as well. Next slide
please. And we also per the statues had to include the new use which is the resiliency facility and um um that is in the um industrial future land use and
commercial future land use designations. Next slide please. So this is the just a sum summary of the land use element. Um uh we the new amendments that we did was just to update the horizon to to um 2050
in the policies and on the maps as well. Next slide. The transportation element. Um for those uh we made all the changes to to remove any reference to concurrency and the um the uh transportation concurrency exceptional
area. Um just to make sure that um with the new mobility plea that mobility fee that plan that we are all in uh in um um uh it's it's it's um consistent. Next
slide please. Yeah, these are all the elements that we changed. Um again for the new amendments just update the horizon. Next slide please. the housing element. Um we just updated
the green building um ordinance to be extended from 2025 to 2029 and that is to also comply with the statutes that we cannot create new uh more restrictive um legislation until um there is an u an
expiration u that of 2028. Next slide please. the new ele new amendments were just to reflect the new horizon and the capital improvement elements. Um we included this language. This is also
in the um November amendment. Um now the statutes requires local governments to evaluate the physibility of providing sanitary sewer service for developments exceeding 50 residential lots with more than one on-site sewage system per acre.
The city is in the process of uh completing a wastewater septic to sewer master plan. And so this is the policy that establishes that. Um the um capital improvement stable was
also updated to um extending up to 2035. We are required to have five-year plan and this is we exceeded a little bit. Um so that is the change we did in the plan. Next slide. Also changing the all
the horizons in the this in this element to comply with the 2050 horizon. The future land use map. Um I don't know if you remember but we had some um changes in the future land use map for city properties. So we had um six city
properties. The ones next to Round Lake Park that still had commercial uh future land use. We changed the public um to around um um Lockwood and also the cemetery here. There was still with the
um county se future land use. So um we also propose for the cemetery with public future land use designation. Next slide. This is just showing in more specific the map. So these the these ones are the ones around Round Lake
Park. Um there will have the f public future land use. Next slide. This is showing the existing and the proposed the two along Lockwood uh boulevard also
changing to public and then the cemetery which is the last one granting them a future land use from the city which will be public. And with that, I finish my uh presentation. And it's recommended that city council read ordinance number 1760
by title only, conduct a public hearing, and adopt ordinance number 1760. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. Did do you have a question? >> Uh yeah, I have a few actually if that's okay. >> Yes. >> Um so on uh page 24
um >> is this something we should wait for after the motion or do you have a question for like right now? >> I never know. Why don't we wait for >> We can we can make the motion and then Yeah. >> Well, I got to open public comment first. >> Oh, >> let's let's do that first then. We'll come back. >> We'll come back to you. Okay. Just so we
go in the right order here. >> I just presentation. >> Okay. This is a public hearing, so I am going to open public comment. I do not have any written requests. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address council on this item? Hearing none, I will close public
comment. What is the pleasure of councel? >> I mo I move we adopt ordinance 1760-26. >> Second. >> Any discussion? >> Yeah. Um, so I had some questions. >> Oh, it's not -26.
>> It's >> 1760. Sorry, I didn't have it in front of me. or what are you looking at? >> Uh yeah, so slide uh 24, the one slide 24. >> Yeah, >> maybe yours have different numbers than
mine. >> Which element is that? Do you >> uh it it was on the the map. Um it was one of the maps. It was the last map. Uh past that. No, maybe one back >> with purple and green. That one. The future Lynn. >> Yeah, the one with the uh
>> that one. >> The one with the green and purple. That one. Yeah. Um so what was the reason for moving that uh particular section from cons because it was conservation before according to the map. Moving it out of conservation and into public. I have a
rough idea. >> It's rural. It's it's not conservation. It's rural. >> Yeah. So, it's from rural to public and we changed because it's the city owned property. So, we put public in all of our properties. >> Okay. I guess I didn't see
>> we would not change conser we would not change conservation to to >> Okay, that's what I had thought too. Okay. Yeah, the color was close enough. I didn't see it. I'm sorry. Um, so there was uh text in there to change uh to allow solar in um how did the state
statute put it? something like uh in appropriate zonings. Um how do we determine how do we determine which one of those are appropriate? And I was curious about it specifically because I saw that rural was one of the ones where we were adding uh things like solar and resilience facilities and and all those
kinds of things. >> Um I I'll have to request Deborah to come here to kind of answer that specific question. I I think we compared to other cities, you know, but
>> I will let her speak. >> Good evening, mayor. Um, city council members. So, what we did was we did look at other cities to see what other cities were doing. Um, we also looked at our land development code because our land
development code also allows um solar facilities. we place that use in our land development code um ahead of what um our comprehensive plan. Um so we looked at other cities to determine the uses and um the location the future land
use designations for them. >> Okay. So consistent with what other cities and consistent with with what we already had in the LDC. Yes. Then >> okay. All right. Um, so on the part about uh primary and secondary land use, um, I I like the definitions. They make
a lot of sense. They add the clarity. Um, how does that fit with what we were doing before? Were those the same things that were done just administratively but not in the comp plan? Because that in my reading of it, it's creating a new uh, interpretation of what's in the comp
plan. >> Now, actually, the previous comp plan had that and it was removed in the in 2022. So we are bringing it back but we also clarifying >> that um so the difference between the other and special exception use order I
think we are clarifying this one but in the previous one we had a primary that was um um uh by right in the land of event code right >> and then the secondary would be um by special exception. >> Yeah. Or or part of mixed use. Right.
Well, mixed use is a new category that we brought in the in the in the comp plan. >> So that's why it was different than that was a little bit different. Yeah. >> 2022. Okay. >> All right. I think that's all. Thank you, >> Mayor.
>> I do have a quick question on conservation in general. I know this came back up came up also in November. Um I I have sort of a lack of enthusiasm about changing everything that the city owns to PL PLI or whatever whatever
we're calling it. Um is that something that's required by state law or is that just what we do >> the public >> the Yeah. calling it public and and then having this giant list of things that
we're allowed to to do with the land. So again, we're not changing anything that we think it's conservation or should be conservation to public, right? These are these um properties are properties that a park use that you know that um
>> but we could still clear an entire virgin forest and make it into a soccer field and and that would be allowed under PLI but not under conservation. Uh so my concern then is as as it is now is whether this has a conservation easement
and if we may be able to come up with a policy and this is I guess something that we should collectively maybe talk about at a work session or something and update later because right now we have to bring it into compliance with >> the state the state regulations. >> Um this particular one I think I toggle
either way. most of the other ones like I don't really love some of the solar um some of the solar plants putting all that out in the rural areas and also where else are we going to put them when the state requires us to allow them somewhere. So um so I'm trying to get to
the question here I I guess it is is that particular parcel and the map that Mr. brought up. Does is there a conservation ement that exists or is there some kind of limiting factor from when we bought it that will keep us from developing it or have does this remove that protection?
>> Mayor, I don't have the specifics for that property. I can bring it if if I don't know if there are any. Um I wouldn't imagine there is a conservation easement on that property, >> but I would certainly bring that you know in the next meeting if you would
like to. >> Well, I think this is this is kind of it. This is the final public hearing, right? No, we have one more. >> This is I think >> this is it. This is it. This is it. I think this is it. >> It doesn't have to go one more. I thought I read that it had to go one more back and there were eight public
hearings total. >> That's why there's this is such a long timeline. I've forgotten what we did in November. >> And actually, M could you miss could you put that map back up on the screen? Uh three public hearings. One is LPA,
one is city council transmitt, and then the last one is tonight, which is city council adoption. So, okay, that's the three public. Yes, mayor, you're right. It because the state the state pro it's a state process takes a long time. >> Okay. Uh the parcel number six on the
screen is a parcel that the city has owned. I actually owned before I even came to this city 30 years ago. Um, and I know that it is mostly it's about a sixacre track. It's mostly upland, but there is some wetland on the property, but I do not believe that it is under
any type of conservation easement, but it is it is a wetland and it is in the Econ Latche basin. So therefore, the Econ Latche rules would apply. >> Uh, parcel number five, my recollection is that is a stormwater pond.
So it >> so it's already been clearcut and it is already >> storm water fine. Yeah, it's a functioning storm water fine. So there's nothing else for it to be. >> Uh but parcel six is vacant. Uh that's where they have the little parking area where people walk down to the to the river to the trail.
>> And uh but I do I do remember uh when I first came to the city, there was a proposal to put a sewer plant there. >> And yeah, that was my reaction too. And uh it uh but there was uh if I remember correctly, there was an area in the
northeast corner that was wetland, but I do not remember it ever having a conservation ement. >> So >> about how many acres would you say that is? >> It's I think it's a total of six if I remember correctly. And it's got maybe three and a half
up area. >> Three three and a half dry. >> Yeah, I think so. Yeah, if I remember correctly, that's it's been a long time since I worked on that. So, uh but uh but yes, that's what that's what it is. >> But what I meant before is that we we own it. So, we can still >> So, we can put a conservation on the
portion >> if we want in the future. >> Okay. So, that that may we can research. There is the pleasure of council. We can change it to put conservation. >> Okay. I I I I don't personally want to gum up the process since we're what is it 15 months or so into maybe not that long but
>> well that sounds like a separate thing if we want >> separate thing that we could do later. Yeah. >> All right. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions here? >> No question. >> Nope. And I just want to say I think staff's done a great job and I know a lot of a lot of these have these uh LPA
or sorry LDC's have been kicked back from the state. So I'm really happy that ours came back with just comments. That's not a small feat. So that means we're doing something right here. So with that, I will ask the clerk to call the vote. >> Council member Aught >> I. >> Mayor Slater. >> I.
>> Deputy Mayor Tukurt. >> I. Council member Bford. >> I. >> Council member Britain. >> I. >> The motion carries. We will move on to item number eight. Ordinance number 1767, land development code update. Uh, Mr. Bose, can you read that by title only? >> Thank you, Deputy Mayor. This is
ordinance number 1767, an ordinance of the city of Ovito, Florida, amending the land development code of the city of Ovidito, specifically article 3, development agreements, orders, and permits. And article 18, basic definitions and interpretations providing for conflicts, severability,
confocation, correction of scriveners errors, and an effect an effective date. >> Thank you, Mr. Cob. >> Uh thank you, Deputy Mayor. uh this is the the ordinance that deals with special event permits and uh some of the changes and if you'll recall back during first reading at your last meeting we
did some things with uh nonprofits uh one of the things that happened after that meeting was we sat down with Mr. Vos and rather than bringing you uh two sections one dealing with uh uh churches and schools and another dealing with nonprofits Mr. both came up with a good
way to marry them into one one paragraph. So, uh, I'm going to turn it over to Dr. Korea and she can update you on what is provided for in the ordinance. >> So, good evening again. So, this is ordinance 1767
um on special events and outdoor sales event permits. So um we got um direction from council in a work session to make changes to um the special uh event uh section of the
code and um at that time it was um decided that uh we would treat farmers market as special event and we would allow recurrent events special event permits um instead of having one per year. Next slide. Um so this is what
this um uh amendment accomplishes. It clarifies uh when a special event is required exempts from special event permitting events at properties owned by places of worship. 501c3 nonprofit organizations and public private schools
given some criteria are being met. allows special events to occur once per month instead of once per year and reduce the time frame frame of special events for from 14 to 3 days uh and provides for consistency within uh with
the definition of special event. Next next permit next uh slide please. So this one we included this was staff uh initiated um amendment we included the another section um in F um to because
that's something that we do in practice that any activity that requires city services would be a criteria to um require a special event and uh although we had in practice it was not codified so we are codifying now um next slide um
this is the one that um We after hearing the public hearing um uh comments um in the last um uh meeting, we decided to change the code to give the same um um uh conditions to properties owned by
places of worship 51 uh 1C3 um um 511C3 nonprofit organizations and uh and schools with the same criteria. So now we have the same conditions for all the three entities.
Next slide. We also changed also came from last um meeting. We changed the um language here um just to clarify. It's just to read better instead of saying that no um special event permit shall be
issued for um uh for no more than three consecutive consecutive days and then allowing uh a way to wave that we put in a one sentence in and it flows better u for people to understand. So we just changed the the the
language here. Next slide. Uh this one we had no change from the last time. We're just saying that farmers market will be considered special event. Next slide. And then this one is just in the definition making it consistent with
what the language in the code says. Um next slide. Um, so it's recommended that city council read ordinance um 1767 by title only, conduct a public hearing and adopt ordinance number six 1767.
And that concludes my presentation and I'm available for any questions. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, this is a public hearing. So at this time I will open up our public hearing. I do not have any written requests to speak. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address council on this topic?
Hearing none, I will close public hearing. What is the pleasure of councel? >> I move we adopt ordinance number 1767 with one amendment and that is for the article 3 section two. This is on slide
number five of nine of the presentation. We delete the final uh the IV under number four, Roman numeral 4 under D, which reads the activity does not require city services for its implementation as determined by
the land use administrator or design. And the reason I would like that deleted from the part that says, you know, that lays out uh what is exempt from getting a permit is that since these organizations are exempt from the permit, then there would be no
opportunity for the land use administrator or design to determine that the activity does not require city services. Uh and one of the things I'm thinking about is, you know, a church service. Sometimes, uh, the church will choose to hire offduty police officers
to manage traffic. Um, and I would not want that to trigger needing a permit. And not that that's what exactly this is for. This is for if somebody else uses a church to do something similar. >> I guess we can get into discussion, but we have a motion, right? >> Okay. So, the motion is to delete that. And that is the motion. So, if anybody
will second it, then I guess we could do a discussion so I don't have to amend my motion later. Second. >> Okay. Any discussion, Mayor? >> All right. Well, y'all basically heard it. I It just doesn't really make sense with the spirit of this particular
section of the the code. Council member, >> is there a definition for city services such that perhaps hiring an offduty law enforcement to direct traffic after a
church service either does or does not um meet that >> and that is a question Dr. Korea you answer that or Mr. Cob? Yeah. Well, I just want to um I think that's why there is some flexibility there there, you
know, as determined by the land use administrator because my worry is that if you're closing a street, if you're really doing something that requires, you know, the city to um to be there, right? So, this is the criteria. If you meet those criteria, if you're wholly
within your the limits of the property, >> well then yeah, then if one is true, then you wouldn't be closing a street. >> No, I know. So if if you meet those criteria, fine. But if you're spilling over to impact the city, then it should
be a special event. >> That is our worry. I mean, how do we control if it's something that is too big? >> Well, okay. So, so right now there are several churches within the city limits um right one on Lockwood, one on uh
Broadway that do have uh an officer directing traffic is my understanding. Do they have do they currently have to get a special event permit to have to hire Okay, so I guess the first question is are those offduty or on duty officers? Did they have to go
to the city and >> they do anything? >> They don't. They these are not. So if they are if they are just um hiring I think um police officers not on duty to help with with their event. This is not considered
civil service. >> Maybe an easier question to ask is what is an example where we would need this in there? Well, this is to allow if it if we have a huge event, then you should not be exempt. If you have something that is
big that is spilling over and impacting the community and and closing streets, then it's a situation that we should have. You know, this is just to give some protection to the city. >> Mr. Did you have something out there? >> Uh yes. Um this a normal church service
where they're out there just directing traffic. In other words, stopping traffic to allow other traffic flow to go and then stopping here and saying go this way. That that's not that's not really what we're talking about here. What we're talking about, and Dr. Krid did mention one, if it
requires a road closure where we're actually going and putting up barricades and redirecting traffic around the area. That would be a use of city services because the police officers are not not only just directing traffic, we're we're closing that road. So there's barricades up and and things like that. I think
another thing when we think about when you think about church when you think about uh city services is public works involved. Are we on site doing any type of garbage detail or any uh manning any type of portallets or anything like that? Is the fire department on site?
You know, we have a a truck on site just in case something happens. We've got an EMT or we've got a paramedic on site. Uh police officers providing security. If you'll think about uh great day in the country, our police officers not only are there for traffic control, but they
actually provide security for the woman's club and the money they collect. And so that would be a use of city services as well. Yes, it is a police detail. That's what they call it. It's a detailed work. Uh so those types of things I think as well if you um those
are usually the major things that would say require city services when we're when we're actually onsite a part of the event itself. Uh no I do not believe that us propriet asking us to do security for a Sunday
morning worship is not not a special event. No. Uh it's when they're when they are out there inviting everyone to come to their site and at for this special event and um if it requires city services then that would be the things
like a great day does at at uh cross life church. Uh obviously great day is moving out to the mall now. But that was that was one of the ways that that uh that that qualified. Um, I can tell you that there are churches that have uh special events on their campuses. We're
not involved in any way. They do their own parking. They do their own, you know, everything. And we're not involved. And we don't require, um, any type of special event permit. The only time it really comes in if they want to go off site and do signage or something like that. But, um, most of the time if
it's completely contained and we're not involved, then we're we're not if we don't require the permit. So to go through the exercise here um great day is okay when it was when it was at the
church it's moving somewhere else okay um is at a property owned by a place of worship right um let's see provided all the conditions are met um contained wholly within the
limits of the property or place of worship so in their case you would say because the parking is otherwise then that would trigger. >> It could also there was uh traffic in
between the clubhouse and the site as well. We were providing services esport services for the money to go from the clubhouse to the site. >> The clubhouse. >> Yes. On King Street. >> On King Street there's a club the women's club has a >> Oh, the women facility building. Okay.
Right. Now, let's let's the the Cross Life Church every year, every um Halloween. >> Halloween. Yeah. Every Halloween, they do a special day for children. >> Okay. It's completely contained on site. City city staff are not there unless of
course they're church members. >> And it's just a just a uh celebration for for the children. It's for the preschoolers and children. I think that's the two age groups if I remember correctly. And uh it's complete. It's in the same same area that they have Great
Day. Uh every everyone parks on site and um no problem. And they don't they're not required to get a special event >> unless they had a food truck. >> Well, if they brought in a food truck, then yes, because that would require a fire inspection, >> right?
>> Okay. So, I guess what I'm trying to get to is like is the the city services thing like I I see where you're coming from. >> Maybe delete. >> I also see but I als >> as determined by the land use administrator the activity does not
require city services. So, I I get what you're saying. The the trash one, that's the most interesting of all because you could have a situation where it meets all of the other criteria, but the event organizer would like city assistance. So, then instead of having like a fake out, you have to fake out and confirm
that you don't need a a permit, you can read this, know that you don't need one unless you want to self-trigger by saying, "We would like a police detail to, you know, take us down a public road. We would like the city to come and handle our trash. So I I would like to
amend my motion. >> Well, why don't we go through the whole discussion? >> The whole thing. Okay. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> Just make sure everybody's going the same direction. So, Council Member Britain, >> it's a lot of lot of stuff in there. Um
I guess I'm okay with it right now. >> Okay. Council member Bodford. I think we ought to add that line back in based off the conversation we just had. >> And then I guess my question on that is I think this we kind of determined every
other situation is kind of covered there but security whose responsibility is it to determine how much how many police officers they need >> to be police department. Normally what happens is that an organizer will come in have a pre-application meeting >> and they'll say I want to do an event on
this location. I want to invite this many people. I want to, you know, all these different things. And the police department then does an analysis and looks at all the different entrance points. They look at uh all they look for any place that anyone could come in and cause harm is what they do. They
look for those weak points and then they they determine, okay, we're going to need that we'll need this many cars or we'll need this many personnel and we'll need blockades at these entrances. Those types of things. So, I guess that's my concern with taking out the last one because if you are fully contained
within the property, you're not requiring off-site signage, you don't have food trucks, you might think you don't need a permit, but then we're not doing a safety check. And if this ends up being a huge event, even if it's wholly contained and we need to ensure safety, I worry we're not going through
this to make sure we dot all our eyes and cross all our X's. I guess that's the only concern I could see coming out of this. then we don't have anybody exempt from a permit. So everybody has to apply to not have you have to apply to not have a permit. You see what I'm saying?
>> I do but I don't know how you get out of that. >> The the imp the impetus here is that the activity does not require civity services as determined by the land use administrator or designate. That means that the land use administrator would need to make a determination
which means that you always >> have to you always have to apply for a sales Yeah. for a special event. >> You don't have to apply. >> They might have to check and say, "Do we need city services?" And they'll be like, "No, you don't need a permit." I think some of them are going to be obvious, right? >> Well, if they need city services, they
will contact us, right? >> Well, then we need to strike out as determined by the land use administrator or design. >> But that gives them flexibility. No, it doesn't. It gives us flex. It gives us the power to go in and say, "We don't like your event. Turns out we wanted you to have a special event."
>> It's a small it's a small, you know, city service that we are not going going to require, you know, a special event, right? If it's the the police officer helping. So, okay. So, I I'm cool. Like, just for
everybody up here, I I would like to amend my motion. And I think everybody's had a a chance to chime in and instead of deleting the entire thing, just say the activity does not require city services boards implementation. Period. And just delete the last thing. So the
event organizer can can on on their own say, you know, I'd like to have some police officers. And perhaps knowing this, they will reach out to the city and trigger the need to have a special events permit because they have so much trash or need services or whatever they may what whatever the situation may be.
>> Okay, we have an amended motion. Do we have a second? >> Yeah, I'll second because or should I say yes? >> You should say yes if you want to second it. >> Yes, I will second. >> Mayor. Did you have any further discussion? >> Yeah. Yeah. I I'm I'm much happier with how that reads. It It's not a nonsense
provision. Now, >> Mr. Bose looks like he wants to say something. >> Yeah. Do Do we have to vote on the amendment first or >> She uh amended her own motion. >> Okay. >> So, we didn't have a vote on that. Correct. >> Correct. Yeah. Uh
so if we're taking out who determines uh whether city services are required, who does determine >> the person who is not getting a permit? I mean the whole thing is we're trying to make it less circular. Um, so if it is completely self-contained, one might
be able to heir on the side of this doesn't need a permit. Unless you think, ah, I I want to Well, of course, you can't close down a road yourself. So, Deputy Mayor, council members, I I just wanted to just offer one thought,
and I I've talked with staff about this a great deal, and I'm told they've never had a circumstance like this in all the many years in Ovido, which bless Ovito, that it's never happened. In other jurisdictions, I've had, and I'm sorry to throw parades of horribles at y'all,
but just I've I've had to deal with this exact scenario where um some special events rules weren't uh either as tightened down as they could be or at the very bare minimum there wasn't kind of an escape hatch to deal with large
problems. And that is I've lived through scenarios where literally on a piece of property that otherwise under special event rules, they would be exempt from the special events uh permitting and and all of this. And literally an event uh
like a music concert with on a large piece of property with literally thousands of people was promoted and then folks came and it completely destroyed traffic and and every other city service for a mile
around that property. And the city didn't uh know anything about it and it was they only found out about it a couple days before on Facebook. didn't have the tools to do anything about it. It was the type of thing that uh there absolutely should have been by any
reasonable standard some sort of police presence. There should have been uh fire rescue presence, all sorts of thing. All right. I'm not suggesting that's necessarily going to happen the second you know that piece is taken out or anything like that. That language there serves as
an opportunity where something is demonstrably way larger than a given property, whatever it is, can handle on its own. It gives an escape hatch to be able to say, "No, you're going to need a lot more of that because you're going to impact not just your property itself,
but the uh neighborhood, the quarter mile, the mile immediately around it." So, just a thought to bear in mind. What what kind of venue was it? >> Uh it was it was a grass field. Uh that >> grass field. Okay. So like that would be a little bit more surprisy than you have
a concert on church. >> No no I'm I'm not talking about I'm not talking about a church just happened to have a lot of people there. Churches are and keep in mind why is why are special event permits in our land development regulations. It's because it's primarily to deal with properties that are not
designed for that use. Churches, for example, are designed for the exact use of having a whole bunch of people all showing up at the same time to go in to a particular place. That might involve the need for law enforcement to direct traffic because there's just a lot of
people all going at the same time. It doesn't necessarily make it uh need to be a special event because that is what the property is designed for. Special event permits are primarily for places that are not designed for spe not designed for large events. So just a
thought to throw at you. >> But what if a church comes in and says I want to have a carnival or doesn't come in and has a carnival anyway? uh the the matter ultimately becomes and frankly carnival is is one of the things I would
uh very much contemplate as being something you know on a church property and that's very common as you all know I I don't know how common it is here in Ovita but that's of course a very common uh thing throughout Simino County and Central Florida um that would uh be encompassed in this and if the scale of
it was such that it didn't require off-site signage didn't include food trucks they might have some other uh and it would the scale was such that it didn't then maybe they don't need a special event permit. If the scale of it would be such that clearly it's going to have traffic backups for miles around
and so on, then perhaps it would. >> But taking the sentence out would provide them with a loophole anyway. They say, "Well, we didn't know we needed a permit. We're just having an event here." And even though 10,000 people showed up. >> Yeah. If if if the sentence uh I I don't know whether they
characterize it as a loophole. The the sentence at bare minimum uh I think would put folks on notice that maybe they need to check somewhere to see whether or not it is even if it's not an application. And again, as a practical matter, it's my understanding that's how
it uh is kind of implemented in instances where it ends up being exempt, but uh on ones that might be on the edge, they check with the city even if it's not an filing an application and filling everything out and so on. Again, that's my understanding.
>> So, is the the motion that we're voting on including that sentence or not including? >> It's including the sentence, but not including the end of it with the land use administrator or design. So, it's just saying that activity does not require city services for its
implementation and then it's stopping. >> Council, >> it sounds sounds like we should leave it as as it is. >> So, it's I mean you don't you have any questions? >> No, I mean based off what Miss Rose I I I agree. I think you have to have you
know determined to who's going to be making that decision. I I think it leaves you too open and I I think as I said before, we just need to leave the sentences in as it is. >> I I also agree with that. I think there's some good points made here, but I also think there's no perfect way to
do this. But I think for the most part, you I having the sentence without who gets to implement it is I don't know uninforceable or it it takes away the whole point of the sentence, I guess. So, I would like to leave it as is.
>> Council member. Yeah. So, so the issue I have with it is that it sounds like there is required a determination by the land use administrator. So, if somebody were to look at this and and and yeah, all of
the things that you said, Mr. votes when you're talking about um property that's designed for it or or not designed for it or whatever. Maybe somebody had a special event and they thought they met at all and then perhaps the city
could come back and say, "Well, you didn't get a determination by the land use administrator that you did not need city services and so therefore you didn't comply uh under this section." that that's where I think it goes sideways. So, I
like the idea of having a determination, but also like you said, it's it's not perfect, but how do you how do you determine whether you need to get a determination? This makes it sound like you always have to get a determination.
And I think that's could be interpreted as too much. Well, that this creates a new system that would, for example, make the Ovito preservation project cemetery tour now need to get a determination that it doesn't need city services where
previously we just had the cemetery tour. >> So, Mr. Cobb, I mean, how do we address that? Because that is I mean, that's a valid point. We don't want everybody to have to go get a special event if we know they're in the clear. >> Like I said, most of the time people come and do a pre-application meeting. >> We don't do a pre-application meeting.
Do we need to do that now? Like tell me right now, do I need to sign up for a preapp for event that's been going for 15 years? >> Well, I I think as far as far as that's concerned, we've known about that for a long time. And so it, you know, as far as the cemetery tour, we know it's
self-contained. We know that it doesn't impact anything. And uh so yes, but I think a long time ago there were conversations about it. And but that was a long time ago. And so that one aside,
but the thing is is that when we have these big events and to address Councilman Britain's um question, we've never done it. We've come close at times, but uh if someone were to put on
an event, let's say it shuts down streets and all this other stuff, the police department can go in. If they don't have a permit, the police department could go in and shut it down. Well, we >> I think we've done that at at Riverside Park. There were people that uh reserved the park for a picnic and it turned into a tailgate party.
>> Yeah, we did have to do that. >> Several hundred people. Uh but >> uh they at least had rented the park. Uh we there was only I know of two occasions where we knew about it. We knew about an event and they didn't get a permit. Um we monitored it.
Thankfully, it was small both times. They were both small so we didn't have to do anything. Um, but that that's what it does. If they don't get the permit, then then requires us to step in. We do have the ability to shut it down. Uh,
usually what when people come, they come in, they meet informally with staff. That's what they do. They don't come in and request a formal determination. They come in, they meet informally with staff, and the size of the event usually dictates what happens. And if the size
of the event is self-contained on a piece of property, staff will tell them you don't need anything from us. You don't even need a permit. >> And and many times, if I can add, I mean, we would only know if there is an issue because of the nuisance. If created a nuisance, that's because that's the what we want to control,
right? Is is the impact to the city. So if if that happens, either we can shut down in the event or it's an information for the next time. So we know that next time this event is big enough if you're doing that like that that requires city
service and and we have done that in the past right if if an event is growing and um so this this is good information for us and for the for the um uh applicant if they care to read the the code and these are the requirements this this is
what you know you we exempt you if you meet those requirements and if they come as Mr. Cob said informally in the counter to ask questions. We will explain what that means. >> So it sounds like there are three people who are wanting to move in this in the
direction of leaving at the same. So my hope would be that staff could come up with some kind of policy to issue a certification of we don't we will not shut down your event because I think that is an assurance that people will need to have with this language in there just in case
you know a council who's not us if if anybody may not like a particular event and want to call in a code enforcement issue and have it be shut down you know some something weird could happen. So, if we could create a a behind-the-scenes policy of a certification of
determination that you don't need city services and that you can't come in and shut it down uh without it violating some other rule than you don't have a special offense permit. Um I would I would hope we could do that. So,
>> yeah, something like, you know, places in the law where there's like reasonable good faith, you know, legal words like that. I was kind of hoping Mr. Vos would say something like that at some point. >> I've been beating up this language to see if there was anything to to add. Any
sort of determination made uh in an executive capacity has to be reasonable and made in good faith. I mean that's that's the law in Florida at the very least. So read at bare minimum read that into a determination by the land use
administration administrator who is Mr. cop um >> or designate >> or designate and those standards I just mentioned would would still apply >> could be anyone on the weekend >> and so I I'd like to add also that that
sentence is is existing >> already we're not we're not adding it and >> that's good >> perhaps we have not had a problem >> here at four >> so we have a motion
>> okay but I I guess I should withdraw my motion so somebody else can make one. >> Do we have a motion? What is the pleasure of councel? >> What's the number on this one again? >> 1767.
>> Make a motion to approve 1767. >> We have a motion. Do we have a second? >> I'll second. >> Any further discussion? >> No. >> Okay. Can the clerk call the role? Council member Bford >> I.
>> Council member Britain >> I. >> Mayor Sladic >> I. >> Deputy Mayor Tukurt >> I. >> Council member Aught >> I. >> The motion carries. >> This motion. >> We will move on to ordinance number 1772 amendments to the code of ordinances of
the city of Ovito, Florida. Mr. Vose, can you read that ordinance by title only? >> Thank you very much deputy mayor. This is ordinance number 1772, an ordinance of the city of Ovito, Florida, amending the code of ordinances of the city of Ovito, Florida. Specifically, chapter 2, administration, article 3. Chapter 2,
administration, article 11. Chapter 22, Environment, Article Four, and Chapter 28, impact fees by public facility, article one, and providing for conflicts, severability, implementing administrative actions, a savings provision, codification, correction of
scrier's errors, and an effective date. >> Thank you, Mr. Rose. Mr. Prom. >> Uh, thank you, Deputy Mayor. This does involve the amendment of uh different parts of the code of ordinances, and I'm going to hit the easy ones, and then I'm going to let Dr. Kareah take on the hard one. uh which is the noise ordinance.
And so uh but this the first part does deal with section 2-291 uh that deals with waiver of fees. And it's mostly a cleanup of uh making it clear that what the city manager can can approves and as well as a removal of the
tent permits from section 2-291. Uh the other part deals with chapter 28 which is our impact fees and we had a section in chapter 28 that said we would index impact fees as we go through and uh it also addressed mobility fees. However, when we adopted the mobility
fees we actually adopted the actual fees through the years and through our uh extinguating circumstances ordinance. And then when we adopted our recent uh uh new uh police, fire um administrative
facilities uh parks and recck impact fees because of the statutes and the limitations that we could only increase them 50% over a 4-year period. We actually adopted the each what it would be for each of those four years. So
having the uh this section in the in the code of ordinances is no longer consistent with the statute. So, we're recommending that that section talking about indexing of impact fees and mobility fees be removed from the um from the code of ordinances. The last part deals with the uh exemptions to the
noise ordinance. I know staff worked with the mayor after first reading. So, I'm going to let Dr. Korea come and and talk about that. >> So, okay. So we managed to hit our three document main documents the comp plan the LC and
now the um the code of ordinances. So if we can go to um the next one >> the next one this one. So this one um during the first um um meeting which was
the first reading of this ordinance uh we proposed this language and you can see the strike through and the underline is what um the language that was directed by council. So we changed the first one. It was just to um remove the
the reference in Latin and to create to say that um would be just limited to the large scale concrete pores and curing process for the waving of the noise ordinance. And then um the second one the mayor requested to um change the
formal request from 5 to 10 business days and we changed that. and then the recurring um if there were subsequent requests um then from two to seven and increase the radius from 200 to a thousand.
So we met after the first reading uh internally and we discussed uh with public works that um changing especially the 200 to a thousand would be too much of a change um for um the applicant uh even for
permanent changes in the you know future land use our radius is 500 ft. So we came and I called the mayor. We just I discussed with her some um you know alternative language and that's what we are proposing. The next slide um if we
can go to the next slide. This one. Yeah. No sorry this one. So we um the first one we accepted you know um the change from um just to read better um we accepted the 10 business days for the
first notice and then uh we proposed going back to the um subsequent request from 7 to two and going back to 200 feet but we added two additional um
requirements. ments and it's not showing in in the presentation, but one is that the applicant or contractor shall install a variable message board at the project site or at any or at another highly visible location approved by the
land use administrator or design for a minimum of 24 hours beginning at least 3 days before the scheduled concrete pour. The variable message board, the VMBB shall notify the community of the upcoming activity and direct residents
to the city's website for additional information and updates. And the second um um uh requirements that city staff shall post the initial scheduled concrete pouring date as well as any subsequent schedule uh rescheduled dates
on the city's new website um news web page. So this was I think was a way to you know still give um a proper notice to the residents and um decrease the the radius to uh 200 um ft. Um next slide I
think this is so this um um Mr. Corb already mentioned this one and I think that concludes what we have. So, if council um the ordinance that was proposed in the packet has the language directed by city council in the last
meeting, attachment three is the one that has the new language. So, we are recommending that um city council adopt um ordinance 1772 um to read ordinance 772 by title only, conduct a public hearing and adopt the
ordinance language provided in attachment three. and I am available for any questions. >> Thank you, Dr. Curry. So, this is a public hearing, so I don't have any written requests to speak. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address council on this issue?
Hearing none, I will close public comment. What is the pleasure of councel? >> I move we adopt ordinance 1772. >> Second. So, >> did we want to do it with attachment 3
or the original? >> Uh, with Yeah, the original if that's >> okay. >> Okay. I mean, is that you second that original? >> I I am okay with the changed one. >> Well, we can we can discuss and then come back. >> Then we come back. Okay. We have a motion.
>> Second. The motion and second is the >> for the original >> the original one. Okay. >> Um I was going to propose uh well so one thing I was going to raise was in the presentation um you had asked mayor for seven days.
What's in the presentation said seven days. What's in the actual ordinance says seven business days. Um, and I was going to ask whether you really meant seven business days because that's a >> no >> a less common thing to do.
>> Just just a week. >> Okay. Um, so I assume you're okay with amending the motion to say seven days. >> Yes. >> Seven days.
>> Mayor Slater. Uh I I I get why it might be a little cost prohibitive to go to a thousand feet. So um just one one idea to run by staff. Do we want to make it an eitheror? Because it could be possible somebody is pouring in a place where it
would be less expensive to do written notification to a,000 ft than to rent or procure in whatever fashion it is a a reader board. Um but you you guys know what the concern is. So if if you think that is helpful, I would be delighted to
suggest that you make that amendment and I would second it. But if not, I'm I'm okay with it as it is, too. >> Okay. So, Council Member Britain, >> I just had one silly question. I think I saw something up there. If they don't comply with this, they will not get a certificate of occupancy. So, I was just
thinking if someone's doing a big concrete pour, what what does this co really do for them until they finish the project? Well, I think this is um it's the verification of the notification, right? To make sure that
they have that and show to us before the CO is issued. >> I still don't get it. If if someone wants to do a big concrete pour, >> we can remove that because usually what we do is we shut down if they do not follow the process, we shut down the
>> we shut them down. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So, >> we can remove that. >> And when they behave themselves, you let them go and then you give them a Okay. >> So, you want to take out the last sentence on item number three. >> Uh, yeah. You know, I I was just asking the question, but it just seems like
it's a it's kind of nebulous as to how that is going to cause anyone to not comply. >> Okay. Council member Bford. >> No, I'm fine. So, were you were you requesting to amend the motion because
>> Oh, yeah. I'll request it. >> Okay. Yeah. I mean, it sounds good to me cuz you know, like I say, how do you correct that if you've messed it up ever? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So, right now we have a motion to accept it as is. Um, council member, you are the motioner. The two requests we've
had were seven days instead of seven business days and removing the last sentence of item number three there. And then I believe the mayor wanted to change the noise ordinance to be either 1,00 ft or 200 feet with the two mitigation techniques of putting in a
board. >> Um, >> is that correct? Did I get everybody's request? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, council member, I will leave it up to you too if you want to amend. >> Well, I So, that what's on the board right now is not what I had moved for. I had moved for the original one.
>> Correct. The slide back. >> One slide back. And that one says you then >> that one says a thousand ft. >> Okay. >> Right. So I to bring up Yeah. I intended to bring up the the radius also. Um and I went and started you know drawing some
radiuses on the >> Google map. I I can I can it depends on where you are. 1,000 feet is not 1,000 feet. Right. So uh you wanted to go 200. I I'm okay with >> I'm we have one exhibit showing
>> you know simulations on the 200 this one. So we have um we have a thousand. Can we go back? Yeah. So this is the 200. So we are
showing three possible you know sites. One is the area one, the river oaks next to the re river oaks that we approved for 200 would be 17 properties. Um the other one is um uh
>> the mall is that >> the no the third one is the mall. The other one what is there? >> The most likely place for this to happen is the mall. So if everybody at the aisles of Ovido or at least some of them it looks like they some of them would
get notification. So we can if we run so it's 176 16 and 176 >> um well now it's four 500 62 39 176 and a,000 if we go to the next one 140 165
289 so it's even for a future land use map amendment we require 500 this is a permanent change right this is a one-time deal it's a small so we thought a thousand was too extreme to request and it's
going to be prohibitive for the um for the developer to comply and we want them to comply. >> Okay. So the only two amendments remaining then are to take out business days to change seven days to or sorry to
change seven business days to 7 days and to strike the last sentence of uh article 4 section 22-123 uh.3 um the the sentence about um the certificate of occupancy.
>> So did you want to leave it as 1,000 ft then? >> Oh wait, >> no. >> Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah. because the wrong one was up there. Yes. The third one is Yes. And to amend back to 200. >> Wait, is this the one? I don't know
which one we >> That's the one. See, it says on the top directed by city council June 15. >> Okay. So, this is what's in there. So, we have to change it back to what it was. >> That's what the motion is. Yeah. But we also need to change the business days. We also have to change the other one. >> Okay. So, if I get you right to to confirm, we're all on the same page. The
motion right now is to approve ordinance number 1772. With the changes, we're changing 7 days to instead of business days to just 7 days. We're losing sentence number three and then we're on item number three. We're going back to 200 days. >> Yes. >> Yes. We're losing just the last sentence
of sentence of >> Do we have it number three? >> Second. Yes. >> Okay. We have a motion and a second. Uh Mr. Vos, I >> I need to make sure you guys understand what you're voting on. Um, >> yeah. >> So, and I I'm not a fan of providing two different versions with a bunch of
different things in them because it it >> leads to confusion, but uh what has been labeled on here attachment 3 is the only version, please correct me if I'm wrong, is the only version that has all the additional language about a variable message board. If y'all don't care about the variable message board,
>> no, that I we care about that. I care about that. >> That is not on the That is not on the floor right on the one we're voting for. Oh, it's not. >> Okay. Well, we can fix this. We can fix this. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> I'm glad you said something. >> Thank you, Mr. Board was the one that council had Well,
oh, I guess council directed this and then we added that bag in. Okay. Gotcha. >> One other thing I I'll just take this in no particular order. The language that is in front of you on this um on this PowerPoint slide is not the exact
language from uh the um from the actual any version of the ordinance. The matter concerning the certificate of occupancy. I think the appropriate way to implement that thought is actually to edit the provision uh that's in here to strike
out a final clause that's in this sentence. This is the way the sentence reads in the in the draft ordinance. Proof of neighbor notification, a copy of the written notice and a list of who is uh sent to or to be presented by the applicant to the staff prior to the
certificate of occupancy. Then you just take out that last cause. You still want them to give you tell staff, hey, we did it. Here's our proof that we did it. But the whole involving the certificate of occupancy piece would probably be the way to implement that thought of let's take talking about certificate of
occupancy out of it. Um, so if that is if that is a thought that's amendable uh to you, then it sounds like the ordinance as presented, not the attachment three, but the ordinance as
presented would be um with the change I just mentioned, changing seven business days to seven calendar days and adding in the
uh >> message >> adding in the variable message board language. >> Well, well, or we could just do the other version of the ordinance, >> but it still needs the variable message board because that's new. >> The the other ver >> the could
>> attachment three does that not have the >> This is attachment three. And so if you look at attachment, this is attachment three. The 10 business days is there. I think what we're saying what what if I'm hearing correctly, you see where it says two business days. I
think that's where you want seven days. >> Correct. So that so two 2B would change from two business days to seven days. >> Miss Bu, could you scroll down a little bit further? I think that's on
>> if I if I can just justify why we had from seven so the initial 10 days we are fine because this is the initial one and then because we will have a message board we're going to say now check the city website for um the following ones
and Paul Jurgen is the one that's going to say why we need the two days >> one of the challenges with a concrete pour is there's a lot of unknowns and so 10 business days is a long time. So they notify in 10 something inevitably is going to happen. Weather supplier is not going to be able to produce whatever. So
then if they have to do 7 days, >> it's just it it creates it's ownorous for the contractor to do that. Two days is reasonable because that's how concrete works and you get notice that it's available. You got to move and you got to do it. If it's seven days, I think we're creating
a problem for contractors in the city. then it's it's it's just going to continuously delay and delay and delay and are never going to get the poor done. So, >> okay, >> I strongly recommend two days. >> That's a really valid point. Two days. >> Deputy mayor, thank you for coming up. >> Deputy mayor clarifying.
>> Y Mr. C, >> could we just could I just recommend a continuence for this? Let us go in and revise the agenda, revise the ordinance based on what we've heard tonight and then bring it back to you at the next meeting. >> That sounds like a great idea. Do we need to vote on tableabling it?
>> Basically, what I would all you need to do is just revise the just amend your motion just to say make a motion to continue this to the July 20th meeting and then have a second and then just vote on it. >> Okay. Does the motioner want to amend their motion? >> Yes, I do. I move to continue uh
ordinance 1772 to the July 20th, 2026 meeting. >> Do we have a second? >> Second. Any discussion? Nothing further. >> The clerk call the role. Council member >> I. >> Mayor Slic. >> I. >> Deputy Mayor Tukurt.
>> I. Council member Britain. >> Hi. >> Council member Bterford. >> I. >> The motion carries. So we will see this at our next meeting. >> And we'll only have one version, right? >> Yes. We'll only have one version. >> Yes, we will. We have one. >> Definitely need to clean up that presentation. >> Definitely. Definitely will have one version.
>> All right. Moving on to item number 10, which is the first reading of ordinance for ordinance number 1774. Is there any way that we could make this ordinance number 1776? >> No.
>> So, ordinance number 1774. Uh, Mr. Bose, can you read this ordinance by title only? >> Thank you, Deputy Mayor. This is ordinance number 1774, an ordinance of the city of Ovito, Florida, proposing an amendment to the charter of the city of Ovidito, Florida. Proposing a charter
amendment requiring a supermajority city council vote to approve certain annexations. 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, Mr. Rose. Mr. Cobb, >> uh, Miss Poo, could you I actually have a have a three slide PowerPoint for you,
and if she can pull that up, that'd be great. Okay. >> Uh this is a request to u for the city council to adopt an ordinance to amend the charter. Uh it does put forth a a question that it will ask if the city charter should be amended to require any
ordinance annexing property within the county's rural boundary. Here we are. As it exists on July the 4th, 2026 to uh require four affirmative votes to adopt the ordinance. And uh we provided two maps up there. And one of the things
I wanted to show you was the rural boundary. That's a rural boundary map as it was adopted. I think it's since been amended a couple of times, but that's how it was adopted there. And of course, you can see the city c the city boundary. And for the most part, the rural boundary does hug our eastern city limits. There are some, if I can get
this to pull up. Come on. Here we go. There's some areas up in here in the north. You can see those white areas there. Those are areas that are unincorporated but actually in the urban area. And so what this ordinance would do is that if it's in
any part of this area here, it would require four-fifths vote of the city council. Okay. However, if it's in the urban area, which would be in this area here, or down in this area that is south of the city, then it would just be a majority vote of the city council. So,
um this is the actual language that would be added to section 2.02 2 of the uh of the charter, which basically says what I just told you earlier about if we were annexing property in the rural boundary as it exists on July the 4th, uh it would require four votes. And so
uh as we mentioned back on the 29th, this would be the thing the schedule is that uh if you do uh schedule the public hearing, it would be for July the 20th. Our deadline to get it to the supervisor of elections is the 21st of July. So that's the that's all we have. I'll turn
it back over to you, deputy mayor. >> Okay. Thank you. Is there a motion to schedule a public hearing for July 20th, 2026? >> So moved. >> Is there a second? >> Second. Any discussion? Council member Bar. >> Yeah. Um so uh I I talked about this
some before. We talked about it at the previous meeting. I wanted to address um Mr. Bonifford's uh concern before kind of asking what's the the rush about this. Um and the the rush uh so to speak is is just what Mr. Cobb had brought up
that we have to have this by uh July 21st uh the supervisor of elections tell us us in order to get it on the ballot. Um in addition to that as far as uh you know the idea of of of rushing I mean this started uh a couple of weeks ago.
Um you know Mr. Bear told us that, you know, this was something that he had considered on the Winter Springs uh charter review committee and, you know, we we looked at it last time. So, there has been some time. Uh it has gone by email to all the members of the charter review committee. Um like I said, there
were uh uh nine that were uh affirmative for it. Um three responded not affirmative. uh one did not respond but is uh in opposition based on uh things that he's uh said on the internet. Um
and so uh yeah I I think this is a I I think this is a good thing. It helps us to to protect the the rural boundary. Uh the people almost everybody that um I've I've spoken to about it has been in in favor of it. Um we had charter
amendments in 2024 uh to strengthen the rural boundary. So I mean similar uh similar type type thing actually right so that at the county level if the board of county commissioners wanted to change the rural boundary uh it takes uh four votes right there were two amendments um
regarding that they passed uh one with 85% of the vote in a referendum another one with 82% of the vote uh in a referendum uh I I tried to find out what the uh OVTO numbers were for those referendums because I suspect that they are even
higher because we actually touch the rural boundary and and we're on the same side of the 417 as the rural boundary, right? So, you know, if the rural boundary were to be developed, all of that traffic would come, you know, through Ovido uh to get to the main roads in a way that it would not affect
uh you know, Castleberry, for instance, right? Um so, I I was not able to get those numbers. I put in a public record request, but it didn't come back last I looked at it today. So, maybe we'll know tomorrow. Yeah, that's how it goes. But um yeah, I I I I think this is a good
thing. Do I have anything else written? I don't think I have anything else written. >> Okay. >> Um I think you guys all know it. >> Mayor Slate. Oh, I I think another important thing to note for why it's important to do it now is because the
state moves pretty fast every spring to do things to take away uh the right to protect the rural boundary or or just in general our home ability to to control things like that. So, um adding a little bit of extra protection seems okay. And
this to me is different than a land use restriction. this is a pure policy decision whether to let something be part of the city. Um whereas if if we were to to say we're going to make it harder to change the zoning, that's not that's not the question and that's not
the proposal. It's whether to annex. So, um, and I think that that makes sense to ask the people now and had it come up sooner, then, you know, we would have had a chance to let the charter review committee members who don't like the
idea persuade those who have expressed that they do like the idea to change their minds. But all we really have to go on right now is knowing that by a margin of about two to one from the people who gave feedback, the charter review committee members themselves
would have put this forward the best we can tell had it come up sooner. And I'm grateful for Mr. Bear having having called up and and started batting around some ideas for what could could perhaps be done in Winter Springs. And when he mentioned this, I thought, you there's
something to it. um the the part that makes me think it's Yeah, I would rather see it be not tagged to the rural boundary, but if that is what adds that level of comfort that addresses the concerns from last week, I'm okay with it. Um, I think it makes it a little bit
less strong in some ways, but you know, it does the trick and it and it narrows it enough to address I think all of the concerns. But waiting another five years to do a charter review to do to potentially have this be part of our of
our structure, I just I think five years is a really long time with how fast Tallahassee moves. And uh I'm grateful to all of the charter review committee members who did reply because you know there's there's some discussion up here that I don't think we should be changing
around whether whether we agree with it or disagree with it. We shouldn't be changing around what they recommended. But this this is just one of those oneoff things that didn't come up till later. So that's where I'm at on it. >> Okay. Councilman Britain. >> Well, uh I guess I got a few questions.
Brian, can you put up the the uh the chart you just showed back up or whoever running that? The areas that are not in the rural boundary that you pointed out, are those continuous within the city or are they
bordered by Winter Springs also? Okay. So, these areas right here are contig are there are properties that are contiguous to the city that are not contiguous to Winter Springs where my where the arrow is. Okay. When you get
over here in this area, this area over here could be annexed if it were contiguous to be annexed in the city of Winter Springs. City of Winter Springs is on the north side of 434. City of Veto is on the south side 431. So if if these properties met the contiguous
obviously that one little enclave right there Whitten, but if these properties met the contiguous >> Okay. >> definition, but where over in this area here? No, those properties would not meet contiguous to Springs. >> Yeah. I guess my question is I'm a
little concerned that we go and and restrict ourselves and there's no guarantee Winter Springs is going to do the same. And if you remember the history and I've been here 37 years, the reason Winter Springs has property all the way on the west side of
417 is because of the land grab they did in the early 2000s and we we tried to react to that as best we could. So now we have neighborhoods that one side of the street is in Winter Springs, the other side of the street is in Ovido because of this. So I'm a little leerary
about allowing uh or going this route without a guarantee that it's it's going to be applied on the other side, too. >> But none of that's in the rural boundary. So that would only require three votes. Am I I think I'm understanding this correctly, right?
>> Yes, you are. >> Okay. So it's only three votes. So that would that's exactly the status quo. Now >> I'm just I'm just pointing out the the reasoning and if Winter Springs decides not to uh to adopt it, they can go into the rural boundary with three votes and and we can't.
And that's how that happened before that that land grab that's you know it's not in the it's not in the rural boundary but it's it's on the uh east side of 417 and they were coming fast. Okay. Are you now? >> That's it.
>> Okay. Council member Bford. >> Yeah. So, my understand we had this in the workshop. We talked about it. We weren't comfortable of the initial one that we we had. Um we said state our concerns and we said that we were going to table it for now and that we still
had the ability that we didn't have to wait 5 years. We still had the ability if we wanted to bring it forward. Is that right, Mr. Vos? We didn't have to wait 5 years if we wanted to bring it back again. You could you could adopt an ordinance and then put it uh on any ballot or call a special election for
it. >> Right. Right. So my understanding again I I got this what I heard was after that Mr. you came to after the staff meeting and sat in the throws and tried to
propose new language. I don't know how long you guys spent on it. don't know, you know, how much time was put into it. I guess that's where I'm at. It's like, why is there such a rush here? This makes me think like there's something going on that I don't know that's going
on. You know, that's that's what gets me about this is it's like we're in such a rush to push this out and we have the ability we could put it out when we need to, when we fully vetted it. I I just Maybe you did vet it. I mean, maybe you
spent 15 minutes on it, you know, and it it's fully vetted. I don't know. I mean, that's it just seems kind of like rushed to me. Yeah. So, so to answer that, uh um when uh so yes, the uh city council with
three votes can, as Mr. Vote said, call a special election. We can put it on a ballot that already exists. Um there are so there are a couple of things uh about that um that that I want to address. Uh while that could happen uh I don't
anticipate that there's uh very much desire to cause or to call a special election and uh incur the costs associated with that. Uh in addition we have um oddyear elections uh here of
course for now and uh those don't always happen either right? So there was no city election in in 2025. So if we wanted to get it on a regular election, um we could do it now or we could do it
likely or or at least if history is any guide. Let's say it that way. If history is any guide, we may not have an opportunity in 27 and it might have to go to 28. Uh in addition to that, um you know, given uh the um difference this
council uh gave to the charter review committee and and the importance of um having a committee look at it and perhaps not only coming from council, it seemed like there was a a desire to to do that kind of thing. Um you know, I I guess it's true a charter review committee could be called at any time.
Um but that also seems unlikely uh to happen uh for the next you know five years until the next uh charter review committee. And so you know as as a result of those things it seemed like a good idea to to do it now. Um and you
know as far as as going through the process I wish this had come up in January. I I I really wish this could have gone through the whole process in uh you know w with the charter review. Um but the the timing didn't work out that way and it and it basically comes
out of that if we want to have it uh in 26 then we have to do it this way. Um if we you know if we wanted to do it in some other year we could do all manner of uh of other things. So, uh, it came down to
that and, you know, also it went to the charter review committee, uh, members and, uh, they were, um, they were in they were in favor of it. Now, you know, like Mayor Slick said, they did not get a chance to deliberate it, right, bounce it around and and discuss it. Um, so,
you know, so there is that it's not exactly the same as, you know, having gone through the the charter review process. I I definitely acknowledge uh that, but >> and I would I would agree with that. I mean, it didn't didn't really go through the process. I mean, it's an email that went out to them and it wasn't even wasn't even your proposal. It was the
proposal before that one. >> That's right. >> And they really didn't have a discussion where I think there was a lot of I don't know if everybody fully grasped it. Um, it's we have a lot of smart people on that charter review committee. Very diverse as I've said before. Uh, respect them a lot. They came up with what they
wanted to put out there. Totally agree with that. Totally align with that. I I I just don't know about this. And then you know the other part of this too is are we saying that we don't trust future councils? We feel that you know we know what's best for them and they they don't have the opportunity to make their own
decisions. >> Yeah. And I think that the answer to that question is you know do we do we trust future councils? Well the the question is do the residents um trust future councils right to be able to to do this with with three votes. And and
one thing I've wrestled with um on this is the idea of you know representative government um versus what you know some people might call uh direct democracy right where you know you you where you take all manner of things and you take them all the way to the to the people
and you let them vote on it. Um but where I fall on this is the idea that um government deres its power from the consent of the governed. And what this does is
it allows the governed to determine what kind of power and in what way they want to give us the government uh on this issue. So it's not a matter of trusting
council, it's how much power do they want to give us and we get to let them uh tell us, you know. So th this doesn't this doesn't say that the people know better than a future council because a future council would have to vote on it. Um it's just that a future council would
need uh four votes uh instead of three and uh if we go to the residents and that's uh the level of power that they're willing to give us at this time um then I think that's a a thing that they should be able to uh register their uh position on.
>> Any further comments? >> No. Um, so I guess I'll give my two cents now. Uh, I also had a lot of issues with how this came to be. Um, you know, I think we would have all preferred if this came up 3 months ago.
Um, I also personally don't like putting votes to 41 because I always look at what could possibly go wrong. In a lot of cases, that could make a minority overthrow the vote of a majority. Um, in this case though, um, and I guess I will
say too, you know, this is why we have a charter review committee. So, it comes from the residents and like we've talked extensively. I fully believe in passing everything our charter review committee says straight to the ballot without any input. So, I don't like that we superseded that. I don't think putting
your input in an email and saying if you're on board or not is the same as hashing it out in a work session with what they've been doing for the past 3 months. That being said, this might be the one exception I could be okay with. And the reason is because residents have voted on this. We do have
extensive history with this exact legislation. We've we've had it come through with an 84% vote. So, I do know as far as what is the poss like what minority could overturn this, the risks are not there with a lot of other votes we could see um where that could come into play.
I told you my issues with making this citywide and we have addressed that. So, I appreciate that. Um, I I do want to say like in the future if if it was literally anything else that it came to us this way, I I do not agree with superseding what our charter review
committee does and how this process went down. But because of the history here, I understand that this is our role boundary that is specific to that now. Um, and it does have a lot of back history here. So, I I get why we'd want to do that. And as far as the timing, um, you know, we could do this next
year. We could put it on a ballot next year. There is a chance we don't have an election. We could do another charter review committee. And that is a big hall. But I do think what we're not mentioning here is our state government. Um and our state government keeps trying to throw away the current protections. So right now, if we were to get this on
the ballot and it passed, it really doesn't do anything. Um and that's that's just kind of true. Uh as Mr. Bear said earlier, you know, if someone were to if we were to annex someone into the city, the county still has control. So if the state legislature goes through and gets rid of that control, that's
when this would become come into effect. So my goal here would be that this never even applies. But we don't have control over our state legislature. So um as far as something Council Member Britain said is what Winter Springs does versus us, I
think the areas you're concerned about, we fixed with what I asked at the last work session. You did it. And it does. I think >> I was That's what I was concerned about, too. I think I I like I said, I think it should always be a majority. I think that's, you know, if I end up on the losing end of that, that's how
government works. But if it's just the rural boundary, I think that kind of addresses what >> I'm just going back in history and it looked like we were going to become an enclave of Winter Springs 25, 30 years ago. And that's what concerns me.
>> Okay. So, I mean, that's my two cents. Uh, does anybody else have anything to add here? Okay, then we'll call the vote. >> Council member Aught >> I. >> Mayor Slidic >> I. >> Deputy Mayor Tukurt. >> I.
>> Council member Bodford. >> Nay. >> Council member Britain. >> I. >> The motion carries. We will move on to item number 11. Resolution number 4737-26, the real time flood forecasting. Mr. Cobb.
>> Hi. Thank you, Deputy Bear. Mr. Jurgane is going to give the staff presentation. >> Good evening again. Okay. So before you is a request to approve a work order to complete a real t real
real time flood forecasting. And basically what that entails is that would we have one of our city consultants are our Dura with their subconsultant streamline technologies um to basically create a continuous simulation model that would perform
hydraologic and hydraulic modeling of a certain area within the city of Ovido and it would predict the extent both vertically and horizontally of flooding forecasted up to four days prior to an event. So if we
can go to the next slide. So specifically what we're talking about are the little and big Econ loachhatche watershed basins within the city of Bido and they comprise about 9.3 square miles of the 16 square mile part of the city.
So roughly um 60%. The cost of the of the to create the model is roughly $216,000. All of that would be funded out of storm water. There's also an annual cost that would kick in in in fiscal year 27 of
$40,000 a year and that is essentially a an annual fee that entails um updating the model, the use of storage. There's continuous download of data. So that $40,000 would encompass that. So we go to the next slide.
The reason why this is important is because there's a lot of opportunity and benefit to being able to forecast flooding, especially if you think about doing it at least 4 days in advance. And really what we're looking at are if you know what's going to happen in advance,
we could look at things like where are we going to need road closures? Where would we need to evacuate residents? Could we have the opportunity to move vehicles out of areas that are going to flood? um being able to more specifically and strategically sandbag
and/or deploy flood walls and then being able to strategically deploy teams to specific areas um in advance of a storm um given the limitations of our of our staff there. There's a and there's a whole host of other of other benefits
which we'll get into as we go through go to the next slide. So really what we're what we're looking at are are three phases of this. Preparation in advance of the storm, mitigating either during the storm or or prior to and during the storm, and then recovery. So in advance,
we want to be able to be able to forecast the flood. Again, the vertical and horizontal limits of the flood. In terms of mitigation, we want to be able to identify specific actions that we can use to mitigate those areas that we predict to be flooded. And then lastly,
being able to have specific actions to recover after the storm. Next slide. So if we think about Hurricane Ian, if you could click it one more time. There we go. Okay. So, Hurricane Ian, we
remember, roughly caused $13 billion worth of damage. It was a massive storm, category 4. Came out of the southwest part of the state and then blew across Florida. Um there's a video of the I mean a photo of the famous Lake Duda. Go to the next slide. So in Ovido we had
rainfall that ranged between 14 in to about 22 in. So that's a pretty wide range of rainfall that occurred across the city. That's an important fact that I'm going to come back to. Let's go to the next slide.
So the again the challenge for us in in thinking about flood forecasting is the timing and the extent of the flooding. Being able to know that in advance again arms the city with the ability to react to it. So one example of this is Or
Vista which is in Orange County. Oil Vista is an area that floods all the time and flood forecasting was used to check its accuracy versus hurricane Ian and it has a very very high level of
accuracy. So if Orange County had flood forecasting in advance of Hurricane Ian, they arguably would have been able to prevent a lot of flood damage. Now what you see up on the slide there are a bunch of red dots. You see some orange dots and green dots. So the red dots are
really where you have deep flooding. Okay, those are the areas where streets are flooded, probably encroaching into homes. Those are areas that if you knew about in advance, you'd want to evacuate or take action. The areas that are in orange are areas where there is flooding, but it's probably just limited to the street. And areas that are green
are no issue. Next slide, please. Click it one more time. So the the the beautiful thing about flood forecasting also is you can do whatif scenarios. So if we knew an area was going to flood and we had some idea of how we could
remedy that we could implement that fix run the model and check it. We could run a whole host of of opportunities or or scenarios and this is exactly what they did with oil vista. This is a complicated storm water thing which I won't get into but they were able to identify the best solution using this
this technology. Go to the next slide. So let's focus in on Novito. So in Novito, Twin Rivers had a pretty good amount of flooding during Hurricane Ian. And this shows you what we could have had. So this is an area within Twin
Rivers. There's a specific node that's identified and there's a specific node that's identified there that shows where that flooding took place. Go to the next slide. Similarly, another part in Twin River. You can see physically where the flooding occurred and the model on the
right predicts where it would have occurred had we had this in advance. Next slide. So Lockwood Boulevard is another area that flooded. It overtopped. Um Little Econ River flows from south to north. Go to the next slide. So if we again were able to
predict where that flooding took place. Uh the model's on the right and it shows the actual flooding on the left right after the storm. Next slide. Another example where lockwood flooded and again showing what it would have how we would have been able to predict that. Next
slide. So let's get into some of the physical benefits and this is really the heart of the matter. So we're going to spend money on flood forecasting. What does it really provide the city? Let's look at some examples. So this is an example, another example in Orange County with a pump station. This pump
station was damaged from Hurricane Ian. cost $8 million to repair. If the county had this predictive ability, they could have implemented a solution at that lift station. They could have put in temporary flood walls. They could put in
sandbags. Something like that would have saved them probably $8 million. Next slide. Here's another example. Here's two areas, apartment complex, commercial area. If we were able to predict that this area was going to flood, at a minimum could have had those vehicles
removed. So there's probably, you know, 100 vehicles, 10,000 bucks a vehicle. I mean, that that adds up pretty quick. So you can potentially avoid the damage to these types of of things. Next slide.
So in Twin Rivers, in Econ again, if we had this predictive ability, we could have let um residents know in advance. In Econ Green, there's a vehicle that's underwater. That vehicle could have potentially been moved. Again, had we known about it, could have
also been able to have residents evacuate in advance of the storm. Next slide. Riverside Park. As you all know, Riverside Park flooded. The building flooded. Um you can see in both photos
where it was flooded. Uh again, if we hadn't known it was going to flood like that, we could have placed sandbags andor a temporary flood wall to protect the building. I think the building had I remember it's like $900,000 worth of damage, something like that. Not all of
that was water, but could have considerably reduced the amount of money that was that was spent. Next slide. At a minimum could have moved vehicles. So there was obviously some loss loss to vehicles in all these cases.
The other the other important factor is if you know the flood's coming and you live in a house, you can move some of the critical items off the floor. I mean even if it floods a foot or six inches within your house, there's things on the floor that you could elevate. You could
get those out. Next slide. So kind of thinking about this again focusing on benefits by using this software we can predict the vertical and horizontal extents of flooding up to four days in advance. Now
what's happening when a hurricane comes it's changing. So it's always changing the rainfall patterns are changing. So being able to predict it is is a great advantage. The other thing it does again is it allows the city to focus its
efforts in specific areas if we know where those are. So we have a limited staff tough to cover the entire city but if you know exactly where these areas are with a high level of accuracy we can mobilize staff mobilize efforts to to get in there.
The other thing is after the storm thinking about recovery, the model's continuing to run. So, it's going to show how the flood recedes. Is there still a potential for for other issues? Next slide. And again, the last and probably the
most I mean maybe not the most important thing, but one of the things I just want to harp on again is the ability for the city to aid the residents in being able to react evacuations if needed, being able to protect homes, be able to relocate cars, etc. It just gives us
that ability to be able to predict that. Um, so with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you. Any questions? >> I have. So, how far in advance do do we get noticed that you said 4 days? >> 4 days.
>> 4 days. And that would provide us enough information in order to evacuate people if we needed to. And what were these temporary flood barriers you talked about? >> So, temporary flood barriers are there's there's several types, but real quick, basically, you can wrap it around a
building and they're inflatable. You can inflate them and they can be up to four feet tall. So if you knew if you knew that that particular building was going to flood, you could quickly mobilize install that like Paul Beldin's team could go around and and put that around around Riverside Park around the
building. >> He played it. We have those. >> It's protected. We don't, but we could get them. I mean that that's something we need to do, but but at a minimum we could have had sandbags. >> Sandbags. >> You could have sandbagged each of the where the entrances were. You could have sandbag around the building. >> And we still have the sandbag machine,
right? >> We do. >> And it's still operating well. Yes, sir. >> I asked a question because I do have those inflatable things for my house and put it around the outside of the house and fill them up a wall. >> Yeah, I I believe we requested that in the CIP for this year.
>> I was going to say I'm pretty sure we did. >> Okay, >> Council Britain, >> I don't know. I I think this is a big ask. Uh we I could probably guess that between
uh some of the storms we have Ian uh FA uh Irma, we had four days of warning. We knew we were going to get a rain event. And I know in Ian it was bad, but I also know that the huge retention pond in Little Creek breached and it sent that
thousands and thousands of gallon of water down at one time. And I think that had a lot to do with what the flooding was in in Ovido. I think we know where it's going to flood. It's going to be a hole number seven and the whole golf course along the river. Um that's that's
what we need to look out for. I don't need to anyone to tell me that's going to happen. I already know it's going to happen. >> I Well, I I I don't I mean I understand what you're saying. One couple things I would point out. One, again, the rainfall patterns in Ovito during
Hurricane Ian range from 14 to 22 inches. >> That's a pretty big difference. When we run a 100red-year flood model or a 500-year flood model, we run one rainfall depth. >> Well, I plan for the 22 incher, >> which is what I got. I I got the 22
inches in my backyard. I would plan for that. >> Well, at a minimum, you you could evacuate and move your vehicle. And I mean, I I I get it. the the flood forecasting isn't going to eliminate the flood and that's not the point. The
point is can we do something in advance and focus resources on the areas that are critical. I mean you you're correct there's we know generally where we have issues. That's why we focused on the little big econ because during hurricane Ian that's where most of the flooding
was. So if we can forecast it and know in advance I mean I know in talking to Mr. Cobb. One of his biggest issues was he didn't know when the Econ and Little Econ rivers were going to stage or when they were going to crest. Didn't know when Lockwood Boulevard was going to over top. Lockwood Boulevard is a
critical road in city. So, if you know when it's going to over top, at least you can use the road up until a certain point and then redirect resources as you need to. So, I get it. It's a big ask on the cost side. I understand that. I mean, I just think it's one of these
things where it it arms the city with invaluable information to be able to mobilize forces to be able to assist residents, give them advanced notice, be able to evacuate people as you need to. I mean, there's it's I think there's a lot of benefits to it.
>> Would this model tell us when the river is about to crest? >> It would. >> It would. >> It would. And again, at present, we don't we don't have that ability, >> right? Council member, >> so how how do we know when the river is
going to crest right now? Because I mean on TV they'll always tell you like, hey, you know, St. John's at this place. It's going to go this high in this many days because they have they have better data. The little Econ and the big econo,
we don't have good data. There's two gauges that cover that and we don't really there's not we don't there's no active way to be able to predict flooding on the river. So we just don't have the data. We don't have the analytical tools set up to do that. >> So I mean
>> so so to your point yeah we know when the Mississippi is going to crest. Yeah. >> Okay. That's probably the most studied river in the United States. There's a heck of a lot of data. They have continuous simulation models that they run. So when there's going to be a big storm, they run this type of software, different software, but they they
predict it. So we're not the Mississippi River, but >> Right. Um I I I have a hard time with with with believing that this can really make the kind of difference that that would
matter in a storm like Ian, right? So, you know, it says on here we're going to know 4 days in advance. I don't know. I mean, we we don't even know where the hurricane's going to go 4 days in advance a lot of times or where the rain in that hurricane is is going to go in
that in that time, right? Um that that's um it's hard for me to it's hard for me to believe it can make that much difference. in in addition, you know, you look at all the places on here that um have flooded and you know, I can't speak to all of them, but you
know, the idea that we're going to move cars, right, before the flood gets there. Well, in a storm like Ian, and that's where we get that's where we get our flooding from, right, is from from hurricanes. So, it's the idea that we're going to tell people in the middle of the hurricane
that you're going to flood, you need to move your car like on, you know, on Ralph's road here. I mean, this is an area I'm I'm really familiar with. Um, those people in in Ardan villas, right? I mean, they had uh they had flooding up to like up to like chest height or or higher. I
mean, I'm looking at some of those doors and you I know people who have lived in there >> and they're supposed to move their car in the middle of a hurricane like to where and then where they get back to. Um, you know, a after they've been told, "Hey, wind's over 40 miles hour. Don't Don't
go out in your car, right? >> But I'm not supposed to work. >> Yeah, I think you're missing something here. >> Yeah, I must be. Yeah, >> because I don't I don't think the idea is, okay, hey, the hurricane's on us. You you have to move your car. The idea is you have advanced notice. So, 4 days
before a hurricane's going to hit or even two days before a hurricane's going to hit, you have time to move your car. I'm not saying we people have to move their cars. I'm saying that if you if you live in Econ Green and you know the hurricane's coming and the city said, "Hey, by the way, this road's going to
flood. You might want to consider moving your car. Maybe you move it to the Wind Dixie parking lot." You just saved an insurance claim. So, I'm not saying that it's it's a perfect solution. It's going to solve all of our problems. It's a tool. It gives us more information. It
arms us with the ability to assist residents to avert flood damage. >> But four days before a hurricane, there's a cone, right? I mean, and that cone is enormous. I mean, if it covers the entire state um that says that this is where we think the hurricane has some
idea to go. I I don't think that can come close to predicting that, hey, you know, you and Ardan Villas, you're going to get >> I think you're you're mixing up risk versus absolute. So, I'm sure we could say there is a high risk of you flooding and they move their car and they don't. That's okay.
>> It's giving them the chance to warn you. >> But there is always a high risk of of flooding, right? I mean, you know roughly what your uh elevation is of of your property and it's like, hey, this is in the the 100redy year, the 500y year or whatever when the storm's coming, it's like, well, it could be this, it could be that. >> I I mean, again, I think you're thinking
in absolutes and and I I mean, flooding doesn't work that way, >> of course. >> I mean, rainfall changes. I mean, we're we don't we're not I mean, there's a lot of debate about climate change and the greenhouse effect and all that, but rainfall patterns are changing. I mean, we're getting more intense rainfalls.
Things are changing. So, I just I think being armed with that data and and being able to minimize risk is what we're talking about. We're not talking about, you know, absolutes. We're just saying that, hey, there's a high risk that this is going to happen. If if if I was a resident in
a kind of green and the city said, "Hey, there's a high risk you're you're going to flood and I have the ability to move my car or do something, that's information that I didn't have with Hurricane Ian." >> Yeah. Well, and and well, so to that I I guess I would say um you know, one of
things in the uh uh one of the supporting documents um talked about how you know this initial quarter million dollars or uh or close to it that the number is uh would would allow this company to uh collect data based on uh
perhaps two hurricanes ago, if I remember right, and then they would use that as a predictive model for one hurricane. hurricane a go, right? And then they would kind of create this model and then prove the model out. Am I am I saying that correctly? >> Yeah. And they would use gauge data to
collaborate to calibrate it as well. >> So it kind of sounds like what we're what we would be paying them for was to kind of do this, you know, one point of extrapolation and see how close we are. Um it it it occurs to me. I I mean what
one thing we say in in my business is tell me why it's going to work and from the documents that I I'm I'm reading I'm not really seeing a lot of uh when something makes these kind of
promises right that it can and I know it's not exact right but it has to be it has to have a certain amount of accuracy to be worth it at all right it it is hard for me to believe from the documents that I've read. I I hate even
using this term. I'm not going to use it. It It hates I I I How do I want to put this? I I have a hard time believing that this can be done to the level that they claim to make it useful in the way that we
would hope it would be useful. I think that kind of sums up all of my well I mean takes a lot of time to well just to counter your point anytime you do any kind of hydraologic and hydraulic modeling you calibrate it you have to pick known storms to calibrate it that's exactly how you do it so they're
following the exact way that is currently done within our industry so there's nothing they're not shortcutting it they're they're not overpromising I mean they're going to calibrate it and test it they're going to use use the base model from Orange County which has already been tested
they're going to enhance it for >> our part of the city. So I I mean I I would say that you know they've already sort of tested in other areas. I mean so again this is pretty common way to do it within um creating a hydraologic and
hydraulic model. >> Uh pos possibly. Yeah. I >> well no I mean it it is the way that it's done. So I >> Yeah. But again, four days out, telling certain neighborhoods to move their car,
it's >> I mean, let's not focus on the car. >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, or or whatever or get out of your house. Like, I I don't see how that's different than kind of what we already have. I mean, because what we already have is >> Do we have a motion on the table? >> We're asking. Okay.
>> I'm just getting grilled with questions. I'm debating. Sorry. We >> Well, if I could just jump start this. I I move we deny resolution number 4737-26. There's a motion. Is there a second? >> I feel like I have to come down that way
without more information. Motion or second. That's There you go. Second. All right. Slow. >> Um, we saw what Ian did. I I just I I can't at this time when we are contemplating amendment three uh get excited about spending $219 to do an
initial study that is not ongoingly useful without an additional input of 40,000 even though we have a dedicated funding source in the storm water fund. So that's that's where I'm at on this. Council member >> I think I said all my comments already.
Council member Britney, >> I' I've said my piece. >> No, I mean I'm I'm probably in the opposite camp. I I agree with what Mr. Jurg saying. Again, you got four days. It gives you a little bit of lead time to to react to do something. You can or
cannot. At least you have the information to say this could happen in this area. You can react and not or not react. I think it's again it's a tool. It's not absolute. So that's kind of where I'm at on it. Okay. Um, so I want
to address some of this stuff and I want to first of all, thank you for bringing this to us. It doesn't sound like we have a lot of consensus to go with it, but I do want to touch on some of the things this does do. Um, you know, you mentioned what they could do with lift stations if they know they're going to flood ahead. So, at the at the flood
coalition I went to, this was a great example for Largo um during the past two hurricanes. They knew where they were going to flood because they could predict it and they actually took their lift pumps out and said, "Hey, you don't have pumps for the next two days, but then they flooded. It receded. They put them back in." Why St. Pete didn't do
that. So, they uh were able to save their their sewer systems while the other neighboring city lost them for 3 weeks. Um, so that kind of stuff is really important and and some of the commentary here kind of surprises me because what does four days do? If we had four days of information before
Hurricane Ian, I mean the thing we repeated for like four months was no one knows when the river's going to crust. When is the river going to crust? That was like the hottest topic we could have heard. And people living in floods thinking they were done flooding. The next day the water rose and we didn't we
weren't able to tell them that was coming. I do think having the information to tell you if it's going to flood more, if it's going to crest, when it's going to crest, that information is really vital in these kinds of situations. Um, you know, we talked about our
plan as a city and and one of the things on there was being more proactive instead of reactive, being more resilient. This is the kind of thing we have to look at to do this. And Council Member A, you said you didn't totally buy into how this model was built. Um, I would encourage you to look up the Iowa
Flood Center, which is the best in the country, and they do RTFFs. They do all the real-time floodings, and it's completely changed how the entire Middle East of the country operates and how they predict floods and how they save lives. Um, as far as costs, some of a
lot of the costs might not help the city. I know we lost a lot of money with parking and as far as insurance claims. Um, maybe we could have saved Riverside Park if we knew it was going to flood that bad. I don't think anybody expected it to flood as bad as it did. Um, but I don't we'd have to buy a whole flood
system. So, I don't know that we could have saved Riverside Parks, but I also remember a lot of us going out with sandbags trudging through the waters and trying to help homeowners as the river was crusting to save the last foot of some of these houses. They would have been able to save all their furniture, moving it up out of the flood stage. So,
I see a lot of benefits to this. Um, I also see the price tag and I know it's not cheap and I also know we all have to buy into that and so maybe now is not the right time. Um, and that's kind of what I'm hearing. But I also want us to not shut it down forever. And I do think
this is something that maybe we should partner with the county. We should partner with our neighboring cities to get a countywide system that does this because I do see a lot of importance to this. So even if we have a lot of reasons not to do this, I think we should look into how this can help us
and how this could be cost-effective and work for us. >> Well, in the future, >> could we maybe table this one too? Is it urgent that we do it tonight? Because maybe I can get some more information from you. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> I I'm not against tableabling it. And I
would also like, you know, see if we can explore partnering with other cities. some of these price tag things. I know like the econ I mean that goes right into like winter springs if there's any ways we can model some of this stuff together or I don't know think outside the box. My other question was um is
there a reason we're using this model and what other options are there >> in Florida? There really are no other options. >> This is like the main one to go for. >> This is the one. Yeah. >> And as far as we don't really have information, right? That's we kind of have a black hole of information on
econ. So, is there something we could do >> better? Can we get better gauges? Is there some kind of in between mechanism that's not this full-blown thing if we don't do this right now? I >> I mean, the best thing I could offer is
again separately, we we did get a grant from FDM to do a basin study for the Lil Econ. We haven't received the grant document yet, but that would at least improve our ability to predict what the
existing conditions are. But again, it's a static model, so we would know the idea of that would be level of service for specific areas within that basin. I mean, but >> and we'd be able to plug that into this model if we >> Yeah, I mean, the two would would work interactively. Um, I think that we we
would potentially be able to shift shift what was done on this to that other scope. So, we may be able to reduce the cost of that basin study. I I need to talk to the consultant about that, but that that's something that could be done. >> So, is this something we can table till
we get the that study done? Is that something we can look at and look at some other options on doing that? Is anybody against that? >> I'm not opposed to that. No. Okay. >> Can I add to that? Sure. >> Um, >> so the the company that develops this uh or one there's two companies listed,
right? One of them's in Winter Springs, right? >> So, so you have Ardura, who is one of the city's continuing storm water consultants, >> right? >> And then their subconsultant, Streamline Technology. Streamline Technologies is the one that developed Floodwise and the predictive software.
>> Is that the one that's in is it in Miami now that I'm thinking about it? South Florida. No, they're they're in I I don't know if they're in Winter Springs. I don't remember where they're home. I think the I I don't recall where they're where they're located. >> If Are they interested in coming here and giving us a a pitch or or more
information or be able to ask questions? I I honestly thought that they would be here tonight. Um just in my own making stuff up in my head, but >> you were stuck with me tonight. >> Oh, but I wasn't good enough. Um we Yeah, I'm sure we could arrange for them to come in. I I >> Yeah, we we I'm sure we could. Yeah, I
don't think that's an issue. >> Maybe at a work session. >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Work session. >> Okay. Does anybody else have any other questions? >> I guess my only question I have is if we had approved this tonight, how long would would it take for us to get it? Would we have it by hurricane season
>> or in hurricane season? >> In hurricane season, which we're technically we're in. Yeah. >> I don't I don't think so, Mr. Bodford. I I think it would probably be after October. >> It'd be after October. >> Okay. Yeah. So it's it's it it's not harmful if we just table it
and kind of flush it out a little bit. >> No, no, that that's correct. Yeah. It wouldn't wouldn't really help us this hurricane season, but it would be in position >> for next for next one. Correct. Yeah. Okay. >> And maybe we'll have more data, another data set. >> I hope not. >> Don't put that in.
>> You know, I can't motion things, but is >> Yes, >> I will withdraw my motion. >> Okay. So, I move we table this until uh what should we say? Until staff wants to bring it up again. Is that kind of what >> I think we have to if we're going to are
we continuing it or are we >> My recommendation would be since you with Since you withdrew your motion, my recommendation would be take no action and we'll we'll work with the consultants to get a work session set up for you. >> All right. I withdraw my motion.
>> I make no motion. >> Do we need a vote to take no action? No. >> Okay. >> It sounds like everybody's on board with that. Thank you. >> Um, so we're not going to take action on item number 11. >> We do not have any discussion items. So, we are on to the city manager's report.
>> I have no report. Deputy mayor. >> We are on to the city attorney's report. >> I have nothing to report. >> Council member Botifford, do you have a report? >> Yes. Um, so want to start with some of the uh people we had as citizens that that came up. We had Mr. Ryan and we had
RTS. Uh they're talking about this exhibit E and whether or not it it's sounds like RTS is trying to understand are they in violation of exhibit E. Um and then we had Mr. Ryan want us to give a notice of a violation. Where do we
stand on all this >> and Dr. Ka I don't know if that's you. Why don't you why don't you go on up and I can >> so I would defer to the city man city attorney but we discussed that
internally when he brought the first time in the LPA this was not considered a violation. So what we had agreed upon in the public hearing is that after staff did an excursion to the site, they said that um they could remove the
fence. RTS could remove the fence because the barricade um um requirement was still in place somewhere else. So um the city did not object removing the fence, but they were not um u in
violation. The fence was permitted in 2001 and um um according to Mr. Vos, that exhibit does not include the RTS property. So, I'll let him finish that.
>> So, uh a number of the statements that you heard from the member of the public tonight were >> inaccurate statements about what I said previously. >> Okay. Uh I did say that uh and when we had the discussion previously that when uh certain amendments that would affect
all the property that was encompassed in I don't remember what tract it was >> uh track J um if you were making uh changes that would affect all of it then it would take everybody being involved but um the exhibit that uh was
referenced there that was directed pursuant to that language should be incorporated into the HOA docs of that uh homeowner association. There they were incorporated into it and they apply only to the properties that are subject to those HOA docks which is most of
track J but not all of it and it doesn't encompass um the RTS portion of the property. In in any event though, and I'm I am going to chat with staff afterwards. Uh it it had been my understanding that RTS uh had nevertheless said they were going to be
taking this fence down, which would obiate the discussion. >> I think they said that tonight. >> What's that? >> They said that tonight. >> I think that's what I heard as well. So my hope would be to give them a quote on on getting it removed. Yes. And they committed that in the meeting and but
that was a you know it was not um the city forcing them to remove and I just want to make a one correction for us the violation would be if the fence is not in the upright position and I think um Mr. Ryan showed that some properties some some some sections of the fence
were falling apart. So that would be a code violation because if you have a fence it has to be in in the upright position. So there's no violation for having a chainlink fence >> for having the the RTS having the chain link fence was not considered a violation. So that's why we never
initiated a notice of violation with them and they if they and with the fact that they committed removing the fence and apparently even in the uh excursion that the city had to the site that day they were already removing the fences
that were you know already not in the upright position. So they were starting to remove the fence back then. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Dr. Korea, could I ask you one question? >> Have we received a for a formal complaint about requesting that we
>> code enforce >> cut enforce the >> I would have to review if all those because we shared a lot of communication. We have been in communication with Mr. Ryan for a while. Um we invited him to come to our you know office to discuss with us. He never
did, but we exchanged a lot of u emails and I will have to review Mr. Cobb if in one of those emails he makes, you know, the statement that it was a formal, you know, it was a formal complaint on the on the fence.
>> Okay. Thank you. All right. Uh the other thing I had was that young lady that came up, uh Miss Gandhi. Um I I thought that was a great presentation about a young lady. It sounded like a uh a great, you know, tool that they were building. Um
hopefully, I mean, they they keep working at it and and get it out there. I was I was impressed by the young lady coming up here and then the foresight to really talk about it. So, I I thought that was really kind of special. July 4th, you guys knocked it out of the park again. Even with the storm that we had,
uh looks like we had a great turnout. Uh having that festival inside the mall, I mean, kept a lot of people inside while that rain came down. I know it was hard. We couldn't tell how many people were probably there, but it seemed like there was a lot of people there. Um, and then those people, you know, at that fireworks company again, let's make sure
we lock them down, you know, depending on what happens that maybe our last year next year, but let's go ahead and make sure that we uh get it going because that was that was great and I think the people really really enjoyed that. Mr. observer here gave me a um a flag ed
education and retirement ceremony. Uh that is coming up at the VA memorial post uh 2:43. Uh time is uh date is July 11th and the time will be 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. So
>> yes, sir. Thank you. I appreciate you giving that to us and and hopefully we you know we get some people out there uh for that. And then lastly, just the the thing about the um uh the charter amendment on the rural boundary. I I don't have a problem with protecting the rural boundary. I again I I live in a
subdivision that butts up to it. I just had a problem with the process of how this came about and how quickly it came about. And that's really where I had my sticking point on. It's not about the rural boundary. It was just the way this came up and how fast it came up. I just I just had problems with that. But no
offense, Mr. Aat. I mean, it it's going to get on the ballot and uh people have a chance to vote out. And when you mentioned the the rural boundary, a lot of people get in favor of it and I'm sure, you know, it will probably pass. So, that's all I got. >> Okay, Council Member Britain.
>> Okay, I think you hit all the buttons. Uh the Fourth of July event, again, it was a great event and appreciate everyone, all the effort that went into it. Uh you mentioned Mr. Ryan's issues. Rafaud uh her thing. That's great. I
just have one more item and that uh Brian I'm not sure what to do about this, but there's a a large utility pole on Lockwood Boulevard. I think it's uh I'll say south of Riverside Park and it
looks like it's about to fall over and I think someone's looking at it, but it's been there for quite a while. And uh I think Duke is trying to replace a lot of those poles, but that's been there for quite a while. And I'm just concerned that it's uh some kid's going to ride by it and it's going to fall on him.
>> East side, west side. >> It is on the uh west side of Lockwood. >> West side, >> south of Riverside. >> Okay. I've been going by it for I don't know how many weeks, maybe over a month or two, but >> And it's a Is it a >> It's a big wooden pole and it's it's
tilted like it had >> been blown over by the wind or something. >> Okay. >> And that's all I have. >> Okay. Uh I'm up next. You guys did touch most of it. Uh again on Fourth of July, I thought last year was the most packed
I've seen our mall, but this year even topped that, uh you could barely walk through it, which is great. So all all of the stores were filled with customers and that's exactly what we did. So staff did an incredible job. Uh and the fireworks show was amazing. It might have given some people like epileps like
seizures at the end there, but uh it was a good uh season finale. So we really enjoyed that. Um something I want to put out there is we do have an election coming up in August. I know it's not really affecting the city here, but is there a way we can do um reminders on
our social media to remind people to go out and vote this August as well too because we do have school board, we have nonpartisan seats coming up. It's not just a primary. And I do think being the local city, it's a good idea to remind people to make sure they register to vote and and get out there in August as
well, too. Um the other thing I wanted to point out, you know, we just talked about flooding. Um, we've had some crazy storms the last couple days. So, we had a ton of rain dumped on Alfa Woods two days ago and I happened to drive by and see our newly installed McKinnon Bridge
and it was a raging river and holding up great and it looked solid. So, I'm really glad we got that finished and uh that we can handle storms like that now. Other than that, up to Mayor Slate. All right. Well, a couple of y'all have mentioned uh Rafa Ghani who did the
presentation. and she's actually a high schooler and she reached out asking if the city may be willing to allow its parks and wreck content uh and programming to be included in this app that she's developing. So, if that's something that everybody's kind of open
to. I I think it seems like a really a cool thing. >> Can we request we get her app so we can kind of look through it before we Yeah. confirm? >> Absolutely. Yeah. And I think I've got a link to that so I'll I'll send that around too. Uh but it it really is sort of just a pulling pulling data from
wherever people are willing. So if if you know anybody who has programming for kids, she she really feels like people need to get off of screens and and she is well situated to help people have some alternative ideas while looking at a screen ironically but you know that's that's where you find things these days.
Um one other thing we were talking about that lot six that is about 6 acres over off Lockwood. If there is consensus, I think it would be helpful for us to go ahead and put some kind of restrictive covenants or conservation easement on
it. Um and the the reason for that would be we have a limited capacity at our sewer plant and I don't know how much additional sewage Ironbridge will let us give them if we continue in the the
direction of eventually trying to get everybody onto sewer who is here. So, if if you remember some of the things in the the uh comp plan update, it was talking about, oh, we're going to do a sewer study and we're start working on subject to sewer conversions is kind of
a hopeful thing. Um I there's just a lot of expense and infrastructure challenges uh that could be a problem if if we were to build another uh build
another sewer sewer plant. So anyway, is there >> work session request? >> Work session. Okay. Work session request. Yes, that sounds good for lot six because that's always been conservation and we made it possible to build a sewer plant on it. And that's
all I've got. >> Okay. Council member O. Uh just wanted to say uh we just had a lot of really good discussion and conversation on a lot of issues tonight and uh I really enjoyed that and um it's
an honor to serve with you all. >> Okay. And there's one thing I forgot to add. Uh Rob McAdams from RTS got up here and he did ask for clarification from staff on if some of the architectural guidelines applied to him. >> Exhibit E. >> Yeah. So, if if we could have staff follow up with him and clarify whatever
he's confused on. Um, but that's that's it. Is there anything? Oh. Oh, wait. Future meeting dates. Almost forgot. All right. Monday, July 20th at 6:30 p.m. we have regular session. July 27th, we have a work session. >> Tenative
>> tenative work session. Um, Monday, August 3rd, we have a 6:30 p.m. regular session. Is there anything else for the good of the order? >> One one last thing. We did get to see the new uh brush high water truck >> uh out at the mall for the fireworks. Um
again, as we're talking about flooding, uh again, I think it's a great tool that we got get paid for by two grants. So, that was really good that we got that and appreciate, you know, everybody's help on, you know, making that happen. And again, let's it's better to have it when and when you hopefully don't need
it uh than you need it and you don't have it. So, I just want to point that out. It's a It was a really nice looking truck. That's it. >> All right. Anything else? It is 9:09 p.m. and this meeting is adjourned.
>> Sideways. >> That's such a weak little