Kat, before we get started, Commissioner Santiago is on Zoom, correct? Okay. All right, we're going to go ahead and get started with the regular commission meeting for Tuesday, March 18, 2025. I ask before we get started, before we call the roll, when we have people coming up, if we can please keep the noise in the back down. I don't like using the gavel, but I will, so if we can please call the roll. Commissioner Villavasquez, present. Commissioner Caldwell. Here. Commissioner Howington. Here. Commissioner Lully. Here. Commissioner Santiago. Here. Vice Mayor Harriet. Here. Mayor Villa. Here. This time I will ask Commissioner Lully to lead us in the invocation and the pledge to the flag. Pledge first, right? I'm never paying attention. Okay. 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, with liberty and justice for all. And now I'd just like everyone to have a moment of silence in honor of our veterans. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. This time I will call on T.G. Law for additions and deletions, if any. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We will be requesting to remove item 7A, request, sorry, excuse me, 7B, request for approval of resolution 2025-42 from this evening's agenda. Perfect. Is that it? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. At this time we're going to go ahead and go to five presentations, awards, and reports. We'll start with an update on FEMA reimbursements for Hurricane Ian, Nicole, Idalia, and Milton. Mayor, Commission, good evening. John McKinney, Finance Director. What was provided to you is just an informational snippet on where we are with the FEMA reimbursements. At this time we have submitted for Hurricanes Ian, Nicole, Idalia, and Milton a little over 6.1 million in projects and expenditure reimbursements. To date we've received 4.8 million. We have 1.2 million outstanding. Just to give kind of an update, last week alone we spent three days, staff did, with the FEMA inspectors going throughout all of our damage, doing assessments and whatnot, and we do expect to hear back from them for potentially some additional damage reimbursement. That's where we're at at this time. Your staff is actively seeking those reimbursements. Sir, any questions from the Dias? Commissioner Villavasquas. Thank you, Mayor. Have we received any of the funds that were owed to us from previous hurricanes, sort of like the rubbish pickup in that area? Ma'am, I'm not aware of any outstanding. I can take a look at that. I went from Hurricane Ian and forward. Okay, thank you. Okay. Thank you so much, John. You're welcome. Thank you, Mayor. We're going to go ahead and move to Deltona Community Events. Speaker. So we have a lot of events coming up in the next few weeks. So the first one we have is our movie in the park, and that is this Friday. If you guys can switch to the slides, it's this Friday. It's Wicked. It's at Dewey Park. Free entry to the park or to the movie. Oops. We have free popcorn, free lemonade. The movie starts, it's scheduled to start at 7, but it might be pushed a little bit because of the time change, and it might not be dark enough, so just know that that could slide a little bit. Bring a chair. Bring a blanket. Get comfortable. It's great to watch a movie under the stars, and that's a good movie. And also, for the first time, there's going to be a couple food vendors out there. Sonic and Jeremiah's Ice Cream will be selling food out there, should you want. The next one, this, I'm really excited about this one. First time ever, Caltech Festival in Deltona. It's April 5th. There's going to be music, dancing, games, lots of fun stuff, food, beer, good times, and then a ton of stuff for the kids, too. We have a petting zoo, bounce houses, more games for the kids. And then after the festival, our movie for April is going to be Pixar's Brave, so that's a nice family-friendly movie there. But again, that's April 5th, starts at 2 o'clock, the festival. And I did want to point out, we do have room for a few more vendors, so if there's a vendor out there that wants to participate in this event, you can scan that QR code right there and submit an application. All this information is on our website, too, deltonafl.gov. And then I did receive a couple of notices from community organizations that are holding events. So New Hope Church is doing a food distribution on April 5th. It's a Saturday. You just pull up, they'll put food in your car, and you can take off. It's from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. while supplies last. So again, that's Saturday, April 5th. And then also on the 5th, April 5th, is Community Gardens is doing a spring festival plant sale. There's going to be presentations on beekeeping, butterflies, native plants. There's raffles. You can buy plants, of course. There's going to be activities for the kids, face painting, crafts. And that's at Van Park, 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Again, that's April 5th. The Parks Department is planning an adult day trip. This is to the Hard Rock Casino in Tampa. So it's a casino, so adults only. It's $40 a person, and that's just for the transportation. Anything you want to do at the casino is on you. It's the 16th. The seats are limited, so if you would like to go register now, there's a QR code. Again, information online. Leave City Hall at 9 a.m. And then departs the casino at 5 p.m. And then we have a few events for veterans. The first is this Friday at Veterans Memorial Park here in Deltona. It's a meet and greet for veterans. It's a way for veterans in the area to connect with other veterans. 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. It's being organized by the American Legion. They're going to be grilling out hot dogs and hamburgers. There's going to be a DJ there. Bring a chair. Hang out. You know, vets can meet other vets. And then these next two events are actually in Daytona, but they're for veterans, so I thought they were good events to share with everybody. The one is being organized by the Florida Mission of Mercy. It's free dental care for veterans should they need it. This is Thursday, and you do have to register for this event. So, again, there's a QR code, information online. So, if you're a veteran that needs dental care, that's a great opportunity for you. And then also in Daytona, this is Friday and Saturday. It's their Veterans Stand Down organized by the Volusia County Veterans Services, 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the Ocean Center. Lots of great resources for veterans, health screenings, employment resources, VA benefit information. So, just a lot of good resources for veterans at these two events. And then, I know a couple organizations did email me some flyers for their events. So, if anybody has any events that they want to let us know about, email me at cbarker at deltonafl.gov. Thank you, Ms. Barker. All right, this time we're going to go ahead and end the consent agenda. Make a motion to approve consent agenda items A, C, and D. I'll second that. It's a motion by Vice Mayor Harriet and a second by Commissioner Lully. Is there any public comment on the consent agenda? Can we please vote? And then, Commissioner Santiago, if you can please let us know how you would like to vote on the consent agenda. Yes. Thank you. She is a yes. Commissioner Colwell, they're waiting for your vote. I voted. Yeah, thank you. The motion passes 6 to 1. This time we're going to go ahead and go into ordinances and public hearings A, and D. And as usual, so we don't both read it twice, if you can please read it for us, and then we'll get started. Yes, sir. This is a resolution of the City of Deltona, Florida, accepting the final plat for Eloah Estates to facilitate a means of egress and ingress through 2982 Howland Boulevard, Zone C2, General Commercial, to 1000 Eloah Estates Road, Zoned RM1, Multiple Family Residential Dwelling District, for the development of 536 apartments on plus or minus 45.3 acres of land within the City of Deltona, providing for conditions, conflicts, severability, and an effective date. Thank you, Mr. Good. Is there any questions, or do you want to get started? Good evening. Mr. Jordan. Good evening, Mayor, Commissioners. Jordan Smith, Planning Director. So before you is the Eloah Estates final plat application, consistent with Florida Statutes Chapter 177 in the City's Land Development Code, Section 10631, the final plat review, the applicant requests acceptance of the final plat for Eloah Estates to facilitate a means of ingress and egress through 2982 Howland Boulevard, Zone C2, General Commercial, to 1000 Eloah Estates Road, Zone RM1, Multiple Family Residential Dwelling District, for the development of 536 apartments, on approximately 46.7 acres. The site's located at 2982 Howland Boulevard and 1000 Eloah Estates Boulevard. It's 46.7 acres. The zoning is C2, General Commercial, and RM2, Multiple Family Residential. The future land use is Commercial, and Medium Density Residential. They submitted their final site plan application in 2020. Staff advised the final plat would be required due to the C2 parcel needing to be used for access purposes. The final plat application was submitted to planning on March 25th, 2025. The final plat went through four rounds of review before being found complete, with the last submittal on January 27th. There's an area of the proposed project. There's a Eloah Estates final plat. The Eloah Estates final plat is for the means of egress and ingress for a parcel that will be utilized for 536 multifamily apartments. It's complying with Florida statutes, Chapter 177, and City's Land Development Code 106-3. Performance bond is required before recording, and the review is technical in nature and approved by the City's Consulting Surveyor. There's the conditions that's listed in the development deal, which you guys have, available for any questions. So, I'm going to ask you, as the Commissioner Vila Vasquez, go ahead, and then I'll answer my questions. You weren't up when I was—you're good. But if you want to ask, go ahead. I just—I have two simple questions. So, this application was submitted on the 25th of this month—or, sorry, of 2024. Is the reason this is coming for the Commission only because of the ingress and egress? That is correct, Mayor. Okay. So, when was the zoning placed on this property? And I know I'm kind of diluting it a little bit, but I just—I'm very curious to know when that zoning for the above property was placed. Staff did research today, and the best we found was that the property was annexed into the city back in 2000-2001. The city did some land development code updates, and the property was zoned RM1 back in 2001. Okay. Just for clarification, we're not voting to approve the housing. We're just voting to rezone, essentially, the ingress and egress. You're approving the final plan for the ingress-egress. Correct. The final site plan is administrative. Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner Vila Vasquez. Thank you, Jordan. Thank you, Mayor. So, my question, first of all, is, at the last meeting, it was voted to—okay, so some people have a different understanding of what the word—for further discussion. For me, further discussion means we're going to table something. I don't remember ever being invited to a workshop to table this. Whatever—I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but at the last meeting, this was pulled or it was folded to table it. So, Commissioner Vila Vasquez, if I may, the form of the motion, the last time that this item was before the commission was for the item to be deferred until such a time as an agreement was negotiated in which the Enrico Ridge project would be guaranteed to be completed. The Enrico Ridge project is owned by a related but legally distinct entity to Aloha Estates LLC, which is the applicant and the property owner for this project. As we all know, Enrico faced some challenges in its completion, and we have successfully negotiated an agreement with Aloha and Enrico in order to provide a performance bond for Enrico Ridge project to be completed. That agreement is attached as one of the exhibits to this item, and it is a condition of approval that they must execute that agreement and provide the performance bond as requested. And that's the agreement that we received last night, Sunday night or Monday night or something around there. It was on—we worked with the attorneys through the weekend, and Sunday was distributed and to—through the manager, and Monday, I believe you all received it with the amended package. Okay, I know, Jordan, I know that I might be asking you the same questions I asked in the last meeting, but I just want to make sure that we get the right answers, not that you gave us the wrong answers the first time. I just want to try to understand here. So we keep saying that we're approving a little piece of land to go in and out of the bigger piece of land behind it, which is being called the final plot, the famous phrase, final plot. But it's my understanding that if we approve this, whatever gets built back there, whether it be by one developer or another developer, it's not going to come to us for approval. Am I correct on that, or am I wrong? You are—this is zoned by right for multifamily, so it would not come to the—unless they were requesting a variance or some type of special exception, it would not come to this board. Because it's zoned by right for multifamily. So at that point, anything can be built back there. And I know that even if—I know that it doesn't have to come to us for approval, but then they have to build whatever is only allowed to build, but to build something more than what they're allowed to build, it has to come to commission for approval. So at that point, does that mean that it still doesn't come to commission, even if they go over what is the requirement of building back there? If they go over—if they go over what's—would be permitted by the code, then they would have to come to the city commission for a variance. Okay. My other question is regarding—I know a lot of people spoke about the flooding issues and that part of that land was used to empty out Catalina Road when it was flooded. Is that true? I have no knowledge of that. I'm not sure. It was that little pond right on the edge of Howland is where they were pumping from Catalina into that little pond. It's on the adjacent parcel to the ones related to this item. A little bleak in the shape. Okay. Do we know if there was any flooding caused by all the water that was taken out of Catalina and brought into that area? Did it flood any of that property that we're discussing right now? Staff is not aware of any flooding back there, no. But nothing was ever discovered, so we have no idea if it was. Correct. So I went back to—and I know that the reason why this property wants to be approved is so that the other project on the other side can be completed. I went back to the meeting, and the question was asked, if you complete this, if we approve this, are you going to be finishing using those funds to complete the project that is over on the other side of Howland Boulevard? And the response was, it will help. I'm going to defer to the city attorney with this. So if it's going to just help, that means that the project is not going to get completed, right? So this is really a question that should be directed to the applicant, and I would invite the applicant or their counsel to appear. But the agreement attached to this requires a performance bond for the Enrico Ridge project. To be finished completely from top to bottom, inside out? Correct. Not to help, but to be completed. From where it is now to full completion, to certificate of occupancy, yes. I'm sorry? The performance bond guarantees the completion of the project. It's not—it doesn't dictate where the money's coming from. It just guarantees the completion of the project. So if something happens, then the bond is there and can be revoked to complete the project. And I did read that. I'm just questioning the part where it says it helps. So what you're saying to us is that it will be used to complete the project 100 percent completion. Commissioner Avila Vasquez, my name is Audrey Wanaka. I'm the attorney for Aloha Estates. If you'll let me address your question. A performance bond is going to be retained for the completion of Enrico. That performance bond, like any completion bond, confirms that if anything should happen, that that completion bond will be used to monetize and to complete Enrico Ridge hard stop, period. There is no additional funds that may or may not be. That performance bond will be secured. It will be secured for the completion of Enrico Ridge, ma'am. And it will complete the other project 100 percent? Enrico Ridge, yes, ma'am. All right. No questions at this time. Thank you. Commissioner Howington, then Commissioner Lully, and Commissioner Cowell. Okay, I just had a couple questions, and I think they might be directed initially to the applicant. I'm sorry. Because you guys were willing to tie Enrico Ridge to this project, will the liens that are attached to Enrico Ridge be resolved with this as well? With the performance bond, no, ma'am. But with the refinance that was mentioned prior, yes, ma'am. So for the refinancing of any loan with rebalancing requires the clearance of any and all title liens in conformity thereof. So the city would be able to collect? Yes, ma'am. Okay. That would be a condition for the rebalancing. Okay. And then, let's see. And so you are in the process of securing the bonds as we'll be in place, so we will have a guarantee that Enrico Ridge will be completed? Yes, ma'am. Okay. And we all know that's something we all hear from our residents about, is that we have properties that have been basically derelict and need to be taken care of. I know I use that word, and that's a—right, that's a hard word to say. But while I know stomaching 530 apartments or homes is a concern for all of our residents, this is a means to an end to helping to resolve another issue. Because we can't rezone this, with the exception of the ingress and egress. Now, with that— Commissioner, if I may clarify. I apologize for interrupting. No. There is no rezoning application for the use of a low estates for either piece of property. The use of each property is within its current zoning, as well as in conformity with its future zoning. That's—the bottom law, 2982 Howland, is zoned C2, general commercial, within its approved uses, not as conditional and not as a variance. It's flex space for ingress and egress. That is what we are proposing to use it as. To go to a comment or question that Commissioner Avila-Vasquez had. When it comes to the final plat, the final plat, ma'am, is to reflect how we are tying in the proposed development of MLK to extend north from its current intersection to complete and to provide access. That right-of-way currently already exists. There has always been a related right-of-way. We're confirming that we're going to complete development of that. It will tie in not only the current three-way intersection, but also Autumn Street going east and west that is behind the unrelated commercial properties that will actually help create access and resolve underlying issues that I believe the city has had in answering how it's going to provide access to those lots, rather than having people to be forced to rezone it. We're giving an ability to conform with the current— I'm sorry, there's a phone going off. Can we please make sure we silent phones? Thank you. Go ahead. With the current zoning plan, as well as with the future zoning plan, as has been conceived and developed by the city and by its current commission and its prior commissions since the early 2000s. So, going back to what you're saying there, with the ingress and egress being there on that little rectangular lot that I can't see the number on, that will provide access to the triangular lots that are over to the right when we look at it. So, the red line behind it, is that essentially where the road would go to provide access to those commercial lots? Yes, ma'am. So, if you look to the right of 1,000 Aloha Estates, the large lot, on the bottom right-hand corner, you will see Autumn Street. That dead stops right now. Autumn Street, part of the plot shows the continued development of Autumn Street across that south border of Aloha Estates. It will tie into, then, the development of the entrance to MLK. So, it will provide that entrance and exit. Okay. And it would also reduce traffic coming in and off of Howland? Yes, ma'am. By adding extra ingress and egress outside of the stops? Yes, ma'am. Because this is where the stoplight is at MLK. It is exactly where it is. It is not creating a funky Z type of intersection. It will be a perfect T going across. That has been what is contemplated. That is what is reflected on the plot. Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Commissioner Lully, then Commissioner Colwell. Thank you, Mayor. If I can ask some questions, the applicant first and then planning, I think. Can we talk about—and just disclosure, we had a meeting upstairs at, like, 5 o'clock or so to talk about this as well. Can you just tell me a little bit about the improvements that we've made, that we talked about? I know—and Commissioner Howland can just touch on a little about the access to the commercial, that this might improve. Can we talk about that a little bit more? Absolutely. So the smaller lot on the bottom left-hand side is a C2. The ones directly to the east of it are C1. Right now, those do not have enough space on each individual lot to allow ingress and egress for the development of those C1 lots as they currently stand, which would require rezoning or variances of some sort. And by creating—or by finishing the development as reflected on the plats that are in front of you, the MLK will be developed going all the way north-south, starting with the smaller lot following up all the way on the west side of the 1,000. And then on the east side, Autumn Street, like I mentioned, would be extended to intersect with MLK. That becomes a public right-of-way that would provide access to each of those individual lots so that those businesses could be developed in accordance and in a symbiotic relationship with Aloha estates. We kept in mind the fact that the property to the west of 1,000 Aloha estates is owned by the school board, so we have provided and made notations on the plats for the development of walkways, pedestrian walkways, through not only their development itself, but along the right-of-ways. And, you know, I'm aware of—we have a Culver's going in nearby. We have a DQ grill and chill, which is more than just ice cream at that format of a store. Can you tell me about any improvements to MLK through the intersection there with the signal? Absolutely. So right now the signal is a three-arm, three-way stop. It will be developed into a four-way, so it will be four-ways, red light, green light, not stop signs. It will have its noted turn signals, turn lanes. Will there be crosswalks there as well? Yes. My apologies. Yes, sir. There are. Thank you. And then I think I just have some questions for Jordan behind you. There he is. I think—I've seen a common theme here, but I just want to make sure it's very clear. A vote on this, yes or no, either way, does not entitle them to 536 apartments. That entitlement has been there for 25-ish years. Is that what I heard? Correct. Okay. And this is only needed for that ingress and egress piece? That is correct. Okay. So if we vote no, the entitlement for 536 apartments still exists with that? They're still entitled to build multifamily there, correct? Okay. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Colwell? Yeah, I think this is for the attorney. Along with the performance bond, there's also a clause in there to guarantee which an assessment is made for completion of Enrico Ridge, that the money will go into a fiduciary, which will be paid to the individual contractors on the drop thing? Okay. Okay. So the money will be put also into a fiduciary? The money will be deposited with the fiduciary that was named, and that one will—when draws are done, those draws will be done specifically towards the development with no developer fees or anything additional. It will go straight to the contractors per draw. All right. I'd like to make a motion to approve. I'll second. There's a motion to approve. There's a motion to approve by Commissioner Colwell, second by Commissioner Howington. Commissioner Santiago, do you have any questions? I usually ask the person on Zoom first, but I— Thank you, Mayor. No, all the questions I had have been answered. Okay. Commissioner Villavasquez, you're on the board, and then we'll go to public comment. Thank you, Mayor. I have a question for Jordan. Jordan, going back to the development in the back of that property, of course that's going to fall on the ownership of whoever buys this property. Am I correct? Correct. So when they decide to build, they're going to have to come to the city for approval for anything that's being built back there. So currently we have plans for the apartments, which will be going to DRC next week for DRC approval. So there is a plan already in place for this? Correct, yes, for 536 apartments. These apartments, single apartments, or are they multiple-floor apartments? I'm going to defer to the applicant. And I know this has nothing to do with this one, but I know that it depends on the vote on this. I'm going to request the applicant to speak about the particular apartment. Yes, I think I would like to understand what the plan is. Commissioner Avila-Vasquez, I've also asked Representative Edward Rose, who would be continuing the development upon the sale of it, to join me on this. And so he will be joining me to help and give a more detailed answer and confirmation. For the plans that have been submitted to DRC, the plan is to have multi-floor units, apartment complex units, ranging from one, two, and three bedrooms. Okay. Can we put this site plan out maybe? Just a tip. Go ahead, sir. Yeah, Mark Prakoski with Edward Rose & Sons, Director of Land Acquisition and Planning. We are the purchaser of this development. Oh, pardon me. We are the purchaser of this development after the entitlements are done to site plan approval. You asked about the development. The buildings would be four-story. I think they range between 48 and 52 apartments per building, and I believe there's 10 buildings altogether, plus a community building. Thank you. Okay, sir, any public comment? Sorry, sir. This is A. A, A. A, yeah. A is an outflow. A, A. Mark Prakoski. Oh, sorry. Okay. Jason Bullard. Those are the applicants. Kenneth Harris. Good evening to you all. My house is on Foxborough Circle, and the last meeting you guys had, you didn't have, they didn't say anything by accident back on Autumn. I did some research on a developer. Everything they have in Volusia County, they haven't fulfilled the stuff that they have to fulfill to build something else and not completing other stuff. This developer has done, not finishing anything. They gambling, okay, we'll finish this if you let us do that. And then they're selling the property to another developer. So they ain't here fighting for something that they're selling. Then they're telling you that MLK is going to run through. Who's going to run that through? The county? The city? And then it's right across from the center. It's across from the fire station on Howland. That's a lot of congestion. And they're trying to bring that out on Foxborough in Autumn, all that congestion. And then the flooding. They run the pipes every year behind my house from Catalina. That pond, if we get a hurricane after another hurricane, it don't take that much to overfill that. That's going on Howland. They're not—the impact of 500-and-something apartments in that area, and on the map, they're not showing the lakes back there. It's lakes back there, right off of that property. They're not showing any of that. You know, I mean, this has changed from—the only exit they're going to use is the little property they got on the front on Howland. Now, it hasn't changed to go to Autumn for an exit for the developer. And this developer has dropped the ball on all kinds of projects in Volusia County. Everywhere they go, they drop the ball, and the city have to negotiate or compromise to get stuff finished in the area. We need parks. We don't have a shopping center. Where are all these people moving in there? Where are they going to get jobs at? Not Amazon, because Amazon uses them robots. So, they're not fulfilling jobs there. And then you—that's an impact, major impact in that area. And then, like, one of you guys said, and I think the mayor stated it, that that property right there on Howland is—you're taking away from a business could be there. They're just using it for an exit? Think about that. It's right across from the fire department, in the center. We need stuff to bring families in, homes in. Not an apartment place that big. What, four stories, they say? They need an elevator. I mean, and then you got how many people stand in an apartment? You have four people. You know my time almost, but you have four—say you got two adults and two kids living in there. You multiply that by how many people in those apartments. We need shopping centers. We never got the shopping center up there off of Graves in Normandy. We got an Amazon. They're using computers and robots. They're not hiring people like that. So where are those people going to work at that's moving in those apartments? It don't make any sense. They'll put something that impactful in that area. And they're not—they don't have any of the lakes on the map that's back there. But none of the lakes. That's—Deltona need that type of parks and wreck and all that stuff to bring families in. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Hello. I know that, Steve, this is something near and dear to his heart, and he's been working very hard on this. And from what I understand, it has the apartments—it concerns the apartments behind Publix, the property across the street from that, and now this new one. Um, the lawyers said that there's an agreement, but it's not in the package that we got. Is there somewhere we can see the agreement, what's going on? Because I really—I mean, like I said, I trust Steve because I know that he really cares about this. And if he thinks this is a good thing, I would have to probably go along with him. But I'd like to see for myself what this agreement is and what they're going to have to do. Because, like this gentleman just said, they haven't really been very good about finishing what they said they're going to finish, not just here, but in a lot of places. But here, I care about. So is there someplace we can see the agreement that you've come up with? No? So I guess that's a no? We can't see the agreement that you've come up with, with the developer? Nobody's even going to say yes or no? Whatever. Mr. Mayor, if I may, um, I believe the city clerk issued an amended agenda that is available online through Granicus. I'm not sure if there are physical copies available. I just gave her a physical copy so they can put in the back if they need to, uh, make some copies or whatever. There are already some on the back table. And I know the applicant still wants to do his presentation before we actually go for the vote. So, let's finish with public comment and then we can... Pat Blodgett, please. Okay. Is there a traffic study that was done? We don't know. Howling is enough of a mess right now to, for traffic, and now we're going to put apartments there? Are the schools able to take that? Um, I thought they were going to do commercial by the center and now they're going to do apartments. I'm confused. If it, is it supposed to be commercial and we're changing it to residential and it's the only way out on Howland? Um, I live behind the center and Catalina right now coming out of Catalina is a traffic nightmare. I can't even imagine what that would be like. Is the only way out on this? Is it going to be on the center? I, you know, I think we need more information. That's it. Mayor, that closes public comments. Thank you. While the applicant comes up to do their presentation so we can vote, I just want to clarify again, this is not that we're voting to approve apartments. They're entitled to that for over 25 years who are voting for a final plat, which by state statute, if it confirms with, if it confers with, uh, land development code, we, it's literally just a, um, what is the legal term for it? Uh, it's, platting is generally considered a ministerial act. So as long as the, um, applicant has provided evidence that they meet the statutory and land development code, um, requirements and the staff and engineering review concurs, then they are entitled to an approval. And in this case, we just added an extra caveat, which was the additional agreement. Yes, that is correct. All right. And after presentation, we'll go to a vote. Mr. Mayor, commissioners and staff, thank you for this time. I'll keep it brief since I've already answered most of your questions that were going to be presented. Uh, purpose of the plot, like I mentioned, is not to request a variance. It is not to request a rezoning or a non-conforming use. Everything we are requesting on this plot is a conforming use according to the municipal code for City of Deltona for the zoning that has been in place, as Mr. Smith mentioned, for, since the early 2000s. It, further, uh, in the development, we further looked and confirmed that this, meets the future zoning that has been in place for these lots. For the RM2, the large lot, in the future, that has continued to be zoned for medium density residential. For the smaller lot, for the entrance and exit that is currently C2 general, um, general commercial, it continues to be zoned in future use for commercial. This is the current intersection. Um, I took these pictures of MLK meeting Howland Road, showing the current, uh, mast arms for the intersection. What is being proposed and what is reflected on the, uh, on the plot shows that we will be extending the current, uh, development of MLK across the street of, of Howland so that it will become a four-way rather than a three-way intersection. It will still be an intersection using red light, green lights. It will not be a yield or a stop sign type of entrance and exit. But furthermore, as Commissioner Lulee asked, it does, uh, it does, uh, imagine and have reflected, uh, the crosswalks that will tie in to the pedestrian walkways that are aligned, um, on the sides of the extension of MLK meeting to Autumn Road and continuing east onto Autumn Road. Um, this is a current overlay of the map for City of Deltona's current zoning, uh, the large orange square, that is the RM2 that currently exists. Um, underneath it, you will see C1 commercial. Uh, there was a comment a few minutes ago talking about continuing the commercial. The problem with this, as it currently stands, is that commercial cannot be developed. There's not enough space on each of those individual lots to allow ingress and egress. That is not one large lot. That is six, I believe six or seven individual lots. For that to be developed to create the businesses that can help support the local community, whether it's these apartment complexes or the individual homeowners around it, those businesses are going to need entrances and exits. The extension of Autumn Road provides that additional access to the units or to those, um, not only to our units, but also to those individual lots. Let's, uh, blow up just to show, um, so ours is, uh, the lots that is being developed that we have platted is the one where the arrow is pointing. It's that purple color. It is the C2 lot. To the right is the C1. Currently, the only entrance and exit on it for each of those individual lots is Howland Road. Uh, as you all know, Howland is, uh, uh, separated, uh, road one way leading west to go in and out of those individual lots. The plot reflects the extension of Autumn Road, giving a second entrance and exits through a four-way, uh, light rather than through a stop sign, rather than having everyone exit only on one street. Timeline, as Mr. Smith mentioned, application went through originally March 24th. Uh, everything was confirmed as meeting with City of Deltona's Municipal Code as well as state statute by January 27th, 2025, and we were before the commission based off of staff's approval as well as DRC's, um, confirmants that we have met with city code as well as state statute. And the details, the ingress and egress is going to, is simply to allow for the best use of all of the property as it's currently zoned and as that's, as it is zoned for the future. This is not a variance. This is not a replatting. This is not a rezoning. It is to confirm and to give to this commission and to the city a visual diagram to reflect what the development is in conformity with its current zoning, not to change or alter it. Um, I do want to make mention as to the plot itself. Um, if you all have in front of you, I don't, and I apologize, I don't have it on the slideshow. One of the things that is reflected on the plot is also the drainage easements that are being put on. Um, knowing that there is water and taking that into account. Additionally, the developer who is, uh, continuing this project and developing it is Edward Rose Properties. They are not, they have met and can speak for their own, but I will say they are dedicated to building and to maintaining this property as its owner. Owners do not develop and build to create flood issues for themselves or their neighbors. They build to last and they build to make it work. Currently, this is an overview of some of the current existing, um, businesses along that stream, same straight edge. So the Red Star reflects where our property is. To the left, two lots down, Dollar Store, Advent, Mr. Car Wash, et cetera, et cetera. This development is a perfect segue between the businesses that continue to be developed in Deltona Village and to the east and to the segue of the single families to the east of this, um, along Fox, uh, Foxborough, uh, circle in that area. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Can we please go for a vote? Commissioner Santiago, uh, if you can please vote. Yes. Motion passes six to one. This time we're gonna go to section B, which is public hearing request for approval of resolution number 2025-24, sorry, go ahead, Mr. Good. We were, we had agreed that it only was, so we don't bore the residents who one of us reads it. Uh, so this is a resolution of the City of Deltona, Florida, approving the final plot for phase one of the Vineland Reserve RPUD for a 126-lot single-family townhouse subdivision on plus or minus 20.3 acres of property located east of Peach Creek Drive within the City of Deltona, providing for conditions, conflicts, severability, and an effective date. Jordan, go ahead. Good evening, Mayor, Commission. Before you tonight is the Vineland Reserve Phase 1 RPUD final plot application. The applicant requests acceptance of the Vineland Reserve Phase 1 final plot for the development of 126 town, townhouses within the Vineland RPUD. It is consistent with Florida Statutes Chapter 177 and the City's Land Development Code 106-31 final plot review. The site is located at east, east of Peach Creek Drive. It's about 20.3 acres. The zoning Vineland Reserve RPUD was approved on October 2016 by ordinance number 24-2, 2016. It's a subdivision of 126 townhomes submitted on July 22nd, 2024. DRC recommended the City Commission accept the final plot on February 13th, 2025. It's going to be 126 townhomes. It's southeast to Phase 2 and 3 of Vineland Reserve single-family homes. The Vineland Reserve final plot, it is review. The review is technical in nature as utilities and roadways are currently being built with their preliminary plot. It is compliant with Florida Statutes Chapter 177 in the City's Land Development Code, Section 106-31. And on February 13th, the DRC recommended the City Commission approve, accept the final plot. Conditions are in the final plot DO, which is in your packet. I want to call attention to condition number two, the issuance of construction or site development permits pursuant to this DO shall be conditioned upon the completion and findings of the peer review. And all the conditions thereto as described in the item above. And condition number four, the issuance of construction or site development permits pursuant to this development order shall be conditioned upon certified compliance of all development activities performed within the Vineland Reserve residential RPUD in accordance with final plot SD-SD23-2018 and all conditions thereto. Based on decision-making criteria, staff supports the City Commission approving resolution number 25-24, accepting the Vineland Reserve Phase 1 final plot with conditions outlined in resolution 2025-24. Available for questions. All right, I'm going to take a point of privilege. I understand that this, again, is the final plot, but this is the Phase 1 out of three phases, correct? Correct. Phase 2 and Phase 3 are single-family, which is already constructed. So, and I know you and I already went through a couple of these questions, but I want a clear answer. How many times has the pond failed peer review? I'm going to defer to our engineer, David Hampstead, on this. Evening, Mayor. David Hampstead for Pegasus Engineering. I'm a stall motor consultant for Deltona. You're the engineer for us, correct? Yes. Okay. So, the question was, how many times has the pond failed the peer review? Well, we did a technical memorandum that was issued two weeks ago. Okay. Doing a post-construction inspection. I made some recommendation of what should be done prior to vertical construction. I'm not sure if you had a chance to read it or have any questions specifically on the memo. So, has the applicant taken those recommendations and done them? I have not seen an official response yet. They acknowledge receipts, but I have not seen the requested re-analysis of what they're going to do to bring into compliance. Got it. Have all the deficiencies been addressed to comply more to their stormwater requirements by the applicant? Yeah. I don't know if that's a Jordan question or a you question. Can you repeat that, Mayor? Are they in compliance with our stormwater requirements? Based on what's been built, we have an issue not meeting 100% of the criteria for the pond. Okay. Would the applicant be willing? We just did this with another final plat. So, and I'm getting to a point because I see that St. John's River Management Company seems to be involved in the other two phases. And I'm getting really annoyed that we keep and continue getting final plat brought to us with a lot of deficiencies coming up. Is the applicant here? I would like to know if the applicant would be willing to provide an additional bond based on 1.5 times the cost to take care of the corrective actions. And the reason I'm asking for 1.5 is just to cover in case of any increase or whatever it is, or whatever legal determines or deems is necessary. But violent reserve, and I'm not trying to say anything or say anything negative against him, is just there's current issues. I mean, are there—let me see. What are the concerns at St. John's River Management? What was it that they brought up, and what was the notice that they gave to the developer for their Phase 2 and 3? Sorry that I'm going through puberty at age 65, but I'll try to get my voice back here. We have seen, because of the hurricanes, testing some of these systems that all these primitive dry-bottomed ponds are not functioning. Cortland Park, Hampton Oaks, Violent Reserves 2 and 3, Osprey Estates. So we've had a rash of dry-bottomed ponds not functioning as a design. Because of the recent history with Milton and Ian, the city is now taking a more aggressive, proactive stance to look at these ponds before we start building houses. Because like Cortland Park, we have a pond that's failing, surrounded by houses, which makes it extremely difficult to bring it back into compliance. Osprey Estates has been cooperative to do and not do any construction until they resolve their own issues. And we do have plenty of issues on Phases 2 and 3. You have your neighbors to the west on Butler, that we've met with several times. We have the school that was impacted, Doyle Road. So we just want to make sure that Phase 1 does not perpetuate the same problem. And hence, the city allowed us to do an investigation as soon as they built it and before they built houses to make sure there's no underlying issues. All right. Is Phase 1 coming before the commission again for anything else, Jordan? No? All right. I know we have the whole board lit up, but I just, I want to recommend to this dais that we table this until the applicant can support, and I'm not going to make the motion because I'm obviously chairing, but to pull out an additional bond to make sure the corrective actions are taken. So we'll go to Commissioner Howington, then Commissioner Lully, then Commissioner Vila-Vasquez, and Vice Mayor Harriet. Well, since the applicant is not here, thank you, Mayor, it's kind of hard to get some answers to the questions that I have. We all know that just a few days ago we received the peer review. It had three conditions that require new modeling before vertical construction can begin. I guess my question would be for you is, can you provide us with a 100% guarantee that the discrepancies in the data that were found will not result in a plat change? I actually live in Hampton Oaks, full disclosure, so I'm well aware of what's happening, and I am fully aware that we had to redesign our ponds as a result of the problems that we have with our stormwater system. Can you provide us an unequivocal 100% guarantee that that plat will not have to change based on the new modeling? Not tonight, I can't. Okay. Can you make a guarantee that utility right-of-ways or other infrastructure will not change based on what happens with this modeling? Not tonight. Okay. And then as of 20—or, sorry, February 5th, 2025, to touch on what the mayor was speaking about, St. John's Water Management District did put the EOR and the developer on notice that stormwater ponds are not functioning as designed, engineered, and permitted within phases two and three. I'm not sure where the city stands. This may be a question for Jordan. But if St. John's Water Management District has put them on notice that their stormwater systems are failing, are they in compliance with the city? Those systems in compliance. If I'm understanding right, these townhouses are going to be built by another developer. And so once we approve this plat, is the original developer who's agreeing to work on phases two and three to correct the issues going to just wipe their hands and walk away because it's no longer their problem because they've now sold out to another developer. To your point, Commissioner Howington, that's why I was requesting a bond because that guarantees that—so the bond, from my understanding, works like a savings account. If they don't take the corrective actions, then we pull the money from that bond and get it done. So to your point, because I've received emails, and I don't mean to kind of steal the show, but I've seen emails where there's inaccuracies that have been reported from the engineer. I've seen that they're wanting to turn over the HOA over to the residents. That, to me, was the biggest red flag. Right. Because usually when it turns over to the residents, then the developer gets to say, I'm done. Right. Yes. And I've also met with the—I've met with the HOA as well, and the developer has been pushing them to take possession and ownership of the stormwater system for phase two and three. That is very concerning. According to the HOA, they have been told by the developer that there have been no identified issues with the stormwater system. Based on the information that we have from St. John's Water Management District, that is incorrect. So from our standpoint, do we consider that they are in compliance? I'll let you answer. The phase two and three ponds are currently not in compliance with the city's criteria. And we know it's not your fault, because you're the engineer here to help us out for this situation. We just—we have questions, unfortunately, though. And I'll share this with anybody who wants to see. I can actually post it online. Today I was actually driving through my subdivision, and I know that you've been involved, or Pegasus has been involved, in Hampton Oaks and the Corrective Actions. And this is what they're doing right now, today, in between houses that are currently existing. What's going to happen when we have townhouses? How do you—how do you fix a system that could potentially run under townhouses? They're—they're putting dirt right up against a house that people are living in to fix this problem. Commissioner Harington, if you can forward that also to the secretary so the public can have it. I will. Absolutely. Because I'm sure it's going to come up. Absolutely. Which I appreciate all the work that everybody's done on Hampton Oaks. Yes, but I would really like to make sure that if we already have a subdivision that's not in compliance, that we don't repeat the sins of the past. And that's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Lully, then Commissioner Vila-Vasquez, then Vice Mayor Herria. Thank you, Mayor. I am really disappointed the applicant's not here tonight. I think when you are asking for a final plot for 126 townhomes that you show up, just like six of us did, one of us is online. So I'll leave it there. I think this was a mistake. I was in middle school when this was first entitled for this. Some of you in the audience, we've talked about this before. And then I was 21 or 22 when this was brought back before a past commission. Nobody up here was around for this when it was brought back before another commission to re-entitle it because back in 25, 20 years ago, they forgot to sign the development order or something like that. So I think it was a mistake both of those times to do this. I think that there has been such, and others have already explained it, there's been so many issues, particularly in that little corner of my district. And there's people's real lives are being affected by these decisions. I see one raised in their hand in the audience. Folks that live both within District 6 Deltona who are outside of it and then also folks who are in the unincorporated areas who I also see represented out here tonight. So I have some real serious issues with this. And you identified in your peer review that the water table is four feet different from what was originally modeled. Is that correct? The problem during the review process, because I was involved, they did one boring for the big pond. And we asked to do three or four more in order to secure approval. They came back and said, we've got a St. John's permit. Your code can't say we can do more. And it stopped. And I'm really going to hope to talk to Jordan afterwards to strengthen the teeth of our code to get away with these minimal efforts on geotechnical work on dry bottom ponds. Thank you. It's been a continued problem for the last several years. And this is rhetorical because I know the answer, but if this were to be approved tonight and this new modeling comes back and says that, as we know, if a pond ends up being a wet design, when you dig it deeper, it just fills with water that doesn't give you any additional storage capacity. This would need to be expanded on the surface area, which I believe is also happening across the street at, kind of static in here, across the street at Osprey, they are continuing to have to expand the surface area and they're losing lots. Yes, they are. Right? So, I mean, that changes in the end, that changes how it's platted because now you're absorbing some of the platted lots that were supposed to be homes are now stormwater infrastructure. Correct. Yeah. Okay. I hereby move to deny Resolution 2025-2024, denying the Violent Reserve Phase 1 final plat. I'll second. So, there's a motion by Commissioner Lully and I'll give the second to Commissioner Howington. Are you done, Commissioner Lully? Yeah, thank you. Commissioner Villavasquez and then Vice Mayor Harriet. Thank you, Mayor. So, the motion was made because my question, when you said table, the item, I wanted to know what the definition of table means. And then bond, you know, the bond is good, but the problem is already done. Yeah. The apartments or townhouses are already built. People are already living in it. And what hurts the most is that a lot, I would say 90% of these people who move into these new developments are not even from around here. So, they don't even know the history of that property before the house that they're going to live in was before the house was built. So, not knowing, I know that there was a comment about, well, there was no issues with the last three or four hurricanes. But there was nothing built, you know, when those past two or three hurricanes happened. So, yes, when development happens, the land will change. So, I don't—I'm not even going to consider the bond. So, I'm going to vote in your favor, Commissioner Lully. Thank you. Mr. Mayor, if I may, I just want to—I know there's a motion and a second on the floor. I do want to point out that because the applicant is not here and there have been some questions directed to the applicant tonight, I would encourage the commission to consider a deferral to a date certain or without a date certain in lieu of a motion for denial tonight. In order to allow the record to reflect competent, substantial evidence, if the—and give the applicant that opportunity for due process to answer the questions so that we can have a clean public record on this. So, just a point of order. All right, guys, if we get—we really need—we're happy—we really need the audience to please keep it down a little bit. I'm going to respect—I'm one of—obviously, I'm one of seven. I'm going to respectfully ask this commission to not consider that, and here's why. They've done two other phases. It was important enough for the folks of Aloha to be here. They knew that they were going to get somewhat beat up for their past mistakes, and they still showed up. It should have been important enough for them to be here as well. So, that—that is—that's—that's what I'm going to say. Now, with that, I will respectfully ask the person that made the motion if they want to retract, and the person that seconded it if they would like to retract. So, I will start with the person that made the motion. No. The person that made the second? No. Okay. So, Commissioner Avila-Vasquez, are you done? Um, yes. Okay. Mr. Mayor, if I may, this is obviously your decision. Um, we just wanted to reiterate, we did send you all a memo earlier today about the plotting of land. Um, strongly urge a deferral instead of a denial. Um, Florida statutes does provide that this is largely ministerial, and there is a burden, um, that does shift. So, we would urge a deferral instead of a denial, particularly to give the applicant an opportunity to respond to the very good questions that you have posited tonight. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner, Vice Mayor Harriet, then Commissioner Lully, then Commissioner Howland. Fellow Commissioners, I'm, I'm proud of us tonight. Uh, I want to point out that this does open the city up to litigation. This, this puts us in the crosshairs, but if we don't do it tonight, then we're going to have to decide when we're going to do it. So, um, let's go. Commissioner Lully, then Commissioner Howland. Thank you, Mayor. And before, um, we had guidance from the city attorney, so I was actually planning to explain also why I voted, um, or made the motion the way I did. Um, they, they had noticed that the, there was a public hearing this evening, right? Okay. So, they had noticed, um, I'm going to encourage you to correct me if I'm wrong with the statement I'm going to make. Uh, they couldn't show up tonight, but gosh, the last time we gave them this professional courtesy, uh, they threatened to sue us, right, when we deferred the, the, okay, so just so everyone knows, the last time we offered them that professional courtesy, and I don't blame the city attorneys at all for giving us that guidance, uh, they are here to protect us. Uh, their response was to send us a letter and threaten to sue us. So, I, I don't, I don't think either way here that, that, uh, we win. We certainly don't win by putting, uh, 126 townhouses in an area where, uh, we're not, we cannot tell you if the stormwater will function as they've presented it. We do have evidence, though, from, um, our side of the table that there are, um, issues with it, and based on phase two and three, there have been issues based on Cortland Park across the street, where I have my constituents, this is my district, this is why I'm very passionate about it. We have stormwater that's rushing into people's playgrounds and into their, uh, their mailbox clusters. We have houses that have retaining walls around them. They're, you know, on the edge of a relic sinkhole. So, this is an area where I, uh, I agree with our, um, engineers' findings that those, uh, that there's, there are those discrepancies there with the stormwater, and based on the condition of the rest of the area, um, I don't think that it is going to improve to allow 126 townhomes to be plotted the way this is. So, that would, I just wanted to put that out there. Thanks. Thank you, Commissioner Howington, and then Commissioner Villavasquez. Mr. Mayor, if I may. A little bit of public comment. So, so again, as per the memo earlier, it is important for you all to consider, um, the, the burden here, uh, and that burden is that competent, substantial evidence to be presented at the public hearing. So, the city engineer has presented some evidence. So, we would encourage you to reference that evidence, and specifically to reference under Florida statutes. I'm sorry, with the, under the land development code for the city of Deltona. This is Section 106-31. This is 2B4, which is the engineering plans to include cross-sections, plan and profile drawings of streets, bulkheads, bridges, sidewalks, water distribution systems, water treatment plants, sewage collection systems, sewage treatment plants, and storm sewer systems as required by the city. So, I would certainly urge you all to ensure that you all feel that there is competent, substantial evidence on the record. And, and I would reference this, the, the code, as well as the statements and, and memorandum prepared by the city engineer. So, I, I can only speak for myself, but I feel like there is, and just humans are, guys, please, if I can hear you, the rest can hear. Um, humans are creatures of habit, so we have two other phases that are currently failing. Their ponds have, ponds that are failing. I understand that this is ministerial. I get all that. Um, but we didn't have an opportunity to speak about violent at all. At least, not this commission. And to the vice mayor's point, we, and, and I was planning to bring it up during my public comments, or during my comments, commissioner comments, we need to do something in the city where these final plats don't come to us until we are definitely sure that they can come before us. And I know there, it's probably a state statute somewhere, and that, that's why you guys are our attorneys. You guys can help us identify those situations. But this, it's just the consistent, and maybe it wasn't their fault, right? Because we've had hurricanes that we haven't had in a very long time. But for me to sit here and say that I'm going to vote for something, and they're not even here to say, hey, look, we'll, we'll push for a bond, you know, like the, the previous developer was, or to say, hey, we're going to rectify some of these issues. Instead, we have our person that's here, who is our engineer, almost kind of attempting to defend the indefensible. I, I feel like we have sufficient, and that's just one out of, one out of seven, right? So I'm not going to ask those that made the motions again, but we'll go to commissioner. Mayor, if I can? Go ahead. It's Emma. Commissioner Santoro. Thank you very much, Mayor. Yes, I agree with a lot of the questions and answers out there. There is unanswered questions. There's a lot of concerns. I think our stormwater issue requires, you know, to look into, possibly reflect a change in the final plot. I want to say that our city attorney has given us good guidance, and we really think, we really need to have our, Nick Lully, if you can, make the motion to include the guidance that our city attorney has suggested. And also, further, I know there, we need to look into changing our standards. I know the Volusia County has made some changes into their stormwater ponds, and something that we need to look into the future and change our standards for that. So I just wanted to let you know where I stand in this. Thank you very much. Thank you, Commissioner Santiago. We have Commissioner Avila Vasquez, then Commissioner Howington, and Commissioner Lully. Thank you, Mayor. So one of the things I was going to say was the same thing that Commissioner Santiago said was to ask Commissioner Lully if he would include the comments from our attorneys in your motion, you know, why you're asking for us to deny it. And I just want to say to our attorneys, thank you so much. You guys did a great job. And you did everything. You uncover and turn every rock that you found in the way to try to make things easy for both sides. You know, sometimes we have to make the decision that we feel is the right decision for our residents. And I think the Vice Mayor said the right thing. You know, I think the decisions that I've made today are the right decisions. So thank you so much for all the work that you put into this, even if it was at the last minute. Commissioner Howington, then Commissioner Lully. Okay. Do you want to go ahead and amend the motion at this time and I can second? So I would, yeah, if I could ask, is that what your preference would be for me to state my evidence within the motion? I think the best practice would be to, yeah, state the, that you have been presented with these findings by the city engineer and to reference the city code section, which is section 106-31, subsection 2B4, which references the provision of engineering plans for several different disciplines, including the stormwater. And I would urge you all to then include and discuss how that information you've received is both relevant and material, such that a reasonable person would understand why it would be impactful. So she needs to withdraw her second before I can amend it. Yes, you have to withdraw your second first, Commissioner Howington. I'll withdraw my second. Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner Lully. So I'm going to amend, I'm going to try to get this out in a nice, succinct sentence. So I, based on findings of our engineering consultant, I hereby move to deny resolution number 2025-24 for the Vineland Reserve Phase 1 final plat, and I find that, I'm going to, so in consulting with section 106-31 of our municipal code, 2B4, 2B4, did I get that right? So I find that tract A on the plat is not an accurate representation of how it will be. Close enough. Is that, okay. All right, is there a second? No second. Okay, so you second it, and then let me just explain. But tract A is the, is where this, is the dry pond lot, just so everyone knows. Yes. All right, there's a motion by Commissioner Lully and a second by Commissioner Howington. Commissioner Lully, you're on the board again. Oh, wait, wait. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Commissioner Howington. That was all I had. I'll withdraw. Okay. Just for our residents to understand, the developer has been very, very adamant that we move this forward as quickly as possible. This is the letter that we actually received from their attorneys threatening to sue us if we did not push this forward by February 3rd. They were aware that this item was coming up on the agenda this evening. So I will be granting their wish and pushing this through as quickly as possible, as they have asked us to do. They opted not to show up, and I believe that Pegasus Engineering has done a great job in answering our questions, because really the questions that I asked were the pertinent items that I had. They knew that we did a peer review. They knew why that peer review was conducted. They have been made aware by St. John's Water Management District that we have existing problems with that subdivision and other phases. These are items that need to be addressed, and we need to include all of the items that we have from our attorney that were stated as reasons to be compelling evidence in this matter, because we can't move forward knowing that we have issues within that subdivision in Platt. And again, I'm honoring their request. Are you done, Commissioner? Yes, I am. Thank you very much. Vice Mayor Harriet. Thank you, Mayor. And then we'll go to public comment after. Okay, I just wanted to make it known that the reason for my opinion on this denial is not because they didn't show up. It is based off of the competent, substantial evidence presented by our stormwater consultant, Pegasus Engineering. Thank you guys very much. That was a very, very, very detailed report. And based off of that report and the deficiencies found, along with their track record on the other phases, this is the right decision. Thank you. May I ask before I sit down if you can enter this into the record or project memorandum to this document, this is project. So make sure I worded that correctly. Yes, go ahead. And Mr. Hamster, you can provide that to the city clerk who will enter it into the record and make it copied in. Perfect. So we're accepting that into the record as evidence. Yes. Thank you. Okay. We'll go ahead and go to public comment, please. Lori Warnicke, please. Good evening. I spent two days on this speech, but you guys pretty much answered everything. Good evening, Mayor, Commissioners, and staff. My name is Lori Warnicke, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Collins community. Please raise your hands if you're one of my pie peeps. Thank you. Vineland Reserve, located directly behind, our community is directly behind phase two and three. We understand this was a request to only approve vertical building. The construction can't start until this is passed. The problem is, is that Lenar Homes has left a major unresolved issues in phase two and three. One of the big ones is stormwater system. They made unpermitted changes, which you guys said, in the system, and as a result, the so-called dry retention pond had water in it for 138 days after Hurricane Milton. Dry ponds are designed to typically drain in 48 to 72 hours. They help reduce too much water going into the stormwater system and helps control flooding. The Collins community has had more flooding and standing water over it in the past five years since the construction began in Vineland Reserve. Now, mind you, we are on a sand hill. We are the highest point west of the coast. We should not have any water. Our percolation is unbelievable. It used to be an orange grove. We should not be flooding at this time. Our community wants to be put on record that we have concerns. What is our guarantee that the problems will be fixed? Is Lenar's past behavior going to predict their future behavior? The city needs to hold developer and builders accountable. They should not be able to move on to phase one until phase two and three are repaired. Stop rewarding bad behavior. Please do not allow our concerns to fall on deaf ears. You have too much compelling and substantial evidence before you. Your vote tonight will directly impact the citizens of this city. It's time to stop the bleeding, or should I say flooding? Thank you. Randy Priest, please. Good evening. My name is Randy Priest. I live on Collins Road, directly behind Vineland Reserve. Here we come to another stage of more. More homes, more people, more problems. This project was proposed many years ago. There have been so many new developments built that have their own problems, especially with flooding. I think this whole problem needs to be addressed before anything is approved to move forward. Lenar has not been able to uphold their end of things. We had to fight for a fence, a fence that is unfinished, a fence that looks like crap the first half because it wasn't installed the best, a fence that has a grassy strip on Collins Road that was not even maintained for over a year until just recently. This is only the second time it has been mowed and left trash that has accumulated in that tall grass, leaving us with chopped up stuff to look at. Weeds that climbed the dirty fence, a fence that has not even finished to divide our community from theirs, resulting in an open area for anyone to walk through. The townhome area has a brick wall around it. Why is our area not completed with a brick wall, something Deltona should follow through on? There were multiple teams trying to scale the fence from the Lenar side onto our road. The access road with a gate that runs alongside Vineland connecting to Collins Road is wide open again, allowing whoever to access our community. It feels violating not knowing who will be on our road as more move in. Lenar's dry ponds, I quote from staff here at Deltona, the developer made unauthorized and unpermitted changes to the stormwater system. Staff is aware of the deficiencies with the stormwater system. How was this addressed with Lenar? A slap on the wrist? A fine? My yard has never held water, now has massive puddles that take a full day or two to absorb. Lenar doesn't respect you or the law. What makes you think that D.R. Horton, when they take it over, will do the same? I pulled this from the Joe Belaya Developments LinkedIn. D.R. Horton is doing more than just building homes. They're developing strong communities. They're serving their customers well. They are self-serving, serving their customers well. Same can be said about Lenar. They are not thinking about the surrounding communities. This community of Osteen residents that just happened to lie within Deltona's city limits. About us residents that are experiencing water retention from this project, how about Deltona starts taking care of their current communities and building them stronger, start serving us well, not serving our developers well. You represent us and our quality of living, our safety, and you also represent our voice. So please listen well and serve us well in all these decisions. Hi, my name's Rihanna, and I currently live in Phase 2 of Vineland. So all the things about the stormwater ponds, like, I'm actively, like, having to deal with it as well. I just want to say, too, on my way over here, I have to directly pass by where these townhomes are being proposed. There was no sign that there was a meeting tonight. There was no notice. There was no nothing. Nothing that could also go into, you know, them not being here tonight, like, showing how much that they take priority of this. Our dry ponds are not operating as they were intended, and neither are any of the neighborhoods around us, various ponds. As a result of the Pegasus Engineering's findings, our dry ponds will not be able to accommodate the additional water in the already impacted area. We are finally draining from Milton. We cannot accommodate these shortcomings. What is being presented is not an accurate representation of what was approved. The very root of this is that the findings do not match what was approved and agreed upon. Given the ability to proceed would allow the developer to not hold their end of contracts and set a reputation for the city that we don't hold developers accountable to their agreements. Until it matches the original plan, at the very least, it should not be approved. And that's all I got. Terry Louise. Good evening, everyone. I'm Terry Louise. I live down the road on Doyle. So, one, thank you all for what you already are doing. Nick, you're doing a great job with saying we're not going to do this this time. Attorneys, I appreciate your recommendations so that hopefully these guys don't get sued for what they're recommending here. And, of course, I always like everybody back here. Jess does an amazing job. Anytime we have questions, she's able to respond. Jordan puts his two cents in when we ask him as well. When we need him to. We've already heard all about the flooding issues. I'm going to go one step further. And I understand that concurrence with schools is currently concurrent. But when you tell me that my children, they're sitting in a class of 40 kids at Heritage, when they're not supposed to have that many kids, the teacher is in between two classrooms, standing in the doorway, and teaching to both sides, because this classroom has 40 students in it. How is that concurrent? Pine Ridge High School. My number two son takes the bus from my house, takes over an hour to get to school. It's three miles away. He could walk faster than that. There are kids sitting on the floor of the bus in order to get to school. So, again, concurrence. I understand that that's not in the classroom itself, but that's affecting how the kids are getting into class. That's a transportation issue. Falls differently into the concurrency issue. That's not being taken into consideration. So, I understand where we say when they go for all their reporting that they are currently concurrent, but that's not the way we also need to look at it. We need to look at other things that are truly on the ground and happening. The roads. There are no updates as per the road guru TAD I've spoken with, gone back and forth with. The only update that's going in on Doyle Road, Enterprise Osteen Road, and Reed Ellis Road, and Cortland, the only update that is being considered in the next five years is shoulders from Lush Lane to Twisted Oak. Guess where I live? That's me. That's the only thing that they're going to do. There's no extension of the road. There's no expansion. The accidents that we're having on Doyle Road are immense at this point. We sit outside. We listen to the boom. I call 911 and tell them we have another accident. We need help in regards to the roads. I understand they're county roads, not officially your responsibility, but we need to come to some decision-making in between the county and the city to say, look, we're putting in this many subdivisions or we're putting in this many apartments, townhouses. These roads need to be updated as well. And if there's nothing in the plan for the next five years, we're behind the eight ball at this point. Go back to schools one thing real quick. There are 20 new classrooms coming to Pine Ridge High School, so I do appreciate that. We need to look at Osteen and Heritage both as well. I think that's all I'll say this time. But thank you all for denying the situation tonight. Albert Ryan, please. Appreciate that you put out the actual stuff that Mr. Hampstead gave you. That was a very well read. My only question here is I would like it explained on the record that the recovery time for this is very slow, to say the least. I would like it explained on the record the fact that when you have a slow recovery time on the stormwater, it doesn't allow for the pond to recover fast enough and could create a possible overflow. When you have such an issue, and I respect everything he does, he's very premier in his field, but I think he needs to explain the fact that the percolation in this area is going to be very slow and that the recovery time is very key to what the pond actually does. Without recovery time, the pond can't do what it's supposed to do. And when you have a difference in elevation in the recovery pond, then when you have a slow recovery time, it's going to cause you problems. And I would like that explained on the record for tonight. Thank you. Tina Swift, please. After public comment, before we vote, you can come up. Go ahead, Ms. Swift. Good evening, commissioners. As an unincorporated Volusia County resident who does not live near this development, I wasn't going to speak directly on this topic other than to support my community tonight. You all changed my mind. What I did want to highlight and thank you all for is the courage that you all demonstrated this evening. Standing up to developers who have already threatened litigation is no easy task. And you should be commended for that. Thank you for advocating for and requiring pre-work. Thank you for getting the city engineer involved in conducting a peer review. Thank you for listening to residents who were saying for a very long time that this is extremely problematic. Conducting a peer review, doing all of that peer work from my lens has been pretty atypical and is very much appreciated. And thank you to the city engineer and the attorneys for supporting that. This is daunting for all of you and for the city and what might come after it. And that should be underscored. You all are demonstrating servant leadership in its best form on this very topic. And that's what your community wants to see more of. Tonight and leading up to tonight, you all have stepped into the role of leader, community servant, and partner. And we appreciate that. This next bit is directed to the residents of Deltona and Osteen. The sentiment of many residents trends negative in a lot of topics. And I fully understand why. No argument for me. That said, the residents of Deltona and Osteen really need to put in as much effort into championing positive leadership like we saw tonight as they do into the negative and the things that they don't want. So what I expect to see from the community in response is an equal measure of championing all of you this evening as much as they do the negative. And I want you to know that no matter what happens after this, the courage and the leadership that you all have demonstrated leading up to tonight and tonight is exactly what we want to see from the dais. Thank you. Mayor, that closes. Public comments. Thank you. Before you vote, I know that the engineer, or Jordan, did you want to say something? Thank you, Mayor. Mayor, Commission, just to set the record straight, per the land development code, the property was posted on March 4th. And we will email the pictures of the posting to the city clerk's office. Thank you. Thank you. After your statement, we'll go ahead and do a vote. Okay. And you're asking Albert's question on recovery. Your dry bottom ponds are supposed to recover after a major event within 14 days. The reason being is we have another event that volumes there for the proper flood protection. When these ponds are not working and they're full of water, when the big storm comes and ends up in the people next door or in the house or in the community. That's why the recovery and the percolation and the groundwater estimateation is extremely important. So I hope this is a new trend. I'm not looking for work, but I hope the city does more of this before we break ground type investigation. Thank you. Thank you very much. If we can please vote, Commissioner Santiago. While we're all voting. Can we repeat the motion, please? Yes. Sarah, can you repeat the motion for us? This is incorrect. This is a nobody vote. Well, I think in the past, they've left like that with the correct motion. The motion's below, but on the screen it says motion to accept and it should not. Okay. That's why I have to repeat it, please. Move to deny Resolution 2025-24 for the Vineland Reserve Final— Vineland Reserve Phase 1 and Final Plot. In consulting with Section 106-31 to be— Subsection 2B4 of the LDC, I find that Tract A on the plat is not an accurate representation of how it will be. Thank you. So, we're voting to deny. Correct. Perfect. Thank you. So, a yes vote would mean that we deny it. A no vote means that we don't want to deny it. Just for clarification. Commissioner Santiago, how would you like to vote? Yes. Motion passes unanimously, 7-0. If you can please go to Section C, public hearing, and we'll have our city attorney read. Yes, sir. The next item on the agenda is a Resolution 2025-47 for legal representation. It is a resolution of the City of Deltona, Florida, authorizing participation in the litigation styled Shane Bengelsdorf versus City of Deltona, authorizing representation through city attorney's office and outside legal counsel, providing for implementation and providing for an effective date. This item tonight is to authorize us to respond to a pending lawsuit. We have submitted for coverage with the city's insurance provider, FMIT, but there is a pending deadline for us to respond with the court. And rather than miss the deadline, we would like to proceed forward, and in the event that we do receive coverage from the city's insurance defense counsel, we would allow them to proceed. And Tessitore Murray-Scott would be our co-counsel in the event that there is not coverage of FMIT. May I like to make a motion? Go ahead, Commissioner. I move to adopt Resolution 2025-47 for legal representation for the Shane Bengel-Dorf versus City of Deltona. Second. There's a motion by Commissioner Villavasco, second by Commissioner Lally. Is there any public comment? All right, can we please vote? Commissioner Santiago, how would you like to vote? Yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. We're just waiting for Vice Mayor Harriet. If we want, we can read the vote and then take his vote when he comes back. What do you want me to do? All right, so far the vote's 6-0, and then when Commissioner, when Vice Mayor comes back, we'll get his vote. So, thank you. The motion passes. All right, we're going to go to D, public hearing, and if we can have Mr. Good read it out for us. Thank you so much, Mayor. I'll take this one for Zach. Let's give him a little break. This is a second and final reading of the public camping ordinance that came before you at the last meeting. This is the second reading of Ordinance No. 15-2025, an ordinance of the City of Deltona, Florida, establishing Chapter 43, Public Camping of the General Ordinances to Prohibit Public Camping or Sleeping Within City Buildings, Properties, and Rights of Way, and to Create the Public Camping or Sleeping Complaint Process, amending Section 58-31, Use of City Rights of Way of Article 2, Rights of Way of Chapter 58, Streets, Sidewalks, and Other Public Places to include the definitions of public camping and sleeping, providing for conflicts, codification, severability, and an effective date. Thank you, Mayor. Perfect. Before we get started on, or finish the, how would you like to record your- Yes. Okay. So you have a yes. So it was a 7-0 vote, unanimous. All right. Vice Mayor, you're on the board again. I'd like to make a motion to approve this item. Second. There's a motion by Vice Mayor Harriet, second by Commissioner Lully. Is there any public comment? Okay. Please vote. Commissioner Santiago, how would you like to vote on this section? Thank you, Mayor. Yes. Motion passes unanimously, 7-0. This time we're going to go into Section 9, Action Items, A, Commission Travel Policy. City Manager. All right. Thank you, Mayor. Just in front of you is the original policy that you currently are under. We included a recommendation from staff for you to consider tonight. One of the changes we're looking at is your current policy allows for three conferences or seminars a year, and out-of-town conferences or seminars must receive commission approval. Under page one purpose, the recommendation is to budget an amount of money annually for each commissioner. By setting an amount per commissioner, each commissioner can attend as many events as possible, but stay within their budgeted amount. Right now, under your current guidelines, a commissioner can go to three one-day events for training in the land, why another commissioner may be able to go to three four-day conferences, you know, in Key West. It's just, as far as setting the budget, we're looking at a little more fairness between the commissioners. Here's a set amount of money per year. If you can go to more trainings, great. If you want to go to less, it's up to you. But it does make it fair across the board of what type of trainings and conferences may be available. Another part that we have in here, which could change depending on what I just mentioned, was we're saying for conferences over 30 miles, you have the ability to stay at a hotel. The concept there is going to the other side of Orlando. Morning traffic on I-4, which I believe has officially been announced the worst traffic in the entire country, according to television the other day, is leaving in the morning for, say, a three- or four-day conference. On the other side of I-4, you're looking at maybe a couple hours driving in, a couple hours back, a couple hours in the morning, a couple hours back, a couple hours in the morning, a couple hours back. And one of the things I want to impress upon the commission when it comes to a conference is, it's not just the classes themselves, it's the conversations and the meetings that you have in the after hours, especially with people from Boulder, Colorado, or Austin, Texas. And if you're spending your time driving back and forth, that's why we put a number in there for mileage. Of course, it's not lost on us that at 30 miles the other way to Daytona Beach or Mon would probably not necessarily entail a hotel stay. But the consideration for that would be the possibility, if you're looking at just setting a flat fee in the budget, that maybe it's up to you to determine if you want to stay at a hotel or not in your conference, because that would be part of your set- allotted budget. And so maybe a distance isn't as necessary. But just wanted to put something out in front of you as a consideration to maybe go back and forth a little bit. And we can always bring this item back after hearing some of your considerations for the travel policy, or stay with what you have currently. I'd like to ask Dias if this would not be better suited where we can be more freely open to talk about it at a workshop first. That way we actually all give input. Again, I'm one of seven, but if you guys want to do this today, I mean, we have time. But I think we can use that as a skeleton, and maybe the commission can- since this is ours, right? This is not staff's travel policy. I want to make sure we're clear that we're not touching anything in staff. This is commission. Commission exclusively, yes. Okay. I'm going to make a motion for that. I think the intent of bringing it to the commission tonight was so that we could have that discussion and that dialogue, provide our comments, not that we would necessarily pass this copy of it, but that we could have that and then staff could bring it back with our comments, taking our comments into effect. I would rather sit down at a workshop where we can actually have back and forth conversation, because there were a lot of changes that I first saw having here. So, and I'm sure that we all do, and so I would like to have that opportunity to have that back and forth, sitting in a more informal environment where we can have that conversation. Whoever wants to make a motion. I'll make a motion to- I'll second it. I'm sorry, go ahead. There's a motion by Commissioner Howie. So can you actually state the motion- Hold on, hold on, hold on. Before Sarah- Sure. Takes my gavel and hits me with it. Real quick, if you don't mind, do we have room on our workshop day- No. To add it. No, let's do another workshop. Okay, so are we pausing- We need to break it up in two. Are we pausing all travel until this is addressed? No, we have a policy. It's in force. We have- Okay. It might be old, but it's in force. Okay. All right. So just reinstate your- Sure. I would like to make a motion to table the travel policy this evening to bring back at a workshop for us to have a discussion and work through how we would like it to be finalized. Okay. There's a motion by Commissioner Howington and Commissioner Avila-Vasquez seconded. Oh, yeah. And Commissioner Santiago thirded. That's what we're for. There you go. There you go. So is there any public comment? No public comment at the table. Yes. Oh. So there's a point of order. There is no public comment at a tabled item. Is that correct? Yes, Mayor, you do not have to open public comment. Thank you for the reminder, Vice Mayor. Okay. If we can please vote. Commissioner Santiago, how would you like to vote? Thank you, Mayor. Yes. Okay. I do wish we talked about this more, but- We'll have a lot of time to talk. Motion passes unanimously. Seven to zero. This time, is there any city attorney comments? Yes, Mayor. Thank you so much. Um, we wanted to just discuss two things tonight. The first is, uh, with respect to standing in quasi-judicial land use hearings at the last meeting. Um, there were some questions about this, and we had some discussion. We did prepare and send a memorandum of law to the commission mayor, Vice Mayor Commission on March 14th. Um, but we just wanted to talk this through. Um, and certainly, you know, we want to obviously make the public aware of this. Um, and as you all know, whenever we send you these memorandums of law, feel free to- everything we send you, unless it's privilege, which is very minimal and unlikely. Um, you are- it's a public record, and you feel free to share. Um, and when we send these memorandums of law, we certainly would encourage you to share them with your constituents who- who it's relevant to. Um, so, with respect to standing in quasi-judicial land use hearings, um, standing- what it- what it means is that it defines who has a right to initiate or proceed in a- or participate in a legal proceeding. And in quasi-judicial land use hearings, it dictates who can appeal decisions and who's entitled to due process. So, when you think about standing at these quasi-judicial hearings, it's a threshold issue- issue. Um, if you have standing, then you- then you have due process. Then you have to have an opportunity to be heard. Um, and- and the reason that this exists with respect to land use is that it ensures that those who are going to be directly impacted can challenge land use decisions of a body, such as the city commission. Um, we are permitted to have in our land development code or through some other procedures, um, we're allowed to designate individuals who have standing automatically. And we have been working with staff and- and we want to commend the city manager and- and Jordan and Jessica and the rest of their team because we have been having some very good dialogue. We've looked at some other, um, governments comparable in size and composition to- to take some ideas to see what will be a good, um, threshold to bring back to you all for individuals who have standing automatically. Um, currently under our land development code section 74-42, property owners that are within 300 feet of a property undergoing a land use application or appeal in which there's a public hearing, uh, for the city commission or the planning and zoning board do automatically have standing. Um, however, and this is something I- I started to talk about at the last meeting, just because you're not included in that current, the 300 feet from the property, um, that doesn't mean you don't have standing. Now, it is up to the individual or business to demonstrate that they have standing and you all, as the finders of fact, would have to weigh in, say yes, standing, no, no standing. Um, but if the individual can demonstrate to you all when you sit as quasi-judicial board, that they are impacted in a manner that is greater than the general interest of the community, then they can have standing and they can be designated to have standing in that matter. Um, when there is standing, the person or business who has standing has a right of due process. And we've, we've talked a little bit about this in the past and, um, under this context, it means, it means there's a, there's a lot of larger constitutional implications, but the substantive basic core of due process is the right to notice and an opportunity to be heard. Um, and so when courts consider who has standing and have they been afforded due process, these are some of the things that they look at. Now, when you have these meetings, the quasi-judicial hearings, land use hearings, public comment is permitted, certainly. And it is important that when you sit as a body that you designate as the triers of fact, those who have standing, so the ones that are automatically within the 300 feet and those who can demonstrate standing as they're impacted in a manner greater than the general community. And those who are just hearing participants, which are just regular members of the public who do not have standing. The members who have standing are entitled to due process. However, you are permitted to allow non-standing individuals to provide testimony, which is your current practice. Um, but it is, you, you then would give it its due weight. A party with standing should reasonably, if, if as a body, you find it reasonable to be given more weight to their testimony than just a regular member of the public, um, who does not have standing. You, you're not required to listen to people who don't have standing though. You don't have to let them speak. Um, but you may, and, and again, that's been your current practice in order to gather evidence and, um, just hear about other things that might be relevant to the matter before you. So we just wanted to talk through this with you all. Um, and, and we'll be bringing this back before in, in working with the city manager and his team, um, with some recommendations. But we just wanted to talk about this because I know there was some discussion both, you know, on the dais and in the public at the last meeting. So we wanted to address it. Um, the second thing we wanted to talk about, and we're happy to take questions if you have any. Okay. The second thing we wanted to talk about. Oh, yeah. There's a question. Thank you, mayor. So, um, cause I know we, we went through this a few times. Um, so those residents that do not have, um, standing, when you say that they've, they can use something to prove that something done, you know, uh, further distance and what's required from the 300, they need to have some proof of what kind of, so for example, if I'm not within the 300 feet, but I can come up to you and say, well, here's a letter from my realtor. This development happens is going to reduce the value of my home. Is that something acceptable? Certainly it is, but it's, it's, it's fairly broad. I'm sorry. What? Oh, it's fairly broad. So when you all sit as quasi judicial, you are the triers of fact, right? So, um, you sit effectively as the judge and jury. So you get to listen to the evidence they present you and make your own determinations. What that, and, and hearsay is not a rule that applies to quasi judicial proceedings. So it, they don't necessarily have to have the paper, right? They don't necessarily have to have the letter from the realtor that says this. Um, they could tell you that would be permissible. They could also say, this is going to impact me because I have five kids and they sleep and have strange hours. And this building is going to open while they're asleep and there's going to be trucks driving and it's going to wake up my children. It can be, and then you all can determine based on the evidence they present to you. So it doesn't necessarily have to be a document. It can be their own testimony. That's, that's permissible evidence. And oftentimes people will have special circumstances that might be super unique to them. Like it'll impact them, but not their neighbor. Um, honestly, a lot of these rules about standing and these types of hearings happen on a lot of places where there's coast. People say, well, this construction is going to impact my view, my rights to air, my, you know, other rights that they might have, even if they're not within that designated area designated by the government. You know, if you have a lakefront property or, you know, you currently have a view. A lot of times when it's these specialty things that are very specific to the individual property or the individual homeowner. So, um, but yes, to answer your question, yes, that would be permissible if you all found it permissible, but it doesn't have to be that formal. It could be testimony, um, and it could be very, very specific to their situation. And then you could say, yes, I do believe you have standing. Or you could evaluate and say, no, we do not think you have standing. We'll listen to you because that's been our practice, but we're not, we're going to accord your testimony due weight, which would be less weight than those withstanding. Thank you. You're welcome. Our second item, um, and this was brought up by, um, Commissioner Lully. This is, um, a bill that's currently in Tallahassee that we wanted to just flag for you all. Um, this is SB 1118. This was, um, it's related to land use and development. Um, there's a lot of literature on it. The Florida League of Cities has a good summary and synopsis that we're happy to send to you all. Um, basically, it would preempt local government's ability to regulate land use and development in a manner that we believe, and the League of Cities believes, reflects the needs of their communities. So, it's effect, it's essentially, um, takes a step into home rule and takes some of the authority that we currently have as a city and seeds it away. And so, we wanted to talk through it, and obviously, we're happy to answer any questions. Um, and then after, Commissioner Lully, if you wanted to, you know, share your thoughts as well. Um, one of the things, uh, one of the things that it does that's problematic is, um, it makes it harder for local governments, such as the city of Deltona, to increase impact fees. Um, it redefines extraordinary circumstances for impact fees. So, that is, uh, that is not great. Um, it also excludes factors when considering impact fees, such as rising construction costs, hurricane damage, or other unique local challenges from being considered extraordinary. And in Deltona, I would, I would posit that that would be flooding and, and issues with flooding and, and water. Um, there are, if I may, um, I, I think most of us, and I could be incorrect, um, have, have heard of the bill. I think instead of just not doing anything, I think it would behoove the dais and the city as a whole, um, and I'm usually against doing stuff like this. If we can, it will only work if it's unanimous, right? If we send some type of a unanimous letter to our state rep and our state senator that, um, this, we're opposing it because essentially, and we understand why, right? They're doing this because other cities, uh, have taken it upon themselves to deny final plats, for example. Not like the example from today, but just for no reason, just because they can. And, um, because I've spoken to some of our reps and state senators and they're trying to stop that from happening. But this is one of those one size fits all that doesn't fit all of us. So, um, I didn't mean to interrupt you or, or anything like that. But I think that if this dais is willing to send a letter of an opposition in a very respectful matter, you know, um, I think that would go a long way. Commissioner Lully, I, I know that you all brought the, that you brought this to us. And so, I just wanted to, to reflect back to you. Yeah, absolutely. You must be reading my emails. No, good, great, great minds thinking. I hope not. No, no, I know. I'm kidding. Um, no, that's, yeah. So that was, uh, thank you. That, I was going to echo that, um, essentially that I, I did in my comments. I was going to ask for consensus from the dais to, um, send a letter exactly as the mayor has stated, um, in opposition to this. Nothing personal against, uh, the legislature. Um, but you know, this community has its unique challenges. Um, perhaps that works somewhere else, but in our little corner of Florida. Uh, that sounds like a bad idea to me. So, uh, absolutely. I would, um, I don't know if we want to, would we want to do that now? Get a consensus. So you want consensus? Could we do a verbal vote, Liz? Please. Can you speak to the mic as we can? Commissioner Biela Basquez? Yes. Commissioner Caldwell? Yes. Commissioner Howington? Yes. Commissioner Lully? Yes. Commissioner Santiago? Yes. Vice Mayor Harriet? Yes. Mayor Biela? Yes. Consensus. Thank you very much. For their comments. Okay. Uh, city manager? Thank you, mayor. Just as a reminder for commissioners and the citizens, March 29th is the workshop, uh, in this office or in this room here, starting at 9 a.m. It's, it's gonna be a full day of a lot of different topics to go through. Uh, so March 29th is the workshop for citizens invited also. Thank you. There's a question, commissioner. Yes, I have a question, um, doc. Can we get, um, some kind of documentation of what's going to be covered that day, um, you know, I won't be here. It's my grandson's birthday. So, um, I would like to try to zoom in if I can, and I won't be local. So, can we get something in advance, um, from Saturday? Yes, the agenda's being all set, and I believe the clerk's office is getting back up for all the different topics for the commission having it well in advance. Thank you. And if I may as well, commissioner Vila Vasquez, if you're not able to zoom in, I think it would, would it be feasible if she would send in some of her thoughts, uh, obviously to the city manager or the city attorney. So, you can bring up her, her concerns during the workshop for each topic, if that helps. Yeah, I mean, certainly, uh, you can send an email that we can share with your colleagues at the, uh, at the meeting. All right. Thank you. You're good? Okay. Um, nobody's on the, nobody's on the board? That's right, we're going. We're doing the board thing. Okay. Oh, we are. Well, never mind. Okay. Commissioner Howington. Wait, can I, it's the new style. So, we talked about the last commission meeting. If you, at the end, if we're going to do commissioner comments or requests instead of me calling each district, just to go on the board. Commissioner Howington, you were first and everything got deleted. So, if you wanted to say something, you have to request again to speak. Am I good to? You're good, you're good. Okay. First of all, I would like to say I am proud of every single member of this dais tonight. We showed that we definitely mean what we say when we want to hold developers accountable. Our city is at a turning point right now. Make no mistake, the choices that we make today to hold developers accountable, it's going to basically dictate what we have as Deltona for decades to come. Commissions of the past haven't always made the right choices. So, it's up to us to ensure that we pursue responsible development. And I'm grateful for the unity that we showed tonight. I think that that took a lot for all of us to do. We all knew that there was a concern with litigation as a result. With that said, I'd like to ask for consensus. Tina Swift actually brought up a great idea today. We have a lot of communities, as we discussed tonight, that have stormwater issues. And the city is actually actively involved with helping those communities. Cortland Park, Hampton Oaks, Osprey Estates, and then Vinland Reserve Phase 1, 2, and 3. Now, I'll go ahead and include one. Can we get either a monthly or quarterly update, specifically like with Hampton Oaks? They're about ready to finish and be completed with the subdivision. So, that might need to be a little bit more frequent. But I would like to get monthly or quarterly reports on stormwater updates and repairs, as well as milestones, including the dates and responsible parties for fixing these issues. Can we do something like that? So, we can keep talking with that. We can do very simple consensus. All in favor, say aye. Well, can that—sorry, Commissioner Howard, I think I agree with you. Okay. But that is general—seems kind of general. So, can we—can you explain what you're expecting so that we can set that expectation for staff? Asking for is just—and it can be very simple to let us know status updates, where's the project at. Specifically, I'll give Hampton Oaks as an example. Hampton Oaks, I made the city aware of a problem back in December of 2023. That we have with our stormwater system. After about three months of working with Pegasus and Tetra Tech, they determined that there were significant issues with the stormwater system. They've been working on that system ever since. They've had to redirect ponds. They've had to install piping, as you guys just saw from the picture I shared today. So, it would be nice to know, as a body, kind of what's happening, because unfortunately, as we're seeing in Cortland Park, the developer has already handed over the stormwater system, and now the city's having to step in to help those residents. And so, I would like us to be able to keep up to date with the status and where these systems are and being repaired and how it's being done and who's being held accountable for those issues. Are we talking about just those systems? The systems that have been identified with issues. And those developments? Correct. And just like a little blurp or something? Just a blurp. Nothing significant. Just overall, so we kind of know. It can be an email that goes out once a month or whatever the frequency is that we prefer. Yeah. Like I said, with Hampton Oaks, I mean, they're planning on handing over in the next probably three months. We are still holding the bond there. So, we just kind of need to know before we go releasing the bond and then end up on the hook for fixing $2 million in repairs. Absolutely. Where we're at. That's my hope. Perfect. Yeah, thank you. All in favor, say aye. Aye. All opposed, say no. All right. It's unanimous you have consent. Thank you. And that was quarterly. Or monthly, like, depending on where the system is in the process. Staff will try to bring it to the Commission as soon as we know about anything, especially some of these major projects, for sure. Thank you. Thank you. Anything else, Commissioner? No, that's it. Thank you. Commissioner Vila-Vasquez, then Commissioner Cowell, then Commissioner Lully. And then Santiago. And then Commissioner Santiago. Thank you. So, this is request, right? Or Commissioner comments. It's a whole thing. Put it all together. Okay. So, I've gotten a few complaints or brought to my attention a few residents. Actually, around my block, I've gotten a few ringy-dingy bells of people trying to sell solars or whatever. I mean, I even have a recording. Actually, my husband had, like, a 30-minute conversation outside with one of them. That's because I wasn't home. So, I want to know, they're asking me, is this something that can be stopped? Is this something that the city can do or that VSO can do to prevent these door-to-door knockers? And it's not even just knocking on the doors. It's that they're so persistent. Oh, yeah. On trying to sell you something that you don't care about. So, the city could certainly adopt an, like, an anti-soliciting ordinance, if that's the will of the commission. Generally, those are, you know, targeted towards, you know, morning or evening hours. But it can be whatever reasonable parameters that you all direct. Specifically with solar, there are some regulations and restrictions regarding those availing themselves of the PACE program. And that relates to interlocal agreements. I would have to check what is the status of those operating in Deltona and Volusia County. But certainly, if you want something more general that would encompass multiple types of vendors, if it's the will of the commission, we could start an anti-soliciting ordinance. Okay, because I know that there's a difference between soliciting and sharing information, right? So, even if you have a sign on your property that says no soliciting, anybody who is sharing a pamphlet or something, church or candidate or whatever, can literally drop stuff at your door. Am I correct? It's just if you're selling something. Yes, that would be the intention. And we would certainly make it very clear in the ordinance that this would not be intended to show political speech or anything like that. Okay. Thank you. The other request I would like to make from the commissioners tonight is, so we have close to 8,000 veterans that live in the city of Deltona alone. We have 12 months, twice a month we have meetings. I think one recognition of a veteran a month will not cover half of the veterans that we have in. And I would like to make a request if we can raise it at least to two veterans that can be recognized during the meetings. Per commissioner. Per commissioner. Per commissioner. Veterans who live in the city of Deltona. And I would like to have a censor right now, consensus censor. Can we include that in our policy and decorum and procedures update? I'm asking for a consensus tonight. It's so that it can be approved yes or no. This is really not a big article to discuss. We're talking about veterans. Per commissioner. So if a commissioner doesn't want to recognize it, they don't have to. But if one commissioner wants to recognize one or two, then it shouldn't be a problem. It doesn't take very long to read a recognition for veterans. Do a verbal vote, please. Commissioner Vila-Vasquez. Yes. Commissioner Caldwell. Yes. Commissioner Howington. Yes. Commissioner Lully. Yes. Commissioner Santiago. Yes. Vice Mayor Harriet. Yes. Mayor Vila. Yes. Thank you. The other something I want to bring up that was discussed probably when I first got elected, and this was brought up by former Commissioner Bradford. With all the commercial and everything that's going on, Howland Boulevard, I have witnessed how these kids from Deltona High School are having a hard time crossing from one road to another. It is getting just worse. It gets worse for even the cars to turn and stuff like that. Former Commissioner Bradford has suggested an overpass on that area. And I know this is in District 2, which is Commissioner Santiago. But somebody had brought this to my attention and it was when we did the Deltona High School event. And they were asking me how much more construction are you bringing to Howland Boulevard when our kids have to cross that road and wait and wait and they keep pushing that button and that light will never change until it's just gotten out of hand. So, I'm asking if we can take a look again at that. And I know it's going to involve county and probably TPO. I'm not sure. But I think we need to go back and look at that and see if it's possible to bring that back and consider it. If I may, I'm sorry to interrupt, Commissioner. As the District 2 RAP Commissioner, I just wanted to let you know that I have been updated getting information with Volusia County in regards to Howland Boulevard being upgraded. It isn't in their budget to have that street a little bit more safer and upgraded. I can provide more information at our next meeting. But yes, I agree with you with the traffic and the children and everything coming. It needs to become a lot safer. I can tell you they are looking into that, but I don't have the specific dates and all that on the improvements. Okay. Well, thank you for sharing with us. I had to bring it up because it was shared with me and this has been on the books for many years since it was first brought up by Commissioner Bradford, former Commissioner Bradford. But thank you. I'm glad to hear that the county is working on it. The other thing I would like to request, going back to the issues that came up with the policies and procedures all over the place, I would also like to see if the city can consider bringing it into digital records. It will be much easier to find. It will be much easier for everyone, even the staff, to keep track of our policies and stuff if it goes digital. And this is something to be looked at. I know that it will probably have to go on the budget because it does cost a little bit, but at the long run, it will be much easier, much safer and better access not only to staff and commissioners, but residents as well. So those are my requests. Thank you, Commissioner Villabasca. Comments. And excuse me, if I may, I just wanted to quickly revisit the anti-soliciting ordinance discussion, because I, just thinking back, I was not sure if I received a clear consensus from the commission, so I wanted to ask if we could clarify that for the record. For which one? For the anti-soliciting ordinance discussion, if there's direction from the board to bring that for consideration or not. I was hoping to bring that up during my commissioner comments, because there was also something else that I wanted to add to it. Okay. That's fine. I just wanted to correct the, to confirm. Thank you. So comments, I just want to let everybody know that I know that it was mentioned about the Veterans Stand-Down, and I want you to know that that started when our Vietnam veterans came back home. And just want to remind everyone that March 29th is... Go ahead. I'm sorry. March 29th. March 29th is National Vietnam Veterans Day. So I want to, and there's no meeting before that, so I want to thank everyone for their service, but most of all, I want to welcome everyone, every single one of them back home. And I also want to thank staff for the great job you guys did with all these projects. And just because some of them don't pass, or whatever, doesn't mean that you guys didn't do a good job. It's just, some of us have different opinions than, than staff. So thank you for the hard work that you did. Mayor, thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Colwell. Thank Commissioner Lally. Yeah, my name is Commissioner. I'd like an update on the road, road repaving efforts that are going on in Deltona. I know I have several roads in my district that are in need of some good repairs. And I'd also like an update on the swell, or the dip in front of the fire station, and the Lowe's entrance there. I know they've taken out the plate, but the road repair is worse than the plate, I believe, quite about. That's it. Commissioner Lally, then Commissioner Santiago. Thank you, Mayor. Just before I forget, I wanted to address Commissioner Villavazquez's request, or desire for some improvements near the high school. I, we can look at, and I believe Vice Mayor attended in my stead at the last TPO meeting, but the call for projects for the TPO is still open right now. So I think, you know, as being the commission's representative for that, and in consultation with staff, we can see if maybe that's one option there. It's open until March 31st. There's specific criteria, so I'm not sure that it would necessarily, but we, I would love to look into that, because I think that's a perfect example. And, and obviously bridges are very expensive, but even if there's not money for a bridge, there's some other operational improvements that, that certainly the TPO is aware of. Um, I also received a note this week from Bike Walk Central Florida, um, who also has the ability to do some studies into what can be done, um, to address that. So I think there's, there's some different avenues, even if it's not a full pedestrian bridge, that might address, I think, the root of your concerns. So we can take a look at that, I think. And thank you for bringing it up. And, uh, thank you, Commissioner Santiago as well for, um, her information. Um, I did want to, um, let's see. So we got through, um, the one item I wanted to talk about as far as the Senate bill, so appreciate that. Um, I did have a question for Synergy at Normandy. I don't think I see planning staff here. Do we know if, if, just because that's another one of those developments that's lingering out there, we tabled it, and it hasn't come back yet. Do we know if that's coming up April 7th, or is that still a floating date? We'd have to check on the schedule, Commissioner. I know they've been meeting individually with commissioners. But I don't know if, officially, if it's on, I don't know if the clerk's office knows that date. Okay. If there's anything on yet. But we'll check on it and be able to go back to everybody. Okay, yeah. I would love for that to come back on April 7th. Just, uh, another one of those things that's floating out there, um, that I'd just like to see if it's gonna happen or not. Um, and yes, I did get a call, that's why I'm thinking about it. Um, the, the applicant did call me here in the recent weeks. Um, I have two more things I wanted to see, um, for Vineland Reserve Phase 2 and 3, um, they have a vinyl fence that's up between the Collins Road community and, uh, partially, and the, um, the actual neighborhood. When I read the development order, it said that that barrier was supposed to be something that was not a vinyl fence. So either, I think, 80%, uh, obscurity, vegetation, or a perimeter wall, which is what Phase 1 is getting. Can we look into that and, and, and enforce that? Thank you, Commissioner. So we have read the development order and agree that, um, it should be a different type of barrier. Uh, I know that planning staff is working with code compliance to try and bring that into, um, you know, the way it should be. Uh, some of the strategies that they're considering are, um, you know, obviously permit holds, um, you know, looking at potential of fines until there's the, um, compliance portion brought in. Okay, so is that something I need consensus on or it's, it's happening? It's an ongoing item. Um, I think certainly we'll work with the city manager to make sure that those are, um, that you're apprised and updated on those as they move forward. Okay, thank you. That came up again tonight. So I thought of it. One more thing, I promise. I don't want you to get mad at me. Um, I would like to get consensus from the dais based on the conversation I heard tonight in the public hearing. Again, this is to explore. This is not putting money to it. This is not actually saying we're gonna do it. I would like to explore because I believe this is coming to probably litigation. I would like to explore acquire acquiring, um, through some means or method violent reserve phase one for either conservation or recreation. Um, again, just explore. It's not making a determination yet. I was wondering if I could get commission consensus on that. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you. That's all I got. Thanks. And then vice mayor Harriet. Thank you, mayor. Just a couple of things. Um, one, the, I had mentioned about the county just passing a, some standards for stormwater ponds. Just wanted to see if I can get consensus, if the staff can just take a look at it and something that we can require for our, you know, in the future for development, um, in regards to stormwater ponds. Um, in regards to stormwater ponds. Can you repeat that again? Can you repeat that again? Commissioner Santiago? The ending part got muffled. I apologize. Oh, I'm sorry. My connection might be getting a little bit, um, frozen. So there's, um, the county just passed a geotechnical standard for stormwater ponds. For us, if we can have staff kind of take a look at it and maybe present it to us to see if we can change our standards since, um, to have developers, um, you know, for the future and to look into having a better, um, understanding of the stormwater ponds and requiring them to do more. So you want consensus so we can look at updating. Go ahead, Zach. So there is an active zoning in progress on the stormwater chapter for the city's code. Um, certainly we can include that in that exploration, um, if it was not already, um, being considered. Does that help, uh, Commissioner Santiago? Yes. The, that stormwater… No, I'm asking if that, I'm asking Commissioner Santiago. I'm asking for your question. Yes, it does. Yes. If we can move forward with that. Wonderful. Thank you. And I only had one other item, if I may. Yeah, please. Um, resident… I had a resident ask me about metal detection in public properties. I did speak to staff, I did speak to the city manager, and we do not have any, um, information on metal detection in our city. So if I can have a consensus for staff to just take a look and see if they can bring back some kind of metal detector in public property, I don't know, organs or something that we can take a look at. Can we, can we have a little… Can you share some more information on that? Um, the metal detectors? Like, uh, like a metal detector. I know what that is. Like what they do on the beach. I know what that is. Like what they do on the beach, looking for jewelry. So, what are we asking, what are they asking for permission to use those? I put, I'm speaking for the commissioner there, the, uh, uh, someone had questioned if they can go into the park system and walk around metal detectors. So, I guess the question was, I suggested her to bring to the commission to ask, uh, for permission from you guys for staff to, uh, put together an ordinance for the city to consider. Currently, we do not. And as you know, if we don't have an ordinance, either you can't do it or you can do it, people figure it out for themselves. But there are some limitations of digging holes in a park, uh, we may not want. How deep can they dig? Uh, there's just some limitations, maybe some historic parks they couldn't go to. We have nothing at the moment, so I had asked her to bring it up to the commission of, uh, putting the, asking staff to put together a metal detector ordinance. It's usually just a page or so, most cities and communities have them. It's kind of to protect us in case somebody decides to go digging holes. Yes. You know, we can tell them, hey, you technically can't. So, it's nice to encourage people to do it. Correct. Yes. Limitations should be put in place to destroy the fields. Thank you, Doc. Yes. We offer it at another agenda in the future of just, here's an option. Okay. We have a commission to consider. Go ahead. Do you need a consensus? She's going to. Commissioner Villa-Vasquez? Yes. Commissioner Caldwell? Sure. Yes. Commissioner Howington? Yes. Commissioner Lowley? Yes. Commissioner Santiago? Yes. Vice Mayor Harriet? Yes. Mayor Villa? Yes. Consensus? You have consensus, Commissioner Santiago. Did you have anything else? Thank you very much. No, I did not have anything. Thank you. Okay. We have Vice Mayor Harriet and City Manager. All right. So, first, I believe Commissioner Howington has some dates for Courtney regarding the budget. So, if I could defer. Yeah. Sorry, Courtney. I mentioned this the first go around. Actually, in the elevator on the way down here, John had confirmed that May 3rd will be the budget workshop on Saturday. And then we will have additional meetings in July, I believe the first week of July. Just, you're welcome. Okay. Thank you. I'd like to, it's recently come to, I know my attention and I think a couple other commissioners' attention, I believe, that in our code of ordinances there is prohibition from this commission with discussions between individual commissioners and members of the PNZ board are not allowed to discuss items and so I'd like to get consensus to provide the city attorney and the city manager direction to bring a resolution addressing that portion of the ordinance that would allow us to individually communicate with individual members of the PNZ board. I'm not breaking sunshine, obviously, but as it be right now I would be prohibited or am prohibited from picking up the phone and having a discussion with a member of the PNZ board regarding an item. We sit on different boards to clarify that. Okay, I was told differently. If I may, the city commission several years ago adopted via resolution bylaws regulating the Planning and Zoning Board. The Planning and Zoning Board bylaws provide for restrictions that are, that the Vice Mayor just described, which are in excess of what is required by the Sunshine Law and, you know, subsequent Attorney General interpretations. So, we recently became aware of this as well and certainly if it's the will of the board, would want to update that resolution and those bylaws to be in conformance with what Sunshine Law requires. Yeah, I just would request consensus from my commissioners. I think that we each get an appointment to the PNZ for a reason so that we can confer with them and discuss items and make sure that that board has the same vision that our board has and… So, your consensus is so they can look into removing it or changing it or… Correct, bring back… Okay. Bring a resolution that changes the bylaws to allow us to have conversation with individual members of the PNZ board. Okay. Liz, if you can please do a roll call. Is that what, is that what the city attorneys need? Yes, I mean, frankly, just to conform with state statute. Perfect. And we also need to take a look accompanying the Chapter 74 revisions just to make sure if there's anything else we need to clean up, we would do that at that time as well. Absolutely. Okay. Commissioner Vila-Vasquez? I don't have a problem as long as the PNZ board feels the same. Okay. Commissioner Caldwell? Yes. Commissioner Harington? Yes. Commissioner Lally? Yes. Commissioner Santiago? Yes. Vice Mayor Harriot? Absolutely. Mayor Vila? Yes. Consensus? So, going back to what Commissioner Vila-Vasquez brought up with the anti-soliciting ordinance, I think that's a phenomenal idea. I'm kind of surprised, but also not, I guess, that we don't have that. I would just like to add one other piece to it. I'd like to get consensus from this Commission for legal and staff to put together a draft anti-soliciting ordinance that includes a solicitor registration for the city, so that any solicitors that want to actively solicit in the city must register with City Hall prior to knocking on doors. That makes sense. That makes sense. And I can provide a video if you guys need one. I have a big no-soliciting sign and a no-trust pass in the sign of my house, and they still knock, so let's, if you can please, do a verbal. Commissioner Vila-Vasquez? Do we have a comment or question? I just wanted to clarify. So, I believe the intent of this would be that the anti-soliciting ordinance would prohibit during certain hours, so it would be permissible to solicit if you are registered but following certain hours, or is that kind of the general? Do you want to make it more restrictive to certain hours as well? No, I don't want, I don't want any soliciting. So, he's saying that unless you're registered to be able to solicit? I would, yeah, and I think that would, we would, I would fall back on a recommendation from you guys to, that would align with standard practices within other jurisdictions of our size, and yeah, I think that's perfect, honestly, between maybe 11 a.m. and 1 p.m., that'd be perfect. Perfect. Understood. Yeah, we will look at, uh, surrounding jurisdictions and see what is, uh, best practices, um, and they include the, uh, provision for a registration and subsequent fines for violation. Excellent. Um, if that's the will of the board. Perfect. Go ahead, Miss. Commissioner Villavasquez? Yes. Commissioner Caldwell? Heck yes. Commissioner Howington? Yes. Commissioner Lally? Yes. Commissioner Santiago? Yes. Vice Mayor Harriet? Yes. Mayor Villa? Sometimes I want to answer when you say Commissioner Santiago. Yes. Okay, consensus. We got too many names that are so similar up here. Anything else? Um, I do. Sorry. I've got the list. You're starting to miss dinner. I've only got one more item. It's not, it's, um, but it has, uh, recently also come to my attention that the city economic development, uh, group does have some, uh, higher level market data, um, for our area, but I would like to get consensus from the commission for the city manager to see what other market data is available, what that cost would look like, and, um, bring the options back to the commission. I think a simple eye on this one should be fine. So, everybody in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Everyone opposed? Aye. Okay. So. She died. You have consensus. No, she was in favor. Um, and then if you can just also send the rest of the commission, the one that I had that talks about the, you know, one point billion dollars leaving the city, whatever it is, just so the commission has it. I got that one for free. Full disclosure. Yeah, there's, there's a lot of, there's a lot of high level market data available for the region. Um. This is for Delta. But there's, I, I think we need to empower our economic development staff and give them all the tools that they could possibly have in their tool bag, uh, to bring more commercial. Try the whole state. Yeah. Development to the city. Uh, and that's, um, all I've got. Thank you mayor. City manager. I see you on the board again. Yep. Just, uh, some employees sitting at home watching this meeting, uh, answer a couple quick questions. Phyllis, uh, says that, uh, actually when the bridge was brought up by commissioner Vila Vasquez, she had mentioned submitting to TPO for the project. So she's right with you commissioner Lely. Uh, also for the, uh, fire station, uh, the hole out there, they, the county's been contacted several times. Call up and made it in the morning again to see where they are with, uh, with fixing that. That's something that brought to our attention before by commissioner Colwell. And Jordan had called in. Yes. He's watching also a second meeting in April right now is synergy is what it's scheduled for the second meeting in April. Thank you. Okay. So now I got a couple of things. Huge shout out to staff. Yeah. For paying attention. That's phenomenal. All right. So this, uh, this one's probably one of the more important ones. Um, I got like four things. That's it. Um, no, no, out of, out of my stuff. No, no, no, no, no, no. God. Okay. Um, I am going to ask for consensus from this dais. Uh, I'm asking for a zoning in progress to be implemented at the activity center to be added to the agenda for April 7th, the commission meeting. Um, so we can talk about it at the commission meeting. Is that the Howland? That whole area. That activity center. Correct. Because we, we, we approved for the city manager economic development and planning to look for a potential downtown for the city. And we're trying to avoid until they can identify something, you know, applications just start coming rampant. And, uh, until we can identify what we want to do. So. If I could get some additional clarification so that it is, the resolution is drafted properly. Um, I, based on previous discussions, I believe that we would want to examine the permitted uses, the mix of uses, and, um, the intended future zoning categories in that area. Is that? Correct. Correct. Go ahead, Liz. Can we, I'm sorry, Liz. Can we identify when you say the, the center, the. Activity center. Activity center. Activity center. Because when you started, I was like, we're going to rezone the center. No, no, no, no, no, no. So. Let's. What's the formal name for that? I was told it was activity center. I told that was the formal name. Yes. The activity center is the, is the. The overlay. Of the designation. Yeah. It's a, a special zoning district. It's a whole section. That's a long. Piece of property, land. I-4. Yeah. That's a long I-4. Um, where the Amazon is. Because right now it's all, the majority is, is put in as industrial. Yeah. And, you know, so. Anyways. So. Okay. Got it. Commissioner Bill of Esquise? Yes. Yes. Commissioner Caldwell? Yes. Commissioner Howington? Yes. Commissioner Lully? Yes. Commissioner Santiago? Yes. Vice Mayor Harriet? Yes. Mayor Villa? Yes. Consensus? Um, thank you. I just want to remind residents and, um, or the commission here, and I don't know if the, the city clerk would probably need to do a sunshine notice if they want to attend, but, so I participate along with another, uh, either the city manager or whoever he designates at the time, uh, for the flooding subcommittee. It's going to be held March 28th at 10 AM. Um, we're trying to work together with the county to, all the cities are trying to work together to figure out a way to make our infrastructure stronger to avoid some of the catastrophes we've had in the, you know, we've had in the past. So, um, obviously, uh, when we have this next meeting, I will try to submit a report with as much details. Obviously they, they do minutes and stuff. So, uh, that's that, uh, very important for Osteen-Deltona. There is a sunshine notice posted on this, so I invite all the commissioners to go if, if it affects them in any way or if they just want to be part of it. April 9th, uh, from 5 PM to 7 PM, there's going to be a conversation on the Osteen-Deltona JPA. I think it's very important, um, and depending on what happens, I've had a lot of conversations with County Councilman Robbins. Uh, we kind of got together on this. I actually requested that we invited Commissioner Lely because it abuts to his district. And, uh, obviously I didn't put the, they went through a third party, full disclosure, right? Uh, but, um, participate because I think, uh, this, this is very helpful to mending whatever, uh, relationship we have between us and the Osteen residents. And, and helping them, you know, get their little area together and how they want it, right? Um, we shouldn't be, we shouldn't be bounded to something that's happened years prior. We, we need to make sure these things get updated. Um, I am going to ask, uh, for us to, and this is another consensus and then I just have a comment after that. Uh, can we get consensus to look at the possibility of starting an ordinance review board, uh, where each commissioner can appoint one person? Um, we, we keep finding things out of accident, I guess. Um, if we can have an ordinance review board that sunsets after a year, unless the commission decides to renew it, I think that would help, um, clear up some of the bad ordinances that we have in the books, you know? Yeah. So there's an ordinance review committee, uh, already provided for in your code of ordinances. So if it's the will of the board, um, you could, we could bring a resolution, you know, activating that committee with a, with a sunset to a time certain. Um, I would personally recommend that if, uh, we move forward with that committee, that, um, you would also consider, um, allowing the city attorney and city manager to engage a consultant to, um, guide the, guide them, support them and, um, you know, look at the code of ordinances as a whole. Absolutely. Go ahead, Commissioner. That's totally separate than the, um, PNZ board. No, not the PNZ board, the charter. Yes. Yes. So. Did you want to say something? I do. I'm trying to make sure that I don't shoot myself in the foot. Okay. So with the, with the strong caveat that, uh, a consultant and legal are represented on this. And city manager. Absolutely. But legal must be, and the city pursue a consultant for this, this update, um, ordinances. I know that we all bring ordinances that we want to see updated, but all of our requests go through the city attorney's office so that they can do the research and make sure that they're binding and make sure that they're, they're quite frankly legal. Um, and then any ordinance changes still require this commission's action. Yes. Okay. Yes. That's the way it should be anyways. Kind of like the PNZ would work where they make the recommendation and then we get it. Correct? Yes. That's correct. The city commission is the only entity that can enact ordinances for the city of Deltona. So you would have the final say. And the dates are, and this doesn't, not, not automatic reoccurring. No, no. The sun shines after one year, um, after it gets approved, unless the commission decides to renew it. I think that's going to be the best way because if they get, you know, they fix all the ordinances and we're going to just keep them around to do nothing. No, that, that's not good governance. Okay. Can I just ask a question? We used to have an ordinance review board and the reason the sun said it was because, uh, the commission was supposed to assign, I need you to look at the fence ordinance. I need you to look at this ordinance and they were not assigning ordinances. So is this board going to choose on their own or is the commission going to assign what ordinances they want them to look at? They went to the end. Yes. Not only that, but we're also have a consultant and legal there. So this, we shouldn't really, unless we want to give them some advice, but we do that with the city attorneys right now anyway, so. So, so just, just so I can wrap my head around this. So some ordinances are going to be more important than others to take priority? Just, just? I'll leave that to the city attorneys. Okay. Yeah, I think we would certainly want to work with the consultant that's brought on board and, you know, and with the, the, the new board that is brought on in order to recommend priorities to the commission. I think who would then tell us if we are on the right track for going too far down any one path. Perfect. Can we please? And then one more question. Would it be the same thing to each commissioner? I would accept the applications and each commissioner would choose one person. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Villa-Vasquez? Yes. Commissioner Caldwell? Yes. Commissioner Howington? Yes. Commissioner Lely? Yes. Commissioner Santiago? Yes. Vice Mayor Harriet? Yes. Mayor Villa? Yes. Thank you for consensus. Thank you. That's where I'm at. All right. Last thing I want to bring up. And I'm only going to bring this up because there was an allegation that was made against me. And unfortunately the rest of the commission did not receive that email. And he, here is the, the person that came to speak up during public comments, um, conveniently left off the last two sentences from that email. Okay. So I'm going to read it for you. It says, Mr. Mayor, these are just some of the examples where you have attempted to insert your power for personal gain. Capital letters. There are others. If you're not willing to condone an investigation, which by the way, one was done by a private entity, um, an investigation, perhaps you're interested in a pre lawsuit settlement, which she did not accept, that has been afforded to previous directors, which amounts to more than two weeks that doc provided, which I did not accept. If I'm not mistaken, she was afforded a lot more than two weeks. Finally, it says, please let me know your decision. She essentially was asking me that if I don't fulfill these requests, which legally I'm not allowed to approve anything unless this commission approves it. Right. Uh, or the city manager, because this is a city employee. Uh, she would file an ethics complaint against me. Number, number two, she alleges that a family member applied, well, let me just correct that because Robert actually, from what I understood, went to the city manager and actually corrected it for her. There is a veteran from the U.S. Coast Guard auxiliary, who has no relationship to me, applied online multiple times. Flores did not get back to him or to a lot of other applicants, apparently. So he called me. I made a simple call, which I'm allowed to do. Hey, Robert, uh, did you receive this application? Yes? No? Great. That's all that happened. But that person was not my relative. All right? There was, uh, I'll leave that part there. But I just want to clear that because it's very convenient when you read things and you leave things out. So, uh, with that being said, I hope everybody enjoys the rest of their week. Don't forget to show up to that Celtic festival because your mayor will be in a Celtic skirt. I don't know how on earth I was convinced to do that, but. And your city manager. Meetings adjourned. Meetings adjourned. Meetings adjourned.