City Commission on 2025-05-05 6:30 PM - REVISED 05/01/2025 - May 05, 2025

Commissioner Santiago, here. Vice Mayor Harriet, present. Mayor Villa, here. This time I'd like to turn it over to Commissioner Emma Santiago for the invocation, the honor of the veteran, and the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you, Mayor. At this time, the invocation will be presented by Dr. William Bradley, pastor of New Hope Baptist Church. Pastor Bradley. Goodness in your mercy. And Lord, we pray for our commission meeting tonight. We pray your blessings be upon our mayor, our city commissioners, our staff, and all the residents in the city of Deltona. Lord, we pray that you bless us all with your peace, your power, your prosperity, and protection. And Lord, I pray that things tonight in this meeting will go decently in order. And Lord, give us guidance as we discuss matters of great importance to our community. And give us wisdom that we can make sound decisions to ignite our efforts to serve the common good. Help us to listen with open hearts and minds. Help us to work together in the spirit of unity for the betterment of our city. The Lord, you know all the things that we need. And I pray that you go beyond this prayer and intercede on all our behalf. Once again, we thank you for allowing us to be here tonight. In Jesus' name we pray. Amen. 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 if I can have the mayor and commissioners on the floor to honor our veterans today. And at this time, if I can have Hector Miranda meet me. I need my wife. Okay. Today, our veteran, we're honoring Mr. Hector Miranda. Let me tell you a little bit about Mr. Miranda. Mr. Miranda, you served two tours in Vietnam. You had training in Quantico for ammunition and explosives. You were an explosive expert, EOD, anti-tank battalion, and you received two Purple Hearts during your service. And you've also been in Deltona for 37 years. It's our honor. We thank you for your service so much. So this is a certificate of recognition. It's dedicated to you for your service, your sacrifice, your commitment. It's with deep gratitude. It's extended for your contribution in defending and protecting our nation. Thank you, sir. Thank you so much. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Ma'am. Ma'am. Welcome home. I need you, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Yes. Okay, thank you, no. For a picture. Picture love me. Okay, at this time we're going to go into additions and deletions. Yes, Mr. Mayor. We have two items for additions, deletions, and deferrals. The first is a request of deferral of item 8B, ordinance number 09-2025, to a date certain of May 19th. And the second is for the addition of resolution number 20-25-57 for legal representation in the Howland Holdings LLC case matter. What was the first one? It is—the first one is for deferral of item 8B, ordinance number 09-2025, to a date certain of May 19th. All right, and the second—so let's do this one at a time, because I don't—let's do these one at a time. I'll make a motion to approve the first item, moving 8B to May 19th. I'll second. Okay. There's a motion and a second. Commissioner Howington, you're on the board, as well as Commissioner Caldwell. Let's let Zach finish his second item, and then I'll— Okay. I was doing it for additions and deletions. Okay. Okay, and then the— Well, there's a motion, so you've got to vote on it. Yeah, you need to take a vote. And it's to move, so there's no public comment on moving, right? Correct. Okay. Just to be clear, that's item 4, like, A, right, because this says just additions and deletions. Yeah, it's item 8B, as in boy. Correct, but— That's correct. I know. That's because it's under that. Yeah. Okay, so once we've—we have a motion in a second. Here, she got it. Motion passes 7-0. What's the next— The next item is for the addition of resolution number 2025-57, which is for legal representation in the Howland Holdings LLC case matter. That's this, right? Yes, that's correct. Make sure that the back, there's a copy for residents as well. I'll make a motion to approve item 4B. I'll second. Okay, there's a motion by Vice Mayor Harriet and a second by Commissioner Howington. Did you want to say something now, Commissioner? No? Okay. Commissioner Colwell? Is this it? Yeah. So is the vote done? Before we vote, you're up to talk. Oh, no, I want to talk about something else. I want to add something else. Okay. Okay. Let's go ahead and vote. Motion passes 7-0. Okay, so now we have two people under additions and deletions, Commissioner Howington and then Commissioner Colwell. I would like to propose that we defer item 8C, which is ordinance number 14-2025, and this pertains to the addition that we just added to our agenda for tonight due to pending litigation. As long as we have pending litigation, we should not be moving forward with a hearing this evening? I will second to a certain time. There's a motion by Commissioner Howington and a second. I do want to, before we vote, city attorneys, what is impeding us, even though there's a pending litigation, what's impeding us from voting on this agenda today? Is there any legal reason why we can't, because we advertise this. That's correct. So, in regards to the Halifax item that is being considered for a deferral, there is not a, it would still be legal to proceed. Okay. This evening, if the commission so chooses, it is also proper to defer if the commission so chooses. Okay, so either way is fine. That's correct. All right, before we vote, Commissioner Caldwell, you're on the board. I had to, I was going to make the same one. Okay, so if you can just remove yourself, and we'll go ahead and. Before we move, before we vote, I'd just like to say the reason being is because the outcome of the case, it could impact what is done in the hearing today. I understand that, but legal just. So, if, I know, legal said that we can defer it, but I'm just wanting to make it clear as to why I'm making the ask. Understood. All right, can we vote, and this is to vote to table. Motion to table passes, five to two. So, we are tabling eight C. And then I have one additional one. I would like to defer nine A, and the reason being is that I would like for us to have a confirmation as to where the city ordinance falls within the guidelines by state statute from both the attorney general and the ethics department. And without having that information at this time, I want to make sure that we are not wasting staff's time and our time approving an ordinance that may be null and void. Okay, so I'm, I have, I'm just going to speak because I don't see anybody on the board. I have a big problem with moving this one and tabling it yet again. So, you're essentially waiting for an attorney general opinion, correct? I would like to have one. Which can take up to a year, give or take six months of a year. Zach or Gemma, what, what influence will a state attorney's opinion actually have on an ordinance? Because without it, I mean, we can still do what the rest of them essentially wanted to get done, correct? In the absence of an attorney general's opinion, this item could still move forward. The impact an attorney general's opinion would have, frankly, we don't know because we haven't received an opinion, but it could. I actually sent you an opinion. Hold on, let him finish. I sent you one. Yeah, but the, we would be unsure of the impact that it could have on this item without receiving it. So, to Commissioner Howington's point, it could mean that the change that we make is unnecessary or invalid. We just simply don't know that at this time because there has not been an opinion, a new opinion received. Got it. Just to finish up my talking points before I go to Commissioner Villavazquez and Vice Mayor Harriet, to your point, Commissioner Howington, I just don't want to keep wasting staff time because we've been talking about this. As a matter of fact, I know Commissioner Colwell's been talking about it. I believe this was his, his request, and now we're going to table something, and then we're, we're actually, it's here, we spent staff time on this, and I get it, to table it, we need commission consensus, but, you know, a year from now, I mean, I don't know what we're trying to obtain from this, but Commissioner Villavazquez, then Vice Mayor Harriet. I was going to ask Zach the same question. Vice Mayor Harriet. And then, if there's no further discussion, we'll go to it. This item is on the agenda for discussion, correct? Yes. Okay, so we're not actually voting to approve anything on this item. I would like to see this remain on the agenda because, you know, we're not taking action, we can discuss it. I think there's no harm, no foul in discussing it. And then, if we do, if there is consensus to, to get an Attorney General opinion, then that can be part of the discussion. But, I, I, we, we have a tendency to do things and take, not take action, but lack of action without having the discussion. So, I think it's a great opportunity for us to have a full-blown discussion on the topic. Yeah. You're done? I'm done. Commissioner Lally. Thank you, Mayor. Um, my question was for legal, um, but I think I answered it because if, if we're not voting on the actual final ordinance today, I was going to ask if the vote today would prohibit further changes in the future, say, if an Attorney General opinion came in, but we're not, we wouldn't be approving anything today anyways because it's just a discussion. That's correct. Okay. That takes care of it then for now. Thank you. Commissioner Avila Vasquez. Thank you, Mayor. Um, this was, just came back to my mind. Um, so, let's say that we're discussing this today and the Attorney General's, um, comeback answer is totally different and overrides our, uh, discussion or whatever we decide to do here. Is that something that's going to affect the changes? Are we going to be, um, accepting the, um, State Attorney's version of writing what we write? Attorney General opinions are advisory, not binding. However, depending on an opinion may use the recommendation that we make with respect to revisions of this ordinance. Um, so, I mean, up to this point, since it was originally passed, it hasn't been challenged. Um, so, the presumption is that it remains good law. An Attorney General opinion could provide advice that might shine light on perhaps there's an element that is not good law that would change the recommendations we would make. But ultimately, you would be free to amend it, um, and then if that opinion came out and that advice was to make another amendment, we could amend it again. You know, this is a normal ordinance, so any ordinance we have to draft, you all review, we advertise for first and second reading. So, certainly, you know, there is, um, work involved, but we're happy to bring it back if in three months, six months, a year, there is an advisory opinion that we find compelling. Um, but, but I do want to make clear that advice, Attorney General opinions are not binding. They are advisory. So, we could get an opinion, you know, depending on your position and case law and our recommendation, you may say, we're going to keep it as is, you may say, no, we'd like to amend it, um, and we, we could navigate that at that time. But it, it may change the guidance we give you with respect to the changes to make. Okay. So, just for clarification and for our residents who are probably at home watching and asking themselves, what are we talking about? Can you please read exactly what is it that is in front of us in, is, um, might be up for discussion or might be pulled? Of course. So, this is item 9A, and if you go to exhibit A in your packet, um, it shows the original, um, article for sanctions for charter violation from our code of ordinances. This is in Chapter 2, Administration, and we're discussing Section 2-380 violations. And if you look at this paragraph, the, the paragraph as written is the original. The part that is underlined is the revision. So, at the April 7th meeting, there was a consensus, um, to revise this ordinance. Um, however, we were unclear on exactly— Excuse me, guys, if I can hear you back there, please. We were unclear on exactly what revision was sought, because there was some different discussion. Um, so, we made the revision that we felt the commission, as, as a group, had, um, wanted to move forward collectively at the time. However, because there was some different opinions, the revision is—we would not say there was 100% consensus on the actual wording and the actual section. Um, there may be another section you want to revise. But the—the part that we revised, if you go halfway down. So, it—it's the sentence that starts with all city commissioners. So, it previously read, All city commissioners, including the commissioner charged with a violation, may take part in and vote as to all matters relating in any way to the charge. The change is that, um, a part was struck and a part was added. So, it now reads, All city commissioners, including the commissioner charged with a violation, may take part in all matters relating in any way to the charge, but the commissioner charged with a violation may not participate in the making of a motion, second, or voting on the charge. So, that's the change. The rest of the ordinance remains the same as the original version. So, the change is saying that the—and I would like you to add into that commissioner slash mayor. Um, even though mayor is an, um, at-large commissioner, the word mayor needs to be in there. Um, I can just hear it coming back saying—it doesn't say mayor, so it doesn't apply to the mayor. Um, so what you're saying is the way that you changed it today means that when it comes to voting time, the person that is being charged cannot vote in favor or whatever the vote is on their favor or against them. Correct. Mayor, point of order. I'm sorry, I'm talking— Hold on, there's a—there is a point of order. What is your point of order? Are we going to discuss the item or discuss the deferral? I want clarification here first before we go into discussion, because I know a lot of people here don't even know what we're talking about right now. I understand. I agree. I think we need to have a discussion on this. I—I just would like to discuss the item. Okay. As soon as they explain what the item is. Some people don't even know what we're discussing or what we're going to be discussing. But back to my conversation—my question, so is that correct? But this revision as drafted means that the person who is charged may take part in the matters related to the charge, but they cannot make a motion, second a motion, or vote on the charge. So that is the amendment. And we—we're happy to add the word mayor, but I do want to flag that the charter, page three of the charter under section five, there's a little section that says composition, and it does say there shall be a seven-member city commission, consisting of a mayor and six commissioners, a spot down. For purposes of proper interpretation of this charter, unless the context otherwise requires, the term commissioner shall be construed to include the mayor. So we can add it here, but I just want to tell you, it is redundant. The charter does deal with that, because it wants to make clear that the mayor isn't the same—treated the same as the rest of the commissioners. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for that explanation. Commissioner Colwell? My name is—my question is— Okay. Could we please go for a vote? To table. There's a motion by Commissioner Howington, and there was a second by Commissioner Colwell? No? There was a motion by Commissioner. I don't have a second. What was the motion? To table—to table this item. Vice Mayor Harriet, do you want to say something? Yeah. Commissioner Howington, what's your—would you like just a date certain once we get an opinion back, or do we have a time frame? Dates based on the opinion. Okay. Can you make the motion, please, again, so we have it on record for the city staff, and then we'll see if there's a second. I'll make a motion to defer this item until a date certain when we have response back from the Attorney General and potentially the Ethics Department as well. Second. There's a motion by Commissioner Howington, a second by Commissioner Lully. I have both vice mayor again on. I'm on. No? Okay. I'm on. Commissioner Avila Vasquez, you're on again. Thank you, Mayor. I have another question. So, if we—if this motion doesn't pass, it means that we're still binded by the old policy, the old rules, right? I'm on again saying that he—whoever is accused can vote on their behalf. This, correct, you—this motion tonight is about deferral, but this item is not approving the ordinance. This item is a discussion on this ordinance to determine if the language as drafted is as you—as a body intended, if you want different language, if there's other revisions you want to make. But this motion is about deferring this item to a date certain once there's an opinion from the Attorney General and potentially the Commission on Ethics. So, at this point, we're still binded by the old one? Correct. It's still good law until and unless we change it, and it wouldn't be changed until second reading. Thank you. Commissioner Howington, you're up again, and then we're going to go for a vote. Commissioner Avila Vasquez, just to explain to you kind of why I'm bringing this forward, it is my opinion, based on Chapter 112 of Ethics, as well as the Attorney General's opinion that I provided in February, that our current ordinance is null and void based on state statute from Chapter 112, as well as the guidance from the Attorney General's opinion. So, in my opinion, if we move forward with this, we're simply just working on something that's already been deemed null and void by state statute. Thank you. Please vote. I'm sorry to continue, but because this is such a touchy and very sensitive, can we please repeat the motion? Joyce. So, it's deferred, we've got to defer the item to date certain until we receive a response from the Attorney General and the Commission on Ethics. Thank you. Motion passes, 5 to 2. All right. So, there is no more additions or deletions. We're going to go back into, I'm going to go into presentations, awards, and reports. This time, we have a presentation by Ms. Emily Bush, Executive Director of BiWalk Central Florida, Best Foot Forward Pedestrian Safety Program. Ms. Bush, the microphone is yours. Before Ms. Bush gets started, I'm going to reiterate because I keep hearing chatter in the back. The people here presenting are the people on the podium talking. They also have the right. So, let's, let them speak. Let us hear what they have to say. Go ahead, Ms. Bush. No. There you go. I'm on. All right. Good evening, Mayor and Commission. My name is Emily Bush. I'm the Executive Director of BiWalk Central Florida. We are a nonprofit advocacy organization that administers a Best Foot Forward Pedestrian Safety Program that I'm here to talk about today. So, the nonprofit, BiWalk Central Florida, has a mission to create a safer Central Florida for everyone to walk, bike, and roll. And we do this through five different missions that have that SAFER acronym. That includes stewarding partnerships with our communities and our local government partners, advocating for safe policies, not only for building the infrastructure that's necessary, but for the design of the land around it, fostering community involvement, empowering people to feel safe and comfortable to walk, bike, and roll, and to be that trusted resource in the community where our community can come to our organization for best practices and what to do to feel safe doing so. And we do this through several programs and services that we provide the community. I'm going to talk specifically about the Best Foot Forward Pedestrian Safety Program, but there are others listed here that we do provide within Volusia County and hopefully the city of Deltona. The reason that our organization exists is, unfortunately, there are several Central Florida communities that have been listed on this Dangerous by Design report put out by a national organization that ranks cities across the U.S. as how dangerous they are for people walking in their community. Just not long ago, the city of Orlando, stretching from Osceola County to Sanford, was ranked number one, the worst in the country. And that's not a number one that we're proud of. Today, Deltona, Daytona Beach, and Ormond Beach are tied with that fifth-place position, which is not a good position to be in, especially inviting tourists and the public to take to our streets. So why are we the most dangerous? We speed where we go. And unfortunately, our roads were designed for speed. They were designed for us to get from one point to another without any friction or any cause for slowing down. And we know that speed kills. We also know that we also have distractions now. We have our cell phones. We have kids yelling in the back seat. And so we have reasons to take our eyes off the road while we speed through our own neighborhoods and our own communities. And we've designed our communities for cars, not for people to get from where they want to be. And I'll give you an example. Let's pretend that I live on Abigail Drive, and I want to go to the Dunkin' Donuts across the street, across Providence. If I was to drive, it's 0.5 miles, so half a mile, and it would take me roughly three minutes. That's not a bad drive to go get some donuts. But if I was to walk that same distance, that same geography of how we would need to drive, that half a mile would take me 12 minutes to walk. And I would have to cross the road in very precarious locations. But as the crow flies, if I was to walk a straight line from the back of my house to that Dunkin' Donuts, it's only 545 feet. So it wouldn't take me that 12 minutes. It would only take me a few minutes to get to where I need to go. And unfortunately, not just Central Florida, but all of America has really been designed for the automobile in mind. And as such, over the years, we've seen an increase in the number of pedestrian fatalities and serious injuries, making the U.S. one of the most dangerous developed countries in the world for people walking and biking. And we want to change that culture. So the Best Foot Forward program was designed on a hypothesis that if we increase the number of drivers that are looking out for people that are at marked crosswalks that want to cross the road, that more pedestrians will feel safe doing so. And we'll seek them out instead of taking their life into their hands and crossing maybe where they shouldn't. This has been documented through several studies through NHTSA back in 2013, where they looked at a 3E approach of enforcement, education, and small engineering improvements and evaluating those changes using that 3E approach over time. The Best Foot Forward program has been documented since distributing this type of 3E approach and been effective at implementing this approach. And as such, this program has grown to be the largest grassroots pedestrian safety coalition in the country. We have over 35 partners that now participate in this program, ranging from state and local governments to our health partners, schools, and other local nonprofits that support this program. So I'm going to tell you a little bit about how we do that. We first start by evaluating crosswalks. Those crosswalks can be identified by the community that says it's a dangerous place for me to cross the road, or it could be identified by our law enforcement or our public works department or even you, as you hear from the community as to what it's like to cross. And we go out and we take data. So we put out a flag at what that safe distance is to cross the road. There are certain engineering distances that tell you what it takes for a car to stop safely. We mark out that distance, and as that car approaches that flag, we have our foot in the crosswalk showing intent to cross, and that's per the state statute. We do that at 20 times, usually two different times of the day, to get a good variation. There's traffic volumes that impact whether or not drivers stop at yield. And we monitor for those changes five times a year at those locations. We take photos and we bring that information back to the community, the maintaining agency, and ask them to make improvements or maybe monitor, or maybe we just need to send some enforcement out. Here's some data that we've collected specifically in Volusia County. The city of Deltona has not participated in the program in the last two years, though we welcome you to participate in the program. That's why I'm here today. So you can see some of the initial driver yield rate data that we've collected and how that data might have improved over the crosswalks that we've monitored continuously since 2024. A part of the program is the enforcement aspect. And this is high visibility. We bring the media involved. We let all of you know where we're going to be at. We put signs out so the driving public is aware that we're at that crosswalk to watch out, watch for people crossing the road. We've had a lot of social media impressions, and our favorite is our earned media value of over $7 million in earned media value just by bringing that awareness message to the public. We do this by partnering with our law enforcement agencies, by setting up these enforcement operations. They're not sting operations. We let the public know, and the sighting officer and the decoy is very much aware of what those distances are, that the pedestrian has the opportunity to safely step their foot in the crosswalk, allowing that vehicle plenty of time to stop. They do kind of one of three things. They either stop for the pedestrian that's there, they drove right by them, or they slam on their brakes because they didn't see them. And they usually give them a little friendly hand nod that I've acknowledged you exist and you can cross the road. We've done this across nine different counties, partnering with over 30 law enforcement agencies, and have issued over 12,000 warnings and citations to date. Here's an example of what we've done in Oceanshore Boulevard at Tom Rennick Park. This is a park that's attached to the beach, so before we started doing enforcement, the yield rate was 19%. Just by doing these two details, issuing 75 warnings and citations, it's increased 23%. That's just enforcement, just letting the community know that it's the law to stop and let people cross the road. Here's some more stats on the different enforcement operations we've done without the cities and the county within Volusia over the last two years. And then we go on to engineering opportunities. So we work with our communities to look at low-cost engineering. We cannot rebuild our roadways. That's not what we're asking. But we can improve signage and striping to do so. An example is in the city of Castleberry, they added these gateway treatment signs, these vertical paddles in the middle of the road, and they added a stop bar so that the vehicles knew where they needed to stop their tires before the crosswalk. Just by doing that increased the driver yield rate 38%, and it cost the city $2,400. That sticker has been replaced twice at a $40 cost. Pretty cost-effective and a lot cheaper than a life. This is in front of an elementary school. Some additional engineering improvements, we monitor speed bumps. We know that those are pretty popular in communities for speed management. So whether or not they're either raised crosswalks themselves or they're installed before a crosswalk, we provide the monitoring to notate whether or not they're being effective and whether or not the driver is yielding to them. This is throughout the Orange and Osceola counties that we've been doing this. And then we look at some signals as well. We have what we call a leading pedestrian interval that gives a five-second head start for a pedestrian. Once that green light turns, the hand sign, the walk sign, comes up for the pedestrian and allows them to get ahead before the green light starts. Just by installing this at a major intersection in the town of Oakland at State Road 50, increased the driver yield rate 35%. And this is just signal timing. No cost to the community. FDOT was able to do this pretty quickly. And we've also monitored both enforcement and engineering and how those improved. In Brevard County, they added the same gateway treatment but with flexed delineators. And they've also done some enforcement to increase the driver yield rate 36%. Small costs for big wins. Some other engineering solutions that I was asked to talk about tonight were including speed tables, raised crosswalks, and raised intersections. This brings the height of the pedestrian up to above the car so that people can see that even the little peds are there and want to cross the road. Narrowing the road and the curb extensions, making it visibly narrower so drivers feel that they need to slow down. Or creating raised medians and refuge so that if it's a large road, a pedestrian has some safe place to sit and wait for the rest of the traffic to continue. Plant trees and bollards. Again, visually slow down and narrow the roadway. And then make crosswalks more visible. Restripe faded crosswalks. This is often one of the first things that we see when we're doing enforcement or doing education out in the community. We also say that you should mark all legal crosswalks. And every intersection is a legal crosswalk, whether it's marked or not, according to state statutes. So if you have the opportunity and the paint, you should mark it so the drivers are aware that pedestrians that cross at that location have the right to do so. And then using decorative crosswalks per the MUTCD guidance is also important and has also improved the driver yield rate and effectiveness and safety in a community as well. Lastly, we do education. We go out and do sign-waving campaigns. We'll pop up at the driver's lights, the DMV, or the library. We'll attend community events, come out and do presentations wherever you need us. And then, of course, we're also on social media sharing all of this information as well. Our program impact to date, I'm not going to read these numbers specifically. You have them in your packet, and you can also check them out on our website. But we've made a pretty big impact over the last decade that this program has been operating, specifically first in Orange County, then in Osceola, then in Seminole, and now we're in nine counties. So these numbers continue to grow rapidly. Just in the metro plan Orlando region, where I said that they started out number one on the list, they're now number 18. And it's not just because of the Best at Four program. It's a collective effort to improve pedestrian safety. But as you can see, the number of incapacitating deaths and serious injuries, which is the bar graph, has gone down, while our driver yield rate, the line graph, has gone up. So we have improved the safety in the community and the reduction of serious injuries and fatalities within that three-county region. So we are asking now our partners in the next year to fund the program. So these are the general costs of the program. We try to keep our costs low. We are a nonprofit. We're not doing this for free, unfortunately. But we do understand that we want you to spend the money on the improvements of the roadway. So by keeping our costs low, allowing us to provide the data to you, gives you the ability to then spend that money where you need to to protect people in the community. We do additional things besides the Best at Four program. We advocate and support for policy. We will even do trail development, trail activation plans. We recently completed a transportation, an active transportation network study for the city of Apopka. We are getting ready to kick off the trail master plan update for Osceola County. We try to take on a big project like this once a year so that we can support our community and we can advocate and include the things that we talk about in all the programs to date. And that concludes my presentation. I am happy to answer any questions that you may have. I don't do this by myself. I have a great team that stands behind and next to me that supports this program and the work that we do in the community. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Bush. Do any of the commissioners up here have any questions? When would we like to discuss the options? I think it needs to be brought up before in an agenda item because we don't vote on presentations. I understand. That's what I'm asking. I made that mistake once. I'm not doing it again. It's my preference that we have an agenda item to discuss this. So at your commissioner's comments, just ask for that. Thank you, Ms. Bush. You did say that this was for Deltona to be able to participate. Correct. We can just make a request, correct? Yes, absolutely. And you left all your information with us? It's here on the slide. Obviously. You will have all that information? Absolutely. Thank you so much. We appreciate your time. Thank you. All right. At this time, we're going to go ahead and move to Deltona Community Events. Please have Catherine come up. All right. We have a lot of events coming up this month. First, this week, Wednesday night, 630, we have our annual hurricane prep town hall. Tons of information about how to prepare for hurricane season. And then Friday night, we have our bunkers comedy show. As always, tickets are $8 if you purchase them in advance. And this month's comedian is Tony Black. And then on Saturday night, we have our amphitheater concert series continues. We have the Divas. They're a tribute to female artists of the 70s and 80s. That starts at 7 o'clock. So that's a free event. So that's fantastic. And then Sunday, obviously, is Mother's Day. So we have brunch. We're doing a Mother's Day brunch at the center, 9 a.m., 2 p.m. Make your reservations now. Friday the 16th, we have our free movie in the park at Dewey Boaster Park. We're going to be showing The Wild Robot this month. So it's a cute little movie for the entire family. And then we do have a few community events. We have the Deltona Women's Club is holding an afternoon tea on the 18th. If you'd like to participate, give them a call and put your name down. Vima is doing their second annual Memorial Day motorcycle ride. For anybody that participated last year, that was a huge event. So they're hoping it's even bigger and better this year. But they're going to do it the Saturday before Memorial Day, the 24th. Kickstands up at 11. And then on Memorial Day, VSEP and the American Legion is doing a Memorial Day service at Veterans Park. That's at 10 a.m. Thank you. All right. At this time, we're going to go ahead and go to the consent agenda item. And at this time, I'll entertain a motion in a second so we can begin discussions and then go to public comment. Mr. Mayor, if we may. There's one item. A change was given to you this evening in reference to some changes that were made from Saturday. So we'd like to pull D. D as in David? Yes. To discuss separately to make sure we're in compliance. So 7D would be the one that would not make it for consent. That was the one I was going to ask to pull, so we're good. All right. Anybody want to make a motion? Second. There's no motion yet. Well, I'll make the motion then. I think Commissioner Caldwell wants to pull another item. Your microphone's off, Commissioner. I'm sorry. I would like to pull the item for the LCAM. What letter is that? I'm not sure. I'm looking for it right now. I'm sorry. It is C. It is C. Oh, there it is under my stable. Yes, C. Okay, C. All right. All right. So this time we're entering a motion to approve consent agenda items for A, B, E, F, and G. So moved, Mayor. Motion by Commissioner Santiago. Is there a second? Second by Commissioner Caldwell. All right. Is there any public comment before we vote? Yes, sir. David Sosa, please. David Sosa. I'm just going to keep this quick. On 8B for Catalina, this money, the, what was it, almost $300,000, yeah, about $300,000, so $75,25 cost share. But that only includes the permitting and the engineering. How much will it actually cost to actually raise Catalina? Now, my major concern with this is the flooding. Yes, you raise Catalina, if you take it up 10 feet where that hump is, the engineer that you already had doing the Lake Teresa Basin study said, guess what? We have no plan for that water. So when you take whatever that is, 20 feet of road, 24 feet of road, plus the right-of-ways, and you raise it to make it go straight across, where's all that water going to go? How many more people are you going to flood? What is your contingency plan to take care of that flooding? That's what I would like to know. She's calling you, Mr. Sosa. Did you guys pull? No. B. I'm not second D. D, that's what he pulled, so it ain't no sense. He did not pull B. He pulled C as in Charlie. Oh, I thought he pulled D. He did pull B. He did pull B. D as in David? Yes, D as in David. Okay, yes, that was pulled. I thought you said B as in boy. Got it. I just want to talk about some wasted money, that's all. The item's been pulled. Mr. Sosa, you know the rules. I know you do this for show, but you know the rules. Okay, so please, we're trying to run a commission meeting. Is there any other public comment? No, right there. No, sir. A and D is C and D have been pulled. Okay, all right. Let's go ahead and vote on the motion, which was to approve A, B, E, F, G. The motion passes 7 to 0. For clarification, the letter D for David, that is being pulled completely off the agenda today. No? Discussion separately. I got it. Okay, I just want to have, I want to be clear on it. All right, we're going to do C as in Charlie right now. Is there a motion on the floor so we can begin discussions? In Charlie? I'll make a motion to approve Consent Agenda 7C. Okay, there's a motion by Vice Mayor Harriet to approve Consent Agenda 7C. I'll second it, but I prefer the full thing read, but I'll second. There's a second by Commissioner Lawley. Okay. Commissioner, sorry? That was pulled, yes. Commissioner Caldwell, you're up first. My first question is, as far as the funding from the federal government, does that have to be used for that project if we approve this, or can it be used for any stormwater flooding issues? Good evening. Phyllis Wallace, Public Works. No, these are hazard mitigation grant programs. They are specific for these projects only. We cannot assign this money to another project. Okay, would that be only true of the project as described, raising the elevation and putting culverts in? At this point, it is a design, engineering, and permitting stage. What that elevation will look like, we're not at that stage yet. Okay, so we have no engineering or anything on it at this point? No, sir. No, no. So we're not concerned about the backup of water when we take about a quarter mile of road and raise it? We certainly will. That will be part of the design, engineering, and permitting. Yes, sir. All right. Thank you. To Commissioner Caldwell's point, and I think some of us on the dais, including you as well, have brought this up. Wasn't there something in here to also look at, possibly doing a bridge versus doing the elevation of OCAM? I believe we considered that, but HMGP grants have to be cost-beneficial, and our position with our consultant was a bridge, a traditional bridge for transportation, not pedestrians, but transportation would not be cost-beneficial. Just getting this to a cost-beneficial stage right now was difficult for us. Commissioner Caldwell. Yeah, I have great concern about, you know, raising the road and converting everything if we're going to have another major storm or a flood event, flowing everything into two 60-inch culverts. What is that going to do upstream as far as backing water up into new residents, flooding them? Right. Yes, sir. That will be part of the design and engineering of the project. So we don't know that. We were taking into consideration those culverts may be undersized. We may have to add more culverts. We may have to move the locations. That's all part of this initial step in the project. And how will that affect the Tracer Basin Study back to the Catalina Road? Our consultant is aware of these two grants. Now, that data, as we get it, is it going to be available in time to finalize their reports? I cannot. I can't commit to that because their product is due at the end of this year. Thank you. Ms. Wallace, once we have this design done by the, because this is a grant and it has to be specific to that, we can't turn around and say, well, maybe this other option could be suitable. Correct? We have to stick to the design? Well, what this will do is get you your design, engineering, and your permitting. And if the commission chooses that they do not want to pursue the second portion of this, which would be the construction component of it, then at that point— You know what my issue is? And I'm not going to bring up former city managers. My biggest problem is, is that we understand water is probably one of the strongest forces on this planet, right? You have rock, steel, whatever you want after a while, being beat up by water. It's going to cave in. We have a road that we're elevating. It's—water's going to keep hitting through it, and at some point, we're going to have to re-elevate it again, okay? The purpose of continuing to bring up the bridge item was that there's actually grants out there that make it cost-effective and cost-affordable. I understand it's not what we're getting here, and I'd hate to send back money that we're getting, because it's money that we're getting, but anyways. Is there any other comments from the dais? No? I don't think, Mayor, that it's officially absolutely can't do a bridge. I don't believe we're—at this point, I think the image may be the Brooklyn Bridge, something extravagant like that. No, no, no. I think what you're talking about, because we had a—the consultant was in, what, about a year ago, and it was much more of a normal, simple bridge. Very simple bridge with two sidewalks, one sidewalk on each side, because even the sidewalks, we've replaced them now I don't know how many times. Yeah, so I think that's something still that we can—we'll bring that back and discuss it with the consultant if this passes. Yes. Okay. Commissioner Santiago, you had something, and then we'll go to public comment. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Phyllis, I know you mentioned the design engineer permitting process. They're looking into the stormwater and flooding issues, right, during that process? This is no different than any construction project that we would undertake. Okay. If it were—if we were going out and going to widen the roadway, we would have to take into consideration all of that. So that will be part of this. Yes, ma'am. Okay. And in the past, that L-CAM, that area, has been closed. It's a major thoroughfare in our city, and it's very important that we get this study done so we can make it better and avoid from having to close L-CAM Boulevard, especially during an emergency. Yes, ma'am. Not only is it an inconvenience for our residents, it is a safety issue from the standpoint of the detour and to get emergency. And the response time for the fire department as well. Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. All right. Vice Mayor Harriet, and then public comment. Ms. Wallace, which portion of L-CAM is this pertaining to, or is this pertaining to both? It's pertaining to two sections. The section, for lack of a better description, on L-CAM near Oneida, which is actually the section of L-CAM that actually was one body of water for a very long period of time, but that closed down the entire west of the section of L-CAM, but we also came very close to the section of L-CAM where the new sidewalk was put in. And that sidewalk, just for clarification, all transparencies, that sidewalk was planned to be replaced anyway. It just got further undermined by the rising waters up to the edge of pavement. Thank you, Ms. Wallace. All right. Public comment on 7-C. Thank you, Ms. Wallace. I'll put Brian, please. So, going ahead, without full study, completely done on this, and we're going to design something on a whim, is what I'm hearing from y'all up here. How does that make sense? Now, I understand that we have one of the premier insulting groups on contract. I get that, and I trust the gentleman probably more than I trust most engineers, because I don't trust engineers. They're like doctors to me and lawyers. They're about worthless. At the end of the day, though, you engineer something. Can you prove it's going to work? I guess that waits until it's actually built to prove that it works or not. Now, I've heard that on Elkhom, I've heard bridges. I've heard three 36-inch pipes. I've heard box culverts. I've heard two box culverts. What are we actually designing here? Are we designing something that's going to last a lifetime, or are we designing something that's going to last for the next storm, and then we have to start over again? My thought is that unless you have something provable, and I mean concrete provable, that this is going to work in a 100-year, 24-hour storm, I would hold off on doing any engineering. That being said, you have a grant. You have to fulfill that grant. I would ask that the way you fulfill this grant is ask for more than one design for different instances. If the study comes back this way, you want to design for that. If the study comes back this way, you want to design for that. The way this is going about right now, you're making a design on a wish and a whim, but that's the way Delton has done it forever, so let's continue. Jody Lee, please. One more time. Can we just fix something already? We've been talking about Elkhom, Catalina for 20 years. Can we just fix it already? While everybody's bickering back and forth about this, the bridge is what needs to be done. Two culverts under there, six feet, they're going to get clogged up. Commissioner Caldwell, behind your house right now, you have an island that has stopped. I know you've talked to people about getting it. Jake probably hasn't been done yet, because nothing ever seems to get done. You have an island that's about to block the culverts going from where your house is, where the pond is, to across the street. That island goes over a little bit farther. It's clogged up. That's going to cause more flooding behind your house and all the people around you. Elkhom needs to be raised up with a bridge. A culvert's going to get clogged. Catalina gets flooded. Go talk to some of the people that have been living there for years and years and years. They have more flooding now at their houses. We just keep talking about it. It's like when I was sitting up there, we were talking about raising up Elkhom. So we stopped doing everything. We were going to raise Elkhom. The hurricane came, washed it all out. The sidewalks got destroyed. Knowing that we're going to raise Elkhom, we went and put new sidewalks in anyway, because that's stupidity. You know you're going to raise the road. Why would you put brand new sidewalks? Mayor, I agree with you. It needs a bridge. Your plan, this was two years ago. We need to do it. This is the stuff we need to do. We need to actually fix stuff. That's what we need to do. Instead of remodeling all this whole building that seems to work because somebody has a feel-good moment, let's fix some stuff in our city for the people that live here and stop flooding our houses. Thank you. Commissioner Howington? When was the last Teresa Basin study completed? I believe we do this every few years, correct? Commissioner, I cannot tell you when that was done. It has not been done in the time I've been with the city of Deltona, which is going on 13 years. But we have the Teresa Basin now underway for full study. Okay. I just remember that when I went to the meeting, I believe early last year at the center, they had mentioned that there had been studies done previously and that several of the findings were similar through the years. Can we rely upon some of those studies to identify what the best opportunity would be for us within LCAM? And should we proceed with a small-scale bridge or culverts? We certainly can share that. If this goes forward and we put this out for bid and we have an engineer that's brought on contract, we certainly will share all of that data with them because that data is valid and it is prudent to share that with them. Okay. Thank you. Vice Mayor Harriet and Commissioner Lully. Phyllis, I don't know if this would be a question for you or maybe Mr. Hamstra. As part of the engineering, what all goes into designing a solution like this? Are we looking at the hydraulic studies, the hydrology studies, all that of the lake, of the area, the water that's on one side versus the water on the other side? Are we looking at all that? I'll let David, Mr. Hamstra, answer that since he has the initials after his name that I don't. The mayor, city commission. I look at LCAM Boulevard in Catalina like we're elevating a house. We're preventing the water from going over the road to go through the road. We're not going to block water. Last time I think I was here, the public thinks we're going to raise the road and not allow water to go underneath it through culverts or other types of conveying systems. The purpose is to elevate it so many feet above the 100-year elevation. Yes, there's been studies done in 1997 by Dyer Riddle, a couple years later by professional engineering consultants, and then I think Tetra Tech did some work, and now we're having it done by a fourth firm. We also have good hard evidence from Milton and Ian how high these lakes got. All that's going to be taken into account. We're going to raise the road at least two feet above that even, maybe three feet. As Phyllis had indicated, this is a $9 million grant. We had to demonstrate that the benefits outseed the costs. And to talk about multiple bridges and raising it higher, there's a good chance you're going to kill the project, and then we're going to lose $9 million. In three years from now, we may have a Milton 2.0 that's worse than the Milton we had before. There's no guarantees, but we are going to raise it at least two feet plus higher than we saw during Milton and Ian to provide proper access, first responders, and not impact the city like we did before. Whoever ends up designing it will determine the number of culverts and the locations to allow the water to go basically back and forth. This road serves as an equalizer between the water bodies on both sides. It's not like the St. John's River where the water is moving drastically in one direction towards Jacksonville, so it's more of a conveyance issue. Here we're just making sure we have proper conveyance to allow the water, the lakes to stay together and eventually go to Lake Doyle and eventually Lake Moreau and St. John's River. So, it is too early to tell if we need 12 culverts, 13 culverts, six box culverts, whatever it takes to make sure we're not staging water any higher on one side than the other and allow we have safe passage along the entire length of the roadway. And the same thing holds true for Catalina. Thank you, Mr. Hampshire. Commissioner Lully. Thank you, Mayor. What's out there now? What kind of water conveyance features are there now under the road? I believe on Catalina we have two culverts, one smaller than the other, and for Alcam, maybe three. I don't have the sketches in front of me. They have served well during normal conditions. What happens is the lake gets so high and overtops the road, not because the culverts are too small, the road is too low. The lakes got high on both sides, and the road happened to be in the way. If the lakes were like this, where the water is flowing rapidly, then we look at things as a conveyance point of view. But this is basically bisecting large bodies of water, so we're just trying to pick up the road and get it out of harm's way. And a lot of the lakes interact like they have been all these years. So, you described it as an equalizer pipe. So, it would only help the road itself, or would it provide a benefit as well to the Upper Teresa Basin in allowing that water to convey to the south? Because I saw some readings lately where the Upper Basin, the elevation was lower than what it is in Lake Doyle. And so, to me, it's, you know, the water is not going to be flowing in that direction, right, when that's occurring. Well, let's talk about Alcam first. All those lakes in that general vicinity all rise and fill basically together. If you go from Helen and work yourself south from the Catalina area to the Three Island Lakes, that has a little bit of a tilt to it. Once it crosses Howland Boulevard, most of those lakes are filling up together. And so, whatever roads are bisecting those water bodies will go under for a prolonged period of time until we can pull it off the other end by the St. John's River by Lake Doyle. So, Alcam are just purely lifting it above the floodwaters of those watersheds, of those lakes. For Catalina, we do have to account for the water coming and moving from Helen towards Deltona to make sure we don't have a bottleneck as it works its way to Catalina and underneath Catalina. So, we have no intentions of damming the water to flood your neighbors to the north, but we have to make sure we don't open up so wide that we overload the people who live on Three Island Lakes, Sixma, and those other water bodies up to Howland. You know, I think a bridge certainly provides additional benefits than just water conveyance. A lot of times it can be used for recreation. What is the timeline difference between engineering, what's being presented here today, versus a full-on bridge concept, you know, a structure? Well, let's go back to Alcam. If everybody's thinking, let's just do one bridge and we're good. Well, bridges are compromised as well. I was in Winter Springs during Milton when all the bridges got overtopped, and we had significant erosion. So, if you're putting all your eggs in one basket and forcing half the city to go through one bridge opening, one down tree, whatever can compromise that area, if we have multiple smaller openings along the entire length of the road that we're elevating, we're ensuring that those water bodies are being properly conveyed from one side to the other. Yes, bridges are expensive. You have to raise the road higher if you try to make it more of a navigation point of view. And then, quite honestly, we're going to be into the point that we're not going to be cost-effective anymore. And I know some people say, well, let's do it right. But if you're looking at $9 million, the city got granted. It was a lot of hard work, and I really, really hate to see the city lose out. $9 million for Alcam and $2.5 million for Catalina. I can assure you, it will be done right, whoever you can select. And we will, myself and Phyllis and our staff, will make sure that our concerns of what we saw would be properly conveyed to the consultant and that we don't be a detriment to the city once it's completed. Realize once the design is done, we have to go back to FEMA. Now, it's been a couple years since the grant went in. Construction costs continue to rise, and there's a good chance that the design and the tariffs and everything else, whatever you believe, construction costs get higher. We may not be cost-effective, and then the grant dies anyways. So, it's prudent that we move swiftly without compromising the design to have a better chance of securing the grant for construction, which is really your big-ticket item. We're talking about tonight here for 75 percent coverage of the design fee, but we're really concerned we don't lose on the $8 million match for the construction cost for Alcam. So, that's, I guess that's not part of tonight's item, but that's a future potential, then, is what you're saying. The grant is a two-phase grant. Phase one is paying for design permitting, and then you submit the plans back to FEMA with a new cost estimate. If it's still cost-effective, you will get a similar agreement, hopefully a year from now, to approve to go forward with advertising for bids in building the project. Okay. Assuming FEMA's around. That's all. We won't go there. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner Santiago, and then let's vote on the end. Actually, I'm just going to do the motion, if that's okay. There's already a motion and a second. Oh, and a second. Okay. So, let's go ahead and vote, please. Motion passes six to one. This time we're going to go into the section 7D, request for approval of resolution number 2025-52, mid-year budget amendment for fiscal year 2024-2025. Is there a motion before we start conversations? I move to adopt resolution number 2025-52 for the mid-year budget amendment for fiscal year 2024-2025. Second. It's a motion by Commissioner O'Leary, second by Vice Mayor Harriet. Go ahead, John. Mayor, Commission. This budget amendment for mid-year, it's for fiscal year 2024-2025. This amendment is necessary to account for additional funds received and necessary expenditures for operations and capital outlay and improvements. I have a couple of items. I'll just read to you of what this amendment covers. It accounts for insurance proceeds from a wrecked vehicle and storm damage for roof replacement. Rate studies as directed by commission that we discussed this past Saturday at the budget workshop. Energy efficient grant for window replacements here at City Hall. The Transform 386 projects. Hurricane Milton reimbursement of expenses and repairs as directed by our FEMA representatives. Tyler ERP enhancements. The customer service building enhancements. This will help consolidate duplication of resources between multiple departments and provide for a single-stop location of payments. It handles the opioid settlements as required by Florida statute. Building reserves as required by Florida statutes. The reappropriation of closed projects within stormwater to fund the Teresa Basin and Lake Bataan project. It redirects the funding for the sheriff project as discussed at the work, I'm sorry, public hearing last year as the budget adoption. It moves that money back to impact fees. Places the funding also of the chamber lobby renovations back to fund balance. It handles water and wastewater projects slated for out years into the current fiscal year for needed projects. And finally, it accounts for outstanding encumbrances approved previously by the commission in this year's budget. That's a highlight of everything. So it brings, increases the overall citywide budget by $11,386,778, making the amended budget total to $237,900,531. That's all at this time, Vice Mayor. Thank you, sir. Do we have anybody? Commissioner Lully? Thank you. What was the, what was the change that prompted you guys to pull, to pull us? Yes, sir. At the workshop this past Saturday, we discussed the fire assessment fee and the commission gave consensus to provide funding for it. So I reached out to our current rate consultant on, on the contract that they are part of. I went and found the city of Ocala recently did this back in 23, and the cost was $59,500. I don't expect it to be that much here, seeing we are a little bit smaller agency. But that's the funding that I went at this time for best guess. Thank you. Commissioner Caldwell? You said there was some money in there for renovations in the new entrance to City Hall here. And that money's coming from a fund balance? Yes, sir. And do we know what that amount is we're planning on spending? At this time, $350,000. That's primarily being funded by the building department funding in that they're part of the overall customer service. We have a requirement by statute to not have no more than the average of four years of fund balance. So we have approximately $800,000 that's allowed to be spent in order to fulfill the requirements of reserves. Plus, within here, I also didn't mention that was a replacement for building department of five vehicles, all of which the oldest vehicle, or the newest vehicles of 2012. It'd be safe to say that if the renovations here at City Hall would be, let's throw a number of $300,000, we're going to pull that amount from different departments that are affiliated with that? Two, the building department and water-wastewater. Those are the two primary users of this group of individuals. So where would we get the balance of that money from, then, if it's a $300,000 project or $350,000 project or $400,000 project, let's say? 100% of it comes from the building funds and water-wastewater. So we're budgeting that money into those departments to pull it back out for these renovations? That is correct, those two funds. Thank you. Commissioner Howington? You mentioned that we were close to exceeding the reserve amount allowed. What happens if we don't spend all of those funds? For the discussion on Saturday, when we go through the building's fee study, then we will be providing them with what our average of four years was, plus our current reserves. So they have to make the decision on what the building permit fees will be in the years going forward. If that means a reduction of fees, so be it. But that could just be, instead of the fees needing to be $10 in four years, we might be able to delay an increase so that we spend down those reserves. Thank you. Public comment? Thank you. You're welcome. Jody Lee? Sorry to bring it up, but on the last one, I hope we're not going to use the same company at Lakeshore Drive to do El Cam or Catalina, just my opinion. But on this reserve, so basically, if we don't spend the money, we have to lower costs for permits and stuff for the residents. Damn. You'd have to lower things on the residents? That'd be a shocker, wouldn't it? How about if we look, is all this $350,000 necessary for someone's ego? Just asking. I mean, we're spending a lot of money on different stuff. He's now taking money that, when I was up there with y'all, we did the budget, every department had a budget. But he's taking money out of that budget that they had for supplies, manpower hours, the whole nine yards. He's taking money out of that to pay for some of his wish list. So some of this money has to go back to fulfill money he spent. Is anybody paying attention to this? Because he's doing it without his bosses knowing. And nobody seems to notice. I mean, a couple of y'all do. But this is what he's doing. Is anybody paying attention? You guys are all living in the city. You all pay taxes here. So do we. But he's doing this without your knowledge. I get emails, phone calls, and everything every day from people in this wonderful building. And I know he hates it. It's all the same stuff. Spending, spending, spending, spending. I mean, I think it's funny we're here tonight on a holiday for Cinco de Mayo. He canceled the meeting last time for St. Paddy's Day. Stick to the topic, Jody. Well, I'm just saying. Stick to the topic. It's kind of funny. But, I mean, we need to watch what he's doing. He likes to spend his money. Has anybody been seeing what Garden City's been saying lately? This is a delta. I get it. Stick to the topic. But they're all saying the exact same thing that he's doing here. Pay attention. Brian, please. Good evening, Kathy. Brian. I have some questions because Saturday's workshop, preliminary capital improvement plan, capital outlay request, fleet replacement. But it seems like some of the stuff that was discussed on Saturday had nothing, was not one of these three topics. So, why are we talking about stuff that was not on the agenda? Because it kind of almost makes me wonder about the additions and deletions. I don't recall seeing that before. How can we be adding something to agenda that's not advertised beforehand? So, why were we talking about stuff that was not related to one of these three things? Or am I making a mistake? Because it might make a difference where somebody decided to go to a workshop or not. So, I'm curious. Thank you. Okay. Please vote on the motion passes four to three. This time we're going to go into section eight, ordinances and public hearings. If I can please have the city attorney read 8A as an alpha. Yes, Mr. Mayor. This is ordinance number 06-2025, an ordinance of the city of Deltona, Florida, amending the zoning code, chapter 110-807, home occupations, by updating the title to home-based businesses to align with Florida statutes and include provisions related to employees, traffic generation limits, and agricultural home businesses, providing for conflicts, codification, severability, and an effective date. This is second and final reading. I'll move to approve ordinance number 06-2025, amending chapter 110-807 in the city's land development code. There's a motion by Commissioner Lully and a second by Commissioner Caldwell. Commissioner Caldwell, you have the floor. This is just to update the wording and the mandatory provisions from the state. Is that correct? That's correct. This brings our local code in compliance with Florida statutes and some of the preemptions that were put into place a couple of years ago. Has there anything been changed in here that wasn't state mandated? No, sir. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Is there any public comment? All right. Can we please vote on the matter? Motion passes 7-0. This time we're going to go to section 8, D as in David. If I can please have the city attorney read the ordinance. Yes, Mr. Mayor. This is ordinance number 17-2025, an ordinance of the city of Deltona, Florida, amending article 1 in general, article 2 solid waste, and article 3 stormwater utility, and article 4 street lighting of chapter 54 special assessments of the general ordinances to update the process for enacting special assessments and setting annual rates, providing for conflicts, codification, severability, and an effective date. This is second and final reading. Okay. Commissioner Colwell? I'd like to make a motion to approve. It's a motion to approve by Commissioner Colwell. There's a second by Vice Mayor Harriet. Is there any public comment? David Selsa, please. Can we please vote? Motion passes 7-0. At this time, we're going to go ahead and go into city attorney comments. We did, we can do this under our comments. We did add, during addition, deletions, deferrals, resolution number 2025-57, which you all have. This is a resolution of the city of Deltona, Florida, authorizing participation in the litigation styled Howland Holdings Group, LLC, et al., versus city of Deltona, authorizing representation through city attorney's office and outside legal counsel, providing for implementation and providing for an effective date. We're happy to discuss this if you have any questions, but we notified you all this weekend that a complaint had been filed for a declaratory judgment against the city by a number of parties. The lead plaintiff is Howland Holdings Group, LLC, and it's been filed in the 7th. The carrier is determining if coverage exists for the matter, although based on our reading of our policy and the way this case is styled, it is likely it will not be covered. So because of that, we wanted to get ahead of it to make sure that we could timely comply and respond to the court deadlines once we are served. We would like to use Roberts Reynolds, Bedard, and Tuzio, and we will supervise them in this litigation. So happy to discuss any questions, but that's where we are. Now, I will tell you, if the carrier picks it up, we would not use outside counsel, but because they're seeking declaratory judgment, it is our understanding of our current policy that they're not going to pick it up. I'd like to make a motion. Move to approve Resolution 2025-57 for legal representation for Howland Holdings Group, LLC, in this case matter. Just a motion by Vice Mayor Harriott and second by Commissioner Colwell. Is there any public comment? Motion passes 7-0. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. We do have one other update. As you know, we've been working on the noise ordinance. We're still working with the Volusia County Sheriff's Office and their general counsel, and we are very close to landing the plane. We do plan to bring it to you on the next meeting in May, so for first reading. So we just wanted to let you know that we're very close. We're just—we weren't able to get it advertised in time for tonight, but our plan is to bring it to our next meeting in May. We have nothing else at this time unless you have any questions for us. Okay. Just a reminder, because I see the commissioners going up and down until we get to the city commission. It's going to keep getting knocked down by the—by the clerk. So, um, city manager, and then the next item, you guys can start poking with that. Thank you, Mayor. Just wanted to announce the, uh, the golden book, uh, seems to have made a lot of waves all over the area for some different reasons. Not sure why, uh, specifically, but let me clear a couple things up. So, the, uh, apparently the staff doesn't traditionally, or the city doesn't traditionally send out things bulk citywide, like maybe campaigns do. So, it looks like some of our mailing addresses, the actual zip code, does obviously crisscross out of the city, as you see a zigzag of our, our, uh, housing and, and zoning territories. So, there are people outside the city, Osteen included, that did receive, uh, the golden book itself. That'll be changed for the future. Uh, so, just want to make a point, it was not directly mailed to Osteen for on purpose, it's just Osteen has a similar zip code as part of Deltona, and that'll be rectified for the future. A second one that seems to be a topic, and it was brought up again tonight, uh, laws are ordinances, ordinances are laws, ordinances are laws within a city boundary. Uh, that's why they call them ordinances, but they are actually the laws of the city, so laws and ordinances are synonymous, uh, for that record. And also, the commission that was budgeted $65,000, uh, even tonight it was said about 50 grand was spent, uh, looks like about $28,000 actually was spent between the printing of 40,000 copies and the mailing, apparently including mailing to Osteen, all included was about 28, a whole lot less than half of what it was originally budgeted for. So, just want to point that out, we will have a whole lot of extra ones in our city buildings over the next year or two, so if people lose them at home or for some reason didn't receive it, we will have other copies of, uh, here, but it's solid information across the board for the city. Thank you, Mayor. Okay. Now the commission can, there we go. I, I, I should just do what I used to do. Yeah. You know, um, I'm just gonna do a dull style. So, Commissioner, uh, Lally. Thank you, Mayor. Um, we had a great, uh, ribbon cutting at D Ranch Preserve last week in District 6. Um, that was a great, uh, celebration for our city. Uh, for those of you not aware, we now have an almost 500 acre, 500 acre rounding up preserve in District 6. A lot of us were out there. I know a lot of us, um, uh, enjoy that space. So, um, that's a great day for our city. Uh, it is smack dab in the middle of our, um, zoning and progress resolution coverage area for Keep Deltona Wild Overlay District, which was the subject of, uh, the litigation we just voted on, um, a couple minutes ago. Um, so that's really exciting. We'd love to see more of that in our District 6 area, um, bordering right along Osteen. Um, that's really important, I think, to many of us up here in the dais to, um, conserve those spaces, um, and to recognize how important that is really throughout our community. So I'm really excited about that. They're open dawn to dusk. I encourage everyone out there to go check it out. Um, they're open now for business. All their trails and whatnot, um, are open. So, um, onto the, the golden book, which I know the city manager talked about. There was a, it's my number one Facebook post of all time on my commissioner page. So, um, for many different reasons, um, which we've discussed, um, and I understand that there was, uh, as the city manager stated, concern from our, uh, friends in Osteen. And I know he, as he said, he's looked into that and we'll be changing that. I think it is a great start to improve the communication in our city, uh, which I think many, I've heard from many folks, um, other than land use, communication was, it was, it was a big, um, area that, that folks say that we have not done the best at in the past. Um, so I thought that that was a great start. And I also wanted to emphasize, because I heard some comments about this too, that a lot of what was in there was not new. Oftentimes the items that were in there were, you know, 30 years old at this point from our time of incorporation. Uh, so I guess it was really just a reminder. Um, but obviously, uh, we learned something from everything and, uh, each next step in the process of our improving our city is just that hopefully an improvement. So thank you, mayor. Thank you, commissioner Lully, commissioner Colwell. Yes, this is a concern of mine. I'm sure it's a concern of everybody up here. Um, not knowing, um, what's going on in the city as far as renovations and projects. Um, I would like to get consensus to anything over a $50,000 renovation within the city on any city properties, come back to the consent, uh, come back to the commission for approval. All right. Just for clarification, cause now we're changing policy. That's a policy, correct? Yes, that threshold is set via policy. That needs to be heard twice and put on an agenda item. So the consensus needs to be that the discussion needs to be brought up for. Okay. I'd like consensus on the discussion then. Can you, commissioner, can you repeat that? Get consensus to have a discussion on renovations over $50,000. Do those, that still comes to us. It doesn't come to us. Anything over $50,000 has to come. No. Not if it's in the budget. Not if you approve, if you approve that budget, it can be spent out of different departments to get a project done. Can we get a clarification? Don, can you confirm that? Correct. Anything that's in the budget already would not be coming back to the commission. But if you approve, if we approve a project, even in the budget, that, it would not come back to the project. Correct. That budget can't be used for a different project. No. Correct. It has to be approved for that project. If that project's not completed, it returns to fund balance. Correct. To the gentleman on the corner over there chit-chatting, I can kind of hear you. Sorry. Equal to everyone. Correct. Yes. If it's planned for an item, we can't take it and put it in another pocket. No. Okay. So there's a request for consensus. Can we do a—just a— Well, can we clarify that that's needed? Because my—I think we just clarified that the policy already says that— You're correct. So he's just—he still wants a consensus request. So if we don't believe that that's the case, then just vote no. But he wants a—he wants a request for consensus. So please do a verbal vote. Commissioner Villavasquez. Commissioner Steve, can you please repeat your consensus request? Because with all this— Request to open up discussion. Request to open up discussion that any projects or any renovations in the city—in any city buildings, does over $50,000 come to us for approval? Yes. Commissioner Caldwell? Commissioner Howington? Yes. Commissioner Lully? Yes. Commissioner Santiago? Just to confirm, anything over $50,000 that is not approved already. Correct, Doc? No. He's asking for anything over $50,000 for construction projects. Yes. No. Vice Mayor Harriet? No. Mayor Villa? No. 4-3. That's 4-3. 4-3, the—you have your consensus. What—just for correction so we understand, what's—what was the decision on— Consensus. Consensus. Bring it back because it's a policy. To bring it back. Change. The policy. It needs to be brought to an agenda item because it needs to be advertised and everything else. Okay. Very good. Thank you. And that's to bring it back a second time, right? So— It's only one hearing if it's a policy. No, I understand that. Commissioner Caldwell. So, right now, if it's approved in the budget, over $50,000, it's approved. You're—you're wanting to bring it back a second time so that we approve the budget separate from approving the item? Yes. Okay. You have anything else, Commissioner Caldwell? No. Okay. Commissioner Howington? Um, I would like to ask for a consent—consent to have an item added to the agenda. I would like to request that, since we received notice that the impact fee study is underway and should be completed within about six to nine months, we—and we are in an exception period, given that it's been 10 years since we've raised our impact fees, I would like to propose that we have an agenda item to discuss a moratorium on development. Liz, can you do another verbal vote, please? Uh-huh. Commissioner Vila Vasquez? Yes. Commissioner Caldwell? Yes. Commissioner Howington? Yes. Commissioner Lally? Yes. Commissioner Santiago? No. Commissioner—I'm sorry, Vice Mayor—Vice Mayor Harriet? Yes. Mayor Villa? Yes. Okay. Yes. Just one. Okay. Thank you. That's all I have for tonight. Commissioner Vila Vasquez? Thank you, Mayor. So, first of all, I just want to give a shout-out to Mark for that great event that he did for the ribbon-cutting at D-Wrench. It was really good to see all the people coming together. And I got to tell you that some of the people I invited didn't even know that D-Wrench was part of Deltona. Um, so that was good that they came out to discover. And they have so many good plans to add more, um, stuff into D-Wrench as far as camping and, and other items for, for the families to get involved, uh, you know, visiting D-Wrench. And they're looking for volunteers as well. Um, also a shout-out to the Pickleball ribbon-cutting event that took a part, uh, this Saturday. You guys did an awesome job, thanks to Parks and Recs and, and everybody that put so much time into, to this event. Thank you so much. And I want to give a big shout-out to D-Wrench for their Vietnam Veterans Ribbon-cutting Park that they opened up by the bridge. It is a beautiful sight. If you haven't been there, you have to go see it. It's right next to the courtroom, court, uh, the court, uh, building. And it's absolutely beautiful. You have to go see it. Um, another big shout-out for Halifax. Um, you know, happy fifth anniversary. The event was also very nice. And I have to ask this question because it was brought up to me, and I promise that I will bring it up. Keysville Park. Um, it's mixed with playground and dogs. And I was asked, what is the liability, um, of a child getting attacked by one of those dogs? There is certainly potential liability, um, and work with staff to mitigate that and have policies in place. Um, but there is potential liability. Some of it would be potentially on us, but some of it could potentially be on the owner of the dog or the parent of the child or shared. Um, so, uh, there's potential, certainly, but, um, I would not say we have open or blanket liability. It's very dependent on the situation and the context and how and when and what happens. Um, I mean, certainly, you know, just because an injury occurs, if an injury occurs in one of our parks, it doesn't automatically make it the fault of the city, right? So, um, that, that's a more complicated question, and for a specific circumstance, certainly, we can give you a little more specific analysis. But the short answer is, there is potential for liability, just like there is in any of our parks, for injuries and accidents. However, it is not blanket, it is not assumed, and it's likely never going to be 100% arse. Okay, because, um, the person that was asking me was concerned for the mere fact that so many children have been attacked by dogs and only because they see the kids running. That's a sign for the dog to charge most dogs, not all dogs. Um, so, they were concerned about having a playground in a dog park, where a dog, especially the big dogs, can jump over the fence. But I, I promised that I would bring it up, and I'm glad you guys, um, are going to come back with a more definite answer on this. The other question that I have was brought to me by a food truck vendor. And, uh, the question is, when the, uh, policy of a food truck competing with a brick-and-mortar restaurant come about, um, they were asked to be removed or not be on a site because they were competing with two brick-and-mortar restaurants, maybe more. So— So, Commissioner, our local ordinance is consistent with state statute. I'm not sure who asked this individual to leave. It may have been the business owner, um, which they are certainly within their rights to ask someone to move. Um, well, I was told that—they were told that they could no longer be there because they're competing with McDonald's and Dunkin' Donuts. So, I mean, I—I—the person that called me and asked me this question, I have no idea who the food truck vendor is. But they asked me to please follow up on it because they don't remember this ordinance being approved by the City of Deltona. Commissioner? Yeah, we would need some additional information. Okay. But we can certainly follow up offline. Okay. Thank you. I heard the same thing, and they said it was a booklet from, uh, code compliance. Commissioner Emma Santiago. Thank you, Mayor. Really quick, um, I see Mr. Shaw in the audience. I want to thank you for putting together the first, uh, Pickleball tournament. It was a—I heard it was a great event, so congratulations. Um, also a wonderful event, uh, at the Halifax Hospital, fifth anniversary celebration. We also spoke about the $30 million expansion that they're getting ready to do to add more emergency rooms and more beds. Um, so that's a—the great, uh, bringing in more jobs to our city. And really quick, I want to touch on the development issues. I want to say the reason why I am no on—on continuing with development and all that is I'm—I'm supportive of commercial development. We need it in the city. There's lots of great things that are coming to the city, and we cannot stop commercial development. And it has to be done smart. Um, other than that, I just want to say this Sunday is Mother's Day. Happy Mother's Day to everyone out there. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Vice Mayor Harriet. See, I didn't forget about you. I appreciate that. Um, first— Microphone. First, I also—I also wanted to thank, uh, Mr. Shaw that, um, for—and Ms. Lydia for putting on that event. The, uh, the Pickleball group really showed up, and, uh, they reminded the city that there's a—there's a bunch of them. Um, there's a big group, and it's a need that we, uh, we need to address, and so I appreciate that. I also want to thank, um, Kathy Bryant for bringing up the gardens. Um, that is something that I've heard from quite a few people that weren't able to attend the meeting last Tuesday on, uh, Parks plans. Um, but something that I would like to see added, um, to Harris-Saxon is a possible—or, space for a future expansion of the gardens. Um, I would also like if we could do some research on a possible fertilizer ordinance, like it was mentioned earlier, um, the use of, uh, nitrogen-limiting fertilizers and long-acting fertilizers during the rainy seasons if we don't already have that. I see notes being taken. I appreciate that. Um, kind of to the other commissioner's point, I am a little bit confused, uh, by all of the outrage that we have seen over the Halifax agenda item. I understand the legal concern, but we had an opportunity tonight to reduce residential development, increase commercial, put in a condition to bring commercial development prior to residential development, and I—I've just—I thought that that was a priority of the community and of this commission, and, um, I just—I feel like I'm leaving a little bit more confused tonight on that topic than I came. Um, and then the final item, it is Mother's Day this—this Sunday, and so I wanted to wish all the mothers in the city and out there a, uh, happy Mother's Day. Bike walk. You were gonna do the bike walk. That's why I didn't do it. Oh, yeah. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. And can we get consensus to bring, uh, back the bike walk Central Florida item for, uh, discussion? Thank you, Commissioner Lilley. I appreciate that. You're good. All right. Commit consensus? Yes. Yes. Yes. Just a quick— Yes. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Okay. Thank you, Mayor. All right. I only got a couple things—not a lot, actually. Four, four, four things. So I—I do have some concerns on—on this development. I get the litigation thing, but we were gonna go commercial acreages from 21.1 acres to 75.71 acres, and we were gonna reduce the—the density on residential. And from my understanding, um, at least, I mean, what I requested was that no residential be developed before commercial. I'm just gonna put that out there. Um, I—I think we really—it is what it is. I think we hit a loss there, because it's not every day. I mean, I think we're doing really good at helping, uh, get what we need as a city, but we also can't have this mentality that we're gonna stop every single development. That's just—unless people are gonna buy the land themselves and do what they're gonna do, we can't. I mean, legally, we can't. Uh, which leads me into a very important topic. Once this legislative period is done, and they get their act together in Tallahassee—and yes, I've said that publicly—um, can we get an update from our city attorneys specifically on the plotting? Because that's gonna change over from this dais to—to staff. And can we get a full update on the changes that are being made and the destruction of home rule to cities, just because a couple of bad actors are doing what they're not supposed to? Can we expand that to, like, all of the legislative— Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's what I meant. I mean, do I need consensus for that, or is that just something you can give us? Yes, although I would ask that, if it's okay, we'd like to work with the city's lobbyist. Um, presumably they, you know, have some— Absolutely. —particular insight. So, yes, we're happy to work with the city's lobbyist. Um, and I know we have a state lobbyist, and I think we have a federal lobbyist, so we're happy to work with both of them just to make sure that we can give you a comprehensive update. It may be collectively—we may bring it to you collectively, but we're happy to do that. Certainly, this session has been pretty terrible for home rule. Um, certainly, you know, in our opinion, there's been a ton of overreach into the purview of you all as elected officials, um, for, you know, for the citizens here. So, would it be—and I don't mean to interrupt you—would it be possible to have it as a town hall? So, obviously, the residents can be there, but I think it gives you the opportunity where we don't have a bunch of stuff on an agenda. We can speak specifically about those updates and ways to prepare, more than anything, this commission, because the last thing we want to do is continue getting into lawsuits, but prepare us for what—these are major changes. These are not little changes. These are major changes that are coming to the city of Del—well, it's coming to the whole state, but I'm talking about the city of Deltona specifically. So, major changes, and, um, maybe at that time we can go back and—and reach out to our elected officials to kind of rethink what it is that they're doing. And I will give a shout-out to Senator Wright, because for the most part, he stood on home rule, and against leadership, he—he did not vote for some of the stuff that he was being asked to vote for. So, if—if that's okay, again, we can ask for consensus. But, again, we just want consensus. We'll work with the lobbyists, and ideally, if we're going to have a town hall, we would have the state and federal lobbyists with us as well, so we could give you all a comprehensive overview. Yeah, and notice so that we can all be—be there and attend. Obviously, correct. Sunshine notice put up. Correct. We would—presumably, we'll work with Doc to, you know, have it advertised, sunshine, but also advertised, you know, promoted on social media, and make sure that the residents are informed, and we'll coordinate with staff, for sure. I got two more things. Maritza, you keep going on. I just need to thank Mayor I forgot to mention. I know that it was mentioned during city events, but I just want to remind everybody again that on Wednesday, we're having the Hurricane Awareness Town Hall meeting here at this chamber. We're having meteorologist Brian from Spectrum 13 come in and help us again. Brian, he's been doing this for seven years, and he's also a great person to come out here and help us. And the county has decided to join us and partner with us on this as well, so we're going to have county emergency here as well to share the do's, the don'ts, and the pros and the cons during hurricane season. So please come on out. There's going to be a drawing of weather radios, so you might be a lucky one, so please come out and join us. 630. All right. The last two items I have is, I went on a personal trip to Columbia, South Carolina. The city didn't pay for a single dime. I let the city manager know that before I left in case there's anybody trying to start drama. So, to answer the public records request that was made today, there's no city funds that were used, Commissioner Caldwell. This was a personal trip. I find it a little offensive that now I have to, anything personal I have to put out there, it shouldn't be the case. With a better use of my time, I actually want to make sure that the rest of the commission is aware. I did ask our city manager, there seems to be a big issue on Fort Smith and Newmark. And, you know, maybe to look at some type of traffic study or something for a light. When those cars back up, five, six cars down, there should be no reason why anybody should wait on that light literally an hour, 40 minutes to an hour. It's ridiculous. Because the cars are coming in from West Corral area, driving into Newmark, so it makes it difficult to turn left on there. So, I wanted to make sure you guys were aware. I want to wish all the moms out there a very, very happy Mother's Day and the meeting's adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.