Vice Mayor, this time I'm going to go ahead and call this regular commission meeting for Monday, July 7th, 2025 to order. If I can please have the city clerk call the roll. Commissioner Vila-Vasquez. President. Commissioner Colwell. Here. Commissioner Harrington. Here. Commissioner Lully. President, Villa-Teams. Commissioner Santiago. Here. Vice Mayor Harriet. Here. Mayor Villa. Here. This time we're going to do the invocation and the pledge. Commissioner Lully, do you still want to do that via teams? I want someone else to be most helpful. Thank you. I like to silence. This evening. All right. If I can please have Commissioner Colwell, can you please go ahead and lead us into invocation and the pledge? Commissioner Colwell wants to do a moment of silence. Be seated. All right. We're going to go ahead into five presentations, awards, and reports. We're going to start with a presentation certificate of recognition for Deltona resident, Chris Ria. Did I say that right? Yes, Mayor. I don't know. I don't think she's here, but I would like to present it to someone who is very friends with her, so I will read the press. I will, I'll calm down. So it was brought to my attention by a very good friend of mine, very dear friend of mine, that someone in my district saved somebody's life in Lake Mary, a spot that she works in. And so she was recognized by Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and I thought it would be, and my friend also thought that it would be a very good idea for us here in the city of Deltona to recognize her as well. So the city of Deltona presents this certificate of recognition to Chris Ria in recognition of your heroic efforts to save a woman's life after she collapsed in Lake Mary. By administering CPR and administering the AED machine prior to the EMT's arrival, medics believe you helped save her life. Thank you for your heroism. And she's not here, so I would like to have my friend Rob Trombetta, who works alongside of her, to come and receive this recognition and present it to her when he sees her tomorrow. Thank you. This time we're going to go to presentation by Code Compliance Supervisor for an update on the Code Compliance Division. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners. My name is Danny Rock, Code Compliance Manager for the city of Deltona. I do have a PowerPoint ready. It looks like, okay, let me check that. There we go. Code Compliance Officer is a city of Deltona employee. Deltona Code Compliance Officers are responsible for enforcing all regulatory chapters of the city code enacted by the city commission to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Deltona. Code enforcement exists under Florida State Statute 162, and it authorizes us to provide due process to proceed in enforcement on city violations. All Code Compliance Officers are required to pass a code certification and animal control certification to keep the position in the city. They're also required to obtain and maintain 16 hours of CEUs every two years. I think some of y'all have been getting these. These are dashboard numbers for every month. These are for the last five, six months since January. We did have a decline in June. We did have a move. We went from City Hall to 255, and also we had four Code Compliance Officers at the conference for the whole week, including myself, was there. So there's some numbers there. Animal control, our numbers are down. We currently are having a quarantine at the Humane Society, Halifax Humane Society, so it's kind of limited on what animals they can take. They will take all our emergency animals if we have to, and those are considered any aggressive dogs, injured animals, bite cases, confiscations, people in custody, those they still will take for us. Just real quick on the process of code enforcement when we get a complaint, come to the City Hall or through our office or by email or different, we get them from different areas. We start with violation. Our first is a door hanger. It's like a courtesy. It's not an official notice. We give them a courtesy. That's what we provide first. On the next slide, we'll show what different types of courtesy that we have. Let's just say we give them a reasonable time after we provide the door hanger, they'll come into compliance, we'll close the case. But if it doesn't come into compliance, we move on to the next step, which would be either the abatement notice or notice of violation. We have the power to abate the properties if nuisance, lawn, trash, debris, even inoperable abandoned vehicles. If there is no compliance and we can't abate it, we move on to the next step, which would be the notice of hearing, which they'll go in front of the special magistrate. I'd say it's about four steps because we have to take the same case to special magistrate twice. The first time we present the case to special magistrate, it's giving them all the facts of the case. We're hoping to find them in non-compliance. Even the special magistrate will provide them time to correct the violation before we start the fine. These are the courtesy notice that we give out. The blue is solid waste cases. These are the most common types. Same thing for the yellow. It's green. Same thing for the code violations. And the last one is orange. It's for the animal control cases. And these are the most common cases we have. We do have space at the bottom if there's a code case that's not on that list. The official notice, which is the abatement notice or the notice of violations. These are the notice that we have to, you know, it's mandated by Florida statute to post it on the property and also send certified mail and it'll cover us on our due process when it comes to that case. We provide reasonable time for them to come to compliance before we move on to the next step. This is one of the basic grass cases that we have in the city. Code compliance department has vendors who are contracted by the city to abate a property when directed should a violation not come to compliance in the time required. Like I mentioned before, cutting grass, picking up trash. We also secure properties if they've been abandoned, like broken windows, broken doors. Unsecured pools is a big one lately that we've been addressing. We go into the property after we give them the notice and reasonable time and we try to get the property secured. Let's just say they're not in compliance after we give them the notice of violation. The next step is notice to appear at the special mastery. And this is our notice. Same thing, we post the property and we give them, it has to be at least 10 days prior to the hearing. We do have a requirement at least three weeks prior to the hearing due to making sure it's, we run all the documents through the clerk's office to make sure they were approved on the public record law. At the special matter, we get a ruling by the special magistrate. That's when we put the liens on the property. And I put there that their presence counts. Their presence counts. If they don't show up, guess what? The time limit might be shorter than if they did show up. The special magistrate is pretty fair. Let's, you know, here's the case on the respondent side and given the accurate time to compliance. Some code compliance update. At this time, we have positions opening still. These positions have been tough to fill for eligible candidates. We do have four animal control officers, two on each shift. Those are full right now. Now, I have been getting a lot of requests for sweeps. At this time, we can get that started. We're going to start that Wednesdays and every Wednesday from there on. So I'm going to be utilizing my animal control officers to help us out because they're duly certified and we get a lot of, you know, a lot of people out there getting these cold cases. We're going to concentrate on the areas that are very high volume, a lot of complaints, and that's what we're going to address first. Animal control, like I mentioned before, we have a quarantine at Halifax. And I think you got some bad news from Doc about Halifax Remain Society making some major changes there. With the costs for impounds, we're still working closely with them. So I want to bring up TNR, but we have a workshop coming up in July 28th on that subject. At the end of the day, I want to make sure all my guys come home safe to their families and loved ones. It's not an easy job to get out there and knock on people's door and let them know that there's a violation of the property. Most of the time when we show up, there's not a good reason. But I want to make sure they all get home at the end of the day. At this time, any questions? Commissioner B. Levasquez. Thank you, Mayor. So thank you for bringing up the, you're going to start doing the sweep again. And I had it as one of my questions. And I know that I received a report from your department, but it was for the whole city. So I would request from Doc if we could start receiving, at least I would like to receive the report for District 3. I know that one time each commissioner received a report from each district. And I think that's when you were doing the sweep at one time, right? That's correct. Because we're able to go by district. Okay. So I would like to see if you can start just sending us, at least me, I'm requesting myself that we get, you know, from each district. Because I know, you know me, I'm always driving around and I see things that I bring up. So I want to make sure that I, instead of bothering you all the time, I'd like to look at the report and see how, what the changes are and it has been taken care of, not only by the city, but also by the residents. Understood. Yes. And so Halifax, are we still using Halifax? Yes, we are. We are. And we have no other second option, right? We have a contract also with New Hope Humane Society. They're a very small organization. They're very limited space when we take them out there. So in the last two weeks, they were able to take two dogs and that's all they were able to take. Um, it's our main source, our main resource is Halifax Humane Society. So it's... Where's New Hope? I know that is not... It's in the land. It's in the land. It's in the land. Okay. Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner Colwell, then Vice Mayor. This is probably a question for TNR as we're going through that process. Um, my question is, is it made for legal as we can work towards possibly relocating some of these colonies as we identify them, um, especially the ones that are located near restaurants? Um, I know that the Greek Tavern people I've spoken with and they're concerned about the colony that's there next to them and the lowest parking lot is, is quite a few of them around there also. Yeah, I think from, from legal, we can, um, definitely during the TNR workshop discuss that in greater depth. Um, and I believe some of the, uh, information that we're looking for as the TNR program moves forward is more about specifically identifying which, um, colonies are being taken care of under that program versus those which may be otherwise enforced under the code. Okay. I'd just like to have a discussion ready when we get into the TNR program. Thank you. Vice Mayor Heriot. Thanks, Commissioner Colwell. I'd like to second that. And I think that part of our discussion on the, the workshop needs to include, um, a prohibition on cat colonies within a boundary of res, uh, restaurants, food establishments. I think that's poses a health hazard. Um, aside from that, I'd also like to request the, I think all of us up here want to have, uh, the reports by district if we can, or at least the ability to see on the report, which district it's in. That's good. And then, um, lastly, but most importantly, I want to thank you and your staff for the job that you guys do. It's an uphill battle with 40,000 something properties in the city. And you guys are doing a great job and I want to know, I would like to know what we can do to help you guys do your job more effectively. Well, I can start off. I need vehicles and that's coming up at the next commission meeting because, um, I bring it back through the process now. So, cause they're over $25,000. Yep. Thank you, sir. Okay. Commissioner Caldwell, thank Commissioner Santiago. Um, I want to echo what, uh, Commissioner Heriot said there. Thank you. I know it is a thankless job sometimes. Um, the, uh, when you do this, uh, sweeps, are they going to be done? Um, by, uh, districts or I know there's, uh, identified 84 zones or something. Um, we, I'm going to, we, um, was there to put two teams. We're going to have two teams out there. I believe there was, um, a request for, um, uh, Commissioner Vila Vasquez and yourself. And we're going to work those areas, those two areas simultaneously, the two teams. Thank you. Commissioner Santiago. And then we'll, uh, go to the next item. Thank you, Mayor. Um, just on the notice on violation, how long do you typically give somebody the first notice? Is it 30 days? The first notice, uh, the courtesy notice is usually seven to two, uh, 14 days. Seven to 14. The notice of violation, it's, um, a minimum of 10 days because we, you know, typically we have to send a certified mail. Let's just say the property did not get that notice at the property. It's a rental house. 10 days is usually an average time. So plenty of time to go out there and correct the violation. You can't say we did not give him notice. Even, even if they don't accept it, hey, uh, we got the little, um, return receipt that did not, you know, accept it. And that's our proof. And plus we posted on the property also. Great. Thank you so much for what you do and your staff. Thank you. Commissioner Lully, did you have anything to say? I know you're on teams again. Yes, Mayor. Thank you so much for the opportunity. Um, I just wanted to echo some of the other comments, um, and just, uh, wanted to ask, um, what we can do to help you. And it sounds like we got that answer. So I appreciate you being, uh, candid about that. Um, because I know it is a, uh, a very big effort in a city of our size, the amount of, um, residents we have in particular. Um, my second point was TNR. I'll save most of my comments for the upcoming workshop, but just wanted to say that, um, I think it's long past time for us to actually put an ordinance in place, um, that addresses that instead of the pilot program that has been in place now for a number of years, which in my opinion, does not really have any measurable objectives or goals, um, that the commission has set, um, for this, the city, um, manager to, uh, execute with his staff. So I'm looking forward to that conversation and putting together something that actually has some teeth to it. Thank you. Commissioner Villavazquez, did you want to add something quickly? Yes, that's a very quick question, uh, piggybacking on Commissioner Santiago. Um, when you give a warning to a rental, do you also copy the owner of that home? Not initially. If it's a, let's say a first time offense, we try to work with the resident, uh, the tenant there. Um, but the next step will be the official notice, which we post the property and send certified mail to the property owner listed on the property appraisal record. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Rohn. Thank you, sir. This time we're going to call, uh, Ms. Uh, Barker up for Deltona community events. We have a few events coming up, uh, in the next, uh, few weeks. The first is this Friday night. It's at the center is our bonkers comedy club. As always, tickets are $8. If you purchase them in advance, we also have, um, on Saturday night, our amphitheater, uh, concert series continues. We have a United Groves, um, it's free show, 7 PM. This is a ton of fun. If you haven't made it out there yet. So I highly encourage you to do that. And then another free event, we have our monthly movie in the park at Dewey. Um, this month we're showing Jumanji. Welcome to the jungle. This is the one with the rock, Jack Black, Kevin Art. It's hilarious. It's good time. Uh, showtime at eight 30. Um, and then, uh, this is a brand new event. This is our, uh, back to school bash. This was, uh, we typically do the annual, uh, uh, backpack giveaway. This year is going to be bigger and better. We'll have the backpacks, but there's going to be food trucks and bounce houses and face painting and music and free haircuts. So tons of fun as the kids get ready to go back to school. Oh, I should say this is August 2nd, 9 AM to 1 PM at Dewey. And then I do want to remind everybody about the playground program that the parks is doing, uh, this summer for the first time. Um, it goes through July 18th, uh, five parks, Dewey, Campbell, Manny, Dwight, and Festival Parks. It's not a summer camp. Kids can come and go as they please, but it's just kind of, it's organized, uh, supervised, old school summer fun, sporting events, arts and crafts, tons of fun. And the kids get a free lunch at the park. So, uh, if the kids are bored, looking for something to do, this is a great, uh, program to get involved in. Ms. Barker, if I can just really quick, cause this is very important for that summer program, just so the residents know, the, the lunch comes on behalf of Volusia County. And if they don't come in with that, within that timeframe, they're not a lot, they can come late. And if they pass that time, they're not allowed to serve that lunch. Okay. Just, it was told by me, by the parks director. And we had one minor situation where the county was late delivering food and they couldn't serve it to the kids. Okay. Do you have a question? All right. Before we go to the consent agenda, just a reminder. So Commissioner Lully is on team. So the way we'll do the voting and the questions is, uh, we'll all be able to vote from the, from the tablets. And then we'll ask commissioner Lully to submit his verbal vote. Then the city clerk will release all the votes to the public. And then, um, I will be asking commissioner Lully first, if he has any questions or comments, and then whoever's on the board will come next. So, uh, at this time, we're going to go to the consent agenda items. Yes, mayor. I'd like to pull, um, item E from the consent agenda, please. Okay. And if nobody else has any, anything else to pull, I would like to make a motion to approve, uh, consent agenda item A, B, C, D, F, G, N, G. Second. There's a motion by commissioner Avila Vasquez to approve consent agenda A through D, F through G, second by commissioner Santiago. And is, is there any public comment? No. Commissioner Lully, did you want to add anything to that? Uh, nothing to add. Thank you. No problem. If I can just please have the city attorney read. Yes, this is the consent agenda. Um, so this is all items, uh, A, B, C, D, F, N, G. Okay. We can please vote. And then commissioner Lully. Yes. Motion passes seven to zero. This time we're going to go to seven, seven E as in Edward. If I can please have the city attorney read the resolution request. Yes, Mr. Mayor, this is resolution number 2025-67, a resolution of the city of Deltona, Florida, adopting the community development block grant annual action plan for fiscal year 2025 to 2026, authorizing the city manager to execute the required federal forms and certifications, authorizing submittal of the plan to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, providing for implementation, conflicts, and an effective date. At this time I'll entertain a motion to begin discussions. Good. I'll make a motion to approve. Out of me. There's a motion by Vice Mayor Harriet to approve. Second. Second by Commissioner Santiago. Commissioner, uh, Villavascoz, you have the floor and then we'll go to Commissioner Lully. Thank you, Mayor. So my question is, is this, um, item to approve the grants? Because I know that, um, or is it just to continue or go forward with second step to bring to us the information of how much each, uh, organization is getting? Because I know that's how it was done at one time. Good evening, Commissioner. Um, I'm going to invite Quentin Gross to come up to the, um, podium. Um, but, um, this is an actual annual action plan to submit to HUD, um, and the recommendations and action, action plan are, um, in your booklet. Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners, Quentin Gross, Community and Housing Development, City of Deltona. So as- Mr. Quentin, if you don't mind, if you can get closer to the mic so we can hear you. Thank you. Of course. So this is to approve the, um, annual action plan as it is associated with HUD's, um, five-year consolidated plan. Again, the awards for the non-profits for the public, um, services are just their recommendations until the board approves them. So there is no official award until after the board approves this resolution. So there is nothing that has been officially, um, identified to be awarded to the applications already received? Correct. From the different organizations. So nothing has been awarded yet? Negative. And that will come to us? Correct. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Lally, did you want to add something? No, Mayor. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Santiago, you're on the board. Okay. Uh, is there any public comment on this item? All right. Can we please vote? Yes. Thank you, Commissioner Lally. Motion passes 7 to 0. This time we're going to go to ordinances and public hearings, 8A. I might remind everyone that this is a quasi-judicial hearing. If I can please have the city attorney go through the legal process of the quasi-judicial hearing. Yes, Mr. Mayor. Uh, please be advised that the following items on the agenda are quasi-judicial in nature. If you wish to comment upon any of these items, please indicate the number you would like to address when the announcement regarding the quasi-judicial item is made. An opportunity for persons to speak on each item will be made available after the applicant and staff have made their presentations on each item. All testimony, including public testimony and evidence, will be made under oath or affirmation. Additionally, each person who gives testimony may be subject to cross-examination. If you do not wish to be either cross-examined or sworn, your testimony will be given its due weight. The general public will not be permitted to cross-examine witnesses, but the public may request the commission to ask questions on their behalf. The full agenda packet on each item is hereby entered into the record. First, persons representing organizations must present evidence of their authority to speak for that organization. Further details of the quasi-judicial procedures may be obtained from the city clerk. At this time, commissioners must disclose any ex parte communications concerning items on the agenda. Thank you. At this time, Commissioner Lully, do you have any ex parte communications? Mayor, I have no new ex parte communication that was not previously disclosed at previous hearings for this matter. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Lully. Commissioner Caldwell, do you have any new ex parte? I have no new ex parte. Thank you, Commissioner Caldwell. Commissioner Vila-Vasquez, do you have any new ex parte communication? I have none. Thank you, Commissioner Vila-Vasquez. Commissioner Howington, do you have any new ex parte communication? No new ex parte communication. Thank you, Commissioner Howington. Commissioner Santiago, do you have any new ex parte communication? Yes, I do. Please disclose. Yes, Mary Hoover and Eric Hoover, Mr. and Mrs. Siberio, Samantha Judson. I met with North Furwood Drive Neighborhood email group. It was an exchange of emails that I received with Jordan Smith, Scott Banta, David Santiago, and Rachel Pereira. Thank you, Commissioner Santiago. Vice Mayor Harriet, do you have any new ex parte communication? No, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Vice Mayor Harriet. And I just spoke to Mr. Banta and his attorney once more, and that's all that we have. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. At this time, I will swear in any person who wishes to testify on any quasi-judicial item. Please stand and raise your right hand. Do you hereby swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, to help you, God? You may be seated. Okay. Now that everybody is sworn in, at this time, I would like, staff, you have a presentation on this matter. Yes, and I will go ahead and read the title of the ordinance into the record as well. This is ordinance number 12-2024, an ordinance of the city of Deltona, Florida, amending the official zoning map to rezone plus or minus 36.46 acres of land located along the North Normandy Boulevard corridor south and east of the I-4 Logistics Park within the activity center from single-family residential R1-AA. To mixed-use planned unit development, MPUD, providing for conflict, severability, and an effective date. This is a rehearing of second reading. Thank you, and Jordan, Mr. Smith, it says here it's either a presentation or a staff report. Please. Good evening, Mayor, City Commission. This presentation addresses the rehearing, addresses the rehearing request for ordinance number 12-2024, a zoning map amendment from single-family residential R1-AA to mixed-use planned unit development, and MPUD covered approximately 36.46 acres along North Normandy Boulevard. While it initially tabled and later approved on first reading, it was denied its second reading. The applicant has since submitted a rehearing request, which was accepted last month. At April City Commission meeting, the commission requested a 160-foot setback between the new multifamily buildings and existing homes to give more space or reduce impacts on neighbors. Secondly, semi-truck traffic will use Graves Avenue and Howland Boulevard, so they do not cut through the neighborhoods. And third, the commission requested better landscaping and walkability for the commercial areas to improve how the project looks and feels along major roads like Normandy Boulevard. The site is currently undeveloped and located within the city's designated activity center, which encourages integrated mixed-use development. The current zoning does not support this vision. A comprehensive plan explicitly requires any development in this overlay to go through the PUD process. The MPUD proposals before you satisfies this requirement and promotes the city's strategic growth priorities. Before you is the MPUD proposed plan. The non-residential is lots 1 through 4. Permitted principal uses include flex space, office, showrooms, restaurants, and retail establishments. Prohibited uses include indoor-outdoor storage and similar uses. And there will also be architectural standards, which will be enforced. The residential will be on Lot 5, which is 17.20 acres. It's reserved for the multifamily. Maximum density is 343 units, and the current plan is 320 units. In terms of transportation, Volusia County reviewed the traffic impact analysis and found it acceptable for rezoning purposes. Specific improvements will be required at the site plan stage, and fair share contributions will be secured prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy. The applicant has proactively coordinated with the city and county staff to support future infrastructure. Roadway dedications and turn lane improvements are part of the proposed plan. And this proposal represents a strategic and compatible reuse of key property within the activity center, and it fulfills policy objectives and aligns with our future land use vision. The staff recommends approval. And the applicant is here if you have any questions. Okay. At this time, we're going to go to any questions from the commission to our staff. Commissioner Lully, do you have any questions for staff? No, Mayor. Thank you. Okay. If there's no questions from the other commissioners, we'll go right to the applicant if that's okay. And at this time, there is no questions, so we're going to go ahead and go to the applicant for their presentation. Thank you very much. My deep, baritone voice. Yeah. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Commission. For the record, Michael Woods with Cobb-Cole, 231 North Woodland Boulevard here today on behalf of the applicant. And I appreciate you for taking the time to have this discussion again. It's a little out of the ordinary. It's a rare situation for a rehearing. But at the end of the day, as I think you'll see from our brief presentation tonight, we still very much believe in the project. We believe that the issues that got raised at the second hearing, we have answers for them. And that this is a project that not only you can be proud of, but has been approached and has been worked with staff at your direction, at staff's direction, to come up with a better product that the city has been looking for. I'll admit, I struggled a little bit kind of with the tone of the presentation. Mr. Woods, give me one minute. Excuse me, sir. If you need to have a discussion, you're more than welcome to it. So we need to be able to hear. Thank you. I appreciate it. Mr. Woods, please proceed. Sure. No problem. As I was saying, I struggled a little bit kind of with the tone because I was kind of, quite frankly, caught by surprise with the outcome of the second reading. Because my takeaway from our first reading, it was at length, and I'm not going to go through all of that again, was that generally speaking, we understood kind of the unique nature and the challenges of the entitlement process in this activity center. Because it required PD, and the fact that the denial basically led to a full taking of all use of the property. But more to the point, I think that the takeaway I had from that presentation was, you know, it's taken a long time. He's been working. Mr. Band has been working on this for about four years. A lot of back and forth with staff, working with you, and you guys have a lot of things moving in and around the area. But the general takeaway and the comment was, this man has listened to staff recommendations and has tried to deliver everything he can to his power to satisfy and resolve any concerns or issues that get brought up. So then to find out that the application got denied at second reading, particularly since, I mean, at first reading it was, I think, a 6-1 vote, it just kind of caught me by surprise. Again, to the positive, we have a very good project here, and I think, you know, we can reiterate that. But I'd be remiss as his attorney if I didn't kind of talk about the boogeyman. And I don't say this from a standpoint of an or else, and I, please don't take it this way. But to remind you that the situation with the denial and what I've been really trying to work forward to try to stave off and, again, appreciate that you gave us the motion for reconsideration to be here, is we don't want to have to pursue recourse through a taking because it's, you have more important things to deal with for time, for your resources, for your staff, and to fight over a project that, again, coming out of first reading, I thought you were all pretty happy and content with. But to be clear about what ends up happening is, because this is the PD, because he has no ability to do any other use but for what is being proposed, he has no ability to move forward with anything on his property. And that is a taking, whether you're looking at state, local, federal. The argument is, what's the valuation, and how do we resolve that situation? You're in that position because of decisions made by your predecessors. And good, bad, or indifferent, when they adopted the activity center, they required the PD. Nothing necessarily wrong with that. There are benefits to giving a more direct, straight zoning path so that you don't have to have discretion. But that's the decision that they made, that it has to come back before you and so that you have to act as a circuit breaker and review and make sure that everything in that PD checks off what the comp plan policies have adopted. And we did that. We went through that point by point at the first reading to establish that basically he drew a PD document to match and answer all those concerns in the comp plan. I would also tell you that, you know, I believe very strongly in home rule, right? I believe in the authority of this body to do what it needs to do for the good of its people. You guys struggle with that. Oftentimes, you are put into difficult situations, whether it's Tallahassee, whether it's Volusia County. It's not an easy job. And you have a great deal of discretion, particularly with land use and zoning powers. And I think in any other situation where a PD is discretionary, where we are negotiating, you know, if I came in with a client that had cattle land and was trying to get condos and you said no, that's a different situation than what we're dealing with here because that cattle land can still be utilized for cattle. You have stripped any other use for this property. It doesn't mean you don't have the authority to do what you do. It's just that then there are consequences to that. And again, the challenge that we have here is if it stood at the second reading with the denial, we would then go through, there's the processes that we have to exhaust. It goes to the court. The court basically says you have discretion to do what you choose to do. We still have to go through that process. That's 8, 12 months of time in litigation. Then we get into the action of a taking because then all uses and challenges are exhausted. I'll get back to a point of a project that, generally speaking, was pretty acceptable at first reading. And so my frustration is not so much with the actual decision or how it came about. It's the frustration of the consequences that comes down the road. When there are other challenges that your city is facing than to fight over this project that, again, if you look back at that first reading and the record on that, hits every point on that comp plan policy. There's also, I think, a little bit of a challenge in what that message kind of says. You know, this is a city that, as I've said before, you know, when you incorporated, you inherited a lot of challenges. The Mackle Brothers did us no favors, you know, decisions made when it was still the county, which is challenging. But you're trying to right the ship, and you're trying to bring in new development that's good for your community. You're trying to bring in the types of products that you want and not just more of the same. You've got to be aware of the message that you send when an application does come through, and the applicant does everything that's asked of your staff to get to the second reading to have his legs cut out from under him. That's a message of inconsistency and of saying that maybe you don't know exactly what it is that you're looking for. And that's not a message that the city can risk putting out into the general public. You know, it's, again, not the issues you guys. Again, I don't think any of you were around or anywhere near this guy is when the activity center was adopted, and you guys had visions for everything else. But you are still kind of paying for the sins of the fathers and that reputation of this is where projects, good, bad, or indifferent may go to die, and you don't want the good projects to go away. And this is one of those good projects. As to the issues at the denial, and I'll be brief with this, I first want to address traffic. At that second reading, there was a question as I went through the transcript and listened to the audio about whether there was an outstanding traffic impact analysis or something unsettled. I'm here to tell you, and I provided it in the letter requesting the rehearing, but again, to reemphasize here, the TIA has been submitted fully. It has been under review by Volusia County. Volusia County has confirmed with your city staff that everything related to the rezoning is in place and has been accommodated and meets all the requirements for the rezoning. There's nothing that is outstanding there. Jordan did a pretty good example or explanation in the staff report about furthermore identifying what the likely improvements are going to be as they move forward. That gets finalized at site plan. We can't get to that until we have the zoning approved. So there is nothing that is, there is no more outstanding issues related to traffic that we need to be addressing at this time. Now that's dealing with traffic volume and kind of how the network works. There was another concern that got raised regarding the vehicle traffic and the nature of the vehicles traveling out of this project and into the adjacent residential neighborhoods. I do appreciate Commissioner Santiago for bringing up the fact that in the interim, since the motion for rehearing, there was a meeting with the residents of the neighboring street with Mr. Banto there to answer any questions. And I think going back to the first reading, you've seen him try to do everything he can within his power to ensure that what he is providing for and what he is doing on property doesn't cause a problem or contribute to a negative impact to the neighbors. That deals with the huge residential buffer, but more on to the traffic. What we heard in that first reading was a discussion about existing heavy vehicle traffic driving into there, coming from Amazon and those warehouses. I think that Mr. Banto has done everything he can on his project to minimize that, but I'm not coming here without solutions or recommendations for help. So in my letter, and so the links are in there, but it's available and you can search it on the website, this body or your predecessors adopted a traffic calming handbook, residential traffic calming handbook. It's on the website, and it's really configured for the residents themselves to kind of initiate a process. It focuses predominantly on speeds and traffic volumes, and it's more focused on design of the roadway. But I bring it up because it shows that the authority to address any issues on your roads lies within your city commission. You have the ability to do that. So even if you go through this handbook and you don't see the immediate fix, you've got the processes of the city to control hours of operation, weight and size of the vehicles that can go into the neighborhood, how they're able to access that. That is within your authority, and then the sheriff's officer or your enforcing agency can enforce that. But that comes from you making a policy decision to encourage that. There may be other discussions you have to have with the county as far as how that impacts the greater network, but as far as the roads that are your roads, you have that authority, and I think that's the solution for you to be able to address. Those are really the two points that got identified at the first, second reading for the concerns or for the denial. I appreciate your time for allowing us to address this tonight. As somebody that does this a lot, I've been in this community. Jerry May is trying to get industrial in here. I mean, going back, I've been practicing law for over 20 years. I don't like to see when it's somebody that already owns the land. He's bought into the property. He's bought into the concept. He bought into the policies that were in your activity center, and he's done a diligent job trying to satisfy every wish from your staff. It is a good project. It is a mixed-use project. It addresses the transition between single-family into your heavier industrial that's on the Amazon side. He's restricted the vehicle movement inside the property. And Jordan's done a great job of documenting all that in your DA. This is a good project to approve. This is a project that, if this isn't satisfactory enough, I don't know what gets to be satisfactory enough for this jurisdiction. And that concerns me, and that troubles me. I'm happy to answer any questions. You may have Mr. Banta as here as well. And, again, we appreciate your consideration on this. I know it's not easy, but we think we have a really good project here for you. Thank you, Commissioner Lully. Do you have any questions? I think I'm good for now, Mayor. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Vila-Vasquez, and then Commissioner Caldwell. Thank you, Mayor. So I know that my concerns were mostly the traffic, because that traffic goes into my district, and I hear all the complaints from my residents. And so, you know, as developers, you also have to understand where I'm not speaking for other commissioners. I'm speaking for myself. Where are we coming from? We have to think of the safety of our residents, their homes, and our roads. There's a lot of trucks that go in and out of Normandy. That means there's a lot of wear and tear to our streets. And when they take the route where residents live, that makes it even worse for us. Not only that, but we have to ensure that every project that we approve is done correctly. So we have to check all the boxes, and we have to cross all the T's and dot all the I's. And until we feel comfortable that all that is done, you will not get an approval from me. And that's why I push and I push and I push. There are many projects that even I myself have approved, and what we have approved is not what has been delivered. Even to this day, we have been facing situations like that. I appreciate that everything that I have brought up, you have addressed. I see in the presentation that it has been, or at least it shows that you will be taking care of it and ensure that what I address myself, again, speaking about me, that it's going to be taken care of. So please don't misunderstand us. It's not that we don't like developers. It's that we don't like developments. It's just that we want, as one prior commissioner used to push on us, we like smart development. And we have to put our residents first before any development. And I know that Deltona has always said, Deltona, on the move, we're open for development. But I want to make sure that it's done correctly. We're not desperate. At least I'm not desperate to bring any big developments to my district. So, and if it is, I want to make sure that it's done correctly. So thank you for your presentation, and thank you for listening to at least my suggestions and my, you know, what I'm requiring of this development to be done on Normandy and not allow any commercial traffic to travel down going towards Saxon Boulevard. Thank you. Commissioner Colwell. You alluded to the fact that the gentleman has been four years gathering these properties together. where they were gathered, properties were purchased under a known zoning. What is that zoning? R-1-AA. And what is he allowed to have under that? Nothing. Nothing? He was aware of this when he purchased all this property. So, Commissioner Cole, just if I may, I just want to clarify that under R-1-AA, he is not entitled to develop within the activity center because of a requirement of the comprehensive plan that he be rezoned to a PUD. So that's why they're before you tonight requesting a rezoned to a PUD. I just wanted to make that clarification. Yeah. And if I could add on to that, with your comp plan policy, it outlines the, here's the, and, you know, it's the 40,000 feet versus ground level, but here's everything we're looking for. You must bring that before us in a PUD. That is what we feel we have done and brought that before you. And then it becomes, okay, even when you do that, you're not allowed to do anything. That's where that divesting kind of comes into play. I get your point on that. And, again, this gets back to, you know, getting off my lawyer hat for this client just in general. You don't frequently have a situation where if you require a PUD that there's not additional underlying buildable and allowable uses. I can't speak as to what the underlying thought was at the time when they did it. I don't think, I don't think, I'll speak for them, but I don't think many staffs would recommend you setting that structure up in the future because it puts future boards in a bind like this. I think going back to back in the day when the thought process, when these types of, circa, right, the general thought process was, I don't want to say controlling in control, but there wasn't a whole lot of reliance upon staff doing things the right way. The commissioners wanted to bring it back. And that's fine, but it puts them in kind of a bind if there's no other option available. I think everyone was trying to do the best that they could do at the time, and they thought it was the best thing for them, but it results in the situation now of, okay, here we are. We're working through under this comp plan policy. Again, we've checked the bullet boxes of what we're trying to do, and now even that's not sufficient. That's where the problem really comes in. Commissioner Howington and Commissioner Santiago. So when did the activity center, when was that adopted? Do we know? I mean, it's been over 20, 25 years, I think. It's been a long time. So when the property was purchased, it was with the understanding that an MPUD would be required or some sort of a PUD would be required and that that single-family residential was no longer available. Correct. That acquisition was to comply with the MPUD requirements under the activity center versus a residential development. So at the time of purchase, it was an expectation that the future use of that property would be a form of a PUD. Yeah, and kind of keeping track, you know, you can have conflict between zoning and land use, and I think Jordan made a good point that there is a residential designation in there, but it is inconsistent with what the comp plan adopted, and that's where you complete or create that conflict. Comp plan has to prevail. So the absolute losing argument would be to come in and storm and say, ignore that PUD. This is what I'd like to do, whereas here it's like, you set out this comp plan policy. That is fantastic. Let me show you how I meet those requirements. Thank you. Commissioner Santiago, and then we'll go to people with some. Thank you, Mayor. One of the, like I said, I had a community meeting with the North Furwood Drive neighborhood group. We had a lot of questions, a lot of concerns that were answered. It was an opportunity for them to really ask their, you know, their questions and concerns. Mr. Banta was there as well as Jordan was there to answer any concerns and questions that they had. You know, I do agree with Commissioner Vasquez about the safety, the safety of the residents with the traffic coming out of this area. And like you said, it's up to us to make the policy changes where I'm sure that, speaking with staff, that we can do something where right turn only for trucks coming out of there. And I believe there's not heavy trucks coming. It'll be small box trucks. But with that said, I think staff has made it clear that, you know, you have met all the requirements. They're consistent with the comp plan and for the vision for the area. Yeah. So that was just my only comments on this project. I think you've met those requirements and what we're looking for in that area. So thank you. I appreciate that. We're going to go to people with standing and then we will go to public comment afterwards. No one has put in a request to speak. What about public comment? None as well. I thought I saw somebody. Okay. All right. At this time, then, we'll entertain a motion and a second. Commissioner Sontario on the board. I hereby move to approve Ordinance No. 12-2024, amending the official zoning map to rezone 36.46 acres of land from R1AA to MPUD at adoption. Okay. There's a motion by Commissioner Santiago. Second. Second by Vice Mayor Harriet. At this time, we're going to go ahead and do a verbal vote. And if I can please have the city clerk. Hold on. Commissioner Colwell, did you want to? I have a question. Before we vote. Before we vote, if this does pass, can we add stipulations to it at this point? You would need to do that now as part of the motion and the applicant would need to agree to whatever stipulation or condition. Okay. I'd like to see a stipulation that at least 75% of the commercial gets built and approved, CO'd before any residential is started. Before I ask the motion, are you guys acceptable to that? No. Just on the record, that would not be a stipulation that we'd be willing to entertain. That doesn't really come from any of the policy bases in the comp plan. And I think at this point, what has been presented before you is, again, it checks all the boxes. So I appreciate, and I think I understand the reasoning for asking, but at this time, we would not be able to agree to that. Commissioner Chantere, are you willing to amend your motion? Out of courtesy, I have to ask if you're willing to amend your motion. He already said he wouldn't be, but... He would not. Correct. Do the 75%. So why would we change the motion? So you would not want to change the motion? No. Got it. Okay. Mr. Mayor, just for clarification, I believe it is the intent of the applicant to build everything in one phase, both the residential and non-residential. Right. Two different builders, but it's going to happen at the same time. Does that satisfy your... Just make sure you use your mic. They can say what they want, but we all know once they get started how things work out. So I understand the intent. Thank you. All right. Let's go to a verbal vote, please. Can I just... One real quick. One real quick, just to satisfy Commissioner Caldwell, when construction is started, everything will start at the same time. Can I change the motion to say that, Mr. Woods? I think for a slight preparation work is okay, but to kind of obligate the coordination of all of it at the exact same time, I don't know that that's a practical condition to require. I think something is absolutely going to have to come out of the ground first before the other element. They can do the ground work, and if that satisfies your condition, like the... The site work. Yeah. I think then that's fine. I don't know what your standards are for, like a, you know, multi-acre groundwork. If it's, you know, if the... If what you're asking for is do the site condition and the grading for everything upon the start of the work for the first out of the ground, I think we can deal with that. That would be fine. Thank you. I'll amend my motion. You're okay with the amendment? Can the vice mayor hear it? I agree with it. Caldwell, is that acceptable to you? All right. Let's go for a verbal vote. We've already deliberated this on. Go ahead and city clerk, and if we can start with Commissioner Lilley. Commissioner Lilley? Yes. Commissioner Vila-Vasquez? Yes. Commissioner Caldwell? No. Commissioner Howington? Yes. Commissioner Santiago? Yes. Vice Mayor Harriet? Yes. Mayor Vila? Yes. Motion passes 6-1. At this time, we're going to go ahead and move to Section 8B. If I can please have the city attorney read the ordinance. Yes, Mr. Mayor. This is Ordinance No. 24-2025, an ordinance of the City of Deltona, Florida, creating Chapter 111, Architectural and Building Design Standards, and amending Section 70-30 definitions to include regulation updates of the Land Development Code of the City of Deltona, providing for conflicts, codification, severability, and an effective date. At this time, I'll entertain a motion to begin the discussion. I'd like to make a motion to approve Ordinance No. 24-2025, creating Chapter 111, Architectural and Building Design Standards. Second. There's a motion by Vice Mayor Harriet, second by Commissioner Caldwell. Is there any, Ken, there's no questions, is there any public comment? Kathy Bryan, please. Is the light is green? There we go. There you go. Okay. Sometimes it's the little things. I would still like to have the other books that reference this, because while I can look it up on my phone, it's not nearly as easy for me to read in a situation like this. What I wanted to ask about this is, when it comes to the Section 111.401 on the site design standards, where they talk about using the low-impact design and the sidewalks, crosswalks, et cetera, and the planting, are they going to be allowed to try to mitigate these and get variances for mitigation? Because if they are, then why even put this in here? So I would like to see this without any type of mitigation for those items. Some of the plants I see listed in there can be a little bit on the invasive side. When we moved into our house, we had this elm tree, Chinese elm tree, and it's still popping up. Even though we had it taken out, I'm still having it pop up. So I really think the consideration of planting and stuff should be taken very carefully. The other thing is the building architectural styles. Is having to stick to these particular styles, is it going to in any way increase the cost of so much that it might deter commercial? And I'm all for, I mean, I design standards. It looks nice, et cetera. I just want to make sure that it's not going to overcost people. And then I know there's certain standards where you have to have a certain percentage of green space in parking lots. Can we also try to put something in about making sure that the parking lots have green space that includes, like, trees, et cetera, and not trees that start out like sticks? Because the best place to park in Florida is in the shade, not closest to the building. So I'm just saying, too many times they clear everything and then replant these things that don't do any good. So that's it. Thank you. That is public comment. Mr. Mayor, I apologize. I inadvertently read the incorrect title. If I may please correct that for the record. Go ahead, please. Thank you. This is corrected. Ordinance number 24-2025, an ordinance of the city of Deltona, Florida, creating Chapter 111, architectural and building design standards, and amending Section 70-30 definitions of the land development code of the city of Deltona to include regulation updates and guidance regarding architectural design and aesthetics for commercial and industrial development, providing for conflicts, codification, severability, and an effective date. Thank you. Jordan, did you want to think those are two valid questions? And not that other people don't have valid questions, but if we can get a quick answer to those. So, Mayor, in terms of the variance, any variance would have to meet the variance criteria for hardship. So, that would be looked at on a case-by-case basis. And I do have Alexis Crespo, our RVI consultant, who worked with staff to put this together. Is that who's online? Yes. For a second, I thought that was Nick, and I didn't know what happened. So, sorry, Commissioner Lully, you just caught me off guard. But, Mr. Mayor, I would like to introduce Alexis Crespo from RVI. If it's okay with the commission, if we can get that answered. Good. Okay. Yes. Ms. Crespo, please. Thank you. Can you hear me okay? You guys can hear me all right? Okay, perfect. Thank you. Yeah, those were very good questions, and I'm thrilled to see members of the public reading the ordinance. So, that's very nice. On the low-impact design elements, the first item raised, that is an option of one of five items that they can approach in their development. So, it's not a mandate that they have to do and then would seek a variance from. If they don't want to use that specific enhancement, they can choose another one that's more acceptable to their project or the developer, et cetera. So, and I agree with what Jordan said, that any variance in this would have to meet variance criteria, which is pretty stringent in terms of the hardship. It's also a good question on the costs. We did want to incorporate a number of different architectural styles so that there would be variety throughout the city that reflects the historical and current character of Deltona, and it's not just one-size-fits-all. So, we did want to have a broad range of architectural styles. We worked with a minimum number of standards, and some of those are just really the roofing type and different items that aren't inherently additional costs for the builder. And Jordan has shopped this with different local developers and has not had any pushback on these implications. And we have developed these types of standards for other communities throughout Florida and have found that they have not been cost-prohibited. And then lastly, on the landscaping requirements, we do have some enhanced buffering that we incorporated where people have their parking, their surface parking lot right up next to your major roadways, because we want that to be better screened as the city develops and redevelops. But we are not proposing anything different than your current standards in terms of internal trees and plantings within your parking lot. So, this will only address kind of the perimeters of projects where they want to locate their parking lots right up against the road. And so, it won't create any additional costs in that regard either. And Alexis, if I may, I believe we discussed at the Planning and Zoning Board meeting the intent of that enhanced screening, aside from the aesthetic value, is also safety in blocking headlights from parked cars into coming onto the travelway of the adjacent roadway. Yes. Great point. Thank you, Ms. Cresswell. Thank you, Mr. Good. And Commissioner Lully, before we go to public comment, did you have any – sorry, before we go to a vote, do you have any other questions? Mayor, I just wanted to point out, I heard the public comment regarding the approved plants. I don't think this requires any additional action from us, but just encouragement, I think, to staff to look at items on a case-by-case basis and to certainly use the species or approve the species that would be most suitable for the site. So, you know, for example, you wouldn't want to put a magnolia in any sort of, you know, stormwater facility, just like you wouldn't want to put something that needs a lot of water that likes wet feet, you know, on a sandhill. So, I just wanted to comment that. I hear that comment. And as far as the approved plant species list goes, I think that that's worth revisiting in the future, not now with this item, but in the future, it is a rather large list. There are some species on there that are not native and at this point are very disease-prone in Florida that would probably be useful to remove from the list. So, I think that's worth a conversation in the near future, and I appreciate the public feedback on that. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Commissioner Lully. If we can please go ahead and vote. Commissioner Lully? Yes. Motion passes 7-0. At this time, we're going to go ahead to the original public hearing. If I can please have the City Attorney read Section 8C, as in Charlie. Yes. This is... Sorry, this one's mine. An ordinance... This is Ordinance No. 27-2025. An ordinance of the City of Deltona, Florida, amending Article 7, Solicitation on Public Road Rights-Away of Chapter 22, Businesses of the General Ordinances to be titled Article 7, Solicitation on Public Road Rights-Away and Parks and to provide revised permit procedures and regulations governing solicitational activities, providing for conflicts, codification, severability, and an effective date. This is second reading. This time, I'll entertain a motion to begin public... or to begin discussion. I'd like to make a motion to approve Ordinance No. 27-2025, Solicitation on Public Road Rights-Away. There's a motion by Vice Mayor Harriet, seconded by Commissioner Caldwell. Vice Mayor Harriet, you're on the board again. Is there any public comment? Kathy Bryan, please. Kathy Bryan, Deltona. This should be quick. In this ordinance, are there any... Is there... And when they, like, sign up for the... What do you call it that I'm thinking of? Permission. Permit. To do the solicitation, is there anything in there where they can sign a waiver that leaves the city or whoever owns that public right-of-way is not responsible for injuries happening because you've got drivers out there who aren't paying attention or because they're doing something stupid and standing out in the middle of traffic, et cetera. That's all. This ordinance does require that the applicant provide a covenant not to sue the city and indemnifying, defending, and holding the city harmless from all claims, demands, liabilities, and suits of any nature arising out of, because of, or due to any actions taken by the permittee or its agents, and also requires a certificate of liability insurance. Thank you, Mr. Good. Commissioner Lally, any questions before we go to a vote? No, Mayor, thank you, and I vote yes. Thank you, Commissioner Lally. Motion passes 7 to 0. At this time, we're going to go to nine action items. 9A, if I can please have the city attorney, who's ever turned to this, to please read it, the resolution. This is resolution number 2025-59, a resolution of the city of Deltona, Florida, authorizing the city manager to award an agreement to Meadon Hunt, Inc. for design, engineering, and permitting services related to the Deltona Lakes water reclamation facility, providing for implementation and an effective date. At this time, I'll entertain a motion to begin discussion. So moved. Motion by Commissioner Villavazquez. Second. Second by Commissioner Santiago. Is there any public comment? No. Commissioner Lally, do you have any questions? No, Mayor, thank you. Can we please vote? Commissioner Lally. I vote yes. Yes. Motion passes 7 to 0. This time, we go to Section 9B, if I can please have the city attorney, Mr. Good, read the request. Yes, Mr. Mayor, this is resolution number 2025-68, a resolution of the city of Deltona, Florida, to establish a community land trust program to be managed by a community land trust organization to create program guidelines for the program to identify funds and or real property for inclusion in the community land trust, providing for implementation, severability, and an effective date. Thank you. Is there any public comment? May I like to make a motion? Go ahead, Commissioner. I have approved resolution number 2025-68, establishing a community land trust program and authorizing the city manager to identify and recommend a qualified community land trust partner to carry out the objectives outlined in the resolution. I second. There's a motion by Commissioner Villavazquez. I'll give this one to Commissioner Howington as a second. If we can, Commissioner Sontari, are you on the board? I just had a really quick question. The funding for this community land trust is not coming from the general fund, correct? Correct. It's just ship and CDBG funds. It can be, yes, but in order to be a community land trust in the state of Florida, they have to be solvent, so they have to be fiscally responsible. They have to have capital. Anything that we provide them grant funding is in addition to what they provide. Just making sure it's not the general fund. Nope, it is not the general fund. Thank you. Okay, Commissioner Lully, any questions before we go to a vote? No, Mayor, thank you. Okay, can we please vote? I vote yes. The motion passes 6-0, and as soon as the vice mayor gets back, we'll get his vote on that one as well. This time we're going to go to action items 9C. If I can please have the city attorney read the request. Yes. And point of order, the vice mayor is on his way back. Vice, he's a yes as well, so 7-0. Go ahead, Ms. Trusivia. Thank you so much, Mayor. So this next item is a resolution. I'll read the resolution title, but then I assume that we will likely have a discussion, or you all will have a discussion, and we're happy to hear to facilitate that. This is resolution number 2025-73, a resolution of the city of Deltona, Florida, authorizing participation in the pre-suit notice received June 27, 2025. From Howland Station Condo Developers, LLC, authorizing representation through city attorney's office and outside legal counsel, providing for implementation, and providing for an effective date. So as this item... Before we begin discussion, at this time I want to entertain a motion. I'd like to make a motion. Please. I move to approve resolution number 2025-73. There's a motion by Commissioner Howington. Second. Second by Commissioner Vila Vazquez. Go ahead. Let's get us a commissioner. City attorney to receive you. Thank you so much. So, you know, you all know that we received this pre-suit notice on June 27th. This is the same party that we're already in litigation with on the Howland Station Condo Developers, LLC, versus City of Deltona case. So this pre-suit notice is related to the December 2024 Live Local Ordinance, which was passed unanimously by this commission. You know, we... As we've talked about with respect to Senate Bill 180, you know, Senate Bill 180, which has now been codified, it was signed into law on June 26th, the day before we received this letter, this pre-suit notice, if we want to avoid the attorney fee provision, which is provided for in Senate Bill 180, as a body, you all would need to take action tonight. Ideally, tonight we have 14 days. Essentially, we're in this 14-day window now. It's July 7th. We received the notice of 27th, so if we start counting the next day, the 28th, we're within that window. We do still have a little bit of time. So you all could give direction for us to retract or take steps or provide your intent to retract that ordinance. And we all wanted... We wanted to bring this to you all. Obviously, we have an obligation to do that. So you could have discussion, ask questions, and talk through potential options with respect to the pre-suit notice. At minimum, we will respond, and we would like, obviously, the authority to do that. But we wanted to give you that opportunity to have this discussion so that you can consider if you want to withdraw. Again, this has really nothing to do with SB 180, correct? Because the fact... This is still the property that did not get permission for the land restriction, correct? This is not a different property? This is convoluted a little bit, so I'm trying to get clarification for the rest of us up on this dais between the earlier meeting and this one. The pre-suit notice was filed by the same party, Howland Station, Condo Developers, LLC. But this pre-suit notice is specific to Senate Bill 180. In that bill, it requires... And it's line 1050 is where it talks about this. Before a plaintiff can bring the action, they have to notify us. And then we have a period of time in which we could retract the ordinance that they find to be problematic or in their position is in violation of Senate Bill 180. So in their pre-suit notice, they assert that our ordinance number 02-2025... From December. From December of... Which was on December 23rd, 2024, is null and void and as such is in violation of Senate Bill 180 because it is a more restrictive ordinance from the original live local ordinance. So essentially, they're doing two type of lawsuits, correct? Yes. They could amend their existing lawsuit to add this count or they could bring a second suit. So effectively, what you all need to consider and we would ask you to discuss and certainly we're happy to answer questions. The December 23rd, 2024 ordinance, Ordinance 02-2025, which is the live local ordinance that was passed last year. Do you want to begin the process to retract so we can notify them that it is your intent to retract that ordinance or do you not? Is it your position that that ordinance should stand? likely because of some of your other earlier positions that you find Senate Bill 180 problematic and potentially a violation of the Florida Constitution, potentially some other legal principles. So this is sort of tied in more with that, with Senate Bill 180, than it is with their other litigation. It is related, obviously, because their original case, their other litigation, is about their position that their application to do their live local project was complete before the December 23rd, 2024 ordinance 2002-2025 was passed. So the underlying litigation is about that. This effectively says your second ordinance, your December 2024 ordinance, is in violation of Senate Bill 180 and we're going to give you the opportunity as provided by the law to retract or we can notify them that it's our intent to retract that ordinance. So basically the question is do you all want to take the steps, the beginning steps, to retract 02-2025? It is more restrictive under Senate Bill 180 and if we took this case through its conclusion, it is likely that it would be found to be more restrictive. It is a more restrictive ordinance than the original live local ordinance that was passed. So just for clarification before I go to Commissioner Santiago and then Commissioner Villavasquez, the ordinance that we passed December of 2024 was to comply further with the then live local legislation. Am I not correct? Mayor, that's a great question. You are correct. So the Florida legislature did pass the live local act which required that governments like Deltona took certain steps to comply. Some governments were already in compliance. I just wanted to make sure that that ordinance was not done in a way that there was some type of malice. We did that the right way. We did do that the right way. Now the Senate bill is having, essentially asking us if we're going to retract that ordinance. Correct. So that ordinance was passed to conform more thoroughly with the state law, the live local act. And that was the point of that second ordinance, that live local ordinance. So 100% it was done properly and it was done to comply and to comport more fully with the live local act which was a state law that had been passed previously. Commissioner Sontago and then Commissioner Avila Vasquez and then Commissioner Howington. Just to confirm the SB 180, you know how it changes our old ordinance in December. You said the SB 180 is more restrictive than the ordinance? So SB 180 gives parties that are affected the opportunity to say that we believe this land use ordinance is more restrictive or more burdensome on us than a previous land use regulation. And their position, Howland Station Condo Developers' position, is that ordinance number 02-2025 is more restrictive than the earlier live local ordinance. They are likely correct and if this case was run to its natural end, it is likely that a ruling would be that 02-2025 is more restrictive than the earlier ordinance. It is more restrictive because it was our goal to comply more fully with the state law for live local. But it is likely that it would be found to be more restrictive. I don't know if that answers your question though. It does, it does. And just to confirm, you're telling us it would be better to retract the old ordinance since SB 180 is more restrictive, basically. SB 180 gives Howland Station Condo Developers or other parties that are impacted by a land use ordinance or regulation the opportunity to come to the government, which is what they've done, and said, we intend to sue you under SB 180. It is our position that your ordinance, 02-2025, is more restrictive than the previous version of this ordinance. It is likely that a court would find that they're correct, that it is more restrictive. In order to comply with SB 180 to remove the risk of attorney's fees if we engage in this litigation and lose, you all would need to give direction to retract 02-2025 or give us direction to file a notice of intent to retract it and we could bring it to the next meeting. That way, if the litigation did move forward, which they would have the option to move it forward, they would not be able to get the attorney's fees award. So basically, the SB 180 gives us as a city an out. So if an ordinance is more restrictive, we're notified that it's more restrictive as we have been here by this pre-suit notice. If we want to take the risk of attorney's fees off the table from the litigation, we can retract the ordinance that's in question or we can say, we'll file this notice of intent to retract and then we'll timely do so. So to remove the risk of attorney's fees in litigation on this pre-suit, yes, you would need to give direction to retract or to tell us to do a notice of intent to retract. Thank you for that clarification. Thank you. Commissioner Villavasquez and Commissioner Hamilton. Thank you, Mayor. I have a few questions. So going back to the original, when they first put in their application for this development, it was under the Live Local, right? And it was mixed-use or mixed-use development. When they first brought this, my understanding, and Jordan would know, but my understanding is that Live Local had not been passed yet. So when this applicant first came to the city, Live Local was not yet state law. I think it was contemplated but not yet passed. And so their original project was not a Live Local project. Once Live Local was passed, they then informed the city that it was a Live Local project. but they had a project percolating prior. Right. So it was mixed-use. But when they turned in their when they turned in their application, it was not complete. It was not a complete mixed-use application because what they turned, the project they turned into the city was more of an apartment project. And the commercial side was going to be decided somewhere down the line. The apartment was going to be across the street and the commercial was going to be on the other side of the road. Which was at, as my understanding, was not a definition of mixed-use. And that was one of the issues, I believe, that came up. Commissioner Villavasse, I don't mean to interrupt you. Jordan, he could probably answer that question better. No offense to our city attorneys. When the application originally came to the Planning and Development Services Department, it was not specified as a Live Local project. Correct. But going further, down the line, it was presented as a mixed-use project. That's where it gets true. It wasn't, it's not a mixed-use project per staff's analysis. It wasn't, but they presented it that way. Correct. The project was presented that way by the developer. Correct. And the reason why the city did not accept it was because what they presented to the city was just departments, apartments. Apartments and an out parcel, Commissioner. Or commercial out parcel. Right. And the out parcel was across the street from the apartments. On the corner. With no future plan or anything that they could tell us was going to be developed into that as well. And then the other issue that the city addressed with this developer was that part of that land was not the restriction. In other words, there was a piece of that land they were using or they purchased from the nearby church that supposedly was not to be sold without permission from the city. That's correct. That was one of the reasons why the application was found to be incomplete is because they were not able to show that they had received the requisite permission from the city commission for use of that land. And I do, and I don't want to cut you off from where you're going, but I do just want to draw the quick distinction that much of what is being discussed right now is related to the other active case, not the pre-suit. So I do just want us all to be cautious in discussing that because if we veer too far into litigation strategy, we may be predisposing. Yes, I'm just trying to figure out why, in the beginning of this project, why it was not moving forward with the city, the reasons why it was not moving forward versus now the SB-180. It had nothing to do with, one had nothing to do with the other. If I can just... So, I mean, I was just trying to bring that, those points out that it was because of that. Just for the clarification of the bias, before I go to Commissioner Harrington, the point was that, so we're not arguing what our possible strategy could be in the future. it's just that because of the timing of when SB preempts everything back to August of 2024, and even though we did follow the law on the new live local because we'd made it a little bit more restrictive with definitions, after the August 2024, we now have to remove that ordinance to comply with Senate Bill 180. That is correct, Mayor. Because SB-180 has retroactive effect until August 1st, 2024, it allows this developer or any resident or business to challenge an ordinance enacted by the city that they believe is more restrictive than what was previously in place. So if we would have passed that July 30th, this would not be the conversation? Correct. Okay, I just wanted to get the clarification. Thank you. Commissioner Howington, Commissioner Colwell. Thank you. Just for clarification, when we did the December 23rd vote, wasn't there a study that had just come back that allowed us to enact that legislation at that time and take that action? That was for the exemption for the local. Okay, so we couldn't have done it earlier. We could not have done and taken that action in July, correct? It was two separate issues at that time. Okay, so that was something that passed unanimously, correct? All seven of us were in agreement that we thought that that was a good ordinance. Yes, that's correct. And one of the key features was we required the commercial to be vertical rather than horizontal, correct? Correct. So in this project, they want to build two apartment complexes in front of the center with a commercial piece of land on Howland across from the fire station, correct? That is correct. Now, did we ever ask them if they would offer a commercial bond, a bond to ensure that they build the commercial portion of the development? I believe there were discussions regarding phasing of the property, and I don't want to cut you off from where you're going, but I do again want to caution regarding the two separate cases and not going too far down a path that may expose any sort of litigation strategy. Well, I'm just trying to decide, did they agree to the bond? They did not. No, they did not. So we jumped through hoops to follow state law, and now with 180 being preemptive, we now have the threat of being sued. So in good faith, we attempted to follow state law, and it's almost as if this developer was waiting for that pin to hit the paper, because we got this pre-suit notification within what, 12 hours? We did receive the pre-suit notification the very next day after the bill was signed. we got the notice Friday, June 27th at 1.22 p.m. via email from the attorneys for Howland Station Condo Developers LLC. And we were already being sued, so we are already incurring costs for this development related to the first suit. Yes, Commissioner. So if we throw this one out, we're likely to continue to have to incur legal costs over this particular property. if we threw the ordinance out that we passed in December? That is a more complicated question. If you all give direction to repeal ordinance 02-2025, the ordinance in question, the December Live Local Act ordinance, it would not end the first case, the current active case. It would certainly open the door for resolution of that case, because what they've wanted all along is the first original Live Local ordinance, not the December 2024 Live Local ordinance. So if the December 2024 Live Local ordinance is repealed, under this bill, we would be complying. So they've notified us. If we do withdraw or revoke it within the 14 days, they could not file suit for this. if we don't withdraw or revoke it, the Senate bill 180 does say that they shall be entitled to entry of a preliminary injunction to prevent us from implementing the challenged action during pendency of the litigation, which would be complicated in a litigation posture, in large part because of the other case. I mean, candidly, these two matters would be very complicated and challenging to sort of navigate. if you all give direction to withdraw or to revoke Ordinance 02-2025, it would stop this pre-suit from turning into a suit and it likely would result in an easier resolution of the existing case. So we likely could end that case sooner rather than later for much less cost than running all the way through. Thank you. Just one last question, and you may or may not be able to answer this, but in the other suit, are we being sued for legal fees if they win? They are seeking fees and costs in the other suit. It's a declaratory judgment that they're looking for, but they are seeking fees and costs. Yes. So likely we are going to incur costs as we are today because we're obviously paying for our own legal fees with this particular piece of property in general. We are paying for our own legal fees. That's true. And that is coming from the general fund, is my understanding. So yes, we are incurring fees. You know, we do feel confident that we're going to say that we feel like we have a very strong position. We've talked about this before, you know, at these meetings when this first came up and when they came for their appeal. We feel like we have a very strong position in the Howland Station case, in the active case that's currently pending in the 7th. And I continue to think we will prevail. Senate Bill 180 does provide, I mean, it's complicating this matter. It does attempt to undo an ordinance that you did all unanimously pass. However, to avoid this pre-suit turning into suit, that would be the remedy that's provided in Senate Bill 180, which is to withdraw or revoke the underlying ordinance that they're finding problematic and that they find is a violation of Senate Bill 180. That's their position. All right. Commissioner Lully, then Commissioner Caldwell. I see he has his hand up. Thank you, Mayor. I don't want to expose litigation strategy, so I'll keep it simple. I do not, I'm not in favor of revoking any ordinance in the city of California at this time. I don't believe any of our ordinances violate Senate Bill 180. I'll save the rest of that conversation for executive session as to not expose potential litigation strategy. I would not support rescinding any ordinance that this commission has passed at this time. Thank you. Commissioner Caldwell, and then I'll have a statement, and then we can go to public comment. My question has already been asked, Ms. Howlington asked them, but to sum it up, they're going to sue us no matter what. By repealing this, the only thing we'll gain is the cost of their attorney fees. Is that my understanding of it? I'm going to answer that in two parts. One, they're already suing us for something else. This pre-suit, we could stop this pre-suit if we give, I mean, if we, if you all give direction to withdraw or revoke our ordinance. Then they, then they would not be able to bring this action under Senate Bill 180. So, there is a way to stop it. So, if you, if you say, yes, I want to withdraw 02-2025, the live local ordinance from December 2024, then it would stop this litigation. It would not conclusively end the existing running litigation, but it likely would lead to a smoother, faster, cheaper exit. Mr. Savio or Mr. Good? Revoking the ordinance from December, that would keep us in compliance, correct? With Senate Bill 180, as far as, so we can kill this lawsuit right away. To kill this lawsuit, this one, not the other one. The pre-suit, yes. Okay. You should, you should move to withdraw or revoke ordinance 02-2025. Okay. That's one, one, one part of it. I think the most important part without giving strategy is, I don't think they have a good argument for the first lawsuit, period. I mean, I understand if you don't want to say anything. I get that. But just because we removed this live local ordinance doesn't mean that we're automatically going to lose the first case. My fear is if we don't remove this specific ordinance because of SB 180, then they're going to be looked at more favorable for the first lawsuit. That's what I don't want us to be running into. Because obviously everybody on this dais, without playing any games, everybody on this dais voted for that live, the updated live local to be compliant with state law. Yes, you did. If you, you did, you did all vote to be more compliant with state law 02225. If you withdraw it, it will kill this threatened lawsuit, this pre-suit that we've received on June 27th. The original lawsuit, the current active lawsuit, it won't kill it, but again, it would lead to an easier resolution because that whole lawsuit, the goal of that lawsuit is to knock out the December 2024 ordinance. That's their whole goal is to say this doesn't apply to us. because our position is that our application was complete and so the original ordinance, which is less restrictive, should apply. That's what they want. So this is effectively another way for them to get what they want in the underlying case, which is to not have to comply with the December live local ordinance. By withdrawing or revoking the December live local ordinance, you would kill this pre-suit notice. It would end this. They wouldn't be able to move forward under Senate Bill 180, and it likely would resolve the current lawsuit in a favorable or faster and certainly more cost-effective way because effectively they would be getting what they wanted in that original lawsuit, which is to travel under the original live local ordinance. To sort of, I think, answer what I think you're asking is, is their application still incomplete because of the issue with the church parcel? Yes, it is, but it would then come before you under the original ordinance, which is the ordinance they want. Is their application still incomplete? Yes. Did they ever get permission to use the church parcel? No. And by that time, they are not vested because they didn't get the appropriate permission, so we don't have to approve it. You do not have to approve it. Okay. I got the answer. I need it. No need to beat around the bush. Commissioner Vila Vesquez, and then we'll go to public comment. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. So, if we choose to move forward, that means we're not, we're not, we're going to, how do I say this? If we choose to move forward, we tell you to move forward, that means that we're just going to challenge the lawsuit. Correct. If you just approve the current resolution that we have before you and you don't give direction to withdraw or revoke O22025, the live local from December, then it would just give us authority to move forward and address the pre-suit, which would turn into a suit. I mean, presumably, they wouldn't have filed it, I think, if they didn't intend to sue us. So, yes, if you just approve the resolution, we would move forward. We would fight the litigation that is coming, clearly. But if you want to kill this, you should withdraw O22025. That would be the move. I want to, before you guys vote, because I will say this, and we sort of talked, we talked a little bit about this. The next item on the agenda is about Senate Bill 180 and whether you all want to, what you want to do with that. So, actually, what we could do, what I would recommend that we do is just sort of, let's just flow into that discussion. You can hold this vote. Let's talk about it. Because you could, they don't have to be connected. You could repeal and revoke O22025 and still move forward in exploring actions against Senate Bill 180. But if you are going to move forward against Senate Bill 180, you may want to elect to not repeal this ordinance. Because if it's the commission's position that Senate Bill 180 is, you know, in violation of the Constitution, in violation of state statute, in violation of common law or case law, then you likely would want to have a similar approach to this lawsuit, which is, this is an ordinance that was passed before Senate Bill 180. It's, it, it, this only comes before you because Senate Bill 180 is retroactive. And one of the legal arguments potentially to Senate Bill 180 is that the retroactivity is cumbersome, unfair, burdensome, overly burdensome, and potentially creates conflict between two state laws, two general laws. That's a potential legal theory to explore since this ordinance was passed to comply with state law. And now because of a new state law, it's invalidating our ordinance, which was enacted to comply with the state law. So if you all, as a body, want to move forward in the investigation against Senate Bill 180, you may want to keep this ordinance in play because it would sort of follow that legal theory. So with that said, I'll give you a little more of an update on the next item, which is at the last meeting you guys gave direction. Mr. Sivio, can we just keep it separate? I don't want to, because that way, I want to make sure that the residents have the possibility to comment on both items. We can. Yes, for sure. Public comment. I'm not finished, if I may. Just to clarify my question again, if we move forward with this, it means that we're going to keep the ordinance in place. If we approve resolution number 2025-73, we are going to move forward with this lawsuit. So, yes, if you move to approve as is, you can also move to approve with direction to file an intent to repeal Ordinance 02-2025. So, either way, you can allow for the city attorney's office to move forward and participate. It will just be directing us to either move forward and fight or move forward and repeal. Thank you. For clarification, I know you said no public comment. Commissioner Howington, what is your move forward? Is it to fight or is it to repeal? Is that the clarification you need? I move to approve the resolution as written, not to retract. Okay. Who seconded? Second. No, no, no. There was already a second on the motion. I just want to make sure that the person that seconded it was okay. Commissioner Howington initially had approved it, and then there was a second. City click. It was committee. It was your commissioner. Are you okay with your second? Because she, I'm keeping track of it. Are you okay with? Yes. Can we please, can we please vote? And then once everybody's. Yes. So, real quick. If you vote yes, you're keeping the ordinance in place. If you vote no, then you would like a different direction. We're, okay. Yes, to keep the December ordinance. In place. O2-2025 in place. Yes, that's correct. Okay. Motion passes five to two. All right. This time we're going to go into section 9D. If I can please have the city attorney read that ordinance. Thank you so much. This is resolution number 2025-74. And again, this is a resolution. It can be amended on the floor and there, we will need to have a discussion, but it is as a resolution so it can be acted on tonight. A resolution of the city of Deltona, Florida, authorizing participation in the city commission approved options on direction regarding concerning Senate bill 180 and related matters, authorizing representation through city attorney's office, providing for implementation and providing for an effective date. Okay. So we. At this time I want to entertain a motion before we begin discussion. I'll make a motion. Go ahead. I move to approve resolution 2025-74. There's a motion by Commissioner Ewing. Seconded by Commissioner Lully. Please proceed. Okay. Thank you so much. So at the last meeting you all gave us direction to explore options with respect to Senate bill 180. We have done so. So over the last week we have reached out to some other governments that we have heard either through relationships that we have or the media have that they find Senate bill 180 to be problematic and that they might want to bring a legal challenge against the state. I will tell you this. Deltona is very much I would say ahead of the curve with respect to Senate bill 180 and to the challenge in that a lot of the other governments that we spoke to we spoke to their attorney's offices and they all felt that there may be an interest in moving forward but they had not had a meeting yet. So you all had the first meeting and at least the ones that we spoke to we were the first to receive a pre-suit notice. So no one else has received I mean of the governments we spoke to no one else has received the pre-suit notice yet from someone who they felt is being impacted by an ordinance under Senate bill 180. So this body is ahead of the curve. It does seem that there are other governments that likely based on their comments based on these discussions based on the media and the news that likely will want to join a group. And so here's sort of I'll just the the cleanest thing that I'll tell you and the sort of summation is that what we would recommend if you all want to move forward to challenge Senate bill 180. We would recommend that you give us direction to continue to explore this with the intent of moving forward in a coalition of other governments with the understanding that it will come back to you again for a vote before any other formal action is taken. So for example before we become a plaintiff or before we commit to an engagement agreement with the firm who's going to lead this litigation. We we had a good conversation with a firm that had success in the form six litigation a few years back. Their lead attorney is Jamie Cole. It's a firm called Weissrota. We're very familiar with them. They're based in Broward and they have had success in form six. They also had success in the past in a firearm preemption and the Senate bill 360 growth management bill. So they as a group have done this type of work in the past with with some success and they're working on putting together a group of governments who want to take this action to challenge the Senate bill 180. They are working on developing legal theories to do this. Again it's very early days. I do think we're probably one of the first impacted cities in that I'm sure others have received pursuit notice but I have not found any of them yet and we got ours the very next day. So if Jamie Cole is able to establish a good faith legal basis for the challenge of law then there likely will be an action that's brought under and he would be the lead attorney and then the other governments would come together to bring this action. And again there do appear to be other governments that likely once they have their meetings and some of their meetings are this week some are in two weeks some are in three weeks some are at the end of the month. But everyone is having a July meeting that we spoke to. They likely will come to a decision and some may go on their own but we would recommend that we work with Jamie Cole if this is a direction you all want to pursue. So if you want to move forward with this because it is still I would say early days in that everyone else all the other governments who are contemplating this have not yet had their public meetings or voted and also they're still working on their legal theories I would the direction that you all that we would recommend you give is that you direct us to continue to move forward with this process and indicate that you know we would like to be a part of this coalition with the with the understanding that before anything formal happens before we sign on before we're a plaintiff before we sign any agreements it would come back to this body for a vote because at that point you know you may not want to do that you may change your mind you may say the cost is too high you may feel differently about this and have a different position but because we are I believe the first to meet on this topic this month we would urge you to just if this is a road you want to go down to let this run if this is not a road you want to go down you can say please stop and I will say this it does appear that other governments at least one or two or three or four are going to challenge Senate Bill 180 and so we don't have to be a part of the group someone will take this case likely and move it forward and we would benefit from the outcome of that the same way we benefited from form 6 even though you know we were not part of form 6 so I will say that I mean there there is certainly that is a that is a good option you don't have to be the first to storm the gates you don't have to storm the gates you could let other people storm the gates and then see what happens and see how it plays out and you know if it is favorable towards us then great we get that benefit of that thank Commissioner Howington I'll go ahead and amend my motion I move to approve resolution 2025-74 to continue forward with the research and move forward with a coalition that will come back before us for a final decision upon the outcome of the research and the coalition's determination Commissioner Lully are you okay with that amendment yes mayor I second the end of the motion and I'd like to make one additional comment but not part of the motion just a comment please I think it's important for us as Deltona we need to be the leaders other than the followers here we've been the followers for far too long it's time for us to take action and take our community back thank you Commissioner Santiago and since nobody else is on the board we'll go to public comment yes thank you mayor Senate bill 180 is the law whether we like it or not it's the law Governor DeSantis signed it into law I don't want to waste any more tax dollar on this it's a waste of money to go against the state of Florida it's like a suicide mission and I will not be part of this you know we talk about taking action being the first being leaders home rule this is a chartered city and we're subject to state laws we're not independent from the state of Florida it's sad day in Deltona you'll see it you're going to see a lot more pre-sues and I just feel it's a sad day for Deltona that's all I have to say thank you I'll come back to you after public comment that's okay Kathy Brian please and Commissioner Lully I see you have your hand up so after Commissioner Vila Vasquez I'll call you Kathy Brian Deltona are you guys ready okay something my mother used to tell me if you know your friends jump off the Empire State Building you that mean you're going to do it too if the governor yep he signed that bill into law it's not a good bill and I think Deltona with all the issues we have with the flooding and people other people's property rights developers aren't the only ones with property rights etc I think that we should stand up to it sometimes you just have to stand up and fight is it going to cost money yep but is it going to cost us more money than allowing specific building etc in this city or this county that's going to cost homeowners more money more insurance because they flood or they have other issues so think about that and any citizens listening write your governor tell them how you feel because Florida Florida is not a homogenous state one rule and one way shouldn't apply to every single area of Florida there's different ecosystems there's different ways of life there's different communities and the state can't answer to all of that so while I realize it's law sometimes you got to fight when it's a bad one thank you Rob Trumbetta please I don't I will Rob Trumbetta I wasn't going to say anything I didn't think until Commissioner mentioned what she said and I think the biggest shame is that if we don't do this that we might as well we might as well just figure that we live in some kind of fiefdom where we have no rights at all this isn't any people are making out this is like a big deal but cities and counties challenge state law constitutionality all the time a city in Texas decides to challenge their stricter abortion rights by making a less strict abortion rights and it goes to court and the court decides who wins state court same thing happened same thing happened in uh in Missouri this happens we have rights we are just we aren't just puppets my god the sad thing the sad thing is is that somebody we want to just roll over let's say we invest 250,000 dollars in it that's like point zero zero two five of our budget to me it's worth worth it to show we have some pride in ourselves that we're not just rolling over because some dictator in Tallahassee and a group of dictators in Tallahassee are connected with developers and want everybody to roll over it it's disgusting I would I would go down the path get a get get a group of people together get a group of cities together and let let the chips fall where they may and if we lose at least we lose with our heads held up high not like little weebles walking around saying thank you master we wait you waste yeah you talk about wasting money I don't think this is a waste of money not at all let me make one recommendation my goodness commissioner could you be any more transparent in what I'm just dumbfounded and I hear that we're taking we're taking actions people are looking at taking actions against certain commissioners for bringing up going against 180 that's disgusting it's their right it's their right to challenge authority in in Tallahassee that's what we got a Florida Supreme Court for it's they will make the final decision but cities and counties have a right to challenge Tallahassee they have a right Tallahassee has a right to say our we rule over you our rule stands that's up that's fine that's the way the system works but we have a right to say we don't want it to be that way and we're going to put up our money and put up our name and say this has to stop thank you Allison root please good evening mayor commission and staff thank you for allowing me this opportunity I have lived in Deltona personally for almost a quarter of a century as a working committed person I have children in Deltona in schools I have a son who's going to Stetson to come back to Deltona and teach at Deltona High School so anyone who first of all wants to say I'm not vested in this community untrue so let's lay that out there secondly I pay taxes in this community and have been for a quarter of a century which is longer than some of you on this dais I'm just putting it out there we sit here and say we don't have money for stormwater maintenance we don't have money to fix the flooding we don't have the money to fix the road we're waiting on a grant from the federal government we're waiting on a grant from the state government we're gonna see if we can get a grant from 386 whatever it is with the county but yet if anyone in this community thinks you're going to fight the state of Florida when it was an almost with the exception of one boat in the house it was a unanimous vote to pass SB 180 if you think you're getting out of a lawsuit at $250,000 that's a pipe dream that's a pipe dream so now look forward to what even if it's 250 what could you do with it how many roads could you fix in your district how many houses could you elevate how many people could you save their homes while you're fighting a year-long battle trying to create a coalition and be a leader inviting the state how about we be a leader in solutions in our community and be the leader here in Volusia County to actually fix the flooding to actually fix the stormwater problems to actually fix the things that are affecting us severely every day why don't we take that leadership role I work for a community based organization that is more than willing to sit down with each of you individually collectively to help come up with these solutions we've done it in other areas of the county would be glad to do that call me email me set up we'll get that going but instead of taking this fight oh let's be the champions let's be the champions of solutions in our own community first we do not have the median household income that other counties throughout the state has we do not have the median household income for our taxes to go up because we fought a legal battle we didn't have the money to fight we're finally getting the city into a place where we have a general fund and now we're going to just start draining it for lawsuits that we know we're going to lose with the one that was on the agenda item before this and for a lawsuit that we want to take to the state why why are we wasting our money when we're finally the budget analysis that came up just a few months ago we're finally getting some money in the coffers we're finally doing a great job we're finally seeing the city of deltona take leadership and having funds to dwindle it away why are we doing that use the money where it's needed in this community not tallahassee let some rich county go take care of that i want to see my money stay in my community which is where i put all my money too thank you that ends for the comment believe i said commissioner avila vasquez first right i'm then commissioner lully thank you mayor so i think i'm going to repeat my comments from the last meeting i personally i'm not talking on behalf of the other commissioners up here but i personally am not against development that's not what i'm looking for what i am looking for is to help those families that are still struggling to get out of the issues and the problems that was caused by the two or three previous hurricanes and if we continue to build on top or next to these families the issue it's not the issue is not going to be resolved the issue is only going to be resolved if we halt that's what we're asking for we're asking for let's hold it for a little while until we fix the problems that we are encountering and bless those of us who have not been victims to these issues of flooding or what the damages that these hurricanes have caused it's easy for me to sit up here and say it's not a problem i wasn't affected thank god by this flooding issue but i have family and i have friends that have and i know people that had to move out of their homes so we're not saying i'm not saying we do not want any more developments here what we're saying is let's halt it let's wait a little bit until all these issues are resolved by the city until the city can handle one section at a time and control it go back to the developments that were already approved that were already developed and are still issues because of those developments still issues being addressed by those developments that were missed that developers promised to fix and have not fixed that's what we're asking for let us fix our problems and let us those who are sitting up here who were elected by those who are sitting out there but those who are home watching this and those who are probably don't have the chance to watch it let us serve them because that's what they elected us for everybody knows their own home i've been living in deltona for 26 years i know the city of deltona i drove through the flooding areas of deltona i drove through district one which was the most devastated area in the city of deltona homes are still flooded i drove through district six of deltona i'm still driving through doyle i drive to the school on doyle that is still getting flooded even though they build it a new school and raise it it's still getting flooded that's what i've seen in my city and those of us are up here we're elected to help the community speak for them and that's what we're doing we're speaking for them and asking all of you out there to help us help them and all we're asking is to give us time to fix the issues that we have we're not saying we don't want any more developments we're not throwing our developers out of the city of deltona we welcome them that's why it's called deltona on the move and we've always had an open-door policy for developers but let's start doing it as a former commissioner used to say that's that up here let's do it wisely that's all i have to say thank you commissioner lully then we'll go to vice mayor harriet thank you mayor and commissioner real vasquez thank you for your um your empathy um it's you know it's been a rough few years on my street in my district um and we have had some just tremendous flooding and other issues as a result of the storm so i really appreciate you um putting us at the forefront of your mind um i just wanted to address a few points and apologies for not being there in the room uh to really address it better um you know when we look back at history there were a couple dozen governors i think uh back in in the before 1973 who had banned a certain thing in their state in 1973 the supreme court said that that wasn't legal and overturned in years that something uh you know became uh legal to a certain extent with certain restrictions in place that were allowed and that were up to each you know state's um discretion but but there was no ability to outright ban that particular something which you know i'm talking about so so i i think there is certainly history that exists to say that um things that a governor might put into place um might be determined by by a court to not be valid uh in all the particular circumstances um that that we have you know that have to be adjudicated under that particular law um i don't want to go too much into the litigation strategy um as i said in a different item tonight i'm not necessarily even of the mind that senate 180 applies to um some of the other things that we put in place um and i'm not even sure that i don't know what the governor thinks i don't i don't know the people who passed us what exactly their intent was because when you look at the legislative analysis behind senate bill 180 it's focused on hurricanes i'm not aware of one instance where we've restricted development of a hurricane affected um area and then subsequently restrict it you know for example let's say courtland park has has some flooding the homes god forbid get flooded in courtland park uh there is certainly no intent on my part to restrict even though i wouldn't necessarily have voted for that development when it was rezoned and incorporated into our comp plan i have no um uh intent whatsoever to restrict them from rebuilding their houses on their hurricane ravaged lots so again i i think that's still one of the open-ended questions um and then finally if i could just ask the city attorneys a question um have we received any uh notice from the state either the attorney general the governor executive officer the governor or anyone like that that we have committed the city of deltona has committed anything unlawful in regards to senate bill 180 no thank you um the reason why i asked it is because i think the same night we passed a moratorium a city commissioner council in monroe county i believe key west don't quote me on the city but i'm it was monroe county um they they had done something regarding immigration and i think within 48 hours they got a notice from the attorney general of the state of florida saying you've committed something awful um so again i don't i don't know i don't speak for the governor i'm not sure exactly what their intent was if they believe anything that we've done is is is illegal um and that's why it would be supported that's why i seconded the motion by commissioner howlington that i want to explore this further uh because i'm not going to take the developer's word certainly that we've done something i mean that would be of course what do you you know what what is the developer to say of course they're going to want to use any argument under the books as they're right um to try to get the development approved but i'm not going to take their word for it that's something that we've done uh is improper um and it's my position that i did not vote for anything that was illegal or improper so i'll leave it there i appreciate the opportunity to weigh on this thank you mayor vice mayor harriet thank you mayor i wasn't going to say anything tonight we've belabored this this topic over the last few weeks uh beyond reason beyond reasonability but i want to make it clear that as the commissioner for district one the district that in all reality probably did receive some of the worst flooding from hurricane ian and nicole and and hurricane milton in 24 the difference between the flooding that was received that we received in ian and nicole and the flooding that we received in milton was leadership almost 200 homes flooded in ian and nicole less than 20 in milton the difference was leadership we have a stormwater department that is working on addressing those continued problem areas the problem developments are being addressed by the developers that didn't follow the policy that didn't follow their plans and i want to make it very clear tonight that i'm choosing to put deltona first by keeping our tax dollars in our community by not fighting a fight that will be fought without us we don't need to lead the charge in the state we need to lead the charge in our own neighborhoods and that's all i've got mayor before we go ahead and take a vote i just wanted to make one comment so before senate bill 180 was signed into law i started reaching out to other mayors around the state and we've kind of put somewhat of a coalition together to address not only senate bill 180 and do work on some amendments on that but also other issues that are coming up before the state property tax reform um essentially trying to take back home rule and that was before sb 180 got passed and that that's the way in my opinion that you fight that with the state you you you fight from the beginning not at the tail end of things when it's easier to you know stand tall and say that you're super brave to fight for something when half of the people that have been affected don't really understand how certain policies are put in place nobody is bending a knee to a governor or anyone else that bill senate bill 180 was passed democrats and republicans so this is not about dictatorship but if we want to fight for home rule it's just not one item it's an it's a lot of things and i personally have told our state reps our state senators that we're being reduced to ribbon cutters essentially i've even said that from this dais but there are better ways to fight this than to start putting us through this whole legal process so anyways if we can please go for a vote and then we'll get commissioner lully after we all start voting uh his vote commissioner lully yes motion passes four to three this time is there any city attorney comments no thank you so much city manager comments uh mayor just two really quick in august staff will be doing presentation about the 4b project uh which includes the stall project and the repair or the replacement of the lakeshore boat ramps so we've got some options we're going to be bringing to the commission and also city hall has been asked by residents why the lakes are getting lower mother nature has been lowering lakes we've gotten calls from citizens asking us to close the gate to stop the water from leaving the city the water is well below the gate the gate is locked and closed already at this point but it's about a foot foot and a half lower than the gate level itself so anything that's leaving now is evaporation and absorption as we go through a bit of a drought so just as an announcement to everybody lakes are going low or not because of city's actions just want to correct that thank you mayor so for the boat ramp that's august not july i believe august right now just to make sure we're working with different companies to come and finalize that project no problem all right we're going to go to city commission comments and requests and i'll go down the roll we'll start with commissioner lully thank you mayor i'll keep it brief since i'm here remote i want to thank the staff for setting up my remote participation opportunities we had three different meetings so between um all the different things i really appreciate that uh just want to make a point of clarification in district six not district one so i don't know what other districts we had about a 10 inch difference in rain between milton ian was about 24 milton was was 14 in district six at 415 in fort smith so that i think was that was made a little bit of difference in uh my community so appreciate again everyone's time and i'll see you guys next meeting commissioner caldwell commissioner howington i wanted to get some clarification i believe one of the commissioners had mentioned that she had a budget binder was that for 25 26 or was that for 24 25 because we haven't seen one for this upcoming budget season correct who has a budget binder i'm not sure no no i believe commissioner santiago had mentioned it in the meeting two weeks ago no she you have a budget binder we have not completed any budgets for anybody to look at yet okay thank you and then uh i think after this past week it became obvious that we have an issue with our fireworks ordinance and i would like to have a consensus for us to potentially bring that back to look at it to make it legal for new year's and fourth of july because we have an issue with the sheriff's department being able to police that ordinance so everybody mind taking a consensus to bring that back to possibly take action on it can we get uh legal's opinion on that real quick so um we recently addressed noise which is a part of how you address address fireworks the city does have a standalone fireworks provision which is related mostly to the sale of fireworks we can certainly take a look and see if it and work with general counsel for vcso to see if there are what issues um maybe uh coming up in the field that that we can help address you want to add to commissioner are you okay with her adding some yes so i believe that we have an ordinance that says uh the use of fireworks and the sheriff's department does um enforce it we do not sell here in deltona we do not sell firearms uh fireworks um but i do believe we have an ordinance that says and and and it's the sheriff's department publishes is on facebook all the time about yeah they did you know our code of of fireworks in the city of deltona and honestly i don't know how it's going to get controlled because even last night my neighbors behind me were blowing up i mean real real bad fireworks so you know yeah and that's why i brought this up because essentially what we'd be doing is making more of our residents legal rather than penalizing them so i just wanted to bring it up so that we can review it thank you can you do if the commission's okay with it just a simple aye aye against aye okay and then um i had another one that i wanted to bring up when we were talking about the quasi earlier it was brought up that it's our job to ensure the safety of our residents and as we move forward with these extra almost 5 000 housing units that are coming into our community i would like for us to have a consensus vote on whether or not we think it would be important to add disclaimers to new residential developments and when i'm talking about disclaimers meaning that when we have a subdivision that's going up on a property that's free previously flooded or whatnot that there is a disclaimer they do this in several states as well as i believe other communities here in florida i i think specifically we need to mention when a subdivision is built on substandard roads areas with inadequate fire service prone to historical flooding or the property may be subject to smoke from routine controlled burns as we have subdivisions that are trying to move in next to d ranch which does do regular controlled burns so i would like to see some sort of disclaimer when people are buying those houses so that they're not in here complaining a year or two after buying the house that their roads are failing or that they don't have the proper fire service that they should expect if we had the proper infrastructure in place to sustain the growth that we have in our community so um on a case-by-case basis this may be appropriate for instance the you mentioned the the properties adjacent to d ranch that could be appropriate as a condition of approval um that could be proffered by the the commission or or the drc whatever whichever is the reviewing agency for the those different approvals um i would caution against some of those disclaimers which may put the city at a legal risk um regarding sufficiency of service um especially services that the city provides um but i i i think it may be appropriate on a case-by-case basis i agree that it would be case-by-case but i think we all were just present for the study that showed that our services are not sufficient to meet our current residential base so i mean we've already accepted that legal issue as far as we know that we have substandard service and we're going to add another 5 000 homes so if if that's going to be the way we're going to go we have to face the fact we can't serve our current residents let alone the new ones so when the new ones come in they need to be aware of what they're buying into i don't know if anybody else agrees but if it is our job to ensure the safety of our residents and we can't do that it is the city's position that we fully comply with all required statute statutes laws and ordinances and that we provide sufficient services you all can do what you like but we provide appropriate sufficient services um you certainly can increase services you could add more um you know there's you can do it with our existing i don't want to speak for the budget but you can do it under our existing budget you could add assessments you could raise the millage you can add more and certainly people like more and better services so that's certainly an option available but i mean we are legally sufficient as a government so would people like to have disclaimers to let people know if you're buying on a d or an f road and you're adding another 500 homes can we do a verbal vote please real quick i think it's important that to clarify something here there's not 5 000 homes already approved they are in the application process they're in the application process but this commission still has to approve all of the rezonings so they're not all already approved and i think that this is something that has been kind of contentious not the topic in general but specific services where the city provides a standard level of service but i think some of us up here i think you and i to both want to see a higher level of service um but i think it's important to consider this on a case-by-case basis because a lot of things that are unique to each individual development well of course so i i don't know how we can approve a blanket disclaimer unless we want to maybe look at putting something in policy that says that we will consider a a disclaimer when a development comes to us but how are we going to enact a disclaimer on all the unique pieces that are pertinent to each individual development at one time so that's why i'd like to move forward and allow them to start working on that okay to come back with a recommendation because you're right it would be one off based on a specific location and what this specific instance is like i said with d ranch there will be controlled burns and whomever buys there needs to be aware if you have asthma it might be a consideration so the the request if i'm understanding correctly is to is for staff to come back with options for us to include some type of disclaimer during the rezone or development approval process yes and it would need to be included at the site in the do yeah or the development agreement yeah the development agreement would need to list that as a commissioner vasquez has a question yes i have a question so i'm a little confused on this one here you're asking this disclaimer to come from the city why would the city be responsible for that shouldn't be coming from the developer itself because it's the developer who's selling the homes yeah it would be required of the developer as part of the development agreement isn't it already a law that tells you is there a ghost is the house haunted or i mean yes there there are some i think you're referring to certain real estate disclosures that have to be provided under law um i think there's a if i'm understanding the the motion correctly i think that what the direction would be would be to have staff evaluate during all application processes whether a disclaimer is appropriate and to include that in their staff recommendations you're really good at this thank you correct based on what the needs are of that particular location so you're asking the city to require that of the developer yes as part of the process through the application process all right can we please do a verbal vote you always put me first on the spot yes commissioner colwell yes commissioner howington yes commissioner lilly yes commissioner santiago yes first mayor harriet yes mayor vila i'm gonna say no because i have a feeling i was just gonna put us in some very no and that's all i have thank you commissioner vila vasquez thank you mayor um very quickly my deepest condolences to the williams family um if you not heard mike williams um wife passed away i think uh the services on saturday at new hope i unfortunately i'm sorry two o'clock thank you um everybody of course knows who mike williams is and uh of course i sent him you know my personal condolences and i want to give a big huge shout out to volusia county schools who were graded a they were given an a grade this time so go volusia volusia county schools thank you and everyone thank you for being out here and for um staying out with us till nine o'clock at night thank you commissioner santiago thank you mayor um yes just a few things i have um to say one is just to make a clarification because this has come up consistently i've heard it a couple of times about me having a budget book or knowing uh about budgets um i do want to say that i've worked for the city of deltona proudly for 24 years um last 10 was with the fire department and during my time at the city i was working with the purchasing department i did all the purchases i did the budget um and i was i'm very proud of that so um if i come across of knowing a little bit about the budget for the city of deltona it's not because dot gave me the information it is because i have knowledge of how the processes work for the city um the only the other thing i wanted to mention is um i do have to say that we did have a dear friend one of our um employees pass away her name is janet day and i just wanted to say that um i sincerely send our condolences to her sister and her family and lastly is um we had the information about our back to school fair that's coming up august 2nd it is a way for the community to come together um it's from 9 to 1 p.m at the dewey buster sports complex we'll be giving away backpacks supplies we'll be doing some free um haircuts we'll have authors we'll have books it's a great family event again august 2nd 9 a.m dewey buster thank you mayor vice mayor davison harriet thank you mayor uh just real quick want to thank everybody uh all all the staff that was involved in the 4th of july celebration um it was while i wasn't at the uh city celebration at dewey buster i heard phenomenal things from all of my neighbors and then also thank all of my neighbors and all the residents of the city because it was um it was a great day to be american it was very evident the pride that this community has in our country and our independence and all of the the things that that stands for all the freedoms that were afforded for that um it was phenomenal we spent the time with our immediate neighbors in the cul-de-sac and uh got to watch all the different firework shows from behind us and across the lake it was absolutely wonderful so it was a uh it was a great day to be a delconan so thank you um 4th of july i heard nothing but positive stuff uh it was great i think that was one of our better participated events it was it was phenomenal i like the way we're setting up the tents a little bit better than than having it on the road at least that's that's what i heard from a lot of the vendors uh lastly i mentioned that i'm working with some mayors around the state of florida on on trying to take uh some of our home rule back if you're interested in knowing what some of that information is send me an email i'll be more than happy to send it over to you including you know the the property tax conversation including sb 180 there's a couple other uh senate bills that that were included that kind of went against home rule and i will say that not as a city of deltona employee but as a commissioner from his city i will be working explicitly with uh jordan um on the on the amendments for senate bill 180 uh mr smith is an extremely intelligent bright planner um i have a lot of respect for him and uh again he he will be helping me with some of these amendments not as an employee of the city of deltona uh we don't want that to interfere with one thing or another but if you're interested in getting more more of that information i'll be more than happy to provide it just shoot me an email so and that meeting is adjourned you you you you you you you