City Commission on 2026-03-02 6:30 PM - Mar 02, 2026

All right, good evening. I'm going to go ahead and call this regular commission meeting into order. If I can please have the city clerk call the roll. Commissioner Caldwell? Here.

Commissioner Harriet?

Here.

Commissioner Howington? Here. Commissioner Novick?

Present.

Commissioner Santiago? Here. Vice Mayor Avila-Vasquez? Mayor Avila?

Present. At this time, I'd like to call Matthew Shaw with Trinity to do the invocation. And while he's coming up to do the invocation, we're going to ask that you keep one of our deputies has been shot, and he happens to be the son of one of our staff members, Danny Ron. If we can please keep him in your prayers as we're monitoring the situation.

All right. Good evening, Deltona. How's everybody doing? All right. Let's bow our heads as we pray. Dear Father in heaven, Lord, we just come before you to give you thanks and praises, Lord, for the many rich blessings that you've bestowed upon us, Lord, upon this city, upon this nation. Lord, as this meeting is going on, Lord, we ask that you be inspired, each and every one of the commissioners here, Lord, as well as the residents may go well, it may go calm, Lord. Great ideas may come up, and the right decisions may be made, Lord. And as we pray over our local government, we also pray over our national government as well, Lord, that you be with them, Lord, even through all the chaos, be with them, Lord, and lead them in the right direction. Lord, we want to thank you for everything you've done in our lives and the lives around us. We love you, and we thank you. In your name we pray. Amen. Amen.

If we can please do the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. May be seated. All right. At this time, we're going to enter into additions and deletions, and we have two people that want to do a deletion or deletion.

You saw my button?

Yes. Thank you. Go ahead.

Thank you so much. I'm going to be deleting 7F, Resolution 2026-22. Thank you.

All right. You're doing a deletion, you said?

Yes, Mayor.

F is in Frank?

F is in Frank.

From the consent agenda item?

Yes, Mayor.

Okay. And before we go to Commissioner Howington, I am going to take a point of privilege, and I am asking for us to table E as in Edward from the consent agenda item. I think we just need a vote for that, correct? City Attorney?

Yes, Mayor. Majority vote.

All right. I say 60 days, if that's okay. 90 days? 90 days. What would you like to add? Hold on.

Hold on. Go ahead. If it's brought back, I'd like it brought back to the regular agenda instead of consent. I'm okay with it. Okay.

City Clerk, can you please vote?

Commissioner Caldwell?

Yes.

Commissioner Harriot?

Yes.

Commissioner Howington?

No.

Commissioner Novick?

Yes.

Commissioner Santiago? Yes. Vice Maravilla-Vasquez? Maravilla? Yes. Okay. Five-one.

Commissioner Howington, you were up next.

I just wanted to ask if there would be any appetite for the Volusia Forever Resolution that Mr. Bryan had requested.

We can do that at your commissioner comments. I think that's the best way.

As a consent.

Go ahead. Was that the only thing you had, Commissioner? Yes. All right. Commissioner Novick, you're next.

Yeah. I was going to say the same thing. I'd like to add that to the agenda to direct staff to draft the resolution for the next, or we can direct them, vote on it, and let her draft it post-meeting.

Let's do that with the-

Yeah. If we could just do a quick vote.

All right. Let's do a quick vote. We'll do it under Commissioner Howington and a second under Commissioner Novick, if that's okay. To draft it, vote for it today, and then we can just send it out, because it's coming out for a vote pretty soon.

Mayor, if I may, we will draft and send it, and then we will bring it back to ratify, because you're giving us your general consent that you support it, and the resolution will be of general support, and then we'll bring it to the next meeting to ratify. Got it.

Yes. That's fine.

Thank you.

Commissioner Caldwell?

Yes.

Commissioner Harriot? Commissioner Howington? Yes. Commissioner Novick?

Yes.

Commissioner Santiago? Mayor Abila?

Yes. Okay. Just to clarify, we are not, this is all the action you're taking tonight. You all have voted to move this forward. You're approving resolution, which will be drafted, and we'll try to get it out tomorrow. Once we have it drafted and sent, we will send it to you all, certainly, to see, and then we'll bring it up on the next agenda for ratification. That is correct. Thank you.

All right. You're welcome. If there's no other additions and deletions, we're going to- Oh, go ahead, Commissioner Caldwell. Can you please click on it? There you go.

I would like to have an addition of the fence ordinance, 110-806. There's some discrepancies in there, and I'd like to correct them.

What would you like to do? You'd like to add it for the next commission meeting, or- No, no, in this meeting. For this meeting. Yes. Okay. Can we do- Commissioner Harriet, go ahead.

Can we bring it back at the next meeting? Because I don't- I'm not familiar with the fence ordinance to the point where I can make a decision.

Can you guys speak closer to your microphones, please, so the residents can-

Can we bring it back at the next commission meeting? I'm not familiar with the language of the fence ordinance.

There's nothing I want to change in other than the interpretation.

Oh, so just a discussion on the interpretation.

Discussion and interpretation, yes. Yes. Okay.

This is simple majority for that one. So all those in favor? Yes. Aye. Those opposed? All right. We're going to go ahead and add it as action item B, as in boy, as fence discussion. All right.

Is that it, Commissioner Caldwell? I'd also like to pull G for discussion.

G?

Yes. As in go?

Yep. All right. Got it. All right. We're going to go ahead and move to presentations and awarding reports. We'll start with the super student awards. If the commission can meet me on the floor.

Ace Villarreal Velas. Audrey Newman, Deltona Lakes Elementary. Evangeline Santos, Discovery Elementary. Hunter Jackman, Friendship Elementary. Charlotte Luzotte, Pride Elementary. Dante Martin, Timbercrest Elementary. Emily Jazzini-Pezier, Galaxy Middle. Daniela Flores, Heritage Middle. Andrea Busse, Deltona High. William Peavy, Pine Ridge.

I'm calling Andrew.

I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you.

Come on. Come on. Just like you were. Thank you.

Thank you. There you go. That's mine. Yeah. Okay. Wait. I'm going to go. Thank you. One more. One more. One more.

Mayor.

Mayor.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Oh, commissioners, can you please come back? There was one that was admitted from the list.

If the parents can wait one minute, there was one name that was missed. Can we wait just a minute so we can do another group picture for the student that was missed, please?

Liliana Arroyo, Pine's Elementary.

Congratulations. Come back.

Yeah, right in the middle. Right here.

Bring your picture. Move picture.

Yeah, if the students want to come back up, please. Hey. Hey. Hey.

Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey.

Hey.

Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey.

Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey.

Hey. Hey.

Hey.

Hey.

Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey. Hey.

Hey. There we go.

All right, while the parents are exiting, I'm going to ask that we start getting the next presentation ready.

Mayor, Commission, good evening. I'm going to go over this presentation briefly this evening as we're now kicking off our budget season. So this year's theme is public service. So throughout the presentations over the next six months, every presentation we make, we're going to just highlight different departments within the city just so the citizens, the public know just all the things that we do throughout the city government. As an overview, you know, we're going to go through during this budget cycle, the budget development. Last year we did a zero base. This year's a cost plus. We've already set the floor. Now we just have to look at where we are in terms of, you know, the anticipated increase. The February, I'm sorry, the January CPI index, it was released February 10th, was a 1.99% year over year. So if I had to say what's our guide, right now it's 1.99%. Then we're going to look at our requested enhancements. You know, is there any personnel, equipment, any CIP? We're going to look at our, make sure that we're compliant with our Florida statutes on the property assessment process, the tax system. And then we're going to talk about later on the budget timeline. Under the budget development, we have to look at our goals, our operating budgets, our capital improvement plan or program, our capital outlay, our projected revenues, and our available fund balance. And on that fund balance, then we take that from, as we complete our fiscal year audit, which we're in the middle of currently. So that information will come out in mid April. Our budget is based on personnel costs, union contracts, actuarial reports, estimates on projected health, property casualty insurance. We have our indirect costs, legal, finance, city manager, HR. We have our debt repayment. We have to adjust budgets as we see fit. There's an agenda item this evening where we had to adjust the budget. We have to develop options. We have to make sure that as, you know, we might hear something from you, mayor, a member of the commission, where they'd like to see this option or that option. We have to be able to be fluid and bring those to you. We're going to have quite a few workshops. We're going to bring to you the taxable value starting in June, and we're going to bring to you in July the maximum millage. These are all things that we will be basing the budget on as myself, as well as the directors are working on it. We have to look at the strategic outlook. This is the long term planning strategically for the future of Deltona. We're going to be engaged. We're going to listen to the citizens, you, the commission, the city manager, and the department heads. As things come in, whether it be through emails into our public records request system, through the commission or from staff, your finance staff will be on top of it as we put together the budget workshops and the documents over the next few months. As I said, this year is a cost plus. So again, we're looking at everything. We've not looked at anything major. You know, we have to look at what the cost of gas is. We have to look at the cost of the copiers, the cost of electric. We've already received notice of increases from Duke and FPL for next year. So these are all things that we have to look at as we go about putting into the budget. We got to look at revenue sufficiency as you're aware, you know, we have coming up here in a couple of next meeting. We'll be bringing back the right consultants recommendations for water sewer revenues. That'll be April 2nd. Again, that's options. So we've brought three so far. We have a fourth one that will be discussed. We have to look at all of our non-avalorum assessments. You've already previously approved stormwater, solid waste, and the street lighting. And we'll also be bringing in the major timeframe, the fire assessment assessment, as well as we have impact fees. You'll have had us go forward with a study on impact fees. And that will also be brought to you in the June timeframe, if not sooner, as we're wrapping that up on councils commissions directive last year. Then looking at all of our charges for service. We finally, over the last six months, put everything into a master fee study. So we've taken all of the fees that are generated citywide and consolidated them into a master fee resolution so that we know exactly what fees that we have and what we're legally able to charge. More importantly, based on commission directive, we will look to implement all non-avalorum assessment, impact fees, charges for service effective October 1st of 2026. As was directed this past year, we were told to look at all the policies, purchasing, investment, debt, accounts receivable, payable, fund balance, and emergency pay. We've taken care of all of those with the exception of fund balance. So we will be coming during this budget cycle, the fund balance policy. We've talked about in previous one-on-ones and at workshops. But we do feel as staff that we need to take a look at what our reserves are. So that will come back before you all during this budget season. Capital outlay we'll be bringing to you. We brought it to you all this past year where we've sat down and looked at all of our vehicles and major equipment, trailers, et cetera, so that we have a good replacement policy. So we've updated that policy as well so that we have time deliverables either by age, mileage, or hours of use, you know, so that, you know, we don't want to have a vehicle for 15 years and we're, we've paid now more in repairs and maintenance versus just going out for a new vehicle. And equipment, same thing, you know, you'll like on the nice agenda, we have some replacement equipment for the fire department. So these are all, this is all equipment that's reached its useful age, or we're looking to add to it. In this case, it's being paid by the opioid money. So it's at no cost to the taxpayers of Deltona. But all of this capital outlay is focused on items that are greater than $5,000 in value with a year of one year, a life expectancy of a year or greater. Then our capital improvement program. The key to this is we develop it on an annual basis for a five-year outlook. So we need that five-year outlook so that we can, you know, as we're looking at impact fees, we're looking at water, wastewater charges for service, et cetera. We need that five-year outlook so that we can appropriately plan for our required revenues to fund this necessary improvements in upcoming years. I hit on this already, but again, requested enhancements. During the budget cycle, this, that will be brought before to me, either from fleet, from HR, from you, from the city manager, where we're looking to add positions, equipment, new programs, and how we're going to fund it. And that's the key. We always have to look at when we do an enhancement, there has to be a potential new revenue source. You know, we can't just keep adding it to our existing revenue stream because that's already obligated in other programs and services. The Florida property tax system, it's governed by Florida statute chapter 200. Everything that we do during this cycle from when we have to submit stuff to the property appraiser, tax collector, it gives us set dates that we have to do it by. All of those dates coincide all the way into the first part of October. I cannot not meet those. If I don't meet certain deadlines, that can mean the difference of us being able to assess the maximum millage and the adopted millage rates that's done in September. So I have to hit those key deliverables in order for that to be honored by your tax collector and property appraiser. Exemptions, there's a lot of them out there. I'm not going to go into them. But if there's anyone that's looking for potential exemptions that they might qualify for, that is something that the citizens of Deltona need to reach out to the property appraiser to find out. But I did want to just point out on it, there's a lot of legislative action taking place in this year's legislative cycle. So I am keeping up with it with the city attorney and the city manager's office so that as we find something, we will relay that to you. Yes, I discovered chat GPT. But you know, whereas in years past had the dollar bill out there. But this picture is just to symbolize the city of Deltona is only one of numerous taxing districts. You have the county, the Volusia County. You have the county school board. You have the hospital district, the St. John's water management district. We are only one of many taxing districts that was buying after that same dollar. We have a budget timeline process and I will show you that right here. So I will be sending this out to each of the commission so that you have the exact dates and times that we've proposed to. Yes, ma'am. For the various workshops, the first workshop is slated for Monday, May 18th. So that would be a Monday evening. Yeah. But that will be placed on your calendars very shortly. And then just to make sure that we have very transparent. We've already created this year's fiscal year 26, 27 budget web portal. This is the first presentation that's been put on. It was put on it just prior to this evening's meeting. So as we go through this budget cycle, every document that's provided to the commission, or during a workshop with staff will find its way to that website so that at any time the citizens, the commission can go right to it. On the left, that QR code takes you right to the main finance page. We've placed all the finance policies there. So whether it's the investment purchasing, whatnot, you may always be able to go directly to there. And also if you would like to find any of our prior year financial reports, whether it be the annual comprehensive financial report or prior budget documents, they're all right there. And at any time someone can email me and there's plenty of people behind you that will attest that I will respond. So I'm here for any questions. And again, I was very quick on this because there's a packed agenda.

Commissioner Santiago. Thank you, Mayor. John, I just really quickly, I just want to say thank you very much for that, for just the overview of the budget process of the new budget year. But I also wanted to mention real quick that congratulations on achieving the Government Financial Officers Association Award. And it says a lot about you and your team. I didn't realize this is one of the highest recognition that a government can receive in the area of government accounting and financial reporting. It says a lot for your commitment to transparency, accountability, strong financial management to our community. So I want to say thank you. Thank you to you and your team. Appreciate it.

I'd like to just mention, I did forget, the Deputy Finance Director Paula Masti is sitting over here in the corner. So I just wanted to make sure that she was recognized because she is the individual that handles the ACFER directly for me. And I'm very appreciative of that.

Any other commissioners have any questions, comments? All right. Thank you so much, Mr. McKinney. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. All right. This time we're going to go ahead and we're going to move to consent agenda. At this time, I'll entertain a motion for consent agenda A through D and H. Commissioner Howington.

I'd like to pull D and G.

So G has been pulled by Commissioner Caldwell and we can pull D.

And then E has been tabled.

E and F have been.

And F has been removed.

Correct. Thank you. Yes. All right.

Commissioner Novick. Consent agenda items 7A, B as in boy, C, and H.

There is a motion by Commissioner Novick. Is there a second? Second. Second by Commissioner Harriet. All right. At this time, we're going to go ahead and go to public comments on the consent agendas that have not been pulled or tabled. Dana McCool, please. I believe she's not here.

Katherine Gallagher. Christine Peacock.

Can you please click on the button on the speaking button? Can you please click on it?

Um, forgive me. I don't really understand the protocol yet. I will learn it, but I didn't get to finish what I was saying. And it's very important. And, um, at the end of the day, whatever I got to do to stop this, I'm going to do it.

Because we're now on agenda items. Okay.

So I didn't get to finish, though, what I was saying.

I understand that, but that's not an item that's on the agenda. Excuse me, sir. You're out of order. Sir. You're out of order.

So I can't finish what I was saying?

Not for that. Even though I know that. It's only on the agenda item. If it's on the agenda, you're more than welcome to speak on it. Thank you, Ms. Peacock.

Are we sure it's not on the agenda?

It's pulled. We're going to have discussion on that when we bring it up. All right.

We'll discuss it another time.

Thank you, Ms. Peacock. Excuse me, Mr. Powers. That's the last warning I'm going to give you. Final warning. Please. Can you please remove them? You're interrupting the meeting. Have a good day. All right. Is there any other? Is there any other? No. Okay. Can we please go ahead and vote on the items? Did you fill out your form? Go ahead.

Please. Good evening, Mayor. I want to speak on the issue with regard to the Department of Water. I know you might have pulled it, but it's very important that you give me two minutes. Is it G? It has to do with the lawsuit that you guys want to do. And I want to just explain something that's very important. If you give me two minutes, I'd appreciate it.

Mr. Lal, if we pulled it, we're not having public discussion. Because it's not for the rest of the residents. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Mr. Lal. Okay, fine. All right. We're going to go ahead and vote on items A, B, C, and H.

All right.

We're trying to run a business meeting. Can we please clear the person that's interrupting the meeting? All right. For clarification, we're voting on consent agenda items A, B, C, and H. The motion passes six to zero. All right. At this time, we're going to go to consent agenda D as in David. Commissioner Howington, you are first. Go ahead, please.

Thank you. Did the revenue ever get added from the Christmas parade to the budget? Or are we just still ignoring the pass-through revenue?

It wasn't revenue that ever came to the city in the first place. It was dedicated to the union.

Based on GASB, we need to record it. So, okay. That's all I need to know.

It's not correct. What was said, correct? No, it's not correct what you just said.

Well, for GASB, I disagree with you. But your accounting degree must be really great. Let's see. Then the other one is... I noticed that you pulled $600,000 from...

We're going to go to that one next. That's G.

D.

We're still on D? Go ahead.

From Manny Rodriguez Park. Everybody seemed very concerned that $1.1 million went into Manny Rodriguez Park when they refused to give the residents a full rollback. So, I just want it to go on record that the fact that you're decreasing it now seems somewhat disingenuous to the residents who should have got a full rollback if you don't want to put that money into the park. Thank you.

All right. At this time, we're going to go ahead and... Was there any... Go ahead, Commissioner Novick. No.

I'm ready to make a motion.

Go ahead and make a motion so we can go to public comment.

Okay. Make a motion to approve Resolution 2026-20.

There's a motion by Commissioner Novick to approve. Commissioner Santiago, you're up next.

Second.

Second by Commissioner Santiago. Is there any public comment on this specific item? No. No? Commission passes 4-2. At this time, we're going to go ahead and we're going to consent the agenda G as in go. And Commissioner Caldwell, you are the one that pulled that one. Go ahead, Mr. Caldwell. Commissioner Caldwell.

Yeah, I'd like to table this until the next meeting.

There's a request for Commissioner Caldwell to table G.

Bring it back into the regular meeting, public hearing, and ordinances.

All right. Commissioner Caldwell, or sorry, Commissioner Howington.

No, second.

There's a second by Commissioner Howington.

This is an $80 million project. I'd like to hear some input from the residents. Go ahead, Mr. Parish.

This DEP has requested that we give them a sign of interest in this where they're going to move the grant funding over to someone that was further down on the list of projects. They're asking for us to give them a signal that we are interested in collecting on that $22 million.

I am interested. I would just like a little more research and information on it. That's all. Okay. I said I am interested. I'd just like a little more research on it. And I said I am interested. I would just like a little more research on it.

Okay. I will go back to the FDEP and let them know that if it does not pass tonight that that was the direction of the commission for us to get some further information on the project before we commit to the grant. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Commissioner Novick and then Commissioner Harriet. Don't go away. Go ahead, Commissioner Novick.

What's the timetable for this? Because I wasn't here, obviously, when you all started this application. And I've got some questions. I'd like to see the study that said that this was a good, viable project. And at one time, my previous tenure, we spent 22, 24 million out of the revolving fund from Tallahassee to do the other plant. And we were going to be, at that time, the plan was we were going to be slowly migrating everything from this plant over to that plant. And now something has shifted. And I don't know that we need another study. Maybe we need another study. I need to know what's changed. And I want to do that at a workshop. I don't want a nine-minute presentation from a consultant at a commission meeting. I'd like to see that new data, if there is new data, done at a workshop presentation. Is that possible to do?

Yes, Commissioner. We had a study that was performed that had three options. One, sending the flow to the county. The second one, sending everything out to the eastern. And the third was upgrading the eastern on their capacity as well as rehabbing fisher to AWT standards. The option with upgrading the capacity for eastern and then also for changing the process and modernizing the fisher plant was the option that was the most revenue and cost efficient. And to answer your question about what has changed to make that so that everything is not going out to the eastern, it's total flow that's going to be needed over the next 25 to 30 years. Based upon changes from the regulatory agencies that we need additional capacity to remove any sort of septic tanks that are in the preferred focus area.

What's our timeline that we've got to move this before we lose the $22 million for the grant?

They were asking for it last week. I told them that we had a commission meeting tonight and that I would get with them tomorrow and let them know what the situation was.

Are we locked into using that $22 million specifically for the scope of this project?

Yes, Commissioner. It is for a water quality improvement grant for the advanced waste treatment at the Fisher wastewater plant.

Is there an opportunity to modify that grant and keep it?

No, sir. It's only for that plant because part of what they're giving it to us for is because it's a water quality improvement and the Fisher plant has nutrients that we can calculate as an improvement to the springs.

Okay. Thank you, sir.

Commissioner Harriet.

Mr. Parrish, if we accept the grant tonight, how quickly could we get a workshop on the agenda? Maybe that's a question for Doc.

Oh, definitely. All the information that you've mentioned tonight, Mr. Namak, I've got all that information already.

Now, if we accept this grant, it's not guaranteed that we have to do the process, right?

They're...

I mean, they're expecting, but...

They're expecting it, but... It's a change. Not that I'm aware of, no, sir.

I mean, for us, once we do this, we're committed. Yes. Okay. Yeah, let's call for a workshop there or detail for the commissioners.

I'd propose that we accept the grant tonight. This has been on the budget for... This has been part of the CIP for at least the last two and a half years that I've been intimately involved. I don't want to risk the opportunity to lose $22 million. I'd propose that we accept the grant tonight and then we can workshop it as soon as possible, you know, moving forward.

There's currently a motion in a second, so we'll go through that process. Is... I know, is Ms. Peacock still here because she wanted to speak on this specific subject? No. Mr. Sosa, we'll get to that. Is Ms. Peacock still here? No. Can you go ahead and call the rest of the folks, please? Thank you.

David Sosa, please.

Can you turn on... Go ahead, Mr. Sosa. Can you please click on the request to speak? There's a button with a person and a mic.

All right, Dave Sosa. Yeah, let's rush into a $22, $44 million project because we delayed this, kicked the can down the road, and we're not ready to vote on it today. Makes absolute sense. Here's the thing. The Fisher plant, it was to refurbish it. Current plans are to demolish it and move this plant further down the road. That's what's in that packet. And that $22 million, that's not guaranteed. The city, you taxpayers, have to cough up $44 million and then you get $22 million back if the city does everything, dots their eyes, crosses their teeth, and it's completed. This process was started July 1st of 2024. It's got a due date of December 31st, 2029. Do you think you're going to have a whole plant done by then? No. And guess what? You guys are going to be on the hook for a penalty of 1% of $44 million every day this extends past its due date. Calculate that number, Davidson. That's a big number because you want to rush into it today. Okay? Now, we're going to just demolish the Fisher plant. We're not going to use that for the stormwater reclaim process anymore. That's gone. This here should be voted no on, brought back to a workshop, and decide how you're going to pay for it. How are we going to pay for this? Where's the $22 million to come from? State revolving loans? We'll just add another $44 million to the $127 million we already got in debt. Do you guys know we have $127 million in debt on the water plant already? So we're going to add another $44 million to that? That's ridiculous in hopes that we get $22 million back. It makes no sense to me. So I would say this needs a no vote tonight. Decide how we're going to pay for it because I have not heard that yet. Nobody said, hey, we're going to do X, Y, and Z to pay for this project. Personally, I'm against state revolving accounts. Put it up as a municipal bond. That way, the taxpayers, you guys, get the vote on it, not you guys that make poor decisions already.

Christine Peacock, please.

Sorry about before. Again, I don't know the protocol, and I will learn it. But I wanted to finish saying that no Florida community injects treated municipal wastewater into the potable upper Floridan aquifer. Not one. There is one other considering it, but nobody's doing it. The only thing that's gone into the aquifer is the shooting stuff down into the brine level on the coast so that it'll hold back the saline water. There is no precedent, no long-term safety record, and no evidence that containment is possible in this geology. Deltona would be the first, and that makes us the test case. This is not innovation. This is experimentation. It's a gamble. With the only drinking water source our city has, before moving forward, we deserve a clear site-specific proof that this aquifer can safely receive chemically treated water. And today, there's no technology, there's no proof that that exists. So, you know, whatever I've got to do, I'll figure it out. It's not moving forward. Whatever I've got to do, whoever I've got to gather, that's all I've got to say. Brandi White, please.

Brandi White, Deltona. Some of what I wanted to say was already addressed, but I kind of want to go through what exactly is read here, because from somebody who's sitting out here, I want to tell you what I just saw. I saw an attempt at a bait-and-switch. I saw an attempt at agreeing to this with every ulterior motive to not actually convert it as is where it is. Once it was determined that you accept this, you have to do it, now we want a workshop. It was clear as day what was about to happen. My concern is how this is written, so I need some verification on this. It says that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has mandated. So can we get the win, and can we get the documentation, because it was not in the packet that I saw. I know it happened. I just would like, I think it's information we should read. It also says that we've already received $3 million for the design services of this plant rebuild. So if we're not going to rebuild this plant, do we owe that $3 million back? In addition, it continues to go on to say that to assist with funding, staff has pursued many grant sources. Wonderful. Can we get a list of what those were, and were we actually approved for any? There's just a lot of questions, and my biggest concern is this was on a consent agenda to begin with. That's not the definition of consent agenda. It is for the everyday, basic, non-controversial, not $44 million items. So the fact that we continue to see things like this, and I'm going to say continue, because it has happened multiple times, it's a concern. It's a huge red flag, and it lacks all transparency. I'd like to see moving forward that items like this never get put on the consent agenda again. Follow what the consent agenda actually is for, and it's spelled set out for you, what a consent agenda items are for. This doesn't qualify whatsoever, and it's very, very concerning. But I also would like some answers about what just happened, what we just saw. This was all go for until we were told we actually had to spend it like it was supposed to be allocated for. Now there's backpedaling. Now there's let's have conversation. So now I'm concerned that the intent was never to put this money towards that to begin with, just to feed us a bunch of fluff again.

Tim Blodgett, please.

So what are you afraid of? I've done bigger projects than this. You got a hell of a lot of really high paid people here who know what they're doing. I've talked to a lot of them. They know what they're doing. So why don't you just ask your water guy, can this be done? Just nod your head yes or no. That's all you got to do. You nod yes, I'm with you all the way. You nod no. Well, everybody go curl back in your holes and put everything on the table because it's not convenient tonight. So what's it going to be? Are we going to do it or are we not? If we're going to do it, you listen to folks out here. We're not. We want to know how's it going to be done. How are you going to pay for it? This is like stuff that should have been done before you even put in for a grant. What about you, Doc? You think you can do this? You got enough talent working for you? I think you do. Gemma thinks you do. The mayor thinks you do. Isn't that right? Come on. Give me a smile. Anyway, if I were you, it's like if there's somebody in here who doesn't want $22 million, please raise your hand. I haven't seen an idiot all night long. Well, I might be lying. I'd go for it. Make it happen. Organize yourselves. Use the talent you got and make it happen. It's that simple. No guts. No glory.

Catherine Gallagher, please.

Catherine Gallagher, Deltona. So this item is $44 million. You're not ready for it. Half of the dais wants more research, wants a workshop, wants to, the other half just wants to rush it. You're not ready for this. You need to take it off. You need to table it. You need to say no. This is not how you govern. In this political season, you need to watch your visibility and accountability and do right for the citizens. There's no information here about how many citizens it affects. It looks to appear to be like you're going to refurbish it, but yet it looks like you're relocating it. And then all of this is confusing, and all of this is you're not ready for it. So take this off or vote no. Thank you. Matthew Borgens, please.

Good evening again. First, I want to address how it's not even on the website where it says public comments, so you can't see anybody's facial expressions or anything going on. So as we speak, nobody who's watching the website can see anything, especially after I've been up here and I've had people roll their eyes at me.

So Mark, please stay tuned. I'm sticking to the topic.

I'm getting there. But if nobody can see this, this is an issue for me. So with that said, like I said, you can't see that online, you can't see what's going on, and that's an issue. Second, we've been talking about this, and I heard it tonight saying about having the sewers connected to the septic, or septic connected to the sewers. You know, we have the 800 coming up. Is that going to be the rest of the city, and what's the other phases for that? So that's going to be tied to all that there. I was forced last year to put in the backflow. It cost me $700 with the rest of my residents, and now we're talking about removing those and putting in the other ones. So are we talking about giving those residents that was forced to put that in there, giving them the money back for it? Is that going to be part of this as well? Is that going to be included with all these grants going on with everything that we're updating? Like I said, I'm all for the money, but have to have a plan, and we're going less than a year to get this going. We haven't been able to really do anything in the city in less than a year so far. We keep putting it off. We do workshops. We keep putting, you know, and not moving anywhere. Again, we're procrastinating and not doing anything else. So if we do it and approve it, that's great, but can we get it done in time? Or are we going to sit there and keep adding to what the residents are paying for? With that said, like I said, just look into it more, and then I yield the rest of my time to Brandy White if she needs it.

Albert Bryan, please. Let's see here. Let's go back a few years. This plant was supposed to be taken offline because it's so dilapidated. It was that way when we bought it. That's how old it is. So now we're going to sink $50 million into it. Oh, no, that's right. Four years ago, it was said that we were going to spend $55 million into it. So I guess $44 million is a real bargain. Let me ask a question. Are we expanding the capacity of it? Because everything I've heard, no, we're not. Hmm. If you're not expanding the capacity, and capacity to me is where you're putting the water. I understand we have eight ponds. When this is done, we're still going to have eight ponds. Hmm. So what's the need to redo this station again? Oh, so you can spend money. Is that wise? Shouldn't we actually maybe clean this station up just a little bit so we can actually process stormwater faster rather than, because we know that Alexander will actually take care of all the sewer houses that we have, which last I heard was right about 9,000 to 10,000.

Hmm.

So if we're spending $44 million to rebuild a dilapidated system, when you have a fairly new system that can handle most of our sewer customers, if not all of our sewer customers, is this just to save jobs? Or is the FDEP actually telling us to do this? Or is this just another sham because we're not very transparent as of lately? We're going way back a few years to where now you don't even see our faces on the live feed. It just says public comment now. Great job.

Kathy Bryan, please.

Kathy Bryan, Deltona. Deltona. Tell your residents that you really have no regard for them without telling your residents. Unless, I guess, they're sucking up to you. I don't know. In any case, I said it before, I'll say it again. This Fisher plant was a debacle to begin with. It should have never been purchased in its condition. And I know I remember hearing that it was going to be less expensive to redo this, but how long for? How long is it going to last for? Think long term. And if you can't increase the capacity, but you want to grow your city bigger, you need to be more forward thinking. No water treatment plan or wastewater treatment is going to be cheap. But let's do it. If we're going to do it, do it state of the art. Do a new one. Reuse this property for something else. Holding area, whatever. But to spend this amount of money on a plant that's breaking down is insane. And I can go like this because no one will see me. That ends public comment.

All right. There's a motion on the floor by Commissioner Caldwell. There's a second by Commissioner Howington. If we can please. We're voting to table. The motion was to table this item. Go ahead. The motion fails two to four. At this time, I'll entertain a different motion. Commissioner Harriet.

Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to approve this agenda item and set this topic for workshop at the next available spot within 30 days.

There's a motion by Commissioner Harriet. Is there a second? Second by Commissioner Santiago. Can we please vote? Motion passes four to two. This time, we're going to move over to ordinances and public hearings. If I can please have the city attorney read 8A as in alpha. Commissioner Caldwell, you have a point of order. What is your point of order? Are we not videoing the residential comments? Commissioner Caldwell, that's not a point of order, but we can address that when your time comes. Go ahead, city attorney.

Thank you so much. This is Ordinance Number 36-2025, an Ordinance of the City of Deltona, Florida, amending Section 110-814, Additional Regulations for Certain Permitted Principal Uses and Structures of Chapter 110, Zoning, and Chapter 74, Administration of the Land Development Code, updating procedures and regulations related to certified recovery residences in compliance with Florida statutes, providing for conflicts, codification, severability, and an effective date. We are here on second reading, Mayor.

Thank you. At this time, I'll entertain a motion and a second so we can begin the presentation. Commissioner Knobbick.

Make a motion to approve Ordinance Number 36-2025. Commissioner Harriot.

All right. Go ahead.

Good evening, Mayor, Commission. So the item before you is Ordinance Number 36-2025 at second and final reading. The ordinance updates the City Land Development Code to address certified recovery residences and comply with recent changes in state law. During the 2025 legislative session, the legislator adopted Florida Senate Bill 954, which amended Section 397.487 Florida statutes. The law requires all municipalities to adopt procedures governing certified recovery residences by January 1, 2026. This ordinance satisfies that requirement. The statute requires three primary actions. Number one, establish a review and approval process. Number two, create a reasonable accommodation procedure consistent with federal law and avoid imposing additional public hearing requirements beyond what is minimally required. And the proposed ordinance addresses each of these three elements. Certified recovery residences are peer-supported alcohol-free and drug-free homes for individuals recovering from substance use disorders. Under federal law, residents are considered individuals with disabilities and are protected under the Fair Housing Act and the American with Disabilities Act. As such, they are treated as residential uses. The ordinance creates a formal reasonable accommodation procedure within Chapter 74 and updates Section 110-813 to establish objective standard for certified recovery residences. It also provides clear enforcement mechanisms to ensure compliance. In residential zoning districts, occupancy is limited to a maximum of six tenants plus one required on-site housing manager. No more than two occupants are permitted per bedroom and rental agreements must be for a minimum of 30 days. These standards are consistent with state law and neighborhood compatibility goals. The ordinance includes a 1,000 feet separation requirement from other certified recovery residences and or community residential homes. Off-street parking is required and on-street parking is prohibited. A good neighbor policy is also required and sexual offenders are prohibited from residing at the facility. Recovery residences must maintain required state certification and are subject to inspection for compliance with applicable codes. Violations may result in revocation of approval and referral to code enforcement. The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed the ordinance on December 17, 2025 and voted 7-0 to recommend approval. The City Commission approved the ordinance at first reading by a vote of 5-1 and staff recommends approval of Ordinance 36-2025 at second and final reading.

Thank you, Mr. Smith. Is there any public comment on this item? City Clerk, public comment please. Tim Blodgett please.

It always seems that I'm representing the disabled. I really am glad that they're putting together this ordinance. People with disabilities are actually one of the groups. First of all, politicians will not represent them in Washington D.C. You can't find congressmen who will recognize them as a caucus. It's amazing. It's like it's legal prejudice. So they came up with like the ADA and about 63 other civil rights laws to protect the disabled. But that doesn't help. You have to go in and you have to start weeding out all of the ordinances that have to do with housing or anything else where the public can take disabled individuals and ostracize them out of the community. Now, I spent a lot of time with veterans. Forty-five years. Forty-five years of having them howl at the moon, threaten to kill me, and everything else where I just went back over and over and over again trying to take care of them. My son is a cop, and he keeps telling me about how he's going to waste somebody sometime. And I asked him, I asked him, how is it that I spent 45 years with people threatening to kill me, and I never had to do them any bodily injury other than to put them in an arm bar. And yet, everybody else, they want to put them out of town, put them out of mind, put them out of state. So here we are. We have a band-aid on a small problem that will take care of some things. Now you have your thousand foot buffer to keep the evil mentally ill away from your little babies. You also have, they have to be good sound citizens. They can't raise their voices above a whisper. They can't drink, just like anybody else on a weekend when they're watching a football game. And so it's all going to be legal, and they can finally plop down and live in peace, hopefully, including having a place to park. So I'm all for this. It's just a formality. You don't really have a choice. It's a yes vote, and that's all there is to it.

Have a good night. Courtney Cross Burgos, please.

Good evening again. I understand that this is something that you have to do to be in compliance with the state. Actually, from what Jordan put up there, we're a little bit late on it. But my question is, how are we going to be determining where these are allowed and how many are allowed? I mean, I know we need them, absolutely. But I don't know. I'm concerned. And I'm not worried about me personally. I know there's not coming at one in my neighborhood. I just think that we need to think about where they're going to be put for everybody's good, you know, their safety and making them happy. Somewhere that they can walk to groceries and stuff in case they don't have a car. Anyway, I'd like to hear where we're planning or how we're planning to approve them. Thank you.

Matthew Borgans, please. Good evening.

Good evening. Just real quick comment for me. Again, like Courtney just said, you know, how are we going to enforce it? We're already limited on our law enforcement in the area already. Currently, we already have one that's at the Sterling Courts housing, sexual offender there. And that's only, you know, probably five, 600 feet from Spirit Elementary. So, you know, so how are we enforcing this? What are we doing with it? They're registered. They're on there. But it's still allowed. So, again, with our limited access to law enforcement and monitoring, what's going to stop them from coming in and not even not being registered or not being said something? You know, I worked in law enforcement. I worked at the corrections. And it happens all the time. You know, they come in. They find a way in. Currently, in Deltona, we have residents who are getting multiple homestead exemptions. You know, I have a neighbor that's one of them. And then this year, he finally switched it over to his wife so he can get multiple houses with multiple homestead exemptions. So, we can't even track that. How are we going to start tracking this? So, we're losing money there. We can't enforce half our stuff. We can't enforce, you know, our ordinances with code enforcement. So, what are we going to do with this? But thank you.

Christine Peacock, please.

Pardon me, but I'm not sure I understand the recovery residence situation. Are you saying that this is going to be a residentially zoned home or is it commercial? Because it certainly seems like it should be commercial since you've got six unrelated adults that are going to have maybe their own transportation and stuff. I mean, I've got a home across from me that's got a whole bunch of unrelated people living there and they've got wall to wall up to the house, you know, parking. And it's, you know, I haven't said anything formally, but it's real disruptive to have that many unrelated residents that are not sharing a car in a residential situation. So, is this going to be in a residential area? Yes. Is there some way to not have it in a residential area that it be commercial?

Ms. Peacock, this isn't a forum for back and forth.

I can't hear you.

This is not a forum for a back and forth.

It's not a forum for that. Okay. Again, I'm learning. That ends public comment.

Commissioner Harriet, you're on the board. Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Mayor. I just want to confirm that this ordinance doesn't supersede any of our existing ordinances. So, these recovery houses still have to follow the parking ordinances and all of the other ordinances that govern residential properties. This ordinance doesn't supersede any of our other residential property governing ordinances. So, parking, maintenance, appearance, that kind of stuff, all still, they have to meet.

Correct. And there's specific regulations that someone that wants to establish a recovery residence has to follow with parking, occupancy, good neighbor policy. So, yes. Okay.

It does not supersede, no. And I just want to clarify, this is required by the state. Yes. This is not city-originated. We did not, you all did not give direction for this. The state of Florida passed, in the 2025 section, Senate Bill 954. So, this is something that the state has mandated, and we are just working to get compliant with the state statute.

In a way that is as least impactful to the neighbors as possible.

That is correct.

Thank you.

All right. Let's go ahead and go for a vote, please. The motion passes 6-0. This time, if I can please have the city attorney read section 8B as in boy.

Thank you so much, Mayor. This is ordinance number 03-2026. An ordinance of the city of Deltona, Florida, amending the general ordinances, chapter 14, animals, to update regulations related to animal licensing, breeders, dangerous dogs, and irresponsible owners, providing for conflicts, codification, severability, and an effective date. We are here on first reading. Thank you. Please be advised, this was Danny Ron's item. Certainly, we worked, our office worked closely with him and his staff on this, but Robin and I are here if you have any questions.

Thank you. Commissioner Harriet.

So, I'd like to make a motion to approve 8B, but I'd also like to just make the comment that this is an ordinance that I am excited to pass because not only does it clean up our administrative code, it also removes a fee that we have been charging for years, if not decades, and makes it easier to own a pet in the city, which it shouldn't be difficult.

Thank you, Commissioner Harriet. Thank you. Commissioner Howington? I'll second. There's a motion by Commissioner Harriet, second by Commissioner Howington. Is there any public comment?

Matthew Borgans, please.

Can you please? Thank you.

This is my last one for the night, so everybody should be excited. I agree, you know, we haven't been able to enforce the little fee. Probably over half our residents, if not more, don't even pay it. I never knew about it, and I've had two dogs, and I don't pay it, and I don't have it, and, you know, mine are now gone. You know, the issue I have is, you know, dangerous dogs. They want to limit breeds. I had Dobermans. They were the best dogs I've had. They were my service dogs. They helped me out, and now we want to limit breeds, but yet we can allow a Chihuahua that ended up biting my dogs. So, you know, the dangerous dogs, we've got to limit them out. We can't, you know, people are letting their dogs go to the bathroom everywhere. They're off leash. We can't even force dogs off leash. So, again, it goes back to enforcement. I know Doc did really well with code enforcement, separating the animal control and code enforcement, trying to help that out. Like, there's not enough staff to take care of it. You know, Volusia County is not taking care of it. So, you know, it goes back to enforcing. But you try and figure out what's a dangerous dog and, you know, maybe, you know, go back. I think it says they have to be notified, you know, have to have a bite or something prior, but just limiting that to everything else by breeds will be an issue. We have an ordinance committee. So far, none of the ordinances that come up here has gone in front of that. So, you know, given the public to have comments on that, would have been great to have go through there, you know, kind of go through some of these. So, like I said, look at, you know, the breeds and everything else that have to go along with it and see exactly what we're doing with it. That's it.

Thank you. Courtney Karsbergos, please.

Looks like I'm busy tonight. Hello again. I wanted a little clarification. Doc knew I had a problem when it was crazy when I went to get my dog tags. And that's when everything got suspended. Are we doing away with the licensing right now? The fee for licensing? Yes. Okay. Because the county doesn't charge anymore. The land doesn't charge anymore. So I was just wondering why we did. And I actually kind of have to back up Matthew. I hadn't thought of it, but it's very quick to people are very quick to call certain breeds dangerous. And it's not necessarily the breed. It's a lot of times of the owners. So we need to kind of look at that, too, I guess. Anyway, thank you. Mayor, if I may, just briefly, since Mr.

Rahm. Finish public comment.

And then I'll go right to you. That ends public comment, Mayor. All right. Go ahead.

This does not address breeds. So in the, again, recent 2025 legislative session, the Florida legislature passed House Bill 593, which revised penalties and regulations associated with dangerous dogs. So there's nothing in here about breeds or this is not breed specific legislation. The portion of dangerous dogs speaks just to penalties and regulations for those dogs as required by Florida statute. Again, not initiated by the commission, just in compliance with statute. And it is not breed specific.

Thank you. Commissioner Harriet. Yeah.

The other thing I'd like to mention is that it does implement a penalty for if your dog is picked up and is not microchipped. But I'd also like to point out that the city has offered free microchipping events. So as a public announcement, also, that is in this ordinance. And it is also something that the city offers for free, no cost at microchipping events.

All right. City attorney, if you can please read this ordinance one more time, and we'll go directly to a vote after that. Thank you.

This is ordinance number 03-2026. This is first reading. An ordinance of the city of Deltona, Florida, amending the general ordinances, Chapter 14, Animals, to update regulations related to animal licensing, breeders, dangerous dogs, and irresponsible owners, providing for conflicts, codification, severability, and an effective date.

Motion passes six to zero. This time I'll have the city attorney please read Section 8C as in Charlie.

Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor. This is ordinance number 04-2026, an ordinance of the city of Deltona, Florida, amending Article IV, Finance of Chapter 2, Administration of the General Ordinances, providing for conflicts, codification, severability, and an effective date. And we are here on first reading.

Thank you, Commissioner Harriot.

I'd like to make a motion to approve agenda item 8C.

There's a motion by Commissioner Harriot, Commissioner Howington. I'll second. There's a motion by Commissioner Harriot and a second by Commissioner Howington. We'll go to the podium and then public comment.

Mayor, Commissioner, just kind of reiterate on my budget process earlier that we talked about, you know, looking at all the various financial policies. Well, this is another two policies that we're just adding to our toolkit. You know, the commission, you know, sees from us a budget document, an ACFER, you know, annual comprehensive financial report. But we have to be able to tie certain policies that are within those two documents. This helps with that. So this first reading this evening strengthens two things. The first item is the audit. We obviously know we have to have an audit. But this goes in there and specifies the fact that, you know, number one, you know, it's going to be by a qualified, you know, CPA. Two, the fact that, you know, we have had the same auditor for quite a few years. And this will stipulate that the auditor can only have a contract for up to five years. And then we have to put it out and bring in another auditor for five years. So we can have the auditor for five years, another auditor for five years. Then that one can come back. This is going to provide a lot more transparency that we're going to have other eyes on there, you know, looking at our books. The other thing that this puts in there is that we've talked about it over the last, you know, few months is it allows for you to put in through a super majority vote to have other small scopes of work. And I'm going to read those. There could be a small independent audit completed by our external auditors for circumstances that arise involving a breach of public trust. An organizational change, city manager, finance director, whatnot. A regulatory noncompliance where you've gotten in an audit where we're a noncompliance. So you want it to be looked at. Operational inefficiencies or preparation for an external audit. So it's giving you ways to use your current auditor to go in and look at minor scopes of work. And so, again, providing full transparency. The other item that this takes care of, if you remember last February and just a couple of weeks ago, I brought to you the write-off of uncollectible accounts for an accounting adjustment. We had nothing on the books that helps us to handle how to do it for staff. So that puts it in there. One of the things that we had done, you know, a little over a year ago was make sure that we have a contract for collections. So this just also spelled out in your code of ordinances how I'm supposed to operate on an annual basis. With that, I'll open it up if there's any questions from the commission.

Thank you. We're going to go to public comment first. David Markle, please.

Good evening, Mayor, commissioners. I want to begin by expressing my support for the proposed annual external audit. Conducting regular independent financial audits is essential to maintain transparency, strengthening public trust, and ensuring that our city's financial practices remain above reproach. An external audit is not just a best practice. It's an investment in credibility and accountability. While I fully concur that we need the external audit, I would like to offer several recommendations regarding the structure of the auditing contract. First, I propose reducing the contract term from five years to three years with the option of one renewal term of three years. Shorter contracts cycles promote stronger accountability of the auditing firm and provides the city with more frequent opportunities to reassess performance. If an auditing firm works begin to fall short of expectations, a shorter contract ensures the city is not locked into an extended agreement and can seek a firm better aligned with our needs. My second recommendation is adding a clear requirement that the selected auditing firm must have no conflict of interest with the city. Independence is a cornerstone of credible auditing and codifying this expectation in the agreement reinforces the integrity of the process. Finally, I suggest that the auditing firm not hold a business presence in the state of Florida. While I highly promote keeping our tax dollars local, this recommendation ensures that the firm maintains complete independence from local relationships, political pressures, or potential biases. Bringing in an out-of-state auditor can further strengthen objectivity and enhance public confidence in the findings. To summarize, I fully support moving forward with an external audit, and I believe these adjustments will ensure the process is both rigorous and transparent, ultimately serving the best interest of our residents and our city government. Thank you for your consideration.

That is public comment.

Commissioner Howington.

Thank you. Mr. McKinney, thank you for bringing this forward. I don't know if you need to come up. I just wanted to say thank you because this is something that needs to be addressed. Have we looked, like, maybe this is a question for you. Have you looked at all into the additional cost? Because, obviously, for second year audits, whenever we switch firms is probably going to elevate the cost a little bit. Have we looked into that at all?

The sheer fact that we've had Purvis and Gray for as many years as we have has kept our fees relatively low. I will say that for the size organization that we are, our fees are much lower than I would anticipate. So, yes, in full transparency, our external auditors know that I brought this before you. So, you know, so I will say this. When we go out to bid sometime between October 1st of 28 and April of 29, we will probably see a substantial increase in our audit fees. I would say, not that I'm opposed to what the gentleman stated, a firm outside the state of Florida, we'd see a three to four times increase in cost because they come here for two to three weeks. So then, you know, instead of having someone local, you know, then we're paying the cost of hotels per diem, et cetera. So I hope that answers your question. It does.

Thank you. And with the out-of-state firms, we have so many statutes that govern what we do here. So that also makes it a little bit more challenging bringing in an out-of-state firm.

Absolutely. And when you hear an audit firm, they will tell you our break-even point is five years. We'll do contracts at three years, but they will, you know, rarely would you ever see a firm bid on a job for less than three years. So the standard is either a five-year contract or a three-year with two one-year renewals, giving you a total of five years. So that's the way I drafted this ordinance with the legal department, you know, so that it was no more than five years.

I believe the county is currently operating on a five-year contract term as well.

That is correct.

Yes. So we would be compatible with what they use.

We would be in line with the other municipalities and government agencies. Okay.

Perfect.

Thank you.

You're welcome. All right. We're going to go ahead and have the city attorney read the ordinance one last time, and we're going to go straight to a vote after that.

Thank you so much. This is ordinance number 04-2026, an ordinance of the city of Deltona, Florida, amending article four, finance of chapter two, administration of the general ordinances, providing for conflicts, codification, severability, and an effective date. And this is first reading.

Motion passes 6-0. At this time, I will ask the city attorney to please read public resolution section 8-D as in David.

Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor. 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 item 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 either be 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. Persons representing organizations must present evidence of their authority to speak for the organization. Further details of the quasi-judicial procedures may be obtained from the clerk. At this time, commissioners must disclose any ex parte communications concerning items on this agenda, and this is regarding resolution number 202601, which is D.

All right, I turned everybody's comments off. I'm going to go ahead and go down the list again so we can do ex parte communications. I'll start with Commissioner Harriet from District 1.

I don't have any.

Commissioner Emma Santiago of District 2.

I don't have any.

Commissioner Dori Howington of District 4.

I don't have any.

Commissioner Stephen Caldwell of District 5. I have none. I have none. Thank you. Commissioner Christopher Nowbeck from District 6.

I have none.

Okay. I have none as well. Thank you very much, 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 if you intend to testify. Do you hereby swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, so help you God? You may be seated.

Thank you. At this time, we're going to go ahead and since this is a quasi-judicial, we're going to let staff do their presentation. After that, we'll have questions from the Commission, and then we'll, if the applicant's attorneys here, we'll let them do their presentation and rebuttals. Go ahead. Can you please click it? There you go.

Is it on? There it goes. Thank you, Mayor and City Commission. My name is Matthew West. I'm with the Planning and Development Services Department. I'm here to present this item for Resolution 2026-01, which is a major conditional use for a house of worship in an R1 zoning district. The property is located at 590 Fort Smith Boulevard. The size of the lot is about 3.3 acres, and it is owned R1, which is single-family residential with a land use of low-density residential as well. Presently, the property is undeveloped. It's wooded, and it's undeveloped. And we are also reviewing a final site plan, engineered site plan, concurrently with this conditional use request. So that's also under review. The proposed church size is about 10,568 square feet. Really, what you're doing tonight is renewing a conditional use that was approved and expired back in November 2020. And actually, the plan you have before you is substantially similar to the one that expired back in November 2020. These are the first five. There's, I believe, 11 conditions for consideration for conditional use. These are the first five. Here are the second six. And these are the things we look at and evaluate for conditional use approval. This is a location map of the property. It's on the north side of Fort Smith Boulevard between Eldron and Pemberton. And directly to the left or west of this property is an existing church that is unrelated to this request. Here's an aerial showing the wooded condition of the property. This is also showing the zoning. It's all single-family all the way around. The future land use is low-density all the way around it. And you can see the whole map is white because it's all low-density. And this is the concept plan that we have before you tonight. One of the main differences between this concept plan and the one that previously expired back in November 2020 is the circulation has been changed. There are two access points, one on the left and one on the right of the lot onto Fort Smith. One is an entrance only. The one on the right or the eastern one is now an entrance only. You turn in on that one and you exit the site on the driveway on the left side or west side of the lot. It was switched before. This allows for better queuing and less conflicts. The Planning and Zoning Board met on January 21st, 2026 and unanimously recommended approval, 7-0. Staff is also recommending approval of the resolution that has these four conditions in it. The first one is basically a condition that's already in our code for special uses in our code. It's a 50-foot building setback from the perimeter of the property. Also, requirements for off-street parking and landscaping must be met. And there is also a condition that the final site plan match substantially this concept plan that's attached to this resolution. And finally, they must obtain a certificate of occupancy within two years of approval if it is approved. And they can ask for an additional one year extension from the planning and development director. And with that, I believe I have, I'll go back up to the site plan. I'm done with my presentation. Thank you, Mr. West. Thank you.

Commissioner Howington, you're up first. Thank you.

Just for clarification, this does not include any apartments or anything like that. This is strictly the facility and then the recreational facilities.

It's just the House of Worship. Even if they wanted to add daycare, that would be another conditional use. Okay.

Thank you. All right. See nobody.

Commissioner Novick? I make a motion to approve resolution.

I no boarder, Commissioner. Because it's a quasi-judicial, that comes later on. I'll call you first for the... Okay.

I don't have it. We don't have any more questions.

Okay. Commissioner Santiago?

Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to make a motion to approve it, but I'll wait.

Thank you. All right. Up next, is the applicant's attorney present? No? All right. If there's any... Do we have any presenters? Okay. If they can please come up. Thank you, Mr. West.

Good evening to all the board members. My name is Pastor Zachariah Henry of the Lighthouse, Pentecostal Church of Jesus, 1918 New Mark Drive, Deltona, Florida. That is my address. I'd like to say tonight that our congregation has been a part of this community for over 22 years. And we have grown our current space. We're not just looking to build a structure. We're looking to build a center of hope and community support. Our vision is to build a facility that stands as a beacon of hope and a hub for positive activity. We understand the importance of being good neighbors. We have carefully planned for traffic management, noise control, being in harmony with our community. I want to just take a moment to let you know that our hand and hearts are planted in this community. Our goal is for this church to be a blessing to the area, not a burden. We respectfully ask for your approval to move forward with this project. Thank you for your time and your consideration. Thank you so much.

Ms. Pastor Zachariah, if you can just wait there. Is there any questions from the commission to Pastor Zachariah, Commissioner Howington? No questions.

I just wanted to say that you guys are currently in district four and I will be sad to see you go. And I can definitely speak to the fact that we have not had a problem with traffic or anything from your location. So I don't see why this would be a problem for district six. Thank you. Thank you for being great members of district four. Thank you.

All right.

We can please hold down the applause. Thank you so much. We're going to go ahead. And is there any public participation on this specific matter? There's one person to speak with standing and then a couple without. All right. Can we do the person with standing first? I thought that was the last person.

Go ahead. Clifford.

All right.

At this time, we'll go ahead and move to public participation.

Sheila Gilmore, please. Good evening.

My name is Sheila Gilmore. I am a member of the Lighthouse Church here in Deltona. I've been here since 2004. We also have to help the community. We have a food pantry and our food pantry. I have been able to bring people into that are in need. And I have also been able to take out food to those who could not get there because of our food pantry. It helps many people. So we'd like for you to consider that. Thank you. Silver Prescott, please.

Thank you, Mayor, Vice Mayor and commissioners, lawyers and staff. Thank you so much for your time, your listening ears and your heart. I have worshiped with the Lighthouse for 20 plus years. And in that 20 plus years, it has been a place of worship. We have brought in almost 99.9% of what we bring in goes out to this community. We would like to begin and start in a new location where we can help you help others and be that lending hand helping up. Thank you.

Christine Peacock, please.

My only concern here is the precedent that might set. I know Fort Smith is already a busy road and they've got the traffic figured out for this particular house of worship. There's another rezoning request up at Three Island Lakes that all the neighbors are very concerned about. So my concern is will allowing this set a precedent so that they can do the development or the rezoning for the church near Three Island Lakes. Yes, no.

Thank you, Miss Peacock. Just remember, it's we don't do a back and forth.

What?

This is only a commentary section of public comment.

Well, then I guess my comment would be if it does set a precedent, then that's a problem because the other church is a problem for that community up there. And if we're setting a precedent, we need to think about that.

That is public comment.

All right. At this time, we're going to go to, I'm going to go to you, Commissioner Novick, just because you were going to, it's in your district. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor.

We're doing a motion and then we'll do a second.

We will gladly welcome you to District 6. And I move resolution number 2026-01 for approval, Mayor.

There's a motion by Commissioner Novick. Commissioner Howington, you were up next. And I'll second. There's a second by Commissioner Howington. All right. At this time, we're going to go ahead and enter discussion. Is there any discussion from this dais? All right. Seeing none. I will ask for the attorney to read it one last time and then the City of Clerk will do a verbal vote. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

This is resolution number 2026-01. A resolution of the City of Deltona, Florida, granting a conditional use to permit a house of worship within the R-1 residential zoning district for the property located at 590 Fort Smith Boulevard within the City of Deltona, providing for conditions, recording, conflicts, severability, and an effective date.

Commissioner Colwell?

Yes.

Commissioner Harriot? Yes. Commissioner Howington? Yes. Commissioner Novick? Yes. Commissioner Santiago?

Yes. Mayor Avila? Yes. Motion passes 6-0. Congratulations. All right. We're going to go ahead and enter into action items. We have two action items today. Action item 9A, as in alpha, and I'll let the City Attorney lead us on that one.

Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor. This is consideration of an alternate appointment to the Planning and Zoning Board. We are seeking a motion to appoint an alternate member for the term to expire on March 15th, 2028.

City Clerk, who appointed this alternate? Do we know who appointed it?

The alternates usually aren't appointed by a specific person, so I don't know who it was. You each get your member, and then alternates are kind of random. I don't remember who appointed them off the top of my head.

Okay. All right. Is there any consideration from anyone on the dais? I'll open the floor up. Commissioner Santiago? Thank you, Mayor.

We just received just the three applicants, right, Joyce? Correct. Okay. One was not filled out. I'll just make a motion for Robert Hassan.

There's a motion by Commissioner Santiago. Commissioner Howington?

I'll second.

There's a second by Commissioner Howington. Is there any public comment? All right. Can we please vote? Motion passes 6-0. This time we're going to enter into an addition, which is action items 9B, as in boy, and I will pass it over to Commissioner Caldwell because this is your item.

Mr. Mayor, if I may, before you get into this item, I just want to urge you all to utilize caution in engaging in this discussion. So pursuant to City Land Development Code Section 74-6B1, the Planning and Zoning Director is vested with the power and duty to issue interpretations of the code. The same duty is not found under the City Commission powers and duties in the Land Development Code found in Section 74-3A. Now, because the Planning and Zoning Director falls under the authority of the City Manager, the City Commission may risk a violation of the City Charter by exercising the powers reserved to the Manager's staff pursuant to both Charter and Code. Now, the City Commission may properly question staff and the attorneys about the provisions of the code. You can provide direction to amend the code. You can provide direction to amend the code to provide clarification or additional definitions. You can also rule on an appeal of the Planning and Zoning Director's administrative determination pursuant to Section 74-11G. So if someone appeals an administrative decision, you all have the right to rule on that appeal of the Planning and Zoning Director's administrative determination. So with that...

Thank you, Mr. Sivio. I believe that's what we added it as a discussion. So go ahead, Commissioner. But thank you for reminding us of that. That's very helpful. Go ahead, Commissioner Caldwell.

So for clarification, I can ask the Planning and Zoning Director why he's come to this interpretation? No.

No? Okay. You can ask questions about the code. You can say, what does this section of our code mean? If I want the section of the code to mean something different, how would I amend it? I want the section of code to be X. I wish the code specified the color of fences had to be blue. Jordan, Gemma, how would we make that happen? And we would make a recommendation on a revision to the code. Okay. So you can ask questions about the code. You can ask for clarification. And you can make recommendations about changes you want. And you all can discuss changes you might want. But the interpretation that the Planning and Zoning Director makes stands alone and apart unless there's an administrative appeal of his decision. And then you get to rule on that administrative appeal.

Okay. Well, my question is under the interpretations of the previous ordinances, the side lot lines or side yard was determined by the front face of the house and the rear face of the house. The backyard was the entire and it's included, it's written in our ordinance under section 70 that the rear yard is, give me a second to get some notes, my glasses. The rear yard is open space of lawn extending across the full width of the lot, extending from the rear line of the building to the rear lot line, excluding steps. The code or the ordinance is being interpreted now as the lot line, meaning that they would be able to put an eight foot fence from the front lot line to the rear lot line down the entire side of the yard. Would that be my interpretation of it then?

I'm going to have Jordan come up and talk, speak specifically to this. I know we met earlier.

In specific, when we voted for this, it was my interpretation that the rear lot lines on a lake lot would be opaque.

Just so you know, there is a section for lake front. There's a separate section on waterfront lots. Right.

So good evening, Mayor and Commission. So, per section 110-806, fence, walls, and hedges under subsection E, we discussed front yard. Front yard fences and hedges can be no higher than five feet and may, no higher than five feet may be erected, placed, or maintained with any front yard. A minimum six foot visibility triangle shall be maintained from the intersection of a sidewalk and driveway. We also call out rear yard, any fence or hedge installed along the rear property line shall not exceed eight feet in height. And then side yard, any fence or hedge installed along a side lot line between properties shall not exceed six feet in height. And then we also have a specific code for waterfront lots as well.

So the side yard is interpreted as the entire length of the side yard from the front to the back, correct? And the front yard is just the front lot line? And the rear is just the rear lot line? Is that correct? So in other words, they can put an eight-foot fence all the way to the lakes and have an opaque fence or chain link fence across the back, is the way you're interpreting it at this moment?

They cannot have an eight-foot fence all the way to the front of the house, no.

Where does it state that in there? I'm not sure.

Side yard, any fence or hedge along installed a side lot line between properties shall not exceed six feet in height.

Oh, I'm sorry, six foot. So they could put a six-foot fence all the way to the back of the lake then?

Correct.

The way you're interpreting it. Okay. So at this point, do I request an amendment to it?

You can make an amendment. I mean, honestly, the best thing to do would be to tell us what you want.

Well, under all our description under property ordinances, including when we put an extended driveway, it states the side yard, and I have it under Section 70 right here. The side yard is being from the front of the house to the back of the house. The entire rear yard is from complete left to the right from the rear property or from the rear house, front yard being the same from the front of the house to the front lot line from side to side. That's the way it's interpreted everywhere else. Why is the fence being interpreted as a side lot line or rear lot line?

I don't know that I understand the question, but what I'm trying to understand is your goal. So let me just, on waterfront lots, the rear fence can be no more than 25% opaque, and that's for safety, right? If you have kids or people at your house and someone's drowning in the lake, you want to be able to see them, right? That's why there's almost everyone has to move up.

Excuse me, quick point of order. Can I please get a motion to extend the meeting?

Yes. I'd like to make a motion to extend the meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Caldwell.

Second.

Anybody want to second the motion? All right. There is no second.

Well, let me ask this question then, Jordan. Is your interpretation that you can put a six-foot stockade fence from the rear of the house to the lakefront?

On the side. On the side. On the side. The way our code is currently written, yes.

Okay. So that's where the discrepancy is. It was my understanding that the side yard or the rear yard is from the rear of the house to the property line.

All right. Point of order. I hate to do this. Nobody second. It's 8.30 now. And we have reached the maximum time for a commission meeting. So, because we had no second, at this time the meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.

I just had a problem. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And I just had a problem with this experience.