City Commission Workshop on 2026-08-31 5:30 PM - Joint Meeting with P&Z Board - Aug 31, 2026

And they will be reviewing the goals, objectives, and policies for those elements. And at this time, I'll turn it over to Kathy and Jason from AXIS and JB Pro. Thank you, Jair. Thank you, Jordan and Vice Mayor. As mentioned tonight, we are in Workshop 6. We're going to do a quick recap of the future land use, address some of the comments that we heard after the meeting, go through the economic development element, the parks and recreation element, the infrastructure element, and then talk about what is coming next. We would ask, if you have it with you, if you could keep the goals, objectives, and policies for these three elements open. That way, if you have any questions, we can address them at the time that you're asking. But just like last month, if you have additional comments after the meeting, we will address those at next month's meeting. So here we are in Workshop 6. The last workshop, you may recall, was the first time we started going through goals, objectives, and policies. And for the next three months, we will continue to do that before we transmit at the end of the year. So a recap on the mixed use. These were some of the comments we received after the meeting. The first one dealt with density in rural parcels. And just to remind everyone that all the density we're talking about in these mixed use areas are in urban areas. That's the point of a mixed use area. We will get into the general standards for all of the other future land use elements and components and areas at next month's meeting. Future land use outside of the mixed use areas is one of the primary focuses for next month, along with transportation and housing. So in these areas, we're really focusing on increasing the density to these mixed use areas. We know that mixed use areas work best when they have a greater amount of density. That's what makes a mixed use area really thrive, is that you're focusing your density into these larger areas, into these specific core areas. It does two things for a community. One, it targets that development and targets that vibrant sense of place that you expect to see in a mixed use area, say a mixed use, like a downtown DeLand, which is another community we're working with. And I actually went this afternoon just to walk around and get that sense of that vibrancy and compare and think about how that translates to tonight's meeting. So you want to see the density in these focused areas that will allow for lesser density in suburbanized residential neighborhoods and gives the families that live in those single-family neighborhoods that quality of life that they really want in the rural areas, the quality of life they want. By focusing the development into these central mixed use areas, we're able to maximize the development that happens in there. We're also able to increase the economic activity of these areas. Another community I visited today was in a more rural community, and they have a lot of vacancies. And one of the major things that I was talking about with the community there was, where's the workforce? Where are the jobs? And that's a challenge you have in mixed use. If you don't have the vibrancy, if you don't have the activity, if you're not pulling in those economic activities into those areas, you have a lot of vacant storefronts, and they just don't work as well. And as we think about what could happen with Amendment 3, while we don't know whether or not Amendment 3 will pass, having these economic areas and having these areas that really strive for economic development, which we're going to talk about more in detail in just a little bit, is really important. The next one was about building heights and the nine stories for uptown. Again, this is specifically for your downtown community, and nine stories was based on similar types of communities that we looked at and similar types of places that we looked at in the central Florida region. So when we looked at the nine stories, this is specifically for your uptown, downtown, town center, whatever you want to call that major area of your community. These aren't the smaller mixed-use centers. These aren't your community mixed-use centers or your neighborhood mixed-use centers. This is the one that is meant to be the most economically diverse and vibrant place. And then developer impact and excessive density. The comprehensive plan establishes a maximum density for these areas. But once again, again, these areas are meant to be as dense as we possibly can make them and appropriate for that mixed-use category. So that's why we have three different mixed-use categories. We have the neighborhood, we have the community, and we have the uptown, and each one of them has different density standards for each type because each one is meant to be different. So your neighborhood mixed-use center has the least amount of density, and it's meant to be one-story, two-story buildings, very much of a Main Street-type area, a community Main Street area that you would go to. The community mixed-use centers, those have a little more density, have a little more height, up to five and six stories, depending on if it's on the corridor or if it's in the downtown area. And these areas are meant to serve a larger community area, but they're, again, not meant to be your focus downtown. And then your focus downtown, your uptown, your town center, has the greatest amount of density, greatest amount of intensity, but it's in a very strategic location located near the interchange with I-4 and designated as the future commercial center near your industrial area, near where your warehousing is, where the high school is, where your hospital is. This is an area that really is meant to drive your economic development for that you would expect a downtown, uptown, town center to do so. And the, I want to, one more comment about the developer impact and excessive density is that it is, so mixed-use development is a little bit more challenging for developers to do, and it is that density intensity that incentivizes them to do it. There are a lot of, it's much easier for a developer to do a suburban strip plaza. It's much easier for them to do the traditional types of economic development that we see in suburban communities. So in order to incentivize the mixed-use development, which is a little more challenging, that's where the density comes in play. So in fact, the comment dealt with we were giving away too much density for developers, and in fact, that is what incentivized them to want to develop these kind of areas. The next one dealt with modifying and reducing the densities in the ecocenters and conservation lands, and what we're going to do is work with staff to create an overlay area, specifically targeting where residential is allowed in these areas and applying the density only to those areas so that anything outside of those areas would not have the density attached to it. The next comment dealt with Osteen JPA area and the economic centers and densities and building height, and these areas, and we're going to, again, work with staff, so we'll come back to you with more details on this one, but the economic center in the JPA, Osteen area, was meant to mirror the JPA, and we're going to make sure that the language does that. And then mapping and location clarifications, and we've added new details to the map, we've added some streets, we've added some key markers so that people can tell where they are on the map. So this is just, this is not really to get into today, and we're going to talk more in detail about this with staff, but the blue areas on the map on the left are the Osteen areas that are within the city, and so we're going to work with staff to make sure that the, however we end up including this in the future land use map, whether it's through an economic center or whether it's just through the Osteen JPA designation, it is not meant to in any way change what is already existing and the entitlements that already exist in that area through the JPA. So if there are no further questions about last month's meeting, we'll start talking about this month's meeting. I don't see any questions. Thank you. Okay. So just once again, it was a reminder, we established our guiding principles as part of the vision plan, and they were to support Deltona's family-friendly identity, to prioritize redevelopment over new development by focusing growth to areas that are already served by infrastructure and services, to cultivate a walkable mixed-use environment where people of all ages can safely access, live, work, play, shop, and grow within walking distance of their homes, to cultivate an economy that features a diverse range of industries and jobs, to enhance Deltona's transportation system by prioritizing safety, improved connectivity, and accommodating all major forms of motorized and non-motorized travel, and to protect Deltona's natural resources. And then finally, to maintain and prioritize maintaining and enhancing the quality of life of Deltona's existing public facilities over expansion while ensuring new developments are sufficiently assessed for the cost of infrastructure expansion. And please keep in mind, these colors are purposeful because we mark each one of the goals, objectives, and policies with the corresponding guiding principle that they are achieving. So with that, we're going to start with the economic development element. I will go through the economic development element because it's, again, closely related to the mixed-use centers. And as I mentioned earlier, it really is the economic development that is driving the development of those mixed-use centers in addition to being able to provide that walkability within close relationship to neighborhoods by ensuring that areas that are developed and already have infrastructure are maximized. All of those things drove that mixed-use center. But in the end, what's really driving it is recognizing that Deltona is predominantly today a single-family neighborhood, a large single-family area. And we really need to increase the amount of economic land and the economic value that is coming out of Deltona and providing families an opportunity to live, work, and play in their community and not become just a, not having to commute outside for their jobs. So the driving components of economic development were higher-wage job growth, mixed-use centers in those corridors, infrastructure mobility for commerce, and workforce talent in higher education. So let's start with goal one, which is diverse high-wage job growth, develop strategic resources to foster a healthy and stable economic environment with diverse higher-wage job growth that enhances the quality of life for Deltona citizens. And objective 1.1 is targeted industry recruitment. The first policy in that section is economic development planning and partnerships. This deals with ensuring that as we grow our economic development, we work with our partners to do so. The next one is land development entitlements, and this is to make sure that this objective and associated policies deals with making sure that we have the appropriate lands for economic development. Business retention and expansion, recognizing that the easiest job to expand, or business to expand, is the one that is already here. It is always cheaper to retain and expand an existing business than it is to attract a new one. And then understanding that those industries that we target need to have an associated workforce that is related to them. Are there any questions about economic development objective 1? No questions on ED 1. The next objective in economic development dealt with business retention, expansion, and entrepreneurship. The first policy deals with identifying opportunity sites, and this is, again, targeting specific sites that we would like to identify for the future growth and development of existing businesses, program and vacancies, incentivizing new businesses, and intergovernmental coordination. Are there any questions or comments about economic development objective 2? Commissioner Novick? Under the opportunity site identification, where infrastructure is a major factor in that? Yes, that's right. Utilities, gas, water, sewer. How do we, where do we write that in as far as who's paying for that? What mechanisms and tradeoffs are available? Cost sharing, particularly. So if somebody's going to require a 8-inch water line, but it makes sense to put a 12 in, how do we assure that there's the ability to cost share that? That's a great question. Some of that is also touched upon in the infrastructure element related to those, those utilities that we'll touch on a little bit. We're trying to not, obviously, you got to be careful of how specific you get in these policies. I think you make a great point of, you don't want to spell that out exactly and have applied to everything, because every project's going to be different. I think what the staff has worked with us on, and I think their feedback has been, you know, put in place some policies that call out tools that we want to be able to use, and then through whether it's strategic planning, master planning of your utilities, or other things like that, that you can do the specifics through those options. So you'll see a lot of that in these elements where it's not deferring to, but it's saying you're basically on the hook for making sure your master plans and other things are updated, and you'll do the details through there. Thank you. Yep. That's a great point of identifying those areas and opportunities where, if we're going to have economic development, not just for this one project, but the greater mixed use area or center or what have you. Yeah, because you don't want to run a six-inch natural gas line down Fort Smith out towards Hallam Boulevard because they only need a six-inch for the end user. You want to have it upsized enough at the beginning so that you can feed and branch off and have enough availability for the second, third, and fourth project without having to rerun the line. Right. And then you have the flip side to that, too, where you don't want to oversize things too soon because you don't want to wait. I have a lot of communities that end up dumping water. They open their fire hydrants, and they have to cycle the water. You don't want to get into situations like that. So I think those details and that planning, plus you've got budget issues, right, that pop up from time to time, legislation. You want to make sure that you're empowered to make those decisions when needed, and that's kind of what the policies you're trying to do. Rather than specify exactly, you shall upsize. I think that'll get you kind of in a spot where you may not want to in a certain situation, and we're trying not to be that specific. I think this also highlights the importance of commissions moving forward and staff moving forward with updating our master plans, whether it be stormwater, wastewater, water, even parks and rec and trails and all of those things as well. They're not just for that single subject matter. They also play into the larger discussion over guiding development into the appropriate areas. Yes, and we've had that discussion before about trying to use this plan as a budgeting tool, as a guide tool, right, so that you can continue to do those more specifics on every five-year cycle, 10-year cycle, whatever it may be that's appropriate for that plan. And remember, by doing that, which is the way this comprehensive plan is set up with staff, is that you're more nimble in your localized plans, your parks plan, your infrastructure plan, your capital improvements plan. You have a lot more control over those. Those don't get reviewed by the state. So by establishing a framework that those things happen here in the comprehensive plan, but making the details available in the specific spatial area plan is a more strategic way of using the documents for you as staff. And I don't know, Jordan, that was something that we discussed a lot. Do you want to comment any further on that? Okay. Are there any other commissioner questions, P&Z questions? Seeing none, we can move on. The next objective in economic development deals with small business development initiatives. The first one is about business training and mentorship, which includes business roles and best practices and resource availability education. This is recognizing that small businesses need access to training, that a lot of small businesses are started by people who are really good at what they do, but they may not be great at running a business, and this provides opportunities for them to get the training they need to make sure that their business can thrive. The next one dealt with working capital access through incubators and COVID working facilities and incubator space as public-private partnerships, recognizing that small businesses, if they start out as an incubator, they can get that training, they can get the resource, they can get the support they need, and then eventually move out of the incubator into a freestanding site alone. The next one dealt with affordable incentive programs and community lending and initiatives and equity. Are there any questions? Oh, no, go ahead. And just to be clear, because we've had this question through this process, these are not all things that you have to do, these are things that is encouraging you to participate, partner with, you've got other agencies that do some of this, it's just being at the table and making sure that these types of programs are happening. It doesn't mean you, budget-wise, have to do them, necessarily. That's a really good point. Any questions about this objective? Objective four deals with implementation, monitoring, and reporting, and again, this talks about a special area plan, a small area plan to establish a five-year economic development strategy, an action plan. Again, this is what we just talked about, having a localized special area plan that you, as a city, can really control and develop and implement outside of the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan establishes the framework within which that special area plan for economic development is developed, but then you do it on its own. And then an annual economic development performance report, this is similar to other performance reports that you're going to hear about that we're recommending, and this is just a yearly update that acknowledges and gives you track about how this plan is being implemented. And last month, we had somebody ask a question, how do we know that what we're hearing about is going to be implemented? These one-year implementation monitoring reports will give you a sense of how the comp plan, once you've adopted it, is being implemented over time. Did you have anything else on that? Any other questions on this objective? And on that, we will go to goal two, which is promote economic development through land use strategies, create business-friendly opportunities through appropriate land use regulations, and prioritize economic development efforts. Objective one under goal two is predictable processes in land development code. This ensures that as businesses come forward, that they know the processes and procedures that will be implemented through the land development code and that it is seamless for them and easy for them to understand. And the next one is flexible development standards for emerging businesses. This allows for flexibility as they implement items, still giving the city enough for standards that allow the standards to be done the way the city needs them to be done, but flexibility because not one size does not fit all. The next one is about preservation of industrial and commercial land uses. Again, we've stressed this throughout the day, is that you don't have a lot of economic land uses. You don't have a lot of areas that are zoned or have a land use for commercial, industrial, or other economic uses. And so, therefore, maintaining those, protecting those is really critical for you, especially if something like a property tax bill, which reduced the property burden off of residential, were to be, were to be passed because then you would need to really look at those economic land uses and as a main driver for, for how you fund your city and the services that are provided. The next one deals with flexible design for use conversions. This is just, again, ensuring that as, as you move forward, that you have established design framework that works for the entire city, but is flexible to meet the needs of an individual property owner. Targeted industry list. This is a list of businesses and targeted industries that are really important to the city and has the workforce, has the infrastructure, has the land use, has the transportation system. All of those things are interconnected. So each industry has specific resources and needs that they have and understanding what your community best fits and then targeting industries that use those best fits, not, and don't go after industries that don't fit what Deltona is. The next one deals with distribution centers and freight land uses, as well as public arts and wayfinding and branding. All of this, again, going to understanding who is Deltona and how do you make sure that Deltona, that the industries and economic land uses in Deltona best fit your resources. Are there any questions on this? I know this is one that we've talked about in the past and people seem to have understood the idea that understanding who Deltona is and developing a five-year strategy that deals with those industries is going to be really important for you and your economic development strategies moving forward. The next objective under goal two is mixed-use centers and redevelopment. We've talked a lot about this recently and will continue to because this is one of the major changes in this year in this plan update and one of the major framework components of this year's comprehensive plan update. So the first one is a creation of the mixed-use centers. The next one is understanding the land use within the mixed-use centers and corridors. The next one deals with economic development tools and private-private partnerships. This is, again, what Jason was mentioning, that this isn't all stuff that is expected to be done by the city. The city establishes the framework. The city identifies where the mixed-use centers are and ensures that it has the right land use structure, which will then be translated into the right land development code structure to implement those mixed-use centers. But then you work with partnerships to actually make them happen. Recognizing that pedestrian scale is a business development strategy that goes to what we talked about earlier, that mixed-use centers are really dependent on people in active use. These are not drive-through communities. They are not meant to be for cars. They are meant to be for people on bikes, on walking, that when you walk through the future of the town center or uptown or the neighborhood center or the main street in Deltona, that you're going to see people congregating. You're going to see people outside walking from business to business. You're going to see people carrying their bags that they've bought from places. This is very much of a people-scaled development pattern. Public realms as catalysts, recognizing that people are attracted to great public spaces. Special events, again, special events draw people and is often one of the leading indicators of a developing mixed-use center. You're going to have a lot of special events and those kind of activities. They will help bring people to the area. They will help businesses identify business potential and then decide that they want to locate there, and that's what takes a downtown area from a high vacancy rate to a low vacancy rate and a high activity rate. Mixed-use developments, this talks about the types of developments we expect to see in mixed-use infrastructure. This goes to this conversation we've already had tonight that talks about making sure that the infrastructure is in place so that a new developer who comes in doesn't have to provide that infrastructure that you work with grant funding and other resources to put the infrastructure in place so that it's there when they need it. And then finally, creating an uptown business and entertainment area that will really draw people to a town center area for the future of Deltona. Is there any questions about the mixed-use? The next objective, Objective 3 under the Goal 2 deals with economic development review and approval process. First of all, expedited reviews. Expedited reviews are reviews that are done on an expedited way. They have established criteria. If a developer meets those criteria, if they achieve what is being asked of them, then they can get an expedited review. This reduces the time and reduces the cost, but at the same time, it increases the predictability for the city. That's why a city would do an expedited review. So an expedited review isn't just about giving away processes to a developer or incentivizing the developer. It's about ensuring that you are getting the kind of development you want, and that's why there's an allowance for the expedited review to happen. The next one would be fast-tracking high-wage projects. Again, that you recognize some projects are really important to the city, and then providing a process through which those could be evaluated and streamlined. Any questions about Objective 3 under Economic Development Goal 2? I have a question. When we're talking about these expedited review processes and expedited approvals, what is the mechanism in place or would be put in place to govern those expedited approvals? Land Development Code would be used as the tool to establish them. So you would establish the standards, the criteria, and the process specifically in the Land Development Code. Okay, so that's where we would discuss what is considered a high-wage project or high-wage jobs. We would define those there. You would define the criteria by which you could evaluate them, and then such a project would be brought to the city and determine if it meets those criteria. But it wouldn't necessarily be a one-size-fits-all. You as the city council or the future city council would not be giving away their right to evaluate those. Those would be a criteria established, and then they could be brought to the city for assurance. And when you say brought to the city, you- I meant to the city council. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? We're good. Thank you. That is different than the expedited review, though. The expedited review would have criteria that would allow those to move forward if they meet those criteria. To move forward with development and circumvent city council approval? No, to move forward with the expedited approval. To city council for final approval. Right. Okay. Thank you. Yep. Objective four under goal two deals with implementation monitoring reporting. This is similar to the goal four under objective one. Phased implementation program. This identifies how these programs and incentives and criteria would be established and phased in. Understanding economic development projects for capital improvement planning. Understanding that, again, if you're going to put infrastructure in place, if you're going to put in land uses in place, if you're going to put in transportation systems in place, those may have a cost associated with them, so they need to be part of your capital improvement planning projects. And then, finally, CRA alternatives. And this deals with if CRA were to sunset, alternatives could be there for it. Any questions? The CRA would not understand that CRA's sunset could be because it sunsets because of the year and the renewal process. It could also sunset because the state, for the last few years, has considered sunsetting all CRAs. So just ensuring that you as a city are prepared if and when your CRAs were to sunset and that you have a different tool that could accomplish the same types of goals. Economic development goal three deals with site infrastructure and mobility, and this goal is to maintain the city's effort to establish and provide public services and infrastructure to sites designated to be suitable for the accommodation of economic development as well as to maintain concurrency. Objective one under goal three is updating infrastructure and economic development, recognizing that you need to expand your utility services and making utility infrastructure priorities in the mixed use and commercial areas. We've talked about both of these objectives or these types of policies earlier. The next objective deals with transportation access and mobility. And similar to the infrastructure, this is about ensuring that transportation and transit connectivity is provided to our economic center areas. It deals with the Rhode Island expansion and the first and last mile connections to mixed use centers and corridors. Any questions? I see no questions. The next objective under goal three deals with implementation monitoring reporting. And the first one is inventorying priority employment sites for infrastructure needs. This is identifying where you would want those infrastructure systems and how do you need them updated. This goes to earlier discussions about ensuring that those infrastructure systems are in place when you need them. A sites enhancement fund. This is how you would fund those infrastructure improvements. And then broadband and communications infrastructure, recognizing that broadband and communications infrastructure are as important today as water, sewer, transportation. And the final goal is about workforce talent and a higher education to develop and retain a skilled workforce to support targeted industries and higher-waged employment. The first objective deals with the pipeline for talent, education, and career pathways through the establishment of vocational training partnerships, after-school programs, internship connections, dual enrollment programs, green sector and technology, incentivized training and apprenticeships, satellite programs and training, and professional networking programs. Any questions? Objective two deals with workforce development. And a lot of this deals with partnerships. We recognize these are not things that the city would do by itself, but that they would create the partnerships to make sure they get accomplished through workforce action program, higher-wage focus, STEM focus, linkages between industry clusters, partners, and the action plan, entry and disadvantage, workforce support, strengthening the city's role in workforce development organizations, addressing workforce skill gaps through partnerships, attracting skilled workers in the creative class, and addressing workforce-dependent care needs. Are there any questions about this objective? I see no questions for this objective. And at that, I'm going to turn it... Before we move on to the other elements, Kathy, would you mind explaining to the commission how the economic development is not a mandated element by the state? Yeah, the economic development is an optional element. The state prescribes specific elements that need to be and must be in your comprehensive plan. The next two that we're going to go through, the parks and infrastructure, are both required elements. Economic development is an optional element, but we felt that it's such an important foundational item for Deltona, being that Deltona, as we talked about through the vision component, is a predominantly commuter community where it's mostly residential living here, and then you're commuting out. And we really think economic development is critical to bringing in and improving your tax base, but also providing people opportunities to work near their homes. And we currently have an economic development element currently. We're just updating it. We have a question from Member Dierko. I just wanted to circle back to the building height for the uptown when we were talking about nine stories. I know I had brought this up at the last workshop, but since then we've had a recent planning and zoning meeting where amendments to the Live Local Act are going to be allowing any live local building to be up to the same height as any building within a one-mile radius. One-mile radius, or, Jim, if you can correct me on this, it's three stories. Is it three stories? Okay. One-mile radius or three stories. Okay. So it wouldn't be that within a one-mile radius there could be 20 other nine-story buildings. That's what I wanted to confirm. Correct. So only up to three stories. Correct. And staff can go back and look at the statute. Okay. If we could, please, just to make sure, that's just something I would really want to make sure of. Will do. All right. Awesome. Thank you. I'll second that because that, again, sounds like the state legislature preempting some urban sprawl within our community without local say. Yeah. Yes. Are we good? Anything else? Any other comments up to this point? Okay. So I'll go over, I'll cover recreation element. Goal one, parks and recreation open space and trails, expand, improve, and maintain an integrated, resilient, and all-age park recreation trails and open space system that supports community health, environmental stewardship, economic vitality, and quality of life for residents, protects natural resources, and strengthens Deltona's quality of life through 2050. So your first objective under there is dealing with level of service. All your comprehensive plans and concurrency-related items have to have level of service adopted as part of them. So you've got your first policy, total available park and recreation lands, park and recreation facility classifications. A lot of this was using what you already had. We just changed the format to make it shorter, put it in a table versus a lot of words, annual capacity calculation, your 10 to 15-minute access policy. If you don't mind, can you reference what page in the packet we're on? Oh, I think it's the third one. Sorry, it was out of order from yours. So the recreation element should be the third. Sorry about that. No problem. Yeah, I realized afterwards what we did this, what order you had your packet in, so it's my fault. All good. Thank you very much. Sorry, folks. Are you all there? Okay. Yes, that was, yeah, we did the slideshow out of order. Sorry about that. 10 to 15-minute access, level of service deficiency, and recreation facility development standards. Are there any questions related to that objective? No questions. Okay. And level of service is a balance, right? You want to have enough facilities, enough acreage to serve your population, but you also don't want to financially impact you negatively and commit to too much. Objective two, park rehabilitation. I'm sorry. Member Northey. How do we determine, are we doing it by a person or house, or how do we determine what we need in the way of parks, and what do we include in that? What is it? That's a great question. So right now, the way that it's written is just keeping to the way it has been, which is your acreage per thousand as a level of service measurement. I think we've had conversations with staff, and I've said this, I think, to you all before. There's other ways to refine that, and this is set up really to kind of address that and consider those other ways through your master planning process. And just an example that I use that another community I work with has done, they've done a point system. They've established a minimum number of sport fields and sport courts per park type. Their level of service in their plan is acreage-based, but through their master plan, they've decided to go even further, dig down deeper to measure. So for right now, through the year 50-50, we're still doing 4.5 acres of suitable park recreation, open space land per thousand residents. Correct. And what does open space mean to me or to the person who is looking at the comp plan? What does open space mean? Well, generally, it's defined as it could be passive open space. It doesn't have to be an active recreation space. What do you mean as an example? Conservation lands, I guess, if they had some trails or something, that would be a little bit of a passive. Would that be private or public? Generally, it would be public or some kind of access easement or other kind of vehicle. So D Ranch, I think they have like 400 acres, they would not qualify or they would not be part of this process. No. At this time, no. But the trail system that runs along Lakeshore, does that count? You can. Some communities count the linear acreage. I'm sorry? Do we count it? Not at this point. Not at this point. That's what I'm being told. That's why I said there's other tools and ways to measure because you're not just, you're setting a standard because you have to, right? And so it's acreage-based. But an empty park doesn't provide anything to that neighborhood, right? So the second level of that, which we didn't at this point want to put specifics in the plan to call out those details of how many playgrounds have to be in there, how many sport courts have to be there. That is more of a case-by-case, park-by-park operations and facilities and planning component. Yeah. That's where your parks master plan details that up or should. Does that make sense? Well, I've been here since 74. We have not, and I'm not aware of any parks, maybe we have, but what we had at Thornby Park, trying to think of if there was any other parks that we added outside of the Mackle parks that were here when they developed this community. Right. So I just wonder about numbers. So one thing we would be looking at in the future would be that as we develop the mixed-use centers, each one of them had calls for a park space or public space to be included. It's a key component, as we talked about earlier, of your mixed-use centers. So, and you, and mixed-use centers have a different variety of parks than we might be otherwise used to. Like, you would have a pocket park, which is a small, not even, you know, a very small area that you might have picnic tables or seating or benches, maybe murals or something like that. So in the future, having this is really important because it's going to help design those public spaces. Yeah, so I mentioned this earlier. The balance is you can increase that number, but then it's still just acreage that you're measuring, but you're also putting more pressure on your budget. So those are the trade-offs that you have to kind of figure out. And I've been in many communities that have three times that number. They still don't have any facilities in their parks. So you've got to kind of find a way to do both and balance both. And we find that the master planning process generally helps get it more specific. There's a life cycle that you can account for, age of a neighborhood that may be closer to that park and more users using it. There's lots of ways to that process to help get those details. It just seems to me that exactly that, just saying we have 4.5 acres of suitable park recreation, open space, land per 1,000 residents, doesn't really define what we have. Right, and it doesn't define how to use those parks or that space. You're right. You can go farther in detail. The more detail you put in the plan, the more budget impact you have, and you have to do that. We have to hold ourselves accountable for the quality of life. Correct, correct. Thank you, Member Northeat. We've got Commissioner Novick and then Commissioner Caldwell. So you're good? Okay. Commissioner Novick. So when we require a park element in a subdivision, like in an HOA, does that count? No. Because it services the park element for that community. Right. So a lot of communities are also moving away from pocket parks and neighborhood parks as part of their operations and their level of service, because they don't want to maintain them. They're inefficient to maintain. So you know they're being provided, perhaps. If it's a land development code regulation, if a subdivision over a certain size has to have so much acreage, those are tools that doesn't count towards your level of service, but it does provide a need. Like community pools. Right. And do those count? Typically not. Because in the land you have several subdivisions that have community pools. Right. And typically not. So you could argue that there's an underrepresentation of the actual acreage and uses available to the community, because those might not count towards the level of service. A need may be being met. But again, we don't want to say you have to have so many pools or so many trying to find that balance. But we should get credit where they are provided, so we're not deficient in that element. And the challenge in that is maintenance and ownership, right, and say they close the pool. Then what do you do? Then you've reduced your level of service. Well, cities close pools and parks and things. So, I mean, that doesn't hold water. I think we need to look at this a little bit more, this particular element, and look and see defining it a little bit better of what qualifies and what doesn't. Because we require, right now, certain subdivisions to have, based on their size, a certain amount of green space. Certainly the sidewalks in that could be considered trail or walkability within that community. Can they meet that element and get credit for it by making it a six-foot-wide sidewalk versus four-foot or whatever? I think we need to look at this a little bit more. I want to make sure we understand you're interested in ensuring that there's more opportunities provided and we're giving credit where credit's due? I think we need to make sure we're giving credit where credit's due so that we're not deficient in this element. When a developer comes in and provides park amenities within that subdivision, I think that should give us credit. So, Jordan and I have talked about this a couple times now. So, I think that that's reasonable and we can work on some language about a future analysis because currently your impact fee study is based on the way your level of service is done now. What would have to happen, what can happen, is as we rotate through those cycles of when that gets updated again, you can start moving in that direction. You're not there yet, so I want to make sure we don't have policy that conflicts with that. But I think as part of this, we can do what you're asking, which is set you up for, by the way, next time around, let's make sure we're making sure all these studies align with what we want to accomplish. And whether it's change this or update it, however you want to do it. Thank you. Yes, sir. Commissioner Howington. Thank you. We have some subdivisions that have been built with parks that are available to the entire public. If that is the case, can those possibly be counted because they are not excluding anyone? However, we have other ones where they're fenced off and only available to residents via keys and things like that. No, they're owned by the subdivisions. They're part of the plan. Some of that, I think we could go look and help the city, but some of that depends on the tool that was used to whether dedicate or grant rights or easements or what have you. That's an important part, right? So is it really open or have people just used it, right? There's a big difference there. So we'll powwow with staff and try to identify some of those and look at those examples. Okay, thank you. That's a good point. I have one other question. Where does Y fall in all of this? Are they considered private or public? Private. They're considered private. Even if they get echo money for membership? Yeah. I mean, they're not a publicly owned, you're talking about the facilities? Use of the facilities. Yep. Yeah. Typically, they're not counted towards a level of service. So you can get in the weeds on this, right? So there's different communities do different things. Some communities build courts and build things and do the programming. And some just build the facilities and let an agency, a different agency like a Y or Boys and Girls Club or whoever else do the programming. It depends on what the community wants to do. There's public money in Y program, in Y infrastructure, through ECHO, through the county's ECHO program. Oh, okay. We just did fields over here in the YMCA here. Okay. And those are generally used for, I think, the soccer clubs. And I don't know what the cost is for the use of those fields. But I was just wondering, because there was public money already there, would that count? It can. I live where I live. There's the Y, actually, the same similar thing. They run programs at a publicly maintained and built field. Okay. And the soccer programs or football, whatever they were there, those are run by an offset of the Y. And so it counts towards their park and rec level of service. But it's programmed and run by an outside group. But in that case, it's owned by the public. And they do probably a maintenance cost share kind of situation. So what I'm hearing is that we'd all like to see an analysis on what is and isn't included in that. And then if I'm hearing correctly, that we would all also like to see a more detailed adjustment to this specific policy so that it's not as vague as 4.5 acres per 1,000 residents that it calls out. Well, it sounds like you want to go up, right? You want to increase your level of service. I think we want to increase the level of service with the details so that it's not just vague open space that everybody that, you know, a plethora of opportunities or land uses can meet. It is more specific to parks and sports fields and actual amenities rather than, you know, open space, very broad. Do we know currently where we're at with the amount of acres utilized for parks? I don't have it offhand here, but I think you meet your level of service at this point. Again, it's acreage-based. If I remember correctly, we meet it by a long shot using a vague approach of open space. It's also using the schools. Yeah, when you actually dive into what that includes, it doesn't include a significant amount of amenities. And if you compare us amenity-wise to other similar communities, we appear rather deficient when it comes to the number of playgrounds, the age of playgrounds, the number of sports fields, and things like that. And I've written those requirements for communities, but we did it through the master plan rather than in the plan itself because it gave them more budget flexibility and decision-making process, right? So that's that line you have to toe a little bit, being careful, because once it's in here, it's hard to get out. I understand. To piggyback on what Jason said, that's a – I mean, I applaud you for wanting to do that level of analysis, but if you put that kind of information in your comprehensive plan, then it becomes something that you would have to – you would be a state standard, and it's probably better to be addressed through a parks master plan where you can really dive into that level of analysis and evaluate. You could also then evaluate whether or not your current level of service standards meet your community, and you really focus specifically on that one targeted area. That's a perfect example of where a special area plan, in this example, a parks master plan would be the most appropriate tool to develop that kind of analysis and evaluation. Yeah, I don't think that – I think we're all on the same page with this. I think the analysis request is adjacent to this. I don't think it's intended to be included in this, but I think the goal of it is to maybe more define those recreational opportunities, even within the plan, but once we have the analysis, we can have a more detailed discussion on what that would look like, the positives and negatives. So I think the analysis would be a policy to guide staff to do an analysis. That would be a policy within the comp plan, and then that policy would then instruct staff to do the master plan. Okay. That would be good. That would work. Okay. Yeah, so those other places, it's policy to direct the master planning. The master plan then says each of your parks need to be master planned, not just the park-wide, system-wide master plan. And then a couple of those communities I work with, then that's what they do on each park gets master planned with the community around it involved rather than doing it through just the policy. But the policy is, like Jordan said, guiding you for the master plan. To add some context to the discussion, there's a lot of use of the term master plan. When we're talking about specifically parks master plans and an overall master plan versus a master plan at each park, each park master plan could be, it could all be done at the same time, and the individual location master plans can be a component of the overall system master plan. Yes, that's right. Because I know a lot of residents, when they hear master plans, they hear dollars out the door and a plan put on the shelf. So I want to make sure that that's not the case. That has been. I don't want to negate what has happened in the past, but that is not the case and not the intention here in moving forward. And actually, to piggyback up on that, that's where that annual reporting of what is happening and how each element is being updated and implemented would come in play, because then through that annual update, you would learn a policy like this that calls for this evaluation and master planning of parks, what the status is of that project and how it's being implemented. Excellent. Thank you for that addition. The other, I guess one other point would be that once we do a master plan, because I'm not sure when the most recent parks master plan was done. I think it was about two years ago was your update to your park or rec master plan-ish. Okay. And then when we're talking about updating those, updates to subsequent updates are significantly less costly. We're not recreating it from scratch every single time. We're updating an existing plan. Right, and you're responding to population changes. You're responding to demographic changes. You're responding to opportunities that may have come up. Rather than creating from scratch and outlaying tens of thousands of dollars every single time. Right, and it's also an opportunity to identify, oh, there's some policies here that maybe we need to tweak, so the recommendation can come from that to go update your comprehensive plan to change, tweak some policies, and then you can do that process. Absolutely. That's typically how it happens. Thank you. We can move on. Okay. So, objective two, park rehabilitation facility, quality and accessibility. Again, it's talking about maintenance, ongoing maintenance, those sort of things. Asset management program, life cycles, those types of things, keeping up with that. Facility condition assessments, capital improvement priorities for parks, phase park development, maintenance standards, engagement of, again, guiding staff, right? We're not dictating a specific level, but guiding to make sure these are on your checklist every year. Engagement of multiple uses and activities at city parks, creation of inventory of new resource-based park sites, and universal inclusive design policy guidance to make sure your parks are for all people. Were there any questions related to those? I think it's very along the lines of what you guys were starting to talk about. I don't see any questions on the board. Thank you. And then objective three, natural area wildlife corridors, priority gap closure. I was working with a city, and the only place there wasn't a sidewalk was in front of their park. Nobody could get to the park. Connected, don't do that. We have that. Prioritize those gaps, right? That's what we're talking about. Connected trail network and trailhead, regional multi-use trail and trailhead connectivity, lake and water access. These ones are starting to connect to you, not just parks, but also really the transportation system and beyond the parks. Any questions? Again, if there's anything, any wording in these policies, today's a good day to point it out if you have some concerns or questions about these specific policies. We have no questions on that. Okay. Objective four, under goal one, recreation needs assessment, recreation by center type. Again, that's what is, how do you plan and develop those individual parks? Trail and pedestrian connections, and then eco-center recreation opportunities. Objective five, education and program for all. So programming for all, we just talked about that a little bit. Annual program evaluation, are you serving the needs of the community, basically is what that is. Community program priorities, parks for all, public information and transparency, and setting you up for an adopt-a-park program. I have a question on the public information and transparency. How does that relate to the parks objective? You mean the education program for all? The public information and transparency. Yes, yes. Was it the wording of it that misplaced? It's more of, could we go over that one in a little bit more detail? I know that, Jordan, is this document available on the website yet? It's on Granted Assist. Okay. I know that there's been a topic amongst some groups in the community has been as it relates to ADA accessibility on a larger conversation. And so this being the education and program for all, I would like to understand the public information and transparency components as it specifically relates to programming for all. So this one deals with making sure that the public is aware of how your parks are being used, what kind of schedules they're on, what kind of programs are available at them, what the conditions that the parks are, if there is a park that needs to be closed for some reason. And because parks are some of the most used assets in your community, this policy is designed to ensure that people are aware of how those parks are available to them and if there are any changes to programming or schedules. Okay. On would section, kind of going back to the top of the list, with section 15.1, the program for all, would that be where we would include language that would be specific to ensuring that there was a component of parks within the system that were ADA accessible and sensory type parks? Yes. It's already included. Yes, it's already in that. Excellent. Thank you, guys. And if I'm going to, I just want to point out what 156 is because you, the adoptive program, park program, as Jason has mentioned before, that we looked for opportunities to ensure that we were identifying places where the city is working with people to allow for things to happen. And adoptive park program is one of the. You turned. Where? I see that we've got Commissioner Howington and Commissioner Nobick on the list. We're, quick explanation, we're running into an issue because more than four people want to speak at a time and so it's kicking people off. So if there's, there are any other commissioners that want to speak or PNZ members, see none. Okay. After you guys finish, then we'll go to Commissioner Howington. So the adoptive park program is a volunteer-based organization where a volunteer, maybe a friends of type organization would develop and would be responsible for maintaining or supporting the programming at a certain park. So that's all. That was all I wanted to point out about that particular policy. Thank you. So we currently have an adoptive park program. How does this work with the program that we currently have? It's just, it's just promoting that adoptive program and ensuring that people are aware of it and that it allows for it to be expanded or enhanced. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Nobick. Thank you. Not sure which element this would fit under. I'm thinking 1-5.3. I'd like to see us insert language in the plan that requires an advisory committee. We, in the past, have had parks advisory committees, and they've come and gone through different commissions. If we put it in the element in the plan, then it helps keep it. I think this is a very important area to have youth advisory committee, senior advisory committee, to keep programs current and moving forward. Excellent. Okay. Moving forward. Anybody else? Okay. No more questions? Objective 6, implementation funding, five-year capital, your five-year capital program, you'll, you hear that a lot, capital resources and funding, parks and recreation impact fees, review of city park facility user fees, annual grant program, use of non-city contractual volunteer services for park maintenance, and joint ventures and courage for specialized facilities. Anybody have any questions related to those? Commissioner North, or Member North, do you have a question on this one? No, I don't know how to turn this off. No, I don't know how to turn this off. It's not. Oh. Yeah. Okay. All right. No questions. Thank you. Okay. Objective 7, monitoring and accountability, annual implementation report, you've heard that, trail performance reporting, annual monitoring, five-year master plan evaluation, network-based analysis for level of service standard, park performance matrix, comprehensive plan coordination, implementation linkage, implementation linkage, capital improvement monitoring, and major facility and land acquisition evaluation. Do we have any questions? Okay. That is park and recreation. All right. Back towards the front. So, your infrastructure. Sure. I will try not to give commentary on all these, because there's a lot of policies in here. It's a big one. This has basically sub-elements to it, so we'll try to get through these. And if, again, all of these components are trying to tie everything back. You'll see future land use, but you see us talk about land use decisions and a lot of these elements to try to really support your mixed-use centers. Does anybody have any objection if we just go through all of each goal holistically, and then we do questions at the end of each goal rather than the end of each objection? Okay. Okay. It's a long one. Let's make that pivot. Okay. So, I won't read all the policies. Potable, infrastructure one, potable water, provide a safe, reliable, cost-effective, and sustainable public potable water system with sufficient supply, treatment, distribution, fire flow, and emergency interconnection capacity to serve existing and future development while conserving regional water sources. And then the first objective is, again, dealing with level of service and development capacity, mostly dealing with potable water. Anybody have any questions about those policies? We'll just go through, if you can go through all of these. We'll just go through all of these. I'm sorry. Yep, you did say that. Objective two, water supply system, facilities, and coordination. A lot of consumptive use permits and amount of water that you're using. Financing, special district assessment opportunities, concurrency and development orders, how it all relates to your reviews. Objective three is water conservation, outreach, and emerging technology. Florida friendly is in there, related to landscaping and conservation, those types of policies. High water use demand, thank you, yep, setting the stage for that. Objective four, water reuse and alternative supply, looking for alternative supplies, essentially. Reclaimed, there's a lot of policies in here about reclaimed. Goal two is sanitary sewer, so sustainable sanitary sewer systems. Oh, did you want to stop at each? I'm sorry. Did we want to stop at each sub-element and talk about water? Yeah, I think that would be a good idea. We can stop and take questions. Yeah, because that's water, and then we'll go into sewer. Perfect. Member Dierko. Sorry, just quickly circling back to reclaimed water. So the first sentence, the city shall require the use of reclaimed water by private landowners. How are we provisioning for if reclaimed water is not available? Generally, you put in the infrastructure. A developer puts in the infrastructure so that when it's available, it will be connected. Okay, so we're not requiring all residents use reclaimed water only when it's available? Right, and I believe there's a policy, I think it's worded so that it's not making the neighborhoods, the residential lots, connect to it unless there's availability. It's got to be there. But it's mostly for development and new development. And what I mean by that is primarily the mixed-use centers. And generally, you want them to put in the infrastructure so it's ready if it's not there yet or if you don't have the capacity or you're already using it. Because what happens is they end up, sometimes they end up putting in wells and then using. No, that's fine. And I just wanted to make sure, but the way the first sentence was worded made it seem like we were requiring everyone use reclaimed water for non-potable water activities. We'll evaluate that language and make sure it's not doing that. Yep. Commissioner Novick. Water supply is present before certificate of occupancy, before construction permit. Concurrency is... It has to be before construction permit because, for instance, fire protection water has to be available prior to construction. You can't have it. You have to have it before vertical construction occurs. Okay. And then under minimum fire flow requirements, should the word current be inserted before Florida Fire Prevention Code? Which policy was that? I'm sorry. I'm sorry, 1-1.4 minimum fire flow requirements. Should it say current Florida Fire Prevention Code, currently adopted Florida Fire Prevention Code? Yeah, it's most current. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Howing. Thank you. To Member Diarico's point, 1-4-1 for reclaimed water and then also in 1-4-3 reclaimed water use is permitted, the language seems rather strong. It's talking about specifically for agriculture, that reclaimed water must be used if it's available from the city. We might want to look at that verbiage as well. Okay. The intent, obviously, is somebody, if it's there. Right. You want people to utilize it. Yes. Right. Okay. Okay. With regards to item 1-4.2, shallow irrigation wells, should we not also include the language that we need to comply with FDEP and St. Johns River Water Management District requirements for that as well, since well permits have to be issued from the WMD? Yeah. That's fine. That's fine. I'm always careful of quoting statutes and other things that change, but the reference to those agencies is fine. Any other questions? Are you good, Ms. Carter? That's good. Thank you. Thank you for that. We're good. Okay. All right. Sanitary sewer provides safe, adequate, cost-effective, and environmentally acceptable sanitary sewer systems for the city of Deltona. And your first objective is level of service, surprise, and development capacity. Setting your level of service and some connections, there's some septic tank policies in there and criteria for centralized sewer versus septic tanks. I have a question on that. Sure. Member Northey. Okay. Under? Under 2-1.5, whatever that is, it says, requires all new residential and non-residential development utilize and connect to a centralized water sewer system where available. However, we are not mandating that when it becomes available, it's still listed as Shelby voluntary. Why would we, if we have sewer available, considering we are in the Blue Spring watershed, we have to get out of the ground with sewer, with, excuse me, with septic tanks. So why is... I think state law also, there's a state statute that requires that when septic or sewer is available that septic permits are not allowed to be issued. So can we just incorporate some of the state statute language into this policy? Well, yes. The intent, obviously, is a new subdivision come in. They've got to connect to you. I'm not talking about new subdivisions. I'm talking about retrofits. So Kathy brought it... What's that? Right. It comes in afterwards. Yeah. Let us discuss that because that is existing policy. Right. And so I want to make sure that we don't trigger something with the state that it becomes more restrictive. So let's just evaluate that for you and see if we can work that in there. Okay. Well, that concern is when you say more... You don't want to be more restrictive. I think that if there is sewer lines available, they should be required to connect. So... And I... On the face of that suggestion, I completely agree with you, and I think that is a best planning practice. My concern, and the attorney is not here at the moment to answer whether or not my concern is valid, but my concern is that that requirement to do so would be considered more restrictive and therefore would be in violation of Senate Bill 180. What about the fact that... Okay. So you're talking about the new Senate Bill 180. Yeah. The Senate Bill 180 that says that you cannot establish anything that is more restrictive as of July 31st of 2024? That bill does not expire until... Even though we're in the Blue Spring watershed and we're mandated to get out of the watershed. So we've got the attorney here. So the attorney is here. The question is regarding making the language in goal two for sanitary sewer more restrictive as it relates to when sewer becomes available, requiring that residences connect? Requiring... Right now, it's a voluntary connection, and the suggestion is to make it a required connection if sanitary sewer is brought to a residential area, that that residential area would be required to connect at that time. And I do believe under the state statute it is a requirement. It just happens... The requirement is that it takes place when the system is at the end of life and that they are no longer allowed to have a new septic permit. They have to connect. They have to connect when they can only... That's correct. I get that. But I also... We're also mandated to get the heck out of the Blue Spring watershed by sewer... Or by septic. And that date is sometime in 2030-something. So that's coming up, at least that's what I recall. So that's all I'm just questioning, why we wouldn't be more restrictive and say... I know it's... I understand that it's very... What's the word I'm looking for? People are very concerned. But if we're going to meet the mandate to get out of the Blue Spring watershed, we have to start seriously doing this. The staff will definitely look at that concern with the consultant and legal and see how we can look at that language. So we can look at this, and there may be... I understand your point. And we may be able to come up with a solution. We do have to be obviously careful. Senate Bill 180 doesn't burn off until 2027. However, you're right. I mean, there is that separate mandate. So we'll work with staff. We'll work with the consultants to figure out a solution. And we will keep you all apprised. Because certainly it is advantageous. And ultimately, sanitary sewer is a better option. So we'll see if there's a way we can come up with a solution to meet both criteria. Thank you. Is there a way that we can build language into this to allow us to make that more restrictive item effective once SB 180 is no longer in effect? So I would urge all of us to not talk about it as a more restrictive item, because it is not. It is a different process for sewer. And we do have other ways to potentially get there. And we may be able to do it through building code. But I would not, and I will clearly state, it is our position that it is not restrictive or burdensome. But there may be a solution through building. So it's our position that it is not a more restrictive or burdensome land use regulation. And there may be another way to accomplish our goals. So I would think of it and refer to it as sanitary sewer to ensure compliance with the Blue Springs mandate. The watershed protection. Yeah. And I think if we are careful and frame it through building and not through land use, that might be the solution. But we'll work with the staff and we'll work with the consultants. I also want to take a moment, and if we're discussing on whether we're going to go to forced sewer, I think that requires a larger discussion than this workshop. So if that's where this discussion is going, I'd like to pull that to the side and have that separate conversation, because I think that would elicit. And that should be advertised separately so that residents can come and speak their voice on that one. Commissioner Knobbick, and then Commissioner Caldwell. I will add one additional thing, if I may, Commissioner. We also can look at this as an option to implement that goal for the watershed through our utility and potentially require connection if they're within so many feet of a water main. So I guess what I'm saying is there are a lot of paths to achieve that goal that are not land development regulations. And that would be what we would work with the staff and the consultants to explore, to ensure we're compliant with the law, but still meeting our other mandates and goals. Commissioner Knobbick. Yeah, we're not talking about forced sewer for anybody that's existing. It's redevelopment property, new construction. We don't have the billions of dollars it would take to put the infrastructure in place to begin sewering people up. My question is in regards to 2-1.8 private packaged treatment facilities. First of all, Jordan, do we know, do we have any still in existence in the city? Commissioner, I would have to defer to Public Works, and they are not here at this time, but I can get back to you on that. Okay, in the event that we do, and I don't think we currently have any packaged systems still, because there was an ordinance passed some time ago doing away with those. But in the event that we do have any, I'd like to see this be a lot more specific language. It says, any existing privately owned packaged treatment facility shall be evaluated for phasing out. I'd like to see some kind of a time frame in there. This leaves it very open-ended if we work on making it more specifically time framed. So, Commissioner, staff will double check with Public Works to make sure that, to see if we have any currently. If we do not, this is a new policy, and we'll just take the policy out. Okay, thank you. I have a question, if we don't mind. Along those same lines, going back to potable water, do we have any provision in the potable water language that allows for the creation of co-ops, similar to the way that the private package treatment facilities would exist for a community, that a potable water system could be created for a community? So, in partner with the city, or I'm trying to, or somebody else doing, no, most of your current policy talks about you. Okay. Connecting to you, your city. Okay. I just want to ensure that there's a requirement that they connect to the water utility. And I know that in other areas, in surrounding communities, those small type treatment plants have become a huge burden and problem because they are not, there is a lot less oversight on them. Yes. And ultimately, it creates many, many problems. Yeah, 113. I think 113 addresses what you're talking about. So, I've had that many. It's a great point because CDDs, they are empowered by statute to create their own utilities. Correct. And they can become conflicting with public utilities that are provided. So, yes, I know what you mean by that. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. I had a question with regards to 2-1.6, items 3 and 4. The language in both of those bullets seems like it's a bit broad. And I'm wondering if we couldn't be more specific when talking about a subdivision that's going to create a plat. What if they're creating a plat and a subdivision? Obviously, that's vacant land. What if they're not next to a sanitary sewer main? Again, I'm thinking we have properties within the city where that would be the case. We could potentially make the development cost prohibitive from actually doing it because they're not close enough. And the main extension cost would price them out of the market of being able to do the development. And item number four, with regards to projects involving site plan review. Again, any project requiring site plan review, do we not have vacant pieces of property that would go through site plan review that are not next to a sanitary sewer main? So, I'm just wondering if we can look into both of those situations and see if we can't tighten the language in both of those items. Thank you. Can you clarify that for me? You said tighten the language, but as far as the intent, obviously, is if you have more than four lots, I think is what it's referring to, and you're going to do a subdivision, that you have that connection. Well, what if you don't have a sanitary sewer main next to you? From a planning perspective, I would say your timeliness is wrong as far as potentially, it depends on the density of the subdivision, right? So, if you're trying to get more units in a higher density, then you need to have that infrastructure to be able to do those lots. And do we have language in ordinance language that requires the extension of sanitary sewer to new developments to PUDs? Yes. And it's also kind of a timing of development question. So, when they would come through you for approval or rezoning, one of your questions are, are we going to have utilities here? Are we going to have them available for this? Because generally, you don't want more and more lots that are not on the systems. I understand, while I understand the intent of why it's written this way, it just seems like that's too, it's not specific enough. The language is not specific enough to be, it just needs to be tightened up. The language just needs to be more specific, especially with regards to number four, a site plan review that's consistent with the LDC. What is the goal of tightening up the language that you're looking for? To prevent the development of infill lots that don't have access? That's one situation. Or the prevention of vacant lots that can be developed but are not adjacent to a sanitary sewer main or don't have a sanitary sewer main running through the public right-of-way abutting their property, thereby meaning that they will not be able to develop the piece of property because the only way they could would be with septic. They might be in an area of the city that is not served by a sanitary sewer main. Okay. I just wanted to make sure. We have access to sanitary sewer and water main maps, so I don't know where, what areas of the city where that could potentially be affected, but I think it deserves that we look into those areas and see if there's situations where this could potentially be an issue and either amend or be more descriptive and not be so broad in the language of these two items. Okay, I just wanted to make sure that it was clear what your goal was, and it sounds like your goal is to prohibit the development of infill lots if they don't have access to sanitary sewer. No, my goal is not to prohibit the development of infill lots. My goal is to allow for the development of infill lots if they do not have a sanitary sewer or water main running through the public right-of-way abutting this infill lot. Yeah. This language would make it so that they would not be able to develop that infill lot. Okay, so you want to make it allowable for them to develop the infill lot with sewer or with septic rather than require connection to sewer? In the event that there's not a sanitary sewer main adjacent to their or in their public right-of-way. Is that already allowable by ordinance? So this is an existing policy, right, and it says new development will connect to sewer. And provision, is it number one of that policy, talks about if it's available, you have to connect to it. If it's not, then you're not required to connect to it. I think that the break that I'm having between those two is a new subdivision, new 100-unit subdivision comes in. This requires you to connect. Well, I think, but this is, we're specifically talking about single individual infill lots. Okay, number three is the 100-lot plat. Number four is the single individual, so we've got two items on the table. So number three with 100 platted lots, where in the city are we going to put 100 platted lots? So we have to look at where those areas would be and figure out, based on existing infrastructure, do we actually have a sewer main that a developer who wants to plat 100 lots can connect to a sewer system, thereby being able to comply with this requirement? The infill lot situation, same exact thing. Where in the city do we have vacant lots where people who would want to develop that lot build a house, build a business? But what if they're not in an area of the city that is served by sanitary sewer? So, for example, the lot next to me was vacant until three years ago. They built that lot. We don't have access to sanitary sewer. They put in a septic tank. But this item number four would prohibit that development. But it doesn't. Because they would not be able to connect to sanitary sewer, so they wouldn't be able to develop the lot. So one says that you can, and that's for individual lots. The others are talking about if I came in with a new development, not a lot, not to build a house on, but 50 units, 20 units, 100. The PUD. So the question is, do you want to allow those subdivisions to be built without sewer? And generally, I would tell you no. Number three is no, but we also have to look at where those, where are we going to put 100 platted subdivision, 100 platted lot subdivision in the city? And we're looking at areas that are on the east side of the city or the northeast side of the city or bordering Osteen. And all I'm saying is, is that we need to contrast and compare those areas where a platted subdivision could go. Do they actually have the ability to connect to sanitary sewer services? Or, if not, how far of a distance would that main extension have to run to allow for that development to happen? That's item number three. Item number four is different. Item number four is the infill lot situation or the individual who wants to build a house on a vacant lot. One lot, one house. Site plan review. What if they can't comply with the part of that language that says served by centralized sewer system because the city does not have mains in their area? So, all I'm asking is that we look at the sewer maps, see if there's situations where these two items could potentially create a situation where development would be halted or stopped, and try to come up with a way that we can either amend or be more stringent with the language of these two items. So, we would need some direction, I guess, from you all because that's a policy. Yeah, okay. That's a major policy shift, essentially. So, we're going to need some additional direction on that from all of you all. Do you have any more comments? No. Okay. Member Dierko. Andrea, can I just ask for my own clarification? Yeah. For the single lot, would that not be solved for in item number one where we're saying where there are no suitable sewer facilities immediately available, a septic tank may be used? Well, now you've got conflicting codes, so which one overrides? Okay. So, now it's not clear and concise. So, one needs to support the other or one needs to be stricken or amended? So, Chair Cardo, staff will look at this with the consultants, and when we come back for the next workshop, we will definitely get this addressed. Thank you so much. Appreciate your attention. Thank you for the clarifications. Thank you, Member Cardo. Hearing, seeing no more questions, we can move to the next objective. Where am I? Two, one. We already did that. Level service and development. Oh, sorry. There's another page. Existing facilities and efficiencies, objective two. We talked about that, so then I'll go to three. Affluent recharge, reuse, and disposal. Again, it's just talking about long-term land agreements, reclaimed water infrastructure. Are there any comments related to objective three before I go too fast? Objective four, evaluation and implementation. Again, your master plan, process, impact fee collection, updates. Are there any questions related to those? No questions. If not, I'll go on to solid waste. Provide reliable, sanitary, cost-effective, and coordinated solid waste collection and regional disposal service for all properties in Deltona while maintaining adequate disposal capacity and protecting neighborhoods from incompatible facilities and hauling impacts. So, your objective one is collection service and level of service, again, related to solid waste. Objective two is disposal capacity and interlocal coordination. You're required by law to review as you go over the years. Objective three, facility location and neighborhood compatibility touches on solid waste transfer stations and hazardous waste issues and buffers related to hazardous waste. And I'll stop there. That's the end of that goal. Does anybody have any questions about that? Solid waste. Have we looked at our recent volumes of garbage to update the 8.6 pounds? That seems pretty low. Top of page 16. Does it? Did they do their year last? No, I did. Or I did, yeah. The best data we have shows that. Okay. But that is something you're supposed to continue to monitor because your capacity goes faster, obviously, if it goes up. Or you don't build cells. You don't build them. You don't build them. Yeah, we don't have the landfill operation. But that capacity that's available, you have to make sure it is, you know, five, ten years out. So, yep. Goal four is, I'm sorry, sustainable and resilient waste management, reduce avoidable waste, litter, illegal dumping, excessive accumulation, and disaster-related health and environmental impacts through education, enforcement, public maintenance, emerging practices, and advanced debris management planning. So, objective one, waste reduction, emerging practices, objective two, community outreach, health, aesthetics, and enforcement, objective three, natural disaster debris management, all planning efforts that you have to do, especially with hurricanes. And that is objective, I'm sorry, the fourth, goal four, thank you. Any questions about that? I do. Can we be more specific with the disaster debris management plan update? I believe there's some FEMA language and possibly some state language, I believe even possibly SB 180, that speaks to a more specific timeframe rather than periodically. So, I just, if we could look at that and incorporate it. Thank you. Goal five is stormwater. Wait a minute. Oh, I'm sorry. Sorry, Commissioner Havik. Do we need a separate element or would it be under hazardous waste to address medical waste and biohazard? Yeah, we can look at including that in this sub-element. Okay. You said bio? Biohazard and medical waste. Medical waste, okay. And then I'm going to extend my comment to all of objective 4-3 because there are a couple other components in there that I believe are governed by state statute or FEMA policy. Okay. Okay. 4-3. Gotcha. Stormwater. Did I reread that? No. Protect the health and safety of the public. Stormwater management facilities and services shall be properly maintained, environmentally sound, cost-effective, and meet the community's present and future demands. There wasn't a ton of changes in this one. Objective 1, best management practices. Objective 2, design, construction, and maintenance of stormwater systems. Oh, that was it. Any stormwater questions or needs? Are within the stormwater section, okay, I see it now, stormwater quality standards, is the reference in section 5-1.4 where it says all new development, redevelopment projects should also meet or exceed minimum environmental protection standards of the city of Deltona and Volusia County. Does that allow us to maintain additional policies regarding stormwater water quality minimum standards outside of this comp plan? Yep. Yep. Okay. Commissioner Novick. How does the stormwater plan here affect or is it affected by the stormwater plans of, say, FDOT where there – I want to – so, I want to create the ability for the city to be able to encourage an interlocal partnership with, say, FDOT where they're taking water off of I-4. For instance, in Altamont, when they came through at the managed lanes, FDOT was going to take 9 or 10 houses within the city under eminent domain to store that stormwater. They did take those houses, and after the fact, Altamont stepped in, took that water from the managed lanes, put it into Crane's Roost, treats it, mixes it with reclaimed, and sends it all the way out to Apopka to get rid of it for free because Apopka needs it. So, do we have anything in here to encourage or facilitate those type of partnerships in anticipation of I-4 managed lanes coming up to Graves? There's going to be a stormwater situation that's created along that Amazon I-4 Normandy. Yes, not specific to that example, but there's some policies in this element that talk about creative reuse of stormwater and other ways to treat or use, whether it's graywater, you know, that sort of thing. So, there is some policies in here that refer to that situation. But the city should look at doing that and try to – it doesn't go as far as saying other partners have to do that, right? But it's encouraging you to evaluate opportunities for that. Okay. Is that sufficient for – Well, I just was looking for something a little stronger to encourage those interagency partnerships. Okay. We can discuss that. Yep. I just want to make sure that this would be specific to partnerships and not allowable – allowing them to do anything or promising something up front. Because I've seen in other areas of the 429 I-4 projects where the stormwater drainage off of the project has resulted in neighborhoods flooding. Right. We want to make it mutually beneficial where the opportunity exists. Absolutely. Okay. Okay. We'll take a look at that language and see where we can adjust. And then if we can move a little bit quicker. Last one, I believe. Objective 2, natural groundwater and aquifer, protect and sustain the quality and quantity of the superficial and Florida aquifer systems, and protect and enhance the capabilities of groundwater recharge areas for the present and future water supply of the city. Objective 1, groundwater quantity, recharge, and water security. Several elements relating to that – or policies. Objective 2, groundwater quality wellhead protection monitoring. And that's it. Any questions related to goal 6? I thought I saw in goal 6 somewhere about wetlands. Yes. Recharging, I think, is – I'm trying to remember now. Yeah. I just – my comment is that wetlands are not the end-all, be-all. They're also typically not where the most significant aquifer recharge occurs. We also – I want to make sure that we have in here protections. And I see where we've got development in prime or high aquifer recharge areas shall maintain pre-development recharge conditions to the maximum extent technically feasible while meeting applicable flood control, water quality, public safety, and environmental requirements. I want to make sure that we don't lose sight of the fact that our uplands and upland ecosystems provide significant recharge opportunity in prime – that prime recharge – aquifer recharge areas. Yeah, that's a fair statement. I appreciate that. If we can incorporate that, that would be excellent. Yes, sir. Member Dierko. Thank you. Just quickly looking at 6-2-1 on page 24 for protection of groundwater from hazardous and biological waste. I see here that we have that the city shall enforce local and state regulations pertaining to the protection of. Are we limited to that, or can we do something more punitive for when there are violations? You will not do that in the comp plan. That would be in the land development code. Okay. So we can't address that here? We cannot address that here at all? No, I don't think we would address punitive damages to people within the – I don't mean like punitive damages. I mean, can we make something more – can we find a little harsher? Yes. Okay. More clear definition on that section, section 1 dot – 6 dot – 6-2.1. So, you know, are we allowed to find someone greater than what the state regulations allow? I look to you, city attorney. We would need to research this specific topic and get back to you on it. Likely, yes, but we would need to confirm. All right. We'll work with staff and we'll bring this back. All right, yeah, just because here we're talking about like fuel spills, oil spills, illegal dumping, which is a little bit of a challenge here. So, okay, thank you. Okay. And then – thank you, Member D'Erico – 6-1.8 mapping of the aquifer recharge areas specifically mentions wetlands, but it doesn't mention uplands. So, if we could incorporate that and follow up with that so that those areas are mapped and included in the term prime or high aquifer recharge areas. Noted. Okay. That's it. No more questions. No more words from me. You're good? Yes, sir. All right. Joyce, we have one public comment. Kathy Bryan. Good evening, Kathy Bryan. I got a lot of comments. Actually, I'd like to see the restrictions for discharge on the stormwater, et cetera, be more stern than maybe what's allowed if we're allowed to do that. Reclaimed water and septic tank versus sewer. I'm really sorry that they didn't increase some of the reclaimed water availability. But the thing is, is we have issues now with trying to – there's days when it's just dry and it's not available, period. So, what are the plans for recapturing some of this water to get, like, your I-4 thing talking about or something like that? I want to make sure we have plans for that. And also, when it comes to septic tanks, it is extremely expensive to get the new septic tanks placed. So, I also want to make considerations for people who have just placed one and maybe now there's a new development going in and sewer's available. Well, if I just paid $20,000 for a septic tank and now you're going to force me over to sewer before I'm done paying for it, I just want to make sure that there's allotments for that. For your smaller areas outside of the big uptown, when you guys change how things are done density-wise, et cetera, what say do the neighboring residents have? Especially when you're talking about building some of these three-story buildings, two- or three-story buildings, because privacy is a big issue. And you've got some hilly areas around here. Somebody builds a two-story house, can look right in my backyard. I'm not out there naked, but, you know, I still don't think they need to be looking. Yeah, keep my options open. Um, performance reports, when you talk about how's we're coming along, um, make sure there's a clear, transparent plan for communicating this to the residents. Um, the other thing, going back to the buildings with the increased height, um, when you implement these, obviously you're going to need increased fire equipment and probably, no, no ladder trucks, no more ladder trucks for a nine-story building. You're good? Okay. Well, but I'm saying if somebody comes in, what's that plan, what's the concurrent plan for putting out the money for the new stuff? So, but that's a longer conversation. Just wanted to bring it up. Um, would it make sense to start in some of the redevelopment areas where smaller businesses can get in quickly, um, to assist with the demographics that we need for this city to bring in more stuff that attracts other people? I mean, it's kind of a round thing. Um, all, not all open space has to contribute. Some open space is just fine by just being there by itself. I also want to make sure for the, the environmental places, what are we doing and parks? What are we doing to monitor those for activity that is not supposed to be going on at those places, trails and stuff like that? Thank you. Thank you. I do have one more. Dana McCool. Thank you very much. And, um, members and commission, I just wanted to bring up the fact here when we're talking about our recharge and water security, when we're talking about our groundwater quantity, I don't want us to venture off into fear porn tactics again regarding the conversion of septic tanks, right? Because overall there has been an approach for regional replacement, right? Regional, uh, help. But there is no way that the state of Florida is going to force this at one time by 2030 because that's invariably an unfunded mandate. The state of Florida is not going to take that on. Legislation legislation is not going to take that on, especially given where we're headed with the advent of property taxes, right? We're putting a lot of burden on taxpayer and I don't see that happening. So I think that there is going to be more implementation of us directly with our water cleanup around here. We need to start thinking about that as far as our infrastructure and staffing because that, our basin management, our waterway management and our lakes is going to be on us and the special taxing districts, but it's going to come down to the municipalities to do that in light of, we're talking, there are some people that are, um, you know, campaigning right now on cutting staff 40%. It's asinine to think that we can do that with what's coming down from the state as far as these go. So I want us to be very cognizant of that. I want the commission and our planning and zoning board to be very cognizant of that. We're spoon feeding people in our residence because this makes people scared. Elderly people that have been in their residence for 30 years now, freaking out because somebody thought it's a good idea to politicize mandating sewer. And that's what they do. They come after these fear tactics and they scare our residents. You take middle class, middle aged people, been working really hard for everything that they have. And this is what's happening in our political environment right now. So I'm throwing the gauntlet down right now. I will challenge anybody that tries to use that moving forward. Any of this that we're talking about right here, I will make it a personal mission to go after somebody that is frightening our residents about this. So I would like the commission and the board to be dang well informed on what is actually coming down from state legislation. We seem to be out of touch with that a little bit, right? We're kind of myopic in what we're doing at a city level. And we need to be more responsible to our residents here. So talking about cutting staff with these things coming down is really short-sighted. And I don't want our public to be handed fear tactics, right, as we are working on here, our comprehensive plan in Deltona. We're a city of 100,000 and we need to start behaving that way instead of what we're doing, some of what we're doing. I want to thank you guys really for doing this. When we started doing this, you are providing good information for the average resident. So I'm just saying today that this shall not be politicized, not in our city. Thank you. That ends public comment. Thank you, Joyce. Commissioner Harry. Yes, sir. Just two notes. If the commission or PNZ has any comments regarding these elements we just went over, if you could please provide that as soon as possible so we can get that to the consultants. And our next workshop, number seven, will be on September 28th, and we will be going over the future land use, transportation, and housing elements. Thank you, Jordan. City Manager, do you have any comments? Nothing this evening, sir. Thank you. All right. Can I ask this question, Jordan? Absolutely. I'm assuming comments that were made today we do not have to put into a written format, correct? That is correct. Okay. In addition to what was discussed. Yep. Any other questions from the commissioner, PNZ? All right, hearing none, we're adjourned. Thank you.