City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the June 1st regular city council meeting. We will begin with our invocation followed by the salute to the flag led by Mr. Jansen. Please rise.

Let us pray. Good and gracious Heavenly Father, as I lift my brother and sister up in prayer tonight, I ask you to pour your blessings across this dais. And Lord, just help us to guide our thoughts and our decisions that will bring the best to our community and bring glory to you, Lord. I ask you to look over our first responders, our police, fire, lifeguards, health care workers. Lord, bless them. And Lord, I just ask you that you... put forward the good message of propitiation to everyone at the sound of my voice so that they come to learn Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. For it's in his name we pray. Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,

This meeting is called to order. Madam Clerk, roll call. Council Member Golding. Here. Council Member Horne. Here. Council Member Jansen.

Here.

Council Member Sutton.

Here.

Council Member Wagner.

Here.

Council Member Wilders.

Here.

Mayor Hoffman. Here. Moving on to approval of minutes.

Item A. I move we approve the minutes from the regular city council meeting held on May 4th, 2026.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item B.

I move we approve the minutes from the city council briefing held on May 11th, 2026.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Approval of the agenda.

I move that we approve the agenda.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Announcements. Ms. Gould.

I wait.

Yeah.

Thank you, Mayor. I have several announcements. On Memorial Day, Mr. Wouters, Mr. Wagner, Mr. Sutton and I attended the Memorial Day ceremony at the Beaches Veterans Memorial Park, and it was a really, really good ceremony and I want to thank Mr. Sutton for representing Jack's Beach on the stage. Also wanted to mention that I well Mr. Jansen and I and I think maybe you did too attended the ribbon cutting for the renovated courtyard at 16th Avenue North in my district and it looks beautiful and if you have a chance I would recommend that you check it out. And if you have anybody coming to visit, it'd be a great place to stay. That is one of our places that is very sea turtle lighting compliant. And I was sure to tell the general manager that and thank her for all that they do to make sure that they are friendly to our sea turtles. I also want to thank our Parks and Recreation Department for the urban trails meeting that they conducted on May 27th. We had a really good turnout. Thanks to the department putting door hangers on, what, close to 400 homes in the area of 18th Avenue North, 10th Street North, and Seagate. I think we got a lot of really good positive input and just want to thank you for all the hard work to put together that very good meeting. I also want to announce kudos to Condos Who Care. You like that? These are some condos that care about our sea turtles. Actually, I was talking with Kevin Brown recently, and he has been contacted by four condos who were very interested in making sure that they were compliant with our sea turtle lighting. So I'd like to give a shout out to Landmark, Water's Edge, Avenue 4, and the Waterford. because he went by there, he spoke to them, he checked out their lighting, and he was very pleased. So if Kevin Brown is happy, then I'm happy, right? Just wanted to mention that the Florida legislature is in a special session right now. today through the third, and this has to do with property taxes. And I just want to thank Ashley, Karen, and Mike for all the quick action you guys have taken to pull numbers together so that that information can be shared with our Senator and our House representatives so that they understand the impact that the proposed property tax legislation would have on Jacksonville Beach. I just wanted to mention it's particularly concerning to me that the bill restricts what ad valorem taxes, what ad valorem tax dollars can be used by the cities for. And, you know, it's tough enough that they're restricting how much money we're getting, but they are wanting to restrict what we can spend those dollars on. So I just, we will see where things land come June 3rd. And then I wanted to mention that this Wednesday, June 3rd, 7 o'clock at the Beaches Branch Library, Beaches Watch is hosting an annual meeting that they have every year that's the good and the bad of the 2026 legislative session. And I guess it's kind of appropriate. There may be some information that can be shared about this special session at that meeting. Like I said, that'll be Wednesday, June 3rd at 7 o'clock at the Beaches Branch Library, and the three Beaches City Managers will be there to talk about the legislation that was passed this year and how it will impact our Beaches cities, as well as legislation that will be expected to come back next year. And then last but not least, I wanted to mention that this is birthday season for our city council. We actually, it's kind of interesting, we have birthdays that start at the end of May and go until September, and that's it. Everybody's birthdays are between May and September. And Mr. Jansen, I mentioned at the last meeting, he celebrated his birthday yesterday. And then on June 4th, Mr. Sutton will be celebrating his birthday. So we'd like to wish you a happy birthday. No singing, but happy birthday.

Thank you, Ms. Golding. And you must have said Kevin Brown's name three times because he appeared. So that was good. You missed a major shout out. And I think the direct quote was, if Kevin Brown is happy, then she is happy. So that was, you can go back and replay the tapes on what she was talking about there. Mr. Jansen.

Yes, just to piggyback off of Council Member Golding's comments. So I wasn't able to attend the Beaches Veteran Memorial because I was at the city of Jacksonville, their Memorial Day celebration as our representative from the beach. And that too is an awesome thing commemorative event, if you have the opportunity to go down there as well, I would encourage you to check it out. It's a lengthy one as well. They really cover a lot of ground in that celebration. Then also this past week was the Fletcher graduation, and your timing, Mayor, was uncanny because I was able to sit on stage for the Fletcher graduation and give my granddaughter her diploma. So that was a double win. And urban trails. So that was it was a fantastic meeting. And there wasn't a whole lot of pitchforks and fireworks and anything like that. So it was actually very good because there was some positive feedback and some suggestions. And so I think it went very well as far as the urban trail meetings are concerned. We kind of set the community's minds at ease showing the direction at where we're going and how it's going to benefit our schools Local in our in our community. So that's the first agenda that we have teed up. It's looking pretty good and then last but not least Just to reiterate because we actually received a home rule hero awards at Florida League of Cities events Jeff branch from the Florida League of Cities came and presented our city manager Ms. Building and myself with the annual Florida League Home Rule Hero Awards. So that's a commitment to making sure that we are well represented in Tallahassee and that we take the House bills and the Senate bills very seriously for the benefit of our community and our citizens.

Thank you, Mr. Jansen. Mr. Wouders.

Thank you, Mary. Councilman Jansen, was that at the Jaguar Stadium at the wall?

You're talking about Memorial Day, sir? Yes. Okay.

That's a powerful place. It is. Thank you for doing that. Yes, sir. And thank you, Councilwoman Golding, for sharing so much information. It's really helpful. And I did want to point out at Memorial Day service that we attended Atlantic Beach. Councilman Sutton truly stole the show by giving such a powerful message regarding Fletcher graduates who... game ball. And it was very moving, and thank you for doing that. And I do want to congratulate Director Fadidis for being sure that these hangers were distributed as promised as I double-checked. So well done to all involved. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Roberts. Mr. Horn?

I want to say I'm happy to be back. Sorry, I was actually traveling on Memorial Day, so it was kind of you know, a little somber. It's one of those things you think about. There's only two people in this world that will lay down their life for you, and number one is Jesus Christ, and the other one is the American soldier. And it's fitting that we remember the people who have laid down their lives for us to be able to, you know, pray and worship in the way we do in this country and have the freedoms that we do have. I do want to say that I had the chance this weekend to attend the graduation of the new class of volunteer lifeguards. There were three new lifeguards that joined the Volunteer Life Saving Corps, one of which is the son of the mayor of Neptune Beach, Talon Byland, and very proud of all of them. They enjoyed their weekend, they enjoyed their training, and I'm just, I'm very proud of all these young men that continue to serve our beach as they have forever, for the last 115 years, I guess I say forever, it feels like that. The last thing I want to say is all of Europe is a trip hazard. So if you ever decide to visit, just understand, you know, plan accordingly. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Horn. I also just got back from a trip. So apologies in advance because there's still jet lag happening and I have a lot of reading to do. But I want to thank my colleagues, in particular, Mr. Jansen and Mr. Sutton for sitting in for me. And that is really cool about the Fletcher graduation. I probably would have let you do that anyway, even if I had been in town, because that's really special. So I'm glad you were able to do that. It is the first day of Adventures in Weather season, as our public works director has dubbed it, because we don't say the H word here in council chambers, just like we don't sing happy birthday. I just have very few rules, and those are two of them. So please take the opportunity to make sure that you are prepared as we are doing as a city, and I'm sure our public works department and others are always hard at work to make sure that we're ready for whatever may come in the next few months. And then coming up next weekend is Country Fest. This is our third Country Fest. It's a great event. It's a lot of fun right out there at the Seawalk Pavilion, and it's going to be red, white, and blue themed in honor of our country's semi-quincentennial. So I think we've got Lane Pittman playing the national anthem and some other fun things. At least that's what I heard. He's not nodding, but that's what I heard. And then also, if you're interested, Neptune Beach will be starting off the day with their Jarboe Jubilee in honor of the country's 250th. So that'll be also on the 13th. Next weekend is Flag Day weekend. So I think that's why at least theirs happens to fall on that weekend. So got a lot of fun stuff coming up this summer, and I think that's going to be a great start. Any other announcements? Okay, moving on to courtesy of the floor, we have a couple speaker cards. When I call your name, just come up to the podium, hit the button until the light turns green and give us your name, address, and you'll have three minutes to address the council. We'll start with Sue Lopez.

Hello, good evening. My name is Sue Lopez, and I'm a Jacksonville University graduate nursing student. I'm advocating for enhanced water safety education. Drowning and rip currents remain preventable public health threats to our diverse community and our visitors. Because the city has established foundational infrastructure by placing the QR code on the signage, I'm proposing or I'm asking if the city would consider optimizing the backed software of this existing system specifically upgrading it integrating features for multilingual visitors alongside text to speech audio and video sign language resources for individuals with visual or hearing impairments thank you thank you miss lopez dylan allen

Sorry. Hi, I'm Dylan. I'm also a nurse practitioner, a DMP student. And I was just curious what the collaborative steps in Jackson Beach is taking for the local health care providers to address the medical, mental health and housing needs of the city's unsheltered population. And how can local nurses better support these municipal initiatives? That's all.

Okay. Thank you. And this is, it's just for the citizens to speak to us. So it's not an interactive. So, okay. Okay. Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you for being here. Bob Branley.

It's working. Yep. For the longest time, I've been concerned about a safety issue. where I live, I live at 127 13th Avenue South. And I'm in the alleyway there. A fence was put up at six foot high along the alleyway as you enter the second street. And my neighbors and I are aware of the fact that you can't see anybody or anything until you pass that fence. So all of us tend to stop before we cross that six-foot-high solid fence to let people know. And a couple of times I've done it and had a couple of stunned people. The problem is we have a lot of people traveling up and down that alleyway, and many of them like to eat. with the fences, a bunch of Airbnbs, a bunch of service people, the town collections go up and down the alleyway. And they don't think about that. And our neighbors have been concerned that if somebody walks out, just as somebody is going there and not stopping, that they're gonna get hit. So anyways, I did talk to Bruce Wodis about it, and he was kind enough to contact the owner who lives out of state, I think in Georgia, I'm not sure, and point out the issues and the problems that we're having there. And she was kind enough to help alleviate the problem by lowering the fence and putting a seat from there. I don't think the fence should have been authorized originally to be solid six feet going up there. I think now, because of the change that Bruce has done, that we may have prevented a problem, a serious problem where somebody may have been hit. So that's what I wanted to say to the town council. That's basically it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bramley. Jordan McCann.

Jordan McCann, 1867 Kings Court. It's a pleasure to meet you. My name is Jordan, and I am very thankful for the opportunity to speak with you today. I am a scout for Troop 37, and I am here to communicate a need for improvement. I also happen to play softball at Jack's Beach Field. Our water fountain has so much clay in it that it is unusable. At my games, tournaments, and practices, it is key to stay hydrated at all times or you can get tired, dizzy, or nauseous because of the heat. Sometimes I get parched and so do my other softball players if we don't bring multiple water bottles, which I never do. Me and my softball friends and Jacksonville Beach Softball Fields would appreciate it if you could add a water filling station at our fields. My little brother, Jay, plays baseball across from the softball fields and they could use one too. A water filling station not only benefits the athletes, but also the environment by reducing plastic waste. I appreciate your time and the effort of this meeting. Have a great night.

Thank you, Ms. McCann. And I know that our Parks and Rec director was listening intently to that. So I think he'll be looking into this issue. We appreciate you bringing it to our attention. I don't have any other speaker cards for courtesy of the floor. So we'll move on to consent agenda.

I move we approve the consent agenda.

Second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Consent agenda carries. City Manager, new business, item A. Mr. Barron.

Mayor and city council Dennis Baron public works director, the item I have before you is to replace a potable well, this is a project was well underway when I got here it's been a long project getting to a final place. We finally did get there. This is a little odd because it is a four part because it does include a reimbursement to Beaches Energy in step three. But the first part was basically competitively bid and we have a contractor ready to go to do parts A and B of the water well and all of the alternates that we requested.

Thank you. And a motion on section one?

I move we award bid number 2526-032TG Utility Company for parts A and B of the new water well number 16 and raw water main extension project for an amount not to exceed $2,250,938.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Discussion? Mr. Horn.

This is the first time I've seen a request for a contingency more than 10%. Any specific reason why?

We always do that when we have unknown issues, and in this particular area, we're putting in a new well, and it requires us to do a lot of additional testing. There is a lot of extra fees involved in this project because of the required testing of drilling a new well.

I mean, specifically for well, I mean, I just, I don't remember if any of my council members remember anything in the last, like I said, I think four years. I just haven't seen that. You know, 5% is a fair bit. I would think that that was, is it something that we know? I mean, obviously I know that drilling a well has its limitations and there's the risk associated with that. I have a deep well on my property, but at the same time, we've drilled enough wells around Jacksonville beach to know that we should be able to get by with, you know, the normal contingency fee. I'm just wondering, you think there's, do you anticipate problems or is this just,

I don't anticipate problems, but I try to look at each individual project as to what it is and what the risk factors might be, what the knowns and unknowns are. And so I try to assign a contingency rate. So I have had contingencies at 10, 15, 20. I don't think I've ever gone above 20%, but I think during post-COVID times, we had several that were at 20%. So we've tried to put that in when we know the risk Overall bid price is going to be lower. That gives us a little bit more contingency dollars to do more with. So as prices go up, you don't need as large of a contingency to be able to accomplish the work. So on this figure, I have to look and see what the actual contingency dollars end up being. $287,333. I'd have to do the math to see what 10% would make a difference, but it's going to drop it down to 2 million or 200 something. So, I mean, it's just a difference of what we may need. The issue we have is if we've got everybody mobilized and we run out of money, it's going to be coming back to y'all and we're going to have costs be occurring as we're waiting on approval to get additional funding. So that was the only thing we did is we don't know what we might get into on this particular thing. So we're, We just bumped the contingency to 15 on just of the construction side. We didn't do it on the construction admin or on the BES side. Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Jansen?

So, several things, if you'll oblige me. Number one, this is the well on 6th Avenue North? Yes, sir. Okay. So, I'm very familiar with it because it's the property adjacent to my house. That property floods quite a bit during nor'easters and heavy rains and storms and things like that. It kind of ebbs and flows. And then during the drought season, it's great. So that being said, is there a plan to deal with that portion of it? We're not worried about it flooding as far as the equipment is concerned? No.

So we had a project, we do have a project in that area to be looking at a stormwater station and some localized issues. Part of that project, we're going to request that we push that out a little bit. And the reasoning is that because we want to get the established footprint, get this well in and done, because like I said, I've been here over six years now and this project was already on paper before I got here. So we've had to go through a couple iterations. This is one of the final ones. This is also involving our amount of potable water that we're able to serve. So we need to get this one done. But part of the flooding issues and the other things we're hoping to address with stormwater, but because of the stormwater rating and some other things, we haven't gotten to that one. So we want to get this project built so that we can see what we got left and what we have left to be able to do it. So part of this We'll reroute some of the water, and then we'll look at that future project to do that. Sure.

Yeah, that was my concern. I'd hate to put all the equipment in there, and then it's flooded six months later.

The good thing is the well will just be a wellhead. There won't be a building, so there will actually be panels that will be above ground, so everything that we need for equipment-wise will be protected from the flooding issues.

You just answered my next question. What is it going to look like aesthetically as far as the community was concerned? Yeah. Not only would I like to see it enclosed, but also some kind of aesthetic afterwards, whether it's like a mini pocket park or something that brings a little bit of aesthetic to the community. If you have any plans for that, maybe we can put that in that contingency money.

I'll have to see once we get the stormwater issues because that rates higher than creating another park, especially since you just yourself have said that it floods. So obviously we know there's an issue. So we got to concentrate on that first and then we'll see what we can come up with between us and Parks and Rec to see if there's space or what we need. Because I'm not sure exactly what this may be that, you know, that the stormwater project here may end up needing to be a large underground vault to be able to do it. It might have a great park space. It may not end up needing that. I'm not sure exactly what our needs are going to be for that stormwater project at this point to know what I'm going to need for real estate. Sure.

And then the last question I have is, will there be any disruption of the traffic through there, do you think, or as far as putting that well in, or can that all be done with, because that's a pretty big site.

I think most of it's going to be done on site. There might be a little bit when we're doing some well testing because they got to flow water, which is going to push water down the same areas that you're talking about floods. We're going to have to try to direct it to make sure that it goes away. So there'll probably be some traffic issues when we get to that stage of it. But I'm not expecting any long-term traffic issues in the area. Thank you.

This just unlocked a core memory. At one point, we were talking about putting a well at 8th.

Yes.

Did that ever happen?

No.

Is this instead of that?

Yes, ma'am. Okay. What we did is we had actually bid it and got no bidders. So we had to re-bid again and we did a bunch of different stuff and we did some different engineering and we re-bid it again and we got crazy prices that basically nobody could bid it because there's not enough land to do all of the lay down for all of the piping and all of the work, even taking up all the streets up in that area. wasn't enough space for him to do it. So we really couldn't get a good bid on being able to do the work in that area. So we took that, went back to the water management, went back to DEP, got a new well site permitted. And that's where we're at now is this is plan B to that plan that ultimately we couldn't construct because of cost. Thank you.

Mr. Hanson. Oh, okay. Mr. Sutton.

Dennis, my question had to do with what Councilman Jansen just touched on with traffic and 6th Avenue North. I believe the plan is to tie in to the east, right, to 11th Street. Is that in the roadway itself, under the roadway itself, or in the yard right away, or some of both?

It's going to be some of both because when they actually do that raw water connection, they will actually be replacing all of the other water main in the area for that one block as well and services because... is kind of in the way if we're going to open cut and go we're going to be going through it all and have a bunch of damage we're better to replace that one block as as it's as it's part of the construction project so there will be a block of traffic there that will we will be working in the roadway so there will be some during the day closures as they're doing it but we'll be sure one way or something to be determined based on yes what happens on site okay thank you any other comments or questions from council madam clerk roll call on item one

Council Member Boulding? Yes. Council Member Horan?

Yes.

Council Member Jansen?

Yes.

Council Member Setton?

Yes.

Council Member Wagner?

Yes.

Council Member Watters?

Well, I just want to say I cannot support this, and let me just tell you all why.

You have to vote.

No.

Mayor Hoffman? Yes. Motion carries. Motion on item two.

I move we approve the award of contract administration to Four Waters Engineering for an amount not to exceed $105,524. Second.

We have a motion and a second. Any discussion?

Madam Clerk, roll call. Council Member Horne.

Yes.

Council Member Jansen.

Yes.

Council Member Sutton.

Yes.

Council Member Wagner.

Yes.

Council Member Watters.

No.

Council Member Golding. Yes. Mayor Hoffman. Yes. Motion carries. Item three.

I move we approve the reimbursement agreement with Beaches Energy for a three-phase service installation for an amount not to exceed $70,000.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion?

Madam Clerk, roll call. Councilmember Janssen?

Yes.

Councilmember Sutton?

Yes.

Councilmember Wagner?

Yes.

Councilmember Waters?

Yes.

Councilmember Golding? Yes. Councilmember Horne?

Yes.

Mayor Hoffman? Yes. Motion carries.

Item 4?

I move we authorize the mayor and city manager to negotiate and execute any contract as a result of this bid award.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion?

Madam Clerk, roll call. Council Member Sutton.

Yes.

Council Member Wagner.

Yes.

Council Member Watters.

Yes.

Council Member Golding. Yes. Council Member Horne.

Yes.

Council Member Jansen.

Yes.

Mayor Hoffman. Yes. Motion carries.

Thank you, Mr. Barrett. Thank you. Mr. Petitti's.

Good evening, Mayor and Council, Jason Fatidis, Parks and Recreation. Back in, I think it was April this year, we came to council and proposed a resolution that increased the rates of the junior lifeguard camp. We believe the sentiment among the council members at that meeting was to create perhaps an additional camp that provided a free of charge for those families that may have thought the camp being cost prohibitive. So this resolution will include that. It will also include everything that was in the prior resolution. What we are proposing that each council member could nominate up to three potential participants in the camp. And Parks and Rec would administer that.

Thank you, Mr. Petitti. Is there a motion?

I move we adopt resolution number 2216-2026, amending the rates, charges, and fees of the Junior Lifeguard Program to provide for one additional scholarship-based camp session.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion from council? Mr. Watters.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Director Fadidis, what is the deadline for submitting these names?

Well, the deadline would be the last camp of the season, which would be the third week in July. And what is the earliest time you could nominate? As soon as Council passes the resolution. So by tomorrow morning. Thank you, Director.

Ms. Golding? Can you tell us how you plan to communicate this opportunity so that kids that maybe could take advantage of it would know about it?

So right now the The camp is advertised on the website. We would add some language on the website. We'd also contact the schools and let them know that, you know, there is a possibility of a scholarship-type camp. Other than that, it would be social media and direct contact.

Thank you. I would say schools are out, so I think we're almost too late. to implement this this year. I think we can give it a shot and see what happens, but I wouldn't assess the success of this on this year because of the timeline, which is understandable. It's a new project that we came up with. So I appreciate you doing the legwork on that. But I would say I would lean to the Carver Center as well as the Beaches Boys and Girls Club because those are active through the summer versus going to the schools. And I think that I would be willing i mean between all of us is seven people with three um if we have 21 kids that would be amazing but if there's any that come up i would certainly be willing to put them on my list um because i think that that's going to be where where the bulk would come from um any other questions or comments mr wowers and what was the age group was it 9 to 14 or 6 to 14 6 to 14 thank you

Any other questions or comments? Madam Clerk, roll call. Council Member Wagner?

Yes.

Council Member Walters?

Yes.

Council Member Golding? Yes. Council Member Horne?

Yes.

Council Member Jansen?

Yes.

Council Member Sutton?

Yes.

Mayor Hoffman?

Yes.

Motion carries.

Moving on to ordinances. Mr. Popoli.

So this is the extension of premise ordinance. This is your second reading. At the previous meeting, there was an amendment to limit these to home games only. As had been previously discussed, this would allow locations in the city that have existing alcohol licenses to have additional outdoor space for sale and service for games or events related to home Jaguar games. The limitations would be again for home games at this point between August 1st of 2026 to the end of the 26th season, which would be August 1st, 2027. The sound could only come from the actual televisions broadcasting the games, so no amplified music. And then these would be six additional extension of premise programs on top of the two that every entity currently can have within the city. But these would have the limitations strictly for the Jaguar games. Yeah, that's all the notes I got.

Thank you, Mr. Popoli.

Madam Clerk, will you read the ordinance by title, please? An ordinance of the city of Jacksonville Beach, Florida, amending Chapter 4, alcoholic beverages, Section 4-5, temporary extension of licensed premises, establishing a two-year pilot program to allow for a temporary increase in the number of temporary premises extension permits, providing for legislative findings, repeal of conflicting ordinances, severability, scrivener's errors, codification, and an effective date.

The ordinance is before this council for a public hearing and consideration on its second reading. I will now open the public hearing on ordinance number 2026-8236. I do not have any speaker cards on our first ordinance. Would any members of the public like to speak in favor of or against this ordinance? Seeing none, public hearing is closed. May I have a motion?

I move the adopt ordinance number 2026-8236 on the second reading amending chapter 4, sections 4-5 to establish a two-year pilot program to increase the number of temporary extension of premises permits.

Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Mr. Sutton.

You know, we've had some input from the community and comments. I continue to have... concerns. I do believe that narrowing the scope of this like we did to home games only can certainly effectively cut that in half, right, or a little more. And just the fact that it's a pilot program, I'm not, you know, I don't want to shy away from sticking our toe in the water and giving this a shot. And if it doesn't meet our expectations, are there issues, then we will, I think everyone here is committed to scrap it going forward.

Thank you, Mr. Sett and Ms. Golding.

Thank you, Mayor. I'll just reiterate what I said at the last meeting. I still have concerns about this because when I talk to residents, they are always telling me that they want less alcohol-related events here in Jacks Beach. you know, with 101 establishments, that's the opportunity that we have. That's the worst case. I realize that probably won't happen, but still it's concerning to me that we have that many establishments and the opportunity to have extension of premises permits for that many. And, you know, the other thing is that recently we've approved the food truck rally pilot program. And we very specifically stated that no alcohol could be served at these food truck rally pilot, the food truck rallies. And we also approved the boardwalk activation pilot. And we very specifically said no alcohol related with that. I believe we did so because we want to try and promote things at the beach that are not alcohol related. So I still am not able to support this.

Mr. Wagner.

to not belabor topics that have already been brought up, but I do think that this is one of the opportunities we have to strike a balance between supporting our businesses, those that we rely on for our community as well, and our residents. So I think some of the constraints that we put in place are really critical and important. The one thing that I would suggest is that while this is a pilot and a two-year pilot, that we really make sure that we pause after the first couple of these and then after the first year and see if, A, how did they do? Did we get the benefit out of this that we anticipated for our community, both for the businesses and residents? And make sure that if the combination of those didn't meet our needs, that we're willing to set in action whatever we need to do to correct that. The one thing I'd also like us to consider during that kind of first year going into second year, is there a way to augment this concept so that we can bring in also a family-friendly component of it as well? So maybe there's some encouragement that we do for some of the local... businesses. Not all businesses that serve alcohol are bars. I think lumping them all together is not fair to those that are more of a restaurant that happen to do barren wine and those type of things. And so there is an opportunity for some of these to do a more family-friendly environment. I think we need to espouse support for those type as well and maybe even think about some of the suggestions that have been brought up by some of our local residents around actually putting on a formal family-centric event related to a football game particularly in year two i think we'll learn a lot from year one opportunity to do something really neat and valuable particularly since in year two they won't actually be in jacksonville And if we could pick a game where I'm not going to be in Orlando, that would be a whole lot more fun. But no, seriously, I really do think that if this advances, we really do want to make sure that we're staying on top of it, really watching it, being very thoughtful with it, and figuring out ways that we can bring in that family-centric component as well.

I'm just going to jump in and say that I completely agree with us doing something more community-wide in one of our green spaces today. for an important football game, especially if we go to the playoffs or further. That's a completely separate discussion from this because that would fall under our Parks and Rec and Special Events Department. And then we would have control and the opportunity to design that how we want to. I think it's a false equivalency to compare the boardwalk activation and a food truck rally, which neither one of those have alcohol service licensing at all. We can do both. We can add opportunities for family-friendly, non-alcoholic events, and add opportunities for our businesses to better cater to the football fans and enjoy the food and beverages that come along with a typical football game. So I think we can do both, and I think we can keep a close eye on it, as has already been mentioned. Mr. Jansen.

Yeah, I'm just going to frame this under the umbrella of it's a pilot program, and it might be just a touch disingenuous to say that 102 establishments in Jacksonville Beach are going to take advantage of this. I don't anticipate that at all. In fact, I would argue that Probably the greater number of the 102 don't have the space to extend or the premises to extend that far out, number one. And number two, it's not limited to just alcohol. A lot of folks go out there and don't have food as well. So it's not just alcohol. It's food and drink, and it doesn't necessarily have to be alcohol. It could be soda or water or whatever. So it's not just an alcohol event. So there's that as well. And reaching across the ditch and being good fans or friendly fans with our Jaguars and being able to provide an opportunity to have a fan experience in our community, I think is kind of a... kind of a neat opportunity for us as a community, you know, to show our appreciation for the NFL and, you know, open up our doors while they're not here locally.

Mr. Wouters.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Mr. Popoli, if I could, I just want to be clear on the mechanics of this. And thank you, Councilwoman Golding, for your note of caution regarding all this. When I was in the CIA, Chief Smith said there was approximately 90 establishments that sell beer. Is it 101 or is it closer to 90 or do you even know?

The 101 came from a list provided by the clerk's office. I think those are registered entities that have local business licenses for alcohol sales. I don't know that all of them have the ability or the room to have one of these events, so that may be the difference, but I'm not sure where the 90 came from.

Okay, I'm not sure either. I just take the chief at his word. And so in terms of the mechanics of, say, these 101, are they eligible to do this eight times? Currently, they're eligible to do this twice a year, and then with this, we would add an additional six.

Okay, so they can only do two games. Right. No, they can currently do two without any restrictions. This would allow them to do an additional six that would just be tied to the games.

So, potentially, a bar could do it eight times. Yes. Okay. And then... Thank you. That answers my questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Wouters. Mr. Wagner, revisit.

I'm afraid I'm about to ask a very unfair question, so I'm going to apologize. Of the two extension of premises that the different establishments are allowed to have today, do we have any insight into how many of those or how many, what percentage of the somewhere between 90 and 101 organizations actually even take advantage of it?

I mean, it's nowhere near the maximum amount, I can tell you that, because we process the applications and I don't have a hard number, but it's probably less than 50. I don't even know that it's that many. Most of them are downtown, and they're usually around some type of, you know, celebratory event like St. Patrick's Day, but I would have to pull that information, I don't know, off the top of my head.

Thank you. I figured it was a little bit of an unfair one.

Mr. Horne.

I just want to say I'm We've heard a lot from different citizens. Many of the council members have. We've heard a lot from the businesses. It is difficult to weigh the two competing interests because I think they're a little different. As I went back and read this some more in the light of some of the emails that I've gotten, some of the personal communications that I've had, one of the things that kind of struck me in regards to this is there's a lot in the ordinance about how we implement this, but a limited amount about how we cut it off. And or where the stops are, where the cutoffs are. And we talked about this in the briefings, we talked about a kill switch. If something were to go wrong, we have the opportunity, but at the same time, it's not enumerated well, and it's kind of vague. That's where I start to struggle with this. Having said that, regardless of whether it passes tonight or whether it doesn't, I doubt this would be the end of it. And if it did not pass, then we would revisit it and rework it and make it a better product if it didn't pass. But again, that's just my thoughts there because To Councilman Jansen's point, I do want to support the Jaguars. I do every year by buying four tickets. I support them financially. I support them every game I can. But at the same time, I also know that we have had some issues struggling at the beach. We see some things nationally with groups of people that are acting the way they shouldn't in certain areas. I want to make sure that we keep our beach the way we want it. I want to make sure that we keep the citizens in mind, and I want to, in my mind, do what's right for them. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Horne. Mr. Sutton?

Mr. Meggett, could you, at a high level, based on Mr. Horne's concern or question, outline very simply what it would take for us to put a stop to this?

Certainly. This is being passed by ordinance. So it would take in the next two years, because there's an automatic termination in two years. I'll get to that in a second. But in the next two years, if you all wanted to change this or end this during the pendency of this pilot program, it would take another ordinance to do so. In a normal course of business, an ordinance takes two public hearings. And our general practice in a non-emergency setting is to discuss it in a briefing. So over a period of six to eight weeks, I think it could be terminated if that was the will of the city council. Florida law does also provide for emergency ordinances, highly unlikely in this instance, but I want to just give you all every possibility where subject to certain criteria, an ordinance can be passed with only one reading if it's an emergency. And then the last section, section I-6 of being proposed to be added to section 4-5 mandates that you all review it at the end of this upcoming football season. Nothing more beyond review it. So I think the clerk and the city manager will schedule something subsequent to mid-February of 2027, an agenda item for you all to discuss it. And then the last sentence of the proposed ordinance is has this automatically sunsetting on February 13th, 2028. If I recall correctly, I looked that date up and that's the date of Super Bowl. I've lost track of the Roman numerals at this point in time, but two Super Bowls from now. So even if council took no affirmative action on ending this, it will end automatically subsequent to at the very end of two football seasons from now. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Wouter's revisit.

I apologize. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Mr. Popoli, just so I'm clear on all the facts. Now, will bars that are facing the boardwalk be allowed to extend out over the whole boardwalk? Because I know that it's basically 20 feet wide and they already have 10 feet of private property.

Is that a possibility? I'm not sure, honestly. That's an interesting question, because it is technically their property, but we have a separate ordinance that governs the boardwalk. So I would say no, because there are very limited circumstances that they can occupy the boardwalk, even currently as outside seating.

So I don't believe they could encroach further into it. Okay. I do echo the thoughts of my friends who, you know, I've been a Jaguar season ticket holder for 18 years now, and I support them and I support my friends who own their little local businesses. And just to be clear, so this will be allowed to continue one hour after the game? Correct. One hour before and one hour after. Okay. Well, knowing these facts and having them clear, I'd like to make a motion to amend this to eliminate the night game of the Steelers in December, because that would leave people out until past midnight, and I'm not comfortable with that.

There's a motion to amend. Is there a second? Seeing none, amendment fails. Ms. Golding.

Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. I just wanted to do a quick follow-up. I do appreciate Mr. Jansen's comments. and his clarification about the fact that there will be food at these events as well. But I think my point is that this is an extension of licensed premises. So it's extending the sale of alcohol beyond the currently licensed establishment. So that's my concern. We're extending the sale of alcohol. And the other point I wanted to make is that in our own CRA redevelopment plan, there's a section about the downtown Cape that says most crimes routinely committed in the downtown area are quality of life offenses such as public drinking, urination, and disturbances related to excessive alcohol consumption. So, again, the, you know, I'm not going to continue to say what I've said before. It's about increasing alcohol consumption that's a concern for me.

Thank you, Ms. Goulding. Any other comments? Madam Clerk, roll call. Council Member Waters?

No.

Council Member Goulding? No. Council Member Horne?

No.

Council Member Janssen?

Yes.

Council Member Sutton?

Yes.

Council Member Wagner?

Yes.

Mayor Hoffman? Yes. Motion carries.

Moving on to the final order. Oh, and also I was going to say, I didn't know this. You guys probably knew this, that our head coach is a Jacksonville Beach resident. Did everybody know that? Coach Cohen? Yeah, he's in Mr. Horn's district. I met him recently and I should have known, but I didn't know, but I thought that was pretty cool. Anyway, moving on to Ordinance B. Mr. Popoli, do you have an update for us?

I do. So this is Ordinance 2026-8237. This is the corrections bill for the new land development code. After a very thorough review by Councilman Golding, we have a couple of recommended additions. But this was reviewed by the Planning Commission on May 26th, and it was recommended for approval without any changes or conditions. This looks like a lot. It's not. The first recommended change, it turns out, when we looked at how we issue letters of notice for things like conditionally used permits and variances, we require a 300-foot notification bubble around the property. We nowhere defined how that was measured. We've always used the property line or the parcel boundary, but it's not actually written in the code anywhere, so we are recommending that be added. Those specific details are in a footnote to a table, so that's why it's kind of worded weirdly. I'm sure Mr. McGitt will get this all corrected for me before the final reading. And then additionally, in... The section amending RS3 in the current ordinance, we basically expanded the lot coverage and impervious surface for a two-unit townhome project. When we went back and looked at the actual buildable size of the property and what you would end up with, with a one-car garage requirement, you'd end up with about 500 square feet of living area on the ground floor. So we went back and kind of recalculated that, and the changes we propose will add in about 300 square feet of buildable area, basically offsetting the garage requirement and making it a more reasonable-sized ground floor, and hopefully we'll... lessen the need for a taller building obviously it can't totally eliminate that but i think it's a reasonable compromise because it only adds 300 square feet to the total project lot coverage requirement what we did not do in the original draft was add this to the rm1 and rm2 categories as well so that's the other two recommended changes are basically to just change the lock coverage for a two-unit townhome project from 35% to 45%, and then the total impervious surface from 50% to 60%. And that is the only updates I have. Otherwise, we have hopefully snagged most of the problems and corrections. Otherwise, the code's been working pretty well, I think.

Thank you, Mr. Popoli. Madam Clerk, will you read the ordinance by title? An ordinance of the City of Jacksonville Beach, Florida, amending Articles 3, 5, 6, and 7 of Chapter 34 Land Development Code, providing for legislative findings, repeal of conflicting ordinances, severability, scrivener's errors, codification, and an effective date.

Thank you. This ordinance for the amendment of the land development code is before this council for a public hearing and consideration on its first reading under the laws of the state of Florida and ordinance, which changes the actual list of permitted conditional or prohibited uses within a zoning category or which otherwise changes the text of the land development code is a legislative proceeding. A legislative proceeding means that a governing body is acting in its rulemaking capacity. It is the duty of the council to arrive at sound decisions regarding use of property within the city. This includes receiving citizen input regarding the proposed uses within a zoning category. The application has been reviewed by the staff and the planning commission for consistency with other portions of land development code and the comprehensive plan. The council may hear from all interested parties in the legislative determination of an amendment to the text of the land development code. I will now open the public hearing on ordinance number 2026-8237. We've already heard from the planning department. We have one speaker card, Mr. Terry DeLoach. I think you remember the drill.

Hi, my name is Terry Loach, 405 32nd Avenue South, Jacksonville Beach. Mayor, members of the city council. Actually, I'm excited about the changes to the land development code. I think that one aspect of it, Mr. Sutton and I worked on years ago when Steve Lindors was still the planning director, and that was the city wanting to change the amount of time that the city sign changed. And back then we couldn't justify those changes. But I think the times come actually where we do need to allow the city sign to change more rapidly and to offer information. We want to embrace the beach life, but we also want to protect it. And what I started thinking about was as the state gets more and more involved in the way that we govern our local communities, I think that in terms of the city signs and digital signs in general, we need to create a stronger regulatory language in our city code than is currently there. Right now, we're addressing the city sign and we're saying that it can change. And I understand that it's the only sign that's going to be allowed to change. But what I would suggest is that there's compelling legal argument for creating a distinct regulatory informational signs to change content more dynamically and strictly limiting the change frequency of commercial signs. I think in our language, again, we got caught with the Airbnbs, and we all discussed this. Back in the day, we got caught blindsided, with our pants down, however you want to look at it, we got caught. And so as the state, again, moves in to limit what we can and can't regulate, there is a potential that some disgruntled person submits some language to what we can and can't do with our signs at some other county or community, and the state decides to adopt it, just like the Airbnbs. So what I would recommend is that we legally discern between government speech versus commercial speech, and it's been done. We have a constitutional, as a government, and a legal right to treat our signage differently because under the First Amendment, when the city communicates with its citizens on its own property, then what we are doing is we are allowing for public management and safety, i.e. today is the first day of Hurricane Susan. So just informational, amber alerts, hurricane, et cetera. But I think, I know, no hurricanes, please. But they're real-time emergency, real-time emergency alerts. And that's the difference between our sign And the commercial sign, a commercial sign that changes every 24 hours becomes basically a billboard. You can take that information in, and then they'll change again in 24 hours. Ours will change more frequently because of the nature of a government sign. And I just think that we need that language. Stronger language in the reason why we change our sign and not commercial signs written into the land development code. So that later on, if something comes back to us, like the Airbnbs, we've got something in place. And we can say, no, no, no, whoa, wait a minute. We have clear language in here on why we made the distinction. And that's all. I'm excited about where we're headed, the land development code. I'd just like to see us, again, strengthen that language so that it doesn't come back to bite us down the road. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Mr. DeLoach. Is there anyone who would like to speak in favor of anyone else who would like to speak in favor of or against the proposed ordinance? Seeing none, public hearing is closed. Can I have a motion?

I move we approve ordinance number 2026-8237 and the first reading amending chapter 34 land development code articles three, four, five, and seven and schedule a second reading for June 15th, 2026.

Before opening the floor for discussion or questions by the council, please be reminded that our decision will be based on the criteria set forth in the land development code staff's reports. The recommendation of the planning commission and public input at all hearings and I can sense the city attorney's getting nervous next to me and he's turned on his light. Mr.

I didn't second. I didn't get the second. I'm sorry. And I also wanted to correct, I believe it's articles three, five, six, and seven.

And I believe you said three, four, I warned you guys about the jet lag before this meeting started, so I can't believe I got this far. Let's go read it again on the motion. All right.

I move we approve ordinance number 2026-8237 on the first reading amendment chapter 34 land development code articles 3, 5, 6, and 7, and schedule a second reading for June 15, 2026. It's those Roman numerals. They get you every time.

Second. This is twice now that Roman numerals have come up in this meeting. We have a motion and a second. Discussion? Mr. Jansen.

Yes. So the documents you provided were just the amended changes. Is that correct? Yes.

Those are the proposed changes that we're recommending to the already large bill that changes the corrections that we found.

Right. So that's only amended, but that doesn't encompass all the changes that we're recommending.

The bulk of the ordinance is the totality of the changes. These are in addition to that. Okay. Thank you.

Ms. Golding? I'd like to make a motion that we amend the ordinance with the changes as outlined in this memo that Mr. Popoli gave us tonight. Mr. Pappoli?

Can we just jump in real quick? I did forget one thing that actually Councilman Golding had brought up. I didn't have a good suggestion, but the outdoor display of retail merchandise, we had used the term limited retail items, which came out of the briefing, but She raised the concern that's not a defined term anywhere in the code, so I don't know if that is adequate or if you guys want to drill down into that a little bit before you pass the amendment, just because it's, I think, an outstanding question.

Okay. Let's deal with the proposed amendment at hand. Can you restate it, Ms. Golding?

Are you asking me to restate it with the retail items included, or no, you're just saying just restate what I was saying? Restate what you're saying. Okay. I move that we amend the proposed ordinance with the changes as outlined in the memo from Mr. Popoli as presented tonight.

There's a motion. Is there a second?

Second.

We have a motion and a second to include the changes in the memo that we received tonight. Any discussion on that amendment specifically? Madam Clerk, roll call.

Council Member Golding?

Yes.

Council Member Horne?

Yes.

Council Member Jansen?

Yes.

Council Member Sutton?

Yes.

Council Member Wagner?

Yes.

Council Member Watters? Yes. Mayor Hoffman?

Yes. Amendment passes. Let's hold off on the retail displays really quick. Mr. Watters, you had your light on before we did the amendment. Do you want to speak?

Mr. Popoli, a couple questions.

Go ahead.

Okay. Thank you, Mayor. When it comes to notices, because honestly, in my neighborhood, we've experienced some lapses. Who is responsible for sending out these notices? The Planning and Development Department.

Who?

The Planning and Development Department, so our staff. Okay. And then let me ask you this. Under the LDC, are snipe signs allowed anywhere on city property? No. Thank you.

Before we get to retail displays, any other questions or comments on the LDC? Ms. Golding.

Thank you, Christian, for responding to all my questions that I sent you and for so quickly coming back with the changes that needed to be made. I did have a – I wanted to have a follow-up question about the drive-thru restaurants and the car – the – the drive-through stacking as being part of the parking. So I did a little research to see what other cities are doing and A lot of, well, at least the ones that I looked at, or Neptune Beach and Atlantic Beach, when it comes to restaurants, they base their parking on the number of seats. So it made me think about this as, you know, okay, so I understand that the fast food restaurants, we don't expect there to be a lot of people stopping and parking and sitting. So is there any reason why we wouldn't do a fast food restaurant based on the number of seats if they're going to, you know, have... say, more limited seating because they're expecting to serve people that are passing through as opposed to stopping and staying. Is there any reason why we didn't use the number of seats?

I mean, the sure answer is this is what it was in the previous code, and we didn't encounter any reason that it needed to change. There are, I would say, 100 ways to split that down to figure out how to calculate staffing and parking for drive-throughs that We can go into some detail if you'd like. But right now, there's a movement actually post-COVID to basically have a minimum stacking requirement and not a minimum parking requirement for drive-throughs because that became an issue with traffic. Simply, this is the way that it has been done, and we haven't noted any real problems with it. It's certainly something that we could explore. This was just, it wasn't specifically noted in the code previously, but it's how we've been doing it, so I thought it was best to include that in the definitions that we added, but it's totally up to you guys if you would like to examine that, and we can do some research. I mean, it is a very diverse topic.

Well, I mean, since we actually broke out the definition for, I think for fast food restaurant or whatever, which I don't think we had before. Is that right? Did we have that before? I don't recall. Yeah. I'm not sure either. I know that we added, you added several new restaurant definitions. So it just made me think, is this an opportunity to, since we're thinking that fast food restaurants are different because like I said, they're, they're serving fewer people. that are actually eating in the restaurant, maybe then the seating is the way to go. I'm not sure that I, I'm not sure that I'm, I feel strongly one way or the other, just wanted to know if there was a reason why we weren't doing the seating.

I'm not sure the reason why it's been done that way. I've worked in places that did use the seating I would say just as an example there are plans to renovate the chick-fil-a down at the marsh landing area and they're in essence expanding the building a tiny bit by putting in another freezer, but they're literally going to be filling in half of a stormwater retention pond to expand their drive-through by nearly triple. I don't know what the impact would be one way or the other, either on current businesses or future ones, because we've never really looked at it. We treat all restaurants based on square footage, so if we wanted to look at seating, I think it would require a little more analysis to figure out what the impact would be.

Well, my feeling at this point is if it's not broke, we won't try to change it. But I just wanted to, you just caused me to think a little bit further about it as far as with your response. Let's see. And I do appreciate the modification about the distance for notification of neighbors to Airbnbs. And then I wanted to ask the city manager about Mr. Deloach's recommendation that we tighten up the language around the government use of the changeable copy sign. Is there anything that you could recommend that we could do perhaps adding for public health safety and welfare type wording that would be stronger or including something about emergency messaging or anything like that that would make it stronger to Mr. Deloach's point.

I think you had said city administrator, but it sounds like they are legal questions. Oh, did I say manager?

I meant to say attorney.

And I said administrator, not manager.

I'm sorry. City attorney.

Don't ask me a question.

I apologize.

So here's my recommendation. The city council would like language to come back in favor of that. I could use the next two weeks to, well, the next week before the publishing deadline to get language in there and at the same time conduct legal research to make sure I agree that it's legal and in compliance with the First Amendment. So if that's the will of the council, I'd be happy to proceed that way. That's my suggestion. Okay. Okay.

I would like to make a motion that we amend the ordinance to strengthen the language around the government use of the sign.

There's a motion to amend. Is there a second? A motion to amend fails. Sorry, Mr. Ratner, what were you saying?

I just wanted to ask a follow-up question to Councilor Goldberg's question.

With regarding the government sign? Yeah. Okay, go ahead. Okay. I think I would be interested in pursuing more information on that. I also know that once we pass this, especially after the second reading, that a whole new list of things is going to start for us to keep an eye on with regards to the LDC. It's probably already started. I think that's going to be a more robust conversation. I'm particularly concerned that the reason we want our sign to change more frequently now is not necessarily for public safety. It's for public information. A lot of it is about special events farmers markets things like that so i want to make sure we're real careful with how we handle that because we don't want to draw any negative attention to the fact that we're saying we're using the sign for one thing but we are very clearly not not only using the sign for that i also think there are allowances for during emergency situations probably anyway that we could use that sign more frequently but that's all information that i think we would need um some more research on and perhaps to be considered on its own outside of the list of changes that we're making now. I lost track of lights, Mr. Horne.

I just, I wanted to agree with you and say, yes, I think we need to address this, but I think pushing it before next meeting would be a little bit too fast. So I'd like to see city managers, sorry, city attorney to have some, you know, a reasonable amount of time to address it, you know, get it, get it all figured out and do it independently.

Thank you, Mr. Horn. Mr. Sutton?

Yep, same. I think it's going to need to be dug into a little deeper. We don't want to create something that the state could shoot holes in, right? So something that's going to stick. And I think just as important, As the use of city signage is the limitation of the commercial signs and that those cannot be or will not, shall not be, whatever we say, any more often than what our desire is. So I think it's both.

Okay. Ms. Golding. That being said, then, that leads me to think that we need to remove this from these changes for now, because if we want to strengthen it, we need to approve it with the strengthened language, not with the halfway presented language or whatever you want to call it.

I don't agree with that. I think that adding language like emergency use, et cetera, et cetera, going further into it is where we run a risk without having done our proper homework. But I think just saying government signs are exempt is – I don't see a problem with that.

Well, and my intention was not to just focus on emergency, but to perhaps – make sure that we're outlining what the government sign could do and why we're doing it. You know, the reason like Mr. Deloach said. So, I mean, I would make a motion that we remove the change to the changeable copy signs at this time until we have the strengthened language.

There's a motion to amend. Is there a second? Seeing none. It's seconded by Mr. Watters. Is there discussion on the motion to amend to remove the government to allowing the government sign to be changeable? Mr. Horn?

Yeah, just I wanted David's opinion on what we're bringing up here because it might be a moot point. David, I know you're reviewing it briefly, so maybe we take 60 seconds and allow David to look at it just to determine whether the action that we're thinking is something we need to do if he says, yeah, no, it's fine the way it is right now, and we're going to, you know, whittle it down down the road. So, sorry, I just wanted to give you a second.

I did review this ordinance as part of our typical ordinance review process, so I looked at it in detail, made some mainly changes to the editing of it, like the non-substantive portions, but I didn't have any concern when I first read that. I would be happy, similar to what I said a few minutes ago, this is the first reading. I would be happy to, you know, take a look at that language on giving the government more power on that prior to our next meeting if this ordinance gets approved to go forward for a second reading.

Well, so the amendment in front of us now is to strike this. And so I guess my question to you is that do you feel that striking it is necessary for the purposes of your needs and making sure that we have appropriate documentation? Or if we were to not strike this, approve it the way it stands on the ordinance, does that still give you the ability in the future to then whittle this thing down and separate it, isolate it out into a very specific future ordinance?

I think legally it does not have to be stricken tonight because I could take a look at it prior to the second reading. There would be a chance, if there were any concerns, either from counsel or from legal feedback from me, you all have a second chance.

So we could strike a second one if we needed to, and then you could isolate it into its own ordinance. Okay. I'm just trying to figure that out. Sorry. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Horne. Mr. Wagner?

Thank you. I have a question for David and then a comment. So, David, if we were to strike it tonight, would that then eliminate your ability to modify it for the second reading?

Legally, it mainly comes down to the title of the ordinance. Here, the title is very short, but yet adequate to put the public on notice. So because of the way the title is worded, I think either way is acceptable. So however council wants to proceed. If you want to take it out now and possibly put it back in on June 15th, or if you want to leave it in now, that would also give an opportunity, if prudent, to remove it on June 15th. So it's your call.

So literally... It's a distinction without a difference. Either action is irrelevant. Either action looks permissible. Yeah. So what I want us to think about as we look at the concept of narrowing this down is I want to make sure that we're not creating additional risk for the city by putting boundaries on it. So if we're going to define it, then I want to make sure we can define it also for the public use of information. So information we want to share with them. And some of the examples the mayor used earlier, I think we're right on. And then if we're going to define it as information, security, safety, and all those other things, then I'm just struggling with understanding what is the value of the exercise other than to have the exercise. So I feel like we're kind of something up here, and I don't know that we're going to get a whole lot of added value, at least in the way I'm internalizing it. So that's kind of my opinion.

Thank you, Mr. Wagner. Mr. Sutton?

Yeah, I think we're getting hung up on semantics here, and we can either strike it and add it later, we can pass it the way it is, and then we can start changing the sign every three minutes now, and then we'll just change it when Mr. Meggett has done his research and come back either way we're coming back and changing you know this section of the land development code again and um here we are changing little things in the land development code you know i don't think that one we don't want that to really be our cadence going forward um you know and we haven't thus far which is good we're sort of doing an annual review here which is what we talked about last year when we put the new LDC in place. But I don't think it matters one way or the other. If we want to go ahead and pass it with it in there, it's just as changeable for Mr. Miggott as if it's not in there, and we add it in two weeks or four weeks or whatever the case may be.

Thank you, Mr. Sutton. Ms. Golding, revisit? Yeah, my...

My thought was this, we don't necessarily have to remove it, but the discussion was, well, we would need another ordinance to blah, blah, blah. And that's why I was like, well, then we need to remove it. If the council supported Mr. Biggett, If there was consensus for Mr. Bigot to look at this further and provide something for us to consider on the second reading to potentially change the language and make it stronger, I'm perfectly fine with that. The whole reason why I made that motion was because there was talk about this needs to be done outside of this. So I'm fine with pulling my motion out But do we need to make a motion to give you direction to come up with stronger language for us to consider at the second reading?

I don't think a motion like that is necessary. I will gladly bring back my research findings to you and provide them to you as quickly as I can in advance of next meeting. So you don't have to make a motion to direct me to do that research. Okay, then I will pull my motion.

Thank you, Ms. Golding. Mr. Watters, was your comment on the amendment that she just withdrew?

I'm happy to pull my second on it, too. I'm comfortable moving forward. But before we get to a formal vote, I did want to ask a couple more questions about the LDC to Mr. Popoli. Is that appropriate now? Okay, thank you. Mr. Pappoli, so we're looking at the issue of five-foot setbacks. It's my understanding, please forgive me, I've been occupied with personal matters. In RM1, RM2, and RS3 allows for five-foot setbacks on both sides, is that correct? Yes, for the town homes. And in RS2, it only allows on one side, or is it both now? RS2 doesn't allow for two unit townhomes, I don't think.

Is it 15 feet total and they can do a five foot and a 10 foot? Yeah, I mean, that's standard for a single family in RS2. I honestly, again, don't specifically recall all the things we did with the new code. Give me just a moment.

And I apologize. I should have known that in advance. I don't mean to pull pop quiz on you.

Okay, so...

Right. So RS2 doesn't allow townhomes. So that would be for single family only. And yes, it allows for a maximum or a total of 15 feet with a limit of a minimum of five, but only on one side because the other one would have to be 10 to equal 15.

Okay. And just for the benefit of our discussion, in addition to being five feet from the property line to your neighbor, it also allows for an eave of up to three feet. Like an encroachment of an eave, 30 inches. 30 inches? And then a gutter on the end of that? Potentially, if it's required. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions or comments? Madam Clerk, roll call. Council Member Horton?

Yes.

Council Member Jansen.

Yes.

Council Member Sutton.

Yes.

Council Member Wagner.

Yes.

Council Member Watters.

No.

Council Member Golding.

Yes. Mayor Hoffman. Yes. Motion carries. I just realized I forgot to bring up the retail displays. Bring back up, but we can talk about that in two weeks. Two weeks. Okay. Ms. Rapoli, thank you for your work on this. It's a lot of effort and I appreciate the council being so engaged with the discussion. We will see this again in two weeks and have some additional information provided. I do want to just kind of as a point of order, the way that we flow our meetings, traditionally we have had our Mayor Pro Tem makes the motion and then another council member makes the second. But in the case of an amendment, if you need to make a second, you do not need to turn your light on. So you can just, you're welcome. You can just shout out a second. We kind of have one person kind of always designated to do the seconds. But in the case of an amendment, you do not have to turn your light on. You can just say it out loud and we will move on from there. Seeing no other business, do I have a motion to adjourn? I move to adjourn.