City Council - Regular Meeting

Welcome everybody to the City Council regular session of June 15th, 2026. We've got a nice packed house tonight. Good to see everybody here and welcome. But if you would, please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and invocation. If you'll bow your heads with me, please. Lord, Heavenly Father, thank you for another beautiful Dan Lake City, and thank you for blessing all of us here in the city with the blessings that you bestow upon us. Lord, help this board make great decisions for citizens both now and in the future. In your name I pray. Amen. All right. Ms. Sykes, will you please call the roll?

Council Member Jernigan?

Present.

Council Member Harris? Present. Council Member Young? Present. Council Member Carter? Present. Mayor Walker?

Here.

City Manager Rosenthal?

Here.

City Attorney Martin?

Here.

Chief Butler? Here.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Lake City Council has opened its public meeting and since 1968 the city code has prohibited any person from making personal, impertinent, or slanderous remarks or becoming boisterous while addressing the city council. Yelling or making audible comments from the audience constitutes boisterous conduct. Such conduct will not be tolerated. There is only one approved manner of addressing the city council and that's to be recognized and then to speak from the podium. Failure to abide by the rules of decorum will result in removal from the meeting. Before we approve the agenda, we have one change to make, and that is on item number 19, City Council Resolution number 2026-062. It says August 20th for the date of elections. That's going to be August 18th. So with that in mind, I will thank you. Second. We have a motion and a second. With those changes, we'll now go to discussion. Anybody? Hearing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed, like sign? Okay. Agenda is approved. All right, so now we will go immediately into proclamations, awards, and recognitions. We have a lot of these, which is a really great thing, and I'm very excited to do that tonight. But we will start with a proclamation for Ms. Susie Wiles, who is the White House Chief of Staff. The proclamation is as follows. In recognition of Susie Wiles, White House Chief of Staff. Whereas the City of Lake City proudly recognizes Susie Wiles as a distinguished native whose career in public service and leadership has brought national prominence to her birthplace. And whereas Susie Wiles has demonstrated exceptional dedication, professionalism, and strategic leadership throughout her career in government and public affairs, culminating in her appointment as the Chief of Staff for the White House. and whereas Susie Wiles is the first woman to serve as chief of staff in U.S. history. She was appointed by President Donald Trump and is recognized for her significant role in his administration. Whereas in this historic and influential role, she serves as the highest level of the executive branch, providing guidance, coordination, and leadership in support of the President of the United States and nation. and whereas her accomplishments reflect a steadfast commitment to excellence, integrity, and service, serving as an inspiration to the residents of Lake City and future generations of leaders, and whereas the City of Lake City takes a great pride in celebrating the achievements of its native sons and daughters who contribute meaningfully to the betterment of our nation, positively impacting local families and youth, and whereas susie wiles trails blazing career and unwavering commitment to serve as an inspire inspiration to women aspiring professionals and public servants throughout the city of lake city and beyond now therefore i know walker mayor of the city of lake city florida do hereby recognize and honor susie wiles for her historic achievements distinguished service her enduring contributions to the nation and for bringing notability and distinction to her birthplace and extend my sincere appreciation and our our sincere appreciation and gratitude on behalf of the city of lake city and city council thank you very much And now we will move on to the City of Lake City Gatekeeper Award presented to the Columbia High School softball team. Congratulations to you young ladies. If you'll hand me one of those letters. All right. The way that we'll do this, so whenever you're called, you'll come up. We'll take a photo of each individual recipient of the award, and then we'll have you stand over there, and then we'll take a collective of each group as you come, okay? So here's the letter of recognition for our softball team. On behalf of the citizens of Lake City, it is my great honor to recognize these recipients of the Gatekeeper Award. The Gatekeeper Award is bestowed upon individuals who exemplify outstanding citizenship, who bring honor, pride, integrity, and excellence to our community through service, leadership, achievement, perseverance, and good works. As the proud gateway to Florida, Lake City is represented each day by the people who live, work, serve, and lead within it. Those recognized with this award embody the spirit, values, and character that make our city a source of pride for generations past, present, and future. Recipients of this recognition distinguish themselves through actions that strengthen our community, inspire others, and positively reflect the heart of Lake City. Whether through volunteerism, professional excellence, mentorship, advocacy, acts of compassion, civic leadership, or personal triumph, gatekeepers serve as ambassadors of the values that define our city. The city of Lake City proudly acknowledges the lasting impact made by individuals such as these folks who we will recognize tonight, whose dedication and example help uphold the honor and reputation of our community as the gateway to Florida. And these special recognitions are tonight for the first group, the 2026 4A state champions in softball. Give it up for them real quick before we...

Mayor, just let me know when you're ready. Okay, our first recipient is Louisa Taylor. Alana Lord. Amani Tunsil. Ava Christie. Addison Sherman. Kenley King. Laura Van Beetles. Anna Dansby. Marlee Hunt. Raelynn Weyinger. Lauren Lee.

Congratulations.

Brooklyn White. Emily Delgado. Josie Rollerson. Riley Stone. Mayor, now we have the coaches. We have head coach Joe Saucer. Assistant coach Brandon Beatles. Assistant Coach John Sherman. Assistant Coach Jody Rollerson. Okay, Assistant Coach Andy Jolly. and assistant coach Alexis Blair.

All right. All right. Council, put them down. And if we'll make two rows right here. Council, go to either side again.

Mayor. Mayor. Do you want me to give these to the coach?

Yes, please.

Thank you.

Yep, I got everyone.

I'm coming. Sorry. You're good. Thank you.

Real quick, I just wanted to again say thank you to you guys. We were here a couple weeks ago, said we'd be back. We're back. And I know public service is not a spot that we always get told we're doing a good job, right? It's always the miscues. Coaching is a lot of the same thing sometimes, right? But if you would have seen what we got to see, Lake City had the most people. down there cheering on this high school, cheering on these girls. It wasn't even close, guys. My wife showed up on Thursday, had to sit in the visiting stands, right? It was not even close, right? So for you guys to be able to do what you're doing and promoting this city and allowing these girls to be raised in a community like this, it's top notch, right? And I just wanted to say thank you for that.

Thank you, Coach. I'd like to quickly recognize the coaches of this team and all the coaches of our youth sports here. Thank you for your volunteer service in helping raise the next generation. And congratulations again, young ladies. You did us proud, right? Our next gatekeeper set will be for, actually this is just for a single individual, Ms. Christina Monroe.

I'll read her letter now.

On behalf of the citizens of Lake City, it is my great honor to recognize Christina Monroe as a recipient of the Gatekeeper Award. The Gatekeeper Award is bestowed upon individuals who exemplify outstanding citizenship and who bring honor, pride, integrity, and excellence to our community through service, leadership, and achievement, perseverance, and good works. As the proud gateway to Florida, Lake City is represented each day by the people who live, work, serve, and lead within it. Those recognized with this award embody the spirit, values, and character that make our city a source of pride for generations past, present, and future. Recipients of this award distinguish themselves through actions that strengthen our community, inspire others, and positively reflect the heart of Lake City. Whether through volunteerism, professional excellence, mentorship, advocacy, acts of compassion, civic leadership, or personal triumph, gatekeepers serve as ambassadors of the values that define our city. The City of Lake City proudly acknowledges the lasting impact made by individuals such as Christina Monroe, those whose dedication and example uphold the honor and reputation of our community as the gateway to Florida. Christina is being recognized tonight specifically, and we mentioned it several meetings ago, for completing the Jacksonville Gate River Run, which is 9.3 miles in full firefighter gear and maintaining a full readiness at all times to pull our citizens out of burning buildings, just like the rest of our firefighters. So we appreciate her very much. And if she is here tonight, we'll meet her down front. Come on up. Thank you.

It's not hard to do.

You don't have to. You stole her letter.

That's okay. We'll get it back to her.

We have one last set of gatekeeper awards. I believe Chief wants to preface this after the fact. Do you have the letters?

Yes, please. Okay.

On behalf of the citizens of Lake City, it is my great honor to recognize these next individuals. Chief, you can come up after. I'll recognize you. As recipients of the Gatekeeper Award. The Gatekeeper Award is bestowed upon individuals who exemplify outstanding citizenship and who bring honor, pride, integrity, and excellence to our community through service, leadership, achievement, perseverance, and good works. As the proud gateway to Florida, Lake City is represented each day by the people who live, work, serve, and lead within it. Those recognized with this award embody the spirit, values, and character that make our city a source of pride for generations past, present, and future. Recipients of this recognition distinguish themselves through actions that strengthen our community, inspire others, and positively reflect the heart of Lake City. Whether through volunteerism, professional excellence, mentorship, advocacy, acts of compassion, civil leadership, or personal triumph, gatekeepers serve as ambassadors of the values that define our city. the city of lake city proudly acknowledges the lasting impact made by these individuals whose dedication and example held or help uphold the honor and reputation of our community as the gateway to florida chief if you'll come up and tell us about this instance

A little tired now from walking back and forth. So December 24th, 2025, we got a call for service at McDonald's, something we get every day. It come in as a vehicle accident. While en route, it changed from a vehicle accident to a cardiac arrest. We had a police officer. Where's she at? Ms. Taylor went on scene first, realized that this patient was in full cardiac arrest. She started emergency CPR and our crews got there and continued CPR and continued it till they got to the hospital, continued it at the hospital and were able to get Mr. Buster back. Something that one of the firefighters, Firefighter Dorn, made mention that this is not typical in your career. You may never see this. We get calls for this type of service daily and it's not something that you get to see the person come in and shaking your hand and talking to you a few months later. So Mr. Busker is here as well. So we wanted to honor him, but we want to honor the firefighters and Officer Taylor with a Medal of Valor along with the Gatekeeper Award. So congratulations to everybody and Mr. Busker, you want to come say some things?

No, it'll be very short. I've already spoke to them before we came over here. And they refused to give up that morning. They could have easily quit. but they kept fighting and fighting. And because of that, then I can stand for you. As doctors have said and all that, I'm a miracle. And that's through their hard work, prayers, and God just wasn't through with me yet. Thank you.

On behalf of the family, there's a lot of us here. I just wanted to say thank you again. It is an amazing miracle from what we were able to see, but it wouldn't have been without you. Thank you for getting there and making the call. Thank you guys for never giving up, even though it didn't look like it was going to make it. Even into the days later, but if it wasn't for these guys, it would not be possible. Thank you guys. We celebrate the city of Lake City today.

Daniel Dorn, would you come forward, please?

Leon Jones.

Josh Morris.

And Taylor Johns.

All right, Taylor.

Good job.

That was awesome.

We'll have the council come down to come back up.

Thank you.

We'll take a minute just in case there's anybody that wants to take off.

Okay.

Well, you can't probably.

I probably got two heaters on either side.

You're hot.

Hi, boys.

Hi.

All right.

That concludes our awards and recognitions portion of tonight's meeting. So now we will move on to public participation. I don't have anything up here for open public comment, so we'll move on from public participation to approval of the consent agenda.

Mr. Mayor, would you approve the consent agenda?

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Thank you both. Do we have any questions, comments, concerns? All right. Ms. Sykes, will you please call the roll?

Mr. Carter. Yay. Ms. Young. Yes. Mr. Jernigan. Yes. Ms. Harris. Yes. Mayor Walker.

Yes. All right. And that takes us down to item number 12. So this is the homeless concerns. This is a presentation by Mr. Christian Quadras. And I'll turn it over to you, Mr. Jernigan, is your item.

Mayor, I was notified by Mr. Christian there about the homeless concerns. that he's experiencing here in Lake City, the city of Lake City, especially around the benches around the Lake City area. And he basically informed me that, I think he said he was from Miami or somewhere down south, and they had a ordinance or a way to help us solve this issue. He said he spoke with various people in the community. He might have mentioned Sylvester Warren that was a good friend of his so and just like I told him I said I would love to hear what you had to say and maybe just maybe whatever he's got to tell us we can implement that some kind of way that somehow we could solve the homeless on the benches and just camping out there for hours and hours. Matter of fact, overnight in the city, here in the city of Lake City. So, Mr. Quadris, the floor is yours.

Thank you, everyone, for your time. First, I want to say I'm not a normal advocate. I'm just a citizen and just tired of nobody doing anything and no one speaking up. I'm not here to saber rattle. I'm here to come with a scalpel and come up with a solution that I feel like I have something after some research that'll deem warrant if you guys review. So good evening, everyone. Thank you for your time. The purpose of this agenda meeting is public safety and infrastructure update. Today, I want to discuss three interconnected steps we can take to significantly improve public safety on our city streets and sidewalks. Specifically, we're looking at three sections. First, winding down our current Blue Bench program. Second, establishing a safety ordinance for our roadway median usage by pedestrians. And third, establishing a public safety ordinance to address dangerous roadside interactions. The immediate vehicle For the first step is simple. We have a current 90-day extension on our existing bench contract. By choosing not to renew this agreement past the deadline, we can transition these spaces back to their original intent. Let's start with the benches. To put things into context, we are a small community. We don't have Metro Transit. We do not have local cab stands. Therefore, this is a service for the benches that is unwarranted for a community of our size. Because of this, we observe that our local citizens aren't actually using these blue benches as temporary resting stops while commuting. Instead, the benches have unfortunately become occupied spaces by the homeless community because the original intent The original intended use is no longer warranted in our community. We cannot justify keeping them. Our recommendation is to let the contract expire at the end of the 90-day window, requiring the vendors to remove all benches per the term of the agreement. Next is the public safety ordinances. This ties directly into our next two goals, which focus heavily on pedestrian safety. We want to introduce two public safety ordinances. The first will mitigate the hazards of people standing, sitting, lying, or walking on high traffic road medians in immediate roadside areas. The second will prohibit physical interactions and transactions between pedestrians and occupants of motor vehicles within public right-of-ways, including medians, sidewalks, and easements. Here are some of the first ordinance focus details. Defined by a six foot safety buffer zone from roadway and affected areas. Defines hazardous roadways by posted speed limits of 30 miles per hours or more. Defines the intended use of areas in question. Providing for a two light cycle reasonable time limit for a transient crossing. Placement of permanent signage of ordinance in affected areas. Authorizing the use of intersection traffic cameras for magistrate enforcement. Establishing a data retention policy. Provides exemptions for city maintenance crews, emergency personnel and utility workers. Establishes penalties as a municipal infraction of $200 fines and up to 60 days in jail. Provides a 30-day public education grace period. Now for the second ordinance focus details. Defines interactions on roadways between pedestrians and motorists that are deemed hazardous. Establishes exemptions for off-road transfers and defines the process in which the pedestrian and the motorist can engage in a safe manner. I want to emphasize that these types of safety ordinances are not experimental. They have been successfully adopted in several other Florida cities, including Jacksonville, Gainesville, Alachua, and Pompano Beach. The language in those ordinances is strictly focused on pedestrian safety. It specifically targets high risk zones where medians and roadways are Roadside areas are just too narrow for any other reason than crossing the street or walking transit What's the bottom line in closing? Our main focus today is a shift toward a safer more structured community environment By allowing the blue bench contract to draw to a close and by establishing these two targeted public safety ordinances We can drag drastically reduce traffic hazards. Ultimately. This is about preventing accidents and reducing injuries, and saving lives on our roadways. Thank you, and I'd like to open the floor for any questions.

Does anybody have any? Mr. Jernigan?

Yes, I do have a question for you. Public safety, I think that is a concern. And so where have you seen the most of the individuals, the homeless, hanging out?

It's primarily on the Highway 90 stretch in the main Commerce District and then along the main sections of Main Street near Duval, between Bay and Duval. Basically, it's the areas that have the highest intersection traffic that the homeless tend to congregate around in their area. That is causing the biggest concern because if you look at any of the roadways, In medians, a lot of times they're straddling what looks like two or three foot concrete easements. It is one small trip and fall for someone who's not willing to be involved to now be the recipient of an accident. Especially with the heat the way it is, it is not unlikely at all that someone's going to suffer from any kind of heat exhaustion standing out there for hours at a time. Now they're putting motorists at risk and undue. Now if they want to stand there and use their free speech, no one's disputing that. This is 100% language on safety, meaning this is not the right place for you to be standing. It is unsafe. There are other areas you can stand that are not right there. Now, we all know there's reasons why people stand in specific areas. It's the benefit of what they're going after. They're not panhandling by definition. They're sitting quietly, civilly, But by doing so, they're automatically putting all motorists at risk. The areas of high speed, constant traffic become an issue. You also have the same instance with the voice newspaper, the homeless voice that do this. They participate in the same manner. By utilizing that medium roadway, they put everybody at risk. By them stepping off the curb for any reason, they're now in a high traffic area, an open roadway. That is something that cannot happen. That's why it's a two-part ordinance, one to clearly define the specifics of the medium itself so it is not a broad-based assumption saying everywhere in the county, but defining specific areas that are unsafe. So therefore, if there are areas that go outside of that boundaries, by all means, help yourself. But that also tries to eliminate the next step. I always say Think like the person you're trying to help or prevent the accident from happening. If they're in the roadway, they're going to move to the side of the road on the roadside. What are we doing there? Now they're right off the road, same thing. So that's why the six-foot buffer has to be in place. All the roadside easements that are infected, they're standing right on the edge of the road trying to extend, show a sign, whatever they're going to do, but they're putting themselves and motorists at risk. That's the major concern. That's the crux of the language. And everything that I've read right up so far on case law, has showed that if and when, not if, but when this goes to court, that the judges have upheld the ordinances based on safety. So that is the biggest crux of this, is nothing against First Amendment rights. By all means, everyone is allowed for the First Amendment rights. This is strictly when the language of the ordinance is 100% based in safety. That's what's been holding up in court. And that's what has been upheld in all our major cities that I've mentioned, and that the ordinances are still allowed to be upheld by the police and the sheriffs. I've talked to police and sheriffs as well, and they've told us that we want to do something, but our hands are tied. We have no right to go in there. We can sit there and cite them, and nothing's going to happen beyond that site. They said they literally could take the ticket, crumble it up, throw it in my face, and there's nothing I could do about it. So it's a pointless act.

Yes, so what I was getting at is, I guess down in Miami, Jacksonville, Pompano Beach, wherever you set down south, they do have a public transportation in those areas. But in Lake City, we don't have a public transportation here, so them just hanging out to sleep or congregate or whatever the case may be, And what you are trying to tell us that is basically we can come up with an ordinance or find the individuals that's doing that and just let them know. Give them a 30 day grace period and just let them know this is not the place for you to hang out or take a space up for home.

And same thing in line with the blue benches. The blue benches, by the extent from the vendor, was to offer a resting spot for commuters and transit people walking. I work up and down that strip and I think we all can say that. I don't think we've ever seen one. non-homeless person using that bench. And it's nothing to try and target anybody, but it's just pure observation. And especially with a hot sun the way it is, it's not even conducive to do so if you choose to. A hot metal bench in a blistering sun with no overhang has no purpose. So therefore, no one's using it And it becomes an easy encampment area that we've seen time and time again, the homeless are actually using for squatting. So there's no purpose for it because we don't have transit. We don't have cabs. So there's no one coming there to rest and wait for someone. Therefore, it's just creating more problem than it is benefit.

Mr. Carter.

Yeah, I had a question on the subject, but actually for Mr. Martin, and I may not at all be prepared for this sort of question, but it's more of like maybe a task assignment, if you will. So I know we've had in past ordinances of a similar nature in the past. I think we've been sued over it and had to remove them, and of course it's all been around a basis of violation of free speech. This... Are you familiar with any of this, like, for instance, in our neighboring city, Gainesville, where they've had success going at the problem from this angle? Is this... Because I think everyone agrees, and this is actually probably one of the most frequently complained about topics that I get as a representative, and... And one of the only topics where I feel like I never have a good answer because, again, we've been beat up pretty hard, and most cities in the state have, for trying to solve it through ordinance.

So there are things we can do. There is precedent in the state regarding regulation of activity in medians. The ability to regulate activity on sidewalks is much more limited and more legally fraught, I would say. As far as Gainesville having success, just anecdotally, I routinely see people there in medians at intersections and at interstate areas. exits and interchanges and that kind of thing. So I don't know, whatever ordinance they've got, they may have the ordinance on the books, it may have been challenged, and as a result, they just, rather than repeal it, they just don't enforce it. So I can, just by observation, make that comment about Gainesville, but this is something that I've started looking into really as the result of a request from the mayor. Even prior to the current presentation, the gentleman and I have met one time last week, and he's provided me a lot of additional information that's been helpful, and I'm continuing to look into it, and he's, even as late as today, continuing to share things. So it's something that at some point I would like to be able to schedule a workshop on with the council to kind of, you know, noodle through the things we can do, the gray areas and the areas where it's pretty clear we can't really touch it. And you're right, it's mostly grounded in the area of the First Amendment. Sure.

And if I may say something, for we know that this homeless situation is a problem all over. It's not just Lake City. And I would love to see us come up with a solution, a resolution to do away with this issue, this problem. And it's not a problem for just a problem for us who have homes, it's a problem for the homeless. But listening at the ordinance and the information that you've given, it just gives me... the thought that it'll just shift them from one area to another. We do have issues with homeless in residential areas and squatting. So it just seems like it's going to shift. It'll shift from the downtown area and then to residential areas. And then my other concern is The citations, which they'll probably never get payment on the citations. And then the jail, and they'll end up in jail for a certain amount of days or whatever the time limitation is, and then they're back out. So I don't know that that really solves the homeless issue. I think it's just shifting it from one place to another. What's your thought on that?

My thought is not, it becomes down to an economic issue. Here's my thought on it. The homeless are choosing specific areas of revenue flow. If you're able to control the revenue flow, you'll control where the homeless are. So the thought that a homeless are going to move away from a high traffic area like Highway 90 or Bay and Main Street 90 and downtown area is not economically feasible because they're raising revenue for their life, for whatever they're buying. So they stay there and repeat the cycle. So by targeting the areas that are most at risk because of the high traffic, you take away their economic source. Meaning, if you target the ordinance along the roadways getting off the off ramps on 75 and put a six-foot buffer, it becomes path of least resistance. You set a six-foot buffer and you make someone stand into a safe area, it's going to control how much revenue they're going to bring in. When the revenue stream leaves, so do they. Meaning, that's not saying they're going to go choose a lower revenue stream. They're still going to try and live at a certain level. So the likelihood of any homeless going into a residential neighborhood or a less high traffic area versus finding somewhere else to set up shop is very unlikely because they need the revenue income that the high traffic can only provide. That's the reason why they're going to the intersections of Walmart, Publix, right on 90, Bayer. They're looking at where the traffic is. You could even tell by the body positioning. They position themselves on the driver's hand side because they know they're going to get the quickest interaction that way. By conforming the safety to push them away from the path of least resistance, it's going to affect their revenues. That's going to change the mindset. The ordinance, as far as imposing jail time and fees, that's going to be the example that needs to be met. And trust me, they all talk. Once one or two get it, they're going to realize it's not something I want. Is it something that we're going to have to worry about imposing on everybody? Absolutely not. But you have to set the tone with something that we're going to enforce and give our police and sheriffs something to go after. Right now, they have no power. So therefore, the homeless can do what they want as they want. This is to shift that power back to the city and to our residents for the well-being of our community. So therefore, to answer your question, I do not feel at all that this is going to shift elsewhere because that is their golden gravy. is Highway 90 and that main intersection on Main. They go after where the traffic is. You take away their ability to do that, they're going to find somewhere else. And there is nowhere else in Lake City that's going to offer that kind of exposure that they need.

Do you know that there's quite a bit of homeless in residential areas?

Not that I've seen. I've seen more. Like I said, the major congestion seems to be around the Commerce District where they're getting money. Now, people squatting in different areas, that's a different story of people on private property. That's something that a private resident can handle on their own. But the question is what is not the residents. It's outside the commerce buildings where they know what their laws are. They know where the rules are. They know where the easements are so they know how to play the game. So all we're doing is making it safer for everyone else because I can't tell you how many times I hear people, I almost hit someone again. I almost hit someone again. They stand out in the road. They're fearless. And at the end of the day, it's going to come down to, I even put traffic crash reports from Columbia County in your packet to show how many people, how many crashes, how many pedestrian hits, how many pedestrian fatalities. So all we're doing is waiting for it. What I'm trying to do is be proactive instead of reactive. And that is what we should be focused on more than anything else. We even have the problem downtown. I know that there's been talk about the black benches where the homeless is making camp. And I think we're supposed to have those removed. So we need to make those steps forward to resolve the issue. You take away the comfort, they're going to go somewhere else. We're making it way too easy for them to find a home, sit, and repeat the cycle. They literally will do their First Amendment right, panhandle as you will, go squat on their bench, repeat the cycle. And that's all they do. Now they just fight over who gets what spot at what time. And we're allowing them to do this. We don't have to allow them. We use a law on our side that has shown that it's strictly based in safety. No language at all is going to be anything to prohibit them from speaking in a public forum, expressing their rights at all. This is saying this is not the right spot. The blue benches is not the right spot because that's creating the environment for them to be comfortable to set up shop over there. It's not being used by the citizens.

And one other thing, Mayor, if you don't mind. Oh, those cities that you named, the ordinances work in their areas, but don't they have homeless shelters?

They have homeless shelters, yes. So you're basically saying because we don't have a homeless shelter?

Oh, that has a lot to do with it. We don't. We don't have homeless shelters.

But at the same time, does that mean because we don't have a homeless shelter that therefore they have a right to just...

occupy wherever they want by no means did i say that i'm just asking yes no no i said that to say um is the ordinance really working there or do they is it because they have a place for them they can say don't sit on the benches don't lie on the benches don't sleep on the benches but they have another alternative for them the question should be more about the enforcement

You have an ordinance that's working that's not being overturned in the courts. Therefore, the city and the county have the ability to enforce. If cities and counties in those areas have enforcement that they choose not to use, shame on them. I'm saying is our police and sheriffs are not asking but begging for help. This would allow them to help to do their job and basically help enforce that ordinance. That is the bigger problem. ass that I'm putting out there.

Who's begging for help?

I'm sorry?

Who did you say is begging for help?

Oh, the city police and the sheriff's department. I spoke to numerous officers in both departments. Yes, sir.

I agree with you. Mr. Martin alluded to it. I've had many conversations in his ear. Chief as well, Don. asking for research on this and i think that we should have a workshop that has actions that come out of it and and i think that you've presented a very viable action on this tonight um i uh The commercial corridor is an issue. It's not just homeless that are the issue. There are actually some very homed people that go and sit on those corners asking for dollars and cents and then get into a Cadillac or a Mercedes. I've watched a man get into a Mercedes or walk over and access a very nice cooler in the back of his Mercedes at the corner next to Walmart. Drives me crazy. This issue drives me crazy. But I agree with Miss Young. There are homeless in our residential areas that have crept into abandoned houses and houses that have now are being actively pursued by code enforcement, as well as other properties like Dollar General or right next to Dollar General here on Highway 90, where there was a small encampment or had grown into a large encampment. And we worked with them to get a blanket trespass. And I think that it's actions like that that need to happen. But it will take our citizens who are seeing this actively. So it's going to be a well-rounded approach, right? I think that you've provided a good solution to get it off the highways. Um, but we need to have the homeless coalition involved in this, which is the United Way and the county as well, so that we can have a full holistic approach. Not, and it's not, um, something that isn't sympathetic to folks that are down on their luck, uh, because it helps to funnel vets who, uh, might be homeless into the VA system, uh, funnel folks with mental health issues into providers that can at least attempt to help them. But I've been studying some cities as well, not just on the enforcement side of things, but on the solution side of things. And a lot of what solves homeless is getting people back home. And here at a crossroads in Lake City, you know, you can see how folks far from home can collect. And I think that there's an approach that we can take there to getting people back connected with where they're from, who they have roots with, and getting them connected. um helped back where where they're from rather than um homeless here in lake city so i think that we do need that workshop sooner than later so it looks like we'll probably have that in july i think this is a very important thing that you brought up miss harris we'll get to you in just a minute mr carter was flagging me down for something before so we'll go to him and then we'll come back to you but that's all i have to say i agree with you i think this is important

Well, all I was going to say at this time is that I agree it is a significant issue. Most of the time that I've brought it up with folks, it's seemed like a bit of a helpless issue for the people in the state of Florida. It's like, well, we've done this and we got sued, done this and we got sued, done this and we got sued. And obviously we have been sued. So it is a problem, I think. I think if we solve it here, we will have done something that alters the face of the nation. So to be clear, I'm not saying it's an impossible task, but I do think working with the legislator, because it's going to require the state to change some rules. It's going to require the courts to see it, to view it differently. I mean, it's a big deal. But if there's anything we can do to affect medians, if we're seeing success anywhere, I know... You live, Mr. Martin, in Gainesville. That's kind of why I had asked you a minute ago. I go to Gainesville a lot. If this is working, it is definitely not working at the university exit, because I get off on that exit at least once or twice a week, and they've still got significant issues there with panhandling right there. So... So I don't mean to sound not hopeful, but this is going to be real multi-pronged. So when we have a workshop on it, I'd like to make sure that we have robust resources. What we can pull together here and with the PD, maybe even get the sheriff's department involved with anything that they might have to contribute to the thing. Um, and even perhaps some outside presentations, like a, like a real, real sit down because obviously this is not a Lake city problem. This is a everywhere issue and no one's, If someone had solved it, then it wouldn't really be one anymore. So obviously...

There's a whole election based around this in L.A. right now around the homeless. It's an issue everywhere.

But if we can find any small ways to kind of fight back some pieces, I'm 100% for it.

Ms. Harris, you had a question?

Well, I am definitely in agreement that something needs to be done. But the blue benches that you are talking about, what were the blue benches put there for? Were they advertisement or... I think it was a cheaper advertisement for...

Advertisement in waiting for transit. It's what he said was they were put for folks physically commuting back and forth. But I don't, I mean, he made a very valid point that I've also made that they're only used really for one purpose right now.

And from what I've heard also, I'm sorry for jumping, but I've also heard from some of the local PD that there's been issues raised even by the bench company themselves trying to impose trespassing on those benches because the homeless are basically covering everything that their customers are paying for. So as a whole, does it work in a bigger city? Probably yes. In Lake City, no. It's not realistic. It doesn't make sense here at all. for that to be there. Just as the black benches don't make sense downtown, all you're doing is bringing more attention to it to give an easy spot for someone to set up shop. Now it's going to be even harder to get away. So it's a multi-pronged approach, meaning the benches are one aspect. Take away the comfort level. Now they don't have somewhere easy to sit. Then you restrict their revenue flow. They're going to find somewhere else to go. Can we affect what Jacksonville is doing, Gainesville is doing? Absolutely not. We could affect what Lake City is doing. So all I'm doing is looking at the fact that the jurisdictions, not if, but when the lawsuit comes, we're ready for it with the ordinance to shut it down because we have precedents as shown in other cities that the magistrates have supported the ordinance because of the language, because the language is based on safety. That is what gives our police our ability to actually enforce. So what the other cities aren't doing, because like saying Gainesville, the areas are congested. They still have an ordinance that works. We can't control what Gainesville does, but we could control what Lake City does. So if our offices are asking for that tool to help, they also mentioned the magistrate. They said we have magistrates set right now for code enforcement. and talking to some legal friends they said what's the difference of having the code enforcement handle ordinance violations so therefore we have magistrate in place to handle that side they said without the court system there's no tooth in it so it's that prong to be able to give the ordinance and the magistrate to support that ordinance that's going to send the message to the homeless community that we're not playing anymore and that this is how we handle our situation in our city not everyone else's lake city

That's right.

Sorry, Mr. Harris.

The reason why we're referencing to other cities because you referenced to them. I sure did. When you say Jacksonville, I'm curious to know what area are you talking about when you say Jacksonville? Because Jacksonville have a horrible problem. And as far as Lake City, I'm in total agreeance with you because there are roads that I pass by, I hate to see, you know, we're trying to build, I know this council, we're trying to build the city up. That is our goal and that is our objective. And I feel like we're doing that. So I don't think that none of us want people to just be sleeping on the benches, having trash and all of that around. We don't want that. But at the same time, I don't think it's, I think you need to come up with, I say you, I think something needs to come up because I don't see them paying the money. I don't. I believe if we give them citations, they're not going to pay the money. I don't believe that our jails should be packed with people that are already homeless and down on their luck and they get put in jail for three months, three cots in them. Three hots and a cot, yeah. So I think that we need to have a workshop and we need to come up with some other kind of... I don't know what that is, what that looks like, but I am in agreeance that something needs to be done. And the other thing of it is... they're not just, because when they leave from there, nine to five, standing on the corner, getting money, they do come to neighborhoods. And they do go to the vacant homes and different places. So it is a residential problem. But we just can't stop with... just saying that we're going to fine them to death and we're going to – they're here.

Well, here's the bigger thing. When you look at the residential issue, that's something that is controlled with trespassing and the owner role who owns that. The bigger problem you have is when you have the right-of-ways that that's where their sweet spot is. In other words, you can't touch me here. So, yes, the residential, if they're squatting in those areas, there's no trespassing.

But they're not just squatting. They're squatting in the homes. They're not just squatting in vacant homes. They're squatting in the woods close to neighborhoods. I mean, we don't have a problem like Portland, Oregon, because Portland, if you want to know, they have a problem with it. We don't have that problem. We don't even touch Jacksonville. We don't even touch Gainesville. We may have.

Oh, no, it's very, very small comparison. I agree.

And I do want us to come up with something to take care of something, you know, to get this handled.

don't think those two things that you gave us as far as um the fines or jail it's the the bigger issue is taking the revenue source away you talk about people squatting in the woods they're not going to squat in the woods if they don't have money to eat in that area so therefore if you take away their ability to have revenue to be able to sustain that lifestyle in that area they will find somewhere else that they can get that revenue So the approach is more about choke off the revenue source that they deem valuable. They will find somewhere else because they can't squat in the woods on an empty stomach forever. So you will two-prong by nature. They're going to tap uncle eventually. And are you going to fill the jails with everybody? Absolutely not. I guarantee you won't. But I know that when a few go in there, it's the examples that are being made. And then you choke off the areas. They see enforcement. They're not going to want to fight. Are you going to get rid of all of them? Absolutely not. But you're going to choke out quite a bit. But the main thing comes down to enforcement that we could control. Like you said, in Jacksonville, they're not solving the problem. And I bring up those cities because at the end of the day, they've been sued and won. That's what I'm looking at. It's something to give Lake City some backbone and tooth in court because it's not if, it is when. Voice is going to sue you because they're going to want to keep doing what they're doing and they're going to try and scream First Amendment rights. But if we can show through jurisdiction and through court proceedings and case law that it's winning, now we have something. It's not hope for the best. It's plan for the lawsuit, set the precedents, and they know they can't do it here. That's my premise of why I bring up the other cities is meaning if you choose not to enforce it, that's their fault. But the judge is saying we're allowing the ordinance to stand and support it. That's the bigger message and reason why I bring up those other cities. Can't control what they're doing, but the judges are backing them to enforce it.

My suggestion would be let's have a workshop and see what other kind of ideas we come up with. And it wouldn't be a stretch for us to see what the community, invite the community in to see how they personally feel about this.

Absolutely. Absolutely. Mr. Carter.

Yeah, my only question was, I thought, correct me if I'm wrong, I thought last year we changed and hired an additional magistrate or paid a magistrate more to the magistrate for enforcing the trespasses and stuff. I thought we'd established a magistrate for that. Is that not the case? That might be a question for the chief.

So we have a magistrate who primarily handles code enforcement issues.

Because we were discussing it in conjunction with some of the stuff that we had changed at the park when we put the fences up and the ability to trespass people who jump the fence at night, for instance. Is that a code enforcement magistrate issue or is that a trespass magistrate issue? Because I thought we had hired someone to enforce those citations. Is that not the case?

so it would be the same magistrate if the trespass ordinance if the trespass is being enforced under state uh criminal law then then it would not go through the magistrate it would go through the traditional county court system if the trespass is being enforced as a matter of violation of our city code then it would go through code enforcement and then through the magistrate hearing process. And it's the same magistrate that would hear that. She would hear school speeds on cameras once that program is up and running. Any violation of city code that's a non-criminal offense would conceivably go in front of that magistrate to hear.

Thank you. Mr. Jernigan?

Go ahead. You can go.

But that would only be in effect after an ordinance. is set in place. But as of now, that wouldn't happen for, that would be no good for the homeless, the situation we're talking about now. That will only help matters if an ordinance is set in place.

That is correct. The things we are talking about and that are being discussed right now until an ordinance is in place would not be able to be enforced by a magistrate. Let's have a workshop.

Mr. Jernigan? Yeah. Yes. You know, I appreciate everything you're saying and everything you're doing, and I agree with it. You know, that's the most important thing. I don't want to get caught up in semantics and all this kind of stuff like this. Your main concern is those benches and public safety.

Yes, sir.

So getting into homeless and less homes and – I don't want to get into that. I'm getting into the meat and the bone. That is the benches.

The benches and the public safety on the public roadways.

That's it, right? So if they leave from one and go to the other, that's another concern of our citizens. So... I think that you presented this very, very well, and I'm in agreeance with it. So whether we set up a workshop, just know that you have, as the councils are talking and things of that nature, we all agree with what you're saying and what you're trying to accomplish, okay? So I just want to let you know how much I appreciate you bringing it up again, because if I'm not mistaken, Mr. Carter, I think the mayor, Ms. Young, and I want to say Ms. Harris, we all have talked about this, and what can we do? You call the Lake City Police Department for something like that, unless there's a person dying, they will definitely go out and render aid to those individuals. However, those benches and public safety is a concern. Okay?

Thank you. Now, with that also said, in each one of your packets, I did, like I said, I'm not a lawyer, but I did my research to try and draft up. ordinance as a skeleton bone work to show you what each one of those would be and the reason what I looked at is what would be fought in court where would be the loopholes that people can find so I tried to structure the ordinance in such a way to cover every possible loophole all in one to give the city a the strength to go to court when it comes up to know that we've covered all our bases and we don't have those loopholes because everything that I've read has come into where it's coming to scrutiny is on broad based descriptions where it's not narrowed down. It's not specific. So this was everything was specific, even down to the secondary ordinance on the interactions where someone now turned from a passive panhandler to now interacting with someone. There's a specific ordinance for that that defines that action and then gives a resolution with an exemption. So it shows respect for those that are trying to still participate and want to participate, but defines the act in which they can do that and the place in which they can do that that's safe off the public roadway.

Ms. Young?

I think if a little research is done, I believe we've already voted for those benches to be moved.

I think you voted for the black benches. I think we're still waiting. I think there's 12 more along the street that we're waiting there. They've been unbolted, but they have not left. Is there a way that we can, even through volunteer, have them moved off?

Mr. Rosenthal, can you look into that? Absolutely. I thought they were privately owned. No, no, the blue ones.

There's 12 black benches that sell on North Marion that are still present even today. They're unbolted sitting there. They just need to find a new home and not on North Marion.

We'll take a look at those. But we do have a day on July 20th for a workshop, and we'll have – If you could take a look at what Mr. Quadris has provided and some examples, if you have them from those other cities.

I've already sent it over to Mr. Martin. So he has all the case studies that I've found for him to basically solidify.

And this gives us an opportunity to invite some of our other stakeholders, the homeless coalition in particular. But what do you guys think? July 20th, is that fine before our meeting? It'll be a Monday, obviously, 5 p.m.

Sounds like a plan.

Let's do it. Very good. Thank you for bringing this forward today. Well, even if it's not the 20th, we will have one. We'll discuss that at the end of the meeting, okay?

Is there any other questions for me that you might have that I could clarify?

If your contact information is in here, we'll use it. Thank you, Mr. Quadris. Thank you very much.

We are going to take a 10-minute break. We'll be back.

Welcome back, everybody, to our city council meeting from June 15th, 2026. We've gone through our first 12 items on the agenda, and now we're on number 13, city council ordinance number 2026-2371. Mr. Martin, will you please read this by title? This is an annexation.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council members, you have before you ordinance number 2026-2371, final reading, an ordinance of the City of Lake City, Florida, pursuant to petition number ANX-2604, submitted by Ring Power Corporation relating to voluntary annexation of annexing certain real property located in columbia county florida which is reasonably packed into the boundaries of the city of lake city florida making certain findings of fact and support thereof providing severability repealing our ordinances in conflict and providing an effective date thank you mr martin trailed off there a little bit at the end but um all right uh

We don't have any public comment on this, so we'll go straight to city, we'll go straight to council comments, questions. Mr. Mayor, I move to approve this ordinance 2026-2371. Second. Thank you both. Do we have any further questions, comments? Ms. Sykes, will you please call the roll? Mr. Carter.

Yay. Ms. Harris. Yes. Ms. Young. Mr. Jernigan. Yes. Mayor Walker.

Yes. And now we'll move on to City Council Ordinance Number 2026-2376. Mr. Martin.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Council Members. I have before you on second and final reading Ordinance Number 2026-2376, an ordinance of the City of Lake City, Florida, requesting and consenting to the inclusion of all of the City of Lake City within the Columbia County Emergency Medical Services Municipal Service Taxing Unit to fund emergency medical services, facilities, and programs. providing for annual renewal of such request and consent, providing for severability, and providing an effective date.

Thank you, Mr. Martin. We don't have any public comment on this either, so we'll move straight to council questions, comments. Mr. Carter.

Mr. Mayor, my position on this is the same it was at our last meeting with some additional thoughts. Has everybody watched the special called county commission meeting where they discussed this after our meeting?

I was unable to.

Yeah, okay. Well, it... It would be helpful because it's a big deal. But the long and the short of it is, as a citizen, I got the impression that the commission was very unlikely to support this at this juncture anyway. Again, my position, as before, is that I do not like the idea of feeling rushed on the proposition of taxing our citizens. It sounds to me like the county will probably... Probably move to pay for this a different way this year. Perhaps attempt to campaign to put it on the ballot in 2028 as a potential quarter or half cent sales tax increase. I've discussed before, specifically in support of the sales tax as a concept, I think a lot of folks in communities sometimes will see that sales tax, that half or quarter cent sales tax as a panacea, something you can jump to to use to just solve any potential financial ill. I do not think that's the case here, but I do think In this particular instance, and this is somewhat anecdotal, but if I understand it correctly, something like in the realm of 40% of our calls for EMS are on the interstates. We have a unique geographic situation here in which two of the major interstates in the state run the length and breadth of our county. So being that absent sales tax or the sales tax increase, however much it ends up being or not being, is paid.

Thank you.

Quite a lot of it is paid by transient traffic through and brief stops at our community. The sales tax would be an idea worth pursuing because it allows us to leverage our geographic position to help pay for a situation that is largely taxed by said geographic position. So that's a long-term thing, though. Obviously, it would have to be added to a ballot in two years or a little over a year and wouldn't be able to go into effect until the year after that. But in the meantime, it sounds to me like the county may be prepared to pay for additional backup units, either themselves or through paying their current provider the additional amount of money. It seems to me that that is probably the best path forward at the moment for our community. And even if we did pass this tonight, it doesn't seem like it's going to go anywhere. So I suggest that we don't.

Go ahead, Mr. Jernigan.

I appreciate you going through that long spiel. You're welcome. It's simple. No is a complete sentence.

Thank you, Mr. Jernigan. Part of the reason why I didn't watch that meeting was I made up my mind on not... On ensuring that our homeowners here in Lake City wouldn't bear the full brunt of that cost, and I asked the question in our last meeting, how many of those calls make it to the interstate? Because I, too, believe that the folks that come through are numerous, spend a lot of money here, and can generate the revenue to pay for the service itself. So I, too, will be a no on this. and i only voted yes for the further conversation uh to be had at the county level on the last one i think we all agree to that any further questions comments miss sykes will you please call the roll i'm sorry yeah i'm sorry folks i am a little uh sleep deprived tonight would you just have a baby yeah so i apologize for that um all right would anybody like to make a motion uh or not on city council ordinance number 2026-2376 not having a motion means that it fails by no motion All right, hearing none, we'll move past that. All right, thanks. We'll go on to item number 15. So we are now in new business ordinances, City Council Ordinance number 2026-2372. Mr. Martin, will you please read this by title? This is a long one. Don't trail off at the end.

I was going to say, y'all hang with me here. Mr. Mayor, Commissioner, or Council Members, you have before you Ordinance number 2026-2372. On first reading an ordinance of the City of Lake City, Florida amending the text of the City of Lake City Land Development Regulations as amended pursuant to an application LDR 2602 by the Growth Management Department of Lake City, Florida providing for amending section 2.1 entitled definitions to add a definition for accessory dwelling units providing for amending section 4.2.36 entitled provisions for accessory dwelling units providing for amending section 4.4.3 entitled agricultural permitted Accessory uses and structures to add requirements for accessory dwelling units providing for amending section 4.4.7 entitled agricultural minimum yard requirements to add requirements for accessory dwelling units providing for amending section 4.5.3 entitled residential single family. permitted accessory uses and structures to add requirements for accessory dwelling units providing for amending section 4.5.7 entitled RSF residential single family minimum yard requirements to add requirements for accessory dwelling units providing for amending section 4.6.3 entitled residential single family mobile home permitted accessory uses and structures to add requirements for accessory dwelling units providing for amending section 4.6.7 entitled residential mixed single-family mobile home minimum yard requirements to add requirements for accessory dwelling units providing for amending section 4.7.3 entitled residential mobile home permitted accessory uses and structures to add requirements for accessory dwelling units providing for amending section 4.7.7 entitled residential mobile home minimum yard requirements to add requirements for accessory uses and structures and accessory dwelling units providing for amending section 4.9.3 entitled residential multifamily permitted accessory uses and structures to add requirements for accessory dwelling units providing for amending section 4.9.7 entitled residential multifamily minimum yard requirements to add requirements for accessory dwelling units, providing severability, repealing all ordinances in conflict, and providing an effective date.

Well done, Mr. Martin.

Well done.

We don't have any public comment on this one, so we'll move straight into council questions, comments, or I'll entertain a motion to adopt City Council Ordinance number 2026-2372 on first reading.

Mr. Mayor, move to approve Council Ordinance 2026-2372.

We have a motion. Second. And a second. Thank you both. Do we have any further discussion, questions, comments? Hearing none, Ms. Sykes, will you please call the roll?

Mr. Carter. Yay. Mr. Jernigan. Yes. Ms. Young. Yes. Ms. Harris. Yes. Mayor Walker.

Yes. All right. Now we'll move on to item number 16, which is City Council Ordinance Number 2026-2373. Mr. Martin, will you please read this by title?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Council members, I have before you ordinance number 2026-2373, an ordinance of the City of Lake City, Florida, amending the future land use plan map of the City of Lake City Conference. The plan is amended relating to an amendment of 50 or less acres of land pursuant to an application, CPA 2606S by David M. Winsberg, the property owner of said acreage under the amendment procedures established in sections 163.3161 through 163.3248 Florida statutes as amended. providing for changing the future land use classification from residential medium density to residential high density of certain lands within the corporate limits of the City of Lake City, Florida, making findings of fact and support thereof, providing severability, repealing all ordinances in conflict, and providing an effective date.

Thank you, Mr. Martin. We don't have any public comment on this one, so we'll move straight into council questions, comments, and I'll open it up.

Mr. Mayor, move to approve Council Ordinance 2026-2373.

We have a motion and a second. Thank you, Ms. Young.

Do we have any further questions or comments from the Council? Hearing none, Ms. Sykes, will you please call the roll?

Mr. Carter? Yes. Ms. Young? Mr. Jernigan? Yes. Ms. Harris? Yes. Mayor Walker?

Yes. All right, we will move on to item number 17. This is city council ordinance number 2026-2374. Mr. Martin, will you please read this by title?

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This particular item is a quasi-judicial item. It's an ordinance amending the official zoning atlas. It's the companion ordinance to the future land use amendment you just adopted. This is pursuant to application Z2604S submitted by David M. Winsberg, the property owner. The procedure that will be used tonight is first presentations from the city, the applicant, and then any party interveners, followed by public comment, then cross-examination if the parties wish to do that. Then the mayor can allow additional response by participants if he deems it necessary to ensure fairness. At that point in time, we'll move on to questions from the city council for any of the parties. That will be followed by any final arguments from parties and interveners if they wish to offer any final arguments. I'll then advise the council as to all unnecessary findings and the council will deliberate and vote. All persons have the right through the mayor to ask questions of staff or other speakers or to seek clarification of comments made by staff or other speakers. While the council welcomes comments from all persons with an interest in the proceeding, Florida law requires the council's decision and quasi-judicial actions be supported by confident substantial evidence presented to the council during the hearing on the application. Confident substantial evidence is evidence a reasonable man would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. There must be a factual basis in the record to support opinion testimony from both expert and non-expert witnesses. People presenting testimony may support their testimony by relying on factual information provided by city staff, the applicant, or other information factual in nature included in the city staff report. At this time, I need to inquire of each council member individually if they've received any ex parte communications involving this matter, and if so, to please disclose them. Starting at the end of the dais with Councilwoman Young. I have not. Okay, and Councilman Carter. No. Councilman Jernigan. No. Councilwoman Harris. No. And Mayor Walker. No. Okay, thank you. At this time, for anyone who is here to participate in the hearing or offer a presentation or speak to the matter, if you could stand and take an oath. All right. And Mr. Winsberg, do each of you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? All right. Thank you. Council members, now you have before you proposed Ordinance 2026-2347 on first reading, which states, an ordinance of the City of Lake City, Florida, amending the official zoning atlas of the City of Lake City land development regulations as amended, relating to the rezoning of less than 10 acres of land pursuant to an application Z2604S by David M. Winsberg, the property owner of said acreage. providing for rezoning from residential single family three and residential multifamily three to residential multifamily one and residential multifamily two of certain lands within the corporate limits of the city of Lake City, Florida, making findings of fact and support thereof, providing severability, repealing all ordinances in conflict, and providing an effective date. Mr. Angelo, could you please introduce, summarize, and present the ordinance?

All right, so before you tonight, you have rezoning. It's ordinance number 2026-2374 for application number Z2604S. Parcel number 11602-002 is currently zoned residential multifamily one, and parcel number 11642-000 is currently zoned residential single family three. Petition Z2604S is a request to change the zoning on parcel 11602-002 from residential multifamily 1 to residential multifamily 2 and change the zoning on parcel number 11642-000 from residential single family 3 to residential multifamily 1. The parcel is surrounded to the north, it's got residential single family three. To the east and to the south, you have residential multifamily one. And on the south, you also have residential single family three. And to the west, you have residential single family three also. And this is a map of the two parcels. This is the one where they're changing the zoning from RSF3 to RMF1. And then the two over here are changing from RMF1 to RMF2. Staff comments, there are wetlands on the property. Majority of this property is zoned or is a wetland. And so in our LDR, it's very clear you cannot build within 35 feet of a wetland. So the wetland would have to be delineated or not built within 35 feet of. So water management said an environmental resource permit will be required. A permit application has not been submitted at this time. And at this time, staff does find that it is consistent with the comprehensive plan and land development regulations, and therefore we recommend adoption of the ordinance. And I'd like to introduce all my documents into the record and presentation.

Mr. Winsberg, did you have any presentation to offer?

No, I don't have any presentation. I can speak on it. Certainly.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'm asking to rezone it so I can build multifamily units on it. I'm asking for a slight increase in the density. The east parcel that he displayed, I'm asking to increase the density on that one. And on the west parcel, I'm just asking to change it to RSF3 to RMF1, which is the zoning in the districts around. Because without that, you can't put residential multifamily on the RSF3. I'm sure you're aware of Lake City's in a severe housing shortage and we could use more residential units. And I can answer any questions you have as well.

Thank you, Mr. Winsberg. I'll have an opportunity for questions after public comment. Is there anyone from the public that wishes to comment on this matter?

Yes. I oppose the rezoning of these areas. I oppose the rezoning of these areas. And for the purpose of yes, it's very much a wetland. We know that because there's a, on each side of the property, there is a ditch or trench or whatever, eight foot wide and eight foot deep. And it's not there for no reason at all. And you can tell by the foliage that grows on the property that is wet. And also I oppose this because that road early, early street, it's very short street. It's a very short street north of 441 North. And if you put multiple units down on one end, on one side, multiple units on the other side, And right down at the end of the street, you have already approved for someone to put multiple units. You're going to have 40 units from him and 20 from someone else down on the other end. And maybe most people have two cars to a house, or some have one, some have three. So you're talking about an awful lot of cars that's going to be on this very short street that's probably an eighth of a mile, I'm guessing, if that. very short street intersection and on Fowler, from Early Street to Fowler. So if you're going to have multiples over here, multiples over here, and multiples right on the very next corner, you're going to have nothing but a traffic jam. And the foot traffic is going to be a problem also, and also the noise. This is not fair to the people who voted for you all, whether that's your district or not, because they think you are concerned about them. And so that's the reason you really have this position. So whether it's not, it's your section or not, but you wouldn't want to live like that. And you know that when people have these, these people are stacked, that's what I call it stack. You call it multiple high density, I call it stacked. And when people are stacked like that, you have problems. You know you have wind song, you have cedar park, you have sugar mills and other areas that you know is in the paper. You know you have problem when it's just too high density for too tight of an area. And these people already have their single family residences there. They have worked hard for and they like to have a nice, peaceful community. And when you're voting for all of these apartments to go in there stacked up like that with high density, you're not being fair to them. And you're creating problems because, like I said, the traffic and the noise is going to be a problem. And like I said, you know, this wetland is very easy to see. Thank you.

Ma'am, could you state your name for the record, please? Barbara Mizell-Perry. All right, thank you. She put a card in. Okay, all right, thank you. Is there anyone else for public comment? Seeing no one, Mr. Winsberg and Mr. Angelo, are you all waiving cross-examination? Okay. This time it would be appropriate for the council to ask any questions, Mr. Mayor.

Any questions? I have a question for Mr. Angelo.

Oh, I know what it is, isn't it?

There's a rezoning of parcel that ends in 002 from RMF1 to RMF2, is that correct? Correct. Is there any RMF2 that surrounds that property?

No, but it is RMF1 already, which is already multifamily. The only thing you're doing is increasing the density from eight dwelling units per acre to 20 dwelling units per acre. So you're just allowing, you're increasing the intensity of what's already there, what's already allowed there.

And this is to rezone them both to different things together, correct? Correct, yeah.

And you're proposing to put that on Fowler Street?

Yeah.

Yes, I think it's on Early Street, which is a small residential street.

Can you put it back up on a thing?

Did he say from 8 to 20? That ain't good.

RMF 1 to RMF 2 is from 8 to 20.

So essentially, the increase in density would net about 30 or so more dwelling units than what's allowed there right now. So this is a as the residential street down through here and it is a small narrow residential street and At the site plan level that's when we would really have to look at the traffic Would there be need to be any upgrades to the road network drainage? Would they need to mitigate the wetland to build as it like I said earlier? probably about if not half close to 75% of the property is a wetland and which would not be able to be built in unless it was mitigated.

As part of your review, you say that there are significant wetlands on the parcel that need to be mitigated and that the Suwannee River Water Management Environmental Resource Permit will be required. What does that process look like?

So they would need to apply for firstly to do a pre-application meeting and then they would submit an environmental resource permit with Swan River Water Management in that they would have to look at the wetlands that are there and come up with a plan to either mitigate the wetlands through credits or that, or show that they're going to have a buffer around that wetland by 35 feet because you can't be within 35 feet. Water management says you can be within 25 feet. Our code says 35 feet, so we're more strict than what they are on that.

Anybody else have any questions? Yeah, I've got a question.

Mr. Jernigan? I've got a question for that young man back here. Yes, sir. So how many houses do you have there or apartments or whatever? What's there right now?

Okay, so current zoning allows me to put 60 units on the two.

No, no. I said what do you have there right now?

Oh, it's vacant.

It's vacant.

There's houses all around it, but that property itself is vacant.

Yes, yes. Did you, when you wanted to put partials or you wanted to put apartments or houses or whatever the case may be, did you maybe go to the residents of that area there to see what kind of problems that may arise? Did you talk to anybody in that area?

I have not asked, contacted the residents regarding if any questions or concerns. I haven't had residents contact me either. I believe this was posted, but I haven't, you know, with all rezoning requests, but I have not contacted them for any specifics.

Yes, and I know you probably, I mean, you are a businessman and this is what you're trying to accomplish. However, when we look at things like this, I would think that most of us would look at the residents and see what, areas that may arise as I put properties on on wetland property or beside it or around it on how long the street would be what kind of activity go on out there you've got senior citizens you have children out there, whatever the case may be, I would think that all of that play a role in you buying or purchasing some property in that area. So, I mean, I understand exactly what Ms. Mizell was talking about. And it doesn't seem feasible to me to add more residents in that area. It doesn't seem feasible to me.

If you don't mind, can I address that? Yes, sir. Okay. First of all, regarding the wetlands, I've walked up and down the property and there aren't any wetlands on the property. The wetland map is incorrect. And I realized that in order to actually build that, I have to have a certified wetland biologist or water management to come verify that what I said is correct. But there are not wetlands on the property. There's a mistake with the wetland map. I'm aware of that. That's the first thing. And as far as the density is concerned, I'm only, you know, I am asking for an increase on just the east parcel, the one that's RMF2. But for the other one, I'm not even asking to increase the density. If I was to ask to increase it, If I had asked to rezone the other one to RMF2, I could put even more units on it. So I'm asking for less than the maximum. And currently I can put 60 units on it with the zoning as is. So I'm only asking for an increase to 60 to 90. As far as traffic, I did a traffic study for this property. And I included in the packet that was sent to the zoning planning and zoning board. And, um, and as far as any concerns that neighbors have, um, uh, even if the rezoning is approved, I still have to get the site plan approved and, um, you know, but definitely, um, deal with any neighbor concerns at that time as well. Cause that'd have to be approved then as well.

Okay. Thank you for answering that question. Mr. Carter?

Yes. Obviously, I don't have a question for you. Thank you. A lot of times this process can feel a little bit like inside out. So people get nervous, I would say maybe ahead of schedule. But until the site plan is vetted properly, Most of these concerns can't be addressed until the next step in the process. And this being a quasi-judicial decision, if you're going to oppose it, you have to have substantial expert-based evidence. You have to be able to provide that. So... This makes perfect zoning sense based on what is all around it. But that being said, most of the concerns, wetland and otherwise, would have to be addressed at the site plan process, which is just the next step in the process. So with that being said, I move to approve Council Ordinance 2026-2374. Okay.

We have a motion to approve.

For discussion.

For further discussion, yeah.

For further discussion. If it, if we.

Well, second. I'm sorry, second for further discussion. We have a motion and a second now. Discussion, Ms. Young.

Okay, now discussion. If we're not to, if we are to approve it, why are we here? Why are we here?

Well, if I may answer that, when this was beginning to be discussed a moment ago, I feel like I heard multiple people on the dais say, where is this? And then look up the address on their phone. With this coming up before us, we should have known where this was and looked into it ourselves, perhaps even watched the planning and zoning meeting where this was discussed earlier. previously and been familiar with what we have in front of us and then it's not a bad idea to be familiar with the planning zoning process when it comes to rezoning and then when it comes to site plan review etc so um looking at this area it is not just my personal opinion it doesn't seem like a small apartment complex or something like that is necessarily incongruous. Again, looking at the zoning map that's in front of us, you see that it is, and this is how you, with the zoning as it is, and the Euclidean zoning, the way we lay it out, you look at this, everything around it on three sides and off in front of it is already this. This is the sort of thing that makes, it's honestly almost an island of a different type of zoning in amongst RSF3. So from a zoning standpoint, it makes sense. Now when it comes to site plan review, it's going to be under much more scrutiny from the community. I would hope Ms. Mizell, if she has concerns, talks to her neighbors if they have concerns. come to the meetings voice the concerns make sure that the planning and zoning board and growth management and then us all take the concern seriously discuss them with the owner and make sure that a site plan is approved that everyone can be happy with or at least that most people can be happy with it's just we're just not at that step and also i would just say uh having not known where it is having not known what it looks like, having not been to the site, saying just out of pocket, oh, that's too many houses, doesn't make any sense, and does not constitute substantial evidence.

Thank you. Okay, so the person that said that was in fact to me, and that is in my district. Hold up, I'll let you talk, let me talk. Now, for that area, I feel like it will be too congested. We have already a Cedar Park that's over there. We have another housing place over there. So, no, I would not. And it is a wetland. It is a wetland over there. They have a huge ditch running on the side of a piece of property that I, in fact, own over there. And then water runs over there by Early Street. So yeah, I did have to look up to make for sure that my mindset was where it was supposed to be. And that is the problem. So no, it's a strong no for me.

Mr. Rosenthal has something.

Yes, I would like to call to the mayor and the board's attention that our ordinances dictate how we should go on these things. So we have to, if something meets the requirements of the ordinance, we're pretty much obligated to approve it. Robert, could you come and address that for the council overall?

So you're saying whether we want to approve it or not, we have to?

Well, I'm saying that if something meets the requirements of the city, if it meets all the requirements of the city, we pretty much have to approve that if it meets our stated requirements. Now, I don't know whether this does or not. That's why I called Robert back up to look at this. Or we could be sued for not doing it.

Mr. Jernigan, then Mr. Carter, he was waiting to say something.

And again, Mayor, it's obvious that it meets all the criteria because Robert wouldn't be here discussing what he's discussing, and he wouldn't have a witness to verify what he's saying is true. I totally understand that. And I definitely don't want the city to get sued by my negligence or anybody's negligence for that matter. And I can't wait till we get to the next process. And then once we get to that process there, just because we must approve it here, the next process, we don't necessarily have to prove it. Am I correct?

That is correct. So currently right now, I'm sorry, did I cut you off, Ms. Carter? No, go ahead. Okay. So currently right now, we have one more hearing after this one. So this is our first reading, and if it's approved tonight, we would come back on probably July 6th, which will be an advertised public hearing, so you'll have probably more public input at that meeting. And we have the post assigned, we have the advertising reporter, and we also send out a letter to the property owners within 300 feet and that to notice them of the meeting. First reading does not get that, but then when we go to the site plan, Same kind of process goes through that. We're going to address the property. We're going to advertise in the paper to make sure we have the public input. To Mr. Carter's point earlier, you know, at site plan level, we're going to look at this a whole lot more detail than what we are looking at now because then we'll actually have true traffic numbers to go by. Right now we're looking at what is a worst case scenario. When you look at the wetlands that are here, and by the time they get done mitigating the wetlands, if they get mitigated and the M-20 World Management says there's no wetlands or there's half the amount, I don't think you would see nowhere near the amount of density that he's actually proposing. And where he would have to build more in one area versus the wetland. And, you know, like I said, about half or 75% is not in that.

Right. And Robert, can you talk about how many units he's allowed to put on that right now?

So currently right now would be about 60 units altogether. Whether it's single-family or whether it's multi-family, he would be able to do about 60 units. If it's the comp plan, we already approved. So we've already approved the future land use, which was the increase in the density. That part was already approved. So now we're just approving the zoning to match that. And so if we did that, this would increase to 90 units, which would be an additional 30 units. Now still 90 units more of traffic on that roadway. But the net increase would be about 30.

Mr. Martin, you have something to supplement before Mr. Carter?

I just wanted to mention something that, or follow up on something that Mr. Angelo said. So you've only approved the increased density on the comprehensive plan amendment on first reading. So it would not be a final approval until second reading. That particular ordinance is legislative in nature, which means with that ordinance, you've got greater latitude to determine whether you want to increase the densities or not. And if you don't want to increase the densities, then you don't get to the rezoning at all. But you've got greater legislative latitude to do it. In other words, it's not quasi-judicial in nature. It's not based on the evidence of record. You've still got to have a reason for it, and you need to state the reason if you pass it or if you don't pass it. You need to state kind of what your reason is and put that out there. But... It doesn't have to be based on evidence of record. So there's a lot more latitude.

Thank you, Mr. Martin. Mr. Carter.

Yes. So the good thing about the process is that whether, Ms. Harris, you say that it is definitely a wetland and the property owner says it's definitely not a wetland, we don't have to determine that because it requires the water management to send out biologists and make that determination. And of course, they love determining that things are wetlands and protecting said wetlands and stuff like that. So they're not generally incentivized to say there is one when there isn't. I mean, yeah, there is one when there isn't one. So to be clear, they'll figure that out for us. None of us here are qualified to determine what is or isn't a wetland or when it is a wetland because sometimes wetlands are... not wet, and sometimes they're quite wet. So, luckily, that is safely out of our hands. But again, and also, Mr. Rosenthal said that we basically have to. I don't think that's fair to say. We can absolutely vote no, but because of the quasi-judicial nature of the thing, you have to... If we vote no on something that meets all of our criteria, we open ourselves up to a lawsuit, and if that lawsuit goes to court, we would potentially have to explain why we voted no. So I was looking to cover all of our butts when I say we have not seen any substantial evidence put before us by an expert to defend that no. Therefore, we would probably lose that case.

Ms. Young, you had something?

I think I heard a gentleman say that a traffic study has been done. Okay. Is there a more extensive traffic search? I'm sorry. Traffic study?

Mr. Johnson. Mr. Angela. Yeah.

So on that, the engineer, which is David Weinsberg, he's also the engineer on record because he is an engineer. And so he's done his own traffic study. And if this was to go to the site plan, we would need a little more in-depth traffic study, and we'd want to – broaden that area out a little bit more than just Early Street. There's a lot of intersections that are involved. This process also does go to DOT and we do send it to them. They don't usually chime in unless there's a major concern and that's going to affect one of their roadways. That's usually when they'll chime in. But we do send it to them, along with Water Management and all the other districts. But as far as a traffic study, you know, something like this on a small residential street would definitely need a traffic study, you know, when you're putting 90 more units on there.

Thank you, Ms. Young. Okay, so...

So in our next reading, hopefully we'll have more of the community, more people from that community who will come and voice their concerns so that we can really hear from... Because it does make a difference what... those constituents those the other the taxpayers it does make a difference how they feel about their community so i would like to hear from them and on the um on the second reading so okay that's the yes for this one all right we've had uh a motion a second we've had extensive uh conversation questions um to all parties involved is any other questions comments hearing none miss sykes would please call the roll mr carter yay miss young yes mr jernigan yes miss harris

Ms. Harris? Okay. Mayor Walker?

Yes. All right.

Mayor, may I just say that, for the record, a silent vote will be recorded as a yes vote. Yeah. Okay. Yes. I just want to make that clear. Okay.

All right. That was item number 17. That closes us out for item number 17. So now we're moving on to resolutions. We have our first one at number 18, which is city council resolution number 2026-059. This is a resolution for the playground equipment and DBA game time and play core, Wisconsin Inc. So do we need to read that by title, Mr. Martin? You do not. It's just procurement. All right.

Yes. Yeah, we need to read that.

Well, let's just have somebody introduce it. Steve, you want to say what this is for?

You just don't have to do that with resolutions.

I am, though.

So this is all part of our park rebuild kit. This is the actual resolution for us to purchase the stuff. We talked about it and y'all gave us a verbal that y'all were in. This is the actual resolution to allow us to move forward with this whole process.

This is just for the...

This is not the splash pad. We're going to do it in sections. The splash pad is next. Brenda, this is a separate company. That's what it is. There's two different companies that do that part, correct? Correct.

I thought we discussed that it was gonna be all on one thing. Yeah, or all on one agenda.

Mr. Martin can speak to that. Mr. Martin.

So as of agenda press time on Friday, we had not heard back from the company doing the splash pad giving us the okay on the contract. And so we went ahead with this contract because it was ready to go. The other one, we expect to hear back from them any day now, and it should be on the next agenda. But that's why it's not on this agenda is because they had not given their thumbs up on the contract.

Does that meet our deadline of ordering the materials? Because I know that we had.

So the park equipment's been ordered. Okay. That's the first part that we originally talked about where we're removing the Mariah fund. That has actually been ordered already.

Okay.

Yeah, the contract part is something that I don't see on my side, so I wasn't sure exactly where they were at on that one.

So we're not going to face an increase in price just because of the delay?

No, I wouldn't think so.

Perfect. Any more questions, Ms. Harrison?

No, I'm good.

I just want you to know I'm feeling a certain kind of way because it appears like with certain things, it gets chopped up or some things are left out. Now, when we had this discussion, like I said before, if you're ready to go home, go ahead. We'll carry on. We have enough people here.

Mr. Mayor, there's no need for her to address me.

It just seems like we already discussed that and it was going to be on one thing and it was supposed to be all together. And now you're telling me when you went out for the contract for the playground equipment, you did not go out for the splash pad at the same time?

The procurement, I believe, was done at the same time, but it's two different contracts, two different vendors. This vendor said, we're good with your contract. We're ready to go forward. The vendor for the splash pad has not... said we're okay with your contract yet so if you want to move them forward together you certainly can delay this one if you choose to but the vendor is who we were waiting on to actually hear from me we've got another contract on the agenda tonight totally unrelated for example where we went ahead and brought it to the council asked the council to approve the contract we sent it to the vendor saying this is what our council approved the vendor said we don't like this contract we want to change all these terms So they gave us all of the new terms and you're having to vote on it a second time tonight. So instead of voting on something twice without having checked with the vendor first to make sure they're actually okay on their side with the contract, that's what we're doing here. And they just haven't responded as of Friday. They had not responded saying we're okay with the contract.

So if we're waiting on the splash pad and they come back with the contract, let's just say next month, all of these things will be done at the same time.

So somewhat, yes. We're going to start with the playground equipment, removing it and replacing that. Once that's installed, our plan is to move right into the splash pad.

Okay.

Mr. Rosenthal. Well, one of the things we can do, if it's the will of the council, is as soon as Clay gets the numbers back, we can go ahead and start the process rolling and then bring it back to the board for approval after that, just to keep it all going. If that's the will of the council, we can do that.

Mr. Carter?

Mr. Mayor, I move to approve City Council Resolution 2026-059. I mean, there's literally no reason not to go ahead and move forward with this part. It's ready.

We have a motion?

For sure. I'll second it in.

We have a motion and a second. Thank you. Now we'll have further discussion. Ms. Young?

Yes. Well, you can't do it, might as well be very transparent. We cannot do all of it at one time. It's going to have to be in sections anyway.

That's correct. Right? That's correct. So what our game plan right now is, and I'll take a step back, we originally started this as a repair process. We were going to try and remediate some of the damaged equipment. When we found out that the age of the equipment could not be done in that method, we looked more holistically at rebuilding all the parks. What it would take to do that. This one has the oldest equipment in it. So that typically is the one we would start with. The equipment has the most fatigue. So as we got started into that part, the footprint of a new part is going to be different than what we have now. So then we got to talking about whether or not we were going to take out trees, how big the footprint would be. And then at that point in time, we worked the corner lot where we had utilities. That was a lot of the driving factor on where the splash pad would be located. As these two cross paths and our expectations went a little higher, the cost went higher and thus having to bring everything to council to get a full approval. We literally went from $60,000 to $900,000. So because of that and the magnitude of it, We are taking leaps and bounds now, and it is our plan to build this whole piece out. We're going to tear down buildings. We're getting power removed. We're starting. It's already in place now. We're making movement. Later on on the agenda, you'll see we have an employee that has park experience that's actually going to be helping facilitate this from a safety perspective. So we're throwing everything we got at it. I would definitely not say we're backing up at all. The contractual side or the side that Mr. Martin is talking about is not going to delay us, I wouldn't think, in the process because we're several months out from getting the material anyway. Right now, we're getting everything set to go in and demo and figure out what we've got, but we don't want to tear anything down until we get closer to that part as far as installation.

Thank you, Mr. Brown. Any further questions, comments? Ms. Sykes, will you please call the roll?

Mr. Carter. Yay. Ms. Young. Yes. Mr. Jernigan. Yes. Ms. Harris. Yes. Mayor Walker.

Yes. Thank you. All right, on to City Council Resolution Number 2026-062. This is a resolution to hold an election. This is the one that we changed, so you'll notice that it says August 20th, 2026. It's supposed to be August 18th, 2026. Ms. Sykes, I'm going to let you...

introduce this any further this is on the election okay not read it is there anything else that we know not really it just says that we will be having an election for city council district 10 we do have two candidates in that election and we also have uh four candidates in district 14 race and this just uh is simply it's required that we um we call the um the election by resolution so we are meeting that that requirement did you say we have four people in for 14 Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Carter. Fair. Thank y'all, man. I appreciate you guys, man. Y'all don't understand.

Poor people, man. All right. So we have to do this by statute for our elections. and we will make the changes to the date it just has um the wrong date on it as mr martin had mentioned earlier thank you we don't have anybody signed up for public comment so we'll move straight to council questions comments or i'll entertain a motion to pass uh the resolution number 2026-062 mr mayor i like to uh make that uh city res city council resolution 2026 Yes, 062. Second. We have a motion and a second. Thank you both. Any further questions, comments? Hearing none, Ms. Sykes, will you please call the roll?

Mr. Jernigan? Yes. Ms. Harris? Yes. Ms. Young? Yes. Mr. Carter? Yes. Mayor Walker?

Yes.

All right, now on to City Council Resolution number 2026-068. This is a resolution with North Florida Fence, and this is also for Young's part. Mr. Brown, anything to add on this?

No, sir. It's just, just moving forward with the whole process. We're going to tear that fence down the existing fence, and we're not going to do the whole area where the tennis courts and all that's got fairly new fence. But from that place moving forward, we are looking at replacing that fence with a taller fence, locking mechanisms, and so forth and so on. This is on our contract. They are a vendor of ours.

That's increasing the security so that it doesn't become a camp by day and night. All right. We don't have anybody signed up for public comment on this, so we'll move straight to council questions, comments, or I'll entertain a motion to approve city council resolution number 2026-068.

Mayor, I'd like to move that we approve resolution number 2026, desk 068. Second.

All right, we have a motion and a second. Thank you both. Any further questions, comments? Hearing none, Ms. Sykes, will you please call the roll?

Ms. Harris? Yes. Mr. Jernigan? Yes. Ms. Young? Yes. Mr. Carter? Yes. Mayor Walker? Yes.

All right. On to city council resolution number 2026-073. This is a resolution between the city and Axon Enterprise, Inc., out of Arizona for drone-based video surveillance equipment. And this is a grant-based project. So, Mr. Rosenthal, do you want to add anything to this?

No, Mayor, I think that pretty much covers it.

This is a piggyback situation. Thank you, Mr. Rosenthal. All right, so we don't have anybody signed up for a public comment on this, so we'll move straight to council questions, comments.

Mr. Mayor, move to approve Resolution 2026-073.

Second. Motion and second. Thank you both. Any further questions, comments from the council? Hearing none, Ms. Sykes, will you please call the roll?

Mr. Carter. Yay. Mr. Jernigan. Yes. Ms. Young. Yes. Ms. Harris. Yes. Mayor Walker. Yes.

right uh and now we'll move on to item number 2022 so this is uh discussion this is under other items so this is discussion impossible action improve uh to waive the city's procurement process and authorize staff to use the vendor quotes previously obtained through the 20 valley four seas of a public entity so miss brenda i'll turn it over to you mr rosenthal sure turn it over to our procurement director

So Five Point School needs the flooring replaced in the classrooms and the media center that Suwannee Valley 4Cs is planning on occupying. If we do our procurement process, it could take up to 60 days. And they're requesting to occupy them classrooms and the media center in August. So by not using After discussion with the city manager, it was determined to keep from delaying the project, we would need approval by council to waive the city's procurement process and use the quotes that they obtained.

Mr. Carter? Ms. Carter, does that seem appropriate based on how you usually do things?

Usually I would do an ITB. I have... I have currently ITB is out there for this project, but it is going to hold it up, and Suwannee Valley 4Cs will not be able to occupy that building by August.

It's a little loose functionality. I have a question on this. They're a public entity that has to procure publicly? Right.

Is that correct? No.

They're not. They're not. They receive public funds. They're a nonprofit, and they receive public funds, but they're not a public entity.

Okay. Yes, sir, Mr. Carter.

Mr. Martin, do you see any potential legal whoopsie-daisies by doing away with our own process and using someone else's stuff when they're not a public entity who's held to the same standard we are?

So since this is not an ordinance and it is a policy of the council that you established for the city, you certainly have the ability when it's in the public interest to do so, to set aside and waive that policy and use a different procedure. And in this case, there were quotes obtained. It wasn't a full-blown ITB, but there were quotes obtained to, I think there were three quotes.

Three quotes were obtained in two weeks.

Okay, so three quotes over two weeks were obtained. What you're being asked to approve is the lowest quote. So as long as you determine and articulate that it's in the public interest to waive the policy, since we do not have an existing contract with a vendor for this, you would not be violating any contractual relationships in doing so.

Mr. Rosenthal, you had something you wanted to add? I saw you.

I was just going to add the fact that they did some competitive bidding process, and that's what she alluded to earlier.

Thank you, Ms. Rosenthal. All right. We don't have anybody speaking to this on public comment, so would anybody like to make a motion, or do we have any further discussion questions for Brenda? No. Say that again, Mayor. Do we have any further questions for Ms. Brenda, or would anybody like to make a motion to approve the waiving of the city's procurement process at this time for this incident?

Mr. Mayor, I'd like to approve, make a motion to approve the procurement process. With that being said, I just want to make sure we're only doing it for to get Swanee Valley 4Cs in there before the 60 or 90-day span. So I'd like to move forward with it to get the citizens in there.

So to clarify, you make a motion to waive in this instance, waive the city's procurement policy in lieu of Suwannee Valley 4C's quoting process on this project.

Yes, just for this. That's it.

All right.

We have a motion.

Yes, sir. And I would offer that whoever is making the motion, Mr. Jernigan, that you append to that or add to it, and that we accept the low bidder of Eric's Flooring in Lake City. Is that correct? Yes. As the low bid at $66,533.40. Yes, with the low bidder, with $66,533.40. Okay.

We have a motion.

May I ask a question?

Sure.

Mr. Martin, do we also need to put in there that it's built into the motion that we do feel it's in the public's best interest into the motion as well? Do we need that in there?

He did not state it that way, but Mr. Jernigan did state that the public interest was to expedite getting 20 Valleys 4Cs in there by the start of their new school year. So that would be the public purpose. He didn't label it as such, but there is a public purpose in the record.

Okay.

Would anybody like to second for a vote or questions or comments?

A second.

All right, we have a second. Now we'll move into further questions, comments at the council level. Mr. Carter?

Yeah, I feel like I may be a bit conflicted here. I don't know if there would be an issue with me voting in any way on it. To be clear, I sell flooring. I work for a company that sells flooring here in town. That company that I work for has not bid on this.

That company did give me a quote. I reached out to them and got a quote through my process to see if it was over the $35,000 threshold. and it would not have been the lowest quote compared to what Suwannee Valley foresees procured.

Okay.

Okay. I'll do what y'all want. We have a... I'll do what y'all want.

We have a... But to further the question, it's very amorphous, but I'm trying to figure out, should I vote on this?

You don't have a conflict. You're not going to gain financially from this decision.

Okay. I mean, generally speaking, I never like waiving, in my personal opinion, I never like waiving the typical things. It feels like something that can, I mean, if you can waive it, you can waive it all the time, and you can always find a reason to waive anything, so, I mean, policy is policy for a reason, so I'm not a big fan of waiving it just because we're running late, but I don't necessarily have all the facts in front of me as far as the rhythm of the four Cs and what they're trying to get done and stuff like that, so... Obviously, if it's the will of the council, that it's in the best interest to expedite the process. That's what it is.

All right. Any further questions, comments?

I'm just a little moved that he made sure they was in the number.

I didn't know. Our agenda doesn't show that. We've had comments. So, Ms. Sykes, will you please call the roll?

Mr. Jernigan? Yes. Ms. Young? Yes. Mr. Carter?

Yes.

Ms. Harris? Yes. Mayor Walker, yes.

All right. More on to item number 23, discussion and possible action requesting approval for the job description on superintendent of parks. Temporary position created by the city manager to assist the executive director of utilities. I will turn this over to you, Mr. Rosenthal and your team.

Yes, I like Steve to come up and tell us about this.

Thank you, mayor. So one of the things that we've found in, in all of this research we've been doing on our parks is that, uh, when you're building a brand new park, such as this, um, there's a lot of legalities that goes into it. Safety measures that we want to make sure ADA compliance, there's, there's tons of stuff that goes into this. A lot of this is covered when we're purchasing the equipment. Um, and we asked them to, to come in, to do the install because they are experts on building these. And just so happens right about the time that we're getting ready to do this, there's a gentleman here in town that is an expert in building these parks. He worked for the county. And we asked if he would be interested in coming on board as a part-time employee. He will not receive any benefits or anything like that. He'll just be here as needed for the inspection purposes to ensure that we're getting the best bang for our buck spending this kind of money. Um, so we put this together, we took it to the city manager. It's within his, uh, wheelhouse to be able to sign off on this, but we wanted to bring it before you guys and let you kind of review it and make sure that we're doing everything that you want us to do as far as the parks.

Thank you, Mr. Brown. Uh, we'll start, we don't have any public comment on this item, so we'll move straight to Dias questions, comments, Mr. Carter, you've indicated.

What are you looking at paying this gentleman? Is it a set amount? Is it like a fee for the job or is it an hourly rate? And by that measure, would he be an employee or would he be a contractor?

He will be an employee and is a set amount. And it's a maximum of 30 hours a week, which we don't anticipate coming even close to that until we get closer. But not only will he be working on this part, he'll be looking at all of our parks.

That should give us a little bit of a...

And we'll basically be able to utilize the information that the county's got because they have a lot more parks than we actually have. But we're going to put some measures in place so that moving forward as we get these new parks and get them built, that we actually have a program in place for maintenance and upkeep and such as that.

Thank you, Mr. Brown. Any other questions? Comments? Anybody like to make a motion on this action to approve the job description?

Is there anything? Who is this gentleman? Is there anything wrong with sharing that at this point?

No, no, it's Clint Pittman. He was our Parks Recreation Director. For like 30 years at the county. Yes, sir. I think he's got 26, 28 years with the county, and this is what he did for them. For things that's going on in his career, he decided to do something different, and we happen to have the need for this temporary position.

And the intention is effectively for him to be the project manager of this project?

To ensure that when we get through with this, it's going to be turnkey.

Okay.

And we get done fast and right.

And we still don't have a job. Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve this action. I think you guys got a pretty good track record.

We have a motion. Second. And a second. Thank you. Any further questions, comments? Hearing none, Ms. Sykes, will you please call? Oh, yes, ma'am.

My comment is, I just, Administration have my blessings in this, and I just respect their discretion in this decision, and I'm going to kind of leave it at that. But I do know that our great Steve Brown is stretched thin. I do know that. And I know he's dealing with some major projects for the city and making things move swiftly. So that's why I go along with this. Thank you. That's why.

Thank you, Michelle. Anything further? Hearing no, Ms. Sykes, will you please call the roll?

Mr. Carter. Yay. Mr. Jernigan. Yes. Ms. Young. Yes. Ms. Harris. Yes. Mayor Walker. Yes.

All right. That ends all of our items, so we will move into comments, and we'll begin with you, Mr. Rosenthal. You okay, Mr. Johnson? I'm good. Thank you, Mayor.

Mayor, during our storm season, we often find ourselves looking for ways to show staff just how much we appreciate what they're doing, that hard work. Not just during the storm, but recovery after the storm. I think that what the governor did recently gives us an example of something that we can do if we so desire. to show employees how we feel. With that in mind, I'm requesting the approval for the city to mirror the state of Florida's revised 4th of July holiday schedule by observing July 2nd, 3rd, and 6th. This will provide Edible City employees the same holiday schedule granted by the state while ensuring public safety, utilities, and other essential operations remain properly staffed. This recognizes an Independence Day holiday, it supports employee morale, and it keeps the city aligned with the state schedule.

Mr. Martin, do we need to take any formal action on that? Or is that, yeah.

I would have to, and if you want to wait while we're in discussion, I can look in the personnel manual and see, but my greater concern is probably with union contracts to make sure that we're good on those more than anything else. So if we want to be safe, yes, it's always best if the council vote on and approve the administrative request.

Okay. Mr. Carter?

Just to be clear, because I'm a little bit hard of hearing, make sure, Ms. Rosenthal, you're asking that we approve to close the city except for emergency operations, things like that, for Thursday and Friday and the Monday, Thursday and Friday before 4th of July and the Monday after? Yes. Close all day, all three days? Yes.

We'll still have operations for emergency operations.

The police and firefighters are still going to?

Police and firefighters, of course, yes.

Of course, yes. Thank you. Mr. Mayor.

Yes, sir. Monday the 6th would ordinarily be a city council meeting night. Would the council be moving that meeting to the 7th, or would we still hold the meeting that night?

No, we then propose a move of the meeting. We'll still have the meeting. Okay.

If we had the meeting, then the directors would not get that day off necessarily, right? Everyone that's expected to be here would be here.

Well, the director's already aware of that.

I'm asking. I'm just saying, is the suggestion that we move the meeting to Tuesday?

No, it's not.

Okay. Mayor. Excuse me. Mr. Martin, I think in the code it does say if a regularly scheduled meeting falls on a holiday, and if he adopts this as a new holiday, would the ordinance not say we would be meeting on Tuesday?

That would be correct, yes. Okay.

So you would move the meeting.

Okay.

All right.

Does anybody want to? Yeah. Why would we take Monday off? The 4th of July is on a Saturday, right? Yes.

But why won't we take Monday? Well, he's proposing that it's a holiday for employees. So if it moves to a holiday for employees, then it becomes a holiday for the council staff as well.

That's what he's asking.

Yes, I get that, but that's the request. It's what the state just did. So the governor just approved that the Thursday, Friday, and the following Monday be off for all state employees, and he's asking us to mirror what the governor just did for state employees. That's why, I would imagine, right? Yes, that's exactly what we're asking.

The 250th celebration of the 250th, that was in line with that is from what I read.

Yeah. Okay, yeah, I heard the governor, and the governor's a really good governor, I must say, but I don't understand it. But, yeah, I mean, that's what the boss wants. Hey, let's try it. Let's mirror the whole state of Florida. Sounds good to me.

Mr. Carter, Ian. I would just suggest that we close Thursday and Friday. That way we don't have to worry about changing the meeting date.

Yeah, but if we're going to mirror, if we're going to mirror the state like he's requesting, or suggest it, that means that we won't be, if we don't mirror it, mirror the state of Florida, we'll be... We'll be being meaner than the state, I guess.

Yeah, so...

I know everything you say makes sense to you, but sometimes it's just a little bit confusing to me. That's what I said the first time. Why close on Monday? I agree with you. That's what I said.

We're already closed on Friday.

If I may, if we close on July 2nd and July the 3rd, and we don't close on Monday, I'm fine with that. The idea is to show the employees, we always talk about how much we appreciate the employees. Here's an opportunity for us to show them how much we appreciate it. So, if we had if we came in on on the six on monday for that meeting we worked that monday i'm fine with that the idea is just to show the employees other than just verbally that we appreciate what they do on a daily basis and especially during storm recovery dark hurricane season yes sir i would just say uh mr mayor i'm not bullish on it whatever the council wants i mean to me the money doesn't necessarily make make that much sense but uh you know four day weekend's a nice nice weekend sure yeah but

I think it's well-deserved. I really do. My concern is, though, that being the first of the month and, you know, you have our seniors who are really expected to take care of their duties. Yeah, citizens expect us to be here. Could throw them off. That's my concern. The bills, yeah. I think that wins the bill.

If we get a defined action, if somebody makes a motion, we'll open it up for public comment.

Mr. Mayor, I make the motion. I move that we close that Thursday and Friday. So obviously we can second it or we can let it die and do a different thing.

I'll second.

We have a motion and a second. Thank you both. Now we'll have public comment on it since it wasn't a defined proposition.

I was just making a quick comment that if they did the Thursday, Friday, and Monday, that it would make it a five-day weekend.

That's fine.

I just misheard you. I thought you said four, and I was saying if they did all of it, it would be a full five-day weekend.

If I may, I was saying that the four-day that I was suggesting is a nice long weekend.

I agree. I just misheard you.

Thank you.

All right, so we have a motion for a four-day weekend, the second and third currently. Do we have any further discussion on that, folks, before we vote? We have a motion and a second on this one. Well, we have to defeat this one first if you want to do that. So we have a motion, a second. We have no further discussion. Ms. Sykes, will you please call the roll?

May I just clarify something with Mr. Rosenthal? Sure. Mr. Rosenthal, we're already closed on the 3rd. So Friday we are already closed, correct?

Yes.

Yeah, so Friday we are already closed, so the motion is going to be to close an additional day, which would be Thursday. Yes. Okay. I just want to make sure everybody was clear on that. Okay. Mr. Carter? Yes. Ms. Young?

Yes.

Mr. Jernigan?

No.

Ms. Harris?

No.

Mayor Walker?

No. All right.

Mayor, I'd like to approve that we give them that Monday as well off.

All right, make the motion.

I'd like to make a motion.

Second. She makes a motion for, I think, Thursday, Friday, and Monday. Thursday and Monday. Thursday and Monday, outside of the federal holiday. All right, so we have a motion and a second. Do we have any further questions, comments, discussion? Ms. Sykes, will you please call the roll?

Ms. Harris? Yes. Mr. Jernigan? Yes. Ms. Young? Yes. Mr. Carter?

Yay.

Mayor Walker?

Yes. Mr. Martin? Mr. Rosenthal, do you have anything else? Hey, don't make me kick your ass. I don't have anything else, Mayor. Mr. Rosenthal, anything else? No, Mayor. Thank you. Mr. Martin?

I got my word quoted in on that long LDR ordinance, so I think I'm good.

Thank you, Mr. Martin. Ms. Sykes?

I actually just have something really quick. I know I had reported at a previous meeting that I was going to have missed a meeting for some communication issues. Well, that did not come to fruition. I do have that appointment next week, so if any of you happen to call me starting about noontime on Monday, noontime to one, I will be unable to actually take your call. I can text you, I can email you, but communication is gonna be out for me from Monday about one o'clock till hopefully I'll get it back on Friday, so. verbal communication is going to be out for me. So apologies on that.

Thank you, Ms. Sykes. All right. So now we will go into comments by council members. We'll begin with you, Vice Mayor Young.

Yes, I would. I would like to take the opportunity to thank Mr. Monty.

Did I say it right? Coach Monty.

Coach Monty for coming. He visited my church yesterday, so I met him and invited him back to the meetings.

I didn't know she was going to be there, okay?

Had been before. And Coach Monty, Ms. Harris, Councilwoman Harris, she's the councilperson for your district.

It's an area where we're proposing to make that.

so thank you so much for coming and we hope to see you at many more meetings and I would also like to say Mary why are you looking at me like that I'm just I've got this look on my face because I'm on fumes sit a night at the woods sit a night at the woods this Thursday And you all please come. Bring your grands, your babies and your grands. We're looking forward to have a good night. Sit a night under the lights at the woods. That was fun.

Thank you, Vice Mayor. Anything else? All right. Up next, Councilman Jernigan.

I just got a couple of things, Mayor, if I could. I got to get permission from some people. First of all, I'd like to congratulate the mayor on his child coming into the world. Thank you. I just want to give him a... Second, of course, the police and fire department, they're very, very first class. I leave IT out for the most part, but I just want to commend IT for what they do here for us while we're up here at this diocese and when we have communication issues such as cell phones and tablets and that nature. try to get those things back to us promptly. So I really appreciate IT. I just want to make a proposal for this street right down here. I don't know if it's a block or whatever, but I want to try to get a sign posted and I want to rename that, not rename it, but I just want to put Judge Street somewhere down this area. What's the name of the street right back here? Is that Hernando?

It has a name already.

I think it's Hernando. I think it runs all the way to Bea. Oh, that one. Yeah, it's this way. I'd like to put in honor of our judges or... State attorneys, I'd like to put something on top of the sign, not to change the street, I'm not trying to do any of that, but just to put something up there to let those judges know how much you appreciate them. So, you know, coming down the line, that's just one of my proposals, okay? That's it. Excuse me, that's it.

Thank you, Councilman Jernigan. Up next is Councilman Carter.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to say... We had something great take place here in Lake City, I think it was last week. I was really delighted to see the blighted, derelict structure out by the interstate that used to be a KFC knocked down and cleared out. I think when we're talking about the homeless issue and we talk about some of the many different prongs to that issue, there's some things that I'm doubtful we've got a close solution for, but there are certainly some things that we can absolutely tackle. focusing and having growth management and code enforcement increasingly focus on kind of attacking the blight and encouraging folks to clear it when necessary. Obviously, our CRA, we're working on getting money to help people do it. in the CRA. But, you know, just on the other side of the interstate from where the KFC was, there's also an abandoned and derelict shell station, which is already the back of it. We talked about it in a recent meeting. There's also sort of a gathering place for folks down there. You know, it's really in rough shape and not, you know, that's our main interstate exit, and you see it right when you get off it, and it's kind of a... I don't know if they've been reached out to before. I'm not sure what code enforcement can do about it, but I'd love to see that structure get the same treatment as the KFC structure and just a general mandate to just be hunting this stuff down because the less places there are to squat in and camp in and camp around and behind and stuff like that, I think they're less likely we may be able to diminish at least that aspect of the issue there. So it was great to see that. Love it. And I hope that they can make it a productive space. I don't know what the plans are for it, but a new roadhouse always needs more parking. Thank you for that, Code Enforcement, and hopefully we can find some more stuff to do with it.

Thank you, Councilman Carter. Councilwoman Harris.

Congratulations, Mayor. Thank you. You should start getting some good sleep in the next eight. And we'll wish you good night.