City Council - Regular Meeting

Stand for a moment of silence and then we will have the pledge of allegiance led by council member none. Begin. Thank you.

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

All right, madam sir. Roll call. Vice Mayor McPartland here. Council member Nun here. Council member Matthews present. Council member Dodd here. And Mayor Jones here. All right. Um council, I would like to uh we have one agenda modification at if you all don't mind pull item 88. Um something happened with those records and we need to bring them back at a future meeting. I'd like to have that pull. Any objections? No.

All right. Uh are there any other u modifications to the agenda? Hearing none, we will proceed. Uh next thing we have is a brief announcement. And council member none. Yes, sir. Uh the January 28th Treasure Coast Astronomical Society stargaze has been cancelled. So you can go out there on the 28th. It's going to be cold, but there will be nobody there doing any stargazing. Uh, February 3rd, it will be rescheduled, by the way. It's just not that night. February 3rd, you have the four chaplain ceremony at Veterans Memorial Park at 11:00 a.m. February 7th, the Sebastian River Art Club event at Riverview Park from 10:00 a.m. to 3 p.m. That'll do it.

All right. Thank you so much for that, Mr. Nun. Now, we have item is public input, and this is a portion of our agenda where you want to speak on anything that's not on the current agenda. So, do we have anyone who [clears throat] would like to speak on anything that's not on the current agenda? [clears throat] Yes, sir. Come forward. Can't hear you all up there.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Check. Can everybody hear me out there? I um want to take the opportunity to thank certain council people from the last meeting since didn't get a chance to speak after their vote. Um this affected a family that's been in the community for over 40 years and another family who's been operating a cleaners cleaning business on Harrison Drive by the no-name sports bar. and that decision that you made to proceed with option C under the uh the plan that the parks and recreation recommended to this council to approve. You approved Councilman Dodd, Councilman Sherry, Councilman, Vice Mayor Bob McPartland. You listen to your your staff, you listen to your committees, and you made the right decision to benefit this community because it affected a lot of things down there on Indian River Drive where everybody comes together as a community. You're going to be building a big band shell down there. You're going to be drawing a lot of traffic. And you decided to leave the roads open. It was a engineering decision that you decided. And Sherry, I know you you pondered very hard on that decision. You thought very hardly about it and and you did a good job a new councilwoman on this DAS. You you made a good decision. Um you didn't let politics play a role in making your decision. I'm a little disappointed with you, Mr. Mayor, and I'm talking to you directly and you sir, Mr. none because you're experienced and you should have known better. You should have known better. We offered you

property to purchase. If you want to take away our private property rights, purchase them. Don't just take them by eminent domain and shutting down roads. We were there before the park. And I'm glad that we have three council people up there that really dive into the information and look at the details on how it's going to affect this community because that is ParkPlace on the monopoly board. It's important. It's the center of where we come together as a community. And they they did a good job. And I hope tonight, Mr. Nun and Mr. Mayor, you take time to decide what you're going to decide for all these people tonight. It's a big decision. It's in our CRA. It's part of our CRA. Come in,

sir. We haven't got to that. If you want to talk about that, you can. This is under public input. So, don't even start going in that direction. Okay. I Oh, I apologize. Thank you. So, tonight, please take time to think about what you're going to do. Appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. All right. Thank you sir. We always do appreciate your time. Anyone else? Is there anyone on Zoom on the public input? No one has raised their hand. All right. Hearing none. Public input is closed. Um council consent agenda. What say you? I move approval. Second.

All right. Um that All right. We have a motion and a second. Is there any other discussion on that? Hearing none. Madame Clerk, Council Member Nun, yes. Council member Matthews, yes. Council member Dodd, yes. Mayor Jones, yes. And Vice Mayor McPartland, yes. Motion carries. All right. Uh, thank you so much. Uh, any, uh, committee reports? Anyone? All right. Hearing none, we're going to go into public hearings now. Um, we're at public hearing. Item 10A, consideration of an appeal request regarding denial by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Uh was Mr. Stokes?

Uh yes sir. As just uh a few preliminaries uh regarding this uh this is a matter that came before the planning and zoning board um or planning and zoning commission uh regarding a conditional use uh in addition to um two other items which are are companions with this. They're all done as one item. Um the planning and zoning commission voted uh to deny it and an appeal was taken which is a is a procedure that is set out in our code. Uh pursuant to our code um what the council is doing at this point is you're sitting in an appellet capacity. Um so this is not a new hearing on the matter or a second hearing on the matter. This is an appeal. This is a review. you were reviewing what the planning and zoning board saw and your determination. The first determination is whether they um got it right, made an error, didn't make an error, whatever, and you can decide to either overturn it, to modify it, or to uphold it. Um, if you decide to modify it or overturn it, you kind of have a hybrid role because now you're sitting in the capacity as the planning and zoning commission because you have the authority under our code to grant the conditional use or grant it in some modified form. Um, so because it's an appeal, uh, you're reviewing the record below, uh, including all the comments. I know all five of you have have watched the meeting. So, you've seen all the comments that were made by by um everyone that spoke at that meeting, including the attorney that that made a presentation. You've received the minutes to the meeting. You've received the entire packet. Um and so, at this point, the appellant is represented by councel. Uh the HOA is represented by

council. you can hear arguments from from both of those sides and then uh open it for deliberation at that point. Also, staff's here as as a resource uh for you as well. So, right. Okay. So, I would uh next thing I'd like both attorneys to come up representing their clients to come forward please. Mr. Mayor, can I ask a question for you? Yes, sir.

Okay. This is for the attorney. There were three unique items presented to the plan zoning commission. One was the site plan and one was the conditional use and one was a waiver. Okay. And I in watching that meeting, I couldn't really tell that they ruled on those three items independently. Can you please just give me some insight into what the actual motion which of those three the motion turned down or was it all three? I wasn't really clear on that.

Well, and and thank you for bringing that up because there there was confusion at the end of the meeting because the initial motion and vote was just for the conditional use. Um, we then had them keep because it came to them as one item. It was one item in three parts. Um, and so it came as a package. Um, and we chose to keep it as a package because otherwise if this appeal had been taken on the conditional use and you reverse the planning and zoning, those other two items would still be hanging out there without any, you know, determination. So that's why they reopened the meeting in order to keep it together as all three. And so the the there was clarification at the end of the meeting and I know the video cut out and then came back on, but there was clarification at the end of the meeting that all three items were denied and all three items have been appealed now to you. So

for purpose of our hearing tonight, we're we're viewing all three items as though they were denied. And should we deal with them independently or as a group? Yes. And that's it is because because there are three parts to this. You have you're sitting in that role um to review all three. So um you can like let's say you reverse the conditional use, you could still have a problem with the waiver or with the site plan. I mean you do have that that ability to to deal with each one individually the same way they did. I just wanted to make sure we weren't confused at the end like they were.

Right. Yeah. the the the issue is the conditional use and and tonight also I think you need to take up the conditional use first because if the conditional use isn't granted the other two are are rendered moot. Uh the other two only need to come into play if the conditional use is granted. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

All right. Uh thank you so much. And and the reason I asked you guys to stand, I want to make sure everybody understands our attorney just spoke about how this process goes. For those folks that are out there sitting in the audience, this is there's no new evidence coming before us. Everything that's already been presented is what we're going to be listening to tonight. So each side is represented by council and council will um display their case to us so everybody's understands what's going on.

And and Mr. Mayor just uh you know as part of our quasi judicial ordinance each side does have 30 minutes. I don't think either side plans on taking 30 minutes, but it's their their time to do so that the appellant and the opponent can can both put on as thorough of case as they want. So, absolutely. All right. Do you need to read the ordinance or No, there's there's not an ordinance caption here. So,

um I I can go ahead and and read in the requested action. This is this is this is actually an appeal of a conditional use permit, site plan, and waiver uh for a 3.8 acre boat and RV storage facility with covered parking spaces, office building, washdown area, and RV dump station along with improvements to landscaping, utilities, lightning, and storm water. A concurrent waiver request uh from the riverfront overlay district requirements regarding front yard fence material is also included. All right. Uh thank you so much for that. Uh council, do we have any exparte communication? Anyone here?

Mr. Mayor, I met with the um appellant representatives, not the lawyer, but the individuals. Uh it does not influence my my decision process. All right. Uh I also uh spoke to uh Mr. Brognado on the phone um about this situation. What's going on? I spoke to Mr. Brognano. He told me, you know, he watched the meeting and that they would be appealing the decision and I also spoke to Mr. Brogano, but there was no it's nothing to do with my decisions. Yes, absolutely. And so did I.

Okay. I I spoke to to to tell me not about talk about the case. I don't talk about that, but to make sure that or that this was coming before us that after that uh PNZ meeting that that was going to come before us. Correct. And just for clarification for the record, any emails that were received, I know a lot of emails received those were all made part of the record. So, so that if if you know as this is all put together, uh any residents or or homeowners that send in emails, those are all part of the record as well. All right. Um thank you so much for that. Um next, um we are going to have the applicant if you want to come forward and present your case.

Good evening, council. Um my name is Jonathan Roach from Dill Evans and Roback. I'm an attorney here in Sebastian and I have the pleasure of representing the applicants in this case. We are taking up an appeal from the decision made by the planning and zoning commission on December 18th of 2025 denying my client's application for conditional use application for site plan and denial of their waiver request specifically under your code of ordinances. Uh this is talks about the scope of review uh 54-1-2.4 subsection G4. It's mentioned in your agenda request form. Um that sets forth the scope of review. You have the authority to reverse the planning and zoning commission. you [snorts] have the ability to affirm it wholly or partly or you have the uh discretion to modify the planning and zoning commission. Your review is limited to the record that is before you which consists of the minutes. Um, there was also the YouTube video that I referenced in the appeal request that has what happened exactly uh video of those proceedings and you also have the documents, plans, papers uh that were presented to the planning and zoning commission. The basis for the appeal is the applicant in this case met all of the requirements of the city's code of ordinances, the land development code to be given or to be approved for a conditional use, have the site plan approved, and get a

waiver request. At that juncture, the burden then shifts to those opposed to the application to show by competent substantial evidence why it should be denied. I think it's clear once you take a look at the record and uh see those proceedings that the planning and zoning commission respectfully were reviewing this project in its legislative capacity as opposed to quasi judicial and I don't want to step on the shoes of your attorney but there is a big difference between those two functions your legislative function is the function that you make determinations of what you feel would be good for the city. It's policy setting measures. Quasi judicial, however, is applying a set criteria to certain facts in a case. So, for [clears throat] lack of a better analogy, consider the planning and zoning commission and you tonight and the position as a judge. We have a set criteria. If you meet that criteria, you have to approve the application. You do not have the discretion because that is the criteria that is under your law. That's the difference between a legislative function and a quasi judicial function. before the deliberations started before planning and zoning commission you will notice or [clears throat] I'm sorry not before the deliberations but before the decision was rendered and the motion was made [snorts] that uh the member of the planning and zoning commission that uh member that made the motion uh was struggling immensely to come up with a reason why to deny the project and the reason why I was

struggling with it is because it met all the requirements of your code. But the fallback was is how this particular project failed um to meet or to be designed, located and proposed to be operated so that the public health, safety and welfare was protected. relying upon that. Um, after getting some significant input from other commission members and council, it seemed that decision was based on lay person opinion of increased traffic and safety. And I don't want to belabor the point, but in your packet, I submitted to you some cases. one from not too far from here where the city of Melbourne denied a conditional use application under a similar circumstances where lay person testimony was given that there was worry of increased traffic and safety and that decision ultimately got overturned by the court system because that is not competent substantial evidence. Competent substantial evidence is that which a reasonable mind could be persuaded by something. And in this particular instance when we talk about traffic and we talk about safety, we go to experts who you burden the applicant to retain in order to give expert analysis on what the impact towards traffic and road safety are going to be invoked by this project. And that's exactly what happened here. Mr. Schuli who was here tonight testified. He said the all the evidence showed all the competent qualified evidence showed that this project is going to have a dimminimous impact on traffic and that it has been safely engineered and

designed. lay person's opinion of I think it's just going to be worse is not substantial competent evidence warranting denial of a conditional use application and that seemed to be ultimately what planning and zoning was focused on when it denied this application. Some of the other measures that came up, there was references to potential storage of gasoline or propane propane on the property. There is no hazardous risk here. Gasoline tanks are in our garages. We do that to fill up the lawn mower. There's nothing unique. They're not being asked to store biohazardous waste or anything out of the ordinary. There's laws preventing that. and this isn't that type of storage facility. So that too is completely and totally unwarranted. There were also comments made about well it's not that we're necessarily opposed to the project. We're opposed to the project being access from Ashberry Boulevard. Perhaps it should be access off of County Road 512. answer is is that would violate the plat which contemplates the access point directly from Ashberry Boulevard and Indian River County Code which requires that it comes across from Ashberry Boulevard. That's why the entrance is designed to come there and that is the substantial competent evidence to justify why the entrance has to be where it's contemplated to be. Other than that, there really was not a whole lot that was presented to the planning and zoning commission in opposition to this project that warrants denial. Again, the legislative function has already been dealt with. You determined that this was a use that could be permitted under

certain circumstances. This use is a conditional use that can be granted provided the conditional use criteria is met. My client met that criteria. right in your report. Your own staff, who you hire, who you paid, agreed with that conclusion. They recommended that the conditional use application be approved, the site plan application be approved, that the waiver request be approved, and they slap some conditions on there or recommend certain conditions be imposed that my client wholly was willing to meet. Everything in contravention of that was based on the fear that typically accompanies development and planning and zoning. I made the same argument. To them, the Ashberry residents, respectfully, it's often very scary when a new development comes near your property. But if planning is proper, the analysis is done, you can make good educated decisions, that way you can have a prosperous city. You don't just rely upon fear or whether warranted or not, that development is scary. The best example I can give you, and I'm not sure how many council members were around, is when Ashberry came in. This whole place was filled with individuals opposed because oh my gosh with new development comes increased traffic. It's going to result in car accidents. It's going to result in this. All the bad things that company development. It is scary. But with the right analysis, the right project, it is something that could be beneficial to the city. Respectfully, the analysis has been performed. your staff has reviewed it and recommended its approval and we

respectfully submit that you do the same. And by doing that, you will have to unfortunately overturned a decision that was reached by planning and zoning commission which again we think they were acting in their legislative function based on a popularity context, not a quasi judicial function which was uh applying the facts to a set criteria. And because of that, I think tonight you have no other choice but to reverse that decision. I'm available for any questions. We have the engineer for the project here available for any questions that you have tonight. We think this is a good project. The impact that's going to be on the residents of Ashberry has been wholly minimized from an aesthetic standpoint, from a safety standpoint. In fact, if you take a look at the aerial of the project, which is in your plans, you'll notice that the only the only part where these properties somewhat intersect is in the back corner of the RV and boat storage facility, which is going to be buffered by significant amount of trees on its property, then buffered again by a significant amount of trees on the Ashberry Clubhouse property. Otherwise, it isn't going to be visible hardly from any of the residents in Ashberry. It just only has a slight touching of the Ashberry Clubhouse right near Ashberry Boulevard. Um, so tonight at the conclusion of it all and after you deliberate, I respectfully request that you overturn or reverse the decision of planning and zoning commission with respect to all three uh decisions that made which was the denial of the conditional use application, the denial of the site plan application and the denial of our waiver request and you

ultimately rule in the favor of the [clears throat] Thank you very much. All right. Uh, thank you so much for that, sir.

Yes, sir. Good evening. My name is TJ Ezo. I serve as general counsel for the Ashberry community. Ashberry is a residential association of a n 193 homes immediately adjacent to the proposed boat and RV storage facility. Because of this uh our proximity, our community be directly and significantly impacted by the proposed development and conditional use being sought uh to be over appealed today. Uh many of the Ashberry residents are here tonight in supporting our uh the commission's decision uh to deny the conditional use. I just want to point out some things to the uh to the council under section 54.1.2.4 4 G4. As uh the pound council just stated, your view is limited only to the testimony, documents, plans, papers, and other materials constituting the record upon which action was taken at the December 18th hearing. This does not include uh the appellants uh appeal letter or any case law was submitted after the fact as that was not taken up at the hearing at that time. Under established Florida law, a quasi judicial decision by a local government must be upheld if there is any competent, substantial evidence supported by the record. Your role here tonight is not to reweigh evidence or substitute your judgment, but to determine whether any competent, substantial evidence exists supporting the commission's decision. This differential standard of review applies to the commission's or to the council's decision here today. The applicant bears the burden of demonstrating that the record fails to contain any competent substantial

evidence supporting the commission's decision. This is a significant burden and the applicant s uh did not meet. Section 54-2.6.2D 2D of the land development code establishes the clear conditional use criteria. Any approval must be granted only after the commission finds that the proposed conditional use one is so designed located proposed to be operated so that the public health safety and welfare will be protected. Does not present any unduly adverse effect upon the properties in the impacted area. And based on the scale, intensity and operation, the use will not generate any unreasonable noise, traffic, congestion, hazards uh to the contiguous residential areas. This is not merely a technical requirement. These are represent fundamental protections existing to communities like Ashberry. The official record from the hearing in December 18th is replete with competent substantial evidence demonstrating multiple grounds supporting the commission's decision, including detailed minute meetings uh meeting minutes and extensive public testimony from affected Ashberry residents. The proposed conditional use with 24 access would generate unreasonable noise, traffic, and congestion affecting the Ashberry residents. The proposed entryway creates a critical safety hazard. Ashbury has only one single entrance lane into the community and these large RVs and boats in close proximity where they queue and stack could effectively block the sole point of ingress and egress to the community. This presents an unreasonable burden on the 193 residents who depend on unobstructed access for daily living.

Additionally, Ashbury Boulevard is a private roadway. It's very narrow and it was never designed or contemplated to contemplate this type of development and simultaneous presence of large recreational vehicles stacking for facility access while residents attempt to enter and exit the neighborhood through a single lane. The public testimony from the December 18th hearing also addressed dangers at the Sebastian Boulevard intersection, a high-speed thoroughway known for numerous traffic collisions and tragically an intersection where an Ashberry resident recently lost their life just a few months ago. These facts underscore the critical importance of maintaining clear sight lines of oncoming traffic. The proposed facility with large RVs and entering and exiting the vehicles at all hours would create additional visual and obstructions and traffic conflicts which already exist at a dangerous intersection, further compromising the safety of the re residents attempting to access their homes. The meeting minutes also reflect that city staff noted uncertainty about why a public access easement was placed on a private roadway and reminded the commission before rendering its decision that it must find that the proposed use does not affect the public health and safety or cause any adverse effects on adjacent properties. The commission voted to deny the conditional use approval application on the grounds that this standard was not met based on competent substantial evidence upon which the decision was made. City staff's report for appealing to uh for today's hearing recommends upholding the uh commission's denial. staff properly recognized the limited scope of review and focuses on the existing record and this recommendation underscores the commission acted within

its authority based on competent substantial evidence supporting its decision reflected in the record. We respectfully request that the council uphold the decision by the commission. The official record contains ample competent substantial evidence de demonstrating the conditional use proposed here would adversely and unduly affect public health and safety of the neighboring Ashbury community. The commission properly weighed this testimony and the applicant has failed to demonstrate that the record failed to contain any competent substantial evidence under the applicable legal standard and land development code. the commission's decision must be upheld. Thank you for your time and your consideration. I deeply appreciate the con uh the planning and zoning commission's willingness to recognize the adverse impact this proposed use would present and their reasoned decision to protect our neighborhood. I'm here to take any questions.

All right. Thank you. Thank you all for that. Um, do do you anybody up here have any questions for either one of the attorneys or do you all want to hear what staff has to say before we go forward? I do have one question. Um, [clears throat] the last attorney made the statement that staff had made a recommendation to uphold the uh planning and zoning's decision. Is there something I missed in here? I didn't see that.

Thank you. because I did I did want to just clarify that on the your your cover sheet for this item under the recommendation we had recommended that you hold the uh the Kawasi judicial hearing and to either make a motion to reverse uphold or modify the planning and zoning commission. Now there may have been some confusion because part of the packet that we gave you did have a staff report in it but that was that constituted the record that was given to P&Z. So, this is the same staff report that planning and zoning got where yes, we did make a recommendation on those pages regarding the conditions of approval. But with regards to a recommendation to this um appeal, staff did not make any recommendation. All right. Thank Thank you, Miss Chris. Chris, that's on page 160 of your Yeah, I I just wanted to clarify that staff did not make a recommendation on this appeal.

Okay. Thank you. Anybody have any questions for um does does staff need to say anything? Mr. Stokes? Uh staff is primarily more of a resource. So if there are questions, uh they're ready to answer, but there's no presentation planned. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Um I had um one question. I I thought this um site um Ashberry had another um entry exit point. Is they only have one entry there? Yes, sir. That's correct. It's a private roadway from Sebastian Boulevard. It's a come to the mic.

No, you had to come up, sir. Sorry. [clears throat and snorts] I apologize. Um the uh Ashberry Boulevard is a single terminus from Sebastian. It's perpendicular with Sebastian Boulevard and and ends into the Ashberry community. Uh at the entryway of Sebastian Boulevard and Ashberry Boulevard, which is the community's uh private roadway. uh is a uh a a public access easement that was on the plat or recorded um plat I should say uh put there probably by the developer or whoever developed the property previously. Right. But there there's no other way in and out of that community except for that point is what you're saying to my knowledge sir. Yes sir. Okay. That's Thank you. Um

Mr. Yes, M. Can staff provide clarification? I got it. I want to clarify that is the main entrance way. There is a residential access point. However, guests and uh uh vendors have to use that. Okay. Well, well, that's fine. That's what I need to know because that point was said here earlier and I just wanted to clarify that and make sure that everyone know what was going on there. Yes, that's fine. Okay. Right. All right. Um, anybody else have anything any questions for any attorneys or do we want to go straight to deliberation? Whatever the process is.

Well, I think we're just going to go um if you all have any questions for uh if any of us have any questions for each one of the attorneys about any of the evidence or anything um this is the time to ask because after that we're going to go ahead and make a decision on what we're going to do. So, I guess Mr. Mayor, I have a question for Mr. Stokes. is okay as is I heard from the attorney said all we can go on is what happened at the last meeting. We can't consider the the case law that was brought up by Mr. Roadback for on the appeal. Is that accurate?

Um I I would actually respectfully disagree with Mr. Isa only because case law is again it's not facts. It's more it was more part of the argument of the appellant. Um which is what lawyers do all the time. They show other cases to support their argument. But I just want to make sure you council understands if you rely on that, you're relying on it as as as an analogy in law, not as facts. So So you can't rely on it as facts. Thank you. But you can rely on it as far as legal precedent if you find it applies. All right. Is that it for you, sir? Yes. Anyone else? All right.

I'm kind of confused. All right. That's not unusual. Um I get confused all the time, too.

Yeah, I know. I know. There there's two things that I've that I'm I'm hearing in the presentations from the council. And one of them is that the plans zoning commission did not properly hear this. Um I heard that from the appellants council. Uh and I just kind of no matter which way this is decided, I kind of disagree with that. They did exactly what we want the PNZ to do. They heard the evidence. They were given an opportunity to review that and they made a decision. their their decision to deny this was based on uh on on page I know you don't have this out there 156 158 of our thing that they they determined that that the planning zoning commission did not find that proposed outdoor storage use is consistent or designed with local and proposed op wrong one with this public safety uh issue um I I whether I agree or disagree with That doesn't matter. I think they made that decision based on what they heard and what they felt they heard. So, I don't believe our Canadian zoning commission did anything in error. Well, that doesn't necessarily mean I agree with their thought process on this. It just means that I I would not want it to be inferred that the people in our plans zoning commission did not properly hear this. I think that's a misnomer and it's uh challenging when it doesn't need to be necessarily challenging. Um there are there are some issues and I know we can't introduce new evidence, but there are some issues related with traffic safety uh in this particular application. I mean, we've got Sebastian Boulevard uh pulling into 512. We've got the prospect of there being some relatively long pieces of equipment pulling straight across Sebastian 512 from Sebastian Boulevard. That [clears throat] does present a safety issue that someone could infer. means that it doesn't meet the public safety mess on this. Uh I don't know

that I fully agree with that because I don't think we're going to have that happen as much as people think it's going to happen. We're not going to have 55 or 60 large vehicles pulling straight across 512 Inspection Boulevard every day. I don't believe. I don't think that the the use is designed to do that. um some of the notes that I made um as far as the entrance on and off Sebastian Boulevard and this all was brought up during the public during the the hearing at the PNZ, okay, by either the pellets council or by the staff, but I mean the rightway off of Sebastian Boulevard was established by the developer towards the end of their proc their involvement in the project. They I think it was the fourth maybe the fourth plat that we received in the city in which that rideway was established and that was done as [snorts] they sold those two pieces of property. Uh but it was established by the developer when that was placed in play. Uh whether that's right or wrong is immaterial to our decision point. They did establish the rightway. And so it it's it's the question about whether the entrance or exit off Sebastian Boulevard should be done is an old decision that was made prior to the city being involved in this project. Uh and I don't know there's anything that that the city can use any evidence that the city can use to say that that's that creates a problem for for the particular project. Uh there there [clears throat] is a second entrance and exit and uh off of Power Line Road. Uh theoretically that could be used if there was a major tie up on that uh [clears throat] on that facility. So that's my comments. [snorts]

Mr. Mayor, I do have one other thing. Yes. Um hang hang on. Hang hang on. We're trying to conduct a meeting. Please.

I do want to agree with Council Member Dot on one thing. I I don't think after watching the meeting a couple times that that even there was anything inappropriate. Uh I I know that Mr. Roberts was the one who made the original motion. Um for him, that was like the first real motion he had made at a planning and zoning meeting. And it wasn't that his his motion was inappropriate. His motion was fresh. It was new. He had never done that before. So the process was was new to him. So while while it seemed very cumbersome while they were making the motion, it wasn't out of neglect or anything wrong, it just was a new a new zoning planning and zoning member making his real first motion. So I I do agree they they saw it properly whether I agree or disagree with the outcome and results. The whole process was proper as it should have been. Thank you.

All right. Anyone else? or we can go ahead and um make a motion unless we want to hear any final from the party. Yeah, in our code it does say that the appellant kind of gets the [clears throat] absolutely last word. Yes, sir. You may come forward.

Yes. Thank you again, councel. Um just just to address the arguments raised uh by Mr. is respectfully. Um, the traffic came up again and the safety issue came up again. And the point that I was trying to make was not to throw planning and zoning under the bus or to say that they weren't listening or anything of the sort. You get a public hearing. You have a whole bunch of opinions that come before the commission, before the council. And from a legal standpoint, some have to be given more weight than others. And that's one of the reasons why in connection with these applications, you require certain traffic analysis and engineering and things of that nature to ensure that when the project comes before you that you don't have somebody, a lay person, not factoring in the proper criteria to design something that will be safe for your residents. The whole point I was trying to make during my initial uh presentation or my initial argument was that what planning and zoning perhaps was persuaded by and seemed to be persuaded by and that seems more evidently so since Mr. ISO focused on it was the traffic, the increased traffic and safety. And the answer is you have nobody that presented before planning and zoning except for the applicant that could properly testify or give an opinion to be given any weight. And that's what the case law was purposely before you to show you that the city of Melbourne was similarly persuaded by such arguments and was

ultimately overturned because respectfully residents get worried about increased traffic. But engineers are the ones that do the actual analysis and go through it, design it. That way we could put forth a project that is safe and has a dimminimous impact on traffic or if it does have an impact that it's properly addressed and that's what was done in this case and that is why it's our opinion that this particular application meets the conditional use criteria and respectfully the planning and zoning was listening to an opinion that it probably should not have factored as much as it did so in its decision. Thank you. test test. No.

Uh yes, sir. You can come forward. Your final.

Thank you everybody. I'll be very brief. The applicant's attorney brings up some good points, but the major point is we cannot reweigh the evidence. Public testimony by individuals who are dee uh directly impacted should be given credence and and in particular several of those residents in their professional capacities right have that uh professional uh expertise. One of the residents who is uh reflected in the meeting minutes is the city planner for the city of Palm Beach or Palm Beach Allen. years

and nowhere in the land development code. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Please not speak from the audience. You may speak for them. All right.

Yes, mayor. Uh I just wanted just to highlight a point that uh I don't think anywhere in the land development code where it dictates where credence gives to the credibility of a testimony rather that the record reflect that the testimony was given and was supported by that is uh competent substantial evidence which decision was made. the the commission has difference to weigh each and every testimony including everything that was introduced in the record and it was their decision based on the totality of the record they rendered their decision and I don't think here is to discount anybody's testimony from the paid engineers and experts by the developer. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you so much. All right. Um council

uh you know Mr. Mayor, I I have one other thing. I I'm thinking about the traffic situation and you know, I I've been by boat and RV storage places and I I can't think of a of a another business that had customers that would have less traffic than this. I mean, if it was a restaurant or something like that, that would be a huge amount of daily traffic and daily runs. And I I just I just can't see that that there's a another type of business that would bring less traffic if that's the consideration. I I I've been by them. They there's not a lot of traffic at them. And while the RVs and boats are big and they do like a garbage truck coming in and out, I mean, they will take up the road for a second, but they'll be gone pretty quickly into a into an exit. So, I just to me I don't see how that plays as as the concern because I think this would be the least amount of traffic that could be from a business being put there. And that that's my thought.

All right. Uh thank you so much for that. And I just got one question for staff. Um what else can be put on that site? We talking about this is an RV and boat storage. What else can be included on that site? the project is uh the uh parcel was zoned commercial general but it's commercial general within the triangle overlay district. So um when that zoning was established they removed some of the more intense uses that commercial general could have. Um and so I know Brian has a list of those. It's been tweaked from commercial general that stays on US1 down there by Barber Street. Um but he you know again it's broken up to permitted and conditional uses and Brian can read that. Yes, he has it. Thank you Dor. Mr. Mayor May. Yes.

Thank you Mr. there. Um, so under the CG zone within the triangle overlay district, uh, permitted uses include, and I will list I'll read them entirely, cultural or civic facilities, churches, clubs, and lodges, public and private, business and professional offices, excluding drive-through facilities, medical services, commercial retail less than or equal to 20,000 ft. eat plant nurseries, restaurants excluding drive-through facilities, trade and skilled services, hotels and motel, administrative services, public and private, accessory uses to permitted permitted uses, home occupations, and all uses permitted within the RM8 zoning district. Those are all permitted uses. Conditional uses include bars and lounges, commercial retail greater than 20,000 square feet, business and professional offices with drive-thru facilities, farmers markets, funeral homes, nursing homes, child care services, utilities, public and private, parks and recreation, public, protective and emergency services. Public restaurants with drive-thru facilities, veterinary services, wholesale trades and services, commercial amusements, enclosed, accessory uses to conditional uses, vehicular sales indoors, gasoline sales as part of retail

operation. [clears throat] parking garages and outdoor storage facilities. And that's it, Mr. Mayor. All right. Uh, thank you so much for that, Mr. Benton. Um, I I have no no other questions. Um, looking for a a motion or whatever want to go. Is that where we are, Mr. Stoke? Yes, that is where we are. And pursuant to our code um to overturn PNZ, it requires a 4 to one vote at at least 4 to one. All right. Thank you, sir. And and would our motion would any motion that you received be to overturn their ruling on the conditional use that first?

I I would say you want to take that up first. Uh because if it's not conditional use, not reverse, and the the rest of it is moot. But uh yeah. Okay. I'll make a motion. All right. Um I'm going to make uh my motion is going to be to overturn the conditional use denial for this property. All right, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second. Do we have anybody have anything to say on that? Well, before we vote. Yes, sir.

Yeah, I do. I guess um [clears throat] you know my my big my big thing is that I the the safety hazard that was discussed by the plane zoning commission and it was and it it can't be brought up because it really wasn't part of the overall record u [clears throat] related to vehicles coming out of that out of that property going across 512 basically and um uh I I I feel like that there wasn't adequate information provided about the potential impact of that. There was no police study about potential accidents on 512. There were no things like that that were presented. However, saying that, that is not a reason for me to vote to not overturn that because the plane zoning commission did not receive that information. Therefore, it was not part of the record. So, it can't necessarily be used as part of that. So, I will support the motion, not because I don't think there's a safety hazard, but I don't think there was anything in the planning zoning record that allowed them to make the motion that they made. [clears throat]

All right. So, we had a motion and a second and and um we'll go ahead and call the role. Madame Clerk, Council Member Matthews, yes. Council member Dodd, yes. Mayor Jones, yes. Vice Mayor McPartland. Yes. And council member Nunton. Yes. Motion carries. 5. All right. I believe now we would entertain a motion for the site plan and then the waiver. All right. So now we're on the site plan and the waiver. [clears throat and snorts] I'm I'll make a motion that we approve the waiver for the fence.

Yeah. There's no particular order. So yeah, if we want to just go with the waiver and then I I'll second that. So we have a motion and a second for the waiver for the fence. We did recommend approval of the waiver, but that it was a particular I'm getting that. I'm sorry, Mr. There you go. Um the waiver was the black used a black chain link fence. Yes. Yes. So I make a motion that we approve the waiver to use a black chain link fence on the front yard components of that. Correct. All right. And you amend your second? I amend my second. All right. So, we have a motion and a second on that. Any other deliberation from us? Yes, sir. All right. Madame Clerk.

Council member Dodd? Yes. Mayor Jones? Yes. Vice Mayor McPartland? Yes. [clears throat] Council [snorts] member Nun? Yes. And Council Member Matthews? Yes. Motion carries. All right. Um, the next one is would be the site plan. The site plan staff would recommend approval with the conditions that are listed on page 160 and 161. We had five recommended conditions of approval.

160 161. Okay. and and if need so I can quickly review those if you need explanation any of those or do any one of us need to hear um No I I would say uh Mr. May Miss Bosworth wasn't there a sixth one added during the meeting about no overnights or sleeping in the

RV that was brought up? Uh yes, there was there was that concern that there could be that possibility. Um I they did not add that. Well, they had made a motion to deny, so they hadn't considered to add that as an additional consideration, but um it can be to make it formal. We're assuming that the um proprietors of the business would have cameras and also make that a part of when you're signing your lease that there can be no overstays. But if you'd like to add that to reinforce uh PNZ's concern that there be no overnight um stays in any of the RVs. Yeah. But I think the state law covers that anyway, right? We're covered by state law and we can add that in to back it up if that makes sense. Yeah. I'm sorry. As I previously said, you're now sitting in the capacity. So you do have that authority to add that condition.

All right. Thank you. So we can add that in to back up the law that already backs that up. So absolutely that answer your question, Mr. McPartner? Yes, sir. All right. Uh go ahead and entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to approve the site plan with the recommendations from staff of the five recommendations. What about we can add in? Okay. At the no overnight sleeping. No overnight sleeping. Yes. With the cameras. Yeah. I will second that. All right. So, we have a motion in a second. Do we have any other discussion on that hearing? Madam clerk. Mayor Jones. Yes. Vice Mayor McPartland? Yes. Council member Nun? Yes. Council member Matthews. Yes.

Council member Dodd. Um, this is where we should have talked about traffic is in the site plan review. Uh, but since it wasn't brought up u at the at the plans a zoning commission, I'll vote yes. Motion carries. All right. Um, we're going to go ahead and take a 10-minute recess. Thank you. And we'll be back in 10 minutes.

have a seat. If you're going to leave, please leave. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Uh thank you. Um we're going to go ahead and get started again. Um what we have um what we on unfinished business. All right. Unfin. No, no, no. attorney. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. The attorney's thing on the unfinished business. Item 11 A. Um, M. Minton or who are we starting with? There we go. Cindy.

Okay. We we are bringing back to council the attorney position. So on uh January the 7th, council conducted interviews and held a special meeting. At that time, council decided to table the decision to hire a new city attorney, but to allow the interim attorney, Mr. Stokes, to be considered. Mr. Stokes uh has provided his proposed contract to provide services as the city attorney going forward as an independent contractor. the city would not be responsible for providing any benefits or payout uh severance like a severance package. Council has been provided the personnel costs between Mr. Stokes contract and at an attorney who would be hired here at the city. Uh staff is requesting council to consider the contract proposal by Mr. Stokes with the two city attorney C candidates who were interviewed on January the 7th. We're asking uh council to provide direction.

All right. Uh thank you so much for that. Um Cindy, um see where do we want to start or do we need to discuss anything? Do do we need to discuss actually we probably do need to discuss the one that the other ones we've already reviewed their stuff and now we have the proposal by Mr. Stokes. Do you have any questions on that? I'll make a statement. Okay.

Um Mr. Stokes uh was not only a former obviously you before uh myself, Miss Matthews or or you Mr. Jones were up here. He was uh he was our city attorney for many years and did an amazing job. He obviously has has done a good job for us because this is now his second time serving as the interim city attorney because of his ability and uh his uh resume as well. Uh so I you know I I I think with the opportunity to uh keep Mr. Stokes. I said from a financial point of view, um it's the more prudent thing for us to do because it saves us about 50 grand a year between benefits and salary. Um and and we maintain an excellent city attorney. So that would be my recommendation is to go that direction. I just think it's the right move for us. Uh and it gives us somebody that's uh really good at what they're doing.

All right. Uh thank you so much for that, sir. Anyone else want to speak on either of the candidates?

I I would say the same thing. I I hired Mr. Stokes many many years ago and you know one of the things is he he served here extremely admirably and you know people fail to mention he also led the Port St. Lucy legal department down there. He's got a lot of experience. I think some of the recent uh items that have come before us as well as his proactiveness in the emails that I get from him trying to save us money here and there because he is a one-stop shop as well as he's a proven commodity. Anybody else we go to hire, you you're taking a chance almost like a leap of faith. But with Mr. Stokes, I I think he's the perfect fit. If you need a motion, I'll make a motion to accept the contract as it set forth. I'll second that.

All right. So, we have a motion and a second to accept the contract by Mr. Stokes. Um, any other deliberation on that? Anyone?

It's um so nothing else being up here on either of the candidates. Uh is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Damian [clears throat] Gilliams, you made my job very easy tonight. [snorts] When I looked at the list, it was a no-brainer. You look like you're heading in the right direction. I want to commend you. I want to commend you. I think Mr. Stokes is going to do our city justice. He's well-rounded. He is well expertised in a lot of areas such as land development, which is important for this community because how quickly this community is growing. And um I'm not going to say anything [clears throat] negative about any of the other attorneys on the list. I'm going to stay positive, but um good luck. You got a great guy.

All right. Thank you so much for that, sir. Um, is there anyone else from the public who would like to speak on this item? Um, anyone on Zoom? No one has raised their hand at this time. All right. Uh, thank you so much for that. Public input is closed. Um, if there's nothing else from the council, we'll go ahead and call the role. Madame Clerk. Vice Mayor McPartland? Yes. Council member Nun? Yes. Council member Matthews? Yes. Council member Dodd? Yes. Mayor Jones? Yes. Motion carries.

All right. Thank you so much. We have um item number 12A, new business consideration of resolution number R-26-02. Uh Mr. Benton or who? Oh, Cindy. Yes. Yep. Go ahead.

Uh the Sorry about that. The police officers have elected to change unions from AUPA to Palm Beach County Benevolent Association, Inc. The vote was 37-2. Resolution R2602 amends the police collective bargaining agreement from the city of Sebastian, Florida, and IUPA to the city of Sebastian, Florida, and Palm Beach County Police Benevolent Association, Inc. We ask that council move to consider resolution R2602 ratifying the amended collective bargaining agreement between the city of Sebastian and Palm Beach County Police Benevolent Association, Inc. for full-time police officer employees.

All right. Uh, thank you so much for that. Um, I I'll go ahead and make the motion that we approve that. Second. Um, is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this? Is there anyone on Zoom? No one has raised their hand at this time. Okay. Thank you so much. Public input is closed. Um council, anyone else? I I mean, it's a no-brainer. If this is what the police officers want to represent them, it's their choice. So, yeah. Absolutely. Roll call. Council member Nun? Yes. Council member Matthews? Yes. Council member Dodd? Yes. Mayor Jones? Yes. Vice Mayor McPartland? Yes. Motion carries.

All right. Um, moving on to item number 12B, consideration of selecting Frasier contracting for the police department. Who we have, Miss Graham?

Yes, Mr. Mayor. Good evening, everyone. So, the procurement division issued a solicitation to replace the tile roof on the police department. The solicitation was issued back in October. We received 14 bids and of those 14, four of the submitters were deemed non-responsive. After the evaluation, Frasier contracting was listed was identified as the most responsive responsible contractor. When the notice of intent to award was posted on December 4th, we did receive a notice of intent to protest and the vendor was protesting the fact that Fraser Contracting on their roofing license. There was a complaint and in your packet you will see that complaint as well as the contractor's response. But the complaint was filed regarding the subcontractor having an additional crew on site and that additional crew not being registered to the subcontractor. So at that time they had DBPR came out. They did a on that same day somehow when they had that uh crew out there, they noticed that that crew was not um assigned to anyone. So, they did fine the contractor that was over the project, which is Frasier Contracting, but Frasier Contracting paid a fine and the complaint was closed by the time that the bid was opened. So, it took that information as well as their letter and the complaint that we received, took that to the uh using department, which is the parks department and facilities that is purchasing it. and the decision was made to move forward with the award since again all of the references and everything else were intact and they were um the references were were glowing

references and the fact that the complaint was filed and closed prior to the bid deadline. So, we are also asking in addition to the bid award price, we're asking to spend up to an additional $80,000 for repairs. So, in the bid, you will see there are unit prices for the wood and fascia replacement, but we won't know until they actually take the roof off which parts are damaged and which is not, which is why there were no quantities included on that. So, we're asking for not to exceed amount. If they somehow have to replace all of the wood on the police department roof, you are looking at almost $30,000. So, that's why we did say up to $80,000 to cover both of those. In a good scenario, we don't have to spend anywhere near that amount because there's minimal damage under the roof. But we just wanted to make sure that we had an amount that would cover us in case we did have significant damage. So with that, I am asking on behalf of the parks and recreation department for the council to approve awarding the contract to Frasier Contracting and approving purchase orders up to $28,7816. That amount includes their bid amount as well as the $80,000 the up to $80,000 for any repairs that might be necessary once the roof is taken off. And with that, I will I'm open for questions.

Just just one question. I think a lot of times when roofers come out to do their roof, they don't know what's underneath. So they automatically include a certain amount of plywood in the contract or anything. And notwithstanding if they get in there and there's more then obviously you would have to pay for the additional is that in this contract anywhere or is it just whatever wood needs to be replaced we'll know it at that time it's so the way that the engineer wrote the specifications they just did it as a unit price so we did have specifications that were written by Kimley Horn they did it as a unit price they did not provide an amount so we just went with that so I do understand what you're saying but we did not issue it out that way in the solicitation. Okay.

All right. Anyone else have any questions for MR? Mor, even if we uh put a 10% contingency on top of this whole thing, it's still substantially below the budget. So, u I move we approve the uh the award of the contract. Second. All right. Thank you so much. Now, we have a motion and a second. Any other discussion from us?

One other thing. I I you know, I'm sure there's people going to read this and they're going to say, "Well, why on earth did we hire a a roofing company out of Matland?" There wasn't a roofing company from the area that submitted a bid for this. So, for all you people that want to say that, talk to all your local roofing companies and say, "Why aren't you guys submitting bids when the city's doing work?" Get in and submit bids so we can give it to local businesses. We can't give it to you if you don't submit a bid. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you, sir. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this? Anyone on Zoom? No one has raised their hand at this time. All right. Thank you so much. Public input is closed. Um, Madame Clerk, Council Member Matthews, yes. Council member Dodd, yes. Mayor Jones,

yes. Vice Mayor McPartland, yes. Council member Nun, yes. Motion carries. Yay, there he is. All right. Next item is item 12 C. Um, is that Mrs. Sable or that you still Miss Graham or both? I will it's both. I will get it started and go over the procurement items and then I will turn it over to Mr. Sabbo to explain why we are we are here today. Very good.

So this is a change order for this is a change order to the contract that we have with Dickerson Infrastructure for the taxiway G construction. If you remember back on August 12th, we did award a contract for to Dickerson Infrastructure for the construction. And this change order [clears throat] is uh so during the during the second phase, the contractor ran into an unforeseen condition which is addition additionally they ran into an unforeseen condition. I don't know why I can't talk today. They ran into an unforeseen condition and they ran into what's called muck. And so that's never happened at any location on the airport at that level. And so it was something where we needed to stop work. We had to get our engineer involved, the engineer of record involved, and we had to call out Mr. Sabbo and Mr. Benton in order to take a look at it to determine how we would proceed. So that did increase the cost of this contract. We also had to increase the time because it took additional time for them to go through this unsuitable material and get it back to where it needs to be so that they can continue on with this the additional scope of work that we added. And I'm also adding in days because when I did the calendar I did not account for the holidays. So generally when I do a schedule I account for the holidays and I build those in. I did not do that on this one. So we're that's where some of the days are coming from and that is outlined in exhibit on the change order. And then the last item was just we are combining we are modifying the liquidated damages to combine phases one and two. And then we have a the completion date with phases one and two. Those were combined together and then we have um the phase three. So that's my portion of it. to explain the conditions

and what was found. I will turn that over to Mr. Sabbo.

Uh good evening council. Uh basically what came about uh during the uh design and engineering phase for this project, they go out and randomly select certain parts of uh the footprint uh which was an old runway uh that has existed there since uh before the time that the city took sponsor ownership of the uh the airport itself in 1959. So it was assumed that the the random spots that they would pick would give us a good general overall view of the base and subbase materials. And it just so happened the one particular area that uh was not picked up uh under this assumption was that the the joining or the intersection of the new taxiway Golf and the existing taxiway Bravo. Uh particularly in in a section where there's a radius that allows for a a smoother turn in and out of the new taxi way. Uh they dug in there and kept going and kept going and basically uh Jessica called it muck. It was very much muck. We were down into the water table and and basically the consistency of pete. Um this was all pulled out. It was replaced by two successive lifts of about 18 in deep of uh crushed concrete. They finally reached the compaction and stabilization numbers that they needed. Then came in with more crushed concrete. And now uh at this point uh we're placing asphalt over this repaired area and we know that it's structurally sound.

All right. Uh thank you so much for that, sir. Anyone have any questions from Mrs. Sabo or Miss Graham on this? Do do we think we found all the potential catchins here in this project?

Yes, sir. At this point, uh we are progressing and uh all the base issues have been uh completed. We we are confident that we're in good shape to finish everything up. It has cautioned us for future projects to take a look at some of these areas with a little bit closer samples uh to make sure that we don't miss any broad areas like this. And uh the terminal apron project, we've actually found two spots there. And uh we will be amending what we'll be asking the FAA in terms of funding to help us out to to for the difference of what we thought existed and what didn't. Okay. because the the the new total amount of this is substantially less than the grant. Are there other things we can do with that grant funds?

Uh unfortunately not. Uh I initially approached the uh uh FDOT because the next uh portion of this once the taxiway is done, we wanted to put in a new apron to serve this taxiway and then of course be able to have uh ground leases and build hangers along that area. uh we came up with a cost close to about $500,000 to be able to do so. FDOT turned us down and felt that that was too much of u uh the consistency of a second project that is already scheduled which is to build the first phase of the golf apron approximately 700 ft long. So uh unfortunately we're we are stabilizing that area. We've only uh scraped it. We're putting about an inch and a half down of asphalt to make it somewhat usable, but when that grant finally comes through for the same area, uh we'll end up pulling it up and uh replacing it along with some of the base material that's necessary. Uh we've also asked them to see if we can make some changes based on that stabilization area. Um we're still waiting for their reply, but we have previously accounted for that money and we're safe to finish the project as it is.

Okay. So, we're we're going to have to give back, I don't know, $500, $600,000 of the grant. Um, well, technically, we don't give back uh we don't get it until we spend it, right? We don't spend it, which means and the reason I bring it up, which means we don't spend our discretionary sales tax match money either. There you go. There you go. Absolutely. We we were we're were shocked and yet very pleased with the bids that came in. All three bids were substantially lower than the projected cost. And um the project is progressing uh pretty much on schedule and uh within budget with with the exception of these surprises that have come up. Okay, Mr. Mayor, I move approval of this item. All right, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second.

We have a motion. Two seconds. Any other discussion? And anybody from the public who want to speak on this item? Anyone on Zoom? Not at this time. Thank you so much. Public input is closed. Uh, Madame Clerk. Council member Dodd. Yes. Vice Mayor Jones. Yes. Vice Mayor McPartland? Yes. Council member Nutton? Yes. Council member Matthews? Yes. Motion carries. [clears throat] Did I call you vice? [laughter] Mayor Jones.

We got it. We're fine. All right. Listen. Now you got me off track now. Okay. Let's go back on track. Um, what did we just finish with Mr. Sabbo on C? Right now we're on 12D. Um, who do we have? Oh, here we go. Let's grab Mr. Sabbo again.

So, this is this is a change order to amend the CSA that we have with infrastructure consulting and engineering. So, this goes hand inand with the project. This is the engineer of record since we had to um attend to the unexpected situation that led to more hours inspection hours for the engineer. So we are asking for an increase in the funds for the engineer to make up for that. All right. Thank you so much. Uh Mr. Sable, did you have anything to add to that? No,

she covered it very well. the uh the engineer of record uh infrastructure consulting engineering they are very hands-on uh when the problem arose they did the extra calculations necessary uh made sure that the uh contractor met all the specifications per FAA and FDOT uh regulations and with their extra time and in all the engineering work plus their on-site time for quality inspections and and control uh this is to uh compensate them for the extra work. All right. Uh, thank you so much for that. Um, anyone have any questions for staff? Mr. Mayor, I move approval of item 12D. So, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second.

So, we have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? Hearing none, Madame Clerk. Mayor Jones, yes. Vice Mayor McPartland? Yes. Council member Nun, yes. Council member Matthews, yes. Council member Dodd, yes. Motion carries. [snorts] All right. Next set. Oh, it's not going to be a set. It's just going to be one. Le, you can handle it by yourself. All right, come on down. We're going to go to item 12E, consideration of purchase orders for asphalt paving systems. Mr. PL,

good evening, Mayor Jones and council members. Um, before you have our phase 4, uh, repaving project for Millan overlay and FDR. Earlier in October, I was here for paving for rec for preservation work. Um this evening we have one $1,74,331.38 for Milan overlay and FDR. Um the following roads that we're going to be completing is Periwinkle, Joy Haven, Schuman Drive, Veterans Memorial Way, a short section of Beavenon. Um of the 1,74,331.38, the allotted budget was $2,447,500. We previously uncovered 500,000 to ESEP construction um which we previously approved up to 700. We kept that under. We gave them a PO. We encumbered a PO 500,000 for EastEP and then we also encumbered 25,000 for Floricad and then $174,000 for heavy civil for dryway uh culverts and then another 3500 and $36.72 for Palm Bay concrete driveways and head walls totaling uh 711,572.72 that's already been encumbered. Um, our total available balance for our road reconstruction uh for the year remains at $1,735 1,735,92728. So we roughly um $30,000 in ex in excess in reserves um for this year's project.

Which one of those roads are getting the FDR? Yeah. Periwinkle. A short section of Beavenon. And then majority is Perry Winkle and B Brittle Court. Oh yeah. Okay. And what do we call it? Veterans Memorial Way. That's getting a 2-in overlay, right? Correct.

All right. I don't have anything else. Mr. Benton, do you have anything? Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I just want to it was brought to my attention and and we will take ownership for this. Uh the math didn't math under the previously encumbered. Um but it it didn't math in a positive way. So I think I was just trying to keep Lee from spending more money. [snorts] But um the total in already encumbered should have been $72,536.72. So it's a reduction in what's shown here of 9,3 $9,35.97. So the available balance was actually higher than what is shown in the agenda. It is 1,744,96325.

And Mr. Mayor, I'll move we approve that amount. [laughter] Second. Second. [clears throat] I just said so. Oh, I thought you were asking for a second. Oh, yeah. Second. Yeah, I got a second. Okay, great. So, we have a motion and a second. Um, is there um anyone from the public who would like to speak on this item? Anyone on Zoom? No, at this time. All right. Hearing none, uh, public input is closed. Um, council, any further deliberation from us? I just want to say that for years we heard people tell us that we weren't moving fast enough to fix the streets.

Oh. And we are the city is now moving just about as fast as we can afford to make [laughter] the move. Yeah. I think they've done the work in the last year, right? Yeah. So, there's there's uh there's a lot of positive things being done when it comes to actually trying to fix the bad streets in the city. So, it's a good it's good news.

I know people people talk about the swailes and the coverts and part of the project. Obviously, you all know when we agreed to do it, we agreed to fix the culverts and the swailes and the driveways on the roads that we're repaving. But I mean, if you look, that's $700,000 it's costing just for the culverts, driveways, and swailes on these roads that we're doing. That's a huge amount of money. I mean, it's a lot of money to fix those. So, uh I just so people understand how expensive this project is. I mean, that's not a lot of roads for $1.8 8 million roughly $1.7 million roughly. It's not a lot of roads, but they're not cheap to pave. Thank you.

Yeah, I think the average cost is about a million dollars a mile anyway, right? Or was it more? Is it more now? Don't answer that. Don't answer that. FDR, yes. FDR. Okay. All right. So, um, no other discussion. U, Madame Clerk. Vice Mayor McPartland? Yes. Council member Nun, yes. Council member Matthews, yes. Yes. Council member Dodd. Yes. Mayor Jones. Yes. Motion carries. All right. Move on to item 12F. Consideration of budget calendar for preparation of annual budget. Um Big Brian, Mrs. Stewart. He's had a smile at least.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council. Uh before you have the proposed 2627 budget calendar. [snorts] Um it was designed based on prior year and uh you will see in September the school board and county budget hearings that we anticipated uh on those dates in September. And before coming in I did check and the it appears the county has um set these dates on September 9th and September 16th for their budget hearings. However, the school board it doesn't appear has set those yet. That's we expect those on on that one on September the 3rd. So be glad to entertain any questions or make any changes you wish.

Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I just want to highlight um the we've set the 10 the budget workshops for uh July 15th and 16th um to review with departments as we have done for the last two years. So, you know, if you all can kind of look at those dates and and make sure those dates align with your schedules or if there's anything you would like to add to our budget calendar um as we go through this process. I'm going to take those two days off for vacation this year because I can't think of a better way to spend two vacation days than here with y'all talking about budget. [laughter] Yeah, I'm gonna take those days off, too.

Are you okay, good? So, I can be here. We we we do have a a a kind of an employee program for psychological help. [laughter] Are you speaking from experience? I'm not sure. [laughter] All right. It looks good to me. I mean, I I'm good with those dates. Um, everyone else, anyone has Do we need to make a motion to approve? Um, no. We can just have a consensus. Consensus. Okay. I want to make sure everybody's good specifically with July 15th. Yeah, I know. Make sure everybody's good with July 15th and 16th. Yeah, you made that point clear. July 15th and 16th that we got it off. We're going to be here for you. I'm going to take off just for you.

Perfect. All right. All right. Um, city attorney matters, Mr. Stokes.

Um, just u a couple things. one is I sent you an email today about the property um at 100 uh veterans memorial that was subject of an RFP uh was going to be a downtown brewery. Um we that property has been listed for sale trying to protect the the project that they had contracted for. So, um I wanted to get council's uh consensus uh that whether it's okay to move forward uh with litigation if necessary. Um the the reason normally we might not jump to that quick that quick and and we don't necessarily have to pursue it. But if we file it, then we can file a list pendance which will keep the title from transferring. Um, and so that's the best way to protect the city. Uh, and and that contract that we have. Um, so if that's uh acceptable to the city, I'll continue to work moving forward on that.

Yes, sir. Yeah. Okay. And then the only other thing is that I appreciate the confidence you've shown in me and uh uh hope to to do you proud on that and uh and you know, you know where to find me. If and if I'm not meeting your expectations, don't hesitate. let me know. I'm sure you won't. So, thank you very much. All right. Thank you so much for that. Uh Mr. Benton,

thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, um a couple things that I have uh the first is um at the last uh council meeting, council gave us direction to um plan and put together a couple workshops on property taxes. Um, so in working with staff, we we we've got two proposals, uh, two proposed dates that we feel as though would work. We've got three different time slots on those two dates, and I just want to run those by you all. Um, February 24th. So, we have a council meeting on February 25th. Um, so February 24th, 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 pm. So, we get a morning session and we get an evening session. And then February 25th, we have a council meeting at 6. So we're proposing a workshop at 2 so that we get a morning, an afternoon, and an evening session across the two days uh to do three total workshops on property taxes. And just so you all know, our plan um is to uh put together obviously a presentation that really really outlines and showcases what property taxes are used for. um and and how how any potential impacts because as you all know there are so many bills we couldn't possibly run through every single possibility of what's going to end up on the ballot. So our plan is to just showcase every single thing that could be possibly impacted by a reduction in property taxes uh revenue for the city. How we could potentially make up that revenue. Um that that's a difficult discussion and it's not something that would have been run completely by council, but they are options that we would like the public to be aware of. Um and and make sure they're aware of some of those options that are out there and then, you know, really open it up to the public to allow them to ask questions.

I've asked every department head to be here in attendance in case there are any questions that, you know, for the most part I, you know, between myself and Mr. Steuart, we should be able to handle most of it, but I want all departments heads here just in case. Um, and then that way we can showcase what the potential impacts would be on a reduction in property taxes and what impacts residents would see um in regards to those uh reductions. So, those two dates, anyone have any major issues with those dates? Obviously, you all don't have to attend all three. you can if you want, but just wanted to make sure you know those options were out there. I I will let you know now that I will be out of town, out of state that week.

Okay. So, I will not be for the council meeting either. Okay. Um just so you know,

and we will record it obviously so you can you can see, you know, the discussion that's had. We'll run them the same as we did the other workshops. We'll try to get microphones to the public as they're there. If you remember, the reason we we chose to do a morning and an afternoon, so two daytime and only one night time, is if you remember in our past workshops, we saw a lot better attendance during the daytime than we did at night. Um, in our workshops when we did storm water workshops and park workshops in Riverview Park and stuff. So, that's why we stuck with offering a morning session and then an afternoon session as well. No, this is a good thing to do for us obviously because it will educate the public on what could happen depending on what the legislature decides because there's been a big push in Tallahassee for that. So, it's important for our residents to know that this is not going to be a tax break that it's going to be a shift to somewhere else. So, it's important to educate them on that. So, I look forward to those workshops.

You might have a better idea idea by [clears throat] those dates also what's going to possibly flow out of Tallahassee. are consolidating down to just a couple of those items right now, it seems like. So, yeah. And I will say we had we we had a a city Indian River County city manager uh get together this week and and all of us are are kind of on the same page and and we're going to continue to meet and work so that you know our message is is similar across the county. U amongst the municipalities, it was the city managers that met and uh ensuring that we're all kind of in alignment with that. All right. Um, thank you so much for that. You have anything else?

I do. So, the other item that I have for you all tonight is um, as you all are aware, there have been some discussions um, amongst future developers in regards to community development districts, so CDDs. Um, and that's a little bit of an unknown. We we do not have currently have any within the city. The county, if I I believe I'm correct, that they currently do have one that is approved, but it has not yet been built. uh Liberty Park. Um and so one of the things that that we've discussed and and we've been approached to to kind of offer this as well is to do a CDD workshop. It would be um an opportunity the public can come, but then also an opportunity for you all to sit to be here, sit on the dice. We could, you know, do it as a special car, we could do it as a workshop, however you all want to do it. But you can ask a lot of the questions because I've spoken with each of you about CDDs in the past and a lot of questions pop off. So, in that presentation or presentation of of kind of what CDDs are and and the involvement would involve a CDD attorney um and it would be from a firm that represents a lot of CDDs across the state. Um and then also kind of a general manager or an overseer of a CDD o overseer of a board within a CDD. So, you would get kind of those elements of it and be able to ask them a lot of the questions. Obviously, Mr. Mr. Stokes and I have had some discussions um on this and I know he's he's started doing some research on um an ordinance that we potentially will be bringing back to you all on CDDs. Um but I think it would give us a good opportunity to get answers from people that know that deal with it on a daily basis and are heavily involved in CDDs. So is that something from a consensus that you all would be interested in? We would be looking at the February time frame. Um would be my guess on that and and kind of looking at that.

Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I I would be interested in that, but I'd kind of like if it's possible to see a potential draft of whatever kind of ordinance that the attorney comes up with that might drive some of the questions and comments that come about just I mean just as as a just as a reference point. I I know the problem with the legalities of it. we have to do first reading, second reading, but I'm I'm assuming we could probably review a draft of that even before we get to the first reading without it being any problem. Maybe

that's that's fine on my side. In fact, you know, I've got a lot of it done already. Um, and I've dealt with CDDs a lot in other places. There are definitely some positives and some negatives and uh and I can go ahead and set some of those out to generate some questions and Okay. everything. Absolutely. No problem. Yeah. I mean, it is something we're gonna have to deal with. And I can remember watching the the meetings when the county commission dealt with Liberty Park. They they had an awful lot of things that flowed through the process there when they did that. So, I can I think it's it's a good idea.

Okay. So, we'll we'll work on that. Um, obviously, Mr. Stokes has has already started and uh he shared some of those those ideas and thoughts with me today. So, we will work on getting a workshop set up. We'll contact the entities that need to be involved in regards to an attorney and a and an overseer of a CDD um to see what availability they have and then we'll get something scheduled. All right. Anything else? That is all that I have for tonight. Are you looking at He had a puzzled look. Are you sure that's all? That's it. That's okay. I I hope so. [laughter] Okay, Madame Clerk. I do have I do have something. Woo.

I just wanted to mention that we started our uh charter review committee meetings and we had the second meeting last night and this is a committee that only meets, you know, every five years. So, um we've got a great group and I'm looking forward to hearing the ideas that they come up with and our next meeting's next Monday. So, if you can listen in, that's all I have. Absolutely. Thank you so much for that. Um, Mr. Dodd,

well, I just want to wish our mayor a happy birthday. Uh, you know, and ask the ladies in the audience just where they plan on taking him for dinner. [laughter] Uh, you know, and and you know, get him a good good one. And and Jack Black will be there, so he'll be okay. [laughter] All right. Thank you so much, Mr. D. I appreciate that. Um, Miss Matthews.

Well, [clears throat] it's hard to top that one. I just want to do um my shout outs to the the youth of this community. Um Aaliyah Hillard, who is Sebastian River High School, her she placed um in [clears throat] or was chosen in the uh 2026 um music FEMA um all state uh chorus and she's getting ready to go statewide. There was 12,000 students that participated in this and out of the 12,600 were chosen and she was one of them and congratulations to her. Also, Lady Sharks basketball, I told you they were going to finish strong and they did and they're hosting their uh first game of districts uh the February 4th and girls weightlifting were the district winners. They were runner up in the Olympic and a co- champions in traditional and they head off to regionals tomorrow. Um I'm telling you, we've got SEM Olympians in the making here. We got some good people here. Um, another thing is the uh they did chose the uh validictorian and the saliaan. Uh Sarah Van, and I apologize if I'm really slaughtering this last name, Vanzidum is the validictorian and Julius Lewis is the Saliatorian. And I actually met him today at lunch. And what a amazing amazing young kid. We'll see him again. That's it.

All right. Uh thank you so much. And I have nothing, Mr. McPartland, I'll let you have the time. Enjoy your birthday. Thank you, sir. Uh, Mr. Nun, happy birthday. And, uh, thank you. All right. Thank you. Um, this meeting is adjourned.