City Council - Regular Meeting

All right, good evening, ladies and gentlemen. We're going to go ahead and call this regular city council meeting to order. We'll please stand for the invocation provided by Pastor Jerry Mildner and then remain for the Pledge of Allegiance led by Councilmember Nunn.

Well, good evening. I am Pastor Jerry Mildner from Roseland Church. You may know us from Roseland Christian Preschool. maybe the thrift store, or maybe the ecumenical food pantry. But it is a privilege to be here tonight. Would you bow your heads and, more importantly, your hearts? Heavenly Father, as we gather together, remind us that each of us is created in your image, that each of us is of sacred worth. We all have our own thoughts. We all have our own emotions, things that we're passionate about and invested in. Remind us as we share all of that with one another tonight that each one is of equal value, equal worth. Father, help those who are going to speak do so clearly and help all of us to listen, to understand. Suspending judgment just long enough to get the facts so maybe even our own opinions can be shaped by truth. Father, I ask your blessing upon all in this hall tonight. Bless them as individuals. Bless their families. Bless this body and this community. In Jesus' name, and all God's kids said, amen.

All right. Thank you all so much for that. Madam Clerk, roll call.

Mayor Jones.

Here.

Vice Mayor McPartland.

Here.

Council Member Nunn.

Here.

Council Member Matthews. Present. Council Member Dodd.

Here. All right. Before us, there are a couple of agenda modifications. One is as changing item 6a to the employee award and B will have it as the brief announcements on item 10 Item 10 B will at the NRB presentation there unless there is any other modifications and like to make yes, sir Mr. Mayor in addition to those two I did have a request from the legal representative for item 11 B and

which is first reading of ordinance O2620. He requested if he could be placed as 11A due to having to travel back to Lakeland. So that is up for consideration for council, if you please.

All right, thank you. Any suggestions on that, anyone? Are we good with that? We're going to move it? That's fine. Okay, are there any other modifications? Hearing none, we'll adopt. All right, our next item is proclamations and awards. Employee award. We have a very special award tonight to one of our employees. And I would like for Mr. Doug Turner to please come forward. We thank you for a lot, but we're gonna read something here for you Okay, and then after we get done the counselor and I will come down and we will hand you something And we would take a photograph with you. All right So it is my privilege to recognize an employee who is who his ingenuity? craftsmanship and commitment to the city of Sebastian have produced an extraordinary result for our city and Today we honor Doug Turner for his exceptional work in redesigning and reconstructing 14 catch basin lids originally developed and installed by GDC. When these structures required replacement, the estimated cost was approximately $14,000 per lid, a total projected expense of more than $190,000. Rather than accepting that substantial cost, Mr. Turner applied his technical expertise, practical problem solving skills, and dedication to responsible stewardship of public resources to develop an innovative alternative. Through his repair and fabrication method, all 14 Cache Basin lids were successfully restored for approximately $11,000 in total. This solution preserved the functionality and integrity of these critical structures while saving the city an estimated $180,000. This accomplishment is about much more than the financial savings. It reflects the very best of public service, identifying a challenge, taking initiative, applying skill and creativity, and delivering a solution that benefits our residents. Mr. Turner's work demonstrates that innovation can happen every day in local government, often through the dedication of employees who know their work, care deeply about their community, and look for better ways to serve. On behalf of the entire City Council and the residents of Sebastian, I extend our sincere appreciation to Doug Turner, Thank you for your outstanding contributions, your exceptional craftsmanship, and your steadfast commitment to excellence. Please join me in congratulating and recognizing Douglas Turner for a job exceptionally well done. Thank you. Tess, Tess, Tess, is it on? We're up, up, up.

I'd like to thank you for your recognition tonight for my individuality. Also, I'm humble enough to know that I don't do this job by myself. I work with a great group of individuals that makes coming to work a pleasure. That group of individuals do good things for the city every day under adverse conditions or not. That's what I like to say.

Thank you, sir, again. Thank you. Do we have any announcements, Mr. Nunn?

Yes, sir. Just one. Monday, September 7th, City Hall will be closed for Labor Day. That's it.

All right. Thank you so much for that. Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to go ahead and recess the city council meeting, and we're now going to convene the community redevelopment agency. Our item here is item 7A, consider approval for the July, obviously, the 22nd community redevelopment minutes.

Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion to approve. Second.

So we have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? All right. Madam Clerk.

Chairman Jones?

Yes.

Vice Chair McPartland?

Yes.

Mr. Nunn?

Yes.

Ms. Matthews? Yes. Mr. Dodd?

Yes.

Motion carries.

All right. Item 7B, consideration of the B&Z Driving Services DBA. Who do we have? Ms. Graham? For the boat ramp dredging?

Thank you, sir. So yes, um, we're here for ITB 26 dash 17, which was the main street boat ramp dredging and swing and bench shoreline restoration. So procurement division issued a bid back on June 4th, 2026. We did receive eight bids, although four of the bidders were marked non, uh, non-responsive and that they did not follow, several of the requirements that were listed in the bid. So if they don't follow bid requirements, they get marked non-responsive. So the lowest bidder after the evaluation was BNZ Diving Services and they do business as BNZ Construction. And because their price was so low, I did reach out to the company and I had several follow-up questions and I did check their references. And we also met with the engineer of record just to confirm that the price that we were getting that it was a valid price, that someone would be able to do the project for this amount. So after our different conversations and evaluation, we made the choice to award to BNZ Construction, which is the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. And I do want to point out that these projects are funded by a fine grant. They are two projects that have been combined into one because they are right next to each other. So it was easier for us to have both projects combined, have one vendor complete both of these projects, and then we can save money instead of having two companies come and mobilize to complete projects that are right next to each other. So I do want to point out that we may have to come back for a change order, because when the engineer of record did evaluations of the dock, they noticed that some of it might be damaged. but we don't know the full extent until after the dredging is completed. And I believe Mr. Benton wants to jump in.

Yeah, I just want to clarify one thing. It was the dock and the boat ramp. We have some concerns with the bottom of the ramp with some cracking. So both of those items, we just want to be clear and upfront. We always try to do this, that we don't want to have any change orders, but this is one that until we get the full scope of everything, once they start a construction, there may be some items in regards to that that we need to repair.

but it will still be under the budget that we have for the project. So even with these additional repairs, it will still be under the total budget for these projects. So I'm asking council to approve the award to, I'm sorry, not council. I'm asking the CRA board to approve to forward the award. There we go. I'm asking the CRA board to forward the award to city council for consideration.

All right, thank you so much for that, Ms. Graham. Anybody else from staff have anything? Nothing? Council, any questions?

Oh, sorry.

I did have one question for City Manager, I think, on this one, unless it's for the Parks and Rec Director. I see that it's also the swing and bench shoreline stabilization. So this is going to do everything on that waterfront area that we need to continue forth with that project for the park there.

I want to be clear when I say everything. So it will only include everything in regards to shoreline stabilization. It will not complete the, um, swing and bench park elements. The concrete, the swings, the benches, those elements. But everything in regards to the shoreline stabilization will be completed in this project. And that whole wall structure behind the bathroom wall be fixed and all of that as part of this?

Yes, they are. Okay. All right. Mr. McPartland? Yes, I'd like to move approval. I'll second. Item 7B. Yeah, and I'll second that.

All right. So we have a motion and a second.

Before we go on, can I ask a follow-up question on what Council Member Nunn said? Uh, in the, the shoreline stabilization for the bench and swinging bench park, we're looking at $136,000 in this expenditure. There's 311,000 remaining on that. Are we saying that we anticipate not spending into that $311,000 on that stabilization effort?

So our clarify the remaining amount, we, we do anticipate having additional expenditures to complete the park element, but in regards to shoreline stabilization, This was the bid that was provided.

That's what I want. So this $311,000, the difference between 136 and 311 would give us funds to complete the park development? Yes, sir. Okay. And on the dock development... We're looking at remaining 487 and 150, so we're looking at about $300,000 that may be chewed up in change orders once they determine what the damage is to the dock.

Yeah, I mean, I'm very hopeful that that's not an accurate number. I can't say that until we really know. We do know that there is cracking at the bottom of the boat ramp. We do know that that slab structure has cracked until they can completely do all the dredging and everything required in that because a lot of it is covered by sand right now. So with the dredging, they'll be able to fully assess that. So we do anticipate some repairs having to be done in that area.

Okay. The first item was more important to me, just to make sure that there's still funds in there for the park development once the shoreline, the park area is stabilized then. So we're okay with that. Okay, good. Thank you, sir.

Thank you so much. Do we have the motion and a second? Is there any other discussion? Hearing none. Madam Clerk? Public input. Oh, sorry. Public input on this? You were good? Okay. Anyone on Zoom?

There is no one on Zoom.

All right. Public input is closed. All right. Madam Clerk?

Vice Chair McPartland?

Yes.

Mr. Nunn?

Yes.

Ms. Matthews? Yes. Mr. Dodd?

Yes.

Chairman Jones?

Yes.

Motion carries.

All right, thank you so much for that. We're going to recess the Community Redevelopment Agency and reconvene the City Council meeting at this time. And at this point on the agenda, we're on the public input, and this is a portion of our meeting where the public gets to speak on anything that's not on the current agenda that you would like for us to hear. Is anyone on public input? Yes, sir, you may come forward. All right.

Charles Wright, 801 Williamson Avenue. I have nothing planned. I hope you give me some indulgence on the time. I know I have a three-minute timer. I'm a resident here. I have a passion for flying. I moved here, actually, because I was able to get a hangar, which is difficult to do, and I purchased a house here in Sebastian. Sebastian is a lovely town. Lovely community with the airport is like the heart of the city. It's a great place. And I'm actually representing several other residents. We've been going through this process. I think you remember a year or so ago I came here and say we were trying to address a situation with some hangers that were becoming available from a big firm, Shelter. And so we were trying to go through that route. The thing I'd like to stress with you is that we, myself, and the other people that I'm representing, we have a passion for flying like a lot of other people here have a passion for boating, for playing pickleball, for golf, all these other passions. I'm coming to you guys because I've gone through the route of talking to the airport manager. I've gone through the route of talking to the city manager. I've gone through the route of talking to the new people that are running the airport. And now I need to address the council members, because you are the people that make the decisions that need to be made where the airport is going. Currently, it's absolutely impossible to construct a hangar for an airplane at the Sebastian Airport. The limitations that the city manager and the former airport manager had made it absolutely impossible for a resident or a general aviation person to build basically a garage for his airplane. It's just ridiculous. You have a setup set up for commercial entities, but not for general aviation. And our airport is a general aviation airport. We're nestled between Melbourne and Vero Beach, which are commercial entities. But here, a lot of people, and we had like 40 residents that have airplanes that are getting pushed out because Shelter has decided to sell these hangars. And the city was absolutely against, or I shouldn't say the city, the airport manager and the city manager were absolutely against us acquiring the hangars and becoming, you know, tenants of the airport. And this is a totally unprepared talk. But what I would like to do is find out the mechanism in which we can present, the residents present to you the problems that we have with the airport and its residential use. Because it's not a commercial airport, it's something that's basically for, and a lot of people move here because it's not West Palm Beach, we don't have that. Will you give me a couple seconds? Mr. Mayor?

Mr. Mayor, is it possible, if we agree, can we give him a little bit of latitude on time? It's not a normal subject. I would be okay with that if everybody else would.

That's a motion. I'll second it.

Okay.

Thank you. All right. So it sounds like we have a consensus. You may proceed. All right. Thank you so much.

I mean, I would love. Not forever. What? I'm sorry. Not forever, okay. No, not forever. No, just a couple minutes more. I mean, basically, because what I'm trying to do is I'm trying to find the mechanism in which we could come in front of you, much like the launch ramp, you know, for the renovation of the launch ramp. So we could come in front of you and say, as aviators, you know, what are the problems with the airport and what we could do to help fix it and actually make the airport prosper and become more of a community situation as opposed to, you know, this fenced-in area that planes take off and land and stuff like that. Because, you know, I could present to you situations that happened in other airports that I've been, you know, familiar with and worked with, that these small airports can be a great asset to the community. I mean, we can have, you know, all kinds of things happen there that would draw the city residents in, and they would have a great time, and we just need to be able to open that up for those aspects. But the most important thing is to be able to address the current needs, which is make it available so that city residents or area people can build hangars so that they can keep the airplanes here because we're getting pushed out, and the only people that are moving in are the people that can pay for it, and they're coming up from the south, which that's just what's happened because there is no ability for a private person to build a hangar at the Sebastian Airport. Thank you.

All right, thank you so much for your time, sir. Thank you. We appreciate it. We hear you. Is there anyone else? Yes, sir.

Yes, thank you, Mayor Jones. Richard Gilmore, Sebastian. It sounds like a workshop might be something that would work there.

Tis the season, huh? Pardon me? Tis the season now, right?

Yeah, tis the season.

Okay. Okay.

The reason I'm speaking tonight is praise for a portion of the golf course. The greens are excellent. And a few years ago, we can't say that. We couldn't say that a couple years ago. But they're doing an excellent job of getting the greens in shape. They're better than sand ridge right now. So anyway, kudos to the folks that are doing that. However, number seven. uh... is about that high on the uh... the rough and if you hit a ball over there forget about it the uh... agreement that we have with uh... international golf maintenance says that they're supposed to cut the grass every week it's been two weeks on number seven over there on the rough and it's still thigh high so uh... The other question that I guess I could just throw out to you, Mayor Jones, is do you know when this contract comes due? It comes due in October, but I'm not sure which year, whether they have a one-year, two-year, three-year, five-year extension. Right. Not sure. But there are some certain things on here that are not being done that, for instance, the agreement says that the bunker sand must be maintained. And the contractor will be expected to provide a minimum of 144 tons, 6 to 24 truckloads of bunker sand per year. And I'm not sure that that's being done. So you might check into that. Thank you, sir.

All right. Thank you so much, sir. Is there anyone else? Anyone with their hand raised on Zoom?

No hands have been raised.

All right. Thank you. Public input is closed. We'll move on to Item 9, Consent Agenda. Council, how would we like to proceed? I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda as listed.

I'll second it.

So we have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none, Madam Clerk.

Mayor Jones?

Yes.

Vice Mayor McPartland?

Yes.

Council Member Nunn?

Yes.

Council Member Matthews? Yes. Council Member Dodd?

Yes.

Motion carries.

All right. Thank you so much. Our next item is item 10. Reports we have item 10 a considered a reappointment of Paul Reeves to the police retirement Board of Trustees We just go your presentation Second we have a motion and a second any discussion Madam clerk Vice mayor McPartland.

Yes Councilmember none. Yes councilmember Matthews. Yes Councilmember Dodd.

Yes

Mayor Jones?

Yes.

Motion carries.

All right, thank you. Our next item is we're going to have a presentation by the NRB Board representative.

Good evening, members, public, and staff, all of you involved. For the record, my name is Frank Trinkle, a sitting member of the Natural Resources Board here in Sebastian, and I'm here tonight in an advisory capacity. present Resolution NRB 202601 and the Board's unanimous recommendation from the NRB for a temporary emergency winter fertilizer blackout from November 1, 2026 through February 28, 2027. This action is specifically designed to protect the Indian River Lagoon and our local waterways from the nutrient runoff expected during what forecasts now classify as a historic to uncharted El Nino event this winter. The Natural Resources Board voted unanimously on August the 4th to bring these recommendations forward so the City of Sebastian can act proactively rather than reactively while we still have time.

You might have to turn it on.

She didn't tell me how to do that. Bingo. Thanks. Here's the latest science as you see on this chart that backs up this resolution. Every single monthly and weekly climate model and forecast issued since February from NOAA, from the National Weather Service, the highly accurate European models, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, and multi-model ensembles has moved in only one direction, every month higher intensity expected. The August 1st forecast from Europe's leading climate model now shows every ensemble member projecting a historic and uncharted El Nino by this winter. The current average of all those runs is 4.11 degrees Celsius. That's 7.5 degrees Fahrenheit. That number means the surface water in the heart of the Pacific is forecast to be that much warmer than its long-term normal temperature. That extra heat in the ocean is the engine that drives the entire El Nino pattern, including the stronger jet stream and the heavy winter rainfall we get here in Florida. This event carries a real and highly likely reality of challenging the all-time historical record that was set in 1877. In short, there is no longer simply a strong or even a super El Nino. The world's best models are telling us that what we're looking at is something in uncharted territory, virtually a hyper El Nino.

What this means exactly?

We already know what strong El Nino winters do to Indian River County. In 1997-98 and again in 2015-16, we received roughly double our normal winter rainfall, 19.88 inches and 21 inches against a baseline of just 10 inches. Those winters brought repeated flooding on major roads, saturated soils, extensive beach erosion, and millions of dollars in agriculture and property losses. A historic or uncharted event is expected to push rainfall totals even higher, very likely into critical record levels. Why a winter fertilizer blackout? That's a good question. The critical difference in winter is that the St. Augustine and Bahia lawns that we have go biologically dormant. They can't absorb nitrogen or phosphorus, and when we combine dormant turf with heavy, repeated rainfalls, and many repeated rainfalls these events produce, residential lawns begin to behave like pavement. The runoff coefficient jumps from about 0.15 to nearly 1.0. Our nutrient separation baffle boxes are pushed to their hydraulic bypasses, and untreated nutrients flow straight into the lagoon, the Sebastian River, and our canal systems. That is exactly the loading that triggers algae blooms, reduces or completely eliminates light to seagrass, lowers salinity in the sensitive estuary, raises the risk of winter stress and starvation for the manatees that shelter in our waters as well as fish populations and oyster beds, and could set us back potentially years of our ardent lagoon cleanup and restoration. The Natural Resources Board unanimously recommends that City Council adopt a temporary emergency winter fertilizer blackout from November 1st, 2026 through February 28th, 2027, exactly like we have in our summers. This is a zero-cost best management practice. Enforcement would be with education first, consistent with our existing summer blackout, and would include reasonable exemptions for agriculture, golf courses, and soil-tested documented needs. We further ask the council to formally transmit this resolution to the Indian River County Commission and work directly with our District 1 and District 2 commissioners so the same emergency standard can be considered countywide, protecting the entire Sebastian River and the Central Indian River Lagoon watershed. The resolution also outlines concurrent mitigation steps for September and October, preventive cleaning of swales and baffle boxes, voluntary commercial reductions, mulching, and similar ground protection guidance. We also strongly propose a 60-day public education campaign under the simple message, dormant grass can't drink, protect your yard and the lagoon this winter. This education of the public does not require city council approval, but the basic outline in both English and Spanish is included in the executive packet folders that you were given this evening. The science has only grown stronger since we first brought this to the board in July, to the Natural Resources Board, and the window to act before the heaviest rainfall months is still open, but it is closing. On behalf of the Natural Resources Board, I respectfully ask City Council to adopt this proactive measure with a sense of urgency so that we can begin widespread public information and education protecting both our waterways and our own properties. The Natural Resources Board thanks you for your consideration in light of what is heading our way, and I am here to answer any questions you may have.

All right, thank you so much for that, sir. I appreciate the presentation. I'm pretty sure all of us appreciated the presentation, and we want to thank you for your time. Thank you for taking your time. Yes, sir. All right, on the agenda modification, we're going to now go to... Mr. Mayor, are we going to talk about this a little bit before we go forward? Okay, absolutely. Is that possible? Yeah, sure, if you'd like to discuss it.

Yeah, I... I keep seeing this in the national news and everywhere, and I think it might be appropriate for us to ask the city manager to reach out to the county and state partners. I don't know that we need to unilaterally do anything at this point in time, but I think it would be appropriate to ask if he can coordinate with the county and our state partners and try to determine whether there's some action being taken by them or whether it warrants something that we do. I know what he said was that the education campaign doesn't require council approval, but it does if we're going to spend money on it. So it might be also appropriate for the city manager to think about talking to our public information office about the potential, what the cost might be to put together some type of an educational campaign on this.

Yeah, I think I don't have any issue with adding a PSA or something on our Facebook page or anything like that to advertise. Obviously, to let the citizens know there may be many out there who do not understand about fertilizing during certain periods and what that creates into our waterways and all of that. So, yes, absolutely, some educational piece on that. We could actually have them take a look at that.

and and also i think the people are always complain about how much work we're going on the ditches right now and how they don't look good to be very happy apparently in uh... january february march when the water runs off instead of flying the street so right uh... yes service so uh... i mean city manager myself week weekend

definitely reach out and see what's going on with the county and state levels. We do have a fertilizer ordinance that's been in effect for years. That is based upon the model ordinance that the state requires for certain areas, and we qualify as that area. The statute requiring it does say that we could be more stringent, which in this case we would be being more stringent, but it has a lot of prerequisites before you do that. You have to do a study. You have to reach out to the Department of Environmental Protection. the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agriculture Services, and so on. And so we would, there would be a lot of homework to be done. And so unofficially, we can start looking at that and seeing kind of like, I'm not looking at going, not to carry the water ourselves, but yeah, but I'm not looking at going deeper.

I mean, I'm talking about putting advertisements out there and stuff like that. And I think that's what Mr. Dodd is speaking on too.

Well, I mean, I don't know if it's inappropriate to do an extension to the fertilizer ban, but it also does require work with the state to do that. They may be in the process of looking at that. I don't know the answer to that. I know El Nino has been getting a lot of public dissemination about the severity of it and all the heat waves, and they're talking about the impact it's going to have on fires and on floods. So it would surprise me if there's not somebody in Tallahassee that works for the state that's also thinking about this, and maybe we can find out what they may be thinking and whether there's something that can be done for that. I just don't think Sebastian should try to tackle Super El Nino on its own. We need to do that with partners at a higher level than us.

I think we can reach out to the county and state and just see what's on their radar screen, so to speak, and report back to you.

I don't disagree that at a minimum I think a public education thing on our channels probably would be a good idea. There should be a very small cost associated with that. We can always encourage people to do things without making it ordinance, especially when the state gets involved and you have to go through all their hoops to get it, but at a minimum, I think we could definitely encourage it through a public education campaign. So I would be interested to hear about that as well.

Sounds like we have a consensus for public education piece. Yeah.

I would say it shows the importance of our citizen involvement in our boards that we have and the great work that they can do. Yes, sir.

Thank you. Yes, sir. What was the order that you were? looking at going to the county and state level first to see what they're doing and then the education?

I mean, on my end, that would definitely be something that would be in my wheelhouse if any public education piece is going to cut into the city budget. So that might be up to the manager to deal with.

Sorry, we're sharing a mic down here because one doesn't work. We can easily do some PSA, some public education, do some videos and such. We can start preparing to have those sent out. Basically, it's not going to represent a ban on fertilization. The PSA, from my direction, from you all, if I'm correct, is just to inform the public on the effects of fertilization and recommendations as we go into a potential or El Nino situation as we go forward. Is that correct? And encouragement. Encouragement.

Well, I think that the steps should be, well, let's see where we are, if the county, the state, where they are first, and then depending on the answers to that, then starting the educational process. But I'd hate for it to be in the other order because then we don't know what's out there yet is, I guess, my point to that.

I think the signal on education would be the Natural Resources Board, that the city can support doing the educational work. They don't have to do it on their own. That would be kind of the signal. I watched the meeting in which they discussed this, and I think some of them felt like, well, if this doesn't get through the council, they need to do education. In reality, the city needs to do education on this, I think. So I think that's kind of a message for them, maybe something that can be taken back at their next meeting and talk about what type of education and how we can flow through that.

All right, absolutely. So now we can move on. Are there any more discussions on that? I think staff has direction on that. We're going to go ahead and move on to Item 11B, and this is... Item 11B, Ordinance 0-26-20, amending Chapter 10 of the Alcoholic Beverage Section.

So this is ordinance 26-20, an ordinance of the city of Sebastian, Florida, amending code of ordinances chapter 10, alcoholic beverage section 10.1, sales of liquor near churches and schools prohibited, adding new language in reference to off-site consumption of beer and wine, providing for several billion repeal of laws in conflict herewith, providing for codification, providing for scrivener's errors, and providing for an effective date.

All right. Thank you so much for that. Ms. Bernard?

Good evening. In May of this year, we received an application for a textual amendment to the Code of Ordinances in regards to alcohol and distances from churches and schools. So the request has come in, and what they're requesting is that it will be at a convenience store for off-site consumption. So it would allow for a convenience store to be within a 400-foot radius of a church or school to sell beer and wine. So a convenience store to do that. And you'll see the actual language that they're asking for is the sale of beer and wine for off-premise consumption by a convenience store with the appropriate state license. And this has gone before the Planning and Zoning Commission, and it was recommended for approval on July 16th, and now has been forwarded to you all. With that, the applicant is also here and happy to answer any questions, as well as staff.

All right. Thank you so much for that. Do they want to speak now, or do I want to open up public input? Do you want to say something?

Okay, you can. Good evening. For purposes of your record, my name is Tim Campbell, law firm of Clark Campbell in Lakeland. We came before the city council a year or so ago for this property that I represent, the corner of Schumann Drive and US 1. And what we did then was we actually did a little swap with the city that made each of the parcels better. So we've been out there since then. We're not a new owner. We've been out there a while. As we move forward, And this request is to amend your code, so it's not site-specific. It's citywide. But I was just explaining where we were. As we went through, we have a major convenience store, national convenience store operator who chose this site as an ideal community convenience store site. And we discovered during the process that you have the prohibition for the sale of beer and wine within 450 feet of a school or church. We first did our research to look at the county here, and the cities around the city of Sebastian. We also are doing this for the same developer in a lot of places within the state. And so we found that most cities and counties have done away with the prohibition. And almost all the others have an exemption for convenience stores just because there are a lot of them. And that's one of the things that they sell. It's not the majority of what they sell, but they sell beer and wine. From that, we proposed the language from all of these different provisions that we saw to try to kind of track those, and it would be just to exempt convenience stores with an appropriate state license. They have the beer and wine license to sell beer and wine within that distance. And so we respectfully request that you approve our request for the text amendment, and I stand available for any questions that you may have.

All right. Thank you so much for that, sir. Now we're open to public input. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this item? Anyone with their hand raised?

No one has raised their hand.

All right. Thank you so much. Public input is closed. Staff, you have any finals?

Nothing additional to add.

All right. We're going to go ahead and close the hearing for deliberations by counsel. Let's talk.

If I could, Mr. Mayor. I understand the point. I understand the property and what we're talking about. Did this go from being an exception to being... a rule at staff's suggestion? Like we could have given a waiver for a specific site if it was a specific site we were talking about. We could have had a discussion and gave a waiver to that for that specific location. How did it go from being an exception to being a rule? In other words, changing it so that it's allowed everywhere without further discussion?

So when we sat down with the applicant, they asked us, you know, they said this is a concern for us or for their client. And we said, okay, well, these are the options before you. And so this is, then an application was made to us.

Okay. I mean, I do understand the point of the specific location, and I know exactly where it is and why. I just, I guess I'm trying to understand exactly why we're creating a new ordinance instead of an exception to a requirement on a piece of properties. Is that not something we could have done?

I would have had problems with it and we did speak about this because we're getting dangerously close to this being a use variance, which you can't give variances for uses. And if we say that this property is not capable of being used for alcohol sales because of its proximity, then then giving a variance so that they can use it for something they're not allowed to use it for you know is somewhat problematic i mean it's it does fall somewhat in a gray area but it was enough of a concern of mine that when we talked about it um and we saw that this it probably wasn't the original intent of of the distance requirements kind of like council said um it's more a matter of on-site consumption not package store kind of situations we thought that a change in code would be a better route, a safer route for the city to take than what might amount to a use variance.

Okay. Well, that's why we have you. All right. Thank you. You've answered my question. Thank you.

And Mr. Dodd. Yeah, I got two questions. Actually, it's got nothing to do with that, but I have two questions. Item one, where we're changing that to licensed premises rather than restaurants, and then there's two conditions on that, 51% of the gross revenue. I'm kind of concerned about B. It does not contain a freestanding bar. It's not unusual today to have a restaurant have a small bar in there. And I'm not sure why we have that restriction in there, whether there's a need to even have that item B reference in the ordinance. While we're changing it, it might make reasonable sense for us to think about that as something that doesn't need to be done. And the second part of this is I'm I'm kind of a walk when it comes to definitions. Does convenience store have a specific meaning? And maybe by calling it a convenience store, are we limiting some other business venture that might fit within this? I don't know. That's an attorney issue, maybe, to think about that. Because we're saying basically buy a convenience store. Does that create parenthesis-type meaning?

I'm not necessarily sure that that would be a term of art that would have a definite meaning. And we might be getting into a problem with, OK, 7-Eleven might clearly be a convenience store, but Publix may not be. And they sell off-site packaged liquor as well. So that could be an issue. I don't know, Counselor, if you have some thoughts on the term convenience store.

Well, I know the applicant's asking for a convenience store. That's because they want to open a convenience store. But I'm saying from the city's perspective, when we put the language together, are we potentially creating a down-the-line bottleneck by using that terminology? That's my question, and that's something that you can...

I would say if council's amenable to the change but wants to just any off-site where the alcohol is packaged to consume off-site, We might go with off-site package liquor or something like that.

We might have an opportunity between first and second reading to clean that up if it's something that could potentially create a problem down the line with that. I just don't understand why item B under 1 is their freestanding bar. I don't think I've been in a restaurant in a while that doesn't have a bar that's usually people sit at the bar and eat, so it's more like for the tables for the restaurant, so I don't know whether that fits. And then also the convenience store issue. Those are my two points.

All right. Thank you so much for that, sir. Anyone else? All right.

Are we going to have a motion? Could I, to your point, Councilman, if looking at the way this is worded, if whoever makes the motion, if it's a motion to approve, if you could just... amended as taking out the word convenience, because it already says off-premise consumption, and then just say buy a store rather than convenience store. Or just say store.

Or just with the appropriate license. Yeah. Because whatever is going to have the appropriate license, just take out the buy the convenience store and just have it read off-premise consumption with the appropriate license. Because it's going to cover anything that has a license, correct?

Yep. It's still going to have to be licensed as an alcohol sale.

I'll make a motion, Mr. Mayor.

Before you do that, I mean, a package store which just sells liquor would be included in the word store. It would not be included in the word convenience store.

True, and that's why it's up to calendar. I mean, if you're looking at like a pure liquor standalone liquor store.

What's the difference between a package store and a convenience store? A package store is a store that only sells liquor and beer and wine and stuff, where a convenience store sells gas and chips and food and milk, and they do sell beer and wine as well, but they don't sell hard liquor.

Okay, but if we take, if we just read it to where the sell of beer or wine for off-premise consumption with the appropriate state license, that includes anything at that point.

Yep.

You're not limiting yourself to just a store. It could be a bar. It could be a restaurant. It could be anything that has the appropriate licensing. Adding the word store, you're putting yourself back in a box.

Well, the sale of beer or wine in item two would limit someone who is opening a package store that sells bottled spirits and beer and wine from this condition applying to them. But bottled spirits would not. We're specifically saying sale of beer or wine in this. So Joe Blow, who wants to sell vodka and gin and scotch, is not going to be able to do that. Only beer and wine. This is just for beer and wine.

With ABT, that's a different license number anyway.

This is being very specific not to allow distilled liquors and It does that in this.

Item 2 actually does that.

So say what you were wanting to get into.

No, so I think I'm fine now reading a little more deeper into it and understanding it all goes together. It's not stand-alone sentences here. The sale of beer and wine is what would be approved by this. The spirited liquors, alcoholic beverages, are not going to be approved. from the perception of anything that's not beer or wine. Correct. So I'm good with that then.

OK. Now you ready?

Now I'll make a motion that we approve the first reading for, I've got to find it on here. OK. Ordinance 02620 with the following modifications. Item number 10-1-2, to be modified to read the sale of beer or wine for off-premises consumption by a store with the appropriate state license. And then, I don't know, item 10.1-B, consider striking that from the ordinance.

Agreed.

I agree, because a store would not have a freestanding bar. Yeah, a freestanding bar. I'll second that.

All right, so we have a motion and a second.

Is there any other discussion?

Do you need the reading date?

Oh, yeah, did you add that to your motion?

Oh, okay, with a second reading on, is it February? September 9th. September 9th? Yes. Yes. He amended his motion. Amended. Amended.

All right. Okay, so we have a motion and a second. No other discussion? Madam Clerk?

Council Member Matthews? Yes. Council Member Dodd?

Oh, I'm sorry. Yes.

Mayor Jones?

Yes.

Vice Mayor McPartland?

Yes.

And Council Member Nunn?

Yes.

Motion carries.

You caught me daydreaming down here. This is going to...

All right, now we're going to go to item 11B, which was item 11A.

This is a resolution of the City of Sebastian, Indian River County, Florida, approving the preliminary plat for a project known as Cross Creek Lakes Estate Phase 3, a 33-lot residential subdivision consisting of 19.44 acres located west of 70th Avenue, south of Barber Street and Yearling Trail, east of Shakespeare Street, north of 85th Street, providing for conflicts herewith, providing for Scrivener's Arrows,

Heirs and providing for an effective date All right Thank you so much for that Council any ex parte communication. No, no, no All right city clerk will actually we know we're not swearing in everybody anymore We're just the cards only right everyone has a card. All right All right applicant. It's your turn

good evening my name is wesley mills mill short associates i thank the mayor and the council members for allowing us to present our project tonight tonight's presentation is on cross creek lake estates phase three it's a preliminary plat request for a standard subdivision and i believe in the ordinance it was read as 33 lots but it's 38 lots so just wanted to clarify that The project team is a joint venture between Lexner Development and Cross Lake Reserve. My firm, Mills Short & Associates, was the civil engineer, land planner, and landscape architect for the project. The next slide is just a city-wide view of where the project's located. I think most are familiar with The project location, it's at the southwest corner of Cross Lake Estates phase one and phase two off Powerline Road. Zooming in on the project site, just want to make note of a couple things. So our project size is 19.4 acres. We are on the south side of the initial phase of Cross Creek Lake Estates. and we are on the west side of phase two of that subdivision. Just to the west of our project limits is River Oaks of Sebastian, which I think is early in the permitting process, and that's a PD project that's going under the review. We also butt the existing Shakespeare Street to the western boundary of our project. Next, I'd like to look at the compatibility of our project zoning future land use relative to the existing uses. So to the northern boundary of our site is Cross Creek Lake Estates. The properties there are zoned RS-10 with a future land use of residential very low density. the phase two of that subdivision which is currently being completed and going through the final platting process that also has an identical zoning and future land use as our site and then to the west of our site the existing neighborhood also has identical zoning and future land use of our property and then the sebastian river oaks project has the exact same future land use. It has a different zoning classification because of the process that is following through the city. Next, just want to talk about some project information. So again, the development area of the project is 19.4 acres. Our zoning we just went through is RS-10. We're proposing 38 single family lots. We anticipate a product type on each one of those lots to be around 2,100 square feet to 3,100 square feet of residents. And that will be a single story product type and a two story product type. The proposed lot size, generally speaking, is 80 feet wide by 130 feet deep. That gives you about 10,400 square feet as the smallest lot size that we have, which is over the 10,000 square foot minimum for the zoning classification. The setbacks are per RS-10 zoning. We're not asking to modify anything or any waivers. We'll follow the 25-foot front setback, the 10-foot side, and the 20-foot rear. Open space for the project, we're proposing 61% open space. We're required by zoning code to have 50%. And then we have landscape buffers that are around the perimeter of the entire project. We have a wet retention pond as our master stormwater system. We will handle all of our stormwater for this particular development and then route that out to Sebastian River Improvement District's canal that is along the southern boundary of our project. Next is a color rendering of what the subdivision would look like once developed. I'll start from the northern boundary of our project, which is the right side of the sheet. We have a main entrance that's on Yearling Trail, which is the existing roadway within Cross Creek Lake Estates. So as you come into our sub phase of the subdivision, you have our main entrance And then as the road meanders, we'll have guest parking, we'll have a mail kiosk. We plan on having a pedestrian trail system that meanders around the stormwater pond to act as a mini-feature for not only our subdivision, but also Phases 1 and Phases 2. Our portion of the subdivision, our phase, not going to be gated relative to phase one and phase two there will be fencing around the boundaries that don't abut the existing developments but we plan on working or or being a second or third phase of of cross creek lake estates we plan on so this is a standard subdivision as part of the city's code we have to have two access points so our main access is on yearling Our second access point is for emergency vehicles only. So what that is, is it will be a crushed stone roadway section with sod on top. So most people, when you look at it, you wouldn't even know that there's a road there, but there'll be signs that only emergency vehicles can access from Shakespeare into our site. And that's how emergency services would have a secondary entrance into our phase. And then as you go left on the sheet or towards the southern boundary of our project, we also have a T turnaround, and I'll talk a little bit more about that in the next slide, that T turnaround. If River Oaks, as part of their project, I think it's envisioned to extend Shakespeare to their northern entrance, it's not gonna be connected to the existing Shakespeare. Our project has, proposes no improvements to Shakespeare, no connections, but I bring that up in the sense that 20 years down the road or 10 years down the road, whenever that project actually gets developed, we did make a provision for that T turnaround to be turned into an access point for traffic to go south to County Road 512. Next, I wanted to go over in a little bit more detail the T turnaround and the future access point. And why I'd like to bring that up is one of the conditions, I believe it's condition five in the staff report for the hearing tonight, talks about the sequencing and timing of putting in a gate at that entrance. I made a mistake in that we didn't catch the condition early enough and the agenda package went out. But in looking at that, so there's two parts to condition five one is that we have to in our plans show that we can construct the gate there and we did do that we actually updated it in the plans that you have in front of you i believe it's on sheet c23 the second part of that condition is that we need to install that fence now and and we can't physically install that fence because we have the t turnaround so My client, the applicant, is fully prepared to install a gate. But what we're requesting, what we'd like to request tonight, is to modify that condition that that gate gets installed whenever Shakespeare gets extended. So I just kind of wanted to go over that. And I'm happy to answer any more questions as it relates.

Just to be clear. Shakespeare is going to terminate at its current bend where it joins the parallel street that it runs into. And then the gate is going to be just beyond that point. And so Shakespeare south from that is going to be, River Oaks is going to finish Shakespeare from 510 north, basically to your second exit. And are you saying that you're going to stabilize as part of this project Shakespeare from that point to the to the gate? Just kind of be clear on Shakespeare and how that's going to fit in there.

So we're not proposing any improvements to Shakespeare. The River Oaks project will construct as an asphalt road to basically our secondary entrance, which also aligns with one of the entrances that they have. Based on the plans that I've reviewed with River Oaks, they are proposing a crushed stone section to kind of bridge the gap between the existing asphalt road of Shakespeare and where they terminate their paved road. that has nothing to do with our project other than that we've provided a provision if that road ever gets built it would provide another access for cross lake estates to be able to exit the subdivision and go east but it's my understanding there is no intent for traffic to connect to the existing shakespeare correct okay that's all i want to make sure Next is just some renderings of the product type that we're proposing, very similar to the product type that would be built in phase two. What I have in front of you right now is a single-story, is the single-story product type and then with an option for two-story. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have of the project.

All right. Thank you, sir. We'll go on with staff for now and we'll come back to you when we need to, staff.

Yes, one second, Mr. Mayor.

Yes.

Good evening, Jim Mann, Community Development. And tonight before you, as Mr. Mills was proposing, we have a pulmonary plat application for Cross Creek Lake Estates Phase 3. The project applicant is Luxor Development, and the engineer of record is Mills Shorts and Associates. So the request for the application is a 38-lot single-family subdivision. The current zoning is the RS-10, so that's the minimum lot size of the 10,000 square foot requirement. The future land use currently is a very low density, maximum density up to three units per acre, and the acreage for the site is 19.44 acres. On the screen, you can see the location map as Mr. Mills I already had described it as the third phase of Cross Creek Lake Estates, and it is currently south of Yearling, west of 70th Avenue, and north of 85th Street. So some project information. So this is a total of 38 single-family lots. The density suggested is 2.03 units per acre. Our minimum requirement for open space is 50%, and what they're proposing is 61% for recreation and open space. Since this is a private subdivision, they are going to be providing a recreation in lieu of the public park requirement for our code, and that will be based on the fair market value of the surrounding properties and this property. And as I already said, the zoning for this property is the RS-10. So you'll have the typical setbacks with the 25-foot front, 10-foot sides, and the rear of 20 feet. And they provided the lot size, which meets our code requirement of the minimum 10,000 square feet. And also, if you look in some of the staff report, the staff analysis, some other matters that we have, you know, they're going to be providing a 25-foot right-of-way dedication along their western boundary. They are requesting an adjustment for the street lighting requirement for our subdivision code. So each individual lot, per their declaration of covenants, is required to provide a street light before they can get their certificate of completion for that individual lot. And as we suggested from planning and zoning, that they are going to be adding a secondary access design and construction that will be provided along the future Shakespeare Street that is south of the current Shakespeare Street along the south of Lighthouse Avenue. And as you can see, this is the layout of the subdivision. It has two cul-de-sacs with the main entrance off of Yearling Avenue. and then the secondary access will be along the future Shakespeare improvement. And for a point of clarification, I know this is not a part of this project, but I felt it necessary to provide some information to the public that Shakespeare Street will be improved by the next development that will be coming in directly to the west of this project. And I've kind of laid out in this slide that the northern portion highlighted in the purple, it will remain the same. It will be unchanged. So that portion of Shakespeare all the way down to Lighthouse Avenue will remain the one-way street and dead end to Lighthouse Avenue and take that westerly turn. Now, there will be a gate that is proposed at the south end of Shakespeare in a Lighthouse corner that will be only emergency access vehicles only. And south of there, in the red, you'll have a stabilized surface that will accommodate emergency access vehicles. And that will be terminated at the entrance, or the secondary entrance, of Cross Creek Lake Estates Phase 3. And then south of that, it is proposed that it will be a newly improved roadway, highlighted in the blue, all the way down to 85th Street, also known as County Road, State Road 510. The newly improved roadway system will meet all the, you know, the Green Book standard requirements and it will be approved, you know, by our city engineer and our public works director. But as I just want to clarify this, the Shakespeare Street extension, I know it's a little ambiguous in the text and the staff report and everything like that. It is not an extension at all and it will be a new extension. a newly improved street that will be provided by other developers in the future from River Oaks. And with that, staff recommends that City Council approve Resolution R-2630 for the preliminary plat for Cross Creek Lake Estates Phase 3 with the conditions listed in the staff report. And I believe the applicant wanted to open up a discussion about the condition, it would be letter E in the resolution and number 5 in the staff analysis on the timing for building the secondary access gate. And if you have any questions of me, I am here to answer them.

All right, thank you, sir. We can ask questions here, but previously we've decided to go ahead and listen to the other input, and then we come in after. You guys want to wait until then?

I have one question I'd really like to get answered. So I'm looking at the drawing you had up here, the preliminary plat, which is what they're recommending. The agreement was when we first started this property is that the emergency exit would probably line up with Memorial or Lighthouse Avenue because it would have to line up because if you're bringing a fire truck in, there's not going to be enough room down a one-way street to get a fire truck down and into a gate, and then it was going to line up. On that drawing, it doesn't line up with either one of them. On that drawing, it shows it up on the cul-de-sac on that first top of the property. Well, that first top of the property is north of Memorial Avenue. So I don't know how that's going to line up according to that preliminary plan with that. Second is, you know, they used to put emergency exits and they would actually pave the exit to a fence. And I noticed with Cross Creek Lake Estates, we seem to have rock roads instead of just paving it to it. If it has to be used in an emergency situation, your cars aren't driving down a rock road. They're actually driving down a paved road. You open a gate and you do what you need to do for those emergency situations. I don't know why that became a thing and why it wasn't just paved to the fence and then connected to the road as it would be a normal road, but then left for emergency exit as it's intended to be instead of this rock road thing. But they look like they have it shoved in between, like a little tiny path between two houses on their drawing. And yours is similar. I'm guessing it's what they provided. I would just like some clarification of that. Because we agreed that it would be lined up with Lighthouse Memorial for the purposes of fire trucking down there. But neither drawing shows that being the case. If you want to bring the drawing back up, we can show it. It shows it at the end of his drawing.

When we approved Phase 2 of this subdivision, we killed that. The line up with Lighthouse. And they stabilized an emergency exit onto Powerline as their emergency exit. And we killed that whole concept of them dropping from Phase 2, or the original one, In the Shakespeare line with Lighthouse. I don't remember us killing the emergency exit. That was killed as part of that. The emergency exit was. I don't remember killing the emergency exit. In phase two, the emergency exit was shifted to power line. The exit on the power line.

The emergency exit was always on power line.

No, they were still proposing. And when they came with phase two, they were still proposing an emergency exit.

would come across the the boundary onto shakespeare near lighthouse okay in the council voted against it but i would like clarification of that well because i believe when we had this discussion the whole point of having the emergency exit off of shakespeare was so that if you actually had an emergency on power line road which has happened not too long ago both those extra shut down it's useless having an emergency exit 200 feet away from the main exit. Putting it on Shakespeare as an emergency only exit actually gave a true emergency exit to the development.

And you can't line it up with Lighthouse because Lighthouse is a one-way street and it's a one-way to the west. So your emergency stuff is going to come in in the opposite direction of traffic. It would have to line up the other. But the other thing is, and I need, when you start clarifying here, the emergency exit on the east side went from gravel sod to gravel only, and the sod was refused because they said, we don't do that any longer. So now you're saying that you're going to put gravel sod on an emergency exit on the west side, but it's not available on the east side. So what's the ruling? I mean, what is it? How is that? What is the ruling? And so you're looking at, if you can put sod, why is sod not on the other one? Because that was denied. And then this is going between two houses. This is just when you get started.

This is confusing because the second exit out of phase three, our code requires two entrance, two egress and ingress access points to a subdivision. This subdivision right now is in violation of that code. And it will stay in violation of that code until this exit, on the new Shakespeare, not the old Shakespeare. Correct. The new Shakespeare is completed, and that will put them in compliance with the code. However, to make that happen, River Oaks has to finish their work from 510 north.

Correct.

for the city to approve this without some condition that requires that if river oaks doesn't do that that this subdivision does that means that we're agreeing that they don't need a second exit and i i think that's a point of contention the code requires two exits i agree with councilmember nunn the second what we agreed to in phase two was was really clear The objection was that you can't put a dirt berm and drive a fire truck over top of it on the Shakespeare and expect that to be an emergency exit. And that's what they were talking about doing. And the consensus at that point was that that doesn't make sense. Shakespeare is not conditionally structured for that. Lighthouse is not conditionally structured for that. And so they moved their temporary emergency entrance and exit over to Powerline, which was an area that they had stabilized and they were using for construction. Phase three comes along. And they were going to be out of compliance if they don't do phase three. And there was no discussion of phase three at that time. And they were going to continue to be out of compliance. And the city was, in my opinion, kind of negligent in allowing that. Because without two true entrance and exits, you don't have a proper flow in and out of a subdivision. It's that simple. So this exit and entrance that they're talking about putting out of phase three onto the new Shakespeare is critical to keeping this subdivision in compliance with the city code. And I'm really personally kind of aghast at the fact that we're not making some condition that requires that if River Oaks doesn't work, I know River Oaks has submitted paperwork and they're going through the process, but believe me, the world can fall apart tomorrow. In 2008, everybody thought all these new subdivisions were going to be built, right? In 2009, none of them got built. So when... This happens, if River Oaks doesn't finish Shakespeare from 510 North, somebody has to in order for this subdivision to have two points of ingress and egress. And that's a code requirement for the city of Sebastian if that takes place, that they have two points to that. Shakespeare, the current Shakespeare and Lighthouse are not conditional for that. Jiminy Christmas, the work it would take for us to make Shakespeare compatible with the traffic for that would be ridiculous. We would be crazy, in my opinion, I know people don't like when you use words like crazy, but we would be crazy to think that we're going to do that on that street. And I'm not just talking about the residents being up in arms uh... i can take you in orlando and show you streets that are ten feet off the front porch because the city decided to do that to a street without buying the property and that's that's not the sebastian way of doing things it's really not the sebastian way of doing things so that that's a discussion we need to have tonight is what's going to happen if river oaks doesn't build that road i don't i don't have any issue with you i think you did a really good job with your slide on shakespeare showing The labellized piece and so forth did a really good job of explaining that. It's just that we're approving something conditioned on somebody else doing something. And the something we're approving is a requirement of our code to do that.

I'd like to build on that if I can. I actually agree with Council Member Dodd on that completely. Because a council in the past made a bad decision doesn't mean we should continue making bad decisions. Shakespeare Street should have been a two-way street. The property should have been given to make it a two-way street. So for us to allow a single entrance and exit in a new subdivision, That's not our code. It doesn't meet our code. It shouldn't meet our code. It shouldn't be a conditional thing. Like you said, somebody else doing something that could never happen. There's property on 510 that's had a wall for 20 years that has no property. That could be River Oaks. So I agree completely. I think we are in bad position to approve something that violates our code because a past council made a bad decision. And that's just my thought on it. The emergency exit is just one concern I have. I don't understand an unimproved emergency exit. It should be improved. But on the other side of it, there's no second exit. And like we said, we don't know what's going to happen. Honestly, if they wanted this approved, they don't own the property, so it's kind of hard for them to build the road. But that's not our problem. Our problem is to follow our code.

Well, I... Personally, I wouldn't have any problem voting for approval on this if there's some condition in there that at some point in time, if Shakespeare is not completed forward to allow that second exit to be active, that somebody has a responsibility to do that. That's an issue that has to be discussed, I think, and that's something that...

I don't think it... If it's not made a part of this to make it happen, I don't think if we make it that... Because it'll never come back and never get done if it doesn't get done by them. I think it's setting a bad precedence. I think bad precedence has already been set, and we should avoid that. Interesting.

Want to go public? Yes. You ready? That would be next. Now we're going to go ahead and open the floor to anyone in favor of this project. Seeing none. Yes. In favor? of the project. Anyone in favor of the project? No? All right. Now we're going to open the floor to those opposing. Yes. If you have a speaker card, everyone must have.

You just leave it right there as long as we can get it.

My name is Colleen Sherry. I live in phase one. I think I've seen all of you up here before about similar things about our community. I agree wholeheartedly with all you said. From my understanding, I think I spoke to Mr. Mann a while ago, that one of the conditions was phase three couldn't move forward without the new community doing what they had to do. So I agree, we need a road before we have a phase three. But that's not why I'm here. I have some really big concerns. So 1820 Shakespeare is the true address. It's owned by a company called CD Alliance. That's a couple in their 60s that live in Austin, Texas. So do we, as a city, as planning and zoning, do we know if Luxor out of Orlando has a deal with the couple in Austin to build, to change, to do any of this? Because I'm a little confused. Like, okay, so a couple owns it. Luxor wants to develop it, and guess what? D.R. Horton wrote a letter to all of us residents and said, we're not involved. Well, interesting because I think the Mills-Shorts presentation called it the Camden model, and that happens to be a D.R. Horton model. But if D.R. Horton isn't involved, who the heck's building these houses? I appreciate the time they spent on this to see the houses. It was a lot of money, hopefully for nothing. But like we have an Orlando developer that wants to build in little old Sebastian and they want to build 30 odd homes. Why? What's their next goal? You know, we, I think, I can speak for most people, don't want to live in Orlando. That's why we live in Sebastian. So what's the goal and what are they going to do next? So that's my main concern. You know, like Luxor's out of there. DR Horton's not doing anything. The property's owned by a couple in Austin, Texas. So, also, our HOA docs, I'm pretty sure, say that we can't add another phase unless our docs, which are legal documents, acknowledge and add the phase. That hasn't been done, so how can we add a phase if there is no phase? It's just smoke and mirrors, and I'm not comfortable with a lot of it. So, like, I'm a homeowner. I'm a taxpayer. I live in Sebastian. I love it here. I just hope we're heard, and I think I heard you guys tonight, heard us. The people on Shakespeare hopefully will be protected. Hopefully our residents in phase one will be protected. FYI, phase two has not been started. It's just a road now. So I don't know if D.R. Horton's come to a screeching halt. We just don't know. So thanks for your time, and I hope it all works out, because I don't want to live in Orlando, and Luxor might be great, I just hope that the people who are in their 60s, who live in Austin, Texas, aren't getting ripped off. So thanks, guys.

All right. Thank you, ma'am. Yes, sir.

Hi. My name is Tony Salazar. I live on Shakespeare there, and I think we've dealt with all of you with this Shakespeare fiasco going on. Hopefully something I notice that these different meetings that there's a lot of yes and a lot of no and I've never seen anything really tabled to the next meeting till we figure out hey what are we doing on this instead of a yes if they do this you're kind of doing the same thing what they're doing if this gets fixed with Shakespeare I know the second exit was put in because we didn't want to hold Mr. Fisher to the new rules when his first development started, and you guys agreed to let him have the two exits on Powerline. They say they're going to keep the emergency exit down there. In the minutes from the building and zoning, it says sod and so on and so forth. I'd like to see if we could change the street name. Everybody keeps throwing the existing Shakespeare, new Shakespeare, the Shakespeare that's going to be put in. And if I told you to go down Powerline Road, is it the one by my house or the one right here? Or if I told you to go down Easy Street, which three Easy Streets is it? Is it possible to change it? Because if you turn off a barber and go down Periwinkle all the way to Laconia, if you go straight, you don't go on Periwinkle, you go on Bevan. So can Shakespeare stay Shakespeare to the lighthouse there and the new one that comes in a different name because when you put your stuff into GPS and I want to leave my house and go somewhere, it puts me on Yearling Trail going out to Powerline Road. I got a fence between me. So when phase two was going on, we had numerous semis on Shakespeare with all the concrete drainage tiles. Semis with blocks all backed up on Shakespeare because GPS told them These two roads are right next to each other yearling and Shakespeare And we had trouble getting them to back up had trouble getting to turn on Memorial They actually went about four feet in somebody's yard with the back tires So if we change the other Shakespeare to something else all this new traffic and all this new building when you put it in there It's gonna bring them down our street. They're gonna say I can't go straight. Where do I go from here? So is it possible when and if they clarify what's going on with these subdivisions, if we could possibly rename that one down there? I know you need the second exit, and most likely you leave the fire department on Barber. You're going to go around the curve power line and find a way in instead of Periwinkle to Ocean Breeze to Landfair to Aries to Memorial, and then try to get in. And they may have to sometime, but I think it needs to be looked at really good before we just say, okay, we'll continue as long as you guys get this in place at some time. But that's all I got to say. Thank you.

All right. Thank you so much, sir. Anyone else? Yes, come forward. You can just leave it up there. That'll be fine.

My name is Linda Schlosser. I live in phase one of Cross Creek. I've been there almost five years. And we were three or four houses, three or four lots away from being able to have control of our HOA. And then you all approved phase two. So now we've got another 34 houses we have to get sold, which haven't even started being built yet, before we can gain control of our community. If we add these extra 38 houses, that's half of what we have right now, the two. Between 34 and 38 is half of our 130 houses. Are we ever going to have control of our own neighborhood? The way we keep adding phases and adding pieces and changing things is just going to keep pushing things out and pushing things out. I thank you, Ed, suggesting that maybe we're putting the cart before the horse here and we need to know that Shakespeare's actually gonna go in before we plan an exit out Shakespeare. It might be convenient for me because I live on that end of the neighborhood and I could go south down to 510 that way. But I currently live in a gated community that used to have closed gates. But as soon as phase two started, our gates stay open all day long, seven to seven. And people are coming in and out. Trucks are coming in and out. It's noisy. They leave trash. And now we're going to add another phase that's going to prolong us being able to close our gate. And if they don't have to put a gate at the end of that new Shakespeare area, We're not a gated community anymore. Why do we even have a gate at our front end if we don't have one at the back? Thank you.

All right. Thank you so much, ma'am. Is there anyone else? Yes, sir.

Hi. Rich Kelly from 9-11 Yearling and Phase 1. Thank you for bringing up about the second entrance. The planning board, number five, said the secondary access gate will be included in the subdivision construction plans following the preliminary flat approval. The gate will be installed. The gentleman just said that that won't be installed until that road goes all the way down, which could take anywhere between 10 to 15 years. So that's a long time. And the thing that we haven't talked about, we talked about the emergency exit, which none, thank you, is the entrance going into this Phase 3, if you're exiting that onto Yearling, your car lights are shining right into some of our residents' homes. In Phase 2, that shines out onto a retention pond, so it was thawed out. This shines directly into, I think, one or two homes. And the A person asked me to bring that up tonight and I did. Also in the planning board it said that they're going to be doing another gopher tortoise survey, which nobody talked about. The last one was done in 2025. There are gopher turtles there. And before they get their land clearing permit. But again, that second exit is very, very important because we have 137 in phase one. We have 35 in phase two and now 38 in phase three. And I can tell you that the community won't be able to build that road to 510. Thank you very much.

All right. Thank you so much, sir. Yes. Do we have anyone else? All right. Thank you so much for that. Now we're going to go on. Now the applicant, you were provided an opportunity to speak now.

I just want to go over some of the things that we just heard and provide further clarification. So I'll start with kind of some of the easier ones first and then we can get into the more complicated ones. So first I think I heard some kind of bait and switch as far as DR not DR. I don't know that we have never hit the fact that DR is under contract with Lexner. It is intended that DR will be the builder. That's why we had DR's product type on there and in the presentation I referenced, it's the same product type as phase two. So I just want to make that clear and that we're not hiding that. Another thing that I just thought was interesting in the last, before prepping for the last presentation, I went through and watched all the videos of the history on the project and when it got annexed into the city. And one thing that I thought was interesting in the annexation, because I've never seen it actually done like this before, it was always envisioned that this would be a phase of Cross Creek Lake Estates because on the zoning ordinance, it actually reads, the title of it is Cross Creek Lakes Addition, where normally in a zoning application, it would just say this parcel land zoning. So I think when it was annexed and zoned into the city, it was always envisioned that this would be an addition to the neighborhood. As far as, and one thing I think that's getting a little misconstrued is on the EMS access. So that will be gated. And why we proposed a stabilized roadway section with sod on top is because a lot of times what happens is when it looks like a road, people think that it's a road, and it's only intended for the professionals that know how to drive down that road to actually go down it. So with subdivisions throughout the county and the city, We regularly do a crushed stone section with sod. And it meets the 32 ton rating for a fire truck. And it's widely used for developments throughout the county and the city. So it's common use of the fire truck. The next thing, and I think it gets a little bit more complicated and, and I think we're happy to look at continuing our hearing because I think what I'm really hearing is, is a secondary access point per the city's code. Is it an EMS entrance or does a, is it a full entrance for residential use? It was our understanding and reading the code. that the emergency access did meet the criteria of the land development code to provide for that secondary access. We met with staff and we wouldn't have gotten to this point if they also felt like that met the code for secondary access. I can't stand up in front of you guys today and be 100%. We're all kind of questioning now if that meets, so I'm happy to continue this application, get with staff, we'll review the city code that way when we come back to you guys we can with some assurance know that the access of the emergency access does meet the code as far as secondary access point and if it doesn't then we'll have to reconsider and and make some modifications alright uh... is that it for you for now sir yes unless there's any further questions alright that's fine um... staff

Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

I just want to try and go down the list of some of the stuff that you guys were asking about. So if you look on sheet C-2.1 and look at the alignment of the EMS access, originally the EMS access only was proposed right in the center of Lighthouse Avenue and Memorial Avenue. And we did have them change that alignment to where it aligned more with Memorial Avenue because we realized that is a two-way street. And they did so, if you see in between lot six and five on that preliminary plat document, that it does kind of line up with Memorial Avenue more because, again, it is a two-way street. And we did realize that. And we adjusted that as part of the application. So in 2023, when the addition came in, one of the conditions in the resolution, they had requested an adjustment to the land development code for the secondary access. And it was granted for the resolution for a full second entrance. And that's where it came about that the existing emergency access would have to be improved and more stabilized along the 70th Avenue emergency access. What we can do is, if you wish, we can add that adjustment to for secondary access with the hopes that River Oaks comes in later on and they build Shakespeare all the way down to 510. or we can go back with the applicant and discuss more options with the application and bring it back forward to you. This is completely up to you.

All right, thank you so much for that, sir. Now it is our time, and I think probably the best thing from my perspective is to have staff bring this back at another date with some of the folks Another thing I would like to clarify, if I could.

All right. And the applicant mentioned something, and I'm going to use his words against him, and that's always fun to do. You said that an emergency access would serve as a secondary access, but your first words said, you used a crushed rock with sod because professional drivers know how to use that. Well, if there's a situation that a primary road has to be shut down and you need a secondary entrance for your residents to get in and out of a development because there's a bad accident on the other entrance, If you have an emergency exit that's only drivable by professional people with fire trucks and big vehicles like that, then the whole point of having that count as a second access was just blown out of the water. So I agree. I think this needs to go back and you need to have some more discussion. That second entrance, the real second entrance down on South Shakespeare or whatever the heck it's going to be called when we get there, I I think there needs to be more discussion on that because I don't I don't think we should approve something based on what somebody else might do that's not related or tied to this development just my opinion right thank you anyone else Mr. Dodd yeah I'm I guess I need some clarification because it was my understanding that when we talk about a subdivision having two points of ingress and egress we're talking about open points that was

not an emergency, I mean not one entrance to an enclosed subdivision and someplace we got an emergency exit for in case the world falls apart and then hopefully we've got a driver on a fire truck that knows how to make the turn to get into it. So if in fact this back exit is intended to be a true entrance and exit for use by the residents once the proper work is done on the south side of Shakespeare, then I think that's pretty much what I was understanding that the intent was here. And that once that work is done to finish Shakespeare from 510 forward, that this exit and entrance was going to become a true exit and entrance that the residents could use and so forth. And then I would like a clarification on the code, because what I'm hearing is that The code doesn't require two entrances and exits. It requires one plus some emergency exit. And so I'd kind of like kind of a clarification on the code on that.

So the code requires two entrance and exits or ingress, egress portions for every subdivision greater than 24 units. You can request adjustments for this code per our land development code standards if you wish, but they would have to be approved by council. But they are two main points, like publicly accessible points of ingress and egress per archive.

Okay. So prior to the time that River Oaks does their work on that road, who is going to stabilize this up here so this exit can be used as an emergency entrance and exit? We're talking about stabilizing some of this roadway. Who's going to do that work on the stabilization?

The emergency access would be stabilized by us.

Okay, so you'll stabilize from your Phase 3 exit point on the new Shakespeare.

I don't think so. He's talking about the emergency access going to the original Shakespeare. No, that was killed in Phase 2.

It was.

That was killed in Phase 2, and I will move that we continue this to clarify that because I was sitting here and I was the one who made that motion. And that was absolutely killed in Phase 2. There is no emergency exit from this subdivision onto Shakespeare and Lighthouse. That's right now. I know it's not an optimum thing, but right now that's over onto Powerline.

And we're obviously, we're happy to continue this and work with staff to come back with something that.

So, I mean, now I don't have any issue if, because I understand we always intended at the end of the current Shakespeare where it intersects with Lighthouse, just south of that, we discussed with Phase 2 that there would be a gate placed there and that that would be stabilized for the possibility that someone had to get down through there in an emergency situation. At P&L... you know, whoever had to get there in an emergency situation. And so I don't have any issue with that being stabilized and with this exit being in the back until the finalization of Shakespeare south of that is done and it becomes a true exit that has south, that you can go south to 510 on. But that needs to be determined as to who is going to do that stabilization work.

Just to make sure I understand what you were saying. So we have our T-turnaround, which is paved and it's kind of in the same alignment as the existing Shakespeare, you would be in support of the project if it was stabilized from our paved T-turnaround to the existing Shakespeare's crushed stone and then gated?

Yeah, it's gated, yes, and only accessible through an emergency vehicle, yes. I mean, I think that's what we talked about when we talked about this when we did the phase two, was we talked about a gate beyond Lighthouse, beyond the connection with Lighthouse, and then stabilizing that road as part of this other subdivision, stabilizing that road when it goes south. My issue is that River Oaks could be 10 years. So at that point in time, we've got now coming out of your And I don't see, I can't read the name on here with my glasses, but coming out of your subdivision.

Maybe we should just table this, let staff go back and look at phase two's approval, what we agreed upon. and bring that back to us with the recommendations. I think we've given them pretty good recommendations to move forward, but we were pretty clear when we did phase two, and no, we don't want to improve it to the old Shakespeare. That's not what we wanted to go to 510. We don't want it to go to that old one-way road neighborhood, but even the emergency exits you're recommending there, I would rather have that than nothing if that was the other alternative, at least it gets it off of power line road. And there's actually a second way out of this development if there's a bad accident. But like you said, I'm not sure. And I don't remember, to be honest, that we, that we totally took that out of it because we weren't talking about this phase at that time. But I think staff needs to review that and go through it.

And I can tell you another that you need to, if you go back to, I think it was 22, 21, 22, the first, um, phase that they put in the first thing they brought in was both sections together as one phase and it was 60 plus homes at that moment at that time there was a decision that it had to be a permanent entry exit it could not be an emergency it divided back down we're still back up to the same number of homes even though it's in two sections and this has to be and i don't I get that you're waiting and there's river Oaks and all this other, but as the developer, it's your responsibility to develop the community the way that it needs to be. And there needs to be an entry exit there. And if it becomes your position as the developer to punch that to five 10, then that's your response. I feel that's your responsibility and not to wait and not to rely on somebody else. And I understand there's some compromise that has to go on in between there. But as the developer, that's your responsibility to make those whatever has to happen to happen that is in compliance with us. And that was established that there would be an entry exit on that side because of the number of homes that we were not in compliance, having it on just the one.

So we're happy to go back in. All right.

So, um, so we're ready to move forward with a motion to recommend bringing it back later.

I think with the motion would be, do we continue this? There you go. Is there an appropriate date?

A date uncertain to a date uncertain at this point? A date uncertain is fine. Okay. Second.

All right. So we have a motion and a second to continue this to a date uncertain. Um, madam clerk.

Council member none.

Yes.

Councilmember Matthews? Yes. Councilmember Dodd?

Yes.

Mayor Jones? Yes. Vice Mayor McPartland? Yes. Motion carries.

All right. Thank you guys so much. We'll give everybody a chance to move out while we get our papers back in order here. Oh, yeah. We're going to go ahead and recess for five minutes. We'll be back.

Yeah, I know.

All right. We're back in session. Now let's continue on to our next item, which is unfinished business. I believe we do not have any there under new Bennett business item 13, a, um, consideration of employee benefits renewal presentation. Who do we have? Me? Yes. Let's go. You're on the hot seat now. Let's go.

Good evening. Uh, tonight we have Melissa Morley, the city's, uh, with Garen group, the city's insurance broker to provide a presentation regarding the renewal of the city's current employee group, health, dental, and vision insurance plans.

And she's been waiting patiently. Yeah. All right.

Thank you. Thank you for being here.

My pleasure. Good evening, everybody. It's nice to come in after a little break, right? Um, so our presentation, I don't know if it's going to pop up on the screen or not.

It's not popped up.

Okay, that's fine.

Oh, that's not it. That's not it. Oh, don't bring that one up.

Okay, well, I think it's in your packets. But it's an easy renewal this year. We're very excited to present the City of Sebastian with a recommendation to renew as is. For all your lines of coverage, the City of Sebastian has been in a program with Florida Blue called Blue Value Solutions for the past two years. This is the last year of the participation in the program. For your increases on your medical insurance, this year was 6%, which is way below trend, and has been below trend for the past six years. Your medical rate exhibit is also in your packets, so your average increases were 6.3% over the last six years, and typical trend is 10 to 12%. And this is due to the program underneath Florida Blue, which is why we're recommending This is the last year to renew with Florida Blue underneath this program. Your future renewals, we cannot predict what they are going to be because the program is ending. And then the rest of the program, the dental, the vision, is with a carrier called MetLife. You're in a rate guarantee, so no increases for the city there. we recommending renew as is. And then also, again, with the Basic Life, STD, LTD, and your Employee Assistance Program, the recommendation is to renew as is with Lincoln Financial, because again, you are in a rate guarantee for those programs. So, the only increase that the city was seeing this year is in the medical program underneath Florida Blue. As usual, we always look at your program, making sure that it is the best for the employees of the City of Sebastian, and it is, and then we will continue on and make our evaluation again for next year when we are out of the blue value solutions and your Florida Blue Renewal will come in at a, I'm gonna say a normal rate at your trend, 10 to 12% or higher, or lower. We don't know what next year will bring. And along those lines, you have a medical rate history sheet in there. We'd like to show everybody what your history was. And then there was also exhibits in there for your renewal evaluation that where we go through everything with the city manager in HR and explain all the changes that have been made. But this year, like I said, there were no changes to any of the coverages besides the rate changes for medical. and your high deductible health plan had to change for your deductible to make it compliant with ACA as it does every year. And that is it.

All right. Thank you so much. You have anything else? No. Mr. Benton?

Yeah, Mr. Mayor, I just want to add a couple things. So obviously we're presenting this for you all tonight to consider for your approval with the benefits for dental health and vision for our employees. We developed a benefits committee three years ago. One of the things that I heard from the employees was that they felt like they didn't have a say in what was happening. So we developed a committee that involves a representative from each individual department. That individual is then responsible to take from those committee meetings to their department and have discussions with their employees to report back at future dates. So the decisions that are made in regards to benefits, I do want to clarify, it is not made by myself and HR. It is made by our benefits committee. and quite honestly i don't have a vote i don't participate in those other than to see the numbers and and i usually see these outside of the meetings anyways uh... but to ensure that it's gonna one be fiscally responsible for the city which based on the trends that i'm seeing across the state uh... dusting six-percent increase on health insurance is unheard of and we were kind of saved by the blue by you solutions program if you remember two years ago we entered into a three-year agreement with them they did cancel it a year early on us uh... uh... can only imagine is because we were successful and are palm Measures that we had to meet therefore last year was a 7% increase this year was a 6% Our employees did a phenomenal job in meeting the metrics this year to get us to a 6% increase So I had committed to the employees that the city would cover that increase if we made those certain measures because it was such an important item to get those measures in place and and meet the metrics. So we did meet the metrics. We're at 6%, and so we just request your approval, and we're here for any questions. Melissa, Dan, or myself can answer anything you have.

All right. Thank you so much for that. Anything from council? Let me go with the public. Anyone from the public who would like to speak on this item? Seeing no one, no hand. Public input is closed. Council, how would you like to proceed?

I'll make a motion to approve the benefit presentation for renal.

Second. So we have a motion and a second. Is there any other discussion?

I would just like to say that the Guerin Group has done a fantastic job as long as I've been here. One of the concerns I've always had is seeing when the increase comes. And I'm looking at the one for next year, the estimate, and it's saying 20%. And that's the one. I never had since I've been up here, but I know it's probably overdue. And this really goes in tune with next year's budget. And if something happens, you know, this is going to be very difficult decisions to be made.

Mr. Mayor, if I may add something to that. Yes. So we did our employee presentations on this from the benefits committee. And one of the things that in full transparency, you all did disclose to the employees is that next year we are going back out to RFP for benefits. So then I think vision and dental were kind of locked in on three years without increases. But health insurance, we are definitely going out to RFP on that. And we may have a decision to make from the benefits committee standpoint once we get the factual information back on rates on looking at a different carrier in regards to health insurance. So we will disclose that to the employees. It's something that the benefits committee will be a driving force behind. So I made sure that they were aware of that and that they knew that they needed to be involved next year and communicate back and forth. And once we get to that RFP process, we'll probably do some additional department-wide presentations in regards to that so employees have a full look at that. But we do have concerns with the potential increase next year.

All right. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Hearing none, Madam Clerk?

Council Member Dodd?

Yes.

Mayor Jones? Yes. Vice Mayor McPartland?

Yes.

Council Member Nunn?

Yes.

Councilmember Matthews. Yes motion carries.

All right. Thank you so much.

We're gonna move on to item 13 B And we have Karen miss Miller Good evening so in many different meetings you've heard a lot about the at the airport the terminal apron expansion and At this point in time, we have all of our FAA and FDOT grants. We're about to award the bid to the contractor. And in front of you with CSA 19 is an agreement with Infrastructure Consulting and Engineering. They created the design for the expansion, and we're looking to have them complete construction engineering inspections to follow the project through and make sure it's done correctly. Again, it's 95% funded by FAA, 2.5% by FDOT, and the city only has to match 2.5%.

Well, thank you so much for that. It's a great thing. I move approval. Second. We have a motion and a second. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this? Absolutely, sir. Come forward.

I'm coming forward only to speak because it's an opportunity to spend three more minutes talking to you guys, which have some control over what's happened at the airport. Again, the reason why I'm speaking to you is because, you know, I've gone through the process of speaking to, uh, the airport.

Hang on just a second, sir. Um, you're, are you speaking about this specific item? Because that's what we're on now. Not about anything else we need.

Yeah.

I'm speaking about the yes, but the terminal apron. Correct. Okay. There you go. I want to make sure.

So I, and again, I was just making sure that you knew why I was speaking against this because a lot, it seems like a lot of information doesn't get passed on to the city counselors. I do have an airplane. I think to take advantage of increasing the apron and it's paid mostly by the FAA is a great thing. I do take exception of the use of the word terminal because, and I address this with the city manager, in that the terminal should be open to people that have airplanes so that when we fly in, and we park our airplane on the apron that you're planning to enhance, which is a great thing, and I'm not against that, except for the fact that our badges, pilot badges, or there's no access to get into the terminal when you land your airplane. And that should be changed. And it's one of the things that I brought forward to the former airport manager and also the new airport, whoever's running it now, is that you really need some input from aviators that can give you some experience with other airports. I've been to hundreds of other airports around the country, and when you land, it's really nice to have these places where you can park this apron, and then you get out of your airplane, you can go into and use either a key card, or it's usually posted into your piloting software that they give you access to a code that gets you into the building so that you can use that nice terminal that Sebastian has a great one. But right now we're not, we can't, we don't have access to it. And so that's why I'm hoping that you guys can try to convey to the people that are running the airport to get some input from other aviators so that they can make some changes to the way they're running the airport so it's compatible with the pilot's needs as well. And it will make the airport better. and more useful. And like I said, I'm not speaking against the apron repair. I think it's a great thing. And that's about all I wanted to say. But I would love to get some sort of forum to talk to you to implement these changes. Thank you.

All right. Thank you so much, sir. Is there anyone else who would like to speak on this item? Hand raised?

Yes, I have a hand raised.

Thank you.

Vivian, you're allowed to talk.

Do you have someone or not?

Vivian, you're permitted to speak, please. You need to unmute.

All right, you can't reach them, unreachable. All right, thank you so much. Give you a couple more seconds. Is there any other discussion from council or nothing?

No, great job on the grants. I mean, I know we say it all the time, and I know it's tax money, but if we don't use this tax money to benefit our city, we pay for somebody else's city to do it, and we still have to help pay for it. So great job on getting this done at a very, very small expense to us.

All right, public input is closed. Madam Clerk?

Mayor Jones?

Yes.

Vice Mayor McPartland?

Yes.

Council Member Nunn?

Yes.

Council Member Matthews? Yes. Council Member Dodd?

Yes.

Motion carries.

All right, thank you. Now we're going to move on to Item 13C. Ms. Graham.

Good evening, council. Today we are here for, hopefully for the approval of ITB 26-18. This is for citywide janitorial services. We currently have a contract. That contract will expire on September 30th. So this agenda item is being brought forth to award a new contractor, which would be NET Facility Services LLC. They were the lowest responsive and responsible bidder when we issued the bid. We did have a great turnout. This is the first time I've seen 14 vendors submit a bid, but we had 14 bids come in, and they were competitive bids. If you've taken a look at it, a lot of the bids were actually under our budgeted amount. So, again, I know that because this amount is significantly less than what we're currently paying, we did, as far as myself and the two project managers, we met with the contractor just to confirm that they understood the scope of work that they could indeed hold their pricing, and they could, and they are currently performing services at Port St. Lucie. They have a contract to service half of the city of Port St. Lucie for their janitorial needs as well. And they do have other governmental agencies that they work with. So I'm asking council to approve this ITB, the award to NET Facility Services LLC, And then also, there are renewals in here. So I'm asking council to approve renewals. So that way, if we do execute the renewals, they will be at the prices that are listed. And the only time we would have to come back is if they ask for a 3% CPI increase. So if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them.

Okay. I think that means that there, the word escaped me just now, change orders. There's no prospect of change orders in this particular one other than the 3%.

Not on this one. The change orders that we, not on this one. The change orders that we had the last time is due to how that contract was bid out. It was missing a couple of areas, and then if you remember, we did, have the new public works building that was in there. And we did have some locations that weren't there on this one. And honestly, I do take that back. The cemetery building is not included. So because we are not, the building has not been built yet. We will have one change order for the cemetery building because that one has to be built the new admin building. So once that is built, we will come back, but that should be the only change that we have, unless we find money to build another building.

All right. Thank you so much. That answers my question. Are there any other questions of staff? Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this? I think not. Anyone with their hand raised? Nothing. Public input is closed. All right. We'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to approve ITB 26-18-ITB. Second. So we have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? Hearing none, Madam Clerk?

Vice Mayor McPartland?

Yes.

Council Member Nunn?

Yes.

Council Member Matthews? Yes. Council Member Dodd?

Yes.

Mayor Jones?

Yes.

Motion carries.

All right. Thank you so much. We're moving on to Item 13D, Consideration of Authorizing Staff to End a Discussion with Top-Ranked Playground. Mr. Blankenship, I guess you're up on this one. Good evening, Council.

Richard Blankenship, Parks and Recreation Director. Start if so decided to make some improvements there that are not they're critical for operations, but they're not critical in the permitting realm or the Construction room and those two items are the playground and the splash pad those items are especially the splash pad, is well past its useful life. The playground is quickly getting there. So what we decided to do back in April is put out an RFI, a request for information to splash pad and playground manufacturers with some specific guidelines to give us some proposals that had to meet just simple criteria. Number one, it had to be ADA accessible. Both elements had to be ADA accessible. And then both elements need to reflect something about Sebastian, whether it be Indian River Lagoon, whether it be the environment in Pelican Island, whatever it could be, that would be up to them. But they had to reflect that. So we received, I believe, nine submittals. And on June 11th, we had our first public meeting. If you recall, when we started this project, we committed to to bringing the public in and having their input in what we do there, especially the major amenities. So on June 11th, we had a public meeting here. We had 13 folks, not necessarily the age group we were looking for, but there were 13 people here with ideas and opinions, and we gathered that. And then on June 22nd, we took the examples to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. We had seven advisory board members and then two members of the public that opined on what they liked. And then we implemented an online survey. We had over 650 respondents to the online survey. Now, some of those respondents really got down in the weeds. But all in all, it was fantastic data that we got from that. So all collectively, we then ranked the designs. And what I'm about to show you are those designs that are as they ranked. So the first one is the COMPAN, which is a manufacturer, option one. COMPAN submitted two options. They're a very creative company. I've dealt with them before. They took our directives seriously, especially in option two, and submitted this. This is the number one rated design of the three. Regardless of whether it be man-made shade or natural shade, that was one of the main comments that the public had, is it's got to be shaded. And we agree, and it will be shaded. Whatever we do there will be shaded. Second one was Playworks. Playworks is a manufacturer that's been around a long time. But they're a conglomerate of manufacturers, so they have a lot of flexibility in their product. So if we wanted to customize the design a little bit more, we have that opportunity. So Playworks was the number two ranked playground. And then there was Compans option two. The pelican was, when I initially saw this, I was, oh, that's cool, a pelican, but then that's a 30-foot tall pelican, and sitting in Riverview Park may not be the most eye-catching, it would be eye-catching, but pleasing element of the playground. So this is the third-ranked playground. And we move on to the splash pads, and it was a similar directive, you know, you need to reflect something about Sebastian. This was the number one ranked splash pad design, and that is from... Richard, I just want to clarify.

Is this number one or number three ranked? Because in my notes I have this theme one.

Water play is number one.

Okay. So on your chart, that's theme three? Splash pad theme three? Yeah, I thought theme one was third place. Yeah, the chart and... Because you've got first choice on splash pads is splash pad theme three. Is that this picture?

That's correct, yes.

Okay, because I get confused between options and themes, so I'm just, okay.

And then this is soft plate. This is the number two ranked. And, you know, you can see the sea turtles and there's a manatee in there and there's some other elements in there. One of the concerns from the public was, There needs to be some elements for a little bit older people or older kids. These seem to be for much younger kids. But, you know, we do have that flexibility. And then this is aquatics, and this is the number three ranked. You know, fairly off the shelf type of design, but it was submitted and was presented to the public. So those are the designs. What we're asking tonight is for your authorization for us to begin discussions with the top two ranked for both playground and splash pad so that we can really finalize the design as far as what it's actually going to look like, not some canned photo, what it's going to look like in Riverview Park, what it's going to look like with fencing. Remember, option C, design C, is the playground and splash pad are next to each other. So we want to be able to show that and show how that operates. And we will discuss pricing at that point. And then once we have that from the four, we'll come back to the advisory board and present it to them and get their input. And then we'll come back to council, of course, and present to you. And if we're at a point where we have a solid favorite for construction, we would present that and recommend allowing us to move forward with the splash pad in the playground. Again, we have a $1.5 million grant from the Land and Water Conservation Fund and a $1.5 million match. Today, at about 5.15, I submitted our commencement package, which is a requirement of the grant whether we move forward or not. We have to prove that we own it. We have to prove the boundaries and title and all that kind of stuff. So that was submitted today at about 5.15. So with all that said, I will answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you so much for the presentation, sir. Anyone have any questions?

Do you want to move forward with all three of these options for each one or just with the best? The top two of each.

The top two of Playground and the top two of Splash Pack.

Okay, so it's the first and second choice for the Playground. I'm looking at your spreadsheet chart. So it's the first and second choice for that. And that's going to be done... into it can like to a bid process we're not actually funding this that they've got that the other people who want to sell it to us going to come back with design and they've been that will have to make presentations to both the advisor board and to council now my next question is for the city manager uh... the current splash pad is is understand writers is we can't salaries that Is the intent in your mind that we can move forward with the splash pad and the park renovation and movement even if we don't yet finalize the remainder of the Riverview Park changes?

Yeah. The only thing is we would have to remove the double pavilion that crosses right there at Riverview Park area. That's going to have to go away. But we will as part of this element we would include some additional pavilions in this area. But yes, I mean, I feel as though we have to go forward with this part and we would move it across the street to the new location and we would just abandon the old area and get that all torn up. And then if necessary, if we're not going forward to anything else, We could just grass over that area, and it would be a larger grass area by the restroom building.

So if we run into major funding issues and it's determined we really can't go forward with the entire park renovation, is your opinion that we can still go forward with the splash pad and the playground work? Yes, sir. Okay. I like that answer. The splash pad, it's used a lot, and it's...

It is. Unfortunately, the splash pad is very outdated, and we are consistently, I think this summer it's gone down twice, and each time it was at least a week or two to get parts.

And several thousand dollars.

Would you need a motion or just a consensus to move forward?

I believe we would like a motion. Okay.

I'll make a motion to give the...

Parks director city manager team to move forward with the top two vendors of the playground and the splash pad second All right, so we have a motion in a second any other discussion anyone from the public would like to speak on this all right Hearing no one any raised All right, okay, I don't want to be the old fuddy that he heard on the water park as a parent

I worry about the slides. With that number one running in that place that's up there, accidents.

I'm certain that the manufacturers made all necessary safety precautions for a slide. I don't believe there is... tall as they look in the photo, but I'm sure they meet any regulations that the health department or OSHA or whoever would put on them.

All right. But we don't even know what we're going to have there yet because we haven't had those discussions, right? Correct. So there's a lot of things that could take place there. We just have to start somewhere. Right. We definitely have to start somewhere. That's great. So anything else from council? Madam Clerk?

Council Member Nunn?

Yes.

Council Member Matthews? Yes. Council Member Dodd?

Yes.

Mayor Jones?

Yes.

Vice Mayor McPartland? Yes. Motion carries.

All right. Our next agenda item, am I getting out? Okay, there we go. Item 13, Ears and Echo. Who do we have? Mr. Stewart.

Yes, sir. So before you have the quarterly financial report and the quarterly budget amendment, and reviewing the financial report, the items to note in the revenue section, as I mentioned during the previous budgeted presentation, You see the decline in the half-cent sales tax of about 5% and local option gas tax 1% and discretionary sales tax at 4% decline. The rest of the revenues and expenditures appear to be in line with the budget. Looking at your cash and investment section, you're showing a cash position in governmental and enterprise funds. an increase of about $234,000 from the prior year. And interest earned, you're looking at an increase of about $291,000 from the prior year. You also have before you the capital project status report, which shows the status of all your projects. And then you have your Exhibit A resolution for the adjustment affecting fund balance and reserves. And these are made up of employee payouts, adjustments to closed projects, and project change orders. You should see in this quarter we had a net decrease to fund balance of $262,891, the total of these. And then you had at the bottom some adjustments which didn't affect fund balance but were items to note, such as the Indian River County reimbursement for damages to pattern pavement adjustment, the solid waste donation, adjustment for crosswalk repairs, and adjustment to purchase essential personnel software. This has been before the Budget Advisory Committee, and they did recommend to approve and move it to council. I'm glad to answer any questions. All right.

Thank you so much for that presentation, Mrs. Stewart. Does anyone have questions for Mrs. Stewart? No. Is there anyone from the public who would like to speak on this item? Anyone with their hand raised?

No one has raised their hand.

All right. Thank you. Public input is closed. Council?

I'll move approval of resolution number R-26-29. Second.

So we have a motion by the Vice Mayor, second by Mr. Dodd. Any other comments or questions? Madam Clerk?

Council Member Matthews? Yes. Council Member Dodd?

Yes.

Mayor Jones?

Yes.

Vice Mayor McPartland?

Yes.

Council Member Nunn? Yes. Motion carries.

All right. We're at the part of our agenda where we have matters. Mr. Stokes?

Nothing really. I sent you guys some e-mails about some proposals that I've been speaking with Mr. Benton and Ms. Garcia about. I'd like to talk to each of you over the next couple weeks and kind of get some feedback from you, but nothing that needs to be dealt with at this meeting, especially given the hour.

All right. Thank you so much, sir. Mr. Benton.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. First thing I have is just want for everybody to put on their skit on their calendars. We will have an annexation strategic plan workshop on September 23rd at 5 p.m. So just prior to the. council meeting, we will have that meeting at 5 p.m. This will provide information in regards to the survey that was sent out and also the one-on-one interviews that the consultant had with each member of council. So five members of council and seven members of staff that met with the consultant. And then obviously you also, all 12 of those individuals also had a survey that was sent out to each of them. So that information has been compiled and there will be some items that come from that that we need to have a workshop with council and obviously have the public attend and provide some input on before we draft the final plan to then be presented back to council. So September 23rd at 5 p.m. is the date for that. Next thing is I know that there were a couple occasions tonight that that statements in regards to the airport, um, were made. And, um, uh, yes, I have met with the individual. Yes. I have had staff meet with myself and the individual. And, um, I would be happy to discuss one on one kind of what those discussions have had. I know some of you have, have, have received that information. I believe all of you were privy to that information from some of the initial meetings. Um, but I'll be happy to discuss with each of you. So thank you.

All right. Thank you so much for that, sir. City Clerk matters.

I have nothing.

Okay. Thank you so much. Next counsel is up. First off is myself, and I have nothing. Mr. Nunn.

I have nothing as well. Thank you.

All right. Thank you so much. Mr. Dodd. Good evening. Thank you. Thank you so much. Ms. Matthews.

I have nothing.

Thank you so much. Mr. McPartland.

I think Tiara did an absolutely fantastic job standing in for the clerk. And that's it, sir.

Hear, hear. Hear, hear. Thank you so much. All right. We're adjourned.