On the agenda

1. 1Call to Order - Roll Call▶ 0:00
2. 2.a

   ↳You arrived here from a search for “McDonald's” — transcript expanded below

   Discussion Regarding Sign Ordinance

   discussed

   Council held a work session to discuss the city's sign ordinance, with staff presenting an overview and the City Attorney warning that Senate Bill 180 prohibits more restrictive land-use changes until October 2027. Discussion focused on pole signs vs. monument signs, the ambiguity of current code language, the Hacienda sign, and the Massachusetts Avenue sign issue. Council directed staff to prepare a redline comparison of the existing ordinance with proposed clarifying changes for review.

   • direction:Council directed staff to present the sign ordinance with proposed clarifying changes shown as a redline/markup (yellow striking old language, clear for new) for council review. (none)

   📍Granville Park📍Highway 19📍Massachusetts Avenue🏢Hacienda🏢McDonald's🏢Project for Public Spaces👤Bertel👤Catherine Starkey👤Councilman Altman👤Dale👤Fred Kent👤Mr. Driscoll👤Mr. Hall👤Ms. Manson👤Noah👤Tim#CRA (Community Redevelopment Agency) sign grant concept#Chapter 19 (City Code of Ordinances, adopted 1990)#First Amendment / free speech sign regulation#Land Development Code Chapter 13#Policy 54.4.6.2 (redevelopment plan policy on monument vs. pole signs)#Section 13.07.00 (prohibited signs)#Section 13.19.00 (permitted signs in business zones)#Senate Bill 180

   ▶ Jump to 0:15 in the video

   ▸Show transcriptHide transcript

   Auto-transcript · machine-generated, may contain errors

   [00:00:37] start the discussion this evening on our sign ordinance. We'll begin by asking Mr. [00:00:47] Hall to provide an overview of how the sign ordinance is addressed in the [00:00:56] city's codes, and then the City Attorney will provide some information on Senate [00:01:03] Bill 180, and then Mr. Hall has put together a PowerPoint which will be [00:01:08] helpful to us in our discussion. Mr. Hall? Thank you, Ms. Manson. If we could pull up [00:01:16] the PowerPoint, please. I'd like to start with the PowerPoint because it just [00:01:26] gives a brief overview of our current sign ordinance, and it does, it does [00:01:32] address some items that Mr. Driscoll, I'm sure, will add additional elements to, [00:01:38] and so let's just begin. Our current sign ordinance is, addresses signs in two [00:01:47] different chapters within our current code. The city code of [00:01:51] ordinance is Chapter 19, which was adopted in 1990, which basically talks [00:01:54] about the distribution of handbills and when and where you can do those types of [00:01:59] things. But the majority of the sign ordinance, which is known as the sign [00:02:03] ordinance itself within the code, is in the Land Development Code Chapter 13, and [00:02:08] that was adopted in 2026. There was a, it was done prior to that, but that was [00:02:14] the latest amended version of the code of our sign ordinance, so that's what we [00:02:19] currently work by. It is a functional code. We can work within it. It has lasted [00:02:24] since that time. We have interpreted in the same manner that we have since it's [00:02:31] been written, so, but there are some things that we'd like to discuss about [00:02:34] that. Whenever you deal with a sign ordinance, it's very important that you [00:02:40] note that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution regulates free speech, so we [00:02:45] have to be careful. Anytime we write a sign ordinance that we're not looking at [00:02:50] what you can and can't say, we're not looking at the content of the sign, and [00:02:53] what we're regulating is limited to the time, place, and manner in which a sign [00:02:59] can be placed. As Ms. Manns briefly mentioned, Senate Bill 180 has, that was, [00:03:09] it came about in July of last year, was predominantly written because of, they [00:03:15] wanted to, the Senate wanted to allow for some conditions in development after [00:03:22] the hurricanes, but it is much more restrictive than that, and it actually [00:03:26] prohibits any cone amendments with, they're more restrictive than what has [00:03:32] been previously on the books, and no changes that restrict any codes for any [00:03:39] development or property owners can be done or revised until at least July 2027. [00:03:45] I say at least that because there's some time changes in that, and they might [00:03:49] amend this in the next session. So in a nutshell, Senate Bill 180 prohibits any [00:03:56] cone amendments that would make things more restrictive, so we have to take [00:04:00] that into consideration where we go with this this evening. [00:04:03] Is there anything you'd like to add, Mr. City Attorney? [00:04:06] Yes, if you don't mind, as Mr. Hall stated, we had a significant legislative change made, and it's actually this year, this one to effective July of this year, [00:04:16] and it provided that cities could not adopt more restrictive or burdensome [00:04:25] codes, land-use plan amendments, moratoriums, procedure changes that [00:04:33] would impose greater restriction to be more burdensome on property owners, and [00:04:37] that goes back retroactively to August 1st of 2024, and it doesn't expire until [00:04:44] October 1 of 2027, and the penalties for violating that include injunctive relief, [00:04:51] where property owners can get an injunction against the city to enforce [00:04:55] an offending provision, and they can also recover attorney's fees for having to [00:05:02] do so. So we are significantly curtailed in what we can do until this temporary [00:05:11] pause runs out in October of 2027. So my recommendation to you is that in [00:05:20] consideration of any ordinance that we might adopt that relates to land use, [00:05:25] zoning, planning, development, all of those issues, that we basically table those [00:05:31] discussions until this is over, but if there are things that you would like to [00:05:36] do that are less restrictive, we'll have to look at those items on a case-by-case [00:05:41] basis and make sure that we are truly making things less restrictive or [00:05:46] burdensome, and that can be a pretty tough determination to make. There's no [00:05:52] court cases yet on this, although there is a number of cities that are [00:05:56] challenging this statute for a number of things, not the least of which is this. So [00:06:02] I just want to give you that warning that there's probably not a lot we can [00:06:07] do with our sign ordinance, unfortunately, while this is out there, and while we can [00:06:12] look at some aspects of it, we just have to make sure that we're not making [00:06:15] anything more burdensome or restrictive on property owners. So with that, I'll be [00:06:21] glad to answer any questions about the law if you have any. [00:06:26] I'm touching it. Okay, so as I had mentioned, our code is a functional code. [00:06:35] We've been working with it for some time and we've made, you know, that's the code [00:06:40] we've been going for and it's been working for us fine. There's been some [00:06:43] discussion of wanting it revised or this talked about it this evening, so staff [00:06:48] looked at the current ordinance holistically, understanding that it [00:06:54] functions, and these are the things that we would recommend in the future if we [00:06:58] were going to proceed with any revisions to just the sign ordinance section. It [00:07:02] would be to reorganize the structure of the content. There's some, you know, [00:07:07] reorganization is always good in a code. It's, you know, quite old, so it needs to [00:07:12] be updated. Revise some of the definitions for clarity and precision. Again, this [00:07:17] being an older ordinance, terms and definitions change over time, so we would [00:07:21] like to update those also. Add undefined terms. Again, things change over time. [00:07:27] Things are called different. It's good to update those periodically. Update the [00:07:31] standards for consistency and enforceability. The Police Department and [00:07:35] Code Enforcement has to enforce these codes, and although we've been doing the [00:07:39] same enforcement and the same structure and intent as we've been doing all along, [00:07:42] it might be better to clarify this and overall improve on the language and [00:07:48] grammar of a 10-year-old document. Those are the recommended actions we would do [00:07:53] with that if we were to do an update of this. When you do something like this, [00:07:59] normally you present it with the old code or the new code. One's in yellow and [00:08:05] one's not, and we can sit there and read and compare and see if we're happy. Is [00:08:10] that similar to what you want to do? Certainly. If we would do that, [00:08:14] we would actually have both of them would be a red line and a markup and all [00:08:18] of that right now. But again, now would not be the time to do a holistic change [00:08:23] of that because of the fact that we're restricted in any changes that may [00:08:27] restrict it. Those type of things doesn't sound like you're changing anything. Those things we [00:08:31] could do, but it's just an action of clarifying what's currently in the code. [00:08:36] What I'm saying, present it to us. That's what I'm saying. Why don't you present it to us [00:08:41] with the current in the yellow or the yellow is going out and the clear is coming in. [00:08:46] That's something we could do if it was the direction of the council. [00:08:49] Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Why don't you do that? Anybody else? [00:08:54] For the work session, I mean, part of the reason we had it was based on the specific [00:09:02] issue related to monument signs and for the timing and the request for us to [00:09:12] clarify and understand some of the issues that were raised. But I find it [00:09:23] curious that, you know, your recommended action when you say update standards for [00:09:28] consistency and enforceability, for me, updating a standard for enforceability [00:09:33] is opening the door for someone to complain that it's more restrictive if [00:09:37] in fact we're becoming, our standards are tightening up at all, even if they don't [00:09:43] appear to be, somebody will find a way to say that they are. So I appreciate your [00:09:47] recommendations, but this idea that there is a need to understand what not more [00:09:55] restrictive is, to say something that Fred Kent from the Project for Public [00:10:01] Spaces once said when he was talking about redevelopment in downtowns, he said [00:10:05] effectively that he would recommend sometimes the removal of any [00:10:13] restrictions to let the market do what it wanted to. So as maybe a very [00:10:21] overreaching example, if we were to rescind the requirements, that would [00:10:30] certainly not be more restrictive. So, I mean, that's a very clear thing that I [00:10:37] don't think would be up for debate. I'm not asking to rescind them, but I'm [00:10:42] suggesting that some of the items that we have in the ordinance which are [00:10:47] relating to the time at which a sign is out, and I think most importantly the one [00:10:55] example that hit me was the Hacienda sign, which really, you know, is an antique [00:11:02] sign of historical value, and I'm glad that it was preserved and able to be [00:11:07] kept the way it was. And because it was up on a couple of poles, so to speak, it [00:11:15] was a pole sign and it was empty for all those years and we as a city put it [00:11:20] in. My personal preference is when we have a problem like we have over on [00:11:28] Massachusetts Avenue when something doesn't match with the [00:11:32] surrounding, that we could put some kind of element in there that could provide [00:11:36] us with a, you know, a permanent variance from, or a variance up and until the [00:11:44] sign requirements that are, you know, in adjacent proximity are there. Just [00:11:51] because of the sense that we've heard that somebody's paying money because [00:11:57] they happen to be in the city limits and the neighbor next to him or two down [00:12:01] isn't. We had a lot of discussion about Massachusetts the other day. It would be [00:12:07] great if it was, you know, managed in the way that it's suggested for [00:12:13] aesthetic purposes. We gave him a variance because of that. But it's time [00:12:18] limited. So it wasn't a variance. He can come back every year and get it back, and he [00:12:24] probably would. I'm just saying. I understand. Why wouldn't we be a good [00:12:30] neighbor? Well, because we wouldn't be here anymore. Somebody else would be here. [00:12:34] Right, but the only issue with that is if he does sell it, whoever buys it is going [00:12:38] to inherit the problem that he currently has. So to your point, we got [00:12:45] to come up with some idea of how we're going to handle that going forward. [00:12:48] Because if we're going to start making these changes on Massachusetts, this [00:12:52] problem is not just going to stay small. It's going to keep getting bigger, because [00:12:55] we're going to have those sign issues going across the board. Yeah, technically [00:12:59] what we understand here, we can't do anything until 27 anyhow. Well, if we [00:13:03] loosen restrictions, we can, but if we tighten them, no. Yeah, so that argument [00:13:09] is pretty easily defeated. When you loosen a restriction, that it's not [00:13:14] going to be more restrictive just by its own definition. But just to complete my [00:13:19] part of it, and I hear what anyone else has to say about it, you know, there's [00:13:23] two options that I see it for some of these problems that have been related. [00:13:30] One is that the current ordinance in its definition could be [00:13:39] reduced to areas of particular interest, and we could identify zones to which [00:13:45] that ordinance would apply with respect to signs. We are requiring signage on [00:13:52] Highway 19, and we went through variances for the hotel across from the [00:13:56] McDonald's out there when I was in, because they wanted the sign to be up [00:13:59] taller, and we wouldn't let some of the others that like to have tall signs up. [00:14:04] And it was Catherine Starkey who was pushing that countywide and pushed it to [00:14:08] us, and we accepted it and put some of those rules into place. But to this point, [00:14:13] if the City Council referred to the CRA to say, look, we see the issue, we want [00:14:20] this sign to be here, because we feel it's the best thing to do for the [00:14:24] city, the CRA should come and say, okay, we're going to fund signage to get it in [00:14:31] compliance. And so the argument has been over the way in which the offended [00:14:41] party has come to us and said he wasn't treated right, or he didn't get what he [00:14:45] wanted, or this or that. So we could solve that by saying, you know what, you want to [00:14:51] sell, we want you to keep the sign, we'll make an example of the sign and put it [00:14:58] out there and ask the CRA. [00:15:00] if they'd like to approve giving you the grant, and then we'll pay for the sign that we want [00:15:05] you to have. Otherwise, the other option is to say, you know, we can remove the restrictions [00:15:12] from an area where we've already been imposing it with others, I think, probably, so that's [00:15:18] hard to do. So the other question is, is the definition of a pull sign? And a lot was said [00:15:27] and a lot was disputed to say that it wasn't true, but when looking through what restricted [00:15:33] the use of a pull sign, could you give me a little more detail as to where that's cited [00:15:40] and what that language is? Because that's really the reason we're here. I appreciate [00:15:44] this overview, but in my view, it's because of that one individual and his complaint and [00:15:49] the fact that he was asking for a variance, and we said, let's look at what we should [00:15:53] be doing with the signage and see how that language is. We don't have to give him a [00:16:00] hearing, but we can't ignore the fact that that's why we're here, I think. [00:16:06] I agree, and I think either we take a look at that and clean it up so it's very clear [00:16:12] or let it go, one or the other, you know. But if we clear something up, then it's more [00:16:18] restrictive if we try to stick to the law. It can't be more restrictive than what we're [00:16:22] already telling them, if we clean up the language. [00:16:26] But if we clean up the language, you're saying that we clean up the language to make it more [00:16:30] restrictive because he was right, we didn't have to clean up the language at all, which [00:16:34] is what our attorney's telling us. We don't have to clean up the language. He's given [00:16:37] us legal advice not to. [00:16:41] Because that's what the ordinance is, yeah. We don't need to clean it up, but... [00:16:46] Yeah, where... [00:16:47] So where's the question with how it's written, then? [00:16:49] Yeah, that's right. I understand, I agree with what you're saying. I don't know what [00:16:54] the answer is, but what do we want as a city council, you know, do we want to maintain [00:17:03] this trend that we have to restrict signs and get them all down to monuments, and if [00:17:10] they're empty for six months or nine months, those are the techniques. That's all I have [00:17:15] to say. [00:17:17] Or, you know, we can make it less restrictive where, you know, if you have to build a new [00:17:22] sign because the old one fell down, it has to be the new. You know, so you put in a permit [00:17:26] for a sign for that one, okay, well it's got to meet these standards now. I don't know. [00:17:33] The big issue was the billboards back in the day because there was a big push to get all [00:17:36] the billboards down because they were cluttered. And then the poll signs, my brother's law [00:17:42] office on Granville Park has some of the rustiest old signs, I just have to say, and I'm calling [00:17:50] him out. I mean, you know, it's there, it's a poll sign, you can keep it. [00:17:56] Well, it's a legal thing and we can sit here and discuss it for hours and give examples, [00:18:04] but really we need the guidance from Tim and Dale, what we can do legally. [00:18:12] We tell them what to do, I mean, and they defend it. [00:18:15] We've had a discussion, I think they've heard us. [00:18:17] Well, what is, you were asking, what is like the legal, like, language for what's the definition [00:18:23] of a poll sign? I mean, I know what it says here. [00:18:28] I guess I'm not really sure what you want me to do more than just read what the code [00:18:33] says. [00:18:34] Read it, go ahead. [00:18:38] Okay, a poll sign, see definition of freestanding sign. [00:18:47] Freestanding sign, what? [00:18:51] And that's what I'm getting at, where you have these circular references of what it is, [00:18:57] and it's terminologies used that are, that's old, that maybe is not in the lexicon as today. [00:19:04] So that's the first thing, poll sign says, see freestanding sign. [00:19:08] So then you go to freestanding sign and it says freestanding sign or poll sign shall [00:19:12] mean any sign supported by polls, posts, or similar structure members that are placed [00:19:17] or anchored in the ground and that are independently of any building or other structure. [00:19:24] No heights. [00:19:25] Period. [00:19:26] So where's the thing that says you can't have them? [00:19:29] Oh, that's way buried in here. [00:19:32] Yeah, right. [00:19:37] It's on page 22, clause 4, prohibited signs shall be those identified in 13.07.00 in addition [00:19:47] to the following, A, changeable copy, B, freestanding. [00:19:51] Well, each section of zoning has a prohibited sign and allowable sign section. [00:19:59] That was downtown. [00:20:00] And then further down, there's another one. [00:20:11] So, I mean, I'm not sure how to answer your question specifically. [00:20:15] I can go through each of these sections and say what's prohibited. [00:20:19] Imagine you have a sign on Massachusetts Avenue and you're telling me you can't have it. [00:20:22] I've already done a thorough report on that and submitted it and I can pull that up and [00:20:28] give it again. [00:20:29] So I don't want to contradict what I might have said before. [00:20:32] Well, let's look at what the law says and try to see it in the ordinance. [00:20:35] So maybe Timothy can find it. [00:20:37] But what Bertel just read was the downtown area that says you can't have it. [00:20:41] And in his area, it wasn't. [00:20:42] The section that you're asking about is 13.19.00. [00:20:47] That's on page 21 or 28 of the handout that you've got. [00:20:51] That's the section that says what signs are permitted in the business zones. [00:20:56] And as you can see, it talks about a wall sign. [00:20:59] It talks about total sign area. [00:21:01] It talks about a real estate sign. [00:21:02] And it says monument signs. [00:21:04] And what's limited and what's not included there is freestanding or pole signs, which [00:21:10] are defined. [00:21:11] So by their omission, they're prohibited. [00:21:14] And that's where we're at. [00:21:15] That's what you're dealing with. [00:21:16] So that language that says that, if you could just read that quickly, if you can. [00:21:21] It says the following requirements shall apply to the office zone and all commercial zones [00:21:25] with exceptions. [00:21:27] Such requirements are that, and then it talks about the total sign area. [00:21:32] Wall signs may be mounted flush anywhere. [00:21:34] Monument signs are allowed except in shopping centers. [00:21:38] In addition, a real estate sign of up to 16 square feet is allowed. [00:21:42] And signs shall be limited to a maximum of two monument signs except shopping centers. [00:21:48] And there is no allowance for any. [00:21:50] And there's further guidelines for shopping centers specifically. [00:21:54] And there is no allowance for freestanding signs. [00:21:59] So that's how they're prohibited. [00:22:00] Where do you see? [00:22:01] Because I see 13.7.0 that says prohibited signs. [00:22:06] Where is it? [00:22:07] What language? [00:22:08] Under the prohibited signs. [00:22:10] OK. [00:22:10] Under the permitted signs. [00:22:12] So when you have a code that says what's permitted, that by definition means anything [00:22:18] else is excluded. [00:22:18] What section is that? [00:22:20] 13.19.00. [00:22:22] And that's at page 21 of 28 of the handout that was given. [00:22:26] I don't know if that got renumbered. [00:22:28] No, it's correct. [00:22:28] Oh, actually it's 27. [00:22:29] It looks like it did get renumbered. [00:22:32] I see on page 21, 13.19.00. [00:22:37] That's the one. [00:22:38] 13. [00:22:38] So by, when a code indicates it's the, there's a Latin phrase for it. [00:22:44] Exclusio unus es alterio, alterius, or something like that. [00:22:50] Exclusio alterius, which means if something is allowed and what you want to do is not [00:22:57] within what's allowed, then it's prohibited by its definition. [00:23:01] Not the best wording, I'll grant you. [00:23:03] And I can see where it could cause confusion. [00:23:06] Yeah. [00:23:07] But that's something that I don't think we can address at this time just because of the [00:23:11] concern that someone might, even if it's a clarification, might be deemed by someone [00:23:16] to be making it more restrictive. [00:23:19] And so rather than fight that battle, I wouldn't even try to clarify that language. [00:23:25] Oh, sorry. [00:23:25] No, go ahead, Noah. [00:23:26] I think if I could jump in here a little bit to get back to what Councilman Altman was [00:23:30] saying about the difference between restrictive and easing things. [00:23:35] And just speaking to the gentleman who's the primary person that's causing more of [00:23:41] this larger conversation, I don't want that person to kind of take over the larger conversation, [00:23:49] which is about the policy that was put in place underneath the redevelopment plan. [00:23:57] And it's called for policy 54.4.6.2, which says we are to develop signed regulations [00:24:05] to require monument ground signs in lieu of pole signs. [00:24:10] And then it goes on to say what those ground signs should look like in terms of design [00:24:14] and construction. [00:24:14] And I think that's the larger low-hanging fruit here is maybe we can't necessarily take [00:24:20] actions legislatively with the ordinance. [00:24:24] But is it time to start to reconsider this idea that our policy direction is to prohibit [00:24:31] monument or, excuse me, to prohibit pole signs? [00:24:34] And because the conversation I had with the city attorney and city staff a while ago was [00:24:40] what was the basis for this back in the day? [00:24:44] And apparently there was a movement to outlaw pole signs. [00:24:48] And to me, just because something was good for that time doesn't mean that's necessarily [00:24:53] a compelling argument now. [00:24:55] And so that's the conversation I was hoping to have. [00:24:58] And it might be on me. [00:24:59] I apologize. [00:25:00] Maybe I wasn't articulate enough. [00:25:01] But I think I made it clear. [00:25:05] I see you're saying what we can't do and basically what we can do. [00:25:10] Councilman Altman just pointed out some of it might actually violate SB 180. [00:25:15] So we might not even be able to do that. [00:25:17] But I think what we can do is have a larger conversation about what's in the comp plan, [00:25:23] what's in the redevelopment plan. [00:25:24] Because those things are coming up. [00:25:26] Correct me if I'm wrong. [00:25:27] And maybe consider aligning those with the future. [00:25:31] Because we have enough. [00:25:33] And that one person is representing, he brought a list of people who have been code violated [00:25:38] and had to change their signs for having a pole sign. [00:25:43] And so he's representing quite a few people. [00:25:45] And that might be the larger conversation is can we change, can we make recommendations [00:25:50] to change the comp and redevelopment plan to give us the basis to do these other things? [00:25:57] Well, once again, I have the historical memory of what happened and why. [00:26:02] And on Highway 19, it was the billboards that were the big issue and that they wanted to [00:26:07] come down. [00:26:09] And there were, and in the downtown, it was our CRA back in the day. [00:26:15] There was no citywide CRA. [00:26:18] And so the prohibition of pole signs in the downtown district were specifically written [00:26:28] into the code, specifically saying this is not allowed in the downtown. [00:26:33] So while you have the excusez moi, whatever that was that you said, you know, issue, you [00:26:40] know. [00:26:42] It's your brother-in-law's. [00:26:44] That I would be, you know, the pain in the neck that would argue that the city specifically [00:26:52] identified as downtown as the place that it wanted to see cleaned up and it removed the [00:26:56] pole signs. [00:26:57] And that was, frankly, my understanding. [00:27:00] I, and the intent was to put it there. [00:27:03] If the city was to intend at the time to say we don't want pole signs anywhere, it would [00:27:09] have not put it in the downtown zoning district specifically and left it out of the other [00:27:13] districts. [00:27:14] So to the fact that it's not written there, I think that's the argument that we have [00:27:20] interpreted using your legal argument. [00:27:25] And I'm not saying you're wrong, but I do think that the continual long-term use of [00:27:35] rusty pole signs, including in my own family, God forbid, that they hear. [00:27:40] They will find out I said this, probably, and I'll know who did it, but maybe not. [00:27:48] Because I'm sure they're not listening. [00:27:49] But there's an inequity there, I think. [00:27:55] You can always keep this crappy sign and let it fall apart, because now if we put any more [00:27:59] restrictions and say if the thing is rusty, in fact, is code enforcement here? [00:28:05] Maybe it is. [00:28:07] There's something in the law that would not allow it to be maintained at that crappy level [00:28:11] that it is. [00:28:11] But do we clarify the fact that we could put an exemption or an additional allowable sign [00:28:25] to be used? [00:28:26] And if I was in the CRA, I'd say I'm not spending a dime on a pole sign. [00:28:30] But if you want to get a new sign, we have some incentives so you can get a new sign. [00:28:33] But if you want to keep it and keep it in shape and it's functional and it's been here, [00:28:41] the idea of the billboards was we were going to put a time limit and say you couldn't [00:28:46] immediately tell the business of the billboard industry who were lobbying, you couldn't tell [00:28:51] them they got to take their billboards down, but you could put a sunsetting period on to [00:28:56] say at such and such date, they all have to be gone. [00:28:58] And that industry knew that it was going to end. [00:29:02] That never panned out. [00:29:04] It didn't work too well to restrict them. [00:29:07] We did the same thing in a smaller level with these signs, wanting to make our downtown [00:29:14] special. [00:29:14] And so I don't disagree with your legal opinion, but as the mayor back in the day or the city [00:29:23] councilman when all this was put in place, I remember those hearings and I purposely [00:29:27] remember that the intent was for our CRA and our downtown district to make sure we could [00:29:32] make it a little different and make people want to be here. [00:29:37] So I have a hard time taking a hard line on it. [00:29:42] I think that we could go in and add something to that to say we're adding a sign category [00:29:50] back, but I don't know what that does to the people that just had to put them in like the [00:29:58] gas station. [00:30:00] The easiest solution is to solve the problem when it occurs and say, hey, we want rid of [00:30:08] these things. [00:30:09] This is a city initiative, so you qualify and we're going to help you to replace it [00:30:16] with the right kind of signs that we want. [00:30:18] You're saying leave it how it is, but for those that are running into, you know, someone [00:30:22] running into their building, or running into their sign and they're being told they can't [00:30:26] rebuild it, providing a CRA-based program. [00:30:29] We have a grant for that, and we did have a grant for that, and we do have a grant for [00:30:34] that, so that solves it easier than a bunch of hearings. [00:30:39] What is the spirit of that, because I think there's a difference between saying we have [00:30:43] a grant and a grant that's been directed by the city council to operate under a certain [00:30:47] criteria, because that same person brought to light that apparently they didn't get the [00:30:53] full grant amount, or whatever the case might have been, and is that up to the discretion [00:30:58] of the city manager? [00:30:59] Do we have a set criteria where they unlock 25 percent, 50 percent? [00:31:05] So it's easy to say, we can put a grant for that, but it's a matter of, is it going to [00:31:10] live up to the spirit of what's intended here, and then what's intended in three, five, ten [00:31:16] years from now when it's a different city council sitting up here? [00:31:21] As we've been told, we can't really put a whole lot of changes in for a few years under [00:31:25] this statute that would be interpreted, to your point, Mr. Mayor. [00:31:29] And so my answer is, it's cheaper, it's a solution, and if he has specifically come [00:31:41] to us and said, to your point, I want to sell this thing, and there's no value in my exemption, [00:31:49] then I'm saying, okay, well, let's talk again, and let's get you your monument sign, and [00:32:00] we're talking $15,000, how much could it be for a small business? [00:32:07] Signs are expensive. [00:32:08] They're expensive. [00:32:09] But $15,000 is, well, that's on cheap side. [00:32:12] Okay. [00:32:13] Yeah. [00:32:14] They're expensive. [00:32:15] $20,000, easy. [00:32:16] Yeah. [00:32:17] And you want lights and stuff? [00:32:19] $20,000 is, you know, if that's what we want, and we want to create a standard, and we want [00:32:25] to push the county to put that standard in place for themselves, you know. [00:32:28] If it solves the equity issue you mentioned before. [00:32:31] Yeah. [00:32:32] I can just point out one thing, too, for the record. [00:32:33] Back when Mr. Pollack's hearing was taking place, one of the discussions was about the [00:32:34] fact that there's so much county on Massachusetts Avenue, and there was a discussion about we [00:32:50] ought to try to figure out what the county's going to do, but as it turns out, Mr. Hall [00:32:55] did some research a couple of months ago, or several months now, maybe, and we found [00:33:01] out that days after that hearing, or maybe within a month of that hearing, the county [00:33:07] restricted freestanding signs throughout the county. [00:33:10] So they adopted a policy consistent with the city's policy. [00:33:14] So I just want to make sure you understand that information, if that guides your decision [00:33:18] at all. [00:33:19] And the only thing I would say about relaxing things is during this moratorium period, this [00:33:25] two-year period, if you relax something, you can't change your mind. [00:33:28] So I just want to point that out, if you want to make it more restrictive after you [00:33:31] relax it, you can wait two years and do it, of course, but I just want to make sure that [00:33:35] you take that into consideration. [00:33:37] One of the things that Councilman Altman talked about was the Hacienda sign, and I think one [00:33:42] of the deficiencies in our current sign code is that there's no basis to protect a sign [00:33:49] that has historical significance. [00:33:51] That's something we could do now. [00:33:53] I don't think that would fall under the more restrictive. [00:33:57] And the question there would be, does the property have to be historical, does the sign [00:34:00] have to be historical, or does it have to be an historical district, or any one of those [00:34:05] will work. [00:34:06] So those could be an option as well, is to pursue something along those lines. [00:34:12] So I don't know if there's a, when I look at Massachusetts Avenue, I don't know that [00:34:17] I see something that jumps out at me as a way to protect this particular sign without [00:34:21] affecting other signs, especially other freestanding signs. [00:34:25] So one of the things that we're trying to get clarity on is, does the Council still [00:34:30] want to restrict freestanding signs, and I don't know the numbers, but I would assume [00:34:36] in the years that this has been in place, we've required a lot of property owners to [00:34:41] replace them, and I happen to really like your idea of CRA grant money, it's a great [00:34:47] way when government wants to coerce a certain behavior, help pay for it, make it easier [00:34:51] on the person, and I totally support that, and I think that's a phenomenal idea, is [00:34:57] to make that part of a grant, which you can justify as a beautification and an economic [00:35:01] development to help make properties look better, have prettier signs, newer signs, better looking [00:35:07] signs all around. [00:35:08] I think we do have, and I've had these discussions with Mr. Hall, we do have some definitional [00:35:16] things that should be adjusted, because maybe not all pole signs are created equal, so there [00:35:24] might be ways, I just happen to drive McMullen Booth a lot to get here, and down in Clearwater [00:35:31] there's some brand new Wendy's, just happens to have a very low sign that it's on one pole, [00:35:36] but it has a decorative part underneath it, and maybe you look at that and say, you know, [00:35:41] I don't see anything wrong with that, maybe you still don't like it because it's on one [00:35:45] So those are the kinds of aesthetic decisions that we need to make, I don't know if we can [00:35:49] do those under this Senate Bill 180 right now, but long term those would be things that [00:35:55] we should really try to focus on, is what do we want, and I think it would be very helpful [00:35:59] if you had a bunch of slides of pictures of signs as you're making these discussions and [00:36:04] decide what do you like and what do you not like. [00:36:08] So landscaping, to have a hedge around the bottom of the pole sign to where it looks [00:36:13] like a monument sign, is a lot cheaper than $20,000, but if it's, it was for visual clarity [00:36:25] and lack of clogging up the road, and it does take us into that aesthetics and free speech [00:36:34] and all of the other things that restrict us from doing exactly what we want, unless [00:36:38] we're in a homeowner's association, we sign on that they can approve the paint color of [00:36:42] our house, but I think that's, I've told you what I believe, that the ordinances are fine, [00:37:00] the strict adherence to that and the improvement of the enforcement means that it is our mission [00:37:06] to get rid of them, otherwise code enforcement would not be getting any action on them as [00:37:12] much as we are unable to do what we have as an ordinance that says you can't park on the [00:37:18] grass, you have to have a driveway, because we could throw that one out the window, I [00:37:22] can drive any day and find you 50, 100 houses in our city that are violating that ordinance. [00:37:29] So it's the enforcement part of it as well, and that comes to the complaints that we get [00:37:34] of selective enforcement, not saying that it's true, but it's an argument that folks [00:37:40] make to bad mouth the city's intentions and to create all the havoc that we've heard at [00:37:50] the dais that comes out towards us, so you don't want to bend to that kind of approach, [00:37:55] but at the same time, the real question is, is it an automatic, if there are paint projects [00:38:01] in cities that say if you qualify, you get it, so is this an if you qualify, you get [00:38:07] it, or is this we decide whether we like it or not, you know, and so. [00:38:12] I like the grant thing, and even if it's not even 100% of the signed value, half or whatever, [00:38:20] to help them out, and I think that the whole point of it is not to have such tall signs, [00:38:27] because I've gone to other communities, and you know, you'll be going to a Walmart, and [00:38:32] you don't even know where the Walmart is until you get close to it, you see a sign sticking [00:38:35] out a little bit, and it's like that on purpose, because I think they call it low impact or [00:38:40] low something, and it looks really nice, and let's face it, back in the day, we had pole [00:38:45] signs, try to get them as tall as possible so you could find that place. Well, nowadays, [00:38:50] we have GPS and everything else, I mean, you don't have to, you just punch it in and bring [00:38:54] it right to it, so it's just really, they're just really antiquated and outdated. [00:38:57] It's definitely a factor in, you know, they've got a restriction on the height of signs, [00:39:01] and it just affects the whole neighborhood, it just affects the whole thing, it doesn't [00:39:04] have that 19 look downtown. I'm going to finish real quick. So, yeah, [00:39:10] so we don't really need the height sign, and they're ugly, and they look horrible, you [00:39:14] know, so I mean, that's the direction we still need to go, definitely for that, but [00:39:17] I don't understand why Nathan wants a sign, because he can put, write something on it. [00:39:21] I'm still talking! Oh, I'm sorry. [00:39:25] So maybe, I think the grant thing is probably a better, a better use in trying to help them [00:39:31] out when having to make that change. I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, it's going [00:39:36] to cost us money, of course, but, you know, that's kind of what we're trying to do is [00:39:40] beautification and making it look better. Either that, or we wait until the sign's, [00:39:46] you know, not in good shape, and they apply for a permit for a new one, and that's what [00:39:52] they have to build, you know. But that could take, you know, another 20 years, 30 years. [00:39:57] And we do have a current grant program in place, and the grant program is for a sign [00:40:04] up to a value of $50,000, and the grant would pay half of the cost, which is $25,000. Mr. [00:40:13] Pollack asked for an application for the program. I'm sure it's in excess of six months ago [00:40:18] now, and he's never applied to the program, but he does have an application for the program. [00:40:24] I mean, I understand, I mean, he's, he changes what he writes on the sign, you know, weekly [00:40:29] or monthly, but it attracts people to look at his sign, and that's why you can start [00:40:34] reading it a block away, and I understand why he wants it and wants to keep it as part [00:40:38] of his advertising, you know. So, you know, I understand why he wants it, and that's the [00:40:44] number one reason, I'm sure. Is the height a problem of that sign? It just needed a monument. [00:40:48] Does it come down to, I don't know, it's tall. It's too tall. Yeah, it's too tall. Yeah, [00:40:54] it's two or three stories tall. I don't know. The wording, we started out with this whole [00:41:01] conversation with the wording. I think there's probably some wording that we need to clean [00:41:05] up, which I have no problems with. You know, the grant program, we need to advertise it, [00:41:11] you know, for the businesses, and I don't know what else I got out of this. Yeah, I [00:41:15] think to me, the thing that I got out of it is I'm hoping to get the accessory drawing [00:41:21] ordinance in front of me and some other things, so I'm not so sure that we should even play [00:41:26] around with the wording at this point. I think what we should do is, you know, is say, you [00:41:32] know, we've had this discussion. The McDonald's just got built. It doesn't have a tall sign, [00:41:38] does it? No. And everything else doesn't, and I supported that way back in the day. [00:41:44] Truth be told, it was for the downtown, and the fact that it's expanded has probably meant [00:41:50] it was a good idea, and to your point, it's still a good idea. And I don't necessarily [00:41:55] think those single pole ones look bad. They're not tall as long as they're short. Right, [00:42:01] I agree. You know, I think they look kind of, I don't know. They should have landscaping [00:42:04] around them. Yeah, I think they're fine. I mean, that's really what that scooter sign [00:42:08] is. Yeah. It's basically a pole, and then they just put concrete log around it to make [00:42:12] it a monument. And it's low. Right. That's all they did. But the big thing is that we [00:42:17] just have to follow through with what we already said we were going to do. Because [00:42:22] like we said, we can't, we forced all these people to change their signs. Now we're going [00:42:27] to change it and say, oh, well, now we're not going to do that. So realistically, we've [00:42:31] already implemented, we got to follow through. I think with CRA grant money, there's options [00:42:38] for people. I mean, obviously, when he bought the business, he knew the sign wasn't right. [00:42:44] So we did give him an extension to kind of help. But going forward, and especially since [00:42:50] the fact the county is going to limit the signs there as well. So now we're going to [00:42:55] be all uniform. I mean, I kind of agree. It probably started off as more of a downtown [00:42:59] district, and it just kind of got enveloped into the whole city. But we've started it. [00:43:04] We've got to keep it. Yeah, I agree with you. I think it's a good thing. But I definitely [00:43:08] agree. We definitely need to change some wording. So I mean, obviously, look, most people aren't [00:43:12] going to understand this anyway. But some of it is very controversial. It's like, go [00:43:17] to this page to get this answer for that page. But as Tim said, we definitely can't change [00:43:22] it now. So we're definitely going to have to wait. But I just think we should maybe [00:43:26] make it a little bit more known when people come to, you know, development and got a problem [00:43:34] with their sign that they know what they can get. And they know the answers. Because I [00:43:39] know a lot of people will tell me, well, I went in and I talked to this person. I got [00:43:42] this answer. I went back and talked to this person. I got this answer. So that's something [00:43:47] that I like for us to get better at, definitive answers across the board the same. And then [00:43:53] this way, there's no question. Could we just eliminate the prohibition against [00:43:58] poll signs in the downtown so that we could consistently say that unless it's mentioned, [00:44:03] then it's not allowable? Or can you, or just, you know, because... [00:44:09] It's seen as a clarifying language that maybe it's arguable that it's more restrictive. [00:44:15] You're saying if you just eliminate the prohibition, yeah. [00:44:19] You can't once in a while say this is prohibited and then come over here and say these are [00:44:23] the things you're allowed to do. So let's either say what's allowed in each district [00:44:27] or say what's prohibited in each district. So if you've got a list of definitions, isn't [00:44:31] that the cleanest way to do it? I mean, you know... [00:44:34] No mistaking then. [00:44:35] No. [00:44:36] Yeah. [00:44:37] So eliminate the prohibition language in the downtown area. [00:44:41] Yeah, then you can stay consistent with your legal advice, which is if it's not identified [00:44:46] in the downtown area as an option to begin with... [00:44:48] I think you can't do it. [00:44:49] And then if that's the case... [00:44:52] And that's not the only place that we have some of those inconsistencies where things [00:44:57] are specifically, for some reason... [00:45:00] prohibited in the downtown area that wouldn't otherwise even be allowed in the downtown area. [00:45:04] We pick up particular uses and say that's not allowed even though it's not allowed. [00:45:09] It has to be allowed to do it. [00:45:11] And then we specifically say this is really prohibited. [00:45:14] So those good intentions actually created a mess for us when we did them way back in the day. [00:45:19] It's your fault, Peter. [00:45:20] Yeah, well it is, and I'll take it out. [00:45:22] Did we get all your votes on all those not prohibited? [00:45:26] Bertell, do you want to add anything else? [00:45:27] Yeah, just to reiterate kind of what Councilman Jonas said, [00:45:31] which was I think the spirit of the ordinance and the comp and redevelopment plan was to go in a certain direction. [00:45:41] I think it's important to stay consistent with that because that was what the community wanted then [00:45:45] and what it seems like the community wants now. [00:45:48] We haven't had a packed house saying otherwise. [00:45:50] However, at the same time, there was conversation about equity and making sure some of our businesses, [00:45:56] especially those that aren't in downtown, see some of the same abilities to do what the community wants, [00:46:03] especially when they're receiving code violations. [00:46:07] And to that effect, the fact that someone has come before us frustrated with the code violation [00:46:15] shows that our code enforcement are working hard to enforce the code as it exists. [00:46:19] So no harm or foul there. [00:46:21] I think that shows the process is working. [00:46:24] My chief concern is the equity part, which is we have a business that's coming to us that's saying this is creating a significant [00:46:31] hardship for them to fix, and our initial but cannot be permanent fix was to give them a stay. [00:46:38] Is that the right term for that? [00:46:40] Because I know variation was thrown around or variance was thrown around earlier, but I think it's a stay. [00:46:45] I believe we did a one-year, a one-year, and then a three-year, or it might have been a one-year and a three-year. [00:46:50] But the point is they have a stay right now, and that is not a permanent fix to the inequity problem. [00:46:56] Councilman Altman rightfully pointed out that there's CRA grant eligibility. [00:47:02] My concern with that is, I mean, this goes back to Greg Orvak, and when I requested to see what CRA grants we have, [00:47:12] what's the criteria we have, it seemed all over the place. [00:47:16] I mean, he claimed he didn't know either, really. [00:47:18] And he was the economic development director at the time. [00:47:20] And so if we can get a clear list of where we are at with CRA grants, how they come, [00:47:26] what is the actionable city council's role in giving a direction on those grants? [00:47:34] Because for me, like we've set 50% apparently at some point in time for beautification, [00:47:39] and maybe there are cases where that should be higher if it's an equity code issue versus a new development [00:47:47] where you have other vehicles like permit fee waivers and stuff like that. [00:47:51] This is someone who is in a tough spot because they bought the building and inherited an issue that was the prior owner's. [00:48:00] And in my mind, that puts them into a boat where perhaps there needs to be a greater match in terms of what they get, [00:48:09] in terms of tearing down that sign and putting up a new one. [00:48:12] So I would like to just get a better idea. [00:48:14] Before we go, there's already a grant for that, understanding what the rigor of those grants are, [00:48:20] how much they're being used, who's using them, the diversity of use, [00:48:23] and if we have blind spots or weak areas where we need to revisit our grant programs altogether. [00:48:30] That's my only holdout on the CRA suggestion. [00:48:34] You got anything else? [00:48:37] Just need to, I guess, decide if we're going to do a grant, is it going to be 100% or what it's going to be, [00:48:44] and then we might have some people come back that we require to put in a new sign [00:48:51] and maybe we can do something to help them out. [00:48:53] Maybe it's not the full amount but something because I'd be aggravated for change right after I put a new sign up. [00:48:59] So that would be my input. [00:49:02] In response to Bertel's comments, I just want to make the point that the City Council doesn't technically have any authority [00:49:10] as it relates to the CRA loans. [00:49:13] It is the Community Redevelopment Agency, though, that does have full authority [00:49:17] as it relates to the administration of that program [00:49:21] and that approves the guidelines by which the program is administered. [00:49:27] We can make available to you a listing of all of the grant programs that are currently available [00:49:35] and you're free to have access to our records of all of those that have been processed through the program. [00:49:49] We don't keep secrets on any of those items. [00:49:54] It's important to note that we will be recommending some changes to the program [00:50:01] in conjunction with the adoption of our new Community Redevelopment Plan. [00:50:07] So we'll have an opportunity to present and discuss all of those programs to you [00:50:12] and we hope that you'll provide us with some input at that time on programs that we'll be recommending [00:50:20] because we think that there are some new programs that will be particularly helpful to the City, [00:50:27] both the homeowners and the business community, [00:50:34] in respect to our goals that we're advancing in this next round of the plan. [00:50:41] And if it's the Community Redevelopment Agency's desire to play a bigger role in the administration of the grants, [00:50:54] it would be a perfect time to establish that when we adopt the plan [00:51:00] and we can bring every grant in front of you if you determine that you'd like to do that [00:51:07] and let you know what we're recommending on every grant. [00:51:11] Most of them are cut and dry for the most part. [00:51:15] It's just eligible expenditures. [00:51:17] Yeah, that's exactly right. [00:51:19] There's rules from the state on what we can do and what we can't do. [00:51:23] There are. [00:51:24] And so it's pretty clear what they are and there isn't a lot of deviation, [00:51:34] but we'd be glad to present those to you before we make payment [00:51:37] if you'd like to add that as part of the processing of the payments. [00:51:42] But we want to be informed. [00:51:45] We want to be informed. [00:51:46] If you do, we can bring those to you before we ever make payment. [00:51:53] Until we decide how we're going to do that, so what do we do with this ordinance at this time? [00:51:58] Do we put it on hold or do we not enforce it? [00:52:02] The ordinance as far as poll signage. [00:52:05] Poll signage. [00:52:06] Just a whole sign ordinance. [00:52:08] I think what Dale presented, some rewording so it doesn't, with Tim's backing, [00:52:14] get the approval of maybe fine-tuning it a little bit. [00:52:19] Yeah, we will work on that. [00:52:21] Yeah, but no major changes because of the ordinance. [00:52:24] That's correct. [00:52:25] Or because of the law, whatever. [00:52:26] Does that sound right? [00:52:28] Yes. [00:52:31] I do want to. [00:52:32] It's going to be more problematic than you think. [00:52:34] I just want to make that point. [00:52:36] We're going to get into that restrictive area. [00:52:38] I don't think he can do a whole lot of changes. [00:52:41] Okay, I thought he had done it. [00:52:43] You guys had talked, so that's fine. [00:52:45] Otherwise, he wouldn't have put it in the presentation. [00:52:47] You're going to move them? [00:52:49] If there are grant applications, yes. [00:52:50] I think he's also trying to give you some long-term thoughts. [00:52:53] Okay, okay. [00:52:54] So those are, we've kind of resigned ourselves that some of those things that we do want to fix [00:52:59] are going to have to wait. [00:53:00] Okay, all right. [00:53:01] And I think that's the prudent way to proceed, [00:53:04] and I kind of want you to keep that in mind [00:53:07] and keep that statute in the back of your head as you're thinking about legislative changes [00:53:11] because it is going to severely curtail what we can do in the short term. [00:53:14] With the exception of looking into removing the historic thing, or was that a suggestion? [00:53:19] I would like to see that change. [00:53:22] Let's establish what our historical boundaries are going to be and implement that [00:53:28] so this way somebody can't say, well, the Hacienda sign is a pull sign and I'm a pull sign, [00:53:33] why can't I be them, which probably should have been done before, but I think that makes sense. [00:53:40] So if someone comes tomorrow and says, you know, [00:53:43] I'm buying this building and we have a requirement that they have to get away from the pull sign, [00:53:48] are we going to say, yes, you're going to have to go to a monument-style sign, [00:53:52] but we have a grant program that you can apply for to help pay for some of that? [00:53:56] Of course. [00:53:57] Is that going to be the answer? [00:53:58] That's available now. [00:53:59] Okay. [00:54:00] So they have some option. [00:54:01] They do, yes. [00:54:02] I would like to... [00:54:04] And I just have to make the point that Mr. Pollack knew that when he bought the building. [00:54:10] He sat in the room with the building owners [00:54:14] and had the opportunity to negotiate that point as a point of sale and didn't do that. [00:54:22] Right. [00:54:23] So it's not like he bought the building and didn't realize that he was buying a building with a nonconforming sign. [00:54:31] Well, I'm the one who said he's the reason we're here, [00:54:35] but I certainly don't want to do anything for the specific, you know, [00:54:40] purpose to your point of addressing just Mr. Pollack. [00:54:45] Right. [00:54:46] But I do want to say just two things. [00:54:50] One, that Bertel's idea of how we treat an existing, you say the word equity, [00:54:57] but an existing desire for us to improve a piece of property that's already there and functional, [00:55:03] which may have minimal effect on the property value, which is really the goal of the CRA, [00:55:09] versus a new building that comes in. [00:55:12] So the ones that are there that need help, need the cash and the grants, the ones that are building, [00:55:18] if they're doing what we'd like them to do and putting a product in that we want, [00:55:22] then we should be letting them tap into their future tax increment [00:55:27] that has already not been produced by the tax base that's already here. [00:55:32] So I think we could really try to divide those two things, [00:55:36] that new growth is going to ask for what looks like a lot, [00:55:40] but what they're asking for is tax rebates to help them make a project work. [00:55:46] We've already got $9 or $10 million a year coming in. [00:55:49] That's the money we should be spending on fixing up our community, investing it, [00:55:55] and making wise investments like we're doing with all the lands we bought. [00:55:59] And so I think there's room. [00:56:01] When we started this, we didn't have much money. [00:56:04] And to that point, the city of Dade City has got a couple hundred thousand dollars a year goes into their CRA, [00:56:10] and they meet and have a CRA meeting every month, [00:56:14] and they have an advisory committee, [00:56:16] and they go through all of those mechanisms for just a few projects, [00:56:20] an alleyway improvement or some one or two projects. [00:56:24] We've got a big operation, and I think that, Debbie, [00:56:30] you've suggested with our staff fully in place that we should be seeing regular meetings. [00:56:35] Absolutely. [00:56:36] And so I think having those regular meetings allows us to have an agenda item that says, [00:56:41] here are the grant applications that are before us, and let us see them and understand where things are. [00:56:47] And so I'm hopeful that you also can get the additional management help you need from this end [00:56:54] so that you can, you know, kind of fully, you know, [00:56:58] put the time you need into from your role as the CRA director, which has got to be a juggle. [00:57:09] I mean, everybody sits here and talks about all the things that have to be done, [00:57:12] and so I know your budget is allowing you to have even more administrative support in it. [00:57:19] And so we haven't heard whether you're successful or you're going out for that part yet, [00:57:24] but I think that we just really need to have those CRA meetings have agendas that are keeping us posted with all this stuff. [00:57:36] So it protects you, and to your request, when the CRA meetings come and we can answer you as a CRA director, [00:57:44] I would be encouraging my alter ego of the CRA to really accept that additional responsibility to pay a little more attention [00:57:57] and give a little more approval and guidance, which can also be protection for decisions being made. [00:58:04] Absolutely. [00:58:05] As well, so I think it helps all of us to get more involved in it. [00:58:08] Anybody else? And my pizza's ready. [00:58:13] Anybody else? [00:58:14] No, I think we've got it all covered. [00:58:17] If I can correct the record on something I said earlier, that Latin phrase is, [00:58:21] inclusio unus, exclusio alterius. [00:58:26] Exclusio moi. [00:58:31] Thank you. [00:58:34] Thank you, chat GPT. [00:58:36] And Dale, thank you, because I have a better understanding of where that provision, [00:58:42] just by you bringing it up again, where that provision really came to cause that misunderstanding of the provision.

   This text was generated automatically from the meeting video. It is not a verbatim or official record. For exact wording, consult the video or the city clerk.

3. 3Adjournment▶ 58:50