The council’s deliberation on naming a new street was a topic of significant engagement due to constraints related to existing street names within Seminole County. The most popular suggestion was “Caitlyn Downing,” honoring a young girl who battled a brain tumor. However, existing streets named Caitlyn Place and Downing Street disqualified this choice. “Rooster,” another favored suggestion, faced similar challenges. The council explored several other names, including “Riley Green,” “Owen Cash,” and “Solar,” but each presented conflicts with either existing street names or postal service guidelines.

The name “Citizens” emerged as a strong contender due to its historical connection with a local bank established in 1946. The council debated appropriate suffixes, such as “Street” or “Lane,” ultimately favoring “Citizens Street.” They agreed to consult Seminole County addressing for final approval, considering options like “way” or “lane” as alternatives.

Parallel to the street naming discussion, the council addressed the issue of financial transparency. An online checkbook discussion led by Mr. Cobb revealed a preference to host the city’s check registry on its website. The council contrasted the Seminole County Clerk’s user-friendly financial data interface with the more convoluted system used by the City of Winter Springs. They explored the feasibility of including checks under $2,500 to ensure comprehensive transparency. A consensus seemed to lean towards maintaining an exhaustive dataset on the city’s website, with additional consideration given to the Clerk’s office’s preferences for data formats.

The council also explored new enterprise software options to replace the current system, Navaline, emphasizing transparency and enhanced functionalities in potential replacements. Discussions centered on the benefits of various platforms, including “Open Gov” and “Clear Gov,” though concerns about associated costs suggested a preference for free options until a more comprehensive system transition occurs.

The charter review process was another key topic, with the council discussing the establishment of a review committee. Past experiences were referenced, noting that the previous committee had 15 members, each appointed by a council member. While considering whether to replicate this structure, the council expressed a desire for transparency in the application process, including clear information about meeting schedules to enhance participation. The inclusion of Mr. Vos as a facilitator was suggested to improve the process.

The council also noted the potential impact of ongoing state legislative discussions on the charter, particularly regarding election dates and term lengths. The idea of submitting individual concerns to the committee’s facilitator before the first meeting was proposed to ensure that specific areas of interest were addressed. The council aimed to initiate the application process for the committee soon, planning to form it by December or January with a 30-day application window.

As the meeting concluded, it was announced that there would be no agenda items for the upcoming meeting on November 3rd, except for a ceremonial agenda concerning art in the chambers, which could be rescheduled. The meeting was then adjourned.