The most significant topic during the meeting was the introduction and discussion of three ordinances related to the Mobility fee and Mobility plan. The council reviewed Ordinance Number 1748, which involves adopting the Mobility plan and fee, along with an extraordinary circumstances report. Ordinance Number 1749 proposes an update to Chapter 28 of the code of ordinances, which deals with impact fees. Ordinance Number 1750 seeks to amend the Land Development Code to remove references to transportation concurrency, transitioning to the Mobility fee structure.

Mr. Jonathan Paul, the consultant who developed the Mobility plan, provided an overview, describing it as a long-term vision for facilitating transportation within Oviedo. The Mobility fee will apply only to new developments, not affecting existing homeowners, and will be assessed at the time of building permits. The fee is intended to fund multimodal projects, including roadway improvements, sidewalks, bike lanes, and intersection enhancements. The plan identifies the downtown area of Oviedo as a key hub for Eastern Seminole County.

Public engagement efforts were highlighted, with two workshops held to discuss extraordinary circumstances related to the Mobility fee. Findings from these workshops, documented in a study dated April 2024, confirmed that the city had taken necessary steps to create a forward-looking plan and fee structure. The program offers lower fees for affordable housing and small retail uses, with pre-calculated adjustments for qualifying projects. The overall fee schedule is streamlined and based on updated local data.

During public comments, David Axel, representing a real estate firm, expressed concern about the two rates stipulated in the ordinance: a regular rate and a mixed-use rate. Axel suggested that the ordinance should grant by-right lower rates to specific areas, particularly in the downtown core and the Community Redevelopment Area (CRA). He argued that the current structure could discourage development by imposing full traffic studies on applicants seeking the lower mixed-use rate, which might cost between $18,000 to $45,000. Axel requested the council consider allowing by-right access to the lower rate in the downtown core and CRA to encourage mixed-use developments.

The council deliberated on the motion to schedule a second public hearing for September 16, 2024, including the provision for mixed use in downtown areas at a 25% discount. A council member recommended maintaining the 25% discount uniformly rather than altering it for different zones. The discussion also explored how the ordinance would handle the transition from the previous system to the new Mobility fee structure, particularly its implications for existing developments and those that had been demolished long ago.

Further discussions focused on the provisions for crediting buildings that have been built and subsequently demolished. It was noted that a new ordinance would establish a timeframe for considering vacant or demolished buildings as inactive uses. The council sought clarification on how the ordinance would handle the transition from the previous system to the new Mobility fee structure, particularly its implications for existing developments and those that had been demolished long ago.

The conversation progressed to the implications of these classifications on determining mobility fees for new developments. A council member questioned how the ordinance would treat properties that had been demolished long ago, particularly regarding the credit for impact fees owed. This led to a proposal for setting a uniform period for granting impact fee credits, with suggestions to consider extending the period to seven or ten years. The debate reflected concerns over the practicalities of redevelopment and the potential financial implications for developers if they faced significant delays in bringing projects to fruition.

A consensus began to form around establishing a fixed time frame, with the discussion leaning toward seven years as a reasonable compromise for allowing redevelopment while also addressing the concerns related to traffic studies no longer considering properties that had been inactive for extended periods.

The specifics of how fees would be assessed for properties undergoing redevelopment were also clarified. Properties that had previously been used for a particular purpose could receive credit for that prior use when new construction commenced. However, if the new development represented an increase in intensity or a different use altogether, the developer would be required to pay the difference in mobility fees. The conversation concluded with an emphasis on the need for clarity in how credits were awarded based on the actual use of structures.

Another portion of the meeting involved the appointment of members to the newly established Recreation and Parks Advisory Board. The ordinance for this board had been adopted in April, and it was noted that the board would consist of seven members with staggered terms. The council reviewed a pool of around twenty applicants for the seven positions, and a methodology was proposed to select members based on voting for the top candidates.

Members began to list their preferred candidates, and the process involved tallying votes to ensure a fair selection that would reflect a diversity of opinions and backgrounds. There was a consensus to prioritize applicants who were present at the meeting. Further discussions focused on how to assign terms to the selected candidates, ultimately deciding that those who received the most votes and were present would be given the three-year terms, while others would be assigned shorter terms.