MEET

CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING City Hall – Council Chamber 405 Bagshaw Way, Edgewood, Florida Tuesday, December 16, 2025 at 6:30 PM AGENDA Welcome! We are very glad you have joined us for today’s Council meeting. If you are not on the agenda, please complete an appearance form and hand it to the City Clerk. When you are recognized, state your name and address. The Council is pleased to hear relevant comments; however, a five (5) minute limit has been set by Council. Large groups are asked to name a spokesperson. Robert’s Rules of Order guide the conduct of the meeting. Please silence all cellular phones and pagers during the meeting. Thank you for participating in your City Government. A. CALL TO ORDER, INVOCATION, & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE B. ROLL CALL & DETERMINATION OF QUORUM C. PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS D. CONSENT AGENDA Items on the consent agenda are defined as routine in nature, therefore, do not warrant detailed discussion or individual action by the Council. Any member of the Council may remove any item from the consent agenda simply by verbal request prior to consideration of the consent agenda. The removed item(s) are moved to the end of New Business for discussion and consideration. 1. November 18, 2025 City Council Meeting Minutes E. ORDINANCES (FIRST READING) F. PUBLIC HEARINGS (ORDINANCES – SECOND READINGS & RELATED ACTION) 1. Ordinance 2025-12: Certified Recovery Residences AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDGEWOOD, FLORIDA, RELATING TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE; AMENDING CHAPTER 134 TO ADD CODE OF ORDINANCES SECTION 134-40 ESTABLISHING A PROCESS FOR THE REVIEW OF REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUESTS FOR CERTIFIED 8 RECOVERY RESIDENCES PURSUANT TO FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 397.487; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE 2. Ordinance 2025-13: Street Repaving Gated Communities AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDGEWOOD, AMENDING CHAPTER 126, SUBDIVISIONS, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF EDGEWOOD, TO REVISE THE MANDATORY REPAVING REQUIREMENT FOR PRIVATE STREETS IN GATED NEIGHBORHOODS TO A MANDATORY PAVING NEEDS ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENT; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, CONFLICTS AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. G. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. C-PACE Program H. NEW BUSINESS 1. 2026 Municipal Election and Canvassing Board 1/80

City Council Regular Meeting AGENDA 12/16/2025 I. GENERAL INFORMATION J. CITIZEN COMMENTS K. BOARDS & COMMITTEES L. STAFF REPORTS City Attorney Smith Police Chief DeSchryver 1. Chief's Report - November 2025 City Clerk Riffle 1. Clerks Report - 11/13 thru 12/10 M. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Mayor Dowless 1. Planning & Zoning Board Recommendations Council Member Lomas Council Member McElroy Council Member Rader Council Member Steele Council President Horn N. ADJOURNMENT UPCOMING MEETINGS & HOLIDAY OFFICE CLOSURES Mon, December 22 – Fri, December 26, 2025 ………..City Hall & Police Department Offices Closed for Christmas Thur, January 1 - Fri, January 2, 2026..…..……………….City Hall & Police Department Offices Closed for New Years Day Monday, January 12, 2026.........................................Planning & Zoning Meeting 6:30PM Monday, January 19, 2026.........................................City Hall & Police Department Offices Closed for MLK JR Day Tuesday, January 20, 2026.........................................City Council Meeting 6:30PM Meeting Records Request You are welcome to attend and express your opinion. Please be advised that Section 286.0105, Florida Statutes state that if you decide to appeal a decision made with respect to any matter, you will need a record of the proceedings and may need to ensure that a verbatim record is made. Americans with Disabilities Act In accordance with the American Disabilities Act (ADA), if any person with a disability as defined by the ADA needs special accommodation to participate in this proceeding, he or she should telephone the City Clerk at (407) 851- 2920. 2/80

CALL TO ORDER, INVOCATION, & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3/80

ROLL CALL & DETERMINATION OF QUORUM 4/80

PRESENTATIONS & PROCLAMATIONS 5/80

CONSENT AGENDA 6/80

CITY COUNCIL MEETING & FINAL BUDGET HEARING City Hall – Council Chamber 405 Bagshaw Way, Edgewood, Florida Tuesday, November 18, 2025 at 6:30 PM Richard A. Horn Council President Chris Rader Council President Pro-Tem Susan Lomas Councilmember Casey McElroy Councilmember Beth Steele Councilmember MINUTES These minutes provide a summary of the key discussions and decisions made during the November 18, 2025 City Council Meeting. A complete audio recording of the meeting is available for public review for one year. After one year, the City will dispose of the recording in accordance with applicable regulations. To access the recording, please contact Edgewood City Hall at 407-851-2920. CALL TO ORDER & PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council President Horn called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm and led everyone in the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL AND DETERMINATION OF QUORUM Administrative Project Manager Sollazzo confirmed a quorum with all five (5) Councilmembers and Mayor Dowless present. ELECTED OFFICIALS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT John Dowless, Mayor Brett Sollazzo. Administrative Project Manager Richard A. Horn, Council President Dean DeSchryver, Police Chief Chris Rader, Council President Pro-Tem Miguel Garcia, Deputy Police Chief Susan Lomas, Councilmember Scott Zane, Code Compliance Officer Casey McElroy, Councilmember Drew Smith, City Attorney Beth Steele, Councilmember Ellen Hardgrove, City Planner Allen Lane, City Engineer FINAL BUDGET HEARING Both the ordinance and the resolution were brought back for public hearing and final approval after errors were identified in the previous final budget hearing proceedings, resulting in a violation/infraction. As required by the State of Florida, the City must re-advertise and conduct a new Final Hearing for the FY 2025–2026 budget. All advertisements for this hearing, including the budget summary, were submitted to TRIM and approved. 1. Ordinance 2025-10: Set MIllage Rate Fiscal Year 2025/2026 Attorney Smith read Ordinance 2025-10 by title only. A brief discussion occurred among Councilmembers and Mayor Dowless. There was no public comment. MOTION & ROLL CALL VOTE Councilmember Rader made a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 2025-10 as presented, setting the City of Edgewood's millage rate for Fiscal Year 2025/2026 at 5.250 mills, representing a 7.760 percent increase over the roll-back rate of 4.872 mills. The motion was seconded by Councilmember McElroy and approved by a roll call vote of 5-0. Council President Horn Favor Councilmember Rader Favor Councilmember Lomas Favor Councilmember McElroy Favor Councilmember Steele Favor 7/80

City Council & Final Budget Hearing MINUTES 11/18/2025 2 | P a g e 2. Resolution Ordinance 2025-04: Approved Budget Fiscal Year 2025/2026 Attorney Smith read Resolution 2025-04 by title only. A brief discussion occurred among Councilmembers and Mayor Dowless. There was no public comment. MOTION & ROLL CALL VOTE Councilmember Rader made a motion to adopt Resolution 2025-04 as presented, approving the City of Edgewood's budget for Fiscal Year 2025/2026. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Lomas and approved by a roll call vote of 5-0. Council President Horn Favor Councilmember Rader Favor Councilmember Lomas Favor Councilmember McElroy Favor Councilmember Steele Favor CONSENT AGENDA 1. October 21, 2025 City Council Meeting Minutes Councilmember Lomas made a motion to approve the October 21, 2025 City Council Meeting Minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Steele and approved by a voice vote of 5-0. BOARDS & COMMITTEES 1. Variance 2025-05: After-the-Fact Variance Requests – 4045, 4053 & 4061 Forrestal Ave Council President Horn directed that this agenda item be heard earlier in the meeting to accommodate the applicant and avoid an extended wait for their presentation. Planner Hardgrove presented the request for several after-the-fact variances for the three warehouse/flex buildings at 4045, 4053, and 4061 Forrestal Avenue. The variances are needed to establish legal conforming status after a 2025 survey identified long-standing nonconformities involving building setbacks, building length, parking layout and landscaping, open space, and the road buffer. Planner Hardgrove reviewed the site history, noting that the City approved the original site plan in 1985 and accepted the 1986 as-built drawings, which appeared to match the plan even though actual field conditions did not. Council President Horn asked about the site’s early development and whether the 1986 as-built was a true signed survey. Planner Hardgrove confirmed that it was, and that while it matched the approved plan, the current survey revealed discrepancies. Council President Horn noted the differences between the 1985 plan and actual construction but acknowledged that the origins of those discrepancies are unknown. Councilmember Rader asked whether staff evaluated alternatives to reduce the number of variances. Planner Hardgrove explained that the buildings cannot be moved, so only limited changes—such as landscaping or parking adjustments—could be considered, and those would likely create new compliance issues. She emphasized that most nonconformities date to original construction and the City’s acceptance of the as-built drawings. Councilmember Steele asked about building size, and Planner Hardgrove described the building lengths and noted that both end buildings were constructed longer than approved. Attorney Smith added that the issue surfaced only because the buyer’s title company identified the discrepancies. Planner Hardgrove summarized the setback issues: • The west setback may be a surveying inconsistency. • The north setback is six inches short of the minimum requirement. 8/80

City Council & Final Budget Hearing MINUTES 11/18/2025 3 | P a g e • The east setback is affected by an undocumented ±7-foot loss of property depth tied to a historic railroad right-of-way reservation. For parking, Planner Hardgrove explained that the landscape islands shown on the approved 1985 site plan were never installed, and the City accepted the as-built layout. Retrofitting islands now would be impractical. She also described the request to allow 8.4-foot-wide parking spaces next to the warehouse bay doors, where the building configuration prevents meeting the standard 9-foot width without losing required parking. The reduced width would apply only in constrained areas; all other spaces must meet current code. Planner Hardgrove also addressed the open space deficit, noting that the site now has about 10% open space rather than the required 15–20%, largely due to the missing landscape islands and longer buildings. Because these conditions have existed for decades, she recommended allowing the variance but prohibiting any additional impervious area unless full redevelopment occurs. Regarding the road buffer, she explained that the City’s landscape architect approved the existing turf and palms in 2021 and recommended formalizing that approval through a variance, with the condition that palms be replaced with understory trees if they die. Attorney Charlie Martin, representing the property owner, stated that the site has operated successfully since 1986 and that the applicant was seeking recognition of conditions they inherited and cannot realistically change. PUBLIC COMMENT Tina Demostene, an Edgewood resident expressed concern that no engineering report was provided and questioned stormwater capacity given the additional impervious surface. She suggested limited mitigation such as added landscape islands or drainage review. Planner Hardgrove responded that the site has functioned in this condition for almost forty years without flooding issues and is supported by a large regional retention pond to the south. She cautioned that removing pavement could also remove required parking. Councilmember Rader agreed with staff, noting that any flooding issues would have shown themselves by now and that variances are not intended to redesign a site “on the fly.” He stated a preference for addressing parking issues rather than open-space issues but emphasized that mistakes made decades ago, possibly by staff, should not penalize today’s owner. He asked whether parking-based solutions were explored, for which Planner Hardgrove replied that reducing parking would create new deficiencies. She did explain that the parking variances would only apply to where the building elevations have bay doors. Furthermore, she stated that the parking lot will require re-striping for those parking spaces that are not between the bay doors and that handicapped spaces would need to be ADA compliant. The restriping will result in a loss of a few parking spaces, but the minimum will still be able to be met. Council President Horn asked what would occur if the variances were denied. Attorney Smith explained that the buildings would remain, but any future redevelopment would trigger full code compliance. Council concluded that the conditions are long-standing, appear to have been accepted by the City at the time, and cannot realistically be corrected without major demolition or loss of required parking. Councilmembers generally agreed that the requested variances represent the minimum necessary to acknowledge existing conditions while ensuring any future construction complies with current code. MOTION & ROLL CALL VOTE Councilmember Rader made a motion to approve Variance 2025-05, which was seconded by Councilmember McElroy. The motion was approved by a roll call vote of 5-0. The approvals and associated conditions are as follows: • Front Yard Setback: Approval of 24.2 feet in lieu of 25 feet. Condition: Any new construction must meet the Code- required minimum setbacks. • Rear Yard Setback: Approval of 6’7” in lieu of 15 feet. Condition: Any new construction must meet the Code- required minimum setbacks. • North Side Yard Setback: Approval of 4’6” in lieu of 5 feet. Condition: Any new construction must meet the Code- required minimum setbacks. 9/80

City Council & Final Budget Hearing MINUTES 11/18/2025 4 | P a g e • Parking and Landscaping: Approval to allow continuous parking spaces without a landscape break and no landscaping within the interior of the vehicular use area. Condition: The vehicular use area shall not be expanded unless in conformance with Code requirements. • Parking Space Width: Approval to allow standard parking spaces a minimum width of 8.4 feet adjacent to the north and south buildings, where bay door configurations limit space width. Condition: All other parking spaces must meet Code requirements. All handicapped spaces, including adjacent aisles, must comply with ADA requirements and City Code. • Minimum Open Space: Approval to allow 10% open space in lieu of 14%. Condition: No additional impervious area shall be approved. Redevelopment must comply with Code. • Road Buffer Landscaping: Approval to allow turf as ground cover and palms instead of shade trees. Condition: Any palms that become diseased or die must be replaced with understory trees from the City’s approved tree list. The Planner noted that the hedge in the road buffer is not healthy. To avoid a code enforcement action, several plants need to be replaced, and irrigation should be checked to ensure proper function. Council President Horn Favor Councilmember Rader Favor Councilmember Lomas Favor Councilmember McElroy Favor Councilmember Steele Favor ORDINANCES (FIRST READING) 1. Ordinance 2025-12: Certified Recovery Residences Attorney Smith read Ordinance 2025-12 by title only and explained the purpose behind its adoption. He stated that the ordinance establishes a required process, in accordance with Florida Statute 397.487, for reviewing and approving reasonable accommodation requests for certified recovery residences. The ordinance creates a new section in the Land Development Code outlining how individuals with disabilities—or the providers who serve them—may request accommodations from zoning or land-use regulations when such accommodations are necessary for a certified recovery residence to operate. He further explained that the ordinance outlines application requirements, review procedures, timelines, an appeal process, and standards consistent with the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Adoption of this ordinance ensures the City complies with state mandates and provides a clear and lawful framework for handling these requests. Council President Horn asked for clarification on what “reasonable” means and questioned who determines reasonableness. Also inquired why the city is being compelled by the state to implement this process. Attorney Smith explained that “reasonable accommodation” originates from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and that Florida legislation is aiming to streamline the process. Council President Horn then asked what would happen if the city chooses to not adopt the process, with Attorney Smith stating that while there is no immediate penalty, failure to adopt could lead to potential lawsuits. PUBLIC COMMENT Tina Demostene, an Edgewood resident, inquired whether the legislation requires the city to waive fees for reasonable accommodation requests. Attorney Smith explained that the legislation minimizes fees rather than eliminating them entirely. Ms. Demostene sought further clarification, asking whether fees would be reduced or fully waived. Attorney Smith noted that implementing the process would necessitate additional staff analysis and could entail additional funding. Ms. Demostene also questioned the scope of the process, citing examples from Orange County, such as zoning accommodations for tiny houses on large lots. Attorney Smith clarified that the reasonable accommodation process applies exclusively to certified recovery residences. 10/80

City Council & Final Budget Hearing MINUTES 11/18/2025 5 | P a g e Finally, Ms. Demostene asked why the city could not rely on existing code policies for approvals. Attorney Smith explained that, while the city does have a policy for approving multi-bedroom units in public areas, the current code does not address ADA reasonable accommodations. The new legislation establishes a formal process that must be followed for certified recovery residences. Following public comment, there was a brief discussion amongst Councilmembers prior to a motion and roll call vote. MOTION & ROLL CALL VOTE Councilmember Lomas made a motion to approve Ordinance 2025-12 on first reading as presented. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Steele and approved by a roll call vote of 5-0. Council President Horn Favor Councilmember Rader Favor Councilmember Lomas Favor Councilmember McElroy Favor Councilmember Steele Favor 2. Ordinance 2025-13: Street Repaving Gated Communities Attorney Smith read Ordinance 2025-13 by title only. Planner Hardgrove provided an overview of the proposed ordinance, which updates the City’s maintenance standards for private streets in gated communities. The amendment replaces the strict 15-year repaving requirement with a condition-based assessment system. While the baseline requirement to repave every 15 years remains, HOAs may now request a waiver by submitting a professional engineer’s assessment to the City Engineer confirming that the roads are still in acceptable condition. The purpose of the amendment is to align maintenance requirements with actual infrastructure needs and to provide HOAs and property owners with greater financial flexibility. If the roads are deemed sufficient, the engineer may recommend delaying the next mandatory review for up to five years, subject to the City Engineer’s approval. Communities may submit updated engineering reports with the timeline based on the City Engineer’s direction, but not to exceed five years, to extend the repaving timeline, based on the actual condition of the roads rather than an arbitrary timetable. The planner states that at their November 10, 2025 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Board recommended the ordinance would apply to all private roads, not just gated communities. After that meeting, staff concluded that inclusion of all private roads would require creating a new section of code since the proposed ordinance related to the gated community part of the subdivision regulations. Council President Horn inquired whether HOAs are adequately funding repaving over the proposed 15-year cycle. Planner Hardgrove explained that the Legacy community approval did not specifically address repaving and repaving would be a code compliant issue, while Haven Oaks’ Development Agreement specifically addresses the repaving and the funding requirements. Councilmember Rader noted that repaving is more cosmetic than a safety concern for private roads and that the proposed ordinance allows communities to delay repaving based on an engineer’s report. Council President Horn emphasized that the City’s primary concern is ensuring adequate funding exists for future repaving, rather than dictating specific timing. Attorney Smith added that communities could be asked to certify adequate financial reserves for repaving, but cautioned against the City becoming involved in HOA finances. Councilmember Rader suggested including a requirement for updated cost projections and reserve estimates if a delay in paving is requested. Mayor Dowless asked Engineer Lane why city roads are expected to last 20 years while HOA roads are on a 15-year cycle. Lane explained that city roads are typically paved with thicker asphalt (2 inches versus 1–1.5 inches for private roads), which wears more slowly. A core bore test can confirm pavement thickness and overall condition. Councilmember McElroy added that a pavement engineer can evaluate a private road’s useful life based on standard guidelines, assessing depressions, potholes, patches, and cracks. 11/80

City Council & Final Budget Hearing MINUTES 11/18/2025 6 | P a g e PUBLIC COMMENT Caleb Castro, an Edgewood resident and President of the Lake Harbor HOA, stated that his community recently repaved all roads and expressed concern about differing standards for city roads versus HOA roads. He emphasized that private roads should be repaved based on need rather than adhering to a fixed 15-year timeline. Following public comment, discussion continued among Councilmembers, staff, and Mayor Dowless. The Mayor suggested offering HOAs the opportunity to piggyback on city road repaving projects to save costs and expressed support for extending the repaving schedule to 20 years rather than 15. Councilmember Rader indicated support for the five-year review extension but did not support changing the repaving cycle from 15 years to 20 years. Planner Hardgrove recommended adding wording to the proposed ordinance for the second reading clarifying that the ordinance should account for both the cost of repaving and the status of community reserves. MOTION & ROLL CALL VOTE Councilmember Rader made a motion to approve Ordinance 2025-13 on first reading as presented, with a change to the ordinance that would require that, when considering a delay in repaving, HOAs must provide certification of adequate financial reserves, and that the City take into account both the projected cost of repaving and the status of the community’s reserve funds. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Lomas and approved by a roll call vote of 5-0. Council President Horn Favor Councilmember Rader Favor Councilmember Lomas Favor Councilmember McElroy Favor Councilmember Steele Favor UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Ordinance 2025-08: ECD Mixed Use Attorney Smith read Ordinance 2025-08 by title only. Planner Hardgrove began by stating that this is a continuation of the second reading of the ECD Mixed Use Ordinance. The Council’s direction from the previous meeting was to incorporate all recommended changes and provide a clean ordinance for review. Planner Hardgrove confirmed the following key revisions made based on prior Council discussions: Key Revisions: • Plaza Requirements: A minimum size requirement was added for plazas situated in non-activity node Mixed Use developments. • Live/Work Units: The regulation specifying required hours per week for live/work units was eliminated. • Signage: The master sign plan required for Activity Node bonus applications must now include references to temporary signs. • Parking Configuration: For Internal Commercial Streets, the number of parallel parking spaces allowed in a row was increased from three to four. Additionally, the size of the islands separating these parking stacks was increased from five feet to eight feet. Planner Hardgrove noted that although public comments suggested changes in the amount of plaza seating, the seating requirement remains unchanged. The report notes that the current requirement provides a reasonable amount of seating; a minimum plaza size of 0.30 acre would require approximately 75 linear feet of seating, or roughly 12 standard benches. 12/80

City Council & Final Budget Hearing MINUTES 11/18/2025 7 | P a g e Planner Hardgrove then presented AI generated site plans of the Bell Rental property as examples of potential redevelopment outcomes under the proposed ordinance. The Council held a brief discussion among themselves prior to proceeding with a motion and roll call vote. There was no public comment. MOTION & ROLL CALL VOTE Councilmember Rader made a motion to approve Ordinance 2025-08 as presented on second and final reading. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Lomas and approved by a roll call vote of 5-0. Council President Horn Favor Councilmember Rader Favor Councilmember Lomas Favor Councilmember McElroy Favor Councilmember Steele Favor NEW BUSINESS 1. Resolution 2025-06: Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Budget Amendments Attorney Smith read Resolution 2025-06 by title only. Council reviewed the proposed budget amendments and memo from Clerk Riffle, and had no questions. There was no public comment. MOTION & ROLL CALL VOTE Councilmember Lomas made a motion to approve Resolution 2025-06 as presented, adopting the final budget amendments for Fiscal Year 2024/2025. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Steele and approved by a roll call vote of 5-0. Council President Horn Favor Councilmember Rader Favor Councilmember Lomas Favor Councilmember McElroy Favor Councilmember Steele Favor 2. Orange County Interlocal Agreement: Fire Prevention and Rescue Services Council reviewed the proposed amendment to the Interlocal Agreement between the City of Edgewood and Orange County, Florida, regarding the County’s provision of fire prevention and rescue services. The amendment was initiated following the Orange County Board of County Commissioners’ approval of an increase to the Urban Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services municipal service taxing unit (Fire MSTU) rate during its Fiscal Year 2025 budget process, which had a significant impact on the City’s annual budget. The Mayor confirmed that the County approached the City with this proposal. The intent of the amendment is to mitigate the budgetary impact by modifying the payment provisions of the original 2018 Agreement. Under the new formula, the City’s obligation is calculated based on the lesser of the County’s or the City’s current year property value increase, a provision noted by the Mayor as ensuring the bill reflects “whatever is cheaper.” This change is projected to save the City approximately $35,000. The Mayor then voiced his support for approving the amendment. During review, Council noted that the address listed in the agreement was incorrect, showing City Hall as Larue Avenue instead of Bagshaw Way. The address correction will be included as part of the motion. There was no public comment. 13/80

City Council & Final Budget Hearing MINUTES 11/18/2025 8 | P a g e MOTION & ROLL CALL VOTE Councilmember Lomas made a motion to approve the amendment to the Interlocal Agreement between the City of Edgewood and Orange County, Florida, regarding the County’s provision of fire prevention and rescue services, as presented, with the correction of the City Hall address. The motion was seconded by Councilmember Steele and approved by a roll call vote of 5-0. Council President Horn Favor Councilmember Rader Favor Councilmember Lomas Favor Councilmember McElroy Favor Councilmember Steele Favor CITIZEN COMMENTS Ryan Pierson, property owner of 5515 S. Orange Avenue, addressed the Council regarding the current zoning and allowable use of his property. He explained that the property, originally classified as C-1, was constructed and approved by the City as a 5,000-square-foot office warehouse. The Orange County Tax Collector recognizes the property as an industrial warehouse for taxation purposes. On July 15, 2022, the use of a gym within the building was approved by the City, and parking was not considered an issue. Mr. Pierson stated that he understands the property must comply with City zoning but expressed concern that the previous property owner was not notified of the rezoning to the Edgewood Commercial District (ECD) in 2018, nor was he notified of any restrictions prior to purchasing the property. He further stated that he requested meeting minutes and documentation from City staff regarding the ECD but was told he could not have them. Administrative Project Manager Sollazzo responded, apologizing for any confusion regarding the meeting minutes and documents request, and clarified that staff would not deny such a request. He confirmed that the following business day he would provide all relevant documents to Mr. Pierson. Councilmember Rader explained that zoning specifies defined uses in the City Code. He noted that during the ECD approval process, which lasted two to three years and included public input, the allowable uses for each property were carefully vetted. He noted that prior to the property being zoned ECD, the property was classified as C-1, which does not permit industrial uses. While a parking variance could potentially ease related burdens, changing the use to warehouse would be contrary to the ECD vision. Mr. Pierson emphasized that the building is currently designed as a warehouse, with an office in the front and storage in the rear. He noted that his request to have a HVAC installation business there was denied, limiting his ability to fully utilize the property. Councilmember Rader acknowledged that the building may be underutilized but stated that the Council is not interested in introducing warehousing in this corridor, as it would alter the intended pattern of development. Attorney Smith clarified for the Council and the record that Mr. Pierson appears to be seeking formal direction from Council on next steps to allow certain uses at the site, such as office-warehouse operations. Planner Hardgrove added that the ECD regulations contain very specific permitted uses, many of which allow a retail or office in the front of a building, and the rear used for storage associated with the front use. But the type of retail and office uses that would be allowed are specifically those listed in the ECD regulation. The purpose of the listed uses is to support the residential component of Edgewood. She noted that HVAC installations are specifically prohibited in the ECD, though some specialized uses, such as medical equipment storage, may be allowed. She noted that the original use in the building (office/warehouse) should never have been approved as such is contrary to the C-1 zoning district. Furthermore, she noted that the parking ratio that was used for that original approval was for industrial use (1 space per 1,000 square feet) another anomaly since industrial uses have never been allowed in the C-1 zoning district. 14/80

City Council & Final Budget Hearing MINUTES 11/18/2025 9 | P a g e Administrative Project Manager Sollazzo noted the quantity of parking on the property significantly limits the type of uses that can occupy the building. He presented two potential options for consideration; the owner could pursue a parking variance to allow one space per 1,000 square feet and explore whether Council would consider adding certain uses to the ECD list through a Special Exception, allowing uses that may be appropriate for this site. Councilmember Rader inquired about interest from prospective buyers. Mr. Pierson stated that offers have been made, but only for less than the outstanding mortgage on the property. The Mayor noted that potential future changes to the parking code could help increase the potential uses of the property. No formal action was taken during this discussion. STAFF REPORTS 1. Police Chief DeSchryver The City recently hosted its Annual Trunk-or-Treat event, which drew a large crowd and was a great success thanks to the efforts of City Hall and Police Department staff. The Edgewood Police Department welcomed Christopher Camerer as its newest probationary officer, who is currently in “Week Zero.” The department also took delivery of a new patrol vehicle, with roughly 25% of the cost covered by a grant. Additionally, Melanie Judy has been hired as the new Evidence/Property & Records Clerk, with her official start date set for November. 2. Clerk Riffle Clerk Riffle was not in attendance, so Council reviewed her report, and Administrative Project Manager Sollazzo provided a brief overview. The City is managing multiple initiatives, including ongoing FY 2024/2025 Workers’ Compensation and Financial Audits. Council President Horn highlighted the upcoming March 10, 2026, municipal election, noting that Council seats held by Susan Lomas and Chris Rader are up for reelection, with candidate qualifying beginning January 5 and resources to be posted on the City website in December. Administrative Project Manager Sollazzo brought up the Holiday Appreciation Luncheon and asked the Chief if he and Sandy had set a date; the Chief indicated it could possibly be Friday, December 12 or 19. Recent and upcoming events include a successful Truck-or-Treat and the Santa Fly-in on December 5, for which volunteers are being recruited. 3. Attorney Smith No report was provided by Attorney Smith this month. MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS 1. Mayor Dowless Mayor Dowless and Councilmember Steele met with representatives from the Florida League of Cities and South State Bank to review strategies for allocating city funds across various account types to maximize investment returns. Attorney Smith noted that while a formal resolution is not required, a formal vote by the Council is necessary to authorize the transfer of funds. The Mayor reported ongoing discussions with Retail Strategies, a firm that assists with marketing city properties for redevelopment. Feedback from references has been mixed—some positive, some negative—and additional references are being contacted to gather further input. Mayor Dowless will attend a meeting on November 19 with Orange County Mayor Demings to discuss the transportation tax. The Mayor also highlighted the city’s Christmas light display, praising its appearance and thanking Administrative Project Manager Sollazzo for securing the vendor and raising funds to cover 100% of the project costs. He noted that the 15/80

City Council & Final Budget Hearing MINUTES 11/18/2025 10 | P a g e city could receive a 10% discount if a three-year agreement is signed with the vendor. After discussion, the Council approved entering into the three-year agreement. 2. Councilmember Rader Councilmember Rader inquired about the forms and mandatory reporting required for his potential upcoming reelection. Attorney Smith confirmed that, at this time, the required form remains Form 1. 3. Councilmember Steele Councilmember Steele wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving. 4. Councilmember Lomas No report was provided by Councilmember Lomas this month. 5. Councilmember McElroy No report was provided by Councilmember McElroy this month. 6. Council President Horn No report was provided by Council President Horn this month. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Lomas made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Councilmember Rader. The meeting was adjourned at 8:32 PM. ______________________________________________ Richard A. Horn, Council President Attest: ____________________________________________ Brett Sollazzo, Administrative Project Manager 16/80

ORDINANCES (FIRST READING) 17/80

PUBLIC HEARINGS (ORDINANCES – SECOND READINGS & RELATED ACTION) 18/80

Ordinance 2025-12: Certified Recovery Residences 19/80

1 ORDINANCE NO. 2025-121 2 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDGEWOOD, FLORIDA,3 RELATING TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE;4 AMENDING CHAPTER 134 TO ADD CODE OF ORDINANCES5 SECTION 134-40 ESTABLISHING A PROCESS FOR THE6 REVIEW OF REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION REQUESTS7 FOR CERTIFIED RECOVERY RESIDENCES PURSUANT TO8 FLORIDA STATUTES SECTION 397.487; PROVIDING FOR9 CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION;10 PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN11 EFFECTIVE DATE.12 13 WHEREAS, Section 397.487(15)(a), Florida Statutes, mandates that each municipality and14 county in the State of Florida must adopt an ordinance establishing procedures for the review and15 approval of certified recovery residences; and16 17 WHEREAS, Section 397.487(15)(a), Florida Statutes, further mandates the inclusion within18 such ordinance of a process for requesting reasonable accommodations from any local land use19 regulation that serves to prohibit the establishment of a certified recovery residence; and20 21 WHEREAS, Section 397.487(15)(b), Florida Statutes, provides that the regulation of the22 establishment of certified recovery residences must be consistent with the Fair Housing Amendments23 Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.) and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C.24 §§ 12131 et seq.); and25 26 WHEREAS, the City of Edgewood Planning and Zoning Board held a public hearing, with27 all required public notice, to provide recommendations to the City Council on this Ordinance to28 amend the Land Development Code and recommend that the City Council adopt the Ordinance; and29 30 WHEREAS, adoption of this Ordinance ensures that the City of Edgewood complies with31 Section 397.487(15), Florida Statutes, and that the best interest of the public health, safety, and32 welfare is served.33 34 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE CITY OF EDGEWOOD FLORIDA:35 36 Section 1. The findings set forth in the recitals above are adopted and fully incorporated herein37 by reference.38 39 Section 2. Chapter 134, Article I, Section 134-40, “Requests for Accommodations by40 Certified Recovery Residences” of the City of Edgewood Code of Ordinances, is hereby created to41 read as follows (Note: additions indicated by underscore; deletions indicated by strikethrough; and42 text that shall remain unaltered that is not reproduced here is indicated by ellipses (***)):43 44 134-40. - REQUESTS FOR ACCOMMODATIONS BY CERTIFIED RECOVERY45 RESIDENCES.46 20/80

2 47 (A) Purpose and applicability. The purpose of this section is to establish procedures for review48 and approval of reasonable accommodation requests to the City’s land use and zoning49 ordinances, rules, regulations, policies, and procedures that may prohibit establishment of50 certified recovery residences pursuant to section 397.487, Florida Statutes. Facilitating51 reasonable accommodation requests ensures that individuals with a disability and/or52 handicap have equal opportunity to use and enjoy dwellings, buildings or structures, or to53 provide accessibility in another manner, as provided by the Federal Fair Housing54 Amendments Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq. (“FHA”) and Title II of the Americans with55 Disabilities Amendments Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq. (“ADA”). For purposes of this56 section, a “disabled” person is an individual who qualifies as disabled and/or handicapped57 under the FHA and/or ADA. Any person who is disabled (or qualifying entities) may58 request a reasonable accommodation with respect to the City’s Land Development Code,59 Code of Ordinances, rules, regulations, policies, or procedures as provided by the FHA60 and the ADA pursuant to the procedures set out in this section.61 62 (B) Applicant. Any person who is disabled or a provider of services to disabled individuals63 qualifying for a reasonable accommodation, collectively referred to as “Applicant” in this64 subsection, may request a reasonable accommodation to the City’s land use and zoning65 ordinances, rules, regulations, policies, and procedures that prohibit establishment of66 certified recovery residences. It is the responsibility of the Applicant to establish that they,67 or those who are being provided recovery services, are protected individuals under the68 FHA and/or ADA by demonstrating that the proposed accommodation is reasonable and69 necessary to afford the Applicant, or those who are being provided services, an equal70 opportunity to use and enjoy a residential dwelling.71 72 (C) Application Procedure. A request for reasonable accommodation shall be made to the City73 Clerk. An application for reasonable accommodation must, at a minimum, provide the74 following:75 76 (1) Name and contact information of the Applicant or the Applicant’s authorized77 representative;78 (2) Property address and parcel identification number of where the reasonable79 accommodation is being requested. If the Applicant is not the owner of the80 property, then the contact information for the owner and an owner’s authorization81 form is also required;82 (3) A description of the accommodation and the specific regulation(s) and/or83 procedures from which the accommodation is sought;84 (4) Reasons the accommodation may be necessary for the Applicant or those who are85 being provided services;86 (5) A description of the qualifying disability or handicap;87 (6) A certification signed by the Applicant stating: I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY88 OF PERJURY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS REQUEST IS89 TRUE AND CORRECT. I UNDERSTAND THAT IF I KNOWINGLY PROVIDE90 FALSE INFORMATION WITH THIS REQUEST, MY REQUEST SHALL91 BECOME NULL AND VOID;92 21/80

3 (7) A verification of disability status form executed by someone with personal93 knowledge of the Applicant’s, or those who are being provided services’, disability,94 such as a medical or social services professional;95 (8) Any additional information or documentation the Applicant feels is necessary to96 supplement the request for reasonable accommodation.97 (9) Signature of the Applicant and date.98 99 The City Clerk will date-stamp the application upon receipt and notify the Applicant, in100 writing, within 30 days if additional information is required. The Applicant must provide101 the additional information within 30 days. Failure of the Applicant to provide a response102 within 30 days will result in the application being denied, unless the Applicant requests an103 extension of time in writing.104 105 (D) Review. Within 60 days of receiving a completed application, the City Clerk, or designee,106 shall review the request for reasonable accommodation and make a determination107 consistent with the FHA and/or ADA, after considering all of the following:108 109 (1) Whether the Applicant has established that they are protected under the FHA110 and/or ADA by demonstrating that they or those being provided recovery services,111 are handicapped or disabled, as defined in the FHA and/or ADA. To do this, the112 following must be shown:113 114 (a) A physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one (1) or more115 major life activities;116 (b) That they are regarded as having such impairment; and117 (c) A record of having such impairment.118 119 (2) Whether the requested accommodation is reasonable and necessary to afford the120 Applicant an equal opportunity to use and enjoy the dwelling, building or structure,121 or provides accessibility in another manner.122 (3) Whether the requested accommodation would impose an undue financial or123 administrative burden on the City.124 (4) Whether the requested accommodation would require a fundamental alteration in125 the nature of the land use and zoning regulations of the City.126 127 If the City Clerk, or designee, finds that the requested accommodation will impose an128 undue financial or administrative burden on the City or will require a fundamental129 alteration in the nature of the City’s land use and zoning regulation, they may consider130 whether an alternative reasonable accommodation exists which would effectively meet the131 disability-related need. An alternative reasonable accommodation may be the requested132 accommodation with conditions. In conducting the review, the City Clerk, or designee,133 may make a site visit to the property where the reasonable accommodation is being134 requested.135 136 (E) Determination. Once review of the request is complete, the City Clerk, or designee, will137 make a determination in writing to:138 22/80

4 139 (1) Approve the reasonable accommodation request in whole or in part, with or140 without conditions; or141 (2) Deny the reasonable accommodation request, in accordance with state and federal142 law, and state the objective evidence-based reasons for denial and identify any143 deficiencies or actions necessary for reconsideration.144 145 The written determination by the City Clerk, or designee, shall also include the Applicant’s146 right and method to appeal the determination. If the written determination is not issued147 within 60 days after receipt of the completed application, the reasonable accommodation148 request is deemed approved unless the parties agree in writing to a reasonable extension149 of time.150 151 (F) Appeals. Applicant shall have 30 days from the date of the City Clerk or designee’s,152 written determination to appeal the determination or any conditions included therein, to153 the City Clerk. Appeals must be made in writing and include the name of the Applicant,154 address and contact information, a written summary of the reason for the appeal, and an155 explanation of why the determination or condition is in error. Appeals shall be submitted156 to the City Clerk. The City Clerk shall issue a final decision on the appeal within 45 days157 of submitting the appeal to City Clerk.158 159 (G) No Fee. There shall be no fee imposed by the City for the reasonable accommodation160 request process outlined in this section.161 162 (H) Stay of Enforcement. While a request for reasonable accommodation, or its appeal, is163 pending, the City will not enforce any applicable land use and zoning ordinances, rules,164 regulations, policies, and procedures against the Applicant.165 166 (I) Expiration of Approvals. Approval of requests for reasonable accommodation shall expire167 within one hundred eighty (180) days if not implemented.168 169 (J) Revocation of Reasonable Accommodation. Any reasonable accommodation received170 shall be deemed revoked if the Applicant or the property upon which the accommodation171 is granted is found in violation of any conditions of the approval granting the reasonable172 accommodation by a court of law or by the special magistrate hearing code enforcement173 cases. Failure to obtain state certification or a required state license, or failure to maintain174 state certification or a required state license or alternate certification permitted by this175 section, shall result in revocation of the reasonable accommodation and cessation of176 operations within sixty (60) days of termination of the license or certification.177 178 (K) Confidential Information. Should the information provided by the Applicant to the City179 include medical information or records, including records indicating the medical180 condition, diagnosis, or medical history of the disabled individual(s), such individual(s)181 may, at the time of submitting such medical information, request that the City, to the extent182 allowed by law, treat such medical information as confidential information of the disabled183 individual(s).184 23/80

5 185 (L) General Provisions. The following general provisions are applicable to all reasonable186 accommodation requests:187 188 (1) The Applicant may apply for a reasonable accommodation on their own behalf or189 may be represented at all stages of the reasonable accommodation process by an190 attorney, legally appointed guardian, or other person designated by Applicant as a191 power of attorney.192 (2) In the event that a reasonable accommodation is granted, the Applicant shall193 continue to comply with any and all other applicable building and/or permitting194 processes required by the City’s Code of Ordinances and Land Development Code195 and all other state and federal laws.196 (3) A reasonable accommodation is specific to the Applicant and does not run with the197 subject property.198 199 Section 3. Conflicts. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are200 hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.201 202 Section 4. Codification. The City Clerk shall cause the Code of Ordinances of the City of203 Edgewood to be amended as provided by this Ordinance and may renumber, re-letter, and rearrange204 the codified parts of this Ordinance if necessary to facilitate the finding of the law.205 206 Section 5. Severability. Should any word, phrase, sentence, subsection, or section be held by207 a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, void, unenforceable, or unconstitutional, then that word,208 phrase, sentence, subsection, or section so held shall be severed from this Ordinance and all other209 words, phrases, sentences, subsections, or sections shall remain in full force and effect.210 211 Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its212 passage and adoption.213 214 FIRST READING this _____ day of ____________________, 2025.215 216 217 SECOND READING and adoption this ______ day of _______________, 2025.218 219 ____________________________220 Richard A. Horn, Council President221 ATTEST:222 223 ________________________224 Sandra Riffle225 City Clerk226 24/80

Ordinance 2025-13: Street Repaving Gated Communities 25/80

ORDINANCE NO. 2025-131 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF EDGEWOOD, AMENDING2 CHAPTER 126, SUBDIVISIONS, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES,3 CITY OF EDGEWOOD, TO REVISE THE MANDATORY REPAVING4 REQUIREMENT FOR PRIVATE STREETS IN GATED5 NEIGHBORHOODS TO A MANDATORY PAVING NEEDS6 ASSESSMENT REQUIREMENT; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION,7 SEVERABILITY, CONFLICTS AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.8 9 WHEREAS, the City Council of Edgewood finds it in the best interest of the public health,10 safety, and welfare to update maintenance standards for private streets within the gated11 communities of the city; and12 WHEREAS, the current requirement for mandatory repaving every fifteen (15) years may13 not always align with the actual engineering needs and condition of the private street infrastructure;14 and15 WHEREAS, a requirement for a mandatory professional engineering assessment will16 ensure the continued maintenance of private streets to acceptable standards based on current17 condition, while providing Home Owner Associations (HOA) and property owners with a more18 financially flexible and condition-based maintenance schedule.19 20 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE21 CITY OF EDGEWOOD, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:22 23 SECTION ONE. The findings set forth in the recitals above are hereby adopted as24 legislative findings of the City Council pertaining to this Ordinance.25 SECTION TWO. The City of Edgewood Code of Ordinances Chapter 12626 “Subdivisions,” Article V, “Improvements,” Division 7, “Gated Communities” is hereby amended27 as set forth as follows (note: additions are indicated by underline, deletions are indicated by28 strikethrough, and portions of the Code that remain unchanged and which are not reprinted here29 are indicated by ellipses (***):30 Sec. 126-560. - Mandatory repaving.31 (a) Every 15 years, the HOA must repave all private streets. This requirement may be waived on a32 year-to-year basis if the HOA can provide a professional engineer's opinion to the city engineer33 stating the existing roads are in acceptable condition.34 (b) The professional engineer's report may recommend an extension for a period of up to five (5)35 years before the next mandatory engineering review is due, provided the engineer justifies that36 the current condition of the roads is not expected to degrade below acceptable standards during37 that period.38 39 26/80

c) In conjunction with any professional engineer's opinion submitted for a waiver under40 subsection (a), the HOA must provide evidence of adequate financial planning and41 reserve funding. This evidence must be explicitly addressed and certified by the42 professional engineer in their report, which shall include:43 1. A statement of assurance that the HOA maintains sufficient, properly allocated44 reserve funds specifically designated for the future required repaving, milling,45 overlay, or other major pavement maintenance.46 2. A specific calculation or confirmation that the current reserve balance and planned47 future contributions are financially sufficient to fund the entire estimated cost of the48 pavement maintenance or repaving required by this regulation, projected over the49 proposed extension period.50 3. A confirmation that the HOA's reserve study is current (completed within the last51 three years) and adequate for all required common element maintenance, with52 specific emphasis on the paving reserves.53 (d) The City Engineer shall review the submitted engineer’s opinion, corrective action plan, and54 timeline. The City Engineer retains the authority to reject the submitted professional engineer's55 opinion if it is found to be incomplete, inaccurate, or in conflict with acceptable engineering56 practices or city standards, and may require a new assessment or specific maintenance actions.57 (d) If a waiver is granted under subsection (a), the professional engineer's opinion must also58 explicitly establish the date (month and year), not to exceed five (5) years from the date of the59 current assessment, when one of the following mandatory actions must occur:60 1. A new professional engineer's opinion assessing the road condition must be submitted to the61 City Engineer; OR62 2. Repaving, milling, or overlay or other major pavement maintenance must commence.63 SECTION THREE. Severability Clause. In the event that any term, provision, clause,64 sentence or section, or Exhibit of this Ordinance shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction65 to be partially or wholly unenforceable or invalid for any reason whatsoever, any such invalidity,66 illegality, or unenforceability shall not affect any of the other or remaining terms, provisions,67 clauses, sentences, or sections of this Ordinance, and this Ordinance shall be read and/or applied68 as if the invalid, illegal, or unenforceable term, provision, clause, sentence or section did not exist.69 SECTION FOUR. Ordinances in Conflict. All ordinances or parts thereof, which may70 be determined to be in conflict herewith, are hereby repealed and superseded by this Ordinance, to71 the extent of such conflict.72 SECTION FIVE. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date73 adopted by City Council.74 75 PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS _______ DAY OF ______________, 2025.76 27/80

77 PASSED AND ADOPTED THIS ___________ DAY OF _________, 2025.78 79 CITY OF EDGEWOOD, FLORIDA80 CITY COUNCIL81 82 __________________________________83 Richard A. Horn, Council President84 ATTEST:85 86 ___________________________________87 Sandra Riffle, City Clerk88 28/80

UNFINISHED BUSINESS 29/80

C-PACE Program 30/80

RESOLUTION NO. 2025-05 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF EDGEWOOD (THE “CITY”), FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ASSESSED CLEAN ENERGY (C- PACE) PROGRAM WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY; APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE FLORIDA RESILIENCY AND ENERGY DISTRICT; UTILIZING VOLUNTARY NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS TO FINANCE QUALIFING IMPROVEMENTS; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT; AND PROVIDING FOR IMPLEMENTING ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS, SCRIVENER’S ERRORS, CONFLICTS, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, pursuant to the Florida PACE Act, codified in Section 163.08 through Section 163.087, Florida Statutes (the “PACE Act”), commercial property owners may voluntarily finance improvements to real property related to waste systems, resiliency, flood and water damage mitigation, energy conservation and efficiency, renewable energy and water conservation efficiency improvements (“Qualifying Improvements”) and repay such financing through voluntary special assessments, sometimes referred to as non-ad valorem assessments ("Special Assessments"); and WHEREAS, the Florida Resiliency and Energy District (“District”) is a separate legal entity and unit of local government within the State of Florida which was established by interlocal agreement for the express purpose of providing a platform to facilitate the financing of Qualifying Improvements throughout Florida; and WHEREAS, the upfront costs of Qualifying Improvements impede installation and existing financing options may be insufficient for commercial property owners to access cost-effective financing for Qualifying Improvements due to requirements associated with traditional debt or equity financing options; and WHEREAS, the District has created a financing, levy and collection process to implement its C-PACE program to assist commercial property owners who desire to improve their real property with Qualifying Improvements; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the PACE Act, the District may only offer its C-PACE program for commercial properties located within the jurisdiction of the CITY if the CITY has authorized the District to do so; and WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the best interest of its residents to authorize the District’s C-PACE program and to facilitate the financing of Qualifying Improvements to commercial properties located within the CITY. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENT. The City Council hereby adopts and incorporates into this Resolution the City staff report and agenda memorandum relating to this Resolution. The forgoing recitals are incorporated in this Resolution as if fully set forth herein and are approved and adopted. The City Council has complied with all requirements and procedures of Florida law in processing and noticing this Resolution. SECTION 2. PERMITTING OF PACE PROGRAM. The City Council hereby authorizes the District to offer its C-PACE program in accordance with the PACE Act, to eligible commercial property owners within the boundaries of the CITY. 31/80

Page 2 of 2 SECTION 3. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENTS; AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE. The City Council approves the Agreement attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit “A” and authorizes The Mayor to execute the Agreement. SECTION 4. IMPLEMENTING ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS. The Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to take such actions as he may deem necessary and appropriate in order to implement the provisions of this Resolution. The Mayor may, as deemed appropriate, necessary and convenient, delegate the powers of implementation as herein set forth to such employees as deemed effectual and prudent. SECTION 5. SCRIVENER’S ERRORS. Typographical errors and other matters of a similar nature that do not affect the intent of this Resolution, as determined by the City Clerk and City Attorney, may be corrected. SECTION 6. CONFLICTS. All Resolutions or parts of Resolutions in conflict with any of the provisi