[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6151376,"mediaKeyId","5502529-1807b67b6945ac83d13a6df9c1a023de","parentId",5502529,"title","Developer withdraws LPGA Golf Villas comp-plan request after resident objections over traffic, trees and golf practice area","audioSeconds",1193,"startMs",902000,"endMs",2095000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5502529-1807b67b6945ac83d13a6df9c1a023de&start=902&end=2095","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5502529-1807b67b6945ac83d13a6df9c1a023de/thumbnail_902000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6151376/Daytona-Beach-City/Volusia-County/Florida/Developer-withdraws-LPGA-Golf-Villas-comp-plan-request-after-resident-objections-over-traffic-trees-and-golf-practice-area","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6151376-ee678a007a65736c76294f547c6d7026/orig.mp4?Expires=1771195665&Signature=CIeVyZJ69Mc4M-Z7YNToQxfS6pDjoF8Lqf7wDz3QLnTcwvOCaCrA3rNA~vAd-k1zAnmBMetXrTjEzmxU8jNmEBLGh9sb8nWtflYmOrxzUIGf7E~vpuGVgehcyqGmKBxkVkbCJoLiH9zFM5nGsNy8xBh3hWArbLqc9ZI29LJAXu4tkRI~ysfKMW92Y8TezMTS83L~HHVqI2qsZ91ZCjkZ4dauu8XVz19fqHqia8OE84~8dgQVPo3g4vzs-T2IlayU6JAhtzpCeB35bMsYvILFUx8e~Z5jJrT2K04qFQ7uj0UA4dSwpcH96fHazEp2ptC0KPFhUmAezPApZ7O3-faXkw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Daytona Beach","date","2025-07-30T04:54:11.44Z","article","A developer withdrew a request to change the future land use for about 36.5 acres near International Golf Drive and Champions Drive following more than an hour of testimony from residents concerned about traffic, tree loss and the conversion of LPGA practice holes to housing.

The applicant had asked the Daytona Beach City Commission to reclassify three future‑land‑use parcels (retail, office transition and golf course) to a single ‘‘Level 1 Residential’’ designation and then proceed later with a plan development (PD) zoning request. City staff and the applicant showed the commission alternative site plans and described a package of concessions developed in neighborhood meetings. At the end of the hearing the applicant withdrew both the plan amendment and the companion zoning request.

Why it matters: The change sought to eliminate higher‑intensity uses allowed by the existing plan (including multifamily and medical office) and to cap development at the lower density the applicant proposed. Residents said even a smaller single‑family plan would add traffic to an already congested corridor, remove public green space and reduce golf practice facilities that they and the LPGA headquarters use.

What was proposed and why the applicant said it was needed

Attorney Rob Merrill and the project team told commissioners they sought the comp‑plan amendment so future zoning and land‑use designations would match, allowing development under single‑family residential standards. The city packet and the presentation showed the existing map split among retail, office transition and golf course uses; the applicant proposed reclassifying those areas to a single low‑density residential category.

Design engineer Parker Minchenberg described a sequence of neighborhood meetings and a series of concessions the team said it had offered: reducing earlier concepts that included townhomes and multifamily to a single‑family plan of about 120 lots; eliminating a previously proposed public park in favor of setting several acres aside as preserved wooded area; eliminating a roadway connection to the northeast; and adding continuous hedges and tree buffers along lot rear yards to screen the development from the highway and the driving range.

Transportation planner Matthew West said the team had compared the theoretical maximum traffic that could be generated under the existing comprehensive plan designations with the figure a 120‑home cap would generate. Using standard trip‑generation methodology, West said the maximum theoretical buildout under the current office/retail designations could produce roughly 85,000 daily trips and about 8,108 PM peak‑hour trips, while a 120‑unit single‑family cap would produce about 1,193 daily trips and about 118 PM peak‑hour trips. He told the commission the change would eliminate an estimated tens of thousands of theoretical daily trips and reduce PM peak trips by thousands in that theoretical comparison.

Resident concerns and neighborhood outreach

More than a dozen residents — including Trish Hayden, Kevin Killian, Russell Bruning, Cheryl Rubin and Greg Rubin — told the commission they opposed conversion of LPGA practice areas to housing. Their concerns included increased congestion on LPGA Boulevard and nearby bridges, loss of tree cover and the practice area used to teach youth golf, impacts to emergency response times, and perceived broken promises by the golf‑course owner.

Hayden, whose house faces International Golf Drive, said she and others had been told the course would be preserved and said high evening traffic sometimes blocks emergency vehicles. Kevin Killian, who identified himself as a nearby resident, described the course as a functioning facility and warned against setting a precedent of converting golf course land to housing. Other residents said that while they had attended numerous neighborhood meetings and welcomed several concessions, they preferred keeping the existing mix of uses or leaving the golf designation in place.

Staff and applicant responses

City staff and the applicant stressed two points: the comp‑plan amendment under consideration was limited to changing the future‑land‑use designation (which removes the theoretical potential for high‑intensity office or multifamily uses), and separate negotiations on a PD could memorialize buffer, timing and construction‑traffic measures. Merrill said the PD would be a separate item and that concessions discussed with neighbors would be captured in that future zoning agreement if the developer returned.

Outcome

Before the commission could vote on the ordinance, the applicant withdrew the comprehensive plan amendment and the related zoning request and said it would return with revised materials. The applicant told the commission the withdrawal followed feedback from residents and commissioners and would allow the team to “retool” its proposals and address outstanding neighborhood concerns.

Key details and timeline

- Parcel size cited by the applicant: about 36.5 acres.
- Applicant’s voluntary cap (text amendment): 120 single‑family lots (applicant said the Level 1 residential land‑use category would otherwise allow a higher maximum; the applicant described successive reductions from earlier concepts that had reached higher theoretical unit counts).
- Applicant’s stated new‑development timing (if approved later): the team said infrastructure and approvals would require roughly a 2½‑year delay before the first residential certificate of occupancy could be issued.
- Impact fees cited for 120 single‑family homes: the applicant stated a county road impact fee estimate of about $655,000 and a city road impact fee estimate of about $45,600 (both presented as estimates tied to standard fee schedules and a 2,000‑square‑foot average house).

What the withdrawal means

The commission did not vote on the comp‑plan amendment. The applicant said it would return with a revised package; the withdrawal leaves the existing future‑land‑use map and zoning unchanged pending any new filing.

Speakers

Rob Merrill, counsel/agent for the applicant (Cobble) — business representative; Parker Minchenberg, design engineer for project — business representative; Matthew West, transportation planner, LTG Inc. — business representative; Trish Hayden — resident; Kevin Killian — resident; John Nicholson — resident; Russell Bruning — resident; Cheryl Rubin — resident; Greg Rubin — resident; Amy Knox — resident; Karen Knox — resident; Mayor Derek L. Henry — mayor, Daytona Beach City Commission; Commissioners: Cantu, Reid, May, Perez, Strickland, Reed — elected officials.

Authorities

- Florida Statutes, section cited in hearing: Fla. Stat. §163.3187 (small‑scale comprehensive plan amendments)
- City of Daytona Beach Comprehensive Plan (future land use categories discussed in presentation)

Actions

- Applicant withdrew both the comprehensive plan amendment (second‑reading public hearing item) and the companion PD/zoning request prior to commission action. Outcome: withdrawn (no commission vote taken).

Discussion vs. formal decision

- Discussion: applicant presentation, traffic estimates, neighborhood meeting history and resident testimony about traffic, tree buffers, LPGA practice facilities and construction traffic.
- Direction/next steps: applicant stated it would retool proposals and return with revised materials; staff was asked to review neighborhood and traffic concerns as future items return.
- Formal action: none (application withdrawn).

Clarifying details

- Acres: ~36.5 acres (applicant description)
- Applicant’s proposed cap: 120 single‑family lots (voluntary text restriction described by applicant)
- Comparative trip estimates presented by applicant: theoretical existing comp‑plan buildout ~85,000 daily trips / ~8,108 PM peak trips; proposed 120 units ~1,193 daily trips / ~118 PM peak trips (estimates per ITE methodology presented by Matthew West)
- Impact fee estimates for 120 single‑family homes (presented): county roads ~$655,000; city roads ~$45,600
- Applicant’s estimated delay before first residential CO (if later approved): ~2.5 years

Proper_names

LPGA Golf Villas; LPGA (headquarters/golf community); Cobble (applicant counsel firm referenced by presenter); LTG Incorporated; Tomoka River; Dunn Avenue extension; International Golf Drive; Champions Drive; I‑95; Buc‑ee’s; Margaritaville; Daytona Beach City Commission.

Searchable_tags:[\"LPGA\",\"land use\",\"comprehensive plan\",\"traffic\",\"trees\",\"Daytona Beach\",\"residents\",\"zoning\",\"plan development\"]","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Commission Meeting - March 19, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","A developer withdrew a request to change the future land use for about 36.5 acres near International Golf Drive and Champions Drive following more than an hour of testimony from residents concerned about traffic, tree loss and the conversion of LPGA practice holes to housing.","taxTitle","Daytona Beach City, Volusia County, Florida","taxId",4832,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6151360,"Commission adopts land development code text amendments on parking, lighting and tree mitigation 7‑0",87,752000,839000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5502529-1807b67b6945ac83d13a6df9c1a023de&start=752&end=839","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5502529-1807b67b6945ac83d13a6df9c1a023de/thumbnail_752000.jpg","/articles/6151360/Daytona-Beach-City/Volusia-County/Florida/Commission-adopts-land-development-code-text-amendments-on-parking-lighting-and-tree-mitigation-70","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6151360-a10c669f24e94621d5069f81bd524705/orig.mp4?Expires=1771195665&Signature=X83RxXr8gN4U5DJc3muXLvrs5cQyViXJvmCwDPIVdKwKzHhH7~S4geb2wO5e6J5lgPwb1spF9YZd69fNU2tAUHFOUkSY2ghrreH5hMGjzZvgSZfeSeyuS-GbhrXT52aZzoJ8Yq8kW1RmFmUr1nRYGphE~kq646JGQffMZ8HFxu3YFImr-OQBBLLUFweNpWK~Y6349EgYPHgGBOcKhdCqmVoymKMohBW9xWfY3xhUHNwHtsIyd38Ff8o6ZnOQVtExAanyiAfBCL3OxwiI3sXR2miyyCnCC2ftFTS9Hmh0I1CXN4kG0PLLfmsD5z9NHs8k8E-~V~K4D85SIpVkMwkxzA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Daytona Beach City Commission voted unanimously on second reading to adopt a set of Land Development Code text amendments designed to update parking definitions, provide standards for compact and stacked parking, refine off‑site sign regulations, correct neighborhood lighting compatibility standards and update tree replacement in‑lieu fees.

What the ordinance changes

City staff presented an ordinance amending multiple code sections (article 6 and 11, and several subsections) to accomplish the following, as described in the ordinance language presented at second reading:

- Add provisions regarding required parking spaces for compact automobiles, bicycles and motorcycles, and allow stacked parking for certain multifamily uses;
- Add provisions related to off‑site signs;
- Correct neighborhood compatibility standards related to exterior lighting;
- Update in‑lieu fees for tree replacement or mitigation; and
- Remove waterfront property from block‑face averages and add a depth‑of‑lot measure where appropriate.

Commission action and context

Commissioner May moved and Commissioner Strickland seconded the ordinance on second reading. Staff reported no public speakers for the item. Commissioners had no further questions at second reading; the ordinance passed on a 7‑0 voice vote.

Why it matters

The amendments are intended to clarify development and design standards used by staff and applicants to evaluate site plans and permit applications. Changes to parking standards, lighting compatibility and tree‑mitigation fees can affect project budgets and design details on future redevelopment and new construction projects across the city.

Speakers

Staff presenter (Growth Management/Planning), Commissioners May and Strickland were the motion mover and seconder; no public speakers were recorded on the item at second reading. Mayor Derek L. Henry presided over the vote.

Authorities

- Daytona Beach Land Development Code, Articles 6 and 11 (amended sections enumerated in ordinance language)

Action

- Ordinance adopting Land Development Code text amendments on second reading: Passed 7‑0.

Discussion vs. decision

- Discussion: Staff presentation of text changes and purpose; no public or commissioner objections at second reading.
- Decision: Ordinance adopted; amendments become effective as provided in the ordinance.

Clarifying details

- Key code sections amended include 6.2(c) and 6.2(g) (parking), 6.10 0.81 (signs), 6.11 c 0.7 (lighting), 6.15 a 0.9 (tree in‑lieu fees) and 11.4 b (waterfront/block face average).

Proper_names

Daytona Beach Land Development Code; Growth Management and Planning Department.

Searchable_tags:[\"land development code\",\"parking\",\"lighting\",\"trees\",\"Daytona Beach\"]","The City Commission approved, on second reading and by unanimous vote, amendments to the Land Development Code changing parking definitions, stacked parking allowances for multifamily, off‑site sign provisions, exterior lighting neighborhood compatibility standards and updated tree replacement in‑lieu fees.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6151366,"Commission rejects proposal to drop city attorney’s work for First Step Shelter; debate highlights funding and oversight concerns",311,9825000,10136000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5502529-1807b67b6945ac83d13a6df9c1a023de&start=9825&end=10136","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5502529-1807b67b6945ac83d13a6df9c1a023de/thumbnail_9825000.jpg","/articles/6151366/Daytona-Beach-City/Volusia-County/Florida/Commission-rejects-proposal-to-drop-city-attorneys-work-for-First-Step-Shelter-debate-highlights-funding-and-oversight-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6151366-86142b2e2883d55f258282f4abdd85fc/orig.mp4?Expires=1771195665&Signature=gJuQY~LeWSbx0ZYAcCm15aLkvGertH1VsK2WaDuKGbSpK97Al0gVvMFCpejmrTHxPW65kGLRCrSZ~EGeUUL90T6P2Fw4~gSPYy~p6nFJhNMuZIA6ebmBGZW6TsBv2ur6gY9j8Cz2DOWHmTZaowaOGgFnkNZaruZbd6uC63OfGBYSlt8nbyIgjAVEh7RHJMQ9BiJ-o0sSII9lmE6mznB0CBE6cfrGO7LRP2Zf2lg3FYr4blWOw6haf408uIZpHquszFFhma6WcWOn6Sgm9KEI8NzLn0Q-rc-R8GFnBhntQN86rhRITNEkoS2-7kMuk8C4~lF4dP2jvA1SwccDPDu4KQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Daytona Beach City Commission considered but voted down a motion to terminate the city attorney’s work on behalf of First Step Shelter, the nonprofit that operates the local homeless shelter. The motion failed 3‑4 after public comment and a lengthy discussion about fiscal exposure, governance and service continuity.

What was proposed and how commissioners voted

Commissioner Strickland moved to direct the city attorney to stop providing legal services to First Step Shelter. The motion was seconded and discussed at length; the roll‑call vote was 3 in favor (Strickland, Perez, May) and 4 opposed (Cantu, Reid, Reed, Mayor Henry), so the motion failed.

Why commissioners debated the attorney’s role

Commission discussion mixed two strains of concern: some commissioners and residents said the city attorney’s dual involvement created the appearance of a conflict or at least created difficult optics when legal disputes involve the shelter and the city. Others emphasized the practical risk of losing the city attorney’s institutional knowledge and the difficulty of immediately replacing that support without incurring additional cost.

City attorney’s position and legal standing

The city attorney said he had checked Florida Bar rules and did not identify a present conflict that would bar him from representing the city while also providing legal assistance to First Step Shelter in matters funded by the nonprofit; he acknowledged, however, that future litigation could create an irreconcilable conflict that would require withdrawal. He also noted that First Step Shelter has separate legal representation provided through its commercial insurance for pending litigation.

Commissioner concerns and public comment

Supporters of the shelter urged continuity of services and warned that removing legal support abruptly could destabilize operations. Several residents spoke in favor of keeping the attorney relationship and urged the commission to avoid actions that would disrupt shelter services. Commissioners who supported the motion cited expenses the city absorbs in its work related to the shelter and an interest in clarifying whether other jurisdictions that benefit from the regional shelter could share legal costs.

Outcome and next steps

The motion to terminate the city attorney’s work for First Step Shelter failed 3‑4. During the debate several commissioners asked staff to seek additional information, including whether other local governments could share the legal burden, whether pro bono legal options exist and what the fiscal impact would be of engaging outside counsel if a conflict later arose.

Speakers

Doyle Lewis (public speaker referencing faith community support); several residents urged the commission not to disrupt the shelter; the city attorney spoke during the discussion and explained the legal position and potential future conflict handling. Mayor Derek L. Henry and Commissioners Cantu, Reed, Strickland, Perez, May and Reid participated in the roll call.

Authorities

- No statute was cited on the record as the legal basis for terminating representation; Florida Bar conflict rules were discussed in general terms during the hearing.

Actions

- Motion to cease city attorney services for First Step Shelter: failed by roll call 3‑4.

Discussion vs. formal decision

- Discussion: ethics and optics of city attorney assistance to the shelter, shelter governance, funding shortfalls and the shelter’s legal representation through commercial insurance.
- Direction: no immediate termination; some commissioners requested staff to investigate pro bono or shared legal arrangements and cost implications for using outside counsel in the future.
- Formal action: motion failed; no change to current legal arrangements.

Clarifying details

- First Step Shelter is governed by an independent board and receives funding from multiple municipalities and the county; the shelter has separate legal counsel in litigation through its commercial insurer, per city attorney comment.

Proper_names

First Step Shelter; City of Daytona Beach; Florida Bar (conflict rules referenced); Mayor Derek L. Henry.

Searchable_tags:[\"First Step Shelter\",\"city attorney\",\"conflict of interest\",\"homeless services\",\"Daytona Beach\"]","Commissioners debated whether the city attorney should continue providing legal work to First Step Shelter after a contentious internal discussion; a motion to end the arrangement failed 3‑4. Commissioners called for more information and some asked staff to seek pro bono counsel options.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6151371,"Commission authorizes staff to pursue City Hall expansion RFP; vote 4‑3 after debate over impact‑fee use and reserves",2681,6015000,8696000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5502529-1807b67b6945ac83d13a6df9c1a023de&start=6015&end=8696","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5502529-1807b67b6945ac83d13a6df9c1a023de/thumbnail_6015000.jpg","/articles/6151371/Daytona-Beach-City/Volusia-County/Florida/Commission-authorizes-staff-to-pursue-City-Hall-expansion-RFP-vote-43-after-debate-over-impactfee-use-and-reserves","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6151371-f53d3504ce1d6a1c4290c34e63662161/orig.mp4?Expires=1771195665&Signature=BZu9CfCxNvWUDPle62CNPat5cqi4nLNIIPSbODaiyEqrKE1kGo5hp67pBMou0PUy39a~2LUKb103syH4qYYqAyQAy9a47uKgKFa3kfW7IMVYtI8czDFKhsfAJXGAop7mlooTyXV2oZuyMG3O5uGTQkXlE-TDc48c-oWWd~IaI~0GkudddtEBcSdWn3lDS~PYENK5H3JrlSyPjK1aPW7NQd~E9h~CDWpIiAPdtxC5jPrpqB72zB~mDvSPTFmeVdiRCbacHUtAMFP~Gf0MxP6-bAWxwqMQgnbnz-Y98Qg9HcjOKSfxlm9jUgDZCeO~aRRxzyKSoEmlmCDL0U4fZ52PTQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Daytona Beach City Commission gave staff direction to pursue an RFP for a three‑story expansion of City Hall by a 4‑3 vote, after several commissioners pressed for additional information about impact‑fee balances, reserve accounting and the effect of pending state legislation on allowable uses.

Lede and decision

On a roll call of commissioners, the motion to proceed with the steps needed to issue a request for proposals for a City Hall addition passed 4‑3. The commission did not approve construction contracts or final design; the motion authorized staff to move forward with design‑build procurement steps and related preconstruction work so the city could meet deadlines tied to state reporting and funding guidance.

Why the commission debated the item

Staff presented two siting options for an addition and recommended a three‑story design fronting Palmetto Avenue that would preserve needed parking and place two occupied floors above a parking level. Preliminary estimated construction cost ranges were presented as about $15 million to $20 million. Staff said available funding sources included P&L funds and designated general government impact‑fee balances the city is permitted to retain.

Several commissioners pressed staff for detail about the status of impact‑fee accounts, a JLAC report and placeholders in the city capital program. Commissioner questions focused on why multiple capital items appear as named projects in the budget rather than being parked in a reserve account, whether money earmarked for capital projects had been set aside properly, and how a pending state bill that could restrict permissible uses of some grant or surplus money would affect the city's plan.

Financial context and procurement approach

Staff and the chief financial officer said city records show roughly $8 million–$10 million in P&L funds available and about $10 million–$12 million in general government impact‑fee balances that could be applied, and that the city expects to refine cost estimates as design proceeds. Staff advised a design‑build procurement using precast concrete panels to minimize staging time. The mayor and several commissioners stressed that final contract approval would return to the commission.

A number of commissioners also asked that staff consider moving inactive project line items into a formal reserve account to increase transparency; staff noted that some capital lines were carried forward from prior budget actions and that commission direction would be required to reclassify accounts.

Public comment and vote

One resident supported proceeding with the addition, citing parking retention and the need for updated government office space. After public comment, Commissioners Cantu, Reed, Strickland and Mayor Henry voted to authorize staff to proceed with steps required to issue an RFP. Commissioners Perez, May and Reid voted no; several in the minority said they were not convinced the city should move forward without a clearer plan for long‑term maintenance and without seeing how pending state legislation might change allowable uses of the funds.

What the authorization does and does not do

The authorization permits staff to: refine designs, develop procurement documents for a design‑build contract, and continue project budgeting and grant/reporting work. It does not authorize construction contracts or final appropriation of the full construction budget; those require future commission votes.

Clarifying details

- Staff presented a preliminary cost estimate range of about $15–20 million for a three‑story addition (two occupied floors above parking).
- Staff cited approximately $8–10 million in P&L funds and about $10–12 million in general government impact‑fee balances as potential funding sources; additional funding and final budgeting would be confirmed in later agenda items.
- Commissioners asked staff to review and, if the commission directs, reclassify inactive capital project placeholders into reserve accounts for clarity and auditability.
- Commissioners raised an outstanding state legislative issue (bills discussed informally during the meeting) that could change permissible uses for some funds; staff said any change in state law would be evaluated and brought back to the commission.

Speakers

Andy Holmes, Assistant City Manager — staff presenter; Natalia Eckhart, Chief Financial Officer — staff presenter; Jim Morais, Deputy City Manager — staff comments; John Nicholson — public commenter; Mayor Derek L. Henry and Commissioners Cantu, Reed, Strickland, Perez, May, Reid — elected officials.

Authorities

- JLAC correspondence and state reporting requirements referenced in staff presentation (no single statute cited on record at the meeting)

Action

- Motion: Authorize staff to continue steps needed to issue an RFP for a City Hall expansion/design‑build procurement as described in staff presentation.
- Mover/Seconder: Motion and second recorded; roll‑call vote passed 4 (Cantu, Reed, Strickland, Mayor Henry) to 3 (Perez, May, Reid).
- Outcome: approved (authorization to proceed with procurement steps; not a construction contract award).

Discussion vs. formal decision

- Discussion: scope, siting alternatives, preliminary budget range, impact‑fee balances and JLAC reporting; reservations about long‑term maintenance costs and legislative risk.
- Direction: staff to proceed with design‑build RFP preparation and return with specific contract award items and refined budgets for commission approval.
- Formal action: authorization to pursue RFP and related preparatory steps (passed 4‑3).

Proper_names

City Hall; Jackie Robinson Ballpark (separate item introduced earlier); JLAC (Joint Legislative Auditing Committee); Assistant City Manager Andy Holmes; CFO Natalia Eckhart; Deputy City Manager Jim Morais.

Clarifying_details

- Estimated project cost: $15,000,000–$20,000,000 (preliminary)
- Available preliminary funds cited: P&L $8–10M; general government impact‑fee balance $10–12M (staff estimates)
- Procurement: recommended design‑build, precast concrete for speed and staging constraints

Searchable_tags:[\"City Hall\",\"impact fees\",\"design‑build\",\"RFP\",\"Daytona Beach\",\"budget transparency\"]","The Daytona Beach City Commission voted 4‑3 to authorize staff to pursue steps needed to issue an RFP for a three‑story City Hall addition funded in part from impact fees and city reserves; several commissioners requested additional clarity about reserves and state legislative proposals that might affect permitted uses of the funds.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Developer withdraws LPGA Golf Villas comp-plan request after resident objections over traffic, trees and golf practice area

Commission adopts land development code text amendments on parking, lighting and tree mitigation 7‑0

Commission rejects proposal to drop city attorney’s work for First Step Shelter; debate highlights funding and oversight concerns

Commission authorizes staff to pursue City Hall expansion RFP; vote 4‑3 after debate over impact‑fee use and reserves