Alan Ott

See answers below

Amendment 3. If Amendment 3 passes we will need to come up with a solution that is as fair as we can make it for as many people as possible. Amendment 3 is not simply a tax cut, but it represents a redistribution of the tax burden away from homeowners and onto renters and business owners. We need to work to mitigate that as much as possible, and look at every item of offsetting or cutting to make sure we do what is most closely aligned with the desires of the residents.

Good Governance. It’s not really a problem, but most of what local government does is pretty boring. It still needs to be done well. Most of the time there’s not a “legislative agenda” like there might be in Tallahassee or Washington, but the issues that do come up need careful scrutiny, whether the council chamber is full of interested residents on a contentious issue or whether it’s empty with boring issues. Giving each issue the careful thought it deserves is how residents are best served.

Spending. One silver lining of Amendment 3 is that it has caused local governments to look at their spending more closely. Whether Amendment 3 passes or not, some of the efficiencies identified should be done regardless. I look forward to these discussions over the next year.

Oviedo has been able to lower the property tax millage both years I’ve been in office. What other city can say that? Residents have seemed to be happy with my level of engagement with them and on the issues.

It’s a problem without many good solutions. Local governments don’t get to tell people what they can build on their land, as long as it complies with zoning and future land use maps. Because of property value in Oviedo, people who want to build apartments are incentivized to build the nicest luxury apartments that they can, because it nets them the most gain. We don’t have a lot of mechanism by which we can directly affect outcomes like this within the city limits. Further, laws like Live Local really don’t do anything to help in areas like this one because the median income is high enough that market rate is considered “affordable” under the calculations used in the Live Local Act. Sadly there aren’t many straight-forward solutions at the city level, but continuing to look at every way we can help is what we should be doing.

I’m a firm NO no Amendment 3, as it would represent a shift in tax burden, largely away from homeowners and onto renters and business owners. Renters pay property tax, not directly, but indirectly. Every bit of tax (or any expense) that an apartment complex (or landlord) has to pay is passed on by way of increased rent. Oviedo will be left with a few options which are: cut services, increase millage and/or assess non-ad-valorem fees. I’m opposed to increasing millage, as it will shift the burden even more towards renters and business owners. If it passes we will be forced to make deep cuts, largely to recreation and parks services, other city staff positions, and possibly public safety. I suspect our council will compromise and make up the rest with a non-ad-valorem fire fee. The worst part of Amendment 3 is that it gives the legislature the ability, and directs them, to increase the homestead exemption to the point where property tax is eliminated completely for homesteaded properties, with no suggested alternative for paying for roads, sidewalks, public safety, or the rest of it. It’s an assault on home rule. Amendment 3 represents a shift of power away from your local government, where you can easily visit your elected representatives, to Tallahassee, where you can’t.

Like with many things, lots of people want the technology, but nobody wants the infrastructure in their backyard. Fortunately for things like AI, which is a primary use of these proposed hyperscale data centers, latency isn’t much of an issue, so the location of a datacenter matters little. It stands to reason that they should probably go in places with unused land. Some Western states have around half of their land owned by the federal government. That’s a good place to start thinking about it. It could also create tech jobs in places where there aren’t many currently. As for Florida, impact fees should be made to cover the cost of the infrastructure needed for the additional utility impacts a datacenter will incur.

The rural boundary. I pushed for an ordinance to further protect the rural boundary from annexation. Because of this, an amendment to our charter which would require a supermajority to annex land in the Seminole County Rural Area will be on the ballot this November in Oviedo.

This is not an issue that the Oviedo City Council has purview over. Municipalities planned for this density, at the requirement of the state, with our comprehensive plan, most recently amended in 2022. Residents don’t want development, but development that’s done in accordance with our comprehensive plan is something we can’t do anything about, by law. The current mechanism does balance the development requirements of the state with the needs of the residents and property owners.

Oviedo made its stormwater funding more robust in 2025 to address deficiencies that had built up over many years. This includes maintenance and a capital improvement plan. Additionally, developers pay impact fees for stormwater infrastructure for new developments. Sadly, we are limited by the state in the amount we can raise these impact fees every year, and we are behind where we should be, based on our rate studies.

Water bills go up because of state requirements on how we can get our water. We are building Reverse Osmosis capability so that we can drill wells down 1400 feet to pull brackish water out of the Lower Floridan Aquifer, because we have to get that infrastructure in place by the time we hit our limit on how much water we can pull out of the upper aquifer. These things are expensive, and are the source of the water bill increases.

Florida ethics law is pretty robust on this already, and people who have personally profited have faced consequences. Where holes in the state law are identified, I would definitely support local ordinances or rules and procedure changes to close them.

Common sense needs to prevail here. Rush hour is what matters (not full day), and “trip count” is a silly metric. Data needs to be collected about the roads people actually transit. People with cars create traffic, not businesses (for the most part).

Traffic light times are controlled by computer algorithm and run by the county. Sometimes they work and sometimes they get sideways. With specific issues raised by residents I would be happy to facilitate and attend a meeting with the county about it.

Yes.

Oviedo is close to considering an e-bike ordinance (editor’s note: this later passed). Listening to all parties involved will be a big part of it, since everyone has different needs and experiences depending on whether they personally use an e-bike or not.

I’m not aware of a lack of respect for the election process at the local level in Oviedo or Seminole County. The Seminole County Supervisor of Elections runs the elections, and I’m not aware of any major complaints about the election process so far. As far as what Oviedo can control, we have charter amendments on the ballot to make the City Council qualifying period earlier and another one to go to four-year terms instead of two-year. I’m on the record in opposition to both, because I believe both will limit ballot access for potential candidates and will help incumbents.

The voters opposed spending $47 million, and they opposed spending $31 million. The voters approved borrowing $11 million in a 2016 referendum. I think what we are doing is in line with what the voters want. We’re doing the job the most cost-effective way in renovating the old building and building a smaller-than-proposed additional building.