13:54The most pressing topic was the potential establishment of a CRA in St. Pete Beach, aimed at revitalizing economically declining areas through improved infrastructure and increased private investment. Senior Planner Gil Martinez explained that the creation of a CRA would involve adopting a resolution by the local government to confirm areas of blight, which is a requirement under Florida statute 163. The CRA would focus on infrastructure improvements and could employ tax increment financing (TIF) to utilize increased property tax revenues resulting from redevelopment efforts. TIFs would freeze property tax values at a base year, directing incremental increases into the CRA. Martinez assured board members that the CRA’s funding would only draw from these incremental revenues, and would not necessitate an increase in the millage rate.

21:13However, this concept was met with concerns. One board member questioned the viability of past CRA initiatives in 2005 and 2013, which had failed to progress, speculating that county hesitations about CRAs in coastal communities likely contributed to these setbacks. The discussion revealed apprehension about tax implications, particularly whether the city might be forced to raise its millage rate due to revenue allocations to the CRA. Martinez clarified that while TIF is focused on property taxes, the assessed property values themselves would not be frozen, only the distribution of tax revenues would change. The board recognized the necessity of further research and community engagement, especially given the complexities of implementing a CRA amid current economic conditions and past failures.

23:08The conversation also included how the CRA might align with the city’s comprehensive plan and future land use elements. While a CRA offers advantages like access to specific grants, it must adhere to existing regulatory compliance. Senate Bill 180 was cited. This led to discussions on whether a CRA should precede or coincide with a plan review, with some suggesting that the CRA could identify conflicts within the plan as new projects arise.

36:55Another discussion involved proposed ordinances addressing marine turtle lighting, presented by Martinez. The proposal calls for updating the current lighting regulations, which date back to 2007, to align with the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission’s (FWC) 2020 model ordinance. This update would incorporate science-based regulations and vetted lighting types. The lack of natural dunes on some properties, complicating enforcement, was noted as a challenge.

55:22The board also debated the implications of recent policy changes allowing property owners to elevate their land using fill material. This change, intended to address flooding issues, contrasts with previous no-fill policies.

01:07:08A less contentious item was a proposed moratorium on adopting more burdensome regulations within a year of future hurricanes. This idea prompted discussions about the inherently restrictive nature of resiliency measures. Members also debated the implications of proposed changes to the city’s sign ordinance, particularly the potential safety issues associated with staggering monument signs in densely populated areas. The board suggested consulting traffic engineers to assess these implications before the ordinance returns to the city commission for final approval.