##VIDEO ID:e2LK-Idolu4## e e e e e e e e e e everyone let's call to order this regularly scheduled City Commission meeting of the city of STP beach today is Monday September 23rd 2024 it is 6 p.m. let's stand for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all city clerk if you'll please do a roll call vice mayor mahand here commissioner Marriott here commissioner Robinson here commissioner res Niki mayor patrilla here we have a quorum thank you city clerk all right first we have a presentation on the development moratorium planning process good evening can you hear me yes thank you my my name is Susan traran from The Firm of we serota and your Administration has asked me to come and make a presentation this evening on the topic of moratoria I prepared a short PowerPoint just to guide us through it and I'll go ahead and get started there we go so what is a moratorium it's a temporary pause on development that's designed to make maintain the status quo while changes are being considered so updates to your comprehensive plan updates to your zoning regulations sometimes it'll be environmental kind of standards that issue any kind of planning effort where there's a danger of inconsistent development during the time that you're developing those new regulations and one of the key aspects of a moratorium is that it should match the planning problem and that problem can be defined by a geographic location by a particular zoning District or set of zoning districts a type of land use or type of development or even the stage of development all of those things will affect how broad or how narrow your moratorium will be uh these have to be created by zoning ordinance they cannot be created by emergency ordinance uh that's clear under Florida law and so that means like you take your other Land Development regulations through local planning agency recommendation and uh first and second reading and special notice you'll have to do that with a moratorium ordinance as well um the time frames for the moratorium should match the time that's needed to complete the planning efforts it requires a documented ongoing planning effort to justify the continued presence of the moratorium and the scope can be refined over time to reflect the results of your ongoing study and Analysis is a moratorium ATT taking this is something we always have to think about in terms of land use and Zoning in Florida this is a longstanding legislative intent of our Florida Statutes that govern this aspect of our exercise of home rule and they require us to recognize and respect private property rights apply all of our rules with sensitivity not be unduly restrictive and avoid inordinate burdens um so just that's a a poll start are uh a guidance that we should keep in mind as we look at this topic is another aspect of whether it's a taking is whether the moratorium is properly prepared and adopted if it is it is unlikely to result in a taking as long as it's for a reasonable period and rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose and I've cited some case law here but the bottom line is there are cases on moratoria and upholding them for these purposes now will face greater judicial scrutiny if you want to pause development for more than a year both under the federal case law as well as state and it's important to set that time period in a realistic way to reflect the time that is needed for the work that you're going to be doing does a moratorium violate the Harris act well actually the definitions in the Harris Act help us here and this is that Florida statute that creates liability for local governments for actions that may not trigger liability under the Constitution uh but still May trigger liability under the statute but there's a definition right on the face of the Harris act that says that temporary impacts do not constitute an inordinate burden on property and so they draw the line at one year so it's also uh the same time frame under the federal law that is referenced so it's generally a good idea to not go any longer than a year with your moratorium so what kind of impact will the moratorium have on current development proposals during a moratorium only that development which you identify as being paused will be affected and other development May proceed for example let's say you wanted a moratorium on residential development of course all non-residential development would continue and would not be affected if you do it by particular Zone District the other districts won't be affected or by a mapped area so it's important to understand that there are these all these different dimensions that Define development and if they fall within the ordinance they'll be affected if they fall outside the scope of the ordinance they will not be affected um development proposals that have been initiated prior to the effectiveness of this ordinance may or may not be affected by it development that's reached the point of being under construction is less likely to be impacted proposals that have not even been submitted formally for review are more likely to be impacted there's a wide range in between uh the current stage of development is relevant sometimes you'll have a complex project that's master planned and going through various stages these questions are very fact sensitive and will depend on the details of each project um and Will some be able to escape the moratorium and go forward with their projects uh the answer is going to be perhaps the key issue in addition to what I just said is whether the city is going to be equitably as stopped to pause the process or deny the approval that's being sought by that project and this is the longstanding case law standard which if the property owner has good faith Reliance on some act or mission of the government and a substantial change in that position uh would be highly inequitable to the property owner they may well be able to pursue that project this is why it's very advantageous and we always write our moratorium ordinances to include a vested rights or waiver procedure with that kind of administrative procedure you can have each project come forward with a fully developed factual record substantiating whatever claims they want to make and then you as the city governing body have a chance to evaluate that and potentially decide that yes they made a a well- grounded claim or not and that gets resolved before you're running down the path potentially to litigation and this is just a quote from one of the older cases that tries to encapsulate what we mean when we talk about a sto them it's essentially the rules of fair play the courts are looking to see that if the government has encouraged or approved or brought somebody down a certain Garden Path that we don't then uh all of a sudden um um change direction and and pull the rug out from under from someone but part of the reasons that this is an unpredictable process is that this type of claim is a claim inequity and so the courts will also look at the Clean Hands of the applicant to make sure that what they have done um is sufficient to such that the court will uh consider their Equitable claims there's also a concept out there that that you may have heard of called zoning in progress and as a preliminary matter it's important to note that there is no such thing as planning in progress the courts are clear that um if you want to have a pause associated with um comprehensive planning that's only going to happen with a fully adopted and effective moratorium ordinance zoning in progress is a uh sort of shorthand way of describing this Equitable assole principle that I just explained to you and it's a way of saying that if the property owner is on notice that things are changing and therefore is not proceeding in good faith there may be um a basis on which you would hold up that project even in the process of the adoption of the moratorium process uh the ordinance itself now this is not a gleam in someone's eye this is you know something formally being underway known by you known by your Planning Commission um so there is the potential to U on a Case by case cases look at how this would apply during the process that's necessary to get a moratorium ordinance in place but the bottom line is the only way to create a long longer term and stable pause in development is via the adoption of the moratorium ordinance to so to sum up what we would suggest that you do you start with the definition of the problem and the steps necessary to address it and then all of the details of the ordinance should flow from that what kinds of development will be affected uh certainly provide for vested rights that kind of administrative procedure that I mentioned to you establish a time period commensurate to the planning effort um it's very common to maybe have an initial period of six months it may well be that the overall planning and Regulatory effort will take longer but a virtue of starting with a shorter period and then providing in the ordinance that you must come back to the governing body and get an additional authorization to extend the moratory is that that allows you to substantiate and show hey we've been doing the work uh these are the things we've completed so far this is why we need more time and then have the governing body agree to how much time is necessary to extend that moror uh the ordinance would also apply for the process and the application deadline and some of the details about those vested rights determinations and once all those policy choices are made it they get drafted into an ordinance it has to go through proper notice local planning agency first and second reading during the planning process you will get those wested rights claims potentially and you'll need to process them and at the same time you'll need to be continuously proceeding with your planning and Regulatory efforts and then at the conclusion of this process you adopt the new plan or regulations that you're interested in pursuing and repeal the moratorium ordinance so that concludes my my summary of moratory and I'm happy to answer any questions thank you Susan thank all right Commissioners any questions for Susan excuse me I've got a couple of questions um Susan when you were speaking about the timeline uh you were saying that a year you know a year is kind of the maximum that the courts think of as reasonable um you know at our last meeting we were hearing from the folks who are doing our comprehensive plan review and it was clear that that process is going to take longer than a year and so if you if you have a a timeline of a year when everybody knows that the process isn't going to be done in a year does that still qualify as as the reasonable amount of time of a year when it's kind of just a well we're saying a year because that's what we know we have to say but we know it's going to take longer than that you know so I I do understand the question and I apologize can't read the name plates but um uh I assume this is one of the Commissioners speaking yes sorry this is commissioner Marriott oh nice nice to meet you so I understand what you're saying and there there can be a substantial amount of work involved in these efforts um what the federal constitutional case law says is more than a year doesn't make it invalid it just means the court is going to look a lot more skeptically at you and you're going to have to have a a stronger showing of why you needed that additional time and how you used it and just as an example the case that um some of those principles came out of was a case that dealt with the regulation of development around Lake Tahoe in the Western United States and the work they were doing was kind of groundbreaking scientific work on water quality and trying to derive standards environmental standards that would make the plan uh only that amount of development that would not uh destroy the qualities of L Lake Tahoe that they were attempting to protect so in the Constitutional sense you certainly can go longer you're just going to be you're going to have a harder time resisting uh judicial scrutiny under the Harris act once you get over a year then potentially you are going to be opening yourself up to some harat claims and those will have to be considered and responded to uh on a Case by casee basis as haris act claims always are thank you and then another another question in the beginning you were speaking about the um the the the reasons for for why you would have a moratorium or or you know what what you're you have to be clear about what you're trying to accomplish and so if if what you're trying to accomplish is we don't know we just want to look at it and see if everybody's happy with our comprehensive plan is that is that good enough or is there a higher standard well there can be a need for a comprehensive Plan update if there's been a lapse of time or a change in circumstances I do recommend though that regardless of whether regulatory update is considered um beneficial I think a separate question should be asked and a separate analysis should be conducted about a potential moratorium those those are really different questions because there's many aspects of comprehensive plans that may or may not directly lead to a different outcome for a particular kind of development on a particular property so here's two extremes like one city I had that wanted to do moratoria on uh single family residential development because they didn't like the density that was in their current regulations but everything else in town is going along just fine another city where they were mainly concerned about commercial development and so the most of the updated um regulatory work that was being done I mean obviously all the statistics are being updated you know there is a comprehensive look but generally uh you and your professionals have an idea what the I what the topics are that are of greatest concern to you it might be a particular Road that's failing or it might be a particular neighborhood that is of concern and so I'm not trying to predict that outcome I don't know your city well enough I'm just suggesting that I think there should be a more detailed analysis before uh just automatically having your moratorium stop everything Susan if I may this is Mayor patrilla and um I'll just preface by what I saying that good evening um um you know while commission Meritt is looking to load you up with loaded questions I think we should stick to the actual realities and the concrete questions rather than saying is there really no good reason for moratorium because we've been talking about the moratorium for a year and a half and it's not an arbitrary let's just have a moratorium for the sake of it but rather actual reasons were brought to the commission um just on tonight's agenda we have three items for example in our sewer our undergrounding and I forget what the third one was that are having significant impact on our city and our residents because of the development and potential overdevelopment and so part of the reason we're having a comprehensive plan review is because we're having these issues and we're looking at it and saying how much more can we take how much more density can we adjust how much more impact can we have on the environment we have massive flooding for the last two or three last two or three weeks because the king Tides we're having have about we're about to get hit with another hurricane potentially next two or three days this will be the 14th emergency declaration for this County in the last four years right so there are actually real concrete reasons why we're looking at a moror it's not arbitrary it's not we just feel like it but rather this is a real necessity which is why we're looking at reviewing a comprehensive plan which has not been reviewed by our residents and by our city in almost 20 years I think it's about 15 16 years it's been a long time so there's a reason why we're doing that so if I may restate one of the questions from commissioner Marat if the comprehensive plan review um individuals are telling us it's going to take 18 months to do a serious review that we've asked for would it be prudent to ask for 18 months or should we ask for 12 months and then hope for an extension later on when we know from day one that we really need 18 months so I understand what you're saying and the principle underlying what I'm saying here is the longer you go the better your proof should be it doesn't mean it's impossible but you'll need to work with your professionals to substantiate both the level of work that's needed and the length of time that's needed um I do think it's wise to have that ordinance be set at one year with an option to renew and even if you're fairly certain at this point you will need to extend it still is a a worthwhile exercise for your future defense of any challenges as well as for public involvement and knowledge of what's going on to have that meeting at one year and say okay here's how far we've got and here's how much remains this is what we're getting out of this process there's just no downside to doing that in my opinion as an attorney perfect I appreciate that I mean that's kind of the exactly the kind of concrete advice that we need so that as we're looking at this process we can make decisions so if you're telling on day one look you're safer on the 12- month side with a six Monon extension great that's perfect then we can we know how to tackle this uh any further questions from the Commissioners please and I'm sorry before another question if I can just add to that Mr Mayor um in my experience you will know a lot more 12 months from now than you know right now you may not be done in the sense of here's your camera ready code of ordinances and comprehensive plan but you will have a much more refined understanding of exactly where problems are and maybe where you're considering making changes so it's very possible that at that point you might reduce the scope of the moratorium to reflect now that you're informed by that years of work uh worth of work um what is really essential so I just wanted to point out that that's also an advantage of staging it like this thank you Susan questions comments so if we if the commission decided this is something that we wanted to pursue and move forward would your firm be the one that we would work with to draft the ordinance so of course that's your choice I know that you're in the process of of transitioning on an attorney but yes we've written several ordinances from moratoria dealt with these issues for years so if if it's your desire to do so we could certainly work with you on that and I know I'm going to put you on the spot here but is there a range or a budget that we should keep in mind so when I spoke to your Administration I said let's just um Talk hourly at first until we have a better idea of what's involved but um I don't have a a specific estimate for you at this time okay is there an amount of hours we should kind of think about uh I mean what I can say is we ' done it before and uh a lot of the work is not just here's an example of a moratorium org it's the hard work of thinking through what all those policy choices that I just announced and so that's not just the lawyer that's also you working with your professional staff to put whatever and you know maybe you don't put any edges or maybe you do maybe you refine it a little bit more but I I do want to emphasize I think it's in your best interest to think those question question to the grou thank you all right any further questions for Susan while we have her I do have one other question just as a um you know as we're sitting here right now facing a potential hurricane in a couple days um and I know a couple years ago after the hurricane hit Fort Meyers um at a state level they um uh prohibited municipalities from making restrictive more restrictive development ordinances for a time period if you're in the middle of a moratorium and some you know heaven forbid something like that happens um is I mean like I I mean I guess at any time you can you can we can change that more can you change that moratorium along the way if something if in the event of a natural disaster or can the state step in and require that you change it or how does that how does that work so um a moratorium is nothing but a an ordinance of this governing body so you're in the driver's seat throughout the whole process and just like any other ordinance that you could come back and amend you could amend this as well the rep the bill that you're referring to um coincidentally the expiration of that period is October 1st 2024 I wasn't certain whether St Pete Beach fell within that 100 I think they shrank that 100 mile radius so maybe you fell outside of it but um you know predicting on that is very hard because that's a question of Tallahassee and we know that every year Tallahassee is more and more excited to get in our business and prevent us from having home rule we just know that as local governments and depending on how they write future legislation you're just just going to be kind of stuck with what they do um but certainly it is an ordinance outside of any kind of preemption that's within your control and there are special rules that come into play Under emergency orders that allow you to relax or wave certain requirements and let me use a a a really horrible example just to kind of put it in context let's say it's Fort Meers Beach or it's South dat after Andrew and it you know arrived God forbid City Hall is gone all records are gone you know really catastrophic that would definitely be relevant to reviewing Court in saying oh no it's been 366 days you know and for six months of those you weren't operational like that wouldn't be fair and I wouldn't see a court holding that against you but I use that extreme example for a reason you're going to have to show not just that oh maybe we were under an emergency order but that it really affected you and really got way of making that progress so is that helpful it it is thank you all right last chance for questions Susan we want to thank you so much for your time I appreciate your presentation and for your very direct answers thank you so much oh thank you nice to meet you all have a good evening good evening thank you next we have a presentation on the Golf Boulevard utility undergrounding good evening mayor um Commissioners and Charter officials for the record my name is Camden Mills and I have the pleasure of serving as your city engineer and assistant Public Works director I appreciate the opportunity this evening uh for our staff to present a summary on the Golf Boulevard utility undergrounding program including the funding status for all three phases of this project um to give this fact-based present ation I'd like to introduce Miss Nicole Kant Nicole serves as an engineer in our public works department and has been an essential part of our team since she joined us almost two years ago U Nicole has taken on the role of project manager for our Golf Boulevard utility undergrounding program and we are fortunate to have her expertise guiding this important initiative and with that I'll turn it over to Nicole thank you what clicker do I use for the power this one okay sorry good evening thank you um what I've prepared tonight is a PowerPoint presentation starts out covering the scope of the project basically what it's doing then we'll move into the evolution of the project budget from its conception uh around 2017 through today and then we'll go into the funding um behind the presentation in your package some of the things that you have to support the presentation is a copy of the current Charter so you'll see a lot of the information the presentation is pulled from the charter and then behind that there's also an attachment that walks through all of the funding for this project when it was approved and you can line that up with the PO summary in the charter as well so that's some of the um other information that you have so we'll get started there we go um background and scope so uh originally Gulf Boulevard undergrounding was ramped up as a beautification project um however it also in improves uh resiliency and reliability where resiliency is our ability to come back after an event or an outage and reliability is your ability to withstand an outage um undergrounding electric power street lights and the communication facilities on both sides of Gul Boulevard West and East there's three distinct phases that this has been broken up into the first and phase one is from 75th to 55th which is a 20 block range and then I don't know why phase two was a and b i inherited that instead of one two three but we have a 2 A and B um both of those 2A and 2B or 20 block radiuses but you have more uh infrastructure in there so you'll see that they're roughly the same size in this project there's four sequential subphases so you have an underground construction installing all your under conduit the boxes and things of that nature then you have the cabling and Equipment installation after that you're going to have energization and service connections and then the final step is removal and restoration um right now under the current contracts that we have the city is doing the underground construction and the utilities are doing the final three bullet points so we do um contract through them but we don't have an option on whether or not to use somebody else those three bullet points have to be done by the utility all right the next page is just a high level scope again giving you counts of equipment so you can look Apples to Apples um as you can see phase one compared to phase um 2 a and 2 B they are more um than uh phase one Al together and that was 20 blocks so you look at the scope of the work and the density of the work in the LA in phase two it's much heavier than phase one I can tell you in Phase One what you're looking at are actuals because we have that design done and the underground construction is complete so those won't change in phase two they can change somewhat once you get into construction sometimes you have to make design changes in the field so those numbers can still change a little bit um the third um just kind of running through all the different um elements that you have on your poles it's more than poles and wires you have a great deal of Power Equipment communication wires and things of that nature so that's just a visual telling you what's going away and I'll buzz through these fairly quickly I think we all know what they are but I gave us a slide on all the different ground level equipment and what you're going to see replacing those so you have Transformers switch gear capacitor Banks and then the pole boxes are access points to the underground cabling system and then you have some more Communications equipment with the Spectrum node and then your street lights as well are going from the poles and wires to the other let me just all right so where we're getting here is into the budget and I included this slide so I can take you back to what was handed off to me when I picked up the project I came on board in November of 22 um and picked up this project the handoff that I got this uh print out is the budget that I received I didn't have an electronic copy I just had a hard copy so what you'll see is this is what I pulled from and as we go through you you'll see what I did with that in the comparisons so this is just really to give you an example of exactly what the budget was that I was inheriting the next slide is when I show you what I the budget plan that I put together with the program and how those numbers fit into this so that's your original budget that I inherited and that was showing us a forecasted total of 14,100 3 985 for the full scope of the project now this one the next one is the budget today and this is a combination of budget and actuals because again phase one is nearly completed not all POS are closed um but they're they're close to being closed so those are more actual numbers um than budget but what you're seeing is these numbers here have come from binding cost estimates budgetary estimates I didn't have anything to support the numbers in the original budget so I can't say why mine is so different but when I went out and investigated got quotes got estimates started pulling these numbers together this is these are the numbers that I can support with either budgetary estimates or binding cost estimates that gives us a forecast for the total project of 21,1 53,6 7820 because I did take this to the penny [Laughter] I didn't round at all all right so the next one is where I'm going to walk you through each phase of this project with the actuals versus mine so you can see where those increases came from so you'll see in phase one overall that's a 14% overrun from the original budget which makes sense because when I picked up this budget you had contracts in place you had a lot of this stuff even paid for already um The Underground Construction um it's only a 20% increase which is typical for um the approach we took with this design however it is the highest ticket amount along with d Duke Energy So 20% is your highest increase and I can tell you on phase one 400,000 of that 463 was due to a design change when we couldn't take the underground cable underneath the sidewalk the path was full so we had to take it underneath Gulf Boulevard every time you touch Gul Boulevard whether it's 2 in or 10 ft there is a big restoration requirement and it averaged about $100,000 a block we had four blocks that we had to go into go Boulevard and that is the vast majority of the change orders for that Underground Construction um the aster at the bottom is the original budget didn't show money in reserve for a review of the original engineer record however that was contracted um under the previous management so that was a review of cpwg um cpwg was the engineer record on phase one um previous program management changed to kimley Horn for phase two so we did have a change in our engineer record between phase one and phase two all right in two this is where what you are dealing with right now are binding cost estimates so if you look at my proposal everything in there is binding with the exception of the Underground Construction that is going to be going out to bid we hope starting next month looking to be able to bring a request for an award approval maybe in December but that's the only one that could change um really from my estimate because it hasn't come back from bid yet you'll see here that um um there's a lot bigger discrepancies so I'm not going to go over them in detail unless you have any questions feel free to ask but on phase 2A what it added up to was about 53% under budgeted from the original budget to what it's going to take to execute that phase in Phase 2B there was less funding upfront and that one was 109% under budgeted from the original budget that takes us to our summary page where this right here is just showing you phase by phase how we were off the overall project for all three phases was 50% under budgeted in the original um the primary drivers were the 2020 budget forecasts were significantly underestimated and um I didn't have anything to show me where those numbers came from so I can't say why um but they were off for phase two um the original design build approach was changed to a design bid build um that's not a huge increase but one of the reasons you go with design build normally is time and money um when you go to a bid it normally does bring um costs up there was a shift also in self-performing work under State Statute fac 25- 6.64 to the Duke performed work so originally when we were putting um the the budget together I think in like 2018 2019 um we were trying to do more of the work ourself so if you go back to the first slide where there's four subphases we're only allowed to do one ourself the underground we were trying to use Florida statute to take ownership of cabling installation as much as that we could leaving the utilities for the service connections and the energization that was not successful for whatever reason I wasn't around at the time so I don't know the wise but that was not successful that also is a cost driver um then there's time delays and the estimates result in base rate increases my estimates had to be refreshed twice and they went up each time um with the utilities and naturally since 2020 to now supply chain costs and other costs have gone up significantly ly um the last slide is just showing you how that's going to fall out um on the left is our funding so we had two penny for pelis awards um and then we had two contributions of City money the city money in the 301 5310 which is a professional administrative that's from 2017 before the interlocal agreement with the county and Penny for pelis was in place so that was the city funding when we were originally designing it and scheduling it and that was City paid for um and then we also have 800,000 that is in the fiscal year 25 budget that is going towards um getting us where we need to complete phase 2A and then if you look over on the right hand side that just shows you how that funding has falled out um we have funding in place now to complete phase 2A through 45th Avenue with a buffer of 115,000 and then we are looking for additional funding through whether it be grants or additional counting funding or something like that before we would go into 2A the or 2B these phases are completely independent meaning if you decide to stop at the end of Any Given phase you can you're just going to have polls so at the end of phase one where we are about 50% complete with the utility work right now and we have an estimated full completion meaning removals and restoration done of first quarter uh calendar year 25 um if you decided to stop right there it's going to be perfectly functional in that area there's going to be no problem with that um you will have polls in the other area however as you can see it's the funding come coming through penny for penales is designated for the go Boulevard beautification so it's not like we can use that money um right now we are funded through the end of 2A and that takes us to 45th Avenue any questions thank you so much when would T be be projected to start when we find funding that one right now is on hold until we secure funding we did however pay for the full design of phase two um in Phase 2A meaning um we already have the the design we will have the easements in place so when we locate funding to move forward it should be very quick it's not going back to design Ni Call question for for phase 2B as well as Phase 2 a what's the contingency for for both of those and I asked that because since in Phase One there was a construction design change that needed to be made because we didn't know what was underneath the ground right so it's a possibility that could happen again on both phases so what what's our contingency you always need to plan for some contingency especially when you're doing underground work there's just things you're not going to know till you get under there um that is the one that's going out to bid so I can't tell you what the contingency would be right now that's the one thing I can't give you a firm price on we hope to go out to bid next month getting bids back in November and being able to come back to you um with that at that time some of the things that you can do sometimes we'll say it should have a 10% contingency that's pretty typical in a design bid build um it was 20% on phase one but that was also started as a design build you don't do as much upfront work um however you may decide you don't want to put that much in contingency that will absolutely be a decision made by the commission when we bring that back to you thank you Mr Mayor yes sir Nicole thank you for coming tonight um I have a few questions uh you've answered some of them but I just want to go back over them uh first of all uh on page uh it's your page budget and actual breakdown by phase 2024 okay page 19 of our pages but I don't think you have those um this question's been asked a lot um but I'm going to ask it because it's part of the presentation tonight what did we get for the services from project management Alpha um which was $ 61,62 3 and $21,000 did we actually get anything I know there's a lot of things going on with that but did we actually get something in return for that money I can only comment um I came in after Alpha was already gone and my only knowledge of what they've done um comes from historical references me going through invoices and things of that nature I don't have any documentation um of what they did I know they held the meetings I know um I think the city engineer at the time had a couple meeting minutes um but I personally did not get anything handed off to me that Alpha produced okay thank you uh you touched on some of this uh city manager this is under phase one 2020 budget versus actuals city manager commissioned a review of cpwg work by kimley horn that was not in budget uh and I I I believe you said that was had something to do with crossing under Gulf Boulevard uh so that was a necess necessary review or was that no that was completely discretionary that was the folks running the project at that time which I believe the city manager and the uh project management firm Alpha um did not have confidence in the engineer record on phase one and they hired another engineering firm to review their work and provide them a report so the previous city manager or probably two city managers ago yes sir um requested that kimley horn possibly at the behest of alpha uh wanted an additional review of cpwg work um to make sure that they were right to make sure that they were delivering okay um my next question and I am going to come back to that um in a moment but uh I'm I'm trying to go Page by page here just questions I have so on this page here don't know if you have that in your oh you're in the charter you bet sir let me pull that up so it says what level okay that no I'm reading this it uh second paragraph down about halfway through it says ground level equipment that is water rated um my question is what level of confidence in the water rating do we have not because I've heard a lot of comments from residents they are not submersible they are not submersible they are not going to survive being covered up in saltwater so we are undergrounding we're spending millions of dollars undergrounding things but it's no what's underground is your cabling system in the conduit that I apologize above at ground level yes um they're not going to take a hurricane but normal uh water runoff rain things like that they're rated for that is a Duke Energy question so I can't elaborate much more than that without going back to Duke but I could get specifications for you on what that entails okay so in your professional opinion by lowering those items from up high which reduces the impact of wind but putting them closer to the ground they are indeed more at risk for failure in a hurricane not at all okay no they are at much more risk up in the air from both water and wind when they come down to the ground the encasement can handle the rain and everything else you get a saltwater flooding you're not going to have stuff survive that so I just want I don't want to give you the impression that we're saying these are water rated they're going to keep running if if we have them under twoot of salt water that's that's not the case but they are absolutely more reliable and resilient down on the ground than they are up on the poles but make commission up up just to clarify so we're talking rain versus a storm surge in case of a hurricane right yeah well like I said the cabinets are going to keep water out but not like I said you you subur it um some of them are going to get in there um if you wanted specifications on exactly what they're rated to withstand I would have to go back to Duke but it is the right equipment for the island in our environment it absolutely is and it will protect that equipment if you look up on the poles your Transformers are in a little can like this you go down on the ground they're protected in a box that's about twice that size um that is protection um not only for the general public but for the equipment Inside the Box okay thank you sorry for the rep no I'm not an engineer as you can probably tell uh but I guess from saltwater intrusion wouldn't they be better up high I'm not talking about wind I'm talking about saltwater intrusion now would they not be better if they were up high as I said I can go back to Duke and get the specifics but in my professional opinion and that's 25 years as a power engineer no they would not okay thank you uh I do have a couple more questions though you bet uh on one of your pages here um it's page 31 of my packet it says Gulf Boulevard utility undergrounding phase 2B this one here okay uh you did touch on this um and this is probably a clarification more than anything um under scope do you have that in front of you I do sir okay so the last sentence says phase 2B does not include design work design does not include design work all design for phase two including phase 2B was done in Phase 1 a oh did it say 1 a that's a typo it's 2 a okay okay yeah I apologize no no no it does not say 1 a it says 2 a it is not a typo it is a read problem no problem and and then we go to design status and it says the design for phase 2B is at 60% yes maam clarify that for me if you would because I read one of them to say that the Design's done and then the other one to say that it's 60% it's not completed but we do have a p issued and it's in progress so we issued a purchase order for the design of both Phase 2 we have phase 2A 100% complete and ready to submit for permits and 2B is currently at 60% so we've been working on that ahead of getting funding for the faux phas that's something that was in place when I picked up the project as well um so for whatever reason design was done in Phase One and phase two and all the installation and construction had three phases okay thank you and uh I have two more sheets here you got it one that you have and one that you don't have uh so the next question is and I touched on this before cwg uh which is crib philbeck Weaver group I can actually pronounce all that English names um they uh they did the original design and then they uh were asked to be double checked by two city managers ago they did not double check the design what they did is they went in and the report that I saw was verifying the deliverables that the city thought they should be getting and whether or not they received them but the actual design itself that would have been much more expensive they didn't go in there and get into the design and and uh proof okay so on appendix B budget reconciliation this okay here um there's all kinds of cost overruns uh I know a lot of it's attributed to co everything's attributed to co actually and uh but um much of it is uh we know there's been inflation but I the one keeps jumping out to me and the name that keeps jumping out to me is kimley horn yes which as I understand it is a intellectual company it's not an asset-based company like an undergrounding company it's one of our our um uh CCNA contracts that's an engineering contract right Engineers yeah um and the overruns I mean I see one's 112 which is which is maybe the medium of this whole sheet and then I see one that's at 3 320% and another one that's at 320% uh this company's name keeps coming up in things that I read and I I'm just wondering is this the best vendor for us to be using for these things or they like the greatest thing since sliced bread or they were a favor to somebody or know why they were selected I can tell you that they've done outstanding work that I've working with them on phase two if you look at the 320 for instance where we're talking about construction support services that is 320% because somebody decided we only needed $50,000 to do it and that's not a reasonable estimate they I had no um so if you look at phase one they had there was $85,000 on phase one which is a smaller scope than the $50,000 for construction support in Phase 2 A and B so I can absolutely tell you any one of these line items if you want me to explain where that overage came from I can take you down to that detail um with the kimley horn ones I don't know where they came up with the numbers for the budget they weren't reasonable but what I see right here is per our contract with them okay so and what we expect to need for a project of that stature So based on your time here you have confidence in kimly Horn as being a quality service provider for the city uh they have been outstanding to work with on this project and it's a fairly complex project with a lot going on um I not saying that uh we have lots of veryify vendors that we're working with but I have no complaints with kimley horn um they been responsive they are doing the easement support as well which takes a great deal of interaction with the public we're asking them to give us their property for infrastructure um and they've handled that with respect and and they've been wonderful and diligent and that is our biggest risk with this project by the way there's funding which is always a concern but we do not have enough city property to put this equipment on we have to have easements to get it done um and that's what they have been working hand inand with me on for two years now um locking down the easements for phase two when I came on board we had phase one easements in place with the exception of a couple I had to pick up but that has been a huge effort are they better than CW or cpwg in that respect um cpwg at the time I can't um I hate to make the comparison there's a lot of history I don't know about and I wasn't around um until construction with cpwg I didn't have any problems working with cpwg and I know they've done a lot for the city over the years especially with storm water and some of our reports and things like that um kimley horn has a deeper bench meaning if I have a specialty problem they can find somebody on staff that is expertise in that area so that is a big benefit uh when you're a project manager for instance you'll see in here that we have to convert the uh service feeds to one of the pump stations in phase one because Duke Energy can't give us an open Delta at ground level um that was not something that was foreseen and so with kimley horn we could pull in the people who actually designed the pump station to help us design what we needed to get to the next step and that was very quick and easy um so there's definitely benefits to that um I don't I didn't have any problems with either vendor I wouldn't come up here and disparage either of them they were both um very very good to work with and phase one went well we got everything in and um it was on time and I iess said it was 14% over the original budget but with a project this size that isn't normally to be unex expected that's pretty typical okay to probably everybody's Delight U I'm down to my last page for uh aside from looks and potential wind exposure what's the downside of not doing phase uh 2B um if you don't do 2b it's Aesthetics and reliability resiliency you're not going to get the benefits of those things um we are looking there are state grants for resiliency that I'm trying to look at finding some funding on and we are a great candidate for those resiliency grants with the undergrounding on a Barrier island of your electric utility so I'm very hopeful that we will find that funding without asking the city um to fund that to finish it um but it is primarily a Statics and the vulnerability of the utility okay so you being the number two engineer in the city I believe that's correct is that right are you the number three I'm not going there well you're you're an engineer in the city is that not I am I am all right thank you uh so if we can't get grants for the $6 million and we got to pay that out of pocket um would we be better served I'm asking for an opinion uh which maybe is dangerous in this environment um would we be better served to spend $6 million to do phase 2B or would we be better um serve to focus on seaw walls pipes drains and maintenance I would not in good conscience recommend taking money away from anything to do with our water threats and and our watershed management plan um the thing about this project is in fact that we got funding that was designated for it so we didn't have the we didn't have that struggle where do we put the money um I don't know that I would come back to you ask for $6 million with the other things we're competing with if I wasn't successful in finding a grant or some other funding source very good I appreciate that answer and I very much appreciate you here tonight thank you thank you any other questions now was CP uh WG they were designed build for Readington Beach yes they did we piggybacked off of their contract for ours here and that's um when we intended to go design build it was that piggyback and then there was a decision made that the contract didn't support design build and that's when they decided to go design bid build my understanding is Readington had a very successful undergrounding as well to my understanding anytime you go design build it's to save time and money I mean that's the that's the whole approach you do more quicker without as many known and you take the risk of those change orders but you generally come out ahead and on that uh 6.1 mil that we're looking at for a 2B were you thinking 20% by the time we get to it that it's going to increase cost I would say 2B are not firm numbers those are budgetary estimates because they will expire on 2A the only thing that you see change is going to be the underground construction when I get a bid in but in 2B yes um depending on how long it takes us even with the binding cost estimates that I have they could likely expire um the budgetary estimate for the underground construction is in line with the scope and the price increases that we're seeing um so I hope it's not going to change too much but there is the potential in 2B just because I'm looking at a 50% over a time period of four years which is substantial it it it is but again that budget I I say it with a grain of salt that over that four years it went up 50% I found no supporting documentation for that original budget to make it something that was solid it it really looked like an entire budgetary estimate from a conceptual standpoint it wasn't a built budget thank you all right thank you so much I just want to thank the city manager and the city staff for putting this report together um couldn't have been comfortable to come up here and show those numbers um disturbing as they may be um but I always want to make sure that we do not shoot the messenger right so um I think what commissioner mahalin said is like we appreciate the cander and we appreciate the direct answers uh to some tough and uncomfortable questions sometimes um again I appreciate taking the taking the time to put this together because I know we've had a lot of questions about this over the last few months uh and I'm hoping that that for our residents and for the public uh this helps you understand the situation better you know some of this has come as a surprise to you know even to me and I've been here you know for the last year and a half working through this stuff and um thank you for doing this all right do we have any amendments to the agenda as proposed I have one Mr Mayor yes sir one request anyway uh I would like to add uh to the to a discussion item um I'd like us to have a hopefully brief conversation about ordinance 2024 d06 which ordinance is that that is uh the ordinance on parking that I believe because of notices isn't on tonight's agenda and won't be on an agenda until uh the 8th and I would like to have a discussion uh before the second reading with the commission uh on that matter thank you sir mayor I have three requested changes I'd like to pull consent item 4 e and action item 5B and bring them back at a future meeting and I also would like to ask for a reordering of the agenda to move 6A the ordinance related to the single family residential project to come directly after 5D as they are related and the presentation will cover both items thank you and I have one for consent um B if we can pull action 4B yes 4B sorry okay we're going to pull 4B and that's will be 4 F sorry 5f any other changes all right since we had a presentation on the moratorium I think it'd be prudent to have a discussion on the moratorium as well please that'll be disc discussion item 7B and then I would also like to add a very short discussion on the planning board and the supplies and resources that they're provided okay if there's no further amendments I please have a motion to adopt the agenda as amended I make a motion to uh Mo approve the modified uh agenda for the St Pete Beach City commission Monday September 23rd 2024 thank you second and city clerk if you please do a roll call commissioner Marriott yes commissioner Robinson yes commissioner res Niki yes vice mayor mahand yes mayor Petrella yes motion carries thank you M do we have any general audience comments I have one uh Ann boretti if you'll please state your name and address for the record my name is an boretti I live at 3123 West maritana in St Pete Beach um I'm here to talk to you about the flooding um both the tidal flooding and the standing water that is on either side of my property my property is on the corner of of maritana and Alonso and um this past uh well I look back and I have been complaining about this issue for 10 years the city put in I guess it's called an outfall I learned that because it looks like a ski ramp and it's in front of my house and the men were very nice when they were constructing it but I didn't see anybody maintaining it um when they came when we complained they came to repair it and um they told us that the it was um under warranty and that it was not constructed correctly well that has been twice now that it has been totally supposedly fixed this past week the water came in into the area and it was so bad I could not get into my property or get out of my property without going through water I'm not an engineer but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that there's something wrong the way it's built on either side of this out faal the seaw wall isn't built up to even my level of the seaw wall the water seeps in now the standing water has always been in front of my house at in West maritana this morning men were there and they they did a grading I guess or a Milling it looks really ugly but you know what there's half the water that was there before and I thank them for their action but the city paid for the side of my property on Alonso it I believe it was Sun Coast Paving repaved well when they repaved they took up the hot top a layer but they then they put in another layer they never brought it up to to uh the road back to the original height so now I have a constant large body of water I understand that's that you're going to be the city manager is going to be walking the property tomorrow and and I thank you for that but this City's action and inaction is adversely affecting my property I want you to make the flooding a priority I thank you very much thank you thank you do we have a motion to approve the consent agenda I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda as amended Second City Clerk if you please do a roll call commissioner Robinson yes commissioner Resnik yes vice mayor mahand yes commissioner Marriott yes mayor patrilla yes motion carries thank you next we have action items 5A our in a local agreement with the Panella Sheriff's Office good afternoon Jennifer McMahon acting assistant city manager um before you is the interlocal agreement that we um bring to the commission every year um for our panel's County Sheriff's Office to continue um policing our city um this year the budgeted amount is um 3,545 and that is a 6.64 increase from last year and it also includes the 250,000 um that we um added in last year's agreement um so with that being said I'm going to introduce um Captain liner with panel's County Sheriff's Office who is here to um do a short presentation and answer any questions that you may have Captain ler good evening good evening mayor commission um good to see you again so realistically obviously we enjoy the uh relationship we have with the city and it citizens and that um the sheriff would be here tonight he had another engagement so obviously you get me so I have in lie of a presentation or anything I was more or less that if you had any questions with a contract or anything with service or anything I can answer that maybe could come up or I can run down with the services if you prefer whichever whichever way you'd like me to handle it I think we can just do a quick synopsis of the service okay and then we can very good man ask any questions we may have and I assume everybody has the the worksheet pay okay very good uh I'll just go right down the items so it's not take too much time if you're looking at item a on the on the worksheet on the contract is that you have it okay item a it'll say you have 10 deputies times a multiplier the 10 deputies so you're all aware you have two deputies on day shift and a sergeant and then on night shift you have three deputies and a sergeant so it works out the five deputies each shift and two sergeants each shift and it takes two shifts to cover 247 so you have 10 deputies total and four sergeants so the line item A is for those those five deputies on both shift shifts that gives you the 10 and there's a 1.2 relief factor meaning on this this item when the deputies off you have to have some type of relief so if it's vacation uh training out sick or something like that that's where that point too comes from so it factors in relief when you move on to um excuse me item C that's your special enforcement deputies that's your community policing officers so you have three cpos for short um they do not come with a relief Factor so you don't pay the additional cost but when they're off they're typically off now take it with a grain of salt if you have a special event your CPO is off and you your event here we we adjust and we work it out but you don't you do not play pay a relief factor for that position the fourth or item D is the four sergeants I talked about so we run the squads where the sergeant it's a squad so your your deputies are a squad and they're run by a sergeant that reports to a lieutenant that in turn reports to a captain and so on but the four sergeants are the one that running day-to-day business for you all uh you have additional support positions when the city first came over you have a full-time Detective Public Safety telecommunicator is like a 911 call taker for lack of better terms and you do have one school crossing guard that handles um Gulf Beach Elementary that's the only one in your city out of your vehicle cost they break it down they break it down by um they had a study years ago they did how many miles they drive on average so there again you see your 10 that's your Patrol deputies so it says they're driving 36 miles there a day on average and then your four sergeants are below that your three cpos are below that uh then you're one detective there so it just kind of breaks it all out um the vehicle cost is going to be the cost of the vehicle itself uh the maintenance the mile uh the fuel the upkeep and all that if you go down to supervision again you have play a portion of the one Lieutenant I mentioned so there's the lieutenant runs the entire shift so any any anytime you have day shift or night shift you have a lieutenant North County and a lieutenant out of central County so that that's that portion of that um there's a multiplier for the supervision the good news is out of all the count out of all the crime or not all the crime out of all the offenses incidents and Fs field interviews out of all of that that says 5.7% Falls in St Pete Beach so there's 95 95% of that other crime is elsewhere than St P Beach uh and then it'll break down I'm sorry that was under G if you go to H the equipment is everything other than the Tahoe that I talked about so it's everything else we bring to the game all our everything everything else I tell you helicopters buses whatever you whatever you name it that's not the Tahoe that's where the equipment goes there and then indirect is like is the the way it explains me because I asked the fiscal people this it's all the indirect costs associated with running a business so it could be like your human resources for your hiring and stuff like that anything anything ancillary to run your own Police Department basically or Sheriff's Office and that breaks down and then you have the um line item is the the the 250 Standalone that's just a if only if you use it I think I checked as of this is your last month on fiscal I think you used 137 of that last year last check about 137 140 so you'll get I think you're paying about 20 grand a month on that that'll come back at the end of the month it's not like we keep the money but it is set aside at the beginning so if you do use it it's there if it's not then it comes back to the city we don't maintain it that's pretty much in a in a nutshell what what you have on your coverages I can answer any specific questions thank you questions I have just one question um in the line item and this is just out of curiosity um my daughter goes to Gulf beaches so I'm I'm familiar with the school um and I don't remember is school crossing guard something that we reimbursed back from the school board for offering that service because I remember I remember the the nice lady that used to be the crossing guard there um and I know now she's you know no longer with us but um there was I guess a change in the contract to add that um or is it reimbursed do you know if so the school the good thing here is part of my other job is I'm charge of the schools so I have the sro's and school crossing guards of 168 post countywide that I have 112 filled um it is not rebbur first that's the city incurs that so the only thing there is is that no city or county has to have a school gr it's not required the only thing is that once it is required you have to comply with Department of Transportation rules so we have a program obviously that's compliant with that but the school board doesn't Pony up money towards it um it's just it's it's the it's the city there are some cities that have I think 24 crossing guards so yeah but that is completely born by the city not against it by any means I know it's needed I watched the kids come across so there there are some of we have an annual appreciation for memory I cannot see how it's so hot out there and so disgusting I'm blessed to have them quite frankly thank you any further questions thank you sir thank you Mr Mayor thank you councel you have any public comments I do have excuse me mayor one question and not enough for um the deputy but I think it's um with the city manager when I was looking at the the budget um our operating budget um and I have page 2 59 and 311 is our actual budget and the numbers are different um our operating budget is 3 3.58 million 250 like it doesn't match the numbers that are here um and on page 177 I mean it's off by $500 but the funding is different from what the actual expenses so it's in that summary page and I'm I'm just trying to figure out you know why is it different um I know there's different breakdowns but the operating cost is different on the budget than what we have on this action item I don't know if anybody saw that or or do I wait for Budget discussions I'm not sure where the discrepancy is I know that this sheet came to us before Al finalized the budget that we presented to the finance and budget committee meeting so you'll see it on page 311 um it says contract amount 3.25 five and then the operating um page 259 is different and I can forward this you know later in I guess when we talk about budgets we can yeah we could make an administrative change tomorrow when you take action thank you all right questions comments discussion is there a motion I make a motion to authorize a city manager to execute the pelis County Sheriff's Office interlocal agreement with pelis County Sheriff's Office for law enforcement service from October 1st 2024 to September 30th 2025 for 3, 54,5 188 and no Second City Clerk if you please do a roll call commissioner res Nikki yes vice mayor mahand yes commissioner Marriott yes commissioner Robinson yes mayor patrilla yes motion carries thank you next we have item 5c adopt resolution 2024 d07 a resolution of the city Commission of the city of St Pete Beach Florida authorizing the city manager to enter into an agreement with the Tampa Bay Beach's Chamber of Commerce to coordinate and oversee the business side Improvement grant program and providing for an effective date if we can go to the PowerPoint thank you Jennifer McMahon um so we're going to um walk you through um this program and um kind of a timeline so when we started our strategic planning um four or five years ago it was identified um to come up with a business grant program for different reasons some of the drive was to get businesses small businesses under 50 employees um the opportunity to come up to code if there was something on their property that they were being noticed a violation or to do improvements to their site so things like grease traps um um um doing um repaving your parking lot restriping your parking lot um and so that's where it was um it began so it was in the um 50,000 was budgeted in in FY 23 um to help execute the program um we um partnered with the Tampa Bay Beach's Chamber of Commerce uh a nonprofit We were advised um to do that so the city wasn't writing checks to um different businesses throughout the city so they can oversee the application process um and um giving out the grants and things of that nature so we we partnered with them um a Review Committee was formed um and it was asked of us to have an employee from the St Pete Beach as part of the Review Committee that was myself um the chamber president Robin Miler Miller sorry um C of Treasure Island City manager at the time uh Amy Davis and a consultant with panel's County Economic Development and that was the re Review Committee that we went through all the applications um for that um FY 23 um 12 businesses were awarded in that cycle three were denied um and all but $1 15,17 57 remained in the funding that rolled over into fy4 um the city met with the chamber um about the two 2023 Grant cycle in January of 2023 Grant applications were accepted starting March of 2023 it should be the 2024 sorry the first line is um 2024 Grant cycle um we started um accepting applications the Review Committee met in May then we brought that before Commission to execute the agreements and do the awards um awarding of those um grants um they were informed um by the Tampa Bay chamber of of Commerce that the final decision was for the the those that applied um never received an agreement or contracted award they were a for they were informed by Tampa Bay Beach's chamber final decision was going to the commission um the agreement went before Commission in July 2023 City staff was asked to clarify a few questions and return to the commission for review the agreement again went before commission September 26 2023 with the Tampa Bay Beach's Chamber of Commerce requesting withdrawal from the program and their involvement um based on that meeting um the Tampa Bay beaches chamber then returned the remaining funds from the um the original cycle in the amount of $1,175 57 um the city does have 50,000 budgeted and this current Year's budget for this initiative to continue if the commission votes to move it forward these are some examples of some of the projects that was funded in that first cycle um the American Legion Post um they did extensive work I think they received the max you could receive was 7,500 for any of these grants and I think they put in over 40,000 if I remember correctly um and Robin could probably know more um the Bay View Plaza Waterfront Resort um received funding to again um to do a mural and improve their site to give you an idea um these are the list of all the applicants um for that first cycle and the amount that was um awarded um so um there were some that were denied um for various reasons um some like the beach theater wasn't was not open part of the requirements is you had to be in business for at least a year um and um Pure Vita volleyball was the same they just moved into the dolphin Village um so um they were not they did not qualify um the helm had some um their project didn't qualify so there were different items on here um for reasons that they were not um approved um and then you see the dollar amounts and the the um there were three um that did not complete the projects and that's where the $1 15, $175 remained in the budget or in the um account for the chamber which they then return to the city um from the applicants that we took this year um that we reviewed here's the list of those that applied um whether they were a chamber um member or not and the amount we that was was recommended for award by that Review Committee totaling $40,000 in total um so that gives you an idea um of some of the things that they were asking for so a parking lot um awning for over a patio uh garbage dumire enclosure which would got them up to code owning for an awning for a pool um parklet construction um which was denied um North Beach uh wind surfing for facade paint new door sign um um laasa plan to um um to do some work on their sign mural um for Bay Palms the center uh for a mural and fix wall and landscape and a parking lot um and PCI um is over 50,000 employees so they didn't meet the criteria as well so over how many employees over 50 is the requirement you have to have under 50 in order to apply we really were focusing on small businesses for this um so these are the two businesses that did um complete the work um so far this year which I think is why we're here doing the presentation so the options that are available for you and both myself and Robin are here to answer questions is um to continue with the program as it has been established for fy2 24 with existing applications as I showed two slides ago um start with the new application process exclude existing applications and carry over the FY 24 budget into the 25 budget um because we did take it out of the 25 budget um based on this year not expensing it or discontinue the program in totality so I'd be happy to answer the questions as well as um Robin Miller here from the chamber Commissioners questions comments it says here that the completed work without approval letter did anybody receive approval letters no none of them none of the applicants did May so at the time of the review we made a call to say that they were preliminarily approved upon the sign off from the commission and they were told not to do any work until they had that agreement letter which are the same agreement letters that we had issued the year prior I'd like to make one comment real quick before we before we get any further and and um uh my business is on the list of of folks who applied and were approved for 2024 um I didn't receive any money just like all the other businesses and in January when I was appointed to the commission I assumed that meant I was no longer eligible as as a member of the commission um so um so I'd officially like to get removed from the list I don't want anyone to think that that that I'm you know mixing stuff up here but uh um you know once I was appointed to the commission I figured that was not something that we would be involved in anymore we we did the work on our own we're you know but but I just wanted to make everyone clear that that I'm not um I'm I'm expecting to be removed from that list and that is true it's on the application itself that any board member anybody who has affiliation with the city is it um would not qualify or would not be approved I think it's on part of the application or the guidelines I think it's in your packet Mr Mayor whenever time's up go ahead first of all thanks commissioner Marriott I appreciate you pointing that out uh just as a general comment I I have a little experience in business and um my attitude is that municipal government should do no harm um I I'm not sure that I really love this program um particularly uh we have so many needs uh particularly as it relates to Public Works uh I'm just uh not sure that um spending $50,000 to help businesses no matter how honorable and laudable that might be um we just have so many needs in this city that at some point we're going to have to make the decision that we're going to spend money on what we really really need to spend money on and as a former business owner I just don't see this as something that uh I would expect my municipal government to be providing to me it'd be nice uh but it wouldn't be an expectation uh I think the expectation in this city is is that we roll up our sleeves and get to work on our infrastructure um so uh that's my feeling on this particular program um as as honorable as it might be or intended to be I just don't think that we should be spending even most people would say well if it's $50,000 that's nothing well that's a whole heck of a lot of potholes we can fill so uh that's my position May could ask a question certainly thank you um and and I completely agree with um commissioner um on your comments um I have a couple of questions um one out of the ones that have been identified as approved um whichever methods were used I heard from Jennifer mention at the beginning of this program it was I believe from what I remember sitting in the audience was something that would help with businesses that were out of compliance or had been um not meeting a code or or what may be right and then it's kind of morphed into something else but out of that list of those who've been approved are any of them there one that is of need based off of of of a code violation do we know um I I can tell you that the three that didn't follow through where we reimbursed the money I believe all three of those are some in some degree the onset of reason that this started and I would like for the record that you know this original plan as you've just stated was um an advantageous and a very nice plan right for those that were in a code violation to bring them up in a speedy more Speedy way because it was very costly this was not by any means a chamber going to the and saying let's spend money on business the city came to the chamber and said help us make this um available um but right now looking at that current list I don't I only think there's one right that would be be a result of a code violation the dumpster yeah the dumpster which is the saint um which I honestly I I'm not I don't work in the city but I think they probably have rectified that by now I I mean I know that they kept emailing me over and over and over hey did they sign did they sign are we getting a contract and I had to keep telling them no um but I and I don't disagree with you commissioner that I do think that there were components of the program that allowed for other uses based on um Aesthetics you know you know oh my God like casad Del Pani sign you couldn't even read it it was faded you know that was I think a good you know good good gesture uh for the business community that does provide impact in the community um but I I did St step up to the podium as commissioner mahand was speaking because you know for me as the chamber CEO and we advocate for business and be good partners of the municipality I do not disagree with the commissioner I think there were great intentions of the program and I I would say from my experience 17 plus years here is that um you have good intentions and it's okay to Sunset a program that served a purpose we had to actually run duck pig knock I mean call email to get people to apply and I know the former mayor he went and knocked on some business's doors in the first round um you know we put it on websites emails you know it was spoken about at the commission meeting so you can even see in the second round less applicants even applied some came in at the very last minute of the deadline so again I don't disagree with the comments there I think um there were good intentions and I think you know as we evolve as a community there might be good intentions again you never know you may have a sign ordinance haha that changes and you may say you know what let's do something like this again thank you I have another question too and Jennifer maybe you could help with this um I do remember also that this program was in a in um coordination with the resident program as well which I think is another $50,000 that we had a program to help residents who were out of compliance no that was a beautification for the right of way or something but it was Sim was it done at the same time it came from the Strategic plan as well and to just grow our green canopy and pull up some asphalt and do some of the RightWay plantings okay was that another 50,000 too do you remember no that was over 200,000 yeah okay and is that is that still existent no okay I'd like to make a recommendation and then we can also take audience comment as well I will just um before you I did some math if you take out commissioner marats um plus the 15,000 that we got back from the chamber it's only $ 17,8 12780 that if we if you wanted to move forward with the existing applicants that we would need to earmark not another 50,000 so I'm just my quick math on here and what was returned to us in this fiscal year um that's it would shrink it down so I was about to save another 14,500 so my recommendation was to one remove the saint uh either they've secured their Code Enforcement issue but they're also for sale where they just recently sold so I'm not really sure that we should be you know working with a property that the owner is looking to you know get out of town anyway um and then second of all just because you're one business and you own three businesses that are all tie together like the bay Palms put you maybe under 50 when maybe you have over 50 employees when you put all the businesses and hotels that you own together I think that's kind of just trying to cheat the system here if I if you want my opinion whether you ask for it or not um I'm also not a huge fan of murals and I've mentioned that before those surpris so I think we so my recommendation would be to remove the saint Bay Palms which then really only leaves the two businesses that have already completed the work um I think you know when they originally applied for this program I think in good faith we should honor that you know I mean they they in good faith appli it's not their fault that we delayed this process for a year if the events that happened in that commission meeting last year hadn't transpired the way they did they would have received their money A long time ago and they already moved on so my recommendation would be that we um you know address those two businesses that already spent the money and then for the time being we Sunset the program which two was that Mr Mayor the St P Beach produce and Casa Del Pond both of those are on Gulf Boulevard almost not quite directly across the street from each other but not too far you're you're you're missing the helm uh for some reason I thought that they already withdrew or something they did not the year that was the they appli the year before did not qualify and then they restructured their application um adequately and and were awarded and then I I just do for the record want to say that though Bay Palms Plaza Beach and Bay View are owned by the same ownership group they do have less than 50 employees with those three um properties combined absolutely they they are they run across the street and run all three of those Resorts so I just want to make sure that that and I understand the you know the aspect but I just want to for the record let you know that you have way less than 50 employees I think if you come to commission meeting you park your Ferrari two blocks down the streets so no one sees you maybe you don't need a seven Grand but what do I know not my place to judge who drives the car or yeah I'm just saying like we should look at other criteria as well as to who we award it to uh and again I appreciate you know commissioner Marriott withdrawing from it just on principle alone think on principle alone I'm not sure that that really meets the CR IIA but I leave it to the other four Commissioners to help make that decision I I would be a little bit concerned about taking a taking a process that's already happened that had set rules and then pulling somebody out of that later for for for for basically just because we decided it ought to be need- based at the last minute or something like that I I I think that's a I I I just don't think that's a good look on how the commission operates I mean if if uh you know if if if they qualified based on the rules that were written at the time I I I I'm I'm not comfortable going back now and and picking out in this case picking out one person and saying you drive a Ferrari and I don't like murals so we're not giving you the money I think that's I think that's a bad look we picked up multiples and actually it was at the discretion of the commission the chamber recommended made the recommendation here the individuals that we recommend and it was at the at the commission's discretion whether to approve one all or some of those it is that true is that what happened the prior year the chamber does not make the recommendation the commission made the criteria and the committee and the committee made the recommendation of the businesses together um the city provided um with what I understand is a review from uh the legal team on what that would look like the chamber solely executed and collected applications exhaustedly reviewed them organized it and then met as a committee with city of St Pete Beach City of Treasure Island as a city manager as an unbiased person and economic development as an unbiased party and then that was brought forward to you all thank you is there an expectation with any of the three or four that have performed the work that they're definitely getting this money do they have that expectation or is there a realization that um it still has to be approved and it's not guaranteed so if you go forward with your projects you know don't 100% count on the city um providing additional relief to or financing or funding to you I guess is the word very good question uh it was clearly communicated to all of the businesses that were preliminary awarded that they were not to start the work until they had the contract provided by the city of St Pete Beach and signed the there there has been one of those businesses which is um St Pete Beach puru that has asked me if they're getting their money when are they're getting their money and I have sent an email I think even to the city manager that I communicated that very clearly that they were told not to start the work until they have the contract signed all of the other businesses have been waiting um the saint like I said had emailed me probably about three times over until the final meeting that we had before the commission so just so I'm clear the business owners in every case are fully aware that there was no guarantee on getting a funding supplement from the city yes sir thank you I spoke with two of the the um applicants and uh that was not the impression they were under the pression that they were approved so there is some dispute on that I just kind of feel like if you're in business you have to uh you have to guard you have to be very cautious for free money so yeah I I I'm I'm concerned that we're going to pick winners and losers here is based on business people's understanding of something that really was never in writing I'm sympathetic to them but running a business isn't necessarily an easy thing no it's not but they they did do they did do due diligence on what they did and did do the work as well and they were given a verbal on that and I I have asked too as well you know what they received back I know that there were emails going back and forth and answers weren't promptly given to them so there is some concerns on that since we do have the money and we have talked about this and we it seems to have gone down substantially than the 50,000 um I can't tell you if Bay Pals has 50 employers or not if it if it uh has 50 employees obviously that between its three companies then it shouldn't be in shouldn't be in the program as well but I would be fine with going ahead and going with the ones that do and just then sunsetting the program until we see more later a need for it later I mean we have spent $50,000 on sidewalks to Nowhere right around the corner over here hopefully though we're we're all I I get the sense we all want to fix all that um I'm mayor can I make a comment sure um and and I and I do agree with um commissioner mahalin on this point because eight out of these 10 did not do the work and did what they were told right so I this is the teacher and me right you know you were given a rule you chose not to abide by the rule I don't know their financial backing either I don't know what cars they drive or or what they do right so I would say the same thing you know if we're going to make those comments I don't again I don't know what car they drive right so that's not a criteria either um and I I think you know we do have workshops coming with prioritizing things in the city um and you know I I don't think this is a priority for the city uh even if $50,000 can correct the potholes like um commissioner mahalan mention um or fix a drain somewhere that that's not flowing I think that's what we should be doing um and and not this so um that's where I stand I yeah I mean my opinion is that I would be fine with either um either uh saying we're not doing it at all and not paying anybody or or pay the the four that qualified are still under the same ownership and and haven't been paid um and and then and then again I I agree with sunsetting the program at this time um you know so so I'm fine with either one of those I'm not fine with with pick picking people out here at this time so which four is that so that would be uh oh shoot let me get this list back up so that would be uh St Pete Beach produce um uh Casa del Pen Bay palms and the helm so it would be removing off of the list that we have here removing myself as I said and then uh removing the saint because I think it's not the same ownership as it was when they applied correct mayor can I ask and and if let's just say theoretically the saint would have done the work under the prior then we'd be okay with it you know I I mean we're setting new criteria here and I I agree with you know what we're saying is like why are we setting these rules I mean you just no yeah no I agree and and I guess I don't know the answer to that question see that they did work without approval you know yeah right yeah I mean yeah city clerk do we have any audience comments thank you okay thank you any further discussion would anyone like to make a motion I make a motion to deny resolution 2024-the Business site Improvement grant program and I also request that the city manager reallocate to Public Works maintenance the funds that uh derive from this denial is there a second I I guess I just have a question is the is the is the for the city manager the City attorney is the the reallocation of funds is that is that a workable part of this motion or frankly I mean it probably should be two motions to be honest with you I mean I think you should separate them out so that you're not mixing two different topics um I think the city manager is better to speak on allocation of the budget and things of that nature thank you I would just ask on the clarification on the second motion I would recommend that you reallocate it to the capital program if that's the desire of the commission and then we could bring back which project we recommend you allocate to based on the needs I'm sorry Capital Improvement program it could go into that program and then we could bring back at a future decision point which project that it would go to so the commission has a say on that allocation specifically okay I make a motion to deny resolution 2024-the The Business site granting Pro grant program and I make a second motion uh one at a time sorry I second any further discussion city clerk you feel please to a roll call vice mayor mahand yes commissioner Marriott yes commissioner Robinson no commissioner Riki yes mayor patrilla no motion carries 3 to two vice mayor did you want to make the second motion sure I make a motion that the $50,000 reallocated from the Tampa Bay beaches Chamber of Commerce program uh be reallocated to the capital Improvement funds budget second I would like to amend the motion to also include the 14,000 and chain from the 2023 fiscal year be included in that amount is there a second for the amended motion do what do you have this I think the Mover has to accept the motion at the the amendment and then the second no you can do it you could do it that way but typically we do what the mayor is saying we make an amendment and then we have a second on the amendment and then we go back to the main motion with the amendment but I'm just going to ask um you said 14 and change I don't know what the actual amount was Jennifer do you know what the actual amount is more I think it was 14 or 15,000 so it would be 50,000 plus the 15,1 7557 that was returned so we're actually looking at putting into the CIP $65,100 175 175 and 57 cents plus the 50,000 in this current Year's budget yes the amendment was to include the 15,000 so then we need a second on the amendment second okay City cler do we have a roll call on the amendment okay this is to approve the amendment to add in the 15175 and 57 cents commissioner Marriott yes commissioner Robinson yes commissioner Miki yes vice mayor mahand yes mayor patrilla yes motion carries then I'm going to do roll call for the main motion for the $50,000 reallocated from this program to include the 15175 and 57 since that you just moot that you just passed uh commissioner Robinson yes commissioner R Nikki yes vice mayor mahand yes commissioner Marriott yes mayor patella yes motion carries thank you next we have action item 5 b quasa judicial public hearing to approve preliminary plat number 2442 requested by Ellie page of Bayside engineering LLC for Smiley Snack Shack of St Pete Beach this is a compion is a compion okay okay before we enter into the quaza judicial part of this um meeting City attorney yes I just wanted to also um remind the commission that uh the manager had um request requested that uh 6A which is a first reading of ordinance um 2403 I think which is a change to the zoning District that this particular item is in so they're companion items however one is quad judicial the other because it's affecting that piece of property the other one is legislation that will be affecting everyone in that zoning District it's adding it's a Tex change to the zoning District however um I think the the most efficient way of doing this is as a companion um presentation at one time but you'll be taking two votes and then as far as the quasa judicial procedure uh the first thing for you all to do is to disclose any ex party uh Communications any outside research that you've done other than what's in the packet things of that nature and then have the clerk or myself swear in any Witness is every every Tes all the testimony you take in has to be done under oath so first thing you would want to do is is uh here you go do the ex party disclosures okay we can start with district one sure um other than the other than what I read in the packet and reading um just I think one email that I received on the issue I also watched the planning board meeting um regarding the same issue and I drove past the property and checked it out thank you District Two I watched the planning board meeting I talked to a planning board member um about that and um I read what was in the packet and the initial um information that came out um regarding uh the request I read that months ago District three um I um heard the tech the TRC technical review um meeting um planning board meeting as well um and this goes back for a while so I maybe you could help me with this one because when I was president of the DCP and there was interest in that property I'm not sure if that was the same buyer at that time so I don't know if there was a second one because if there was and I spoke to that person on the phone so you could clarify that if that's it's a different okay so it's not the same person so no that didn't H that happen but it has nothing to do with this um and then the second is because I did speak with many members of the DCP board um and residents as well the properties that are to the west of the property um while I was president of DCP not after as commissioner no one has called in regards to um the project or against the project um so I did speak with DCP reviewed the plat with them because they had questions about the subdivisions plat which I had records of so other than that that's it district for I received one email as it related to this item on tonight's agenda I served on the board of adjustment when it came before the board of adjustment uh I don't know how many months ago it was uh six seven whatever eight uh and I also attended the planning board meeting uh a week or two ago uh I was physically here to observe the planning board meeting so um that's my level of communication Beyond uh the packet thank you sir um I've watched the planning board meeting I've reviewed the documents I've um read a couple of emails from residents and from the Don CeSar neighborhood um I met the individuals who I believe are buying the property incidentally at a restaurant one evening not knowing who they were and they introduced themselves they briefly spoke about their project um and I've been to smilees 100 times in the last many years so city clerk is there anyone we need to swear in please you to speak in front of commission stand do you swear affirm that the information or factual representation that you are about to give or present to the city commission tonight is truthful yes thank you thank you city clerk all right welcome hi mayor Commissioners Katie Cole with the law firm of Hill Ward Henderson representing the applicant developer of this project so thank you um based on all of your expar uh communication disclosures you it's quite obvious that this has been going on for a couple of years and it's been a work in progress to get the best project for both the city the owner and the neighborhood here at on this location so um I will I probably am not going to be at as in- depth as the staff report and the and the staff will be in there based on theirs but I know that you all changed your uh procedures to have the applicant go first and so I want to give more of an overview in the specific request and then answer any of your questions so as uh the city manager requested and the City attorney advised the request today you have two things on the agenda it's to allow for a fee simple town home development in the resort facilities medium zoning District where currently such Town Homes cannot be individually ploted and so the two requests before you today is a text amendment to your rfm zoning District as well as the subdivision standards with respect to the how the city measures uh impervious surface ratio and then the second request it's actually first on your agenda is to approve the preliminary plot itself this as we all know is smiley it's been there for quite a long time and it has also been for sale for quite a long time located in the Don CeSar properties Property Owners Association area uh the preliminary plot was first brought forward um to the board of adjustment in February of 2024 uh with respect to a side setback variance and a front setback variance looking at the building as a whole those two requests were made based upon the floor plans of the uh floor plans of the units and the site plan the board of adjustment unanimously recommended approval of of those variances reflective of the site plan as it was proposed as the uh developer sought to work with his investors and then a new purchaser and developer uh stepped in to build this project they started to work with the Don Cesar's Property association to look at what did this project really look like um it was intended to be four individual units that would be used for candly short-term rentals which is permitted in this much as you see uh in other Beach communities large homes where multiple may or may not stay there in working with the Don CeSar Property Owners Association the purchaser and developer determined that that probably was not the best use for both the assoc the neighbors and for their business purposes and sought to instead offer a fee simple for sale project uh in August just last month the board of adjustment recommended approval of the preliminary plat based on the for sale project because the board of adjustments sees the plat but the planning board sees the uh text Amendment then the text Amendment went forward um last month as well to the planning board where there was also a recommendation of approval this is the project that the board of adjustments saw in February and is uh was also discussed with the Don CeSar Property Owners Association and is reflective of the site plan and I know I'm talking site plan and your decision before you today is really the preliminary but I just thought it was important to give context to the project uh at the planning board there was a lot of discussion about the resort facilities medium and I'll transition here to discuss about the text Amendment because I think the preliminary plat obviously there are criteria that your staff reviewed with respect to whether the survey data is correct whether the lot sizes are correct and such and um based on the staff report and the application that's in the record that's reflected as conforming with the exception of the two matter that are the subject of this text Amendment uh the text amendment is specific to the resort facilities medium category the resort facilities medium category is for lack of a better description a holdover category where there aren't very many property zoned Resorts facility medium in the city of St Pete Beach any longer in fact there are 11 total uh Properties or Parcels that have that type of zoning this is where the uh property is located now you can see the large property to the South is the Don CeSar itself both the hotel and the adjacent parking lot and then to the north uh the odd shaped kind of red parcel you can see brown orange is both uh Smileys as well as a condominium behind Smileys here's an aerial view of that area so you can see how it looks and you can see um Smiley there in the center the balance of the Resort facilities medium property is near upam beach and you can see that the these is mostly made of Condominiums which are used for short-term rentals or uh permanent stays so there's the city as you know doesn't restrict in this zoning category the difference between the two so it would be the condominium associations themselves that would make up those rules uh these are the only Remnant rfm zoning categories the resort facilities meet medium category allows for multifam residential dwellings which is how this project had moved forward in the past it was a 4unit multifamily project um that has been going through the process for construction the text Amendment requests to add uh the add attached residential dwellings to this list of permitted uses attached single family dwellings in your code means a group of three or more closely placed interrelated single family family dwelling units that are side by side I.E town homes and so uh that's the request today currently the detached single family uh would be like a single family home multif family is obviously more uh multi has more units than what was contemplated as as opposed to side by side the proposed project would comply with this attached single family definition uh one thing in your code you do have a provision in your code with respect to the um sorry with respect to the attached single family that section of the code requires certain Provisions including gives the city the allowance to request uh verification with respect to Common ownership and uh common maintenance and so the common maintenance and common ownership is generally reflected in association documents and that would be done in this case as well part of the discussion with the property owners ass assciation was specific to the use of these and how those would be reflected in the documents so uh my client has been working with the association attorney directly working through those things and uh the language proposed currently in the lease uh in the hooa documents and of course this is in draft form I do want to say that um but working through it with the association attorney is that there would be in accordance no transient rentals and then based on your code definition the minimum minimum lease term should be 30 days and a maximum of three times per year so that comes directly out of your code and that's what the owner is agreeing to encumber so uh based upon that in the discussions with the Don cazar Property Owners Association uh they have issued a letter of support with uh with the condition that there aren't any of these short-term rentals so uh that's an overview of the request uh we do have our engineer record Eli Payne with Bayside engineering who's here that can speak to the specifics of the plat and the dimensional requirements of the plat and uh I do want to go back because it's not highlighted here there was a lot of discussion at the planning board about the ISR and how that fits and I want to be sure to address that so if you look on um the plat and Eli I might ask you to go ahead and come on up if you don't mind um if you look on the plat uh you can see that there's common areas on the outside of the parcels that are prepared to be uh individually owned um that common area would be uh what would be generally in any other multif family development used to calculate the impervious surface ratio in this case if these are used lot platted as individual Lots the individual lot would be used to calculate the impervious surface ratio that becomes somewhat of an untenable calculation because you have a much smaller lot with a home and then a common area and so the change proposed is to include this common area basically in the calculation for ISR so I'll ask our engineer If he if we need to further clarify that before I move on yeah just with Town Homes you have introduce yourself uh El like pay basite engineering 2054 Central Avenue um with Town Homes the impervious surface ratio is usually based on the zoning lot as opposed to the individual lot so with the Tex change to add sen family attached into this District you will also need to add that zoning lot criteria for the impervious surface surface ratio so basically the change allows for the developer and the engineers to look at the parcel as a whole prior to carving it up I think one of the things that was a point of conversation at the planning board that you all saw and that we've been talking about is why is this option important so the point of this is to allow for fee simple home ownership um there's no restriction generally municipalities don't restrict the type of ownership they just rest restrict the look and form of the buildings that are on there so this opens up your code to allow uh to eliminate the restriction on the type of ownership this project could be a condominium form of ownership today um and candidly proceed generally as it is as a condominium but uh the owners don't feel that that's the best for the owner future owners of these units or or the city it encourages the text Amendment encourages the alienability of property without being encumbered by the condo documents it maintains the city control because you do have these code Provisions already with respect to single family attached and it uh the current code does force the condominium form of ownership as opposed to allowing these other types of owners this other type of ownership as you've read in the papers and seeing in Tallahassee there's currently a lot of discussion about the condominium form of ownership what the requirements are uh for condominium owners how that translates into Property Maintenance and reserves and what the ability for condominium owners in the long run to maintain those Parcels are uh this while it requires because of your city review and the code provision still those Association documents which would require reserves and owners associations in maintenance it removes the questions and the significant impacts of the um terrible tragedy on the east coast and the new legislation that has impacted so many because of that so uh with that we would request approval of the uh preliminary plat as well as approval of the two changes to the text happy to answer any questions do have the contract purchaser here who is the developer uh proposing this as well as obviously Mr Payne who can speak to the dimensional criteria of the plat as needed thank you questions so ma'am just a couple clarifications um at the board of adjustment you stipulated uh and agreed to two car garages is I know that's what's depicted here I just want to be certain that that is locked in yes and as a matter of fact commissioner um we before the last meeting Mr Barry and I pulled up those minutes from the uh Board of adjustment to ensure that all of those conditions were included and yes it still is okay good and nothing that happened at that meeting in February would change because that variance is still being reli on I I didn't want to assume anything correct uh the the next question I think you addressed it are are you saying that you are willing to stipulate that there will be no short-term rentals on this property yes sir okay very good those are my two questions thank you I just have one question what is the percentage of impervious then as a whole above it required is 30% I think we're out like 35% 35 of pervious okay thank you was there a plan B is there a plan B I so I'm just I'm looking at in terms of you know rewriting rewriting Our Land Development code seems to be a rather extreme step especially while we're in the process of doing a comprehensive plan review also seems to set kind of a interesting precedent uh certainly call it dangerous uh I I would disagree that it's a dangerous precedent or a precedent at all but rather um two two things and that's obviously a discussion that was had at the planning board as well uh codes are living breathing documents the same way you all are embarking upon a major rewrite of your comprehensive plan uh that's what cities do on a regular basis you've had an applicant who's identified a cork of your code that one form of ownership is permitted but another form is not um that prohibition on the form of town home owner ship generally prohibits the alienability of property which is a concern and so this addresses that concern uh if with 11 Parcels I would I would venture to Guess that the rfm zoning category might disappear anyway in the future and so I think that this is an interim step to allow a project that appears to have uh widespread support to move forward in an expeditious Manner and uh get it constructed I I don't know about widespread support I didn't receive any emails in favor or against it for that matter there is a letter of support in your packet and um the the clip it of it that I added to the PowerPoint from the association and I I uh as was stated at the planning board meeting as well that you watched um the association had several conversations about it and one of those members did report as to the support of the association and her neighbors so then going back to plan B right is there another option besides rewriting Our Land Development code no um I think my client would have to decide if they're willing to move forward with a condominium form of ownership was there an option to to rezone or to ask for rezoning to a more appropriate zoning I I don't think there is and looking at the zoning categories that came up at planning board and looking at the variety of zoning categories I don't know that there would be a level of support um or appropriateness for a specific zoning category on this isolated parcel that would uh resolve the attached single dwelling the lack of ability to build attached single dwelling the categories which allow for attached single dwelling are very intense and significant um that I don't know that would be appropriate from the city standpoint in the Don CeSar area so I it was an option that we looked at but again going back to your first comment about the rewrite of the code um rezoning to another car uh category uh when the com plan and the zoning code are are soon to be amended over the next couple of years it that also seems like a very large large step candidly thank you I had a question how are you handling um was there going to be HOA documents I see something in here now about that because I've been concerned well first off I'm concerned about the impervious surface ratio in general but um as well as the maintenance of the joint areas certainly so um the we have been talking to the city about the association documents your subdivision code does reflect uh condominium documents are required and then your attached single Dwelling Code uh thank you which is section 610 regarding attached single family developments uh states that uh that the adequate Green Space area is a minimum of 30% of the toal toal Site Area so that's already in your code for attached single DW dwelling and that the applicant shall provide covenants restrictions Financial guarantees and other legal assurances in a form acceptable to the city as a city manager deems necessary to guarantee Conformity to the achievement of the plan and required maintenance of the open space so that's in section [Music] 610e what is the height of your project the proposed height of the project Max height is 60 underneath the maximum height of rfm is 60 ft and this is below that there were no variances to height I mean if you were building a condominium right I'm sorry so if you were building a condominium or another conforming structure it could be 60 ft tall yes if you were building a conforming structure without changing the language what you would be allowed to is 60 ft yes okay and your project is that's just below that like 58 59 feet from Bas and if your project was in a residentially zoned I'm sorry if your project was located in a if you had it rezoned to residential for one of the residential categories okay what will be the height restriction then I don't know I'd have to look at that up in the code okay Brandon if you would mind just tagging that question for later thank you sir the R2 which is adjacent to this parcel sorry are You2 which is adjacent to this parcel does not allow attached single family dwellings it only allows detach single family dwellings and the and I apologize I can't the maximum height is 30 feet for single family homes the residential medium District uh allows for attached single family homes and the maximum height is 35 ft okay so by not rezoning it to RM which might be more appropriate resoning you're getting an additional 25 ft I I think the plat that question is there is a higher height allowance in rfm the question before you today is the preliminary plat with respect to the lot size so yes okay did I hear correct you said 55 ft or 59 ft thereabouts yes it's three stories above the total height or from baselet I'm sorry we weren't prepared to talk about site plan issues that weren't the topic of discussion or design ma Building height is 50 ft I'm sorry we're at we're at 49 ft Ma has conforming so if you were in a residentially zoned area you'd be 14 ft above what would be allowed correct yeah why is this uh it didn't strike me as being from the photos obviously um being that tall we have what do we got 12T ceilings in there or is there any possibility to redesign any of that to lower the height I mean I'm just throwing that out there because obviously it's become an issue is there rooftop amenities I mean do we have rooftop I'm sorry I patio yes there is there is the if you look on the you can see the very top kind of the um shadowed back of it and and that would be the usable roof so you have the base flood plus three stories plus the usable roof and what is the square footage of these units Eli's getting a PL I think that was on one of your slides thought so too can't find it they were all different or mostly different approximately 3600 per unit 3600 sare ft and it says four car garage on here not two car yeah there's extra well it goes to two in two in so Mr Mayor you seem to be troubled by the height and the zoning change that is that am I reading that correctly so in principle I'm I'm actually supportive of the project so am I that's right but you're you're causing me to question whether I've missed something here my concerns more scrutinized more sure so I have uh I have one particular concern and then from that Springs three or four other concerns so my main concern is um having an applicant or a developer come before us asking us to rewrite the Land Development code for their Project Specific now youve see the number of projects we've already had in the last couple years you see all the ones that are on the books coming forward and that's just the ones that are conforming in their opinions and now we have a project that is non-conforming and then what does that open us up to you know everybody else who's got any kind of other project any other property say well mine doesn't fit so we'll just rewrite the Land Development code to make mine fit in this instance when there actually is in this scenario there is an appropriate resoning that could be done have it reson to RM which would be in line when you look at it with the houses directly behind the property and with the houses adjacent to the property um but as the applicant already explained there's a reason why they wouldn't want to do that because if they did that resoning it would actually reduce the height and the size and the scope of what they could build now being in the industry I can tell you 3600 ft versus 2500 feet 1,000 bucks a square foot which is roughly the average in St Pete Beach that's going to make a huge impact on the sales price so I completely understand where they're coming from and I'm sympathetic to where they're coming from what I'm having to look at is though not just their individual project but rather every other project that may come before the Commission in the next couple of years or at any point in the future because what we do today is going to set a precedent for other projects in the future and so I think so to me that is that is where the challenge is I I wholeheartedly agree with the dces our neighborhood I think what they're asking for uh the deed restriction I think it's a great step um I appreciate the fact that the applicant has gone from short-term rentals to go into single family attached I do appreciate that I do think um generally looking at the project you know it it's it fits the character of the neighborhood in but one instance right and that's the height because when you look at you know this is going to Tower over the beach houses that are directly behind it now I'm not sure that those individuals are really going to Care much about their View was in the front not in the back so but you're going to have this tall building next to these all these small buildings um and the only reason that again got to read between the lines here the reason that they're asking for the rewrite of the code is because the rezoning wouldn't give them what they're looking for and I understand that um but again for us we're don't we do have to make a decision for this one project but we also have to be cognizant of the fact that whatever decision we make here can have ramifications down the line and unintended consequences and there will be other applicants whether you don't think so or not that will stand here before us at some point and say hey remember when you approved smilees that's all we want to do too we just want to rewrite this code over here so that we can have single family attached instead of condos certainly Mayon if I may um respectfully the code allows for applicant initiated code amendments if that's something that is worrisome to this body I would imagine that's something something that would be on your consultants list to review um but that is the option with with your discretion and very clearly this request before you is for the preliminary plat and for that very limited text Amendment this is not a non-conforming project it could be constructed tomorrow honestly as a condominium form of of ownership what is uh not usual in Municipal codes and is not preferred is some sort of restriction on ability and forcing owners into the type of ownership um rather this opens up a type of ownership of attached single family and allows for the developer to uh sell these differently than otherwise your code does allow so this is not a non-conforming project absolutely not the text Amendment simply adds a type of use as we went through at the planning board that you all watched the 11 other properties are already developed as uh Condominiums or multif family projects the likelihood of Redevelopment based on your staff's testimony at that meeting and looking at the uh owner uh Aerials and the pictures of those buildings is very very low it is unlikely you're having any of these owners all come together to rebuild their buildings but could they come together and say we want to convert from a a condominium form of ownership to non-c condominium form of ownership they absolutely may ask to do that and then this would allow them to to do that so I certainly appreciate your concern um it's always unintended consequences in this situation this zoning district is so limited with already built out properties with already um very owners that are limited in nature and what they can do and the trickle out down impact is is so limited that we felt very comfortable coming coming to you even knowing the political reality of your rewrite of the Cod I think by the very nature of asking for a change to the code it is not conforming so we can disagree in the semantics but at least that's the way I look at it that if you're asking me to make a change clearly doesn't fit what you're looking for which would be non-conforming I I look at the legal definition of non-conforming which this is not I just wanted to make a comment if possible mayor um just because I I have been involved um in the beginning then removed myself I guess when a new buyer came to the table but there is a um I'll say consequences but one one of the potential consequences that the neighborhood was fearful of is condominium or potential other commercial business on that property um because of the type of use right and transient short-term rental is again on if you looked at the letter that was sent to us that's what the the residents are concerned about um is is that transient use so yeah they absolutely can go back to option b but I can guarantee you that option b is not what the neighborhood wants um there is currently today in this subdivision for Town Homes not in an rfm um Zone they happen to be on on zones that are not rfm there's an empty lot on Gulf Boulevard that's on RM that has a potential to become a town home um so we currently have four existing this would be a fifth there could be a potential six properties in this subdivision um it kind of blends with I would say with the subdivision with with the look and feel and I think with the desire of what the neighborhood um would like um in reading that um letter I know that the neighborhood association or Corporation asked for a covenant or potential Covenant um just guarantee that because HOA docs can change over time um and we want to assure that that doesn't happen in the future so that's you know something that you know I would like to propose or or discuss what legally we can do we're happy to stipulate that as a a condition of approval of the pl okay and also the other one I think was that the staff had recommended about maintenance I think it was and and all wait I know Brendan's going to come up and and speak as well but they had added that I think during um planning or it might have been TRC I can't remember which TRC the discussion about the association documents to ensure that there is a maintenance entity and that's again what your section 16 obligates the developer to provide as well and so that would be part of the HOA docs but um to your point about the Property Owners Association the applicant or the developer would be happy to stipulate to a an condition with a restrictive covenant specifically as to the transient units is that Covenant going to carry over to the rewrite on the LDC no it doesn't the C the ti stay with the title of the property so it doesn't it's specific to the property y thank you so Mr Mayor on a scale of 1 to 10 if you're willing to uh to entertain that um what's the precedent risk here 10 being terrible and one being not much I've think looking at what we've seen the last year and what what we're seeing on the books coming up and I think this would open it up to um I would say to answer your question probably eight or nine yeah thank you um again I I generally I mean I like the project I really I the rewrite of the code especially the Land Development code that's where I have a real significant challenge um but let's hear from our staff please actually a point process mayor I would just ask if you have questions for staff we do not have a presentation on this project great I did just want to clarify one thing the applicant said about the height because we do allow for a height measurement above grade for garages if they're the ground floor I calculate it to be about an 8ot difference between if there were to be a rezoning to the residential medium um and what they are proposing so it's it's about a floor and what would the process look like if you wanted if an applicant wanted to come before the city and request the resoning it would be similar to what they went through for this process for the code change it would go to the planning board for a recommendation come to the city commission now they have a countywide land use category as well it's Resort they need to zone out of that to the res the residential County category and then um they would come back to you for second reading so thank you any other questions for Brandon and so Brandon I just like to clarify that if uh um make sure I understood this correctly that that with with no change to the zoning District MH they could build a condo project of the exact same height as what they're proposing now and they could short-term rent it yes um that that would go through us for the site plan and the building permit it would go through the state for the condo plat we don't the city doesn't typically have any involvement with that except for minor fire code requirements but because it would be going through building permit but it wouldn't require any permission from us from at the commission level for them to build the exact same project it as a condo and short-term rent it correct okay thank you and if they were to go the condo route what implications what are the implications for them what additional cost are they inuring what additional annual cost are they inuring for requirements in terms of the state requirements for development review of the condo docks and the other maintenance requirements I'm not sure what the cost associated with that would be in terms of local costs as we would treat attached single family and condo the same in terms of a a single family ownership so there wouldn't be any business tax fees or anything like that ongoing maintenance we would collect the same number of multimodal impact fees and Park and Recreation impact fees so those would be the same between projects if they were to go with the short-term rental project we would not collect the parks and impact fee but that would work out to be about $3,000 maybe that we would not collect for a short term so it would effectively be the same requirements okay but the state would require that they have condo docks that they have a you know um rules and Rags that they would have q&as that they would have an appointed condo board carry condo insurance so it that's that's all handled through the state yes right any other questions for Brandon thank you thank you do we have any audience comments Kathy Gara if you please state your name and address for the record Kathy garan I'm speaking on behalf of the doncesar property owners Corporation today um as you've already heard but as I we committed to these folks um I just wanted to um communicate what our our view is as as the board and as residents so uh the doncesar property owners Corporation and residents of the doncesar place formerly requests the city commission to impose a covenant and condition that regardless of the continued rfm designation the newly developed property at 3700 Gulf Boulevard will not allow transient housing and will be treated as residential property with respect to re to inforcement of the city of St Pete Beach's limitations on short-term rentals of Residential Properties in the Don is our place subdivision which limits Property Owners to rentals of no less than 30 days DCP has been in communication with Jeffree craft Tamp Bay City living and the developer and has agreed to the city imposing this Covenant and condition we have a letter from them and we are supportive of this project moving forward with that condition thanks thank you for your comments thank you Cindy Perry If you please state your name and address for the record my name is Cindy Perry 1126 Boke Al drive and I'm here as a private resident and not trying to represent the planning board the question I have has to do with the transient lodging it was my understanding and maybe I read the code wrong that if this is still classified as it is even if if it becomes an HOA that you can have shortterm there's no I know an R2 there's you can only have I think three rentals a year and there's no requirement to limit short-term REM rentals in this Zone and I just want to ask how that's being addressed if it's really the resident saying we don't want short-term rentals but I don't see anything preventing it and so I just have a question about that thank you Brandon if you wouldn't mind so if the zoning didn't change so if it just stays as is and there was not a restrictive covenant What would if if you build a condominium what would you be allowed to do as far as short-term rentals go with this p the resort facilities District it is a permitted use at the density that they're proposing to have they could have nightly rentals if that's what they wanted to do I believe the applicant did agree to restrict that and if it were to be developed as a residential development and then convert later on the code would technically allow for that but there would be some requirements they would have to go through for that but again if they they restrict it as part of their approval they they would be limited from doing that okay so if they had a restrictive covenant they would not be at any point in the future you allowed to take advantage of the short-term rental Zoning for that District as long as they commit to that and that's that's approved as part of the we we of course would run it by the City Attorney at the final plat stage to make sure that it's in meets its intended purpose we would bring that back to you if it were approved okay thank you okay questions comments so I'll throw in my two my other two cents so um again I I and I I think it's just I think it's important that we look at it just so we know exactly where we're getting into and and exactly what some of the options are um and I'm not passing judgment again generally I agree with I like the project I would like to see it move forward I just want to make sure that we understand what some of the nuances are and I think if you I think one of the reasons that they're looking at condo versus HOA and trying to go the HOA route is because if you did go the condo route it would be see significantly more expensive not only to set up in the first place but also the annual maintenance if you look at what the current condo insurance rates are and what the reserve requirements are from the state I think there's a reason here and if I was in their shoes I would probably make the same request so I'm not passing any judgment on your request at all um but I think we should understand maybe one of the reasons why the request is made in the first place why they're maybe trying to go this route um I'm hoping that hear input on this um but I think that's so and I say that because I don't know that there is much of a danger of anyone actually building a condo there to try to do short-term rentals when you look at what the actual cost would be to build that and maintain that Pro property as a condominium as a 4unit condominium you're required to have three board members so there's only four for owners what happens if nobody wants to be on the board then who do who's maintaining you know who's maintaining the reserve requirements for that condominium so I I think looking at it that way uh there's a reason why no one's going a condom route for a partial that small um and I think the reason that they're not going the resoning route is because it would reduce the size of the project and the height that they could build um I wonder if there's a middle ground because again I my and again my my biggest if you didn't come here for asking a rewrite of Land Development code I'd be 100% yes let's go but if you're asking for a rewrite of the Land Development code I don't know how I can support that and whether or not we can look at it that's great we can look at it but we do not have to set a precedent that every time a you know developer comes before us and they request to rewrite a Land Development code once we do it one time the next time it's so much easier so you've won me over so I don't know if uh if the applicant wants to consider a compromise here now or go back to the drawing board I mean this is kind of hard this property has been vacant for quite some time okay um and from my understanding it's because they cannot that lot cannot be a town home it's just that's what it is right it's a town home I know we're it's an attached single family sure um and with you know a lot of the concerns of the residents who live in that neighborhood and the potentials right because it could be another commercial business again right um and and it could be a small hotel it used to be a motel there um long ago um again from listening to the residents who live closest to that property and and I want to say use the word fear because it was a fear of what could it become to actually finally find a buyer um that has worked multiple years with the residents of that neighborhood which talk about our concerns with the bigger developments and everything else we're talking about a group of people who are actually working with the people who live closest to this development that's that's important um I don't know if the sale is complete I don't you know I it might it might be this doesn't go we walk away I I don't know it's happened you know like I mentioned earlier the first person I spoke to is no longer there right so um you know I I I do support this because I think it's rare um and maybe I I've been in a subdivision that we've been fortunate left and then I know um Kati has been around when we were working with Don SAR um Hotel expansion you know the ballroom um and that's rare you know and I think that's the message I would rather be eing is how rare uh an owner or developer has come to actually find out from the neighborhood what they really want and are actually delivering it that's important um you know it if this wasn't like over the night and it's a surprise we don't have hundreds of people lined up outside the door saying no don't do this you know um I'm not fearful of the change because it doesn't exist in our code so they're coming to us because they can't build a town home on that one I understand the height but again no one's complaining right um because it could be something there the the other town home if you looked at that plat sorry condominium it's an lsh shape where that block is and the property just north to it is a condominium that's at that height maybe higher than what they're proposing so it could be be that right so it could even be higher so again I mean it's I think this was something I don't what could happen in the other rfm Zone in up and beach that the condo turn into town homes is that what we're fearing that they can knock down those buildings and make Town Homes out of them or bring back condos or bring back hotels you know so I don't know if this change is something detrimental I know we're under we want to review our plan but thises doesn't mean we can't continue to review it if we feel it's going to affect something else in the future in another um District or or area there's only 11 properties that have this zoning um and we have a good project where residents are happy so that I you know I don't want to lose that because we don't know the unknowns right of what it could be and and we finally have something that I feel is a win for for the people who live there I agree with you on 99% of what you said I I appreciate the fact that they met with the owners that they came to listen that they didn't come in to just tell us here's what we're going to do but rather to you know and while I I do again in general terms I think it's a great project I think our responsibility as a commission is not just to the 350 dces our neighborhood only but rather whatever changes we make whatever decisions we make may have an impact on the other 8,500 people as well and so when we make a Land Development code at the behest of a developer that leaves the other districts wide open to the same requests and so I would say to the applicant if there's a way for us to do this without the Land Development code I think you'll have a 5- Zer vote I don't know I'm just I'm guessing you know um is there a way to do it is there a way for us to work something out where we can give you what you're looking for but also alleviate the fears at least I'm expressing so I just want to clarify this is not a rewrite of the code this is the addition of one use which is permitted in all of your residential districts to your Resort facilities medium District the addition of one use to a resort facilities medium District which this zoning exists on 11 Parcels in the city you've already opened the door to applicant initiated applications of text changes that exists in your code today the fact that people haven't been coming in to ask it is probably because they realize that politically Mr Mayor you don't want to support it however this request is to add one use which already under form and fun function exists to the resort facilities medium district and allow for that use consistency through the code to look at the zoning lot that's the request before you today and respectfully we would ask for you all to consider that request I there are hundred wh ifs that we can talk about in offline or outside of this after this decision tonight but the concerns over the attach addition of the attached single family is the only concern that's been expressed is that this is a text Amendment there have been no other concerns and not only is this a text Amendment it's a text amendment in one zoning District that affects 11 Parcels it's the most limited zoning District that you have in the city today and we would respectfully request your approval of this plat as proposed and of the text Amendment mayor may I certainly so I support the project and I support the text Amendment um and and the reason I support the project is for all the reasons that commissioner Riki stated um and and I think we all agree on that right um the reason that the text amendment is not as concerning to me is because I don't think that the I don't think that we can look at our Land Development code as something that that that was handed down from on high that's guaranteed to not have errors right and so in this particular District I don't think that there was any compelling reason that that attached single family home zoning or or or option was left out of that zoning District um you know it it it could be because just nobody they didn't occur to somebody it could be that they left it out on accident and I I mean I think the um the city staff or or the City attorney would know better than I how many times in the last 15 years has an applicant come before the city to ask for some change to the Land Development code because there was just some quirk in the code that upon further review when somebody brought a project forward was like oh that's a great project it doesn't fit because there's this weird little quirk in the in the zoning that that upon further review doesn't make a lot of sense and so it's a it's a it's a text amendment to fix that to allow something that totally makes sense and so that's why I support the project so you could also look at the Boutique whole dist Boutique Hotel district and one of the owners might come and say look it's Resorts everywhere I think it's a real oversight that nobody said we could also do large resorts in the boutique hotel resort district and then they come before us and say I think you should amend the Land Development code to also allow large resorts in this District I think there's a reason the one's come before and probably because you know we should look at it and say you know why was this done in the first place um I think you open you open a huge can of worms here and you're setting a a dangerous precedent in my opinion but I've expressed my opinion enough can I just say I mean I don't see that still we're think we're those are things that could happen we're not even sure and if it did I would think that somebody would I hope no one up here would be saying you're a residential Zone and now we're going to put a large resort District on your residential Zone I mean that's like the opposite extreme here we're going in reverse where um this property used to be a motel back in the 1920s 1930s okay this it changed things changed back then I I don't remember why that building either collapsed or it sold it used to be a block the block was divided into residential the ones on the West Side were residential but that one didn't become residential and then you know Smiley purchased it and it was an extension of the kitchen to undertoe you know so it's just been sitting there so this is a very unique case to you know have this worrisome about something that we're going to be reviewing we're going to be reviewing it and we're going to be dealing with it then this applicant is coming for a unique you know uh five words you know that that they're not allowed to do like I said there's four other properties that are town homes in that neighborhood and one more potential one that won't have to come to us because it is an RB um District um you know I'm I'm in support of it too so and I I think that that's why all of these things come before the commission separately right like like we're not we're not saying we're approving this text Amendment and now we're also approving anything anybody wants to change you know we're we're we're approving this one unique case that's a quirk of the code that allows that will allow a project that the neighborhood wants and that is potentially you know less intensity than something that that could be there but but but again you know when we when you start talking in hypotheticals of what could happen you can go so far down that road that you can't ever make a decision at all you know okay are there any further comments or questions if not we'll entertain a motion I motion to approve preliminary plat 2442 with recommended staff conditions and with the Covenant um and I don't know what the wording would be for that and and I'm sorry I don't know if I needed to ask you Andrew before is is that something we need to discuss with you adding the Covenant or that just doable good I mean they're they're profing it I'd be happy to look at it um to make sure that it's I mean if the city wants to be named in it so that if there aren't any future changes without the city yeah I mean they seem perfectly agreeable to that thank you we're fine with that condition thank you I'll second city clerk if you'll please do a roll call vice mayor mahand no commissioner Marriott yes commissioner Robinson no commissioner res Niki yes mayor patella no motion fails 3 to2 next we have item five E do we need to go through item 5e or um you have you do have the ordinance um so you need to dispose of that in some manner or form because that was a companion item that was put in front of you I okay and that was for formally item 6A right and and if I may just for the record um given the fact that this went through the planning board with a I think a favorable recommendation and also the fact that staff has indicated in their own professional judgment I think it'd be incumbent on you to protect the city to say something other than remote and speculative fears um to support your decision to deny it it's legislation um which means that the city that the courts will look at it from a fairly debatable standard which means that any anything that is um of a public health safety reason uh would do but I'm concerned that if a judge looks at the record and it's just speculation compared to what is in the staff report what came before the planning board all of that compared to what you all are discussing which is spec to me speculative and remote so if you have I'm sorry if you have other reasons that's all I'm doing is sure so the planning board was 32 and they had quite a bit of debate about the same subject um but they did vote 32 in favor um yeah I I mean obviously Mr Mayor this is you know been in your wheelhouse anytime we start talking about precedents it concerns me uh because it seems like every time we turn around we can't do something because of some type of Precedence that's been set um I saw that all the time on the board of adjustment we were paralyzed frequently because of precedents so um from my perspective your argument and concerns about precedents is what swayed me because like you I I certainly look favorably upon um this development um but I am very concerned about preceden in in many aspects of of our government and uh if we truly do have a concern about precedence with this which appears we do um that's certainly why why um I cast the vote that I cast uh because I do have great concerns about that and the long-term ramifications for it because we live it you know all the time here on a variety of issues so so so to to partly that if you could just say like I believe that that's a public health and safety risk I'm just telling you from for the record purposes no I mean I go ahead so from my perspective I believe various types of precedents creates a hazard for the city in many regards whether it be public health safety or any other um number of items uh that we need to be considerate of yeah I mean again that was one of my concerns um certainly I'm also concerned as I mentioned in the conversations we had about the height of the project the intensity of the project uh the conforming or non-conforming of the project um if there was a different way to go about this project that didn't potentially create hazard in the future where that might create a hazard even more immediate um I think there's more than one concern here and I think we expressed those during the presentation as well thank you mayor appreciate that and from my perspective I I love the idea of residential think it's great and I'm happy that the community supports it I think any other community would support it from a residential aspect my concern is again rewriting the LDC we're in the middle of doing comp plan review we're doing all this other stuff we're looking at it the potential down the road for what could happen I know some people don't think about that but the precedent for that and we have a lot of issues with just with the storm water with everything else that's going on and to look at the LDC look at the comp plan and look at impervious surface ratios and know that we're on the right track we haven't looked at our comp plan in 20 years and and evaluated it I have concerns with that and the 11 proper or the 10 other properties are Prime real estate properties too that as well they're subject to flooding and they're very close to the shorelines and depending upon what they do and it can affect other neighborhoods as well so there's there is a big safety factor from um both uh uh storm water um and the like thank you commissioner thank you next we have 5f sorry 5e approved first reading of ordinance 20243 city clerk thank you an ordinance of the city of St Pete Beach Florida amending the city's Land Development code division 14 rfm Resort facilities medium District section 14.2 permitted principal uses and structures and division 24 subdivisions section 24.9 development and subdivision of single family attached dwellings providing for codification conflicts severability correction of scrivener's error construction publication and an effective date thank you any public comments any any discussions on this item commissioners do we have a motion to approve or deny this ordinance I'll make a motion to approve I know where this is going to go but I still think we made the wrong decision last time so I'm going to get give everybody a second try I'll second city clerk if you'll please do a roll call commissioner Marriott yes commissioner Robinson no commissioner res Nikki yes vice mayor mahand no mayor patrilla no motion fa fails 3 to2 I did want to say that this ordinance has been advertised for a public Hearing in the Tampa Bay times and it will have to be on your October 8th agenda due to the publication and statutory requirements thank you city clerk I'm I'm sorry just to clarify that because I just answered the city clerk um it was advertised for the first rating because we're required to advertise for both we have not advertised for the second rating so I asked him and that we got conf used okay I have to apologize I got the sequence wrong uh next is item 5e continuing public hearing on ordinance 20 24-4 establishing the millage rate for fiscal year 2025 city clerk yes normally these this and the companion ordinance would be read in its entirety which will happen tomorrow to follow the do guidelines but I will read the title block as it was advertised and that is why it's on tonight's agenda I I do ask when you do make the motion to spec specify that it is the date time and the then the location as written on your document please we have to continue this till tomorrow or yes that's the motion request ah yes an ordinance of the city of St Pete Beach Florida establishing the millage rate for fiscal year 2025 beginning October 1 2024 and ending September 3r 2025 provide providing and announcing the name of the taxing Authority the rolled back millage rate the percentage increase over the rolled back millage rate and the millage rate to be levied providing for reading in its entirety and providing for an effective date okay do we have a motion to continue the public hearing on ordinance 20244 to tomorrow September 24th 2024 at 50:01 p.m. a motion to continue the public hearing on ordinance 20244 to September 24th 2024 at 50:1 p.m. in these Chambers all Second City Clerk if you'll please do a roll call commissioner Robinson yes commissioner R Niki yes vice mayor mahand yes commissioner Marriott yes mayor patrilla yes motion carries thank you okay ordinance 20245 an ordinance of the city of St Pete Beach Florida adopting the budget for fiscal year 2025 beginning October 1 2024 and ending September 30 2025 providing for the incorporation of the adopted capital budget as the capital Improvement element of the comprehensive plan providing for reading in its entirety and providing for an effective date is there a motion to continue I'll make a motion to continue the public hearing on ordinance 202 24-5 to September 24th 20 24 at 50:1 p.m. in these Chambers I'll second city clerk if you'll please do a roll call commissioner Riki yes vice mayor mahand yes commissioner Marriott yes commissioner Robinson yes mayor patrilla yes motion carries thank you next we have item 5G discussion on the commission to provide direction to the city manager regarding interim appointment of a City attorney and the process for regular appointment of a City attorney city clerk sorry City city manager thank you thank you mayor and commission uh tonight you have in your packet the the results of Staff uh procurement manager um advertising Statewide on U many professional websites uh a call for services for the interim appointment of a City attorney my presentation is a two-part I'd like to address the interim appointment process first and then once I receive your direction we'll discuss the process for a regular appointment of a City attorney you have seven submittal in your packet tonight I'm requesting that the commission provide direction for um anywhere between the top two to four candidates that you are interested in based on your review of their uh written submittals based on that direction I would contact those firms and the uh corresponding contacts to set up individual interviews with each of the Commissioners and the representatives from the law firms over the next two weeks and then bring the item back on October 8th to uh have you all discuss your results of those interviews and see if there is consensus to move forward with one firm for the interim services and then following that direction I would bring uh work with the city attorney's office and the selected firm to bring a contract back at the second meeting of October for confirmation so with that I would like to um hear for you hear from you and answer any questions or um input on the process thank you city manager comments discussion so uh we want to talk about the in first okay so I I've reviewed all the uh applications or submittals uh and I created a list of pros and cons um as best I could without a lot of time to deal with it on all the various Firs uh I I don't know how we want to proceed with the discussion whether the rest of the commission would like me to say the three that I like or just go through them all or if you want to go to your top two or three okay see if there's any consensus on those and then okay so um for a variety of reasons I came up with uh uh what I would consider my top three uh the first one uh Vose law firm uh I see the pros as being uh exceptionally Broad experience with government law they have a deep bench they have flat fee pricing they're likely available for a permanent higher if we were to decide to go in that direction uh as it relates to cons uh and I I combine my questions and cons together because uh with with with this particular firm I did have some questions that I I needed satisfied obviously get the chance to to ask those but uh number one I wasn't sure if they were saying that they wouldn't serve as our representative at the special magistrate or they were saying they would not serve as the special magistrate I didn't understand that from their submittal so I would need clarification on that um for the long term uh if they were to be considered uh for a permanent uh contract uh geographically they are good distance from us and personally uh I would hope that whatever for firm that or individual that we were to bring on that they would be closer geographically I believe these folks are in Winter Haven uh which is the other side of Orlando and then another question I'd have for them uh they do have a tremendous amount of experience but they also have had uh a good amount of turnover with their representation it seems like there's uh a good number of cities that they represented for a number of years and they turned over so I I don't really know how all that works um but I I would certainly have that question that I would want to get clarified uh and their price uh is a fixed or flat fee pricing uh of 37,500 a month which um for inome in particular uh and for as much experience as they had I I have I thought that was um uh fairly reasonable price my uh my number two would be um trash dagol uh Pros they're in Clear Water two uh secondly they have a high level of experience and they have a relatively deep bench uh cons the preferred attorney is not available for our T Tuesday meetings and their price is high and their price is $77,000 a month uh my third option uh which I I feel like is probably uh when we get to the third option the Delta is is is wider between one two and three um the pros the sitting attorney uh that would sit for us at our meetings is local uh questions and cons the sitting attorney deal appears to deal mostly with injury and property claims and the experienced government attorney which is Dirk Smith's is in ISO marada uh so uh those were my concerns price there uh $55,000 a month which firm was that that's bernus bowling bowling Burns and bowling oh yes right Burns and Bowl Burns and bowling so those were the three the what I identified as the top three for various reasons mayor um and I'll just say those were my top three I'm not in the same order order but those were the top three uh I I liked um the city manager's um recommendation which is you know to bring these people to do these interviews because I I don't want to be holding the interview right now I do have questions and there's reasons why I have three very similar to some of the things that you um had mentioned commissioner mahalan um but you know I I kind of feel like how we did the city yeah no that's that's all we're doing right now is we're picking the top three for them in the next two weeks and then bring that's my three all right uh commissioner Robinson um I was uh my to Choice was a boss Law Firm um I liked their representation they kind of hit it on the head on on on our concerns I thought and uh the pricing for the flat rate very economical especially we're looking in term um I liked gray Robinson but they were the higher of the pricing they've have a representation a little all over the place um they were probably my second um uh after that I guess it would be tras being that they're local um those would be my top three and then commission Marriott sure so um my top three were also uh uh Vose and Stoke or uh Vose and tras and but I also had Stokes in there in my top three okay in so going to sound like a broken record here but my top Tu braas and tras should we I mean since nobody else so it's it's 55 211 should we bring in the top two for interviews the two yeah okay city manager we would like you to bring in Boston tras for interviews yes I can take care of that we need a motion or it was an action item just Direction perfect I do have comment cards I'm sorry com card cards please still want to speak okay Wade Vose mayor Commissioners good evening um my name's Wade Vose I'm the managing partner of the Vose Law Firm don't want to take up a lot of your time tonight I uh I appreciate the action the direction you've given uh to your city manager we look forward to being able to speak with each and every one of you did want to take the opportunity very quickly to address uh a couple of the questions uh one that was raised uh vice mayor uh concerning the special magistrate that was just to clarify that we can't also be the special magistrate I know that sounds silly to say but we do get that sometimes in cities folks say hey can you be our magistrate too no we can't do both but we can represent the city before the magistrate of course is that included in your pricing yes sir absolutely it wasn't specified okay thank you uh in addition um and we can talk about this more later but to the the uh question that was raised about uh turnover I may that I think that may be uh reference to the fact that in addition to the great number of cities we represent we're City attorney for 10 cities right now including five that are beach coastal cities um including Fort Meers Beach was mentioned earlier uh tonight Coco Beach Anam Maria Neptune Beach and Daytona Beach Shores and five other cities but there are a number of cities that we've previously represented the thing I would note for you is the firm is not named after me it's named after my mom I practice uh with my uh Mom very happy to be able to do that she's been practicing local government law for 51 years so she has a number of these cities that you see there in past clients where we've been City attorney in the past that's back in the 80s and the '90s and the 2000s and as I'm sure you all know times change councils and commissions change and it's time to move on at that point so we do have turnover over time uh we love staying with cities a long time but we recognize the reality and sometimes it's the right time to go so uh hope that answers a couple questions we look forward to the opportunity to be able to speak with you more thank you sir thank you Ralph Brooks hey good evening my name is Ralph Brooks and I'm board certified in City County local government law and I'm of council with the V firm um I served as a St Beach City attorney right before the Dickman law firm in 20072 2008 and I i' be happy to uh serve as City attorney again um I would be here for many of your meetings um I I live in Ford Meers um I have a family condominium in longbo key that I go to during the Summers and other times and then uh I will come up and and stay in the area and if the Vose firm um gets the uh contract we will be a presence here when we will make arrangements um that we will have um either an apartment or a rental place or hotels and that's at our expense so we will be here at our expense uh to serve you and the depth of the v's Law Firm is the reason I'm of counsel with them I love their paralegals I they're they're fantastic they're so sharp and I work with the other attorneys so well we've got some great legal writers who are excellent at briefs um we also have Becky Vose as mentioned she's fantastic in mediations and negotiations and was able to settle how many Bert Harris claims on 110 Bert Harris claims dealing with the vacation rental and vacation rental Mansion issues um so that is the reason Reon why I think you need more than one attorney I know there's a number of solo attorneys that have applied and I was starting that way I um put in but I wanted to bring in more resources and to do that you really have to have a firm to back you up and in my opinion those firm is the one you want thank you sir we appreciate you both taking the time to come out this evening city manager you were also looking for direction Beyond yes thank you mayor and commission um so in addition to uh once we uh you make a decision on an interim I am recommending that we run a parallel process to select your regular appointment of a City attorney for a longer term period I wanted to present I really think you have three options to consider for the process um one being that if you are interested in having in-house councel U I have discussed uh that process with a an executive recruiter that you've used before um actually for my process and she does have experience in uh recruiting and helping a commissions appoint in house councel that would be um at her regular fee of $225,000 so I would bring back an amendment to her agreement as it would um exceed my spending Authority the second option would be that I work with the procurement manager to do a similar Outreach that we just conducted but revise our scope of work for a um Regular appointment of the City attorney that would be done in house and there is no there's sta staff time is your cost but not any consultant fee to do that and the third option could be that we could do both of those processes concurrently and see what um Talent um responds on U both approaches and we could um I would run um with the uh executive recruiter in some sort of collaborative fashion to have you be review candidates in both um service types so seeking your direction on which process you would like me to under undergo Commissioners I'm sure sure you all have opinions I'm going to ask you to please share them with us so um while I was campaigning um well anyway are we I I'm curious what I mean from my perspective I generally would always prefer uh an employee uh in most instances I should say uh however when you have an employee let's say an employee in-house attorney with a paralal uh you really don't have much backup and uh that's my big concern with not having a firm is not having a backup I mean we we've dealt with that with the budget this year not having backups in key positions so I'm just curious how everybody else feels about that I mean I I definitely recognize the value of having an in-house dedicated um City employee um as the City attorney uh and it would likely or potentially would save us money uh but I I I do have um significant concerns about the risk associated with with uh relying on one individual with no bench or no backup so I kind of from my perspective I need to hear how everybody else feels about that because that's kind of the one I'm hung up on I I agree with commissioner malland I think that um I have I have two concerns um with with having a an in-house employee and and one is as he said you know you you don't have a lot of backup my other concern concern is that that the the City attorney position although we talk about it as though it's a single person um I think that's not necessarily realistic um and I think that that what what you would be creating is the city attorney's office similar to how we have the the city clerk's office with additional support personnel and and I don't think we know how many people that would take and I don't think we really know what that would cost and I don't think we know how how easy or difficult it would be to fill all those positions that would be required um and so you know if we were in a position where there was kind of nothing going on and we wanted to to build an in-house city attorney's office um I would probably be more compelled to do that than than right now when we have you know significant things happening that we're going to need significant depth of legal counsel on and so my preference would be to to you know for for the the city manager to work with procurement and put out on RFP similar to what we've done with the interim um I'm not sure that $25,000 on a on a recruiter at this point is the is the best spend for something that we don't know if is even a tenable option I I agree with um with both um commissioner marott and mahalan um without a true analysis as to whether to have a staff attorney on site versus a firm I I wouldn't want to spend to bring people over and start interviewing when we haven't really analyzed what it would cost um what are the pros and cons um of it we we had a City attorney I don't know how many years ago that was on staff probably a while ago I would say there was probably a reason why that changed again not knowing um and then I look at many municipalities are very close around us and how many truly have um a staff attorney and I would venture to say not many if any or left maybe um most work out of firms um because you know uh the gentleman came up and he spoke um for the reason why he wouldn't apply by himself because we're pulling from a firm of many attorneys who have Specialties in different areas um that a staff attorney at one point might have come to us and say hey I can't do this I need advice or someone else to come in and now what you think might be costing us less really isn't you know and again no analysis being done so I would recommend um that the City attorney do the RFQ process and um you know go in The Firm Direction that's what I would say at this moment without that analysis so I'm for the best person for the job and I I really want to make sure that we get somebody who has some strong land use attorney um experience uh we're kind of heading down that path in this city and and and we need the best advice that we can get on that um I'm I'm okay either way and I'm okay as well if if you need to get somebody um to spend the money to recruit to get the best person for the job I'm of the opinion that we should explore all options to make the best decision um so I would propose that we do the Dual track option I do appreciate what you said commissioner res Niki I think um maybe as and I'm I would be shocked if Renee could not help us Supply this information but I would I would be sure that she could provide a range of salaries and you're right if we're not looking at it it's not a oneman operation it's going to require at least one pargal maybe two um and so yes you are if you go on the route of an individual um you are in realistically looking at creating the office of city manager with support staff just very similar to the way that the city clerk operates um um and at the same time I also see the benefits of going with a firm that has depth and resources um and so I think you know I'm impressed with the results that Renee gave us last time so I'm very much inclined um to extend that contract but also to to do the second approach as well so that we can you know get the both The Best of Both Worlds and then interview the individuals and then see who you know who who makes most sense when who's the best fit for the city um I've you know working with the Big C and several of the other Mayors councils I can it's it's a challenge for some of the smaller cities um not having not having a dedicated staff attorney is a challenge in some ways um because they sometimes missed the interaction with having somebody full time in the office 40 hours a week uh and then and then the reality for some of them is that look we just can't afford to have you know we based on our budget we affirm better suits our needs so I I do see both both scenarios um I think there are some I I agree I would I like going the employee route you know it's I think we have a few other instances in the city where we have challenges where we're dependent on the Goodwill of our you know contractors there we say um and so I think in many ways having somebody who's full-time on staff available to the staff 40 hours a week um is great I'm not I'm not saying that they wouldn't be available versus it's on the phone or via Zoom but having the office of somebody you can walk in and say hey they're they're here every single day um so my recommendation would be to go both routes so mayor can I ask you also um all of us to discuss because you could do both routes but we could have an analysis like to really know I mean we really have't evaluated at least myself the contract what what it would look like what would the cost versus just spending the $25,000 right now um because I think the interm right could could be a part of that process right like what can kind of write out to us what are all the services they provide you know what what are the things that we need you know that they can provide versus you know a staff we we can have that interm attorney help us through that process too reporting to us you know let's really analyze what it is what it would look like because you know our budget doesn't have it right so um and I know we can do an amendment to our budget you know dur during the year but um I I really would like to know what it would look like and what it would cost before looking for a person because that I wouldn't even be able to interview to be able to say this is what we need you know um I would just like that analysis I mean I I would say yes do it but I would want the analysis first you know to kind of know what are we looking for because I I wouldn't even know I know we need land use but so could a firm a firm could provide us that land use opinion or attorney who's maybe within the firm to give us that expertise so I don't think we just need a land use attorney um we we need a municipal attorney of course so you're asking for specifically a salary range a salary range office you know like with the whole um you know when we look at our budget we have a city clerk um office all the roles everything that's needed you know all the incidentals you know everything that that office would need so if I if I may and city manager by all means feel free to say no but you have some experience working in other cities have you had instances where you had staff attorneys versus uh firms and what has that experience when and so yes I have um the cities that have so I've worked in much larger cities the I've had a mix of two that have in-house Council and two that have had contract attorneys the in-house Council it would be hard for me to translate size and scope because the cities were of a population of 70,000 or larger um the city attorney's office staffed anywhere between five and maybe a dozen staff between paralal attorneys but again these are much larger cities with larger um scope every situation um on the contract side the contract attorneys typically assign multiple attorneys to those cities so you'll have one main City attorney who works full-time because of the size of the city and then there would be multiple team members on that that have Specialties like land use employment relations um and um they usually have litigation expertise in their offices or and then all of them have uh I had experience where they bring in outside C Council for very specialty type uh especially in litigation or claims where you similar to what we did tonight where you have an attorney who that's what they specialize in it's a very single Focus part of the law and it's very um a niche so I'm I I guess I say this a lot it always comes down to the people and and how they can relate to the needs of the community and and staff and the commission did that answer your question yes um I guess a follow-up question is if we went to Rene's firm do you think if she provided us let's say with a couple of samples of similar size cities where that's what they did I mean they should have a posting available just to kind of give us an idea of okay here's the salary range you should be looking at you know a city of 10,000 they had you know one staff two staff I mean generally You' have that in a job posting if if you're going to be responsible for having employees under you you will normally specify that right um one other thing you could do if you didn't want to do the initial review of what you're looking for is if if you have a candidate that's going to apply to be City attorney they probably have enough expertise in what they're getting into and so as part of the selection process or the interview process you could actually have them come and propose what the office would look like and what they would need your budgets public record um all of the expenses are public record so that is something I would expect as part of the selection process as they actually would lead that setup of the office and you would expect that and so that could be part of your screening [Music] process okay and my I'm open to doing the Dual track that would be my recommendation I'm not sure if we have a consensus can we start with who be in favor of a dual track if we only have two people then we'll move on to another option so if we do the Dual track um did I hear that maybe we could get some preliminary information from the search agency that you folks work with for the city manager before we commit to the $25,000 or is that not did I Mis understand that I think it was two I maybe did not understand that the request either what do you mean by pre preliminary information just statistics about placement of In-House attorneys and that sort of yes okay I could certainly ask for that and provide it to the commission on the um contract side and then have that get that information for the next meeting and then decide if we want to invest the 25,000 to move forward that way I think we're probably better off running both of them side by side so so we'll just wait two weeks get the additional information and then make a decision if we want to go dual track or single track in two weeks in two weeks yeah we're at the next commission meeting which is plan already right um and that way we'll get additional information and we can make a more informed decision um I don't think we should start one process and then interview some people and wait again I think we run them both at the same time whatever the r you know 90 30 days posting whatever it is and just okay all right next we have items for discussion there was one that was moved we have 4 B station one all right next we have item five H H formally 4B authorized city manager to approve a revised purchase agreement for Pump Station one commissioner Robinson I believe you pulled this one no n commission okay it was it's closes one on either side one I know we're all um so my own because I I had a question earlier um and I don't know if we found out um is whether so this was a correction if I'm understanding incorrectly of an approval that was made November 16 23 um because now it's a reduction by $2,360 th000 so my outstanding question was that I still don't know yet so maybe maybe Miss robustelli found out is whether there is there whether there was a contract that was signed after that approval back in November I was not able to find that out but if you approve this it would override oh I'm sorry thank you can't found it [Laughter] see um for the record Camden Mills a city engineer um we did um execute that agreement after it was um approved by City commission we have not moved forward with that purchase yet so um we would have the opportunity to revise that purchase agreement uh before we move forward with that purchase okay so it would be a revision of that contract okay correct okay all right write that answer I didn't know if anything was executed and signed and you know what we had to back paddle on so I just wanted to make sure all right thank you thank you thank you so we do need a motion to approve oh sorry thank you good evening BJ Lawson 5407 leani Drive uh first just to note I really appreciate the staff's time and effort in giving us the update on the Gulf Boulevard undergrounding this evening and while I was you know eager to hear what we do know I still continue to be relatively shocked by what we don't know and we are institutional memory fails us about how we get to the points that we're at and when I saw this item on the agenda this evening which certainly no one's going to object to spending the necessary money to keep the sewage flowing uh that's clearly the right thing to do it forced me to look at an article that came out back in here back in June that educated me on the history behind where we find ourselves today where all of these expenses that we're now running into 1.3 million for the pump station we have according to this article published in June after an interview with Mr Clark we have this upgrade costing a total of about 6 million and then of course the replacement of the 10 of the sub aquous line for $10 million this didn't just happen right according to this article this is 10 years after the Florida Department of Environmental Protection placed the city of St Beach under a consent order for causing Wastewater spills and these are the last two projects to be completed that we began a process of addressing 10 years ago but our appointed commission went through in February and April and allowed a doubling almost in size of two of our largest Resorts without ner a word about what potential issu exist and indeed all we heard from the city we're all clear everything's good we've got plenty of capacity when in reality if we're being honest with ourselves the better interpretation of our current situation is that we have designed for plenty of capacity provided that the residents are willing to take another sewer rate hike next year and that we have another 80% of $16 million from the residents to pay for these necessary infrastructure improvements to support our growth so I just simply bring this up as a reminder that we really as the residents appreciate all the work that you all are doing up here and we deeply appreciate our new city manager being a resident with us in facing these challenges and there has never been a better time than right now to keep asking these questions about how we got to where we are today and what we can do about it to improve things moving forward thank you thank you any comments or further discussion on this item can I make a motion sure I make a motion to authorize this city manager to approve a revised purchase agreement for Pump Station 1 purchase with Asylum Water Solutions in the amount of uh 1,320 640 I second that city clerk if you'll please do a roll call commissioner Marriott yes commissioner Robinson yes commissioner res Niki yes vice mayor mahand yes mayor patrilla yes motion thank you all right next we have items for discussion commissioner Mullen on parking so uh if you all want me to stop you can just tell me but I do want to float this out there to see what the appetite is uh so the parking ordinance uh 2014-06 that was uh coupled with the mill rate uh at the last meeting but because of noticing it won't be coming up again for the second reading until the 8th um I think you all know how I feel about the mill rate uh but the the parking rate which is the greatest source of Revenue that we receive from day Trippers and tourist um where effectively increasing the the taxes on the residents uh by 8.6% uh but with the increase of the par parking rates which is directly paid by tourists and day Trippers we're increasing that 5.63% and I know there wasn't any great thought or or a lot uh other than saying well let's throw 25 cents on the parking rate to close a budget Gap um so I I I I don't think anybody was particularly wed to that but I don't think there was a lot of thought went into it but I just have a little bit of difficulty that tomorrow we're almost certainly going to approve a tax increase on the residents of 8.6% but the tourists one of the other revenue streams that we have control over we're increasing by 5.63 and I have basically put a little simple proposal together that is probably as complex as the 25 cent one was uh where I'm proposing that we increase the parking rate before the second reading by 2.97% to at least make it equal to the tax increase that we're putting on the residents and I um I have copies uh I don't expect you all to fully analyze them but it's my understanding that we have to deal with this tonight um and we can't deal with this tomorrow that's my understanding uh it was my hope that I could give you folks this sheet uh and uh we could take it up tomorrow but long story short um once again 8.6% on the residents 5.63% on what we control for tourists uh and if we were to increase that to equalize those that would increase our parking rates to $437 uh on weekday and $540 on weekends it would create uh an additional $140 $34,000 of Revenue that I would hope that we could he Mark Public Works uh so I just wanted to float that out and get a sense for if anybody wants to deal with it or we're just happy and we'll just get it next year like I've been hearing um but uh that's my feelings on it these numbers would have to be double checked by Finance I had to I didn't know their exact methodology I don't think it was too particularly scientific but I believe my numbers are probably very very close but before they'd be put into an ordinance it have to be verified by Finance commissioner mahalan I I walked away from that meeting thinking about the same thing I saw the parking rates with the with the uh combined with the storm uh uh waste water and I think uh uh commissioner Rikki uh felt the same way that it was kind of weird that it was combined but I was kind of happy for that because in retrospect I thought oh my goodness look we're over here increasing for residents and we're not really increasing for tourism uh for the tourists or our visitors and I felt that was a little unfair as well I'm I would be fine with upping it up to $6 on the weekends I mean I I'm I would be happy with that but I I I brought that up uh earlier today to the city manager and I do know she mentioned that we are having some um fee uh studies done but in the meantime in L of those Fe studies I would be inclined to increase that as well um I would say do it in quarter increments a little higher than what we're at make a little bit more money um I don't have a problem with that I it I think it helps our residents it helps us that money goes in a general fund we can use it for Beach cleanup we can use it for other items we can use it for potholes yeah and the only reason I I wanted to use percentages because I wasn't certain how much time we would have on between the second reading and all that so um and I do know that between reviewing fees as well as the parking um study that we're having I know we're going to talk more about what our parking rates are um so I'm with you I don't think we're charging enough for our parking but this was just a fairness issue to me is really the only reason I brought this forward and I just wanted to to be at least 88.6% 31 years ago it was $6 in Hawaii for public parking per hour wow so how many years ago 31 well we've got some things that haven't changed in 35 years oh exactly yep and uh we met one of the world's or us number one beaches so commission I'm vice mayor mahol I inappropriately advised you today on the process my brain still stuck in California sometimes on noticing so if the commission decides to change it this evening we can make that change on the second reading because the parking rates have already appropriately been noticed and that's the requirement in Florida to notice the topic not necessarily all the details in the topic okay so even though it's a material change it does it can still happen correct can it happen today or tomorrow or either the second reading's on October 8th sorry I thought so yes today you could give me direction and then I would make the second reading change for the October 8th agenda and this is Nuance but if the policy decision is to link percentages percentage increases I would just say for ease of user instead of $437 to round up to $440 it just you it it just we create signs and it would just be easier I think for the end user yeah the mayor directed me to be specific at the last meeting so I wanted to be sure that I was specific at this meeting so uh you can fault him for that one on on that on that Vein on that thought process I agree with i i if you want consensus I want I'm happy to you know I do agree but we all at the same time we're also doing a parking and fee study and I don't I wouldn't necessarily say that the staff arrived at it haphazardly I think there was a mandate to balance the budget and this is one of the easy ways to do that but we do recognize that there is a deficiency potentially here at hand and so that's the reason that we've asked the city manager to condu the study like on the semantic side and I know we're just arguing semantics here um but the percentage in increase in taxes what you're looking at is the total net revenue that is coming into the city from the ad valorum tax right is eight it went up from last year to this year about 8.6% that is not all on our residents in fact the vast majority of that increase um there were some deficiencies I may have brought up a few years ago between the tax rates of the businesses and and the residents that has been largely been addressed by the uh County tax appraisers office where we've seen significant increases again and so you've for most of our residents who are full-time residents and homesteaded they're maxed out at 3% or CPI whichever is lower and so for most residents they would have seen around a 3% increase the reason you're seeing 8.6% is because of all the other increases in other areas that may have been you know that needed to be adjust adjust justed based on property values over the last 2 or 3 years um that's it it's or anybody that bought this year would be subject to the 8 point they may have been they it depends if they ported their attack their Homestead then they you know they would have so it it I think all I'm saying is it's more Nuance than to say and I I understand I understand that and I also you know the other thing is we did not cause the increase right the city is the beneficiary of this particular 8.6% increase but the increase is a direct result of the property value is increase if you go back to 200 you know 789 we actually had the opposite we saw a decrease in our adalum tax rates and and the the in the the influx of tax dollars to the city because prices went down so that is a fluctuation based on property values it's not nobody in the commission decided let's raise taxes by eight and a half% no I no I fully understand that okay um I think we have two more items and one of them I'm sorry I apologize do we have consensus are we happy to provide the city maner with instructions for the increase or no I'm okay with the obviously I'm for it okay so we've got at least three people my question this is just to know because we're having the study right of the fees once we have the study can can it be changed then because maybe it's going to be more yes you know what I'm saying so I mean I know we're doing this for it's not going to be more it's going to be more figing so I mean I know we're saying this but I mean I agree with what you're saying too it's not really an 8.6 so I don't really know if we're covering semantics here because it's not you know so so it's not semantics right so that's so so I'm not sure if what we're if it really matches your intent which I agree with your intent but I'm now not sure if that 8.6 is the true well anybody that bought their home or that wasn't homesteaded 8.6 would apply to the only you'd have to be homesteaded for it not to apply to it it might be even more than 8.6 if they bought a house that somebody had Homestead at $250,000 and they bought it for $2.5 million that's going to be a 10x increase not a right 8% so I just from a from a p a fairness perspective I'm sorry I brought I'm I'll stop talking about semantics no didn't like it to me from a fairness perspective it just I I we you know we hear a lot of talk about uh you know the residents and all that and I think we all you know we're all residents so you know we care about all that I I just want to be certain that you know we don't appear like the tourists are getting a better deal than the the residents are of course and I don't think we are you know because I think that's why we requested to have the parking study done in the first place because it's not just one particular it's it's across the city right so we really want to know where we're running short on I mean I I look at parking well looking at the budget on parking we pay a lot on service fee um credit cards I guess whatever it is we the city are paying that okay so there's a lot of places we need to look at on our budget oh trust me you know so because you know even though you might be paying the whatever it is the cents more the three cents more we're still paying more on it on just that credit card fee right right so I know don't call it semantics but I don't you know it's I don't think this commission is saying we're not trying to look out for the resident you know I I was applying that no what I'm saying I'm not making the implication I'm saying that I I can't tell you that that 8.6 makes the difference for for what we're doing I think we're going to be doing that fairly soon and if if the city manager is telling us we're going to be able to change this parking fee regardless of the second reading right we're going to be able to change it then why not change it to change the things that really need to be changed right the right amount look at our service fees and and I don't know I mean I know we can still correct it again but when are we expected to have these this fee study complete it's probably going to take it'll be early 2025 so six months is okay commissioner mayor at the thoughts um I I don't I don't have any real significant opinion on that one way or another I think that um you know I'm I'm sure there is some costs associated with with changing the parking fees and signage and reprogramming things and whatnot I don't know that those are significant um I don't I don't know that it makes a whole lot I mean I honestly I don't think it makes a whole lot of difference to meet one r or another I I yeah there's not a cost associated with this because we haven't we already have to change them so we're changing them time to do it if you want to change them I mean I would just say that if we're going to change them I would change it to some like normal reasonable whole number just because I know if if I were here paying at a parking meter and it said $437 an hour I would be wondering what kind of idiots were in charge of that you know exactly maybe the same idiots that charge 58 cents for the Bayway yeah so you're saying four and a half and5 and a half dollars for example yeah that'd be fine I would be yeah I would be in on that four and a half and 5 and a half yeah even even 25 cent increments yeah makes more sense so don't have dimes anymore yeah correct I don't know if you can pay them with cash anyway to be perfectly honest so 450 and 550 okay thank you okay do we have a motion to extend the meeting hours yeah motion to extend um we have how many items do we have do two two I mean I'll say 30 minutes but that's just to be safe so till 10 um 10:30 just to be safe okay so next city clerk if you'll please do a roll call commissioner Robinson yes commissioner Riki yes vice mayor mahand yes commissioner Marriott yes mayor patrilla yes motion carried great next we have a discussion on the moratorium um so we had a presentation today on what it would look like if we wanted to do and some of the nuances of of doing a moratorium um I'll restate my reasons for bringing it up in the first place one of the things um in Reading up some more on this is you know one of the reasons that you would have a moratorium is to essentially maintain the status quo while you're going into the planning process and one of the reasons you want to maintain that status quo is so that you're not making some of the current issues or potential issues worse by leaving the process open open right so one of the things um one of the things that you want to do is while you're reviewing the comprehensive plan is making making sure that um as as you're doing that review and as and then the reason we're doing the review is important because the reason that we proposed having a comprehensive plan review was to address some of the issues um that we're hearing from our residents right we're hearing about traffic we're hearing about congestion we're hearing about overcrowding on the beaches we're hearing about um you know endangered species being um endangered on our beaches whether it's the turtles the skimmers or the sea outs the dunes um you know we're we're looking at some of the challenges that we're having in GF Boulevard with the number of fatalities that we have even though we have this agreement that we've all kind of subscribed to that we're going to be pursuing zero deaths yet we're not pursuing zero deaths by increasing the number of cars that we're having uh on Golf Boulevard um one of the you know other reasons that we're looking at the comprehensive plan review another reason why we should pursue a moratorium is you know for the same reason that we're doing some of the other projects that we're looking at today the undergrounding on Golf Boulevard the reason that we're having to deal with the sewer system right um we have resiliency issues we have flooding issues and the question is by you know how much much more can the infrastructure of our city support you know we were told three four months ago that we have all the sewer capacity in the world and I remember asking the individual you know and the answers were every time in the affirmative yes we have all the capacity we can build out to the maximum of the comprehensive plan Land Development code we can handle it all and then it wasn't a month later that we had our first budget meeting and it's like oh we need a million dollars for you know lift station one and then oh by the way the pipe that goes to Treasure Island that we told you about has got8 to 10 years left actually we're going to start looking at it so next thing you know is we went from everything is great no problems at all we can handle all the capacity in the world because we already spend the $14 million we spend the money right we the city and the residents and the residents tax dollars we spend that $14 million for that and we're spending another $14 million on undergrounding that is going to be kind of half done now um so I mean these are some of the issues this is one of the reasons that we're looking at revising our comprehensive plan and the last thing that we want to do is while we revise that plan and look at it is to make some of these situations worse right we need to look at and say let's put a hold let's put a pause let's look at these issues let's not make them worse let's have the community involvement let's have the Consultants come in let's look at a comprehensive plan say okay what can the city legitimately handle beyond that is you look at the demand for City's Services right forget sewer and Wastewater and storm drains and our amazing uh reclaimed water system that we have right on top of that we've got you know when you look at our you know fire department the chief is awake now that you know brought them up they have double number of calls that they had five years ago but they've got three more staff and they had you know they went from 36 to 39 staff and we approved that last year they're handing twice as many calls well that is before we add anything else right before we add another door before we had another guest or tourist or visitor or anybody else we already at some would say capacity you look at our Sheriff we just increased that budget by another six% we increased it $250,000 last year and then we increased it last year as well I fig what the percentage was another five or six% so now and in all the conversations that we have with the sheriff and I've had several of them with them in the last couple weeks you know is well you have the C coverage that you're currently paying for and if you want more you should pay for more coverage that's what they're and you saw the breakdown you know $130 per Deputy right so it's one per shift if you wanted to have one more person per shift so that's two additional people so that would be another $160,000 you know plus the car and equipment and everything else right so if you wanted to have even more coverage on the beach so again we have this Demand on our city services besides the city infrastructure that is already strained right you look at our permitting Department I had somebody else visit me today at the library I'm I'm personally I'm I'm tired of telling them we're doing all that we can I'm sorry me as the mayor I can't move you to the front of the line not that I would but I I can't like we have to take you in in sequence and I know our staff is working on that and I know we're we're trying to hire people we can't hire people but one of the reasons that our permit department is overworked is all of the plans and development that's coming in and some of those have statutory limitations where we have to do them in a certain number of time so whether they came in earlier or later we just got to take care of them and then you know your thing is getting pushed to the background so you look at all of that and I say if we're doing a comprehensive plan review I think it's prudent of us to take the time you know to do the work and also put a moratorium in place so that we're not making some of these problems worse it's going to take a year most likely 18 months based on what they told us and so I would propose that we start with a 12-month moratorium with you know the option for six months or allow the attorneys to put something together that that makes sense um for that the last thing I'll say is um one of the other reasons that we need to look at our comprehensive plan and as well as put the moratorium in places um we've had 13 natural disaster declarations by FEMA in panel's county in the last four years 13 right it's higher than it's been as far as FEMA recording these things in penelas County we don't know if it's going to get better if it's going to get worse but the numbers certainly don't don't look good right now if there was ever a time to say you know let's let's put a pause on let's make sure that anything else that we're adding to the city isn't going to make some of these resiliency problems worse by adding more impervious structure uh more impervious ground coverage right by adding more density and more people and more cars you know where are they going when we have an emergency and we've got to evacuate the entire Island right where are they going when you know the fire department's got to get from the fire station to your house and they can't because golf Gart is completely backed up and there's a nice meeting in the middle so they can't even go down the middle anymore right for all for this and all these other reasons I mentioned I think you know my recommendation is that we instruct the city manager to work with the firm that presented today uh to put a proposal for us together uh on what a comprehensive plan sorry what a uh moratorium would look like and a budget for that as well that's my item for discussion so I've got a a a couple things um I think that the devil's in the details and the the concept of it to me seems reasonable the details I think are going to be quite and the the the things that I've heard from residents in the last few weeks as I've been talking to folks about it is that they go you know man what I'm really concerned about is flooding and what I'm really concerned about all over district one are empty lots and vacant storefronts and a grocery store that has been vacant for a significant number of years and is there any way we can get a grocery store back there um and and none of those problems are going to get fixed with a with a moratorium on development and and then the the problems that you're talking about our potential problems with sewer capacity are uh you know the the capacity of the fire department the increasing of policing the traffic parking you know all of those things could you could also easily say that if I mean you know what is this moratorium going to look like are we going to go back to what we were like when we had the moratorium on the SE project where you C could not add capacity to the sewer system you know which meant that that the people couldn't add a second bathroom to their house either and a lot of of small um you know small local businesses and small property owners that rent space to small mom and pop businesses couldn't do it because they couldn't subdivide because they couldn't put a second bathroom in to to have two units that they could rent um and so you know I think the I think the the details are going to be very tricky and very very critically important um and I would I would hate to see us do it without a whole lot of thought and very careful planning and a whole lot of public input so that we don't end up with a bunch of unforeseen consequences of people who are part of our community as both residents and business owners go oh man you know like this this this is going going to become a real problem for me because you know I've I've been living and working in this community for 35 years and I finally am under contract with somebody to sell my business so I can retire and now you guys are going to put in a moratorium and that ain't going to happen because nobody's going to buy anything um and so so I think it's uh um I I think it's very well-intentioned um and I just want to see us be incredibly careful about it um and very precise uh you know I I think it's it's it's it's fraught with it's fraught with problems and I think it's going to be a lot of of our time and staff time um on something that that what I've heard from from residents who have contacted me is not at the top of their list of concerns so we we have a body of four five representatives for our residents in small businesses and all businesses um I think there I say the word Workshop so but I think in this case I I agree with you you are you are right that it needs to be specific and nuanced I think the attorney told us that as well I don't think anyone here is looking at a you know build no house build no toilet build no kitchen no nothing in the city I don't think that was intention my intention was to mirror what the comprehensive plan review scope was limiting specifically to the districts that were proposed but um I think if we all sat down together and came up with you know worked it out and say if we were doing a moratorium this is what we think it should look like um because again I to me you know we're not looking at you know residential you know we're not you know um we're primary looking at what the comprehensive plan is large scale development and so you know but I I agree we should sit down and and say okay what what does that impact does it impact District Two and Three what size property is it anybody that you know if it's cup or non cup is it only hotels only transient is it all businesses I think we can sit down and and come up with a with the game plan that we can then give specific instructions to the attorney or at least give him instructions and say Here's what we're thinking can you please make this the right format would that be something that the commission would be agreeable to I'd be agreeable to that I just think that the moratorium needs to go hand inhand with the with the comp plan review um it we are due for this comp plan review on so so many levels and um there are so many concerns on on traffic uh with increased density with increased uh intensity there's way too many concerns on that that and to keep building and keep doing cups and doing everything else and adding to the problems that we haven't or we're attempting to address it's it's like we're putting the the cart before the horse with with continuing with large scale development without looking at the comp plan so yes I I'm all for getting uh a workshop together let's get the moratorium put in place let's get the comp plan reviewed let's move on and keep going [Music] forward yes city clerk so we have a workshop um on October 8th already scheduled and then October 22nd so if you would like to consist go consistently I would ask for November and M just so you know and that's what I I'll send out unless you want to do it on an off commission meeting day but your October is full remind us what those two meetings are one is a joint workshop with the historic preservation board and one is to discuss the board's and committee's code of ordinances I didn't think that one was going to take that long it's one hour from I think 4:30 to 5:30 oh that was okay that was an Saturday that was it has to be no and it needs to start at 4:00 which one starts at 4: or do both start at 4 HPB starts the joint HPB starts at 4: and then the one on the 22nd starts at 4:30 oh oh just for consideration the attorney has a very full schedule so maybe we take this a different route and find out what her availability is and we could always schedule a special Workshop as well okay I'm assuming you would want her in person for this workshop and not virtual so that is why it might get a little more complicated to get on her schle have 4:00 limit so it' have to be from 4:00 to 5 and so that probably even further limits her availability so with with that limitation in mind I mean because of the time like the PM well you're generally not available before 4 I mean does it are they willing to do a weekend I mean I mean I know we already have one on upcoming weekend on a Saturday 19th because I don't know how long this would take I mean I wrote a lot of notes of what she was saying she had at least you know specific five things I mean what's the problem what are the the the steps to address it which development will be affected I mean and and then is it just us talking are we inviting residents to have their opinion because I heard I've only heard one resident be in favor at least to me that sent me something and then many who said no so you know well it would be a workshop so we could invite public well they it wouldn't be a speaking time but it would be you can submit your comments via email just like everybody like every other situation yeah maybe we can find out what her availability is in the next 30 days or so somewhere 4: or 5:00 p.m. is and then based on that if she has two or three dates available with that time frame we can City Clark you can then send something out that says here but I'm I'm thinking probably an hour you know especially if we could come ready with the questions and thoughts and ideas okay here's what the moratorium would impact again I I think it'd be a very limited scope not thinking full scale but specific to the to what the comprehensive plan review MH okay thank you and then one last item um and I'm just wanted to just kind of get your thoughts on this um I was speaking to a planning board member um and they mentioned and and I've done this whenever we have the first time we had a big cup I asked the city clerk to provide me a copy with the Land Development code a comprehensive plan you know in a nice big binder it's I just I find it difficult to read on my screen and then I've seen many of you with your binders um and I was thinking it might be a good idea for the planning board is if we just had a set of five or six binders for Land Development code and for the comprehensive plan that we can give to them when they first come into office and say Here's your material if you want to look it up online it's great but here it is in in writing and then when their term ends they just return it back to the city so that we're not printing 500 pages every single time how would that I'd have to check the price I know that it's not budgeted in my budget this FAL year I know it's not an uh cheap I just did I just did one was vice mayor mahand and it was just the code of ordinances and the the comp plan and one of Land Development code is quite large yeah they but so I just need I need to check with mun code and see what the price is times five and then see where I can get it in the budget that's fine and mayor is it because you know I bring my laptop now because it's just I can it's bigger is it if the I I don't know if this is an iPad but if these devices were larger or easier to because I have connectivity issues sometimes like if I it's not downloaded on this one but I download it on mine so I'm literally bringing those 200 some pages on my computer right so um should we also be looking like at a cost of improving what we have up here because it's not I mean if you remember back when we've had everybody had their binders I mean well we're going to be really close because it was a lot I had them on the floor you know um I'm just asking to see if if maybe improving I don't really even use this anymore because it's just not conducive but if it was then we wouldn't have to print all these Pages you know I have my own printed because I have my little posties and all this kind of stuff but I could do the same thing I'm trying to do it on the computer I just couldn't do it on this one I can do it from home you know what I'm saying I'm sure you had your posties on your computer as well I had both I had both that time and I had a hard time I mean it's yeah it's just easier to search on your laptop because if there's something specific you're looking for you can do a search versus like hold on a second let me I found it easier with the books because I just put tabs everywhere right because we're prepping that way but if you have a set you're saying it's a set for them we have our own set and then like every board is going have a set of adjustment planning board is the only one that uses the comprehensive plan and the Land Development code on a regular basis and the board of adjustment they use it for Land Development code variances yeah you know or we could just have a and I would say even the two or three sets that we can have at the city clerks or somewhere else available where people can check them in or check them out yeah you tell me what you want me to do first I'll start by looking at the price is that a good idea first and come back good that would be good perfect okay that was the last item next we're on to staff re uh staff reports city clerk on the city clerk's website for the election I posted the qualification period notice that will be in Tampa Bay Times on Wednesday announces the beginning is the first Monday in November and ends on the second following week I believe it's November 15th at noon qualification books are going to be ready October 23rd and it's on the city's website thank you all I have city mayil thank you commission mayor and Commissioners uh I'm sure everyone's aware that we have a pretty hefty storm headed our way um as of of today about 5:00 p.m. this is what I knew but I'm sure in the last 5 hours some there have been some more developments uh but they are expecting uh This Storm to turn into a hurricane by Wednesday and uh don't exactly know the impacts for pelis County um however they could start as late as um as start as soon as late Wednesday the National Hurricane um Center is forecasting this storm to be over 250 miles wide with rapid intensification over the Eastern Gulf of Mexico Coastal storm surge flooding possibly significant is likely for much of the West Coast of Florida starting as soon as late Wednesday um we are urging you as well as the penell County Emergency Management everyone to review your own emergency plans and supplies um soon um when you wake up in the morning when pelis County uh being in a state of they they are looking at declaring a state of emergency ahead of the tropical system and um we will be tracking closely with them in regular meetings as a reminder sandbags um are available uh for free at e Egan Park we have about 30 cubic yards of sand being delivered tomorrow um to meet the residents needs so please uh get there early and just want to remind you all you can stay informed uh sign up for alerts at disaster. penis.gif as well as we will be pushing out messaging from um our my my office through Facebook Instagram and next door um in collaboration with the county just want to remind everybody uh get your emergency supplies ready your medicine um all your important papers in the event that we do have to have an evacuation of the island um we uh also ask you to uh stay in touch at disaster. penis.gif evacuation orders if necessary so I'll be in touch with the commission um pretty frequently uh from this point forward and would ask you to spread any information I send you with your neighbors and family and friends thank you and stay safe thank you City attorney yes um just one quick well two things uh as you instructed we have filed our motions to withdrawal in the cases that that uh we were attorney of record and probably about 50% of those have come back with uh the orders um you know courts move at different speeds um but I wanted to let you know about that there is one case however that is a situation that I wanted to talk to you about um it's an appeal of a code enforcement special magistrate order um which goes up on appeal so it's not your typical did noo case where there's l ation and and Discovery and things like that the court has ordered that the appellant file their initial brief on September 27th um after that the city will have to file an answer brief within 30 days right now we're not attorney of record um it looks like you're moving in a good direction to get someone board but I'm a little nervous about ethically I don't want to leave you all in a bind or the next Attorney that's going to take the seat in a bind so uh on this particular case I would like to at least have some latitude to work with the court to whatever extent I can to try to get an extension on that answer brief I'm sure Court will understand with the reasoning that we lay out that the city's in transition of getting in and this is one that uh unfortunately the your insurance carrier PRM did not uh allow coverage otherwise I wouldn't have be bringing this to you so you have no coverage and you cannot have any attorney whatsoever if I were to file a motional withdrawal in this case the court would be like is this city crazy they're having no attorney here so please just asking for a little attitude to be able to work with the court to try to and the appellant to try to uh buy a little time um you seem like you're going down the right track with um the the firms that you're looking at uh probably 30 60-day period if I can get that on the answer brief with your permission I'm seeing head nodding yes so I'll take that as an affirmative okay great thank you thank you district for uh yes just one thing tonight um we had a vena resident whose sewer was uh backed up for a week and uh they were obviously frustrated but uh a couple of the Public Works employees Shan and Luke uh they the the homeowners spoke very highly of them and I visited the site myself and spent about five minutes talking to Shan and I was very very um impressed with his professionalism and his knowledge and I I just wanted to give those two a shout out uh I I hope uh most of the others are are as good as those two because I was very impressed with them and I don't impress that easily thank you sir all I have all right we got three minutes and three Commissioners sorry good I'm good okay um just too quick um upcoming meetings belista Civic um October 10th and the downst property owners uh meeting is November 13th um and just for uh the residents out there don't forget um to reach out to your neighbors who may need assistance um in prepping for this storm um I know we we we've got to prep ourselves our homes but remember there may be somebody who is not physically able to do something um and this is coming pretty quick um it's not going to slow down um there's nothing in the way of it so there's not going to be a slow down over the mountain chain so it's going to rapidly intensifi intensify so not to put you know any fear on anybody but but just to really reach out for those people and encourage people to leave um I've been here uh for some time and um I'm still amazed that people stay home there is I saw some pelis County um news there's a potential of even close to 15 and 20 foot foot surges depending on the time of when the storm is out we do not need a direct hit we're getting the west side of this storm which is where we surge on so um please reach out to people and tell people hey just leave the island come back later make sure you have your um return card and um you know and be safe um and then just one quick request um because I know we have new Commissioners um including you know pretty new for this year but can you send um and um this is for Francis can you please send us like the emergency plan for the city for review because there are roles that as elected officials that we have and you know you'll have more reading early in the morning but just so that you know so we're not caught off guard thank you one minute one minute oh no over do I extend five minutes motion to extend we can wrap it up in the next 60 seconds um just wanted to say over at uh the library have put a suggestion box so uh the community can feel free to put suggestions in that suggestion box and Amber's gonna um note the cards thank you I got nothing everybody stay safe stay safe get your sandbags evacuate good night