The meeting commenced with A discussion about the appointment of Charles Vanzant as the new city manager. Concerns were raised about the terms of Vanzant’s contract, specifically the $10,000 increase in salary compared to the previous city manager, which was justified by Vanzant declining medical insurance. A typographical error in the contract concerning temporary living expenses was corrected during the meeting, extending the support from September 15 to October 15. Some commissioners questioned the adherence to the city charter in past appointment processes, expressing skepticism towards the city attorney’s assurances that all legal requirements were met. Despite these concerns, the motion to appoint Vanzant was approved with a majority vote, though not unanimously.

Another point of discussion was the proposed amendments to chapter 65 on impact fees, prompted by recent state legislative changes which necessitate interlocal agreements between cities and counties. The city attorney explained that while the city must sign the agreement, it retains discretion over the collection of fees. A commissioner questioned the fairness of the 50% fee split with the county and suggested negotiating for a different allocation. The motion to table the discussion failed, and urgency was noted due to impending deadlines for municipal and county commission approvals.

Concerns were also expressed about the potential impact of the county’s reduced rate for downstairs development not extending to Treasure Island’s downtown, unlike other municipalities. Suggestions were made for Treasure Island to enact its own ordinance to retain 100% of collected funds. The implications of using impact fees based on the most intense previous use rather than the last permitted use were also debated, with a commissioner regretting the rapid reappearance of the proposal on the agenda after it was tabled just three business days earlier.

Concerns were raised about the perception of fees as extortionate to local businesses, citing high costs such as a $1,300 fee for a hotel room, which could discourage development. One resident highlighted the lack of accountability in the utilization of funds from previous impact fee studies, calling for greater transparency.

The commission also grappled with proposals for a new public safety facility. Initial plans for a $12 million facility encountered funding challenges when the state allocated only $1.5 million, necessitating a reevaluation of the project’s scope. Discussions revolved around whether to consolidate police and fire departments in one building or to keep them separate, with the possibility of housing the police department temporarily on the fourth floor of City Hall. Concerns were raised about escalating cost estimates, with calls for multiple construction bids to explore budgetary options.

Alternative funding strategies were considered, including raising parking fees to generate revenue and reduce the need for borrowing. However, some questioned the reliance on parking fees given potential changes in usage patterns. Debate also emerged over the cost differences between standalone and joint facilities, with some suggesting the disparity was less significant than claimed. The urgency of establishing a functional public safety facility resonated throughout the discussions, emphasizing the need for a resilient infrastructure to respond to emergencies.

Amid these deliberations, the broader issue of fiscal responsibility was highlighted. Some participants advocated for cutting spending rather than increasing tax revenues, emphasizing the importance of maintaining essential services like local law enforcement. Concerns about the implications of state grants and the necessity of public-private partnerships to maximize city-owned space were also discussed, alongside the potential impact of increased property values on future tax revenues.