--------- That's fine. >> He's calling the halls. And I don't know if it's all burned up, but maybe >> Well, I have it. I just want to see if y'all can help me with it. >> Sure. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Welcome everybody. I'd like to call >> this regular meeting of the city of Defunia Council's meeting to order on Monday, November the 10th. We're starting a little bit late. We had a workshop just prior to this that uh went a little to the wire. Um I think if you
would all stand, uh Councilman Scanier is going to give us the invitation followed by the pledge of allegiance. >> Father, we thank you for this day and we thank you for all of your many blessings, Lord. We thank you for allowing us to come together to do the will of the people, Lord, and more importantly that which is yours, God. We
pray that you will grant us clarity in our thoughts, humbleness, Lord, so that as we make these decisions, God, you will guide us through each and every measure. We ask these things in Jesus name. Amen. >> Amen. I aliance 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. >> Welcome everybody. We're going to start with the um presentation and
proclamations. The mayor actually is out ill today, so I think that'll be delayed until our next meeting. And so let's start with 2B1 Deubberry Engineers. Kobe >> uh Rudy. Rudy's here with Deubberry to
give presentation. >> Can't hear back here. >> What? Can you hear me now? >> Hear you can't hear him. >> Deubberry. Rudy Maul. He's here to give a presentation on the vulnerability assessment. >> Good evening, council. Uh Rudy Maul with Deberry Engineers. Um I'm here to
present the uh final VA uh which is the vinyl the vulnerability assessment that we've done here for the city of Duniac. Um we want to begin with an overview of the team and the vulnerability assessment process. Uh with me today is Hannah Hart. She's the lead behind this entire project. Um she can go ahead and
come up now. Without her, you know, this this project probably wouldn't have ever existed. So a quick shout out to Hannah and um and Denise as well. She's helped us through the pay applications and reimbursement processes for this project. Um, and then we'll have Hannah
just kind of go through these slides, kind of give an overview of the process. >> Absolutely. Well, good evening everyone. Thank you so much for having me here today. Um, I also wanted to acknowledge and thank the city staff for working so hard with us today. uh your city manager
as well as your grant manager and many other city staff as well as the police force, the the fire department, all of the local agency staff that have helped to bring the information we needed here today. So, I just wanted to acknowledge them first and foremost as we're getting
ready to wrap up this study. Um I'm going to bring you some good news in the beginning and bring you some good news in the end. So hopefully uh we'll be able to get through this quickly and succinctly, but I do want to take a moment to walk you through the process and help you understand the data that's
been collected and how it's going to set you up for funding in the future. So um without further ado, let's get into the study details. First and foremost, uh when we created this study and worked with the city to
obtain uh the city obtained this grant back in 2023, uh we knew that the city needed to have um some improved spatial data uh on its critical asset infrastructure. Um and the resilient Florida program does a great job of funding that critical asset
data. So you can see there on the slide that that is the first step. Um throughout that process, once we were creating that da asset data um with stakeholder and community input, we then moved into modeling flood hazard data.
And what that basically means is that we take the critical asset data. We developed a 2D model that um exceeds the statute requirements and we compared that flood data with the critical asset
elevations to understand what your critical assets will look like in storm events currently and how they will respond to storm events with future weather conditions. Um we then evaluated that asset sensitivity based on their
flood their elevations that were uh both surveyed and used from LAR data and then we identified focus areas and those assets that are most vulnerable. Um once we are finished with that evaluation we will move into planning. But before I
get into all those f further details I'm going to walk you through that process just a little bit more in detail. So if you can go to the next slide. So, let's talk for a minute about collecting that foundational data. The Department of Environmental Protection requires two uh
two critical steps in collecting foundational data. One, it recommends that you have community and stakeholder input. And two, it wants you to conduct something called a data gap analysis. Now this data gap analysis is important because once you develop the results of
the data gap analysis, you can then report back to the department of environmental protection on where you need to collect further inventory and there is funding in future um aspects of the program to get that inventory data surveyed and to develop um to develop
improved spatial data at no cost to the city. So next slide. We asked um several questions when we were collecting the data. Um an example of those questions are you know what is the most um accurate data sources available? Where can we find them? And again we work with
stakeholders and city staff to develop that data data set. Go ahead and move to the next slide. As mentioned, when we identified all those critical assets, we mapped them in a geospatial data set that is available to you and was also submitted to the
department of environmental protection. Go ahead and move to the next slide. And then we modeled those flood conditions. Now, the statute requires that we only model the flood conditions with existing miles um models that are
available. However, um we developed a hecas model that will be available also to the city not only for this um study but also for future engineering studies and for future design work that the city
may have in the future. The reason that that is significant is because when you're looking at flood analysis both now and in the future and if you have a flood model that is not only designed both to state standards but federal standards, if you ever were to look at a
firm or a FEMA map change, you want the data to be consistent. You also want the data to have as accurate of information as possible based on the local topography and local geography. So we took it a step further and developed
what's called a a 2D model using HECArass and we modeled that information both in current conditions in year 2050 uh and and also in year 2080 for the 1% annual event which is formerly known as the 100-year event storm event and the
five excuse me the 2% event which is formerly known as the 500year event. Let's go on to the next slide. Okay. So when we got this flood exposure data then we again we compared the data with the critical assets to understand
where are your greatest impacts and what assets are most vulnerable to flooding. Go ahead and go on to the next slide. And in doing this and you can go on and go on to the next slide. We looked at where those locations and opportunities might be to not only identify data gaps,
but to identify projects in the future that you can apply for funding. So, let's go ahead and go on to the next slide. And after um the study is completed, if you click one more time, so we're in the sensitivity analysis
stage of the of the study right now. We are getting ready to move into the final report stage. And if you click one more time, we began in a we began this study in April 2024 and we're we um have wrapped up the sensitivity analysis and moving into the
final VA report. Um we actually submitted this presentation in October. So actually obviously we're still we're in November now, but we are wrapping up the final report now and that will be submitted to the city. And I'm happy to report that that report is um according
to the grant agreement going to be submitted to the city and to you all for review 5 months before it is due to the department of environmental protection. Now that is significant because right now the city uh we have been working with Denise and other city staff members
um to understand what the next steps are and the needs are for this program that could be funding some of that money. Um some of the money that's been applied for will uh help to further inventory critical asset infrastructure for your storm water management systems that you
do have and to assess where the needs are for developing a more master storm water system. um when we submit the final report hopefully sometime in late November after we've collected all the comments that will position the city to
be able to show D you have wrapped up this study early and you are ready for the funding for the next phase. So let's go on and go to the next slide. This is just a little bit of a quick overview that shows you an example of how the hecrass model can be useful to you all.
As mentioned, it exceeds the standards of the resilient Florida grant program and it meets the standards of all the federal risk map studies. Um, so if you click on the next slide, I believe there is a um a visualization to show what
we've done. So this HECArass model basically gives any engineer who's working on a future design project a basinwide model so that he or she may be able to plug in for example let's say you're going to replace a bridge culbert or a roadway culvert you want to be able
to look at the whole picture right so what they'll be able to do now is put that into this model that is free and available to anyone the software is all free and available it's actually developed by the army corps of engineers and they can look at how that new design
cover not only affects the local basin but the larger basin um in general. So that's just another visual example of it. Let's go on to the next slide and I think there was one more example and for for time sake we will skip over this one
just to kind of give you an image. So as mentioned the sensitivity analysis looks at how are those assets responding to each of those storm events. We have summarized each of those into the four categories of assets that the D requires. Let's go on to the next slide
and I can just give an example of how those assets are scored. So for example, um assets are typically scored based on their height, meaning their elevation above bare earth and whether or not they are an extremely critical asset to a
community. So let's keep going. So there again there are four asset classes the DP likes us to group assets in when we assess those asset vulnerability. This is the first of those four asset classes. Um we found that in the results
of the study um I think this would be no surprise to most of the residents and to you all that there are some areas around Lake Defunia including the parks that we have seen some erosion and challenges related to those large storm events historically. Uh we also heard from this
from residents in public in the public meeting. The next group of assets if you go to the next slide are the community and emergency assets. Not quite as much vulnerability there um as we saw in a couple of the other asset classes. If we jump to the
next slide, these are just the um polygons and the areas um infrastructure assets that relate to other um community resources that are in the that were mapped in the community. The couple of assets there that were vulnerable and
this was um the fourth asset class and it's transportation assets. This one I'd like to spend just a moment on. We did notice that there were some specific locations within the city's transportation infrastructure that were particularly vulnerable. They coincided
with the areas that we had heard both from the community and from the city stakeholders and staff when we met with him. Um, one of the additional things that we chose to do for you all is instead of just listing whether or not a transportation asset was vulnerable or
not vulnerable, we um wrote this we wrote some algorithm algorithms, excuse me, in the software to assess the flooding at a thousand foot linear segment so that if you choose to have a project funded or apply for funding in the future, you can not only pinpoint a
roadway, but you can pinpoint a specific location on on that roadway that has flood vulnerability. Let's go on to the next slide. So again, as I mentioned, um uh the city has applied for some funding. Um we have actually um at the recommendation of
city staff applied to prioritize storm water master planning inventory funding which will include survey funding um to inventory that storm water infrastructure and look at where we can hopefully um provide stormwater master planning in the future for the city. And
um then if the adaptation planning grant is not um is if the stormwater master plan is prioritized and the adaptation planning grant is not prioritized with D. Uh we will the city will probably find that out sometime in December. Um and then we can reapply for the
adaptation planning grant which would include design work for future projects. So I know that was a lot of information. I wanted to get through it as succinctly as possible, but I'm happy to take uh any questions and um again um we're very
happy to deliver the final report to you all this week five months early and hopefully that will position the city uh to show D that you are ready for the next steps in the funding. >> Thank you. Any questions from the council? >> I just want to commend them for turning
in the the report five months early. Mhm. >> Do you do >> Actually, we do. We have specialists. I I was listening outside. I couldn't I So, I prior to my time with Deubberry, I led environmental permitting for the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection for five for two districts and uh we had a a number of environmental assessments that we worked through um for for large transportation projects. This an environmental assessment is no joke. And uh you gotta
>> you sound like you're pretty confident. >> Well um you know I'm 46 so I don't know if it's uh >> well listen we are so grateful to have provided this for you. You know, I know that historically the city of Defunia
Springs has not had you have been blessed to not have some of the major flooding challenges that some of our other communities in Florida are facing. But as I like to say, you know, like a good boy scout, you want to be prepared
for the future. And if you've got a program in front of you that the legislature is providing you with funding to not only design but prepare for master planning for um storm water infrastructure and to help you be prepared in the future, why not
take advantage of it, right? So, >> thank you Deubberry Miss Hannah and Rudy. Thank you. >> Is there anything else? No questions. All right. So, that report will come to city staff and if you have any questions about it, please let us know because we do want to try to get that in before they make decisions about the next phase
in the next few weeks. Y'all have a good night. [Applause] >> So, let's move on to the consent agenda. Are there any additions or deletions to the consent agenda? >> No, ma'am. >> Motion to approve. >> Second.
>> So, we have a first and a second. I think we begin with Mr. Beerbomb this evening. So all in favor >> I >> I >> I >> I >> I >> Okay. So consent agenda approved. Let's move now on to the regular agenda. Is
there any additions or deletions to the regular agenda? >> I have none. >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Eyes have it.
Okay. So, let's start with uh the city manager, Mr. Townsen for C1. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm gonna call you for tonight if that's okay. >> Okay. >> So, Miss Denchman unfortunately could not be with us tonight. Um she has a family member that has surgery going on,
so I told her I'd pick up pick it up for her. Um so council you'll see in this packet um the agreement that has been tenatively agreed upon by our labor attorney representing the city council and then the attorney representing uh the ask me union here at the city. As
you go through it you'll see this the strike through and the underline in red. Um I will say that Miss Denchman did provide to everyone I think I for this morning uh of those particular changes that we all discussed at our most recent um executive session and those are included in here. Um, and so I can I can
go through each one individually if you like the six points, but again they they are the same as we had discussed at our most recent executive session. And so she's asking for approve agreement to close this bargaining session and then we will restart again in the um spring.
>> Any questions from the council >> motion approved? >> Second. >> Any questions from the audience? >> All in favor? If I just miss Chance, do you have anything other than what I've said? >> Okay. >> All in favor?
>> I >> I >> I all approved. Okay. So, the next item on the list will be parking spaces at the corner of US 90 and 9th Street. >> Yes. Thank you. A few months back, Councilman Harrison brought up concerns
the parking spaces there at the corner of 90 and 9inth Street. Um, so we took that. that the city marshall uh went out there with some his staff looked at them just did some dayong observance of the spots and ultimately came back to me and we both agreed that it'd be best to
remove those two spots. Um and then after that Mr. Hurley, Mr. Sheffield, Mr. Anderson went around downtown as well. Um and looked at all the other spaces to see if there's anything else to be changed while we're already there. Um I think when I heard back Mr. Anderson, there was nothing to be changed at this time. So ultimately uh
bringing it back and we recommend myself and city marshall to just remove these two spots uh and then we will stripe that as no parking um so people do not park there. >> So move second. >> We have a motion a first and a second. Um any comments from the council? Mr.
Beerbomb. Um, I would just like to add, I don't know if we need to include it in the motion, but while we're while we're addressing some of the parking and and traffic issues downtown, um, at each entrance to the alleyway um, on each of the streets, um, could we get that like
chevroned off so that people don't turn those into parking spaces? is I know when we have large events downtown, the the way that it's striped currently, everyone tries to kind of make that very last parking space a parking space when it really isn't and then they end up blocking the access to the alleyway that delivery trucks use for our our
businesses downtown. So, I don't know if we can include that in in the uh this motion um if that's appropriate, Clay, but I certainly would like to see that included at some point. >> We can include that in the motion if that's what you want to include.
Amend it. >> Can we make it a separate one? >> We can do that as well. >> Sure. Sure. I can do a separate. >> All right. >> Any other comments? Anybody from the audience? All in favor?
>> I >> I >> I >> I >> I to Madam Chair. >> Yes. like to make a motion that we direct staff to also um chevron off the entrances to all the alleyways for the downtown alleyways.
>> Second. >> Any comments from the council? Anyone from the audience? All in favor? >> I >> I >> nay. All right. >> All right. >> Okay. Uh, next issue is C3, American
Legion 417. >> Yes, ma'am. A few meetings back, the American Legion approached the Council about the Old Armory building off of Highway 83. Um, at the time, and I do apologize, we wanted to bring that back at the end of October. Uh, we were not able to get a contractor out to look at
the building in that time frame. And so last I believe Tuesday, Monday or Tuesday, one of the two, um we uh we were able to get the contractor doing the library work u for us to come out at the building and so uh the contractor and his project manager along with
myself, Mr. Anderson and then Mr. Seabolt representative from Legion walked through the building with the contractor looked at the building um and so ultimately I think the main question from the council was what does it look like from a repair perspective? Um and Mr. She both is more than welcome to
also talk about this too. But uh from his perspective, from a structural and code perspective, you're looking about $15,000 in roof repair to the wings of the building. The center part of the building seem to be very sound um and structurally fine. U now that's that is structural and code interior.
Aesthetically, there's a lot to be done to the building depending on its use. Um so ultimately want to bring that back to the council that you asked for and then I know there's representative from the Legion to bring more information. I believe council asked for and um it's up to up to this the body what we wish to do moving forward.
>> Madam chair. >> Yes. >> So so uh the last time this was brought before us I I was in favor of of moving forward with this facility for Port Allegian. Um but since that time we've
had a lot come forward in in the area of the fire department and renovations that need to be made and um possibly having to displace staff while we fix some of these things. And I don't know at this point that this may not be a facility
that we have to look at for temporary housing the firefighters while that facility is being renovated or replaced or whatever we get into there. I I'm still not opposed to helping the lead and trying to find a place for their meetings and the things they need to do,
but I think because of the size of this facility and the placement that it serves a good purpose for something that may have to be used for a different purpose at this point. So, with that, I I'm not opposed to uh I think in
speaking with uh Mr. Townsen earlier, there's another item that he's going to speak about, I believe, dealing with uh inventory and assets coming back around the first of the year. And at that point, it might be a better time to look at what we actually have in our inventory that could fit the needs for
the Legion and still offer us the ability to um to take care of our staff at the same time. Councilman be >> would it be possible to um with with them being a nonprofit, would it be possible to maybe uh direct staff to
offer the um civic center as a meeting place for them on a regular basis with um a reduction in fees. I think I think that is technically within our code currently, but you know, we could maybe even make that a motion to express that as the will of the council if if
everyone is in agreement with that and maybe help them out from that perspective because I do agree with Councilman's Congress. Um, I think we're going to end up needing that building for transition when it comes to any sort of fire department renovations, but I' I've also heard from um at least two
different private individuals that would be interested in purchasing that building and converting it into something that would actually benefit the community. Um, and I I don't know that we're in a position right now to to come off that building.
I'm in I'm in agreement with the with the civic center. >> Any other comments from the DAS? >> Um, y'all make some very good points. Um, I'm a little hung up on the last time we talked to the American Legion,
we gave them the what I believe was the distinct impression that that was going to be their next home. And now we're backing off from that. And I don't even know if they would be in agreement to um to using the civic center. I believe
I've recognized a few of them in our audience. Should we ask them if they would be interested in that? >> Yeah, >> I think when we're done here at the council, yes, I'll invite uh folks from the audience up. That would be fine. >> Councilman Harrison, you have anything?
Um, well, I I don't I don't recall giving the indication that we were going to do it necessarily. It's just something that we had to look at. Um, I've said before about property we sold um near Exxon. You know, I wasn't a big fan of moving that property quickly,
getting out of the hands of the city. We sat on it a while and then decided to sell it. So, you know, um we have a we have a limited amount of city property. That's a prime piece of property. Um, and at a time like Councilman Conor said, we're not sure what we're going to
have to do with the fire department, uh, whether we end up building there or housing there or whatever temporarily for remodeling or reconstruction or whatever. So, I just I just don't uh don't I don't think it's a good idea uh
to to lease it at this point. I'd like to make a uh my opinion known as well because I think that it's critical too that we slow down and maybe make decisions that reflect our long-term goals rather than reacting to short-term opportunities. Um I also believe that
maybe we could analyze our city-owned properties more comprehensively um which ones we should retain, repurpose, repair, or potentially put on the market for sale. Um, I'd like to make that decision in the context of our overall five-year plan. We recently
hired a uh vendor that's doing our five-year long-term range plan, uh, Raph Telus. Uh, I know we all each picked some people from the community and they just met recently, but we haven't even gotten back their report. So, I'd like to see those in this report that we're
paying to have completed. So to get the recommendations of what is the best potential use of all those properties. Um so with that being said, I I I ask that we pause also and take an inventory. And I'd like to recommend that perhaps our
January workshop that that's what we dedicate that workshop to be is uh a look at all of the city properties and what we expect over the long term for >> uh the five-year plan if that's possible. So
>> yeah, Mr. Towns, go ahead. >> Um, so yes, Councilman Hel and I discussed that today. We have uh staffed it a few months ago, put all of city-owned property um in diamond map. So we have that mapped out um and we talked we have a list the properties and all information pertinent to that. If
that's something the council wants to do, do we can have a workshop in January, bring that forth and we can discuss and I can, you know, separate them out between uses, vacancies, you know, XYZ. Um I will say and so that's what we discussed today. I will say I've received the mayor just reached out to
me and his comment is also a discount community building is the best way to go. Um so that's what his his take would be on the building at this time too. So and I and I'll say in my conversation with Mr. Seabolt and I think he can attest to this on Monday. Um we're we're going down this route because that's what they came and asked for. Um and I
made it clear to him that the council may go that way. They may not. If they do then we proceed. if they do not, we can regroup and look at other city- owned opportunities when that time come arises. Um, so I think that's kind of where we stand at. >> Mr. Cosen, did you have anything else before I invite the audience?
>> Um, the only thing is, um, we had discussed for clarification, um, we had discussed renting it to them for like a dollar a year for x number of years. We didn't decide on what the number was, but um, and I know we didn't
vote. There was no agreement made. Um I think maybe I was mistaken when I said we gave him the impression that we were favorable, but maybe that was just me. >> That's it. >> Okay. Anyone from the audience like to speak on the issue? Miss Randy
>> Thank you, Councilman Sconers, for bringing up the the possible need for the fire department. Um I was talking to Mr. throwing about this before the meeting, but I ran out of time and the meeting started. So, my questions are, can the armory be used for an actual
fire department? Could could it just be the fire department? Because if I'm not confused, you guys have basically decided that you can't harden the old building. You really there just can't really do much with that building, right? >> Well, I think that's what the CRA has
come today to apprise council of. I'd say the use of the building, maybe the fire chief to come and give us his idea on it. But in terms of the the the structural changes to the current facility and the renovations, I believe that's what CR is here for tonight. >> Yeah, because the last time I was inside that building was to visit Chief Hooks over 30 years ago, and I wouldn't have
thought even then that that you could do much to make it safe other than gut it. So, so my question is, have you all and and Mr. Like I said, I was trying to talk to Mr. Irvin, but we just ran out of time, so I have to ask my questions here. The CRA can't build a
new fire department till it's been off your list for three years, but they could renovate the current one. Could they renovate the armory? >> I'll let see attorney, but I don't see why not. To the extent that to the extent CRA
could renovate the armory will be a consideration if we think it is feasible to renovate that building into a suitable fire station. I'd have to defer to the chief if that's even a viable option though, right? >> I don't know that as it I mean it may well be that he tells us we've got to
tear the building down and start over. That's the same thing as building a new building. You certain point of renovation becomes new construction and that would be the concern. I don't know if we have the ability to get a fire truck inside that building or whether we'd even be able to. >> Yeah. And I'm I'm sure there'd have to be something extra built for that. But
has that has that discussion I know it was kind of broached a little bit, but has that discussion really been had yet with the fire chief? >> So, Madam Chair, >> go ahead. >> Chief Ross Sheffield can come up and ask question, but him and I have discussed before and I'm pretty sure stance on is
that that's not a viable option, but if Yeah, there's right there. So, what's the question? >> Can the armory be turned into a fire station? >> It could be. Um, but repairing a building, you know, goes by square foot.
So, it's a bigger square footage building. So, it cost across the board. >> It would just cost more money to be able to do that, right? >> Okay. So, with that said, I remember Mr. Henderson at a CRA meeting trying to get Chief Sheffield to come up to around $5
million worth of wish list. So, it seems like that would be a viable option. So, before even considering doing anything else with it, I would like to see you guys get a study, have someone come out and look at it, whatever. You know, like you said, get with Chief Sheffield, but
like you all say, the city's growing. You're going to need a bigger fire station anyway. And if the CRA was wanting to spend $5 million on it, it kind of sounds like a possible perfect solution to all the problems. They could spend the money now, not have to wait three years, and start getting our
firefighters in a in a place that is suitable for them. So, if you all are serious, truly serious, and I'm starting to believe you are, about wanting to keep the fire department and and do something about it, I think this should really
be pushed and considered. and I hope you all will decide to do that. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else from the audience? >> Miss Kit, >> Michelle Kit, I'm also for the Armory to be moved the fire station um over. This
is just my personal opinion. Since y'all own the land adjacent to it, if the current concrete will not hold the weight of the trucks in the water, you could actually build onto that on the one side to accommodate those trucks at
a lot cheaper rate than a whole new fire station. So, I think the armory needs to be looked at heavily and us keeping our fire station. I'm not against the American Legion having a city building or using a city building, but I think
that our need for the entire citizens is a little greater than a a group, but I still think that Kobe should go back and try to find something suitable for them. I I'm going off the top of my head. Boys, the old boy scout, girl scout, are
those being utilized? We uh so the at Florence Park there's two buildings at Florence Park Clay and 11th um one of those is being utilized by the Boys and Girls Scout um and then the other one is currently being utilized by city staff for backflow. Now those operations can be moved again Mr. Seabolt and I spoke
at the same building. Um the only concern that I would have there and again that's up to the council is it's the Legion's intention if I'm not wrong to have a cantina in the building right and so you're putting alcohol at a park so it will require fencing off separation. So, but we have talked about Yes.
>> Okay. Um, what what other buildings are empty in the city currently? >> That's that was what I was getting earlier. We have to go back through it and off the top of my head, none. I can't think of any at the moment. There may be one that I'm I'm missing. Um, but the other two facilities that we own that people occupy are the Emerald Coast Council on Aging, which is right here
across the thing. Okay. And then Tri County Community Council is in the building beside uh Dr. How's office city owns. Um, other than that, vacant buildings at the moment, I don't I can't think I'm talking my head. I'd have to go and check. Um, >> what about DOT? Are you utilizing all that out there
>> at the public workshard? >> Um, not all of it. I would say I would say probably some of it is not usable. That's why we don't. It's used for storage. Um, and also access point. We have find a way for them to get in and out of the yard. We do leave it locked. Um, so it it's possibility, but I I don't think any of the buildings make
fit uh fit for them. They're not the best. Well, I've been on the endur of saving the fire station and I'm still on that. And I and while I support our military, we we got to keep this building in case we can save this fire station and get us moved over because
the current building is in horrible condition if y'all have not viewed it. It is awful. And I think the valuation needs to come moving them over there. What that cost is versus the cost, which I know we're going to talk about probably a little bit later in this
meeting. What's what's the variance? And if that building was empty, would that be an option for them? >> Because they're not going to live in it. Correct. >> Live in live. >> The American Legion is not going to live in it. >> No. >> Okay. So, there's also maybe a possible
option. So, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else from the audience? >> Could you state your name for the record, please? >> Hello, my name is Ty Mather. Um, I'm with the American Legion Post 417. I'm the sergeant at arms. I didn't say with
arms because that's my normal catchphrase. Um, obviously tonight this we have no plans like we we didn't plan on anything just to drop in our lap. But what we do, we wanted to come up make it
a point that you as council understand we are servant hearts. That's what we're trying to do to the community as all branches of service. That's we love service and we love serving the community just like that's the reason you all sit up here. So, we're going to
go I guess regroup, figure it out and if there is anything that you find that a building, smaller property, land, whatever, we can build a pole barn. I got some pretty handy folks in the room with me. We have a lot of support. We just want to be an anchor for the
community of Definiac Springs to where we can give back to the people we live around. We want to help veterans. We want to help the community. And that's the whole goal of a building helps us solidify membership, which means we can go ahead and push forward to do good things for
the community. That's veterans, children, all the things that we're looking to do. So, if you guys have any questions, I gave you guys a list of things that you can review for what we've done so far in the three and a half years that we've been here and we've really hit it really hard the last
six, seven months and we've made a lot of impact. We've done a lot of good for the community and we just want a home to call our own so we can continue to do that. Drive up numbers for membership and then give back to the community and our veterans in the area. If you guys
have any questions, I'm down to answer anything. >> Thank you. Any questions? >> I'd just like to make a comment. I' I've read through the list that you've getting given us, Mr. Tai. Really appreciate your contributions to community and what you guys do. Um, none of us are against this at all. I don't
think it's just finding the right fit and the way that we can help you as you help us and everybody else. >> We 100% understand. We're we're trying to make it a point where all four veteran service organizations >> work together to do more for the
community. We want to be your we want all four veteran service organizations to be your beacon that you call first. >> We need help and that's the whole goal. We get a building. We're going to we're going to build a great group of people
in this town. And I'm my goal is to bring all of us together, all four organizations, just to increase and do what we can for the future of the FAC Springs and the veterans and the people in this community. So do you have any other things to ask? I'm down. Yes, sir. >> Um
until you find a location, would you be interested? Um one of y'all suggested uh at a very nominal rate uh the community center >> currently. Well, we'll go regroup. Right now, what we're doing is obviously
veteran support veterans. Uh we were using 4C and they closed and Battle Axe downtown has allowed us to host host our meetings there every month and we like to give back to the veteran
organizations that we have or veteran b veteran owned businesses. I'm I specifically am very big on that. So, we've been uh hanging out at Battle Axe right now, but I will talk to the commander. We'll all regroup as officers, figure out what we can do next. But right now, Battle Axe, they
don't charge us anything. We after our meeting is over, then we throw axes and have drinks. And I just try and stay out of everybody's way. The axes are pretty >> You should see some of these guys throw axes. It's pretty impressive.
>> I've been there. Thank you. >> Thank you. You guys have a good night. Thank you. >> Anyone else from the audience? >> Okay. We don't have a motion yet on the floor. So, do we want to make one to reject or >> No, we just >> have we make do we need one?
>> We do not need one at this time. It sounds like we're going to conduct our facility study and bring it back as part of that. >> Okay. >> And then ultimately, they said at this point in time, they're at battle axe. We they can come back to us if they need anything different. Okay. And do we need
to make a motion for the workshop or can we is that direction understood that we can >> No, I mean if the council's good with it, we can do it at our our regular schedule workshop before the second meeting of the month if everybody's comfortable with that. >> Any opposition to such a suggestion? Go ahead. >> I'm good with it. I just want to keep on
pace with the airport as well at the same time and make sure that we're keeping our finger on that as well. Could we could we have two in January? >> We can do one before the We can do one before the first meeting of the month if that's >> Would everybody like to do that? Have two in January. One for the airport and
one for the properties that we own for the fiveyear plan. >> I'm fine with that. I'm good with that. >> All right. Thank you. Let's move to the next item. >> I guess we're going to I'm thinking of the holiday season. Um do we want to have the airport first or second? I'm thinking first. Uh we may run into some
delay with time but if we want to do it that soon we can. >> I would say first. >> Okay Raphael we'll do the we'll do airport update workshop before the first meeting in January and then the second workshop of the month before the second meeting will be for city-owned properties.
>> Okay. Next item 4C4 executive search for the finance director. >> Thank you. So council I have you ask me to go out and get some quotes. I reached out to four companies provide executive search services. Uh, three of those four responded back to me and provided a
quote and some supporting documentation. Uh, those three are Sumpter, Pademic, and Balanced Workforce. Um, the I would say Sumpner is $18,000 with a $3,000 um per DM not to exceed. So, a
not to exceed amount of 21. Pademic is a flat fee of $22,500. And then balance workforce is a flat fee of $25,000. Um the first company, Sumpner, they provide a one-year guarantee uh at through the process. If someone gets
hired, one-year guarantee regardless of the reason that they may no longer be employed with the city within that one year. Uh Pademic, the second company provides a one-year guarantee uh in the case that the council removes that individual with cause or the individual resigns on their own. And then third
company, balance workforce um provides a 90-day guarantee. Uh similar to the two beginning ones, um you'll see again attached to all this some of the uh history of these companies and services they provided. I will say going through here, unless I miss them, um I do not
see where any of the firms have provided direct support in the hiring of finance director in the state of Florida. They've done it in other states. Um but they have done business in the state of Florida for city managers and other department head positions. So ultimately, it's up to the city council what you'd like to do moving forward,
but these are the three quotes I bring back that fall within the city council's uh direct spin authority. >> Did you have a recommendation before we have a discussion? >> Yes, ma'am. I mean, if we're going to move forward, I'd recommend we move forward with Sumpner. um not only do they have the less fee, but I have
personally interacted with the company uh a couple times uh in conferences just and them sitting in um forums and at their booths and things of that nature and also they've been very responsive in this process which all three have been very responsive as well. So they've been asked questions to better understand the city and the needs of the council.
Looking through their proposal, it seems pretty thorough in how they'll go about providing providing that search. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Beerbone. Claire, are we good with moving forward based on the city manager's recommendations? >> I think we are at this point based on us
having discussed just before. >> Okay. I'll make a motion uh to follow the city manager's recommendation to go out for uh Sumpter. >> I'll second that one. Um question. >> Yes.
>> How uh funding for the head hunters? Mhm. So, if you look at the schedule, you'll just about every single all three of them and some I'll give you the exact numbers. I'll pull it up, but you're you're looking at a uh roughly a three-month process from start to finish
in terms of the day they come or they get they get kicked off and gather information uh and then the day in which they provide you a list of finalist candidates and by the time you select someone. Now, that's not including the potential of, you know, notice to previous employer or moving if that's the case, things of that nature, but
you're looking about a 3-month timeline um regardless. And so, from October one, obviously, we've not we do not have a finance director at the moment. We've been paying that difference uh between Miss McDaniel, the accountant, and the finance position, which has been minuscule in terms of overall cost of that position to the city. And so we
would pay for this service from the unused funds of the position between October one and the day in which you you know hire the person. So because again you're looking at roughly six months from the new fiscal year in terms of funding that would be wouldn't be spent.
>> Anyone any other comments from the dis? >> Yes. Um >> Mr. Harrison >> something to think about you know and I would be com comfortable with with with doing this and might still be. I
just want us to think about something uh and and that is why we are not getting applicants. Um you know we have uh we have gone through Kobe you can you can tell us how many
finance directors in the last since 2019 2021 whenever the last few we've had um >> how many finance and then intermittent between those has been you know individual serve as interim
>> since I believe Miss Gibson was hired in 2019. >> 2019. >> That was prior to me, but I'm pretty sure it was in 2019, right? Yeah. >> So, so we've been we've been through we've been through several and and now
we're having trouble getting one. We spent months, you know, trying to fine-tune job description and qualifications and um we we still don't have any qualified applicants right now.
Um, so I I think we have to, you know, and again, if it comes down to spending 21, $22,000, whatever, and we get somebody hired, great. But I have I have been thinking a lot about this. Um, you
know, there's 411 municipalities in the state of Florida. And on average, there's about 100 finance director openings at any given time in the state. So if you just take a conservative
number of 15 applicants for those jobs, that's a pool of 1500 people, but that pool is actually smaller than that because those people are applying for more than one municipality job, right? They might be applying for five cities for a finance director position. So it's
a fairly small pool. And the reason I bring this up is because we are saying that a candidate must possess uh knowledge of the the Florida Uniform
Codes, right? Well, that's leaving out candidates from 49 states potentially. And so we are we are searching a a database of applicants from from the state of Florida and and
so you know I kind of think we're you know these are smart people. They wouldn't have the degrees and doing the kind of work they're doing uh if if they didn't have some intelligence. So in my view, you know, the state offers
courses in in these in these standards uh in in these codes. They offer them they even offer a daily a manual to use a reference manual to use in a hired position. So I don't know that we are not severely limiting our pool of
candidates um by having someone absolutely have to possess knowledge of the Florida standards because in my view they can learn those pretty easily and the information is available abundantly provided by the
state of Florida. So I I just uh think we need to you know we need we need to think about that. Um, and the other the other thing that might be hurting us a little bit is how we hire a
finance director. And from my what I understand and have found, the vast majority of cities in the state of Florida, the city manager hires and supervises, hires and fires a finance director, and
we are one of the few where the council does that. Now, I understand the history and the problems in in the past that we've had um and and the skepticism about um the council not having that control. But imagine what it's like to
work for five people, you know, and and if you're looking across the state of Florida, if you're you're a legit applicant, um, and you see that the vast majority of of cities um, rely on city manager to to hire and fire a finance director,
you're probably going to look for those jobs before you look for one where you have to answer to five people. And so I'm just saying I'm I don't know that's the case for for 100% of applicants, but we haven't got any applicants that are qualified yet. So, at some point we have to look at, well, is it something that
we could we could change and we could consider and think about and um I just wanted kind of y'all y'all's thoughts on that um before we move ahead with w with this and if there's anything that we need to
do to increase the pool of applicants um because these folks we're going to pay to do this, they're going to face the same challenges we've been facing. It's still the same problems. Um, so I just I just wanted to get your views on on this,
Madam Chair. >> Yes. So, I I there's a lot that Councilman Harrison I agree with with you on um having spoken to some recruiting professionals in the industry. Um the
the two main points of feedback that I got from from them and these are people that search nationally and place people nationally for for all types of jobs, you know, everything from engineers all the way up. Um they said that more than
likely um our pay range was low. Um and they also said that more than likely uh the requirements are too restrictive. Um, and and I I want to agree with you that I think we should we should look at
that because my opinion has always been and and I've agreed um to the changes to the ordinance in an effort to number one get it get it passed and get it out there, but number two is, you know, a little bit of reconciliation and trying
to trying to move move the ball down the field. But I agree the it really should be on us to hire the the finance director and to ask those questions of the finance director. We should we should probably streamline the requirements to say these this is the
bare minimum that you have to have and then this is preference. But it really should be on us to interview them and to really ascertain through the interview process. Do we feel like this is a a qualified candidate? and and that that
really should f rest on us as a council. I think maybe the the the problem where we uh have a have a different set of of viewpoints would be in you know as you as you acknowledged previously you know there's been some
concern about the reporting structure and and I based on my experience based on sitting in this chair for six years firmly believe that the finance director is a check and balance on the city
manager Because in the scenario where the finance director is hired by and fired by the city the city manager, you h you to me it's so easy to run into the issue of and I'm not again Kobe I have the utmost respect and I think you
are completely above board and this is not a a comment on Kobe but we have had issues in the past where I could very very realistically see this playing out. Hey, I want to buy this sole source. You think it's soul source, right? Right.
Right. And then all of a sudden it's Yes, sir. I agree. And and because that's direct chain of command, what what check and balances there? Um, you know, we if you look at the county
as as as an example, the county hires at at a board level their CFO, but then they have this the clerk as a check and balance as well. Not only do they have their CFO as a check and balance that they hire directly, but they have the
clerk as a check and balance on on their expenditures. and and I I worry that we will concentrate too much power. Um and and this is what we're elected to
do. We're elected to govern. We're elected to be a check and balance. We're elected to make sure that our dollars are spent. And we have the grand jury report as very as literal proof that it doesn't take much innuendo to call a grand jury. And for the five of us
sitting right here today to be testifying before a grand jury and I don't want to testify to a grand jury. I I trusted Kobe to tell me the right thing. I trusted Kobe or I'm sorry, >> let me the city manager because it may
not be Kobe, it may be whoever, right? and and and that's some of the testimony that was given previously was to the grand jury was well I I trusted the city manager at the time. I trusted the finance director at the time to tell me that things were going okay.
And we the the one thing that we can get hauled in front of a grand jury for the quickest is money. The one thing that I Todd Beerbon does not want to go sit in a jail cell for is
money. I don't want to go sit in a jail cell period. But I don't want to go sit in a jail cell because of mismanagement of public funds. So that's where I think that hiring the city the finance director is is still an imperative that's on us to do and and to to really
kind of, you know, put in the work on. So, I I I I welcome your your conversation on that for sure. >> Well, I I do I do understand that. You know, I I wouldn't want to sit before grand jury uh either, but you know, I have to ask, you know, why are there so
many municipalities in Florida that that that have the city manager hiring, you know, and and and firing the finance director. Um so, you know, at at on one hand, I think, well, you know, it's up to us. We
do we do hire the city manager and we have to hire, you know, somebody that we feel like is trustworthy and what have you. So, we we know we run into problems uh when five people are coming at a finance director, you know, that that's
a that's a hard uh that's a hard road to ho for a finance director to juggle five politicians, you know, and and their um their individual uh uh importance, you know, things that are important to them and their concerns and, you know,
pressuring a lot of politics can come into that position and I that that's My concern is that we have experienced that. That's part of our problem. >> Councilman Cosen, >> um I've got some questions uh for you
if you don't mind, Amy. Um we went from having a finance director with the highest level of education, a graduate from Walton County High School. and that was our finance
director. Is it possible that we went overboard and raising those standards and that's why we're having a hard time getting people? That's question number
one. Question number two is is Florida is as an important issue experience in Florida. Is it as important as I think it is? I'm not the expert
here. And the third question is this is your wheelhouse. This is this is your bread and butter. Where do you stand on should the finance director report to one person or six people? When
I say six, I mean the five council people and the city manager. This is what you've done all your life. What's your opinion? We need a finance director and I don't want to go backwards with the first
portion that you had mentioned about whoever was sitting in there at one point in time. This is irrelevant at this point, but Florida does, in my opinion, have a lot of nuances. I had the uh interim finance director send me what we spent in the last year. Last
year when we were trying to get caught back up, we paid 1,500 hours to third-party CPA firms to come in and help us get from the position we were in to where Danielle could take it from there and then she got us to where we
are today. So, it takes a lot of knowledge, a lot of nuance Florida laws. So, that's one issue. I agree with Councilman Harrison on uh or I'm sorry, Mr. Mr. Bomb, it might have been you, but whoever said maybe the pay range is a
little bit low because I know that when I applied what I wanted at the time, which was I think Clay said 2019, you know, I I understand what I would have asked for and what I asked for to report to six people is very difficult because
you look at 1500 hours, 280 hours in a in a calendar year for a 40-hour work week. 1,500 of that's dedicated to this year-end process. That's a lot of hours and a lot of what they need to do every
single month. Um, reporting to six people and always getting detracted. And I say yes, we partake in the hiring process because we can squeeze out a lot of these questions and know whether they're qualified. But at that point in time, once they're hired, I would love
to see it be fall upon the city manager to manage that person's time and energy. And you know, every month they have to, one of our policies is they have to bring forward the expenditures list. So I think we could check
to to your concern of, you know, we have the opportunity to look at certain things on that expenditure list that comes to us every month. here's what we spent in the prior month and if we have questions or we see things, you know, there's some red flags, we can we can uh
tag those and ask questions at that time. So, um I don't think that yes, we might be excluding people from 49 other states, but Florida is very particular and we're very different than all these other 49 states
as far as what we are to concern. So, that's my contribution to that. Mhm. >> Councilman Beerbal. >> Thank you, Madam Chair. So, I I don't I don't disagree that the county or I'm sorry, the city spent 1500
hours trying to bring it up. But as someone that was was there for that, been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, a lot of those problems, in my opinion, and this is Todd Bevon's personal opinion, but a lot of those problems and
those 1500 hours that racked up, number one, that that's not going forward. We're we're caught up. Danielle does a fantastic job. So, I don't know that that is that is a true projection going forward. But number two,
and this goes back to some other comments that were made, you had two out of the three finance directors that were CPA, had all the education requirements,
met every tick box we could imagine, and one had to be asked to leave. the other one resigned. But as someone that sat on this council during that tenure and post
tenure, I was regularly apprised of the issues that were having to be addressed by a person that was a CPA. And and so I think it's important to have
education. I think it's important to have credentials, but I don't think it's the only thing by which we should judge people by. I think we should we should engage with with the the hiring process, but I'm not so sure
that this this idea that, you know, reporting to to to five people, reporting to six people, I'm I'm just not so sure that it is what is excluding candidates because we've had applicants in the past. We have
current applicants right now that to Councilman Harrison's point, they meet every box except for the the Florida requirements. But Councilwoman Hein, I completely agree with you. There's a lot of nuance because we had a previous finance director that used to look at me all the time when I sat over in the old
city hall and would meet with them and discuss with things with them and they would say, "Well, this is how we did it in Alabama." And I would say, "We're not in Alabama anymore." So, while it is not the end all beall, I
completely agree with with uh Councilwoman Heavlin's assessment that having someone with some Florida experience is is is very very important to me. But Councilman Harrison, I agree with you that maybe that's something that we can say, "Hey, you don't have
it, but you demonstrate all the other attributes that we need and can we through the interview process because I remember I was I was hiring an IT help desk person one time and I interviewed several candidates and there was uh there was even one candidate that from
from a technical perspective, they had the more they had more technical knowledge on their resume, but I didn't hire them. Instead, I hired someone that had a history degree. Why did I hire someone with a history degree instead of an IT degree? Because during the interview, he said, "I like
learning. I like learning history. I like learning things of today. I like being able to look back." And that to me as a manager spoke to that person's ability to pick up what we were doing and run with it versus hiring someone in that had a lot
of technical debt, so to speak. So again, I I'm I'm a huge advocate for we retain the right to hire and fire. The grand jury recommendation that came out prior to my tenure here on the on the council
addressed the issue of there being a lack of clarity in the reporting structure and all of that. And that has when I right after I got elected, we clarified that. We said for the Monday through Friday, dayto day, did you show up to work today? You know, did you
follow policy? Did you do X, Y, and Z? The council didn't want to have to do that publicly because if they are a public, if they're hired by us and they're not managed by the city manager, then we would have to do their review and make all of those disciplinary actions out in public. Well, the council
at the time, I think, correctly felt that we only want to be able to have to do that to one employee. So from a day-to-day perspective, we took the grand jury's advice and said for day-to-day type of operations, did you show up to work? Did you do your job? Did you provide what was requested in a
timely fashion, etc. Did you meet all the the job qualifications? That is the job of the city manager to manage you in that aspect. But when it comes to the actual finances, that's when the finance director still
has to look at all five of us and make sure that they are producing what we need to produce. And and the example that was brought up was the the the monthly expenditure report. One of my big bugaboos about the street painting out there that we've had to cover up with black
paint was the fact that $50,000 was moved from a different line item into the a line item for the city council, our executive line item. It was moved by the current finance director at the behest of the city manager to move
it into that line item to purchase the paint. and that was grossly not what was represented. So those are the kind of issues and that's why I'm fighting for the finance director to report to us so that we can continue to have that oversight. We we
can be able to to engage with the finance director without necessarily having to say, "Cobody, can I go talk to him?" Because in the past during budget season under an old old city manager, I actually said, "I would like to go speak to the finance uh director about this this budget." and a city manager told me
no. So that's that's that's an issue and that's that's why I'm so passionate about making sure that we retain that that right >> since this is a uh issue on the executive search. Do we want to have
this conversation >> to continue because I don't think that's not going to be part of the motion. I believe so. >> But but it's an important part of this consideration. Now, let me say, you know, I I I never said I'm I'm against, you know, putting this out for somebody
to find us someone. I just ask that we consider these things and even the council hiring or or city manager hiring, but the requirement of having uh you know, possessing knowledge of of Florida standards. I get it. That'd be great in a perfect world, but obviously
we're not in a perfect world because we don't have any applicants. So all all I put this conversation out there for is to say, you know, let us take a a look at why do we not have applicants? Is it the salary? You know, um these highly
qualified, 100% all the way around qualified people like we'd like to have. They're looking at bigger cities, better paying jobs. We know that. So we have that challenge, but we can't pay those kind of salaries. Uh we do have a person on staff now. It's my understanding now that Danielle's going to has agreed to
stay on with us as accountant, not as interim city manager. She is aware of all those those standards. She's been doing it. She's pulled through the audit. So, it's not like somebody would be coming in. I'm not suggesting she do OJT for a finance director hire, but these are not standards that can't be
learned. The state offers them readily. So, that's all I'm asking is is consideration of those types of things when we go into this process. do we do we want to consider any changes whatsoever uh so that they have success in hiring of somebody. So I didn't mean to extend
this into a long um you know dragged out conversation. It's just something that's been on my mind and I just don't like when we we put a job out we spend as much time all these months of of of of fine-tuning this description and now we can't hire somebody. So it makes me
wonder where's the hiccups? where where's the problems and what can we do before we pay somebody to find the same experience that we've been having. That's all >> any any comments from the audience? >> Miss Kit,
>> Miss Randy, you'll be next. >> Okay. So, I'm going to go out on a bigger limb and say that I don't think we need a boss hog mentality. And I think Chief Sheffield should answer to y'all. I think the finance director should answer to y'all and Kobe and be
in line with the chief of police and all of those. I mean, he's elected so he wouldn't be the same. But I'm saying all those positions because you're putting people in positions that need to go ask for possibly a million dollars or plus as Chief Sheffield, but he also risks
getting fired by one person. And so when you're talking about millions, I think that person should answer to you. So, I do believe that the finance director should answer to all five of you and that there should be a great working relationship with Kobe, but also you lose that boss hog mentality that they
can both tell on each other. No offense, Kobe, but if one feels like the other isn't doing the job, they have that ability to come to you and say, "Hey, here's what's really going on." Where if they do that and they're under one person, they risk losing their job. So, I want y'all to consider that we
already have that in the county. It's been created a boss hog mentality and we don't want that. We don't want that. So I would say if you aren't getting applicants, we also have to look at are we being a
little crazy up here. I mean, no offense, but maybe there are other reasons we're not attracting the right people. So let's put forth our best foot. Let's go back out there and try.
But I am against the finance director with the classifications you've asked for being underneath our um city manager. And I'm going to say we did hire someone in the past. We've hired a few people in the past that
there is no way that person would want to be under our city manager. No offense. You can think of a few of them, I'm sure. Um but I just really think y'all need to really consider that about those people need to be equal. They need to be able to come to you in confidence and not risk losing their job. And so
does Chief Sheffield. Thank you, >> Miss Lightner. >> Well, I didn't come here to talk about this. Um I don't even know how the city really does this kind of stuff. But I do completely agree with Councilman Harrison about opening up to out of
state. I think it would be beneficial with all the problems you've had keeping someone to even pay a salary for them to have a few months to get educated on Florida laws. Um, you are opening up a lot more opportunities possibly for someone who might even take a job at
what you're able to pay them, you know, just to get to Florida. Um, so that's the first thing. The second is so right now the finance director is hired and fired by the city manager.
>> Incorrect. >> Okay. How is it currently? >> Through the through the council. >> The council appoints and consult. So the ordinance reads the council appoints the finance director in consultation with the mayor. >> Okay. >> The council up until the grand jury report was the sole basis for
termination of the finance director. The council adopted an amended ordinance in response to the grand jury report to clarify certain reporting authorities. So the council can fire the finance director, but day-to-day responsibility over that position now reports to the city manager who can discipline and then
even in circumstances where it's necessary fire the finance director. If the finance director violates personnel policies, the council then has the option if it wants to rehire them. Of course, council takes that right. But so the council is the one who hires in constitutional mayor. Firing can be by
it. >> Okay. So currently right now are you guys all when you have a finance director are you all going to that finance director and asking questions and saying I want this and I want that or >> they they technically can't under existing policies. They can ask general
questions get ready for a meeting but they can't go >> inundate the finance director under the existing city policies to the extent that they're unable to perform that job. that requires them to go to the city manager. The report is not to five councilman. It's very very clear. It is
to the city council as a collective body in these meetings. >> Okay. That's what I wanted to be sure of because when Councilman Bram was saying he wanted to be able to to communicate more. That's kind of something that I see as a as a problem because you may want them to do this and you want them
to do that. And I thought if you guys are doing that, no wonder no one's coming. But in short, I just agree with Councilman Harris and I think you guys should really consider opening it up to out of state, even if you have to pay a salary for what, a month to three months
for them to learn Florida laws. Maybe that way we can get someone here that stays a little while. Thanks. Anyone else from the audience? We have a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor? I >> I
>> I >> I >> motion passes. Next item is uh discussion and direction on November 24th uh meeting. >> Yes, it's up to the council. It's up to you all uh if you'd like to have that
meeting or not. Um at this time, I mean, obviously, I don't know exactly what could go on there. I prepped staff either way. So, it's up to the council if you'd like to have it or not. We just had discussions in the past. So, it's very last opportunity to decide.
>> Of course, as y'all know, I have uh requested that that we consider cancelling that. But Mr. beer bomb. >> So, I I won't I won't try to quote it directly, but the gist of u a previous
uh council members um opinion on this was that we were elected to to show up to technically 24 meetings a year and um so we should take every opportunity to to to have those meetings. Obviously, some some fall on holidays and some just
aren't conducive. But, um, as I discussed with Kobe, while they've kind of anticipated not having it, I say we have it. And if it's a quick one, maybe we could set a record. But, I think we should be I think we should be about the city's business and and if I think
that's far enough away from Thanksgiving that we could we could still address any current needs, receive the city manager's report because it typically happens on the second uh meeting of the month. And if there's any other issues, then you know it it we can conduct city
business and move on. >> Anyone else? >> We do a lot more than 24 meetings a month. That's right. >> I mean a year. We do uh budget, we do workshops, you know, we far exceed that 24 meetings. So I think the staff
deserves uh and we to have Thanksgiving off. >> Anyone else? >> I I'm fine with having it. I mean, if it's understandable if if some of us aren't going to be here, um, that's going to happen throughout the year anyway. If there's things he needs
direction on so that they can get it done, then we'll be here. And if not, then we'll get through it quick. Like Todd said, I'm good either way. But I'm fine with that. >> Mr. Harrison, do you have >> Yeah, I mean, our all of our meetings have been long. Uh we we we always have
plenty of uh plenty of things to take care of and um I I don't have a problem with having a meeting at all. I haven't missed one since I took office. Um so I'm here to do the work and if we have work to do then then I say we can do it.
Uh that's just me. >> Anyone else? Is there a motion? >> Do you require a motion? Well, if you're going to keep the meeting, no. If you're going to cancel the meeting, yes. >> Okay. >> Motion to cancel the meeting.
>> Is there a second? >> That's okay. >> Fails for lack of a second. >> So, we will be having a meeting on November the 24th. Okay. Uh let's take a five minute break and then we'll um Is is everybody good
or do we need a break? >> Five minutes. >> Okay. Let's take a five minute break and then we'll uh rejourn for a public hearing. >> Be quick. It's just a resolution. Okay. The next thing on the agenda is going to be a public hearing. Uh
do I have to have a motion to open it or >> No. >> Okay. Not a >> uh Mr. Townsen. So uh this is resolution 202516 and it is for to adopt the final amended budget for fiscal year 20125. So I'll
just give the quick numbers and then back down the sheet. So the adopted budget for fiscal year 2025 was $49,85,693. The final amended budget was 51,10,189 for a difference of1,924,496. So ultimately we're looking to adopt
resolution 202516 to amend the fiscal year 25 budget. You will see at the bottom of the PDF the final two pages is a breakdown of the changes of the dollar amount. So if there's any questions of those, I can address that. If not, we're
just looking for adoption. >> And this is just the standard year end true up for uh fiscal year 25. Correct. >> It is. >> Okay. Any any motion or >> motion to approve? >> Second. >> All right. We have a motion and a second. Any comments?
Any comments from the public? Hearing none. All in favor? >> I I >> I. >> Motion passes. And let's close the public hearing and go back to our regular agenda. Item six, a request to
be on the agenda. Is Miss Brooke here? >> I didn't see her. >> She may have uh had to go out. I guess I I don't know the full details of it, but Reese Across America, they did this last year as well. They came out and put the Reese at Magnolia Cemetery. Um and so looking at their agenda item, they I
believe they're seeking approval uh from the council to do the same event at the cemetery this year as well. And I can give you the exact dates on December 13th. Motion to approve. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Any comments from the dis?
Any from the audience? All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Motion passes. Next item. 6B. Josh Irwin with the CRA. Request direction on the fire department.
>> Josh Irvin for the record. Good evening, Madam Chair, council, members of the public. I'm here before you with a request for some additional information from the council. As we discussed uh earlier tonight, we have been working uh with an engineering consultant to get a proposal for the renovations to the
existing fire station. Through that scope of work provided by the city, there are a lot of structural changes required in order to extend the bays and things of that nature. We did receive a proposal for $77,50 uh from the consultant to do the design
work for those renovations. Through those meetings, u it was kind of discussed to us that the better position would be to build a new fire station than it would be to try to alter the existing fire station. So, took that back to my board and and my board would like some further direction from the
council on whether you all would would prefer a new fire station or if you would like us to continue with renovating the existing fire stations or neither. So, that that's kind of what I'm here for tonight. >> Questions from the DA? >> Yes, ma'am.
>> Mr. Scholars. So from speaking with with some members of the CRA and and some others, it does seem that the the work at the fire station for the renovations is pretty extensive. Um, I guess my question would
be for for the purposes of this discussion would be the percentages of the fire station, the existing fire station that would have to be renovated as to whether or not it can even be entertained by the CRA.
And and to to know that realistically, you got to have the work from the engineers to begin with, wouldn't you? >> Uh, I don't guess I understand the question. >> The So, we have a structure that needs to be repaired. It's within the CRA's
purview to be repaired, but it's 90 90% of the structure needs to be built, rebuilt, or repurposed or redesigned or however we want to term it. But nevertheless, have we reached that threshold? Do you think that we're that
far that bad off? Or is it something that that is doable from the CRA's perspective? Well, I think based on the conversations that I've had with the the engineering consultants, specifically the structural engineers, anything's possible. The challenge with that particular building
that they've conveyed to me is the age and the lack of structural drawings or or structural specifications for them to use as a basis for their new design. So, some of the um additions that were identified in the scope of work for extending the bay, for example, uh would
require new columns to be put in. uh also would require some modifications to the red iron of that particular awning. They don't know what that structural integrity is of that red iron, nor do they know what the structural integrity uh or the capacity of the foundation
underneath that is. So they're basically going into this blindly and having to spend quite a bit of time uh and money to explore what's there to be able to get to a place where they can make a recommendation or a design perhaps on how to accomplish the goals or the
objectives of this scope that was provided to us. So I I think to answer your question they both so we met with two structural engineers both indicated that they would be more than happy to to help us with this. I think through those conversations they advised that it may
be better suited to spend those dollars designing a new station than it would be to alter the existing station because you would probably money ahead and better happier with the product in the end. >> Okay.
>> Anyone else on the dis? >> Mr. I went down to Josh's office about a week or so ago and we kind of had this discussion. I'm guessing everybody sitting at the dis has been through the fire
department. So I would suggest a new building. And I asked Josh, how would we do a new building if we kept it at the same location? Because if it's serving the city of Defunia Springs, it is about as
centrally located as you can get. And he suggested that you could do a simultaneous uh build while still utilizing the existing. And during the course of the construction,
there would be it would come a time to where they would be able to vacate the existing building and demo it and move into the part of the building that was completed. Is am I missing something or is that about what we said?
>> Yeah, I mean I I think there there is some possibility there. It really depends. uh there there is enough room on that site I think to accommodate a new building uh while the um you know existing station remains operational. Uh if you were to replace the fire station
uh in the exact location uh you know obviously that would be a little bit more difficult but if if the city has the opportunity to utilize the entire parcel and maybe move that station here or there I think there's enough room to accommodate new construction and leave the old one there while you you know are
building it. And if this is something that we really want to consider and talk about, uh, we don't need to build it for current day population. We need to build it for growth so that it'll be there for decades. Um,
Madam Chair, >> I'd like to I'd like for the CRA to consider building this a new fire station. >> Mr. Sconurs. >> Thank you, ma'am. Uh, one of the pieces to I guess the biggest part that I'm struggling with this and
and you probably will too, Mr. Cosen, is the fact that we know the conditions of the station today. We know we have to remove the personnel from that environment or give them a new environment to get into to minimize the health concerns that could come from
staying in the existing fire station. So with that being said and us having removed the fire station from the capital or the um the SIP now we got to look at the fact of that's three years delay and I don't think that we can
avoid this for three years. So that's the reason why I was bringing up the armory earlier with that piece is do I think that that's the ideal site long term? Probably not. But at least it gives us a place to offset them for right now until we can build a new fire station because I'm in agreement with
you. I think we need to build one. How do we come up with the funds or the ability to do so? Either wait three years or not wait three years. The other thing is kind of what Councilman Harrison's brought up in the past with um State Representative
Abbott is the where we're at in the current state with the land that Harson Field sits on and that being state land. It's my understanding all of the land that the armory the old armor is on now as well as the health department and those surrounding lots right there is the cities. So realistically those
properties are already free and clear at this point for us to consider moving forward while we're still in limbo waiting on these. So tonight's meeting, much like many of the other ones, we have systems compact or impacting systems because there's certain things we're trying to do over here that's
going to impact what we can do over there. And Josh is seeking guidance and advice. I'm seeking guidance and advice on how to move forward with it to be honest with you. >> Mr. Beerbomb, before you start, can I add my comments also and then you're
next? Um, I too kind of think this is a premature discussion from my standpoint only because Mr. Abbott, our representative, is currently working on what's going to happen to that field. And I don't I think it's premature. Now, we're coming forward in January. We're
going to say, "Hey, here's all of our assets. Here's what our potential is." And there might be something that comes up in that that we can figure out. So, I I'm really concerned about giving direction at this point because I'm thinking in the next six to nine weeks,
we're going to have some more information that's going to be crucial to our decision making, I believe. Um, so I'd like to wait until January before we make a firm decision on or give direction um for those other properties
that are now potentially available like the Armory. Um I I am a little bit confused about the conversation on I I am unaware of anything that's the matter with that building. So do we have some kind of report that we're talking
about having to move those firemen to a different location? Did I miss something? >> It was pretty much the report that was given to the CRA at their meeting with the uh photos that Mr. Hamilton I think it was Mr. Hamilton presented that day and the things that we saw then.
>> Okay. So, that's my bad. Okay. Um, and I don't know, I'm just going to throw this out there. This is just a thought that I had. I don't know after we had our airport workshop meeting earlier that this is even a viable option. But, you know, a lot of Florida cities who have airports also have a
fire >> station at their airport. And have we ever considered >> Yes. >> if we move forward to do that? And if so, then potentially perhaps when we meet with these properties that in January when we have this workshop that
let's discuss that a little bit further. Maybe you can educate me. I don't necessarily need to have that done tonight, but I was just thinking, you know, a lot of these Florida cities that have airports have their fire department right there on their airport uh grounds. So, >> that's an excellent idea. >> Anyway, those are my thoughts. So, Mr.
Beerbomb, >> thank you, Madam Chair. Um, sorry, let me collect my thoughts for a second. the I I do want to go back and and put on the record again that in 2019
as a council it was voted on unanimously to take some unanticipated revenue that year and spend $50,000 on a plan to come up with a joint police fire station on the property that the city exclusively owns just on the other side of the
armory building that was the old health department. Um the police chief worked uh very hard behind the scenes with the county to get that building demolished and all of that uh rubble hauled off. Um there was there was a lot to that. I I
won't rehash a lot of that, but suffice to say he did a lot of work and and uh the county was a very gracious partner with us in that and hauling that building off and that was uh pretty big for us. Um, unfortunately, we never received any sort of actual planning
document from that. Um, I'm certainly open to considering the armory as as a temporary location for our our firemen, um, if necessary. But what I I keep hearing from Josh over and over and I, you know, have have listened very
carefully to that is there's no point in putting any kind of money into the existing building because there's so many unknowns and it's going to be an absolute can of worms. Am I in favor of improving the conditions for our firefighters? Yes. I
want to say that again. I am in favor of improving the conditions for our firefighters. I want to be on the record as that I think that we need to take a systematic approach. We have much like what's been recognized here already. There are a lot of other things that are
out and so making a decision now um and even to a certain extent giving direction to the CRA is maybe premature at this time. I think that um it's off the CRA the CIP. So there's a clock ticking on that in terms of building a
new building. But in terms of renovation, I don't even think that we we know what renovations like if we were, you know, the report that got brought up a couple seconds ago that was provided. Um, if we were to go and address that, we don't even have a dollar figure for that at the moment
before us. But I go back to what I requested and I as far as I know there was consensus from the council because I believe the city manager is working on it was for both the fire chief and the police chief
to bring back a five and a 10-year plan. And to me, part of that plan would be addressing the need the the immediate need for our firefighters and the long-term need for our firefighters and then how to fund that. How are we going to fund that? Is
that a a cooperation with the CRA? Is that some other mechanism? And I I I won't wait off into into all that tonight because I don't think that's fair and appropriate right now. But suffice to say, we've got a lot out. And I think maybe the best the best course
of action is to request the CRA to simply understand that we've got a lot out and to hold tight until we can get more information. >> Anyone else from the dis before I invite the public? Anyone from the public? Miss
Lightner. How many city council members have met recently with Tracy Boss, the chief of Walton County Fire Rescue? >> Miss Latner, I work with him daily. No, I mean met with him in this aspect.
Anybody? >> Nope. >> I have not. >> Okay. >> I have not. >> Okay. >> Nope. >> Okay. Thank you. Um I I understand the need to wait to see,
but like you all have said, your firefighters are are living in terrible, deplorable conditions right now. And it feels like you're just And I'm I'm not I'm I'm not accusing. I'm saying it feels to me at this point
like you're kicking the can down the road long enough to say, "Well, we tried, but but we've got to just throw our hands up and give it over to the county." That's what it feels like. In the last CRA meeting when the debt issuance was brought up, I didn't hear a
mention of the fire department. It was all the amphitheater and and the alleyways. It doesn't feel like anyone is actually trying to do something to help the fire department. It sounds like we're just coming up with an excuse for
every single thing. I'm I'm very disappointed that no one said, "Well, let's give the direction of finding out what would it cost to get this armory in shape for a fire department since no one else seems to have a better idea." It doesn't feel
like you all are listening. It feels like you're saying the words. Some of you are saying the words you need to say, but you're not really planning to take any action. I hope I'm wrong, but I hope that everyone in the city and everyone in the county is paying attention and understands that this
affects us all. We cannot lose this fire department. It cannot go under the direction of Walton County Fire Rescue. And that's not because Walton County Fire Rescue is bad. They're wonderful. It's because we need all of these separate entities working together with
their mutual agre aid agreements. I I don't know how many times or how many ways to say it. I don't appreciate being called a gaslighter. I don't appreciate being told that I have an agenda. Anyone and everyone who knows me knows that my agenda is the safety and well-being of
this entire county because that's how I got involved in all this nonsense to start with was trying to help with the volunteer fire departments because of what they did for me and what I know would have happened without them. So don't ever call me a gas lighter again. Please don't ever tell me that I have an
agenda. I've just told you what my agenda is. What y'all need to do is get off of your behinds. Quit making excuses if you didn't have a better plan tonight. The plan should have been, "Let's see what we can do with this armory." But nobody said it.
>> Miss Kit, the Before you start, Miss Kit, I'd like to uh recognize Mr. Harrison. >> Well, you you are wrong that that no one up here cares about the fire department. >> I didn't say no one. >> Um I'm I'm not going to argue with you.
Um but we do have things in action. We are taking plans. I asked Senator uh Representative Abbott about pursuing the harvest and field property which he is working on. Tim Parsons told me that a few minutes ago. Uh he is steadily
working on that in Tallahassee for for this city. He believes in it. Uh I believe in it. There's others that believe in it. We know that if we own that property, it frees us to do many more things with the fire department, including get grant money and and build
one if necessary there. >> But that's that's that is that is not not true for us to build it. It is true for the CRA to build it. They can't build it in three years. Am I correct? >> That is true. >> That is correct.
>> So, >> I think we got it under control now. Thank you. So, you know, we do care. We're not kicking it down the road. Um, there's a lot of things in in the works and a lot of things in the air. Uh, we can we can start thoughts. The thoughts
of the CRA doing this was the CRA's idea to spend money to remodel it to make the living quarters uh better for our fire chief. We all acknowledge that needs to be done. We have all been through there. Um, I toured it probably my first week
or two on the city council. Uh, and I haven't forgotten it. It burned in my brain. And we know those things need to be addressed. But, you know, we have to work, let these things work out. We're not kicking anything down the road. This is a council that's actually trying to
figure it out and address it. Um, I know that there's a lot of people in this city that wants to keep this fire department. Um, and and I think I think we should keep our fire department. I'm one of those people. I mean, it so I'm I'm doing my part to do everything I can
to make that happen. It's just a timeconsuming process. Um, and we can't help that. It doesn't make us bad people or kicking down the road or lying or whatever we want to be accused of. >> Miss Kit. >> Okay. I want to make a statement. There is one person at this dis that has been
to the sheriff's department. Don't make me bring back the text messages to prove it. So, um, that's statement. I'm not going to call them out, but they y'all all received the text messages of whom I initiated that conversation. I believe it was with Austin Pew. So, I do want to
point that out. Um, secondly, I am in favor of the Armory as a temporary. Here's my concern, and I've got two. One is we may not gain that um building unless we keep the fire department there. I think that was one of the
contingencies. So, tearing it down and maybe rebuilding it might be. Am I wrong on that? That that was what kind of what um I drew a blank on his name. Um Abbott was looking at was us leaving it there. That's one of the reasons we
might have gotten the property. And maybe I'm wrong on that. >> I'm not sure, but go ahead and finish your conversation. I I think that was one of the things is to keep it was that the other thing is on our CIP at one time on the old um health department
that was a combined station. So this may be a legal question. Did y'all update that CIP to be a fire station? >> We did and Mr. Townside looked at it. I even had him pull it up one more time here tonight. Um it says new fire station. >> New fire station. Best I recall that was updated after the police department
moved to their current location on this campus. >> Yeah, I believe that was Yeah. 22 or 23. We we took the police station off of it because of the new campus. >> Had we not, it would have been a completely separate issue and just building fire station would have been right within CRA's funding without a
three-year reap. >> That's where I was going. >> It was changed and it is currently the current list where it was removed was removed verbatim and I know we >> Do you know what year it was removed? because I know we just did this. >> We just removed it >> this year. Okay.
>> So, you got a threeyear count from the current CI >> from 2025. >> So, it would be 2028 before. Okay. All right. I missed that. Um I'm all in favor of y'all relocating those firemen because the conditions are terrible.
Even if it's a temporary three years into the armory and then sell the armory or whatever you want. But I I think that's we we got some questions for Abbott and we've got some questions on what what would it cost to get us into
that armory building temporarily because I I mean there's a huge big room, but can the trucks get in there? What's the what's the things that have to be adjusted? And I'm not considering the county in any of this. So, just so y'all know, I'm talking about us keeping our
fire station. So, um, but I think we need to look at that and maybe I don't know. Um, I request I know I can't make a motion, but I request that y'all look at that within the next 45 days and get back. Like, is it feasible? I mean, if it's not feasible, there's no point
talking about it. Just the question is, is it feasible to everyone involved, the city, the firemen? So, that's all I have. >> Thank you. Anyone else from the audience?
>> Seeing none, anyone else from the DAS? >> Madam Chair. >> Yes. >> Here's something I'd like for the DAS to weigh in on. Everybody's got an opinion on what's best for the fire department. We have our opinion. The public has their
opinion. Um, but nobody's asked the expert. Would it be possible or would you entertain the idea of um having Chief Sheffield step forward and tell us what he thinks is best for the fire department so that we can help him?
>> Chief, do you want to come up? >> And as the chief's coming up, I'm not going to speak for him. Council be spoke about the 5 to 10 year. Chief and I have put together chief's provided that preliminary 5 to 10 year. Um our next step is to work through um sort of an analysis. I think one of the questions was also funding, right? What are some
options of the funding? So him and I are going to work through um some opportunity some what that looks like for us and different opportunities for that. Um so we have started on the plan and we're working on the funding analysis now. But I'll let Chief speak on >> just to uh clarify are you talking about the joint fire police or you just
talking only fire? >> No. So I believe when we talked about everybody agreed to bring back a five to 10 year plan for the fire department as a whole and then options on how we >> Okay. the one that councilman beer bomb had brought up about 2019. >> No, I think we moved on from the >> Thank you for that clarity, Chief.
>> Okay. So far as the fire station we're at right now and the list that I provided to our city manager on the repairs and stuff to me that's just a living document. It can be adjusted to make it, you know, as feasible not doing all the repairs or force the extensions
and see if we can still stay there. Does that building have life in it left? Yes. uh because it cost my so-called list that can be funded completely. It's going to cost a lot more than a new station most likely. I won't put a dollar dollar figure on that going to
the armory. Will the trucks go into the army? It it will go into the army armory. Um I think years ago they used to have it was a >> five tons >> reserve and I believe they drove their big trucks in that armory if I can remember correctly. So, does how much
does it going to cost to get fixed? I have no clue. But would it cost more than our existing station? That what some architect would have to look at and see what what needs to be done to it. >> Are you saying inside the building your fire truck would fit or inside the fencing?
>> Inside it has a big garage door in the back already. >> Um, it can be modified, but the the trucks will fit in there >> and and it would be on the uh basketball court. >> On the basketball court, yes. Okay.
>> Chief, what can we do right now to help our fire department? Not 90 days from now, but what can we start working on? And like right now, >> I would like to get with our city manager and we can uh go over this list that um I submitted to him and we can
have a discussion on it. >> Thank you. >> Okay. >> So, right now it looks like we have uh direction that's saying we wish to wait. Is that accurate on the DAS? this is a premature discussion and and even though we want the CRA to um help us with this
issue, we're just not there yet. We're almost there, but we do need a little bit more time to put all these pieces together because it all impacts the final decision that's going to be made uh for the best interest of all the city. So, uh are you good with that, Josh?
>> Yeah, absolutely. I'll bring that back to my board. And I just want to say this is very likely my last meeting uh where I'll be here in this official capacity and just want to let you all know that I've appreciated working with you and certainly going to miss you. Um but thank you for allowing me to come here and spend time with you.
>> Josh, we appreciate you. How many years have you put in for >> three years? >> Three years. Thank you so much for your service. We really are going to miss you when you uh >> go. Thank you, Josh. >> Chief, how are you? >> Good. So, I attend quarterly um meetings
with our insurance provider, League of Cities and FMIT and actually sit on one of their board of directors for law enforcement. And then sitting back there, it kind of hit me. Um one of the leaders of that group, Sam Slay, has always talked about this um
thing that we have with our insurance and it's a group called Synergy. And I was it made me think. So, I started looking them up on um league's website and basically what they do if we had a hurricane that comes in here and destroys city hall, police department,
fire department, they will come in and set up a temporary um >> unit like in the housing and all kinds of stuff. So, um as I was reading it um on online, it talks about um what they
can do. um says they advocate helping bringing a balance of transparency to risk management and claim solution. I don't know if this is something that we could I I don't know all the conditions. I know some of the conditions, but I don't know what risk management steps
they might be able to provide. And they actually might it might be benefit us to reach out to them and say, "Hey, we've got mold issues, we've got this issue, we got whatever it might be, water intrusion." and they might actually be able to set you up some temporarily office space housing type solution
there. So, it might be might be beneficial to reach out to our insurance company and say, "Well, they can't help us with synergy." >> So, just thought I don't know. I've never never had to use it, but I I know he speaks about it every meeting we go to. So, >> would everybody be okay if Kobe reached
out to them to see if there's an alternative in the uh near solution and near future? >> That'd be great. Kobe, you good with that? fire and chief and I'll get together and give Lisa. >> All right. Thank you. So, uh that concludes this portion. So, let's open
it up to citizens comments. Um please when you come to the podium, state your name for the record and please limit your comments to no more than three minutes. Anyone from the audience like to partake? Seeing none, we'll close that portion of the uh agenda. The next item uh is our
city attorney for the Miley abandonment. I'm bringing this back. Um Mr. Miley um has indicated that he has now secured the original information that was needed in the signoffs needed to move forward the abandonment. The council attached to
your packet you have the map of where this is. Um the council previously approved it provided he got all the necessary signoffs on the properties and adjoining properties. Of course that was several iterations of this council ago. So, I wanted to represent it to the
council at this time. I'm assuming he does have everything together. Does the council still wish for me to bring forward an abandonment of the property that he is seeking? If so, um, we will gladly do so. Um, I would note that, you
know, at a certain point in time, you know, council says do it, years go by and it doesn't come to fruition on their end. That's why I don't want to bring it to you because this council may have a different opinion about abandonment than the other one did. So that's why I'm just representing it. You
tell me to move forward with it, we'll get abandonment resolution before you, we'll get it advertised accordance Florida statute and we'll have them we'll have the abandonment accomplished. But that's the survey he's provided. And so just asking the council, is this something you still want to move forward with? >> I have a question and a comment.
>> Sure. >> So I looked at the 60 pages that were attached. I saw in February of 2022 that this was denied. I also saw that it went back clear to uh 2020 where the council back then also denied the request and
there was a letters from neighbors. There was uh some engineering um >> comments or recommendations and it's been always recommended to deny. I apologize. I didn't see I thought I just understood you to say that it is now
coming forward to recommend that we abandon this. >> Uh >> yeah, back in 2021 um the council had reviewed it. Um it appears that if I'm going back looking at that
date again um that um if he obtained B off on all the neighbors in this area for the drainage ditch and it would not affect the city city stormwater management system the city would be agreeable to consider the abandonment.
Um that's where we got left. Um, in June of 2021, we were provided the um, names of several heirs that would need to sign off and at that point in time, Mr. Mayo was not able to bring all those to us. So, the council denied it at that time
because he didn't have everybody signing off. But those were the discussions we had where they ultimately denied it in 22 because we were not able to come forward with the 2021 requested list of signoffs. Mr. Miley's indicated he now has the ability to obtain sign off on all the adjacent
property owners. Um but you are correct. What you're expressing was the longheld position of this council not just on this but on almost all abandonments that come before the city that we don't abandon the properties. We just do not. Um I will note that there was an
original engineering opinion that they went back and looked at that and said it's not going to affect anything if you do abandon it. And um that was a surprise I believe. I mean Councilman Berbomb I think was here when this was discussed. Um Councilman Mennis I
believe is who repeatedly stood against it but then again his position was never abandon anything. >> Well and and I saw I believe I read an engineering opinion that said just the opposite too of what you're suggesting. But my question is what has changed
between 22 and now that why we should consider abandoning it? >> Mr. I'm not >> all all I can do is Mr. Miley came to Mr. Towns and I said, "Hey, I finally got everybody to sign off on it. I'd like you to reconsider it at one." And
that's effectively where we are. >> And did he do that? Did he provide all of those signatures, >> especially that one? >> He said he is able to. >> I do not I do not have the document in hand. >> Okay, that's what I needed to know. Thank you. Anyone else on the diets? >> Me.
>> Uh, Councilman Coen. Um all the reasons to stop the abandonment have been satisfied as far as um what the for the exception of the sign off. Is that correct? >> Well, no. Ultimately, it's this count I
want to go back. It is this council's call to abandon. Hey, my view on this is that even if the council had said explicitly, we're going to abandon it. bring us the signatures. Three years, four iterations of the council change. This council gets to
make that call because it wasn't complied with at the time. That's why I'm presenting it to you. Ultimately, it's not a matter of there is no set of list of factors that are proven abandonment or not. It is this council's exclusive authority to determine do you wish to abandon a piece of property of
this city because you have no public use for it. You've got to make that call and this present council gets to make it. Councilman Beerbomb. >> So, we you're right. I I sat through all every one of these where we we hotly discussed and debated this. Um
I've been on both sides of this issue. Um I understand the the the request to abandon um talked with Mr. Miley directly back when he originally uh brought this. Um, one thing I would like clarified, I understand that he has the
signatures, but what is, and again, like you said, that there's been a little bit of conflicting information about whether that ditch is an actual storm water management ditch. And I would like to know what is the current city's opinion on whether that is a storm water ditch and whether we
need it or not because it was rightly and I believe it was rightly pointed out at the time we start we opened Pandora's box and abandoning some of these storm water management ditches and it it it's it's Pandora's box. It's pandemonium. >> Yeah. And let me clarify for the record
because I know I that was something we talked about a great deal. My position to the city is a ditch can be a ditch, but if that ditch is something that our engineering team indicates is part of our storm water
management system, we lack any ability to give it away even if you want to because we have now represented that to Northwest Water Management District, FD and otherwise. We have had different opinions on that from different public works directors and different engineers
over the years. I will tell you legally. I will defer if a professional engineer wants to stand before you and say that's not part of your stormwater management system. Okay, that's his professional seal on the line. You can proceed. If they don't tell us that, I don't think you can. And I think that's what I said
to the council back in 21 when this started because there is an attached cover or drain pipe up there off Dorsy if I'm not recalled. That was the concern. Well, does that constitute part of our storm water runoff system? So, I'd have to defer to current public
works um or engineering if the council wants to hear that today. >> Councilman Cosen, >> so you went out there and looked at the property, right? >> Yes, sir. Boots on the ground. So did I. >> Now, it >> I got the clear impression
that the ditch is not part of the abandonment. >> Absolutely. >> Is that correct? >> Yeah, it is. So, >> it is. It's It is. >> It is or it's not. It's right there. >> It is. It's right there in the corner. That's the problem. or that was the original problem in 21 >> that the ditch is part of the
abandonment and and the city is currently >> uh maintaining that ditch. >> That's correct. >> And that that water that flows off Dorsy, if we consider that part of our stormwater management system and we abandon that,
does that create liability to us if that storm water then starts accumulating elsewhere if that ditch is filled in, repaired or otherwise? And >> and that's one of the reasons why Mr. Anna said, I don't I'm not interested. That was his initial position was I don't want to hear about it when that road floods,
>> right? >> Am I Does that sound correct from what? >> Yes, sir. >> He was very adamant about that. He didn't really like our engineers opinion, but they said it wasn't storm water management. >> Yes, sir. >> Were you complete or did you have another >> one more? >> Uhhuh. >> So, here's here's Mr. Miley's house.
Here's the property that goes right up to the ditch. when I went out there to look at it, the ditch wasn't what he was asking for. And I think that needs clarification. Could we put >> So, so let's let's talk about So, here's
the issue. He said his he his solution at one point was to say, "Well, just give me the part that's on my side of the house." Right? >> Well, you have a right ofway, if you look at the map, you have a rightway right there that is a complete 50 foot wide rideway. So when you do an
abandonment, if you abandon it, you've got to abandon the rightway or you don't abandon the rideway. If you abandon 50 foot, 25 foot's going to go to Mr. Miley. 25 foot's going to go to the neighbors on the opposite side. And then you go back and we have a gap back there that we
talked about it several times. That was the 25 foot alleyway. Are we actually abandoning it or not? Which then potentially creates an access issue. The council's position as going back through my notes was not to abandon that alleyway and then but to abandon the 50
foot on the far back side which will go to the other owners. So while Mr. Miley does not need the area that's the ditch, it is going to give away the ditch if we give him the abandonment and that's what creates the mess for us to consider. >> And I can tell you we've reviewed this
for years. >> Councilman Beerbomb. Well, and one of the other things that was hotly contested at the time and and Clay just brought it up is you have that alleyway defined it at least on on the screen right there. It's down there at the bottom. It says 25 foot alleyway. If you
then if you then ex were to expand that out, there's basically that that rideway is there because platted out behind that is basically additional lots in a subdivision that's never been developed. So, we abandon it today and then someone comes along
>> a couple years from now I understand now. Thank you. >> Creek. >> Do we have a motion on the floor? >> And I will say it is Mr. Wallace, the community development director's also his recommendation that you don't abandon it because of the stormwater utility. That's I think it's been his stance from the beginning and that's
been his stance he relayed to me most recently. >> That being consistent. >> Thank you'all for clarifying that. I wasn't aware of that. >> I stand ready to do what the council tells me. That's why it's back before you. >> Does anyone wish to make a motion? I think we do need a motion to approve or
deny though at this point. Just to put a bone on put a bone on this one. >> Motion to deny. >> Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Any questions from the audience?
Any questions from the dis? All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Motion fails or or >> motion. The Madison passes as denied. Thank you. >> We will not abandon that uh storm water ditch.
>> Okay. Next is legislative requests. There's nothing there. >> Executive comments. >> Just a couple. Um at this most recent Walton County Health Department, they put on their um annual summit. Uh and myself, the mayor, Miss Gabard, and Miss
Blo went down there for the city. Um basically the health department put on for the Walton Community Health Improvement Partnership. and Miss Blo received award an award um from the health department for her work with senior citizens in the community. So we uh definitely proud of her and appreciate everything she does for the
city. So congratulations back. >> Um next uh the fan press is has been installed at the wastewater treatment plant. Um so it is now up and running. We have cut out sludge hauling and we have drastically reduced uh the hauling of um solids. So it's a it's a great
improvement to the facility. 9 from efficiency, but also from a cost savings perspective. So, we finally have gotten that installed. Um, and then lastly, just kind of kind of where we're headed uh over the next few weeks, I'll get up with the consultant that you all have approved tonight. I will say that come
December 1st, Miss McDaniel will no longer be performing duties as a finance director. She will be city's accountant as she has been. Um, so starting December 1st, I will become the de facto finance director until we get one. Um, so just giving you a heads up on that where and where we're heading next few weeks.
Thank you, >> Councilman Beerbone. I'm sorry. Uh, council comments, they're next, I guess. Councilman Beerbone. >> Thank you. I I don't have any at this time. >> Councilman SC yours. >> Nothing, ma'am. >> I have none. Councilman Harrison, >> I'm good. Thank you.
>> Councilman Tosen. Oh, wow. Okay. So, I want to thank the I'm sorry the mayor's not here, but I appreciate the opportunity to uh sit up here and uh be the mayor prom tonight. So, I hope I did the everyone well. You did great. >> So with that in mind, everyone have a good evening and this meeting's
adjourned. Part: 2
There was a I'd like to call this uh workshop to uh order. Uh Kobe uh I I guess we'll start first with the invocation by Councilman Scurs uh followed by the pledge of allegiance. Dear Lord, we thank you for this day and
we thank you Lord for the opportunity to be able to meet together one another Lord and engage in business to the city. Um pray dear Lord that you will grant us the wisdom and the clarity to make the decisions that we need to Lord that's in our people's best interest Lord and more
importantly that which is yours. We ask these things in Jesus name. Amen. >> Amen. >> Good night. I aliance 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. Welcome to Zoom. Enter your meeting ID followed by town. Enter your participant ID followed by pound. Otherwise, just press pound to continue. Please enter the meeting passcode
followed by pound. You are in the meeting now. There are seven participants in the meeting. You have been added to the waiting room. You cannot talk or listen until the host
admits you to the meeting. Hello. >> Hello. >> Hello. >> Hello. Can you hear us? It's the city of the Funiac Springs. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Hear you. >> Can you introduce yourselves, please?
>> Sure. This is Eve Shippy with large Y Michael Cole with Barge with Kevin >> and then Matt Sarin is here with Garver. >> Perfect.
>> You want to go ahead city man? >> So uh so we have everybody here um on the call. We also have Tim and Jennifer Liberty Partners and Andre as well. So, um I think we we we wanted to have this to follow up on our last one on questions that we're still outstanding u related to the environmental assessment
and then anything related to the project itself and maybe an update at some point from Matt on design schedule. So, um I think I think again most of thing is probably circle back to EA on those left questions the council had and ask for information have an update. So, uh,
we'll let Bards take over from, uh, the last meeting and we can kind of go from there if Tim and Jennifer have something at some point. Uh, so we'll let Bards pick up. >> Yeah, I'll um, Kobe, this is Keith. I I'll get started.
>> Well, good evening, guys. Um, yeah, let me give you a little bit of an update. Since our last meeting a couple weeks ago, we went back um I know we mentioned the park being a an issue with being able to submit the EA. So, we went back.
We've been working with the city as well as Jennifer and her team at Liberty to try to figure out the best way to expedite this EA and to get the FAA to allow us to go ahead and submit it so they can start reviewing it.
We had some email correspondents back and forth with the FAA project manager. Um, I know Andre's had a couple calls with her trying to figure out, hey, what do we need to do to expedite this so you can start your review
what she responded with, and Andre, please correct me or jump in if I if you have something to add, but you know how she responded was, "Look, I really do not know at this point. I'm looking for direction from our legal team and the FAA region on how to proceed with the
park. Um she says that basically she wanted us to kind of sit tight and wait to hear back from her on direction on how to move forward with the park. But again guys, the EA right now and we had
it a month ago. We've got the EA draft ready to submit to the FAA for review. However, Heather is not allowing this to submit it yet until she gets direction from her legal, when I say legal, FAA legal on
how to move forward with this park. So, that's, you know, we're kind of at a standstill with that is been, you know, as far as being able to submit the EA at this time. Um, that is, I guess that's kind of an update of where we are with
the EA. Um, I'll open it up if anybody has any questions and we can start the conversation from there. >> Any questions >> regarding that? >> Any questions from the DAS? Councilman Beerbomb. >> Yes, ma'am. Um I went back and watched
the August, excuse me, the August meeting of the um the airport workshop and in that meeting it was very clearly represented to the council by barge that the EA had been submitted. So
and and that that was repeated multiple times in the meeting that the EA had been submitted. So what I'm hearing today is that it hasn't been submitted and that there's only a draft. Um, I guess number one, has the city been provided a copy of that draft so that we
can we can at least lay eyes on it? And and number two, what is what is the hold up that besides legal FAA legal that's causing this this delay where we're where we we really haven't progressed beyond last the last
update we got. So, Councilman Beerbomb, let let me um let let me address that. So, I'm not sure exactly what August meeting you're referring to, but but how the how the FAA process works, they have
a what they call an FAA pre-planning checklist where before you're actually submit the entire EA document. They want all the special studies which includes the biological assessment,
the section 4F report, the noise analysis, the purpose and need, the forecast, all this upfront information they want submitted. They want to have time to review it, approve it before
they will actually accept the EA the draft. I'm gonna call it a draft EA document, but certainly I can provide a copy uh email a copy over to who you know I know we've been working with Andre, he's familiar with it, but we can certainly
provide a copy to the draft EA to who you know to anyone who wants it, I guess. Um, at this point >> I I but and and back to the back to the legal issue. So, so what it so what the holdup is, we've been told this by FAA
that they will do not want us to submit the EA and the reason being is she is not comfortable with where the of how she's going to address the park. You know, the park I think the city sent a letter over
um I'm thinking to to the FA that the park, you know, I guess at sunset it closed. I think uh October 13th maybe. You know, she's seen that documentation and she's just trying to figure out how to proceed on her end and she will not let
us submit the entire you know what what I want to do is submit the EA document to her with all the other information in it. Have her reviewing that while she figures out what to do with the section 4F in the park. but she just will not
let us do it. >> You know, I I went back and watched that meeting. It was the August 11th airport workshop meeting. It was a special meeting in which we had in which um Mr. Canoy from the from the back of the
room and then a second time from the podium assured the council that the EA had been submitted. There's no mention of it being a draft document. there was no mention of that and and then went on to reassure the council that that we
would have everything wrapped up by the end of October. And that that's plain as day on the YouTube video that I went back and watched multiple times and listened to multiple times. And it it's interesting that you bring up the park because in that same exact meeting was
when the council was advised by barge to shut down the park as a way to help expedite the the final little loose end. It was very clear from that meeting that this was just one little tie up. Uh again, we were reassured from a council
level that there was no major issues and that there was this one little thing. we just needed to dot this eye and cross this tea and that we would be we would be good to go and it would be wrapped up by the end of October and and I I'm I'm still confused as to
why we're why we're in this same situation. >> Well, I let let me add to that. So, we we received, you know, Heather with FAA, she wanted she wanted to not she wanted to streamline this. She wanted to be
able to document her files. The park was closed. It was not due to the airport. It was due to she didn't want to tie the airport and the park closing. And she wanted to basically stick them in her files so we
wouldn't have to go down this whole section 4F report. Um, and of course, you know, we're here now, you know, having to deal with it, but but but that was her idea. I I don't I
don't think it was Barge who recommended closing the park, but I you know, if you said it was someone else mentioned that from Barge, maybe. But >> Councilman Beerbone, >> so >> well, the recommendation came from Heather. >> That's right. >> Okay. But but it was it was relayed
through bars. But I let's not let's not get off on that for a second. >> The amendment that we did back in January of this year included the 4F. So there there was already an anticipation of >> there being an issue and and needing to
address the 4F. So why why are we still stuck on the park when we just need to go the 4F route? >> Well, that I'm glad you brought that up. You're exactly right. That's why at the time we didn't want to we didn't know exactly the status of the park when the
EA was going to be complete. So we made the decision let's go ahead let's prepare the section 4F report. Let's have it ready. If the park is closed and in the meantime and and and you know we don't need the 4F report then that's
fine. Then, like I just mentioned, Heather's the one that started bringing up, you know, she she read the previous, you know, EA, she knew the part was that the date that the park was going to sunset and close. She started bringing up the park closing. She was uh, you
know, like I said, she was I think she was trying to help and she wanted the park to close and she wanted documentation she could put in her file to say, "The park's closed. Let's move on. we don't want to, you know, let's let's let's move on. Let's
get the EA in. And then there was just no documentation that could be produced to not tie the runway or the airport or the runway extension to the park closing. >> But I I still don't quite understand. We
knew the 4F was a possibility in excess of 10 months ago because we amended the contract in January. So that meant there had to be conver there had to be conversations. So when when did this conversation with Heather
and and the park closure help me understand that timeline because again from everything that I saw in that meeting and then I went and watched the actual council meeting and the way it was presented at the council meeting was this is a recommendation of barge was to close the the that that park to help
expedite and that there was the way the way it was presented. It was very clear that this came down as a recommendation per barge from what you've heard from FAA. So I I don't dispute that part portion of it and it was just dot this eye across this tea and we're going to be done. So help me understand when in
this timeline from let's just let's just be generous and say January when we amended the contract to include the 4F to today November. when in that 11month period did we we realize that there was
an issue with the the thing and really and truly what I'm honing in on is you guys presented to us back in August that everything was okay so when did this kind of come off the wheels because it had to have been post August meeting
>> let me I can help you go ahead just so you know my name is Chris Tempy I u am the NEA specialist with barge and I'm the person that wrote all these documents along with help from some of the other staff. And let me just try to explain the uh the challenges we've had
with this project since it shortly after it began. I think this may help you understand why things have taken as long as as they have. Um, we we submitted the
uh first draft of the biological assessment back in July of 2024 and FAA responded in August of 2019. And originally, everybody was under the impression that we could use the
information from the previous consultant and all we had to do was tune it up a little bit and and and everything was going to go smoothly. Well, once FAA started to see the drawings and they noticed changes in the project design and the fact that the original document
done by the previous consultant didn't include uh some details in it that were in the drawings, they basically said we have to uh revise all of that. So, we worked to revise that and along the way we ran
into a number of challenges. Uh there was issues with how to handle the listed species. Uh and part of that was due to uh the US Fish and Wildlife Service not having clear direction on how to handle one of the potentially endangered
species that wasn't listed yet. And then there was also issues with the state uh with the with the FAA understanding the state rules as it relates to gopher tortoises because we found those out there and they weren't originally found by the previous consultant. So, we had
to deal with all these changes and by the time we got around to uh revising this uh version, the first version of EA, we also were dealing with section 4F report. And there's some common elements between those two that have to be
resolved before either one of those documents could move forward. And so we worked on that from basically August of 24 to February of 25 when we were finally able to get clear direction as to how to um how to move forward with
with these both of these documents. So we resubmitted the uh the biological assessment and uh and there was we had to then add a new connector road so that we could provide access to the park area
and that triggered FAA having more questions about that and saying that we had to go back and re-evaluate that area. we hadn't done it before. And then they had concerns about uh residents objecting to it and traffic patterns, all things that really were sort of not
relevant. We had to spend a lot of time responding to all those questions. We finally resubmitted again and uh they had a few more questions and now we're up to uh at this point we're up to September of this year and we thought we
had everything locked up and ready to go. Uh and then on October 10th, we found out from the company doing the project design that they had changed the location of one of the access roads and actually changed the whole pattern of the access roads. That led us having to
revise the BA yet again and we we found that out on October 10th. We resubmitted it on October 23rd. We're still waiting for a response on that. So there were a lot of things that were going on that we just had to keep addressing and and
because of the changes to the configuration of the roads each time we had to revise this thing and send it back it would take you know a month or so for the FAA to get back to us then we had to respond to those things. So we have a lot of that a lot of those issues
going on. Uh and all those also applied to the section 4F because the project plans were the same for obviously for the two documents. So until we could get those two documents uh finalized to where we thought that's what was going to happen, uh we couldn't move forward
with anything. We were ready to submit and had a draft ready for pretty much ready in August, but FAA still was not allowing us to submit anything back then because they were still worried about all these other issues first. So maybe that gives you a little perspective on
uh the effort that we've had to put forth to to get this to where we are. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them. >> I I I here if I may the the property the property was actually purchased in
October of 2024. And so that was that was discussed with the council for months leading up to the actual purchase. I remember that being brought by the city manager at the time. that was voted on at a public meeting
and then we amended in January of 2025, 11 months ago and and part of that amendment included that new area for that road. So from what I'm hearing is again there was an eight-month delay
in incorporating that and and that causing somehow causing a delay. So, is there a lack of communication going on? Because, like I said, that that property was bought well over a year ago now
and and and transacted well well over a year ago now. So, is there a lack of communication between certain entities, whether it's barge, whether it's the city, whether it's Garver, like what's going on? because that that that
property being included clearly you guys knew about it because you included it in the amendment in January. I think I think you're referring to that connector road on Huckabe, not not what Chris was referring to the design the conceptual design change with the
relocation of Gene Hurley Road across airport across park property, not the other connector road I thought you were referring to. Yeah, the originally uh the original plans showed Gene Hurly Road connecting around the uh ex just
beyond the exterior of the of the RPZ of of the extended runway that stayed in the uh plans that we had until uh October of this year when we found out that uh there was this new connector road. Prior to that, uh, I did not have
any information about, you know, any other changes other than, uh, Gene Hurly Road being there and then connector road being added and then Gene Hurley Road being taken out and the connector road being taken out. As to when purpose project the property was purchased, I
have I have no knowledge of that. I was never never made aware of that. But it's not something I needed to know. I just needed to know what the road configurations were going to be so that I could update the documents to make FAA happy.
>> City Manager Kobe, >> I think what they're referring to, Councilman, is uh the on the design, if you look at the map, you had Gene her, you had the park, the road originally, the AOP in the original design was to go around the east side of the park. Um, and then later this year, that's when we change said we're not going to do that.
We're going to drop it down the front. one for our cost savings and two to reduce uh as much time as possible on some sort of environmental on that side of the property. I think that's the road he's talking about that that caused a delay with the FAA between the >> Well, that that that was that was one
that changed. And then the the one Chris was referring to was the information we received on the last uh I guess conceptual design having instead of that Jean Hurley uh loc, you know, going around the east
side of the park. It's now going through, you know, up there kind of by the existing road just extending it across. So >> that's what that's what I just >> I guess that was the last change. >> Yeah, that's what I'm talking about. >> Okay. and and all of these changes we
estimated probably delayed the project at least 6 to9 months because of all the adjustments we had to make. So it's not like we were not sitting around doing anything. We were just trying to address the the multitude of questions that came from FAA. There was also a period of
uncertainty uh that began uh in the beginning of this year when the Trump administration rescended the CEQ regulations that uh we those are what we used to prepare the environmental assessment and they
referred uh each agency to develop their own regulations. Now the FAA has regulations but we didn't know how they were going to change or if they were going to change. So there was a period of uncertainty when we weren't sure if what we were producing was going to have to be changed or not. It turns out only
a few things had to be changed and and that was that was good, but we we also had to contend with that uh while this whole process was going on as well. >> I I'm sorry. It it doesn't it doesn't add up to me. the more the more that
there's discussion, the more questions I have. And I don't I don't want to belabor the point, but the timelines don't add up for me. Um, and >> yeah, >> I I would much rather let's let's move on to how do we fix this and how do we all win and get this thing across the
finish line. >> And before we do that, this is Councilman Hein. Can I ask a question? When did the six to ninemonth delay get communicated to the city by your organization, please? >> I'm not sure that it was specifically
communicated, but the city, I believe, was aware of all the things that we were doing. We did we just determined that time frame uh here recently when I sat down and looked at everything to see exactly why it was taking so long. um
you know >> if it wasn't >> usually an EA should take about a year to do. This has taken longer but it's because of it's because of the changes that we had to make the uncertainty of changes in the CEQ regulations and there's just the time it takes to to
make all those changes and get everything reapproved by FAA. So and and guys I will say that you know someone that I mean the airport manager is I mean, it's not like we haven't copied or, you know, we don't copy the
whole council, but I mean, the city has been on a lot of this email traffic back and forth. So, >> so it's your opinion that you that the airport manager has been fully apprised of this all along? Well, I'm just saying been copied on
emails and I think he understands the, you know, just the the time and and and and seeing the correspondence back and forth with FAA, talking with the lady at FAA, you know, just it it's it's, you know, been a difficult
process. I think he would attest to that. Madam Chair, I would like to ask the city manager if the airport director has ever communicated to him those those six to ninemonth delays that the engineers are referring to. >> Andre, you can come up too, but I'm I
mean I'm unaware of us talking about six to nine month delays. Andre, if you want to come up second, but um I mean we've been we've been on this as we have like we changed the design from going around the park to in front of the park. Um again, we did that out of a necessity of cost. Um I feel that I got that got
delivered down to everyone that was happening. So I Andre can answer the question. I'm unaware of a six to nine months that have been provided to me. But >> before you before you respond then I'd like to just add that's a critical that's a critical point. A six to nine month delay should not rest upon an
email thinking that okay hopefully somebody will see this. That should have been directly communicated to the council to this uh city manager in my opinion and not by luck of the draw whether Andre the airport manager saw a
communication that had that buried within it. Go ahead, Andre. >> I I wasn't going to dispute that. Um as far as a six or ninemonth delay, I'm interpreting this different. I don't know that there was ever any data put out by FAA um to barge that had
something stipulated, hey, this is going to result in a 180day delay or something to that effect. So, I'm I'm guessing what Keith was getting at there was just that there's been a lot of back and forth traffic and it's kind of been a a hustle to get everything across the finish line and every time we make a
little bit of progress, there's something that kind of triggers that. So, that's that's how I took that. Um, but no, there's been no traffic that hey, this is going to result in a ninemonth delay and something to that effect. That would definitely trigger a star cluster from our end. >> Understood. Thank you, Councilman Beerbomb.
>> Madam Chair, not not to split hairs here, but the question was whether Barge had advised you, not necessarily what that dialogue was between the FAA and Barge. And and I I think that's that's important to differentiate here is just
like Councilwoman Heavlin said, leaving this to here's an email update that that gets sent out to you. That's not fair to you to then somehow infer that there's going to be this delay and then advise the city manager to advise the council that there that that changes that we are
trying to make as a council to value engineer this project and see the success of this project come through then somehow incur a six to9month penalty. We very well as a council could have said we're going to go a different direction and pause those changes had we been advised of that. And to me that's
not fair to put that on your shoulders. that that is why we hired the engineers. And so I quite frankly that's that's Andre I >> I would want you to only speak to what Barge has advised you to
>> as as it relates to what you have advised the city manager. Please don't speculate on what is has occurred between Barge and the FAA. That that's just my opinion. >> Yeah. Well, yeah. And I I wasn't I was just I guess saying that the email and
the chain back and forth with the FA is what I was referring to. Not that we've given Andre a This is a six to9 month delay. >> Yeah. >> Let let me let me add in something council. This is this is Michael Cole. Um I wasn't going back looking at our EA
start date. I don't think our contract was actually executed till January 31st of 2024. So you say February 1 of 2024. >> Don't play that game. Don't play that game. Don't play that game. The task order, if you want to get specific, the task order was issued,
>> Mr. Mr. Yeah. Councilman Bearbone, I'm not playing any game. I'm going off some facts that are in front of me via an email. It looks facts. The task order was in in issued to you. I have it on public record. November of 2023.
November of 2023. And if you want to get technical, as the city manager pointed out, it was technically signed in January of 2024. So if you argue, I'll give you two months, but don't try to claim that this >> council in beer bomb. I don't know understand this uh this uh this attack
directed towards bars. We're trying to get this same process as quick as we can. The contract said 18 months if it without you know if if if things are beyond our control, it could go longer. Well, we're if so say January of 2024,
what are we at? 12 and 10. We're at 22 months off of 18. We're very close. We've had we've had Doge that shut down the government that's reduced the people. We've had all these changes, these regulatory changes that our guys have just said. We've had design
changes. Um, we've got one lady at the FAA. It's almost like dealing with the IRS. If you got a problem, you know how hard it is to deal with the federal government? Well, that's what we've got. >> Well, close only counts in horses and hand grenades. >> I'm sorry. I didn't hear that.
>> Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. >> Not not on a 7 $174,000 project. >> I'm glad. >> Councilman uh Cosen, >> regarding the legalities on what was
just discussed, um could we get our city attorney to weigh in on that? >> Agree with what Councilman Berbomb said. We had a task order issued in November. I think if you want to give them grace to the date it was signed, that's fine. But I don't think there's any doubt the
council approved it. If it didn't get signed for a matter of one day or one month, the council approves a task order, they've got a binding city action. So, but I I think to the councilman's point, I think they just acknowledge they gave us an 18-month
timeline and we're 22 months in. >> Okay. So, um, I would not ever for a second want to suggest anything that would slow this down. These questions that I've got in my mind, my mind's on
damage control mode right now. And I don't know if this would if this would hurt or if this would help, but uh, I have a question for Garver, if you're available. >> Garver, are you on the line?
Yes, I'm available. >> U Mr. Matt, are you >> Matt Sarin Carver, >> are you the gentleman that was uh here uh in person two weeks ago? >> Yes, I I am. >> Okay. So if all the responsibilities
that barge has taken on was shifted to your engineer firm, would you be able to pick up from there and go forward and make progress without going backwards? I I personally think at this point
continuing with barge is probably the fastest route to getting this accomplished given all the effort that they've put in to date. Um if you were to ask us to assume any uh responsible charge of everything that they've done, we have to do our due diligence to make
sure that we agree with everything that that's in all of their reports, review everything, and I I believe that would probably set us back a couple months. >> Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Councilman Harrison. >> Yeah, I I mean I I understand the 18 the
18 months, right? But you know, we have made changes, you know, in in our our our plans and our discussions and all those things. Government has gone through um various things that have delayed the process. understand. Um,
right now we're in a >> not yet >> we're we're in a shutdown. Uh, who knows how that will yet affect the outcome of this. And with all that in mind, if if if it does legitimately in some way slow
it down FFA um FAA um somehow I mean you know surely at some point there's going to be some some grace I would think with some of this money some of these extensions uh because of delays
that might be caused by the government shutdown. I don't know. I'm just saying what we have to do is find solutions. We have to find a way to move this forward and and and get it done. Um because we all know the importance of it and what
it means to our our city and and the community and the county. Um so I I've of a mind to what do we do from here from here forward uh to to try to get this thing moving sped up or whatever. I
I get it. We we there we have we have created some hesitations I mean some delays I guess by by changing our plans with the road and what have you and the pro purchasing the property what have you I get it and that's you know whether I mean if there were six delays for
example in that 18month period would we still be expecting them to do it in 18 months probably not you you see so I'm I'm just trying to be reasonable what what do we do at this point to figure out how to
move how to move it forward. >> Councilman Cosen, >> I'm famous for saying hope for the best, plan for the worst. So, this is a plan for the worst. Um, is there any possibility if this cannot be met by the
deadline to shift some funds from the east west runway to paving a north south runway? That's not possible. >> Okay. >> What was it we calculated you would need
to to pave the Northwest as it sits right now? you would need like >> 50 plus million dollars. >> It' be in the 30 to $50 million range. >> The reason I suggest that is because I don't think there would be any hump or utilities involved that would make it go
faster. That's the only reason I brought that up. >> Right. But but Garver's got the the solution for the hump in in raising that that sight line towards the end. So I think I don't think that that's necessarily the holdup. It's more >> just the EA
That's that's my what my understanding of of the current situation is. >> Okay. >> So, I would say that I mean at this moment where we're at is we have uh red do we have stopped our correspondence to the FA. We've given everything we can give them until the till the government
opens back up and we hear from Heather. Uh we provided to Heather um all of our options so far in including the option of potentially reopening the park if that's what it takes to get this thing moving again quicker. Um, so we're on hold until we hear back from the FAA at
this point. Um, that's that's where we're at. I mean, unless some feels otherwise, that's kind of where we're at is stand still until we hear back from the FAA. >> Hey, Kobe, this is Kevin. Hey, one one one uh solution we were talking about is trying to once we could get the approval
to submit the EA documents to go down to Orlando and walk Heather through this document to make sure we can speed up a review process. I mean that we had all the studies that we have the extra studies we had to do she's already
they've already been in the approval stage. So, we're hoping that this is not a complicated EA to review outside the section 4F uh and other things, but we feel like we can go down there and try to walk her through the document to get
to get real time feedback and give her feedback in real time to help speed it up. We're willing to do that. >> Miss Green from Liberty Partners. Andre, thank you. Uh, Madam Chair, to just to make sure that everybody's on
the same page with the funding. Uh, in terms of the timing on the funding, I know there's um there's concern and sort of a crisis mode, but let's sort of go backwards. There's four funding sources on the runway right now. you have the city and the county ARPA funds which have to be and and it's a a federal rule
have to be expended by 1231 of next year. So we would suggest that when you all start um when you put the bid out that the first funds you spend would be those because again it's an invoice coming in you paying the invoice that's expended. Um the second part is and
there is no extension absolutely no extension unless the f federal government changes what they did to the American Rescue Plan Act which we don't see that happening. So, um, the second piece is there's a $650,000 state appropriation. Uh, that was from I guess four fiscal
years back. Those funds I think are already uh Kobe being drawn down on. Uh, that should be I know the PTGA was done maybe Andre knows. Okay. So, that those funds are already being >> so yes, the design funds are 650,000 are being drawn on by Garver. Uh, we have we
have drawn some of the county's ARPA funds. Uh however, in conversation with Miss Thomasson, CFO of the county, uh those are strictly related to construction. So we are no longer pulling on those funds. >> Perfect. So your 650,000, which is kind of the oldest part of the funds is already being drawn down and it's for
design and engineering. So that's being spent. The last piece was FDOT work plan dollars and that was moved from one the paving of runway 1836 and I think it was about three million. and I'm going to have my numbers off, but uh was moved to
runway 927 to get the full amount of the project uh to pulled together the the 11 million. FDOT did that at the request of the council. So, uh going back to your question, uh Councilman, moving those funds back um wouldn't get you anywhere
near to get and it also would be sort of a landlocked issue in terms of timing. But um in terms of the funds, if once the design funds are utilized, the first two sets that you use would be the city and county ARPA funds, you should be in a good spot. But I think it would be Garver that would need to answer the
question, what is the drop dead or your attorney drop deadline to get out your put your construction RFP out, have it responded due, and have a construction company on uh on contract to hit your December 31 of 26 deadline. And that's
something I spoke to Matt with Garber about after our last meeting and spoke to Marge as well together over here after your last workshop and asked could we go ahead and start the process understanding that there's going to be some variance
in potential bid numbers simply because we won't have an approved EA. So there's some risk involved anytime you bid a project. In this case, that risk could be a little bigger for the entity that is doing the bid because they may feel like they don't have all the information. At the same time, um that's
why I've asked them to look at putting that together to get this back to the council as soon as possible because I think it is worth us potentially spending a little bit more as part of that risk to go ahead and get somebody engaged so that we can start spending that money versus waiting until next
April and having no hope of getting it expended. Madame Chairman, >> Councilman Cosen, >> so the first thing you said, Jennifer, was just we could start putting out bids. Is that could I understand you at Madame Chair? Um I think that's what
Clay was talking about is there is a question because the EA isn't completed. Then Garver, your design and engineering engineer, is trying to put together the designs to be able to put together a bid package so that you can bid out for construction. So that's the question is do you want to get a little ahead of the
cart? I mean you could certainly put it out there there may be an assumption that um what if you get no bids the first round? You you'd be stuck back a couple months anyway. So I think that's a again a legal question whether or not you can do that. It is taking a risk but you're at least getting ahead of the game.
>> Legally we are able to do it. It is just could it potentially cost us a little bit more money based on the bids we receive that could come in higher. But at the same time, if we don't get any bids, we're still ahead of time at that point. >> So, would you recommend going forward with this?
>> Absolutely. As soon as Garver can produce us a document they believe can obtain bids, I think we need to go live on the street. >> So, we can do that >> immediately. >> Well, when they get it, when Garver gets us a document, yes, >> city manager.
>> So, I think there's a two there two part to it. Uh Matt can give an update on design. We're only about 60% so we're not at the there yet. They're moving pretty quick through it though. So Matt can give an update on design process and when we might get to that 90 to 100% design. Um but before he does that, I
think round back real quick to the funding. So 650 is for design and then we have the do FDOT money that got moved from the dirt runway to to this runway and we have the two ARP monies. And Matt can also speak on this. Matt and Garver are working on the PTGA for the $2.1
million for the movement from the dirt runway to 927. DOT is going to stipulate in there and Matt's got different direction from DOT since last time I spoke to him. There are things that we have to correct with that money. That is the hump, that is the road realignments. So those things have got to that money's
going to be spent on those things. Um, so we're going to be spending all of it about the same time, but the main components of the project we have to do, you have to spend DOT money on. And Matt, you can correct me if that's that's changed since. >> No, you're right, Kobe. The the we the f
the money that FDOT is providing needs to be utilized to address the issues that are out there from a from a safety standpoint. And I think you nailed it, Kobe. There's there's well, there's three components to it. There's the line of sight issue which we're referring to
as the hump. There is the uh the roadway that's located in the object free area of the runway that needs to be shifted. And there is also some tree clearing that needs to occur because those trees are penetrating the runway's transitional surface. And so th that money needs to be utilized to address
those issues per the FDOT. >> Thanks, Matt. And from the PTGA standpoint, we we had submitted one to them several months ago with the 60% documents that we provided to them last week. They came back and requested some
minor changes to the PTGA language which we gave to them on Friday and so we should be all up to date there. Councilman Beerbol. >> So, can we proceed with that work without the EA being complete? Because that is like more of a maintenance item
than it is the actual runway extension and that's being required and cited via FDOT. >> That that is a conversation that we would need to have with the FAA at this point. They when the latest discussions
that I was involved in uh with the FAA and barge uh Heather made the statement that this is all one project and it all needs to be included. I I think that there's potential there if the so let me say this the
the safety concerns that we are addressing with FDOT money are the portions of the project that impact the park. Councilman Cosen, >> the the checklist that you just read ran off
things that have to be done. The simplest one, >> the simplest one, Mr. Mack, I think, >> was uh the removal of trees. Well, it's our property and our trees. Would it help to start getting ahead of the game and put that on the list? >> I don't know. We got through it, but
again, you're you're you're doing an environmental impact and that is where the FA is going to halt you. I know it I know it sounds minor and but because for example we had the same issue on the east side of the airport where the new hangers are gone. We were going to have to do a whole separate FA
grant just to remove those trees. We're not doing that anymore because it's now wrapped into the hanger belt project. But we were going to have to do a whole separate grant go through the whole process just to remove trees on the east side airport. >> So >> you got to run it through NEPA. Is that is that right? So since our last meeting two weeks ago
>> what he >> we've done nothing. >> We have submitted to FA an alternative option that their way and that's I mean at this point that's where we're at other than design that's just EA. >> Now when when they keep saying uh our engineers keep saying
they have to get with FAA. That gives the impression that they're having to deal with the bureaucracy of Washington. But aren't they dealing with an FAA office in Tampa? >> We Yes, that's I'm not That's a central office in the state of Florida. >> And that's where this lady is. That's
kind of Okay. Has anybody from >> She is located in Orlando. >> Orlando. >> Yes. Or Orlando Ado. >> Okay. Have y'all ever um Barge, have y'all had any face-to-face communication with her or is this just all email and
phone call? No, it's been all email and phone call. >> And that's what I think Kevin was alluding to a minute ago. Is it worth a trip down there? Again, we won't notice your response to us or wait for her to respond. >> Okay. Have you done any uh direct
communication with FAA Kobe >> in person to person? >> Yes. >> I've only ever met the former planner one time that was over in Pensacola. >> Everyone, we have about six minutes to wrap this up. So, Councilman Beerbomb, you have questions. So, so my thought on that is um I I think it's important that
we move strategically here and if we're talking about um communicating with people face to face um I think it's it is extremely important to have one single message and to be consistent in that messaging. And this is not this is
not something new. The council's had to do this in the past, but I really believe that if if we're going to to go down this path of like almost sending an envoy down there or an emissary down there, right, if we're going to do that, and my recommendation
would be that Liberty Partners handles that communication so that because of of anybody that's involved in this, they've been through all of it. They know they got all the dollars. They helped us move the FO dollars. They helped us get the ARPA dollars. They, as a matter of fact, they're they're the ones that are
responsible for managing the ARPA dollars per the city. So, I would personally want to see Liberty represent the city in a face-to-face meeting with the FAA. Um, and I'm not trying to exclude anybody, but we've done this before. I think
messaging in this moment, this juncture is very, very critical. >> Um, >> Councilman Harrison. Yeah, I I don't disagree with that at all uh with with Liberty. Um I just have a question here. I'm kind of uh trying
to understand this was a 4F property because it was a park. Correct. And so they have to send this to legal, but unless I'm badly mistaken here, we're only talking about 50 feet or so of moving this road through that one strip,
right? So, so part of the reasons for these 4F reports is to protect the property, right? And so there's two category here of least harm and mitigation. Um,
a project has to do the least overall harm, right? this narrow strip of road I don't see cause a major harm to this uh property or the environment. Uh we're all very familiar with with where we're
talking about here. Um and the the report has to identify measures to minimize harm to the property. I just don't see that. I don't see a huge delay here with uh Heather uh needing to talk to legal about this uh because the the
park we have clear conversations in the past is separate from the airport project. We're only talking about 50 feet here. So I just don't I don't understand and this is my question. I why why do I not understand why this is
such a big legal uh thing for FFA uh and and Heather to delay this over over that particular cause. Can someone answer that? >> So yes sir uh and they can chime me if they want. So our most recent call with everyone um that was again that's the
reason for the putting the option back open the park. If you open the park back up, then moving that road, I get and again they can speak. It's called a dimminimous change, so very little impact to the park and maybe that'll speed it up. We're trying every option we can to get as fast as possible. Um,
so it seems that and again and I know Chris with bar to the same tag as everyone else. We all were on this press, you close the park down, there's no more requirement for an F. Obviously, that has something to have now triggered the FAA. That is a bigger problem. So if we need to reopen it and go back to a dimminimous impact, that's the fastest
part. Then we can do that. So that's that's what we're trying to do now. >> But it goes back to one of those identified safety issues. Right. >> Correct. We had the same convers. >> That's right. Okay. >> Councilman Cosen, >> based on um what Todd said, Jennifer, would you be willing to go down there
and have a face to face with FAA? >> Sure, Mr. Mad. Sure. Absolutely. We'd certainly want I mean, we can open the dialogue. we would want the engineers would have to be there or somebody from the engineering firms Andre and or Kobe would need to be available as well. But
we're happy to start that dialogue moving forward. Um anywhere we can help on the team. I I would also note and sorry Andre to put you on the spot the question about what the FAA has at this point. So they have what they knew before the park is closed and we're trying to justify that closing the park
wasn't just the runway but they also have an alternative that Andre verbalized to Heather over the phone and that was should the park be reopened and then revisit the issue and and again the the question about the park being open you don't have as Kobe said you don't
have a fence around it anyone can go into that park and I think that's a really important data point to tell the FAA is this isn't shut down no one can come in It's simply the interlocal agreement between the city and the county is expired, but any citizen could still go in there and utilize the park.
And I think that that's again a data point that's helpful. But to your question, happy to help anywhere you need us. >> Would it be possible to do that in the next two weeks before the next airport workshop? >> It's sure we can we'll make a phone call tomorrow. Be happy to. >> Thank you. Uh Councilman Beerbomb, this
will be our last comment before we have to close. >> I just wanted to kind of solidify that. So is there any I know it's a workshop so we can't make any motions but is there any objection to basically I guess maybe giving staff direction would be appropriate Clay in this or do we want to put an >> I think staff understands direction
don't you Mr. council. >> Can we add this to the meeting to the next meeting? >> I think they're clear. Staff's clear. We don't need to take action. There >> we don't need to put it on the agenda for the upcoming meeting. >> Council says he understands we're good. >> But every everyone's good with kind of
Liberty leading the charge and having a single single message. >> That's what the council's already voted to. So I don't see that doesn't need to change. >> Okay. >> They've been tasked with being the point of this from day one. >> Okay. So I think we're going to wrap this up. We have a fivem minute break
until the uh original uh council meeting begins and uh we'll call this workshop ajourned. >> Thanks to barge and all those. Thank you.