--------- meeting to order today is Monday, October 27th, 2025. You'll stand with me for the invocation and pledge of allegiance. Heavenly Father, we love you. We thank you for your love toward us, God. We just ask for your your your grace and
your wisdom and strength, God, to do, God, what it is you've called us to do, Lord, as counsel, as staff, as citizens, Lord, all those that come in our part, our engineers, our legal. We're so grateful for all of them. We ask for your anointing to be on each and every
one of us, Father. And we ask this all in Jesus name. Amen. >> Amen. >> I pledge algiance 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. >> All right, we just uh had a workshop. We ran over a little bit, but we had a whole lot more than we can. We bit off a little bit more than we could chew, but
anyway, but we'll get it taken care of. All right, we have a couple of things. Uh one is um we want to do a proclamation for government week and also one for cyber security. This past week we had our city government week and
then in that we go and visit with some of the schools and we have uh a number of things we do with the community which is uh letting them know what we do and open for questions. It's always been a really good time, especially with our
students and we try to hit about four different schools here in in the city. And then um but anyway, we're very grateful that I'll go ahead and read the proclamation for the uh city government week. Yeah, here it is.
All right. Whereas the city government is the government closest to most citizens and the one with the most direct daily impact upon its residents. And whereas the city government provides services and programs that enhance the quality of life for residents making their city their home. And whereas the
city government is administered for and by its citizens and it is dependent upon public commitment to and understanding of its many responsibilities. And whereas city government officials and employees share the responsibility to pass along the understanding of public
service and their benefits. And whereas Florida City Government Week offers an important opportunity for elected officials and city staff to spread the word to all citizens of Florida that they can shape and influence the branch of government. And whereas the Florida League of Cities and its member cities
have joined together to teach citizens about municipal government through a variety of activities. And now therefore I Bob Kebell by authority vested in me as a mayor of the city defunct Springs Florida do hereby and proclaim October 20 through 26 of 2025 is Florida city
government week. All right. Thank you very much. And I have one here. Cyber security. I tell you, I know that you know I've been having to operate in a computer for about
probably 30 35 years. I don't know longer than that. Probably 45 or 50 years. But anyway, this past weekend, I had got eaten alive. I take these little courses about not getting hacked. And man, I'm telling
you, they pulled me in like reel me in. Uh, and then I saw my screen going black. I said, "Oh my god, somebody's got control of my drive. That is not good." But anyway, we're
able to get them shut off and but anyway, so this is very important. Whereas the city of Funac Springs recognizes its vital role in identifying, protecting against, and responding to cyber threats that impact our collectively secure and privacy
security and privacy. Whereas critical infrastructure sectors increasingly rely on technology to support essential services such as finance, energy, telecommunications, transportation, utilities, health care, and emergency response. And whereas the city's
information technology department works diligently to enhance the security of the city's digital infrastructure. And whereas 2025 marks the 22nd year of cyber security awareness month with the theme secure our world encouraging
everyone to take simple steps to protect themselves their families and their workplace online. And whereas this year's focus highlights four key behaviors. Enabling multiffactor authentication, using strong passwords and a password manager, updating
software, and recognizing and reporting fishing. And whereas maintaining cyber security is a shared responsibility that protects the city's information, infrastructure, and economy. And whereas the federal government and the national cyber security organizations recognize
October of cyber security awareness month and whereas the city of the Phoenix spring seeks to pro promote greater cyber security awareness among city staff and residents. Therefore I Bob Campbell of the mayor of the city of Phoenix Florida do hereby proclaim
October 2025 as the cyber security awareness month. Thank you very much. All right Kobe I got one for you. >> Yes, mayor. Thank you, uh, council. The this this, uh, the employee of the quarter um, for this quarter is Kevin Gillis. Mr. Gillis, if you don't know
him, uh, which I'm sure everyone here does, >> uh, does a great job. Uh, everyone gets along with him very well. He's always willing to help out. Uh, gives you a hard time for no reason, but that's okay. Um, but, uh, he he received recommendations from both inside the city and outside the city. So, uh, we
really appreciate his service to the city and everything he does, not only for our facilities and everything else, but Christmas reflections as well. So, uh, we thank Kevin and, uh, if you will come on up here. >> Go on, Kevin. [Applause] >> Which way am I going?
>> Congratulations. Don't smile. >> Smile. >> Thank you. [Applause] All right, let's get down to business here. All right, we're going to uh begin with
the consent agenda. We will certainly entertain a motion to approve as written or if you have something you want to pull off and put on the regular agenda, this will be the time to motion to approve. >> Second. >> All right, there's a motion to second. Any questions?
All in favor? We're at Dan. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> Eyes carry. Thank you very much. >> And now with the regular agenda, Kobe, do we have any ads or deletions? >> Mayor, we'll add the item that we discussed at the workshop. We can put
that as 4C3. >> 4C3. >> And uh we can name it airport Geneurley Park if that's appropriate. >> Okay. >> Mine has finance director at 4C3. Do we >> could we get a little closer to the microphone? I can't hear.
>> Was that removed? >> Yes, we removed the uh senior center item on >> No, mine says finance director. >> That's 4C2. >> 4C2. We removed what was originally 4C1 on our draft. >> Thank you. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> I have an item, Mayor. >> What is that
>> on the regular agenda? I would like to remove internment. Okay, that would be 9 A4. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay, thank you. Motion to approve with
those changes. >> Second. >> But you have >> one thing, Mr. Mayor. Um 911. Is this going to be a repeat of the previous one? Okay. >> Based on the conversation I had. >> Okay. >> Rick,
>> we won't get we won't get on the subject, but >> Okay. >> I >> No, no, no. I was just asking about the CRA as >> for that. >> No, no, no, no. We I'm just say it's not the same as you did before. >> What did I do before? >> Well, you talked about the percentages and you talked about those types of things, >> right?
>> We're not going back to that. >> No. >> Okay. All right. Uh, so have a motion. Second. >> You got a motion second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. I. Gary. Thank you very much. And for the public, if that sounds confusing to
you, sometimes the council will vote and if you're on the losing side, you can't bring it back up. That's what I was reminding reminding him and so he's not going to do that. Okay. Uh we will go to 4 C1,
Mr. Towns. >> Thank you, Mayor. Uh council, this is a resolution 202515, planning and development review fees. So, we've talked about this during the budget budget time um about bringing our planning review fee cost in line with uh
our expenses for engineering review. And so, working with Mr. Wallace uh and um going through this, we we proposing to to to remove resolution 2602. It is attached to your agenda, but it had a lot of uh language dealing with building permits and the such and we do not do
that anymore. Um and so you will see on the proposed draft resolution uh the list of fees from the plan review side in there there were um some updates to get us kind of in line to the city of Freeport. There was a new fee under fire department review fee. That is because
excuse me it's because the county no longer provides that for us. So the fire chief does that for the city. And then you will see on the subdivision plan review and the plan reviews other than plan projects and subdivision that number $4,000 matches what anchor CI and
three notch group provided to us as their not to exceed number to do reviews for those types of plans as the council instructed to bring back to where we were to break even at a minimum. And then ultimately down at the the bottom of that first page, you see the highlighted section, the council also
made some reference to wanting to look at putting in uh a cost increaser every year, an escalator to continue to cover the rising cost of whatever that of, you know, employee salaries, engineering fee rates per hour. And so ultimately, if that's what we decide to do, um I'm just
looking for how you would like to go about it. Uh and Mr. Atkins can weigh in on that as well. Um the tool that I provided to you is to um increase every year based off for the public service commission. This is what we use for water, sewer and gas rates. Um or just set a standard rate that would be for
every year. So uh this is the resolution. We bring it back to you and open for any discussion or questions. >> I'll make a motion to approve resolution 2025-15 for discussion. >> Second. >> All I have a motion and a second. Questions?
>> Mr. Mayor, >> go ahead. I guess my my comment is he's asking for direction on the um CPI uh increase per year and I think we should just base that align that with Florida Public Service Commission and and follow that because that's what we're already
following for our utility services. So that's that's my thought on on that. >> I agree that uh you want include in your motion or >> it's in there. >> Do Clay, do we need to include that in the motion? >> We do. >> Okay. Okay. So, I'll make my motion to
include that we follow the Florida PSC CPI index for annual rate increases. >> Well, what I would indicate, let's let's don't limit us to the public service commission. Let's go to the CPI recognized by the state of Florida that's most akin to the type of
professional services being done because there may be one more than one CPI that applies to um personal services versus cost of materials or otherwise. >> Okay. So, I'll I'll include his suggestion in my motion. >> I'm just curious, do we do we know what
the what they've been historically, how much they've increased. Can anybody pull that up so that we can kind of look at the last three years at least? >> This past year was 2.23%. That's what rates went up in this fiscal year. >> I believe fiscal year 23 was 7%. There's a major increase there. Um, and then I'm
going blank. >> For many years, it ran somewhere around three and a quarter was a very consistency. >> Yeah. In fact, that was in our rate resolutions from 15 through
21, maybe somewhere in that range. >> Y'all satisfied with that language? >> Yes. Yes. I mean, I'm I don't have anything. >> All right. Any other comments or from anyone? >> I I just want to add real quick that been asking for this for a couple years, so I'm I'm happy to finally see this
come to fruition. This is just one more knob that we as a council can turn to to make sure that we're we're right sizing the budget. And I and I I applaud this. >> Okay. So, every year every year we keep going up on the water
and sewage, right? >> Because of the data given us by the >> Florida Public Service Commission. >> Okay. And somehow we ended up having among the highest water and sewer rates in the
state for a city our size. And by agreeing to do this, we keep every year going up and up and up. And we have a we have a lot of people in
this city. And unfortunately there's more haves than there are halves. Um, thank God I don't have to worry about my water and sewer bill and I don't think anybody sitting at this dice does, but there's a lot of people in the fiiac that does.
And I'm not going to get in an argument with anybody, but if it involves increasing our water and sewer more than it is now, >> that this is not water and sewer rates. We're not increasing water and sewer rates. This is about the planning fees that are on the agenda being increased on an annual basis consistent with the
most appropriate CPI just like we do with water and >> those fees that they're showing right there is what he's talking about. >> Yeah, we're saying we're doing the same thing we did with the following CPI like we do for those. >> Okay. >> Anyone else?
All in favor say I. >> I I carry. Thank you very much. All right. Kobe will Is there a part second part of this? >> Uh, no, mayor. >> Okay. >> No, once we got the CPI number in there,
that was the >> Okay. All right. Good. >> We did it all at once. >> Okay. All right. Good deal. All right. Uh, finance director. >> Thank you, mayor. Uh, council, since uh our last meeting, you all wanted to look at both an RFP to go out for uh potentially go out for executive search
services and also there were contracts in the state of Florida that we may be able to piggyback off of. So, attached to the agenda, you're going to see uh contracts from two different firms. I reached out to three, only received responses from two so far. Um, you'll also see the um an ITQ that was used by
Walton County for executive search a few years ago. So, we can that's on there in the case council wants to do that route. We can edit that and get that out. >> What is that? Say what is that? >> ITQ acronym. Yes, it would be equivalent to
an RF RFQ. they their acronym stands for we don't we don't use an ITQ so in terms of the word the naming of it stands for invitation to quote is what it stands for >> so we piggy back off a Walton
>> no I'm saying if if the council decides they want to bid it out for firms that we would use the Walton county's most recent one they use and I would edit it for us >> understood that's what you want to do understood Um, so there's contracts on to piggy back off. I would say I mean I would think uh now that our purchasing
policy has changed and the threshold of the council is three quotes up to 35,000 based off what's been provided to me what I see they're less than they're around 20 to 25,000. So I don't see why we would need to go out to to competitive procurement but that was >> so that's up to the council if we want
to engage someone directly as long as it's under 35,000 we get three quotes. Next, um I spoke with Miss Chance last week. As of today, she has no applicants that meet the requirements, the job requirements. Um and then also I've
began reaching out to some organizations that I'm a part of and other national and state organizations related to management and finance to to to engage them on some options. So, ultimately, I'm bringing back what we talked about and for discussion with the council on
what they'd like to see moving forward. Do you need a motion to discuss before we discuss because I got some comments >> at this point? I don't know that we we're looking at possibly a variety of motion. So I think Mary we can entertain discussion motion. Go right ahead
>> based on the nature of the item. >> Did you say without >> without? Yes. >> Okay. Can I start? >> Yeah. Um I I know we have to do this but I want to share with you uh does everybody know about >> the existing
>> Okay. So, I spoke with the auditors and then I talked to Kobe and I actually went to the finance director. But would we all entertain would uh I'd like to see or give direction or permission for Kobe to get her to stay on through March
to get us through the audit period through March 31st. Our existing like a contractual relationship between the uh Danielle and us. I know that kind of veers away from this a little bit, but I don't want to see us go backwards from
where we've achieved getting to this thus far because this process is going to take us some time and even if you got somebody in brand new that worked Florida for many years, there's still going to be a little bit of a learning curve for that person. And I don't want to see us have hiccups to get us to the
audit, which is March 31st, and us filing everything by the June 30th deadline. So would we entertain uh Kobe and Clay getting some kind of contractual relationship between
>> the existing interim and us. >> So I would take it one step further. Um if she is willing to do work for us on a contractual basis for an indefinite amount of time, I think Danielle is an an extreme asset to this city. And so
even if it's beyond March, I would love to entertain contracting with Danielle as someone that works remote on a regular basis in secure systems, whether she's working here in this office or whether she's working from her house. Um, secure telecomute type work is
readily achievable in today's technology landscape. So I would suggest that we contract. >> I'd like to make that I'd like to make that a motion. Well, I'd like to add >> Yeah, we kind of want to have a little open discussion before we shut it down for a motion. Go ahead, Dan. >> Okay.
She is worth her weight and gold. >> And the question is, would she be willing to do this? Has anybody checked? >> My conversation with her after learning what was transpiring, she was more than willing to stay on a but only on a
contractual basis. She couldn't do it as an employee. >> Okay. So, um, y'all educate me on this. Does a cont contractual employee, they don't get retirement, they don't get, uh, >> benefits. >> Okay. Well, then she needs more money. >> Well, we'll leave that to u we'll leave
those to others would be my suggestion instead of us. I'm not here to set it or advocate what that number should be. Okay. >> I'm just here to say I'd like to see that continuity get us through the June 30th filing date. Okay.
comments >> and at the same simultaneously we got to do this process though too. >> My only comments for what Councilman Cosen had brought up then and I would go a step further. >> Can't hear you Josh. >> Oh my bad, sir. Uh my only comments for what Councilman Cosen had brought up was
whether or not she would be willing to stay on and um into what terms. But I'm I'm definitely for it. Yeah, I'm I'm good with that. You know, we have to discuss the terms with, you know, once we get someone hired. It'd be
great if there would be a transition period that she could help them out, you know, and what have you, but all that needs to be discussed, too. >> We ready for a motion? >> We've already made a motion. I made a second. >> Okay. All right. >> Without everybody include, all pieces included, right?
>> Mhm. >> Yes. >> Okay. All right. I have a motion to second. Any other comments from anyone? >> Sorry. >> Um I do have a comment. I think that um it's a great idea. I think it's a bad
idea. I think y'all really need to think about how your employees are treated not only by employees but by staff, council members. So I think there needs to be a little self evaluation because we are running people off. We're not keeping them.
>> So great idea. >> Thank you very much. >> All right. Anyone else? >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. Eyes carry. Thank you very much. Uh
now while we're on this something that I want to bring up just as a an idea, you know, and uh something can be done couple weeks down the road or never. But anyway, on our job description, it's under ordinance.
So if we were to change anything, it take 30 plus days, right, Clay? Unless you can give me an emergency basis for doing I don't think it would you know if we hire a finance director I
don't think it would it would throw the emergency out of it but anyway we have the only thing I think that really needs to be changed on our existing job description is with the degrees and all the above we still want eight years of experience in in a city environment. I
think that ought to be cut back to four years. I think you'd see probably a lot more people uh apply. But the eight years, that's that's a lot of time for someone who's already got all the degrees and everything. So
that's just something if you do that then it means that we it take a couple of different um address it a couple times about 30 30 plus days. you can change that ordinance and I think it's gonna make it a lot
easier to uh see people qualify. I just think eight years is a tremendous amount after they've got their degrees. >> While we're talking about finance, can I >> Yeah. >> Okay. Is there accounting position open right
now? >> Yes. >> Um is it being advertised? >> Yes. >> Have you had any um good prospects? >> Well, I haven't looked yet. We just put it out. >> Okay. >> Thursday. All right. Thank you. Did you have >> Which which one is it? >> Would you have time?
>> So, mayor, the original, I think, request from the city manager was to provide some direction on this particular topic as to whether we're to go out for an executive search firm, whether we're to use an existing contract or an ITB. Um, if just based on
my experience with the EDA, I would think that I would support a direction to staff to go out and obtain three quotes from firms and based on the position at the EDA,
um, they were coming in below the threshold for the city manager. So, as long as he obtained three quotes, then we selected based off of what staff's recommendation, I would make that a motion that we we proceed with that. Second. >> Okay, we have a motion. Second. Any
questions or comments? Yes, ma'am. >> I just have a question. Which position are you talking about >> for the finance director? >> Well, so I think because he's talking about the accounting position. So Danielle's actual position is the city's accountant. >> Serving. Yes. She's been serving as
interim finance. Her actual position title is accountant. >> So So you're searching for that replacement. >> Correct. But if we're going to contract Danielle out, why wouldn't we keep her as a as and fill that position with her? >> I think the travel time's probably
wearing on her, >> right? >> Yes. But he's talking about using that >> if we're going to >> to fund and to >> right >> why we're doing this simultaneously. He's suggesting a funding mechanism for
Danielle utilizing the position that she was hired for, not the interim anymore because we're going to go out. >> Oh, you're okay with that? >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> Okay. So, so I'm kind of confused. Is this for the accountant's position? We're hunting the head hunters or the
finance director because I can see it both ways. >> Rather the head hunter for the finance director. I think what's being implied is that instead of filling the position of accountant, use those funds year-over-year in essence long term to >> pay for contractual services would fill that position. >> Okay, I'm good with that. >> Correctly. Correct.
>> I'm not suggesting year over year. I'm just suggesting to until we get this filled and complete and then fill that one. >> Well, I think there's just a distinct difference, right? Because if you if if you're not going to do it long term for what I think council members getting at is the the funds to cover contractual
service in the temporary is going to be used is going to be pulled from the position that is vacant which is the finance director position right you're going to use those funds that have not been used so far in this fiscal year to pay for those contractual services obviously then when you hire someone permanently the finance director
position and you continue contractual services the funding has to come from somewhere and that's where things are headed is you continue to use the funds from the accounting position Okay, that to for me though, that's going to be problematic because that finance director needs that Danielle position, the staff accountant position
to help her get us where we need to be. So I for me, if that's really what we're talking about, then I'm not for that. >> Can you clarify that now? So my motion right now, the motion on the table is to simply go out under
Kobe's authority and obtain three quotes for a search firm for the finance director position. But during the discussion of that, it came up about whether we're going to contract Danielle out and the funding mechanism for it. My opinion on that particular topic is that
we fund that Danielle's contractual position fill the accountant position and not the finance director. >> Why is she why why are we contracting her out? >> Because we don't have any staff >> and she's leaving. She's going to leave.
So if we don't contract out, we're going to be with nobody. >> That's what I'm thinking. >> Well, that's just a given. That's that's where that if we don't do what we're doing right now, then that's what's going to be the end result. She's going to walk out the door. She's given her notice >> and in in how many ever days that notice
expires, she's going to walk away and we're going to be stuck with no knowledge, no worker, no anything. >> So, we have to resolve a couple different issues. >> I think one thing, Dan, I won't clarify. If she is going to be our acting finance
director under >> contract contract >> and not as an employee >> be operating her whole position. >> That's one. >> Who's going to be operating? >> That was vice versa, right? Because that's the way I took it a second ago was that Danielle was going to continue
as the accountant in a contractual position and then we're still going out with a head hunter to hunt a finance director. But that may be the opposite of what you're saying. I'm I'm a misunderstanding then cuz I'm thinking we're going to contract with Danielle to be the interim finance director on a
contractual basis. >> Which one does she want though? >> Do it all anyway. Right. >> Okay. I would think if she can >> Well, the money is why saying this. I think >> she can do this um long distance. What do you call that?
>> Virtual. >> Virtual. >> If she could do this virtual and save two hours on the road every day. Mhm. >> Um, I can see some pluses to this. >> I don't think anybody got a problem with that. >> Can I interrupt? >> Um, so
>> my issue is I just want her to have a relationship with us to get her to do the tasks necessary to get us through the audit period. I don't want her to have to supervise staff. I don't want her and if that means, you know, she's not acting as the interim finance
director, that's fine. But she's got her name's got to come off all the bank account. There's a lot of things that need to transpire. >> And in order to accomplish that, >> we need to vote yay on this. Is that correct? >> Well, I think we already did number one, did we not? We already did that part. Okay.
>> Okay. So, now we're talking. Now, we're having a secondary discussion, which is the head hunter. >> Correct. >> Sketch, what you got? Uh, >> can y'all pause for a little bit and fix your sound system? Nobody can hear you. >> Even when y'all are trying to talk into the mic, it's not coming out. So, can
y'all just like give us a five and check your technology or your IT guy or something and see if >> Well, we can turn up until it goes to uh >> No, I mean, they can't hear you right here. We can't hear you in the back. >> Mhm. >> I mean, >> you've already gotten a scorecard,
everybody in the room, so >> Yeah, I have. I've been working it, >> but it's not working. Look at that. Who said I'm right? >> And fun. Yeah, y'all better say she's right. She She's rough. >> Don't play with me.
>> Hey. >> All right, we talk. Hey, Michael. I think he's cranking it up now, but >> I mean, it's >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Well, >> we have to get up on those mics.
>> He definitely on top of his, isn't he? All right. Eat your mics, everybody. Okay. What you got? >> Mr. Mayor, can I help? Okay, everybody can hear me, right? >> Yeah. >> Okay, thank you. So, just to clarify, I understand we all agreed that Kobe and
Clay can come up with some kind of language to for her to stay on as a contractual employee. Correct. >> Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> And that's what we're voting for. >> We already did. That's done. >> We're voting on head hunters. Correct. >> Now, that's correct.
>> Yes. Now, that's where I think there's some misconceptions. So, if I could just understand where you were going, Mr. Beer Bomb with >> Would you be okay with finishing this motion? Let's >> start that conversation. Yes. >> Because they're two separate things. >> Yes, they are.
>> Okay. Let's Let's vote on this using Ed Hern. Go ahead. We're going to put out >> Yeah. >> a bid for try to get at least three bids. just just authorizing Kobe to do to obtain three quotes and make a decision on a head hunter and not do any of the piggybacking of the contracts or
put out an an ITB. >> Okay. >> Just find us a head hunter. >> That's right. >> Okay. >> All right. So, we have a motion and a second. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. I. >> I. >> Eyes carry. All right. Now, what were you wanting to >> Well, that was painful. >> Okay.
>> The funding mechanism. Now we got I need to understand what we were talking about with funding. >> So ultimately for funding you're going to use one of the two vacant positions instead of paying for that employee during the time you would use that for the funding of contractual services. Um
I think what council G I'm getting at is if if you're going to use the accountant position funding for that service or long-term service I'm actively looking to fill the accountant position. If I fill that position and let's just assume that individual comes in at the same pay
rate as prior, you do not have any funding left in that position to um fund the company >> fund contractual services, right? So, you will use the vacant vacant finance director's position, the funding for that position to pay for contractual services. Then, when you find someone,
you hire them, the funding for contractual services is gone. I think that's where we're headed. So that's that's what we're talking about is if you're going to if you're going to do contractual services longer than the temporary need of finance director or accountant then we need to identify either additional funding to do that or
we need to not fill the accountant position to fund contractual services >> generally and I and that was where I was advocating that we just allow that position to be filled by the con by Danielle's contract.
Okay, >> Mr. Mayor, can I ask a question? >> Sure. >> I need Kobe. >> Well, you're going to have right now, I mean, you're October one, you're one month in to having no finance director. You're likely not going to have somebody by the end of November. And I don't mean
to be pessimistic, but if we were able to hire this position before the turn of the year, I would be shocked just given the practical implications of the holidays. So, I mean, you're going to have three months of the finance director salary banked towards this
purpose that when you do f fund it, it's there. But I would say that would be something we have to negotiate as part of the contract if you want to address it that way. >> Mr. Mayor, >> go ahead. >> Kobe, could you pull up your budget and tell me those two positions with benefits?
What what what dollars do we have that we're working with, please? >> That'll take me just a second. I'll have to go back internal documents. Because here's the reality of it. Let's just say we don't do this with a contract with her. We're going to have to contract with a third party to come
in and get things done. So either way, we're going to be spending money we don't have. And it's it's it's problematic if we have these positions that are open. Staff accountant fill that fill the finance director. Uh we're then
still going to have to have outside help come in like we did before to make sure the bank wrecks are done to make sure because two new hires fill in that role completing everything that we need for the audit. That's where the hiccups are going to come in. And I just don't want us to see us go backwards. That's why
I'm proposing and I thank you for agreeing with contracting with her. I don't I don't disagree. But what I'm advocating for is that we allow Danielle to fill that position permanently as a contractor. >> But I don't I don't know that that's
what she if if they come back if he comes back and says that's what she wants. I didn't understand that she wanted this permanently. >> But let let's let's take it as far as we can take it. And that that at least gets us to >> Yeah, I'm okay on a temporary. I just
heard him say it was in perpet, you know, forever. >> That's a good amendment. >> Yeah, he said he said it was going to be long-term, not temporary. I'm fine with temporary. >> So, the total budgeted amount between the finance director and the accountant
is a total of $283,75783. >> That's plenty. We can do it within that. >> But temporary, right? >> But what's your definition of temporary? not more than 12 months. >> We've been hunting a finance trader for a year, right? So we we may be
>> or let's how about this? I mean, I'mable to let's just re-evaluate it in five months, you know, come March 31st when when the financial statement should be completed, ready for the June 30th uh filing with the state. Let's reevaluate
it there. And if we have to extend it, then we will. What if Mayor you just say not to exceed 12 months? >> Okay. I I don't I'm not in favor of putting a a a time limit on it at that point. She's a contractual employee that we're
filling a position with. >> She's looking for other jobs. Are you aware? >> Yes. Yes, I am. >> She would be a contractual employee and that's a two-way street. So, if we fill the finance director position and we staff up all the other positions and the
the the new finance director says, "I want to bring that position in house." It's a two-way street. It's a contract. We can say, "Hey, >> thanks, but we're going to bring that position back in house." >> That's the luxury of having it as a contracted position. Then, in the meantime, we're not having to pay 30%
overhead. Would you be agreeable to if if and when we get a finance director on board, let's then just have this disc let's keep it going until that period of time and then let's re re-evaluate it at the time the finance director's been here for a few months. >> Yes, that's been that's my point the
whole time is is let's let's get them in here. Let's get that landed. >> And then at that point if they say, "Hey, you know what? Danielle's Danielle's a rockstar and we want to keep going." >> I'm not trying to make it Yes. >> Uh yeah. any harder than it needs to be. I just wanted that clarification. Thank
you. >> Yes, we're good. >> All right. Okay. So, what are we doing? Have we got a motion? >> No, we're good. We can move on. >> Need one >> 4C3. >> No, we're good.
>> No, no. I agree, Mr. Ch. If you say it's coming out of those budgets, if the council's comfortable with him paying out of those areas, >> well, no, let's go ahead. Let's just in abundance caution for the auditor, let's go ahead and have a motion to allocate the funding from those two positions
towards contractual services to fill the accounting role we need. >> So moved. >> Second. >> I have a motion and a second. Any other questions, comments >> for anyone? All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I.
>> I. >> Eyes carry. All right. Now we'll go to 4C3 which is our >> airport. That's the airport. >> Um >> yeah, mayor. So uh I think we we identified two things and I'm assuming we're wanting emotions on those two that
I I understood was to be um you didn't want legal guidance, you wanted something else from >> Treasury. Well, I that I'll just take general direction from that if there's no need for a motion, but we'll take general direction to get legal to get guidance from Treasury regarding the obligation versus expenditure language,
the use of ARPA money for the December 31st, 2026 deadline. >> Okay. >> Will they give that to you in writing so that we can pass it along to these >> vendors? That is absolutely what our intention is to get something that is in writing and if not we will get what we receive from them and the treasury
guidance and reduce it to writing our self capacity loan. Okay. And >> the only other thing with that was the question of making making it more abundantly clear that this is unrelated to the runway. So I don't know what else we do for that. But >> well, I just think for the official minutes we need to state on the record.
I'm going to do a memo that the city's original intention going back to the 2016 2017 era once the ready sites were initially established along Geneurley Road was to look at doing improvements
to Ganurley Road to better utilize those sites. Uh as part of that discussion was held with FDOT and FAA for the use of grant money to improve Gene Early Road to make that road more suitable for
industrial purposes because Gene Early Park and the road itself were outside the airport fence. It was not eligible for FAA dollars at the time. I think that is point one that we weren't talking about it as an airport project.
Thereafter, we did look at converting the park in 2019 from a recreation use to a transportation use under a section 4F evaluation to expand the airport based on D guidance of four options to get out from under the grant
requirements. The city chose to hold off on all four of those. Um thereafter the city engaged in 2020 discussions through its tree and beautifification board uh to look at the use of that park which determined the park was underutilized
um was plagued by homelessness, vandalism and did not appear to be in good condition and explored moving the equipment there to other locations. And then within the last two years have explored conversations with state agencies um dealing with economic
development opportunities for the location of an industrial site at Gene Early Park rather than the ready sites due to the overall size of that. Um I think if the council based on its information there um by motion would
adopt those as the council's historical timeline and authorize me to pin a memo to that effect using supporting documentations. We will provide that to the FAA. >> So moved. >> Second. >> All right. Motion second. Any other questions or comments? >> Does it require a vote to keep this
airport workshop every meeting until we we're comfortable? >> The third item. That'll be the next item. We can talk about that next. >> Thank you. >> Rough timeline. >> What's your rough timeline? >> Oh, I'll have that before your next meeting. I want you to see what I've sent out, but >> um it'll be it'll be address a signed
letter will be at your next workshop. >> Okay. Anyone else? Any comment on that? All in favor say I. >> Uh, one second. Next workshop or next council meeting? >> The next airport workshop, whatever that is. >> And that's what y'all about to set. So, I'm thinking it's your next council meeting. You'll have it the next time we
talk about. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. Carrie. Thank you very much. >> So, now we need the workshop discussion. Mayor of are we going to continue setting airport workshops before council meetings? >> I agree.
Yeah, I'll make I'll make a motion to set one for the next council meeting and and my my comment would be so let me see if we could second for that >> second for discussion. >> So my only comment would be um let's just play that by ear and and
once we if once we feel like things are moving in the right direction, let's not make it every single two weeks because that could be pretty taxing. >> Yeah. I'd like for us to do it until we can kind of relax and kind of get the impression that they actually know what
they're doing. >> I agree. >> I think that's what he's talking about. >> Okay. >> Yeah, I agree. >> But we will have one the next regular city council meeting. >> Yes, sir. That's that's my motion. >> Thank you. >> Before it or during it? >> The before? >> Before. >> It has to be before.
>> Same time, same bat channel. Four o'clock. That was my concern on the workshop question was that it would be the second second week of next month. >> But no, >> it's going to be the next meeting. >> Two weeks. Yes. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Next council meeting.
>> I think that's important at least for what we heard tonight because I'm not one for coming up to the podium and telling me I don't know. I I didn't bring that with me or I wasn't prepared. And I have to tell you that's an irritant to me. Um, and not not that, you know, I wouldn't tell them that, but
they need to be prepared when they come because this is too sensitive of a project. All of the pieces and parts that got to fall together >> for $170,000 document and a meeting that's been established for over a month now. I I 100% agree with that that sentiment.
>> I don't think anybody at this dish was impressed with what we heard tonight. >> So, Kobe, you'll tell them when and what we're expecting. Yes, mayor. We're delay that message. Okay. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> All right I. >> Eyes carry. Thank you very much. All
right. Now we are going to 6A1. Is that correct? That's Samantha Smith presentation on a second draft of the historic preservation. >> Good evening, mayor, council, members of the public. I am not Samantha Smith. I'm
Josh Shervin with the CRA. But I do have Samantha here. She is our consultant that's been working on this historic preservation design standards. As you may recall back in June, we were before you with our first draft. We had a lot of uh good feedback from the council. Got a lot of good feedback from the
public. That feedback was incorporated in this second draft. And so uh tonight she's going to be presenting just a highlight of what those changes were and get some more feedback from me. So with that, I'm going to ask myth Miss Smith to come to the podium and start a presentation.
>> Thank you. Hi, council. So, my name is Samantha Smith. It's nice to see you guys again. >> You as well. >> So, again, a little bit about me again, my co-orker Caroline, and we've been working on this project since January. We were here recently in June. Um, and
so now here we're presenting our second draft. So this is the cover. Uh, one of the biggest feedbacks we got was obviously having three separate documents was a lot. Um, and there was a lot of repetitive information and we felt it could be more user friendly if it was
just combined into one. So that is largely like the biggest thing is it's now into one document. We also flipped it to landscape just so there's a lot more visuals and diagrams in order to showcase those a little better. Um, and then here's just going to do a brief overview of our table of contents
to highlight the changes, the biggest changes. So, we added a new section in the first chapter that just goes over financial incentives. Um, as well as talking a little bit more about the difference between a national and a local register, why are they different?
What does this actually mean for you in depending on where your actual residence or building is located? As well as contributing versus non-contributing structures. We also have more information on that. Um, so here are the two pages showing more financial information. We also
moved we had the secretary of interior standards at the beginning of the design standards chapter and we felt those were they could be construed as a little conrict or restrictive. So we actually moved them after this section as they relate to if you're working on federal
grants or projects that you have to comply with those. So we also moved the secretary of interior standards and then the largest change being the reworking of the whole design standards chapter. So instead of having a section
on existing and then new construction, it is now all been combined into one just with callouts for new construction within it as well. Um so now there are 19 sections within. So here are some pages pulled um the left showing what originally it looked
like and this is the second draft. So again the landscape is a lot wider. We break down a little bit more on like in this case standard signage as well as lighting associated with signage with then a best practice box. Originally we had appropriate and not acceptable and
very strong verbiage. So we switched to best practice as a way to these are what we recommend the most. Um, and then we also had a lot of verbiage related to maintenance. So, we removed a lot of that as we felt that wasn't as helpful for what this document, this guide book
needs to be. Uh, another example of added diagrams. We made diagrams showcasing each type of signage. Again, just showing more user friendly what exactly they mean. Uh, here's some pages for fencing. We
also removed a lot of links um throughout and just referenced if you need more uh in the appendix if you need more information please go to the appendices. So that was removed throughout the document as well. Um again showing best practice box and then a lot more breakdowns of the visuals of
diagrams. So showcasing the different types of fences uh heights of the fences where they're located the front the side or the rear. This again being more helpful for a property owner who is interested in putting up new fence. they can pull this page up, show Chris Wallace and say or the the planning
director at the time, um, and say, "This is what I'm looking for." And he can go, "Oh, perfect. Cool. That's awesome." It'll speed through the whole process. Uh, and then here's another example page for windows. Again, breaking down windows through trims and shutters. Uh,
and then with the best practices and then a whole page more of just diagrams as well as some more conversation. We also had a comment on the actual discussion on substitute materials maybe being a little too restrictive or confusing. So we focused more on in the
case of windows profiles and proportions, not necessarily the materials. There's still talk on why maybe some materials are better for your building in the long term than others um for a lot of different reasons, but again a focus more on profiles and proportions.
Um, and then finally, in relation to discussion of local versus national, we added the National Register historic district map in the appendices. Just again, if you're working on getting a federal grant for your property, your property would need to be in the National Register District. So, there's more clarification given on that as
well. So, currently, uh, we are the timeline shifted. I've been told we're very flexible. We want to make this document that's helpful for the community. So, if it takes longer, that's that's fine. But, um, we're on the second, I think,
maybe a few months of I have a comment matrix on the website. Um, this QR code, if anyone is interested, links to all the documentation that we've provided so far um on the city's website and comments are welcome. We're having a
city or we're having a um Tachaka Chiakaco brotherhood hall um tomorrow. We're having a public meeting. So, anyone's welcome to attend and give us more. We'll do a more breakdown of the document and we'd love to hear comments. We just want at this point
want to know if the formatting, if the design of the organization is what we're looking for and is helpful and appropriate for the future. So, >> thank you. >> Okay. Question. >> Yeah. Go ahead, Tom.
>> Um, the the changes that that are have been incorporated, I want to commend you on a a lot of those. I I see um I'm I'm very very happy with um I know we spent some time on the phone and or on Zoom and I I appreciate that time. >> Um so very happy to see those changes.
Um think you've done a fantastic job. I do want to mention there's several Defunia provided maps in here and those maps have the old city seal and just want to make sure that when this finally goes publication that we do use the correct current city seal.
>> Okay. Anyone else? >> Well, thank you so very much. Um, >> yeah. >> And u >> and in this technology world, I'm very available anytime remotely. So, if
anyone wants to talk one-on-one later, please reach out. >> Thank you very much. It's very, very helpful. >> Thank you. >> All right. And and mayor, just just to clarify, so after um our meetings this week finalized with the CR meeting on Wednesday night, she will incorporate
the feedback that we get and kind of consolidate that into a final draft that will be presented back to you at um the near in the near future. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Perfect. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> All right. We are at the citizen comments. At this time, we open the
floor. Hello, Mr. >> Hi. How y'all doing? What did this lady just present to us? Is this going to be guidelines? Is this going to be regulations or what is being presented? Because this is the
second time I've heard of this. I live in the historical district >> and I'm afraid you're not going to tell me what I'm going to do to my house. >> So, I need for y'all to tell me, is this guidelines or is this actually regulations that you're coming up with?
because I thought about two years ago that we shut this down and now here it is appearing again and it's my house. It would be my money unless you want to buy my house >> and you spend your money. So that's my
questions. >> Yeah, I was trying to look on here to see if I can see the boundaries. >> Um is the boundary on Crescent or is it >> It's behind it, Mr. Mayor. >> Yeah, >> just just for clarification. So the CRA is developing this and then we'll
present this to the city. It's still up to the city whether we accept these, implement these. All of that is still yet to be determined. Okay. But like I said, I thought about two years ago we to we asked the city to do away with what you were doing with Miss Mini
Henderson and all that stuff, the historical stuff that she had going and y'all acquiesced and it went away and now here it is raising its head again. So, you know, when do when do we tell y'all no, we don't want it?
>> Well, I can tell you that I I agree with you. I have a building downtown and I completely agree with the statement that it's my building and I'll do what I want with it. I'm I'm a big big advocate of property rights, but I also understand that our downtown and our town have a
historic charm that we need to encourage people. It's great and wonderful if somebody else is going to pay for it. I'm asking you, are these just going to be guidelines? I worked with FEMA since 2004 and I understand everything about the National Historic Preservation
stuff. We blew all kind of money painting back with gold inlay on on buildings and this and that just so it' be historically correct. Uh this is Defunia, guys. Come on. We we don't need that. I I did work on uh for buildings
down at Bruce on that Indian group down there. We paid five times what a 1x six should have been because they changed uh width of it from the 20s to now. We had to have wood specially made. Is this
just going to be a guideline that we would like for us to do or are you going to make us do it? Is this going to be an ordinance in code put in code? Is that is that what we're working towards? >> Well, obviously you got to have some
guidance. I mean, we don't want you to bring your chickens and cows up here on Circle Drive. >> Is there a law against that? >> Yes. >> There is now. >> Yep. >> Didn't used to be. >> Yeah. >> But, you know, car's been there a long time. >> Yeah. But anyway, what I'm saying is,
you know, somewhere you got to draw a line >> and it's just a matter of where is that line, you know, and >> well, I happen to be in that historical district and I'm going, you know, how I'm going to be. >> Sure. >> Sure. Yeah. And uh most of this will
pertain to those who are either building or maybe a major remodel or something of that nature. Uh you you know you guys are grandfathered in. Probably won't be affected, but uh you you know you know you were here when we did the thing about the uh RVs.
>> Yeah. >> And we >> and luckily that went away and everybody's happy. >> We backed off of that. >> Yeah. Everybody's happy now. >> And that's the way we're going to be on this one right here. >> Yeah. >> Cuz guys, come on. Uh again, this is Defunia. >> Yeah. >> I've lived here most all of my life.
It's a great place to live, but you cannot make a living. and you start telling me that I've got to pay five times what a regular 1x6 is just so I can make it historically accurate. Not going to happen. That's for people not
from Defunia. >> Yeah. Well, I haven't seen that instant. >> Well, I can guarantee you you can go down and look at that building that the Muscogee Indians have down there at Bruce. >> That's what it cost us. >> Mhm. >> For each one of those boards that went on that lap sighting.
>> Yeah. because we had we had it cut down at uh where Bert Brandon was working down. >> All I can tell you is I think I believe uh this council and our code enforcement will be as gracious as possible. Uh that doesn't mean that we wouldn't draw the line somewhere.
>> Well, let's just don't make it so you got to be gracious. Let's do away with it. >> I'm asking you, is this going to be a gu guideline, regulation, or a code >> that hasn't been decided? >> Yeah. Go right ahead, Josh. Go ahead. Answer.
>> Thank you. Yeah. So, so the the whole intent of of this standard book is to visualize kind of what's already on the books as far as the requirements for the historic district. So, there is protection for the historic district already on the code or in the code
rather. In reading through that, it leaves it up to the city planner to ultimately decide what's appropriate, what's not um uh appropriate. And so through this exercise, we're trying to develop a set of standards that one can use to reference to help make
renovations, repairs, new construction within the historic district in an effort to preserve that. There is a distinct difference, I believe, between preservation and restoration. So we're not getting into the restoration business of period specific materials and things of that nature. We're simply
just trying to provide some some guard rails, so to speak, on visually what that means to be appropriate um or what's recommended as a best practice for those repairs or for the new construction within our historic districts. So, you all as the council
will ultimately decide how to incorporate this within the current code. Uh it would be my hope that it would be used as a reference guide to assist the city planner uh with reviewing the certificate of appropriateness process. So he or she has something to go off of that maybe is
a little bit more objective uh and could be more consistent through replacement of the city planner. So that's to answer the question, it it's a document uh that will be used as a guide for both residents, prospective residents, building owners, city planner, city
staff, and others uh in a more objective manner to see what the expectation is within the city's historic districts. Thank you. >> I heard guide. Mr. Mayor, >> it's a guide. I'm happy with it. Now, is
this for all the houses that have the cute little National Historic Registry plaque on them? Or like mine, I refuse to let one go on it. >> U is that in in the book? >> No, it's not in the book yet.
>> Okay. All right. Well, are we going I guess I'll be there tomorrow night. We'll help him put it in there. Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. Yeah, >> let me answer that. >> Thank y'all. >> Yeah, go ahead. Answer. >> So, so the the standards are being develop developed for the three historic districts. So, we have the original historic district which the map
depicted. We have the new one in the Dorsy neighborhood that was uh created and approved by the council. And then we have the downtown district. So, the the standards that we're developing and the book that we're developing is for all three of those districts. So if you
reside within either of those districts, the standards would apply. >> So So you know, I would say that um this thing started off at like 600 pages and it's down to 180. >> How much?
>> 180 I think. >> 180. But that that includes all the introductory stuff, table of contents, all that. So the plan itself is much more reduced. And that's because the council pretty much had some hesitations about bit something being so broad, so
convoluted that nobody would be able to uh figure out what's what because it was so lengthy. They have graciously uh look this thing over really well and reduced it to the point where um it's more manageable. So, I think everybody
would agree, maybe not everybody, but um you know, one of the attractions of of our city is the heart of the city, whether it's downtown, what's around the circle. Uh I live in an old home myself. I was concerned about this, have been since I bought the house in 1997, but
I've never had any issues with doing what I needed to with my house. I just spent $75,000 on my house putting the original siding on the side, replacing foundations that had old termite damage, probably 50 years old, uh, long before I bought it. So, you know, a a lot of
people will take that initiative to keep their homes uh, you know, in original state as much as possible. But we realize when you're you're faced with putting a $3,000 window in when you could buy one for 600, people have a hard time, you know, doing things like
that, they might not be able to do it actually. They they might be on a limited income. They might have lived in that home for 50 years and it's hard to come up with the money to maintain that historic home that they bought when they were much younger and it was much more affordable possibly for them. So,
there's a lot of things to consider and I think this council will will do that. I have confidence that we we will do that. Um I appreciate the the work on this. I I expect to to attend that meeting tomorrow night. Um I hope to be there, be the first one I've been able to be at. So um if we didn't have these
and and somebody, you know, accessed and and purchased several homes in key areas around the circle or whatever any this historic homes all through this district. That's why it's a historic district. Um there's no telling what condition those people would keep that
home in if they're not from here don't appreciate what we've had all these years. This is an old city and old buildings and they they do need to be protected and cherished. Um and people in the future if they buy on the circle they they will have to be able to afford
that. They I realize that. My concern is the people that've been there for a long time. How do they afford it if we make it too stringent? So we have a lot of things to consider here. Thank you. >> Yes, sir. >> I'm Joe Dobson. Um my wife Cindy and I
live on Circle Drive. Um >> and if I could get some assistance on looking at page 58. I just want to talk about something real quick. >> Okay. >> Some of the difficulties. Um we've owned our house for 20 years now.
uh we've put uh enough money into it that we're way upside down. No one will ever be able to pay us what we've probably put into it at this point. Um but if we would look at page 58
um and just this is an example of of why it's very important that these be guidelines and not necessarily um code so to speak. Mhm. >> So we have here we could blow this
section up right here. >> Bottom right corner. Yeah. They they can't see you. >> Oh, I'm sorry. >> 66. >> Is it doing the windows or the >> Yeah, the bottom. Okay. Thank you. >> So, we replaced all the windows in our
house. Um, and they don't make the window sill size anymore on these houses. So, there's it's not a matter of you're too cheap to
buy a window that's big enough. It doesn't exist unless you would be able to find a factory that could custom make exactly those specified sizes. So in that example in figure 66, you see the unacceptable or the not so acceptable,
incompatible window on the right has a section at the top that's been added in order for that window to fit that sill. >> Are you talking on the green side of >> On the green side? Yeah, that window right there. They've added at the top. Wouldn't have chosen to add it at the
top, but they did. I think probably every one of the window I've got 50 windows in our house. >> Every one of them has a version of that in order for a modern window to fit that sill.
So as we go through this process, you know, saying this is acceptable and that's not acceptable, we really need to look at the details of of what that means because that can mean the difference between putting in a window and not putting in a window. And the
windows that we had before were the original windows. And every time a bomb dropped at at Eglund, you get another crack in those windows because they were paper thin glass back then. And so replacing with windows that are like the
windows that are original. You know, I know this this vers I'm sorry, this version is a lot better than the previous version, but some of these important design problems are going to be
problematic if we get someone in in a in in a planning or a building department that says, I want to go whole hog against these and not necessarily I want to take a look at them on a case-byase basis. Um, it's just it's important that
we keep it's important that we keep these historical homes safe and and not falling apart. But at the same time, and I love DeFi. We've been here for 20 years. Best city I've ever lived in. I've lived all over the place.
But the pheniac, as we all know in this room, doesn't provide the kind of level of income and jobs that could prod, you know, allow people to go in and spend a lot of money on fixing up a house and then have any hope of ever being able to
sell it to somebody. And so given that decision, you know, if I'm looking at am I going to do that or am I just gonna let it go, there are gonna be a lot of people that say I'm gonna have to let it go. And when they let it go, we're losing that history. So sometimes to save the history, we might end up losing
it. >> Be at the meeting with the CRA and >> tomorrow night. Yeah, we're going to talk about it then. >> Be sure you you voice all those concerns. >> Absolutely. Thank you'all. >> Thank you very much. >> Mayor, may I ask Josh a question? >> Yeah.
>> Okay. I'm just going to share what what we went through when we moved back home and redid my grandmother's house. Um there there were really a lot of rules then. It was really
if you if it looked like it was in good taste, the city went along with it. But I had somebody that was at the house every day unsatisfied with the fact that we didn't put tongue and groove uh pine boards back on the front porch. I used
gray trex so I'd never have to replace it again. Uh we didn't get the milled sideboards on the house wooden. We have exactly I mean identical to the tea right down to the wood grain hardy board
concrete boards that we got a uh a reduction on our insurance for that. Everything was brought up to uh 21st century hurricane standards. Um and the thing that just made Dr. Ray just lose his mind was when I put solar panels on
the on the roof. Um, would any of these things, the TX, the Hardy board, the solar panels, anything like that, would that be affected by what this is wanting to do? >> You know, that's a hard question to answer without knowing exactly what the
standards are end up looking like. Um, I can tell you the intent is to help you understand that as an owner or as a prospective owner before we even get to the point of application. As it stands right now, to your point, if you were to apply for a certificate of
appropriateness, you would tell the planner what you want to do. I want to replace my sighting with X. That city planner would review that and he he himself would make a determination as to whether that is appropriate or not. If you felt it was appropriate, he'd issue a certificate of appropriateness that
would allow you to do that work. The goal of the standards or the the book is to help identify what the parameters are. So when it gets to a point of application, you already know exactly what's been preapproved as a best
practice. If you want to go above and beyond what's already been preapproved, then that's something the city planner would have to take into consideration basically the way that he does it now. So I I don't think the goal of the the standards is to necessarily make things
more restrictive. I think it's to make it more objective and to make it more transparent as to what the expectations are and probably most importantly why those expectations exist. I also want to remind everyone that this
is this is not a a CRA standard. This is the city standard and we want the city, you know, to be involved in this process. We want to make sure that we get all the feedback that we can so that way the city will
for the most part agree with what we have produced. We want to make this as easy as possible for people. I think some of the challenge that I see from my view now after speaking with a lot of people is the expectations really unknown and the only way that you get
the outcome or the answer is to apply and have the city planner review that and having conversations with the city planner. There have been a lot of concerns about you know the architectural and and significance of that being reviewed at the city planner
level. So, we're hoping to provide some illustrations to give not only the the owners or prospective owners uh an illustration, but also the the city planner as well that may not have the architectural experience. I certainly do not have any of it. Um so, you know, for
me to look at this document, it it certainly helps me better understand what the expectation is. So, to to answer your question, I I don't know. >> Uh but but I would hope as part of this exercise, we would be able to determine that and what's most appropriate. uh as it relates to the city as a whole.
>> So, hypothetically, if this went through, would Chris Wallace be the one that determines what was appropriate and what isn't? >> That that's that's correct. The certificate of appropriateness as it stands today would continue to exist just like it does today.
>> And he's slammed as it is. >> Well, it's up to the council. Council could well appoint, could task planning board. There's a variety of different options of how because if you take what's being presented, what you end up with still has to be administered by
someone. You can still decide who that someone is or someone's. So, right now, we're not changing the COA, but you're not doing anything tonight. You're not adopting anything at all. But that would be a question the council needs to determine. the the goal would be for the
the planner to have a set of best practices so that if you're the applicant and you satisfy those best practices, his review is pretty simple. You've already done all the leg work for him by identifying what you want to do and it falls within that best practices criteria. So instead of him having to
sit there and analyze each one one by one and make a call, that calls more or less already been made in the standards book. So in some ways it would actually help him and improve, you know, his um review time. You've answered my question. >> Thank you, >> Mr.
>> So I I would like to just add that the this request was made of the code review and land use committee and the code review and land use committee decided that it was further down the priority list. Then this request was
taken to the CRA and the CRA took it up. But what I would request of this council is that you allow the code review and land use committee once this standard is complete to work on it and consider it as well. It's already on our priority
list. So allow us to have public engagement, allow us to to debate it, discuss it, and then bring it up to the council for final consideration, which which would give ample opportunity for everybody to have numerous amounts of input into this. Um
I I think we might be getting a little bit of the cart ahead of the horse in terms of, you know, where the discussion is going right now because this is being developed. It was requested to be developed by the CRA because our committee said we would take that up,
but we would not take it up immediately. I want to reiterate that and it's on our priority list. So, allow us to pick it back up at the appropriate time when we get through some of the other things that are on our list right now. Again, we'll have numerous public meetings on it and then it'll ultimately be brought
to the council for a decision on it. >> And this is what board? the code review and land use committee >> on it. >> That's myself and and Councilman Skongers along with a a citizen. >> Okay. Miss Mindy
>> um Melinda Henderson, resident of the city. I agree with the first gentleman who said very plainly, this is definited writing historic preservation grants in 2000, you'd never be permitted to put
Hardy board on because they only made one type of Hardy The Hardy board people got real smart and they said, "Oh, we can make Hardy board just like the material that's already on houses." Today, if you ask them if you can put Hardy board on, the
answer is if it pretty much resembles what's already on there, go for it. When I first started writing historic preservation grants, windows were a huge, huge problem. It took us a year to get their permission for the windows in
the Murray house. However, they're aluminum clad. They're double pained. They look like the originals and um they didn't cost any more than any other window. But it took a a long
time for us to find a manufacturer that already had those that we could get them at a reasonable rate and in time to put them in there in within the grant period. So, um I would hope that whoever
the reviewers are going to be, whether it's just Chris or if he appoints a committee to help him, that their goal would be how can we get to Yes. instead of
no, you can't do that because that's not the way Definiac works. We work as helpers. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Michelle Kit. So, I want to put point out something at the lakeyard. I thought we didn't have vinyl sighting, but now
we have a brand new house built that does not resemble the rest of the lakeyard that's vinyl sighting. I mean, I guess my question is where do y'all draw the line? Who's grandfathered in? These are things that have to be considered, but not only that, who's going to do the inspections?
Are y'all putting that off on the county and are y'all going to tell them and work with them? Because y'all don't have an inspector. >> I mean, do it for us. Do you really think they're going to take on a added work of the historical
inspection? Because what they're inspection inspecting is foundations, wood, um, uh, electrical, plumbing. They're not inspecting your did you get the right window? there's, you know, a level of the
insulation, but the inspections are not going to be this intense to a whole book of I mean, are are y'all considering the expense of this? And where do you draw the line? Is vinyl sighting now acceptable? It's not. Are we asking for forgiveness instead of permission? Where
where are we going to draw the line? And who's the boss? >> I think that's part of the whole conversation. There's a lot of things that we have to work out. Um, and that being one of those is is the inspections. >> So, my recommendation is you don't have
an HOA, so step very carefully on telling somebody that they can't paint a house the color they want or the guidelines because the historic district, unless you turn it into an HOA, it's not an HOA and unless they go on the registry,
they're not restricted. So going and and and some of these seniors who have bought the homes and then trying to basically put an HOA restriction on them, I'm not sure that's fair to our citizens, to our retired citizens. I I like the plan. I like the guidance. If
you stick to it's just a guidance, I think it's great. But understand, if I came to your house and told you I didn't like your windows, no matter where you live, you're going to tell me to go pound sand. You treat our citizens the same way.
>> If you don't want it done to you, don't do it to them. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. >> Question. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Clay. Well, mayor, I remember this from last time. Um, I have the
>> Donna Arnold, is it legal for you to step in now and this from a legal standpoint and tell these people this now that they own these houses? And as a council, I under It's expensive. I'm a realtor. >> It's expensive to buy in the historic
district and live there because that's where people want to be. Okay? They buy these houses. Most of them are not they're going to be like that first man and don't not want you to tell them what to do with their house. But if they get it and then they can't repair to the standard that you have, we will find a
lot of houses sitting empty on the lake >> like the one there on College Avenue that sat empty and dilapidated for years. And I think it's better to allow them to replace it with what they can than to sit there and go to pot. M well trust me we have uh tried to be as lenient like she had mentioned a while
ago about the Hardy board uh very acceptable now and then she had mentioned the vinyl >> and I saw the new house that's not yeah it's not historic we have houses on the circle much less out in the district that are not historical houses >> and I understand giving them guidelines
for the ones that want to keep the historical integrance integrity of their house I understand that but from a legal standpoint point. Can we if they don't want their house on the historic district, like she said, it's not a HOA. There are no they didn't buy a house knowing that they had to do that. So,
can we enforce those? I think >> absolutely we can. >> Okay. How's that? >> Because it's a historic district like multiple other historic districts. There are hundreds if not thousands in this country. If you buy a home in a historic district, you have certain obligations
that often will go with it >> moving forward. But what about those people that are already there? >> We have them right now. We have >> and we have we ever enforced it. >> Absolutely. We have a COA process that is a very detailed process. >> What's a COA? >> Certificate of appropriateness. If you're going to do anything in the
historic district, you have to get a certificate appropriateness. That's been on the books in Punia Act probably 40 plus years. >> And but we've always done that because we see these houses >> it's longer than I've been alive y'all. >> But we've we've seen these houses that aren't like that. That's why I'm asking.
How did you saying that? I can assure you they received to appropriateness. The comment about vinyl siding. Vinyl siding has been an acceptable material in this historic district up until very recently, >> but it's not now. >> When was that changed? >> My understanding is in the last year
they removed it from the NPS guidance. >> Yeah. I mean NPS the state of Florida and our representatives that we talked to on these issues allowed it up until what he just said, but I can tell you the last time it was evaluated, it was absolutely allowed. Now yes, certainly you have certain things that we're
preempted from. Mr. Cosens is a great example. A lot of people raise heck about his solar panels, but the state of Florida preempts us on solar panels. I wrote that opinion to the planner who was not going to give a COA because it didn't comply with the historic guidelines. But we cannot enforce any
regulation that prohibits someone from installing solar on their home per Florida law. That's why that's there. So with the exception of when the state or federal law steps in and tells us we can't do something, we have always regulated the historic district in the city of Phoenix. >> So the ones that are there now with
vinyl sighting, if something happens, they want to change, they can put their vinyl sighting back or if they need to repair. >> So ultimately, as they are now, they are grandfathered in. That is generally how that works. Now, at the point in time that they want to go back and replace it, they may have certain standards to
comply with NPS standards at that point in time. So they might have to change with the new >> they voluntarily seek to change what is there and forfeit what they have. Yes. >> Or repair what if something you know we have storms what if something comes through and >> repair is not something MPS or that
historic guidelines prevent. >> So they could go back and fix their house to the standard that it was >> depends on what percentage of repair. I mean there's going to be a certain percentage of repair you're allowed to do and certain you don't. It's going to be case by case. is I I just wanted to clarify that there
there certainly is a nuance conversation when it comes to repairs, what applies where, and and to me, one of the big differentiators and one of the things that I plan to really drive home when this comes back to our committee is there is a distinct difference between a contributing structure to the historic
district and a non-contributing structure. If you're a non-contributing structure, I don't care. Okay, that's there are so there will be areas where like those right around the circle may be a contributing factor some just off the circle even though they fall in that
district and they're not up to what the historic version is now they could repair or replace like >> so so it all goes back to the 1991 survey that was done to establish the district and from what I understand from guidance that I received recently is
that pretty much locked everything in >> the 91 the 91 survey that established the district. So it's it's available on NPS. It's very hard to get to, but when you find it, it's a gold mine. >> But it went around and it talked about every single house and you can find
houses that they they pointed to and they said, "Nope, that house doesn't qualify. This is why. Yes, that house qualifies. Here's why." So if it's a contributing structure, we as a city need to do what we can to help preserve that. Now, let me pause for a second and
give this aside. >> I have always believed that it is better to incentivize people to do the right thing than it is to write a bunch of rules and regulations telling them what to do. Classic example, Mr. Powell. >> Yes, sir. >> The RV sheds. That was something that
that we worked to un undo very quickly once I got elected. Okay. I'm always in favor of incentivizing people to do the right thing. That's why in that historic preservation guideline book that you're seeing there, there's a whole section now on incentives because if you want to
do it, here's a way to actually help you pay for it and offset the cost. >> My husband built he built Bruce Butt's house on the circle, the one on College right there on the or Bay and Yeah. Bay. >> Um they didn't that had vinyl siding on it. >> That's correct. >> And um
>> and that was permissible at the time that Yeah. through the >> C and that's what I'm saying. So, and then he repaired he's the one who did the outside and part of the interior um stuff for the McDonald sisters on the light foot mansion and stuff. And I knew that there are things that does not meet
>> these things. That's why I wondered if they would and I know now that they would not be able to do like they did back in that time when Elizabeth and all of them were alive to go back and replace it. >> Yeah. So to me there there's a big distinction between if it's a contributing structure we want to
encourage them as incentivize them as much as possible to preserve but to me there's a fine line again I want to go on the record I'm a property rights advocate my property is my stuff >> and and while I love my building downtown and we and we have big dreams
about putting it back to the way you seen in some of the old pictures when we do it I don't want someone telling me you got to use cypress wood from the swamps of of Red Bay, >> right? >> You know, I I want to be able to do it. >> It needs to be feasible. >> That's right. That's right. So, that I'm I'm
>> So, but this is not just houses that are on the register. This will be across the board. >> It's within the historic district of Defunia, >> right? That's what I mean. But it's across the board for all that fall within that map. >> It's it's And again, it's guidelines. It's here's if you want to fit in if you
want to fit in and be preapproved and be fasttracked, follow the guidelines. Also, following the guidelines makes you eligible for a lot of federal tax incentives. If you don't, then it does provide some guidance to because I've run into this just what Josh pointed
out. It then becomes a subjective decision by the planner and uh I believe uh Mr. Dobs pointed out, well, who's to say someone doesn't just go whole hog and go one way or the other? So having these guidelines put some guard rails up
so that the planner can make objective decisions not subjective because I've seen in my tenure where I felt like there was subjective decisions being made one way or the other that I didn't feel like I agreed with. >> Is there somewhere we can see what the codes are now? Um already now
>> 18-55.1 of the city municipal code. >> Okay. because I want to because we kind of need to know that as professionals since someone's going to buy on the circle. >> By the way, there is a requirement in there of a specific notice that has to be provided whenever somebody buys sells
or leases or offers to buy, sell, or lease a house in the historic district. >> Yeah. And I've never known that. I've been a realtor here for 20 years. >> Been there since 1991. >> I know. I've sold a house during that time to Mary Lancaster right there. the big red and white house on the corner of
Maine and the lake and everything. Never heard that. Never signed anything. >> So, needs to be clear. >> Thank you. >> All right, man. Some >> I hope I can clarify something on vinyl sighting. First of all, in the Northeast
where they have these houses that are 300 years old or more, some of them had to have vinyl siding on them to protect them from further decay. up there. They can get super
professional jobs that do not leak that actually form an armor around that historic house. We are not that fortunate here because in in one, two, three buildings that I wrote grants for
that had um vinyl sighting on it, there was rot occurring underneath and it was nobody knew it was there. it was covering it up and the vinyl sighting leaked and it was unacceptable. But there are instances where it is
acceptable nationally. I don't know about the state. Uh >> thank you very much. I have let this meeting get way out of hand. Uh you shouldn't have been up here for more than three minutes. Any of you? Um that's my fault. So I'm doing a little
housekeeping late in the game. Uh, and so we Yeah, we we got to move on. We've gotten this presentation. There's nothing to vote on, right? >> We're already in citizen comments, mayor, technically. >> Yeah. Well, most that came from a comment, RI, >> right? So, yeah, we started in citizen comment seven. So,
>> all right. Any other comments outside of this uh historic zoning, whatever. All right, I'll close the floor for public comments. All right. This time, Clay, you got anything? Yes, sir. >> All right. On the legislative request,
Mr. Cosen, you got 911 CRA. >> Okay. So, I was really confused after the last meeting when um when one of our council members said that if the CRA borrows uh up to $10
million, uh that if it went defunct and property taxes are eliminated, then the city's going to be respons responsible for that.
And I really didn't understand how that worked because somebody's going to want their money. So I asked Kobe to explain it to me and he said, "I really can't explain it to you." So I
thought, "Well, I'll put it on the on the agenda." So I would like to ask you, Clay, if you don't mind. Sure. So, we give our money to the CRA and this is this is question one of two. It's a
two-part question. They get their money. they can't pay off the bonds [Music] and then and then we don't have to pay the pay
off the bond but we cannot eliminate the CRA until such time that the bonds are paid for which means it's still taxpayers money the fiak springs taxpayers money that's
paying off those bonds because we're having to keep the CRA functioning to pay off the bonds. Is that correct? >> So, so let's walk through this. Florida
statute makes it clear that any revenue bond issued under the statute. It shall not be deemed to constitute a debt, liability, or obligation of the public body or the state or any political subdivision thereof. further
says that on the face of those bonds, there has to be a statement to the effect that the agency shall not be obligated to pay the same or the interest there except from revenues from of the CRA held for that purpose and neither the faith in credit nor the
taxing power of the governing body or the state or any other political subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the principal or of the interest on such bonds. So by state law as it exists, we as the city are never
obligated to pay those bonds. Now to the other point you made there, it is clear that once the government is creates CRA, which this city has done, there is no doubt about it. You have created a CRA. Once bonds are
issued, it is the obligation to fund the redevelopment trust fund annually until all loans, advances, and indebtedness and any interest there on are satisfied. So you do have to
maintain a level of funding sufficient to allow that. But now, so a couple comments there. First and foremost, the scenario where somehow the CRA goes defunct based on changes to the law. We have
article one section 10 of both the United States Constitution and the Florida Constitution that prohibits the impairment of contracts and that has been interpreted for almost a hundred years in the state of Florida to say that bond holders hold a valid contract
in public financing and you cannot change the law such that it would impair the rights of those bond holders. So to be clear, whenever we have seen this happen elsewhere where a law has been taken off the books, uh tax has been
declared invalid or otherwise that there has to be a sufficient windown or sunset period of that to allow the obligations secured by that form of taxation, whatever it may be, to satisfy those
debts. So you can't have a law just take it off the books. And so no, we can't legislators not be able to write a law that says all the bonds are invalid if property taxes are scaled back. But I I'll give this example. Let's say we have a constitutional amendment pass.
And that's what we're dealing with here. Home rule went into this state in 1968. And the statutes that implement most of that went into effect from 70 to 73. The final real codifications was almost five
years later in Florida legislature. And we could probably sit up here and talk all night about Florida constitutional amendments that the people of this state have passed that have not been implemented or enacted by the legislature until a year or more or
several years more later due to the legislature not being able to agree on how that was done. So what I would say is that there is a supposition in your question that somehow the CRA could be wiped out of existence by the change in
the tax code or the change in the constitution when in reality the constitution is written both in the state of Florida and the United States Constitution to prohibit that from happening. So I don't believe that what we're talking about is something that can come to fruition. But you are
correct. This council will be obligated to do that. Now, I want to raise a second point you didn't ask me about. >> We've been looking at this debt issuance in the CRA. I want to go ahead and just go ahead and get this out there so everybody hears it up. >> Okay. So, um,
let me finish. >> Okay. >> I've done a little bit of homework just inside of Florida >> of cities and counties that have CRAAS under them. Um, and they handle it a lot differently
than we do. For example, all this money we're giving to the CRA, uh, taxpayer money and advalorum increase money. They're getting a ton of money from us. And we're just giving them a checkbook
with all the checks signed with no strings attached. And a lot of these cities and counties are saying, "We'll give you say, and I'm just going to make an make up an example. We'll give you $2 million
to do your alley." And we're not going to give you any more money until we see something become of that $2 million. >> I'd like to know who's doing that because that's inconsistent with Florida statute. Okay, this is a hypothetical situation where these other cities and
counties put strings and restrictions on what they can spend their money on, >> but they can't. Okay, >> sir. That's not that's not consistent with Florida statute for community redevelopment agencies. It is a trust fund that they are responsible for. >> So then how do you control the
taxpayers's money? >> Well, that well what I would say is this. Once the CRA is created, that is the CRA's job. the city council has funded the money to a separate entity for which the money goes into a trust fund. That's what it is for them to
manage it. I mean in fact 16387 is entitled redevelopment trust fund and discusses the administration of it. What I will say though is the only potential the only potential control mechanism
that this council gets over the CRA actually is in the form of debt service issuances and we've been looking at that with CRA right now. We've been exploring what's available. While the city council when it enacted the CRA did include in its initial
resolution a provision that says that the CRA may pledge its revenue for the issuances of debt and the pay and repayment thereof. In discussing this matter with bond council in discussing the matter with lenders and a variety of options in the
public and private public and private finance sectors. We believe that it is going to be very difficult to secure approval of debt issuance that does not include approval of the projects attached because we know the
bonds have to attach to specific projects where the city council has not also said on top of CRA these are the projects you want and then looking around the state that is actually one of the limited controls that does exist and so what I'll tell this council right now
is should the CRA go out and take out debt. It is my recommendation, it is bond council's recommendation that despite the broad clause of the resolution allowing them to do that, that the city council specifically be called upon to approve the debt issuance
and the project list attached to it. So in your scenario, what that limitation or that stream could be is you want to borrow $3 million to do the alleyway project. That's what we're approving. We're not approving $3 million of debt. do whatever you want. It's going to be 3
million to this project, a million to this project, and you will have that opportunity. Although whether the bond market's favorable right now is something we're talking to our financial adviserss about, and that's something the CRA will be bringing back. But so this council will actually have some
degree of control about the type of projects you do as it relates to debt issuance. You don't have that if they just spend the money in the trust fund straight away. >> Okay? In my layman vocabulary, that strings attached. So, even though I did not use the right words, >> only but only on debt though. You can't
just say we're only going to give you two mill. We're going to only allow you two million of our tax money to your trust fund. Once that money goes to the trust fund, it's theirs. But if you're going to issue debt, in that case, that's where you attach strings is to the debt. >> So, when you say to the debt, you're talking about the bonds,
>> correct? >> Okay. So, so they they can't just take out $10 million worth of bonds uh and have a dream list, can they? What I'm telling you is they can if you approve it and they can't if you don't because I don't believe a lender is
going to authorize it short of I don't think we're making it through underwriting short of the council approving the specific projects as well as the debt issues. >> Okay. So, hypothetically speaking, can we approve for specific
for specific projects on the bonds for say the top two most important things right now is we've got to do something about the alleyway and we've got to upgrade our fire department. Can we put those
strings on it? And I'm using layman terms. you you can at this stage, but if they bring it to you, you'll have the opportunity to approve or reject the debt issuance. And if it doesn't meet what you want them to issue the debt for, I guess you get to say no. Um, as a practical matter, if they bring you
those, two, and you say that's what we're going to let you borrow this much money for, then yes, you can do that. You got to let them bring it to you. It's their money at this point. >> Does that sound like something the council would consider? >> Well, you're going to have to do it. I want you to go ahead and say I'm telling
you legally you're going to have to do that. >> It's going to be presented to you for your approval. I I want to be very clear. I feel comfortable signing an opinion letter that the resolution the council issued at the creation of the CRA allows it to
borrow money. I am also completely confident that we will be very limited in the amount of institutions that will loan money for project specific basis of that nature without having the council approve it especially if one of those or
two of those or three or four of those are publicly held facilities. That becomes the rub. So let me just just be very clear. If the CRA was saying, "We're gonna borrow money to build up this store of money that we will then use to remediate blight on these private
structures," probably wouldn't be in a spot where we're coming back to the council. But because it is the alleyways, which are public roads, and you're also talking about a publiclyowned fire department, which by the way will require the county to sign off as well because of the language in
the statute about use for fire facilities or police facilities. In those scenarios, it's coming back to you because we're not going to be able to lawfully borrow the money at the CRA level without this council's blessing and the approval of both the debt and
the specific project at the same time. So, you're going to see it again. >> So, we don't have to borrow $10 million or $5 million. We can we can borrow just enough to get specific projects done and then sit back and see what they do with that money.
I mean they you can do any combination of that. You can do any one of those things. Yes, sir. >> Okay. >> Okay. Ready to move on? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Uh John Bow and Street and North 20th Street sidewalk. >> Okay. Um
I found the answer to this, but I'd like the public to know. Um, we've got Did we approve and put in the budget uh maybe a couple years ago to finish the sidewalk from where the county left off all the way to 90? >> We didn't budget. >> That was grant. >> That was all grant.
>> Yep. >> And the grant money's run out and we didn't >> No, we never got it. >> We didn't get it. >> No grant fell the roof. >> Yeah, we lost that. That was lap. >> Well, I think what he's speaking of. I don't know about the lap, but the CDBG grant the council for we did not
receive. We had a lot way back and uh we lost and that was really due to our >> the audit. >> It was the audit and the other financial shortcomings are identified in the legislature that disqualified us from a number of grant programs
>> all of 20th Street. >> Yes. >> But anyway, we lost it. >> So now that we've got a clean audit and a good reputation, is there any way to reapply for that grant? >> Yes. So, but the the city has to have someone on staff who's lap certified. So, I know Miss Kanye, the court grants
coordinator, and Mr. Anderson, the public works director, are looking at getting lap certified so we can begin to apply for those monies again. >> Okay. And I think the last thing is No, not the last thing. Let's go back to Florence Park. >> Can I ask a question, Councilman, for a
minute, Mr. Mayor, on what you were talking about there? Because the county did their portion of that sidewalk already, but the maintenance of that sidewalk. I had a question about this that I want to talk before, but who's maintaining that saw? Is it us or >> Yes, sir. So, they um the county when
they finished, they gave that to the city. >> I think we we need to get to looking at that a little bit more because there's grass growing up in between it now and it is starting to get >> like that was on Walton Road, not on 20th Street. >> Okay. >> And it it's all the way around there.
>> Yeah. Spoke Mr. Anderson. I know they went out cut and sprayed it so they'll continue to maintain it. >> Thank you, Councilman. Go ahead, Dan. >> Okay, so Florence Park, um Glenn and I have been trying to get some uh fencing out there for a while. >> And um the only thing that we've been in
non-aggreement on is when I went out there and talked to the parents, their only concern was 11th Street >> uh for the kids to run out in that busy road. Glenn came up with an idea about fencing at all. Um at this point, I don't care. I just want
some kind of fencing put up. And we talked about this during budget season. And um I don't know if the money is still available or not, but um can you just give me a little >> We have any kind of quote,000. Yes,
>> Mayor was one of them. >> So, do we have a quote, Kobe? Go ahead. >> So, I think that we should Well, this this is on the agenda, so I I'll I'll I'll make this a motion.
I make a motion that we direct city manager that after the conclusion of the library, the leftover funds from that we have allocated to the library, that we evaluate allocating some of those funds to the fence.
>> It's a good idea. So, I'll make that a motion. >> Better than nothing. Second. >> We have a motion and a second. >> Uh, >> I do want to comment. >> Go ahead. >> I'm able to make that motion because I have regular conversations with Mr.
Townson. And I think while it's important to inform the public about what's going on, it's also important that we consider be considerate of everyone's time and using this portion
of the agenda as a classroom versus the meetings that we could have with our city attorney and our city manager. I think th that value far outweighs this being open session for asking a bunch of
questions. So, I would implore my fellow council members to ask these questions during the week and get these answers and and deal with it in that appropriate way. I I support your your idea of the fence. I support getting the fence.
Safety is paramount, but we've got to stop with the classroom setting and we've got to get on to handling the city's business. >> Okay. So, we've had a really good meeting and I'm not going to spoil it now, but I just want to share with you,
you know, my thoughts on that. And that is um I still got my training wheels on and I am learning. And when my constituents and our constituents that live in the city limits bring a problem to me and say, "What
about this? What about that?" I feel obligated to voice their concern and get some direction on a public forum so they know I'm not just saying, "Yeah, I'll look into it or I'll talk to Kobe and get
back with you." Uh, this way it's just in the sunshine and I'm not trying to cause anybody any problems. I'm trying to learn this and I'm trying to let the constituent constituents know that if they come to me with a problem, I'm going to address it. And I just ask you to have some patience with me on that.
>> Well, as as an upperassman, I would tell you that I have I matter of fact, I got contacted this weekend about a concern by a citizen. I did not feel the need to put it on the agenda. I've had a conversation with the city manager and it's going to be dealt with. That's the way most of this stuff should handle. >> Okay.
>> And then the the things that should be on the agenda. This is something that I've always been passionate about. What's on the agenda should be the 300,000 foot view. We should be looking at five, 10, 15, 20 years and that's what we should be debating and discussing.
>> Okay. Noted. >> Um I did >> I had put um some of the missing sidewalk on I believe it's um Bowwin John Bowwin on the agenda. >> Y
>> uh there's a slab there. It connects two schools. It goes down to um >> we have a motion and second on Magnolia topic. Mr. Could we move forward since I have a question on >> We have a motion second on the >> You can if you got a question regards that motion. Go ahead. >> Yeah. Before we vote, can somebody
please tell me is this the motion was leftover money library apply to this? But my question is are we talking about a foursided fence? Are we talking only 11th >> only 11th Street? And what is the estimated pricing that we're talking
about please? So the the initial quotes I got were 13,000 for running it just the length of the sidewalk along 11th and then roughly 24,000 to fence in the park, you know, water fountain playground equipment to the corner. So what I would what I'm what I would do
what I'm going to do is when we get done with the library and we have those funds, I will I'll get three quotes anyways because of the dollar amount and I'll bring the council options and you can choose from there if you if you decide to fence it all in or one part of it. I think somebody got to decide tonight. I'm not I'm not just going to go buy it. I can't. So, it's Clay Street, right? It's Clay Street, 11th
Street. >> And on Clay Street, it's kind of like parking that kind of blocks the kitties from Okay. >> Yeah. I'll bring some options back. It's It's going to be outside my spin authority most likely. So, you're going to have to approve it anyways. >> I mean, Kobe's already covered all this. Like, this is not new information. This
is this would be the second time Kobe, you know, because Kobe covered this with me last week, but then he had already covered it with me before that the options on the fencing and the costing. So this this is not new information. >> Okay. >> Okay. So
your motion was and of course we're >> all it's just allocating the remainder of any funds associated with the library to the Florence Park fence. >> Okay. >> Not to exceed or >> well it's just whatever >> he's going to bring it back. >> Bring it back. You're gonna have to approve it. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. All Todd's saying is all all council member Rum just said there is if there's money left over it's going to be put to this project. >> So it's an allocation issue. >> Um I do want to say that it is a waste of citizens times when there are things that can be resolved outside of this
meeting and I actually understood his your question. I've understood it multiple times. that's been discussed about the CRA and if you have citizens approaching you about it, you should at this point if I've sat in this meeting and can barely hear y'all can understand
how all this is going to work. Matter of fact, there's a whole book on this. So coming in here, it just feels more like we're stirring something than we're solving problems. So if I can understand it and explain it to a citizen, I I I hope everybody up there can. And if you
can't, they record these meetings. Watch them as many times as you need to understand it. But y'all have families. We have families. Let's not waste our times bringing up things that are just to stir things. So that's I like the fence idea.
>> Thank you. So it looks like it Kobe will be bringing back to us first of all if there is allocated or you know leftover funds, quotes, and everything we need to do to make decision. go ahead and and uh construct the fence.
>> Okay. Are we uh voting on this? >> Yeah, there's a motion on >> Yep. All right. >> And there's there and I believe I seconded it. >> Okay. >> All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. >> I. >> I like the idea, but I think there might be something else more prioritized than
the fencing. So, no. >> I can understand that. >> I as Carrie, thank you very much. And Kobe will bring that back to us at the right time. All right, Miss Evelyn, you got the >> mayor. I had put something else on the
agenda and provided the videos to back up what I was showing the problem. >> You're talking about the uh >> um sidewall. >> I believe it's called uh >> Jack. >> It's right here. Councilman, you skipped over. So, we can go back. >> Okay. I'm sorry.
>> Okay. So this ro this road right here I believe is um John >> Bowwin >> and it connects Walton County High School to um is it called Saunders? >> Mars Saunders.
>> And this is the sidewalk the kids used to walk back and forth to school into the neighborhood called Magnolia Lake. >> And this sidewalk has been in this condition for over a year. and the citizens have finally uh called me up
and said, "Hey, would you come out here and look at this?" And I said, "Sure." And this right here is not a slap on our city because that is a really good neighborhood and they have very small problems and they've got a homeowners association. So, our work uh our public
works hardly ever go down that road. Uh so, I brought this to the attention of Kobe. I made these videos and there's some other pictures. Here's some other pictures. Anyway, there was some debate on who's
if it was DOT, if it was city, who it was. So, I believe since we've already discussed this, you found an answer. And maybe you want to include Mr. Anderson in this or not. I don't know. But >> if that's okay, Mayor, Mr. Anderson,
he's he's he's taking care of it. So, >> so yes, the sidewalk was actually pulled up whenever they did Pinehurst phase 2. Um, the contractor did not fix it like he was supposed to. I got in touch with him today and they are sending a crew
out to get it fixed. >> Fantastic. >> Great. Okay. Thank you very much, Andrew. All right. So, that problem's been solved. All right. ready to move on. Miss Heaven, uh Clay, on this this issue she's
bringing up, I know it involves county property and city property. Uh on this item uh 9B1, I think the request from somebody in the county is wanting access across what I guess it's
now city property. Is that development now? NX. I don't think >> Can I just bring up what I'm going to say because it might not be >> Sure. Yeah. I just don't want us to get in any jeopardy here. Uh >> yeah, I just wanted to bring a concern. I want the council to see two things on
this uh map right here. You see that dotted line, the little Y at the top left hand corner there? Did he just move that? You see the easement uh road, How Road? >> Mhm. >> Uh okay. So, I just want there's a
potential property issue on this uh site. There's a developer that's going to use the live local act that uh came into existence around 2023 and 2024. And the concern is that little roadway that exists as it is right now before
anything happens. Jesse, could you go to the next picture, please? Yeah, right there. See that building seven? It's going to go right on top of that those two roads. So, the concern is there's four houses that live down that uh Loi Lane. So, this is at the corner
of How and Loi. If you back up, Jesse, um but I know that in Florida, you can't landlock property. So, there's four properties down that road, but if the development gets approved, it's going to cut off those two roads right there. Loi, uh where these people access their
property. So, um, I just wanted to bring to everybody's attention. Um, I asked Kobe. I don't think any of this has been approved yet. Uh, Chris Wallace said he didn't approve it. Kobe hasn't approved it. I don't know if it's gone before the planning board yet, but >> it will it will not because local
projects done administratively >> and and who would that who is the administrator then that would >> Mr. Wallace. >> Mr. Wallace. Okay. So he according to him he has not done anything further. But I just wanted to bring this to everybody's attention before it becomes a problem because if that building seven
is on there uh then those the access road to these four houses is going to get eliminated and >> a civil issue though between the but that would be a civil issue. It would be purely between those property owners and the >> city well let me just read you. It says
a city or county cannot approve a site plan that cuts off owners access to public roads or easements. And that >> but that's not a public road. >> And I'm not here to debate the issue one way or the other. I want to bring it to I'm very worried. >> Please Clay, let me finish. >> Ma'am, you're putting the council in
jeopardy by violating 1664151, the Florida Live Loco Act by having the council talk about an issue that it has no authority over. If a development would plan to block an access that it says the de the remedies are the developer has to create and record a new
easement for that road ra to restore their access or redesign their project to prevent the landlocking. So I don't think >> but that's a civil issue. It is a pure civil issue between the owners of that property and the owner of the
development. If that's a public road I agree with you but I don't have any record that's a public road. Um, if there's a court judgment that gives them a prescriptive >> the the road has been there forever. Uh, how road I've gone to the property appraiser. I wish I would have brought
the old maps >> too for 30 years. >> And mayor, >> it may well member of the real estate. >> They may well establish a prescriptive easement or a statutory way of necessity, but those are both methods that can be established, but require a
court judgment to be entered. The city does not own this property. I'm not asking for the city to do anything, Clay. I'm asking to share this information with my city council members that if this gets approved by Mr. Wallace that we will be cutting off and
landlocking for property. >> We will not be doing anything. We will be approving a project under the live local act. The developer would be the one who would be subject to a potential lawsuit for a prescriptive easement or otherwise. But in the interim though
then how are these how are these four property owners going to access and my other concern I don't know >> my other concern would be a city issue >> my other concern would be there are four homes down there that are pre-existing how is the fire station should god
forbid a fire occur how would our fire department get access to those properties if that development went in there's no roadway to get to those four properties and our public safety is in jeopardy because our firefighters can't get to these four properties and help
save those people's homes. Can >> Can I point out something real quick on the map? >> Real quick. Yeah. >> Okay. Uh the other map it says right here existing overhead electric. You can't build an out.
>> Hang on. Hang on. Please don't speak >> again. But all of this discussion is outside of our purview. Maryland to live local. That's the problem. M the state made it very clear we're not supposed to be talking about or taking action. >> It's not against our ability to talk about it if our staff member who you
just identified as the planning director is going to potentially mistakenly approve this project under those guidelines when a building is going to go on top of it pre-existing roads >> and there will be noistress or egress
for the fire department or those homeowners. I just want to bring it to everybody's attention. If you if councilwoman, if Mr. Wallace were to act on your suggestions to fail tonight, the city would be subject to liability in my opinion under the Live Local Act. This is why the council shouldn't be taking up issues that are subject to live
local. The legislature was abundantly clear that this was not something that we can hear under quasi judicial proceedings. But it also says under it also says under there that a city cannot approve >> a city cannot approve a site plan that
cuts off owner's access. That's what I want to bring to >> but the owner's access is something that is not it if those owners do not have lawful access across that site right now. We're not cutting it off. >> They do have they do have access right now. So >> you said lawful access. Are you taking
the position you know they have lawful access? There is a perpetual easement but we don't know where it goes. >> It's recorded >> where >> in the public records. I can't remember the booking page. >> Well, if there's a perpetual easement recorded across that, then that's a very easy thing to go get an injunction to
keep that open and not allow those buildings to be there. >> Right. >> That's very simple. You go get that injunction. That's very easy situation. But the city's not going to get into the private dispute between two private property owners. That is a civil matter. >> I don't know. It said that in and I've
been reading the live local act and it says that they have to go through every review that anybody else they can't be tied up by the quasi judicial committees and sent back and back and back but they're supposed to go through every review. Well, there's several things
that the city should review on that. >> The city council shouldn't be talking about >> not council but just your um your person who does that like there's encroachments and everything. I'm just going to point out that the encroachment of the house across that property line is a city
employee. She was I did aware I mean if it's a city employee living that has nothing to do with the city. I'm just I was just saying that for information purposes, >> but it does say that he intends to um remove both both of those accesses, even
the um existing one >> perpetual ement. That's a very simple civil suit for somebody to pile on stone. >> Y but I don't want them cut off until then. >> Yes, ma'am. >> I forgot what I was going to say, Mayor. Sorry.
>> Okay. Well, this will be taken up in a different house. I I recall. Can I >> Sure. >> Okay. Mr. Wallace also told me that he didn't approve that. He doesn't review these for approval. And Kobe, I need your kind of uh guidance on this. He said that we hire an engineering firm
and it's Deubberry that looks at these and approves that. Is that accurate that Mr. Wallace is not the member that reviews these plans to say if they're in compliance or not? >> He doesn't do the tech review. >> Doesn't do the tech review. But >> what is the You'll have to explain. >> If they fall under I pull back up, which
you just approved tonight, resolution 202515. >> If they fall under one of the two categories, uh, and I'm pull them up real quick >> of subdivision plan review or plan reviews other than plan projects and subdivisions, those go to an engineering
firm and tech review >> for tech review. Those have been dubberry. There will now be. >> So, is a tech review anything that I've asked about to or just brought to everybody's attention that Okay. So, so no, it's not. You're saying yes. He's saying no. >> No. No. Tech review is a technical
review of the site plans that to sure ensure they comply with the city code. Mr. Wallace then has the final sign off. >> Does that Okay. And I don't know the details. Uh but does that include if an ingress and egress gets cut off? That
would be Mr. Wallace's job or is that fall within the technical or is that within the technical review phase? >> Dubberry has reviewed and approved the plans as presented to them because they cannot find a legally record easement to the property. So that's what they've approved. The only reason the DO has not
been issued to this developer is because the developer has not paid his fees. >> That's what I understood too >> because he is trying to work with way has told me work with property owner on the issue to work it out. only reason to pay the fees. He can pay the fees tomorrow and I don't know that we can not not take and move forward with the DOA. So, it's not the city holding it
up. It's the developer is willing to hold it up to try to work it out. So, again, it goes back to being a civil matter. >> So, so what I understand, even though I've brought it up and said, look, there's a potential landlock situation that's going to occur here. What I'm hearing is the city council has no
ability to start or stop uh that from occurring. Is that what I'm hearing from? What I'm telling you is we shouldn't be talking about this project. Period. >> I'm not talking about the project. I'm talking about public safety and the fire
station, the firefighters getting access to those four homes. There's four homes down this lane. I drove down there. >> I'm cautioning you and every member of this council that at the point that you continue to go outside what the livewax says, you're subjecting yourself, especially if you're talking to Mr.
Wallace and getting into day-to-day city activities. >> He didn't know anything. He couldn't help me. Well, if you >> I asked for a copy of what the public members got from him. >> You're welcome to subject yourself to legal liability. I'm trying to help you here, but I suspect the developer will have something to say if this doesn't get approved.
>> That's fine. Then I'll challenge it. Okay. So, thank you for your advice. >> Attorney, you're not the city attorney. >> No, he just said me. He didn't say you. >> No, you're suggesting all of us. >> Okay. >> All right. Let him take care of himself.
Um, you ready to move on to Kobe? >> I don't have any. I have none, mayor. >> Okay. All right. We'll go to council comments. We go. Sorry, Mr. Dan. >> I learned something tonight on the CRA.
I learned that if they get, let me just make sure I got this clear. If they take out a bond and we sign off on it, the city council has say so on how that money is used
>> before. Yes. And I'm going to go even a step stronger than that. Councilman Kosen for them to take out a bond. They're going to have to get your approval for that bond and the projects attached to it. That is my legal opinion that I have offered the CRA and the bond council's concurred and I'm putting that
here on the record. Well, I tell you what, I consider that major. Thank you. >> Okay. None, sir. >> Just one. I I value legal counsel. Legal counsel keeps our citizens from
liability in lawsuits, undo lawsuits that shouldn't come on. We have to abide by the statutes. We have no option otherwise. So, that's it. Other than that, it's been a great night. Amy, >> and I don't want to uh fight with our
legal attorney either, but Clay, help me one more time. Tell me what I'm doing to jeopardize this council from uh preventing this from happening. >> My concern is that the city council in its capacity has no authority to pass on these issues or engage in this process
based on the state. If this project should now be subject to additional scrutiny review because this was discussed in a public meeting by the city council, the developer will likely raise that in court to say that the city council exceeded its authority under the live local act by directing the planner
to engage in additional review or otherwise. And my concern is that subjects the city to liability, including injunctive relief and damages under the litany of Florida statutes that were enacted between 22 and today that basically tee the city up for a wide range of lawsuits in these
scenarios. >> And refresh me. What did which which which law did I violate by asking you to talk about? >> The Florida live local act says we do not have authority at this council level to do this. These are this project as a live local project is due to
administrative approval without action by any quasi judicial decision-making or local government board decision >> and there's no exceptions for the public safety issue I just brought to your attention. >> They have to comply with all laws of the state. There's no doubt about it. But I don't believe the city has a law. Now
look, the city and council here here's the problem. If you're right about what you said, that's between our tech review at Dubberry and our fire chief to identify. It's not for this council to identify. The fact you've now raised that issue,
if our technical team says it's not, but Chris says, "Well, but the council was concerned, so I denied it or I'm going to make it go through additional review." That's where we have potential liability and exposure. Th this is something that >> And if I'm right, would we be exposed?
If I'm correct in what I'm suggesting, would I would the city be >> Yes, because you were wrong to bring it up. >> You should have let Deubberry do its job as our technical review team to review that issue. They would review for fire and public safety issues as part of that.
>> But they have already the only if you just if I understood Mr. Townsen correctly, the only reason this hasn't gone forward is because the developer >> correct and Mr. council said that our engineer doing technical review could not find a dedicated easement that would cause that to be an issue. So, as far as
that's concerned, I mean, people don't get to cross people's property illegally in this state. And people don't get to say, "Well, I'm that's how I get there. I drive right through the middle of your backyard to get to my house, and that's where the fire department needs to drive, too." The fire department's going to go where
it has to go, but at the same time, this is a civil issue. set the Live Local Act aside. This is purely a civil issue between any of those owners and the owner that they're claiming is depriving them of access. >> Can I ask you a question? Sure. There
are two roadway signs there, which means somebody maintains these roads. There is somebody either from the city's public works went out there and put up a this is how road and this is Li Avenue. >> Are they private roads or public roads? They're not shown as public. I >> I don't know. But who would put up a
city or a county roadway sign intersection sign? >> There are private roadway signs all over this county that have been put up by the county and city and one city. I mean, >> but what I'm saying is a government entity that's doing >> correct. But that's that's for maintaining those roads and somebody's
so somewhere along the line >> but they can they can go to court if if they have been maintaining those roads for the requisite period of time. >> I appreciate the education. Thank you, sir. They certainly can get a I mean I it sounds like they have a great case if it's been there for 30 years to
establish prescriptive rights and they have every ability to do so if they can but that's 20 years not 30. >> Yes sir. um earlier conversation with barge and the environmental assessment.
Let me get this correct. On the beginning date, was that when did they start this? 2122 or was it later than that? >> The task order for bars for environmental assessment was signed by the previous interim manager on January 30th of 2024.
>> 24. Okay. Okay. I didn't know how far it had gone back. >> What was the continuing services? They had just referenced continuing services. Yeah. So I I guess my point here would be I I was thinking it was earlier than that even and and that's been part of our
city's problem for a long time is city manager turnover >> and I still stress that we have to keep this kind of stuff in mind you know keep keep somebody in place uh get a finance director hired and so what we do at this dis and what we say matters because
people are watching and and we need to get these things taken taken care of. But part of the part of the problem maybe with that delay of of that environmental assessment might be the transition of one city manager to another and a lapse in in continuity and in follow through. I don't know. But we
need to be cognizant of of these types of things I think to keep things on track. >> Okay. Thank you very much. All righty. Well, we got to let cool heads prevail. All right. This meeting is ajourned. Part: 2
What are you Look at it. >> Exactly. >> All right, we're going to call this Let Make sure this thing's on. It is. Uh workshop to order. Uh this is Monday, October the 27th and we will do an
invocation for the Holy Spirit. Father, we just thank you Lord for your love for us, for this city, for these people God. And we ask God you give us the ability and just lead us Lord that we can make good decisions and direction for the city and everything that it
represents. In Jesus name we pray. Amen. >> Amen. I pledge algiance 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. >> All right. Is this pretty much going to be airport update or we've covered anything else? >> Uh, no sir. It only be about the airport. >> All right. You want to take it away? >> Sure. Uh first we'll do some quick introductions before we get started. U starting over here on the right we have
Kevin Kenoy with Barge. Uh Michael Cole and then Keith Shippy and then sitting up here in the front we have uh Matt Sinick with Garver and then Tim Parsons is here with Liberty Partners and then Andre Lewis Kin our airport operations manager is here as well. So um we can
start with obviously we have two point two things to discuss uh main points of the runway that is the environmental assessment and then the actual project itself and some of the things that have transpired and come up since our last workshop and so ultimately uh it's probably prudent to start with the EA
the planning side before we get into the project side. So um I'll let either Andre or Barb come up and start us on that where we're at and where we're headed. Evening guys. Yeah, I'm Keith Shippy with Barge. Um, and we under contract to complete the EA. Let me give you a
little update. Um, of course, this I will say this EA has been challenging. It's had its hurdles um working with the FAA in Orlando. Um, and there's been some design changes along the way with regard to the project, but do you guys have a schedule
in front of you? Uh, I think we can maybe start with that. But so where we are with the EA, we have a draft EA ready to submit to FAA and our schedule had that being submitted last Friday.
However, currently the FAA, they're still trying to work through the Gene Hurley Park and the park closure. Um, that falls under section 4F. It's a federal statute. Anytime you use federal money, um, in this case, it's an airport
project. If it has any effect on a nearby park or public recreational area, you have to satisfy what they call section 4F. So, what we've been told by the FAA, we've been going back and forth. Um, I know Andre has been working
diligently on this to get them what they need. She had some question. Um, she was looking for some possibly some historical information from the city that talked about why the park may be closed if it was due to the airport
project or a possible future industrial use. So, we were trying to kind of, you know, look at it as a a a reason for the park maybe being closed was not really due to the airport. But I don't think we could actually or the
city could actually uh produce any documented uh documentation to that effect. So it's really in the FA's hands right now. She told me not to submit the draft EA until she was could do a little due diligence on her end with regard to
the park to see exactly how she wanted to handle it. But as soon as she lets us know it's okay to submit the draft the you know it goes through you submit a draft it goes through FA has 30 days to review it they give us comments back
and then we have to address comments send it back so there's a back and forth with the EA document itself and ultimately the FA has a new process now with the um with the new administration in Washington they've kind of changed
how the environ AL laws are are are you have to comply with. So now they actually have to go send it through a legal their legal review I think is a final step with the EA. So as you can see on here right now we've got a
schedule. Um and now this is like I said this is some of this is out of our hands. We not you know once we submit it they'll have time to comment and and we can't really control exactly when they send us comments back. but working with her and
and getting this schedule right now. We've kind of got tentatively hopefully get a final EA signed in June is kind of what uh what our schedule is right now. So, that's kind of where we are. We've got the draft EA document ready to
submit and just waiting on her to tell us to submit it. It'll go in. The FAA will, like I said, do their review, send comments back to us. We'll address them and go back and forth until we satisfy their comments, which going to be honest with you, we've been working on this a
while. So, we've been sending technical reports and all that already. So, she's reviewed some of it. So, hopefully it'll be a streamlined process once we submit the first draft of the report. So, >> right there. >> Yeah. >> On the um on the park you mentioned a
while ago, you don't have any documentation as to why we wanted that shutdown? Well, I'll you know I I I haven't seen I guess or anything in what what she was looking for mayor was something in writing saying that the park was being
closed not because of the airport project but because of another project. Um some old council minutes or something is kind of what she was looking for. And I and I think um you know I haven't seen
anything but um I think that's what she was asking for. >> Mr. Mayor, we've we've gone round and round about this Gene Hurley Park, you know, even predating my time on and and it's always been for industrial development,
>> right? And and when I came to the council, it was made clear to me and there's there's got to be meetings meeting minutes that indicate this because it's been it's been discussed million times that we wanted Gene Hurley shut down and that park relocated
because it sets sits next to two industrial sites that were Florida ready sites under FPL. >> Sure. So there's there there should be a mountain of documentation that we should be able to to find and rustle up that would indicate that this is not uh being
shut down. However, the problem I see is we received a recommendation from barge to shut that down as part of the EA. So now we've kind of painted ourselves into a corner in terms of the
park and did we shut it down for the for the airport project and the runway project or did we shut it down for industrial? It it it is it is longstanding and well established that we were wanting to shut that part down for industrial development outside the
fence of the airport. To me that's well established. >> Yeah. And and I think uh Councilman Beerbomb that that and that was my understanding too. She was just looking for documentation and writing to that effect. I guess is what she was looking for something she could
put her hands on to put in her files. >> Okay. But that's that's that's extremely vague and to me what is it I understand she wants maybe meeting minutes but what is it she's looking for in the meeting minutes? Because again to my point Mr. Mayor, we have talked about this countless times about this being an
industrial development. So, what exactly from the FAA will suffice if we go spend the staff time to find it? And then the second part of my question is again, it was y'all's recommendation to shut the park down. And that seems to actually,
based on the emails that I've seen, actually trigger this 4F review. Whereas before, if we would have left it alone, we probably might have been able to escape by and say, "No, we're not closing that right now." and and move on with the EA. >> Well, for one, it was my understanding the park had a sunset anyways at cert at
at a certain time and and it wasn't I don't think it was our recommendation really to close the park. The the project >> the project had, of course, a road kind of it wasn't going to >> it was going into the park a little bit, you know, the front of the park property, I guess, closest to the
runway. Um, but and and and don't I guess don't get too hung up on that. I mean, it's not the end all beall with EA being approved. This this, you know, we've you can also do a section 4F report, which we prepared in case the park did not
close. You just have to talk about it, write a report on kind of the effects of the project on the park and any mitigation measures. If you, you know, if you affect something, you know, what are you going to do to mitigate those effects? So, it's not the it's not the
if you if you don't have anything, that's fine. She was I think she was just looking for a little loophole to help speed the process up. Not not that >> for for finding that. And again, my point is there should be a mountain of that stuff that we should be able to dig up.
>> My question would be who have you reached out to to get this documentation so that you could provide it to this EA person? >> Yeah, I would. Andre, do you want to Andre, like I said, has been working digit uh diligently with uh and you you can speak to that if you want. Um
for the record before I forget the name Sweeney is that right Clay Mallum Sweeney the they're the they were the architects of that those two industrial parks one was done on the 22 acres uh on the west side of uh Gina Hurley.
>> Sure. >> And one I don't know how many how big it was on the east side over toward the country club property. And uh but they're the ones who did that full engineering. Uh they were the engineers involved >> for the ready sites. That's my recollection. I could be wrong. They
were involved with some part of >> if we could get some like I said some documentation, you know, I wouldn't have that information, historical information you guys have, but >> if we could get that, I could certainly get it over to FAA and and that may and I think it would just streamline it
would just kind of it would helps kind of speed up. She wouldn't have to really I say she the FAA per se. It would just be a check the box with the 4F. Let's move on. Like I said, we've got a draft section 4F report prepared that would be
part of the EA if like I said, for example, the park was not going to be closed. We've already gone through that process, but >> Huh. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Can you back up for us and let let's kind of go back to the beginning,
please? If if you'll humor me for a second. We issued a task order for you and you started work and if I remember you were here. I can't remember if Mr. Kevin was here >> and I'm I'm sorry. I'm >> Michael. Thank you.
>> Um but I pleaded I remember pleading with you guys. Hey, you know, you you're saying 18 months, but please please please can we get this done faster than that? I I vividly remember sitting at this dis asking you all to do that. Um can can you kind of start back in
November 2023 when the task order was it was issued which means we would have voted on that October or November of that year. So we're we're at we're at 24 months from from when we originally this
was brought to the council's attention that we had to review this. So, can you explain to me uh how you worked through that? How you worked through the timeline of the EA and then realized when did you realize that you would not be able to reuse the biological
assessment? When did this this 4F Well, I know when the 4F came in because we amended your contract in January of this year. That was 11 10 months ago. So, can you kind of walk me back through the the first part of this and >> and I don't I apologize. I don't have all the dates in front of me of when
everything was done. I will say that in in working with the FAA, it's just it seems like it's been it's just been a slow process and some of it, you know, I'm not not putting all the blame on them. I'm just saying that, you know, we submit stuff to her. It's it's one
person over there in the Orlando ADO office. She's reviewing not only this but other projects. You know, we send something. She, you know, she may be out of the office for a time and then she gets back with us for comments and back. It's been back and forth, back and forth, but we've had the of course the
biological assessment then that was based on >> well before that because the BA kind of came up towards the end of it from from my recollection. Can you kind of back up and just explain to me you received a task order from us in November 2023? What all did you start working on at
that moment in time and how did it progress from there? Very high level. You >> well I say you know initially it was a justification. was a justification of project. We were going to use the original justification that was done back in 16 when the EA was originally started. Then the FA came up with
questions. No, this justification it good is too old. So we went through round and round with justification and um I said well basically you know let the FA know that just a justification was not part of our contract. We were we
were going to use the existing justification. But it turns out, and this is it turns out that original justification, there were some issues with it, but make a long story short, we worked through that process and they said, "Okay, we're we're good with where you're going. You're fine." So, that was
one thing, justification. Um, and just just working through it's it's like I said, when you're working with >> Okay, so you you started you had the justification, then then what what came next? uh proper justification and and started the VA biological assessment those
special studies we had noise we had to go in and update the noise study um you know >> so does that does that take us from from November 2023 to to January because we amended your contract for the noise the
BA and the 4F form in January so obviously you guys realized prior to January 2025 so sometime in 2024 what what when when did that occur that you realized the BA needed to be updated the 4F the noise what when in that that time
I don't have the exact dates of when that happened to be honest with you not not in front of me I'd have to go back through I mean we've got email general idea >> it it's hard to say standing here to be honest with you I wasn't um
>> I'm just I'm I'm concerned that we're >> if if we meet this deadline that that's in front of us here >> right >> we'll be 31 months and we were originally promised 18 and promised faster than that. >> Well, like I said, I I I apologize it
didn't happen in 18 months. Um, like I said, I think there's been some circumstances beyond our control and and going through and with what the FA's asked for, what we've had to do, um, that's just just taking longer than expected. Um, >> Mayor,
let me finish. >> I'm finished right now. All right. Now, she she asked for the floor next. >> That's okay. Go ahead. >> All right. Go ahead, Dan. >> Um, if we scheduled a special meeting to discuss this airport situation at our
next city council meeting two weeks from now, would you have all the answers to the questions you've been asked tonight? >> I can certainly try to go get the answers. >> Who on your team would have those answers that could come here and and answer them? >> Well, I could we could go I could go
back through a long history of emails and and it a timeline I guess >> I'm fairly new. So I would expect you to be able to stand here and educate me as a newbie on this. >> Yeah, I apolog
November of 23 was month one. In 18 months what did we accomplish? Where did we go from the task order to today? I think that's all. >> Well, I'll say from the task order today, we've got a draft EA ready to submit. >> How many pages is the draft EA?
>> Uh, again, I don't have that exact number of pages. I mean, >> yeah. Well, you got it's it's that plus it's the special. We got the VA, we've got the noise study, we've got a section 4F report, we've got the EA document. I
mean, it's a it's a thick document. >> Okay. So, and my next question is if we provided you a copy of our minutes showing exactly where Councilman Berbomb was talking
about as far as the industrial part of it, would that accelerate your progress? Well, I would just say again, not to not to over complicate things, but or get too technical, but what I was getting at
with the with the park, we we have been told that we're kind of on hold to submit the draft EA until that park. She's satisfied kind of what she's going to do. She originally thought she could get some information like I mentioned
earlier. So, yes, that would be helpful. >> If you had that at the next meeting in two weeks, if that's what the council decides to do, if you had that, would that be a big major help? >> I think it would definitely help. Yes. Yes, it would. I mean, I'm not saying that's going to kill. I mean, it's we
we've still got, like I said, if if if you can't if we don't have anything to produce in writing, we still have a section 4F report that we that we have that will be part of the EA. It just it just may take the FAA a little. I know there's a public meeting, public hearing
part of that is that's part of that section 4f. So I think it would just strain my things with that information. So it would help to answer your question. >> Okay. I got a couple of more questions. Um is this government shutdown affecting any of the slowness with the FAA? >> Well, I will say this. Those guys that
we're dealing with, the Jackson um or the Orlando ADO, yes. Um I think it is affected and and again I mentioned earlier they have a legal the process has changed a little bit with how they review documents with the FAA. Now they
have to send it through legal. I know their legal is on furlow. So I would say yeah it's slowed it down. >> Okay. So you're saying that you expect all this to be done by June of 26 >> and that's six months before the deadline. Are we going to be able to do
anything shovel ready >> between now and then? >> Are we going to be able to take the hump out of the runway and stuff like that? >> Yeah, that that design's ongoing with it, sir. >> So, that doesn't affect this?
>> No. >> Okay. >> It will, but that design's ongoing. Yes, sir. >> So, the Could you stop that noise out there, please? >> I think it's in the parking lot. Definitely the top. >> Thank you.
>> And and I'm hoping and I'm I'm just I put this kind of to me I wanted to be a little bit conservative with this with with what you're seeing here. I but you know like I said some of this when we get stuff in the FAA they they like to get stuff back in a
certain time frame but you know they if we're waiting on them there's nothing you know we kind of we're kind of our hands are tied I guess on their review part on their review time. So I guess my last my last question would be to Tim worst case scenario we don't have this
all done by December 31 26 and part of the reason that we weren't able to meet that deadline was because of the government shutdown is do you have can you tell me if there would be any leniency in going beyond that due to
circumstances beyond our control on the government's try trying to figure out what the federal government is going to do. Um, Councilman, I don't think any of us are preparing for any sort of leniency at this time. Um, I mean, we can always
hope for it, but I don't think it would be in the best interest of the city to to think, hey, we may get an extension or okay, >> point point to the shutdown as a reason for why. >> Okay. So, something that's really going to calm me down is that this
this EA doesn't have anything to do with moving forward on the runway. Is that correct? >> That's that's not entirely correct. >> Go ahead. >> So, so the in order to proceed with construction, we need to have an
approved EA. We cannot put a shovel in the ground until we have an EA in our hands. And that is that's the crux of the issue right now. >> Wow. >> Um so gentlemen
I I I want to have a good relationship. That that's me speaking right as one member of the council. I want to have a good relationship, but I find it difficult when we are looking at 31 months
on on what should have been an 18-month opensh environmental assessment, especially when we thought we had a little bit of a head start with the previous environmental assessment. And I I don't want to send you down the rabbit hole of of I, you know, unless my other council
members disagree, I don't want to send you down the rabbit hole of getting every other date into a timeline. I think maybe some generalities would be sufficient. I'm here to have a good working relationship with y'all, but it but it's it's very difficult to do that when
when we we've paid $170 plus thousand dollars for an environmental assessment and it's not on time and it's jeopardizing to Council to Councilman Cosen's point an 11 plus million dollar project. the
the actual cornerstone uh expansion of our our airport. Um I'm I'm really really concerned that this kind of languished for a while and all of a sudden it was oh we got to get it into gear. Um, and I I don't want to
I don't want to have a public meeting, a public lashing, but I I'm just I'm really really trying hard to understand how we got to this point. And maybe, you know, it spilled milk and we need to move on, but something's not right here.
Um and and maybe we circle back to that for another meeting, but for now I think the question that myself and my other fellow council members are asking is how do we accelerate this? How do we get this done
and not wait until June to do it? Um some of the some of the things that I've been advised would be uh we can lean on um our legislative delegation to maybe help us um and and maybe you know from what from their experience they have
some other projects where the Trump administration has has absolutely fasttracked some of this type of a review for them at other cities m uh projects. So, I really think that we need to look at answers to how do we
fasttrack this? We can come back to the spilled milk later and get it cleaned up before it sours, but how do we how do we how do we fix this? How do we get out of this pickle? >> Amy, Mr. Mayor, I got three things I need to
understand. Just a few months ago, did we not sit here and vote to make sure we weren't in a position like this to get rid of Gene Hurley Parkway? We knew it needed to be removed. Will somebody refresh my memory? How long ago was that? >> August. We were We were I'm sorry.
>> August. >> We were advised >> and we said, "Hey, because I sat here and I was being educated on the spot right then and there." Am I accurate with that? is the >> okay. So my next thing is how much money is at risk right now uh between now and
December of 2026 >> because all of these projects depend upon another this has to be done in a timely fashion for this one to get started like he said the shovels in the ground. So I'm very concerned this is very tight. Councilman Beerbomb's right
on y'all are right on target where we have to babysit this every inch of the way if we're gonna not lose how much money we've got at risk that's been poured into from the state, from the feds, from our just
I'm very concerned that we've got to with y'all's I mean he's right. I mean, we've hired you all to help us so that we don't get in a predicament, but I'm concerned that we're headed. >> Just just for the sake of the council, Kobe, can you give a kind of a raw
figure of what the arbor dollars are? >> Uh, so the the counties was 5.5 million. The city's allocation to this project was 2 million. Um, we've d we've drawn on some of that from the county. So um probably any somewhere around somewhere
around 7.3 million >> terms of ARPA money. >> The other the other money about what's in jeopardy for the time frame for this >> the other is grant money with DOT. >> Yeah. >> Thank you.
If I can ask, does the does that money have to be spent by that date or the project started and ongoing and it rolls into that? >> Depends on the pot of money. >> Depends on the pot of money and the
specific sum. >> Depends on. So it could be obligated on some and then spent on some. >> Correct. >> Okay. So to be specific, come December 31st, what is non-negotiable?
What has to be spent and completed by then? >> I've seen a lot of language that says that funds must be obligated by the end of FY26 or they will expire in several. >> Well, you start with the county monies. The county is obligated. The monies dust. So the question is do we
constitute a subreient under treasury guidance or not? Um if we have obligated those funds as a subreient then in that scenario that would typically be sufficient for ARPA. Um if we do not constitute a subreient if we constitute an awardee of their monies the money's
already been spent. The county is the one who had to spend it not us. We're the ones who awarded it. We've just got to make satisfactory reports. So there are two ways you would look at the ARPA money under treasuries, both interim and final guidance. Final guidance did not follow through on the interim guidance
about subreient definitions. So that's been an open question for our own ARPA dollars and the ARPA dollars we do. Typically, it is obligation. However, if the money is obligated and not reasonably expected to be spent for an appropriate for an appropriated use,
that's where we could run into trouble on our own monies. terms of DOT monies that's got very could be a discussion with DOT and it's could be FAA money. They typically expect to see it obligated is the FAA's general rule, but I'll refer to engineers if they feel differently on how they've dealt with
it. >> I was thinking this was ARPA, not FAA money with the runway extension. I guess my I guess my point >> based on this timeline of course the for the record come on. Um so I guess my point was was based on being obligated
based on this time frame the project will be bid um the money I mean the contractor will be awarded the project the money will be allocated to a low bidder prior to December of and the project may still go a little bit past December but
the money would all be already be obligated I guess was my point. >> Well that's contrary to what I've understood >> but but that's a question I had I guess. Yes sir. >> Get recognized. Thank you. >> So just a question I had was about being obligated or spent. I guess if it's
obligated then like I said it's the money would definitely be obligated by end of December of 26. >> So can we Clay can we get some sort of legal opinion on that? >> We can absolutely go to treasur and get treasur to give us direct guidance on that question for the ARPA dollars. I
don't think we need it on the FAA money >> because I think that swings the >> right. That's what I'm saying. But if if there's any federal appropriations, that's a different animal. If we're just talking about the AARPA money, that's a very easy. >> Yeah. I don't think there is any FA money in this project. >> Not on this specific issue. >> That's right.
>> But we have had legislative appropriations. Got Tim nodding by me. We've got a lot of pots of money involved. That's why I be clear, everyone's going to be different. If we're only talking about ARPA, it's a simple question to Treasury about whether we're a subreient or not. I I think that that swings the pendulum
massively because if if Treasury comes back and says you awarding the contract and and having shovels in the ground is sufficient, then I think we can all breathe a sigh of relief. If Treasury comes back and says, "Nope, you've got
to have it closed out by December 2026," that's a whole different calculation and a severe calculation of that. >> And it takes a long time for them to respond. So even if he writes a tomorrow, how long's it going to take them to give him an answer to
>> the sooner the better? >> Our last few inquiries, now it's not been in the last certainly not during the government shutdown. Our last few inquiries have been very quick responses starting with telephone conversations with Treasury. We went through this with some of the county's money back in 22
and received very prompt responses from treasury. >> Have we identified every pot of money in a single task project? In other words, or do we have monies mixed in, for example, extending the runway? Uh,
is is there poor? In other words, if we're going to have to spend their money at a certain length of time and it's in combination with money that's not under time threats, how are we going to do that?
I mean the project uh because of the the DOT. So there's four there are four distinct uh pots I guess two from the same source or three from So there's a $650,000 what was an appropriations that's a grant now that's for design
that's DOT there's another 2.1 million and some change that was the uh work plan dollars for the dirt runway they got moved over to this project and then there's a five and a half million from the county that's ARPA and there's a two million from the city that's ARPA so that's that those are the pots of money
in terms of them interrelated ing. Yes. I mean, even that first part which you which I'm sure we'll get to in a minute more on the project side. When you look at uh the first seven task uh underneath well I'm sorry when you look at all the tasks there are three things that's got
to be done. Uh DOT is going to require us to relocate the Gene Hurley Road. It's in the obstruction free zone. They're going to require us to fix the hump. Um and then any other anything else that falls within that zone. So those are the two main things maybe. Yeah. Um those pro those two things
alone defense all that is going to require every bit of DOT's 2.1 million and some of ARPA >> for that particular part of the project >> that's kind of my question you've gotten certain dollars for certain tasks and we
can't just go ahead and use ARPA dollars >> for everything and then use that the rest of it >> right we can't we can't mix and match buttons >> we were going to we were going to burn the ARPA first but DOT come back and told us that we must their money can only be spent on correcting those issues
identified within our correct uh yearly annual audits. Yeah. >> So the the road realignment and the fence moving over it's not a whole lot of area there. So see we started this
conversation whether Gene Hurley is included in this park. I've always viewed it, as you said, uh, as an industrial park, not necessarily part of the airport project. If it is part of anything to do with the airport, it's just a few feet to realign that road.
So, if that assessment, do they have to include that small section in the assessment? >> From the from my from when I started over on this projects, we have made that very same pitch every single time. I think a test on all our calls FAA me and Miss Heather have gone back and forth
numerous times. This is not a part of the runway project. We've told we I've told her that over and over again. Uh we've shown her that in these sketches that it is not inside the fence. The extent of this runway is not what's causing this part to remove. But that's not satisfactory. They want some sort of evidence over a timeline, a period of
time uh of communication discussions by the governing body that that's not what is linked to. If you go back to the EAS from 2017, 2016, they're connected. >> So, we've we've tried the last year and a half to make that distinction to her, but it's not landed. >> And I want to touch on that if we can. I
may whoever was discussing that or has been discuss if I may ask just a couple questions. And mayor, for the record, while we're creating minutes here, my recollection is that after an update we got in April of 2019,
I met with you, Mr. Adams um and Senator Gainor in Panama City in either late April, early May of 2019 to discuss our options based off what uh
we had received from D regarding um our options for that park at that time. Does that sound accurate to you? >> Yeah. >> So, what is it they're looking for? I guess when you say it's not connected, are they saying that we have never
looked at repurposing it or are they saying that the city's decision to discontinue the use of the park is unrelated to there? What tell give me an idea of what they're actually for? Because there are three distinct conversations this city has had over the past seven years regarding this.
Well, it's my understanding that what they're looking for when she and I don't have the I don't have the email she sent, but as far as in writing is she she was looking for something that did not have the airport and park connected
looking for something in writing say it was going to be used for an industrial park or another you that that was not being I guess closed per se because of the airport. That's what she's looking for. So, go ahead. You got something on there? >> Yeah, she's it's been back and forth uh
with Miss Heather. So, what she wanted was initially, I think this was back in May, um a statement from a member of this body or from Kobe that just said that this had nothing to do with airport projects that was provided. We didn't hear anything for several months. Then it came back that we need a detailed
timeline that illustrates clearly that these projects have nothing to do with anything that's ongoing out there at the airport. basically something that shows it's completely separate. The data she's running off, we did look up old minutes. >> I have been able to find anything uh going back to 2019 that doesn't
reference the airport when we speak of relocating Gene Hurley Park. There's never anything in there about closing it, just moving. And actually everything we I have stuff highlighted here. Almost everything in here, this starts with Mr. Ryan Adams tenure. Um it just says relocation of Gene Hurley Park for
future airport expansion. And that is kind of reverberated over and over and over again. I'm not saying it doesn't exist. And again, this is not a nail in the coffin. This was an open form, a discussion. But what she wants to see is something basically to this effect
repeated several times that, hey, we're going to close this park or relocate this park in an effort to make that an industrial space or something to that effect >> or something that is not an airport use. >> Yes. And this is recent. This, you know, initially this started off as just a statement which we provided. So, I want
to cover for the record because I think it's important that we have this here. So, we can go back to April of 19. And I found all this on the city's website just in my attempt to review this this weekend. So, we have an a memo from then airport director Ryan Adams on April 15,
2019 to the city council in which he referenced that the EA there had been no change since the last report. FAA um was still working to close out the EA by August of 2019 and the city was still awaiting FAA's response to Gene Hurley Park section 4F evaluation. Um and then
under the Jun Hurley Park reorganization plan which we obviously sent there was that um FAADO was currently reviewing the draft DOT section 4F evaluation on converting park property to transportation use. And there's a litany
of airport board minutes around this time that discussed the need to put DOT dollars on the road to improve Gene Early Road. And we were told that we were unable to do so because the property was outside of the airplane. So
that was why we could not use those monies. So there's a discussion there about the repurposing of it that went on. Um D provided us options in roughly March or April 2019. um that could relate to the city converting the park. Um and they gave us
those four options which were paying back the acquisition fund and the grant development um paying back the acquisition funds, transferring the site dedication elsewhere, acquiring a new piece of property to become the Phoenix Springs Recreation Complex, and lastly,
we may use an undeveloped piece of property and transfer the restrictions. They gave us four options. That was one distinct conversation. I want everybody here to be very clear that that conversation was at the time about us converting.
That shifted to a separate conversation after 2019. The mayor was obviously part of that conversation that then led to, okay, what are we going to do with park? We got a park out there. We're not going to do any of those four things and we are not going to convert to use. No
action occurred to convert to use. That never happened. um to do that it was referred to the tree and beautifification committee from the best I can tell and it appears that on July 2nd of 2020 uh there was a workshop on site between the tree and beautifification board
members for the park on their September 3rd 2020 meeting there's no reference to the airport at all but the workshop notes because again it was a workshop not a formal meeting states chair D Owen said he looked at the last m looked at the last meeting The board looked at Gan
Early Sports Complex. Staff liaison has spoken to the parks department and there is little use for it and has been rarely used. Board member Goodchild added that there was some vandalism seen. It appears the notes taken when they were
on site out there indicated that the city would be able to repurpose the land at Gene Hurley into something other than a park without penalties if they crossed the 2024 threshold by agreement with the state that the
airport leaders were going to simply wait out anything involved with that and let the city decide what to do. So that's a clear break. There weren't there was no airport involvement there because the question was were we going to expand the runway. The answer is we were not. We were going to wait it out.
So the discussion then became from the airport from the tree and beautifification committee suggested looking at the sports complex facilities and equipment to see if they could be used at other city parks. Sports complex has tennis courts, basketball goals, picnic tables. I'm going to not read the
litany of all that. Um, and it was noted that the picnic tables, basketball goals, and water spray condition equipment were not in good shape. The pavilions were made of steel and could be disassembled and reused elsewhere in the city. There were some crate myrtle bushes that could be dug, but may
require special tools. quote, "It did not look like the sports complex had been used recently, and Chris Mitchell said he would contact the city's public works department to see if they had any records on applications to use the sports complex, but had not found any
with city hall. It did appear as though one or more homeless persons were currently using the facilities. The hasp on the women's bathroom had been broken with signs someone was using the restrooms actively as well as a pair of boots and various clothing articles left on the picnic basket picnic bis benches
excuse me along with water bottles left in the trash barrels. There is ongoing discussion of how the city parks would be used and that certain parks seem to appeal more to persons and the need to reappropriate assets from unused parks to those. And that is from the board of
this city that is tasked with overseeing those in 2020. Now, does that say that was an industrial park? Absolutely. Unequivocally, it does not. But that was the city discussing the need to stop using GAN early because it was something that was being misused and just simply
let's let it run out the time and sunset the recreation use. So, I don't know if that helps you. The third comment then goes to something the mayor's worked on for years, which is going back to our EDC, which was the city's internal economic
development committee and marketing of those ready sites, which go well back and the need to add Gene Early to that, which is where the first conversation ever came up about improving Gene Early Road with DOT dollars and the desire was for FAA dollars to make them more
attractive industrial sites. So I I go in that reverse order that going all the way back to 2017. Does that sound about right to you, Mayor? I'm calling your memory on some of that time. >> Well, yeah, they >> 17 18 when that discussion >> 14 is when they first came up started
started working on it. Took them about three years. >> That's why I was thinking 16 17 is when that next step was. >> That's probably about right. >> So I I think it's important to understand the original intention there was to merge that in and improve the road. That's where the conversation came in all the way back to that discussion
of FAA dollars and getting told no, we were not allowed to do so. Um, I can tell you we have airport advisory minutes, which may not be what you're looking for, from November of the same year where people had expressed an interest in acquiring Gene Early Park in
exchange for investment in the airport. Um, and the discussion was the the Gene Early Park grant sun sets in 2024, which is our basis for not following through. So, I mean, are you going to find one single document where the city said, "This is what we're going to do with
Gene Early Park." Absolutely not. But you're going to find a litany of documents where the city and its various committees discussed that it was no longer desired to be used as a recreation facility and we were simply waiting out the time, which we required to because we had no useful. Now, I don't know if that's more help. Well, I
can certainly certainly pass that along to to >> and I'll be glad to share all that with you, but all that's on the city's website right now. >> The senator doesn't have to finish while he's on that plate. >> Uh actually tried to get forgiveness. >> That's right. You well before the
sunset. >> Correct. >> And uh but failed. It didn't work. Uh but you know, sunset has already come 24 >> 24 >> 24. So, so and so that was applied
through DP and uh so there's record of that. Got to be record of that. And uh the only thing I know that had to do with the engineering was that there was an overlay to where there was a boundary a virtual boundary that actually was south
>> of the road that goes to our hangers. >> That's right. >> I don't remember what it part of that's Gene Hurley. part of it's not >> and that was the 2F back in 2019. >> That roadway was within that virtual boundary and they said that we probably have to move it south and that was the
only thing I know where that park interfered with our plans was those 50 ft or whatever. And then I similarly would think we could probably provide now again one of the challenges but I think we would request you to talk to
your representatives of the FAA about this when I say the economic development side. We had the internal EDC in the city. We also had the EDA. I know I personally attended I believe Tim, weren't you with us when we had a meeting with representatives from Space
Florida? Um, was Great Northwest here or not? I know general counsel for Triumph is here and we specifically met on site with the then city manager at the at Gene Early to demonstrate that park after because we were in the sunset
window to look at it for an industrial site with these specific provisions and I think you can probably get statements from any of these people that it would not be in the fence of the airport. Y >> that was the entire concept and the desire was for Gene Hurley not the ready
sites because the ability to expand the facility that was being proposed and Tim you were there for that one right again that was not a formal meeting of the city but we're also under confidentiality with state agencies at that time that's now lapsed still can't name the company at the time but that
was one of the issues is as soon as this park's gone we want but it would never have been inside the fence so to be clear we have all since that started We never put it inside the fence because the city would have retained ownership in that scenario. As with any space Florida grant, that's how it works.
Public lands. Then they allow the construction of the building. So at least to that conversation in 23 24 it had nothing to do with the airport. It had to do with bringing industrial business. And I think our EDA director was president, wasn't he, Tim? I'm
getting a lot of head nods from Tim for the record right now. Yeah. >> So maybe some of that can help. >> Yeah. I mean, I think we have representatives who talked to us from all of these entities. >> I got a few questions. One is for you, Plank. Um,
>> is there anything when we get to this regular scheduled city council meeting after this meeting? Uh, is there anything we could do when we get to the part in the agenda where, uh, on the regular agenda it says, "Is there anything you want to add or subtract?" Is there anything we could add tonight
uh to clean this up a little bit so that there'll be some fresh minutes stating uh the the um the urgency of this? >> I I I think so. I was just about to make a list and to me the first two things on
my on the top of my head are get a legal opinion from Treasury on the incumbrance. >> Get Treasury guidance. Let's don't ask for a legal opinion at this point. That's going to go to DOJ. Yes. Yes, sir. And then number two, what Clay just
gave to us, let's just ask him to put that in some sort of memo from the city attorney and pass that along. >> Great. >> And and then >> I was going to ask is there anything else that we can do? >> I I think right now that would >> don't want to wear you out, but
>> sorry, mayor. Um, no, that would be great. Uh, if we could get Clay, if you want to put something on letterhead, whatever, something to that effect, get it to me. I'll certainly pass it along to Heather at the she's a lady reviewing all this at FAA and um I think she's
just looking something stick in her file that she can kind of cover that this ever comes up she can say you know this is official from the city that >> this is the process this is what they went through um >> and certainly I'll certainly pass it along and um and like I said this
sitting I want to you know if if she doesn't accept this whatever we Still the EA is going to get approved. It's just it may >> she's I can't I cannot submit the draft until she is get that she's satisfied
with where the core is. >> Yeah, >> that 2019 that's been the oldest thing right here. >> Anyways, um that answer your question. >> Yeah, I'm sure we're gonna want you guys
respond in a couple weeks. Uh, >> okay. >> Well, mayor. >> Yes, sir. Go ahead. >> Okay. I've got a few more questions. Um, does the council feel like that this situation warrants having another
airport workshop after the next city council regular city council meeting? >> Mr. Mayor, go ahead. So, one thing I was going to ask, um, I spoke with with Liberty earlier today and we were going through some of this stuff and one of
the things that that I had asked was how often are meetings occurring between the engineers, the construction team, and everybody else because in the past they've had meetings where uh the mayor was a part of it, the city manager, and at least one council member. I remember Tony was a part of some of something
like that in the past. And I was wondering if we felt it would be viable to kick that back off again until this gets till everything's back on track and we have some comfort like you're feeling and then um put a council member, the
mayor, city manager and all bi-weekly phone calls with them until until we get that level of satisfaction. >> Okay. They currently have once a month meetings uh just like you're saying that's not a workshop. >> Yeah. Um,
but what I want to know is aside from that, and I I wish I had a better way to wording this, but we need to keep the pressure on this. >> That's what I'm saying. >> And by keeping the pressure on it, I'm wondering if we shouldn't have a
workshop every city council meeting until we find until we get a little relief like, okay, they've got this. But right now, I don't have the feeling like they got this. Would y'all be okay with having a
another airport workshop in two weeks? >> Well, get ahead nod, >> Mr. Mayor. >> Yeah, >> I don't know that will we be able to get all the engineers and everybody in the same room every two weeks while I was bringing it about as far as like a Zoom meeting or something. I don't think the
gentleman from Tampa would have to come all the way up here, but if he could appear on Zoom, that would be appreciated. >> Okay. So, um I'm I'm almost done here. I'm sorry. Are you bar or Garber? >> I'm Garber.
>> Okay. So, you're dead in the if I just want to find out if I heard this right. You're dead. You're basically dead in the water until the EA is done. >> We are not dead in the water. We are working towards the goal of of trying to
get this built by the end of the year right now. So, we are currently working on the project. And I can give you, if you don't mind, I'll give you guys a quick update on where we stand from a design standpoint on the project. So, I'm Matt Sarin. I'm with Garver. Thank you for having me here. um we we've been
we've been um given notice to proceed on February 2nd with the investigative portion of our development of the project. So at that point in time we went out and we did all of our survey our geotechnical work um and a few and our aerial survey associated with the project and then we were on hold as
there's a certain level of risk associated with proceeding with the design before the EA is approved. In August of this year, we were given notice to proceed with the design understanding that the EA was still in process. So, we have since proceeded with that design and we are working
towards a 50% design submitt on Wednesday of this week. Okay. That design submitt includes uh several things. The design, it includes the DOT items that Kobe mentioned earlier today. So, we have the relocation of the vehicle service road um outside of the object free area of the runway. We've
actually moved it a little bit further because the airport's uh layout plan shows a parallel taxi way in that location. So, we've shifted it beyond that object-f free area of that parallel taxi way to make sure that we've got space to build it in the future if that parallel taxiway comes online. It also
includes removal of uh several uh patches of trees out there that are presenting obstructions to the part 77 surfaces. Those are protection surfaces that surround the airport along with the removal of the hump. Those are issues that were identified by the FDOT as needing to occur in order for the
operational license to be approved. We've coordinated with the DOT. They're aware of how we are proceeding and we will be submitting those drawings to them, the 50% design drawings later this week when they're done and submitted to the to the city. Um, and at that point, they're going to be satisfied that
they'll resign the operational license because they see progress moving forward. Um, beyond that, then there's the extension of the runway and that's a few other elements. That's the extension of the runway, the parallel taxi way. Um, it's the removal of part of Gene Hurley Road that's going to be in the RPZ for the runway along with the
construction of a portion of Huckaba Road to provide that connectivity back into that area for the hangers and whatever. So, all that stuff is on the exhibit that I believe you guys have in front of you right now. So, as I said, we've been operating under the assumption that these funds need to be spent by December 30th. So, we've
compressed our design schedule and worked with Kobe to establish um a drop dead date for design and complete and start of construction. So, right now, as I said, 50% later this week. We're shooting to deliver issued for bid documents in January of this year. Those
will be on the street for about 30 days so that contractors can provide pricing at which point it'll be come back to the council for approval after we review them. And the idea is that if the EA is done, we would like to start construction in in the second quarter of next year. That gives us about nine
months to construct the project, which we think is more than adequate uh to deliver everything we need to deliver by the end of the year. So, right now, we are working towards that goal. Um if we get the EA in time, then we're good. If if not, then we're going to have to work to compress the construction schedule and see if we can get a contractor to
come out here and do the project in six or seven months. Would you uh think getting the hump out of the runway is probably the most challenging task you've got? >> So, so we have I I there there's a lot of challenging tasks out there. Um we've got to get new
approaches planned for the runway. I think that's probably one of the hardest things that we're going to have to do. We've initiated correspondence with the FAA and have the project set up in their ADIP program, which is how we start that coordination to get the new approaches for the extended runway. The hump is a challenge. Um, if you go back and look
at the all the planning documents that were done previously, it shows kind of taking the hump and shaving it. And I have with me some exhibits. I I can't put them up on the screen right now. If can you pull the the the exhibit you have in front of you? I had it up on there earlier. >> Jesse has them. >> Are there any utilities under
>> So So there are So if I if I could I don't know if you guys can see this. Can I move this? >> We can see it. We got something right here. >> Oh, perfect. Okay. I'll point to this one so you guys can see. So at in the past the hump removal is right here and it's showing removal of the hump. Okay. And so basically what the plan was was
to go in and shave that hump down. Okay. And the reason why the hump needs to be shaved down is it's a line of sight issue on the runway. So basically the FAA has criteria that says that any point on the runway 5T above the runway you need to be able to see halfway down the runway 5T above and that hump
obstructs that view from the end of the runway. So our initial take was to shave it like all the previous documents. Sure. To your point, there are there's a water line underneath that area. There's a gas line and I think there's telecom lines that run through that hump. So, for us to shave that down, we would need
to relocate those those utilities further below ground. And we have a subconsultant on board to go out and do soft digs to determine the actual depths and help us figure out what we need to do. We have not initiated that yet because that's typically done after we
have the design concept that we want. We are actually looking at we did a 50% design drawing. You're going to see something different out there. Okay. So, we went and took a look at that line of sight issue and what we realized is instead of lowering the home, we can raise the end of the runway slightly and
that resolves the line of sight issue. So, that does a couple things for us. One, it avoids us impacting the utilities, which is a cost savings measure, right? And number two, by raising that end of the runway, we reduce the limits of runway reconstruction. And it if we were to
recon, if we were to shave the hump down, basically we would have to reduce the runway length to about 2500 ft, which really impacts the utility of the runway during construction. By raising the end, that construction point is shifted a further 800 feet down. So instead of having 2500 feet, we have
3,300 feet of runway during construction. That makes it that makes it better for pilots operating at airport. They have more runway and increases utility. Okay. And we are able to accomplish this the same goal of eliminating the line of sight issue that's out there on their
out there right now. We've run through this with the DOT. They've seen it and we're going to go through it again with the 50% design to make sure that they're satisfied. But that's the approach that we're taking right now. That doesn't mean we're never going to close the runway down during construction because we are widening it. So, we're going to have to close it at some point to do
that widening effort, but we think that we can, like I said, save or have 3,300 ft available during construction of the pump correction along with the extension of the runway. >> Nice. >> Okay. Any questions you guys can save
for later? We've run out of time. Um, >> Kobe, any any last comments on this? >> Uh, no. Mayor, we'll add an item here at the regular agenda where we >> All right. So, we'll be reaching out to everybody after this next meeting to see if you can
attend virtually or in person, whatever. >> Okay. >> That'll probably be at our next next meeting. It's beginning to sound. >> I'll be able to attend virtually. >> Okay. Okay. >> Do you need me here after the this next meeting? >> Uh >> I'd like to ask you a question in
between meetings if that's okay. I don't think there's going to be much of an explain. >> Okay. I'll see you in two weeks. >> Please leave us your number and your email because I'd like to talk to you before our next meeting. >> All right, Dan. I'm gonna give us five minutes. Okay. All right. We're going to
dur this meeting and we'll return in five minutes.