No, no rush. Just I I literally just got off the phone with him. He's still in court, so he's not going to make it. He's not going to make it. He's not going to make it. 16. Oh, yeah. [Music]
Yes, ma'am. Yes, sir. Thank you. Oh, okay. Once we approve those. Yes, sir. Friday. What time? Two. Thursday.
Let's just stick with Friday. That's a good day for you. Yeah. I didn't know that. Oh, do you do you need to be fist as well? He doesn't need to be anywhere. No, you're good. See you. I'll just be down there about 5. Okay. Yeah. Okay. You want to? That's fine with me if it's fine with him. Yep. I'll just
go. Okay. Perfect. Got it. Done. Done and done. Everybody ready? All right. Don't forget to turn on your microphones. All right. We will call this code review and land use committee meeting to order. Today is May 6, 2025.
It is 5:1 p.m. Uh, okay. We will start with the invocation and pledge of allegiance, I guess. Miss Josh, will you do uh do us the honor of an invocation? Yes, sir. Thank you. Dear Lord, we thank you for this day and all your many blessings. Father, we thank you for allowing us to
come together to do the will of the people. Lord, serve the public that you've blessed us to be before, God. pray that you'll keep us each and everyone safe and that you'll bless us meet and grant us knowledge of the need to to do to your business. 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, we will move on to item number two,
which is approval of the minutes from March 4th, 2025. Do we want to make a motion to approve them or do we want? All right, I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second went.
Well, I'm the chair, so I can't. Yes, sir. All right, we have a motion to second. Any comments on the minutes? All those in favor say I. I. I. Eyes carry. All right. We will go on to item number three which is code review
chapter 16 which is 3A parks and regulation. I don't know that without Clay here. Do we have anything to discuss on that or is that going to have to be brought back? I think that's going to have to be brought back to us. Excuse me. I'm sorry. He hasn't forged anything to us.
Okay. Same thing with uh 17 as well. I haven't received anything. All right, let's just do we'll just table those. Can I have a motion to table 3 A and B to the next
meeting? So move. Second. All right, I have a motion and a second. Any comments on 16 and 17 while we while we're here? Everybody good with it? We tableing it? Because I think they need to say something on that 16 and 17.
Okay. If I recall from last meeting. Yeah. All right. Motion to table. All those in favor say I. I. Eyes carry. All right. We'll go on to signage. So, I do want to kind of talk about signage 3C.
Um, I know at our last meeting we had we had discussed um kind of what we what we're trying to accomplish. I believe staff was supposed to kind of bring us back some recommendations. Is that my correct recollection or where do we where do we stand on signage? Yeah.
And I'll speak on this a little bit and I want to give Mr. Strong all the credit for this document. Um, I've been trying to give him more responsibility and without even asking,
he went out of his way and put this together for for this board. Good job, sir. So, I want to give him some kudos. Um, sir, my first thought is on this sign ordinance. We are bringing a contract to
the city council uh hopefully on Monday to hire a consultant Kimley Horn to update our land development code. Is it do we want to rewrite this and then
have them come back and say these are the things you need to change because you've got stuff in here that's not correct. Um, we don't have, although I I like to think that I've got the
expertise to write something that is this complicated when it comes to this corridor here has this, this corridor over here has this. They've got the expertise to really get feedback from
the entire council as to how you'd like this sign ordinance written. Um, I think it would be prudent to let the firm that we're paying a good chunk of money to to write it
correctly so that we don't have to go back and change it at a later date. That's my thought. Um, you know, we're hiring them to rewrite the entire code and included in our scope of work.
um for them that was included in the RFQ that was in there front and center. Okay. Rewrite our sign code. Okay. Um so just like a little direction, but I think it would maybe behoove us to let
the professionals who probably have somebody on their staff who is very well-versed and what we can and can't do in terms of sign ordinance. Okay. I'll open it up for for discussion. What are your what are
y'all's thoughts? My thought is I make a move to to move it to the council because um I was looking at some signs. He has a point there. It's so many different size and height and all and those signs can take some of the ride away though, you know, and you can't look out when you come out the street
into the main through or you can't see. Maybe it's south or maybe it's north you going. You can't see it. So I I agree with him. We need we need to get somebody in here to know what's happening with it instead of somebody don't and u go with it from
there. I I really agree with that. Okay. I tend to agree. Um if it was in it was in the scope of the RFQ anyway, then that's something that we've already decided upon to put out there and have them to bring back then I would let them complete the duties that they were
assigned to do. So I I agree. Okay. So my my only thought is making sure that I that was my number one question was was it include RFQ? So you've answered that question but then I guess my following comment would
be I would like to make sure that we don't just say hey rewrite our our sign ordinance part of the LDC and then we don't provide any sort of input on the on the front end of you know here here's the issues here's what we're concerned about here's what we
want to address. So, I just want to make sure that there's that feedback loop is incorporated. Oh, absolutely. And that's that's what our first exercise is going to be is to meet with the council, meet with the planning board to provide them with directions. Um, they may come back
with more specific questions after that meeting, but um, that's a good place to start right there. Here's how we'd like to see this. I think they were going to provide one, two, three drafts of the
ordinance um itself for the council's review. And uh what the council is going to do is they're going to look at draft number one and say, "We like this part. We don't like this. You know, here's how we would
like." But they're going to need that direction. Um, but if we can take care of that on the front end, um, when that first draft comes in, maybe uh, with regards to sign ordinance, they've got it pretty pinned down, but,
um, there may be some little nuances that council wants that they're just not aware of. Okay, that was one of the things we did the interviews that brought up and they sent us a revised scope that the very first thing will be that workshop with the council and the planning board staff in the community
that so y'all have that very first intake of here's our main priorities. Here's what we're looking for. And then like there's three drafts that have come back to the council as a whole over time. And then even even every firm we talked to them about if there's certain ordinances that the council feel is an act needs to be done right now as soon
as possible. They have the ability to potentially pick out certain ones that need that immediate attention. Can't do it all of it like that. But um so those are things that they're aware of we about. Okay. And my only issue with that because I know that uh I believe it was
Mr. Valley who was bringing that up is that they're going to reumber our uh chapter 18 and it's going to be real hard to plug in sections without having that sec that
entire chapter renumbered all at once so that we can actually add stuff into it uh much easier because right now everything runs when chapter 18 ends and you go into chapter 19 it's just a consecutive
number. So, it makes it really hard just like with the the new downtown business district. How do we put that in there at number 44 when section 18 ends at number one
75 without having to reumber every single um article after that? So it's so while they could do that um when I spoke to her she did not recommend
that we do that um peacemail mill it in as we go but of course that's up to the council they want to do that but I would like to have one consistent document where it's all numbered correctly where we can add to
it we can delete stuff without affecting the entire chapter. Mhm. Okay. But something to consider. We're not quite there yet, but um food for thought. Okay. So, I guess my my final comment
would be the main point is is just to have it on the agenda, have opportunity for discussion both at our level, staff level, and the public even though there's no public present right now. Yeah. Um, you know, that that's the main point is is I really want to get it out
there as much as possible, especially considering signage has been a potential hot button issue in the past. So, the the further out ahead of it we can get, the better I think it'll be for us in the long run. So, yeah. All
right. Any So, I think the consensus was to move it just move it to the the council level and let it let it be part of the LDC rewrite. Is that the the consensus? Yes. Okay, that's great. Okay. Hello there. Hey, glad you could join
us. You have uh have anything on signage? We're already down to uh 3C. Anything you want to say about signage? The general consensus was to let let the uh contractor for the LDC rewrite kind
of handle the signage portion of this as well. M let me get you a recommendation. Okay. just talk to them individually with your individual concerns and let them do the public outreach.
Okay. Anything else before we move on? I don't know. I don't know if we need a motion to move it to the the council level or if we just let it occur naturally. Correct. Yeah. I think we probably just move it off of this list and Okay. We can just put a um just put a
note for the uh priority list that we're we're just moving that to the council level. Yes, sir. Consider Okay. There's anything you're afraid someone might do in advance of that. That's worried about. Yeah, that's
a good point. I thought we did we not do a mortorium just the billboards. Okay. Chris, have you received any requests as of now for any sort of signage or No,
we the only projects we've got going on, you know, Aspen Dentl and they've got a monument sign which is I think the direction we want to go probably. Yes. Is uh somewhere in that neighborhood. um the take five. I haven't seen their signed
package. Um and I believe those are the only two that that are coming down the pipeline and we know what one looks like. And I don't think take five will go as tall as what they've done
down by the interstate. Um, I think they'd prefer to keep it at a driver's eye level rather than go 35 feet where you're never going to see it. So, generally within that corridor, they're all pretty
consistently at eye level while you're driving. So, so here's a thought. Considering whether the suggestion was made, what about a motion to recommend to the council that a moratorium be placed on
any current or any signage until the LDC can be rewritten and addressed. What's your thoughts on that? Yeah. Or I would I would we don't want to put a moratorium on any signage because there's going to be businesses that need
to replace their signage, but maybe put a moratorium on any signage that exceeds X amount of height. Okay. Suggestion on height? Well, that's up to the council. I mean, I I would
like to see more monument signs, right? um that don't exceed maybe 12 ft in height. Um you know, it just depends. Um you know, you could do 20 ft. And I'm trying to think if I could
uh you know, south of town a good example of one that's you know, 35 ft tall. Um, South Final State. Yeah, all those are skyhigh down there. South is. Yeah, it definitely is. But well, and I I'm even
I'm even sort of kind of worried about the the Take Five one that you've mentioned. I'd really hate for and and I know of some businesses here on 90 that are considering a new sign. And I'd really hate for, you know, for them to spend a bunch of money on a sign versus
we could put on it now. I like the monument signage like he's talking about. It's clean. It's professional looking. It doesn't clutter up the highway with a bunch of big old signs. And honestly, maintained here in Walton County.
Um, Freeport only allows the monument signage. Uh, certainly south of 20, right? Um, so I mean, businesses are used to doing that. McDonald's has a sign that's this tall. Publix has a sign that's this tall,
right? So, I mean, it's not like we're going out of uh, you know, or not being um, consistent with what other communities are doing. Walton County obviously is much stricter as well. Yeah. Yeah. So, but if that's the
um committee's wish, we can bring back something to council that just says, you know, we'll look into it, maybe we can discuss it next time and decide on um I almost rather I guess I guess what I'm I'm kind
of thinking right now in my head, unless someone can kind of talk me off the ledge, would be a motion to recommend to the council that a moratorum be placed on all signage until the LDC rewrite. And if there's if there are businesses
that have extenduating circumstances, could we not allow them to come before the council for an exception? Well, I'm thinking of uh you know, Wind Dixie's converting to a different uh model and they're going to require a
signage change, right? But that's my point is I don't want them I don't want them to to go the wrong way with it. I'd much rather tell everybody to stop and let's get our ducks in a row and get it rewritten and then we can say here's here's the parameters to work in than I would have
two or three of these people redo their signs, spend a lot of money, and then we pass a rewrite that basically makes their their signage that they just invested in non-conforming. Yeah. And then someone has to tell them, "Oh, by the way, we're we just rewrote it and
then this is non-conforming. you can keep it for whatever length we decide. So to me, it's much better to just tell these people time out now. Yeah. I mean, that's that's up to the council. Um I just I just hate to cut tell take
five. You can't put up a sign now that you've built your business. Yeah. Um they take five. Wait, change. Is that the old change right there? Just south of the AT&T store. Yeah. Oh, well, I mean, I'd rather do it now than than
have to come back and tell them, "Hey, your your sign's non-conforming." Well, I mean, I don't I don't think people are so concerned about non-conforming. Usually, the way that works is you've got a non-conforming sign. Yeah. Uh, say it exceeds the
height limits. Unless you pass something that says you can keep that sign for five years and then it has to come into compliance, which is not going to be popular. or you grandfather the man they're well they're grandfathered and you can do maintenance
on it. You can change out the sign panels. You can't go higher. You can go lower. But um telling the business that they've got to they they have spend money five years later to change their sign is. But that that's my point. I would much rather tell them right now
before before the sign people have shown up to install a sign and say hey we're changing this you guys might want to stop with this and then they can decide no we want to we want to blaze ahead with it you know we want we want to speak to the council about it like to me
that's a better position than well I mean I don't know what but like for the morator if you put a morator blanket but then you had two exceptions you had exception that the signs less than 10 feet tall you can put it in. Not very many monument signs be taller than 10 feet like the one aspen Denim. It's
probably about 10 feet by the time you stand up to do it. It's taller than 10. That's one exception for new signs 10 feet or less. Existing structures you can maintenance them, maintain them, but you can't if you tear it down has to be 10 feet or less, but you can't replace an existing structure. Like Windix is a
good one. If Windix if that if something happens and they come and they just change the panels out, whatever, you haven't you haven't changed the structure of the sign. You just updated it. You come in, you tear it down, it hits the dirt, you can't put it back up. You can work something out that would
little cost on the existing business with the sign because it's already there. The cost is all in creating building a new one. That's what the most is rather than just updating it. Yeah, I I'm I'm not I'm not opposed to that. What do y'all think?
What's your thoughts, Mr. Christian? I'm in deep thought with it because I'm I'm just thinking how do they was feel this is going to cost a lot of money and I'm trying to balance the scale. That's what I'm at. I'm trying to balance the scale at I'm just I think we like to do
Yeah, you got take five. What is that? But see that that's that's the kind of that's the kind of sign that we're trying to kind of get away from. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So I'd hate for them to order that versus we you know we could pass this motion. You could easily inform them, hey this is coming down the
pipe. This is probably going to happen. They could then contact their sign company and say timeout. Yeah. I'm just concerned it's already ordered. That's that's Yeah, but but it it may be ordered but it may not be made. Hey Michael, look at Dothan. take five in
Dothan. I'm just cur I'm pretty sure theirs I don't think theirs look like that but and I don't recall if I've issued sign permits for this. A lot of times they get ahead of themselves. Yeah. Alabama if we've already issued a permit then but I like Kobe's approach providing
exceptions for existing under this height you can replace panels and you can replace the signage on your building. Yeah, I think those are the three kind of exceptions that we should put in there. But
anything other other than that, you're going to have to wait. That's not the one I'm thinking about. Continue. Let me find the one I'm thinking about. Yeah, I I'm I'm okay with with that. I'm okay
with it as long as it's less than 12 feet. It's a monument style sign. Then we could we could allow those for for new signage for now. How tall is the ceiling in this room? 10 ft. About 10 10 ft. Yeah,
probably. That's my accurate measure. That's how I measure. I'll put my arm up. I know I can touch an 8 foot ceiling. So the size of that wall is what I was really looking at. Then you can kind of gauge. Yeah. Yeah. looking back how big of a sign we would be
talking about. That's a stick sign right there. Okay. So, what do we want? Do we want to do that? What what are your thoughts and feelings on that? Give give the two exceptions defined of allow monument style not to exceed 12
ft in height and then existing maintenance of assigned is acceptable. I would tend to agree because the 12-footers are mainly going to go for your vertical signs signage, but the like 10 foot or below 12 would lean more towards the horizontal.
So, but you're okay with stipulating that it be a monument style. In other words, what I don't want to do is just shrink it down and it'd be six time. Yeah. No, no, no. Yeah, you can. I I do have a question about that though because you brought up a good point around Wind Dixie. Some of most of those
are the pole signage. I mean, there's not much room for them to deal with monument type signs in that area given that that slope goes downhill. There's sidewalks there. Power lines consume. Well, as long as they don't change it, they're good. I mean, they and they
again, Wind Dix can come in and they can change out that panel and put up the new business that's in there, but they're not increasing the height. They're not changing anything, but changing out that piece of plastic that has the name of the business on it.
I don't know anywhere else in town that it's like that to where we would run into that issue to where they don't have much room. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, Chris. I think I think your concern is that in in these shopping center areas, you know, you're you're
trying to cram a lot of signage into a small space. Is that your concern? Yeah. Will they have room the room beyond the poles because of the sidewalks and the power lines and the power poles and and not so much power lines, but the poles themselves consuming space. Sidewalks
consuming space. I think Wind Dixie is the only one that would be in that that shopping center. There's three of those type of signs right there. There's one, you got the Wind Dixie sign, but then on this side of it, you've got a taller one that has multiple whatever that plaza is called. And then on the other side, you
got two. You've got one beside the new one that's being built that's 40 foot tall and you got another one beside Southern Living or Southern property. You got another one there. So, I guess in this case, we're just saying if you're going to go in and maintain it, you can change the signs out all you want, but if you tear it down, it can't
go back up. Yeah. And that's probably really the only situation in town where you've got that big of a change in elevation. And I guess that's probably going to be something that comes up in the actual LDC rewrite particularly for the strip malls, but because you can go to strip mall, I've been to a number where they're really nice. Yeah, they're
tall, but they're really So, you rewrite the code and they come say, "Okay, strip malls if you have this many whatever looks like it has to be within these parameters." And I say the one um down in Freeport where Lois Ranch Harold is, they've got a monument sign
that has six different panels in it. Um so I mean you can make it work, you know. Yeah, it's not out of out of the realm. I can't remember if it was the last the last time y'all brought this back or or where I saw it. Maybe in this one, but they base that off of you know
how many how many are in there. You get you get square footage. You get like a square footage credit for each putting in there. So So the sign can kind of grow a little bit if there's a bunch more businesses in there. Yeah. Go
ahead. Now to address what Mr. Greg was just talking about what I think what we're saying, Mr. Greg, is if they've got an existing sign, they can go in there and swap that panel out if they get a new a new business. They're allowed to do that. But they're not allowed to destroy that
sign and then try to build a new one back unless it's 12 foot or less. Well, but I why I say that I I didn't finish the conversation. Excuse me. Is that because he got 10 new businesses going out by 331 there. So that's very
confusing what he's going to do with that 40 foot sign which is on this end. He got one on the other end by the properties down there. So you got two of them. But how's he going to fit all those in there? Unless he going to come on down the sign, that's going to blind spot. There's 10 new businesses going in
there. Yeah, but all those businesses have direct frontage. They don't technically need a sign because they can just put the sign on the building. They don't need a sign at at that sign because they're literally right there on the road where they can just put it right over their door and we'll know what business it is. Well,
and I could see them having a 12-oot monument sign with all those on there. But yeah, they're so close to Highway 331 that you're going to be able to you're going to be looking at that probably more than you're going to look at the the monument sign out front to
see what's in there. Yeah. So, I think we can but but but in that particular instance, your main concern is that they just basically fill that existing pole sign up and then all of a sudden it's an obstruction. Yeah. Yeah. Because it got enough room down bottom to put more in there. Right. And that that's my
consideration. Yeah, just I mean there there would be sighteline considerations. Um obviously there at the intersection. Uh luckily there's a stoplight there so it's a control it's a control intersection. Uh I know that's not
always the case but um generally whether it's a fence or anything you keep a um there's a slight triangle that has to be clear and signs have to comply with that as well.
Does that answer your question? Yes, ma'am. Josh, are you good? Yes, sir. I'm good. So, are we comfortable making a motion with those two exceptions? I got three written down here. Three exceptions. Yeah. Less than 12 ft. You
can change out architectural signage, which are signs that are attached to your building. And then you can switch out sign panels as long as you do not alter the height or anything else other than maintenance of the pole that it's attached to. But then
there's the prohibition with the exception of monument signs less than 12. Correct. Does anybody want to make that a motion? I'll make I'll make a motion with it. Okay. Do I have a second? Second. All right. Have a motion. Second. Any further discussion?
Do you want to add anything? You shook your head now, but then you can't. It's like oh no back. So a lot of this will be oh Anthony B. So a lot of this will be uh addressed by the um by land development team. They're going to get you into the details. I
think allowing monuments to continue would make sure businesses don't get in a situation where they're waiting for six months to be able to do their signage designs. I think that's important. Um, I think you got good examples from when there was a sign of ordinance, like how low the McDonald's sign is compared
to the other signs and how Arby's was also lower, I believe. So, you have a history of folks doing that. They're used to that. But when the rules all went away or in between gaps in the rules, you know, they'll go they'll go crazy tall to get someone off the interstate. Yeah. I mean, they there'll
be no end to it. The only reason they're not hired is because of Eggland. So, um, again, give them something they can do. Let them do the monuments all day long. Let them do the 12 up to 12 foot all day long. If they want to bring one down, they can go back up to 12. I think you
you would allow that modification. But yeah, I think just limit the worst case, which is the really bad stuff that you're seeing south of 10 because they're trying to get people off the interstate as soon as they're getting off and that's that's just not Tofunia. Right. Right. But I think make sure you
give people an opportunity and Mr. on the um we do have other regulations that's going to control not being able to see and the visibility aspect. So the other parts of the code will take care of that. No problem. Well, the state did um to add on to that, the state did a very fine job. They they combust they
put all the signs in one area in one big signage and say Waffle House, Burger King, all that. You have maybe eight or 10 businesses in that side. And if they didn't have enough on that bought none to hand when you get off interstate what I'm talking about. Yeah. Yeah. Y'all are all gonna be sign experts in the next
six months. So, thank you, sir. All right. Anything else? You good? Is it goal to have it on Monday's meeting? I would I would I would suggest it. Yes. I make a motion for that. Assuming Chris and Chris will work together and we'll get it on there. Yeah. No problem. All
right. So, we have a motion, a second. All those in favor say I. I. Eyes carry. All right. we will move on to chapter 12 which is licensing permits and taxation. So for this one uh been meeting with Chris and
Lisa Christ and Lisa about this a little bit um about it and I think I think everyone I am and know planning is prepared to go deeper into this but there's a couple we need to really determine what we do we want to do and we don't want to do because I think there's a lot more requirements to it
than what it seems. So the first question is do we want to have business tax receipts which is a business license or do we not? If you don't then the point's killed we cancel we move on. If you do then we got to decide okay do you
want to increase the existing fee to be more appropriate or do you want to keep the existing fee and establish something else to help support it. I say that because like Crestview Crestview has their business tax license tax receipt because it's it's a process to increase. It's a it's a it's something else. They
then came in and created a fire safety inspection fee that's different. So you got your business tax sheet and you got a fire safety inspection. So you have two different fees. So essentially they increased it without actually touching it. U because right now our business license essentially pays for fire safety inspection. The chief they come in they
give it they pay for it. The chief goes out and does the work. U most businesses regular ones here they're what $30. I'd say the majority of them pay $30 a piece. the city has lost money by the time he gets out there and come. His hourly rate is greater than $30 an hour. Sure. So, we've lost money at that point. So, the first question is, do we
want to do it or we don't? And then then we'll go from there is really kind of where we're at from a effort standpoint. I guess my concern is if we if we give it up and we say no, we don't want to we don't want to deal with the headache, the odds of getting it back,
you know, at that point the toothpaste is out of the tube. you know, horses out of the barn, so to speak. We was definitely we were grandfathered under certain clauses of statute that's changed. So, if you get away with it, going back probably be more difficult um what it looks like. So, yeah, because on
top of that, moving forward, if you say yes, we want to keep it. And then we determine, are we going to raise it? We're going to do something separate. We don't we always establish that. How aggressive does the council and this committee want us to be in collecting those? because has been just really has
been an honor system for the most part other than here recently they've been calling and asking how you're you haven't updated. Well, technically it's a violation of code. So, you can be taken to the master for not paying your business license. So, that's another philosophical question for the council on how aggressive do we want to be on pursuing these things. So, that's why we
start at that very basic level of we do or we don't. So to date, fiscal year to date from October one of 25 or 24 to today, we've collected right at uh $25,600 in in business license fees because they vary. Some vary. Walmart's
probably our biggest one because it's just it's based on different stuff than irregular. Um so we collected about $26,000 in fees is where we're at today. So my my original intent, one of the
reasons why I ran six years ago was my process of acquiring my business license originally. Um came, you know, showed up over the whole building with an EIN number, with my lease, with insurance documents,
um with my state u filing and my do paperwork. So, I had six pieces of paper that all said I was a legitimate business. And that process of getting my business license was extremely cumbersome. Mhm. Um and when when I then
started reading like okay well which category do I fall into this that or the other you know and then you look you start looking at some of the categories and like there's a specific category for a clairvoyant you know it it just it it screams that it needs to be updated. Um
to me 30 to $35 a month for a business license is very dimminimous. Um I I'm in favor of simplifying it and then at the same time, you know,
looking at, you know, how do we how do we increase it? You know, is it is it worth our time maybe to spend the effort to get it updated this one time and get it at least caught
up to some sort of reasonable fee? And then we also do the fire safety inspection fee along with it to help offset costs. You know, I'm I'm I'm kind of openly, you know, wondering
these things. I'm looking for commentary from you all on it. You save $35 a month. You save a year. I thought that's what you meant. I thought that Sorry. Yeah. Yeah, you did say a month. I said I don't think I paid that. But uh but my my suggestion we'll go back and check on
you. I agree. My suggestion is this is that I believe that with all the time that that I've been dealing with that I think the PE ought to be increased as well as I think we ought to rewrite it and and not only that to tell you something because it
it's good to have a a license from the city because a lot of people ask you if you go on for a loan of different things they say do you have license city operating city it comes in handy right so I know you've been there for a long time just before you co I I think the
fee ought to go at least $40 or maybe $50 for one time thing each year. And that's my opinion, but uh and it might need to be revisited and looked at and uh I I think it's a good thing, but I don't think the city ought to just get
rid of because that that does bring revenue. That does help them. And I understand about the as far as a city inspection or maybe you want to get a fee for that. this that's attached that's on the screen and I've got pulled up on my phone here. Is this like a proposed
ordinance or is this direct? There's actually two of them. You have the one the original one which is further down which is all the strikethroughs. Okay. This is the one you see right now is the proposed cleaned up version so that you can actually see how when it's all said and done and how it reads and flows better.
While the strikethroughs, for some reason, we have exemptions all through here where we could just go through one area. It says all basically exemptions were going to fall follow Florida statute 205, which is covers six of the
exemptions you have in here. So, just to kind of clean it up. Yeah. And you know, and that's the again the statute reads on how we increase the fees. It seems like there's some sort of committee that's got to be created. Studies has got to be all kinds of stuff and you can another thing
within this is our current ordinance has the fees within it. They're established within the or correct Chris. So obviously one recommendation would be for us would be to put that language always had city council shall establish rates through resolution those things. So I don't know if doing that would
change the requirement for them to go up or down. I don't know how that will work with or if you can even do that. If you can even take it out of the ordinance in that way. I don't know. That'd be a clay question. But, you know, again, the first one was if you want to do if you want to keep or not. Seems like we we do
want to keep them. Uh but we want to find a way to make it easier. Yeah. But also generate revenue. Yeah. I I I really think it's a good thing to keep it. I really do. I think it's it's a good thing for the city. and and not all that is whenever you get there and you see
I'm lasting through the city of the f and you got up on your board the code of view man get I mean the the uh the chain guy strong he can just go and check and say you get your license and and it's a good thing because like I say even if you
are getting financed some it it helps it helps I I learn a lot about the license and even when I do bidding uh I'm part of the fake things I'm licing them because they ask you they ask you do you have license people that I bid against
in California and New York and I never seen them before they called me and say you bid on this yeah but you got to make sure you license you got to make sure you bunded you got to make sure your LLC I said I got general contracts license so hey we can go all the way you know so they ask for copy all that and then not
only that let's go one step further even with your bonding you know you got to put uh if you get it you got to put them on there it cost a small fee for that. But what I'm saying is that I I think it's a good thing. I really do because it not only generate revenue, but it's a
good thing to have have that on there. So, and I I stand on it. I really stand on that one because I've seen a lot of things happen with you having that license through the funeral. Even though you may call it a tax, whatever, it is what it is. Well, and that you're
you're exactly right. I mean, that was one of our wholesale accounts, our main wholesale account that we use for flowers would not issue us an account until I showed them the actual business license from the city. They didn't care about the state filing. They didn't care about our federal EIN number. They
wanted to see the actual city license as their that is their way to open the account. So, I agree. It's come in handy for us numerous times. Um Josh, what are your what are your thoughts on it?
I I mean all the arguments you made for are very valid. Um I go a step beyond that. Sometimes people are saying that they they get ticked off at us at the council level by allowing certain businesses in and not looking at different things. It's not our purview.
But the thing is in in this aspect that does give you one more means to evaluate the type of businesses that you're allowing into your community for based on standards and and and safety. And I I don't think that $30 a year or even $50
a year is too much to ask businesses to bringing in a million dollars a piece to to pay the city to establish that that license per business. So I guess the only thing that that
might have I have concern about is or at least I want to talk about is we talk about that they give Straw and staff has given the example of Crestu implementing the life safety fee
to cover the yearly inspections of the the city police uh fire chief. Right. So, are we going to number one, are we going to lay an additional burden now on our fire department to to run around and
do all of these inspections of They already do this. Thousands. I'm sorry. They already do this. Before you're allowed to open up, you have to have a life safety inspection by the fire department. So, one time one time. That's my point is are we are we through this? Are we suddenly going to compel
Ross to run around every single year and inspect every single business? Is that is that part of is that the either true intent of this or is that a knock-on effect of this that we're we're now going to be compelling ourselves to do this as part of this fee
because I I I don't disagree that that Ross should inspect a new business opening up the first time, but is it something that every single year I'm going to have the fire marshal showing up going, "Hey, you don't have your this, that, and the other." Now, his lieutenants are also certified to do it
also now. So, Ross does not, Chief Sheffield doesn't always do it himself. So, his lieutenants actually also do the life safety inspections for us also. I'm just I'm looking at it from the business perspective, right? I already I from a compliance standpoint, I already have
enough to deal with. Is worrying about, you know, the fire chief or whoever, someone from the city code enforcement officer knocking on my door once a year and going, I don't like that. I don't like that. panel like that. Is that an issue we we want to take on at the city level? I'm just
asking this stuff openly. Is that something that we want to start engaging in is going into businesses and inspecting them every year? That's the that's that's the question. That's the third question which will go you do or you don't. If we do, what do we do? Do we increase? We don't
increase. Third one is enforcement of it. That's going to be and to me it's already in policy, right? It's already an ordinance that it's enforceable. It could be code violation and before it's another one of those intents of the council every year come back and say okay how do you want staff to go about this you want us to go make sure we're
collecting them is there a certain percentage you want us to hit are we beating down doors I guess my point but my point I think is is slightly different from that right right now I have a business other people have
businesses member of the public out here has a business I I did my fire inspection one time. I don't have anybody coming in and doing life safety inspections or any sort of inspections before my yearly renewal is issued. No.
Right. I don't have that. I don't have to deal with that. I can just pay for my my license to be renewed and I'm gold. But from what I'm hearing, we're walking ourselves towards a structure where oh sir, before you can have that renewed,
you're going to have to have an inspection done. And then what happens when that inspector's unavailable? Like there's a whole host of issues. Some of the very issues that I ran into when I was trying to get my business license, you know, my my backflow inspection. That was the that was the whole holdup was whether or
not I have my backflow inspection. I was leasing from somebody. I had no control over that backflow. But it was holding me up from getting my business license. And to me, that wasn't right. Wasn't fair. What the building owner decided to do with the backflow preenter, the water was already on. It should have had no bearing on me being able to open up the
business. As a council person, I want to be pro business. I want to make it easy on businesses, not more difficult on businesses. So that that's Tony, I see your hand up, so if you want to come on up, you can. But that's that's what I'm trying to I'm trying to poke people
into. Let's have this conversation like is this what we want to do? Yes, sir. Valley. So, if you have insurance on your building, your building insure is going to come through and and make you check your fire extinguishers and alarms and some other things because they're going to be verifying that the property
is still safe and habitable because of the insurance policy. So, my tendency would be it's like if there's something that's already being handled, if you're requiring insurance, well, then let the insurance entity be the inspector for that. If the water department's hooking up your water, let them verify before
they hook up your water and turn your water on for the business. Let that be the backflow prevent check. I mean, there's no reason for the business license to be tied to that. You have to have water. You have to have sewer in some places. You have to if you're requiring insurance. Let those things be the check.
That That's my point. And that's my point. And that's my feeling. This thing should be easy because we can't the fire department cannot go check every business. How many businesses do we have? I mean, it's it's over it's over. Yeah, we could be there. We have some pools. It's over a thousand. I mean, yeah, you wouldn't believe. I mean, just
every little entity that's a business. Um, and I think there there's also, I mean, if you're working out of your house, I mean, we're not going to come inspect your house for the, you know, for the home business occupancy. So, there's some that will be out of that. So, that' probably be quite a few. And your lawn business doesn't necessarily have an office or it might be the house.
So, maybe it it goes out that way. But again, if you got requirements that already require that already have inspections, why are we doubling up in the inspections? There's no way a chief can inspect a thousand businesses a year. It's just not practical, right? So when you first open, you get that check,
that's part of that fee. Other than that, if there's something that's going to require a check, it's part of what you've already required. Why are you doubling up the requirement? So I completely agree with what you're saying. Yes, you're doubling up. That's what I'm getting at like like take example of the theater. The theater gets inspected by ABT, the health department,
and insurance every single year. So, why why add a city inspection on top of that just to renew that business license? Because that's kind of how I feel like what we're walking towards if we're not careful. So, that that's what I'm trying to kind of sus out of this whole conversation. I'm you know, and that's
why I want everybody to talk. And the big thing about the business license is the whole point of having a business license is we should be getting as a city. You should be getting something that you're benefiting from. It shouldn't just be well what's the what's the point of the license? We're not
vetting the business. We're not it's not the better business bureau. We're saying they have the pieces in place required to protect the safety of the public from you know fraud or or you know fly by night operations that come through or unsafe buildings. Fine. But we should also be getting some data. I mean, we
should, you know, it asks for employees, I believe. Doesn't ask for income range or or, you know, revenue or anything like that. That would actually help us understand the types of businesses and how to kind of cater our services to business. That would start to make sense. Um, but we're not doing that. But
there's a step that the Census Bureau collects and that part could be anonymous. You maybe it just doesn't get recorded as part of the business meeting. But if there was a way to capture some of that data, it would really help us in terms of understanding where our tax revenue dollars are coming from. What kind of businesses have better um you know could benefit from
tourism dollars versus uh you know local in the city dollars. I mean that's data that we could actually do something with. But I just I don't want a license if if it's just to pay a fee and doesn't do anything. So that's much too and the
the data collection that's something we've talked about also again we've stopped on moving forward a lot of stuff until we got to the point if we're going to do it or not and what it's like. So I've already talked to talked to you about it. I'm going to talk to the chamber about it. How the data they they collect that they feel is um relevant or
useful data. There's no need to get stuff that's unusful to us. But I totally agree with getting data put on the website to share with stuff to say here's what's in the city. Here's what the community looks like. So I totally agree with that. So that is definitely one in the fire safety thing. That was just something we had seen. It seems to
be that's how they kind of got around increasing the actual fee and the process associated with it. But I mean we're not asking to do any more work from the fire department perspective at all. Um that was just something that came up. I think we actually need to do a fee for the fire department at least
when they do the first one. Totally agree. Totally because right now with only $30 you got the chief going up to an inspection. you have Lisa and sometimes by stealth pulling up documentation and the city's actually losing money when we when we do the all
the application process for a new business coming in and and Tony I want to thank you for kind of honing it in because that that's exactly what I was getting at is like let let's decouple this where where it has been coupled in the past to some of these other things like in my case it was the backflow
prevented me right let's decouple the business license from life safety inspection, you know, water water testing, backflow testing, that the business license almost needs to stand on its own and not have these other
hooks into it. But then let's let's have let's have some consistency, right? like we we do have at least to a certain extent if you look at our current ordinance someone could easily say well we are kind of vetting who's who's in there because we're charging different
rates if it's a clairvoyant it's one thing if it's a regular retail business it's 30 bucks but then if it's Walmart it's based on something else right yeah because Walmart's square footage yeah so that I think that's what I'm trying to do is simplify some of this
stuff decouple it from some of these these um extraneous kind of requirements that have been chunked in there over the years and the fire safety thing we can definitely probably that's something I'm sure I doubt there have to be an ordinance it's probably a
resolution that establishes said fee at the time of occupational license business tax receipt so that's something you play about as being a separate thing you got to have it anyways so yeah absolutely mean the fee schedules they've they've worked and got a number of them they vary again they vary from
multiple cities in this sort of of how much they are, what they're for, how they're based. I mean, it really just depends. Pensacles is pretty straightforward. Um, it's not too difficult. It's pretty clear. And I don't know where this one came from, but um, let's see. You should have one for
from Fort Walton, one from Melbourne, Florida. So, there's there's a number of them. They vary from complexity to simplicity, however you want to do it, however you want to see it. Um, so we can create one of those and they can be a part of it. Where did we end up with fog a while
back and grease and restaurants? It's an ordinance under review. Is it? And the reason why I say that is because of the inspections we're talking about because realistically that would go to impacts of restaurants at the time too.
It's under under review under us. What was staff level? Oh, I thought at a council level we'd already voted to implement that. I could have sworn that it got presented a while back.
It it did get presented, but I don't know that there there are certain I'd have to pull there there's certain language already existing about fog, but the actual program and the enforcement of it and the fees associated with violations and stuff is not because that weighs heavily on our wastewater sewage.
Sure. Yeah. I just thought I thought we as a council we had already blessed that and said go forward with it because I remember it getting presented to me personally and then I remember it specifically being coming up at a council meeting and I I think there was
a separate policy versus the the ordinance I'd have to pull back. I know what meetings you're talking about. Um, the individual ones I pulled up, but the actual ordinance that implements it and puts authority behind the fees is not has not been okay. There's another
there's another one for backflow. Okay. All right. So, where do where do we stand to kind of summarize to summarize this? I think let me let me take a stab at summarizing this. The consensus I'm hearing from my
left and from my right is we want to continue with a business business tax license. Um, as far as details on it, I think there is some consistency. I haven't at least heard any objections to trying to
simplify it. Um, we certainly don't want to set ourselves up for required yearly inspections, but we do support a one-time inspection when it's a new business. That that's kind of the general consensus that I'm hearing so far based
on the con discussion. And then the the the data collection needs to be implemented. Yes, sir. New or relocated. New or relocated? New or new location. Okay. So, if if they're
relocating, then they they still need to have an inspection. Yeah. Or if a new um technically if you let's say your building and you put a new client in on all your floors, technically you're supposed to have that new section that's
done. That section is supposed to have licensing inspection. Even even if the it's changed like nothing's changed like one moves out of firearms when they added the um the axe gym or the axe throwing place into that
section that whole section had to have had life safety inspection right but they they changed all that they physically altered that space and a change of use office it's right like I like me having having a lawyer move out and a a
real estate company move in nothing has physically changed in my building. So why would I need why would I need was already pre-established but take for example um Main Street gym at one time they didn't have this they added a masseuse they actually changed the whole room so masseuse could come in there had
to have that whole room but that was construction as part of that right part of it but also it was it was a whole new basically person coming in and it was that room was not used for anything for that. So when they went in there and
readjusted everything and clientele was now going into that room, they actually had a life safety inspection. I I see I see what you're saying. So how how can we how can we do that? That you're you're covering your your scenario that you're talking about, right? Where
business adds a new person and like that masseuse is technically aren't they licensed? Yes, they have to have their own license. Okay. Okay. So it's a new business. How how do you how do you capture that? Right? They're they're going into an existing place like Main
Street or I know some other businesses that would fall under this scenario. How do you capture those those scenarios without capturing someone like me where I've got four offices that don't change? Everything's literally the same. Whether it's, you know, a real estate person,
whether it's a lawyer, whether it's a contractor that moves in and out. Like to me, me changing a tenant upstairs where everything else has stayed the same. It's just a different physical person in that office, I shouldn't have to have a reinspection because nothing's changed
on my building from a life safety perspective. But but like in your scenario where they've done a little bit of construction, they've they've altered like from a use perspective, they've significantly altered the use or they're adding to the use. Then in that case, I
could see going and saying, "Hey, you're you've significantly deviated from your original licensed business. You need a new inspection." And usually what we do, we let the fire chief tell us. We tell them, "Hey, there's new business going in over here. Do they require our safety
inspection? And you usually tell us yes they need to have one or no they don't need to have one and that that's fine but how how do we how do we turn that into code so that it's consistent? I feel like we're going to create the fee and it's already automatically new business requires it exception if you're
going into an already existing structure that's already had its annual already had it been inspected then and there's no construction done you don't require another one. So I think he does it based off of Florida or his fire statutes. So I would have probably have to get with
him to ask him exactly how does he determine whether or not a new license inspection needs to be done or not. Okay. Because I think I think he's going by his code what if one needs actually needed to be done. I I'd like to see a little bit of clarity on that. Okay. We
can give and put the language. Are you okay with that? What are your thoughts on that? Yeah. Okay. That'll clarify it. Let me let me same same lane, but let me switch gears for a second. The way I read it when I was reading through some of this
earlier, take for example take for example my upstairs. I'm leasing that out to two other people. I have a business license for the bottom floor, which is retail. The way I'm reading some of this in this ordinance, I would have to have a business license to
operate those offices as rental space. But then each person inside of those would then need their own license. So you're double dipping. So that's the conversation we had the other day. Particularly um let's take hairstyle hair a hairstyle a hair business for example, right? Each So you got the
building someone owns the building. You own the building there. That is a business running that building. Mr. Congress has got to go get a business license. Each of those vendors in that building are licensed professionals, right? and
they are a booth rental. So, they are a business renting a space. They should be required to each individually get a business license based off of this. That's not what's been happening. We've just been doing the We've been trying to do that. That's where some of the question is, how strict do you actually
want us to Okay. And and I've heard I've heard that same concept applied to lawyers in this town. Correct. So, if you've got two or three members practicing within the same law firm, Yes. They're saying that each individual law part partner has to have a license. And to me, that's crazy. And
doctors are supposed to each have their own. So basically, if they're a licensed professional like through DBVR, you are to basically have your own license. That's basically by our ordinances how it's so so if we have
someone with an architectural firm and they've got multiple architects on staff they've now got to have a license for each architect in in that building versus the firm carrying one license if they're separate contractors I would say see I don't it sounds like so for us we
staff doesn't have a preference right we it doesn't right it's really up to and the problem we're having with enforcing it is do you enforce just the building or do is it the building in every single person who works in it because our our our stuff is you have your professions.
Take Pensacola for example. They have list out two professions. Engineers, architects, certified CPAs, dentist, lawyers, veterans, doctors. Those individual people are required to get a business license because they're licensed to do such work. So, it's really up to the council what it is you
want to do. You want to just charge the structure or do you want to charge each individual within that structure? And some actually did do well. And we've talked about and we talked about like take hairstyle for again again you have a building and the business owns the building. If they come and say we have
12 booths in here, do we charge the business for 12 licenses and who uses them in that building? It's not our concern. You give them out to whoever comes and rents the booth and it's good for that year, right? It's not the individual who owns because if you if you're a hair stylist in there and you can license when you leave, you take it
with you and the next one's got to come get another one. Or do we go to the owner and say, "You got tw how many booths do you got?" Well, I got 12. We need to buy 12 licenses that for each of those booths. It it can be a fine hair to split because you could take any one of these
businesses that's in town and say, "All right, I want to run a strip club out of the back office back there." And knowing that it's against our morals and standards as the community that we're not going to allow it in there. How are you going to keep prevent it from coming in? the leverage by this business
license is one way to do that. The and I would rather have Clay here with us to make sure I'm not crossing a line, but trying to figure out what you can designate the actual physical property to be used for versus now what can I prevent you from being able to do with a
license may be the community standard. The community may want us to prevent that business from coming into this community, but how can we do it whenever the business itself, the property is zoned for a specific use? And now we're
saying that, okay, technically you meet the code, so we can't prevent you from it. This license may be one means to do so. So, am I wrong in that or am I I think that's a slippery. I'm talking about splitting a hair is the only thing
I'm getting to. I think it's required. You have to have you got to have so much insurance on on foul when you get the license, right? Okay. So if you if the owner just rent the building out, he got
his license for the building and you got that many individual, they got to have the individual license because the other fell owner the the building can't be responsible them plus they got to have their insurance. So you got to have that. Well, the problem is right now what we have is we
can ask to see your insurance for your building. We can't make you give it to us. That's one of the questions. That's one of our problems. I I understand that. But it's behoove that owner to make sure that you got insurance cuz they don't want the dog to fall back on him.
You know, you don't want to fall back on him. Anytime I go bid that they they going to ask specific. You got insurance right off the bat. Then they going to ask for that license. Then they gonna ask for the state license. That is a requirement. No matter how many guys I
got on board, they want to ask that right off Pacific right off the bat. And then not only that and sign a contract, you cannot have a convicted bel. And you and one of the jobs I have, I can't take nobody on but my own
black and I'm serious because they got records and and so it has requirements. Mhm. So, what I'm seeing to y'all here at the board is that there are things that have to take place. Yeah. And and and one of the good things I found out
about the city and it shocked me. Um I don't know if it should have happened or shouldn't happen. And I recalled it and I I write my notes down cuz I keep me a notebook because my old mind get a little jittery. And uh what happened is that he called in the city and said,
"Who you got doing this and this and this?" And the lady said, "Well, we got a list of people that does that." And so she emailed him to fax them to. And the lady called me and I didn't I never seen
her. I just talked to on the phone. Bang. Got the job. Point blank. That's it like you own home advisor or different networks but the city just they didn't say take Mr. Bone take Mr. Scanya take Mr. times. No, they send the
list. You pick who you want, it's on you. And it just shocked me. But that's one thing happened and that that happened twice I know of. But what I'm seeing is that you have to have that. You cannot operate that. And the guys sit over there and say, "Well, you just
what it call bootlegging." You know, so I'm just saying it it need to happen because it's you got to have that a requirement. You just can't because the owner on that building is not going
to let that come back on him. No, no, no, no, no. Right. I mean, like when I when I originally signed the lease to open up the store, the requirements of the lease were that I carried insurance and that I named the building owner as part of the insured. Uh, so we we had
insurance from the jump because that was required by per my lease. And I I can't imagine any other any other lease that I've ever seen, commercial lease that I've seen that that's always included insurance requirements. So So for the the city to kind of be concerned with insurance requirements and all this
other stuff, I don't know that it's it's within our purview because there's so many to Mr. Greg's point, there's so many other places that are going to force them and compel them to be to to be insured that I don't know that it's the juice is worth the squeeze. But to
go back to what we were we were talking about, for example, that we got a dentist downtown and I know for a fact he's got four or five doctors working for him. So, under this ordinance, he'd have to go buy one for the building plus four or five individual licenses per
doctor. I that just doesn't seem productive to me. Like license that that dentist, that location, and just call it a day. License that law firm, license that architectural firm. See, I would argue against license
having to if you're if you're set up in like my building, if you're set up just to rent commercial space, those individual people that are up there are going to have licenses. So, why compel me as a building owner to have a license to rent space to other
people? I that's that's kind of where I'm getting at. Let's keep it simple. Let's just license the business as a whole and not compel hair stylists, doctors, lawyers, architects, other professionals that are licensed by DBPA.
Let's not worry about the individuals within there. that that license covers however many they want to cram into a building. Yeah. Again, it it varies again some per individual. This place it does it like professionals. The business
has zero to two, it's $100. If it's three to four, it's 200. Five or more, it's 300. So, it's that way or it's it's the business. What kind of businesses? It falls under this category, it's $200. So, there's so many different ways of doing it. That's the thing. Yeah. I I
suggest let's go to legal now. Okay. Yeah, let's let's I make a motion to go legal on that because u I I I don't want the city to lose money on that and you may agree or disagree, but I I think we ought to cut the license fee up. I agree
it been too too too low and we can compare it to other cities if you don't mind. We compare to other cities, but I suggest it. So, I know you made a motion, but we're gonna have Clay come back. I think it tonight was more about just having some general open
discussion. Hopefully staff can kind of assimilate, make this not clear as mud because I know we've kind of weed the wall. We've thrown all kinds of stuff out, right? Throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks, but obviously this is going to come back to us. So, I know
you've made a motion, but it's going to come back to us anyway. And Clay should be here for the next one and be able to to kind of maybe provide some clarity to these questions we've had tonight. Do you want to keep it at that? Yeah, let's keep it at we'll just table it to then. Okay, if that's so I change the motion.
Okay, how do we con what do we consider between conveyance and actual business too? Like the food trucks and everything else that comes through town. Food trucks cannot be charged up by Florida statute. Clay sent us
something about four years ago. Now the funny thing is rescue charges. Yeah. our food trucks, our special licenses, and we ask not to do that, and they're just waiting for some to be contested. How does that differ between.com's um consulting services,
anything else? Because the contextual language in in the ordinance is very broad. I mean, it's like if you operate a business, you you pay a you pay a business license pretty much then. So, how do we consider the the rest of that? Because I know even my wife's tutoring
business, we had to ask everyone. It's like, do I need a business license? Do I need a business? Do I need to pay a business license? Everything's online. It's not in person. So, how do we handle those businesses? Right. I had to say with us, it's really hit and miss. Technically by the ordinance
it's basically it basically says if you do business inside the city limits or you make money inside the city limits you first to have occupational license with us. Does someone selling stuff on eBay technically? Yes. Florida law says any crime committed in that county cross all
county tonight. So I mean there can be a lot of stuff. I mean, we have we have people that do pressure washing business inside the city, but their B technically their business in the county, they actually have to have a business. Same with the guys that do the um lawn
maintenance. Yeah. Sometimes I'm driving around, I'll call Lisa, Lisa, I got this company over here doing business. Do they have occupation license? No. I'll stop and give them a car and say, look, you need to get oxidize with us before you do any more businesses inside or house inside the city. I've got an uncle
that used to be a locksmith and he had to have one years ago to say Bri key and it was all inside of the van driving around going from place to place. That was your uncle? I think Okay, Ken. Yeah. Yeah, Ken. I know him. Yeah. I think we
I think for certain homebased businesses, right, we we probably need to do some sort of carve out, but that that's going to be there is one. There actually is an ordinance for homebased opportunities. what can what is and is not allowed. Yeah. Because the other side of it, and I've noticed this over
there in my neighborhood, you've got some people that are in a trade that are obviously a homebased business, right? They're not big enough to to go off and lease a warehouse space and have, you know, everything there. But you can clearly tell they're they're running
their own home business as a trade, construction trade, not far from from where I am now. And I have to wonder like as a resident directly around there, is that something that I want? You know, and and I know of I know
of another business over here off of South Second Street that they bring their heavy equipment in and out and it's then damaging the rideways. Is that fair? Another thing is, is that appropriate? your HOAs sometimes they don't allow commercial
business to go on inside of the communities but really proven it otherwise this is an enforcement method. I don't know this, like I said, you could split this hair a million different ways.
All right. Do we want storefront buildings? Would that be the easiest way to to nail it down? I don't know because breaking mortar or is it just Well, I mean that that that thought crossed my mind, but then you you basically would
allow like the two examples that I cited, you know, on on opposite ends of of the city here and then everybody else is screaming that's not fair, right? because they're impacting, you know, the the traffic of, you know, vendors coming by or them leaving stuff out in their
yard or, you know, them loading and unloading heavy equipment in and out of their their driveway all the time, damaging the rideway and pe other people's right away they're maintaining. Is that fair? And then we got the burden of enforcement like like the one piece
we're asking too on Mr. Strong and how far are we willing to back him on all of these scenarios? So, can we help me out here? I mean, I'll try I'll try and speak with Clay prior to the next meeting, but if not, then that'll probably be the main one.
We need to talk to him about the process, how we change the fees. Uh, and some questions tonight. For us, the main thing we look for tonight was yes or no, which is a yes. We want to continue to look at them. We want to see how we change them. Um, it helped out that, you know, we want to work on bringing back a
fire inspection policy. that fee associated here's what it costs when you do your first business or you relocate sort. So for us this was helpful. So get that out of it. So next meeting that'll be more for him to go through the statute and say this is what it's going
to take to increase a fee. here's your ability what you can and can't do because even like I'm looking at Pensacas and one section says tax increases and it reads commencing effective on October 1 7 and every other year thereafter city council may
increase by ordinance the rates of local businesses business taxes by up to 5% provided however such increases may not be enacted by less than a majority plus one vote of council. So if you're grandfathered in, is that is that a way to get around some of this new statute which requires a committee to be created
and all other stuff? Those are things that we need them to answer for us. And the research Lisa has done, we are grandfathered in, but there's certain hoops we have to do to increase. So clarify what those are. Okay. So you you all are going to bring back the
clarification on all that next time. you've gotten the answers that you need tonight, plus some input from us on how we kind of want things to operate going forward. Yeah, we'll start uh you know, and we can we can either take a crack at
a new setup in terms of what the fee structure looks like or next time we can bring back some examples for everyone to take a look. It's up to y'all. Yes, sir. I'd like to know if the sheriff's department has a business license to
operate within the city of Springs. It says they're exempt in here. I did find that language. Yeah, it said governments and schools and other places are exempt. It seems that once we're talking about Facebook Market, eBay, Amazon, Amazon
doesn't have business. I don't think I don't think it's enforceable. I'm not sure. I can't I mean if I had to get every city I worked in I wouldn't be right it's just not practical for contractors I mean you got grass all
your physical location your home base based within where you're located with right it seems like it's inspect their building elsewhere we don't so what's what's theally
My biggest scare is the rules for thee but not for me. And if you're going to do it for me, why are you but not them? I want to avoid those issues. Sure. I mean, even my dad, I I'll go ahead and throw this out there. So, he hit me up about two weeks ago and he said, "Holy
crap, I didn't pay my business license and the code enforcement guy came by to see me." And I was like, "Well, he's a nice guy. Just pay your bill." I'm gonna pay the bill. I just forgot about the bit. The the bill came in. He's like, I didn't know I paid my bill. So, it's not that they don't want to pay it. They
want to pay it. So, but Chris shouldn't have to feel weird coming in to say, "Hey, you didn't pay your bill." How close are we getting this? It was Tasty F. The fee. This was about two or three weeks ago. That's something we can do. We were way It's nothing negative. It
was all positive. He's just saying we should be able to Yeah, I think you had already done that. And then and if it doesn't go through the rest of them didn't get it to access a third party system square or something like that. That's so it's possible. Okay. We just held off on a lot until we got further direct. We actually wanted to do it or not
because local business owner I'm like gosh I'm happy to pay it. There's a lot of times if it's not screaming at me in my face it's not gonna get remembered. And I know you you wanted it at one time seeing two or three years and at least it did tell you by for the statute
that's where it's set by for one year. Yeah. And that that just seems silly because I know of a lot of businesses that would love to prepay that for Yeah. I I' I'd gladly pay it for 10 years. And and if I if I close or if I move, oh well. That's just free money to the city
at that point. No. All right. Are we good on chapter 12? All right. We will move on. Any changes to the committee priority list? Anybody have anything for it? No, we have to go back to another
chapter. So, we need to leave them there. Um, do we So, we want to remove number five. Yes. We just want to put a note in there that move it to the completed section. Say that it's going to be handled with the LDC rewrite. Okay.
Planning board notice procedures. I think that got brought up not too long ago. And Chris says, I believe I had to get with him. think he's already working on the text amendment for the planning board notices procedure. So, I can follow him, but I think he's already working on the text
amendment for that noise ordinance. Chief's not here, so we'll have to wait on that one. I don't know that that's that's ever going to go anywhere. Uh, special assessments. Really and truly, I think that besides
moving number five to the com to the completed section, I don't know that we I have any major changes right now because I think we got a lot on our complaint with plate with just code review. Does anybody else have any thoughts or opinions on that? No.
Yes, I'm good. Tony, you're good. Okay. All right. We will move on from committee priority list code review tracking sheet number five. All right. So, we're bringing back 1617. Signage is being moved off. 12 is
still on our plate. 11. I think we do we sent an advertisement out. Um, yes, a new advertisement being done for June. Correct. [Music] So, first reading will be the first
meeting in June. Correct. Okay. Okay. Okay. My suggestion, this is totally up up for you guys to hit me or not, is let's just leave all of this right for
right now for this meeting. Next month, once maybe we get 1617 and some progress on 12 under our belt, we could then maybe look at changing some of these or adding some of these to our agenda.
Chapter five or reestablishing. Mhm. How's that sound everybody? Yes, ma'am. Good one. All right. So, we'll just leave it for now. Pre-consider the next meeting. All right. We will move on to citizens comments.
Thank you for coming, sir. Yes. Thank you for coming. Glad we had a citizen. All right. And with that, we will call this meeting ajourned. Thank you, everyone. No, I need to ask Mr. recorded. What's that?