the city council meeting to order. Today is August 4th, 2025. And with that, uh, the invocation, Pastor David Butler from Faith Assembly Christian Church. Thank you, sir, for being here. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Shall we pray, please? Gracious heavenly father, we
thank you that first of all that you are the lord over our city. We ask for your presence this hour for your blessings and to help us as we are gathered here with this month bringing potential greater threats of storms. We ask for
your divine protection. We pray for guidance in the matters at hand regarding our wonderful city and ask that you would clearly show us how to conduct our work with the spirit of joy and enthusiasm. Give us the desire to find ways to
excel. Help us to work together and to encourage one another for the spirit of excellence. We ask that we could challenge each other to reach higher and farther to be the best citizens we can possibly be. We ask all of this in the
name of our Lord. And now the blessing is this. May the Lord bless you and keep you. May his face shine upon you and be gracious to you. May he give you his peace. Amen. For that, Councilwoman Aver with the pledge, please. Thank you, Mayor. Please join me with your hand over your heart. 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. Thank you for that little housekeeping. If you could please
silence or turn your phones to vibrate, we would appreciate that. And with that, I will entertain an agenda approval. And I hear that we have a couple things we want to shift around a little bit. Mayor, I'd like to move up 4E and 6D up
uh to be right after the consent agenda. And then I would also like to remove 4B from the agenda. All right. So, we're crossing 4B, moving up 4E and your park foundation update
6D. Anything else? U on the consent agenda. I'm sorry. On the consent agenda, I'd like to just have a brief discussion of our concrete continuing services contract. Okay. All right. So, we'll pull 3B. Is that
correct? All right. Anything else? Seeing none with motion to approve. Thank you. As amended. Second. Got a motion and a second as amended. Seeing no further discussions, call the vote. up there.
Yep. Uh oh. [Laughter] All right, there we go. 70. So moved. A little bit of it issues in between. All right, with that, uh, no proclamations or recognitions tonight,
so we'll move on to the public comments. I'll start on my right, y'all's left. Uh, anything that does not have to do with the public hearings on the 5A through C, uh, you're more than welcome. Three minutes, I just need your name and address.
Mr. Wampler, you here for the splash pad? Yes. Okay, good. Good. Ken Wampler, 710 Beach Drive. Um, here to talk about uh 4A. Obviously, it's it's a known it's a foregone conclusion that the ordinance passed and now you're
just talking about the fees relative to the condo short-term vacation rental. I see your proposed fee schedule. Um, at this point I would simply ask that you reflect back on yourself as to what the city actually has to do for condos. And if you at a minimum uh could maybe start
at 150, which is what the short-term vacation rental registration fee was back before we started increasing it for the homes and the town homes, that I think that would be a fair and reasonable way to start since that's what we started at the homes. Um, I won't restate all the things I've said many times because I know the ordinance is going to pass. The fees are going to pass. It's just a matter of what the
fees are going to be. So, all right. Thank you for being here. Appreciate the insight. Anyone else? All right. Seeing none, I'll close the public comments and we will go into uh the 3B pled consent agenda. Councilman
Dustin, would you like to take this one? Yes, sir. On reviewing the increases in that contract, I understand prices have gone up. Some of them are pretty substantial, doubling and tripling. At at what point the question is, do we put
it back out for bid? City manager. I know Michael's taking a look at that right now, but I would suspect that we could do that at most any time, but we can certainly review that contract to see if there are termination clauses in it. There are. Okay. Okay. And what's the
the termination? The contract the contract does have termination for convenience in it. Um, so all we have to do is give the notice period required, which is not very much. I don't think we have to give
them five days notice. So if we think that that's the thing to do, should we bother to renew it tonight? Seems a little redundant. Not have to. These these renewals do not have to be done. Mr. Burgess, any logistics on that?
Yeah, this is not a contract renewal. Um, this is just a change to the exhibit A from within the existing contract. We did an adjustment back in 2023 because concrete prices had increased and they've increased even more recently.
Um, the original contract was 2021, so we should go back out in FY26 for a new um, continuing services contract for concrete services. And I understand it's not a contract renewal, but the price city council can terminate the contract
with 5 days notice at any time and does not have to give them any increase. I understand by the same token there are a lot of increases and we did re increase in 23. Some of them are substantial. Some of them make me a little uncomfortable that we would agree to those increases without going to bid.
I'll make I'll make a motion we table this issue um till the next meeting. All right. I got a motion with a date. I'll second that. All right. With a motion and a second. No further discussions. I'll call the vote. It's a table. [Music] Vote.
Sorry. Yeah, I agree. There's no discussion here. We already made the motion. Yep. Sorry. Yep. Uh with a tabled Robert's rules does not uh require uh learning one at a time. One one rule at
a time. Oh yeah. Motion to move it to the next agenda. Okay. All right. Uh Councilman Dustin has uh substituted his motion to move it to the next agenda. I'll I'll agree to that and second it. All right. All right. With that, Councilman Bagby,
I I agree with what you want to do. I would say since if it's only a fiveday uh thing, we can go ahead and approve uh and direct staff to rebid or
republish to the RFP so that we can be in the process so that we can kind of bring these together. uh unless we don't have any need for concrete in the next 60 days cuz that's about how long it
would take us to go out for bid, get bids, grade bids, interview, and pick a for y'all to bring back. So, I my only concern is I I get exactly what you're saying, but what do we do in the 60-day interim between now and when we actually
have either this contractor come back with better prices or a new contractor come back with better prices? And I understand that completely. But since this is not a new contract, simply an adjustment of prices, u I would think that the contractor would still be obliged to go forward with the prices we
have in place because we are not obliged or required to do an adjustment in prices until the contract runs out. What is the date on this contract termination? I believe it runs through December 31st. So,
you know, I'm satisfied either way. I just want us to see if anybody else thinks that prices are reasonable and would like to bid. Okay. Just so I'm clear, you you want staff to
bring back an RFP or RFB? Yes. Uh for a proposed put it out to put it out at the next meeting. Okay. Yep. Yeah. No, I'm I'm 100% on board. So, the motion is to
move this to the next meeting and have staff prepare to put out an RFP. If our present contractor is not willing to go forward with the prices till December, in which case we could put it off, then I won't even put that caveat in it. Let's take that out.
So, we will bring you back a a procurement package for request for bids for these services at the next meeting for your approval and we'll go from there. Councilman Braden. Thank you, mayor. Um, city manager, this
price increase, it was just per yard, and I know it's been a while since I bought some concrete. Um, but I know if you order less than a truckload, there's a delivery fee tacked on to that. If you order three yards, there's plus the delivery fee. So, and it's just last
time I bought it, it was just as just as much to buy the whole truck as it was just pay three yards delivery fee. So, is he adding this delivery fee in there to kind of make up I know the price he come up with per yard is is real high,
but is that did he did he reference anything like that? I'll defer to Michael was digging into it for us. Yeah, if we do have a job that's less than nine or 10 yards, there's a short truck fee that goes along with it. I think it's like $200
or something like that. But the prices that you see in here um for the concrete quantities includes labor and finishing. So, it's not just the concrete by itself. We don't get a separate we don't have a separate pay
item for labor. So that's finished concrete. That I wouldn't pour it for that, but it's like a good price to me. All right. Uh, Councilman Gal, I have a couple questions. Unfortunately, this is
my specialty with my engineering degree, my lure. So, I noticed here they're using 89 aggregate, which requires more cement paste, which makes that concrete mixture more expensive than a 57 rock. Additionally, ACI 302 states 57 rocks should be on slab on grade and not a
small 89 aggregate ASMC 3389 aggregate. Is there a reason they're using a more expensive concrete mixture for an application of flatwork slab on grade application versus the proper mixtures that would be less expensive
concerning the aggregate? I can find that out for you, but council several years ago required 4,000 PSI with fiber as our standard. So that does increase the price of the concrete. Well, 4,000 PSI for a 89 aggregate requires significantly more cementitious
than a 57 rock, the 1-in aggregate uh declared by ACI 302 for flat work application because a smaller rock requires more paste for surface area. So 4,000 PSI can be achieved for a lot less money for a number 57 rock than it can
be for a number 89 rock. I will ask him about that tomorrow and uh see what he comes back with and I'll make sure that city manager is aware and we can distribute that information as necessary. I appreciate you. I didn't understand a word you said.
Anyone else discussion on this? All right, seeing none, we got our sub on the floor. We'll round out that vote. All right. Eyes have it. So move 70. Uh and that is the pulled 3B. So I do I hear a motion for the consent agenda for
A, C, and D? I'll make a motion to approve A C and D. All right. Do I hear a second? Got a second. Seeing no further discussions, we'll call the vote on the remaining consent agenda. All right. Eyes have it. So moved. 70.
Moving right along. U Mr. Larry Jones, city manager report button. Pardon me. Thank you for moving item 4D up in the agenda. So um Mr. Mike Norberg is here from the county to help with this. um through some discussion over uh
probably numerous meetings the question of uh no weight zones at Joe's bio and what we could do about them and so we've had some good conversation with Mr. Norberg and we appreciate his expertise in sharing with us. But the what you see
on the screen is um of course the upper left hatched version. I don't know if we can make that any larger but is the current no zone at Joe's bio boat launch. At the you see at the top and
the bottom of that hatched arc there are uh green and orange markers. Those are the current nos on signs. Uh, and Mr. Norberg is here and we appreciate him being here and he'll correct me if I'm wrong because I'm subject to be. But we do have the
ability to add an additional sign at the apex of that arch there in in between those other two if we wish to do that. And he has graciously agreed to help us with that. Um what you see across the bio is um Harbor Lane is a rideway that
runs to the W's edge that were we inclined to establish a kayak launch or some improvement there, but kayak launch would probably be the easiest thing to attain. We could create another 500 ft no wake zone, but as you can tell from
that uh graphic, those two do not intersect. So there'd still be a open space between the two of them. Um, in order to do that, it would take an ordinance uh acknowledging the fact that the city wishes to establish that. It would take a design of an approved uh
kayak launch, which would be required to be approved by the fish and wildlife. Um, we're not sure exactly what that means. We're assuming it means it has to be ADA accessible and that would be for boats, lunches, uh parking, those
things. But if if council is interested in uh getting further into that, we'll be glad to dig in a little deeper and make sure exactly what we're looking at. Um so that would take some improvements and it would take sign off from Florida Fish and Wildlife in order to establish
that to get a another 500 foot no zone there. And if you'll scroll up just a little bit and Mr. Norberg, uh, you can help me on this one, but there is the potential or possibility of creating a no zone in that little throat area based
on the blind curve that's there. That would also require an ordinance and approval from Fish and Wildlife. And uh, and thank you for being here. And um, please fill in the blanks because I'm sure there are some. New haircut. New haircut. Nice. I got sick of it
hanging in my hair when I'm up in the attic trying to do some homeowner stuff, new homeowner stuff. Um, so thanks for having me. Mike Norberg, Oaklus County, uh, coastal resource manager. Um, so one of the things that that my role is within the county is managing boating safety zones throughout the entire
county. We have over 250 signs or something like that um, spaced throughout pretty much all the waterways. Um, so a lot of a lot of managing that. The way that the state allows local municipalities, local governments to set up boating safety zones is established through statute.
Um, so there are some limitations associated with what can and can't be considered a no wake zone or a boating safety zone, which also is considered a slow speed or or or no boats at all. Um, so there's a couple things that are allowed and a lot of the um the requests
to just create zones whenever wherever are usually stymied by statute. Um, so ultimately the process would be to establish an ordinance that fits within the statutory authority and then from there uh FTBC would issue a permit um
after reviewing that ordinance and then a zone could be created. Uh it does take maintenance. requires maintenance every 5 years, including re resubmission of all the applicant or all the application information to keep it up to date. Otherwise, if statutes were to change uh in the future and that zone were not
being maintained or it was not even an established zone at at the time that that change happened, um there's no there's really no authority to be able to do anything. Um so, a lot of the historic there was a there was a no wake zone here. stuff that we hear throughout
the county um is is stuff that's not under the authority to establish zones because it never was officially done. So, there are a couple things. Um the the kayak launch is one that we pursued uh in another area of the county a couple years ago. Uh the way that they
interpret the definition of a kayak launch facility, it has to be an improved facility that allows uh Boers to access the water, launch their vessels, it has to fall within both the land and the water environment. So essentially, if you look at the boat basin over in Okaloosa Island, it's a
ramp that goes down into a floating dock um that then has a kayak launch associated with that. So that's kind of the example of how FTWC interprets the definition of an improved kayak launch facility is an actual facility that facilitates that process of getting from the land to the water and happens in both both environments.
um whether that requires um uh ADA access or parking or anything like that that I believe would fall under the city's purview. Uh it's not managed by FWC and it's obviously not something that we as the county would would manage either. The one request
that I do have to help maintain continuity between all these zones that if you guys were to take desire to take action that uh we would try to run it up county leadership also and maybe establish it through the county so we can continue to maintain it. um those initial costs are a little high, but the maintenance in the long term is just a
matter of replacing zones and updating all the documentation. So, here to help answer any questions that you might have. All right. Thank you, Mike, for being here. Councilwoman Abear. Thanks, Mayor. Um on Joe's Bayou, I know by using that graphics there. It most residents may not realize exactly what
it is, but the bottom line is is once you come in from, you know, to Joe's Bayou, it becomes more of a neighborhood. It's truly you're going in and then you've got a couple of cut cutaways, people's personal properties, personal boats, you've got kids on, you know,
like waterboards and stuff or I'm sorry, paddle boards trying to maneuver around there. There's been several folks that have said, "Is there any way with it being more of a residence area to put it in that kind of mindset to make it safer
instead of allowing jet skis to race and practice in there?" I mean, is it feasible for us to want to go ahead and put an ordinance together? Is it something that we could get the county to buy in on to help us manage that area that becomes more resident friendly
versus straight out racing across the the waters? Yeah. So we we did start exploring this conversation this this issue itself last year about this time last year earlier in the summer um when there were some some conflicts between user groups um
and and explored the a number of different options. funds uh reached out to my contacts with fish and wildlife. And ultimately something like creating this this kayak launch zone or uh creating a buffer that essentially is a 300 foot um buffer that goes across from
point to point um in that blind corner is really the only thing that we can do that we have that anybody has the statutory authority to do. Um, one of the things that you got to keep in mind with a lot of these bayus is that they were established, I mean, they're they're historically have been used for boating activities, whether it's
teaching a kid how to how to ski or tube or whatever. So, the state's pretty strict on on limiting um access to state waters essentially. So, everything within the water is state waters. Um, and the reason a lot of these statutes
were established was to to help curtail that. um folks getting frustrated about not in my backyard, the nimi attitude. Um and and local governments pushing ordinances that essentially restrict access to the waterway within within a
reasonable amount. Um so to be completely honest, if it doesn't fit within the statute, there's not really a lot we can do. What does fit in the statute is this kayak zone right now and then that 300 foot buffer. Uh there's a little bit of question. know I was talking with FTBC about that about doing that 300 foot buffer that would cross
from point to point. Um the way that they the I don't know for sure exactly how they how they describe the the the a blind point, but it had something to do with uh a boer in point A to point B have to be or can't have to be to the point where they can't see each other when following normal boating rules. So
being on the right side of the the directions and everything and I don't know if that would actually qualify within this area. So that would be a challenge for that. Thank you. That's helpful and hopefully those in the area that are affected can understand why we're not able to do a
whole lot with what's already state waters. Yeah. And we see that a lot and and especially in the bayou around here is around the county. Councilwoman Traml. Um so if I understand this correctly, the two fingers I guess I'll call them
down there. uh they have been a no wakeake zone and you're saying we need to create a a new no wake zone redo that not at all. So the ones that are established in the fingers back here the the the two zones those were established I believe back in 1998
um through the process and it was actually permitted through D at the time those are are still there. They're existing and they're they're remaining in in effect as long as we continue to maintain them there's not a chance of losing them. Um, so, so we did last year, actually it was probably earlier,
it was in the winter, a year and a half or two years ago, I can't remember. We did lose one of those signs. Um, and I worked with Lisa and and and the city to get that sign replaced. We went ahead and replaced that sign. But for the most part, there's no issues with those zones. If we try to modify them or actually or or do anything with
those zones, there's a chance we could lose them completely because they were quote unquote grandfathered into the statutory authority. So, they're going to stay. Correct. Okay. Now, the 500 foot circle that we're talking about there at the end of Harbor Lane, um, have you been down
there? I have. It's like a 15 foot hill and and you're saying we have to have parking and we have to have which we don't have there and and probably don't
have room to put there. Um, and to get a kayak down those stairs would be just dangerous right now. I think I I I don't know how you could do that. But I what I see in this is speeding
and I mean that's where we taught our kids to ski and and all that kind of stuff. So So yeah, that that's fine, but it's still going to affect everybody on both sides. Correct. And I'm not and I'm not because fast boats are going to make waves. Correct. And and and legally fast
boats could could travel fast between those two zones. There would be no no violation. I am not uh in support or against creating a no zone. I just wanted to give you guys the information based on our experience uh based on conversations with staff. I I absolutely
um it don't I stand on the fence on on either option, whatever. Is there anything we can use besides a kayak launch? Um so so ultimately a kayak launch, boat launch, a fuel a fueling dock. Um, those are pretty much the limitations.
I don't see any of those going in there. Correct. So, well, thank you for for coming and explaining all that. I just um I I just don't know how it's going to be any different. Thank you. Yeah. And I I do want to make sure that
it's clear that I'm not advocating one way or the other. I'm just just here to provide you guys information. Correct. I agree with you. You know, I live on the bay and I sit on my dock and I get splashed by boats and and wave runners and things going by sitting on my dock. So, you know, I get that.
All right, Councilman Dest. Thank you, Mayor. It's not so much the wake, it's the excessive speed that worries people. So, my question is, does state statute prohibit municipalities or counties from establishing reasonable speed limits in
waterways? Um, so that's a valid question. There's nothing that it it falls with within the boating and safety voting and waterways group with FWBC. Um for the most part the way that they the authority allows
us to create slow speed zones and um which which are defined slow speeds off plane settled in but not idle. Uh no wake zone would be an idle speed zone essentially. So it gets confusing. There's actually a couple different uh zones that can be created. speed zones
typically fall under um under the the slow speed to an extent, but I actually I can look into that and see if there's something we can do. And my understanding of the statute and and I've not read it extensively is it does not prohibit us from having reasonable speed zones and reasonable
speed zones would get rid of some of the behavior that we're concerned with, the jet ski races, the other dangerous activities. Um and it's not unreasonable. federal government is establishing speed zones and has proposed it in a number of areas in the
Gulf of Mexico and and other parts of the country to protect whales to do this to do that. So, it's it's not something that no one has thought of and uh with my always devious legal mind looking at the statute, I wonder how can we establish the public good
and still stay within the law. Yes, appears to me that may be an avenue, but Miss Cop can always look at that for us, too. And I know that we can do it under the statute. So if that's something we want to do, I mean, even if you established a a speed of 15 miles an hour, you can't
really race jet ski or other vessels and not exceed that limit. And that would probably curtail the dangerous activity we're worried about. So anyway, that's a thought. Yeah. And in the statutes that that that we typically work under that I'm familiar with, it's it's not an authority of what you can't do. It's an
authority of what you can do. And so that's where where these zones typically come in. So it's not it's not saying um it's saying that you can do this um and not that you can't. So whether that can be interpreted as a way around something, I don't know. That would definitely be it's basically saying we can do it by
ordinance. We can establish a slow speed zone if certain requirements are met. Correct. And one of you know one of them is going around the bend. And there's various things that I I think we meet. I would have to have conversations probably um
with him and some staff, but we can do it if we meet the criteria and I think we do. Well, so under statute you do there there are there are very clearly defined um you you can slow so slow speed is off plane and settled
into the water. Um there's no speed definition to that. idle speed is at idle able to to n or to maneuver your vess vessel but um so there's there's a distinction between slow speed and and idle speed no wake um but that's not a number
of course yes I agree I agree I think we get a grip on things some vessels going faster so you know that's a real fuzzy area y so that's something we look at if it
continues to be kind of problem with jet ski races and courses in there, then we'll figure it away. Yeah. And definitely we can work I can work with staff and and and come up with something and look and see if speed speed zone is an allowance. I do know that there are
areas where it is 15 mph speed zones. Um and so we can definitely look into that. Yeah, you get the circle and the 15. Yeah, custom gal. So there's going to be a cost associated with trying to implement that extra 500 feet. And what I'm looking at is just a
small portion of the body. It's not going to close anything off. It's not going to really it's only going to affect the a small portion of shoreline. Who would enforce it if if we we got complaints? Who would enforce it? So ultimately it would be uh the
sheriff's office or fish and wildlife. Um, sure. I don't know if there would if if a harbor master were to be established that that would be an enforceable position, but um, ultimately the ones who are writing the citations are are sheriff's office or official wildlife. One of the challenges that we run into in all of our slow speed zones
is that both of those agencies are are pretty strapped for um, officers. So, we have a lot of complaints in other areas where speeds aren't being followed or the signs regulations aren't being followed because there's not an officer there to enforce it. So, can I ask, do you have the manpower
to enforce it? Yeah, we would enforce it. Uh, us and FWC both would enforce it. Um, y'all pay for one marine unit who spends his time in the harbor enforcing the no zones that are there in the harbor and
he writes citations in Joe's Bayou. We would supplement that with the other guys from the from the marine unit. So, we should not have a problem manpower-wise enforcing that from the work side of things. Okay. So, you're saying since you've already got manpower out there, you can enforce the additional
Yeah, we should have no problem enforce if we can establish a no wake zone there or a idle speed zone there. You know, anything that we can establish there under the state law, um, we should not have an issue enforcing it at all.
All right. Thanks, Councilman Bagby. So, what I'd like to see is how how many different Let me ask it this way. How many different voting safety zones are there? There's no wake zones, there's slow speed zones, there's how many
others are there? So, in theory, there's three. There's no wake, slow speed, and then you have um no vessel zones, things like that that fall under under not a speed restriction, but an actual vessel restriction. Okay. Um, so there's I mean and there's
I mean you can go down the the this the route of of manatee zones which would again fall under more of a slow speed related related thing but ultimately that's how it's enforced is is slow speed. Okay speed. And if you say no vessel zone can you
limit the types of vessels that are no. So it's to my understanding no vessels is no vessel. Well that that's that's what we've spent a lot of actually let me step back. So you can do you can do no motor uh for example. Okay. Yeah. Sorry for a while. Yes. Yeah. Correct. Okay.
Okay. So what I'd like to see the staff do is bring us back a matrix that basically says, you know, no uh no wake zone, slow speed zone. You can put in no vessel zone. I don't think we're going to. and then
what the requirements are to establish each of those because I think the uh slow speed zone would be allowed to be in there. But I don't until somebody can definitively give me a list that
says it's got to be this, it's got to be this, it's got to be this, it can't be that, it can't be that. That's if that's what that is then you you can this is what I have to work off of because so on a slow on a slow speed zone right
what are the requirements you got right to establish a slow speed zone yes well no we got to do an ordinance what it what does it have to do in compass enforce or whatever so it's so it's the the the the authority to establish a boating safety
zone whether it's slow speed or idle speed is based bas on certain criteria whether it's a boating a kayak launch facility um a boat fueling dock um yep I'm not worried about that correct so there are there are the criteria that allow it so so just so I can go I can kind of just read off one
or two of them so um 327461B1 is an ordinance to establish a idle speed zone and then it's got several things where 500 feet of a boat ramp a hoist or a marine railway or other launching facility um 500 feet within a fuel fuel pumps, dispensers.
I'm not worried about no wake zone. Slow. I think I I I think you want to hear about 32746 1C, which says municipalities have the authority to establish by ordinance the following voting restricted areas. And then if you go to number two, it's an
ordinance establishing a slow speed, minimum wake, or numerical speed limit. Right? Okay, that's what you want. So the criteria are one, it has to be within 300 feet of a confluence of water bodies presenting a blind corner. That's what I
was talking about. Okay. Then there's a little more language to that. Then two, subject to unsafe levels of vessel traffic congestion. Three, subject to hazardous water levels or currents or containing other navigational hazards. And then four, an area that accident
reports, uniform boating citations, vessel traffic studies, or other credable data demonstrate to present a significant risk of collision or a threat to boating safety. And my point is those are ores. Those are, right? Those are not ands. Correct. Correct.
Those are ores. Okay. So the and we've said going into the basin, right, there's a blind spot. Mhm. coming around the basin. If you go down toward the fingers, there's a blind spot. Right. All All I'm looking for is the justification to
either put a speed limit, which is allowed, or to put a slow speed zone, which it doesn't require a speed limit, on there. That's all I need. I need you to tell me what the justification is other than that blind spot because I would want to make the whole thing
particularly for jet skis, but a slow speed zone. And all we have to do is find one of those ores. Correct. And that's why I'm saying that that does not exist under this statute. Those do not exist to allow that entire area to be a slow speed zone. That's that's that for example that K
that kayak launch is one of those options. But it only for a no wake zone. Correct. For a boating safety zone. Correct. Correct. I want I want a slow speed zone. Yes. Voting safety zone. So I I want to know
specifically if we can meet one of those criteria in the statute. Okay, we can yeah we can look into that and work with fish. I would think we could I have presented I have presented this exact situation to fish and wildlife and they've kind of kind of
stood in the same spot that I'm that I'm looking at it. So yeah, but I definitely think that that we can work with I bet we can find something. Yeah, I would think we are subject to unsafe levels of vessel traffic. Just saying. All right. He has had numerous complaints before
this body about unsafe Yeah. travel. Is that a motion? Is that a motion for guidance? Uh yeah, that's a motion for the staff to bring back uh the justification. Uh, and once we agree and the county
agrees that that justification exists, then we can put it in ordinance. Second. All right. Got a motion and second. Councilwoman Traml, anything further? I was just going to second it, but Oh, I'm sorry. I was going to make the recommendation if they if they look at that that they not put miles per hour cuz my pontoon
doesn't have miles per hour, but I do know what it means when I plane off. You know, that kind of I don't know if all the boats do or not. Yeah. Custom. Okay. I find I would have an objection that because miles per hour is probably going to be the easiest thing we can do
that is not prohibited by the statute. If if they prohibit municipalities or counties from establishing speed limits, it's the same as saying then you can't establish it on your road. It it goes against our constitutional authority, health, safety, and welfare. I don't think that a court would rule that we
couldn't do that as long as it's reasonable and stay away from the zones, period. And until a court says you can't do that, we can do that. Fair enough. Councilman Schmidt. Yeah, thank you for your help. Um,
not sure what you heard in here of why we're pursuing this, but there's a potential race course of way runners out there. And you know, it's funny. Not too often do we get, at least I don't get a lot of calls and emails and complaints, but every once in a while somebody goes
on like an app or something and says, "Y'all should email the council and just say this." And then we start getting inundated with copy and paste emails. There was one that was trying to tell us not to change anything about Joe's by you. Leave it as it is and blah blah
blah. Leave it as it is. Stop messing with our stuff. Uh, I grew up there being tossed around in a tube and learning to ski, too, so I get it. Uh on that email chain though of of neighbors telling each other to tell us not to change anything. One of the ladies
actually said I disagree with all these people. I'm out there with my kids on a paddle board and it's dangerous. You know I think you said your position is about water safety. So hope you understand why we're trying to do that. It's that beach area basically. You know
it's a shallow beach area. So, um, you did also say, I heard you, that you don't know the ins and outs about the parking and ADA stuff that the city would have to figure that out. Larry, did we figure any of that out already if we were to do a kayak?
Yeah, we're uh it's going to require some ADA compliant parking and accessibility. So, it would Yes, sir. Okay, there we go. Good to know. Um, thank you very much for coming. All right, with that I got my motion and second. Uh, seeing no further
discussions, we'll call the vote. All right, eyes have it 70. So moved. All right, Larry, we crossed off B. All right. Um item 4 A is regarding u the um amendment to the fee ordinance to
um primarily deal with the short-term uh registration fees for condominiums. Um but before we get into that discussion, as we looked at the uh resolution uh or the amendments to the resolution, there were two or three things that came to
our attention that we might consider as we amend uh the resolution. I is to the short-term rental fees for condominiums. But a couple other things are the potential of increasing public records
uh cost from 21 to 20 $28 an hour which is allowed by statute to add a 3% um ability to charge 3% for a credit chart service fee for credit card purchases for permits and the such. Adjust the
library media replacement fees to replacement cost instead of$1 to3 dollars. And then there's some fixes for formatting, page numbers, and accounting codes. We can deal with that or just we can let you know that those are things we'd like to deal with. Uh if you want to do those at a later date, that's
fine, too. So, but primarily we want to deal with the short-term registration fees for condominiums, which as we mentioned at the last meeting, those uh the ordinance has is in place, and it's simply a matter of amending a free resolution to include those fees. So
what you have before you is a is a thought that there is no current uh category for less than 1500 square ft. So single family dwellings go from zero to up to 2499 square feet and that's one
fee. So the possibility of creating a lower tier which would be 1499 or less at a fee perhaps $300. It may be more or less depending on council's decision. And then at 1500 feet above reflect the
same fees that single family dwellings um currently occur. Um so um so that's the bigger ask is how we want to move forward with adopting those fees. If you wish to adopt those those other four components, that's fine, too. If not,
we'll do those at a later date. But since we were amending the resolution, we thought it might be prudent to do it all at one time. So, and beyond that discussion is the discussion how we implement it. Um, we presented you an idea some meetings back about uh
bringing on a third party vendor. Uh, there was some conversation then that we may be able or should be able to get some of that information uh locally from the clerk of court that would allow us to do it internally. and we we haven't gotten that far yet. So, part of that
thought may be if we want to continue to look at doing it internally and capturing those fees, those uh names and numbers from the do or the clerk that maybe we should could go ahead and put out the procurement document for this third party vendor. Uh while we're
waiting on that other information and if it comes back that we don't need the third party vendor, we certainly don't have to award a contract and move forward with it, but we'll be in a position to do so. So um the big ask is you know where do we want to where do we want to set the fee how do we want to
implement it and then probably much less is whether we want to deal with these other three or four things uh holistically or not. All right and with that is anyone want to start it off or do I hear a motion? All right got Councilman Dest.
I don't have a motion, but I do have a opinion about mixing those fees together. I'd rather just do the uh short-term rentals and not mix those others in. And do we need a motion to that effect? I would No, sir. We'll just bring those back in the next meeting if that's good.
We want money. Yeah, we we didn't advertise it as a and other fees. We advertised it basically as a short-term registration. And I just want to I don't want us to get in trouble if somebody comes back and says,
"You can't charge me that because it was never advertised properly or whatever." So, um, and I'll I'll just start out the, you know, three the I I would like to just kind of keep it simple where we
have one fee schedule on short-term rentals and it's based on the square footage because $14.99 is going to get 95% probably higher than that of the condos. uh then keep the $24.99 and
below or to 1500 and just keep the rest of it like it is just apply uh to that and so was what other question did y'all have on the
that that's part A is what fee how much do we want to charge and at what levels so are you saying that u the treat condominiums just like we're treating single family dwellings and have a common number. Yeah. And so do you wish to add a category of
less than 1500 square f feet? Yes. Then we Okay. And so $300 I mean I'm I'm happy we can debate on what but we had discussed before $300. That's why you see $300 here. So whatever that number is uh so I think
the you know the consideration would be that additional category and that single family dwellings condominiums that fall into that category all be charged the same fee whatever that fee is. Okay. And I will make I'm sure there's a motion down. Yeah. I move that council
adopt resolution 2517 as discussed. Not as presented but as discussed. So, just the short-term rental uh and move that the implement implementation of the program to include building collections and monitoring be a
RFP be developed and produced. Uh I have not I was supposed to get a call from Gary Gray in the department of revenue today and that did not happen. So, I will reach back out to Kelly tomorrow and say, "Hey, just give me his number
and I will call him." uh because I think we do qualify for the rise program and if we do that will make our lives immeasurably easier without incurring the cost of but I still go ahead with
the RFP we can produce it we can review it we can approve it and if by then we don't have a do decision or we don't have a acceptable do decision then we can go out with that methodology Is that phone call and all that was that
all part of the motion or you never Yeah, I was gonna say that's a long motion. That's a long motion. I kind of second the motion before the discussion he had. Professor Bagby. All right, Councilman Guile.
Thank you. Um I I'd have I'd like to state some some factual data I received from Crystal just to keep everybody up to date. We have roughly 15,000 residents. 3,600 of them are homesteaded. We have $3.5 million a year
in funds going to fire department beach safety. We have 600,1 million a year going to code enforcement. We get roughly 4,500 traffic stops. We can't really determine specifically how many of those are STRs or not. We get
29,466 calls. Again, can't can't dictate how many of those are STRs, but that's still twice as many as residents we have. Um, right now, we're trying to implement an entirely new program. We don't we have not
captured all the costs that are going to be associated with this. There's going to be new costs associated with it that we don't quite understand. And it's always easier to decrease the number than it is to increase the number. So, I'd like to make a substitute motion that we we still maintain
the square footage chart, but we make the 14.99 up to $14.99 square ft $500 a month or $500 annually. And we can reduce that if we feel that these fees don't incorporate that cost or or
justify that cost. But it's always easier to decrease than it is to increase. So, I would ask that it's 500 for the up to,499 square ft total square footage. All right. I have a substitute motion for a 500. Do I hear a second? Second.
All right. I have a second with Councilman Schmidt for the substitute motion. Any further discussion on the sub order? Did we have a second? Yeah, I had second. Yeah. Yes. We had a second on Mr. Bag's motion. Yes, sir. Okay. So, now we're voting on the We have a sub for instead of 300, we're
at 500. And I do have a question. Oh yeah. Yes, sir. Go ahead. Um, do we know how much that will raise? An estimate. We We had an estimate of how much it would raise at the proposed. What was it?
We're suspecting there's somewhere between four and 5,000 uh condominiums that we'll be adding and probably most of those will be in that less than 1500 square foot category. So, some that's $2 million give or take, right?
some yes from somewhere there. I mean minus whatever it cost to collect it. And our original proposed motion we had in the uh agenda was what was that price? Three. Three. Which would have of course raised more
like 1.5. Yeah. And how much do we raise in our total BTR? Do we know Crystal? It's around 150,000 isn't it Crystal? It's not. Yeah. It's about 120,000 a year.
I'm I'm sorry. How much? 120. So, this would be relatively 10 to 20 times more than VTR. Mhm. Yes, sir. Of course. How much do we get from our property taxes
a year? property tax total the the net adalorum for next year should be just over 12 million. I'm sorry I can't hear. You got to speak into a microphone or something. Just over 12 million. So this will raise
relatively 15 to 20% of our total intake from property taxes. Yeah. This is this would cover about uh 35% of our law enforcement costs. Yeah. Okay. or or 30% of something else.
Um, so this is a rather efficient way for us to grab a whole lot more revenue and and pretend like it's not a tax. So I would be opposed to the 500. That's uh it's too much. All right. Appreciate that, Councilman
Bagby. So the current uh levels are up to $24.99. And how much is how much do we charge for that?
500 is is the minimum now. So we're saying in the in the substitute motion that we're going to create another category up to $14.99, but we're going to charge exactly the same amount as we would for $24.99. And that justification was that it's
easier to go down. So if we still keep that category and we find that that 500 is not necessary, we can always bring it down and still maintain that category. It makes it easier for us to separate that out by maintaining the square footage charity.
So So a couple of facts since we're dealing with facts. These short-term rentals uh pay probably as much if not more than the homesteaded properties in the city
of Destin and property tax. Period. Okay? Because they don't get the exemptions. They don't get any of the deductions. You know, they pay and most of them are out on the beach where they're valued at a lot more than probably some of our properties that are
not out on the beach or out on the water. Uh, number two, and I and I get they make a lot of money, but they pay a lot more in taxes. Yes, they do increase the load on the city uh for lifeguards or for
sheriff office support or whatever. I I won't deny that they increase, but they pay for that in their property taxes. This is not I tend to agree with Mr. Dustin. This 500 in my mind is punitive
because there is a heck of a lot of difference between a twobedroom 890 square ft condo and a four or five bedroomedroom 2499 ft house and the impact that they have
on this community. So, you know, if you want to do 250, I thought we were going to, somebody was going to go, well, let's make it 250, half of the 500 because we're cutting. So, I just threw 300 out for a number. But I I can't support the 500 because in in my in my
mind it's punitive on people who are already paying a lot more in property taxes and the insurance and other taxes, sales taxes on their short-term rentals than the the homeowners who are homesteaded in this. I want I want to be
fair to everybody. The whole reason that I was the legislative sponsor for the condos was I felt they had an impact and yes, I agree they all have security and they don't require some of the things that these houses require in these
neighborhoods, but they do require some support. So, it it should be fair. Uh I don't think charging a 890 ft condo the same as a $24.99 house is fair in my mind. So, I I I will be voting that. Can I ask you a question on something
you just said? Well, you just said that you feel that their property taxes are covering their fees. Do you have a quantitative analysis of this or are you just pulling this out of the 10? Well, I can guarantee you that the property taxes that the non-homesteaded properties in this city pay are more
than the property taxes that the homesteaded properties. No, I understand that. But you just said prior to that, you said that those fees are covering their costs on this city. That's where their property taxes go. I'm not saying it's completely covering their costs. Nobody's completely
covering any cost. What I'm saying is they are paying more their fair share of property taxes. That's the whole reason we have homesteaded properties and non-homesteaded properties. They are and I'm willing to apply this up to a point,
but $500 charging a one or twobedroom condo the same as a fourbedroom house just doesn't make sense. Well, you understand that just because it's a two-bedroom doesn't mean they're only keeping three or four people in that house. Correct. Okay.
Uh Councilman Braden. Thank you, Mayor. I agree. I mean, it could have made it 1,500 and I'd vote for it. Um, and I
because I don't think it's I don't think it's the same. We're all the time talking about, you know, we need money, we need money, we need money, and we're begging the TDC for every cent we get from them because they hold all the purse strings and most all this money. This money comes to us. We don't have to
ask them or anybody else for it. um in a a homesteaded home or whatever the taxes are paying they're paying more taxes I know on these on these condos whatnot but if we could I mean it would be great
if we could have a state or a tax on uh everything had to do with the beach you know beach floats beach umbrellas suntan lotion anything like that make these tourists pay for it because we got you know 14 what 15,000 people was what
paying taxes to support 100 120,000 people 80,000 people and they're all tourist and they're putting a lot more infra pressure on infrastructure because these short-term rental people now they're renting instead of Saturday to Saturday now they're renting dayto day they'll rent one day three days two days
four day whatever they can rent it for to put somebody head in that bed that's what they're doing so if they're turning that that unit over two or three times a week it's just putting more trouble on our law enforcement, sheriff's department. Um,
so we I mean, and they're going to pass it on to the tourists. If they want to come here and enjoy these beaches and whatnot, enjoy what we have, they need to pay for it. And I know these two some of these two-bedroom condos are making over $100,000 a year in rental. 500 bucks is peanuts for something like
that. Um, it's I mean it's I think it's kind of like the pontoon boats. We got too many short-term rentals in this town, I believe. Um, I mean I I've done work for them. It's got like five or six family members that buy
a little condo and they're renting it and they're all they don't live here. I mean I live in a condo and people next door raised in hell and you go over there and look on the door and there's I almost got in a fist fight with the guy because he just got an attitude. Dude, I want to try to be nice about it and he want to get an attitude about it. Well,
you don't you don't know who's in that unit. You don't know who's renting it. There's there's no plaque on it like on our short-term rentals. How many people's there, phone number, nothing else. So, um I think whatever it is, 500 bucks ain't nothing. Um for the trouble
they're causing. Um so, and if we could charge the people from Texas $5,000, that'd be great for me. That's all I have. Mayor, thank you. All right. Are you making an adjusted motion, Councilwoman Abear?
Thanks, Mayor. Um, I I agree with Rodney that we we do have a lot of people that come and they don't really respect that they're in a condominium with owners that live there. They're just there to rent and have a good time and they're on vacation and they don't care about following the rules. Um, and I think Mr.
G's recommended motion of the $500 to start with. And we if we don't feel like we need to have that, at least we got a starting place. So, I feel like it's a fair way to start. That's an annual fee. It's not like we're saying $500 a month or $500 a week because we could certainly ask for that. You know, if we
really really want to be mean about it, but $500 a year, I think it's a good starting point. So, I'll support that motion. Council Schmidt. Thank you, sir. Um, Larry, in reality, when we pass something tonight or I guess Kim, we have now we now have a fee
resolution schedule that's approved. In theory, we could start charging the fees, right? Whether we outsource or not. Correct. Correct. Gotcha. So then realistically I think the original motion which I think talked about outsourcing
getting an RFB if we go down that road that's 60 90 120 days negotiate a contract and all that stuff I mean RFB was done you know has to go be changed or whatever who knows so um
is there anything stopping us and I know we don't have a lot of staff But I mean, it's not too hard for us to figure out majority of the STRs in this area. I mean, can we not use certain staff members to put the postcard together and
just drop in the mail and just voluntarily hopefully start taking registrations until we go to RFB and outsource? Absolutely. We we would put all effort into getting the word to the right people that if council moves this forward, kind of like a hybrid approach type of
thing. Sure. Yeah. That's the way we did it with the single family homes, right? We we we passed the fee and then we started monitoring the Airbnb and the VBOS's to figure out, okay, who wasn't paying that should have been and then we went through code
compliance. It's just I think there's a lot more in the numbers of condos, but and I'm not saying I'm supporting doing it in house. It was just are you able to start taking the steps internally to like Yes, sir. figure some part of it out, I guess. So
that way when next beginning of the year comes we're rocking and rolling maybe. All right. Council bag final bite at the apple. Thanks. I appreciate it. Mayor I just a question for the motion maker. Tori. So you say we can lower the price.
Define for me the quantitative results you would need or you think the council would need to determine make a determination because my concern is is government never takes in less money.
You know once we get a revenue stream maybe we just start sucking on that like uh a newborn calf. And I'm trying to be careful here cuz I know my wife is watching. But
so what what is the criteria? You say, "Well, we can lower this." Okay. Well, what's the criteria that you would say, "Hey, $500 is too much. Let's lower, you know, I want to know what's going to get you to make that motion." Well, first
off, I said it's easier to lower than it is to raise. That was the statement I made. Second, that would be something would be dictated by Crystal or Crystal's team, but we still don't know what it's going to cost if we go out to RFP. There's certain costs that we don't know. We haven't incorporated in this
yet. So, why start off low if it's easier to lower it than it is to raise it? Start off at a number that's feasible and then let Crystal's team or the staff develop the actual true costs and then we can make an educated decision.
So it give me a range on the true cost as a percentage that would say because I I disagree with a little bit of your assumption. It takes four votes to raise it. It takes four votes to lower it. That's all it takes. It's the exact same
process. So what it if we it only costs us 15% of that. Are we going to lower it or are you going to come back and say, "Oh, wow. I thought it would be 50%. and it's only 15%. Let's lower it to 300. Or what
what what's Crystal got to tell us to get you to come back with a lower number. Well, first off, you're right. It's four votes either way, but it doesn't mean justifications, state justifications are just as easy. Um, you have to be able to justify any increase that you do through
the state. Is that correct, Kim? No. Okay. So, there's another extra step. Do I have to justify lowering it through the state, Kim? No. Okay. But you have to I don't have to justify it to we we can't impose an illegal tax. We have to
have a justification for a fee and f and have it fund itself and its program. Not just we can't just arbitrarily raise it. But we talked about absolutely. But you still have to have a plan in place if you raise it. But you don't have to have a plan in place if you lower it.
That justifies that motion, right? That movement. It's easier to go down than up. No, I don't. You don't have to have a plan to raise or lower it. You have to have a justification and a reasonable basis for the action you're taking. You don't have to have a plan. But do you have to have a justification to go up? But do you have to have a
justification to go down? When you impose a fee, raise or decrease or do anything with a fee. You should have a reason. I think you're saying you would have a reason. You're not saying you'd have a reason, but I think it's you're you get more questions if you go up than if you go down. No, you know what they
like this is. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I appreciate everyone trying to sway answers. Well, no. I I'm just uh the the point I'm trying to make is uh $500 smacks of a tax to me because your your justification is we're going to pay for
the program. I think $300 pays for the program, but Okay. But you don't know that. Well, so that that's why I'm asking you your question. We don't know. But I guarantee you, you I think you brought us before a uh provider that told us how
much they would charge 50 bucks a unit or whatever to collect or maybe it was a hundred bucks, but it wasn't 300 and it definitely wasn't 500. So I didn't bring forth a provider. So I don't know what you're talking about. That might have been the staff. Yes.
But I mean there's no reason for us to back and forth. When we had this conversation some months back, we had done some preliminary work to get a a flavor of what it would cost and it's was $40 to $50 uh per unit per year. Now
whether that's where a RFP brings us in or not, we'll find out if you know if we go down that path. But that was the information that preliminary had been provided to us when we simply asked the question, what does this typically run? Okay. And Larry, I got a question for you then. So if we ever had an RFP where we
thought it was going to be less and it was higher, let's say the dredging operation in the harbor, was that substantially lower? Okay, thank you. All right, I see no more discussion on the board. We will call the vote on the substitute motion. I'm sorry. Say that.
I'm just curious how Yeah. No, I said that because if I run a management company, okay, and I've got a hundred units that I'm doing, okay, you $200 times a 100 units, you're starting to get into real money for the
management company, which are locals, the owners, which may or may not be locals. Most of them aren't, but some of them are, actually. So I just think you're and I just think we're being punitive. So what what what's not real money?
I mean 300 bucks is real money. Yeah. $500 is real money. But uh I will repeat my point. 500 bucks on a 890 foot condo, which a lot of the condos are about that size or a little bit because they're older. The older
ones are those sizes versus a 2499 foot house. Not even will close. All right, with that, let's point of order this and let's vote and move on. Waiting on Rodney. All right, one, two, three, four. Eyes
have it. Four, three. So moved on the substitute motion. So just so we're clear, the fee schedule will reflect $500 for we'll create the category of 15 $14.99 and below. And
that fee will be $500 and it'll continue on up to the $24.99 as it currently is. Um and then the rest of that fee schedule remain the same. Is that that was the motion that was just approved? Yes, sir. I thought it was 500 for
a two categories. Okay. Okay. So, the ones that are over, 1500 are how much? 500. From 15 to 24.99 is will continue to be 500. And then from 14.99, I'm sorry,
from 2500 to 49.99 is 600 and over 5,000 is 700. Those are the current rates. All right. And if I'm just make sure I'm clear and we will bring back for council's approval a a procurement document
regarding the um the outsourcing of this. Okay. Thank you. Thank you sir. All right Mr. Jones 4C is their social media policy for elected officials and board and
committee appointees. Um council asked us to uh develop a policy to bring back for your consideration. So you have that policy before you. Um there are primarily it's reflecting what is
covered under sunshine law and what can and can't be done. Um the there's a prohibition for online discussions from the mayor, council, members of the board committee says that they cannot engage on online discussions about matters that may foreseeably come before them for
action. that they would that um those individuals would avoid posting comments on social media about pending or potential public business to prevent uh accidental sunshine law violations. And if you're un unsure of anything, you can can certainly consult with myself or the
city attorney. Uh on quasi judicial matters, we avoid on to avoid online comments uh to prevent prejudice or the appearance of bias in future hearings. And then there are some uh provisions there regarding retention records for public records. Um just a couple things
to keep in mind that u a public record is based on content and not the device it's on. If you create a public record on your personal phone, it's public record. Um, you know, if you make a a
bis city business related comment on your personal Facebook page, then it becomes a public record. Miss Cop, correct me if I'm wrong there. So, we just have to be careful that we understand it's content and not necessarily the the device or the
platform. Um, so that's kind of the crux of what's before you for your consideration. With that, I'll start off the conversation with that. I absolutely agree. We need to have a um a policy in place. Have a motion on the board. We do not. I'll make a motion to approve it and
then we can have our Thank you, sir. I'll second. All right. With that, I'll start off. Um I absolutely agree that we need to have a policy in place. Uh but the policy in front of us as recommended doesn't protect the city. We all have to do a
4-hour ethics class every year. and that sunshine violation is it a personal responsibility for us to do with what we need to do. Um I think limiting communication and transparency is the last thing anyone wants in government whether that was the president's last
election or here locally in our elections. With that being said, there's Supreme Court rulings that say that we just need to create a designation and a distinguishing between what the authority of the city is. And I believe
a social media policy should be about protecting the liability of the city. And what we do as elected officials with the representatives that have elected us and entrusted us up here should be under our purview and not restrict and have
government overreach on on speech. So I I I believe we should have one, but I think the one in front of us uh goes backwards in technology and not forward. So, with that, I'll hear from uh Councilwoman Abear. Thank you, Mayor. The irony is is I'm about halfway through the ethics
training. I just got um Raider set me up for it and uh I finished the social media profile um information right before I came to tonight. And it speaks explicitly about how dangerous it is as a public official to say anything on
whether it's your personal Facebook page or one you've set up for your council page that because people look at you as a representative of the city you have to be very careful when you speak even if it's just you talking about something you have a lot of like you know uh faith
in or you have you know a lot of passion about it is just always going to be looked that as oh well that's Councilman Abear's you know thoughts and in your case it would be the mayor's and a lot of times if anyone makes a comment on
social media because of sunshine you can't like I couldn't jump in and say I agree with you mayor or no mayor don't do that or nothing can ever be like it's you get to say it and nothing gets to happen about it and it suggests that any social media that's done with you or
anyone on council that it go through the public information officer that they always speak in the government of the city and anything that I would say you wanted to to put out there get Tamara to put it out there for you then it's not a
sunshine violation if we read into it or someone sees it it's coming from the city the government of Destin and so I feel like we're pretty much protecting ourselves by putting this social media in place because it's so dangerous now
that everything can get distorted and anything you put out there people can read into it and then of course if you say something well the mayor said it why didn't you I can't because it's sunshine so I know it's it's a hard feeling but I
beg to differ you we need to all stay off of social media anything to do with our government and let it come from the PIO so that that way it's coming from the city as representative and and I can respect that and I respect the ability and and want to have
protecting your the personal side, but Tamara's amazing. The city staff is amazing, but they elected us and I feel like we should be at the tip of the spear and being communicative and upfront with everyone. So, you know, just respectfully disagree and that's totally fine. All right, with that,
Councilman Schmidt. Thanks, Mr. Mayor. Um, I mean, Kim can correct me if I'm wrong in anything I say or somebody else can, but I don't think I can support it. Um, I think we
I'm fine with doing something, but the way I read it is I mean just the very beginning, at least the summary of it basically says that uh we can't engage in online discussion about things that are going to be talked
about here on Facebook. That's what it says. That's what it says, right? That's what it says. I mean, and I know this might become like a generational age argument or something like that, and that's okay. I mean, my mom's literally sitting here right now, you know, talking about stuff that she's watching
on Facebook, so she's all about it. It's not all older people that don't like Facebook, but um I think times are a lot different today than five years ago, 10 years ago, 15 years ago, or whatever. Um, I mean, just
look at the presidential campaigns over the past 12 to 16 years and social media that's taken place with it. Um, from my experience in the past fiveish years or whatever, um, more
awareness and more engagement happens on social media within the city of Dustin's government jurisdiction and decision- making than the people that come into this meeting or talk to us or email us or call us, I'm sorry, or call me.
Again, I can't speak for all y'all. Um, I know a lot of y'all have a lot of history in Destin, so you probably have your circles and your neighbors and the people that y'all see and talk to about a lot of stuff. And that's I I get that. I respect it. But there's a lot more
people in this city that um, sadly I I don't agree with it. They choose to have an opinion on social media before they have an opinion to our email addresses or to our phone numbers or in these chambers. And I believe similar things are happening in Fort Walton. I see
people talking about the same thing. You know, there's, you know, you'll see people commenting on the the Facebook, thank you, but please email this email address. Please email council at Fort Walton or council at Destin. And then 90% of the time we don't get it. Um,
so I think it's handcuffing us, I guess, is what I'm reading. And I don't agree with that. Sure. Me and Mr. Braden shouldn't get in a back and forth conversation on our on a Facebook. We shouldn't do that. I know in the past that happened and we put it back on the
record so that way we were clear. Um, but I I should be able to respond to citizens and talk about stuff and if y'all read my stuff, I mean, you you understand me, but most likely you're going to already understand where I come from anyways before that Facebook or
not. So, I I just I think it um strongholds us and I don't agree with it. I don't see any type of penalty or anything. These are just kind of recommendations from my understanding. So, Kim, if we were to pass this and I broke something, I'm not going to be like removed from the council, right?
Excuse me. I was asking Kim, did you have something? I I can be removed from the council if I break it. Not under the current resolution, but you guys do have the authority to assign. down the current one. No, but you guys do have the authority to set up an ethics code for yourself.
It's actually in the charter. It has to be done by ordinance and we were directed to do a resolution. So, if you do want to put consequences in to a policy, we would draft an ordinance. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I I mean, again, I I'm fine with trying to figure out something. Um
but I think this is just too far off one end. I wouldn't support it as it is. So, thank you, Councilman Braden. Thank you, mayor. I personally don't think it's the, you know, having the citizens email the council.
I don't think that's never been the problem at all. Um, and I'm certainly not going to sit here and encourage the council members or any of the mayor, anybody to continue to skirt that that
line, walk that fine line of sunshine violations. Um, and it's I mean if somebody post on there that um you know I want to have a coffee shop talk about um possibly the
city of Dustin building an ice skating rink and I go on there say, "Yeah, that's that's great, Tori. You know, I think that's a wonderful idea. I'll support that. We're both in trouble.
Not just not just me, Tori's in trouble as well. So, I think we need something. I mean, this emailing back and forth or something, I think is I don't think that's the problem. I think it's when we start putting stuff online, you know, personal stuff or and
I get it. It's, you know, I do I go out and talk to the public cuz I want to get their input as well on a lot of stuff cuz we don't get nobody come in here, you know, and I want I want their input of, you know, how do you feel about it? You know, this is coming up and um and we try to, you
know, I put out the word try to get people in here, you know, you need to you need to get here and voice your opinion because if you don't, then we feel like, you know, nobody cares. So, let's go ahead and pass it. Um, and if you know we get the standing room only, you know, we're not going to pass it if
that's what they're if that's what they're wanting. So, I don't know. I I know it's getting a new age like Kevin said, and a lot of things are done online or, you know, back and forth, Facebook, Tik Tok, or whatever. Um, but I don't know, we just we just got to
be careful. Um, you know, we don't want to wind up on Fox News, CNN, you know, Dustin City Council, you know, they're all breaking Sunshine Laws or whatever, you know, doing stuff underhanded, corrupt,
whatever. Um, so I I think we need we need something try to cover us. So that's all we got. Thanks, Mayor. Great observation, Council McG. Um, I have to agree with something Rodney said, but first I'd like to state I'm a grown ass man. I have a real job.
I have real hobbies. I don't play on social media. I don't have any social media. Um, maybe if we didn't have social media, there'd be people in this damn audience that would come up and use the three minutes instead of crying online all day um about stuff that they
they really aren't invested in. Because if they were invested enough, they'd come talk to all of us, right? So, I'm not a fan of social media. I think it's basically a a coward's way to voice an
opinion, but if this council wants to move one way or another, I can be swayed. I mean, this isn't something I have a hard stance on. Maybe I feel a little bit obligated to get into the legalities a little bit, and I'm not I'm going to explain why we have the social media policy proposed
this way, okay? because I don't think that anybody on social media is trying to cause anybody harm. But the problem with the sunshine law is y'all might think it's old or outdated, but there's been no exception created for social media yet. And until that happens,
you're subject to it. And if one person posts something, that means it's like a race to post because once that's out there, nobody can respond in any way or it's a sunshine law violation. There can be an inadvertent sunshine law violation
where somebody likes something and doesn't even think about it and it's not knowing and that's a civil problem. Then you've got the knowing violations. If somebody responds knowingly, that's a criminal problem. That is a criminal violation of the sunshine law. So when
you say it doesn't protect the city, my point is it's actually protecting all of you because some things are inadvertent. And again, I don't think anybody's trying to hurt anything, but the goal is to help you all comply with
the law, not not make it more difficult for you. So the legislature has put the sunshine law in place in order to allow the public to communicate with all of you in a public meeting so that everybody can hear and respond and social media does not allow
you to do that. So that's just kind of the legalities behind it. That's a part of it, the biggest part of it. The other side is the public records law. We have a state retention schedule that requires the city to maintain records for a given period depending on the type of record.
And if you have your own personal social media pages where you're talking about city business, we have a duty to maintain the records and our city clerk has to be able to provide them in a public records request. And there's probably no way he can do that if we're not constantly turning them in every
time somebody responds likes something changes. He's supposed to have all of that. So it creates challenges with the state of the law produced by the legislature, not by us. So just food for thought. Uh, Councilwoman Traml,
you uh Kim just summed it up very well. Having I just having finished the ethics training myself, it it is it is really scary what what can happen inadvertently. You know, I would say it's also more
scary for freedom of speech to be silenced, especially with an elected official at a local level representing the citizens. Well, then that has to be taken up at the legislative level, not here. I agree with that. Yeah. Not here because we're not imposing this rule. I I agree. I know that
we're just trying to manage it. But that's a personal management. I don't think it's a city management. And that's where I'm coming from with this. And we can disagree. I understand. I don't I don't know how that would be when we're all in the same boat. It's a personal management because if I
break sunshine, it's on me, not you. It is on me because if I know you broke sunshine and I don't report you, I'm now in trouble. So every time something happens, I'm supposed to report you. I guess if you comple that you didn't know, you didn't know. If you're not on
Facebook, you're not on Facebook. It not on Instagram. Well, I am on Facebook. I am on Instagram. I do have Twitter. I have all that stuff, but I don't answer. Yeah. All right, Councelor Schmidt. Yeah. I'm just trying to understand a little bit more.
So, and maybe Mr. Bagger, you can help me with this. I know you got experience. Um, like Florida legislatores, they have the same sunshine law. Is it different? It's different. They're instrument. See, I told you he didn't answer that question.
They gave it to us just to keep us in line. and the county the county has so like so like my my thought was earlier when we were talking about all this the beach stuff and Senator Trumbull was on social media every other day talking about his his he didn't have any
his plan right it's because he doesn't have do what I say not as I do right gotchaos for them to do business yeah it's kind of like I think m Mr. Wagner was saying is I think what you were trying to say or maybe a different
frame of mind is if I break the sunshine law, it's my it's me. Yeah. Um so just because I mean if you have to if you have to turn me in because I broke the sunshine law and by not turning me in, you're breaking it. I
mean I guess that's the truth, but again I think that is the truth. This is only penalizing me. Yeah. But it's up interpretation still. the whole social nobody is is there a case law that says a council member posting on Facebook is a sunshine law violation if there is engagement even if someone
if I post on Facebook and I want to build a brand new basketball court no somewhere is that no that's a public records issue not a sunshine issue if you're alone but what you're still doing is you're pre preventing anybody else from talking about it because you have right
other council members right right preventing them from talking about it where on my Facebook they can't respond. So it's like I don't need them to respond on my Facebook. I'm doing it to I'm telling you what the sunshine lies. Okay. And you also still have the public records retention issue. Sure. Right. So and I'm not you know there may
be tweaks to the policy that council wants to make but Right. It's a best practice for sure. I I I again I feel like we're hurting ourselves by me or by anybody not being able to vocalize
to masses on a on an online platform what you are in support of. I get it. And there might be 127 people watching tonight. I I mean that's and that's and that's great. I'm proud of you. And and like Mr. Bagby said, if if they were all
here, that means we're doing something wrong. So, we're doing something. We're obviously doing things right because they're not here. And and I get that. That's that's one opinion as well. I don't necessarily agree with that. I just think we're hurting ourselves by not being able to share our individual
thoughts, passions, ideas, or whatever. I agree. And I I don't want to limit that for anybody. Whether you choose to do it or not, I just don't want to limit that. And and I think there's a lot of cities and counties and municip municipalities in Florida that do it. So that that do
individuals do share things. So if it was a problem, I think we would have already heard about it. I don't There are many many cities and counties that have social media policies and and that that tell them not to post on social media. Just it's not fair to say that we're the only ones doing this. Well, I guess my next thing would be
let's let's get more of those examples. So we we can definitely get more examples. Yeah. Yeah, we can definitely do that. It'd be nice to understand because we went zero to 100 with this all because of a fireside chat at Beachworks. I feel like so um and and here we are which is
okay. Let's get there. But I just would rather have a little bit more information. Did you just make the mo are you making a motion to get more table this until we get more? Yeah, sure. I'm I'll make a motion to bring this substitute motion to bring this back with additional data, research, and examples of other policies
so we can feel better about this to the next meeting. I have a substitute motion. I'll second. All right. And we'll continue the discussions. Councilman Dest. My discussion was on the original motion. Okay. Uh, Councilwoman Abear.
Thanks, Mayor. I was just going to respond to Kevin because we're here and we can talk to each other. The things that like come up on Facebook and people are like, "Why is the splash pad not working?" And then you're able to say,
"Well, they ordered the bid. The lowest bidder got the bid." And I want to go, well, it just so happened to be I can't reply because you've already replied. And like when somebody said, hey, what are those things? Those orange curve things, you know, I want to go, hey,
that's part of our under, you know, our cross town connector. And you put it on there and then somebody else. So that's where it's the sunshine law. It's the you've already answered whether it's right, wrong, or indifferent. And so like a lot of times what I'll do is I'll
screenshot something and I'll say to Larry or to to Tamara, hey this is a question. Can you get the real answer out there? Because people are complaining about it because I can't reply once you've said something or if Bobby said something. So that's why I
feel like the sunshine policy is that we're trying to save ourselves from getting in trouble by replying on things that people want to know the answer to. And unfortunately, there's only 33 people watching tonight. Not 150, not 1,400, not even, you know, what we would
expect that give a care about our city. They're not watching it. They They don't come here. They don't watch it. They just get on social media and spew a bunch of things they're not happy with. And it's like, well, why didn't you come to council? Because you can make a difference if you're physically here.
you can tell us what you think so we can all vote towards things that the citizens want instead of sitting at home in their pajamas spewing off on Facebook on every little thing that's not perfect that they want us to to fix but don't want to come in and give us ideas or
suggestions. So that's why I feel like this is a good policy just it's a starting line. All right, that was well said. Councilman Bagley. Yeah, I wanted to comment on the original motion. So, I I'll wait until let's see if All right. Anything else on the
substitute? Seeing none, we'll call the vote for the substitute motion to bring back more. It's to bring back more examples. Examples, sorry. Yep. All right. It is declined 2 to four. Two to five. One, two, three,
five. Can't count. All right. All right, with that, we're back to the original motion, which is the resolution as presented by staff and Councilman Dest. Thank you, mayor. Um, the point is that's not been really discussed is that Sunshine Law says
elected officials, appoint officials shall discuss at a public meeting. It also says that the meetings have to be noticed. The wonderful or awful thing about social media is there's no notice. It's spontaneous and so it just pops up and a lot of the
people who may want to discuss don't even know it's been discussed until it's over with or they have a chance to put a comment in later, I suppose. But the problem is it's never noticed. That's for two or more people to come together. A meeting of council elected
officials would be two or more would would trigger a sunshine meeting. Exactly. Yes. Doesn't have to be in person though. Yeah, it can be a live. I mean, I would love to do Facebook lives with you guys and uh have it publicly noticed. Yeah. And we it's anytime two or more members talk,
it needs to be noticed is what council member Dustin is saying. So if two people if someone's talking about a city issue on Facebook, there's no notice and then if somebody else participates in that discussion in anyway, like what I was saying, I can't do all and that's the unfair part about it. It
can't be discussed with the entire council. whoever started it could, but even then it's very close to be a a violation and our our attorney has made it clear that it's better to stay away from that area and uh you know that's
end of the question until the state legislature changes it. Yep. Uh Council Bagby, thanks Mayor. the a couple of things and and I I feel for you because it is a little bit of a generational thing and and you and Kevin, you know, are are
younger and and y'all have grown up with this. Uh I'm not on everything that Sandy's on. I'm just on Facebook and I thought I was doing pretty good. I take pictures of my wife's dinners and stuff like that, share our anniversary. But
the the point that I would make is uh and this is what brought this discussion on initially is our I think Kevin mentioned sharing our positions. Our positions okay our position is what
four of us say our position is. I meant I meant I know you meant your individual, but that's uh and the problem is is that gets us into an area that we we really shouldn't be in. you know, they're they're the
method that used to be used eons ago before I ever got on the council, but Dewey will remember, leaders in the community would incite their group to show up in mass at the council meeting. So, if there was you
wanted more money for a little league park, okay, you would bring all the little league teams. You bring all the coaches, all the families, and you would pack the room and you would say, "We need $50,000 more for maintenance on or
batting cage or whatever." And that's how we got things done. That's how we communicated was people voting with their feet, voting with their time, saying, "Hey, this is so important to me. I'm going to carve out an hour or two of my life and come to the city
council meeting." You know, two of those 33 are are my family. I don't probably everybody up here has somebody on of those 33 online looking at that. So that tells you the citizens
are I think fairly happy with the way the direction the city's going and the staff. The answer I would think on like the orange things I saw that too. You know the staff, you know, Tamara should talk to Larry or
should talk to whoever knew watched them put them out there or whatever. And here's here's the staff's answer. that protects us. That keeps us A, it gets them the exactly right information. B,
uh, it probably informs half of us who either A didn't know they were out there or B didn't know what they were or whatever. Uh, but we have to be very careful. You have the hardest job up here because you have no authority really by the the charter other than in
times of emergency. and you want to, just like every single mayor I've served with, you want to influence the direction the city's going and you you have that sincere passion to help us get better. It's just hard from the position
that you have because unless it's a tie, you know, and you're voting for the 17th time, there's not a lot that you can do to influence that on social media, which is your medium of choice. You can go talk to HOA groups. You can go talk to
the Rotary. You can go talk to Lions Club or whatever kind of old style, but that's how the influence got out there. The megaphone thing is going to get us all in trouble. Yeah. And I do both, but I would like to just piggyback on that sentence of
influence. I always come from the standpoint of communication and empowerment of the citizens. I think the biggest thing if anyone feels a little bit more excited about what we as a collective group have been doing is because they feel like they're part of the team and they feel
like they're informed and they finally know what's going on. I think you guys even back in the day have always been doing this. You guys always been pushing forward. You always have great values, but now other people feel like they're on the team even if they're just on the bench watching you guys play the game.
And I think that's something that when you think about democracy and the way things are going and people feeling like it's crumbling, it's not working for me, it's because they don't feel like they're on the team anymore. And I think this is a great tool if done correctly. And I get there's a lot of traps and there's a lot of ways this can go
sideways. But done correctly, I believe it restores democracy and the the faith of individuals being able to come together to make a difference in a community. And I think going in this position of limiting cooperation and communication and government censorship
is just being afraid of the forefront technology that's already been adapted into everyone's day-to-day life. This isn't new technology anymore. But we can't shy away from it. We got to it's a yes and like how do we lean into it? Not how do we shy away from it thinking that
it's going to go away or we can just pass the buck to someone else. And you know I get it. We all gonna have a different opinion on this, but if you guys are very staunched on this, I would just recommend that we don't do a resolution and we do an ordinance. If you guys are this adamant about it and
and this worried that there's truly detrimental health to our public image as a collective, our legal issues as an individual elected official, if you guys feel that it's this important, I would just ask for an ordinance versus a
resolution so that you guys and us as a team can really move forward knowing that this is what we are going to set as the presidents of this council. Yeah. And then I would just finish up my statement saying we're in a closed loop
information as opposed to an open loop information. And and there there is a reason. Uh whether I agree with the legislaturator's position or not, I don't. But it doesn't really matter because those are the rules that we we live
under. And so I would say uh we can't we're a small town. You know, if I personally on Facebook, which is the only thing I'm on, I don't put a lot of credence into all. I mean, I track, I read it, I say, "Oh, that's interesting." or whatever. But I don't
because it's a few people who are just posting over and over and over again. You know, it's the same ones and some of them are very happy and some of them are very sad. But on a couple of issues that have come up
before, I know half of them and half of the half don't even live within the city limits of Destin. So it's like what I that's interesting that somebody in Kelly or Emerald Bay or Walton County thinks that we should be doing this, but
who cares? Yeah. So, and you know, and that we don't get that context, but if they show up here and they get up there and they say, "I live at 4709 Sea Star Vista." I know that's in destin. Okay. And I go, "Okay, they took the
time that that carries more weight than just the general social media." Bobby, yeah, it just couple things you said, Mr. Bagby. Mayor Mayor, mayor, point of order for what? We have call a question. We have discussed this. Everybody's discussed
it. Some of y'all have discussed it five or six times. The original motion, y'all discussed it two or three times a piece on the substitute motion. Now we're back discussion on the regular motion again. It's time to call the question. I disagree. Councilman Schmidt. Is that a motion to Yes, that is a motion.
I'll second it. All right. For what? All right. All right. So, we'll call the question. All right. More censorship. Fantastic. So, are we voting on? Yeah, we're
What are we voting on? Just uh to move on the motion question to to go to the motion. Yeah. You want to go anyways? Oh, all right. I have it. So, we'll call the
motion. Call the question for the original motion as presented by council. Good boys. I know. I'm thinking. Is there a time limit to think? You'll call a motion.
Okay. Yeah. All right. All right. And with that, I respect all of you guys sincerely individually, but until there is any repercussions, I am I'm going to have the U. Mayor Prom sign this uh resolution. And this has nothing to do
with any of you individually, but I am going to continue to have my freedom of speech and continue this forward. So, until you guys bring an ordinance with repercussions, I apologize in advance for uh going against this. I don't think you can do that, mayor. With all due
respect, press a button. Yeah. What's What's the repercussions, sir? With all due respect, I don't think you can refuse to sign a policy decision of the council. Okay, then I'll sign it. But I will unfortunately be uh going against this
policy until there's negative consequences brought up via ordinance. Well, that would be the next step, wouldn't it? Yes, sir. All right. me. Yes sir.
Item 4E is regarding the resting of airport road. Uh from earlier discussion it was uh asked what the options were. Um particularly on airport road but in a in a broader sense which we will continue to have that conversation. But
we wanted to bring back um a the look at airport road which our city engineer Mr. Robert did a great job of laying it out very uh clear and concise that the current uh situation is there's um in
each direction there's 23 feet of pavement u roughly 11 12 ft in each lane. Um the outside lane is striped to the a ribbon curb. The inside lane is pretty well striped at the edge of
pavement. So there's not a lot of wiggle room there. Uh to make it any wider would require a pretty tremendous effort that would be more than just an overlay be a building of an additional lane width whatever it may be. Uh, one option
that um, you may consider if we want to add some width to the outside lane, which it would be the uh, lane that bicycles, ebikes currently have the right to travel in, would be to uh, strike the inside lane at 11 ft and the
outside lane at 12 feet. Um, short of that, um, and and Mr. and Robert's here and he can speak to it if he wishes that uh probably wouldn't recommend going any narrower than that then what length would be the limited
I'm sorry what would be the limiting length no narrower than what 11 would be the engineer's recommendation gotcha what what other state highways are striped at 11 highway and inter
interstate Per the uh Florida FD dot manual, interstates typically uh done at 12 feet. Okay. Uh other lanes that are 11 almost all roads are are shown in the green book to
be a minimum of 11 ft. Okay. Thank you. All right. Councilwoman Traml. I just had a question. Did I hear 11t for the inside and 12t for the outside lanes? That's an option.
Currently, it's they're they're equal about 11 and a half ft each. So, if you wanted to narrow the inside lane and expand the outside lane to give it basically gaining six inches of width, that would give bicyclist, you know, at
least a slight margin, but not much. Well, I' I'd like to hear the engineers recommendations if I could. I hate to put you on the spot. Would you mind? I I was just trying to give different
options uh that we could do out there. You know, my recommendation would be either of those things. Uh either doing two 11t lanes, doing the 11 12 or the 11 and 12. It it really doesn't
matter. Um if if you want to put the bicyclist or give the bicyclist or ebike folks more room, you know, the 11 11 inside and 12 outside would give them a hair
bit more room. That's if we uh tell the ebikes we they have to be on the road and not on the sidewalk. Is that correct? Well, right now they have the right to be in the road currently
in the outside lane. Yeah. Can How How do we enforce that? Because I don't see any of them in the road. Honestly, I see them all the sidewalk. They have the right to be on the road and the sidewalk. And so, right now, we do not have a uh
ordinance that that limits them to just the roadway. Can we make that ordinance for those that are doing 40 miles an hour down Airport Road? Uh, the state law does give the cities
the right to uh enact ordinances to prevent them from being on the sidewalk. That's all. Mayor, thank you. Um, in some cities in Florida, I see that one of the roads has the kind of shared bike symbol. What
What would that mean for Airport Road if we were to go down a design concept of that nature of one one road, one of the lanes being whether whatever the width may be, kind of designate that as, hey, this is the bike and car and then the
other one being car. What does that look like? If you know, it would just be some couple extra pavement markings and maybe a few extra signs. Okay, thank you. Uh, Councilman Guile, what does it look like if we raise the speed limit to 45 on Airport Road? Does
that look better for us overall? I think it does. Does anybody else? LSVs wouldn't be allowed. Get rid of the L. I'm fine with that. Yeah, it's because it's 30. They're only allowed there because it's 30 miles an hour. Yeah. I mean, do we really need those jackasses going all the way across the city, slowing everybody down from one
end of the city to another? Well, easier to raise it all. So, motion you're going to raise it. Yeah. Councilman Dest. No. No. Okay. All right. Uh, any other Because this is just discussion. Any other thoughts, comments, concerns? You know, the whole
thing came up because of the ebikes. What do we do with them? Are they on the sidewalk? Are they on the road? Do we make a lane? What do we do? Um, any final thoughts before we move on? Yeah, please. Excuse me. I think that Oh, is Tori speaking? I'm sorry. Oh, no. No. Oh, you
I apologize, Tori. I interrupted. I just think there's a those those ebikes that you don't pedal and and the the motor helps you with the speed uh should be on the road because they're the ones that are doing 42 40 miles an
hour down Airport Road. Um the others where you're partially pedaling and they're helping you, assisting you with that, I think those are slower. Is there a speed limit that we can
enforce as far as whether they should be on the road or the sidewalk? I'll ask the engineer that because I don't know. They couldn't. Yeah, I I don't really know that. Um,
I think that would probably be better directed to Captain Fuldram and I think he's shared how difficult that would be in the past of trying to discern how fast they're going and whether they're appropriate to be on a sidewalk or
whether they should be in the street. And I I'll certainly defer, but so the first thing is there are no ebikes going over 28 miles an hour. You can call them ebikes all day long, but by the state of Florida definition, they're not ebikes. They're mopeds. if they're going over 28 miles an hour and
the mopeds are not allowed to be on the sidewalk. They have to be tagged and they have to be in the street. The problem comes in is in the enforcement because I can't look at one of these things they're calling an ebike going down the sidewalk and tell you whether
it's an ebike or a moped just simply by the way it looks. Like I had said earlier, the only way that we can do it's it's going to be the city can pass a speed limit if they want to and put it up there, but it's going to be next to
impossible to enforce. Not impossible, but next to impossible. I cannot catch consistently catch an ebike on a radar on a conventional radar because of the way the conventional radar would works. It sends out a radio signal. It bounces off of the largest,
fastest moving object and comes back to the counter. That largest fastest moving object on airport road is going to be the vehicle that's in the roadway. Even even if it's even if the ebike's going faster than the vehicle, it's still going to pick up the vehicle
because it's a larger target. Next obvious thing would be a laser. The laser has to have a flat metallic surface for or a flat reflective surface for the laser to reflect off of and come back to the unit. We went out there and
tried to do it on ebikes. Out of four attempts, we got one and it was within 15 or 20 feet of the deputy by the time they got it. So, if if you're riding the ebike down the sidewalk and you're speeding and you know you're speeding
and you see a deputy standing on the sidewalk with a laser gun pointed at you, you're going to see that guy long before you get to that 15 ft that he's going to be able to get a reading on you. Now, the other thing is pacing. Okay? Can you pace him in a marked unit?
I can pace him in an unmarked unit all day long, but like I like I spoke with Mr. Braden at the last meeting, they're not speeding past mark patrol cars when they know they're speeding. So that's why I'm saying that the the
actual enforcement of any speed limit that y'all set on the sidewalk is going to be next impossible on these ebikes. My suggestion beforehand was that the city pass an ordinance, and this is just my suggestion, the city pass an ordinance saying that in order to be on
the sidewalk, the ebikes have to be permitted. have the city code enforcement do look at the ebikes and inspect them to make sure that they are ebikes and then give them some kind of placard or something that can fit on the ebike that anybody
that's driving down the road can look at that and say that's a placarded ebike that's an ebike it's legal to be on the sidewalk or it doesn't have a placard on it. It may be an ebike but it can't be on the sidewalk. That's going to be from an enforcement side that's going to be
the easiest thing to enforce. Um, you know, like I'd said earlier, the the sheriff's office will do our very best to work with whatever y'all come up with. But what I don't want to see is I don't want to see it put out there that, okay, we passed this speed limit and the
sheriff's office is not doing anything to help us with it because I'm not going to be able to do anything to help you with it. Thank you, Councilwoman Abear. Thanks, Mayor. I know this was about striping. I don't know how I got off onto ebikes, but I would just say that
both Panama City and I've seen over in Gulf Breeze, there are signs that say no motor vehicles right there on those wide sidewalks on both sides of the roads on the east and the west end of us. Why can't we just do that at our sidewalks? No motor vehicle because an ebike is not a motor vehicle.
It's a bicycle, but it's got a motor. So, if you if you I I agree, but by definition, it's not a motor vehicle. So, we can put those signs up there and I can go ahead and ride everybody that's on the sidewalk in a motor vehicle just like I already can.
But I can't ride somebody on an ebike by state law that's falls as a bicycle on on the sidewalk. Trust me, I don't like them anymore than y'all do. I I'm I'm tired of working my guys working traffic
crashes on on ebikes. The reality of it is most of the time it's the vehicle's fault, not the ebikes fault. when we had these traffic crashes because of the way the law is written. You I'm not a fan of them either. U but this is what we what we've got and I
just don't want y'all to have an unrealistic expectation of what the abilities are going to be if we pass the speed limit there. So, the the other advantage to the the other advantage to the to the I'm not a
big fan of putting bikes in bike lanes either, but the state of Florida looked at the issue because this is not a new issue. The the problem with vehicles striking bicycles going in the opposite lane or opposite direction from the traffic on the sidewalk has existed for
a long time. the ebikes have brought them more to light. But the state traffic engineers looked at this many years ago and the only solution they could come up with was bike lanes. That's the reason bike lanes exist. I'm not a big fan of of the bike lanes.
But one of the other benefits of the bike lanes uh is the striping is that you will if it's done properly, it will slow the traffic down um on the on the roadway as well. All right. Seeing Oh, council member
Schmidt. Yeah. Is there a motion on the table? Nope. What's What's the What's the striping right now? And what's what was the plan? Because I wasn't at this meeting. I I don't understand what we're even talking about. Trying to make a decision on how to stripe airport road, right? Yeah. Uh the
Is there a bike lane on it right now? No. Currently, there's just two 11 and 1/2t. Was that your original recommendation the last meeting? No, that we were asked to see if bike lanes could be placed out there.
So, is this road being restriped per schedule or something or is being overlaid? It's being overlaid. And so, the conversation moved from that into who asked to put a bike lane. Well, I don't council members council asked us
to review what was on the ground and what the potential of uh striving it other than two equally lanes maybe if there was potential of a bike lane. Gotcha. Okay. Well, I'll just make a motion to put two 11 and a half lanes back and let's get rolling.
All right. I have a motion. Councilman Destin with the second and then you are up, sir. Thanks. And the only observation I would make is I can remember two people being killed on the airport. I think one was on a bike and one was walking. To put uh
those bicycles bicycles in with the traffic is a dangerous situation made worse in my opinion. So I'll support Kevin's motion. Yep. And outside of the bikes, the only other intention of reducing the width is all the studies that show if we're trying to
reduce speed limits and safety um and and make our community a little bit more people friendly, a little less car friendly, this was one of the possible options was where this is all coming from. So, I agree. I think the bikes on there would be a death trap just like
they are on uh the Highway 98. Um but yep. All right. Seeing nothing else, I got a motion in a second. We'll call the vote. All right. I just have it so moved. 61. [Music] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, just a few
announcements. Um, Friday before last, um, Mr. Traml and I met with Representative Manny out of the Matty Kelly outfall. He was in town and wanted to see what the million-dollar appropriation was going to work on. So, we had a good visit with him and he was
pleased at what we were going and what we were doing there and was excited to be a part of it. Um, while we were there in conversation, he informed us that the there was a million dollars in the state budget for Celebrate Florida 250 as part
of the 250th anniversary of our country. So, that'll be in July of next year. Uh, he sits on the committee that will award those funds and he asked us to participate. So, u Dr. Young and is working with some of our other partners to kind of collectively come together to see if we can get some of that money.
So, we'll keep you informed of that as that moves forward. Um, Thursday night, the uh Perez planning group that's working on our park master plan will have a public engagement meeting. Uh they will meet at four o'clock with the parks and recck
committee to lay out some um um get some feedback from those folks as uh what they're what they've heard uh how they see things moving forward and uh getting some feedback again of what the parks and rec committee would like to see. And that's from 4:00 to 5:00. And then at
5:30 there will be a public engagement meeting from 5:30 to 7. That'll be at city hall. Um, so you're welcome to be there if you'd like. Uh, but we're looking forward to that effort moving forward. And then next week, uh, school
starts a week from today. So, we just want you to be aware of that to be safe. Tell you folks out there on your social media platforms to be safe and take care of the kids. Couldn't resist, could you? All right. With that, we'll get into the
public hearings. Miss Cotton, Ray, you good. Thank you. Okay. This is ordinance number 202514 LC, an ordinance of the city of Dest, Florida, creating design standards for low-speed vehicles, LSV parking,
defining low-speed vehicles consistently with state law, providing for findings of fact, providing for incorporation into the land development code, providing for severability, and providing for an effective date. This is first reading. Seeing that this is a public hearing and
first reading at this time, if anyone wishes to speak on this topic specifically, this is your time for public comments. Seeing none, I will close the public comments of 2514 LC and entertain a motion at this time. We approve.
I have a motion by Councilman Dest. Got a second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we'll call the vote. Eyes have it 70. So moved. Miss Cobb. Thank you, mayor. This is ordinance 255cc, an ordinance of the city of
Dustin, Florida, relating to livery vessels, amending article 8, registration of livery vessels of the city code of ordinances, amending provisions related to transferability of permits, providing for additional required training and safety measures, providing for findings of fact, providing for severability, and
providing for an effective date. This is first reading. Seeing this is a public hearing at this time. If anyone wishes to speak on this specific topic, this is your time for public comments. Oh, there you go. Nice. Hi, Patty Brown, 86 Shyra Street. So, I
want to address a couple things quickly. Um, the discussion about participation by um the citizens of Destin. I've lived here for 20 years. I have spent hundreds of hours in this audience with just a few people, probably me and Marcy Belf.
Um, Mr. Bagby, you were so right when when the thing came up with the uh airport and them wanting to build the houses. I don't know if you were on, but we had 50 pilots come in here with red shirts. It was a red wave. We scared you guys. So,
you're right. in order to get things passed, you've got to, you know, um, put the effort in. And I've served on a lot of committees. I spent a lot of time, I didn't grow up here, but I look at this as my home. Um, for me to get up here
every time is painful because I'm not a public speaker. I get knots in my stomach. I feel like I'm going to throw up, but I get up here because I think it's important to get up here. So, um, and Bobby, you know, I love you.
And what I heard in the mumble of this community with the Facebook stuff was more people were upset that it wasn't coming from a personal page. It was coming from the the mayor of Dest. And so, they felt like that was the stance
of the city council. and having worked a lot with the beach thing cuz you know that's part of my thing. Um and what we've done in like the last 10 years buying property and not wanting all this um money spent on legal stuff, people
were a little like have we turned the page on this to do something different. So um don't take it personal. I think people were just a little alarmed by it coming from the mayor of Dest thinking that it was the whole council,
but you know, I love you. So, okay. So, I've had my say. So, now I'm livery uh hat on now. So, um I got all my stuff in. I think I was the first livery thing to be granted
and I thank the city. You guys did a great job. You followed through with everything you said you were going to do. Thank you so much. Um, I aim to follow all the rules and I get on many of our yacht owners that have a little
tendency to get outside the buoys. Um, so the one concern that I have is that if my boat was a taxi and it wore out and I had a taxi license, I could go out and buy a new taxi to replace it.
So, if my boat gets old, beat, I want to go bigger, I want to go better, but it's the same person that owns Misbehaving. Um, can I upgrade my boat and keep my medallion? Uh, because I'm not
interested in making money on my medallion. In fact, I'm not making a lot of money on misbehaving either. So, this isn't a money thing. Um, so I kind of would like to know that there is the ability for us owning it,
having the medallion, that if we want to upgrade that we can do that and transfer our medallion to a new boat under the same ownership. So that's kind of what I'm up here for. Thank you very much for your time.
Thank you. Hey, anyone else for this specific reading? Nope. me on that. Yeah. And and yes, you can do that there. It has the permit has to be assigned to a vessel, but livery vessels all the time upgrade their boats and
transfer the permit within their own company. This is dealing with um selling it outside of yourself and that that type of transfer. Sure. Yeah. But even then, even under an outside transfer, you can still under this ordinance as proposed transfer it
as long as it remains assigned to a vessel. doesn't have to be the same vessel, but you have to tell the city what vessel you are assigning it to. And the point was that the permit can't be sold without being attached to a vessel. Okay. All right. Thank you for that. And I see
no other public comment, so I'll close the public comments. And uh Councilman Braden, you're up first. Thank you, mayor. Um, I really think that the council and staff really needs to get rid of the word medallion, get
that out of their vocabulary when we're speaking in reference to delivery vessels because it's not a medallion. When we passed that, all it was was a sticker. So when code compliance went down there and they saw 20 pontoon boats or jet
skis, that sticker was on the side of it and we knew that that one was counted because there was so many and they said, "Well, they was moving them around and it was, you know, keeping 30 boats here and 10 down there and five over here and we don't know where they at." It was just a sticker. So the code compliance, that's all it was. I don't know how it
got to this $15,000 medallion or whatever, you know, whatever they think it is. It's not. It was just a sticker that we could put on that boat to see, yep, that one was counted. That's all it was. So, I don't want to And we've we've discussed this amongst the staff and
whatnot that it's it's not a medallion. It's a sticker or that goes, I guess, with the registration. Um, so we don't want to we can do that. That would be awesome. That's all I have. Mayor, thank you. All right. No more Ponzi schemes. Uh, Councilwoman Abear.
Thanks, Mayor. Um I just wanted to bring up the fact that during this motion I wanted to make sure that uh Luther Pontoons John saw he what was the verbiage Kim that he wanted to make sure that we had as part of the motion to
ensure if that age of that vessel was not like like one year that the ordinance provides that when a permanent vessel is transferred that um transferey has to notify the city within 10 days of the change in
ownership. Right? And then the code says, the new proposed code says that you cannot transfer it again within two years from that notice date. So what Mr. Stevens was saying was he would recommend changing that two years to one year. Can we incorporate that into the motion
or do I have to make a substitute motion? Ask the motion maker to amend it or make a substitute motion. Can the motion maker add that amendment in there, please? I don't know. There hasn't made a motion yet. There's no motion. Then you can make a new motion if there
hasn't been. I'll make the motion to include that one year in it's to approve the ordinance with that modification. Yes, please. Okay. All right. And I have a motion on the floor. Do I hear a second? I got a second. Councilman Gile. Uh continuing on. Cal
was gonna I was I apologize. I was going to ask exactly what she did on behalf of John Stevens. So, let me How do I remove this? Uh, you're good to go. Go. Uh, Councilman Bagby. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, two things. So,
number one, and I understand it was the Harbor Board that made this recommendation, but sub paragraph I I on the I'm sorry, I on the NADA values. And I agree with the we don't want this to
get into a bidding war or we don't want this to get into um an inflation of sales prices because then it's just a backdoor around the medallion issue. Uh what I disagree with uh fairly strongly
is us telling private entities what they can sell their equipment for. Okay? Because we say, "Oh, you can't sell that pontoon for more than 10% above NADA value." Uh, no matter the
condition, no matter whatever, I think that needs to be removed, at least the way I understand this is I have a a boat. I have a pontoon boat. I have a medallion. I have a registration.
I'm sorry. Now you got I don't even use that word. I have a registration. Uh if I decide to sell that, then they have to come to the city. And the what John's complaint was, we said
they had to keep it for two years. I would say no. If you sell your equipment, you're allowed to sell your equipment whatever you can sell your equipment for. But when you don't have that equipment anymore, that registration goes away. And as long as we don't have
any more or we don't have a line waiting of 200 people wanting to get registrations or whatever, as long as we're below the 490, that new owner can apply for the registration and they can get it. I I I don't want to be in the
business of us trying to keep track of registrations that are changing hands every year or every two years or whatever. You know, if somebody wants to get rid of their equipment and buy a new boat, that's fine. That's their
registration, you know, but if they want to keep their old boat, they want to keep it registered, then they should apply for a new registration. It's it's whether it's a used boat or a brand new boat, it's a new registration. And so that that's my only concern. But I am I
would ask the amendment or the motion maker to take out I think it's C yeah point uh I to that states to avoid artificial inflation of sales pricing or
price gouging registered V vessels may not be sold for more than the current NADA guide value plus 10%. All right, Councilwoman Abear, are you okay with that amendment? Absolutely. Mayor, if you can make that change, Miss Cop, to that. Councilman G. Are you okay being the
second on that? You were a second on the original. We are taking out, if you want to rehear that. Um, you wanted to take out C. It's 1348 C little. Okay. The awkward. We're good with that. It's good. Okay. Good job.
All right. I got the motion in the second amended. Thank you for that. Uh, Councilman Bagger, are you good? Yes. All right. Thank you, sir. Council Schmidt, thank you. Is this the um ordinance that deals with what happens when like the registrations expire?
Yes. So what happens when registrations expire? Do we get do do they become available again like with the moratorum? Does it Yeah. Does it go away if they
don't? Does it disappear? Yeah. So like people over the past year that haven't registered their registrations, we're not calling them medallions, right? Registrations. It rolls back to the city. It rolls back to the city. We have
But we've always been Oh, sorry. Go ahead. No, no. I I'm just saying we we have a cap of 490 in here. So that's how many we would always have unless that's amended. and the way it's currently proposed, if a registration lapses or expires or whatever, then it would go
back to the city in that 490. Now, if council doesn't want it that way, we can just modify it. So, that's how that's how it's currently proposed or that's what we're currently that's how it's proposed. That's how it's proposed. We do not currently have a cap other than the moratorium itself. So is that why if somebody wanted to
come get a registration, we don't give it to them even if there's if even if we have 400 outstanding right now? Yeah, right now because we have the moratorum if they're not already registered as of the date of the moratorum, they don't. So then this ordinance based on the proposal
would allow somebody to come get a registration as long as run a 490 a new one if the moratorum goes away. Yeah. when the moratorum expires. So I'm confused then the mortorium is what does the cap have to do with anything then?
Well the cap would be in the So we're amending the code. The cap would go in the code and stay there until the council amends the code again. The moratorum I think has three years left. It was a five-year extension and I think that was almost two years ago.
Check the check the exact date. So the the moratorum that we have right now does not allow you to start a new livery vessel business and that's regardless of the city's active registrations regardless no matter what. Like doesn't matter about
the number. Well, why don't you all decide what you want the policy to be and then we'll write it up. But right now, are we are people allowed to come get new registrations if we have 400? If we have 490 400. So that's not in the moratorium right now. That's in the proposal. We
don't have 490 in the moratorium. We just have you all got your vessel registrations and now you can't get anymore. And now we're trying to put into our code the policy that addresses the questions you're asking. But if somebody came up tomorrow to get
a a registration, we would tell them no because we're in a moratorum. If somebody came in to get a registration, somebody applied for a liver vessel registration. Somebody knew that doesn't have Yeah. They'd be denied, right? because we're in a moratorium or if they added to their fleet.
Right. Correct. They couldn't expand or start a new aware of three three more years of no more new business. So even if the number goes from 490 to 450 to 425 to 400, you're still saying that you would not allow
a new business a new one. Okay. Okay. I just want to make sure we're all understanding because it's been a conversation for many years. So Okay. Appreciate it. Right. Councilwoman Traml. Yes. This is this is in with regards to
Mr. Begby's uh question that he had earlier about the vessels being sold. I agree with you. What I thought that I wanted put in here was the quote registration couldn't be sold for more
than 10%. Not the vehicle. Does that make sense? Because before we talked about and and I was on the Harbor CRA when this was brought up, we talked about medallions and they'd be like New York City taxis, they said, and you'd be able to sell them for $15,000
for a sticker. Not for the boat, not for anything. It was just that the the sticker, the ability to have a sticker couldn't be sold for more than 10%. I I'm not sure how the word vessel got in there.
And so do you agree that the sticker shouldn't be sold for any more than what they paid for it? Because we're the ones that are selling it to them. I I don't think any stickers should be sold to anybody. If you want to sell
your vessel and Yeah, that's fine. You know, this goes to Kevin's question or point of if if they buy it, if they buy the boat, they're getting another sticker, right?
So, that's what I'm asking cuz I I thought this was all different. Yeah. But no, they specifically This came from the harbor board and they specifically raised the issue of and I understand what they're trying to do. They don't want you selling your sticker
for 50,000, you know, selling your boat with a sticker for $50,000 for a $10,000 vessel. Well, because then you're selling the sticker for $40,000 and you're selling the vessel for Well, what brought this up was a person
who had retired and had 15 stickers and was selling them for $15,000 a piece on noboat. Yeah, just a sticker. And that's what that's why I said I don't think they should be able to sell the sticker, right? Period. It shouldn't. Period.
So, is that in here? I thought that was in here, Kim. Kim, is that in here somewhere? Part the city manager is asking me a question. Go ahead. [Laughter]
Just repeat your question, please. The question is we took we took out the part of selling the vessel for more than 10%. I agree with the vessel price. It was it was the vessel plus the permit because under this ordinance you can't sell the permit without the vessel.
That's what it's saying. You have to have your permit attached to a vessel at all times. You can't just sell the permit like a medallion. To Rodney's point, it's not a medallion. It's a permit. Has to be assigned to a vessel and then you can sell them together. So, if you if you bought a bunch of these things ahead of time and you don't have
boats and and can you sell the sticker? No. Except there is a one, not to confuse it more, but the ordinance has a one-year grace period where you can sell the permit without the vessel, but only for one year from the effective date. And if
you all don't like that, it can be taken out. But there was that grace period. And then after that, you can only sell the permit with the vessel. And that was done because there are certain individuals in the city that spent some Yeah. And I agree and I I don't have a
problem with them getting their money back, but I thought that's where the 10% increase came in so that they couldn't sell that permit for $15,000. It was for the boat with the permit, but yeah, it was so that so that they didn't
price gouge. Ultimately, it was because of the permit. Yes. But you can't sell a permit without the vessel. Okay. Okay. Except in the one-year grace peri. Except in the one-year grace period. And how much can you charge for that permit if you sell it in that one year? That's our point. Yeah.
Is not addressed in the ordinance. If you want a limit on that, we can do it. I would like a limit on that which is I don't 10% more than what you got. Yeah. 10. Yeah, that's the the 10% is fine with me. Um,
registration 100 bucks would be 110% more than what than what they paid for it. The original the Yeah, the original one. So, if they're selling a permit without a boat, which they can do within the first year, they can't make $15,000 off that sticker. They can't sell this the
the permit for $15,000 to somebody that hasn't registered yet, you know? So, motion for that. All right, with that, I'm going to do my best. Let's Let's roll back in. Yeah. All right. So, with that, uh, did
you get your answer? I'm sorry. I don't want to cut you off. Yeah. I'm just not clear on what you want the cap to be for that one-year grace period because if it's 10% from the city's registration fee, that is not very much. That's going to be like, you know, if we sell it for $300, it's going
to be $3, you know, so 30 or 30, sorry. But you know what I'm saying? It's going to be they paid for it. They should get their money back or they should button. Oh, button button. Yeah. So, is it 10% more than they paid or 10% more
than the than the city's fee? Well, what did they pay for? They only bought it from the city, right? There's a there's a there's a couple of individuals in the city that have bought from other livery operators. That's their problem. Okay. That's the question I have. So,
that's their problem. So, it will be 10% from the city's fee. Yes. Got it. Okay. Councilman Dustin, bring us home, sir. Okay. My question is those who may hypothetically turn their certificates back into the
city could happen. Correct. What does the city do with them? We don't will that be the subject of another ordinance amendment? No, I I think it depends if there's a moratorium. If there's a moratorium, we're not issuing them. But if the
moratorum when the moratorum expires, if this code is still in place under this code, they the city would be able to issue it to somebody else if they met all the requirements of the land development code for a delivery operation, meaning parking, bathrooms, so on. Well, it seems to me which came first
the chicken or the egg. If you have a moratorium, you've limited the number of permits. So, what's the object of giving them back to the city? This is a council policy call. You guys decide and we'll do it. And I understand that's the point I'm making though. If you're going to turn them back into the city, they should be able to do.
Then the city would have to determine who gets them. And that would be subject to another ordinance. I don't want to tangle that into this because we're already down the rabbit hole. But it's something we'll have to decide if if some of them get turned back in. How do we allocate them to new people? Is it a lottery? Is it first come, first serve?
Is it people whose names start with a D? Um, you know, under but we we just Dan to ask you to ask a question right now. We we won't because is we're in a moratorum. That's what I was asking earlier, right? I I don't really understand that logic. If you're at a mortorium and you're
below the asked earlier, is it a is it a floating moratorium? As as somebody goes out of business and loses their permits, the number goes down. So that's not really a mortorium. It's a mortorium that can go down, can't go up, you know. I heard it's easier to go down, but it does.
Anyway, I'm sorry I asked those questions. No, but that's where I'm thinking like as a council, do we want like we can almost kind of set the new benchmark if if they're going to slowly go down before the moratorum times out if we're not going to redo it? What is are going to be new threshold if there
is that delta of extra and that is the object to most limited entry systems? But if you think they're too many through attrition, they go down. But that's clearly is not a goal that we have set because we don't know what they should go down to. Correct. All right. With that, Councilman Bagley.
I believe we had a citizen come up about two months ago and say he had bought a bunch of permits. He was just waiting on dockage, somebody to build docks or him get docks or he
was negotiating his thing. And what what I'm concerned about is if he paid uh say he pay a lot for his permits
uh his registrations and either if he doesn't get the dockage that's not that's not our issue but if he gets the half the dockage and he has to eat whatever this substantial sum is I don't remember?
And we're telling him, you can only resell it for what the original owner paid plus 10%. Uh I think we've almost given him a financial incentive to
challenge us. So, I don't know what the answer is because I hadn't thought through this whole thing yet. But I I think we may need to either have I don't want to do a workshop, but we we need to think this through because I think we
are so far down a rabbit hole and we got so many little fingers in the dyke that we don't even know where the leaks are to be honest with you. So, I'm going to make a substitute motion to
table this to allow us to talk with staff for the next two weeks and see if we can't come to a better understanding individually so that we can come to a better understanding collectively because I think some of us think of
there's some things in here that aren't in here and vice versa if that makes sense. And just to clarify the tables for the next next meeting. Next meeting. Okay. All right. Um do I have You don't have a second. That's
Yeah. Do I have a motion for All right. H with that we'll call the table. And is a motion to table or motion to transfer to the so that way you
Okay. So you want to just not table. We're just moving it. Okay. Thank you, sir. All right. With that, Councilman G. You're up. Oh, I get to talk. Yeah. Yeah. He he said table at first and he Sorry, y'all were kind to me. I'm going to be kind to you. Oh, all I was going to say is we need to make sure we remember the Army Corps of
Engineer did do a study on the harbor. Said we were overly congested. Said there's a high risk of injury or death if we continue in that bath. So, if we remove these permits as they come in, all we're doing is increasing public safety, right?
It's dangerous. It's dangerous out there. Dang it. Uh, Councilman Dest. Yes. On the motion to uh move to the next meeting. The only, it seemed to me that a simpler way would be to um remove those questions about prices people can
sell things for and go forward the rest of it. This is his first reading. And if we change it, then it would go back to first reading. But I hate to just stop in the middle here. But I but I agree with Mr. Bagby that we don't need to be telling people what they can sell their equipment for. nor
the permit when it's going to get so crazy about what you paid for it. Those things just don't need to be in there. So, um is Oh, the motion is to move the next meeting. Yeah, we had to substitute motion. So,
if we want to do anything, we would need to call the substitute, decline it, and then you do a sub if that's where you're wanting to go with that. And I would except there are a couple of things in there that I thought I understood that now I'm questioning whether or not I understand what I read.
And I read it twice. Oh, I don't think. All right. I Yep. With no further discussion, uh, we will call the substitute motion to have this reconsidered at the next meeting. Brought back for brought back. There you go. Thank you. With no changes?
With no changes. Well, no, with the changes of taking out the NA. Okay. With the changes of the original with the changes that were already Okay. All right. Good deal. All right. 61. Stick to your guns.
All right. Is that the last one? You got one more, Miss Cop. Yes. The property. This is ordinance 2417cc. an ordinance of the city of Dustin, Florida, amending chapter six of the code of ordinances to create a new article 5 property maintenance code,
providing for findings of fact, providing for incorporation into the code of ordinances, providing for conflicting provisions, providing for severability, and providing for an effective date. This is second reading. Um, the only changes we made from the last meeting was to change the appeal
period from 5 to 14 days. That's to put in their notice of appeal. And then we also added the whereas clause um that made it clear uh what the intent of the ordinance was. All right. Uh Councilwoman Traml.
Well, I'm sorry. Before you do that, No, it's fine. It disappeared. No, no. Either way, I I got public comments first. If anyone This is the public comments for 2417 CC on second reading. If anyone wishes to speak on this topic, this is your time to do so. All right. Legal checkbox. Close that.
Councilwoman Traml, I'm going to make the recommended motion. I move that the city council adopt ordinance 24-17-C property maintenance code on second reading. I'll second it. All right. Councilwoman A with a second. Any discussions? Seeing a blank board. Ray called the
vote. All right. Eyes have it. 70. So moved. All right. Moving right along. Councilman Braden. I'm tired. Mayor, I feel you. I feel that. Councilwoman Draml, I just have one thing tonight. I was
reading the um minutes of the meetings and the hardware CRA had quite a few motions that that they need the CRA board to address. So, I guess I would be asking if we wanted to have a CRA board meeting. Would that be for the next council
meeting? You're saying to do it beforehand? Whenever. I'm not the board I'm not the board chair. So I I am I I'll You want to make a motion that? Yes. I'll make a motion that we have a a CRA board meeting prior to the next meeting. I'll second that. At the next meeting or prior to
prior to right in front of the next meeting. Oh yeah. All right. Like 5:30 before 5:30. Yeah. All right. There might be some require discussion. Yep. All right. That's all I have. All right. I got a motion and a second for a CRA meeting uh prior to the next
city council meeting. And I got my motion in a second. Ray, if you can open the vote. Yep. Hey, motion. It's a lot of typing for motion. All right. 70. So moved. Congratulations. Another meeting.
Anything else? Councilwoman. No. Good. All right. Councilman Dustin. Quick question. I I asked the city manager to give us an update on the signs, danger swimming signs we voted to put along the area where the little girl unfortunately drowned. Can you give us a
quick update on where that's going? Yes, sir. We've added some signage at the O team access that the city uh maintains uh warning of strong currents. Uh the TDC has put some at the end of
the jetty at the landward at the end of the jetties warning of strong currents and and one over by the little pools that we have at Nora Point. Uh we've asked the um Emerald Grand folks if they would consider putting some on on their
property out and they're taking a look at that for us. So um and the signage that the TDC's placed is kind of wordy. So we've had some conversation. They've agreed to allow us to put some more clarity and some u just more succinct
signs that says be careful of strong currents. So very good. Do we anticipate to have those up by Labor Day? Yes, sir. Okay. I should have all I got. Thanks, Mr. Dustin. With with your knowledge of that pass and everybody, do you know why we we we put the signs up, but we don't have a
flag on the on the lifeguard thing out there? My understanding is the flags. My understanding is the flags denote the wave condition and not necessarily current and we're just being more specific. Okay. Gotcha.
Yeah. But but to that point, I think if we wanted to get creative, perhaps if there was a way to signalize, they're both dangerous, but high tide versus low tide. Low tide being you're going to get pushed out to the Gulf versus into Crab Island. Again, both very strong, but
maybe there's a not a flag system, but a just a way of interaction of information that might get them to actually stop and read what's going on there. But try to invate that, but I'll go and drive. Yeah. Yeah. Not for us.
I'll go like four times stronger than go and so it's even more dangerous. Yeah. All right. Uh Councilman Bagby, uh two quick things. Uh Jay was going to come tonight, but they he and Michelle are trying to have a conference call
with uh Emerson and and hopefully Gator uh Lee on the parcel that the parks foundation is trying to acquire uh for the city. So there wasn't really an update. They don't have a decision. Um
and so once they do have some indication or some direction from the Lee family, uh he'll come and update us. The just received at about 7:15 this evening a copy of the core army core permit for
FourPong Lake. So, uh, it looks like we're get getting ready to try to find biders to do that or find somebody that's capable of doing that. So, I did meet with uh, Commissioner Palmer last week and asked for the
county to help us with some of their halfsent money uh, to contribute to the pot to the money that the homeowners, the city, and the state have already contributed to. So hopefully more information on that will be forthcoming. Awesome. Great work. All right,
Councilwoman Abear. Um I had a couple things tonight, but I'm going to put them off till next time. Thanks, Mayor. All right, Councilman Guile. I have one quick thing. In October, we have the new sheriff's agreement coming up. Uh the existing sheriff's agreement. I think
I'm going to have some questions for for next council meeting. I would like uh to review the current law enforcement service agreement next council meeting under my name Ray, please. And uh I would I would appreciate it if the sheriff's department was prepared to
answer some questions based off that service agreement so that we can prepare properly in October for the new service agreement. All right. Thank you, sir. Council Schmidt. Yeah. Thank you. Uh I do have a few things if you don't mind bearing with
me. Um, first just to go back to the social media discussion, Mr. Bagby was brought up a couple of examples and I just wanted to share with you. Um, I I I've I've taken part in a couple of those scenarios that you mentioned. Um,
and probably less than one on one hand in my four and a half years so far have we had this room that that crowded. Um, but the one time we did, there was a a mascot in here. there was cheerleaders and we didn't do what they wanted to do
that particular night. So, not always does what you said work. Um, on the other side on social media, there was a number of people that were very interested citizens, business owners, and beach bonfires. Couldn't even have that discussion up
here because of the political game of Robert's Rules of Orders that particular night. Didn't even get a second. So, you know, it doesn't always go the way that, you know, that we think as well. Um, I wish we could be just more accommodating
to have those discussions up here regardless and just have an open mind. Uh, sometimes, um, I saw I didn't see somebody asked me about they told me that the city is in a agreement with pause again, but I have
not seen or heard anything about that. I was told that we're back on it. We've had a conversation with the executive director and and I apologize. I intended to mention this during my announcement, but we're operating on a handshake agreement temporarily uh that they they
will service our needs. They are to she was having their attorney draw up a a proposal for us to consider. Uh, and it is it would be at the rate that um they were insisting on. But I did ask and she agreed that they
would put what I'm considering a most favored nation status provision that says if Okaloosa County gets a better rate, then we can piggy back off of Oklahoma County rate and the county and Paul are in negotiations for a perhaps a
two-year agreement. So, um, but but I haven't seen that formal document. So, are we at the handshake rate of the month-to-month contract of our previous contract? Is that I mean, that's that's what we're following. Yes, sir. The handshake? Yeah.
Okay. All right. Oh, no, sir. It was just All right. I got you. One of the items. Oh, my bad. My bad. Yeah, we're just scratching. You know, we only get so many times to talk up here. Um, the BTR process. I was reached out by a previous council member and a few years ago I brought this up. I think
Mr. Johnson and Lewis were here and we were going through a software change about BTR notifications because the city doesn't we didn't really have a good way of talking about renewals for BTRs. Uh then it was going to be when we got the next software we were going to work on
it and I I don't think we still have that process. Now we're in another new software. Um Tamara I believe Tamara puts on the website which I got notification about the BTR process is open but that's
because I signed up for notifications about meetings and stuff not because I'm a business owner. The county it's I shared this last time when we were in Lance's office still.
Anyways, um it's a it's a card and you scan it and it goes straight to your BTR registration renewal and and it's a postcard. So, do we have anything happening right now with BTR renewals? Is there is there a updated process? Are we collecting
differently than we have in the past? Is there any thoughts on that before I propose something? Yeah. So, they they moved over to from Compass to NGO. Okay. what they've done to help facilitate that. They've put out sent out uh notices twice that seemed to help
things, but also they put a banner on the old compass because people What do you mean send out notices twice? I've not gotten a single one. I have Okay. Three businesses in the So, that's what I I know they sent out notices, so I'll find out what that means. Uh and then um
Okay. And then they they've put a banner on the old compass to people can still go there and they can pay things they haven't paid. So they may have something on compass that's in a rears uh but they can't pay a new one right but the banner is to direct them if you're paying for this coming year then you need to go to
MGO. So, previous conversations we had, I think I had with Crystal as well, was that City of Dustin was missing out on so much, not so much, but a lot of potential. We were missing out on revenue from people that didn't even know that they needed to renew and things like that. And I assume maybe
Crystal could correct me if I'm wrong, but do we know the revenue collections over the past two to three years of BTR registrations or renewals? Is that like a number we have? Yeah. Yeah, we do know it. it it's been approximately $120,000 a year consistently.
In the past before it was it was higher. Um the the issue that we came across uh we were not able to just simply invoice people because there are so many different variables involved that might change from year to year. Okay. So
that um is set in the rate schedule that we adopted and Florida's statute unfortunately does not allow us to change the rate structure. Um in our perfect world, we would simplify it down and uh be able just to simply invoice on
an annual basis, but um the Florida statute will not allow us to uh change our rate structure. Mr. Dustin, do you do your BTR renewals or do you got staff members that handle all that stuff for you? Do you do you do your BTR like the process? Do you have
your hands in that with your businesses? There have been an email that went in with the 10,000 junk emails. I'll go. Have you ever done the county one before? Oh, yeah. You get a little card every Super easy. Pretty simple. Could Larry could we look into what that is and see if we could do it in collaboration with our new system
or it it's just I think it would be something if we could do I think that'd be good to try. Okay, that'd be awesome. Uh where are we at with our code enforcement officer numbers? Do we have any new people? We currently do not have any new um
individuals, but we've conducted um um let me pull up the numbers real quick. Uh I thought I had it up. There it is.
Um we've had uh 15 applicants for the job. Okay. and we've conducted one, two, three, four, five, six first round interviews. Um, and we have two more applicants that we're currently trying
to set up first round interviews with and we are scheduling three second round interviews at this time. That's awesome. Glad to hear that. Do you need anything from us? Uh, not at the moment. All right. Um, I got a call about this um, well, I learned it's called the
flock system. It's a uh solar panel and it has a camera on it. I think two or three years ago, the sheriff's office started a a campaign to put these things around the county to help with license plate uh identification identification
and there was one I think maybe the first one installed in Destin recently Main Street on the rideway. And so I just was going to see do we have a process to get approval in the city for when those things are installed or is it is there
something already other than a permit in the rightway would be the only process we would have and I think in checking those did get permits but certainly it would be at council's discretion if we don't want them we can certainly have some have them moved.
So that one was permitted to go there. That's my understanding that correct. Yes sir. Do we have any uh open or active permits for more coming requests? I'm not not currently. Okay, gotcha. Say that again.
Who's that one for? Who's the who who requested the permit? Who does that? The sheriff's office, I believe. It's the sheriff. No, well, it's a contractor that's working on behalf of the sheriff's office. What we Yeah. Yeah. So, under under the sheriff's office. So,
it's for their use, for their follow through. Am I wrong? It was like a campaign two or three years ago that started like a to help law traffic. Yeah, you're you're correct. That's several years ago. I don't know if it was two or three, but several years ago,
the sheriff's office con um hired or entered into an agreement with Flock camera systems to place the license plate reader cameras around the county. Um, and that's what that's just a continuation of of that contract. Um,
there's actually um four now that are on city right away. There's another trying to remember
four. I think there's another four that are on the state right away, but are actually located inside the the city limits. I mean, I've heard good things about them, great things cases, being able to people find stuff, but I've also heard some concerning comments from some
citizens as well about some overreaching stuff. And it was supposed to be one thing, but it ended up being another thing. So, I just I just wanted to be able to at least share with other people that asked so y'all would know, too. Um, last thing is we got uh an email uh on
the 24th from Benjamin F. Edwards and co-investment people talking about our FRS thrift savings plan. Not sure if you guys had a chance to browse that. Did Did any did we get any contact with them about about back about that? I
guess I'm not sure if there was any request, but um I don't know that we reached back out to I do know that Jamie did have a conversation, but she's not here. And I do also know that Jamie and I are talking to um an Orisa attorney who
specializes in this because we'd have to restate our plan. So my point is this conversation is going to be coming back to council. We can't hire outside counsel without council approval anyway. So, for anybody that hasn't had a chance to read it, it was a very detailed email
um about some questions, comments, and concerns about the change to the Thrift Savings Plan or the change to the F FRS plan. And um we were supposed to have presented to the council
um a the plan and and and and what the FRS plan is. and we haven't gotten that yet, but we're already moving forward with preparing for in the budget. So, this was a little bit I had a lot of questions on this and so I guess when
you were you bringing it back at to us at a future meeting or Yeah, we have actually a call with the Orisa attorney at 9:00 a.m. tomorrow morning and then once we hear if he can meet the city's needs and what we need to bring back to you. Then we would be bringing back a potential retainer
agreement and details on what he would be providing. But the existing thrift plan has to be reviewed and restated this year anyway. Okay. So when will we be getting a more detailed understanding of the FRS plan? Yeah.
At that meeting at the budget meeting because I know Mr. Bagby made a motion to have a plan presented to us and we have it. Yeah. We when we approved it last meeting. What did we approve? Put it in the budget to approve. You you
may you made just a motion to just do something, but we didn't have a presentation on the F FRS system. We you just made a we we would have an ordinance, right? That would we we had a motion to get the F FRS system into effect and into the
budget and then an ordinance would come back to the council at a very soon meeting because it was supposed to be done before October 1st. and council would then have two public hearings and discussions on the ordinance that would implement the FRS plan.
Right. I guess you know I know sometimes people like when I read from the minutes but the motion was to direct staff to develop and present an option for transitioning city employees to social security and FRS system and when when did they bring back the plan
and presented it to us? At the last meeting, they came and told us basically what Kim just described that if we wanted to use that option, we needed to approve it at the last meeting so that they would have time to notice and bring
it to two meetings before we got started paying folks at the 1st of October. So, at the last meeting, nothing agenda presented and planned for this. You made a motion to do something at the last meeting that wasn't that was not on the agenda. No,
there was no plan. Yeah, they did. Crystal, you want to jump in here? I know it was Jamie, but I know I wasn't here. So, but I watched it and I saw the agenda so I don't know. But yeah, um it was under Bagb's name as he was the legislative sponsor.
What was under his name? um direct staff to begin the process to enroll in the FRS. Correct. So where was the there was also there were also two presentations where we showed exactly this is what our thrift plan is compared to this is what the FRS plan is and all
the F FRS documentation's easily readily available online as well. So at the budget workshop the very first one there was about 60 seconds because the whole meeting was about 20 minutes that night if you you were comparison actually you weren't at the first one but there was only about 20 minutes but
we only had about 60-second conversation about the FRS plan I recall in another since after the budget meeting to council Jamie brought back a presentation with all of the details again for the FRS plan. Yes. Comparing the FRS to the threat plan
that was at the last meeting. Well, I asked Ray and public records for FRS discussions and that particular item was not provided. So, I imagine you would have picked that up if it was discussed at a meeting in July. So, I guess I mean we can go in circles,
but if you have it, please send it to me tonight or tomorrow. if you don't have it. It seems to me like unfortunately we're doing something that no offense, but you've pushed through a couple times and we haven't I haven't seen it in the
council. So I I would ask you to go back to the video of the last meeting and look at the presentation underneath my name. Jamie got up. She presented slides which showed this is what you have to do. And
I see everybody shaking their head. Yes. Over there. Well, I just didn't get it. So, I've asked for it. So, sorry. Sorry. But if you're right, then that's fine, but I I just don't have it. I've asked for it. Okay. Thank you. We'll get it. Um, and then I at the same time,
if that company's representing us, it would it would be nice to have some thoughts back to understanding those concerns. Uh, I guess we'll talk about that the meeting you're talking about, Kim. So, um, that's all I have, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. Had to catch up.
Thank you, sir. All right. Uh, Miss Cup. Thank you, Mayor. Just one item. Um, I on the Senate Bill 180, as you all know, it restricts the city's a uh ability to pass land development regulations, comp plan amendments, and policies and
procedures as set forth in the statute. And there is some statewide litigation in the works led by the same firm we hired for the form six litigation, Weiss Serota, in Southwest Florida. Um there is a flat fee to join this litigation
and basically the point would be to um make some constitutional arguments about the legality of Senate Bill 180 and perhaps get another injunction with respect to the state's um ability to regulate us in that way. So, if the council is interested, I just need to
know um and get the authorization to pay the flat fee of $10,000 as well as potential appeal fees, which are 5,000 each. So, it's a potential total of $20,000. Or if we are not going to participate, that's fine, too. Just need to know what the council desires to do.
Councilman Bagby. Well, I was going to answer Kevin's question, but I'll make the motion to approve direct staff to approve the $10,000 and two $5,000 appeal contributions to the Senate Bill 180 uh litigation fund.
Okay. And just to be clear, that would be to approve resolution 202516, which does that. Okay, that's what I'm motioning. All right, I got a motion. I got a second. Uh, anyone else for discussion? All right, seeing none, Ray, if you can open the vote.
Mr. Mayor, just while you're voting. Yeah. Um, at the last meeting, it was brought up, I believe, by Mr. Testing, that Santa Rosa County had had some, um, media coverage about what they were doing, reached out to the county administrator, had a good conversation with him. They are, like us, are in the
middle of a land development code rewrite, and he said they're pressing on and kind of let the chips fall where they may. if they get a challenge, they'll deal with it. But they're moving forward with it. I did mention to him about this u potential um this lawsuit
that's being filed and he provided me his uh county attorney information which I got to miss Cop and she's they have reached out and hopefully they're going to consider joining this suit as well. And I've also had similar conversation with commissioner over in Walton County
that hopefully they're going to consider it also. All right. Thank you, sir. Ray, are we good with the vote? Thank you. All right. Eyes have it 70. So moved. All right. Anything else, Scott?
No. Thank you, mayor. All right. Appreciate that. Public comments. Nope. Good evening, everybody. Hey, everybody's tired. There you go. Just name and address and the floor is yours, sir. Yeah. My name is Gary Saunders. I live
at 719 Cardinal Circle. I'm at the extreme south end of Spring Lake. So, essentially what I need is some clarification. Uh, Wednesday I submitted a concern through the Destin
website about uh ecological health of Spring Lake. Uh, I have torpedo grass growing. You can't kill it. You can kill it, but it comes back. You can't get rid
of it. It's um sleek rush grass and a lot of algae in the lake. And the only reason I know what torpedo grass is because last year we've lived there since 2014.
And for all those years, nothing. In 2022, 2023, torpedo grass started popping up right in front of my pier. And I've got the largest lot at the south end of Spring Lake.
So I called lake doctors. Lake doctors came out. I mean I you couldn't really even get in the water. There was so much grass there. It just took over. So they came out for 20 minutes of work. Cost me $500.
They sprayed. They come back after two weeks to check to see if anything else is still living. They got to spray again. They did that. They had to spray again. Then they come back two weeks later after that just to see if there's anything else still living and they'll
spray again. So I did that last August. Last Wednesday when I submitted my concern to the city lake doctors was there again treating in front of my peer because as I said you can treat it'll
die off but it's going to come back. And the way lake doctors technicians explain it, there's these little like grass seeds that permeate throughout the water, then they sink and then they'll start propagating. So there's a lot of
this torpedo grass around the lake, but the majority of it is down in the south end, but there's if you look at Spring Lake from Kelly Street, you'll see this torpedo grass growing along the shore line. So I did some research on my own
and uh well first let me say this. So I submitted my concern and within five minutes I got a call from the uh code compliance the young lady named Cammy. She said sir I got your your concern. I'm going to submit it to my supervisor.
We'll be back to you very soon. Within 10 minutes I got a response. She said, "My supervisor said that it's a private lake, that the owners on the lake are responsible for maintaining the water." And at that time, I didn't know what to
say. So, I just said, "Okay, thank you." So, then I thought about it for about 15 or 20 minutes. And then I called Cammy back and I said, "Cammy, could you please have your supervisor contact me? I've got some direct questions. I want to talk to him on the phone."
Well, I didn't get a call back, but I did get a email from him later that said that the uh torpedo grass and the other invasive grasses, the rush grass and the algae problem is the homeowners problems
that live on the lake and it's a private lake. So, I did a little research on my own and I'm thinking, it's a private lake, then why is there public access at Kelly Street? Because I see we've been there since
2014 and I've seen people pull up with a truck bed, take off a johnboat with a trolling motor, put it in the water. People with canoes, stand up paddle boards, kids playing in the water, dogs playing in the water. There's two
benches right there for people to sit on while these things are taking place. And so I'm thinking it's a private lake. So a little research of mine, I found out that private lakes such as Diamond Lake, Se-Scape, Riotta Bay, Kelly Plantation,
Sand Destin, and Destiny. They have homeowners associations. And these homeowners associations, these people do pitch in. I guess that's part of the HOA requirements. and they pay to do whatever they do. I'm assuming it's
lake doctors because my technician said they do a lot of lakes around here. He said, "But it takes everybody on that lake to say we want all the lake treated." Well, all
I can take care of is my little section at the end. And if that's what it's required that I have to do in the future, then that's what I'll have to do. But my what I wanted tonight was some clarification on why is my lake a private lake and if I've got public access, you know,
and I got to pay or everybody on that lake has to pay to have it maintained, can we get Kelly Street blocked off so it's not a so it is a private lake so we don't have people coming on to my lake?
I mean, how much of that lake is mine? Can I go out there and can I get a survey and stake off how much is mine and keep people from fishing, swimming, and boating in it? I mean, I don't want to have people
coming down there around my property. It's like my house is sitting on my property. It's private. I bought that land. I bought the I didn't buy the lake. It was beautiful when I moved in the house. It's not my fault. the invasive grass is now growing, but it is there.
So, I just want to find out whose responsibility is it to maintain that lake that's supposedly private but has public access. I appreciate you being here, sir. Um, could we get him in touch with Captain Jim Green,
somebody maybe? Because I understand it's a different lake, but he took he took the Keller Lake, which also has an access off of Main Street and and I think he took it by the bull by the horns, and worked on something at that lake, and I think that would be a good start to maybe he's one of our
committee board members as well. So, I don't know, just a thought, just a the next step maybe to help. I just he might have some ideas, too. Just want clarification because in two weeks lake doctors are going to come back and see what didn't die from Wednesday's
treatment, treat it again. And two weeks after that, they're going to come back again. But I caught it early this time, but I can tell you right now from where it was
last year around my pier, it's grown out from there. grass is sprouting up a lot further out from my pier. And when they come, they have a little small boat that they go to Kelly Street and put in the water so they can use
their trolling motor and come down to my pier from what they can't reach with their waiters on getting off of my pier and spraying. They come down by boat and they're going to have to do that next treatment. They didn't do it this past treatment. He just sprayed what he could
reach. But next two weeks he's going to come back in his boat and reach that grass that's growing further away from our beer. So it's just it's just going to keep going and going and going. Yeah. Point taken. And with that, um, if you could hold out to afterwards, I was going to say me and the city manager, we can speak to you oneonone after that. I,
uh, we typically do three minutes, but I wanted to make sure you sat here all night. I want to make sure you got all the minutes you could. Um, but yeah, point taken. Yes, sir. Thank you. Hi, Gary. Troop 86 Shyra Street. And um I'm probably not going to be here uh next month. So I just want to say something about what Mr. Bagy was saying
and I I think Miss Truml as well is that thing about um you know if you sell your boat for more than 10% of that NADA or whatever that is um you know that there's some type of issue with that. you know, you can't, I guess, and retain
the medallion. But, you know, when you think about this problem, you know, we're talking about people are building businesses. This is what it's all about, right? And so, when you build a business up and you want to sell it, it's really not based on the value of the boats. It's the revenue stream that's been
coming in and you've created this business and you have reviews and things and and the other thing is that and so I'm just saying this because if this comes back up and I'm not here I want to say my my piece now and you know it's it seems to be more geared towards pontoon boats but that's not the business I'm
in. And so if I'm in a bigger boat and I put, you know, two diesel engines in and new avionics or electronics in a boat, you know, that's going to be worth a lot more money than maybe just the average one that's in good shape. A lot more money. And so if there are people that
come back and want to put this provision in, there at least needs to be something in there say, I can have an independent appraiser come in and say that model doesn't apply to my boat because I spent a lot of money on generators and engines and things. I mean, it's it's much more complicated than a pontoon boat. And I
think they're thinking about that in that sense, and I'm going to get caught up in it. Um, and also the same thing with the business. You know, if I get a very successful business going, it's not the value of the boat that I'm selling. It's the business. Okay? And I don't know how you're going to separate those. When you think about, you know, whether
it's a corporation or a partnership, it gets very confusing, you know, because I can sell the stock in a corporation for whatever I want. And how much of that's the value of the boat? So don't get caught up in that um by trying to you know maybe fix a small problem and creating a bigger one. Um so anyway
that's my comment about that. My second one is um I was just curious on old highway 98 I think kind of across from the Seahost Hotel there's this new big black pole. What is that? 5G 5G. And how does right by the exit of
Destiny East also? Yeah. So, how does the uh does the does does the property owner have any say? It's in the it's in the right away and you guys can just say go ahead and put that big big ugly antenna there. We don't we aren't doing it.
Oh, Mike, they did the same thing on Indian trail a few years ago and there was some we talked about it and they can basically just do that. They can literally come in do the permit and then they can put it. It's who's who did they who did they ask the county or what? Probably state lobbyist coming in because it's a communication You can put
them anywhere in the good Republicans that out it as long as it's in public right away. That's a state mandate. Okay. All right. Sorry, Gary. I think that's it. Thanks. Thank you for being here. That kills it. Okay. Oh, yeah. Okay. Yeah. Absolutely. All right. Anyone else? Miss Bell,
you're good. All right. With that meeting adjourned.