Good. All right. Good morning, everyone. Uh, we're going to call this meeting to order. Today is Thursday, August 7th, 2025. It is 9:01 a.m. All council members are present, including the town manager, deputy town manager, town clerk, and town attorney. If you please rise for the pledge of
allegiance 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. I just noticed that. That's great.
I see it. That's great. That's great. Good job. All right. We have two items for discussion today. The first item is to discuss the fiscal year 2026 budget. Joe, you going to start us off or vice or com?
We'll go right to Joe. All right. I see by the emails, Joe, you're up to your old ways at one o'clock in the morning, unfortunately. But okay, we we have the presentation, Josh. We can start with that. Um,
good morning. Um, I'm Joel Anzac, finance director, and I just first of all like to thank Cassandra Penner for all of her work and assisting with putting the presentation together. Um, so it's wonderful to have
assistance like that. So I I very much appreciate it. Go to the next slide. Okay. So, we're starting off by just kind of re reviewing what was already presented. Um, just to give you an idea of Lauram
revenue increase of $670,000 and we do have nonadvalorum revenue increases of $617,000. Um but what that has ended up doing is simply reducing the amount of bridge
loan um or lost revenue that we actually have in comparison to FY22. And so we have a a reduction in the bridge loan amount in comparison to what we were able to use last year by almost $1.5 million. Um,
last year we used $50,000 of our reserve that was carried forward from the previous year for vehicle purchase that we're not doing in FY26. So although the revenue is reduced, so did the expense reduce by that amount. Um, and then the
Astero landscape maintenance funding is just being carried forward from year-over-year. There's no change there. Um we are let's see expenses that so total general fund expenses excluding the transfer to the emergency reserve is
an increase of $881,000 and we're increasing the transfer to the emergency reserve by 65,000. And so we're bringing it from the $435,000 transfer that we had for this year up to
an even 500,000 for next year. And that's what brings the deficit to almost $1.2 million. Um the personnel changes. Um this is probably a tedious analysis, but just so
you could see where all the changes are taking place. Um if maybe Josh if you could just skip like to the next slide just briefly to get to the bottom line. So really there's if within the general fund itself there's a net decrease of one and a quarter full-time equivalent
position or positions and if you could go back to the previous slide Josh. So and those fine detailed changes are all represented on all these various line items. Um I don't you know there's actually some reduction headcount
reductions FTE reductions like there's no systems administrator as an employee no IT support as an employee. Um we moved the contracts manager position from the town clerk's office to the finance office. Um there was an
addition. Let's see what there's some changes um between departments. Basically, that's what the rest of these items represent. We did move um the community services director about equivalent of half of his
cost into the storm water fund since so much of his time is actually supervising um the storm water improvements. So, previously um the entire amount of his cost was being funded by the general fund. So that's part of that overall
decrease and why you're seeing these small um decreases in the individual departments where he might be at. Um and if you could go to the next slide. Um let's see what what I could point out. The neighborhood services rangers. I mean, it looks like we've added two, but
in reality, we had um two uh beach services range, two neighborhood services rangers that were previously funded by TDC that we did not receive that funding for this year. So,
now that funding is going back into the general fund. Um so, that's part of that. What looks like there's an increase there, it's really not. just an increase in funding that we have to provide for that services. Um and I think within the finance
department I guess if we go back that one more slide um again the cont the contracts or we already spoke about the contracts manager the contracts and procurement specialist. It's really mainly the procurement side of it. That's a brand new position that we
added last year that we're carrying forward into the current this next year. So I think that accounts for most of unless you have any questions about anything. Real quick, Joe. So yeah,
this is the net 1.24 less technical employees than we had previous year. Yes. And last year it was 16 and a half negative. So, is it safe to say that it's almost 18 employees less over the last two years? Yes. To back up my claim. Yes. On Monday,
saying that we're doing more with less. Yes, that's correct. Thank you. So, Mr. Mayor, could you elaborate just a little bit more on that? So, are you're seeing over the last two years we've declined in terms of personnel by 18 people. That's correct. Because last year was 16.5 and now it's 1.24. So, it's almost
18 people less over the last two years because of what Joe is saying, com limiting positions or moving people into different positions. So, on Monday, I made the claim that we're doing more with less staff. And Joe just reiterated what I said is true. Yes. And and and that that's 18 less people
out of a total aggregate of how many people, Joe? Ballpark. Oh my goodness. Um I I had that too. I knew you were gonna ask that. It's not it's not a lot. No, I'm sorry. It's in the 60s. I think the overall low 60s if memory certain. I'm sure we'll have that figured at the
moment. Seven. So, we've got to be right around 60. Yeah, I think it's a pretty She's coming. Yep. I was going to say somebody somebody who could do math. Yeah, I'm just trying to base it off of last year's budget that I pulled up. We have 69 FTEEs in general fund.
So, so if we've have 18 less than we did two years ago, what percent decrease in personnel have we had in the last two years? I don't have a percentage. I would have to get my calculator out really fast, but um definitely figure that out. I believe 20% pretty soon. Yeah, I think that's I just think that's an
interestant number. Yep. I'm sorry. What was I just bring that up because, you know, we often hear, you know, cut staff or cut wages or cut the previous town manager and staff did an excellent job at that. We continue to look at ways to economize, but we're
we're operating very efficiently at the moment. Mr. Mayor, for everyone out there watching this on um YouTube or from whatever streaming service they watch it from, um we did load this presentation into the item this morning.
So, they're not seeing it currently on Can you clarify that, Madam Cler? So, when you say that item to the budget discussion item, a lot of times when you click on that, it says agenda and then it says agenda packet, but if they click on the agenda packet, this will show up. Correct. It's 20.6%.
You already got it. Okay. Sorry. Or is it is that a significant difference? No, because it's all different levels. Well, right. I mean, I wouldn't necessarily equate it to that, but um I mean, it should be roughly in the
ballpark. I can get that calculation. Did I just just wanted to make sure that it's it's it makes sense to translate that 20% reduction in personnel to a roughly 20% reduction in payroll costs. Is that fair? I I I think so. I mean I don't want to put words in your mouth,
right? It's just that right like um I know there's a lot of variables. I just people are just asking in general is that is it roughly equate I Yeah, you could say that but I I you know it's not exactly yet but you could say that but it's not a demonstrable difference. I probably not.
Yeah, there's a lot of considerations. If someone's doing the job of two people, obviously they're probably going to make a little bit more, but it would be less than what two positions would be. Then you add in insurance costs and all the other things that go with it. So, it's I don't think it's an exact percentage to percentage, but it would be it's probably fairly close. So, it's
safe to say that one person do. Yes. I mean, that those are all possibilities that could change it, you know, one way or another. So, yes. Okay. So, are there any other questions on um personnel?
Yeah, and I'm not sure that since you're just new back you'd be able to answer this, but um this is a long personnel. Uh checking the town's app, there are 14 job openings. I assume that's correct. 10 full-time and four part-time. Are
those already budgeted? Do we know or for in this budget? Yes, they are. They should be because we wouldn't have approved them to be advertised. to answer Dan's question, you are you are accurate. Um, we when over the last two and a half years that I've been here, we have looked at multiple positions and we
tried to downsize, but a lot of that time a lot of times that meant we took one or other responsibilities to, you know, capitalize on employee strengths and then we would go out into the job market to try to find top talent. Um obviously you know that the job market in 2025 is very competitive and so we've
had to maintain competitive um salary and insurance to bring people out to the island which has also been a challenge especially with traffic and offseason. So to answer your question yes you're right on right on well I think it's important to add a little bit of history context to this
history before the storm there was really no pay structure set up. there was it was whatever the town manager felt was appropriate to whoever he felt it was appropriate to to give a raise to. Um so after the storm when management changed what those raises potentially could be versus no one knew what it was
before. So at the beginning it did increase a little bit simply based on the I think it was evergreen study if I'm mistaken that was done right after the storm. I think Keith asked to have that done so that we could align with other municip municipalities to just to make your point. Absolutely. So, uh, when I first got
here, that study had just been completed and the the pay ranges were all over the place. It was just dependent on whatever director or man or the town manager was hiring at that time. And they would, you know, maybe they I don't know, it was up to their discretion to create the pay range. So, outdated pay plan where every
year, regardless of your position, you would get a dollar year after year, which doesn't really tie perform, you know, uh, performance to pay. Um, and it's just an arbitrary number. And what happened is a lot of people are paid way way out of their pay grade. And so with
with the pay grade and the pay that was more money just to get people where they needed to be, but over time with the dollar overdoll year-over-year, it's actually saved us money. Um, and it has people in those associated pay grades. Lisa, I I I know this is premature, but
maybe you could say you're working on it, but it sounds like you're pretty close. a whole you're you're going to you're going to shift the paradigm even more with a performance-based management system. Is that is that fair? Can you elaborate it? Absolutely. As much as you know you've not announced it yet, but can you let folks know what you're doing because I think that's
really that's a paradigm shift. Thank you, Jim. Um yes, and I'm sorry I did not state work very closely with the town manager this year and we are establishing and um if any of the employees are listening, they don't know yet, so I'm sure they'll be excited. Um
so we are establishing a a performance for pay program. So you will see an increase uh that Joe is going to present but that is so that we can encompass the total dollar amount to be able to support the performance b pay plan. Um and it's another way we can incentivize
employees to tie our performance to the town's mission objectives and goals to support the residents. So, um, we are trying to lead more of a culture of accountability and get employees buy in and this is a way that we can incentivize them monetarily, which is also very important. Um, so we're really
excited that we're actually right now in in performance review mode. Um, we'll be having those reviews with the employees um in in a September for an October one, but we had enough money left over in the budget for the current year. Um, but next year we're going to we're going to
implement, you know, even more. So, it'll be based off of um a score. So, it's a 10 question performance review and it also has goals tied to it. Um and then they'll get a percentage of their total salary once a year at the start of the fiscal year depending on their
overall score. So, we're really excited to be able to implement that and again tie what we're doing every day out in the field in the office to our mission which is is serving the residents. I would just say by by just experience I I worked for Governor Mitch Daniels who
was the former OM director at one point under President Bush and then he came back and was our governor. He implemented this for the state of Indiana and for state government and it literally revolutionized state government in a very positive way and those folks who were working hard and and and were were were succeeding at
their positions were rewarded and those folks who were not they either had a work improvement plan and or they were let go. And so it really creates an accountable accountability issue, but it also rewards those folks who are performing. So I commend you for doing that. It literally revolutionized state
government in Indiana. So I think it I think it'll have a positive impact on Fort Myers Beach. Thank you. And I also want to say we do realize how important it is that the people who are performing the performance reviews are trained and understand that it needs to be objective. It needs to, you know, align
with our mission. So we have had u leadership trainings this past week on that. So, our leadership staff are equipped to um to implement those in an effective way and HR will be overseeing all of that. Thanks.
Yes, you're welcome. I'm not sure that your question was answered, John. Um, as far as a hiring freeze, um, I it's not necessarily a question as much as I'd hope that's something we'd look at before we look at increasing the millage rate. Um, are is it possible? In
my mind, that's what we do in the private sector, freeze those positions when revenues are not where they should be. That savings could then maybe drop down. Uh, that's what I would like us to take a look at. I think it would be, not to interrupt, Joe, but I think it would be important
to know what those positions are. Are they coming out of the community development fund? Are they coming out of the water fund? Are they coming out of the general fund? It would be nice to know what positions are coming from where. Sure. To to make your point, I think, councelor King. Yes. So, I mean, I'm sure that could all
be reassessed um as what especially what may come out of this meeting and direction from this meeting. Um, I think we have to be careful though with a hiring freeze because we've we're already down 18 positions year-over-year total.
And it's different having a hiring freeze versus a replacement position. So, if someone leaves, do we replace that position or how do we replace that position when we're already 18 people down? So hiring freeze can get a little
just be cautious. I think that's why I I tried to make the point of it's important to know what positions like say for comm instance community development if that's being funded by permit fees and things that do not come out of the general fund or then obviously I don't know that that
necessarily would have to fall into the the category of a hiring free so to speak but it would be interesting to know what would be funded by the general fund when it comes to these positions. Absolutely. And I can do an assessment of that and provide that to you. But I will say prior to budget, we sat with
each department director and I looked at the vacancy times of positions and there were positions cut that we thought were not necessary. We just did that recently. Um but you know, it's really important to think about the impact um
of of the town's operations prean versus postan. Before we had a very small finance department because we didn't have these large sums of money coming in, right, grants and grant funding and so we do have a grants coordinator position out because we have identified
that we need help internally with managing these grants effectively. Um and so I just um hope that you know we keep that into consideration. But I can absolutely do an assessment of all the and the other thing that's a really good point that you made John um a lot of the
times if you look at our careers page we have a lot of vacancies so we are operating at a lower rate so what our budget numbers might be higher our actual operating cost and operating um numbers are generally lower than what you see in the budget because of of the
vacancies that we hold. It's like again it's been difficult and a challenge to find people to come out to the island at times and to stay. I mean we've even had some turnover because of that where they initially you know they think that it would would be manageable but then they determine that it isn't. So a lot of the
times we really are running bare bones and and you're there's a there are many more vacancies than you're seeing on the budget. Um but I will absolutely look at all of the vacancies. Again, I can provide a breakdown of what is covered in the general fund versus the water
fund and the building fund and TDC. And then I can make a recommendation if I if you know if there's any there are any, you know, long vacancy times or anything that we can do internally to kind of downgrade and and and you know continue to to minimize. Thank you. Thank you.
I'll just add if I can, Mr. Mayor and Councelor King, I I agree 100% with everything Tisa said and she's managed this very effectively and efficiently in my mind. Many of these positions um are essential positions. Uh we we we talk about all of them on a regular basis in addition to the you know senior
accountant or say grants coordinator. We've also got a senior accountant position which is still vacant and assistant finance finance director code managers and junior planners you know and as I look at all those positions each one of those is essential for efficiency the us having an efficient
government being and and they they answer the need for us in a code compliance perspective to more effectively manage the town and help our residents but also there is revenue associated uh with some of those uh positions as well and our junior planner position you know
everybody, you know, I hear the complaints from the community, uh, comments from the community, I should say, about, uh, you know, permitting process and and why why does it take so long to get responses? Uh, and and how does the, uh, you know, the planning and development process, why does it take so
long? So, we're trying to answer those things very, very, you know, economically though, I must say. Um, and I approve every every hire finally. You know, it's there's nothing approved at a lower level. We're we're managing things, you know, at the at the highest level that we can right now. So, we will
definitely look at it, councelor Kane, as as a potential option. As a potential option um and uh but I just ask that you can take those things into consideration. Thank you. Okay, you can go to the next slide,
Josh. Okay, so I hopefully you can see this. Um so, these are just to highlight some of the major expense changes in the budget. Um, so as Tisa highlighted, there is a performance-based bonus pay plan that's going to be rolled out and
that's going to increase um the total expenditures by about $70,000. Life and health insurance, this was the budgeted increase based at 9.8%. That's going up by about $337,000.
Um, but it's that has not been finalized yet. It may be a lot more. or it may be less. So, but that is what it was budgeted at at this point. Um and and I think it'll be soon rather soon that we'll have you know what the options
available to choose from but it's we don't have that at this point. Um the wages because of the the the slight reduction in headcount moving um some expense into the um special revenue
funds. the overall increase which includes um the 2 point a 2.6 cola um increase which is the May over May measurement um which the town has been using the last couple of years um because the evergreen study was
implemented based on the May survey. So then the the following year we did a Mayover May increase the cola increase of 1.8%. So now again this year the May over May increase um consumer price index wise um is 2.6%.
So that's included in that $95,000 figure. Um workers compensation actually is for whatever reasons is going down by $32,000. Um on the capital side, um we we
budgeted $62,000 worth of um capital um purchases within the general fund that are not there this year. Um on the additional operating um like services type um expenditures. So we have
liability insurance going up 105,000 um just overall contracted labor increase. So, in all the departments within the general fund, if you add it all together, there's some decreases, some increases. The net change in total is almost $89,000.
Legal services, that's that's a combination of a few different line items. Some have gone down, some have gone up, but the overall net change in all of our legal service line items is an $100,000 increase.
um fireworks. That's really a reflection of the special events line item that is increased by 155,000 um to accommodate um fireworks or the expense of fireworks for both Fourth of July and New Year's. And then there's an
increase of law enforcement expenses um overall law enforcement expenses of $135,000. And then transfers. We're transferring an additional $65,000 to the emergency fund. That that should be 435, not 465.
Correct. Um I'm sorry. Which figure? Transferred emergency funds was actually 435, not 465. That's where you get 65. Oh, yes. Yes, you're you're correct. That's must be a typo then. I'm sorry. Okay.
Okay. Um any questions at this point? Not necessarily a question, but maybe Tisa can address this because I know you had done a good job in the past of shopping uh the insurance, the life and the health and and I'm assuming that you're continuing to do that as well and
just explain maybe. Sure. So, um Tis Oliver, human resources director for the record. Um okay, so currently we are out to market. We are trying to get bids from a few different carriers. We have been very lucky to
have the rich plan that we have at the rate that we have. So, um, you know, we have had some large claims in the last few in in the last year, the current fiscal year. Um, and so, yeah, we're not sure where we're at. That was the 9.8%
that you see budgeted. Um, I am expecting that it will come in higher. Uh, but we are out to market and I should have some options for you September 11th. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Joe, without getting into the weeds, the
fireworks and law enforcement, is that an addition? Is that what you're budgeting this year above what was last year? Yes. And I in anticipation of that, I did look this up. So, and maybe Jeff might be able to Jeff can talk about firework. Hi, Jeff Hogy, community services
director. Yeah. So, with everything kind of we we I pulled the numbers a little bit on on just all of our special events that we have. Um, fireworks obviously is the biggest expense that we have and actually it's right around the fireworks. That's just the fireworks and barge alone. Um, when we do it, that's not including like staff overtime that
it's a it's a higher number than that. It's almost like 270,000 to to do the fireworks and the and the parades and all those things. Um, with staff overtime, uh, that's also including law enforcement. So, those numbers are kind of combined. um law
enforcement costs have just gone up with what Lee County charges us uh to close the bridge, to close off streets, those kind of things. So, um that was just one of the line items that that was one of our biggest um special events uh lines. So, so these two items, I know we're
going to talk about it in September, but these two line items for me give me great pause. You know, in the past, obviously, this wasn't shouldered by the town of Fort Myers Beach. We know that they bring money into the the community obviously, but I'm having a hard time telling residents
that, you know, we're increasing your millage rate because of fireworks that everybody gets to enjoy, but it's being shouldered on the backs of the residents. So, I would really like you to take a look at this and and figure out a way, which I'm sure we're going to talk about, which was brought up, I think, on Monday by both councelor King
and councelor uh Woodson about how do how do we put some of this burden on those that enjoy it that come in temporarily, whether it's overnight, res visitors, I think should have to bear a lot of this cost in my opinion, that
that's a huge amount of money to put into a budget um which could substantially draw down on that 1.255 potential number. Yeah. And we I mean, granted, we still will have some of the law enforcement with with bigger crowds. Um Sure. We will have a little bit of overtime with
staff with just the the amount of trash and everything that comes. But yeah, that's that's one thing that we we've been talking about. That's why we're bringing it up now is that that's a big expense and and we we realized that we tried to go to TDC uh because we figured we thought it's a u a visitor service
for sure, but they u their lawyers had kind of shot that one down. I know Santael and and and Town of Formars Beach asked for it and both of them got denied. So, um I agree. It's just something to talk about. Um it is a pretty good chunk of change. I'm not not saying it's not and
we have to figure out a way to for one if we if we want to do them and then two how we're going to foot the bill. Okay. I mean that's and and I'm in favor of both obviously if fully support law enforcement and the fireworks but u at the at the expense of the residents we
need to find a better way. I think yeah we've had discussions preliminary discussions already. Um I know we have kind of talked to the chamber a little bit and um it's just the the way costs are going up. Um, we used to only pay like 30,000 for fireworks. Um, you know,
cost for everything just has gone up. They want more law enforcement here because of public safety. So, um, we get a kind of large all that adds. Yeah, absolutely. So, um, we're talking about it. Obviously, you know, some guidance on on your end, too, would would be nice, but uh we've been talking
about the options of Well, we've been fortunate to have some large donors over the past couple years, you know, kick in on that, but and maybe that happens going forward, but you can't budget on that, right? Yeah. And really, our our our what was it? 42,000 this year. I mean, it's a
good chunk. Don't don't get me wrong, and we were very happy to get it, but we still put a lot more into it than that. All right. Thank you. questions. I guess maybe uh since Fort Myers is also discussing this, I don't know if it's any cheaper
and no someone like Sam Lur is has brought it up before a drone show. I don't know if that's any cheaper or not. Uh we we did price out the drone show just very preliminary last year. It was around 75 um per show to do to do a show like
that. Um and I know I did see the Fort Myers ones. This is going to be their last fireworks. Oh, and and they actually um the mayor actually said that I don't know if they would even do them this year, but it's their 250th anniversary, so they're going to do them. So, there are a lot of communities around um that that stopped doing them,
honestly. So, I'm not not saying that's the direction we're going, but it's just the options that we have. Sure. Thanks, John. And if you can hear that noise in the background, they are drilling into the concrete right above our head. So, we'll we'll do what we can and everybody will
speak a lot louder. Hopefully, it's not coming through too bad. Okay. My goodness, it's literally right over our head. Um, you can go to the next slide. Pretty soon, they'll be dropping bite your tongue. This was um prepared um
department by department so that you can kind of see I think you were talking about silos um like where revenues are coming in um versus expenditures. So obviously most of the administrative type um
departments like town council, town manager, town clerk, human resources, I mean they're they're not revenue generating but they're an essential function obviously. So all you see are expenses there. Finance I mean it's not exactly that we're generating the revenue but that's where all of the um
revenues are coming in in terms of ad balorum and any of the tax revenues are coming in. So that's that's as a result of that. Um so we we are ahead there but that's not because we're generating it. Short-term rentals um that obviously is
a very important um source of revenue um versus their expenses. So, I I'm a little bit concerned about the short-term rental expense. I don't think I mean, it is on this slide, but I think it's not 100% accurate. I I think we need to do some fine-tuning as far as
allocating the actual expenses that need to be allocated there. That's not been done yet. So, I think it'll go the expenses will actually go up once we allocate the appropriate amount expenses like from legal services and then the employees who are actually involved there. So, that's not representative of
that. I think that's just the software at this point. Um legal services, that's just the total cost. Um in general, um general government, you know, obviously that's there's not revenue coming in
there. Um community development, there is some revenue. Um but the the expense far out outpac the the revenues because of the types of services they're providing that aren't necessarily something that is charged for. um code enforcement um they have brought in some
revenue but um it's it's quite an operation to fund so that you know net netwise it's still contributing um a negative amount hall maintenance it's simply that it's just the cost of maintaining town hall you can go to the
next slide um before you move on sure just to I guess when I was speaking about silos I appreciate this but I I was thinking more granular We are proposing a 26% increase to the six 6.2% tax that you pay.
But I was trying to get more granular. I was looking for more things and I'll just use the example of community policing. It's something that we fought very hard for. We did get it put on there, but currently we're not using it. Is is that a revenue source that we could eliminate or not a revenue source, but is that is that is that a line item
that we could eliminate to help offset that and revisit it in the future? So that's the type of granular thing that I'm looking for to see if there's there's breakdowns in the budget somewhere, whether there's something at Bay Oaks. I know that's not going to go over well, but you know, we know year after year, that's a very large line
item to us. The Moundhouse, things like that. I'm when I say silos, I'm thinking more granular. What what is what is not what is budgeted, but we're not using. Does that make sense? Or what's not being utilized enough to warrant at this time having it as a service?
Okay. And again, as much as it pains me because we did fight very hard to get community policing on there, but if we're talking about a significant potential increase in in the millage rate, I think we need to look at all of those all of those sources. There might be more of those on the next
slide that might I don't but I understand what you're asking for. So, if you do go to the next slide, um Josh. Okay. So I think here you'll see some of those like departments like um like the Bay Oaks pool obviously that's not even open yet
but we do have liability insurance expense related to that. Bay Oaks recreation center um there's there's not a lot of gener revenue generated yet and there's a large expense associated with
operating it. Um Bayside Park is as far as budget is relatively paying for itself. um moing field operations there's you know a place where revenues are not sufficient to cover the expenses
um neighborhood services Joe could I just stop you on the Moringfield piece because I think there's a little bit of confusion about Moringfield numbers here because people are look at this and they assume that we're not charging enough to cover the costs of servicing the Moringfield and Frankie
was going to appear at Anchorage Advisory Committee yesterday yesterday to discuss this in more detail. I think he got called away to a meeting. Could we just let Frankie come up and just talk just briefly about the Marine Field because I think there were some one-time expenditures that created a little bit of a distortion in this number that that
are no longer a challenge for us going forward. Okay. Frankie, did you want to touch on that? Well, plus you're also looking at increasing fees anyway, aren't you? Uh they were just recently increased and I think they're at market rate now. So, so that it's always an option though if we need to. We got to certainly cover
our cost. The Mooring Field just by just for people who are listening uh needs to be revenue neutral. It's not a profit center for the town, but we also uh should not be operating at at a loss. And so for uh but oftentimes we have
particularly as it relates to hurricane hurricane Ian, we have we have one-time expenditures that have sometimes they're funded, sometimes they're not, sometimes Frankie, take it away. You were getting ready to opine yesterday. Yes. Good morning. My name is Frankie Karpache, community and planning devel
director for the town of Fort Myers Beach. Um the Moringfield uh is kind of a unique animal. Um after Hurricane Ian, uh putting the pieces back together, we were operating at a fraction of what the full field could could provide. And if you go back
historically, you'll see that incrementally we had just uh so many morning balls available right after the storm for immediate use compared to where we're at now, almost at full operation. Um through that time we've also had a lot of maintenance into that field. So they had to bring in engineers
to make sure that one some of those mooring balls did not transllocate with with wave action and storm action. Uh we've been running into uh putting our markers back. Uh having a lot of uh I should say not heavy-handed consulting but groups that we don't have the
expertise to bring. So we use coastal engineering people like that to come in and look at the morning field and how we can either expand or put it back better than it was. We're still in the process of doing that. In fact, we're kind of really at the tail end of that. Um the projection going forward is very good.
Um you know, we've got a a top grade operation. We asked Curtis last year when we were going through this exercise to kind of look at revenues around Curtis being our harbor master. Our harbor master. Yes. Correct. I'm sorry. Um, so we we we asked Curtis Lewig to take a look at uh operations
around here, other municipalities that operate moing fields and um we're right in that sweet spot. So when you talk about in encouraging and and and upping that fee, yes, you can tweak it. We know that cost of living everything goes up. So we we can take that up a few, but you
want to be in that that area that provides what we need to provide. Uh we're still without a a permanent structure for the moing field. They used to be in uh the hotel there. Um and after Ian that kind of got taken away. Currently they're kind of like I always
joke they're like trolls under the bridge. They're in our our uh community uh hazard trailer. Um basically doing operations. Um the dinghy dock is almost ready to be put back in. It's under a final part of manufacturing. uh we had
uh a boat loss uh to the town which we're replacing and combining two services both the uh code compliance with the maintenance staff. So that vessel will be shared uh to to do both of those items. Uh we did a a a huge cleanup operation not only through the
morning field itself but also through the canals. Not that that reflected onto the morning field but with staff time all those uh things taken into consideration. Um the numbers are what the numbers are for right now. You you you can't hide behind that. But knowing
what we've done now to set the stage for what we're going into next year, I I think we're going to be in a heck of a lot better spot for that. Thank you. Y Thank you. And I just since we're on this page, I really want to challenge staff when you look at that the most glaring number
obviously is Bay Oaks. That is almost the entire amount of the deficit that we have or what's the what's the word? It's a structural deficit. There you go. Thanks. Uh there's got to be something in there that we can help offset that. I I've got
I mean it we all know that when the pool is up and running that that offsets a lot of that cost. There's a a huge amount of the revenue that comes in from the pool. Um, we can always revisit that later, but I'd really like to get dive into the nuts and bolts of that that 1.1 million deficit at Bay Oaks.
I think we definitely will, Mr. Mayor. And I Jeff can come up and talk a little bit about this. We we we're reviewing fees across the whole town, you know, and everything. And fees are only a part of it. I know Jeff can speak to, but uh, you know, he, as he's educated me over the last 90 days, definitely, you know,
they've been holding fees steady since he not increasing fees for obvious reasons and the right reasons. Um, so but but it it is time to start looking at that. These are only make a small dent in that and but I'd like Jeff to talk in detail a little bit more now, but we'll have more ready in the coming
weeks. Yeah, Jeff Hogy, community services director. Um, just speaking about the Bay Oaks budget. Uh, I was just looking at at it right now again and you know we we do have a I think this year was one about 1.1 million um just for overall
cost and we're only we're barely hitting 500,000 which is still a lot don't get me wrong. Um we're trying to be as lean as we can. Um with all the hurricanes and and uh storms coming through uh we've been a little lenient with residents. Uh I shouldn't say lenient. We've given them the opportunity to come
back and at least try our facilities. So, we kind of held off on on some of the uh the fees, but we are going to be starting them August 15th. So, um to to have memberships back and charging for the services. Um part of the problem, too, is you can't charge fees if it's not open.
Oh, that 100%. Yeah. But even Yeah, it hasn't been open. It has. And and now we are I mean the the facility is is fully ready. Um you know, the wait room just got in this week, which is great. Um, we're still going to give the residents till the 15th to come try it out and see
our our our new equipment in our new gym. Um, pickle ball for the residents has been free. We've been charging um just a nominal fee of $5 for non-residents right now just so they can come in and use a facility too. But but all those will increase to our fee schedule. Um, which I think I talked to
Nicole. We'll post all that here soon, but it's a different different topic. But we are trying to be as lean as possible. Um, you know, it is a huge deficit for sure. I I understand that and you know, I'm I'm willing to to look at it, you know, line by line and see what we can do to
to make some cuts. And well, Jeffy, and I think it's, you know, we all understand this is some some temporary things, right, that we're going through. And I know once that facility is done, all the grading is done and and the field is done, there's going to be opportunities to create events there that can bring money in to
help offset these costs. fully understand that. But I think, you know, we can revisit that next year, right, when when everything's done and back up and but I really would challenge you to find individual items because if we talk about some of these other things that have been discussed already with, you know, fireworks and
and law enforcement and community policing and things like that. Now, that number gets much less, right? that you're and I'm not suggesting that we completely get rid of Bay Oaks and get rid of that 1.1 million, but I think a combination of all these can help us get that number down to where it's a manageable number at at least.
Yeah. Yeah. And I know the it's always kind of the the addage that the rec centers don't necessarily make make money at all. They're a community service to the to the U but we want to get at least closer to that number and I I totally agree with that. um you know like I think it was right before Ian we
tried to do a a decentsized fee increase and um you know that we we went over months of that with borab I don't know Karen if you remember that or Dan I think you were on there too um but uh I think it's you know it's time and I I know we our our main goal is to have the
services definitely for the residents at a lower cost um and try to you know charge a little bit more for the non-residents that come in come and do it. So, we might be we'll probably be doing some fee fee tweaking. Um, we want to get the programs back, too. You're right. To councelor Woodson's uh point,
we don't we haven't had anything going on there. I understand that. I really do. We want to get senior senior programs back and get people in there and and gain some revenue, too. And um and have more sports leagues. We had such a good momentum going before Helen with uh some some leagues and and stuff
gaining revenue. So, we just got to get that back. And I definitely though u Mr. Mayor will look at the budget. And this is where this might be a little off topic so I could have just a little ley the pool. I know we sent it off for bid once and it came back because we didn't have enough people bid on it.
Have we cleared that hurdle now? Now that the RFP or the the request is over now, now we can move forward even if there is not three. Yes, we have. That's correct. So yes, on the 15th, I'm sorry to interrupt. On the 15th, we will be awarding the bid. Um we only had one come in which this round the first round
we needed three qualified bids to come in. um or we had to go rebid and we only had one or two for the pool. So, we did get the okay now that we went through the second, we got one bid. So, they're the design. So, we're going to get the design one contract ready to go and then after that will be the construction. So,
it is moving. It's just we've we've had kind of hurdles and hurdles with the process. And I think it's important to note that the re the rebuild of this pool will be funded through CDBGR funding, which we've already been approved for. It will not come out of the general fund. It's not part of what we're discussing here,
but it will be significant in being able to help offset some of these costs that we have a deficit for right now. Absolutely. It's going to be a much nicer. The other pool was nice, but this is going to be much nicer. And I think we're we usually get a lot of uh the summers, for example, we get a lot of bus loads of kids coming in from summer
camps. We haven't had that. Um, so I think just with having a new pool and and some great marketing by our team, I think we're going to get a good response to our pool for sure. But yes, it will not come out of the general fund um at all. It's getting paid for through the CDB uh GDR uh project through the
through HUD and the county. Don't we have FEMA in there too or not? Or is it just CD? Yeah, we'll have to pay FEMA will be first. I think we got close to 180,000 for the pool from FEMA, I think, coming. Okay. And I the pool alone was when we cost it out was a little more than the the slide
alone was more than that. So yeah. Yeah. I mean they we know how that process goes. Jeff, as you get ready to initiate membership fees again, I remember and and it's been a while, so help correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you guys,
to your credit, got uh got the Bay uh facility accredited with the Silver Sneakers program designation. Is that correct? Yeah, we did. Um I Neil uh Matthysse, who's our our manager down there, we he's been looking into it again. I mean, we we still have it. We just got to get
the paperwork in line uh with the insuranceances. But yeah, we were approved by Silver Sneakers, so that's going to help. And that's really big because a lot of folks if if we're accredited through Silver Sneakers, they're they're the membership to Bay Oaks could be covered by their health insurance program or a good majority of it. Yeah. Or a good majority of it. So that could
really be particularly if we advertise that well, that could be really helpful to a lot of folks. And Council Edhold, we we really fought for that one because they said we were in too close to another Silver Sneakers, but none on the island. So, I'm like, you could go an hour and a half to get to one, but so we we did get that
approved finally. That was a big deal. Yeah, let's not Yeah, let's let's really push that. But I I agree, we we need to look at this budget and uh and go line by line and and Mr. Mayor, I'm kind of in the same way. We need to get in the weeds a little bit line by line and and see what we can do. But and just to be clear, the
fireworks budget is in the Bay Oaks budget. Oh, it is. Okay. Yeah. It's it's under our special events. So, that is a portion of it. Um, I know one point one million's a lot and 100 or 200,000 is just a drop in the bucket, but I think it would help.
Appreciate it. Thank you. And this might be a good time just to remind everyone that um even if we do increase fees as part of the budget, it's not going to change the deficit. It just reduces the amount of lost revenue that we have, which reduces the amount of the bridge loan. So it's just but
it's it's good because it'll reduce the amount of the bridge loan but it won't solve the deficit problem for this year. Um the other thing the questions that came up regarding um the moing field that did cause me to wonder and look
because I wasn't a part of the the process of putting it together. I would like to look at the line items to see there's a possibility that maybe there's something in there added to the general fund budget that might be more appropriate in the capital fund budget. So, I want to just take a look at that.
So, that that's a possibility that may be causing this to appear more than it should be. Any other questions on on this topic on this slide? Yeah. Okay. And just
again, it's not going to be widely popular, but looking at the the you know, a lot of the top line items on their moundhouse as well. That's that's something I would really encourage us to look line by line at them to see if there's any possible way to every little
bit helps at this case to eliminate that def the deficit spending. So any of those big ones we could really dive into. Okay, go to the next slide, Josh. Okay, and then this is just to kind of
reiterate what we already presented regarding the bridge loan. It's calculated based on 2022 revenues, which are the pre-Ean revenues except for adorum. And the reason for adorum being
an exception is that the effect of the on property tax values isn't felt until the the next year. And so then at that po for that reason we're comparing the ad balorarm revenue line item to the
actual revenues collected in 2023. And then this is just to remind everyone until we are no longer using the bridge loan according to the terms of the agreement we may not use any non-adalorm revenue for capital projects because they're expecting us to use any
non-adalorm revenue to go towards repayment of the bridge loan. And Joe, maybe this is a good time to reiterate what you said on Monday. the these roughly seven and a half million that we received in state appropriations for revenue replacement has been put aside for replacement of the bridge
loan. Is that is that a fair statement? Oh, absolutely. So, that'll that'll cover that much of the bridge loan. Um, but that doesn't cover the whole thing. Sure. But there there is obviously interest associated with the bridge loan and the repayment got moved out to 2033, but
staff has taken proactive stance on making sure that money is there to to repay this loan. Well, should should it not be forgiven down the road some? That's true. I mean, well, well, what I guess what I want to say is there's no zero balance to start paying it back.
Uh, I'm sorry. Now, that comment, I'm not quite sure I understand. When you say no zero balance, well, the 7.5 million in appropriations has been set aside to Yes. for specifically for repayment of this bridge loan. It's not zero. There's some miscon misconception out there that
we're not planning for repayment of this loan and all of a sudden we're going to be hit with it later should it not be forgiven is what I'm trying to get at. No, that that's very true. And and what also there's been the interest on the bridge loan dollars has been accumulating. So that is also going
towards repayment of it. So it's all within that fund. And you know up until we now are needing to use another $1.4 4 million of it. Before that point, we should have had just enough to repay the bridge loan.
So, basically, this having to use the 1.4 million this coming year is now the amount that we need to figure out how to repay. So, you just you just piqu my interest in something, Mr. Mayor. So, so are you saying that we got a $7 million
appropriation to pay back the bridge loan? Well, it was a it was for revenue replacement and so that that was the purpose of it. So I mean in my Is that sitting there in a pot somewhere? It is and it's it's it is and it's acrewing interest.
Well, I think I mean I I haven't looked. I mean it's either in its own fund. There was it was placed in its own fund when we first got it, but part the plan was to use it to repay the bridge loan. So honestly, I don't know if it got moved into the bridge loan fund or if it's sitting still sitting in it own
fund. But either way, it's there and it's acrewing. But didn't the contracts in those say that any interest acrewed would go back to the state since it was an appropriation or was that just the bridge loan part of it? No, there's nothing in the bridge loan. The revenue replacement has nothing like that because that is simply a grant.
There is no strings attied to that. So, Mr. Mayor, I just just curious the thinking of the legislature. So, we got a $7 million appropriation to help pay back the bridge loan. Why did they do that versus forgive the bridge loan? What was the What was their thinking? Well, I I can't speak for the
legislature, but I I can tell you if you remember the first year there was a significant amount of money that was uh appropriated for revenue replacement to the fire district and and I can't speak for the legislature, but I think there was a little misunderstanding that the fire district doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the town of Fort Myers
Beach when it comes to budgeting. Um, so I don't want to say it was a mistake, but I think that there was I think the intent was to try to help out overall. So I think to your, you know, we needed this, we needed the bridge loan right away to be able to operate and keep the lights on. So that was something that
that we were able to get right away and then obviously next year when we brought it to their attention that that that 14 or 14.5 million was great, but the town of Fort Myers Beach doesn't actually see any of that revenue. Uh, and I think that's when they went back and and tried to help us
get some revenue replacement. So, I think it was some crossing lines there a little bit, if you will, much like everybody does. A lot of people don't understand that the fire district does not fall under the jurisdiction of the town of Fort Myers Beach when it comes to budgeting. So, I think it might have been a simple mistake. And again, I don't want to
speak for them, but that's my interpretation of what I think I saw. No, that's helpful. Thank you. I didn't know that background. Yeah. Okay. Um, okay. You can go. I want to say very thankful for it. and just try not absolutely absolutely try to understand it. Yeah.
Thank you, Josh. So, I know this is um probably too small, but I tried to put it on two slides. So, this was just to show in presentation format how the lost revenue was calculated. And so, we have
in that first column of numbers, it's the FY22 actual revenues. And then the second column of numbers is FY23 actual revenues. So we're graying out that very first line for ad valorum
and the FY2 because that's that's not relevant to the comparison because what what this is leading to is we want to compare one of those two columns to the proposed budget. And so we're graying out the FY22 figure for AD valorum
because we're only going to be using the FY23 figure for adorum. All of the rest of the revenue line items we are comparing to the FY22 preun levels. We're graying out FY23 because that's not relevant. But I wanted to present
both. Maybe it was overkill, but just so maybe visually you could understand and see, you know, which figures we're using to compare um our FY26 budget to. And then the far right hand column is is the difference between um the column that
we're comparing to whether it's 22 or 23 and the proposed budget. The reason why the difference is zero for ad valorum is that this is the point at which we crossed um for ad valorum is now um about $69,000
more than it was in FY23. So that's no longer factored in to the um lost revenue calculation. So Joe to to try to simplify what I think I just heard you say and for people out there is although it may appear that the adalarum has come back to where it was
pre-storm this is just a demonstration of how everything else that goes into that besides the advalarum has not caught up to the adalarum numbers yet. Yes, absolutely. I mean, there are a few scattered here. There you'll see some positive figures. So, they help reduce the amount of revenue, lost revenue, but
most most everything the majority of them are still below um hurricane preian levels. Um you can go to the next slide, I think, Josh. I'm sorry. So, are are we going to go through some of these items and try to understand better why we're in a in a in a deficit
situation? In other words, I see a pretty significant number for state communication services. Could we flush that out a little bit? And and I don't have all the data, Jim, but from what I understand just sort of general thoughts. I mean, is the is is this
what falls within that? What falls within that? And why would it be down and what's what's is it on a path to recover? Just in a general sense. I don't need specific numbers. just trying to understand this this this deficit that we're in. Well, this that would be the tax on
communications obviously like the name the name implies and what that would be like cell phone, internet, that type of thing. So those services to so to the extent that we've lost homes, we've lost um any the users of those services
because they're they're not there or it's not handable inh or habitable. That's a line item on my utility bill that goes to the state that the state then kicks back to us. Yes. Based upon how many folks are utilizing those lines. And so to the extent that that has so
that's why it dropped so dramatically initially because we lost so many um people online basically. And so as as homes are coming back in as people are moving back in as condos are coming back on all of that then starts to increase. And so it's kind of related to the um
adalorum property um tax in terms of the the units the buildings and living spaces are coming back online. I just think again Joe I don't expect you to do a specific analysis of the state communications fees but but I do think it would be helpful for people to
understand what these various variables are that are creating the structural deficit and and how they're trending. In other words, are some of these fees that we'll never get again or they're just are they just does it just take time to trend back? I just think it would help
for us for planning purposes to understand is this going to get better on its own? Are there steps we need to take? Obviously, we need to take steps to balance our budget, but I'm talking about longer term. Are these all items that are trending positively? or they well possibly when we well the folks at
home won't see it but the handout I provided that might shed some light and maybe give help answer some of what the questions you're raising because that what the handout is my forecast is my so it shows what it's what is trending
how that could come back and how quickly so I suppose um we could transition to that if you'd like to do that now um to look at that and can we make sure will that this gets out to so they understand what we're Absolutely.
Is it possible that this was already posted on the website? I don't know because I know I just sent it out last night. Um it is it's um under the agenda if you click on the Oh, this this one I just sent it out last night. Oh, we'll get it on there momentarily.
It'll be available. Um, so I know this is a handout because it's a lot of columns, but I wanted to kind of present the picture to you. So it's it's these revenue line items. And there's a second slide to that completes this list, but it's all of
those same revenue line items and it shows you where we started prein FY22 and then there's the actual for FY23 24 25. I have the budget for 25 because it's
it's pretty close but it's not you know obviously we haven't finished 25 so I don't have a here today figure. So, I'm using the budget um as a way to calculate what an annual amount would be. Um then we have the FY26 budget and
then we have the forecasted years for FY27, 28, 29, and 30. So, what I've got forecasted out for you for 27, 28, 29, and 30. All of those line items that are not highlighted,
I've used a trend formula within Excel that looks at how the those revenue line items changed over those years since Hurricane Ian to project out where they're going to continue to go. So,
it's basically a mathematical formula. I don't there's like no I can't guarantee that's going to happen. So, yeah. So I think the easiest way to say it is is basically what you're saying for for those of us that like like things brought down to just simple basics. What the what this is basically
showing is obviously this doesn't include things that are outside anyone's control weatherwise or otherwise. But based on the projections, based on mathematical equations, based on trends and and things of that, it looks like in 2028, a lot of what we're talking about
here in the def deficiency in these funds will be tied to our our recovery. The more people that come back, the lower those numbers will get. Yes. And based on what we're looking at in 2028, it now goes to positive versus a negative. Yes. So the bottom line of all of these
figures in 2028, you know, if all of this plays out relatively closely, we we will be in a a positive um revenues will exceed expenditures um by not much, but I mean so basically
be coming back to break even in 2028. And that's factoring in a 3% annual increase of expenditures for inflation. I looked at the Federal Reserve forecast and they're they're projecting out like
2% going that far, but I use three just to be conservative. Um, just for health insurance alone. And I mean that it's it's probably going to be more. So, but I use three um just so you know. So, Joe, that's that's just general
revenue. That's not counting putting in into emergency fund reserves nor any other funds. Is that correct? Well, um okay. The um what I'm the forecasted expenses that bottom line that I'm using, it's starting off with
this what we're proposing for the FY26 budget. You know, I'm starting as that at the beginning point and then increasing it there 3%. So, it does include the $500,000 transfer to um the emergency fund that
we do propose to have in the FY26 budget. Um and of course, if we lower the FY26 budget by any changes we make between now and when it's approved, that'll further improve the picture.
Joe, as we look at some of the larger items on this list, I see one called the public service tax. Yes. Which is a tax levied by local governments on the purchase of specific utility services. Yes. Um
does that track in terms of uh how we recover from Ian? Is that necess what you've got here? because that's a significant it's it's related to the water um pretty much our the water utilities um that are charged by um that we charge but um it's
a tax that's on that it's on your water bill then it should be and then um depending on as more and more people come in line with water as well then that would increase so that's related one that kind of confused me a bit was there's something called an
administrative charge yes can you explain a little bit about what that is and how that's trending. Yeah, part of that is in there's an administrative charge um that the the general fund charges the water
department. So that some a good portion of it is that. So that's that's static. That doesn't really change very much. But the other other portion of it that's built in when we do a rate case that would be built into the rate. would be it would be um but the other piece of
that would be I think through comm community community development if I understand correctly. I think they have administrative charges on some of their processes that they um that they add on to um the fees as part of their fees. I
don't know the details on that but that's and back to the state communication services which we we believe is a line item on your your your uh cell phone uh bill. taken by the state and then kicked back to the local municipality. If you look at the trend line on that, in fiscal
year 2022, we received 564,000. But that doesn't seem to recover like some of the other categories. I wonder did the state cut that tax? I mean, would it be possible to have somebody on your staff contact the public service commission here in Florida and see what
why that why it's trending the way it is? It looks a little different than some of the other categories. Doesn't seem to be recovering. uh uh quite that well and and it doesn't even by fiscal year 30 it doesn't even come close to what it was in 22. That just seems seems
odd just for planning purposes because that seems like a that's a significant amount of money. But and you're referring to the public service tax, the state communication. I'm sorry. State communication services. Okay. That seems like an odd trend line for
that. In fiscal year 30, we're still not back to where we were in 2022. That seems odd. Not even close. it and it may be tied to landlines and maybe that's you know it can be used for various um types
of services so we can find out exactly what it's tied to. I'm sure the public service commission could give you that detail. It'd be helpful for planning purposes. Thank you. It would it would be it would be internet as well, right? That would fall under there. I mean theoretically that's what the tax can be applied to. I don't know for sure
how it's being, you know, that we can verify. And and I've noticed over the past few years, Jim, that a lot of condo associations are assuming one contract and dispersing internet, so to speak. So, as opposed to each individual one
unit having its own internet, you're the numbers are much smaller, right? You're getting a better deal as a condo association versus each individual homeowner, if you will, having their own. So that might have a play into why that number is somebody somewhere has to know why. I would think so. Yeah.
Yeah. I think that that's a possibility. All right. We'll see what we can find out and shed some light on that. Um is there anything else? Oh, and then just to further explain the chart to finish that off. So over on the right
side is I have my lost revenue calculation. So it follows the same methodology, but I just did it for each of the forecasted years. So really um FY27 is should be if it all goes according to this forecast should be the last year
that we have lost revenue in comparison to Hurricane Ian. And that should be the last year we would have to use the bridge loan and these numbers will obviously change depending on discussions through September and when the final budget is adopted. Uh yes, more than likely.
Yes. Well, especially the expenditure line item against which all of these revenue line items are compared to. Yes, for sure and this does not include uh the proposed increum. So that is not a factor in this.
So in essence what you're saying what you're predicting Joe and I know it's a prediction uh is the structural deficit that we're seeing today would theoretically be gone in 27. Is that what you're saying? Um the I know you're not saying it definitively, but that's what you're predicting.
Well, I mean, it'll be gone in 28. I mean, so in 28 and that's Yes. It's something that I don't know if it's helps or just makes makes it worse, but um there it's also important to note what's not in the budget yet. And I
think it's been kind of shared in different forms with you, but we we don't there is no um formal plan like to repay the bridge loan. We were assuming that once we get out of out of the need to use it, then we would be be able to certainly apply um any savings towards
that and they would build up quickly. We need to put more probably more into the emergency fund and we'll see where we're at once we can do a more extensive analysis of where we are at today to see what more we might need to add because
there as we moving along um we've been finding out FEMA is not going to um reimburse us for as much as we thought on and particular projects. So which means we have to spend use more of the emergency fund. So I don't know where we're at like today. use use the term
emergency fund that's synonymous with our reserves. Is that is that fair? Well, that's where that's where our emergency reserves are. We have some in the general fund, but that's it's that's not really that's like the last resort to use, but there that's primarily in
the emergency fund. Yeah. Um but so we don't have that. And of course, beach reourishment I is a huge concern for the island. And there's nothing in this year's budget specifically to contribute towards beach reourishment to our our
match of what beach reourishment grants may require of us. So we need to kind of move into a position where we have we have additional funding from the general fund to contribute to emergency reserve to contribute to beach nourishment and then
for any other special needs like canal dredging whatever it is you might decide to use um general fund revenue for. Are are you getting do you have a slide on the on the emergency fund or I do not so I was just going to ask you on the emergency fund
obviously you've referenced a number of particular items but in terms of just funding our general revenue after a catastrophe is your is what's your goal for your emergency reserves or emergency fund is it to have three months is it to have six months what's your I I noticed
the other day Sarasota's their goal was to have three months of funding uh in case there a catastrophe. What What is your sort of general goal in your head? Well, within the general fund, and I'm sorry. I mean, I I had all this in my I
worked on all that specifically and but it's not in my head at the moment, but this was like months ago, but I believe we have at least three months if not more in the general fund in the general fund to maintain operations. But in
terms of the emergency fund, I think I did that presentation where I calculated how much cash we burned through right after Hurricane Ian before we ever got a penny from anybody. And to me, that was what we should have on hand in case we ever have a repeat of that scenario. Um,
so we can make sure we have enough cash on hand for that. So I want to say it was around four or five million. I don't remember, but I I'll I'll definitely pull all that information back up um to include in the next presentation.
And I know you're just you're not prepared today to talk about it, but you said four or five million would be the goal for that. What What do we have today fund? Well, that's one of my concerns because I and I don't want to speak publicly on it because I think I think since I've been gone, I mean, I
knew I knew what it was when I was gone and it was okay, but when I run reports now, it's it doesn't look right. But I think it's just a simple matter of there's some accounting entries that have to be made to kind of get everything back in alignment. So, I
don't want to alarm anyone by mentioning anything publicly about this or that because it's really too soon for me to okay speak to that. But that is one of my priorities. Well, that being the case and I respect that. So, so but are we are we halfway
to our goals of getting reserve to the point where you would be comfortable? Are we a quarter of the way? Can you just give us some general perspective or or or maybe maybe you can't. Well, I mean, one thing I can say, um, I know before I left, I don't know, it was a few weeks, one of the
previous the last town council meeting, so it must have been in April, I think, because I was here through April 30th. We were I could see that we were going to be falling short of cash in the emergency fund because we we're spending
spending spending, but nothing's coming from FEMA yet. Nothing's coming. And so at that point we did before you move I want to clarify what you just said because I I guarantee you people are going to hear something different what you just said and what is important is in order to get reimbursed from FEMA you have to outlay the capital first.
Exactly. So it's not that we were just freakishly spending money. It was to to do projects that were approved by FEMA to do to get reimbursement. Thank you for clarifying that. Just want to make sure because people were going to hear Jim. The other thing too is no matter what we have today,
we're going to need more tomorrow because costs are going to go up and and everything else. Just I appreciate that. I'm just trying to get a sense of where we're at today and what's our goal tomorrow. What what do we need to how much further do we need to go to get to where our comfort level is. So, I just want to add I I appreciate
that, but as we look forward, you you have to realize that 4 million today is not four million tomorrow, nor is it 4 million in in 20 2030. So, yep. And I'm not saying it is. I'm not saying there's a finite number, but I I do think there would We ought to have some idea of what our goal is.
Absolutely. That's all I'm trying to figure out what it is. And I'm And it sounds like you've got some some work to do. Just Yes. And that's fine. That's fine. We can we can discuss it at our budget hearing. I just I'm just curious where we are. And I I agree with you, Scott. The reserve piece
is really important. But but I also want to give people a sense as to you know there states around the country are debating how much is enough for their rainy day fund. Some folks some states have more than enough in the rainy day fund and there's a big fight about and that's a nice problem to have by the way
but but but you know what is that what is that goal and and I obviously with with inflation and that's always changing but but what is the goal so we know what what we're meeting and how we how we can plan accordingly. And I and I don't think quite honestly my opinion is three months is enough. I mean if you
just look at how much was spent in the first month alone after the storm that three months is not enough. If anybody looks at their own personal finances after the storm three months would not have been enough. And I think maybe we're talking about two different things or at least in my
mind what we have in the general fund is about three months. So that's just to keep normal operations. The emergency fund is a totally separate thing and that's we're talking about we need millions more and that's much more than three months. It's to cover those initial outputs of cash expenditures to
cover all the emergency response. So that's that's a different figure and what I was going to mention is right before I left we could see that the money was going out faster than FEMA was able because it takes so long to get it
approved by FEMA. We were I was seeing that we were going to be short $4 million at least. And so we borrowed $4 million from the bridge loan to put into the emergency fund to make sure there was enough cash in there. It was just a
cash loan. It wasn't to literally pay for things because we were expecting the money from FEMA. We just didn't have the cash yet. So, we we borrowed or loaned $4 million from the bridge loan to put in the emergency fund, but I even after
having done that, I think it it's it's exceeded that. I mean, we need more than we need to put more into just to break even in terms of cash. And once the reimbursements start coming back from FEMA, we'll be okay again. It's just, you know, this it's just this
interim period that I'm concerned about because it's I want to make sure that I'm up to date with where we really are so that we can make whatever recommendations we might need to make or to replenish the emergency fund at least temporarily because we're we're heading
into right on the next hurricane season. We want to make sure we have enough. I mean, and it's it's all there. It's just in what where is it and what where do we need to move things to get to be in the right positions so that we're ready. Um so I'm I mean I'm not in any way
alarmed. I'm just I just need to get a handle on where everything is so that we can readjust as we need to. And you'll you'll you'll likely have that information by the time we have our first budget uh meeting in September. Oh yes sir. because that's part I mean the emergency fund is one of the funds
we have all the funds we need to present to you and so part of that is doing this analysis. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. So um did you have any other questions on the forecast or is that sufficient coverage of that? Um
anyone questions? Think she'll and then I think were there any more questions regarding the lost revenue calculation here? Um, and if if you do think of any other um line items you'd like to be um further explained, you
know, we can have, you know, I'd be happy to research those um for you. Um, so you can go to the next slide, Josh. Um, and this is just to show you where we're at with the bridge loan. Um, so with the um additional 1.4 4 million
that it looks like we need to use to to balance the FY26 budget. The total amount of the loan we'll have used by then is almost 9.3 million. So that leaves us with 2.6 million um available,
but it doesn't look like we'll need to use that much of it um going forward. So that should be the end of it after next year. Um, so, so when we're when the end of it occurs next year, well, actually, you've got a half
million for next year. 27. Correct. I I Yeah, I didn't, you were correct, Scott, and I didn't say it clearly enough, but yes, after next year's use, then Okay. He did say the word about, though. Okay, you're correct. So, so, so then when
when we reach that point with the the legislative appropriation that the mayor referenced earlier, what is our actual debt obligation to pay off the loan assuming it's not forgiven? Well, okay, if you factor in what was
it, the five um 42 into that. So, that's that's about 9.8 8 versus so it's about we'll have 1.1 million left we have um
like say 7.6 of revenue placement so that's 8.7 so we'll have about 3.2 2 million I think and this maybe I'm if I calculate it right where we have to repay and that interest the interest
and then the interest they're probably at there's at least a million dollars of interest is that interest 10% oh you mean what what what's the interest on that amount we just you just referenced it's 10% but does it it has its is the 10% started from day one or is it it
kicks in in I see what you're asking the 10% amount ount of interest the interest rate on the loan that does not kick in until um is it the year 2033 when when the loan is due. Okay. So right now it's interest right
now excuse me for interrupting but right now it's interest free. Yes. So yes if if we pay it back before 2033 we're we're good. But if any remaining balance is at 10%. That's correct. Of the unpaid portion not not the original principal. Correct.
Correct. It's what whatever the remaining unpaid principal balance is. Correct. That's a good clarification. So this even more granular. So do we just sit on the the legislative appropriation and gain interest on it while or do we do we go
I mean that was that's one I think that could be a valid way to go because we'll have it. It'll be earning interest. It'll be suffic there'll be a sufficient am amount to pay it back. So that would free us of the obligation or the restriction I should say to not be able
to use any non-ADROM revenues for capital. So it's kind of like the best of both worlds, but I don't know how long that'll last because at some point you know we may something may change um and they may require something different of us. And just for our
reification be before Ian or right after Ian we all our interestbearing CDs were were garnishing like point 0.75 interest and we moved those around to to get closer to four or five. Correct.
That's true. And for like I think the previous fiscal year was at 5%. So now now it's more like four and a half four maybe 4.3 right now. But I think so. Um it's it's been very good interest rate return on investment. Now we have other
um federal funds that we are required to um pay any interest that we earn on those balances to to the state I think it is. And so that is what we've been doing on those. The bridge loan is just different. They don't require us to do that.
Thank you. And I think that was that the last slide. Um Josh is there one more? Maybe it's the question slide. Oh no. Oh there is more. I forgot about this part. Okay. So this is to um help um any residents who are concerned about what is the
impact of a potential mill rate increase on on them. And this was put together um by Dr. Kohler. So we're grateful for her assistance in providing this. And we just put it in a presentation format. So the one this is to take an example of a
$500,000 market value home. Um the top part is if there's a homestead exemptions. The bottom part is if there are no homestead exemptions. So with um the milladrid increase, the difference
the total increase in terms of property tax revenue on the 500,000 market value home with homestead exemptions is $106 a year or $8.83 a month. If there are no
homestead exemptions, the impact is a little bit higher. It's $132.50 50 for the year which equates to $114 per month. Um and then we have a second slide with
a million dollar market value example. So again um the top part represents um an example if they are have home if they do have homestead exemptions and then the bottom has if they don't. So, if they do have homestead exemptions, a $1
million market value home, the the increase the proposed increase in millary would have an impact of $238.50 per year, which would be $19.88 per month. Um, if they do not have
homestead exemptions, the impact would be $265 per year or $228 per month. I think this is a good I know we say it a lot but a lot of people don't understand it when they look at their their trim notice that it's last year
was 6.2% of your trim notice actually went to the town of Fort Myers Beach. I think that's what you're trying to illustrate here because there's a lot of new homeowners here that maybe don't understand it. And for those that are listening that want a good example, you you did a really nice pie chart last year's budget. If you go to page 26 of
last year's budget, it's very easy to find on the town's website. It shows you the percentage breakdown of what your total overall yeah millage rate goes to. For example, 45.4% goes to the school board. So almost 50% of what you pay in your your property taxes go to the school and then it goes
from there to Lee County and goes on down the line. But we say it all the time, but I think when people see the headlines in the news, 26% increase, it's not if you're paying $10,000 a year, it's not 26% of $10,000. It's 26% of 6%
6.2% of $10,000. We have I think the next slide might um be represent what you just were describing. Could you go to the next slide, Josh? Um this Oh, no. I'm sorry. It's probably the slide after that. If that Thank you. This is um the
presentation that um the mayor was just referring to, but it's it's in instead of a pie chart, it's a list. So, it shows that town of Fort Myers Beach is 6.2% 2% of a person's resident's total tax bill. Um, and it just lists the ones that are more or less than that.
So, the school is 26.6% plus 18.8%. So, to give you an example, I' done the math for you. 68.8% of what you pay in your property taxes go to Lee County and the school board. So, when you see 20, again, you know,
headlines sell. So when people see 26% they think or some think 26% means I'm paying 26% of whatever my trim notice says. That's not the case. And I know we have to say it over and over and people still don't quite understand it. On Monday I mentioned my property tax
bill. I don't have in front of me now but I I paid roughly out of my property tax bill of7,000 and change 3,000 of that went to the schools and that $435 went to the town of Fort Myers Beach. It's it's it's it's an important distinction. I mean, it
doesn't mean to we don't mean to minimize what we're talking about today, but I think we need to put it into context. And some people are visual. That's why I brought up that if you go back to last year's budget, you could see the pie chart, and it's a vis it's it's very good. Yeah. When you see that visual, it's it's a
percentages, but when you see a visual, it makes a big difference. Well, we'll be sure to have the pie chart. Um I think Josh Josh, if you could go back to the previous slide. This was just a presentation of what um for anyone who cares about this, this is
where our millage rate stands um where it was in FY25 versus what's proposed in the various communities around us in comparison to those Joe, you know, folks are look at this and and it's it's an important piece of
information, but at the same time, you know, in fairness, it does these other municipalities have a police department, right? What's Well, what's sign how significant is is that is the police department piece of the puzzle when we compare these numbers? It's probably fairly significant. I I
don't I mean I I'd have to see their budget to know how it is in comparison, but the police department is very expensive. Yeah. Just just in full. I I still think we have one of the the best rates in in the in Southwest Florida, but it is just to be fair, I think some of these folks
have additional expenses to the to their police department. Yes. Well, that be everybody above us, but everybody below us doesn't have their own police beneath. Yeah, but the other two below us didn't get clobbered by it. Exactly. They didn't have the damage
that we had to build back. Yeah. The rates themselves are probably that's just a piece of the puzzle. there's the actual revenue that they collect um based on the size based right they must have a larger tax
base possibly to generate more revenue um so I think if he's that may be getting to the end yes okay is there anything else John any more questions for Joe I don't think so vice mayor
no thank you counc so I I do have a question so I know that this these last two pages general fund. Where do impact fees for all of the approvals that we've made and everything, where do they fall into? And
more importantly, when are we getting our impact fee finalized and moving forward? It's been sitting out there for nine months. I know that's in the works, but I think there needs to be a hard press put on that consulting firm to get that back to us and get it moving. But
where does the impact fees fall in here? The impact fees are within their own fund. I think there's road impact and park impact fees. They're they're in they're individual funds. So, and those revenues can only be used for specific
kinds of improvements associated with each one. um you know that there's like the string that's attached to that is I think if I remember right one of the last meetings I was at I think Jason was presenting some update on the impact fees I think
he may have said something like they only will generate 25% of what we need and we need to generate these se the other 75% of whatever projects we want to fund with impact fees. So, you know, that's yet one more thing we would have
to add to the general fund budget is how are we going to fund our 75% of the impact fee projects. So, it's just that's further in the future. Um, it's not an immediate need, but it was something that just stuck in my ear
because he did mention, well, you could do it through bonds and that, which is true, but we we're not allowed to borrow anything while we have not yet have enough set aside to pay the bridge loan. So, but, you know, we're getting closer, you know, and then all those options will start opening up.
Anything else? No, I'm good. Yeah. Um, how how quickly can you uh get a handle on the emergency reserve fund? Get it like by the end of end of August so we have time to digest it before I would certainly hope so by then. But
yes, I I that'll be that's like my top thinking more like tomorrow. No, but it's just that there's um I just have to make sure that all the pieces that feed into that, you know, there's a lot of I don't want I I shouldn't speak too generally. there are pieces that are
missing that haven't been addressed yet because nobody knew to address them or they hadn't simply didn't have the capacity to address them yet. So, but now that we're back and I know I know what to look for and focus on, we can kind of redirect our efforts onto that just to make sure that we're we're
rapidly coming up to to um up to date where we need to be on on those pieces. And then I think, you know, I should be able to tell because we need all that as well for the the budget presentations that are coming up and finalizing the budget because it all feeds into the budget. Okay.
Well, great. Well, great job. Thank you. I appreciate the 1 a.m. email as always. Yeah, really. And as always, I mean, I just coming in at the end, you know, it was all the department heads, all them. They uh they did a great job who put it all together and Cassandra compiling it. So, um I
just get to present it. Gassad, thank you. You didn't get a shout out yet. Yeah, a lot of hard work. It's nice to know that you got a good team working with you to to help alleviate some of your stress. Oh, absolutely. I was like I was sitting with her while she was doing the presentation thing. I never had any help
like this before. This is incredible. Don't don't walk off yet, Joe. I think we vice mayor has another question. I got one one quick question, Joe. And you may have gone through this in your slides, but but people are paying a lot of permitting fees right now. Yes. And and I guess my question just a general
question is are the permitting fees covering all the costs of the permitting? In other words, that's a dedicated fund. So when you pay a permit fee, it can't be used for general revenue. It can't be paid used for stuff except within the permitting realm. It's its own dedicated fund. Is that cash
flowing? Is there a surplus in that fund? How how is how are things going with all these permitting fees coming in? Uh okay. in general. Well, I would say in general, I think we're it's a positive direction, but that so as the fees ramp down, you know,
we'll still continue to have a need for that. So, we'll be able to that would be where we can take advantage of any I mean, if you want to call it surplus that we may have collected, we we could then start tapping into that rather than raising fees um for for that building
fund itself. Um but it's been a positive cash flow going in there and I know especially um I just was looking at the audit I can't tell quote the figures but it definitely was for last as of the end of FY24 which would be almost a year ago
now there was much more revenue coming in than expenditures going out so it it is paying for itself. Are you allowed to uh develop a surplus in a dedicated fund that you can use when things? Well, no. I mean, we'll have to look at I
mean, that's what you have to look at where you have to look at it carefully because we may have to actually consider decreasing fees. If if that's I mean, that's one of the possibilities. That's my question. Yeah. So if if it turns out where we have much more than
we could possibly spend, I mean then certainly we have to cut the fees because you cannot just build up the surplus. But if it if we if we need to maintain services and and if we can avoid increasing fees by you using what may have built up
until we kind of reach an equilibrium, you know, that that's probably how it will play out. Um but we you know we don't know until we do that kind of analysis. Okay. Thank you. And those funds can also be used. I think to the manager's point earlier, back to the hiring, you know, if it can
bring in if we're seeing a bottleneck in flood plane reviews or we're seeing environmental things like that, those funds could be used to help offset that to bring that time frame down to a more manageable time frame for the residents. Yes. And later, to your point, you can
adjust staffing at that point to to to meet where the demand is or lower fees if that's the that's the case. Yes. Yes. the um the things I have for you, Joe, and for staff. I would I would like to challenge you was brought up, I believe, by councelor Woodson and and
also by councelor King. You know, we are a tourist town, but yet we really don't have a lot of things in place other outside the TDC funding or I believe it's 5% or something and then we get a minimal amount of that back that goes into the county and then we get a little
bit back to the TDC. I would like to explore at least see some options of what it would be to have some sort of fee that you know the visitors are shouldering some of these things that we're talking about versus just being on the residents and the businesses. It's probably not going to be a popular thing to discuss, but I think it's something
that we should certainly look at as as we're seeing the trends that we're seeing through um tourists coming in through short-term rentals and all these other things. Um, I think we should really look at how can we impose a fee or at least have a discussion about it of of offsetting some of these costs
that we're talking about with this uh deficiency spending that that we that Jim was relating to on Monday to see if there's a path forward to to help shoulder some of that burden. Uh, so it's not just specifically on our on our residents and our businesses, but it's being shared by those that come in and
and have the impact on public safety and the beaches and the roads and the sidewalks and all the other things that uh, you know, take a pretty good beating when it comes to when it comes to high season and those that come. We certainly want them to come. Um, fireworks, all those kinds of things. If there's a way
that we could get some options from staff to look into that maybe other municipalities are doing. I've been trying to do some research on it as well to see what other people do to help shoulder some of that burden. I would I would appreciate seeing that when we come to budget talks. Yeah, Mr. Mayor, um yesterday to expand
on that, I I did share with the town manager and his staff um some things I had come up with that I you know, I don't know how feasible they are, but options to at least be explored for different revenue streams. Yeah, it' be nice to have some options out there the
public can digest, we can digest and and see if there's something policy-wise we could put in place to help with this. Yes. And if if you all any of you have suggestions to be, you know, to be researched or or have researched them, please help um help us along by sharing
that because I I don't know that we have the same connections or are exposed to the same things that you've seen or might be aware of. Um that that would help a great deal. Well, Will will probably has a list going on now because I too shared a couple of other ideas
that we have to research before I want we want to make anything public. But yeah, he's I'm sure you have quite the list going for us. There's probably some overlap as well, I'm sure. We like the input. Okay. Also, mayor, I'll share that uh next month, next week at the Florida
League of Cities Conference, one of the agenda items is going to be about the state going moving away from adorum tax revenue. So, I'll be interested to see what the that discussion curtails or entails, I guess.
Yeah, I think everybody in the state of Florida is interest eager to hear what that's all about. All right. Thank you, Joe. Thank you. Thanks, Joe. All right. All right. Next, as soon as I open my computer back up here,
our next item is the emergency temporary placement permits. Uh, town manager. Yes. So, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Counselors. We've been actively working through as as we've talked in in other forums uh you know our response to the
FEMA CAV and the continuous effort of the town to work our way um back into the community rating system and uh and and try to continue to improve our standing in NFIP, but really just in general our overall compliance with
flood plane management standards, FEMA and state code uh state uh statutes And as part of the effort, we've been since the CAV having daily discussions with the CAV team that was here and I've been in regular correspondence with the FEMA
region 4 leaders on a proposed way ahead um as we receive feedback um from some of our CAV responses of the list of 252 uh and the discussions that I that I mentioned. Um, I I had the staff work on
a proposed way ahead, a draft of a resolution for a an emergency temporary placement permit uh going forward to to take us, as I mentioned uh previously to all of you as I was seeking a path
beyond September 23rd, beyond the end of the uh of the three years since Ian um knowing that our community for our economic vitality and and just our residents um safety and security as they try to rebuild their homes. Uh we needed a we needed a path forward beyond that.
We do. Um and but we need a path that's compliant so we don't end up in a similar situation uh with FEMA regulations or flood plane management uh uh situations. And this is our we want to propose as um a way ahead which would
include a continuation of some of the standards everybody's familiar with um for those temporary structures, trailers uh and recreational vehicles to either self self uh deploy themselves out in
case of an RV but also uh movable by a light duty truck uh quick disconnects highway ready and registered And beyond that, our discussions with FEMA as well as what we just think would be good practices um for emergency response and
safety in our town is to uh and include a verifiable emergency evacuation plan um by that by the owner of that uh that structure. And we're going to add these to our permitting process uh for um
these temporary placement permits that would again be verified by our our code team uh verified by the per through the permitting process and allow our residents and our business owners to continue uh to use those structures in a
way that keeps us compliant. uh but also in a way that that puts us in a in a better in a well standing position to respond to emergencies if we have to deal with that as a community again. I feel I feel very
good about this proposed resolution. What I can't say at this time is that it has a FEMA stamp of approval. Um, I have been in in dialogue with the region four leadership and I have shared my draft uh
proposal with them. Um, and I've received I think feedback which which makes me comfortable that going forward um this will put us in a better position than we have been in. But I I again they
just not willing to give me yes we approve that policy and I don't think we'll get that to be honest with you. Uh what I do feel is that um based on some of the feedback that we have received uh we have started to receive some feedback from the region four team on the list of 252
uh Tracy has Dr. Paul has done a great job leading the team in responding to those cab lists. We are down to less than 30 I think that as of this morning um that we need to input into the system and send to to FEMA with our uh our
responses on how we're how we're managing those uh those properties as a town and as residents are are providing us feedback as well. Uh so far the feedback majority of those that we've entered in uh that we've rei
received responses to and you know transparently we've only received responses feedback on 15 of the 230 or so that the team has has sent up to them. But of those 15 13 uh were now for lack of a better way of saying it taken
off the list because they they approve of what we of how we answered those 252. the other two um were just yeah they just asked for more information. So I'm confident that we'll get those removed from the list as well. If that trend continues, I I don't think 15 is enough
to establish a trend, but if that trend continues, again, I think my confidence will continue to increase that this uh because incorporated in that in those responses um that the team has been sending to FEMA is
basically what I just told you, that this is how we're going to manage these types of temporary structures going forward as a town. And as I've continually said to FEMA, um, judge us by our policies, procedures, and and and
practices here that are in compliant, as you even as FEMA even told us themselves that are in compliant with their standards. Don't judge us by any other standard. If you judge us by that, that we're going then then uh we'll be in the place where they want us to be and where we want to be. So I was the draft
included in here? Did I believe it was? I believe you all have. That's well the draft. That's the draft of the temporary placement application. Oh, I don't think we have it drafted yet. I think if you can just cover the highlights on it. I mean, it's it's a lot of it is similar.
A lot of it similar to Yeah. the previous resolution. We're going to add language as as I mentioned. We're going to um add more clarity on those those three main things which a lot of the people in the community are familiar
with. towable with the light duty truck. Um, quick disconnects from utilities, road ready, licensed, registered, inflated tires ready to go. We're going to add in a um verifiable 4hour
emergency evacuation plan. Um, and and another piece, thank you. Thank you, Dr. So, another important piece to mention that is why we need to continue this forward is that many of our residents uh still are in a position of
hardship. Um and that's we have discussed that with FEMA as as a necessary um as as a valid reason to continue granting these permits and uh we'll we'll clearly identify those categories of hardship and how we'll how we'll you know factor
that into the permit application such as and we're still working through some of the language as a team such as you know they're they're a homeowner trying to build their rebuild their home. they're still waiting on all the insurance monies that they need to do to continue that. They're a homeowner who's, you
know, who or a business owner who is still in a similar position and wants needs to a way to continue operating their business. They have permission of the of either either they own the property that they're operating on or they have permission of the property owner to to operate the business on the property. Um,
what am I Yeah. one of my lead if I remember reading in there was something about one trailer per property versus one trailer per property that's correct Mr. mayor, one trailer per property. That was that that's already uh a requirement that will continue forward. And in some cases that, you know, that's
an example of some of the uh of the cases that we have to respond to FEMA on some of the properties were on there. And we're, you know, again, if we haven't already communicated with the property owners, if they get with us, we'll get with them and tell them why. And that there's a very few of them that fell into that category, but that's an example that we're going to clarify a
little more clearly going forward. That's that's about it. We don't have sorry we don't have the draft resolution prepared yet. That's what we want to bring forward um at the next council meeting. I wanted to give you an update and that's the process that we're going forward and how I feel
fairly confident that uh that's going to help us go beyond the August 8th deadline tomorrow and the September 23rd deadline previously set by the council. and and will if it if you haven't already. Um
to take it even a step further. I know that there's some the definition of being able to be there's ways that people I'm trying to figure out the best way to say it. You could say I have ownership of a trailer. I own a flatbed trailer that is licensed
for the road, but that trailer itself is licensed for the road, not anything that you put on it and work out of. Do you see where I'm kind of going with this? What what I'm trying to get at is the structure as it was designed is road worthy. Not
what I what because I think as we all know there's been some there's been some issues with changing the way something was built. Like if I buy a Cadillac and turn it into a monster truck, it's not what it was designed to do, right? You can do it. Doesn't mean that that's what it was designed to do. So, I think it's
important to try to get some sort of clarification in there or maybe go into even more granular into what a licensed trailer means just for clarity for, god forbid we ever have to go through this again. No, I appreciate that, Mr. Mayor. We'll definitely include that. I I I do know
and I I think I understand what you're referring to. A modification of of of a trailer, which would, you know, fit all the criteria I I identified. Any modifications thereof, Sure. would would not meet but we need to clarify that definitely. I agree.
I appreciate John. Any any questions questions for town manager? Um no I don't think so. Vice Mayor I actually had a chance to go over the form with Frankie prior to the meeting. So I I don't have any questions. When you say form you're assum you're
referring to the temporary application. This is a draft of the of the what would be the new temporary placement application. uh is where we're changing some language. We're moving some language that's outdated uh or or will not apply going forward and adding some language if you see towards on the final
page determinations of significant hardship things like that that we'll add in. Yeah, I appre I mean the more clarity we can give in the ordinance the the less interpretation it leaves is would be the ultimate goal I would think. Yes, Mr. Mayor. I agree.
Anything else? Vice Mayor Councelor Woodson. So, I have a question on timing. So, obviously August 8th is tomorrow. We're still working with FEMA with that type of thing. So, I'm assuming get in trouble with that. I'm assuming
that we're not moving trailers by tomorrow. That's correct. But our deadline that we have stated is September 23rd. So, if we are going to make exceptions for people under hardship or anything like that,
what is the what are you thinking of timing? You don't want to wait until the 23rd to then renew things. When do you think we'd be ready to look at applications or consider timing for things or
Yeah. for the process to continue so that people aren't sitting there on the 23rd. They have nothing in process and now they have to go. Yes, thank you for the question. Once if the council passes the reg the
resolution at the next council meeting, um it would be our goal to immediately then move into a you know a permitting process with those folks. I think I need to discuss further with staff and with legal counsel on what would be an appropriate uh uh timeline to allow for
people to apply for that because I realize that really only leaves two weeks, you know, from that time to use the term apply. You mean reapply for some reapply? Yeah. Yes. Um and we'll continue our discussions with FEMA as as
we as we get more feedback. Um, I'll I'll communicate back with you on on uh a new date. We're going to need to establish a date and and as as you asked the question, Councelor Woodson, it made me think that two weeks, even for even for my staff, as we were talking earlier
on the efficiencies we've made across the staff. Uh, it would be unrealistic, I think, to to just plan on doing that within a two-eek period. Um, and again, it goes back to I believe we'll be operating properly under the FEMA standards. And if we have the policies,
processes, and procedures in place, then we'll be good. And we'll set a reasonable time for residents and business owners to to be able to reapply to to come into compliance or to remain in compliance in many cases. And I also
think I mean obviously if they are in the process of building we're going to be able to verify all of that through our permits that are in place and you'll see their building going on and that type of thing. But if they are waiting
for insurance funds, if they have not done anything, if they're sitting there with a demo kind of thing, are there going to be things in place that they have to provide proof of applications with things or
I mean, I just think that needs to be laid out for people. Exactly. if if you want to apply but you're not in the per permitting process, why do you want to apply and how can you prove that? And I would I would assume that FEMA would want that as well.
I agree and and we'll add that. Great. Thank you. That's all I have. Scott, um I have two questions. U in B1 it said additional units may only be allowed with approval by the town council. Shouldn't that be you,
Mr. town manager. I mean, how what would be the process if it was by the town council? I I appreciate the recommendation. I would I would uh again because I'd like as as councelor Woodson said, if somebody's, you know, in
between council meetings and we can't get it posted, that's just delaying the process. I'd like it a little streamlined so they're not waiting on on our buy in. That possible. I'll take so I I can comment. Um I'd really like
to um I know that um council for a couple of meetings in the past has expressed a lot of concern about what is going to happen to our residents who are still living in their RVs or temporary structures with this looming September
23rd um deadline coming up. And for whatever reason, I keep hearing Councilman or Councilwoman Woodson's voice in my head. It's like, what are we gonna do? What are we gonna do? What are we going to do? Um, at several meetings
as well as, you know, others on council. And so I took a look at what your current ordinance provides because we do know that the governor's um state of emergency concerning Hurricane Ian is going to expire. At that point, the
question becomes, what legal authority does this property owner have to be on their piece of property in an RV or a temporary structure? And so the first from a legal perspective, your first
source of authority would be your zoning code. Well, you you don't have any zoning district in the town that allows anyone to live in their mobile home. You do have ordinances in your code that talk about temporary uses and that those
type of temporary uses are more for special events like the Christmas tree lot. That's a temporary use. And then what you have is you have an ordinance that had been adopted in 2023 that provided for temporary placement
permits. And that ordinance was adopted very quickly by my predecessor um after Hurricane Ian hit. Subsequent to that, you amended that in 2024 and our firm, we were part of that. what we
did um and it's on page 10 of your materials if you're following um we looked at your current ordinance that gives you that framework that gives you that legal authority to authorize having an RV on a piece of property and having
somebody living there in emergency situations and you basically identify when that emergency begins and when that emergency ends. Your code has some uh has three specific
periods of time when it ends. And applying your code to our current situation, our set of facts, it would it would end on September 23rd. However, by resolution, you can extend those permits
uh for six month increments, which is what your current framework allows. So the resolution that you would be bringing forth is to authorize the extension of these uh RVs, travel trailers,
whatever consistent with your flood plane regulations, which is all the information that the town manager and the deputy have provided to you. Nancy, I have a question with that before you move on. So, because you're changing the ordinance, would it be
We're not changing the ordinance. You're changing the wording, right? No, no, it's already there. It's a resolution. But what I think what the town manager is talking about is it is adding things to it to got this today. And so, this would be
consistent with what's in the ordinance. I have had conversations with um with Will and with Tracy regarding it. the things that he's talking about as far as how to extend it. There is language in your existing code that talks about
that. And I think the resolution that somebody's going to be drafting, I don't know if it's me or staff, um it will authorize you to extend the existing permits that are compliant with FEMA. That extension would be on a case-bycase
basis where the individual would come to the town manager because in your existing ordinance he would have the authority to make those extensions based on all these factors that they have identified for you such as the um
emergency evacuation plan such as as Council Woodson brought up, you know, are they uh getting a permit? Are they in that process? Have they are they waiting for insurance? So So he has that ability. Now your ordinance also
basically allows the property owner to come to you in the event they disagree with what he says. You know he may say no you haven't gone to the permitting process and they say yes we have. They have that appeal right in your existing
code. So to summarize my my comments is basically you have a structure in place to address this situation and it is triggered by your resolution which we will bring to you to extend those
permits um as provided in your ordinance for these type of reasons which has been elaborated and although not put into writing with FEMA by FEMA um we could require um at the local level. So, we're
you cleared up what I was getting at, right? So, your your extension would be based on the new criteria or the wording of the criteria from the resolution that would potentially be passed, not based on what it was issued to you for. That's what I'm trying to get at. So, what it was issued to you for two and a half
years ago, correct, is not going to be the same as what your renewal is going to be now. And you will have to adhere to what the new that that is correct. However, in your existing ordinance, you already have some criteria, correct, in there that is duplicative. But what what I'm trying to get out
there is if this resolution is passed, simply because you were approved with the temporary permit two years ago, it's not an automatic. It's not an automatic. It's going to have to adhere to what the new resolution would be. Correct. Well, it would be um based on the decision that's made by the town
manager uh consistent with the resolution that you all will direct him to do. In some cases, an extension of a permit, in some cases, a new permit, an extension with possible conditions on it, correct? which would include the evacuation plan, which would include
making sure that they are flood compliant because I did review all the documentation, the written documentation from FEMA that that has been provided. They never said that um recreational vehicles or residential uses um are
prohibited. They said non-compliant structures. And when the town right after Hurricane Ian when it started issuing these permits, it basically put too many in there. So now it's been narrowed down to only the ones that are
compliant with the FEMA regulations. And uh and again um this application, yes, it needed to be updated, but it needs to be consistent with what's in our code. Yes, your statement is correct, but it's my opinion that the definition of
what an a unsafe structure has changed or what we've been told is an unsafe non-compliant non-compliant structure has changed in what way? For instance, for instance, a utility trailer that
could be told with a light duty vehicle that's light. I think we could make that assumption based on the the list of the 252 that they sent us. Right. So now we have more information because of what the town has had to suffer through as to what is viewed as
compliant and what's non-compliant, but your code just talks about like the non-compliant structures. Correct. So we have a much narrower perspective of what we can use our emergency temporary placement permits
for. Before we thought it was a bigger universe, but now it's much more narrow because of the good work that you know um administration has done with with FEMA trying to narrow down what is actually going to be permitted and what is not. Well, and I think and I certainly do not want to speak for the
town manager, but I think that is some of the frustration is what we deem as a compliance structure based on what we interpret the FEMA regulations to be. They will never say yes, it's going to be that's a compliance structure or it's
not. So, it's very hard to enforce or do thing. We could pass all the resolutions we want unless we can get FEMA to say that is satisfactory to us, which I don't think I agree with the town manager. they will ever say we will certainly continue to push to get that.
What is the actual definition of an unsafe structure? Non-compliant or non-compliant structure, whatever you want to call it. It's, you know, is the glass half full or half empty. So, they're not telling us what's non-compliant, but they're telling us what is compliant. So, we can
just try to bring the requests and put them into the silo for compliance as best as we can. That's what I was getting. So, getting back to my question, it still says with approval of a waiver by the town council
B1. Yeah, I I'm not sure if that's um consistent with what our our code is. I know that they were trying to get something to um to you today because this item is very timesensitive.
Well, if whether timesensitive or not, I don't want that in there. I'd rather have it be the town manager, not the town council. Well, yeah, I see what you're saying there. It's some of the issue I had with that one was if it's a duplex and you're talking about one one
trailer or one temporary use permit per property. If it's a duplex, now are they not in non-compliance because it's two separate addresses, but it's on the same property. But our code says or our resolution says you can only have one per property versus one per address.
It's a draft. It's a draft. We still have to make sure that it's in line with our ordinance. Yeah. I think the ordinance does have only one, right? I believe so. If I may continue, the restriction for only verified residents of Fort Myers Beach. Well, let's I don't know every
property and every every every deal. But I do know of one um Mojo's the the owner of that property doesn't live here. lives in um in the Keys, but the lieutenant is Yeah, he's
not even a resident. So, can we But I think our ordinance, if I'm not mistaken, Nancy, refers to if something about if you have approval from the property because this restriction here says only verified residents. Exactly. And but again, this was a great
effort and I do appreciate it. It's a draft. It's a draft. I say property owner or resident. It's fine. We will we will take this this is um the next level based on what we had but this will have to now be consistent with
our existing ordinance which there might be a couple little places where it is not. But also um you know the delegation of the decision-making power to the um the town manager is still subject to appeal
um to you. So, um, and I think that that's that's a very important key factor for, you know, the resident. So, he doesn't, although he has the authority, um, it's not unlimited. There's a check and balance.
Nancy, if I could just take this up 10,000 ft for folks who might be watching. Few weeks ago, it appeared that FEMA told us that all temporary structures on Fort Myers Beach are non-compliant. Yes. And we're just now discussing an
application for temporary structures. How would you explain that to somebody who's watching? Again, it was the use of the term non-compliant structures, the fact that we did issue these permits immediately after Ian, but we issued
them to a very large uh grouping of of potential structures or vehicles or or whatever. And FEMA then came and um back in July of I think last year said, "No, no, no. A lot of those like the shipping
containers, the conxes, those are non-compliant, but they were in that big field. So now what we've been able to do working with FEMA and having that dialogue and those communication is to try to narrow that field to know what is
permitted and what needs what seems to be permitted are residential RVs under certain circumstances if they are towable by the truck. And I think um management can go into more detail than I can about it. Um so we can
so what's changed is in essence we've gone from a blanket approval to a casebyase approval which correct well I don't think there was a blanket approval. I I disagree with that statement. I think I don't mean it as a I think when we when we made when we made this decision shortly after the
storm to allow temporary use the intent was for a trailer for people who live in. If you go back and watch a meek, that was the intent. And and much like a lot of things, when you give people an inch, they will take a mile. And I think part of the reason that we're trying to
back and unwind this is I don't have we ever given a temporary use permit for a ConX box to sit on a property. No, I don't think we have. So my point is you've got a temporary use to have a trailer, an RV on your property which then extended into construction trailers
into with because they they felt that that was under the umbrella of their temporary use. And I think that's what we're trying to unwind. It it is. But I I think that immediately after the storm, people did bring um pods or storage trying to get rid of the
the damaged things that they had and things that were not salvageable and putting them in there. Um I mean it was it was a crazy time. I unfortunately I fortunately whatever I was not here to go through that and I really have to commend staff um although FEMA didn't
really approve with what they were doing but they were they were trying they were in a mass unit. I mean, they were trying to help your residents as much as they could, not really having a lot of guidance um in that immediate period. I believe your your ordinance was first
adopted in March of 2023. So, that gave them a couple of months to try to figure out, okay, did we do our permitting? You know, which ones can we allow to go forward, which ones can we not? Um, and a lot of those, um, initial temporary
placement permits have already been revoked because FEMA has told us that they're non-compliant structures. Um, but there still are a few out there. And the few that are out there that happen to be RVs that seem to comply with your
flood regulations consistent with your existing ordinance, I think are permissible from a legal perspective. Another And I know we're getting into the weeds with this, but I think we have to at this point
some of the thing, one of the things that I've noticed is how our codes in this state of emergency don't have checks and balances. And and we all know there's a property on the island that has a temporary used trailer that has
now been surrounded by a permitted fence that is encasing this temporary trailer, which to me would signify they have no intention of moving that trailer out of there anytime soon. So, I don't know if there's a way that we can put this in there to
what I'm trying to get at is if if you're do you need a fence around your temporary trailer and a above ground pool, do you need those things or how are Well, that's a case-byase determination. um if they have one of these temporary
permits that's going to or emergency temporary placement permits that's going to expire on September 23rd, they need to make an appointment with the town manager to discuss an extension. And if they don't do that, they have no legal right to have that structure or that
vehicle on that property. But but I guess what I'm getting at is how can we be proactive in stopping some of this that has happened by you meet all the requirements to receive your your your ETP for shorting it. You re meet your
require but now you come in four months later and apply for a fence permit. Where is there where is there to stop things like that to say you know but you don't have any plans in place for construction of a new property. You just
have a temporary use permit with nothing in the port hole supporting that you're trying to recover, that you're trying to do things. But we've granted you now a permit because you meet all the requirements within the code to have a fence, but now you've got a bigger mess that has been created by nobody's fault
other than we don't have the checks and balances in there to ensure that if you're using the temporary use that that is a that is something that's being granted to you under the state of emergency versus you can't just I don't use the word squat, but you can't just squat on your own on your own property
forever and not have anything because your neighbors are trying to do the right thing and and you you just don't want to and I know it's probably very No, no, I think it's a good it's a good uh question because it most likely will come up. But my my view would be the
fact that you generally don't have a vacant lot that you just go and fence unless you have uh construction coming um you know and you're trying to to shield it. Um I'd have to look at can you just have a standalone fence on your
property? Um, and if you want to tie it to your temporary use, then you would have to come and ask for an amendment to what you had been granted. If you were given permission to have your RV there, and now you want to put a fence up that you're now expanding the
use on that property under this permit. So, you'd have to come in and ask for the permission, I think, to to put that fence up. Just I know a lot of whatifs, but I would agree. And and like you know with just like with any contractor or
property owner that comes in to to ask for a permit, there's an analysis of that of that property of what's what's already been approved at that address and and if you know there further work is in continuation of that's what's already authorized in code
or or or not. So we would and and we continue to do that even as we uh go around the town and or are identified by residents of you know of properties that we need to review. We'll continue to do that. So is is let me ask a question. Is there a way we can differentiate the
residential from the commercial because there are several commercial lots that that have multiple trailers that have already been approved. Yes. because I I would if I had a commercial lot with multiple trailers, I'd look at this and freak out
quite honestly. Noted, council. Yeah, we'll definitely take a look at that and and yeah, struggling with it right now, but I'll definitely So, can I get some clarification? your resolution that you will be um asked to
take a look at after we have more dialogue with FEMA. Um that's simply to extend the existing permits beyond September 23rd, but not to grant new ones. Is that correct? Because we don't have um a storm at this time.
Well, that I'm glad you brought that up because I was going to ask about that. So, in Lee County, they've obviously extended theirs to coincide with Milton, but we have not. And is that because of it's a different flood zone? Is there a reason why it applies to them but it
does not apply to us? Is that a policy decision that can be made that I would like some clarification on that because if it is a policy decision that under the state of emergency which we are in for Milton if we can based on the new resolution that's going to come out or
the the potential new resolution based on that can we make a policy decision to extend that in to coincide with the state of emergency for Milton because that's a big question that people have. Yeah. The way that your code is set up
to work is that when there is a state of emergency, when there is a storm, you as town council will authorize the issuance of emergency temporary placement per uh permits because of the storm. And once
that um storm and that state of emergency has um terminated, then you're not the the town is not issuing any more of these permits unless you open it up again. So you open up when these permits
can new permits can go out by resolution. Well, and I would I would like some clarification because right after the storm, FEMA was very adamant about, you know, enforcing your code and ordinances and policies and procedures you had in place
at the time of the storm. This current resolution was in place at the time of Milton, was not at Hurricane Ian, but it was at Hurricane Milton. So, if we change or add to the res the qualifications to meet to get this
temporary use, does that allow us to give out new temporary use permits or only extend the ones that are currently out there? Well, the ones that are currently out there, it's my understanding that they were all related to Ian. Um, but I could be mistaken because I have not done an
analysis of all the ones that are out there. It's it's very possible, but I'm guessing there's So we would need to get clar I think we would need to get clarification on we'll work to get that clarified. Yeah, we had the ordinance in place or we had the resolution in place
before Milton. So does that then allow us the opportunity based on what was already in place to you would have to do that by resolution. you you would need a a resolution that says that you authorize the issuance of
emergency temporary placement permits uh because of the damage or the displacement that has occurred because of this storm. Yeah. And I and I don't I I would not support going backwards because that's part of the reason I think we're in this mess is because we didn't have this. And
even though we were trying to do what was in the best interest to get us to recover as possible and get people back on the island to work on their homes has in a sense since come back to bite us. I don't want to I don't want to do that again with Milton. But going forward, should we have a
storm, right? I understand that. Should we have another storm going forward, we will now have this in place to say we are following what we had in place. But I want I would have to be you would have to really really sell me that we wouldn't be penalized if we were to
issue new ones based on Milton even though this was in place. I would need to know I wouldn't want to create a new resolution saying because of the state of emergency for Milton because we're long past Milton now and now we're back to where we were at the beginning Ian. So I want to be very careful that we're not doing that. I
don't think there's authority um in your code or by resolution to staff right now to do that. So, if somebody did approach the the town manager um requesting that, he most likely would deny it and then they'd come to you and you know, you can
make your decision. Probably a denial as well. A lot of intricacies in this one. it is a new process but you do you do have a framework um it's just that the general use of non-compliance structure
automatically uh when FEMA when we were working and having dialogue with FEMA last year it was uh you passed a resolution that said we would not issue any more emergency temporary placement permits for
non-compliant structures. Now we have a better grasp of what's compliant and what's non-compliant. So now we can allow the extension of those that are appear to be compliant with the emergency evacuation plan or
whatever other conditions um are appropriate. But you're still not issuing any new unless there was another. Right. At this point, there's nothing new because they don't have the authority from you to do it.
That's right. So, that brings up another question. Again, I'm just trying to cover everything that we've handled over. So, I'm on a property that has the that has the um sign off from the property owner. I don't own the property, but I'm operating based under a temporary use permit on a property
that I was given permission to do. Now that property owner wants to start rebuilding their property and I have to find another place to So essentially does that terminate their temporary use permit because of that location where they're currently located. We need
to find what the expiration date is of that or does it trans? I don't think that that's um provided. Um but I have to go back and double check. I just would like because I know there's very few that's going to come up though.
It's coming, right? We all know what's coming. So I I can look at it, but once that permit expires, um they have no legal right to be there and code can come and uh you know do a notice of violation. So they'll go to the town manager and ask
for an extension of it. And then at that point, we will look to see um you know what what were you granted and what what are your plans? what are you going to do? Um based on the circumstances on a case-byase basis, uh will will render a
decision. If they disagree with that decision, it would come to you. Okay? And your current code does provide for um governmental use as well as commercial. So it it is not just the residential
although residential is a um big component of it. So if it is a commercial use, if they are compliant with flood regulations with FEMA, um those might be extended as well. But
the the state statute or the what has been passed the legislature doesn't cover the the state statute says um basically you are restricted as a local government from prohibiting that use. So the state
statute overrides this that says maybe they needed to leave earlier. We cannot um prohibit a residential use because of the state statute. But once the state statute goes away, which at
this point it will because of the uh state of emergency on Ian expiring, then we defer back to our local um ordinance which does have flexibility in it for you to go beyond what the state statute
allowed. Yeah. back in though, we should have some commercial component where if you know the guy's building his restaurant back or whatever, he's got the opportunity to move next door or to another location to keep that business running because he's going to need the
money to pay for the build. Well, that's that's kind of what I was getting at it. We need to we need to be very clear on that as to what their ability is going to be or not to be because those situations are going to be coming very soon. Yeah. Yeah. We want to encourage that, you
know, we we we've got to be consistent. We're saying on on one hand, hey, Tom, we want you to to rebuild your business brick and mortar. And then Tom says, okay, well, while I'm doing that, can I move next door over here? I got permission.
I'm doing what you're asked, but at the same time, you've got to realize I I've got to generate revenue, feed my family while this two-year pro process is going on. So, I I don't know the answer to your question right off hand, but I will tell you that your code, your existing
ordinance does address some of that. So, I'll do some more analysis, but we also need to um to look at our application um as far as which ones we're going to extend because we could have a commercial one come to us for an
extension if they have an existing permit. Yeah. See, the which it sounds like they do, right? So what what happens here is is it's it's the unknown. It's it's the not knowing that's driving everyone crazy. So if we can create a path forward where we have you do this, this, this, and
this, and then you've got your path forward. It's the uncertainty that's that's weighing on everybody and and it's just it's it's not just that guy. It's his two employees that are looking to rent, you know, potentially something here for the for the next year or two
while that construction's going on. It's it's Is he buying inventory? Is he is he is he making more purchases? Is he reinvesting? It's just that uncertainty that he can't he or she can't make a decision. So, well, and I think in fairness, I think
since the storm, we have tried to provide the clarity based on I'm No, I know what you're trying to say and and we all want people to succeed. We all want them to come back. It's the uncertainty that's driving people. Yeah. But they need to understand why the uncertainty is there. I don't think
everybody gets it. It we'll do what we can, but we have a partner because of something that was outside of our control that we have to work with. Understand? And that that funnels down what our ability as a council allows us to do. We could still do it, but there's
consequences to those actions. And I think we're trying to narrow that down. I think Will and staff are now continuing on what's been happening for the last two and a half years to try to funnel that down to where both sides can be in agreeance that this works for everybody. It shows that you're doing
the right thing. It shows we're getting there, right? And and I agree. We we don't want, you know, we had that pizza place popping up the condo. I mean, we don't want stuff like that happening. We want Well, and I go back to what I said earlier. You know, we you tried to do the right thing, the council at the
time, right after the storm, to to allow people back on the island, to have a place to live while they worked, to to allow a business owner to operate, to put people back to work. And unfortunately, we have people who took it too far. Yeah. You give them an inch and they take a mile. And now we're,
you know, I understand. And it's frustrating that people do that. Not everyone does it, but it's frustrating that people do it because it's like TSA. I mean 99% of the people going through TSA, you know, right? One line shorter to go through the normal route. Right.
There's a lot of great feedback. I appreciate it. We'll strive to include as much of that as possible in here in in alignment with our current ordinances ordinance which will help. There's we're getting great feedback. what we're getting feedback from FEMA and as we get
that feedback we're continuing to refine this and but what's going to remain beyond is is definitions that are already in there and you know of compliance structures and we're going to further clarify that for the residents which I think we do and and beyond that
I appreciate the feedback on what if you know they're they are ready to start construction they've been operating on that site they're ready to start construction and they find a new site you know, to with with approvals to do it. What we want to integrate that in here in here as well. That's that's
great feedback. But again, come it's it's going to come down to the the majority of the approval process is going to come down to is it a compliant structure or not? Mhm. And there will still be even by the time we we finish our our inputs to the 252
by tomorrow, there's still going to be uh structures that were identified on that list that are non-compliant. Uh and and that's not going to change. What we have to demonstrate is what we're doing as a town to to uh to deal with the
non-compliance structure going forward. Um that's part of the process of FEMA, too, is our what are our policies, processes, and procedures. So if new ones pop up in the future that are non-compliant, do we have the right policies, processes, and procedures in place to deal with that to try to get them out or bring them into compliance?
Will, could I just ask just at 10,000 foot and I know this is an evolving issue. But if you were for folks who are watching who might have an RV on the island, you've got really two deadlines coming up. You've got the FEMA deadline and then you've got the September deadline, September 23rd deadline.
What's your advice to somebody who has an RV here on on Fort Myers Beach at this point? What what would advise what would what would you advise them at this point? I'd advise them to remain calm and continue to monitor uh the town's
information sources as we get this um if they have a permit, you know, then then their permit still stands uh to remain in that temporary structure um here within the Fort Myers Beach and continue to monitor and we'll continue to get
information out as we update our application process and that September 23rd comes is then more for that more information will come out on how they can be extended um and come in and for that extension work with the town for that extension.
Thank you. That is helpful. And so if somebody has an RV and they're not living in it and it's just parked on their property or in their driveway, should they sort of adhere to the same advice that you just gave? Yes. Okay. Thank you.
That was that was a big question I get a lot. Well, you know, since the storm, I've bought an RV or I've bought a trailer to live in. I'm not I'm back in my house. My house has been CODed, but we decided to keep the trailer or we decided to keep the RV. Am I going to Is that going to be considered a non-compliant structure after the
temporary use permit is gone because I'm just storing it there? I'm not It's still roadw worthy. It's still licensed. It's still Am I going to get dinged for keeping an RV? I know of several houses that they're living in their homes, but they bought a very nice RV that's now parked beside their home that they're
not living in. It's just using is that going to be addressed? So, I I think I had this conversation with U. Judith Franco um as far as what your land development code allows and if if you do have an RV but you're not
living in it, I think that's the distinction. You may be able to store some things in it but you can't be living in it. so we can bring back to you what your current regulations allow. Um, oftentimes in other communities, uh, they require fencing so that the RV
itself is not viewed or visible from a street, but you don't have that in your code at this point. And I would because of um, you know, SB180 and being more restrictive, I don't know that I would advocate putting that in there.
Yeah, trying to cover all the bases for what we've been hearing. So, is our goal to have this as a major agenda item at our next meeting so that we can get through all of this because like you said, then we're we're basically,
you know, a month away, three weeks away. That is my goal. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you. I I do want to interject that your agenda is poised to go out on Monday and I don't know, it's Thursday. I don't
know how quickly we can move, but we will try to do the best we can. Or could it be a town manager item? It it can be. Um, and again, everything is still in place until the 23rd of September. And you do have at least
another meeting um the first part of I guess September the 11th. Um, and then I think you have an M&P meeting as well. So, we will not in September. Not in September. Okay. Well, you have you can always have a special meeting if needed. Well, I was just going to say this is a very important topic. If we have to have
one agenda item to get through, I will be more than happy to have a special meeting if we need to to get some clarity for those people. The September 23rd deadline as it is now. If for some reason you can't work magic and make it happen
by Monday, you work a lot of magic. Both of you guys, the staff does, but sometimes the wand runs out of magic. Any other questions for for Will on this one?
All right, we'll move on to agenda management. Scott, anything new you want to add to the agenda management or questions about the agenda management? I do not. Karen, no, I'm good right now. Vice Mayor, I just had an item that uh might be
helpful. It doesn't have to be immediately, but something for the staff to think about. It might be helpful to have a presentation at an M&P by Frankie and his team, the flood plane manager, whoever else you, whoever subject matter
expert you think would be helpful. A lot of folks on the island uh both in residences and condos and in businesses are doing and utilizing all kinds of new flood and uh mitigation technology panels, flood doors, all kinds of new
systems coming out to help mitigate against flooding. And there's a lot of questions about permitting. There's questions of sort of and I'm interested in in in in the expertise of the town. What are the most frequently asked questions about these
new uh uh uh resilience uh uh uh steps that people are taking? What are the what's the most common mistakes people are making when they file for permits? Any basic information that that folks ought to know about? And just that kind of a concept I think would be helpful to
people as they're rightfully trying to become more resilient. There's a lot of these these are extremely expensive and you hate to have somebody head down a path that's a wrong path. And if we could just kind of help educate people more on the front end, I think it could be helpful at some point. Again, the
timing would be up to the town staff. Yeah, I think it's a good idea. It's like a basically we I think it was about a year and a half or two years ago, we gave an update of like timelines. here's what you can expect for timing based on what we're seeing for permit requirements now or
influx maybe just to go along with that update as to here's what we're seeing here's what's trending now it's no longer demo permits well a lot of folks because of the structure certain panels aren't appropriate uh residents are certain allowed to do there's pressure issues
there's all kinds of flood issues there's there's all kinds of very complicated dynamics that go into this and I know everybody's got a unique situation but there must be some general sort of council that that could be provided and just stuff you're seeing on the front lines as people make application to to install these kind of
uh systems. That's all I've got. Very good. Councelor Kane, nothing. I do not have anything either. Anything else for the mayor? No. Can you read about the advisory committees? Oh, yes. Thank you. Glad you reminded
me. Filing paper. Uh, this is a public announcement for advisory committee vacancies. As a reminder, members of the town council's the town's advisory committees are appointed by the town council to serve two-year terms. The current terms for several committee members are set to
expire on September 30th, 2025, which will result in vacancies on the following committees. Anchorage and advisory committee will have three. Audit committee will have three. Bay Oaks recreational center advisory board will have four. Marine and Environmental Resources Task Force will have three.
Public safety will have three. In anticipation of these vacancies, the town is now accepting applications from residents who are interested in serving their community through participation on one of our advisory committees. A description of each committee's roles and responsibilities along with membership requirements may be found on
the town's website. We encourage residents who are passionate about civic engagement and public public service to apply. Applications must be submitted to the town clerk no later than Friday, September 12th, 2025 to be considered for appointment by the town council at its meeting scheduled for October 2nd,
2025. For more information and to access the application form, please visit visit our town's website. I won't read that whole long hyperlink. Thank you for your interest in serving the town. Just just point of clarification. Uh, madame clerk, these are these are these are
vacancies in the fact in the sense that they're up the term is up, but it doesn't necessarily mean the incumbent person is not reapplying. Is that fair? Correct. Doesn't mean you still can't apply, but but but it doesn't mean that no one is applying. May there may be an incumbent
who's interested in seeking reapply. That is correct. I just wanted to be clear. Yes. And incumbents need to reapply, right? if they want to continue. Very good point. Uh, anything else for
the good of the order? Move to adjourn. Second. Motion by councelor King, seconded by councelor Safford. Any further discussion? Hearing none, we are adjourned at 11. My glasses 390. 11:40 now.