All right, it's showtime. Good evening and welcome to the June 11th village council meeting. >> Uh Marty, will you please call the role? >> Council member Steve Freriedman >> here. >> Council member Deb Gillis >> here. >> Council member Anna Richards >> here. Vice Mayor Sharon Mahoney >> here.
>> And Mayor Don Horton, >> I'm here. We have a >> All right, let's see. One of our favorite Marines, Matt Turk, will you lead us in the pledge, please, sir? >> Absolutely. >> I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic
for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you very much. Okay, let's see. Are there any requests for any uh deletions or emergency
additions tonight, council? None over there. None over there. Uh ma Mr. Manager, any from you? >> Nope. >> No. John? >> Jennifer? Well, it's showtime then. Let's see. Uh mayor and council communication. Has anybody got anything
they want to talk about tonight? It'll be all quiet. Anybody? Nope. Once, twice. Uh, John, have you got any updates for us on anything? >> Nope. Not since uh not since Tuesday night. No.
>> Good deal. That was enough already. >> I know. I spoke more than I wanted to. >> Thank you. Okay, Mr. Manager. Uh, just one update. I want to announce that we have a the pool is open. I was there this afternoon. It's pretty crowded. And that next week, a week from tonight,
Thursday the 18th at 5:30, the Alamar Chamber will have a ribbon cutting. So, the public's welcome to attend. Once again, a week from today at 5:30 this time next week, ribbon cutting at the pool and it came out really nice and we've added some facilities there and I reviewed them today and I think you'll
be happy with the results. >> Very good. Thank you so much. Uh well then why don't we just go on and open up right now to public comment. Is there any public comment tonight, Miss Marty? >> Yes. First we have Sue Miller. >> Welcome Sue. Thank you,
>> Mr. Miller. Representing the Alamada Community Alliance. Yes, sir. I love Alamada. It's why I stand here. It's been my home for 45 years. I raise kids here. I have grandkids here. I care deeply about our community and the people here. I worry about our fragile
environment, our limited infrastructure, our traffic, our struggling workforce, our very special parks. I care about our history and I worry about our future. Yes, I'm here before you often and I see the looks when I head for the microphone. I get reports of comments
made by those who'd like to see me disappear. But sorry, I'm here again. I've been here a long time. I pay attention and I do research. I speak up when I think there's a better way, knowing my words often fall on deaf ears. I'm not the only one. Those who show up often and follow the
decision-making carefully understand our issues. They are they care deeply but are the ones most criticized and usually ignored just because we have a different idea. Just because you were tired of us. Just them again. Sue Miller, Joe
Wishmire, Captain Ed Van Caden head. Oh, good. He's gone. Ken Thomas. I hear it sometimes repeated to me later, sometimes at the microphone. Oh, that's just the A. They don't like anything. They're too negative. I ask you, why is having a different idea, a new approach,
or imploring you to control spending considered too negative? Those of us who show up regularly are here because we care about this community and the decisions you make. We have watched as procedures are created that seem to
continually res resist resist restrict public involvement giving staff direction on critical issues with a thumbs up instead of an actual vote. So no public comment is needed just to save you from an extra three or five minutes
from Sue, Joe, or Captain Ed. Please do more to diligently encourage public comment. Engage the public in critical issues, the comprehensive plan, the budget, affordable housing, traffic, growth issues. Have more informal workshops. Learn from other
organizations who deal with the public. A public who prefers to fish, dive, swim, or bar hop, not sit through boring government meetings. the electric co-op. They diligently welcome members to their annual meeting, providing gifts, raffle tickets, coffee, and breakfast wraps to
create a relaxed setting for conversation with neighbors, directors, and staff. Yes, they do that to get their required quorum. The village needs to encourage participation so that we can have a responsive government that reflects the thoughts and ideas of our
residents. Please let us know you are listening to us. Perhaps after general public comment is closed, have an agenda item, response to public comment. There may not always be a need to respond, but often the ideas and concerns warrant a
simply a simple comment from you that shows you are listening and that you care. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Sue. Barney, anyone else? >> Yes, Joe Wishmire. >> Welcome, Joe. Welcome back. Hey, thank you very much. Joe Wishmire, Plantation
Key. Mayor and council, for months and months now, I have been asking about the review of the wastewater, mainly about the .edu counts that will have a major impact to the amount of money that is due to the uh to the process. Many
businesses have changed and lots of vacation homes have appeared. Many of them are built as single family homes. Any competent person can figure out a vacation rental uses much more water than a single family home. To hear at
Tuesday's meeting that the report is being held up because of the new pump station has nothing to do with the edu counts. Please let us get along with that. It seems so simple to get the information from the aqueduct authority as to the water usage for all properties
like the monthly billing and compare that number of gallons to the number of edus assigned to that property. I believe that the number is 157 gallons per day for each edu. This seems like a no-brainer to help offset the rising
costs of wastewater. All of this and awarding hundreds of thousands of dollars in non-compete bid contracts have added millions of dollars to our budget, which has risen from 38 35.8 million to60.7 million in the last 5
years despite property values increasing $560 million just in the last year. This is just two examples of how tax dollars are not being properly used. I didn't even mention all the overtime that we spent on the weekends to monitor
the fields that we didn't even own. I bring this up because of the concern of this council about spending $27,000 on elections of council members so the residents can have a say in who we want to represent us. That number was
mentioned over and over and over again. You all should be ashamed that you're trying to restrict voters voices. Next, I find it disturbing that this council without any public input with a thumbs up
uh came to put a for sale sign by owner in front of the church property. We the residents, the taxpayers of Alamrada are the owners and should have a say and about this and all village owned properties. Yes, it is council the the
concern over the council takings the village may face yet every time an administrative relief request comes up it seems to be granted a lot of these after being in BPAS for over four years yet the properties have been sold and
the new owners have recently acquired that they they took over to four years. This practice doesn't seem fair to those residents who patiently wait their turn. This practice needs to be addressed in our new comp plan. Thank you. >> Thank you, Joe.
>> Right on time again. >> Right on time. Good job. >> There are no other speakers. >> That's it. Is there anyone on uh online anywhere? >> No, sir. >> All right. Is there anybody out there that still would like to mic's open?
Seeing none, public comments closed. Let's see. John, let's move on to the next resolutions. >> So, we are into the are um well, actually, let me ask, are we going into the quasi first or are we going into what was held over from the last? >> Why don't we do Why don't we do the
quasi first? And uh because these folks are paying their attorneys and stuff, so we could do that and then we can move on. >> We we don't want to give them too many billable minutes. >> Sorry, guys. Sorry, Russ. So, we're into the quasi judicial
portion of the transcript, which um today has four items. They are tabs um A through D, as in delta. Uh please be advised that the following agenda items are quasi judicial in nature. If you wish to comment on these items, please inform the village clerk by filling out
the available signup form. An opportunity for persons to speak on each item will be made available after the applicant and staff have made their presentations on each item. As a reminder, testimony and quas judicial items must be in person. Zoom testimony is not permitted. These proceedings will be handled in accordance with the village code requirements. All testimony, including public testimony
and evidence, will be made under oath or affirmation. Additionally, each person who gives testimony may be subject to cross-examination. If you do not wish to be cross-examined or sworn, your testimony shall be disregarded. The general public will not be permitted to cross-examine witnesses, but the public may request the council to ask questions
of staff or witnesses on their behalf. The full agenda packet on each item is hereby entered into the record along with the village code and comprehensive plan. Any correspondence that was received by the village staff is included in the file and part of the record. Persons representing organizations must uh present evidence of their authority to speak to the
organization. Further details of the quasi judicial procedures uh in section 30-256 of the village code may be obtained from the this clerk from the clerk. At this time, I would like to ask anyone who intends to speak on the quasi judicial items tonight to please raise
your hand to be sworn in by the clerk. In the matter in which you are about to give testimony, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I help you God. >> The witnesses have been sworn. >> Mr. Mayor, tab A is a resolution of the village council of Alamara Village of Islands, Florida, concerning the request
by Russell A. Diego, Esquire, agent for owner, Seth Ellington, for administrative relief from the V Village village building permit allocation system for property located at 183 East Ridge Road, Plantation Key, as legally described in exhibit A, providing for transmitt to the Department of Commerce, and providing for an effective date.
Before we begin, council, um, I would like for you to please disclose any exparte communications you may have had with the applicant or anyone else. This is on tab A. And uh if you recall, please include uh specifics about the the uh the person or entity as well as
the substance matter um uh to the best as you recall. >> Thank you, John. Um let's see. Do you have any >> uh just with staff? >> With staff. Deb? >> None. >> Anna, >> none. >> Sharon, >> none. >> All right. I uh uh I called uh uh the
previous uh planning director and asked a question about this and they spoke to staff. >> Which planning director? So >> uh uh Ty Harris. >> We are ready to go. >> Okay. Very good. >> Thank you. Council Jennifer Debrien,
planning director for the village of Isa Marada. I'm here this evening for the administrative relief application for 183 East Ridge Road. Russell A. Diego Esquire on behalf of the owner Seth Ellington has applied for administrative relief from the villages building permit allocation system pursuant to section
30-477 of the building of the code of ordinances. Village Code Section 30-477 requires that a public hearing be held during which the village council shall consider all evidence presented regarding the application and shall follow the procedures, standards, and criteria
found within code sections 30-552 beneficial use determination and 30-553 procedures, standards, and criteria for relief. The applicant has the burden for of establishing a need for relief. The subject property is located at 183
Eastridge Road and legally described in exhibit A of the proposed resolution. The application was entered into the BP pass system on January 31st, 2022. The application has been considered in four consecutive annual allocation periods
and has failed to receive an allocation award. At the close of quarter 1 of 2026, the application was ranked 37th with 10 points. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in SE code section 30-477A, the applicant was eligible to apply for
administrative relief between 12:01 p.m. and April 1st, 2026. On April 1st, 2026 and 12 p.m. on July 1st, 2026. The applicant submitted the application for administrative relief on April 1st, 2026. The proposed
development is a single family home containing one bedroom and one one and a half baths approximately 1,083 square ft of living area. The application site is approximately 15,410 square ft with permitted clearing and
associated mitigation subject to habitat-based regulations. The full analysis of the application is in your packet. An additional item provided by additional information provided by the applicant is that the property owner has complied with all requirements of the
building permit allocation system. The BPASS application has not been withdrawn at any time and the property owner has not applied for a deferral and the applicant as stated is seeking an allocation at award. At the occlusion of the public conclusion of the public hearing, the village council may take
any or combination of the following actions. One, grant the applicant an allocation award for all or part of the allocation requested in the next succeeding allocation period. Offer to purchase the property at its fair market value or s suggest such other relief as
may be necessary and appropriate. Currently, the village has six allocations available for administrative relief. And at this time, staff recommends awarding the administrative relief allocation. >> Very good. Thank you so much. >> You're welcome. >> Um,
let's see. Why don't we go on and open up testimony and for those >> Mr. Eagle has the opportunity. >> Oh, I'm sorry, Russ. >> Good evening, Council Russell Eagle on behalf of the applicant, Seth Ellington, who's sitting in the audience with his father, Dawn. Uh, this relates to 183
Ridge Road. Uh, in an effort to keep my client's fees and costs down, uh, thank you. I I don't think there's a lot to say. I believe staff has done an adequate report. They've recommended he be granted an allocation and we would respectfully request that you grant that allocation. If there's any questions you
have, we will gladly answer them for you. >> Very good. Thank you, Russ. I have several, but um we can uh uh well, we can start off now. Um, if y'all are okay with that, Russ, the application that I saw
mentioned that uh um hang on a second, let me turn to it. The application that was submitted to the village speaks of 183 East Ridge Road, but it gives a real estate number
of 00412230 with no split out. um that I see that does that's not actually 183 East Ridge Road. East Ridge Road um is the property adjacent to that um
more towards the ocean. Right. I saw reference to that mayor and I actually I'm confused myself. I went and looked again on the property appraisers record for the parcel. So I I have always seen it referred to 183 East
Ridge Road, but the parcel is for that parcel. That's that spit of land that's undeveloped and extends outward. >> And that's what the application is for. >> Yes. >> Okay. And so it has the application has nothing to do with the actual address of
183 Road or real estate number 00412140 with no split out. Is that correct? >> I believe that's correct. So, I don't understand why the resolution has two other real estate numbers. One that doesn't even show up on the property appraisers records and one that that
actually references a vacant residential lot that's a platted lot on East Ridge Road. Is that am I correct? >> Yeah. one of the one that was that doesn't appear I believe was because there was a lot combination and then
that was the former um uh the excuse me the the former real estate parcel ID that got merged into uh that so at the >> so is that is that mean that what there there used to be there used to be three then what we're talking about is three
separate pieces of property and two of them have been combined and that would be the one that was the road and one that was the spit >> correct And are we even talking about then the actual 183 Ishridge Road which is the address for the vacant residential platted lot?
>> That's what's in was in the application. So we're we're addressing it based upon the application. The I'll have to check the >> So if you >> if there's even an address for the vacant lot. >> If you look at the property appraisers records, there's actually two real estate numbers associated with Mr.
Ellington. That's that's there. I mean, there's several others as well, but but for some reason, this resolution is is reflecting one real estate number that doesn't even exist, and it's reflecting another real estate number that apparently is not part of this
application. Am I correct in assuming that? Well, in the the reason that those three are included in the resolution is if you look I don't have a page number on this, but there is a notice of approval of lot combination and it combines that notice of approval has
three partial IDs in it and those are the same parial IDs that are listed in the resolution. So, so those >> but then but then when I look at the notice of approval for a lot combination, I'm looking at what was a
private road or that's what they call it in the legal description as a private road. And then I'm also looking at some submerged land and I'm also looking at some sovereign filled lands. nothing to do with lot 18 with with the actual
adjacent lot which would have been lot uh lot one uh actually >> I believe it was lot two mayor >> and the client advises >> lot two has the house on it >> okay I'm sorry then it is lot one
>> it is lot one it's it's >> lot one of toner nautical shores >> that's the vacant residential lot that's platted in Toner's nautical shores Right. The client advises the vacant lot is actually 185 East Ridge Road. And in
fact, the one we're seeking is 183, which the re plat number seems to be correct. I I guess the confusion is what is the address assigned by the postal service. >> Correct. Jennifer pulled up the property appraisers website and and the real
estate or the parcel ID numbers are are the ones for this um this >> so is lot is is lot one of toner nautical shores part of this application >> I'd have to look at the plat to see which one's lot >> one I do not believe it is
>> it is not >> no >> so it's the unplatted piece of property of Toner nautical shores that's part of the that that is the only piece of property that we're looking at >> for this application. >> Yes. >> I don't we are looking at it is not
platted with a lot number. It was platted. Yes. The area >> it was platted as what >> I believe was references a park and a road. >> A park and a road. So what we're doing is we're talking about wanting to violate our own code and establish some
new development right on a unplatted piece of property. I don't believe that's the case, mayor, because I don't believe it would have been accepted into BPASS if it got qualified or if it was not qualified to be built on. >> It's not a platted lot. It's it it
actually in fact in your in the in the in the information it's given to us specifically says a private road north of adjacent lot one and then it talks about Phil Bade Bottom and then it talks about submerged low wetland. Well,
>> and those are the three parcels that are associated with this application. >> Understood. But at some point, the village acknowledged it was a lot because it accepted a lot combination application and ultimately accepted it as a lot with the legal description that
was attached with the notice of approval. >> The legal says a private road. >> The legal description references as a private road, but that doesn't make it a lot. >> It's not a lot. You're right. It is a lot by virtue of the fact it's been
acknowledged as a lot. It was platted on the plat. >> Okay. >> And the village treated it as a lot when it did a lot combination application and approved it mayor. And so if it wasn't a lot, then why did the village approve it
and say now you have a lot and we've combined these together and accepted in the B pass. And I mean the village is an institution. And I'm not referring to you all individually, but as an institution, these rights were given. They were acknowledged and then he was
allowed to go into BPASS as a lot and expend the money to get this far down the road. And so it would not be fair to this applicant who's an innocent purchaser for value to suddenly be said, well, you really didn't qualify from the
beginning. And so we think to the extent that argument is made, it is a lie. It has been acknowledged as a lot and in fact the village said we're going to combine multiple parces and make it a single lot. >> Okay. Thank you. Anna, you have anything
else to say? >> Vice Mayor, >> I I've >> to me >> this went on with someone who was previously on council who got the lots combined when that was a park. That's what I have a
problem with. if it was a park and I don't know how who let that slide through but to me that was a mistake from the get-go and I know this poor gentleman's going to is bought it thinking he could do that but it is wasn't even platted it's a park that's I
agree with Don but but council that the sins of the past can't come back to haunt my client I understand and you know by all accounts when this was researched and we find and we look through the records and the village has said there's a lot. Okay.
And and so I I understand the prior owner could be controversial at times. >> It has nothing to I didn't know who the owner was. It had nothing to do with that. >> But it it's you know the the reality and the truth is it is an institution. This has been acknowledged as a lot. It was
allowed to go into BPASS and it's gotten this far. And so if it wasn't a lot, that should have been decided the day the application for a lot combination came in and they should have said this doesn't qualify as a lot. But they didn't. And here we are today with a lot
that has gone through the proper procedures and avenues to seek administrative relief. >> Gotcha. It's our fault. Well, and and throughout the county, there are other parcels that are referenced as a park on a platted subdivision that have been
sold off and have been built on as residential. So, this is not like this is a first time thing. There there are many other ones throughout the county that are like that. >> So, >> that were platted as a park and then recognized as a lot of record. >> Correct.
>> I have seen that. folks over on on my right side, any comments, any questions? >> No. Okay. >> Not at this time. >> Okay. Uh Jennifer, do you have anything else to add?
>> Not at this time. >> Okay. Thank you, council. Appreciate it. Is there anybody in the public that would like to speak in favor of this application? >> Have no one signed up in favor? >> All right. Very good. Then that's closed. Is there anybody that would like
to speak in opposition of this application? >> Yes. First would be Sue Miller. >> Okay. Sue Miller. Yes, her again. Lower Madakumbi Ki representing the Alamrada Community Alliance. This property has been in the BPAST system four years,
making it eligible for administrative relief, but the owner just bought it into 2025. Shouldn't our code be changed so we rewrite the comp plan and LDRs to require 4-year clock resets when a property on the list is sold? Why do we
re why do we create resale value just for a position on the BPASS list? According to the subdivision plat, a portion of the subject lot is listed as a park with another portion as a 20ft easement for access to the park. The
widest portion of the jetty is hardly wide enough with setbacks for the proposed stilled home of onebedroom. I don't think there was ever any intent to build a stilled home on that lot, interfering with the view from the owner's own primary home and the home of
adjoining neighbors. If you give away this valuable BPASS allocation, you will be increasing the value of the building right as a waterfront TDR now worth somewhere around 5 to $700,000 on the open market. How in the world did
this park property and its 20 foot access easement ever get on the BPASS list as a platted lot to begin with? Could it have been the influence of the owner four years ago? Could it have been because when asked to verify the title,
the property owner at the time, an attorney, provided his own legal opinion of title, probably a serious conflict of interest. This council has consistently provided an allocation when you hold administrative relief hearings, even
though you have other options. This case should be different. There are a total of six administrative relief allocations remaining and no market rate allocations. 38 market rate applicants on the BPASS list. A majority are eligible for administrative relief.
About 20 have waited just as long as this property and much longer than this property owner. Those 16 administrative relief allocations should be used carefully by the village. A potential takings at 183ridge road. I don't think
so. The property in question is contiguous to other properties purchased together by this owner. This property already has a significant use both dockage. The market value of the property is listed by the county property appraiser is $98,39
with 75% of the value being the improvements. A use that already exists only permitted and allowed by our code because it is adjacent to the owner's home. And think about the 38 property owners on the BPASS list and others who
also want to build on vacant lots in the future. Will they have compelling takings claims? I checked the market value of the other 37 properties on the BPASS list. Average is just under $400,000 for vacant lots on the list. A scary
number if you worry about takings. Action by the village council can be to grant the application and allocation award the allocation award in the next succeeding allocation allocation period.
Do we have another one? Offer to purchase the property at fair market value. Suggest other relief that be that may be necessary and appropriate. The village should either deny the administrative relief as not necessary as the owner has a significant use of
the property. We strongly support purchasing the property at just market value listed by the property appraiser is $98,000 to return the park and park access easement so it can be returned to its original intended
public use based on the designation on the plat map. providing a public benefit. Save valuable administrative relief for more appropriate situations. Thank you. >> Thank you, Sue. >> Barney, are there any other speakers?
>> Yes. Next up is Joe Wishmire. >> Joe Wishmire, plantage key. Boy, I hate following her because she kind of hits on all the points that I was going to make. But just as a reference to remember this many many years ago, I remember when this first came up and there was a big
kadoo when the previous owner blocked the road to get to the park because he thought it would interfere with his property. There was other occasions on things that he did that were going to interfere with his property, too. I
don't think that we ought to award I think that we ought to go back to the private road and the park and give the public access to it like it was intended from the beginning. I also heard the attorney here mention that maybe that's not that that address
is 183. Maybe it's 185 which would mean that everything that you have would be actually incorrect on the application. So considering all this, I would respectfully request that you deny the applicant. Thank you. >> Thank you, Joe. >> Marty, are there any other speakers?
>> No, sir. >> All right. Hearing that, then the public speaking is closed. Uh Russ, would you like to wrap up with anything or should I go to Jennifer first? It's your pleasure. >> Um you can go to Jennifer first. >> Thank you, Jennifer. >> I don't have anything additional at this time.
>> Okay. Mayor, I do just want to point out um the actually the property card shows the address is 183. Uhhuh. >> So I I don't know where that confusion may be from the prior approval. I understand as is frequently at these meetings, people have the a lot of different reasons that they say you all
shouldn't do things, but the reality is your code has a defined set of items that say this is what you consider and it's not whether we like the prior owner or not or or these types of things. Staff has recommended the granting of an allocation. My client paid good money
for this. He's an honest man. He's a purchaser. If people don't like the fact that this can be done, that that that's for a different meeting and maybe a code change, but it's not a reason to deny it here. And so I would respectfully again
ask that you grant my client an allocation for administrative relief. Thank you. >> Thank you, Russ. Um, I I want to read in the record what it says here on this uh des legal description after lot combination
because the lot combination is is is only for three pieces of property. And it says the quote unquote private road north of adjacent lot one toner nautical shores as shown on the plat thereof and recorded in platbook four and page 36 of
the public record of Monro County Florida less than accepting thereof parcel of land being a part of a 20 foot wide quote unquote private road shown on the plat of Toner nautical shores recorded in a platbook four page 36 of
the public records of Monroe County Florida said road being adjacent to the abuing and southerntherly line of lot 23 block one of the plat of plantation ridge recorded in platbook three of page 43 of the public records. So this is
telling me that we are being asked to look at constructing a single family residential unit on a quote unquote private road. A parcel A which is part of the lot combination is a parcel of
filled sovereign land in the Atlantic Ocean abuing section 24 township 3 south range 37 east and section 19 township 63 south range 38 east plantation key county Florida being more pick
particularly described as follows and it goes on to give a meets and balance description of the sovereign fil land and then the last parcel is a parcel of submerged land. So, we know we can't build on a parcel of submerged land. And
it looks to me by this description that we are being asked to approve an allocation on a piece of filled land that was not part of a plat of a subdivision as far as being a platted
lot because it's a private road and filled sovereign land. So with and I believe Jennifer and you can correct me if I'm wrong, but our code specifically states that we should not create more building rights other than
those that are already uh you know there I guess that means platted lots in my mind. I don't know. >> Yes, in certain zoning districts we cannot create additional lots that didn't exist prior to 1986. >> Okay.
All right. Well, council, what's your pleasure? >> Do I have a motion to approve this uh administrative relief application? >> I'll make a motion to approve the administrative relief.
>> Do I have a second? >> I'll second it. >> Okay, I got a motion in a second. Marty, will you call the role? >> Council member Deb Gillis, >> yes. Council member Anna Richards, >> yes. >> Council member Steve Freriedman, >> no. >> Vice Mayor Sharon Mahoney, >> no.
>> And Mayor Don Horton, >> no. >> That motion fails. Three to two. >> All right. What's next on the agenda? >> Well, we do need to address the application because there are um there
are other options under administrative relief. Um, there's you can award the relief in its entirety or I I don't have the code revision pulled up in front of me, but it or you can offer to purchase it for fair market value and then there's kind of that catch-all where it
says you can you can offer something >> or something else >> as necessary. Yeah, >> Sharon, your mic's on. >> I say we buy you a >> You want to get it appraised and see what the value is? >> Okay, >> I'd beable to that. >> Excuse me. >> I would be amanable to that. >> So, you want to make that motion then?
Will don't they have a say if they want to the relief I would like to make a point if I could ma'am I would like to address what you referenced as you well know a plat is recorded many years ago and it gets words put on it but it
doesn't mean that's what it will forever be. That is not a park and that is not a private roadway anymore. You know we issued the title insurance on that property. It is owned by my client. It is not owned subject to the rights of the public to use the road or to use a
park. They have fee title, no different than any other parcel of land in this city. So, I do want to make that clear. And I was about to ask and I believe your council advised you. So, are we being denied administrative relief or are you offering some other
>> Well, I think that that's the next I guess that's the next item. And I think I'm about to have a motion to something. What What >> I was going to make a motion to buy it and give it back to the neighborhood. >> So, we get it appraised at market value to see if we went to do that. Is that
right, John? >> Yes. So, what I would recommend would be a motion to defer um or continue this item um uh to give us the ability to get an appraisal so that you all can see what the fair market value is and then you can make a determination as to if you
would like to make an offer to purchase it for for that price. >> What? And if we make the offer to purchase, the client has the right to turn it down. Correct. >> That's correct. They're not obligated to accept it. Yes. in just a point of order. I mean, we just we just made an action, >> right?
>> So, what are we what are we deferring then? >> What? Well, the action. >> So, >> we just voted on an action. >> Well, you voted you you didn't vote on an action. You voted down a motion. That doesn't um that's not necessarily like we didn't deny. >> So, we can then we can then make a
motion to defer pending a uh >> a different outcome. >> An appraisal and then we can come back and revisit. >> Yes. Yeah. And that way you can you guys can find out how much it is and you'll see if you have an appetite for the uh the amount. Yeah, >> I would make that motion. >> You make that second. >> She made the motion. >> I'll make that second.
>> Okay. There's a motion and a second on the table. Marty, will you call the role? >> Vice Mayor Sharon Mahoney? >> Yes. >> Council member Steve Freriedman? >> Yes. >> Council member Deb Gillis. >> No. >> Council member Anna Richards. >> I mean, you can make the appraisal. I
don't care, but I don't think you can afford it. >> That's a yes or no. Sure. Yes. And Mayor Don Hart. >> Yes. >> Just to be clear, the deferral is the decision on what relief is going to be
offered. Meaning at the next meeting, we could request again that you grant us an allocation. Is that correct? The whole issue of what administrative relief will be provided is now being deferred until you get an appraisal. Is
that a fair >> I believe that's a fair statement. Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yes, sir. >> Marty, what's the next item? >> The next item is tab B. Uh, it's a resolution of the village council of Alamarda Village of Islands, Florida,
considering the request by CBT Construction agent for owner Ray Vaughn for administrative relief from the village building permit allocation system for property located at 207 Pearl A, Plantation Key as legally described in exhibit A, providing for transmitt to the Department of Commerce and providing
for an effective date. Again, council, before we begin, if you will please um advise of any exparte communications you may have had, including the uh the names of the person or uh or entity uh and the substance of the conversation. >> Steve, >> none. >> Yep.
>> None except the emails that we received. >> Thank you so much, Anna. >> Just the emails. >> Sure. >> Emails. >> Just the emails. >> And the emails are in the record so that they're accessible if anybody would like them. >> Correct. >> We are ready to begin. Thank you councel Jennifer Deborri and
planning director for the village of Isa Marada. I'm here tonight for the administrative relief application for 207 Pearl A CBT Construction and Development Inc. on behalf of owner Rayvon has applied for administrative relief from the village of Marada's building permit allocation system
pursuant to section 30-477 of the code of ordinances. Village Code section 30-477 requires that a public hearing be held during which the village council shall consider all evidence presented regarding the application and shall follow the procedures, standards, and criteria found within code section
30-552 beneficial use determination and 30-553 procedures, standards, and criteria for relief. The applicant has the burden of establishing a need for relief. The subject property is located at 207 Pearl A and illegally described in exhibit A of the proposed resolution.
The application was application was entered into BPASS on November 1st, 2021. The application has been considered in four consecutive annual allocation periods and has failed to receive an allocation award. At the close of quarter 4 of the al of 2025,
the application was ranked 11th with 19 points. Pursuant to the requirements set forth in code section 30-477A, the applicant was eligible to apply for administrative relief between 12:01 p.m. on January 1st, 2026 and 12 p.m. on May
1st, 2026. The applicant submitted the application for administrative relief on April 30th, 2026. The proposed development is a single family home containing three bedrooms, two bathrooms, and approximately 1,855 square ft of living area. The site is
approximately 5,500 square ft with permitted clearing and associated mitigation subject to habitat-based regulations. The full analysis is in your packet and additional information provided by the applicant is that the property owner has complied with all the requirements
of the building permit allocation system. The BPASS application has not been withdrawn at any time. The property owner has not applied for a deferral and the applicant as stated is seeking an allocation award. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the village council may take any or a combination of the
following actions. Grant the applicant an allocation award for all or part of the allocation requested in the next senior allocation period. Offer to purchase appropriate as fair market value or suggest other such relief as may be necessary and appropriate. The village currently has six allocation
awards available for administrative relief. And at this time, staff recommends awarding the administrative relief application. >> Thank you, Jennifer. >> You're welcome. Uh, is there anyone here to speak on this for this application? All right. Uh, is there anyone that
would like to speak in favor of this application? >> I have no one signed up for this. >> Matt is standing up. Come on up, Matt. >> Sorry. >> Matt Turk, village of Alam Marada, CBD Construction. Uh, I wasn't going to say anything, but seeing the way the other
one went, um, I'm going to speak on behalf of, you know, the the owner went through the process. We've got a set of rules. Obviously, this one hopefully this one's a plotted plat. Um I don't haven't done all the homework on that one. Um but if they've gone through their their period and we wrote the
rules and they've gotten that and the planning directors uh advising for it, you know, this is somebody that's going to live here locally. So, I'd advise given the uh the permit. >> Thank you, Matt. I appreciate that. Is there anyone else would like to speak in favor of this application?
All right. Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition of this application? >> I have no one signed up for it. >> One more shot at it. All right, that's fine. Jennifer, you have anything to close with? >> I do not. >> Very good. What's the pleasure of the council?
>> Just one quick question kind of related to the last one because there were letters that were received. Um are those they're just part of the record. We don't mention whether they're in favor or not. >> Yeah, because they're not sworn testimony. So, under um under the standards, they wouldn't be considered
competent substantial evidence as as just u unsworn testimony. >> Okay. Thanks, >> Deb. >> I was going to make a motion to approve. >> Is there anyone else that would like to make any more discussion? >> Okay. Hearing none. Deb, >> I make a motion to approve.
>> Anna, >> second. >> I got a motion in a second. Marty, will you call the role? >> Council member Deb Gillis, >> yes. >> Council member Anna Richards, >> yes. >> Council member Steve Freriedman, >> yes. Vice Mayor Sharon Mahoney. >> Yes. >> And Mayor Don Horton. >> Yes. >> That motion passes 5-0.
>> Awesome. >> All right, moving right along. Uh tab C. >> So C and D are uh companion items. One is a map and the other one's a zoning. Uh historically we have taken those together. Uh just wanted to confirm that's something that uh that you all
would uh continue to like to do. Um >> uh yes, we can do them together. I have no problem with that. Council, you okay with that? Okay, we're all nodding heads. >> Okay, perfect. So, I will read them separately for for the the benefit of those in the audience. They'll be read separately. They'll be considered together, but there'll be separate votes
on each um uh each ordinance. Uh first ordinance tab C is an ordinance of Alamara Village of Islands, Florida, considering the request of uh James S. Lepino Esquire, agent for uh Mao Robert E. Florida Residence Trust and Mao Kathy G. Florida residents trust to amend the vill's future land use map from
residential high to residential medium for the subject property on old highway located on Upper Madakumbi Key with real estate numbers 00009-62-4-00000000 and 00009-624-0000 as legally described herein providing for the transmitt of this ordinance to the state department of commerce and providing for an effective date upon the
approval of this ordinance by the state department of commerce. D is an ordinance of Alamada Village of Islands, Florida, considering the request of James S. Lapino Esquire, agent for Mao Robert E. Florida Residence Trust and Mao Kathy G. Florida Residents Trust to amend the official zoning map for multif
family to Settlers Residential for the subject property on Old Highway located on Upper Madakumbi Key with real estate numbers 009-624-00000000 and 00009-624-0000100 0 as legally described herein providing for the transmitt of this ordinance to the state department of commerce and providing for an effective date upon the approval of this ordinance by the state
department of commerce. Uh council, if you'll please disclose any exparte communications, including the uh the name of the person or entity, um the sub the specific subject matter to the best you recall and to the extent any of that was different between C and D, please
advise if if one related to only. >> All right, Steve. >> Uh only staff on C and D. >> All right, Deb. >> Nobody besides staff. Uh Anna >> Casey Douly on behalf of the MALS um just regarding the zoning and coming to
the village to try to get it corrected. >> Very good. Sharon, >> no one spoken to anyone about that, but just for full disclosure, I've known Bob and Kathy since 2005. Uh I was their construction manager on
their residence that they built that actually Duly Casey and his dad built on that beautiful piece of property. And I know ultimately I'm very familiar with this piece of property. So that there is no communication with any of you. >> Okay. And based on that, is there any
reason to believe you couldn't um uh uh adjudicate this uh fair and impartially? >> None at all. >> We're ready to go. >> Staff. >> All right. Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council. The applicant, James Lepino, Esquire on behalf of the property
owners, Mal Robert E. Florida Residents Trust and Mount Cathy G. Florida Residents Trust has submitted a map amendment application requesting an approval for a future land use map amendment for residential high to residential medium on the subject properties located at 80839 Old Highway
comprising of approximately 2.75 acres of land. The current use of the property is residential with a single family residential home pool and other hardscaping located on the property. The Flem amendment has a companion application for a zoning map amendment which proposes a change from multifamily
district to settlers residential district and the Flem amendment cannot be approved without approval of the companion zoning map amendment. The applicant's agent has submitted a needs analysis detailing the map amendment requests. This item was heard at the May 18th, 2026 LPA meeting and received a
unanimous recommendation for approval. Uh to summarize this is there was a lot combination where they went from four lots to two lots and in that process um it was missed that the properties being combined had two different zonings which were settler's residential and multif
family. Um, the settler's residential zoning district has fewer permitted uses than multif family and the residential medium flum has less allowable density than the residential high flum. And from my communication with the owner's agent, the current owners have no anticipation
or desire to build any multifamily structures. They wish to continue with the single family use. Um, there is no budget impacts with this application. There are no staff impacts with this application and staff recommends approval. Very good.
Let's see. Uh, is there any questions of staff at this moment? >> No. Any conversation? No. >> Okay. Except those two. Okay, that's quite all right. So, I I got a question. So, staff already did a lot combination
on this. >> Yes. >> And you combined different different zoning pieces of property together. It was overlooked during that process. Normally, it would be handled alto together. So, that's why you're hearing it separately from the lot combination. >> How long ago was that? Did did that take
place? >> I want to say about a year. I have I can find the dates. >> Was it was between 6 months and a year ago. It was It was a newer staff member that um was just starting with the village that overlooked it and and Daniel and I caught it after the fact.
>> Okay. Uh I see you standing. Is there anyone would like to speak in favor of this application? >> Good evening, Mr. Mayor and Council. Rob Stober on behalf of James Lepino for the mouse. I think this is a pretty
straightforward issue, but I'm here Casey Douly is here and we can answer any questions that anyone has. >> Thank you, Rob. >> Was I shorter than Mr. Jaggel? >> I love it. You know what? Yeah, but you sat longer, so Bob and Kathy are still going to owe more than you than him.
Still not fair. Uh, all right. Thank you. Is there anyone that would like to otherwise speak in favor of this application? Is there anyone that would like to speak in opposition of this application? All right. Jennifer, do you have anything or do or do you have anything
to follow up with, Daniel? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Council, what's your pleasure? >> Motion to approve. Motion to I'll second the motion to approve on the flume land change. We have to do that first. Yeah, the first one.
>> The flum first. Okay. >> So, we've got a motion and a second to approve the flum amendment. Marty, uh, will you call the role? >> Council member Ann Richards? >> Yes. >> Council member Deb Gillis. >> Yes. >> Council member Steve Freriedman. >> Yes.
>> Vice Mayor Sharon Mahoney. >> Yes. >> And Mayor Don Horton. >> Yes. Now, can I have a motion uh to approve the zoning amendment? >> Motion to approve the zoning amendment. Very good. >> And I'll second. >> There's a motion in a second. Marty, will you call the role? >> Council member Anna Richards.
>> Yes. >> Council member Deb Gillis. >> Yes. >> Council member Steve Freriedman. >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Sharon Mahoney. >> Yes. >> And Mayor Don Horton. >> Yes. >> Motion passes 5-0. >> Good deal. >> All right. We have one more. >> Thank you everyone. >> You Thank you very much, Rob. Have a
good night. >> Have a good evening. We have one more item that we need to tackle which was a leftover from um from Tuesday night meeting tab four. So will you uh read that into the record
John? >> Yep. Tab four uh from Tuesday's meeting that was deferred uh to or continued till today. A resolution of the village council of alamada village of islands Florida approving the final ranking and recommendation for the RFP 26-03 evaluation committee for selection of a contractor for on demand electric
vehicle ride sharing services authorizing the village manager and village attorney to negotiate an agreement for the services authorizing village manager to execute the agreement authorizing the village manager to expend budgeted funds and providing an effective date. >> Thank you very much. Okay, I think we got a presentation from
Peter in in the flesh. Well, part of his flesh tonight. So, Peter, it's your show. >> Yes. Okay. Well, good evening, council. Sorry for my appearance. I did have a little bicycle accident on over the weekend, Saturday morning. So, uh a little road rash, but getting better
every day and uh I'm going be fine. So, >> well, we're glad you're healing and we're glad you're good. So, glad you're here in person. >> I'm glad to be here. >> Good deal. Yep. >> Okay. >> Right. >> Ask him how he's doing. He says he's doing great. >> I know. I know. Looks are deceiving as they say.
>> All right, so ride sharing. Yes, here we go. Thank you for the introduction. So, the village, as you probably remember, did begin an electric vehicle ride sharing service. It was a pilot program in downtown Rod. That was back in 2018. And at first, we just utilized those those golf cart style vehicles. But
since the village has uh expanded it, the on on demand ride sharing services program due to its popularity and desire to provide services to the entire village. Uh so the services currently in place uh utilizing a freebie as you all
know are two Tesla Y vehicles and an electric van that can accommodate a wheelchair. Uh so those three vehicles operate between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. Monday through Sunday. So it's 357 hours a week and that's 7 days
a week. Uh so the agreement with the current provider that is freebie is nearing completion the end of June and at present the village council does desire to consider other ondemand services uh other demand service vehicle ride sharing services for potential cost
savings. So, here we are uh with a new request for proposals and it was on March 12th, 2026 that the village did issue RFP or request for proposals 26-03 that solicited proposals from qualified proposers to provide a villagewide
ondemand ride sharing service program utilizing electric vehicles. So, the village did receive a total of only two proposals in response to that RFP. uh to evaluate the proposals. Uh an evaluation committee was established by
our our village manager and the two response proposals were reviewed and scored by the committee in a publicly noticed meeting that was on April 27th, 2026. So there was a maximum of 100 points available for the scoring per committee member. Uh there were five
committee members total. So thus there was a total of 500 points available for the scoring. And the committee did rank the proposals and this is the scoring as follows according to the uh criteria and the point system provided in the RFP. So
B free LLC which does business as freebie. I'm just going to go with freebie. Everyone's more familiar with that. Uh freebie scored 474 points. Again that's out of 500. Uh Circuit Transit, the other proposer scored 398
points. So that was 75 points more for uh freebie. Uh the average difference was very synchronous between the people on the evaluation committee and again we did not discuss anything because of the cone of silence. It was a very synchronous about a 15point difference
uh in favor of freebie over overcircuit. So adoption of the proposed resolution would approve the ranking of the RFP 2603 evaluation committee and that being the recommended selection of freebie to conduct the services and it does also
authorize the village manager to enter into an agreement with freebie. Uh the proposed cost or annual cost for the services is $530,000 which is slightly less than the current agreement with freebie of $553,000
and we would again be utilizing the villages transportation fund to cover those costs. And as you all know we do have a grant 50% of that costs are covered through an FDOT public transportation service grant. And finally, staff are recommending uh the
adoption of the proposed resolution and the acceptance of freebie for these services. Thank you. >> Thank you so much, Peter. >> Okay. >> Uh let's see, where do we go from here, >> Mr. Mayor? Just real quick, I just wanted to thank staff for their work on this. I noticed in their minutes it was
about a 4hour meeting or so going over the proposals and just appreciate your your extra work on this. >> 100%. >> Excellent. Okay. Are there any questions of staff at this moment from from council? No. Okay. Uh, is there any public
comment that I guess I should ask for at this moment? Is there any public comment? Marne? >> Yes. First up is Sue Miller. >> Okay. Sue Miller, lower Madakumbbe Ki representing the Is Marada Community
Alliance. Our organization does support having a ride share service. We are here tonight with this added on agenda item because of Freeby's concern about the validity of the Alamrada Community Alliance research into the impact of
their ride share proposal, suggesting our comments could be misleading. We stand by our comments, our calculations, and our concerns. We're extremely pa proud of the research we do to educate the public and sometimes the staff and council about directions the village
takes and taxpayer funding is and how taxpayer funding is spent. We emailed the village. The email the village received from freebie was important as it actually confirmed the calculations we provided that the actual price to the
village of this service quoted in the proposal will be $665,000 come July 1st if approved tonight. A significant increase from the $553,000 current price. Yes, they provided thou
135,000 in guaranteed credits back to the village for money they will be collecting. They use their high rider numbers as a selling point when they claim they are at risk in the rider number if the rider numbers fall by more than 18,000 rides in the coming year. It
made us smile that they contended the information we provided to several thousand of our local readers may be misleading. And then they confirmed the numbers we used, but provided quotes alleged allegedly from our newsletter
showing our claims versus their facts. Seven out of the eight quotes were misqued, exaggerated just for enhanced drama. How misleading is that? And so we stick by our numbers and theirs. The contract price in our agreement with
freebie would be increased from the current $5,530,330 to 665,000 over $100,000 CRA contract price increase and then the village gets credit for a $2 ride fee. What the
village formulated to save taxpayers more than $100,000 on current statistics. but instead freebie upped their cost by $100,000. We just hope that whoever negotiates the contract understands these technical calculations
and that a special call meeting can be scheduled so council can approve the contract and all its complexities before the July 1 start. Monroe County contracted with freebie a couple years ago. A contract negotiated when Monroe County had a professional transit
expert, Richard Clark. This county contract and their RFP that was issued should have been such an excellent guide for us and it still can be as we venture into charging of the fee. We hope that the village contract like the one negotiated by Monroe County with freebie
is for one year with the right to renew for an additional year. That way it provides for amendments if government funding restrictions go into effect. We hope that the contract, like the Monroe County contract, provides for ongoing amendments to improve service with FDOT
approval, knowing FDOT wants their funding used to the very best advantage. And very critical, we hope that the village can assure that the services contracted are carefully monitored to ensure that the riders and the taxpayers are getting their very best service
according to the contract and that invoices for rider hours are carefully calculated based on dashboard documentation. Freeb sure knows the village doesn't check their services service hours now and seems to take
advantage of that. Freebie is required by contract to have three vehicles in service 17 hours a day minus charging time and b driver breaks. We reviewed the rider records provided for last Friday. Looking at each of the 17 hours,
we only found five hours out of 17 when three vehicles vehicles provided pickups. Particularly concerning were the lunch and dinner hours when there were the largest number of riders and only two vehicles and huge wait times. No numbers available yet for how many
trips were cancelled, not wanting to wait. 122 trips in a 17-hour period. Most riders would have had a trip both to and from. So that means 60 rides to and from. Few trips had multiple riders. We
can do better. These are the type of facts the Alamrada Community Alliance is proudly documenting and we hope it helps you all in making decisions and improving the service our local government provides. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Sue. Marne, is there anyone
else? >> Yes, Joe Wishmire. >> Very good. Joe, >> I get beat before I even start. >> Well, no, that was that was Sue and she was way under the gun. Thank you, Sue. Yes, Joe Wishmire, Plantation Key. You
know, I I'd like to talk about some personal experiences with freebie. I've had some company come down, especially around spring breaks and all, and I know sometimes they couldn't get it. They were told they were going to have to wait over 45 minutes, driving them to where they wanted to go.
There was some cars in and there was a car in the parking lot uh in the charging lot. So, if we do approve this, which I I do hope that we do continue with this because I know there's a lot of people in this community that depend on freebie who do not have vehicles or
disabled and they use it on a regular basis. So, I would hope that we would continue with it. But in providing for the new contract, I would suggest in there you have certain amount of wait times like if they not to
exceed um if there was a problem, they're either going to have to get another vehicle or find another way or if it becomes so busy. So I would hope that you would do that. I for one was very confused when I know last year we were at $550 something,000
and they said we were going to save money. it was only going to be 530. And I'm like, "Oh, that's great." And then we're going to get $2 per ride. That's going to bring it down. And then they're going to do advertising, so that's going to bring it down even more. I was
unaware of the fact that no, the 530 was after they deducted the $130,000 that they were going to get. So I guess another question is when you apply for the grant, is the grant going to be half
of 530,000 or is it going to be half of the 680 something,000? That would be another thing to consider because if that's what it's going to say in the contract and we get half the contract, then that's what we should get. And I'm not sure how much the grant
money will go for that. I don't know if they go above the the 550. So, these are things to consider. So, even though you may approve it tonight, I would hope that before there's any contracts, it would come before the public and we can air out our differences. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Joe. >> Marty, are there any other speakers? >> Yes, >> we have uh Jason Spagel on Zoom. Let me get him here. I am not able to give him permission to
speak. I don't know if it's because he's an attendee rather than a panelist. Frank >> testing, can you guys hear me? >> Oh, there he is. Go ahead. Thank you. >> Good evening everybody. Uh Jason Spiegel here, managing partner at freebie. Um do
want to clarify just a couple of the points that were just made there. Um, specifically number one on the pricing. Um, today the village does pay $553,000 annually, but that also includes $120,000
advertising credit that is within the contract there. So, it is the same exact mechanism. And if we use the same kind of thought process, that means the freebie contract today is actually uh $673,000. But again, we provide those guarantees
and even if we don't hit those advertising dollars, uh, you know, the village is still paying the lower of those costs. So, I just definitely want to clarify that uh we work really hard to make sure we provide you guys with the lowest pricing possible and $530,000
is the ceiling. Meaning that once we go over the maximum or sorry, the the guarantee of both the fair revenue and the advertising revenue on the fair revenue, the village gets 100% of that. So anything generated over 75,000 is going to continue to deduct off that 530
and anything over 60,000 will be split between the the village and freebie. Um so that that's on one piece on on the other with uh you know the vehicle hours etc there. Um so today we we actually comp overcompensate with two extra vehicles um you know at our at our base
there um for when you know things happen charging etc there. Um we also overcompensate with the amount of hours that we schedule our drivers um on a daily and a weekly basis. And the reason we do that is number one we deal with humans. And if any business owner out
there understands you are going to have call outs um things happen, people get sick, last minute things. So, we try to overcompensate that every single day by providing an hour extra of service and also allowing our uh drivers to go over their shift times to finish their last
rides after midnight or if their shift is ending during the day there and to specifically talk about that Friday. Unfortunately, we did have a call out, but we actually made up we had somebody come in and we only missed two hours. And if you look at the hour logs for the entire week, we actually were over 5.6 6
hours during that entire week last week. Um, and then on the 45minute wait time, I mean, it's unfortunate. We only have a maximum amount of three vehicles there in service. Um, adding more vehicles to the fleet just comes with more cost and there are high periods of demand and we
try to obviously minimize the wait time as much as possible there, but it's impossible to control uh a peak hour where you might have 20 requests come in with three vehicles on the road. you're only able to accommodate what a fleet of three vehicles can do there. So again, we are happy to continue to work with
the manager on the contract on any performance metrics, any reporting metrics. Um, but I promise you, we always have the best interest of the village in mind and our goal is always to provide the the best level of service there. So if any other questions come up, I'm here. I'm happy to answer them.
>> Thank you, Jason. >> All right. Are there is there any other public speakers? No, sir. >> All right. Very good. Uh, council, any discussion? >> Start. >> Go for it, Sharon. >> Go ahead.
>> I don't have any I I really don't have any discussion at this point moment. >> Okay. Well, I guess I'm going to start. um four years now I've been sort of watching Freeb and have a group of people who we've been sort of tracking
them what they do the complaints the wait times um from the beginning we were supposed to get advertising on the vehicles that's not legal to do. So I don't know where that $60,000 is coming from. It's not legal to advertise on a
ride share car. I don't know if anybody knows that. um the $75,000 we're going to get anyhow because that's what we're charging to ride. And even at the $2, which I still don't know how that number came up, it really should have come in front of the council for us
to discuss what we wanted to charge because even at $2 per person per ride, we're still paying if by the numbers from June the 5th, which we did calculate and the weight times, 122
rides, it's costing the village um let's see, almost $10 per person without the grant. $5 per person uh with the grant. So, we're still losing money at $2 a ride. Um also, I've had a lot of complaints on
the wait time. I think everybody has. And I understand it's just three vehicles. I don't think anybody on this council has talked to Raymond Freeman from District 6. I know you talked to Dan because he told me uh District 6 about the grant. And the way it was
presented at the workshop was you got this box, you can't go out of the grant. That's not true. As long as we communicate with uh the grant person, which is uh Raymond, we can adjust anything we want. And I know you and I,
Don, have been on the same page about a van, the van or a trolley, whatever you want to call it. We can adjust right now to putting two cars on the road and the van starting to do the loop that we talked about. And it's not I don't want
to get rid of ride share. That's not and I have nothing against freebie at all. Part of the problem for the last year has been our managers and the communication that there's really been no oversight of freebie and there hasn't been. And I've been talking to you about
that for over a year. And I'd like to see that change. It says that they meet with the project manager. Yet, when I was here, nobody knew anything about freebie when you and I had that discussion, Ron. That was concerning. And it says that they
spend 4 hours a week or a month or something ridiculous working with freebie when that's not true either. I don't know who the project manager is here. Um I personally again think whoever sits down and does this contract
whether it be freebie or circuit um a lot of things need to be clarified and it's never been done before. And also I want you guys to realize that this grant after 2027 it's gone. There's no more
$275,000. He told me, "Yes, there will be other grants coming down the pike. Whether we qualify for them, nobody knows. But this one here, you get four years. This will be our fourth year. We're done." The
whole purpose of the grant was for us during this time to figure out how we can support ride share ourselves and we haven't done that. And now with Dantis and their property taxes, that's going to affect us greatly as well. So, I
talked to John about um either if it's freebie or circuit, whomever, only doing a one-year contract. And John, you can use your little fancy words how you explained it to me, but giving us the opportunity because if this passes in
November, this is going to affect the ride share greatly. And that's $600,000, a half a million dollars, however you want to slice it and dice it, it's going to be a lot of money that we might not be able to support. So whether we do
either company, I just I'm encouraging you guys just to do a year with the option, John, as you said, to have an exit on the second year because we might not have a grant and we might not have funding for ride share. And I don't think
600,000 half a million is going to make a lot of people happy in this town. And also, Steve, if for the $2 fair that I know you not you're not happy with, it'll give us a year to see how that works out as well. We may want to adjust it at the end of the year. We may want
to change the hours, but um personally for me, I'd like to give circuit a try. And I know everybody I'm probably not going to win this battle, but I'd like to see how another company does and see what our options are. So, that's >> I got a question. I had a question for
you, Vice Mayor. Um, what would what would it look like having somebody on staff monitor the rights here? What what what exactly would they be looking for? >> Well, I think first of all, we the we
have no oversight of really when the vehicles are out. And I know we just picked one day. That's why I got the information from Ron on June the 5th to know we're getting three vehicles to monitor the weight times where our needs
are, who's riding, what is the most popular areas that are dropped off and picked up. So if we start doing the loop with the van or a trolley or whatever, we know where we should position that. I mean, it there seems to be no oversight,
no communication, and it's a lot of money. >> Uh, we don't have a we don't have our own transit authority. We don't have >> uh you know, we don't have something that like the county that got rid of the whole transit >> which is
>> department. Um, so I just I just I mean if maybe during a contract negotiation we asked them to report monthly of how many rides they had and how many turndowns they had. I mean for a company to have a a 4.92
satisfaction rate from the customers that are riding it out of five is is pretty darn good. Um I you know I think a an Uber driver would be happy to have a 4.92 on his you know on his stars that that he gets you know it's pretty high
on a >> I'm not taking away from the drivers or the service. I'm just saying it is our responsibility to make sure we're doing what's best for the money and there is nobody on staff right now that works with them or is accountable
>> and what and what would that's why I managed to what would it look like is that should are you thinking that we need to assign one of our staff members or have have our manager assign a staff member to monitor how many cars are parked there getting charged or
>> we talked about that and and who would it would fall under and you know we he feels certain people have too much on their plate and I don't know if it would be a staff member or maybe I don't I don't know how that would look but I'm just saying you know we c we can do better than what we've been doing that's
all and we can give back more and not have an hour wait times I have had my neighbors next door to me tell me well when they call they'll call an Uber because it's an hour hour and a half wait and I know understand there's certain certain times. I understand how
the keys are spread out and it's long and everything, but I think number one, if you look at the the data that most of the riders are single riders, I think an average ride is 1.25 on that Friday, June the 5th. So, it's not really taking a car off the road either.
>> I agree. I agree with that. >> So, then why shouldn't we look into using one of the vans as a designated stop at Publix and Alada, then Papa Joe's? I don't care where it goes, but we could at least move more people if there were set times than
>> one person in a car. That's all. And and that's going to take someone working with somebody. Who and what? It's Listen, it's just what I >> Gotcha. Yeah. I I mean, I've I've always I've always for a long time before I was elected hoped that there was some way we
could come up with a loop transit system for Alam Rod. I talked to the previous manager long before I was elected about looking into that and he didn't even he didn't well it's actually goes back three managers uh they didn't even want
to discuss it at all and I I just I completely agree with you a and you it freebie is a necessary service and and we saw that last year when we were threatened with >> with maybe getting rid of any kind of
ride share and There were 65 people in the audience saying we depend on that. And and of course the workshop the workshop, you know, it only had really two writers in there. The rest were drivers and other people that were in there and then and then y'all um I
was out of the country. I didn't get to come. But it it I think that the the threat of getting rid of that program was, you know, they were pretty vocal about that last year. So I don't think we should get rid of them. And I don't see how I I just don't see how changing
companies in after seven years and and them having a good satisfaction rating and being incorred by the committee and actually being cheaper in a good presentation. Um, and and I heard those comments that
were made at that workshop about the advertising and how that works and all and and I I didn't understand why right now if there's no charge whatsoever, what's the purpose in having a wallet? Uh, it's there's a purpose in having a
wallet once there's once there's a fee involved, but you don't need a wallet. I mean, they've got an app which hails them there, but I completely agree with you that it doesn't take cars off of the road because it doesn't. You you're at
home, you could drive your car or you could call them to go there and pick you up and then take you where you're going and then bring you back. So really, it almost increased by one where if we were able to continue down this road of having a loop transit system, utilizing the old road, figuring out a way to work
that out with our comp plan that's being written and and and envision something that's constantly doing this and picking people up and keeping them on the old road. Maybe we can keep ourselves out of all of the rest of those people that are driving south. But I don't see changing
is going to do anything. Oh, that's fine. >> And if monitoring is >> if figuring out how to monitor, maybe that can be part of the contract is is that they need to report to the manager on a monthly basis of how many turndowns they had or whatever. Well, let me just
tell you that Danny Alacius, who you talked to about uh driverless trolleys, he told me and then Raymond said something about it to me and he says to me, you can tell Don that there'll be taxis driving flying in the air in Miami before you'll see a trolley without a
driver in the key. >> Well, the trolley cheapens what I want to do. But that's very true. DOT currently is laying out highways in the sky. They're envisioning flying vehicles right there. But but for DOT to say that is pretty shortsighted. And it's just
these guys that are shortsighted like that because I mean I've got a client right now that takes his son up to to some special education stuff on the mainland and he gets in his Tesla and tells his Tesla where to go and he works on his other business. The whole time
that Don car is driving him there. He's like, "Don, I never d I never grab the wheel." and and so for DOT to say I that they aren't going to allow a driverless car is really shortsighted to them. It's it's an opinion.
>> Yeah. So anyway, Deb, >> well, I just on that monitoring thing, I thought I I'm pretty sure that we're already receiving monthly reports. Maybe they were quarterly reports, not monthly. Uh, and if there's more that we
want added to that report, I think they'd be more than happy to add, too. They have the data. They're getting the data. They're collecting the data. That's how they know where the rides are. That's how we know how much weight times that there are. Um,
I just wanted to make sure it was put out there that they are reporting, giving us a report on a monthly basis, right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. Where where did that $2 come from? Was that just a number that that somebody recommended?
>> Yeah, we had discussions uh about what other areas like I think it was St. Petersburg and others. That's obviously subject to negotiation and and the timing of when do you want to implement it? That kind of thing. >> DOT have a limit on what? >> No, I don't think the the there's a lot
of communication back and forth about what happens to that money. We can't just use it to subsidize and reduce our share. You have to use that additional revenue to expand the service. I think was my interpretation. >> It's not to offset the cost of the service. >> You have to use those dollars >> 50% of it, right?
>> Yeah. But from DOT's perspective, we have to do our match, but we can't use the revenues. Alyssa and I guess one of the points was I did assign Alyssa Panzer to be our point person because she's the one that's been going back and forth for months with DOT about our
compliance issues with the current grant. But there the discussion to my recollection is that if we started getting more revenue, we can't just use that to reduce our our share. We have to use that as some type of expansion. But going to the point also, I think they've
agreed that because unlike maybe previous managers, I'm a thousand% in favor of of the multi-passenger thing. And we've said, well, maybe we can use those dollars to expand the current service, not reduce ride share, but to
expand the types of vehicles we use for multi-passenger. So, we still would have pointto-oint maybe person cuz that's just the way it is. But then add those dollars to a multi-passenger loop service uh to do that, which accomplishes the purpose I think all of
us want, which is to take cars off, vehicles off the highway. But it got really complicated with what we could actually do with those fairs. As far as the dollar amount, I think we could probably go up or down or whatever on those. Those are just kind of what we thought and talking to other
jurisdictions was a logical place to start because when you go from zero to anything, you're going to get some push back, you know, cuz like even the name freebie, what will be still free? Yeah, it's not free. But I think that's something that we can negotiate in the contract and I'll reach out to whoever
gets the contract. Uh the vice mayor I've talked to Richard Clark for example. Uh we have some people that are experts in the field that I'd be more than willing to reach out and and get any input they may have on it. >> Thank you Deb. >> So that well the the $2 actually came out of the county program through
Richard Clark. That was his thought pattern of what they were going to do on on their end. And then all that got uh dropped because they completely eliminated it. But the $2 wasn't just pulled out of the air in Marrada. It it
did come out of the county um idea. And I I was under a different impression about the the ride fair dollars. I understood that we had to share them with the the state with the OT
>> half >> if half it was half and half. They we reduced theirs and we reduced ours. But it it got very complicated. And so I will not uh live or die on that statement. >> So it ends up being roughly eight like
uh if it's $2, it's $80 a month for somebody to write it five days a week, four weeks out of the month. >> Yeah. >> Right. >> Something like that. >> Yeah. >> And and many of the people that are writing it are writing it because they can't afford to have a car trying to get
back and forth to work. There's there is percentages that that we're we're getting off of the the basis of this, but there's percentages of the wrership is like 55% of the residents are writing
and that's a year round. It it fluctuates on the particular month. >> When we have more visitors, that goes up, but in the months that we have less visitors, it goes more to the resident side as a percentage. Cheetater, I got I got a question for you. If you could
jump up to the microphone, >> is you can't jump. Just mosey up to the microphone. >> Is there a um is there is there a down is there a downside to doing a one-year contract
with him? Is it does it affect this con this proposal in any way? >> No. But didn't I hear him say that >> we have a right to cancel out of convenience? >> So we he did say that. I think I heard
that a couple of times during because I watched that workshop I know three times. Um >> and it seemed like he said that several times is there >> and that's a term he used a right of convenience to to cancel. So if we lost
so if we lost the uh the grant that gave us an out to get to get out of that contract. >> Okay. >> So I got a question though since there's multiple discussions going on here. Freeb has all the data, right? So
they know the stops, they know the peak hours, they know everything that is going on. So would it be possible and I don't this is obviously a question for them but could we take that information and keep the two cars running
pointtooint whatever but use that information to take the van and use the van for maybe the peak days which I'm going to assume is probably Friday Saturday type thing and use the van those days for the loop. say it's going
to go to Papa Joe's at this time and then it ends up here and then it goes to Founders. It it goes to Publix, it goes to Founders. It whatever those stops, whatever the most popular stops are, the peak times so that you could do the multi-passengers so people could know
that, hey, on Friday at noon, I can go to Publix on the van. It it might be a little premature, but I think Ron and I have had discussion with with Jennifer about looking to see where there might be some niche parking spots.
I I and Ron have had and Jennifer has had conversations with DOT to see if we can acquire those uh excess pieces of property that DOT has that we can then turn into niche parking areas so that
this thing has a little bit, you know, has a place to stop, right? so that somebody could know that the that the transit system is going to be here uh at a certain time and and as long as it's clean and timely and and and uh and you
know run the right way then yeah that we can you know our citizens can rely on that >> right that's what I'm saying >> park off with why not use that >> so I >> yes de >> well I didn't want to cut her thought off I I suggest gested that uh were
allotted so many hours per week, but it was supposed to be spread from 7:00 a.m. to midnight, three cars. And so that that implies a balanced um >> is that something that would happen during contract negotiations then?
>> No, I No, I think part of this has to be approved through DOT, but I don't think it's a hard approval. I think it's an easy approval. What I what I'm suggesting >> but what I'm suggesting is that we have this block of hours that currently says okay it has to be flat
>> that they they whoever they are is given the block of hours and you can run five cars in the morning and one car in the afternoon and three cars at night whatever they see that they need for
that that traffic. Currently, that's not the way the de the contract is written. The the grant is written, >> but it could be changed. It it's dot is not easy to work with, but it could be changed.
And and I think that would help solve some of those problems. >> Okay. So, I I I kind of like the idea still of the two-year contract just so that people have some stability, especially if u especially if it can be
cancelled by convenience. But um but I think we I think we have our work cut out for us to try to transition this into something that that is different
looks different that that'll work work for us. I I I mean you the staff has the staff has scored them and based off of the merits and and we've heard the presentations and it doesn't sound like
anybody's, you know, like against having this contract done. It's just a matter of there's some tweaking that needs to be done, right? Is that what I'm hearing? >> All right. Steve has >> Steve. >> Um yeah, I uh I just want to point out
that I think this is great that we have two very credible um proposals here. I think this is something necessary and needed in this village. Um there are many comparable cities that have some sort of ride share, free ride share service. And I think it's a a great
service that we can point to directly to the citizens of Alamrada in terms of some of the benefits that that they can enjoy. So I'm glad that we're having this discussion. I'm glad that we're uh going to make a decision on continuing to do a ride share. I have um no arguments against anything that anybody
said tonight. And I uh uh my point on um $2 is I think that that rides will go down even though it's only $2. um that may be unavoidable. Uh we can also tweak that as we're talking about doing this. I that's whoever we go with, I would like to see
that be uh fluid where we can um make some minor modifications and improvements along the way rather than waiting for uh contracts to be renewed. Um so I said also I agreed that we need some more oversight. I think that I
mentioned that in Ron in our briefing that it would be good. Unfortunately, you know, it adds more staff time, but I think that that's something that we can do to um make sure that they're upholding what they're saying in the contract, that they're um they're utilizing their time as efficiently as
possible. Um and we need to expand it. I think I think this is not enough not nearly enough terms of what's required um with the traffic situations to really alleviate any sort of traffic problems with this. I think it's just really a benefit for people for the workforce and
for people to get their groceries done, get to their medical appointments, so on and so forth. So, as far as uh as as which one, um Sharon, I I'm kind of with you. I don't mind seeing a new vendor come in and and starting a new. Uh so
really to me it's uh it's whoever we can work with the best that's going to work with our staff to to do the best for our constituents. >> Yeah. Well, I think that I think that really staff our staff did the dirty work for us is they they actually went through and reviewed both of the
applications, scored the applications. I don't think that there was any biased one way or the other by our staff. I don't know there there would be. I think they look at it like they look at you know all applications that they're going through and and and scored them. Who was
on the committee by the way? >> You want the names? >> Yeah, sure. >> Okay. So, that was um Maria Basiotti, Jennifer Deborrian, Sheila Denincort, myself and Hattie Jenkins. Okay. So, you changed it up a
little because sometimes you Maria's not on there and AJ is on there and so you >> Yeah, it was Ron. You wanted department heads there and it was a good mix. >> It was a It was a great committee. I mean, I sit on these. I thought it was an excellent committee. >> Yeah. And everybody that's got a finger on that. Yes.
>> Just curiosity, how does the $2 get collected? Is that just from your app? You have to have a credit card or a debit card on there so people can't pay with cash if if they have an issue with their credit card or something. cash would be terrible. >> And that's and that's another thing I think that's interesting that I think I
think both proposals offered to do is that I think there are creative ways that we can can do that whether uh a resort um maybe pays a certain amount of fees or their codes or something like that. Someone's stranded on the road lost their their their phone uh credit
card or something like that. I think that that's what I'm looking for in both these proposals. >> Okay, Sharon. I know that um my Judy Hull does a great job at the chamber, but the these hotels have maybe a vehicle. So when somebody wants to go to
Ziggies or go to Papa Joe's and you have how many hotel rooms, trust me, I'm on Islanders property a lot and freebies in and out of there a lot. So, and again, I've already talked to the actually the owners of the Islander and they'd be more than willing to we had talked about
a program where the hotels will buy a thousand passes or something and when people stay there, here's your hotel key, here's a layout of the property, and here's a couple rides on us so we can get the the hotels to and that's what we're supposed
to be doing with this grant. We're supposed to be figuring out a way where when this grant goes away, it's can sustain it, >> which would be great for our transportision transportation >> 100%. And we're not doing that right now, >> which we need to start. >> And that's why I've had conversations
with the DOT quite a bit actually. And uh we can go to Chica and the Islander and these places and get them to put in some and and yes, they do have their own vehicles, but not enough to move everybody around. Well, it sounds to me like we need to get our lobbyists busy
at the state level. At the federal level, I know at federal level, we've got some interest from our congressmen. >> I I know at the state level, we've talked to our our lobbyists there, and we need to get our legislators to help us. And and I think between the the feds
and the and the state and and maybe I don't know it well, I just it's up to y'all. I can I can envision if we if we only have a year to if we only do the contract for a year, then that kind of puts us under the gun to
get something else done and really work hard with the state and the feds and see if there's something to be done. But I see the stability in the two years and if there's a cancelled by convenience clause in there, then it doesn't hurt to have two years.
>> And if we get it done early, then we have the cancel by convenience clause, right? or they may be the one that expands the service. We we don't know where that is. We don't know what that work looks like yet. We know what we want. >> Yeah. >> We don't know.
>> But we talk a lot talk a lot talk a lot about this right share stuff and last year we got beat up over it pretty bad and and and and as a new council we had to make a pretty quick decision because something was about to cancel. it um it
is I think it's very important for um a lot of people who I think I already said this that uh don't they're they're writing it to work they they're writing it to work because they don't have a car >> and that's >> they and they're going to the grocery
because they don't have a car uh they don't have the money that it takes these days for the insurance and everything else the gas everything. >> Yeah. So that helps solve some of that uh inflationary problem for our residents of certain group of residents.
We have others that they don't need it but they use it. >> Yep. >> They don't need it. >> So >> yeah, just before we move to a vote, John, I'm just again for clarity sake, um this is written uh the resolution is written as uh uh accepting freebies proposal. Should we decide with the
other vendor? How does that how does that work with this vote? Uh so if you wanted to go with the um uh with the other vendor, it would be a motion to uh uh to approve with the amendment to uh select circuit in place of the the
circuit proposal in place of freebie or be free. Sorry. >> I just I with seven years of history with the with the listening to those drivers that were here during a workshop which their important input is part of
that workshop as well. And there were three drivers there concerned about their, you know, their their jobs. And uh there's been consistency. There's not really any bad complaints that I've seen on freebie. So I I uh I think we
I I'm think ought to stick with staff recommendation. I think that >> But that's just me. >> Are you ready? >> I'll if y'all are done, I'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to accept the um recommendation of staff of the ranking
and authorizing the manager to negotiate contracts. >> There's a motion on the table. Is there >> approve the resolution as written? >> Yes. >> As written. >> Okay. Is there's a motion on the >> I thought that's what I >> Is there a second?
>> I'll second. Boy, that was insane. >> We're going to draw lots. No, Lesbie. Who wants it? >> Don't matter. >> Green's on. >> Green's on. Okay. Anna's got the second. >> Okay. Council member Deb Gillis. >> Yes. >> Council member Anna Richards.
>> Yes. >> Council member Steve Freriedman. >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Sharon Mahoney. >> Even though I know I lost, I'm going to say no. >> No. >> Mayor Don Horton. >> It's It's not a loss ever. Yes. Motion passes 41.
>> All right, let's see. Um, well, if I think that's it. Is there anything else that we need to discuss tonight? >> Can I say one thing? I think the first quad quasi judicial uh that they had a
very good point or someone did about if you are on BP pass and you sell your property something we should think about is it fair for that person to uh not sit there for four years like this guy
bought his property in 2025 and because >> how many more how many more uh allocations do we have >> five after the one that we awarded tonight. >> We have five left. So, um I you know, we've been operating under the same assumption. >> I know, but it's something to think
about. >> But we do have the 76 that are coming our way. >> 72 >> 72, but they're not. >> I'll also mention that there we do still have Senate Bill 180 out there. Um, and
and that would be considered a more depending on how it's written, but I I I cannot imagine a way it wouldn't be considered a an more ownorous or or a restriction or additional hurdle in our land development codes. So, when that um goes away, >> right,
>> fingers crossed. Then, yeah, >> the 72 that we're getting, we don't know a lot of details yet. We have to decide some of that ourselves. But at this point, none of them would be administrative relief because those come through DEO differently. Correct. You
don't know when we're getting >> No, those come when um an allocation is awarded to somebody, but they don't pick up their building permit. Um the way our code is written, then those go into administrative relief in Marada. That's the way >> we haven't had any in years in a long time. >> Yeah. >> Well, hopefully we can get the code.
What what I was saying is that the 72 how do we're still going to have administrative reliefs. So we're going to have to rely on other methods such as more points or purchasing of land or maybe getting more creative or some
other uh idea. Um because we're still going to have administrative reliefs. There's no >> unless well I mean that's something that Jennifer is going to be having to work on along with all of the other legislation that >> because it's going to require comp plan
and LDRs and all of that. So >> this conversation kind of helps her understand what to look for when she starts writing that. Hopefully that sooner than later. And also we do still have administrative
relief avenue open even if we don't have allocations. So somebody could still apply and maybe they're interested in selling it for fair market value or his I know historically there have been uh times where the village has granted some additional points um because of the time
spent on the BP pass list that falls under kind of that catchall. It's been uh I know that that predates me. I know we haven't done it since I've been here but but the village has done that. So there is still the administrative relief that will be will be available. Um but it even if but if we don't have
allocations it it may look like a different in a different form too. >> Okay. Let's can can we take the time to envision that real quick? >> So we've got five allocations left and how many people do we have in the queue
>> in in the total B pass list? >> In the queue in on the B pass seven I believe. >> 37 >> I believe. Yeah. >> Okay. And so we're going to have more people coming to us next meeting or meeting after or whatever that are going to be asking for administrative relief.
When those four are gone, five gone, whatever the number is, when those are gone, people are still going to be coming to us for administrative relief. At at that point, we're going to say we aren't we have no other permits. So, is
the something else to defer until the new plan is written? >> I mean, it it could be to um >> I mean, I guess it could when you say defer until the new plan. You mean when we get the new allocation? get the new
allocation and then but those are going to fall under all new regulations and all new guidelines and and it's supposed to be you know uh people that are employed of local preference or people that are employed you know within
Alamada or within a certain area. I wrote I actually wrote my ideas and gave them to Jennifer is is people that were employed within the 50 or 60 mile marker to the 102
mile marker because there's a lot of people that work for the hospital or the co-op or whatever that that still are a benefit to Alamra not not just working inside Alamra. So what I envisioned was maybe completely different than what
Jennifer did, but I at least wanted to get something in writing to see how that would work. >> So yeah, we could we could say um you know, like we talked about, you know, you you'll remain on the BP pass list and and you know, we we will be getting
these additional allocations and you know, we you know, we can give you four points and move move you up so that you're higher up on the list to recognize. What are those points going to do if the if the if the point system to get through the 74 are completely
different? 72. >> Yeah, we'll we'll have to >> every time you mention it, it's a different number. >> We'll put those other four into administrative relief. Absolutely. >> So, we'll I mean, we'll have to analyze that. So, the points might, you know, four points might be nothing. Four points I mean, I just throw that number.
Could be one, could be two. Um, that might be nothing. It might be a huge step. We we won't know that until we until we we get those um those guidelines. We also could >> start thinking about that because a couple more of our meetings on on here
we're going to be out. >> Yeah. And we could offer them we do have affordable allocations. I mean it might not be something they want but that's something we could offer them. um you know, we we can't give you market rate, but we can offer to uh you know, put keep you on the list until we get this
or if you want to do something immediately, we can offer you mark um affordable units uh to put uh assuming that they're available to to go in that location. Um so there there there are options that that we have at our disposal. They're but they're just
they're not I guess what people are used to. Most pe most of people are used to coming and you get an allocation because we've had them and we've had a wealth of them uh up until this point. >> Jennifer, did did the did our past planning directors keep real good track
of those those uh units that that >> that the village owned that went away? >> Um I would I would say no to that. >> You're going to say no to that? >> Yeah. So maybe we ought to because there I think I still believe there are still
unaccounted for transfer development rights that the village owns. >> I I know of I'm aware of I shouldn't say I know of. I'm aware of at least two that the village owns that are sort of there. >> What happened to the hotel units that
where we're building currently building the the gener the the marvelous generator building? What happened to the hotel units that were there? >> Um, those I'm not aware of. I can try to dig into the where those are. >> Is that is that the same building that
the the with the sewer? >> Yes. Where the sewer treatment? >> Yeah, that's been there for a few years now. Yeah. As far as I know, they're they're just out there somewhere. There was like eight or 10 of them. Yeah. >> But they that they aren't residential.
They are >> commercial. hotel would be different than residential. They're trans if they're hotel. >> They're not. >> I mean, they're still valuable, but they're transient. >> Okay. >> I just as part of this conversation,
just want to keep everybody informed. You know, myself and staff, we are we are considering these things. We're not just sitting around doing nothing. And so um we are you know talking about some of these things and having these conversations in house so that we can come back to you guys you know with a thoughtful discussion about where to
take some of these um ideas. We're considering well not considering we are planning to restructure the BP pass scoring system for the new 72. So there'll be some suggestions that we're going to make that we're going to bring to you um and some ideas that we have.
So, I'm on vacation in July. Probably right after that, I'll probably work with Ron on scheduling a workshop on having some conversations about this so that we can narrow down some of these things. Um, and then work towards making some code and comp plan changes for
this. >> And the end and in the end, uh, the hopefully the goal would be by the first of the year, we'd have a figured out how to use the 72. >> That's the goal. Yes. >> Yeah. >> Okay. And I'd say if we have some
transient units that um that we have never used or allocated anywhere, one option if it's the will, if the council would be interested or you know, we could also explore maybe potentially swapping them for market rate because maybe there there might be some um
hotels that would like to add a couple units and um they might have who knows maybe they have the ability to access some market rate and I mean it's just just you know as it comes came out. I just I wanted to throw it out there as a something for the council to chew on. If that
>> the interesting thing about that hotel is the hotel was torn down before the village changes the regulations on what dwelling units are and hotels uh so back then hotels were this considered
equivalent of dwelling units. Um >> which Yeah. Right. which is what that's why those condos got to be built across from Robbiey's from that hotel because they looked at them the same way. It's the same way as the Islander units that are on the bay there.
>> They were the last Oh, sorry. They were the last ones to be built. Yeah, the one across from Robbie's. Yes. >> That was the last and they went back and forth. >> They had to sue to get that. Uh yeah, but they also had some extras and they went back and forth of whether
they could use them as transients or residents. >> And we finally we the village finally said >> just tell us how you want to use them. And because you were the last one in the line, we'll let you use them the way you want them, but you got to tell us. You
can't change your mind every week. >> All right. >> So, >> okay. Yeah, it sounds like first step we can look to see if we have these. You know, if they've been allocated or or sold or transferred and if if they are, we can come back and and you know, see if there's any options that you all
might like might interest uh the council as to what to do with those. >> Okay. All right. Is there anything else? Do I have a motion to adjurnn or you want to talk about something else? >> Let's just sit here the rest of >> I know we can sit here the rest of >> Motion to adjurnn. >> There's a motion to adjurnn. Okay, we're
out of here. Meetings adjourned.