commission meeting this morning. Any questions in regards to the finance report? All right. Any questions for the city attorney?
>> Can we go back up to the beginning where it says additions and whatnot? >> Sure. >> Okay, we might as well talk about the elephant in the room. Um, last Saturday,
uh, commissioners all received a letter and, um, I proudly say it was from CJ because she did the right thing and she doesn't feel so proud about it, but um, and I've talked to our interimm city
manager, Chris, um, about it. And I feel very very strongly this city is fighting to come back. It's like we're clawing to make our way from bad
to good and then uh this happens. And if for those of you who don't know um the assistant city manager, Jennifer and the HR director um allowed Vicki Gainor to come in the
building on a Saturday, spend an hour and a half gathering things. They helped her and there the chief of police was not here. There was nobody else here. It's all on film. I've seen the film.
I've seen the film. Um I I I have this huge problem. Anyway, I I called Chris right away and of course I was hot, you know, because it was the first thing I first thing I was talking about. But
personally, I feel that it is only appropriate to dismiss the city um assistant city manager and the HR director. And at first I said, "And we need to arrest Vicky Gainor because of the fact that she brought her attorneys
here saying that they were going to sue us." And we don't know what she took. Nothing is documented. But they walked out of here with box after box of paperwork and everything like that. And nothing is documented. So we already
know she's planning on suing the city and we have no recourse because we don't have access to that material. Now, arresting Vicky Gainor seems a little bit inappropriate at this point because whatever she's taken, she's already put a match to or shredded or whatever, if it has anything to do with her court
case. But I do want to make a motion to dismiss both of these people based on this this video, based on this letter and the fact that and the fact that
chief of police just as you and you she stayed out her everything was out to her, not just in her office.
Stuff out of office. I would like to make that motion. >> The commission's authority is limited for employment actions is limited to the city attorney and the city manager. The city manager alone holds the authority to make employment decisions regarding any employee of the city subordinate to
him. >> Okay. And so what do you feel, >> Mr. Tener? You couldn't have said it better about trying to move forward. >> Mhm. >> We just need to close the chapter and continue to move forward. Miss Gainor is not here any longer. Miss Gainner came to get her stuff. She was escorted
through the building by the interim city manager at the time, the HR director. I've watched the video. She did not have any access to anything by herself that someone was not in the vicinity of. I am not concerned with anything that Miss Gainner removed from her office as the
majority of it was her personal effects. >> There you go. >> And I talked to >> this answers a lot of questions too >> and I talked to Mr. Lightfoot about this and from my understand before she showed up that any workrelated stuff was
already removed from her office before she started boxing everything up. Is that correct? >> Correct. She had already lost access to her computer and her city cell phone was with FDLE at the time. >> Now I'll say this. Could it have been done better? Absolutely. Um, from my
understand normally common practice, well, we'll go back when she was put on administrative leave. Um, normally it's common practice when someone's put on administrative leave, they forfeit all their city equipment such as cell
phones, keys to the building, um, computer, all that stuff. And then they're escorted out of the building. And then when someone's terminated for things such as
um loss of confidence or they did something illegal or something bad under those lines, normally what happens is you box all the stuff up ahead of time and then when they show up, you give it to them. You know, of course, you box it
up nicely for them and you put it in their vehicle and go. And I've seen that multiple times since I've been a DoD contractor. Um, I even one time saw, and I would never recommend this, only as like a last resort and escort with like the security officer or something like that, but it was kind of an odd
situation where the person could not come to the office, so they boxed it all up and they actually took it to the person's home, which I wouldn't recommend that, but to me, I think we need to put I don't know. I think we need to put it in policy or something to
state that these are the proper protocol that we follow so we don't ever go down this road again. But yeah, that's how I feel about it. >> So, as I'm understanding it, in city manager, you have no concerns about how
that transacted? >> No, sir. I think everyone in here was in Miss Gainor's office numerous times, saw the amount of personal effects she had in there, whether it was pictures, plaques from her career, little trinkets, there were many items in there that took many trips to get
them out. No, sir, there is no concern that she removed anything that she was not entitled to. >> Okay. Um, anything else in regards to this? >> What's that?
What was I? I didn't even hear what he said. >> What did he say? >> Oh, I came the night that she was named as the acting city manager.
I got a phone call from him. She's in office 20 hours. Do you recall this at the commission meeting? >> I was out that meeting. I think >> I was absent. >> I watched it. >> So, according to policy, when you're being attacked after
reporting something under our whistleblower pos policy, >> exactly what this woman did goes to every one of you all to bake me a cake. Every one of you chocked off, not you, mayor, not you, Miss Tender, that you
understood my email I sent. in policy. I'm supposed to come to the mayor. The mayor was not here. There was a interim or replacement that night. Three of them were here.
Correct me if I'm wrong. Amy, was that my right where I the direction I was supposed to go to go to the mayor since she was in charge of HR and she was also the acting city manager. Where was I to go to the mayor?
Okay, I reported that information about Chris forehand. I'm going to be very crystal clear about this was sent to me by Miss Gainor. I didn't pick that up off of a web page.
At 7:39 the morning this happened, this is sent to me. I read it twice. What did I see? a violation of Florida state statute. Who reported that to FDLE?
I did. I came to you, sir. Pat, you were here. Nothing against you. And you're fillin. Nothing was done. What does the policy
say? You'll do what to employee? Release them immediately. That's what you're all about. policy. What did the policy say, Mr. Warick? Release them immediately. But we want to move on.
I'm now under investigation again. It hasn't stopped, sir. It has not stopped. How much more do the employees have to endure this? Chris, you know as well as I do. It was
wrong. You acknowledged. Every one of you acknowledged. Did my email concern you? What did you say, Mr. Warick? Yes, sir. Whistleblower all day long. Alls I was trying to do was the next right thing by
getting this information to FDLE. Mayor, it was your responsibility. I have had enough. The department heads have had enough and we want to move on. You've got to get rid of the problem and it should
have been done that night, sir. And then you turned around and voted it or keep her in that position. What are we going to do? We going to continue again. I followed policy, Amy. I came to the commission that night to the person
that was filling in the mayor as mayor. But once again, it has not stopped because I'm under investigation again because you all three that were here that night didn't take the action that the city was supposed to do. Release her
immediately. I've had enough. As you all received the email last Friday, the investigation is ongoing because of policies. We are working through that investigation and when it's over, we will make a decision on what
the outcome of that is. All right. In regards to 7B, public workshop tenative budget, uh any questions regarding the budget? I think all of us
have had our uh 101 ons. Any further questions on that? >> I don't have any questions, but can I make one more statement? >> Yeah. >> I want everybody to be aware that that video was shown on the Bernie show last night, and you can watch it for
yourselves, and you can see how many times Mrs. Gainer is in that room by herself and it's very crystal clear. There is no question. Anyway, that's all I'm going to say about that until we go further.
All right. Any questions on the tenative budget? All right. Number eight. Any questions for city attorney? Right. have the uh public hearing for the CRA uh budget adoption.
Any questions for uh Mr. Bin on that? All right, moving on to number 10. Questions about the uh approval to adopt the tenative millage rate for the 2026 tax role.
All right. And any >> It's not 4.5. >> It's lower. >> It is lower. Um >> not the ceiling. >> Yeah, it's it's it's >> it wouldn't make a difference if we
brought it up to to 4.5 anyway. So, I think that was that was good figuring on our part. So, I would like to thank um Kiki and her staff for the one-on ones and what we what we uh what what you
prepared. So, >> my pleasure. >> Much appreciated. >> It is lower than the 4.5. It is higher than what it was last year. Of course, I expressed my concerns uh to the uh group on yesterday. And so we
went through and analyzed different budgets and different line items to see if there was any possibility of getting getting it lowered from the what is it 4.2834 I think is what we're looking at. So I'm
not a fan of the 4.2834 because we have storm water that's going up, utilities that are going up or the water that's going up. Um so I'm I'm not a fan of it. So, but uh but it is lower than the the 4.5 and a lot of budget
cuts have been made to get it to the 4.2834. Uh just wish we could sort of stay closer to the the 4.05 or 4.1. All right. Um you got to you got to figure too that we're we're dipping in
the general fund almost $4 million. I mean, if we didn't like split split hairs and go up on the millillage, we'd be dipping into general fund even more. And then then >> you sound like a chipmunk.
>> I better have to use the mic. Um, >> it's 2.8 millions. 8 million. >> There was other things in the in the 101 that were I was adding up. I know that
but they they were temporarily or what coming out of general fund. >> I'm unclear what you're referring to. >> Don't have my notes, but when we were when we were going through the the budget, there was there was there was other things that may be coming out of
>> utilities. Yeah. of the utilities are are dipping in. >> But that's normal. But but it's still a dip in general fund for for >> correct. >> But no, yeah, I see that if we again had to make the budget cuts we need to make it would be higher um than where we are.
So appreciate the the hard work to uh to get it to where it is. >> Thank you. I I will make one quick comment. If you make alternate um decisions with regard to what's on this agenda, I would be able to also
adjust slightly. Um it's not going to be have a major impact, but uh depending upon what you discuss later on in the agenda, there may be just a tiny bit more savings. >> Okay.
Right. >> Any questions on 10B? I take it those amounts with a question mark will be updated on the agenda. >> Yeah, it depends on like if we move forward with particular agenda
items then that'll make a difference in like for example number 14 what we decide on the forensic audit will make a difference in what the budget is. All right. Consent agenda, approval of the meeting minutes and approval to appoint Ryan Fillington to
the firefighters pension board of trustees as it fifth trustee. Normally when you have um someone that put up on a board or committee, they have like a form they fill out. Is there one for this one?
There form that they fill out to put on the pension board or is it just >> I do believe there is an application. Um >> that's something we can add to this. >> Yes, sir. >> All right. Thanks. >> Uh, city attorney number 13. I know we received a a car from you
regarding this. >> Right. >> So, this is while it's only for discussion. I do feel like there's some action that can be taken by the commission. So, I wanted to just frame that up. Um, I apologize that this card didn't make it into the agenda but for this meeting, but we'll get it to um CJ
to make sure it gets into your package. Um, essentially we do think you're ready to make a decision on the job description. Um, if you are ready to make that decision on the job description. Um, and staff would like to also get your input on how long to advertise. We think at least 30 days is
appropriate. It could also be 60 days or you could set an alternative until you receive 20 applications, 10 applications, whatever you feel is appropriate. Um, but we feel like that's the next step if y'all are ready to take it. I I Oh, go ahead.
>> No, go ahead. I was just going to ask any feedback. >> Um, I think that we should search Alaska uh in the outback and um go from there to pick somebody. >> Australia. >> Australia.
I want a good accent. >> All right. Any other response? Pat, you have anything? Jamie? All right. So, in regards to action on Tuesday's meeting, do we need to then
vote to approve >> description? The suggested motion is to approve the job description either as presented or with with whatever other amendments you have now that you've had time to review it. Um, and alternatively give us a some direction on how long you want to advertise.
>> Okay. So, do we need to change the agenda item from discussion only to >> Yeah, we would need to mod I think modify that to fit what she's describing um for the action on that. So, if you could send that to CJ
>> for number 13. If everybody's good with moving forward and putting that to a vote um on Tuesday. All right. Thank you staff, city attorney for working on this to to get us to this point.
And number 14, the forensic audit quotes. Yes, sir. Mayor, we um staff reached out to our auditor, had a a call with them to get a couple different options of what the commission had discussed in some previous meetings. uh before you hear is the whole email chain but about
halfway down the page here is three different scenarios that the auditors propo propose the agreed upon procedures review estimated cost of 15 to 30,000 the perform performance operational audit of 40 to 60,000 and a forensic
audit of 60 to 100,000 keep in mind the first task there is pretty much what the auditors have already done as part of their normal scope of work and anything else we will need to put out for an RFP to acquire a company. We'll make note that the finance review
committee will be here Tuesday to discuss their meet the past two meetings they've had. However, the finance review committee does not recommend a forensic audit and spending the funds on this. So basically
for the performance operational audit, we will then have to basically put that out as was it RFQ? >> An RFP. Yes, sir. >> RFP. Um cuz that would be so the agreed upon procedures 15 to 30,000 as I
understand it. That's the basic audit that we get now, >> right? is is that and then to dig more into the procedures that we're looking for, then it would be starting at the 40,000
and then putting out an RFQ for that for other companies to bid on it and then go from there. >> Yes, sir. And we do have a $60,000 line item in the proposed fiscal year 26 budget to cover this. So, if anything is above that $60,000, we either need to add money before Tuesday or we will have
to do a budget resolution if you all decide to do an RFP and a company is selected. >> Okay. >> There also is the option that we could give the commission, all five of you, every purchase order that was issued in 2024 or fiscal year 2024 above $35,000.
You all could review, I think, I believe there's 90 or 96 of those POS. you all could review those 90 to 96 POS and decide, hey, we'd like more information on PO two400, whatever. >> I was going to ask, well, you've
answered my question. Is that something that we could do internally between the commission or the finance review committee or a special committee of citizens that we pulled together? >> Yes, sir. We could supply those POS to you all and then you could decide do you
want them to look at all of those purchase orders. Do would you like the finance review committee to look at a certain number of POS that you all decide on or whatever approach. Um it could be the finance review committee or I assume we could create another committee um kind of an ad hoc committee
to review it. that that that's more along the lines what I was thinking because what we what we can target Miss Tinder I don't I don't want to overstep and I think there's specific things you want to look at right
>> I personally think we should do fiscal year 24 and I think when you do a forensic audit you look at everything not just the POS >> okay >> that's just me >> then I guess then we can't treat it like a public records request and have specific things Mhm. If we are if the
proposal is to do a forensic audit where you're looking at everything outside of the POS as well, the price will likely get up to about $150,000. >> I know the last time we had one, they approved $100,000 and they spent 20.
>> Believe they spent 48,000 the last time. >> 48. >> Yes, ma'am. >> What What year is that? 21 >> or or >> 2020? 2020. >> Well, note that they didn't find anything.
>> It's going to be more than that now 5 years later. >> I just my my concern and this is just a very personal concern. When we come down to this, whatever we decide, I want to make sure that my name is cleared, that I ask for a forensic if we don't get one. I just want to make sure that I
have nothing to do with that. Well, would you be if if it was a a morph of that that would be more cost effective to the to the citizens, would you be okay with with that if we came to an agreement? >> If it if it shows
Yeah. If it shows everything, >> I think that's the kind of direction we want to go. We're heading, right? >> Yeah. I mean, I'm I'm not against a forensic audit. I don't think any of us That's why we're continuing to discuss it. I don't think any of us are against a forensic audit or have any issue with
having a forensic audit. I guess the question is what are we looking for in the forensic audit? What is the scope and then how much is it going to cost us and is that something that we can do in house? I know yesterday when we when I met in my 101 ons, my conversation was directed towards what are things that we
can do more in-house as opposed to putting out um that we can work on with our staff or that we can work on as a commission or the committees to save us on the cost side of things. Um now we can still you know if we still we can
still move forward with that of the >> 150 if we want to analyze everything. So, that's just going to be on the budget side of things. And if we're trying to save on the budget side, uh, then what are some areas that we can save on?
>> Lawn mowing. >> May I add just a bit here? >> Lawn care. Yeah. >> Whatever audit you direct us to do, the finance team of course will do our very best to comply with your wishes.
yard stick that they will be using during that audit is the current purchasing policy. It is my professional opinion that the current purchasing policy needs to be modified and to address some of the deficiencies we've
identified. >> And what deficiencies have you identified? >> The the um change orders not coming to the commission, the dollar limits, that sort of thing. So, we need to tighten those things up in the future policy.
Again, I will do whatever audit you instruct me to do, but please know that they're going to measure it against the existing purchasing policy which we have identified as needing modification. >> Got it. So if I'm understanding
although we may think it is proper procedure to bring something to the commission if the purchasing policy doesn't say that's what has to be done and that's not a demeric in that >> they're going to exactly what the auditors told me for the 24 audit when I
gave them everything having to do with this building. I gave them all the purchase orders. I gave them all the change orders. I gave them the contracts and they said we followed our purchasing policy. >> So I truly do not anticipate a different
result. If we're using the same measuring stick, we will probably get the same result. And that's all they can do is they can use the purchasing policy that was in force at the time.
But now I think Commissioner Tender, are you asking to review more than just a purchasing policy or what? I know you're saying >> I trust I trust Kiki. So if what she's saying is what needs to happen first, then let's get on it because stuff's
happening. I mean, we need to get this straightened out. >> So when the audit companies come, do they review our purchasing policy every year? I give them a new copy every single year. Yes. >> And they've never had any inputs on the
purchasing policy. >> They have we've never asked for their input on the purchasing policy. >> Is it typical for them to give inputs on the purchasing? No. Okay. >> Only that's um those outside that is outside the scope of their engagement.
>> Their task is to make sure the policy is followed, not to say the policy needs changing. >> All right. That's that's what I needed to know. So, here's another option. I'm I'll muddy the water a little bit more. So, um the state has their own audit
agency and it was brought up um to me about this and you can request an audit from the state and there's three different ways to do it. One way is for us
to vote on wanting the state to come down and do an audit on us and uh if approved then you just send a letter up there and then they'll come down and do an audit. Second is a petition from the residents and then the third is um it can be
requested by the state legislator um and that's what happened with Mexico Beach. they they had a request from the legislature and they came down and did an audit. If you decide to do one of the first two options where we decide or the residents
petition, we have to pay for the audit and it's probably going to be it might be a little bit less than this. I would say if the legislature requests it, then we don't have to pay anything. and it's an option I'm looking at, but I just wanted
to bring it up so that you all understood that one of the cons to that is it'll probably take them quite a while by the time we get the results from it. Got it. So, what is the perception in the state's eyes for a
legislator to request an audit of a particular city? cuz I followed the Mexico Beach situation as that was going on and there was not a good perception from the state side that a legislature or representative came and requested that the state come in and audit this
particular municipality. >> Right? >> So it would almost be like whatever cloud we're trying to remove is just going to make it darker for us to get someone from the outside to say hey state come in and let's do this. Then my my other question is we've been talking
about home rule and now we're just giving up home advantage by >> letting the state come in and just >> I think that I think that should be our last option >> to get the state in if we can figure something out if we can nail down what we're looking for or just start
somewhere. So let's start with looking at the POS internally and then once if that checks off then we'll go to another part of the audit that we want to do internally. and check that off. And then we go to another section and check that off. I mean, I think we can um I mean,
we have over 16 people within the city that reviews the finances. 15 or 16 between the review committee, ourselves, interim city manager, the finance staff, that's over 16 people that can help us
review or look through, you know, those particular procedures. So, I'm not against the state coming in. >> No, I I guess the What I was thinking when I originally looked at it was might be an option for us to send a message to to the state like, "Hey, we want to open up our books
to you just to show that we're we're not corrupt." >> Yeah. So, >> add to that. >> Yes, >> we have complied with both of the Doge requests, >> right? >> All of the information was voluminous
was sent to the state. So that's that's almost like an audit. Um >> we they we sent the initial amount of information. They came back with additional questions. We've responded to those additional questions. I have not
heard back since then, but we are complying with the state through their Doge process. Um, I was just um to question if a legislator request an audit for a city,
would would that potentially prohibit legislative appropriation for that city? I can I can assure you it would deter it. I don't know. I can I can ask. Not really. I just brought it up because
it was brought up before and I was like, "Well, let me look into it and see um what's all involved with that." So, I learned quite a bit, you know, and and when I talked to the lady at the state, she was very nice. She educated
me quite a bit on it and she even followed up with an email that was like a brochure that kind of talks about um the audit, what what you can request and what they look at and um possible cost and things like that. And I I know
forward it to Mr. Lightfoot. So, just figured I throw it out there so we all know what that's about. >> All right. Well, thank you staff for getting this information for us. >> Mayor, do we want a to leave this item
on the agenda for approval of direction or would the commission like to see the the fiscal year 2024th purchase orders above $35,000 first? We just need some direction of how do we want this agenda item to be or do we want an agenda item?
>> What do you hear from finance review committee? Correct. >> Yes, sir. There will be a representative from the committee here Tuesday, >> but we'll have discussion at that time. >> I'm sure that part of his discussion is to say that this finance review committee does not recommend a forensic audit, >> but they would recommend a a separate
committee, so to speak, in an analyzation of the same thing we're talking about. >> They did not talk about that at their meeting, but that is a question that could be asked when they when they come Tuesday. It's your agenda item. So, >> I still want to see a forensic audit for
24. Period. >> All right. Well, >> or or take my name out of it. That's all I care about. You can do what you want. >> But we >> obviously >> we can't take our names out where one for all and all for one. So, >> mayor, if the if the intent is to move forward with putting an RFP out for a
forensic audit, I would recommend that you all meet one-on-one with finance director and myself, just like you did with Gerard to go over the job description. You could come up with a scope of services that you want to put out for RFP. We could prepare that and then we could bring you the RFP for
review prior to it being advertised. And that could bring the dollar amount to um more digestible or >> no sir the dollar amount is going to be at minimum of the 60,000 and up.
So we will we have the 60,000 in the proposed budget we can leave the 60,000 as it is and then once excuse me once we receive RFPs if it's higher we can do a budget resolution to add um the proper amount. And so that 60,000 you're
referencing that is for the most part just to look at the POS that are 35 and up. >> That is just an estimate we put in there. Yes, sir. For >> that's that's the minimum. >> That's what we feel is the minimum based on our conversations with audit of the audit company. Yes, sir.
>> Which uh which audit company is that? >> Our current audit audit company James Moore. >> Oh yeah. We did not want to reach out to to other companies. It would exclude them from the process of submitting if we get into getting their pricing and and everything. We have a current
contract with James Moore. >> Okay. How many years has he done our auditing? >> Started with a 2020 audit, I believe. >> Yeah. If we put this out, it's going to be for multiple bids. So, it's not going to be it's not going to be automatic.
>> Yes. There could be one submitter. There could be zero submiters or there could be 100. You don't know until you put it out. >> I'm sorry, I'm incorrect. They started with the 19. Got it. >> 2019. >> 2019.
>> What year did our finance uh person step down? and I don't want to say the name I think it is but um he stepped down and all I heard was uh they went through the finances he
said that we were in bad shape and he quit. Who was that? >> No >> Hall. >> Mr. Frank Hall moved out of Linhaven is why he left the committee. >> Yeah. He's no longer a citizen of >> Oh, really? Cuz Oh, >> Frank Hall. Okay. So he didn't quit
because we were in trouble. >> Now he lives he lives in Panama City Beach. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Number four. Uh number 15 of course is our storm water assessment
role city attorney. >> So because you changed the methodology uh going and adding an extra tier and also changing from your unit of measurement um to a equivalent residential unit. Um you adopted an
initial it requires a different process this year. So you adopted your initial assessment resolution with that methodology in May. This is the final step of the process that happens in conjunction with your other budget actions. Uh that confirms your intent to use that amended methodology and
approves the role to go to the tax collector. Any further questions? All right. Number 16. Yes, sir. It was time to renew our debris removal contracts in case of emergency. We had 10 total uh companies
submit. The RFQS were scored by Chief Johnson, Chief Ramy, Ty Ferris, and Ben Jenkee. And we have a recommendation of four companies to award a contract to. >> All right. Any questions on that one?
>> Do any of these companies uh include or involve Chris forhand? >> These are debris removal companies, ma'am. Not debris monitoring. >> Okay. So, it's not in that. I know he's still involved in one. >> Yes,
>> it's not this. >> Correct. This is debris removal. >> Thank you. >> All right. Any other questions? All right. Number 17 be the first reading for the ordinance on the small future land use map. U
any questions about that one? Right. Number 17. This is the reestablishing of the uh charter review committee. City attorney. At your last meeting, I think you directed the reestablishment of the charter review committee to consider
establishment of the office of city clerk. So, the resolution presented mimics uh your last resolution establishing the charter committee. It does specify the purpose to be specifically for review of the city clerk position, but it doesn't limit
them just to that. >> All right. Any questions about that? Of course, we would from my understanding of the process, we would approve it this meeting and then for the following meeting or the meeting subsequent to that, we would then bring our
recommendations to the commission on who to appoint for those seats uh in regards to the charter review committee. >> That's correct. >> All right. Uh, [Music]
and then number 19, again, since it the direction appeared clear from the last meeting that the commission wanted to establish this office, I went ahead and prepared the ordinance that would create an amendment to the charter. This is just a draft for
your consideration to get the conversation going. the the language is fairly basic and it's meant to be to preserve for you flexibility for what the actual job description looks like so that you can change it as the years pass, the personalities pass,
circumstances pass, and you may need different things. Uh it wouldn't require an amendment to using this basic language would not require an amendment to the charter every single time you wanted to change the job description. That said, you can still add more detail to this job description. Um,
particularly if you do want it always to be finance-based rather than recordsbased, that's your choice, but I draft it as a place to start. >> Basically, it's a vanilla shell.
>> All right. Any other input on that questions? and number 20. >> Yes, sir. We've talked about the past couple of meetings, we um did not get it at least the appropriations that we expected this year. Uh one of the some
of the feedback we've received is um you know, a disconnect between the city and the the state in Tallahassee. Um in discussions with some other city managers in the area, it is recommended that we add to our lobbyist team. Uh Mr.
Drew Miner with Capital City Consulting has a great relationship in Tallahassee. He's currently currently used by the city of Panama City and we would be piggybacking off of their contract and adding it for a 12-month term. >> Is he still working with G Coast also?
>> I believe so. Yes, sir. >> Um, any questions? >> What how much is that? >> It is uh 5,500 a month. And what would that put us at approximately for the year in regards to u legislative consulting?
>> It's around 60,000 to add him and we have around 30,000 in the budget already for for Miss Timmons. Um, and whether we keep both for a full 12-month term or utilize for one for a six-month term or to get us through this next session will
be something we look at. >> All right, any other questions? do believe staff staff recommendations a small price to pay for what we could potentially get during our appropriation as well as other grants at the state level that could help us lobby for those
for that funding. >> All right, discussion only of Kinsaw Park conceptual plans. We pushed this from last meeting to this meeting. >> Mayor and I would recommend after Thinking about this item with everything
we have on the next two agendas as far as budget and resolutions. There are many items. It may be best if we move this to the October meeting to have a more in-depth longer discussion when the time comes >> that we know how much money we have. >> Yes, sir.
>> All right. Um any con any objections to that? Moving this to October. All right. So we'll strike this for this this month for this meeting and then the final reading of ordinance 1176 large
scale comprehensive plan. So back in January you approved the first reading of the ordinance amending the comp plan. It was sent to the state for their review. They had one objection and two comments. Um the comp plan has been amended to or the data analysis and
the comp plan have been amended to address their objection. Um at this time we're not addressing their comments. Uh but we are within the 180 days to adopt it or withdraw the amendment. We have received an extension. Um, in case you
would like to open the public hearing at this meeting, it has been advertised, and table or continue the public hearing until your second meeting in in September. That would allow your new planning director to weigh in on the city's response. That's not necessary.
That's just an option that's now available to you because we did get an extension from the state. It's otherwise ready to go. A public hearing is scheduled and on Tuesday night, you can adopt or continue the public hearing. It's up to you. >> Any input on this?
>> Well, I I guess it depends if we're going to go over the comprehensive plan ULDC in the near future. We're going to do that anyways, approve it now and then because if that's our plan. Did did we address the
state's comments or >> Yes, >> we addressed their objections and we acknowledged their comments. >> But to your uh comment, yes, that's the plan. I think it was, if I'm going back to previous conversations, was to get this part completed because that's sort
of the state mandate and then we have the time to work on our comp planing ULDC in our particular time frame. And mayor, we asked our consultant to come over from Tallahassee today if you all have any questions. He is here. >> Okay. All right. There any questions for
the consultant? >> Well, if we acknowledged comments, I'm not I don't know specifically are the comments to to change things or the state's comments. So Ray, I'll start this conversation and
you jump in if I get out of my lane. Uh the the first comment had to do with the septic to sewer conversion. um that comment came from D specifically and we it's my understanding that as long as we
acknowledge um their comment um and I believe we have a city policy or we will have a city policy that addresses it they are satisfied with that and no amendment to the comp plant itself needs to be made at this time the second is that fair >> yes that's correct and the city also
requires new developments to have be hooked to the sewer system. So, it is part of what that portion of the statute is addressing. They're requiring local governments who doesn't require everybody, you know, new developments to
be connected to city sewer. They want a policy to address it for larger developments. And so, the city of Lhaven already requires it. So, it is addressed. Um, there isn't a policy in the comp plan that says that. It is in an ordinance though. We provide an ordinance. We did talk to D about it and
told them what our response was and they said that would be adequate. >> Second comment has to do with intensities. Um uh in residential land use categories. Um
there is your plan currently does not contain intensity standards spec that are would specifically apply to um more institutional uses um churches, schools. What else did we discuss this morning? Um and and your comp plan has has I
don't I don't want to say never, but for a long time has not had those um intensity standards in it. Um so the comment was you know to add them. Uh there is new state law that went into effect in July uh that makes changing
and adding those intensity standards to your comp plan a little tricky. Um the law prohibits any restrictions that are more burdensome than your current regulations. So adding intensities would certainly be more restrictive and more burdensome. Um so having to comply with
the comment in violation potentially of state law is just a tricky place to be. So, we are acknowledging the comment um while we figure out how to handle that. We may be able to do it in the to the extent intensities can be addressed in the land development code. That may be one way. Um but we're going to reserve
the right to not take action on that right away and put the city um in conflict with state law. >> And intensities, is that have to do with density? >> No, the category has a density standard and what it's missing is the intensity
standard. So for instance, it allows you know the residential category allows schools. It allow it allows um you know churches and other uses. So you have to have an intensity standard. That's a non-residential use. And so like your land development regulations has those
intendency standards. What they want to do with and this comment came about before the department of commerce has started implementing this new rule that went into effect in July. And so it's kind of a double-edged sword. And this only applies, it's it's related to
hurricane um disaster emergency disaster declarations that were declared for three different hurricanes. And it applies up through 2027. And so the state just now started Department of Commerce how to implement this based on comp plan updates. It's
kind of a double-edged sword. I agree with Amy. I think it's safer not to do it to leave it and then you know when you do go through your comp plan if you you know you're looking at your comp plan your LDC at a later time and making changes I would look at you know bringing that into effect but we already
address intensities but not in residential. >> That's correct. Yeah. So you would need a floor eratio and we can't broaden the spectrum of it and say we want it to cross into residential. That would be that wouldn't be right. That would be more intrusive. so
>> yeah if you were to >> not allow the schools and stuff so there is a policy in chapter 163 that encourages schools to be allowed in all the land use categories >> other than industrial and so it's >> you're required to allow them and you're
also not allowed to make it any harder to put a school there than it is. So, >> and this is something that just came about that's tied to that emergency declarations and it's Department of Commerce. I know they're struggling with how to implement this rule and this just
went into effect. Um, I specialize in comprehensive plans. We have several at the state now and I told Amy this. I have one that we just adopted that is addressing a level service to portable water, you know, based on what it's
actually operating at. We updated that which you would typically do in a comp plan update and they just deemed it that it's more burdensome and just to change the level of service. So I know the state's department of commerce is in a awkward position right now, but it is
something they're going to have to work through. But yeah, I would not encourage you to since it was an objection. It was just a comment. I would not encourage you to do that today. >> But is there a deadline when we have to address that? >> No. No. It was a comment. So you you
don't have to address it. It is um a requirement in chapter 163. The state didn't feel that it was, you know, large enough to object to it. They only did do a comment. So you do not have to address it. >> Okay. The comp plan never had it. >> We've already we already addressed intensities to my understanding, but
just not in the residential land use. >> That's correct. >> Okay. Yeah. Your other categories provide for the intensity standards. And the ideal thing is you go back look in your land development regulations. how schools and churches what the intensity standard for it is and then you bring
that into your comp plan at a later date. >> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. Anything else on number 22? >> Um >> thank you. >> No, but I do have a couple questions on a couple other things.
>> Okay. All right. >> Before you adjourn. >> All right. Nothing else. >> Commissioner Tinder. Uh the nature's uh I wanted to ask the acting city manager the nature's grant uh for Mr. Johnson
um and you've been working on this Pat forever. >> Oh yeah, >> Mr. Johnson. >> Mr. Johnson called me finally got his and it was his number was >> Yes. And I I've heard from him too. He said the city wants to buy that. >> They want to do an appraisal. >> Okay. It's an appraisal and the
appraisal is being done through the the Nature Conservancy I believe. Yeah. Yeah. And that's through Daryl Budro with Northwest Florida Water Management District brought that I think he brought that to >> And what's that grant called? Nature's what? >> I believe it's Nature Conservancy. It's
It's not a grant. The city has the Northwest. >> It's not your girl. The one that that we've been talking about in the past. >> No, no, no. That's part of the estuary. Okay. And so we are not actually purchasing it from him. We are having it appraised.
>> We're having the property appraised. >> He seems to think >> so. >> He wants we want to buy it. >> That is the intent. We are not having the appraisal done. Northwest Florida Water Management through their funding sources are having the appraisal done. Okay.
>> It would become property of the city if it's appraised and we can work out a deal to purchase it through the grant. But yes, the city does want the parcel ultimately to do a regional storm water bond. >> We would we would enter into Yeah, we would it would probably be our our match
to a grant if we if we bought the property >> and he would be thrilled to have all that wood gone. >> Um yeah, I I talked to him about that. He's working on that. He that that's wood from he said he let the state come on his property and and put debris.
>> Our staff is removing it as they make their rounds. >> Yep. Mhm. Y great. >> Is this the one we met? Like >> we rode out on he took us out on a razor out on his thing. >> I remember. Yeah. >> Ronald Johnson >> because that was the one >> I think we're still >> of Alabama
>> across the street when we're >> 11th and Alabama. >> It's basically the parcels between 11th and 12th and Tennessee and Alabama. >> If you if you drive down 12th Street and look to your right when you start to go downhill, it's all that. And that that's the that's the lowest point of our sewer system, isn't it? In the city. He still
has a stream running through that, right? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Thank you. And and my last question is, mayor, I just wanted to ask you um did you by any chance authorize
Vicki coming back in? >> I think there was discussion from city attorney discussing it with inram city manager about her coming in. And so I know there was coordination between city attorney what is a procedure uh for doing that.
So I was aware I mean we were informed that she was coming in that day and >> on Saturday. >> Yes. And then I believe there was again coordination or there was some conversation about it as well. So >> may have been I don't I don't recall
getting advice on that. >> Yeah. So yeah, I was informed about it and then she told me her layout for what that would be and at some point I thought we had talked to the city attorney about it. But there was so much we talked about um during that time period as well and I did see the videos
as I was doing uh public records request for something else. I did come across those videos as well >> and and saw that. >> Thank you. >> Right. Anything else? >> Mayor on just back to the the forensic
audit. Are we going do we want to remove this item until we discuss with staff to develop the scope of services and then bring it back before you all to vote for the RFPU scope of services? >> Uh we're going to hear from the financial review committee at the meeting. So what are they going to do
that? That puts them in public commentary then, right? Not not >> he will be in in the city man interim city manager report. >> Oh be in your that that's good. That's good. So I guess the question Chris is asking is are we still in limbo as to whether or not we want to >> right is the intent to remove this
discussion item >> you all meet oneonone with Kiki and myself develop a scope of services and then we advertise it for an RFP >> Judy >> hear what he said cuz it's your your agenda item. >> So the the intent would be to meet
one-on-one with staff to develop the scope of services. Once we develop the RFP, we would bring that before the commission to vote to approve the RFP and then we would advertise it. Whatever the scope of services is for the audit. >> Okay.
>> Yep. >> Mine's simple. >> All right. So, yeah, we'll strike it and then bring it back. I've