Good evening and welcome to the board of commissioners regular workshop meeting. Today is Wednesday, March the 18th, 2026. It is 400 p.m. City clerk, would you call the role, please? >> Mayor Brooks, >> here. Vice Mayor Kerr
>> here. >> Commissioner Taglerini >> here. >> Commissioner McGee >> here. >> Commissioner Gabayi >> here. >> All are present. >> Public comment. Public participation is encouraged. If you are addressing the commission, step to the podium and state
your name and address for the record and the organization or group you represent. Please limit your comments to 5 minutes and do not include any topic on the agenda. Public comment on agenda items will be allowed when they come up. If you would like someone at the city to
follow up on a comment or question made at the meeting, you may fill out a comment card with the contact information and give it to the city manager. Comment cards are available at the back table in the commission chambers. Completing a comment card is
not mandatory. Do we have any public comment? With no public comment, next on the agenda is reporting the March 10th, 2026 municipal election results. City clerk. >> Yes, ma'am.
>> We had 532 votes on March the 10th. And Charles Chuck Dylan for Commissioner District 2, he had 342 votes. And the incumbent Ray Kerr had 188 votes. uh commissioner district one which is
David Tagarini. He will be sworn in tonight and he was um had was deemed to have voted for himself because he had no opposition. So he's commissioner district one for again for two years and Chuck Dylan for two years.
We thank everybody that came out and voted and through the mail. >> Do we have to have public comment for that? Yes. >> Do we have any public comment? >> Next on the agenda is induction into office for two-year term.
>> City clerk. >> First will be commissioner district 1, David Taglerini. >> The mics are already on. Raise your right hand and repeat after me. I, David Taglerini, >> I, David Tagalini, >> do solemnly swear or affirm
>> do solemnly swear or affirm >> that I will support, protect, and defend >> that I will support, protect, and defend >> the Constitution >> the Constitution >> and the government of the United States >> and the government of the United States >> and of the State of Florida >> and of the State of Florida. the city
charter, city codes and policies and procedures >> the city charter city codes and policies and procedures >> of the city of Madira Beach >> of the city of Madira Beach >> and the board of commissioners >> and the board of commissioners >> and that I am duly qualified to hold office
>> and that I am duly qualified to hold office >> under the constitution of the state >> under the constitution of the state >> and that I will well and faithfully perform >> and that I will well and faithfully perform >> the duties of commissioner Commissioner District 1. >> The duties of Commissioner District 1
>> upon which I am about to enter. >> Upon which I'm about to enter. >> So help me God. >> So help me God. >> Congratulations. >> Thank you. >> Next. >> Next on the agenda is Commissioner District 2, Charles Chuck Dylan.
>> Microphones are already in. Raise your right hand and repeat after me. I, Charles Chuck Dylan, >> I, Charles Chuck Dylan, >> do solemnly swear or affirm >> do solemnly swear or affirm >> that I will support, protect, and defend >> that I will support, affect, and
>> protect, >> protect, and defend >> the Constitution, >> the Constitution, >> and the government of the United States >> and the government of the United States >> and of the State of Florida >> and of the State of Florida. >> The city charter, city codes, and policies and procedures. the city
charter, city codes and policies and procedures >> of the city of Madera Beach >> of the city of Madera Beach >> and of the board of commissioners >> and the board of commissioners >> and that I am duly qualified to hold office >> and that I am duly qualified to hold office >> under the constitution of the state
>> un under the constitution of the state >> and that I will well and faithfully perform >> and that I will well and faithfully perform >> the duties of commissioner to >> the duties of commissioner two >> upon which I am about to enter upon which I'm about to enter. >> So help me God.
>> So help me God. >> Congratulations Stand. Mayor and everyone. I would like to invite everyone to uh the ceremony for uh Ray Kerr to receive his plaque on May
the 8th at the regular commission meeting at 6:00 p.m. I really en uh enjoyed working with uh Mr. Kerr and hope to see him here making comment. >> Thank you, Clara.
Next on the agenda is the roll call. City clerk, would you call the role, please? Right. >> Mayor Brooks >> here. Commissioner Taglery >> here. >> Commissioner Dylan >> here. >> Commissioner McGan
>> here. >> Commissioner Gavay >> here. And that the April 8th meeting will be uh the board of commissioners will be appointing a vice mayor. >> Thank you. Next on the agenda is Tom and
Kitty Stewart Park town hall meeting. >> Mayor Commission. The reason why this is on the agenda is because at the end of the previous meeting uh that we didn't have clear direction from the board. We it was just Commissioner Govahi making
some statements and as you know I can't work at the direction of one I work at the direction of the entire board. So I just wanted to get a a clear direction on moving forward with this.
>> Um do we have any public comment commission? So um I have a lot to say about this. Would you like to go first? >> No, mayor. Go ahead. >> Okay. So, um after the meeting, I did
quite a bit of research on um first off, let me start off with saying that this commission here with the exception of Commissioner Dylan. We have discussed Kitty Stewart Park multiple times. Um, I
believe even before commissioner you were on the commission, we had extensive conversation about Kitty Stewart Park and what it was before, what it is now. We had input from the city attorney as
to the legality of the and the PD and all kinds of different things. So, we as a commission had come to a consensus that Kitty Stewart Park was a park. it was being used per the plan development
and per the requirements. So, what I did was I was curious to go back and read the plan development and so I'd like to just say a few things and um city attorney if I say anything incorrect, please correct me. >> Okay. Well, I don't have um a specific
memory of everything in that development agreement, so I'm not sure how helpful I >> It's okay. >> Okay. So, one of the things that and we're here having this discussion because of a single voice in our community on social media. And I'd just
like to remind us all that if we sat up here and and worked based off a single voice, that wouldn't be fair to the other 3,000 plus residents that live in this town. However, um I do think that every every
person should be heard and have the opportunity to speak. But I want to clarify what the plan development did for Kitty Stewart Park. Back in 2013,
there was a development agreement that was entered into with the city of MadiRaa Beach and Gulf Grill. It was called Gulf Golf Waters Land Development LLC. And at that time, anyone who's interested in reading it can go look up
the minutes of the April um 13th meeting or excuse me, April 9th meeting, 2013, and can read about all of this. But the development agreement essentially says that the developer Gulf Waters Land
Development will give 5T of their property easement in an easement to the city in exchange for a ingress egress to their property. So, what it
did was it allowed the city to build a parking or have a parking lot built that increased the spots by 10. So, there have been a lot of different numbers thrown around about how many parking spots we got and all this. We actually gained 10 parking spots when we
did that and a restroom. The development agreement required that when the property was developed, the developer would have to build that parking lot for the city. So, the city got the parking lot. The city didn't pay for the parking lot. The developer did
all of that. The city did gain an additional 10 spots that we rent or charge of which we have dedicated spaces. Currently, there are four dedicated spaces to residently parking. Just as a reminder, when it was the
previous park that only had five parking spaces in one handicap spot, none of that was dedicated to residents. It was first come, first serve. So now the residents have dedicated space. But what I found to be interesting as I read through the minutes of Tuesday, April
the 9th, and I wanted to bring to our attention is that there were 15 people at that meeting that stood up and spoke. Of the 15, 11 were in support of the development agreement. Four were against it. They all had reasons why they were
against it. Most of it was tied to um they thought that it was going to drastically increase parking. There were going to be issues with loud music. It was going to be there was going to be issues with trash, with alcohol, with all that, of which we have not
experienced those issues with the current restaurant that is located on that development. But I'd like to read a couple of the comments for the 15 people who showed up for that meeting and made comments. One
comment was, "She was delighted with the restaurant. Her concern is that the addition of restrooms at Kitty Stewart Park that it will encourage the homeless and prostitution that can be a problem there. While she appreciated the fact
the developers want to improve the park, she was opposed to the addition of the restrooms. She was not opposed to the rest to the restaurant because as we've all heard in many conversations over the last several
years, prostitution and drug prostitution and drug use at that park was a problem. I don't think anyone could dispute that. Um, as I read through the others, at this particular meeting, there were
people who stood up and yielded their time to someone else, of which, um, at the end or subsequent meeting, that was not really supposed to have happened and shouldn't have. But one other comment that was made by someone who was against the restaurant development,
he said, um, Kitty Stewart Park is full all day, especially on weekends, and parking will be a big issue. Kitty Stewart Park was full when there were only five spots. So, we've added spots for residents to
be able to use the beach and use the park. But he went on to say he has called the city numerous times about the homeless people living in the park. His concern with the park with the uh
development of a restaurant was tied to delivery trucks and sea turtles. So my point in this is when we do town hall meetings, town hall meetings are held when we are trying to develop
something new. Um not when we're trying to find resolutions for someone who isn't happy. And I I don't fully understand why. I I understand some of the arguments that people have or concerns about Tom and
Kitty Stewart Park, but we went through a hurricane over 18 months ago that destroyed that park. I will tell you that I personally went to the city manager and asked the city manager to open that driveway for the
restaurant that is there because I had witnessed the danger of cars stopping in front of the restaurant trying to figure out how to get in or get out and pedestrians getting in and out of cars. And I felt that the reason we gave that
ingress egress to begin with was for a safety issue. Some of that was tied to the median that's in front of that establishment that creates that issue with traffic, but it was the right thing to do for the health and well-being of the community and the and the residents.
So, he did open it. They got it open. And then we had another instance where it came forward. Could we find a way to open up some of the parking spots for the residents? And we did. And we continue to work through the engineering for the new seaw wall that got washed
out from the hurricane to get the parking lot rebuilt to put in a permanent restroom for the community. That restroom is not for the establishment that is located there. It is for the community. Always has been. The restaurant has their own restroom.
They don't need ours. So I think that if we're going to have a discussion about the park, the discussion amongst the commission should be and the public is always welcome to come and speak. We give five minutes to anyone that wants
to talk. They can come and talk about anything they want at the beginning of the meeting and they can talk about the subject at hand during the discussion, but staff has a plan to put that park back together.
And that plan should be completed before we anybody starts telling them it's not good enough. Prior to the hurricane, there is a condo that was being built next door to Kitty Stewart Park. There was an agreement to add vegetation there. They have done
some vegetation there. What are we going to do when we get it get it built back in? We've all had the discussion that the new bathroom is going to be configured somewhat differently than the removable bathroom. So, we really need to wait till it gets in and we get the
final design plans and the final of everything to see what can be added. Can there be a picnic table put there? Can there be a tree planted there? What can there be? A town hall won't yield any information
and it will put staff in a position that if they attend it, number one, it's on their day off. They're attending with no information to have a discussion with anybody in the community. And I think that this isn't the time to have a town
hall on Kitty Stewart Park. I think that waiting until the park is completed. Um, based off what we've been shown, it's going to be different. It's It's going to be nice. And it is a park. It's
always been a park. It's always going to be a park. It doesn't have to have a pavilion with nefarious things going on for it to be a park. And so that is that is my input on that
subject. Um I think that like I said doing a town hall is putting the cart before the horse. It's it's putting you you don't even you can't you can't have a discussion or give comments or information to the community because that information is not available yet.
So, mayor, if I may, uh, your your research is commendable and it's absolutely accurate. Um, the width of the park, width of the property is not enough to
house two parking spaces and a driveway in the middle and have the buffers that are required. So, um, Caddies gave the city that 500. >> Caddies did not give it. I I would I
would I would beg you, >> okay, >> to not say Caddy's because that gives an unfair um accusation because Caddy's is not who negotiated this agreement.
>> Yes. The property ownership at the time. >> Yes. I'm sorry. Yeah, I I just I think I think it's not fair for us to keep blaming caddies for all of these things when they're >> It's a positive thing is what I'm saying that they gave 5 ft so that we could
have two um tiers of parking with the driveway in the middle. If that 5 ft was not granted, we would only have the drive and parking on one side and the spaces would be maybe eight or nine
total. So, um I everything that you said was right on the money and I and I totally agree with you. The purpose for this um workshop that I was hoping to set up was originally would be was supposed to be
on the property so that whoever that was in in this agreement could come and express an opinion and and discuss that and ultimately it was moved here because of logistics. So, and and and the plan, at least in my
mind, was to hear some neighbors, and I wasn't really expecting a whole lot of neighborhood to show up because not a lot of people are in opposition of what we're trying to do. So, if one or two people at most would have shown up, um I
was planning on just personally, you know, having a survey from way back when, discuss all the things that we just discussed and just show them that what we're really trying to do is the best for that property. >> So, here's the problem. We're not trying to do anything.
With all due respect, in 2013, a development agreement was entered into. We can't just put a wall up and say, "Here's your five feet back." That's not how it works. This development agreement
was contingent on that 5T. So, it is tied to the construction. Everything's tied to this. So, you can't just say, "Oh, well, we don't want to do it anymore, so we're just going to we're just going to give you back your 5t. We're going to build a wall. We're done." That's not how it works. So, you
can't negotiate. >> That was that was not the intent. >> No, no, no. What I'm saying is you can't negotiate that. And the other thing I meant to say earlier, I would like to say is when they voted on this and the 15 people showed up, they got heard that the commission voted. It was a 50-0
vote. All five commissioners agreed that this development agreement would be good for the city and it would be a win-win for both. >> If that vote was today, I would I would agree with the vote. >> I I would as well. Yes. So, so again,
just want to back up a little bit to say that it was more the meeting was I was trying to set up was more for educating our public. >> I think if the public would come to the meetings, they would get educated. And my my concern with having a meeting is
if you have a meeting, you're going to be having the meeting alone because staff can't come and speak to the whatifs and may. staff can only speak to what's being done. They would be put in a very awkward position to come into a
meeting if there was one, two, 10, 12 people because what they're doing is bound by what we've approved long before any of us were on the commission. So, I don't I don't and and if and I
would be concerned as a commissioner if you held a town hall meeting and made statements because we we the five of us do not independently make any decisions. Right. >> Yes. It it was not for me to make a
decision or a statement on my own. I perfectly understand that I'm only a fifth. It was just again it was just more for educating public taking their ideas any questions they might have and then bring it back to this board. But I hear you loud. I hear you very clearly.
So it you know whatever the pleasure of this board is I honor. >> I think the board I think we all want to hear the public kindly. >> Yes. >> I know I preach that. It's been my platform since I decided I would run for
district 4 commission is to be kind and that we could all be kind and have a much better city. And um I think that anyone who wants to have a conversation, I don't think there's anybody that sits up here that
wouldn't have the conversation or take the phone call. But we can't change what was voted on. We can't change what was agreed on. So there's I mean can we add something? Maybe. But we can't change it. And I guess that's kind of what I
feel like we need to be more um strong in having that conversation. This agreement was made in in 2013. We can't change the agreement. When the park is done and it's put back together, if there's a place we can put
a tree, I don't think anybody would disagree with a tree. If there's something that we can do to beautify out in front of the park, planting sea oats or or what I don't even know, whatever. If there's
something like that we can do, I don't think anybody up here would not be in support of that. >> I've always said the real attraction is really the beach, >> right? That's what you go for, right? >> Yes. So, um, I'm not saying that we shouldn't have the conversation. I just feel like based off all this
information, the conversation would be better had when the park is completed. And I think we're looking at like six to eight months that it will be done and then we can have a ribbon cutting and have a
you know see what be a beautiful park we do have and our residents can go back to parking at the park and accessing the beach and having all that they had prior to Hela. >> Again, I honor the commission's decision
>> comments. Thank you, mayor. Uh, again, appreciate your your uh research there. I I did some research, not not that much. Mostly, I wanted to see uh if I could see photos that showed that it was ever anything but a but a parking parking
lot. And first, let me say I've lived here since 1997. So, this summer that will be 29 years. So, I can say with firstirhand experience that for 29 years, it's been a parking space. It's been a parking lot with a public access. And until
recently, there was a pavilion just over one table. It wasn't like a big picnic area. It was one pavilion over one table. Shortly after I moved here, uh I I thought, "Oh, okay. Let me see what that public access is." And immediately I was accosted by someone asking for
money. I said, "Okay, well, I I've got my own public access. I don't need to go to that one." And when my family would come and visit, they'd say, "Can we go to No, use this one here, 133rd. Don't go to that one. Um, so I I did do a little research and I found an aerial view. 1990 it's parking space five, you
know, the five spaces. Was it five? I think it looked then in 19 a little farther back. 1984 five spaces and a and a public access. So at least since 1984, uh, it hasn't been any kind of a grassy park and and anyway, it wouldn't be a
very big park. It's not that big of a space. So, I just want to I just want to make it clear. It's been a parking space. Now, it's a bigger parking space with a bathroom or it will have a bathroom and we'll have a chance to landscape. But, but give us a chance. We had a serious storm. There was a
construction right next to it. Uh let's let's if we have to have a town hall to look at landscaping, sure. But at this point, I agree it's too soon. There's no point in having a town hall meeting right now. So, for 30 years, I can tell you it's been a parking lot with a
bench. Thank you. >> You're pushing too high. >> Oh, down there. Okay. >> I should have put my glasses on. Um I might have been one of those 15 people that was at that meeting. >> You were not. >> I've I've Okay. I've been involved with
that property since I moved here and um I was one of the people that made the developer put that 5-ft as access um concrete sidewalk in because it was our access point. I could understand
taking away the parking lot to rebuild and everything, but I stood up and made them put that 5-ft access in. So, I've been aware of this basically since I moved here in 2011. And I I go to that beach at least once a
weekend, sometimes twice, sometimes three times a week. And I've talked to I've talked to many of the people there and said, "Would you rather have a pavilion or a bathroom?" I mean, I talk to the people. It's not like, you know, um going there and finding some of the
times. I'm actually there talking to the people and they've all said they would definitely rather have a bathroom. And then also it does get into a financial thing. You know, we also have to realize that we're just putting back what the
hurricanes took away. If we try to change it, it gets into a big permitting issue. And just like at John's Pass, we can only put back what was taken away. And I I agree in terms of not necessarily kicking the can down the
road, but this can's been kicked so far in so long. Let's let it bury. >> Yeah. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. I I also agree with the mayor on this one. Um I'm not quite sure why a small contingent of our community um is
so negative uh about this issue. It's always been a park. A park is a park is a park. It's a county park. There's Tom and Kitty Stewart Park. Um, looking at the vision that we have for Mandera Beach down the road, we're going to have a
beautiful Tom Kitty Stewart Park there. We're going to have restrooms. We're going to have a new seaw wall. We're going to have 10 parking spots. We're going to have four for residents. I I think that she uh the mayor also was right when she said once it's done,
let's have a town hall meeting. Okay. Um uh I just want to say uh everyone up here in the audience and watching at home, you know, we it's better to be stronger together and then
to be negative. And if you have any kind of input, come to the meetings. Come to the meetings. I I believe we have brighter days ahead and you guys are doing a great job. Everyone's doing a great job and I appreciate it. Um so
stay strong. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Next on the agenda is the city attorney lot mowing lean and special magistrate leans 13225 2nd Street East MadiRaa Beach case number 14-6808.0408.
0408.2408.07 and 09.39. City attorney. >> Thank you, mayor. As you know, um when we receive requests for fine reductions or settlement offers, um the process is that the offer
or would come to the commission for discussion at a work session. Um that's the purpose of the discussion today. The city did receive a offer of settlement from the current owner of this property. Um, the offer that was made, and I'm
going to talk about the specifics in a minute, the offer that was made was $2,14948 for a number of leans on the property. Um, and the leans that are on the property were, from my understanding, the information been provided to me,
four owners back. Um, so the leans were for a lot mowing lean in 2007 for $325. A special magistrate lean for high grass and vegetation
in uh 2008 that was for $866.86. There was another grass and vegetation uh violation later in 2008. That total so far was $547,500. Another high grass and vegetation or
special magistrate order in 2009 for $2,14948. And the last uh special magistrate order for high grass and vegetation uh in late in 2009 was for $68,600.
Uh the total leans were $711,924.50 and that's with the understanding that they cut off in 2011. We were able to search back and have find photographs on that date um to we think the property was in compliance on that date and that
would put it at the $711,000 figure. Um the leans were undiscovered uh for several title transfers according to the current owner. Uh when the request came to the city, we did uh this most recent
sale did do the research and provided all of these leans and the total cost for um making the city whole. uh based upon those outstanding leans. Um we provided that total to the property
owner. Um and of course that was not wellreceived. Um so city staff um has reviewed the settlement offer of $2,14948. this being just a high grass case um is
willing to um make their recommendation of approval and the city staff is asking that the board of commissioners accept that settlement offer in exchange for release of the lot moing leans and the special magistrate lean. So um you remember after the discussion there'll
be no action taken today but it'll come back to the next regular commission meeting for your um action on this matter. So, I I'll be happy to answer questions. A lot of these happen way before my time, so I don't know any real specifics other than what I've read in
the documents. >> Do we have any public comment? Commissioners, do you have any questions or comments? >> I uh I I saw all those dates, all those numbers, and I said after that number that starts with an eight, how did we
get down to 2,00? Uh, and and I understand what happened, but I don't even know who to ask this question to. How did it slip through all those title transfers? Uh, and do we have a process in place to prevent that from happening again? It seems like we caught this one.
Uh, how how did it slip through those titling? >> It's It's not a matter of slipping through for the city. We respond to every request that's made. So, the title companies that have done the title work in the past have not found the leans. they were there. So,
I'm not sure why the title companies did not find them, but you can see from each one of the orders that is in the packet in the very top of each one of the documents, it shows the official records book and page numbers of these leans
being recorded. So, it's not a matter of the city not catching it. It's a matter of the title companies not catching it and requesting a payoff. So there's nothing that the city needs to do to fix the problem. There is no problem on the city side as I see it. It's definitely a
title um issue. So that's the only thing I can tell you. So when we we get these requests, um if they're special magistrate leans, usually the request comes from Mr. Pinker. It comes directly to me. I
prepare the payoff that day. I email it back to him and he provides it to whoever whoever is requesting that payoff. So, we're not only respond, we respond very quickly. >> So, I I I just asked because it seems like uh if there's a process missing uh
when we do um when we process these things, should we seek out to the title company? Should should we be doing something like that? I I don't I don't know. I I feel like that's a lot of a lot of money for grass
just because we didn't catch it or somebody didn't catch it. >> We would not know when properties are selling in MadiRaa Beach. There would be no way that we would have enough staff capability to check every single day every single property to see whether it's for sale and whether there is that
owner would be willing to tell us >> that it's up for sale or a contract is pending. We just we >> So Tom, I have a question for you. Understood. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Do we record the leans and the county courthouse? >> Yes, every single one of them are
recorded. Let me back that up. They all should be recorded. Um >> because that's where the lean the the that's where they go to look for leans. >> Yes. And they would just do a search of
the property owner's name. Like in this particular case, you'll see it is Io Simonetta. all these leans. So if they would have searched the IRO Simonetta name, all these leans would have appeared. >> Well, I agree with the um the city staff
um with this settlement order um city staff's recommendation that the board of commissioners accept this settlement of $2,14948 in exchange for the release of lot mowing lean and the special magistrate
lean. So, I I would to agree with the city staff. I've got a question. Aren't those companies insured? And is there any recourse that we could go against them for not finding the
leans? I mean, if it seems like it's that simple of a process to check out, uh, who who was at fault there? I mean because I I gotta admit when I bought my property 15 years ago, there was a lean on it as well. So I mean, you know, but
I'm like was very happy about it because mine was a lawnmowing situation as well and it just was never kept. But then that was after the big crash. But it it just kind of boggles me as Commissioner Tagarini like how could that slip through the cracks?
>> So the city would not have a cause of action against the title company. That's an insurance policy between the property owner and the insurance company, the title insurance company. So what would happen is is that the city would enforce its lean against the property owner. Then the property owner would seek indemnification or reimbursement from
their title company for failing to um catch it. So >> but that wouldn't be the current owner. It would be the previous owner, wouldn't it? >> It would be >> because the current owner found the Did the current owner's title company find the lean? >> Yes. >> Right. So, they found the lean that it
needs to be paid. He's asking us to reduce it because it's not his lean. It was missed two transactions prior or one or whatever. So, would the title the title company that would be responsible for missing the lean wouldn't be his, it
would be whoever selling it to him. >> Correct. >> So, so it is his lean. It's when you buy the property, it's a lean on the property just like a mortgage. So it's his responsibility. So he would have to pay it. And then if he wanted to seek recourse against the prior owner, then
that prior owner would seek a reimbursement from his title insurance company. And that prior owner would seek it from their title insurance company. But the the way that it would be forced is is that we would say, "No, we're not going to release these leans. You need to pay them. And if you don't pay them, we're going to foreclose the leans."
Then then the property be put up for sale to pay the outstanding leans. So, >> I think we need to give um Attorney Tras some direction. >> Well, if I wasn't clear, I'm fine with the recommended amount. Yeah. I just wanted to know what >> Yeah.
>> background, but I'm fine with that amount. Yeah. >> Yeah. You don't need to give me direction today. You're going to make that decision at the commission meeting. So, the only thing that I would want to do, and um we've done this when we've discussed reducing leans um previous to today, is to not set a precedence that
we're going to reduce a lean and discuss why we're willing to reduce this lean because it was missed by previous title companies. And now the current owner is being saddled with a lean that he knew he had nothing to do with. And so, we're
not forgiving a lean. based off of someone being derelictked and not doing what they should do and then walking in and saying, "I decided to cut my grass. Now forgive my $500,000." We're forgiving a lean for someone who
purchased a piece of property in our town and it happened to have a lean that goes back many, many years and was someone else's responsibility, not his or hers. >> Very good point. >> Okay. >> Thank you, attorney. >> You're welcome. Next on the agenda is
city manager Gulf Beach's public library audited financial statements September 30th, 2025. >> Mayor and commission, this is just the financial audit from the Gulf Beaches Public Library. Um there's not too much to report. You can see in their opinion,
it states that uh the statements referred to above. They present fairly and in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. So, seems that the Gulf Beach's public library has been keeping
pretty solid books. >> Do we have any public comment? Commissioners, do you have any questions or comments? >> Okay. >> Good. >> Thank you very much, Clint. >> Yes. >> Next on the agenda is the city hall elevator replacement.
>> All right. And this is more justformational. We did send out a RFP for replacement of the elevator. Um we're all aware we've spent almost $100,000 in repairs since uh Helen. Most
of that incurred this year. Um it's an interior elevator, not an exterior elevator. Versus spending 75 $100,000 every year. We're just going to try to replace it. and
um we put it out to bid and unfortunately we did not receive any bids. So at this point we have um met the standard to put what this item would cost out to bid and now we just for your information we're seeking quotes from
individual elevator companies. So it was moreformational as to where we're at with that. >> Do we have any public comment? I just wanted to add it and it will come back to you for approval as required. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Do we have any public comment
commissioners? >> Quick questions. Uh are we are we going to put out a a a request for an indoor elevator or the same kind? It is. >> No, we're going to put a request out for the proper exterior elevator. >> Exterior. Okay, great. And is it is it
has it been deemed safe as as of now? We're because it I found out it's working. it's functioning >> and >> I I can't say if it was certified or not recently. I can I can just say that the elevator company, they were out here, they did their due diligence. They able
they were able to replace the parts and stated that it was fully functioning at this point. >> Thank you. You're welcome, >> Commissioner. I'm good. >> Commissioners, >> so one quick question. The reason the elevator is hasn't been working because
of the weather. >> Helen, it fl it flooded and it w it was having issues beforehand when shortly after city hall was was built. I remember I was firefighter across the street and there was started having
issues after probably one year, maybe two years and we just continued to put band-aids on it. But then after Helen, the water intrusion, saltwater intrusion really dam damaged it severely. >> But would it make sense to repair or not
repair, replace the elevator, but also build maybe some sort of a canopy or some other mechanism so that the water doesn't get inside of it? >> Yeah. And the research that myself and Megan Powers has done is shown that the exterior elevators are built to
withstand any water intrusion. uh wind damage, what have you. It's built for the elements. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. I look forward to you bringing it back. Next on the agenda is ordinance 2026-03
555th Avenue reszoning from PD Plan Development to C4 Marine Commercial. >> Good evening uh commission. Uh this item is is basically the keep you got um keep
uh status update related to this ordinance. Uh we wrote a draft version of this ordinance. uh attorney uh Tr reviewed it and now it's currently being reviewed by Ford Panelis um for compliance with the countywide rules and it will once that is done it
will uh come back as a workshop item and then go through the public hearing process required for a reasonzoning. Do we have any public comment commission questions or comments?
>> I have a question. So C4 zoning designation will allow all the uses that we are intending for this property. >> That that is correct. Uh certain um municipal uses may require a special
exception use. Um but we would do that um at at the request of and it would go through the uh normal process for a special exception use go to the special m magistrate. Um but all the commercial uses people and and and
feedback we've heard that those would be permitted uses like like anything marina or restaurant related would would be allowed as a permitted use. the uh the height with the PD when PD came before the board and was approved.
Was the height consistent with the C4 zoning? I mean, with the PD they're resone it was reszoned to a different category. So, they asked for additional height. I I don't remember what height the board approved with the with the PD. Um but it it was probably um in that
area um since it's in the town center special area plan normally it would be three stories above BFE but but the with the PD they they asked for additional height but I I don't have the exact number off the top of my head what got approved.
>> Okay. So ukidious zoning of C4 probably will be less will be less headache than having to go back and keep on modifying that PD if you were to hold on to the PD and wanted to do major mod.
So, with the way our PD section is written in our code, if if a you're supposed to reszone it back to uh the prior zoning category, if the if the PD falls through and the developer
doesn't fall through with building it or within the requirements that were with the PD and development agreement. >> Thank you. >> Comments. So, Andrew, do you know what the um
density was for the PD as compared to what C4 would be or will be? >> I'd have to I'd have to double check. I I mean by right the temporary lodging density there uh should be uh 60 units per acre and then residential density is
15. Um I I would have to see what the PD if that if it used the by right density or or not. I' I'd have to double check. But you it either would have the main the main
benefit of the PD probably would have been the height. So do what we're really doing is just a formality. That's a requirement of our code to take this back to what it was prior because the PD that's currently on it is not going to be built or used by
the city. Correct. >> Correct. Yeah. >> Okay. Thank you very much, >> Mr. Mayor. One quick um density/intensity is driven by land use, not necessarily zoning. >> Correct. >> Thank you.
Next on the agenda is the parking garage feasibility study quotes. >> All right, mayor and commission. Um, we at board's direction, we reached out uh to Kimley Horn and the other company. I can't remember the name, the ads. Yeah,
something. Um, they both provided their their quotes for the service and I will turn this over to Marcy for any in-depth conversation. Okay. So, we included the two quotes in the paperwork and uh just to be clear, we had kicked off the conversation
initially uh with Kimley Horn and at the time we weren't totally sure if there were going to be two or three sites. So, when you read their proposal, they did have an option in there for they may reference three sites. So, um after we kind of got some more direction from you
guys and we met with ADASQ, they gave us a proposal for looking at two sites. So with that Kimley Horn extracted from their proposal, what it would cost for them to do the two sites, it's reflected in their proposal. I just wanted you guys to be looking at
comparable total numbers. So the cost from ADASQ was in the $51,000 range and the quote from Kimley Horn in the $47,000 range. And that's for each of them to comparatively do the same same task. Um based on the work that we have
going on, we did want to consider the u proposal from ADA ASQ and simply for the reason that we stated in the memo that though there's a slight difference in the dollar figure, we did want to give an opportunity to kind of use um maybe another engineering firm on our continuing services and just give them
the option. So that was that was really the only reason we we went that way. We're very pleased with everything we're doing with our with our firms um our selected firms. We just wanted to give, like I said, another opportunity Do we have any public comment commission
comments or questions? >> I have a couple of questions. So, um, often enough if we give incentives and we discussed this once before I think to developers
to that that would be building projects here in Madura Beach. If we give them incentive to build additional parking spaces, then those parking spaces would be at their cost and you know we can work on
some of the incentives that we would be granting them in order to have them build some parking spaces and garages or on their property. So that that's one item I wanted to discuss here
or at least bring up. And secondly, are we just studying just to see how many spaces we can put on these two properties or I mean what we're trying to do some I guess research to see if the parking garage can fit or
how many spaces are what what's the what's the purpose for spending let's say $50,000. What are we what are we getting for that? >> So, we'd be asking the two firms to just evaluate the two sites from a logistic standpoint. Any difficulties they would
foresee with building it out and what's constructed out, what what are we looking at? How many how many spaces could we realistically fit on there? and also looking at the current parking we have surrounding those areas and determining you know capacity how busy
how packed are we really in all the parking that we have available and what does that look like so first thing is kind of assessing what is our parking problem and if with that do one of these two spaces help to satisfy that parking and it'll be at a high level to kind of
determine to your point you know do we have a problem if So, which of these two sites would help better satisfy that parking problem? And I know in the service it says it's easy to say, "Yeah, we have a parking problem." They just run through the analysis of how busy we actually are looking at the data we have
from our current parking. So, that would be turned over to them um from Jamal's team and they'd be able to take that into consideration. >> Just I'm I'm just putting this out there from my perspective. I you know, I'm not in favor of this. I'm sorry. I just
think money is wasted. Um, there are other ways to look at providing additional parking spaces. Um, other means. I'm just not in favor of spending $50,000 to do a study. If if
you really have a piece of property, let's say, and you want to build parking garage, you can talk to a garage manufacturer and it's done all the time. They can just come and design it for you. they can get a get a permit and design
it for you and maximize the parking spaces. It's done all the time. >> So again, just as a reminder, this was at the direction of the board to reach out to Kimley Horn and a DASQ
something like that. So that's what we did. We spent many staff hours back and forth with both firms and again this was direction of the board. So just please keep that in mind.
>> I I have a clarification in terms of will they determine each site what is the best for each site and what's the feasibility for each one. So we'll be getting two proposals basically is and their recommendation as to which one
would be better and why it would be better and I guess so like in terms of you know an understanding as to what what what we're paying the $50,000 for. >> Jason Jason from the uh other firm I won't try to butcher his firm's name
again. Um he is not here. Hannah with Kinley Horn is. I don't know if you're prepared to speak on this, but >> and I I think too for for to for the simplicity of the explanation, I foresee us getting basically a pros and cons.
Here's each site will have a pro and a con, and those will be broken down and then at some point it'll be up to us as a city to determine kind of which one we're we're going to go for if if they fit the box. So that that's kind of the best way I think to put it is what we'll
get from them is here is we've identified some issues or some gaps in parking. We've reviewed the two sites. Here's the pros and cons to each and kind of go from there. But with that, I'll let Hannah if you'd like to basically add anything. >> Yeah, I think you said it well, Marcy. Um at the end of the day, we want you to
have options. So whether it's all sites are feasible, that's great. If there's only one that really comes out as being feasible, what does that look like? What does the parking look like? How much parking are you getting? Is it going to solve your problem? Maybe it won't. And it could be, you know, wasted funds
building a parking garage. So, those are the the questions we want to answer with that study. >> So, so the answer could be you don't need a parking garage. >> No, that's not going to be the answer. I think you need a parking garage, but does the cost of building it um measure
up for the amount of spaces you might get based on, you know, the height in that area and just the possible number of spaces within that building envelope. So that's what we would look at is, you know, if you're getting I I'll just make the number like a thousand parking
spaces, is that going to be beneficial for spending, you know, millions of dollars just to get those thousand parking spaces where, as Commissioner Hoosi saying, do we incentivize a private developer who's building on a much larger envelope to provide more
public parking spaces? So those are the types of questions we'll be looking at and we really don't know the answer to those until we get into it. >> Each space will cost $30,000. So I I I have a question about so when you do the feasibility study, does it
include looking at the two different lots and determining what the cost would be associated to relocate utilities or um the whether or not getting in and out of that lot would be safe. Does it
include that type of information? >> Um the available information will take into account utilities. We may have enough in-depth information, we may not, but definitely looking at access and how that relates to, you know, the streets and would you need to put in a parking
signal um things like that. So access and connectivity is considered and any available information you have regarding utilities um is definitely helpful, but um survey and more in depth um you know research is not included at this stage.
that would kind of be the next step is understanding are there underground utilities or something that we don't know about um to move further with that garage construction. >> And with this we would have whichever firm we select, we would have a kickoff meeting with. So if if they wanted to go
down one avenue and and we're like that's not an avenue we really want information on. We'd rather you kind of maybe give us an answer to this. Then within that proposal, they would kind of be able to make some adjustments to help with those things to the best of their ability with with how the study would go. So to your point about the utilities, we could see how how make
sure that they knew it was a focus and they we'd like them to go as deep as they could to kind of give us an idea of any impacts that we would have. So we'd be able to kind of, you know, as a kickoff kind of define really what our priorities are for the sites as well. >> How about anything in terms of like
zoning zoning height restrictions and codes and all of those things? >> Yeah, so we'll look at the existing zoning code and what's allowable there today. So that's kind of where we look at into account the setbacks, the height limitations, um the intensity, what can
we build within that envelope and how many spaces you get out of that and what is the cost of constructing that. >> So I think one of the things that I know is in in my mind that I was curious to know and I thought would be part of the
feasibility study is we own a lot. If there are utilities underground, if there's electrical or sewer or whatever, whatever is on the lot, is it feasible to relocate all of
that? And understanding the cost to relocate it because I agree with Commissioner Go. We can go get three companies that build parking garages and go, give us a price to build a because we know what we can build per our code. Give us a price to build a five-story
parking garage on this lot. give us a price to build build a fivetory parking and garage on that lot for feasibility and we know we're going to build it within so many so so far of John's past because that is what the money was
earmarked for and I'm very passionate about getting the parking garage started because we have a commission that goes back years that started this fund and it was a fantastic idea on part of that commission when they raised the parking by 50 cents to take
that 50 cents and put it in a fund. And that fund was earmarked specifically to build a parking garage for John's Pass. Um, I think everybody knows we need it. We currently have a lot of private lots there that are going to go away when the hotel's built. I don't I appreciate your
comment about um incentivizing. I know maybe of one piece of property that's going to be redeveloped in John's Pass besides the PD that is currently being negotiated. So, I don't know that there's a great opportunity to negotiate parking. However, I think that's a great
thing to think about. But understanding whether or not it's even feasible to build on those lots based on whether it's on the John's Pass lot, whether it's based off of the coastal construction line and getting in and
out, and then the other lot, whether it's feasible to, you know, what is the cost going to be associated with relocating all of those utilities, and would that make that lot not feasible because of that. So without having that
information, I don't think we're getting the I don't feel like we are. I could be wrong because I've got my own vision of what we need to know. Um so it so based on this obviously we're workshopping it. So, what I would do is based on the feedback that we get, I
would reach back out to both Kimley Horn and say, "Just want to make sure here's one of the principal focuses. Please, you know, um what's in what how far does this quote get us and do we need to add an extra line item?" So, let's say when it comes before you or however we proceed forward, I would make sure that
that's that's clarified. So, I could definitely do that if we get to the point where we all know which direction we're going. And that's one thing you just want to make sure that we really drill into is the construction costs for utility reconnects and relocations. So my my my challenge in it is that
I remember back when we did a study for a high and dry over at the marina and we didn't do any due diligence upfront to only find out that we couldn't build a high and dry at the marina because the
the land restrictions don't allow it. let alone it was way out of the cost of the city to be able to do it. Um I think we we have a basic understanding of what it will cost per spot and we know that we've set the money aside so we know
that it's something that we are in favor of doing and want to do but I think having that information Marcy would be super helpful because that's what we really need to understand. Um, >> I can get cl I can get clarification
from from the two firms for when we bring it back to you guys. >> Okay. >> Also, the other way of looking at it, we've got two properties that they're trying to study. So, it's not 50,000, it's it's 25 per property, correct? >> Which basically, if you look at it that
way, it's not that expensive. I mean, you know, 50,000 is a lot, but they're evaluating two completely different sites >> and it's not coming out of the tax dollars. It's coming out of the parking fund. >> So, the the the community, the citizens
that live in Madira Beach are not paying for this study. This study will be paid for by the tourists who come to our city and pay to park. >> So, what's our budget? Do we have a budget for either one? just what they presented
uh 51,468 and >> no that's the cost that's the cost of doing the study. I'm I'm saying if you're building a parking garage let's say a 100 spaces you multiply generally speaking 100 by 30,000 because that's how much you'd be paying for parking
space. So, do we have do we have the funds to dedicate, let's say, $10,000 uh $10 million to build a parking garage? Do we have that money?
>> I think there's no question that we would take a loan. We have a I'm Andrew is not here today, but I'm not sure where we're at 100% on what we have saved, but the um No, we haven't
gotten that far. So, we have the money that's being saved. That money was saved to go towards building a parking garage. And I believe that the previous commission that started that was that that money would go to start the garage. Of course, it would take a loan, but that the garage would be it would have
an ROI that would pay for itself. >> So, so once I mean once we agree that all right, we want to build a parking garage in John's pass, we can just engage, you know, a company like Kimy Horn to do to to do the design
and they will do due diligence as a part of their design criteria. It can also locate underground any utilities that may be there, any easements or whatever. So why do we have
to do a some sort of a research to see if it's feasible? Why don't we just say, all right, you know, give us a cost. You know, we have $10 million in the bank. We want to build a 100 parking spaces. See if that's
feasible and give us a cost to to permit. I believe that when they talked about building the parking garage on the lot that we own on Gulf Boulevard, they were talking and I I may be off on my numbers because I read so
many different things, but it was somewhere between three and 600 parking spaces. It it was it was a substantial number of parking spaces to be built. I think that the question that came up is which lot would be best for a parking
garage. Now, when you say G Park lot and G Boulevard, do you mean by the bridge? >> No, that is one of them. So, that's one lot. The other lot is the lot that is across from John's Pass that the city owns. >> Yeah. >> 131st, I think it is. >> Because I remember seeing a small
parking lot that we have and you could not build a parking garage there. >> So, we have two lots that we own. Um, and I I mean my understanding on doing the feasibility study would tell us which lot would be more feasible and would be that's what a feasibility study
is. Where do you really need it? Do you need it at 131st or do you need it down at the south parking lot? That's what >> for a typical parking garage, you really need like a let's say 60 6 120 ft width
plus the buffers on both sides. And then you need a runway basically to to to have. And if if you have a lot that's less than 140 by let's say 300, then you're just you you just can't
really put a parking garage on there. So I mean that that's an easy thing to >> Well, we have the real quick the uh and I'm just going to reiterate some of uh what my colleagues up here have already
said. Um the the the parking fund's going to pay for this. Uh the taxpayers are not going to pay for this. I I believe that a feasibility study at both properties needs to be done. Um
ADASQ will charge $51,468. Kimberly Horn will charge 47,500. Comparably, they're doing the same thing. So I would be more inclined with sticking with uh you know
a company like Kim Kimberly Horn during this matter. Um so she's all they've already proven their their their uh ability to uh help the city of Mader Beach out. So um I'm sure we'll continue
this discussion. Um, if I So, I I hope this doesn't log jam it even more, but uh if it's true that that that spot that you're talking about isn't big enough, I I I think it is because we've looked at it for quite
a few for a few years now. Uh, initially, uh, so I think we should continue to explore that. Uh the issues I have with the John the John's Pass Park is is the vi the visual blocking the the view from those people who
bought those condos. And now just to make it more complicated, I would love for us to consider the triangle where the uh Veterans of Foreign Wars is. That's the only property we don't own. And let's let a let's let a let them let's a contractor bid on something
there so they can put retail and anything else up in there. we already own most of that triangle. Uh I' I'd like for that to be considered and thrown into the mix. Um but I I do feel like we need to uh get some research on it all.
And if that one spot isn't big enough, that rules it out. We don't we should know that right from the start. >> Um I like I liked the staff's recommendation to no no disrespect to try the ADASQ. Um, we're doing a lot of work with
Kimley Horn. And I think that this other company is much more um transportation oriented. Would you say that? >> It It's hard. They're both very very transportation. I mean, Kimley Horn has
a lot of different disciplines. Um, it was just we had a good meeting with Jason when he came in just like we did with Kim and it was literally just cuz we were going to spread the work out with um >> and I can appreciate that. So, I just want to point out Kimley Horn has 33
parking garages on their presentation. It's a lot of parking. >> So, what if you Marcy, could you clarify for us on the utility part of it to see where that would fall in their study and whether or not that can be included in the price or if it would be an add-on?
>> Yes, absolutely. And then I would presume that based off of um Commissioner Tagalini, we'd want to add the although I am so against building anything on that triangle, but I'm not against listening to something and changing my mind if it was the right thing.
>> I say that because a couple of boards back, maybe just one board back, we we did a lot of work on that. We we had individual tours. We were told how the set the the set was going to be. So that even if we went up four stories to above parking, it would be like uh it is right
now. You can't really see from the distance what the top floors are. That would make retail. It would make parking and it would be right there on on John's Pass property. I I I wish we hadn't tossed that out completely. That's all. So when we were talking about about that
it was a public private partnership was the what was being >> that was being suggested could happen. Right. >> Right. There was no company in involved particularly that was suggested like very much like what commissioner go is saying a public partnership.
>> No no that's not what you're saying. You're saying get uh >> he's saying let a developer >> let a developer give plans for sorry that's that's not what it was but that's a good idea too. So, I think I've got some good information that I can go back. Um, what I think I can also broach with them and
maybe a good idea is to um to Commissioner Hush's point, if let's say they ask three questions and it kicks out that property, then they stop there at that and then we have them focus their efforts maybe on the other options. So, I can get something drafted
up like that. I think we had a really good conversation here. So, I'll work with them and if I can't get it to come back to the next regular meeting, it'll just go to a workshop. But, I think we've got the time to to get this right, make sure we're getting exactly what we we hope to be getting out of it.
>> Thank you. >> Thank >> on the agenda is fire approval to purchase self-contained breathing apparatus for municipal emergency services. Piggyback on Lake County contract. >> All right, mayor and commission. This is
um obviously fire department related uh to replace our current self-contained breathing apparatus. They were purchased new in 2013. Uh they have reached their end of life. We're con consistently sending them out for repairs, multiple
air packs at the same time. Um I have personally applied for the AFG grant, assistance to firefighters grant at least three times for this. All three times we have not been selected and we've done the budget roll over I
believe the last two years trying to make sure we could get that grant but unfortunately we weren't able to. This is in the capital budget. So uh we're presenting it now to the board for discussion and or approval at the next meeting.
>> Do we have any public comment please? Just take my name and Okay. Christy Giovanni, 601 South Bayore. Um, first of all, I'd like to say that I think the the firemen deserve the very best scuba
equipment that money can buy. I also have a question. Since we know that our firefighters and other first responders use equipment that has a shelf life,
what are the plans in the budget for setting aside money uh every year so that when this comes up, you've got money already planned for anything. I mean, if you live in a condo, you know, you've got these kinds
of fees. your your plan for it. >> So, this was part of >> No, no, no. Do we have that? And if we don't, >> we should. >> Thank you very much. >> Now, I commissioners, do you have any
questions or comments? >> I can't I didn't mean to. It was my understanding that this mud this money has been bud it has been budgeted from year to year and uh Chief Bel has done everything he could to get a grant and since he's done his due diligence with
the with the trying to find a grant uh that we should that use the money that we've already set aside for we do set money aside for this and it's and if I could say what I mentioned earlier to chief bel uh after going to fire ops we
give we give the firemen what they need. Yes, >> absolutely. >> 100% agree with that. Thank you. Yes, definitely. >> Well, and our fire rescue uh on the boat >> chief, do you know right off the top of your head how many calls we've had since
January 1 that were water related? >> Water related? Um, I know over the past two years we've ran 194 water rescues and that's the most on this barrier island and we run 25% of all the water
rescues in Penllis County. >> And I mean I think I can say that from uh the thank yous that we've received from those that our fire department has saved their lives on the water. >> I want them to have the best equipment they can have. I don't care if they ever
put it on. We definitely appreciate the support. And just so everyone's aware, the the last recognition we had for the firefighters that saved the the two jet ski people, they or jet ski uh riders,
they've been asked to attend a awards banquet dinner with the governor in Tallahassee. >> That's awesome. >> Later this year. >> That's awesome. They work really hard. Anything additional on that? So, one quick question. For $36,000,
what are what are we be basically getting just for the public information? Uh >> new air packs, new new bottles, new masks. Uh we've done we used to have these voice amplifiers versus trying to screen through your mask to who's ever
inside with you. But they they fail quickly. So, we're getting away from that. This has like like state-of-the-art Bluetooth technology um pre a neighboring fire department also uses this. They've had versus like
the same issues I guess that we we have had with their previous air packs. They haven't had at nearly as many with these. Obviously, they're newer. And this also allows um St. Pete Beach, they have this system in their command vehicle where they can
monitor everybody's air consumption rate. They can monitor where they're at in the building with this typical or particular air pack. >> Okay, >> thank you. >> All right, we did not have any public
comment at the beginning of the meeting. So, it is 5 19 >> one sec. I'm sorry. I completely forgot. We were going to provide everyone with a uh >> John's Pass dredging update just for Excellent. Yeah. So everybody's aware
>> where we're at. >> Good afternoon. Oh, this sounds really weird. >> You need to stand really close to it so it'll catch your voice for all the world to hear. >> I don't like it. Um just to give you all an update on the Dredge Project where we are to date. I know that there's a lot
of social media, there's a lot of news media, and just so you all know, it's not completely accurate. So, to date, we are within our scheduled time frame. Um, I would say they've probably removed over 3,000 cubic yards of sand as of
right now. Um there is um there is a survey that is occurring by water every two weeks and they are also flying and taking aerial pictures every two weeks. So we are monitoring that way
as well. Um the just so you are aware and I think we've all seen this um the sand migrates a lot in John's past and that is it it migrates from the north and then we know that it accumulates in the past just from previous surveys that have been completed. So as it stands
right now there is more sand in the dredge area than what there was 2 weeks ago. But that doesn't mean that in the next two weeks on the survey that that's not going to change. we can get one storm that can either blow it in or blow
it out. So, um I don't want to put a number on it, but I just want to make you all aware that it is changing and it is changing daily down there. Um we are monitoring it. Um they are doing between 9 and 16 truck loads per day. And if
anyone has seen the 555 property, you'll see that the the dump truck driver, it's the same driver. He's making a very neat pile. And I actually as we were sitting here I got some really cool aerial pictures from that. I shared them with Chief. Um but there's a lot of
misinformation out there. So the way that we we bid this project and the way that we awarded this was for a 90-day contract. They are within that time frame. So I want you all to be aware that what you see and what you hear is not completely accurate. So I can answer
any questions you may have. >> Do we have any public comment? Commissioners, do you have any questions? >> Is there a chance that they're going to need to go beyond 90 days? >> There's always a chance. >> If they do, >> do we have any money to pay for that?
>> Well, going beyond the 90 days and going above the cubic yards that we approved are different. So 90 days won't cost us money. Additional cubic yardage will cost money. So, is there a chance that that we'll be coming back before you and
saying we had originally approved 12,900 cubic yards to be removed and now there's an additional however many thousand. We'll bring that before you and let you all make that determination on how we proceed. >> But so far, this has been paid this so
far this has been paid by the grant. >> Correct. >> Right. We haven't had public money for this. >> No. >> No. So this if it goes more more cubic yards, money has to come up with it. Uh is the city
going to pay for it? It's on private property, is it not? >> I think that'll be a discussion for if that comes. >> Yes, that will be brought before you all. >> But it is on It's not public property that is being >> This is not city-owned property. No.
Did someone do did someone do the calculations? Is there going to be enough room over at 555 for >> Yes. Yes, we have done the calculations. >> So, are we battling with the piles are looking big and good? >> Yes, they are. >> Are we battling with mother nature? And
it's we can't win. >> We are battling mother nature. Yes. And no, we cannot win against mother nature. So, you can just keep on paying change orders after change orders and Mother Nature will come back and say, "Well, I I'm going to give you more sand."
>> Well, at this time, just so we're all on the same page, we're not we're not requesting additional money. We're just giving you an update that there is a with the amount of sand that is accumulating andor removing that there
is a chance that at the end of this that within the dredge area limits that there may be more cubic yards. So we'll come back before you all and you all will make that decision on how we proceed. >> No change orders right now. >> No, we have not had any change orders. >> All right. Thank you.
>> Good. >> Thank you, Megan. >> Thank you. It is 5:23. We are adjourned.