--------- Good afternoon. Welcome to the Board of Commissioners budget workshop number three. Today is Wednesday, June the 24th, 2026. It is 2:00 p.m. City Clerk, would you call the roll, please? >> Mayor Brooks. >> Here. >> Vice Mayor McGeehan. >> Here.
>> Commissioner Tagliareni. >> Here. >> Commissioner Dillon. >> Here. >> Commissioner Gabai. >> Here. >> All are present. With no public in attendance, we [clears throat] will move on to discussion items, fiscal year 2027 budget workshop number three, revenue
analysis, and I will hand this over to our Finance Director. >> Great. [clears throat] Good afternoon, everybody. So, for our budget workshop three today, we're going to do a a deep dive focus on revenues, and that's where we'll kind of keep our focus.
And then for the July workshop next month, is as we're finalizing, compiling all the um budgetary requests on the operating side from our um departments, then we'll have a kind of a full picture to put together on what the operating expenses are,
kind of where we're at currently on on our capital needs, and then the revenues that you see here to offset that, and what the the the net impact is on our budget for fiscal year '27. So, we'll do that in our July workshop, and then our August workshop is just going to kind of revisit some of the
questions, comments, concerns you may have from from July. So, the idea is by the August workshop, we have everything pretty well finalized. And then the two um the two public meetings in September to adopt the budget. So, for this one, we'll just we'll mainly just focus on
revenues. Uh we'll look at the our revenue uh forecast for fiscal year '27 in greater in in detail on a fund-by-fund basis. Um since there's been a lot of buzz in the [clears throat] in the news and
among communities about property tax reform, we're going to spend some time on an ad valorem tax revenue analysis. So, I have some detailed calculations. I do that every every year for you all and evaluate homesteaded versus non-homesteaded. But, I added an extra
caveat in there for the impact of an increase in the um in the in the [clears throat] uh homestead exemption for the uh from 50,000 to 150,000 and then later to 250,000. So, what would [clears throat] that
impact be? We'll evaluate those different scenarios. And then I know from the strategic plan meeting that we had previously as a group, I did a financial presentation. You saw the materials on on the screen, but this is now putting that in your
packet. And we can revisit that a little bit as well and kind of hit some of the high points that I talked about in the last meeting. That's really all I have planned for for um for this workshop. So, does that sound good? We'll we'll dig right in. Okay. So, that was the agenda on page
four of your packet. Now, moving on to page five and then to page six and seven, here's our revenue snapshot. >> [clears throat] >> So, what I wanted to provide you is kind of a as a multi-year trends, a couple of years of history of actuals. Our fiscal year '24 is fully
closed, audited. Fiscal year '25 fully closed, audited. Fiscal year '26, that's in progress. Our fiscal year ends September 30th, so we're about 9 months and change or 9 months or so into the fiscal year, not quite. And so these
were numbers pulled as of as late as even early last week. So, pretty fresh on the fiscal year 2026 year-to-date. Also showing what we budgeted in the fiscal in fiscal year 2026 for revenues and then now what we're budgeting for
fiscal year 27 proposed. So, that's just kind of high-level and then let's kind of look into the details by funds you can see what all that consists of. So, then starting on page eight
this is our revenue summary by fund where you can see um all the different funds we have and and what we budget on a fund-by-fund basis and you can kind of see the comparison. So, especially if there's certain things that you want to dig into like why is
you know, why the general fund budgeted 23 million in 26 and now it's 15 million. Let's look at those details cuz we provide that detail on a fund-by-fund basis in the following pages. So, some of those questions you might have in your head, we can go through some of those line items that will help answer
that. Um but all in all, I mean um on a fund-to-fund basis uh things are somewhat consistent. Um there's some kind of one-time revenues where we have some
grant monies that we budgeted for um you know, funding from Pinellas County for a certain endeavor that that could skew results from one year to the next. >> [clears throat] >> Um so, maybe let's go right in if there's unless there's any questions
just on the on page eight on the overall, perhaps we can just kind of dig in and and start general fund first. You can see >> Could I just say what what what would be the the top three reasons that we're projected to decrease uh in our
in our 27 proposed revenue. What would be the >> As opposed to um >> from 25 and 26. >> And which which fund are you or do you want to focus on? >> Uh Let me have
Well, the proposed revenue across all funds is a 27 change. Are you getting You're probably getting ready to answer this for me as we go on. >> Yeah, I mean, so I mean, breaking down that number, we can see that broken down by fund. And then we can see, okay,
within a fund, I mean, jeez, general fund is $8 million different, right? 23.9 million budget in 26, 15.8 million budget in 27. What is that due to? So, maybe we can focus on the general fund first to see
um you know, why we have that that fluctuation. And so, that's where that all start on page nine where we kind of dig into that um on line item by line item. And maybe we can just kind of hit maybe some of the high points as to where we see some
um some fluctuations, right? So, on page nine um in our general fund revenue detail So, we can see uh for example, like Pinellas County Right, so >> [clears throat] >> Pinellas County is where we can get
reimbursed um So, that in 26 and 27, that's the fire station reimbursement. So, that's why we see an uptick in 26 compared to 25. And so, those that's kind of a one-time item for the
Reddington station where that's getting fully funded by Pinellas County but we incurred the expenses and then we get reimbursed. You can see that's uh about five items from the bottom on page nine of your packet. 001.4000
4000 is our fire EMS department and that's our Pinellas County revenue. And you can see on fiscal year 26 year-to-date that's revenues um for for reimbursement of of construction related expenses on that
station that's occurring year-to-date. So that can cause obviously a jump. We had 4 million 4.4 million budget in 26, 3 million in 27 and then very little actual in 25 and nothing in 24.
Um so that's one one reason for you know some some skewing there. Um and moving forward maybe to the next page on page 10. Anything that jumps out?
So you can see um we never on kind of halfway through on page 10 of your packet is FEMA grant revenues 01.1400.331.392. Um we never budgeted for FEMA grant reim- for FEMA
reimbursements cuz we didn't anticipate the storm coming but we did get um a large you know reimbursement in fiscal year 25 for the 4.5 million. So again that's where m- no
budget budgetary revenue recognized but we had a big uptick in actuals. So it's a lot of these kind of one-off you know unique situations. Um it you know you can look at ad valorem taxes, you know, some of our bigger revenue sources that where you can see,
you know, things are generally pretty consistent. And then where you see from that summary page like, "Geez, why are we way off here or there?" I mean, it's kind of due to to those things from the FEMA reimbursements to the fire station. You know, Gulf Boulevard undergrounding that we've got Pinellas County revenue
maybe in the past. >> [clears throat] >> That can that can cause some of those swings from year to year. So, that one on page 10, that would that was obviously a one that stands out where we had 4. almost 4.6 million in
revenue recognized in fiscal year 25. We've budgeted some in 27 now that we know the storm the storm has been incurred and we've um have revenues that we do anticipate for getting some reimbursements in the
fiscal year 27 and we've gotten some reimbursements in 26. And in fact, I just got notification we did get I think from FEMA maybe it was 600 something thousand um just recently. I can actually pull that number to
case you all want to get excited. Let me see the um >> So, I have a question and it it seems to be a little bit consistent throughout the budget. Where we budgeted much higher for 26 than what we actually
did in 25. Uh for instance would be the fuel tax refund. So, in 24 we got 4100, 25 was 3500 and then we budgeted 5000 for this year. Why would we have budgeted so much more than what we actually received last
year? I mean, is there a reason we would think that we would get more fuel tax refund? And and currently we're at 1198 and we're proposing 5500 for next year, which is 500 more than this year.
And the year's over half over, so are we going to hit 5,000 this year? >> Not sure. That's so that's definitely one where we can look at and maybe provide a prepare more conservative estimate on something like that. >> I mean, rental inspection fees, we budgeted $25,000 this year. Last year we
collected 2100 and the year before we only collected just shy of 18,000. That's a big jump for a projection for fees and this year we're only at $3600 so far.
>> Yeah, that has swung a lot and I'm seeing 17,000 in 24, 2025, 25,000 budgeted cuz I think we budgeted 25 based on what we saw in actuals in 24. Didn't have that experience in 25.
And then in 26 we're only at 3,640, so then we looks like we made a much more conservative estimate for 27, budgeting 5,000 instead of 25,000 in fiscal year 26. The dynamics behind that I I I can't quite explain. >> Well, and I I I mean, I think
or my my thought would be that 24 we had the hurricane. Nobody really knew what 25 was going to look like and I would assume we thought we would be much more recovered by now and we the numbers show that we're not as recovered. Would that be a fair assessment of why we would maybe end up
that far off? >> I would say yeah, probably hurricane related would be perhaps a reason for the decline in the rental inspections um in 25 certainly and then the bleeding over effect into 26. Hopefully we'll start seeing an uptick
in 27. So maybe I'd you probably would feel good about that $5,000 budget estimate. Okay, so we just today we actually received $1,050,813. $1,050,813 from FEMA.
Um, through the state of Florida. One was for the beach parking lot repairs for $617,987. And then one was for Archibald Park for $432,826. Got to love that. So got some FEMA money. Um,
So that number is now outdated. The FEMA grant revenues. That'll increase since from the $357,000 you see in your packet. >> As we're on there and that's what is I'm seeing sponsorships. We had 50,000 we're estimating another
50,000 for 27. But yet we've only gotten 6,000. >> Let's see. What page are you on? >> Uh, 10. I said behind field rentals sponsorships. You know.
>> You're on 10 in the packet. >> I'm on my computer. Revenue detail four of five for the general fund. >> So field rentals and sponsorships. >> Yeah, we've got 50,000 for sponsorships. And the last in 24 we had
6,000. Nothing. No, 650 in 25. >> Yeah, it's a recreation item. So I'll have Jay speak to that one specifically. >> [cough] [clears throat] >> Hey there. Uh the sponsorship side, that revenue was captured in the special
events line item rather than the sponsorship. So, that's why. It's It's budgeted to the special events should be higher than >> [clears throat] >> Does that make sense? So, mainly the sponsorships that we receive are mostly through the Seafood Festival. And that would be captured as special
event revenue in that line item as well as vendors and other activities are captured within that. But, that's where that adjustment was made. So, it was raised when we took that over and then eventually, rather than being captured in sponsorship, it went into
the special events line item. >> That still doesn't make sense because special events for '24 was zero, '25 was zero, this year it's budgeted at 175 with a year-to-date of 43, next year is
budgeted at 65,000, and then when you go down to sponsorships, in '24 it was 6,700, '25 was 650, that's actual, budgeted at 50,000 this year, 6,000 to date, and 50 more. So, are you dividing it between the two?
Because if you combine them together, that's 225,000 between special event fee and sponsorships, but for next year, you're only at 115,000. I mean, I'm sorry, 225, yes, and 115. So, those not That doesn't That doesn't
make sense. Where was that money before? Because we If it's Seafood Fest, we ran the Seafood Fest in '24, '25, so where were those Where was that income at here? >> '24 and '25, it was in special events.
>> Okay, so special events here is at zero dollars, so this is inaccurate. >> Yeah, that I can could not tell you why that's zero on special events. >> [clears throat] >> We had >> [snorts] >> quite a bit of special event revenue both of those years. The sponsorship the long and short of it we could we
probably need to strike that amount proposed. Knowing that we're going to get We have sponsorships in other areas, but that one >> I can address the special event piece. There was an effort I think led by you mayors to departmentalize revenues better rather
than cuz department 1400 is non-departmental so it's kind of like general revenue. And since it was determined that special event fee is is is kind of born run by the recreation department. We created an account string
department 5000 special event 347400. So in fiscal year 24 actual and fiscal year 25 actual, that special event revenue was in department 1400. So if you go up to page 11 in your packet
you'll see actual 24 179,531 actual 25 197,643 zero because that account string didn't exist in 24 25 in the on the recreation side. >> Okay, that makes sense.
>> Okay, so um just walking through um anything else on the general fund looking at trend information. All all great questions. Um I wanted to give you all the details so you see every revenue source of the city
on a fund-by-fund basis. Um as well as historical actuals. So from page 11 I think just looking for anything that um >> Andrew, I've got a question.
Above that special event for my election qualifying fees, that's not a revenue. It goes in and goes right out. Part of it goes to the Pinellas County Supervisor of Elections for signature verification. The other part goes to the state for 1% election fee. That's part
of their qualifying. They when it um when it gets uh goes through the bank, it's their checks clear, then I write a check to the elections office and write a a check to the state.
>> It still has to show in revenue, though. It still shows in revenue and then it it'll show it going out somewhere else. Correct? Cuz you capture all the revenue that we get citywide is in this revenue document. >> Yeah, like typically
like the the great example is a grant. Well, I have this huge project I'm undergoing, right? It's a $2 million project, but it's funded by a grant. So, let's just net all the expense and we have no impact. Well, no, you have $2 $2 million of expenses and it was funded by a grant. It came in,
you know, and then going out to pay, you know, for those expenses. The fire station's a great example. We're not paying for the fire station, but it has a major P&L impact because we're seeing a huge revenue and a and a huge expense because it's our operation. We're uh
it's we're not just a custodian taking in money and dispersing money. We're actually um supervising, overseeing the entire the entire process. So, um there's accounting guidance on like is this like in a custodial or fiduciary nature or it's just an
asset in and then disbursement out or is there um and then perfect example in the fire station where yeah, we're getting the money for it. We're not paying for it out of our own pocket, but it's an inflow and then an outflow that we have to recognize as revenue and expense.
>> [clears throat] >> And we have a question for you. Um as far as general funds, uh um with regards to, let's say, Duke Energy undergrounding power lines, power power lines, um
I don't I don't see any line item in here. Should that be in there because looking back in the history of this board the previous board, I think, had voted
to pass some sort of a requirement to underground the power in Gulf Boulevard. Should that have been in there somewhere? >> And I can double-check this, but if you look at page 10 on your packet, I believe those Gulf Boulevard
undergrounding proceeds hit that that very last line item on that page. 01.1400.3380 Pinellas County. So, the Gulf Boulevard undergrounding proceeds came came through as a from Pinellas County, so
that's what we coded it to. Uh, maybe Megan Wefford can explain it through this 26. Do we have 26 revenue as well? I'm seeing a lot of revenue in 20 the revenue in 24 and 25. >> Hello, Mayor and Commissioners. So, the
final phase of the undergrounding project is in progress right now. And we plan to finish that. >> That's on Gulf Boulevard? >> It is on Gulf Boulevard. Yes, that is the penny for Pinellas money. >> When do you think that'll be finished? >> We're planning to finish it before the
end of this fiscal year, 26. >> I see. And we have budgeted we've had budget for this undergrounding and we have met the I guess the cost estimate. >> This project has been final phase has
been going on since 2019. >> Yes. >> We have met and we have actually I think it actually came in over budget from what we had with Keep Pinellas or the penny money, but I would have to confirm with the finance department. But I think you all
approved that Duke Energy binding cost estimate I would say back in 2022 2023. So unfortunately this project has been way long overdue. >> How much extra was that? >> I don't know. I would have to get back
to you. >> Okay. >> And it and it wasn't because of the city. >> It was not >> It was because of the cost of the city that it's taken long to do. It was outside of the city's hands. >> Yes. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> And then just some other outliers on page 10, you'll see a line item the ARPA
NEU grant proceeds. So that was from the um American Rescue Plan Act where the uh city recognized revenue back in 2024 for 2.1 million. >> [clears throat] >> That had really no restrictions on
spending so it could be spent for operational needs. Um and that was a one time. So again, some some one-offs on a year-by-year basis that you can see where you can have some differences.
>> So I have a question on page or on 505 revenue detail. And this is I'm sure it's just a the way the accounting's being done, but for the adult leagues, we had no revenue in 24, we had revenue in 25, and none in 26,
and none projected for 27. So are we not doing any adult leagues leagues, Jay? >> The The simple answer for that is no. Um with everything going on on the fields with Little League and as much field usage they have, we actually phased out of it. We did kickball and slow pitch softball. We
phased out of that. Um if we do run anything, it's a special one-off. We've done some putt-putt tournaments and random stuff like that, but it usually just goes into uh the I think it's the adult activity or fitness category. It falls into that rather than
It's kind of a weird category of of revenue anyway, but >> So, what about the facility rentals? Are we not really doing any? >> We have >> we were doing more now than ever. >> Mhm. Is it >> So, it shows Well, I don't know why we
So, we have a cost recovery line and then a facilities rentals line. I don't know what the difference in those is, but the facility rentals was budgeted for 15,000 this year and for next year and we're at 5,600 now. >> Yeah, that's uh
>> And we did We had never budgeted for that before, which is why I'm asking. >> Well, there was a good portion of the early part of this year that we were closed, so um and then we've had I I ran the number yesterday in the 6 months that we've gotten the soft the new software, we've run 7,600 through just with that rental
company, so that's that might be I don't know when this was produced, but we got two checks yesterday, so >> Okay. >> It is It is picking up. It is busier than it was, so. >> Facility rental >> not Did we just not track it in '24 and '25? Is that's why it's $0?
>> Yeah, same same issue. See, if you look at page three of five, you'll see that same facility rentals and facility rental cost recovery lines with uh and that's hitting the non-departmental account. So, that had 15,000 of revenue
in '24 and 9,400 of revenue in 25. >> [clears throat] >> And then we made the effort starting in fiscal year 26 to departmentalize recreation-type revenues from 1,400 to 5,000.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Um let's see. Anything else I wanted to hit on on page 305. You can just see the impact of not having as much cash in the bank on interest earnings.
So, you can see where we were, you know, have some explosive interest earnings, 1.2 million in 24, a little less in 25. Interest rates haven't moved that much. I think it's a more of a product of uh
just a reduction in our cash investment balances over the years. And so, now we're at 164,000 year-to-date in 26, budgeting 548,000
for 27. So, adjusting our estimates. >> Andrew, do you see any red flags there so far? I mean, there do you see everything is kind of like status quo or things are doing
what you would expect? >> Yeah, no no red flags, you know, from from here. I think all, you know, our core revenue sources have been pretty consistent. Um you know, and we'll get into the ad valorem taxes. I mean, that's our primary one. So, someone's going to tell
me we're taking away half your ad valorem taxes, yeah, I'd be concerned. But, we'll go through those numbers and and go >> I was just asking at this point so that we're not further along and and have to go back to it. So, as of this so far, you you see everything is going pretty
well. >> From from budgeting revenues, yes. Once we put the entire budget together, personnel, operating, capital expenses relative to revenues, I think that's where we'll have that good be able to reanalyze, you know, okay,
where are we at? It is a good that brings me to a good point is on page four of five, the uh general fund revenue detail, 12 of your packet. There's a line item, again, to speak to Commissioner Tagliarini's question of um
you know, why you know, why the big jump in the fiscal year '26 budget. So, there's a line item in the middle of there called fund balance net position carryover use. That's just a budgetary term and a budgetary item. And what that means is, okay, here is
all of our budgeted expenses in the general fund, personnel, operating, capital, and then here's the the budgeted revenues against it, and then here's the shortfall. So, to make the budget balance, cuz revenues and other inflows need to equal if they have a balanced budget, we're going to
pull that 5.5 million out of existing reserves to fund that shortfall. And that's not actual, that's just budgetary based on what we estimated in our in our FY '26 budget process. So, we definitely have to be more careful on for the fiscal year '27
budget cuz we have depleted our reserves a bit that I'm less comfortable with a 5.5 to $6 million budgetary shortfall in the general fund compared to how I felt this time last year going into '26, knowing the reserve balances that we had.
And so, that's why in that line item, everything's zero except that 5.5 million. We haven't completed that exercise yet for 2027 cuz we're still accumulating our budget our budgetary expenses, and we'll put it all together, and then by the time of adoption, we'll have you know, we'll know what that budgetary number is.
Um but and and Commissioner Dillon, your point like yeah, we don't want that number very big. That means we're budgeting a lot of expenses in '27 and we don't have much sufficient budget revenue to cover those expenses.
Less concerning in years past, more concerning now given the um the big capital acquisition that we made. Uh anything else on general fund or was we can kind of move into the other funds. Okay, Marina fund, that one's been
a consistent producer year over year. So, you see our '24 and '25 results, nothing that really jumps out. Um as a as a huge change from previous years. I think it's like we said, pretty consistent. There's
some things that we just haven't finished in our budgetary evaluation like interest earnings, so we need to apply interest earnings. So, a lot of these numbers were originated from the Marina department and then the finance department's going to come in and fill some of those gaps on like interest earnings. So,
um we still need to populate that figure that I'm looking at page 14 of your packet the Marina fund revenue detail page one of two. Um but otherwise, if you have any questions on any of these numbers, um
our Marina manager manager can address. Good on Marina? All right. And then storm water. So, that's on page 16 of your packet, the stormwater. There's not a whole lot of revenue sources within stormwater.
>> [clears throat] >> Um we've got you know, it's just stormwater grant which that can fluctuate over time. Um the main the main revenue source here is
is the stormwater service. I think Megan, you can correct me if I'm wrong, in the Pinellas County that was just Pinellas County funding for particular the the JPAs for particular um project or projects. >> [clears throat]
>> Yes, that is correct. We do have JPAs and we also have more grant funding proposed for 27 than what is in this document. So we can correct that and bring that back. >> [clears throat] >> And
I I don't I don't believe we have a number yet for the JPA for area six and that would be the next one coming, so I'm not sure we'll be able to get that in time and construction will go through 27 and 28, so we can account for that
when we receive that. >> So does the two I'm I'm beating this like a dead horse, poor Mike. The 2 million 735,000 from Pinellas County that's for a for a particular job?
>> Andrew, do you have the answer for that? I believe that's probably area three. >> The two would It would be the the one that we just signed with Keystone. >> Oh, this is for Yes, I'm sorry, area five.
>> So So won't get that money this year. So, it'll probably push to next year. It will be right on that fine line. Yes. Yeah, when we complete that project. The only reason I'm bringing it up is because it's such a large number and Mike and I I
asked him a million questions about it just so that everybody understands that big number doesn't show up until we actually do the program. That is correct. And we probably won't start that this year or if we do it'll be right at the the cusp
of our changeover in budget from 26 to 27. It'll be towards the end of this fiscal year, yes. Yes. Perfect. Thank you. [clears throat] So, this is obviously an evolving document. So, Megan and I will be corresponding on the stormwater grant revenue and the Pinellas County revenue. As we get more information, what we
think will get pushed in 27, that will readjust those two revenue lines um based on kind of where we're at by the um close to the close of this year and what we're forecasting for next year. So, those two are very very
uh in the open. Stormwater service, as you can see, that's our our stormwater fee that we charge to to our um property owners. You can see that's very consistent from year to year cuz we haven't changed our stormwater um fee. So, that's right around the
680 to 700-ish thousand dollars a year. Why did we not need to transfer anything from the general fund in 25? Um we just didn't I we we just didn't record that. I think we had it enough in
um available cash for the stormwater fund to absorb that, but um that's what we'll we budget every year for the debt service transfer. Then I do recall the one point one I
guess the first meeting that we were talking about that we might have to raise that storm water fund fee on our residents. So I understand transfer [clears throat] in the general funds in 24
and 26 because of the extra program, but did we not have any things going in 25 that we didn't need to have that fund? >> The transfer from the general fund, that is intended to cover debt service. So regardless if there's a transfer every year from the general fund or one year
we just missed recording that transfer, the debt service obligation remains every year. And so that's the tune of about let's say more or less 1.5 million climbing a little bit 1.5 to 1.6 million. So this debt storm water fund
incurs that that that debt service obligation annually. So that's that should factor into the cost of running the storm water operation. Um that debt service requirement as well
as the other operating expenses. >> Okay, and that was that was one of my questions with Mike in terms of if our fees right now are $10 for storm water and we generate 700,000, if we double that fee we're still not going to cover this
fund. >> Yeah, let's um if you don't mind >> to Andrew, aren't we going to workshop storm water fees and that whole conversation in a future workshop to really delve into what that is and where we are financially and should be?
>> We will. Maybe I can give you a quick snapshot historical of like the cost of operations cuz all you're seeing here from so far as the revenue side, but if you go down to third page 35 in your packet, why don't we just sneak over there real quick. And that's the stormwater fund
multi-year operating trend. And so just looking at the cost of operations, I'm including the principal repayment there >> [clears throat] >> as your debt service. So, the cost of the
stormwater operation including debt service repayment, principal and interest, is about 1.9 to 2 million dollars a year. So, I think that right there is a good barometer of what it costs stormwater.
Um cuz obviously we have a year where we'll spend 6 million dollars in a big project, right? But I'm going to take all those capital out capital uh outlay costs out, we'll strip them out. We issue debt to cover that, so what is our annual debt service requirement over a
15 to 30-year period, whatever our um our revenue note is for, that's the what the annual cost is. And we also have in our strategic plan we're going to have you know
projects in the future that will maybe require more uh issuance of more debt uh to fund future projects, and that doesn't mean the old debt's going away. So, that will all could also increase by future debt issuance as well.
But just looking as of today, it's about a 2 million dollar operation. And then if you look at the charges for services line, it's about 700,000 we're collecting. This is about as simple as I can get in the math. >> Well, and also so if you double
your if you go from 10 to 20 you're still at 1.4. And your operating is 2 million. To include the debt service. >> But yes, to be continued. Let's have a a deeper dive workshop. Cuz we'll want to
walk through the numbers. This is a high-level depiction right now. But okay. How does this translate to other Pinellas County communities and what they're charging? We want to give you kind of that um that benchmark analysis. To help us make
a good decision. Um for any potential update to the fees and collection manual you might want to make to that to that particular fee. Okay, so that's stormwater. Any other questions on stormwater? At least on the revenue side. If not, we'll move over to the parking
fund. So those are our um our parking fund revenues. We break out kind of by by area John's Pass, Village City, South Beach Village Boulevard, miscellaneous lot parking
plus the um collection of fines. And the non-resident parking permits, which are very small. So that's where we're at on what we're looking at from a revenue side on parking. If no questions there, we'll go to sanitation, the next page.
Very simple there. We just basically charge our sanitation charges. Plus, we have a recycling service fee that's pretty consistent as well. And 2020, I think starting fiscal year 23,
22 or 23 is when we enacted a sanitation fee increase. So, we started seeing it an uptick in sanitation charges. We haven't enacted that another fee increase since that time. Hence, the consistency from 24 to 25.
And then pacing into 26. And what was good to see was in fiscal year 25, there was concern that there might be a dip due to the hurricane and to people displaced from their homes and tear-downs and then not um canceling
their sanitation services, but we just didn't see much of that. And then the Archibald Park Fund, so revenue sources there. Historically, uh snack shack, so um
nothing on that now. Um the state appropriation, that was the beach growing renourishment. But the main revenue source is your um Archibald beach parking meters for that fund.
Little chair rental as well. And that's pretty simple in the um Archibald Fund. And then the local option sales tax fund. It's basically just our the um 7-cent sales tax revenue, the discretionary
surtax, the penny. >> [clears throat] >> And you can see pretty consistent year-over-year on that one. And then the building fund. Obviously, we've seen some fluctuation on this. Not to belabor that too much just on the permit revenue
due to the fee concessions we made from in fiscal year 25 that's has bled into 26 of that. And if no questions there. In the impact fee fund um we have a resolution upcoming on
proposing a moratorium on the mobility fee collection. Um so we're going to go through that process, so nothing's been budgeted yet until we let that play play out and then see what what makes sense budgetarily on the impact fee fund.
But you can see the history the collection history there. On the different types of impact fees collected. Gas tax fund, not much there. Very consistent. And that's it. Just some summary summary
items. And then number four on that, the statewide property tax reform not affecting the fiscal year 27 budget, so we'll go into that next on the ad valorem analysis, but before I do, any questions on anything we went over on the
kind of detailed revenue um budgetary review for by by fund and by account. >> Andrew, one question. Um credit card convenience fee? Would you explain what that is? >> So, you're seeing that
building So, we're and this is in the building fund. So, I believe if they pay online or uh via credit card, then we do charge um a service fee uh to the um
to the customer. So, that's what That's what we charge, but then we also incur credit card processing transaction fees that offset that. But, that's the That's what we recognize on the revenue by by charging the
customer. Not quite sure what that percent is. Maybe it's 3%. Um Okay. You think it's 3%? Okay, we're ready for some ad valorem >> One more question about impact fees. Uh what projects would normally be supported by impact fees? There's It
looks like it's zero on page 20. Um What How are we going to fund those projects if What are those What are those projects? >> For the local option sales tax fund? >> Uh
page 20. Well, it's on On my computer it's page 20. It says impact fees. >> Oh, the impact fee fund. Sorry. >> Yeah. Revenue detail. >> I think the the the plan to date has been to uh allow that impact fee fund to
accumulate you know, uh um revenues, but certainly within our fiscal year 27 budgeting and beyond, we can assign um one or more projects and declare the
impact fee fund um proceeds as being a a as long as it's an eligible project as a as a funding source. And then we can incur ex- the requisite expenses in that impact fee fund for that project. >> So, there's no projects currently being
neglected because we of the lack of income of impact fees? >> Well, I think that was I mean we're getting Are you You're asking about the intent of the impact fee fund and why we did what we did? >> Um I guess more
specifically and realistically, are Is there something not getting done because we don't have the those impact fees? >> Um I mean, I think that's the the gets us back to the the purpose of the impact fee fund, right? To collect on the due
to the expanding footprint within the city of Myrtle Beach so we can provide improvements to our infrastructure, parks, etc. for And so, without those impact fee revenues, then yeah, that's maybe less funding that we had to go to those
initiatives. >> But >> Marci, I feel free to rescue me. >> [laughter] >> So, we're still collecting the impact fees. The only one we suspended um due to the resolution was the mobility because we found out that the Pinellas
County um impact fee that we charge has a transportation aspect in it. >> Mhm. >> So, we had to review it and make sure that we weren't collecting it technically twice. Um and so, after Kimley-Horn reviewed it, they did decide that we probably should suspend ours and
just go with the county. And the easiest way to do that is through the resolution. So, we're still collecting the impact fees, and they just accumulate until a rec project comes up that can use those funds or a transportation projects and safety. So, when those projects come up, um the the
department has to know that that money's available there for the right projects. >> All right, thanks for connecting those dots. I think I voted on that, so I should >> Marci, Marci, since since we have you there, a question as far as water and sewer, since they're owned by Pinellas County, the impact fees are collected by
Pinellas County or or partially to us? >> So, Pinellas County has a chart that we follow. So, when we're when we're doing the permit, we just go by that chart. To be honest with you, I'm not sure what all the Pinellas County, um what they collect from us and how they disperse that throughout the utilities,
but I could definitely look into that, but I'm not totally sure how they really use their impact fees that we collect for them. >> All right, just curious. Thank you. >> And and my understanding is Pinellas County does not have a a utility-specific impact fee. It's just a mobility impact fee
on the on the on the county side. >> They they do have water and sewer impact fee. Pinellas County does. >> They do? >> Yes. >> Huh. You sure about that? >> Well, I mean, residentially, you know, I mean, they may call it a one dwelling unit and and not charge, but
even with uh expansion of retail, they would always Yes. Number of fixtures. Yep. >> Okay. I'm asking Claude. I'm auditing you. >> [laughter] >> Um So,
on the on the impact fee revenue budget, this is kind of TBD. We're going through once that if we get the passage of the that uh resolution, then we'll reevaluate, we'll budget for the impact fees that will still continue in the
recreation side, public safety, and in the county side. We just haven't gone through that exercise yet and we're going to let that that that complete. >> Thanks. >> So, Pinellas County charged calls it capacity fees or connection fees for new development connecting to the county water sewer system.
So, maybe it's a terminology thing, but yes, they do they do charge capacity fees, development fees. Um, okay. Moving on, we good to move on to ad valorem taxes? Okay, so on page 26
>> [clears throat] >> what I'm going to assume now is we're going to keep the same if we keep the same millage rate, 2.75 mills, the Pinellas County property property appraiser's office has provided the tax the taxable values
of our property of all Madeira Beach properties assessed as of January 1, 2026 and it goes through that process and now it's been reported, it's available publicly on their website. That's how I uh, ascertained these figures. And so, what I did is I just pulled all
the the total 2026, 2027 taxable value. I pulled that estimate as of June 17th, so just last uh, last week. Um, and so, just looking at that that first line
with the 50,000 homestead exemption, which is exactly what we're going to have in 2020 for our 2027 budget, we're looking at 5,331,192 dollars of potential ad valorem tax revenue. Now, if let's play pretend
cuz remember that if this property tax reform bill gets passed by voters in November, there's no retroactive impact. Right? So, that's going to be on your next valuation cuz you already have paid your taxes. Remember, you start paying your taxes in
November. Right? Um maybe or just before maybe after they've already voting on on this uh measure. So, it's going to affect you next year for your uh 2027 and and uh 2028 levy.
But, let's just play pretend and let's say it was it impacts us now. What is that you know, [clears throat] what is that um hit to Madeira Beach if hypothetically we increase the homestead exemption to 150,000 or if we increase the homestead exemption to 250,000.
So, that I put in that last column is your homestead exemption difference. Right? So, folks want to know like how how's this going to impact Madeira Beach? Well, we collect a little over 5 million in property taxes. Does that mean half of it's now gone?
No. Right? So, we'll be we would be hit we would do we would lose 284,000. And that that remember, to be absolutely clear, this is not happening in this next budget. It's going to be it would happen after. I just want to show you from you know,
from allow you to evaluate impact if it did happen in future years. Of course, we'll have new taxable values for the next year, but I just want to provide you with that um comparison. So, 284,000 to 530,000
if the exempt homestead exemption was 150,000 or 250,000 instead of the current 50, right? And school is 25. And then I just also provided you your our historical ad valorem taxes collected in the last 6 years. The
millage rate has not moved. We voted to keep the same millage rate um since uh fiscal year 2021 and beyond. I think fiscal year 19 to 20 is where we made the millage rate change in light of the 15 million that the city
uh issued in this in um in debt for our stormwater projects. And so you can see the increase in ad valorem taxes collected which is reflective of the increase in property values. And you can see 25 to 26 we're dipping a
little bit. And we did have a little slight decline and that was all hurricane related. That will recover as those properties are renovated, torn down, rebuilt. You know, new new values. So we'll we'll see that uptick in the future, but we
did take a hit from 25 to 26. Okay. So does all that make sense on that page? >> I've got a question though. Okay, so now currently we have 50 currently we're 50,000. Correct? And then the additional one that's going to be voted on would
increase that 50 to 150 the following year and then the 250 the year after. >> If if the if the measure is successful then starting your on the 112027 levy which would come up this next
January. Uh and then on your trim notice next year that you get in August the one you get in this August, it'll just show the 25,000 school, the 50,000 um for all other taxing entities.
And then next year August 2027 you get your trim notice. The trim notice is what is an estimate of what you're going to pay in taxes um subject [clears throat] have change of course if there's any millage uh rate changes.
Um you'll see 150,000 on that on that uh trim notice instead of the 50,000. So, in about a year from now is when you'll see your your um proposed taxes um reflected different um homestead exemption.
>> So, is this estimation that you've got here for the 50,000 homestead 2 million 40,000, that's the total properties in Madeira Beach? >> Yeah, taxable value is 2 billion.
>> However, that's can that would be considering everybody's homesteaded. >> That is that is the total taxable value of homesteaded and non-homesteaded properties, residential and commercial.
>> Okay, so but then the vote is for only homesteaded people to have this advantage. >> Correct. >> So, that number isn't actually correct. Because how many of our 3,100 residents 3,100 residents are homesteaded?
>> Well, that's why I factored in the calculate in my calculation. That's why your taxable value instead of 2 billion is now 1.93 billion. And a $150,000 uh homestead instead of a 50,000
homestead. Cuz all the data I took from Pinellas County uh Property Appraiser's Office, it has all your different property types and whether they're homesteaded or non-homesteaded. And in fact, in the follow that following page, I can go through the >> Okay. >> the details of the computations so you
can see how I derived those figures. So, that's on the next page, 27 in your packet. >> [clears throat] >> Let's look at non-home many non-homesteaded uh uh parcels compared to homesteaded properties and then both.
Right? So, single-family home you've got 454 homesteaded properties. 671 non-homesteaded. Right? So, regardless of the the reform bill, those 671 properties are
not going to uh reap those benefits from a homestead exemption standpoint. Condominium, a little more on the homestead, 1,050 homesteaded, 270 not.
Condo conversion comparable um duplex, triplex, four-plex. So, I just pulled the largest ones. Right? So, you can see where we're at on um So, then you've got your all other that
for 547, that's a lot more your commercial businesses. And you only have 89 all other on the homestead. So, most of your homesteaded properties, the vast majority is single-family homes with some next
next big one is condos. And then just a little sprinkling of some others. So, as you can see, we've got a lot more non-homesteaded properties in the city of Madeira Beach than homesteaded properties. You look at the same analysis in another
client of mine, Glades County which is way inland, that that trend is much different. Okay. >> Well, and that's what I had understood that the tax was only going to be beneficial for homestead people. Not non-homesteaded.
>> Exactly. That's why this impact I'm showing you is is not that significant to the city of Myrtle Beach. Got you. Whereas if I >> Okay. So I was I was thinking of it the other way in terms of that's what I always thought. So like the non-homesteaded people are not going to
receive these 150,000 homestead exemption unless they change their status. However, they [clears throat] have to do that before the beginning of the year. And then you know, I change the status. Okay. >> Just the dynamics of this community and
your geography is is plays into these numbers, right? You're a quaint beach town with a lot of tourism and rental properties, right? You go inland into the middle of the state in Okeechobee County and Glades, it's there's not a lot of people visiting and renting out their homes, right? So it's
a lot of homeowners and not a lot of commercial, right? So we have a some decent commercial here as well. Um that that plays into that, right? 547 parcels that are Now I put in all other, a lot of that's
commercial, right? Um you go into other communities, it's that's it's a much different dynamic. So we're we're insulated in in some respects, but you know, there's also there's still an impact. I mean, we're lose we're going to be losing you know, whatever that previous page
from 300 to 500,000. I mean, that's still real money. But then what I want to impress upon not only you all, but maybe the public is okay, what does that have to do with my tax bill? Like how does this property tax reform affect me as a taxpayer? So
that's the next page on page 28. So let's kind of walk through what all this means. So on your property tax bill, you're you'll probably know your bill by what multiple taxing jurisdictions, not
just the city of Myrtle Beach. And so I list them all here. And I just use the millage rate from just this past levy and the taxes that the city of Madeira Beach property tax are uh property owners have already paid. All
right, so that's on the top column, you see county general fund, county health department, Pinellas County EMS, school, school, then you see city of Madeira Beach 2.75 2.75. So your total millage rate in fiscal year just this past fiscal
year technically the fiscal year that we're in, right? That we've been collecting those property taxes, was 16.2172 mills. So if I'm a homesteaded uh single family home in Madeira Beach,
I gave you five different scenarios of what my tax bill will look like. Um if this if the if this measure passes. So you can see homesteaded A, B, C, D, and E.
And let's just play pretend I have a $225,000 assessed value home, $375,650, $1.2 million home, and a $2.5 million home. Your school taxable value is going to remain the same, right? So
schools in this property tax measure are not getting touched. We're not increasing the millage rate on schools. It still is what it is at the 25,000. But we'll [clears throat] change the municipal taxable value, right? So that's going from the um
you know, to the municipal taxable value that 175,000. Right? That's the 225 minus 50,000 gets me the 175,000 if I'm looking at homesteaded home A. And then let's tack on another 100,000 if the 150 passed, right? So 150 minus
50 is 100, so I took another 100 off that. so now my taxable value 150,000 >> [clears throat] >> homestead is 75,000. If we end up that to 250,000 for homestead A, I'm not paying any
taxes to Madeira Beach. And so then if I look at my tax bill if I'm a $225,000 single family home I'm going to pay 3,000 $3,200 tax bill versus a 22,160
tax bill versus a $1,400 tax bill. So why if my taxable value at 250,000 was zero why do I still have to pay taxes of 1,416? Don't forget school. You still got to pay taxes on school, so it doesn't mean property taxes are abolished
um unless they do want to enact legislation later and abolish everything and then we got to figure out how we're going to fund our schools. Um so I think this is just a good picture and like if I'm a owner of a home that's has a assessed
value of 225,000 you know, if this passes, yeah, I'll get a thousand bucks off my tax bill. I paid 3,100, now I'm going to pay 2,100. If I have a mansion on the water um I paid 40,000 I'll pay $40,000 on my tax
bill. And with this passes, now I'll only have to pay $39,000. Probably not that impactful for that homeowner. So that's where you got to weigh well the impact of the government versus the impact of my wallet. A lot of factors, you know,
you're not going to see the needle move much on the higher valued homes cuz it's only that first 150,000 instead of 50,000. Does this do a do some justice on kind of laying out the the the numbers of the
both the city is impacted as well as the residents, the home property owners of Madeira Beach, um what this would do to them. And all this completely moot for our fiscal year '27 budget purposes, as I mentioned. But I just wanted
present you with as much information as I can for not only next year, but of course in the future if this were to pass. Any questions on that? Okay. Well, then the last piece is our strategic plan
presentation materials. Um I already went over these, but I wanted to you know, put them in your in your packet. I thought we had some good discussion on stormwater, so thanks um Commissioner Dillon for asking about that. Um this is where we're just stripping out
all the capital and we're just saying, "What is the true What do we What's our operating revenues in each of these funds and what is our cost of operations and then what's the excess or deficiency?" And so I we do that for every fund over a uh 5-year period historically.
So it just kind of shows you you know, what's it take to keep the lights on in this place, right? Well, there's different lights in different you know, in the rec center versus a fire department versus a city hall and so
different funds do different things. Um but this gives you every single for every single fund. So, I won't belabor this. I know we went over it. Um you know, the [clears throat] general fund is definitely the the one I'd probably go over the most.
That's on page 32 of your packet. And that's where I have tried to tried to do the best I could pulling out the one-time things, the Gulf Boulevard undergrounding, the John's Pass dredging, hurricane related costs, what's our recurring revenues, recurring expenses
on an operating basis within the general fund, and that's what these look like. And so, if you recall, I mentioned some higher revenues and or higher excess of revenues over expenditures in
'21 and '22, then it dropped pretty significantly, but that's also due to the fact that we created a parking fund. Um and some of that parking revenue, as you can see, charges for services dropped significantly.
3.4 million, 4.1 million, down to 1.4 million, um because we uh started parking those, no pun intended, in a separate fund. And then the last piece on that is just, okay, well, if we were to borrow money, how much does that cost us
on an annual basis for a variety of different debt issuances. So, just a good I put in all the details in future pages, but just a good summary is on page 36 of your packet. If we were going to borrow 10 million, 20 million, 40 million, 50 million,
first of all, what vehicle would that look like that we would want to go a bank loan if we were down in the 10 to 20 million um spot. More than that, we'd probably look at a public um a public offering. Because we get we get a better interest
rate, but our cost of issuance would be higher, so that's kind of what you weigh. And then, you know, the average annual debt service is really that line I'd be I'd be looking at. You know, from a 10 million issuance, okay, it's about a million a year in
debt service versus issuing $50 million over 15 years. We you know, it's a $4.4 million annual debt service requirement. So, this can kind of give us a gauge of
okay, what's really realistic for us. Um based on amount and term. So, I know I threw a lot of numbers at you. Um that's kind of all I had. I know we went over this previously, but I thought it was a good exercise and wanted to put
the information and see you have in your packet. And um I will address any questions on anything we covered. And if not, then we'll onward to the next workshop at the end of July on putting together all the
pieces now with personnel operating capital and these revenue figures to get a more of a a full picture of what our 27 budget's going to look like. >> Is everybody good? >> Yes. >> And it is 3:11. We are adjourned.
>> Thank you. Thank you. Part: 2
Good afternoon. Welcome to the board of commissioners regular workshop meeting. Today is Wednesday, June the 24th, 2026. It is 4 p.m. City Clerk, would you call the role, please? >> Mayor Brooks >> here. >> Vice Mayor McGee >> here. >> Commissioner Tagarini
>> here. >> Commissioner Dylan >> here. >> Commissioner Gabay >> here. >> All are present. We have no public in attendance for public comments. So, we will move on to our first item, presentation, 2026 legislative update by R.J. Meyers with
Myers Consulting Group. >> Is it okay if I close this? Can I close this? >> Okay. >> Mayor, commissioners, thank you so much for uh letting me join you guys tonight. Um, I'm just going to provide a a wrapup and
I and I'll do this every year. probably I know we we we said that uh in September October when we were all talking that I would do a wrap-up we would do a um a preession like outlook and uh so really just today I'm going to talk about just a couple of things um
give a highle um bird's eye view of really where the the budget stands right now. Uh just a quick breakdown of the the spending by category so you know how your tax dollars are being spent. Um, we're going to talk about our um our budget requests, the their appropriation
that we're requesting and um as well as Sorry, and I'm going to turn this off. This is like already driving me crazy. People texting me. Sorry. Um the uh some of the bills that passed. I'm not sure if you were reading the tracker that I was sending over during session. Just going to highlight a few items um if you
were not able to look that over. Um, and then I want to discuss finally the we've had a number of special sessions, but how some of the special sessions are going to impact Madiraa Beach. Then I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. I'm going to stick around throughout the meeting, so I'll be here afterward if you'd like to chat um as
well. Uh, but I'll just I'll get right to it. So, the uh 2026 legislative session um they have adjourned. The um legislature has one requirement and it is to pass a balanced budget every single year. Uh so this year legislators
they they left Tallahassee with a 100 uh just under a 114.4 billion budget. Um of that 114.4 billion. The legislature spent 13.2 billion on transportation. Uh that money primarily goes to the department of
transportation and funds things like our seapports, airports, general infrastructure projects. Our road project that we requested is going to come from that pot of funds. Uh 49.2 2 billion for our healthcare budget. This is the largest chunk that is spent every single year. Um that money goes to the
department of health, agency for healthcare administration, uh agency for persons with disabilities. Um really any agencies that touch Medicaid dollars. Um those are the hand those are the those are the agencies um that that receive that money. Uh 31.9 billion for
education. That one's pretty obvious. It goes to the Department of Education. So it uh funds K through2 scholarships, teacher salaries. Um 7.2 two billion for our criminal justice budget. Um that is for things like the Department of Corrections, uh juvenile justice, uh
state attorney's offices, public defenders offices, our courts. Um 19.1 billion for um agriculture. Uh this is where when we request storm water, wastewater projects, uh this is where
those projects come from. Um that money also goes to the Department of Agriculture, Environmental Protection, and Fish and Wildlife. Uh and then 5.9 billion was spent on our general government budget. That is the cost to run your state um your state government uh public salaried employees uh the
department of state and uh otherwise is is a is a pretty lean budget um for a statewide budget. So I mentioned the uh department of transportation and the road project. We did submit a request uh to so we could finish the area 6 project and submitted a request for $1 million
and that was fully funded. I have spoken with the governor's office multiple times uh and I know that Senator Segley and Representative Cheney have also followed up on that project. The governor was sent the budget yesterday around shortly afternoon. He will have
until next Tuesday at 11:59 to sign it and issue his veto letter. So, I'll keep you all apprised as um as that moves along and let you know where we're at with that. Um, as some of the legislation goes, every year, um, I will, um, chief, uh, chief
and I were talked about this during session, but, um, I I believe that each of you should have received the, um, the Excel document with all the policy items that I was tracking for the city that may have an impact to MadiRaa Beach. Um the I think I made a note right at the
end of session that it would be this would turn out the to be one of the uh maybe least productive sessions in terms of policy. Uh that was about 2 weeks out and then the legislature turned it around and I think that we ended with about 240 bills total. Um but we did
track a few dozen bills from Madiraa Beach. In the end there were only a handful that were certified uh enrolled and transmitted to the governor. Um but just a few that I wanted to highlight for you. Um HB127 related to um the ban on local net
zero policies. This was by Representative Snyder. So two years ago, Governor Dantis signed legislation declaring that the state would no longer consider climate change um when crafting energy policy. HB1 127 really exists to
bring uh cities into conformity with that with that idea. Um, it just basically says that local governments cannot enact or enforce any net zero policies by resolution, ordinance, rule, code. Um, and that you cannot spend any funds that would implement or advance
net zero policies. Um, HB 399 by Representative Barrero. This is related to land use and development regulation. So, this bill requires that um, it requires development permit application fees to reasonably relate to actual associated costs. Um and really it
limits local government's flexibility when fee setting uh was the intention. So local government so Mader Beach uh may have to audit and potentially revise um your fee structures to comply with the new law um HB39 uh 399. Uh and then this one I know that I've met with most
of you uh in one-on- ones and we've talked and this has come up. Um so this this has been sent to the governor HB 1329 related to relating to local government finances by representative Benoach. So, this bill revises the time frame for
posting tentative and final budgets um on your websites. And really the idea is that it is the idea um was they said was uh that it was tightening public transparency deadlines. Um so this bill is going to require Madira Beach and all local governments to hold a budget
workshop uh by a specified date and to perform a budget reduction exercise um that demonstrates a 10% cut to your annual budget. You'll have to do this every single year going forward. Um and it will be have to have have to be posted on your your website. Um
moving on, the special sessions that we mentioned, there were the legislature had six special sessions this year. Um the fifth special session was related to congressional redistricting. So the legislature did redraw the congressional maps as we all saw. Um the
impact to MadiRaa Beach, if you do not know, um is that the newly drawn congressional district CD16 I believe I believe the northern border uh on the barrier islands is I think it's Indian Rocks, but it goes down to Tier Verde and it's going to go east and
take in Manatee, Hardy, and Dodto counties. Um the reason why that is a big deal to um to a to a beach community in an urbanized area is that it it does it will lump you in with more um rural a more rural district. Um,
moving on from that, the uh the thing that um I know you are you all want to know about and and we have discussed um the the legislature did meet a few weeks ago for their sixth special session um for the purpose of passing a joint resolution that would provide voters the
opportunity to eliminate property taxes this November. Um, if it is approved by 60% of voters, non-school property taxes would be exempt from the first 150K beginning in 2027, uh, 250K in 2028 and then indexed for
inflation in 2029. Um, another piece of this bill that is I I don't see folks talking about a lot, but it but it is in there, but it basically if it does pass, there's language in the bill that would
provide the legislature the authority to uh implement a full exemption by general law. And so they could pass a bill and it would and it would completely eliminate property taxes. And so if this does pass in November, I would bet your bottom dollar that that that they're they're going to make an
attempt to do that in Tallahassee. Um just a few items and that I I believe most of you know, but um to highlight some other things in the bill, the advalorum caps for non non-homesteaded properties will be permanently lowered to 5% from 10% annually. Uh the bill
outline uh outlines the uses of advalorum revenue uh for local governments and limits them to uh public safety, first responders, uh education funding, financing of infrastructure projects, roads, bridges, storm water, natural resource projects, um flood
control measures, um salaries and retirement of employees is obviously in there. the revenue estimating conference uh on this bill uh said that the impact to local governments statewide would be
$ 8.4 billion. I'm pretty sure I read just a few days ago that that number was was a little bit higher even now like as as folks are starting to do their own analyses. Um and that's what I've got for right now. I know that is not ending on the happiest note but I but I am happy to
answer any questions that you might have. Do we have any public comment? Commissioners, any comments or questions for R.J.? >> Pretty comprehensive report. Thank you. >> Can you say again what that uh date was
that the governor has to either sign or veto? Uh >> so the governor has until next Tuesday, the last day of the month, Ed. >> So he has to sign it or or veto it. And if and is there any reason he would veto it? uh the our our project. Um so I will tell you I I've spoken to the governor's
uh team. They as of right now I think we're okay. Um obviously we can't promise anything. Who knows what could happen? But I do know that Rep. Cheney um I spoke with her this morning about our project and so I know that she um is actively engaging them and um well I
mean we'll know. I mean if it if he doesn't sign it by 11:59 and I'm certain he will um it would automatically go into effect. >> Oh great. So, if he does nothing, it >> if he does nothing, which I don't know if that's ever happened, but um I'm not a historian, but maybe it has happened. >> Okay, thanks. Great.
>> Thank you, R.J. Very nice. >> Next on the agenda is board of commissioners, board of commissioner salary increase discussion, and Jerry Canrell with the civil service commission, he is the chairman, is going to present this. Okay.
Um, I gota figure out how to get into this. So, just a second. >> Okay. Is it this one? Thank you. All right. All right. Good evening, mayor and members of the
board. Um, thank you for uh opportunity to speak with you today. You've also been provided besides this presentation uh with detailed supporting materials including memorandum with data and comparative analysis. This presentation is intended to provide a clear framework
to guide your discussion. My intent this evening is not to advocate for a specific outcome but rather to provide a neutral structured framework to support your discussion of commissioner and mayoral compensation. This approach is consistent with the materials provided
and is intended to assist your deliberations in clear and transparent way. Again, this is not a proposal. It is simply a framework for your discussion. Madiraa Beach is a community of approximately 4,000 res residents.
However, the city operates within a high density high intensity tourism environment serving millions of visitors annually. In practical terms, the city functions as a small municipality serving a much larger and highly variable population. This context shapes how each of the
following factors is evaluated. With that context, the framework of the discussion becomes clear. All right. So this framework will be presented in the five categories. All right. scope and complexity of responsibility, time commitment and public accountability, economic and
operational demands, comparative and market context, and access to public service. So, starting with scope and complexity. All right. The city operates within a $30 million annual expenditure, annual expenditures in a broader financial scope of approximately $50
million uh every year. Uh right now, this year, 50 million, sorry. This includes oversight of public safety, infrastructure, and long-term policy direction. As reflected in the supporting materials, this level of responsibility aligns more closely with municipalities experiencing
significantly larger operational demands. This presents responsibility uh this represents responsibility for both daily operations and long-term strategy for time commitment and public accountability. The roles extend beyond
schedule meetings to include policy review, constituent communications, and regional coordination. There is also continuous public accountability, including during emergencies. The workload can fluctuate significantly depend upon seasonal populations,
changes uh and peak tourism periods described in the memorandum. The materials included are an illustrative reference point for discussion purposes. This is not a recommendation or a preferred outcome. All right. It is intended only to provide tangible
reference for your discussions. All right. Uh economic and operational bands. The city serves as we already discussed that approx. It serves approximately 4,000 residents and millions of visitors annually. This creates a high demand operational environment in areas such as public
safety, infrastructure, and regulation. Planning level analysis in the memorandum indicates that the visitor activity may be several hundred times the resident population on an annualized basis. Placing Madiraa Beach in a distinctively different operational category than most cities of similar
size. Governance requires balancing residents needs along with a large and variable visitor population. Comparative and market context. All right. Compensation varies across m municipalities based on complexity and
scale. Comparative data provides useful context but should be considered as one of several factors. The comparative information provided in your material is intended to inform your discussion across pure municipalities but not to
determine a specific outcome. access to service. Public service compensation levels may affect who is able to serve and the diversity of the participation in public service. This also relates to long-term governance sustainability, particularly given the
workload and variability outlined in the supporting analysis. This relates to long-term sustainability and access to public service. Right? And in closing this taken together these factors uh illustrate that the responsibilities of
elected service uh extended beyond the population size alone uh may suggest the supporting data further reinforces that these responsibilities are influenced by tourism intensity and seasonal population dynamics not solely resident population. My goal is simply to provide
a structured way for you to evaluate this issue. Thank you for your time and your service to community. You guys have questions? I provided you a lot of stuff. So, >> do we have any public comment commission?
>> Now, when would this uh take place? Like >> this would not take place. This is a discussion. Jerry brought this to us as a discussion. Now, this is a discussion for the board as to whether or not we >> discuss it. >> Correct.
>> Yes. So asking >> I believe that uh um I'd look forward to hearing about the uh the the resident's opinion on this also. >> Um I I just a couple questions and then
a comment. Um why should what are the top three reasons we should even consider changing our compensation structure as as we have it? I I mean based on >> it's really that that decision is ultimately up to you. Sure. However, top
three that I could mention. Um if you look at uh market benchmarking versus uh comparable uh leadership roles all right even acknowledging that public service is not a private sector work and it's not all right the scale and responsibility MadiRaa Beach aligns uh
more closely with executive roles than than the typical part-time governance. All right. Leaders responsible for a budget around 30 million. All right. Um they normally are compensated in the range of 150,000. That's like the low end. >> So the amount of budget that we're responsible >> amount of budget you're responsible.
It's also uh you're not CEOs. You're you're board of commissioner members and you still but you still exercise fidicial oversight over similar scale budgets and major capital decisions. So that's another aspect of it. Um uh the gap highlights that the current compensation may not reflect the level
of responsibility or liability that the uh decisions that you're making are impacting. So that's number one. Would you like me to provide a second one? Okay. You want three? All right. Attracting and retain retaining qualified candidates. Um compensation
should not be a barrier to public service for qualified residents who who bring valuable skills and governance. Competitive compensation helps ensure one that you have a broader more diverse candidate pool. It also uh uh uh individuals with financial, legal and
and in it provide it brings in people that would have expertise for financial, legal and infrastructure expertise. Um the low compensation itself can unintentionally limit service to retirees or independently wealthy individuals. All right. Uh it may also discourage working professionals and
younger candidates. it. The adjustments may help maintain a governing body that reflects the full community. All right? Not just those able to afford to serve. All right. Uh third, increasing there's an increased workload and complexity of governance. The role today is is
substantially more complex than when the compensation levels were originally set. All right. Modern municipal governance includes regulatory compliance, disaster preparedness and recovery, especially uh it's especially relevant locally. All right. Um, infrastructure planning and
federal state funding navigation, constituent demands for transparency and and responsiveness. Um, many boards have seen their roles evolve from from nominal oversight to high engagement governance requiring significant time commitment. All right. Pay levels
haven't been revisited uh uh maybe no longer reflected in the real world workload. So these are three major categories I can think of. Um marketing benchmark versus comparable leadership uh roles attracting and retaining qualified candidates and increasing
workload and increased workload and complexity of governance. I see you have a bunch of some cities here that we compare to. Is there one city in particular that I see Santa treasure around that that is comparable
to our city but does compensate their board? Um if if you want to do one that's comparable, all right, one that's comparable in size, the closest I can think of is going to be u homes beach.
All right, now that's down I think it's Manatee County. It's just I think it's Santa Maria. It's right below it if I'm right. um they have about 4,500 residents. Their annual budget is 25 to 35 million. Their their tourism ratio is 200 to1 based upon the data that I can
get from the state and counties. Um their commissioners uh are paid $8,340 a year and their mayors paid $29,200 a year. They don't have the level of tourism as as it's been laid out for what Madiraa Beach is. So it's but it's
the most comparable. Thank you. Yeah, >> I don't have any other questions. >> I thank you for all the effort and stuff that you did here. Excuse me. Um, and it's something that I guess um
it's not that it's for us necessarily, but I look at this as for the future, the future commissioners that are going to be here. And just like you said, you know, we all are doing it as a donation basically. But yet, if we want good
qualified people that can that can't really afford to take the time that it takes to do this, I think it's an excellent idea to at least open up the discussion um and and move it forward. And as to how exactly we'd look at
moving it forward, I'm not sure, but thank you for all your time and effort. >> So, Jerry, thank you. You did put a lot of time and effort into it and thank you for that. Um, I just I would say I I do
agree with Commissioner McGee. Um, it would be interesting to see what the public's input would be on this, but for me personally, I view sitting here on the deis, the most important part of this is being a public servant. And I didn't run to be a commissioner. I
served on the budget committee. I did not get paid. I showed up for every meeting. I served on the planning commission. I did not get paid. I showed up for every meeting. I sit here and serve on this commission and I do not show up for the money. I serve on more
than five other boards. I don't get paid a penny to go do it. I don't do it because I have to. I do it because I want to serve my community. And it is important to me that the people who sit up here aren't doing it for the money. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be a
discussion on money, but money should not be the reason that we come here. We did health insurance. it didn't get any more people to come and sit on the commission. Um, so a couple of things that when I was going in and
researching, our fellow communities don't make more than us. Most of them make less than us. Um, and that's one of the things that I've heard from many other elected officials in Penllis County on the small level like us that
um, we make more money and we add these benefits and they have to try to keep up. But my biggest thing is, is this the right time to be talking about us making more money when we're looking at
property tax going down? Um and and a lot of this was focused on tourism and the tourism doesn't directly reflect on us but it should be noted that tourism activity creates operational demands. And I wrote
this down so I would not mess it up but those demands are primarily addressed through city staff, the city manager, department directors, consultants and contractors. So, when I read through all of this and and was researching and
reading, it really struck me that we shouldn't be sitting here talking about us making more money. We should be sitting here being more concerned about our employees and how we take care of them because they are the ones who must be here. When a storm hits, there is no
requirement for anyone sitting on this commission to show up the next day. If you can, you can. If you can't, you don't. There's not an expectation or a requirement. There is a requirement for the 80 plus employees that this city employs to show up the day after the
storm. They are the ones that are responsible for the day-to-day activities. They are the ones that really hold this city together. We sit here and vote on policy and finances. So, as much as I appreciate the conversation,
um I at this time am not interested in raising pay, I don't know how I answer to a resident that we voted to raise the pay for the commission when we have so many other projects going on. Um there's
so much uncertainty and we still have so many residents that aren't back in their homes that are living in uncertainty. It seems like a illosed time for us to consider giving oursel a lift in money and that's how I feel. I that's just my
personal opinion and I'm only one of five. >> I excuse me. I agree and concur and truthfully in terms of I think as as it was put we're going to be putting this out to vote that we're going to be going
on for a longer term. So why don't we look at doing something? Send it out to a vote. Put it out. Simple thing is you come November, are are the residents looking to possibly give the commission
or the board a raise. I don't know that it has to be any more complicated than that. You know, if and and let the citizens vote. I mean, they could decide and it's just I believe just one more thing on our potential ballot.
>> Well, I think it's uh definitely open for discussion. Um I as uh we already talked about, I would like to see the uh resident's opinion on this. um Commissioner Dylan um when he said this
could be an investment into the future, but also again the mayor and as you know we've we've been up here since 2023. Um doing our due diligence um I believe that um this is something
that the residents can look at and and we can openly discuss again. So, um, Jerry, thank you very much for a great job on this context. Thank you. >> I'm open to further discussions. >> So, it occurs to me that maybe a survey
monkey would be a good uh to go off of Commissioner um Dylan's want for the community. And I mean, I think we all sit here and want for input from the community. That might be a way to gauge how the community feels. Well, I think
Clara was about to say something, but I do believe if we would put it out for a vote, why why prolong the the the the discussion if the people don't want us to have a raise? So, I would think that would be the first step. If we can put
it out for a vote, if they say yes, then we discuss it further. If they all say no, then it's a done deal. I mean, you and not like we're in a hurry to get this done. So if it waits till November
and either yay or nay and then we bring it up further at that point. >> So I said I was done with questions but I do have some things to say. Um I was on the board when we when we voted in the insurance offering and it was it's an it's an optional and I do
know that it has been accepted by a commissioner since that time and I was very pleased that we made that and my argument then is the same. My argument now is the same as my argument then. Currently, we have a very, I consider cohesive and productive board. Uh, in my
30 years in this city, this has not always been the case. There's been individual agenda. There's been other reasons for people wanting to be on the board. I think you get what you pay for. Now, do I think that we need to jump right into it? I don't. In fact, if it
was offered to me now, I would give it to back to the city. I would not accept it um because it would be it wouldn't it wouldn't have appear right. But I think in the future that it would be something to offer a candidate who maybe would be interested in doing
it but couldn't give up the time. And and I I think you'll all admit it's not it's not two nights a month. Not even close to do it right. And and mayor you you need 150,000 for all the hours that you put in. I think I think
everybody would say the mayor does quite a bit, >> but I do it because I want to. I do it because I want to serve the community >> before and before we before we get any uh resident approval, which I think we should uh becau, I do agree that this is not a good time and it should not be for
now. I'm I'm interested in pursuing the the conversation. I think we need more data. I think we we need to know uh maybe from uh our finance officer, what would it cost and and would we ever what would be how would it impact our budget
to fund all five commissioners at minimum wage for 40 hours a week just as a as a as a ballpark? And uh would that even be would how how would that impact the way we get revenue? What would we have to increase? H how would that
affect us? Let's have that information before we go any further with our uh with getting resident input. Let's have some answers before we ask them questions. So, uh as I was 3 years ago when I voted for the insurance, I'm I'm
interested in having this conversation uh full with the full knowledge that if if somehow by some miracle it passed before my term is up, I would not accept it. Then why don't we just plan to put it on a future workshop for discussion?
>> Absolutely. I I would be in in favor of that, but I would like to see some figures just so we can see what we're really talking about. You know, if all five uh commissioners opted in for that salary >> can't be any more than 10% raise.
Okay. >> 10%. I mean, yeah. Can't be any more than 10% raise, right? >> We all get like 500 and some odd dollars a month, so 50 bucks extra. >> I'm just kidding. >> Oh, okay.
>> Well, minimum wage is $31,200 a year. >> That's more than 10. It's not even >> that that and I mean >> I mean let's just have a figure. Let's have a ballpark. Let's start with minimum wage. That's what we pay some of our employees. >> Okay.
>> I'm just in favor of continuing this conversation. I think we should have it with some data to accompany the conversation. >> We can do that. I would be in agreement with that. >> Well, I I've got a question. Clara, is there a way of putting it on the ballot?
>> Currently, we have a provision in the charter which it went to the voters outlining the criteria for commissioners to set their salary. It's and then I guess we could change it by another um question.
Um section 411 compensation and expenses. The board of commissioners may determine the annual salary of commissioners by ordinance, but no ordinance increase in such ordinance shall become effective until the date of commencement of the terms of commissioners elected at the next
regular work election provided that such election policy adoption of ordinance at least 6 months prior. And if I'm not mistaken, that's also in the statute. So, it sounds like we couldn't give ourselves a raise is what that sounds. >> You can determine your own, but if you want it to take place at the next
election, it would have the ordinance would have to be adopted at least 6 months before that election. Now, if we're going to have a a ballot question on if say it went on this November to change the um
um March elections to November, of course, we wouldn't you would still have time to adopt this ordinance if that gets passed. And because the qualifying period won't be until June, we would just have to make sure that that ordinance, whatever
you come up with, was adopted 6 months before that November election. because you're the term if it's on November and they passed it the the qualifying period is usually in December that's going to change till the first to
the first two weeks in June. So those seats will be extended and they won't be an election in March. Now, if you changed it to March and you adopted it now, we would have to have the first reading in July, the second no later
than August to meet that 6 months window before that March election. So, that I don't know if you understood that or not, but anyway, you would have to adopt an ordinance six months before the or before the election. So, if the elections, if we're changing it to
November, if it gets passed, if it's on this November election, we got plenty of time to adopt that ordinance if you should change the salary. But you don't have to take the way they have it laid out. You don't take it to the voters to say, "Hey, look, can the commission um do we have
to get voter approval to give ourselves an increase?" Because they've already done it. If that's your question, >> I I personally am not prepared to take it to the voters yet. I don't have enough information to even >> Yeah, they've already >> informal. Maybe an informal survey, but
not an an actual election. >> I mean, an informal survey would get you the temperature of how the community is going to be impact. And we've done them before. I mean, that's just an easy way to get a feel for how people would react. Um, but we can have another
discussion at another workshop where everyone can come >> more prepared based off what Jerry's brought us today and discussed. >> I agree. >> So, could we add this to a future workshop? City manager >> Jerry, thank you very much.
>> Thank you, Mayor. Appreciate your time. >> Thank you guys. >> Next on the agenda is discussion changing the March municipal elections to November. Clara? >> Yes. and I had touched on that a little bit. Um, I've got to prepare a full staff memo
and also a comprehensive ordinance for both depending on where it leads to and the commission decides. Um, so I'll briefly do the memo. The ordinance The ordinances propose amendments to several sections of the city charter to transition municipal elections from
March to November. Align candidate qualifying periods with the revised election schedule, which that's what I had explained that it would change. Clarify the commencement of terms of office following election certification and establish transition provisions
necessary to implement the change. If the board of commissioners decides to go forward with the item, the proposed amendments would be submitted to the electors of the city of Madera Beach for approval at the November 3rd, 2026 municipal election or March the 10th,
2027 municipal election. Okay. Um the proposed amendments would either way would change the municipal election date from March to November to align with the state general election. Change this candidate qualifying period
from first two weeks of December to the first two full weeks of June. Clarify the terms of the office commence following election certification and installation. Modify induction procedures to ensure
consistency with the revised election schedule. Establish transitional term extensions necessary to convert from the March election cycle to a November election cycle. All right. Conducting elections in
November may offer several benefits which I had um provided a voter participation analysis and cost comparison. You probably had an opportunity to read that. I sent it out early. Um in the benefits could be
increased voter participation due to the historically higher turnout during general elections over time. It was more during November over time. Reduced election administration costs through coordination with the Penllis County Supervisor of elections and improve
efficiency in election administration and ballot processing. And because the city currently operates under a March election cycle, transitional provisions are necessary to necessary to maintain the charter staggered election structure and avoid
shortening any elected officials term. So temporary term extensions would apply. Now, if it goes on the November 3rd, 20 26 no uh municipal general election, if approved by the voters, then commissioner district three and
commissioner district 4 terms currently scheduled to expire in March 27 would be extended until the certification of the November 2027 election results in the installation of the successors. Then commissioner district 1 and
commissioner district two and the mayor commissioner terms currently scheduled to expire in March 28 would be extended until the certification of the November 28th election results and the installation of successors. Now if it's on the March the 10th 2027 municipal
election balance would the qualifying period for three and four would still take place in December the first two weeks in December. Then commissioner district 1 and commissioner district two and mayor commissioner terms currently scheduled to expire in 28 would be extended until the certification of
November 28 election results and installation successors and then it'll just go over a year. uh commissioner district 3 and commissioner district 4 terms currently scheduled to expire in the March 29 of that year would be extended into certification of November
2029 election election results and the installation of successors. So, I prepared two ordinances like I said. One accommodates if we should place it on the November election and spelling out these uh terms
and conditions and then if they if you should wait to put it on the March 27 municipal election. I've laid out everything in the ordinance that applies to what I was just have just read and how this which seats were it extend to
when and it's just a temporary extension and um and I wanted to mention in the or which I mentioned in the ordinances um and in the staff memo that the or because we have term limits in the city charter. So, I wanted to make um point
out that the ordinance further provides that these temporary extensions shall not be treated as additional terms for purposes of city's consecutive term limit provisions. That won't count. Those little temporary
extensions will not count. >> So, any questions? >> Thank you, Claire. Do we have any public comment commission? Uh just just for clarification, vote vote this this voter participate participation analysis and
cost comparison these percentages are only of registered MadiRaa Beach voters, right? >> Yes. This >> it's not it's not outside of Madiraa Beach. So the the March percentage is taken from registered Madiraa Beach voters and the November percentage is
taken from registered Madiraa Beach voters. Okay. Thank you. Just want to confirm that. >> Yes. >> And you see how it changed over time. Mhm. >> I just want to clarify in terms of like the last March March election cost us
$7,000 where if we move this to November it'll cost us roughly $300. >> Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> Thank you. >> Believe holding Oh, sorry. I also believe holding the um
the elections in November uh with the countywide and statewide general elections may increase voter participation and like Commissioner Dylan said that um it's more coste effective to do that also. So I would be in agreement with uh moving the
elections also. >> Right. >> Makes sense to move it to November. I think it makes a lot of sense to move it to November and if we could get it on this November ballot would be I think preferred as to waiting to March. My
biggest um concern would be making sure that we educate the community on what we're asking for. >> That has always been a challenge for us, right? So, um, if we're going to move forward with this, and I think we're all in agreement to that, then let's make
sure that we do some educational for the community so that they understand what we're voting for and that it's it's not a self-s serving to stay an extra two years or something like that, right? So that they um, understand. And I budget
enough each year just in case we should put out information to the public, which I want to um to all our registered voters. We can do it to individual registered voters or by household and you know give them the simplify everything in layman terms where they
understand everything and then have a couple of town halls. I've I've done those with charter amendments where it would be usually me and the city attorney or the city uh manager and they would people would come in and they would ask qu and I always get a quite a few people that come to those meetings
and ask questions. It's pretty effective. >> So, attorney tr we need to vote on this at our next meeting so that she can move it forward. It would need to be so the answer is it needs to be on the next agenda.
Then I I think we all agree to vote for no that we would want the November option. >> Yes. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Okay. Yeah. So this will get moved to our next meeting which will be July and that'll be the first reading. >> That's correct. It'll be first reading
and public hearing and then again in August and I've already um notified the elections office and everything. So what I'll do is when it gets I can go on ahead and send it my information to the Spanish institute and get my Spanish translation, get my advertisement
already prepared and I send my charter question, my um ballot questions to the elections office early once it gets um approved on first reading going forward. I send that over there early and if they've got any tweaks or whatever to the questions itself, you know, how you
need to capitalize this word or whatever, you know, they let us know and then um we it's set in stone. So, we have no problem because the deadline for putting anything on the ballot is August the 7th. But, as long as she gets everything early as far as the ballot
language and the Spanish translation, they're good with that. So, I've already spoke to them, so we're good. Thank you, Clara. >> Thank you, Clara. >> You're welcome. Next on the agenda is city attorney, the city attorney services contract extension. Mayor, commissioners, uh, at my request, the
city attorney has prepared a contract extension for city attorney services, >> and I'd be happy to go over this. So, um, back in October of 2023, the city entered into a three-year
contract, uh, with our law firm, Trustano LLP. That 3 years is set to expire on October the 10th, 2026. So, we've got some time yet. Uh but in talking to the city manager uh recently
he kind of wanted to um I don't want to speak speak for you Mike but um basically to keep some historical uh analysis available. So in other words have me around for a little bit longer while he is getting used to the job or
getting um getting used to the city of Madiraa Beach. But so I've just taken the agreement and extended it one year. So that would take it to October of 2027. And the the rate is not increased in 3
years. And so I'm asking for the rate to be increased from 225 an hour to 250 an hour. Uh most the other cities around here are higher than that. Um for example, I think Penelis Park is 300. Some of the other cities are higher than
that. U but I'm suggesting changing the billable rate to 250 from 225. and also increasing the parallegal rate from $90 to $125 an hour. I would also bring to your attention that the retainer would stay the same, but it would be less
hours um available. So, I would work 30 hours for that retainer. It works out to $7,500. So, um I'd be happy to answer any questions. Obviously, you know, we'd be happy to provide you with an agreement for a longer period of time, but this
was basically prepared on behalf of the request from the city manager. >> Do we have any public comment? Commissioners, any questions or comments? >> You said it's it's less uh hours. How
what what is the current hours uh for the retainer? 40 hours at 225 and this would be 30 hours at 250. Um, so the current agreement basically gives the city $1,500 worth of free legal time
every month. And I I'm no longer interested in giving $1,500 worth of free legal time every month. So I've made it $7,500 for 30 hours, which is 30 hours times 250. >> Thanks for that clarification. >> Sure.
I have one question. Why one-year extension and not three? >> Again, I I prepared this on at the request of the city manager. We'd be happy to provide you with a three-year term um with a different rate, but uh
the analysis that I did was just for one year and that so I'd be happy to bring back to you for discussion purposes a three-year term if that's what you want to do. Um, but that's the only reason it's coming back to you for a year. Normally, we do do these contracts for
two or three years. >> I I personally would prefer three years. I don't know what >> So, if it was three years, would we get a better rate since we're committing? >> So, if if it was three years, it would it would increase every year a little
bit because I don't want to wait three years again for another increase. Um, it we can't I can't keep up. uh with you know with the other cities. So um so to answer your question it would probably
be escalated from 250 to 265 for the second year and maybe 285 the third year something like that but so what I'll take whatever direction you want to give me. I'll be happy to think about it a little bit more and provide you with something more than one year
period of time if that's what you're interested in. >> Yeah. >> Yes. I would be in agreement with that. >> Okay. If you would bring us back some options then at our next workshop, that would be great. >> Thank you. I appreciate that.
>> We like it too much. We want you around for a while. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. I really appreciate that. Thank you, mayor and commissioner. >> Thank you. Next on the agenda is community development non-conforming nonconformities and business tax receipt
requirements. >> Hello everyone. Hi Joe. >> So this item was added from request of the commission at a recent workshop meeting based on some feedback because currently the non-conforming section of
our code requ allows non-conforming structures and uses to be rebuilt following a disaster. But if they didn't have a BTR in effect, then they lose those abilities to rebuild and they would have to meet the current code.
So we have a few options here and I'll turn to the page. It starts on page 39 of the packet. But what we did here to address that is, and again I just want to reiterate that we are planning to redo this entire
article of the code because if you really look at it, it's it's kind of confusing, hard to follow. Um, so we are planning on eventually doing a comprehensive update to this section of the code. This is just more or less more urgent matters. Um, and at the last meeting that we talked about this, uh,
Commissioner Kavahi mentioned Clear Waters ordinance and to look at that, um, I looked at that a little bit and I think that's very helpful for the direction that the commission wants, but that would more come at a later workshop. This is just focusing on some key items. So the first item, which we
talked about at the last meeting, what we did here is we added some language. So the we're trying to keep the intent of the BR like we like was discussed at the last commission meeting.
And one reason that it might be important to somewhat tie them together is without since they're rebuilding after catastrophic loss and rebuilding after involuntary loss allow you to there is
no time limit. So somebody can rebuild to the same non-conforming density or use that they had even if it's even if 50 years passes as long as it was still re relevant to the hurricane. And with a
BTR it makes it easy to track what they had. Without a BTR it's kind of harder to determine what was legally non-conforming versus what maybe wasn't permitted. And our historical permit records aren't always the best. So what we're proposing here is adding some
language basically to those two sections, the involuntary loss and the catastrophic loss that says if it was related to the 2024 hurricanes, the business tax requirement will be waved pro like you can still use
these sections if you didn't have a business tax receipt as long as either the permit is applied for or a zoning verification letter is obtained by September 25th, 2027. That deadline is
in line with when the RVs are not allowed to remain on the properties with in compliance with the Florida statute following a declared disaster. So, that's why we picked that deadline. And a zoning verification letter is really easy to obtain. And so if somebody's not
ready, even 36 months after the hurricane, to submit for a new build or an elevation permit, they can simply obtain a zoning verification letter if they were operating illegally without a BTR and we can verify what was there and then we have it in our records. Okay, here's
what we said is legal non-conforming. So that way if it's years from now, we still have the record to show for that. So that's why we're proposing this sort of deadline for people that were operating without a BR to still allow the non-conforming density use to retain.
Since we have this section open, we do have a couple other changes that we're proposing in here. One of them is relating to the redevelopment planning process which basically the previous two sections are
talk about rebuilding after either damage or a declared disaster. And then the rebuilding after catastrophic loss is a third alternative to rebuild a non-conforming use for example when there's no disaster and that has to go through public hearings. It goes to the
planning commission. I believe it goes to you guys as well. And right now, that section of the code is applicable to anyone except for those in the R1 zoning district. And R1 zoning district, that's where a lot of our primary residents are. And based on the feedback that
we're kind of getting from you guys at the last workshop, we're proposing an option to strike that the R1 zoning district wouldn't be able to apply for that. So the same criteria the criteria for the redevelopment planning process is similar to what they can already do
by right with the catastrophic loss. It just would also apply if it's not disaster related and again that would have to go through public hearing anyway. So that second proposal would just open that door for residents or property owners in the R1 zoning district that have a non-conforming
use or structure such as the only allowed use in R1 is single family. So right now, if it's single if it's not single family and it's in the R1 zoning districts, you can only rebuild it if it's following a disaster or or if the house catches fire or something like
that. So that's the third proposed change. Uh the other proposed change here is relating both to the rebuilding regulations for catastrophic loss and the redevelopment planning process for if it's
non-conforming commercial. Uh right now the code is pretty vague. It just says you can rebuild within the same footprint, but it just has to meet the minimum FEMA regulations. It doesn't say, well, what if it's not the same footprint or it's not the same
or if it's not the FEMA regulations. What we're proposing here is we're clarifying that same footprint and we're also adding that they can rebuild to the same floor area ratio and that's more the limiting factor for commercial. Whereas residential more the limiting
factor is a lot of times the residential density. And then anything that's not relating to the same footprint or the floor area ratio would have to meet their current codes. Right now it says minimum FEMA regulations really they probably intended to mean like the current FEMA
regulations including our freeboard. So it's just really just cleaning that up and clarifying that floor air ratio would be included in that since that's really the limiting factor for commercial. The other changes shown in here don't affect
how we currently interpret the code. They're more clarification. Um, I'd be happy to explain any of them if you have any questions. The only other item that we didn't show in here that we wanted to bring to the commission's attention is the non-conforming
when a structure is accurate or it's damaged less than 50%. Recently, we adopted this. We've changed this ordinance to extend the deadline from 18 months to two years. So that two-year deadline is September of this year. The
intent of that is really we want to get people going. We want to especially for FEMA documentation. We're expected to document every single non-conforming structure that's at grade. Where's the permits? What like where why is it still here? Did it get damaged? How much
damage? Um, so we sent out mailers. We sent about 500 mailers to the properties that we have documentation that it's not elevated and almost certainly received damage to get some
feedback from the residents to get permits submitted for structures that were worked worked on without permits. And in in some rarest cases, they might not have gotten damaged like on the high side of Lillian. So just getting documentation on that so that when FEMA
audits the property we can provide documentation and we got a lot of feedback from those letters which is good. That's really the main goal there. So we're opening this back up to see if the commission would be open to extending that deadline to another year
to September of 2027 cuz ultimately the goal here is really to get people moving and to have documentation on all these properties. If we didn't extend the deadline, then it would just result in us having to deny the permits for anyone
that wants to rebuild under the 50% rule once we hit that deadline. So, and that the if we extended that deadline another year, we would also extend the dead. Right now, it says you have to get the permit within two years. We would extend
that to three years. And then at it, right now it says it has to be completed within 3 years. We'd extend that another year. Um, so that's all I have. Open to any questions, feedback. >> Do we have any public comment? >> Good afternoon, Madame Mayor and
commissioners. I live on Bayoint Drive. >> Would you pull the mic down just a little? >> I live on Bayoint Drive, 834 Bayoint Drive. I received a letter in the mail threatening to have my house destroyed by the city of Madiraa Beach if I do not complete
a permit and the work done. That's just ridiculous. Number one, you need to get your house in order and have the streets repaired. They're they're dangerous.
They are dangerous for a pedestrian, for a bicyclist and a motorist on Baypoint Drive and the streets coming in on 140th. They're unbelievable. It looks like a war zone when you go through there and you're telling me I have to
repair my house or you'll tear it down. It It's just completely ridiculous. You're making proposals and I've been in talked to the staff who I have to say don't know anything. Can you give me a copy of the ordinance of 2026-02?
Oh, we don't have a copy of that. But you're threatening me with the rules and regulations of this ordinance. Oh, you have to rebuild your house according to the FEMA regulations. Can you It has to be built uh reproduced as it was. No, my house was not substantially damaged,
exactly as it was. But if you had marble countertops, you can replace it with for mica. If you have a large kitchen, you don't have to build the kitchens. Well, that's not exactly as it was. Can you give me the FEMA regulations that you quoted that you said I have to rebuild it to? Oh, we don't have that.
I'm I I mean, I'm I'm just sorry that I feel really threatened by the city. But now I find out really all this is is to get some feedback from this residents. So, you can say, "Oh, we did this and this and now we
want to get an extension for it." But that's an inappropriate way to go about it to threaten the destruction of my house and my property because you need to get your rules and regulations in order. And now and thank you for just
showing the the inadequacies of that regulation and oh we want to extend it and we really don't know what it means and we've got all these oh you have an extended timeline. But I I I just really felt that that was the wrong way to go about
it. I just don't think that's the appropriate way to threaten the city residents of Madira Beach that you're going to come and destroy my house if I don't have a permit made. Uh um and I said, "Well,
okay, if I get a D a demolition permit and it's only good for 180 days and I don't get it done, can I get another one?" Well, we don't really know. Well, there was just there was just no guidelines for it. I just think you really overextended
yourself on making that kind of sending that letter out. It would have been much more appropriate to say we're looking for feedback from you about what you know we have to do. And I understand you have to get FEMA won't won't insure all the people that have $4 million houses
out here and they're going to be really upset if you don't meet their guidelines because then you're not going to get the FEMA insurance approval. I understand that. I just want to give you my feedback that I didn't think that was the right way to
go about it. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. Do we have any additional public comment? Commissioners, do you have any questions or comments for staff? >> Do we have a copy of that letter that can be shared?
So, I have a couple comments for staff. Um, uh, one of the things that I wanted to talk about, I had talked about this with Marcy. I did speak with someone who had received a letter and um they were concerned about uh not meeting the
deadline because they're in a program and what they could do to make sure that they were compliant, understanding that they needed to comply with what the letter said. Um, and I just I want to say this for the record for anybody who
might be watching and for the gentleman who I will speak with hopefully tomorrow to tell him that um the what we would want him to do is send an email to the building department with his address and say what program he's in or that he's applied for and is awaiting on
acceptance to be able to move forward so that the city then has a record and is his um it would be flagged. I also had a conversation with um a group of people who um have had they did their repairs to
their home after the storm and um did not get a permit. And I know we're all very very much advocating. I know I advocate it wherever I am if the conversation comes up about getting in and applying for your after the fact
permit. And there are people who are um talking and spreading, you know, their opinions that they they heard the city's going to be really terrible and they're going to make you rip out walls and they're going to make you do this. So, I've shared with anyone who's brought
the comment up or asked about it that yes, you need to get a permit. You need to for it to be FEMA compliant. The city is working with every homeowner. There are ways to work through to get the permit there. You're not going to have to rip everything out and redo
everything just because you did it before, but there are things that we're going to do. So, to please come in and file for that after the fact permit so that the building official can work with those homeowners to be able to get their permits and get them closed out. And the
other thing I wanted to say is yes, I would be totally in favor of extending that to 2027. Um, I recognized that when we started sitting through calls after Hela and we listened to South Florida or
not even all the way south, but the the uh city south of us who had gone through hurricanes recently before us, that they were 3 to 5 years before their cities started looking better, even longer for some. And so, as much as I understand the frustration from residents who get
the letters or get communication and it's frustrating, um I appreciate the staff and the way that we have done our best to pivot and adjust. Um I sat through the big C meeting today where Penllis County came and presented on the
4ERunner um software and so we are not unique to having challenges in communication with the community and I think that um I don't think I know that staff has done it with the best of intent. We learn every day. We make make
adjustments and I've witnessed that for the last almost two years. And so, um, I would very much be in favor of extending to 2027 and allowing the residents the opportunity. That is the goal is to get people to
understand the urgency that we comply so that we are when we're audited by FEMA, we are doing what we need to do. And I would ask, did that letter come out of 4Erunner that >> Yeah. Yep. We said that through 4Runner. So, >> yeah.
>> So, I mean, I haven't read it. I got a copy of one, but I I admittedly didn't read the entire letter to be able to understand it. I was more concerned with um following up on what was the process for a homeowner to do to make sure that they were compliant. So, thank you very much for the presentation.
>> Yep. And just to add on to that, um as you mentioned, yes, we record conversations in 4Runner. So even if we have so what I was thinking about adding to our next letter is is a link to actually see it so anyone can do it but on our 4Runner public website anybody
from the public can go and see all the properties that we have listed as no permit status which basically means we don't have any data like we know it's at grade and there was a hurricane but we don't know what happened after that. That's basically what that means. And that those are the people that got the letters. And we can we get CRS credits
for recording conversations with residents or developers in 4Runner. So when somebody comes in and tells us like here's why I'm not going to meet the deadline or whatever, we'll at a minimum record that conversation in 4Runner so
that we can track it. And then also just wanted to throw in, I didn't mention earlier, but um I was at the Florida Flood Plane Managers Association conference a couple weeks ago and Panelis County um stated that they're going to start doing code they're going to start working code enforcement action
on the properties that got substantial damage and didn't pull any permits starting in January. So what we're doing, we're not proposing to start code enforcement action u but we are requiring permits and requiring documentation
>> and that I mean and we're we're being pushed to do that to be compliant with FEMA regardless of I just thank you because I know you guys are trying and it's it when you're the resident this I know loud and clear when you're the
resident that your home flooded there there's an emotional attachment that you have that's goes beyond the home and the contents. It's very it's very emotional and I think people are really still going through that. It's obvious that it's um challenging. So,
anything that that reads to be strong can be difficult to take from a resident's perspective and I can appreciate that. But I also appreciate all that staff is doing to try to help the residents move forward.
>> And ju just to be clear, when we sent the letter out, we didn't do it just to see where it went or anything like that. We sent it out with all intent of hoping we could really satisfy the September deadline. But like everything else in recovery, we've pivoted based on the feedback. And the feedback drove us to
discuss, you know, here's all the various answers we're getting. Here's the hurdles. We now have full stories of all of this. So that's why we come back to you and say, "Listen, we've learned from this and here's what we're offering." So when it initially went out, the goal was to see if we could achieve this genuinely. Um, and but
again, like I said, we've we've pivoted as we learn. >> Thank you. >> Mayor, can I address one thing, too? I just I want to talk about um the last section of the ordinance, which is paragraph D dealing with
aggregation of non-conforming density. >> Yeah. Yeah, it says uh that the planning commission and the board of commissioners may approve an alternative site and building configurations. My suggestion is is that first of all, the planning commission doesn't have the legal authority to do that. They they can't be doing it. And my my advice to
you is is that the board of commissioners should not be doing it for a couple of different reasons. One, it politicizes it a little bit. Um and but second of all, it also slows down the process. So my suggestion to you is to change this language to reflect that the
community development director would have the authority to change or approve alternative site and building configurations. Um and so you don't have to hear that. So I I would like to propose that when it comes back it would have that change if unless there's an
objection. >> That would keep it more to staff level decision where they could Yeah, I would agree with that. Okay. Thank you. >> I would definitely agree with that. Excuse me. >> Is there anything additional? >> I've got a couple. >> Okay. >> The B BTRs.
We've discussed this many times. >> Do we have a list of who all we've sent BTRs to? And have they been sent out? I mean, you know, now that we've got this information that
Andrew got from this the, you know, you see all the duplexes, you see the triplexes, and people are selling. And I just saw this morning on Google or Zillow that um one of the houses in my neighborhood is a triplex on the water
and I don't think they did anything and I believe they're selling it the second time. It was sold in 24 after the hurricane. Now it's for sale again and it's a triplex. I mean, you know, and so
I I'm like, you know, just kind of trying to make sure that you guys are trying to wrap all of this up into one thing where it's um yeah, I mean, and and and going through this and then I
had questioned the in terms of four, it's page 46, the any such non-conforming characteristic shall be made compliant with this code.
So, nonconforming characteristics. Um, I mean, that's kind of vague and then you're going to be kind of vague again going back. So, I don't know that that's really helping things out.
Gotcha. Yep. So, I'll address the first question first. I forgot to mention it, but we are trying to be more proactive with BR. So, another concern is a lot most people don't even realize they need a BTR. Um, in the past, I found some evidence that the city might have in
like 2015, 2016 may have sent letters to like duplexes and triplexes that didn't have a BTR to let them know. Um, we can we have our BTRs in MGO now. So, we should be able to pull a list of all properties that do have a BTR. Uh,
whether it's grandfathered for nightly rental and that data. Uh what we two things that we are looking to start implementing to be more proactive with requiring BTRs is number one, we're starting when people do a lean search when they're selling the property, we're
starting to add whether they have a BTR or not on the lean search. And then the second thing that we're exploring doing is on permits for a building that would typically require a BTR, like a new
commercial building or even a remodel of a triplex. Putting a requirement not that wouldn't hold up the permit from being closed out, but a requirement after that for a BTR check for us to review if they have a BTR and if not,
send a notice. So it would be flagged. So it would be flagged during sales when they do a lean search and then during permitting. Those are two options we're exploring there. Um and then as far as the other question with the characteristics of use, um it is vague.
I definitely agree. Most other and during my research on other cities codes on the non-conforming section, most of them don't even have a characteristics of use section at all. uh usually just falls under like the principal use or
the structure. This is really basically and again if if we didn't add this in there if there's any concern we could take this out. It really wouldn't change the way that we're enforcing things. Anyways, when we do redo the non-conforming section, we
want to be more specific on what exactly a characteristic of a use is. This is more just a temporary fix and it's vague because it's already vague and we don't want to create new regulations. But this is basically saying like if you have
like obviously one of the examples it lists is is parking. When you build a this is saying when you build a new development you have to meet the current standards for like parking and lighting. This section of the code we don't really
have too many issues with, but it's just saying like, you know, if the lot is vacant right now and it doesn't have landscaping, somebody can't use this section to say, "Oh, well, when it was vacant, it didn't have landscaping." Um, so I can keep the non-conforming landscaping. U, that's really all that
is. Okay. So, then finally, in terms of I know you guys have been working on this and I appreciate it. So from the standpoint if if this is what you feel is very good then you know I think it it
it's necessary. Um, the other thing is is is are we doing anything or is there anything retroactive? Because this is where it came up originally where a resident purchased the property, you know, and then they realized da da da
da. They didn't have a BTR because the last owner did not have a BTR. >> The current one does. So, is there anything in here that is going to be a I don't want to say a catch-all, but like
a you know to help to help our residents out? >> Yep. So, it would go into effect for all properties once this is adopted. So, if like for example, we had two properties in specific that were denied because of these once this is adopted, they would
be able to apply for a permit just like anybody else. And just because it got denied the first time, now that the code is amended, we would be able to retroactively move forward. >> This fixes it. >> Great. Thank you very much. >> Anything additional
>> with regard to the commercial property. So this just to clarify, this ordinance allows commercial properties to retain their existing floor area ratio. Is that correct? >> Correct. Do we have any idea how many commercial properties this will be will be affected
by this clarification or >> uh not really. It would be hard to tell exactly. >> I guess that Okay. Uh is this a real policy change or is or is it simply a clarification of your of an existing practice?
So it it would it's kind of a gray area in the code because we believe that the intent was to allow the floor area ratio to be retained, but technically it would be a policy change because technically
it doesn't specify that the floor area ratio. It's kind of in that middle area where it says you have to meet these regulations, but you don't have to meet these and floor area isn't mentioned either way. So, it's kind of a gray area like do they get to keep it? But secondly, probably right now they
probably would not and >> so it's a policy change because prior it was so vague it's hard to know what it was. Yes, correct. >> Understood. Would this uh >> could it result in uh could retention of existing floor eratio result in larger
commercial buildings than would otherwise be permitted today? >> Possibly. It wouldn't allow for anything bigger than what's in existence today. But it does have the potential to allow something that might not be allowed
today, but has been in existence which currently would probably get denied because it it might not meet today's standard, but it's been in existential. >> What's that? >> The potential is there for >> potential is there. Yes.
So, if that's a concern, we can take that out and wait until we do the full non-conforming section. >> That's I mean, that's I'd love to have that potential not there. >> If if it's okay, Mike. >> Well, if they're non-conforming, then uh
>> well, if it's non nonconforming, once you accept the nonconformity, then you are automatically terminating the nonconformity. So, and I think that needs to come before this board to be approved. Any any nonconformity
to become terminated and from that point on it becomes conforming to code. It needs to come before this gets approved. >> What if we left it in for the redevelopment planning process which would require it to come before you guys
but removed it for the rebuilding after catastrophic loss? Um I I mean I don't think it would affect because the properties in John's past now have a higher F that encompasses them. Mostly this was the clarify because it's kind
of weird to so when with commercial properties uh we look at floor ratio which is this closed square footage. Um and and it's kind of weird that it talks about footprint, but it doesn't mention FA because because we don't I mean we
look at setbacks and other but floor area ratio is what regulates commercial but if if you wanted to be required to go to the board then if we we could leave it in the redevelopment planning process but then it was mostly just to clarify that um
I mean >> if if you think that change would diminish that potential then yes I >> yeah so >> and I have a couple more questions >> yeah so yeah >> what if the intent is to clarify is the
intent so residential we have some properties who were addressing because of something they didn't have they cannot rebuild so is the is the clarification and intent to allow ow a commercial
business that flooded during the hurricane to be able to rebuild their non-conforming business as it was before the storm. >> So, it' have to be FEMA compliant and be in the same footprint if they wanted to
use that provision. But without the FA being in there, then it's like what if it's in the same footprint? But then what if the F is slightly higher than if it's on G Boulevard? be 0.55. >> So if I own a business and my building
is non-conforming, it's been there since 1950. I've operated a business in it and during the hurricane or a hurricane, I flood and I want to put my business back together. Is this going to allow me to put my business back to what it was
before the hurricane? >> Well, in a in a new FEMA compliant building. >> I can't fix the building I have. That's what I'm asking. Can I fix the building I have >> with this clarification? >> With without this clarification, if you can't fix the building you have, so it's
damaged more than 50%. You would not be able to have the business rebuilt to the same intensity that exists. >> But if I was over 50%, this clarification would allow me to build it back in that footprint with flood proofing and everything that's required
under FEMA for a business. >> Correct. I I mean, I personally don't want to keep a business from rebuilding what they had before the storm just because a catastrophic event happened any more than I want to keep a homeowner from rebuilding their home if they can
do it compliant to FEMA. That's my and if that's what this does, then I would be in favor of this for that purpose. Nonconformity. Nonconformity generally comes with the
zoning regulation. In other words, the setback doesn't meet code. That's nonconforming. >> A ton of MadiRaa Beach is non-conforming. >> Yes. A ton. >> That's That's exactly right. So, I'm sort of describing nonconformity. You know, what does it mean when we say a
project is nonconforming? >> So, it's either setback, height, ISR, F. I don't think it matters when you're talking about a a damaged building. We're not talking about coming in and getting a permit to build a new building. That's not what this is.
>> No, but we're approving the building the way it is. We will be saying yes, you have been nonconforming. You can just con, you know, from here on you'll be conforming. >> To clarify, rebuilding after catastrophic loss and redevelopment planning process are both for new construction, tearing down a a over or
damaged building. that was um well one is for if it was damaged during a declaration disaster event hurricane and the other is voluntarily through the redevelopment planning process but um so these are would be someone
tearing and building a new building and and having um certain rights protect like with the commercial one right now you you retain your footprint but it doesn't mention anything about F >> I also agree with u mayor Brooks also on
the extension to extend the deadline till 2027. Um I'm just going to make this really quick. Um we can continue to get the after the fact permits. Um how many roughly not specifically how many
non-conforming residents residential houses are out are there in Madiraa? So we consider and kind of going on what Commissioner Kavahi says uh generally non-conformities a lot of times are
related to zoning but we can also consider our our flood plane regulations are in the land development code. If it's non-conforming to that we consider it a non-conforming structure too. So mo almost every residential build, unless it's fully compliant with today's flood
plane regulations and the setbacks and everything, almost every property is is non-conforming in some way. >> And when you sent out those letters, what was the percentage of response that you guys got back? >> Um, it's hard to tell. We haven't
tracked an exact percent. Next time I come back, I can get a rough number. Um, but we sent about 500. I don't know the exact number of response we got, but it feels like a lot, but a lot of times one feels like a lot, >> right?
And I thank you for all your hard work, too, by the way. Also, um, I believe that's all I have, but um, definitely get the after the fact permits. And one thing I might want to add, um, this is a big issue. This is a very big issue.
This is very important to Madira Beach. I would be inclined to have another public hearing here on on this issue. Um but I'm all for the extension of the deadline,
>> another public hearing on what issue >> on just so that all the residents can understand. You know, a lot of some residents might not understand what's conforming or non-conforming. we could do it. >> So, I think the purpose of this, what
we're talking about today is to move forward a change in the code that allows people to rebuild. >> Absolutely. >> It's tied specifically to the storm. So, right, this is so specific to the storm and in particular, we have two
properties right now in the city that need this to be changed and and potentially you'll have more because I believe that there are more properties that are waiting on the change to even submit for their rebuild. >> Yes. And I'm just saying that if we just
had a public meeting so everyone's on the same page, some people might not understand all of this, you know, and I'm just saying as a lay person, you know, not being an expert that if we got everyone together so that everyone's on
the same page, that would be really good beneficial for the residents. I believe >> one uh possible recommendation is we can maybe create a video that we can have on our website or something or maybe even link in the next letter explaining what
it means. Um so that might get more attention than another meeting. Uh just an option. >> I agree with that. >> So I wasn't quite done. Um, >> could these changes lead to larger
buildings than exist than currently exist on on affected properties? >> No, not unless it conforms. No, these changes would not >> could not. Good. Will neighboring property owners receive notice and have an opportunity to comment on redevelopment applications?
>> So, the proposed change wouldn't change the actual process of the redevelopment process. Um, so those are still public meetings that people can attend and leave public comment. >> And just to be clear, this is a public meeting. >> That is correct. >> And it's and it's available. >> That is correct.
>> As we speak and after we're done. Uh, do these changes make it easier or harder for non-conforming properties to eventually become conforming over time? It would make it harder to come into compliance with the current code over time because we're allowing the
non-conformity to persist longer. We're allowing more avenues to rebuild uses and structures that don't confirm to the current current code. >> Thank you. Will will the city be able to distinguish between uh an owner who simply failed to renew a BTR and one who
was operating entirely outside city requirements? So would we are you asking asking in reference to like if somebody gets a BTR? >> Yeah. >> If they didn't have a BTR, would we be
able to determine whether they were operating without one? >> Um or >> I guess it's I guess it's kind of a judgment call. So I don't think that this change is it this change is only intended for people who didn't have BTRs
when Hurricane Hela hit. >> The BTR portion of >> the BTR portion is only for that. And I can tell you and I've said this in a previous meeting and I'm going to I'm going to tell it again. I had a I had a online business out of my house that required a BTR. When I
went through all the paperwork to get incorporated and get my LLC and everything I did, nobody said you need a BTR in in Madira Beach. It was nowhere that I needed that. >> Right. So, it would be a judgement. And I, no, I want you to understand when I
found out I needed a BTR, it's because I got on the commission and I shadowed the building department. And the day I went and sat with the person who does the BTRs, they had recently started actively enforcing or going out to do BTRs. I had
no idea. And I was a commissioner. I had been on the planning commission. >> I've learned a lot when I've been on this board, too. So my point is I don't think that I don't think that most people I won't say all but I don't think that most people are trying to not get a BTR. It's not expensive. It's very
inexpensive. It's they don't know. And so staff is this change is so that people who didn't have a BTR before Hela and Milton can rebuild and they have taken an active approach to educating
the community on BTRs and are looking for additional ways to get that message out and they continue to do that. So I don't think focusing on the BTR is the point of this change. It's to allow those that didn't have it before that
storm, if you didn't get it after this campaign, you're not going to get that grace because it's going to be so so much information and informative. >> So, I think that's that's the difference. >> Understood. >> Just that it's worth the county doesn't have any BTR.
>> Well, we're not the county. >> Understood. But just saying, >> but the BTR it does a lot of things. So, the BTR, it's >> a good thing to have. It is a good thing to have and it it's very beneficial for the city >> in many different ways. Not in a financial because we're not making money
off of people >> of things. >> Right. >> So I was just I was just trying to get most of the questions I had prepared we've answered. So just one more good. Do you think that this amendment could inadvertently reduce incentives for
future compliance with BTR requirements? >> No. No, I don't think so because it's still it's we're tying it what we're proposing here is tying it specifically to the hurricanes. >> Mhm. Mhm. >> That is a good question, but I would say
no. >> Thank you. I'm finished with questions. I'm certainly in favor of extending. >> Okay. I got a couple of things. I I do Well, okay. This is something that we should get going on soon. So, do you
feel that you would be able to get these changes done and bring it before us in July? >> So, I'll have to look at the calendar, but since this isn't our land development regulations, it would need to go to the planning commission next. >> Okay. I mean, you know, and that's just
like we were saying that this is you guys have been working on this diligently and I thank you for it and and there's Yes. Uh, I mean, you know, so as as soon as you can get this out, just like the, you know, the um and and
so long as we're not changing, they're nonconforming and they're going to be staying nonconforming. So, that's not really an issue. If they're non-conforming now, they're going to continue to be nonconforming, but they are just going to have to get BTRs and we're getting more language
straightened out to help the people through this stuff. >> Okay, with no additional comments, we will move on to landscaping regulations. >> Oh, yeah. So, the landscaping regulations begin on
page 53 of the agenda packet. This is a rough draft. Uh the city attorney has not looked at it yet and it will also need to go to the planning commission. So, these are really just just to get your feedback and kind of the direction we're heading.
In the memo, we highlight five key areas of concern. Uh number one is the landscape requirements uh which are causing permit delays at closeout. Uh that's really the driving factor here. And this is where
we need we're looking for the most feedback on starting on page 55 um and 56 is our current code. And um in in four different colors I have four different kind of options on ways we can
go. But really, it boils down to the current code requires 25% of all residential single family, duplex, or triplex lots to have 25% living ground cover. So, technically, when you drive
around and you see somebody that has all shell, that's not compliant. Uh this code has the enforcement has been inconsistent in the past and it's a really outdated section of code in staff's opinion. So we want to get
feedback from the commission on whether any landscaping at all if we should if we need to require we the comprehensive plan doesn't really require it. It requires it for trees in certain areas which I'll talk about when we get to the
tree section. Uh we're not proposing to remove the tree requirement. Um it's really getting feedback. Do we want to we already have ISR and tree requirements? You do we still want to regulate the landscaping? It's more of an aesthetic thing. And and if so, to
what extent do right now it's 25% of the lot has to be ground cover. So do we want to amend that to allow shell to count as ground cover? Do we want to keep it as 25% living ground cover but
maybe instead of 25% of the whole lot just a quarter of the required imperous surface ratio. So in R2 for example the ISR is 70% so you need 30% impervious maybe we can do a portion of that required just the first item is really
getting feedback from the commission and the public on what the goal is for landscaping um and what you want to see throughout the community. Um, keeping in mind it's mostly an aesthetic thing. The and storm water is a concern for the
community, but we also have ISR requirements. Second item is artificial turf. Uh, a lot of cities now have artificial turf written directly in their ordinance. For example, Clearwater has a just passed a
a pretty elaborate artificial turf code. They passed that in 2025. So it was after Senate Bill 180 but before some new guidance came out from the state um which I've attached to the memo which basically states that once FD
releases standards for artificial turf, we cannot prohibit it from being installed on a single family lot. Right now the current code says you need 25% living ground cover. So, we're technically in conflict with that for single family homes. Um, and FD did just
release that guidance about a month ago. I've included that. Um, and I took that into consideration as well as clear water and some other cities codes in um in the proposed section 10637 which talks about artificial turf. Um, the
main goals here is making sure that when we're crediting crediting it, it meets the D standards for permeability. because that's a big concern for the city, making sure we're not reducing permeability. If it's not installed correctly, it's it's not going to allow the water to drain through.
Um, and just to be clear, even though our code doesn't specifically mention artificial turf in any way, you still do currently need a permit for it because it falls under our vague definition of a structure, which means anything that is permanently affixed to the ground. So
just being more specific here wouldn't necessarily be more restrictive than we currently are. It's just providing some more clear guidance. The third item uh is rightway landscape materials. So a lot of other cities regulate what can go
in the rightway. We don't have any regulation. It's been a talk since I've started about how we don't restrict what people put in the rightway and it causes a lot of issues for public works when we have to do maintenance. So that would be adding some language to our code similar
to what other municipalities have stating that only living ground cover essentially and vegetative cover approved by the city would be allowed in the ride ofway except for when there's a
sidewalk, walkway or driveway. The fourth item is intersection visibility. Right now our code has three actually four different sections where it talks about intersection visibility and all four of them pretty much more or less
contradict each other. So this proposed change we're kind of keeping the way we currently enforce it and interpret those regulations which is I included a diagram on page 69. Uh the way we currently
interpret it and what's being proposed here is a 25 foot distance and then anything that's between 3 ft and 8 ft in height in that triangle would have to be clear for obviously
safety reasons for driving. That's similar to what other cities have. Uh, one thing that would be changing here is we would reduce the 25 feet to 15 feet if it's a budding an alley. And the code already has a definition for an alley, which is a ride of way that's 15 ft or
less. So, you're typically driving slower on those. Um, so the proposed change with the intersection visibility is more cleanup and it's striking it from all the other contradicting sections and moving it into the zoning code, which is where it really belongs
in this section of the code. There's also information about how to measure setbacks, how to determine building height, um how to measure the lot width. So, this is where we find the most appropriate section for the intersection visibility to be. And then in the
landscape code, we would just simply strike it and reference that section. And then the fifth uh overall change here is uh going on to the tree regulations.
Again, the enforcement has been inconsistent in the past. So just cleaning up the code right now. There's a lot of contradictions even within this section. For example, it lists some prohibited trees, but then it has some of the same species as an allow tree to
count towards the landscape requirements, which obviously doesn't conflict itself. Um, at a first glance, it looks like all the tree species are being struck through. But in this draft, and again this hasn't been reviewed by
the city attorney yet, uh what we're doing is we're simply instead of listing the species directly in our code, we're referencing the University of Florida Florida friendly plant list, uh which we already referenced, but one of these categories,
the okay category doesn't exist anymore. So just updating that to allow any Florida native or right now we have salt salt tolerant. We could change that uh also to drought tolerant. The website is pretty user friendly on being able to sort which types of trees should be
allowed um or not rather not allowed but rather counted towards the landscape requirements and then the trees that are considered dangerous or not allowed to
be planted. Instead of listing those, we're referencing the same list that Penllis County references in their ordinance in this proposed change. And that is in line with the trees that we already have on the list, which are also in the
city's comprehensive plan, which talks about um that the city should uh try and limit the removal of trees unless they're considered dangerous. So, I'm happy to explain any changes, answer any questions.
>> Do we have any public comment? Commissioners, any questions? >> First, that one link was very deceiving. There's a lot to this. >> So, I have a few uh for not not about every single one. What what problems are
we experiencing that these code changes are intended to solve? So, the primary problem is that when we're going out and doing landscape inspections, which haven't always been done in the past, we can't legally close out the permit
because it doesn't comply with our landscape code, which says you have to have 25% living ground cover. And a lot of people want to use artificial turf or shell. So, that's the primary reason. And because of that, since we're changing the code, um, and there's other
contradictions that led us to just fix everything all at once, if you will, >> if if the rocks and shells or the astroturf were water permeable, uh, would you I mean, what I'm saying, what am I trying to say? Could they're not allowed now, but would this amendment,
would these changes allow that? >> This provides an option to allow that. Yes. >> To allow that. Um um will the pro changes apply retroactively to existing homes and businesses or only to new projects or major renovations?
>> It apply retroactively once it's adopted. So there are two properties where we for lack of better words gave them like a conditional seal where we felt it was reasonable. So we're not going to hold them up from being able to move into their house because the landscaping doesn't comply with an
outdated code. But they do have an open permit. So once this is resolved, we can take action to make sure that they are in compliance. >> Thank you. And regarding now the as the artificial turf, um, so you're the ch the clarification you're putting in
there would make it possible for them residents to use it if it was water permeable. >> Yeah. So the proposed change here would allow it to count towards the landscape requirements if it meets those requirements um which come from the D standards of being permeable which
already is what we enforce. >> Okay. Okay. Uh I don't have any questions about the imperfect surface uh rightway landscaping. No questions about that. Um trees question. I think that's all I had. Thank you. >> Okay. Go ahead.
>> Go ahead. You want to go ahead? Um, a couple questions. Basically, it's basically on the uh residential landscaping requirements and uh I would like to address that for the board and
and people that are watching. Um, we're at 25% right now. St. Pete Beach is at 20%. >> They're at 20% of their required impervious. Ours is right now 20%
25% of the entire lot. Okay. Um, why can't we, this is basically with residential landscaping go down to 0%. And just as you were speaking earlier, um, post hurricane, post storm, if I
bought a house and I want to make it a aesthetic aesthetically pleasing uh, to myself um, and I prefer to have it all shell. I should have that right if I bought a house as long as it's not hurting anyone
else. Um because I remember during the hurricane I lived on 144th and I watched mulch and and debris and grass and everything else go floating down the street. Um I rarely seen any shell
floating down the street and you know you're you know what I'm getting at. Um, so basically I believe that and can I read real quick an email uh one of the residents sent to me? >> You can say whatever you like. >> Well, um, as a resident of a home on
144th and North Bay Shore Drive, this issue is both personally and professionally important to me. I have an open permit that has been held up because I chose to use shell as ground cover rather than grass or sod. And I
believe the current code interpretation not only creates unnecessary hardship for residents still recovering from the hurricanes but also works against the environmental health of our waterways and our coastline. Um so basically um
what I'm getting at is um I believe um the homeowner should have the right at 0% if they want shell. Um so that's uh what I wanted to throw in there. Okay, I'm ready. Finally. Um the the
land the the triangle intersection visibility that's major that's needed to be done a long time and especially uh signage, you know, and to be strict because there's some of these corners that you can't see and trying to go
around them. So, that's that's something very important. uh the artificial turf. Is there any way that you guys can kind of check that? I mean, because I know Marcy's been dealing with the imper imperous uh pavers. So, impervious
pavers can count towards those 25% as well. And I didn't really see anything in here for that. However, I mean, you know, if if you know, I I I'm opposed to the zero unless shells can count towards
that 25%. You know, because like you you have to have runoff and even shells, you're going to have a lot of potential. I I love shells by far majorly more than mulch. I mean, and mulch is something we cannot get rid of because it's the
state. The state will not let us do that. But the other thing is is I do believe in there everything has to be confined and that's that's the big key. So if you have mulch it's got to be
confined in the areas and um I I had other questions that you answered in your presentation. So I think this is very good and um yeah moving forward with this I like it. >> Cool. I just want to clarify something. So you had mentioned the permeable
pavers. Uh just to clarify cuz I think there's confusion there. So we do give 100% credit for permeable pavers and artificial turf for the ISR requirements but not the landscape requirements. So if somebody wanted to put their entire
lot as permeable pavers with a spec sheet, even though we would count it towards the ISR, we would give them full credit there. It still wouldn't meet the definition of landscaping. So, just to clarify that. And so, a
proposed change here, we're not proposing to change that. So, you still wouldn't be able to put permeable pavers across the entire lot because that wouldn't count as 25% landscape. It would help them out. They could put more than regular pavers because the ISR
requirements are usually more stringent than the landscape requirements. Uh but just to clarify right now, we regulate turf kind of the same way that we regulate uh permeable pavers. >> Yep. But I do want to I will make sure
if we don't already have it that there's language that requires that the mulch or any other material has to be contained on site. And then also I was, you know, it at first the um the people have artificial turf and they can't have it
in the rightway, but they can have it in the rightway if you guys approve it, which is basically I'm would be saying like a house. If they have artificial turf in front of their house, but their house has a 20 foot setback, they're not going to have to have grass in that 20
foot for the city to maintain because the residents have to maintain that anyway. Correct. >> True. So, the language does keep it open for the public works director to make that call, but after speaking with the
public works director, it's more likely that we really don't want turf in the city's right of way because it creates a maintenance issue. the code we this proposed change would allow turf on the property
but on the public right of way it would be at the discretion of the public works director which most likely wouldn't be allowed but anything that's existing would be obviously allowed it's it would be considered legal non-conforming and that's also in line with what the other
city codes I looked at especially to put in perspective uh the city of Clearwater when they passed their artificial turf ordinance, they actually required that anyone that has artificial turf in the right of way. They said it's not per it's not permitted
black and white and if you already have it, you have to get an after the fact permit for us to decide if you can even keep it. Um, so what we're proposing here is it's at the public works director's discretion. It probably wouldn't be allowed to be added, but anything that's existing, we wouldn't
require them to get an after the fact permit like Clear Water did. But if the homeowner has to maintain it and the city's not maintaining it, how is it going to affect the city as opposed to the owner? >> Looks like Megan's coming to help me out
here. >> Good evening, mayor and commissioners. So, the issue with turf in the rideway is the restoration after a road project. So currently right now area three we have somebody who put in turf who did
not properly install the turf and the restoration of turf is astronomical and it's just so it makes it a lot easier for us if it's not in the rightway. If you so choose to allow it in the right
of way, we can come up with some kind of agreement for the property owner to have to like we're not responsible for restoring it after. I would be okay with that. >> I would be inclined for that. >> That way if somebody wanted it, they'd have to accept the full responsibility.
>> Yes. >> And that way you don't have to be concerned with it and they know when they do it that because you have to permit turf here, don't you? Right. >> Correct. Y. So that would just be part of the permit process and that way if they were going to run the turf all the way to the sidewalk and part and there
was a rideway there, they would just be responsible or all the way to the road or to the curb or what have you. >> I think I can think of a few other locations in the city that the city has allowed things like that in the right of way. The problem is is documenting that and ensuring that it's known down the
line that that that agreement exists. and make it >> well if we make it a if we change it here to say that right so I read the um different paragraphs that you put in as recommendations and I don't think any one of them is
good I think well because I think there they all have something really good that if you piece them together because I and especially after hearing some of this conversation and reading some correspondents that we've received in
regards to turf and and shell and native plants. Um, however you word Smith it, I am greatly in favor of letting people use turf if it's permitted and documented correctly and installed correctly. Um, Shell, I wish that we
could make everyone get rid of mulch. It's terrible for the drainage systems. It clogs the valves. It's horrible and it's ugly. But you can't make everybody do shell, even though that looks beautiful. And when it compacts, it
doesn't float away when you get a flood. Um, and native plants. So, when I read them all, to me, they all seemed like each one had something really good in it, but not one of them really met the needs of what I feel like
you're trying to accomplish in making the change. >> True. Yeah. Thank you for that. I more put those highlighted options in there just to like give different ideas. >> I like it. But I I think that um we have the opportunity to get it right where they all got a little bit right. We can
benefit from all of the different municipalities and taking snippets from them. >> Agreed. And just to clarify, um so it seems like you're in favor of allowing shell to count towards
landscaping. Um, you mentioned native landscaping, which also is in our comp plan. We already in our tree section prioritize native trees. Would you feel like that's enough or would you also want us to require like shrubs if
they're only doing shell or would you think shell with just the required trees would be enough to meet the >> Can you do it or? So, what if I have a yard and I want to put all shell and three trees? Or I have a yard and I want to do all shell and six shrubs or
whatever. Can can it be an either or? >> So, >> or what if I want to do all shell and I don't want to put any shrubs or trees? >> So, the tree requirement would the way it's written, which is pretty consistent with all the other municipalities I looked at, wouldn't allow you to
substitute trees for shrubs. >> Okay. >> Um, so that wouldn't really be usual. We can explore that language if you wanted to look at it. >> Um, >> I don't want to be inconsistent with someone else. I mean, I understand that when you when you own a property, if you take down a tree, you have to there's a
requirement for what has to go back. You have to have so many, you know, the landscaping is so many trees per whatever. So, I understand that. I don't want to change that. I I would not be opposed though to having the shell count towards landscaping because it it can be
and there are a lot of yards in our town that have a lot of shell, >> right? >> And it stays. >> So possibly an option could be we can allow turf that meets the required criteria to count shell and stone to
count without needing any additional shrubs. Um, and then we can explicitly not count mulch um as counting towards landscape. So they would if we put that in there, they would be able to still
have mulch if it's with above the 25%. >> Yeah. >> Does that would that make it um a more a better process for you in closing out a permit? Is that does that fix the
issue that you have with these permits that are open? >> Yeah, honestly that makes it like as easy as possible on both the city and the applicant because it's really it's also the less restrictive. Um, if if you don't if we're not requiring any shrubs,
just the tree requirement and then shell, it it makes it easier. >> I mean, because the reality is if you put in if you have to put in five shrubs and you put them in and I don't really want them there, once I get my co, I'm going to dig them up and pass them down the road anyhow. >> Yeah. Exactly. Yeah. >> Right. Okay.
>> All right. So, I have >> making it difficult on on public works. >> I I have some questions. So when we speak residential, are we speaking single family or multif family and single family? >> That's a good question because typically in our land development code, it defines
residential as usually it really depends on the section of the code. But in the landscaping code, it specifically 106-33. It specifically says single family, duplex, and triplex. and then proposing to add in that it's single family
attached or detached. So if it's a town home that would fall under the residential. >> So if if we're looking at a single family, I I would look at the code a little bit differently than if I were looking at multif family
and open space. When you talk about open space 25% that means partially it includes buffer right so you have certain buffer around the property whether it's 5t whether
it's 7 and 1 half 10 ft or whatever so um I I personally would say that the obviously the green space or the open space needs to be treated you can't just let it just you know be
dirt by itself. So there are level of different levels of treatment whether it's grass, whether it's turf, whether it's shell, whatever it is that we're describing. But we also need to be cognizant of having to be able to put
trees there and shrubs, especially if it's multif family. So I would say you know the the the treatment of the land which is
turf or whatever should be different than having to put landscaping. Landscaping would include shrubs and trees. So that that's what I would say and and I would say really no turf no turf in rightway. The rightway belongs
to whether it's the city or DOT. I mean that's all it is and it becomes liability to us. So I personally would say no turf, no astrourf in the rightway. It could require maintenance. Somebody could trip over it. It could
create some uh safety concerns. And looking at that visibility triangle, did you say that's down to like 15 ft? You want to reduce it some? So the proposed change is to keep it at 25 ft for all intersections, all public
intersections. We don't have anything about driveways, but reducing it to 15 ft if it's an alley, which an alley is defined as, I believe, a right of way of less than uh like 15 ft or something. I could get you the exact measurement, but it's
smaller streets. So, but what I'm what I'm seeing here is the visibility triangle starts at the edge of pavement, not necessarily the property lineway line. >> Correct. And that that's usually how in in my research, that's how most cities do it because the property line can be
different from parcel to parcel. Sometimes the property line is right at the curb. Sometimes we have more right away and it's significantly in. >> Okay. Okay. I mean, I I wouldn't have any problem with that, but typically it's a rightaway line that they use a visibility triangle. And I understand
it's more practical to use the edge of pavement. And um they they can't do any shrubs in a rightway. >> They can as long as it's under the 36 in. >> 36 is still a little bit too high. If you are trying to look over, I would say
maybe 24 in or 30 in. Uh, >> but in a rightway they should not really do >> anything but saw it. >> Gotcha. So, I'll let you guys discuss the uh turf in the rightway again, but
just to touch on the shrubs right now. Uh, we kept 36 in cuz that's what we had. Other municipalities also have 36 in, but that is on the higher end. It's usually somewhere for my research between 24 in
and 36 in. So, we can look at lowering that to 24. >> 24 maybe too too low. >> Maybe 30 is also pretty consistent with I would say 30 is is the average of what I've seen from my research of other municipalities. So, >> 30 is good.
>> Okay. And then just to um also talk on uh you had mentioned the maintenance requirement. I just want to highlight that uh we do have a section of our code that we're adding proposing to add to about that the landscaping has to be
maintained based on whatever type of landscaping um including zeroscape. And then to go back to your original point on differentiating between multifamily and single family, uh we do do that and the
25% is specific to single family, duplex and triplex. Anything else, so multif family or commercial would have to meet. It's a 10% requirement, but they also have the landscape buffer which you talked about and that's generally 5 ft. And a lot of
times um it requires shrubs for visibility. So one thing we can do is we can change the general landscape requirement to allow shell and turf like we discussed for the 25% for residential
and maybe the 10% for multif family and commercial but still require the landscape buffers to be vegetative. That's an option. >> Okay, good. And one other thing, there is no such thing as pvious papers when
it comes to landscaping. I can understand drainage, but >> yeah, we don't credit previous papers for landscaping. Just want to clarify that. So just to circle back um where the it
seems like the feedback we're getting in terms of the right of way um we can either pro prohibit it kind of how we have it now or we can maybe add some language to require while it's permitted
uh maybe some kind of notorized document. Maybe we can even require it to get recorded with the clerk of court that the owner and future owners are aware that they're responsible. >> What about your irrigation requirements?
Do you have any? It's just >> we don't really regulate u you don't need a permit to do irrigation really just the maintenance section that would fall under you have to based on the type of >> water the shrubs just hose bib. we wouldn't really regulate as long as it's
being maintained. If we drive out, if we drive past a property and it's uh doesn't meet the intent of the code, then the code is strong enough to require that they have to either irrigate it or if they don't need an irrigation system and they can maintain it like that, that would be sufficient.
But we don't regulate, we don't require irrigation system. We just require that it has to be properly maintained however the property owner deems necessary. >> All right. Thank you. Do you feel like you have a good directive from that conversation from all of us?
>> Yes, I I think so. Thank you. >> This will go to the planning commission and then come back to us. >> Correct. >> Thank you very much. >> Next on the agenda is resolution 2026-06 moratorum on collection of mobility fee
and Kimley Horn impact fee evaluation. Um thank you. So this is a basically a two-part item. Uh one was the um resol the resolution um for the moratorium on collection of mobility fee. it was uh um
it was about to expire the one that was uh adopted last year. So we uh needed to bring a new one to continue that moratorum. Um and then also we a couple weeks ago we received the um Kimyhorn
impact fee evaluation that they reviewed ours and the counties and had some recommendations with it. So, um, so the purpose of this memo is to recommend continuing the one-year moratorum on the collection of the city's local mobility impact fees. This
action is necessary to finish evaluating the relationship between the city's local mobility impact fee and Panelis Countyy's multimmoal impact fee and to determine whether current practices may result in impermissible double charging for the same transportation capacity impacts. The city of Madur Beach up
until the moratorum imposed a local mobility impact fee on new development to help offset the cost of transportation infrastructure improvements necessitated by growth. Panelis County also imposes a countywide mal impact fee under chapter 150 article
2 of the county land development code. Per floor statute uh 163.31805J, a developer may not be charged twice for the same transportation impact. With the execution of an air local agreement between the city and the county to coordinate the administration of the
county's multim mobile impact fee, it is critical to evaluate whether the continued collection of the city's local moility impact fee results in an overlapping charge. City staff recently received and reviewed the Kimley Horn impact fee evaluation memo and it's
attached to the agenda packet. The memo recommended the city discontinue its mobility fee and continue to collect and administer only the county's transportation impact fees. City staff would like to discuss the results of the evaluation and get direction from the board for the next steps. City staff
recommends continuing the 12-month moratorum on the collection of the city's local mobility impact fee until such time that the land development regulation updates can be addressed and potential impact to the conference of plan could be reviewed. During this time, no local mobility impact fees
would be assessed or collected for new development or redevelopment. We'd still continue to collect the counties because we we signed that interlocal agreement to collect it. Um while there will be a temporary pause in collection of the city's local mobility impact fees, the city will retain 50% of the county's
multal impact fees per the interlocal agreement. This will help mitigate the fiscal impact of the moratorum and provide continued funding for eligible transportation improvements during the review period. Uh staff recommends approving uh resolution 2026-06 which would continue the one-year
moratorum on the collection of the city's local mobility impact fee effected upon adoption until July 31st, 2027, unless the board commissioners resend or extend the moratorum by subsequent resolution and attached is the resolution um which if if supported
by it would be going to the planning commission and in July and then back to um to the board for a vote. And then the um the Kimyhorn impact fee evaluation memo is on there. It got shifted in
front of the my memo, but it's it's in the packet. Um and I'm happy to leave it up to discuss discussion now. >> Do any public comment commissioned? Any questions or comments? I am uh Andrew
does does the Kimley Horn recommendation is it it looks like it's different from city staff the staff recommendation. >> No, no, it's the same. We support um removing our local one and continuing to administer the counties. That's what their conclusion and say because this is
a the staff recommendation continue the one-year >> moratorum. >> Okay. >> Because we need time to un undo our local since you all agree I'm I'm in favor of that. Is this consistent with Pelos County?
>> Uh um yes. Um I mean we signed the the interlocal agreement to continue to administer theirs. Um and um we're moving make sure we we stay in compliance. Um and also even still I
just wanted to show this. Um, Kimley Horn did a comparison about colle collecting ours versus theirs. And it it benefits uh homeowners and residential properties where the the fees would be less
while we would still be charging more for commercial which has a larger impact because theirs is based on use and uh density while ours was per uh heated square foot. So this would um by moving ours would also be beneficial. And then
with the counties they only with the residential one they only charge if you go they have different thresholds of residential square footage. So if the house is the same size uh it wouldn't be a char it's usually if the house like like let's say went from like a square footage increase because it went from
like a one-story house at grade to a twotory over parking. But I'd have to pull up the exact threshold that would be at. Um, but it would it would bring us into compliance and and make sure we continue to be >> any additional comments.
>> So, this is just a continuation of what we've already approved in the past. >> The resolution would be yes. Um but we uh staff needs time to uh review and see what would need to be done to um um
remove our local one because that um we'll take time to um look through our comp plan and LDRs to figure out and and we'd be coming back to um talk about what what it take to uh do it. Um would you want Kimley Horn to come in and and
present their memo? We we got it kind of um like I wanted to at least bring it to you guys because we got it like a like not close to the cuto off but enough where I I wanted to at least make sure you got it now. But uh would you want me
to have them try to see if they can come back next month to present? >> Did we pay them to come and present? Is that part of their contract? >> I I would have to double check. So we Andrew, just for clarification, we put a pause on this because of the recommendation from or information from
the county. So we're just here today talking about continuing that pause and putting it in a resolution to vote on. Correct. >> Yeah. Another resolution. >> So I agree with the resolution of continuation. >> Yeah. >> Is it is this for
existing residents as opposed to new people purchasing? So, if a new person comes in, buys a property, are they exempt from us impact fees? >> This is new construction
and and with the counties, it's it's uh based on on use. So, I mean, if someone builds a house and it's doesn't hit that square footage threshold, then it wouldn't be charged.
But for something like someone tearing down a commercial building and building a hotel, obviously like the hotel would have a larger impact. So they have to pay the and the county I I could next time around attach the county's impact fees to show how they they what they
charge based on what use and um because I don't have it attached to this memo right now. They did Kimley Horn did include an example though. So they do have with the shopping center and what it's charged per thousand square feet versus the how with the residential
that's charged per dwelling unit at that square footage threshold. So they they did do an example using the counties and it >> we stopped paying this because we got something from the county that said or collecting it because we got something from the county that said you you
shouldn't be collecting this. You're collecting it for the county. So that's what we're we're just not collecting a portion of impact fees because the county collects that portion and it would be being collected twice and they did a study for us on it. So all we're
doing is voting to continue that not collecting that impact fee until they get all done and they bring it back to us again. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Yeah. Simplified it for I knew that's the way I would understand it. I knew that's the way Chuck would understand it.
So, next on the agenda is Florida Legislative Update, Community Development Department. Thank you very much, Andrew. Give me one second here. So, um, wanted to briefly go over some of the legislative updates that have a a
direct kind of impact on community development department. I've put together some of the the ones that are the most impactful. This is not designed to be fully encompassing of all legislative updates that impact us. There's some of them that may not have
impacts but may require maybe some verbiage added to our LDRs. So, we'll be going through that and I'll be honest with you, these are impactful such that I will not have all the answers to how we're going to address these. Um the some of these things come live July 1st.
So, I will we will have some questions for um city attorney, but I kind of wanted to briefly touch on the the impactful ones. I pulled up the summary from the legislative website and what I've done is I've made staff comments and this is what's uh was handed out to
you guys on the deis before the meeting started. So the summary is provided and then in red is staff comments and these are very much a um just a conscious thought as I'm looking at these of stuff that we're going to definitely need some clarification on and that you need to
understand is coming down the pipeline. So with House Bill 803, it's regarding building permits and inspections. And this amends provisions related to the Florida Building Code, building permit requirements and requirements related to inspections and private providers. And it goes through some it gives you a
brief summary for our part with the staff thing. Um provides exemptions from flood barriers and walls. So this is for residential structures. Um that's kind of an interesting one. We're going to really digest how we're going to address that because when they inserted the walls,
that's a little concerning. So, we want to make sure we provide clear guidance to the public about what that really means. So, we'll be preparing some action items related to this. Um, it definitely impacts our permit fee calculation. Right now, we currently do that based on the cost of the project.
So, when you submit your permit, you tell us you're building a million-doll home, we charge you 1% of that. It used to be 2%. So remember that as you're going through budgeting. Our permit fees used to be 2% and now they're 1%. So that's something to keep in mind too as you see those numbers. So we're going to
have to review the project cost. Um there is an an option in uh ICC the international uh code to allow for how to calculate permits. So we'll be reviewing that and trying to kind of gut check that against what we think the permit fee should be. So we'll be
reviewing that. Um, this touches permit acceptance, review, and approval turnaround times. Um, it's also requiring us to make sure that our website has all of the permit applications on there as long as a list of the required documents. And we do
have really good checklist on there, but we will be revisiting everything to make sure it's, you know, it's coming across and they're cohesive from application to application. It also impacts our private provider fee reduction process. Um it expands options
for private providers that and this by provide by using a private provider you rem remove municipal reviews and inspections possibly. So for those you don't know you can use a private provider to review the plans for building code compliance and then you
can also use a private provider to serve as the building inspector throughout the the the project. If you do those you get a reduction in your permit fee. So we would calculate your permit fee and if you did plan review you get a 25% reduction. If you
do plan review and the building inspection then it has to be a 50% reduction. So this allows for the use of private providers and it also puts a more of a time restriction on us once we get those and that can kind of be a little difficult as well. Um like it
expands the options for private providers. Um, and when using a private provider, there's a 10-day requirement for completed and sufficient review. When you use a private provider, they're specifically doing the Florida building code. They're not comparing it to our local ordinances, our flood plane, our
base flood elevation, none of that. That's where a lot of the complication comes in. When we receive these single family homes, it may have been reviewed for compliance with the Florida building code, but often they're not even in the ballpark on our local ordinances. So we try to educate the private
providers that the permit is not complete and sufficient until such time as it is passed. Engineering review, public works if necessary, planning and zoning, flood plane. Only once it's passed all those is it complete and sufficient for the building officials
time clock to start and to turn it around in 10 days. That's going to require some education. that's going to require a lot of lot more front-end work um honestly for staff and a little more critical review of the incoming permits. So, we will need to provide clear
definition on what we consider a complete and sufficient permit to be. We get a lot of um not all engineers are created equal, not all architects are created equal. So, we get a a broad range of um permit submitts from really
good to they literally never even knew what community they were designing for and just put it back to us to figure it out. So, um so with that, we will need to create in order for us to double check a private provider's work, we have to have an audit process. So, we're
going to have to create an audit process. That way, when we do check a private provider work, we have something in place and documented and we follow it every time. So, that'll also be something that we're going to have to start working on. One of the things the House bill did is it did it did um put
some responsibility in the Florida Board of Commission, the Florida Building Commission to create a uniform commercial and residential permit application. That, to my knowledge, has not been drafted yet, but I do understand they're working on it. So, that should be forthcoming as well. Um there's a qualification in here for work
that is less than $15,000. Um that requires we turn that around in in 5 days. So once it once it's complete and sufficient and comes in, we have to turn that around in 5 days if it's valued under 15 grand. So I foresee a lot of permits that are $14,999
coming in. So that's going to that's also going to put another strain on the intake process. Now um and things we'll need clarification on just as an example. If you are a private provider and you are doing the inspections, but your silt fence is down, do we still have the right to put a stop work order
on that project or should the private provider also be doing those things? So, we will put together a list of questions to get with Tom on and it may be something that we have to, you know, run up the the flag pole to get some answers for as well. Clarification. Um,
so it added flexibility post disaster to allow for qualified individuals to assist with building inspections. This is really actually a good thing out of the bill because it will provide you the ability if for instance you've been a plumber for 20 years, you own your own business, we could then technically
that's how I'm interpreting it. I will confirm but it does read to me like you would be able to uh leverage other experts in the area that you would normally do um if it weren't for the post disaster. So I do feel feel like it opens up the workforce a little more for us to be able to use qualified people in
that capacity. Um and again the flood plane regulations and our planning and zoning regulations are still applicable. So House Bill 803 does not um touch those. This is mainly geared towards the building code stuff. Any particular questions on that or do you want me to
go through all of them first? One at a time maybe better. >> So Marcy on the I have a question. Uh did you have a I have a question. So, when you use a private provider and they don't have to pay for per pay for us to do the inspections because they're
paying their private provider to do those inspections, um we still do a flood plane inspection. Correct. >> Correct. >> So, do we have a provision in our um in our uh fee schedule to charge for that
specific inspection? So that's the other thing we have to do is revisit our fee schedule and how it's worded to make sure that the inspections that still will be required are clearly identified. And because we are actually still issuing the permit, we will have those inspections on there um with that
process. >> So we can go through our fee schedule and look to capture all of the costs that would still be associated for the city um even though we're not the on-site inspector. they can sign off on it, but we could still charge a fee for issuing the permit or for for those
types of things. >> Yes, for for fees that are still applicable and not impacted by this, we'll definitely make sure. So, that's been kind of one of the audit processes. And honestly, since I've sat in this position, we have been trying to better follow some of the fee schedules that we do have now that we are set up a little
better. And having the system, the permit software system we have also lends itself to better tracking of those types of fees. So, do you see um going through the fee schedule to try once you get all your questions answered, obviously, do you see um going through the fee schedule and being able to make
those rep recommended ads and adjustments as something that you can do sooner than later so that you're not missing out on your um on on being paid for the services that you're providing? >> Yeah. So, and we're definitely we're we're on a time clock um for when this
this legislation a lot of it goes into effect July 1st. And so that's clarification that we're going to need from Tom as well. But yes, we were going to have to pretty quickly go through our fee schedule, establish how we're going to do the permit process, and that also means how we're charging it. We have to go in now fix our permit software to
calculate like that. >> So, it's a pretty heavy lift. Um, and maybe Tom Tom can weigh in on this, but I spoke with um our building official and she had recently went to a meeting like literally in the last two weeks and had asked other municipalities how they were coming along with getting these
efforts in place and nobody everybody's kind of where we're at right now. So, nobody really is any further along. Um, maybe communities who already calculated their permit fees differently, but for the most part, everybody's in the same boat. And the the general sense that she had when she left there, and this is
what I would kind of look to Tom to clarify, is if provided we are actively in the process of trying to make all these adjustments, we're in compliance. But maybe Tom can address really what what this means when the July 1 clock hits.
>> So obviously nobody knows. Um but I I agree with Marcy. So long as we're making a good faith effort to make the required changes, I think that that will go a long way, but we really don't know, you know, what the state is going to do if we don't
comply. >> So, um, any other questions on 803? >> Thank you, Marcy. >> So, now we'll go to, um, we have, uh, 39, House Bill 399, which is land use and development regulations. Um, this
bill includes a variety of provisions related to land use and development regulations. So, again, some of the highlights are listed here. Some things that the staff has looked again is this also impacts how our permit fees are calculated. In larger communities, a lot
of times you get a site plan approved before you ever go and design your building. You meet with the community. You say, "Okay, here's where my house is going to be. Here's my setbacks. Here's my pool. Does all this look good?" and then we would approve that and then you would go to the building once you got your once you knew you could build that
footprint you would then go to get your building permit and so that's why there is a fee associated with this permit plan review and those are fees that we are now we've always had in our fee schedule we've just not been really optimizing those so we are now capturing
those so this is also giving us guidance on how those permit values should be set up so we're going to have to uh put some thought into that as well as of right now I don't have any particular uh guidance on the best way to do this like I was able to do with the building
permit, but we'll look to some of our local communities to see what they're doing and um and follow that process. So, we'll be bringing that as well. There will be we will need to look for some updates to our comp plan and LDRs to address any incapal incompatibility
issues related to residential districts and we may need to upgrade or update our language as far as manufactured home versus mobile homes. So, to be clear, we do allow for manufactured homes, homes that are built offsite and then delivered and put on the site, but it
still has to meet it's already it's typically certified by the um the Florida Building Commission or the DBPR. They they they rate them for the for wind tolerance in the in compliance with the Florida Building Code. So, they come rated to be here. Then, they also adhere to the planning and zoning code. So,
they still have to meet setbacks, height, and all that other stuff, but they are built offsite and then delivered here. So that's what they're referring to. So there could be some changes coming with that. Mainly just like I said, the permit cost is going to be the main one and then just updating any any language we have.
Questions on that? Okay. Um so 927 local land planning and development. The bill requires counties and cities of a certain size to create and implement a program by January 1st, 2027 for the use of qualified pre-approved private professionals from a local government
maintained registry to perform a pre-application review or permit applications. Plan reviews, plat approvals before submission to local government for final approval. The mechanics of this review is supplementing the local government staff resources are to be determined by the governing body. So some of staff's
comments regarding this is must immediately establish a process for a pre-application consultation program with automatic approval when timelines are not met. Create a registry for approved consultants or we must accept any qualifying consultant. If the applicant
uses utilizes a consultant and submits a pre-application certification, we have five days to confirm receipt, verify completeness, and notify the applicant of any deficiencies. Then we have 45 days to review and approve, deny or
approve conditions. Um there will be LDR updates for planning referencing state statues and we'll also have to look at our townhouse uh townhouse plat updates as well. Um so this is giving them another avenue. It's almost like a private provider, but it's using a
consultant. Um, the applicant can go pay their own private consultant and they would submit a pre-lication certification, which is another document we'll have to look into drafting and getting prepared. But then again, that that basically says that somebody has looked at our code and in this case,
they should be looking at setbacks. They should be looking at all those other components and by the time it gets to us, they should have with this pre-lication, we should be a no-brainer to hopefully approve. But given our size, we don't have to create a registry of consultants. We can just accept
qualifying consultants. And when I say qualifying, my assumption now is we would just confirm that they are licensed to the DBPR to be participating in the work that they're doing. So that's kind of how I foresee this going. And yeah, so that's going to be another avenue too by which people can can use
outside resources. House Bill 929, uh, local government regulations for Cheekies. Obviously, we've did a pretty good job on our accessory structures. So, I don't foresee this being a huge impact to us because it's relative to sideyards and
distances. We don't have large sideyards, and we already really covered most of that within our accessory code. We'll just review it, make sure we don't need to add any additional verbiage to it here to this, but I don't foresee this being a a big issue. But if we do
come across anything that we catch, we'll definitely be sure to let you guys know. But right now, I think it may just be some verbiage updates. Affordable housing, uh, House Bill 1389. Again, it's here. We need to know it's here. Staff needs to understand it. But
as far as any immediate impacts to us, um I don't foresee any unless Tom maybe has any thoughts on it. But we're just kind of working to make sure we're knowledgeable the requirements and that we don't have anything contradictory anywhere in our code. Ah,
last but not least, 1614 enforcement of the Florida Building Code. This bill removes a provision of current law authorizing a local government to use excess funds from in from enforcing the building code to pay for the construction of a building that houses a local government's building code
enforcement agency. This one stings too. So we So this means like when we used excess funds previously to help build out downstairs and stuff like that, it's my understanding this now prevents us from create bu using those funds to to create housing for those officials. So
that essentially makes the building the building department not self-funded. I mean, no longer. If you can only use your money for the building department, >> then that means you're only using your money for
I mean >> that's interesting. So, >> well, you better hurry up and build a new building. >> I Yeah. So, yeah, I can before January 1st. Again, this is the highlights. if we go through and find anything else of significance, we'll definitely share that with you guys. Um, and maybe some
of that will just be simply via uh the city manager's office to you guys to to share any updates, but we definitely have our work cut out for us with this and u definitely Tom is probably going to be getting a lot of annoying questions from us, so be prepared. >> Well, we have extra hours on him until
October, so take advantage of them. >> Julie noted. Thank you very much, Marcy. So we had no public comment that means it is 6:35 and we are adjourned.