--------- body. Uh I call to order the uh the special commission on work session for budget. Uh today is June 9th, 2026. It is 3 p.m. Please stand and rise for the pledge of allegiance.
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> Thank you. Uh, so I understand we got a
series of presentations. I'm not sure who we're looking for first. Um, I do we need to do roll call. Is that correct? Please. Roll call, please. here. >> Here, >> here. >> Commissioner Maldonado >> here. >> Mayor Tate
>> here. >> We have a quorum. >> All right. Perfect. Thank you very much. Okay. Presentations, please. >> Thank yep. Thank you, mayor. We're going to kick off tonight with a strategic planning overview as well as seeking
some direction on next steps um for the for staff and community and commission on strategic planning. We have Candace Galloway to lead us in our presentation. Good afternoon everyone. Candace Galloway, director of technology. Good to see you all. Um it's been a little
bit since we've talked about some of the topics we're going to go over today. So, some of it will be a refresher for some of you and uh we're obviously have onboarded two new folks and so there'll be some information to uh to bring everyone along hopefully on the same get everyone on the same page and get some direction on where we where we take
strategic planning next. All right. [clears throat] So, we're going to talk a little bit about um the framework that we've been working off of. You know, we've been at this for uh better part of almost two years now. Um we're going to talk a little bit about the survey uh
that we you all took and uh we incorporated with the new folks that are on boarded as well. Um we're going to talk a little bit about where we are today in the process. Um discuss a little bit about our benchmarking findings um with some of the other strategic planning that's going on
around us in other communities. um talk a little bit about what it means to us and you know what we're kind of looking at uh directionally and then um talk to you about some decisions that we're hoping to get some direction on from you on next steps. This is just a timeline. Um we started
way back in in the beginning of uh or u springtime of 24. We've had a number of workshops since then and of course today is an updated workshop to continue those conversations. All right. So, let's talk a little bit about the framework. We tried to keep it
um pretty pretty basic um not over complicate um the structure of what we've tried to design. So, essentially we started out uh with the with a basic framework of laying out our objectives and bringing in uh commission feedback
um and vision and and strategic um planning. So, we've had a couple of workshops uh to to bring to bear some of that feedback um into the planning process. Uh we've drafted objectives from that and we built a two-year strategic planning road map um which most of you have probably seen by now,
but happy to um there'll be some other artifacts if you all want uh for me to pull together for the group so that you have those to take away. Um but that was put together. Uh and then we we from there we started building out um our planning around KPIs or key performance
indicators um in terms of how we're going to measure ourselves against our goals and objectives going forward from that initial strategic plan. Um we have gotten those objectives memorialized. We've got all the projects um from a strategic standpoint aligned to the
strategic pillars and we have begun the process of building out our KPIs and metrics to try to measure against uh those projects and and the goals that that were outlined. So, we're in that that planning uh phase. We're kind of in between planning and implementation right now. Um and we're working through
a number of aspects of this process. If you recall, the strategic planning pillars are community prosperity, operational excellence, resilience, recovery, and sustainability, economic growth and development, and reliable infrastructure.
And so, let's talk a little bit about the survey findings. So, if you all recall last year, many of you took a survey. Our new folks uh just recently took that same survey. We asked for them to complete that as well and we incorporated some of their findings um together with the the survey results we
had recently gotten and um lo and behold we are relatively aligned across the commission um in terms of our core purpose um obviously serving residents and protecting the quality uh of life here in the community of St. heat beach. Um we clearly have values around fiscal
responsibility. That's evident in a lot of the planning going on right now for us um with you and and internally. Uh service excellence is critical, right? So working to um be the operational best that we can uh be as a community and
what we deliver uh as outcomes for the community. Infrastructure and recovery are still very top priority for the for the city. Um so a lot of the work that we're continuing to do will will is in that space and will continue to be in that space and then of course um being proactive resident first governance and
uh you know maintaining community character. So these are all areas that you all align on from the feedback that we've received. Um we also have alignment around the overall priority ranking of the pillars and the work that's being done and those from the feedback we've seen. So there's still a
fair amount of work happening in reliable infrastructure and that will continue. Um and the later discussion today around budget's going to go into a lot of those projects. Recovery and resiliency and sustainability is still one of our top priorities and we'll continue our work in that space. Um operational excellent comes in at a
close third. Uh it's obviously important for us to improve and enhance the way that we deliver and and think about continuous improvement in all of our operational disciplines so that we can better serve the community. And then there's community prosperity and uh economic growth and development. So a
lot of alignment there from you all in terms of the feedback we're seeing. What the survey is telling us is that the foundation for building out a strategic plan um exists. Our core purpose and responsibilities are relatively clear and we have decent
alignment across the commission as well as staff and city leadership around what those are. Um, we're getting a lot more refined on those immediate priorities. Um, we're going to talk a lot more about that later today. Um, of course there's going to be differences around the pacing and
the prioritization of work. I think that's where we need a lot of help as we go forward as a leadership team is to get a lot more guidance around that prioritization and planning step. Um, it's, you know, just as important to tell us what you want us to work on as it is to tell us what you don't want us
to be working on, right? because we can't do everything at once. So, it's going to be pretty important that we focus um on things that we're going to depprioritize as well so that we can be more successful on those things we are going to work on. So, who we are now, where we want to be, obviously there's
been a significant focus on preservation. We're we're still obviously a community that isn't going through redevelopment. So, there's a lot of work in that space. So, we're looking to kind of paradigm shift directionally um to uh stay really in pace with the redevelopment that's going on. We're
still uh focused on immediate recovery. We're not in blue sky, but we certainly have to think about blue sky days that are coming and the long-term planning and vision that comes with that. Um and so that's going to be critical as we as we think and move forward. Um community input and decision agility. So, you
know, we want to be more community input focused and being able to take that input and uh be agile in our approach in terms of how we uh you know, use that input for actioning work, prioritizing and delivering against that work. And then of course, we're going to have the fiscal constraints um and many more to
come in that space. So, we understand that that's critical as well. So what we heard from city leadership so you know Francis and team and uh and the assistant city manager have obviously spent a lot of time working with us on strategic planning goals and for the
next 24 months um what they're looking for out of us is to galvanize the community and organization around you know alignment on strategic direction and priority and building a shared sense of that direction and and buyin from the staff at all levels within the
We're also looking to uh do a better job from a communication standpoint um to start putting together more a better cadence around what we're putting out, the type of information, how often um and to be as transparent as possible as we're going through this process. You know, we're bringing people along as
we're as we're the sausage is being made, right? So, so there's a lot of moves, ads, and changes, but you know, we want to be as transparent, but we also want people to recognize that, you know, things are changing as we are working towards, you know, delivery on these things. So, um, transparency is
going to be critical, um, for the next, you know, for the foreseeable future. I'll just put it that way. The next three to five years, um, we are looking to build a lasting process that extends beyond, um, really the commission as it stands today. Right? We understand that
people change, needs change, and we want to make sure that we can change with it, but also maintain the continuity of care and structure around a true strategic plan. And so, we're looking to obviously extend our strategic planning beyond the two-year roadmap that we have today. Right? So, we're going to be looking to
um to build something lasting in that space. All right. We're also looking to make this uh a living document and a living process so that we come back to you on a regular basis. Right? So it we're not building something that goes in a binder on a bookshelf and collects dust. You
know, the idea is to make something that we can work and collaborate together and make adjustments as we need to based on the challenges and the needs that the city brings uh to bear year-over-year. And then of course one of the key components that I think we are need to
do a better job um as a leadership team is staff voice and ownership. So without bringing the staff along and giving them a voice in this process, it's very difficult for them to anchor themselves to the work and understand how their work is impacting uh the delivery in the community and the value that we bring to
your to the community on a daily basis. So we're looking for staff to have skin in the game and that includes their voice to be heard. All right. So really the next phase of the strategic planning we're looking to move away from kind of those broad themes uh individual perspectives and
recovery focused priorities right we really do want to shift to a more long-term planning and strategic vision that incorporates clear prioritization from you all top down and has the ability to put together measurable outcomes that are meaningful to the
community and obviously we want to you know that operational excellence that I mentioned and the long-term execution and discipline is critical. So, we know that that's going to be the way to to uh to succeed. So, the the process isn't really about identifying what matters. It's now about, you know, deciding what matters
most. And uh I think that's no more relevant than it is right now with all of the challenges we're we're dealing with from a fiscal standpoint and planning around that. All right. So, where we are today, um the strategic projects are mapped to our
strategic goals. So, as I mentioned, we have the pillars and goals and all of the projects associated are mapped uh as such. Um, we have got many of the KPIs started, but we are not prepared to bring those in front of you yet, but the team is diligently working on those to
put together the KPIs and measures that are going to roll up for uh measuring the success of our projects. We've obviously got project leads and departments are, you know, starting to work through and identify what strategic um success looks like. And then we will
of course test and learn, right? We're going to learn from the progress we're making, some of the mistakes we're making, and we're going to test and learn um and improve the process over time. Um one of the key things is using project tracking to show how dollars and
cents are being spent. Pretty critical. And I think you're already seeing some of that, you know, brought to bear in the feedback you're coming getting from Camden, um from public services, from finance and other departments. Um we are working on developing some reporting dashboards out to you all so you can see
from a strategic standpoint how these projects are progressing and where they are in relation to um being complete and whether they're meeting their their objectives and uh obligations and then of course that accountability and transparency to the community and the commission in terms of what we're
working on on a consistent basis. So this was just meant to give you a little bit of a um a viewpoint in the uh first draft of a dashboard. So this is a very rudimentary dashboard if you can
see the the screenshot here which would show you um the initiatives that are rolled up to the high level strategic plan. We can talk about that in a second. And then the KPI progress in terms of delivering against those initiatives um at a pillar level. And
this is not necessarily when I say it's draft, it's very very draft, meaning this it's probably going to change pretty substantially by the time all said and done once we get these KPIs developed. But I I did want to bring at least, you know, a show and tell so that you guys could see what's being put
together and and we are putting a lot of work and thought into this this process and what it's going to look like. The other um item I think everyone has seen, but I'm going to open anyway because these are two really important ways that we are trying to bring that transparency and reporting out to the community.
You've got your CIP dashboard which shows the portfolio of all of your projects. Um, and Camden's team has done a fantastic job at building out what they wanted, putting together the content so that you could see the cost of these projects, the status, a regular
updates. Um, and there's a lot of, you know, really great information here for the entire community to have access real time, right? So, really critical one um for us. All right, let's bring this one. This one is also very draft. So please um
know that uh it has not been signed off uh on by the permitting team and the department just yet but it is a dashboard that they are um they have in in front of them for consideration. Um provided this comes up
um one second. Oh, no. We don't have permission. Let's see. We'll give it one more second. If not, I will send around a link to it. Um, it's actually pretty uh it's a it's a really comprehensive dashboard um that we put together.
Basically, there's three dashboards. There's an executive dashboard for public consumption that we'll put out on the website and we'll put out to you all on a regular basis. There is a departmental dashboard with several internal metrics about throughput and optimization of of how the efficiency is
happening within the team. Um and then there are an operational manager dashboard as well. So they can look at by discipline and by department within the team. So this is inside of permitting and all the functions within a within the permitting department they'll be able to use for managing and
effectively looking at throughput within their department. So um we'll we'll give it a second. We'll keep going. I don't want to waste time on that. If we can come back to it, we will. If not, I'll share after. All right. All right. So, this just gives another
viewpoint on uh how we're measuring ourselves, you know, uh to look at where we're spending our time um from a project uh pillar standpoint. And clearly, there's quite a bit of work being done in reliable infrastructure. That's where most of our projects,
active projects are today. Um and several are in the recovery and resiliency and sustainability as well. So you're still seeing the theme uh focused on recovery and resiliency and sustainability. Even though we're looking to transition to blue sky, there's still quite a bit of work that's being done in the space and that will
continue over you know right there 73% of the projects are still focused in those areas and for the foreseeable future those will continue to dominate um our responsibilities to you. All right. So, let's spend a minute. We can talk a little bit about this this
benchmarking um work that that we did. So, when we started to look at um what we thought mattered um from a strategic standpoint um to deliver to the community, obviously we wanted to first look and see what others were doing well um maybe what others weren't doing so
well um and where we thought we fit into that in terms of the value we can bring. Um, so what we did look at about 19 to 20 different communities. Um, I have the list. I have lots of information about each and every one. If you would like to see it, I can um, put that to you.
But what this is is just a consolidation down of a handful that we looked at some in our immediate area as you can see right. We've got a few focused right around where we live. The Cape Coral, Duneden, Largo, Palm Coast is on the other coast um, but is still Florida.
Um, and then the reason that we brought them and others like Surfside and Newport, Oregon in is because we wanted to look at some that were maybe not quite in the high level of maturity yet in their process. And we wanted to see if they're, you know, just getting their programs off the ground, what are the
kinds of things that they're focused on first? What are the things that seem meaningful to their communities with small, you know, we're a small footprint, small staff, small community? What kinds of things are they putting out and how is that resonating with their with their community and their constituents? So that's why we ended up with a little bit of a smattering of
some communities beyond uh local to us. In that 19 to 20, you're going to see many many communities that are local to us um for your review, right? But you can see here, these are all communities that have similar um types of challenges
that we do and some similar size. Some are much larger. I think when we talked last, we talked a little bit about um either Palm Coast or Largo and somebody said, "Yeah, their budgets, you know, millions of dollars." And while that's actively true, um I I would arguably say that some of the things they're doing,
we have already started doing and and we're going to probably surpass some of the things that they're putting out right now um for their community. And it gives us at least a benchmark and an opportunity to see again what are other communities doing, how does it resonate, and how meaningful it is it for their community.
And then from a reporting maturity against some of those similar um criteria when we were looking at the benchmarking um many of them are looking to have public scorec cards or dashboards right um preferably things that maybe aren't static if we can right have things that update more real time
um you can see there 53% of the peers that we looked at have the some capability in this space um we obviously our current state here in that yellow column we have our CIP dashboard that that we just looked at we've got the permit dashboard board that I was unable
to show you, but you will see um which has a lot of metrics available to us to start really digging into the data and what the data is telling us in terms of our efficiencies within our department. So, I feel like we're already well on our way in the public dashboard and scorecard uh direction
from an annual strategic report. This one was kind of unique. Um what I liked about it is several of these do several of these communities do put out an annual report, a strategic report. It's an accomplishments um summary metrics by department. So it's pretty extensive in
terms of what they put out. Um it is static uh typically but there is a lot of value I think in putting something together on a consistent basis that people can refer back to and leverage. And so it is something we're talking internally about does it make sense for us to produce something like this? Because if we're already getting the
metrics and some of the other content from the areas that we just described, it probably will help. You know, we'll be able to double dip and use some of that to to fill in uh this information and produce something for the community to have department level report outs. Um that's already happening. Clearly, lots
of the communities are doing that well. Um we do that, I think, fairly well, right? We've got a report that comes out every single week. That process is migrating so that it can align with strategic planning. So, we're changing the way that's structured. I know that's very newly uh you know minted that we're
going through that process and that will continue to evolve but I think it's something that we do rather well and a lot of communities will start to potentially look at us maybe and use some of uh some of the things we're doing to uh to aid their process and then public project updates. There's been a heavy heavy push by lots of
communities to get some sort of portfolio management uh tool out there and and in place and of course we've got that um and head and shoulders above uh many communities in that space. We're looking for you know our current state I think is pretty good but we're
looking to obviously uh grow and mature this process over time. And you know you can see down at the bottom bottom there you've got your maturity levels. I would love for us to be in that level three, you know, target area where we've got some live dashboards, the KPIs, and some
regular reporting, static reporting that comes out by department on a regular basis. Um, so we're well on our way. All right. So, obviously, this is a cultural shift um for all of us. It's not just a a document or something that we're producing um and putting on a
shelf or or, you know, bringing to you, but it's a culture shift in the way that we work. It's really trying to sharpen the focus on what we're working on as it pertains to the importance to the community and what we bring in terms of value from that work back to the
community. So, we want it to be all the way through top down every staffer um to be able to focus and understand how they how they uh how they make matter essentially to delivering our strategic objectives. Um obviously we're moving to
datadriven decisioning. Everyone's trying to work towards how can we better use our data data. We have lots of systems with disparit data all over but how can we use that? How can we analyze that to better our decision making better our ways to work um many things to improve right um in terms of running
our our business on on data and sound decisions. Um clarity of rules and priorities. I think priorities is critical to me. It's one of the most important things that we'll do um and we'll get from you all is is very clear direction and priority. And then of course collaboration, innovation, and
accountability. All all the things that we want from an operational excellence standpoint to really move the city forward. All right. So, we're going to talk about some decision and direction that we're hoping to get from you all today with regard to strategic planning next steps.
So, we're at a bit of a crossroads. We've spent the last better part of, you know, two years working on that two-year strategic plan, the roadmap, the pillars, the goals. Now, we're working on all that project alignment, those dashboards and reports that we've been talking about. Um, and it's time for us
to think about what the next steps are in this process and how we decide to to to fill those and to get the fulfill those and to get that work done. So, we we've looked at actually a couple of different ways to take strategic planning from here um forward. One would
be to bring in external help and have external resources assist us and aid us in taking our strategic planning to another level in terms of building out a longer term strategic plan and vision. Right? So those things, if you've looked at that strategic map, it's a it's a
two-year road map and we're mapping and we're we're driving to that. But what's the three-year and the fiveyear plan? Right? and how do we incorporate the mission, vision, and strategic planning to start building out an actual plan that's beyond the two-year. So, that's something that we could potentially
bring in. So, we're going to go through these three options, but one would be to bring in an outside entity to help us do this. Um, as you all know, we all we all have day jobs. So, a lot of the work that's being done in this space is being done by myself, my peers behind me,
managers within the city. Um, but it's no one's dedicated job. it's just part of our job, right? And so bringing in outside experts um to help us roll out a plan may be advantageous to get where we want to go, right? There's there's quite a bit of work that can go into that and we'll talk about that in a second.
Option B would be to continue what we're doing right now, which is continuing to advance this process as best we can with the time and the priority that we can um to continue to work and refine the existing plan and determine what the next steps are to bring the community
along, resident engagement, staff engagement, and so on. And so we be we would be continuing to kind of work that process behind the scenes and bring this to you in a similar cadence to what we've been doing now. Um, obviously we'd allocate time as as uh staff as time
permits. And then option C would be something of a hybrid pro approach where we would potentially continue doing some of the work ourselves, but we would start to leverage some maybe some outside help to get some community engagement, some focus group help,
surveys, and to start bringing in more community voice into this process because that's really the next step. And we haven't done that internally today in a way that's meaningful. And I think the community is owed that. And so we're going to need to come up with a way to accomplish that in a more meaningful
way. And whether that's bringing in help or us doing it ourselves, I think that's a key component to making this stick in the long term. Now, what you can see here is option [clears throat] A is going to take you through. I'm going to just talk a little bit about option A and option B for a
second, and then we'll talk in more detail about that last option of a of a hybrid approach. So that that option A would be that full external engagement, more of a turnkey process. We would turn over a lot of the leg work in the day-to-day management of the process
itself. We would bring in process experts to help us. They would go through a lot of facilitation with the community through a number of means, focus groups, surveys, they would have focus and strategic planning workshops with you all as well. We would of course be there, but they would help us
facilitate that process. So it would be more of a turnkey soup to nuts kind of approach. Obviously it's a much larger investment if you were to consider that. Uh it ranges right now anywhere from 62 to all the way up to 200. Um some of
these things can be allearted. So we have choices to make right where we can we can choose. We don't have to bring in an entire package. Um, and so depending on who we chose and what we wanted to do, we could certainly look at ways to break this up a little bit differently.
But one of the things, um, I think that, uh, is is important to call out here is it's a wide range, right? 62 to $200,000. That's a pretty significant jump. Um, I think this is the difference between getting someone who is very
strategic planning focused and also has a lot of that rigor from a compliance and uh if you've heard of Baldridge, you may have heard Devon has talked about that in a number of ways and some of the communities she's worked in has been Baldridge certified and so this would be
potentially be able to bring in a company and an organization to bring us to that level in terms of of certification compliance with regard to strategic planning. process. Um the alternate to that is a company that actually many of the communities around
us are using. Um Collaborative Labs is their name. Um they have actually uh worked at Treasure, Duned Eden, Tarpon, Hillsboro. I mean almost there's I can't find a community they haven't worked at. Um where they do a lot of facilitation for communities like us um but it's not
quite as rigorous in terms of that um compliance uh side of things. So again, we can talk a lot more about those pieces and parts and what makes sense depending on directionally what you guys want to see from here. Option B, as I mentioned, would be just really us
continuing to do what we do. We're we're already working through a lot of the metrics um and the KPIs as a team. So we would continue to refine that. Of course, we would try to preserve some momentum, right? We want to move this along, but clearly it's it's going to have to be prioritized with everything
else. Um I still think that the community input is critical and so we'd have to find a way to bring that to bear uh even if we chose to go with option B. And so option B doesn't have a plan for that right now. So we would have to go off and kind of sit together and think through that.
So option C uh is really our recommended approach which would be more of a hybrid path in for this process. It gets us um a little bit more direct uh engagement with workshop, community, focus group,
surveys, compiling all that information, doing all the analysis and bringing that information to bear to our conversations with you all, the community, and ourselves. Um what we would get by doing this is obviously uh the community voice which we're after
potentially the third party credibility of having an outside entity still help facilitate some of this process right sometimes it's they're neutral there's no bias they're not anchored to other existing priorities and projects and initiatives that we we all are so you know someone may perceive or maybe
perceive that there's a value to that neutral kind of unbiased uh facilitation we would get the tangible artifacts uh for the community facing deliverables. Um obviously it wouldn't just be internal planning documents and internal planning processes. And then of course
we would still be able to continue to preserve the momentum we've gotten, but hopefully we would exponentially accelerate uh some of the planning to bring the community along with the process. If we chose to do that, we made a recommendation here of some of the olive cart options that I had talked
about uh a minute ago with having a commit a commission priority workshop. uh the surveys that should say 200 uh respondents. So that's a typo. Um and that's an estimate um that may come down the 4,000 there that you see on that line item. And then we could potentially
do less than one two focus groups. We could do one if we felt that was enough and that would potentially bring that dollar amount down. And then of course if we decided we wanted to go through the visioning and strategies as a team then we would have a process to do that which would bring in you could see there
up to 40 stakeholders. So it' be a full facilitation we could bring staff um you know commission leadership and and so on. Um, so what we're looking for is a little bit of guidance. Certainly, you know, there was a lot said, so if there's questions that you, you know,
you want to get more information about something, but we're looking for some guidance andor direction if there's more you want to know about any of this, uh, that we need to go off and do to bring back. I think that's probably a Oh, sorry. This last slide is a kind of a comparison. It's really just another
depiction of what you just saw line by line. Um if we went with option A and C at the top, you can see we've got the priority workshop goes with A and C. So that's the full or the hybrid. Um the only two that don't roll up to that would be the phase two and phase three
um where it's a only. So, if we do the full turnkey uh outsource for for bringing strategic planning in, some of those items roll up, but it's still the hybrid option at the 40k if you went with everything that I outlined in that prior slide or anywhere from the 62 to
197 if we went the full turnkey with an outside entity to help us. And I think that's it. What's in the appendix is a lot more detail about that benchmarking and some of the other other stuff. So, questions or concerns, comments.
Happy to answer. >> Mr. Maldonado, >> I think I was the only one that was smart enough to put this up for the uh Q&A, so I'll go first. So, um, first of all, let me say thank you. I know that this is not easy. A lot of it is notional and it you know when you're talking about strategy
you're talking about not just a plan but an actual living operational document. So it's hard to envision where we want to go when we're starting from scratch. I will say that I do lean towards the hybrid approach that I think that you know not only will this ensure community
alignment uh more importantly it allows us to have an unbiased approach otherwise it strictly is you know staff leadership in the commission without that community uh alignment I think that we're not doing ourselves a service we want this to outlast the present commission future commissions but we
want this to be a long-term operational planning document speaking for myself thank Yeah, I have a few questions. So, I agree with the community engagement comment that Commissioner Maldmano just made. So, but um I think it's the
process that we use for that. So I would be very interested in a industry standard process rather than something that we make up because you know the you mentioned structure and focus as part of
the the process of community input. But I can see where those kind of things go wrong. Like I don't get the 2% uh input that you talked about. That's 200 people are basically telling us what the community thinks. That doesn't really make sense to me. I think it
would be better to go with the commission input than 200 people from the community because I I don't understand the process, I guess, of how we would really have a would it be a random sampling from the community? Do you understand how these things work?
>> Yeah, we haven't gone into grave detail about what that survey we I think we get to shape that ourselves about what we want that to look like. Um, so we can have as much input to that as possible. Um, but we would also if we leverage either of these organizations, they're
very familiar with these processes and they're this is what they do and all they do. So I think they would be able to give us more guidance around the best approach to implementing those surveys, any of the focus groups andor the workshops with the commission and other
leadership. >> Okay. I've got a few more questions, but I'll stop for >> Absolutely. Okay. >> Yeah. >> I don't I don't know how we turn these things on. >> Yeah. You listen. Is it okay? Just speak when you're I'll kind of look and just kind of nod at me and I'll go. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So,
>> smart enough to pick. I was commission. >> Grab grab your little uh >> Did you grab those? I don't >> Where's the Q things at? >> There is. >> Oh, they might have they might be sitting uh maybe getting charged. They're probably behind your screens there. Apologies. >> Probably charging.
>> Right. We're not smart enough. Do I need >> There we go. >> Mayor, so I'll turn it over. [laughter] I I don't I don't I guess I >> Oh, good. >> Okay. So, I have I have a couple of um a couple of questions, a couple of comments. So, um
I I guess in in your experience or in the city manager's experience, is is moving forward with something like this um more than what we've done? In your experience, do you see that as being something that that has value? And
you know, because the important thing is what is the end result, right? Like the important thing is not a strategic plan for its own sake or a strategic plan for a beautiful strategic plan sake. It's it's will it create a better outcome where either things are functioning
better in the city or the community is happier or we're more efficient with our dollars. I mean does does this sort of thing generally result in a better outcome? >> I'm going to say absolutely yes. I haven't worked in an organization.
you are going to realize a high performance very highly focused um if you use it. The key is you create the plan you if you create it properly which you're hearing us say they don't work
unless you have community input and you have your employee input because the employees have to deliver and they got to get bought in and we need to know what the community really wants. Um and the key is that they stand the test of time. So you want to minimize disruption in
that focus and when you onboard new commissioners if you have a very focused path to say this is what we've developed and it's not you know it wasn't um anchored in pet projects or the the exciting
project of the week. it it's really anchored in a longer term vision and and once you get that momentum they're very very very effective and and I do think cities perform better they make better financial decisions
um they tend to uh be u much more fiscally solvent and and so it just brings kind of brings it all full circle so you can see the big picture. >> Okay, thank you. And then um I think I
was going to comment about Commissioner Kazzy's um questions about the number of residents who were involved or or feedback from number of residents and um you know my comment about that would be that that one I don't know that we can compel
uh as high a percentage of people as we might like to be involved or to respond to some kind of survey. you know, there's there's there's going to be some percent of people that that will be able to get involved um no matter what our best intentions are [laughter]
of of getting feedback from um from community members. My my concern would be more that that we make sure that whatever community input we get is as broad as possible and as much as possible from the people we don't normally hear from. I think we can all
tell you what about 25 or 30 people in the city that we hear from all the time think is important. Um, you know, I know what those people think and I know that those people would be very would very much want to be involved in in the process of a strategic plan and being
involved. What I'd really like to know is what 200 people that I've never heard from think in the city. And so again, because we can't compel people to to be involved or to let us know their opinions, um, you know, to me, the the tricky part
would be, you know, getting input from the people we don't normally hear from and getting more of a general feeling of what does the community at large, what what is the community at large concerned with, not just what are the people that um are most vocal
concerned with. Commissioner Robinson, please. >> So, I I totally get the need for a strategic plan. What did we have before? >> Well, I've been here just over three years. Um when I got here, there was um
a little bit of a process. I I remember distinctly sitting down uh with prior leadership. They pulled up a deck. There was strategic areas and a spreadsheet tracking some of the high level initiatives. Um, I do remember there was probably one or two presentations when I had just recently joined um where we
brought some of that to to the commission for discussion, but outside of that, I'm not sure what was really done on a consistent basis or more thoroughly. Um, >> so you're saying we really didn't have a strate or we haven't in the history of St. Pete Beach, we haven't had a
strategic plan. >> Okay. [laughter] Um, fair enough. I mean, in in my time, I haven't seen anything of significance. >> Okay. >> And now, even though we've staffed up more so than we've ever been,
>> we lack the bandwidth to do this ourselves. Is um so not necessarily right. The way I'm looking at it is we we actually do have some bandwidth otherwise I wouldn't be able to present to you what I'm presenting today, which is hopefully, you know, good information for you all
to start thinking about as we go forward. So, we do have some capacity. I think what we're really lacking is dedicated resources to bring the community voice forward. Um, we don't have anybody that's this is their sole focus. >> When you're talking community voice,
define that. What kind of community voice are we looking for? Are we looking for comp plan? Because we already have a comp plan and we went through that where we were going to redo it and then we couldn't do it because it's SB180. Now, are we talking for capital improvement
projects? Because right now, as I see our city, maybe I'm wrong, but we are still recovering from a hurricane. And there's basic 101 infrastructure items that we need to do before we start some other capital improvement visioning
process that I think which is what we're looking at here, right? Going through, right? Okay. and we thought we all could tackle this, but now we're saying we can't tackle this. Is that is that what I'm hearing? Because I don't really know know what I'm hearing to be honest with you from a
strategic plan. Um I get that we need one, but um I I don't know where we're where we're driving from how difficult it could be to get We're looking at a few things here. We're looking at our infrastructure and we're
looking at at least getting out of our hurricane devastation side of things and getting back to more normal and and being able to provide basic city 101 items to our residents.
So, I'm not sure what else we're looking for to get feedback from our residents. And I'm just going to say for the 42,000 where was 40,000 on one slide now it's 42. So the $42,000 what are we going to cut out to pay for
that? Because that's kind of where we're at. We're looking at looking at a budget and we're knocking things off. So where are we coming for with the 42,000 for if that's where we're going or the 197,000? I just hate to get in something with 42 and then next year get hit up again for
another 42 and the year after that for another 40. Oh, sorry. There's been a price increase 50 for that. A and again this is an estimate on what this is going to be. >> So can we not design in house our own at least an initial survey to our residents
for what we're looking for for visioning? I I mean we've got to have maybe 10 items here that we're going to say what are your priorities? Pick your top five. Pick your top four. I mean I think we can do that from a city standpoint.
>> Understood. And I think we have if if we don't I know what we have smart enough people in this city that have marketing backgrounds that could probably volunteer some time to maybe put together something that we could put out. >> Yeah, that is my input. I'm not trying
to be a Scrooge. I'm not saying I'm just saying we are under tight constraints and I'm not really understanding why we can't accomplish what we what we've always accomplished. And um if it's gotten more difficult or less difficult, I mean, I know we're putting
dashboards in place and that's where we're looking at these metrics and things to that effect and that's great and that's something that needs if we're saying that's what we need the help with, then say that's what we need the help with, not everything else. >> Yeah,
>> I'm a cut to the chase person. I'm always cut to the chase scene. Just want to know the bottom line on it. So, are we looking at help with the dashboard and get the KPIs or what are we looking at exactly? >> So, I don't think we're looking right now for help with the ca the dashboards and the KPIs. I think we're looking for
help to drive the process. And so, um all the things that you just described are 100% valid and true. Um they they all make sense to me and we are working towards this process whether we bring help in from outside or not. We're going to keep working towards this because
there is value in doing it. I think what we were looking for is potentially if you all saw enough value to accelerate it and bring in an outside entity to help with some of that. Um that's partially why I you know I didn't want
to come here and say let's go and you know do option A and do a turnkey process and spend $200,000. You know, I mean in fairness I don't want to stand here and sound tonedeaf. We understand the the challenges this community is facing. Um and it's very important to be
fiscally, you know, responsible about every single decision and every single dollar that we use and for service delivery. So I think where we would get a lot of value is to accelerate the process. To your point, can we do our own survey? Can we deliver something like that and do our own analysis? We
certainly can and doesn't this isn't going to preclude us from doing that. If you all choose to go that route and stay with option B, it it does not mean we will not work on those things. It just will likely not be in an accelerated fashion there. It may take us a little bit longer because we won't have dedicated people working.
>> So, we could pick this up at any other time. >> We could try it out on our own and then we could pick this up later. >> You could absolutely you could. >> Thank you. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay, I'm gonna jump in. I usually let everybody get all their questions out, but I'm going to jump in just because I I'm hearing a few things and I I uh I
will say that I would anticipate that any surveys that we do will be statistically valid and you know these companies do that. I' I've I've worked uh for Neielson for example in the TV rating side and I know that they do surveys of thousands of people off of you know hundreds of people right so I
think it's statistically valid if assuming they have the right technologies. I will say this, I'm I'm listening to what my other fellow commissioners certainly to my right specifically are saying is is uh you know, we've got um I certainly would love to hear the voice of the of the of the people
that we don't get emails from all the time and don't have sitting in this room as well. I think we we lack um some input from people that uh that either whatever their rationale is, they don't come and sit in the room with us, they don't they don't email us, but they they do have an opinion about the future of
our city. And uh I think they're, you know, assuming we could get a statistically valid survey. And if I'm looking down and saying $4,000, that seems reasonable to make sure that we get community input into our decision making process. Um do I think that we need to spend the whole 42? I'm not
quite sure, frankly. I'm I'm of the mindset this is a short let's make sure that we gather community input. Let's make sure that we've got a a good process to analyze that and say we think that uh you know community tells us these are the the top two or three things you know and can can do a little
deeper analysis into it. Do I think we need to go as far as some of these other things in here? I don't even on the hybrid path to be frank with you. I'm for me I'm looking at you know four to four to 11 you know whether I don't I don't know that I need a commissioner workshop. I'll bet you we all kind of kind of have heard enough about what we
we we kind of personally feel and what I think we get we get all the same emails. I think as a general rule we get a lot of the same emails. So I think for me it's it's a much more slimmed version of this hybrid. But to me the only really the primary thing I would personally love to hear is is what uh Commissioner
Marriott said as well is is uh uh a survey that gets to the people that we don't hear from every time. Right. Um, and with regards to how many that is, I theoretically I I you know, I imagine we could uh survey uh and I'm making this up, but I'm just
saying, you know, if we're worried about the sample size, we could survey 400 and then pick a random 200 out of it, right? And do an analysis on the random 200. If we don't get enough people, we want 200, we don't get 200 on our asking of 200. We ask 400, we'll get 220, and then we
pick a random 200 out of there. Right? So, I think there's ways to do this um that would give us input. And I listen, I I'm not afraid of the 4,000 number. I'm afraid of the 42,000 number for what Commissioner Robinson said. We've got we've got really important money decisions to make here. And I'd rather
be very frugal about what we do with something that either we can do on our own, you know, with more time or accelerating at least to feel comfortable that we understand that the community is is at least given us some input through some mechanism. That's so me, I'm I'm looking at a hybrid of about
$4 to $10,000 kind of thing. Not a not a hybrid at 42,000 personally. Um that's just my recommendation here. Um because I do want to understand what the community is saying and make sure that we hear different voices, but I don't think we need $42,000 to to feel like we've got a a vetted set of data.
>> Fair enough. >> Um I know there were other questions. I don't know which of you came first. summit. I believe it's we'd be looking at a a you know audience of about 10% of the population or the properties >> we could about 10% most of the analysis
I've done but it we we could get some very specifics was in the 3 to 5% range 3 to 8% range but if we could get I mean it would be great if we could get 10% right that that would be fantastic. >> Yeah. I don't know which one of you gentleman's first
>> I'll go first. Mine will be brief. So, I I echo the comments of the uh mayor in terms of cutting this down to the basic uh needs versus wants, you know. Um but to uh Commissioner Robinson's, I guess
questions stand with bandwidth, you know, I do have concerns with overtasking the staff with more strategic stuff when they're so focused on tactical and operational level things. So I think that's that you were talking a little bit more about the operational tactical level stuff you
know in terms of what it is that we need to be doing now the focus on this is in you know endstates right it's trying to find the uh the means and the ways to get to those end states but my number one concern is to have a nonbiased
approach and I think that if staff does that that we're going to have blind spots it's a cultural thing as well you know each commission has its direction and I would say even direct ctional uh input to the staff and this has to be a
very long-term you know beyond us uh approach. So I do think that if we find the right balance in how much money that we want to invest in this that the return on investment will be worth you know the uh the squeeze but again 42,000 that that would be all the bells and
whistles. We probably don't need that. Uh it is it is a valid point that we need to be very mindful of where we're spending money, how much money, but I I I'm just really concerned with the unbiased approach on this. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Commissioner Cy.
>> Well, just coming through the election process going to every door in district three. It's like 1,700 doors. And I would say I probably talked to 80% of the people and a lot of them more than one time. and I heard the same two or
three things from every single door. So I understand I that I have a good sampling but I would not have very much confidence at all if I just picked randomly even um 10 2% of those and went
and asked them about it and until I found 2% of in the district that I would get any version of the same information that I have. So I think the structure and focus of the thing is what's important and and everything that
everyone said is exactly true. I agree with every single thing that we've set up here. So uh maybe it's true that a professional approach would work, but I don't know about this sample. And then how I agree with Commissioner Robinson, for example, I think that is pretty
clear from what I've heard from our district that people are most frustrated about uh storm water and uh permitting. So, and I don't know if it's we were faced
with those challenges. That's the biggest expenses we have. It's pretty obvious that's where we need to figure out how to skin that cat. if you would. So, um I think that's it for me then.
>> Let's just uh >> Is there an option D? >> Yeah. So far, >> I think there is an option D. >> I I think we need to talk about an option D, right? Which is absolutely for me. I think it's well listen I'm going to I'm going to try and facilitate here and I don't know if this is appropriate
for my role but I I think uh I think to me it's some subset of option C and I say a subset um that provides enough value provides enough um um transparency and and
unbiased you know kind of research but not overdone from a fiscal perspective and lets us hear new voices right and so I think for me That's where the value kind of comes through. I think for me if we can't do our own survey I I'm just looking at the four of these the four of
these options and and by the way the survey is also the the least expensive and I think personally I think the most valuable personally uh so you know I'm a fan of including at least the survey whether that's we do it in house or whether we outside source it. I would suspect if we try to do it in house, we
don't have the expertise and sample size and and those kind of things that would be relevant to get done here. Um, so for me, I think I think opt the item two under option C is a viable piece. I'm I'm less convinced that the others are
are critical or needed. >> To me, it's completely fair and makes sense. And what I love about this the whole proposal and the discussion is it's completely allocart. Everything here is inter, you know, interchangeable. we can choose what we feel is most relevant, most valuable to
the current, you know, process and where we are. Um, and you know, you can also choose to not go that route and continue on the path that we're on. And I want you to know we're going to continue to work those the entire process, right, to the best of our ability. And and we're not putting it down. We're just saying it won't move as fast. And so, um, that
I think that's the beauty of having it so all cart like this. >> And I I think just to point out this is part of the process tonight. >> Yes. Y >> because if you're not bought into our approach then a year down the road and we get asked well why didn't you think of
option E >> right >> or C EFG um so we're in this together and being transparent up front on the process and that we're all rowing in the same boat >> right >> and then we can pivot as we go together
not um any blind spots from staff or the team or the commission >> and I will echo a little bit of what what Commissioner Causy said. I mean, I I got the benefit in the last three months of going most of the island, right? And so, um you know, I heard a lot of the same things and and um you
know, I suspect if we did a survey that was broad enough and and statistically valid enough that we would hear hopefully hear the same kind of things. If not, then we would question the the validity of the survey, right? >> We would. Yeah. >> Uh so, you know, I think I think there's some value there. I think that also, you know, I know one of the things that's
maybe stated and I'll just restate it here. Uh, you know, now we've got we've got uh commission input, we've got uh we've got input from staff and now we've got input from the community. If we pull one more piece in, again, I will suggest the survey might be a piece to pull in. And I've always not only this strategic
thing, I would love to find us a way to kind of survey the community at basic intervals on whatever we're discussing, not just the strategic plan. Right. Right. >> And so where should where should we be going on these different topics? So, I would love to a way to find I'd love to find a way to be able to gather
community input on a regular basis and perhaps a survey might give us a way to understand how to do that for future endeavors as well. >> That's a really great call out. >> Okay. >> Uh I'm sorry, Commissioner Robinson, didn't see you. >> Well, I believe too that um
the strategic vision is going to change to once we fully get to a recovered state. So, uh, that will change as well. >> Yeah, that's fair. >> All right. All right. Well, I definitely know we have some action items to, you
know, go back to the drawing board on a few things. Um, discuss internally, uh, direction here. Um, but I think we've gotten a really a lot of great feedback. Um, I really appreciate you guys, you know, that's that's the whole point is to bring it forward to let you all weigh in and and let us know what you want to do. Um, and I think we're we've laid the
foundation, so we'll be in a good position to figure that out from here. >> Thank you. Do you have the information you need or do you need any? >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> All right. Thank you. >> Very much appreciate your time and I know these aren't easy to put together. So, we appreciate all the staff work on these. So, thank you. >> Thanks.
Right. Good afternoon, Mayor and Commission. My name is Devin Schmidt. I'm the finance director for the city of St. Pete Beach. I'm here to take you through our budget workshop number two. So, what we have on the agenda today is um we're going to give you an overview of the property tax landscape. Um since
we had some changes last last week in regards to that, we're going to be looking as we uh continue to um build out this budget. We're inviting you into the the kitchen, if you will, um to help us determine what recipes we need, what ingredients we need, and how we want to
build out this budget. So, we're going to be looking for feedback from you all on the rankings of our CIP projects, and I'm going to turn it over to our public services director, Camden Mill, to take you through that. We're going to be looking for a revenue strategy direction um that has the
finance budget review committee recommendations, and then we're going to share our strategy of building the fiscal year 27 budget. So, starting off, um, we're looking at this briefing is just going to walk the commission through the property tax constitutional amendment, um, that
passed the legislature on June 2nd. Um, what it means specifically for St. Pete Beach, and this is an information item only. We don't need any action from you, uh, this afternoon. So, what legislature passed, this isn't everything in what passed, but this is really the headlines of what we're
looking at. Um the homestead exemption is climbing from today's 50,000 to 150,000 next year and 250,000 in 2028. Um but that's really only on the non-school portion of the bill. A change was made in the committee that protects school district taxes from being cut
which approximately um created that statewide revenue impact. It cut it in half. The two other pieces that matter for us is the is the cap and how fast non-homestead assessments can rise. um that drops from 10% to 5%. And new residents have to
wait um five years before they get that bigger exemption. Um so this will be on the November ballot and we'll need a 60% um uh approval to pass. So this impacts our uh city in two ways. Um and it's important to kind of
separate those out. So first, the bigger exemption shrinks the taxable base. So we collect the same um we we collect less, I'm sorry, at the same millillage. it only touches our homesteaded properties um which we know is is at about 39% of all of our parcels. Second,
the comparison um or the companion bill that was implemented is how we set the rate. So it pins the simple majority ceiling to that rolled back rate and strips out that growth factor that's used to let that levy drift up every year. So to raise the revenue back up,
the commission would need uh to have a supermajority vote, four out of five or a referendum. So these are our city figures from the Penllis Countyy's uh revenue dashboard and specific to the city of St. Pet St. Pete Beach. Um at today's rate, the city
collects about 15.2 million in property taxes. This exemption increases the cost to about 1.1 million in 2027 or roughly 7% and about 1 uh 6 million in 2028. That's just under 11%. The reason why um
is because our tax base is again that 61% taxable is non- homestead. So that's going to be our hotels, our vacation rentals, and our second homes, which will keep paying the uh property taxes in full. The exemption only erodess at that 39% um that is homesteaded. And
that's uh why we're showing these figures. It's important to note that we are tracking this pretty closely. Um, and these numbers are shifting. So, if you've seen different ones through the Florida League of Cities, um, or other places, uh, we're going off of what the property appraiser has. That's our best
information that we can point to today. Next slide. Um, so the data that we have here was gathered um, using any of our uh, approved commission agendas. Um, so what that and then we also looked at what our current revenue is and
forecasted that against the Penllis County's property appraisers website. Um, and so the point of this slide is really to show you while we track kind of our current fiscal landscape, we're also tracking any potential growth. Um, this would be a 20-year look and revenues would not be recognized unless
these are redeveloped. But regardless, we know we are a city that is doing a lot of redevelopment and we expect some revenue growth. And this really plays into when we're looking at how we're going to strategically fund infrastructure and as well this plays into the current potential changes with
our property taxes. So this is an illustrative um de uh slide for you so you're able to kind of see what what we're tracking and how we're forecasting out. So with the bill um previously property taxes or advalorum could have been
utilized for anything that this commission would um dedicate them to. Um this changes that in the sense that we can only use it for the purposes that are listed there for public safety, natural resources, education and schools, bonds and debt service,
infrastructure, and employee retirement. Um and you can see here that we have um on the slides there that are listed in gold. A lot of that section represents our internal services departments. Um so we were already in the process of building out a cost allocation model and
so that will be part of this budget process as well. Um since many of these support functions are required by either statute or operational necessity. Um these are indirect costs that we'll uh be putting forward as part of the budget process, but we just wanted you to be
able to see um that this is some of the nuances that we're tracking with this. So what this means for our budget building, um I've talked about the gap. Uh we have that higher approval threshold that's required to pass an increase. Um so anything above that
rolled back rate and the rolled back rate um is the millage rate that would generate the same property tax revenue as the prior year using the new year's taxable values excluding any new construction additions or improvements. Um quality of life and administrative
services may require different different revenue sources um as we're looking at this budget. So, as those total property tax dollars fall and restrictions on what we can use those for, uh, the funding for library, resident services, and administration must come from other sources. So, either parking revenue or
cost allocations as a few examples. Um, budget balancing strategies. We'll be looking at expenditure reductions, um, fees. We've talked a lot about the fees with right sizing our enterprise funds to eliminate that property tax subsidy for all of our enterprise funds. Um, of course, the commission, so they choose,
could increase the millillage. Um, and we would could look at exploring reducing capital project funding. Um, and we have that slide that we'll talk about a little bit later on for our revenue options. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Camden Mills, our public services
director, to take you through um our capital improvement plan. >> Before you leave, Devin, do you have any questions? Sorry for for Devon. >> Commissioner Marriott. >> Yeah, I have a um a couple questions for
you, Devin. Um the first one on the on the slide that um shows what the revenue from new development or redevelopment would be. So am I reading that correctly that like just the Sarata development would pay for would the the increase in
tax revenue would be about half of what we would be losing >> correct >> if the if the budget or if the adorum exemption passes in November. >> Yes. Okay. >> No no no she's not reading it right. >> No >> no so the current tax is 401. You use
SRA as the example. >> Okay. Okay. So, the new tax 170 more >> 2000. It's not >> the new tax number isn't the additional. It's just >> correct. Okay. >> Sorry. >> Thank you manager. >> All right. Um Okay. Thank you. And then
um my other question for you is the the roll back rate historically the roll back rate is the rate that allows you to collect the same amount of money even with changing in property values. Right. So, how is that going to or do we know yet how that
would be affected by a higher exemption? Like if the if if that passes in November and the the exemption is higher, is that roll back I mean the roll back rate can't possibly be high enough to keep our revenue the same as
it was before? So what I mean do do we have any idea what we would anticipate how how that's going to get managed or or who is it the county that sets the roll back rate? >> It is it is the county and we get that figure on July 1st. Um so at our next workshop we'll be talking a lot about um
property taxes and what that looks like. Um if we get anything in advance of that um we just intend to try to share this information with you all. Um, this was hot off the press last week and um, part of the delay of the presentation, so we apologize for that, but um, with all of
these changes, we just want to make sure we're keeping you informed. >> Sure. Yeah. Well, and that wouldn't that wouldn't come into play for a whole another year if that were to pass in November. So, I was just I was just curious if there had been any. >> Not that I've heard of >> talking about what what that would look
like. It will probably be higher than the typical roll back rate posted exemption. >> You typically have a higher >> potential millage rate. >> Yeah. >> And you can't exceed that now unless you have super majority under the statute
too. You'll have to have a super majority, but it'll be a higher number you can go to. >> Currently, you can go to a higher than roll back rate with a super majority, but now you'll need it just to exceed the roll back rate. I think it was 120 130% or 110% more, but now it's just
going to be the roll back rate. >> Yep. Okay. Thank you. >> I have a question for you, please. Just clarification on uh back one slide, I think it was. Uh Commissioner Merritt, two more. I'm sorry. Right here. There. This one. Thank you.
>> Um right. what we said is the kind of in the the gold the new tax per year um essentially what you're telling me is I have to I have to take new tax per year minus current tax to get what the delta is right um even at that I'm I think I'm
looking at 2.2 two million delta, you know, overall once all this comes to play just to to make sure that we're at least aligned. And then I'm I'm reading the the right side to say any additional development. This is traditionally what we'd expect annually on a traditional development of midscale, upscale or
luxury, right? Okay. And then I one more question for you that 207 to 1.14 billion. Will you please just maybe go a little more detail on that and help me understand what that's conveying? um that's talking about our uh total uh taxable value um across those five
projects. So when you're looking at how that millillage it's every 1 million in new taxable value equals about 3,91 uh per year to the city. >> Okay. So where's where's what's the 1.14 billion imply? That's maybe what I'm
trying to understand where that that's going to >> that's the value of those five hotels. Oh, 207 million off of 1.14 billion value. >> Took the five and you put them on fair market value. How much are these hotels worth and you added them4 >> after they're redeveloped?
>> Yes. >> Yeah. Are you assuming that the 1.14 billion is the assessed taxable value? Is that what you're alluding to or >> right correct >> proposed new based on the investment in the redevelopment the value of >> okay >> based on the 1.14 billion assessment
assumed we would assume to get 207 million >> something like 200 million a hotel >> okay >> what they're worth >> okay thank you Mr. Robinson.
>> Um, and I just want to point out to everybody the trade winds is 20 years and we don't see that until we don't realize the revenue till the end of 20 years. >> Yes. >> Well, it would be it would be it would it would be incremented in as different
stages of the process of the of the project were finished because it would be reassessed. >> Correct. This is a 20-year forecast, >> right? based on the approval of projects 20 year >> and it does get reassessed every year just like >> right the both the tradewinds and the
Sarata would I mean though those you know that's that's income that's being held up in lawsuits so we you know >> understood >> interest what the growth rate did you use on that >> um so when we Looking at the growth
rate, we were just looking at for every $1 million it would it's just it's taking that $3,91 um a year to the city and that's how we're arriving at that um utilizing the Penllis County's um website. You can go
in there and look at under their advanced search and see every property. And so it's taking that with um what the commission has approved and then it is creating a forecast for us. Now we know forecast um even over 3 years starts to
get blurry and so looking at a 20 year I wouldn't you know I wouldn't um say that these are definitive and this is what we're going to land with but it's certainly um just wanted to provide any redo new development um you know when publics if if that comes back online or
or any of those redevelopment projects come back online we're going to recognize more additional revenue to the city >> right and same with the homes Yes. >> Well, unless the homes Yeah. I mean, the the the the homesteaded homes that are
that are being rebuilt by people who are their property tax aren't going to go up at all because of the disaster provision from the from the tax assessor. So, the only increase in is is homes that are selling. Right. >> Right. purchases and rebuilds for >> and we don't know how many of those
homes that were second homes that maybe weren't homesteaded will turn into primary houses that are then homesteaded. Also, >> Commissioner Cy, >> I just wanted to highlight uh orders of magnitude here. So, we're talking about
a cut due to the homestead would be working towards up to or 1.6 6 million less and then over a 20-year period we'd be working up towards uh 2.1 extra million dollars because of
redevelopment, >> right? But then we are trying to do hurricane recovery and drainage and storm water and wastewater. And we're looking at over that same period of time about $250 million. And maybe just for
next year, I've heard numbers between 37 million and $60 million. So, I don't think that the cuts due to the property taxes or the increases of redevelopment over that
period of time we're talking about are really going to solve our biggest problems that we have. That's just a highlighted point I wanted to make. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. Thank you. I'll be back up in a moment.
All right, I want to just set the stage for and introduce Camden Mills, public services director. Um, he's going to walk you through tonight the uh prioritization list of the current capital project list. And tonight I'm
hoping to keep you all at the very high policy level of helping us um guide whether generally the projects that are listed on here are um that you
agree that they should continue to be funded and continue to be invested in or not. And so that's th this this exercise tonight is to help us create funding for fiscal year 27, not solve
for 20 years of infrastructure. So whatever you fund means we're going to start working on it or we're going to continue working on it with an eye towards another workshop someday to help us solve for our 200 million plus
infrastructure deficit. And with that, I'll turn it over to Camden. >> Thank you. Um, so as we get into these rankings, uh, just to give a little bit of background here. So we had, um, 10 different scoring criteria, um, that each of the the projects were ran
through. Um, so you can see those at the bottom of this slide here and their associated point weight. Um, in total, there was about 100 100 points total um, that were evaluated. Um, couple things to note. You know, this isn't isn't a perfect science. um the you know the criteria tries to encompasses as many
nuances that we need to consider as possible but of course there's there's going to be some nuances that that we can't capture but at least this gives us a a consistent framework and a structure that that we can evaluate from. Um two as as city manager mentioned uh we really need you know commission's
feedback in in your direction on priorities um to make sure that that we're aligned um as we move through uh proposing a budget in in the next coming months. And then um lastly, just note, you know, if a project wasn't scored very high, it doesn't mean that it's not
needed. Um it's it's it's all relative. Um so let's keep that in mind is that a low rank doesn't necessarily mean it's not a project needed. Um everything that's kind of on these list for one reason or another was outlined as as a need. Um so today, um what what we're looking
for is is one really to validate the rankings. Um do do you kind of confirm with with where these projects shook out? um or do we need to dive a little bit deeper and and sharpen our pencil to make sure that our rankings are aligned with um with commission's priorities. Um
next would be to direct staff tradeoffs. Um so tell us you know where what projects you want to defer, what projects um we absolutely need to keep and and kind of give that insight there which will help us as we're matching our um our planned expenses up to revenues and then ultimately developing a a
proposed budget and and with that as I mentioned confirming u must fund items items that um are absolutely necessary either based on safety or or regulatory mandate. Um so we we kind of categorize these into three different buckets. um high
ranked projects uh which is 60 above and then we went into a moderate ranked project and then a lower ranked project. Um so these um that are in this first category there's about 25 of them. Um and these are the ones that in that 100 point scoring would have um resulted in
60 or above. Um this list here u this just shows um some some various different information for the project. So on the far hand far left hand side is the ranking sorry far left hand side is is the rankings and
then your project names um where the funds come from um for these projects whether that's a capital general fund or if that's um associated with our enterprise fund such as storm water wastewater reclaim um what the various rank was for those projects and then uh
the fisc year 26 revised budget column that shows what the current budget is uh for that project. the fiscal year 26 estimated um endofear actuals. Um currently that's what we're estimating that we're going to spend out of this budget. Um being that you know we're
we're just a few months towards the end of this fiscal year where we're at currently this is what we're projecting. the fiscal year 26 through 27 reappropriation column. Um that represents the amount of of current budgeted fiscical year 26 funds that we
would recommend to reappropriate into the next fiscal year. Um and and typically that is done um to continue a project that that's already active. And then um further to the right there is fiscal year 27 new appropriation. So that's actually the new funding
requests. So, if it's not, you know, something that's already in our budget that we're just asking to reappropriate, if this is new money, um that that's where that falls into that column. And then where you see highlighted green, um that's a summation of the of the previous two columns where you're
looking at what's being reappropriated from the prior budget and what is being asked new uh for fiscal year 27. Um, and then going further to the right here, that seven-year column, that's just an outlook of what the project in total would cost over a seven-year
period. Um, at the time, you know, we adopt budget um on an annual basis, year-byear, but our capital improvement plan is typically a five-year program. Um, but in this budget analysis, we're we're taking that out an additional two years um to see what those costs would
be. And then um the last uh four columns there if the project is associated with either a grant or a state or federal appropriation that we have either been awarded or applied for. Uh we noted uh what that was in there. Um gave a description of the grant, the funding,
and then the type. Um, in addition to this presentation, um, you should each have a handout that in includes a few additional columns in there. Um, that would note if the project is either one-time or reoccurring. Um, so an example there would be, you know, our
wastewater pump station one. It's it's a multi-year project, but that's a that's a one-year project until we upgrade that asset service life, and we won't have to think about that, you know, for for several for several years. Um whereas you have a wastewater system cleaning and inspection project, that's something
that's going to be reoccurring um year after year. Um so we wanted to note just so you have an idea of if that's a one time or a reoccurring. Um we added a column of of what an estimate um operation and maintenance cost would be. Um just to give you an idea that you know just because we spent the capital
and we got the asset put in place there there's ongoing costs associated with that. Um, so these numbers aren't aren't exact, but it gives you a good order of magnitude of what to expect of of whether that asset has some ongoing maintenance longterm or not. Um, we noted whether this was a new asset or an
existing asset. Um, so that lets you know is is this, you know, an end of useful life type of replacement for something we already have or is this a new type of asset that that we don't currently have that that we're looking to add. Um, what the estimated service life would be for that asset. Um so we
can kind of think you know pump station one we would hope that facility as a whole you know would be in place for for around 40 years. Um so that that's just an example there. And then the total project cost of if this is um some of the longer range projects uh for instance our our wastewater collection
system. Um that's going to be our long-term INI project. We have a five-year plan. We show you the seven-year outlook but we're projecting that program right now out through year 2042. Um, so what does that value look like in in the long term? Some other projects where that that total project
cost is is relevant and needs to be considered is our shoreline protection improvements project. Um, that's rehabilitating all of the cityowned um seaw walls and shorelines throughout the city. Um, currently you'll see, you know, we're asking um, let's see, for next fiscal year of
of just over a million dollars. And then you can see in the five-year plan, we're asking for talking about >> shoreline protection improvements. 13 >> 13 U but in total of of that you know 5year period it it doesn't show what the full plan of that project would be. So
currently we have a seaw wall master plan that carries out to year 2038. In that program there's a total about $ 8.5 million worth of improvements. Um so really the idea of showing that total project cost is is giving you idea of of where some of the projects that we have
longer range plans for what those values are looking at. Um and then importantly our our resiliency adaptation projects as we get into those those are ones on your handout um that show the total project cost of what those would actually be carried out um from from those planning studies. So it's it is a
bigger value when you look at you know the total cost versus just just the five-year. Um but I'll get back in into the presentation now um now that we kind of defined what what these different columns um represent. Um, so you'll see on this page, this is the top 10 projects that that we sorted through and
ranked. Um, mostly tied to to either wastewater, storm water, um, or or critical facilities. Um, and and with each of these slides, I'll kind of go through cover some highlights and then I'll pause um, in case you guys have any comments. Um, but then again, at at the end, I'll open it
up for any questions or comments. Um, but before I move on, is anything on this slide? I I would say right off the bat that one thing that is confusing to me is when we say resiliency. I'm not sure if that includes storm water and it
seems like it does sometimes but then on the other hand then we have under the fund storm water storm water projects. So to me it would almost make more sense to break resiliency out so that we if we know where whether we're talking about storm water or wastewater or exactly
which type of resiliency we're talking about. Okay that's good feedback. Um as as is structured right now um what's shown in storm water is is trying to be existing assets. So, for instance, like your storm water system um storm water
system improvements project that that's rehabbing the existing storm water infrastructure that we do have. So, pipes, inlets, um tops, those kind of things, replacing that. Whereas in the resiliency type project, you'll see like the um Donsar resiliency adaptation that
is is more of the longer range plan where we're doing, you know, pump stations and and things like that. Um so, that that's kind of the separation there. Um but we're we're open to structure that as as you guys direct. >> Yeah. So okay, thanks for clarifying that. That is helpful to understand that
storm water classified as things that we already have that you're rehabbing and resiliency is implies new things that we're adding >> an increased level of service basically >> increased level of service. So it's still true though that I think that we'd
like to understand how the resiliency projects break out like is it a seaw wall? Is it a um storm water thing? Is it related to wastewater? >> Understood. Yeah. And then and we can break that out kind of project by project. Um we can we can try to clarify
that too in the description. Um for for some of those for instance um like that we can stay on the donsar resiliency adaptation that includes a little bit of everything. You know right now in that number they're looking at shorelines, they're looking at roadways, they're looking at storm water infrastructure.
So, it's kind of a multiaceted project. >> Yeah. And the resiliency projects are like 98 million. So, they completely dwarf any of this other stuff. >> They do. Yes. Yep. And and those, as I
mentioned before, those are projects um taken from prior studies that were done. Um right now, the city is underway with a watershed management master plan. Um that's a document that that's required in our comp plan. um really something that should be updated every 10 years and that's really your your storm water
cip um of what you have um that that plan isn't in place currently. We're we're developing that. So right now we're going off of the prior studies that that are in place as we're you know developing and and gathering new information. >> Yeah. And so from the feedback I've gotten, I would almost say that your
classification of resiliency is almost u in a lot of cases uh the new things that people want in uh from a drainage standpoint or maybe it's things they have now that
are inadequate. So it seems like there might be an overlap there. But the point is is that if we were to talk about um storm water, which is one of the biggest complaints that I've had, what part of that se that 98 million is
storm water? >> Okay. Because uh they need if you need something different than what you have now to solve the problem, then that's super super important according to the feedback I've had. >> Okay. I realize there's others. I I mean I I
ultimately I've asked I'd love I'd love to have the spreadsheet that I can just do your own filtering, right? Storm water plus new equals resiliency in storm water theoretically, right? Something like that. Theoretically, I'm just >> Yeah, I just want to understand what we're talking about when we say resiliency, especially since it dwarfs
everything else. >> It's a $98 million. So, >> can you go back to that one slide, please? >> Yes. In in terms of uh prioritization though, I would just submit to you that fire station 22, even though it's my
district, uh would be uh brought down to just above the facility elevators and where the other capital funded pro uh projects are. And that's just simply because we're well funded when it comes to the grants. Uh we have 6.5 million
that have already been given to us. We just put in for the 1.5. So, in terms of prioritization and trying to get these other things across the goal line, I would just lessen the value, still keep it in the top 10. I do think that it's critical that we get our firefighters back into a full-time firehouse as soon
as possible, but we're underway. Looks like we'll be getting that done here uh within the next two fiscal years. So, thank you. >> Commissioner Marriott, please. >> Thanks, Camden. I just had a quick um question to make sure I'm interpreting some of these things right. Um on the uh
on our sheet or I guess it's up there also on the grant the grant funding column the grant amount and I see where there's a status for the grant. I just want to make sure that the grant is there any are there any numbers in any of the grant amount columns that are
money that we've already spent or is the grant money in all of these columns money that we're either have and haven't spent or are expecting to get or have applied for and are hoping to get? >> Um I I can clarify as we go through these, but I believe the only one that we've actually spent is this pump
station one that that's listed as as current. Um the only reason we're still carrying that on there is because there's um you know return on investment tracking that we'll be doing, you know, for the next 10 years associated with that grant. So keeping it on our radar, but that $2 million has already been
>> has already been spent, received and and spent probably. Okay. But but the rest of them and certainly anything that's submitted and current means we've been approved and we are getting the money or >> current I believe means we received the
money. >> Yeah. Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> So approved with there should be some in there that is approved where we've been awarded the grant but we haven't received the money yet. >> Got it. Okay. Thank you. I kind of had that B same question because I was trying to follow that a
little bit. And then um I see under facility building repairs and facility roof replacements and none of those are FEMA. >> Not that's been obligated currently. Um so we um you know we're we're pursuing FEMA projects on that, but we don't have
guaranteed you know approved funding quite yet. >> Okay. But they've been >> we we haven't so this really what's listed is is um like discretionary type grants or competitive grants or appropriations. We don't have all 80 FEMA projects reflected in these grant
columns. >> Okay. >> Uh we do we do have a follow-up slide where we can go into some more details on the FEMA. >> Okay. Because I would have thought that some of the repairs in the >> we did we are we are pursuing insurance and FEMA for for a lot of these type >> elevators too. Correct. We had some on
that. Okay. Yeah, we can um maybe that'd be better if we if we added a column whether if it's FEMA project eligible or not so we can see what that is >> or insurance, right? I mean I I think ultimately >> I [snorts] don't want to speak I apologize but we're getting money in
from either grants FEMA insurance and and and that helps us to kind of prioritize these because maybe they're >> time boxed >> or reimburseable reimburseable all those the amounts are not as high as we're looking at here. So >> agreed. >> Um then I another question. Yes.
>> On item 21 >> before just a process commissioner. Um he was going to try to go slide by slide and pause. >> Are you okay if he doesn't if we wait till we get Okay. So are we done with the first slide? >> Well, I just have a few more questions
about the entire process if you don't mind. Right. Okay. So, and I think we get those questions about how what what do these columns mean? What do they >> Yes. Yes. Yes. >> Right. And then we can go through slide by slide. Um, am I correct that grants typically have a time frame where you're going to use it or lose it kind of thing? I know we just ran into the same thing on the
undergrounding. So, so feels to me like the things with grants, uh, assuming they cover a large portion, might be a high priority for us to begin investing so that we don't run into a time frame issue like we theoretically did with other recent projects that we've had to put a pause on. Right. Um, and then I
agree with Commissioner Robinson. I'd love to see basically for me it's anything where we've got funding coming in that we think would offset the the total cost in some way shape or form whether it be grants, insurance, FEMA, something because those aren't quite as daunting for us to think about spending
you know uh uh $6.8 $8 million, for example, on wastewater system cleaning and inspection, which is I'm sorry, fire station 22 to Commissioner Maldonado's when you find out that 6.5 is already a grant. Right now, we're talking $300,000 worth of stuff, not so I think I think in general that that's helpful and I and
I appreciate that you've got these in here. Um, and so in my head, I'm kind of looking at which ones have offsetting monies coming in through any means. Uh, what is the true cost for this decision? So, if you know, again, in in the case
of fire station 22, it sounds like the true cost to us is is about $300,000 worth of additional money we need to spend. Uh, so that's far less daunting than the 6.8, right? >> I'm sorry, 300,000. I'm sorry. 300,000,000 >> 6861US 650
>> 386. All right. I'm looking at the I'm sorry, very specifically item three. >> Item three, fire station 23 replacement. >> Um, 3 mil 3 mil. Yep. >> Or >> Okay. Gotcha. Gotcha. You're talking seven year total. Seven year total.
>> I'm doing seven year. >> We're going to get ourselves into a $3 million total over the next seven years. Uh and spend 6,800 this year theoretically. Okay. Or 68 6.8 million. >> So maybe you were talking about a net cost. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> It's really Yeah. Something is a And I'm
sorry I >> And that's because we'd anticipate that we wouldn't complete that fire station all in 27th. That would extend into 28. Okay. Okay. >> So, net cost over the entire seven-year period might be helpful.
>> Yeah. And I think your your total project cost may be getting to some of that because it's it's beyond seven years and some of these you get >> a majority. Yeah. That seven-year cost and the total cost will be the same for a majority of projects. >> Right. But for example, on on row two wastewater collection system improvements,
>> total project cost is 10.6. >> Correct? Yeah. >> That's recurring, right? It's it's recurring. So annually recurring at at I presume 1.5 million annually. >> Yes. Our our right now the asset management plan we have is 1.5 annually for a series of years and then you taper
that down as you get closer to the 2042 planning horizon. >> And why do we taper it down? >> Just so you do a bulk of the work up front. Um but you're always going to, you know, be maintaining your system.
>> I'm sorry. I don't mean to when I assume recurring I assume it's an annual recurring kind of cost to maintain the existing systems that we own >> and you're suggesting >> once once a bulk of the issues are addressed and we're in a good standing then our investment year after year
would be lower to maintain. Right now we have a wholesale replacement that needs to get >> like there's a third category then there's there's the get it up snuff. There's the and then there's the ongoing maintenance of once it's uh once it's kind of steady state in a good >> Yeah. get higher up front to get to
steady state, I guess, would be the >> right. Okay. All right. Thank you. So, city manager, I think you're just asking us to look at items one through 10 right now, right? Okay. Uh and just to be clear, item nine, we are not propo it's not proposed to be
budgeted for this year. I see a zero in there or or a dash. Right. So no investment in facility elevator rehabilitation. >> Correct. Yeah. Right now we are tracking to complete that project within this fiscal year. >> Okay.
Okay. And then similarly on item 10, facility building repairs, you're saying we will have materially completed 1.5 million and what will remain will be $50,000 next year. >> Correct. >> And is that and and that looks like it ex that completes the
entire project essentially. completes the entire project um for a little bit less than what we had initially budgeted. >> Understood. >> And Camden, were these hurricane facility repair specifically? >> Correct. >> Correct. Okay.
Okay. And to Commissioner Robinson's question, do you know like can you can you just anecdotally say that that uh for example uh facility elevator repairs should be covered under insurance or FEMA or something else. Is there something I I know what we have in front of us is just grants.
>> Both of those should be covered by insurance. Um so our our strategy is getting as much money from insurance and then um going to FEMA for the rest of it. So we do have active FEMA projects but our our main goal would be to recover through insurance. Okay.
>> So the way this would flow from a budget perspective is 99% of grants and insurance is reimburseable. So, we have to have the cash flow to pay upfront. >> And then it could take [snorts]
ye months, years. FEMA's up to seven years. So, three years from now, you might see a revenue offset come in because we finally get reimbursed by FEMA that our plan is to feed it back into the capital program. So, you'll
start to see those revenue offsets as insurance and FEMA starts to flow back in. >> Understood. And so >> for now we have to have the cash to pay for it. >> Understood. Completely. Um so the storms that hit us in 2024 roughly two years ago a little less than. >> Do we have any more insurance money flowing in that that would it be
indicated here that we've got money coming in from prior investments if you will or prior resolutions. >> You're going to see a very detailed FEMA slide after Cam's presentation um because we are managing 86 project grants out of FEMA right now. and the
insurance Devon will start to show you um as she brings the budget forward with known revenue sources coming in 27 and we definitely will take your feedback and add to the spreadsheet of what we can expect. So those estimates that we are expecting on each project for
revenue back um we've we've received some I'll call it dimminimous amount of insurance compared to what they owe us. [laughter] So um but but that'll definitely um be shown in uh in your budget in 27. >> Okay. And then one more last question. I
apologize for for taking over this conversation. Cam then just between rows 21 and 22. You've got highest ranked totals. I assume that's that's the per say the greens that we had asked about at one point. Uh that is the total of of the greens, right? Okay. You got it. It's on your slide. In my spreadsheet, it's not
quite as obvious, but effectively if we did all of the greens in 20 2027, you're asking for $23.3 million to do all of the greens, unless your numbers Yes, you have the same number. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Thanks, sir. I'm good. Thank you.
City manager, you're asking us for say items 1 through 10. Are you, you know, doing any concerns? Anything? >> Thumbs up, thumbs down, and we'll move to the next page of the spreadsheet. I don't have a concern with one two10 personally unless somebody else does. >> Okay.
>> All right. And here we're um looking at projects 10 through 17 that that still fall in that um ranking of 60 or above. [snorts] These first three projects, those are are similar to we discussed. We're tracking to, you know, complete those within the fiscal year. Um but we
wanted to to show those um being aware of of the fiscal year 26 expenses >> and uh clarify for me again the shoreline protection improvements those are largely city-owned seaw walls is that >> it's all yeah all citywide seaw walls um
so we had a a city-wide master plan done in 2021 um so it's it's just working from the recommendations out of out of that plan >> okay thank you and that compared to the 36th Avenue seaw wall is that >> so the 36th Avenue seaw wall was was its
own project because it included some additional storm water um improvements away from the seaw wall. So that that project scope is is more inclusive than just the seaw wall. So that's that seaw wall is identified as a need in in the master plan but it was taken out um
since it has a larger scope to it. >> Okay. So that's the seaw wall and storm water improvements and again city- owned. >> Yes, city owned. Okay. And you'll you'll see a similar type um of of approach with some of the roadways too. So we have our roadway rehabilitation program
which is you know milling and resurfacing and maintaining our roads but some of the bigger projects that may have additional scope to them like Golf Winds or Bokea or Golfway those would get paired out as their own project. So along those same line there,
clarification on the seaw walls shoreline protection improvements for the city. Is that just repairs or is that raising to a higher standard? And if so, which standard? >> It's it's a combination. So it it really
depends on the condition of the seaw wall. So part of that master plan is they did an inspection and a condition rating on each of them. So if it was minor and the seaw wall was still in good shape, it would have been just, you know, maybe a spall repair or some additional concrete type work. Um, some locations do recommend full sale
replacement and in those locations, uh, we are recommended to bring it up to the current code of 5 foot NAVD88. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Robins. Do you have questions? >> Oh, I'm sorry. That's okay. that on >> uh few questions from me please. Um
seemed all coalesing around the same kind of stuff but the shoreline protection improvements row 13 um I see an investment this year of 1.06 06 I think I'm saying million but I run all the way out to your total cost uh of 8.515
right so we start this we need to be moving forward this is not something we stop right you don't want to go back and I'm suggesting that we wouldn't spend a million in this year and then and then abandon it some other year so >> this also speaks to commissioner Kasy's
question this is uh this is existing and recurring so I will ask uh you know a million this year 1.06 million this year but over seven years 3.602 602. So I assume we're getting
into the same conversation we had a little while ago, which is first few years might be a little more expensive, but after that it's going to taper off. >> Correct. Yes. Um, so as as I mentioned, the the seaw wall master plan, you know, was 2021 through uh I think year 2038.
Um, but there was a series of projects recommended, you know, in year 2022, 23, 24, 25 that that may not have gotten prioritized or completed. So, in a lot of our earlier years in this program, we're we're accomplishing those projects that were recommended in prior years
that weren't yet completed. >> And I'm seeing it. I'm just making sure it's stated out loud. Right. Uh the grant on this is 625,000 out of what we're projecting a total of $8.5 million. Is that right? So, this is largely on us if we choose to do this
>> or um Yeah. or pursue other, you know, grant opportunities. But >> So, is that just the grant for 2027 or would we be able to get more grants over >> We could potentially get more grants. We we could potentially apply for more grants. Um that 625
is related specifically to um locations in the Donses neighborhood. >> Okay. City property in the Don Cesar neighborhood. >> I'm sorry, I don't see a 6.5. I'm just curious what >> 66 625,000 grant amount. >> Okay, gotcha. Sorry.
>> Do we have funage left over from the Donses Alfall project improvement phase with the 625? >> Not currently. No. Um, we haven't started construction on that project yet. So, um, but I don't anticipate
>> because I see that as a grant of uh 625,000 as well. the that grant should be shown in line um for the Donsesar outfall improvements phase 2 project. It shouldn't be shown under the shoreline protection improvements project.
>> I think for shoreline improvements coincidentally they're both number 13 on our on all of these. But >> it's the rank >> Oh, gotcha. I'm sorry. >> They're tied. Yeah. >> Okay. So, there's there was no there's no uh grant amount then again for the shoreline protection improvement.
>> No, that would >> Okay. So, that's a just a typo there. Okay. Okay. >> So, back to the Donses outfall. Um, says a seven-year total was uh Okay. Well, that's just that for the fiscal
because I see the 625 on that one. So that grant um that $625,000 grant was for three additional outfall locations in the Donsesar to essentially do what we did at the other five where we built the city seaw wall up to five
um foot where we have have those ski ramps. >> Okay. Um, as we got into the design of that project and and the design dances our resiliency adaptation, you know, started to advance, we didn't want to or our staff's recommendation would be, you
know, not to move forward with a project that we necessarily didn't feel much success in. Um, and we didn't want to construct a project that may conflict with future improvements. Um, so right now that 625,000 is is dedicated to raise those three additional seaw walls.
my my recommendation would be to halt that work. Um so and coincide with this this Donsesar resiliency adaptation project. Um so that way we're not putting you know millions of dollars into something that may be proposed to get scrapped um you know right right down the road.
>> Are we able to use that 625 on the Donses Resiliency Project? >> So we right now we're we're coordinating with D to reallocate that 625 to the tie check valve project that just recently got approved. Um so similar location, similar type cost um but just reapply
that that 625 there um which would alleviate the storm water funds that are currently funding that project. Um FD has been open um to that suggestion. Um especially since that that tie check valve project is shovel ready and already issued for construction. Um so
that would be a grant agreement I would anticipate bringing a commission in the next coming months um for your review and approval. >> Okay. So that's what I see here at tidal bounce in the seaw wall >> over here. Okay. Thank you. Item 16. Uh I'm just a little confused.
On my sheet it says pastor Garcia wall replacement and then out to the right it says new. And I assume that's an existing asset that we're >> That should be existing. >> Okay. >> And on that same line, why is there not a total project cost again?
>> Because it's realized within that seven-year period. I really we only really labeled total project cost if it would, you know, differ from that seven-year outlook. and of that. Okay, now I'm looking at your your your slide. So, because my our
sheets got a little the particular cell is is there, but we got six million of grants against a total seven-year payment of of 8 million. Is that am I reading that right? >> That's correct. Uh that grant is is not awarded yet, though. It's still under
review. >> Okay. Is there a level of confidence when a number shows up on here that it's that it's not awarded? Is it likely? Is it We feel >> I I don't have much um >> we don't like to put confidence levels
on state and federal. >> Understood. >> Until it's awarded. >> Okay. Uh so just the fact that it's here says it's submitted. That's at least that, right? No, no idea whether we'll get that money reimbured to Okay. >> Unless it says current, which I think I'm hearing is that
>> secured. We've secured the money. >> Okay. So if we were to go forward with the number 16 line row and we don't get a grant for it, then what happens? We reallocate that 3.6
million. Is that how it works or >> not necessarily? So Camden would need to weigh on, but I believe this could cause a failure of a road. So that's why it's ranked where it's at, but I'm not sure if this is the correct
project. So not no, we would say we're going to move forward and >> we just won't have the reimbursement part. >> Correct. And that's why everything in that green column just think cash out the you've you've written a check. >> Yeah, it's good to know that maybe some
of it's coming back. That's why I'm trying to >> correct. >> But unless we get awarded, you wrote a check for 3.6 million. sort of like a proposed net cost. >> Well, I right now your net cost is 8 million because I don't have anything.
>> Right. Right. And we'll spend 3.6 this year. >> Correct. >> Now, I do have to make a a candid question for you about about seaw walls in general. Right. Um if the city somehow goes through and raises all of our seaw walls and yet residents don't, my understanding unless you tell me
otherwise, we've just created a funnel. you know, if we're higher than than each of those residents around us, then then we've created a funnel through that resident's home, right? And so it it scares me that if it's not comprehensive for a seaw wall that we've created gaps in the seaw wall or or we we've elevated
above those gaps in the seaw wall and we've created again what what I'll call a funnel of water. It's going to go 5t, 5t, four feet. Engineering wise is going to tell me it's going to go through the four feet section, right? >> Yes. Yeah. Water's going to find its lowest point, >> right? And so I have to tell you, I'm a
little concerned with doing pieces of of seaw wall because you really don't solve the the water problem if it's not comprehensive. That's my my engineering background, but you're you're you're the guy. So So tell me, am I am I incorrect in what I'm saying? >> Yeah. No, that's that's definitely
approach. I mean, it's it's kind of a chicken or the egg. What what what comes first? Um but you're you're absolutely right. If if the city did all of its shorelines and and the rest of the private, which is majority of of the island shorelines aren't at that same elevation, then it's it's kind of all
for none. >> I mean, I get repairs to the seaw walls, but I'm not sure how much extra does it cost to go for from where we are now to the five foot. >> In in some cases, it's it's relatively cheap. you know, if the bulkhead itself
is in is in good sight and you're just, you know, adding to the cap, if the structural capability, you're just pouring a cap, that that's relatively inexpensive. We we did a project similar to that at um 29th Avenue last year and I think that was in the realm of a 40,000 30,000 maybe for that stretch. Um
but if you're doing, you know, full depth sheet pile replacement, you know, then then it gets a lot more expensive. So, it's really kind of a case by case. >> Twice as expensive. Yeah, it could it could be at least twice as expensive. Um, but that's really um you know a policy decision. Right now we're
operating based on the adopted code because if you if you put so much in investment into a seaw wall to repair it then you have to bring it up to the the code elevation. So that's how we're operating right now. Um I think this is an item for discussion at um June 23rd
maybe. I mean, I I will tell you I I think this has ramifications not not only for the city and its budget, but obviously every resident that's around these seaw walls and I personally I'm worried about it to be frank with you and I and I would want to gather a community consensus possibly through a
survey if that's where we want to go, right? That says uh we we agree that this is the right approach for the city to take. I'm I'm worried about and I don't know if uh city attorney if you can tell me there's a liability of us you know in the sense that we've now caused a funnel point as I call it you
know and and uh and did we impose a liability we were building the code everything everything director mills is saying is accurate right we're building what the codes tell us to they just happen to be higher than what the those around us did we create a liability for ourselves in that sense um you know if
we if we try to avoid that and build at the same level as what our neighbors are then you Did we really solve the problem long term or are we just kind of kicking the can down the road? Seaw walls to me feel like something that is I'm sorry I didn't let you answer but but to me it feels like a really you do it all
comprehensively or or you or you or you >> yeah before I want to admit any liability on the city's part. want to talk to the building official and things, but typically we're immune have sovereign immunity for most of our projects and most of our planning decisions,
>> but still you don't want to flood your neighbors obviously and there's case law that you're not supposed to um wall off water and push it into your neighbor's home. I don't think that we're doing that d at least directly. But I understand your concern and that we've
we talked about I think the last meeting or maybe it was the meeting before where they were here talking about the different levels. Yeah, >> it's about can the rainfall rather than storm sur seaw walls >> are there for the high tide king tides
but then a higher seaw wall keeps more rainwater behind the seaw wall wall which has to be retained in a storm water retention pond engineered to hold that water additional water if it's flowing through holes in the existing seawater
out to the bay and now it's kept on the and has to go somewhere. So, it has to be engineered. >> I I'll pause and I know there's other questions around me. I apologize. Is there an alternative that says we don't we don't uh we we repair to Commissioner
Causy's questions, not not full replace, not try and get back to code. Just I don't want I don't want a street falling into the into the into the into the sea at some point. Right. So, I'm thinking about repairs on these things that don't raise the elevation of the wall so we're not having these conversations about what we're doing. Can you can you
bifurcate this into what would be what it would cost us to just kind of get our seaw walls up to snuff to where the where they currently are without going to the next level of we're going to raise them and we're going to invest in a long-term effort there. >> Sure. To see what that total cost would look like if we kind of reduce that
scope some. >> Yeah. I think for me if they're four foot walls now and we replace and repair at 4 foot and then you tell me to then >> add another foot you know in a year or two is a significantly less cost than the original you know >> then it may be a phased approach for me
but okay I'm asking not not telling now I realize much >> the only thing is the city has to follow their own ordinances so you would have to change the seaw wall ordinance for him to do that he has to follow the city municipal code >> okay >> we we can cost I mean I Maybe you can
cost it, >> but he can't design unless this commission alters the code. >> Okay. Even on a repair versus a full replacement. >> Well, repair is different. If if you're repairing,
>> I think if you're doing I have to look at the code, but I think if it's up to a certain amount of repair, then it's, you know, substantial type of thing. >> Got like a home. >> Yeah. Same things. >> I know. Commissioner has been on for a long time, so please first.
>> Sure. Thanks, Camden. Um, so I I I'm not trying to be dense and I hate to beat a dead horse, but [laughter] but could you I because I've heard a couple different things up here about seaw walls and seaw wall heights and and
I completely agree that if we if all of the seaw walls in the city are not raised to the same height, then any storm surge above or sea level rise above the lowest seaw wall in the city is going to cause flooding.
What I'm not certain I'm on board with and I would like the opinion of an engineer is that I don't think that if my seaw wall is 5 feet and my neighbors is 4 feet and the water gets above the 4ft seaw wall, I don't think that my
seaw wall being 5t tall means that they get an extra foot of water next door. Like water finds its own level, right? Once it comes over the seaw wall, it's also going to flood my house if I have a 5ft seaw wall. So, I don't understand the idea that we would be making any
flooding problems worse >> by raising city seaw walls unless I'm missing something. >> No, your your uh description is accurate and it's and it's really kind of a case by case basis, but yeah, water's always going to seek its its lowest level. Um and and really the situation um and I
can think like maybe in the Donsesar neighborhood where that's more of a closed basin almost where you got the Bayway on one side and it's completely surrounded by the seaw wall. You know, I I could envision a scenario where if you had a very heavy rain event and and your
seaw wall was at elevation five, but those homes finished floors were lower. Um, if that rainwater right now is supposed to go to those street ends and evacuate, if it wasn't able to do that and the water staged up, you know, you get to that finished floor elevation before you're going to over top that
that higher seaw wall. That could be a a type of scenario where you could could have an issue. Um, but then again, >> that's a lot of whatifs and hypotheticals. you know, storm water wise, what amount of water would actually have to come down from the sky to have that type of situation
that that I don't have an idea on without running. >> And so, yeah. So, I mean, I think that that historically that's been the the reasoning for for requiring seaw walls to get raised at some point, even in a peace meal peace meal way, is that every seaw wall in the city isn't going to
reach the end of its useful life at the same time. And so if we say, well, we're not raising any seaw walls until everybody raises their seaw wall, that means we're never raising the seaw walls. And if we never want to raise the seaw walls, that's fine. Which, you know, kind of lends itself to the bigger
conversation, which is, you know, we we need to protect city assets because that's our job, right? The the seaw walls needing to be in good shape to keep roads from falling into the bay is very important. At some point, I don't
know that we can protect every single house in the city just by raising seaw walls for houses that are slab on grade at 3 to 5 ft in AVD. Like there's nothing we can do to
make those houses never flood again. And so if people aren't going to pick their houses up off the ground in some fashion, there is no amount of money we are ever going to spend that is going to keep those houses for flooding. Nor is there anything we can do that's going to make them flood worse, right? Like if
the water gets above 5T, everything that's on the ground is going to flood. [laughter] And if it doesn't, it's not. So, um, so I just wanted to to make sure I understood that we're not we're not going to make the flooding worse at somebody else's house if we make our
seaw walls higher. We're just trying to look longterm at the vision for the city. Um, but you know, to your point, that's expensive. We can also say that we think that the city I mean, we live on a sandbar and it's going to go underwater occasionally. You know, that's the other way of
looking at it. >> Understood. Uh, Commissioner Causy. >> Well, I want to I think it's important to clarify that the seaw wall primarily I think I would say is for retaining soil. So, if you don't
have a seaw wall, your yard or your street will eventually erode away as you have waves over time. So, you put in the seaw wall up to the level that you need to retain soil. And then if you do have a huge rain or helen comes in, it goes
higher. I mean, the next storm might be 20 ft >> and it's going to go over a 5ft seaw wall. And the funneling thing is when you've got a a series of five-footers and then you've got a three-footer, well, all the water is going to run out the three-foot area
and might cause more erosion. So, that's uh what I think people are talking about relative to funneling. But I think the bigger concept here is that if there's one single spot in the city that's still 3 feet or 4 feet and you
every other part is 5T, everything's going to flood exactly to the same level. So I would rather fix storm drains and uh fix other problems before I spend money on seaw walls being higher until we can raise all all the seaw
walls are raised. understand the overtime thing, but it's a very very long time before that's ever really going to practically happen. Like for example, you would probably need to raise the houses and once they were raised, then you could raise the yards and the streets and now you would
be at a higher level and you could raise the seaw walls. That's the progressive logical progression of this problem. But the main problem is if you don't raise them all, you're not there's no purpose in going to five. And then so
you really have to ask how long do you want how long is it until we need five feet? If it's 30 years from now that we're planning for and that's almost the service life of seaw wall we can put new
seaw walls in the Don Cesar neighborhood for example in in probably a year time if we got busy or two we could raise them all or the seaw walls in the city I don't know the length of those compared to that neighborhood but if you just
think if we were >> I don't know how we compel private property owners >> oh I'm not saying we could do it I'm in time if if it had to be done, it could be done within a year or two. And the
I guess the point is it doesn't make sense to spend money 30 years before when we really need it. And second second point relative to the the seaw walls is they're not even effective at all until all of them are raised. So as
far as protecting the city assets, they're not protected if there's any private property whatsoever. That's not raised. >> Camden, the pass seaw wall replacement, that's a replacement because that seaw wall has failed essentially, right?
>> Correct. Yes, that that seaw wall is in. >> So regardless of height, that one needs to be replaced and >> that one does >> the height could be to be determined, but that seaw wall needs to be replaced regardless. Right. that seaw wall needs to be replaced regardless. Um should should be a priority and the elevation
of the existing seaw wall is is mostly already at that 5 foot NAVD88. So we likely wouldn't be >> raising and we're trying to continue the uh the same height that's already in existence where it remains. So >> okay >> and there's a potential we've got a request of of of 8 million theoretically
coming in. given what I'm hearing. I'm okay with that forward. >> Just got one one more comment on the on the seaw walls and then we'll get off the horse. Uh the average life expectancy is much less than what we're showing
here. We're showing that we anticipate these will last 50 years. I think that that's being on the high end. I would say that, you know, if we're going to accurately forecast this that we need to bring it down to a more likely expectancy. >> Okay.
>> And then the older ones to to back to the uh the discussions from my fellow commissioners on the privately owned ones, those are probably um 15 to 25 years just depending on when they were built, not today's modern standards. So that's going to impact the entire
discussion that we've been having about, you know, weaknesses and fortification and stuff. But I would I would say uh make that a more measurable, more accurate life expectancy. Thank you. >> I just want to say that we're talking
king tides here, keeping king tides out because right now we're looking at areas that do get hit with the king tides >> and it's coming over. So, there is a need to raise them, but um and again to
uh Commissioner Marriott's point, um it's it's got to slowly happen. It's not going to happen dramatically. [clears throat] It's not going to happen fast. And if one person's up to hold back a king tide or help prevent the erosion from a king tide,
you know, the other people have to do their share too and do their due diligence and and either let their property become washed out or replace their seaw wall. But um you know that's that's the risk we take living
out here um and living on the water. One key consideration as well is the from a priority perspective, we've heard from residents who have asked the city to do something about enforcement
of our seaw wall ordinance and I have specifically directed staff to hold back on residential enforcement until the city actually follows their own rules. And so if we're not committed to investing in these in this city
infrastructure, then I don't feel comfortable telling residents to do something we're not willing to do. So the policy decision behind this is very important because it sets the course of how we
will actually enforce on residential spaces that are that are impeding on other people's property now and eroding their neighbors property and we have not made an assertion as a city yet because we've
been waiting for the city to make this a priority as well before we take that position. >> And can you go ahead? I I I think where I'm personally at personally 105 uh is that given that this is more of an emergency kind of situation and and more
dire need right now and it's already at five and we're just you know putting it right back where it is. I'm I'm actually not as concerned about 16 particularly with the hopes that we get our 8 million back. Right. And so this needs to be done either way. This feels like a high priority item. I I do have a question
just circling back I'm sorry to 13 because it's got another $ 8.5 million cost. Uh, and I just need to understand what exactly we're getting for that 8.5 million in particular, uh, 106 because it just says FDEP resilient Florida, but I don't know
really what that means. What is that shoreline protection improvement piece actually physically doing? that um is either repairing it's it's basically bringing the condition rating of the seaw walls up to a satisfactory or above rating on average
across the entire 80 8,000 some odd linear foot of seaw wall that the city has >> excluding theoretically the passive grillil which is its own separate cost to do that >> yeah we yeah we any any like 36th Avenue pass a grill that those that got identified as their own separate CIP those were removed from the master plan
valuation so that that 8.5 number um or 8 million number would reflect, you know, not having that passive grill seaw wall, not having that 36th Avenue, but >> but everything else theoretically is now up to snuff. What you're saying >> bringing the the whole city's shoreline up to Satisfactory or above.
>> So through 16, just to be clear, through through 17 just because that's all that's in front of us. There are no more seaw walls that well, unless I'm other pages beyond it, but there's no other seaw walls that you're alluding to. That would get all of the city seaw walls up to code and up to standards and and with a presumable lifespan on paper of 50,
but to commissioner Maldonado's point, whatever it turns out to be. >> Correct. >> Right. But that's it. Their city's now done our parts on seaw walls and therefore we can >> All right. >> These are what was identified in the seaw wall project though, correct? We have them mapped out conditionwise. We
know where they are. Mhm. >> So that that was done previously to uh any of our except for maybe their appointments. >> That is correct. Um another seaw wall is community center. That was one identified in the master plan, but that one's paired out as its own separate CIP
project. >> Uh yes, presumably lower because I haven't seen it yet. >> Or is it not? We haven't >> 37. >> Yeah. Okay. another 36 with some grant money to it.
Okay. >> Just one last question then I can think of is is there any circumstance when you wouldn't recommend like I know we had just been thinking about policy on people who want a uh
variance on their seaw wall height. How uh is there any time you would recommend that a variance be allowed? I guess if it was, you know, causing some adverse impacts, um, you know, that that would be something that would have
to be looked at. Um, but outside of that, if if it's it really is it's it's the policy decision. You know, if you want all the seaw walls to get to five foot over time, you know, you you have to get there somehow.
>> All right. Thank you. [clears throat] All right, we're ready to move on to the next. >> So, next is 18 through 21. And then this shows you the um total for all of the green um high ranked projects,
right? Okay, there's my 21. So for the sub aquous line, why is that not higher on the list? considering that is all of our waste going out and that project's going to take longer
and I know we're coming to the end of life on that. >> I'll have to look through the um specifics on the ranking. Maybe timing um may have been a weight to to influence that >> because to me that trumps seaw walls hands down.
>> Yeah, I completely agree. We need to have basic sewage here. >> Yeah, we can revisit [clears throat] that ranking and see, you know, why did that one slot? >> I I I'm I'm concerned about that because if I remember correctly, end of life is
20 is uh 2027, which is next year. It's um it was recommended to be replaced then but the the end of life is right now is like 2038 but I mean it's it's an estimate you know it's not an exact science you don't want to wait till that very end of that to move
forward. Um so I I agree this should be prioritized. >> Well the question is why is it less of a priority right now? What what in our process put it down lower because that speaks to
our our system. >> We can look at that and get back to you. >> Yeah. >> Kim and I have a question. I've already kind of uh I think I stated in the last discussion um there's been some initial talks about
potentially um offloading our wastewater system. At least that's been my my dialogue. Um if that comes to fruition, I certainly don't want to be investing in things that we don't get a return on our investment when we offload that system.
And so I don't know if you can speak to particularly I I assume this is a subacquish line that's going to go to a very specific point at a very specific I assume the city of St. Pete now tying into their into their current line where we currently go. Is that correct?
>> Um right now the um this this cost figure is based on the the recommendation to do a new subquous route over to South Pasadena. >> Right. And and that theoretically goes to the city of St. Pete which is where our current line goes to. Correct. same same pub station that our current line goes to.
>> And so theoretically, if if we comes to fruition that we're not going to St. Pete in the future and we're going to Penllis County, then that line becomes obsolete as soon as we do that. Is that a fair statement? >> Potentially. Yeah. Good. >> Okay. And I think you said you don't
want to go up to 2038, but I think I heard you say 2038 is the current life end of life on the on the current one. But you don't want to get there. I heard you. Correct. But you did say 2038, right? >> Yes. That's that's what's outlined in the um the preliminary engineering report for the force main design. >> Okay. I I would just go on record of
saying I' I'd prefer not to invest in that one this year. If we want to talk about next year, I would like some I'm just going on record personally. Um, I would like to investigate whether whether that's something that we could hold off this year and uh and potentially see where we get to with conversations about offloading that
system because I don't want to invest even the 352,000 this year which is against a sevenyear of 21 million because we've just jumped into a pool that's really deep when you tell me seven years of 20 $21 million worth of stuff. And so >> I'm just going to say this is the first
time I've heard 2038 on the on the life expectancy on that because that's the original from the city built in 1950s. >> Yeah. I mean that's >> so that's [clears throat]
>> trust >> 76 years guys. Uh and I I I this is the first I've heard of 2038. Who who was who has put out 2038? That was in the um report prepared by Kimley Horn. They were the engineers that that did the force main
>> in the 20 in the uh 2016 or 2017 surveys. >> They did a report in 2018 of all of the force mains and then just in in 2025 they completed one specifically just for the >> the 2025 now says uh 2038.
>> Yes. Yeah. And um and I think the one prior that the 2018 I think they gave a range >> of of years that it could fall into. [clears throat] >> So it was still consistent with that prior recommendation. But um I would caveat it. It is an estimate. Um so
>> yeah, >> personally this is the first one I' I've contemplated given all that we've talked about. This first one I would like to to scratch out of this year's budget personally. And I'm just pointing out we have service life of the new one at 75 years. >> 21 >> and this last one is >> 21 >> basically 75 years.
>> Camden, what what's the consequence of removing? It looks like you're asking for a new appropriation which tells me that you probably have something in progress. So what is it going to stop? >> So So right now as as it's planned in the CIP, this project would be constructed um through years 2032.
Um so if we were you know to delay it you you would just think you know that construction would end in in 2033. Then um right now our plan for next year would be to go through the procurement phase. Um with with this type of project it obviously it's it's very complex. So the procurement um dealing with your
different stakeholders um South Pasadena the county St. Petersburg. That would pretty much be all the effort that we go through next year is developing the procurement package, putting it out, um getting getting um contractor engineering teams to bid it, evaluate
it, um take a contract and then um start planning out you know material procurement timelines and everything. So a lot of the work that would be done next year would be procurement related >> but procurement on on on to a very specific >> point. Yeah.
>> Right. That's what I'm alluding to. >> Yeah. >> And I'm suggesting that the endpoint may change. >> The endpoint may change. And and our our engineering recommendation for for this project specifically um project delivery method would be a progressive design build um type project where you bring in
your contractor up front with your engineer. So that's who bids it. But with that progressive framework, um you have offramps along the way before you get to your guaranteed m maximum price. So you get to an early design phase, if you don't like where things are going or or budgets an issue, you have an
off-ramp there. Um, so we we do have with that approach, we have some flexibility, I guess, is what I'm saying. [clears throat] So you wouldn't stop anything you're currently doing to defer the the 200,000 plus the
151 that would not be reappropriated. We do have um an existing PO currently um with an engineering vendor who's serving as as the owner's rep uh for this project. And so the balance of what is proposed for next fiscal year is the remainder on that on that purchase order
um to keep seeing through the their procurement phase. So we would be if we didn't fund the rest of that purchase order then we would be kind of stopping the project at that point. So, we would pause the project, tell our
vendor, stop working on it, and in a when it picks back up, would you have to start over again? >> I wouldn't have to start over. We can pick up where we left off. Okay, that was going to be my question is if we can pick up where we leave off
and and also I think um and and I've I had a brief conversation with somebody at the county about this as well. And um and my understanding was that that if we speak to the county about about, you know, selling them the sewer system or them taking it over or whatever verbiage
you want to use about how that works that um that that could that those conversations could take a little while. But I would also anticipate that, you know, in six or eight months we'll have a some kind of idea of if it's even a
possibility. [snorts] And so, you know, I I don't know that that leaving that $200,000 in the budget isn't maybe isn't a bad idea to leave it there even if we do put a little bit of a pause on the project to see where these conversations go so that we don't end up in a corner
where we go, you know, well, now we've locked ourselves into a spot where we don't have any options. So, so budget but don't spend until we figure out we're doing >> so until we know what we're doing. Yeah, >> we're still going to likely have to get it up to a certain level before we hand it off or sell it. I think that was one of the >> Yeah, I think for me if the pump, for
example, way back at item one, the pump itself is going to is going to be used no matter what. Right. No matter what, that pump is going to be there, right? Ken, please correct me if I say something wrong. It's the pipe that may go somewhere completely different that we would be obsoleting if we went somewhere different. >> Yeah. And I like the offer. So, I agree. I agree.
>> I I have a question. Other than getting this off of our books and putting it on Penllis County's books to do this repair, the residents are still in the and property owners here are still going to pay for it. >> Oh, of course. I mean, we're still >> So, what are we really doing other than
uh shell game? I mean, we maintain control and maintain cost controls if we if we maintain if we take over keep the project. I'm just saying the project's not going away. It's going to be either done by the county and build back to the
residents or it's going to be done by us and probably build back to the residents too. One or the other. Only thing that we do is we maintain control ourselves and accountable to the residents here. Just saying. >> I would I would argue at a lower economy
of scale. We we don't have the economies of scale that the county does. And I would argue that uh we'll be having the same conversation, not us, but some other group in 20 30 years saying how do we replace it again and how do we keep coming back and replacing it and replacing it every 20 years versus giving it to to the county who will uh
help us going forward to to maintain it for ourselves like they do many of our other neighboring communities. So, I think what I'm hearing is it's fine to stay in the budget, but we'll we'll uh potentially not spend depending upon
where those conversations go. >> Could you clarify again when this pipe was installed that we're using right now? >> I don't have off the top of my head, but I can I can clarify that >> a bulk of our of our city system was put in place in the late 50s,
>> 1957 time. >> Yeah. We know those pipes are in really, really bad shape, >> right? >> Okay. Are we ready to move on to moderate? Just a time check. We have about 35 minutes until our 6 PM meeting. you
could continue this item to your regular meeting if that's a decision the commission deci um wants to do as we approach the time. >> I'm okay moving forward unless we need a break. >> Keep going. >> All right. >> All right. So, now we're jumping into
the moderate projects. Um so, ranked 45 to 59 and we had about 51 that fall into this category. >> [clears throat] >> Um, one note on on this slide is um, the bunker gear replacement. So, this kind
of speaks to, you know, not all of the nuances are are captured in in the formula for ranking. Um, the bunker gear replacement is something um that that's required, you know, for for us to um provide. So, even though that project falls, you know, in the rank of of 28
overall with a score of 58, um, it is it is, you know, essential that we fund this Well, now that we're here, I I um feel like we're going to need to know more about item uh rank 27.
since it's an outrageously large number. And then when you look over to the right hand column, the number 125 million is bigger than everything else added together that we've talked about tonight. So can we spend some time with
that? >> Sure. Yeah, that that project was um from the water threats analysis. So that's that dons is our Bokea area that's looking at Bokea isle all of Bella Vista and then all of the dons is
our neighborhood. Um so the the cost figure that's shown in there now is is based on those prior planning studies that were done. Um so the solutions that were recommended out of that planning study um was you adding more drainage infrastructure um adding pump stations,
elevating uh roadways. Um, so a lot of those type of components are are what goes into that resiliency adaptation. >> Can you tell me what not cost effective means in the grant status column? >> Sure. Um, so um, different grants look
at agencies look at it differently, but basically they'll look at like a benefit cost analysis to justify if if you know what you're proposing make makes sense. In FEMA's um FEMA's world, it's it's typically a factor of one. So if you have a $100,000 projects and in FEMA's
BCA calculation, it makes sense to do mitigation up to 200,000, you know, if you're spending if that mitigation project's more than 200,000, then it's not cost-effective um to do that. So that that kind of draws a line in the sand of, you know, if you want to do resiliency mitigation improvements, at
what point does the cost of doing that outweigh the benefit that that you're going to receive? So, so FEMA said this project is too expensive for the benefit you would receive. >> Correct. Um for for this for the Donsesar that one wasn't um that was
through the state um specifically for that project. So that was the division of emergency management um and they determined it wasn't cost effective. I I would note um you know some of the information that they look at to justify the cost effectiveness um we didn't have
on hand. So, a lot of that is like your detailed engineering models and and analysis. Um, some of that information, we provided the planning study that we had, but it didn't include all of the information needed for a BCA. Um, that's something that's part of the the project that's underway right now um with with
WSP is they're formulating, you know, specific grant applications to identify are these projects cost effective. And so the the $3 million in new appropriations for 2027, that's anticipating what that
what that new contract with WPA is going to deter like that's anticipating what what's going to come out of that or is that or is that $3 million for something else that we've already decided to do? Regardless, >> nothing that's been decided on regardless really. those those figures
are just you know ballpark estimates based on those prior planning studies but what the work that comes out of of what WSP is underway with right now those costs could change you know the solutions are going to get solidified the cost will get more refined um that that that scope certainly could change
>> okay >> um but we we felt that that is a a placeholder to continue I mean it's it's you know 125 million total that number could change you know it's at least going to be three million so at least that that keeps the project progressing
here. Again, I don't know what we're spending the money on. It just says resiliency. So, if it's keeping water off the streets, it would be like should be in the top priority list from the feedback I've gotten.
>> If you're looking for community feedback, >> sure. Yeah, we can share um you know some of the project descriptions for these projects too, but um for these ones specifically, it was looked at a level of service for the 100redyear um
24-hour rainfall event and then um assuming you know a 5-ft elevation king tide elevate. So basically all the recommended solutions were based around that level of service. If you had a 100red-year rain event with a 5 foot tide elevation, we installed these pumps
around this is kind of the level of service that you would expect. And I think the result out of that was um like 3 in of flooding at the roadway crown and I think 9 in like in the intersections from that storm event. So that's really what we got to talk is
what level of service do we want to address? So, since we're talking about this area in D3, the frustration I heard is more like rainfall and not a hundred years. It happens every
month or it happens multiple times a month during thunderstorm season where the streets are flooded like a foot of water in the street. So, what is that called? Is that is this solving that problem or >> the the hundred-year storm event would
be um more intense than than um what you're what you're describing now. Um right now the city's code is a is a 10-year one-hour storm event. So that's that's you know a lot less intense than a 100redyear. Um, so that'd be the minimum that we designed to. Um,
previously in in the city's comp plan, um, the city's goal was to, um, have the city function for a 25-y year 24-hour storm event. Um, so that that's just another >> Would it be possible to look at this and say, well, instead of a 100redyear, what
would this number be if it were for a 10-year? >> Yes, exactly. And that that's something that we've asked WSP to do in their scope as they're looking at this area. Look at current conditions. Look at your mean annual storm, which is your your typical summer storm. That's a 2.33 year
event. Look at a 5year, 10 year, 50 year or 100redyear. So look, kind of look at the full range of benefits. So that way when we go and present these to the community, they know what we're designing to is, hey, if you want to have absolutely zero flooding, you know, in in a high intensity storm event, that's going to be a very high dollar
project. if you're more concerned with your everyday summer storm events and that's the level of service that we're designing to that that's a less cost um type project. So I think those are all things that are being looked at from the engineering side and then we need to go back out to the comm community and ultimately you know get get some
consensus there. Yeah, I'm just saying uh you know, not me personally because I don't our street doesn't have this problem, but the feedback I've got is we're trying to just keep these rainstorms from flooding our neighborhood. >> And that that's the kind of feedback
we'll want at the the public workshops, not only for the the Donsesar Boke area project, but also when we get further into the the watershed management master plan development. Um both of those projects will have series of of public workshops. So it's important that we're getting that feedback at that time. So
we're designing what the priority is. >> So the three million that we would be talking about right now going ahead with the 2027 budget would give us that deliverable of knowing the data >> that would come just out of the um the 800,000 that we're currently contracted
with WSP. That will give us a funding pathway, recommended funding strategy. um that'll tell us, you know, what what grants um that that we should pursue, what the um recommended scope would be and and estimated costs and and timeline to implement. Um so all of that would
come out of that WSP project. Um the idea would be WSP will get us to the point where we could put this project out for design build and start doing construction in phases. Um that's that's another part of WSP's scope is to phase phase the project. Right now we're
looking at neighborhoods. you know, how do we get that down to the basin level um and phase it? So, really, it's just if if we wanted to move towards construction and and keep continuing, that's what that is a placeholder for. >> So, Director Mills, um the WSP project, I think you alluded to it. What's the
what's the dollar amount on that? >> 791,000. >> Call it 800 800,000. It's already been it's underway, right? >> And out of that will tell us here's how we think, you know, you should you should contemplate investing in
what I'm guessing is ultimately $125 million kind of potential project, right? >> And so I I again I'll tell you I feel like a real premature and and and assuming that we need to start investing in these things until we get past that study that tells us here's how we'd go about doing it. So again, for me, this
is something I would hold and and and and in this case, I wouldn't even put the budget money towards it because when is this when is this uh WSP plan complete? Um, I think the original plan was January of 27, but I think since our
start dates pushed back a little bit, I think that will kick to like March or uh February or March of 2027. >> So, roughly this time next year, we'll be having this conversation with the results of that. Right. >> So, >> that $3 million could go somewhere else for >> $3 million could go somewhere else. Right. That's I don't want to keep
speaking for everybody. It's just >> No, I agree with that. And especially since I don't even know what the 72 million is for >> 125. >> Yeah. When [laughter] you add it up. >> Yeah. Right now that number is really just a placeholder based on that old
study in the cost estimates for that. Um it'll be updated with this WSB information. >> So what would be the real ramifications in your view of not putting uh not keeping the 3 million in there? Um, I I guess from my point of view, it just be
cognizant of of of the community impact. I know there's, you know, the resiliency committee has been working on this project for a while, so I know this this is an important priority for that neighborhood. So, I would just be, you know, cognizant of that. >> Is there anything that you would recommend we act on? I'm sorry. Is there anything you'd recommend that we act on
prior to the completion of the WSP study? Like, would you feel confident reacting and saying this is how I would spend $3 million prior to getting the results of that WSP study? not prior to getting the results. I think we need to work through the preliminary engineering and and get the foundation built.
>> Sorry, Commissioner Robinson, please. >> No, it's three three neighborhoods, correct? >> Or three neighborhoods, right? >> And then the same type of approach would be applied to the other resiliency adaptation plans for the rest of the city. >> Northeast, the Northwest, and the passen
right down there. Yeah. So, >> I would just say though that we need to have asurances that at least we're trying to mitigate that. You know, with the 4 inches of rainfall in one hour, we're seeing the flooding that you guys have seen and mentioned. Uh we don't have the pumps to pump that out, even temporary pumps
right now. We're kind of begging, borrowing, stealing and moving around as needed. I had them on North Seir. You've had them in Belf Vista and the Donsesar neighborhood. And it's real. and we get a 30 minute rainfall and you're
literally driving through 8 to you know 12 inches of water. So I know that the residents that are impacted would feel very strongly against that. I just want to make assurances that we're looking at some kind of triage in the meantime. This is a band-aid. I get that we're not
treating the u the cause just some of the symptoms but we need to keep that in mind as well that our our job is to protect the residents and the uh citizens of St. Pete Beach. Well, we are kind of doing that, right? Because we at least in the uh Don Cesar
neighborhood, we are already committed to doing phase two of the outfalls, right? So, we are doing something in the neighborhood >> this year. >> We're doing the the tie check valve uh modification project that that phase two of the outfall. I would recommend we
don't move forward with those improvements um because it could conflict with what comes out of this this study. So in that event, I would say the most important thing is that we know when we're going to get WS WSP recommendations and that if we stand
firmly on that data, then I think we'll all be happier >> because then we're not wasting money. >> Can I ask WSP is very specific to Donsesok, Sega, that kind of area. I get that it would would not Well, I don't
I'm asking would it inform the northeast regency the the northeast region resiliency adaptation northwest resil like is there something we can infer even though I know that it's not specific to these other neighborhoods but I'm looking at rose well it's beyond this slide right now but you've got more resiliency type things of of significant
40 million 37 million 18 million in other neighborhoods would that WSP I know it's not unique to these other neighborhoods but would it give us some information that might help us again with planning on those >> it would I of of course as as like the survey technical information all that
would have to be redone specific to those areas but your framework on on how you're approaching the project as far as phased implementation um the type of um engineering that goes into it up front that that could all be replicated um and and done in those those other types of
projects as well. So in my mind, I see this as a phased approach with a first phase getting a WSP study to help us understand how we would approach it in a neighborhood and then if it's successful and we move forward and we've got a way to approach that then we could apply it to other neighborhoods. >> That's the idea is get a approach that
can be scalable. And I would say this is actually the second step because the first step we've had over the last 20 years multiple studies that have suggested u how to fix this problem >> and I pretty much agree with the things I've seen
>> and this however is different because this is the going to be the engineering design and the community engagement right so different than the studies that have been done over the last 20 years that say okay this is what you should do but we've never been able to do it for some reason.
>> It's moving it from from planning into design and implementation. >> So something for you to consider is we've also been trying to move we are moving into a project accounting position for you. So it means once the
city commission allocates a set number of funds to a project, we will now track those funds within a project accounting format. Mhm. >> With that being said, cities who do that strategically also put money away ahead
of spending the money when they know the project's going to far exceed what they have in the bank. So, it's it's basically a project account, savings account. So, absent I'm saying this because you could put the 3,000, you could keep it here. You you essentially
tell us it's a hold hold and don't spend until we get the study unless you see something else in 27 that you actually want to move this cash >> because remember this is cash you're sitting in the bank >> that you want to move it and spend it somewhere else in 27.
>> I'm just sitting and looking at another two or three pages of stuff here and at some point we got diminishing returns or we're going to there's no way we fund all of this, right? Unless you're suggesting that theoretically we could fund everything that's got a fiscal year 2027 budget. >> I'm not saying that.
>> Okay. Then then that's what I'm trying to I'm trying at some point we've got diminishing returns. Right. You we're going to run out of money already. Probably if we haven't yet be running out of it soon >> and uh I'm worried about setting aside money that we absolutely know we won't spend until the March, April, May time
frame of next year. I get that. That's >> Yep. So maybe if we hold on this one, move to the next. So we know you have three million. >> Yep. >> That you could reappropriate in 27. Maybe we go to the Is there anything else on here you want? >> I'm sorry. I do I do want to ask about the the the bokeh drive reconstruction
and the roadway roadway rehabilitation. >> Okay. >> Um some of that is FOT grant uh you know uh a portion of it. So good that we're getting some money coming in. Um and and uh I think is road ra re rehabilitation
just all others that aren't bokeh and aren't stateowned roads. >> Um if it's uh the the roads that have their own CIP would be Bokeh, Golf Winds and Golf Way. Um everything else should be in that mill and resurface program. >> Oh, so there's an equivalent to instead
of just Bokea, there's a there's a Golf Winds and a Golf Way somewhere in here is what you're telling me? >> Correct. >> Okay. Presumably lower. What's the status on 59th these days? >> 59th, I believe, is being resurfaced this year. I think they just did all the
reclaim services. They were wrapping that up and then we were going to mill and resurface after that. I'm getting the what I would call the the the biggest pieces of fruit here. So, I'm looking at 4 million for Bokea Drive and 1.5 for roadway
rehabilitation. Um, comments on maybe your your thoughts on on what specifically we'd be doing with that money in 2027? So um for for the roadway rehabilitation that would be um similar to the seaw wall we have we have
a condition assessment of all of our public roads and um in our in our comp plan we outlined to to strive to stay above a satisfactory rating or above. So that's like a 70% out of 100 or above. Um so it's really just working through the priority list there. um your worst
roads, milling and resurfacing those. And then some of your um roads that aren't quite in a worst state yet yet where you still have an opportunity to apply preventative maintenance techniques if that's like a fog seal or crack seal type deal. Um that that's what comes out of that um roadway. So
it's really preventative maintenance um to keep our overall road condition above a 70. >> And when was the last time something of that is it is it continuously ongoing or or every year. Um yeah, just about every
year. Um the last time we had the analysis done was in March of 2025, so posttorm um it was when all the roads were analyzed. Um and then as I mentioned the the Golf Winds, Bokea Golfway, some of those projects that have additional scope elements in tied
into them um are separated from that preventative maintenance program. >> Thank you. Okay. So, hold on the 3 million and go to the next slide. Everything else is fine on this. I guess I should ask real quick the So,
on the previous page we slide, we saw the uh reclaim water lateral service pipe replacements. Does that include the part of the water that's the pipes under the roads? >> Yes. Yes. For those are the laterals. Yeah. Under the roads that connect to
the main line. So that that is why the roads get messed up. I would say probably very large part of what I've seen. >> Yes. I mean your your roads will deteriorate over time. I mean 20 years is is kind of your typical service life for for pavement design. Um but the
reclaim laterals um breaking when they break you know you have to dig up the road um replace it either replace the line or or just um repair it. And if you do repair it, then you have, you know, an asphalt patch and then over time, you know, that may that may sink. But a lot of
>> very short period of time, as a matter of fact. >> So the the idea with our our roadway rehabilitation project is we kind of marry that up with our lateral replacement where we can. If we know we have a roadway that is due for um resurfacing, but also has um a bunch of
reclaimed laterals that need to be replaced, we'll go ahead and do the reclaimed laterals first and then come behind and do the the milling and resurfacing. So, we're actually have some roads that we've replaced the inferior pipe with the correct kind of pipe that doesn't
>> correct. Yeah. >> Dissolve. >> Yep. And then we look at that, you know, before we decide to mill and resurface a road. Um, looking at the utilities and, you know, coordinating with with those impacted, you know, whether it's Penellis County, that's that's something that we do when we're vetting which
roadways we're proposing. I like my fellow commissioners and I don't think we're going to get through this entire list in the next 15 minutes >> and I suspect there might be some breaks needed um because we've been at it for a while. >> What's your recommendation, city manager? >> So, you have two options. We could
continue this to another day and reschedu or you could continue to the end of tonight's meeting. That's another option. But you might have a long meeting tonight. So I might recommend the first option of another day this
week or next week. >> I think it's important not to have a lot a long delay. So if we're going to continue this I would like it to happen. >> I'd rather go tonight and see if we can get it. If we don't then we'll we'll decide at the end of >> Yeah. >> tonight's meeting to continue that one.
>> Yeah. And after Yeah. So and if we continue to another day I just would like it to happen soon. Not not more than a week from now so we can make progress. >> Absolutely. Okay. So, we'll attempt this evening. >> We'll try it this evening. >> Okay. Awesome. Nope. That's fine.
>> I mean, yay. [laughter] >> All right. Are we back at six then? >> As usual. Okay. Thank you. Thank Part: 2
Ownership is one thing, rights are another. And in fact, the Supreme Court ruled that um when somebody sued their title insurance company, they were told, "Well, no, you weren't told in your title search that you didn't have full
ownership or right to trespass because that's just a law. It's a, you know, customer use is just a common law that's known, just like it doesn't say in your deed, you can't Airbnb your property. There might be rules that say you can't Airbnb your property, but it's not in the deed. That's what this is like. And
there's Harvard Law articles about this. Um, and and and so what I don't understand is how we could ever get to a point where the sheriff trespasses people based on a survey that doesn't reflect any of that information. And we previously told them not to do that
several years ago. The sheriff was going to do this from surveys and they said no. So this is all very good. I think leading towards a customer use ordinance or maybe even the sign ordinance. Thank you. >> Um, >> thank you.
>> Is Lisa Kursman a general comment? >> Okay. Um, Kyle Fleming. >> Hello. Yes, my name is Kyro Fleming. I'm the owner of Kyro Fleming Photography. saw in the news today that there was a chance that the city of St. Pete might eliminate or restrict photography setups
on the beach. I don't know if that was part of the agenda today, but like channel 8 m made it as a part of today's part or might you might be considering it. I would say some um cities have restricted use and it's fine but
sometimes it requires seven days, 30 days, 45 days notice for our client to let us know that they want to hire us. Sometimes we get two hours of notice. They see a great weather and they're like, "Let's hire a photographer." Um, I'm covering photography. I do have
liability insurance and can work in great hotels such as such as the Donsesar. Anyway, uh, my wife today actually is working at Tradewinds for a guest of 14 people. I don't know when she was hired for that, but it might just been three days ago. So, I don't
know what uh the city might be thinking about restricting access to um photography, whether or not that includes just a light stand or huge commercial setups with 20 different people. It's always just my wife or I or
just my just myself or just my wife. So, anyway, I thank you for the input and again, my name is Kyle Fleming, Kyle Fleming Photography. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. I actually think that's the one that got deferred until uh a time future. So, we aren't considering it this evening, but we will be considering in the future. So,
>> any other input like >> other opportunities >> and other photographers come in too? >> I can't say who's coming in, but but you're Thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you, >> Debb Sheer. >> Good evening. Deborah Shakner, Boka Isle Drive in St. P Beach. I think it was
prudent to change the beach ordinance to after We find out customary use because we don't want to have any issues, challenges, questions
from the hotel years and the beach owners. If we get customary use first and I think personally it should go back to being a rule, regulation and an ordinance. We need to make sure this is permanent. And honestly, it wasn't fair that you
meet with hotel years and the chamber, change the beach ordinance, and then expect the residents not to have input or at least be aware of what's going on. So that that's not kosher in my eyes. I'd like to know two things.
Sesan owns a property on 46 that he used Memorial Day weekend to park cars at $75 each. He also uses it as a storage yard. He blocked all the traffic on the street access to my neighborhood as well as
others. 46 and it doesn't seem like he ever gets not even a slap on the hand. He can do whatever he wants. Why does he using that as a storage yard? Illegal. Parking lot. Illegal. So maybe we should look at that. I also wonder where we are
on the investigation regarding the mothballs. I have a few calls into FWC. They haven't got back to me yet, but it seems like by now it should have been solved. And so I
don't know if you can give a report on where we are on that, but I find it to be a threatening act, a damaging act, an act to hurt the wildlife. And quite frankly, what if a kid had thought it was a bubble gum and picked it up?
You don't eat morph balls. You go to the hospital if you do. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Dana Richardson. >> Hello, Dana Richardson. 5830 Bahama Way South. Hello, Mayor and Commissioners. I
was prepared and I don't need to speak. So, thank you so much on denying the first reading. I appreciate it. But as I was sitting and I just had a thought because one of my issues was that we
seem to always get to this place. You are elected to represent the residents and uh we appreciate it. But when these meetings happen with the city before it comes to planning board
or the commission, I think we should look into some type of a resident input committee, whatever you want to call it, maybe two from each district that can also be met with to help put in input and shape these things before it goes to
planning board. Your history on your presentation says that the intervening meetings were with beach stewardship committee rightfully so on multiple occasions the planning board but then again as we already know hotel years and the Tampa
Bay beaches uh chamber was afforded two meetings and I think that as residents being major stakeholders in this community that we should be given the same rights and ability to have input at
this when the city starts working on these things. That's all I have to say. Thank you so much for what you do for us. Bye-bye. >> Those are the only general comments. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Um I think we
move into the consent agenda and I believe the only option is the the meeting minutes, right? So, uh is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? >> I'll move to approve the consent agenda. I second. >> Commissioner Maldonado, >> yes.
>> Commissioner Marriott, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Robinson, >> yes. >> Commissioner Cy, >> yes. >> Mayor Tate, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> Okay. I think u based on our modified agenda, we're going into action items. uh authorize the city manager execute the
eth addendum and renewal with the Penllis Sun Coast Transit Authority for the Sun Coast Beach Trolley Agreement for fiscal year 2026 transit service for $38,279.51. >> Good evening, mayor and commissioner. Adam Poyer, assistant city manager. So the the um addendum that you have in
front of you is the eighth one for this agreement with the Sun Coast Beach Trolley. Uh the fees cover uh not only the Sun Coast Beach trolley but the route 90 commuter service which enters the beach from the bayway and along with that the excess for the parrot transit
services for city residents. So based on several questions that we receive, PSTA has sent several representatives to answer your questions and I'm going to turn it over to Darden Rice from PSTA. Good evening. Good evening, Mayor Tate, uh, Vice Mayor
Robinson, Commissioner Kazzy, Commissioner Maldonado, and Commissioner and PSTA Representative Karen Marriott. Uh, thank you for the opportunity to speak and inviting PSTA tonight. Uh, my name is Darden Rice and I'm PSTA's Chief
Planning and Community Affairs Officer. And with me tonight is also PSTA's chief operating officer, James Bradford, and our planning director, Nicole Dufa. Um, first of all, on a personal note,
just want to say um thank you uh for your service. Uh my family has been in St. Pete Beach, Treasure Island, West St. Pete. Uh called it our home for decades. My my first job as a teenager was working at the Leverox, which used
to be at the end of the street and uh the Rice Law Firm next door is my uncle and cousin. Um I am the lead point person to manage PSTA's many interlocal agreements, including the draft renewal
agreement for fiscal year 2026 that's in front of you today. PSTA values our relationship with the city of St. Pete Beach. Uh we are proud to serve all citizens of Penllis County.
Uh the beach community has not been shy to say when you want PSTA services and when you don't. Either way, we have worked with you for decades and we thank you for your partnership and your
service. As you know, there are some circumstances and a little confusion surrounding today's agreement, and that's why you invited me here. Um, I can only speak for PSTA, of course, but on our side, due to overlapping
personnel changes at PSTA. There was has been some confusion on our end as to whom had the ownership and management, overseeing the paperwork of the recent agreement, and getting the agreement completed before it expired. um and then communicating with you like
all parts of this consistently. We have now put a system in place and a new project management software and we have a clear line of command and followthrough that my department now oversees. So to show you our faith as a good
partner, PSTA recognizes that the city budgeted $220,600 for the fiscal year 2026 bill to PSTA. So after consulting with our COO, with our team, with our CFO, we decided that
we would reaffirm the fiscal year 2026 contract at the amount that you budgeted for 22600, not the amount that's currently on the draft in front of you. Listen, this isn't the type of thing that usually happens, but for the difference in our
ledger book in this case, it can be made up from the small surplus that we had budgeted. So, in this situation, we want to be a partner. We want to be fair. We want to be flexible and this is a delta that we can cover. Um, I'm not exactly
sure how the city came to budgeting the 22600 amount. Uh that's not something we can answer. But at any rate, PSTA takes responsibility for communicating uh clearly and uh early and more often uh
for the next time. So if the city decides tonight to amend the draft agreement for the total of 22600 and send it to PSTA, we will hapfully uh sign it and approve it. Um then uh we
want to come back to you and your team Francis uh in short order uh with the projections for fiscal year 2027. At that point we would hear what your needs are, what are the services that you're thinking of asking from PSTA.
We'll walk through with you and your team how we go through our marginal cost in a very transparent way. the way that we've always computed uh the cost for how we provide the Sun Coast trolley, route 20, uh PSTA access for paratransit
and mobility on demand, all of that. And um when we come to an agreement with that, we will have our fiscal year 2027 plans and there there shouldn't be any surprises. A big caveat, of course, is what happens in fiscal year 2028. And we'll know
about that. Come November, we're all going to be in the same situation with looking at our expenses uh a bit differently if that passes. But um thank you again. I know you have some questions and um we are very happy to be here and answer any questions that you
have. >> Thank you. And very before other questions come out, I just want to thank you. That was a very kind offer and we appreciate it. Uh, and we appreciate your your team looking into this and and making that offer. So, thank you. Very very kind. Appreciate the the uh assessment. >> Very welcome, >> Commissioner Maldonado.
>> Uh, Mrs. Rice, uh, again, thank you, as the mayor said, for uh bringing that down by 87,67951. That's a huge gesture. But my question to you is if you're not prepared now, when will you be prepared to provide statistics on ridership use increase
decrease? What patterns we've been seeing over the last I would say three to four years. >> We have some of those numbers now. Um I don't know if we have them to compare over the three or four years time, but we can get those numbers for you very easily. Um
>> yeah, I'd like to just see ballpark figures where we're at with writership. Uh, even just the last year, >> Nicole or James, >> I see a trend. >> A trend would be great, but >> please. >> Yeah, please.
>> Good evening. Thank you, mayor, vice mayor, commissioners. Uh, James Bradford, chief operating officer of PSDA. Uh, yeah. So, over the last three years, um, on the Central Avenue trolley, which used to be part of the the makeup of the formula, and we ended up cutting it back and then cutting it
out totally. Uh so you all would have seen um the as from PSA drop over the years but Central Avenue trolley FY23 about 322,000 uh rides FY24 294,000 FY25 279,000
and then through this fiscal year it's about 133,000. Of course the Central Avenue trolley um used to uh end and truncate in St. P beach and now it's been cut back to um the Central Avenue um terminal and then runs back and forth
between the pier. Uh the Sun Coast Beach trolley and FY23 was about 575,000 rides um trending downward to FY24 570,000 FY25 452,000 and then through 6 months um an uptick
about 254,000 almost 255,000 rides. uh route 90 FY23 19,000 FY24 13,000 FY25 8,000 and then through 6 months uh trending downward a bit um bit off pace uh FY26 through 6
months 4,311 rides. Uh the Sunrunner strong performer uh we're seeing the majority of boardings on uh Bokei Bokea Sega and of course uh Beach Access Park. It was FY23 well over a million rides. Uh, and of
course it was it was free fair free then FY24 761,000 on the Sunrunner FY25 732,000 rides and through um 6 months trending back upward um through six months about 413,000 uh rides.
So just to kind of give you a little bit of of how how how the writership there is trending. >> I guess I have the question of the numbers we just heard. Are those actual um people who got on and off in our city
or are those for the total service that was provided? >> Those were numbers for St. Pete Beach. >> Okay. Commissioner Marriott. >> Um, sure. Thanks. Um, I just had a couple of of questions um to to kind of
clarify how the funding of PSTA works because this is something that I didn't know until very recently. Um, also, um, so much to learn in government funding. Um and so um could you um c could you
just give us a little overview of how the PSTA is funded in other cities versus the money that you collect from St. Pete Beach? >> Sure. So PSTA is a special district created by a special act in the
legislature. Um the the legis the legislation was passed in 1984. It formerly merged the transit systems in Clearwater and in St. Petersburg.
The act when uh it was created, it set forth the the creation of the board and the governance practices and how we were formed. At the time it passed um um there were a few cities that uh opted
out and those cities were St. Beach, Treasure Island, uh, Tira Verie, uh, Bair Beach and Kenneth City. So those areas, the residents, uh, the residents in St. Pete Beach when on their property taxes,
there is no adorum line for PSTA. So you you're you do not have any advorum taxes go to PSTA. So in situations where um in those non-member cities that want PSTA service, we we
craft um these interlocal agreements and invoice you for the service. And there's some cities who are members like Clearwater who want extra or and St. Petersburg that want extra service and more service and so we uh negotiate with
them what they what they pay above that. >> Thank you. And and then also just to clarify, um I think the when when we were talking about ridership numbers, the Sunrunner was mentioned. Um but historically the last few years, the Sunrunner um the the
rate that that uh that our agreement with PSTA is has historically been based on an operating hour metric. Um and and that hasn't counted the Sunrunner. Correct. Because originally when the Sununner was coming to St. Pete Beach, the residents of St. P Beach said, "We
don't want dedicated bus lanes. We don't really want the Sunrunner to come here at all. We don't want to be involved." And so we're not paying any hourly rate for Sunrunner operation at this time. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. Um and then um and so
the the um beach trolley that runs up and down >> uh you know, north through the beaches. I think you said Treasure Island. Um you have a a similar inter interlocal agreement with Treasure Island. >> Yes, we do. And so they also pay into that trolley system. It's not like >> Yes, they do.
>> So, so it's not like PSDA is trying to go, "What does that trolley system cost us? Let's bill it all to St. Pete Beach." >> No. >> Okay, perfect. >> I did not bring the Treasure Island interloc. >> They have their own. It's a similar thing, I imagine. Okay.
>> I'm 99% sure it's the same marginal rate. >> Okay. Um and then my last question for you is um you mentioned the uh the access the paratransit um service which is available for um anybody who has a
disability that uh um uh keeps them prohibits them from driving. Correct. >> Uh and prevents them from utilizing bus services. So, for example, someone may be um blind or have epilepsy or have
some other type of physical infirmity that prevents them from using the bus system and they need a special uh uh pickup. >> Okay. And that service is available to people in the city of St. Pete Beach because of proximity to bus stops. Correct.
>> Correct. Um within um a 3/4 of a mile of any bus route. um that um that would put someone in the zone to to be eligible for the access services. >> Okay. And do you happen to know how many um either how many rides or how many
residents of St. Pete Beach take advantage of that access or mobility on demand program? >> I do because um as part of our agreement, we bill you for the previous year. So, um, we always, it's not
guessing you, you get build for the previous year. So, we always have those numbers. There's a a blended rate of $29.95 a a trip, and that's a blended rate that includes PSTA access and mobility on
demand. I can explain the difference in just a second, but you have um the we have the number of users um each month and of course it um yeah it fl it's the
snowbird fluctuating but um so it was uh I don't have I have the total number of writers month by month but the total trips for the previous year was like 1,723 trips. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Multiply that times $29.95 and that was um about about almost $52,000. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And if routes were to be cut, we would not be able to offer access.
>> Right. Because if you're not within that threequarters of a mile of a bus stop, you're not eligible for it. >> Correct. >> Right. So if there were no bus stops in St. beach, then that service would go away as well. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Um, thank you. A few more questions for you, please. Um,
do you know which destination in St. P Beach? You've got a few stops here. Which one is the most popular? Or can you can you rank them if you will in order of of drop offs andor pickups? >> Yes. Me just a second here.
Unless you know it off the top of your head, Nicole, >> I have to say, if I can brag about Nicole for a second, she she just uh was named the got the uh what was the award? >> Emerging alumni of the year from the
University of Florida's urban planning program. >> Congratulations. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Nicole Dupa, director of planning and scheduling. So, as far as our top uh stop locations here on St. Pete Beach. Uh that is the uh 75th and Boca Drive. So the stop that is right outside uh
this building here on Bokea. Um and then our second highest stop location is the uh St. Pete Beach access. So the end of line for the Sunrunner where uh many people, myself included, go uh to reach uh St. Pete Beach. Um and then our uh one after that is actually 75th and
Gulf. So, the transfer location for the uh Sun Coast Beach trolley, the route 90 and where folks can get off the beach trolley and catch the Sununner to go further down the beach um is our uh third highest stop location. And then our fourth um is actually right in front of the trade winds. So, we do see a lot
of riders uh from the trade winds um going back and forth uh on St. Pete Beach and uh even into St. Pete. >> Thank you. One more question for you, please. >> Sure. Um, and I think we might have touched on, I just want to make sure I hear it. Your writership, can you discern whether they're residents of St.
Pete Beach or not, or they're just This is where they happen to get on and get off, but we don't know if they're actual residents. >> Uh, yeah, at this time we don't have um we could do a survey on St. Pete Beach if we wanted to really find out and drill down on on who's residents versus who's tourists. Um, I know um anecdotally of both that use the
service. I think um with the location at the Tradewinds, we know that folks are uh are tourists who are using it. Um, we know folks uh are coming to uh the beach access um to to uh visit St. Pete Beach, but we do not have a definitive answer
on uh residents versus tourists unless we were to do a specific survey on this uh portion of the beach. >> And theoretically on the same these are all trips to St. Pete Beach. And now I might ask the same set of questions on a where do they end up getting off you know do they do they go to Treasure Island? Do they go to somewhere else?
Right. Just so where do they end up when they when they get picked up here? or is there is there can you do you happen to have that? Will you rank where they end up dropping off or would you know? >> I don't have that ranked. Uh but we do know in our data that a lot of folks are going north. Um and so that's the the Sun Coast Beach trolley. So anyone who's
taking the Sun Coast Beach trolley uh that goes from uh here on St. Pete Beach all the way up to uh Clearwater Beach. And so we know folks who are going uh taking the the trip up to uh Treasure Island, MadiRaa Beach, etc. all the way up to Clearwater. Um, and we also know of plenty of folks, especially on the
Sunrunner, are going into St. Petersburg. Uh, the top destinations on the uh Sunrunner uh beyond the beach are actually in downtown St. Pete. >> Thank you. I appreciate both your time today. >> Thank you. >> Action item. You're looking for a for a
motion from us, correct? >> Do we have a motion with an amendment? Do we have public comment or do we need >> Sorry. Yes, we probably do. Thank you, >> John Kersman. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much, John Kersman here
underway. I think the the trolley is a very important and a great asset and and and it's terrific to continue with it, but I think you need to put in perspective of here's the trolley. It's small and it fits in our lanes. Our
Gulf Boulevard boulevard is considered substandard by the state regulations. The width of our lanes is not the regular width of a lane. If you even go north from 75th, G Boulevard is much wider in that area. It's and so what's happening is here's your here's your
trolley and here's your Sunrunner. Your Sunrunner and I have photo after I have a hundred photos here. It's never in its lane. It's always outside of its lane. It doesn't know how to stay in its lane. And I've had the mirror go over my head
when I'm riding my bike in the bike lane. It's not safe. So, I think I should keep showing you all these pictures that I've taken on various days of the sununner being That's not the I
did a search on large buses and that's what I found. Um, but it's always sitting out there um over the line and and it's a real problem. So, my suggestion is that we that the Sunrunner because it's not
suited for our part of Gulf Boulevard. when it gets on 75th, it should turn right and there's plenty of other public beaches to go to in Treasure Island and other county parks going north and let it be the guy that goes north and instead let people who want to go south
change to the trolley and let the trolley head south because that's the vehicle that was we we got because it was right for the beaches and for our kind of lane. So, I'm just asking that that be considered um because it's not it's it's not safe. I mean, the law the
bus itself is 8 and a half ft wide and then it because of an exception in the in the federal law, you're allowed to put your safety equipment beyond that range, but it's it's it's a foot out in each direction and the lane isn't that wide. So, he's always hanging off of the
other traffic lane. Maybe if we it's it's a it's a real safety issue. and and and and I don't think that when they bought these Sununners, they they really looked at our lanes to recognize where it would be or they didn't anticipate it being on that part of the beach. So, the trolley would be better for south. The
Sunrunner should turn around or head north and it'd be a great service for the people north also. Thank you very much. Thank you. That's it. That's it for public comments. Okay. Thank you.
Is there a motion, please? >> Well, I I'm now I'm wondering is the bus actually wider than the lanes >> do we know? I'm I'm going ask somebody from the PSTA, please. Yeah, I believe our Sunrunner uh bus is
about 102 in which is standard in the transit industry. And I'll check on the trolleys. They may be 96 in wide. So there might be a 6 in differential. Um in terms of safety, that's paramount for us. So um if we're seeing sununners that are not staying in their lane, that's
right up my alley. And uh that's something I'm happy to to take a deeper dive and make sure we're doing all we can to uh be safe and make sure that other motorists and bicyclists and pedestrians sharing our roads feel feel safe too. So I'm glad that comment was mentioned. >> Yeah, that's great. Thank you so much.
And and uh continuing that. So is that 102 include the safety equipment on the bus like the mirrors etc? Yeah, that would that would include the mirrors and actually um the union brought this to my attention as well uh when traveling um
the lanes uh towards St. Pete Beach. Um they they they mentioned the fact that they thought some of the mirrors on the Sunrunner uh were a little bit wide because they're having to try to compromise the lane and get past some of the fix fixed objects, light poles, uh signs of that nature. So, we did bring
that to our maintenance to see how we could kind of tuck it in and anytime an operator adjusts the mirrors, we still want to stay within that 102 in. And I'll I'm pretty sure my facts are correct, but I always want to double check. So, if my maintenance or my ops team yells at me, uh, when I get back,
I'll I'll email an update. Could I ask you please? I know there's been a number of question. You gave some statistics early on ridership. I I just ask if city manager, you would be the right person to get the the statistics and I wasn't adept enough at writing them all down as you said them, but I'd love to get the the metrics you're kind of alluding to and get a get an email from you
presumably to our city manager. >> Absolutely. >> Thank you, sir. I appreciate you. >> Happy to do so. >> Questions, sir. >> Thank you. Just need a motion. >> Motion. Yep. I'm look to see if there's a motion. >> Commissioner Mar.
>> Yeah. Thank you. So, um I I know that I have I hear from a number of people. I have heard from people. I'm sure we all have um that, you know, between the between the PSTA money and the money that we spend on the
freebie, we're the city's spending too much money to drive people around who could just buy themselves an Uber, right? Um and I think there's some validity to that. I also think that there is some validity to um there being some sort of public transportation in
the in the vicinity. Um, you know, I think the um the the the transportation for um the paratransit for people who don't have any other options, I think is is a good thing. I'm not one for government spending money on all kinds
of programs, but if we're going to spend money on anything, that seems like a good one. Um and in and I think this needs to be a larger conversation of what we're going to do going forward. Um, and I think the folks from PSTA have said that they're, you know, going to bring us some, you know, all the
information that we want to go forward with a contract or or not for um, for the next fiscal year. Um, and I think they've been very upfront in admitting that like, look, something went wrong with the process this last year. This contract is coming very late. Um, we're
we're paying for things that have kind of already happened. So my inclination is that in the in the interest of being good partners in our larger community um where they have agreed to lower the rate
to what was already budgeted that it seems like that's probably the um it it feels to me like the right thing to do to um to approve that contract for the for the reduced amount that was
already that was already budgeted. um and then have the larger conversation about what what we're doing going forward um as we roll into this next fiscal year and what we're going to do going forward. So um with that being said, I'll make a motion to authorize
the city manager to execute the contract um and see what everybody else thinks about it. >> That would be at the revised amount >> that the revised amount. Yes. Yes. >> Okay. I believe it was 26,200 >> 2600
>> 22 22060 >> Yes. >> I second your motion. >> Commissioner Marriott, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Robinson, >> yes. >> Commissioner Clausy, >> yes. >> Commissioner Maldonado, >> yes. >> Mayor Tate,
>> yes. >> Motion carries. All right. Thank you. Uh let's see. I believe we're into ordinances, which is uh 4B on the agenda.
Ordinance 2025-16, an ordinance of the city of St. P Beach, Florida for the purpose of renaming land development code division 44 marine turtle protection to division 44 marine turtle and coastal wildlife protection,
amending sections 44.1 through 44.9 and adopting sections 44.10 10 through 44.14. To update technical standards, clarify requirements for new and existing development and special events. Modify penalties, compliance, and enforcement
measures. Specify responsible parties, and update definitions to better serve the purpose and intent of this division, and align with best practices providing for codification, conflict, severability, correction of scriveners, error, construction, publication, and an
effective date. Okay. Thank you. Presentation. Yes, sir. >> Good evening. Brandon Barry, planner with the city. So, I this was a companion item to the ordinance that was continued. Um, the
content in that ordinance had been previously reviewed by the city commission in some form. This item has not. It has been reviewed by our committees and planning board. This was intentionally written to be compliant with Senate Bill 180, which of course is still in effect. It went into effect
last year after the 2024 hurricane season, and that puts significant restrictions on any kind of amendments that introduce additional development restrictions or permitting restrictions on um new construction as well as existing construction. Our current we
currently have turtle lighting standards u model lighting standards in our land development code. That ordinance was written in 2007. It was based on an early 1990 state model lighting ordinance. The proposed ordinance is based on the 2020 state model lighting ordinance which has several technical
updates. This does not reine construction as a basis for compliance. It does however introduce heightened regulations pertaining to repair maintenance and special event permitting rather than development. Um and it fits within the existing construction definition in our code. We did meet with
hotel years in uh February and March. I will point out any modifications that were made based on those meetings. This draft was assisted by the Sea Turtle Conservancy and National Wildlife Federation. We do have Katie Mastenbrook with the National Wildlife Federation on the call as well as Stacy Gallagher with
the Sea Turtle Conservancy. Uh recommendations were made on this ordinance by the beach stewardship committee in November at a vote of 4 to one to this commission and by the planning board 5 to zero with comprehensive plan consistency finding in January of this year.
So as I mentioned um probably the biggest change was an update to our technical standards. The current ordinance removes ineffective and illdefined bulb types such as bug type bulbs in favor of requiring long long wavelength those bulbs that are over 560
nmters. Um that is something that the technical standards statewide have been updated to um recognize over the last uh 30 years. It adds definitions for full cutff and shielded lighting. Shielded being of course a shield around the lighting. Full cut off being that it's
directed downward. it has a cut off that prevents um light from shining upward or in a direction that is not intended. Um and those are examples on the right side of the screen um from the FD certified wildlife lighting program. It requires glass visible from the beach to comply
with voluntary model standards when updated. That is currently based on the state's ordinance 45% visible light transmittance. Lower is typically darker. and it has requirements for the use of longwavelength bulbs in new pools when those um lights would not be adverse to
applicable safety laws. So there are some major changes from how construction applicability uh is triggered based on our current code and again this is applicable to structures that are visible from the beach for any kind of construction or substantial
improvement of a new building. So when there's new development taking place on a site that is visible um from the beach, the entire building or structure must be compliant with the new construction standards based on this draft. Any kind of redevelopment or substantial improvement of the property's primary building. So in a
case where you would potentially have a hotel with a few smaller um bars or restaurants on the property as separate buildings that would require full site compliance. any kind of non-substantial addition to a building or structure, that addition must comply with the new construction standard. So, the addition
would need to have the turtle tint on the windows. Any kind of exterior lighting would need to be long wavelength downward directed for any kind of modification, repair, or replacement of existing windows, fixtures, or doors. That would not constitute substantial improvement. Those modified windows, fixtures, and
doors would need to be made compliant with the new construction standards. And for any kind of maintenance of fixtures, windows, and doors that were installed prior to 2007, that date was selected because that is the current applicable standard for our lighting ordinance. Uh they would be grandfathered until
modified. The external lighting must comply in those situations. There were a few other changes that were made that staff considers to be major. It specifies code enforcement as the enforcing division for this ordinance. That is division 44 of the land development code. It updates the
penalties. is it assigns penalties to individuals when the violation is caused by an individual. It assigns to the property when it's caused by the property. That would include both development as well as special events. It requires any kind of screening vegetation to be Florida native for
existing lighting that does not fully comply with the current bulb and screening requirements. There is an allowance in our code to allow vegetation to provide that screening. There was an addition made based on the beach stewardship committee's feedback that any kind of vegetation be Florida
native. So we've added that into this ordinance. We require annual reporting to the city commission and beach stewardship committee. We tended to already provide that for the beach stewardship committee, but this just codifies that requirement and it prohibits use of transients such as handheld lighting, special event
lighting during marine turtle season, that being May 1st to October 31st. So, as I stated, um staff did meet with hotel years and the Tampa Bay Beach's Chamber of Commerce. There were a few recommendations. You can see those in the column on the left. Um any kind of
changes made in the center column and whether their concerns were addressed. The first request had been that glass or film um that is advertised as turtle glass or film would be considered compliant. Staff had requested that we receive product specifications. We need
to ensure that the actual visible light transmittance is 45% or less based on the ordinance amendments. That is based on product specifications, not simply based on whether it's held out as turtle glass. That's not a common standard. Um it's it's more of a marketing term. So
we did address that. They accepted that. Um we we were not going to change that requirement within the code. They had asked for an increase in visible light transmittance to 45%. As I stated before, lower is is better. it's usually darker. Um, our change was to make it
applicable to the stricter of the mandatory Panelis coastal construction code or the voluntary state model code that they are currently 45% so they're in line in alignment with that request. However, should the optional model code update in the future, there is research
that was just produced last year showing that 30% is a standard that really is reduces uh disorientations and false crawls that we would automatically update to that standard without any need to amend the code in the future. It is it would be 45% based on the state model
and the county requirement. In the future, should the state model be reduced, we would automatically align with that lower standard. Uh talking about fireworks, um that was something we had addressed in more detail within the continued ordinance. They had requested that fireworks be
allowed within 200 feet from an active breeding and nesting site on private beach lands only. We did not change the current ordinance draft based on that request. This ordinance had been intended by the beach stewardship committee as a backup
option based on the continued ordinance. Their full recommendation had been a prohibition on fireworks on or over the beach year round. This ordinance had contained the backup option which was to prohibit fireworks on or over the beach during shorebird nesting and breeding
season as well as turtle nesting season. That's February 15th until October 31st. Of course, that would exclude New Year's Eve, but it would include the other holidays that typically have fireworks. We did not make any changes based on that. We kept in the change that the or the request rather that the beach
stewardship committee had made which is that there be a blanket ban on fireworks fired from or over the beach from February 15th until October 31st. They had asked that handheld and personal use transient lighting violations be cited to the individual
rather than the property owner. That had been something that we had already intended based on the companion ordinance for those who are using handheld lighting on the beach. um the violation would be cited to the individual. If it's any kind of violation from any kind of transient lighting like a special event lighting,
a limited term lighting setup, that would still be vi uh cited to the property owner, those who were authorized for the special event. And they had also asked for an exemption from the special event lighting plan requirement for beach weddings. Those do not typically go through special event
permitting. Those are something that are just allowed as a business tax receipt option for the hotels. Um, we did agree to that. We did add language in there because that is not something that typically goes through the special event process. The exception to that would be if the wedding is conducted as part of a
larger special event. If it was part of a stage setup, another kind of event that would require that there be a special event lighting plan submitted. Um, they would require they would be required to submit a plan in that instance. So, we are asking for acceptance or
modification of this ordinance on first reading. should the commission find it um valid to make action on this tonight without the companion ordinance. I did want to point out that there are a few changes that would need to be made to this ordinance based on the continuation
of ordinance 202502 if you were looking to take action on this ordinance prior to the continued ordinance. We had removed the content from section 44.3 which is content regulating activities um during marine
turtle nesting season. We had also made a few minor technical updates that had been put into the companion ordinance. We would likely move that content back into this ordinance with those minor technical updates. And as I had mentioned before, this had been intended
by the beach stewardship committee and the recommendation from the planning board as a backup to the stricter fireworks standard in the companion ordinance. So if the city commission would like to take action on what is in this ordinance, which would be a ban on
fireworks on or over the beach during shorebird breeding, nesting, and turtle nesting seasons, that would eliminate the higher standard in the continued ordinance. And so those are the two changes at least that I've identified today that we would likely bring back on a second reading if you would like this
to continue separately from the companion. So based on that um we are asking for or we are providing a few motion options um based on the commission's direction. The first could be a motion to approve this ordinance on first reading as written.
As I said before um this does not have the higher fireworks standards. So, it would be the ban during turtle and shorebird nesting and breeding seasons. Um, there could be a motion to approve this ordinance with any modifications that you deem fit. Motion to deny and
first reading and if you feel the need to continue this to receive more information from staff or the public. Um, we ask that you continue it to a date certain if you know. If not, we would we would pick up based on the ordinance that was continued tonight.
With that, um, I'm happy to take any questions. >> Commissioner Marriott, there had to be some. >> I'll I'll start with a couple. Um, Brandon, is there anything in the ordinance when it talks about visible light? Um, you know, any light that's
visible from the beach, is there anything that determines what height it's visible from? In other words, if it's visible when you're six feet tall or is it visible from turtle head height or what's the what's the determination there?
>> So, as it's written, it is visible to an observer on the beach that is consistent with the model lighting ordinance. I the state model lighting ordinance rather. Um, so that would include human height or turtle height or anywhere in between >> person standing on a chair or
if I'm sitting on someone's shoulders. Um, okay. And then um uh on the slide when it talked about um the things that trigger having to bring buildings into compliance. Um
when you talk about the Yeah, here we go. Um full site, the entire building or structure must be compliant with the new construction standards. Is that just is that still just the lighting that's visible from the beach or does that mean that all of the lighting on the entire
property property whether it's visible or not has to be compliant? >> That would be only visible from the beach. The the one exception to that would be the standard is directly indirectly or cumulatively visible. So not that we have these type of developments in St. beach on a, you
know, they're not very frequent, but if there is a light of such intensity that the indirect effects are visible from the beach, they would need to bring that lighting into compliance. But any lighting facing toward Gulf Boulevard that's not visible from the beach would would not need to bring be brought into compliance.
>> Okay, perfect. Um, and then uh could you just clarify for me um what is considered transient or handheld lighting? So that would be anything like trying to think of an event uh torches or any kind of handheld flashlights or
anything like that. Transient lighting can be both those features that are used as part of an event or any kind of sightplaced features that are not intended to be operated permanently. So any kind of setup on the beach if there were a stage on the beach any lighting associated that with that would be
transiting because it would be part of the special event. >> Got it. Okay. So, it's c it's not intended to be a way to find somebody who's standing on the beach right after sunset and looks at their phone and somebody goes, "Oh my gosh, that's making light." That's not that's not what they're >> No. And we we do have a standard in here
that it needs to be flagrant. It needs to be intentional. Not that that occurs very frequently, but if it is, it's a basis for citation. >> Okay, perfect. Um and then um my last question is um the uh the special event and wedding
lighting comment um and and this may be something that you don't know which is fine but I mean are there very many weddings that take place after dark? Is that even something that ever comes into effect? I I see a head behind you nodding so it must be. I I've never seen one but that doesn't mean
they don't happen. I think the concern and what came back was a request for a one-hour relief. I believe photos at sunset could, you know, they could still be taking photo. It's not intended to be at from what I understand. It's really just a one-hour float on that. So, >> okay,
>> perfect. Thank you. That's all I've got right now. >> Commissioner Robinson. >> Um, does this apply only to hotels? >> No, this is this is any structure visible from the beach. >> So, it also applies to gfront condos. >> Correct. Right.
So, did we engage condo owners in this conversation? >> Not directly, just through the the public meetings that we've held in the the workshops with the beach stewardship committee, but they were not reached out to directly. >> Yeah. I Don, some of those workshops or
call workshops, but there's not public involvement necessarily in in some of those. Okay. So I'm I'm just seeing I'm assuming we did the two meetings with the hotel years. >> Correct. We didn't meet with the hotel >> and we didn't do two meetings with
residents for condo owners or put that out there to them. >> Correct. Not >> that's disappointing. Um I I had a couple comments. Um one was um on 44.8 8
B3 and it should specify the long wavelength and then 44.10b having a date range for the shore bird uh and sea turtle nesting
because there's no date range in there. um and 44.12 enforcement um being more specific as to when and how often lighting inspections will
occur and it's ideal to have at least two complete surveys of the entire beach in April and June which coordinates with the start of uh sea turtle nesting. And it's especially important in June
because that is the start of the hatchling season and then we have a baseline on that. Um and what is uh you said the greater of the 30 um the VTL VLT sorry um and that
just came about >> correct? There was research published last year that showed that 30% VLT film or treatment would reduce disorientations and false crawls. The state has not updated their model ordinance to reflect that at this time,
but once it's updated, it was written that that would automatically trigger based on our code. It would be 45% until that change occurs. It would be 30% thereafter or whatever rate, >> right? Whatever they determine there is. Okay. And that at that point people
anybody who' put on 45 would need to update that to the current. >> So only based on the the construction standards. So if they were replacing a window that had the 45% film on it at that point they would be required to bring it up to 30. But it would not be an automatic trigger for every
beachfront property owner. It would only be based on the >> is there a trigger for every beachfront owner to have some sort of um reduced uh the appropriate lighting and or film? >> So there are existing lighting standards particularly for lighting within
buildings that are is visible from the beach. But there are options for those who have not replaced windows or constructed new where they can just put up curtains or move the light source away from the window. There's no requirement for the film for those existing structures,
>> but there is a requirement for them to um be beware or or or make uh mitigate the their lighting >> and it could be turning the light off at night or just putting up curtains. Right. That's correct. >> Okay. Um thank you,
>> Commissioner Cosy. >> Thank you, Brandon. Um so on the screening u plants that we were talking about being native >> would it be grandfathered in that if people have existing plants is that
explicitly stated? >> It it may not be explicitly stated. Um if if so it can be it the the intent is for any new plantings to >> I would just specify that we either add any new on that or else
say that it's okay grandfathering. Um so our ordinance with the transmissivity we're going to we're talking about basing it on the state law change. Does the county also specify something? So, I I'll be a little
wondering if we would like to comply with the state and county both because you have the contractors doing work and it seems like we'd want to be consistent on that countywide. We we can be we can keep it at 45%. Um
it's the the county also specifies 45%. So currently they are aligned at 45 >> we we have seen research and again I don't know to what extent it's been vetted by the state but 30% is is what appears to actually move the needle on disorientation. So we you know once
that's been vetted that's why we included that language to update based on that that evaluation. But we we could keep it aligned at 45%. Well, or I'm just suggesting that maybe we could change to comply with the state
and when the county complies like when when the county changes the ordinance then we would that's what I'm thinking of them. Um and then as far as transient handheld lights, we're talking about flashlights,
we're talking about motorized vehicles possibly. We're talking about um cell phone lights and we're on the beach at night and there are chairs that are there are post poles
and obstacles. So just out of concern for safety, I think this one is an issue. Uh, I mean, I see a difference between a flashlight that someone's mo using temporarily and maybe walking along the
beach, probably along the water for that matter, versus a light that's in a hotel or condo that's shining all the time. And I'm thinking about what causes a crawl in the wrong direction. And it would I
see a huge difference between a flashlight and a permanent fix light on a um light post on Gulf Boulevard or a condo that's tall. So I I think that one's worth uh thinking about a little
more. And also, I'm thinking relative to this transient light, the flashlights, it might be better to think about enforcing bad behavior there, like harassing the wildlife uh with the light rather than saying you
can't have a flashlight on the beach at night just for safety of humans. Also, >> I I understand that and that that makes sense. I I think what was lost um in the split and and just reviewing this one tonight is that that regulation was in the continued ordinance and and the
content we'll be bringing back into this ordinance I think makes that more clear that it's intended for flagrant intentional harassment, not necessarily for someone trying to find their way back up to a doom walkover. It's it's it's just content that was lost in the
split that um I think will be more evident the next time this is brought back. Yeah, I don't know about I believe in in no flashlights on the beach at night. So, I would I would want to look at the wording on that and think about that some. And um
all right, let's see what else did I have here. So, the height, um, if we're going to be giving people violations for having their door open at night in a condo
and the curtains aren't drawn because they want to see the ocean and hear the waves, I guess, or have some fresh breeze of air. Um, I think it little details are important about that. So maybe we need to say what height we're measuring from. You know, maybe the
people have their lights turned down really low, but they're still getting a code violation for having their door open at night. But I'm not sure. I think that's the kind of thing that we do want more input on from um the condos that are on the beach and the hotels too for
that matter. The I don't u not following that totally. Could you tell me again what 443 said? That was um so the current adopted standards are
regulations on things like removing cabanas when they're in the vicinity of a active nest and and things like that, filling in holes on the beach. Um, those are the standards that were moved that will be relocated back to this section. And I believe there was also a standard
in there stating that the prohibition on transient lighting is really for harassment. Um, not so much just someone using a flashlight on the beach. I I don't believe that was intentional, but when it's brought back in, I hope that context is is there.
>> Okay. Thank you, >> Commissioner Robinson. >> Um, I just I I believe there's also the thing with flashlights that you can you can have them, but you need to have them the appropriate color or wavelength or filter. Correct. >> You can have amber. Correct.
>> So, you could still have them. It's just it's the the color that they are. So, if we are going to get rid of uh or not get rid of flashlights, just specify what color that they need to be. I mean, that's that's another option.
And um I did not see in here where it was with the uh BLT 45%. I know I saw the portion where it says about the um uh bringing the product
info, but uh I didn't see where it said that we would be following Penalis County or the state. >> So that is in the definition of tinted glass in section 44.2 too. And and we can we can add 45% not to exceed 45%,
but it does site the stricter of the model lighting ordinance or the Penelis Gulf Beaches coastal construction code. That's that's where that 45% is found and we can just add the number and that that won't be a problem. >> Okay, great. Thank you,
>> Commissioner Marriott. Um, yeah. I just wanted to uh to real quick double check with my fellow commissioners if we do feel comfortable going forward with this ordinance completely separate from the one that we've continued with the number
of things that are kind of dependent on the other. Um, that if we've postponed the other, if it makes sense to postpone this one as well because because there's some things that kind of work in concert with each other. Um, and to Commissioner Robinson's point, you know, if we're going to if we're going to try to get
more community input from, you know, if we're concerned that we don't have enough community input from the beachfront property owners that aren't businesses, but that are residents, maybe it makes more sense to to to to hear them both at the same time um, in concert with each other.
>> Understood. >> I think this one is almost there. It's getting close, much closer than maybe the other one, but I think extending that out to the to residents would be condo owners would be great and carrying it with the with the other one.
>> I'll ask you a different set of questions, Brandon, please. Um, so I think uh whether Commissioner Causy intended to or not, I think he was kind of alluding that the devil's in the details, right? Um, you know, we've got these policies and then somebody opens their door just getting some fresh air and all of a sudden they're being cited
or or things like that. I think it's the unintended effects that we need to be careful of as a city as we drop things into ordinances. So, you know, I understand construction and how we construct new new buildings or wings or whatever it is or replace my windows.
All of that I get. And then I think about, for example, fireworks, right? Um what's our current policy with regards to fireworks on the beach? Right now, >> it's discretionary based on the application, the date, the location. decided by either the city manager's
office or the city commission depending on the event. So there are no specific standards. Now there are of course fire separation requirements imposed by the fire marshall but there's no specific setback standard otherwise >> but there is review and and it requires
a permit by the city to do so. Correct. Not nobody can just walk out their back of the door come off the beach and start lighting fireworks off and that's correct. Yes. >> Be fine. Right. So, so I begin to ask, you know, what's broken? What's broken with the current policy? And that it requires a review. It requires some some
due diligence by the city staff and ultimately the city manager. And if and if appealed by the commission ultimately to decide whether you can have something like that, right? As of right now, I can't just walk out the back of of anybody's house and just start cracking off fireworks if I choose to. Right.
And so, um, you know, I I I think about what we're, uh, what we're what we're what we're codifying into official rules here in certain dates that you can't do anything. And, um, you know, I'm just
concerned about the devils in the details kind of pieces of this, frankly. And so, I think I'm kind of hearing is going towards we need to gather more input and more feedback. And so I think that's fine with me. I'd love to hear more. Um but I think um you know I I I
want to know what's broken before we try and fix something. That's really where I'm at. >> Are we going to hear from some of our turtle experts? >> Yes. >> Yes. Hi. I'm sorry it's a little hard to hear. So, I'm making sure that I can hear um where our opportunity is to
talk. Um thank you all for giving uh Katie and I the opportunity to speak at this meeting. First of all, I just want to say I think it's very clear the city of St. Pete Beach values our coastal wildlife and truly cares about our economy and all of our important beach
habitats. So, I just want to thank you all for undergoing this process of updating your lighting ordinance. A lot has happened in research and technology since 2007 when it comes to wildlife lighting. So we definitely applaud a lot
of the major changes that have been made in this version particularly the requirement for longwavelength lamps which we use. We as STC we've uh retrofitted over 350 properties with wildlife lighting in Florida using this
technology. So we know that that works. We also uh definitely appreciate the transient lighting uh requirement to not harass sea turtles. From our perspective, we feel like that is the bare minimum. Um
while transient lights may not be a problem on the city of St. Pete Beach currently, there are places in Florida where there are hundreds of flashlights on the beach every single night during nesting season. So regardless of what the coastal properties are, even
properties we've retrofitted, there are hundreds of flashlights on the beach every night, which will certainly disorient sea turtles. And while that might not be an issue now in the city, it could be an issue in the future. So that was something I wanted to mention. Um other positive things that we found
with this uh you know adding the definition for long wavelength um adding definitions for shielded and full cut off are great additions. Um when it comes to the tinting uh before this meeting I did send you all a letter with
photos showing examples of what the 45% VT looks like in practice. Unfortunately, this has been named as turtle glass. So, a lot of people think that they can use it and their properties are, you know, effect. It's effective in blocking interior light,
but when you look at it, it's just not. It's allowing almost 50% of all of that light from inside to outside. And even if you've retrofitted the exterior lights, that interior light can still be a problem with the 45% VLT. So, we're definitely recommending um you know, it
is our job to put the best recommendations out there for turtles. So, we do recommend that you go with a 30% or less tin transmittance. Um but ultimately, those were uh just a summary of our comments. We are incredibly happy
that the city is undergoing updating this with advances in research and technology and caring about our sea turtles because they face a lot of threats and Florida is incredibly important for global populations of sea turtles. So, if you have any specific questions, please let me know. And then
also, I know my my counterpart Katie probably wants to say something as well. >> Yeah. So, just echoing everything that Stacy just said, uh really appreciate you guys being so considerate of our, you know, special wildlife that we have here in Florida. Um and everything I
echo everything that she said. So, um I don't really have anything to add. Um but I will be open to questions that you might have for myself and Stacy. Thank you. I'm looking around for questions. >> All right. Thank you.
>> I think we have public comment. Yeah. >> Mhm. >> Cindy Perry. Hi, I'm Cindy Perry and I live on Boca Drive and um I am a black skimmer advocate and I'm representing um St. Pete Audabon this evening. Um glad you
asked some of the questions you asked because I have answers for you. Um I am not representing the planning board or having anything to do with the planning board. Okay. So, um, black skimmers, threatened species,
um, very special birds. They skim the water. The lower beak is longer than the top beak, and all they eat is fish. You can't feed them. In fact, if you tried, you'd probably just attract seagulls or crows, >> which are not that's a predator. That's not good. You can see the babies there.
They are very, very good parents. One parent always stays with the nest, the chick or the egg. If you observe them, you can actually watch them switch. They're very devoted. Um, very, very sweet birds. Some of the questions you've asked tonight are already covered
because Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission in um September of 19 of 2022 put a document out 77 pages and it has to do with species conservation measures and permitting guidelines. And there are
several Florida administrative codes. Um there's more than this that affect these um birds. I did not put them all on here, but the main thing is that it does prohibit um take of these species, which includes harm and harassment. And then
it goes on to explain what harassment is and fireworks are in there. But I did want to I think a picture is worth a thousand words. So I thought I would take a minute and show you exactly what happens to these birds when fireworks
are going off around them. So, this is actually on St. Pete Beach. These are real St. Pete Beach birds in a colony. They nest on the sand. They need a wide open undisturbed beach. And what you can see here is you can see the adults sitting on their nest with their
eggs of their chicks. You see a little bird on the right there that doesn't have tail feathers. He can't fly yet. He's a baby. Uh probably a couple weeks old. On the right, you're going to see fireworks go off and all of a sudden all the adults that are protecting their
chicks and their eggs get frightened and they take off. This is called flushing the colony. This is harassment. Now, they don't want to be gone from their chicks very long or their eggs. So, they circle back and they try to settle down back in their nests. Now,
you can also see in this that there is a storm going on in the background. So you will see lightning and you will see that the lightning does not bother them. They know lightning from fireworks. So now the parents are trying to locate their nest. They're trying to calm down. They're trying to get settled. The
babies are scared. They will we they will run away. Oh, here goes the fireworks again. Colony flushes again. Tremendous waste of energy. Um 4th of July we lost 30% of >> Continue. Go ahead and continue. >> Okay. So one Fourth of July because the
chicks scatter, they're not protected. The crows, the seagulls, anything will get them. So um these are fireworks that the city when they do their fireworks, they don't put them anywhere near here. So I'm I'm just concerned about nesting season. So if we can I don't know. I'm
not getting this to go forward, but yes. Well, at any rate, um I don't know how to make it advance. It's not the IT guy is there. Thank you so much. That's all right. It's okay.
Okay. Here we go. So, this is just um another slide showing the other things that will disturb them are drones. this colony that you see flushing on the bottom is flushed because a drone came by or um some other kind of unmanned aircraft. And the other thing is I don't
know if you can see the bicycle tracks in that picture right around the eight and seven where the date is. You can see the bike path going through there. Um and that chick was run over. People don't realize these birds can't fly yet. And so and they they don't get out of the way when something comes. Their
instinct is to hunker down and hide. They're camouflaged. That's why they've borne the color of sand. Okay, so that's it. Any questions on black skimmers? >> Thank you. I appreciate it.
>> Cindy, what is their um what is their uh nesting period date? What is >> it varies? Um usually they have started nesting by the end of April, early May. They come in and they gather. So you don't really see them when it's outside of nesting season. and their numbers are way down. And by the way, there's only
like um and Dr. Forest can speak to this better than I can, but there's probably only like a dozen colonies in the state of Florida and we have one of the largest colonies in the state. So when we when we take a hit, it affects the whole population. Um but they will start
to gather. Uh they actually are monogamous. They will find their mate from several seasons and get together and and start raising chicks. Um >> they start gathering what? February. >> They they probably more like March, April. >> March, April.
>> And they just look for a wide open beach to nest. >> Thank you. >> Joe Woodlanski. Good evening everybody. Thanks for having me tonight. Um, I'm here to be a
whapon post for for everybody. Um, basically, there's been a lot of misinformation out there. I don't know how many of you know anything about sea turtles, why they come, when they come, where they're
coming from, things like that. Um, and we're having obviously lighting issues. Um, and there's there's been a lot of misinformation. Transient lighting. There's a company
that is a shark fishing company that uses our beach with big bright spotlights and stuff like that. No reason for that on our beach. They're definitely not engaged in anything
that's lawful. Um, and we see that. And Envoy Point, they have the weddings and they're out there late at night. Same thing with big bright spotlights. Um,
the trade winds is another one. people go out and they pull their beach cabanas from the trade winds down to the water's edge and have a party all night. Um, and I don't want to say who or what, but
somebody told them it was okay to do that. Somebody law enforcement type of person said it's okay for them to do that. Um,
but as far as the lighting goes, um, there's people complaining because they got written up this year and they had never got wrote up before and that's because they're actually trying to enforce the lighting ordinance. Um, and
people are fighting back. I don't know what they got against changing a light bulb, but you know, same with the who had the cell phone thing. All you got to do is go like
there's your red light right there for reading your phone when you're on the beach. Turtle safe. End of story. Um, and I would be happy to take any questions
from anybody about anything related to the sea turtles from anybody. Um, since I got 30 seconds left. Um, but I mean, I could talk all day about sea turtles. Believe me, I've been doing this for 25
years on St. Pete Beach and hopefully I'll get a few more years in and uh does anybody have any questions for me from the commissioners or anything? >> Yes, sir. >> Uh Joe, what's the number one reason for
false crawls in your expert opinion? >> Lighting is one. This year we have a new problem and that is that our fine um officers of the law
patrol the beach at night, they've already ran over seven of our sea turtle tracks. I mean that as soon as a turtle sees that their bright lights coming up the beach, they're gone, you know. And
that's just one thing. I got videos of Memorial Day weekend where Turtle was coming ashore and a bunch of people ran in the water and they're like, "This is so cool." and all that and Turtle just said, "See you later." Um, and our
nesting numbers are way down this year as opposed to previous years. And a lot of that is this kind of, you know, allowing shark fishing with bright spotlights and, you know, just in
general. I mean, we do our lighting survey every year in May and then we'll do it again in July. So already obviously some of these people have been contacted by code enforcement and they're not happy about it. And I don't
know why the turtles have been here for over 200 million years. And these people, I don't know, didn't want to change a light bulb. Pretty much all I have to say, unless anybody has any other questions.
>> I have a couple. >> Sure. >> How many um hatchlings do you do we lose every year? >> Um it's a good question. um probably lose thousand.
>> And um for the shark fishing um we we've been kind of talking about that as well. Um is this something new you've seen? >> Yes. >> Okay. Relatively new within the last year or do you think this season? >> Yes.
>> Um Okay. Um I'm I'm sure you probably know who it is too, so I'm not I don't know nothing about nothing. >> Okay. I'm not going to ask that question. So, it's good to know because um this is kind of the first we're starting to hear. So, it's um offshore.
They're chumming. They're having the shore. >> And they're from shore, too. Okay. >> Yeah. Nap, you know, they got their drones to take their lines out farther out over the water and drop the bait way out there,
stuff like that. So, it's just not designed at least for summertime shark fishing on our beaches. That's >> they're definitely having an adverse effect on the sea turtles
>> along with just your basic lighting. A lot of turnover because of hotels since the hurricane and a lot of the hotels, some of them are still not even open, but uh a lot of them we have to go and work with. just
and get them, you know, to understand the ordinance and stuff like that and takes a lot of time, you know, but >> and as far as handheld flashlights, red light or the appropriate color is is is
okay to use. Correct. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yes. And if you have an iPhone, all you got to do is, you know, all you got to do is take it and click the side button three times and it's red. >> Okay, great.
>> And you can read your phone on the beach all night and not a problem. Yeah, I was out at the beach this past uh weekend and got to see um after sunset a a family out there
with the flashlights and a whole bit and >> playing some sort of game with lights on and Yeah. >> Yeah. >> And then I could see another one. >> The hotel earers could do more too to uh >> Yeah. inform, >> right? >> Inform the public because they don't
they don't know a lot of them coming in from Minnesota or >> they have no idea, >> you know, Nevada or wherever they're coming from. It's a great place to come to. Beautiful. >> Let's keep it that way. >> Exactly. Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
>> Time, sir. Yeah. Thank you, >> Deb Shner. Good evening. Deborah Shekchnner, Boka Al Drive in St. P Beach. Those red flashlights, by the way, are 560 NM or greater. And usually you hand out small
ones that you can probably buy almost anywhere. Um, I think that could be a good answer for maybe some of the hotels. I don't know. I'm not going to call it a red light district, so I'm not sure we want to go there. Um,
I think it would be very important for us to make a binder for the beach ordinances when everything is fully voted on for the sheriff's department. And the sheriff's department can take
that binder, they can copy it and give it to the police officers because too often they are not aware of what our beach regulations are. They're great about everything else, but there's been some confusion at times regarding our
beach. And I think it's really important for them to be an advocate for us because they hold the authority and especially if people are doing anything to harass. And I've watched
kids play ball in the middle of the birds. And it's not only protected species that are nesting now. All shore birds are nesting now. So even though they may not be endangered, they're still nesting. And I I've witnessed it
too many times when people are going through the nests and they're not aware. And honestly, part of that's education and part of that's on the back of the hotels. They need to let their people come. And no, when I go to the east
coast, Hutchinson Island area, they take extra great care of their sea turtles to the nth degree. And the hotels all participate, not as as many here, but they also educate every single person
who comes in and they give them a pamphlet and they actually talk about it instead of just read this and do this. So, we may not need to ask them to do that. I think they might have before these new ownerships when it was family owner
operated, but also their red flashlight, you don't shine them on the turtles or the nests or anything else. They just not fall in a hole. You know, that's the other problem in the beach. People leave holes that are very, very deep. And I know people have gotten hurt. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Dana Richardson, 5830 Bahama Way South. So, of course, first I would love for this to be denied to be kind of taken over to where we can all, as Scott says, devils in the details and really kind of
scrutinize this before we just vote on the first reading. Um, I concur. Uh, my husband says, "Are you ever going to be able to go on the beach and walk it without getting upset?" I once I was educated by Turtle Lisa,
um, aka Lisa Reich, I I bought a bunch of turtle lights off Amazon, I think like $4 a piece, and I literally would educate people and give them a turtle light. This is something the hotels in the
city, all the stores can like really make this a big thing and embrace the turtles, not look it as as the enemy, but you know, whether it's coloring books, kids little stories, they can educate and put them on the door
knockers and really allow and let them know about the filling in your holes. Don't leave things behind. Um, question. Who is responsible on the beach for filling in holes and making sure debris
is put away or taken away during turtle season? Is that the cities or the hotels? Because I know it's not being done. If you've ever seen, and I can send it out, a video of a turtle going to lay eggs. Oh my gosh, you are
cheering. These turtles, it's tough. And they do it to lay their eggs because they come back to where they were hatched. That's where they lay their eggs. And it is difficult on regular flat sand, let alone with obstacles.
Um, something that I didn't see in this and I didn't look over it very well, but one of the many meetings before with previous commissions, they were trying to get the hotels to put away their loungers
during turtle season or at least stack them to get rid of all of those loungers. Because if you look at an aerial view, it is crazy with all the loungers lined up and how can turtles come and lay eggs with them all out
there. And I think if that's not in this ordinance, it needs to be addressed because that was something hotels push back. Uh hotels in Miami do it much bigger. There's no reason to not do that. Let me see what else I have here.
I think that's about it. And thank you so much Karen for your recommendation to move this along and Scott for recognizing the devils on the detail. Lisa also of course and everyone else. Thank you so much. Bye-bye. >> That's all I have.
>> Oh wait, sorry. John Kersman. >> I'm glad we can do four things I had to stand up for today. John Kersman be here on the way. Right. And um you know, it was great to hear some of the stories from Turtle Joe. I hope that's the name
I can use for you. Um and but I but I don't know that we're really addressing all the scenarios he he mentioned or that we heard about. We heard about, you know, drones during turtle season. We heard about a number of things. So I think we need to go back as as it sounds like you may be doing. Do do a
community, you know, town hall again. let people talk about just turtle ordinances. Um, but you know, the other thing is I'm I'm speaking as myself. I'm not speaking as a beach steward. Um, but you know, the people who focus on turtles
focus on turtles and the best thing for turtles and and and so forth. And it's up to you really to be that first layer that balances everything. And I say that because first of all, if this was easy, Fish and Wildlife would have adopted the state ordinance and made it the
regulation for the state. They didn't. They want the different communities to figure out what's appropriate for their community and and and and go from there. Now, I happened to Google I should tell you my wife has very been upset because we got turtle windows in our house.
Turns out they were 20%. >> And it's a dungeon. And you have to think about the fact that it's not just stopping the lights from the light from going out at night. It stops the light from coming in during the day. So, you know, I think that you should allow the private homeowners or
maybe the hotels to have a choice. If they want to close their curtains, let them choose that. They don't need to be able to stop light during the day for the turtles. And so there's, you know, now you can get an Alexa and hope it doesn't do anything. You can get a device where you and it automatically
closes your curtains at a certain time of night. It's It's not that expensive. So, it says here that the the lighting code is BLT is is 30% already. Uh I didn't go into all the details, but some people may be disturbed that all of a sudden they have to uh to go lower. So,
I just did this in chronological order in there in the order in the ordinance. But, you know, they use the term visible light, indirectly indirect light, direct light, visible light, and cumulative light. And they don't define cumulative light. But, you know, when I heard that Chadra was hurting getting a ticket and
they're closer to the g the the bay than they are the Gulf, I'm like, how far are these rules going? Meanwhile, we have condos right on the beach that still have outdoor lights. Um, I think we should address that and we need to define how how far do these rules go? You know, what lights really matter? And
you know, I like Karen's uh Commissioner Marriott's question because if you're if you're I've I put my head down on this gr on the sand and they said, "Oh, I don't see the lights." Well, then why do you why do you care what someone standing up can can see? It should be it should be focused on helping the
turtles. And I do have some questions for the experts. Uh maybe if during a workshop because I I I've had scientifically I've had people complain about the dim lights in in Gulf Boulevard even. They're like, "How many people have to die from these dim lights?" So, we we have to look at the whole picture and find out. Thank you.
Thank you, >> Kevin Reali. >> Hi, good evening. Uh Kevin Reali, 401 East Jackson Street. Um I I did work with staff and uh help with uh some of the hotels and to Commissioner Robinson's point, of course, we're happy
if the community wants more input. Um, some of the things that I'm actually not going to talk about a lot of the details we talked about today. I I would just say that um the the current ordinance and some of the historic problems with the ordinance are actually legal inconsistencies. The way things are defined, the way one section of an
ordinance might be different than another. Um, and we did work with staff pretty significantly on on trying to identify a lot of those because those are are are very important. And so what I would just say is that I do think the two ordinances that you were considering. They do point to one another in some very minor ways and
changing that on the fly is often what can cause those mistakes to happen. So I I just concur with um I I think what the sense I'm getting from the commission that they should probably move together um so that those inconsistencies can be avoided. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Now that's it. >> Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Maldonado. Uh yeah. So uh my biggest takeaway from the comments was that we need to address the uh drone disturbance and I think uh Commissioner Robinson talked about it.
This and this will be brought up later as well as banning the uh search lights that are being used by u fishermen of any sort. So thank you >> Mr. Cosy.
Um, so the comments now just u highlight the things I've had from businesses along Gulf Boulevard and people who are crossing Gulf Boulevard and drivers in District 3 on Gulf Boulevard. Uh now
that we've put in the amber lighting uh on Gulf Boulevard instead of the white lighting, it's truly a feeling of not enough light for many people. And I think that's a safety concern. I've
initiated a conversation with the state if can we put in brighter amber lights. Maybe we need to consider more amber lighting of the proper wavelength so that drivers don't feel
like they're straining to see the road, to see people who may be crossing the road at a at a place where they're not supposed to cross the road. and even applies to the crosswork rope walks themselves because since we have amber
lighting on the crosswalks now that we've added amber lighting on the telephone poles it diminishes the contrast. So it's you know if if we had red lights flashing for example then you would have more contrast then so during
the daytime amber lights might be fine for contrast but now at night with amber lighting on the telephone pole you don't have hardly any contrast so I think that's a safety concern relative and this um does highlight how far do the
rules go and I think the line has to be drawn somewhere around human safety And because it's a shared environment, it's not just a uh natural habitat here. I think that's a main point I want to make here.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Uh is there a motion? I'll make a motion to um continue the first reading of ordinance 2026-16 to a date to be determined
along with uh the other beach ordinance. >> Second. >> Commissioner Casy, >> yes. >> Commissioner Maldonado, >> yes. >> Commissioner Marriott, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Robinson, >> yes. Commissioner Tate. >> Yes. >> Motion carries.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Uh I think we are on to items for discussion and I don't think there was anybody that mentioned anything. So with that, >> is this is this our item for discussion? I think this >> Well, yes. Uh well, I do we do we want
to go into reports before then or go straight into this and then come back? >> I think we go straight into this. >> Do reports at the very end. All right. Here we go. All right. Uh, thank you. So, uh, for those of you in the room, uh, we did not get through our our budgeting process
earlier. There was a workshop that was going on. Uh, we stopped it mid-flight to move to our commission meeting and now we're going to return right back where we left off. So, so you understand what's going on. Fascinating stuff. If you care to stay. >> Uh, yes, please. Thank you.
Can we go back to item one? >> I will say I thought we around the the 27 to 30ish range. Somewhere up in there was the I think I think >> Mr. Mr. Mill presentation back up. So I think we're just wrapping up, right? That >> be fine with me to be frank with you because I think there's diminishing
returns as I said earlier, but here we go. All right. So, I think we left off on this moderate ranked projects ranking 22 through 28. >> Yeah. And we had decided that everything was fine with the exception
of a pause on the 3 million for ranked item 27 until we get through the other >> pages. And then we would revisit whether that 3 million stays or partially stays or gets red
distributed to other projects in fiscal year 27. >> Okay. >> So if we're okay, we'll move to the next slide. I know you want to. I'm sorry. I'm still I'm still mentally stuck on items 23 and 23, the first two. >> Uh I'm just looking at big dollar amounts to be frank with you. And I
think we're we're committing I'm hearing it five and a half million between those two projects resurfacing. And and I you know I also look over and I see uh on my on my list I see a 25 year lifespan on at least the first item, the book of
Sega Drive and 20 on the second. And so it begs the question, if we invest in this over the next seven years, are we kind of done for 13 years or does the does the the one of those I thought was a a recurring instead of a one time? I could be wrong. Yes.
>> Yes. Right. The the >> Yeah, the roadway rehabilitation is a reoccurring um program whereas the Bokea would be more a one-time pro project until you know that reaches the end >> and then it would it would rotate into the recurring kind of bucket once it's done. Right. So this recurring we'll
we'll just be dealing with in perpetuity. >> Mhm. >> Okay. Do you have a sense and I realize you you you've adjusted it over seven years and so I guess 1.5 time 7 is about about 9.5. So it's about it's about
right. So okay is your anticipation we'll spend 1.5 every year kind of on some road somewhere in the city that's not a state road or a >> correct. >> Okay. Is that historically where we've is that kind of in line with where we've spent historically? >> Uh we've we've been kind of up and down
historically. Um in in recent years, we haven't been resurfacing, you know, as much as as we would plan to. Um so that may that number may go down, but at the same time, you know, construction prices aren't getting any any cheaper. So I think I think that 1.5 is a pretty good
number to be at for now. Does that include the uh shell lining or is that a separate um road uh way rehab? >> That most of the shell work is out of our operations budget. Um but if we were to do, you know, a full sale like
replacement, they would fall out of this program unless we were to um separately. We used to have an alleyway rehabilitation program. Um so without that separate line item, it would all be encapsulated in this in this line. Okay,
>> thank you. >> That was my set of questions. So, unless there's others. Oh, sorry, Mr. Puzzle. >> I might have just left it on the green, but I could I could ask. Um, so is there
how do we is there any coordination between the rehab of the reclaimed water lines and then of course there's the storm drains with paving? >> Yes. Yes, sir. Okay. Yeah, we um we we try to strategize the
roads that we um that we repave out of that roadway rehabilitation to be the same roads that we replace reclaimed laterals on. So, one of the most common things I notice is that we have potholes everywhere and after we patch the
reclaimed water repairs, it settles just like you mentioned earlier, >> but it never um gets fixed back to the way it was before the water leak. >> So, that would be um that would be this program then to do the full mill and
resurface of of the entire roadway width. Um so right now after we when we repair those reclaim we just do a patch you know just in that isolated area. Um whereas when we do the mill and resurface you know it's a clean surface throughout. Um so you remove those those
spotty patches throughout. Can we since we're talking about years of dealing living with a patch, can we is there a way that we can come back and revisit that and bring the patch back up to the level of the road
after I don't know, however long because we just forget about it in it. We can I think I think um we we need to do a a better job of making sure the um you know the materials that are being put back in place when that patch job is is
being that they're clean dry materials you know not wet um dirty materials that we're reusing that'll help the integrity of of that patchwork. So I think twofold I think we can do a little bit better job on on how we're performing those patches but two I think that's something we need to monitor long term. Well,
unless we are compacting whatever we put in there, it's going to settle. >> Yeah, we should we should be compacting. I think the the main issue, like I said, is is what materials put back in there that is compacted. We should be using clean material, not just reusing what was in there.
>> Just just to clarify that we we have a separate maintenance contract for potholes. So, correct. >> Correct. >> So, click fix. If you see a pothole that's not adequately addressed, submit a click fix. >> Submit a quick click fix and and that
would um most most situations would be handled out of our operations budget, >> right? But not out of this. >> So that'd be our process because we know that it's going to settle. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> So we know Yeah. It's going to settle and that road may not be prioritized for a full resurface for for years to come.
Then then we would have to monitor those those patches. >> So the answer is C. Click fix. contracts. >> Any other questions? >> Thanks, Commission. Mr. >> Yeah, I just wanted to clarify something that I that I'm assuming, but I just
want to make sure I'm right. And I think that um a lot of commissioners Kazy's questions come from um a history of the city both not really having a very good program for um addressing the reclaimed water laterals and then not necessarily
um coordinating that with road resurfacing. But what I'm hearing here tonight is that now if we if we have a program going forward that's addressing these um reclaimed water laterals so that they're getting um actually replaced and fixed, not just patched
when they break. Um and that when and that as we coordinate that with the road resurfacing that over time the problems that we're seeing with the reclaimed water leaks getting fixed three times and the pothole sitting there and then the road getting patched and then it it failing again that those problems are
slowly over 3 to five years are going to get significantly better because we now have this plan for addressing it in a more holistic fashion. And so, um, I'm less concerned about, I mean, it is still a concern because it's what we're living with today, right? But, but I
feel like we have a pretty good plan going forward with addressing that in a more holistic fashion with kind of this more long-term planning that we're doing that hadn't really been done in the past. >> Yeah, I agree with that. I just, you know, honestly, if the word that I'm
going to put out to everyone is if you have a pothole, do see fix and the city's going to show up next week and they're going to fix it for you. I think we'll be very happy about that. I mean, we'll get all you won't be uh trying to avoid the things by going over into the other lane.
>> I've always loved having a pothole on my street. It keeps people from driving too fast. I don't want anyone to call them in. >> Road calming measure. >> Exactly. >> I I wanted to talk about the priority item 27 for just one second because we
had an audience comment on that one and I thought that was a good point that if we get our WSP engineering design back in say February then it would be nice to have money allocated for that. Would we
be able to do a mid-year readjustment for that if we don't have the design done and then we could allocate it at that time? And for now, we could leave it in the the budget just in case. >> Um, I believe so, but I'll let Devon clarify. >> Good evening, Devon Schmidt, uh, finance
director for the record. Um, yes, we could absolutely do a mid-year amendment. We could, um, it doesn't have to just be a mid-year amendment. We could do an amendment to capital projects at any time of the year. um we just try to keep it into one condensed format so we could certainly um bring
back an amendment. >> Okay. Yeah. I was just hoping that we wouldn't have to wait if we get a report back. So maybe we should be more more clear on when we think we'll get the report back to be able to make that decision for sure. Well, and I think in the interest of
like the city manager said, being able to plan, you know, putting money aside and planning for the future, it it's possible that what we might what we might decide by the time we get to the end of this is that, you know, let's leave a million dollars there or $1.5 million in that box so that we're both
prepared to get started on something if that's where we go. Um, but it's not necessarily setting aside the full three million in a time when when when just from pure time and and labor constraints there. There's no way to spend that. I mean, I I don't see any way of spending that 3 million in that amount of time.
But if we just drop the number down a bit, we're still prepared for the future, >> but we're not tying up quite as much money when we need it other places. >> I like that. >> I guess it depends on how much money we would need to initiate the project. say just say we did get an engineering
design in February. Um what would it do we have any idea how much money it would we might want to have before the 2028 budget? >> No. No, not at this point.
>> I I think the challenge with this project is no matter what phase you want to do, it's going to be in the multi-millions of dollars. So, >> I can't do a budget amendment if I don't have any money to give you. >> Yeah. >> So, it's all going to come down to >> money >> or
>> money. And if you set aside a certain amount to get us started to have money to leverage for grant matching, that's one strategy. But even three million isn't going to be
enough is what I'm trying to tell you. So >> if you want to use your capital now for something else and put a partial amount there to hold so that we can keep moving. >> Y >> um it wouldn't require a budget amendment if there's any money in that
project. It doesn't require a budget amendment to spend that money. It requires us to bring you a contract for approval for services and then you would be authorizing that appropriation. So >> yeah, I'm just not comfortable with the
not cost effective uh rating. Is that the only one that we have that says that? >> That was the only one. Um and and that's just because of the timing. That was the application we submitted last year for that um Department of Emergency
Management Hazard Mitigation Grant. Um, but I would say, you know, I think we'd be in a better position for this project to be cost- effective if we had more information to provide with that. >> Yeah. I mean, right now they pardon the fund, they've essentially said it's a a
sunken project, right? Well, and regardless of what the grant funding comes back as, I mean, I I think there's I think it's an absolute possibility that we'll get through this study and we'll get through some community input
and and we'll look at the total dollar amount that it's going to cost to fix that problem and that it may be that a large enough percent of the community goes, we're not gonna we're not willing to do what it costs to make that happen. they will say it's not cost effective.
>> It's not cost effective. >> And so, and that doesn't mean we don't need to get all the information and that we don't need to, >> you know, follow the process and figure out where we're at. But, um, but but I, you know, like like that's why we don't have allocated, you know, if if if we
knew that that was the most important thing to do, we would get rid of the next five pages of this and put all of that money in that box, right? And so, so I think the question is just what's the balance of the dollar amount that we want to hold there to get us started if that's what we're doing. >> Let me ask a quick question. Um, just as
much as I could theoretically put three million into it and then we choose that we're not going to use it because of all the things we said and we can reallocate that somewhere just move it somewhere else, right? >> And so I put I'm I'm being a little facicious here, but I put a dollar here and then I want to bring 299, you know,
2.9 million in. The process is the same. There's no more approvals to bring money in versus leave it out, right? >> You just have to make a decision to defund something, >> right? Understood. >> Bring the funding over >> or go to somewhere if we choose not to spend it at all. Right. >> Right. >> And so we're just deciding to transfer
money between between projects >> or you could transfer to the resiliency fund and not have it assigned to a project and you're just building your resiliency fund which I think what's the fund balance right now? About 3.8. So you could just decide. We know we
have all these resiliency projects going on. We know we have a large study. So, it's easy because once you allocate this to another project, it signals to the public services director, go do this project. >> Okay. >> And so, the money's gone or you have to take it back and you have to say, well,
now we're not going to pave your road, >> you know, Q Street. >> Understood. >> Because we decided to take it and give it to and that just ends up being >> sure it's messy. >> Messy and divisive and people get upset. So, it's better just to put it in a holding. If you want to keep this in the
resiliency space, we have a fund for you. >> So, that's another idea. >> And I will just add at the expense of another thing that we may not get to because at some point we're going to have draw, right? And that's what I'm saying. We're holding money to potentially use for this that means we will absolutely drop something $3
million off near the bottom presumably, >> right? So, that's the only, >> you know, give and take on this. and let's look at those because you might decide we only want to put a million in resiliency and we want to redeploy the two million right now. But I would say
do that purposefully and allow your public services director to move those projects forward if that's where you want the money. And once again, I'll say that we want to understand what this is instead of just resiliency, whether it's storm water or
seaw walls or whatever it is. >> And because I feel like we've heard from the community loud and clear that they have a certain priority. So if this speaks to that, it should be prioritized. And you
know, there's ways to get funding. We can get funding. It doesn't have to come from a grant. >> So, it's just a question of whether we want to do it or not. >> You have what you need at least or do you need us?
>> Well, I think I I have still the three million sitting on hold and we're going to move to the next slide. >> Yeah. Y >> and we'll come back to >> change that number or leave it the same. >> Fair enough. Okay. So, Cam, you're on three of five.
>> Okay. Um, so next would be um projects 31 through 40. Um, so you can see in here that's more of those resiliency adaptation for the for the other areas in the rest of the city. Um, those numbers again were still pulled from those those water threat
studies that were done a few years ago. um Fisherman Park, Sunset Park. This one is for the construction of of the rehab of those two facilities. They're um currently under design right now, and that'll carry through this fiscal year. Um the wastewater transmission system,
that that's to install air release valves um along our our forest main for inspection. um community center seaw wall that that's one we we talked about briefly earlier that was that's a paired away from the seaw wall master plan um but was recommended out of that. Um the
reason that this project falls a little bit lower um than some of the other ones such as like pass a grill seaw wall is just due to the condition um the severity of it. The the community center isn't as in as bad of shape as as the pass a grill one is. Um but it is
important to note we do have two grants um that are tied to that project. One for design and another one for construction. >> Collectively the 863 is two different grants. Is that what we're saying? >> That's correct. >> And are we time constrained on those? Is that a >> We are um those grants have already been
expired and we've um applied for extensions to get those extended. I think one goes through 2027 now and one through 2028. Okay. Um, so as it's situated now, we're in a good position, but if we were to defer this, um, that would put us back into asking for extensions again.
>> Okay. >> And that's a $3 million seaw wall project. >> Yes, sir. Um, that's still that number's going to be finalized as we complete the design. We're underway with the design right now, but um, that's that's what we're estimating currently.
>> Does that span underneath the bridge? >> It doesn't go all the way underneath the bridge. No, it's it's pretty much um right up to the northern end of the bridge there at um like Haran Park um because underneath the bridge would um would get into like DOT
>> DOT would handle underneath the bridge if it comes to it and then and then core Landings I think did it include some seaw wall I don't remember. Yeah. Okay. >> And an Eastman in case we wanted to add that at some point a um connection point, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. So we can grow into that as
Cory Landings grows into the whole hopefully seaw wall and easements and things like that. >> Okay, cool. Thank you. >> Um public services building that's an ex um just a continuation of of the project that was budgeted this year. We don't anticipate um completing that based on
where we're at currently. Um so we're showing reappropriations there. Um but ultimately um within within the same budgeted amount. um blind path south jetty improvements. This is a new project um that was added into our our capital program this year um based on
inspection from Penllis County. They did a structural inspection of all of their um all of the structural components on the beach in in the county and this um was identified as one area that that was deficient, needed to be replaced. Um, so this is in blind pass um um near where
where like the secret garden is there on that and there's a um very deteriorated like metal seaw wall where you can see it's jagged edges holes in it. Um it's probably been you know in that condition for for quite some time. Um but we're we received that report from the county. We reviewed that with them. Um they had an
engineer do some cost estimates and right now that's looking at about a $3 million project. Um so you'll see for the fiscal year 27 new that is for um the design funding um for that project. We do um anticipate applying for grants
um for that and we also um plan on coordinating with the county to see if there can be any cooperation. >> Yeah, that's a big fishing area and I think the manatees hang out there too, don't they? >> Probably. So, yeah, >> because it's such a a pivotal part for
voting, we're we're going to also um put this on our list for um the TDC. >> TDC. Yeah. Something as well. >> So, any TDT? >> Sorry. TDD. Yes. >> Transit development. >> Tourism development tax.
>> Yes. >> Buses tax. >> Transit. >> Six different names for it, right? Yeah. I I was going to ask you the same question uh madam city manager and uh Camden about like deficient pure rehabs >> item 59. Can we tie anything that's
tourism related to TDT >> potentially? I think we should at least try >> start your markings that are you know uh used ex not exclusively but largely by our tourists. We got to we got to squeeze that lemon.
So >> agreed. I mean, there's also another alternative potential for PSTA if they because there's there's talk of bringing a a ferry service, an intra island ferry service, a >> lot of grants. Seriously, >> and Mary Pier might be a great spot to contemplate, right? So, maybe there's
some work we can get done. >> I got ideas. >> All right, man. I like it. >> Okay. Sorry. Came in. >> So, are we saying blind pass South Judy improvements might be TDT? >> Is there a way? >> Say we're going to try. >> How do Okay. try. >> All right.
And then um the Gulf Winds Drive reconstruction project, we have that shown in here. Um currently not proposing funding for fiscal year 27. Um but it is important to note um right now we are tracking for federal appropriations for this project. So if
that money did come online, then I would recommend that um we we prioritize, you know, to move that project forward if if those appropriations come online. currently um this was kind of strategized just based on capacity. Um you know we can only do so many projects in the city at one time and and with
Bokea Drive that's a big one and Gway that's another big roadway project that I wouldn't recommend doing all three at one time. So that's why this one was deferred but that recommendation could change if these um appropriations materialize. I'll ask maybe city manager, finance director. Um, imagine
we get a grant, you know, and and we've got $6 million worth of grant sitting in our coffers. Can we spin up this if we choose to mid midyear? Is that a viable option? >> I mean, it's new money and the new spend. So, theoretically, they would
balance each other off, right? >> But he's got other projects going on. >> We would have Oh, go ahead. And you have >> yeah timing wise logistically as they'll be concerned but moneywise really just asking moneywise not logistically I understand that logistic >> yeah this particular one it would be is
a state appropriation so those we do um receive in a much shorter time period than some of the um federal dollars. So yes you could um theoretically if if Camden's team um could accomplish it and if logistically it made sense you could we could bring that back.
>> Okay. Go Camden. I like I'm team Camden. All right. Thank you. >> Any any more comments on this or do you want me to move to next? >> I'm good here. Unless somebody's got a question.
>> All right. So 40 um through 49. Um so the the reclaimed pigport installation. We're um proposing to re reappropriate the remaining funds for that. Um the Bella Vista Donses and the Passa Grillway. Um, these are all related to
the tie check valve modification projects that that were recently approved. Uh, based on where we're at currently this year, that's an eighth month construction project to complete all three of those. Um, so we're not anticipating completing that this fiscal year. So, we're showing that
reappropriation into next year. Um, but not asking for any um, new funds to be allocated towards those. Um, the the bridge rehabilitation. um this pro this line does have a typo in in your um materials. We are
proposing to reappropriate um the remaining balance of of this year's budget. So right now it's we have 200,000 budgeted. We plan on spending two 25,000 this year um for design um and then we would spend the remaining
175 for repairs. >> So I'm sorry, what you're saying fiscal year 2027 budget. What number do you are you dropping in there? Uh it would be 175. >> So it's just the reappropriation. >> It's just the reappropriation of >> 175 and the new should be one column over in the reappropriation.
>> Yes. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Reappropriation should 175 instead of 25. New appropriation should show zero instead of 175. And then your green column would be the 175.
um facility HVAC improvements. Uh this one we we boxed out um because it it wasn't ranked as high as some of the other facility projects, but it is important to note um we we are underway with the design for a backup generator for city hall. Um city hall is it would
be intended to be um a facility that we use for for emergency operations. Um but part of sizing that generator um would be, you know, sizing it for the new HVA system of of the building. We wouldn't want to design it to what we currently have. Um so right now we're kind of
tracking those two projects to to go together. Um the Bella Vista Mini Park. Um so that's an existing project from this fiscal year. Um that's currently under design. Um through that design we had an underwater inspection performed of the
the pier structure itself. Um initially we anticipated um repairing that pier rather than full full replacement but based on that um structural inspection the engineer was recommending a demo. Um so we um are are showing that advanced
scope into this project. Um but this is continuing um moving from the design into construction. So out of that mini park, it's it's the pier itself, also the seaw wall. Um the seaw wall needs to be repaired and then it'd be you know the brought up to the code elevation and
then storm water pipe um repairs. There's a storm water outfall that connects from the street that runs through that park property um that needs some repairs. So we would anticipate completing all of that scope uh within this line. >> Okay. And then the right-of-way median improvements. Um this would be a program
that would would probably be always be on the books um just because you know we're we're always going to be updating our medians. Um right now that 185,000 was dedicated uh specifically for G Boulevard from the section between the Bayway to um 75th Avenue where we had
received a a grant from the Florida Department of Transportation for uh 186,000 and change. um that grant um we've we've done the design work for um submitted the plans to FDOT and and they've reviewed it right now. Um that
that project is on hold because FDOT is doing a storm repair project on on Gulfway um through those those same project limits. So they've asked if we could um put our medium project on hold so that way, you know, we don't do our work and then they come in and and and
damage it afterwards. Um, so that's why we're targeting to reappropriate this 185 to next fiscal year so we could follow behind FO's project. >> And you said there's grant money tied to this. I don't see it in the column, but you said there is. >> It should be in that. Yes, in that grant dollar. Um, it should show 186. I think
it's 186 and 400. Um, but either way, the the grant amount from DOT is more than what our bid was to redo those medians. Um, so we shouldn't anticipate any any city money um, other than, you know, upfronting the cost and then requesting the reimbursement. >> And I know I I had seen I don't know if
everybody saw, but I saw an email from FDOT that they were looking to do some resurfacing and some other work on our road, the bayway all the way, frankly, I think all the way up through, you know, ultimately through Madura Beach and other places like that. Is that the same project or is or is this something different?
>> Same different project but same areas. Um, so, so FDOT's project is going to be more like pavement, curb, sidewalks, like drainage inlet tops. >> Um, but with the curb work, with the asphalt work, they didn't, you know, wouldn't recommend that we do our improvements first. Um,
>> so, so theoretically, they do their work and then we come back in and resurface whatever we're doing here post that. >> And, uh, all right. And I think that's and they're both F DOT and and the the one where they're doing the work. There's
there's no work on our part. We're just let getting out of their way and letting them do their thing. Right. >> Correct. >> We don't have a spend on our side or a grant on our side. They're coming in and doing their own work and we're just >> waiting until we do our, you know, right away improvements beyond that. >> Yes, sir. That's right. And then this
program, you know, could be used in the future. We wanted to do other other medians throughout the city as well. You know, eventually we'll be doing blind pass again down the road. >> Anytime I'm I'm gunshy, so anytime I hear grants and uh and you know, I keep thinking grants that that we have to
eventually we drop the project and we we lose that grant money or we we decide not to spend it. Tell me anytime you feel like there's a risk of us losing grant money. Feels like this one's new and it doesn't sound like an >> This one doesn't. Yeah, I don't think we're at risk with this one um currently, but >> you feel those risk. I'd love to hear it. >> Yes, sir. >> That certainly changes perspective on
things. Two quick questions on this uh median topic. Um first off, we were talking about FOT. Can you clarify are any of the Gulf Boulevard sidewalks is FOT responsible for those sidewalks
at all or >> F dot is responsible for for those sidewalks? Yes. >> So like they're not ADA compliant, right? So they need to be wider. So why doesn't F dot fix that? And why why like we we're talking about the sidewalks on
Gulf Boulevard and it's my understanding that we charge businesses to fix their own sidewalk like when they redevelop a property. >> Um my understanding is um we have like a corridor plan to do a wide sidewalk. I
think we we asked for like 10 foot wide which that's that's above you know a typical standard >> um sidewalk. Could we get all new sidewalks if we just went with whatever F dot thinks we're supposed to have, which is the wider ADA compliant sidewalks?
>> If if FD if FDOT would replace all the sidewalks, >> you could ask me. >> Well, they're in pretty bad state now, seems like. So, you're saying the reason we have uh substandard sidewalks is
because we want them to be 10 feet instead of ADA compliant. >> No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the the sidewalks that the city proposes to be replaced as part of like conditional use permits or or site plans, that's all tied to that 10- foot
wide width of having, you know, more of a multi-path corridor. But we don't we don't regulate um or dictate, you know, what FDOT maintains on those sidewalks. That's that's their responsibility, their right of way.
>> So even the project that uh the mayor uh was discussing, that project is to repair damage, >> right? So they're going to come through and they're going to see uh damage as you said to inlet top repairs, sidewalk repairs, pavement repairs, driveway repairs, pavement mark sign
repairs, sign replacement. So they're not doing a replenishment, they're kind of doing spot. >> That's exactly correct. And and that's really the distinction here of of what triggers, you know, having to come into full 88 compliance. If they were doing, you know, a full roadway rehabilitation
and milling resurfacing and doing curbs, then you have to bring all your sidewalks up up to standard. But since this is more of just a spot type project, that a lot of those existing deficiencies can remain like grandfathered. >> Probably on purpose to be frank with I I want all those mediums replaced, right?
>> And thinking, >> right? And then medians. Uh so look, does this apply to to neighborhood medians as well? On on, for example, on my street, we have um two uh it's like a
I don't know, a median separates the two lanes. This could yeah this this program rightway median improvements would be intended for any any landscape median within the city's right ofway. Um so that that could be an applicable use. Um
our our intent currently what we're planning for is is blind pass. Um initially when we applied for this FDOT beautifification grant it was for G Boulevard and Blind Pass. Um DOT recommended that we um defer the blind pass improvements because they will be
doing a full reurfacing of that roadway in fiscal year 28. Um so we're kind of tracking with that one. That's that's really the next fullale median improvement project that we plan on taking. >> Right. Okay. Next, um these are projects 51
through through 57. Um and again here we have um the Mary Pier um bait shack here boxed out because due to our you know our ranking metrics this didn't score as a very high project but we know um we've received a lot of community um input on this um in in the past several months.
So just kind of wanted to highlight that this again is is some of the nuances where where the scoring and the rankings may not fully work out to your priorities. So this is where really we want your your input and and direction. Um, Donsesar boat ramp, that was a project we did not proceed with um, this
year that um, we we're proposing to just reappropriate um, that funding. Um, rideofway signage, pavement, and markings um, asset management that that's a new project. Um, that's really to collect a condition rating and assessment of all of our pavement
markings, um, signs, traffic signs, warning signs, and and um, striping so we can develop a long-term capital improvement plan for that. Um the the 80th Avenue living shoreline, that's a reappropriation there for construction. Um that project is is
under engineering design um this fiscal year. Um same with public services operations yard. That's that's another project that's currently in engineering design. Um so we're proposing to reappropriate money for for the construction. Um the the city hall
interior improvements. Um that includes um some updates to our um second floor finance area, but also our main entrance lobby. Um and included in in those improvements are mainly um centered around security and and safety and some of the recommendations we had um from
our Penllis County Sheriff's Office um during an an active um shooter um training. And then the storm water drainage manual. Um this is a um design criteria and and codes for storm water drainage within the city. Um this is
something that we run into as with site plans is our our drainage code is is pretty antiquated. Um a few years ago we got underway with developing a a storm water drainage manual and that project was probably about 75% completed through um before it um you know didn't
continue. So this would be picking that project back up and and taking it to um completion. And that's a requirement for us to get grants having that manual. >> That's not a requirement for for us to get grants. It's it's really um the code
and and the design criteria that goes behind designing storm water management systems. So, as you know, private developments are are redeveloping, this is the code and criteria that their engineers would look at when they're designing the storm water system for for their sites. and then the city, you
know, would follow follow that code as well. Um, currently the the code that we're we're operating, I believe, was, you know, back from 1997. So, you know, in that time there's been a lot of changes in in best practices and and regulatory codes on how drainage systems are designed. >> So, I have to ask you, I'm just curious
about that one. So, that's an update to a a manual. >> It's a manual that doesn't exist. It's be an update to a draft that wasn't completed. >> Understood. Um, is there a third party doing the work or is this work that's being done internally? >> It'd be a third party um helping helping
staff with the work >> because not sure because we don't have the knowledge or we don't have the time. >> Both. Yeah, both. We'd be we'd be leaning on experts in that area and also um just capacity. I mean the the way we
we operate at least as an engineering team is we're we're very lean and small and we outsource a lot. >> Okay. >> Sorry. >> That's okay. >> No, that's all right. Um, on a slightly different topic, but on the same page on
the Mary Pier Bay Shack repair, um, I, uh, my feedback on that is that, um, I I mean, $100,000 on the in the grand scope of the budget, you could say it's not very much, but, $100,000 is $100,000. And, um, I understand the community's
desire to have things be put back exactly like they were before the hurricane. I also um have known a lot of business owners who have had um concessions with various government agencies where part
of their deal is we will give you a permit to build whatever kind of building you want to build to run your concession out of and we'll give you a long lease to make it worthwhile and then when your lease is up the building reverts back to the back to the
municipality or to the government organization. So, I'm not so sure we couldn't craft a um a lease with who with somebody who would build their own building on Mary Pier >> um and relieve the city of the cost or or not build a building at all because
if it's over the water, I'm not sure we can. Right. That's the that's the answer. Yeah. And so so this $100,000 to repair what's there, do we even know yet if that's possible or that's a maybe >> we do not know if that's possible. Um
based on on our efforts so far, we have not received bids for that amount. Um so this this 104999 is set based on the um 50% rule. Um so it was appraised at 210,000. >> Okay. So this is likely to not happen
anyway. And so we could we could give somebody a concession to park a food truck bait shop next to Mary Pier if we wanted to or something like that and and and give the community the same benefit without trying to unrealistically put something back the way it always was. >> We'd have to change some of our
legislation though for food trucks and things, right? >> I think she's just saying a mobile base. >> Yeah. I mean, you know, not >> there's I'm not going to be ordering shrimp to eat from it away right now just in case of other courses of action. >> Okay, perfect.
>> Bait barge. >> Bait. >> Bait barge. Yeah. >> No fireworks. Uh the uh again I I I have heard that that again this this intra island transit thing is looking for docking space. It just feels like a perfect area right down there and potentially Corey. I I also know there's
some Cy there's a Corey doc on here as well and so I'm wondering what we can't PSTA TDC kind of tie in some of the stuff that's just like >> maybe we'll add that to the next uh >> I also just want to note that if we
cannot rebuild the the bait track based on our second attempt to get a bid for repair we will need at least I believe 68 to $70,000 to demo it. >> Okay. >> So we need this money. So that money needs to be there for >> no matter what. Right now.
>> Okay. >> So >> we can >> 105 looking so bad, is it? >> Tear down to 105. >> We shouldn't ban fireworks quite yet. >> This is 105 >> complete. Get us a new bay shack there versus 85 to tear the existing one down. Is that what I'm hearing? >> No.
>> No bids. >> We've been unable to find a bid that is willing to repair it for that price. >> Understood. >> And for FEMA purposes, it cannot exceed that number. >> Understood. Okay. So, we're going to need 80,000 to tear it down.
>> I I wouldn't want to get behind that statement. >> I I leave a hundred there, frankly, and just >> Yeah. >> reappropriate it later if we need to. >> Yeah. >> Got a Hail Mary coming up. >> I guess I would like to ask another
question then on the uh Don Suzar boat ramp replacement. So what we have budgeted there is that to repair what's there now or is that some kind of plan? >> That'd be for the design of a
replacement structure um >> in the same location. >> In the same location, >> while you're paused, can I ask >> the other the other WSP thing that talks about thazar flooding and all that stuff? I got to believe it's got to contemplate flow across that ramp just like it's got
to contemplate flows across seaw walls or whatever else is being contemplated with this WSP plan. Would would the idea for that come out of this, I guess, is what I'm suggesting. >> Yes, you're absolutely right. Um and that's that's the main reason why we deferred starting the design on this
boat ramp this year is because we knew, you know, whatever came out of that WSP project could potentially conflict with this. Um but yes, you're right that this this area is within that um WSP study area. Um the the 200,000 design would be based on the um feasibility report that
Stantech um prepared I think back in 2023 and was adopted by commission in 2024. >> Um that that's where this came from. Would we act again similar to what we talked about earlier on resiliency or whatever it was that the 125 million would we act on this boat ramp until we
I would suggest we don't act on it until WSP comes back and tells us a holistic plan for all of this right and then theoretically we might choose to do something with that boat ramp >> that'd be my recommendation >> a grant tied to it though for 15 >> we have applied for for a grant for design
>> right so >> does that grant do what's what's the deadline on the grant when when do we have to use it or lose it. >> That's still undetermined. U we haven't we haven't received um >> any we haven't received like a review yet if it's been approved or accepted. >> Yeah.
>> So theoretically we might have time to wait for the WP to come in decide what the grant is and >> correct. Yeah. That's fine. >> Well, I was just going to make sure everyone understands that at a high tide on a monthly basis, if the wind's blowing from that direction, it you get
every wave actually does crest the boat ramp. So, so it's sort of like a pump if the wind's blowing because normal high tide is not really going to crest the boat ramp. But if you have wind with it, even a little bit, every wave comes over
and goes straight down into the neighborhood. So, you could almost fix the problem just by raising the road a little bit with a burm or if need be, you might could help solve that problem. >> Yeah. the then the similar recommendations came out of that feasibility study of of kind of
regrading that area. Um but because you know you got to tie into existing it it's a pretty big stretch that that >> in the fiveway intersection >> ramp in the middle of the fiveway intersection. I >> mean I think for me I think we've said it the WSP would have to contemplate how
that's going to fit within the broader long-term plan. And I'm assuming that might give us some guidance as what we would do with that particular boat ramp in addition to the rest of theund and something million dollar effort. Right. >> Correct. >> So I think we would act on it then. So you mentioned you you deferred it. I'm
I'm Are you suggesting that the 200,000 is not for 2027 because I see it here. >> It would be. So the the um the idea would be you know as WSP is getting further into their their project then you know we'd still have time to initiate this within 27.
>> Okay. Alex, >> it wouldn't kick off October 1st, you know, 2026. >> Why we left the 3 million in the other one earlier? >> Is there a plausible outcome that they the study comes back and says to close that boat, ramp, >> right? It's part of that same study. >> It it could um but then that that gets
into um you know, I believe their requirement for two boat ramps was was really why, you know, this location was kept. um >> requirement from the comp plan >> based on the number of residents that we have >> and we had the community engagement meeting on this and it was pretty
overwhelming to have a boat ramp >> but you know I could you clarify was that alternative location owned by the city or is that something we would have to acquire? >> The alternative location is owned by the city. So the other location they looked at was Cababrilo. Um so just you know a
little bit south there. >> Yeah. like um not hardly any distance at all, which wouldn't be in the middle of the intersection. So, you know, I had the feeling that people might not mind a relocated boat ramp
out. Um when when the feasibility study was done a couple years ago and they looked at both of those locations, uh my my understanding is there was some public workshops done. I I know at some point that was brought to commission and commission ultimately voted on, you know, keeping that location. And so I think if that were to change, uh, we
would need that direction from you. >> Yeah. >> I'm hearing we're going to get some direction out of WSP on what we should do with that. And we should probably allocate some money, but then don't spend it till we learn what WSP tells us. That's kind of what I'm hearing. >> Okay.
>> All right. We're good with moving on. >> All right. All right. And then the last um in in this moderate category is your fishing pier um rehabilitation project. Um so in fiscal year 26 we had 825,000 budgeted. Um that was mainly for First
Avenue fishing pier and um the 7th Avenue fishing pier. Um we estimate to spend about 200,000 of that this year. Um that's going to be on engineering work and then work at the um fir or the 7th Avenue Pier. Uh the First Avenue fishing pier is currently in in a
holding pattern. Um so we just recently had a meeting with with Penllis County. Um the rock structure itself of of that groin is owned by the county and is part of their beach nourishment project with the Army Corps. And then the sidewalk walkway on top of it is is the city's
responsibility. And then of course the city has has the fishing pier at the end. um the the rock jetty itself um along with the sidewalk was was damaged from the storm and and needs some repairs, but we don't want to do, you know, the city's walkway when that rock jetty
itself um isn't repaired first. So, we've met with the county and asked what their timing would be um to repair that that rock jetty structure. And right now um it's that they may propose it for fiscal year 28. Um so, I think that's a discussion we need to continue with the
county. um probably another project that we we put on our our TDT list. Um but that that's where that fishing pier currently stands right now is we're we're not proposing to move forward with our repairs until there's a clear plan in place for um the rock structure.
Um it is something to note too. Um you know this this fishing pier was recently rehabbed just a couple years ago and that project wasn't even 100% completed before you know Helen and Milton came. So this is, you know, a structure that has been, you know, hit a few times in
recent years. >> And so again, I just ask if it's on hold, do do you think we'll get the the the substructure done in in 2027 because again, you're putting money towards it, but but we don't even know when the county is going to do their piece. So now I'm wondering, should we be putting the $200,000
into this year's plan or or >> It's a big unknown at this point. Um, >> potentially clear it out. I mean, I I know other things we've said just in case, but this doesn't feel like a just in case unless you tell me it's likely to come before
>> the the the best information I have right now is is 2028 is what the county's planning on. So, >> we'd have to change that if if we wanted to do this in 2017. >> We have leverage to change. Is there I get that. So, if they say that, I'd say clear the money, >> but do we have any leverage or any any
ability to help accelerate that? Is there we tried and I'm trying to figure out whether we leave the money there or not. That's really what I'm trying to ask you. >> Yeah. Um I I think we could probably have further conversations to escalate that. I don't really know what our leverage is at this point. >> But we still have the uh 7th Avenue pier
to contend with. Right. >> Correct. Yeah, we would still move forward with with that 7th Avenue pier. Um currently we are um doing underwater inspections this month to verify the condition of the pilings. Um if those come out good, then we'll just re repair the deck as is. um if we do have to redo
the pilings, you know, it' be a little bit more substantial project, but we are um planning for that currently. >> Gotcha. So, that that'll happen either way. That piece of it, >> it may be more than what we anticipated. So, we'll reallocate midear. Got it. Thank you. >> And could we anything that says fishing
pier try to convince the county to give us TDT money for that? >> Sorry. >> I already wrote it down. >> Yeah. Anything that says fishing pier, right? Yeah. >> No. And also, I think every other jetty
I've ever seen never has a walkway on it. The fisherman always just wander out and like hazard the rocks and >> somehow make it out there and fish. So, I don't think it would be the worst thing ever is not have the walkway that
you're trying to maintain on top of the rocks. >> Yes, I agree. I mean, most of my tenure here, this fishing pier has been closed, and I don't think that stopped anybody from doing it. >> Still used daily. >> Yeah. >> Thank you.
>> Um, next we'll we'll get into the lowest ranked project. Um, so these are are the ones that scored 45 or below, and uh we had about 25 in in this category. Um first off is is the Gulf Boulevard undergrounding.
Um the Fina Delmare bridge lighting replacements is is shown as in project 61. Um this is the the 85,000 is for the lighting materials itself. Um so we're proposing to um
to show that in fiscal year 27. Currently, right now, we're underway with um a structural analysis to verify if um the preferred light types can um structurally if if the existing bridge is structurally sound to support um our preferred lighting type.
And then the um the wastewater asset management plan update. We're proposing a $25,000 reappropriation here. Um this is just continual um asset management planning for all of our wastewater infrastructure and that is shown as a
reappropriation. And then how many force mans do we have? I'm looking at the wastewater force maintains assessment which which has zero funded for this year but 100 100,000 over seven years. Is that is that accurate? >> Yeah, that that would be a plan. Um, I think we would update probably about
every 10 years where we just do, you know, an assessment on all of our forest manses and and plan out the repair replacement schedule. Um, so we're we're not due, you know, to be in a position to need that study again um in the near in the near term. >> Okay. And if we are, it's across all of
them. Feels like a $100,000. Is that kind of what you're alluding to >> based on the seven-year total? >> Mhm. >> Okay. And then um wastewater service lateral smoke testing. Um, so this is uh to people's homes, I think, right? >> That's correct.
>> From our equipment in into people's homes and checking whether they they're the source of the leak, if you will. >> Mhm. >> Um and and so we'll let's imagine we got a great wastewater system. We've done all our due diligence. We've done our part and then everybody's homes are
still the same problem or is that >> Yes. So, the the laterals, this this project would help you identify where your issues are. Um, and then and then you um and typically what you do is you'd send a notice out to that resident letting them know of your findings. Um,
but ultimately as it's structured now, those lateral replacements are the private property owner's responsibility. um down the road, you know, we we could potentially create some kind of rebate program or something to incentivize that type of work. But really, the results out of this lateral smoke testing will
kind of give you a good idea on on the scope of the issue and then you can kind of strategize, you know, do we need to create some sort of incentive program or is it okay if people just replace them as they are? >> And and am I am I correct and understand? I'm just reading the seven-year total $150,000. Are you
telling me for $150,000 for every home in the city we could figure out where people's laterals are >> for for the smoke testing? Yeah, that that was um based on historical numbers. We did this just a few years ago um and were able to accomplish that. >> Did we do you recall did we find 20% of
homes had >> I think we found a lot of issues and I know um we we sent notices out to people. Um, >> do we require they solve it? Because it ultimately this is the >> I don't think we had a requirement that that people had to fix them within, you know, a time frame or anything. >> But something like this has been done in
the last few years and we notified everybody that had an issue and less than 50% more than 50. I'm trying to get you to roughly tell me how many people >> I I don't know. This was all before before I came so I'd have to do a little bit more deep research. >> Okay. I just feel like it would be good to know that that's that last mile as we
call it, right? We got all this stuff going all the way out to the county or the or the city of St. Pete and we got all of our stuff kind of checked and verified, all of our manholes, everything all the way through and then we lose it as soon as it goes towards somebody's house. >> Mhm. >> The thousands of homes that we have. >> Yeah, that piece has to be addressed, too.
>> It feels like we should know that. Like I I feel like that's a good spend for 150. I know you don't have anything here and so it feels like a good spend to know that. Mhm. >> Um and even if it's not our responsibility to replace it, to at least >> notify the homeowner >> no notify and be able to strategize. I I
agree. >> I mean, of all the things that I've heard, this feels like maybe we might want to consider spending the 150 uh when there's nothing budgeted. >> Well, over here it says it says every five years, right? And so, um, if we've if if we've done it in the last three,
we could probably put it off a couple, you know, if if the standard is five years. If it's actually been seven, maybe it's something we should do, you know. >> And that that current 2029 is is based on that, I think. >> So, that's when the next one you're suggesting should happen is in 2029. Okay.
>> Which which would tell me then that we should have the results of the last one. Whether you have them in front of you, you should be able to get the results of the last one >> to understand. That's fair enough. that that's so it's a few years old but it's comprehensive of the entire city >> and makes sense also to put off doing that again for a couple years because
with all the redevelopment that's happening in the neighborhoods there's a whole bunch of laterals that are getting replaced right now as people are building new houses or having their houses lifted and so um there you know whatever problems exist today two years from now there's going to be a lot fewer of them so
>> even if we don't do anything >> understood >> and and I and I'm comforted that I know I can fall back on a few years old data and still get what I need. You've got it somewhere. Just you don't have it in your in your head right now. >> Yes, sir. >> All right. Thank you. >> And then playground equipment. I I I thought it was a fairly large number and
then I looked there's like six or seven parks in there all with theoretically new equipment. I realized that's uh I don't know. >> Um >> 2930 and 3132. >> Yep. >> Fiscal years
not yet coming in. Gotcha. Okay. All right. >> And we um it's been a couple years, but we do plan on conducting a um a full like playground assessment of all of our structures in July of this year. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. That's it for me. >> And on playgrounds then I I guess uh if there is rusty metal or sharp edges on the kids playground equipment, >> cick fix. >> Yeah, >> that's that cick fix.
That's the way that's going to work, right? >> See, click fix. Um, I would note, you know, depending on on the cost, you know, we we may have to take that equipment and just close off the area and secure it. You know, a full repair may not be feasible, which is why we we
have this project. >> You did that with the lead one. I think I drove by it and saw some fencing around that particular playground, >> right? But and it's gone now, though. So I it seems like just a little bit of paint fixes things sometimes. I mean like I'm not sure there were broken bars
and such. >> See clicy >> I'm going to start um a new website. >> Got it. >> The next one is shuffleboard. >> Um yes. So shuffleboard um clubhouse replacement. This one was boxed um similar reasoning for for Mary Pier.
It's just, you know, it's a community project that we've received a lot of interest in over this past year, but um score-wise, it didn't it didn't rank the highest. Um and then the the LPR system for the parking enforcement. Um I I'll let um our city manager kind of expound on that a little further. Um but really,
this is an essential service to be able to make our our parking enforcement more efficient um so we can help realize some of these revenues um that that we'd like. So on our on our larger blown up handouts here, we have the uh license plate reader system in two spots and
then we have a citywide camera in security and then we have the parking technology. So looks like the liper system is >> it's a duplicate. the the yeah the LPR system lines are are duplicates and then
the citywide camera and security system is um separate um item from this that that's more geared towards um cameras for our critical facilities. >> So that's not the flock system. >> No. No. So it's been changed to security. We're trying to address some
issues that came out of the uh again the Panelis County Sheriff did a threat assessment. Yep. >> So, that's the key, the badges, um automation of all of that. >> Uh >> there are a few cameras sprinkled in there, but they're only on major city
facilities where there's quite a bit of uh movement of people. >> Are we referring to 76? >> That's 76. >> So, it's not really citywide. It's city assets. >> Just city assets. That's why we took that off because it made it sound like we were >> Yeah, I think we should adjust it now.
>> Putting in surveillance cameras around the city. We're not. >> I thought it was a FL >> for the record. >> Yeah. Okay. >> All right. We should adjust that name, please. >> Mhm. >> Especially on the dashboard. >> Did we skip over Heran Park
>> 71? Um, yes, that that was a project um from prior CIPs. Um, so we're just reflecting here, but that was um I understand there's some concepts that were done in years past um for some docks at the um at Herand Park. And I think I was on the premise of like some
transient type type docs similar to what we're looking at Cory Landings. >> Are we going to keep this or move that in or out? >> It shows not keeping it on your PowerPoint Camden, but keeping it on this more detailed spreadsheet. >> Oh yes. Oh man.
>> Well, I would like to know if we could make it a revenue producing thing because most cities on the water have some type of >> listing on Dqua. >> We can take that off. Okay. >> So 500 550 is not in 2027.
>> Not proposed for 27. >> It's not proposed. >> Okay. >> Still want to PSTA TD that thing. >> Yeah. >> Okay. So >> um back to the shuffle board court clubhouse. Mhm. >> That's another one that, you know, like
I think it's I mean it is truly awful for the community that we lost that cool old building and that that facility is not the same as it's always been. Um but I just, you know, $170,000 seems like a lot to spend for
>> Did we get money for that? That some sort of money for for um >> insurance. Insurance? >> Yes. >> Yeah, we got something. >> Some not not this full 170, but there was some. It's not listed on here. So, >> yeah. >> Um, we need to know that, too. Um,
>> maybe put up a shed with a door that locks that >> I'm thinking can be stored in. >> You know, a lot of people wanted to keep it and didn't do any donations or didn't do any >> Yep. save our shuffle board, >> but we said it earlier in in the earlier
session, but we put grant money here, but I think any kind of anticipated FEMA insurance, I think we said that, right? Well, I believe the insurance was around 84,000. >> Okay. 84K >> and there are potential donors uh that may be coming forward. So,
>> I mean, I suggested to them to go do it do a gofundme for it because there they have a lot of shuffle board folks in various areas that might give five bucks here, five bucks there. It adds up. >> So, yeah. Well, neither begin or end with shuffle board club.
Mhm. >> And I see on your version that you've removed foot shower and drainage improvements on your version. >> All that's left really is 74 and 76. So I'm just double checking. You've got some on our our spreadsheet. >> 7476 and Yes. Yep.
>> And shuffle board, right? >> Shuffle board. >> Yes. Thank you. Sorry. >> Which LPR are we taking out? any >> uh it looks >> I think it should only be one $300,000 thing. Not >> I took the top one off because it looks most like the bottom.
>> Sorry. On the parking that was um because we were looking at changing the names from the fiscal year 26. We did have some funding set aside in 26 for some parking enhancement. So um those are just duplicative of uh each other. And it's the same thing with the um
security system as well. >> Sorry, what are you saying? That that 77 is a duplicate of something else. >> Yeah, parking enforcement. >> Yes. >> I'm sorry. I see. Oh, yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. LPR system and >> no. L
there's >> tried to move the parking >> parking enhancements. >> 77 is separate and not part of 74s, right? parking. There was parking technology enhancements within the fiscal year 26 budget. What we're saying now is that
we're looking to have uh 300,000 through the LPR system um in fiscal year 27. >> So there should just be one LPR system >> obsolete row 77. >> Yes, there should just be one. It's just a reappropriation from one name to a new
name. Same same concept. And I just want to ask, I know the foot shower and drainage improvements were discussed, but I'm showing it on this spreadsheet. Camden is funded and
um not on the PowerPoint, and I know those are highly used. So, I just want to make sure you don't need that money. >> We were we were proposing um that hour for 2031. >> 2031.
Well, this was one doesn't exist. It'd be a brand new one. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Maintenance of of existing would fall under operations. >> Okay. >> Got it. >> So, these are additional foot showers at PAG and up >> and that would new ones.
>> They've been removed 2030 >> and we're not funding as we speak. >> Okay. >> I think that's good. >> Okay. >> This 30,000 is 30,000. >> It's true. >> 50 grand. >> Oh, 50,000 50. >> All right. I've already scratched it out. That's why I couldn't get the number. >> Okay, got that.
And we took out the docks and the shuffle. What are we doing with the shuffle board? >> Uh open air pavilion concept is what's been proposed. We're still waiting on the uh designs which closed. >> The the bids closed this week. Um we
received four of them and two fit within um within that 170 budget. So we'll be evaluating those and ranking them. or without a restroom. >> Believe with I think that was looking at the with the bathroom alternate.
>> Good. We need a restroom. >> All right. Good to hear. >> Dune walkover replacements. It feels like we've actually spent 483 out of a total of 533. So, we got about 50 grand left. Is that is it done and we finished under
budget or you still need another 50 somewhere and you're just saying not not this year? >> We we finished um and we're under budget. Um we're saying just not this year. But um the idea would be, you know, if if we were in a better, you know, financial place, this would be something where you could carry a line
item and then anytime a walkover is damaged, you already have the funding in place to to replace it, you know, rather than waiting a whole budget cycle. Um, but we're we're not proposing any funding for this project next year. >> They're functional, serviceable, open, all that fun stuff. And we just don't need any more this year. We'll talk about some in the future.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> All right. >> Nothing for me. >> Last slide. Did we really get there? Wow. >> Is the 300 for 81 supposed to be in the green column, too? Did it miss it?
>> I believe so. >> Yeah. >> So that's going to up that amount. >> 81 >> 81 >> missed the green column. >> So 300 should be in FY. The green column. >> Yeah. >> 81. 300 should be there.
>> Okay. And it's not on either one of these is what I'm hearing. Should uh did you remove fire station or you wanted it there? >> I think that was moved to a future year. >> Um >> yeah, not until 28.
>> So our our spreadsheet's a bit old. So now I got to look up here and figure out what's still in. So >> the for the permitting process redesign and optimization, can we use building department funds for that? >> It is. >> It is. And just for >> Oh, actually that should say building
fund on that one. >> Which one? >> What um Commissioner Marriott just pointed out on 81. >> 81. That's a building fund. >> So it should be building fund, not capital. >> Yes. >> And we I would anticipate are going to have enough money in the building fund to fund that.
>> We do. >> Yeah. Okay. Perfect. So that comes with >> Yeah. >> Sorry, I'm I'm trying to reconcile what I'm hearing. So, so 81 should have 300,000 in in the uh in the green >> in the green column >> and comes from the building fund
>> alternatively, right? >> Mhm. >> And then new AV solution city hall in front of me it says it's scratched out, but on my on my on my printed copy it says 190,000 to be spent this year and you're saying no. That's what I'm saying. >> This is what I'm looking at on the screen is more accurate than what I've
got in my hand. Is that what you're telling me? >> Hang on. What number is that? >> 79. Yeah, you we don't need it reapprop right now. We do not need it reappropriated because the plan is to have it done. >> Okay, cool. >> If it doesn't get completed that we this
will change. >> Got it. As we track to the final budget adoption. >> Okay. >> And I think that's a good call out that the city manager made. um each one of these uh 26 estimated actuals, 26 reappropriations, and any 26 that 27
reappropriation plus new. That is going to continue to shift. As soon as we hit print on these documents, it shifts because Camden and his team and the city as we're progressing through these contracts, um they're continuing to do the work. So, since we're in June and
the budget is for October, we're doing our best estimate that we have today. But as you know, I mean, these projects are just going to continuously shift. So, I just wanted to well, I had that moment to share that. >> All right. So, I think that concludes
So, the the only uh outstanding item is the $3 million for project. me find the number. >> 27. >> 27. And whether you want us to hold it in the capital fund under the project
number or move it somewhere else. As this is a top priority issue for district three, I got to speak up and say whatever it takes to get progress done on the top issue and
the district might be advisable from my standpoint that keep it keep it budgeted. I'm not sure what fund you're alluding to, but keep the three million in is what I think we agreed to earlier >> allocated to the project >> and then if we had to reallocate it later, we could and
>> Okay. Y >> now the next beautiful question will be when you add all this up and tell me you know what our what our what our spend is projected to be. >> We will when we bring you the baked budget. >> Understood. Next time >> it looks like it's still pretty close to what we did. It's on here isn't it?
>> Yes. >> Except we added 300,000. >> Okay. Let's move on >> 600 >> to our next decision point this evening. I thought we were done. >> Just for my records as I'm updating, did
was that a hold on the Donsesar? >> It was a keep it allocated to that project. >> Okay, >> thank you. Okay. So, um this next section, um we're going to just take you through just a little bit more information and hopefully this graphic um gives a good
depiction of how the FEMA disaster funding um moves from a disaster event into a final reimbursement project closeout. It's essentially a step-by-step road map of what happens after a hurricane or emergency until the city ends up getting reimbured for every until everything is finalized. To date,
we've received funding um for our category A and B um which is debris removal and debris monitoring. Um so that prior road map is illustrative of how many steps it takes to get all of
those projects um obligated or um why they sit in that outstanding category. So obligated means that they have approved the project for us and that we are able to um receive that funding. So this is a summary. As you can see, we
have 86 total projects. Um this is broken out by hurricane Helen and Hurricane Milton. And you can see how much we have obligated versus outstanding. In the next rendition of this workshop, um we can include and what that FEMA funding and what projects
that ties to. It's not all inclusive of our capital projects list as some of it is um either contents, damages or or things of that nature that wouldn't materialize into a full capital improvement project. But any questions on on that as before I progress to the
next. Okay. Um so here we just wanted to call out that um the finance budget review committee did ask for the full ranked project list for review and not group by funding bucket. So that's why we changed the presentation and presented it to you
in that manner. Um the rest of that uh we will continue to track as we build out our our budget. Um but wanted to include this as part of the record on some of the items that they recommended for us. Okay. Next, we're moving into our
revenue strategy direction. And so, really all we're looking for here based on the finance budget review committee is either a a thumbs up to continue to investigate the areas that we have in our green boxes um to have a lower
priority of the yellow and then to not pursue the items that are listed in red. >> I feel bad. I'm ask you to go back one slide for me and I'm sorry. >> It's okay. >> I just want to understand. So this is this is uh financial budget review committee met and these are the kind of
output of their discussion. >> Yes. >> Is there a detail? I'm just I'm reading I see you know uh Madam Cheny's name in here. Resurface account for homes under reconstruction 58th Avenue DRMO. I don't understand
what all that means. What is that saying essentially? >> Um we can I can send over just the full memo of the notes that we have from that meeting. Um on the on the DERMO, um Colonel Greger, who's a committee member, recommended that we meet and
look to see if we can get surplus excess vehicles from the federal government. And so that was an idea of his. And so that's an action item for us to meet with the city manager. Um and then uh he also said to just continue to escalate
um with our uh legislature um body uh Cheney to make sure that we're able to secure as much funding there as possible. >> Love it. Okay. Thanks. Yeah. Appreciate it. >> No problem. Okay. So again, we're just looking for kind of a simple thumbs up or thumbs
down if we have uh your support to continue to investigate these items further and to not pursue the items in red. Well, we've discussed the idea that peers can be uh TDT, so bed tax
utilization seems like something we're talking about using. I think we guess we didn't think that could apply to us, but now we do. It's very narrow to capital projects. So we could
re um title this and move it to green say bed tax utilization you know pursue >> capital forest based >> projects. Yes. >> Okay. So we'll move that over to green.
I did um speak with our county commissioner. Um I had a pretty extensive conversation with our county commissioner and a couple very brief conversations with a couple of the other county commissioners um and with the um property tax issue that's going to be on
the ballot in November. Their advice was probably to put the CRA on the back burner until um after the election and see what happens. um their feedback was that likely there wouldn't be any CRAAS
being approved or continued or in any of those options um if that property tax measure passes. So there's probably no need to spend any time on that one in the near term. >> Is it in a place where you could put it aside and pick it up if
>> Yeah. But where we're at was we we completed the finding of necessity, then the county staff replies, and then we reply back. And after that final city reply, then we can request a schedule hearing in front of the county
commission. We're going to pause that until after the ballot measure. >> But we have everything in place. There's no time bound limit on requesting that consideration in front of the county commission. So, we will wait till we get through the ballot measure process as
the impact to the county will be very intense. So, we wanted to give them some professional space. >> Understood. I'm sure they'll appreciate it. >> So, to get this right, we're looking at an assessment for fire
and a resiliency fee. Might as well call that an assessment as well. because that would be citywide. Correct. >> Um we would have to and the fire assessment fee. Yes, that would um that does that's the one that requires a
study and um nexus and um uh value. The resiliency assessment is one that we would uh just continue further researching um on any one of these um we we would be bringing those back to the commission for for approval and a full presentation on what we've continued to
pursue. And but that would be every property >> a resilient >> no is fire assessment I think is what >> fire assessment would be every property the resiliency um fee we just don't have enough information right now I I couldn't answer that um right now to say
how that could be modeled. It could be something that you could put on a utility bill. It could be an assessment. Um there's a a couple different ways you could go about that one. What would help me with each of these is to understand what the impact is per say $100,000 home or something like that,
right? I get that each home's going to I assume it's a some kind of millage or something that would that would effect, but I' I'd love to know on a $100,000 home, this is what it means if we're going to collect fire assessment of 2 million to three million. This is the impact per home >> of that. Is that a reasonable request?
>> We >> fire assessment value of the home. It's just how many homes you have. >> Okay. >> You be able to divide it by how many homes I have and you'll be able to tell me. Then >> they're sample communities >> that we can I mean they're the ranges we've seen and maybe Adam can correct
me, but like anywhere from $300 to $500 per year. >> Good evening again. Yes. Um, so it it it really depends on that study that you have to do because you basically have to make like um like Devin mentioned a nexus between what you what you pay out in fire protection based on the number
of residential units and then your commercial properties. So um like the city manager said, there are some sample communities you can go online and look at. Like if you were to look at like Fort Lauderdale, they have a fire assessment fee. I think like for a residential home, it's somewhere in like maybe that $300 a year uh mark somewhere
like that. Obviously, you know, commercial properties pay significantly more because it's based on square footage. Um, but they also when they do that study, they look at, you know, your percentage of call volumes commercial versus residential. So, there's a there's a very extensive process to
ensure that there's, you know, fairness in the rates that you're charging. Um, I'll tell you, uh, in in Penllis County, Dun Eden is going through the process right now. Um, Safety Harbor is considering it and in fact they have a presentation to their commission, I want to say next week um that I have the link
to that I'd be happy to share with you all and it's basically an informative uh presentation on this is what a fire assessment fee is. This is the process to to do it. Um this is what you're looking at as a community and and you know to see if they want to progress forward with it. So I do plan on
attending it in person, but I like I said I do have the link uh so it might be beneficial to uh to share that out with y'all. I'm hearing there's some there's some I guess some things that we can't just, you know, calculate divide this by that and we get that. I hear that, right? But as much as we can
project what we think this means per per household, like $1200 per household, I think that's a fairly easier squeeze than $4,000 per household. And I have no idea looking at it. That's what I'm saying. I I get it. I I get what you're saying, but I'm just saying I have no idea looking at it what we mean when we say we want to pursue this. And so I'd
like just a a a you know. >> Yeah. So a couple points I'll make is again, you know, based on what I've seen across the country with these, you're you're in the the hundreds of dollars a range, not the thousands of dollars of range for for a residential unit. Um to give you an exact number would be would
be a little challenging. But I will tell you this as well is this is something that would have to go to a referendum for the community to vote on. So you know, it's not something that you all would have to decide as far as to implement it. you would just have to decide to pursue it and then it would have to go to a referendum then and your
citizens would have to vote on >> all of these fall in that same category. >> I I don't >> I don't know enough about uh the resiliency assessment. Um >> parking no >> parking no enterprise fund no >> grants obviously and
>> I think the key is if you tell us you're interested in a fire assessment we need to hire an expert >> which is going to run you about $85,000 for a study. So, I need you to tell me, do you really want me to pursue this because because I need to put $85,000 in the budget. We cannot do this study in house
>> and and it's a several year and and it was they hired the study for about that. They used Accenture. Um they paid last year each residents paid $106 and then it's 25 cents per square foot for commercial properties
>> and was able to raise about 350,000 >> to offset the city's cost of fire services and fires or just fire >> it cannot be for EMS it's just fire. So, we already get our EMS paid for by Penelis. Well, right now we still get our EMS paid for by Penllis County. Um, but fire assessment fee is actually
defined. It can only go to fire protection. So, it would just be a portion of your >> And so, this would free up funds that we normally use to pay for fire. Yes, sir. >> If we did this, so say it was $300 a
year for a resident. I'm not sure that the average resident feels like they need five $300 a year for their residents, but if it were so that we could free up funds from that
would need to go to something they do need, then it makes sense. But then maybe it should just be gener they should just pay right into that enterprise fund instead of indirectly through the fire fund. I I mean it makes
sense to me to actually tell people that you you should be paying 300 for fire and they should believe that. So one of the things with the assessments is they have to be tied to property a property interest.
So you know you might charge a library fee but that wouldn't be an assessment that would be on your trim notice. you did. >> Well, it says fire assessment fee. So, I'm just trying to decide does a res how
much does a a residential property think they should be paying for for fire? >> I don't know. >> Again, these are all fair questions. It's a like I mentioned it is a a relatively long process that includes community you know typically they they
involve community forums where you know you listen to the residents you you know you feel if uh if this is going to be successful I'll tell you two central Florida communities did this somewhat recently one of the referendums passed one of them failed so um you know certainly there's there's successes
across the state and there's uh you know not so much across the state so it really is dependent on your community but to your point that's exactly what it would be doing, it would be, you know, utilizing those funds to fund your fire department so you can reallocate those funds somewhere else to to maybe pay for
some of these um, you know, ongoing capital projects that that we're talking about tonight. >> And Adam or maybe the city manager can answer this either. I mean, part of the part of the idea of the fire assessment fee would be that based on on a study
that an expert would do that would that would link what you're paying to the services required and that you're getting that that there's at least that there's at least some possibility that if we do a study and find out that actually the you know six big hotels in
the hotel district are getting 85% of the fire services that then we could tie that to an assessment that is somehow structured so that the people who are using more of the services pay more. Correct. >> That's exactly. >> And so and so that's the difference between just saying, well, we're going
to collect $3 million a year. We're going to divide it amongst the people because if we're going to do that, we're just going to rate our raise our mill rate, right? Like why why are we doing this instead of raising the millage rate? Why we're doing this is so that we can >> aortion out a higher cost to the people who are using the service.
which which is likely not residents >> in our particular case, but we won't know that unless we do a study and can and can tie it all together to make it legal for the state to allow us to impose this assessment. >> It definitely changes your model to more
of a pay for services or or for the potential of services. >> I'm for it. >> I put that 85. Yes. >> Budget. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Okay. 85 and let's see where that goes. >> Y >> yes. Agreed on that. That's just the
fire assessment fee that we're done with, right? >> Yes. And so >> we talk about each >> resiliency fee. Well, we already did parking study. >> Okay. >> Resilience fee. >> Parking studies behind us and we don't need to worry about whatever this says on the screen. >> The parking study's done. Okay. >> Now we're just going to optimize. Right.
>> We're in optimization phase. >> Right. Okay. >> Um resilience fee. Resiliency fee we've done nothing with. We would need to do some sort of study. It would not be $85,000, but it would be some between five and 10 probably to pay
someone like Rafelis to do some some sort of analysis. So, >> 5 to 10,000 to tell us I'm sorry I I get what resilience WPs
>> telling us how to make I'm sorry, Don Cesar and others resilient was 800,000. And so you're telling me somebody can look at our city and tell us how to be more resilient for five? >> No, no, no. They're going to tell you what kind of fee you could assess based on a metric.
>> Okay. >> Like what other cities charge? >> They would be looking at other cities. What they would look at our budget. They would look at our needs. >> They would make a nexus to it. >> It would be something that would be typically tacked on to probably your
storm water. And the reason that we didn't like what we said earlier was we wouldn't do it as an enterprise adjustment on fire because we'd find that we could aortion it you know to other to by use or something like that rather than >> home. Is this an equivalent kind of conversation or is this this is by home
isn't it >> by u I see >> by u right and u so an equivalent residential unit for a house is one >> right >> for a business >> for a business it's more so you know my 6,000 foot business I forget what the erus are. 2.7 or 3, you know, whatever
it is. It's some it's some number of erus. So, um, so it's it's another way of trying to aortion things out in >> what the state considers a fair manner so that they allow us to do it. >> And in this case, if we go with this, we're talking about every home will pay
home, we'll pay $7 extra. >> Fair enough. Good. We're spending more than that talking about it. So, thank you. >> Enterprise funds are all underway. So, we're going to be bringing those fee studies that'll be rolling out July and August, >> so we don't need any action there. And
then grants, of course, are in play and continue to be >> um lower priority, but it's still tracking to you. Resident services fees are coming to you in early July. So this is the concept of pay for child care,
art classes, um pool access, gym access. That's all coming by. I think I heard or saw resident non-resident. >> We're going to be showing you resident versus non-resident with some non-resident um scenarios based on our
feedback from finance committee. >> Understood. We have usage study like we know that as well like same kind of conversation we might have had with with PSTA earlier is >> we know what percentage of people using our pool are residents versus non. Correct. Cool. Thanks. >> Um parking bay street repair assessment.
This was the University of Florida concept of somehow assessing uh commercial properties for their parking spaces and and using that income to pay for the
nexuses back to street repairs because they did disproportionately use the streets over residents because of the number of cars that are driving to to commercial properties. That's the concept. Um so
finance committee thought it was interesting. They didn't say absolutely no. So we're here to ask you. It will take some investment in researching that and we would have to do a study at some point. Um I would actually recommend
that we we hold on this one until fiscal year 28 because you have a we have so much going on. I'm not sure we would have the bandwidth to do. I think it's overload. >> So again, while it's in the lower priority, we could phase and regroup in
28 to discuss that. >> It's all about where should staff spend their time, not about what we ultimately do. It's about where should >> correct. >> And then the CRA we just told you were on hold until November. um public private partnerships. They were very
interested. But again, deal specific. >> Those are um those are similar situations that when they come up, are you generally supportive of them? We would explore them as we get approached. But again, um
you know, we we might get property donations. We we may get um donations for uh projects or someone would want to build a project and partner with us looking if you have general support for us to explore those conversations. It
would be case by case. It sounds like >> definitely case by case. >> Philanthropy, foundation, roundup, and naming. This is all um unpredictable but generally supportive if we had interest from the community to um lean in on
those concepts. And so we are starting >> bank city hall. That's what we're talking about. >> Well, like in in your neighbor neighborhood, uh, Mayor Tate, there's people who want to chip in for a sale
over the kids equipment >> and they were talking about redoing the dock and the mini park, but I think it ended up costing a lot more than they thought, but it's possible. I was just going to add that the town of Belair actually has
their own community foundation that's resident and so um they look at offsetting um different types of projects like what you're speaking to um through a community foundation. So >> it's interesting is there if there were if there were appetite I
hear some of it you know as different projects and I might be willing to chip in a little bit on that. Is there is there like a I don't know what we call it philanthropy uh uh you know I know we don't have a board of such but would we contemplate a board where people that might have philanthropic natures would would find opportunities to serve
>> that's what this that's what they have in Bair and so you do have a board and they host events and they fundra and in some cases they have membership um if you want to be a member of the Bair Community Foundation you can you can see it on their website and everything that they're doing with it. Um, so it's it's
pretty um relatively low lift. Um, it's not something we would manage inside. There would be a board that manages it. Sort of like the friends of the library. >> Thank you. >> That's a great idea. >> And then bonds and capital tools. Devon, you can talk a little bit about that.
Maybe some background on what we've already done. >> Yeah, absolutely. So as far as um bonding or capital tools um you can bond against your adalorum which would require a referendum of the voters. So um you would if you picked a specific
project or projects you could do a um adalor bond. Um the other option is is that you could say for example if you wanted to bond against your parking revenue that doesn't require a referendum that just requires action um by you all. And so there's different
opportunities there where when you're looking at some of those larger projects, that's typically where you would recommend um a bond issuance there. Um bonds are like fire assessments and they do have to have community benefit for the people that are paying for them. Um and so if if
that's an area that you wanted us to flush out further um and provide just more details, this is really all just like you mentioned, mayor. Um, what details do you need from us and should we continue looking at these different opportunities?
>> A question for you, please. I'm thinking about, you know, this whole resiliency 120 million something, right? I don't imagine there's any of these things on the left that are ever going to get us there. So, you know, I I assume we're talking what's the distinction between a bond and a and a P3? I just don't know what a P3 is. What is that? Um a public
private partnership is where you um in a lot of cases it's more of your enhanced enhancement. So if we said we wanted to run our own indoor pickle ball pickle ball court for example, it was a city asset but we have somebody else run that
asset for you as an example. Um in some cases they have been successful in some of the larger communities. um I want to say I believe it was Fort Lauderdale um where they did get a public private partnership for someone to come in construct some of their pumps um but it
remained remained a city asset um and so you have some benefits when you're utilizing some of those public private partnerships because they're not going through the the government bidding process that we go through. Um so they have a little bit more um flexibility with some of their processes and who
they can hire, how it operates. um and they sometimes will set up that initial funding in the beginning and then um we end up taking over the asset. So there's a lot of different examples out there. Um usually uh if there's a revenue
generator, those are going to be the ones that um people kind of really glean onto. Um and so we could provide some more examples there. But again, um we've our past presentation gave you as far as we had researched these to date. Um what
this is asking is where should we continue researching and continue bringing you back information on >> Devon. Is there any um concern or conversation around um if the ballot measure passes in November that changing the bond landscape in Florida for
municipal bonds at all or is that just a big unknown? there is some um if you listen to either the the Senate or the House that question did come up um because it could impact um city's bond
ratings and so um there is definitely a little bit of some information floating around out there but I don't believe they've um really given too much information on that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Devin I would like to discuss this bond thing for a second or two. though
seems like to me that when cities reach the end of service life on major infrastructure that bonds are almost always the answer. Is that sort of true? Because where else are we going to come up with like I added up all the
wastewater projects. And the total cost over 7 years was 39 million roughly. And you know, a bond would be a way to get that money up front and spread it out
over a longer period of time. And which makes sense because the wastewater project's going to last for 30 years. And now you would basically be allowing people who are going to use it for the next 30 years to pay for it. But I guess
it's a general tool for when you have a major expense. If we were to take the storm water projects and add them up with all of that resiliency stuff, it comes out to 125 million. And then if you add those together, that's 164
million over the 7-year period. But if uh so you would wonder how much would it cost us to do a $160 million bond and to me I think it comes out to about 10 million a year in revenue that you need. So if you were looking at this
column that's under the green header you'd be looking at revenue and that does add up to about 11 million for example. Not that we would take all of that and put it into fixing capital projects necessarily but just to give you a feel for what we're talking about
here. You would take that 10 mil. You would take revenue and use it to have a bond in order to distribute that cost out over a longer period of time, which makes sense because the service life of that asset does last for the 30 years.
Is there anything that I'm thinking about that the wrong way? Um, I think just the biggest key and we we do have um very specific um bond council that we work with. Um, we don't work with our in-house attorneys because
it's so strict and specific in Florida. We also have a financial advisor um who helps us work through these because they are so very specific. I think the biggest key is that you have to be able to tie that community benefit for those
for those types of bonds. So, if this if this was something that um the commission wanted us to flush out further, um we could certainly um look at some of those projects, work with our financial adviser, and work with um our bond council and bring you back some proposals um that would that would
better help align some of those questions for you. >> I just don't see how we're going to do everything without one to tell you the truth. But, um could our city manager speak to this possibly? like uh what is how should we be thinking about bonds?
I'm not sure why it should be listed under a low lower priority for example because it seems like a necessary tool. >> Yes. So this again was the finance budget review recommendation. >> So um that's that is what it is. That's
how they had had uh prioritized it. I I will say that the amount of capital investment whether it be new or existing either either side of the that will require most likely bonding against
either existing revenue or new revenue. We're not going to get this done without that because for the bonding um you know for the public so they can understand it. It's it's it's essentially you get the loan upfront to
remodel your kitchen and then you pay it you pay it off over a period of time that you've agreed to with the bank. It's it's pretty it's it's similar um math and investment as as you're managing your own home. So, um, yes,
we we do think that is pro that is the most likely path for for us to to do these major investments and and um replacement and repairs. I do think we would need to engage. So I I guess the
real ask tonight is there's a cost associated with working with bond council and financial advisors. And so we would want to put a placeholder in the finance department budget if that's something you want to then they can do all of these numbers and come give a
presentation on very specific projects. um do the nexus to to you know who's getting the benefit for us and that evaluation and uh make a recommendation on what it would take to continue in that path.
>> Yeah, I would be in favor of pursuing options for a general uh obligation, you know, the GEO funds uh for very specific projects uh storm water, you know, water and uh waste water to to be exact. I
agree with my district 3 commissioner that all roads are leading to, you know, we need to find solutions and not just talk about it. I also do like the parking revenue uh being used as a bond. That's something that we can project and
know what we're going to get. U knowing of course that even with our recommendations, the go bond would have to go to referendum. So ultimately the public would decide if they agree that this is as important to them as it is to us. So
>> do we again I I keep thinking of this WSP project that at least for a small portion of our pro of our of our city helps us understand the cost of doing things like this. Right. I think that would refine this number. You know I looked right over at that 125 million. I think I saw it. Um, I'm guessing the WC
WSP project would help us refine that number and get a better sense. I don't feel like we would act on anything. Personally, until mid next year when we have an understanding of at least what that project told us it would take to do and then we'd be able to project out these other three other projects that
were very similar that have nothing tied to them yet, right? And so, we're asking to go research what it would take to do it. Yet, we don't even know what dollar amount we need. And I mean, we don't even have a rough idea what dollar amount we need. And I think we I think if we pursue this, I don't think it's now. I think it's put on hold and then
as we get the results of the WSP study and we decide that we must go down this path right and we exhaust other other avenues then I think we we need to have this conversation but I think we'd be premature right now personally >> I agree I think I think um I think it's
very likely that that bonds will be a tool that we will need to utilize going forward but I I wonder about the wisdom of just throwing all the time at everything all at once. And so, uh, um, you know, I
think I think with some of the the fire assessment fee, the optimizing the parking, you know, investigating a resiliency fee, getting our enterprise funds self-sustaining, I think going down that road will get us to a much better idea of of what we need to do. And then I think I think the bond
conversation will be um uh something that we'll be able to act upon more when we ha after we have that information where I think if we have the bond conversation too soon um it will be hard to know what the what the amounts need to be and what the numbers look like.
>> Yeah, I do agree that with everything you've said, but it should be like the number one lower priority thing that uh >> Yeah, absolutely. >> As we're working >> the top of the low priority or the bottom of the high priority. Yeah, correct. >> Yeah, absolutely. >> And then I'm hearing no funding in 27.
>> Well, one thing I wanted you to discuss is how what is the lag time from the time we decide we want a bond to when we would actually have the funds to start a capital project. Say WSP says
in February, this is what you should do. It depends a little bit whether you're going to use a fee like a storm water fee or fire fee or whether you're going to use an ad valorum which would be a millage. Either way, your people are going to pay either based on a
equivalent um ratio or they're going to pay on a millage rate. So, they're going to go up from a few hundred to $1,000. We do the bonds for Captiva for the beach reourishment. Um the first one's always the hardest because you might have to do
a bond validation hearing which means going to court um till the court blesses your bond. Um sometimes people are doing loans that are similar to bonds um and go through most of the same practices but um you also have to time it with the
elections. So, if you're going to do a general obligation bond, you have to have an election. And that means you got to get on the ballot and the supervisor has certain dates. You have to get the question to them in English and Spanish. You guys got to vote on it first. Um, so
it can take take um maybe nine months for your first one. So you're saying if we were to say to we get WSP in February and we say this is
they say we need 40 million over the next seven years then we could have a bonding. >> We go to bond bond consultant to help you figure out which banks to go to and write your scope and you get bond counsel which is a separate redbook
council because they have to sign the bond and the city attorney also has to review and sign the bond separately. Obviously, you have asurances for people that are buying these bonds. Um, and then you have to go to the bond validation hearing and you have to get on the ballot. So, once you start it,
then we'll try to accelerate as fast as we can once you decide that's what you want to do. >> Well, I just wouldn't want to end up in February and not have anything in the budget in order to get money to start in 20 October. >> It might be too soon to do this next
fiscal year. We could use it to plan for the next one probably. >> Yeah. Let's just think ahead. >> Yeah. Thinking to the following fiscal year. >> I mean, we're the we're in the budget process right now for this next fiscal year. Um and it's probably too late to
do it now, but for the following year, we can do something, >> right? We're so we're talking about having some design information in February 27. So, they would be saying, "You should spend
this money." So when would we be able to have money to spend is what I'm asking. So >> if you how much you need to spend go immediately and get the bond consultants and then they can sit down and they can put the timetable. >> But we have to have the money to pay the bond consultants, right? That has to be budgeted.
>> You pay them upfront. You pay bond council comes out of the proceeds of the bound. Well, we're going to have a design information sometime next year, and at that point, we're going to know how much money we need to spend.
So, I would feel like we need to plan ahead for that. At least have something budgeted so we can then move forward with getting money for the following year instead of having multiple extra
years in the process. And it's different if it's fees versus >> and we're looking at fees I believe mainly here. >> And it depends what you're going to spend it on. Fees or Abalorum. It probably be better to do fees given the
Advilum homestead exemptions and everything else that's going on. So, >> can you give us an idea of how much money we might need to budget for next year if we want to try to have money the following year from a bond?
>> We'd have to go back and do that, but we could do stuff like that for you. >> Can also benchmark from uh Panalis County. They're just going through the SPAR uh go bond on a very specific similar program. So, and uh >> so why don't we we'll talk to our bond
council, get an estimate, and then when we bring the budget, we'll we'll highlight that and see if you want to add it. >> So, we can do that in the next workshop or >> cost of pursuit, not the dollar amount of the bond, but >> absolutely. Yeah. Just just to pay the experts to help us
>> map out the plan and give us advice. >> Worry that we're a bit premature because we we're not sure, but obviously the cost of pursuit will matter. That's that's >> the cost and the timeline. I mean, we have we have our next elections in March and I mean, we can also do a special
election if we really feel that hard about it or no, >> they're very expensive. >> 10 grand >> in the larger scheme of things. >> Madam Madam, yeah, it might I mean, >> just so we're saying timelinewise, you know, that would be nice to have a um
>> a rough estimate because I don't think that we'll be able to turn this before the next regular election. I don't think it happens in March. I mean, we're getting the results of this stuff and still trying to get our arms wrapped around it in March. And so, >> so we're talking two years out more than likely >> if it goes. If it doesn't go to
referendum, then then we don't need the two years is what I'm hearing. >> Yeah. >> Right. And so, but we don't know any of this until we know the amount. I'm going to figure out how we're going to approach it. And I think we're I'm personally saying I think we're premature to go too far down this path other than gathering roughly what cost it would be and can we earmark some something to be able to do that if we
choose to act quickly. >> Yeah. because I'm pretty sure we're going to want to prioritize this drainage projects for district three. And no, we don't know exactly how much it's going to be or what it's going to be, but it's something that's been
talked about for 80 years now. So, I think people have had it and they're ready to fix it. So, I think it would be a good idea to plan on spending some money on this. So I think if I'm hearing city manager I think you can next time
we meet when that is you'll be able to tell us we'll >> bring you an estimate >> and all this is stuff we just talked tonight is in and now you'll tell us an estimate of an alternate adjustment for this bond discussion >> correct >> okay >> sounds good
>> Devin um what about the um STR registration short-term rental Oh, >> I talked >> I believe Ralph's >> that's doable >> team was gonna review um you had a
>> we want to be be careful that we don't lose our grandfathering of our um zoning requirements for a short-term rental and I think what the idea was to have a u registration where people will come in and register and have their homes um on a registry and pay a fee for that.
>> Correct. >> Yeah. >> Can we charge any more? I mean, are there rules from the state about how much we can charge for that registration? Like, can we only charge the reasonable costs associated with administering it or can we charge more than that just because we want to? >> I'll bring that back to you. I think you
can get some slight revenue from it. >> Okay. >> Even even the cost of administration is something that we don't pay out of operational costs elsewhere, >> right? But we're not but we're not but we have no cost to operation because we're not administering it. Comment last. We're not allowing it. We're not administering it. We we can start with
the uh special magistrate list of people's Well, they definitely shouldn't be doing it anymore. >> Um what about um anything for Sunrunner assessment? >> That wasn't anything that we had looked into, but we could add it to the list if the commission
>> mentioned it last time. >> Oh, >> are you are you ask are you asking about assessing PSTA for having the Sunrunner in St. Pete Beach? anything and and I know they're not on our streets, but if there's a way to work it so that there any of the
adjacent streets any any sort of usage for that just looking at stuff outside the box if there's something I mean we can certainly look into it. PSTA is looking at losing $22 million of their budget on loss of advorum taxes. I'm sure they would just quit putting the bus into St. Pete Beach before they'd
pay us anything for it. Everybody's looking for money. >> Yeah. >> Um and then um about uh marketing and merchandising St. Pete Beach, Sunset Capital
of Florida. >> So yeah, there is where we would want to to uh lobby the tourist development council and visit St. Pete Clearwater because that's all that TFT money goes >> Yep.
>> is spent for tourism. And one of the things that I really wanted to do is get three times more events on their calendar that they publish because we only had two St. Pete Beach events on
their calendar for 2026. So in 2027, I would like to pursue ensuring that we get more things on that calendar. I'm not sure who the person is that would be doing that but that I would like to look into that. And one other thing as long
as I'm talking is uh relative to fees. I've heard uh some of our uh feedback from residents about the cabana and use uh and the BTRs and the permitting that we issue there. That could be since that
is a commercial activity on the beach. I'm wondering if the city should get more out of that because it seems to cause a lot of issues having those boundary markers, the alcohol service,
and what are we getting for it? $70 a year or something. >> What do you all think about that as a concept? >> I think it's something worth checking into for sure. I mean, they're making money off of it.
It's not like they're not. It's the resort tax fees. It's everything else and we get nothing. >> But the sandy beach could be something that we do get. So, I I'm interested in
that. Do we need to extend the meeting? >> Are we almost done? Are we >> Yep. >> I just have um I I can make it through unless there's questions. >> Okay. >> Choppy.
>> Okay. All right. So, we're just going to share a little bit in these next slides about building our fiscal year 2027 budget. Um, so I' I've said this and um we just really want uh to for this to kind of hit home, but the the budget is our plan. It's not a promise that's carved in stone. It reflects our best
assumptions that we have today. And several several of those assumptions are still moving as it conditions. We change, we revisit, we reforcast, and we pivot. Um what we we've already talked a lot about property tax reform. We are tracking our current CIP and any
inflation whether that's fuel um cost of living assumptions. Um we are also uh we don't have our property and casualty and our workers comp um renewals back yet. So um we're tracking with those as well and health
insurance. Um we are in a group renewal and those rates are still outstanding. So, we're we're waiting to see um since claims prior year claims drive those experiences. Um we we're waiting on those figures, too. So, just wanted to um let you know as we're building out our operating budget what we're
tracking. Um so, here's our current operating assumptions. Um so, we're looking at um >> Does the color coding mean anything? Just while I'm while I'm glancing at it, does it mean anything? Color coding? >> No, it doesn't. Um so what we're looking at here is um
just tracking at whether it's fuel, energy, diesel, um any of our construction escal escalations or our tar premiums, our local CPI in the area. Um and then um some of those insurance categories I already spoke about. Um this is where we're currently looking at
for some of those percentages increases or in one case a decrease. So, um, those are areas as we're building out our budget that we're tracking pretty closely with. Um, looking at some of our operating budget builds and some of those best practices. Um, you'll see on number one,
we have our FTEEs for fiscal year 2027. Um, you can see here that our city manager direction has been to hold the FTE uh, count flat. So, no increases in in service delivery. um when we're looking at building out our operating
budget um we are looking at uh modest CPI growth um and then potentially looking at sort of a two scenarios either base or reduced uh just based on what's tracking with that legislative risk. So, where where do we need to cut
to make up any of those gaps? And then, um, we're always tracking with, uh, the government finance officers best practices, uh, for as we're building out any of our documents. And so, you'll see here, um, talking about looking at some of formal fund
balance policies since we don't have those for all of our funds. Um, obviously, we'll be bringing forward a structurally balanced budget. um we'll be looking to continue on those long-term financial forecasts and then with our fees and um uh charges and those policies with some of those cost
recovery targets. So with those we're going to be doing um as our city manager mentioned, we have a quite a bit going on. So we'll look to phase and prioritize um those as we're building out our uh operating budget. >> David, can you pause for just one
second? Mr. Mayor, I do think we need to uh extend. >> Is the clock wrong up there? I'm sorry. >> We're at 9:56. So, >> is the last slide? I think she's literally on the last slide, >> aren't you? >> We've got some wrap-ups to do. >> That's the last one. Yeah. >> Okay.
>> Okay. So, just as our next step, um you can see that we've got direction here from you tonight. So, we'll be building that into um your preliminary budget. The rate studies, as the city manager mentioned, will be coming forward. We're going to continue looking at some of those summer grant applications. Um we're going to continue to track that
property tax legislation and what they're modeling. Uh we'll model out any of the revenue um or continue to work on those areas that were in that you had selected. And then for workshop number three, we'll take a really deep dive into our adalorum or property tax
analysis and we'll have a preliminary budget book for you. >> Okay, >> that's it. >> Thank you. All right. Um, I I realize we got some more more things to handle. So, do we want to entertain a uh uh an extension?
>> I mo make a motion to extend till 10:10. >> Thank you. I love it. >> I second. >> Commissioner Clausy, >> yes. >> Commissioner Maldonado, yes. >> Commissioner Marriott, >> no. >> Vice Mayor Robinson, >> yes. >> Mayor Tate, >> yes. >> Motion carries.
All right. Other questions? I I feel like we've been peppering you with questions all day long, so I'm good personally. Answers others. >> All right. Um um reports, please. Uh city clerk, any
reports, please? >> Nothing tonight. Thank you. >> Thank you, city manager. >> Nothing to report. >> City attorney. >> Nothing this evening. >> District 4, sir. >> Yeah. I'd like to thank the uh Venina Delmare Island Association, the outgoing board, and welcome and congratulate the new board uh for their recent
appointments. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Anything to add? >> Oh, I wanted to thank uh Kristen Comment and uh uh Brandon Barry and Laura Canary for uh putting together a workshop for
uh historic designation. Uh it was very informative and I look to have some more information out this week uh via Next Door and hopefully it will get a lot of people applying. >> Thank you, Commissioner. >> Nothing to report.
>> Okay, I'll wrap up real quick and just say thank you uh to the staff. I know this is a lot of work that you put into it. We appreciate it. Been a long day. There'll be more long days, but we appreciate you sincerely. Thank you. um to the city residents. Uh I I think at least I'm I'm at least already on board
to be in the dunk tank. I don't know if that's going to happen with everybody on July 4th, but uh this your opportunity to say how much you like our decisions or not. On July 4th, we'll all be in a dunk tank. I think at least I've committed myself to be. >> I'll be there. >> All right,
I think that's a wrap. Uh with that, we will adjourn. Thank you. >> 10 o'clock exactly.