--------- p.m. to the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right, who's up? Well, I will kick this off, but I know you're all probably
wondering. We did just have a major fire event in the city, and the latest information from the fire chief is that the fire is contained to CVS. Seven units total are affected with smoke. It was a completely defensive attack. So
that means no firefighters had to enter the building and um CVS is deemed a total loss. Very unfortunate, but we're glad everyone's safe. We have no injuries reported, so that's
good. So, uh to kick off tonight, uh this is the first of five budget sessions. Um, as we mentioned uh a few weeks back, we are pacing with your finance uh committee and they have
already received uh most of this presentation and we're bringing forward the information to you as well as some feedback that we had received from them. While your PowerPoint is 57 slides and full of detail, uh Devon tonight will be
staying rather high level because we're really seeking direction from you on approach. And the reason for giving you so much detail was two-part. One is that I'm not sure this commission has ever seen a complete capital program pulled together from every single study you've
ever done. I've heard a lot from the community and you all. We've done all these studies, but what are we doing with them? And so, uh, Camden Mills, our public service director, uh, put pulled together all of those documents into, uh, one place so you could see, as I
like to call it, what does it cost to run a city and in one big picture just from a capital perspective. Again, tonight, our focus is on capital and other policy level decisions that we'd like your direction and support on as we move through the budget process. So,
with that, I'm going to um, kick it off to Devon. She is going to try to approach this in a way that you you should interrupt her. I know usually I ask you allow staff to finish the presentation. This one is quite lengthy. So, we'd like it to be more interactive and ask her questions and have her stop
at a slide if you um if you if you would like to do take that approach and certainly you can hold all your questions to the end as well. But just wanted you to know um she's expecting uh to be interrupted. So, with that um Devon, I'm going to turn it over to you.
Excellent. Thank you, Francis. Um, mayor, commission, Devin Schmidt, finance director uh for the city of St. Pete Beach. Um, as Francis mentioned, this workshop is really the beginning of our budget discussions for fiscal year 2026. So, we're going to um work work on
focusing on our historical um financial data, our reserve analysis. Um I'll take you through an an initial capital improvement plan presentation as well as the um committee recommendation from the finance budget review committee. Um we
will be looking for a policy direction for staff to proceed with utilizing um the presented capital category prioritization in preparation for the recommended capital budget for fiscal year 2026. So kicking us off with the
historical financial overview. Um I think it's important for us to note um that forecasting the 2026 uh presents several challenges for us that we must really navigate carefully. Um the impacts of the hurricane on property tax and parking revenues, uncertainties
regarding the FEMA reimbursements and the time frame of those. Um any tariff impacts that are factors that complicate our financial outlook. Um, additionally, um, the general fund subsidies to the enterprise fund raises concerns around
best practices and financial management. And so addressing these challenges will be, um, critical as we navigate through our financial planning processes. Um, the good news is though, as we're looking forward, um, we will be looking to implement some strategic
long-term considerations. Um, of those would be to, uh, look at the fee and impact study. Um, this will re review all of the enterprise uh, fund revenues. Um, a 10-year financial forecast which really provides the city to plan for the future year capital and understand our
ongoing operational needs and growth. Um, reserve policies. This is really critical and will be brought back to the commission um, with staff recommendation, but each fund should really have a reserve policy that has an emergency reserve as well as additional
funds for any um, high priority capital projects. Um you will see in the 26 budget process that we are working on implementation of best budget practices uh that are in line with the government finance officers association. Um and we will be
looking um part of the revenue diversification strategies um is looking at some of those fee studies anywhere we have grant opportunities and we'll talk a little bit about that tonight but the intent again is to stay at high level and then of course the strategic plan alignment is really critical for our
financial considerations. Um the strategic plan helps us outline what the community needs are, what the commission's priorities are, and how the staff can carry out those initiatives and goals um throughout the budget process as well. So this is a very high level um
view of our adalorum taxable values. Um, Penllis County provides this valuable insight into our revenue source and this pie tra chart really illustrates the distribution of property taxes highlighting the significance of single family homes and condominiums in our tax
base. Um, understanding this distribution is really critical uh for our effective financial planning and resource allocation in our community. And in the future workshop, we'll be sharing out about how many of these properties are homestead versus not um as we're working through um some of
those processes. So, just wanted to provide that of the commission. Um this slide represents a detailed overview of our general fund revenues exceeding everything over $100,000. So, the table highlights revenues from various sources from prior years. Um, and this allows us to
identify and make informed decisions about trend analysis. Um, by analyzing these figures, we're able to better understand our financial landscape and prioritize the funding around essential services. I think it is important to note that many of these revenues, uh, we do not have the opportunity for local
control or changes. Um, many of those are at the county or state level. So, um, just wanted to provide what those highest level um, revenue sources are as we're looking at our general fund. um adalorm taxes, parking facilities, the county EMS reimbursement, and then all
of those um utility tax uh fees that we receive. Sales tax for the city of St. Pete Beach is a smaller um portion of our overall revenue source. Um so, just wanted to provide that information. You might see in this 2025 year-to- date
column. Um this is what we have received to date in each one of these revenue streams. Um there will be the administration fee transfers um occurring later on in the fiscal year, but you can see um just how we're trending to date on some of these
revenues. So moving on um just some opportunities for revenue diversifications uh which is really vital for enhancing our financial sustainability. Um some areas would include a potential bed tax for beach maintenance if we were able to collect um that from Penllis County. Um grant
opportunities of course are something that the city is currently exploring with by way of some of the management analyst positions that have been added to the city. Our fee and impact studies. So that's looking at what is the fees and the impacts that we're currently generating in our enterprise funds and
how are those sustaining. And then any other fees as we're thinking about um maybe parks and recreation programs or things of that nature would be um important for us to take a look at and review. So this is very much an educational
slide. Um I think it's important for the commission and the community to understand the distinction between the general fund and our proprietary funds or our enterprise funds. Um it's really for effective financial management. The proprietary funds that we currently have at the city of St.
Pete Beach include wastewater, reclaimed water, and storm water multimodal. Um the general fund has been subsidizing these funds and best practice says that these funds operate much more like a business enterprise um where the revenues that are coming in are able to
extend the expenditures going out and that um general fund subsidy is not a best practice um they should be self- sustaining. So I just wanted to um take a moment to provide that education and provide the commission with that understanding.
So some of the opportunities and trends as we're looking at this fiscal year 26 um we will be looking to achieve a budget actually accuracy of 96%. Um and what that is doing is it's showing that our actuals are 96% of our
budget. Um and this would mean that we're closely aligning our budgeted figures and what we had planned to achieve with our actual expenditures. I spoke a little bit about the reserve policies. Um but it's really critical for us to set aside savings for future projects. Um emergencies um like we
incurred um this year with Helen and Milton. Um and then in addition those reserve policies should have that any unspent funds may be transferred to a capital uh project provided the reserve policies are adhered to first. Um, and
as we navigate into the following slides, um, the data, um, is really reflective of where we have opportunities for improvement in our budgeting practices. So, I'm going to move rather quickly through this next section. Um, again, as Francis mentioned, please feel free to stop me
as you have questions. So, this is the year-over-year comparison our general fund. Um, this provides us some insights into our financial for uh, performance. The commission can see that the figures for revenues and expenditures and the net amounts highlight our fiscal health.
Um, but you can see in here that the general fund is and has been building reserves. Um, the long-term goal would be for the city to have better policies that are around the reserve um, funding. Um, and you can see the differences between the budget and the actuals and
the delta that um, we had planned for versus what we had actually spent. So that's where that 96% really is critical for the city to get to so that we're able to really shore up those actuals with our revenues. As we're looking at the
wastewater fund, um this fund plays a critical role in maintaining our city's infrastructure. Um but you can see here that what we had planned to budget um versus what actually was spent is very different. And so as we move forward in
2026, the commission and the community will see a much closer alignment between um those variances. Um you might wonder why there's such a large variance in revenue from 2023 to 2024. Um that would have to do with the general fund
subsidy. Um so under the current rate structure, there's just not enough funding to cover those capital expenditures. And we'll get into that detail in some of the later slides. looking at the reclaimed water system. Um this is utilized for sustainable water use in our community. Um the
commission can see here that with our budgetary actuals and revenues while they are closer aligned to um getting towards that 96% um we are not taking in enough revenues uh to even cover operations without a general fund
subsidy under the current um fee structure that we have in those funds. um storm water. So that's vital for managing our water quality and preventing flooding in our community. Um this fund generates approximately half a million dollars for capital projects. Um
however, the commission will see in later slides that the needs of capital are greater than that $700,000. And again, um really working towards getting those budget to actuals uh closer aligned at the end of the year. in our building fund. Um the building
fund is really responsible for ensuring the public safety and quality of life uh through enforcement of our building codes. Um what we're looking at here, the past two years of actuals have contributed to the fund balance. Um I think it's important to note that waving
of the permit fees did result in um about $3 million of uncollected revenues for the fund. So I wouldn't expect to see that in 2025. Moving on to our fleet fund. Um the fleet fund is essential for managing our vehicle replacements when within the
city. The fund is really to ensure that we're effectively planning for future vehicle use. Um and so I'm going to keep moving on that one in a resiliency fund. Um so this was an initiative that was created in 2023. Um this slide outlines the uh funds
purpose. Um as you can see that here we are showing that we are not increasing any revenues as we are moving forward. And so um going back to what that comprehensive plan will will be a priority for us in 2026 as we um create
that budget. The multimodal fund focuses on our impact fee related activities for um support new development. Um again the commission can see that uh with our budgetary practices we were budgeting to go into a net negative um or into the
fund dip into that fund balance for the fund and again uh the revenues and budgetary actuals um need to closer align in our future years. So, I know this is a very long list here of 2023 capital projects. What I really want the commission to understand from
this slide is that um this is another area for improvement in our budgeting practices. Um so for our projects for the fiscal year of 2023, we budgeted $22 million in capital projects only completing 4.8 million. The goal in
future pri in future fiscal years would be that we are budgeting for what we anticipate to start or complete in that year. And this is the same type of situation. Um we have a little bit closer of a delta between the budget and the actuals but 25 million compared to
uh 7.1 million in actuals. So again um we'll continue to look to address these priorities. diving into our reserve analysis. Um some of the considerations as we're thinking about the reserve um is some of our f factors just affecting our
financial resources. Um so the the city will be looking to um go for an emergency bridge loan that could backfill operations. Um the feming FEMA timing of reimbursements is challenging and that we don't know if it's going to be 5 years, 7 years when we'll receive
those reimbursements for some of those projects. Um the initial cost of the hurricane response um obviously um was very expensive and created a a large expense in our general fund. And then again those lack of
reserve policies and an investment policy um are all pieces and parts as we're looking at some of this information. So what this slide is showing here is a comprehensive budget comparison by fund um for the fiscal impacts of 2025
through um 2026. And so the detailed table is outlining our funding sources and our expenditures. Um but it's important to note that the highlighted beginning fund balances um is unodudited and subject to change. You'll see that I have some arrows listed out here where
we may have some opportunities for uh FEMA reimbursement within our wastewater fund. We are expecting a reimbursement on pump station one and then um any areas where we could utilize that emergency bridge loan to backfill some of our operational
costs. Um I think it's important to note that for Helen our contracts totaled 7.3 million with uh 6.2 million in expenditures. um contracts for Milton emergency um expenditures was 2.7 in
contracts and 761,000 to date. Um off to the right you'll see that some of those um some of those expenditures were utilized for debris collection, remediation of buildings. um the two
that I have highlighted in orange. Um I think it's important for the commission to understand that the general fund did pay for um any pump station uh repairs and pump station one as far as those initial costs. So typically uh financial
best practices would be for those to come out of the um the wastewater fund. So just a a point of note for you all. Okay. So, as we're moving through this presentation, um, now we're looking at
the initial 5-year capital improvement plan. Um, so the team, as Francis has mentioned, um, really went through and documented to address every need in the city, including work needed from all the studies to provide a comprehensive overview of what does it cost for us to
run a city. Um the so what we're going to be looking at as we move through some of these is some very large dollar amounts. Um so I think it's important just to to lead with that um note for you all. And what we'll be asking for is the policy
direction from the commission to help us further reduce down some of these projects as we have to put forward a balanced budget. So as we're before we I'm going to set the stage here for you before we start looking at each one of these capital projects. But um what we're looking at here is prioritization
based off of their importance to the community needs. So um the way staff looked at prioritizing these projects is storm repair, restore, restore with resiliency or amenity enhancement. Um the presentation is going to outline all
of the needs. Um and staff would obviously not recommend for all these projects to come forward given the funding constraints. Um historically many of these critical infrastructure projects um have been off the priority list just due to funding constraints and the result is a very large list of
unfunded capital projects. So for 2026 through 202030 um this CIP will provide all the necessary projects to restore the aging infrastructure includes community amenity enhancements. Um but the staff recommendation would be that
those are delayed um due to any priority critical infrastructure projects. So when we're looking at discussing this capital projects format um we wanted to take the approach of looking at it from a fund. So each project will begin with the fund title
um which sets the context for the funding source of how these projects are going to be paid for. Um following that we'll have a comprehensive project description. Um and I think it's important to note that um that all of these will describe the
project's objectives and the scope. Um followed by that we'll have the current year um budget and then the 5-year budget forecast um for that financial road map just ensuring that um you know all the stakeholders really understand both the immediate and the long-term
financial needs. Uh, additionally, we'll be categorizing the projects related to storms, highlighting our proactive stance and repair. And then finally, uh, for the funding consideration sections, it's important, um, that this reflects our awareness of all potential projects,
including those impacted by damages, previous studies, and ensuring that um, all of those capital requirements are met effectively. So, starting off with our general fund um, CIP. So this slide um presents our projected revenues for the
general fund um from 2025 to 2030. The penny for panelis and the general fund transfers is the largest source of revenue for these capital projects. Um the county projects on average a 2.5 increase in that sales tax each year. And so this slide is representing that
the interest is growing at that same rate. You'll see that $8 million pushed out to 2030. um that is reflective of uh FEMA reimbursement. Again, not knowing when we're going to receive that. Um we decided to put that out in some of the
future years for consideration. So, I'm not going to take the commission through each and every single one of these projects. Um but we have included the detailed information of each projects on the slide. Um the intent, however, as I mentioned, is not to discuss the merits of the project.
Really what we're looking for is for uh policy direction on the categories that we the staff is looking at ranking the projects. Um but the commission can see here that this initial slide is um for our beaches. Um so looking at anything
with dune and beach restoration, doing walkover replacements and then some foot and shower drainage improvements. Um this is all of our information technology projects. So this slide is outlining our various IT projects planned for the fiscal year
2025 through 2030 with a focus on enhancing the city's technology infrastructure and improving that operational efficiency. Um so as we're looking at some of these we have some camera wide camera wide security systems
we have some um applications that will increase our efficiencies um for staff with our onboarding processes and some other IT projects as well. So this um slide is looking at any of our general fund CIP for parks um
highlighting any key improvements planned for the upcoming years. Um so each one of these projects is designed to um either enhance, restore um or restore our current amenity in uh in our
parks. And so for instance, we have the Bella Vista mini park improvement which would look to address um any of our um infrastructure. Um we have the fishing peers rehabilitation project and the Heran docks project which aims to
connect any of those floating docks to a broader waterway trail. Um, moving into our public just because I know it's going to happen in in many of the next slides on the revenue sources that are blank. Why is it that we don't know the source? Like
what's is it just not been determined or are we hoping for a grant? Like why why are those blank? Um I I apologize. I think some of those um especially looking at the fishing pier rehabilitation um we do have it
marked as as storm related um so I can follow back up with you on that. I know it's gonna it does happen through a lot of the fund. Um so just I I didn't know if it was Yeah. And some of it you'll see the reason when we come back we will be
asking for if if there when we bring the full general fund operation budget if there's revenue excess revenue that's when we start to send it into the capital pro project. So, it could be we just haven't
decided whether it is grant worthy and we think we could get something or we're going to bring general fund money in to pay for it. Thank you. Yes. Um I think that's a good call out too because obviously you're going to see a lot of these where they're tying
back to that penny for Penllis and the penny for Penllis is on average anywhere from 1.5 million um onward. And so obviously we do not have enough funding. Um anywhere where you see that penny for penllis that is just showcasing where that could be uh
an option for that project that it fits that um halfent or that sales tax um language. Okay. So looking at some of our public services project, um these are really key initiatives aimed at
enhancing or restoring our community resiliency and infrastructure. Um you can see these projects are from 2025 through 202030. um including some significant seaw wall replacement, some improvements to city hall, um notably the 36 Street Avenue seaw wall
replacement, uh the 80th Avenue living shorewall project and the Bokea neighborhood, uh as well as the community center seaw wall replacement. Could I ask another question on this one? I'm sorry, on that means that's slipping because I know we're going
fast. When when um the seaw wall because I know these are going to pop up a couple of times. living shoreline seaw wall replacement and so forth. And when I did the price per linear foot on seaw wall, they were averaging about 3440 a linear foot. Um, and from kind of
bidding out a lot recently on a linear footage from a lot of bids I've been receiving for residential, it's been at 750 a linear foot. So, just knowing that in my mind, is there a way that we could I I feel like
we're going to be very short in in some of these um capital improvement projects. You know, a lot of the the ticket items that come back to commission saying that we need to make an adjustment or an amendment because of cost. That's a good note. These are
again original these are assessments and this is staff's first, you know, bite at the apple, I'll say. and as well as you right now. And then um once we get a good revenue picture, we'll know what to do. But as Devon mentioned earlier in the presentation, the tariffs are a
concern. We're watching them closely. And I'm pretty sure all of these numbers are going to change to to some extent when we come back with final recommendations as Camden sharpens his pencil on the engineering estimates. But I've heard the same on Seaw walls and it's probably going to double in a lot
of areas. Okay. U more public services project. Um these projects detail various initiatives just aimed at restoring and enhancing the city facilities impacted by the hurricanes. Um this table provides uh some overview of the projects and the facility. Building
repairs, elevator rehabilitation, emergency backup generators, um HVAC improvements, um some lighting conversions and roof replacements, um notably the financial allocations for each of these projects are spanning again from that 25 to 2030 uh year,
highlighting the city's um and what we're trying to do with our commitment to resiliency and recovery. Um, and so we do have uh quite a few projects listed out at there as well that are um falling within that restore and resiliency um
category. Um so notably on this one, we do have the fire station 22 um that's set for demolition and reconstruction due to the significant hurricane damage. Um and then bringing that in compliance with the current building codes. Um we
have some facility repairs. Um we have an investment in some of our mechanical tools and equipment for maintaining our city vehicles and in enhancing the operational efficiency. And then we have some seaw wall repairs highlighting um our ongoing commitment again where we're
looking to have restore and resiliency in some of these areas. Um sticking with our public services projects, um we have the pass uh way seaw wall replacement um which is crucial crucial for our coastal resiliency um involving some significant
engineering measures like steel and sheet piles. Um, additionally, we have the expansion of the public services operations yard, uh, shoreline protection improvements, um, which are pretty, uh, crucial as far as our
restore and resiliency or repair, um, projects. Uh, moving on to our streets projects. Um, we're still within our general fund, uh, 301 projects. Um this uh slide is outlining some of the various projects and needs. Um notably we have the Bokea Drive reconstruction
which is crucial due to extensive sto scope and addressing some of that aging infrastructure um and storm water improvements with at the cost of um 7 million. We have bridges rehabilitation program ensuring that that structural integrity of our city and our bridges um
continue. We have G Boulevard utility undergrounding. And last we have the Gulf Wave rehabilitation project that f focuses on some of the recovery from Helen uh damage incorporating resiliency measures. Some more street projects. We have the Gulf Wings Drive
reconstruction. Um we have the uh hurricane damage rightway rehabilitation project which is looking at um some of the impacts of our recent storms. um particularly in some of the more vulnerable areas like Pasigril. Um we
have the ride ofway median improvements. Um we have some signage asset management. Um roadway rehabilitation um of approximately 40 mi of paved roads and then we have our Shell alley improvements and lastly our uh Vina
Delmare bridge lighting replacements included in here. So you can see again we have restore resiliency repair. We have some enhancement projects and quite a few resiliency projects. So, um, as the commission can see, um, that not all of our projects
that I previously spoke about can be funded. Um, so with the policy direction that we receive from the commission, um, we will reduce down these projects and present a balanced budget for the policy direction for the commission. Um but the what we're looking at here is our total
revenue, our total expenditures, our beginning unodudited fund balance, and then our change in fund balance and our ending fund balance. So um obviously we could not bring forward $50.48 million in capital projects for fiscal year
2026. Um but important to to note the needs that um we do have in the community. So, I'm going to move on to our reclaimed water fund. Um, this slide outlines our financial projections for the reclaimed waterfront from 2025
through 2030. Um, this is detailing our various revenue sources, including connection fees, service charges, um, which are crucial for understanding how the funds will sustain itself. Um what I would like to highlight here is that um we do have a $400,000 general fund
transfer um that was planned in 2025 uh to offset um some of the capital projects um as well as our operating revenue versus expenditures. Um the commission can see that we currently are not bringing in enough revenues to
sustain our operating expenditures. Um so that's where that general fund subsidy is coming in as well as with some of the capital projects that we have. Um looking at just a little bit more detail about what those capital projects are in our reclaimed water fund. So um the lateral service pipe
replacement is looking at addressing some urgent needs we have by replacing our aging infrastructure. Um we also have the second project which is our pig court installation which is focusing on restoring the pig core. It's necessary for our system maintenance. Um and
funding for these um you'll see listed as reclaimed water and general fund and they are in the category of resiliency restoring resiliency. So moving on to our storm water fund. Um this slide presents our over our comprehensive financial
overview. Um the commission can see that the operating expenditures um are sufficiently covered by the revenues, but what we're showing is that our capital needs are greater than what we're bringing in on our uh revenues for
storm water. Um so I think that's an important call out to see. um looking at some of the various storm water CIP projects. Um we have the 45th Avenue drainage improvements which is focusing on upgrading our storm water
infrastructure um including a new pump station to improve water quality, manage runoff effectively. We have the Bella Vista baffle structures project which is looking at addressing the clogging issues of the tidal check valves. Uh we have the Don Cesar and Bokea area
resiliency um adaptation projects which is particularly significant and cost um which is looking to uh mitigate some of the risk associated with sea level rise and flooding and again um all of these are either storm water or general fund
funded um and we have them in the category of resiliency. Carrying on with our storm water projects, um we have the dons is our outfall improvement phase two. Um it addresses the last remaining outfall needed for rehabilitation in that
neighborhood. Additionally, we have ongoing drainage improvements that will enhance the overall storm water infrastructure, the cleaning and inspection of storm wall systems particularly after hurricane Helen. And last week we have the watershed management master plan which will
replace the existing plan ensuring that we're prepared for any of the future sea uh future sea level rise impacts. So we have these within um restore resiliency um storm water general fund funded. Um, continuing on with our storm
water projects, um, we have the Northwest region analysis which highlights the significant flood risk with projections indicating that up to 64% of our intersections could be affected by future funding. Um, we have the Northwest region resiliency. um
which has a plan of seaw wall upgrades, uh capacity pump stations, and we have the Pass Grillil and Villa Delmare projects emphasizing our raising seaw walls, improving our drainage systems. Um and lastly, we have an update on the storm
water drainage manual to ensure that our future infrastructure needs are meeting the standards and planning requirements. um categories are resiliency, restore and resiliency and again storm water and general fund. Looking at our wastewater fund, um
this is looking at the financial overview. Um as this uh commission can see, there's not sufficient funding for the capital projects. Um there is enough funding to cover the ongoing operational uh projects but we do have some large um
capital projects as uh you can see here. So taking a look at what some of those key projects are um we have our asset management update which involves our GIS mapping and regular updates to asset management. We have the focus on the force main replacements um
particularly force main 17 and six. Uh we have the force main one replacement which is significant due to its role in transporting our wastewater to St. Petersburg facilities. Um additionally we have the pump and lift station assessment emphasizing our importance of
those regular evaluations to ensure our infrastructure reliability. Um so we have these categorized in resiliency restoring resiliency as well as um wastewater and general fund. We have some pump and lift station overhauls. Um this is focusing on our
necessary repairs um to our 45 flight pump assets, ensuring that they remain operational and efficient. Um pump station rehabilitation um highlights our significant storm damage repairs. Um emphasizing the needs for our maintenance and to prevent future
issues. And additionally, we have the sewer smoke testing initiative, which is vital for identifying our inflow and infiltration problems, which can lead to some costly repairs if not addressed. Our categories here are restore, restore, repair, resiliency,
um, and we have wastewater. We do have a potential um, FEMA as well as a grant um, for funding, but primarily wastewater and general fund funded. And this first project um on this slide focuses on updating our hydraulic model
of the wastewater system which is essential to our accurate reflecting of current flow data. Second project addresses the aftermath of hurricane Helen emphasizing the need for cleaning and inspection of our sewer system and mitigate the sediment buildup. And our
third project is looking at the wastewater transmission system particularly the installation of our air release um valves to enhance our pipe longevity. And lastly we have the force main assessments to ensure that our maintenance and replacement of planning.
So each one of these projects is looking at the category of resiliency restore repair and we have wastewater general fund um for the coverages. Um, again, I think it's really important for the commission and the community to understand that
enterprise funds um should operate like a business and they should not require um a subsidy. Um the only So, these are the enterprise funds that the commission will see as we move into our 26 budget, which would be wastewater, storm water,
and reclaimed water. Um, we were looking at taking parking into its own enterprise fund, which often is a revenue generator with no restrictions of those uh uses of revenues. Um, and another opportunity for just a
piece of education is that the services that often do require a subsidy um include transportation services. Um general fund obviously accounts for all the financial resources um except for those that are should be accounted for
in another fund. Um and some of the activities just for understanding that are typically accounted for in a general fund would be roads, parks and recreation amenities and programs like that. So with that, I'm going to um take us into what the finance budget review
committee um recommended at our meeting last week. And so um the to complete the fee studies as quickly as possible and look at implementation. Um approach the capital project prioritization so that failures and restorations are addressed first um and then other projects and
then bring back staff recommendation for projects for committee advisory recommendation and commission approval um with a balanced budget. So, as I mentioned when I when we kicked off here, um this is the first of five of our budget workshops. And so, our
next budget workshop, we will be bringing back an updated capital improvement plan as well as our position listing and benefits overview on the June 10th meeting. And with that, um, the action that we're asking for the commission tonight is
just policy direction for staff to proceed with utilizing the presented capital category prioritization and preparation for our recommended budget. And um, more than happy to take any questions. Thanks, Devin. Okay, Commissioner Marriott. Um, yeah,
I've got just a couple questions and and uh thanks Devin for putting this together in this format. This is a um a great way to look at this. And so um I guess I want to make sure I'm understanding correctly that in the beginning of the presentation it talked about the uh the need to get our
budgeted figures more in line with actual figures and and and how far off they have been in the past. And is it is am I interpreting it correctly that that one of the reasons that that those numbers are so far off from each other is that we were perhaps budgeting for
more than e either we were budgeting for more than staff was able to accomplish at the time or we were we were planning too big or we were executing too small or is that is that the main is that the main
the main issue there? Yeah, absolutely. So, I think there could be a lot of different factors um when we're looking at the differences between those actuals and those budgets. Um it could be that there was a level of
contingency existing in the prior year budgets that um there was unspent funds due to attrition with staffing or that the capital projects while we're thinking about that um was too aggressive for what we were able to
accomplish in a given year. Um, so there's uh definitely a lot of different factors that could um influence that. I think the the biggest piece um as we move forward would be for us to look at at um tightening up some of those
expenditures and for um items to be brought forward um that the staff won't ask for it unless we intend to accomplish the project. Um and that will allow for the budget um efficiency and utilization to be um placed in the best
places possible if that makes sense. Yeah, it does. Thank you. Thank you for that. That was I I I I like the the method of prioritization that you have set up. Um, I was just going to caution that we we take into account what can actually occur in any given year so that
we're not repeating the the the mistakes of the past of of kind of overpromising what we're going to do when when we clearly can't execute. Thank you, Commissioner Mhalland.
Thank you, Devin. Uh Joe Mahaland. Uh just a quick, it's pretty small potatoes question compared to a lot of this, but we got to start somewhere. Uh so item 36 2450, leasing concessions.
Um so far as general fund revenue, um do you happen to know I'm I'm assuming that's not part of the fee study. Would that be accurate? Do you know that? or madam city manager do you know would that be part of the fee study I don't off Devon do you know I don't
know that I don't know off the top of my head but I could certainly follow back follow up on that so I I would like to know one if possible um maybe what next time we talk about general fund um if that is part of
the fee study And I'd also like to understand exactly what we have for leases. For example, I know the Paradise Grill, for example, has a lease. I know the Dawn Vista used to have a lease. Uh
Mary Pier Bait Shop used to have a lease. Uh but I'm unaware of all the leases in the city. But what I am aware of, in my opinion, the leases, many of them have been way too cheap and haven't really been looked at. Um and you know
once again uh with the delta that deltas that we have uh between uh revenues and needs uh this isn't a big item but um I I just have always felt that um these
things never got looked at and these are the time we need to start chipping away at some of these things uh to you know make sure that we're charging what we should be charging. Uh we're getting ready to spend a barrel of money on a lot of these facilities. Uh and I think
we need to know that we're getting an appropriate return on investment. And if we're not getting an appropriate return on investment, then we need to be honest with ourselves and say, "Well, we're doing it for cultural reasons or for whatever reason
we're doing them." So, uh that's that's all I had, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, sir. Okay, any other questions or comments? Well, I I like the idea of having realistic goals um and going forward with those and definitely um
prioritizing uh the repairs first um and taking enhancements last. I think that's u the way to go for sure. Um, I also see some other possible opportunities for um, possible other fees that um, creatively that we might
be able to do. Um, a little bit more maybe on the um, uh, short-term rentals side of things. Um, seeing I do believe there's probably a lot of those going on that um, are not um, known. I think
people are getting creative ways to get around it around the system and I think that deserves a little attention on that because that um I don't know exactly how much of a money maker that is or or to wh to whom on which side of that could
be but um I do know that there's uh the the fees are somewhat substantial. It's not much of a money maker in the short-term rentals because we're limited to how much we can charge. It's just like with some of the other fees. They're administrative. So the fee that we charge, for example, for registering
a property, if we were to require registrating registering the property, it really can't exceed the cost of us administrating that. And then all it does, it just creates more paperwork for our staff, the change in the ordinance when it's
already pretty difficult to change that particular ordinance. And we have pretty strong protections in place visa v some of the other cities. And so I would not be inclined to even take a look at touching that because it could just really put us in a position where like
Indian rock speech where they went from having full restrictions to just a free-for-all. Um and so charging $150 administration fee for example might net us whatever in revenue, but that's going to be offset
by the staff person we'll have to have maintaining that registry. And since we're not allowed to have any other taxes that any other tax schemes that we implement ourselves, like a bed tax, for example, we can't even charge term rentals a separate fee or the hotel fee
or anything else like that. So, I I do appreciate the thought. I'm just that one's probably not I know some other cities are doing things uh such as Cleveland and a few other cities are are tackling um that issue across the country. Yeah. They just may not have
the same restrictions that we have from the state of Florida. right where we can't implement our own taxes and then we also can't charge fees that exceed what it would cost to administrative administrative program. Um, are are we likely to have the
results of the fee study in time for for for this budget or is that something that's not necessarily going to affect things until next year? I think realistically we will have some preliminary data and again a budget's a planning document so it can be changed.
So, if we feel pretty confident in some of the fees we're getting back, um, we we'll most likely try to present what we're seeing and then we'll try to adopt the fee schedules along the way. So, you kind of anticipate your budget based on
a projected adopt adoption of a fee schedule. Commissioner um on the categorization because in the recommendation you'd had listed um recommendation from the committee um
repair and I forgot the other word that's up there. Repair and resiliency is it combined? No, repair and restore. Restore. Restore. Sorry. Yes. Repair and restore. Um which in theory is a good recommendation when you hear the name of the category. What I want to caution is
that if you prioritize only by that and not look at let's say resiliency for example which is to improve infrastructure so it' be better than what it currently is right we're still going to have storms um uh coming
whether they're just regular rainstorms thunderstorms whatever it may be or deteriorating infrastructure that we've been talking about for many many many years doing many many many studies um but some of these repairs um can be prioritized ized, but then listed as do
we need it now? Is this something um and I'll use the word Commissioner Mahal used that it's cultural versus something that is needed at this minute when there's other repairs and I don't they're not listed as a repair. They're
more resiliency that are critical um infrastructure improvements. So, it's almost like combining them both so that or prioritizing both so the commission can look at it and say, "Yes, that repair is necessary because we might
have had to demolish it, but do we need to rebuild it this year?" If that makes sense. It does. Okay. Anything further? City manager, do you have what you need from us today? We do. We'll see you back
in a month with Okay, thank you. More detail. When is the next budget um No, not not our workshop. The uh finance committee. Finance committee. Yeah. Devon, do you know when the next finance committee workshop is?
Let me pull that up. Give me one second. Oh. I think on the city website it says June 4th. Okay, thank you. Okay, I think we found it on the website. Okay. All right. Okay. Sorry about that. Thank you.
Great. Thank you everyone. And we are adjourned. Thank you. Part: 2
City clerk, if you'll please do a roll call. Commissioner Robinson here. Commissioner Nikki here. Commissioner here. Vice Mayor Marott here. And mayor here. And with that, I want to welcome
Renee Rose uh to the city of St. Pete Beach. Um Renee is our new city clerk. Uh she comes with a wealth of experience uh in Florida and from beyond. And I just want to say Renee, thank you so much. Welcome. And we're happy to have
you here. Thank you. I'm happy to be here. All right. First, we're going to start with presentation. Uh the first one is the employee of the second quarter. Thank you, mayor, uh, commission and community. It's one of my favorite jobs
is to get to introduce our, um, employee of the quarter award winner. And it is with great pride and appreciation that tonight we recognize Dvita Thomas as our employee of the quarter for quarter 2. Dvita consistently exemplifies high
standards of professionalism, empathy, and excellence in service, making her an invaluable asset to the city of St. Pete Beach. From the moment you meet her, she you are welcomed by a warm, genuine smile and a friendly, approachable demeanor that puts people instantly at
ease, which is great asset for an HR professional. She has an extraordinary ability to connect with employees at all levels, earning their trust and admiration. Many team members from all departments seek out her guidance, encouragement, and a listening ear. Her
presence brings positivity to every room, and she serves as a true confidant and champion for all. In the words of her colleagues, they've they have commented, "She's very helpful. Everyone depends on her. She is the best. She
embodies the very best of who we are. Her dedication to our organization extends far beyond her core responsibilities. In the last quarter, she's led multiple priority recruitments with impressive speed, precision, and care. Despite the challenges of managing
overlapping recruitments, onboarding, job postings, interview coordination, and the implementation of a new HRIS system, she never missed a beat. The result, 10 successful new hires and promotions delivered while maintaining her regular workload and continuously
supporting staff and leadership with tire tireless energy and grace. Beyond her daily duties, Dvita gives back by volunteering her personal time to support colleagues at city events. I saw her at the um open
house at the fire station. Um all the weekend events. I always get to run into Devita when I'm there. um really appreciate it and it really showcases her passion for team unity and community spirit. She is known by first name by
over 160 employees often remembering details about their roles and lives which is a testament to how deeply she cares for those around her. So with that congratulations Dvita. Your impact is felt daily and this recognition is richly deserved.
[Applause] That's congratulations. Does the whole family want to go there? [Music] All right. Are we ready? [Applause]
Well, thank you. You all must be very proud of the VA. All right. Next, we have an update by Calvin Gerardano on the comprehensive plan review. Hello everyone. Good evening. can hear
me. Uh Jim Hickeyi, I'm the director of planning for uh CGA for the state of Florida. With me tonight is Luis Cerna who's here. Um and also um from um from Weissera, Miss Shane, there she is, Miss Shane Wood. Um she's the from the
attorneys that we're working on the project with and um is here to make sure I'm saying what I'm supposed to be saying about the legal cases that are coming up or or passed but maybe not adopted yet. So, we'll talk a little bit about that as we move
forward. So, we're here uh tonight just to give you an update, but I kind of wanted to talk a little bit about what the project originally um what the scope originally was, and it was really to um come up with a community vision and look at two specific areas, your large resort area as well as your town center zoning
districts, and um proceed to go through some public engagement, get some community input, come back with you with proposed changes. So, I know that there was some concerns with the large resort, which is probably why I'm here today to talk to you. Um, but I just wanted to talk through and make sure that you understood that it was the two projects
there. Um, and really the idea was to get information back, provide some proposed changes to you all, and make some changes to your code that would help assist in those areas. We did go back and look, and I know this was something that has come up in the past, um, was the resolution
2016-15. And this was really a um something for you as the as the city to say, hey, listen, we we need to make sure we have the capacity in order to approve developments coming in. So that was um basically uh stopping development
unless it did not impact um didn't negatively impact the system. So anyone that was coming in for additional um improvements, including uh residential homes, were were stopped at that point. Um that's since um no longer in place.
and for the large resort. And for those uh looking, it's it's the area there shown in in red. And what I wanted to point out too is the areas that through the analysis that we did, and it's probably hard to see, but if you look at those areas in blue, those are the ones that have that are beyond the the that
meet the acreage size in order to have that large residential category. So, there's four available currently. Now, there are some smaller lots kind of on the south side there, but that would need someone to come in and buy up a bunch of property and get to that to that level in order to make those um to
get the additional density. Um so, there's the Bert Harris Act. This has been um these are kind of some of the regulatory things that we um that we as as planners and as cities have to kind of um I I always think we have one hand tied behind our back and
trying to you know lift something heavy while we do this. And it really is um something that was put in place to protect development from um anything that would come in that would restrict um density, intensity or anything that
would impact the overall value of the property. Now there's a process which goes through um they have to come in with an appraisal and walk through the the process and the city has to review and then if there's um no decision made then it goes to court. Um but this has been um litigated a number of times in
the in the state. What's new is this um Senate Bill 180 and um interesting enough um folks were watching it and it was always um something the bill that went through and it was it was protect it was basically saying anyone within a 100 miles of
where landfall was made by a hurricane cannot pass this kind of at the last minute they added all of the um the hurricanes that we've had over the past year and all four hurricanes if you look at all of the states of emergency it's the entire state so it's every city and
town. It's every county. Um I think um cities, your city as well as all cities across the state are really looking at that. And the the added thing is that it's proactive. It goes back to July 1st of 2024. So now we have to go back and look
and see if there was something there and then make that determination. Um and it's saying more restrictive and burdensome amendments. So it's amendments um construction reconstruction. It also does procedures, which was something we were thinking about assisting you with. So, it's really something that's that's kind of
um been difficult to um look at making recommendations um specifically to your to your um to the areas where you're where you're looking at additional density for the hotels and trying to come up with some regulations moving forward. Um the
best thing right now is that it's not yet law. The governor has not signed it. He of course has till July 1st to sign that. Um I know there's been some advocation. I know um Weiss Serot and other attorneys across the state have saying like you know to the legislators, was this really something that you
wanted to do? Is this kind of a a broad stroke? Did you want to have the entire state shut down or is this really something that's focused on certain areas? So we don't know where that's going to go. I think we'll know by the end of June hopefully as whether um the governor vetos or um there is another
legislative session. Maybe they'll come in and make changes. We we really don't know at this point. So, it's kind of it's there um to look at it. It's not really a moratorum, but it really does put some heavy restrictions on what communities can do um to make changes in
their land development code, in their comp plans, and as well as in your actual processes that you that you work through. So, what you could do, I mean, you could make changes, of course, can be more restrictive or burdensome. You could also look at additional options and those could be opt-ins, a transfer
of development rights. Someone could give away some of those units to another part of the of the community. Um maybe looking at I know you're looking at an infrastructure study. I know you're you're having some concerns with infrastructure. Maybe that might be something that you could you could look to as um something that at least you
could get some some additional um funds from development that comes in and have them pay their fair share when when those developments do come in. Um, that's something that you could do. And also, you know, kind of added to the infrastructure is your your environmental impact and resiliency.
There's there should be some issues that you could look to to kind of have that be um have the community itself be more resilient as storms come in um and and sea rise is moving is getting higher every year. Um, but what we do want to focus on and we did want to identify is
the town center districts. And this was the other area that we looked at. Now, we hadn't started the public engagement. We kind of stopped once we we heard that you all wanted to um have a discussion with us. So, that would be something else that we wanted to that we would look through as part of this project.
Um and it doesn't really face this. It's the challenges that you hear have there are a little bit different, right? Um Coina West, you've got some issues there with um there's a lot of storm damage. I went through I hadn't been here since since before the storm. So, there's some there's some pretty um there's some
homes there and some buildings that um need some help there. Um there's some that were non-conforming that potentially can't be rebuilt. So, maybe some of that density could be put towards this part of Corey Avenue or other places in the city that you all would deem um fit to do. Um town center
core, again, there's opportunities for redevelopment to kind of be flexible with that, not require a whole block to be done. if you could do it kind of storefront by storefront and have folks make changes as as need be. Um and then Corey Landings, I know you have it you have some items on tonight's agenda. So
that's another um potential opportunity. So here are all the things I I we talked a little bit about those, but you could look at all of these um items there. Um again, LDRs that are focused on redevelopment. A lot of city codes are of course on new development,
but we all know that areas have already been developed once. So, you really have to think about it kind of as someone coming in and making sure that the the legis the regulations read towards um developments coming in and not just existing or um green green field partials that haven't been built
on. Uh and then public engagement. I think if we were to move forward, this would be a different process. Um, in the past it's been successful um, projects that I've worked in that you have business meeting to have a one-on-one with them, open to the public, but just focus on the business community and the
business owners to kind of get their input and then sometimes later that day or you can have a different day where you'd have the the general public come in and have conversations about kind of what they want to see. But it's good to have the business meeting first because you kind of get their understanding of where their economics are, what they're
looking to do, if they're trying to expand. You know, all of those things are important when you start to look at regulations and how you can make those work. Um, so potential next steps. Here's your next steps. So, one of the things that I think we're here to look at, the first one is just pause the
entire project until you get some more clarity about legislation. Um, the the second bullet is really looking at maybe pausing the the large large resort until you kind of get a good understanding of that is and continue through uh the town center districts. Um, one of the things
we thought about is maybe supporting the needed analysis to do an actual CRA district. Now, there's that's been going back and forth in the legislature, but this year, um, they're still in place. Um, so that's something that you could enact and, um, basically create a tax district where you could take that money
and reinvested into the area. Um, and really focus on those strategies for redevelopment. Um, also having conversations, if I didn't say, have one-on- ones with you all as as the policy makers to make sure that we understand kind of where your direction is moving forward. Um, and we can do
that if if we don't go forward with the large resort area. So, that was it in a nutshell. Um, I can take any questions that you may have and thank you for the time. Thank you. [Applause]
Commissioner, I I have a question. Um, I know that with SB80 and there was also HB 1535 and HB 943. So, it seems like that particular language was kind of placed in three different areas. Um, so
we really uh all these cities have a battle against them, against developers basically. Correct. because those are the ones that are out there lobbying our elected officials up in Tallahassee to get their um items pushed
through neg neglecting residents and and home rule. Um is there any do you see any sort of uh organization of cities uh to fight this? I know there are communities talking um Chen if you want to jump in you can. I
know that um represents a number of communities throughout the throughout the state. Maybe do you want to respond to that? Would that be Sure. Um um I'm with Vice as as was mentioned. Um so we've been counseling our municipalities. This is something that
really was a we say a lastm minute um change and so not many folks were aware of it until now. And so what we've been um we've sent out alerts and notifying our municipalities and so some will have some type of um resources or any
networks. We're encouraging them to tap into that if there's um any time at all to make um a last minute change whether it's a veto or something of the sort. But as of right now, it still is, I would say, fresh for some folks and um most organizations like the league,
another league um have been lobbying, other people have been lobbying throughout. And so um at this point, it's a matter of um for lack of better words, tell Mary, anything that you have at your disposal in terms of resources to communicate, this would be the last
effort to do so. But again, it's it's it is fresh at this moment for a number of our municipalities. So there is no real organization, I would say, against it, right? It would be I think League of Cities usually leads this charge. Um so
the local and then the the state delegation um does, but it's something that's been passed. So, it's, you know, it's kind of will you reconsider it, you know, in the next um because they have a they have another legislative session quick to come up because they have to pass the budget. So, that could be a time where they could potentially
reconsider it, but it's all, you know, if so, no, they passed a very similar statue in 2022 after Hurricane Ian. Correct. Yes. But the governor signed that one. Okay. So, we're not
really holding out any hope. Let's just put the cards on the table, right? The reality is that we knew this was going to pass because they've passed it in the past and they've passed it every year for the last three or four years, something very similar to this. Um, I don't know that it's necessarily
I'm sure it's we know which lobby it is, but I think it's just a very shortsighted by the legislature to not allow cities in the aftermath of massive hurricanes which expose the deficiencies in the buildings and the infrastructure and everything else to
not allow us to make changes as we see necessary to make sure their cities are more resilient. Um the Florida League of City, while they always talk a good game and I I do love them, um they've been ineffective. Um it's not for lack of
trying and so I really wouldn't expect anything out of that. Um I guess the question is maybe you were getting to this. Um I know for example two years ago there was a legis there was a legal challenge to the form six.
What are what are options for legal challenges from the cities? Because this seems to be approaching the level of a constitutional crisis because we're continuously, you know, home rights and home rule rights are being continuously
eroded by the legislature, right? You know, it's every session we're losing a little bit more. And this is really not a question for you. It's more of a question for our attorney to just contemplate. Um but I think it's a valid question you know because we are seeing a
constitutional erosion of our home rule uh every every legislative session it's you know 10 things that they're proposing to you know erode and supersede uh what we can do and then they take five back and you say well thank god they took those five but we
still end up losing five and this has been happening every year. So for those of you out in the public, I would say call your senators, call your state legislators, call your representative. Linda Cheney lives just down the street. Nick the Sigley is right up the other way. Um, you know, Barry's on, you know,
so they're, you know, we've got, you know, but unless everybody starts getting on the phones and saying, "Hey, what in the world are you guys thinking here? What are you doing to us?" Right? We had two catastrophic hurricanes and we can't even make changes to our resiliency as we see necessary because somebody in
Tallahassee decided they know better how we ought to govern our barrier island. And it's not just us. It's everybody else. As you as you said, it's the entire state that's affected by this, you know, and last time I checked, you know, Miami wasn't impacted by this hurricane, but they're going to be
impacted by the legislature. Correct. So, um I don't know where you all are on this. I mean, I hate to be the advocate of wait and see, but I think until we
find out what happens by July 1st or so, I think it might be worthwhile just putting this on hold for the next two months and see what the governor does. See if anything happens in this in the third legislative session. you know, um and see if if anything else
materializes, you know, we can hope against hope. But y um I I do have a question. Sure. And and I do concur about not um waiting as a city um for for our
rights. So, I I do agree with the mayor on that, but um you mentioned um putting a pause on on well, we're talking large resort, but pause on large resort, but um but continue working on the town center. Why could we continue working on the town center?
What what's the difference? Um because are are we considering le like could we work on CRA right which I think is very important so we can create some form of revenue in the meantime if possible before we can we're not allowed to do that part because it could happen and um
is it the town center because we're not working on things that are less or more restrictive though would be less restrictive correct so you have um you have the availability sorry that was a hard word to Um, you have the ability, the heights
here would allow for, you know, right down here where you have restaurants, you could do apartments above or something like that if you wanted to do that. Um, your CRA could go into that west part of of Corav. So, you could look, you could kind of pull that in and start to do some, you know,
infrastructure, other things like that. I think it's a more of a it's more of a what's the potential there versus let's try to not let's try to reduce the the height and the density. So it's a different conversation but yeah granted
you if we put reg we'd have to do a you'd have to do the the test before we would bring anything to you and make sure say hey these are yes these are some changes but these changes are going to assist in in the redevelopment. redevelopments, as you know, is much harder than than when you start fresh,
right? So, there's always some issues there with um getting the development, paying for it, demolishing the building, keeping the building, all of those things. And potentially, you could have a historic district here, too, which would be something that that you could look at.
Um, if you decided to go the CRA route, that's something that we could discuss and, you know, kind of figure out what we would have available and kind of move that to a different project and come back with a different scope. That's something we could do.
Commissioner Marriott. Uh, sure. So, I just wanted to comment on the um uh the town centers one and two districts and I I think it is important that we don't uh lose sight of continuing to to look at the
comprehensive plan regarding those districts. And certainly since the since the hurricane, I think that's even more important. And and I have no problem with with pausing till July 1 and figuring out what the scope is and what we're doing. Um, but I but I don't want us to lose sight of that because I do
know that since the since the storms, um, I've talked to some people who who on the west end of Corey have some of the smaller motel and they were, you know, they immediately came to the city and said, you know, okay, this is great. We want the opportunity to lift these buildings or to abandon the first floor
and build build on the second floor and reopen our motel in a more resilient fashion. Um, but it's currently not zoned for that. And so those people, you know, essentially were left going, well, I can fix this building that's going to flood again or I can sell it to someone
who's going to scrape it and build something else. Those are my only options. And I don't think we want to leave people with that being their only options. And there's another block in the town center district that is all multifamily residential. And those people are also in the in a in a
position where if their buildings were too damaged to rebuild to to fix, they cannot rebuild multif family residential on that block, even though that's the only thing that exists on that block. And so I think there are some issues in the town center districts that we do need to take a look at. Um so I don't
want us to lose sight of addressing those issues at some point. Thank you. Commissioner Robinson, I'm good with pausing. I just know a little bit of the history on what happened with West Corey and some of that change was all due to
taking density away from them and moving it to the large resort. So large resort got their bonus and this end got nothing. So that was a little bit of that um for them as um so yeah, I mean
they still need to get looked at. Um but I I'm I'm all for waiting just to see. It makes a little bit more sense if we're going to tackle it or we tackle it all at once and get it done instead of peace mealing it. Commissioner
Mahal, I'm for all doing it all at once. Okay. so that we have a consensus on Sounds like it. Uh reviewing this again first commission meeting in July. Okay. Okay. Thank you so much for your
time. I appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. Are there any amendments to the agenda as proposed? I did want to mention something on on freebie. Um okay. don't necessarily want to pull it but I did want to talk about
um its term um because as I saw its term originally it was a three-year with a two one years similar to what we are doing on the fireworks contract but that mutated somehow in the whole realm of things to be three years plus two years
now plus two years. Well, should we just pull it and then we can we can pull it and talk about it. There you go. Okay. Figure out how that happened. Okay. All right. So, that will be
um that will be item six. Five 5 C. Oh, yeah. Currently 5C will become item 6 B. Why don't we uh Why don't we make that six 6A? Thank you. Yes. Thank you. And
then make 6A 6B Commissioner Resniki. And then 6B will be 6 C. Got a 6B. I do have a few questions on some of the consent items um because I wasn't able to meet I had too much work so but on uh
B consent B fireworks on the on the B free LLC um financial services and some of them could be quick questions but I mean maybe someone had some questions too so I might as well just ask and be quick after Stantic and um global cotton
global so It's B, C, D, F, and G. So, did you want to pull those items or you just had some quick questions? Well, yeah. If we're going to do quick I guess pull them, right, and ask them, unless you want me to go through and ask questions, but would it make sense?
It's up to you. Mayor, could I suggest maybe since there's so many that we just have questions on the entire consent calendar? Okay. In order. and then unless you need lengthy discussion.
Okay, sounds good. All right, any other amendments? Um, just items for discussion if if it's possible at the end. Um the I wanted to have a a short discussion questions on charter review
conditional use permit um um process if you want to call it that way. Um and that's it. I'll hold the other one for another time. Okay. All right. Any other?
Is there a motion to accept the agenda as amended? I make a motion to approve the amended agenda. Second. City clerk, if you'll please do a roll call. I'm sorry. I was.
Vice Mayor Marriott? Yes. Commissioner Robinson? Yes. Commissioner Rzniki? Yes. Commissioner Moholland? Yes. And Mayor Peta? Yes. Thank you. Next we have the Helena Milton recovery
efforts update. Good evening, mayor and commissioners. Laura Canary, community development director. Um so this is the going to be the first of now a monthly update and I just want to um remind everyone that maybe has been watching these updates.
We will continue to do a snapshot of the permitting intake and those numbers to date, but as you'll see in the next month's presentation, we're going to also start to transition a little bit into the hurricane preparedness. So, as we whether it's um events and planning or things that we're doing just internal
to the department, we're going to start to sprinkle that in as well as we enter into hurricane season. So, this is very similar to previous updates. We're going to go over the permit um numbers to date, damage determinations, appeals, talk about the
Penllis County assistance that's available, and then have just a quick slide on the community development volunteers. So, beginning with a snapshot of the permit intake to um and this is through 427. Um the permitting department has received 4,74
applications. That's an average daily intake of 228. Our goal is to issue 60 a day. Um, last check we're at we're we're averaging 46 a day and our daily average for in inspections is 87. The breakdown
on the right side is what you'll see um as it relates to the processing of those permits. So 3,33 have been actually issued received not in review. That 364 means that we need additional information. So, it
could be going back and forth but not in an actual review state. And then what you see under other is anything else that can be an abandoned permit. That can be one that's um was maybe denied and reapplied for. So that's kind of those other gray area if you will, hence
the the color. Um and then we've to date closed or excuse me through 427 307. Um, one more thing I wanted to mention while I'm on this slide is just looking at the
474 of those um, applications. 2020 2,623 of those have been owner builder permits. So, we're at about 64% of the permits um, submitted are owner builders. And then also just to kind of
put it in comparison for previous years when we didn't have such an influx when we look at the same time frame from 101 of 23 through 42724 we were at 1,570 permits. So just to kind of put it in perspective a little
bit. A reminder to anyone that through the May 31st um permits we are at 50% of the cost. So there is still time and that will be running until the 31st. As we look at the SD determinations, we're very excited to
report that our final batch which was a total of 637 were received. We, as I said, there was a caveat to that that we needed additional information. Ultimately, it was that the final um percentages were not calculated in that first batch. So
there was some additional information that had to be provided to to get to that total tally and we received that and so those letters that final batch will be going out this week. Um once those go out we feel very comfortable saying that most individuals if the
property was substantially damaged should have received that determination letter. We just want to say publicly, please, if you feel that your property was substantially damaged and you didn't receive a determination or you feel that it was an incorrect determination,
please reach out to us because at this point once these last batch of letters go out, we do feel that any properties that were deemed substantially damaged should have received the letters. The breakdown of those sub substantial
damage determinations of the 2,330,513 were nonsubstantially damaged and 817 were substantially damaged and then you'll see the breakdown of each of those as commercial and residential. I have a question. Um, did the did all
the non-substantially damaged as well get letters? No. Do we know what percentage of those folks did not get letters? So if if the property was not deemed to be substantially damaged, a letter did not go out.
Okay. Of the appeals um through that 427 date, there's been 96 um appeals submitted. 721 of those have been approved and 185 are in progress. again. Um, and I know it's not perfect, but to date, none of those appeals have again
been denied fully, if that makes sense. So, at one point they may have been denied needing additional information, but to date, um, none of those have been denied still. Just a reminder that the Penllis County hurricane home repair program that is
still open for applications and that is the income eligibility required program. But please visit the website on the bottom of the screen for more information. And they're also in speaking to the representative there, there, they also have um great assistance available that if you're just
not sure you have a potential cost in mind that maybe you know you want to question before you go through the application process, they are available to assist the Panelis County Recovery Fund. That's the 813 million that's coming through the CDBG disaster recovery
funding. uh they have drafted the action plan and that is available on the website. Um there also is an executive summary. So if you don't want to read the whole plan, it has some good information. There also is a um a presentation available if you go to
recover.panelis.gov. But they had their the review of the draft meeting. They had one meeting earlier this afternoon and then they have another one on Thursday from 6:00 to 7:00 pm. So, anyone interested can tune in if they want to check it out live. And last, but certainly not least,
our community development volunteers are still available Monday through Friday, 9 to 1:00 p.m. We had a a breakfast just to kind of, you know, it's never too soon to to say that we really appreciate you and to show some gratitude. And so wanted to thank the commission and all
of your leadership for even, you know, having the forethought to put this together with the volunteers and for coming to the breakfast. Those of you that were able to make it, as I'm sure you heard straight from the community development staff, you know, they have such a great relationship with these volunteers and are truly so appreciative
for how they've been able to just help them through this process. And so it was really it was really nice. And again, thank you, Commissioner Robinson, for working with the businesses and to the businesses that provided some giveaways to the volunteers. Again, we're just so
appreciative for that group and um just really want to say thank you. And with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Laura. You do have questions. Can you explain the uh appeals process where it goes to the board of
adjustment up to that level? Do you or we haven't been there yet? I if maybe I if you could be a little more specific. Well, the next step after after it goes through building official and it and if you don't agree with what the finding is, the next step is at the
board of adjustment is is my understanding per FEMA. I can confirm. I mean, I I'm sure you're correct and that's the next but we have not gotten there yet. So, I I'll have to work that out with the building official as far as what our process will be. Okay. And then um uh I know we don't like the word
phasing. Um so staging of permits um can you tell me which permits can be staged? So my understanding is the trades essentially mechanical, electrical, plumbing. Those are what can be you know split up. But um you know the example
that was provided to me when I asked the question was that you wouldn't want to do a subfloor and flooring on two separate permits but that you know those could be divided under one of the building you so what about a kitchen? Um you mean I mean it being a kitchen
being separate than a subfloor or a floor or or walls or you know um if somebody was doing a kitchen instead. It would be hard for me to answer that without knowing the total scope of the work because I think it would be more more if that was the only say trade
represented under that permit for the scope being done in the kitchen then probably not. But if there was say if it was drywall and it was looking to be split up of the kitchen, the drywall in the kitchen versus the drywall in the living room, then no. Right. No, no, I'm
I meant cabinetry countertops versus the rest of the house. That being a last item, I don't know the answer to that. I I would when I asked the question, it was basically explained to me that by trade, if you think of it as being broken up by the trade that the work is
falling with under. And then um are because I don't know the answer to this. Are the city buildings subject to the same open permit FEMA 50% regulations? Yes, I believe so. Yes. Yeah, because we've gone through this to several of
the buildings. I just want to make sure we're all concerned about going to the next and we're just now looking at stuff that we're going to get approved to get work done. Yes, that could take 12 weeks. So, okay, this occurs. I didn't I wasn't sure if it did or not. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Marriott.
Thanks, Laura. Um, for anybody who has an open permit and has had their final inspection, but their permit hasn't been closed, um, can you advise who who they should contact or who they should call or how long they should wait? So, if somebody's, you
know, has had an open permit, they got their final inspection and it's been three days or seven days or two weeks, at what point should they become concerned that they've gotten lost in the shuffle for having their permit closed, you know, before we get into the
next hurricane season or or or various things? If it's been more than 10 days, they should definitely email permits at staintp pee beach.org and we'll make sure. We're we're in we're in the process of actually implementing some new systems within our department and in
how we use I work and permits at st pee beach.org because as you can imagine just the influx of emails that we receive every day. We're looking at some internal changes and processy changes on how to better be able to respond and respond quicker. But um by all means if
it's been 10 days then that it it and it still may be there may be something um additional information then but if they haven't received any notification as to something else is needed or that it's in review then absolutely um yeah that would be appropriate. Perfect. Thank you.
Just to follow up with her um her comment about the open permit because it's not I've heard this from a lot of residents that are asking me that it is taking that they've had their final inspection and it's been over two weeks. So the ones I've spoken to has been over two weeks. Um but just to not is it
possible um for us to um find out if you've had your final inspection again not to instill fear in people. Oh my gosh, we're coming into hurricane season. We still have open permits, but if you have a final inspection, would it be safe to say that that counts as a
closure of a permit? But because there's a delay in the city's processing, it shouldn't impact the resident or business, whoever has the open permit. just you know a question to think about you know because I mean we'll just be st
doing appeals people getting mad and you know is there a way that we can be more proactive so people the communication can go out to say it's closed unless there's a legal reason I know there were some instances when we went into Helen
that that very case happened and they did administratively close them because for all intents and purp purposes they were done and it was our administrative ative process that it's slowed down, but I'm just looking at the city attorney. I don't see any legal reason why that's
our own internal process that we could We'll have to take a look into it. Okay. Thank you. So, we'll follow up with you on that. I think it's an important and would it be safe to say to do the same for all the SD determination letters that are open permits, you know, that that have
um been appealed, right? And now they're no longer substantial damage. They're nonsubstantial, but it's still showing open on, you know, the property. And I could vouch that mine is like that right now. Like I've appealed it, but it's
still there. We'll look at that. That's again another internal database cleanup. I think they use the permitting system to assign them a permit number, but they're not really a permit. Correct. I'm just worried of technicalities. You still have an open permit. you know you
well it's not really a permit but it's in that system listed under a permit number okay I did want to say in regards to the volunteers they all expressed um the fact that they would love to stay on um
you know even if as things slow down but uh they would love to be on call for you know god forbid something else happens but if and if if they're needed elsewhere in another capacity, they would enjoy the opportunity to stay on. That's wonderful. Thank you.
Thank you, Laura. Okay. Next, we move on to the consent item, Mr. Mayor. Yes, sir. Sorry, I've been green for I I kept looking at I've kept seeing it red for some reason. I'm sorry.
I said this previously. uh I believe it was either at the last meeting or the meeting before when you made the exact same presentation or a similar presentation on appeals and I hope this is an indictment of
um title basin as opposed to anything else but uh the fact that we've had zero appeal rejections is concerning on a potential audit. Uh, I just hope we're dotting our
eyes and crossing our tees on these appeals and I really hope that his title basin um and that we're not not doing our due diligence so we're protecting the city as it relates to the uh
potential audit that or not the potential but the likely audit that's coming. So, I just wanted to make that comment um that nothing's changed in my view on that that um I think we need to be prepared for that and we need to be
um ready to explain that uh because it's 185 or I'm sorry two 721 to zero right now and that's great. is great for the community and and all that, but wouldn't what wouldn't be good for the community
would be an audit that went sideways for us. So, I did want to make that comment once again. Thank you. I think as the city manager has mentioned more than one occasion, it's not whether if, but when inevitably it
does come, I think we're um so I guess the question is for the appeals is the breakdown primarily here's some pictures or are there a lot of appraisals? If there were if there were a lot of appraisals, then that
certainly would make a lot of sense considering how many of our homes were homestead in the 70s and 80s and just you know, never really, you know, that that um Panelis County FEMA letter, a lot of them had $100,000, $200,000 when the real number was significantly
higher. So, I wonder what the breakdown is of, you know, we got an appraisal versus we just provided some pictures because Title Basin had your data incorrectly. So, I don't know if you have that information or not.
No, but I think what might be helpful that we could definitely share is an example of how how we received the data and what that breakdown looked like. And um and then one more thing that I think is important to note is when we we had recently uh rep representatives from
FEMA come out to do their technical visit and you know we gave them updates on these things including the amount of appeals. I wish that they said or seemed surprised, you know, based on what they're hearing from other communities as well. Um, but I think, you know, what
it what it really boiled down to, my understanding is at least with the first batch and the majority, because again, that was 90 what 98% of them total was that when it went into this software, I mean, I know one example in particular, it was like automatically populating a
10% like across the board. Well, when when you kind of add it all up, it's real easy to see how you can quickly exceed that 50% threshold, then it's just not accurate. And it's just a matter of not even really requiring additional documentation, but just
really having somebody actually have their eyes on it and see that this does not make sense and change it. And that's what has happened in a lot of these instances. So, it hasn't really been that, oh, we need an appraisal in some cases, but for the most part, it's been just a matter of having the appropriate
eyes on it to be able to say that this is not accurate and this is and I do think that um you know, knowing just um again the importance of being dotting our eyes and crossing our tees for for future purposes. Um we're we're making
sure of that. And what has the feedback been when you're speaking with FEMA based on what they're are they giving you any feedback based on what they've seen us do for the last six months? They they seem to like think that we're doing I don't want to say a good job, but everything that we've like said this
is how we're handling this or this is what we did here or we sent these letters out. Again, it's not perfect. they they take a lot of notes and then just kind of nod and it it seems like they're um you know pretty comfortable with the way they no red flags have been
thrown up that I'm aware of. Yeah. And I think I included in one of my recent weeklys that they actually submitted in writing their appro let's say approval of how we were progressing and and they were happy and did not have any areas of concern. and I can't remember their
exact words, but but so far in writing, we've received from FEMA that we are taking the appropriate steps and and uh how we're progressing through this. That's good. And and one last thing I think worth noting, this last batch of the assessments was done through
workforce group, the other third party contractor, but not the same. And so we from the beginning really expressed our concerns and again why we're even needing to tap into them and what the issues were with the original. So again, haven't looked through each one of those yet, but hopefully confident that, you
know, we're not going to see the same percentage of appeals with this last batch. Yeah. Thank you. I also think that even if you if you get a uh appraisal, you're still not taking in account any of the
inaccuracies in the initial assessment as well. So, it doesn't even take in effect in account that you're just looking at numbers from uh actual cash value. Okay. City clerk, do we have any general audience comments?
I have no comment. Okay. Next, we move on to the consent agenda. And so, we'll just take these one at a time. Any uh questions on the minutes? Any questions on the fireworks contract? That's uh 5B. Yes.
Go ahead. On page um 72, and and when I say page 72, I'm looking at our packet. So, if if you're all following um along on page 72, item nine, um it mentioned that the completion of the fireworks contract was
on July 4th, 2024, and then it would be decided each year by March by the commission. And I believe we're in May. So, I'm trying to understand do we need to make a change on that contract or um you could
explain. Um I'm assuming that yes, it probably should have gone in March. Um but we are bringing it in May. So yes, we probably do need to make an amendment to the contract that says that we will be bringing it prior to um approval of the funds for the fireworks display.
Yes. Okay. That was my only question. So we'll make the necessary changes. Thank you. I'm staying for free. Okay, next we have
5C freebie. Yeah, I just wanted to point out that the initial contract for the freebie um back in 2019 was a three-year with two one-year options to
renew. Very similar to what the fireworks is. And then in then when it went back up it became two two years for some odd reason. In
2022 it optioned out as um a year four ended up being two years. So it went from 2022 to 2024. So originally it was
101319 of 19. So then I'm in 19 20 2122 and then it went 22 23 24. So it went two years. So it in fact in 24 did its two one-year extensions. Then it
went to a amendment when they were just changing off the addition of adding the four vehicles. It didn't ex extend the term for two additional two years.
No, just two additional years, right? As an exact date 930 2026, right? So there were some gaps in there, but the one we're working with is that last the last one um that we signed on 121223 and they signed on
21224, but that's the last amendment we have and it extends the term for two additional years through 930 2026. So there was an additional year they received out of this contract in general. That was one of the two changes
they made. The other one was four additional vehicles that now are being removed, right? That came up. I just want So my understanding, I wasn't here when this happened, but that the reason they probably negotiated this additional year was because they had agreed to buy
four additional vehicles, which they eventually did not end up buying because of the hurricanes. But yes, the the contract expires September of next year and my plan is to go out to bid for microtransit services and not bring an automatic renewal. So
you'll be able to consider all the biders and and u make a decision at that point well ahead of the expiration of this contract. I think that would be well served to actually get that RFP out very quickly um before the expiration of the the of the contract. Um I just want
to bring that up because that is a concern to for that. I mean it seems that one year was just you know a two two one one two two one years turned into one twoyear and then it extended from there. So so addition we had the advertising and then the non-resident
fair and then we um took out the additional $166,000 for those four vehicles that we never got. We don't want those anymore. So they're not going to not going to send them. They're not going to charge us for those. Okay. So, that'll save us
166708 just from that. And then we have the advertising where we get 50% and we have the non-resident fair of $3 per person per trip. And that will apply towards the amount that's owed to the contractor.
So, that'll save us an indetermined amount of money, but more money. Commissioners Nikki. Um and and uh I kudo um Commissioner uh Robinson because I did the same thing was going to ask that also just corrections on
um like page 84 has Wayne Saunders name. So there's on the on the one to be signed um has his name on it as interimm. It's on page 84. Okay. Yeah. And correct that. And then the question with um the $3, and I know you've all
probably discussed this and and I can't remember. Um is how does it pay? Are the is a res a non-resident paying through an app first before it arrive? And is it credit cards like are credit card fees
responsibility of the person using it or you know are we responsible? Is that part of this contract? Because I don't remember if I saw it if you all saw it. It says um contractor will charge a $3 fair per person per trip to non-residents of the city of St. Pete
Beach. 100% of such non-resident fair revenue net of any credit card processing fees will be fully and only applied towards offsetting and subsidizing the total amount owed to contractor by the city as compensation
for ride services provided. Okay. So when it says net of any credit card fees meaning that the person is paying it right? No the person net means it comes out. So then who we pay and and the credit card fee comes off of the balance that's applied to the city's
bill. We're paying it. We can make that more clear too instead of using the word net. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. Any questions on 5D, the financial services? Yeah. I'm sorry. Sorry. Did you have more questions on Nope. Your
light was off. Oh, it's off. It's off. But I do have D. I just want to confirm. Okay. On is it okay? Okay. On um D the financial uh services uh agreement with
public trust CPAs. Just want to confirm originally it was 25,000 then it went up to 50,000 and now we're looking at 75,000. Is it going to go up another 25,000 or what do we project? Yeah, this is the
end of the contract. So this is the final payment. Okay. So on something we thought was going to be 25 is now 75. Well during the emergency I authorized it under my ability then I when I knew it was going to exceed I brought it to extend to
50,000 and it ended up costing the full well 75 now to get us through to the final reporting to FEMA which was March 14th and the we're no longer using the services. Okay. I just want to make sure it was a stacked thing and not two separate. There's 25 here and now it's
7. Okay. Yes. Thank you. And I had similar um I had my notes down the same the original my question is besides that that it's incremental first amendment second amendment but on the original agreement it stated that it was to be it was completed or the the
service was to be completed on December 31st 24 2024 and it this was the one signed October 16 24. Then we had the first amendment that states that it would be completed um September 30th
25, right? And is this one still September 30th, 2025 to be completed? It's just done. It's the the work is done. Okay. So why do we have that on there? It's but I can amend the contract. I mean well we can amend the
contract so it's clean that it will be because the last date of service was March 14th. Okay. because it does have only 25. We can change that. Okay. Yeah, it's just amending the compensation section, not the date. We'll put in there that the work is complete. We can
add that expressly. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any questions on 5e? I I have one. I just want to make sure. Is the $865,451 part of the 12 million? Yes. Thank you.
Okay, any questions on the 5F? Yes, that just g and I don't know if you know this answer. Um, how much have we spent on Stantic so far? Does anybody know? I do not know the answer to that, but it's a lot. And we're start I mean, we are making sure we bring every contract now
with Stantech to you, whether it's $2,000 or $500,000 because we're we've now have exceeded the $25,000 authority I have with a vendor. Okay. Thank you. And this vendor is our basically our
traffic expert. They do other services as well. I'm if um public services director still here what else they're helping us out with a lot if you can that's correct yeah they provide um various like civil
engineering type services for us um seaw wall structural design as well as transportation any questions on 5G 5G was the cotton global disaster Did you have something on that one? Yeah. Um cuz in the amendment it the amount has
doubled from the original, you know, on this amendment. Um so now the funding is I think it was a we have 150,000 balance and how are we paying if the reimbursement right um is not upfront,
right? We don't have the money first. So this is all general fund and then we're hoping in 20 years, you know, like that's it's not 20. So th this is one of those administrative steps we're taking to
keep us in a position for FEMA reimbursement. The team has not been authorized to spend this money. What you're authorizing to me is enter into a contract which then we will only spend as we have the funding available. That's one of the analyses we're going to do,
but we wanted to secure the contractor under the purchasing guidelines that FEMA requires. Right. And this was the last absolute date we could do it for Milton. Correct. Because it's this week, right? Was Yes. Yeah. Pretty sure. Okay. Okay. Any questions on 5H?
Okay. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda? I move to approve the consent agenda. I second. City clerk, if you please do a roll call. Commissioner Robinson, yes. Commissioner is Nikki? Yes. Commissioner Moholland?
Yes. Vice Mayor Marriott? Yes. And Mayor Patulla? Yes. Okay. Next. We move on to action items. First one is 6A the variance number 2458. Mr. Mayor, just to clarify, um,
are we going to vote on this after we hear all the items that's associated with this or are we going to vote on this before? I think the first thing we do is we take a look at the hardship variance and if the hardship variance passes, we proceed
on to items B and 7A. Also, one other technicality. So, the applicant's going to present Brandon's going to open up all three items together. So, you're going to kind of get a holistic presentation. Brandon will open it up. The applicant will present their case.
And then Brandon will talk about some of the technicalities from a zoning and planning perspective. And then the mayor's correct. You would start voting in order once you hear all items. And we'll take public comment after
Brandon. Thank you. They all involve the same project. So in the interest of not having them repeat themselves over and over again, we'll hear the presentations all together. So if the applicant, if you can present all your information about the pools and the
variances and the conditional use and the density pool all at the same time. We have Jack Boziaak. He is the architect and the agent for this project. He does have a presentation, so I'll call him up. Okay.
Um, I guess because we have we're going to take these, why don't I read the title and the ordinances out loud. It may take a minute. Um, let me do that just so the public and the record is clear. This first item is 6A, an
unnecessary and undue hardship variance number 24058 allowing for encroachment of feature and quiet pools into the required side setback in the development of Windward Pass Resort. Parcel numbers 073216
07398 001 0170 073216 07398 001230 0732161814300 1- 010 and parcel 0732161814300 1-0020
Q. And then item 6B is a resolution of the city commission of the city of St. Pete Beach, Florida, approving a conditional use permit pursuant to sections 39.6 subsection P and section 42.4
subsections B, D, G, and H of the land development code to allow for the development of a 104 unit condo hotel at 38.8 8 units per acre within a new six-story lodging structure that will
extend to 50 ft above base flood elevation with non-habitable overrun not to exceed 60 ft above base flood elevation and include as site amenities outdoor mini golf quiet and feature
pools a 12 slip class A lodging dock including include as hotel building amenities ground floor and outdoor sixth floor bars and seating areas, indoor ballroom and restaurant, including a separate
building, an arcade, and three-level garage with second and third floor outdoor seating areas to property with parcel numbers 073216 181430010010. Parcel 07
32-16181430010020. Parcel 0732167398 001 0170 and parcel 073216 07398001 0230 incorporating the conditions outlined
herein and providing for correction of scrivener's errors and an effective date and then we'll also hear presentation on ordinance 7A an ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach, Florida, providing for the allocation of 104 units of temporary
lodging density under the provisions of the Town Center Cory Circle Coina West activity center and the Bayou Residential District's temporary lodging unit density pool as established in the city of St. P Beach comprehensive plan to these
parcels with the parcel numbers again 073216739800170 parcel 073216 07398001230 and parcel [Music] 0732161814300100 and parcel 07321618 8143 001
00020 providing for codification conflict severability correction of scriveners errors construction publication and an effective date. I didn't memorize that. Uh Jack Boziaak architect and um I've been before you
folks before and you know I've been on this beach for 55 years. hate to admit that again, but I um I I'd like to address u the city attorney's um items kind of one at a time. Um the first one
being the hardship uh that I believe and the reason I'm before you is not to be argumentative and and try to tell you guys that, you know, we were wronged somehow, but you have to understand something. One of the primary things is precisely the hardship. And if you look
at the reasons that this case was turned down, which I will repeat in a minute, uh per this the planning board u uh ruling, uh the hardship was never considered. Uh it was turned down for a number of reasons that I think were uh
totally off base. But I will repeat the biggest hardship on this site and I know you all have seen it and it's been a in the process with this city for so many years. The the property is so unusually shaped that with when you the setbacks
that are outlined in the code are basically identified for typically rectangular or relatively regular parcels. This parcel is highly unusual and should that should have been considered in their decision. And I'll
give you an idea. The parcel is 116,000 square feet due to the I'm sorry. Oh, okay. Um, I don't know that I can talk and do this at the same time, but I'll try
to Let me see if I can get to a site plan. Um, this is Is there a better site? Yeah, here you go. The parcel is 116,740 square ft. It's hard to believe, but when you because of this unusual shape where the site goes from
293 feet on one end to um a very narrow width of 125 ft down where you see that parking lot towards the far end of the thing. You can see the unusual shape when you apply the setbacks in the criteria. The site is less than 50%
buildable. And I could find no other site in the city of St. Petersburg Beach in St. Pete Beach that this uh that were so unduly um um restricted by the setbacks where the configuration of the
site was not taken into account. To further complicate that, if you look and see in that um that dotted line through the middle to the right of those parking spaces, uh that's a a 25- ft easement for drainage, and that's not counted in
the area that you can't build on in my figures. So, actually less than or approximately 40% of this site is buildable. And if that's not a hardship uh in application of the uh the regulations, I really don't know what
one is. But in the outline of the reasons that we were turned down, uh they the outline stated traffic study which was not required at that time. Uh traffic density same as traffic study.
uh the overall density um use which was mainly objected to by the uh residents that appeared that live the six houses that are across the waterway from us. Um there was the next thing was crazy increased freebie use. Is that a
relevant um thing to consider? Uh the docks and the shallow waterway that really has nothing to do with the zoning application. jaywalking. I I once again am not sure that's something that uh everybody on
the beach doesn't have an issue with and noise from the pools and the dining and balconies. To me uh the planning board did not consider properly the aspect the biggest single aspect which is the shape and usability
of the property. That's what forced us to go to a fivestory building. It is not that we were trying to um abuse the site or or take advantage of anything. I think that um I am here to either
properly have this thing considered because uh the conditions that were acted as their concerns in their listed report to me none of them are applicable to what we were presenting and I don't think the site was given proper
consideration. Um, I would defy you to find any site in the city of St. Peach that Pete that has gone under consideration for planning and zoning approval where 40% of the site was available for construction due to these
excessive setbacks. When I say excessive, the 295 ft on this end when you that's the biggest end of the site and that's where 65 feet wide had to come out. That's just unreasonable and
it's unheard of. I think that the um the we it was not properly considered and you'll find no place in the report where the unusual shape and unusual buildability buildability if that's a word of the site is under consideration.
That's what I think the planning board should have addressed. And I mentioned that that night and it came to know that that's the hardship I believe, you know, and I'd be glad to challenge anybody finding a site this
challenged, sir. Um, how long's the owner owned all these properties? Because it's I think it's four properties. Is that correct? I I bet there are actually five lot four or five lots. Yeah, Beth has owned the properties for I think around 20 years.
I know. I've worked on them for 50. So, did the easement and the uh setbacks not exist when she purchased the properties? Um, well, there were buildings on the site that were not um were not um
affected by the setbacks and um you know uh so she's changed her plan or Well, no, the buildings were on there just like any other site. The previous buildings. Yeah, there was an old restaurant. There was right and now it's totally underutilized, right? And now essentially you want to turn it into one
property. Well, it's been one property. It was two. I think it was actually two parcels. There was a restaurant on one. There was a hotel. It might have been a third property involved in the purchase. So, you'd mentioned the drain drainage easement being a particular issue and I
see it. I think it's next to the park the south side of the parking garage. Is that correct? Yes, it is. Yeah. So, was that there when she purchased the property? Uh, I'm not sure, but I I believe it may have been. Uh, I don't I can't tell the I can't give you a definitive answer on
that. She may have branded that. I I can find that answer, but it's just, you know, come prepared, you know. Yeah, I I I'd be curious to know because you know generally those easements are there for a long period of time and most people when they buy a property they you
know see what there is for easements and how it may impact their usage or whatever their planned usage is. So, um I I'm not sure that uh the easement is something that we should if it existed when she bought it
that we should necessarily feel sympathetic about. Well, then deduct that as you characterized it. Yeah. Deduct that. And we're still at 50% of the property is unusable because of easements of of setbacks, excuse me. And it's an unusually high situation. And I
think we tried to emphasize the the shape of the site as being a major factor and and it wasn't like we were coming out trying to build uh a 50 unit. You have it's basically broken into two sites. The the bottleneck in the middle goes down. It goes from it's it's so
unusual. It's um 295 excuse me uh on the Let me just get that property size right. Excuse I'm sorry I turned the page. Um it is 293 feet to the on the right hand section which is the south
property line. It's uh 125 ft at the bow tie portion and then it's um 165 ft on the far end. So the configuration of the site to me the planning board uh forget about the easement that's part of what
broke the site up and the planning board could and should have taken into consideration not um the uh the traffic well traffic study was not that the freebie use um the uh the docks um the
uh the jaywalking I mean there that's three of your five comments the noise from the pools I mean noise in pools is a factor on any of the hotels that the noise regulations are there to protect the city from that and the hours of operation that we've submitted did not
um allow nighttime use. So I think we attempted to be good good uh citizens on that and properly develop the property but I uh if you forget about the easement the property is less than 50% usable. When you say nighttime use, I
assume you mean after 1000 p.m. Well, no. They they basically had said nighttime use, and we had set up hours that were, you know, within a reasonable guideline of the city regulations. You had shown um some photos up there. Could
you go back? There was a photo that showed um it was act There you go. Yes. So, yeah, that would do right there. All right, that's perfect. Do you happen to know how wide that
canal is um at that point where um the building construction uh would be? It's pretty from the R1 residences that are right across the bayou there. Well, I can tell you that that property,
the longest property line on our site is 200 and what did I say? 200 and Oh, n 293 feet. Um, and that if you can see where the cluster of green trees are, you can see where the bayou there
is wider than that. So, it's got to be in excess of 300 ft. 300 feet. So, you think the bayou is 300 feet across? Well, if the property is 293, it's at least that wide going by if you look at it.
So, and I think you you proposed to have uh two bars on this property. Is that right? Well, we had a a rooftop and a uh and a um actually uh the other bar was at the at the pool area. Yeah. The quiet
pool. Quiet pool. Interesting name. Well, quiet. You're going to have a bar, but you call it quiet pool. Well, it's only a small indoor bar and it was a an adult only bar. So will there be amplified music at both bars or just the rooftop bar? We're not
planning on providing use it. We planned on pro providing use music on the upper level of the uh the the rooftop which is probably going to be 350 to 375 ft across open water to those
residences across the way. Yes. Would that be accurate? Yes. Would you want to live there? A matter of fact, I did live there for you did three years and you can tell me about how narrow the canal is coming out and I experienced that with my makeo when I came out of there to fish and and
days and nights. So, yes, I did live there and when they were building the major hotels across the street, I understood that there were land uses and planning and in the best interest of the city, there are uses that should be taken into account. I didn't think that
the the objections of single family residents that bought across a canal from the the busy St. Petersburg beach um St. Pete Beach, you know, would be a major consideration, right? But I believe the district that
you're proposing to build a relatively large hotel in uh is considered the Bayou residential Yes. district. That's different than the large resort district that typically faces west when you when
you're talking about [Music] um rooftop bars and amplified music. Would you would you not agree with that? I don't totally agree because it exists already in locations. Uh does that make
it right? Does that make it right, sir? Um well, can we if we make the does that make it right argument? Can I make that on a couple things? Does it make it right to deny um you know uh consideration of the proper um consider
the proper rulings and the proper zoning issues or do you take things like freebie use as being a reason to deny this? And I'd like to know application of the proper considerations to me is a major port. Mr. Bodiac, let's um per
your request. Let's stick to the undue hardship variance and then we can discuss the merits of the CUP. Should should it go beyond that? Would the commissioners be opposed to that? So, let's let's stick with the hardship. So,
uh Commissioner Mah, since you still have the floor, do you have any questions on the hardship? Um any comments on that or questions as it the hardship uh as it relates to I don't have that in front of me but I think the request is for of
side setback variance that grants uh a 51% reduction in the variance requirement. I think we can have Brandon go through the criteria for variances if you want to go one at a time. Maybe you'll hear the criteria and then you can
discuss. I think we're I thought we were going to do the whole project all at once, but it sounds like we're going to do the variance first. I mean, let's let's start with the first item. Mhm. You know, if that moves forward, then we can move forward. If that doesn't move forward, there's no point. There's nothing else to go on to, right? You
want to call Brandon up to go through the criteria? Sure. Okay. So I had a consolidated presentation Brendan Barry senior planner. Um but talking about the variance criteria I wanted to specify this is only for the pool setbacks. The building the primary
development does meet the required setbacks. So denial of the variance would not prevent the remainder of the project from moving forward should the commission wish to take action on that portion of it. Um staff does recognize the challenge in the aspect of the site.
It is very wide. There is a lot of variation in the depth of the site throughout the property. Consolidation of property is something that the city um comprehensive plan does support specifically in this district. It's even recognized in this zoning and in the
future land use category that there is challenges related to the the aspect of these properties in particular. Um, that being said, these are accessory features for the property. These are pools. They're not the primary building. Uh,
the applicant can still develop, subject to resolution and ordinance approval, a lodging facility at this property without the variances in place. I will say there is a ubiquitous ubiquity to the uh quiet type of pool. I understand
the concerns about the the music that that is a separate consideration and that's actually a separate conditional use permit under this scope is the outdoor music um at this property. Uh the pool itself is something that resorts tend to have. Um I do understand the challenges that the that the
applicant faces related to the aspect. The feature pool um staff did have some concerns about just especially late night operations. Um there were conditions that we recommended under the resolution. um should that feature be approved in the development be approved
in in tandem. Um but it's the the quiet pool I do feel that the applicant has provided some reasonable support for for the feature pool. We just had greater concerns related to the the operation and the um potential nuisance of of that feature late at night. We've added conditions, but if those are not
adequate to the commission, um we would ask that action be taken separately for the quiet pool. You happy to answer any questions? I have some um and this is a question for you Brendan because I am utterly confused as
to how this can come to the commission. If this is a bayou residential district, primary use for a bayou residential is res is residential. Secondary use is limited commercial. Okay.
There are four separate lots with four separate tax base, right? Property taxes. At what point did this city unify these properties that you verbally are telling us that whether they eliminate the pool, they can still go on with this
project? Doesn't unifying these lots have to come to commission? So, the the resolution and the conditional use permit are one and the same tonight. They're both the same action. And then the ordinance is for the allocation of density units. Those
are all subject to review by the city commission. You have the ability to approve the project overall. You have the ability to review independently um the units being requested to allocate to the property and then you have the variance which is solely for the pool
setback. Um, there is nothing in the comprehensive plan or the land development code that prevents property owners from consolidating properties and developing them with a permitted use. What's under review tonight is not a permitted use. It's conditional use. So, if they had chose to move forward with a
permitted use, they would be able to consolidate these properties. Multifamily, for example, a mixeduse multifamily is a permitted use of this property. So, they could take that option of consolidating. Depending on how they do that, they might need to go forward for a subdivision. That is something that would come before the
commission. If they mount it through a covenant or unity of title, those typically do not come forward to the commission for that action. But in this case, because there's a development project before you that requires a conditional use permit with density pool allocation, you have review powers over
the scope of this project. So therefore, if they were to change this project, then it would be a a completely different use. You know, if because I I I can answer your question is that there
is no no hardship because you have four separate lots and we're trying to bring a commercial entity, primary commercial entity into a residential community. Um there is no other property similar to this property in this area. There's
none, zero in this district. In this application, we're comparing apples to oranges. We're mentioning boutique hotel district. We're, you know, we're me we're we're insinuating there are others out there, but there's none. Samura is the only
other hotel in the area, which is nowhere in the width of this property. Nowhere. Okay. and that particular property has had countless problems in the neighborhood. And you know, to think
that this can come forward knowing the amount of issues that we've had already not only in Bel Vista Donses neighborhood and across the street with noise, traffic, um the lot itself in the
condition that it is currently has had numerous issues. Um, I mean, I'll leave it at there, but I have five pages of reasons to give you as to why they shouldn't go forward. Commissioner Robinson, I have a
question. Brandon, to your knowledge, how often does a city grant an encroachment request of 51.5%. Um, of this magnitude, it's not very frequent. We don't typically see
requests like this with this degree of property consolidation and that pool could be moved elsewhere. Yes. I mean, and you know, um it's all about design. Um and if they choose not to do the pool, I mean, they could still come up
here and try to get a variance to move that set back for the building to be there and we could still say no or yes or whatever. Um but very uncommon to see a 51.5% and I know that it's very hard for residents to get anything on pools here um on variances in general let
alone a 51.5% would be crazy. Thank you. Do you know how many units are in this particular district parcels tax ID numbers roughly? Not not exactly. No. Okay. Just
as uh just on a on a yes and no basis, are the setback requirements for this property different from other properties in this district? Yes. How so? Significantly. Unlike other districts in the city. Um for example, some of the districts that the
commission recently reviewed projects under, they have a cap to the side setback. So there is a talk about other parcels in the same district. Yes. Well, so the the the percentage is the same. It's it's 10% of the lot width, but because of the consolidation of
property, the actual setback is significantly greater. Yes. Okay. So, is it the same as every other property in this district? It's it's 10% for all properties in the side. Yes. So, it's not we're not imposing anything
differently on this parcel than any other parcel that's in this district. That's the flat 10%. Yes. Okay. If they just wanted to build something by right, what could they
build in terms of a primary use of the the site? Well, we we we keep hearing that they're, you know, they can't build on half the property. And so what can they build? How many units? What height? So lodging is entirely subject to
conditional use. So this type of development would not be permitted without a conditional use. Um in terms of a similarly sized development of a similar scope, multifamily mixed use is a permitted use at this property. It would not need to go through a
conditional use. Provided that it's mixed use, they would be permitted 18 residential units per acre. Um not subject to any kind of density pool. That would be a base permitted density. Okay. So when we're talking condo tells
here, right? Um that's technically residential, but it's kind of a skirting around the issue that it's actually really operating as a hotel disguised as a residential structure, right? The city does classify it as temporary lodging. It's a
different ownership scheme, of course, than a hotel or motel, but it's treated the same in terms of length of stay and and other requirements. Yeah. So really what we're asking for here is to build a hotel, not condos, not apartments, not anything residential.
I believe they'd be condo ownership, but they would be temporary lodging. They would be treated the same as hotels. Yes. So would they be subject to the same short-term rental restrictions that a normal residence would be, or would they be daily, weekly? They they would be the opposite. They would be
prohibited from rentals of greater than one month. So they would be on the on the other side min maximum one month rentals. That's if they're if they do the lodging. Correct. Correct. If they're multifamily units incorporated
as a cond 49 multifamily units as a right they'll be prohibited from renting. Okay. For less than 30 days. Okay. So they're subject to the same setbacks and restrictions as every other parcel in
this in this district. Right? They're not asked to do anything different. Now, they may want to do something different, but wanting something and not being able to is not the same thing as having a a real
hardship, right? The hardship, if I'm looking at a hardship, you know, it's it's an undue burden, right? It's it's you being subjected to something that no one else has to endure, you know. So I'm, you know, reading through their
application, a lot of it was, with all due respect, sir, it was a lot of I feel, I believe, I think, rather than providing concrete evidence of a hardship, the fact that you want to do something that isn't there by
right, that's all it is. It's just something that isn't there. It isn't that doesn't constitute an undue hardship. So it doesn't, you know, I understand that doing it this way certainly, you know, it extracts more
value from the property than if you did just what you're, you know, entitled to. But our responsibility is to look and see is there hardship? Is there something that's required of this property that isn't of the neighbors that you're subjected in some way to
something more strenuous, something more restrictive than any other parcel in this district? And that doesn't seem to be the case. You know, our responsibility is to treat all parcels and own us fairly and equally. And so by granting this, we
actually would be treating you more favorably than anybody else rather than equally and impartially. That's my opinion. Mr. Barry, um what in this package has changed
since the planning board? didn't I I I I I watched the I participated in the planning board meeting and in reading the documents it looked like the exact same presentation. Has there been some
modifications since then, some compromises since then or has it basically just been we feel the planning board didn't necessarily consider all the appropriate facts? Well, it's not it's not a staff
determination. Um the applicant has the right to move their application forward. We did speak um a month or two ago before resubmitt and discuss going back to planning board. They had made one modification which was reducing the height of the building from uh it had been the maximum height. It was reduced
down to 50 and um we had discussed going back and they decided to move the case on to the city commission for for action. In this case, the planning board as a recommending body. Uh that that was the major change. Um I understand I spoke to the applicant earlier he had modified the setback for the feature
pool specifically in the scope of variance and I believe he had a diagram discussing that it wasn't in the presentation that was shown on the screen. Um I believe the reduction was to 55 ft if I remember correctly but he could he could speak to that. It would
still require a variance. It would still be an encroachment of 10 feet for that pool. Um, but th those were the two major changes to the the scope of the project. Staff had added one recommended condition, which I'll talk about when we get to the resolution. So, other than a minor height
adjustment, there's been really no what you'd call material changes from what was presented to the planning board. Correct. Thank you, Commissioner Marriott. Yeah, I have a a question for our city attorney, I think is who the question would be for.
Um, in in considering a a hardship variance, part of the consideration is is what the use is going to be correct or or should the consideration of the variance be independent of what they're going to
do with it? In other words, if somebody says, you know, this this is an unusual lot and the side setbacks and the front setback make a large portion of the lot not buildable. So, I would like a variance from those setbacks and then
I'm going to decide what my project is going to be. Is that a way to apply for a variance or is the or is part of the consideration of the variance based on what's going to be put within those setbacks? Um, I'll go through the criteria, but
before I go through the criteria, typically if you're going to design, you want to design a project to fit within the land development code. So, if there's setbacks, you build a building of a certain size and if you want to have a pool, you take area away from the building for the pool or you put the
pool inside the building or you put put it somewhere where you can fit it or you build a smaller pool. So, this one has two pools, an act activity pool and a and a quiet. Yeah, I understand that. But but but I mean, you know, I I think that I think that there is there is some truth to the fact that this is an odd
lot, right? This is this is a little bit of an odd-shaped and and you know, an odd-shaped lot and with the setbacks we have, it does reduce the amount of buildable area. the typical. So my question is if if somebody just came to us and said, I I would want to
build something on this lot, but I would like to be able to use 70% of the lot instead of 50% of the lot. Will you give me a variance? Is is is the is is part of the requirement of applying for the variance saying what you're going to do on that
lot? So in law school the typical example that they give you the hypothetical when a variance should be granted is if instead of a rectangular lot you have a triangle lot and you have 50 foot setbacks on each corner each
part of the triangle that leaves you no area to build. So you cannot use the property for the purpose that it's zoned. You can't build a house in there or you can't build a hotel in there. Then you would get a variance from those dimensional setbacks. This is a dimensional request. So if there's no
way to build a pool within this area without the variance that's a pool, it's not the primary use which is the hotel. Um but the criteria that we have that might be applicable is that hardship can't be held self selfcreated. There's no
self-credited hardships for variances. The special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant or the prior owner of the property. Special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the land, structure or building
involved and which are not applicable to other land structures or buildings in the same zoning district. So it could be the land, it could be the structure or the building involved. In this case, they're asking for a variance for the pools. not for the buildings. Three, literal
interpretation of the provision of the land development code deprivives the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning district under the terms of the land development code and results in an unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant.
The hardship has not been deliberately or knowingly created or suffered to establish a use or structure which is not otherwise consistent with the comprehensive plan or the land development code, nor will it permit an increase in development
density. An applicant's desire or ability to achieve greater financial return or maximum financial return from his property does not constitute a hardship. Granting the variance application conveys the same treatment to the applicant as to the owner of other lands, buildings or structures in the
same zoning district. The requested variance is the minimum variance that makes possible the reasonable use of land, building or structure. and the requested variances in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the comprehensive plan and
land development code is not injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public safety and welfare is compatible with the neighborhood and will not substantially diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood. And these are um if you want to look at them in writing
while while you're talking about them, they're on page 698, 699, and 700 of the packet. And then if if uh if somebody was wanting to build, say they were building condos or or something on this lot that
was absolutely allowed by right in density and height and use and all those things where they weren't having to come ask us for permission for anything, but they wanted to put in a pool that encroached into the setback. Would that come before us or would that come before the board of adjustment? So if they had
as of right development and they maxed out the 49 multifamily units and they had a pool and they needed the variance, it would and it didn't need a conditional use, it would go to the board of adjustment, but they're asking for 104
units. Um I think originally at 54t they had to come for the height for conditional use, but they took that down to to 50. Um, but they're here for the conditional use because they want to allow to to use them for a condo, hotel, for lodging for short term, which they
can't do unless they have a conditional use. Um, and they also want outdoor u music. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Nikki. City attorney. I mean, as you're reading
the land development code in the section going one by one, number one, special conditions and c circumstances exist, right? Nothing exists. There are four separate lots. Okay? The the um hardship
that you're claiming is that because you're combining these four, now you've got an odd lot. But the fact is is that there's four tax bases, okay? And there are four separate lots. Number one failed. That would be self-imposed, wouldn't it? If they combined them. Yes.
Correct. But they're not combined. Well, I'm saying one of the criteria is the condition can't be self-imposed. Correct. So, they're self-imposing is what I'm saying. So, fail. Two, the special conditions and circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant or the owner. Well, we just
said it failed because they're combining it. Three, literal interpretation of the provisions of the land development code deprivives the applicant of the rights commonly enjoyed by all other properties in the same zoning district under the terms of the land development code. It
doesn't exist. You know, Samora is unique. It's different. You know, and we're not here talking about that hotel doesn't look nothing to what this proposed here. Four, the hardship has not been deliberately or knowingly created or suffered to establish to use
because they're creating it. Okay. It it doesn't exist. An applicant's desire or ability to achieve greater financial return. Well, I would question that because that particular question in the application was very vague. It was acknowledged. We still have no financial
um analysis. Um why not just build the four lot separately to what it was prior? Why are we creating something different now? Is it because of more financial return? Don't know. Big question mark. Six, granting the variance application conveys the same treatment to the
applicant as every other owner. We are treating you the same as others, right? There there's there is no hardship right now on that lot. You could build four separate or combine and and build accordingly to the zone
residential. The requested variance is the minimum variance that makes possible the reasonable use of the land, building or structure. Again, you're creating it. The pool's not necessary. You have you have 65
setback because you're combining them. Okay. We and and putting them towards a condominium, a a a so-called quiet pool and and um a slide, you know, so you know, how are you going to keep that
quiet? I mean, it will echo across the waterway. Um, a the requested variance is in harmony with a general intent. Do you know how many emails I've received? How many videos I've received? There is no harmony. Okay.
Um, you know, that's it just there. And again, I have five pages, so I I I don't see the hardship. Thank you. Do we have any audience comments? Yes, John Kersman would like to speak on
6A and 6B. If you'll please state your name and address for the record. John Kursman beyond the way. I'm not going to beat this up. Just really is more for understanding for the noise ordinance or other things. I've never heard of a quiet pool before and I know that we've been concerned about a about noise in
pools. So, I'm just, you know, wondering what is that a pool that like, you know, flowers float through or like, you know, people aren't allowed to swim in it? What is a quiet pool and how would you enforce that? That's all. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Okay. Um, city attorney, is now the
appropriate time to take action on item 6 A? You can. Okay. Is there a motion for 6A, please? A motion to deny variance 24058. Is there a second? I second.
City clerk, if please call roll. Commissioner Rzniki, yes. Commissioner Mohalland, yes. Uh, Vice Mayor Marriott, yes. Commissioner Robinson, yes. And Mayor Petrilla, yes.
Thank you. Next we move on to item 6B. Thank you for your consideration. All right, which is still part of your This is the rest of the conditional use application. 6B is consideration of resolution
2024-12. Mr. City Attorney, you already read this lengthy. Yep, I read the uh resolution into the record. You can begin the item. Okay. I don't know if the applicant or staff wants to go first. Staff can start with this item.
If we could pull up the third presentation. So, a lot of these items have already been addressed. We go. So, I I will go through this quickly. The applicant is Jack Boziak Architect for Sunold LLC, the property owner of the four parcels under
consideration for these requests. two uh two of the requests are linked together. Um they are relying on one another. The first is ordinance 202408. That is the density pool allocation that is requested for the 104 temporary lodging units. Those would be
allocated from the town center cory circle in coina west activity center and by residential district density pool. Second linked item is resolution 202412. This is the actual conditional use permit itself. This would be permission to construct the 104 unit 50-ft tall
condo hotel. It would contain indoor and outdoor amenities that include first and sixth floor outdoor bars with outdoor music, 12 class A which are lodging, dock slips hosting commercial water sports amenities, other accessory commercial amenities, the variance which was not necessary for the other items to
move forward and it concerned the feature and the quiet pools um was was just denied. So here's a timeline. This was submitted back in September 2023. It was revised a number of times. It did go to the planning board back in December where it was recommended for denial at a
vote of 5 to zero to the city commission. Uh the applicant has already addressed that with the commission. Here's a list of exhibits. Property has a zoning of bio residential as was mentioned previously. This is described in the city's comprehensive plan as a transitional
district from the higher intensity commercial district to the west to the lower intensity residential districts to the east. The first request is the ordinance. This is specifically the density pool allocation in up until 2012. Uh these
properties had a zoning of RFM resort facilities medium. At that time lodging was a permitted use by right. It allows for lodging developments of up to 50 feet in height um as a permitted use. That was changed. It was increased in density to up to 40 lodging units per
acre, increased 4t in height. But the entire density pool allocation and the temporary use it or temporary lodging use itself is now only permitted with a conditional use permit. So regardless of the density of this project, if it were to be approved for a conditional uh
sorry a condo hotel, it would need to come forward to the commission for a conditional use. All the units uh subject to this request must be allocated from the TC2 AC and bio residential district density pool. This pool originally had a unit count of 325.
There are currently 261 units remaining in the pool. Those 64 units were allocated entirely to hotels. The first allocation was for 50 units back in 2013. Another 14 were allocated in 2020. Were this request to be approved
for the entire density that is requested, um there would be approximately 50% of the units remaining in the pool, 157. The remainder would be allocated of course to this project and Hotel Zamora. Moving on to the conditional use permit request. This is the actual
construction, the actual development of this site. So it would include the actual development of the lodging use itself with those 104 units. These are not additional to the density pool allocation. Those are the 104 that would be allocated from the density pool under the ordinance. They are requesting a
lodging building of 50 ft in height. As was mentioned before, this was revised from the December hearing last year. It would have removed it as one of the conditional use permit criteria. However, the density does exceed what is allowed um by right without a planning board hearing. So nothing has changed in
that regard. Separate from the lodging development is a separate conditional use permit request for 12 class A which are lodging dock slips. These are classified as a conditional use permit under the bio residential district regulations. They would offer
non-motorized commercial water sports being pedal boats and paddle boards. Those are also an an additional accessory conditional use permit. And as mentioned before, the first and sixth floor bars with outdoor music, those are a separate conditional use permit as
well. There would be accessory amenities to the hotel uh condo hotel if the condo hotel were to be permitted. The mini golf course, arcade game room, and quiet and feature water slide pools independent of variances would fall under the allowable commercial component
of the conditional use permit hotel. So, just showing across the site these standalone requests. Starting at the south side of the site, which is the right side of the slide, you have the first floor bar. Um, the applicant did clarify this would not have outdoor music. So, that would be an allowed accessory use. Looking to the back of
the site, they are proposing those 12 wet slips uh with class A lodging uh docks. The hotel itself, uh the primary building is a 104 unit condo hotel building. It's 50 ft in height. It's six stories, five of which are habitable.
That is a conditional use permit as well. And then on the north side, you have the sixth floor bar with outdoor music. The accessory structure request, which again would fall under the condo hotel development. Starting from the south end, you have the quiet and featured pools. They would need to be
brought in to meet the setback as the variance was just denied. And you can see that setback line that subsumes most of the quiet pool about half of the feature pool. In the structure itself, you have an indoor restaurant. That is not a conditional use permit. That would be an
allowed accessory use of the hotel. The same for the standalone parking garage. That's a threefloor garage on the north side of the site. Uh that would have an indoor arcade. It would have outdoor seating, but there would not be outdoor music. So that would be an allowed accessory use. And you would have a mini golf course as a commercial use. again
allowed under the hotel um at the very northern end of the site. As mentioned before, I won't belver the point. The planning board mets review this case in December. It was recommended denial let a vote of 5 to zero. There are cases in which the planning board sits as a local planning
agency. They make consistency findings with the comprehensive plan for future land use map amendments, land development code and and comprehensive plan changes. In this case, they are a recommending body. So the applicant had the ability to move on to the city commission. Denial was based on some of
the items that were brought up before. Um lack of traffic study, concerns about increase in traffic density, the overall density of the development, the use of features by residents, concerns about increased freebie use and cost, the waterway shallowess at the narrow end of the waterway. Concerns about access from
this project over to the beach, jaywalking, and public safety. cumulative noise from pools, dining and balconies was brought up as another concern by the planning board in their in the recommendation of denial. Um the variance has already been reviewed so I will not cover
it. Staff in reviewing this request did find there to be some benefits for consideration. The first is the provision of a public prominade. These are features that are recommended in the city's comprehensive plan. In the Gulf Boulevard redevelopment district as well as generally throughout the districts of
the Gulf Boulevard redevelopment district of which the bio residential is a part. It does increase water access. It would be a feature that is maintained with the development and it's featured around the outside of this project. Property consolidation and curb cut reduction. Um that is not something that
the applicant has actively undertaken. It is something that would be required should this development move forward whether through this scope or any other kind of development that permits a property consolidation that is something that is directly promoted in the bio residential district under the purpose
and intent. Um the city does promote property consolidation due in part due to the uniqueness of these properties and their aspect. Another benefit, um, something that came out of the city's recent comprehensive plan amendments is that we now support the vision zero
initiative to reduce and, um, eliminate traffic deaths and serious injuries along Gulf Boulevard. Um, of course, we have unfortunately experienced some some deaths and and serious injuries in the last years. Um, reducing the curb cuts to these properties, that's a benefit that you would get through curb cut
reduction. There is not a need for each of these standalone parcels to have a curb cut. it would be reduced down to the two that the applicant is proposing. Not necessarily something that's related to the conditional use permit. There are uses that could be supported with the consolidated property, but that curb cut
reduction would be a benefit and it is something that is promoted through the county's vision zero strategies as well as through our land development code. Staff did find the quality of the architecture to be high um particularly for the garage. I felt that they did do a a good job screening the purpose of
that garage in the north side. Um I felt that the development of the property and the um architecture both of the buildings relative to themselves and across the property did reflect a relatively high quality coastal art madern style. I felt that the applicant did a good job with the architecture in
the project which is again one of those policies that is supported in the bio residential district. They have limited the intensity of the waterfront functions. This is a significant reduction from what was presented at the community meeting. I believe they were proposing something in the realm of 28
to 30 slips. Now, all of those slips are conditional use permits independent of this approval. There is nothing that allocates any number of slips to this development. However, under a different redevelopment scenario, a residential redevelopment scenario, there could be
by right more slips at this property um than what is being proposed here. So that is a limited intensity concern uh relative to a a possible permitted use of the property. There are family oriented amenities which staff frequently hears um there is a deficit
of in in this area and the applicant has increased public amenities and landscaping above the minimum code requirements. Remaining concerns um apply to the mass of the building. This was brought up at the planning board and nothing has changed in that regard. the the mass of the building has not changed. Understanding the concerns
about the aspect of the site, um our consultant reviewer did have concerns about the overall scale of the building relative to other developments in the area. Uh you can see, and this was a graphic out of the staff report, um comparison with some of the adjacent developments. Granted, this is a
consolidation of multiple properties. There is nothing else like this in this district. Um but the other adjacent developments do not have the mass and the scale of this development. Staff had some interior access concerns related to vehicle circulation. This is something we feel could be adequately addressed at
the site plan stage. Concerns about perpetual prominade maintenance which was made a condition um should this use be approved. And um concerns about transportation management plan strategies. We have not received a traffic study or a transportation management plan. That is something that could be provided at the site plan if
the use were to be approved. So if the project um is found consistent with the comprehensive plan, if the adequate conditions that are recommended are applied, um the density pool is a case-bycase. The conditional use, as with all the others that you've seen in the recent years, um must be evaluated
on the basis of the 20 criteria. But with the density pool, you do have additional review powers related to some of the provisions of the project, other concerns related to the comprehensive plan that are outlined in the criteria. I did also want to reiterate that individual conditional use permit
criteria within this request can be considered by the city commission. It's not an all or none. If there are certain uses that you support, others that you do not or have concerns about that need additional conditions. Um you you can propose those for the lodging development, the class A docks with the
commercial water amenities, the outdoor bars and music. Nothing has changed since the planning board on the staff side except for one added condition. Um the applicant has not provided a traffic study. Based on staff estimates, I'm not a transportation engineer. I do find
through the um transportation manual that it's expected that this project will produce fewer than the 49 trips. That is the minimum threshold adopted through our comprehensive plan for staff consideration of a traffic study. However, um we would like to consult with a professional transportation
consultant um should this use move on to the site plan stage. If the consultant finds that this project may produce 51 or more peak hour trips, um we would ask that the applicant prepare a full traffic study at that time and that
would be the basis for any concurrency approval that is issued for this development. I did speak to the applicant in advance in this hearing. I understand that they are agreeable to this condition and I'm just going to summarize the conditions. I'd be happy to go through them if the commission would like, but you have seen many of these conditions before on other
projects. That they provide a wider sidewalk, make frontage safety improvements in line with the Gulf Boulevard safety study, provide a minimum percentage of Florida friendly landscaping, reduce impervious surfaces where permitted at the site plan stage, and provide greener cool roofs. Limit
ice time, limit nighttime hours for the outdoor features. Those would be for the amplified music certainly on the sixth floor bar. um if they decide to move forward with the pools, that would be a condition as well. Um and overall decibel limitations on outdoor music in line with the ones that were proposed
for the other recent developments. Specific to this project would be conditions pertaining to perpetual maintenance for the prominade and the public features that run along the outside of the site. the on-site circulation improvements that were brought up before operation of accessory features only following certificate of
occupancy for the primary development and limitation of slips for non-motorized water sports equipment and customer vessels only. So staff would not administratively approve anything related to motorized vessels in in the future. So action's already been taken
on the variance. That was the one of the three requests that is not essential to the overall project. We do ask that you take action on both the first rating of ordinance 202408 as mentioned before that is the density pool allocation that would allow for any density to this
project whatsoever. Um we ask that you take f action on the first rating of this request. Should this be approved it would need to come back to you for second reading and then the overall project approval that's inclusive of the hotel itself. those other accessory
conditional use requests as well as the accessory uses that would be permitted under the hotel. Those would all fall under resolution 202412. So we ask for action independently on both of those items. That's all I have staff. Um if you like
Yes. Um did you print out the um future land use um district uh descriptions the for the bio residential district and the policies? Yes, we do. and we'll be introducing those as as an amendment. Um, our staff will be passing those out
and this will be the purpose, intent and the policies of the by residential district. Happy to take any questions or if you have questions for the applicant. I have a question for you. Is it okay? Sure. Thank you. Um, since
the resolution mentions um something particular that when I was reading throughout the whole application, the the 12 slip class A lodging dock. When I read on page 742 of our packet
the actual sovereigny submerged land lease from the state of Florida which expires November 13, 2026 that submerged land lease last paragraph on page 742 use of property.
The lease is hereby authorized to operate an eight flip commercial docking facility with the fishing dock to be used exclusively for mooring of recreational vessels and passive recreational activities in conjunction
with an upland commercial vacant lot without fueling. What does that mean? and do they have authority to get a 12 slip class A lodging dock? So I have to
keep um in mind that the state sovereign lands lease is separate and apart from the zoning and land use approvals that we do as a city. So they would have to go to Division of State Lands and the they're the staff of the board of trustees of the internal improvement
trust fund and they would have to amend it. they would have to amend and get into they have it already the amendment uh the applicant can speak to that I'm not sure but we do handle this process separately and that would still be a condition of them building or or operating any kind of dock at that property and we're prohibited from
preempted from holding up our approval until they get the state approval they they're allowed to go and obtain them in the order they want specific on property use yeah no they would have to get that amended by the state so they can get an approval from If if
if you deny this, then they can continue to to use this as a vacant property and use the uh use the dock under their existing lease. But if they're going to get a hotel and you you approve it here, they would have to go get So that would have to be a condition of approval of getting it's separate. But we usually
say you must obtain all federal and state permits, but you're not allowed to. the state legislature again preempted you a few years ago as a result of a rock mine that uh the city or one of the counties Levby County said we're not going to approve
your rock mine until you go get the Army Corps approval and so the rock mine got lobbyist they went to the legislature and the legislature said you can no longer say that you have to get state and federal approvals first before you get your zoning approvals so they have to all be considered independently now since that happened so that we really
didn't need this attachment then right in this packet. It's not really relevant to what you're doing because that attachment A also shows an address of 3861 Gulf Boulevard which only talks about six parcels because it's an eight parcel property. So it it's almost like it
doesn't even match this, you know. So it it's sto, you know, it just stood out with me because I'm reading the package. I think it's just like kind of evidence that they would be able to get a state sovereign submerged land permit for a a vessel. here. They're just asking at the city level for paddle boards and
non-motorized quiet paddle boards. But they still have to get the land lease to put the docking structure up. I mean, I know in that bay you paddle board a lot of issues and getting even for our living shoreline uh Avenue
36. I mean it was a lengthy process that I have a lot of environmental concerns with having um commercial activity whether it's the paddle boards and they're non-motorized. This is a breeding ground for manatees. Okay. We have gazillion
videos and pictures of this. It's a shallow area. Um, you know, and I know from I'm hearing from you is that we can't put this as part of a condition, but you know, it's it's a big concern. I'll just say so anyways, just just one
point. Commissioner Marup. Yep. Brandon, could you um go back to the slide or just refresh my memory on how many um units they're asking for school and how many there are? They're asking for just under a third. They are asking for 104
units and there were 325 in the pool. There are now 261 and those were the units that were alloc the difference is the units that were allocated to the hotel Zamora. Uh if this request were approved at the 104
unit density it would be down to 157. And what are the other areas where people can or would need to ask from units for the density pool? It's town Town Town Center 2 and the Bayou Residential District. Those are the two as well as the activity center. Okay.
Yes. All right. Thank you. I uh um I I and and and this the this what switched from resort facilities medium to body residential in 2012. Correct. Correct. Yes. And so Okay. And so this project
almost would have or or or maybe would have worked under the resort facilities medium zoning. It's it's very close. Yeah, it's very close to the 40 units per acre. Um, so they would be over they would be I think the sites around two and twoird of an acre. So they would be
allowed closer to 80 units were developed back then. So um and and what was removed from the site was lower density than this. But yeah. Yeah. I want to acknowledge that I'm sure for the property owner that's incredibly frustrating to have purchased
property in and I think 2004 is what the tax assessor's records show and and to have have purchased it at a time when you could do one thing and then have the zoning change to be something else. I'm I'm certain that is in an incredibly frustrating position to be in particularly when for you know several
years four years leading up to that zoning change the economics and the economy was such that developments really weren't happening. So, so I want to acknowledge that for the property owner, I'm sure this is just an incredibly frustrating situation. Um, but but I will say that
from my standpoint, I'm not comfortable giving that many units from the density pool to one project at potentially the cost of anything else that could happen. Um, you know, in the town center 2 district where where I think there's a lot of potential for some good small
projects to happen. So that's that's my opinion about the density or the the units from the density pool. Brandon, can you help us out with um just what is the the purpose of the Bayou Residential District? I think you
mentioned it very early on and I think you just gave everybody a handout, but I think for the record we should have it just so that we all know what we're talking about. Sure. Well, there's a few different purposes. Um the first is to act as and what I believe I
introduced at the beginning of the presentation is to act as a transitional district between the higher intensity commercial to the west and the lower obviously intensity single family uses over to the east. And so you mean the west would be the west side of G Boulevard? Correct. Yes. So roughly what
are we talking what's across the street from this property on the west side of Gulf Boulevard? We have the Sansier condominiums. Um yes we have condos. Mhm. We do have a few hotel projects in the vicinity. Undertale. Yes. Okay. So, we
have so condos, a few small motel, any large hotels? Not in the immediate vicinity that I'm aware of. There's the beach house still, right? There's beach house to the north, right? So, do any of these properties have
uh golf course? No. Do they have rooftop bars? No. Okay. Do they have water slides? No. Do they have boat docks? No. They want to Do they have a quiet pool? Um, they have pools. They have pools,
right? All of them have pools. Just looking at Okay, so they have pools. Do any of them have a CUP for live music, loud music, amplified music, anything else? Not to my knowledge. No. Okay. So if and I'm just reading here straight
out. It says is a transition transitional area between higher intensity commercial uses along Gul boulevard in the lower density residential neighborhood on the east. Okay. So if the bar for high intensity is no golf, no bars, no slides, no
boats, no rooftop bars, no music, no paddle boards. So that's the threshold for high intensity. It seems like we're not going from high to low. It seems like we're going from from low commercial. It's it's really low
commercial. The only thing I see is some of them have pools. That's it. So, the threshold is condos, small motel. I think Palm Crest may have a bar, but I don't remember exactly.
Undertoe. Undertoe is bar. There's a bar. Yeah. Okay. So, if the that's the threshold for high, this seems like we're going exponentially way higher and not to a medium level down to a nole
residential. Sure. Based on existing uses, I I could see it, you know, certainly an increase in intensity looking especially right across the street. However, there is capacity in those districts. Um the city did not set any kind of cap on the type
of uses that were envisioned in this area just other than specifying that there's a commercial component. But your point stay sure we're simply talking about hey here's the purpose of this district. The purpose of this district is to be lower intensity than what's across the street. What's across the
street is a couple pools and two bars. So this would be lower to go to zero. But what they're asking for is actually not congruent with what the land development code and comprehensive plan have in place here for this district
because they're asking for significantly something that is not envisioned by this zoning district. I'm just reading the plain text. I'm not sure we don't have to take any large leaps of reasoning here. is just supposed to be a transition area
between higher intensity commercial uses along Golf Boulevard and the lower intensity residential. It's supposed to be kind of a buffer transitional area going from here to here. The comp plan also describes the character of the BR district in the
subsection A. Sure. And again, it talks primarily multif family residential as a result of the lot depths, right? So it actually does take into consideration the size of the lots. Okay. Shall we hear from the applicant? Uh yeah, Jack Boziac,
architect. Um, first I'd like to say this is it's not out of reason as an architect or as a land owner to request something that's allowable under the code. And I'm sorry that it meets with hostility in some cases, but um it's not out of consideration to make this kind of
request and I'm sorry that it offends you so dramatically. Um, we are surrounded and transitional to across the street there are highrises 10, you know, 9, 10, eight stories high. Um, so this could be considered transitional
going towards the water in that it's only half the height of uh some of the surrounding buildings including the adjacent property to the south. Uh the city my primary reason for coming for you was I felt that the uh the review
considerations um nothing outside of the um request uh was not an allowable use. Uh so we weren't coming in asking for something that wasn't in the code. So I feel that it shouldn't be something would be outrageously, you know, um
looked upon. Um we did have a it was intended use as a as a hotel. We had some interest from Marriott originally. Um that was back, you know, when we first started on this and um the intent always has been to be a hotel. The lot
combination. And I'm sorry that the city has accepted in several cases um surveys and lots that are under one ownership. Uh this never came up in the entire review process. So uh I would suggest that the city uh check into with the
city attorney then was this an improper acceptance of the application? Uh was is a a legal survey not under one ownership not acceptable? Um that is something that we should when it's accepted we should not be questioned as though we
were trying to sneak something in. Um the lot combination is uh nothing requested was outside of the regulations with the exception of when we did have the extra 4T on the building. So we did not feel like we were coming in with an
unreasonable request. Everything we requested was allowable under the code. And I'm sorry that it was such an offensive submitt, but it was within the codes and the allowable for the jurisdiction to review, consider, approve, deny. We didn't feel like we
were coming in here to steal something. Um the planning board, my purpose for coming for you wasn't anything um uh meant host hostilitywise. uh we've merely felt that the considerations of record by the board
and the recommendations and the review not recommendations but the review by staff supported what we were requesting well within the code. I'm sorry that it um it was so upsetting but I think the planning board basis for denial is very
weak. I think that the request before you and before them was not totally unreasonable and done with any uh illgotten um will. So, I don't think that it um was not reasonable for me to
question the very weak uh and they're in your record, by the way, uh very weak reasons for denial and we felt that it was not reviewed properly and we felt that it uh was not an unreasonable request in that we even altered the pool
to bring it further to within the uh the regulations that are in existence. So, we did not feel like this was some crazy review that that uh we should have never considered. Uh we thoroughly reviewed and understood the code. Um so, I'm um
sorry that it's u caused so much stir in some cases, but uh I really think that um u the plainting board denial had a very weak basis and I was here to request that you consider the basis that
we were denied on, not you know, u the other other criteria that I've heard tonight. U but I do appreciate you're taking it into consideration. Mr. Boziac, this is not an appeals process, right? The planning board and city attorney, please by all
means correct me at any point. We're not here to adjudicate whether the planning board was correct or wrong because they don't actually make any decisions other than making a recommendation. So they don't
approve a project. They simply say we think it has merit or we don't think it has merit. They simply make a recommendation to the commission. And the reason that we are here today is so that we can hear you. And you know,
I I haven't heard anyone here reference any of the criteria that you mentioned that you objected to that the planning board did not recommend this project. In fact, what I've heard so far is from the
commissions that have spoken up, they have cited chapter verse of the land development code, a comprehensive plan, and they've given, you know, thoughts and opinions and interpretations of those codes as to why it may or may not
fit. And so, you know, my question to you then is, you know, I would appreciate a rebuttal, right? If you if we say, look, we does, so I'll I'll lay out the things that I said, right? And then you can,
you know, give me a give me a counter. So, when I say, you know, this is designed to be a trai transitional area between highintensity commercial, not height, but a commercial use, we're not talking about height here. And the intensity across the street
is six or seven pools and two bars. That is on your property alone is more than that than all the other 8, nine projects combined. And so I don't see how yours is a lower threshold. In fact, you
are asking for a lot of things that do not exist in the high intensity area, right? You're asking for a hardship when there's no documented hardship. I mean, wanting to have a higher ROI on
your property is not considered a hardship. It's it's I mean, I'd love higher ROIs on my properties. So, I'm not I certainly I am not offended by you being here and asking what you're asking, nor am I offended by the owner. Um, I think it is well within your right to do that and ask for those things. But
I do want to also comment on one other thing you said is it says you're not asking for anything that's not allowed. Well, you technically can ask for anything you want. There is no restriction on what you can ask for. The difference that we're talking about is
what is by right and what can the commission grant and it's the definition is in the words the conditional use application. Right? It's an application because it's not by right. In fact, the very first lines of the comprehensive plan say so that you know this is not by
use, but it is by right at the discretion of the commission. And so, yes, you can ask for anything you want. And I'm certainly not in fact people have asked for more than you have. And I wasn't offended then either because again, I'm I'm not it's not that I just
because I may not agree doesn't mean I don't understand. I understand why you would ask for this. I understand why you would want these amenities. And if I was building a resort in a hotel, I would want those things as well, most likely. But the issue is you were asking for a
resort in a hotel with the multiple pools, with water slides, with boat slips and commercial activity, right? So having a rental place for paddle boards and kayaks, you know, having, you know, actual commercial activities, bars on
site in a designated residential area, right? Here's here's where some of that that disconnect is. Can you ask for it? Sure, you can ask for anything you want, but it doesn't mean that just because the commission doesn't agree with you that we're in some way offended
by you or by your ask. No, not at all. I think it's well within your right to ask for those things. It's just I think you're what we're asking looking for is give us your arguments why you think
this project conforms. You know, why it meets the criteria. You know, we've given you reasons why we may think it does not meet the criteria. give us, you know, give us a breakdown of, okay, here's why I think this conforms the land development code and the comprehensive plan and the zoning for
this district. Okay. Well, first of all, uh it it meets all the criteria and with the alterations we proposed. It's within the criteria that are outlined in this segment of the code
and in the um the conditional use that allows the uh the hotel uh density uh the the density to be that we're requesting to be uh requested for this site. So we're not requesting anything
on this application that uh is not allowed by the code. So I think that's a number one the first thing for consideration. And I think that under all the considerations that the planning board can take I I think that the the
most egregious things are when you repeat or or read the things that are in the city transcript as well. Um we everything we basically have requested was not outrageously outside the guidelines of the code as something we
can allow we are allowed to request but I think the considerations that I outlined and that are up on your screen uh were up on your screen sure the planning board isn't the one making the decision this commission is making decision and so far I haven't heard from anybody on this commission even mention
any of the objections from the planning board so for all intents and purposes is those objections were stated then no one is repeating them. So no one's making a decision based on those objections as far as I can hear. Well, I I I respect
that, but I am allowed also to when I see something that's like that we were turned down because I drove a Volkswagen or something, you know, there are there are egregious reasons that we can be turned down that I think are incorrect professional considerations by the
board, the planning board. And if you consider that u that freebie use is a reason that the planning board can turn us down among the crazy ones that are outlined, then I we we differ. Sure. I was here anyone mention the freebie up
here. Pardon me. I haven't heard anyone mention the freebie of No, I mentioned it because I I came before you not to take your time and my time and go through all this and attempt. I feel like that the considerations at the planning board level were incorrect,
improper, and not responsible to the code. Sure. And I think I have a reasonable request and I had a right to come before the commission to voice this. And I'm not here to get into a hostile argument or give but I do feel
that the board should be aware that we were in my opinion unreasonably turned down for reasons that have no connection to the code. So again, you're you're here. We're hearing you and none of us have brought those things up. And so
whether we may or may not agree with those reasons, it's, you know, you you've had your chance at a second hearing, right? And that's all I asked for. I mean, I I I really am sorry that that uh you know, there's an interpretation of the lots that's not
correct. Unfortunately, that should have probably come up at the submitt level. I don't think there is an interpretation. I think the commissioner simply asked, you know, whether something is permitted, just like I asked, what is the reason? what is the purpose of this district. just simply asking the staff
for clarification which is why we have experts here like our staff so they can provide that clarification and you know it's it's a it was a simple question can they combine it turns out yes you can combine in fact it says you know in the
purpose it says we encourage it right so again it's no one was challenging it was just a simple question right it's just because we ask a question doesn't mean I ask a lot of questions doesn't mean I and I I respect the questions that are
being asked. I I think that I on the same page have the right to question what I would in my opinion, professional opinion, uh is uh you know, and going all the way back to I did the original approval on Corey Avenue 20 years ago.
Uh, and that was a tough one that had tremendous um issues with the uh the citizens and and and it was a it met a very reasonable solution back at that time. It's not the one that's out there now, but it uh it's the original one that was approved and I think 06 or '
05, something like that. So, I'm I'm not here trying to argue my case. I'm here to simply say that um I that we deserved reconsideration either if not back at that level at this level uh because I
think that the the reasons for denial are not um not related to the review process. I think they are uh reasons for denial that do not are not relevant to the project as we submitted and was
reviewed and that's the consideration I'm here on tonight to appeal that. Uh so uh if I'm I'm not here to argue anything or uh I think that's a reasonable request. Um you know if an appeal process is not allowable then I
stand corrected. Do you feel like you've not received a fair hearing today? You feel? No. No. I I I I feel like I'm being questioned as to why I'm here to be quite honest. And I'm here on the appeal process of feeling that the
reasons I put into the record are are not justifiable reasons for us to have been denied. And I think it makes you feel better. We ask every applicant why they're here. Yeah. No. And I and I I recited that for us to understand, okay, what is your purpose? What are you looking to accomplish? What do you want
to do with this project? Where do you see it going? How does this enhance the community? How does it benefit the community? What value does it add to the surrounding neighborhood? Right. So, I mean, these are questions we ask every applicant. In fact, I've I've been quite gentle with you and we are allowed to just I mean on on all
sides and and my side and your side. And I respect the fact that you are, you know, you're entitled to your, you know, your approval denial opinion, but I I feel like my right to be here is equal. Sure. Of course. And and I appreciate
your consideration and it's unfortunate that we don't see the same way, but um you know, we'll have to look at it and see what our alternatives are on the site. But we haven't made a decision yet and I think some of the other commissioners have questions for you as well. So Commissioner Risniki, I think you were first.
Um yeah, I do have some questions on your application just for clarification. Um because on page 643, which is your your first question, um which is asking um special conditions and circumstances
that exist. Could you clarify um from what I heard is you're saying because of how they're being combined is giving you a a property that's not buildable.
The setbacks of what you want to propose, right? Because what you all want to build. Yes. Um I feel that the setbacks although um are they're the shape of the site to me the planning board should be considering things other
than and I'll I'll read them just again just to be sure. Um uh the uh the traffic a traffic study that was not required um the overall density which is an allowable density the freebie use whatever that is I mean these are actual
uh responses from the reason for denial question is not about the planning board what I'm asking you as the applicant what do you feel is unusual what's unusual that the desire to build what you want to build is not not matching
the lot configuration. No, I I I think the lot configuration is very difficult and I think to build anything on that that configuration. Was there something built there before? There were Well, that's Yes, there also were houses across the street on the
beach at one time. So, that's not a criteria for Yeah, but my question is was there something there before? Yeah, there was something there before. on page 650 number seven you you mentioned multiple pools for a bayou district um almost like that's not a big deal and
you were comparing it to the Don Cesar uh hotel on on the application but the Dawn is in a medium resort district so is there something that you can compare these multiple pools to that's within
the same Bayou residential district um well if you're going to bring the dances are up. You can't. It's not the same. I want to know. No, I understand. But if you're allowed to compare them, I suppose I'm not allowed to. But I would say that um it is not an unreasonable
request given the size of the site at 2.67 or 8 acres. It's one of the last substantial sites left within the city. And with the investment that the owner has in the property, we have to pursue uses that are allowable.
My question since you said the investor, who is the investor? The owner of the property. So the owner of the property is the one that's going to build this project. The owner of the property uh along with us are the uh the people that were going to build on this property. Yes. Um on the application, one of the
questions is asking about uh the finances and it there it doesn't show. I've repeated that I had a you mentioned the planning board which I did watch. My understanding was your response at the planning board was that the current
owner was not building this project. The current uh that was a misunderstanding then if that was in the record. It it couldn't uh the the owner and I have worked together on this property and have been working on this property for probably 10 or 12 years,
maybe 15 years. So um I have been working with the owner uh over this entire period of time. We've had different varied people of interest coming into the thing with us and um at times with due to the economy for example uh people have reversed their
their course or required some requested something that was outside the parameters of the code that we didn't uh want to go for variances that were excessive. Okay. Um if the property were to sell during the scope of this
development then it would go with the applicant. I mean it we're making this propert property from what I'm seeing is more valuable if you want to call it valuable because it you're selling it with the all these features right again
I would have I would have to go back and look and see because I I clearly remember you stating that the current owner was not building this property. Um h and also one of the um one of the pages page 663 number 29 asked
about current violations and complaints. Are there any current complaints on this lot? I understand there was a complaint made. However, when the uh the attorneys for the owner uh uh contacted the city and
said that all permits which there was a what happened was the permits supposedly for the parking had expired during the hurricane recently and the the attorneys contacted I believe the city attorney or or somebody I'm not sure who and I
apologize I'm not sure who it was and brought up the fact that all permits have been expire have been extended by the state term by the regulatory authorities um uh because of the hurricane and that was what last I've heard of it. I have not heard anything
else and perhaps the city attorney can you know advise you on that. Brandon can come up and address it. My understanding is that they had an approval to park cars for a certain purpose and then because of the governor's executive order during the
hurricanes that not only the permit beginning but the permit expiration dates are also extended. So they filed their required letter requesting the extension of the expiration. That's correct. It was set to expire back in October. It was extended for now
until the state of emergency ends. We are aware that there are maintenance issues with the lot. Um, we've contacted the entity who is parking on the lot and we've made them aware that we'll be following up with them regardless of the outcome of this case. That is part of the conditional use permit. The
conditions do still apply. So, there is a requirement regardless of what occurs tonight that the lot needs to be maintained and and we're aware of that. So, this current conditional permit that's on this lot, is it being used to what the conditions were set by the commission of that time? It's being used
for the use um that was approved by the commission at the time. There are maintenance issues that we are asking to be corrected. So one of the conditions relates to maintenance of the site. Um we have asked them to correct that and if it becomes a recurring issue, the conditional use permit would be in
jeopardy just like any other that isn't following what was approved. So, so and I know it's and I was here when that condition but um my point is because when I saw there was a a table on this application that shows that there was
three years only one violation per year um I guess that's documented violation right so and the reason why I say this is because we're you're here to come for a conditional application yet the current lot has an application a
conditional permit that has had violations. So, I just wanted to mention that. And again, this is trying to figure out who's building this property. Is are we going to have the same ownership that's had current
violations on a permit, conditional permit? Um, on page 658, thank you, Brendan. Um, the public benefit requirements. What are the public benefit requirements other than the I think the pro I don't
know if it was called a prominent but the sidewalk that goes around is to allow public to walk around this property. Is that the public benefit? public public access to the property. The improvement of a property that's sat um in disrepair uh for years and then uh
was de demolished and uh a proposed use within the within the code tax base uh properties that are destroyed up and down the beach. It's it's a relevant uh it is a relevant not irrelevant it's a relevant um use to the code and I don't
think it's an unreasonable reason for us to request it and once again I'll repeat the reason I'm here tonight is the basis for denial in the planning board level and I thought that I was coming for a reasonable appeal of that decision on
the basis it was decided is very is not in accordance with uh regulations in my opinion Yeah, this is uh not an appeal. They just make a recommendation. They're only an advisory board. So, the final decision is made here. So, there there's
been no no decision. The planning board just makes a recommendation when they state the basis of their their decision. They didn't make a decision. They just make a recommendation. So, this is a denovo hearing here. So, it's not an appeal. These guys looking at this fresh
or the city council looks at it fresh. It doesn't matter what. So it it doesn't matter what basis they use for their decision at state. It matters what happens here in this hearing right now. This is the quasi judicial hearing on the city council. The final hearing. Well, I don't think it would have gotten to this or the first the first first
reading of the ordinance. Yeah. for conditional use and then the the decision on whether they want to under 4.12D allocate the lodging units from the density pool um based on the criteria and
4.12D which is a public benefit. So they'll weigh the public benefit here and that's within their discretion to do that. Well, I would repeat that my appeal was on the basis that was used to render this opinion that's
stated in writing in this and I I believe the basis was wrong. If they for example had said it's zoned wrong um and they were incorrect. I'm I'm not sure that why you're not understanding but this isn't this is not an appeal. You make your case fresh to this city
council. So, you'll need to make your case fresh to the city council. What is the public benefit? I think I've heard you do that, but it's not an appeal of the any mistakes you think the planning board made. Well, I think when you're asked whether you want to withdraw um your your plan because of the denial by
the uh planning board or the recommendation from the planning board, you have to make a decision. Am I going to appeal it or or uh you know, I haven't heard anyone recommend that you withdraw it here on city council. So you certainly can come forward for the staff request was are you do you do you want
to go do you want to withdraw your petition since it's been denied recommended denial by the planning board and our response was no we feel that the the reason whether it's the reason for the basis that's your right yeah it's your entitlement right to go forward
yeah and I that's why I'm here and I apologize that I've you know taken my right I guess So, do I keep asking question? I mean, I I'm trying to get clarification on your application, sir. So, I'm not Yeah, we're not appealing.
This is not an appeal and and I heard you say you're this was a recommendation from the planning board. It wasn't a final decision. So, now we are looking at your application and I'm going through your application with some questions so you could help clarify.
Sure. And I I'm so on page 683 uh the goal one was um and this is on your application. I don't and I know I'm citing pages but I don't know. Yeah, I I don't have them available site. Um the goal is to
conserve, protect, appropriately manage and where appropriate restore or enhance the city's natural resources aquatic, wetland, air, terrestrial to ensure the highest environmental quality possible. when I looked at your plans um and of
course the the wanting of the use for uh watercraft whether unmotorized or not um a and Brandon you might have to correct me on this from what my understanding on the code is that we cannot add more drainage right for storm water from this
property so you're using what's there no additional areas to drain out right you have to use what's available but how are you improving drainage Are we filtering it? Is there are we catching the storm water on site? And the second part to
that that has to do with the environment on the seaw wall. Um I know that seaw wall I mean like you said they've owned this since the 20s I believe or I think someone on the commission or the mayor you might have 2004. Okay. 2004. I'm pretty sure that seaw wall hasn't um
been rebuilt. Um, so our new ordinance is a fivenav and I can't I don't know if that's part of this plan. Does it indicate a five nav on these plans? And if and if so and if not then how is it going to be built? Because I have no
other um condominium. There's a condominium in the donsar district that's having issues trying to get to the five nav because the building is so close to the seaw wall. How how are you proposing to do the five nav and protect
the the bayou um on discharge? Well, the discharge plan uh there was a civil plan submitted that would control the storm water and the drainage and the retention treatment of the water flow. So right now it's there is no control and uh as
to the seaw wall the seaw wall uh was proposed to be totally reconstructed within uh within the construction limitations of the project. So I think that on those um those two items I mean I think that we did submit that we are
uh the plan that we are you know controlling the drainage setting up um uh all in according to the code and the state um uh regulations the control of the drainage to eliminate any runoff that presently may be running into the
uh bayou or that is not controlled that well okay so the plans do indicate the five well I believe they Okay. Um, there was an error too on page 692 that said that the closest, and I think this might have been a a staff comment
at this at this point, the closest public beach access is um serviced by the Sunrunner, but the closest beach access is the one just north or sorry on the south end of the property of Miramar. Um, and the Sunrunner doesn't
serve that that location. Um, and you know, I and I don't know if it's been addressed, but the the staff had concerns about on-site circulation. I know Brendan presented and talked about the curve cuts and just having the
two, but that there's still um concern about the circulation of traffic within the site as well. So again, trying to improve safety on Gulf Boulevard, um not only uh circling within, so people walking within the property, but then
coming and going. So I did have concern with that as well. Well, I would question that uh that there was anything um that was not uh designed and properly addressed those situations on the property. I I think staff review didn't
bring any of that up um as to specifics. Uh and I think what was brought up we did there were some items that we did correct during the process because recognize this process has gone on for some time now. Uh so we have always on page 69. We always very well we always
have addressed any comments brought up by staff like that and I'm sure that we addressed it. Okay. I'm I didn't see it. So I'm asking for you to tell me because I only see the comments. So like for the page 738 about acknowledge for noise.
How are we going to deal concerns of noise? Um the response is simply acknowledge. Well, there was more of a specific response. We we had submitted responses about the control of music, the control of u you know of those those things, the
hours on the the what we call the quiet pool to ensure that there wasn't water u there wasn't noise traveling across the water at night. I mean it um we did respond every time a question like this came up and I would have to go back and
uh bring those uh submitts or resubmitts or those um items that we did address. We did always address any question that came up. City clerk, do we have any audience comments? John Kursman.
Please state your name and address for the record. John Kersman Behei. I am a beach steward, but I'm speaking purely for myself. Uh my first question would be about beach access. There was mention of the Zamora. I know that Zamora has been involved in discussions about beach
access and so I just you know you know residents you know go to the beach but I think tourists would probably be more consistent in the in the number of days they would go to the beach. So I would you know just question that where that beach access would be and how much. Um I
also believe that there's been um attempts earlier to have uh paddle boarding go on in that uh area and it was denied. Uh so I don't know why that would change now.
Um and um this is not probably a constructive comment although you know maybe there's a creative thing. You know, back in 2014 and 15, the city worked and came up with a plan for Corey
Avenue and they developed that plan and it was to have commercial projects. And you know, I I hear what they're talking about for this Winward Pass. And I go, what a terrific sounding project, but it's in a residential area. It
sounds like it is. and Corey Avenue. It sounds like perfect for like the Corey Landings spot. And then I hear what they're now talking about a Corey Landings, which sounds really residential. And I I I I think, oh, that
would just be perfect for Winward, you know, for that for the bio area because that's where people to just go and live. And it's just a shame that for whatever reason, I mean, we have a comprehensive plan and I just don't know how these
things happen. I mean, it's just it's just what happens. But it's just I just, you know, there's Corey Landings has it's set up for a big dock with lots of people to go and it's right by all the
shops and all this great stuff for tourism. And all of a sudden, now we're getting the perfect thing for Corey Landings. it it over on on that on this project and and we're getting residential at Corey Landing and I just don't get it and I know we can't do
anything about it but I wish there was a way to to trade. Thank you Mr. Cursman. I think just for clarification and maybe Commissioner Resniki can correct me when you say discussion with Zamora you mean a lawsuit correct? Oh I I don't know about that. Yeah, if you're asking me if
there's there's a current litigation going on with a Samora. So about the beach access I I didn't mean to step into that. I No, no, no. I'm just simply saying that the discussions are actually a lawsuit. That's about beach access. Frank Quillin.
Good evening. If you'll please state your name and address for the record. Dr. Frank Quwellin 4160 Bel Vista Drive, St. Pete Beach. I've been there since 1956 at the at that location right
across from this way. Little McFersonen Bay is called Little because it's little. It's not a 100 yards. It might be 50 yards at the in the middle and larger down on the entrance way, but that's all
seld. But we have manatees and manatee babies being born. There is a freshwater well at the end of the culde-sac and they're they're in there all the time. I got videos on my phone that will show you this, but we don't
need paddle boards and jetboats rented out going up and down. This is a residential area. Uh several years ago, there was a paddle board company uh on on G Boulevard that came and wanted to put paddle boards and train
people. And we got that stopped because of the privacy that would be invaded by people going up and down the bay. Now we're coming along and wanting to put 12 peers with boats being rented by people
at paddle boards and everything else on a private small inlet. Two boats can hardly get past each other in those areas. So I don't see any need for any any boating activities at all from this uh
project. That's all I have to say. Thank you sir. That's all. That's all. Okay. Commissioners, questions, comments? I I will say that um I appreciate you coming. It's it's an ask. CUP is an ask.
Uh variance is an ask. I raised my son and and and any of the other children in my life. I said you have to ask. If you don't ask, it's a no. So I commend you on on asking. Again, um the the uh planning board is an advisory board. The
decision is actually made here. um based on the zoning there with the by your residential for me I feel that the um density and intensity of 104 units
um as condo hotels with various amenities that the noise issues that we currently have are are are are a bit um overwhelming. uh and to see more of
that. Um I have a lot of concerns for I have a concerns on the environmental side of it as well. Um so I do have quite a few concerns on it. Um the public safety aspect, we've had a people run across children cross Golf Boulevard
and and with your beach access being over near the Miramar, which would be the closest one. It it's a ways up the road and we could put a crosswalk over there. They're not going to go there. We're going exactly right across the street. It's like playing Frogger across
Golf Boulevard. Um, I'm concerned again traffic is is another one with 104 units there. Um, and I just have a lot of concerns on this. I I just don't really
see the benefit to the community. Um, especially the residential community and I agree that then the then density and intensity isn't doesn't seem transitional right there. It seems like it's more intense coming from the Sansier. Sansier is not going anywhere.
Um I I I don't they don't have a rooftop bar as well. Um so I just don't see that all that activity there being of benefit to the residential neighborhood, let alone the people on the other sides or the side that's going to have the the
the splash pool and the quiet pool. Um I just feel that that's that is a very very uh difficult item to uh to uh say yes to. So looking at this project, I just refer
back to land development code section 41 which states to review conditional use applications. The purpose certain uses are conditional rather than uses by right. They are subject to the conditional use regulations because they
may but not necessarily have significant adverse effects on the environment. Between the manatees, the rest of the waterways in that area being so shallow, having a commercial activity on that waterway, well, that certainly will have an
adverse effect on that environment. Could have significant adverse effect on public services. right? You know, does it conform to the character of the area? It is a commercial transient lodging facility in
a residentially designated district. So, does it conform to the character? I don't see how it does. It could create a nuisance. whatever we're going to call it, quiet pool or not, I've been to enough pools at enough
resorts and enough hotels to know that it's not going to be quiet. I mean, we can call it what we want, but that's that's really not that's not really an option, right? having a rental facility for for paddle boards or for any kind of
watercraft, you know, couple hundred feet, maybe 200 feet, 300 feet from somebody's backside their house. Well, that can be a nuisance. That's going to be a nuisance, especially on a, you know, spring break weekend, any kind of weekend, you know,
in season. having a rooftop bar, having loud music, we just have to look at the neighbor and they've been a nuisance to the people across the street.
So a reviews of these uses is necessary due to the impact that it may have on the surrounding area and neighborhood and specifically the land development code and comprehensive plan are talking about the residents the residential areas adjacent or close
to and you first came today and one of the very first things you said is I can't believe we have to listen to what the people in the single family homes have to when in fact the comprehensive plan has in mind the
protection of the rights and the quiet enjoyment of those residents. It specifically states that three or four different times throughout the comprehensive plan that one of the things that it it wants to do is foster,
you know, harmony between the commercial, the higher intensity and the residential and it takes that into consideration specifically. Right? So, you know, why are we looking at
this? because you know it is right next to re right next to residential right and the plan has that in place. So because it may impact the surrounding area neighborhood conditional uses review the conditional use review provides an opportunity right it's it's
just this it's an opportunity to allow the use when there are minimal impacts right or to allow these uses when mitigation measures have addressed the concerns. So, we've heard about all the different negative impacts it could have. The one thing that we haven't
heard is, you know, how, you know, what mitigating things we're going to use to offset the negatives, right? We we've read the list
of things that all the negative impacts. What we haven't heard from anyone is give any kind of explanation. Okay. Yes, we may have, you know, 30 people in the water creating havoc and, you know, endangering the manatees and the
environment, but no one's talked about, okay, how are we going to debate that, right? So in those circumstances, you know, if the commission can't see how this doesn't have a negative impact or if there is a
negative impact on the environment, the neighbors, the surrounding area and it's abated, in that case, it is up to the commission to deny the use if the concerns cannot be resolved. And so for my
part, looking at the comprehensive plan, looking at the land development code, I don't see how your project has addressed those issues, how it has provided any kind of, you know, you're asking for significantly increased
density. You've asked to push it out farther to the margins than anywhere else. You've asked for significantly greater commercial use than any property on the island really that we have right now. There's not a there's
not a property on the island right now that has all of the things that you're asking for. And the challenge I'm having is you haven't provided any any argument, any
solution or any ideas on how to address the concerns that are rightfully brought so by both the commission and the residents that would have to live next door, which the comprehensive plan and land development code specifically had in mind to protect. In fact, it uses the
word protect about two or three dozen times specifically. So, I think that gives you an idea which way I'm going to be voting. But the reason is because it does not meet the standards of the land development code and comprehensive plan as outlined as
we've been instructed to review. And if the criteria doesn't fit, if it doesn't match, I don't see how I could vote for it. So, we are on action, Commissioner.
I ask your indulgence for just a minute because this is barely relevant, but I've been biting my tongue so hard it's about to start to bleed. Sure. And uh um the gentleman uh who spoke on public comment about the paddle board company that wanted to ruin McFersonson Bayou um
that's my company and I was the one who wanted to rent paddle boards behind my business on McFerson Bayou and I I often times have had people ask me why I'm appear to be so friendly towards businesses who come before the commission for conditional uses and it's
because I was the one standing out there asking for a conditional use for something that was very reasonable. And not only was very reasonable, was something that I had already been doing for years with zero complaints and no problems before it was brought to my attention that I needed a conditional
use to to do that and then had a room full of people um fabricating stories about what the effect was going to be. And so it's a little bit difficult for me to sit here and and uh and listen to people say that, you know, a half a dozen people paddle boarding on McFerson Bayou is going to kill all the manatees
and ruin everyone's property values. and uh and and destroy their peace and quiet um because it's patently false. And so again, thank you for indulging me. I know that it's only barely relevant to what we're
discussing, but but I couldn't bring myself to sit here without saying that. Um and so with that being said, unless somebody else has something very significant to say, I would like to make a motion to deny ordinance 2024-08. I second. City clerk, if you please do a
roll call. Commissioner Moholland, yes. Vice Mayor Marriott, yes. Commissioner Robinson, yes. Commissioner Rizniki, yes. Mayor Petrilla, yes. Next, we move on to action item 6B,
consideration of resolution 2024-12, conditional use permit 23085 to allow for the development of Windward Pass. Did I read that again? I think you can try that again. Sorry. That's okay. Hold
on. Let's uh make sure we understand where we're at right now cuz I'm We did the What was 2024-08? That was the ordinance. That was the ordinance for units of temporary lodging density. What number was that? 7A.
I believe what we just passed was okay. So that was 7A. So now we need to go back to do resolution number 2024-12, which is six. Did we do 12 or eight? Sorry. Yeah, sorry. I I did it out of order. No, that's okay. You could
do them in any order you wish. Yeah. Um, so let's go back now and we'll do resolution 2024-12. Entertain a motion on that. Um, I'm sorry. The motion that Commissioner Marriott made was to deny the conditional use application. So that
was the reading of ordinance 2024-08 for allocation of the density units. Yes, that's the density pool units under 4.12 subsection D. Would you mind indulging me just just for fun because I remember her saying to deny the application. Mhm.
Let's just do both of them again. Let's do both of them again to be clean. Let's just make sure that I don't want to come back and have to read the transcript and say that we voted on the same thing twice and we skipped one. Okay. Do you want to go uh in the order that they are
on the agenda and take six? Sure. That would be resolution 2024-12, the conditional use permit application 23085. All right. So, I will make a motion to deny resolution
242024-12, conditional use permit number 23085. And I second. City clerk. Commissioner Moholland. Yes. Vice Mayor Marriott. Yes. Commissioner Robinson. Yes. Commissioner Rzniki, yes.
Mayor Pat, yes. Okay, next we have ordinances 7A. First reading of ordinance 2024-08. City clerk, I believe. Sorry. This is to read this. This is to allocate the 104 units of temporary
lodging density from the density pool. Just so we need a motion on that one. I'm saying you already read this item, correct? You read that? You read that one? Okay. How did you read the question? I read all three. You read all of them. Okay. Is there a motion? A motion to
deny um make sure I got the right number. To deny the first reading of ordinance 2024-08. Deny at first reading. That way there won't be a second reading. I motion to deny at first reading. Ordinance
2024-08. Second. City clerk, if you'll please do a roll call. Vice Mayor Marriott. Yes. Commissioner Robinson. Yes. Commissioner Rzniki, yes. Commissioner Moholland, yes. And Mayor Patrill, yes.
Okay. Next, we have item 7 A7B, first reading of ordinance 2025-12, and amendment to land development code. An ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach, Florida. Correcting errors in prior ordinances by amending the
city's land development code division 16 CG2 Commercial District Section 16.2 two permitted principal uses and structures to recognize and allow full service restaurants in division 33 CCC2 commercial corridor Gulf Boulevard
district section 33.7 density and intensity to clarify that single family residences are prohibited and providing for codification conflict severability correction of scriveners errors construction publication and an
effective date and this is a a kind of a cleanup ordinance and Brandon will explain it. Yeah, just briefly on this one. As the city um starts to get redevelopment applications in and as um property owners are looking to move
forward, we have found two errors in our code that we're looking to clean up. The first pertains to section 16.2, the CG2, which is a commercial zoning district. It's only uh it's the only zoning of a few properties in the city. Back in
2015, the city had intended to allow full service restaurants in the zoning district. It made it into the title of the ordinance. It didn't make it into the body of the of the ordinance. So, what was amended in our code did not actually um amend this district to allow
for full service. It does allow for limited service. It does allow for takeout, bars, um clubs, and things like that. So, it is consistent with what's allowed in the zoning district already. We're just hoping to fix that, actually make it into the body of the code. Uh
the change to section 33.7 um is to complement a change that was correctly made back in 2017. This is in the CC2 zoning district, which is a zoning of approximately south of 70th along Gulf Boulevard to about 63rd on
the west side and a little bit further south on the east side. Uh the code was changed back in 2017 to state that single family development, standalone single family development in this district is prohibited. That is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
However, there is some language that um a few owners have found to be cons um confusing. In 33.7 that does imply that a single family united is allowed to properties in the zoning. It's not allowed based on the use code, but if you were to read that and I understand
where they're coming from, there's there's concerns that that or they're insinuating that they are um permitted a single family residence at that property. So, we're just cleaning that up. We're making it consistent with the land development code uses and the comprehensive plan. Um, happy to take
any questions. So, where exactly is CG2? CG2 is the property on the west side of 73rd and uh Corey, sorry, Corey and um 75th and it's the property that Woodies
is currently um Woody's currently sits on which is a full service restaurant. So it allow for their redevelopment. It's also the parking lot to the north that I believe is currently used for the toasted monkey or board buoys. So, and if this cleanup were not to happen,
what would happen to those properties? They could still redevelop. Um, they would be allowed a eating and drinking establishment, but they would be limited to the few that are currently that made it properly into the code. a limited service, which would be a
delicateesscent with limited seats, a bakery or a coffee shop, something in that that realm. Um, they would be allowed a standalone bar or a u call it a saloon, which is classified slightly differently, but they would not be allowed a table service sitdown
restaurant at that at that location. questions, comments, y'all know the drill, it seems. Yep. So, do we need public public comment on this? I don't think there is any, but no. Okay. And the second one was the Um, I'll make a motion to approve the first
reading of ordinance uh, wait a minute. First reading of ordinance 2025-12. I second. City clerk, if you'll please do a roll call. Commissioner Robinson, yes.
Commissioner Resniki, yes. Commissioner Moholland, yes. Vice Mayor Marriott, yes. Mayor Petrilla, yes. Thank you. Next we have item 7 C, first reading of ordinance 2025-13,
an ordinance of the city of St. Beach, Florida, providing for an amendment to the budget for fiscal year 2025 by increasing appropriations for expenditure in the general fund, wastewater, reclaimed water fund, storm water fund, and construction project
fund providing for codification, conflict, severability, correction of scriveners error, construction, publication, and an effective date. Good evening, mayor and commission. Um Devin Schmidt, are you able to see my screen and hear me? Okay. Yes.
Okay. Fantastic. So, um this is the FY2025 budget amendment overview. I have a quick presentation that I'll take you through related to the ordinance before you this evening. So, I'm not going to spend too much time on these slides as this was
discussed earlier at our budget workshop. Um, but we do have some short conser short-term considerations as we're looking at this budget amendment. Um, that relates to our revenues and FEMA reimbursements, uh, pending an emergency bridge loan, parking revenue stabilization,
um, unknown tariff impacts, and property taxes for uninhibited properties. Uh, we are considering some strategic long-term considerations. And again, I know we spoke about this earlier this evening, so I'm going to skip over this slide. As we're looking at the budget
comparisons, this is a comprehensive overview of the budget comparisons by fund, by fiscal impact, showcasing the various budget categories um and funds for the general fund, building capital, and a detailed table outlines the funding sources, uses, and
highlights the estimated beginning uh fund balances as of September 30th and audited. Um so I just wanted to provide that highle overview. the areas where we have a change in fund balance. Um we do anticipate FEMA reimbursements
uh pump station one grant reimbursement and the potential of the emergency bridge loan to backfill some of those areas. Similarly, this slide provides a comparison by fund um but in an actual basis so the commission can understand what we have received to date. Um again
we would intend to utilize those same levers um that were uh included in the previous slide. So the ask within the general fund um is across various departments. Um notably in the community development department uh we see an increase to
support the potential of a new planning manager while information technology has multiple line items reflecting both planned and unplanned expenditures including IT support um new hires emergency medical and then at moving on into our EMS we're looking at
um shifting the captain positions um this will be fully reimbursed by Panelis County. Um, this table also highlights the FEMA funding for the hurricane recovery efforts. Um, at a prior commission meeting, the commission did see all of the contracts that were
brought forward um after the close of the emergency. Um, so what this is doing is uh providing a budget for those contracts. Additionally, in parks and facilities, um, we have allocated funds for essential services and equipment. um
just ensuring our operational efficiency and overall these adjustments just reflect our commitment to addressing the department needs while maintaining our fiscal responsibility in our wastewater fund. Um we are asking for um some budget
transfers uh which includes all allocations for our SCADA monitoring and our fog software. Um and then uh looking to add to some of the balances and add based on fiscal prior year spending. Um so uh some of that is just based on
historically what we have spent and some of those um funds and departments in storm water. Um, we're requesting an amended budget for the NPDES permit consultant as well as an
increase um to the budget for half an associates for the 45th AB drainage improvements design in our building fund. Um we are requesting um for an amendment to increase related to our current workload and account for our lot larger projects
coming online prior to fiscal year 26. Uh the request also includes a portion of the planning manager and the six permit technicians that were uh brought to commission earlier this year. um the 300,000 and uh for the increase
for the building official and the contract building official. Um that's just increasing that so that we're able to have that uh contract in our capital improvement fund. Um we have a request to um add to cover our active POS so that we are
shoring up the budget with um the active purchase orders for the city hall HVAC design. Um we are putting some funding back in as we do not need the transfer um that was listed there. We have several capital IT
improvement projects that were inadvertently not included in the 2025 budget in the fall. Uh we are asking for budget increase for uh the Martina seaw wall repair engineering design and seaw wall outflow modifications.
um as well as a change order to address the building permit comments. Um and then with Ferris pools at the community rec center, the resurfacing project um and again that was previously approved by the commission. Just wanted to highlight that we do have some upcoming budget
workshops and I know we talked about this earlier. So, um I'll just pause on that and with all the information uh presented for you, this is a summary um taking our general fund budgeted building capital resiliency,
wastewater, reclaimed water, storm water, and showing our budget to actuals in a summary format. Um, we do have the long-term strategies and or we will be putting those long-term strategies in place for financial uh, success to include some of the fee and impact
studies, the 10-year financial forecast, a reserve policy implementations, implementation of our budget best practices and revenue diversification as well as our strategic plan alignment. With that, I can take any questions and I have a motion.
Thank you, Devin. Commissioners, any questions, comments? Is there a motion? I move to approve ordinance 2025-13 on first reading. A second. City clerk, if you please do a roll
call. Commissioner is Nikki. Yes. Commissioner Moholland, yes. Vice Mayor Marriott, yes. Commissioner Robinson, yes. and Mayor Patulla. Yes. Next, we have item 7D, final reading of ordinance 2025-11,
an ordinance of the city of St. P Beach, Florida, amending city code chapter 46, environment, article 2, nuisance division two, subsection 2, abatement procedure, sections 46-61-
46-66 and chapter 46, environment, article 5, chronic nuisance property code, division 1, chronic nuisance services, sections 46-141 through 46
6-152 to provide for due process special magistrate hearings and procedures for the abatement of nuisances providing for codification conflict severability correction of scriveners error construction publication and an effective date.
I'd like to offer a couple items that uh to mend on this. One is the seven days from the date of notification. Um I think 7 days is not necessarily enough considering our current a lot of people not home. Um I
think 14 days might be more reasonable. And then also if they went in special magistrate, why are they paying administrative fees? Yeah. Um I mean it's anywhere else you go, you don't pay administrative fees if you win.
Um this is if it's just like code enforcement. If we're a code enforcement and and the city wins, then the violator has to pay the administrative fees of having me be there, having the special magistrate be there, having staff be there because it costs t understood.
that if I'm brought something against me that I bring that I'm being brought up for and I I can prove that my tree is not a nuisance or whatever. Oh, then you don't have to pay attent Well, it doesn't read that in here. I think it reads it. What section are you? Um, it's the mowing and the I'm more concerned
than mowing and the tree trimming. Okay. Yeah, I have concerns about that section as well. I um I'm I'm concerned about the lot mowing and the tree trimming being at the discretion of the code enforcement
officer. Um I I don't watch every code enforcement hearing, but I watch a lot of them. and like me and uh and I uh um you know I I I noticed that the you know every magistrate hearing the code enforcement officers are
asked did do you know if the respondent received their registered mail that you sent and the code enforcement officers every time go oh uh um gosh I don't know and if they can't even answer a question that they get asked at every single magistrate meeting I have a hard time
having the confidence to let them make a decision on when a lot should be mowed or when a tree should be trimmed that a resident's going to have to pay for. I think there's a portion in here that says they have to um if it get comes back to them that they have to notify it
post it. It gets posted on the property. Yeah. But I'm sorry. Could you say that last part again? I was I I I believe there's a portion in here it says it gets posted on the property if it receives back um if it's uh if they don't if uh it gets returned mailed.
Yeah. The the uh they have to mail and they have to post just like for code enforcement and post. Okay. I just want to make sure we're covering the basis on that that we give people ample opportunity to to to get notification number one and that after they get the
notification they have appropriate time to respond and if they do respond where they want to go to special magistrate that if they win they're not paying court costs or administrative fees been there. Yeah.
Did you all want to keep the tree trimming and the grass mowing or did you want to remove that at second reading or did you want to amend it? Um, is that you're allowed to make these types of changes here? You're not adding
anything. You're taking things out. I mean, I I would either take it out or amend it to let's amend it to so that it has to go before a special magistrate. Okay. The way it's set up right now is that the property owner would have to request going to special magistrate for tree trimming and lotmowing which is
different than other nuisances. It would automatically go. So this we could change it where it automatically goes to special magistrate even for those two more minor type of nuisances. Do you think or I think I mean I I at least you have objective magistrate should be the
one who makes the determination on whether the city should take action. So then we'll set up so it automatically goes to the magistrate for both. Or or does it have to be any different? I mean, does that I I would be the same as other nuisances. I guess I guess if we just remove that alto together, then it would just fall under the the nuisance
category. If you remove it all together, then um it would just fall under the same category as everything else. If they find it as a nuisance, it would be treated the same. Yeah. I mean, we carved this out um because we felt and perhaps
incorrectly that these were more minor things. Um, but they they for due process it's the same. So, we could take that out and just treat them the same as every other one. So, we would take out um
46-63, parent two and parent three would be deleted. The proposed additional language would not be included. And then we would change seven days to 14 days. So if I can comment on the the purpose
of carving out the tree and grass violations was because it is very labor intensive to automatically track into the special magistrate. So they they viewed these as
minor nuisances. So, you would try to correct them um without that administrative process, but still allow that due process if the individual wanted it. So, that's I don't have a problem with
them requesting it. I I just need that longer notification period because I just don't think that's between getting notification and being on repair something. if it's a tree, if it's something like that. And again, I I live on a sidewalk and I've had my issues
with right people saying things are Yeah. not when they are. So, we could put 14 days in for the lawn mowing and 14 days in for the tree trimming and 14 days instead of seven for the other violations, too. I think 14 days is a is
universally throughout the ordinance, you know. Okay. Let's do that and leave it in and go 14. You okay with that? Yeah, that's fine. Can I get a clarification? Is this just for grass and trees? Is that what we're saying? That you're only carving up. So any nuisance? Well, let me explain. This
is all for nuisances. And for the typical nuisance, there would automatically be a special magistrate hearing. Okay. So, you have to get notice and you go to the hearing for lawnmowing and tree tree trimming
because the grass is growing and it's growing up. Do you want to wait three months before you get to to the point? They would say, "We're going to go ahead and the city's going to cut your grass. City's going to trim your tree and then we're going to ask you to pay for it. If you don't think the grass should be cut, if you don't think the tree needs
trimming, then you request a special magistrate hearing. You would have 14 days notice before we were going to go and trim. And within those 14 days, if you request a hearing, then you will go into next month's code enforcement
special magistrate hearing, which are scheduled on I think it's the second Monday of every month. And then can you explain the other significant change which the other significant change is it's no longer the burden of the city manager to hear these uh cases. It will
go to the independent special magistrate. the city manager is not independent one and two city manager doesn't isn't trained in the law isn't trained to hold these evidentiary hearings the special magistrate does
this every month right my question and I get I'm all for that don't trust me I'm not trying to change it or go back to you but I've I do listen to these special major this last p um whatever day we are Tuesday Monday was kind of difficult to listen to because Um you
know then so we would some of the work on nuisances takes a lot of time right um when you think of permitting right there was someone who pleaded their case special magistrate says um you have till the next whatever meeting to get this
done but you got to get a contractor you got to get maybe a landscaper if you're removing a large tree that's you know a 3000 to $4,000 project or whatever it may be you might not be able to, you know, get it done. Um, I heard the
special magistrate asked to get a permit, right? So, just go get open a, you know, open a permit. Um, permit application. Yes. The permit. I think there was one that they wanted the actual permit received. Correct. Yes. You know, but how, you know, it's not correcting it, right?
And I could see the frustration in the people, you know, who were presenting because, you know, a they don't even know what they're going to do with her house. And some of these cases had to do with damage from the hurricane. Um, so, you know, fix your sophet. You got to open up a permit to fix your sophet.
Yet, you don't really know if you're going to, and that one was actually there was about sophet. You don't even know if you're going to live in your house. Like, yeah. When did the sophet become such an a nuisance? You know that when you don't know if you're going to be there or demolish your home or lift
your home and we all know that the permitting process could be long. Um I I guess the question you know in the communication I don't know if we can this is I guess to the city attorney and can we communicate with a special magistrate and say okay this is our the
situation of our city. I I think I know she understands we've just experienced a hurricane, but does she really understand the lengthy process it is to just even get a permit? You know, um so
code enforcement has the discretion to give time for compliance and that's um where uh they make that determination of the in the direction of the code enforcement director and the city manager. Um they have discretion in
these cases which ones to bring, when to bring them, you know, how much time to give them to apply for a demolition permit for a house and how much time to obtain a permit for an outdoor bar that was operating or how much time to u apply
for a sophet. the sophet case. I think there problem was that the owners didn't know um when they found out they immediately started taking actions to correct. Um but there is one house that came up where it probably needs to be
demolished. That would be the kind of thing if they don't have the money to demolish or if it's an absentee owner that is not responding whatsoever, we can't reach them that we may have to take that through the nuisance abatement proceeding and demolish a house that's
or they might attractive nuisance or something. A grant, you know, like maybe they're trying to find funding. Usually if they show up and they explain that then they then they get the more time. It's the ones that we can't find that don't show up that are the real the harder ones to to address where no one
is there and it's someone a trustee for a land a trust in Missouri. Those are harder. Yeah. Each one of these cases has to be looked at on a case-byase basis. And you have to be much more careful when you're demolishing a home than you are when you're cutting someone's grass.
Obviously, You have any audience comments? Yes, John. Talking this much, but this one I did some research on this because it was really concerning me, especially the the law part. I really very very nervous
about that. If you put the camera on that. Um, so you know, I understand the spirit of this, like you have lawns like this, but even the county can't get even at this point, the county can't manage to fix
the the reclaimed water yet in the picture. And, you know, three houses down, you have beautiful lawns. So, I understand. And then down the street, you have lawns like this. You know, is this going to be captured by this as as a violation? And then another beautiful lawn. And then a block from the city
city hall here we have this. Is this going to be addressed? So I raised a few issues before about at the last meeting. What's too long? What do you do about the no man's land? What what about the cost? What about the notice?
Deneden they had a $30,000 they they were it took five years to get that mess straightened out. They only finished the lawsuits last year. this is what you're going to be opening up with these with these lawn leans if you don't do it carefully. Um, and then I I did some
research in the other ordinance in 9866. We say your grass should not exceed 10 inches in height. Okay. I get my lawn done by a guy every two weeks. I was out of town for three weeks. I came back and the gr the weed was already up to my
knees. So, you're one lawn cutting away from being a violation of this law already and you're going to have the city already chasing you or or mowing your lawn. I think we need to be careful here. Uh, so I watched yesterday's
hearing and this was one of the houses and they did have some some debris issue and and a door jam and a sophet issue. But this is what they were concerned about the palm frrons and they were concerned about that's the lawn that's
the grass and the trash. These are all the pictures of the trash and debris they showed and this was the reason that they were going to be taking care of this property. And when it came time for this was the notice
and when I get my mail forwarded from New Jersey to here I it took 30 days and I haven't been forwarding my mail the other direction. I just waited until I came back three weeks later. So I'm not going to get the notice. So, you have to
give 30 days or in general set it up that we can give you an email address or pick up the phone or think about what happened in the Brazini case here yesterday. Let the tenant know or try to reach all the people involved. You have the guy that was in Panama with his
wife. So, on the case yesterday, do you know what the certified mailing was returned at all? The code enforcement? Not on the top of my head. No. Sorry. And then they proceeded to do the whole case and now that homeowner has 14 days and the homeowner wasn't even there to defend themselves. So, and what's what's
the fine? $250 per day or would it be per cutting? And then it's $329 of administrative fees and the cost for the lean. So, I have some suggestions if you want to read them. That was my last slide anyway. Thank you, sir. So, I'll leave them up for a second. I'll take a
picture of it. Hold on. Sorry. Can you put that back up again? I'll take a picture of it. I couldn't read that fast. Sorry. Uh yeah, give me one second. Um it was basically it'll be on the city website, but it was it basically concerned about the or if you could send
it to the clerk, the power. Here it is. Yeah. 10inch rule. Publicize it. Let people know. And then also that law also said that ordinance also said that you are responsible from your property line to this curb uh for the grasses, but it doesn't say it is for the trees. And
last year there was a case where they the code enforcement wanted to to find somebody and the judge judge said no our ordinances don't address trees. So we want to probably address that too. What do you do about trees in the right of way? Uh, but I really hope you don't do
this lawn cutting and and and and set up a procedure that everyone gets adequate notice through email or some other means so that especially when we're not living in our own homes, notice is key. I guess we got a little work to do on
that. I'm thinking um some of what he's brought up. Um, we can address in the regular sections on grass and and trees that's different than this. This is just a nuisance abatement. And if you don't want to do any tree trimming and you don't want to do any grass cutting, you can just take those
sections out. If it ever becomes a problem to the extent that we have to do the city has to go in and do something, then um you can add them back in. We can do it under the normal nuisance abatement code which takes a little bit longer but gives more due process.
I I just think it's a tough time for that with everybody you most people not not most but a lot of people not being in their homes and again with the mail um US mail is not exactly what it used to be. I think, you know, uh, this is
really set up for the drastic cases like the one where someone's living in the house and there's just trash accumulating and accumulating and neighbors are constantly complaining. They they have code enforcement leans, but they can't foreclose on those leans and so they just the trash just sits
there and junk accumulates in the city. And I think many of the neighbors would like to see the city go in, maybe get a contract to clean that place up and take things to the top. But before you do that, you've got to give due process. And if the violators living in the
house, they're certainly going to get the due process and understand what's happening. But it's for the drastic cases, not for the everyday code enforcement. Typically, we just do the code enforcement. We put the penalty, the fine, and say you have 30 days to go
apply for a permit. and they usually take care of it themselves and then I don't think we would jump in. Who's separating that from the grass and trees? Because I think there was a provision that allowed for egregious repeat
offenders that the special magistrate could give the city the legal authority to remediate it. This ordinance gives the magistrate the authority to go to allow the city to go in, pay money to a contractor to cut
the grass or to trim the tree or remove the junk and take it to the dump and pay the tipping fee or whatever the garbage hauling is. Um if the city wants to do that would which would be in the discretion of the city manager working through the code
enforcement director you you would say well this one's been going on long enough this needs need needs to happen. It's not for every day when they continuously do the same like the grass some going again and then the cities got to go out there and cut the grass again
because they're just they're like well I'll just wait for you don't have to go out and cut the grass under this program. It's only those lots that are so egregious that the city wants to go cut the grass and and we could even, you know, the city manager has that discretion, but she could give you a report. Hey, before we go take all the
junk out of this particular house yard, I'll come to you and get authorization first because we don't want to do that as staff without getting city council u aware of it. Um, you know, some of these things have a have a have public
relations impacts too, like the slide showed the five years arguing over the grass and lawsuits over that. Um, you know, we don't want to get ourselves in a situation um where we're over enforcing or going after hurricane
u remodeling or hurricane giving people sufficient time after hurricane to do things. But there are other violations that we really need to address more quickly. Right now, we have the nuisance abatement code, but this goes to the city manager, which is not the place it should go. It should go to the special
magistrate. But before it goes to the special magistrate, the city manager could decide, hey, this is a case we want to take there. Or she could say, hey, this just do the regular code enforcement here. let them eventually get their own someone's property until the special magistrate had said we had a
case that was compelling enough that she would she or he would support. We do have cases in the city where the nuisance has become pervasive enough that it's creating um rat infestation
in the neighbors. you know, your next door neighbor is causing a rat infestation because of the amount of garbage. So, right now, we can't do anything. We just keep Well, we can, we have fines, but like that example you just
had, they're in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. So, it's whether we want to just keep finding and living with the nuisance or fix the nuisance. and it get does get added at to the lean
amount. There is the possibility that it reoccurs. So there are some very very complex cases and it's how how long do you want to live with it? How much do we want to spend to remedy it? I think they're so few and far
between. It would be something I would bring here. Yeah, absolutely. that the community would know we are going to um unfortunately take a measure that may be popular for some and
unpopular for others. Um one example for Myers Beach after Hurricane Ian, there's a structure that's needs to be demolished, but the owner refuses to demolish it, refuses to fix it, just walked away from the property. FEMA is
doing their audit and review. They say, "Hey, you need to take this building down that's been condemned. It can't just stay there for forever." So, you have to have to eventually remove it. If you can't get the owner to remove it, then you're going to have to remove
it. Okay. So, I'll make a motion to um approve the final reading of ordinance 2025-11 with the amendment of uh 14 days notice. but leaving in the grass mowing and the tree trimming.
I'll second. City clerk, if you'll please do a roll call. Commissioner Mhalland. Yes. Vice Mayor Marott. No. Commissioner Robinson, no. Commissioner Rzniki, yes. Mayor Patulla,
yes. Motion passes. Next we have item 7E, first reading of ordinance 2025-14, an ordinance of the city of St. Pete Beach, Florida. Amending the code to sunset and end all the duties of the
library advisory board by deleting chapter 22 boards, committees, commissions, article 5, library advisory committee code sections 22-136 through 22-144 providing for codification,
conflict, severability, correction of scriveners errors, construction, publication, and an effective date. And I think we discussed this at a prior uh meeting or workshop where um the city council determined or commission
determined that the tasks of the library advisory board are now being efficiently handled by the city staff and volunteers who work through the um not for-p profofit friends of library organization. Yeah. And I talked to friends of the library and they've had some uh they have they need positions
filled as well. So we could combined which would be nice. So you would end the city's library advisory committee and they could serve on the friends of the library board. Right. Okay. Commissioner, I I wasn't
here for that the discussion at the last one. I had to leave early at that meeting. But um what I wanted to bring up because I did bring this up. I don't know, it might have been like a year ago at this point because and and this is why I brought up the charter review when we talked about it in the commission. I
think um only Commissioner Mary and the mayor were here at that time. Um we had basically said to task with Amber, our prior city clerk, to do a charter review because we brought up the library. We
said we already have a friends, you know, of the library and as a matter of fact, the same people on the friends of the library are on the library committee advisory and can we do that kind of stuff and so we went on and on and then we said there was other things that we may have to u look at. I don't know what
the status was on that. I know you know you both are are new here. Um but we we did discuss it at that time. Um and then you know I know we always have a ton of things going on so but but um that's what it was and we wanted to look at
each committee some including the beach stewardship because I remember even um Mr. Kersman who's out there was up here um cuz they were talking about well we only meet twice and maybe we should be meeting more and I know beach ordinance was going on at that time and should we
entertain this with all you know again final was we need to look at the charter is what we all said. Um so anyways I wanted to bring that up. I'm all in favor of this because we were I think pretty much all in agreement at another commission. But um I always just want to
remember that we did say that back then. Commissioner Mahal. Who's representing the city on this? Both of us are. Has this been communicated to the um advisory board members? Yes. My
understanding is Betsa before she um left had talked to them and also the friends of the library and there was general agreement from everyone who participates. Okay. Because I know I haven't spoken to my appointee about it. So I I I would hate to vote to approve
something without first having communicated to the person that I asked to serve for the city about it. Um yeah, this is only first reading. So we have to have a second reading. We give you a little bit of time,
but as I understand it, they they should know they they should if this is approved on first read, I will make the extra effort to make sure and confirm that they know exactly what we're doing. Okay. Thank you. And I think Commissioner Robinson, um Commissioner Mahaland was saying that some people
there's empty seats right on the friends. So on the side, we could talk to our library about, hey, you could still basically serve on the same capacity, but I think they'll poach him anyway. I think they'll poach him. Is there a
motion? I move to approve first reading of ordinance 2025-14. I second. City clerk, if you please do a roll call. Vice Mayor Marriott? Yes. Commissioner Robinson? Yes. Commissioner Resniki, yes. Commissioner Moholland,
yes. Mayor Petrella, yes. Commissioner Rzniki had some items for discussion. Seven minutes. Um, yes. Well, we already know this one out, which was a charter review. Um, the conditional use permit. Um, this has always been a question for
me. Um especially because typically I find out when a resident calls or commercial property calls and has an issue with whatever might be around them and then I find out oh well that property has a conditional use permit but I don't know where to go it. Where's
the list of all approved conditional permits when they expired what they entail? Um, you know, we seem to find lay out later. Sometimes I hear things in special magistrate, then I'm like, well, that property had or has a
conditional use permit. Um, so I'm kind of really um stuck on that because I continuously have issues with certain properties that do have a cup and um you know like today um I know that there is
continuous issues with a property and yet we get a list that says you've only had three in three years when I know for a fact it's not true. So there's there's a problem when someone calls in and says, "Hey, I have a complaint and cases
are closed, if they're ever even open, but it's a conditional use permit that was approved by the commission and the commission doesn't even know that that's happening." So, um, there's a disconnect in communication and and I would hope that somehow we can find a process to
help us, you know, know where to go. You know, we didn't all approve every UC here in the city. I can work on that. Thank you. I I I find that there's definitely a disconnect between complaints and um the logging of the
complaints within code enforcement and acknowledging that. So that goes on record for a cup. Um so we definitely have a a a situation there that needs to get addressed um for that. And we mentioned
some more a couple of times. Well, they application, you know, noise. It was approved by a commission. Why do we keep hearing it, you know? So, anyways, same with the sheriff's department, which is maybe why we need our own police
department, but I'll let you all work that one out. I'll the sheriff's don't know that there's a conditional use with a condition about I do agree with you on the difference between when we had one and when we now that we don't. And um I would hope that maybe having a code
enforcement personnel on um uh weekends and after hours at minimally on call would help to assist that and also logging of these uh or you know documenting these complaints and as well maybe it's something that UPS need to
start paying for that code enforcement because it's not really shouldn't come out of the uh out of the residents pockets to support or or you know employ that position that is basically playing
mom to everybody who has a cup. Thank you. My two cents. Now we have reports. City clerk, just real quick, the financial disclosure reports are due in July and I believe the Florida Commission on Ethics will be sending out a reminder uh probably this week. Thank you, city
manager. Nothing to report. The attorney, nothing this evening. Thank you. District four, nothing, Mr. Mayor. Thank you. District three. Um, just there's a meeting for the Donsar property owners at 6 PM at the Warm Webster this Thursday, uh, May
15th. And also on Saturday, there is the Belle Vista Civic Association, um, their, um, I say their their fun time. Let's just say it's not in a meeting, but it's just a get together. So,
district two, I'm excited to say that uh Bill Lowry uh with historic uh preservation board is going to work with me at the library on May 20th, Tuesday, May 20th from 5 to 5:45 to talk to residents about historic designation.
He'll bring uh uh we'll have applications, kind of go through the process, talk about uh you know uh the um myths and uh legends of such and uh try to get people to sign up.
District one. Um on Tuesday the 20th at 6 PM you can come see me at Masteries Brewing. Uh have a beer or not and tell me anything you're concerned about. Thank you. We are adjourned.