the city commission meeting of the city of St. Pete Beach. Today is Tuesday, January 27th, 2026. It is 6 p.m. Let's stand for the pledge of allegiance, please. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> The clerk, if you can please do a roll call. >> Vice Mayor Marriott,
>> here. Commissioner Robinson >> here. >> Commissioner Maldonado >> here. >> Commissioner Resniki >> here. Mayor Petrilla >> here. >> We have a quorum. >> Thank you. >> Are there any amendments to the agenda as proposed?
>> Mr. Mayor, I'd like to add uh dogs off leash to the discussion. >> Okay. >> And I have two items. >> Okay. >> Um I'd like to add a discussion item of
Uppam Beach employee parking. >> Okay. and also um email distribution on uh voting issues. >> Okay. >> Mayor like legislative lobbying update.
>> Thank you. >> Are there any other amendments to the agenda? Is there a motion to approve the agenda as amended? >> I make a motion to approve the the agenda as amended. Second.
>> City clerk, if you can please call roll. >> Member Robinson. >> Yes. >> Member Resniki. >> Yes. >> Member Maldonado. >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Marriott. >> Yes. >> Uh, Mayor Petilla, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
Next, we move on to presentations. The first one is recognition of the employees of the first quarter. >> I'm sorry. I just wanted to um have you all approve the um Zoom appearance of Commissioner Resniki from Tallahassee as an exigent circumstance and put that on
the record. >> Okay. City clerk, if you can please actually we need a first and a second. >> I second. I make a motion to approve um Commissioner Rzniki um doing a Zoom call for this meeting.
>> Yeah, I second. >> City clerk. >> Commissioner Maldonado. >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Marriott? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Robinson? >> Yes. >> Commissioner Resniki? >> Yes. >> Mayor Peta? >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you. Sorry to interrupt.
>> Okay, back to recognition of employee of the first quarter. Thank you, mayor, city commission and community members. I'm pleased tonight to introduce actually five employees employees of the quarter and this is a
direct result as from our internal recognition committee which is primarily been led by Dvita Thomas and Rita Bishop in working together with a collective group of employees to basically bring improvements to our internal employee
recognition. And through a survey, the employees voted that instead of one employee of the quarter with a $500 award, that they would prefer to have five employees recogn recognized each quarter with a $100 award. So, it's a win-win for everyone. No additional cost
to the program, but at the same time, we get to recognize more people. We have uh recognition groups uh separated by departments as well as merging uh the resident services department with library because they primarily serve the
residents and we looked for lake work groups and our internal services department which is the city manager's office finance IT and code enforcement. So, with that, um, tonight, if I call your name, if you could please come up here, and then once I, um, recognize all
of you, the mayor and I will come down and present your certificates and give you, um, and take a picture. So, I'll start off with our residential services uh, winner, Lyanna Grimes. Uh, this summer, Lyanna was promoted to library assistant in charge of circulation, and she has quickly embraced the
responsibilities of her new role. She demonstrates strong organizational skills, ensures smooth daily operations, and consistently provides outstanding service to both patrons and staff. Lyanna has shown initiative and learning new systems, adapting to challenges, and supporting her team with professionalism
and a positive attitude. For our internal, if you want to wait to clap at the end, we can do that, too. Internal services, uh, we have Chris Tarkington. Chris is a cornerstone of the finance department and a vital contributor to the city's success. In addition to his role as senior financial
analyst, he assumed significant responsibilities within the accounting division during an exceptionally challenging fiscal year. These efforts included the implementation of a new ERP system, the transition to a new chart of accounts, and the management of multiple
critical deadlines. for our fire department, Captain Lance Vulpi. Although a newer member of the city, Captain Vulpi has quickly made a meaningful impact. He has developed training programs to enhance patient care and consistently seeks
opportunities to improve the services provided to our citizens. Captain Vulpi is also deeply committed to supporting the mental well-being of his co-workers by advancing peer support initiatives. He has taken the initiative to identify caregivers who work with the city's insurance to assist fire department
personnel in managing the stress and trauma inherent in their work. For community development, we have Joanne Boland. Joanne has proven to be an invaluable asset to the city, particularly during the challenging period following the
hurricanes. Her commitment to exceptional customer service is evident in every interaction as she consistently goes above and beyond to assist residents and contractors. With her extensive knowledge of local regulations and requirements, Joanne ensures applications are processed efficiently
while providing clear communication that helps simplify the very complicated building permit process. Um, and in our public services department, we have Luke Jacobson. Through consistent communication,
hands-on leadership, and a deep respect for the expertise of each crew member, Luke has successfully gained buyin across all divisions. His ability to foster collaboration, and mutual respect has strengthened the work culture, resulting in improved morale, streamline
operations, and a renewed sense of purpose among crews. We sincerely appreciate the hard work and dedication of each of these employees and what they bring to our city every day. Thank you for your professionalism, positive attitude, and a continued support of
each of your departments. Okay. >> Thank you. See if we can all squeeze in. >> Congratulations. >> Thank you. All right. Next, we have our legislative
update. >> Good evening, mayor and commissioners. Adam Pery, assistant city manager. Uh, similar to the uh, state uh, lobbying update that we provided to you a couple uh, meetings ago, we have our federal lobbyists from Becker here to give you a federal uh, legislative update. So, I'm going to turn it over to their crew to
uh, introduce themselves and they're going to flip through the PowerPoint. >> Hello everybody. Can you hear me? >> We can hear you. >> Great. Well, thank you for having us. My name is Satie Hair. Um, I am one of your
federal lobbyists up in DC. I'm originally from the Tallahassee area, used to work for the Florida House of Representatives, and I've been in DC for the last four years. I am accompanied by my colleague Shannon Duncin, who I'll allow to introduce herself.
>> Hello everyone. Um, I hope you can hear me as well. Um, looking forward to presenting to you all tonight. Um, like Satie said, Shannon Duncin, I am one of your federal lobbyists up here in DC. I'm also um from the Tallahassee area
and uh have been up here in DC the last 3 years. I will kick it back over to Satie to start um and we'll go from there. >> Thank you. >> All right. Can you all see my screen? Okay. >> Yes.
>> All right. So, it's a new year. Um there's new priorities that are coming out of, you know, the the Trump administration and Congress itself. So, we're just going to quickly run through what that looks like. Um, of course, by the time I made
these slides, uh, everything has already changed. Uh, so, you know, we are working under a continuing resolution given the shutdown that previously happened uh during the fall months. um that CR uh is until 3 days from now,
January 30th. Um and right now, you know, a lot of these bills have already passed. They've gone to the Senate. A lot of them have been signed off by the president. Um you know, I mentioned the commerce justice science bill that's already passed through. Um really the
only one that we are, you know, experiencing a hold up with right now is uh Department of Homeland Security. So that includes as well as FEMA. Um, so everything that's been happening in Minnesota has kind of shifted a lot of
the perspectives under, you know, getting this DHS bill passed. Um, so everybody's shifting their focus onto that. I've had a lot of people ask if the government would be shutting down if this can't pass. I don't suspect it
will. My hunch is they will do another continuing resolution, keep it open. Um, but right now what they really need is uh about seven Democrats to vote for it. But again, given what's been going on in
Minnesota, uh, that's going to be a a tough feat. So, um, you know, that's something that we're monitoring closely. Uh, T HUD is good to go. um it's really just focusing on DHS um and you know
FEMA. So under that DHS bill, FEMA would be receiving a $4.7 billion increase. Um you know I think 26% 26 million of that is towards the um the disaster relief
fund. So that is something that would be very beneficial if it's able to pass. Um but again we are monitoring that and we are tracking it very closely and I'm going to kick this over to Shannon to go through this.
So of course the our historic government shutdown that we experienced in the fall um was due to the ACA subsidies. the uh there was a fight over the extension of them and as we know they by the end of
the year they did not extend the subsidies. However, there is a lot of talk in Congress of what um an extension may look like. Um on this slide you can see a couple different ideas that have been floating around. The House earlier
in January actually passed a three-year extension and it is still waiting to be heard in the Senate. Um there is a group of bipartisan senators who have formed a working group to come to some sort of deal around the Affordable Care Act
subsidies. Um they're talking about doing maybe a 2-year extension rather than a three-year extension that the House passed earlier this year, but all of this is now on hold um because of the appropriations deadlines that are coming this week. As
Satie mentioned, I can imagine that Congress will get back towards this discussion around the Affordable Care Act subsidies and addressing an extension once we have an appropriations deals. Um earlier last week when they released the last trunch of
appropriations bills which included um the transportation and the labor, health, and human services bills. They included a health extenders package in there as well. Um, but notably they did not include an extension of the ACA
subsidies. And so we'll we're monitoring this closely and uh I like I said I expect that once we have a deal on the appropriations front, this will be one of the next things that Congress addresses.
>> All right. Everybody's favorite topic is the FEMA review council. Um so we are still waiting for um their formal recommendations. You know, we we're hoping that that'll come soon, but again, it's everything that's happening with the DHS bill, it's
it's kind of slowed things down a bit. And uh what I can tell you is I've been going to the National Association of Counties meetings um where, you know, they're talking with the review council. they're, you know, telling us what's being said from what we have heard.
They're, the review council doesn't really get along. Uh, it's kind of all just jumbled up right now. Um, but, you know, last time I went, uh, to the meeting, you know, this is some of the information that they provided to us. Um, you know, they're moving towards a
50-50 cost share model. Um, so that would be, you know, also including 75% federal, 25% uh 25% for state for disaster cost shares. Um, they're looking at changing the name of FEMA to the National Office of Emergency
Management, which is also NOM. Um, so that was an interesting one. Um, as well as, you know, providing funding through block grants rather than direct administration, I can say under the DHS bill, they've also included, you know,
uh, stopping the pause of brick grants. So, that's your uh, resiliency grants. So, that would be very notable if, you know, they were able to bring uh, brick back into this this cycle. um that it
you know 20 billion towards the hazard mitigation grant program. They're discussing that right now. There's a lot of momentum behind that. There's a lot of momentum behind the FEMA act. So the FEMA act, it's, you know, trying to keep FEMA as a standalone agency. It would be
cutting staff even more. They're very short staffed right now. Um so everybody's really looking at the FEMA act right now. Um, so hopefully after the DHS stuff passes through, um, you know, we'll have more of an idea, uh,
and we can get these recommendations from the review council. Right now, it's just all kind of a mess, um, which seems to be on on par for for FEMA. Um, but I'll get to a lighter note here. So, congressionally directed spending, this
is a really good opportunity for you all. Um they are also known as earmarks. So every year members of Congress get 15 projects that they're able to choose from. Those projects typically spam between half a million to a million. It's usually the sweet spot. Um these
this is funds that it's pretty, you know, straightforward. You know, early on um there's no reporting requirements, there's no match requirements. What you do is you find, you know, things that you need around the city. So, for
example, if you have, you know, sewer lining issues, if you have transportation issues, if you have anything coming out of your PE police department, anything to that nature, anything that benefits the community that really needs help, that's where you
would uh commit to submitting an earmark request. So, last year we we tried to submit one. I think we signed y'all a week too late, so it didn't get to go through. Um, but it is opening up again
this year. So, the process it's it's usually opening February. We're still anticipating despite everything that's going on to, you know, maintain that February timeline. Uh, typically we would see deadlines in April. I think that we will maintain that as well. And
then after the fact, you know, again, it's pretty early on that we'll know if the if the project's going to go through or not. I'd say probably within 3 weeks of submission, we would get a clear understanding. And so, let's say it does, then it goes to committee where
the committee votes on it. Those are the typically the summer months. Um, and then after they vote on it, if it passes through, it'll then go into law in the fall. Then in the winter you would receive those funds and you would have 6 to 8 weeks to draw down those funds. So
this is a really good time to be thinking about you know what around the community you need funding for. Um it's a simple process on your end. I would be the one drafting up the language for you. I would be the one submitting the request on your behalf. Um and you know
taking it from there. So again very straightforward. That process opens up again soon you know. So start thinking about things that you would like to request funds for and I'm happy to hop on another call with you all individually or all together and we can
you know go through those items. And that's it. So if you have any questions, our information is on the screen, but I'm happy to take any questions you have now as well. >> Commissioner Maldonado. >> Hi. Yes. Uh, Sadi, I just want to go back to one point that you said and just
get some clarification and also hopefully make sure that doesn't happen again. But you said that we submitted one project but missed the submission period. What was the reason that we missed that? And if you can comment on that, thank you. >> Yeah, of course. So, you all signed with
us at Becker uh a week after your congresswoman had her deadline. So, we just barely missed it. Um, you know, we still got it in front of her. She is aware of the project. Um, but she wasn't able to extend her deadline due to committee.
>> Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you all. >> All right. Next presentation is on the capital improvement plan first quarter update. >> Good evening, mayor, uh vice mayor,
commissioners, charter officials. For the record, uh Camden Mills, public services director. I appreciate your time this evening to give you an update on the capital improvement plan for fiscal year 2026 through quarter 1. Um, so this will cover October of 25 through
December of 25. Um, last December, u we we showed a brief overview of our five-year capital improvement plan. Um, in total, it's about $213 million. In our fiscal year 26, we have budgeted um just over $ 58
million. And you can see the various funds um that that accomplish that um $58 million. Um it's important to note that all money that's shown in here is currently city funding sources. Um this does not reflect any future FEMA reimbursements that we would receive
through storm damage. Um so tonight I would like to drill into um the funds that that are managed by the public services department. Um, so you'll see on here, this is a a large portion of our capital improvements, about 30 million of of the 31 million.
And then all of our reclaim water resiliency, storm water, and wastewater funds. Um, so on the previous slide, our our total annual CIP was about 58.7 million. Um, what we're going to be going through today is is the portion of that, the 56.6. Um, that that's our
major construction type projects that um would be managed through public services. Um, currently through through uh quarter 1, the city has encumbered 24% of our planned spending through fiscal year 26. Um, and and when we speak encumbered, um, that's money that
has been committed through issued purchase orders. Um, so about a quarter of the way through the fiscal year, uh, we're about a quarter way committed. Um, since this um, agenda was published, we we have encumbered an additional million dollars. So currently, we're about um,
$1.4 4 million um encumbered right now in in our budget. Um as we move along, this is something we're going to continually track, you know, to make to make sure we're on progress. Um I think it's important to note um as as we kicked off this first quarter of our
fiscal year, um we got our new CCNA contracts with engineering vendors approved and and issued um a new finance software. Um so working through those challenges, I I think we're in a pretty good spot right now. um as as we stand. Um you will notice on this slide at the
far right end we have a column for reappropriations for for fiscal year 27. Um so that's important to note that the full 56.6 million that we budgeted for this year. We don't plan on spending all of that amount. Um some of that will be reappropriated to a future fiscal year
and and the purpose of that is a carryover for some of those larger type projects um like the passive growway seaw wall replacement um the bokea drive roadway reconstruction uh master force main one replacement some of those projects where we collect um budget over over a course of years um
to to implement those um this uh stacked bar chart that you see here this just shows the budget mapped out against the various strategic initiatives um that we've proposed through our strategic planning process. And this compares the amount of encumbered funds um versus the the
budgeted funds. Um so what what this really highlights here is that a bulk of our capital improvement plan is either in recovery um resiliency and stand sustainability or reliable infrastructure. Um so that that's a bulk of our focus um this current this current year.
And as you can see with with the stacked bar chart comparison, we still have a lot of work ahead of us this year. Um this pie chart here, this just again shows the capital improvement plan broken out by the strategic initiatives and and shows that pie chart view. Um
which again reflects that a bulk of our program is either in recovery or reliable infrastructure. Um here this just shows the total amount budgeted this year and what proportionate percent of the CIP for each of those strategic initiatives. And then we include a table
with the total number of projects um that's assigned to each of those initiatives. Um so in total we have um 53 projects that that our public services is is currently tracking. Um so next I'd like to highlight h how do we uh deliver these projects? You
know 53 as as we went through our our um our budget processes this past year is we knew that was very ambitious and and we knew there was a lot of work ahead. Um so we have to get a good strategy in place to be able to implement and and deliver these projects especially given that we have a a small staff size. Um so
how we have structured that is is we have a city project manager who um is is overall tracking tracking the capital uh improvement plan. Uh we hired that person on at the end of September of last year. So they're quickly getting up to speed uh with what our our long range goals are. And then we structure u below
our city manager with outsourced professional services. Um and then through that we have two layers of of city oversight. Um so again our our project manager their main role is to process documents uh such as purchase orders, invoices, pay applications and
and submitts. They maintain the overall capital improvement plan tracking as well as managing our consultants, our contractors and our um city subject matter experts. Um each of our capital improvement plan projects has a city subject matter expert assigned to it. um
they provide technical guidance uh review of the deliverables and then support the project manager to to make sure that that tasks are being accomplished on time and then separate from our our subject matter experts is our professional consultant teams. Um so these are consultants I mentioned a lot
of these came on board in September of last year. Um the these are the folks that handle planning, design and and construction support services for our project and really serve as an augmented staff. Um being that we have a small staff inhouse, we rely on our professional consultant teams to provide
those professional engineering, architectural, utility engineering, structural engineering um type type um designs for us and then they also manage the various subconultants um that that may be on a project. Um so together while we do have you know one city project manager, there is a large team
um that's associated with helping uh deliver these projects. Um next I would like to highlight an initiative we're working on with our um projects tracker dashboard. Um here the goal with this is for transparency and accountability. Uh we want to provide a
clear and consistent way u for our public and and for our constituents to understand the status of our our various capital projects. Um currently we're working with our IT department as well as our part-time um GIS analysts to um create this dashboard. Um we're basing
this off of um a template that we've we've seen from other communities. Um but the goal of here is is to have an interactive map um that you can access on our website. Um sort of like a Google map aerial view where you'll be able to see the different project locations throughout the city. Um click on that
various project and then it'll come up um with a description of it, what the budget is, the timeline. you'll be able to sort projects by the strategic initiative, um what the various status is and and which phase they are and which district um that that project is located in. Um our our goal here is is
it'll also include uh performance metrics um such as scheduling and then automated data feeds. Um so as our city project manager is working with the subject matter experts to update the status and notes on our project um it'll automatically feed into this interactive dashboard. So, we'll have um real-time
updates here. Um with this, we see this continuing a continual process that we'll we'll build off of over the years. Um you know, long term, we'd like to start tracking historical trends. Uh maybe have a a resident feedback portal that can that can be incorporated into this tracker. Um but we're hoping to to
have this launched here um before our next quarter update. Um so we can we can share um the progress with that. Um, also I'd like to give an update on some work we're doing with our capital improvement plan, uh, branding. Um, that the purpose here is to use for public
facing materials, um, such as handouts, posters, our website, and and social media posts. Um, shown on this screen are just a few example ideas. Um, but really the goal here is to have consistent messaging on on how we're we're tracking our capital improvement program. Um, and the example that that I
showed here, we we had the slogan taking action today, protecting tomorrow. Um, that was a slogan that that was voted on um by our our department directors as a tagline that we can use. And then moving forward, uh, we'll be working with Mark and and our communications um, for an
image and and how we can properly uh, use um, the branding for this program. So, next I'd like to get into the status of our of our capital improvement plan through quarter 1, um, which is is through December of 2026. Um, this pie
chart here, um, just shows, um, graphically where the different phases of those 53 projects fall. Um, so you can see a a large percentage of our projects right now are in that design or procurement phase. Um our goal as as we
continue into quarter two is to continue moving projects through the various phases. Um the the projects right now we have five that have not started. We want to get those started and and into the queue and then continue to move um the ones through design into active implementation and ultimately those ones
in construction towards closed and complete. And next I' I'd like to give um a little bit more detailed updates on the 10 projects that we have that are in the um implementation active construction phase. Uh first of which is our 36th
Avenue seaw wall replacement. Um this this falls under the strategic initiative for reliable infrastructure. Uh the budget for this was was $650,000. Um currently the construction contracts have been awarded. Um KM2 is going to be providing the seaw wall replacement and
then Harris McBurnernney is going to be um providing the roadway and drainage improvements. Um so the permits for this have been secured. Um some of the the construction materials, the the storm water inlet box structures have been delivered and are at our staging site. And right now um we're we're pending
Duke. They will be um relocating an electrical line that's impacted by the limits of our construction. Um, so once that line is relocated from 36 to to Casablanca, then the city work um will come in after. Um, so that's been a little bit of delay um that that we didn't um anticipate, but we do still
plan on completing this uh within our contract limits um for for May of 26. Next is our dune walkover replacements. Um this falls into the strategic initiative for recovery, resilience, and sustainability. Um, a few of these were damaged either by our 2024 storms or or
prior storms. Um, so we're looking at replacement at at seven different locations. Um, we did apply for a FEMA public assistance project where the funding there has been obligated. Um, the environmental permitting with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection is complete and we anticipate
starting construction within the next two weeks. Um, we did have our our meeting with our contractor yesterday um and and they're starting to lock in that date. So, we'll um we'll message that out to the public accordingly. Um separate from from the capital project, but another initiative that we're working on in the um walkovers is
evaluating where we need those those treadm um for for safety and and traction. And we'll um be replacing that at 16th Avenue as well as evaluating other locations um that that need some maintenance there. Next project is our facility uh building
repairs. Um so this was was mostly tied to storm damage and recovery. Um our estimated completion time frame here um for all of the buildings is is by summer of 2026. Um so at our u previous commission meeting we approved a change order for the Warren Webster um the Don
Vista and the rec center. Um so since we've we've locked in our schedules for those. Um the Warren Webster is scheduled to be completed in March. Uh the Don Vista in April and then the recreation and aquatic center in in May. um with the recreation center. We're
also working with our contractor um to consider some flood barrier mitigation at some of our um openings. So, we'll we'll be bringing that back to commission um for your consideration. And then our public services building um that one's lagging behind the others um because we're we're coordinating um the
storm damage improvements also with prior planned uh CIP improvements. Uh with the public services building, we anticipate starting that back in March and then completing uh by the end of July. our facility elevators rehabilitation
project. Again, this one uh falls in line with the uh recovery and and storm damage. Um the Dawn Vista, the work on that elevator is is complete. Uh we're still pending the community center, our fire station 23 as well as our public services. Um we we did have a long lead
time for some of the equipment and materials uh for those replacements. Um that material has has been secured by our contractor, so we're hoping to get underway with those shortly. um our contractor was on site last week um doing some measurements. So, we hope to have a schedule um soon that we can we
can communicate there. For our facility roof replacements, um a bulk of these projects are are completed. Um the one that's still hanging out there is our public service services building. Um right now, our engineer and the contractor are going back and forth on the uh roof truss
material submittals. Um so once that's approved um we'll we'll get those delivered and then start on on that project. We are utilizing the same engineer and architect um that designed the public services um roof raising project that was that was done prior to the storm. Um so we're utilizing them as
as we um join up our our storm repairs with the the plan CIP improvements for for raising that roof. Um next uh is the Gulf Boulevard utility undergrounding project. Um this one is tied to community prosperity as the
strategic initiative. Um currently we are underway with phase one. Um that's from 55th Avenue to 75th Avenue. Um the city's portion of that construction which was installing the underground conduit. That part is complete. Um where we're at in the project right now is the
franchise utilities um Spectrum. They need to remove their equipment off of Duke's old poles. Um once that old equipment is removed, then Duke can come behind, remove their old poles and then and then the new um system will be um completely online. Um that the plan for
that timing with the franchise utility removing their equipment and then Duke removing their pole was initially planned for um the beginning of of 2026. There has been some delay in that. The latest we've been told is is spring 2026. Um but as we get a more concrete um time frame, we we'll from Spectrum
and Duke will will communicate that. Um, one thing that I'd like to note is phase two, uh, which is the portion from 35th Avenue to 55th Avenue, is currently in design, um, review for permitting with the Florida Department of Transportation.
Um, they they have some, um, they they've objected to our current design that we've submitted where we have, um, some of the underground conduit due to constraints with utilities that are outside of the roadway. We were locating some of that conduit underneath the roadway pavement. um and and that's
something that DOT has pushed back on. So, we have submitted a formal request to the state that they re-evaluate that determination in hopes that we can keep um the permitting of that project move forward um so we can move that towards construction. Um it's important to note that that the um the tourist development
tax money um is is tied to this project and and needs to be, you know, spent and reimbured for this project. So, we'd like to to get that permit in hand from DOT so we can continue um in the future with phase two. Next is our pump station one uh
rehabilitation project. Um this one is tied to reliable infrastructure. So we did have some storm damage but again this was a CIP project um based on the end end of use for life and and the infrastructure needs um that we were going to do a major rehabilitation here. Um, we did hold a publicformational
meeting on on the 21st of January, um, where where citizens could come in and and ask questions of our staff and get some information on anticipated construction impacts. Um, the phase one portion of this project was completed in November of 25. Um, that included some early utility work, um, some force main
installation, um, Duke's um, installation as as well as some, uh, other electrical preparation and then material delivery um, from the site. Now we are currently in phase two and that'll continue through July of 2026 and this is the bulk of the construction on this project. This is where we'll
demolish the existing well um remove the pumps. The odor control system um has just recently um been demolished as of a couple weeks ago. Um we do have um some mitigation measures installed there to help control the odor um odor while we're in this phase two. Um but we do
anticipate um that the lift station will be running on a bypass and will not have that permanent odor control um for through for that duration um in into July. Um from that period um at July all the new equipment will be installed other than the um the new generator. Um
as we know that that generator was a long lead item and is anticipated to be delivered in September or October. Um so our contractor would complete a bulk of their work in July and then they would return um once that generator is delivered um complete that installation as well as um some of the landscape um
buffering um that that will be um buffering that equipment from from the neighboring properties. Uh we do anticipate a a future change order um for phase two improvements. The phase two improvements include um the landscape buffering and some of the items that that weren't brought forth in
the original May contract, but are tied to the C um conditional use permit for this project um and and was planned for and budgeted with our fiscal year 26 CIP. Our shuffle board building, um this one is is about ready to be um demolished.
We um our contractor has stated they can do this the second or third week in February. Um so we're just working with them to to lock down a date. Um that contract has been awarded to PAW. U we have recently completed our asbestous survey. Um that was done by Northstar.
And then Roland completed the utility disconnects. Um so right now we just need to lock in that that date for Paul so they can go out there and we can communicate that to the to the public. Um we did hold a public feedback meeting on the 15th of January um just to get
some feedback and ideas um from the community to see what what they would want for a structure um to be um be in its place here moving forward. Um so we got a lot of great feedback and and appreciate um the community showing up for that meeting. Our next steps moving forward would be to advertise a
solicitation for the design permitting instruction uh further replacement structure based on the feedback that we received um at that public meeting. Next, I'd like to get into our wastewater collection system improvements. Um, so this is the bulk of the the projects that will be addressing
our our underground gravity system and um be prioritized for um reducing our inflow and infiltration. Um so we have issued two different purchase orders um to our utility contractor Roland. Uh 250,000 went to pipe point repairs and another 250,000
for manhole rehabilitations. And then we've also ordered um new manhole ring and cover replacements uh for those structures that needed replacements. And with those we're putting in um shield pans that go inside the structure to help rain um that that from getting in into the structures, which should help
with our our INI. Um we do anticipate a new RFP um coming out soon that we'll take to commission for approval once a vendor is recommended for that and that will be for our wastewater um pipelining. Um, as I mentioned, um, the POS that we currently have issued right now for for
the repairs are, um, to Roland. We do, as you can see here on the, um, the pictures that we have here, um, this bottom one is a brick manhole structure. Um, this is located on Passover Way, um, down in 4th Avenue. Um, through our inspection and cleaning program, we've
identified this as a high priority for manhole replacement. Um, so that structure has already been ordered. Um so once that is delivered, we'll be installing that there on Passrow Way. Um this was an an area that we've identified um as well as the city of St. Petersburg as a hot spot for our
chloride um levels for the influent infiltration. The structure of this manhole doesn't actually have a bottom. So we notice as as high tides rise, you start to see water bubbling up at at the bottom of that structure. So that's definitely a priority to replace. Um the other image on this screen is a pipe on
Isisle Drive on on Vina Delmare. Um this was one during the inspection. We couldn't make it all the way through the pipe just because it was so clogged uh with with tuberculation. Um so we're hoping that we can clean this pipe and and get it back to its its functional use. Um but replacement may be needed.
Um so our first attempt will be to to specialty clean that pipe, see what the condition is. Um get the camera through the rest of the inspection and then determine if we need to um replace that or not. In addition to these two locations, we have identified five other um high priority needs for for point
repairs. Um so we're coordinating with with Roland to get that work scheduled so we can continue to to implement this project. And then our our wastewater system cleaning and inspection project. Um so in total as of as of publishing this agenda, we were about 12% complete. Um
our contractor has has begun work in the passive grow area, the Vina Delmare area, as well as Donsar and um Bella Vista. Um in total today, they've they've cleaned about 65,000 linear feet of pipe. Um about 62,000 of that is
mainline and then and then the rest of it is um the private laterals. Um they've been working at this for about uh 50 days now. So they they are making pretty good progress and we're continually working with our contractor on how we can report and and track the metrics um so we can better communicate
the status on on where we are at. Uh we are working with our contractor utilize a sewer AI platform. Um this has has been really good in helping us provide you know more time more real time data and tracking into into what the cleaning is is looking like. Um the traditional
method for evaluating um the the inspection video is to manually, you know, watch the video and each time a defect comes up, whether that's a crack um or a hole or or even, you know, seeing a cockroach in there, you stop the video, you log in, encode what that defect was, and then that that's how
your report's created. um utilizing the sewer ai platform, it relieves um a lot of that manual watching where where we've we we are still doing the manual review in tandem with the sewer AI so we can kind of test out and see how this this performs, but from what we're seeing um this performs just as good as
if not better than that than that manual review and is um a lot quicker and and also a lot cheaper. So, we're hoping this will be a long-term savings in a program that we can implement with the with the city um long term. And ultimately, as I mentioned, the goal is is just to improve our ability to to
track and report the progress on this, as well as having um long-term asset management and and uh CIP planning. And these next few slides, um this is just a simple um Gant chart format um example of our overall monthly schedule
for all of all of the 53 projects that we're tracking um organized by the project status. Um, and you'll notice that this is consistent with um the phases that we outlined uh recently in our strategic planning process and this schedule covers um through the end of
our fiscal year 26 uh which is September 2026. Uh this this schedule is maintained throughout the year by the city's project manager um along with the subject manager ex um subject manager expert support and uh we do plan on publishing this on on that public
dashboard that I mentioned um just for improved communication and and accountability and staff will will continue to refine this schedule um as we receive project schedules from our consultants and our consultants and continue to issue more
POS uh we we'll get this more locked And a copy um of this example was provided with your agenda backup. Um and at the end of this presentation, I'll be um open to answer any questions on on either the format of this of this schedule or any um specific projects
that you'd like additional info on. Um and if I'm not able to help, I I'll make sure we get in touch with our our project management team so we can we can follow up. Um next, I would like to share the status on um some of our current discretionary grant funding. Um so
again, this isn't um our FEMA funding. This isn't um appropriations or earmarks. This is just um the competitive discretionary grant programs um that that the city applies for. Um so currently we're managing about $5.2 million in in active grants. Um it's
important to note here the the pump station one reconstruction project for for $2 million. We have received that funding um which is which is part of the um the budget for that that pump station one project. And now we're in the phase of um tracking the return on investment
which that that'll be a 10-year process um to track that ROI. Our vulnerability assessment project there um that $64,000 we have received acceptance and close out from FD. So we're hoping to receive the the uh reimbursement on that project soon. And
then the other projects listed on this sheet are um currently project uh pending project completion before we can submit for the reimbursements. Next, I'd like to share on some of the submitted grant applications um that that our city is tracking. Um currently,
we have about $13.8 million in in total requested grants that that we've sent out recently. Um what you can see on this screen here is mainly tied to the hazard mitigation grant program uh through the Florida Division of Emergency Management. So, a lot of these are tied to to storm damage, hurricane
Selen, and Melton. Um each of these projects are on our local mitigation strategy um that's approved by Penllis County. And then this slide is just a continuation of of those submitted grant applications um that the city has worked
on. I would note um the the grant listed here at the bottom, the DOSAR resiliency. Uh we applied for D through Resilient Florida. Um unfortunately we we were not awarded the grant um this year um for that project but we will continue uh moving forward as as we get
further along with the designs and on that project. Um I am happy to announce that we have been awarded $335,000 um from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection um through the Resilient Florida program for a shoreline master plan and a
vulnerability assessment update. Um the goal with this project is is we did we have ve um several different tasks that we outlined in that grants um assessment, but um a main point is our vulnerability assessment, getting that up to the latest state statutes um so we make sure we're in compliance to receive funding and then also developing a
shoreline master plan that evaluates the condition of of all of our private shorelines around the city. Um we did do a public shoreline assessment back in 2021. Um so this helps fill in in that gap and will help guide resiliency projects uh moving forward u with our capital improvement plan.
And then the other 10 project or grants are are still pending review. And then um this slide here just shows um at a high level some of the future and anticipated grants um that that are uh that we're tracking and plan to apply for um as they come a available. Um,
this isn't an allex exhaustive list. As we continue um to receive different grant opportunities, uh, we're continually evaluating and and adding to this list and seeing which which is a best fit for the projects in our plan. Next, I'd like to to give an overview on
on currently where we're at with the FEMA public assistance projects. Um, specifically with Hurricane Helen and Hurricane Milton. Um so as you can see here for for Helen we have 74 projects and for Milton we have 10 or 12 projects. Um when we note here total
cost um that is the dollar amount that FEMA has estimated for approval um after insurance deductions and and as the projects go through their review process and and they do their own cost estimating. Um the the amount obligated that is the amount that has been awarded
for for reimbursement and has worked its way through through all of the steps. And then the pending is what's still under u review. A majority of those pending projects are in the environmental and historical preservation um review with FEMA. Next, I'd like to highlight our fiscal
year 26 appropriation request. Um so from the state, you'll see we had the fire station 22, our Paso Growway uh wastewater and and ini and then Bokea Drive reconstruction. Um our our strategy here based on recommendations from our state lobbyists was to target
projects that were in the 1 to3 million dollar range. Um they they advised to finish out um our fire station 22 um since those had been previous requests in the past. Um they recommended a targeted area for wastewater improvements. Um so based on the data that we had on hand uh we knew that we
had some priorities down in that pass area. Um so that that's why we targeted that area. And then also um they they recommended a a CIP need that also demonstrated some economic benefit. Um so with the the Bokea SAGA drive reconstruction, we tried to fit fit that
um that window with that project. Um currently as as our previous presentation, we did not have any federal requests, but we will work with Becker um to work on some ear marks and and get some projects into the pipeline there. Um so I thank you for for the opportunity tonight to to give to give
an update here. Um, you know, really our our big our big goal is is to be more communive um and and really share what the status of these projects are and getting feedback from our community. Uh, we do have a lot of great community members who are actively working with us
on on various different CIP projects and and it is really great to have that kind of input and buyin um from our community. So, we ask, you know, if you're interested in any of our CIP projects, please reach out and um and see how you can get get more involved. And and with that, I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Commissioner Robinson. >> Um, regarding the Gulf Boulevard uh project, the undergrounding. >> Yes. >> Um, with that budget of 1.4 million, if we were able to allocate that or was that a
grant? Was that a grant that was gi part of a grant? >> The 1.4 I believe is all general fund. >> So, it's general fund >> I believe. though. >> So, we would as a general fund item, we could use that um if we had decided that
that wasn't a priority and there were other areas that were more of a priority such as our wastewater, such as our storm water, um we could allocate that funds that we have towards those. Correct. >> Yes. I I believe if if that is um
general fund money and I will confirm that but um yes through through like a budget amendment process that that could be feasible >> just because I I question whether how much of a priority that is over the sewer system and the storm water system.
>> Understood. >> And then um you said the project tracker dashboard that would go live you you're thinking around next quarter. >> Yes. >> Okay. Sweet. Um that's awesome. I mean, that's a great program for us to have. I think that lends a lot of um uh
transparency and um answers a lot of questions for residents. Nice to see that. >> Thank you, >> Commissioner Resniki. I think you're going to have to resort like in school and just raise your hand so we can see you. >> I'll try to wave. I'm sorry. Um first,
thank you for for letting me be on online too and communicating. So, let me know if you don't hear me well. Um but to Camden um Mills uh first I want to I want to thank you for this presentation. Um I know we kind of I know I brought
this up on the priority work session about having a tool uh that showed transparency. So I feel like oh my gosh this is fast. Um but I think we were in sync. Um, but more that that we that you and I were in sync, I think that the
city manager and directors of the city are listening to what the residents are asking for, which is to have greater transparency to what is going on in the city and providing this public dashboard
tracker. And and I'm not sure if we've bought something yet or or it's in the works um in it, but it's something that is is crucial because um like we mentioned at the priority work session um we're not always all here, right? we
we could have changing staff or commission and to be able to provide the story of what's going on in the city um is important um as well as it being real time. you know, you went over 10 key
projects of the city. And if this was on that dashboard, that means um the commission, the mayor, uh any staff, any any resident could go to this dashboard and see what's going on in real time,
why things are delayed, how much it's costing, um if there's changes in an order, if there's a contingency, or um kind of like what Commissioner um Robinson just mentioned, of what the cost would be in this focus is on a
hold. Well, what does on hold mean? Does it mean we have to use it? You know, is it something that can be used in the future or can it be changed? So, you know, it it keeps the story moving. Um, but it also shows the great work that you all are doing because a lot of times
people don't understand that there are things going on that, you know, we're having issues with the sewer. Why aren't we doing anything? people people don't realize that your department is doing something right now. So um again kudos
uh for this um a question on the Gant um chart Camden is that something that's going to be integrated into this dashboard as well because even like the example of the Voca Siega um because it said you have it in a color uh on the
Gant as um hold would those colors be explained or or is that those GAN charts going to be integrated into this uh dashboard system? >> Yes. Yes. Our plan is to integrate a a Gant chart simple Gant chart format similar to this into that public
dashboard. >> That that would be wonderful. So again, thank you for the for the great presentation. >> Commissioner Maldonado, >> I would just add uh first of all, thank you uh for the information. Several questions on there that I had earlier
were addressed today and that's wonderful. And as the uh two previous commissioners stated, not only the transparency but also the accountability of the interactive dashboard is going to be critical. Uh the city manager and I just recently discovered that projects
do fall between the cracks. You know, prior to this commission, there was a couple things going on in Vina Delmare that we had to just go back and do a little bit of research and and it's going to happen. This is going to help eliminate and reduce those things. So, thank you for for making that a priority. So what was the street that's
impacted on Vina Delmare? >> Uh Pasil Way. >> You talked about Pasilway and Vina Del. >> Oh um Isisle Drive. >> Isle Drive. Okay. Thank you. >> Miss that part. And then also just a question with the landscape installation
here on the FOT highway landscaping. Are we performing that or is FDOT performing that work? >> We would be performing that. Um, so we do have a grant with FDOT where they would reimburse us um for that work up to an amount of I believe 184,000.
Um, so right now with that project, we have retained a landscape architect through our our CCNA um consultant library and they've uh prepared design plans. We've submitted those to FDOT for review and um we're waiting on feedback from from DOT before we hire a
contractor to do that installation, but that work is planned for this fiscal year. So that's essentially labor and material that they're covering. >> Yep. >> But we're doing the labor. >> No, we we'll have we'll we'll most likely hire a contractor for the labor for this one. >> Thank you for clarifying that. Thank
you. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Thanks, Camden. Um I have a a quick question. in the very beginning um on the the page that that listed out the uh the overview of the budgeted figures um I think you you made a comment that
you said that the FEMA FEMA reimbursements weren't included in in those numbers um and so then in later slides um when we were talking about the facility repairs and that sort of thing um that we potentially are
going to be getting some FEMA are or have gotten some FEMA a reimbursement for are is that on top is that paying for things that were on top of the budgeted numbers or no? So, so the budgeted numbers are the are the cost of the things that we're trying to do and
any FEMA reimbursements or any grants that we get that have not yet been accounted for, those will th those will make our total amount of money that we have to budget in future years less. Correct. >> Correct. they would help replenish some. So, we're we're funding the money up front. Yeah. And then as we do complete the projects, get the reimbursements,
come online, it would replenish those those balances. >> Okay, great. Thank you, >> Commissioner Robinson. >> What were the if you if you know uh the five other areas uh for point repairs? >> I don't know that off the top of my head. >> Okay. >> Um and then um we talked about INI and
you mentioned there were some residential that was repaired or looking to get repaired. Is that correct? Um, not not currently. No, I think I was referring to um some of the later laterals that we've inspected so far, >> right? That that have issues. Um, >> not yet. Majority of the issues we've
seen so far have been in in mainline gravity pipes. >> Okay, great. Um, and I guess I I just want to mention um I don't know if if maybe um we know from uh Brandon you would know um in our ordinances do we
require for new builds to do uh replacement on their laterals? >> No, we don't. Okay. Thank you. Um because I know I mentioned previously that that might be something that would help us in our INI situation, especially
now that we're getting more new builds than we've gotten before, especially in residential. Just want to put that out there again. Thank you. >> Thank you, Camden. Um I think it gives you great credit having
been on the job for just a little over a year. Um, I think this is about just about the most detailed presentation we've ever received. I mean, I'm not talking since I've been in office, but I'm talking in the history of the city. And we're
approaching 75 years, sorry, 70 years, uh, next year. Um, so I think that give there's great credit and great credit to your hiring, city manager. Um yeah, you you can clap for that because it's you know too many times just being in
government, right? It's the assumption is you've got a bunch of politicians that here at the end of the at the end of the day we're just residents doing a you know what's supposed to be a part-time community service uh here and you know money is being spent. 100
million comes in, 100 million goes out. Where does it go? Nobody knows what's the status of projects. you know, we've been working on this project for three years. You know, where is it going? Is anyone doing anything with it? And so, as many of the other commissioners have have said, and I'll echo that, is this
is about the most transparent public works department and city staff that we've had ever. And so I can tell you one, as a resident and as a taxpayer in the city, I certainly appreciate, I know many of our residents appreciate just to be able to see uh
exactly what's going on, where's the money going, where's the money coming from. Um, you know, just to kind of give everybody else a little bit of background before Camden had his handy dandy chart a couple of slides back where he had all the different projects
and what month it's coming out. It's not like we didn't have that. it was just on a whiteboard in somebody's office just sitting there and if I wanted to see it, if the city manager wanted to see it, um they would have to go into that dilapidated building that you all saw as one the project where the roof is being
replaced this year. And so now the way we have it structured, it's it's much more transparent for one. Uh there's also as some commissioners mentioned, there's a level of accountability because you can see exactly where in the process each project is. Is it on budget? Is it over budget? Is it on
time? Is it overtime? Um, and so it, you know, as a resident and as mayor, I certainly appreciate having those tools available now. Uh, so that when you all have questions, I can say, "Hey, let's go to the website. Let's take a look at it. Let's go to the project page. Let's find out exactly what's going on." So,
um, I thank you both of you for for the work that you've put in the last year to bring this to us and to the residents. So, thank you very much. Our next presentation is on town center 2. >> All right. Good evening, Brandon Barry
planner. This presentation's unchanged from the packet, so I'll I'll skim through. This is a followup to our meeting back in early November, I believe it was, on direction for potential modest modifications to the TC2 Coina West. That's a three block
area on the west side of downtown. The east side, the equivalent zoning is now accommodate or accounted for completely by the Cory Landings project. Um, we haven't seen the consolidation on the west side that we did see on the east side with the Cory Landings project. And we engaged the community back in
October. Spoke to the city commission on next steps back in November. And tonight's the pro proposal presentation for modifications that allow largely for standalone multifamily and temporary lodging under certain limitations. Looking forward, um, and I'll explain
this more in detail in a few moments, we're really looking at moving this forward through the middle part of this year. hopefully have a proposal to bring back for adoption in middle uh 2026. So, our goals with this was to have a narrow focus, allow limited development
and redevelopment of multif family and lodging uses. There are live local act considerations with the increasing of density within our city. It's not a limitation that we um have at the county level or at the state level, but it's certainly something that we need to be considerate of as we make these changes.
We did not look at increasing density within the district in this proposal. Um, we want to avoid significantly disincentivizing property consolidation from mixed use and preventing disruption of existing permissions that could be adverse to Senate Bill 180. The focus of
this project has been largely adding additional permissions, additional options without taking anything away. Um, our focus has been on preserving density, intensity, scale, and mass of the area. The area is one to two stories, accounting for the flood plan requirements that are currently applicable on new development. We would
look at a proposal that would limit redevelopment of the single lots in the area to a maximum of three stories and as I mentioned before no increase in allowable density. We also want something that's efficient to implement. Uh what's being proposed tonight that we'll work through with the community
and the planning board is conceptualized to undergo expedited state and county review. This is a current use mix. Um it's it's kind of a unique um layout for the city. We don't really have any areas that look like this outside of the TC2 west. We
see some of it on Blind Pass Road with commercial and then the residential to the west and east. Um as well as in the center of Corey, we do have some residential adjacent to commercial which is in red. Uh yellow being the residential. But seeing this mix where
you have the commercial next to residential next to office isn't something that we see in high frequency elsewhere in the city. Um especially outside of Pastor Grillil. This is something that we when we went to the community meeting back in October, the community did want to keep. They want to preserve this mix um over on the west
side of downtown. So, looking at potential use amendments, we are proposing to look at allowing for standalone multifamily residential uses. That would be multifamily only, similar to what we have in our resort facilities medium district. It used to be the um
standard for most of the properties on the west side as well as going down Gulf Boulevard and what's now our large resort and boutique districts. Um this would allow for the townhouse style multifamily condo projects. We do have one on the west end of 76th Avenue, a
Jan Hideway. Um it would not allow for standalone individually owned townhouse uses. As mentioned before, we'd be looking at a maximum of three stories, two stories over parking, a density of 18 units per acre by right. That would be for those smaller single property
multifamily uses. And I'll talk a bit about the make whole provisions for that density in a few minutes. Looking at the floor area, and I'll show a chart in or a map in just a moment. Um, most of the properties in the area have living unit sizes of between 400 and 600 square
feet. we'd be looking at about an 800 square foot cap for those standalone multif family uses or existing living square footage plus 20%. They work out to be about the same for the for the average unit in that area. We would still implement the zoning requirements looking for on-site parking and
landscaping buffers and with this being in the downtown we would look at those design criteria coupas gables and so on as well as the implementation of green building standards upon redevelopment. So looking at what is typically included in living square footage without getting
too far into technical details. Living square footage is usually the habitable space in a building. It would be the bedroom, the kitchen. Um it would also include bathrooms. Those are typically considered non-habitable space. It would not include stairs plus minimum landings. It would also not include that
ground floor parking storage and access and any exterior feature that is not walled like an exterior balcony. So looking at the area, looking at average living square footage uh per unit, you can see there's a lot of variation. Some of the newer
developments, the larger developments are well into the thousand square foot range. Um but most of the properties, especially those multifamily properties have a square footage of under 800 square ft. So setting that 800 square foot cap for living square footage upon
redevelopment or existing plus 20% would be beneficial for most of the properties in the area. There is a mean average of 622 square ft per living unit in this district. Looking at the standalone lodging, we do
have two current lodging projects that have operated at least prior to the storm as lodging. We do have a use that previously operated as lodging. I believe in recent years has been operated as short-term or sorry long-term rentals. Um we have a similar concept in the UN Beach Village
neighborhood just south of here where effectively the city allows for existing lodging developments to redevelop. This would allow for standalone redevelopment for example of the Bellis Arena Inn. It would not allow for new lodging developments except mixed with uh
commercial and office the ground floors to allow for those multifamily vertical mixes that are currently promoted by the comprehensive plan and land development code. There would be similar zoning and design requirements, similar floor area limitations, unit size plus 20% to allow
for those livability updates. And then looking at the mixeduse development, those Corey Landing size projects, not that um we have the acreage on the west side to really allow for that without vacation of roadways, but there are many more parcels to
accommodate and and assemble on the west side than there were for the Corey Landings project. I believe there were eight parcels for the Corey Landings project. The three blocks on the west side have between 12 and 15. So, it's it's more difficult to assemble those property and get up to that 1.8 acres
that we currently require for mixeduse development. This proposal would reduce uh likely to about an acre the threshold for that mixeduse development, but it would also lower that height down to 50 feet above base flood elevation. This is just an idea. Uh it's something we would
work through with our planning board with the commission on first rating, but this would still incentivize at a lower development requirement, the consolidation of property to allow for that mixed use, either a lodging or a residential above a commercial and office ground floor. Um but it would
reduce that height to account for the fact that um the developer is not consolidating the entire block. And again, this would be an additional permission. And this would not take away the full block consolidation permission that is currently in the code and comprehensive plan.
So there's a few challenges I wanted to cover with you briefly, especially for those single lots, those 53 and a half to 50 by 100 foot lots that we have in the district. Parking is a challenge, especially for redevelopment on those buildings that face Corey Avenue. Uh
currently we do have those build two requirements and I'll give a schematic in a second to show what the challenge with this might be. We are proposing with the multifamily developments that we allow for a limited amount of front yard parking when the property does not face Corey Avenue. So when they're along
75th, 76th or 73rd, they would be allowed that front yard parking up to three spaces. So the limit uh the the the minimum number of units that would constitute multifamily above that parking would need to be on the site either under the building or in the side
or rear of the lot. Looking at density just to pair this down um as I mentioned previously we would look at a cap of likely 18 units per acre. That would preserve that 24 unit per acre incentive to promote that multifamily mixeduse consolidation.
Um, there is a lot of variation. I'll skip to this map so I can show it. There is quite a bit of variation throughout the district in units per acre. Many of the properties have upper 20s uh down to the lower 40s. We do have some properties that get as high as over 50
units per acre. There's really no threshold. There's no ability to set a buy right density that would make all of these properties whole and able to redevelop if that's even viable on the property size that they have. 18 units was proposed as a
um incentive to keep that 24 units per acre in the mixeduse redevelopment. But one of the benefits um that came out of the Corey Landings project that could benefit the west side of downtown is that of those 150 units that were allocated back in 2022,
125 of those units went back into the pool. less than onethird of those units that have been added back into the pool wouldn't be needed to provide full parody on the west side in terms of redevelopment of the density that exists today. So those units that have been reallocated through the approval of that
project are now available if we would like to see redevelopment on the west side. It would still be an an ordinance allocation. and it would come forward to the commission for approval um prior to redevelopment, but that is an option to provide a makehole option for those property owners over on the west side of
downtown who want to redevelop with multifamily. Um we also have the expected challenge of noise. As I mentioned before at the community meeting, we did hear positive feedback from the community from property owners in the neighborhood who were interested in preserving that
horizontal mix. But as properties are sold as multifamily and lodging are redeveloped adjacent to commercial uses, that is a consideration we need to take into account. So I just wanted to give a few um example schematics of the development
that you could be seeing over on the west end of downtown if this were an option that were to be ultimately approved. Uh this would be an example of a lot on 76th Avenue, three-unit multifamily, 2400 square feet uh building that would be a parking access
on the ground floor and then one living level above. Three units would be allowed three front yard parking spaces. They would still have the buffer requirements, the green space that would be required by the code. Because this is not on Corey Avenue, they don't have that build to requirement that the
properties along Corey do. Uh this would be an example on Corey Avenue. they have that 10-ft build to line. You would likely have more of a townhouse style development just due to the limitation on height. Uh the requirement for that building to be moved close to the property. You would likely see the parking under the
building. And this just shows one of the challenges with parking on lots of that size. It is something we'll have to work through with the planning board, potentially get some consultant help on. Um a compact car would likely be able to pull out on a driveway on this lot. A larger truck or SUV would have a little
bit more of a challenge. So, in terms of general comments, um, as I mentioned before, we're attempting to only generate modest and viable makehole options for residential and lodging property owners. We want them to be able to build back. Um, we don't want to completely change the vision for the
district or or really modify those those upper bounds that we currently have on height, density, setbacks, lot coverage, and so on. the Florida law um even looking past Senate Bill 180 Burch Harris Act makes it very hard to take back beneficial development rights once
they're given if they can be taken advantage of if someone has made an investmentbacked um an investment in their property and taking advantage of those rights it's difficult to take them back. So we felt that it was better to start strict and logically relax regulations as
development takes shape when the potential end results are nebulous. These modifications are intended only as first steps in what what might be a future community redevelopment district proposal or larger, more visionary land use reconsiderations. Those are much more substantial community-led um
visioning sessions that would be above the scope of what we're looking at here. We will definitely be engaging the community as we work through the planning board, as we work through next steps, but this is not um predicated on that that long-term visioning that we might look at with the community redevelopment district. This concept has
not been rigorously tested for economic parody. We don't want to create a situation in which residential or commercial crowds out the other. We do want there to be balance as something that was promoted by the community at that community forum. So that's something we'll be looking at moving forward. And just as we have protection
for our residential areas, we want to make sure that we protect our commercial and mixeduse areas as well. So, in terms of next steps, we're really just looking for a thumbs up to move forward on this or any um input on items we might have missed or or misconstrued.
If we are directed to proceed, we'll work with our planning board and refining the concepts, work with the community, likely in a forum format as well as a um a work session with the planning board, bring back a first draft for action prior to review by Ford Penllis with the county and Florida
Commerce, which reviews our comprehensive plans with the state. Um we have met with Ford Penllis in early December. We expect the draft concept is currently proposed would proceed under an expedited staff level review. There's no increase to intensity or intensity.
We're not introducing discouraged uses under the county plan. And it does this does not qualify for a smallcale amendment under the state review. It's the second fastest review. It's not a a longer much more arduous coordinated review. So, this is something we think
that we could probably work through with both the county and the state in about 90 days. And we would like to bring back those refined amendments to you in mid 2026. That's all I have. I'm happy to receive feedback and as I mentioned, we're really just looking for a thumbs up or down to move forward with the planning
board and the community on refining these concepts. Thank you. >> Thank you, Brandon. Commissioner Marriott. >> Thanks, Brandon. Um, first I want to say thank you so much for you and the rest of the planning staff on doing just such a really thorough, careful, thoughtful
job of this. Um, I know that the the property owners in the area really appreciate it and uh um you know, I think it's clear that the the zoning that was there um to incentivize a certain kind of development, it it wasn't happening. So So I'm glad I'm
glad we're working to to to come up with some options to make that, you know, that section of of of downtown and that section of St. Pete Beach get get some investment. Um and so I really appreciate that. Um, I think this is a a really fantastic plan. I don't see
anything that I would significantly change for it on it. Um, I'm sure that the property owners in that in that area are going to have some feedback, but I think the process going forward allows for lots of feedback. So, um, so I think it's it's I think it's really a great uh
a great path forward and I really appreciate it. >> Thank you. How many of those are single family homes? I believe we have two single family sorry I'm sorry three three single family homes. The 8.1s on the map are
single family. >> Are those though? Not the the ones that don't have it on. Aren't those single family homes? I mean, go to the current mix, the current use mix diagram. Maybe I'm reading it wrong.
the one over by the vacant lot behind the vacant lot over here. The one in front of the condos on 76. The two along 75th that are residential/ rentals. The 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 um between 74th and
73rd. Are those not >> They're not single family. >> They're not single. So there's only two single family homes in the whole area. >> Three, >> I believe we have three. and they're residential, but they are they are duplex and multif family. >> Okay. The rest of >> um I I asked because it says it's
prohibited. So, you know, I just want to be clear on that. The duplexes, anything existing where therefore be prohibited >> and they they are currently prohibited. Um that was something we were beginning to discuss with a member of the community whether we could relax those
standards as well. Not necessarily from a redevelopment standpoint, but just in terms of an addition or improvement standpoint, that's certainly something we'll look at. But in terms of Sorry. >> Yeah, because we're offering that in the lodging side, but then we're not offering it on the single family side
>> because you said um on lodging they can rebuild but not redevelop. Correct. that they would be eligible to red if they if they were seeking to redevelop with the lodging use, they could redevelop with their existing unit count, a slight increase in size of the
units in the development, but they they would always have the option to rebuild as a commercial use or residential use if they chose to do so for the lodging. >> Okay. Just I just want to make sure what we're getting rid of. And then on the vacant ones, the the ones that are
listed as vacant, the one two three uh four properties, do we know if those were residential? If those are uh they're white, they're listed in white. the one that's furthest to the bottom of the furthest to the
bottom left of the map on 73rd. So, the furthest west white box on 73rd that was previously single family. >> Okay. >> And is now vacant and the rest of them were not single family. >> The rest of them were multifamily or
commercial. And um the one that the demo >> the demo one >> that was multif family >> multif family as well. >> Okay. Just I just wanted a better understanding what those were. Okay. And then um
on the density pool just to understand just for clarity under residential density pool um SPA1 you have TC2 Cookina West redevelopment 113 units remaining but you also have
TC2 Cookina West um at 245. So that >> can you explain the difference to me? >> Yes. So the the residential density pool that would be 37 units allocated out of what we currently have as um available in the pool to allow for redevelopment
of the residential uses if they were all seeking to redevelop as residential. That's what we would be looking at in terms of density pool allocation. The 16 that is for existing lodging uses in the district if they were to do the same redevelop with the same unit count.
That's how many units the city would have to allocate out of the pools to um to make make them whole at the current unit count. So that would be 37 out of the residential density pool, 16 out of the lodging pool. >> Okay, great. Thank you.
>> And then oh sorry I had one more question on the turning radius. Did we use auto turns on that? I see a vehicle graphics or did we >> that was a uh National Transportation
Institute I believe um guide that I that I scaled off. We'll we'll have more technical guides to work through with the planning board. That was just an example. It's just something we need to need to be considerate of. So >> is that I'm assuming that's true to scale then? >> Yes. Yes, it was true to scale.
>> Okay, great. Thank you, >> Commissioner Maldonado. >> Yeah, great work. Uh I like that. You know, a lot of this came out of the TC2 forum that, you know, it was a dialogue, not just a driven discussion where input was sought in looking ahead and looking
at the challenges. Obviously, it's impossible to encapsulate or capture everything, but as Commissioner Marriott said, it's a great pivot point to start and then make adjustments as necessary. So, thank you, >> Brandon. Can you go to the previous slide, please?
Okay. So, this is in a scenario where you're doing town houses, correct? So, this would be parking on the first floor and then you'd have second and third floor on top of that. Is the 800 square ft per living floor or 800 square feet
total for both floors? That would be total per unit. So, that would be both floors together. We the proposal and this is something we'll work through with the planning board on would be to exclude the minimum circulation space when they do have two living levels that would be excluded but any other living
space would be included between the two floors. Okay. I I think this is going to be challenging. Um what is the do we know how many feet we have? So
we've got 70 ft by 27 feet. Yes. Correct. Okay. >> So in this in there, this is essentially all that would fit on this lot. That was what I was at least able to come up with that would allow for uh
it's potent potentially the building could be expanded more to the the right side. So they could potentially pick up another 10 feet or so on the right side there and meet the setback standards. But with the green space lot coverage uh requirements and so on, this was what I
could fit into the the lot. It it is going to be a challenge on Corey Avenue. The the good thing about that is the the incentive still there, but we do see most of our um residential development not on Corey Avenue. That's where the commercial tends to be. So if there were
to be a multif family or a mixeduse project on Corey, m might be multiple lots and that really frees up a lot of the space on the lot for parking and so on. So, I guess I'm just I have a challenge with the 800 square feet >> maximum living space because
even even 1,200 square feet,500 square feet, I think I'm not sure it's a viable product. I'm not sure that you know when you look at areas that do so areas that are similar to you know to
so if you look at like the u you know Soho High Park District in South Tampa right so they have similar size lots and you see this particular thing very common right where they do you know three units four units town houses very similar garage on the bottom
two living floors on top. I think the vast majority of those are in the 2,000 square foot range. And so I'm not sure that gosh having having 400 square feet I mean you all live in houses, right?
It's like 400 square feet is like >> Yeah. That's not very big. And so when when you try to squeeze in three two bedrooms >> I mean it's you can't even squeeze two bedrooms on the third floor for example. So, these are going to be primarily
onebedrooms. And then again, who's who's going to want to buy 800 foot? I mean, it's going to be nice. It's going to be new. It's great. Um, I think this is going to be like that 800 square f feet. I'm just asking that you take a deeper look at the 800 feet. >> Absolutely. >> I'm not sure if there's an an option to break it out and say, look, for town
houses, maybe we can do something else. >> Um, you know, I I want to make sure we keep the density where it is. So, I appreciate the fact that we're not looking at increasing density at all. Um, but we also, you know, it's if we're going to offer an incentive, it ought to
truly be an incentive, not something that somebody looks at and says, "Well, thanks for the offer, but nobody wants this." Um, so, so maybe just having a So, I'm not sure if we can even break it out and just say, "Look, for town houses, you're allowed to do a little bit extra, >> okay, >> living room square footage." I'm not
sure if that's an option or not. Um, and we just want to make sure that if we offer something, it's actually commercially viable that that somebody might actually take us up on the offer. >> Commissioner Murriott, >> um, yeah, I appreciate your comments about the the size of the the size of
the units. I think that's a that's a point well taken. Um, and this is, I think, where more public comment and public input as we go forward is going to be really important. Um, you know, one of the things that came up in some prior discussions about this and and it was even in the slide, you know, we want
to be careful about having residential encroach too much on the commercial. Um, and one of the things that that this does particularly on Corey Avenue where you're where you're limiting the the the unit size is that it more incentivized
something that would be more of an apartment type of development than a than a condo or a townhouse townhouse type of development that somebody would own. Um, and in an area where we're trying to have a little bit of a buffer between single family residential a couple blocks away and then commercial
development where you have restaurants and bars and that sort of thing going on. um you know having that that other kind of multifamily residential that's more apartments and uh and rentals um I think is a really good way of of of buffering that a bit and then also
keeping some of the um the apartment rental and apartment uh stock that we have in St. Pete Beach so that you know some people who work out here can potentially you know live out here as well without having to you know buy a town home or own a condo. So, um, so I
think I think that is something we probably want to, you know, need to look at carefully, but I think that that's something that we need to get continue to get a lot of public input about as well. >> Commissioner Robinson, >> I'm just wondering why did we not allow the duplex because this the 800 square
feet is is really tiny. I mean, I've got a row house up in Pittsburgh that's 950. So, uh, or excuse me, 900. So, it's 450 a floor and it's small. I mean, the bedrooms are tiny and it's one bathroom and your living room and your your
kitchen are basically right next to, you know, they're right there. So, >> because you have to put stairs in there, too. >> Sure. >> To get up to the other floor >> and that takes up a large amount. >> Understood. And we could definitely um we can look at average townhouse size for new development and all. We can look
at those as we work forward with the planning board. Um I think that the intent was really to keep the the scale of the area. So, I think we'd probably still be looking at the three stories, but as I showed in the previous example, you could get a whole another story on top of that. That would be 4,800 square
feet based on the prior example. Um, in terms of the living square footage, we it was really just generated out of the the average for the existing area. I understand that's largely below what would be permitted um or desirable
today. So, we'll work through that. >> Thank you. Thank you, Brandon. Thank you. >> Excuse me, mayor. I do have a public comment on this presentation if you want to take it. >> We >> Oh, she said she's good.
>> Has the very first of the public comments now. >> She said she's good. Thank you. >> Okay. All right. So, next we move on to general audience comments. Do we have any? >> Kathy Garshaw. >> If you'll please state your name and
address for the record. Kathy Gara, 367 Casablanca Avenue. So, good evening and um thanks for giving me an opportunity to talk to you tonight. Um I just had a couple of items. I think you know we're all learning different things as we've been going along in particular the last
18 months. Um one item just came up and uh I am I have uh already spoken a bit with some of the staff. So, um I just wanted to make you all aware because it might be something as a commission that you want to take some action on. One, it
it's um that we don't have a So, I'll I'll actually show a quick picture. So, this just is a a an image and I had taken a picture of this because as um maybe we know there's a lot of demolition happening and uh apparently
we don't currently have a city code that um requires repairs for damages like this from uh resulting construction work. Um maybe it's not, you know, it's not like a negligent thing. it's just accidents happen. But in terms of uh
supporting maybe a more rapid process for the way that we can recoup the kind of costs that we're going to incur for things like that, I think that would be something that would be beneficial to incorporate in our codes. So I wanted to share that. Um the other one is just
about also codes. Um I think a lot of us are doing a lot of uh improvements and one of the things that I don't think is in our code and it had did come up I think with the previous commissioner when when uh Joe was on um about the
idea of seaw walls and uh for those when a homeowner has a seaw wall that is in disrepair that if they're going to do a substantial improvement just like I know with my home you have to bring your everything up to a particular land
development code. Um it would seem wise to me to really be looking at that as a commission and evaluating how do we incorporate that because if I have to put in five trees and in remove all my rock and put all this irrigation in and
put all the you know everything else in that's tens and tens of thousands of dollars. I would think that the same thing would apply if I were a homeowner on waterfront to say, "Please help us stabilize our shoreline." So, I'd really love to see this commission have a serious conversation about that. Thank
you. >> Thank you, Kathy. >> Josh Wilhelm, >> if you'll please state your name and address for the record. >> Sure. Thanks, Josh Wilhelm. Uh, I live at 8051 Coina Way and, uh, I'm actually here to talk about the end of Coina Way.
If anybody knows that end of it, um it's the northern most end. I believe >> there's a circle there. There's a culde-sac, but for some reason they built this tree structure in the culde-sac. And sorry, that picture is not
>> So anyways, this is my house here. This is where everybody drives over my landscaping on a daily basis. This is about 10 ft wide. Trucks can't fit through there every single day. They're stuck in there. There's trailers jammed up in there. And there's they're driving
across my yard hitting these trees. For what reason? This big circle is blocking the culde-sac. I don't know. Maybe it worked back in the day. Um, but gar trucks has to back all the way down the road to get to us. I mean, deliveries are a mess and we have two houses that are about to be actually three houses.
Two are, I think, demolished and rebuilt and the other one's going up and it's going to be a disaster down there. So, what we're trying to do, and I finally got the guys to put a curb in, you can see it's brand new there after three years of asking with a mud pit and people driving through what the city considers my front yard, which shouldn't
be my front yard, but that's what they call it because of the rules here. So, anyways, that was the first thing. I don't know how we get something done about it, but it's not functional. So, you they need to remove the culde-sac or make it the street much bigger down there. It's a major problem. I've talked to all my neighbors. They all said the
exact same thing. They totally agree with it. That's my first point. The rest real quick. Uh, this is another somebody dropped a piece of junk table down there. It's an eyes sore. How people get away with this, I have no idea. I think it should be removed. Somebody shouldn't just get to throw their old furniture
down there. It's right next to my house. It's an eyes sore and there's no reason for it. And lastly, and sorry, I just have to get this one out of my way. I don't know if anybody's talked about the beach beacon before. They throw their garbage in my yard. I have four properties on St. Pete Beach. I'm tired
of picking it up. I called in, complained about it, and said, "Why can people drive around our neighborhoods and throw garbage that we don't want on our streets?" I was told that our city attorney said that it could be a blockage of freedom of speech, which I can't understand how that could be. That
would mean anybody can throw any garbage anytime they want on somebody's street and say that's freedom of uh speech. So, I don't know how we get something done about it. It's a waste of paper. It's a total waste and it's very frustrating for me. I tried to call them, tried to unsubscribe. I tried to do everything I
could. So, I sent a letter to this lady who I guess they're trying to get Christmas cards sent to or something like that and said, "Cease and desist or I'll take legal action." But I think as a city, we should stop people from littering. I find them all over the streets all the time as well. >> Josh, if you don't mind, um, city
manager, would you mind giving him a card and if you can send an email with the first two items and those addresses? >> Sure. >> So, we can take a look at it. >> Great. Sounds good. >> Especially that park bench if we didn't put it there. it doesn't belong there and if it's a hazard. >> Yeah. >> Thank you.
>> Steve Su. >> Good evening. If you'll please state your name and address for the record. >> Uh Steve Su. >> Okay. >> Uh 8050 Coina Way. I live right across the street from Mr. Wilhelm. Uh I I'm not going to take long. I I everything
he said I agree with. I'm a neighbor. Uh, you know, I very thankful that the garbage collectors uh come down the street backwards to get to us because I'm, you know, especially when all the vehicles are on the road because of construction, it's tight for them to get through. And
I I just shake my head sometimes and congratulate them for a great job that they do. But getting rid of that, we call it the big park. It's threequarters the size of the of the culde-sac itself needs to go. and then we get deliveries and everything else
down there. It's time. So, thanks. Appreciate your time. >> Thank you, sir. >> That's all I have for general. >> Next, we move on to the consent agenda. Is there a motion to approve the consent
agenda? >> I move to approve the consent agenda. I second. >> City clerk, if you'll please do a roll call. Commissioner Maldonado, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Marriott, >> yes. >> Commissioner Robinson, >> yes. >> Commissioner Resniki,
>> Mayor Pat, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you. Next, we have ordinances. Final reading of ordinance 2026-01. >> Honored to read the first ordinance of the year. This is an ordinance of the
city of St. Pete Beach amending the St. Pete Beach Land Development Code sections 2.1 3.10 6.13 6.14 6.22 7.4 28.1 and 28.5 to increase front yard
stair encroachments for specified residences allowed retention of non-conforming balcony footprints and specified non-conforming residential accessory structures following substantial improvement to the primary residence. Clarify restrictions on
non-conforming uses and amend restrictions on elevated and substantially improved non-conforming structures. Modify residential storage building standards. Modify residential equipment setback standards. Provide a front yard setback line alternative for
residential culdeacs and curved street lots. and amend definitions and content of the land development code to provide clarity and consistency with chapter 98 of the code of ordinances and the Florida building code providing for severability codification and scriveners
errors providing for an effective date ordinance 2026.01. >> Thank you. So, as I mentioned at the first reading of this ordinance, um this is largely a consolidation of what came forward to you at late last year. Um addressing all the items in the title of the ordinance,
as well as addressing some of the states, uh requirements and recommendations for better alignment of our land development code with chapter 98 of the code of ordinances as well as the Florida Building Code. It's been over 20 years since we've really done a pass through our land development code,
so some of the terms and references were out of date. We did take this item to the planning board yesterday at their regular meeting. They did recommend it at a vote of five to zero to the city for commission for approval. However, they did have um two recommendations and
a condition for approval. The first was to revise the transparency requirement for the base of open stairs to be consistent throughout the document at 70%. That had just been a staff error. Um it was 80% in one area of the document. I made it 70% consistently
throughout the document. They also asked that the one-year redevelopment requirement for non-conforming density residences and non-conforming accessory structures that are not substantially damaged following a catastrophic event to be based upon the date of permit application rather than permit issuance.
If a permit's applied for, if it's deemed complete, if it's kept valid during that period of time, they would need to do perform that action within a year instead of get a permit. If it takes three or four months to work through permitting, they wanted um that would not pose a challenge to the the
property owner in that regard. They did also um all five members did condition their recommendation to the city commission on the removal of the permission for a 7- foot front yard encroachment for open stairs associated with new residential construction. That
is the amendment in this ordinance to land development code section 6.22C2. Uh they did support leaving in the permission for a 7- foot front yard encroachment for open stairs that are associated with home elevation or
conversion with vertical addition. So effectively turning the ground floor into parking, storage, and access and rebuilding the residence above the flood plane. We've seen both of those in pretty equal measure. They did recommend keeping that standard in um in section
or sorry division three. um but they recommended removing it from division six. So with that being said, um I did not make that change in this ordinance. I did want to present it to the city commission. If you're in agreement with a recommendation from the planning
board, I can certainly make that change. It would just be striking that permission out of land development code section 6.22. The preceding bulleted changes on the list that were left at your seats, um those have been changed within this
document. Happy to take any questions. >> Thank you, Brandon. >> Commissioner Robinson. >> So, one is just a typo. The the first one, >> correct? Yes. >> The second one is just a change from the
date of permit application to the per to the one year would start clock would start there. >> The one year, correct? It it was previously date of permit issuance. So that that one year would stop when the permit is applied for and deemed complete instead of when they actually
get the permit. So they wouldn't need to necessarily apply months in advance and then run into an issue where they don't get the permit issued in in time. That was the that was the change that we made >> because you're talking about when the clock stops, not when it starts, right? >> Correct. They have one year to get that permit following the catastrophic
damage. That is assuming that we're not under a state of emergency. We're still under a state of emergency for Helena and Milton. So, the clock's still running until that state of emergency ends. But if there's a house fire and a non-state of emergency period, if the property owner
submits for permitting 10 and a half months after the house fire, they would not need be put in a position where they have to get their permit within a month and a half or they lose that right. They would have the the clock would stop at the 10 and a half month point. >> So, it's it's making it it's making it
easier on people, not harder. >> Yeah. And then the last one. Um, so we're we're drawing a line between I'm trying to the new residential construction versus
an addition. So for those property owners who are either elevating their homes or abandoning the existing ground floor and building above um they their recommendation was that they remain eligible for the extended stair
encroachment into the front yard of 7 ft. They recommended against preserving that what is drafted in section 6.22 of the ordinance on page 15 and 16. Um they recommended striking
that and not extending that permission to those who build build new. >> I'm sorry, those that >> those that build new. So those that completely redevelop the property, they would not be eligible for that additional staircase encroachment.
>> Uh thank you. >> I for one am not in favor of striking that language. I'm not either. >> I I think the best way to characterize those comments from the planning board is as uncharitable.
>> In my opinion, really disappointing. Um because we're not dealing with just random people coming in from outside tearing down our old homes and building new stuff. We're talking about residents who went through, you know, one of the worst disasters, well, the worst disaster we've ever seen in this town.
and then to and many of them have decided that they do want to reinvest in this community and now instead of you know if you want to raise your house great you can have that setback for the stairs but if you tear it down and if you spend even more money to make your
house even more resilient to reinvest in the community now we're going to punish you doesn't seem to make any sense so I'm in favor of leaving it as is and giving the same benefits to whether if you want to raise your home if you want to add on top or if you want to raise it
completely off, you know, and then build brand new, I think you should have the same benefit. I think we should incentivize um people that want to invest in this community in the single family homes given the most opportunity to to build something as resilient as possible.
So with that, I make a motion. Sorry, do we have any audience comments? >> We do. Walter SOA. Yes. Good evening, sir. If you'll please state your name and address for the record. >> Yes. My name is Walter SOA, SWA. I live
in 108 20th Avenue, St. Pete Beach. And my comments concern section 6.14 paragraph D encroachment of certain specified ancillary residential equipment into required yards
specifically air conditioning condensers. This section allows elevation of permitted existing equipment that encroaches into a required yard setback. In August 2024,
Helen Flood Water inundated my primary residence. Both the National Flood Insurance Program and Lloyds of London Adjusters examined the situation and determined the property to be a total loss. Because the main building was built 99
years ago over a crawl space on a simple perimeter block foundation, it was decided to proceed with demolition and restorative reconstruction. Elevating the existing structures or building a li living level on top of
them at base blood level did not provide a reasonably resilient climate change capable structure. When the first reading of this ordinance was completed, I submitted a building permit application for the replacement
construction of my house and placed the AC condenser in the east sidewall 5- foot setback area where they were permitted to be before the storm. City Planning and Zoning denied the
application because the permission to elevate in place applies only to residences that are elevated or have their ground floor abandoned and a new living level constructed above. It does not apply to all new construction as
currently written with reference to the flood plane management section of the city's code. The issue is about flood plane management in an environment undergoing climate change, not new construction. It
is about replacement construction of a storm damaged residence that requires mandatory compliance with current flood plane regulations and building the most weatherresistant structure possible, which in my situation places the AC
condenses in the east side setback. which is the least vulnerable side of the building when it comes to extreme weather events. I am requesting the commission to provide clarification to the city planning and zoning about this section and let me put my condenses
where I want them where they were where we started. Thank you. >> Thank you, sir. >> Thank you, sir. >> Would you city manager? Would you mind giving him a card? Sir, >> yes. Would you mind taking a card from the city manager,
>> sending her an email with the address and the details so we can take a look at it tomorrow? >> So, Adam, >> Adam will have >> he's going to get you my business card. If you can write me, I will contact you personally. >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> All right. >> Thank you, sir. >> City clerk, do we have any other audience comments? >> We do not. >> Okay. Commissioner Marriott. >> Um, yeah. I I know you were about to make a motion, but I just wanted to um to to say that I also agree that the um
the encroachment for the stairs into the front yard setback should be allowed for new construction as well. Um I and and and my reasoning for it is really just that I think a 7- foot encroachment of stairs into the front setback is just not that big a deal and does not change
the fabric of what we're trying to do in the city and and it gives people some flexibility for what they're rebuilding and I think that's a really good thing. >> Thank you. >> All right. Is there a motion? Um, do we need to So, uh, I think Brandon, you said you did not change the
part about the setbacks, correct? So, I can make a motion to adopt ordinance 2026-01 as written. >> Correct. If you if you accept the first two bulleted changes, I did not make the change in the paragraph at the end, which is the So, yes.
>> Okay. So, I'll make a motion to uh adopt ordinance 2026-01. I second. >> City clerk. >> Commissioner Robinson. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Resniki. >> Yes.
>> Commissioner Maldonado. >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Marriott. >> Yes. >> Mayor Petrella. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you. Next we have action items. The first one is 6A resolution 2026-02. >> It's a retirement healthcare funding
plan. A resolution of the city commission of the city of St. Pete Beach, Florida, adopting the retirement healthcare funding plan, through the National Public Pension Fund Association, NPFA, authorizing execution of related documents and agreements and
providing for an effective date. >> Good evening, mayor, commissioners. Again, uh Adam Pery, assistant city manager. The uh resolution you have before you tonight is to uh as he mentioned to adopt the retirement healthcare funding plan. This was actually a component of the uh collective bargaining agreement that was
ratified with the uh international association of firefighters uh this past fiscal year. Uh so one of those requirements was to uh adopt this plan. The uh the goal obviously is to provide retirement healthc care benefits to eligible city employees and to support
uh their long-term retirement security uh while allowing the city to attract uh and retain qualified personnel is is the ultimate goal of it. From a funding perspective, there is a PTO buyback option if certain criteria are met, but predominantly this plan is going to be funded by the
employees themselves through uh payroll deductions based on a decided percentage by the employees. So with that, I'll happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you. Commissioners, are there any audience comments? >> No, there are not. >> Thank you, Adam. Commissioners, is there
a motion? I make a motion to approve resolution 2026-02. >> A second. City clerk, if you're pleased for roll call. >> Commissioner Resniki. >> Commissioner Maldonado. >> Yes. >> Vice Mayor Marriott. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Robinson.
>> Yes. >> Mayor Petrilla. >> Yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you. Next, we have action item 6B, resolution 2026-01, >> a resolution of the city of St. Pete Beach vacating a three-foot platted
easement at the rear of lots five and six of block C of Sunset Park replat recorded in platbook 18, page six of Panelis County Public Records located within the property boundaries of 103 24th Avenue and provided for
construction, correction of scrivener's errors and an effective date. So, this is an easement vacation request. This is something that's within the city's charter. It does need to move forward to the city commission. I did want to point out that it does require a four five vote to approve this request
should the commission wish to do so. Mike and Gina Peza, owners of the property at 103 24th Avenue, are requesting to vacate an easement shown in red. Uh the bolded rectangle box on the screen is their property. Uh the
subject easement is shown as the red sliver. It's three feet wide. It extends at the rear of what was platted as lots five and six. Uh they were sewn sold rather to the property in an unknown year. It was likely in in the uh prior
to the late 1970s. And they are seeking to vacate that platted easement that runs along the rear of the two lots. Uh this is being undertaken to allow for construction of a new residence that would be located within the easements as
they exist today. And um a little hard to make out on the screen. I believe it was with the packet, but you can see the layout of the home that is proposed as well as the pool. The home would be located within those easements. Therefore, the the easements must be
vacated prior to construction. Letters of no conflict have been issued by all active utilities in St. Pete Beach. Those are Duke Energy, Penelis County Utilities, Charter, and Frontier Communications as well as Tiko People's Gas. The city does not have any basis to
retain the easement based on our local code requirements. We do have drainage requirements. Um the easement is unspecified to uh on on the plat. It was not specified as we typically have in newer plats. um usually with drainage or utility um but drainage will be provided
through swailes during development. The neighbor sewer line connects into the subject property sewer line which runs to a manhole at the rear of the property. This is a known issue. It's not directly related to the vacation, but final action to discontinue the line requires resolution of this issue. We
have spoken with our city attorney about this at length. It was discussed yesterday at the recommending planning board hearing for this request as well. um which they did recommend pending vacation of this known issue. I did pass out a revised resolution. It
was revised today. I'll point out sections five and 8 of the resolution. Um, do you set a delayed effective date? Resolution 20261 um, if you were to accept this resolution as drafted, would not become
effective until an executed an executed agreement uh, to relocate or maintain sewer service for 101 24th Avenue as recorded by the property records of Penelis County. Section 8, the effective date of the resolution shall be the date of the execution recording of that
agreement. Uh, so that is the amended resolution that's before you tonight. should you wish to take action. I'm happy to answer questions. We also have the property owner present for any any questions to them. >> Thank you. >> Questions, comments.
>> Do I need to make export? >> Um, this is probably legislative, so you don't have to, but if you'd like to, you can. >> Okay. Uh, for the record, so I did meet with the property owner, and I did go out and tour the location. And I also
met with city staff several months ago regarding the sewer line, not related to the vacancy, but actually when it was discussed as a pool project. So I just wanted to get that out there. So I don't see any reason why we shouldn't approve this with the conditions that staff has
added. I did watch the planning board. I think that they did a good job about talking why it was appropriate to go ahead and approve this. Thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner. I have a question. >> Yes, Commissioner Vzniki.
>> I could hardly hear Mayor mics for some reason your mic I can hardly hear you so I apologize. >> Um Brandon, just a question. Um I know that that we did not know what the intent of the easement was originally.
When you look at the original plat um it it you could see easements on the other lots or blocks, you know, throughout Sunset Park. Are the other easements in the other lots? Because you can see like how they were continuous or like there
was some idea of planning there what those other easements are used for or are they all just not used as an easement? Right now, >> I didn't look at other blocks. We of course have our lateral that runs off to east uh from the manhole and it's
actually located at the rear of the property as it's currently assembled. So our lateral does run within that easement I believe and and the owner could speak to this. I believe previously there was one utility active in this easement that sought to be vacated. I I believe it was Duke Energy
but they would be able to confirm that. >> So there's a current lateral right now on the easement. Not not in the not in the easement that is being discussed for vacation. The the west easement located at the rear of the property that runs to Sunset Way.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> Do we have any audience comments? >> We do. Amy Letier. >> Good evening. If you'll please state your name and address for the record. >> Hi, my name is Amy Letler. My address is 12055 Gandandy Boulevard North, unit
254, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33702. Uh, thank you for the opportunity to address you today. Uh, I represent David and Melinda Gallagher, the owners of the adjacent property at 10124th Avenue, and we oppose the vacation of the easement. As stated, the Gallagher sewer line is
connected to the Pez sewer line, has been for over 60 years, and there is a prescriptive easement. Last year, last week, the Pez has cut the sewer line without the appropriate approval by the city. And prior to that, city attorney Vos sent a legal opinion. I'm reading my notes because I don't
want to misstate. She stated, "Vacating the ease the easement while an active sewer dispute is ongoing could expose the city to claims that its action facilitated interference with utility service or private property rights, particularly if the vacation is
perceived as enabling redevelopment that disrupts sewer access." She further stated, "At a minimum, the city should defer action on the vacation request until the sewer service issues are fully resolved and should make clear that any vacation does not authorize removal of or interference with existing sewer
connections." My client provided a solution to the sewer connection and the Pezes turned it down. After they disrupted sewer service, the city instructed them to reconnect my client's sewer line and informed the Pezes that no permits would be issued until the issue is resolved. I sent the suggested
solution to the Pezes council and I still have not heard from him. City attorney Vos while not appining on a private property dispute did appine that any disruption of sewer service necess necessitated by the Pezes redevelopment should be undertaken at the Pez's expense and must be reviewed and
approved by the city from an engineering and public health standpoint. We simply >> ground info. My husband Mike and I used to own the property at 27th and Sunset. We did not have room for a pool on that property. When the property on 24th became available, we purchased the
property with the intent of someday putting in a pool. The lot is wide enough to accommodate a nicesiz pool. We sold our property on 27th, bought the property on 24th. We love Pass Grill and have invested a lot of money and time in
the property that we own. And first, just I have a question. Is it legal to actually tie in to the neighbors uh sanitary line that comes out of their house? And I'm asking purely because I really don't know. We don't know. And I
just want to know is that legal. >> That would be for a court to decide. >> Because it involves easements and property rights and you purchased a property that already had a sewer line tied into your sewer line. So you purchased e either with knowledge or
without knowledge but it was already there. >> Okay. With the title >> may likely had a permit way way back. >> The title search came back clear. >> Your title insurance might have an exclusion or it may not. But that again that would be a matter between their private parties to either settle by
agreement or if you can't agree to have a circuit court make a determination. >> Okay. So when you say the vacation would be granted with resolution, we're requesting that the neighbor's sewer line does not run across our property as
the likelihood for backup in the future falls on our liability and we don't feel that that's fair. In good faith, we have been working to resolve this issue since March 5th of 2024. Prior to the storm, we had done a uh put new hurricane
windows and doors on our house and we're installing a pool and a garage on the driveway area. That was all approved. Everything was ready to go. We have had little to no communication and every excuse under the sun. The representatives for the family were
vacationing. They weren't hearing back from the city and when we would check with the city, the city would say, "Yes, we have answered their questions." um they were waiting for a quote. The the homeowners elderly and then uh eventually hired an attorney. We also
have vacationed. We also have checked with the city were also elderly when we also hired an attorney because we needed to document that we were in contact with the homeowners next door asking them to move their line off of our property. We
were told from the city, a highlevel person within the city that they were granted access to pass a girl way and did not need to come into our yard. When their contractor presented a proposal to cross our yard again, which will
minimize the size of our pool, I called Brandon and asked Brandon if that was something we absolutely had to do. and he said, "No, you do not have to let a person cross your property to access the sanitary line." And they should access the sanitary line on their own, not
actually tied into our property. We're worried that house is going to sell. Maybe renters are going to come in. They are elderly and they are very nice people. And we apologize that this is not something they probably ever thought they would have to do in their lifetime, but it's here. We did not um cut their
line. the demolition company that we signed a contract with and then cancelled because a gentleman would like to move our property onto Corey Avenue to use it as a retail space. We canled the contract with the demo company. They went out, forged ahead, and cut the line
because they're refusing to acknowledge that we have canceled the contract and are asking that we pay for the complete contract even though they did no work except cut the neighbor's line. Mrs. Gallagher called the another neighbor on our block. If I can just finish just one
more second. She called another neighbor to let us know that her line was cut. By the time that neighbor called us, we might have lost some communication or time in in in that translation. We worked to get that line reconnected. We
called the demo company. No response. I think the city called the demo company. Brandon, I think you did. No response. We personally hired a plumber, a third-party plumber to reconnect the line and paid for that at our expense.
We feel like allowing the Gallagher to run across our property again is going to minimize it. It's causing us undue hardship. We're paying rent. We're paying storage. We've moved out of the home. We It will limit the size of the pool that we can put on property that we
own. They don't own it. So, we're asking that the resolution be made that the that they connect to pass the grillway and it and it's not for us to fund. It wasn't us that put that line on our property. They did. So,
the funding should come from the Gallaghers to pass a grillway. >> Thank you, >> Mr. your city attorney. Would you like >> So, we have a dispute between private property owners about the shared sewer line. It's a civil matter. Um, it has to
be resolved in circuit court. Um, it's more than small claims because it involves a declaratory judgment as to who owns the pipe and who has the right to remove the pipe and and how that would be handled is all in circuit court, not here. So we put a condition
on this that they resolve it in circuit court or they have an agreement um before this becomes effective. So so the arguments she made today are good arguments perhaps but they should be made in circuit court. She has a lawyer Kyle Bass who's not here today. Um the
other property owner has has an attorney. Both those attorneys know how to file declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. And so simply if they can't reach an agreement, it sounds like they're trying to reach agreement before they file. But if they can't reach an agreement, they'll have to file in court and and have it heard by the circuit
court. That's where these disputes are resolved. >> Sure. I'm not interested in getting in the middle of a neighborly dispute. >> They could also try to do alternative dispute resolution like mediation, which might be ordered by the court anyway prior to trial. I'm just trying to understand what
action we're taking here is, you know, if we take action, it sounds like one person is asking us to delay action until they figure their stuff out. But if one of the parties decides to just drag it out for two years, I mean, we can't sit here for two years and not make a decision on it. At the
same time, if we make a decision on it and they still have a dispute going on, is there anything that comes back on the city as far as liability or anything else as if we vacate this? Well, certainly if we u vacate this and issue the demolition permit to cut the line
and the sewer either spills into the ground or the sewer line is capped and backs up into the property at 301 or 101 um then causes damage to that property, they may try to sue the city. So, we don't want to knowingly issue
approvals or permits that could possibly cause sewer spills and and backups. It's in the public health, safety, welfare to ensure that sewer sanitary sewer service is provided. If there's any spills, they have to be reported to D immediately.
Um, we were already under a D consent order for sewer spills. Uh, we don't want to have these these happen and have the city um take have any role in in a sewer spill like this. So, we want to make sure it doesn't happen. >> Commissioner Malt.
>> Yeah. Thank you. um Attorney Brooks, but I do want to just kind of go back to the planning board and the amendments section five and 8 which they discussed. Uh Amy Lutler was there representing spoke as well as Mr. Pez. Uh so I think
that what the issue is today and they are tied but is if we approve this resolution with the amendments it has the clause in there that that has to be resolved between the private parties not on the city. So, we're not approving any litigation or any action
towards either of the residents involved. Rather, we're approving this with condition. Is that my understanding? >> Yes. >> So that it would not have to come back to the commission. Once they find an agreement, this would then kick in. >> And until they find an agreement,
>> nothing happens until then. So >> if they reach agreement this week, they don't have to come back back here next month and they can move on faster. Commissioner Robinson. >> Um I I'll just state that I'm a little nervous on signing anything that
potentially puts us at risk. Um they you know I I think not signing it would speed up the process of them negotiating on trying to get a resolution on it. Um what is the timeline to come back here before the commission? We do two
meetings a month. So every two weeks is, you know, how much of a delay is there? A month, two weeks. I mean, it's not that long of a delay to give for them to work it out. I'm in favor of of not going forward with this and delay. I'm
in favor of delaying. >> There'll be a motion to continue. >> Yes. >> Sir, you you're more than welcome to fill out the common card. bring it to the >> of which property? >> Okay, sir. If you want to speak, please
come to the microphone, right? It's got to be on the record. We cannot hear you from there. If you please state your name and address for the record. >> I live at 103 24th Avenue. I I understand where you guys are at with this, but this was supposed to be heard
two weeks ago and and we've got a lot going on at the house right now. Okay. We we've got the relocation of the house, you know, that we're working. We're trying to get the permit for that. My wife talked about the demo permit that we we had cancelled. Um the the attorney made us makes us look bad with
that with cutting the pipe, but as Brandon can state, we were very concerned about it. We jumped on that when the city couldn't geta to come back out. We went out there on our own and took care of it. Got the plumber out there that same day. Okay. And we're
there the next morning. So, we're doing everything we can. We don't want to do any harm to our neighbors, but the the problem right now is to come to a resolution. We we're willing to work with them. They they don't want to have any financial
responsibilities at all with this. So, it's like, okay, if we decided to to move the pipe on our property, put the pipe in and reconnect them, that's all on us. Is that that's ridiculous. We're we're con, you know, everything's been
they're the ones that illegally hooked up to our pipe. It's on our property and and this this vacate has nothing to do with them at all. As uh Commissioner Malano mentioned, it there's a resolution with it. Okay,
let's let's at least get this done. Okay, we we are going to go back. I talked to my attorney today. Okay. I we we had a plumber go out there and already give us a quote on on redoing it with hooking them up and then we're going to present this to the Gallaghers
and and you know that'll be we we don't want to go to court. That's the last thing we want to do. And we want to get this corrected as quick as possible. They can drag it on as long as they want though. They could just say no, we're not going to do anything and keep dragging it on. that where does that put
us when we're renting a house in downtown St. Petersburg and paying $4,000 a month to do that for nothing? So, I just want you and this started a long time ago, guys. This was this was not something that happened overnight. It's it's over two years.
>> Okay. Thank you, sir. >> Mr. Mayor. >> Yes, sir. >> Yeah. So to to Commissioner Robinson, you know, in terms of continuing this or changing the date, I will tell you that when I was briefed on this seven months ago, the city had proposed some possible
alternative plans to the Gallaghers to include relocating it to pass a grillway and even the uh temporary use of a bladder. They cannot use septic tanks and things like that. So, I don't see how continuing this is going to help
them mediate or get to a point where they're going to find a inclusion. I do feel comfortable with Attorney Brook's recommendation and the planning board's addition of these two sections. So, I would like to make a motion. >> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. So, I I make the motion to approve resolution 2026-01 as amended. I'll second. >> City clerk, if you'll please do a roll call. >> Commissioner Maldonado, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Marriott,
>> yes. >> Commissioner Robinson, >> no. >> Commissioner Resniki, >> no. >> Mayor Petrilla, >> yes. >> Motion carries 3 to two. >> Thank you. Next, we have action item 6 C,
resolution 2026-03, a resolution of the city of St. P Beach, vacating two 5-ft platted drainage and utility easements at the common side property lines of blocks one and two of block 79 of the plat of the north unit number one recorded in platbook 21 page
27 of the public records of panels county Florida located within the property boundaries of 645 78th Avenue and providing for construction correction of scriveners errors and an effective Just a brief presentation on this. We
haven't seen one of these, I think, in around 15 years. We just happen to have two on the same night. So, uh, resolution 2026 three, vacation of easements at 64578th Avenue. Land Ferris owner request to vacate two adjacent 5- foot utility and drainage
easements that intersect the property. You can see in the uh the black rectangle here the full uh property boundaries. These are easements that are blanket easements. They were dedicated on the plat. The property owner is the owner of two full lots of north unit
number one plat block 79. They own all of lots one and two. They also and uh they also own some unplatted land that runs to the water. Um, under the original plat for this neighborhood, there were designated blanket uh text
easements that run along the sides and the rear of all of the platted lots in the neighborhood. So, because they own two lots right next to one another, it's actually a 10-ft width. Uh, it's two easements that are adjacent one another. These were designated as utility and
drainage. So, the purpose of these is um are known. There are remaining uh easements that run along the rear of both lots as well as on the east side. There is a five- foot easement. They are not seeking to vacate either of those two easements. They're only seeking to vacate the two easements that run
between the two platted lots. Letters of no conflict have been issued by Duke Energy, Penelis County Utilities, Frontier, and Charter Communications. We did correspond with, but we did not receive at this point a letter of no conflict from Tiko People's Gas. Um, I expect that one would be
issued based on our correspondence. I'm still working with them on on obtaining that, but we did give them the 14 days notice that our code requires. As I mentioned with the prior case, the city does not have any basis to retain the easement. Vinage will be provided through swelles during re redevelopment.
This is a single family home. They're required to swale the property when they redevelop as well as have at least 30% of the area left open for uh percolation of rainwater. So with that, um we did meet with the applicant last week at TRC. We asked if there were any known um issues outside
of the utilities vacating these easements. They did they did not express any. So uh we do request a approval of resolution 20263 for 64578th Avenue. There is a pending development permit um on this lot and this is one of the steps
to getting that issued. Happy to take any questions and I believe the owner's present. Yes, she is. Thank you, Brandon. Commissioners, questions, comments. Would the owner like to say some words? >> It's up to you. Floor is yours.
>> Thank you. Is there a motion? I make a motion to approve resolution 20 20263 vacating two 5-ft drainage and utility easements along the common side line lot lines of lots one and two block 79 of
the plat of north unit number one is recorded in book 21 page 27 of the public records of Penelis County Florida and that's 64578th Avenue >> second >> second >> I think commissioner Mary I beat you to
those buttons. >> City clerk. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Motion pass. Oh,
>> okay. >> Somebody should probably let the homeowner know. >> Therefore, it failed. >> Therefore, it failed. >> All right. Next, we move on to item 6D. to consider the special magistrate recommendation relating to mediation.
City clerk, sorry, city attorney, before we move on, you mind just uh kind of help us out here because we had a conditional use hearing on this a few months back.
>> Mhm. And this does not say that this is still part of that same hearing and it's been more than six months. And is the application a void? Do they have to start from the beginning? >> Yep. Let me explain. >> Situation. >> Okay. >> You don't mind just >> Yep. I'm going to walk us through. Um so
we have some time frames here. We're going to spend about um 10 15 minutes on staff side. Um then the applicant will give 20 minutes. They have two representatives here. Uh then we'll take public comment and then we'll come back uh to the commission for a motion, a
second and a roll a roll call to approve, deny or approve with conditions and modifications. So we'll remember uh most of the commission was here. Um Commissioner Maldonado was not here. Um this was back in May of 2025. Uh there
was a variance and a conditional use uh that came forward. There were three applications. They were all denied. That was in May of 2025. In June of 2025, rather than seeking judicial review in court, um the applicant filed a Fluedra case, which is a Florida land use and
environmental dispute resolution act. What fluedra does is toll the time that they would have to file to seek judicial review by petition for cersari. Uh while the parties explored if there were any alternatives, uh uses that could be made
of the property, revisions, conditions, design changes. Um so that June um within 30 days the fluedra was filed. Um within another 30 days the city filed a response to the fluedra that included all the reasons for the denial.
Um in October uh the special magistrate proceeding under fluedra began. Special magistrate proceeding involves a mediation a noticed mediation that occurred here at city hall um between staff and the applicants.
Um and that occurred in October. In um December 22nd, the special magistrate issued his order, a recommendation. Um under the statute, within 45 days after receiving the special magistrate's
recommendation, the city can either accept the recommendation, modify the recommendation, or reject the recommendation. So we are here on January 27th within the 45 days this the statute requires us
to consider the recommendation. Again the statute does not make it a requirement that we adopt it just that we consider it. Um with that I will turn it over to our council from the U. Henderson Franklin firm who was our lead
counsel at the U flued remediation and he can give you a brief overview view and then we'll turn it over to the applicants before he starts. >> Yes. >> Again just going back to my original. Is this a quasi judicial? >> This is >> or is this not? >> This is legislative because we're
talking about settling a case. So it would be legislative. Okay. Just want to make sure that >> do we need >> Commissioner Robinson has a question. >> Do we need Commission Mayor? I'm trying I have technical difficulty with >> with Commissioner Resniki so I'm trying
to get her back online to wait if >> we could break for one second. >> How's How did we just lose her? >> Yeah. No, we lost her through your conversation. >> Okay. >> Dissertation. I don't know whose computer's updating,
but somebody's is. >> Oh, great time to update Zoom, right? >> Yeah, exactly. It's an update. It already did. N >> went from four to 98% and I don't know what else is going on. >> We can ah it looked out like a positive here.
While we're waiting on that, do we need to go back and make another motion since we realize that that last resolution didn't carry? >> No, it just fails. Just fails. >> Yep.
>> They come back in two weeks, four weeks. >> Hopefully they get their um situation resolved. We can take a short recess while we resolve our technical difficulties. Uh we will be back at 8:35 sharp. 7
minutes. Yes, sir. >> Good evening, mayor, commissioners. I'm Jeff Wright with the Henderson Franklin Law Firm. Um, Ralph covered a lot of the the basics of what we're dealing with tonight. Um, just to recap, it came
before you last May. We're having a waving uh request from >> Commissioner Resniki. I believe she's pointing at her ear that she can't hear. >> Maybe this >> some testing on the system. >> Ryan, >> you all are.
>> Oh, it's mute. It has a mute button on the St. Pete Beach room. >> Yep. >> Can you hear us now? >> I'll try now. Looks like it's off >> now. I can. Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. I'll try it one more time if I may, Mr. Mayor. Um Jeff Wright with the
Henderson Franklin Law Firm here on behalf of the city and um as Ralph mentioned this came before you last May almost eight months ago exactly um and on May 21st the commission considered and unanimously denied three companion application for this windward pass
project and following the denial the applicant initiated statutory dispute resolution procedures under flu that's the act that allows you to do that and uh the mediation was held on uh October 1st with the special magistrate uh Mark
Bentley and Mr. Laro, Luke Laro, the attorney who's uh representing the applicant. Um and I wanted to say just for a second um wanted to thank Mr. Bentley and Mr. Laro for their professionalism and trying to work out sincerely a resolution to the issues.
There were a lot of moving parts. Um I also wanted to thank your staff. They were great. Um not just at the mediation, Mr. Brooks has been great, accessible, but they've been um really professional and great to work with since the mediation getting to tonight.
Um so following the mediation, the special magistrate issued this recommendation that is before you today. And there are some key points. They're on page four of the recommendation. I'll just run
through them real quick. The proposal would eliminate any request for water sport rentals or third-party service providers. Um eliminating a portion of their conditional use request which was to have those third party
vendor services available. Um also elimination of the parking garage making it just street or ground parking only. Um they would requ drop their request for uh density units from 104 to 100
and uh they also agreed to relocate the swimming pool making the need for the variance go away. So no need for a variance anymore. Um also installation of sound governors for the first floor and for the roof to address noise
concerns and um quote attractive pavers would be included in a prominade surrounding the project. Um there's no further description provided for that commitment. Um and no additional public benefits are included in the
recommendation. So that's basically it under the statute. The and Ralph alluded to this. the commission can approve, reject or modify basically and that includes condition um the recommended settlement and um it's a recommendation no obligation it's not a directive you
have those three options before you tonight and with that available to answer any questions you may have >> thank you sir commissioners questions comments >> I do have a question about the last thing you said you said uh there are no
additional community benefits offered. >> That's right. Um when you look at the the recommended settlement um that the special magistrate um issued there are it's very short. It's four or
five pages and um nothing in there. I combed it through a few times to make sure um no additional public benefits for the project. And you know, we do have some concerns with with the um with the settlement. In a in a perfect world, we would have made it some further
changes and continued the process, but that didn't happen. Here we are. And under the statute, the commission does have those three options. >> When you say that didn't happen, was it because we didn't ask? Well, and this is in the summary, too. So, this is not
really new information, but we did express concerns because after the mediation, we said, "Okay, we have a rough idea of an agreement. Let's go home and work on it." And during that process, we raised our concerns and we
offered to continue the process or not. And they chose not to. And when that happens, the magistrate goes ahead and has an obligation to render a recommendation. And that's what he did. So we didn't have that opportunity to work out those last concerns.
>> So in summary, we asked them to have a chat about community benefits and they declined. >> Um that's that's accurate. I just want to make sure that I'm not mischaracterizing what they said. We asked them to take a
little bit more time to address our concerns and they said we'd rather have the magistrate go ahead and issue his recommendation rather than incorporate those concerns and continue the process. Okay. Thank you. >> Any questions for while he's here before
we move on to the applicant? >> I think you had asked a question and I was about to answer when we lost the uh the Zoom connection. I think your question was uh something about the 6 months and the 8 months. Um so the fluer
process um has taken eight months um so since the denial 6 months has already gone by. So there's no prohibition anymore in the code on then submitting a new application. So a new application can be submitted at any time. >> But this is not a new application. This
is just fluender would be um a revision to the original application or revised application. The special magistrate's recommendation doesn't go further and address how these revisions would be processed. Um but if you are amendable to these revisions and want to approve
this, um we could then talk with the applicants, attorneys, and representatives about which public hearings uh this um revised application would go through. uh once we received a complete application and drawings and
site plan which we have not yet received. >> All right. Thank you, sir. If the applicant would like to come forward, >> members of the commission, good evening. My name is Luke Laoro. I'm here representing Sunold LLC. It's my
privilege to be here. My address is 2240 Bair Road, Clearwater, Florida, Sweet 190. And when we originally were retained to go into this matter, we decided that instead of jumping into litigation, as your attorney has stated, it would be
good to entertain the ability to try to resolve this through the dispute resolution provided by the Florida statutes, and that's what we did. I worked with Mr. Wright, and I would certainly reiterate my my privilege of working with him, and I think I've known Mr. Brooks since he and I were both brunettes, but uh long time now. uh
always a privilege to work with these fine gentlemen. But we were fortunate enough to get as our mediator Mark Bentley who actually uh wrote the bar review article and all the articles explaining this process and how it's a very very superior process to try to
give everybody a full opportunity to explore all of the areas of concern. Give everybody a chance to sort of cooperate and approach these issues in good faith which we did. Um, I'm going to go ahead and go through some of the special magistrate's
recommendations. A few of the points I want to make is that we were a little bit uncertain about any basis to go back and and try to reexplore this and I certainly would resist any decision that would be based on the fact that we were less than cooperative. We were cooperative throughout the entire
process. Uh there was never any specific concern enumerated to us. Uh when Mr. Bodziaak who's going to follow me and present you know give you the look at the plans when he went to submit the plans that we prepared in reliance on having reached this conclusion and reach
this mediation uh it's my understanding those plans were rejected uh in his report I'd go ahead and ask that you receive and file the recommendation uh he quotes the requirements and says that under the statutes quote the parties shall be represented at the mediation by persons with authority to bind their
respective parties to a solution ution and then he goes through all the issues that we explored in in that process. I think when you look at Mr. Bodziaak's plans, you're going to see that as far as public benefit, we completely revamped this entire project. We abandoned any need for a variance. We
eliminated a significant amount of the structure and I can say that when you see this, you'll see that 50% of the area has basically been opened up for the public benefit. Um, from my perspective, I think that in looking at all of the issues that we presented, the
unusual footprint of this property, all the other characteristics, and the extensive effort that we made to basically work through everyone that attended the mediation, and I just want to stress, we didn't restrict anyone, even the people that that had reached out that weren't within the contiguous
area that need notice. We didn't prevent anyone from attending the mediation. No one came, no one objected. We had no problem with anybody else coming, we were wide open to the whole process. But I think that what we did was come up with the best possible plan that we
could come up with. Um, if there was something else that we needed to address or to consiliate on, it was never brought up and I don't know what it could possibly be. And I think when you see the plans that Mr. Bodziaak puts forward, you'll understand exactly what I'm saying, and you'll see that this is
an absolute plus for the city of St. Pete Beach. Um, Mr. Bentley concludes by saying, "Based on the facts, evidence, and testimony I have reviewed and considered, I recommend the city council approve the petitioners amended development orders to reflect the
mutually agreed upon conditions set forth above and adopt an order approving petitioners amended development orders, etc. It's certainly our respectful position that we did everything we could possibly do to make this as appealing, as beneficial, and as positive to the
city of St. Pete as we possibly could. And I'll go ahead and seed the floor rather than use up any more of my time so that you can see what an excellent job you really did and try to convince you that this is in everyone's best interest. And we ask you to approve and adopt the recommendation by our special magistrate. And thank you for the
privilege. viewable that way or not. Good evening. Jack Bozak. Uh I'm the architect. I want to clarify one thing right away. I did attempt to meet with the city manager and discuss further this settlement agreement. and the plans were handed back to me and I was told by the city
manager with two other of the uh city representatives there that uh she would never uh approve this and we would never see it go through. So I want to clarify there was follow through on this which I'm I guess the city attorney was not city representative was not aware of. Uh
however um we made significant attempts to try and meet um uh more or less where we felt the city wanted to see this project go. And I think when you look at this um this rendition of it, you'll see
that uh there are is a huge space to the the left where left of the u the um game room. Um you can see where the um parking garage was removed and that building was moved back. And then we
have that large vacant area in the center that is just parking and view straight through. Then on the far right, you'll notice that we still have uh exceed the code requirement um at at about 62 65 ft on that side of open
space. Essentially, when you uh take a look at a plan that shows um these yellow areas, which are represented by that rendering that you just saw, the it's a significant amount
almost 50% of the site is open to the water. So, I think it was a significant effort at trying to make the attempt to address the concerns that were voiced and um and make the uh the project more palatable and um uh create a better
environment in the direction I think we wanted we thought the city wanted to see it go. Um let me tell you a little bit about Beth Morian. Beth has been a resident of the beach for over 30 uh years and um purchased this site 22
years ago. Uh Beth's family originally uh began Jville as you probably know and she uh has been a significant philanthropist in the uh community uh and the county and throughout the state having contributed a million dollars you
may not know remember or recall to the uh recreation center construction here at St. Pete Beach. So Beth uh has been a significant force in the community. Um the site's approximately 2.67 acres uh
with 670 ft of waterfront. And I think what you can see from this is the significant um revisions that we made were not an attempt to take advantage of but make better use of the property and afford the public a tremendous amount of
open space that that created view carters through the site. uh which are as I say almost 50% of the site which is unheard of and when you look at the projects across the be at the beach uh
there may be at the 10% or 15% margin so I think we made a significant effort at trying to um create a opening so to speak uh and retain some of the preserve some of the area that was essentially
now the open area that you see through to the water. We relocated both of the pools to the the this side of the road uh into the center surrounded them by the building, removed the noise factor from the
residents that objected across the water. So that uh created a large opening space, eliminated the parking garage, uh made significant uh revisions creating open space to the water, uh reduced the unit count by um from 104 to
100 units. Uh on one portion, the what is the southern portion of the building, we reduced the um the uh number of floors to four floors instead of uh five above uh parking. And um we as I say we relocated both of the pools to move them
into the um into the courtyard away from the water away from the residential area. So, I think we made a tremendous effort to try and shield the residential area and retain the public walkway around the entire property to en to
enable the public to enjoy the waterfront, walk through the areas and create a much more significantly open project. Um, let me just think if there's anything else. As I say, the uh the property now
has almost 50% of the retains almost 50% of the open view of the water, which I felt was a major objection when I came before you before and I tried to make as much of an effort to meet all the um not just the requests that were the result
of the mediation, but the general gist of what I think y'all as a uh as a commission um wanted to see happen. Um, trying to think if there's anything else that I can cover in the brief time I have here, but uh, you know, I'm open to
any questions you may have about it. >> Commissioners, questions, comments? >> Do you have the original layout with you? >> Oh, I knew that was going to happen. Uh I do not. But it uh to give you an idea,
I moved the building on the far left a little further into the property and created a little bit larger a considerably larger uh open area on the north property line. I eliminated the parking garage in the middle which allowed me to move that building over. I
retained the south uh setback which was significant. Moved the pools. Oh, wait a minute. Here we go. Oops. Well, here's no that really Well, I'll try and explain it from this.
That is the um the um the studio, the um game room. This was the parking garage that was three stories essentially high. Uh there was a minor space through the middle. This was the building that you
see that extended all the way over which uh we've reduced the height on the southern end of it and we opened up this whole area through the middle and moved this building a little bit to the south. So you can see that the u the um I mean
if you recall it it's a significant improvement in the uh open spaces. I mean there there's not another property in St. Pete Beach that has almost 50% open spaces to the water
and to the view and takes as much of the public concerns into account including the the access to the waterfront with the walkway and the seating areas. Uh and I think the the open view of the water is significant and uh you you you
know look at anything else on the beach you won't come within you know even close to this and the other factor of moving all of the noise factors away from the uh that were raised about the pool areas uh and moving those into the enclosed courtyard
on the other side of the building away from the uh residential area. Commissioner Maldonado. >> Uh, yes. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So, uh, to say the least, this is a pretty ambitious commercial project. So, this question is is for you as well as for,
uh, Mr. Wright. Have you given consideration for something in lie of this project, for example, a residential property? >> Well, the residential properties um would
would have almost a similar impact on this Um, let's face facts, residential, you would have to try and do really high-end prop u considering the value of the property. Uh, and um, I really think that um, a residential property in that
location is not necessarily I there aren't any there aren't too many other residential projects in this location of the beach. Uh there is the adjacent ones that are aged that are old, but uh it's pretty difficult at the present day values of land to incorporate a
relatively low density and do residential on this site. We did examine that, but it just didn't make economic sense, >> Mr. Mayor. >> Um yeah, thank you. Um, and I uh
I I can I can see that the design has been pretty significantly modified to take into account um a lot of the objections that were brought up before and uh you know I and I think there are some things to like about it, right? like
preserving those views of the water and having the the walkway around the water side of the of the of the structures and um you know I think I think there's some some good things here. Um, I also
think that that this is a a large enough project that I don't think we would be serving the community well to do anything other than than encourage you to reapply and start through the process
again where we could have a community meeting with some community input and you would have a chance to to address the community and get people to buy in to the to the concept and and and for us to really be able to thoroughly evaluate
the development and and and make a make a good decision. Um, you know, I I don't know that uh um you you know, the the my biggest concern with the project as it is is is a similar is the same concern that I had
with it in the beginning, which is that to give that large of a number of our units from the density pool to one project in this spot is is in essence removing them from other parts of other parts of St. beach and from some other
projects that could happen. I mean, just earlier tonight, we were talking about, you know, some changes in zoning in TC2 and and what we're trying to do in some other parts of the city. And so, um, you know, I think I think it's going to require some careful consideration,
um, for me anyway about what is the right thing to do with those density units and and what are we, you know, what are what are what are we getting in different parts of the city by handing out those density units. And so, um, for
for although although I I love many of the changes that you've made here, um, and I and clearly you guys have worked really hard at it and, um, and I think there's a lot to like about this project. Um but I I wouldn't feel right um just accepting things as is without a
bigger discussion around um handing out units from the density pool um and and having more opportunity to hear hear more from the community about about the project um you know when it's something that that
you know it's kind of brand new you know to to everybody and and I and I think that and and I think that you know with this new project it maybe that there would be more residents that would think it's a good idea. Um, but we're not going to know that until we have a chance to hear from them and they've had a chance to see it.
>> I I understand what you're saying, but I think the consideration you have to make also though is yes, this is a significant number of units out of the density pool. This is a significant site at 670 ft of waterfront. There's nothing even within half of this uh remaining in
the city of St. Pete Beach. So, I not being disagreeable with you, but I think you have to consider, yes, it's a significant uh um request as to the number of units, but it's a significant property. Um putting 50 units on here, visualize if you chop that in half, then
70% of the property is not built on. Uh I think that that uh I I would ask you to consider that there is not another piece of property vacant in this size in St. Pete. and and we're trying to take a careful look at trying to adjust adjust
to and address some of the concerns that we heard with the commission. Uh you know, I've been working here since 1967, which gives away my age. But on the other side, um I've watched a lot of transition on all these beaches and u I think this is a reasonable approach when
it approaches 50% of open space. And I don't think the 100 units is an unreasonable request when you consider that we're not we dropped some of the ancillary things and the um and the site the size of the site. It it needs to try
and make some use of some portion of it. And with all the areas we lift open, we are trying to limit it to the hotel. And um and I think that please consider that this is a significant site that needs a
significant um um use to it. Um you know, it's um I'm trying to kind of get this thing to a peaceful conclusion also and see this thing, you know. >> Yeah. No, I I appreciate the comments. >> I mean, you know, I do appreciate what
you what your point of view is, >> Commissioner Resniki. Um, yes. Thank you. Um, you could hear me, okay? Right. I'm not sure if I'm >> Yes. Yes, we can hear you. Yes, >> thank you. Um, this is a significant
uh property. Um, and with that, it it it is due for significant community input. Um, the impact is great and the request is great and the changes are are grand, right? they're they're much different um
from what I what I can see what you're what you're showing but it doesn't show me any any detail and and for that it requires to go back for that conditional review if you have this app if you already have this new plan or this new
design or um it should be able to go through the process right let let the community uh community um voice uh or see it. I'm seeing this right now. Um
so with that, you know, I concur with uh the commissioners who've spoken. Um I I think this does uh require um to go back and submit the application. I mean, it's six months past. Um and and it sounds like you're ready to submit as it is.
Thank you, >> Commissioner Robinson. I I would uh concur with uh both Commissioner Prince Nikki and uh Commissioner Marriott about going back. Um so, you know, I received
third at least 30 letters or emails that uh are not in support >> and I received two that were in support of the project. So that says a lot about how the community feels about it and hence um saying that you know to go back
to the community. The other concern um is just that there I mean there's not a lot giving back to the community there community benefit to say a project by itself is a benefit doesn't really prove that it's a
benefit. You can say it but it doesn't really do it. Um, you know, I I think our residents are a little smarter now. Not that they haven't been smart the whole time, but they realize uh giving away density should come at a cost
>> to the community, giving back to the community. In addition to that, it is called Bayou Residential District or um with that being said, um it's in the the development
Um, some of the policies say it's a transition area between higher intensity commercial uses along Gulf Boulevard and lower density residential neighborhoods to the east. So, there is the big concern on that and it is it is a
significant project for sure. Um, I appreciate the redo on it, but again, it needs to go back to the community um for them to see it and have input to it. And I believe it's a little closer than this picture shows across the bay.
>> Um, yeah. Well, this graphic, I'm sorry, but I I agree >> like it's a far away and it's it's really it's really close. >> It is a significant property, but you have to consider it's a significant parcel. There is not another parcel. If you look at this proportionally to what was granted for example across the
street and I'm not trying to match that pro but I'm saying proportional to what they had to uh the proportions of this are this is a significant property and and it's very difficult to say well just go do some residential on it and forget
about the fact that it's worth $20 million. >> I just it's not our job to tell you what to to design there or build there. that's your job and to come to us and and and you know to see if the community is is for it. I mean the community here is for
is for reasonable responsible development but they do know if they're going to give you density it comes at a cost. Well, I I would say one other thing, and that is that a lot of the objection has been filling in this property with a building that
significantly blocks uh what everybody's enjoyed for years as a big open space. Um the I have to tell you that when we looked at the residential um you know availabilities to the site the uh and
going to a density pool and doing you have to do a a certain number of um submarket um units and to get enough density to present this and the buildings have less restrictions on them
uh as far as how they fit the site. So, I seem to feel that a lot of the concern was blocking the view of the water that everybody's gotten used to the big open property and that's what I think we tried to take into consideration. The residential though is not going to be
any more forgiving. Uh, in fact, it's going to probably be more demanding because of the size of the units and all that. It will um it will take a significant portion of the property and fall back on smaller um smaller uh setbacks side setbacks.
>> Understood. But you know we are looking at people's backyards when we look at that water whereas I I'm pretty sure the open vistas and views more desirable for this community on the Gulf side where we can actually see a sunset. But nevertheless, it's your project to
design. I'm just saying that it really needs to have the community input and and community buyin in support of it and I'm not getting that from any of the emails that I've received. >> I I agree. But unfortunate parts of
being the last person to develop in any area is people get used to the advantage of you having a vacant lot. And I don't think that the owner should be penalized for being one of the last people to develop uh a large parcel on the beach. I think they should, as a matter of
fact, parapu be allowed to enjoy the same rights that other properties have uh earlier did. Now you're going to have a lot of redevelopment coming up from the damages on the beach. and are you going to treat those the same way and say ah you know you had 90 units but you
know uh we want more of you and the people think that you shouldn't be doing that. So, I mean, I understand your argument, but there's an argument to be said for property rights and not being penalized for being the last person who left their property vacant. And now
everybody's saying, "What a great view. Why? Well, the city could buy it then, maybe." And say, "Okay, we going to leave it as a park." That could be an option. I'm not throwing that out tonight, by the way. But, uh, you know, I think that you have to consider
>> Are you entitled to by right? >> Pardon me. How many units are you entitled to by right? >> I think it's like 80ish. My recollection is if you use the um the uh the entitlement of um the um some moderate
cost housing. >> With a straight residential project, they get u 15 units per acre. But with a mixeduse residential like we saw at Cory Landing with restaurants or shops, you get 18 units per acre times 2.6 6 acres
would be 47 units as of right without having to come for a uh bonus density allocation >> and then you there whatever's left in the bonus density allocation a 195 is available >> for showing up public benefits that's for residential condos.
>> Yeah I think we we had done it >> if you'll let me just >> Nope sorry go ahead >> my questions here. So, you're entitled to 40 units by right. >> 47 >> 47 units by right. So, you asked two minutes ago to be afforded the same
rights as everybody else to be able to develop your property based on what you're allowed to. But that's not what you're asking for. What you really are asking for is for 47 units plus another 100 units on top of that. So, you're asking for 147 units. Is that correct?
>> No. No. >> Not at all. Temporary lodging. They all have to come from density bonus. You're not allowed temporary lodging here unless you get density bonus allocation. >> 53 additional >> 53 because there's 100. >> Okay. >> No, no, you're we're >> How many units are you total on this project?
>> 100. >> Now we're talking about 100 100 um uh temporary lodging, not residential. >> Right. >> So, let's make clear >> I mean this this was all studied pretty significantly by you all and and everybody >> 47 by right you're asking for 100
double. So you're asking for >> mayor. I'm sorry I have to correct you. >> Yeah. >> They're entitled to 47 residential units by right for condos. If they go to temporary lodging, they get zero as of right. They all have to come from the density bonus pool allocation. So they
go from zero to 100 >> tomorrow. 47 units as it stands residential which this is zone residential. >> Correct. Okay. >> So again I'm I'm simply >> here. So you're you're asking for double
what you're entitled to by right. >> Let me add something else that perhaps uh attorney Brooks can confirm. There is it is more than that if you use moderate cost units according to the code. I believe it almost approaches 70
something or 80 units. If you do now you know moderate cost units uh would have to be a certain percentage of the project. I did study that in the code and it is significantly more. >> 47 is just market rate unit. >> 40 47 is the market rate if we did just
rental apartments. No market rate units. Uh below market rate units, but we would have to do that to protect the the value of the site. I mean it we're looking >> have to be rental apartments. They could be condominiums. >> They could be condos or rentals. Yeah.
Yeah. I mean I think it can go up approaching 80 uh from my calculations on it. I actually did a site plan on it um some time ago and I did a building of apartments got I've done this worked on this project since Beth has had it in
the last uh 22 years uh several times. So don't any misle I don't want to mislead you that it is not 40 you can take advantage of certain elements that significantly increase it including uh moderate cost uh rents
>> zero. >> Thank you. Um city clerk are there any audience comments? >> Deborah Shner. >> Thank you sir. Since there's no more further questions from the commission at this time, >> just as a matter of protocol, I want to
make sure that the uh recommendation of the special magistrate is received and filed as part of this record and that the plans that Mr. Bodziaak tried to present but were rejected are also made part of this record and we'll leave those with the clerk. >> We haven't rejected anything yet, sir. Thank you.
Yeah, if you don't have any other questions, I'm uh Okay, thank you very much. I and I hope you understand my job is to try to compromise between the city's objectives and the and the owner's objectives and and at the same time um I it's just my feeling is that
an owner shouldn't be excessively penalized for all the changes that have occurred in the last 22 years to the code that would have allowed her a lot more or for having torn down everything that was there. And you know it's uh it's unfortunate that it's waited this long. this site should have been
developed 15 years ago, 20 years ago, and it's now kind of a penalty that the codes have changed somewhat and that the opinion has changed the community who seems to have an unusual impact on the owner's uh use of the land. Thank you
very much. >> If you'll please state your name and address for the record. Good evening, Deborah Shechner, Boca Isle Drive in St. P Beach. Let's remember that this bayou is pristine.
There's a big tree there where all the white birds go and it's almost covered. It has wildlife, you know, dolphins, everything you can think of. So, this bayou is environmentally fragile if you ask me.
I do have a few questions. So, if we're going to be allowed to go there, where do we park or is it only walking? Music. I'm not sure they have music or not. Car lights. Will they always be facing
the people's homes? And like Commissioner Robinson mentioned, it's much much less wide than it's showing on the picture. It may be a significant property, but it
would make a great park. I put put a names put a name and lights over it and we have a city park would be lovely. We also have to take a look at using that much from our density pool
for one project I don't really think is a good idea. And most of the residents, if there's music, they talked about sound mitigation, but if anybody who lives on the water, I can hear people all the way
over on um Bel Vista, which is quite a long way from my home, especially if the wind's blowing my way. I'm sure they can hear me, too. So the I I think this noise need to know about um music coral lights
how do you protect the bayou that if anybody has gone by there it is beautiful absolutely beautiful I think it's best to let community have input
and again I'll throw that out there a park her name could be big thank Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I don't have any other >> Okay. So,
I I agree with seems to be the the sentiment from some of the commissioners that this is not a quite fully baked project and probably needs to have some further review. um especially with community input
I think and now we've we've heard from the applicant on I've heard from them at least four times now before the commission and as Commissioner Robinson said I'm not going to tell you what to build but if I
could offer you some guidance here's what I would do because you've already made you taken great steps perhaps to improve the project and and to listen to community input. Um,
and I don't know why that is, but it seems that maybe you heard some things that the community wanted and community was looking for and maybe ignored some other parts that maybe they weren't convenient, maybe they weren't feasible in your opinion, whatever it is. But at the end of the day, as our land
development code and comprehensive plan states, a conditional use application is not by right. It is an application. You present your case. You present, for example, conditions.
And conditions could be any number of things. And the code spells out exactly what those things could be. And if you look at the last project that was approved not too long ago by this very commission unanimously, it was a similar project on a similar
piece of land and that was all residential. I'm not telling you you should build residential. I'm just giving you some background. And just so that you know, they asked for 10 units from a density
pool. Not 100, not 53, but 10. And for those 10 units, they contributed $5.6 million in community benefits for sewers, roads, infrastructure, community park, boat docks, and a walkway. A huge
amount of community benefits. community benefits for the entire city, not just for a few neighbors that may have a less obstructed view. And while I'm sure those neighbors certainly would appreciate, you know, the decrease in size of what you originally had, moving
the water park or the pool to the other side, limiting the parking garage, all of those things are great, and I think all those things are greatly appreciated by the community, but I think if you want that many units from the community pool, you have to come with something to the
residents and say, "Look, if we're giving you double what you're entitled to, here's how we're going to, you know, benefit the community. And again, I would look at previous projects. You can see what the community
is asking for. You can see what the community wants, right? They want somebody who, you know, they prefer to have residential because residential are people are invested in the community. They live here. They participate in the community rather than transients who come and they're here for a day or two
or three and then they're gone. Right? And so there's a desire by the community to have those types of projects. Now, you're entitled to ask for whatever you would like to put there. I'm simply giving you information based on the last few projects that we've seen and the ones that the
community really seems to appreciate. I've been involved in, you know, looking at developments and stuff in the city for the last 5 years, and that last project was the first time I've ever saw one where the community came out in support.
We didn't have 30 40 emails opposing it, but rather saying here's a great project, right? They didn't ask for much density. They asked for 10% above what they were entitled to. They provided great community benefits, right? And it was a cooperative effort.
And so what I would suggest to you is should this request fail tonight, we don't know how the rest of everyone's going to vote, but if you reapply, I would take those things into consideration. I would have that community meeting and listen to what the
neighbors say and implement that. It may not be exactly what you want or how you want it, but at the end of the day, the commission does have to take all those things into consideration with the land development code, with the comprehensive
plan, and what you're asking for is above and beyond what you're entitled to. So, I know you you kept repeating that you're not asking for anything, that you shouldn't be penalized because you're late to the party. Well, you are late to the party and you're asking for double what everybody else already got,
right? So, you're asking to be rewarded for being late to the party. Now, again, it's your right to ask for whatever you want. I would simply say the projects that we've seen succeed and have community backing are the ones that provide genuine tangible community
benefits. If you want a list of things that we need, I'm happy to help you with that. I know the city manager would be happy to help you with those things as well. and say, "Here's a list of things that the community really would appreciate to have if you want those extra 100% of the units." Right? Again, that is not by
right. That is by request. And the request could be approved or denied based on the conditions set forth. And so, I'm I'm I'm trying to give you a road map on how to have a project that could be successful, appreciated, and embraced
by the community. and you do whatever you want with that information. I can only give you the best that I can. >> If you choose to use it, great. If not, that is really all up to you and and the owner of the property. Um, you know, we,
you know, this commission so far in my experience has not been anti-development, but we are looking for responsible development, redevelopment, and as well something that has, again, you've heard me say that a dozen times, genuine tangible community benefits.
I I I just had to stand up and correct one thing you've said. You're comparing residential density of 47 units to um to transient unit density, which is totally different. So, it's not like we're asking for double the density that's
allowable on the site. The density for the condo for transient units is allowable at 100 density. So, there are two different densities. So, please understand them. I just have to I can't >> I I completely understand the the
difference and the reality is you're entitled to zero by right for what you're asking for and you have to ask for everything. You're entitled to zero. So now you're absolutely right. You're not asking for zero to 100. >> The comparison of the two densities was
was out of whack. And I just wanted to make sure I made that clear. The density for for transient is different than density for residential. That comparison is a little bit >> I I really wish you would hear me because I'm trying to give you a road map to success. >> I understand. I'm the architect.
>> Sure. >> Okay. I'm not u the sole judgment of direction on this and I'm here to defend and represent my my clients >> and I'm I'm speaking to you as much as the owner who's not present and I hope she does hear me and you know I hope you
can come with a project that you know genuinely is embraced by the community. I understand that and I u I just had to make comment on that one comparison because it's not an accurate one. Thank you >> commissioners. Um commission.
>> Yeah. No, I don't want to rehash what was stated with uh the previous discussions. I agree wholeheartedly with everything that was said that you know we really need to get uh community input and being the newest member to this commission and not having been
influenced by any of the prior uh proceedings and meetings that took place uh with this I can tell you that objectively that I did receive a lot of push back against this you know and that the district folks that I spoke with uh
they're not in favor of this. So I'm prepared to make a motion, sir. >> Go ahead. >> Okay. So I make the motion to deny special magistrate recommendation to conclude a mediation between the city of St. Pete Beach and Sunold LLC for a modified proposal of the Winward Pass
project generally located at 3,800 block of Gulfport. this I'm sorry at Gulf Block Boulevard which was referred under conditional use permit 230 85 ordinance 2024-08
and variance 2458 in May 2025 >> I second >> city clerk if you'll please do a roll call >> Commissioner Maldonado >> yes
>> Vice Mayor Marriott Yes, >> Commissioner Robinson. >> Yes, >> Commissioner Esniki. >> Did we lose her? >> Mayor Petilla. >> Yes. >> Motion carries four to zero. >> Thank you.
>> Next, we have items for discussion. Commissioner Maldonado, you had one regarding dogs and leashes. >> I do, uh, Mr. Mayor, but I'd also like to just go back. I did reread the meeting procedures uh regarding motions and think that maybe we should go back and look at 6B. I'd like to get uh
Attorney Brooks to just weigh in on that before we go any further. >> Um I guess first of all, under section 1.03 uh of the charter, um easements shall be vacated by a vote of four members of the
commission. So that uh that um easement uh failed. Um but a continuence as proposed by Commissioner Robinson originally would not need four. You could continue to a next meeting and then you'd still
need four to approve it at a next meeting. Um I guess the thought would be that the parties could come to some agreement between now and then. Otherwise, without the four um and that mo that easement failing, um that would be an outright
denial rather than a continuence. So, if you'd like to reconsider, make a motion to reconsider and then first get a vote on whether you can reconsider and then you'd make a motion um to continue rather than approve. >> Yeah, as long as we're in agreement.
>> In favor of that. >> I'm in favor of that. I don't know. Are we talking the next commission meeting or or what date are you looking at? >> Yeah, I would I would just uh continue that to the 10th February. >> And if there's no resolution at that
point, we can continue >> continue it. Again, >> let's make sure we have the date correct. Um >> be fine with that. >> February 10th, we will put it on the agenda. If there's a resolution, then we can take it up at that time. If not, we could continue it again. >> Perfect. I'm for that. Can I make a
motion or you want to do it? No good, >> that's fine. You made it. >> Um, okay. Um, I'll make a motion to >> to reconsider first. >> To reconsider >> and you can stop at that and then we'll get a second and vote on that and then we'll >> to rec Okay. Reconsider resolution
202601. >> Second. >> Take a roll call. >> Vice Mayor Marriott. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Robinson. >> Yes. >> Commissioner Esniki. >> Yes. Commissioner Maldonado. >> Yes.
>> Mayor Petrilla. >> Yes. >> Motion carries 5-0. >> Get democracy working. >> Now you can make it the new motion. >> Okay. >> Um Okay. So, officially I'll make a I'll make a motion to reconsider resolution
20261. Um >> motion to cont continue >> continue to date certain >> February 10th 10th >> uh commission meeting um for resolution 2026 vacating a three-foot easement located at the rear of lots five and six
of block C of Sunset Park replat as recorded in plat book 18 page six of the public records of Penelis County Florida 103 24th Avenue. >> I second. City clerk if you please roll call. >> Commissioner Robinson. >> Yes.
Commissioner Resniki, >> yes. >> Commissioner Maldonado, >> yes. >> Vice Mayor Marriott, >> yes. >> Commissioner, uh Mayor Petrilla, >> yes. >> Motion carries. >> Thank you. >> All right. Items for discussion. Dogs. >> Yeah. So, uh again, thank you, uh
Commission. So, dogs off leash. I'll start with the uh first with the bad. And I have received numerous and numerous and numerous concerns. I don't want to say the word complaint because I'm not in the complaint business. I'm not code enforcement, but there's a lot
of concerns about dogs being off leash and being a Delmare Park on Sunday. I received uh two franic calls from a uh a resident who felt threatened by a dog that was running around, you know, and I pleaded with the community. I've asked
that folks, you know, just do the neighborly thing, the right thing, and it it seems to fall in deaf ears. So, a lot of that might do with uh the fact that some folks just aren't attending the meetings or just not reading the signs, but what I'm asking for is that
we become a little bit more aggressive and enforcing existing ordinances. You know, the uh the the sheriff has been great about coming out and talking to people, but there's no record of who they're encountering, and it's just getting to the point where something's
going to happen. something is either going to result in an injury of a person or a pet, you know, and then this service dogs um they've got to be on leashes. I mean, that's Florida law. That's not St. Pete Beach law, but we need to be more diligent about uh
enforcing that. So, I would like to ask um for the support of this commission and enforcing those more stringently. you know, we've been open-handed, very kind, you know, with with dogs doing things that that uh they shouldn't be doing. It's not their fault, their
animals, it's the residents, it's the people, and some cases even visitors. But I I do think that we need to uh you know, start using a more aggressive approach in dealing with that. So, >> can you just tell me again the park that you're having?
>> Vina Delmare Park in particular. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. >> Commissioner Vzniki. >> Um, thank you. Um, and thank you, Commissioner, for for bringing that up. We have similar I think and I'll just
speak for district 3 and the parks that I've seen um in Belista in at the Dawn and Lazario. Um, I know city manager you're asking about parks, but just in my district alone as well, I mean, we see I go with my daughter, you know, and
we see part dogs running through the sidewalks, in the tennis courts, on the playground, um, off leash. So, this this is not just Fina. Um, and and I'm not going to speak for the other districts, but um, you know, how do we come uh to
a solution, right? because um we we don't have enforcement everywhere and you know and I don't know if that's I I just don't know what the solution is or what we can do or what we can suggest um because it is is prevalent. It's on the
beach. It's um you know it's it's in the streets. You know, I I see residents uh walking dogs along the sidewalk um from Pasigrow Way all the way through G Boulevard without dogs on a leash, you know. So, um yeah, it it is a problem. I
just don't know um how do we address it. >> Thank you. So, um prior to this, we previously were working with the sheriff's office in particular with dogs off leash on beaches. We have ramped up that enforcement and have been seeing
some improvement. There are challenges um with dogs on the beach, but dogs off leash should not be a challenge. That is a clear Florida statute. So, uh we'll work with the the
sheriff's office to ramp up enforcement in neighborhoods for this issue. >> Thank you. Okay, so now for the good news. Dogs off leash. So, I was watching the uh 26th January parks and wrecks meeting and it
was uh announced that the area formerly known as the dog beach is not legally um a beach. It's actually a sandbar and therefore the decision was made by the city that the signs will be removed at some point and at that point this uh
this area will now become off leash. Folks can go out there, they can do as they please because it's not city property. So I just want to make sure that I understood that. Is that correct? There's one clarifying point that I'm waiting on the sheriff's office for because there are some county
ordinances related to dogs off leash and so before we make a formal announcement and change signs, we were waiting for the sheriff's office to give us >> okay >> clearance. >> Perfect. And thank you for for clarifying that because you know once a
city employee says that in a public forum then at that point folks think it's it's hats off and run around free. I would also, you know, uh just proactively start to look at that that if that is the case, it's no longer city property. Maybe part of the um the
allure, you know, we talked about uh bringing and attracting more tourists, more visitors and things like that. Part of it might be a uh rebranding of that area. So maybe I'll get some community input and buy in from the commission on a new name. You know,
just playing around with it really briefly on the way down here. I thought that it would be neat to call it uh something like pa bay or something neat, you know, get a mural or something like that. But this is something that we can embrace, right? This is not a bad thing for the community. We're losing we're
seating some property, but at the same time, this may be a draw for uh for visitors. So, we just need to figure out what is permissible and what the uh what the county rules say. So, thank you for clarifying that. Appreciate it. >> Thank you, Mr. Robinson. Um the first
issue I I just wanted to bring up u uh Passa Grill has employee parking passes um for employees uh to be able to park in in some of the uh city spots um or the pay spots. They believe they've get
a $25 a year. Um I don't know if it's a if it's a tag or what it is, but they're able to park um along in in some of the spots. Um there is an issue with Upam because there are businesses there that do not have that
option. So, I'd like to consider looking at what we can extend to the very few um businesses um on at Uppam to be able to do the same thing we've done at Passa Grillil.
>> I think it's only fair to be able to extend that. How many businesses are there? >> I think there's one or two there. The the grill itself, it's in their contract or or their lease with the city that they get two spots. Um, but there's only
one that's really right there. It's uh cool vibes. >> So, at the grill at up in the beach, they have two designated employee parking spots, right? >> Correct. It's part of their lease and uh I'm looking at just if we can do the
same thing that we do to other BS. I'm sure we Well, I'm not sure. I'm assuming that we do something similar with the lease over at Pass over at Passagril. That being said, the other one I'm talking about is there's evidently a 4B
pass, employee parking pass that goes out to other people. That's a $25 a year fee that you pay and it's for employees. So, just looking at trying to extend something similar or the same to um to the folks over at UPAM. I mean, it's one
business in particular. There's no spots for his employees to park. >> So, would they be willing to give up those two of their spots? who give up the two other spots. >> Well, Passer Grill doesn't have any designated employee only parking spots,
right? >> So, they have they get parking passes. >> They get parking passes. Correct. >> So, Upen Beach has designated employee only parking spots and they would also get or would they be the same as Pastor Grill where Pastor Grill doesn't have employee parking, but they can park
anywhere with a parking pass. I I'm not sure how that works exactly on pass a grill, but I was told that there is a the 4B parking parking pass for them and that with the grill on Uppen
Beach, they get as part of their lease the two employee spots. >> And so they're not they don't trying to understand what the problem is. So we can find a solution. >> So the they don't have enough parking for their employees. >> Correct. They've got one spot. Cool. >> Whole different business. a whole different business.
>> Which other business? >> It's called Cool Vibes on Sunset >> on Sunset Way. >> Place that used to be Russian Nights. You might not have >> Okay, >> thank you. Just trying to get >> Mhm. And I do understand what the issue is. >> They they have one spot that ends up
getting taken up and they're constantly having to fight to get that >> because everything else is permit only and uh pay. I I can address >> parking study coming. >> Yes. So I can address this in the context of the parking study which is
tracking to finance committee on February 4th and then we're coming to you for first and second reading direct out of committee. So we'll um I'm asking staff right now to make sure that one the fees established and two what what
are the rules around issuing those particular permits? >> You okay? You mean especially for I I mean I don't know what the rules are around what's being issued on 4B and and pass a grill. >> Yeah. So want to define that >> a clarification
>> define it clearly understand what we're doing and then apply it >> consistently. >> Okay. And then the other one is um I was uh uh speaking with a resident and uh they had asked about this and and uh I
guess there might be a lot of residents that don't realize to send an email to us. There is the city commission st.org that will get to all of us um versus sending one individually or sending sending it all individually. Um the
point on that is uh being able to share the info that we get or the input that we get especially on voting issues um to be able to send that back to the clerk so the clerk can redistribute it to the other commissioners if you were to get
one that's just to you but you needed to share it so everybody knew the input across the board. I think that's only fair. Um, right now I don't know who all is doing that, but the the particular resident mentioned AI being able to do
it as an AI function and if that's something we can check on um as a search so that we can make sure that we are all getting the same info >> especially again on voting issues. So I I I asked the city clerk this a parallel
question about a week ago where maybe a simpler approach would be to create an organizational just like the at city commission for each board and committee if I understand your question or is it >> it's commission only I'm not talking board or committee. >> Okay.
>> I mean you could go to that level as well. Yeah. >> But again we're looking at I'm talking you know more importantly voting issues. >> Yeah. So, normally I and I just want to make sure I understand this too because this comes up. It comes up all the time. I if I get something and someone asked me to share it with the commission or
you know a um a member of the staff or something, I usually send it through the city clerk, you know, one for the sunshine laws, but two for tracking and visibility. But is is that what you're asking? I I don't understand. I think the the issue is if I correct me please
sometimes I receive an email you receive an email and I've seen plenty where >> they're excluding people >> it's including it might be just the two of us on the email chain but it might be an issue that >> is pertinent to everyone because we're voting on it. >> I think we can just have call it the
gentleman's agreement that if that comes up we would just forward those emails so everybody else has access to the information and the data. I don't know that we need >> you shouldn't be forwarding them to rather not be forwarding them to the clerk. >> Yeah, >> I don't think we need an AI scrubbing our emails and deciding what needs to go
to everyone. >> So, >> yeah, there's a lot of >> just it was a suggestion. >> I think we can go with the lowest tech solution, which is >> if if so, I'll I'll say if I receive an email that only comes to me or just me and one other commissioner and it's on a voting issue, I'll make sure to get it
gets forwarded. I'm sure you all will do the same. So, >> Okay. and the city clerk uh does a great job of redacting just enough information where we're not even getting close to the sunshine laws. So, I'm I'm comfortable with that. So, just for the record, because we'll update your handbook
for future reference, >> there's an agreement amongst the commissioners that if you receive an email from a constituent regarding a voting matter that you would automatically and it's not included with the entire commission, you would forward it to the city clerk for distribution.
>> Is that accurately? >> Let me go to my train let me go to my training manual. I think I'm the only one that refers to this still. Perfect. >> It's in there. >> See possible because I mean sometimes you just miss stuff >> and there's a good faith effort. How
about those? Use those words. >> That's exactly what I was looking for. >> All right. Commissioner Resniki, you have an update for us, please. >> Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor and Commissioners, um, and and for letting
me join the meeting virtually this evening. I know there was a couple of issues, but I got back on. Um I am still obviously in Tallahassee representing um St. Pete Beach and advocating on behalf of our residents. Today I met with legislators to oppose several bills that
could harm or continue to harm the financial well-being of our city and to strongly defend the municipal home rule. Um, protecting our ability to govern locally and maintain stable, responsible funding is essential to the services of
our community, which we rely on, and I appreciate um the support you all gave in in me coming here to work to ensure our our city's voice is heard at a state level. Um, today I was working to oppose proposals that would reduce or eliminate
property taxes without providing replacement revenue and addressing concerns with Senate Bill 180 um, and supporting Senator Deiglier's Senate Bill 840, which strengthens the local
authority. I'm also opposing changes to sovereign immunity in House Bill 145, which will increase our liabilities and potentially increase city insuranceances. But I will also encourage to continue support the Senate
bill side. Um, but they're still being um there's still a lot of changes happening daily. Um, so you got to kind of stay stay a breast to that. um also opposing efforts to restrict or eliminate local business taxes uh to to
the municipalities under the Senate Bill 122 and House Bill 103. Um at the same time supporting improvements to public meeting requirements in Senate Bill 332 and House Bill 655.
Um this does enhance the transparency and resident access, but it also helps the cities when we receive a pre-suit notice um B Harris um case, it allows the cities to have private meetings
preventing high legal fees that sometimes um could help cities solve, you know, that case sooner. So, it's a good one. Um the the focus here is simple, just to protect the financial well-being of St. Pete Beach and defend
municipal home rule and also to continue making decisions that reflect the needs of our community. Um I want to make sure that our voice is heard. So today, you know, and I'll go over some of the things that I did join the the Sun Coast League of Cities under the Florida
League of Cities on some issues that we went um as a collective group uh to several uh legislators being the property tax, the sovereign immunity, um the local business tax, um as well as uh
Digglier's um house bill um or Senate bill, sorry, 840 um and the public meetings, but but I went to a couple of committee meetings as well. I mean, we're talking about 12 about 1,200
bills, about 200 or more, closer to 300 bills that affect municipalities. They're talking about things like permitting um being handled at at at a state level. Um tourist development dollars. um they
they are questioning it and and I was kind of excited about it because um a possibility uh for more for municipalities. Um also things like Florida Starter Homes Act uh we were talking about um earlier even about um you know the CRA.
Uh this starter Florida starter home act at a state level will allow a lot to be divided into up to four smaller lots with no say of the municipality with no say on the zoning um to become duplexes
or triplexes or town homes and I know we were talking about square footage earlier um but again we would have no say um you know the one of the committee meetings that I went today too um things that are being thrown around by by the
house. at the House committee meeting that back in 220 since 220 to now there has they believe there's been a 70% increase in revenue at Adalarum based off of nothing no numbers but several um
cities presenting which which I gave ours um I think you all were forwarded uh today from our lobbyist shoe maker the the white paper that we're going to be using tomorrow morning that kind of goes over the revenues and what we're going to be asking for um so hopefully
you've had a chance to look at it um maybe maybe not but um what I'm asking for before I wrap up is is really if there's anything further that you would like for me to raise tomorrow I will be starting at 8:30 in the morning all the
way to 5:00 pm going to different legislators on anything that is specific to St. Pete Beach. So I I will be going uh with Jim Taylor um visiting different um representatives and and senators. So
our voices is important. So if there's anything you could think of or anything that you're watching, there's many bills out there um and they're not asking us. So things can happen at a state level that can impact what we're doing in our
city. So thank you. >> Thank you, Commissioner Rzniki. appreciate the report and thank you for taking the time to go up there. Um, and thank you to our uh, state lobbyist. Uh, I know Jim's been excellent to work with
setting up those meetings, uh, making um, the different uh, senators and house representatives available for you to meet with them. So, I appreciate the effort. Uh, on that same note, um, the reason I didn't go up there this week is because we make sure that we have a
quorum here. Um and so I'll be going next week. Um again, some of the same issues that keep coming up. You know, we need funding uh for some of the uh some of the projects that we have, especially for resiliency, emergency services. Um
and we certainly um you know, the erosion of home rule has just been something that that has been happening on a continual basis and you keep hearing it from every all the bills that you mentioned. You know, every one of them wants to eliminate one more piece of home rule, one more piece of home
rule. As if somehow the way that Miami Beach does business is the way that we want to do business or the way that Jacksonville does business or the way that Ocala does business or Okachobee or any other place. You know, we have so many different parts of Florida that are
so variedly different. I mean, you can have horse country on one side, you can have swamp on the other, you can have beaches over here, right? I mean, it's just, you know, you've got orange gurves, tomato gurves. I mean, it's it's it's a huge vast state, got two different time zones,
you know. Um, and so it's I think it's important. I appreciate what you've done to kind of champion that. I know the Florida League of Cities is a huge champion on behalf of our cities for home rule. Uh, and so I hope to be able to represent the city in that next week in Tallahassee. And I appreciate Jim
setting up all those meetings for you. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right. Next, we have staff report. City clerk, >> nothing for me. Thank you. >> All right. City manager. >> Nothing to report. >> Nothing further this evening.
>> District 4. >> Uh huge thank you to the uh city and staff for their work at Vina Delmare Park. The maintenance that's gone on this month has been incredible. It's it's noticed especially with the uh the sidewalks that have been repaved. huge
safety concern. The trees have been pruned, water, everything's working except the dogs off leash, which you can't control, but but thank you so much. Uh I just want to announce that my next meeting will be two February at 6 p.m. at the Warren Webster. Uh that is not on the 9th and that's to deconlict
with an upcoming event uh here in the city. So 2 February 6 p.m. Warren Webster be there be square. Commissioner Rzniki. >> Thank you. There's um a couple of committee meetings coming up or different neighborhood meetings or
associations. Uh one change was the Leo Park um association meeting is was moved to the 5th. So February 5th at 6. Um the Donses annual meeting still still the same that there's no change on that one.
Uh but they do have an additional meeting I believe. Ah I lost it. Sorry. Bel Vista is on February 12th um at 6:30 and I believe that's it. >> And what was the date for the dances
art? >> The date for the dances art. >> Thank you. >> The date for the dances art. >> I did this the last time and then I told you it didn't change. It's the same. I thought I had told you.
Hold on. I'm sorry. Technical difficulties. >> I will let you know in a second. Mayor, >> we'll let you look that up and we'll go on to Commissioner Robinson. >> Thank you. and nothing to report. >> Commissioner Marriott. >> Um, sure. I just wanted to pass on uh
the thanks to um our public services department. I had several residents up on the um north end of Boca that were having some issues with the construction of pump station number one and they have been just absolutely had nothing but fantastic things to say about Camden and
his team with public services who have worked really hard to help them solve the problem and get things sorted out. So, I wanted to pass that on. They're doing a great job. Um, and my next event will be um on February 17th at Masteries Brewing at 6 p.m. >> Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner
Nikki, >> I get it. I didn't want to I'm using my phone as a hot spot, so that's why I don't want to lose you. So, I'm doing a search. Um, it's on February 19th at 6 o'clock. >> Okay.
Excellent. Okay. Thank you. Um, the only item I have is the one Commissioner Molinado alluded to. We have a mayoral forum right here in chambers on February 9th. Maybe um I believe that's also for
commissioners of district 3, right? Okay. 6 p.m. for commissioners, >> 700 p.m. for the mayoral forum. I'll be right here in chambers. And with that, we are adjourned. Thank you, everyone.