I. Have done that before. When we lived up to that age. And I.
Found out how to do it right now. This year, to get the windows down to 22.5, right? Oh,
yeah, I told you that we didn't. We got the doors until we got
back for 16 years. 14. Years? I go back to the oxygen. What are you going to do? Give them the
boards? Can you talk about what you can? I know we are close. I'm not sure. If our kitchen is.
No longer. Well, I can you hear that? Oh, pastor Snare out there. Are working up off the
couch into the pump mechanisms. So don't. Yeah, don't use solar cells, electrical whatever or
whatever, etc. 16. Dollars. Yeah yeah yeah yeah.
Appreciate that. So here. Are I'll ask you you may ask you
right here. Okay. Austin, are you ready? Yes, sir. Thank you. I now call to order the regular
session. Meeting of the Board of Commissioners of the City of Tarpon Springs on Tuesday, May 13th, 2025 at 6:30 p.m. City
clerk, roll call, please. Mayor here, vice Mayor. Eisner here. Commissioner. Coleus here. Commissioner DiDonato here. Commissioner. Panther, here. Our
reflection tonight will be says will be given by Reverend Kurt Snare. I don't I don't see him here. So I'm going to ask the
city attorney to lead us in a prayer. Do it. Yeah. Go ahead.
That would be very short. If we may bow our heads and ask for guidance tonight in a in the decisions made by the elected
officials that it meets the favor of the residents and that we proceed forward with in best interest of the city of Tarpon Springs. Thank you. Thank you.
Amen. Good job. Let's do that. Pledge of allegiance, please 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. Okay. We have a few proclamations to do.
Wednesday I could walk. It's a miracle. Oh, good. Oh! Excuse me. So tonight we have three
proclamations. The first one is on Jewish American Heritage Month. I'm going to read this and give it to our vice mayor
Eisner. Before I. Before I read this, you know, the vice mayor, he knows that I grew up in a
Jewish neighborhood in Gary, Indiana, and pretty much all my friends growing up as I was growing up were Jewish. I actually pledged the Jewish
fraternity in college in Indiana University. So I have really strong affinity for Jewish
people. And I know all that you guys have gone through. But and some of the most decent people I knew growing up and who treated
me the best were my Jewish friends families. So. Well, don't expect that from me. I'm
sorry. I'm just a comedian here. Okay. City of Tarpon Springs proclamation. Whereas Jewish immigrants to America. Ever since the first arrival to our shores in the 16th century, have
played a central role in the creation, growth, freedom, prosperity and strength of the United States of America. Whereas this month, the city of Tarpon Springs joins Americans
of all backgrounds in celebrating the foundational contributions of Jewish Americans to the fabric of our nation. And whereas we recognize
the enduring faith, perseverance, and resilience of the Jewish people and lift up the many ways that Jewish Americans enriched our culture,
politics, civil society, and countless other areas. And whereas we celebrate these accomplishments, we must also recognize the bigotry and violence that Jews have faced
throughout history and that shamefully persist to this day. And whereas we will continue to lead the fight to confront racial, ethnic, and religious
hate across our society with education and empathy. And Whereas, this Jewish American Heritage Month. Let us pray. Let us pay tribute to the many and varied contributions of the
Jewish people to our community and celebrate our common commitment to pluralism, cultural diversity and religious freedom. Now, therefore, I, John
Koulianos, by virtue of the authority vested in me as mayor of the City of Tarpon Springs, Florida, do hereby proclaim the
month of May 2025 as Jewish American Heritage Month. Make me
look taller. Thank you. Okay, what you got to say? So. Oh, my God, what I wanted to say was, you know, I'm sure if you follow
any of the newspapers today, you will see there is anti-Semitism out there. My short and sweet comment is there's no room for hatred in any race, creed,
color, religion. Everybody is God's people and we should all respect one another. We can differ with one another and we should do it gracefully. But there's just no place to do harm
to one another or to do hate speech. There's a big difference between protest, and there's a big difference between hate speech. So that's my comment, and I thank you all for coming
here and helping me represent Jewish Heritage Month. Thank you. Our next proclamation is
National Safe Boating Week, and since Mike is an avid boater, I'm going to let him do the honors on this one. We need to
do something here to lower it down. I need like a. You can hear me. Yes, I'm sure you can hear me even in the house,
honey. Okay, so I am a boater. And before I even read this, I just want to tell you, I'm also an advocate on, you know, safe
boating. One of my pet peeves. And my wife knows this is it just disturbs me to see people, especially young kids on the front of boats. They don't
realize it's all fun until it isn't fun. So I will tell you that I am always telling them to try to keep the kids inside on the other side of the rail. And
I know these gentlemen here. It's got to be a pet peeve of theirs. The whole idea is to try to keep youngsters safe, as well as having a life preserver. But
I'll let you speak on that. So first I'm going to read this, okay. Whereas on average, 650 people die each year in boating
related accidents in the U.S, whereas the vast majority of these accidents are caused by human error or poor judgment, and not by the boat, equipment
or environmental factors. Whereas safe boating begins with preparation, the Coast Guard and the Auxiliary Coast Guard estimates that human error accounts for most boating
accidents, and that life jackets could prevent nearly 75% of the boating fatalities. Fatalities. And Whereas the basic boating safety procedures carrying life
saving, emergency distress and communication equipment, wearing life jackets, attending safe boating courses, participating in free boat safety checks can help ensure boaters on America's
coastal, inland, and offshore waters stay safe throughout the season. And Whereas National Safe Boating Week is observed to bring attention to important life saving tips for
recreational boaters, the City of Tarpon Springs recognizes the support of Tarpon Springs Flotilla 0701109 of the United
States Coast Guard Auxiliary and federal, state and local safe boating park partners in their effort to educate the public and promote safe boating. Now,
therefore, I, John Cooley, on us to my right, by virtue of the authority vested in him as mayor of the City of Tarpon Springs, Florida, do hereby proclaim the
week of May 17th to the 23rd, 2025, as National Safe Boating Week. And as you all know, before I present this, there was a very serious boating incident that happened in Clearwater, and
I don't want to talk about right now, but there'll be things that come out from, you know, down the road when it's investigated. But we all want to have a great time on the water, and we also
want to make sure that we come back safe and sound. So this is for what you guys do. I appreciate you and thank you
very much for what you do. Would you like to say something? I just want to say real quick
before I turn it over to my Public Affairs officer, Steve Denhoff. We all live here in the safety and the security of our waterways is very important. Not to me, because I've lived here
my whole life, but to all of us, because we have such a great natural resource here in Tarpon Springs. I'll go ahead and turn it over to Steve Denhoff, my public affairs officer. Thank
you. Well, listen, on behalf of Flotilla 11 nine, I want to thank you, mayor and Vice Mayor and Board of Commissioners. For
the honor of your proclamation kicking off National Safe Boating Week, I want to give you a little background on us. I don't know how many of you are up to speed on Flotilla 11 nine,
but we're a volunteer organization committed to boating safety, marine security, and environmental protection. We are 25 members, 25 members
strong, and have served the Tarpon Springs community and its waterways for over 50 years in support of National Safe Boating Week. We're going to step up our
efforts to raise awareness about boating safety in that throughout the week of. May. May
17th will be offering free vessel safety checks at Anclote River Boat Ramp Park on May 17th from 9 to 1. So these
examinations help boaters ensure their vessels carry the required safety equipment and meet federal and state regulations. Additionally, our auxiliary
members will staff a safe boating information table at West Marine here in Tarpon Springs. From 9 to 1, boaters can drop by and ask questions,
pick up free boating materials and promotional items. Also, we're going to provide free vessel safety checks there. You just pull up in the front of West Marine and we'll come out
and do your vessel safety check. We're also going to have a safe boating table at Loews in Tarpon Springs from 9 to 1. Now, the US
Coast Guard statistics show that drowning was the reported cause of death in three out of four recreational boating fatalities
in 2024, and 80% 87% of those who drowned were not wearing a life vest. So earlier this month, I visited many of the
marinas here on Anclote River and we put up. We gave them these all weather signs to remind boaters to wear their
safety vests. Now I went to Craig Park and Sunset Beach boat ramps, but couldn't find any attendance on duty. So I thought that maybe, mayor, you could do
the honor of putting those up at the respective boat ramps. This is the man who will do it. As it relates to maritime safety. At
the request of the US Coast Guard Station, Sand Key Flotilla 1109 embarked on two separate missions following Hurricanes Helene and Milton to inspect
aids to navigation and for damage. Many of the day markers and the beacons were documented and reported damaged. This mission covered the Anclote
Anchorage as well as the Intracoastal Waterway from New Port Richey all the way down to Dunedin Causeway. In addition,
at the request of US Coast Guard Sector Saint Pete, we provided Watchstanders to receive distress calls to relieve active duty duty during the hurricanes.
We support the US Coast Guard active duty with their C-27 airdrops exercise from Clearwater Air Station, and two boat exercises with Station Sand
Key. So we're very, very busy during these exercises. We are always available for search and rescue missions. If the need arises, we will continue to
collaborate with Tarpon Springs community by providing public boating safety classes at the Tarpon Springs Fire Rescue Station. A shout out to Chief
Scott Young for allowing us to use the facility there. It's fantastic, works great, and we also are thankful to Tarpon Springs Yacht Club, where we are invited to conduct our monthly
safety meetings. So if any of you are interested in joining the auxiliary, raise your hand and we'll be glad to chat with
you. Thank you. Thank you sir, thank you. Okay. You like to say
something? Oh, no. Thank you very much. Thank you. Oh, okay.
So. Thanks, Mike. Okay. Thank you so
much. Thank you very much. And you have such a projecting voice. I don't think you even use the microphone. Yes, I've got to work on that. So. So our
next proclamation is going to be National Public Works Week. And receiving the proclamation will be Mr. Bob Robertson. He's our
project administrator, but he's also our interim public works director. And until we locate our our new replacement. So, you
know, public works is really the heartbeat of the town. It's, it's and it's got to be the toughest job because public works is the one are the guys who keep the streets clean, are
constantly maintaining everything that we see. And you know, we could have the greatest town, but if it's not clean and maintained, it doesn't look like
a great town. And it's a never ending job. It's like, you know, cleaning your house, right? It's and doing the laundry. It's like constant. So they work really hard and we need to appreciate
them. And that's why we're doing this proclamation. So whereas public works professionals focus on infrastructure, facilities and services that are of vital importance to sustainable and
resilient communities and to public health, high quality of life and well-being of the people of the city of Tarpon Springs. And whereas these infrastructures, facilities and
services could not be provided without the dedicated efforts of public works professionals who are engineers, managers and employees at all levels of government and the private
sector who are responsible for rebuilding, improving, protecting our nation's transportation, water supply, water treatment and solid waste
systems, public buildings, and other structures and facilities essential for all, all of our citizens. And whereas it is the in the public interest for the
citizens, civic leaders and children of Tarpon Springs to gain knowledge of and maintain an ongoing interest and understanding of the importance of public works and public work
programs in their respective communities. And Whereas the year 2025 marks the 65th annual National Public Works Week, sponsored by the American Public
Works Association. Now, therefore, I, John Koulianos, by virtue of the authority vested in me as mayor of the City of Tarpon Springs, do hereby proclaim the week of May 18th
through May 24th, 2025, as National Public Works Week.
Thank you. Thank you, Linda, for being our official photographer tonight. So thank you, mayor. Thank you, commissioners, for recognizing National Public
Works Week on behalf of the Public Works Department. And as its interim director, I'm honored to accept this and acknowledge the staff that work hard to keep our city running.
That will be our storm streets and stormwater division, solid waste yard waste, Marina, parks, parkways, fleet maintenance and facilities maintenance. We do a lot of stuff there. It's their
hard work and commitment that make a real difference every day. So thank you to them. Thank you to you. And thank you, Mayor
and commissioners. Thank you. The way.
Okay. Before we move on, the we have two items on the agenda, items 11 and 12, which are being deferred. They're being deferred
this evening to allow the city attorney to further research qualifications on a couple board
appointments. Okay. Now let's go to public comments. We have public comments on any of the proclamations or on any items
not on the agenda tonight. So if something's on the agenda, you you have to wait until that item comes up. But we can do and also
consent agenda. We're going to allow them to speak. I'll go to. Yes. Please state your name and your address please. Jean
Harrington, 1021 Jamaica Way, Tarpon Springs. Excuse me, Mr. Mayor. Commissioners, thank you for holding these meetings. And I want you to know that there
are very important. And my husband and I do come to almost every meeting. Therefore, I'd like to comment on the suggestion by the mayor at the
last meeting regarding summer attire. At your future board meetings. Ever since I've been attending the meetings, we've always had a hot summer. We've
always had everyone still continue to dress professionally. You represent the city and hold the highest office and are the decision
makers of our city. I believe professionalism and professional attire is called for. Meetings are often taped by TV crews and are seen by many people. They
are videoed for all the people of the city to see them at home. Wear your polo shirts outside events, openings, ribbon
cuttings, casual events where there's no air conditioning. I go to those and I do dress more casually. This building is air conditioned and comfortable. I
respectfully request you continue with your professional attire and let tarpon shine. Please don't go to look like the
other boards of Tarpon Springs. You look at those on your video. I'm not proud of the way they sit up there and look, but
they're not elected officials. I appreciate how professional you all look tonight, and I do hope you will respectfully continue that. Thank you. And if you need
to turn up the air, I'm sure the citizens will pay a little more for the building air conditioning. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Next. Good
evening. Mayor. Vice mayor. Commission members. Senior city staff. Robert Rockline, 755 North Lake Boulevard here in Tarpon. I'd be remiss if I didn't come up. And first, thank
you for the proclamations that you do do every month for the various causes and conditions and staff and that it's I'm sure they appreciate it, but I'd be remiss if I didn't also mention
that this week is National Law Enforcement Memorial Week. And I think that that deserves a mention because we have a great public safety staff here between
the two, Chief Young's and their respective positions and their departments and the givers, as I like to call them, that serve our city. So maybe next year at
this time, I think May 15th is the actual date. They have the ceremony in Washington, DC, which I've been to several times, but I've been to more line of duty funerals than you have. People in this room,
including everybody. And that doesn't even include nine over 11, where I lost six people that I worked with on a daily basis. So I think that they deserve the recognition for the services
that they provide and the sacrifices that both they and their families make on a regular basis. Thank you. Robert, can I make a comment to you, sir? We actually held a completely
separate event, right? For that. I'm aware of that. I was unable to attend. But but you would want it. You want it here as well. I think they deserve equal time, more or less. I just want
to make sure you knew that we had that I did. Thank you so much. All right. Thank you. Good evening. Need to produce 901 Bay Shore Drive. I want to thank the
lady for coming up, asking you all to wear your suits and ties years ago. I know that Commissioner Banther and our
Commissioner other at the end were in office when and when I was mayor. Remember this? All the commissioners got a navy
blue. Or if they changed the color, it was green jacket to wear with a city emblem on it. And they were all presented their jackets when they came on
board. And the Saint Pete Times, when we had a daily Saint Pete Times used to always comment on how professional Tarpon Springs elected officials were at their
meetings and wherever they went. I think that's something you should consider. Again, they always spoke very highly of our community and how the men
dressed and how professional we were up here. Thank you, thank you. Next. Good evening. My name
is Scott Tucker, 1459 Coburn Drive here in Tarpon Springs. I'm here to talk about water quality issues on our street. For a number of years now, we've
had poor water pressure and also brown water. Last year I contacted the city and they assured me something would be done. Nothing happened. They never contacted me. April 24th
this year I contacted the city again, our problems only getting worse and if we have run water too fast, we'll get brown water.
I tell my wife when I'm taking a shower, don't flush the toilet because I won't have enough water pressure. So hopefully something can be done because so far I just seem to be pushed
under the rug. Nothing has happened and I would appreciate some type of response from the city because like I said, I've contacted them. They have not contacted me back with any kind
of resolutions at all. Thank you, thank you. Hi, I'm Henry
Hall from 242 South Beach Drive. I guess I'm going to reiterate what Scott talked about with water pressure. Took us five
minutes to fill a two cup container with water, and I've been given the understanding from some people in the water department that it's going to
take two years or so to start to address things with an engineering plan. And I'm wondering, we have two empty lots that are buildable. What
can we do about this? Maybe a little quicker? And is that something that can be brought up at a future commissioner meeting? We don't. This isn't a
question answer time, but if you can grab the city manager's card as you head out, please reach out to him and he will. He will
respond to you. Perfect. Thank you. Good evening everybody. My name is Sasha Braddock. I'm sorry I'm late. I'm an
experienced in these hearings. I'm here tonight. The last time we put agenda on that North Florida Avenue park. So as we speak right now or. No, that's
that's on the agenda. So you can speak then. Right. Thank you. Anyone anyone else in the audience that. Hi. David
Ballard, Goddess Junior I live on Georgia Avenue in Palm Harbor. I like to study the Constitution and the Declaration
of Independence. I find that after rereading the Declaration of Independence a few times, that the declaration is a real twisted piece of arithmetic. The
Declaration of Independence declares that we are on a long train of usurpations. I don't want to be on that choo choo train, it declares to eat us out
of our subsistence. It declares to complete perfidy, and works of death scarcely paralleled in the most barbaric of ages and conditions. It declares that
mankind is more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable deaf to the voice of justice and consanguinity, declaring that legislation is
pretentious and is to be protected from the murders that they commit on the inhabitants of these states. Further declaring the absolute
destruction of all ages and conditions. I do not want to be aboard that choo choo train any more than anybody else wants to be aboard a choo choo train that
takes them to perfidy and death. This declaration needs to be withdrawn. It needs to have a
second set of eyes put on it, I object. Anyone else?
Excuse me. Good evening, Peter Lacus, 514 Ashland Avenue. And before I begin my reading, I just want to say what I usually
choose to read is from the prophets because I see similarities from them. What was spoken to, what I see now. So
this is Isaiah 58 six through 11. Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen to loose the chains of injustice and
untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with
shelter? When you see the naked, to clothe him, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood, then your light will break forth like the dawn, and your healing will quickly
appear. Then your righteousness will go before you, and the glory of the Lord will be your rear guard. Then you will call, and the Lord will answer, and you will cry for help. And he
will say, here am I. If you do away with the yoke of oppression, with the pointing finger and finger and malicious talk, and if you spend yourselves on behalf of the
hungry and satisfy the needs of the oppressed, then your light will rise in the darkness, and your night will become like the noonday. The Lord will guide you always, and he will satisfy your
needs in a sun scorched land, and you will strengthen your frame. You will be like a well-watered garden, like a
spring whose waters never fail. So. It's kind of thinking about how we should live our lives. And I caught something the
attorney said here in his prayer that decisions should favor the residents. That is your ultimate
duty. Budgets. Yes, but that was prophetic. And so I've been gone a couple weeks and missed some meetings. I haven't seen the tapes, but there was a lot of discussion, I guess, about the
Forbes property. What to do with it. There's some want to have it go to a developer, another RFP, and there's others. And it
appears that it's more of the others that want to keep it as an open space. So looking at it as value to the city is one more
building. They're going to make that much difference to drawing people downtown. No, but an open space that was landscaped nicely. You can set up a little
stage back there. You can have people, musicians that come down that want to play for. And I know you're worried about the homeless, and that's why I read
that passage. And I was in New Orleans for a while, went to the Jazz Fest. And you think you got a homeless problem? You don't have nothing. We were walking
around town and you see him sleeping next to fences, and they've got the hypodermic needles, and you walk around, they've got these stations where it says IV thing, and they can
go and drop the needles off. In fact, one night I was hanging out, listening to some music on a corner. A guy comes around in a little go cart, picks up a
box. I talked to the night clerk I was talking with. He says, oh yeah, they come around and pick up, you know, the stuff. So we don't have that problem, thankfully. But the way we need
to deal with the homeless needs to be with grace and compassion. So as you look to consider what to do with this lot, don't be afraid that it's going to be a
homeless shelter. You already got the bathrooms across the street that people worry about, but things can be done to handle that. But we need that open space that can be used more
often for the benefit of the city and its residents, and actually helping the downtown people. People can get lunches, go sit at some tables with some
umbrellas. Be nice. Thank you. Maggie Miles for 33 East Boyd Street, Tarpon Springs. Good evening. Commission. I'm here
first to thank the city for the crosswalks on MLK. I think, Corporal Boone, I think that was his one of his farewell presents
that he gave us, but still, I'm looking to see Belcher extension open. I hope I see that in my
lifetime. If you are a regular driver of us 19 or alternate 19, you know we're currently in
construction. Pandemonium. We got construction on alternate. We got construction on us trying to get to downtown Clearwater to
work. It takes me about 45 minutes in the morning. I can leave here and go all the way to Saint Pete in 45 minutes. But it takes me that long because of all the construction projects.
At the same time going on. We need another northwest, I mean north south corridor. Change has to come. I know some people
don't want it in their backyard. We don't want mirrors in our backyard. But we got it and we welcomed it. So I think it's time to either put it on the ballot for the residents to
decide that's what we want and make it happen. But it's a long time overdue for that Belcher Road extension to come through. We need another north south
corridor. Thank you, thank you. Anyone else in the audience?
Let's go up to somebody else, Mr. Baxter, please come up.
How do you like my new hat? I actually earned this hat. My name is John Christian Saxer. I have a Swiss name. It's Johannes
Christian von horn, saxophone, sax. It's. It's Jewish week. My last name, Von sax, goes back to
somebody named Isaac in the Bible from Isaac Von sax. I traced my family lineage all the way back to Isaac and Isaac's
father, Melchizedek. I want to make a couple comments on issues that are going before the commission. One of them is about
the Jitney. I'll cover that quick. We don't need the jitney in a glass box. We can put it up on the stage, put nice lights on
it, and it'll cost less than $500. The stage I'm talking about is a railroad stage. I don't know if we settle that
issue or not, but we could save $300,000. The next issue is moving the Safford house. I've lived in the Safford House. Some
of my friends have lived in the Safford House. I've been a foreman for a construction company called Tarpon Builders for 20 years. I think I know
houses enough to know that that house should not be moved a third time. Living there. It's
any spark could set that house on fire. So I don't recommend we move that thing. I'm not threatening to burn it. I'm just saying that we don't want to move that house because it is
brittle and it would fall apart on. The third issue has to do with the stone anchor. I call it the Rock of ages. That was
removed from the property that was sun Bay motel was on, and I was given direct permission by Mayor Kosta to put up a stone
circle there. He was elected by the people. And when you're elected by the people, you should have the right to do different things, like throw a
stone here and there. And these stones are anchors from the fleet of Atlantis. I become world famous for finding the stones all the way around the
river. The Indian River or the intercoastal waterway, southern Florida, indicating that Florida was an ancient maritime nation
in ancient times. Between 6500 and 14,400 years ago, I. I look at the 14,400 date is more
realistic. So the reason why I want to put a stone circle up was because it would mark the garden of the Three Hesperides
spring, which is epiphany spring in Greek mythology. That was the first Garden of Eden, thousands and thousands of years before Genesis were written in the
Bible. So by putting up a stone circle at Craig Park, up above Craig Park, overlooking Spring Bayou, it would be a sign to the
nations that we found the spring of life and the evidence for the garden of the Three Hesperides. By the way, that's how we get the word Paradise. Hesperides.
Paradise, Paradise. Whereas the Bible doesn't give the entomology of how the world. Hears the word Paradise. It came
from Greek mythology. So there was an agenda. Is that my button? Yeah, there was an agenda by the writers of the
Bible to change the whole story. So I recommend everybody. Excuse me, sir, your four minutes are up. Thank. Thank you very much. I hope you'll do the right thing
about that stone anchor circle. And if you don't want to put that stone anchor circle up, I want that stone. That Rock of ages returned to me, and I'll.
I'll put it where I want it. Thank you very much. Sorry to. Over time. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak on any item that's not
on the agenda tonight? Austin, do we have any zoom callers? There are no online comments. Okay. I think we have one
letter. Mayor. We did have an email to read into the record, but the gentleman did get up and speak this evening. Okay. All right. Okay. So that that will
conclude public comment. We have an item that we added which is commission committee updates. So any commissioner who is a member
of any of the any outside committees, like Vice Mayor Eisner and Forward Pinellas, myself at the Tampa Bay Regional
Planning Council, I believe Commissioner Gulyas is the on the homeless. The homeless thing. So if anybody had any update on and we're and this is
going to be just a once a month agenda item to just update the residents on anything going on in there, respective committees.
So Commissioner, vice mayor. So I sit on the School Transportation Safety Council, but they meet quarterly, so we don't have a meeting until June.
But I also sit on Forward Pinellas board, which is an MPO which decides on all of the transportation items that go on in Pinellas County, everything
from Saint Pete up to us being the northernmost Pinellas County city. So I'm sure you don't want to hear about my three hour
meeting from 1 to 4:00. So what I decided to do was they bring up topics and the topics at least I'm going to speak about. They're not many, but it's
things that pertain to Tarpon Springs pertain to us. So one of the things that I had heard was that there's a Forward Pinellas
grant program. And of course, being a commissioner for three years, I've never heard anybody giving us a grant from there. The only grants that we got were
for surveys and things like that. So that was my question when I got back as a response, was that there would be somebody
speaking to all the city managers, including our city manager, Charles Rudd, will be in the upcoming month or so having a meeting, and they will
be presenting and asking our city manager to give a wish list of what he would like to have as a grant. Not to say that we're going to get it or he's going to
get it or we're going to get it, but at least we'll have a way of being heard. So that was one thing. I also listened to a
chart of how. Reliable and don't laugh, but how reliable 19 State
Road 19 is as far as in quality. But when I delved into it and started asking questions, they did this survey during Covid,
which was the time frame that nobody was on 19. So I thought it was a useless presentation. And I also made known that I
thought it was useless. So what was the sense of discussing it? They gave also a discussion on the quality of 19. So my
question to them was, did you ever see any of the on ramps or the U-turns on 19? They're all turned to gravel. I'm pretty
sure everybody up here on this board gets a call from someone thanking them for their broken windshield. We have no we have no control over that. It's a
Pinellas County thing. They will be trying to fix it. I asked them if they'd at least put a Band-Aid on it temporarily. Just some sort of a seal, because we
all hear about that. Another detail that came up was. They they had the fDOT does a more
detailed information by location and available. They inquire about. I wanted to inquire about more updates, their updates that
they give us are not up to snuff. And I really wasn't happy about. They almost give us updates from two years prior.
Things change so drastically that I thought we should be able to get an update as they get the information, rather than giving
us an update of the entire 19. So that's another thing that I got to speak about. I also made mention about the safety issues. I'm sure anybody that's driven
up and down Tarpon Avenue knows that the bicyclists, the professional bicyclists don't even think about stopping at Tarpon Avenue. They're buzzing across that at 30 miles an hour,
and they just hope that no car hits them. They're not stopping to push the button like the regular people do. We've all been there. We all see it. So I asked them if they would be so
kind as to put a inexpensive motion sensor there so that when the bicycle is approaching, it sets off those lights and hopefully then people stop. So
that considering that. There was a condition of bringing beach people to Clearwater so they didn't have to park in the
congested area. So one of the requests that I made was also to see if they would be willing to have a bus or some sort of transportation, even if it's a
smaller vehicle to bring our people to either Sunset Beach or to Fred Howard Park. So that's my dealings. Like I said, I
tried to take three hours and turn it into five minutes. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Anyone else that participates on a committee that I'm on the local homeless
network between businesses and some of the organizations, and we have our meetings every other month. And so we just talk about any if there's any new occurrences or, you know, just
ways to communicate with one another is the police departments there. And unfortunately, I'm not officer Boone's not going to be at the next one. And he was great. So
that's some big shoes to fill for the moment. But just we're constantly communicating with one another, just understanding the different seasons and the amount of people that that do
come and go. And potentially working with the Shepherd center for another site somewhere in the future. It's very, very.
Inception talk. So nothing, no direct details to give at this moment. But once we do come up with something, we'll be sure to we'll be sure to share it with the citizens. Thank you. Thank
you Commissioner. I'm on the Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council this Friday. Our our
sustainability. Plan is being given an award throughout the entire Tampa Bay area, which includes Hillsborough, Pinellas,
Hernando, Pasco. As and as the number one sustainability plan amongst all municipalities. So I
really want to thank. Our director, Tommy Kiger and Holly and all the staff that have worked really hard, and we're going to go down and receive
that award they'll be receiving. I'm going to just tag along, so I'm really excited about that. So thank you. Okay. Yeah. They
deserve. Okay. So let's go to the consent agenda. We've got consent agenda items four through nine. Is does any
commissioner wish to pull any of the consent agenda items. Okay. So. Does any are there any
public comments on any of the consent agenda items? Motion first, some people probably don't have these in front of them. They need to hear some of the titles to the consent
agenda. They got to hear each item. I see some confused faces in the public. That's why I'll read them. Okay. Consent agenda item number four. Special
events. Hippie Fest 2025 37th Annual Sponge Docks. 4th of July Picnic 2025. Juneteenth event 2025 Consent Agenda item number
five. Satisfaction release of leans number six. Authorization to continue to discontinue fluoride in the water system
immediately seven. Award File the aftermarket vehicle parts and supplies. Number eight. Approve amendment three to file.
Disaster debris removal and number nine approve change order for the Comprehensive Disaster Recovery Management. Okay. Are
there any public comments on any of those items? Parallax 514 Ashland Avenue. As the lady
mentioned, you need to have more professionalism with your attire. You need to stick to the standards in how you read the consent agenda. You're supposed to read it as the mayor's
previously have done to on the board. File number 230. You know the routine you've been on there a while. So I want to talk about
number six, authorization to discontinue fluoride in the water supply. Not a Republican to me. It's not a Republican and
Democrat issue. Thank you. If you go back into the records when we first put in the water treatment plant, I don't know if Bob's still here. He can confirm
it. Paul's not Robin Sanger and I pushed the effort to not have fluoride in the water. Back then, the county commission was a little more acceptable that they weren't. They were going to
not put water in because we were getting ours. But when we put our plant in, we didn't want fluoride in it. And again, another elected group comes in at the county. They want the
fluoride in. Then we get another elected group here. They put the fluoride back in. And in the meantime we've poisoned our children for decades, or at least one decade. So I would
recommend you move to immediately discontinue putting fluoride in it. Sorry that we have an inventory that will have to possibly dump and take a loss on, but hopefully that isn't the
case. But I would highly recommend we move forward and no longer putting fluoride or any other chemicals. A lot of these people here don't realize we put in chemicals to coat the pipes,
so they don't leach the lead. We put in all kinds of sulfuric acid in some of the processes. We need to find a way to get
back. We spend. I don't know how much Mr. Herring can tell you how much is left on the bonds that we borrowed. We spent 20 millions. 15 million was from
the swiftmud to put in a reverse osmosis plant that puts out good clean water. And then we turn around and put chemicals in it. So anything we can remove from
the water system is a benefit to all of our residents. Thank you.
Any further comments on the consent agenda item? Mr. Sarah
Andrews Mcwherter 1611 Seabreeze Drive. I would also like to follow up on the agenda number six regarding fluoride. I'd like to thank Mayor and Commissioners
Eisner and Peake for taking the time and energy to listen and talk to others and understand our concerns about the toxic chemicals in our water. We are
grateful that you acted immediately under the governor's directive to end the use of fluoride. We had hoped this would have been a vote on the city level. Since we operate our own facility, however, we will
take the removal as a win for our health and for our families. We look forward to working with the city in the future to make healthy changes that will make a
big impact on the health, on the health conscious moms that reside in the city. This is where the future is going, and to have a strong government behind us is paramount. Thank
you Sarah. Thank you. Any further comments on the consent agenda items? Austin, are there any remote comments? There are
no online comments. Okay, I'd like to entertain a motion to here. We have someone else. Oh we do. Oh I'm sorry. Go ahead. So moved. Y'all made me before
it's over with Zeb Atkinson 621 East Orange Street. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address the board today. I'm speaking to you not just as a concerned resident of Tarpon
Springs, but as someone deeply committed to science based policy and to the health and well-being of our family and community. Today, I urge you to preserve the city practice of
community water fluoridation, regardless of where the political winds blow, the fact remains clear that fluoride in public drinking water is safe
practice. Oh my God. Excuse me. Is a safe, effective and essential to promoting public health. For over 75 years, fluoride has been one of the
most studied and endorsed public health measures in the United States and around the world. The center for Disease Control has named water fluoridation one of
the ten greatest public health achievements in the 20th century. I don't know why I can't speak today, my lord. Some
facts 2021 meta analysis published in Public Health found that children in fluoridated communities had 35% fewer
decayed, missing, or filled teeth. 2013 Australian study in the Journal of Dental Research showed that adults with a lifetime of exposure to fluoridated water had
significantly less tooth decay and fewer dental treatments required over their lives, and the United States is estimated that $1 invested in water
fluoridation saves a community $38 in dental treatment and cost. This is something that helps everyone. It it puts the
people that don't have the means to get to a dentist at a regular basis with those that that do. Unfortunately, the city may have
experimented with discontinuing fluoride, often due to misinformation, political pressures, or budgetary confusion. The results are remarkable are remarkably
consistent. Calgary, Canada, 2011 A study was published in the Community Dentistry and in 2016 it was published in Oral epidemiology, epidemiology found
that within three years of halting fluoride in the water, Calgary experienced a sharp and statistically significant increase in childhood tooth
decay in Juneau, Alaska, 2007. The study was done in 2018 at found that noticeable rise in dental treatments, including crowns and extractions for
children following fluoride removal, even in Pinellas County. In 2011. The study was done in 2013 where they took fluoride out. There was such an
outcry that they put the fluoride back in and that was, you know, in this county. Addressing the Anti-fluoride
narrative, opponents of fluoride often cite cherry picked studies or long debunked claims. One concern is that the FDA is
removing indigestible fluoride supplements, such as tablets and drops from the market, but the move is unrelated to water.
Fluoride in the water. Doctor Ladapo, who is our state surgeon general, has repeatedly undermined scientific based public health policies not only
with regard to fluoride, but also his positions on Covid 19 vaccine vaccinations, masking and general disease control. His skepticism of fluoride is not
rooted in science, but rather aligned with the fringe conspiratorial rhetoric that didn't finish okay. In the end, please keep the fluoride in. It
helps communities. And there's scientific research that shows when you take it out, bad things happen. Okay, can I hear a motion to accept the consent
agenda? Items four through so moved second. Okay, so with a motion on the floor I'm going to go to comments I'll go first.
First of all, is there a problem okay. The governor signed a bill eliminating mandating that we eliminate the use of fluoride in
the state of Florida. It's that bill. That bill is effective July 1st. Our agenda item here
is to go ahead and just discontinue it effectively. Now, as soon as we vote on this, the city manager will take the steps
to eliminate the use of fluoride immediately. So that's what we're voting on. So just for the general public's knowledge, the again, it's the it's been
mandated by the by the state legislature. Commissioner, do you have any comments. Yes. I just want to overall comment. I did receive a call from one of the ladies, and she was very
aggressive on the phone with me, referenced my children and then and then testosterone levels. I have a long history of listening to people up here that I don't agree with that that is that is
my job as your commissioner and I do support this item tonight. I don't believe you should be forced to have fluoride inside your water, but I recommend and this includes public comment as well. You know, put yourselves
in our shoes and put yourselves. We have daily lives just just like you do work, families and responsibilities. Everyone up here is here to help you. But please come with us in a
respectful tone and one that is going to prompt us to listen to you. Thank you, Commissioner De Donato. I too have always leaned
toward not putting it in. There. 20 years ago there was research. More and more of the research was in favor of putting fluoride in the water. We have new studies done around the world
now actually, that show that that may not be the best thing. The other issue is, is the right to choose. And I just want all of you to want fluoride to know
that it's in your toothpaste, it's in your mouthwash, and you can talk to your dentist. I mean, is not being close to you, but it is being taken out for
people that do not see the need to do that. And as as already stated, it is the law. Now in Florida. So it is time to move
on this issue. But I would repeat that it is available to you at the local store, grocery store and drugstores. As far as toothpaste and mouthwash, and
talk to your dentist. Thank you Commissioner. You don't want it. Don't have to take it anymore. Thank you Commissioner. Yes, I have no comment. Vice Mayor
Eisner, I definitely have a comment. So earlier it was said that there is this is not a political republican Democratic
thing. And I agree. But what I have found in speaking to residents, anybody that is pro fluoride, you cannot convince
that it is not good. And anybody that you that you speak to that is against you're not converting the other way around. So it is very similar to politics, just
not with a political ideology. You know, I've read probably almost every single type of report, and it just depends
who's writing the report. It depends the tests that they that you take and how they, you know, determine the tests. You never
know if the tests are tainted to keep the scientists in in check. So I mean, the bottom line is this is the only medicine that
is being inflicted into people that don't want it. We shouldn't be allowed. Nobody should be allowed to say, you have to take this. It should always be up to
the person. So if there's so many things, soft drinks come with fluoride in it. Toothpaste comes with fluoride. As we said earlier from Commissioner Donato, if you go to the
dentist, they can give you a fluoride treatment. It's not an expensive thing on a small basis, but if you don't want to, if you feel that this could be
causing you harm, which they cannot rule out, you shouldn't have to bathe in it and swim in it and drink it and wash your clothes in it and all the other
things. So I am for having this removed and the people that want it and feel it's beneficial, you can still have it. So that's my
comment. Thank you, thank you. Okay, with no further comment, can I have roll call please? Commissioner? Yes, Commissioner. Donato. Yes, Commissioner.
Coolio's. Yes. Vice mayor Eisner. Yes. Kiwanis. Yes. Okay, so let's go to our business
items. Business item number one, discussion and appointment of board. Commissioner, represent representation to the General employee pension Board. Let me
start this off. So I serve on that that board currently I'm not adverse opposed to staying
there. But we do have a commissioner who has far more specialty in in employee matters and human resources. So
Commissioner Coleus would would you like to sit on that board? I would ask if Commissioner DiDonato would like to sit on
the board. I'm sure I'll do whatever I can to help. All right. Can I entertain a motion?
Motion to appoint Commissioner DiDonato to the employee pension board? Second, is there any further comment on the board regarding this? Thank you. Thank
you Frank. Appreciate that. Yeah. Any public comments on this item? Austin, there are no
online comments. Okay. Can we have a roll call, please? Commissioner Banther yes.
Commissioner DiDonato. Yes. Not comfortable voting for yourself? Yes. Vice Mayor Eisner. Yes,
yes, that was a good move. PK. He's got a year, so. All right, number ten appointments to
Planning and Zoning Board. City clerk. Can you lead us in that item? I thought that was where we're at. We are. We're at 13. We deferred 11 and 11. We
didn't. We didn't defer ten, did we? You just did. Oh, ten. Okay. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. You can't go off the paper. That's the issue. You got to go off the
computer. Okay? All right. I'm sorry. So. So let's go to appointment appointments to the budget advisory Committee. No,
no, no. Board of adjustments, item 13. Which ones did we. Okay, 13. 15. Yeah. You're. To. Glasses request again. Yeah. So
we're at the board of 11 and 12. Yeah. But this is really 13 moved. Is this, is this the motion. Oh this is the oh I'm sorry folks I understand. All
right. I'm working with the agenda that was given to me on Friday. Not this one okay I apologize. So 13 let's go to
number 13 appointments to the Board of Adjustments. City clerk, can you lead us in this item? Yes. We have received a recommendation from the Board of
Adjustments through the planning Department to move the current alternates, one and two, to fill the two vacant regular member positions. So what we're asking
the board tonight is to move Robert Wood alternate one and Carl Fooc alternate two to the two vacant positions, which terms will expire October 31st,
2027. We are also recommending that the appointments of alternate one and two, if you move the others up, would not happen this evening. I just wanted to bring to your
attention the two applicants that we have budgeted. The Board of Adjustments was their second choice. Therefore, the code enforcement position is one
person's first choice and the planning and zoning board that would those would be coming up at the next meeting where we need regular members. So if we place these two people as
alternates, then it would prevent them from serving as members that we need those positions. So would any commissioner like to make a
motion on this? And then we can have discussion. Any commissioner want to make a motion on this. We were worried
about the planning and zoning that's coming at the next meeting. We'll just board action to move Robert Wood alternate one and Carl alternate two and
to move vacant positions. These terms expire October 31st, 2027 and appoint two. We'll hold off on the alternate and we hold off
on that. Okay. Yes. Do I have a second? The motion second. Let's go. Let's go to board discussion first and then we'll go to
public comment. Commissioner Banther. Yes. So we're not voting on the two alternates. Correct? Correct. That is correct. Correct. Always bring
those back. If they should not get appointed. All right. There there is an individual on here I cannot support, but it's not one of the ones of the alternate. So
I'm good with this as is Commissioner Donato. Well we're moving to move the current alternates forward, and I'll
support that. Yes. Commissioner coleus, no comment. Vice Mayor Eisner no comment. Okay. Is
there any public comment? With no public comment? Austin. There are no online comments. Okay. Roll call please. Mr. Panther.
Yes, Commissioner. Donato. Yes, Commissioner. Coleus. Yes. Vice mayor. Vice mayor. Eisner. Yes. Mayor. Kelly. Yes. Okay.
Appointment to the budget advisory Committee. Mayor. Commissioners. Miss Howard has submitted her resignation as her residence is no longer in Tarpon
Springs. This leaves four vacancies on the committee, two regular member positions and two alternate positions. At this time, we have two applicants for
the committee, so we are asking to appoint the members, the applicants listed as regular members. These terms would
expire March 17th of 2028. Okay. Can we can Commissioner please make a motion on this? I make a motion to appoint Debbie McKinney and Michael Marcus as
regular members. Second. Okay. Is there any commissioner comments? I just want to include that in the motion. These terms would expire March 17th, 2028.
Thank you, Commissioner Banther. No comments. Commissioner DiDonato. No comments. Commissioner Julius. No comments. Vice mayor comments.
Is there any public comment? Austin there are no online comments. Okay, roll call please. Commissioner. Yes, Commissioner. DiDonato. Yes,
Commissioner. Yes. Yes, vice mayor. Eisner. Yes. Mayor. Kuleana. Yes. Okay. Number 15,
appointments to the Park and Recreation Advisory Board. Currently, there are two vacancies on this board. One is due to the resignation of Mr. Cohen and one being termed out,
which was Miss Lambrinos. We're asking the board to appoint the two applicants listed as regular members of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Can I
entertain a motion? So moved. No, I need a motion. Make a motion to appoint Lisa George and Stacy Ernst as regular members of the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board. Second. Is. Let's go to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Banther. No comments, Commissioner DiDonato.
Commissioner Coolio's. No comments. Vice mayor Eisner. No. Is there any public comments? Austin. There are no public
comments online roll call please. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner. DiDonato. Yes, Commissioner. Klinger. Yes. Vice mayor. Eisner. Yes. Mayor.
Kelly. Yes. Okay, so the next item, number 16, discussion and direction on little Anclote Channel Park. I'm going to defer this one to our city manager.
Thank you. Mayor. This issue came up at the last meeting and some residents they had spoken to me prior to that had a request. There's a small park which essentially is the right
of way where it meets the river. North Florida Avenue. And the park has two, I'll say, parking bumpers there. It's a very small space with a drainage ditch on
the left side. There's a bench and a trash can, and then there's signs like no swimming, no fishing and so forth. But all those rules are are, the residents contend, are
continually violated. And the parks are not well maintained. And they have do a lot of calls for service and so forth. So they've asked to come express their concerns tonight. The staff has been working police
department putting a camera on site so we can watch them more closely and increasing our kind of attention to that park in terms of maintenance and upkeep, hoping that can alleviate some of the concerns. But tonight was
the opportunity for them to be heard and for you all to give us some direction. Our comprehensive plan talks about not eliminating access to the water access points to the
water. So we don't recommend vacating the site. And we feel putting a fence up, just fencing it off. Everyone would just hop the fence, we think and continue the activity. So what we're
doing now is increasing our attention through a camera and through, and we're going to increase the maintenance and so forth, see if that alleviates it. But but we we're looking for more any more direction the
board may have for us tonight. So let's go through board comments. First. Commissioner Banther. Yes, I have some concerns about this park and I'm
anxious to hear what my colleagues think and more from staff, if applicable. And I and I fully respect that in our comprehensive plan or what have you. We're not to vacate you
know parks and just saying that sounds ridiculous, right. But we also have to use common sense. You know, how how how far are we going to have to go where. It's like a jail there. We got
cameras, we got gates. You can't fish, you can't swim. So maybe at one time when this was less developed, I, I grew up a few blocks from here, but I just can't recall, you know, maybe this was more appropriate. It
might not be appropriate anymore. And I don't think saying that is I'm not saying that's my position tonight. That's where I'm leaning. But in my in my opinion, we shouldn't just say, well, let's not vacate
because that's what our comprehensive plan calls for. We have to apply common sense. And I, I don't really see any longer unless I hear differently tonight what the purpose of this
park is now vacating it, where it goes, what it does, all that needs to be decided. But I think the residents have valid concerns. The fact you can't even fish there, swim there. I mean, you're you're going at the
end of a residential street to sit and just look at water. So I don't know, I'm, I'm, I'm definitely leaning towards exploring alternatives to, you
know, vacate this this a little park here. Thank you. Commissioner DiDonato. Well, I have to know this has been a problem for a long, long time.
The residents there have dealt with people who don't seem to respect the park. Like like park, so to speak. But at times,
not always. For those of you that haven't been all the way down, basically what it is the end of a road and then the wate. And there's a house to the west
of it and to the east of it, and it's basically just it's to me, I would support Commissioner Baker's position to look at, I know it is part of the comp plan
and I understand, but I don't even know what the square footage of that park is, but it's not very big. Yeah, it's really, really small. And I would consider looking at
something along that line or I don't know that a boat ramp really is going to be that good there, because there's the island out there and whatnot. So
I just really think maybe legally, we need to look at the comp plan and decide whether or not vacating it makes more sense. I, I don't know what the residents feel. I would be
interested in hearing that from them as well, but it has indeed been a problem. It's even a problem for people that live up and down in that area, trying to get to their dock with their
boats, because the fishing line is in the water and some of the fishermen get upset with the voters, and the voters get upset with the fishermen. And I just think we need to consider
whether or not that indeed should be a park commissioner. Yeah. Growing up as a kid, we used to, you know, go into the water, jump across, jump, you know, go to the island over
there. And there was a rope that we would swing across and enjoy ourselves. But it didn't have a fence. It wasn't improved to look like a park. It was, you know, we would pull up on our bikes and, and swim. But none of
that stuff that we're hearing now that's happening. You know, there's a the there's a few issues that and I understand that the, the residents of that neighborhood, you know, it's
seems like it's becoming more of more of a hang out with not the best activities happening, you know. And so. This isn't going
to hurt us as a board or as a community if we were to remove this park, you know, part of our comp plan, that's if, as Commissioner Banther stated, there's a few things there that
you barely nothing you can do but sit there and, you know, sit on the bench. So I'd be interested in removing it all, maybe just in improving the
roundabout to make people drive off and drive around. But if this board doesn't want to go that route and completely remove the park, because we'll have other chances for parks in the future. And, you know, we got a
lot of waterway too, so we'll figure something out. Then you got to at least keep the, the camera out there and you know, but. You know, I think that road
needs to just be a roundabout needs to get around a roundabout, but just a cul de sac. That way they can turn back around and move that. That shouldn't be a hangout in. It was never. But the problem is
it's improved now where it looks like it. So thank you, thank yo, Vice Mayor. Thank you mayor. So I gave this quite a bit of
thought, and I will just tell you that everything that's been said is all true. I agree with Commissioner Banta's comments. I agree with Commissioner Donato.
I agree also with. I just will say this. How's this? What we haven't tried yet is to put the camera there and to also put up
a sign that says trespassing after certain hours and put a fine attached. And that would
give the opportunity to see if that could work prior to pulling the cord. You know, we can always do that. We can always pull the cord. I've spoken to residents on both sides. I know
exactly what has been going on. It's disrespectful. They're throwing beer bottles. They're partying to all hours of the night. But you know, that can be done at Fred Howard Park. That
could be done at Sunset Beach. That's why we have a police force. People put in a call. And if you don't have the sign
stating what is legal and what is not legal, the police have no way of correcting the problem. I've been there numerous times
on my bicycle, on my in my car. It is. You know, I wouldn't be offended if we removed this park, even though it does break
our parks rules and regulations for our comp plan. But at the same time, it also is a venue
for older folks to be able to utilize it during the day. I don't know, and I'd like to find out if some of the issues are what's going on during the day, because usually what happens is
the issues happen in the evening when the rambunctious ones start. It's like Halloween. You turn into a pumpkin. So I would
like to take the baby step first and at least put a sign up, put rules and regulations. And if the, you know, if we see something or if the police see
something and we make a call, we can actually utilize the police force to reprimand or possibly whatever, depending on what they do, they could even be locked up
or fined. And then if that doesn't work, we always have the option to pull. I just don't want to start with the pulling, right? Right. Yet that's all. Thank you. Let's let's hear from
the public. And then I want to come back to the city manager and see if he has what his recommendation is on on this. So are there any public comments
regarding this item? Good evening everybody. My name is Sasha Braddock. I live on the end of the street house on the right. I'm probably the most
affected one by this park. The. I want to recognize the council, the mayor and the chief of police. You guys are really doing a great job. It's been 20 years in this city. And what
improvement? I really do applaud you on that. I do want to bring some details because the last four houses on this park are
most affected, and the other house is not as much, but in a sense they are a little bit. So I wrote a couple notes, just kind of tell you what, we are dealing with it, and maybe they
can bring something a little bit more clarity to your decision making. The other neighbor, Craig, on the other side, Lucas,
he's not as positive as I am. He's selling his house. He's moving out, he said. He's been dealing with this park in the city for years with zero
solution, and he doesn't have a trust in you guys. And he literally is selling his house. I don't know what new resident will do, but they will have to
be a little rude awakening when they move in. So I'm here to represent me and the other neighbor next to me, Conrad Cash. He's unable to attend this
meeting, but he sent some notes via me, so first thing and most important for me is my family's safety. There is zero easement.
My driveway, park. You can park two cars. If you more people come and you have to, you know, park another car behind it. I cannot leave my driveway. Little
inconvenience, but it gets old after a while, especially if you're in a rush. But what scared me the most. I have three kids. I have a two daughters. They come home late at night and
there are people sitting on the bench and they will park. And when they exit their car, they, as far as you and me and it's pitch black, there's no lights
there. And you know, the young girls, they get scared. So there is a safety issue there. We have not have an alteration with us,
but there have been alteration inside of the park. A few years back we used to call police and I have nothing but respect police. But let's be really
honest. Police. Come here. Tell them leave. They leave and that's it. But I've been living there now five years and my
office is looking at the park. I don't know, I hard to catch. There's so many hundreds and hundreds of different people coming in. So in order to enforce it, it might take years
to cover everybody who comes to that park. The for the another commissioner. There is a lot of signs there. I believe there is a sign it's illegal to do all of
that. There are so many signs more than on Trump rally. Nobody reads them. Literally everything. The sign is from the eight feet high to the floor,
listing one. Nobody reads that. I'm sorry, but that's a fact. That's the truth. Maybe if we put a little bit bigger sign, a little enforcement might deter
some people. But again, to cover all of them, word spreads around might be too, too long. Other things that we are dealing with
during the season, a lot of local fishermen, the net fishermen come there and they catch a mullet. And if you guys know, you know, if you grew up mullet fishing, you got to empty your net. You empty it right on
the grass there, all the bycatch, they're there, and it's quite a bit of a smell. City tried to clean it. They come, you know, every few days a week. But the park is size of the
garbage truck. If you park the garbage truck in the park, there's no even a foot on each side. It's that small. The I because I'm closest one. Am I
limited by time? Yes, sir. Oh, crap. Go quickly. Trespassing people. You know, going to my property all the time to wash their hands after fishing. Everything. Kids are dropping
kayaks and there's no launch there. But, you know, that's fine. It doesn't bother me, but it does bother me. I did find out a medical field. I found out a diapers, hypodermic needles, you know, rolled up joints
there. If one of our neighborhood kids gets stung by the hypodermic needle because they're they're barefoot and they want to swim, they want to go across the swing bar, and it's still there. Really. It is still there. I got in trouble
there because Fish and Wildlife came to me and says, I put it there. It says that park, that island is actually protected area. If one of the kids gets stung by the needle and gets
some horrible disease, that is really city responsibility. The after hours, their sign, you cannot be there after dark, but there's always after dark theft on my house. I cannot keep the
garage door open, my power tools be missing. It's literally from me to the gentleman to get in my garage. It's not that far. And
we do appreciate police. They do come, but there is no solution. People leave and then we. I feel bad by wasting their time for such a minor call. And we
stopped calling police. We stopped calling from and I we my job is not to enforce it because our neighbors both guys got cars got keyed. I don't want my car
to be keyed because people know if police showed up that me or the neighbor called in. Yeah. So that's all I can say. Thank you for your hard work. Appreciate it. And if whatever your
decision is, I would really, really suggest to involve the immediate neighbors. People urinate there all the time. There's no bathrooms. They expose themselves to me and my
partner while they urinating because my office is where the light is. And please don't put body house there. They will stink so bad. That's not solution. Thank you. Thank you
for your time. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Any other public comments? Jane
Harrington 1021 Jamaica Way. I feel bad for the people who live there. If that's what's going on. I walk in this town. I walk from my house to out to the
beach at Fred Howard. I go to sunset, but my trail is. I go to sunset. Then I walk all the way out to Howard, and then I come back. And then I walk all the way to the end of South Florida.
And I love to sit there, look over the little wall. And it is a very little park. Now, I don't think you could reach out from that bench and touch anybody's house. But during I don't go at
night. And I appreciate Commissioner Eisner's suggestion. Look at when the problem is and look at what the problem is and how often the problem is. But to take that
park away and I'm not the only older person that goes during the day and walks and sits there. It is very peaceful and it's a very nice part of tarpon
at the end of the road. If you take that away as a walker, I have nowhere to sit or stop except walk all the way back, walk all the way out to Fred Howard, or keep going back to
sunset and then back to my house. There's very, very few places with park benches or anywhere to stop. Mayor. You're a runner. You're a walker. You
know that. They close off the fence in different areas. So I think there's two sides to everything, but I appreciate the idea. Go slow and figure out how you stop it, because you can
take that park away and make it a roundabout. And those kids are still going to see that end of that road and jump off. And if other people in the neighborhood do that, why wouldn't a kid do
that? So I do think there are solutions that all of you wise people can figure out. And I like the idea of trying it. And maybe you do something and put a guard there at night. But please
don't take everything away from people during the day. Thank you, thank you. Next. All right.
Good evening. My name is Michael Marcos. I live at 1249 North Florida Avenue, exactly four houses away from the park. I can corroborate everything that Sasha said about what happens at
the park. If you want to keep the park, the parks an eyesore. Eyesores collect other eyesores. So nobody's taking care of that park for years. As far as the city goes, I can tell you that
100%, because I walk my dog there every day. I appreciate the lady that goes there and sits. I know there's other people that go there and sit and try and enjoy the park, but you can't enjoy something that is in
the condition that the park is in currently. As Sasha said, the park is 50ft■!S. Maybe I would like to. You know, I guess I have to think right as a member of the budget committee now and,
and the Budget Advisory board or, you know, thinking about how the city spends their money, if we focus on what it's going to take to upkeep 50ft■!S at the ed
of a dead end street at the far end of Florida Avenue, and think of all the resources and the costs that we've talked about cameras, maintenance, police,
landscaping, please. Any of those things. It just doesn't seem like we're getting a good bang for the buck. That's my $0.02 on the park. Thank you
guys very much. Thank you. Any other public comments on this item? David Ballard, Goddess Junior I live down by pop Stancil Park, and we had a similar issue where there was
vandalism and stuff at night time at the park. The sheriff came through and they put cameras up there, but the cameras actually spoke to people
that were walking by after hours, and the camera said something similar to your on camera, this is the park is
closed. Currently. You're trespassing. Remove yourself from the property. Maybe an initial step in that direction
would help, and nighttime activity would cease. So thank you. All right. Thank you.
Anita. Protest, 91 Bayshore Drive. I don't know if y'all can answer it. Maybe Miss Vincent can. Is that a contributing park
in our plan? If it's not, then you don't lose anything. If it is, make sure it doesn't affect the city in any way in our plan.
Do any of you know that, Miss Vincent? Answer that. May she answer that so we'll know before the vote comes. Is it a
contributing Park City manager in our plans? The city manager is saying. He comments, okay, is it? I'll let the city manager address that when he comments,
all right, because I may want to ask him a question if he says yes or no, because we've worked many years on that plan and I know how important it is to the
city mayor. You know how this works. Yes, I do know very well it's a comment and it's I'm making a comment with a question, sir. Well, the point of order, the is it a
contributing or is it a contributing, is it a contributing factor in our comprehensive plan on parks? Go ahead and Renee talk. Listen, she's the mayor. We'll give her
some deference. No, I'm not the mayor. Not well, you long time ago. You're not following procedure, but go ahead. All right? You haven't to. All right. Would you please stop and let her talk? I will, all right.
So the way that that that the right of way is acknowledged is it's identified. We have to identify in our comprehensive plan access points to the water
where the public has access. And this is one of the this is identified in an inventory as a public access point. Whether
it's you know, you use the term. Contributing. I that's not really a term that comes to mind. It's in this instance. So but it is identified as a, as a
water access point. And we do have a very specific policies in the comp plan that have been there since at least 1990 about not vacating rights of way that
provide access or vista to the water. So I don't know, and I would defer to the city attorney as to can we control those in other ways. That's a different question altogether. So the,
the, the code in the comprehensive plan really speak to actually vacating the right of way, in which case, if you do that, then the right of way goes to the adjoining property owners. So thank you. Okay.
That's what I wanted to bring out mayor. Thank you. Thank you. Because I know it goes to each side of the property owner. And if it is we've got to be very cautious what we do. But these
people pay big, big bucks in taxes to live on the water and they should be protected also. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? I
have a question. No, I'm going to go to. Well whenever you when we get back to us. Austin. There are two online comments callers.
When I unmute you please state your name and your address for the record. Good evening. Board
of Commissioners. Juliana de 413 East Street, Tarpon Springs. I'm listening to the comments about the park. There's I like banner
banter, comment of purpose. What is the purpose of the park? And some purpose I'm looking at is maybe we can change it to a dog park. Okay, if we have to remove
the bench because of the cause of people sitting and doing things unseemly are more like more like motion lights to go at the park and also more scheduled
drive by. Because if the kids know that the police officer are not coming by at a certain time, then they will not be there. If there's not, they don't know
that they're coming, then it'll be a park where they don't want to be at, because they never know when the police officers
will show up. That's my comment. Thank you, thank you. Next. Austin, you said you had two.
Caller, please state your name and your address for the record. Good evening. Peter Lacus, 514 Ashland Avenue. I keep hearing
this dismissal of the comp plan over the years. Commissions and y'all have been on revisions of comp plan. It's to protect for future generations. If you check
with Renee. As she stated, this is specifically in the conference from 1990, but I questioned her and you can maybe ask herself that this park was already platted years before
that. And in fact, there doesn't appear to be any records of when this actually occurred as being designated. But if you look on Google, it does show that as little Anclote River Channel
Park. Now, as far as the residents, I completely concerned you're valid. A street light could be put up that goes on in the evening at dusk and
goes off at sundown. Now you have patrol officers that through the evening patrol downtown and other areas of town, that could be added as a stop by 1 or 2 stops during the
evening and at the late night to deter any further actions. And I would also encourage the residents that if there is issues going on, that they do call the police so that can be
handled. However, this is to be looked at as who came first. The park was there. These houses that these two people live in were built in 1986. So as the
realtor in me says, buyer beware. You know where you're buying into. This happened down in Dunedin where they had music and places going on, and they put in a big condo building across the street from Dunedin
Brewery. And then people came later and complained about the noise. So you have to look at what came first and those who came afterwards. You need to find a way to solve their
problems. But a light and some additional coverage by your police officers and the camera aspect works, because I've seen that happen myself with the
sheriff's office. We were out at Brooker Creek area, and we were out parked in an area down a dirt road, and Sheriff showed up
and said, well, we saw you on the camera. You can't be here after night. We said, thank you, we'll leave. We did. So there are ways to handle the issues without having to go and vacate
a vista or piece of land that is entitled to the citizens to use and open it up more, so people maybe can swim or drop a kayak off there. That'd be a great place to drop a kayak. And as
for the lady suggestion, the dog park. The gentleman earlier said he already walks his dog there. If he had a dog park, you had more cars coming down there. Thank you. You only get two
minutes on Collins. Okay, so any further? There's nobody else upstairs. There are no more online comments. Thank you. City manager. Oh, I just wanted to
suggest a couple things, because there is a long history on this piece. And in fact, I was even surprised when we went through the comp plan and that was named as a park. So it has been
around. I'm not I don't I'm not comfortable taking parks away. It just doesn't look like a park. It's not maintained as well as it should be. Perhaps. Maybe there we should look in to
see what we can do to improve it. And definitely from the complaints that I remember getting and have actually gotten fairly recent on that piece of
property, it may be curbing night activity there totally might help. But then again, I would go to the police department and say, let's let's get a history of how many calls
you've actually had, the history of how how you would suggest that we handle it legally. Signs are certainly one of them. But
again, if people don't read them, they're not much value. I it is a problem for the people that live there. It really is. In fact, I looked at a house on the end of that street one time,
and a neighbor came out and told me about all the trouble, and I took it off my list, quite frankly. So I, I understand what these people are going through.
It is abused many, many times, but it seems to be more at night than, than other times. So let's get a little bit more factual information is what I'm saying
are suggestions on on what we can do to save it if we can. Let's let's hear from the city manager. I think he has some ideas that he wants to share with us. Well, I really wanted
to hear tonight. So there was some consensus of we definitely want to save it or we definitely don't. And so I've heard I've heard both actually, that maybe
we don't need it. I believe there will be a process. Renee, we have to amend the comprehensive plan to there be some steps. But I do think we
could significantly step up the maintenance, maybe lighting cameras, things that have been suggested tonight as a potential first step. If you find that doesn't solve the problem, I
believe there will be a process. We can't just. Can you talk about that briefly, Renee. So the comprehensive plan itself is a is a policy document and you
administer the policy. But we also have land development Code regulations when you process to vacate or, you know, a right of way that it basically says,
don't. So for if it provides an access or vista to the water. So for the city attorney as to whether or not we would, you know, you know, it's still a, an act that the, you know, it's a,
it's an ordinance that the board would have to adopt to vacate the right of way. And taking into consideration everything, I don't know that, you know, even though there's a regulation there that absolutely prohibits
you from vacating it, but is a very strong. I, I guess the, the, you know, at the end of the day, you know, would you get a challenge and that's, you know, again, I'll defer to the city
attorney on the legal ease of, of that. So, so city attorney or do we need to make a motion to give direction, not not make a
motion? I think we can just get direction from the board as to how you want us to proceed, whether you want us to look into making changes to the comp plan,
the ordinance necessary, whether you want security, more security, whatever direction you want to give the city manager and staff that we don't need a
motion. Okay, Commissioner. Yes. Yeah. I minimum the camera needs to be installed and we need to come back and revisit this in six months and see if this
camera is being effective or not or, or something. And if the residents of that area. I sort of hate the draw more work. But, you know, if you see stuff that
doesn't make sense for the park over there, you know, report it. And that way we got the camera, we can start monitoring this stuff and, and go from there and build something. If that's the
case. And, you know, I guess it's been a park for so long. But, you know, as we talk about if you can't swim there, you can't fish, you can't. Does it
really have public access to the waterway? It's a vista, I believe it's, you know. So I do want to correct. There's no sign
out there about fishing. Okay? You can fish. It says no swimming and a few other things, but fishing is not one of them. So people can fish there. And I
guess the other. Well no, don't worry about it. We're in a hypothetical. If we put a couple benches spread out around will
come by you. Isn't that technically some access to waterway and creating a little bit more for people to rest along their walking routes or
something, even if, you know, the water comes up a little bit, but it's just a bench. Sure. I don't know what I mean. I think, you know, you're you're talking
about just unrelated locations. I mean, you know, so, you know, I just if. If you try these additional things, if you
continue to have problems, you know, I think the city manager's committed to finding a solution. And I, you know, I think we could work with the city attorney to find a way to, you
know, limit access. I would like to do it without vacating the right of way. But you also have general public health, safety and welfare that, you know, as a consideration, perhaps. So I
would like to work with the city attorney on the right way to do that. If that's where we end up, I would say minimum the camera and the residents, they just do some monitoring. And, you know,
as they report stuff, it will be on record with video if needed. And we come back and visit it in six months after the cameras been installed, to see what the
results of it are. I think that's reasonable. Why don't we, city manager, why don't you've absorbed all this information? One second. I'll call you. You've absorbed all this
information. Why don't you work with the city attorney? Even, you know, have some conversation with the residents and come up. Come back with a strategy as to
how you want to affect this, this problem. Okay? Understood. Okay. Vice mayor. Thank you. Mayor. So I've heard everything
that the people have said and what was said up here, everything makes sense. But there's a number of things that has changed. We've had to put a sign or should have put a sign
up at Riverside Park. When we put plastic, you know, no bicycle riding, no skidding with skates. We've had to put signs. No climbing on the tree, no
sitting on the tree. People these days seem to feel they're entitled to do a lot of the things that a normal person would say, maybe I shouldn't do
that. So I'm not adverse to, even though I know I've heard there's a number of signs up there. I want to tailor a sign that is foolproof for anybody
that does things wrong, where just period, you cannot be there at night. It closes like every other park closes. Because if we try to block off the park,
there's always a way of climbing. I've seen the fences there. You can climb into the person's fence and go around it, so I don't know if that's going to be an idea. You're going to
get people to trespass on people's property just to get around the fence. Again, I'm not adverse to removing this park, but we have a situation where it
would. It hurts our comp comp plan. It's against our comp plan. It has adverse effects in every which way, shape and form.
But I've sat on a number of boards over the years, nine years per se, and I have not. Technology has changed so drastically and we haven't
extinguished all of the different types of technology that's, you know, that's been given to us. We could easily put a solar camera up there so we
don't need electricity and be able to film what's going on and see, you know, if we have an issue, we have to do we have to
issue summonses. Well, I wouldn't be issue the summons, but, you know, we could try this first to see because I do feel for the residents of what
they're going through, I don't want that to be. But there are also the rights of the people that need to or want to use this to sit in. What we don't want is we want to restrict the people
that are going there to party and cause havoc and, you know, just whoop it up for the evening. So we don't allow people in Sunset Beach, we don't allow in any of the parks at night. So this should be just
one more park that we don't allow at night. Enforcement is something I heard, you know, somebody explained about the expenses of cleaning up the park. We have expenses about
cleaning up every park. That's just part of the cost of running a city. But, you know, we do maybe have to look into this. And I like what Commissioner Cooley said about revisiting
this in a short period of time and seeing if it works fine. If not, then we take a different venue and see how we handle this. Let's let the city manager
absorb all this and do come back with his suggestions. And I think you I think you've taken in enough to have some direction. So yes. Thank you. All right. Does anyone want to
take a five minute break before we get into all the ordinances? Everybody good? I'm good. Everybody good. All right. Do you want to break? No. I'm okay.
I got this. I can call for a break, but no. I'm good. Thank you. Thanks for thinking about me. Okay, so ordinances, resolutions number 17,
resolution 2025, dash 37, ratification of executive orders. Extending the declaration of the state of Emergency for Tarpon Springs due
to Hurricane Helene. If we don't need to have any conversation on this, can we go? Oh, I'm sorry, you got to read your thing. I'm sorry. Resolution 20 2537. Resolution of the Board of
Commissioners of the City of Tarpon Springs, Florida, ratifying Executive Order 20 2534, extending the declaration of local state of emergency to
May 6th, 2025, and ratifying Executive Order 20 2536. Extending the declaration of local state of emergency to May 13th, 2025, and providing for an
effective date hereof. Can I hear a motion to approve resolution 2025 dash 37 second? Okay, if there's no conversation
on that item, can we go to roll call? Yes. Yes yes yes yes. Item
18 resolution 2025 dash 38 City Attorney, would you read that resolution 20 2538, a resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the City of Tarpon Springs, Florida, ratifying Executive
Order 20 2535, extending the declaration of local state of emergency to May 6th, 2025, and ratifying Executive Order 20 2537. Extending the declaration
of local state of emergency to May 13th, 2025, and providing for an effective date hereof. Can I hear a motion to accept
resolution 2025? Dash 38 so moved second. Roll call, please.
Yes. Yes yes yes yes number 19. Resolution 2025 dash 39. Would you read that please? Resolution 20 2539 A resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the
City of Tarpon Springs, Florida, declaring the termination of the state of local emergency for the city of Tarpon Springs as a result of Hurricanes Helene and Milton, and providing for an
effective date hereof. Can I hear a motion to accept resolution 2025? Dash 39 so moved second roll call, Mr.
Panther. Yes. Yes, Commissioner. Yes, yes yes. Okay. Resolution number 20, resolution 2025,
support of application to the Florida Division of Historical Resources, special category Grant. And we'll be hearing from
Tommy Kiger. Thank you. Thomas Kiger, public services director. Mayor Koulianos, members of the board. Today, we're requesting approval for this resolution to
support a grant application for a historic cemetery restoration. The goal of the project is to do some restoration work on a number of the historical grave
markers and monuments in the cemetery, which date to the late 1800s and early 1900s. Matching funding will be provided from the Cemetery Perpetual Care
Fund. And we will be. It will be a beneficial project to beautify and continue to support our historical assets in the cemetery. So we recommend
approval. Let's go to public comments. Are there any public comments on this? Want me to read the title? Yes, please. I'm sorry. Resolution 20 2536 A resolution of the Board of Commissioners, City of Tarpon
Springs, Florida, supporting the Special Category Grant application with the Florida Division of Historical Resources from the Public Services Department to repair, stabilize,
and clean historical monuments at Arcadia Cemetery. Okay. Are there any public comments on
this item? Austin. There are no online comments. Hearing none. The chair will entertain a motion so moved. Second, are there any commission
Commissioner comments? Commissioner Banther. No. Commissioner. DiDonato. No. Commissioner. Coleus. No. Vice
mayor. Eisner. Okay, with no comments. Can I hear a roll call on the motion? Yes. Mr. De
Donato. Yes. Yes, yes. Eisner. Yes. Okay. Item 21 resolution 2025, Dash 41 reimbursement
resolution. And that will be presented by Finance Director Ron Herring. Good evening. Mayor. Commissioners Ron Herring, finance Director. The
purpose of resolution 20 2541 is if the city pursues financing capital projects in the future, it allows the city to also finance capital projects that have already occurred. Expenditures, usually when
financing is pursued, is for to pay for future capital. Capital projects. This resolution allows the city to include financing for past expenditures of specific capital projects. This
resolution is only good for projects that have expenditures for 18 months from its approval, so it expires 18 months from the date of the board approves it. Bond Council drafted the resolution and the city attorney
has reviewed the resolution. And if you have any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them. Mr. Let's go to the reading from the City Attorney
Resolution 20 2541, a resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the City of Tarpon Springs, Florida, establishing establishing its intent to reimburse certain expenditures with proceeds of a future tax
exempt or taxable financing or financings, providing certain other matters in connection therewith and providing for an effective date. Let's before we
go to public comment, are there any commissioner questions of finance director? Okay. No.
Okay. Public comments on this item. Austin. There are no online comments okay. Can I have
a motion? Then we'll go to conversation. So moved second. All right I'm going to make some comments. Mayor has everybody had a chance to meet with
finance director and city manager already? Frank were you able to. Me too. Well, I best today, right when I met with you. That's what he's talking about. Yes, sir. Yeah. I just
don't want this assumption to be like, we're we're going to take out loans or bank note or a bond to pay for some of these past projects. I understand we've
been a debt low community, and that's been great work in policy decisions from, you know, staff as well as from the past. But, you know, we want our debt low.
We need to have a conservative budget approach without this potential assumption of being able to present a bank note or a bond in the future, that's
really going to put a burden on future generations to pay the bill. And I've seen the different scenarios that we may be able to accept to pay for some of these projects that, you
know, aren't really revenue generating. And. We haven't taken out a big loan on, let's say, since what the reverse
osmosis plant was one of the bigger ones. That is correct. So this is a big deal. We don't try to borrow this type of money and create a debt for our community,
in which we're pretty much one of the lowest in the county, and for great reasons. Unless there are, you know, projects that I think that can help bring
revenue or a return back to the community. And so. You know, you see the different options. And we talked about the ten year and I know this is I'm just getting
out ahead of this because, you know, with this going forward, it's just the assumption that if we need the money, we're going to borrow it and we shouldn't do that. We've had a good approach these last so many years. We
don't know the uncertainty with the markets as we've all talked about before. And, you know, we've wanted to pause hiring
and, you know, but capital improvement projects are something that, you know, this money even attempts to get borrowed, borrowed by us. The residents need to vote on it.
The residents have made it clear that you saw at the last referendum, from 350 to $500,000, that if voted upon, that the residents wouldn't need
to vote on it. Well, they said, no, we want to vote on the 350. So they want to be involved. They want to be involved in the decision making. And I don't think it's the best move for us
as a board to take on some of those notes or bonds that I've seen for those type of projects. We just need to slow it down a little bit and sharpen our pens
and try to come back to it all. You know, we've experienced two of the worst hurricanes in the last hundred years. We've seen some of the worst. Any worse
than that? Than, you know, we need a miracle for our community. And so, you know, what is our end game with some of these capital improvement projects? Because we're going to
use the money up 4 to 5 years. We're going to have some other big capital improvement projects coming up. This is all rotating. And then what we're going to be in a position to potentially borrow money and we won't even
be on the board. And so you're going to have future boards or, you know, ten years out paying debts, 20 years out paying debts, 30 years out paying debts. I mean, Commissioner
Banter's great grandchildren will have to be paying a debt like that, you know, so we don't need to be pulling out money like that for capital improvement projects. And
without the residents deciding on it. And I know if we go to the ten year route, we don't have to bring it in front of the residents. But no, it has to.
And so I'm not going to support the start of increasing a debt debt ratio for our community. When we've been in a good spot, we have a lot of uncertainty. You know, we solve the gross
avenue project that that ballooned change order after change order, you know, so there's a lot of uncertainties that can happen with even these projects that we may want to
fund and whatnot. So I'm interested in using those type of big ticket loans in the future if needed for revenue producing, which we really don't have any right now. So we need
to work with our grant specialist for some, some projects. Keep at it, but I don't think it's a good move to even explore right now. And
honestly, it's the city manager's first year. I want him to work with the budget that's available and not have this fat kitty. In case that, you know,
we'll use the note. We take the note out, we take the bond out. It's the first year I think we all, as a board, as this new board, need to work with what we got. It's not much. We know that
we've made some big purchases, but borrowing debt for long, you know, borrowing funds for long term debt for our community for some of these capital improvement projects. It's just
not something I'm going to support. Thank you. Let's let's get back to the okay. So I'm I'm going to go I'm going to go
first on this. And then I'll go down the line. First of all anything that we borrow would have to have for me to, to go
along with it would have to have value. That's as long if not longer than the debt itself. So and we have things that
unfortunately we have to address. And one of our number one items is stormwater management. So you know, there are things we have we do have a
very low debt to revenue ratio. And what we and what we look at in, in in government, it's different than what you do in
your, in private finances and private finances. You look at, you know, debt to equity. But here we we're not really concerned about equity. We're
looking more at, at cash flow. So, you know, I had done a study on it. I had presented it at one of the prior boards where we
were one of the lowest, if not the lowest. We're definitely lowest full service city in in the county. Now, there are some
like Dunedin. They kind of went, you know, they decided they were going to attack all their major initiatives early on and, and
their debt to their. Debt service to general revenue went up to about 12%. Ours right now
is what, about 1.9%? So if we were going to attack, let's say, for example, one of the items would be to finish to do the
initiatives necessary to handle the Craig Park flooding items. Okay. Those are things that are going to have benefit for our
community long into the future. Okay. And you know what? You got to look at it as from an economic standpoint. You look at you do something. Now you have
inflation and you have interest, right? So if inflation to wait on items that the inflation is
going to exceed, most likely the debt service interest rate, you're really better off to attack them. Now the citizens get the benefit of solving some
of these significant problems that we have to deal with. And yet the and the debt is, is spread out over a long period of
time. We if we have if we go to a big bond like 30 year or anything over ten years, we have to go to referendum anyways. So that would go without saying and
I wouldn't, you know, you really it's very difficult even to go with 5 or 10 year debt that would drag our ratio up right away and we really wouldn't get
much bang for the buck. So if we did go for any of the major items, it would have to go longer than ten and we would have to go to referendum anyways. And, and the residents would decide and we would have
to we would have to identify those things that we are financing, and then they would have to make a decision if they thought those things have value for us now versus waiting 5 or
10 years till we, what, save money to do them. I don't I don't know how that works. So let's go to Commissioner
Banther. Yes. Thank you. I had a good time today meeting with Ron and staff. Thank you. It it was very informative. I I've heard some good points up here I think I think Commissioner Coleus
brings up a great point that we need to be extremely cautious when it comes to our approach with debt. We have always been extremely low in comparison to what to other cities as, as, as
far as our debt load. And that should be something that should be on the forefront of our minds. In these conversations. The mayor brings up an excellent point as it relates to, you know, forecasting inflation, the cost of things now versus versus
the versus the cost of things in the future that must be considered as well. And debt. Debt is simply a tool. It can be used and you can ruin yourself, or you can make a lot of money
and it has to be handled responsibly. I do think that taking out debt against assets is not always a bad idea. You know, we have built in safeguards. Obviously, anything
over ten years has to go to the public for, for, for a referendum. We saw a similar thing passed recently with the spoil site as far as the
purchase goes and the and then thus the debt service that followed. I wasn't in support of buying the property, but I was in support of how the city purchased it and using
appropriate debt and using appropriate debt service. You know, so I think debt is a tool. I think we can use it wisely. And, you know, my biggest thing
when I met with Ron Herring was we need to do all that we can to mitigate stormwater. We can't stop storm surge. But we had a lot of streets in this town, including mine. I live over on
Oleander, off off near the high school that flooded because the storm sewers could, could, could, could just not keep up. And part of that's just a matter of, of being ten feet above sea
level. But I know we can improve on that. And I would hate to be on a completely cash basis and defer and defer important projects because of a fear of debt. That being said, I think
it was a good point tonight that was made that we should be very cautious with it. But it's a tool. It should be used responsibly and I believe we will. Thank you. Commissioner De
Donato. I understand the caution as well. However, I also know that from experience that it the longer you wait to do a project, the more likely cost you down
the road. So I. I don't know if we worked out, we can't work it out right now, but I'm convinced that there will be savings to go forward. These are all projects that are on the books to be done
anyway. It this is a means to accomplish it in in a shorter period of time. I know some of you out there will probably remember different projects have been stated that this was going
to be done by such and such, and because of the thing called money, it was delayed. This is a way to still get these projects
done and a savings, hopefully, as to what it would have been when we were going to do them five years down the road or six years down the road. So that's a positive as far as the being
conservative and being cautious, certainly we should. But even with the amount that we're talking, we're still going to be down toward the bottom of the
list. As far as debt ratio is my understanding. And I think if not now, then when it's time that we stop talking and get
things done. So that's where I stand. Vice mayor, thank you mayor. Truthfully, everything that was said up here is all
true. It just depends on what we do with it. So while we were chatting, while while the commission was chatting, I took a little list and the fire
station 70 is a must. There's no question that we have to do it. And the fire chief would tell you that it is true and there's litigation with it. It's not a
for a Cat five. It's got to be done. We lose. We lose. And I think it's jurisdiction is it? If we don't get it done. But I
may be using the wrong word, but it's a $6 million project that has to be done is no question Craig Park seawall that's on here. It's phase one. It's this
is not a discussion of phase two, which is going to be even more difficult to deal with down the road. But phase one has to be done. We did get a loan, a
grant rather. And it's not a question whether we can kick this can down the road. It has to be done. I look at the Beckett Bridge utilities as of
hopefully December, Pinellas County is going to knock down that bridge and rebuild a new bridge. That's a two year project, and prior to that, we have to move the utility. Or
they won't go ahead with the project. The last time that bridge was. Anything was done with it was 1954. So you've got
a 70 year old bridge. I look at the Lime Huey lift station. All of our lift stations were damaged in the storm. You can't
leave these things to fail. I look at the old 19 bridge water line. That's another project that we have to replace. There's just no two ways about it. We
have people that come up and tell us how their water is orange. There's no pressure. There's so many things. This is the oldest city in Pinellas County. Things have to be
changed. Now. I don't want to go back and decide whether the prior committee or commission did things or didn't do things. They had their priorities. We
have our priorities. I don't like spending my kids money or your kids money, but these things, as the mayor said, if we
do spend it now, it's not going to be the answer for everybody. But what it will be is at least we'll get to utilize it for a number of years. And if inflation goes up, we've we've
spent cheaper money. If inflation goes down, we can get lower interest rate. We could prepay it back. So it's not that we're just going to go over the
top. And last but not least, the stormwater action plan that's on here. As it's been said, we just can't leave that to have another
issue that that goes on. My question to you, Ron, is if we spend all or not spend, but if we borrow all of this, that's here, what would that bring us
up to? Is in far as debt ratio, do you know, do you have that it was at like 3.96%, which is the average that we when we did the survey was 4.51. So we would
still be below the average, you know, where the need is at 12.2. New Port Richey is at ten point something. We're still below the average. We're still one of the lower ones. Well, I knew that.
That's why I asked you that question. I was listening, so it's not like I don't want the commission to think that we're becoming Dunedin and that we're
just nilly willy just doing projects for no reason. But all these projects that I'm reading through, these are not, you know, elective. They are
mandatory that we get it done. And I don't know how else to get it done but to, you know, responsibly, you know, deal with
it, you know, some of the projects that we spoke to are a year out or two years out, we still have elected projects. We still haven't dealt with the
with the dredging, you know, that we need to do. I mean, if you remember, we got to speak about the dredging that hasn't been done in. There's no telling whether it was 60 years, 70
years. It's supposed to be done according to our books every three years, and we've never done it. This is all the back bay. So there is a lot of things that we need to look at. And
those elective things we can look at responsibly and see what we can do and what we can't do. We also need to wait and see what the millage rate is going to be for what? What the you
know, what the Pinellas County decides to give us. And hopefully we don't get involved where the state decides to remove the taxes for the tax
base. And then we get into this. I'm going off the tangent here a little bit, but then Tallahassee will be deciding for us how much money we get to spend on what, instead of us deciding what we
spend on it. So I'm interested in, you know, looking into this and having a work session where we can all decide on what's important, what's not, how much we should borrow and for how
long. Well, let's, let's, let's go to public comment before we go to public comment. I was I want to make one more statement, then I'll come back for another round with the commissioners.
This is just the first step. We have to do this by law. So this correct, Ron. This is the first step. This isn't a decision to borrow money. Oh no. No, this is
just we have by law we have to have this, this first resolution. And then we go into the budget process and we go to, you know what? We would, you
know, if we want to pursue that, what we would be financing, how much we'd be financing. Again, if it has to go to referendum, then that's a whole nother story. But this is just a first
procedural step towards allowing us to go explore, allowing us to explore this. It's not committing you to any debt, but if you did in the future, you can recapture those expenses
from these projects. And you don't have to do all these, it's just listing the ones that might have expenditures between now and when you did the debt issuance. This is just a again, just a formality to cover all we
have to do to go forward to cover for IRS regulations. Can let's go to public comment. Is there any public comment on this
issue? Austin there are no online comments. Okay. Do commissioners have let's go to Commissioner Banther. Do you have any follow up? No, sir.
Commissioner de Donato, Commissioner coleus sure. I mean, where were you guys? We're hearing numbers now, 18.5 million. You know, it's going to be at least ten years or more.
So the voters are going to have to decide. I mean, guys, we see these capital improvement projects and trust me, I want to beat my chest and say, hey, we got all these projects done, but
not at the expense of, you know, generations 20, 30 years from now. All these are great projects that need to get done. You don't think in the next five, ten years other big projects like this are going to
come about, what are we going to do then? We're going to borrow more money. We've had a good financial direction for many years. We need to go to the budget season without assuming
this role because it's all everybody's eyes are lit up. It's, you know, even Commissioner Donato, who's, you know, talks about being conservative spending. So, I
mean, with all due respect, it's, you know, as, as we look at this and then the unfunded capital projects, the cops and kids building, $4.5 million, the bayou dredging, which we could
peace out. We can do parts that are more important than others to renovate the old cops and kids building. That's $1.5 million between those two buildings. That's $6 million
that we're going to pay for some of these other big projects. That way, we can shift $6 million to the cops and kids buildings. It's a lot of money to spend to put on bankroll and
debt for some projects like that that, you know, I trust me, even Mark Lacourse, that was his baby, the cops and kids center. But you know to bankroll it in
debt to produce it for some of these other projects too is not good as well as you know. All I'm saying is it's our first
year, you know, as this new board, the city manager. I don't want this assumption that we're going to get this big loan out to start doing these capital improvement projects and say it's going to save us money when
it might hurt us in the future. So I'm not going to support it. And, you know, if we could have pulled this off a long time ago, we're still in a financial we could say that we ended the
state of emergency, but there's a lot of uncertainty, and some of these projects don't really align. And as far as the stormwater action plan, what is our goal? If our goal is to improve a couple streets and
they still have king tides two, three, four times a year on those streets, it's not a successful project. So, you know, I don't like barring like
this because I know that what you see, you look at those numbers each year. You borrow money, you borrow what, $6 million you got to pay out
almost 740 each year. If you're borrowing 17 million, you got to pay out 1.53 million for 15 years. And yeah, we might we accept one of these at 18.5.
That's going to put us right at 3.9%. As you talked about our debt ratio right in the middle with the rest of the county. One shot for a lot of these projects
that, you know, some aren't necessarily aren't necessities. And so what are we going to do now? So I'm not going to support it. I think we all need to be
conservatively responsible. Like we all talk and brag about up here and sharpen our pencils up for budget season. And then we can look after what we have. We know it's not going to be too
much for us to spend, but I'm not going to support this. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. So a
number of projects were mentioned about the. The cops and kids. Those are elective things and those are things we don't have money for. I
understand as much as I'd like to, these projects that I'm looking at here are not elective. They are mandatory. The ball is rolling right now
when we need the money for it. I agree with you when it says when you say about. That, things are going to come up in five years,
but this is already here now. And unless somebody can give me a way to pay for these things, I have to go along with this not
to make it 15 years, not to make it 20 years. The 3.8 or 3.9 debt ratio is not 50%, because we're
at one point something and the high is 12. So mid range would be six. So we're still half of mid range. These projects cannot
be pushed off. And if somebody would like to explain to me that we're building a fire station and we can stop right now and leave it the way it is, we
can't. Craig Park seawall. If we don't use the $2 million that the grant the federal government gave us for the grant, we lose it. The Beckett Bridge,
scheduled for December got got to move the utilities or they're not going to tear the bridge down the old 19 bridge water. And I just go through these
these are not elective. They're all mandatory. If we want to discuss elective items in our budget, I'm happy to discuss it.
I'm not looking to just run us ramrod all of this through. Believe me, I was at the same meeting you were at, not at the same time, but I heard all of
the items for the wish list. I have the total in my head. I know what it was. I don't want to share it because there's always money you could spend and
you could spend a lot of it, and tomorrow you could even spend more. Okay, so I'm aware of how much we could spend. That's not my goal. These are mandatory
that need to be done or we're going to be in trouble. Those are the ones I want to be able to deal with. Okay. Can we go? Let's. We have the motion. It was seconded. I just wanted to
clarify that the fire station 70 and Craig Park, there's no point. There are cash funded already, Commissioner. There's no point where we're getting way off. No we're not. We're going
into these details. The question is whether we're going to start the process to explore debt. That's what the question is right now. There's a motion on the floor. It's been seconded.
Correct. City attorney. Yes. Okay. Roll call please. Commissioner. Yes. Commissioner DiDonato. Yes. Commissioner.
Yes. No. Vice mayor. Eisner. Yes. Mayor. Yes. Okay. Item 22.
Ordinance 2020 5-04 City attorney, would you please read it? Ordinance 2020 504 An ordinance of the City of Tarpon Springs, Florida, amending the
official zoning Atlas for 32.49 acres, more or less of real property located between North Highland Avenue and Keystone Road, approximately 500ft east
of North Highland Avenue. From agriculture, a district and residential planning development. RPD District to Agricultural District, providing
for findings and providing for an effective date. This is a second reading. Mayor, do you want me to read the quasi
judicial yes, please. Please, mayor, this is actually for the next four items, which are quasi judicial. The same. This is a quasi judicial proceeding where the Board of Commissioners acts
in a quasi judicial rather than a legislative capacity at a quasi judicial hearing. It is not the board's function to make law, but rather to apply law that has already been
established in a quasi judicial hearing. The board is required by law to make findings of fact based upon the evidence presented at the hearing, and apply those findings of fact to
previously established criteria contained in the Code of Ordinances, in order to make a legal decision regarding the application before it. The board may only consider evidence at
this hearing that the law considers competent, substantial, and relevant to the issues. If the competent, substantial, and relevant evidence at the hearing demonstrates that the applicant
has met the criteria established in the Code of Ordinances, then the board is required by law to find in favor of the applicant. By the same token, if the competent, substantial and relevant evidence at the hearing
demonstrates that the applicant has failed to meet the criteria established in the Code of Ordinances, then the board is required by law to find against the applicant. Mayor, I would
also ask for the commissioners to disclose any ex parte communications or conflicts of interest they may have. Anyone
have any? City attorney? If this is from the last meeting? Ford. Correct? Yes. Okay. Yeah. No comment. Thank you. When are you
going to do the swearing in and all that? Just move the whole thing if we're ready. Anyone's going to speak on this matter. If you please, stand up. Do you swear or affirm your testimony
before the Board of Commissioners will be the truth, so help you? I do. Thank you. Thank you. Mayor. Tonight we go.
Planning director, do you want to. Thank you. Rene Vincent, planning and zoning director. This is ordinance 25, 2020 5-04
rezoning property on Keystone Road. This is the second reading the board has previously reviewed and approved this first reading. There's been no new information to add to the recor.
Just for record purposes. This is a rezoning to from agricultural and residential plan development to straight agricultural. And this is
supports the future development of the property as a large, very large lot in agricultural subdivision. Would the applicant
like to make any statement? Okay. Does let's go to commissioner questions of staff
or the applicant. Commissioner Banther. No, sir. Commissioner DiDonato. No. Commissioner. Gulyas. No. Vice mayor Eisner. I
have none as well. The chair will entertain a motion. So moved. Second. Are there any
public comments on this item? Austin. There are no online comments. I'll go to commissioner comments on the
motion. Commissioner Banther. No, sir. Commissioner DiDonato. Commissioner Gulyas. No. Vice mayor. No. Okay. With no
comments. Let's go to roll call. I want to announce that the legal advertisement requirements were met by this public hearing and call, by virtue of the ordinance being published by title with a map in the Tampa
Bay Times on February 26th of 2025 and April 30th of 2025. Commissioner Banther. Yes. Commissioner DiDonato. Yes,
Commissioner. Yes. Yes. Vice mayor. Eisner. Yes. Mayor. Yes. Okay. Let's go to item number
23. Application for annexation, land use and zoning for property located at 249 and 251 include road. Would you please. You
would just take over city attorney. Yes. Ordinance 2020 408, an ordinance of the City of Tarpon Springs, Florida, annexing 0.37 acres, more or
less of real property located at 249 and 251 Anclote Road. Application 20 4-51. Providing for findings and providing for an effective date. Again, the
quasi judicial proceedings that have already been read apply in this situation. I want to make sure that if there's any ex-parte communication or conflict of interest, that
commissioners state that at this time, are there any. No, no. This is no. Do you want to do your swearing in? I will I just
want to make sure everybody's. Yeah. If you're going to speak on this matter, please stand. Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm your testimony before the Board of Commissioners is the truth so
help you? I do, I do not see Mr. Seaman in the audience. Is there anybody here representing the application? I'm comfortable going forward with second reading without it. But I just
want to make it. Make it known for the record. Miss Vincent. Yes. You ready? Thank you. This is application 25, Dash. Excuse me, 24 Dash 51. There are three
actions under this ordinance. 2020 4-08, which is annexing approximately 0.375 acres into the city of Tarpon Springs from Pinellas County. And then there's the companion ordinance
to amend the future land use map. That's ordinance 2024 Dash ten from the Pinellas County Designation of Employment to the City of Tarpon Springs. Designation of Industrial
General, and then the rezoning companion rezoning ordinance is 2020 4-09, amending the Zoning Atlas from the Pinellas County designation of C2 commercial general services to the City of
Tarpon Springs. Designation. Designation of WD2. This is second reading of this application, and all three of these ordinances take is taken a
bit of time. It was actually began last year. Was approved on first reading by the board. Then we had to submit through Pinellas County. Had to go
through that review process. They did recommend approval and the and then it actually had we had to wait till after the election because of the your annexing property. So that's why
this is you may not be as familiar with this one, but it is second reading. There's no new information to enter into the record other than the approvals by Pinellas County on
the land use and their review. And so it is ready for ready for second reading. Thank you. It
does obviously the applicant is not here to make any statement. Are there any public comments. The chair will entertain a
motion. Then we can go to commissioner. Comments. So moved sir okay Commissioner Banther n,
sir. Commissioner DiDonato. Yes. Do you have any comments? No. No comments. Commissioner Coolio's. No comments, vice mayor. No
comments I have none. Did I did I go to public comment? No, no. Okay. Is there any public comment on this item? And
Austin, there are no online comments. Okay. Now that this has what three three parts, three parts to it. So I think we're going to have to have do
we have to have a motion on? I would do a motion on each one of the ordinances, mayor. Okay. So let's, let's, let's have a I know we have a motion. Let's go
to a motion on ordinance 2024, dash zero eight. So moved second. Okay. Roll call. The
legal advertisement requirements were met for all three ordinances and the public hearings is a virtue of the ordinances being published by title with a map in October 7th
of 2024 and April 30th of 2025. Commissioner Banther. Yes. Commissioner. De Donato. Yes. Commissioner. Yes. Yes. Mayor Eisner. Vice Mayor Eisner, I
have a question. Before you have a question before you vote. Okay, yes, I do. I voted on this in Forward Pinellas. Is that a
conflict? No thank you. Then it's. Yes, mayor. Yes. I'd like to entertain a motion on or to pass ordinance 2024 dash ten.
Mayor, I need to read the title. Okay. Ordinance 2024 ten, an ordinance of the City of Tarpon Springs, Florida, amending the future land use map for 0.37
acres, more or less of real property located at 249 and 251 Anclote Road. Application 2451 from Pinellas County employment
E category to City of Tarpon Springs. Industrial general IG category providing for findings and providing for an effective
date. Okay, can I have a motion on 24 ordinance 2024 dash ten so moved sir? Okay, let's just go
to roll call. Commissioner. Yes, Commissioner. DiDonato. Yes, Commissioner. Coolio's. Yes. Vice mayor. Yes, mayor. Yes.
Would would you read ordinance 2020 4-09? Yes, mayor. An ordinance of the City of Tarpon Springs, Florida, amending the official zoning atlas for 0.37
acres, more or less of real property located at 249 and 251 Anclote Road from Pinellas County, C2C2 general commercial
and Services District to City of Tarpon Springs WD2 waterfront Marine and Industry Development District providing for findings
and providing for an effective date. I'd like to entertain a motion on to approve Ordinance 2020 4-09 so moved second roll
call. Commissioner Banther. Yes, Commissioner. DiDonato. Yes, Commissioner. Yes. Yes. Vice mayor. Yes, mayor. Yes. Okay,
let's go to item 24, resolution 2025 dash 29 Conditional Use for Child Care Center located at 301 North Pinellas Avenue. City
Attorney Resolution 20 2529, a resolution of the Board of Commissioners of the City of Tarpon Springs, Florida, approving Application Number 25, Dash 21, requesting conditional
use approval to allow a child care center at 301 North Pinellas Avenue in the T5D North Pinellas Avenue transect zone,
providing for findings, providing for conditions and providing for an effective date. Mayor, I would ask the commissioners again if there is any conflict of interest or ex
parte communication, as this applies to the prior quasi judicial proceeding. Are there any. Yes, city attorney I did I did have one of the representatives of the applicant
just send me a text that they were at the planning and zoning meeting. And so I got to watch the meeting a little bit and just talked with them about what the results of it were, and that
was about it. Thank you Commissioner. Thank you. Do you want to do your swearing in? You're going to speak on this matter. Please stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear or
affirm your testimony before the Board of Commissioners will be the truth. So help you? Yes. Thank you. Miss Vincent. Thank
you. This is an application for a conditional use request resolution 2025 Dash 29 for property at three one North Pinellas Avenue. The specific
request is to establish or reestablish a child care center preschool at the property. This has been previously used for
many years as a as a as a child daycare. Because the use expired and ceased in 2023 and has been more than one year, it does require a conditional use to
reestablish the child care center there because it is a conditional use process. This is the location at 301, the northwest corner of Reed Street and North Pinellas Avenue,
across from the. Need to call this the center. The Saint Nicholas Saint Nicholas Community Center. Okay. Thank
you. So for the on site conditions, the when the Planning and Zoning Board reviewed this, there was some
discussion about parking. There's really no changes to the parking situation from what it previously operated there. They do have approximately five spaces on site. They also have
access to the overflow parking to the north. Which is under the same ownership. There. To this again, some additional context
and some photos. This is the parking. There's a drop off here as well. Circular drive. This is the, you know, the overflow parking to the north. So our
conditional use required criteria requires reviews for conformance with the Land development code and address, you know, whether the property is appropriate, the use is appropriate to the property and
compatible with the area. Really? I mean, I think the best, you know, analysis you can provide on this is the fact that it basically operated exactly as it as a child care center for
many, many, many years before the it ceased in 2023 and no real knowledge of any conflicts with the surrounding properties. This is a mixed use area that
has most community community uses, residential and business uses. There are no issues with the consistency with the comprehensive plan. It's not expected to impact historical or
environmental resources. This is. The site is in the historic district and the building is identified as a contributing altered structure. Any exterior modifications would have to be
reviewed by the HPB or the staff as appropriate, for conformance with the guidelines. It's not an environmentally sensitive site. The use is not expected to
adversely affect adjoining property values. There's already facilities to serve this with public facilities. There are no issues with providing for fish
in an orderly development. All requirements of the Florida Department of Education will have to be met. That's we. We don't exempt anybody from that and must also have to have a
local business tax receipt to operate the child care facility. Parking is being accommodated in. The proposed use is not expected to adversely impact general health, safety and
welfare. Staff recommendation is to approve. We recommended two conditions prior to issuance of a local business tax receipt. The on site parking lot shall be striped in accordance with the Land Development Code, including
one Ada accessible parking space and a local business tax receipt must be obtained within 12 months. The Planning and Zoning Board reviewed this on April
21st. There was some discussion. Ultimately, the board did recommend approval by a vote of four three with two additional conditions one prior to the issuance of the Local Business
Tax receipt, the gate shall be installed between the subject property and the adjacent property to the north. Utilize for shared parking. The gate must be accessible for the proposed child care center use, while also being secure to
ensure safety of the children. And number two, the Child Care Center must comply with all applicable state licensing requirements for the proposed use. There were no members of the public who spoke at that
meeting. So the resolution that is in your agenda backup does reflect the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Board, and staff recommends approval as
drafted. Okay. Let's have let's go to commissioner. Questions of Miss Vincent, Commissioner Banther. No, sir. Commissioner.
Donato. No. Commissioner coleus. No questions. Vice mayor, no questions. And I have none as well. Would the applicant like
to make a statement? Okay. Are there any public comments? Austin, there are no online
comments. Okay, then let's. The chair will entertain a motion. So moved. Second. Now let's go
to Commissioner comments on the motion. Commissioner Panther. No, sir. Commissioner. Donato. Commissioner coleus. No comments. Vice mayor. No
comments. No comments with me as well. Given that I can go straight to roll call, please. Commissioner. Banther. Yes,
Commissioner. Donato. Yes, Commissioner. Yes. Yes. Vice mayor. Eisner. Yes. Kuleana.
Yes. Thank you all. Appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. Number 25. Resolution 2025 Dash 40 Appeal
of Heritage Preservation Board. Decision for demolition of a contributing structure located at 154 Read Street. City Attorney Resolution 20 2540
resolution. The City of Tarpon Springs, Florida, approving Application 24 Dash 78 appealing the decision of the Heritage Preservation Board to deny a
Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of a National Register Historic District and local historic district. Contributing structure. Located at 154 Reade Street, providing
for a Certificate of appropriateness, providing for conditions, and providing for an effective date. Mayor. This is the last quasi judicial hearing before you tonight. Again, the
question is was there any ex parte communication or conflict of the of interest? Are there any? Yes. I did speak with with Mr. Stephan to get clarity on
the issue from him, and I as well spoke with Mr. Stephan yesterday, probably a five minute conversation. So anything
further from the commissioners? No. Okay. Want me to swear in it? Do you swear or affirm your testimony before the Board of Commissioners shall be the
truth, so help you? Yes, I do, and somebody. Yes. Okay. Thank
you. Okay. So do we. Let's go to questions of staff first. Let me I'll start off. I'm sorry you haven't done your presentation.
I'm sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead. So this is an application requesting appeal of an application request to the
board. This was a for property at 154 Ridge Street. The application was to the Heritage Preservation Board seeking a demolition permit. The
properties at 154 Ridge Street, which is highlighted here on the map. This is a contributing structure in both the local the local historic district, which is the blue outline, as well as
the national district, which is the red outline on the map. Just a little bit of a look at the property. This is what it looked
like in January of 2024. This is January of 2025. So this this property did flood during the
hurricanes. You can see the water line here per the applicant's provided materials. They had about 26in of water in the property. There was a
previous application filed back in 2023 to rehab this rehab, the house that was approved and received a certificate of appropriateness. There was no
permits pulled and none of that work was ever done. And then fast forward we have the hurricane, the property flooded, and then the applicant submitte.
In January it was reviewed an application to demolish the structure. It is a contributing structure. If I have to
characterize the board, the HPB review, they struggled. I think they felt that there was not enough information to make a
decision. And they very much, I think, would have preferred that the applicant come back to them with additional information. Ultimately, they did take a vote
and they did recommend denial of the application to demolish. Just kind of want to provide a little bit of context as I went through this. This is the survey, the property here, based
on the applicant's information in the report, we don't have an elevation certificate or anything, but the first finished floor of the house is
approximately five feet about, you know, above sea level. The base flood elevation there is, you know, ten. So you'd be
looking at a bit of, you know, a challenge to elevate the property. But again, nothing that's, you know, that could not be performed. One of the things that calls the board some
concern, as well as staff, was the fact that after the flood, there was no there was no remediation that took place. So
the property went further into deterioration after the flood because, you know, according to their testimony, they did not do any remediation. So the board
was wrestling with, you know, is that constituting demolition by neglect. And so there so there was a lot of things that really kind of were discussed during
the hearing process. Ultimately, the review guidelines for demolition that's, you know, said the decision to demolish historic structures is a measure of last resort and shall be based on demonstration that
there is no other feasible alternative. And then there's, you know, a series of review criteria. I think the things that are pertinent to this discussion really is, you know,
whether reasonable measures can be taken to save the building structure or traditional cultural property, and whether the building structure or traditional cultural property is capable of earning a reasonable
economic return, and whether the perpetuation of the building or structure, considering its physical condition, is location and anticipated expense of rehabilitation would be economically feasible. So when
an applicant has a choice if they seek to demolish a property and if the demolition is denied, they can the really they have kind of two options. They can try to directly appeal that to
the board of commissioners, or they can they can go back through the process and try to get an economic hardship exception. The board did not have enough information to
consider it from an economic hardship exception. And I think that's part of the problem. So ultimately they you know, they they resorted to denying the
application. You know, another factor of consideration is, you know, is it's a property that's so unique that it warrants, you
know, some, you know, special consideration. On on Reed Street, you have a very eclectic mix of homes. This is the only craftsman style. But we you
know, there are other craftsman styles in the neighborhood. It is still somewhat unique in in its architecture that was put into the record. By the
principal planner that presented this. If you want me to read it verbatim, I'll pull it out of the staff report. But there was some uniqueness there. Looking at the comprehensive, the comprehensive layout of an
architectural retreat in general. So ultimately the board did deny this and the applicant did submit, based on the
evidence, that they had to make a decision. Your you really have three options in this. You can deny the appeal request as it's been it was originally presented
to the HPB. You can approve the request to you for the demolition. Or you know, you can direct the applicant to submit the additional information needed to determine if there is
an economic hardship exception, if it's warranted, and ideally, remand that case back to the Historic Preservation Board and let them make that decision that
has not been done. And so if you're asking me for a recommendation, I would certainly recommend the third option here. So with that, you know, there's a whole lot of information that's in the
agenda. Back up. I'm not going to try to sit here and rehear the case unless I'm told to, but I'll answer any questions that you might have. Okay. Let me let me go first on the questions
from the board. When you say they have other information they need to they didn't submit. What information were you talking
about. So. The hardship exception was read this. The hardship exception requires information regarding the cost of the proposed construction,
additional costs incurred to comply with the recommendations of the HPB, I in this case preserving it. Structural soundness, market value of the property before and after
demolition. Economic feasibility of rehabilitation and for income producing property. The capitalization rate based on that operating income. So the information that was provided, I
told you that there was previously a certificate of appropriateness that was approved in 2023 for roof, for doors, for windows, a whole bunch of work. None of that was
done. When you look at the estimates that were provided to rehab the structure. Now none of that's teased out. So it's like, you know, they're they're you know, the applicant basically is
like the property flooded. It's not feasible. And so there's the board couldn't tease apart, you know, what's really flood damage. What is you know
previous damage. What you know what is neglect. So they were looking for additional information. So I a lot of it is just, you know, is this you
know, I'll quote the city manager, we are here this this is, this is what is. So how do we how do we resolve the situation? You know, certainly more information was requested
by the HPB that they didn't feel like they had enough or parsed out accurate information to make a decision. Okay. When you're
when you talk about neglect. Isn't that aren't there isn't it two separate things? Because if you the one if you go back to
the prior slide to this and the highlighted where you talk about. The neglect. Now, isn't that more of a code enforcement
issue? It it like it should be managed as a code enforcement issue. It's a it's a it's a it's
a difficult thing to balance. The board does not want to you know, they're you know I don't want to say reward somebody for letting a property deteriorate.
So you know, that was not the in this instance, there's probably a lot of this that was no fault of this property owner. He
hasn't owned the property for, I think a couple years maybe. So initially they were going to rehab the property and then it flooded. And now they want to demolish the property rather
than repairing it and elevating it. That's what this boils down to. Okay. But like we had our when we had our little conversation today about it, we don't have a time machine. They
can't go back and correct and do anything that you believe they could have done or should have done. We're here now. So we so I'm not sure that the neglect
part is, isn't just, you know, irrelevant at this stage. Okay. Because the one thing I would have to deal with the, the condition of properties and,
and, and how it needs to be dealt with. Now forget about again. We don't have a time machine. They can what they could have done or should have done and that and that's a real judgment call. It is to say that
somebody did this or should have done that because had they come in and cut drywall out, that would have maybe prevented some molding issue. That doesn't mean
that the property hasn't been damaged to the extent that it's not feasible to put it back. So
okay, I'm going to let's go to the other commissioners and then and Commissioner Banther, I think we have to deal with what we have at hand. I and let me
preface this, I have served on this on this Heritage board before, you know, them issuing a demo permit is really their option of last resort, you know, and they're very hesitant to and
I understand why I fully support them. So this board tonight decides to approve this on appeal. It's not telling the Heritage Board that necessarily
that that that they aired per se or did wrong. There are just some decisions that that just come to us on appeal. We've seen this before, I think. I don't I think this is this is this this
is one of them. I'm anxious to hear from the applicant tonight on their presentation for me to make my final decision. But I, I do feel that we have to deal
with what's in front of us again. Like, like the mayor said, we can't go back in a time machine. You know, it's not, you know, again. And also, one question I do have for you,
Renee, this was not a contributing structure. Would it have had to have been raised per FEMA if it were not a contributing structure? The
whole the whole like 50% rule we were dealing with it. The so this property is exempt from the 50% rule because it's a contributing structure in the National Register district, if
it were not a contributing structure. It it wouldn't even come to the HPB to do a demolition. And I think that's important for us to consider, you know, that that's an
important fact. And for those that don't know what that is, if your home was damaged in the hurricane, more than more than 50%, FEMA can require you to bring it up to code. But for you, getting building permits,
okay, obviously, if you're if you're a contributing structure in our historic district, you get you get, you get away from that. So I think that's something we need, we need to consider tonight and then and
what I saw in the backup as it relates to the repair cost, I think is just insurmountable. There's just no way that that's going to make any sense to me. So I'll I'll hear I'll I'll hear what my colleagues have to say.
And the applicant as well, Commissioner Donato. I would concur with what you said as well, Commissioner Mathur. But I have in going through this, I
just don't see like like you said, we have to deal with what we have in front of us. And I don't see enough here. So I'm leaning toward option three, and I'm assuming that option, it
would go back to the HPB board. Yes. There just needs to be more information to determine the need to demolish it to me
because it is in the district. And if we're going to have a district, then we need to go through that process. So that's that's where I leave now. Just we're going to come back again and have conversation about this
once we have a motion. But this is just questions of staff, vice mayor okay. Oh I'm sorry Commissioner. Yes I'm sorry.
Yeah I'm we need to see some more information right now. It's a denial for me. I see some of these numbers are just outrageous. I think they're inflated big time. And, you
know, my question is, there's, you know, permits out, ready to get work done. And then, you know, the hurricane comes along and obviously there was a no
work or any permits even put in for quite some time. And now the hurricane is, you know, the issue that gets to save it all. Well, I'm going to be very frank when I ask the applicant what
are their intentions to knock it down? They obviously have the property that's, you know, all one big property. So I want to see what what the intent is. But I don't believe a lot of those
numbers when it comes to renovating or redoing that building. Not at the cost of $400,000 plus. So I don't know where they came from, but this is a big item here because a lot
of you talk about some precedents and knocking historical buildings down and protecting them. Well, this is a big precedent you're about to say here. So right now it's a
denial from me. And I have some questions for the applicant. Vice mayor. So I have a question for the attorney before I ask a
question from Renee. This whole process is in my wheelhouse. I am retired, flood restoration mold remediation guy. Am I
allowed to ask any sort of question? Absolutely. Okay. Would I be classified an expert in asking those questions? No.
Okay, so my first question is why did we not have a mold remediation person? Do the estimate of what it was to
either repair this or not repair it? I know you don't have an answer to that, so that's why I asked the question. So. I am not
allowed to give any contributing evidence either. Correct. Anything you say would not be considered evidence in this situation. If you're asking for
based on your expertise, asking for clarifying information, or asking the applicant for information, there's nothing wrong with that. You come to the board, everybody comes to the
board with their background and their expertise, but we're not going to take it as competent, substantial evidence. Okay, so at least I can make the comment
about it. Yes. Okay. So. So many of the homes in the fruit section. ET cetera. ET cetera. Were not repairable. Now with the people go and decide that
they want to make it repairable. That's up to them. What I looked at with this particular property, and I read through exactly what Commissioner
coolies said as well. Mold remediation is extremely expensive, and more times than not, most of the homes that were
estimated were not worthy of repair. They were not cost efficient. More people than this gentleman or whoever it is doing the application, are also
looking to knock their house down and start over. My recommendation would would be to knock the house down. That's not
a question. So let me rephrase that. You still have to hear all the evidence before you make a decision. Yeah, well, so my
thinking is don't they have to wait to have a determination of whether it falls under FEMA or
not? The property. Okay. It's a contributing structure in a historic district. So the 50% rule does not apply. So does it
mean that the property shouldn't be elevated? It will not be required to be elevated. It will be a choice to be elevated. But don't they have to come in and
make a determination first, whether it is or isn't to be elevated? So you're saying it doesn't have to be. It does not have to be elevated because it's
an historic structure, but somebody has to do an inspection of it. Correct? I'm not sure if this had a FEMA inspection or
not. Well, we hired a firm to go around to all of the homes to do. Yes. Everything did didn't that didn't that fall under that
same pretense that that one had to be inspected as well? I, I don't know the answer to that. Well, where I'm going with this is because if you go back to the
slide original slide with the yellow, it said there neglect. So it's not neglect. Neglect is leaving something in disarray.
It's not repairing. This was a sudden loss of a hurricane. So nobody abandoned. You got to put it back for a second. It was not an abandonment. Abandonment. It
was not neglect. It was not in disrepair. It wasn't vandalism. Now, when you say, could it become damaged, it doesn't
really specify by what you know. You can have a flood and clean water can be rectified very
easily. Salt water cannot. So I find that that whole ruling is, is not something that I would
rule by. This was a unique storm. Even if they wanted to get somebody to do restoration and remediation, you couldn't find people in those in that
time frame. Everybody was handling everything. So I really have no other questions about it from you. I would ask the same
questions of the applicant, but I've been at this so many, so many times, and it's very easy when you don't have a knowledge
of what is involved, you don't really get the full picture. That's all I have to say. Let's
let's get a statement from the applicant. Good evening. Commission presented some presentations
here. I'm going to hand out I do have a copy for Madam Clerk to please give your name. Attorney Michael Stephan, representing the Martin Family Trust. Thank
you. Two, three, four, five and one extra. Can I. Can I ask a question? Is this new information? No, it is a it is not new information. All the information stems from the prior
hearing and I can testify to that as well. And I have a spare copy. I just wanted to ask. I have one for you. Yeah, sure.
Thanks. Mr. One for me or. That? What did you do? Just one for
me. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Okay. Good evening. We're going to try to move this on as quickly as possible here. But I
think most of the questions that you all posed will be answered. One of the things that needs to be dispelled is this neglect motion. I actually have a transcript that I'm going to
read some parts from the exact hearing that we had transcribed. The hearing at best leaned to the basis of denial as negligence. There was a catastrophic flood. I'm not here
to tell you that that that was the case. It's record evidence. I'm about to prove it. But I want to lay out a little foundational background as to what's going on here. So if you look at the front, you got a picture of the residence in
question. Also an outline, the property appraiser map. As we turn to page two. I think an important distinction here is that my client owns 160 read Street more Familiarizes the large church building on the
corner. He also owns 158 Bridge Street and 154 Read Street. So they're all adjacent parcels. That corner is controlled by the trust. I also wanted to provide some examples to dispel the
notion that Mr. Martin is in the business of knocking down buildings. Mr. Martin spent millions of dollars to restore the church building on the corner. I provided pictures of
that. Slides five, 678, nine. He's not in the business to knock down buildings, and that was a big issue that was discussed at length from the Heritage Board. He's also here
to testify to that as well. Another thing, additionally, Mr. Martin owns other historic structures. In fact, recently he just donated a large portion of money to give 17 West Orange
Street to the foundation. So he is a owner of other structures. And again, it is not his business to wreck the town and destroy it. I really need to dispel that myth. One of the
things that needs to be taken into consideration here, you talk about precedents. 158 Read Street, which is to the left and is owned by my client on June
4th, 2024. You can see on slide 13 the application was approved to demolish the building based on the flood. So to me, there's not much of a difference between
the house next door and this one. In fact, on slide 15 you can see this was taken from the city. They acknowledged that they should approve the application for demolition. So when you talk about a prior
precedence, it's confusing to me how one house can be demolished, but yet the house next door can't. I was unable to find that in reviewing the record. The basis for that. It wasn't
discussed in the hearing, but it is important. Again, slide 16 shows you the outline of where the structure is. Slide 17, which also comes from the Heritage Board record, is a
picture of what the flooding looked like on that street. As you can see, it was incredibly high. I would not recommend walking through it. It was salt water. And as I get into the
record evidence, you will hear from the board that the water intrusion came both through the bayou as well as the rear end of the canal. So the home was sandwiched. There was nothing that could be done to prevent
this flooding. And I need to dispel that myth again. Slide 18 was graciously put up by the city. Here. The arrow indicates the flood line. That was the plane of water that was taken.
Slide 19. And again, I also want to stress here this specific proposal was given to the Heritage Board. It outlines the cost of what it would take to restore the home back to its
original state. Now the total is 823,000. That does include the original purchase price. So if you strip that out, you're looking at about $425,000 to restore this home, factoring in the purchase price. Again,
you'll hear this in the record evidence testimony. You would be over $1,000 a square foot to own this home, which makes absolutely no economic sense. And when you talk about economic
hardship and economic use, it just doesn't make any sense. The intent, which I will get to here shortly and was brought up in the meeting, is to demolish and replace. My client is more than
happy to have some type of restrictive language in the demolition order. That requires a reasonable replacement to the same type of historical standards. If this board chooses to have those historical plans
approved by the prior board, there's no objection. Again, we're not trying to hide the ball here. Nobody's building tennis courts. To the extent that he's going to rebuild. He should have that right. And we
have no objection to keeping it historically symmetrical with the neighborhood. So I know this is going to be tedious, but it has to be done. I have a copy of
the transcript from the Heritage Board that I'm going to hand out to all of you. I'm not going to read the entire thing because we'd be here till two in the morning. There are certain expert excerpts that need to be
read, read to you guys in order for you to understand the mindset and the decision making of the Heritage Board. The Heritage Board stressed that there was neglect. I'm not sure what neglect there was on the dwelling unit, because a
hurricane sandwiched it from two sides with salt water. The Heritage Board also inserted improper influence, based on their own opinion as to what should have been done. If it was
them, what were they were going to do? And again, don't take my word for it, I'm just going to read small excerpts. Also, there's a ton of personal bias from that board as it relates to what should have been done, this
notion that somehow we're going to go back and be remanded for economic hardship and exception back to that board. I don't know what other evidence they'd like us to provide. We had an architect and engineering firm
provide what it would cost to rebuild. I believe you can rely on that evidence. The evidence was stated on the record in the prior hearing. So that can be adopted. So now I'm going to hand out the transcripts. I'm
going to just read certain experts. I'm not going to read the entire thing because we'd be here all night. So I'd like to move into evidence. The transcript from the Monday,
January 13th City Hall meeting. It's two parts. One is the transcript, not with my notes on it. The second part of it is the highlighted portion. I did not add anything to this. There's also a certification from
someone that transcribed it. I did not do that. We hired a third party. So I'd like to introduce that evidence. And I have copies for everybody. Hold
on. He'll present it to us for her. One, two, three, four, five. And the record. Should I
play? Thank you. I don't even thank you. Thank you. Mr. No it
isn't. Thanks for playing. So I'm going to indicate where I'm reading from to the best of my ability here. Some of the stuff that I had written I'm going to
skip I was going to start with page five, which outlines the quasi judicial. I believe the city attorney did a great job as it relates to defining what that is. So I'm going to begin by
reading an excerpt from. Page nine. This was Miss Caroline Langford. I'm going to read it in part. I'm on the second paragraph of page nine. If that
building has been able has been let to deteriorate, become damaged or vandalized by virtue of neglect or abandonment. So this is our demolition by neglect, part of the code. And
with respect to our guidance, demolition should be a measure of last resort when there are no other feasible alternatives. And then we set out the criteria and the code to review. And so the first would be the historic or
architectural significance of the building. The structure doesn't really have any significance beyond the fact that it's a contributing structure in both historic and national districts. She goes on
to say, in the bottom of page nine, this building has no special significance associated with it. Page ten. She's continuing on. So criteria three
would be difficult or impossible of reproducing the building because of its design, texture, material, detail or unique location. This building would not be impossible to reproduce and the location and setting is
not unique to a frame. Vernacular structure. Again, midway page ten. So of the 146 frame structures in our local historic district, 35 of them
were built between 1920 and 1929. This is one of those 35. She goes on to talk about the number six for the criteria that should be in review. Number six is whether the reasonable
measures can be taken to save the building. She goes on in the middle of paragraph two on page 11. So I would really ask the board to review the proposed cost document that was within
the application, because a lot of these items really have nothing to do with flooding. And, you know, we're we're again, this is a misspelling extent when the property was purchased two years ago and they
really aren't relevant to flooding. And they and it's no longer has caused flooding to be part of the use. She goes on in paragraph 11. So the last
criteria is whether the building or structure is culturally property. Again, it's a it's a misspelling capable of earning a reasonable economic return on value, she notes. In this case,
it's kind of tricky. However, again, top of page 12. This determination is really complicated by the fact that this property was purchased in 2023 for a cost of $500 a square
foot, when the market value of the time was $318 a square foot, according to the property appraiser. So the property appraiser sets the 2024 just market value at $277 a square
foot. And I can't and I won't render expertise in term of economic feasibility. The property was acquired at that price, which is significantly above the appraised value. And again, I'll skip in the middle
of page 12 here. And again, determination of economic feasibility is really complicated by the existential economic loss of purchasing, purchasing a property higher value than what it's worth. So
respect the current physical condition of the property. This board really needs to determine if the physical deficiencies in this property are the result of neglect and deferred maintenance
in some other force. And that would be the board to determine whether that rises to the demolition neglect. Again, that's top of page 13. Miss Langford continues to say I think this is a hard one, right?
Because what is the determination of feasibility? They go on to continue to question this throughout the entirety of the hearing. Nobody really ever defines it. And that becomes problematic because in
the end, you'll see that they predominantly rely on this notion that somehow this was a neglected building and it's demolition by neglect, when certainly Mr. Marty did not cause a hurricane or flooding to
come through his property. I'm now going to go on to the bottom of page 14, which was our expert, Robin Hancock. She said whether it was economically feasible to do so last year was
never considered. Mr. Tony likes to do projects for the romance, or less. She also goes on to say on page 15, when describing the home. But basically you have
under laminate, which is like a one by ten board and then a sandwich is underneath going the opposite way, another one by ten, and then you have hardwood on top. So all that sandwich layer of flooring is still wet,
and there's nothing you can do to get out all the moisture, all the flood waters, out of all different layers. The plaster is on lath and is still saturated. We couldn't go in and do regular
flood mitigation because of all the wet paint. Again, the importance of this is to dispel the notion that somehow there was some mitigation that could be done to save the dwelling unit. Our experts refute that.
Moving on to page 17. This is Mr. Terry speaking, and I'm just going to read one sentence. So I mean, that's why we enjoy we don't enjoy tearing this stuff down again, another notion that
Mr. Terry isn't going around with bulldozers in the city taking down things. Our expert on page 18 continues when she's describing the dwelling unit.
Okay, if you can imagine a brown paper bag and it's sturdy as it's dry and it's sitting in there and the bottom gets wet, the bottom has six inches, it gets wet, it loses its
integrity. She continues to say. After asking about FEMA requirements, she acknowledges that this is part of the historic FEMA doesn't apply. There is a back and forth
argument from the chairperson, who clearly doesn't understand the rule that says, I'm not sure if you're correct, I live in the historic district, and I can totally understand what you guys are going through because we got
four feet of water in our house and we are in the historic district. And FEMA never questioned whether we were in the historic district, so maybe you should go apply, he continues on page 19. Well, FEMA
didn't make you know, it does. It doesn't mention historic district at all. They didn't ask me that. That is your I am in the historic district, and I had the same kind of damage that you
had. Again, there's a ton of personal evidentiary bias that went into the decision. I'm not sure what the chairpersons House and how he remediated had anything to do with how this House should be remediated, and that would violate the quasi
judicial standard. 19 there was a question, and this is pertinent to what some of you all asked from the board here, how much water did you have inside your home? Robin? Our expert indicated that it was
three feet. That's record evidence. Moving on to page 21, they asked Mr. Hancock if she's a contractor. She responds that that's correct. She also responds in the bottom of page
21, in regard to pricing, the pricing that comes up from trades and materials are always more than what I think it should be. And then, of course, anytime you remodel, there's always a surprise that comes along the
way. But basically this dot, dot dot, this house would have to be totally replaced from the roof down. Again, dispelling the notion that somehow, magically, this house can be replaced for a
reasonable amount of value. She goes on on page 22, the water is actually coming up from the bayou on the back side, over on the canal, and coming across where probably the house was
built. You only had to deal with water coming in from the bayou in the past, again, affirming not me, our experts saying where the water came from, salt water
from both sides. Then we have a nice humble exchange from the chairperson, one of my personal favorites. The flood would not have ripped out the plumbing. This is on page 28, we respond.
Oh yes it did, chairperson. That's debatable. Mr. Marty then goes on to say that the flood was what broke the camel's back, and our chairperson responded
with, believe me, I know what floods can do. Page 31 from our expert. And again, this is from
the hearing she indicates when we're talking about restoring the property, it's not like you can cut out four feet and just replace it. If I'm putting in a new foundation as far as the
building code is concerned, I have to attach it to a firm structure, starting from the foundation and going up. We have to wind load it. This house obviously has been here a very long time and never was
engineered for wind loading, but I know it's very hard. But again, back to the paper bag. It's great. It sits there, but the problem is the inches upon it getting wet. We have dot dot,
dot. We have replaced all of all of that and could replace all of that. As to what's left, I'm not sure what's going to be eaten by termites. A thorough explanation
as to why the house cannot be restored. Page 32. Chairperson asked so is this house on blocks right now or is it on
foundation? Our expert it's on brick piers. Chairperson Pierce and did I hear you say that it actually moved from the flood? Yes, we responded on the back. Everything is custom. So there
was foundation shifting as it relates to that. Again from our expert. She goes on on page 35 to talk about the foundation shifting. Miss Hancock says yes,
just shifted there just little tiny pieces of brick there, not solid. There's some stacked bricks under the house. And then another board member says, have have you mentioned just I live
in the neighborhood that had four feet of flood, six feet of flooding and so many, you know, they got it, they got it walls down and they're totally gutted and they're selling it and they're being purchased by contractors who have a lot of
work here, is taking place illegally. Again, another thing into the record that should have no credence as to the decision of that board. Page 36. It's
hard, but whether it's an economical loss, it's just not feasible. That comes from our expert on page 36, then a board member on the top of page 37
asks a question for Caroline. I think I saw the I haven't found it yet. I didn't print everything. The board wasn't even paying attention to the application presented by Mr.
Martinez exhibited there. Chairperson. Then on page 38, did you did you get any other quotes or is it just yours in reference to Robin? I like to get three quotes when I'm
getting work done. Yet another personal opinion chairperson goes on page 39. He's talking about restoration. Sure. Yeah. And I understand that. I guess what I was wondering is if there
was any other quotes. Perhaps these people, those quotes would not feel like all this was necessary. That's in in the one.
I don't know that for a fact. Miss Langford, bottom page 40 I think it's disingenuous to say that nobody told you that the house right next to a bayou
might flood. Miss Langford says. Page 41 I have two comments. Major comments on this presentation. Caveat emptor, buyer beware. And also due
diligence. Because if you look up this list of proposed costs, you know, plumbing, kitchen, bath, the plumbing of the bath in the kitchen was not affected by flooding wiring. If you're wiring outlets are not up to
code that's a different maintenance issue. Again, the flooring system is the biggest thing. You're telling me that you did not have an inspection done on a building you purchased to see what what condition the
flooring system is in, what is not a paper bag. What is wood? She continues. Page 41. When it floods, you let the water recede, you open the windows, you get fans, and there's no
point of point of order, mayor. His tone is too loud. As a professional, he needs to tone it down and present it in a manner that's professional. From his attorney experience, I'm
okay with his tone. I just, I I'm almost done. I get the we get the story. I mean, we get it. So I think you've made your point about whether there was,
you know, extraneous conversation in the at the meeting. But I think you're kind of losing us here. But we I
think we all get it. So do you want to just kind of go into more of your technical items of I read one more comment, Mr. Mayor, bottom of page 48. This
is the chairperson and I'll end with this. Yeah, I have a couple of problems and we sort of talked about them already. If this application is for demolition is strictly because of the flood damage, I don't
think the list of work that's needed is terribly inflated. No, no, I'm closing up public comment. So again, I want to reiterate that the board used the completely improper standard as it relates to quasi judicial.
Most of the evidence presented in here was not rebutted by the city as it relates to the evidence. From the record that we presented, we met the criteria. It is not excusable
neglect. We have a precedence because the home next door was allowed to be demolished. And with that, I'm open to any questions and my client's here to answer questions as well. I'm going to go into commissioner
questions of the applicant. I'll I'll start off. So. The. Okay.
So you addressed the mitigation situation which. Which I'm not sure how much relevance that has
at this stage of the game, but let me ask you did. You had discussed, you know, the
rebuilding to be to go before and meet some historical standards. Absolutely. Now you saw the three options that the
planning director put up on the screen. If number three were chosen, where you go back for the hardship exception, which
you given what you have here, you, you you, you should qualify for, right would then you want
to entertain the. You know we've we've done things there was I saw where the HPB had done a
demolition contingent upon the reviewing the plans of the replacement. At this time there is no plans for replacement. It's just a pure demolition. It's going to stay vacant. That's the problem. There is no
affirmative plans to rebuild specifically at this moment. So there would. There would be plans to rebuild something that that is not the what's the urgency for the demolition, for the amount of lead which I was
unable to get to. It is a public health hazard. The floors and windows are full of lead. It needs to be removed. It is full of salt water and it is structurally dangerous. So that's why I was saying other
than going reading this transcript, are there any technical issues you want to bring before us, which you just made? Yeah, I just I just want to reiterate that that the criteria was was firmly met. I
mean, I don't expect the board this evening to read the entirety of the transcript, but it's pretty clear, this notion, Mr. Mayor, that we're going to go backwards and get a approval for economic hardship. I believe
we met that approval before and it was denied. So I would prefer not to go back and then come back to this board substantively and do this all over again. One of the issues that we have is the heritage board sometimes
doesn't even meet the criteria for a quorum. So we could be talking about months. Then we come back here and you're looking at 5 or 6 months and it's, you know, it's rotting. There's nothing we can do about
it. It needs to be removed in our opinion. Okay, I'm going to go to the other commissioners for questions. And then again, we're going to have later we'll have a motion. And then we can have even further discussion
from, from the board and, and the public as well. So, Commissioner Banther, yes, thank you. And I appreciate your your very thorough presentation. You
know, again, I think this is what it is. Nobody wants to demolish a historic home, including the applicant, nobody here that would that would make any sense. That goes against
what we want to do here in Tarpon. But reality is reality. I think, you know, by not demolishing this home, by not giving that permit, we are creating a very clear economic
hardship on, on, on this individual. And regardless of their means to do it, that should be irrelevant. It should be treated just on a case by case basis on on the property.
Again, I keep going back to, to this, to this, to this, to the to the to this notion. If it wasn't a contributing structure per FEMA with the damages it
sustained, it would have been demolished. Okay. And I think that has to be taken into consideration. I also, you know,
don't think pushing this back to the heritage, the Heritage Board is going to change anything. Again, it goes back to my original comments. There are just some tough decisions that
come before this board on like appeal. And I think that this, this, this, this, this is one of those decisions tonight. I don't believe, you know, and also what
delaying the process would make any repair that much more expensive if commissioner, Commissioner, I think we're at questions of the oh I'm sorry, I apologize. No. When we get a
motion, then we can I can I just briefly respond, Mr. Mayor? So to the extent that the board wishes for my client to rebuild, it is functionally uninsurable. So even if he stroked a check for $600,000 to rebuild it,
let's say it would not be insurable. Subsequently, it would just flood again. So it doesn't have an economic purpose. We understand. I'm good, I'm good. Thank you.
Mayor. Commissioner De Donato, do you have any questions? No, I just don't think there's enough information to determine the financial hardship. I don't like some of the rules of FEMA
either, but it's not for me to decide that I don't. I don't have that ability. I don't think any of us here do. I believe
that that that site flooded in the no name storm. I'm fairly sure, and why that wasn't revealed to the buyer? I don't know, but I'm okay. I believe
the response to that and I don't have it in front of me. But the house was sold multiple times. My client acquired it in 2022. I believe the later it's in the in the slides here. The prior owner
only had it for a brief period of time. I'm also a complex real estate attorney. There wouldn't be a seller disclosure requirement that would go back into the 90s. That would just not be something that would be disclosed, because I know for a
fact it flooded in the no name. I have no knowledge of that commissioner. My client wasn't an owner, and we have no evidence to suggest that it did or didn't. Maybe it did, and maybe that's what weakened the
structure substantially at this time, I don't know. Yeah, I, I can understand why you wouldn't want to go back to HPB. You want to move on with this process, I
understand that, and it's a it's a tough situation all the way, but my understanding and Renee, I may need your help on this too, but my understanding is if
you can prove the financial hardship, then they'll allow it to be demolished. And we don't have enough of that now, which is the reason why I believe staff is recommending that it
goes back to HPB. So and in response to that, Commissioner, I'm not sure what else would need to be needed to prove the financial hardship again if it was built out. Just presuming
that it's a $400,000 build out you're looking at, plus $1,000 a square foot, that's the price of real estate in Manhattan. It doesn't make any economic sense, and that's what we struggle with. We're happy to if we get some direction as to what
they're looking for. The board was just giving random opinions. Is it an additional quote? Again, I'm I'm happy to provide that. But what I don't want to be is stuck in this endless rut of going back, coming back here,
going back, coming back here with no end in sight. And every day the things just rotting. So, you know, to the extent that we are going to have to rebuild and we're perpetually going to be denied a demolition permit, it's
not doing any service to the rebuilding process. Well, if we can, I'd like to go to Rene and explain why your department is recommending that there's not enough here to prove financial
hardship. And if he goes back to HPB and they they approve it, the process from that point should be fairly straightforward, I would think. But I look to your guidance, you
know, some of the comments, you know, even not having a comparison of what it would be, what it would cost to build a new structure, that's one of the
kind of the comparison points, you know, demolition building new versus, you know, repairing the and replacing the existing structure and making it, you
know, livable. Again. That is one cost, one cost point, the, you know, a, you know, a structural analysis. Yes. You know, Robin's you know, she's a
contractor, a structural analysis, you know, that is a report that is sealed that says, yes, this is you know, this is
beyond there's nothing to attach anything to here. Yes. I you know, I understand their frustration intuitively. You look at this and they're like, well, maybe this makes sense.
But the evidence to base it on is was lacking. And so, you know, the board is I mean, I think they're reasonable if they have the information that they're looking for, I mean I
can't predict what they'll do. But, you know, that's you know, it was not presented as an economic hardship exception. You know, that we normally the process that we normally would
go through, we haven't done very many of them. I can go back into records and I can I can find those. And what the what those were based on. We just did. Yes.
So it sounds like to me, if you can prove that. And from the numbers that I saw and from what I've heard you say, I would think you'd be able to prove
that. Well, and respectfully, Commissioner, two points. One, to the extent the board reminds us back, I would like the board to make a decision that this was not neglected because I don't want to have to refight that process at the lower presumption
of hearing, which I think is fair. In response to proving that we have an estimate that clearly shows that it would be about 400,000 plus dollars to remediate this, to get it back to where it is. That's record
evidence in the exhibit by our engineering and contractor. There's 20 pages of it in here. I don't know what else that that board would require. Let me ask you, is that is that one
estimate or is that the three. Do we get all three in there? No. The board was referencing that there need to be additional estimates. I'm not sure that that's a requirement under any rule, specifically as it relates
to that. The city didn't provide any information to dispute the estimates validity. They were given an ample opportunity to question the contractor about line items, and they certainly did not. So I, I, I understand
your concerns, but as a complex litigator, I just don't see anything to refute the evidence that I provided or a rule that I'm happy to accept that points me that I have to go out and
spend $30,000 potentially getting estimates, crimping plans to showing that it's structurally unsound. There there are there is information, the record that talks about lead that was done that she can
testify to. But again, I you know, the cost of demolition is already going to be expensive. We're here because we're trying to demolish the one next door that was already approved and do a twofer. Essentially, that's
what we're trying to do. But this notion, I got to go have my client spend another hearing, two more opinions, crimping plans. That's nowhere listed in the rules, respectfully, and I'm
happy to reevaluate that position to the extent the city attorney has a different one. But I'm not sure that's something that that makes sense. Any part of the problem is I see it is, is that the HPB district
and there are certain confines that that require above and beyond. And that's I think that's what we're looking at here. And I and I would point back and again, I think commissioner said it best as far
as precedents. There was there was no issue. In fact, staff recommended recommended demolition of the house right next door. It's there is no difference. So you're applying two sets of standards. For whatever reason, I wasn't given
an answer to that. I wasn't retained to go to that hearing, but certainly that that puts a question in my mind as to how that's supposed to work. We're not able to yield to you on
that. I don't like mixing these things up. That was that was reviewed and it went through the review process. It was recommended for approval to the
best of our ability. That was like an old garage structure that at some point in the past, was retrofitted into a living unit. And there was there
different circumstances. They are not apples to apples. I want I wanted to know because I believe that that was at one time a garage or exactly that
was never properly permitted and or anything. So that was used before my client's purchase as a dwelling unit. It was rented out for tenants. I know one of the tenants, that's why. Correct. So
that there was tenants in there. It was. It was rough to say, to say the least. And it became worse post flood. But we are not. It's not an apples to apples comparison. And let's not get into argument. It doesn't
help. Do you have any more questions of the applicant? I, I just think we're going to have we're going to have time for conversation. Go ahead. Okay. Commissioner. Yes. Thank you mayor. Mr. Stefan, first I'm
going to say your tone was been unprofessional, as if it comes off entitled. The way you ripped into our HPB board because you don't like some of their statements. I didn't really appreciate. And, you know, your
professionalism could have been much better in this presentation. And so your credentials, you're an attorney. What else do you do as a professional complex real estate litigator by nature, I do real
estate law, and I've been in front of a bunch of city boards as it relates to historical precedents as before. Okay. And you purchased properties. You use trust as well to purchase properties at all. I don't think
that's relevant. I'm not going to answer that question. I'm here to represent a client, not discuss my personal relative to the area. So it's just yes or no to the answer. I'm not answering the question. It's not relevant.
It's what I do in my personal time does not reflect on my client. What I do as a profession, certainly I'll get into. So is that not a professional part of your I? My personal real estate holdings don't apply to this hearing. I'm
not getting into that. Sorry. So you talk about we definitely don't have enough information. Would you agree to that? You think you have everything that's in front of us? I think I meet that and I, I struggle to, as a
litigator, find a rule that says that I did not meet the criteria. Please, I ask you, give me a rule that says I need to give you more, then I will give you more. But what else do you need? I don't have any clear
direction. That's what I'm struggling with and neither does my client. We have no problem going back down. But we need. We need some guidance and the board needs some guidance. They. They denied the application because
of neglect. It's clear if you read the transcript that was the basis for it. And they also interjected things that just simply don't matter into the record to make a decision. There is evidence of what it costs.
There should be a determination of, based on that. An economic hardship is an economic hardship, that if you spend the extra $400,000 on this, does it present an economic hardship? I would argue yes. Again, it's in
here that it comes out to more than $1,000 a square foot. It doesn't make sense. How do we know that? That's just not an inflated invoice or quote. So you're accusing a licensed professional of inflating an
invoice? I mean, I, I, I mean, people charge what they charge for any type of construction or work or anything like that. Commissioner, it's not in the code that I have to provide multiple estimates. If the city
would like to come examine and get an estimate. I have no objection, sir. I'm just asking you a question. Do you think you know? You think those are just that? One quote is the fairest number I can. I don't think my
client's under any obligation to pick the quote unquote fairest number. There is different types of work. It's very clear that my client does grade a restoration work. He's not a guy that's out there slapping it with a paint can and an unlicensed
contractor. I mean that that's proven. We're not saying that. So we talked about this 17 West Orange Street property, this yellow building. What has this
come in front of the HPB board recently at all? No, nothing. No, not to my knowledge. Okay. There's no preliminary discussions about this property
whatsoever that 17 West prior to giving donating it to the Ahepa, it wasn't a donation. They paid substantially under market value. Okay. That's my response. It was not a donation. I it's
listed in the slides. They purchased it for 500,000. It's appraised at much more. Now you're talking about would you say something about this roofer and this garage structure? What were you referring to? What I
was referring to that is, is my client owns the parcel next door and then the church, which was, you know, the mega structure. It is cheaper to demolish them both simultaneously. We have a demolition order as it relates
to the structure next door to this one, and I believe that that should be used as precedence for the criteria to demolish this one. It incurred the same level of damage. That's the one with the garage structure that they were referring to. Correct. They
called the garage structure, but it's not in dispute that there was tenants in there. Your board just said that to the same. It's not like it was being used as a garage. Okay. But you had an explanation. You heard from
staff why that was decided by the HPB board and its condition and moving forward. And that that was not that was granted prior to the floods. Right. Okay. Exactly. So no, I just you
understand that, sir. Correct? Yes. But it's substantially the same thing in our opinion. Okay. So. We talk about I mean, you
just want to knock the building down and just keep the open property as is. I mean, there's really no conceptual thought about what you want to do. I mean, not at this time, really.
Your client has no knowledge whatsoever, Commissioner, as a reasonable human being. And so is my client. We have no problem with the commission stipulating that when and if you build a structure, you must go back and get that structure to be
approved. I don't think that that's an unfair ask if he wants to build a skyscraper and this board denies it, that's fine. If he wants to build another craftsman, the board's got to approve it or the Heritage board
has. There's no code that allows the size skyscraper. I'm just. I'm giving you an example. That's not his intent. The intent right now is if he wishes to build, he does not care to have a restriction on the parcel ID that would require him to
produce further applications to make sure it's heritage boards compliant, beyond what the city requires for building permits, which I don't think is unreasonable. They have to have
that anyway. That's. Just implied. Sure. This permits you guys got approved to pretty much do a lot with the property back
in, what, early January 2024? That's correct. I mean, why did you wait so long? Why? I don't think there's any reason why nine months after the hurricane, one of the reasons why. So
conceptually, that was done before the hurricanes. I know the permits were pulled and it was not done primarily because resources were allocated to finishing a church on the corner. It's just it's just the
way that it was. Okay. There's no obligation to immediately start work after pulling a permit. No, the intent was to do it. Trust me when I say this, and you can have my client up here to say the same thing. Had
it not been flooded, it would have been finished. The same standards of the church. We wouldn't be here. He doesn't want to demolish it, but he has no choice. So, you know, I mean, you guys don't beat around the
bush with me. You talk about redoing that building at the $400,000 it would cost you, right? Plus the $400,000 to purchase it. And you're saying that $1,000 a square foot? That's correct. So what, you
guys have no conceptual idea of what? Knocking that down, building a whole nother structure plus the 400 you already paid for that purchase. That price would be what your square foot would be at that new building or whatever time it
wasn't taken into consideration. There's no there's no plans at this time. There's nothing in the record that indicate that my client testified that he does certain things to beautify the area. I mean, that's that's relevant by seeing what this the
church improvement has been done and that has been in front of this board a bunch of times prior to his ownership. And the board has graciously allowed certain requirements to do so. It it makes sense conceptually
because of, for lack of a better word, the monopoly he owns in the corner. He's got that one, he's got the other one and he wants to continue it along. I don't know what he's going to do, but we're willing to
restrict that. If I told you I was going to build a tennis court, I wouldn't be willing to restrict that. That's not his intent. I'll do any reasonable restriction forward looking in the order. So this bill, this board says you you know, you
knock this building down, but you still have to build a vernacular, vernacular style building that's, you know, looked like something like that before. Is that going to be an issue? No objection. As long as it's clarified in the order as
to what that states. And I want specific clarification because I don't want to be appealing an order. So if you would like to listen, just as you said, Commissioner, I have no problem with that. I just don't want the
board to say you must build a structure in X amount of time period. You can restrict what's being built there. That's no objection. I assure you. My client is not playing games. It's not in his nature. I'm not saying they're playing games,
but you're talking about precedents that we set. You can bring up other stuff, but I'm on this board making this decision in front of me. That one in front of the HPB board, not in front of us at that time. I
agree, and I think the word is incorrect standard. I'm not saying you are, Commissioner. I'm just saying the evidence is very clear. They indicated it was demolition by neglect. It is not. I'm not sure how that even qualifies. You can. I can ask
another one more question. Sure. Go ahead. Renee, is there any way for us to find that the more I think I believe the house next
door is up, up on blocks. It's not on the ground. I don't personally know that you can ask my client. I don't want to speak to that. Pretty sure as I remember it is. And I'm sure
that 150 read Street. Pretty sure, but I need to verify that through our records that that was a garage, and somehow it got
turned into an apartment. So it is a separate parcel, Commissioner, and that's not in dispute as a so my point is, if it's a garage and not a home,
does that make the FEMA requirements different? Because it was that's not germane. It's still not germane. Yeah. The FEMA requirements are germane.
It was you know, there's no permit record at all of how that became okay. A lot how it became a, you know, a living unit at
all. Okay. My client purchased those individually, Commissioner. It was it was the church primary building. And then then consequently to the right and then addition to the right, I know exactly which house it is. So. But I do
believe it was a garage. I don't believe I can't testify to that. I take your word for it. I just I don't know if that made any difference. I don't know if it does or not, I concur. Let's go
back to Commissioner Coolio's. I'm not sure if I heard it right, but I want to. Was there something about a page 36 and work done illegally? Was there anything that I heard something like that, so that there was a
and let me read it back if you don't mind, sir. Okay. Page 36. Commissioner, was Miss Hancock talking about the financial hardship? I can read it if you'd
like. Sure. Whatever gets to the part that there was something. Yeah. I don't believe that. That was it. I can certainly look for it quickly, Commissioner. I think it was in reference to the board indicating. And Miss Hancock going back and forth
regarding that. A lot of people are just doing this the wrong way and that's what it was about. It wasn't saying that we're we're doing that. Of course there hasn't been any because you got the permits. So I just yeah, it was an
observation that there was a lot of work being done in the area that potentially did not have permits, which in my opinion has no, you know, evidence, evidentiary value as it relates to this application. But, sir, you admit your clients bought
numerous properties in the historic area, right? Correct. With with all the different restrictions and codes, which, you know, I have my own opinion
about them, you know, so but. I just you're really sold that, you know, it's going to cost $400,000 to renovate that whole building. I have to I have to rely on the expert. I'm not a
contractor. I can't quote that. When I have an expert that gives me an invoice, I can really rely on it. And as I did, and so did my client. That's his go to contractor. She's not. It's in the record again. I'm happy to
find it. She's not in business with him. Right. So there's no incentive for her to say she has some type of joint venture that's in the record evidence. I just I understand where you're coming from, but it's not in the
rules that there must be multiple quotes. If it is, please point me to it and then I will provide that. And I'm sure there'll be substantially in the same realm of what this is as most contractors would do it.
And he has the right to choose the contract he wants to choose and choose the quality work that he wants to choose. He doesn't have to go, for lack of a better word, you know, cheap. Which he's never done, as evidenced by
the church structure when replacing things. He chose this contractor and she even testifies, commissioner, that it would be beyond the scope because once she gets in there, it's going to be worse. So it's above 400,000. It's not me. It's
in the record. I mean, it's a I'm not sure how much I can weigh that decision that that testimony right there. Honestly, Mr. Steffen, and so it's not my
testimony, Commissioner. It's record evidence from the prior hearing. It's not my personal opinion. It's just a document. And then her following up on it, there's no pictures of anything. I mean, there are there any pictures of the inside of the
home and the quality of it? That's a requirement. I know it's not required, but you want to build trust with us, sir. So there's a difference. You want to build trust with us in this
board about setting a precedent, but you do the bare minimum. The bare minimum, it looks like. And then you, you, you you go about, you know, not answering
questions that, you know, I'll leave it to Mr. Martin to testify as to what the inside of the building looks like. I'm Tony Martin, and you pulled the
microphone, sir. I'm sorry. Yes, I'm Tony Martin, and please ask me whatever questions you like. Sir, it's really going to cost $400,000 to renovate that, redo
that, building that what house? Let me just say this. I just renovated, and honestly, I didn't know what I was getting
into. That church did a great job. Thank you. If you had to guess at a square foot price to renovate that church, what would you say? I don't know, I saw
what you listed it around, but I didn't see what it went for or anything like that was. That was fairy tale land, you know, whatever you said it for, you know, I will tell you today
because I'm in the process of trying to build a home here. If you could build anything under three, forget about $300 a square foot. Those days are
gone. I mean, you're looking at 4 to $500 for any kind of quality construction period. So
if you just take 1000ft■!S at $400, what does that come to? You got it. Why did I pay $400,000 for that building? Two
reasons. We love tarpon. I think the church is the best location in town. The building turned out fantastic. Initially I thought
whatever you call a garage would be a fantastic cottage for guest who came to the house. The other house I was dying to get because
it becomes a compound for the church and you could build historic. Doesn't have to be old to be historic. People don't
come to tarpon to see it. This is 125 years old. And what makes it specific and characteristic is the porch. Who cares? They
come because it's historic. It feels historic, and you enjoy being there. My purpose in whatever you call the garage was always a residence that we
bought, and actually it was an income stream until it got it was so messed up the building that it didn't make sense to fix it up. And then the floods came.
So, I mean, but to me right now. We I when I drive down Orange Street, you know, and they knocked down those old homes and they built these historic
looking buildings orange. And wherever the bike trail is, they look great and they're functional and people are living in them. So historic means different things to different
people. Okay. And all I'm saying is that we want to preserve the historic nature of tarpon. But old doesn't mean historic anymore, you know, especially if
it's not up to the standards that people could live in comfortably. And you can only maintain it for a few more years before they're demolished. Because today we built with
better materials. We build with longevity in mind. So we're dealing with different, different world, you know, and you got covenants that say one thing, but the realism is we
live in this area. You know, I, I bought my father a home years ago, 40 years ago in Sarasota. They never got hit by a hurricane, you know, and we
lived on a canal. So the moral of the story is what we're seeing today is real. So if you have foundations that aren't six feet up, you're, you know,
you're in trouble in a lot of cases. So just prepare for it. But, you know, you could have standards, make the standards move on to the realism of what's
going on to preserve it. But, you know, something's got to give. But today you're not building a $200 a square foot for anything, even low standard
buildings. Forget it. So that's that's really where we're at. So if we're going to contribute to a society and we could do it, we want to just make it better, bring it up to the standards so
people could actually live in it, and it benefits the city and the neighborhood. That's our standard. So, you know, I think you should have came up and talked a lot sooner, sir. So I
appreciate it. You're very knowledgeable and you gave a very articulate answer behind your construction and intent and reasoning. So I appreciate it.
Thank you guys. Yeah. Is I'm going to just like I like I said, I'm going to pretty much just I appreciate it. I feel like there's just some more information that needs to be
given out. You know, there's I feel like it was just it was the minimum that needs to be presented. And, you know, a lot of go ahead, sir. Oh, I'm sorry,
I didn't mean to cut you off, Commissioner. I just want to say, regarding Robin Hancock, my contractor. We've worked with a
lot of contractors, and it's easy to get that title contractor today. I think, as you all know. And so it's like going to a good dentist, you know, if you go to good dentist,
everybody's a dentist, but you try second and third and fourth and all of a sudden you say, I'm going back to my original one. I will tell you today that if you
had to have anybody and I'm not selling her services, build anything for you and you want specifics at the end that you have at the beginning. This is a
lady you want in your team. Period. She's done work for us. She's doing work for us. And you know that the price she's going to quote me is what you're going
to pay at the end because she's done her homework. And I have a lot of contractors I'm working with. I can't say that about a lot of people. So I, I think the
numbers we gave you aren't going to get much better, because to me, if somebody if I know they're in the ballpark on a square foot basis or what, whatever the vehicle is they're
quoting me on, and somebody comes in low ball, it makes me really nervous. That's why you need three bids. You need a high, you need a medium and you need a low because you always
question the guys down here. Mr. Marty, let's. Commissioner, do you have any more questions? Because we're we're going to have deliberations for more statements. No, I got everything answered. Thank you both. And I
have no further comments. Thank you, vice Mayor. Questions, please. Yes. I don't mind who answers this. Do you think it would have been better if you had somebody who has familiarity
with flooding and salt water and mold remediation? You mean before I bought the house? No, I mean before you went before the
HPV board. You know, honestly, I, I don't this is my. And really, wherever you are. Yeah, I, I have the utmost respect for anybody who's going to donate
their time to any commission, okay? Or whether it's historic or not. I think the levels of experience versus an opinion are
different things. I think in the historic district, because, you know, what I could see is everybody has a different opinion of what should be done,
what they'd like to see. And so. Would I bring anybody different to the historic board at that point? I think you almost need a structure, a construction
administrator, and you need people that understand everything you're talking about. You know, you're talking about FEMA, you're talking about construction costs, you're talking about floods. You got a
lot of variables. And so that's why I say I personally, I don't think the people. Are construction experts when you're
coming to historic. And I think they're trying to preserve historic and God bless him. But I, I would take bets if someone
wants to bet me on numbers and what has to be built. I take that bet. That's that's all I'm saying. So if we say this is
what we need to build what we build, and everybody says, wow, that's great for the community, that's what we wanted. These were originally bought, I'm telling you, for cottages that
could really create a compound for the church, and they would be built historically. So the neighborhood grows. And I think that's what, you know, that's
what we're, we're trying to attempt to do here. So there is some type of plan. It's just not can I. The only plan is we
haven't sat down with a with an architect. We just needed a vehicle to do it. So anyway, I board you guys. Thank you very much. Do you have any more questions? Yeah, of course I got
it. I mean, if we need to bring it back. Thank you. So my question was more so tailored to the HPB board. I'm not knocking them in any which way, shape or form, but they have their
expertise in vernacular, in windows, in wood types, in. Because I've watched enough of their meetings. This what
happened was a specialty event. And my point that I'm trying to make to you is you're doing a presentation, whether it's to HPB or to us. Don't you think
that you should have somebody who would be able to be your expert in delivering what should be repaired versus what should
be removed for whatever reason? Because you're not skilled. And I'm not saying this. Absolutely. I agree, you're not skilled. I can't testify to that. So I'm
listening to a lot of reasons of why you should have done this or what you could have done that. And the bottom line is, if you had that person there, it would have answered all of these
questions before you give me your answer. Hold that thought. How did you find Robin Hancock, or how did he find does a lot of rehab as it relates with her for
a variety of projects throughout Pinellas County, so has she worked for him numerous times? Yes, to my knowledge, yes. Okay.
Are you aware of what kind of reputation she has? I can't speak to her reputation. I it's not something that I. That I'm aware of. Am I allowed? I'm not sure reputation evidence has any
credence to this. Okay. Very well. I'm just asking, you know, I'm not going to things to go backwards. Commissioner. She wasn't saying that in a
negative. No, and I, I am not I can't speak to her reputation. I can tell you Mr. Marty's reputation is known for grade A restoration and even sometimes to his detriment, where it's too
expensive. This one isn't going to cut it. Additionally, in response to why Miss Hancock isn't here, my understanding was is that I could not supplement additional information. So I relied on the record evidence,
testimony, and at length she goes into the detail and I read some of it where she describes the floor as a paper bag. She personally investigated that. I'm not sure of a requirement. Respectfully, Commissioner, that
requires a litany of experts to come in. And I need a flooring expert. I need a window expert. I'm not sure she has the credentials. I don't believe that's in dispute. I wasn't bringing that up in the negative. I understand, I'm just
simply answering the question. I just touch base a little bit. I do know her very well. That's all I want to say. Okay. But I'm not allowed to speak about it.
So. My question back to you is when you come before any board, this is a specialty type item. And in order to defend the
difference between, you know, negligence versus a natural disaster, all I'm saying is that when you bring somebody who has knowledge of whether something
should be removed and destroyed or whether it should be built back, there has to be someone who has many times made that determination. I think she would
fit into that criteria, Commissioner. And again, I'm not going to read the entirety, but but it was it was the actual hearing lasted over an hour. She was there. She did answer these
type of questions as it relates to that. Again, I'm not going to read the record. I submitted that into the record. You know, I feel very strongly she meets that criteria. It's not like she
was, you know, a subcontractor. I don't know what else to say on that point. I mean, to the extent the board wishes for us to get additional quotes, I don't think that that is listed in the rule. And respectfully, I
have not heard anything from the city that would indicate they have a quote that would be opposed to our quote as far as costs, certainly they can present that evidence, but they have not done so. And when we
get back to dealing with people discussing substantively what is demolition by neglect, I would argue that you don't need an expert to acknowledge that it's not neglectful to have flood
water destroy your home. That doesn't require an expert. That's common knowledge. So again, she did testify to that. But the board relied where I get the heartburn commissioner on
their personal experience of how they would have restored the home. And that's just simply not the standard. And they came to it. And irrational conclusion of an zero four vote on basically neglect. And that's the issue we
have. I don't know how I can overcome that, Commissioner, respectfully, I'm open to ideas. I can't give you that answer.
Okay. So let's go to public comment. Are there any public
comments on this issue? Austin, do we have any remote comments?
Austin. Please fell asleep. There is no online comments. Okay, so let's come back to the board for. To entertain a
motion. Is May. May I make a statement before we. Sure. Sorry. I do want to state
unequivocally my experience with their contractor Robin Hancock is she's she's fantastic. I want that in the record because I don't the tone of some of the
conversation makes it sounds like that just isn't the case. So I, I do I do want that in the record. Okay. I'm going to I will speak on that when it's I
do believe that. I think the problem in the disconnect is, yes, there was a lot of testimony given standing at a podium or standing at a microphone. What they didn't
have was a report with pictures and with data and with information. And I think if they had that, you may have got can't handicap how they would do. But
I think there's a path from A to B here. So. So Austin. Everyone up there. Yes, sir. Yeah. Are
there any remote comments? We already know there are no online comments. Okay. Thank you. Let's come back to the board. Let let's I'm looking to entertain a
motion. I would motion to approve the appeal and grant the demolition permit second. Okay. Now let's go back to commissioner comments.
Commissioner banter. Thank you. I was kind of cut off. So I want to say some things. First off Robin Hancock, if you if you have done any real estate work in tarpon of any extensive
nature and if you have done any construction work, you've heard of her. She's a she's a, she's a female contractor, one one of the few in Tarpon Springs. Been here for a very, very long time.
I purchased one of one of her buildings before and she's top notch. I would I would hire her tomorrow. Me me me me, me and my partner manage about 30 million
plus in real estate assets. I've been part of the biggest demolition permit issued in Dunedin for the, for the, for the for the Kellogg mansion. I restored a building downtown.
All this to tell you what she's quoting is on the low end. It the though it is anybody with any real estate or construction
experience can look at that and just tell you that I think, I think some of this the reason why this was denied is I believe in my extensive experience with,
with with with city boards. I've served on this board and on this board before. People that come before the board with certain means, there's a certain bias against them, and that's just part of life. But that should
not be the case. I believe if this was a different applicant, if this was if the if you will, or a retired person, this has been a whole different story. But but but but but but but but
here we are tonight again. If this was not a contributing structure, it would have been demolished without a permit.
From the hurricane. And I think if we don't want to issue that, we are just simply throwing the ball back to a like lower board, it's going to come right and then it's going to come right
back to us or and then maybe to a higher court. We have to make that that tough choice tonight and I and also to ask this applicant if they're denied
across the board to rehab the property again in the condition it's in and not, you know, tear it down and build something else according to our guidelines here, they can't build without whatever it is they want. And
another flood comes and we're here again next year. So again, I think all the evidence again, I've I've sat through appeals before from the Heritage Board, both on the board itself and on this board. I've never seen so,
so much, so much evidence presented. And again, this is not to say that the Heritage Board erred per se. I was not I was not part of that meeting. And I and I think commissioner
or sorry, sorry, Vice Mayor Eisner brought up a good point that that board is not specifically construction experts. They are in charge, and rightfully so, of the overall
historic preservation. And so I understand their reluctance to issue a demo permit, I do. So I think it's our job here tonight, and I hope my colleagues can go
along and grant this permit. Thank you. Okay. I actually skipped myself. So I'm going to go next and then I'll go down the line. You know I well let's
let me talk about Robin Hancock. I've used Robin Hancock. She's exemplary. So I, I have zero
issues when it comes to Robin Hancock. I mean this the pricing. You know, I looked at I've looked at new construction
and Mr. Marty is exactly right. You can't even you can't build a shack for 250 today a square foot. Everything's everything's
super expensive. You know, I want to back up on a Commissioner coleus. You made a really good point at the very
beginning of your comments. With that, you know, precedent and standards. I think it is. I think it's very important right now. I don't think this is the
first we're going to hear of these. I looked at I was looking to purchase some property and I looked at four homes in the
Fruit Bowl district, and I wouldn't touch them. I had cash to rent to renovate them, so I didn't have to go get a mortgage
to do it, which I doubt that any bank would finance any of the any renovations of any of these properties at their elevation. I
just don't think it's possible. And but yet, to put money into these properties and, and then to just wait for a possible
reoccurrence of this is, is crazy. And so but my concern and I expressed this to the planning
director and the city manager is that we need to set some standards as to how this process process should go, given that this is kind of like the first
one coming up to us. So, you know. You know, I would have probably liked to have seen, you know, maybe a report from a structural engineer on the
integrity of the, of the, the property. I don't doubt that it's impractical to try to rehab
that property and again, wait for it to get flooded again. So, you know, if and not to not to
disparage the heritage board, but I mean, like the like Commissioner Eisner said, they they, you know, they know about asking about, you know, you
know, some molding or windows or doors, but oftentimes they get very lost. And I experienced them. I went before him. I'm not shy to say it. I had to go
before them and then had to appeal it to the Board of commissioners. And it was completely overturned. I got A50 vote from the commissioners and,
and had a, I think it was a 5 to 1 vote by the heritage in the other direction. You know, there's, there's standards for
demolition, right? I think they were on one of the prior subsequent screens, you know, and I don't I didn't see in this
where the standards were applied. I saw where again, they got into issues about, you know, neglect and all that, which to
me is irrelevant. We're here now, and I don't think your client neglected anything. That was Mother Nature did that. It
wasn't neglect. And the damage didn't happen by neglect. Damage happened by a storm. So, so much time spent on that seemed to be
wasted. Conversations. So, you know, my question tonight is going to be to myself is whether we vote on the demolition or we
vote on the number three to go back to the heritage board, but to go back to the Heritage Board without some standard of what
we're sending you back there to do. Seems like that. As much as I'd like to go along with Miss Vincent on that, I don't I don't
see what going back to tell them what to go back through this again. So I'd like to hear from the other commissioners and then I'll hear, hear the motion and
make a decision. So we already have a motion excuse. So let's go to Commissioner De Donato. Is one of the times where you
really want to be last. But anyway, sorry, the motion, as I understand it from, from this end of this big room is, is to vote for the demolition. Is that
correct? Okay. I had the advantage, or should I say the disadvantage of actually being in that house. And I had a hard
time. Weighing that, rehabbing it. If you don't take it up, it makes absolutely no sense at all
to me. But yet at the other hand. I respect the HPB board, and if they felt they needed more information, I think it
should be there. So. And since our records don't go back to prove that that was actually a garage or carport, which I'm firmly believe it was a carport,
I guess there's not much we can do about that either. So having said that, then I will listen to the rest of the commissioners.
Commissioner coleus. Miss Vincent, you talked about the hesitancy in the HPB board and what item three basically tell them, come back with pictures,
come back with additional information that would make us a little bit more comfortable in making that decision. They were definitely looking for additional information. I and I understand the applicant's
frustration with not knowing what that is. I want to go back and see what standards we've used in the past, what's been submitted, you know, some sort
of structural analysis, if even if, you know, Miss Hancock can expand on and present the information in a, you know, a packet of information of the
interior photograph, the interior document, you know, get the information that, that they're looking for. I do want to also state that the estimate that she provided did include
elevating the structure. So they're not the proposal is not to elevate it at its existing grade. It was to I mean, keeping it existing grade. It was to renovate and elevate the
structure that was included in there and that estimate. So again, you're saying that the estimate that was provided, the estimate provided by the applicant included elevating that structure? Okay. So it was
definitely going to be elevated. Yes. It makes no sense at all to remain like it is to me. Yeah. Okay. So here's what we're doing
now. I mean you had staff give a recommendation of item of number three I believe. That that would be that. Yes. That that would be
my recommendation is to go back to the HPB. That is only a recommendation. And mayor, you're the deciding vote here. It's clear as we see our seconds
and potentially with with Frank Commissioner DiDonato. If we approve this demolition, then you're going to have people come up who are going to want their their houses demolished without,
you know, providing some of the additional information that our staff is requesting to make the HPB feel comfortable. Hold on, hold on. And as far as but as
far as you know this, I get it. Nobody wants to go back and forth, but it's a process. No one's going to get any special treatment here. No one. And you
know you're going to allow this precedent now that anybody can come up, say their historic structure is done. You know, I'm I'm sure there are a great contractor. You know, I'm not
saying that, but we're going to have contractors right up, you know, quality contractors right up numbers. And, you know, without additional documentation. That leaves our
HPB board. You know, she talked about we can set conditions now. Right now. Right. Miss Vincent, to go back for item three with the conditions that we could state and they would have to do
it. Correct. Are you talking about what they would have to submit? Have to provide? Yes. You can. I would rather work with the applicant and the building department. And, you
know, look at what we've required in the past. And I don't want to stand up here and ask for something that's completely off. No. And I just want to make sure that's what
you mean by looking back. You'l. That's the route we need to go. Can I respond to you? That's the route we need to go. No question. Then you go ahead. Go
ahead. Okay. So no, you don't always presume what you think I'm thinking. Okay. So what what I would I and I'm not adverse to what you're saying, what I want
from this board. And I think what the applicant needs is specific direction on what if he goes back, what is expected of
him if, if they don't. So let's say that a structural engineer report whether, you know, even, you know, interior whatever. I
just I don't want to take this man down a road that is, is nebulous. Right. And so and again, setting those standards because you're right, we're going to have more of these
people come here. And we need to be able to have some. And by what we're doing today is a precedent that we set that we're going to require certain standards. But I think we're
going to have a lot of these, I really do. I again, I was in that fruit bowl district and I saw houses and they're just not going to get rebuilt. There's going to have to be something done to them. And if they are
rebuilt, I'm telling you, I, I'm really concerned about what the intent of people rebuilding these houses that's to me is
more problematic than the demolition, because the people that are buying some of these houses, I've seen it in, in again in the fruit bowl, they're
buying them at, you know, land value, almost just land value. And then they're putting minimal money into them to, to fix them up. They're not intending to
live in them. They're going to all be. You know, either low end rentals or Airbnbs and they're just and those neighborhoods are
not going to be the same. So I'm, I'm really getting off on a tangent. I apologize. So I just think if we're going to send him back, it needs to be specific
and direct. I don't want him going through what he went through again, talking about, you know, what he should have done or could have done, you
know, in mitigating anything. So can you can you help us, Renee,
with those specifics? It's going to have to be some type of a structural report with evidence
included in the report that you can read and understand, and it needs to be from a professional. And I, I mean, I think I think
Miss Hancock can probably produce that. What they got was one sheet of paper with some numbers on it and no other evidence backing that up. That's that's the gap. Even though she
testified to that that this is so we need a report with evidence pictures. I think that's you know, I'm channeling the HPB. That's what they're asking for. And that seems
reasonable to me. And then we can also take that, you know, we can look at it. Our building department has cost means data of you know, that where we can
look at what a new cost would be for a similar structure. We'll have a comparison. We can then, you know, to me that should be enough to make a decision work
with this applicant. Absolutely, absolutely. Yes I can that I can live with. So we got okay. So do we need to amend the motion. No
because now it's the motion is just to go with the one that was the motion was to just straight up demolish. Yes. Yes to approve the application. Can we have can
I let me ask the city attorney. Can we ask that commissioner to pull that motion and then make a motion with the commissioner in the second one to remove theirs?
They can. Commissioner, can I speak first before. I just think this is absolutely ridiculous. Yeah, this is absolutely ridiculous. I just have to be honest. Absolutely ridiculous.
But whatever. You want me to pull it, I'll pull it. No problem. Well, I'm just asking you to go down with whatever word you want to tonight. Point of order. We have two things. We need to extend the meeting. Yes.
Motion to extend the meeting to 11:30 p.m. Second roll call. Wait a minute. I didn't hear that part. I would like the time. Certain I'm not going to stay here until until until
until 1 a.m, 1130. I'm going to do it once we get past this item. The rest of them are are. Yeah, that's what we think. Okay. Roll call to extend it was
just to extend to extend to 1130. I was the motion to have 1520 was seconded. It was to 1130 1130. Right. But we wanted
to make a commissioner. Yes. Commissioner DiDonato. Yes, Commissioner. Yes, yes. Vice mayor. Eisner. Yes, mayor. Yes. Go ahead, Commissioner Eisner.
Thank you. So I was listening. There's a lot of good comments being made here, but even if you give more pictures, as Commissioner Koolhaas was saying, it's not going to help
because the people that are looking at it are not familiar with what mold remediation and flood restoration is. This falls back on. I remember a commissioner who claimed he was
an expert because he handled his mother's one loss. These people are good at what they do, but they're not good at this. So unless you had somebody here that was a flood restoration
person, they're not going to know. Even if you appeal, you have to have facts. What we could do down the road on all of
these. This is just jumping off for a second before anybody rents a house or does anything with the house sells it. We could request they have an air sampling and a mold sampling to
see that it's safe for someone else to go into. My comment about Robin, which I wasn't able to make before I worked with her on the Board of Adjustments for
many years. She is a stellar, top quality contractor. I wouldn't actually call her extremely knowledgeable about
restoration, because even the best contractors out there, this was a once in a lifetime item. Servpro and all the others they
do rip out. They don't do put back. Robin is a put back person. She's an expert at what she does. But. I being I was
laid up and I couldn't help my own house. My wife did most of the work and my crew. I was an advisor to Robin. Okay, so I actually spoke with her and I
gave her my expertise in how to treat some of these houses because they were unique. These if you have a standard constructed house you rip out like was said earlier,
sheetrock. You treat all the studs you put an encapsulated on it and you start putting things back. These particular houses cannot be done like that. The
construction back in those days would just second to none. It was built without any guidelines, without any construction knowledge. People just nailed things together. All
of the screws and nails or whatever they used that was hit with salt is going to corrode and fall apart. This is what people don't understand. Many
people put bleach on it. It's still corrosive. Most of the money that you make when you're doing restoration is in the demo part of it. It's not in the put back. So her price that whatever
she quoted, she's not only honest, but she was under quoting it because you only get 25% of the loss of what you're putting back. Most of the money
is made in the 75% part of the demo that you do. So mold grows in 24 hours. Within three days. It's just everywhere. And I
could read this thing to you, but it destroys the wood, it becomes embedded in the wood, and there's no way for you to rectify it without removing all
the wood and replacing it, which means knocking down the house. So all of these factors, I'm sure, as good as HPB was or is, none of this is in their
wheelhouse. You know, I listen to one person, you know, say that they had a flood and they, you know, they did this or that, that has nothing to do with another property unless they've
done thousands and thousands of flood restoration jobs and are familiar with it. They're not classified. Someone who's knowledgeable. With all the restoration I've done, I am not
an expert expert in in the business. You have to be doing this on a day to day basis. So my comment, you know, with this whole thing is I don't think it
should go back to them. I think we should be doing option two and just allowing them to dispose of this health hazard, because we really don't need to
precipitate and make this go on longer and longer, because you're just making them a more costly removal, because that mold is just going to continue to grow through the humidity. They have no air conditioning
there, and if they turn the air conditioning on, it would spread the mold spores through the whole house. So all of all, what I'm listening to is, as Commissioner Banta said, it's
nonsense. We should just not let them knock it down and say it's a loss. If they want to rebuild it, let them rebuild something that looks similar to this only elevate it. But for now, we
should just let them remove the damaged issue. Nobody did this with negligence. Nobody left this just just because they didn't care. And many of the
properties that we looked at my crew when they were down here did lift off the off the foundation and shifted. My own property shifted. So, you know,
you had thousands of pounds of water weight sitting on, on around your house. It shifted your property. Either it floated it or it shifted it. Most of these properties that were built
around there were just sitting on cinderblocks. There was no foundation poured. So, you know, it's going to float. It did break pipes. I've been on jobs that pipes broke. So I'm trying
to share with you some of the knowledge that this is this is not just a run of the mill. Let's just, you know, do this. These things become very
intricate. And that's why I'm asking the questions. You should have an expert here to determine what is protocol for this particular property. And it is
not for the board of board of adjustments to decide. It's not for the HPB to decide. And it's definitely not for I don't want to go down the list of what all these occupations are up here,
but it is not mold remediation and flood restoration and the destruction that salt water does. Okay, I just saying, yeah,
you don't have to convince me this is a decision for the board. So you currently have a motion and a second for do we have any. Well I'd like to say I
mean I get exactly what Commissioner Eisner saying, but what's going to happen? It might not be the current contractor coming before us again on another application. It could be
someone completely different, completely different applicant, someone who doesn't put quality. I don't know. I know they do quality work, but what I'm saying is they brought the bare
minimum. Staff has even said the HPB, they agree to go with item three. A couple more weeks to knock the building down, a couple more months if the building is going to get knocked
down, it's going to get knocked down. But if we go approve this removal without any extra analysis or you know what needs
to be required, then we're going to have to allow for a lot of other people and the bare minimum to present, you know, a sheeted invoice, I get it, but
that's not enough. And it's not much more to ask them to go back again with staff who's going to work with them to make sure they're treated fairly, just like anybody else, to provide
what they need to for the HPB board to bring in front of us and get it right with everything in front of us and not just, you
know. An invoice. May I give you a little bit of facts? Go ahead. Initial stage of mold is 24 to 48 hours. Within 3 to 12 days,
you have spores growing that begin to form colonies which may be visible or spots or patches. The colonies can spread rapidly if moisture within 12 plus days. You have extensive
contamination. If moisture is not controlled, mold molds can spread rapidly. What you're dealing with is you're dealing with a instead of just some mold. You're dealing with whole house of mold it. You have to be
in Tyvek suits. You've got to run scrubbers while you're doing this. You've got to have dehumidifiers running. These are all things that they have to do a controlled demolition. I did
this for a living. I know what's involved. It is expensive. And this may even be above, you know, Robin's wheelhouse. Robin
can, you know, hire people that are experts in this? I don't know if she would like to do a full demo like this. This is this is a specific, specified
demolition. So I know commissioners and, you know, the mold grows. But the hurricane happened back in October. So there's mold there if there's mold there. But you know what I also wanted to tell you yes, you're right. We could have
other people coming before us. But each one that wants to override HPB has to come to us. They also have to do a presentation. And I don't think that presentation was sound,
honestly. You know, the owner did did a great job. But out of respect for the crowd, I think we should just vote. I think everyone knows here how they're going to vote. Freeman to
Commissioner, I would like to just dump this, you know, as far as let them do the demo and must move on. You know, I haven't in
all deference to our planning director, I haven't heard what exactly the information that's going to be given that is going
to somehow make that house. Make it able to be rehabilitated. I just I don't know what you're going to ask of them. I'm not
saying that you will. I'm saying that the evidence that was presented was largely conversational in the meeting. They're looking for a report, a
written report with documentation about the structural. You know, what, what has happened to it, photographic evidence, an analysis, a
document. We had one sheet of paper with some numbers on it, with nothing really else. I mean, there was a there was a lead thing that a lead report
that was provided. If I'm, you know, the board was not comfortable with the level of information that they had should have. They just trusted Miss Hancock and voted for it. I
can't speak to that. And I have let me, let me, let me, let me make a suggestion. Sure, sure. We have a whole slew of planning general planning consultants, and we have several that are
historic preservation qualified people. I would like to be able to go out, get one of them. We can go immediately to them and get some advice on this, whether
they analyze the current data that we've got and give us a report or say, this is what you would that we would need. That's what I would like to do. Let me
ask the city attorney. Is there an avenue here that would allow that evidence to come to us versus having to go back to planning, going back to HPB and
then coming back to us again? Only if you continue this matter to allow that evidence to be presented directly in front of you. I'd like to request a continuance on the basis of. Mr.
Banther said he was leaving at 1130, and it's not enough time to hear the application. I'm not going to leave at 1130. I'll. I would like a continuance, Mr. Mayor, and I could potentially supplement the record to get you
what you need. I would like to continue, if that's what the board is asking for, that supplement the information, the applicant can present it to you, and then you would determine this one way or the other that would you be comfortable with
that, Commissioner Banther? Sure. I just don't want to relitigate this all over again because everyone here loves to talk. Just rather than sending them back to HPB, you, we gather
the data, comes back here and we make a determination. Sure. Is that is that seem like a fair compromise? I'm fine with that. I would just like the record to indicate that the continuance was granted. So the hearing is
still open, Mr. Mayor? Yes, that would be the purpose. And I'm I'm in agreement that we would continue the hearing. Therefore we don't have to re hear everything. We're just adding
for the supplementary information. How do we procedurally go through it with a motion on the on the vote. This down the current one I well I would withdraw if the maker would withdraw it and the second
withdraw it and we just make a motion to continue second and vote on. Would you do that, Commissioner Banther? Yes, we need to continue to a date certain. I want to just end it
tonight the way I. Well, well, I would say the one thing I would say to you is the applicant has asked for the continuance. Continuance because they know, I think, that they just need to
supplement it, working with the city to present that information so that the majority, at least the rest of the commissioners city attorney, I can withdraw that if they wish to vote. And then we subsequently, based on
the vote, make a determination if the continuance is needed because the hearing is still is still ongoing. That would be proper, right? I don't want them to vote on on the motion, because then that concludes it.
And then we're and let let me, let me let me make a comment to my vice mayor. Everything you made the most compelling
statements tonight. Obviously, you have expertise that none of us have. But for the sake of process. And that's all what I'm concerned with. I think they
need to be able to tear their building down. But going back to what Commissioner Coolies says is about when we about precedent creating some standard of and
let's, let's allow him to grant him the continuance, let him bring some additional information. Let's re we won't we don't have to go all the way back to square one, because
we've done most of the, of the conversation, and then we can do what we need to do. And that way at least we're setting a, some
standard for the that our staff feels comfortable with the information being granted being given to us. Can we can we do that? Listen, I'm going to go
along with the masses, but as far as I'm concerned, this should be you're going to pull your second say again, you'll pull your second. If he pulls the money the first meeting in June, then my so June 1st
meeting in June. So now let's let's have a motion to grant the applicant a continuance. We would ask for a date certain for the first meeting in June. First meeting in June. No objection, Mr. Mayor. No objection. That's
fine. Can I hear a motion? So moved. Second, is there a second? Okay. Roll call. Commissioner Banther. Yes, Commissioner. DiDonato. Yes,
Commissioner. Yes, yes, vice mayor Eisner. Unfortunately, yes. Yes. Thank you. Appreciate your time. I look forward to
seeing you in June. Thank you very much. Okay. Item 26,
ordinance 2020 2020 5-06 first Reading, Land Development Code amendment amending article two District Regulations 25 Dash 12
HB highway Business District. Does. Does this go straight to. Yeah to Renee. Yeah, I'll just read the title ordinance 2020 506 An ordinance of the City of
Tarpon Springs, Florida, amending the City of Tarpon Springs. Code of Ordinances, appendix A comprehensive Zoning and Land Development Code, article two, district
Regulations, section 2512 HB Highway Business District providing for codification. Conflict. Severability. Correction of Scrivener's errors. Construction,
publication and effective date and that is ordinance 2020 506, read by title only on first reading. I'll be very brief.
Again, this is ordinance 2025. Dash zero six. We received a request to consider amending the Land Development Code to add schools of general education as an allowable use in one form or
another, either as permitted or conditional. Schools of special education are permitted use in the highway business district. There's requests from a church that has already in existence
and in the highway business district to add a school of general education that would be a parochial school. So the only way that they can get there is to hopefully request and get get
an amendment to the Land Development Code. We took this to the Planning and Zoning Board. They ultimately did recommend approval of a vote by five two to allow change the
code, to allow schools of general education as a conditional use. And they also recommended that the schools of special education be changed from permitted to conditional. That is the way the ordinance is
before you. Tonight, we follow the Planning and Zoning Board's recommendation. And so that's the recommend. That is the
recommendation. Let's go to. Is there any public comment? Austin. There are no public
comments at this time. Okay. Are there are there any questions of staff Commissioner Panther? No. Commissioner DiDonato.
Commissioner. Gulyas. No, sir. Vice mayor. No, I have none. The chair will entertain a motion.
So moved. Second. Okay. Are there any comments, Commissione? Panther? No. Commissioner. DiDonato. No. Commissioner.
Coolio's. No, sir. No vice mayor and none myself. Roll call please. If approved, the second reading will be on May 27th, and this was published in the Tampa
Bay times by title only on April 2nd, and will also be published tomorrow on May 14th, 2025. Commissioner. Panther. Yes. Commissioner. DiDonato. Yes,
Commissioner. Gulyas. Yes. Vice mayor. Eisner. Yes. Yes. Item 27. Ordinance 2020 5-2 second reading Land Development Code
amendment amending article four of the special Regulations. Do you want to read ordinance 2020 502? An ordinance of the City of Tarpon Springs, Florida, amending the City of Tarpon
Springs. Code of Ordinances, appendix A comprehensive Zoning and Land Development Code, article four special Regulations, section 59 docks, piers and shoreline
stabilization structures providing for codification. Conflict. Severability. Correction of scrivener's errors. Construction, publication and effective date,
that is, ordinance 2020 502, read by title only on second reading. Publication was done by Tampa Bay Times on February 5th,
2025 and April 30th, 2025. Is there any additional information in the second reading? There is no new information for this. Okay. Are there any public
comments on this item? Austin. There are no online comments. Okay. Are there any questions of
staff? With I'll entertain a motion. So moved. Second okay. Commissioner banner, do you have any comments? No. Commissioner DiDonato. Commissioner Gulyas.
No, sir. Vice mayor, I have none. Let's have roll call, please. Commissioner. Panther. Yes, Commissioner. Donato. Yes,
Commissioner. Yes, yes, vice mayor. Eisner. Yes. Yes. Item 28. Ordinance 2020 5-03. Again, a second reading. Land
Development Code amendment amending article 11 sign regulations, temporary banners. You would like to read it, please. Ordinance 2020 503, an ordinance of the City of Tarpon
Springs, Florida, amending the City of Tarpon Springs. Code of ordinances, appendix A comprehensive Zoning and Land Development Code, article 11
Sign Regulations, section 192.02 temporary banners providing for codification. Conflict. Severability. Correction of Scrivener's errors. Construction, publication and
effective date, that is, ordinance 2020 503, read by title only on second reading. Publication was a Tampa Bay
Times on February. Fifth, 2025 and April 30th, 2025. Renee, is there any additional information on the second reading? No, sir.
Okay. Are there any public comments? Regretting my decision to not have dinner before I came? I'm going to speak a little bit. My name is George Lane on the North Jasmine
Avenue, Tarpon Springs. I own three businesses here in Tarpon State. Your name and address, please. George Lane, 1304 Jasmine Avenue. Speaking too fast. I'm sorry. I own three
businesses here in Tarpon. Two are online ones. A new retail location. This sign banner is very important to me. Obviously, to be here at 1130. We recently put out a banner on a Saturday,
a finger flag. We increased our business 36%. We put it out again on Monday not knowing it was against the ordinance. We increased our business 64% on that Monday. That Monday, the
code enforcement officer lives in Dunedin, was driving by our location also 19 and informed me it's not available to us. So he suggested I come here and speak. Why we want to cover that, why
that's so important to us to have that ordinance now that we can temporarily at least have that finger flag out. I appreciate your time. Thank you very much. Any other public
comments? Austin? There are no online comments. Okay. Are there any questions of staff or the
applicant or. No, it's not an applicant I apologize. I'll entertain a motion. So moved.
Are there any other comments? None. None being seen. Let's go to roll call. Commissioner. Panther. Yes. Donato. Yes. Mr.
Yes. Yes. Vice mayor. Yes. Mayor. Palermo. Yes. Okay. That concludes all of our items. Let's go to board and staff
comments. Major. Major. Now. Right. Yes, sir. All right. It's a law enforcement appreciation week. We thank the public for supporting law enforcement.
Please continue. We really appreciate the board's support for the police department. So thank you. Thank you. City attorney. No comments. Mayor.
City manager. City clerk. Commissioner. Banther. Yes, sir. Commissioner DiDonato. No thank you, Commissioner. No comments. Commissioner Eisner, you giving
me seven minutes to speak? Wow. That's amazing. I just want to thank you for. That was a joke. I just wanted to thank you for the proclamation. And, look, I
want to thank the board because this was a pretty. I thought it would be a lot easier. But, you know, I love the constructive
battle, you know, of different opinions. And you know what? Let's get out of here. Yeah. And you know, I concur. I again I've
always said, you know, governing is messy. I was happy I mean, we went through a process. We got
to some something and again it's I, I and I, I want to and I and I'm not continue blowing smoke up you but you made some really
compelling points moments I know. Thank you. All right.
Okay. Meeting adjourned 1125. Can I go now?