Good afternoon and welcome to the commission workshop for July 21st, 2026. I'd like to call this meeting to order. Now, if we could please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> City clerk, please call roll. >> Good evening. Vice Mayor Vasquez, >> here. Commissioner Clark
>> here. >> Commissioner Dicki >> here. >> Commissioner Sison is absent. Mayor Doctor >> here. >> Thank you. All right. We are here for the uh the purpose to discuss three different issues. Um as far as when we have public
comment in the workshop, we only address workshop items uh by the public comment. The others will be addressed on the non-aggenda items following this meeting. So, the first uh tonight our discussion
is the uh city manager giving us updates. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I wanted to start off with uh several uh positive things that are going right in Treasure Island. Uh first slide. So, code enforcement in
the city of Treasure Island to the best I can ascertain historically has been not a whole lot and maybe not a whole lot of need for it prior to the storms. I don't know. Some of you were here. I was not. Um, but you can just simply look at the open cases and closed cases
uh starting on or about October when Mr. James Dixon took over as our code enforcement supervisor. And thank you again last September for uh including that position in our CDD headcount. That has helped tremendously. Um so his team
has executed more code cases before the code enforcement board or special magistrate in the first nine months of this fiscal year pretty much double the previous four or five years. Um we you
guys helped us again in June with completing some codes that didn't quite get us to the finish line to do leans, admin fees, things like that. uh condemnation. So, we have uh as you can
see a good amount of rolling fines uh going on and um we're maintaining uh compliance within the FMI IP. Um so, I'll pause there in case there's any questions on that. >> I I have a question about the rolling
fines. How much of that money do we actually end up collecting? I I know it's going to be a rough percentage, but do we collect most of it? All of it, half of it. >> If it's homesteaded, we can't collect until the property
changes hands. If they come in and settle their bill, it's paid. I'm sure I'm leaving out a detail or two. Is James in here? >> Go get him. >> Um, >> that may be a better way to look at that. I know in our financials we have a
line item for uh uh parking fines revenue. Is there a similar item for code enforcement fines collected >> going into the general revenue fund once it is collected? So you have a couple of choices. James, uh Commissioner Dicki
asked how much of that 372,000 we're collecting. So I I'll let you articulate that in a little more detail than I can. >> Yes, I I can do that for you. Uh good afternoon mayor and chair. I mean uh good afternoon commissioners. Uh yes. So through our abatement I mean through our
lean process we we've collected one so far right now. Uh currently we there there are rolling fines and the way to collect them would be through uh I'll I'll backtrack. The most important process when we start
this is certifying that lean so it starts our 90-day count for when we can take our next step enforcement wise uh making the best determination to go back after the fines. It would have to be settled uh if there is a change of ownership or um these fines
are in place for a property owner to get into compliance. Um there is a a lean appeal process uh where a property owner can come in and ask for a reduction. Um and as you could in our last ordinance that we passed, we implemented the
administrative fee which we would uh receive regardless of the uh lean reduction that would be made upon the city commission. So, the administrative fee of $350 we would receive from the case for staff time and
uh attorney time. And >> let let me I guess be more direct about why I'm asking the question. On the agenda for the regular uh meeting, there's uh going to be a request to add two additional code enforcement people. And I know last year when we added an
additional parking uh enforcement officer, uh there's a direct relationship, I mean, with how much money the city brought in with that additional resource. And I was hoping there might be some kind of we could show some kind of same relationship here
that that if we added a one or two more code enforcement, we would it would be more than all set. Do we have sufficient information to be able to draw that kind of conclusion? >> Uh, thank you for clarifying, Aron. Yes. So, the administrative fee, the
administrative side that we passed in the ordinance 2026 13, uh, that is the $350 that we would uh, receive in a code case that we brought forward after they've been found as a first-time violator and they have violated a final order from uh, the code enforcement
board or special magistrate. So that would help uh supplement uh additional staff. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I mean I just want to add to that. I mean theoretically every single person that gets a fine could refuse to pay it and we could slap
a lean on every single one of their homes and then we would never get the money and in that case until there was a change of ownership or something else. Right. I mean you really really can't you can't really predict who's going to pay and who's not. Correct. >> You're correct. Commissioner
>> I think the other piece to add to that Commissioner Clark is if they continually don't pay then we can move to foreclose unless it's homesteaded right and so approximately 40% of our homes in Treasure Island are homesteaded. So you've got 60%
that you could go after. It would take a solid commitment from the commission to I'm not advocating foreclosing people's homes, but there is a way to squeeze the the turnup. >> So, next slide, please. So, um we've
become aware of many unpermitted uh repairs um and uh we're working on those. And I I think the rule of thumb here, Commissioner Dicki, to your point, I can't draw a straight line yet between
if we add um two more code enforcement officers and and uh up staff by 66% in that department. Um exactly how much, but as you we go through the evening and you see the third quarter financials,
you'll see where we're coming ahead of revenue projections. And that's been my guidance all along. Underpromise overperform. We've done that with parking. We've done that with advalor taxes. And uh we've got momentum building each time we do an action. Uh
whether it be on the lawn side or finding people for doing unpermitted work. Um that's sending signals. And you know, like most things in city government, we pay and then we
supplement with the grant or the fine or the fee later. But we're we're getting the uh island, the city back into uh a better shape, which all this in my mind works kind of synergistically. you
you want to have economic development, you want to have some redevelopment, and you want people to want to come here, and the nicer it looks, the more attractive it is. So, anyway, next next slide. Um,
so, uh, we've moved forward with the condemnation ordinance. Um, we have one one home I'll be bringing to you soon that that might uh fit that. Uh,
the tourist dwellings um we in in my estimation and in talking with James and James you can jump in. If we had one code inspector per each
defined district of the commissions and Mr. Dixon supervising them or preparing the packets for code enforcement and magistrate, we could just accelerate the um the reimprovement of Treasure Island. So
that's where we're going. Do you have anything to add? Uh after we were weeding through a couple software compliance companies that provide resources for us to identify short-term rental uh in zoning districts where it's prohibited and they help
build our investigation packets and provide a more robust presentation to get a to allow the special magistrate to make a factual determination. Uh I I did see some rough numbers on the short-term rentals in these zoning districts. There's a I don't want to say number,
but there's there's a surplus of them. And I think it just if we were to operate uh in the capacity of just enforcing short-term rentals, it it would uh it would take up our entire day getting them through just in that in that year. Uh getting through uh special
magistrate and getting the orders in place so that we can track uh fines and certifying leans. Is that a software that we have? >> Uh we just did recently uh award a
contract to a company to uh allow us to enforce and make these robust investigation packets uh considering that Treasure Island code is dependent on changes of occupancy and for it to trigger uh the single
family residence into a short-term dwelling. Um, and within the scope of work with the software compliance system, I added it in so that within the 12-month rolling period, it would display how many changes of occupancy
there have been on that residence without us having to rely on reviews for special magistrate to make a factual determination. >> Okay. Yeah, I asked that question. And I I knew the answer, but I wanted the audience to to know that we are taking
an active uh participant through uh the the entire >> Yeah, I'm very excited about it. Uh should be a couple more weeks before we have it up and running and up implemented into a process. Uh once we do and get it up and running, it'll be it'll be an a very efficient tool and
very resourceful for us to use. >> Great. Thank you. So, this slide is just some facts and and figures. I'll let y'all just take a few seconds to read it and ask any questions.
And you brought it up earlier, I think on a flavor slide, but you're aware and I I think we've talked about it, but of some of these homes that 11, 12, 13, 14 owned by the same people, never got a permit. They're already um been
repaired. I mean, and you guys are addressing all those now, right, >> Commissioner? That's correct. We have identified uh businesses that do have a portfolio of residences on Treasure Island and we've worked with the property owner and or their
representative to itemize these code violations to make sure that they're coming into compliance uh before we initiate more enforcement. And uh we have a couple going through right now that we're monitoring. So again, just just a lot of stats and
figures. Um, but we're we we have a high throughput in permitting. A year ago when I arrived, um, permitting seemed to really be the the sticky wicket around here. I personally, I don't think I've got a
code enforce or excuse me, a permitting complaint in four or five months. In fact, I've been getting accolades on uh Miss Bianca and Miss Stephanie that sit up front and process those permits. I shared one of them with you today. We've got several. Um people are coming in and
out of CDD and leaving with a good taste in their mouth generally. So, I think that's a huge improvement, a huge step in the right direction. >> Yeah, I continue to hear positive things about our permitting. So, that's good to hear because that was our biggest uh
issue. >> So, kind kind of uh capping that off and and moving into uh what happens if, god forbid, we have another storm in Treasure Islands, right
right at the focal point. Um we've gone through and scrubbed our policies, procedures. We've made basically what I used to call flyaway kits. Um so, the the reaction to the storms of 2024.
Um our we've built our capacity, we've built our infrastructure, we have the thing, the tools and equipment ready to go as soon as we reoccupy Treasure Island if we have to give evacuation
orders. Um so our our residents are as will will see a an amplified and um extraordinary response compared to what they saw two years ago. I feel very confident in that. I've been been
through it with uh fire chief, police chief. Um, in fact, our police chief was just named last week the second vice president of the Florida Police Chief's Association and Chief Barers, our fire chief, just
came off his one year as uh president of the Fire Chief's Association. So, we've got good legs under us in our emergency management. They're well respected throughout the state. Um and uh
myself, fire, police staff uh visited probably two months ago. Our um alternate emergency operations center at St. Pete College downtown St. Petersburg that we would go to with minimal staffing if we have to evac. So go ahead
and hit the next slide. I think I said a few more things. Um, so any anyway, we're we're ready to go as much as you can get ready to go in a hurricane. So I want everybody to to rest assured it's never fun to be in the middle of one of
those. And if we give the evac order, I would strongly encourage people to leave. And uh as soon as you get back, we will uh greet you with open arms and have paper packets ready for uh permit and repairs and um act like we have good
sense and keep it all moving. >> I ask a question on that real quick on the building permit revenue. Um in the this has been brought up several times in our meeting and then I've also heard it in the LPA meeting. Um the
non with the permits there could be a $4 million house that comes back with permits that are and I'm ad living here you know $5,000 and you
know there's just no consistency in cost um as opposed to the project and I know it's been brought up in several meetings and I didn't know if we are working on that actively to figure that out because I just I feel like we're probably
missing some funds by not addressing that and um I know it's been asked. So, I was curious if we're working toward making sense of that. There's some new legislation that goes
into effect, I believe, January 1st of this next year where there there will still be permitting fees and admin fees for processing, but not um no, no longer we going to collect fees based off the construction
estimate. There's current Florida statute that doesn't allow us to demand like the contractor's uh building estimate from the homeowner. And I I think there were clearly in 2023 and
probably before that some homes that were underestimated that whoever the building official at the time um let just incorrectly accepted whatever got put in front of them. Um, as you know, Safeuilt does our building inspections.
Mr. Pat Wel is our primary point of contact. Had multiple conversations with him and former CDD directors. Um, and so we're trying to keep our look outside the windshield because literally I don't feel like we have the capacity to go
back and try to correct those things. And that's >> Oh, I'm not talking about going back. I'm talking about I think the simple answer to your question, ma'am, is yes. uh we've addressed those things and we're going to comply with the new set of circumstances in Florida statute moving forward.
>> All right. Thanks. >> So, as you can see, as of three fiscal quarters, we're slightly ahead on projected parking revenue. Um on building permit revenue, um we're about 400
350 ahead of where we thought we were going to be. Um this is a result of good stewardship in our uh building department and within our CDD in general. Um our adding as Commissioner
Dicki mentioned the third parking attendant um has helped give another 40 hours a week of coverage to uh process uh fines. Uh, so you alluded to the
thing on the agenda asking for two code enforcement inspectors, but I I'm literally shamelessly trying to demonstrate that we're we're bringing in revenue by every means allowed by law that I'm aware of and we're we're we're ahead.
So, um, these are just a few things. I may have rattled off a few of them earlier uh that we've done to prepare for this next storm season that we're currently in. We we've done some active testing in
early July through our through and within our own ranks. Any questions at all on that? Okay. So, the last thing um that I need to bring to your attention um and you can give it some thought and give me a
consensus before we leave tonight or if you know now. Um, I put at each of your positions an exact um, statement of what was
voted on at the last LPA meeting. And I just need your guidance if you and really more for the city attorney. Um if if you want us to uh move ahead with uh any amendments to the comprehensive plan
or not >> we will be addressing that later. Correct. And if I'm right in the next there's no comp plan item item of business whatever point tonight you guys want to give us a consensus do or something or
hold hold where we are. But >> okay, I hate to keep getting it mixed with the PD because it's really two separate things. It's created a little confusion. >> Um, so if you want to add that to the agenda, it's certainly been advertised. It was properly advertised at the L LPA.
You could make that an item of business maybe the first thing tonight. >> I I think we can talk about it right now. Uh especially I think it's a good thing that it's not on the agenda. Uh, I'm sure there'd be a lot more people here uh if if it was, but I think we've
addressed this u several times before. I'm not sure why the LPA keeps bringing this back to us, but uh the ask here is even is even worse than the ask before. Before it was just 80 ft of uh of heightened 100 units per acre in
density. And now they're asking for the maximum floor area ratio allowed by by the county and also the maximum impervious ratio. Uh and they're asking that we build this into the uh comprehensive plan which basically takes
away all of our leverage for negotiating uh PDS. So, I would like we we sent this back last time and uh my personal opinion is that we should send this back and and uh I think we're going to address some of these uh uh uh what do
we call them? Guard rails uh in the PD ordinance that we're going to that's on item H3 agenda. So, I think we'll be talking about that. But as far as changing the comprehensive plan, I think the message we sent back to the LPA last time is is we're not going to change the
the comprehensive plan to include these in there, but I'd like to hear from the other commissioners. So, I talked to Ralph today about this um and it actually very much because just like we all three agreed in the last meeting,
you know, obviously a wholesale comp plan Chan did not make any sense whatsoever. Um and in our discussion today, um and that is going to be part of the discussion with the PDS. Um it's
um and and Ralph, please correct me if if I misspeak. Um, which I do think it would be better to talk about it in the regular meeting because it does um there's the comp plan has to it was the way it was explained to me was you can
make a comp plan change, but you can make the comp plan change that only works with a an agree a PD agreement or a um and that in order for that to work, you actually have to make
that change. So, there was some discussion that's going to be made in that because we had a pretty lengthy conversation about that today. >> Yeah. No, I I that's how I understood it from the get-go is that uh any changes in the comprehensive plan would with PD
would accompany the PD uh request that at the same time you put in a PD request, I think Ralph, you explained to us, you also ask for a uh a comprehensive plan amendment uh for that specific piece of property. It doesn't
affect an entire zone. And here uh we we're talking about entire >> Yeah. And that's I I don't disagree that as far as that as it as it is there. I really have no desire to but I do want to talk about what we discussed when
we're talking about the PDS. >> Yeah, I'm I'm in agreement. I understand there has to be a uh change made to the comp plan, but that would be and I think we have good stuff to talk about tonight on that, but again, that would be only applicable to the PDS. This is a
wholesale change and I don't agree with this at all and I don't want to go forward with that. >> I guess what I was gonna introduce a little bit >> microphone I guess the only thing I could add is the PD ordinance the enabling ordinance that we have now um
doesn't increase height or density on its own. It just says it must be consistent with the city plan and the countywide plan, >> right? >> If we're going to put guard rails on that are within that, that's one thing. But if we're going to put guard rails that are above what's allowed now, um
you can't allow these residential density increases, and Tammy actually meant to say hotel room uh units. There is an alternative temporary lodging density and intensity standards table in the countywide plan. Uh it's table 5-1
if anybody wants to look at that. And that allows you to go to various densities based on how much acreage is on a parcel. So if you're less than one acre, you could go to say 75 units an acre, an F of 2.2, an impervious surface
ratio of 0.95. But the city would have to adopt this table 5.1 into our city plan, our comp plan because it's not in there right now. So the county says you can go up to this these maximums. Those are their guard rails, but if you're going to do
that, you have to adopt policies and the table that implement this alternative temporary lodging density and intensity standard. So in the proposal, some of what's what is in the proposal would require us to adopt a policies in our
plan and adopt this alternative temporary lodging densities. Um that would increase the density that we currently have. And that would take a plan amendment, a text amendment if you're going to go that route. And that would go through statewide review through the uh state agencies. and it
will go to the county for a county uh review to make sure it's consistent with their policies. The other nuance to it is if you do adopt that and you have the alternative lodging standards in your citywide plan in some most cities, some cities will put it in the PD. They'll
say in order to utilize the alternative density standards, you have to do a PD. You don't have to. You could put them or regular zoning C or regular Yeah, regular zoning categories and land use categories. Uh if you want either way, um the county requires you to have a
concurrent development agreement because they want you address other policies in the comp plan when you're increasing the density like hurricane evacuation. >> Okay, I'm going I'm going to cut this. >> Okay. >> Um we are going to address this in the actual agenda meeting. So we're burning
a lot of time. I didn't expect to see anything on the PD and height and density or anything in the in the city manager's report. >> Sorry, I'm >> I could have done another city manager report at the end of the other meeting and I'll be happy to restate anything if
you need it, but I think you've got more than enough. >> Okay. >> All right. Let's uh let's move on to our next item and this is going to be the financial report for the third quarter of 2026.
>> No, the other one. Good evening, major commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity. Victor Ortiz, CFO. So, this is the third quarter financial report. Um, I'm going to start with the
revenues. So, as you see in the revenue side, uh, we budgeted 20 million 20.6 million for the year. Uh, in three quarters, we already got, uh, passed the budget. So being extremely conservative, I'm
projecting not getting too much more revenues because basically property taxes by themsel we I don't expect to get anything else only only uh be people who are behind and and pay.
But this is about $5,000 more. So this is a conservative uh projection. uh most likely we're going to receive more from other sources and and this is I I expect to be a little bit uh
lower on favorable on the penny for Pinellas. That's my my conservative projection here in the building fund. We we do have $1.1 million so far in three quarters.
So my expectation is to get $1.4 million. Uh we most likely may exceed it, but again this is a very conservative projection. So I don't have any doubt that at least we're going to get $1.4 million. Um yeah, and this is good because
remember the building fund uh we got loan from the general fund. So at the end of the year when we balance the budget, I'm going to pay some if I can pay the whole thing, I pay the whole whole thing to a general fund. But I want to be conservative if I don't want to leave and and and the building fund
division in the same position it was before the loan. So I'm going to analyze that and if we have enough to pay the whole uh loan, we we will. But uh if we can pay at least half million dollars, we'll take it.
um depth service is what it is. This is what basically what we pay and what I see is in in wastewater fund the projections are very steady uh what we projected in first second quarter is uh
so we are not receiving the revenues that we expected uh in the wastewater however I I'm not too much concerned because we are saving on the expenses almost by the same amount uh because this is based on flows so we don't get revenues from the flows, but
we don't pay them to to St. Petersburg. Um, storm water, I projected 1.5. Same thing, and I I we're becoming short on on the that fund. H solid waste, I put zero here because it's a
I I I don't expect to to have more revenues from solid waste because it's a closed department. So this is uh probably the last time that we present solid waste on on on the financial updates. And these are the three big uh items
that I I always present which is are the property taxes uh parking and and parking fines. And my expectation is to come all three together like a million dollars uh positive on on revenues.
As you see the property taxes we are becoming favorable against the budget but just as a note we are receiving less than last year as expected. So in the spend size and in the next meeting I'm going to bring a budget
amendment. We we we're looking negative $45,000 and most of this is we we have to amend for example the the attorney contract is one of them. We also incur in some expenses to uh fix uh some hurricane
expense damages. We got the money from the insurance. I just have to record both uh amendment. One in the revenues and one in the expenses. So I'm going to bring a budget amendment for the citywide next meeting. But uh it should be revenue neutral.
>> Just to be clear before you pass there. So you said you're going to be bringing that budget amendment at the next meeting, but that's actually going to be covered by insurance. >> I mean for at least for that expense that I mentioned there's I'm going to do a huge budget amendment not huge on
dollar amount but huge because for oper operational different than CIP I don't want to bring a small budget amendment in every single meeting in 2000. So what I do my practice is to do one budget amendment almost in the four quarter of of the year. Okay. instead of bringing
budget amendments in every single meeting. >> Okay. >> So, I'm going to cover a lot of things, but I I I will be able to explain everything. >> Okay. Thanks. >> And this is what I meant in the wastewater fund expenses. We're uh we're
we're projecting to spend $811,000 less on the wastewater fund and 44,000 less on the in the storm water. As you see that the totars here may not match the the ad for of this is because
in the solid ways I zero this out. And then there's other small fonts here that is not material is just a capital project funds and beautifification and things like that that are here hided and and is not presenting here. So I just
presented the biggest funds for the general fund and the uh the enterprise funds. Okay. In the expense side and then this is the personal cost. Uh for the personal cost uh I I expect to come
neutral uh here in the general fund. This is the trend. I I I believe we're going to state uh in budget uh building fund as well. And then we have some savings here in solid waste but I zero it out because it's it's not material. I
may move some money from solid waste because right now we're uh using some solid waste fund because some some staff member are covering salaries from solid waste. So we are going to close that at the end of the year and this is going to be part of the budget amendment. We're
going to amend the salaries, but it's going to be negative and positive as zero uh dollar amount. Just passing one one side to another one. Victor, can I can I suggest and you and I have talked about this uh in the past
as well, the way we're accounting for the solid waste fund. You're kind of just zeroing out both the but the revenue side and the expense side. And it's not uh exactly that clean in the real world. Uh so I think what we should show here to at least to get us through
a fiscal year uh uh 26 I think we should show the actual revenue miss because there is a there is a big revenue miss here but we we knew it. I mean, but there's an uh almost offsetting uh expense savings. And I think we should
so show both the revenue miss versus budget on there and the expense uh savings versus budget. And it's it's only going to be a difference. It's only going to change your total outlook up here by maybe $300,000.
uh but but it's uh I think we need we should account for that differential. >> So I just calculated those numbers that you're asking. So we're we miss $1.7 million in revenues. Uh but we save 1.2 in operating uh expenses and $800,000 in
salaries. >> Yes. Thank you. So, so overall we we save point.3 million uh dollars, right? >> 300,000. Yes. >> Good. Thank you. >> Okay. This this is
some budget amendments and I I think Commissioner Basquez told me that there is a difference here of $340,000. So maybe there is one budget amendment that I didn't consider when I did this presentation or something that happened in in in the last three quarters.
if you allow me to come back in the next meeting for and and just uh to uh clarify this slide. But u I I didn't update it because I I thought we didn't have any budget amendment in the last quarters, but maybe I missed one.
And this is the cash flow as of se June uh 2026. And we have $37 million uh in the bank. Uh this is a very high percentage uh investment invested money. Uh right now we have uh 90 millions plus
uh 13 millions here uh invested and and making money in the money market or all of those three accounts. I want to keep uh those uh three accounts because somebody taught me at some point in my career to don't uh invest all the money
in one pocket. I do invest everything in short term because I don't want to bet with with people's money. Plus, we we have a very aggressive CIP plan that uh yes is is very slow on spending, but it may catch up at some uh Sunday when when
all of these constructions start, the master lift station, the the building property building. So, I I want to keep this money in the short-term investments. Plus, it's safe for the city. I don't want to risk city money. Do don't we didn't you also put a
reserve into effect? Like isn't part of that 37 like in in a reserve or am I missing that up there? >> No, no, you you are not missing it. You you are recollecting it correctly. So we do have three reserve remember I and this is something that I'm going to show when I balance the budget again because
we're going to do a throw up and all of the expenses and and just for the benefit the three reserve are three months of operating expenses. That's one reserve that is not mandatory. It's a good practice. It's not mandatory. So at any day commission in a 32 vote say that
we don't want to have that reserve. I would not recommend that because then when when we go for loans if we need ever is going to be more expensive. And then we have a 10% contingency 10% of operating expenses. That's for emergency hurricans, tornadoes,
earthquake, whatever emergency fire we have. We we need to have that contingency. And then we have a reserve set aside which is everything that is unrestricted which is this light. This is the only unrestricted cash that that you have to take decisions.
>> Yeah. And my point for bringing that up I think is you hear people say well we have $37 million well that we could spend. We really don't. I mean unless you want to be not not fiscally responsible. So, I mean, yeah, I think it'd be nice at some point to show what what part of that is we we we going to
keep in reserve, you know. >> Yes. And that's going to be part of the balance budget that is going to happen next month. We're going to have a workshop and we're going to go now I don't balance the the budget until the very last uh public hearing because what we do in the workshop we go through the expenses light item by line item and
then uh we we uh we set up the reserve in the very last uh public hearing and then with that I answer any questions you may have. >> Thank you very much. Yeah, I don't have a question, but I just want to make a
commend Victor U and the city manager and the and the staff. Uh you guys have done a terrific job of of stewarding our money to use an expression I hear hear you use a lot. We going into this year, we had the biggest drop in personal in
property tax revenues that this city has ever seen. And uh so I thought we had a pretty tough budget and I do think we have a pretty tough budget but you guys from best I can tell were about $700,000 both revenue and expenses combined
favorable to budget at this stage in the uh in the year and that's uh that's quite commendable and I just want to express my appreciation to all of those of you that have helped make that happen. >> Thank you. I have thank you help Victor a lot with his arithmetic but he's coming along.
All right. >> I thank my staff. >> All right. Our third and last issue for discussion is the Sunset Pavilion discussion and Vice Mayor Vazquez. >> So hopefully this won't take long. Um
Gary, I see you in the back and I know this will probably be addressed some of these questions to you. Um, so through emails, through people um, talking with me and such um, restaurants or whatever and then especially when I
went down and did the beautify penelis planting, I had a lot of people raise some questions um, and then one question big one came up for me, but one of the big questions that um, I've been hearing is are the
showers and foot showers is there plan at all to replace those because it has um I guess the residents down there are just not real happy that they're not there and they're going into the bathrooms and rinsing off their feet and
then causing a backup in the bathrooms and it's just like a I guess a it's happening frequently. So, um at least that's what they told me. So, um, I didn't know if there was an update or any plans as far as that goes.
>> Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners. Gary Volen, acting uh assistant city manager and public works director. Um, I'd be happy to answer your questions. Um, yes, we did experience some some difficulties out
there. It was a com combination of uh of as you mentioned people deciding to bathe in the bathrooms and we ended up with some material that got into the into the plumbing. Um we have since been able to clean all that out and uh we are going to be installing some new uh a new
cleanout that's not under the building and we're going to alter the piping so it doesn't have as many bends and and possible restrictions. your question about the showers. I'm I was told that one of them is operational already today and the second one is if it's not
operational this afternoon, it'll be by tomorrow or this week it'll be. So both showers, footwashes will be in place. I think they had they had to finish some concrete work and things like that. >> Okay, that's great to know. Thank you. >> That that one north shower was has been out there for a little more than a week.
Uh and it is very heavily used. So, I'm glad to see that uh back up and running. >> Yes, that's that's really good news. Um and then much to my surprise, when um we were doing the planting, there was a
huge section to the right of the pavilion um that the um a few of us were like, we were looking for a place to put these little bit larger plants and all of us were like, well, why can't we put them here? And the head of the project said
that she was told by public works not to plant anything there because there was going to be some sort of a sound stage built there. So therefore there could be no plants there. Definitely the first I had ever heard of that. Um and I'm like
really? And she's like yeah that's what I was told. So we're not allowed to put plants there. Obviously I I don't know if any of the other commissioners have heard it. I've definitely never heard it. I know it's never come before us for discussion or approval or any of that.
And then just because Mike and I actually go to Sunset Beach a lot, we take the golf cart down there and um I uh would see some public workers public works workers around and I asked a couple of them. I'm like, "Hey, have you
heard about, you know, a sound stage?" and they were like, "Yeah, we've heard that, too, but we don't know much about it." So, is it true, not true? What's the Looks like Ardan may know about this, but none of us
>> Let me uh let me I've never heard any discussion whatsoever ever about a sound stage. Uh I've never had any kind of conversation with the city manager or the uh public works director or the parks and recreation director about a sound stage. So, the first time I ever
heard that was in in this document here. >> Uh, and since then, I've talked with uh with Charlie, I've talked with Gary, and I've talked with Kathy, and it was all news to them, too. So, I think it was just some misinformation. Uh, there there not only do we not have a uh sound
stage, but we don't really want one out there either. So, >> well, that was my thing. I was like that I mean the residential is surrounding it and if it would have just been rumors or whatever but when it was the head of beautify panelis who was heading up the
planting like would not let any of us put anything in this general area to the right. It was like okay. So obviously I wanted to bring it up and see where because it seems odd that she would know say that and then that a couple of
public works workers would also say they've heard that. >> Yeah. I return >> I would like to hear from Gary though and Mr. Mayor say if you don't mind. >> I I would like to be recognized before my staff is summoned. >> I didn't summoned. Gary is public works
and that's who it was. And also all of these questions could have been cleared up in any conversation with me and I would have got you the answers. So I I hate putting Gary on the spot wondering if this showers up, that showers up. You know, if I get a list of
questions, I give a set of answers. >> I had general public that ask all of these questions and I am fully within my rights to put it on a workshop to discuss because I did not know. >> You certainly are. I'm just saying. This is one more thing that you're trying to
keep off of the agenda for me. So that's noted. >> Well, you must be referring to the Sunset Beach Hard Rock Cafe Pavilion we're putting together. I'm I'm kidding. I'm kidding. I did do >> I mean I found it very odd, too. So >> when I saw when I saw your the email
comment, I'm like sound stage, but I did find out that there used to be in that area there was a small little platform of some sort and during the storm it got washed away. So, I think maybe someone said, "Oh, that's where the sound stage was maybe." And someone thought it was
going to go back, but I there was some there was a little bit of truth to it and it ended up becoming somewhat of a rumor, but no, there's no discussion whatsoever. >> Okay. And that was and honestly, the one of the big reasons that I wanted to discuss it in a workshop is I wanted it
to be out there publicly. So, I assumed that it probably wasn't true because I found that very hard to believe. but I figure it's easier to do it publicly so that everyone can hear it and watch the meeting and so on and so forth to kind of hopefully squash that rumor. So, um
that honestly those questions um were the main thing. I knew it wouldn't take long. So, that's good news, but I appreciate it. >> I I think that the the the volunteers who planted some materials around the pavilion and then we've infilled a little bit more. It's going to look
great once it grows. Oh, absolutely. So, we're really pleased. >> It already looks really good. >> And and like I said, the the next shower, both showers should be operational soon. >> And thank you for the extra irrigation out there, too. That's really helped >> here. I thought we were going to build an amphitheater out there.
>> Now you're starting rumors. >> Yeah, exactly. >> It was all in trouble. All right, so uh we're going to close this issue. Uh we do have three folks for the public comments and I'm going to start with Mark Hoey.
>> Pardon me while I move this to the center. Okay. Mark Hoey, District 3. Yeah, I was a little little confused by the order of things here for the workshop. John, kind of like you tried to clear up.
We hadn't had a a city manager comment at the end of a workshop that I can remember. But I I I think I understand why. Uh I was at the LPA meeting where uh our city manager was uh demanded
basically to bring forth this uh discussion item request recommendation of the proposed plan development comprehensive plan amendment. So that's why I think it had to go somewhere, but that's where it is. And I think while I
understand I look forward to the vice mayor's discussion on a possibly a grand compromise that will solve a lot of the issues with PDs, I think I think the uh LPA deserves an answer of an up or down
on whether this is their L their comp plan amendment is actually going to be considered uh and be worked on by city staff along with the attorney. Uh I don't agree with it. Uh I think what's happened here is we've got competing
uh proposals that are coming down here. I don't think they're compatible uh for the issues that were starting to be brought up before discussion got cut off. is this comprehensive plan amendment is covering all the properties in all of
the zones that were specified including the U RFM30 which had been pulled out of this put in put out all that as opposed to the ability to use a smallcale comprehensive plan amendment within the
PD world to take care of that we don't have to have the whole thing changed to those new heights and densities all at once. It can be done. U attorney Brooks at the March meeting of the LPA went through that very eloquently for all who
were there about how that it can work and how it's less obtrusive than doing a comp plan amendment for everything. So, I just want to say I think um whether it can be worked into the vice mayor's conversation, but at some point there's
going to have to be a thumbs up, thumbs down given uh to the city manager to convey back to the LPA. Uh and that should come tonight. I just don't understand how um the LPA
looks at giving away potential public benefits that could be earned by the city by automatically raising the height and density to those levels in our comp plan. That should be negotiated that should be parcel by parcel that should
be uh through that part of the PD process. So, in my humble opinion, uh, the commissioners should be asked to take a vote up or down on whether that goes back to them and tell the LPA to stay in their lane going forward. Thank
you. >> Thank you, Mark. Uh Sean Burn sorry I'm uh writing down my notes in my phone. So um I'm going to read some of this because it's kind of lengthly. It's kind of passionate and development as I have
a lot of experience in that aspect. Um so good evening. Uh my first comment to the staff is out of respect to the volunteer LPA members who mind you are residents of this city. Why was the comprehensive plan not noticed on the agenda? Were any of them
given notice of your plan to discuss that tonight? Again, these are residents. My second comment, Commissioner Dicki, your complaint at the July 7th when the comprehensive plan discussion last came up. It was a consensus of this board that it wasn't wasn't noticed fairly. Hence why the
volunteer residents of the LPA board members redised it and again voted to recommend to this board. Maybe Commissioner Dicki, if you stopped trying to kill it before the discussion, you would understand it better. What you are saying is incorrect and that maybe
it's what's best for the city. Anyways, while I do applaud this commission for attempting to move the city forward, there seems to be one thing that is consistent. So, I'd like to point out the main consistency among the board. Commissioner Dicki, you have consistently voted against multiple
proposals that other views others in this community view as moving the city forward. And you have repeatedly stated that you are voting based on the wishes of your constituents. With that in mind, with that in mind, I have a few questions. And I'm aware this
is not a dialogue, but a public comment. So, I'll provide you with a copy and a follow-up email to the entire commission. What is your plan to move this city of Treasure Island forward for the benefit of all residents, not just those in your district? I suspect your response may be to wait for the results
of the master plan. If so, will you commit to supporting the recommendations of the master planner even if they conflict with the preference of your constituents? This seems like a fair question, particularly given the rumors that you intend to run for mayor. a position that requires governing on
behalf of the entire city rather than a single district. Also, since you appear to be quite proficient at using chat GBT for financial analysis, what conclusions have you reached regarding the financial potential of each of the five areas being evaluated by the master planner?
Additionally, why haven't you been advocating for the master planner to provide a financial analysis and alternative recommendations for each of the five areas? That seems straightforward and essential part of the process. When I personally met with Mr. McDonald who represents Raphelis, the firm that's
doing the master plan, he indicated that preparing a preliminary financial analysis would take approximately a week or so. That conversation occurred months ago. I fully expected to see at least a preliminary financial Sorry, I was looking at the time. A preliminary financial analysis presented
a few weeks ago, yet nothing was provided. Can you explain why there has been such a delay? More importantly, do you believe the public should receive the financial analysis before asking to evaluate or support any recommendations? Without understanding the economic
impacts, cost, potential benefits of the available alternatives, residents cannot make a fully informed decision. You do have the option not to answer these questions, but I believe the majority of the residents in this community would like to better understand your position.
So, I look forward to hearing from you. Thank you very much for your time. And uh back to Mark Hoe's, you know, we need a vote up or down. It's ironic that he wants to do that when there's a commissioner not here. Sure seems a little stay in your lane kind of
scenario. Thank you. >> Tell Peter. >> Thank you, Sean. >> Tell Peter I'd be glad to answer some of his questions if he wants to. >> Whatever you want, oneonone. Okay. So, that is the uh the last item.
Um, okay. I'm sorry. Richard Harris, please come up. >> Thought you made it. >> Richard Harris, 374 Bay Plaza, also chairman of the local planning agency on both June 18th and July 16th. The LPA
approved a recommendation to the U city commission to commence preparation of a comprehensive land use plan to set what I keep hearing is guard rails. I mean 80 ft. We This board has never said
anything higher than 80 ft. 100 units per acre for some new hotel rooms. Uh we recommended that. But I keep hearing, "Oh, you're going to give away the negotiation power." It doesn't happen at all. You have to reszone to plan
development. In order to reszone to plan development, you have to take it from what it currently is, and let's just say it's RFH50, which has a height limitation of 60 feet and a density limitation of 50 feet according to code.
And with the new plan development zoning category, you may get 80 feet in height, you may get 100 um units per acre, but what we want on the LPA is some decent looking
architecture. We don't have a good uh piece of architecture in this whole town. We want some other public benefits. Shared parking, um, where a sanitary sewer problem exists and it's connected to the development, have it,
uh, fixed by the developer. But that reszoning is where the negotiation takes place. But the thing is, you need both of these items. you need a comprehensive land use plan because currently from a density standpoint we are limited on the
west side of Gulf Boulevard to 50 units per acre. At the LPA meeting we had two land owners and I asked them outright. I said under current code will you build? The answer was no. So you cannot
make a reasonable return of on investment at 60 feet in height and 50 units per acre. No. If you change it to a plan development and you're able to reszone and get a comprehensive land use plan,
will you build at 80 feet in height and 100 units per acre? Yes, we will build. You know, the the uh 10 parcels that currently will benefit from a planned development are as follows. Krabby's property over on the pass that happens
to be the biggest piece of property in the whole city that's privately owned. Thunderbird Tahesian or Villa Sands central business uh district north central business district south the swashbuckler treasure shores right here looks terrible. Uh the club we all have
that at the entrance to this town. what the uh local planning agency, at least the four members that voted positively, would like to come up with something that would incentivize
the repair of those 10 sites in this town. Will there be other sites? Possibly. So, but the biggest misconception is, oh, you're giving away the negotiation power. Not at all. That's part of the reasonzoning. When the Sands, let's say, comes in and wants
to build a profitable project and comes in and says, "I want 80 ft and I want 84 units." Because that would be the maximum they could get on that little less than an acre piece of property. They would say, "Okay, in order to get
what you just asked for, we want the things I just mentioned. you know, better architecture, uh, shared parking, uh, enhanced landscaping, that type situation. You know, some of us have lived here a long time. It's been 22
months since the, um, storm. We agree that Raftalis is going to do their job in order to push forward the comprehensive land use plan amendment as presented and the plan development zoning category. We get the
paperwork out of the way. Then Rafter comes in. Let's just say, "Oh, okay. Well, in our opinion, to make a profit, all you need is 85 units per acre, but you still need 80 ft." And uh took your
suggestion there, Miss Vasquez. And uh you know, situation is when they come in for that reasoning, you can say, "Hey, our master planner said you only need this." They can either agree with it or they can
disagree with it. But the thing is what we are trying to do is push the paperwork down the the road so it is ready to go when Ratalus comes in with their suggestions and uh you know it's
going to be up to the person with skin in the game, the actual land owners. And it was interesting that two of them they were not invited. They just showed up to the uh LPA meeting last week and it was pretty apparent we can't make money and
we are not going to build unless we get a little bit higher density and a little bit uh higher height. And what we would like to do is get the paperwork prepared. >> Okay. I'm going to need to have you wrap it up.
>> I'm wrapping it up. I heard the beep anyway to get the paperwork uh prepared. I mean, it's disappointing the way the entrance to our city looks right now. I think we need to get to work. And so, what we are trying to achieve is to get
the paperwork finished. So, thanks for your consideration. >> Great. >> Mayor, I didn't put a card in. Can I have one minute? >> All right. So, Grant Smith, I'm on the LPA uh live on Sunset Beach. Just a couple points of clarification. Uh the large-scale
comprehensive plan in conjunction with planned developments is not a binary. Um Ralph, you made it clear that the purpose of planned development is for extraordinary development. Um if we have 10 properties, as Mr. Harris indicated
that are primarily targeted or eligible for this. A smallcale comprehensive plan amendment makes a lot more sense which Mr. Brooks indicated. So we don't have to do the large-scale comprehensive plan amendment not a binary as it's been presented to you. There are options with
the comprehensive plan amendments that still work with the plan development. The other question we've always said 80 we've always said 80 feet and 100 units uh per acre. No, we haven't. In two separate citizens referendums, we said
60 feet and 50 units per acre. So repeating this 80 and 100 over and over again doesn't make it true. It's an assumption that hasn't been proven yet. There's been no evidence to substantiate it. We asked two developers at the LPA
meeting, if you were given 80 feet and 60 or uh if you were given 80 ft and 100 units per acre, would you build? And they said yes. I asked my insurance agent, "Do I need more insurance?" And surprisingly, he said yes. If you ask a car dealer, do I need a new car?
Surprisingly, they said yes. So, let's take into account the interests of those who are representing this need for 80 feet and 100 units per acre. No matter what a commission says over and over again, it doesn't make it true.
When Raf Telus brings the information back, if it's good information, if it's been vetted and followed a rigorous process, it's going to inform the decision making. Just wait until we get the information. Thanks. >> Thank you. All right, we're going to
close the public uh comments and with that uh that is the end of this workshop. We'd like to see everybody back at uh 20 after. Good evening and welcome to the regular
commission meeting for July 21st, 2026. I'd like to call this meeting to order. City clerk, please call roll. >> Vice Mayor Vazquez here. >> Commissioner Clark here. >> Commissioner Dicki here. >> Commissioner Sison is absent. Mayor Doctor >> here.
>> Thank you. approval of the regular and workshop agendas. >> Mayor, I'd like to uh move two uh of the items on the consent agenda to the recctor workshop agenda, and that's item number G3 and G4. Uh both are fairly
substantial amount. One's a 5.4 4 million contract award and the other iss 547 and this just seemed a bit too much for for a consent agenda. I I don't have any major issues with them. I just I have a couple of questions that I think would move uh forward and and I would
like to ask that we move those two to the front because I think they'll go to the front of the agenda instead of the end. I think they'll go quickly. >> Okay. And I was actually going to ask to move um H5 and H or H4 and H5 to um the consent agenda. I mean to the
>> I'm sorry. Yes, the G4 and G6. >> Sorry about that. Move them. >> Yeah, possibly move them to H4 and H5. Sorry. Thank you for that. >> Okay, let me take a look at what else there is
there. Thank you. >> What was the other one you wanted to move over? >> It was uh award of the construction of the master pump station and award of the contract uh for the 108th Avenue Seaw wall. And again, I just have some quick questions on them.
>> Okay, I've got that noted. >> Thank you. >> Anything else? All right, if not, let's continue to move on. Um, proclamations, recognition, certificates of appreciation. We have one today. Uh,
Treasure Island Police Department award recipient. Let me display this before I explain what this is. You'll see we no longer have a trophy case in our building, but we'll hopefully get one when we get the new building. But this is our fourth DOT award in the last four years. And I feel
it's kind of owe everybody an explanation exactly what this is that we're participating in. I want to take just a few minutes to update you on another successful year of participation in the Florida Department of Transportation Enhanced Law Enforcement Engagement Challenge. This marks our fourth consecutive year participating in
the program. The challenge encourages encourages law enforcement agencies throughout Florida to focus on traffic safety through a proactive engagement, public enforcement, public education, and community engagement. Agencies earn points based on those efforts, and those points can be redeemed for traffic
safety equipment. Now, very important, this is not a pay-for-ploy program. We do not earn points based on number of citations we write, nor are the officers rewarded for writing tickets. This isn't write 10 tickets and win a toaster oven. Instead, points are earned through participation in high visibility traffic
safety initiatives, public education efforts, and our overall commitment to improving roadway safety. The goal is to prevent crashes, increase voluntary compliance with traffic laws, and keep our residents and visitors safe. The best part is there's no cost to our city or our taxpayers. Over the past four
years, we have earned approximately $25,000 worth of traffic safety equipment each year through this program that represents represents nearly $100,000 in equipment that has been brought into our department without using local tax dollars. Some of the equipment we've received over the last
few years include two radar speed trailers that have become valuable tools in addressing speeding complaints throughout the city. A portable variable variable message board used for traffic control, public safety messaging, and special events. And here's another good part, handheld laser speed enforcement
units allowing every patrol officer to be equipped with their own device for accurate speed enforcement. Back in the day and before we started this program, we had several they had about four units that had to be checked out by the officers before and after every shift. Now, every officer is issued a laser along with their laptop, computer, and
everything else they need to complete their their daily duties. This year was another outstanding success. Through the hard work of our officers, we were once again one of the top performing agencies in the program and earn enough points to receive several additional pieces of equipment, including, and I'll explain
what this is because I had no idea until we won them. Galaxy Air Lights. These are portable battery powered LED emergency scene lighting systems that can be deployed in seconds. They provide bright 360°ree illumination for crash scenes, crime scenes, and other
nighttime emergencies without generators or extension cords, significantly improving officer safety and scene visibility. Portable breath testers. It allows officers to quickly screen impaired drivers during DUI investigations, improving both efficiency and accuracy in the field.
And here's one of my favorites, our portable traffic data recorder. This system records traffic volume, vehicle speeds, and any other roadway data. Previously, the city had to rent this type of equipment whenever we conducted traffic studies. We now own our own unit, allowing us to respond more
quickly to neighborhood traffic concerns while saving money over the long term. And if Gary asks nicely, I'll let him borrow it. I say that jokingly, but we used to have to get with public works and they'd have to rent us thing and it would take a few weeks. Now, we can respond immediately if we have traffic concerns around the city. I want to
recognize our entire police crew for making this possible. Their professionalism, commitment to traffic safety, and participation in this program have allowed us to bring valuable equipment back to the Treasury Island year after year without impacting our budget. This equipment wasn't purchased, it was earned. It reflects the dedication of our officers to
traffic safety and their commitment to bringing added value back to the city of Treasure Island while being responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Oh, congratulations. >> All right. Okay. We're going to move on to public
comments for non-aggenda items. And our first is Grant Smith. >> Thanks. This will be a quick one. Um, uh, Grant Smith, Sunset Beach. Commissioner Vasquez, thanks for taking an interest in Sunset Beach in our
showers. Um, we're delighted that our guest bathrooms have reopened for our house. Uh, that we send our guests down there. I love it. >> Our guest bathroom. So, thank you. Um, just a point of public interest. There's been much rhetoric about where the residents stand on the whole height and
density debate and we've attempted different ways to collect information to represent what the resident's wishes were and depending on who you speak to. Some say we want to build up. Others say we want to build but within these limits and others I don't know what they say but to try and get a feel for where
people stand. We tried the referendum and we weren't permitted to do that. We tried the non-binding referendum. We weren't permitted to do that. So, it kind of leaves us to our own our own devices here. And one of the residents in um Isa Capri asked me to let folks
know Teresa Sigman is her name has started a petition to gather signatures to gain feedback on those on the aisle of Capri as to where they stand on the height and density issue. So that's going to be posted, I guess, on the Facebook page that folks go to if you
want to participate in that uh petition. And if those who are uh proponents of that want to start their own petition to gather signatures, then I encourage them to do that. So that's perhaps one way we can engage in the democratic process and solicit input from all of the residents
without running a foul of the state legislature. Thanks. >> Thank you, Grant. Donna. >> Okay. All right. Mark Hoey. >> Good evening again. Mark Hoey, District 3. Uh just wanted to update everybody on
the uh status of the citizen initiated petition drive to put a referendum on the ballot in November for a supermajority vote required for any PD initiated height and density changes
above our current standard. So at this point the supervisor of elections has completed their certification process. uh it has passed that we had more than enough votes. They quit counting at 120% of the minimum required. Uh the good
news on there is now it will move on to the process of being put into the ballot. Uh listen, this is just a means where our residents want to have a voice in what's going on. I think I mentioned that to you before. Many of the people
it was beyond just a supermajority. They just wanted to be able to let elected officials know where they stood and they wanted a greater voice. So, this gives them four out of five commissioners uh that are be able to vote on a future
development under a PD statute. So, thanks to the 650 plus people who signed and we look forward to seeing how the results turn on November 3rd. Thank you. >> Thank you, Mark John Peterson. I uh I'm John Peterson of Capri. I I
sense a theme here. I'm going to continue the uh same thing. I think it's uh we have 7,000 people on this island and less than 700 people responded to the survey for the master plan. Uh as Jackie Gleason said to Paul Newman
and Khan Luke, what we have here is a failure to communicate. people didn't I've talked to people they never even heard of the survey let alone taken it. So, one of my suggestions is uh Tammy, who is our uh district, is our
representative, she comes to our board meetings. I'm the vice president of the Al Capri Civic Association. She comes to our every board meeting. She's also agreed to come to our condo meetings and meet people. My uh suggestion is each district has a civic association. And I
think uh each commissioner might get together with their association and and start going to their meetings and try to get some feedback, try to explain to people that this is actually happening. There's a lot of people in this island don't even know we're having a master plan. And I think we need to be get more
communication out to the people because this is going to affect our lives for the next 20 years. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, John. Marie Barbara. >> Marie Barbara. I just keep it uh short and um just want to express to everybody
that has um ex uh commented on the fact that it's they find it disingenuous that um the master plan dates, the four that are designated for uh speaking um on those four dates uh talking to the um
master plan survey that they're not allowed to view it. There should be no reason why it cannot be televised and um a lot of uh people are anxious to see what's um what the comments are coming forth on the resort area, the
yach club, the gator property. I don't remember the other one, but a lot of you know uh discontent people in your part of your constituency. >> Thank you, Marie. Sean Burn >> comments again. Um, Commissioner Dicki,
I want to remind you that all the LPA members are residents of this community. So, you're not just insulting me, you're insulting them. To be clear, I would like to know what your plan is to move this city forward as I haven't heard
many ideas besides no. since you decided not to answer any of my questions at the last public comment, but instead took a very unprofessional and quite frankly appalling comment accusing me of another very concerned resident in this community feelings. I
wish to extend an offer to debate you any time on development so that when you realize I am speaking from my heart as a lifelong resident and experienced developer. Thank you. >> Thank you, Sean. Barb Adams. This is just a quicky comment um
regarding what you just said about you know the civic association meetings and I want to say that we have except for the summer we have I'm Isa Palms and um we have monthly dinners meetings and Chris Clark comes to every one of our
meetings and he engages in discussions fullon conversations and is completely in tune with what the residents in our on our island um what they're saying and what they're feeling. So um
he's not in the dark with what our island has to say. >> Yeah, Barb, I think that Barb, I think that uh I saw a bulletin uh from from you from Isisle of Palms and uh I was impressed with it. So,
West Evans, West Evans, Isa Palms, Ardan Dicki, I want to thank you for uh wanting to move the island forward by waiting for the master planner to give her give us
the information that we've paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for. Um, I want to point out that uh earlier Mr. Mark Hoey said that we should give a thumbs up or thumbs down tonight to what
the LPA keeps sending back to the commission. Uh, that's no kind of formal vote, but it is a consensus that can be gathered from this commission. Uh, so I don't think him asking for that is asking for a non-aggenda item to be
voted on. I think it's a consensus item to tell the the uh city manager, tell the LPA to knock it out. We have a good plan that we're going to talk about tonight. LPA, at this point, you're starting to get in the way. Thank you for
volunteering to do what you do, but uh at this point, you're kind of gumming up the the gears in the machine, and we want to get things going. And uh if we all just work together on this, maybe tonight we can figure something out. So
uh I would like to say that that thumbs up or thumbs down to the LPA, letting them know what you guys want to do with that comp plan would be a good idea tonight. Thank you. >> Thanks, West. All right, that uh it
concludes our public comment for non-aggenda items. and we're going to go into our consent agenda. >> Uh we don't have any minutes. >> Oh, you're right.
>> Um and so, uh we have modified the consent agenda to now read for G1, G2, and G5. So, if we can get a motion to I move to approve the consent agenda for
G1, G2, and G5 as presented. >> Second. >> We have a motion and a second. Do we have any discussion? Okay. Roll. Call the roll, please. >> Vice Mayor Vasquez, >> I. >> Commissioner Dicki, >> I. >> Commissioner Clark, >> I.
>> Mayor Doctor, >> I. >> Thank you. >> All right. And so I am now going to take G3 making it now H1. It's the award of the construction
contract for the master pump station replacement project. Okay. Uh, I had asked this to be taken off the consent agenda only because it was a very big ticket item, $5.4 million, but I did want to talk about the timing of it as well. Uh, I do know
we we have two recent grants. When I say recent, we got the 1.3 and 1.2 million grant. Uh, that goes toward that and I'm thrilled to hear about that. Uh, that covers, you know, more than almost half the cost. So, that's very good news. Uh but we also have an outstanding request
for hazard mitigation uh uh program grant request in with the with the state and that was the number one item on our list of grants and and it's and it's held up pretty well and my understanding is that if we start uh if we break
ground on this initiative on the on the uh on the initiative to uh for the pump station that uh we basically have given up our right to that uh I think four$4.5 million grant from the state for that
pump station. So I'm just asking uh the question and want to talk with my fellow uh commissioners up here about about your sense of in terms of how we I want to move forward with this. We've been talking about for years. I want to do it, but we've got roughly $2.6 6 million
in grant money net net if we if if it does come through and I know we've been you know we're betting on the on that this might happen but uh anyway I just wanted to have a discussion about the timing of it. Should we go ahead full steam ahead? Should we should we go with
this and and just make sure that we at the last minute we don't break any ground? We do all the pre-work, all the staging, everything else and just don't break ground for as long as we can. I mean, what what are your thoughts on that? Uh, >> I would say we probably um I would refer
to Gary on what his thoughts were as far as how the age of the master pump, you know, as far as the longevity of it because we have waited a very long time. But I also 100% agree. >> Okay, why don't we uh Charlie, would you
uh please uh ask Gary to join us? I I I can and I have no problem doing that. Gary, come on. But I've already asked him these questions. So the master lift station and the seaw wall both are not in imminent danger of imploding.
Construction cost go up astronomically the last five, six years since CO started. Um, I reviewed the capital uh improvement list that has been ranked since the current five commissioners
have been in and the master lift station and the um seaw walls in general are in the top 10. Um, so it really is a discussion of how much longer you would
want to wait with no I've I've worn Victor and his grants manager out trying to get information on when we might get it. And I wish I could tell you, okay, by the, you know, October 1st, we'll know or by Christmas we'll know. But I I
can't I I don't have the ability to nail that jello- to the wall for you. Um, so if you waited, if you guys discuss it and you want to wait till the end of the calendar year or something, you can. Um,
but our recommendation literally is in writing in front of you. And if Gary, you have anything to add to that, >> Gary? Uh, before you do, I guess again, I'm ready to to move on this. Uh but how long if we approve this tonight, how long would the actual groundbreaking
part of the project uh how far out would it be? >> Mayor, vice mayor, commissioners, um the the contract typically had they have 60 days after we sign a contract.
um we could talk to the contractor and see if there's a way to possibly push that back a little bit, but I wanted to give you a little bit of information that I've gotten. Um I I was part I participated in the HMGP grant application for the pump station and um
um as as Commissioner Dicki mentioned, it's a substantial amount of money and um it'd be a shame to not be able to take advantage of that. the um uh the state of Florida
got 60 HMGP grants to review from the uh 2024 hurricane season and to date now we we submitted ours approximately a year ago the packages they've they of the 60 they've awarded three
um I'm not saying that they're not going to all hit tomorrow but there's they're taking we are still in the state review process at FDM. Um, then it goes to FEMA and the federal review, they say it's
it's averaging 76 days, but they're taking some as long as 186 days. So, we're talking, you know, um, 6 months even once we get to FEMA possibly. And we're not even guaranteed if we're going to get the money. So, it's it's a tough
decision to make. I believe that one of the grants that we have could be jeopardized if we don't act on it because we did make some certain we pushed and pushed because we've had that one for quite a while. >> So we could possibly lose a grant in
hopes of getting a larger amount. So, you know, you know, Charlie and I talked about it and and we felt that, you know, one bird in the hand is worth something and two, um, if you we could be greedy
and try and get all of it and not get any of it. So, um, the construction costs are going to just go up. We saw quite a range in prices. The the the contract will, even though we're asking for the 5.4 4 million. The actual
contract amount is 4.9 with a 10% contingency. I don't plan on spending any of the contingency, but we have to have it available in case something does come up. Um, so as you we put it on the agenda because we think it's time to
move. Um, but it's a tough decision that you all have to make because it's a little bit of a gamble and and we want to do what's best for the city and be as the wordsmanu stewards of of the city money. So, we'll we'll take direction, but our
recommendation is to move forward with the two grants we have and and the project was bid federally. It's all taken care of. Everything's squared away. In 2025 budget, we had 37 items that we listed
as capital projects to be done. >> One of those that went all the way back to 2020. And what we've been doing is we've been waiting for, you know, that that that prize, you know, to to pop in the big grant, whatever it's going to do for us.
I think that uh we've probably burnt as much in uh in time, which is construction cost every year. I think that we need to move forward. I I um agree 100%. Barb came up earlier
and said I'm in tune with my residents. I appreciate that. I bring that up because all I hear about is pump station and and 115th seaw wall or all the seaw walls. So, these grants seem to me like it's putting a blindfold on and throwing it at a dart board whether you're going
to get them or not. And I think we'd be crazy to wait. Uh, you know, it'd be it'd be amazing if we got them. But, um, I I I want to move forward. I think this is one of the big things that was people wanted to see repaired after the hurricanes and, um, I think it's something we need to do
>> even before the hurricanes. Right. >> But I appreciate you pulling that off and and I agreed. I I thought and that was one thing a question that I was going to ask because I think Ardan I think you actually are the one who were who pushed that was not putting these
large con contracts on the consent agenda so that they could at least be discussed and I think you were the one who initiated that. So moving forward I would like to make sure that the larger contracts aren't necessarily put on the consent agenda because I think they at least are worth talking about.
>> So I appreciate you same as me pulling stuff off of the uh consent. But um I agree. I definitely think we should move forward with it. It's been a long time coming and and unfortunately it's that's another one of those projects that long before the majority of us were here just
continued to get kicked down the road. So, >> Commissioner Dicki, could I I I will if if if the vote is to proceed, we will do what we can to push it back down the road as far as possible to keep that window open as long as we can in case something happens.
>> Yeah. Again, I I want to move forward with this. So, I I just wanted us to have a chance to talk about it. It is a $2.6 $6 million gamble, but it's, you know, my my confidence in the state and FEMA when you told me that it's got to go back to FEMA for another look too, that that's
really going to slow down. So, I I'm uh I'm on board with moving forward and just kind of keep I'm sure you will be keeping track before that actual groundbreaking happens uh to check in, you know, once or twice more with the state to see how things are coming along. But I'm I'm I'm very good uh fine
with approving this as as proposed. >> We're we're fortunate. Our grants manager, Jessica Madra, is very aggressive. She stays on top of it. But unfortunately, she keeps bringing me bad news. >> All right. I move that the city commission authorize the award of the
construction contract for the master pump station replacement project to I'm so gonna mess this up. Kamia >> Kaminga >> Kaminga and Rude votes. Is that close
enough? Okay. >> Second. >> We have a motion in a second. Any further discussion? >> Roll call, please. >> Vice Mayor Vasquez. >> I. >> Commissioner Dicki. >> I. >> Commissioner Clark. >> I. >> Mayor Doctor. >> I.
Moving on. What was G4 is now H2 and it is the award of the construction contract for the 108th Avenue seaw wall replacement project. Again, this isn't as large of an amount as the last one. It's only $547,000. Uh and I just have one question to ask
uh because I I don't know which should come first here. Uh it seems to me that building a new seaw wall and then bringing in a whole bunch of new construction equipment uh to build the pump station, the the uh public works facility and a public safety facility.
Seems like that put a lot of pressure on a brand new seaw wall. And I'm just wanted your thoughts about, you know, should we wait till those major projects are completed and all that heavy duty construction equipment is gone or should
we build the seaw wall first? And and >> we recommend building the seaw wall first. Um, there are going to be tiebacks for the wall along the entire 800t stretch. I believe they're 15 ft apart. Some of them are 10 ft back from the wall. Some of them go as far as 16
ft. as far as a rod with a dead man or a helical anchor to to keep the seaw wall in place. Um, so that all that has to be installed and then backfilled. What if we if we go ahead and get our work done, the public works yard, the public safety
facility, we're going to be tearing up asphalt. We've got a pond that's going back there, a lot of things that are going to be impacted. We want to get the anchoring system in place initially, backfill it, so when they come along, they'll put the finishing touches on it. the the equipment we will make sure that
nothing extremely heavy. You know, we are looking at some pre-cast m uh construction techniques and there'll be a large crane, but it won't be anywhere near that. We'll keep everything away from the wall. So, your concern, we'll we'll take care of it. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> And then my questions, I actually gave you that paper um uh right before the meeting. Um really my biggest question is because we do have grants for the seaw wall and um is the USA or I believe
we do >> we have applications >> we have applica okay so we've not been now but if I remember right those aren't based on before like it we can't start construction on it to um get those grants and I'm sure you probably don't
know the answer to that I don't know >> they're the they're the same >> are they same package, the hazard mitigation grant, same with the same group. We've got five uh correct >> grant requests involved with that. >> Okay. But we I thought we had a grant a small not maybe not a huge one, but I thought we but I could be wrong on that.
Um, but one of the big things, and I spoke to you about this, was um, if we do have a grant or if we're looking to possibly get a grant, um, is making sure that all the materials used are USA,
made in the USA, because um, something I didn't even think about, but when I was researching it and I called my friend who owns a seaw wall company, and I said, "Hey, you know, are there anything anything that I should look for in the contract because if I don't know, I go
to the people who are smarter than me. And he said, "Be very aware of USA materials." and he specifically brought up um fiberglass tiebacks um because most are um from Canada and
they actually got busted and had to refund all of their grant money, everything because of the tiebacks being from not being from the United States. So I just as I talked to you a little bit before I just wanted to bring that
up. Um, so wherever we're at on the grants, um, the suggestion was, um, they did give a lot of somewhat guarantees that it's USA materials, but there was a couple things they left out. So, if that
is indeed um, the case or if we do have grants, I just want to make sure that they are guaranteeing that everything is coming. I mean, I would prefer everything grants or no grants be from the United States, but um that's just something that was brought up to to
really look at. So, as I spoke to you before, um I just wanted to bring that up. >> We'll we'll ensure that all the all the material submittals and shop drawings that are submitted, everything, we'll we'll verify it and and make sure if there's any question, we'll get get some something in writing to uh
>> perfect address that. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. >> No, I was just going to ask if we could do a living seaw wall there. I'm just kidding. >> All right. Could we have a motion, please? >> I move that the city commission authorize the award of the construction
contract for the 108th Avenue Seaw wall replacement project to Enterprise Marine Contractors, Inc. >> Second. >> We have a motion, a second. Any further discussion? >> All right. Um,
roll call, please. >> Vice Mayor Vasquez, I. Commissioner Dicki. >> Hi, >> Commissioner Clark. >> I, >> Mayor Doctor, >> I. >> Moving on. G6, which is now H3, increase purchase authority for the existing flood plane management
contract. City manager, please. >> So, this is really very simple. um under my spending threshold of 35,000 um back when we were having 50 60 permits due and people were saying oh
stay 28 we only got 30 by statute um so we'll go ahead and get to this pile today um we went ahead and supplemented our full-time flood plane manager with an hourly contract person who had worked for us some it's my understanding right
after the hurricanes And so at the I guess beginning of June, end of June at some point, I'll let Victor give you the particulars, we got two invoices. So we've basically hit and
surpassed um my spending threshold by about $2,000 when Victor approved the last invoice. So, we're bringing it to you guys. And we're not asking for me as a city manager to be able to spend up to
$50,000 on anything. We're asking for the rest of this fiscal year between now and September 30th to extend this contract that I've already entered up to $50,000 over the next 70 days or so. So,
that we keep our permitting. I mean, I haven't had a permit complaint in four or five months. I don't know about you guys. I assume if you had one, you'd forward it to me and say, "Hurry up." >> We would. >> So, I I think this is a very good return on investment. >> Do you have anything else?
>> I think you explain I'm here to answer any questions. >> Okay. >> So, basically the the only reason I pulled this off of the consent agenda was to discuss it because totally realized that, you know, there was a time that we needed the additional
flood plane management. No, no question about it. And even um the itemized shows, you know, the months that it peaked where we spent more money for the the hours and such. Um no question about it.
But um my only thing is and and it I've heard many people that attend our meetings all the time and I actually think um it was you Sarah um who was talking about you know the creep and we just keep increasing limits. We keep
increasing how much we're spending for these different things and we are doing you know no question we're doing well. There's no question about that. I just wasn't clear if, you know, how long we were going to continue using this
additional flood plane management manager. Um, you know, we're already at 37,785 um spent and you know 50,000 is I know it's in
government not that much money but again we're talking about through September. So, do we anticipate spending that much more in those couple months or and and that's that was the only reason I pulled it off the consent agenda. >> To quote uh Mr. Evans, who's much
smarter than me and our acting CDD director for a couple of weeks till Mr. Paris gets here, we're kind of at the end of that arc at needing it. But when we sh when I showed you my city manager report on the permitting, we've been crunching through some permits. So, as
long as people are raising their houses, rebuilding, um, things like that, I we'll we'll look at that very methodically. Um, the reason I went with the contract other than saying I needed a part-time flood plane manager is I'm seeing it
taper off some, and I may or may not come back to you in this year's budget and ask for a certain amount for FY27. Um, but I I need to just get CDD to crunch a lot more numbers and I'd like to give our new director a chance to
come in and he's full of ideas and hope and optimism which I hope will last a while and and and weigh in on that very very experienced gentleman. >> Okay. >> One of the reasons I was inclined to approve this is that that uh the
building fund is $295,000 under budget. uh your projection that you just showed us. That's a huge amount. So, even with this expense that we've been incurring, which again uh kudos to you and your staff for the uh for the results we're getting on the
permitting side because I I measure how well that's working by how many complaints I get and it's been a long time since I got any complaints about a permit being held up. So anyway, even with the the fact that this 37,000 has been spent, we're still substantially
under budget and that uh and and have been managing expenses very well there. So I have no uh problem supporting this. >> All right. >> Motion, please. I move that the city commission authorize the city manager to
approve expenditures up to $50,000 for community development department to cont continue continue utilizing a contracted flood plane manager to ensure the city remains prepared for potential storm related recovery activities throughout the hurricane season.
>> Second. >> We have a motion to a second. Any discussion? Roll call, please. Vice Mayor Vazquez. >> I, Commissioner Dicki. >> Hi, >> Commissioner Clark. >> Hi, >> Mayor Doctor. >> Hi.
>> All right, moving on. H1 now is H4. >> Good evening, mayor, commissioners, Victor Ortiz, CFO, and thanks for the opportunity. So, now I am presenting the tentative budget and mill presentation.
So basically these are the the key calendar dates that that we have for the year. So the July 1 was the certification from property appriser. Uh July 28 is our deadline and this is the second bullet here is the reason we are
here today. I have to fill out the DR420 and I have a deadline. What is this? So he's basically telling the property appraiser and the department of revenue of our intention. Uh what what does this means that we can go after this meeting
we can go lower on the millage but never higher. So whatever millage we determine today we can change it just to to lower it never to hide it. So um in August 17 uh the property appraiser will mail the
trim notices uh to the public and then uh we have to have a September 3 from September 3rd to September 18 our first public hearing and these are statutes uh days that we
need to meet by law here. In the process, we are going to add workshops, two workshops just to discuss and go to the detail of the budget. This is not something we're going to do today. So, we are going to go line item by line item in August in a workshop. And then
September 25 is the deadline to to have the final hearing for the budget. And this is the day I I come with the reserve and I threw everything up and I tell the commissions what what the reserve they have available uh for the whole year.
And this is I'm not going to go and read and this is some challenges that we may have. Uh is the same thing that last year because the city continues in in effort to uh rebuild and is the same uh challenges inflation uh market in
stability and this is true for for the interest rates for the uh upcoming loans if we go for a loan and and funding capacities. Um this is an explanation of the operations. What what is this is just to maintain the level of services capital
imp improvement plan. This is what basically they do and the depths helps implement capital improvement uh plans uh payable in the next uh 10 15 20 years. This is executive summary and and the
reason I have to bring this in a very high level is is just to uh give uh the board some tools uh for them to approve the the millillage as as uh intended. So the in the operating uh side is almost the same amount that we had last year.
In the investment strategy which is a CIP you see an increment. Last year I believe we presented 80 millions. This 26 millions is not like a jump from from one year to another one. This includes what whatever was not performed in in
the previous year. So this just about $12 million addition. And this is I'm going to just leave this slide and this is how we are going to uh we're using our money the uses that means the expenses and this includes operational personal
and CIP. If I'm going too fast just please stop me. Capital improvement plan. This is just a overall picture as we approved last year. I'm going to be updating on the CIP in in the workshop as well. Uh the
CIP uh I I I plan to to send uh to the commission uh the CIP projects for them to have an idea because CIP is based on uh commission priorities and and so we're going to be asking the commission what which projects are priority for for
you for including in the next year budget. And if you feel like we we should uh take one of the projects out and unfund it, that's that's per permissible as well. And this is just some overall of the estimates of of the public safety
building. And I I came with the 8 to1 12 million because that's what what I presented last year. I don't want to change it before we get the GMP on on that project depth service and I'm not going to go through that but basically it's uncertain about the the b the rates is
based uh how the market is performing if we're going to go for for loans I don't think uh right now we we have a good capacity to get a good rating I would say I had been through uh fech and moody moody's rating
However, in order to go for bonds, I believe we we will have to add ask for $30 million something like that. And I don't think we we need that amount of money. Uh so if we're going to ask for less than that I I believe a bank loan
is is a better option just because as the as the money as the proceed from the bond or the loan get higher the cost of the bonding it becomes more effective and the APR become more effective. This is more market conditions and this
is our outstanding depth. So I expecting by 2027, which is the following year, to be done with one of our loans. So we we're going to free up $336,000 uh dollar a year. So remember this amount because when
when I come with the with the next uh couple of slides about deb we need to take this 336 in consideration for a new deb. Th this is if we were going to borrow $10 million. Uh and and this is these
interest rates. Don't take it for granted because we don't know what the market conditions is going to ask the day we go for for a loan. This changes every day. So, but it's just uh if we we were going to borrow $10 million and knowing that we were going to free
$336,000, it's going to cost us at 15 years about $600,000 a year. We we can be more aggressive and and ask for for lower years product 10 years or something but then the the amount to pay
will be a lot higher. So this is some uh estimates on on the revenues and this is uh if you see the last uh three years in in taxes. So I am expecting to get to be better next year than this year. but lower than 2025. And
the reason we got less money on 2026, I don't know if you all remember, is that the property taxable value went down and this year I we we're expecting based on preliminary numbers that we're going to go up 3.9 uh%.
Uh this is both uh increasing taxable value, but also new constructions and new uh rebuilds. And this is part of the building department where you see the the permits is because people are building. So you see that different here in this uh tax award values
and other taxes uh the same thing. I expect to go higher next year but not as high as 2025. So this is showing that we are recovering from the drop of last year. And this is for the permits and fees charges for services that includes uh
wastewater. I did a mistake last year of projecting. I was new to the city and so the the the four on the on the budget and on the revenue side for the wastewater is is s on me. I I thought that we were going to
get better flows because we had a hurricane and I thought people were were start to to move to the island and didn't transparent. So this year I want to be conservative and don't do the same mistake. So I'm budgeting because the train is that we're getting less flow. So I want to be conservative and when
the result comes I want them to beat my my estimates not the other way. Victor, the estimate you have there for 2026, is that like a 9 months actual, three months projection or or uh because
2026 is not going to be that at that 5.8 million level. Is that correct? >> One second. >> Another slide right there. >> Oh, because this include other other services other than I think that's that's I can update you on that because this include other services. That's why
it doesn't say specifically wastewater. Uh but I can give that information next minute to you what that includes and I can bring that. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Fines. Those are my estimates. Again I just use
the same trend like every other revenue. So higher uh this one I estimated to be lower than 2026. I I just want to be th those uh revenues are not the biggest revenue. So I want to be conservative.
>> Well, what we did see though uh earlier is we talked about fines and fortunes and about our code enforcement. This wouldn't reflect that earlier discussion that we're going to actually bring in less fines and forfeitures than what we
had this year. >> Well, if we keep if we keep moving forward in the trajectory we are with code enforcement, I think in 2027 we will um those fines and forfeitures will
continue to go up. Um and if we increase the capacity by the two people I'm suggesting the two extra headcount it will go up significantly. >> So what I did just just you are correct.
I I do believe that we have a chance that I did the estimate for the last three years I'm and average it for for 2027. That's the formula I use for for this but Charlie is correct. It may beat this year. Oh, you have the 238 added in with
the 453. >> Yes, he's okay. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, that's Yeah. >> And and the and the 380 as well is average for three years. >> Yeah. what what I can do because um looking at
this graph and and having the conversation that we had which is used for for these projections is to bring it at least equal to this year for the projections if you all agree. >> Yeah, I would think so. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. So this is a now I have to send a message. We are not balancing the budget today. This is a or tentative. So I just want to explain what is a balanced budget is that revenue equals the expenses plus reserves.
So this is the uses as calculated in in this budget and where I put here a depth service uh taking consideration that we're not going to get any loan. So this is what we're paying as of today.
So these are my revenue projections. So I I expect to receive 30 millions uh dollars of uh revenues. I put here just to put it on on the budget because I have in the in the next upcoming workshops I want to extend the budget for 27 28 and remember the reserves that
that we have aside is not only for your priorities but it's also to cover short fors for future years. So when this big project comes like the public safety building, the Mar lift station that we probably we have to come with $2.6 million,
I I would never recommend to use every penny in our bank account when that happens. So uh I'm going to do a long presentation of the processes in some some sometime before the GMP comes and I want to explain how the process work and
I want to have a feeling from the commission if we're going to go for for dep or not for new debt. So based on on these high level numbers uh we will be using $1.9 million from our uh reserve based on our budget uh
predictions. So saying that uh then we go through the true image uh the trim uh is is looking the taxable value which is the first square 3.9% Fable. So last year we were
$3 million uh dollars and this year is $3.1 million and this is the current mil millage rates which is 3 uh 8.129 and the rollback rate is uh 3.6699 6699.
And remember that rollback rate is calculated as if the city was going to receive the same amount of money using the current property taxable value. This is just an explanation of I I just summarize what the true uh rollback rate
is. So this is uh just with the current conditions of $3.1 million taxable value. This is what 0.1 mil will do. Every 0.1 mil that we go up or down, what we're talking is about $38,000.
And these are the options that we have uh at the end of the final public hearing. So it's going with the current millage which is 3.18129 the roarback rate which is uh 3.6699 6699. Uh we had you we always have a option to
increase millage and to decrease millage. Not that I'm recommending increase the millillage. And then before going to my recommended motion, do you have any questions for for me? So this is the motion that I'm
recommending to do today. That doesn't mean I'm recommending this uh millage but since we can always lower it uh going uh forward I don't recommend to uh do anything different than uh do the the current rate uh for the margin but the
any board member can change that uh recommendation. >> Yeah, we need to get this number to uh the appraiser the county appraiser uh by the 28th. >> Correct. >> Okay. and and I I agree that, you know,
it's it's not going up. Uh I think that uh that we can bring it down. Um but uh you know, I think that we will have a better feel once we get done with the uh the August, what is August 7th budget meeting,
>> the workshop. Yes. >> And um and move forward based upon that because I think that we're we're not in trouble by any means. A lot of people thought that we're going to be in trouble and we're we're not in trouble. Uh so now it's it's just a matter of um
how we spend our money and uh and how much of it potentially do we give back to to the residents >> and you can lower the millage rate all the way to the final budget hearing. So in in the workshop we're not taking any
votes other than any items and line items of any new ads for the budget. Uh but uh you you can always lower the the millage in the first public hearing and in the second public hearing. You cannot go up but you can go down any any of those meetings.
>> And I would I would kind of tend to agree with the knowing that we can lower it but we can't raise it. Um I personally would like to see the roll back rate. Um, I think that our we are going to have to learn to live within
our means sooner than later because the the tax I mean the property tax is going to pass. We all know that. I mean, we don't know that, but we're fairly certain that they're going to get 60%. So, I think the sooner we start learning
to live within our means, and quite frankly, I think our residents deserve it. Um, I mean it we pay one of the highest millage rates in the county and unfortunately, you know, it's um we
don't have a lot to show for it right now, you know, um but I think more more than all of that, I mean, I could go down a rabbit hole, but um more than anything, I think now across the board um is we have to start learning to cut
and trim and thoroughly analyze every dollar that we spend. And in the midst of all that, I would love to see the roll back rate um if everyone else is not comfortable with that and they would rather talk about it further
obviously as we move down as long as knowing that that can be lowered. Um, but just to put it out there, I I I personally would love to see the roll back rate um and give our residents a little bit of a break and start learning
to live with less and less because more than likely it's coming. >> Um, sorry I'm not on. Uh yeah, I I just want to say I've been talking about living within our means and cutting and trimming since March of 2025 when I
became a commissioner. So I definitely agree with that. Um I'm fine today holding it at the current because we can we can lower it. I think I want to see all the budget stuff and really have a take get a chance to look at all that
before I you know make a decision. But I mean, I don't I don't so long as it can be lowered, I don't I don't have a problem with if we just have to turn something in today, I'm fine with turning in the current rate and then I I want to delve into the budget, talk to my residents, and then, you know, look
at where we are. >> I'm fine with going with 3.8129 uh as the uh as our millage rate for the new year. I agree that cutting taxes and expenses is a noble and a worthwhile go goal, but I would uh not recommend it.
Uh in this new planning year, uh we're we're coming off of a year with our biggest revenue losses in 14 years. Uh we're facing possibly even bigger property tax cuts in 28 and 29. Uh and
we're also only two years removed from the worst hurricane season we've seen in our lifetime. So, I don't want to cut expenses. I'd like to if if there's places that we can become more efficient and reallocate money, I'd like to put it towards some of our immense struct uh
infrastructure needs. >> But for now, I think you're good to go on 3.8129. >> All right. Do we have a motion? >> See if I can get this. I move that we adopt the tenative millage rate for fiscal year 2027 budget at the current
year's millage of 3.8129 mills per thousand of taxable value. This tenative rate is based on at least 95% of the certified taxable value and complies with Florida statute 2000.065
including public hearing and trim notice obligation. >> Second. We have a motion and a second. I will also have a uh speaker request for comments. Uh Mark Hoey, >> just a quick uh Mark Hoey, District 3,
not related so much to this, but uh Victor mentioned it earlier about we're still waiting for the uh guaranteed maximum price for the public safety building. Maybe I heard that wrong and you can certainly tell me after the fact, but I thought it was only a couple
of months away back when when that was uh we changed contractor. So, if you have that date, that'd be helpful to the public. >> Thank you, Mark. All right. Any further discussion? Roll call, please. >> Vice Mayor Vasquez,
>> I. >> Commissioner Clark, >> I. >> Commissioner Dicki, >> I. >> Mayor Doctor, >> I. >> Thank you. All right, moving on. H2, which is now H5, authorizing the city manager to hire two
additional uh compliance inspectors. So, I've been shamelessly plugging this since 5:00. I think I've demonstrated uh that we've been good stewards of everybody's money. We are making a lot
of headway in permitting, parking fines and fees, code enforcement fees. Uh but as the leadership of the city, we always have to move first and then the the grants and the compensation tends to trail like that last few cows in the
herd. I wish it wasn't that way. It just that's the way it works in government. Um I have some people at the downward slope of their career arc. I used to manage 5,000
employees with two different bargaining units. Um, and and I've done the very best forecasting I can in that side of my brain. That worked for years with a lot of human resources.
And um so we're talking at a total all-in cost of 141,000 salary, benefits, retirement, the whole shoot and match for two additional people to continue the improvement in code enforcement. And
moving into the next budget year, I we've more than paid for it in what we've done this budget year. And I I think the vice mayor's correct. I think you ask people if they want to pay less property taxes, they're probably going to vote for that in November.
>> And I think next year um as some of these people uh that do good service for our citizens leave, uh we'll be able to attit um and and keep these people that we're hiring going. Uh to the very best of
mine and our code enforcement supervisor's projections, we need about 24 months to get everything that we know about. And when we have more people, uh I'm projecting or requesting one per per uh
commission district. We're going to find even more. Um so that's my story and I'm sticking to it and I would appreciate your support. So, I have a couple questions. Um, back a few months, quite a few months ago, I
believe, um, we approved a position for a, um, I'm not exactly sure what the exact name was it, but it was basically to enforce the grass cutting ordinance. Um, did we ever hire that person?
>> We uh, didn't get a lot of great applicants. If you remember, there was some lastm minute language adding making it temporary, which is why I'm stressing I can manage these two positions through future attrition. So, no, nobody really
wanted to apply for a temporary job. And then the one person they did employ lasted less than one week. Um, so I think the figure was just shy of $4,000 what we've collected in the
lawn ordinance. You know, my goal was never to have a city lawn cutting team, but to incentivize people to find their own yard guy versus us. Um, so I think that part of it is working. So, um, no
ma'am, that position is still vacant. Um, but after several rounds of advertising, I can't remember exactly how long we advertised it for with that temporary uh label that the commission authorized to the position, but call it
temporary. We just didn't get what we were looking for. >> Okay. And the the main reason I asked is, you know, we approved that for whatever that amount was and I had my note here and I have no idea what I did with it that actually said um but
we approved that role and understanding that it didn't get filled and you know there's nothing anybody can do about that but that's still out there. So that's money spent without being spent because it was approved by us. And again, I totally get the code
enforcement. I totally get all of that and I know how important it is. I truly do. But now we're being asked for another two employees at the cost of it says $141,000 annually, but we all know that
comes with pay increases and insurance increases and etc, etc. again looking forward to we're going to have less taxes coming in but our growth in city hall keeps going up. You
know, I understand we add, you know, part-time employee here, part-time employee there, full-time employee here. Then we have all of our contracts with, you know, other people that come in that we pay hourly for and which we just, you
know, approved. Again, I I just keep seeing that even though I get it, I know we'll be more efficient, it's just more money, more employees, and
it's a full-time ongoing employment for two more. And again, we have to start looking at cutting cost because it's a real thing. I mean it we've we've all I'm sure ran
the numbers and I've mentioned it in the last one. You know, our first year 2027, if everything stays the same except for the $150,000 deduction, our city's already going to be down $1.5 millionish.
So, but we keep growing. We have I know we have bigger needs because of the hurricane and everything else, but there has to be a time when we we have to I hate to say it this way, we have to make do with what we have and
figure it out and maybe somebody that we have that's not as busy as someone else can assist part-time or something like that um within CDD. I just, you know, we have that open approved position. So,
that money spent, for lack of a better way, and now we're wanting to add two more. So, I I just would like to discuss that and talk it out. And maybe I'm the only one that feels that way. And um you know, it's just it's a it's a big
concern knowing what's coming and and that is uh that's just a reality. That's not pie in the sky. That's reality. >> Charlie, >> yeah. Oh, Ardan, I don't care. >> Thank you. >> Can I go or you go? >> Go ahead.
>> Um, yeah, I've been I've been saying again for a year and a half that I think that we just continue to balloon our staff. I guess and Ardan, you you you tried to get at this earlier with are we going to get any revenue out of this?
Um, and I I think we will. I think it's hard to um I think it's hard to, you know, capture because you don't know if people are going to pay it. Then you got to chase it down. Um I think the other thing I always ask in any um situation like this is is it can we is there
people that we maybe can cut or that we can we don't need or that we you know I I don't know. But um and I think you you talked about possibly there's going to be some cutting of some positions or or demoting. I I don't I don't call it
demoting, but I mean is there any way that we can somehow lessen this from being $141,000? >> Yes, sir. There's a couple ways. And I mean I'll I'll used to supervise 47 cafeterias. You know, I'll trade you half my baloney sandwich if you give me
a peanut butter and jelly. Um, and so that secretarial position, if you want to clo close that and not bring it back in next year's budget, um, I don't remember off the top of my head what the expense was, but it is comparable. It's
not as much as a code compliance inspectors. Um, as one of the smaller cities in Panellis County, we do have two positions um that only St. Pete and Clearwater
have. Um, and I'm I'm planning on uh taking uh some action to lower the cost in those positions just on our pay scale based on uh what we actually have for those um positions to be able to do
right now. Um but uh I'm not asking you to to sign in blood for life. Um but I would ask that going into this next year uh we do that and uh and accelerate this this position
kind of uh exercise the initiative and the momentum that we've gained and um I can come back um and when I say I I mean Victor and I with some hard numbers. Um but I've I've been here a year. I'd ask
for a little trust. If I if I don't gain your confidence on that, then I'm going to ask for a little more patience as our code complaints come in. But it's one or the other.
>> I gather that you're saying that the one position that Vice Mayor Vasquez was commenting on, you were willing to take that off the table. So, so that would So, you're asking then for a net net of one and but I also got a sense that >> well I think we'd have to look at cost too because we weren't paying the grass
person nearly as much as a co compliance >> officer. So, so and and and but I did get get the sense that you're willing to look internally to for another position that you could eliminate elsewhere that could fund this position. >> So, did you did you say that or did I
>> Yeah. Yes, sir. Um, going into next year, we really need to scrutinize our personnel package. And we do have a couple of positions that most towns our size don't have. Uh, both those
positions are are are doing work. Um, uh, so I'm looking at a cost reduction. Um all of our ad directors, assistant directors are on a on a pay scale and reducing um those positions by pay scale
and then offering those positions to the people that are in them and see if they want to continue to work with the city at a reduced uh salary. Um, so I I I don't have super specifics, but
I I I think we've more than already figured out how to pay for 141,000 moving into this next budget year. Um, I'm willing to throw the uh other position and acknowledge it's not the same rate of pay as a code enforcement
inspector. Um, and and continue to work it in the right direction. When I was very young learning how to fly instruments, I had this old instructor pilot, Vietnam era guy, and he he said, "When you're
getting off on your flight plan and you're you're gaining altitude you didn't mean to or you're decelerating in air speed, make a small adjustment. Make it in the right direction and then keep making small adjustments." And that's what I'm committed to do to this city without giving anybody whiplash and
trying to maintain the momentum that we're making in CDD. >> Yeah. I mean, go ahead, John. >> Well, I I want to say I'm an optimist. U you know, if you just start looking for where you can cut, uh it's really a
slippery slope because once you cut that, you know that you're done. There's nothing else to get out of that person. No, no. productive work getting out of that person just cutting a position. I think that we we have seen that our
numbers look pretty dog on good. I I'd say on this beach we probably uh look as good as anybody if not better than a lot of folks. And um I I think that uh we we probably need these two positions. Uh, I think that what we would need to do is
watch them very closely to see, you know, what they're doing as far as picking up the the uh the workload as well as the the new revenues that are coming in. I think that we're going to have a real strong year. Um, and you know, in the parking, you know, parking
is going to go a lot higher next year than it it was this year because we didn't capture everything and a lot of people earlier in the this budget year uh weren't coming here. So, uh, I I I think that we need to do more than, uh,
than just, uh, look for cuts, but, uh, we need to make sure that we're not just hiring dead weight, uh, at the same time. So, we need to keep, uh, keep moving forward. Like I said, I am an optimist, and I think that we're we're going to do much better uh, next year
and the year after that and the year after that. Look around. Look at the homes that are being built. you know that uh we we are a community that has multi-million dollar homes and uh you know even on on the uh and I'll throw this in too. I don't want uh you know us
to to be uh a community that is just looking for the the down and dirty and the cheap. I guess that that that's what it is. And that that's partly why I'm so optimistic about the growth that we're going to see uh whether it be residential or commercial.
>> Yeah. And I guess I don't want to put words in your mouth, but what I'm hearing you say is that you when budget time comes around here, you can show us where you're taking out enough to cover this and hopefully we're not putting
more in. I mean, um, so I mean, I'm willing to go with it on that on that basically agreement, I guess. >> Yes, sir. I'll I'll have again my friend Mr. Ortiz uh prepare you a little half sheeter kind of on how we're going to
pay for that from where we are to next budget year folding that in >> before I have more to say but are is there any I'm just at that you know if there's any public comment I I would almost like to hear the public comment before I comment any further if that's >> take that yes we do have it Sarah
Pennington >> hi Sarah Pennington Is a Isisle of Palms. I hope you guys can hear me. Okay, I'm wearing a mask tonight, not because I'm sick. And I actually want to give you guys a quick little PSA and then I'll talk about this, which is I'm someone who's extremely diligent about wearing sunscreen. And I have made this
horrible mistake of not wearing SPF lip balm all these years. And now I'm going undergoing some treatment on my lip. It looks and feels terrible. That's why I'm wearing this mask. And so PSA for everyone here. These rays are very intense. And please don't forget wearing um SPF on your lips.
>> Now, when it comes to the um the code enforcement, I understand the need for it and absolutely agree. We have a lot of properties that we drive by and I'm sure everyone like me is thinking, what's going on? Why is that still like that? And some of them are commercial
properties, I might add. And um and I think the problem is that we might have great code enforcement people, but we have no idea how much actual money we're capturing from these fines. As was discussed earlier, the uh fines that we
have outstanding may be a lot of money, but how much we're actually going to get when all is said and done, let's say we do a lean on a certain house, that could be negotiated down. And so without any actual real numbers to tell us here's how much what we need to know is here's
how much we've brought in this year in the fines so far. So here's how much we've actually brought in real numbers a line item on the budget of money in versus money out spent on code enforcement. Um the active fines are great to know about but what we've
actually collected on a quarterly basis would be so helpful for us to make decisions like this. It's very difficult to make decisions. Um, even I mean, Mayor Doctor, that was great that you caught on our projected budget for next year. We're projected to be less in
fines. And yes, that may change, but how are we supposed to make good decisions if we're not dealing with accurate numbers, and I would ask for that before any decision like this is made? Thank you. >> Great. Thank you, Sarah. Mark Hoey. R. Coey, District 3.
A number of nuances here, I guess. And again, Mr. City Manager, I've sat in a chair where I've had to rebalance my workforce, and it's tough as you've experienced in your whole career. It's tough, but it I I don't believe a
municipality is automatically exempt from that challenge. and the management of the the uh city has to face that at a time. Uh this specifically though uh caught my attention because
the things we're talking about I think gets a lot of our residents attention is the short-term rentals. Short-term that's been coming up as long as I've been coming to the meetings. It's very encouraging to hear James talk about possibly getting some technology help
because in my mind I would much rather spend the money on technology that we can apply and learn and maybe become very efficient rather than throwing bodies at it. And maybe there's a compromise in saying hey let's see how
that plays out. How does that play out in s you know helping us through that part? Uh, I realize it doesn't raise revenue and I it's a little concerning that we think about the things that we need to do to manage the city for the
benefit or to protect our residents, but they have to be some cost benefit or even uh costneutral. I I think there's some things the city needs to do for the benefit of protecting the citizens like it would be from the deteriorating uh
conditions from having weekly rental buildings next door to you uh that don't necessarily have an ROI that you could say, "Hey, we're going to pay for the people who do it." I think it just begs for us to be much more efficient in the use of the technology and our own data
to help our staff get to the result we're looking for. Um, as far as the budget, uh, just because the impact, I mean, we just got through and and Victor, you you've got a hell of a job ahead in this next few months. Look forward to watching. But he had that one
slide. We're going to burn 1.9 million of reserves to kind of balance right now. Now, that's this is way early, but you had to make it match somehow. So, it's coming out of reserves. That tells me we do have some challenges there to figure out
how we're going to retire that without just having to live off of our reserves year after year, particularly up to the time that things might get real tough. So, thanks a lot. >> Thank you, Mark. West Evans. West Evans. Isa Palms. Um
I think uh going from what we should be asking I know uh city manager you're looking to hire two more code enforcement uh officers. I guess you would call them officers. I call them officers when I see them around. Um uh we're going from one to three. I feel
like the smart question here should be uh if we're thinking about doing this, why don't we start by hiring one more if that's what we choose to do? Um, my other thing would be if we have two positions in this building that only
exist in two other municipalities within I guess within Panelis, you're saying, then we need to start looking at why do we have these positions in this building, other cities do not. what is what do they do uh to make up for these
positions or perhaps moving those people into code enforcement or something instead of uh hiring on top of that. But uh I would just start with maybe going with one code enforcement officer if that's the the decision that the uh commission wants to make instead of
jumping two. Thank you. >> Thank you, West. Okay, we're gonna come on up, Sean. >> Yeah. Uh, on the illegal Airbnbs, just a thought that, you know, I I don't know if this is real, but sometimes it's
pretty simple. Like, you know, it's always it seems to be hard when we say, "How do we catch an illegal Airbnb? They have to have four reviews. It's it's difficult." You know, I think everybody's heard that if you're really into the code enforcement side of it, and I I kind of respect that it's not easy, but I think there's some easy um
easy catch low-lying fruit. And and a couple of those are is Airbnb, VBO, um they all automatically subtract sales tax for not sales tax, I'm sorry, tourism tax to the county and so they
report it. So, if we're reporting to the county and they don't have a license for a BTR license, you're kind of guilty. And so, there's some easy ways to get the lowlying fruit, right? And the BTR license is a license that the city of Treasure Island requires if you're doing
any business in the state of in the city of Treasure Island. So, not only are we missing out on $150 a year for the license, I believe the state made it where you can do fire inspections, which we can also get into that game. And then another thing would be is if we're if
they automatically are paying in tourism tax, we should be able to get that information from the county, which would easily be a guilty sign. If you're paying in tourism tax and you're not renting your house, it's kind of difficult to to answer that one. So, on that, I would just like to say that
maybe there's a two-part fold here. The harder ones, I understand, but there's some easy ones. Um, and then the the other thing on since we're on profit and loss per se, everybody's talking about income and revenue and expenses. Um, parking is a good business for the city and it's
increasing, but I don't ever see anything about expenses on it. And to be clear, parking is the highest revenue to the city that's controllable other than property tax, which is really somewhat uncontrollable minus the military, especially if it's homesteaded. So, um I
think that the parking should be managed to a much finer degree is my opinion. It's a business. It's the largest revenue to the city. Um I understand that it's a little more work, but at the same token, I think that we should be managing how to make parking more
profitable, not just more revenue. Thank you. >> Thank you, Sean. All right, we're going to close public comment. Oh, I thought it was this this says H2, >> which I guess it would it would generate
that. Yeah, it would generate that. H5, >> whatever it is. Now, Richard Harris, 374 Bay Plaza. I live on Bay Plaza. The uh train that is coming down the track in Sunset Beach is VBO Airbnb. The current rule is five change of
changes of occupancy per year. Um I've got a couple of neighbors that are changing every week. And uh you get tired of it. They are uh well behaved so far, but it's just not what should happen in a residential neighborhood.
These two people uh if they come in can pay for themselves. there is technology out there to track uh BRBO and Airbnb just like uh Mr. Burn was saying a lot of times they have to write or they voluntarily write a review on their
properties and post it online and gives you an easy answer. Uh there's also a uh location on my street uh and several other houses that need to be condemned. One of them uh was cited on August 20th,
2025. fines have been running at $250 a day. So, it's about 80,000 now. Maybe someday the new teeth in the condemned housing ordinance. I'll get that house torn down hopefully about the middle of of uh
August. That's 80 grand. Um that pays a lot of bills. And while the real estate agent has told me that he's going to ask the city to forgive that fine, I don't think much of it should be uh forgiven.
So, I think the potential is there for these in two two employees to actually pay for themselves. Thanks. >> Thank you, Richard. Okay. Now, we'll close out the public comment. >> All right. Now, that's and that was kind
of what I wanted to hear. I wanted to thank you for doing that because I wanted to hear before I went any further in the discussion. And um not trying to beat a dead horse, but I think what I know the majority of emails and
conversations that I get is more complaint about the short-term rentals um than anything. And I think that is greatly affecting all of our neighborhoods. And the one thing that I heard fairly consistent was short-term
rentals. And Maroi made a a great point of you know, short-term rental software seems like it should almost be the priority here, not throwing more bodies at a problem. And I believe from every and I could I don't think I'm wrong on
this, but that software um actually scans the Airbnb sites, the VBOs. um it scans a lot of those so that it does make it a lot quicker and more efficient to nail these Airbnbs and it
is I mean if they are in a legal area but they're not licensed that is revenue we're missing out on and at this point I mean personally I am with without doing the budget and
everything else and and seeing where you know, like the city manager said, you know, about positions moving or whatever. I personally am not I would be comfortable with approving doing the short-term rental software, but because
of one the potential income it could bring to us, but more than anything make a whole lot of residents happy because that is a huge problem in every beach city. Um but um I personally am just not
comfortable with adding two more positions right now um to the to the bottom line. Again, I I would love to look at the short-term rental software 100%.
Um but I just and it doesn't sound like I'm alone. I I just am not comfortable with that at this time, especially going into budget, not knowing um what that's going to look like um and
beyond. So, that's that's my two cents. >> I just want to make one more quick comment and then I'll stop. Um it's more than just the short-term rentals and I started to go into it in my commissioner comments last week, but we didn't really have time. the meeting ran so long. But what what we've discovered is there's
multiple companies that have bought 14, 15, 16 homes. Um they they never got a permit. You know, one of them is prodevelopment. They bought 14 homes, never got a permit. and and and you know, I I'll say this. I think we caught
one of those, but the rest of my uh it was really a lot of my residents that did a lot of research and present it to me and I did some more research and looked and found out that, you know, there's 14 homes here, never got a permit. A lot of them are already
completed. And I, you know, my suspicion is some a lot of those are going to be rented out. But my question is, you know, what what what are the fines going to be for that? And that could easily start to pay for some of this because
you you found one and there's 14 on one and like 15 on another and that's only the two that we know about. Um, so I I do see where if we can start really enforcing some of this stuff, we can
easily, not easily, but with the other adjustments you said, we could make this worthwhile because I tell you what, this just burns me to no end. We were told you can't fix your home. If you fix your home without a permit, we're going to come in and rip all your walls down and
all this. And now we got people that come in here and buy 14 homes. don't ever get a permit and you don't you know damn well that they knew that they weren't getting a permit and they now they're apologizing after they get caught. So I mean I >> I think unfortunately with because of
the hurricane we we got to keep going after this type of thing and um so there's more to it than just short-term rentals. This stuff's going to lead to short-term rentals and we need to we need to you know nip it before it gets going.
>> All right. Have we had motion read? >> Um I think >> well here hold on one second. I think the motion is gonna we're not going to approve this right now. Are we? >> I I think we were going to ask the city manager maybe to go back and come back to us and say uh yes, we I think we all
agreed we want these two positions, but I think we were asking well that that we're asking them to fund it uh find a way to fund it by by reallocating resources. I I'm not I'm taking his word that he's going to fund it. Um but yeah,
>> so I I No, I'm ready to vote. >> All right. >> Okay. I move to authorize the city manager to hire two additional full-time code compliance inspectors for the community development department. >> Second.
>> We have a motion and a second. >> Any further discussion? >> No. Roll call, please. >> Vice Mayor Vazquez, no. Commissioner Clark, >> yes. >> Commissioner Dicki, >> yes. >> Mayor Doctor, >> yes. >> All right, moving on to H3.
>> Can I ask a question real quick? Is there a way that we can ask to look into the short-term rental? I mean, I know we've talked about it, but I didn't know if that was officially being looked into >> on the software. >> Yes, >> we actually Is James already gone or
Braden's here? I thought I thought he said earlier we already had we already using it. >> We we got it for the rest of this quarter or the rest of this fiscal year and it was not super expensive. It was within my spending limit into the next year. So it wasn't something I needed to
pester y'all with. So I just brought the people not the software. >> Did you did I get that right, Braden? Was there anything else? >> That was exactly right. Is it effect? I mean, is are we finding it to be effective? >> Sorry, I didn't mean to vary off on this, but
>> uh the contract was signed less than a week ago. We haven't implemented the software yet, but I can speak on behalf of James. We're we're very excited about it. >> Good. Okay, that's good news. >> Thank you. >> All right. So, now we'll move uh what H3 is now. H6.
H6. Vice Mayor Vazquez's ideas, suggestions regarding plan developments. >> Right. Well, I think everybody here has um my ideas. Um the only change which
you should have in front of you. Um looking a little further into it was not eliminating the PRMU core and PRMU Golf Boulevard. So, it still leaves everything else out. Um, but it just
does not take those two additional um, uh, zoning areas out. All the other guard rails, everything else is there was no change in any of that of
what I originally put forward. Um and if you would like I can quickly go through um what my basically trying to find a middle ground here. Um giving the guard
rails doing you know trying nobody's going to get everything they want but try to meet in the middle as much as humanly possible. Um and that's what I'm trying to do here. So um basically it is
um putting the 80 ft height and 85 tourist accommodation units um per acre and that is the absolute PD ceiling not
an entire uh an entitlement every lower limit imposes um imposed by the comprehensive plan downtown special area plan countywide plan and rules underlying zoning and other applicable laws continues to control unless the governing plan or regulation is lawfully
amended. Now, that brings us to kind of what we started talking to a little bit in the workshop, which I spoke to Ralph earlier about, which is um and and I I guess just I'll let him take it from
there about what we would need to do or could do or so that we're still protected by the PD for public benefit, for the negotiation, for better everything. Um but what we would
you know if we could discuss um the comp plan that you were we were speaking about this afternoon. >> So the way the way the PD enabling ordinance is currently set up, you wouldn't need a comp plan amendment. um
the way this proposal would be because you're going to be increasing density and intensity using the alternative uh transient lodging density and intensity criteria. We would have to adopt that into our city comp plan. Um
so um you could do this concurrently with a plan amendment if you would like to do that. Um, so if you're going to go back and add some things before second reading, we'll probably readvertise as well so that
everyone is aware um that we're having the increase in density to 80 ft height and 85 units per acre. Even though that's a maximum, that exceeds what's allowed now under the city comp plan and the countywide unless the city adopts
the countywide alternative transient lodging densities. So, we would have we would do that at the same time. We we'd have to take this also back to the county for the review for consistency with the countywide plan and
they would probably tell us we need to adopt the alternative transient lodging densities table and standards and policies into our plan. >> Now we have a uh a second reading on a
motion or I'm sorry the first reading is was done. We had a second motion for August 18th table tomorrow. August 18th. >> I think it's August 14th. >> 18th. 18th. Okay. >> Okay. So, I I think that uh you know that that's where we're sitting now is
kind of that plays out before we can start throwing new motions. >> Well, the purpose of this was to amend that. That was the whole purpose of this discussion was to amend it so that we're not reading the original motion which
included RFM30. It included you know everything basically. Um what this does is um basically amend that original one and uh from what we discussed now I know
that changed a little bit in the last couple hours that it would not have to be renoticed because it's just an amendment to the original one and it actually lowers everything in it so that it actually would still be a second
reading. would just be the amended version of the PD. Um, now if we were doing that comp plan that you were talking about, obviously I know that would be the first reading and would have to be um, noticed, but it was my
original understanding that the whole purpose of this when I spoke with you and when I spoke with Becky and the reason that it was suggested that we discuss this was so that these proposed amendments could be done to that
original PD ordinance um, that we voted on so that it would this would be ready to do the second reading at August 18th. >> We can certainly do that if that's the pleasure of the majority then we would do that and uh probably renotic the
advertisement to include all the new criteria for the second reading. We also um the city manager points out we did get a resolution from the uh LPA planning commission um requesting the city commission direct the city attorney to modify the plan development enabling
ordinance on second reading to reflect proposed plan development maximum allowable height standards in PRMU core and Gulf boulevard RM30 and RFH30 maximum height 80 ft and commercial
general maximum height 70 ft. M. Mr. Shavelin amended the motion to have the CG reflect the maximum height of 80 ft and that was seconded by by Vice Chair Sanchez. The motion carried forward to two. So we also have a request from them to change the PD
before second reading. It was up to you guys what we want to do. We can't vote to approve right until second reading. If you want to post uh make >> basically just discussing to move whether we're going to move notice it and then
>> put additional the additional criteria in the notice >> and that's so that's what I yes that's what I understood when I spoke with Becky um she's you know that was the suggestion and then when you and I spoke
was to discuss this now that way we are ready for that second vote and uh on August 18th and >> we could also be I guess begin the process of the plan amendment to incorporate the alternative transient lodging
bonus density bonus height. We would begin working on that and seeing what um forward panel says about whether we need to adopt the plan amendment before they'll find this land development code consistent. So that might happen. this
might get delayed then for the comp plan amendment to get changed as well. >> That makes sense. And just to be clear so that the general public knows as well, what the LPA is has asked us and brought
to us and what we're talking about are two >> separate differences, >> two separate things. So that what we're talking about is not a everybody gets a covered zoning, you
know, increase. It all is put into the PD, and correct me if I'm wrong, it gets put into the PD. That the only way that you can apply for the increased whatever it is we agree on um is if it
is through a plan development agreement and that that is finalized. It is not at all a fullblown comp plan amendment to that covers everything no matter what because again like I said at the last meeting doesn't
make any sense does away with the whole reason of doing a PD. The whole reason for a PD is for public benefit. It's the give and take. It's getting a nicer development. It's getting you know the parking. It's getting the public areas. So, I just want to make sure that is
super clear that they're two very different things. And again, correct me if if I'm wrong on that, Ralph, but I just want that to be super clear. >> Did you want to walk them through your individual changes >> or introduce them just for the public or
No, >> no, I I prefer not to. >> Okay. It's it's long and it's handed out. So, >> yeah. And uh so right now we can't do anything until really the 18th of August. >> Can't adopt anything tonight.
>> We can't adopt, but we can move forward to change. >> We've already have a uh a motion which has been passed and and we've set it now out. Why? How can we change the
motion mid mid pass? It's not changing a motion. >> I guess one thing you could do is say direct staff to >> make these changes and have them available for second reading. And when it gets to second reading on the 18th, Yep. >> you could say um
>> I'd like to continue second reading until we uh notice these and adopt the plan amendment that would implement the alternative transient lodging density. >> That sounds more reasonable.
than just starting to to change things. And right now there's basically two or three that are out there. One is the LPA, one's the one that we already approved for one reading and then now this
>> I think we had some from Ardan too in the beginning. Ardan had some criteria, some guard rails that he he looked at. >> Well, I think the whole problem is is this has been shut down twice to have a discussion. So when I discussed it with Ralph and when I discussed it with Becky
earlier in the week and Becky definitely or not earlier in the week, last week um said that it was a great idea to discuss this before we have our second reading because she said we can instruct staff
to implement whatever it is we discuss tonight and if we all come to an agreement, hey, you know what? We like these guardrails. We like that. let's go ahead and make those amendments in that second reading. And
she said that it was a great idea to discuss because if you wait till then then once again it's not going to get done because it's going to be a discussion again and then it's going to get moved again. So if we're wanting to move forward, which is why I'm trying to
find a middle ground here, we need to discuss it. We need to see if it's even in the realm that anybody up here besides myself would consider. But if we just keep shutting down the conversation, we're never going to find a middle ground. We're never going to
find a place where we can come to and we're going to end up in the same place on August 18th as we have been the last two times that we've tried to do this and it's going to be shut down. And then it just it doesn't make sense to me. I I I >> especially when I'm being told by the
city attorney that this is a good idea to discuss and potentially get amended. >> Can we move uh the workshop on August 4th to do just that?
>> Could we Mr. Mayor, I would suggest possibly making that a two-hour workshop because Cheryl Trent from Rafillis is going to bring you some general recommendations on PDS on August 4th, which is why I
recommended to everybody we hear them out before we endeavor in this discussion since we're already paying them $198,000. So, I think we could let them talk and then let you guys hash it out maybe.
Let me let me jump in try to jump in here. This has been hard to follow uh for me. I don't know if it has been for the for the folks out there, but uh there's a lot of moving pieces here. Uh it appears to be two that I as I understand two ways to get uh a comp
plan amendment changed here or comp plan changed. One is what the LPA was suggesting a broadscale everything in all of those zones. and and and everything to the county max. That was one recommendation. Uh now
the other thing that I've heard that we can do that when we apply for a PD that you can also apply for a smallcale comprehensive plan amendment and have the comprehensive plane plan changed with that amendment. So that's what I
was thinking all along that we were going to be doing and I see some head >> small scale plan amendment would only apply to the parcel in question. >> Exactly. Exactly. which is what my preference uh would be. And and again, I think I'm seeing some head nods here. I
came here prepared today to talk about these uh about your recommendations and to and I would like to go ahead and have that as opposed to a two-hour uh >> I agree >> meeting down the road. So, and again, we're not going to vote on anything here, but we're just going to talk
about, you know, what's what what here. I appreciate your effort here in trying to bring us together on some kind of middle ground. Uh, so I I would like to go through each one of these and and talk them out and see if that's where where we would like to be. But and I'm I'm still with you, Mr. Mayor, in terms
of of of locking in on that August 18th, not affecting that and hopefully, as you have said, Vice Mayor, make some amendments to that August 18th, >> correct? >> Uh, ordinance. So, we don't necessarily need to move it past that.
>> Correct. >> Okay. Okay, it's reasonable. >> All right. Oh, >> want to begin? >> Okay. Uh, sure. I guess we'll start. Well, I guess we'll go through one at a time. Uh, and but I do ask uh I have one
question for the vice mayor. Originally, of PRMU core was was uh left out and now it's added back in. What changed? >> Honestly, and and I'm going to be 100% honest. I did a little deeper dive into the restrictions um in that corridor and
along that very small section of Golf Boulevard. And it's all commercial. There's no residential from it's the hotel right before Waffle House to Publix on Golf Boulevard and then
from basically I can't think of what that street is. What's that >> side street where the um hair salon is and the car wash and all that. >> Okay. >> Um basically >> I'm fourth. >> Thank you. I couldn't think of it. Um so
it's basically that area and then when you look at the restrictions there it's like okay maybe we should consider you know all of that area because it is a big that's all commercial district and then behind there we're going to have our public works our public safety
building you know things like that now um that is honestly that was the reason why in looking at it and looking at the restrictions and because it's an odd kind of a zoning anyway way. Um, that's why. >> Okay. And you still left out the PRMU
golf. >> Say it again. >> You've left out the PRMU golf. >> That's That is the Yes. The PRMU core and P RMU golf. That's what that was the ones that um >> Did you want the golf back in? I think
is his question. You got the PRM back in, but >> that's what it says right here on the very top of page. You have this right? >> Yes. >> Yeah. >> That's what I >> So, it's the page three at the very top.
Proposed direction eligible districts. >> You You only say PRM UR. You didn't say PRMU. >> Oh, it says it on mine. >> Boulevard. >> That's weird. >> The one that was distributed. >> Yeah, on mine. It just has P RMU core only. >> Oh, that's odd cuz mine has it.
>> Yours is different. Um, but yours is a different layout. I'm probably like some of the people >> sitting out there. I don't I don't have all the >> acronyms memorize. So, could someone in layman's terms explain to me what portions that we want to put in here?
>> So, basically I can from what what I just said from basically Publix to not including Waffle House, but that hotel that's right before Waffle House. >> So, that's the Golf Boulevard PRMU.
And then the core is from basically the um car wash that there the car wash to G boulevard and down 107th that is the core. So core is downtown basically.
>> Okay. So, but the um the golf is Publix to right before Waffle House and then of course the RFM50 is the I mean RFH50 is the resort high zoning. Ah, thank you
Braden. I know what you're doing. >> Do we want to listen to the comments before we >> I'm fine with that. Okay, let's go ahead and open up the uh public comments on this. And uh the first one is Donna.
>> Okay, we'll see how that goes. Okay. Uh Sarah Pennington, >> can I get up there and show would that would you be okay with that? I I get it now, but you can >> this for the public, too, just so they
know. Just so you guys are aware, >> this is the core. >> There's no mic. So, she's pointing to the core, >> PRMU core. >> She's pointing to PRMU Golf Boulevard >> now. Yeah,
>> that's RFH50. >> Um, Braden, you have a microphone there if you want to talk as staff and expert planner. >> Yeah. So, this area, this district here is the RFH50 zoning district, the RMU
Gulf Boulevard here and here. And then this in the center is PRMU core. >> You did that so much better than me, Braden. Thanks, Brian. >> All right. So, are we >> Yeah.
>> prepared to go through. I hope we're going to listen to >> Yes. >> I've got a lot of comments written out, so bear with me if I jump around a little bit. I read through these um this ordinance and I'm very happy that we're actually finally discussing some
potential middle ground here. As the way the PD ordinance is currently written, there is zero limit on the height. Zero. There's no limit. And the density is the Panelis County maximum. Highly irresponsible for a town our size. I
mean that it's just way way way too much. I think I don't know who would think we should need that. Um a couple things that I did notice on um this amendment the density it is better. It um as written right now the Panelis County maximum is between 100 and 125
units per acre depending on the size and um what we're looking at now is 85 units per acre. But I do want to point out that St. Pete Beach somewhere that we all say literally everyone says we don't want to be St. Pete Beach or Clearwater. And this is higher than St. Pete Beach.
So St. Pete Beach's maximum density in their hotel zones is 75 units per acre. So I still think we have a little work to do to try to find some lower density than um than 85 units per acre. And as
far as PRMU core, I'm not 100% sure about this. Maybe you know I think as far as Panelis County maximum I think 60 units per acre might be the maximum on the PRMU core. So I don't know if we could even go to 85 but um even if we
did if we did go to 85 that would take just one block on the downtown that would put us at 200 around 250 units just on that one side. And that's units that's not people. So usually there is at least two people in a unit. So then
you're talking about 500 people just on that one block on um downtown and then you add the other block in another 500 people. So it could add pretty significant jump in density to our downtown area which is a concern for
traffic. And then the height of 80 feet, there's not enough clarity to me if we're talking about including base flood elevation or not. If we're not including base fed elevation, 80 feet actually is going to be putting us at around 94 foot
um for the buildings here. And so we need to have a little more discussion on that. I think um basically the Thunderbird wrote that in for their ordinance if I recall correctly. And it's just kind of gotten legs and taken off as as the number of feet. But do we
need that um the 80 foot? Um, but the biggest the biggest thing that I think we need to consider is this comp plan amendment and how do those two things interact. Initially when PDS were presented to us, a huge guard rail that
was explained to us was that each property has to get its own smallcale comp plan amendment. That was explained to us very clearly and it was promoted as a guardrail. And now suddenly that seems to have been superseded by the LPA trying to do this other comp plan
amendment. And I just want to make sure that we're clear on what we're talking about tonight. If if this PD ordinance changes, amendment changes. Are we talking about doing smallcale comp plan amendments? Because I think that is way
more reasonable than doing a full comp plan amendment and then saying, "Oh, but that would only apply if someone got a PD." Let's just stick to the plan of the smallcale comp plan amendments because it does give us more protection. And then two more small things on this. I
noticed on on the original PD ordinance um for the meetings, a big other thing we've been promised is like all these public meetings and you get to have all of your input. And I noticed when I was reading the uh the um ordinance that there's only one meeting on there and
only people within 500 feet of the project need to be notified, which I think is a very small number of people, especially when you're talking about um big hotels on the beach, there probably wouldn't be that many people for that meeting. And these big PD projects, they affect everyone in this town. And so I
think we should look at um changing that language to include to me I would say the entire town needs to be notified of this meeting and allowed to attend. And then the other thing that I noticed on there was just the um supermajority. It says if uh it's supermajority I love the
idea but it says if the are going for max height and max density both and I think that could easily be gamed by just taking one unit off and now I don't need the supermajority more. So, I think if we're going to do a supermajority, it should be for every PD project. I have
more notes, but I'll I'll leave it at that. And and thanks for even opening up this discussion because these are huge decisions and they do require a lot of consideration. So, thank you. >> Thank you, Sarah. Marie Barbara.
Um, okay. It always is disturbing to me and most of my friends and neighbors and other people, residents that have lived here for a while. It's disturbing to me for I love that we're discussing this,
but I don't love that we're not discussing and challenging the state and putting forth and talking about referendum because according to um some legal challenges that are coming your way after this is, you know, adopted um
that's going to be realized. So that's that that's what I'm saying. It's but I like the discussion. Um but um I wanted you know to shoot another hole in this a small scale pump plan that um
that doesn't need the state approval would be under the 50 acres under the panelis county forward panelis county they look at this let's let's try to clarify this pr uh m uh golf and core
yes we're already is is already designated. We already voted on this uh for downtown and along the uh zone all the way up to not the the Waffle House but to the hotel and I think it encompassed it. It it went as far as
middle grounds and I'm not sure of the next parcels. The forward panelis has identified activity zones with the PRM co uh core and golf boulevard and golf um for commercial areas. They identified
activity centers as those commercial areas they got density. They got the density as as well as you know they the the businesses in the stores they identified already um the Gator property
the Gator property has with the marina Johns Pass Marina that the LLC there and also with the uh other LLC um I can't remember the names of the three of them those have been identified um that area
is going to have over six acres um if they do add the density in with the marina. Um there is a challenge on the marina right now with Tara Verie. So we're watching that pretty closely. Um as far as the height also because that
kind of building is also a a different height for that type of boat storage marina. I'm just giving you what I know and so but I'm glad to have this discussion. Um the so activity center
activity centers are are the core. Now you mix in the hotel and you mix in the the 50, you know, you just left out motel if you really think about it. Okay, you just left out. Um, Florida has really no single, this has
been brought up a lot for past 25 years that I've been here in spot zoning. There's really no specific statute explicitly naming named the spot zone statue. Instead, spot zone is governed by case law and regulated through
consistent consistency requirements under chapter 163 part two whatever blah blah blah and it's known as the community planning act. So you can get with the attorney and get a little bit more information about this. The legal framework comprehensive plan consistency
under Florida statutes. The chapter 163 zoning and land use changes must strictly conform to the local government's adopted comprehensive plan. Definition spot zoning occurs when a small parcel of land is reszoned with
rules different than the surrounding areas, typically giving special economic benefit to a single owner rather than serving broader public purpose. Legality spot zoning is not automatically illegal in North Florida. It is legally
permissible if it aligns with a comprehensive comp plan, is supported by substantial evidence, and fulfills a legitimate public need rather than arbitrary favoritism. Judicial review. Florida courts test these reszonings to
see if the decision is purely debatable. So if a small parcel reszoning conflicts with comp plan or hurts neighboring property compatible without public interest, courts will strike it down as illegal spot zoning. So, the reason I'm
bringing this up is because as soon as you threw in the H, the hotel, if my if I owned a hotel that's not in this special area that you are um designating, I'll come after you if I own the hotel because I want the same
benefits. So therefore, what this is actually going to do is either spawn more legal challenges or uh have all the zones that are hotels have having to have the same density and increases as this. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Marie. Mark Holly. >> Thank you, Mark. District three. Um, having gone through this, I appreciate Vice Mayor Vasquez putting out what could possibly become that grand compromise. I think that's
that's a step in the right direction. I've had the opportunity to go through all of the attachments that you had put out and I really had only two that were issues to me. However, since this has commenced, I've gotten confused and
that's not very hard. But the fact we're comingling one or both pieces of an LPA recommendation that was made at their last meeting. Okay. But I mean it feels that way because and again Ralph trying
to stay on top of this. The it felt like we're bringing that into the mix which changes a lot of the little pieces. And again, I'll just put out from my standpoint. Maybe there's others that can see that clearly, but in my mind, uh
the the height um max is fine. I'll agree with Sarah, and I'm sure there may be others that are concerned about the density being at 85 being significantly above those in our neighboring communities as a starting point or a max
point, should we say. I think we could start lower, 60. Maybe there's a compromise there and and work towards that in this. But at least we get some guard rails around the PD process, which as of today, which we've all discussed,
there are none. There are none. Um the only one that I'm I'm really a hard no on is is the last one where there were conditions put on the uh idea of having a supermajority.
And I think that, you know, had we not already had a residentled referendum petition drive that has passed that's going to be on the ballot in November, uh maybe that would have gone and everybody would have said, "Great, move
on." But I think we've got to let the residents by vote speak in November 3rd for that as is because that one just says any PD activity if it comes up and it exceeds our our current base level
should be considered four out of five of the commission to vote to pass it through. And I think that should remain and not be usurped by a well, okay, I'm only doing 79 ft and I'm only going to do 84 density or 64 and then it passes,
you know, it passes through the system unabashed. Um, I still think though, again, I would like to get clarity and uh you're you're nodding your head, but appreciate some uh clarity on this comp plan amendment that the LPA brought
forward as a broad-based uh change uh when I think within the body of this, the smallcale comp plan amendment makes more sense. Uh this is for exceptional properties. it's going to be applied to each property individually as they come
forward for approvals and I think it's not any more burdensome to the applicant to to do it in that fashion. So, thank you. >> Thank you, Mark. Lauren Rubenstein. Hello. Good evening. Lauren Rubenstein
from Hillward Henderson here on behalf of the Thunderbird ownership. Um, first, yes, thank you. Appreciate the discussion. I think it is very valuable to hear what all of you are thinking and to talk about what the different options
are. Uh, a couple things I want to point out just because I think it's important that we have exactly what could be allowed. Correct. And so for the commercial general zoning, the maximum you could go to is 60 units per acre um
under the countywide rules. So I just think that needs to be discussed and addressed. So it wouldn't just fall under the straight 85 that's being proposed. >> Lauren, did you say 60? >> Yes. >> Okay. Thank you. >> And that's for the >> commercial general. >> Oh, commercial general. Thank you.
Um, so as Ralph pointed out, you know, the density in a comprehensive plan amendment is what would control in the PD zoning district. So I think there's just a lot
of confusion and I don't know, you know, without going into a whole lesson on how how comp plans work, right? But I think it needs to be made clear that what you have in front of you without any changes, what you already had did not
under any circumstances allow what was proposed under the countywide rules. It did not allow up to those maximums. The only thing that would have been allowed under a PD as currently written according to density is what is already in your comp plan for those zoning
districts. So 50 units per acre for the resort facilities, high, 30 for resort facilities, medium, and then um your PR core and golf. It's a little more complicated because it's a special area plan. It's an activity center. So your
comp plan, and I am not an expert on your comp plan in the downtown, but I think it allows up to 60 units there, but your LDRs are a little more restrictive at 24 if I'm correct. Um, so I bring that up because I, you know, I
think it's very valuable certainly to be talking about what you would like to see for that maximum density and that can be done through a comprehensive plan amendment that only applies to PDs. So you're not changing it across all of the zoning districts. You're not
automatically granting that density. It's a, you know, a cap. But it's certainly important to keep in mind that that change is what would incentivize someone to come in through a PD ordinance, right? Because right now, the way it's written, there is no additional
density that could be getting despite all of the comments that I hear all of the time, there is no additional density proposed in your current plan, um, in your current PD ordinance. So, I just want to make sure that's clear on why I think that it's, you know, people have
suggested we need this comp plan amendment that would only allow density in a PD zoning district, but it would be limited to whatever you decide in those county um maximums or maximums, right? So, you can go in the CG up to 60 and
then depending on the size of the parcel, you can go 75, 100, 125 units per acre. you can pick what you really think that is. Now, I think from a development standpoint and you're incentivizing developers, right, to come
in, the more guard rails you have, not necessarily a bad thing because developers like certainty, right? They like to know what is a what is something that's possibly going to be approved in this community. And if it's never going to be more than 85 or if it's never going to be more than a 100 units per
acre, it's great to have that in there and offer that level. You still have all of the negotiating power, right? It's not it's not by right. Somebody that comes in and wants to go to a more a higher density than what your comp plan
currently allows at 50 and if you amend it, let's say you allow it to 85. if they want to come in at 75 or 80, you have to negotiate through that process and what are those public benefits, what are the, you know, advantages that
development is going to provide. So, you're certainly, you know, keeping hold of all of that negotiating power. So, I wanted to just hit on that real quick and, you know, happy happy to discuss it. Um
the supermajority is something that um of course I don't know that I think it incentivizes development unfortunately. Um you know you have MadiRaa Beach is a good example where they require the supermajority. It's in their it's in
their charter but MadiRaa Beach has adopted the maximums under the countywide rules for the resort facility high land use there. So, if you come in and you have to do a PD in the resort facility high and you're requesting up
to those maximums and was that including um the additional time for Donna? >> No, it wasn't. Um I don't know. I don't want to get into Okay. >> the precedent being set that just because you bring somebody with you, it goes for an extra five minutes.
>> I I I didn't know that was >> what >> it has been done at other meetings. I can I can wrap up on on what I was saying real quick. So, >> okay. >> Um, but what I was, you know, if if you have the maximums, you want that super majority to add that guard rail, right?
You want to make sure the project coming in really fits the community, you have a lot more options that a developer could come in with. So, you have that guardrail. If you're establishing really, you know, strict guard rails that are appropriate for your town, super majority doesn't feel as much of a
necessity. me it really feels more like a hurdle. Again, the PD process is extremely expensive for developers and I think that gets overlooked a lot and if developers coming in without some certainty with the requirement to do their own comp plan amendment without
knowing what would possibly be approved. It's a lot to expect and I think you'll find there's not many that'll do it. So with that, thank you all so much for your discussion. >> Mayor Doctor, could I ask Lauren a question? I got that. Okay. Thank you.
Uh Lauren, I understood what you said about uh the overall compliment uh comprehensive plan and that you basically set up a PD a PD zone which we don't currently have and somebody has to apply to get into PD zone. I understand that. Uh but can the same thing be
accomplished through what you've heard from other people here about can we accomplish the same thing through a smallcale uh comprehensive plan amendment? >> Yes. So, I've actually had that conversation with Fort Penllis because I've never seen it done that way, but
fort panelis said they don't see a legal reason it couldn't be done. It's a little bit strange and what would happen is then every developer coming in is also going to have that comp plan that has to be passed in order for the PED to be passed. So, that's where I talk about
that uncertainty and that expense. It it it does go way up, right? So, um I I think that if you have guard rails and you know what you want to see, I think from a development standpoint, it makes sense to put those in and let someone
know because they're not entitled to it. It's just a hey, this is this is the maximum you're ever going to get from Treasure Island and then they could ask for it. But it would it'd be interesting. I don't know exactly what it would look like. I think you would ultimately have the exact same
comprehensive plan amendment that would probably be proposed by your attorney, but then limiting it to certain parcels that you would add as you go through. I I'm not really sure. Or you would actually be creating a new future land use category for every one of those PDs.
And you can do that. Some counties like Pasco County does that. Um, but it starts to make your comprehensive plan look like a regulating document versus your LDRs. So, there's just some policy decisions and some practicalities to think about that I'm sure your attorneys
can certainly go in detail because those things they get very complicated. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you, Lauren. Grant Smith. >> Hello everyone. Grant Smith, Sunset Beach. Uh, Vice Mayor Vazquez, before
you sneak out, I just want to thank you for adding some uh That's okay. I just want to thank you like others have for addressing some of the ambiguity which has been a problem with the compreh with the planned uh development ordinance for the beginning. So, good for you. >> That's it. You know the rest.
>> Sorry. I'll be right back. >> So, I hear about maximums this, maximums that. If we can just elevate for a minute or two and think about what we're doing here both as a commission and as a community. Okay. Parkinson's law, I don't want to be pedantic or pompous
here, but Parkinson's law is the idea that work expands to fill the time allotted. When that's applied to business and you have open office space, there's a tendency to hire somebody to fill each one of those office spaces. So when you have codes, regulations,
building uh limitations that are at a maximum, Parkinson's law is basically going to tell us we're going to build to those maximums and every developer that comes in is going to look to the maximum. That's the first thing. So we've paid $198,000 to a firm who is
going to engage in the data collection required for us to follow good uh decision sciences. Decision sciences again is a interdisciplinary field and it's intended to help us make important choices based on evidence um uh
probabilities, uncertainties and and community priorities rather than pressure, assumptions or um intuition alone. It helps us guard against premature decisions. A premature decision is like, you know, it's like buying a wedding
cake on the first date. And this is kind of what we're doing while we're talking about what these numbers are. The LPA says 100 per acre. Uh, Commissioner Vasquez says 85 per acre. Where's this coming from? Where does the number come from? When I asked my colleague on the
LPA, where are you getting these numbers? The response was clear. They're the county maximums. So, that's what we're going to have is the county maximum with a tendency to build to that. I just think we need to slow this process down and take advantage of the
firm that we've employed to bring us evidence before you make any changes before you approve any limits or put any numbers in there. So the problem with help what what decision science has helped is when we make a decision it's usually based on some information.
Premature decisions are based on insufficient information. They're made when assumptions are treated as facts. Unanswered questions are treated as resolved and the pressure to act becomes stronger than the obligation to understand. So what assumptions are we
treating as facts? 80 ft and 100 per acre are required. This is an assumption. It's not a fact. It was a a a guess. It became a hypothesis. Somewhere along the line, it became an accepted premise. And now we treat it like a fact because two developers have
told us this. um traffic and infrastructure can handle the growth. Residents requesting an evidence-based approach to the ordinance are all anti-development. These are all assumptions that are now being treated as facts. If we move down, unanswered
questions are being treated as resolved. Um this happens when we have fallen into this idea that we've come to the easiest solution. The easiest available explanation is to increase height and density. And we stop asking the question. We stop asking, are increases
in height and density even necessary? And we're negotiating the limits and we don't even know that they're necessary. But we have a firm out there that is investigating this from a multitude of of uh perspectives. Is there a demand for more hotel rooms and restaurants? Do
we need more? Can we support more? What alternatives have been evaluated? What alternatives to the existing building plans that are so limiting have been evaluated? The third component that decision sciences and this firm will help us with is that when urgency
becomes stronger than understanding. So what this this is the sense of urgency that we're being pushed upon. The whole city is going to become a parking lot. The developer can't wait. We have to do this now. Urgency is not evidence. It's a push to do something without the
required information. There's value to waiting. Value to waiting helps us resolve important uncertainty and there's a lot of uncertainty on what our limits should be. It helps us get the additional
information when it's reasonably attainable. We have hired a firm to provide the additional information and the decision. If the decision is incorrect, it'll be costly or difficult to reverse. Just asking you just stop with the negotiations until we get some
facts from the firm that we've hired to do that. Thanks. >> Thank you, Grant. West Evans. West Evans. Isa Palm. Sorry if I have a shaky voice. You got to be Yukon Cornelius to live in the cold of this
room. Uh at the beginning of all of this uh we were sorry at the beginning of all this um we were told uh PDs were the way to go for several reasons and uh the
biggest reason was not everyone is just going to do a PD. This is a way to preserve the character of our town. How do you do this? Because a PD, yes, it can be expensive. Yes, they have to do
public meetings. Uh it it can only be used for one acre or smaller. Uh let's see what did we have else? Oh, they have to go through a smallcale comp plan amendment to get it done. As this has gone on,
slowly but surely, these things keep getting ticked off the the the the statue we're building here. We keep Oh, there goes one arm. Oh, there goes another one. How long before the head of it falls off? And now we're
back to arguing with each other where we don't want heightened density because it's just going to be all comp plan change for everything in the end or max on everything. Uh, and then the other side, whatever. It just turns into
a constant argument. if we would stick with what we've been told at the beginning, these things that you tried to sell us the PDS with, which were basically guard rails in themselves,
uh it would help out a lot. So, I commend the vice mayor for bringing this forward, uh Ardan for his attempt to put guard rails on this at the beginning, and Chris Clark, of course, at all of our neighborhood meetings has talked about this. This is a thing that a lot
of us have agreed on for a long time and now we're coming together on it. I just think there's a few things that could make this uh a little better. One of those I don't think the height needs to go to 80. I think it could go to 70 especially since
we're including over a garage level. 70 over garage. It's they're showing it in Readington right now. They're showing it in MadiRaa Beach. They're building under 80 feet. They're building under 70 ft.
Density 60. There's no need to go to county max on it. I say 60. If it's good enough for commercial general, it's good enough for the new development in MadiRaa, which is 59. Go with 60.
I just I'm just so glad that we're finally coming together and having discussion on this. Uh it's for so long, you know, it's felt like we're all getting in the way of each
other, and that's why uh nothing's getting done with the commission. Uh every time something seems like it's getting done, it seems like the LPA wants to add another uh wrench in the machine that is turnurning away. And uh
you know, the LPA keeps pushing this. let's just do a comp plan change for the entire thing instead of the smallcale comp plan amendment. And like I said, that was one of the safeguards that we had at the beginning. I feel like
if they truly wanted to uh their purpose is to put the cap on the PDS, then they should be jumping on board and commending the vice mayor uh and getting on board for with this right now instead of no, let's do something different. If
we need some kind of comp plan change uh once the PDS are enacted, if there's something we've missed, then you take them as they come. in there's no need to go ahead and do a fullscale comp comp plan change. What if the PD doesn't pass
on the 18th? Now we just have this comp plan change floating out here. Um yeah, I'm just going on and on now. So I'll leave you guys be and go back to my igloo. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you, West Scott McKenna.
Good evening, Scott McKenna. Um, Ala Capri. Um, I'm glad, like Wes said, I'm glad we're finally making some progress on this. Um, but I understand how we have the comp plan coming through and do
we still need this smallcale text amendment um, for what, you know, for what people want here? Um I'm just got some notes here. Uh but it's only for 80 ft. Now is that for
just the PD? Um the height I thought was in the uh LDRs. So the height is in the LDRs. Our densities in our comp plans. um what we saw in the LPA meeting when Sean made a
presentation and Donna spoke too and we heard there that commercial viability for these developments you're going to have to increase this density. So, if we go to 80 8075 or 80, you're going to have some nice proposals that are going
to come through with with the uh small scale comp plan change, the small scale change for height if they need to get a little bit higher. Um, then you're going to have the density change that you would have in for with the text. Um, so as a result of getting a nicer facility
with a little bit of flexibility in there with the PD process, you have to have a little bit of guardrails going on. But at the same time, if if we don't do those increases, we're not going to have a really nice hotel with a nice
restaurant with uh some entertainment with an area like we had with the treasure with the Thunderbird where the public were allowed to be there for happy hour, for every sunset. That's the beach vibe we want to get back. We want to enjoy that character. If we limit
what we're going to do and everybody will come in and build to write, they're going to build a six-story condo. There's no restaurant in there. There's no nightly entertainment in that. And you're going to drive down drive down Red Shores. There's nothing going on. We don't want that. We want and everybody
who says they want the beach vibe, but it takes a little flexibility. We got to give a little bit of the increases. We got to come up a little bit in density. We got to come up a little bit in height to get that character we want in our beach. We don't want to overdo it. We
don't want 100 foot buildings here. Nobody wants that. Um there was one correction too when the height uh above mean sea level was 7 ft. 80 ft plus 7 that's 87 ft. It wasn't 94. Anyway, that's all I got to say. Thank you for doing what you're doing.
>> Thank you, Sean Burn. >> Um mine is short and sweet. Um the to answer your question, the maximum density in the downtown is considered a neighborhood activity center. Hang on.
It's a community center under the countywide plan and it's 150 units an acre, but it requires studies of all the concerns that Grant brought up. Obviously, nobody's here for that. Um, and I agree with you just to be clear.
Um, also, so it's not true to say that's the maximum density. Um, just I understand the logic >> every >> factual every time you turn. >> Sorry, I'm just trying to be factual. It's not >> the audio. >> Sarah asked a question so I wanted to
answer it. Um, it's uh, and so the second thing that you have is um, the alternative lodging density. It it breaks it up from one acre to one to three acres and then three acres in
addition. And it goes from 75 units for under an acre, 100 units for 1 to three acres, and 125 units for over three acres. So, it's not exact. That's why Lauren said it's not exactly easy. Happy to talk about it, but you know, if you
really don't study it and not having it up here, it's very difficult to just have this discussion without having factual documents up. And that's why I think there's a lot of confusion. Um, and so I just wanted to try and clarify that. The last thing I want to say is
the idea I think sometimes ideas of PDS get skewed, but the idea of a PD, it gives the city the ability to offer a bonus density in return for a public benefit. So it's not everybody's very
concerned about restricting it. The idea, I guess a good example would be is if everybody in the community wanted this development, but it didn't fit the code, a PD would be a pathway for them to get there. Does that make sense? So,
um, and I'm not trying to get into the numbers or the debate of what they should be or the height. All I want to stay focused on is the idea of a PD is the ability for the city to I guess you could say to get around the standard code because they have to follow the
code as well and to offer a benefit but in return for a public benefit. So just to kind of simplify that down a little bit. Thank you. >> Thank you Sean. And last but not least, Richard Harris.
>> All right. they get the paperwork. >> Good evening, uh, commissioners and mayor. Richard Har here is 374 Bay Plaza and chairman of the planning and zoning board and local planning agency. You know, the small scale comprehensive
land use plan can be anything less than 50 acres. My suggestion to the hotel association would be to apply for one. Um this is a great compromise. You know the LPA has always maintained two
numbers. When we reestablished this we came in with a height of 80 and a density of 100 units per acre. We never changed. Um when it was rewritten
the guard rails weren't in there. We said let's make sure that they are in there. We don't want any building higher than 80 feet and we don't want to make it uh so some developer comes in and says oh yeah let's uh apply for 120 ft
and then we'll uh negotiate back down to 80. Doesn't work that way. Want it have a maximum. If the hotels and the land owners in the area can agree to 85 units per acre fantastic. You know, some of us
would just like to see something happen in this town. It's been 22 months now. And you know, the thing is it's been delayed, delay, delay. Uh heard today, well, the Fusion, the Ocean Club, the uh
Treasure Island Resort, and the Crystal Palms, they all built the current code. Well, things have changed a lot over the last uh few years. construction uh cost way up. And I quite frankly think you
need a few more rooms and a little more height to give these land owners the incentive to go ahead and get started building. You know, when Raftalis comes in with their number, they're going to have a suggestion, but it's really going to be down to uh what the land owner
says. And what I've always said about the number they're going to give us is what will that number support? Will it be a Motel 6 or could we possibly get a Hilton on Treasure Island and have something nice? A fullervice hotel with
a restaurant, a small convention center, something nice. In this whole town, we have only got two full service hotels. I mean, the Bill with Sloppy Joe's and uh Treasure Island Resort BRGR. That's it.
I personally would like something since I'm a Bay Plaza resident that I could go to a nice restaurant here in Treasure Island. But you know the thing is, let's face it, if we delay even further, John Doctor has said, "I'm not going to
run again." Arthur, quite frankly, Arthur kind of shot himself in the foot and uh I don't think he'll be reelected. And Tammy, who knows what you're going to do. Uh but anyway, we just want to get the paperwork rolling and get it
started. But the main thing that I think a lot of people misunderstand about planned development is it's a reszoning. And nothing has been reszoned in this town for the last 30 years. You have to reszone from RFH50 if you're west of
Gulf Boulevard to plan development. And with that, you will go from 50 units per acre and 60 feet in height to what we set on the LPA as a max of 80 feet in height and 100 units per acre. And if
the city commission wants to do 85 and that the land owners say, "Hey, we can make that work." Fantastic. We just like to get something rolling and uh get it started so Treasure Allen can once again redevelop those 10 sites that I
mentioned earlier and uh help these guys out. Thanks for your time. >> Thank you, Richard. And that will close the public comments uh and bring it back up here for a discussion. Uh uh I just wanted to
you mentioned going through each one of these. Um so I just want to make a couple comments. Um first of all I again like everyone else has said I'm glad that we're finally trying to meet in the middle. I know you said earlier that this always gets voted down gets voted down kicked down the road. I mean I
personally have never said I'm against PD. I wanted guard rails. I think Ardan has said that from day one. So I really don't think it's us that weren't willing to come to the table. I'm glad that other people have now decided to come to the table. Um I think that's great. Um
but I I mean I only have an issue with like three items on here and I mean I certainly could um negotiate those items. So I don't know that I don't know. I guess what I'm saying is do we want to go through every single one or do we want to just say hey these are my
things that I'm just in the interest of time. Number one. Yeah. So anyhow, um >> I would agree like the ones you have a issue with. I would agree. >> I agree. So >> and and then the other the other I guess
the other thing for me that I'm going to throw out there is and I think that could even be negotiated or maybe doesn't need to be negotiated. But um I someone asked earlier in the in during
this meeting was well are you willing to commit to say that you commit to what the master planner says? And I've said up here probably 10 times that yes. I've told my residents if we're going to spend the money on this thing then we're
going to go with what they say. And I'm saying that again right now and I will hold myself to that and I've said it on tape and I actually believe that they're probably going to come back saying maybe we do need from based on what I heard maybe we're going to need to go. But I
in order to make the commitment that I made to my residents, which is why I'm sitting up here as my residents is, you know, I want to see what they have to say. And if it's if it fits in with what we negotiate today, then I'm fine with it. If it's wildly different, then I'm
not. Um, and the problem I have now is we are September 15th. Is that when we're supposed to have the the the results of the financial portion of this? the they have technically according to their scope of work and contract till
September 30th. I've asked General Trent to try to get it to me by midepptember if at all possible before >> so now we're down to a matter of weeks of what the master planner says. No one
can tell me that for three or four weeks is going to affect anything here. And the the Thunderbird's not even torn down. And I want to see the Thunderbird get rebuilt 100%. But I mean I I I I it's just it's it's become almost
comical, you know, that oh, you know, we're we're four weeks away from the October or no, August 18th is four weeks away from having the feedback from the master planner that we spent hundreds of thousand dollars on that. I made a
commitment up here that, you know, I'm going to go by what they say. Um, and so I mean I think that needs to be incorporated. I, you know, I think that only makes sense and I and no one can tell me that it's going to slow anything
down four weeks. Um, again, if places were torn down and shovel ready, I could maybe agree with that, but that just makes no sense. The other thing I want to say is I think it was two meetings ago I brought up that I had a conversation with
the master planner and she told me that she believed that we should wait until they got their results before we decided on the PD. I think the vice mayor said not attacking you. I'm just saying that you you said that you heard the exact
opposite from her. We now got I have not spoken to her since we now got an email from her this week saying that we should include it in the PD. So I thought I was remembering my um uh you know conversation correctly. Now maybe that
maybe they she she told people two different two different people two different things, but that's what they're saying. We spent $200,000 on it. I think we should um at least incorporate what they have to say to this. And I don't believe for one second
that four weeks is going to make a difference. Um, and lastly, I think I think Grant said something similar, but the the logic we're using to go by for some of these things is, hey, let's ask the developer
what they want. It's like asking a kid, do you want one scoop of ice cream or two? I mean, of course, they're going to pick two every time. So, I mean, it's it becomes almost comical at times. Um, but no, I I'm I'm ready to talk through this and see if we can't come up with some
sort of um you know, some sort of >> So, what were your non-negotiables, but you said there were really just three items that you had to >> Yeah, I liked one the way it was originally written. Um I think the density needs to be um uh negotiated and
I agree with what some of the people have said on number 12 around that that just that just basically negates the what the public is going to vote on and if it passes I think they should be heard >> on 12 could you just so for public
>> number 12 is the um supermajority. >> Okay. Because the way this is written again, you could come in at 85 density and and 79.5 uh height and then you don't you don't have to uh succumb to the supermajority.
So, >> and just >> those are my three things. >> And for the record on the supermajority, I'm a firm believer that it'll most times if whenever it happens, it's not like a PD is going to be there's going to be a million of them.
But if it's an awesome project with amazing So I'm not really worried about the supermajority because if it's a great project with awesome public benefit more than likely it's going to be a 50. So I'm not really overly concerned other than you know I get what
you said Lauren that it can be but I mean we've talked about Madera Beach a couple times. I mean, that is a very diverse council over there and they just voted 50 because it was great public benefit and a beautiful project. So,
>> two more things real quick and I I don't hold me to this because I just looked this up on my own today, but I believe that I said that you I think the density needs to be negotiated. Um, I believe St. Pete Beach is 75. I think MadiRaa is 55. I think one of the new hotels, I don't know which one it was up there, is
59. Um, so, um, I mean 85 is way beyond any of these. The the other thing is, and I don't know how we do this, but I think there needs to be some sort of I don't know how I explain this, but
some sort of a committee or some sort of a that's agreed upon who's going to be negotiating these things. I mean, you know, is it going to be Richard Harris? >> No, it's the entire commission. I mean, who's it going to be work? It's the commission. >> Just the commission
>> and staff. I mean, yeah, obviously staff. >> Okay. Then I'm fine with that. >> Does it go through the LPA or first before it comes to us? >> It would because it's a reasonzoning. >> Okay. That's what I thought. Okay. And
I'm fine with that. And the other thing that I last thing I'm going to say, I'll let someone else talk, but again, I may be completely confused here, but I don't understand why we're wasting our time talking about any of this if we're going to somehow pass the um LPA's
recommendation of the the comp plan amendment. I I don't I don't understand. >> I mean, I have no intention of passing the LPA's comp plan that they've put forward as far as that goes. Well, we had an opportunity though to say that we don't want to do that. And now, for
some reason, I thought three of us up here tonight said that we didn't want to because I just don't I feel like we're just wasting our time if that's still hanging out there. >> I stand by the same vote that I or not really vote, but the same that I did the last time that LPA's recommendations. I
I don't know how we have to say that, but >> that I guess we're just no that we're not really interested in adopting. I don't know how we have to say it, but yeah. >> Well, I think we need to find that out because I think three of us have just
said that we don't and then now we're still not getting anywhere. So, is that enough? Is that what you needed to hear from us or >> was the both recommendations the LPA made that Ralph just read or to give the city attorney direction. So, if you don't give him any direction, I would
assume he's not going to do anything. >> I'm not giving any direction. >> That's correct. I agree. All right. Uh, Commissioner Clark, you did a fabulous job of uh, articulating uh, my position on this subject. Uh, uh,
so so I'm not going to have too much to add. I do agree with what we've heard repeatedly from a number of the uh, uh, residents here that, you know, we're so close with this with the, uh, master plan that that some somewhere this needs to get merged. But in in the for the
sake of moving things along and not holding it up, I'm going to go ahead and go through this uh real quickly. And I'm and I will not go through each item. I'll go through the the highlights. But yeah, uh starting with uh section 68411, clarify that PDS are intended only for
exceptional redevelopment, that emphasis on exceptional and the emphasis on measurable public benefits, which is what you've said along. So I I like that. I do like the the uh uh removing the PRMU I'm not the PRU but the RFM30
from it. So I I'm completely in agreement with that. I was curious why you had left out the PRMU core. It seemed like it it should be part of it. So I'm glad to see that back in there. Uh on the height I I'm I'm not quite ready uh to go with the 80T. I would
like to hear uh what the master plan uh people are saying, but I am I am willing to negotiate based on what the what the uh uh master planner comes back with in terms of uh recommendations there. Uh I
also agree with Commissioner Clark on the density. Uh I do think 85 is definitely better than 100. So I appreciate you uh offering that up. Uh but uh but I'd still like to see what m what makes more sense for our community. Uh and and you know when I hear about
the city of St. Pete Beach having a a max of 75 when I see the a recent project up in MadiRaa Beach going through with 58 units I I do think 85 is a bit high. So I would like to to to have some more discussion about that.
in section 68419 the public benefits uh you correctly pointed that out that the this wording the discretionary wording there about may consider uh public benefits I think that should be changed to shall consider public benefits to your point to ensure
that that is a key ingredient in that >> what was that section again >> section on on your handout that you had posted in advance section 68419 >> 419 Uh and then you've heard from a number of
people as well about the supermajority. I agree that that that needs to be scratched from here as uh completely. And two other uh things I would like to see add on. I think uh I think uh Sarah mentioned this one from the get-go and I like I like it. It's where she said
about the public meetings required on the applicant for a PD be uh limited to to residents that are within 500 ft of that. I think that needs to be expanded to anybody any interested parties. >> And I believe that Ralph actually corrected that. He said that uh am I
correct, Ralph, when I asked you that question? Cuz I'm like that's that's not doesn't sound right. >> There was a uh a first a pre a pre-application neighborhood meeting and the neighborhood meeting uh had to regular notice, but also has to be mailed to people within 500 ft. Then
later there's a mailing notice for the public hearings that are held by LPA and by city commission also mailing to 500 ft. You can make that any number that you would like. If you say the whole city, then that's quite a lot of envelopes. >> Yeah. I I I don't think we'd want to
mail it, but we certainly want to make it any part anybody who wants to come and participate in that. >> No, that's of course that's always the way the 500 is just a mailing notice. >> Gotcha. >> That's what I I I cuz when that when Sarah said that, I'm like, is that true? Because I didn't read that. >> 500 may not be far enough. I mean,
that's only five single family lots. So, they're all open to the public. >> You go 1500 ft if you want. >> Okay. And the last uh addition to your recommendations, vice mayor, I'd like uh for the uh commission to consider is adding a clause in there about PDS not
being transible uh with the change in ownership. So if we negotiated PD ownership with the Thunderbird, for example, and they sell out to a new owner, that that that PD that was negotiated with the Thunderbird would not stand. We'd have to go through the
process again. >> Right. >> Okay. Those are those are >> and just to it's funny because I don't know I must have sent you the wrong because I sent out an updated version and on your 68-419
the public benefit literally on the one that I meant to send and I apologize it says replace may consider voluntary provision to language with mandatory measurable public benefit requirement. >> Okay, good. So that's actually and I'll
make sure you guys get that because I I apologize that was my bad >> but um so I think if and I know this you know was definitely not wanting to be discussed but I think it was great
because it gave us all and I feel a chance to see that we're not that far apart. I don't feel I really don't there has I mean yes there's some people that want no change. Yes, there's people that want all change, but I really don't feel
like we're that far apart. And this actually gives me hope and and I'm I'm very happy about it. And I think, you know, there can definitely be some some negotiations. Um, no doubt about it. But
I do think in the next meeting where we have the the reptilus um >> presentation, >> you know, I think if at that time, depending on how that goes, you know, would that give us enough time to make
the ordinance changes to the August 18th meeting for the second reading? >> Yeah. >> Okay. But I definitely I and I didn't mean to if you were going to speak I apologize, mayor. I I just I'm happy. I'm just happy that it went way better than I
thought it was going to and I'm happy about that because I don't really think we're that far apart. >> Sorry, >> I don't think anyone up here is saying that they want zero development. No, >> you're my >> I said I don't think anyone went up here saying your development, but I guess I
guess I'm I'm now questioning how do we go about negotiating this stuff. I mean, to me, that should almost be like in a workshop where we could all sit around and talk and negotiate it. And I know it's going to be, oh, that's that's adding time. And again, again, we're within weeks here now. So, I just don't want to hear
about time anymore. I mean, I think we're all committed here to try to do something. And uh you know I'm just I'm tired of hearing about time. >> But and I do think that at the the next meeting like that was suggested at first that and and um Ardan said you know he'd
rather talk about it now than to make a two-hour meeting then is I think we'll have time definitely at that workshop and I think we need to add that. >> I unfortunately am not going to be here on the fourth but and I want to I I do want to support this but you know >> no I mean if you're not here but I was
just going to say that would give us an opportunity. So, it's a really good thing that we did this today. >> Yeah. >> Well, I'll I'll consider whatever was put together. I mean, I'll take a look at it. Um, I think that uh you know,
this is uh this is what little hokey maybe, but this is uh my wife and I's paradise. You know, we uh we've lived here for 18 years. We moved here in 2008. Um, the reason that I uh wanted to run for office uh being a commissioner
was because we had so much empty land when we moved here. We had the empty land where the Treasure Island Resort is and shortly after we moved here, Gator's property all went to to heck and it was
all done. Um, I'm willing to take a look at it and I I sincerely want to get the best for the for the residents, the best for the city, and we have to know realize that the developers need something to to get there. I do not
want to see all of this community with multi-million dollar homes have a row of Motel sixes all the way down that side of Gulf Boulevard. Uh I want to see something that that we can be proud of.
Um and uh I have a uh a person I know that says, you know, that uh why can't we have nice things? And basically that that kind of contributes to, you know, we are there's we can do a lot of the motel stuff. Um but the hotel stuff, you know, that's going to have restaurants
and bars and a spa and everything else. Uh it's it's going to be difficult for those folks to come in here. First class hotel, you know, with all the glitz and all the everything else. Uh the the nice architecture, you know, but that that's
that's really what it's all about. It's it's really being proud of where we live. Um and and hey, that's this is our paradise, you know, that uh yeah, I've already announced that I'm not going to run for mayor again. Um, but I I
certainly am still going to be in the community and uh so that uh that's kind of what it is. So I'll I'll take a look at it and give it good consideration, but I I think that we need to have something. >> So I just have a quick question to make sure I understand what you're saying. Um
I think you heard almost everyone here. We've already agreed on like 75% of this. >> So you you said you're willing to take a look at it. So, you would still prefer the other PD ordinance that's going to come up on the 18th with no with no no restrictions to height and density?
>> No, you're putting words in my >> No, I'm I'm I'm asking a question. >> I just said I I'm I'm willing to take a look. I mean, I I that's all I can say. You know, it's >> Okay. >> No, that's that's Yeah, that's good. >> Okay. I I wasn't taking it. Now I understand. So, that's why I asked.
>> Okay. >> And and I also one more thing. I mean, I think you were a big proponent of the master planner, so I mean, do you want to hear what they have to say? >> Yes. Oh, absolutely. >> Okay. >> And the whole idea was never to trump the, as I've said from the get-go, this
was to do everything along so that we're ready to go. Once we have that, we are I mean we not we're not going to be ready ready to go, but we're going to be far along. Which is why I wanted to have this conversation because now we don't have to wait until
we hear it and have to go through all this and keep going through this and keep going through this. It's to run in parallel so that we're ready to go and we're not waiting another year after all that comes out. It's always been about running parallel so that we are ready to
go and no matter who it is that's ready to go. Whether it's the Thunderbird, whether it's Shawn, whether it's whomever, we're ready to go. And that's that's what I've been about from day one. So I
um again, I'm very happy about all of this. Um I look forward to August 4th. Um, I am going to, um, look through all this again and then, um, you know, August 4th, even though I know you won't
be here, it'll be a great conversation because we're this much further along where we're starting to come together. And I think that's where we need to be. >> And so, I appreciate the discussion by everybody. >> I I I don't have a problem with it running parallel. Um, so long as the
master plan, some of their input is driven into this and that that's not the way it was headed before. It was get this done before we heard anything from them. And I don't agree with that. >> Well, and I think that again that's where this has come in and I think that's where
um it became a you're a yes for building or a no for building because even though I I I don't disagree that you and Ardan have both, you know, always said, "Well, not like this." But the the problem is
there's never been anything put forward by either one. And I'm not please don't take this as criticism. We're too far along. But I'm just >> No, but we got a PowerPoint up there. >> Is that even though you were like, well, no, not like this. We want guide, we want
guardrails. There's not been any proposals that's been put up for guard rails or what you want to see, you know, any of the any of it. And so I think that's why the presumption of
they're just the no. And so that's why I'm so happy that we had this conversation tonight because now I think the general public can see that we're a heck of a lot closer than we think we are. And that's I love that. So >> thank you for bringing them forward. >> Okay. All right. Let's uh move on. Do we
have any reports from the city manager and city attorney? >> Not this evening. Um, all I have is Commissioner Saison called me today and reminded me that he emailed me and the clerk back in November saying he was going to be in
Alaska this week and he would like an excused absence and as a certified former Florida school superintendent, I recommend we excuse his absence. Let him >> I think we can do that. >> So So moved. >> Yeah. >> All right. Uh, Commissioner reports.
>> Can I actually ask a question real quick around that? Absolutely. >> It seems like a lot of times the rules change around here. So, I just want to make sure that I understand the rules. What I was told by I don't remember which city attorney was. The only way you could ever call into a a meeting to vote remotely is if you had some sort of
emergency. Is that accurate or not? >> That's the way I understand it. And that's the way >> I don't read the rule. Um >> that's the way I understand. >> That's the way I >> I just want that's the way I understand it. And we we talked about this when we did the most recent revisions to the
rules um because Florida law does allow you to participate remotely if you're approved to um appear remotely because of an emergency um by the other commissioners. And then um we decided in
311 remote participation, a commission member seeking to attend all or any part of a meeting via electronic means shall submit his or her request to the presiding officer with as much advanced notice as possible. The presiding
officer is authorized to consult with the city attorney or city manager as needed and to grant or deny their request to appear electronically. If the presiding officer grants the request, the city manager shall ensure the chamber is appropriately equipped to permit audio and video interaction
needed. The presiding officer may permit electronic attendance where a commission member is incapacitated due to injury or illness or hindered by circumstances from physically attaining, but is otherwise able to concentrate and
give his or her attention to the business of the commission. No more than one commission member may attend a meeting electronically at one time. The commission member attending remotely may participate in discussion of the commission and may vote. So that's
that's what we have. >> Yeah. So, I'm glad that we clarified those rules because I know someone sent me something that the commissioner, it's not here, wrote online last night that because he because he wasn't allowed to be here, we're doing backdoor broker deals being orchestrated by us
commissioners and others which likely violate Florida's sunshine law to get a modified PD ordinance approved that doesn't treat everyone fairly and equally. Um, so that that's what was on his commissioner page. Um, and that basically the mayor
wrongfully denied my legal right to to be here to call in. So, as far as I know, that was the rules was that unless it's an emergency, you can't call in. So, I just wanted to clarify that. >> Yep. >> All right. Uh,
>> I'll make it short and sweet. Um, just a reminder, the first master plan meeting on uh Oh, I thought I wrote it down, but anyway, Monday, >> 27th. Yeah. >> Um, it's this Monday. What was that for? It was for
>> resort. >> Resort. Okay. Those resort areas. >> 5:30 to 7:30 in >> 5:30 to 7:30. Thank you. This Monday, >> Monday, July 27th. >> And board seats. We have board seats coming open. Go on my treasure island.org. Check it out. and Phil,
please apply. We can't h if we don't have a good selection of people, then it's it's hard to make choices. So, please consider volunteering. And that's it for me. >> Um, I just want to make correction. I said this room. It's not this room. It's the fifth floor.
>> There's more room up there. Apparently, >> there is. Thank you. >> Yeah. >> Um, Mine's going to be very short. I do have two slides, but it's going to be very short. Um, I I just want to address I've heard a bunch of people up here in
the last two months and I assume it's because of um the governor's, you know, taxing that's going to go into >> Oh, I I just bringing this up because I've heard a lot up here about recently, I assume it's because the governor's property tax thing that's probably going
to pass. Um, that we need to live within our means. We need to cut and trim. I know the mayor said this is our most important budget. I I just want to say I've been talking about this since the day I became an admission commissioner. I showed these slides on 4:15 2025
and this is not Groank, this is not AI, this is not Facebook. This is from our budget document and this shows again talking about millage rates and talking about taxes that from 2019 to 2025,
that's a six-year period, our millage rate went from 3.4 to 3.8. Um the taxable value because of all of our properties went up so much during that time went from 1.8 uh 1.8 billion
to 3.1 billion. Not quite double but almost. The property tax that that we brought in went from 6 million to 11. That is basically double. And and my point here is what do we have to show
for this? We don't have anything. We we have this building that isn't the greatest. We don't have a we don't have a public safety building. We don't have a pump station. We don't have seaw walls. And so you got to wonder what happened to all that money. I believe it
a lot of it was wasted. And I believe a lot of it is because we didn't we didn't tighten our belt. We didn't watch our thing. We hired a bazillion people and we wasted a ton of it on on elevate TI and a bunch of other environmental crap
that we never should have wasted money on. Um and and let me just show you. So in that time frame taxes levied that we we got a 91% increase in the taxes that we took in and we have nothing to show for it. So
my point is when I mentioned this back in 4:15 2025, nobody said a word. I'm not picking on you, John, but you actually wanted to stop me from doing powerpoints and and getting this information out there. And and so my point is, I've been saying
this forever. I'm here. I'm ready. The budget sees it's coming up. Let's tighten our belt and let's get some stuff done. >> That's it. >> I'll pass. I'll pass. >> I like