Good evening and welcome to the regular commission meeting of July 1st, 2000 or 2025. And 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
Sison here. Commissioner Dicki here. Mayor Doctor here. Thank you. All right. Approval of regular and workshop agendas. Do we have any changes or additions? Can I just ask to move my um H8 to H7
and H7 to 88 just flip them so we talk about the trash first? Okay. H seven and eight. One comment though I would like to make is that um
we have two different we have an agenda which is the first meeting and the workshop which uh is the second meeting and um what they're really for is the the agenda is for actionable items something that we're going to take votes
on. Uh the other is the the uh workshop which basically is for an open discussion. There's a lot more flexibility even give and take. There's a lot more flexibility in the workshop than there is in the in the uh the agenda. So I I just wanted to make that
because it looks like we have maybe three or four items that aren't actionable, but they are on the agenda versus the workshop. But for tonight, we'll we'll go ahead and we'll move forward and uh and do that. So all right. So uh we did the move from 7 to 8
and 8 to 7. Anything else? Okay. Proclamations, recognition, certificates, and appreciation. What we do have tonight is uh Charlie Vanzant here in the front row. Uh and he is our candidate for the city manager position.
So Charlie, thanks for being here tonight. Yes, sir. Thank you. Okay. And next we move on to public comments for non-aggenda items. And first Carrie Arbach. Hi everybody. Good evening. And uh first
I want to just say uh thank you to the staff. um they've just been remarkable and helping me out with trash cleanups and um just jumping anytime something needs to be done and taken care of. So, parks and wrecks and public works have just been remarkable. Um reminder that
there are no personal fireworks on 4th of July. We've got three ordinances that cover that. Um really proud that this is our second year and hope to see that uh it's it's as successful as it was last year. Um hopefully the rain stays away.
Um we have 1,200 trash bags stuffed with koozies that 25 volunteers will be out on July 4th handing out to our visitors. And uh in order to hopefully reduce the trash that's left on the beach. And then
on July 5th, right here in this parking lot, I'm having a beach cleanup at 8:30 in the morning. Um, we have a dumpster that's being donated by my friends at Red Mountain Builders and um, so we'll be having as many people who can come out and give us a hand. I've got parking
passes, all of the supplies. Um, and really that's all I have to say. Everybody have a safe forth and thank you for everything. Thank you, Carrie. All right, Andrew Vasy. Uh good evening, Andrew Vasey, District
2. Um I would like to um speak about the Rebuild TI uh committee that has been around for coming up on four months. uh from having discussions with a variety of people. Um this committee
needs either come out into the sunshine and have public meetings that uh everyone can attend or this committee needs to be uh wrapped up and shut down. Um I the uh the rules for these kind of
committees um once they have any kind of advisory role by the sunshine law they have to be out and this committee clearly is bringing forward advisory uh for example the position of a grant
writer as an employee. Then the uh grant writer apparently needed a consultant to help write the grants. So committee brought that out. Uh the committee someway brought out some kind of fire station in the park that's been um
either was out there, now it isn't. Uh those are examples. There are commissioners that cannot attend these meetings because there's one commissioner on this committee. So that bars anybody else from being there because it's not out in the sunshine. It's not like a P&Z meeting or a LPA
meeting where commissioners can show up because of items that are on the agenda. No residents can show up. No uh people who do business can show up at these meetings. And so the residents are
gathering to oppose this. And I'm asking for some kind of action to either either uh put in the sunshine or take it down. And if you don't, then residents that are working together are going to
commence action on the city to push the issue. So, uh, it's in your court at this point. Thank you. Thank you, Robert Bazo. Hi, evening. Robert Vazo. I love Capri.
First, I'd like to say I'm very disappointed that we chose an army guy uh to be our new city manager as a career naval officer. I feel uh we had an air force guy. We got an army guy. Next navy guy. Uh first like to say the permitting permitting seems to be going
smoothly. Lots of work. I mean it's there are tons of uh car trucks working hard on houses. I think that's working pretty well and I think the augmented staffing is is going to be a good idea. I think I know you guys are working on code enforcement. Uh maybe putting some teeth into it. I think it really does
need need some attention. Um they I know they're overworked. They've been pretty nonresponsive and but I understand the workload. So I'm not criticizing them at all. I know it's hard work. Uh but it's important work. It's time to make this this city also more attractive and and
not abandoned. Um and third, I I I do understand that that you know, economic development officer has an important job and a sensitive job and a lot of ongoing um negotiations that are sensitive. I kind I get that. Uh but I've been calling for a while that perhaps she one of these meetings she's on the agenda
and speaks to us a little bit about what's going on. What's the plan? I know some is sensitive. It's it's it's proprietary. I get that. Uh I'd like to know what's going on with uh you know our side of John's Pass. Um 10 obviously 107th 108th. Uh like across the street
uh you know that abandoned hotel there. Um I I know she's got an important job and I do know it's sensitive. I know she's working with companies, but maybe perhaps one of these meetings put on the agenda and have her give us a little bit of an overview of what she's doing and what she sees potentially to bring um
companies back. But again, overall, I think she's probably doing a real good job and uh and and thanks for creating that position. Thank you. Thank you, Robert. Mark Hoey. Uh, good evening, Mark Hoey. District 2,
104th Avenue. I know there'll be some commentary probably later and mayor, to your comment about agenda items that are actually in the workshop. I get it. But I felt compelled to speak and I'd already turned my card in, so I had no choice.
Uh, first off, I'm sure there'll be discussion about the recent receipt of a $1.5 million appropriation grant from the state of Florida uh, earmarked for the public safety project.
And it just made me scratch my head a little bit about that about why it was declared that it is strictly and only for a combined uh, facility. So, I did a little digging and I found the uh local funding
initiative request that was filled out on behalf of Treasure Island. And I guess a couple things come out of it. I'll save some of the other nuggets, but the other part of it was we've had routine discussions both on the dis as
well as off the DAS about funding. Where is the money going to come from the rest of this project? All sorts of ideas, right? So if you look at page two of the funding initiative worksheet on item 10
and one of the questions in that the question number E is what funding stream will be used for ongoing operations and maintenance of this project and it's really what's going to fund this project
that's a pretty generic question we answered municipal general fund oper operating budget funded by ad valorum taxes. There's no mention of borrowing. There's no mention of diverting funds from parking or any other way we do the
you know mayor. We're talking about maybe grants, right? There's all sorts of stuff, but that's not what we told the state when we said we wanted to get $12 million to build this facility. So, I don't know. Just a question in my mind about are we being honest with the state
or is that what you have to do to get money out of Tallahassee? So, thank you. Thank you, Mark. Buzzy Barnett. Chris, I don't want to steal your thunder. I heard you say you're going to talk about trash. In my 40 years in
business, I worked with a lot of national companies and a lot of them had their own distribution centers. And over the years, competitives, technology, whatever, if they weren't big enough to compete with the big boys, and I had some really good friends in the business and they say, "Buzzy, we just, you know, it just
doesn't make sense anymore for us to do it. We can outsource it so much cheaper." So, I guess what I'm asking you as commissioners and mayor is, have we really researched all aspects trash? You know, we all love our police and fire, but have we benchmarked it against
the sheriff's department? Say, "Okay, here's what we're spending and here's what they want to spend." Whether it be trash, permits, whatever. I think as a small town, we've got to be wise and we've got to look at the future and say, "Guys, can we compete with the big boys?" And I
know, you know, on some of those areas, we probably can't. But at least we need to know and we need to put this out there and say, "Okay, here's what it cost for this company to do it. here's what it costs for us to do it. Does it make sense? And then we make a decision and we all live with it and we go on. But I think we've got to, you know, be
transparent and go out and look at it. That's all. Y'all have a great day. Thanks. Thank you, Buzzy. Grant Smith. Good evening, folks. Mayor, commissioners. Um, I just wanted to share some concerns that have arisen uh in discussions I've had with wife and
some neighbors regarding the city's readiness for the upcoming storm season. So, first of all, from a process management perspective, specifically the permitting process, which seemed to be a a source of discernment or or uh dissatisfaction throughout the past few
months. So, when we look at process capability, it refers to the output of a process under normal circumstances. When it's operating normally, it has a capability and it produces so many permits and so many requests. When a
process is subjected to an outside force, external factor, whether we call it an assignable cause or a special cause, it pushes the process out of control. Best practices and process management would mandate that we identify what the source of it is and eliminate it. We can't eliminate
hurricanes. So best practices when you can't eliminate the s the source of special cause variation is that you develop a supplementary process that you can pivot to under those circumstances. This isn't unusual. If you take a hospital for instance when they have a
power interruption they have a process immediately to pivot to restore power. In that instance they have a redundant system because the cost of failure or limited capacity can be measured in human lives. So the cost is justified to have a fully redundant system. That's
not the case probably for Treasure Island or public schools. A teacher doesn't show up for work, you have diminished capacity and the delivery of that. So they have a system where they have substitutes on call that they may reach out to mitigate the effect of the
teacher not showing up and they have that process in place. So my question is, what corrective action and supplementary processes have been designed to mitigate the impact of a hurricane on our process of permitting? I see on the agenda that
we're going to consider adding additional permitting clerks, which adds capacity, but it's still not going to be enough as we learned. So schools have a list of substitutes. Has there been any consideration from a corrective action perspective with our permitting process
to being a bit innovative about this? We have licensed contractors that hold state licenses if they were to submit credentials, meaning insurance documents, licenses, letters of recommendation. Isn't it possible that the city could develop a
list of vetted contractors that could bypass the permitting process in the event of a hurricane and people could get their houses fixed quickly and they could submit the paperwork after the fact? So, what I'm asking is that we be a little bit more creative in looking at
what we're doing with the permitting process in the imminent uh future with another storm. The second thing I'd like to talk about is the communication um from the city specifically to the residents. One of the challenges I saw in the last
hurricane is that there were a great a variety of expectations among our residents. Some people expected everything to be fixed right away. Others were going to wait 6 months before they even filed a permit. Nobody was really very clear on what the process was in terms of mitigating the
impact of this. So what would be really helpful for the citizens and the residents to take responsibility for themselves is if there were some level of communication from the emergency services from the the the commission that basically says in the event of a
magnitude hurricane like Helen, this is what your expectation should be. You should expect to be held off of the island for so many days. You should expect to uh return to diminished services and possibly storm damage. It may be x number of days before you can
file for a permit. If these expectations are set out front, it provides two things. One is it allows the citizens to adequately prepare to take care of themselves. Two is it kind of eliminates a lot of this dissatisfaction and allows the city to take care of the priorities
they've set. rescue, damage assessment, restoration of services, things that clearly we get in the way of when we're in the way of services trying to get this back um under control. So, I would ask that communications come that way the residents, my wife and I choose to
live on Sunset Beach, which is one part of our coastal community. We've grown up here and we realize there's an increased risk of storm surge in a coastal community. Um, we live on what is essentially a sandbar that's going to be decimated by the next storm potentially. We recognize
that. We assume that risk. We elect to stay here. We recognize that we may have to evacuate once, twice, or several times this summer. And it may be for two years or it may be for two days. We freely choose to live here. I don't
think we're necessarily that enlightened relative to to our other residents. Forgive me. But I think that uh with communication we can effectively uh put into place citizens individually the necessary steps to mitigate the effects of a storm. So that's it. Thank you very
much. Darren Brown. Uh good evening commissioners. Darren Brown is of palms. Um, just wanted to, I guess, give you a quote from Nick Deli, uh, from Indian Rocks, our state senator. In the aftermath of a hurricane,
families want to clear out debris and start rebuilding quickly. Those homeowners struggling to put their lives back together after a storm should not have to deal with needless bureaucracy or local governments that want to change the rules and use a disaster to create a
different kind of community through red tape. That's from our state senator. That quote feels like it describes what we are enduring right now. I'm here tonight because we're caught in a situation that directly contradicts
the intent of Senate Bill 180, which went into effect today, which is to reduce burdens on property owners rebuilding after a disaster. Our home was destroyed by Hurricane Helen. After months of working through the permitting process, we secured a
building per permit. We completed our foundation work. On May 23rd, we were stopped and told we needed to we were redirected to the terrain modification manual process. So, we needed to comply with this new process. That was 5 weeks and two days ago. Since then, we've been
in limbo. Our construction materials are sitting on site deteriorating in the sun and the rain that we get every day. And despite being told our resubmission is very close to approval, we're still unable to proceed. Meanwhile, that very regulation that
caused this delay, the TMM, seems to be in direct conflict with Senate Bill 180, which says, let me read section 171 of Senate Bill 180. It is the intent of the legislature to reduce the regulatory and permitting burdens for property owners rebuilding after a natural disaster.
Accordingly, any local government ordinance, rule, or policy adopted after August 1st, 2023 that imposes additional requirements or restrictions is hereby deemed invalid and without effect.
That is the law and his intent is unambiguous to remove unnecessary barriers for those of us that are trying to recover. So, I'm asking you urgently to take action in line with that intent.
Our family and others, probably some are in this room, have already complied and should not be or tried to comply, nearly complied, shouldn't be left out in the dark any longer. We should be able to move forward. Senator Delli said after a storm,
Flidians need a clear path to recovery. We're fighting for families to focus on rebuilding without additional delays or burdens. So now here we are in the heart of hurricane season. September historically is the worst month, at least in our six
years here. So if we don't resume construction immediately, we won't be enclosed and have a roof before September. And that jeopardizes our investment in Treasure Island and in our property. It jeopardizes our safety and
it jeopardizes our family. So please don't let that happen. The state legislature has acted. Now we need the city to do the same. Thank you. Thank you very much, West
Evans. Isa Palms. Uh, everyone's talking serious business. I guess what I have to say isn't that serious, but uh 3 days away from our nation's 249th uh birthday, we could call it where we celebrate our independence. That means
next year is 250 years of independence. And uh a lot of people come to our town to celebrate uh on the July 4th every year. And we have businesses that I'm sure have been hurting since the hurricane.
And hopefully this year um they'll get some good business coming in from our tourists. Uh we know next next year uh there's going to be a lot of big celebrations around the country. And I just wanted to throw out maybe Treasure Island could
focus on some kind of big celebration to try to get people to come. Uh we already get plenty, but I would put my money on the fact that St. Pete probably won't be having a big celebration. Uh Tampa probably won't
have the biggest celebration, but I know the residents of Treasure Island uh are very patriotic and maybe we could show our love for our country and uh get people to visit and spend some money. Just throwing it out there in advance.
Thank you. Thank you, West Ron Dezi. Good evening everyone. My name is Ron Debiazi. Uh tonight I would like to play a recording which discusses city government fiscal responsibility
and states real solutions on saving costs for taxpayers. It states it much clearer than I could explain. So I'd like to play this now. Thank you. The voice isn't working there.
Excuse me one second. I got to get the voice working. free res. Next up, real estate transactions. Instead of homeowners getting slammed with tax bills every single year, we swap it for a onetime 2% fee when a
home's bought or sold. On a $375,000 house, that's $7,500 upfront. But if we split it between the buyer and the seller, it's only $3,750 each. Compare that's paying an average property tax of $5,800 every single
year. That swap alone brings in $135 million annually. Now, let's talk about tourists. Right now, they pay a 6% hotel tax. If we bump that to 8%, that's an extra 36 million a year. That's only $4 more on a $210 a night hotel. Throw in a
simple $1 per night fee and we add another 3.9 million. No one's cancelelling their Florida trip over an extra $5 a night. And this one's one of my favorites. A countyun lottery. sell $5 scratch offs at the beach, online tickets, whatever gets people playing.
If total sales hit 1.5 billion, even after paying out prizes, we're looking at 600 million in revenue. No offense, but if you're paying more than What's going on here? without squeezing homeowners for another dime. Then there's the waste. When Ellis
Countyy's budget is 4.3 billion a year, and you're telling me we can't find 10% in bloat. A simple 10% spending cut saves $330 billion easy. And with Doge coming to Florida, we're about to find out exactly where that waste is hiding.
We've also got county owned land just sitting there that could be leased out for commercial use. Hotels, shops, restaurants, you name it. That alone could bring in 170 million a year. Miami Dade already does this with the Miami Heat Arena. And let's not forget all the
tourism related businesses the county could run itself. Beach parking, shuttles, snack stands. If Penllis ran tourism like a business, 16 million visitors a year could bring in $750 million in profits. Now, let's add it
all up. We got 545 million from sales tax, 135 million from real estate transactions, 39.9 million from hotel taxes, 600 million from the county lottery, 330 million from cutting waste, 170 million from leasing county land,
and 750 million from running a profitable tourism business. That's 2.57 billion right there and right on target. Just like that, property taxes are gone. This system just makes more sense because it's based on what you spend, not what you own. You actually have
control. If money's tight, you cut back on spending. Can't afford a new TV? You don't buy it. But with property taxes, it doesn't matter if you're struggling. Pay up or they're going to take your house. That's a problem. Switching to a consumptionbased tax system means you only get tax when you actually spend
money, not just for owning a home. And remember, in Florida, there's no sales tax on groceries, prescriptions, or certain baby products. So, the essentials wouldn't cost you a dime more. Now, listen. They're not going to want to give up property taxes without a fight. Local governments love them
because it's like a guaranteed paycheck that never stops. Every single year, they rake in billions, and they don't want that to change. So, of course, they're going to try to scare us into thinking this could never work. And I guarantee there are people in the comments right now saying the same
thing. Property taxes are necessary. The government can't run without them. That's because they've been told that their whole lives. The truth is, government doesn't want to change because it's way easier to keep pulling money from homeowners than it is to actually fix wasteful spending. They've been running things this way for so
long, they don't want to admit there might be a better way. They'll say eliminating property taxes is impossible, but the reality is they just don't want to give up control. Remember this. The Boston Tea Party happened because our forefathers were so fed up, they refused to pay the king of England
just a few extra cents per pound of tea, a few cents. And now we hand over more than 50 lifetime income to taxes. I like driving on smooth. I know I'll hear about this uh tonight and all next week that uh but uh I'm trying to be
transparent as I can be and if uh if he wants to work it this way, he can work it this way. So, so thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. If anybody wants All right. So that uh this item our public comment is closed and uh we'll be moving on
to our next item. All right. Approval of minutes. All right. I move to approve the minutes of April 1st, 2025, regular and workshop meetings, March 7th, 2023 regular and
workshop meetings and the May 2nd, 2023 regular and workshop meetings. Second. We have a motion, a second. Is there any comment? All right.
Um, so we need to approve those. So, roll call, please. Mayor, you don't have to do roll call vote for this. Okay. You can just do the voice vote. We're going to move to the voice vote.
This is our first time that we'll actually do this. So, all those in favor say I. I. I. Opposed. All right. Unanimous. Thank you very much. Okay. Now we're moving on to the consent
agenda. We have a motion. I move to approve the consent agenda as is. I second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Uh do we have any comments? Any public comments?
Thank you. We'll close public comments and uh once again uh voice please. All in favor? I I I opposed. None. All right,
moving on. First item is a motion to accept donation from Red Mountain Builders LLC to assist the city with solid waste collection over the July 4th weekend. I don't know if there's anybody presenting that or not.
I'm guessing Gary. Gary. Thank you, Gary. Oh, yeah. There it is. Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, commissioners. Gary Volen, director of public works. We were contacted by the
owners of Red Bu Red Mountain Builders uh to help out with the uh um trash pickup during July 4th weekend. they volunteered to uh not only furnish us with a 20-yard uh dumpster, but also to uh to haul it away and pay the tipping
fees. So, this is something that uh we really appreciate uh their participation with the city on this. Uh we've located a um a spot in the uh Gulfront parking lot there that's out of the way that they'll be able to use and it'll facilitate trash removal during the uh
weekend. Thank you. All right. I move to accept the donation from Red Mountain Builders LLC to assist the city over the July 4th weekend by furnishing the use and collection of a 20-yard dumpster to keep the beach
clean. I second. We have a motion and a second. Any additional discussion? Any public comment? Hearing none, we'll close public comment. Uh, all in favor
say I. I. I. I. All right. Unanimous. We'll move on. Maybe we could do it like ac cappella. Go down the hall. We could try. Uh, first reading of ordinance 2025-08
amending chapter 65 impact fees. If I may introduce Ford Penelis and bring you up to speeds. So the city amended our comp plan in 2024 adding multimodal fees. This is just an extension of phase one of our LDR U
modifications. We were approached by Ford Pelis as part of a arrangement and interlocal agreement to join the county and becoming updated. So they're here to do a presentation and provide additional information regarding those fees. Great.
Thank you. Sorry, Rodney and Nicole. No problem. Thank you, Bobby. Yeah, we're gonna ask, do you need to read that ordinance title before they go or uh after? We can do at the end. It's fine. Just has to be read at some point before they move to the
second reading. Uh, good evening, mayor and commissioners. My name is Rodney Chapman. I'm the division manager at Fort Penels, and with me tonight is Nicole Galasso. She is our principal planner and project manager for this project. Uh before I turn the floor over
to Nicole, when we often go out to communities, uh I have to give a little bit of a primer on who we are and what we do. Uh because when folks hear Penllis in our name, they think that we are Penelis County. And as a matter of fact, we are not Penllis County. We are a independent agency that was
established back in the 1960s to help communities address local challenges. Given that we have 25 local governments here in Penllis County, uh we have a 19 member board much like yours that oversees our work program and our initiatives. Uh the beach communities
are represented through the big sea and uh currently uh Mayor Will and uh from Readington Beach is your representative. Uh, one of the other things that we do is provide local assistance to our
cities to help meet certain challenges or requirements. And that's in the that's why we're here tonight. Uh, we're here tonight because the legislature last year passed House Bill 479. And that bill pushed down a series of
mandates that local governments have to comply with. And one of the things that is included in that in that bill is that when there is a county impact fee or transportation impact fee ordinance that governs local governments, cities for
example, that there has to be an interlocal agreement between panels county and the cities to ensure that developers aren't double charged, meaning the county charges a fee and then the city comes along and then charges an additional fee for that same transportation impact. So with that, um,
I'll go ahead and turn it over to Nicole and she can walk you through the rest of the presentation. Thanks. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Nicole Galasso and as Rodney said, I'm a principal planner with Forward Penelis. So I'm here to talk to you tonight about
the contents of the countywide multimodal impact fee ordinance. And why this relates to you is because the ordinance before you that's going to first reading tonight essentially just references the countywide ordinance. So I'm here to provide detail on what you
would be adopting into your land development regulations and also answer any questions that you might have. The interlocal agreement that we're referring to would be something that should you um decide to move forward
with the ordinance that's before you tonight and adopt it at your subsequent city commission meeting, uh you would also have to sign this interlocal agreement in order to be compliant with state law. So to give you a little bit of
background, in July of 2024, Penllis County designated responsibility to forward Penllis to manage the update to our countywide multimmoal impact fee ordinance. And a primary objective of
that update was to be in compliance with new state law um as codified by House Bill 479 like Rodney said. And one of those statutory requirements is that where a county and municipality charge a
mobility impact fee, they must have this interlocal agreement in place to ensure that new development and redevelopment is not charged twice for the same transportation impacts. So I have copy and pasted the Florida
statutes um verbatim. We don't have to read them word for word. This clause is essentially saying what what I just said about um a county and municipality need to have this interlocal agreement in place. The interlocal agreement must at minimum
contain these four provisions all of which are already addressed through the countywide multimotal impact fee ordinance. So, the interlocal agreement that you would sign should you choose to adopt um the changes to your
chapter 65 and reference the countywide ordinance uh already addresses all of these items contained within the state statutes. And what happens if you don't uh sign
the interlocal agreement? Will the state statutes provide guidelines that say any mobility fees that are collected by the city would be determined by a developer's traffic impact study. You would have to give an automatic 10%
discount to the developer. Um, and there would also be some changes to how you would share those revenues between yourself and the county to account for impacts to the city's transportation network as well as the countywide transportation network.
So, uh, to give you background on the actual countywide multimmoal impact fee ordinance, um, as I mentioned, it already addresses many of those items and I'll go into them in detail now. So, uh, to begin, the countywide
multimmoal impact fee ordinance is something that's actually been in place since 1986 when it was under the name of transportation concurrency. Um, but in 2011 when the state repealed transportation concurrency requirements, um, it brought our countywide
transportation concurrency system out of date. And so we created the new countywide ordinance that is before you tonight um which was adopted in 2016. And currently all 25 local governments
are party to that countywide multimmodal impact fee ordinance. Of course, some um like like yourselves, like the city of Treasure Island, haven't had a chance to actually formally acknowledge it within um their land development regulations or code of ordinances due to the need to
update comprehensive plans and um you know, similar situations. So, uh, but just so you all know, all of the other municipalities besides the few who are in a position like yourselves have been using the countywide multimotal impact fee ordinance to collect multimodal
impact fees um and continue to do so. So, uh, if you were to adopt the countywide multimodal impact fee program, who would be paying these impact fees? Well, uh that would be developers or anybody who's coming to
the city uh for a land development permit or change of use permit that will generate additional traffic. So any alteration, expansion or redevelopment that would not generate additional traffic would not need to pay this
impact fee. And the fee would be collected by the city uh as part of its normal building and permitting processes. And the countywide ordinance states that no building permit or certificate of occupancy can be issued until this fee
is paid, which is pretty typical of all the fees that come along with applying and issuing a development permit. The fee is calculated based on a formula that's contained within section 150-40
of the countywide ordinance. and it considers various variables um in its calculation. But I want to touch a little bit specifically on the change of use or redevelopment situation because I think that's most relevant to the city.
So because the impact fee is based on the net increase in traffic that a development would generate, um a single family home redevelopment would not be paying this impact fee if it's of a similar size. Um, now if you're
rebuilding your single family home of a home that's a much larger size, um, there would be a very moderate fee, less than $400 assessed to that dwelling unit. Now, let's say you have a single family home that you're redeveloping
into a hotel or an apartment building. So, that's a situation where there would be additional traffic generated by that redevelopment. And in that case, that applicant looking for that development permit would pay the fee based on the
net increase. So you would subtract out uh whatever the the fee would have been before for the previous use and just charge them the difference between that and whatever the new use would be. Um and I'm happy to uh go through a few
more examples that might be relevant to you at the end of this presentation if needed. Uh the fee payer can also opt to have their fee calculated based on their independent fee study. And the city administrator or whomever you designate responsibility to administer this
program would have full authority to grant alternative methods for fee calculation and they would also be able to accept the construction of a mobility improvement in lie of paying the fee. Um, so while this is a countywide
ordinance since you all if if you choose to adopt it, it would uh be recognized by your land development regulations, there's authority granted to the city to make some of its own, you know, decisions at your discretion. And so what happens to those fees once
they're collected? What is the city going to do with them? So you would hold the fees until the end of the fiscal year. And then at the beginning of the new fiscal year, you keep 1/ half of all the fees plus 4% for administrative
costs of administering the fee program. And then you would remit the other 1/ half plus interest accured to the county, Panelis County, and then the county would deposit those funds into a trust account that's established with
the fee district that you are a part of. So, Treasure Island is part of fee district, let's see if I can get this, feed district 12. You share this district with the city of St. Pete Beach and a small portion of unincorporated
county in Tiier Verde. So, all of that is to say that once you once you've collected those fees and the start of the new fiscal year allows you to start programming those fees to fund transportation improvements, those can be used on any
transportation improvement within the city for the share that you all keep. for the share that's remitted to the county. They can use those funds in any area of that fee district 12.
Now, there are instances where if you all have identified a mobility project that you really want to move forward, you can ask the county to work with you, give back the portion of the fees that you've remitted to them to help fund
that particular transportation improvement that you have in mind. It just takes a little bit of extra coordination, but it's certainly something that's been done um by several other municipalities throughout the county. And what types of transportation
projects can you fund? You can basically use these fees towards any sort of transportation project or plan um that will improve the capacity of the transportation network. That includes bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure,
public transportation infrastructure, of course, your typical roadway expansions or modifications. um technology that optimizes traffic flow such as um signal timing improvements and you can also use it towards the preparation of
transportation plans as long as you program at least one project into your CIP within three years of the plan's completion. So, um that's a a pretty low bar. The only thing it really can't be used on is periodic maintenance or operating costs.
We've received some questions from other municipalities regarding how much money the county has collected um in those 13 fee districts that I flashed up on the map. And so since 2016 uh when the current uh ordinance was adopted,
they've collected just over 18.5 million across the 13 districts. And you can see here that the districts where they've collected the most money have been St. Pete, Panellis Park, Clearwater, Largo are larger cities that see more
redevelopment. Um, and here in district 12 where you guys are, um, they've collected just under 400,000, uh, almost twothirds of which have been from the unincorporated portion. So, um, unsurprisingly because
you all haven't really been collecting fees under the ordinance and there's very little redevelopment happening in St. Pete Beach. Um, but that said, you've still reaped some of the benefits of those multimodal impact fees. Um, because the county has
spent those revenues across 36 projects between 2018 and present. um most of which are roadway improvements and advanced traffic management systems or signal timing CCTV improvements.
And an example of that is so like I mentioned you all haven't necessarily been collecting these impact fees but um the Gulf Boulevard ATMS improvements which included signal timing and video analytics were partially funded by the
um multimmoal impact fee revenues collected within district 12. Um and then another project the county has spent the money on in your district has been the Madonna Boulevard bridge replacement. And so in some um the interlocal agreement that will be before you at the
next meeting will ensure compliance with those state statutes that I presented earlier. Um but that said, it really only makes sense to approve that interlocal agreement if you decide to adopt the countywide multimodal impact
fee ordinance into your land development regulations. Um and that interlocal agreement that will be before you would not make any changes to the content that I've presented here today. Uh but I do just want to mention we are doing an
update to that countywide ordinance. It just unfortunately won't be ready by that Octo October one deadline. Um, but that being said, there will be many opportunities over the next 12- 14 months if you decide to adopt the
countywide impact fee program to um talk with us about things that you would like to see changed or reflected within that ordinance. And so this is really more to to guide you um at your next meeting should you decide to adopt the countywide impact
fee program. um your paths forward would be to approve the interlocal agreement as it is. To not do that um and have your city attorney work with the county attorney's office to work out some sort of alternative agreement if you still
want to collect impact fees. Um or of course if if there aren't if there isn't an interlocal agreement in place and you decide to not adopt the countywide program, well then um you would just continue not collecting multimodal impact fees.
And with that, I am happy to take any questions or discussion that you might have. I have a question. Um, the Senate Bill 180 that Mr. Brown um just read a few parts from today. I tried to read as much of that as I could today and I know
there was a whole section in there about impact fees. So, especially along the coast here. So, is that going to have any any effect on any of this? Um, I I have not read all of the contents of Senate Bill 180, so you're ahead of me
on that. Um, I would probably want to defer that question to your city attorney. Uh, well, the ordinance is before, so it's everything that passed one year after hurricane. This ordinance is before, so my preliminary answer is no, but you probably have a little more information on that. No, I would agree.
This ordinance passed prior to August of 2024, so it wouldn't be impacted by Senate Bill 80. based on that language, but I'm not an attorney. Just curious. Yeah. Now, if we didn't do something, didn't you mention
something about a 10% fee or discount or So, according to the state statutes, um you you would have to have a local impact fee program in place um to even be, you know, giving that sort of
discount to developers. So with in the absence of a local transportation or multimmoal impact fee program, um it's uncertain whether those statutory requirements that I presented would even be applicable to the city. I'm not I'm
not sure if the city attorney might have an opinion on that. Um yeah, well that's a different scenario. I think the biggest thing is correct me if I'm wrong on the history here. The county had it's a charter county. You guys have a topheavy county. You know,
obviously it's law is controlling. You guys were part of it. Then the county updated the ordinance and now they're coming back asking you to just do to basically go back to the posture you're already at. Before they amended their ordinance and now they're coming and saying you have to do it. The city was
conjoined with the county and these impact fees and then they changed their ordinance. Now they're saying, "Hey, we changed it. You need to update it to conform to us." Um, so to answer that question would be to say if you pulled out, if you pulled out, the county still has the authority to assess the impact
fees though, don't they? I believe that would be for the transportation impacts to the to the county transportation network in this instance. So they would be paying the county and not us
potentially. Yes. Does anybody have any other questions? I I did omit that this came before this came before the LPA and it was voted out 7 to zero. It was unanimous. I think Mr. Harris is here. Yep. You can represent that. 7 to zero.
Am I correct? You are correct. Well, I remember when I got sworn in, you know, all the commissioners said that we're prodevelopment, but any impact fees is not prodevelopment. So, I mean, I had a workshop item for today's
agenda about impact fees for that would benefit Treasure Island. Um, and when I come back from vacation, I see this on the agenda. and you know would have been nice for city staff to let me know um that this was already being worked on.
Um I would say no to this one and let's explore impact fees for Treasure Island where all the fees stay here. But that's my two cents. I just have some uh questions. How many municipalities in uh Panellis County
participate in this interlocal agreement with the county? All 24 including if you include unincorporated county it would be 25 local governments. So the treasure island's already participating in this. I think the um the terms of your
engagement are a bit unclear just because of the um the countywide ordinance making your land development regulations out of date. It's un I'm not sure whether you all have been collecting multimodal impact fees um as
of recent. I don't believe you have. We have not collected multimodal fees. Okay. So, these would be new fees that that would be charged. Uh my biggest question was uh this this is a pretty fairly complicated subject. At least it is for me. I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I would have liked to
seen this gone to a workshop where we had more time to talk about it, think about it, see what the real impact is on residents and businesses before we before we voted on it. Nicole, what is the the deadline for a
decision to be part of interlocal? So, we are bringing the interlocal agreement to the board of county commissioners on August 5th, so end of the month. This was one of those situations where when we were charged with updating the
multimodal impact fee ordinance and learned about these new statutory requirements, we immediately went to the county attorney's office and asked, is there an interlocal agreement in place to, you know, kind of memorialize this
countywide ordinance since it was adopted in 2016? And the answer was was no. And so we drafted the interlocal agreement and in doing so briefed all of the municipalities that would be party
to that interlocal agreement. And in the course of those briefings, we learned some things such as that some cities haven't actually been um assessing or collecting those multimodal impact fees even though um you know to the county's knowledge everyone was following the
ordinance because there's nothing on record that necessarily says otherwise. And and as the city attorney mentioned, at one time you did, but then when those transportation concurrency requirements changed, um some cross references changed, your local ordinance became out
of date, and then it just took a while to up, you know, to update it. Um so you could continue to follow the countywide program. You're not the only ones in this position. Um there's another beach community that realized they actually developed a local impact fee program
that maybe wasn't even necessary because um this countywide program existed. So I just want to, you know, make it clear that this this isn't something that we're trying to slide in at the last minute. And I sympathize with you, Commissioner. This was a complicated
topic for me to wrap my head around as well. Um, but we are on that tight timeline now. Is there any public comments? Because I'd like to make a motion. I want to Well, let's go ahead and make the motion. I'd like to make a motion and table this onto a future
workshop or another agenda commission to discuss in the sunshine. I second. Okay, we have a motion to end a second. Any discussion?
Um I I I think that uh my discussion will be that uh you know that it takes two ordinances. This is the first ordinance uh to go through. First reading. First reading. I'm sorry. Yes. So I uh I would prefer that we uh get
feedback from a a much larger audience. I know we'll have some feedback from the folks that are here, but from a much larger audience, which basically says that we will have two weeks to decide, you know, and talk to people and then come back and vote it either up or down.
But right now, if you table it or anything, it basically we're going to miss the the deadline on August 5th. And I would I would agree with that. That was what I was going to say beforehand is I think because this is a first reading um it gives us an opportunity I
mean we're not passing it does give us an opportunity to get out and talk to people and and see what the impact I did want to ask if um if I may um do we know or do you have the number on how many municipalities have updated and actually
that you've presented to that are I mean I know you said everyone but us but does that mean they're all update. I know you said one other beach community wasn't, but do you happen to know um how many have already voted it in the modification? So, seven of them already
have interlocal agreements in place. Eight have approved the interlocal agreement that would be before you at second reading of your ordinance. And the other what is what am I left with? Another seven. the other seven um have
have meetings throughout this month. Okay. So, everybody has it scheduled in to be in front of their council or commission at this time and the only other beach community is, you know, working with their city attorney and the county attorney's office to ensure there
are no conflicts. um which all that might mean is that they might need a separate interlocal agreement that has reference to their local impact fee program that they adopted a few years back. But everybody else is continuing with the countywide multimodal impact
fee system. One more comment if I may. I mean a $400 impact fee bill to a resident who has a stop work order or who uh have has trouble getting permits, that's a slap in the face. So, so I do just want to reiterate that that would
only be if they're increasing the size of their home substantially. Um, and also what do you mean by substantially? Because if a house is built on grade, you're going to have to raise the house and you're not going to build a smaller house. So, I mean, I'm I'm not that
smart, but I know that any fee at at any cost is still a slap in the face when you don't have a permit or you're running into the problems as the gentleman described. Sure. Well, I'm happy to address the first part of your
question. So, the fees per unit for a residential use um are tiered into 0 to,500 square ft. 1,5001s to 2,499 square f feet and 2500 square f feet and
over. So you'd only be paying a fee if you're moving up a bracket. But however, um I do want to point out the provision in the countywide ordinance that gives the city authority to approve alternative fee calculations. Um, and I
think you also have some discretion to decide what counts as that actual residential floor area. I would think that the non-habitable floor area that results from elevating your building would not be included in the calculation of your residential square footage. But
of course, that that would be a, you know, a decision that would be up to whoever's reviewing these development permits. It also wouldn't apply to any development permits that are already in process or in place before the time that you adopt.
So, if a gentleman who has a home on the 104th Avenue who uh to tore down the house that's 2,000 ft and he builds back 5,374 ft, what kind of impact fee is he looking at? I'm sorry. Could you say the first number again? I'm sorry. 2,200 ft²
built on grade and then rebuilds a home that's 5,375 ft. What's his impact fee? 5,000 square ft of habitable floor space. Absolutely. So the impact fee there would be $390. All right. So if he's having a hard time
getting a permit and has a stop work order and can't get back into his home, is that something that how do we collect on that? I would say that would ultimately be up to the city's discretion, but of course there are pathways that you all could take to
potentially pause the collection of impact fees in that very specific situation. Thank you. Okay, anybody else? We'll move on to public comment. Yeah, we're going to move on to public comment. So, thank
you. Please come up. Rank. I live in Largo, but I am your reporter for the Gabber and normally I don't speak, but I've been paying close attention. Cara Sims mentioned impact fees what last meeting or the meeting before last. And she mentioned the
impact fees affecting more than just transportation. And I just think it might be something to look at. Like if you can only use the payments from these fees in transportation and not like uh infrastructure, that might be something
to look at. Um and also she also mentioned possibly working it as a portion of what the permit fee would have been. She had said an example about 200,000 and instead of it being just 200,000 of permit fees, it was like 150 and then like 50 in permit fees for this
large development that she said. It is nerve-wracking being up here, but that's just something that I thought of. I just feel like you guys might want to think about that moving forward. Thank you. Is that the case that it's only valid for uh for transportation? Transportation
infrastructure. Transportation infrastructure. Infrastructure. Yes. So any kind of infrastructure related not not for like sewers or anything else. I Yeah, I think it's limited to just transportation. There you go. Correct. Mayor, if I could um you I I would reach
out to Miss Sims. She sits on the PNZ and she was one of the seven that voted for it. I can't speak to why she did, but that might be helpful in getting some clarity. Richard. Oh, thank you. Good afternoon, commissioners. Richard
Harris, uh 374 Bay Plaza and also the chairman of the planning and zoning board. Uh transportation impact fees been around for 25 years, long time. And when we had our presentation, it was very good. The main thing that we
focused on was if you tear down a house and build an equaliz house, your impact fees are zero. I was using Arthur's hotel as a example. say his hotel was destroyed or the Thunderbird the Thunderbird is coming down 106 units um
replaced by 106 units their transportation multimmoal impact fees will be zero so we focused on that mostly and once I we approved it 7 to nothing and then I got several phone calls and said well you know that's all well and good Richard except for we just
got kicked in the teeth by two hurricanes this is a really bad timing I couldn't help but agree. And so I said, "Okay, how can we participate in this but still give a break to everybody who is rebuilding their houses to people
like the downtown area who we want to promote and encourage the redevelopment of our downtown area or our central business district, any hotel that's going to come down." And the main thing that came back to me was
I remember I did a subdivision in 1989 and we were paying $1686 per lot for transportation impact fees. But this is unique situation because of what happened to Treasure Island. We got kicked in the teeth by two hurricanes.
It just gave me the impression after talking to several people is, you know, you're kicking us in the teeth with another fee. uh say I want to spend a lot of money on my house and having a hard time, but I do up upsize a little bit. You're going to hit me for $400."
And I said, "Yeah, that is kind of a situation cuz initially you weren't planning to rebuild your house. You kind of have to because it was destroyed in the storm." So my solution and what I recommend personally, not part of the L
LPA is a moratorum. you know, go ahead and approve the agreement, but put a moratorum on the collection of impact fees if we can for a a number of years to give the uh people who've really
taken a hit the ability to uh build their homes back or their shopping centers back or their hotels back without an additional fee. Um I just think that that would be a good way forward. Thank you. going to ask the folks at presentation,
do we have that ability just as he said the kind of put a moratorum on it? And so um I I was trying to get at that earlier. It would be potentially an action you could consider um to put a pause on on collecting this multimodal
impact fee for whatever situations you define as, you know, necessitating that pause. But I would ultimately defer to your city attorney of course to make sure that you know that's within the bounds of state law. Nicole, what about
a commercial property? Uh using the Cambria and the Deer Beach for example before it was storefront uh you know built on grade storefront and now it's 125 hotel uh 25 125 room hotel. What would the impacts be if be for a
commercial property? Um, I will not be able to calculate all of that for you right up here, but I can tell you just what the flat rate is per um, hotel unit. So, per hotel room, it is a fee of $1,378.
So, if that previous development had no hotel rooms, let's say, let's forget the retail component. Let's say that was the exact same square footage, same use. Um, let's say they're only paying on that net increase in traffic generated by the
hotel component. It would equal $1,378 per unit. So, $1,00 how much? $1,378 per unit. And I do just want to mention that again, these fees $172,250.
I'll believe your calculator. I didn't also do the calculation. That's one hell of a anti-development impact fee. So, you really think so? I mean, that little storefront that uh was was pulling in, you know, revenue of
maybe, you know, $400,000 in that whole storefront and now the revenue that the hotel that withund and some rooms. Uh, okay. Well, how about uh you know an impact fee for the city of Treasure Island that goes straight to
our coffers and not to Panel County. We don't have that ability. Well, it was on the workshop. I put on the workshop to discuss, but you know, let's just approve and impact everyone. Yeah, we are we are one of those counties that uh
goes No, we are one of the counties that their charter basically controls the cities. And that's what we're trying to get to as we're trying to get back to the LDRs and be on on the same as everybody else is, which is is really
what the countyy's telling us we need to do. It's going to be a long two years. it it uh it sounded like there were alternative options if we didn't improve this that on that one slide they there
were alternative options. It wasn't like you had you know the county's telling you you have to do this. They're saying if you don't here's some some other things you can do if I read that correctly. Okay. Yeah, we're still in the public.
So come on up. Oh, sorry. West, I'll grab you next. Sorry, guy. Um, Barb Adams, Is of Palms. I mean, just a thought like if if you're a single family home and you've been trashed and you're going to raise your house, you're going to rebuild it,
you're going to go through that process. I don't think that should you should have an impact fee on that because your cars are going to be the same. If you're going to take that piece of property that you have and turn it into a forplex, rent it out, have multiple family units in that property, then you
are going to have additional traffic. And then I think you're talking about a whole different animal. But I I think single family homes, if you go from 1,800 square feet to 2,800 square feet because you're, you know, changing your
what you're doing, I I don't see how that's going to impact um the roads or anything. Um just a thought. Yep. West West Evans Isa Palms. Actually, I was going to say exactly what Barb said. Um
I understand if someone's tearing down a commercial building and they're doing five stories on top of it. Obviously, there's more uh impact, but a single family home is still a single family home. has the same impact it had before it was wiped out, before it was torn
down. Whether that person chooses to put uh build a three-story home or a twostory home, it's still a single family home. They still have the same amount of cars, the same amount of people. Uh even if they put 10 bathrooms in their house, uh they're still only
flushing them so many times. So, uh to put these impact fees on a residential home is uh it doesn't make sense. And I also like to say, you know, right now it might be interpreted as uh uh you know,
it won't be added to the non-living space if it's lifted, but we all know how government works once uh something's out there. They might change your mind and suddenly we're all paying a little more. So, I would just say be careful with all that. But thank you, Attorney
Anthony. Did we come to a conclusion? Can we put a pause on? Yes, you can do a pause. You can wave. you can do a moratorum while also adopting and coming into compliance with the county code and we would put that into the ordinance tonight if we were to so tonight's first
reading so technically we're just back we can amend it well what I would suggest is you just pass it and then you do a separate resolution saying we're staying this staying it pausing it until a period of time we're not going to enforce it immediately uh until you come up with some contours
of when and that would be at the second reading correct Okay. Yeah. Be a separate resolution. Okay. Uh, yes. Uh, yep. Come on up, Rick. I know that, uh, I got Mr. Bazo as well.
Rick Matthew, District Three. I'm a little confused. What are we passing that we don't understand? I mean, let let's pause this. I mean, I sat and I listened intently. I I don't know what it is and I'm not sure any of the commissioners do. So why I wouldn't pass
I wouldn't sign my name to anything I don't understand. Thank you. Yeah. If I could just say one thing, there's no vote tonight. So no one's passing it. You you're just you're learning about it, discussing it, and then two weeks from now when it comes back up, you can then TP it. You can temporarily postpone
it again if you would like or pass it. So don't think that there's some pressure to act tonight because there's actually no formal action. Okay. So, but this is an ordinance, correct? This is an ordinance. So, we would have to have two readings after this. Well, this is the first reading.
It's just being read literally. That's all it is. Just on the workshop. So, there's a process, right? And we're I don't know. There is. There's not a process. You've not followed it a couple of times, but it's time not to follow a
process. I think Excuse me if I could. I think the purpose of this discussion is to have that open form. But, you know, wearing my CDD director hat, we are open to have those conversations about what compromises you want to make. We are in
the process of moving forward with our LDR. So, now is the time to have that conversation. It's the perfect time to have that conversation. Um, our door is open. I'd be satisfied with a moratorum for 25 years.
I'll bet you would. Mr. Basel. And if I could, you just you need to make I call action in order to move it to the second reading. That That's the only action you need to take. I reclaim my time. No, just kidding. Uh
Robert Bazo, I've I've seen a lot on TV. I love that line. I reclaim my time. Uh Robert Bazo. Um beautiful. I I love Capri. I'm a simple military guy. Um, to me, common sense works. Um, I came from rural Maryland where land has to be perked for and you can't build
a house. The perking of the land uh dictates how many bathrooms you have in your house. Understand that. That makes sense. Okay. You're using well water. It's a certain depth, certain quality, certain volume determines the number of bathrooms. I get that. Um, it doesn't
make sense to this simple military mind of mine. Uh, and I'm sure the new city manager would agree that um, if you have if you have a house, a place, you have a house, it's it's it's sucking up certain number of resources. Um, you tear that
house down, you build another house, I don't care if it's 6,000 square feet, you're not sucking up any more resources. What impact are you having on the city of Treasure Island or the county of Panellis? You're not using any
more electricity. You're not using more water. You're not using the roads anymore. You don't have any more cars. Cars. What if uh you know I get a a electric car? What if I get a bicycle? Uh do I get a do I get a refund? I mean,
what if I tear my house down and I make it into a nice little plot of land? Uh do I get a refund? I'm not sucking up anything and I'm living in an Airbnb in Clear Water. I don't think I get any any money back. I I do think and I agree with Arthur and and business people who
say um this is kind of ownorous and we need to be prodevelopment and reach a stage where again uh private public partnerships and maybe take this off the table um and encourage development and maybe we pay the impact fee but let's
just think outside the box common sense and this doesn't seem to be um common sense to me so let's uh let's think about it. Thanks. With a bigger house, you could have bigger parties though and maybe use more water, more more buses bringing the
guests. Get a bigger water. Okay, we're going to close public comment right now. Uh so what we have is a motion to table. Correct. And a second. And so uh we're going to need to take a vote on that.
Correct. Yep. You'd have to vote on that. Okay. Yeah. Uh, please call roll. Um, sorry. Commissioner Sison, I. Commissioner Dicki, I. Commissioner Clark, I. Vice
Mayor Vasquez, nay. Mayor Doctor, nay. Okay. So, that's been tabled. And, uh, so I guess we move on to the next item. I I would only ask um the city attorney if you want to meet the deadline to meet the interlocal
agreement if that would require a special meeting because of the time the number of meetings that are set. I I'm not sure. Yeah, looking at the amount of days and the dates that they provided, it would require a special meeting if you wanted to go forth, but seems to me like this is a pretty big
topic and so therefore a lot of research and input needs to go in. There's no we don't need to rush it. So, okay. Thank you. Especially considering the fact that seems the commission actually probably doesn't even want to impact fees. So,
I'm just letting you know making aware of the timeline. That's all right. Moving on. Ordinance uh number 20250 budget amendment to recognize the sale of a seized truck by the police department to the parks and recreation department.
Hi, good evening. Uh, back in May, our police department seized a drug dealer. It was a vehicle. U was arrested. Uh, the truck was impounded. Um, the
the perpetrator was dealing in drugs and trafficking. So, so way to go. got them off the street, but we still have a truck. And normally they normally they would they would just
wholesale it out, but at the same time Kathy over in Parks and Wreck had need of a truck. It was in her budget anyway. And so we decided to sell the truck from the police over to parks and wreck. The fair value, they probably would have
gotten about $28,000 from it. So, there's a lot of accounting in this thing, but the the upshot of it all, police is selling the vehicle to parks and wreck, and the police will have $28,000
added to their budget for them to spend on education or other needs. Great. Thank you. Does anybody have any I I have a couple of questions. Uh, from what I heard you say, this will replace an existing older model truck
that we have right now. This isn't a new truck that we're going to add to our inventory. Is that correct? It's a used truck. Yeah, I know that. But it's not. Is it replacing something? Yeah. So, so let me make up a number here. Let's say we have 20 trucks. You can speak volumes on the old truck. Okay. We have 20
trucks right now. Is this going to mean we're going to have 21 trucks or we're going to we'll likely retire the old truck, but Okay. Okay. Yes. It replaces vehicle 589 which needs $18,000 in repairs. Very good. And you did
mention that it was uh it's been bud budgeted to replace that vehicle. $35,000 budgeted. We've received two quotes, one for 40,350, one for 41,900 and something. So 28,000 is a a good
deal and it's a good truck. Okay. Good. All right. Thank you. Anything else? Any public comment? Any public comment? Hearing none, we'll close public comment.
Uh motion, please. I move to approve ordinance number 2025-09 at the first public hearing to schedule Oh, sorry. Nope, that's the right one. Yep. To schedule it for a second public hearing on July 15, 2025, regular
commission meeting. Second. We have a motion and a second. Uh, any other discussion? If not, uh, roll call, please. Vice Mayor Vasquez, I. Commissioner Dicki, I. Commissioner Clark, I. Commissioner
Sison, I. Mayor Doctor, I. Thank you. All right, moving right along. Number four, authorization to submit EDA grant application for Treasure Island Economic Revitalization and Resiliency Plan. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor,
and Commissioners. Joan Goodrich from your office of economic development to speak to this item in seeking your authorization as you just read for a potential EDA um economic development administration grant to the US government um to create uh Treasure
Island Economic Revitalization and Resiliency Plan. The US Economic Development Administration just recently issued a fiscal year 25 disaster notice of funding opportunity um for
communities across the country. Um this is a competitive um grant situation and um we are all competing for $1.44 44 billion dollars to do planning, economic development planning um to rebuild
economic infrastructure and um to take care of other needs following any disasters. For us, of course, it was the hurricanes of 2024. For other communities, it's wildfires um to tornadoes. So again, this bucket of money from the
US federal government is focused on assisting communities to recover from a disaster by realizing opportunities to recover and change the economic trajectory um for communities for the better. So, the um Office of Economic
Development has been working um with um my colleagues and members of the community to nurture this relationship with the Economic Development Administration for several months now. We actually spoke to um the um Southeast
uh US representative and had actually pitched um more than $24 million of um needs that we had here on the island. It ranged from beach infrastructure um to our bridge needs, downtown
infrastructure, downtown parking um needs and um this planning um need that we have for our first economic revitalization plan. So again, this is an opportunity to partner with the EDA.
Um it um the partnership is an 8020 split. Um so 80% would be um funded if we were awarded um this competitive grant um by the US government. Um the other 20% would come from us. Um so why
an economic revitalization plan at this point um again we're all aware of the economic harm the storms have done. Um, but we also know that there's great opportunity for us to build economic prosperity here on the island with
several strategic areas of opportunity. Um, several of our community members mentioned them um tonight, John's Pass, the downtown core, the Treasure Bay area, Golf Boulevard. Um so putting um
and creating a plan like this will give us the opportunity to bring our perspective forward from the lens of our economy. Um of course we've done a lot of planning on the island for our quality of life for our infrastructure for safety and security. So this would
in in my opinion just be that last um perspective for um Treasure Island's future. So, um, if you were to greenlight this and we were to win, um, this grant opportunity and put this partnership in place with the EDA, um,
it would give us the opportunity again to set our strategic vision forward um, for economy um, to look forward to any potential um, disruptions that we might face in in in the future. So putting more of that foundational umness into
it, it would also um position us well for other plant um for other funding and grant opportunities because the plan would be in place that we can reference of course provide um us our needs from a policym um point of view and decision
making point of view. It would give us the ability again to to bring our community gather um together to set that economic um vision for us and then ultimately it signals to the marketplace that we're ready for reinvestment that
we're ready for new investment that we're um stable and organized um for this potential work. So again um this is a competitive grant. I need your authorization to move forward with this
grant application. Um the application um requires a local match resolution. So that that is also part of your agenda item package. Um, if you were to approve the authorization to go forward for this grant, then you would also need to
approve um the resolution 25-011, which would um give us the um requirement for the grant application that the local match would be available if we were awarded this grant. Okay. So,
would the resolution be presented this evening or would that be at the next meeting? Um this is actually the resolution is part of your package resolution 25-011. Um so that is in your um package. Okay. And that concludes my
presentation. Thank you. All right. Do we have any uh discussion as to moving it forward? I I just have one question of clarification just to make sure. We would only spend this money if we get the grant. If the grant doesn't come
through, this this money would not be needed. That's correct, Commissioner. And I should have said while I while it was in the agenda item, again, if we um we apply um we get an award notification,
then the next step would be is that um a request for proposals. um we'd follow our procurement process to put a request for proposals out to bring in the best team for us to um uh work through this plan with our community. Um and that's
actually when the pricing would get set and what the final local match 20% local match for that project would be. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, do we have the uh the votes? I guess I mean uh we need to to
basically have a uh a voice call on this. So are we willing to uh to move forward with this? All in favor say I. I opposed. Okay. So now let's move on to the resolution that is tied to this so
that we can uh take a vote there as well. Somebody have the uh the resolution motion. Um it was it's actually all an all-in-one motion. Okay. So, I move to approve resolution 2025-11
authorizing the 20% local match requirement up to $30,000 and direct staff to proceed with the grant application to the US Economic Development Administration to request funding of the Treasure Island Economic
Revitalization and Resiliency Plan. Second. We have a motion and a second. Do we have any other discussion? Public comment hearing none. Then we'll close public comment and let's take a uh a roll call
vote. Vice Mayor Vazquez I. Commissioner Sison I. Commissioner Clark I. Commissioner Dicki. I. Mayor Doctor I. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Moving on. Request for additional permitting staff. Is that
this this actually comes out of CD, but Mike Howard is going to present for us. Okay. This is just a temporary solution until we can put permanent staff in place. And I've shared with each of you kind of what that looks like. Um but we're coming down to the end of the contract for our contract employees
right now. So, this would extend up to 12 weeks and not to exceed 150,000 which is based on the numbers that um were on the 12-week agreement. Okay.
Okay. To summarize, um before the storm, we had a total of 1,119 permits of which about 48 were in review. At its worst, when early May I came to you for the additional staff,
we had 3,200 permits and at that point permits in review, which was the bottleneck that we had that we had identified was 243. Since then, uh we're standing at 155.
Great. So, for the last two weeks, we're about 150. Now, if you think about what where we were 1,000 at 50, now we're at 3,000 at 150. So, it's basically three times
the volume is is pushing through the department. So, consequently, if we lose the staff, we'll revert back to where we were in the first place. So, it'd be all for not. Okay.
And it's still going to be still 13,000 a week. Does anybody have any questions for staff? And just to be clear, is it basically keeping the same people that we've had, so we're not having to retrain. We're not having to Right. Yeah, that's correct. Um, last meeting,
um, Commissioner Sison spoke to the staffing need in CDD. When we sat down and looked at the contract, we realized that we were very close to an expiration on the the 12-week contract that was approved prior to my arrival. When we look at the additional staff we need, which I I think we've identified, and I
actually want to have a conversation with the city, new city manager um before I bring that to you, we are going to be able to save the city significantly once we add the the permanent staff to make up the difference. Um, and ideally as that new
staff comes in, we'll be able to draw off contract employees that are doing those jobs. So, I I my goal is not to spend the full request, but I need to put it there as a buffer to get us through October 1st, okay, budget
season. Thanks. Okay, any questions? Public comment. I've got uh Robert Bazo. I really don't want to be up here actually. Uh Robert Boser while Capri um
as many of you know I I was a federal operations director in DC and I'm looking forward to meeting the new uh city manager and discussing a number a number of things and this is this is one of them and how to prepare for a hurricane and proper staffing. Um there certainly is a need for a surge uh for
sure and um and augmentation for sure. Um but that's not the baseline. So the fact that we we do have a need for more people now and I think we should continue this. I don't think we're doing enough to look for other ways. Certainly in the military and the government we
have a reserve uh we have volunteers. We have compact agreements. We have uh jointness where we can go to another service and get people. Uh I think here we have tried to go to other counties and get some people. We're very good at spending lots of money and I think there
are other avenues that we could have looked into maybe save money. So, I'm all about proper staffing. We have a mission to do and and permitting permitting is important. Uh we're on the cusp of another hurricane season and again I would hope that we already have
a package ready to go to Tallahassee immediately. Should already be staffed. There should be already the ICS documents and you should know what IC means. that talks about a nice uh a nice volume of people, a a full roster of permitting people, um incident manager,
uh flood plane managers, uh Chief Barkley has volunteered to to convert his knowledge to to other departments because he did a great job in quickly augmenting his staff uh on day hurricane plus one and we did not do that. I'm
concerned that we're talking about um about permanent staff. We should not be in a business of growing government. Okay. And I I kind of think maybe we'll be at odds with the new city manager. I think maybe agrees with that. We should not be hiring more government. Uh we should be there should be a bas we we we
will be at a baseline fairly soon um after the two hurricanes, but we should have a very robust and clear and concise staffing package right now ready to go to Tallahassee at hurricane plus two or three and get a full staff of emergency
per personnel here. I really don't like the idea that we have some new new people in on the staff and submitting a new staff request. I think that's not a good idea. Um I'm looking forward to meeting with the new city manager and
discussing u staffing. Uh we're not in the business, I think, of growing government, not the way to use our money. We want small government. And I think you've seen how there's a will of the people here um to to outsource. And I think that's where we need to be going
in in in a lot of ways. We discussed that a lot of services, small town like us, we need to be outsourcing now and shrink government and and but be flexible to mobilize quickly in a man-made or natural disaster. So I'm a
little concerned about uh talking now about a permanent increase in staff. It's not the way we we should be doing that, but thinking again about using other resources to staff smartly and cheaply and be flexible. Thank you.
Thank you, Darren Brown. Darren Brown is of Palms. Um, I'd be stupid to stand here and say you should do anything that's not going to make the permitting process go faster because, you know, we're we're living it every day. So, I'm fully I'm fully in support
of this. I really feel like we need to do and maybe there's been some analysis done and I'm just not smart enough to know. But we need to look at where the bottlenecks are in the process. I know the bottlenecks appear to be permits in review. And what I just heard is there's
150 of them. But when I went to the city last week, Jackie and the building department said, "There are hundreds of permits in front of you waiting for flood plane review. So I don't know is it hundreds or is it 150? I'm getting
mixed information. So I would just encourage the city and the commission to direct the city to look at where those bottlenecks are. I mean this is like process improvement 101 it feels like to
me. I'm happy to help. If there's anything I can do to help, I'm happy to help. Thank you. Thank you. And that's all the uh comments from the public that I have. So, we'll move on. Mayor, doctor, I'd like to add a little
to the conversation with some additional data and that would address some of the questions that were brought up. Uh the we we've been averaging the last four weeks getting 50 new permits in a week. Uh and we've been averaging putting
issuing 49 permits a week. So, we're just with with these extra resources, we're just we're just barely keeping up with the pace of of new permits that are coming in. Uh, again, back prior to the storm, the city averaged 32 permits
issuing a week. So, this numbers, you know, still, you know, in inflated and uh and I'd be, as much as I hate to approve an extension here, I don't see any way around doing that. Uh but some other numbers we currently have I I
refer to it as the number of outstanding permits at the end of the day. At the end of yesterday we had 381 outstanding permits and of those 155 were were in review and uh 226 were waiting for
additional information from the applicant. So that's kind of the I think when you hear 155 number versus almost a 400 number, uh the 400 number is closer to the total number of permits that that uh that people are waiting to get one
way or the other. So anyway, we like I said, as much as I hate hate approving an extension of this, I I don't see any way around it. if this buys us another 12 weeks and and I'll agree completely with what uh what I just uh heard from
Darren is I think there's the process the permitting process is flawed. Uh I've had this a brief discussion with uh Bobby Sheay about this already. There's we've got to do something differently on the processing part because it's it's uh
it's not working. It's not it's it's there's just no reason it should take as long as it's taking to get some of these uh permits through. So So this money would get us another 12 weeks, but I think we need to get a commitment that during this 12 weeks, we're going to
start looking at at how we're going to uh manage the entire permitting process more effectively and efficiently. And I would take off of that um from what you're saying um that it's definitely I think we've all agree
and when we've been in our our private meetings it has been um when I say that not with each other I want to clarify that but with um with uh Bobby Sheay that
definitely the process needs to be simplified. No doubt we need like a fast lane for door permits and and window permits or something like that because very different than a complete rebuild. So I definitely would just kind of agreeing with you on that. I I think I
think it's a given we h you know we need to move forward with them and then just definitely figure out that I call it the fast lane the fast lane permits and then the more complicated permits. So I I agree with you on that. Yeah, I want I agree with Ardan. process still needs to
be taken a look at. I mean I I still get tons of emails every week. So I mean the the permit thing is not over with yet. And I Darren reached out to me about a month ago and I feel for these people. I mean they've got a huge home that's just
sitting there deteriorating while they can't build it and it just it's we we got it. We got to get better. So I sympathize with Darren. Um, I've had a lot of calls uh from builders who are running into uh issues with the TMM and
um it's just it's not going to stop. It's just going to continue. So, although I love to save money, this is a no-brainer for me. So, and I think that I've already talked with uh Bobby Shay and uh and I I know that I've brought it up to uh to our new
candidate for city manager that u we need to get it right in the budget. uh our budget will start on October 1st, which gives us, you know, few months here that uh that we can tie it all in a in a bow and and say, "Okay, this is
what we really need and this is how we're going to do it and here are the steps." So, I definitely would like to see in in a budget maybe for next year about hiring another full-time flood plane manager for next year. I think that'd be the bottleneck that I see. And
sorry and some of some of that um the difficulty that you're experiencing is our flood play manager is also our principal planner. I also have a second employee who's both code supervisor as well as um our permit manager. So we have people doing two jobs um and doing
two jobs myself right now. I I know that that can be a challenge. So, I have shown each of you what a potential new staffing scenario looks like and and to address the gentleman's issue. Um, this particular model allows us to break into
teams should we have an another event, another weather event where we can work more efficiently um with less burnout because we'll have two teams in place. And I I hear your concerns. We need to get back to the business of code enforcement. It's becoming a priority
and it's it's difficult to to pick your favorite child. You have your constitutional obligation to public health and safety which is your code enforcement and then you have the FEMA requirement that hangs over you that is is the reimburseable in keeping us um
compliant. And so those are two big obligations that we have. And you know, as I mentioned, I'm looking forward to consulting and getting feedback from new leadership and from you guys. Um, and I feel confident that we can get there. And we'll always have money. We will
always have cave people at the podium. So, what cave people? All right. Okay. Yeah. Motion, please. I move to authorize the city manager to approve expenditures up to 12 weeks up to
$158,000 for six temporary employees. Second. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? Any public comment? Oh, well, I think we already closed public comment. Thank you. And so, let's take a roll call.
Sorry. Uh, Vice Mayor Vasquez. I And I'm sorry I missed the second. I did. Oh, thank you. Commissioner Dicki, I Commissioner Clark, I. Commissioner Sison, I. Mayor Doctor, I thank you. H6, parking fees.
Yes, that's my item. Thank you. Uh, sorry I didn't give anything for the packet. Um, however, um, I would like, uh, for the commission to discuss an immediate increase of $2 for
all parking zones west of Golf Boulevard and all of Sunset Beach, including street parking in uh, Sunset Beach uh, to a total of $6 per hour. Uh, all other areas will have an increase of $1, um, to $5 per hour. As for dynamic pricing
such as Independence Day uh weekend, Labor Day, standing ovations, another $2 per hour in all parking areas at peak times. For example, uh this Independence Day is Friday, this coming Friday, and we would have Friday at 400 p.m. and all
day Saturday and Sunday at priced at dynamic pricing. Uh Labor Day, uh Friday at 4 p.m. and then Saturday and all day Sunday. And we could obviously do dynamic pricing for all the drum circle people. Um,
uh, standing ovations, uh, dynamic pricing, uh, Friday 400 p.m. to sunset, Friday all day, Saturday all day, and Sunday all day. And, uh, by those increases, we'll see a large increase in revenue being generated. Originally, I
thought $10 was it, but that's probably too much money. Um, and uh, more importantly, I need this uh, I was requesting for this money to be restricted and it can't be hijacked for other city projects. That'd be it.
Too much for you. I'm sorry. That's way too much. Way too much. All right. All right. So, uh, I I will we don't really have any direction here. I think the direction's already been stated and there's nothing else. uh parking fees
going from four to six. Uh although I do believe that we can raise our parking prices. I think that uh maybe we could go from four to five. Um but uh I definitely do not want to see $8 per
hour for parking. Uh and that that's uh basically where we are on the the times that people want to be here. Um we don't want to chase people away. And I know that I've talked to a lot of the restaurant teeers around uh Foxy's, Ricky Te's, uh the Bill Maher, uh you
know, with Sloppy Joe's that uh that the the fees are becoming, you know, pretty much especially if they go to the private folks that are charging, you know, the the 14, 16, 18. And I've heard people say, I don't even want to come back. You know, I I I went over to the
VIP to get dinner and I ended up having two bills. one that was $50 and one that was $36 and it doesn't work. So, um, so that that's where I am on this, you know. Yeah, could we do another buck? I think we could. Uh, but that's that's
where I'd leave it. I would like to also add I talked to a couple people uh who actually store their extra vehicles when they have parties uh in city- owned parking lots and thus taking money away from revenue generating.
Say that one more time. I don't Sorry. I've spoken to a lot of people who have who who store extra vehicles. Oh, okay. Uh all all throughout the year, holidays and so on at city- owned uh parking like over for a couple hours that basically
gets to enforcement, right? So, okay. All right. I' I'd like to add my two cents worth to this. It's actually $2 worth given that that's a number we've been floating. Uh I'd mentioned I'm not sure if it was the last meeting or the meeting before uh that I had uh shared
an idea with uh about a half a dozen uh both city staff and and residents about about how do we go about and this this I was going to hold for later in the conversation later in the workshop agenda when we start talking about the public safety facility but the question
kept being asked how are we going to fund the public safety facility uh that was that was the question and and quite Frankly, uh, as I'd mentioned before, none of the commissioners wanted to raise tax to borrow money to be able to pay for the debt, uh, for borrowing 10
or 9 or 10 or 12 million, whatever we were going to need to fund that stuff. So, I had bounced this idea off of, uh, people a couple uh, weeks ago, and I and I did share it at this commission meeting, that we increase parking revenue, parking uh, charge from $4 an
hour to $6 an hour. that would generate about $950,000 a year in incremental revenue, which is very close, as a matter of fact, it's a little bit more than what we would what our debt service would be for borrowing
money to fund the uh public safety facility. So, uh it's I'm not sure why this came up at the same time. I I don't know if it was an effort to I I don't know what it is, but it just seems odd that that just when I'm floating this
this suggestion about how to fund the public safety facility that that uh that that we start talking about other ways of getting uh of using this money. Uh I agree with something Citizens Voice wrote in in an email earlier than the
week. What say that again? It was just one one item but uh I do agree and that's said that this money this parking revenue should go towards capital improvements and there's nothing more capital improvement than a new public safety facility. So that is one when you
look at our list of capital improvement projects that was second on the list after the public after the uh lift station. So, uh, so anyway, I I don't want to get too far into, uh, Arthur's, uh, discussion at this point, probably
until we have the workshop discussion and decide decide how we're going to fund the the fire station or the the public safety facility. Uh, so because that is one way, that's one of the three ways that was listed in the work that uh, work up
that was sent out prior to to this commission meeting. So, so I'm interested in having your discussion, Commissioner Sison, but but after we have the the workshop discussion. Uh I I have a couple of questions. Um Arthur,
you said that the money would be that we would take from this would be restricted. Well, what do you mean by that? Like in the hopes of eventually building a parking garage. Okay. And other improvements such as that. I mean uh so yeah I'm my take on this is two
things. First of all parking is is elastic. It's not inelastic. So what I mean by that is if we raise the rates by two dollars like Ardan you assume that you know you were going to bring in this money you're assuming that every single person that would park at at at $4 is
going to park at six. And that's not necessarily true. Some people are going to say I don't want to pay that. I'm going to get dropped off. So assuming that every single dollar that from four to six is going to continue to come in is not is not accurate. I mean it's it's
an it's elastic. It's not inelastic. Give you another example. If I go to the airport and I'm going to park for two nights, I drive my car because I'm going to cost me 40 bucks. If I go to the airport for eight days, I'm going to
take an Uber because it's going to cost me uh you know way more than it does to Uber over there. Now, if they increase that fee from 20 bucks a night to 30 bucks a night, it's going to take even less days for me to be gone for me to take an Uber because, you know, so so,
so that's an issue I think that and I don't know if we've had it, you know, I'm not for paying for studies, but we just can't assume that every single dollar that cames in at four is going to come in at six. And secondly, the other problem I have is our tax revenue.
everyone has agreed is going to go down because of these hurricanes by I've heard 10% I think Ardan you went to Santael they told you 10% um 8% I've heard now I've heard 5.5
so and then we're going to raise these parking fees and everyone has their project that they want to spend it on they want parking garage uh the fire station my project is the residents. To me, that
money should go back into our general fund to try to make up for the 8 10 5% that we're going to lose and not used on some project. It should be used on all projects that we need, which are seaw
walls, lift stations, fire stations, everything. And not just pinpoint it to one thing. I don't I I don't agree with that. So yeah, I think it would be silly for us to take dollars that are going into the general fund, which means that they're
flexible dollars. Those are the dollars that we need to pay all of our expenses and everything else and say that, you know, we're going to put $2 out of every $4 or $2 out of every $6 away just for this to pay for something. I mean, we need to to take a closer look at what we
need to do for our financing versus, you know, dedicating, you know, those dollars that are now going in general funds for a specific building or any specific item. And I'll chime in with I mean, I I kind of agree with a little bit everyone
said. Um, I I loved it when you came up with that idea just because it was a solution to everybody thinking we should pay cash for a public safety building, which just doesn't happen in government. It just doesn't. Um, it's not even fiscally responsible because you am
amateurize a building that's going to be a 50 to 60 year building um over the years of use, not come out of the people's pocket. That's immediate. So, however, that's workshop. Um, as far as changing, will people still come to the
beach at $6 as opposed to $4? They're still going to come to the beach. They pay a heck of a lot more than that on Clear Water Beach. They pay a heck of a lot more than that in the private parking lots, which a lot of them are full. Um, because we have one of the most beautiful beaches there are. So, I
think, you know, there's not really a comparison between because people don't leave their car parked in a beach parking lot for six or seven days like you do if you you fly out of the airport. So, you know, people are still going to come to the beach. Um, Lord willing, we are building and we're
having more hotels and and places for people to go, more restaurants. Um, that's just going to draw more and more tourists in. And fact of the matter is, do I think, you know, am I saying $5? Am I saying $6? I'm not really saying at
this point. I'm just saying that do I think that's going to deter people from coming to our beautiful beach? Absolutely not. Do I love the idea of tourists paying, you know, for capital projects? Absolutely love it. I mean, we we have no problem with raising bed
taxes, but we don't want to raise a parking fee a dollar or two. So, that's that's just kind of my my thought process on it. Um, I definitely, you know, I look forward to talking about all the other stuff in the workshop, but that's just my and I guess I want to
make it clear, Arthur. I'm not I'm not saying I'm against raising parking fees. I just I just think that we can't assume that it's going to go, you know, dollar for dollar that it's going to we're going to get as much parking as we did at the higher price as the lower price. And secondly, I want to make sure the
money goes to be used for everything, not just specific items. So, uh, I went to Key West, uh, for a couple days and, uh, Key West has 1,374, uh, parking spots that the city owns.
Uh, $5 an hour in the beach areas and then downtown Duval, uh, six $6. Um, and they generate quite a bit of revenue. So, I mean, it's not the end of the world if it's not restricted, but I
think we're leaving money on the table. Uh, I think most I'm not going to Uber to the beach with my two adults and two kids and a whole bunch of crap because no one's going to pick me up on the way back. So, um, I think it's it's a no-brainer to increase fees, but you
know, you know, we could obviously discuss the where the funds go. trying to make more money here. All right. I think that uh we don't have any real uh action to be taken here. This is one
of those that's just parking fees and and just sits there. So, uh we'll do it after we get to our uh workshop. So, uh Mayor, if I could real quick, your action moving forward was would be to create an ordinance.
That would be the action. Can I make a motion to create an ordinance to increase? You have to create an ordinance in advance to be read before the commission. Let me just Yeah, we could just phrase it differently. So, if you want me to have a draft ordinance that when you go to make a motion, hey, this ordinance is
pre-written. Hope you guys accept it. Maybe we can amend it. Technically, you don't have to make a motion. Just email me. I'll draft it and then I'll bring it and then you'll help guide the debate. or you guys can have a consensus that says, you know what, we want to go up $1
parking, you know, all the time. That motion itself will be enough to instruct me to draft an ordinance for the next meeting. And this does require an ordinance because it's in an ordinance. So, you're amending the existing parking ordinance. And in that ordinance, that would also state like where the could
that in that same ordinance, could that dictate kind of where those funds would go or if it's general fund or whatever it would be in that ordinance? Okay. Absolutely. And uh even though we don't we won't take any action here now. Uh Andrew
Vasa, you wanted to to speak to this? Yep. This this turning into a Groundhog Day topic. I feel like I've been talking about parking for over a year now from when we interviewed city managers the last time. um agree 100% that uh you
have you're leaving money on the table and that you can uh bring up the parking rates. Um and we've talked about doing a business plan for parking for a year. Um economic development director asked for a study. I think that got turned down.
Um you the idea that you're just going to raise rates and you're going to get the same number of transactions is false. Um, if that's the case under that sort of amateur model, why not raise it to $8 an hour? Because if you can continue to hold that rate, you would
make you would double your money or raise it to $10 an hour and triple your money. I mean, there is um elasticity between the amount you charge and the number of transactions, but you're definitely leaving money on the table. And so, you're you're correct
there and it should be looked at. It just has to be done in an orderly way. instead of sort of a scattershot. Well, we'll raise it this much and then we're going to use it to cover debt service of some much. There's no model. I don't know. Is are you proposing your $900,000
in debt services for $12 million of debt? I don't know what you we keep asking and every meeting for six months. This has been in the capital pro budget for that long. It was 5 million then it was 6 million, 7 million, 12 million for that station. How much are we debt
financing? We keep asking, we can't get an answer. Somebody knows. Somebody has an idea. I mean, you came up with 900,000. How much how much bond debt does that service? But going to $6 and thinking you're going to maintain all the same transactions is not accurate.
Uh you you'll get more revenue and and that is correct and you should do that. And dynamic pricing, again, I've talked about that before. another good idea on these event days, but the idea that that people are just going to pay whatever you charge and you're going to keep number of transactions not correct. And
so you should do a business plan for parking so that you can um not leave money on the table as you're suggesting. Then you all figure out how you're going to what you're going to do with the money after that. Thanks. City manager, do you know do we have
three parking enforcement uh officials uh or two? I know that one of your parking officials is being loan to permitting at the time. I don't know how many is Mary Ellen here.
I'm not Mary Ellen, but I have that answer. We have two parking enforcement officers right now. We are interviewing for the third. We thought we had the third one in, but the money was not enough for her to leave her current position. So, we're still interviewing for the third. And we already have a vehicle for that person as well. Yeah. And and I've been saying
this for a while, but we're losing as much money because we do not have the three parking officials. There are times of the day, evening hours, you know, for beginning at five o'clock that uh that we're not enforcing. And uh and I'll tell you that's going to pick up, I'll
bet $100,000, you know, uh several hundred thousands of dollars, you know, every quarter. And uh so that's one of the things we need to do is make sure that we are staffing and that needs to be a priority. We are absolutely no one's more excited to hire the third
person than I am. Absolutely. Like I said, we already have a vehicle for the person. I already figured it out from our fleet. So, we're we're ready to roll as soon as that we like I said, I thought we had somebody, but the money wasn't quite enough for her to leave her current position. So, but we are actively looking to fill that spot.
Great. Thank you, Chief. Okay, let's uh let's move on. We're going to switch H7 to H8 and H8 to H7. So, discussion on solid waste outsourcing. Yes, I put that on there. So, um I think I have uh pages that they
were going to put up that were in the packet. But, um while I'll wait to get that up, uh first of all, I just want to do a huge thanks to Gary, our new uh public works director. Um he's been
absolutely awesome in helping here. And Gary did in in a couple of weeks what it took us since last August to do, which was simply reach out to some waste management companies and get the answers
that we were looking for. And like I had said in the last meeting, it doesn't take a consultant. It doesn't take a lot of money. It just takes reaching out to these people. And I guarantee you they want our business. And uh Gary did that for us. So, uh, huge thanks to him and I
think he's going to get up and speak after I'm done here to make sure that I didn't mis misrepresent or misquote anything that that he relayed to me. Uh, because Trip had told me that the his meetings went well. Then I set up time with Gary and spent about an hour with
him going over all this. So, can you move that down just a little bit? I think there's some writing on top of there. Um, down to the top. Yeah. So, the first thing I wanted to do was just go over kind of where we are currently in our
budget with with with trash. And um because one of the things that always comes up about this is, well, if we outsource trash, they're just going to raise our rates and keep raising them and it's going to get super expensive. So, what I wanted to do here was point
out that that's going to happen to us anyway um on our own. We're going to our fees are going to go up. Um, and again, like everything I do up here, this is directly out of our budget. I didn't change anything. I didn't do anything. I just put it up here and I circled it.
So, basically, from the f from the FY25 budget, um, the fees that are collected from the residents are going to go up 27% between 23 and 26. So, they're going to go from
2.4 million to 3.1 million. And that's again to keep pace with our expenditures which we'll go to. If you can move down now that would be helpful. Yeah. Keep going. Keep going. Yeah. So right there. So at from the same table the expenditures over the same
three-year period are expected to increase by the same 27%. So, and actually what's happened is in those three years combined, the expenditures um go up by a combined 1.25 million. So, we had in that fund about a
$ 1.5 million um balance. It's projected to go down to about 273,000 in in FY26. So, I mean, that's okay. It's an enterprise fund. It's not supposed to make money. But my point is is that that
going down is going to cause us to have to increase our trash rates. So, um, basically we we have a 9% annual increase baked in there right now. And that is going to probably need to go up more. A and the main reason why it's
going to have to go up more is because for a small community like us, uh, it's very labor and capital intensive. So, we have to keep buying new trucks and new fleets of trucks. Um, and so if you look from the budget again between FY25 and
FY29, uh, if you could go to the next page there at the top of it, um, we have $2.3 million in in in vehicle and truck purchases.
So, um, I mean, that's what it's expensive. That's what has us to keep keep increasing our rates to keep up with this. Um, you can go down again. So, you know, if you go along the beach here
community ourselves, which are 6,500 people, the last census from Deer Beach, 3,800 people, Clear Water, 120,000 people. That's the only cities that do their trash. Everyone outsources their trash.
Um, Clearwater makes a little more sense. They have 120,000 people, so it makes a bit more sense. Um, so go down again. The other thing I want to say and
because I think it's important and I I gave Gary kudos a minute ago. The commission had been asking this in some way, shape or form for since last August and and I I found out really what the holdup is. And I I promise I'm not going
to say anything negative any of our staff, but what the holdup was is that Chuck didn't really want to do this. and Gary confirmed what what I had already known that our our our other public director didn't really want to do this.
And I think when Gary came to him and said, "Should I look into this?" No, we don't want to do that. Kudos to Gary, I think, for for for going ahead and doing that um after, you know, now that he has the job because he's really helped us out. But my point there is for a year we
were told we didn't give the proper direction. we didn't we you know it was all blamed on the commission and then and then that creates more issues that then creates public mistrust that creates residents coming in and talking
about why we're not getting stuff done and then it creates all the other problems we've been dealing with over the other weeks. So I'm hoping with our new city manager that when we just when the commission asks for something that we can just go get it. I mean Gary's done it in no time so I think it will
alleviate a lot of problems. Um, the other thing is some of the other things that we talked about, I'm not going to spend very much time on this because they they can all be written into the contract and I think I think Gary can speak to that. So, if you can skip past some of these, I mean, we can we can
make sure we have the proper workforce. We can make sure that they can't raise our fees, you know, just as much as they want, whenever they want. We can make sure there's service standards to make sure that, hey, it's good service. Um,
so this is what Gary had had reached out and and shared with me about where we are after he reached out to all these trash companies and that is he found that WeightsPro does our recycling
currently. Okay. Um, and that they have a contract with North Readington Beach. And again, since this is a government entity, since that contract has already uh been vetted, you know, governmentwise to make sure that they they checked and
they got the best deal. Um, and I'll and Gary can correct me if I'm wrong on any of this, but basically we can piggyback off of their contract and not have to go out and do an entire RF uh P. um which would save us a lot of time and money.
So these bullet points are what Gary gave me as the uh kind of what they're willing to do. Number one, the biggest thing we've always talked about, we don't want to put anybody out of work. They will take our employees and pay
them the same rate or or or possibly a higher rate um provided that they pass a background check. Um, another big benefit to us, we no longer have to worry about on the job in injuries of our own employees that can
come back and sue us uh and cost us money. I think I know we had an issue year ago or I believe someone was hit by a truck or something. Not all stuff we would never have to deal with again. Um, the city will generate administers
administrative savings from uh having to go out and hire people. Um and and make sure that we have people that are, you know, there and on the job. And the other thing that Gary had told me is that there'll be days where either a
trash man is sick or something. And so we just go pick someone that normally works on the grounds to go, you know, work on the trash truck. I mean, that sounds like a recipe for a disaster for me for like some sort of injury to occur. And I mean, so all stuff we
wouldn't have to worry about anymore. Um, apparently the quote that was given was about would be $8 per month or $96 a year uh decrease for for the residents. Um, so it's going to cost less and the
commercial fees would also be lower. I they I don't think they said how much, but they thought it would be less than they are now. Um and so and that's with the same twice a week pickup. Uh so you know
it was bid out I believe the exact same thing that we have today. Um what else we got there? Um yeah it's possible the contract piggyback off their contract. Uh we believe um Waste Pro will take our
trucks that we currently have uh off our hands. Um, and again, I think I showed before, we have $2.3 million worth of truck purchases coming up in the next four to five years. We would no longer have to make um outsourcing will cost
the footprint of the new public works facility um to be smaller. Again, this could open up more land for possible development over on 108th. I mean, another huge benefit to this. Um, they will do all the
billing. Um, they will do all the complaint handling, which, um, I know Gary said that the billing and complaint handling takes our staff a fair amount of time here today. Um, and the biggest thing is is that they
they are our current vendor for recycling. And I don't know about anybody else, but I put my trash out one day and they come pick it up. The next day I put out my trash and recycling, they come pick it up. I can't tell the difference between if it's Waste Pro or or Treasure Island. Um,
they can handle the beach, they said, without a problem. Um, and I'll let Gary explain, but they also have some kind of special trucks that we need that are different for our for our some of our um dumpsters. Um, and then the other thing
is I believe that every every city that Gary talked to that had used RacePro, um, was very happy with them as a vendor. Um, so the recommendations that I come from this, I just don't see very
many negatives here at all. It'd be a different story if if they wouldn't take our people, we'd have to put them out of jobs. They wouldn't take our trucks. I mean, uh, so I just don't see a lot. So, moving forward, um, would provide
residents with, you know, lower fees of $100 a year. Moving forward would eliminate, you know, 2.3 million of capital expenditures for new trucks. Um, hopefully would allow us to make our public works building and yard smaller.
Um, eliminates any any risk we have from on the job injury claims. um reduces the administrative cost to the city uh as it relates to hiring uh as it relates to turnover, as it relates to billing, as
it relates to complaint handling. Um and again, I think I've already said that, you know, moving forward increases the land over on 108 for possible development. So, I don't know, Gary, if you want to hopefully I didn't misquote you too many times, but
Well, first of all, I want to thank you for all the compliments. That was very nice of you. Uh, I I I hope I continue to deserve them. Um, but the one thing I just wanted to clear maybe maybe you misunderstood the previous public works director did not tell me don't follow up
on it. Don't I never really knew there was that much interest in outsourcing. He had told me that there had been previously discussions but but he never said that to me. So I just wanted to clear that. Um, just a few of the notes here as far as staff goes. Uh,
not only are we concerned obviously with with keeping our staff and and and uh at least giving the opportunity to continue working with solid waste with a new vendor, but also um uh Jessica and HR is committed to uh talking with them to
evaluate the benefits, pros and cons of such a move. We're also going to look at seeing if they can fill in other other uh um uh slots in grounds or facilities or some of the other positions we might have open. So we are very concerned to
maintain in any kind of transition. But I do want you to know that I while I did talk with three firms, there are many other firms out there also. Um all of them I believe would be very interested in in picking up our uh our city as a a a customer. The the reason is as as uh
Commissioner Clark mentioned, we we do currently use Waste Pro as our recycling contractor, but our current operations for us to run it, we have we do the the residential and commercial, but we have also ConX doing uh commercial recycling and Waste
Pro. So, you know, there like three entities providing these services out here right now. Waste Pro offers all three under their contract with with North Readington Beach. that would consolidate things and they've agreed they provide all the billing, all the
questions answered. They their staff would would be handling all of that. Regarding the question about the trucks, we're one of the few entities that still uses uh rear load dumpsters and our trucks are are set up like that. Um,
Waste Pro says they still have a lot of customers that use that sort of style so that our dumpsters would be able to be assimilated into their inventory and utilized. Um also in discussing with them I had mentioned that that my previous uh employment we had had things
like uh electronics day where like once a month um city uh residents could if they had proof of a bill they could bring you know an old computer TV appliances and things that that kind of sometimes are hard to get rid of and we
don't really like to see going to the landfill. Um they go ahead and schedule those sorts of things. Uh in addition, if you have household chemicals for disposal of that, they they schedule like a a quarterly uh pickup uh not not pickup, you drop it off at a a site that
they designate, but they'll take your old paint cans and various things that we all end up with in our, you know, at our homes. Um and they especially like to do that before hurricane season to try and get those materials. If you're not going to be using them, we don't want them to become possible damage and
uh spread into our environment. So there there are a lot of a lot of uh of plus side to it. They will work with our our beach pickup. But I I do want you to know that I did approach this and I' I've talked with several of you already. I came into this
with an open mind. I'm not trying to push anybody one way or another. We just happen to have a relationship with one of the vendors that would be very interested and and the track record is is is good. I've talked to, you know, Penny Clipple of our staff. She said
that if there's an issue, they jump on it right away and and we have very few issues that come up in the recycling end of the things. So, um I hope that I've uh I did forward the contract, you know, our uh the city attorney is reviewing it and to see make sure that it's uh it's
acceptable as far as a piggybacking it is. I never got back to you until it was late this afternoon that I determined you can. So, okay. And so, so you know, procurement's looked at it. It's it's an opportunity. Um, waste pro I also found out that they serve homes beach, they
serve Bradenton Beach, they they have coastal communities. Um, Kenneth City, uh, Seol. So, they they have a lot of smaller entities in the in the vicinity. I think they provide recycling to Madiraa Beach. Um, again, all three of them would do fine, but I think this is
an opportunity where we have somebody who's who's currently a vendor for the city to at least explore that that opportunity. You get just two more questions real quick. um that you and I talked about. Common common knowledge would say, "Well, hey, go go go get four
more quotes from four more companies." But number one, we couldn't piggy back with them. Number two, as you and I discussed, I think they'll come back and say, you know, we'll do it for the same uh same $8 less or we'll do it for $850 less. And I don't think anyone's going
to come in and say they're going to do it for $15 less. So, I just I I just think because of that, I don't know that we want to spend the time, effort, and money to go out looking at for for for another 50 cents off, you know? Do we need help with a consultant for the
transition or how would that work if we decided to move forward as a commission? Yeah, I believe what um I've talked with David Green, the assistant finance director. He's on vacation this week, but I I I spoke with him last week and he said he'd just need to review the RFP
that the city of North Redington Beach used to procure the services. Um but other than that in having our city attorney review the documents, what we need is if if the commission decides to make a change that we would request them as a vendor
to exercise the piggyback contract with North Readington Beach that they would be willing to fulfill that contract to us also at the same rates and conditions. What are uh what would they be charging us for the beach?
That would be part of it. Yeah, but that that's that's the the part that is an unknown that we because we pick it up ourselves, right? Well, well, they they said that they would utilize we would be turning over the assets for, you know, some compensation, but they would be
using the broill uh the small um uh the trucks that that pick up the the smaller dumpsters that uh um north uh let me clarify, parks and wreck will still have to be gathering up some of the garbage, you know, in the cans in
the different the parks and the in the uh golf park, etc. and P public works will assist along the the walks just like we have we typically have people go out there and get the cans and make them more available. We will be doing something like that, but it'll be on a
minor minor case. Public works will still do the beach raking. Obviously, if we're out on the beach, if there's some concrete or something, we'll have to go out there and take care of those sorts of things. Norm normal upkeep like that. And god forbid we have like another red
tide that would be public works. Somebody would have to do that. Yes. It wouldn't it usually the county helps us with that to be quite honest. Yeah. Any other questions? I just have a couple of questions. Commissioner Clark,
by the way, you packaged this very nicely. It looks uh looks very good. Thanks for doing that for us. And it certainly makes it easier to see the big picture when it's packaged like that. Uh, and you're right, it was it's been almost a year since uh since the commission originally asked uh city
staff to take a look at this and and uh it's it's just amazing that until until you got here and we're willing to take a look at it that that nothing has been done on that. But the thing that did trigger trigger it was during the budget review process last year when we saw the
$830,000 that was allocated for two new trucks and then we saw the the exact thing that you were pointing out, Commissioner Clark, in terms of the amount of money that that was going into there. But but anyway, it seems very clear to me that that uh I think going in this direction makes sense. The only
word of caution I would have is this is piggybacking on the other on the other contract on the North Readington Beach. We clearly need to take a look at that and make sure uh that that meets our needs and it also incorporates again to your point, Commissioner Clark, that it
in it incorporates some of our concerns. Yeah. So that we have, you know, we don't just tag along with a year and a half contract and then and then we have that other issue. But I'm appreciate very much the work you did on this and uh and and going in with an open mind
and and uh learning what what I think many of us thought you were going to find out if you ever did that. So, thanks for doing that. You're welcome. One other thing is that uh so we pointed out very easily the $8 $9 is about what we'd
save per month. So, let's call it the $96 I think that was up there. Um, basically what that $96 is or $8 a month basically is the value and the the service that they're getting is is what we're paying for. If if if
we would stay with the extra, that's what we're we're paying. So it's it's eight or nine dollars a month. Are is our public going to accept that, you know, or not? I mean, it's from a standpoint of the quality of the work that's done. I can tell you that uh when
we have somebody, you know, somebody there's a truck parked in front of garbage can, you know, that uh our our folks will go back out there and get that, you know, that garbage can later on in the day. I don't know that the vendors are going to be that. I I am probably, you know, uh in in favor. I
think that you convinced me. I I was, you know, on the fence about the commercial and that, but I think I'm trying to I'm just trying to provide information. Oh, yeah. Well, what I'm saying is the information was that good. I mean, it really was uh I mean, you did a lot of research, a lot of talking to
counterparts across, you know, the beaches and um and I appreciate you doing that. And I agree. We talked a little bit this morning um briefly, but we've talked be since then or before then. And I agree.
I mean, not just the cost savings to the residents because it is fairly minor in a general sense, but the cost savings to the city is is exponential because it is our largest turnover, which anytime, you
know, any business owner here knows anytime you have to hire and train a new employee that costs a lot of money. So, it's our highest turnover, our largest injury rate, our largest as, cars hitting cars, things like that. So, I just think in every possible way the the
cost savings to the city, not just the citizens, is huge. And, you know, and if it's the same service side by side, um, you know, I think it definitely makes sense to me. Um, it definitely does. One of the things I I I did specifically
bring up with them was I said having our own trucks comes in handy after a storm. and they said that they made their trucks available to all of the communities they serve to help with storm relief. So, that was something I was particularly wanted to make sure
because it does help if you've got a you know, you know, your own garbage trucks to help all all material if if we do get into a bad situation and they said that they they step up for all their communities. Was there anything we would keep like uh the claw truck or anything
that we keep the claw truck? Yeah. Yeah. because we use that for for grounds. Yeah. Anything else that we would keep? Um, is there a dumpster that you like particularly? Via ordinance. You can you can vote to
keep one or none. So, I I I would try. We would I was just joking. No problem. I was no we were we'll try and and and get as
much compensation for whatever assets related to sanitation but we are keeping the beach break um but u pretty much most everything else all the carts and the dumpsters we would uh try and get rid of and I do like that
we we will be able to uh with the employees that we have we'll be able to tell them that they will have an opportunity to interview and Jessica has counseledled them already because we have been getting you know there were rumors hit hit the street like the the
day after the the meeting when you first said see you know make it happen or whatever. Um I just wanted to add one thing just I had the director of public work of parking at Key West. I I reached out to them. you they they take in $11 million
in parking fees a year and $2 million more from tickets and uh other ancillary permitting things like that. So it's it's it's quite a money maker for them with their 1300 spaces. Thank you, Gary. I appreciate that. Hey Gary, you told me
I was allowed to ask you this tonight, but you you think this is a pretty good deal that that Waste Pro is giving us. I I felt very comfortable with the company. I think that that uh the fact that they do work in other Penllis
County uh municipalities. Um we can still ask more questions. I can, you know, do do a little bit more uh research if you'd like if you decide to go that route. But uh um this the contract I think there's a year and nine months left on the North Readington
contract that would allow us to keep those the rates. The contract does have a CPI index. You don't just lock in for years. It does go up, but it's it's it's it's according to it's not just 5% a year, 10%. It's based on consumer price
index. So, I think it's a good opportunity for the city if you decide to go outsource, I think they offer you a good option. And you may or may not be able to answer this, but just in a general thought process, I mean, by proxy, wouldn't our insurance costs go down pretty
significantly? Um, I would think it would impact somehow. Yes, I would think so. There's a lot of added fight, you know, benefits like we talked about more land to maybe get tax revenue from definitely stuff. I mean, there's tons of additional benefits. So, so what's
the next step here in terms of moving this along? Well, I the reason I wanted this on the agenda because I want to make a motion to to give staff direction to give staff direction to go down this path and come back to us, make sure the contract is okay, make sure everything
looks good, and then we finalize it. I mean, that I don't know if that can be my motion, but that's what I want my motion to be. Do we have a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. Uh, do we have any comments from the public? Uh,
lots of comments. Come on. Give me my motion. Now listen, Marco, district, what is it? Three. You said two before. Four. Three. I was offended. You've heard me up here since more than
a year asking for some movement on this. I just want to give a little recognition to one of our former residents, Ray Tuning. Ray Tuning came to meetings week, you know, every two weeks and talked about this. He came from the
industry. He was an engineer and he spoke to the commissions over that period of time about what could be done and why and all of that. And really, he was instrumental in at least keeping that spark alive. And I know the wheels
of progress move slowly, especially in government, but I want to commend you for getting in gear. So, thank you. Good evening, Philorc. Uh, Capri, only question I have is, will we still do the
landscaping pickup on Wednesdays? Otherwise, I think it's a good idea. I have worked with Waste Pro at other uh cities that I work with as a property manager. They do good. I would just, you know, see how long you can keep the contract at the same prices. Thank you.
Thank you. Was there some bills back there? Okay. All right. We'll close the uh public comment. Any additional discussion? And I believe if Where' Gary go? Is he still in here? Oh, you're right there. Thought I was looking over
at the table. Um Gary, if I recall, you said that did include the uh lawn yard waste. Yard waste as well. Correct. Okay. I just want solid waste, yard waste, and recycle. Okay, good. Great. Thank you. All right. Uh we have a
motion and a second and we'll do a voice vote. All in favor say I. I. I. I. All opposed. Okay, we'll move on to the next. What was
Wow, we got something done. What was seven is now going to be eight and that is the terrain modification manual. Yeah. So, this is another one of mine here. So, um terrain modification manual
uh was passed after the storm. Um 144 pages. I I personally voted against it, but I I was prepared to take my losses. I didn't bring it up anymore. Um I think when when it was passed, it was said that
that, you know, we're going to pass this just to get filled, but then we're going to make it simpler. Well, we've had a lot of other stuff going on, so we have not made it simpler. But then the problem was I started getting calls from residents and emails saying, "I'm trying
to build a new house. my my um my documents, my permits are stuck in the TMM uh jail and we can't get them out. And the first person is Darren here who I'd never met before until he started emailing about this. after he emailed
me, I got started getting emails like from other people and I think Darren, you have been talking to those people and you guys have been sharing your misery um about this process and it just seems to me like the you know this this 144 page document nobody really knows
what to do with it. Um, so what I did was I actually worked with Chris Downing, who's on the PNZ board, to come up with a way to kind of try to simplify this or at least an idea to have, you know, some engineers give us a way to simplify this. But now we got new news
today. So, I'm going to have to go to our city attorney about what she brought up, Darren, earlier, which was the um, uh, Senate Bill 180. Um, and I think that may have some impact here. So, I don't know if you want to. Yeah. So,
Senate Bill 180 has this clause that says anything that's more burdensome going back retrospectively or retroactively for a year uh for another year after the hurricane. So anything in basically anything in the last year or
going forward any year after a hurricane if there's a regulation, a policy, a law, an ordinance, even a procedure that is more burdensome than what existed, it's void. It's not even allowed to be proposed. It's very very strong language
in the statute. Um you can be sued if they write you a what they call a safe harbor letter. You have 14 days to repeal it or back off or they can sue. So the question is does this provision this manual in the ordinance that created the manual does it trigger this?
The the answer is only a judge can decide. Right? So the only way I can give you a definitive answer is that there's case law. Of course there's no case law because this is day one and there's really no other language in Florida law that's exactly similar. There's B Harris which is inordinate in
inordinate burden which is much more narrowly construed. It's different. This is brand new. So, as a commission, based on the bill, there's an option for you to challenge uh to request an opinion from a judge. Problem with that provision is it shuts down the ordinance
in the meantime. So, if you're like, "Hey, we're going to do a um declaratory action to try to get a judge to determine if this falls underneath the statute or not, the TMM, it would immediately shut down the TMM." Right. It would. So, in my first email to you
today, I alluded to the fact that I think I said it very strongly. I said this is void. Now, I didn't literally mean it's void because it can't be avoided. Um, it's policy decision of what you want to do with it. I think an argument can be made that it's burdensome. But speaking with
Commissioner Dicki and some others, I think there is a a counterargument that that some could make, which is to say at a certain point in the future, no one was allowed any field dirt. And then they came forth with a regulation that says you're allowed fill dirt, but you
have to do X, Y, and Z. So it's like an allowance. I think I think it's debatable whether it being joined a right being joined with a regulatory burden is itself at the end of the day still a new regulatory burden. And there's some language in this long bill.
It's like a 50-page bill that talks about just any regulation. And I think that a judge would see that as a detachment. Let me explain what I mean. So okay, we're giving you the right to have fill but it comes with the new regulations. It's potent. It's possible that the judge just focuses on the
regulations and stays it. If somebody sues, it's a summary administration. It basically means they'll the court has to clear its calendar. This thing is very much rushed and they're entitled to a preliminary injunction. So, if somebody to sue, it's going to be rushed. They're going to get a hearing quick and they
could probably stay or stop the motion plus win attorney's fees. It's very aggressive. It's very sort of an anti-local government law and that's where we're at. So, I think there are legitimate counterarguments. you'll have to make a policy decision at the end of the day. And then of course I think there's a third option. Again, I don't
try to try not to weigh into the policy side. I just try to outline the law. But I think that the third policy which is something that you could definitely exercise a prudence is you could change this modification manual and the ordinance in such a way that it is simplified and then you greatly reduce
the potential plaintiffs that would ever sue the city on behalf of it because they're not annoyed by it, but at the same time not repeal it entirely. I mean, I think that in some ways is an option that prevents litigation, uh, but also tries to achieve the goals that this commission agreed upon when it
passed the manual to begin with. So, I know that's a lot there. Hopefully, it kind of answers your question. Again, this is day one of this law. Um, but what you're saying is is if a resident's trying to build a house and they're delayed by two months because of this, then they
get mad enough they could sue us and say based on Senate Bill 180, this thing is too burdensome for me and I'm suing this the the city over it. They would have standing to sue. I'll answer it that way. They could sue. I don't know how successful they're going to be. I'm not saying they would win or lose. I'm just saying they they have the right to have
an immediate hearing, permanent injunction hearing uh or temporary and um have a judge weigh in on it. Now, I think the relevant question that I thought about a lot legally driving down here was, okay, if they say I can't build without Phil, even though they
didn't have a right to fill before, the fact that now they can't build at all and they thought they could, I think that would also give um strength to the legal argument that it's burdens, more burdensome than what existed before. So again, my opinion at the end of the day is not going to be used as evidence in
the courtroom. So don't think I'm weighing in decisively or disadvantaging the city despite what place you get. Every single lawyer out of the 85,000 Florida are going to disagree on this. But that's my opinion right now is that speaking from pure prudence, I almost think the simplified option would be to
try to amend it to make it less burdensome, which would reduce pliffs and show good faith, but at the exact same time um not it would be risk. It would be a very low risk option. I'll put it that way. So, I um I actually reached out um to
the senator today that brought this to the floor and actually um Lisa Marie, if you don't mind, I g we did print outs for everybody. So, talked it through with him at length. um one obviously we don't want
to uh put our city at risk for lawsuits and he brought up a couple of very very valid points. Um one and again I think we all agree terrain modification again it was passed trying to get people to be able to get Phil as soon as possible
that that wanted it. And um what she's handing out right now is basically um it's the actual Senate bill um that was sent to me. And basically um 108 um through 1058 is is pretty much what I
was focusing on. And basically um the way it was explained to me by the senator was terrain modification is a voluntary process. Therefore technically speaking
um because it's voluntary it is not considered burdensome. Now his thing and the whole the whole part of that is it's hard for something to be burdensome if it's voluntary. However, he said if they brought the
complaint to the city, just as you stated, the city has 14 days to make the decision. Okay, this one thing in the terrain modification could be considered burdensome rather than
um go to a lawsuit. Let's go ahead and strike that out, void that out and move forward. Boom, lawsuit's done. There's no lawsuit. It doesn't move forward in court. That's the way it was explained to me. But the fact that the actual ordinance itself is a voluntary you
don't have to do it. Um it it it's not technically considered burdensome. I'm not saying it's not burdensome. Believe me, I'm not saying that whatsoever. I'm just stating the way it was explained to me, but I was also um it was also explained to me that the one thing we
have to remember before we go start changing a bunch of things in our our code that could be considered burdensome is we have 14 days. So, it's kind of like our city's protected. All of the cities are protected. That is one thing they
did in this bill was make sure that the people, the citizens are protected and so are the cities because before any lawsuit can move forward, we have 14 days to rectify that whatever it is um so that it does not move forward in
court. And you'll see I have it highlighted um in that where it talks about the 14 days. That's the 1045 um through 1058. But basically, it's just a um covering,
you know, covering our bases basically that the way it was interpreted by the senator was because it's a voluntary ordinance, it is not going to be considered a burdensome ordinance. So,
that's the way it was explained to me. But we may have to start striking stuff out of it if people challenge us on it. If people challenge us on it and they say because what we what I would hate to see happen is people who are moving forward and who are using terrain
modification, if we stop it, then they're they're done. They're stopped. They're at a dead stop until we come back with something. So, this is kind of like, okay, if they come to us in the meantime while we're trying to do the modification on this and and simplify it
um so that it doesn't just dead stop for those people who are currently using it. That's what we don't want to do. We don't want to dead stop the people that are using it. And then, and I agree, I sympathize 100%. So if your builder or
your attorney or whoever says this is burdensome, then you bring that to the city and absolutely then we do have the right to go okay and it says it right here in the it's Tammy. This is in the bill. The problem is there's 144 pages of stuff that people could come to us
with that they want us to use. But but it's a voluntary thing. That's the whole that was again I'm not I think we all agree. I think we've all said that we want to simplify and the fill dirt, but what we don't want to do is stop the
people that are already in the process and are doing it. Well, no, we wouldn't stop until we came up with something simpler. I mean, I Well, if if what I just heard was okay, once if you if it's okay. True. If I if I heard you correctly, basically,
we would have to stop one. Is that not what you said or did I miss that somewhere in there? I thought you said something about when I started off I said that there's this provision in the bill that says you can get in front of a court right now and basically ask what ask for declaratory relief which is hey is this violate the law? The problem is
if you do that it automatically stops your ordinance which you don't want. So I think again very credentially very wisely you're pointing out a third way that's like okay let's chip away. Now, one of the most important parts of this is it's not just the existence of the
law, it's government action. So, the government has to take some action. So, if you have a potential plan and they say, "Listen, you know, you have this big terrain manual. We've been working through it, but there's parts of it that have been burdensome. You can then void those via first as a resolution and then
later we'll amend the ordinance to just stay that repeal that end that stop that action from occurring and that would prevent the lawsuit. So, I guess it's another way of saying we should probably find out the provisions that potentially
are creating some um friction in the community and then you can remove those right from the TMM and hopefully it's still, you know, intact and gets the goals done that the city wants, right? Before public records, can I read a letter, please? I got copies for you.
Thank you. What letter? Uh letter that I wrote. I'm going to read it. And hold on. Is this uh is this have anything? absolutely has to do with TMM. Um, so I'm going to read it slowly and clearly. Thank you. Uh, to the residents
and taxpayers of Treasure Island, as your elected commissioner, I am committed to ensuring that our local government operates with transparency, accountability, and a clear alignment between staff actions and the direction of the commission. When these expectations are not met, it is my duty
duty uh to speak up on behalf of the residents and the taxpayers we serve. I must formally state that I've lost confidence in staff member Katherine Ynan's ability to execute the will of this commission, particularly as it relates to supporting pro-development policies and implementing them in a
manner that reflects both competence and and accountability. Miss Yonan had was the chief architect in the terrain modification manually manual originally known as LVATI. This initiative was presented as a
framework to modernize and streamline how land improvements are regulated in Treasure Island. However, the execution of this project has failed to meet even basic expectations despite significant investment of t taxpayer and resident
funds. Not a single permit has been success successfully issued under TMM. The manual instead of enabling responsible development has created barriers, confusion and delay undermining the very purpose for which
it was created. Compounding this failure is a matter of serious uh concern. In April 25, Miss Yncan formally res resigned her position. That resignation was delayed until TMM was adopted
shortly thereafter. Without any notice, direction, or from approval by the commission, she was appointed to a newly created role titled special project manager. This position uh was not included in the city's adopted budget and was never authorized by the
commission and it creates uh clear breach of public trust and process. This is not simply a matter of public policy disagreement. It is structure failure in governance, accountability, and leadership. Residents and property owners have been burdened by an
unworkable permitting process. Taxpayer funds have been spent without oversight, and decisions are being made outside the scope of commission direction. Treasure Island deser deserves a city government that acts in alignment with its elected
officials, honors its obligations to taxpayers, and implements policies that work. I remain committed to ensuring that we correct course and restore trust in our local leadership. Based on these continued failures and uh overreaches, I
am formally making a motion to eliminate the position of special project manager. This role was created improperly and is unbudgeted and has not demonstrated measurable value in the community. Sincerely, Commissioner Arthur Silon.
Thank you. Any second? I'll second. Sweet. Would you like to give that to her for the record, sir? I know it's shocking. I think that this uh is going to turn into a uh a legal issue. That's where
we're going. So, Anthony, we're going to need for you to um to basically let us know uh you know that yes, she did she did resign. Um the date I always heard
multiple dates coming through. Uh I I I do have a copy of an email communication that outlines um the terms of her stay past her resignation. I believe it's an August date. Um there's a salary
reduction. There's there's a document that exists. So I do believe I would defer to Anthony. Yes. So the area about the administration, the commission when they come together, it's not as black and white as people think. I think some people think it's like you can't weigh
in at all. Unemployments. Um there is a black and white area. You cannot directly terminate a person. But I'll I'm going to read it then I'll explain it. So, uh, section 3.5 prohibitions appointments and removals. The commission nor any of its members shall
in any manner dictate the appointment or removal of a city administrative officer or employee whom the manager or any of their subordinates appoint. But, and this is why it gets a little more gray, the commission may express its views and fully and freely discuss with the
manager anything pertaining to appointment remove such officers. So the motion as I understand it was to eliminate a position. Um not not a termination but to eliminate a position. Now I think the more relevant section sorry to give you a legal lecture but I think this is very important and it'll
help us go forward as we go through the next couple years on this is subsection B interference with administration except for the purpose of inquiries and investigation. All inquiry dealing with the portion of the administrative service right all the employment employees of the city with the exception of the following parap shall be with the
city manager. Neither the commission nor member shall give any order uh to act to act in a certain way. So so basically the motion at the end of the day is a is advice and consent of the commission
to direct the city manager to take administrative action. It's not actually a termination. Um so then the question is well can you do it? Yes, you can. You can ask the city manager in conformance with the second clause of 305 section A
to you can express your views fully and freely concerning the appointment of removal of officers and employees. You could also say I move to require the city manager to create a new position like a new city uh parking attendant or something like that. At the end of the
day, the city manager makes an actual decision. The motion is simply a directed to the city manager. Does that make sense? Sir, these charters were never written as bright line rules. They're they're simply advisory. So, let me just fast
forward. If the city manager terminates that position, eliminates that position, she's had she or he has the ability to move that person somewhere else if they'd like. So, therefore, I think it's legally defensible. uh if there was a legal challenge saying that this motion
was the termination and a court found that it was, they would say it's a violation of the charter and they'd probably eliminate that motion. Uh there is no case law on this, but I I do think if you are asking me my opinion on it, I do
think that you have the authority to provide to do a motion that directs a city manager to eliminate a position in their department. You they do have the authority I just want to make clear my second has nothing to do with any individual person. It has to do with residents like
this who the TMM has made their life completely and utterly miserable. If I may, mayor, um I would just ask that this decision be brought before the new city manager. I don't believe it's appropriate for an acting city manager
to to take that responsibility. and and hopefully don't mean hopefully you don't mean right now. Uh I I want to jump in here uh right now if I could is Miss Yncan has has done uh has has
given her heart and soul to this uh city. She has done nothing to uh enhance her own standing, her own position. She's done what she thought was in the best interest of the city and its residents. Uh, I I think given that she
has already given her notice and it is sometime in August, I think this is a an insult and a slap in the face to try to uh suddenly terminate her. Not to mention, from everything I'm hearing from our city attorney. Uh, that seems
to be uh an appropriate uh measure for this city commission to take. uh if if uh if if you are unhappy with her personally or or professionally, uh I I'd like to see uh her let serve her uh
tenure out whenever it is here in August. Uh unless the new city manager decides uh he wants to uh to expedite that, but I'd like that uh to be his call and not this not the commission's. Uh, and the only other thing I would
like to add to that is I've heard from several uh, city employees how valuable her knowledge and experience has been as they've been working into their new position. So, so not only I don't know what the special project manager in
incorporated, but the fact that she is the last of the uh, employees or managers or directors that we have that have any degree of experience. Uh I I think uh rushing her off before these
new people have a chance to learn from her and learn what she's uh retain some of that institutional knowledge. I think I just think it's inappropriate every which way you look at the position was inappropriately created
out of thin air. That's my opinion truly that uh that that is just an opinion because we can all you know ha have opinions on this. This is kind of where I stand. Um you know that there are folks here that are working with the
city that have worked with her for a long time. And uh I think that the staff has taken uh many hits over the last you know uh since the the first hurricane about uh different employees, different people that are are are uncomfortable in
their in their role because of different things all across the board. Did we take action of what was done by the city manager? The answer is yes. The city manager was terminated. he and for
numerous reasons, but this, you know, being one of those that we we were in a conundrum of of what's going to happen and when is it going to happen. Um, I think to take it out at now at 6 weeks
uh about 6 weeks to the day that uh that it's going to be a a negative uh for this commission. it's going to be a negative for our our staff and employees. Um and and I think that it's
a mistake. Let's put it to a vote. I'm I would like to speak on this for a second. Um I definitely I would agree with John. Um she's almost at her end. Um I I know it's sometime in August. I'm
not sure when. and you know and if I recall that I I can't remember exactly why but anyway um at that time we will have the new um city manager in place and I think that that's that's what we do. I think that it's a um I don't see
why all of a sudden now there's a rush. I mean, you know, there's people that have been complaining, well, why can't she stay? And then there's, you know, five minutes later, well, she needs to go now. And so, I uh I I would
definitely agree with the mayor and commissioner Dicki that I I don't see the rushing. I mean, it's a few more weeks. Um, and I just I think that should be up to the
city manager at that point. All right. So, let's uh get some public comment. I've got Andrew Vasey. Uh, Andrew Vasey, District 2, Groundhog Day, part two. Uh,
I appreciate Commissioner Seaison's thoughtful comments and uh his consideration because he was a supporter of TMM and he's watched residents uh like like here and other people that are dealing with it. I appreciate Mayor
Doctor your thoughtful comments on it too. um based on the history of what all of us as residents have gone through with you going back before the hurricanes to elevate TI. So with that
being said, I think that this particular community development director uh has experience, so we'll agree with that. But she also has a track record and that track record was built before
the former city manager was terminated. And your track record comes along with you with your experience. The track record started with Elevate TI and the terrible
look back which Senator Diggley has spec specifically put in Senate Bill 180 because of those look backs and that look back provision that would have put many of the residents in their singlestory houses out of their homes. If we didn't come and fight with that
and several of you up there didn't join us in that approval that hatched out of the community development director and our planning department under that under a different city manager and under a different mayor. Okay. And that whole
group owns that elevate TI. Then we rolled into the hurricane and the community development director position at that time went with first in first out on permitting. We all remember that. How many times did we stand here as residents and talk about triaging
people's permits so that people who were below 50% and had a licensed contractor and you remember the whole spiel? get those permits out the door to get people back in their homes and then deal with the people who were pushed out because of flawed substantial determination
letters that this person sat up on the fifth floor and pointed to a monitor and said, "Read that. This is what the city attorney also who's not here anymore who was part of that whole elevate TI and then the permitting fiasco under option one was part of." And so I think that as
residents we all have a collective memory as well. And I think that that this is not a rush to judgment on the part of Commissioner Seaison. This is something that she resigned. The first I heard about her resigning was in December and it it was like the evil
monk Rasputin just kept coming back coming back and then this position got created under special projects. I said several times, put her over at the um Treasure Bay where we're doing the living seaw wall and let her start a
community garden. Pay her out to hit her retirement, which is really what's going on here. They're keeping her around because they're trying to get her to a certain retirement number. So, that's what's happening. Now, we're not a charity organization as a group of residents. would prefer not to pay
people out. But the idea was then strike a deal with her, pay her out, let her go along her way, get her to the date, and then get a community development director in here that could do the job and that was aligned with the interest of the residents. Now, now we hear a
comment about, "Oh, we should let the new city manager decide, but it was easy for the temporary city manager to hire a community development director here who is now sitting in the acting city manager chair." So, none of this is
rushed. And I I commend Commissioner Seaison for actually being thoughtful in the beginning on TMNM, which we have never agreed with. um on the resident side, we don't like it and it needs to
go away or be modified, but at least you considered it. And then you went through and you've witnessed what happened, which is the old I told you so, which we all knew that this was troubled. And you again, two of you asked us it to be simplified in in uh what August also.
And then nothing happened. And we got people would laugh up here when the former city manager would say, "Oh, I reached out to Kimley Horn. We couldn't find the person to talk to." Okay? Any engineering firm has a business development guy. The minute you call and say, "Hey, we want to give you a
contract." They're all over you. Okay? And this guy just vanished because they didn't want to do it. So, I appreciate the thoughtfulness of both um of the commissioner's comments, but as the residents, as somebody who has fought with this, I lost my home. I'm going
through all this permitting and everything else next. I'm sitting back letting other people do it because I I do this as part of my profession and what I'm watching is just craziness. This is self-inflicted. We've known about this and so I would urge you to
support Commissioner Seaison and move this along so we can get on with the business that we need to for the residents. Thank you, Chris Downey. I wasn't going to comment on that motion. I was commenting on I haven't
really got to get into to my TMM speech yet, but All right. Richard Harris, do you want to make any comments? to I assume most of the comments are on the underlying subject.
No, it's my comment to talk about the uh what I always called the removal of the prohibition of imported fill into Treasure Island because I changed the name because I didn't like it. But I will reserve my comments when we go and I don't want to talk about the removal
of Katherine Yonan at this point. Okay. Wes, do you want to talk about this? West Evans, Isa Palms. Uh, I just want to say obviously you guys know the residents have been fighting against TMM and uh, originally I was going to speak
on that, but this has come up and I just want to uh, like Vy said, I want to commend Arthur for um, for seeing, you know, you guys said when you voted on it, you're going to try to simplify it. It's supposed to go this way. If it
doesn't go that way, you guys will come back around and simplify, work through it. I know I was at odds the day after uh you guys voted TMM in with Arthur and uh Tammy because I and I quote, I said,
"You guys lapped up the staff's uh like like kittens to milk. you you took what they said and you believe what they said and the residents warned you that there were people on the staff that were pushing something because they had an agenda. Not everyone on the staff, but
some people. And uh now it's I I don't know how many people have actually gotten fil dirt. Uh do we have that number? That's something we could probably look into. But it seems like when I'm out going for a walk in the evening, anyone I talk to, they just talk about how much of a nightmare this
is. So once again, I just want to commend you, Arthur, for uh seeing uh what's come of it and saying, "Hey, you know, maybe we made a mistake with this and we need to revisit it and uh and do something about it." Thank you. I know
people have brought in Phil with Please. Oh, Juliet Brown, I want to talk about what Chris was. Are you Are we talking back on your topic? We haven't We've never gotten to my topic yet, but um we will, I think. Okay. Is that what the the other two do you
want to speak? Uh, Mr. Bazo, Robert Bazo, Olive Capri, a couple things. Um I was enjoying my retired life here uh greatly the first seven years until um I learned about TMM and that's when I started getting involved and meeting all all the all the people
here and I admire the work you do here. I thought TMA TMN was just a complete ridiculous thing and we killed it I think very effectively and then the new commission decided to uh remember a year ago we tried to get it a year and a half
ago we tried to get a a filled it a filled dirt ordinance passed separately. Um the commission voted on it or at least discussed it and the staff uh did the opposite and didn't do that. And then this particular seated board decided then, okay, we'll pass a
modified TMM to somehow uh allow fill dirt. I personally believe that was a silly thing to do. Um I think we should have just simply had a fill dirt ordinance. But anyway, uh we got to where we are now. Um I was amazed that
clearly uh with the Senate bill that came out effective today, um the the attorney, I think's first impression was spot on. um void. It is in fact burdensome. I was um we've had some residents come up here and discuss the
burden of TMN and are still out of their homes 8 months, nine months later. I think that's I think that's proof that it is a burden. I think your first impulse of saying it was void is spot on. Um, Commissioner Vasquez, if I interpret it
correctly, is simply is saying, well, um, if somebody has an issue with it, first of all, I think she said TMM was was was voluntary or not mandatory. I'm not sure how that's correct. I mean, if I want to do something to my house, I believe it's mandatory. I don't think
it's voluntary. And I think then it put the burden on me the resident to go get an attorney sue and then you have 14 days to decide whether you can you can somehow line out my particular issue on TMM. I think
that's again a burden on me. So again I'm not an attorney. I'm a simple simple guy simple uh career military guy. But I believe it is on his face TMM is in fact a burden on the residents. Okay, that
aside, that's my opinion. Um, but it's a smart one, I think. Um, talking about Miss Yncan, um, uh, Commissioner Seaison, I think the point he's making is really more, it's an HR issue. But I think it's a good one in sense it's
jobs are paid for, they're designed, they're organized by a billet. So, uh, the CTD position resigned. The person in that billet resigned in December. The vacancy was posted in January and
she stayed on. Okay, that's fine. Um, but I think his point is a good one in sense of what is his position now? Who's paying for her job now and who approved it? I think that's an HR question. I think it's a jester question, uh, not a city manager question. And I think it's a good one. But in terms of her as a
person, I think her credentials in that job were fantastic credentials. I think she was just unprepared for the hurricane and did not take certain advice. Okay, that's fine. Um, I think
any actions against her, um, if any, should have been taken back then. She's she's here now. She's doing her job. She she's in a position. I think we all can agree that there's a lot of um personnel in her particular department that needs
help and assistance um and needs guidance. And I do think that it's not particularly proper. And I I I take Commander uh Commissioner Dicki's Commander Dicki Commissioner Dickiy's point, I think, well, in that we we've kept her on. Um she does have a lot of
knowledge, skills, and abilities. I really give her credit for that. And I don't I don't condemn people that been living here and working hard and never suffered through a hurricane. And I and I really I really feel for
that. I really have empathy for that. So I I'm not in favor of of of terminating her uh now, but I think it is an important HR question as to how was that position funded since she resigned this December? That's a good question, I
think. But I do think we need to take care of people. I think she's a val valuable person and I think there are people in her in that CDD apartment that need a lot of help and training because they not qualified for for that particular position but that's another
story. So um again TMM is a burden I think I believe it should be voided. I believe it takes about 10 minutes to do an ordinance on field dirt and Miss Yncan let it go out with style and grace and continue teaching uh the
people within that department. Thank you. Thank you. Rick, did you want to talk? Rick Matthew, District 3. Um the TMM when you guys passed it, you said we're going to work it. What's been done?
It sounds like nothing's been done other than you passed it and then they said we'll massage it as we go, but I don't think it's actively being worked. I'm not not calling anybody out, but I don't think anything's been done with it. If
if I can respond to that. Uh, Commissioner Dicki, we provided a report to you of all the open TM projects. Do you have that? Yes, I do. Okay. I I I'll get that when we finish the I appreciate it. Thank you. Okay. Okay. The other issue, I mean, I've talked with
Katherine and she's very technical. I mean, always very pleasant. So, she answered any questions I might have had. My issue is more so with industry standard is two weeks. You you resign, you give two weeks notice. We've had
multiple employees here that resign and they're here for months. My daughter resigned from Hilton and they said, "Okay, after lunch you're good." She turned in a resignation. They said, "Okay,
you're good. We'll pay you. You know, you're done." So, I think that's more of an HR question. If you resign, there's got to be What does that mean? I'm going to still come to work for three or four months. We got to come up with some, like I
said, two weeks notice. Great. You're out. All right. Thank you. All right. So, we still want to get I think we're changed the subject a little bit, but we still need to while public comment is open. Get uh both Juliet and
Chris. Mayor, may I suggest that we close that we close this subject up or we take a vote on we had a motion and a second uh that uh Commissioner Sison put forth. Can we There was a Yeah, there was a motion in a second for Commissioner Sison's motion. Yes, there
was. But I've never closed the public comment. So, I guess we can go back to public comment after we take this vote. Correct. Yes, you can do that. Okay, we'll do we'll do that. Okay. So, we have a motion and a second.
Um, roll call, please. Commissioner Sison, I. Commissioner Clark, I. Vice Mayor Vasquez, no. Commissioner Dicki, no. Mayor Doctor, no. Okay. So, we've closed that out. Now,
let's reopen public comment to uh to address the the real issue that uh we had on the uh the agenda tonight. Oh, do do you want me to talk about what I
was going to talk about I put on the agenda before we do public comment or do you want to do public comment first? I don't got hijacked. Okay, let's go. Um, okay. So, I think we've beat a dead horse on TMM uh being burdensome
with people. I've heard almost everyone up here say that it probably needs to be simplified. Um, now I got to find my notes. Oh, here we go. Um, so what I did, um, was I worked with, um, Chris Downing, who is, um, on the PNZ board to
come up with a plan to simplify um, the TMM. And basically what I came up with um was three different kind of task or scenarios that we could get
someone like a Kimley Horn um one of our engineers get a senior engineer to look at this. And the first task was let have them look at our original filter ordinance that said you're not allowed to have fill. Is there a way
that that could possibly be simplified very easily to say you can have Phil? I think there was always questions about can we just change the one word from we you know you are not allowed to have Phil to say you are allowed to have
Phil. Okay, so that's the first thing. The second thing would be have them look at um uh basically the current TMM and if we could somehow pair it down and make it simpler. The third thing we could have them do is, hey, can you look
at writing a whole new simple fill dirt ordinance? So, number one, take our original fil no fill ordinance, see if it could be easily modified. Two, take change the current TM, make it simpler. Task three, come up with a
whole new simple field dirt ordinance. So what we would do is we would we would give those to Kimley Horn and say, "Could you please report back to to us on that?" And at the same time, what we would do for each one of those three tasks, we're going to pick a we're going
to pick a a regular what you call normal lot and then like a norm normal a non-conforming lot like a lot down in um in Sunset Beach and have them say what each one of those three things they come up with what it would cost a resident to bring in Phil. So
then we could we could look at three different scenarios of okay, here's three different ones and then here's the cost and we could pick one of them. So what we were going to do was put this out to someone like Kim Lee Horn, give
them six weeks to get back to us on this. Um, you know, we'd have to come up with a cost. It might cost, you know, $50,000 this them to do this for us. I don't like spending money, but you got to remember that we're spending money
sending these out, these TMMs out to all these engineers right now. So, um, have them come back to us in 6 weeks. I think we could pick the one that was the simplest and also the cheapest for the residents and move forward,
um, and simplify this whole thing. Um, so that is my plan and uh I think Chris was going to in public comment was going to get up and talk a little more about it but um yeah I had it I was going to put it up on the screen but I forgot to have him put it
up on there. All right. Original before are we discussing before? Okay. So, originally when we passed um TMM, and I know this is before you were here, so um this might just be completely blindsided, but I know the reason
because all of us wanted a simple dirt. All of us. There wasn't one of us that didn't want that. However, it was we were made, and anyone please correct me if I'm wrong. It was made known to us that if we started from scratch with a simple field dirt
ordinate completely void of TMM, void of any of that, that that would have to go back to state for approval and that could take 12 to 18 months. Now, that's originally what we were told when we said why can't we have a simple field dirt ordinance, which is why we did what
we did. If I can, mayor, just we're kind of let's go back to the beginning and just revisit what terrain modification exactly is. It's a storm water management program that allows for fill. And when we talk about modifying an ordinance, we're actually talking about
eight different ordinances that are involved in this program. Two of them are state. Um the time frame that it takes I I can't I can't suggest it could be anywhere from 6 months or or
more. Um I I don't want to be quoted on that. When Senate Bill 180 came out, we immediately started doing our homework. I also spoke to the bill sponsor. Um, the way that it's written is written as a voluntary, but what I do know is that
we have the opportunity to be preemptive and voluntary submit our code to circuit court for review. So, it would be my recommendation that we first submit this to to circuit court, find out which
parts are considered burdisome based on Senate Bill 180 from a higher authority. from that point if you wanted to go to procurement and uh we are in contract with Kim Horn for our LDR we're going into phase two but we do not have
engineering services included in that so you'd have to go back out for RFP for those services we can't just selectively choose who does it um at least we will have the answers as to what is a violation or what is burden uh burdensome or restrictive
that's that's kind of the opinion as the CDD director that I would have I would recommend that we go to a higher authority have a circuit court um opinion. It's going to take me a minute to figure out that process because this is so new, but it seems like a reasonable first step.
If if I could just add on to that. Yeah. And it's not a bad idea, but the only issue just to remind the council is if you do that, it automatically stays the ordinance. So upon such request, the county or municipality may not enforce the action until the court has issued a
preliminary judgment um whether the action violates the section. So So it's like you're putting your own ordinance on pause by waiting for the court. So it stops the filter my reading of it. Yeah. County municipality may request a termination of a court.
Upon such request, the county or city may not enforce the action. action being the law, the ordinance, because this is retroactive. So, it's treating as if it's not in law yet. It's being proposed. But if we're working a simple fill dirt ordinance on the site, doesn't
stop the TMM, right? It can stay in effect. But if you submit for a court opinion, which you could potenti, but am I correct? And and again, I'm going back to when we all unanimously approved
um because I believe you were absent. So I don't want to in if I recall I can't remember. That's correct. No, I was here I think but I voted no but Okay. But when four of us did vote and the reason we did is so because we all had people reaching out to us saying we want to
start building our house but we want filer. It was made very clear to us that if we started from scratch um from our firm for former city attorney, if we started from scratch that it would basically still have to go
through the whole process of um you know getting state approval which if we're running TMM asis while we're doing that I think that was kind of always what we wanted to do um or something therein modifying what
we had or doing that. But I just wanted to be clear that I think all of there's not one of us that doesn't want, you know, a filer ordinance that's just easy and easy to follow and and easy. Um, I just really don't want somebody to have
to wait 12 to 18 months for a new ordin ordinance and this one stop. We wouldn't we wouldn't shut off TMN. We'd have to allow filing though. That's my fear. You're all in agreement on that. One comment that I want to make is I just I don't ever believe what we were being
told that it was going to take 12 to 18 months for this to get done. That was that was that was I'm not talking about to get it done. I'm talking about for state approval. That's all I was talking about. 30 days. That's what I was talking about. I mean that was by that was that was engineered
by someone that John said earlier we fired and I mean so I mean I I just I just I may be wrong but I don't believe I just don't believe that. And that's fine. Like I said I'm not saying it is or it's not. I'm just stating that that is what was told to us. What I would suggest, again, another option, not
telling you you should or shouldn't go one direction, but another potential positive option would be just to, again, I think we talked about it earlier, try to find the exact clause or part that's creating the most burden, and then I can double check legally if we can remove that without the whole thing coming
apart, right? If if it's rational for for an amendment, which I think it would be. But if you specifically, you know, you can assign ta staff to do that, but you're a very hands-on commission. you might want to go through it, talk with these folks and say, "Okay, these are the clauses that are causing the headaches." And then have staff and us
do a comprehensive review and try to remove that through an ordinance next month. Okay. Okay. Mayor Dr. Just an option. Go ahead. Okay. I I did uh you know, when I saw that this was going to be on the agenda, I did uh some work on it. And Commissioner Clark, just so you
know, let me preface what I'm going to say is I I am 100% support uh simplifying the terrain modification. I I you will never get an argument with me on that. Having said that, I did do uh some work. I got the city to print me a
full copy of the terrain modification uh plan. Uh and let me talk a little bit about that if you'll pass this down. Uh the terrain modification plan or or manual rather is 136 pages which you've you've uh heard you've heard that number
before. Uh tonight I think we heard 144 but it's 136 pages. Five pages of it are table of contents. Five pages are the are the introduction uh which includes the background information and also includes the two that are the nine conditions that the
LPA asked to be included in on it. Uh another five pages are talking about sea level rising projections and why why even do the train modification. Another eight pages are program o overview. Now, the reason I point that out to everybody
is up to this point, even though it's 136 page manual, if you're going to uh build a new home, a single family home or a two-dwelling structure, only 31 pages of that 136 page manual apply to you. You don't have to read anything
else in that manual. Nothing. Okay? If you want to do a a a new seaw wall, only 16 pages of that 136 page manual apply to you. You don't have to read any of the rest of that stuff.
Uh so anyway, I just handed out to the other uh commissioners and you can pass that on down just how many pages are dedicated to each each subject. So it's not 136 pages is very intimidating and I and I think that is part of the problem because uh I did call
uh uh the engineering firm that does the re budget the uh permit reviews uh for uh the train modification. I did call them talked with a gentleman by the name of Robert Ronssky uh with applied sciences and I and I and I got some
notes from him and I was really probing him to find out you know is terrain modification causing you a lot of problems on your end? You're the one that has to review the permit. is it calls in you. Now these he only gets he doesn't get all the permits. He just gets permits that are relating to
engineering change, new builds, elevates, seaw walls, that type of stuff. He's been doing this work for the city of Treasure Island for the past four to five years. Uh uh he I asked him how long does it take to do a seaw wall permit uh review and he says generally
about two to three hours. And I asked, "Is that are you spending more time on review now than you did before uh terrain modification?" And he says, "Yeah, it's you know, there's more to look at now. There's more to comment on, but that would apply with any field dirt
policy." So, uh, but but he said it's still in the 2 to three hour range. I asked him about new builds, and he said he spends about five to six hours on a new build, uh, in terms of reviewing it. Uh and again I asked him is you know has this added a lot of extra work. He said
it definitely more questions more comments I have to suggest. Uh he did say he he generally turns around permit reviews within five working days of receiving them. Uh and that the uh terrain modification program has not
changed that. He still can turn around his responses uh to back to the city uh within within five working days. He does have a lot of good ideas on how to improve permitting process flow uh but none specifically rel related to the
train modification program. He thought uh he he didn't seem to have any trouble understanding what was in here through an engineering perspective. He did say that that he says there are three to four builders in in our community that knowingly submit incomplete information
because they would rather just respond to his questions than than to take the time upfront to commit the permit application properly. That's what again these are quotes that I that I got from this gentleman. Uh, so anyway, what I learned about that is, yeah, if I'm a if
I'm a contractor and I've got to read this, I'm probably not, you know, I would do what he's saying. I would go ahead and say, you know what, I'm going to just submit this thing and I'll respond to whatever questions. I'm not going to go through this 136 page manual. Uh, so anyway, that was one
thing. The other thing I did ask uh uh Bobby Shade uh to get me a list of how many uh permit apps we've had that are related to the train modification program. And you had asked me about that just a minute ago. Uh currently we have
27 uh permit applications uh that in that since May 1st that that involve uh the terrain modification, nine new builds, 13 elevations and five seaw walls. So that's kind of how it's broken
down uh in terms of the the people. So it's 27. Of the 27, two have been approved, one on June 9th and another on June 20th. Uh five uh need the engineers reviewed them and sent it back asking
for corrections. 10 of them are incomplete applications and those those are the ones I'm a little bit uh concerned about and I'll after I've had a chance to look at this I was going to circle back and talk with four of them are currently in review meaning with the with the engineering the engineering
firm that does this and six are waiting on responses that that uh that the city's asked of the of the uh benefit or the u the applicant. the you know my overall sense in in this is that uh I I
don't know I have read I did read earlier all the entire manual uh and and quite frankly the engineering parts I didn't understand completely uh or even partially probably but you know I was told and I believe this this was not
written for your your your private resident like like me that doesn't have an engineering degree this was written for engineers and architects it wasn't written for retired newspaper executives. Anyway, that's that's all I wanted to
add to that conversation. All right, let's uh open it back up for public comments. Uh Richard Harris, Richard Harris, 374 Bay Plaza, also the chairman of the Planning and Zoning Board. You know, we worked up the LPA
for two years on this thing. We finally came back earlier this year and said, "Okay, we're going to have uh we're either going to recommend denial to the city commission or we're going to come back with some conditions." We came up with nine conditions. Most of them say what you do not have to do, and I will
uh belabor the point by reading them out. No new seaw walls are required. No new retaining walls are required. No new docks are required. No mandate to elevate for the first 10 years of the program. Owners do not have to attempt
to elevate to the goal height. LPA will evaluate the program in two years. No funding is included for the road raising of roadways. Um the ones that were approved structural and nonstructural
fill are allowed to be brought in. The only thing that we had to require and it was required prior to the uh enactment of the U TMM for a better word is a signed and
sealed drainage plan is required. You had to do that before anyway because you have to prove that you cannot flow your water to your neighbor's yard. It's either got to go to the street or the seaw wall. You know, we uh did that. We recommended those nine conditions. You
approved it and I actually because I am a professional engineer, I helped one of my neighbors out and prepared a grading plan for his lot. Uh he said he submitted it and the city turned it down. I said, "Why did you why did it
get turned down? If you did it in the way I designed it, it will be approved. There is no doubt. The W It's simple. He's a waterfront lot. Front half of the lot goes to the street. The back half of the lot goes to seaw wall. Easy. He goes, "I didn't want to uh buy the
dirt." I said, "Okay, you didn't want to buy the dirt, which means you didn't do it in accordance with the signed and sealed engineering plan." He goes, "No, I didn't." So, I got denied. And I said, "Well, that's the reason you got denied." How close are you to your house
plans? Because this was just a generic grading plan, but he would have had to buy some dirt and build up his lot. He goes, "I'm very close to it." I said, 'Well, then that in that case, wait until your architect is done with your plans. Incorporate a
signed and sealed drainage plan using your new house footprint and then you'll get your permit and it'll go ahead. I just feel that a lot of people are not hiring the engineer. Any good architect, any good engineer can do a lot grading
plan in probably 30 minutes. this guy who says he took two hours to uh to review one. He probably did a lot of background saying might even have visited the site. I don't know what would take two hours. I mean, I did I
did 300 lot subdivisions where I was uh grading 300 lots and probably an 8 hour period. And it's just not that hard. What we passed back and it was enacted May 1st is a simple field door dirt
ordinance. If you look at the face value of it, it's all you need. You just need a signed and sealed grading plan because you cannot flood your neighbor. That has been a problem out here on Treasure Island for a long time. I've heard a lot of people say, "Oh yeah, my neighbor, he
built up his house. His water sheet flows under my lot." said, 'Well, that's a violation. And drainage swailes do go away over the years. I mean, you do end up with a situation due to landscaping and mulching and residing and everything
where a drainage swale will ultimately disappear. It's the owner's responsibility to make sure that water goes either to the drainage system in the street or over the seaw wall in the back. I tore down my house back in 1996.
Um, my only argument that I got into my builder was this is my one shot. I want to get this house as high as I can get it because when the hurricane comes and the storm surge gets up to elevation 8,
I'd like to be higher than that. I didn't get that high. I got up to elevation 5.78. So, I had 30 inches of water inside my garage during Helen. A lot of folks would say in this day and age, I would love to have built my house
two foot higher than what I did. Uh because that way even though it was a steel house and even though it was a garage like a lot of us have not all of us but uh I know at least three commissioners that have stilt houses
that it's a lot easier to deal with but you still have a lot of mess to deal with. You know it's it's this is just so simple it's unbelievable. This is just dirt you know. And uh yeah, I know I got
to wrap it up, John. I I heard the beep. So, you know, it's a situation where I don't know who is making this more difficult than it needs to be, but I had an example of the person that I did a
drainage plan for. He said, "I just don't want to do what you uh recommended." I said, "Well, you have to do what I recommended in order to get your permit. You got to spend some money. You're going to have to buy some dirt. Dirt is cheap. Thanks. Um, real quickly, I appreciate the conditions and
I appreciate it's only 36 pages pages, Ardan, but the problem is I continue to have real residents come to me that are absolutely struggling with this thing. So, there's there's got to be a problem with it somewhere. And and I wasn't disputing that because I'm hearing the same thing. And just looking at the
list, I mean, we've approved two of these and I would have liked to have thought we approved half of them. So, I definitely agree with you that we ought to take a look at what is wrong. I don't think we know what's wrong right now. So, so I'm open to to discussing that.
Chris Downing. Chris Downing by La Palms, also member of the planning and zoning board. Well, it's like a merrygo round. It's really hard to I think for everyone to get their arms around a lot of this. But um well where we are there's no
doubt is that what Richard just said in terms of the you know the the way in which this has been implemented um unfortunately has not gone as simply as we thought it would. We thought when we on the planning, zoning and on the
LPA turned this over with the conditions that it was voluntary and that we weren't asking for uh a resident to a property owner to have to go to the maximum. They could go to whatever level they wanted to with the fill dirt.
And that as Richard said, all that is really required for this to really go through was for a signed and sealed drainage plan that meets all of Florida codes with regard to storm water in a coastal area.
And because of the way things get juxtapositioned, unfortunately the process of getting that through the permitting process, as we've heard, has been overly burdensome. So the burden really is maybe not so much the document itself but the way in
which it's being implemented whether it's 136 pages or 36 pages you know specifically for uh single family home it's too complicated for what is necessary for one aspect of a
permit to be issued. If you have to have a document that long just to address one area of a permit check off, think of what that adds to the list of things that have to be done for a permit to be approved. So I there's no doubt that the
there's complexity in how this has to be done, but that's why a signed and sealed plan has to be done. So you let the engineer do his job and then the city should be able to sign off on those when the sealed plan is delivered. That's the checkbox that they should be looking
for, not to do full reviews of what that professional engineer did. That professional engineer did his job and signed off that the storm water plan for that or the drainage plan for that site is adequate. It's not going to be burdens burdensome to other neighbors.
So therefore, it should go through without question. So where do we go from here with all of this? Commissioner Clark is I think asking for the commission to move forward with that a motion to look at simplification of the
manual itself and it is just that it's a manual. It's not the you know the code references the manual but we have latitude within the manual as a reference to work on that to simplify it. So, I would encourage you to go forward with I don't think he's made the
actual motion yet, but to uh approve a motion to look at simplifying it to the point of what taking it all the way down to where it would be effectively a simple fill dirt ordinance. I think we can get there. I really do. It doesn't have to take this long. In the meantime,
though, we have to keep it in force so that we can actually not stop people from doing fill. I think that right now for the immediate people, the 27 that have issued them, you know, put per put put permits in, it ought to be a fairly straightforward process that isn't
shouldn't take months to get approval for a site plan for that drainage. If a professional engineer is signed off on it, then the city should be signing off on it. End of story for the time being. and Juliet. Thank you. You guys have all heard my
husband speak um a lot and we've been going through this together. Um I guess all I would ask is for the 27 that are in process. Can you please do something to prioritize them? Don't let them sit in a queue. And I think the other thing that's really frustrating is I didn't
know that there were 27 in process. I don't know. Are they SEAW walls? Are they you you went through that and said these are new builds. But I mean for people that have, you know, in progress work with materials sitting on their site. I mean this was we we got an
inspection and then the qu a paperwork inspection and the question was asked, did you use filter? And then it just stopped everything. So, if we could have gotten a verbal go-ahad with a signed sealed drainage plan, with a professional engineer that has done all of this, we have an approved permit.
Now, we've been sitting for 5 weeks. We need to keep going. So, we want to do that. We'll do it at our own risk because we're convinced that everything that we've done is 100% right. That's why we have a professional engineer. It's not us looking at this document. And, you know, just like we heard, I
don't think the document is overly arduous. It's the visibility into this convoluted process of we turn our documentation in and then it takes five days before the permit texts who are totally overloaded and have been super
helpful to email via email the documentation that we have you know submitted. We can't see in the portal where where it is in the process because now it's the TMM and it's outside of the normal scope. We have no way to talk to this gentleman that you spoke to, which
would have been fabulous. I know, you know, you said that absolutely you would set up a meeting with them if we wanted. It's just everything takes time and every single day is delaying us one day longer so that in September, I'm sure
that we're going to have a hurricane. We would love to have walls, but if we just took at our own risk and kept building and then when we have to call for the next inspection, somebody says, "Well, your paperwork wasn't completely finished." And then we have a storm, then our walls fall down. So, I just
we're asking for please just take the people that have things in process. I want to start going tomorrow. I want to be able to call our general contractor and say we have the go-ahad and then we'll just sort the paperwork out as your process, you know, works its way
through with the resources that you have. Anything you can do would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Susan Perkins. Hi, Susan Perkins. I'm on Sunset Beach or Sunshine Beach and I know you guys are talking about the fill dirt and
stuff. Well, while we were overseas serving our country, they built two pools on either side of my home. They bulldozed all the dooms down. First Street West is higher than me and both of the pool all that sand is still on the land. So, be careful when you say
they can do that because I this is the first time we've ever had any kind of a claim. And I was here when Donna hit 1960. We didn't have anything. No water, two shingles. Thank you,
Andrew. All right. So, Groundhog Day part three, uh, August 20th, simple field art ordinance. September 22nd, 10 months ago, I sent an email to you, Commissioner Dicki, with a 90-day plan
to riding alongside of Elevate TI to do a simplified field look with Kimley Horn. And uh it went it went to the city manager, the city manager at the time, and at the time we had a different mayor, and it went into a black hole.
And then all these stories start coming out that are unreliable that are being repeated tonight. Such as, oh, it's going to take 12 to 18 months to go through the state. Instead of getting some firsthand knowledge, unreliable information is being repeated. We went to the state. It's a 30-day expedited
review of the comprehensive plan. Okay? It's right in the it's right in the statute and and in the process. It didn't get done because there were people inside of the staff that opposed it because of Elevate TI. And so we
didn't get it done then. So then we fast forward and we get to the hurricane and everybody's like, look, you know, TMM isn't good. People are still against it. Why are we against it? Because of all the difficulty. And you're like, okay, we're going to pass it, you know, so for you vote for it and you pass it. If it's
so simple to do, if it's so if if they took the nine negative things out of it that we needed, then why can't these folks just get a permit to build their house? Because it isn't simple to do. Because the process is terrible. And the
terrible process is self-inflicted. Because when we got to the hurricane and we got through horrible option one, we talked about how many permits we were going to have and the four cycles that they were going to go through. first getting them in into the system, then
getting them in getting them approved, then getting them underway and getting inspected, and then getting them closed out and prepared for FEMA audit. So, we look through that whole process and at the time, again, two of you up there said, "Get a contract for a year with the program manager to move this thing
through because this is elephant is going to move through the snake over the course of all these months." And now we're sitting here tonight doing bits and pieces of we got to extend this group. I didn't want to extend this group of four. We we've had the same thing happen over and over here again
with this city which is the the the leadership and the staff bring no information forward. This whole thing about 12 to 18 months to do the study and everything. There was never one piece of paper produced. There was never one analysis produced by anybody on the city staff side. Why? because they were
purposely stopping what four of you at the time had voted for, at least three of you did on the commission and what everybody in the resident side wanted to get done and they didn't do it. And their answer was when I sat down with Chuck, oh well, the commission didn't give us clear direction on that. Okay,
which is another reason why they didn't do it. So now we're here doing what? We've took the 90-day process to try to come up with a full set of ordinances. And we're saying at least let's do six weeks, get them to look at three options, price it out. Get a gray-haired
senior engineer like Richard Harris, you know, one of one of his buddies at Kimley Horn, and get get it done and looked at so you can see where you are. Clearly, this isn't working. We knew it wouldn't work. We've been saying this for 10 months now. And all we want to do
is get folks like this their permit and into their house. And you know the threeletter the three-letter company that's holding it up because if you ask them when they talk to the permit tech of where this permit is going, it's going to our old friends at AED and
they're the ones that are processing their particular permit. Thank you. Thank you, West. West Evans, Isa Palms. Uh kind of Andy kind of stole my thunder there. Uh
you know, I want to say that it's easy, you know, uh Commissioner Dicki to say, uh, you know, if you want to do this, it's only six pages you got to read. If you want to do this, it's only 10 pages or whatever. And that it does. It seems simple. Chris Downing says it should be
simple. Richard Harris says it should be simple to all of us. It should be simple, but obviously it's not because at some point, I don't know if it's a permit department. I don't know if it when it goes past permits or at some
point there's someone or something in the system that says it's my job to make this difficult. It's not what can I do to make this easy for the residents. It's what can I do to make this difficult. It shouldn't be difficult.
Their job is to help get people where they need to be. I'll say what I said almost a year ago when we talked about this. Uh if you want to if you want to do the terrain modification manual uh because it's going to take too long to
do a simple field ordinance, then what you can do, give these people a variance. They have a drainage plan. Give them a variance. If someone has a drainage plan, give them a variance. They're doing the part, the simple part with the variance. They're proving it
with the with the drainage plan. Stop making it difficult. There's no reason to make it difficult. Uh it's it's crazy that we're still talking about this a year later and it's it's back to exactly what everyone said
it was going to be. Bureaucracy that's slowing the whole process. Thank you, Darren. Darren Brown is Palms. My iPad died. that I've been here so long, so I got to read from my phone. Sorry. Um, so, uh,
Commissioner, um, Dicki, I glad you were able to talk to Robert over at Applied Sciences and get some statistics from him. And I understand you said he says, "Well, just a lot of people just don't fill out the right paperwork or they don't answer all the questions because they just want to be spoonfed, right?"
But I don't really think that's the issue. So, we're the only city in the world as far we're the only city in the United States that has this train modification manual. Nobody else has it. What do we have like 2,000 single family homes in Treasure Island? I don't know, something like that. There's like 4
million in the state of Florida. So, how do we expect Florida licensed engineers to understand this manual and implement it? our engineer, I hope this is not inappropriate, but he said it's like the city is trying to give a colonoscopy to
every single property before they let you do anything. And you know, he's like, I I don't know how to write a site plan that will comply with the requirements of this program because it says, well, if this, then that, but if this, then that, and this might override
that, and we might just come back and ask questions. we want to sit down and make it collaborative and talk to you about it. But that's not what's actually happening. It's going into the hole and then it's coming back with questions. So, um, one other point I wanted to make is,
um, Vice Mayor Mas Vasquez, you said that this is optional. That may be the intent, but we came back and said, "Listen, I'll go spend $30,000 and I'll take my foundation out and I'll export the 63 cubic yards of field dirt
that we brought in so I can get going." No, you can't do that because everything any permit changes after this went into effect are subject to this program. So, it still has to go through the TMM review program even if we're not bringing in filter. So, it's not going
to help us. your fastest path is to get approval for the train modification, you know, program. So, there's a lot of I don't really know. I think for in the long term, uh, Commissioner Clark, I think that this simplification process
is the right way to go. It's going to help other people. It's not going to help us because right now we're in a situation where we're stuck. So, what I would ask is um get the ones that are out there approved and get their permits issued before you guys do anything on this so they're already running and we can say
they're grandfathered in because they were they were done before we made any changes to the program and then make the changes you're going to make. We just we need to we need to move. I'm you've heard enough from me. Thank you. No. And I commend you because when you I commend you because when you reached out to me,
your concern was for people in the future that were going to be going through this. When there's way more than there are in the system now, imagine how much of a disaster it's going to be then when there's instead of 27, there's 67 of these in there. I mean, I I I So, I
commend you for looking out for your neighbors. Okay. Let me close public comment. I was going to ask, are we still in commissioner comments? We are no longer. So, awesome. Uh, I'm I'm not really sure where we go on this. Is Is there a
motion? I want to make a motion to reach out to Kemley Horn, have him look at these three options. We can put it up on the screen if you want, but I I to the packet, come back, tell us um, you know, show us what these three simplified versions look like and what they'll cost
the residents and then make a decision. Okay, I don't know that that needs a motion. I think it just needs uh the nodding of three people's head up here that uh that we'll get that done. Basically, what we need to do is give
the staff direction and and in doing that, I'm sorry, real quick. I was just asking the attorney because we are on contract with Kimley Horn right now working on our LDRs. We are moving into phase two. My question is um can we extend or include engineering services
to do your review and I I don't have the procurement answer for that. I it seems as though we would be able to but I don't know what the original contract looks like. I I think right now it's closer to a consultation. I mean, I think that the motion, as I understand
it, is ask Kimley Horn to look at this manual, look at other beach communities, and find a way to present to the city, again, as a consultation, just advice, a massive simplification of the program. And that's the motion right now. Kimley
Horn can do that under the contract. I mean, I have it all written up here, including a motion, but I, you know, so I but yeah, I mean, basically, that's what I'm asking. But I do have it all written, though. Our contract currently does not include engineering. So I just need to get clarification on the
procurement process if we can just expand it to engineering and that would require him to look at the original contract. And in the meantime, what I was going to ask is is there a way I mean this is heartbreaking. Is there a way to
instruct staff to really and again I don't know if this can be done if it can't be done to because they are caught in that limbo. We have been working closely with Darren and Juliet. It's my understanding. I mean it's not my position here from the
DAS to discuss their individual situations but we are we've been talking we've been communicating. I'm surprised to see them today. So, we'll talk again tomorrow. The problem is that they're not the only
one. There's other there's other families they've spoken to and that I've spoken to are in the exact same position as them. So, I mean, I don't want them these aren't the only people that have about to cry sitting up here over their home. There's multiple people. I I I'm happy to look into the the contract that
exists. Um I'm I'm here to do the will of the commission. So you give me the direction in I will I mean does it have to be Kimley Horn? Don't we have other engineering companies that can I I don't I think it opens it up to an RFP if you were to go
out for that consult. Let me jump in in here. I honestly I don't think it it doesn't matter if it's Kimley Horn or another engineering firm. I think what's inherently wrong is not in the in the terrain modification. What's wrong with their their account? it's it's it's
wrong in how we're implementing or processing it. And that's that's where we need to focus. We need to figure out what's slowing theirs down specifically. Is it something in this manual that's slowing them down or is it something else? I I mean I have one individual that does does two jobs, both flight
manipul is it do you do you know their situation well enough? Do you know is is the problem in that something's wrong with the manual that's holding them up or is it something in our permit process that's holding them up? Right. A little
bit of everything. I I again I'm I'm surprised to hear them today not have resolutions. So, okay. Um the last the last we spoke um we have no visibility. Is it really the
Can I Can I address or No, I know public comment. I was just going to try to answer your question. So, um, so we resubmitted last Wednesday. Um, it was not forwarded to applied sciences until,
uh, Monday morning and now we're we're just waiting. Right. And to answer the question about the long pole in the tent, so to speak, right? We got back from applied sciences in 10 days. Now, it may have been
prompted because we came in and talked to you and you reached out to them to ask where it was and just miraculously it came back that day. So, that may have been just when they were going to get to it or it might have been prompted. You were you were second in the queue. So, you so um but it took another two weeks
for flood. So, we got back from applied sciences. sent the stuff back to give to applied sciences and and then we got we can't send this to applied sciences because you haven't gotten your first response back from flood yet. So that's kind of what tripped us up. So it's not
just this applied sciences thing or just this flood thing. It's all these different components working together the the process engineer. Okay. All right. So so to your point I think I mean I have the entire thing written up here. We can put it up on the screen. It
says exactly what we need to do. exactly what we should do with the motion. But I mean, I the only thing I I'm not I I I don't I'm not ready to jump in and say we need to spend $50,000 to to do something that I'm not sure is going to fix the problem. I think I think we need
to Excuse me. Excuse me. Come on. Excuse me. Uh, I don't think we need to spend this money to fix what's we might want to spend the money on on trying to trying to figure out what's going on in the permit operation that's slowing things down. I wouldn't mind spending the
50,000 that way, but let's let's figure out what's holding what what's holding not just theirs, but the other 25 that haven't been approved. Let's figure out what's holding it up. And if it's a manual, I'm all for changing it, but I'm I'm afraid it's not as much the manual
as it is our own internal processes. I mean, you heard Darren say we're the only city in Florida that has this type of manual and that his his engineer said it was like getting a colonoscopy just trying to deal with the thing. So, I think that the TMM manual does have something to do with it. I'm
just that's just my opinion. I second Clark's motion. I've had a couple colonoscopies already. TMI. Can I just give you another potential option you have that kind of solves I think the issue is you could direct
staff to reach out to one of these firms tentatively and say what would you charge for a review in potential options? That way it doesn't cost any money and they could come in and say yeah we could simplify that easy and in conformance with law you know for a small amount hourly rate something like
that. So you could just direct Steph to begin that conversation but not lock into anything yet just to get started. But I think that would be probably for the maj I think all commissioners would probably agree with that based on what I'm observing. But that's exactly what we had with our old city manager and and
he basically you know we gave him direction and nothing got done. I I am I'm happy to reach out to Kimley Horn, look at our contract, and see what it'll cost to add that engineering service to review the changes.
I I can offer that public comment and I'm sure they'll have a Yeah, but public comment is closed. I'm sorry. So, uh potential option. I mean, I think that firms go with a
motion. Yeah, I think I think well I'm not trying to weigh in on what you guys do. I'm saying an option is you say staff by next meeting I would like to see um you know a written opinion from a respected firm about what they can do to simplify this code and how I want to
make a motion to do what he just said. Is there all right we have a motion and a second. It's good question. She said would there be a cap on the spending authority? I think I think the better way to structure the motion is to say what do they ballpark believe this would cost,
right? What have other cities used? Ballpark numbers. We don't have to lock in at a certain rate, you know, for this update. It's an update is what you're asking for. We want to find out what it would cost to simplify this thing. Okay. Right. And and and then what it would cost the
residents possibly to enact it. Okay. By the next meeting. Um, but Nick, scheduled meeting. Scheduled meeting two weeks away, right? Because we're going to have a Yeah, I know. On this, right? Okay. All right.
That's the motion. All right. And I second. And you seconded. So, we have a motion and a second. Call roll. Commissioner Clark. I. Vice Mayor Vazquez. I. Commissioner Sison. I.
Commissioner Dicki. I. Mayor Doctor. I. Thank you. Okay. Now we have to go into just if I can real quick. Um, two things. Uh, Commissioner Clark, I just
want to make sure that I have the notes that you have for followup. So, they were attached to the to the the same ones attached. Okay. Just clarifying and they were she was also going to put them up on the screen, but yeah. Okay. Fantastic. You have them. Um, and then we do need to go back to the request for
additional permitting staff because the resolution or the request was not read in full. You left out the lessons. It's the motion only included the six temporary employees. It did not include the additional two contracted zoning
personnel with MT cost. I apologize. It was not in my motion. That's okay. I just wanted to have it for the record. Do we have to revote on it? Do we have to revote on that or It would be fine if you just clarify that that was the intent of the motion
and there's no So what did I need to clarify then that it was that it included the two contracted zoning personnel with MT Cosley? So I wanted to amend the motion on I I wish to amend
the motion to include the clause just stated by the city clerk and then everybody would just voice vote. Perfect. Well, I move to amend as stated by the clerk um for the additional employees.
U mayor, can I ask you a quick question? Yeah. Prior to the meeting or or at the beginning of the meeting, you said that some of these items should not be on the agenda. They should have been in the workshop, right? and you looked right at me. Maybe I'm wrong, but both the things
that I were pushed to the to the workshop that I got back on the agenda, both ended up with a motion that passed five to zero. So, I'm just trying to find I'm actually just trying to learn for the future. Did I do something wrong by putting those on the agenda? I don't I mean I mean, well, they really didn't
need motions. what what we were doing was really giving staff, you know, staff and I looked at say manager uh the approval to go ahead and do those things. I thought you needed a motion to do that, but
it's uh sort of metaphoric. People will say something has to be a motion, but really at the end of the day, it's it's just an expression of will. And in this case, expressing the will of the commission to direct the city manager to request the city manager to do something. Some people call it a motion.
Some people call it consensus or a directive. At the end of the day, it's just a verbal opinion that the majority of the commission has. I'm not I'm not picking on you. I'm just trying to see I No, but the consensus is the way we used to operate for years past here. We're
doing things a little differently, but uh but yeah, I think that it two or three of these items could have done been done by consensus. Yeah, I think that when you guys there's a lot of people talking and and sometimes different opinions by formalizing it to a crystallized motion,
it makes it easier for the clerk when she does her minutes and and records what the actions of the commission were. What was the true consensus? Because you stated a motion, now it's an actual sort of almost like a command and then everybody signs on or they don't sign on and then it's easier to record. It just
makes it easier for the clerk in my opinion. And just to chime in with the clerk, did we need to revote on the amendment? I think it's fine as long as there's no um descent to your amendment, I just wanted to make sure. That's fine for the record. Make sure that was all taken care of.
Okay, we still have one item left and then we have also comments uh from the commissioners as well as the uh the workshop. I don't know if we're going to make it
that long, but let's uh let's see. I'm awake. Let's go ahead and do the uh the severance agreement. Get a motion set on that and uh and move forward. So, I move to authorize the mayor to execute the severance agreement with
Chuck Anderson. Second. We have a motion and a second. Do we have any public comment? Thumbs up. Okay, that's a well well heard. Okay, so uh we'll close public
comment and any uh other discussion? No discussion. Let's go ahead and take a voice vote. All in favor say I. I. I. I. All right. Unanimous. And now we'll move on to the commissioner reports.
Mine will be quick and short. Um, as we come together to celebrate the Fourth of July week, I want to take a moment to reflect on the significance of this day. It symbolizes not only our nation's independence, but also the spirit of community and unity that makes
Treasure Island such a remarkable place to call home. With the festivities of Independence Day upon us, I urge everyone to prior prioritize safety, particularly when it comes to fireworks. While they are a cherished part of our celebration, we must be mindful of their
impact on our marine life and our beloved pets. The presence of trash on our beaches and unfilled holes severely affect our sea turtles. While fireworks can cause significant distress to dogs and other pets, please take precautions to keep your pets inside and safe and
comfortable during the celebrations. It's important to note that more pets go missing on July 4th than any other day of the year. I would also like to express my heartfelt gratitude to the constituents who have reached out to me over the past few weeks. Your support
and engagement are very important to me and a vital v vital part of our community and they play a crucial role in shaping the decisions we make together. I did want to make a quick response. Um I've received an uh two emails and I thought it would kind of be
nice just to give a general response because it might be a question others have. Um, in response to um, and my other commissioners probably received the same question. Um, regarding our public safety services, I want to
clarify a very important point. Our police and our fire department are safeguarded by our city charter, meaning that any potential outsourcing of these essential services would require a referendum and an approval by the
commission. This process ensures that the voices of our community are heard on such significant matters. Having lived here for most of my life, I hold a deep appreciation for our local police and fire, and I'm proud to support them. As we look ahead, let us come together as a
community. This week presents a wonderful opportunity to celebrate our shared spirit, enjoy our beautiful beaches, and create lasting memories with friends and family. and together, let's ensure that Treasure Island remains a safe and welcoming place for all.
Thank you, Commissioner Clark. Uh mine will be short. Um I know I put out the invitation a couple of weeks ago to the our uh District 2 Isa Palms pizza party. We had about 45 people there. It was a
really good turnout and I spent about 45 minutes uh speaking with the residents. We talked about everything from the public safety building to taxes to uh TMM to kind of a little bit of everything. So, I got some good be feedback from the residents and I
encourage you that next time we have one of those uh please come. I'd like to see even more people there. Thanks. Um go ahead. Yeah, thank you. Work has started uh by Duke Energy on the public square uh building. Uh they started
digging. Uh so once that's done uh that building that's an eyesore will be torn down. Um uh the other thing was I was reached out to the assistant city or the city manager and uh asked her if she could contact the beach beacon as they're throwing the newspaper on homes
that are vacant with tall grass. Um and the newspapers are piling up in the gutters of the street. Uh I pulled out uh saturated papers out of uh a roadway drain. Uh, so make sure your drains are clear uh for the rains. Um, and I was on
vacation for the last meeting where we selected a new city manager. I look forward to working with Charlie and I wish him success in a full-time position, which is what I wanted to begin with. So, good luck. We'll see you. That's it. I have two things. One, I wanted to address the comment that was
made earlier about uh dismantling or uh re or or changing rebuild TI workg groupoup. Uh uh I think the gentleman that mentioned that he knows that uh because uh our fire chief clarified that at at the
meeting at this meeting. I'm sure he heard that that the uh rebuild TI task force did not ever recommend that the public safety building be put in the park. That was never uh an item of discussion, nor was it a recommendation
coming from the rebuild TI. Also on along those lines, uh there is no reason that I'm aware of that if if a resident wants to attend that one of those meetings or every every Monday from 1 to 2:30, uh please let one of us know that you'd like to be there and we'd love for
you to sit in on it. There's nothing secretive going on there. We're doing our best to try to go after uh this grant money. Uh, and we've got uh, you know, we've got we've got some good things going that I think we've got a lot of potential at getting uh, some
grant money to help us rebuild TI and that's what we're that's what we're all about. So, I just wanted to mention uh, mention that. Uh, I do think we owe you a pretty another report to let let everybody know where where we stand on some of these grant requests uh, that
are going forward. So probably in the next uh two weeks, maybe at our next meeting we could do that. The other thing I wanted to mention on the positive side is the county beach reourishment project is scheduled to begin in a August. It's a fivemonth project. Uh the really good news is that
Sunset Beach is the top priority and uh we'll be on the front end of the project. So I've been told by uh county officials that Sunset Beach reourishment should be completed by Labor Day. So that was uh that was very encouraging news I heard earlier in the week. Yeah.
On the uh the reenourishment uh literally they they're going to do I think it's it's either 106 or 160 million dollars to uh redo all the beaches uh in Penllis County. Um but they also are under the gun for time.
Once they get their permit, it will have six months to get everything done, which means that literally there will be trucks and heavy equipment 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for 6 months. So, I mean, it it's going to disrupt
some people, but uh others, you know, say that, hey, we need to have our beaches renourished. And uh so uh we still do and we still are actively trying to get uh all of the rest of the consents
uh for the easements. Um and we hope to have that uh over the course of 6 years because we will not see the uh Army Corps of Engineers for 6 years. And uh so that's why we're doing this uh this
develop or this um renourishment through the through the county and are taking the bed tax money is is what's happening. Uh and and going to spend a good share of the what uh what they have in the coffers. So, um, everybody be
safe. And I'm going to ask, uh, before I close it out, I'm going to ask, do we really want to, uh, take on the, uh, the workshop tonight or can we do it on the 7th when we should be a short meeting, right? Yes. I mean, that is going to be
a short meeting. Yeah, I say do it then. Um, I'm looking at both chiefs, folks. Yes. Okay. So that'll be that we'll do the 7th and then we'll do uh whatever necessary on the 15th. So then I'm going to call this meeting adjourned
and everybody can go