[1. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:02]
CALL TO ORDER THE FEBRUARY TWENTY FIFTH SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PARKS RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE, MR. MICKELSON, WOULD YOU CALL ROLL, PLEASE.
MEMBER BARTELT ARTS OUT THERE? VICE CHAIR PUGH.
HERE. MEMBER KEGLER, PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF 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.
[4. COLUMBARIUM RECOMMENDATIONS]
TO REVIEW WHAT HAPPENED AT THE LAST SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT ITEM FOUR POINT THREE, THE MINUTES BE BROUGHT TO THE TOP OF THE AGENDA.AT THE LAST SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, THERE WAS A GREAT DEAL OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE COLUMBARIUM THAT WAS BEING PROPOSED.
I EXPRESSED TO THE CITY COMMISSION THAT IT WAS THE INTENT OF THIS COMMITTEE TO MAKE THE COLUMBARIUM SUCCESSFUL.
HOWEVER, I THINK IT CAME FROM OUR GROUP THAT WE WEREN'T HAVING MUCH LUCK WITH THAT.
AND DID ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT CONVERSATION? ALL RIGHT. AT THIS POINT, I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE FIRST STATEMENT THAT SHOWS THE SUBCOMMITTEE STATED THAT THEY ARE IN FAVOR OF A COLUMBARIUM, BUT NOT IN FAVOR OF THE CURRENT DESIGNS.
COULD I HEAR A MOTION THAT REFLECTS THAT? I'M LIKE MUCH. ALL RIGHT.
WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE MOTION STATED, SO THE STATEMENT WOULD BE THAT THE PARKS AND RECREATION. ADVISORY COMMITTEE IS IN FAVOR OF A COLUMBARIUM, BUT NOT IN FAVOR OF THE CURRENT DESIGN, AS STATED.
AND I'LL REPEAT THAT I NEED A FIRST IN A SECOND TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE NORRIS AS A THE FIRST AND THE SECOND.
ALL RIGHT, IN ADDRESSING THAT PART OF THE STATEMENT, I PUT TOGETHER A LIST OF IN CASE SOMEONE HAS TO GO BEFORE THE COMMISSION AND STATE THAT THEY ARE NOT THE COMMITTEE IS NOT APPROVING THIS. IF WE DO HAVE TO DO THAT AND I WOULD LIKE SOME GUIDANCE ON THAT, IF NO ONE IS GOING TO GO AND WE ARE JUST GOING TO PASS THIS ON AS A RESOLUTION, THEN THERE'S NO NEED TO GO THROUGH THIS NEXT EXERCISE.
BUT IF SOMEONE IS GOING TO STAND UP AND SAY AT THE COMMITTEE MEETING, WE ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS, WE NEED SOME REASONS WHY.
SO I MADE A LIST, OK, OF THE REASONS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, I THINK PROBABLY THE EASIEST WAY TO DO THIS IS JUST GO DOWN QUICKLY AND SEE IF WE AGREE WITH ANY OF THESE STATEMENTS.
THE FIRST ONE IS IT'S NOT LEGALLY SO PRECONSTRUCTION AT THIS TIME.
DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT IS? IT'S NOT. SO I'M SORRY.
NO, I'M IN THIS RECREATION AREA.
IS THAT CORRECT? IT'S SOME RECREATION.
YES. WELL, A CEMETERY IS NOT AN ACCEPTED USE IN A RECREATION ZONE AREA.
OK, SO IF THIS WAS PERMITTED, THEN IT WOULD BE AN EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING USE.
ALL RIGHT. TO IT'S BEING FUNDED WITH PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT.
THE FACT THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION THAT THE MONEY SHOULD COME FROM THE PERPETUAL CARE FUND. IS EVERYONE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT STATEMENT? CAN WE ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT? CERTAINLY CAN. I THINK SOME OF THE DISCUSSION HAD TO DO WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF IT
[00:05:04]
SHOULD BE SELF FUNDED, RIGHT? YES. WHERE IS THE MONEY FOR THAT COMES FROM SELLING DITCHES.AND THAT SHOULD BE THAT MONEY SHOULD BE ACQUIRED THROUGH PRE SALES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
OK, AND THE NEXT ONE, ACTUALLY, YES, IT IS.
AND JUST TO COMMENT ON THAT, THE MONEY'S ALREADY GONE.
OK. NOW, YOU COULD SAY YOU DON'T WANT FUTURE FUNDING.
YES. FOR IT, BUT WHAT'S THERE IS THERE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO YOU KNOW, I JUST DON'T SEE IT LIKELY THAT THAT WOULD CHANGE.
YEAH, I THINK THAT'S BEEN CALCULATED INTO THE BUSINESS PLAN, SO FORTH.
SO I DON'T I LIKE I SAID, MAYBE SAY LET'S LEAVE IT.
YES. OK, WHICH ONE MAY BE ALL RIGHT? IT DEPENDS ON OUTSIDE FUNDING TO INITIATE THE PROJECT.
PERHAPS INSTEAD OF THE WORK INITIATED, SINCE WE CAN, WE HAVE A DECADE TO INITIATE AND WE CAN SAY SOMETHING LIKE TWO TO TO SUSTAIN THE PROJECT OR TO ACCOMPLISH THE PROJECT.
OK, LET'S JUST COULD WE JUST LEAVE IT AS IT'S NOT SELF FUNDING.
YES. NOW, WHEN YOU SAY THAT, IS IT BECAUSE THERE'S IMPACT FREE MONEY GOING TO IT? WELL, THAT WAS MY QUESTION.
I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT SOMEBODY MEANT WHEN THEY SAID IT'S NOT SO FUNDING.
SO, YEAH, I THINK THAT THAT WAS THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS USED THE LAST ONE, I THINK IT WAS THAT MOVING FORWARD, IF THE SELF FUNDING THAT THEY'RE OK NOW, THAT IS NOT REQUIRED CAPITAL INVESTMENT FROM THE CITY, WELL, IT'S IN THE FORM OF IMPACT FEES OR OUT OF THE CAPITAL BUDGET. I DON'T KNOW.
OK, ALEX, I'M JUST WONDERING, IS THIS REASON WHY CRACK IS NOT MOVING THE MARKET SCHEMATIC DESIGN? SHOULD WE ALSO SEE AN END OF COMPANY BUSINESS PLAN? BECAUSE NOW WE'RE WE'RE TALKING BOTH ABOUT DESIGN AND THE PLAN.
THE DESIGN IS NOT ISD IS ABOUT THE DESIGN.
BUT LET'S NOT MAKE MOVIE, IT WOULD NOT BE SO FUNDING OR COULD WE JUST LEAVE IT AT.
WHAT'S WHAT DO WE MEAN BY OUTSIDE FUNDING? I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE IN FOR.
IT WAS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO PRESELL THE UNITS.
AND I HAVE A QUESTION INTO MS. PARK RIGHT NOW BECAUSE ANYONE WHO DOES PRESELL UNITS, ACCORDING TO STATE LAW, SEEMS TO HAVE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF A LICENSE.
THEY HAVE TO HOLD THE PROPERTY THAT THEY ARE SELLING.
THE CITY IS EXEMPT FROM THAT, ACCORDING TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, BECAUSE WE ARE A MUNICIPALITY. HOWEVER, A FIVE TO ONE PRIVATE FIVE WOULD, ONCE WE SEE IS NOT EXEMPT FROM FROM THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE STATE STATUTE.
SO THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE PARTICULAR DEEDS.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A LICENSE.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A CERTAIN THEY HAVE TO PAY INTEREST ON THE TRUST FUND.
THERE WERE A WHOLE NUMBER OF STATE REQUIREMENTS.
SO MS. PARK IS LOOKING AT THAT AT THE MOMENT.
SO IT'S IT'S THE MECHANISM OF IT FUNDED THROUGH A FINAL ONE, THROUGH C RATHER THAN THIS.
I THOUGHT INITIALLY THE FIRST PHASE WAS SELF-FUNDED PRESALES WOULD FUND THE CONSTRUCTION, YES, BUT YOU'RE SAYING IT'S THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT COMING INTO THE CITY THAT SETTLES THE LONG WAY INTO A SURVIVAL AGENCY OUTSIDE OF A NONPROFIT OUTSIDE OF THE CITY? IS THAT WHAT YOU. YES.
MAYBE THAT'S TOO COMPLICATED AT THIS POINT.
MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST NOT DEAL WITH THEM.
YEAH, MAYBE IT CAN BE JUST A GENERAL STATEMENT ABOUT FUNDING IS UNCLEAR AT THIS POINT.
OK, FUNDING IS UNCLEAR AT THIS POINT BECAUSE IT IS UNCLEAR.
ALL RIGHT, ITS FOOTPRINT EXTENDS OUTSIDE ITS ORIGINALLY PLANNED AREA INTO OTHER PARTS OF THE CEMETERY. WE TALKED ABOUT THAT.
SO, OK, THE MATERIALS DO NOT NEED TO PRESENT CEMETERY ORDINANCE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR MONUMENT WORK. COULD WE ELABORATE ON THAT JUST A LITTLE BIT?
[00:10:04]
CERTAINLY. THE MATERIALS DO NOT MEET THE FLOOR OF BUILDING CODE.OK. AND ALSO THE CITY ORDINANCE.
OK. ARE THE CUSTOM-BUILT DESIGN COSTS MORE THAN A DESIGN USING A MORE DURABLE HIGH END GRANITE THAT CAME FROM SEVERAL PHONE CALLS TO DIFFERENT COLUMBARIUM COMPANIES, THE HIGHEST END WHEN THEY OFFERED THE SIX HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS PER NEACH? WHAT'S PRESENTLY BEING PROPOSED IS WITH THE BRITISH EIGHT HUNDRED AND TWENTY TWO DOLLARS PER NESH IN MATERIAL COSTS FOR NESH.
WELL, THE YES, THE ESTIMATES THAT I'VE SEEN FROM A LOCAL MANAGEMENT COMPANY COSTS ABOUT TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS.
YES, IT RANGES UP, BUT WHEN YOU ADD IN FOUNDATIONS FOR IT AND AND PAVERS FOR THE GROUND AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS, IT'S PROBABLY CLOSER TO THREE HUNDRED DOLLARS PER MS. VERSUS THE SEVEN HUNDRED PLUS FOR THE BRICK VERSION.
UM, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE GOOD WITH THAT.
OK, SO THE PRESENTLY PROPOSED KINETIC DESIGN REMOVES APPROXIMATELY 15 HEALTHY TREES, MAYBE POSSIBLY SOME TREES.
BUT WE HAVEN'T CHANGED, WE HAVEN'T SEEN THE OR THE LAYOUT.
I MEAN, IT'S IT'S IT'S A MOVING TARGET.
SO JUST SOME TREES, THE PRESIDENT PROPOSAL OFFERS NO WARRANTY AFTER ALL THE PHONE CALLS, ALMOST EVERY COMPANY OFFERED A WARRANTY ON PRICING IS MUCH HIGHER THAN COLUMBARIUM PRICES IN THE AREA.
THEY WERE HAVING AN AVERAGE OF THREE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED NINETY FIVE DOLLARS PER NASCH THE ONES THAT WERE INVESTIGATED IN THIS AREA WERE ROUGHLY AROUND TWO THOUSAND.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S EVEN AN ISSUE, BUT SO I WOULD GO WITH THE NUMBER THREE THOUSAND FOR NON CITY RESIDENTS AND 20 TO 50 CENTS FOR CITY RESIDENTS.
SO THAT WAS OK, 20 TO 50 TIMES.
OK, WE'RE YOU'RE FIGURING OUT WE'RE GOING TO GO TO THE NEXT ONE.
YES. CAN WE GET INTO THE BUSINESS ASPECT? THIS IS WHY I DO SUGGEST AT THE VERY TOP REASONS WHY I PRACTICE NOT APPROVING OF OUR FEMA DESIGN BEING OR A COMPANY BUSINESS IS SOMETIMES A OK BUSINESS FRIENDLY.
ALL RIGHT. I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE QUESTION, SHOULD WE SAY PROPOSED, BECAUSE I HAVE NO IDEA WHERE WE ARE WITH THIS.
I KNOW BUSINESS PLAN AND WHOSE CITY HAS PUT A STAMP ON IT, CONTROL OR THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT, THE PARKS AND REC.
SO I DON'T I MAYBE IT'S PROPOSED.
I DON'T KNOW. OK, LET'S MAKE BECAUSE I DON'T WATCH ANYTHING JONATHAN'S.
I WANT EVERYBODY TO BE COMFORTABLE WITH THIS.
WHAT WAS THE THREE THOUSAND FOUR HUNDRED EIGHTY TWO THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY FOUR CITY RESIDENTS. YEAH, OK.
AND I WOULD IN TALKING ABOUT THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, HONESTLY, THE WAY THEY TALK ABOUT THE NECHES, IT SETS TILE AS WELL.
YES. HOWEVER, THE DEFINITION OF TILE IS ACTUALLY CLAY BRICK.
SO TO SAY IT DOESN'T ALLOW FOR IT I THINK IS INCORRECT.
WELL, PERHAPS THAT I MEAN, YES, THE FLOOR BUILDING CODE SAYS TILE.
RIGHT. BUT THE DEFINITION IS ACTUALLY IT WAS MR. REAGAN. SO WE COULD ARGUE THIS TO THE COWS COME HOME.
I'M JUST TELLING YOU, IF I ORDER A LOAD OF TILE FOR MY KITCHEN, I DON'T WANT BRICK SHOWING UP. BUT I'M NOT ARGUING.
I'M JUST SAYING THE DEFINITION IS ACTUALLY RIGHT.
RIGHT. BUT IT DOESN'T SAY BRICK.
SO YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT THAT TILE IS BRICK IS LOOKING FOR LOOPHOLES.
I MEAN, IT'S TRYING TO FIND A WAY TO DO SOMETHING THAT THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE DOES NOT SPECIFY DOES.
[00:15:01]
COULD WE MOVE ON? OK. ALL RIGHT.JAY DOES NOT OFFER MATERIAL THAT REQUIRES LITTLE TO NO MAINTENANCE FOR THE CITY.
UH, ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THAT? ALL RIGHT. OFFERS NO FREE LANDSCAPING PLAN, NO FREE ENGINEERING OR INCLUDED CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS. MOST OF THE COMPANIES THAT WERE CALLED ON ALL OFFER OF THESE THINGS.
THEY OFFERED FREE ENGINEERING, FREE CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS, FREE LANDSCAPING.
YOU COULD CUSTOMIZE IT TO YOUR HEART'S CONTENT.
THAT CAME WITH A LARGE STRUCTURE OF FOUR HUNDRED AND TWENTY KNISHES AT A HIGH PRICE MAY NOT SELL ADDITIONAL FUTURE NESHA SALES MAY NOT MATERIALIZE WHEN MANDATED BY THE DESIGN AND THE USE OF COSTLY MATERIAL.
DID THAT STRIKE ANYONE'S HAPPY NOTES OR DID YOU OR ANYONE DISAGREE? OK, I.
SCHEMATIC DESIGN MAP CONSUMES LARGE PORTIONS OF THE CEMETERY'S GROUNDS, LIMITING FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE CEMETERY.
WE WITH THAT ONE, OK, NO OTHER DESIGNS ARE BEING CONSIDERED AND NO OTHER DESIGNS WERE SOLICITED. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO ADD ANYTHING MORE TO THAT? YES. ALSO, IS THERE SOME SUGGESTION THAT POSSIBLY A GRADE OR TWO MIGHT HAVE TO BE RELOCATED AS ONE OF THE OBJECTIONS WERE, YES, THERE WAS GOING TO BE A GRAVE POSSIBLY IMPACTED WHEN THEY MOVED THE ROAD.
THERE WAS A ACTUALLY, MR. KAUFMAN AND MR. HERMAN WENT OUT AND LOOKED AT WHERE, ACCORDING TO MR. HERMAN, THERE SEEMED TO BE A GRAVE THAT COULD BE POSSIBLY IMPACTED WHEN THEY MOVED THE ROAD. SO I DON'T KNOW.
THAT'S THIRD HAND INFORMATION TO REMIND YOU.
WE WOULD NEVER ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN.
RIGHT. OK, BASED ON OUR KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE MANNERS OF THE CEMETERY FOR THE PAST, ALMOST, IT'S BEEN 18 YEARS.
THE WAY IT LOOKS, IT DOES NOT.
BUT IF FOR SOME STRANGE REASON IT DID, WE WOULD HAVE TO MANIPULATE.
THAT'S THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE AWAY FROM THAT, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD PERMIT. NO, NO, NO.
OK, ANYTHING ELSE? ALL RIGHT. WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE DONE WITH THE RESOLUTION NOT TO RECOMMEND? YES, THAT I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO ADD SOMETHING TO THIS.
YES. THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING, WHICH WAS THE QUESTION OF CONTEXTUAL DESIGN.
ELABORATE THAT A LOT, BUT THAT THE PROPOSED DESIGN, IF YOU EVALUATE IT FROM THE TERMS OF ITS SCALE, MATERIALS, HEIGHT FORMS, ORIENTATION, IT IT STANDS OUT, IT DOES NOT BLEND IN.
AND I GUESS FROM THAT STANDPOINT, THE IN A PLACE WHERE TRADITION, HISTORY, DIGNITY ARE ALL UNDERLYING IMPORTANT BUILDING SOMETHING THAT HAS A BIG VISUAL IMPACT AND STANDS OUT IS, IN MY MIND, INAPPROPRIATE, THAT IT WOULD BE A BETTER SOLUTION TO HAVE A COLUMBARIUM THAT BLENDS IN BETTER THAN THIS PLAN DOES.
ALL RIGHT. I WILL INCLUDE THAT IF WE NEED IT.
ALL RIGHT. WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE DONE WITH THE RESOLUTION AND THE REASON YOU SAY RESOLUTION, YOU MEAN. I RECOMMEND THAT.
I RECOMMEND. ALL RIGHT, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE EMAIL.
YES, WHAT IS IT THAT YOU'RE ASKING? OK, NOW THAT WE HAVE PASSED THE RECOMMENDATION OF NOT TO PROCEED, WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE HAPPEN TO IT? HOW DOES IT GET TO THE COMMISSION? YOU WANT TO DO THIS INDIVIDUALLY? DO YOU WANT TO DO THIS AS A PERSON WHO GOES AND STANDS UP AT THE MEETING AND SAYS THE PIECE OF HOW WOULD YOU LIKE THIS TO PROCEED?
[00:20:06]
WELL, THE QUESTION I HAVE IS, UNLESS THESE DOCUMENTS FIND THEIR WAY THERE, THERE.NO, THEY'RE NOT. THERE'S SOMEONE PHYSICALLY GOES THERE AND DOES THIS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THIS CAN BE IT'S GOING TO WORK TO PUT IT IN THERE.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU JUST GO INTO THEIR TECHNICAL IMPACT AND IT'S TOO LATE TO IT, BUT.
IT'S IT'S SOME SUPPORT OF WHY WE MADE THE RECOMMENDATION WE DID, AND I THINK IT WOULD BE EITHER ATTACHED TO THE MINUTES OR SOMEHOW SOME OF THIS DOCUMENTATION, BECAUSE THAT'S THE REASON WE'RE MEETING TONIGHT FOR WE COULD GET THIS VOTE AND GET THE REASONS WHY.
OK. AND I DON'T KNOW UNLESS IT'S INTRODUCED AT THE MEETING SO THAT IT GOES IN THE IMMEDIATE MINUTES, I DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER MECHANISMS TO DO.
OK. AS FOR WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT TO TONIGHT, WHEN IT'S ON THE AGENDA, IT IS THE VERY LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE WISE TO ENSURE THAT THE CITY COMMISSION UNDERSTANDS YOUR RECOMMENDATION THAT THERE IS SOME REPRESENTATION HERE FROM THE COMMITTEE THAT CAN SPEAK TO THAT, BECAUSE WE CAN PROVIDE THE INFORMATION.
BUT IT IT IT HAS A LOT OF IMPACT WHEN THERE IS SOMEBODY TO EXPRESS, YOU KNOW, FACE TO FACE, NOT JUST WORDS ON A PIECE OF PAPER.
BUT THAT'S JUST A SUGGESTION THAT WE'RE GIVEN.
WE HAVE A THREE MINUTE WINDOW.
WHAT WOULD WE WHAT HOW WOULD WE DO THAT? WELL, DURING DURING THIS SPECIFIC SUBJECT OF THE AREA, WHEN YOU THIS SHOULDN'T TAKE LONG TO WRITE TO. AND THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION WHICH DOES NOT FALL UNDER THAT THREE BY CORONADO, OK.
SURE, YEAH, I, I WILL GO WITH SUCH ENTHUSIASM, NO, I IF YOU'RE OUR SPOKESPERSON.
THAT'S AS MUCH COMMUNITY SUPPORT.
I THOUGHT MAYBE I WAS HAPPY DOING COMMUNITY SUPPORT.
I DO NOT WANT TO BE THE PERSON WALKING OUT.
THE ONLY PERSON WALKING OUT WITH THE ARROWS IN HER BACK.
I PLAN TO BE THERE. ERIC WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO DATA.
I'LL BE THERE. THERE'S ANOTHER SEAT.
OK, WELL, I KNOW WHERE YOU SET TO WATCH BECAUSE WE DON'T STOP THERE.
MAYBE EVERYBODY ELSE WILL BE GONE BY THE TIME YOU SAY.
ALL RIGHT. WE ALSO HAD RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE MADE FOR ANYONE ATTEMPTING TO DO THE CALL OF VARIOUS PARKS AND RECREATION BUDGET COMMITTEE.
CLICK IT TO BE A TOUGH BUNCH HERE.
SO I WROTE OUT I MADE THEM REALLY A SMALL LITTLE PIECES.
SO YOU MAKE SURE THAT WE ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE AGREEING TO BECAUSE I REALLY DON'T WANT TO DO THIS AGAIN JUST JUST DOWN HERE.
SO I TOOK THE WORDING FOR THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
WALK US THROUGH. TELL ME WHAT YOU DON'T AGREE WITH HER.
AGREE WITH PARKS AND REC DRAFT RESOLUTION OF COLUMBARIUM POLICY.
THE PARKS RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE SUPPORTS A COLUMBARIUM, WHICH IS A SELF FUNDING MECHANISM FOR BOSCOBEL CEMETERY.
THAT WAS THOSE WERE THE EXACT WORDS HAS A SMALLER FOOTPRINT WHICH WAS DISCUSSED, LOCATED NEAR L.A. DESIGN PLANNING MEETINGS PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF THE CEMETERY MASTER PLAN, WHICH REMAINS WITHIN THE DESIGNATED FOOTPRINT.
WITH ANY FUTURE EXPANSION, THAT FORCE SHOULD BE AND IS IS CONSISTENT WITH AN APPROVED ESTABLISHED DESIGN IS LOCATED CONTIGUOUS TO EXISTING STRUCTURES.
SIX UTILIZES MATERIALS THAT COMPLY WITH THE EXISTING CEMETERY CODE IN CHAPTER THIRTY.
THAT GETS US PAST THE MASTER PLAN.
IF WE CHANGE IT AND THEY CHANGE THE ORDINANCES, IT'S STILL CHAPTER 13.
OK, SEVEN DOES NOT REQUIRE THE REMOVAL OF ANY HEALTHY TREES WITH THE INSTALLATION OF ANY
[00:25:02]
PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION.EIGHT DOES NOT ALTER ANY EXISTING ROAD.
NINE. THIS I I THAT HAD TO DO WITH FOUR POINT ONE ON THE AGENDA, WHICH WAS WHAT I SET OUT THAT TALKS FROM THE GENEOLOGY POINT OF VIEW OF THE CEMETERY THAT ACTUALLY IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DOWNTOWN.
IT WAS ORIGINALLY KNOWN AS THE OLD TOWN CEMETERY, AND THROUGH THE YEARS IT HAS KEPT THE NAME BOSCOBEL.
BUT IT'S SOUL USE WAS FROM OLD TOWN, SO IT SHOULD HAVE THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FROM OLD TOWN, FROM THE DO YOU SEE THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMITTEE? SO THIS WOULD BE A RECOMMENDATION FROM ME.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MR. BARTOK FEELS ABOUT IT.
I'D LIKE TO KEEP IT HISTORICALLY CORRECT, BUT OTHERS MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW.
OK? YES, THE AND I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON THIS BY ANY MEANS.
DESIGN GUIDELINES OF OLD TOWN FOR NEW STRUCTURES, I DON'T THINK IT INCLUDES THE MATERIALS THAT WE IDENTIFY IN CHAPTER 13, OK, BECAUSE THEY'RE MORE WOOD LIKE OLD TOWN WAS WOOD.
I KNOW. SO I WORRY ABOUT THAT JUST A LITTLE BIT.
OK, WE REALLY CAN HAVE NO WAY TO STRUCTURE.
SO I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD.
OK, THEN WE CAN TAKE THAT OFF.
EVERYTHING POSSIBLE REWORDING FOR NUMBER FIVE BASED ON OUR SUBCOMMITTEE BEING NUMBER FIVE TO RESTRICT FUTURE EXPANSION TO CONTIGUOUS AREAS.
OK, SO THE SECOND THREE, YOU MEAN FIVE, FOUR, FIVE.
SO THIS IS RIGHT NOW IT SAYS IS LOCATED CONTIGUOUS TO EXISTING STRUCTURES.
WE'RE STRETCHED. SO IT RESTRICTS FUTURE EXPANSION TO MS. AREAS, FUTURE EXPORT, ANY FUTURE EXPANSION, SORRY TO ANY FUTURE EXPANSION.
YOU'RE NOT SAYING NECESSARILY TO US.
ALL RIGHT. QUESTION NUMBER EIGHT.
YES. DOES NOT ALTER AN EXISTING ROAD.
I PRESUME YOU MEAN NASSAU STREET, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE DIRT STREET THAT GOES BETWEEN NASSAU AND BOSCOBEL STREET, NEXT TO BABYLAND LAND RUNS IN FRONT OF BABYLAND BEHIND THE BUILDING BLOCK ONE? IS THAT DIRT STREET SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT TO CLOSE OR DON'T WANT TO CLOSE OVER? WELL, THAT'S UP FOR DISCUSSION AND FUTURE PLANS GOT.
AND I'VE MET WITH MANTEGA DRAKE OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS TO IDENTIFY THE POSSIBILITY OF PLANNING NEW PLOTS, CEMETERY PLOTS, AND THAT WAS PART OF IT.
BUT THERE'S NO DEFINITE PLAN FOR THAT.
DO YOU WANT TO INSTEAD THEN SAY IT DOES NOT ALTER NASSAU, THAT OK, NASSAU STREET DOES NOT ALTER, ALTHOUGH TECHNICALLY THAT THERE ROAD ISN'T? I DON'T THINK IT IS A ROAD.
RIGHT. IS THERE A NAME EVER VATICAN CITY.
IT'S LIKE THE OTHER ONES THAT ARE FURTHER EAST.
YES. THOSE, THEY'RE NOT NAMED YET SO DO NOT ALTER IT.
I HAVE SOME CONSENSUS ON THIS STORY.
WE'RE JUST NOT GOING TO ALTER NASSAU STREET.
IT DOES NOT ALTER NASSAU REST.
OK, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A COLUMBARIUM WHICH IS LOCATED IN AN AREA ZONED FOR A COLUMBARIUM, AND YOU MIGHT HAVE DIFFICULTIES WITH THAT.
WELL, YES, THE COLUMBARIUM IS NOT A CEMETERY.
THE MS. IS AN ACCEPTED USE IN A RECREATION ZONING CATEGORY.
MR. KONOHA HAS STATED THAT THE COLUMBARIUM IS A STRUCTURE, RIGHT.
THEREFORE, WE WOULD BE BUILDING A STRUCTURE IN A NON CONFORMING USE AN ADDITIONAL
[00:30:01]
STRUCTURE. RIGHT.IT'S JUST SOMETHING HAS TO BE CHANGED.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? YEAH. I GOT YES.
THIS ONE THING THAT THIS SEEMS LIKE JUST A NO BRAINER KIND OF THING, BUT THE CEMETERY PROVIDES A SERVICE AND ADDING A COLUMBARIUM IS EXPANDING THE CEMETERIES SERVICES. DOES THE CITY COMMISSION WANT TO DO THAT? I THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE A RESOLUTION THAT SAYS, YES, WE WANT TO EXPAND THE CEMETERY SERVICES TO INCLUDE A COLUMBARIUM, BECAUSE THERE IS A I MEAN, WE'RE WE'VE ALL KIND OF MADE THE ASSUMPTION THAT.
WHEN THEY APPROVED THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS, IT HAD THE COLUMBARIUM IN THE PLAN, WHICH WOULD BASICALLY CONFIRMED THAT THEY APPROVED OR HAVING ONE NOT SPECIFIC DESIGN OR ANYTHING.
BUT THEY AT THAT TIME WHEN THE BUDGET WAS APPROVED, SUPPORTED COLUMBARIUM.
AND THAT'S BEEN, I BELIEVE, TWO YEARS, WE'VE HAD IT FUNDED WITH A SMALL AMOUNT OF MONEY.
BUT I MEAN, I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE SO, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY HAVE SUPPORTED THE IDEA, OK? I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S SOME SORT OF LEGAL BASIS THAT NO NATION NEEDS TO MAKE A RESOLUTION SAYING, YES, WE WANT TO DO THIS.
THAT WOULD BE WHEN THEY APPROVED THE BUDGET.
OK, BUT THE CHARACTERS CHANGE.
SO DO I HEAR THAT YOU WANT TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COMMISSION PASSED A RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT A COLUMBARIUM? OR WOULD YOU WANT TO JUST LEAVE THAT OUT? I DON'T THINK IT WOULD HURT. I DO HAVE.
YES, A QUESTION ABOUT DOING THAT.
MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THE RATIONALE FOR THIS, ASIDE FROM THE COMMITTEE, WAS TO PROVIDE FOR FUTURE BUILD UP THE FUND, PROVIDE FOR FUTURE REVENUE TO BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THIS AND THAT INSTEAD OF TAKING MONEY OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET, THAT WAS TO ELIMINATE THAT AND HAVE A WAY TO FUND IT OUT OF THE FUNDS.
SO IT'S GREAT TO SAY WE WANT WE WANT, WE WANT AND WE SUPPORT.
BUT SOMEWHERE IN THE QUESTIONS I'VE HAD, PEOPLE ASK ME, WELL, WHAT IF, WHAT IF, WHAT IF, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO BE ANOTHER SITUATION WHERE NOW WE'RE FINDING THE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THESE PROJECTS AND WHERE IS THAT MONEY COMING FROM TO DO THAT? SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE COMMISSION HAS INDICATED THAT.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT RUSSIA IS THAT I FIND MISPERCEIVED IT.
BUT THAT TO ME IT WAS MORE THAN JUST, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD HAVE A CONVERSATION BECAUSE PEOPLE GETTING CREMATED AND IT MAKES SENSE.
IT WAS IT ONLY MAKES SENSE IF THIS IS FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE TO DO IT THAT WE DON'T.
AND I DON'T I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE THE COMMISSION HAS SAID, WELL, WE'RE GOING TO BE WILLING TO PUT CAPITAL FUNDS TOWARD THIS PROJECT.
IT MIGHT BE A COMBINATION OF WHERE PEOPLE WANT TO HAVE THERE'S THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN BE THERE RIGHT NOW AND WELL, MAKE MOST OF THEM ARE BURIED IN GROUND.
THERE IS MOSLEHI THAT ARE ABOVE GROUND.
BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT DO WANT TO CALL THERE.
SO IT'S NOT ONLY THAT, BUT IT'S ALSO SUPPORTING AND HELPING FUND IN THE LONG RUN THIS CEMETERY FINANCIALLY.
I JUST SOMETIMES HAVE A SENSE THAT PEOPLE WANT, WANT, WANT, AND THAT'S THE CITY THAT IS AN OPEN CALL FOR AT SOME POINT.
AND AGAIN, WITH ALL THE OTHER PROJECTS THAT, YOU KNOW, THE CITY'S FUNDED GOLF COURSE ON, IT'S IT IT DOESN'T WANT TO COME ACROSS AS ONE MORE THING THAT THE CITY GETS INTO AND NOW HAS TO FIND A WAY TO PAY FOR IT, UNLESS THERE'S BEEN A CLEAR CAPITAL PLAN THAT THEY'VE BEEN PUTTING MONEY ASIDE OR PLANNING TO DO IT WELL, THEY'VE BUDGETED FOR OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS. BUT IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT RIGHT.
THAT WAS ONLY A AND YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO SPEND, YOU KNOW, FIRST YEAR.
A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE CAME INTO THE GAME.
I REALLY HAD A CONCERN AND I BROUGHT IT UP SOONER.
[00:35:02]
BUT WE ARE SPENDING PARKS AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE FUNDS FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE PASSED AWAY WHO ARE LIKELY NOT GOING TO GET OUT OF THEIR NICHE AND RECREATE.SO I'M NOT SURE HOW WE ARE LEGALLY DOING THIS.
I'M NOT GOING TO SAY ANYTHING MORE ABOUT IT.
IT WOULD MAKE LIFE A WHOLE LOT EASIER FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF MONEY IF WE COULD GET THE CITY COMMISSION TO UTILIZE THE PERPETUAL CARE FUND THAT PRESENTLY HAS MONEY IN IT AND THAT MONEY WOULD GO BACK INTO THE PERPETUAL CARE FUND.
SOME OF THE NUMBERS I JUST SENT ME ON THIS MORNING, THEY COULD POSSIBLY TRIPLE THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THEY TAKE OVER.
OK, HERE, FINE, IF IT'S DONE RIGHT AND PUT THAT TWO THIRDS BACK IN AND REPLACE THE.
SO THAT WOULD TAKE NOT ONLY A BIG BURDEN OFF OF THE MAINTENANCE PART, THAT WE WOULD SET ASIDE SOME MONEY, BUT WE COULD PUT THAT PERPETUAL CARE MONEY BACK, IF NOT MORE.
SO THAT WOULD BE A PLAN THAT WOULD BE SOMEWHAT MORE SUPPORTED THAN WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US. SO I'M STILL NOT SURE HOW WE DO.
YOU STILL WANT TO ASK THEM FOR A RECOMMENDATION TO RECOMMEND THAT THEY PASS SOME SORT OF RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF A COLUMBARIUM OR.
OK, DO I HEAR OTHERS? I THINK THEY NEED TO BE ON THE RECORD SAYING, YES, WE DO WANT TO HAVE A COLUMBARIUM AND MUST PROCEED WITH THAT.
ALL RIGHT. ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? OR YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE COMMISSION? YES, THE COMMISSION.
SHOULD WE RECOMMEND THAT THEY ACTUALLY MAKE A MOTION SUPPORTING A CALL? COULD WE MAKE A MOTION THAT WE RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COMMISSION.
OK. COULD WE MAKE A MOTION THAT THE CITY COMMISSION RECOMMENDS A COLUMBARIUM FOR THE SUMPTUARY? SOMEONE GIVE US SOME MOTION.
I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO TO I CAN READ YOU WHAT YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT.
ALL RIGHT. I RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY COMMISSION SUPPORTS A COLUMBARIUM RESOLUTION SO THAT, YOU KNOW, ROUGHLY I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT.
YEAH. AND YOU GET THEM TO PASSA.
AND THE INSTANT YOU'RE IN HERE IS ALL THE COMMISSION SAID.
WE NEED A CALL ABOUT THE COMMISSION.
IT DOESN'T PUT ANY QUALIFIERS IN THERE.
SO THEY'RE JUST GOING TO SAY WE SUPPORT CALVARIUM AT ALL COSTS, HOWEVER IT GETS BUILT.
AND I AND I DO READ A LOT ABOUT TRYING TO TELL THE COMMISSION I KNOW, SO I.
I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T THINK I'M NOT SO MUCH OK, I'M GOING TO MOVE TO JAMES CAMPBELL.
SO THERE IS NO THERE IS NO RUSH.
I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S ALL RIGHT.
YES. WHICH I DON'T KNOW WHERE THIS CAME FROM.
OK. IF ALL FELL APART AT THE LAST MEETING, I WAS GOING TO PULL THIS OUT.
THAT'S WHERE IT CAME FROM. BUT BECAUSE THERE WERE A COUPLE OF THINGS IN HERE.
ONE IS WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE A PUBLIC WORKSHOP OR TWO SO THAT THE PUBLIC INPUT INTO THE DESIGN AND THE BRANDING, SO ON COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEANS THAT.
THAT THE THE COMMISSION WORKSHOP OR A PUBLIC WORKSHOP, PUBLIC WORKSHOP, I THINK IT WAS NOT. WELL, WE HAVE SORT OF BEEN DOING THE PUBLIC WORKSHOP.
IT'S NOT LIKE IT HASN'T BEEN WELL THROUGH FRIENDS OF BOSCOBEL.
AND SO THE PARKS AND YOU HAVE BUT YOU CAN HAVE A SPECIFIC ONE OR YOU CAN INCORPORATE IT INTO YOUR PARKS AND REC MASTER PLAN ONCE.
I DON'T KNOW. I'M JUST IT WAS ON HERE.
SO, YEAH. I THINK THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THAT WORKSHOP SHOULD BE HELD TO LET THE PUBLIC WEIGH IN ON THE DESIGN SITING AND ALL OF THE ASPECTS OF THE COLABA.
HERE ARE YOU LOOKING FOR ABOUT JUST TO ADD IT TO THE LIST, JUST LOOKING AT IT TO THE LIST, I'M JUST ADDING IT TO THE ORIGINAL OR NOT.
[00:40:01]
RIGHT. ALL RIGHT, ANYTHING ELSE? OK. ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT.AS FAR AS THIS GOES, I WILL BE GOING TO THE COMMISSION, MEANING I WILL BE READING YOUR RESOLUTIONS TO NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PRESIDENT COLUMBARIUM DESIGN.
AND I WILL BE GIVING THOSE REASONS THAT YOU STATED.
AND I LOOK FORWARD TO MAKE SURE WE DO.
AND THEN AS FAR AS THE COLUMBARIUM RECOMMENDATIONS, DO YOU WANT TO WAIT TO SEND THOSE IN AT A DIFFERENT POINT OR HAVE SOMEONE GO TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND GIVE THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS? HOW DO YOU WANT TO HANDLE THAT? WHEN YOU SAY THAT? WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO, THE SPECIFIC DOCUMENT? YEAH, WE HAD THIS RECOMMENDATION OF THE WHAT WE WANTED FROM A COP COLUMBARIUM.
YES. HOW DO YOU WANT TO HANDLE THE RESULTS PRESENTED ON TUESDAY, BECAUSE WE COULD I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR WE'LL GET THERE, PRETTY TIRED AT THAT TIME.
IT ALL IN AN E-MAIL BECAUSE THE CURIOUS WILL LOOK FURTHER AND SAY, WHAT? WHAT DO YOU SUGGESTING? DON'T GO WITH THIS ONE. WHAT DO YOU WANT US TO GO WITH? AND THEN WE HAVE ALL OF THAT. OK, I CAN ATTEMPT TO DO IT AT THE MEDIA AND READ THESE.
YES, YOU PROBABLY COULD DO THAT BECAUSE WE TOOK A COUPLE OF THEM OUT.
WELL, ONE OF THEM OUT OF LIFE.
OK, AND YOU SAID THIS IS THE LAST ITEM ON THE AGENDA.
I THINK IT'S LIKE I DON'T HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I THINK IT'S LIKE TEN MINUTES.
YEAH. WHAT'S WHAT PART OF THE AGENDA IS IT? IT'S A SOLUTION THAT COULD SET AGENDAS EARLY.
I WISH IT HAD ON THE CONSERVATIVE.
I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE. THERE'S NO RESOLUTION RIGHT NOW.
HERE WE GO. WHAT'S ALL THIS TOGETHER? 16. OH, YEAH, THE MARCH 2ND QUARTER AND.
MAYBE EIGHT, NO, GET DONE THAT, BUT YOU JUST HAPPY RESOLUTION AND THERE'S SO MUCH.
KEEP GOING. THIRTY SEVEN POINT SEVEN SEVEN SEVEN. BUT STILL, THAT'S STILL LATE ON THE AGENDA.
YEAH, SO WHAT WHAT SECTION IS A SEVEN FOOT RESOLUTION? SO IS THE RESOLUTION. YES, IT IS.
I DON'T KNOW. SORRY, DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH.
OK, SO THEY'RE GOING TO VOTE TO EITHER PROCEED WITH THE MAKI'S LATYMER PLAN OR NOT, OR THEY CAN MAKE ANOTHER MOTION THAT SAYS THEY WANT TO TAKE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE DEMOCRATS RATIFY. I MEAN, THIS IS JUST WAS ON THERE.
THEY CAN MAKE THEIR OWN MOTIONS BASED.
I'M SURE THEY'LL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT THIS COMMITTEE HAS SAID.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S A WAIT AND SEE.
ALL RIGHT. IF I CANNOT GET THESE RECOMMENDATIONS.
YEAH. WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO HAVE THIS FOID OR MYSELF EMAIL THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THEM SO THAT THEY HAVE THE ONE RECORD? YEAH. YEAH. ALL RIGHT.
ALL RIGHT. I HAVE ITEMS. ANYTHING ELSE? OK.
[00:45:02]
ITEM FOUR POINT TO ALTERNATE DESIGN.EXCUSE ME, WOULD YOU WANT TO PROVE THESE MINUTES WHERE YOU WANT TO GO? I DON'T THINK WE CAN APPROVE THESE MINUTES AT THIS MEETING.
CAN WE WAIT FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE? WE WERE GOING TO WAIT TILL THE RECORDS SHOW THAT.
OK, I THOUGHT THEY WERE IN THERE.
OH YEAH, THAT'S FINE. THEY ASKED IF THEY WERE THERE.
THAT'S THE PROBLEM. THAT'S FINE.
OK, I'M GOING TO ASK THIS POINT, MR. BARTH, HOW DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS NOW OR DO YOU WANT TO WAIT FOR THE REGULAR MS.? WELL. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
I'M NOT SURE I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT EVER.
OK, THIS IS NOT THIS IS JUST JUST TO SHOW A WAY IN WHICH YOU CAN DO A COLUMBARIUM IN A MUCH SMALLER FOOTPRINT, THAT'S ALL.
I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT THIS BE ADOPTED.
I'M SUGGESTING THAT THAT'S JUST NOT TRUE.
JUST TO SHOW HOW IT CAN BE DONE IN THE MARKETPLACE IF YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING IN A SMALLER FOOTPRINT, IF THAT'S WHAT THE COMMISSION AGREES WITH.
YES. WOULD YOU COME FORWARD, MR. CHAPMAN? PHILIP CHAPMAN, 21 20, FLORIDA AF, WHEN I LOOKED THROUGH ALL OF THE PAPERS FOR THE ALTERNATIVE THINGS, NOWHERE DID I SEE ANYONE WHO TOOK OWNERSHIP OF ALL OF THAT WORK.
I BELIEVE FOR PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY, IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO SAY WHO DID THE WORK.
SO I'M ASKING YOU WHO DID THE WORK.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS WORK THAT AND THE THERE WAS A WHOLE THING ABOUT CONTEXT IN THE CONTEXT NARRATIVE.
IT SAYS, IN MY VIEW FURTHER ON IT SAYS, I SUPPOSE, BUT IT NEVER SAYS WHO THAT PERSON IS.
AND THAT PERSON IS ME AS A MEMBER OF THE PARKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
OK, CAN I ASK WHO AUTHORIZED YOU TO DO THAT? WORK AS A MEMBER OF THE PARKS AND REC ADVISORY COMMITTEE? THAT'S PART OF MY JOB.
I JUST CHECKING, SIR, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET UPSET.
I'M NOT UPSET. IT DOES, HOWEVER, RAISE AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, A QUESTION, BECAUSE UNDER YOUR BYLAWS, UNDER RESPONSIBILITIES, ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES, FIRST PRIORITY, EACH MEMBER SHALL REPRESENT AND ADVOCATE FOR WHAT IS BEST FOR THE CITY OF FERNANDINHO BEACH AS A WHOLE, PUTTING ASIDE PERSONAL OR SPECIAL INTERESTS.
SO I QUESTION WHETHER YOU ARE DOING THIS WORK.
IS THAT A SPECIAL INTEREST? ABSOLUTELY NOT. OK, I DON'T LIKE YOU SAID, IN MY OPINION, MS. YOU BECAUSE OF THE TIME OR PLACE.
OH, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. CHAIRMAN. IT'S NICE TO SEE THAT WE ARE TRANSPARENT.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, SO BACK TO THE QUESTION AT HAND, WE ARE NOT.
YES, I THINK IT'S UP TO YOU GUYS TO DECIDE WHETHER YOU WANT THE CITY COMMISSION TO SEE THIS OR NOT. I THINK AS AN EXERCISE, THIS IS NOT A PLAN THAT I'M OFFERING, WILL.
I UNDERSTAND. BUT I THINK THE FACT THAT WE'RE ASKING AND RECOMMENDING A SMALLER FOOTPRINT, THAT EVEN IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, THIS OR THAT, SOMETHING SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THEM WITH THAT EXPLANATION, IF YOU'RE HAVING TO DEAL WITH THAT AND I THINK PROVIDE COPIES AND SAY THE COMMITTEE MADE A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE FOOTPRINT SMALLER.
THIS IS THIS IS THAT WE AT LEAST LOOK AT IT.
I MEAN, WE WERE BLATANTLY TOLD THERE HAS BEEN NO INTEREST THAT IN LOOKING AT ANYTHING BY THIS BY THE INVOLVED PARTIES.
AND I PROBABLY COULD SAY SOMETHING ABOUT TRANSPARENCY ABOUT THAT, THAT THAT'S SOMEBODY SPECIAL INTERESTS ON THE OTHER SIDE.
YOU'RE NOT EVEN OPEN TO THE FACT THAT THERE COULD BE SOME OTHER DESIGN THAT WOULD SAVE MONEY AND MIGHT BE SMALLER.
AND SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO SAY, YOU KNOW, THIS, THAT WE'RE MAKING THAT RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT APPEARS THAT THERE COULD BE.
[00:50:02]
YOU KNOW, BUT AN ALTERNATIVE WE'RE NOT SAYING DON'T BELIEVE YOU CAN JUST SHOW THEM THIS PICTURE AND SAY, OK, HERE IS A HERE IS JUST A KIND OF AN IDEA.YOU HAVE THERE'S ANOTHER SLIDE IN HERE, THE ONE WITH THE COLORS ON.
THAT'S THE ONE THAT I THINK YOU COULD PLAY.
THAT'S AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH.
IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN HAVE THE OTHER ONES AVAILABLE IF YOU WANT TO SEE EVERY DETAIL OF HOW IT'S DONE. BUT BUT THAT SHOWS YOU THAT YOU CAN GET TWELVE HUNDRED AND FORTY IMAGES IN THAT FOOTPRINT. THAT'S AN EXCELLENT.
BUT I DON'T. ARE YOU ALLOWED TO HAVE THAT GO UP ON THE SCREEN NOW? NO, BECAUSE AGAIN, THEY MOVED IT FORWARD AND DIDN'T GIVE US ENOUGH TIME.
BUT YOU COULD E-MAIL. YEAH, I THINK LIKE ROSS AND THEY HAD JUST SAID, AS YOU CAN E-MAIL THAT TO THEM TO.
YES, BUT I THINK IT STILL WOULD BE HELPFUL TO TALK ABOUT IT BECAUSE THAT WAY IT'S OUT IN THE PUBLIC, IT GOES IN THE PUBLIC RECORD.
AND WE DON'T YOU KNOW, THEY GOT SO MUCH STUFF, THESE COMMISSIONERS AND BIG POCKETS THAT.
AND THE NUMBERS THAT I DID THAT I JUST SENT YOU, THAT I WILL EXPLAIN, I COMPARE THE TWO PLANS, YOUR PLAN WITH THE COST AND THIS PLAN THAT IS BEING PROPOSED, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT IS MADE FROM THAT SMALLER COMPACT'S PLAN IS IS PRETTY AMAZING COMPARED TO THE SPREAD OUT VERSION BECAUSE IT'S DONE BY A SQUARE FOOT.
IT'S HOW MUCH INCOME YOU CAN MAKE PER SQUARE FOOT IF YOU COULD GO THROUGH AND DO THE REST OF THE COLUMBARIUM, WHICH I'M NOT PROPOSING, YOU ACTUALLY MAKE MORE PANISH OFF OF THE SMALLER FOOTPRINT, THEN YOU MAKE OFF OF THE LARGE DESIGN.
SO IT'S IT'S SORT OF AN INTERESTING DICHOTOMY OF USING THE SPACE WISELY.
SO WE'LL SEE HOW THIS TURNS OUT.
SO WHAT I AM GOING TO DO AGAIN IS I'M GOING TO GO TO THE MEETING, I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING, YOU KNOW, APPROVAL AND THE REASONS WHY WE'RE NOT DOING IT.
IF I CAN SLIP IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS, I WILL.
AND THEN IF THERE'S ANY WAY WE WILL, WE WILL.
ALL THOSE PICTURES FROM ERIC'S DRAWINGS TO THE CITY COMMISSION AND THEN YOU WILL BE THERE TO SUPPORT ME.
ANYTHING ELSE THAT'S RELEVANT TO MAKING THIS DOCUMENT TO WHAT IS THE CONTEXT? YOUR ORIENTATION? I THINK I WROTE THAT'S TOO MUCH STUFF.
THAT'S WHY I WROTE IT DOWN AS PART OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE I'D LIKE TO COMMENT ON? THIS WAS TELLING WHY WE'RE NOT HERE TO BE.
THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THIS JUST IS TOO LARGE OR TOO EXPENSIVE AND IT'S A WASTE OF THE PUBLIC'S MONEY. THAT'S RIGHT.
AND THE QUESTION HAS BEEN POSED, WHY IS IT SO LARGE AND WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN THE ANSWER BACK ALONG WITH BILL'S THOUGHT I HAD, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHO'S LOOKED AT THE NUMBERS.
THE CITY FINANCE DEPARTMENTS LOOKED AT THIS PLAN.
AND IF THERE'S WHO'S SIGNING OFF ON THE BUSINESS PLAN IN TERMS OF TO YOUR POINT, WHO'S WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT? HAS ANYBODY LOOKED AT THE NUMBERS? I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GONE INTO FINANCE OR COMPTROLLER OR FOR SOMEBODY ELSE TO SAY, YEAH, YOU KNOW, THIS IS KIND OF EXPENSIVE.
DO THESE NUMBERS MAKE SENSE? HAS THE BUSINESS PLAN GONE OUTSIDE OF THE REC DEPARTMENT AND THIS COMMITTEE TO ANYBODY TO PUT THEIR STAMP ON IT IN THE CITY? NO, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
HAS BEEN THE MAIN CONTACT WITH THE ARCHITECT, RIGHT? AND TYPICALLY WHEN YOU HAVE A PROJECT AND THERE'S A SPECIFIC AMOUNT OF MCGROARTY BUDGET.
[00:55:07]
EITHER THE COMMISSION SAYS, YEAH, WE LIKE THE IDEA, WE'D LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT, RIGHT. BUT EVEN AS THEY SAY, WE WANT THIS, WE LIKE THE IDEA LONG BEFORE IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO PAY FOR IT.SO THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO DO IT.
BUT THAT THE CONTROLLER, I'M PRETTY SURE SHE HAS NOT SEEN THIS BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S TO THAT STAGE YET, BECAUSE THERE ARE QUESTIONS ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS.
I JUST IT'S HARD FOR ME TO GET PAST SPENDING MONEY TO DRAW UP CONSTRUCTION PLANS JUST BECAUSE IT'S BEEN BUDGETED WHEN YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW IF IT'S FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE OR IT'S LIKE, WELL, WE BUDGETED IT. LET'S JUST GO SPEND 20 GRAND.
BUT AND IT'S WE'RE IN AN ENVIRONMENT NOW THAT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE ARE NOT HAPPY WHEN THEY HEAR THAT KIND OF STUFF.
YOU KNOW, AND I WILL BE QUITE HONEST, MY BIGGEST FEAR IS THE COST, THE EXPENSE AND THE PRICE POINT ARE GOING TO BE DIFFICULT.
YEAH, THEY COULD BUILD THE FIRST SECTION AND THEY FUNDRAISE AND THEY GET THESE THINGS SOLVED. BUT WE ARE AGAIN STUCK WITH THE ENTIRE DESIGN.
ONE THING THAT IS PUT INSIDE THE MASTER PLAN AND WE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE STUCK.
IF YOU CAN'T SELL THE REST OF IT, IT'S PROBLEMATIC.
AND SO IT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL IF THERE WAS SOME WAY THAT WE COULD GET SOMETHING REASONABLE IN THAT DESIGN.
ANYTHING ELSE FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER? JUST FOR THE RECORD, I DO WANT TO LET THE COMMITTEE KNOW I FOR MY OWN.
I'M NOT SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE COMMITTEE.
I DID SEND BY SENATOR FRAZIER A LENGTHY E-MAIL INDICATING MY DISAPPOINTMENT IN MOVING THAT THIS ITEM FORWARD ON THE AGENDA BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE TO BE HERE TODAY IF THAT WASN'T THE CASE. AND I FOUND THAT TO BASICALLY NEGATE THE MERIT OF OUR INPUT INTO THIS. BUT I WANT TO KNOW, I DIDN'T INCLUDE ANYBODY HERE.
I INDICATED I WAS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE COMMITTEE.
I JUST SAID I WAS DISAPPOINTED THAT THIS MOVE FORWARD, WE WEREN'T GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION.
SO NOT THAT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'LL MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE.
I DON'T. AND I WAS VERY POLITE AND I WAS, BUT I JUST FELT THAT.
I NEEDED TO EXPRESS THE DISAPPOINTMENT IN THAT BECAUSE, LIKE I SAID, WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE HERE RIGHT NOW IF THAT WERE THE CASE AND THESE DOCUMENTS COULD HAVE BEEN PUT INTO THE POCKET. IF WE COULD HAVE PUSHED IT FORWARD INTO THEIR RIGHT INTO THIS, AND I DO BELIEVE THERE IS A RESOLUTION BEFORE THAT, THE TALKS ABOUT ADRIAN BURKE BACK IN TWENTY FIFTEEN SAYING THAT WE WERE GOING TO BE OUT OF CEMETERY SPACES BY THE NEXT 10 YEARS, AND THAT WAS, WHAT, SIX YEARS AGO.
AND THEY SEEM TO KEEP PUSHING THIS NARRATIVE THAT THERE'S SOME EMERGENCY HAPPENING, THAT WE NEED TO DO THIS AND WE HAVE A THOUSAND BURIAL SPACES.
NOT THAT WE COULDN'T USE THE MONEY, BUT IT'S JUST NOT AN EMERGENCY.
SO I HOPE EVERYONE YOU TALK TO AND WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF SPACE, SO MUCH OF WHAT WE CAN'T WE CAN'T HAVE OUR ASHES IN AN URN IN THE CEMETERY.
AND I SAID, SO WE HAVE TO HAVE THIS.
AND I'M LIKE, WELL, YOU KNOW, THEY DO HAVE PLOTS AVAILABLE.
YOU'RE ABLE TO PUT YOUR OWN LITTLE MONUMENT ON THERE WITH YOUR URN IN THERE.
YOU COULD PUT THREE OF THEM ON THERE.
AND THEY WERE LIKE, OH, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT.
SO WELL, THEN THE WHOLE ISSUE KIND OF DROPPED.
SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S PART OF A PUBLIC PERCEPTION.
I HOPE THEY CAN GET SOME INFORMATION OUT.
BUT I REALLY WANT TO THANK ALL OF YOU FOR BEING GOOD SPORTS ABOUT BEING HERE ON SUCH A BIG THANK YOU AT THIS TIME.
MOST OF WHAT YOU KNOW, TO ADJOURN SECOND FAVOR, I THINK.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.