[00:00:06]
>>> . >>> CALL TO ORDER THE MARCH 1, 2022 CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
CELL PHONES, EITHER TURNED OFF, AIRPLANE MODE OR SILENCED, PLEASE.
COVID-19, WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY TO PROTECT YOUR HEALTH AND THE HEALTH OF OTHERS, AND DECOR RUM, TREAT EACH OTHER WITH RESPECT AND NO BLOOD. I'M GOING TO ASK CONSENT TO ADD A TOPIC TO ADD A TOPIC TO THE TOP OF THE LIST AND THIS TOOK PLACE SINCE OUR LAST MEETING AND ALL OF US HAVE GOTTEN EMAILS AND ALL OF US CONTACTED THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY.
IT'S ABOUT THE TREE TRIMMERS WHO WENT DOOR TO DOOR AND TOOK DOWN TREES AND OUR FRUSTRATION WITH A SUPERSEDING LAW AND THE -- I NEED CONSENT TO PLACE THIS AT THE TOP OF THE LIST.
>> THAT'S FINE. >> WHAT ARE WE GOING TO TALK ABOUT?
>> WE'RE GOING TO -- TO THE PUBLIC'S KNOWLEDGE. WE'RE GOING TO EDUCATE THE PUBLIC ON HOW THE FRUSTRATIONS AND OBSTACLES THAT THE CITY FACED IN TRYING TO PREVENT THIS OPERATOR FROM DOING WHAT THEY DID. AND IF THERE'S ANY SUGGESTIONS OF HOW DO WE PREVENT THIS IN THE FUTURE. SO CITY MANAGER, IF YOU COULD WALK US THROUGH WHAT WERE THE DIFFICULTIES IN CITY ATTORNEYS, WHO CAN ALSO JOIN IN, AND BECAUSE PEOPLE KNOW WHAT HAD A TREE ORDINANCE. THEY WENT TO THE TREE ORDINANCE AND THEY READ IT AND I READ IT AND WE WERE ALL GOING, WHAT THE HECK, SO IF YOU CAN WALK US
THROUGH THAT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
A RESULT OF PREVIOUS STATE PREEMPTION IN REGARD TO TREE PROTECTION AND PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS THAT BASICALLY THE STATE HAS PROVIDED THAT IF YOU HAVE A [INDISCERNIBLE] ARBORIST PROVIDING SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTATION RELATED TO THE CONDITION OF THE TREE, WHETHER IT'S DEAD, DISEASED, DYING OR A DANGER YOU CAN HAVE THAT TREE TAKEN DOWN IRRESPECTIVE OF LOCAL ORDINANCES. SO THAT'S APPARENTLY WHAT THIS TREE TRIMMER WAS DOING WAS CONTENDING -- WAS DOOR TO DOOR OLE'S CONTINUING AND ADVOCATING FOR THE REMOVAL OF TREES THAT HE OR THE STAFF CONTENDED WAS IN THE -- INSUITABLE TO QUALIFY FOR REMOVAL UNDER STATE STATUTE.
THAT LED TO A NUMBER OF CONCERNS FROM RESIDENTS AS INDICATED AND I BELIEVE [INDISCERNIBLE] I BELIEVE OUR ORDINANCE SAYS DOOR TO DOOR SO LISTENING IS NOT PROHIBITED UNLESS IS ON THE DOORS OR PASTER A HOA. THERE HAS TO BE WARNING, ADVANCED NOTICE, THAT SOLICITATION IS PROHIBITED EITHER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR IN A CASE BY-CASE-BASES, BUT [INDISCERNIBLE] AND THE POLICE WERE NOTIFIED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS WHEN SOMEBODY WAS GOING DOOR TO DOOR AND [INDISCERNIBLE] ISSUE WARNINGS TO THIS PROVIDER, AND THERE'S BEAN DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER TO FILE AN ETHICS COMPLAINT, BOTH THE CITY ATTORNEY AND I BELIEVE THAT IT'S NOT A [INDISCERNIBLE] TO DO IT. WE WERE NOT AN AGREED PARTY, THAT EITHER ANOTHER ARBORIST, WHICH IS ACTUALLY STARTING TO PREPARE AN ETHICS COMPLAINT.
I'M NOT SURE WHY THEY DON'T FOLLOW THROUGH AND COMPLETE THE ETHICS COMPLAINT OR A RESIDENT WHO BELIEVES THAT THEY WERE MISLED SHOULD FILE THE ETHICS COMPLAINT AS WELL, THE ETHICS
COMPLAINT. >> VICE MAYOR? >> THIS IS ACTUALLY STARTED PROBABLY TWO WEEKS AGO WHERE A COMPANY COME IN AND COME IN WITH LOTS OF HEAVY EQUIPMENT AND IT'S -- THE TECHNIQUE, YOU NEED TO DO THIS AND DO IT NOW AND IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE LAW WHICH IS WIDE OPEN AS A TOTAL PREEMPTION TO THE CITY SO IT WAS IDENTIFIED AND THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS THAT WENT ON CONSISTENTLY FOR THE LAST WEEK AND A HALF.
ULTIMATELY EVEN THE CONTRACTOR DID SEND DOCUMENTATION TO THE CITY OF WHAT THEY WERE DOING BUT THEY CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. THE SOLICITATION IS A WHOLE NONE THEY ARE ISSUE WHICH WE'LL BE ADDRESSING LATER TO TIGHTEN UP THE ORDINANCE AND WHAT WE CAN LEGALLY DO.
[00:05:10]
INTERESTING ENOUGH, JUST TODAY THE SENATE PASSED SENATE BILL 518 WHICH IS A MORTONIONT REQUIREMENT ON ASSESSMENT BUT IT REALLY WON'T DO MUCH FOR US, SO I THINK THE KEY IS TO EDUCATE, TRY TO EDUCATE THE PEOPLE TO MONITOR WHAT'S GOING ON AND THIS IS NOT UNIQUE TO TREES.THIS IS, YOU KNOW, UNIQUE TO REPRESENT A STORM. THIS HAPPENS REGULARLY.
IT'S JUST THAT THIS WAS BROUGHT TO THE FOREFRONT AND I THINK THAT BECAUSE OF THE THE COUNTY PUT OUT AN INTERESTING STATEMENT ON FACEBOOK. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE ARE OTHER ECONOMIC ISSUES. THESE GUYS ARE PRICING IT LOOKS LIKE PRETTY GOOD WHICH IS ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO DO IT. THE ETHICS COMPLAINT IS -- THE ETHICS COMPLAINT THEY'RE DISCUSSING IS A -- IS NOT WHAT WE -- I THINK -- THIS IS AN ISA ETHICS CHARGE STATEMENT, INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORISTS, AND THAT'S WHAT THE STATEMENT IS, AND THERE MAY BE A FEW THINGS IN THERE. I THINK THE ARBORS DISCUSSED, AS YOU LOOK AT THE TREE ASSESSMENT PROCESS, INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH NEW STATE LAW ACTUALLY DEFINES HOW THAT WILL BE DONE SO IT'S KIND OF BECOMING A TRIGGER POINT IN MY MIND TO LOOK AT OUR SO LIST STATION WHICH STAFF IS LOOKING AT AND IT WAS ON THEIR LIST ANYWAYS BUT IT WASN'T AT THE TOP.
WELL, IT'S MOVING UP TO THE TOP NOW. AGAIN, THE [INDISCERNIBLE] STATEMENT WAS WELL-DONE AND ADVISED PEOPLE, AND THIS DID NOT IDENTIFY THE COMPANY [INDISCERNIBLE] AND, YOU KNOW, ANY DELAY, ANYTHING THAT CHANGES THE SO LIST STATION OR SLOWS IT DOWN, DO IT NOW OR THEY'RE NOT GOING TO IT. I THINK EVERYBODY RESPONDED.
I GOT SIX ACTUALLY EMAILS. I KNOW FACEBOOK BLEW UP. >> MR. STURGES.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. >>SY WANT TO GO FURTHER IN TALKING ABOUT SOLICITATION.
WE HAVE THE ELDERLY POPULATION AND I THINK THEY'RE PREYING ON THE ELDERLY POPULATION UNCERTAINIST. ANYBODY KNOWS THAT YOUR GRANDMOTHER OR YOUR GRANDFATHER OR SOMEBODY THAT'S NOT NORMALLY USED TO PEOPLE COMING TO THE DOOR AND DEALING WITH THEM AND IN A RASH SITUATION. THE TREE IS GOING TO FALL. THIS TREE IS GOING TO FALL ON YOUR HOUSE AND THAT MAKES THEM GET SCARED AND WHETHER THEY HAVE SOMEBODY TO CALL THAT'S YOUNGER OR EDUCATED OR, YOU KNOW, IN THE CITY OR A STATUTE TO SAY, YOU KNOW, IS THAT TREE REALLY BAD OR NOT. IT REALLY MAKES YOU WONDER -- I SAW THEM ALL OVER THE ISLAND.
THEY WERE ON MY ROAD. THEY TOOK TWO TREES DOWN ON MY ROAD.
ALMOST HIT ONE OF MY CARS. BUT ULTIMATELY I THINK THAT WE NEED TO STIFFEN UP OUR SO LIST STATION ORDINANCES. I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE STRICTER ORDINANCES SPECIFICALLY DEALING
WITH THE ELDERLY AND THE POPULATION WE HAVE. >> MR. ROSS?
>> I'D LOVE TO KNOW YOUR DEFINITION OF ELDERLY. NO COMMENT.
>> YOU'RE LIGHT IS ON. >> I BELIEVE THAT IS KEY TO THIS FOR THIS SITUATION AND FOR OTHER SITUATIONS THAT WILL COME UP AND I AGREE TOTALLY THAT WAS EVEN BROUGHT UP.
THERE WAS DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THAT BUT THAT -- THAT TACTIC OR THE [INDISCERNIBLE] OR PRESSURE SELLING OR WHATEVER. I WOULD BE CAREFUL WITH THE ELDERLY TOO.
AGE IS ONLY A NUMBER. AGE IS ONLY A NUMBER. >> HERE ARE THE PROBLEMS I HAD IN TRYING TO RESPOND TO PEOPLE AND THE CITY ATTORNEY, MAYBE YOU CAN [INDISCERNIBLE] SO ONE WAS THE QUESTION OF WHO COULD DEMAND PROOF THAT WILL A TREE THAT THEY HAD -- THAT AN ARBORIST DEEMED A TREE UNSAFE OR UNHEALTHY. WHO CAN DO THAT? ANYBODY.
>> THE PROBLEM WITH THE STATE BILL INITIALLY AND WAS NOT CORRECTED BY THE SENATE BILL 518
IS THERE WAS NO ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM WHATSOEVER. >> YOU ARE PUTTING THE CART IN
FRONT OF THE HORSE. >> YOU SAID WHO CAN ASK. >> WHO CAN ASK FOR THE PROOF.
>> WE DON'T KNOW. IT DOESN'T SAY. IT DOESN'T DIRECT US AND THAT'S WHY WE NEED ENFORCEMENT IS THAT IF THERE WAS AN ENFORCE MEANT ARM THAT SAID THERE'S CRIMINAL
[00:10:04]
PENALTIES OR CIVIL PENALTIES THEN THE CITY CAN ENFORCE STATE LAW BUT THERE IS NO MENTION OFPENALTIES IF THIS IS VIOLATED. >> THAT WAS MY SECOND QUESTION. SO IF THEY COULDN'T [INDISCERNIBLE] PROOF WHO WOULD YOU REPORT IT TO? THE [INDISCERNIBLE].
>> YES. >> STATE LAW. WHAT AGENCY WOULD YOU REPORT IT
TO? >> I DON'T KNOW. >> SO THAT WAS MY FRUSTRATION IN TRYING TO ANSWER PEOPLE WHEN I SAID STATE LAW SUPERSEDED THE LOCAL TREE ORDINANCE.
WELL, WHO IN THE STATE? WHAT'S THE PENALTY, AND NOT ONLY WAS I FRUSTRATED BUT EVERYONE
WHO SAW THE TREES COMING DOWN WAS FRUSTRATED. >> RIGHT.
REMEMBER WHEN THIS BILL WAS INITIALEDLY PASSED AND NOT THIS BILL.
I FORGET OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. 280 OR SOMETHING. ANYWAY, WHEN IT WAS INITIALLY PASSED A FEW YEARS AGO THIS IS NOT MEANT TO PUNISH ARBORISTS OR HOMEOWNERS.
MITTS END TO PUN FISCHER CITIES AND COUNTIES, PERIOD. IT SAYS YOU CANNOT REQUIRE A PERMIT. THAT'S IT. WE'RE THE ONES WHO CAN VIOLATE THIS. IF CITIES VIOLATE IT THERE'S PENALTIES FOR CITIES AND COUNTIES THAT VIOLATE IT. AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS IF WE GET TOO MUCH -- IF WE -- THE LONG ARM OF THE LAW OF THE CITY STRETCHES TOO FAR OR TRIES TO REALLY STRETCH OFF, THERE'S NOTHING THAT THE CITY CAN DO. SO I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION WHO CAN ASK FOR THE DOCUMENTATION. IN SENATE BILL 518, IT ALSO -- IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT?
>> NO. I HAVE A RESPONSE. A CHALLENGE COULD BE THE ETHICS STATEMENT BUT THAT IS NOT A CHALLENGE TO THE STATE OR THE CITY.
THAT WOULD BE A CHALLENGE BY WHAT MAY HAPPEN, ARBORISTS SAYING THE JUSTIFICATION THEY PROVIDED WHICH THE CITY HAS IN MANY CASES DOES NOT MEET THE ARBORIST'S STANDARDS.
IT WILL BE LONG DONE BUT IT MAY ULTIMATELY AFFECT, IF THAT WAS TO HAPPEN, IT MAY AFFECT HOW THAT COMPANY DOES BUSINESS, YOU KNOW, IF IT WAS CHALLENGING THEIR LICENSE.
>> YEAH. THIS IS A STATE LAW, CORRECT? >> BUT YOU WILL BE CHALLENGING THE STATE -- YOU WOULDN'T BE CALMING THE STATE BUT THE ARBORIST ASSOCIATION AND THAT
WOULD ULTIMATELY -- THAT WOULD BE A LONG -- >> THE ISA IS NOT THE STATE OF
FLORIDA. IT'S INTERNATIONAL. >> NO.
I UNDERSTAND. IT'S A STATE LAW BUT -- WHO HOLDS PEOPLE ACCOUNT 13WE8 FOR
FOLLOWING THE STATE LAW, AND TO ME THAT'S A REAL FLAW. >> IT IS.
>> NOBODY. NOBODY. >> THAT CAN'T BE THE ANSWER.
>> NORMALLY WITH STATE STATUTES IF THEY HAVE THE INTENT, IF LEGISLATURES HAVE THE INTENT TO HAVE PENALTIES, CRIMINAL OR CIVIL PENALTIES ASSOCIATED, THEY'LL PUT THAT IN THERE.
>> SO I KNOW WE'LL HAVE SOME PUBLIC SPEAKERS AT THE REGULAR MEETING WHO WILL STALK ABOUT --
WHO WILL TALK ABOUT THIS. COMMISSIONER ROSS? >> LET'S INVITE OUR LEGISLATURES HERE TO GIVE US AN ANSWER? WE CAN ASK THEM TO COME AND TELL US WHY.
IS THERE ANY APPETITE FOR THAT? >> I DON'T KNOW ALL THE VOTES BUT I KNOW ONE OF THEM VOTED
AGAINST IT. >> GOOD. THEY CAN STILL --
>> WHO WE WOULD INVITE? >> WE HAVE TWO LEGISLATURES. >> [INDISCERNIBLE].
>> YEAH. WE COULD INVITE MR.BERG . IT'S JUST A SHOUT.
>> GENTLEMEN? >> OUR SOLUTION IS, YOU KNOW, IF WE FEEL THAT WAY WE HAVE A LEGISLATIVE REQUEST COMING UP NEXT YEAR. WE COULD ACTUALLY PUSH FORWARD WITH THE NEXT LEGISLATURES TO CHANGE OR ADD OR LOBBY FOR A DIFFERENT LAW.
WE HAVE A LOBBYIST. I TALKED TO AARON BEAM ABOUT 518. HE ANSWERED THE PHONE LATE AT NIGHT. I WAS IMPRESSED AND VOTED THE COMMITTEE TO MOVE IT FORWARD AND PASS IN THE SENATE TODAY. IT'S NOT GREAT, BUT IT WOULD BE MORE THAN US -- PUT STANDARDS IN THERE WHICH HOPEFULLY WILL BE CONVEYED TO THE COMPANIES, JUST THE LITTLE THINGS.
A LOT OF ORGANIZATIONS WERE QUIET ABOUT IT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO STAND UP AND BE
IDENTIFIED BUT IT'S MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. >> BUT IF WE FEEL STRONG ENOUGH ABOUT IT AND ANOTHER PREEMPTION LAW WE CAN ADDRESS THAT WITH THE LEGISLATIVE REQUEST.
>> SO DO WE INVITE SOMEONE HERE OR A LEGISLATIVE REQUEST OR GO THROUGH THE LOBBYIST?
THOSE ARE THE THREE THINGS I HEARD. >> I'M FOR LEGISLATIVE REQUESTS.
SOMETHING WE CAN ACTUALLY CHANGE. >> I'M BACK WITH THE VICE MAYOR.
>> I AGREE WITH HIM. >> LEGISLATIVE REQUEST. >> SURE.
[00:15:02]
>> AND WHO IN THE CITY WOULD DO THAT? >> CITY MANAGER HAS TO DO
EVERYTHING. IT'S THE ATTORNEY. >> WE'LL TAKE CARE OF IT.
>> WILL YOU? >> GREAT. ANYTHING ELSE ON TREE TRIMMERS.
[3.1 BOND REFERENDUM]
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. 3.1, BOND REFERENDUM PLACED ON THE AGENDA AT THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION. COAL SETTING WORKSHOP.
CITY MANAGER? >> YOU HAVE PROVIDED IN FRONT OF YOU THIS EVENING A COPY OF ESTIMATES PREPARED BY MR. GEORGE ABOUT VARIOUS PROJECTS THAT WERE HIGHLIGHTED AT THE GOAL-SETTING WORKSHOP WHICH THERE WERE TREATMENT YOU HAD WATERFRONT AND DOWNTOWN AND CITY FACILITIES, AND ACTUALLY THERE'S FOUR, AND THEN YOU ALSO HAVE TRAILS. SO STAFF IS JUST LOOKING FOR HOW DO WE WANT TO PROCEED. HOW YOU WANT TO PROCEED. THIS IS A DISCUSSION ABOUT, REFRESHING YOUR MEMORY, ABOUT A BOND REFERENDUM, GIVEN THE EXPENSE OF THESE PROJECTS AND WE TALKED ABOUT TWO POSSIBILITIES -- OR WE TALKED ABOUT HOW DO YOU CONDUCT SUCH AN ELECTION. DO YOU HAVE A SPECIAL ELECTION? A MAIL-IN BALLOT? GO WITH THE PRIMARY? THE GENERAL ELECTION. COMMISSIONER BEAN TALKSES ABOUT PUTTING IT ON A [INDISCERNIBLE] BECAUSE THERE WAS SOME CONCERNED VOICED IF OTHER GOVERNOR AGENCIES IN THE AREA PUT BOND REFERENDUMS ON THE GENERAL ELECTION OURS WOULD CONTINUEDLY BE THE LAST ONE THAT THE VOTERS WOULD COME TO ON THE BALLOT, SO IS THERE SOME CONSIDERATION TO SAY, ALL RIGHT, DO WE PUT THIS ON THE RUN-OFF BALLOT WHICH IS A MONTH AFTER THE GENERAL ELECTION, ASSUMING THAT WE DO HAVE A RUN-OFF ELECTION OF COURSE.
>> VICE MAYOR? >> I DIDN'T TURN HIGHLIGHT OFF BUT I'LL TURN IT BACK ON AFTER
HE'S DONE. >> COMMISSIONER BEAN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR SAYING THAT, DALE.
BEFORE WE GET INTO DECIDING WHAT THE BOND SHOULD BE ABOUT, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO REITERATE WHAT MY POSITION IS OF WHEN WE SHOULD PUT THIS ON A BALLOT AND IT IS MILEY LIKELY AS WE'VE HAD THE LAST SEVERAL ELECTION CYCLES THAT WE'LL END UP WITH A RUN-OFF AT SOME POINT IN TIME DURING THIS ELECTION CYCLE AND BECAUSE OF THAT I THINK IT'S GOOD USE OF CITY DOLLARS TO PAIR A BALLOT THAT ONLY HAS ONE ELECTION ON IT WITH ANOTHER, WHICH IS THIS. SO REGARDLESS OF A RUN-OFF OR NOT I THINK WE PLAN TO HAVE THIS BOND REFERENDUM A MONTH AFTER THE GENERAL ELECTION.
THAT WAY IF THERE'S A RUN-OFF THEY CAN BE ON THE SAME BALLOT, SAVING THE CITY $25,000 WE SPEND ON SPECIAL ELECTIONS OR IF THERE'S NOT, IF THERE IS, WE CAN STILL HAVE IT ANYWAY BECAUSE REGARDLESS WE'LL HAVE TO HAVE A SPECIAL ELECTION SO I SAY LET'S HAVE IT AT THE SAME TIME AND BE MORE EFFICIENT WITH EVERYONE'S CITY DOLLARS SO I THINK THAT'S A GOOD MOVE.
WE CAN DISCUSS WHAT COULD BE ON THE BALLOT. >> MR. ENTERING.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DON'T HAVE A RUN-OFF ELECTION AND WE'LL HAVE A SPECIAL ELECTION. WHAT ARE THE REASONINGS FOR THE SPECIAL ELECTION OTHER THAN THE BOND REFERENDUM? WHY NOT JUST GO AHEAD AND IF WE WANT THE BEST SELECTION, LIKE WE WEREN'T OUR OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL OUR VOTERS TO CONSIDER OUR BOND AS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING OTHER THINGS, LIKE THE COUNTY O- WOULD HAVE OR ANYBODY ELSE COULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, BUT I AGREE, WHEN YOU GET INTO A BIG ELECTION THERE'S LOTS OF CHOICES BUT I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THAT I DON'T DO THAT BUT THERE'S SOME PEOPLE, AND I'VE HEARD IT MORE THAN ONE TIME, THAT WHEN THEY GET TOWARDS THE ENDS OF THE BALLOT IT'S EITHER YES OR NO AND THEY DON'T REALLY CARE.
THEY DON'T CARE. IT'S YES, YES, YES, OR NO, NO, NO.
>> RIGHT. >> SO THAT'S ONLY MY -- MY ONLY QUESTION TO THIS IS KEEPING IT
REASONABLE AS POSSIBLE. >> ABSOLUTELY. MR. MAYOR, IF I COULD RESPOND TO
THAT. >> YES. >> EXCELLENT POINT, COMMISSIONER STURGES. MY SUGGESTION IS WE PLAN TO HAVE -- WHAT I'M HEARING, THE TALK IS WE'LL HAVE A SPECIAL ELECTION AT SOME POINT IN TIME AND PER THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE IT COSTS MORE THAN $25,000 EVERY TIME WE HAVE A SPECIAL ELECTION SUCH AS A RUN-OFF AND WHAT WE'RE DESCRIBING HERE WITH A ONE-QUESTION BALLOT SO MY SUGGESTION, LET'S GO AHEAD AND PLAN TO HAVE THIS ONE-QUESTION BOND REFERENDUM A MONTH AFTER AND IF THERE'S A RUN-OFF WE CAN PAIR IT TOGETHER AND IF NOT WE CAN HAVE A SPECIAL ELECTION AT THAT TIME AND THAT WOULD BE -- IF THERE'S A RUN-OFF IN THAT CASE THAT WOULD BE A $25,000 SAVING OTHERWISE IT'S A WASH.
AND THEN THIS BOND GETS THE ATTENTION IT DESERVES, THE SOLE DECISION, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M
LOOKING FOR. >> COMMISSIONER ROSS. >> I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
[00:20:05]
WHAT DOES THE MAIL-IN BALLOT COST? >> APPROXIMATELY 25 TO $30,000.
>> AND WHAT DID A REGULAR ELECTION COST? WE DO IT DURING A REGULAR ELECTION.
>> BETWEEN WANT AND 27. >> SO ABOUT THE SAME. >> ESSENTIALLY.
>> IF WE DO IT AS A SPECIAL ELECTION. >> A SPECIAL ELECTION.
>> AS COMMISSIONER BEAN IS PROPOSING. >> IT'S ROUGHLY THE SAME.
>> SO THEY'RE ALL THE SAME. >> THEY'RE ALL WITHIN FIVE TO $5,000 TYPICALLY.
>> SO THERE'S NO REAL COST SAVINGS. OKAY.
>> THANK YOU. >> . >> I WOULD PROPOSE IF YOU WANT TO DO A SPECIAL ELECTION YOU DO A MAIL-IN BALLOT. YOU DO IT MONTHLY FOR ALL THIS AND EVERY CITY, EVERY -- CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT EVERY VOTER IN THE CITY GETS A BALLOT.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> SO THEY'RE AWARE OF IT, THE BALLOT, AND THAT'S WHAT I WOULD
PROPOSE. >> VICE MAYOR? >> NOT REALLY SURE WHAT THE BEST STRATEGY IS BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE CONCERN -- IF THE CONCERN IS THAT THE COUNTY AND
SCHOOL DISTRICT MIGHT ALSO HAVE REFERENDUM. >> IF THAT'S THE CASE A MAIL-IN MIGHT BE PROCEDURE. FOR TWO REASONS, ONE IS A POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE.
MAIL-IN BALLOT GOING TO EVERYBODY, YOU KNOW, A MAIL-IN, ONE OF THE STRATEGIES FOR EFFECTIVE BONDS IS TO DO IT AT THE SMALLEST ELECTION POSSIBLE SO, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL OF THAT. I WOULD THINK IF WE HAVE A GOOD CASE THAT A MAIL-IN BALLOT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE BEFORE THE GENERAL ELECTION, IF THAT'S POSSIBLE TIME-WISE.
>> MY EARLY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS OFFICE INDICATE THAT A MAIL-IN BALLOT ELECTION WOULD NOT BE PRUDENT TO THIS TIME OF YEAR FOR THEM, THE REMAINDER OF THIS.
>> BEFORE THE GENERAL ELECTION? >> UH-HUH. SO --
>> AND DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION OF THE CLERK? >> YES.
>> GO AHEAD. >> BUT THAT'S FOR THEIR CONVENIENCE?
>> YES, SIR. >> IF WE ASK IT THEY HAVE TO DO IT.
>> THEY HAVE TO MAKE REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS BUT GIVEN THE WORKLOAD THAT THEY HAVE IT
WOULDN'T BE THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF US. >> THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
PRUDENT AND -- >> STAFF DOESN'T RECOMMEND IT. >> [INDISCERNIBLE].
>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> BECAUSE IT'S MORE WORK FOR THEM.
>> NO, SIR. THEY'RE NOT AFRAID OF THE WORK. IT WOULD OVERBURDEN THEM.
>> COMMISSIONER BEAN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AFTER REVIEWING AN EARLIER POINT THAT SAID THERE WAS NO COST SAVE THE, AND I'LL BRAND IT THE BEAN PLAN, TO HAVE IT DURING THE RUN-OFF THERE WOULD BE NO COST SAVINGS THERE. THEY WOULD.
IT'S ALL THE SAME PRICE, $25,000 AS A MAIL-ONLY BALLOT AND PERSONAL I DON'T LIKE THAT.
I WANT A PHYSICAL LOCATION. IT'S THE SAME PRICE TO HAVE A PHYSICAL LOCATION WITH THAT MAIL OPTION AND HAVING, TWO SCENARIOS TO MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR, THAT IF WE DO GO FORWARD WITH THE $25,000 EXPENSE TO HAVE AN EARLIER MAIL-IN BALLOT ELECTION AND THEN WE DO IN FACT HAVE A RUN-OFF WHICH I BELIEVE IS HIGHLY LIKELY AS IT'S HAPPENED THE LAST SEVERAL ELECTIONS WE'LL PAY $25,000 TWICE BUT IF WE WAIT UNTIL A MONTH AFTER AND PAIR IT WITH THIS RUN-OFF ELECTIONS WE'LL SAVE THE $25,000. IT'S HIGHLY LIKELY THERE'S A COST SAVINGS AND IT WOULD MAKE THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONTIONS MUCH MORE HAPPIER. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF PROS TO DOING IT THIS WAY AND ON TOP OF THAT, TO THE VICE MAYOR'S POINT YOU KNOW WHAT THE TURN-OFF IS, AND I WISH IT WASN'T THAT WAY BECAUSE AS SOMEONE TO HAS RUN IN ELECTIONS BEFORE, I KNOW THE TURN-OUT AND I THINK IT'S VISITS A LOT OF PEOPLE'S GOALS HERE. THE BIGGEST THING IS THE COST
SAVINGS OF $25,000. >> ALL RIGHT, GENTLEMEN, THE CLOCK IS TICKING AS WE SAY AND WE NEED TO COME TO A DECISION AND, CITY ATTORNEY, I'M ASSUMING WE NEED TO TAKE A VOTE ON SETTING A DATE AND FORM FOR THIS BOND ELECTION AT A REGULAR CITY COMMISSION MEETING.
WE CAN DO IT IN [INDISCERNIBLE] OF A WORKSHOP. >> WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO PASS A RESOLUTION WITH THE BALLOT LANGUAGE EXACTLY AS YOU WEREN'T IT TO APPEAR ON THE BALLOT.
>> WE CAN'T SET THE DATE FIRST WITHOUT THE -- >> YOU CAN.
I THINK IF YOU JUST SAY WHAT THE DIRECTION IS WE WOULD INCLUDE THAT IN THE RESOLUTION LATER
WITH BALLOT LANGUAGE. >> MY QUESTION IS DO WE HAVE TO VOTE ON IT, VOTE ON THE DATE,
AND METHOD. >> NO. I DON'T THINK YOU DO.
>> YOU'RE THE CITY ATTORNEY. I'M ASKING YOU. >> NO.
[00:25:04]
BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO APPROVE BALLOT LANGUAGE LATER AND IT'S GOING TO HAVE THE DATE AND METHOD SO IF YOU DIRECT US THAT WAY THAT'S THE WAY WE'LL GO AND WHEN WE HAVE BALLOT LANGUAGEYOU'LL APPROVE IT FORMALLY. >> GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> VICE MAYOR. >> HAVING THE DISCUSSION, I BELIEVE THAT THE RUN-OFF WOULD
BE AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO DO IT. >> I'M HEARING ONE RUN-OFF. OBVIOUSLY THE SPONSORS OF THE BEAN PLAN WOULD ADVOCATE -- ADVOCATING THE BEAN PLAN. COMMISSIONER ROSS?
>> I DO NOT THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. >> SO OPPOSE?
>> UH-HUH. >> COMMISSIONER STURGES. >> I'M FINE WITH HAVING IT AFTERWARDS BECAUSE I THINK IT WOULD PROBABLY HELP THE SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS.
>> THERE'S A CONSENSUS OF THREE. SO LET'S PLAN FOR A -- IN DECEMBER.
AND YOU ARE WELCOME TO RE-RAISE THIS TOPIC AT ANY POINT SINCE THIS IS A WORKSHOP.
ALL RIGHT. NOW, AS TO THE SECTION PART, THE ITEMS THEMSELVES, GIVEN THE LIST, THIS MAY -- STAFF IS LOOKING FOR DIRECTION. I'VE JUST BEAN HANDED THIS LIST,
VICE MAYOR. >> I ACTUALLY THOUGHT WE HAD CITY FACILITIES ON THERE ALSO AND MY IMPRESSION, WITH [INDISCERNIBLE] I'M CONFUSED A LITTLE BY THE ESTIMATE BECAUSE IT SAYS 16 GRAND -- OR 16,000 AND THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT NORTH PLATTE C AND D.
I BELIEVE [INDISCERNIBLE] IS THAT NUMBER. IT'S MY OPINION THAT THAT'S THE MOST SELLABLE OF THE BOND ISSUES, THE SHORELINE STABILIZATION.
THE DOWNTOWN VITALIZATION WAS FAVORED BY THE NERVES. THAT'S IMPORTANT TO MAKE THAT SECOND. CITY HALL, BIKE TRAILS, YOU KNOW, I WOULD NOT INCLUDE THEM BUT I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT, AGAIN, THE REAL MOST IMPORTANT IS BRINGING CITY FACILITIES UP TO DATE BUT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A CHANCE OF ASKING SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD BRING UP BECAUSE WE DIDN'T DO OUR JOB. SO SHORELINE VITALIZATION, DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION, AND --
>> COMMISSIONER ROSS? >> FIRST OF ALL, WE WEREN'T JUST HANDED THIS.
THIS WAS ALSO IN THE PACKET SO IT WAS THERE ON TUESDAY, IF YOU OPENED UP THE PACKET.
I THINK THE SHORELINE STABILIZATION IS VERY IMPORTANT BUT I THINK WE CAN GET GRANTS FOR THAT. I THINK DOWNTOWN IS PROBABLY -- THE CURBS ARE [INDISCERNIBLE] THE LIGHTS CAN NO LONGER BE REPLACED BECAUSE THEY DON'T MAKE THEM ANY LONG, THE WIND SHEAR, AND SIDEWALKS HAVE BEAN -- I'VE BEAN SITTING FOR FOUR YEARS ON THIS, AND PRIOR TO THAT, MULTIPLE MEETINGS, AND EVERYBODY SAYS THE DOWNTOWN, WHICH IS ONE OF OUR HISTORIC DRAWS, ONE OF OUR BIG OF THE TOURIST ATTRACTIONS, IS -- WHAT IS IT? 30 YEARS OLD? 30. IT NEEDS HELP. AND THERE'S NO WAY WE'RE GOING TO EVER FUND THIS OUT OF THAT AD VALOREM TAX. IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
AND IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO GET GRANTS FOR THIS SORT OF THING, GRANTS [INDISCERNIBLE] WATERFRONT RESILIENCY ARE AVAILABLE AND SO THAT I WOULD THINK THAT THIS WOULD BE THE
MOST APPROPRIATE THING TO TRY TO RAISE MONEY FOR. >> RESILIENCY AND ONE DOWNTOWN.
VICE MAYOR? >> I DON'T DISAGREE, AND THAT'S ACCEPTABLE, AND THAT WAS THE CONSENSUS I BELIEVE WAS DOWNTOWN BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT AND I SAID THIS BEFORE IS ALL OF THESE ITEMS NEED TO BE ON THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN SO THAT WE HAVE -- WHETHER WE HAVE THE MONEY OR NOT, IF WE HOPE AT ALL TO GET ANY GRANTS. THAT'S ALL.
>> COMMISSIONER BEAN AND COMMISSIONER STURGES NEED TO WEIGH IN, PLEASE.
COMMISSIONER BEAN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SEVERAL PROJECTS ON HERE MEET THIS DEFINITION BUT I NEED SOMETHING THAT'S AS VISITABLE TO THE PUBLIC AND WHEN I'M MAKING THIS DECISION OF WHICH IS THE BEST THING TO FUND WITH THE BOND AND IF WE'RE GOING TO TAKE OUT A MORTGAGE SO TO SPEAK AND USE IT TO IMPROVE THE CITY IT NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING THE CITIZENS CAN POINT TO AND BE PROUD OF AND EXCITING BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE IF -- IT NEEDS TO BE A VERY VISITABLE PROJECT IN ORDER TO MAKE EVERYONE HAPPY AND THAT'S WHY I BELIEVE THAT -- I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER ROSS, THE DOWNTOWN PROJECT IS THE CORRECT OPTION.
[00:30:02]
IT'S BECAUSE WE NEED SOMETHING THAT THE CITIZENS CAN GO TO AND, YES, WE TOOK OUT A MORTGAGE BUT WE'RE DOING GOOD WITH THE CITIZEN'S MONEY AND MAKING SURE THAT DOWNTOWN IS TAKEN CARE OFSO I'LL SUPPORT DOWNTOWN. >> COMMISSIONER STURGES? >> DURING THE WORKSHOP I STRESSED THIS AND I'LL STRESS IT AGAIN. IF WE CAN FIND GRANTS AND DO DIFFERENT THINGS WITH THE WATERFRONT, DIFFERENT FOR THE RESILIENCY, I THINK THAT WE REALLY SHOULDN'T BOND IT. I'M ALL FOR DOWNTOWN, GETTING THE REVITALIZATION.
THAT'S MY NUMBER ONE THING. I DON'T THINK WE ARE GOING TO GET ENOUGH INCOME ANY OTHER WAY SO I AGREE. I AGREE WITH CHIP AND I AGREE WITH BRADLEY AND LYNN.
I'M NOT WITH [INDISCERNIBLE] BUT I AGREE THAT ALSO OUR STRUCTURES AND ALL OUR BUILDINGS WHICH SLOWLY WE HAVE WORKED ON SOME OF THEM, AND UNFORTUNATELY NOT ENOUGH OF THEM AND A LOT OF THINGS HAVE BEAN KICKED DOWN THE ROAD WHEN IT COMES TO OUR CITY BUILDINGS, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME SORT OF ACTION PLAN WITH THAT. BUT FOR NOW, THE MAIN THING, WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING THIS EVENING, I THINK THE DOWNTOWN WOULD BE MY NUMBER ONE PROJECT,
REVITALIZATION. >> COMMISSIONER BEAN, YOUR LIGHT IS ON.
>> WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THAT? >> AS I'M LISTENING TO EACH OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS SPEAK THE WHEELS ARE OF COURSE TURNING IN MY HEAD. FLORIDA IS A STATE WITH 1200 MILES OF COASTLINE AND WE ARE A BARRIER ISLANDS AND ISLANDS ARE GOING TO GET A LOT OF ATTENTION FUNDING-WISE BECAUSE WE ARE SEVERELY AT RISK SO I THINK WE'LL GET STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING FOR THIS PROJECT, SO THAT TAKES ME TO DOWNTOWN.
PART OF ME SAYS I WISH SOME OF OUR TAX WOULD -- BED TAX WOULD HELP US OUT SINCE DOWNTOWN IS A MAJOR TRACTION FOR TOURISTS AND THE LATEST STRATEGIC PLAN I SAW FROM THE COUNTY, THE BIG PLAN IS TO HAVE MONEY GO OVER THE BRIDGE. YOU KNOW WHAT? THEY NEED TO TAKE CARE OF HOME FIRST BEFORE IT GOES OVER THE BRIDGE.
SO I WOULD CERTAINLY LIKE TO APPROACH THE TDC AND THE COUNTY AND SEE WHAT FUNDS WE CAN GET
FROM THEM. I WOULD SAY DOWNTOWN. >> COMMISSIONER ROSS?
>> I WOULD JUST SAY NOT APPROACH THE TDC. LET'S BE PERFECTLY CLEAR.
THE TDC IS RUN BY THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THEY DECIDE WHERE THE MONEY GOES SO AWELCOME YOU CAN APPROACH THE TDC AND VICE MAYOR KREGER CAN TALK TO THIS, IT'S NOT THE TACKED.
IT'S THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. >> IT IS. >> VICE MAYOR?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. THE COUNTY IS DRIVING THEM AND THEY HAVE THEIR AGENCIES, AND WE'RE MEETING TOMORROW AFTERNOON AND I'LL BRING THIS YOU AGAIN, THE CONCERN, AND THERE'S THINGS THAT WE CAN PUSH BUT THE LIKELIHOOD IS SLIM OF GETTING IT.
THE STATE LAW FOR TDC IS EXPANSIVE. THEY HAVE THEIR AGENDA AND THE LATEST, THEY'LL BE A VOTE TO GO BACK OUTSIDE TO THE REFERENDUM AND INCLUDE THE REST COUNTY.
WE'LL SEE HOW THAT WORKS. >> COMMISSIONER ROSS? >> I JUST SAW DATA THAT RIGHT NOW 36 PERCENT OF THE PROPERTIES THAT FUEL THE BED TAX ARE IN THE CITY.
WE DON'T GET 36 PERCENT OF THE MONEY. >> ALL RIGHT.
SO I THINK WE'VE MADE SOME PROGRESS HERE SO THE DIRECTION IS TO FOCUS ON DOWNTOWN AND THE REFERENDUM BALLOT AND IN DECEMBER. IS THAT WHAT CITY AND STAFF
NEEDED? >> STAFF CAN PREPARE STUFF AND FLUSH IT OUT, FLUSH IT OUT, AND BRING IT TO YOU MAYBE THE SECOND MEETING IN APRIL. GET MORE DETAILS AND START EXACTLY WHAT THE BOND AMOUNT COULD BE AND THE PROJECTS, WHAT THEY ARE WORKED FOR, AND I'LL WORK WITH CITY STAFF AND WE'LL GET SOMETHING FOR YOU AT THE SECOND MEETING IN APRIL.
>> TERRIFIC. ANYTHING ELSE ON THE BOND? SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE TO 3.2,
[3.2 AMELIA RIVER RESILIENCY PLAN NEXT STEPS ]
AMELIA RIVER RESILIENCY PLAN NEXT STEPS. COMMISSIONER ROSS, YOU PLACEDTHIS ITEM ON THE AGENDA. >> I DID. >> YOU HAVE THE FLOOR, SIR.
>> COULD YOU PUT THAT UP FOR ME, DALE, PLEASE. >> SO WE JUST TALKED ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF RESILIENCY AND I'LL REMIND YOU WE HAVE ONE OF THESE THINGS SITTING IN FRONT OF
[00:35:01]
US THAT HAVE THE CITY COMMISSION GOALS AND ONE OF THEM IS THAT THE PRESENTED DRAFT CONCEPT FOR FUTURE PHASE SEGMENT SIX AND SEVEN OF THE AMELIA RIVER PLAN AND TO COMPLETE A RESILIENT SAVE WORK FRONT AND MA EVENTUAL AND PARK AND RAIL CROSSING AND DEVELOPMENT.SO BY 1/24. THE NEXT SLIDE. AREA SIX AND SEVEN IS THE AREA THAT'S THE SIMMONS' PROPERTY AND 101 NORTH FRONT STREET, THE CITY OWNS THIS, OWNED BY PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS, AND THE MAJOR NOW, THE MAJOR SOURCE OF FLOODING, WHERE IT FLOODS FIRST, IS THIS AREA RIGHT IN HERE ON THESE TWO PROPERTIES, SO IT'S RIGHT IN HERE AND OVER HERE, SO IF WE'RE GOING TO -- THIS IS SORT OF THE LINCHPIN OF THE PLAN AND IF WE DON'T DO SOMETHING HERE THERE' REALLY NO POINT IN DOING EVERYTHING ELSE BECAUSE THIS IS THE LOWEST POINT AND IT'S A PLACE THAT'S ALREADY FLOODING. THE RAILROAD TRACK THE FLOOD AND THE STREET FLOODS DURING KING TIDES. THE NEXT SLIDE. BACK TO 2004 AND THE FINAL CRA SUBMITTAL, IT'S STATED THIS PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE SIMMONS' PROPERTY WAS AN UNSANITARY AND UNSTABLE CONDITION AND THEY USED A PHOTOGRAPH OF THIS. AND SO THIS HAS BEAN AT LEAST SINCE 2004. THE NEXT ONE. ONE THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT IS THE CITY OWNS THIS PARCEL IGHT HERE AND THIS BUILDING IS NOW GONE EIGHT THE FLOODING COMES IN RIGHT THROUGH HERE, BUT WHAT I POINT OUT IS THAT THE CITY, WHEN IT BOUGHT THIS
PARCEL, ALSO HAS A -- I CAN'T GET THIS -- >> EASEMENT.
>> EASEMENT. I'M TRYING TO GET THE BUTTON HERE, WHERE YOU SEE THE WALKWAY HERE. THERE IT IS. THE CITY HAS AN EASEMENT HERE SO THEY CAN PUT BACK A WALKWAY HERE THAT CONNECTS THESE TWO PROPERTIES AND THAT'S A LITTLE UNKNOWN. I DON'T THINK MANY PEOPLE KNOW THAT.
SO THE CITY HAS THE EAST MEANT AND THAT CAME WHEN WE BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY.
THAT'S JUST AN, "OH, BY THE WAY RECEIVER, SO 2022 IS WORSE. THIS PROPERTY IS OWNED BY THE SAME INDIVIDUALS FOR MORE THAN THE MID-1980S AND IT CONTINUES TO BE WHAT IT IS.
NEXT, PLEASE. >> OUR SEAWALL AND RIVER WALK THERE'S A GAP HERE.
THE CITY OWNS THIS AND WE CAN PUT OUR WALL HERE. WE CAN PUT OUR WALL HERE.
WE CAN IMPROVE THIS HERE AND PREVENT FLOODING BUT THERE'S A GAP HERE IN THE WALL AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE REALLY HERE TO TALK ABOUT. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO ABOUT THIS GAP. THE NEXT ONE. SO I THINK THERE'S A NUMBER OF OPTIONS AND I'VE SORT OF BUNDLED THEM. ONE IS TO HOLD THE COURSE WHICH MEANS DO NOTHING AND BUILD IN OTHER AREAS. I THINK THAT IS NOT A PRUDENT THING TO DO BECAUSE THE FLOODING OCCURS WHERE -- IN THIS AREA RIGHT NOW.
NUMBER 2 F YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, DALE. WE CAN BUILD AROUND THE PROPERTY. AND WHAT WE CAN DO IS TAKE THE WALL, GO DOWN HERE, GO DOWN HERE, GO UP HERE AND THEN GO OVER AND SO THAT IS THE VIABLE THING.
WE HAVE ENOUGH LAND TO DO THAT. I DON'T THINK IT'S A GREAT SOLUTION BUT IF THE PROPERTY OWNER DOES NOT WANT TO PARTICIPATE THAT CAN BE DONE. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS GIVE THEM ACCESS ONTO THEIR PROPERTY THERE AND PUT A GATE IN THERE AND ACTUALLY THIS IS A LOT CHEAPER THAN BUILDING HERE SO THAT IS AN OPTION. CAN YOU GO BACK, DALE.
NUMBER ONE IS PASS A SEAWALL REQUIREMENTS OR A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT.
THAT WAS I THINK BROUGHT UP. AND I BROUGHT THAT UP FOUR YEARS AGO FOR US TO PUT IN A SEAWALL ASSESSMENT, THAT EVERYBODY HAD TO BUILD OR IN WHEREVER AREA YOU WANT TO PREVENT FLOODING, SIMILAR TO EFFORT LAUDERDALE. I CALLED EFFORT LAUDERDALE AND FOUND OUT THAT THEY PASSED AN ORDINANCE AND I FOUND OUT WHAT THEIR SUCCESS WAS. AND THEY SAID MOST PEOPLE FOLLOWED IT BUT A NUMBER DID NOT AND THEY HAD TO TAKE THEM -- WHAT THEY DO IS CODE ENFORCEMENT AND THEN THEY COULD START FINING THEM AND THEN THEY COULD PUT THEM -- A LEAN ON THE PROPERTY.
I ASKED THEM, WELL, HOW LONG WOULD THAT TAKE TO DO. TO GET AN ORDINANCE PAST WOULD TAKE ABOUT SIX MONTHS TO A YEAR, CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, AND THEN YOU HAVE TO GIVE THEM SIX MONTHS TO A YEAR. AND THEN ONCE -- IF THEY DON'T FOLLOW THROUGH THE PROPERTY OWNER, THEN YOU START THE PROCESS AND THERE'S YEARS IN COURT AND THEY SAID PEOPLE TAKE YOU TO COURT. SO IF YOU WANT TO THE STAY OUT OF COURT, IF YOU WANT TO GO TO COURT IN ANOTHER WAY AND KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD, YOU CAN PASS AN ORDINANCE LIKE THAT
[00:40:01]
WHICH I THOUGHT WAS A GOOD IDEA ANYHOW BUT THAT'S NOT A SOLUTION THAT WILL HAPPEN ANY TIME SOON AND ALMOST GUARANTEED FOR LITIGATION. A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT, YOU CAN DO THAT BUT WITHOUT THE CITY OWNING THE PROPERTY, AND CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, CITY ATTORNEY, YOU CAN ASOMETHING THEM ALL YOU WANT BUT STILL NOWHERE TO BILLED IT SO YOU CAN'T REALIZED DO A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT. THEY THERE'S THE POSSIBILITY AGAIN OF EMINENT DOMAIN FOR AN EASEMENT OR PURCHASE STRICTLY JUST FOR THE 12 OR EIGHT FEET OR TEN FEET, WHATEVER IT WOULD TAKE TO TO DO THE SEAWALL AND RIVER WALK. THE FINAL ONE, DO NOTHING.I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS WHATEVER THINKS. BEFORE WE DO THAT I WOULD LIKE FOR US TO COME TO A CONSENSUS ABOUT HAVING THE CITY STAFF DO A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR 101 NORTH STREET 27 WHICH WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT, AND HAS BEAN TALKED ABOUT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS NOW AND GO FORWARD WHO IS OUT THERE INTERESTED AND WHAT THEIR INTERESTS WOULD BE AND EITHER DOING A LEASE -- WHAT ARE PEOPLE'S INTEREST IN DEVELOPING THAT PARCEL.
AND PERHAPS ONE OF THEM WOULD COME TOGETHER WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER AND PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER. I WOULD HOPE WE COULD COME TO A CONSENSUS TONIGHT AT LEAST THE ONE THING OF HAVING THE CITY STAFF IN THE NEXT 30 OR 60 DAYS COME UP WITH A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR 101 NORTH FRONT STREET. THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS AND I'M
WONDERING WHAT'S OUR WAY FORWARD. >> VICE MAYOR?
>> WELL, WE'VE BEAN TALKING NOW ABOUT THIS A LONG TIME AND EVERY TIME IT COMES YOU ASSESSMENT [INDISCERNIBLE] AND I'M GOING TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT WHAT'S REALLY HAPPENED HERE IN 110 YEARS. 110 YEARS [INDISCERNIBLE] SEA LEVEL AND -- ALMOST EIGHT INCHES, 110 YEARS, SO WE'VE GOT A LITTLE TIME HOPEFULLY BEFORE THE ICE MASS MELTS. I THINK WE SHOULD PROCEED AS EFFORT LAUDERDALE.
TO CONTINUE BUILDING A SEAWALL AND THE MOST VULNERABLE POINT IS CRAZY.
I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT AND WHATEVER IT TAKES TO REQUIRE PEOPLE TO BUILD THAT SEAWALL AND IF WE GO TO COURT, WE GO TO COURT TO GET IT DONE. WE'VE GOT THE TIME, BASED ON WHAT'S HAPPENING. IF YOU LOOK AT SEA LEVEL RISE THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF GOING ON ABOUT SEA LEVEL RISE. THERE'S A LOT OF RESILIENCY. THE DATA TALKS ABOUT THE HOCKEY PUCK AND STICK, YOU THERE OR HERE, AND THAT HASN'T HAPPENED YET AND IT WON'T HAPPEN YET [INDISCERNIBLE] SO WE HAVE TIME TO DO IT RIGHT AND HAVE AN ORDINANCE.
I THINK WE SHOULD DO. 101 FRONT, WE DID THAT ONCE. I HAVE NO PROBLEM MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT. CHIP MAKES A GOOD POINT. THAT MIGHT ACTUALLY ENCOURAGE THE PROPERTY OWNER TO WORK AND GET SOMETHING DONE BUT I THINK WE SHOULD -- AN ORDINANCE SIMILAR TO EFFORT LAUDERDALE AND MIAMI-DADE IS DOING THAT ALL THE TIME AND THEY HAVE SERIOUS
PROBLEMS DOWN THERE. >> COMMISSIONER ROSS? >> WELL, THE SEAWALL IS FINE BUT THIS WELCOME ISN'T BEING BUILT JUST FOR SEA LEVEL RISE. TODAY WE DON'T HAVE TIME.
STORMS ARE OUT THERE TODAY AND SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU DON'T THINK THERE'S A LACK OF URGENCY IN THAT YOU ARTICULATED THIS. I'VE HAVE [INDISCERNIBLE] BECAUSE WE HAVE TIME. THIS WALL DOESN'T BEING BUILT FOR SEA LEVEL RISE. IT'S BEING
BUILT FOR A PROBLEM WE HAVE NOW. THAT ROADTRIP FLOODS RIGHT NOW. >> WHAT I SAID WAS THAT I'VE SAID THAT YEARS AGO AND WE'VE SAT ON IT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T WANT TO DO IT.
IT FLOODS A COUPLE OF TIMES, TWO OR THREE TIMES A YEAR, FOUR FEET, AND IT DOESN'T OVERCAN HARDLY EVER. YEAH, WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING. I AGREE.
THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. BUT WE HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING AND WE HAVE TIME TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE OTHERWISE NOTHING'S GOING TO HAPPEN.
NOTHING HAS HAPPENED SO I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU. >> CAN I RESPOND?
>> ABSOLUTELY. >> SO WHY CAN'T WE BUILD AROUND IT WILL OR WHY CAN'T WE DO
EMINENT DOMAIN? I'M ASKING. >> IMMINENT DOMAIN WAS THE ISSUE. I HAD NO PROBLEM WITH DOING EMINENT DOMAIN TO BUILD -- TO
[00:45:03]
BUILD THAT WALL. YOU DON'T NEED THE WHOLE PROPERTY.>> I AGREE WITH YOU. WHY ISN'T THAT A VIABLE OPTION NOW?
>> I THINK THAT IS VIABLE. AS FAR AS [INDISCERNIBLE] I DON'T THINK THAT'S A VIABLE
OPTION. >> LET ME INTERCEDE HERE. WHAT WE'RE HAVING IS TWO COMMISSIONERS BACK AND FORTH AND YOU ASKED FOR EVERYBODY'S OPINION AND GIVEN THE TIME
ALLOTMENT I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO HEAR -- >> I WOULD, TOO.
>> COMMISSIONER STURGES. >> I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD HOLD THE COURSE AND BUILD OTHER AREAS. I THINK WE SHOULD FOCUS ON THE AREA THAT WE STARTED ON ON THE SOUTH END AND CONTINUE WORKING ON THAT AREA AS WELL. I DON'T THINK BUILDING AROUND IS A GOOD IDEA AT ALL EVEN THOUGH IT SOUNDS CHEAPER. I THINK IT'S GOING TO LOOK RIDICULOUS AND IT'S GOING TO MAKE OUR WATERFRONT LOOK RIDICULOUS.
PASS SEAWALL REQUIREMENTS OR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT, WE COULD POSSIBLY GO WITH THAT BUT WE'RE DISCUSSING ONE PARTICULAR PROPERTY WITH ONE PARTICULAR OWNER SO AS FAR AS GETTING THE EASEMENT, IF THAT WAS NECESSARY I COULD GO ALONG WITH THAT, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, WHETHER IT REQUIRED EMINENT DOMAIN OR NOT. HOWEVER, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE JUST FINISHED WITH THE SIMMONS PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, STOPPING THE WHOLE EMINENT DOMAIN OF THE PROPERTY, YOU KNOW. IT WASN'T TOO LONG AGO THAT THAT WAS OVER THE SUMMER, YOU KNOW, AND WE CANCELED THAT AND, YOU KNOW, WE JUST FINISHED NEGOTIATING TWO OR THREE MONTHS AGO THE ATTORNEY'S GUYS FOR ALL THAT DEBACLE AND I UNDERSTAND THAT WAS A PREVIOUS COMMISSION THAT STARTED IT AND I WAS NOT ON THAT COMMISSION. I DON'T THINK DOING ANYTHING IS THE CORRECT PROCEDURE, HOWEVER, I'VE REACHED OUT AND SPOKE TO SIMMONS MYSELF AND I THINK THAT WE NEED TO WORK WITH AND GIVE IT SOME TIME. HE HAS SOME IDEAS THAT WOULD WORK TO BENEFIT HIM AND THE CITY. IT'S JUST IT MIGHT TAKE A LITTLE TIME TO WORK THAT VERSUS JUMPING INTO SOMETHING IMMEDIATELY. AND AS THE SLIDE YOU BROUGHT UP, NOT THE LAST MEETING BUT THE MEETING PREVIOUSLY, IT WAS SPECIFICALLY TO TALK ABOUT HOW MANY FEET WE REALLY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AT THE STREET AS FAR AS THE SIDEWALK, A CURB, OR DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR PARKING AND I THINK PARKING IS OUT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S AN OPTION.
HOWEVER, I THINK THAT IF THERE WAS A WAY TO NEGOTIATE TO WHERE WE GOT A LITTLE BIT OF PROPERTY IN THE FRONT AND THERE WAS A WAY TO NEGOTIATE, AND I KNOW THIS SOUNDS CRAZY FOR CERTAIN PEOPLE, THE [INDISCERNIBLE] MOVING THE WALL OUT SLIGHTLY TO GET THE AREA IN THE FRONT, THEN I THINK IT COULD COUNTER-BALANCE AND MAKE STEVE SIMMONS' PROPERTY BE WHOLE WITH WHAT THEY HAVE AS WELL AS GIVE THE CITY WHAT THEY NEED AND BUILD A WALL OUT THERE. AND YOU'RE NOT ASKING A WHOLE LOT TO GRANT IF WE ONLY GOT EIGHT OR TEN FEET OR WHATEVER THE CASE IS.
THERE IS A VARIANCE THERE SO I THINK IT JUST MIGHT TAKE A LITTLE MORE TIME WITH SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS SPEAKING WITH THEM AND CITY STAFF FOLLOWING UP TO GET A BETTER RESULT THAN WE HAVE IN THE PAST. THAT'S NUMBER ONE. AND NUMBER TWO, I WOULD BE ALL OPEN ARMS TO HEAR ABOUT 101 NORTH FRONT STREET GETTING DEVELOPED BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT NEEDS TO GO. WE NEED TO KEEP WHAT WE HAVE WITH ATLANTIC SEAFOOD WHETHER SOMEBODY WANTS TO BUILD AND KEEP THE CERTAIN SIZE THERE, HOWEVER, I THINK THAT THE DEVELOPMENT SHOULD GO THAT DIRECTION TO THE NORTH END AND THAT'S JUST MY OPINION LOOKING AT THIS SITUATION. WE HAVEN'T GIVE IT QUITE ENOUGH TIME TO WORK THINGS OUT AND I KNOW THAT WE SENT MR. SIMMONS A LETTER BUT IT MIGHT HAVE COME ACROSS NOT EXACTLY HOW IT SHOULD HAVE COME ACROSS BEING THAT WE JUST FINISHED TRYING TO SUE HIM.
SO THOSE ARE MY OPINIONS ABOUT IT. >> COMMISSIONER BEAN, DO YOU
HAVE AN OPINION? >> YES, MR. MAYOR. I DO HAVE AN OPINION THAT THE LAST BULLET POINT THERE, AN RFP FOR THE PROPERTY MIGHT BE INAPPROPRIATE BECAUSE IT'S THE
CITY AND IT'S NOT OUR CITY AND I DON'T THINK -- >> IT'S OWNED BY THE CITY.
>> THAT'S THE CITY PROPERTY WE OWN. >> GOOD.
>> -- [CROSSTALK] -- >> I STILL WANT TO -- I THINK WE SHOULD CONTINUE AS COMMISSIONER
[00:50:06]
STURGES SAID, PROCEED AS PLAN. WE HAVE A GOOD PLAN. LET'S CONTINUE ON.WE'RE NOT DONE WITH THAT. I THINK SOMETHING WILL OPEN UP IN THE FUTURE.
>> COMMISSIONER ROSS? >> OKAY. HERE'S AN IDEA.
THE RFP FOR 101 NORTH STREET I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT GO FORWARD AND HAVE THE CITY MANAGER COME BACK WITH SOMETHING WITHIN 60 DAYS. AND LET'S WAIT ANOTHER -- BE WILLING TO WAIT ANOTHER 60 DAYS TO SEE IF SOMETHING ELSE DEVELOPS, IF YOU WILL.
I THINK THE IDEA ABOUT GOING -- INCREASING THE -- GOING AWAY FROM THE SEAWALL HAS SOME CHALLENGES. ONE IS THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT SAY YOU HAVE AN EXISTING SEAWALL YOU CAN GO ONLY 18 INCHES FROM ANYWHERE, THEIR LAW, THEIR ORDINANCE, WHATEVER, THEIR FINDINGS. NUMBER TWO -- WELL, THAT'S THAT CAN WE AT LEAST COME TO A CONSENSUS THAT WE CAN GO FORWARD WITH AN RFP AND WAIT ANOTHER -- AND HAVE THAT COME BACK IN 60
DAYS AND REVISIT THIS IN 60 DAYS? >> VICE MAYOR?
>> AN RFP FOR CONSIDERATION FOR THE 101 FRONT STREET PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. IT WILL PROBABLY COST US NOTHING.
WE COULD SEE WHAT'S OUT THERE. IT COULD BE POSITIVE. >> AND, MAYOR, WHAT ARE YOUR
SHOUTS? >> WELL, AS THE VICE MAYOR IS SPEAKING WE RECONSTITUTED THE CRA, SO WE HAVEN'T EVEN GIVEN THEM A SHOT AT 101 NORTH FRONT STREET.
THEIR MEETING IS I BELIEVE TOMORROW NIGHT, SO CERTAINLY WE SHOULD INCLUDE THEM AND SEE WHAT THEIR THOUGHT IS. MY OTHER THOUGHT IS IT'S THE RIVER FRONT, SO IT'S NOT ONLY TO 101 NORTH FRONT STREET BUT ALL THE WAY TO THE COURT. HOW DO WE PROTECT THAT WHOLE AREA. AND HAVING BEAN ON THIS, AND I'M NOW IF MY FOURTH YEAR, I BELIEVE THAT EFFORT LAUDERDALE AND BROWARD COUNTY AND MIAMI BEACH CAME TO THE REALIZATION THAT PROPERTY OWNERS WEREN'T GOING TO DO IT AND SO THEY HAD TO LEAD THE HORSE TO WATER AND MAKE THE HORSE DRINK AND I THINK WE'RE IN THE SAME THING, THAT THAT WHAT WE'LL NEED TO DO AT SOME POINT.
I'VE BEAN SITTING HERE AND WAITING FOR PROPERTY OPENERS. I RAN INTO ONE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS AT LUNCH TODAY AND WAS TEMPTED TO ASK THE VERY QUESTION BUT DID NOT.
>> [INDISCERNIBLE]. >> I WANTED TO ENJOY LUNCH. SO THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS.
>> HOW ABOUT THIS. WE DO AN RFP FOR 101 NORTH FRONT STREET AND WE HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY COME UP WITH A PROPOSED SEA LEVEL WALL WITHIN 60 DAYS AND WE SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE SIMMONS PROPERTY IN THAT SAME 60 DAYS. ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS?
>> I'M GOOD WITH THAT. >> AS THE MAYOR SAID, THAT DOESN'T LOOP IN THE CRA --
>> THEY CAN COMMENT ON THIS DURING THAT 60 DAYS. THE CITY MANAGER CAN TAKE THE
PROPOSAL TODAY. THEIR STAFF LIAISON. >> WE HAVE BEAN DOING -- I'M ABOUT TO GO. WE'VE BEAN DOING THIS FOR 20 YEARS, GENTLEMEN.
20 YEARS. AND NOW WE'RE KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD AGAIN.
I'M TRYING TO BEND OVER BACKWARDS TO COME UP WITH A PROPOSAL TO MOVE FORWARD AND I DON'T THINK ASKING FOR AN RFP FOR 101 NORTH STREET, YES, WE DID IT IN PAST BUT WANDERED INTO SPACE. I HAVE PICTURES HERE. IT WITH BILE DONE IN THE NEXT 90 DAYS SO WE'RE DONE THERE. WE'RE DONE. WE NEED TO MOVE ON.
I'M PROPOSING A SIMPLE THING, DO AN RFP, WAIT 60 DAYS AND SEE WHAT SHAKES OUT AND GO INTO PROPOSAL, COME UP WITH PLAN FOR GOING TO THE SEAWALL. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT
AND MOVE FORWARD INSTEAD OF DRIFTING. >> 1 RFP, I HAVE ONE FENCE,
AND -- IF EVERYBODY ELSE IS ON BOARD, I COULD GO. >> COMMISSIONER STURGES?
>> I'M ABOUT THE RFP. >> I THINK AS THE LIAISON TO THE CRA, ADVISE THEM THIS WAS DISCUSSED, AND WE WANT TO INCLUDE THERE CONSIDERATIONS. BUT WE WOULD INSTRUCT YOU TO
[00:55:06]
CRAFT AN RFP. >> AND THE OTHER TWO ITEMS, SIR? >> COMMISSIONER ROSS IS CORRECT IN THAT THE SOUTH IS ALMOST DONE AND SO WE NEED TO COME TO A CONSENSUS ON A GO-FORWARD PLAN.
>> SO 60 DAYS AND DURING THAT 60 DAYS I'LL COME UP WITH A SEA LEVEL ORDINANCE.
>> SO ARE WE GOING REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT? >> A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DOESN'T
HELP. >> START WITH THE ORDINANCE. SIMILAR TO EFFORT LAUDERDALE.
>> I HAVE TWO ORDINANCES, AND COMMISSIONER BEAN? >> WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD CERTAINLY, COMMISSIONERS. I SEE WE'RE GETTING CLOSE TO AN ELECTION WHICH GUARANTEES THAT THERE WILL BE ONE NEW COMMISSIONER HERE AND THERE'S A SMALL CHANCE OF TWO HERE, AND IF WE DO WORK ON THIS PATH, THAT THE NEW COMMISSIONERS WANT TO AGREE WITH, WE MIGHT BE SPINNING SOME WHEELS. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE MOVE FORWARD, AND I WANT TO MOVE IN A CAREFUL WAY, YOU KNOW, THAT WE'RE NOT WASTING STAFF'S TIME WITH SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE REVERSED AS SOON AS WE GET A NEW COMMISSION IN HERE. I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF SEEING WHAT AN ORDINANCE COULD BRING FORWARD AND I'LL HAVE SOME DISCUSSION WITH STAFF ABOUT WHAT I THINK SHOULD BE AT A LATER TIME RATHER THAN HAVING IT ALL RIGHT NOW.
>> COMMISSIONER STURGES? >> I AGREE THE SAME THING. I'M NOT READY TO JUMP INTO SEAWALL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIAL ASSESSMENT AND I WOULD LIKE TO WAIT, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST 60 OR EVEN 90 DAYS, AT LEAST 60 DAYS TO SEE WHAT SHAKES OUT AS FAR HAS THAT.
BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S MULTIPLE PROPERTIES LIKE YOU MENTIONED, MAYOR, AND THERE ARE MULTIPLE PROPERTIES DOWN THE LINE AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS ALL THE PROPERTIES REALLY, YOU KNOW, HAS
TO BE ADDRESSED ALL AT ONE TIME. >> COMMISSIONER ROSS. >> WE HAVE ALREADY ADDRESSED IT.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE PLAN THEY HAVE IT ADDRESSES IT. THE SEAWALL FLIPS ACROSS THE STREET AND GOES UP ALONG THE RAILROAD. IT'S ALREADY IN THE PLAN THAT WE ADOPTED, ALL THE WAY TO THE PORT. WE HAVE ADOPTED A PLAN.
IF YOU WANT TO DIFFER FROM THAT PLAN, YOU KNOW, BUT THAT'S THE PLAN THAT WAS -- WHETHER IT WAS THIS COMMISSION OR THE PREVIOUS ONE ADOPTED. CAN YOU PUT YOU THE PICTURE,
DALE. >> YES. THAT MIGHT HELP.
>> WHICH ONE? >> THE LAST ONE. >> GENTLEMEN WE HAVE ABOUT TWO
MINUTES. >> I CAN MAKE IT IN TWO MINUTES. LOOK HERE, JUMPS ACROSS THE STREET AND GOES ALL THE WAY UP. THAT'S THE FLOOD PROTECTION. THAT'S WHAT WE VOTED TO ACCEPT IN THE PAST. YOU BUILD THAT WALL. IT'S CHEAP, IT WORKS, AND YOU DO A FLOODGATE RIGHT HERE AND IT GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE PORT, AND IT'S 8.4 INCHES OFF THE
CENTER OF THE TRACK. >> THAT WOULD KEEP THAT TWO-WAY TRAFFIC UNDER THAT PLAN?
>> YEAH. ABSOLUTELY. >> YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE WALL
FROM THERE ON DOWN TO THE PORT IS 8.4 INCHES HIGH? >> NO.
I'M SAYING IT'S 8.4 INCHES OFF THE CENTER OF THE TRACK. >> OKAY.
>> IT'S ANYWHERE FROM. >> I THOUGHT IT WAS FEET, COMMISSIONER ROSS.
>> EIGHT FEET, FOUR INCHES FROM THE CENTER OF THE TRACK IS WHERE THE BACK OF THE WALL WOULD BE ON THAT SIDE AND THEN IT TRACKS ALL THE WAY DOWN ALONG THE FRONT STREET TO THE PORT AND AT THE HIGHEST POINT, ABOUT THREE FEET HIGH. BECAUSE, REMEMBER, ONCE YOU GET
HERE, IT RISES, SO THE HEIGHT OF THE WALL DECREASES. >> I'M AWARE OF THAT.
>> YEAH. >> THIS IS THE LOWEST AREA. >> YES.
>> AS YOU GO UP AND GO FORWARDS THE PORT IT ACTUALLY RISES. >> YES.
>> EVERYTHING RISES. >> YES. >> ROUGHLY A FOOT.
>> SO WHAT HAVE WE DECIDED? >> WELL, ONE POINT, IT'S TRUE WE ADOPTED THAT PLAN.
WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT A SEAWALL, OF PROTECTING THAT NORTH PROPERTY.
IF WE STICK TO THAT PLAN WE DON'T NEED TO DO AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING TO DO THE SEAWALL
BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY -- [CROSSTALK] -- >> I AGREE.
>> I DIDN'T BRING YOU THE ORDINANCE, BY THE WAY. WE HAD TALKED ABOUT MOVING NORTH
ON THAT, SO WE'LL STICK TO THAT PLAN. >> JUST TO RECAP, WE'RE GOING TO -- WAIT 60 DAYS AND IN THE INTERIM WITH THE -- [INDISCERNIBLE] WE'LL GO OUT AND
BRING BACK AN RFP FOR 101 NORTH FRONT STREET. >> CORRECT.
>> GENTLEMEN, ANYTHING ELSE? ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO ADJOURN THE
[01:00:02]
WORKSHOP. >> THE OTHER TOPIC ON THERE IS GOING TO GET PUSHED TO THE NEXT
MEETING? >> YES, SIR. >> GREAT.
>> CITY MANAGER. >> NO, IT'S NOT GOING TO GET PUSHED TO THE NEXT ONE BECAUSE WE'VE GOT A BUNDLE SOME OF THESE WORKSHOP MEETINGS BECAUSE THE FIRST -- I HAVE TO CHECK AND SEE WHAT'S ON THE MARCH 15TH WORKSHOP AGENDA BUT THE FIRST WORKSHOP IN APRIL IS GOING TO BE DEDICATED TO MARINA DEBT, AND THE SECOND IN APRIL IS A CRA MEETING SO WE'RE PUSHING STUFF INTO MAY AND JUNE, BUT WE'LL REVIEW IT BUT JUST NOT AUTOMATIC MOVING FORWARD.
>> I WOULD REQUEST OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS THAT YOU PRIORITIZE THESE SUBJECTS BY THEIR IMPORTANCE AND TIME ELEMENT AND CERTAINLY THIS TOPIC HAD A TIME LIMIT.
SO WHAT IS PRESSING NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED FIRST IN WORKSHOPS AND ABSENT OF THAT I'LL USE MY MAYOR
DISCRETION AS TO PLACING THE PRIORITY ON THE WORKSHOP ITEMS. >> MAYOR, WE CAN ALWAYS HAVE
OTHER MEETINGS. >> WE CAN. WE CAN.
>> TOPIC FOR
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.