[1. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:09]
>> CALL TO ORDER THE DECEMBER 6TH, 2022, CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP, MADAM CLERK, CALL THE ROLL.
>> COMMISSIONER BEAN? >> HERE.
>> COMMISSIONER STURGES? >> HERE.
[5.1 CONSERVATION/RECREATION RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS]
>> CONSERVATION, RECREATION, RESTRICTED COVENANT.
COMMISSIONER ROSS, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR, SIR.
>> ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO, THE CITY CHARTER WAS AMENDED SO THAT THE CITY-OWNED LAND THAT WAS OWNED CONSERVATION OR RECREATION, COULD ONLY BE SOLD OR HAVE A LONG TERM LEASE WITH A UNANIMOUS VOTE OF THE CITY COMMISSION. AND APPROVAL OF 70% OF THE VOTERS IN THE CITY IN A REFERENDUM. I THINK THE VOTERS MADE IT CLEAR THAT THEY WANT CITY OWNED LAND THAT'S ZONED CONSERVATION OR RECREATION TO STAY CONSERVATION OR RECREATION USE. WE PASSED A MILLAGE RATE TO RAISE MONEY FOR CONSERVATION LAND AND AT THAT TIME WE PROMISED THAT LAND WOULD ONLY BE USED FOR LAND THAT WOULD STAY CONSERVATION FOREVER. AND MANY CITIZENS CONTRIBUTED MONEY TO BUY CONSERVATION LAND. AT THAT TIME, THE CITY COMMISSION PROMISED AND TAXPAYER THAT THE LAND STAY IN CONSERVATION IN PERPETUITY. SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION ALTHOUGH THAT CONSERVATION OR RECREATION LAND CAN ONLY BE SOLD OR HAVE A LONG-TERM LEASE WITH THE DRACONIAN RESTRICTIONS THAT I TALKED ABOUT PREVIOUSLY, NOTHING LEGALLY PREVENTS SIMPLE MAJORITY VOTE OF FUTURE CITY COMMISSION OR THIS ONE TO CHANGE THE ZONING MAPS OF THOSE PROPERTIES AND DISPOSE OF THOSE PROPERTIES SUBVERTING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. IT'S ADMITTINGLY, UNLIKELY, BUT, IT IS POSSIBLE. SO, TO ADD AN EXTRA LAYER OF PROTECTION TO PREVENT THE SALE AND LEASE OF CONSERVATION OR RECREATION PROPERTIES, THE CITY COMMISSION CAN DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY GENERAL TO DRAFT CITY COMMISSION'S APPROVAL AN EASEMENT TO MAINTAIN THE CONSERVATION OR RECREATION USE PUBLICLY, IT'S ONLY PUBLICLY, CITY OWNED PROPERTIES IN PERPETUITY. THAT WOULD GIVE THE PUBLIC FURTHER PROTECTION TO MAINTAIN CONSERVATION OR RECREATION PUBLICLY OWNED PROPERTY. IF THE CITY COMMISSION TRIED TO REZONE THAT PROPERTY FOR USE OTHER THAN CONSERVATION OR RECREATION THIS WOULD GIVE THE CITIZENS THE RIGHTS TO GO TO COURT TO MAINTAIN THE CONSERVATION OR RECREATION USE. I WOULD ASK FOR A CONSENSUS TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE FOR THE APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTS TO PROTECT THE CONSERVATION OR RECREATION
>> SO, THE QUESTION TO THE CITY ATTORNEY IS IF THAT WERE DONE AND IT WAS ESTABLISHED TO BE IN PERPETUITY BY ORDINANCE, CAN THAT ORDINANCE BE CHANGED IN THE FUTURE? AND I SUPPORT THIS, BUT, MY QUESTION IS DOES IT REALLY?
>> THE CITY COMMISSION CAN STILL CHANGE IT.
>> THAT'S MY POINT. SO, I SUPPORT THIS, BUT...
>> GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER ROSS. >> SO, WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE ORDINANCE, WE'RE TAKING, WHAT I'M ASKING IS TO TAKE ON EACH DEED OF THOSE PROPERTIES AND PUT A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT OR AN EASEMENT ON THE PROPERTY ITSELF THAT SAYS THAT. SO, TO OVERRULE THAT, THREE CITY COMMISSIONERS DECIDED, IT GIVES THE ABILITY FOR A CITIZEN TO GO TO COURT AND SAY, NO, NO, NO, NO, THERE'S A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT OR EASEMENT ON THERE AND YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
AND IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE TO GO TO COURT TO DO THAT.
>> LIKE I SAID, I SUPPORT SETH, BUT, IN THEORY, IT COULD BE
CHANGED? >> IT CAN BE CHANGED. IT JUST
[00:05:03]
MAKES IT MUCH MORE DIFFICULT. THAT'S ALL.>> I UNDERSTAND. >> I JUST WANTED THE CITY
ATTORNEY TO SAY SOMETHING. >> THANK YOU.
>> COMMISSIONER BEAN? >> I HAVE A FURTHER QUESTION FOR TAMMI. SO, THAT PROCESS THAT THE VICE MAYOR JUST DESCRIBED, LET'S SAY WE PUT THIS IN PLACE AND THERE'S RESTRICTIONS ON THE DEEDS, SO, THAT'S TRUE, THAT IF WE TRIED TO UNRESTRICT A DEED, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, THAT'S GROUNDS
TO GO TO COURT FOR A CITIZEN? >> OKAY. IT'S, IT'S, AN ADDITIONAL WAY THAT THE CITIZEN CAN GET TO COURT TO CHALLENGE THE CITY COMMISSION'S DECISION. IF THE PROPERTY'S REZONED, OR, HAS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT IN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, THERE ARE ADMINISTRATIVE CHALLENGES TO THAT AND POTENTIAL COURT CHALLENGES FOR THE ORDINANCE. BUT, WITHIN ONE YEAR OF ADOPTING THE ORDINANCE. THAT'S ONE, SO, THIS GIVES AN ADDITIONAL, POTENTIAL CITIZEN RECOURSE, IF YOU WILL, IF THEY DON'T LIKE THE MAJORITY COMMISSION DECISION.
>> YES, MA'AM, AND TO BE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU JUST SAID THERE, SO, CURRENTLY, AS IT STANDS, IF THE COMMISSION DECIDED TO RE-ZONE SUCH A PROPERTY OUT OF RECREATION, TO LET'S SAY RESIDENTIAL, THAT WAY THEY COULD SELL IT AND BY PASS THIS RESTRICTION, THAT'S ALREADY SOMETHING A CITIZEN CAN TAKE US
TO COURT FOR? >> THEY CAN CHALLENGE THE
RE-ZONING. >> UNDERSTOOD, I WANT TO QUALIFY MY COMMENT WITH FURTHER COMMENTS AND I'LL SAY THAT I WAS ON THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE WHEN WE WROTE THIS AND I WHOLEHEARTEDLY BELIEVE IN THE PROTECTIONS FOR OUR CONSERVATION OR RECREATION AND THEY NEED TO STAY IN PLACE AND I'M GLAD THAT WE HAVE THIS IN PLACE WHERE WE HAVE TO GO TO THE PEOPLE AND IT TAKES A SUPER MAJORITY TO DO THAT. IT'S WORTHY OF OUR CONSERVATION OR RECREATION LAND. THE SYMPTOMS, COMMISSIONER ROSS, THAT YOU ARE ADDRESSING HERE, IS THE FACT THAT THE BIGGEST PROTECTION THAT THE CITY HAS FOR IT'S CONSERVATION LAND IS US, UP HERE. AND RIGHT NOW, OUR CURRENT COMMISSION, AND I WOULD WANT TO COUNTY MYSELF IN THIS ARE OBVIOUSLY VERY PROTECTIVE OF OUR CONSERVATION OR RECREATION LANDS, AND THERE'S REALLY NO WAY TO SLICE IT, BECAUSE, EVEN IF WE ADD THIS EXTRA LAYER OF PROTECTION, IF WE CREATE AN ORDINANCE THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T DO THIS, ANYTHING CAN BE DONE OR UNDONE BY THREE COMMISSIONERS.
SO, WITH THAT IN MIND, WE ALREADY HAVE IN OUR VERY CHARTER SOMETHING THAT SAYS THAT WE CAN'T SELL OUR CONSERVATION OR RECREATION LAND WITHOUT 70% OF THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE OR A SUPER MAJORITY UP HERE. AND I THINK THAT IS A VERY GOOD PROTECTION, ADDING FURTHER PROTECTION, I THINK IS TAKING STAFF TIME AND MAY BE CHURNING SOMETHING THAT I THINK DOESN'T ADDRESS THAT ROOT CAUSE WHICH I DON'T THINK CAN BE ADDRESSED EXCEPT BY THE PEOPLE THEMSELVES BY ELECTING RESPONSIBLE COMMISSIONERS THAT WON'T MESS WITH OUR CONSERVATION OR
RECREATION LANDS. >> SO, WE COULD AGREE TO DISAGREE. BY PUTTING A CONSERVATION EASEMENT OR A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT CLAUSE ON IT, IT MAKES IT MUCH MORE DIFFICULT FOR A CITY COMMISSION TO CHANGE IT'S MIND. IT IS NOT AN ORDINANCE. I KEEP SAYING, THIS IS NOT AN ORDINANCE, THIS IS PART OF THE DEED AND YOU CAN GO TO COURT TO ENFORCE A DEED RESTRICTION, AND THAT IS ADDED PROTECTION THAT I THINK HELPS MITIGATE THE IT THREE CITY COMMISSIONERS FOR WHATEVER REASON, I AGREE WITH YOU, THIS COMMISSION WOULD NOT DO THAT. I THINK ALL THE PEOPLE RUNNING FOR THE NEXT ONE WOULD NOT DO THAT, BUT, FIVE, 10, 15, 20 YEARS FROM NOW, WHO KNOWS. THIS IS JUST AN ADDED LAYER OF PROTECTION. AS FAR AS STAFF TIME GOES, I THINK IT'S THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND ACTUALLY, I'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME AND ALREADY WRITTEN IT, YOU COULD TO WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH IT, I DON'T THINK IT'S MUCH STAFF TIME, IF THERE'S COST IN RECORDING IT, WE CAN LOOK AT THAT AND SEE HOW THAT CAN BE PAID FOR, BUT, I THINK FOR THE MINIMAL AMOUNT OF WORK, IT'S A, UM, BONUS MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO OVERRULE US. AND AS THE CITY ATTORNEY POINTED OUT, IF IT'S A LEGISLATIVE THING AND YOU CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, YOU HAVE TO GO TO COURT UNDER CERTAIN CRITERIA, AND IT'S CHALLENGING AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION. FROM ONE WHO HAS DONE THAT, IT IS A HIGH -- AS YOU KNOW I'VE DONE THAT IN THE PAST, OR MAY BE YOU DIDN'T NO, IT IS A HIGH BAR THAT YOU HAVE TO GET AS A CITIZEN TO OVERTURN AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION, IT'S A MUCH LOWER BAR TO ENFORCE A DEED RESTRICTION, SO, THIS IS JUST ANOTHER ADDED LAYER OF
PROTECTION. >> COMMISSIONER STURGES?
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. TAMMI, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
WHICH WAY IS OFF? SOMEBODY STOLE MY THING. ONE OF MY
[00:10:04]
QUESTIONS IS, WHAT BRADLEY JUST HIT ON AND THAT WAS GOING TO BE ONE OF MY QUESTIONS, IS IT A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE TO SELL OR RE-ZONE ONE OF THESE PROPERTIES OR IS IT JUST A SIMPLE MAJORITY THE WAY OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE IS READING?>> FOR THE CITY TO SELL -- >> SO RE-ZONE. FORGET I SAID
SELL. >> RE-ZONING IS A MAJORITY VOTE
BY ORDINANCE. >> OKAY. SO, UM, HOLD ON ONE
SECOND. CAN I ADDRESS? >> SURE.
>> YES. >> SO, CHIP, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, ARE THESE PROPERTIES THAT YOU ARE SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT, THE PROPERTIES THAT WERE PURCHASED WITH THE MONEYS FROM THE GROUP OR ALL ARE RECREATION LAND THAT GOT SUBVERTED OVER TO RECREATION LAND OR CONSERVATION?
>> THERE WAS A LIST ATTACHED TO THAT, AND THE CITY CAN GO THROUGH THAT AND SAY WE WANT TO DO THESE AND NOT THESE, BUT,
THAT'S UP TO CITY COMMISSION. >> BECAUSE THAT'S A LONG LIST, AND IT COULD BE A FEW PROPERTIES OR IT COULD BE A LONG LIST.
>> THE AMOUNT OF WORK IS NOT MUCH DIFFERENT, BUT, THE CITY, THE CITY, WHAT I ASKED FOR, THE ASK WAS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY TO HAVE THEM PREPARE AND THESE ARE THE PROPERTIES THAT THEY WOULD RECOMMEND AND THE CITY COMMISSION CAN EITHER YES OR NO?
>> THE ONLY REASON I MAKE THIS STATEMENT AND THE ONLY REASON I MAKE IT IS FOR STUFF THAT THE CITY'S HAD FOREVER THAT MOST OF IT IS CONSERVATION, BUT SOME OF IT COULD BE CONSERVATION THAT HEAVEN FOR BID WE GET INTO A FINANCIAL STATUS, IN 10 OR 15 YEARS AND WE WOULD HAVE TO SELL SOMETHING TO PAY BILLS. IT DOES HAPPEN TO SOME CITIES, I WOULD NOT THINK IT WOULD HAPPEN TO OUR
CITY, BUT, YOU NEVER KNOW. >> THAT WOULD TAKE A VOTE OF
THE PEOPLE. >> CORRECT. BUT, YOU WOULD SEND THAT OUT FOR THE VOTE OF THE PEOPLE FOR THE SALE? SO.
ALL RIGHT, THOSE ARE ALL OF MY QUESTIONS FOR NOW. THANK YOU.
>> I GOT ANOTHER ONE. >> MAYOR: DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT
ON THIS? >> YEAH, I WANT TO BACK UP A BIT. SO, THIS WOULD PUT AN EASEMENT ON CONSERVATION LAND, BUT, WHAT ABOUT RECREATION LAND, YOU DON'T PUT AN EASEMENT ON
RECREATION LAND, DO YOU? >> YOU CAN.
>> THAT BEING SAID, I AGREE WITH CHIP IN THE TERMS OF THIS IS ANOTHER PROTECTED MEASURE IN AN AREA THAT THE POPULATION, WE, WE, WE PUT THE MILLAGE ON AND BOUGHT THE LAND BUT, I THINK THE PAST ELECTION SHOWS THE INTEREST. SO, I WOULD SUPPORT MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS. EVEN THOUGH I WON'T VOTE ON IT.
>> . >> MAYOR: OKAY. I'LL CHIME IN BRIEFLY. A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO I WAS AT AMELIA RIVER GOLF COURSE AND A TAN DUMB PARACHUTE TEAM CAME DOWN THEY HAD A BACKUP CHUTE BECAUSE THEY VALUED THEIR LIVES. IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE BACK UP CHUTE, THEY WOULDN'T BE HERE. THE SAME WITH OUR LAND, THE MORE LAYERS OF PROTECTION THAT YOU COULD PUT ON OUR PARKS, CONSERVATION OR RECREATION LANDS, THE BETTER. BECAUSE, I SAT HERE WHEN MR. LEGGETTE WANTED TO TURN THAT GOLF COURSE INTO A LUXURY, RACE TRACK CLUB THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A DISASTER FOR THIS ISLAND. AND WE WOULD HAVE LOST 168 ACRES OF PRISTINE PROPERTY. SO, I THINK COMMISSIONER ROSS IS CORRECT, AND I'M IN FAVOR OF MOVING FORWARD. ANYONE ELSE?
>> SO, DO WE HAVE A CONSENSUS IN IS
>> WE HAVE THREE, COMMISSIONER BEAN, COMMISSIONER STURGES, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS, MOVE FORWARD OR NOT. COMMISSIONER BEAN?
>> MR. MAYOR, I'M GOING TO SAY THIS PROTECTION IS IN OUR VERY CHARTER WHICH IS THE FOUNDATION OF OUR CITY. I CURRENTLY THINK IT'S ROCK SOLID AND I DON'T THINK WE NEED THAT EXTRA PROTECTION. I'M GOING TO SAY, QUOTE/UNQUOTE, I THINK THIS IS SPINNING OUR WHEELS, I CAN SEE I'M OUT VOTED, SO, I'LL LEAVE IT
AT THAT. >> BRADLEY, I LITERALLY FEEL THE SAME, IT'S SOUND AND IT'S WORKED FOR SO MANY YEARS, I THINK THAT WE'RE FINE, WE DON'T NEED ANYMORE REGULATIONS, THAT'S JUST MY OPINION. BUT, I'M THE FIRST TO SAY THAT I DON'T WANT
[00:15:03]
ANYBODY TO SELL OUR CONSERVATION LAND OR REDO IT. I'M THE FIRST TO SAY IT, I THINK THIS IS EXTREMELY AGGRESSIVE TO PUT DEED RESTRICTIONS WHEN WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE AND THE VOTE OF THE>> OKAY. SO, THAT'S 3-2. PLEASE PROCEED.
[5.2 PORT MASTER PLAN]
>> 5.2, PORT MASTER PLAN. DECIDE ON THIS PLACED ON THE AGENDA AT THE REQUEST OF COMMISSIONER ROSS, YOU HAVE THE
>> UM, CAN YOU PUT THAT UP? >> THANK YOU. SO, THE PORT IS CURRENTLY DOING A MASTER PLAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF YOU, I KNOW LEN WAS HERE, WERE YOU HERE FOR THE PREVIOUS PORT MASTER
>> WHICH WAS HIGHLY CONTENTION AT THE TIME. WE HAVE, SINCE THAT TIME, DONE A PORT ELEMENT, AND, UM, WE INVITED THE, UM, WE INVITED THE, UM, OCEAN HIGHWAY PORT AUTHORITIES TO COMMENT ON THAT AND THEY NOW HAVE THE MASTER PLAN. AND IF YOU COULD JUST, FIRST, NEXT, DALE? SO, I GAVE YOU A COPY OF THE MASTER PLAN, AND, JUST A FEW THINGS THEY DIDN'T PUT IN THERE, THEY DIDN'T REFERENCE OUR CONSERVATION EASEMENT, AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, THEY DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THE PORT ELEMENT OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR THE CONTROVERSIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY GOING ON, BUT, MAORE IMPORTANTL, THEY DIDN'T FILE A STRATEGY PLAN THAT REQUIRES THE PORT TO DO CERTAIN THINGS. SO, I WAS JUST CURIOUS HOW THE REST OF YOU FELT ABOUT THAT MOVING ON. UM, THE NEXT ONE, THERE'S THE FLOOD PLAIN, UM, THAT, IF YOU NOTICED ALL THE BLUE THERE, THE RED LINE IS WHERE THE PORT IS AND THE BLUE AND THE BROWN ARE WHERE THE 10500 YEAR FLOOD PLAN. THE ENTIRE IT PORT FLOODS BUT IN THE MASTER PLAN THEY TALK NOTHING ABOUT HOW THEY ARE GOING TO DEAL WITH THAT. AND ALSO, IN THEIR MASTER PLAN, THE PORT IS SURROUNDED BY WETLANDS, AS YOU KNOW, THE CITY HAS, THIS IS THAT RED LINE UP THERE IS WHERE THE PORT IS. RIGHT HERE, THIS IS THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT WHICH NOBODY CAN CROSS, AND SO, AND SO THEY WANT TO, THEY'RE SURROUNDED BY CITY WETLANDS SO THEY CAN'T ACCESS ANYWAY WITHOUT GOING THROUGH WETLANDS AND I'M NOT SURE WHY THEY CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT OTHER WAYS OF ACCESSING THE PORT BEBESIDE DAVIS STREET. ANYHOW, THEY WANT TO PUT UP A NEW BUILDING. THEY WANT TO PUT UP A BUILDING RIGHT HERE, THIS IS THE PORT, THIS IS THE WAREHOUSE, THIS IS THEIR PARKING LOT, FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO PUT UP THIS BUILDING, THEY HAVE TO MAKE A TURN-AROUND FOR BUSES WHICH GOES INTO THE CITY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY. THEY WANT TO PUT IN A BUS STATION HERE FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY. ALSO, THEY WANT TO PUT IN THE CUSTOMS HOUSE THERE AND THAT'S A CRITICAL FACILITY AND THAT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN AND BEACON SEAFOOD JUST BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY AND I'M NOT SURE WHY THEY WOULD WANT TO GIVE AWAY ALL OF THEIR PARKING. THIS ONE HERE, YOU CAN'T READ IT HERE BUT THEY'RE CURRENTLY DOING 14,000 CONTAINERS A YEAR AND THEY'RE CURRENTLY DOING 345,000 TONS A YEAR, AND RIGHT HERE, WHAT THEY'RE PROJECTING, THIS CAME OUT OF WHAT THEY PUT IN ANOTHER DOCUMENT, THEY WANT TO DECREASE THE NUMBER OF CONTAINERS AND INCREASE THE TONNAGE AND I'M NOT SURE HOW THEY WANT DO THAT AND WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CITY ARE.
THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT CRUISE SHIPS AND WHAT THE CITY THINKS ABOUT THAT. THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT BRINGING FERTILIZER IN THERE, FERTILIZER CAN BE EXPLOSIVE AS YOU KNOW, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT AGGREGATE, BRINGING IN GRAVEL, ESSENTIALLY, AND IF YOU TAKE 200,000 TONS WHICH IS WHAT THEY TALK ABOUT IN THE MASTER PLAN, AND YOU DIVIDE THAT BY 20
[00:20:05]
TONS THAT GOES IN A DUMP TRUCK, YOU'RE NOW TALKING 10,000 TRUCKS IN AND 10,000 TRUCKS OUT. SO, THE NEXT ONE, DALE, THERE ARE TWO THINGS THAT THEY DIDN'T TALK ABOUT -- CAN YOU GO BACK ONE.RIGHT NOW, THEY WANT TO ABANDON THE ESCAMBIA STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM HERE TO HERE. AND I FOR GOT ABOUT THIS, FOR THE ESCAMBIA, THE CITY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY WHICH IS PUBLIC ACCESS GOES ON TO THE PORT PROPERTY AND THEY WANT THE CITY TO ABANDON THE WHOLE THING. AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD DO AND WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THEIR MASTER PLANNING PROCESS, AND I WOULD LIKE TO MEET WITH THEM, TO ABANDON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM HERE FORWARD AND IN RETURN FOR THAT, HAVE THEM GIVE US THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY HERE WHICH IS ALL TREED AND PUT THAT INTO CONSERVATION. SO IT WOULD BE ABANDON THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, SO, PEOPLE CAN'T GO INTO THEIR PROPERTY AS THEY CAN NOW, THEORETICALLY, THERE'S A FENCE HERE. AND THEN, DO A SWAP HERE AND SO, THAT'S ONE THING THAT WE COULD DO FOR THEM.
AND THE SECOND THING THEY'RE ASKING FOR, GO TO THE NEXT ONE, DALE, THEY WANT TO TURN IT INTO A PORT DISTRICT AND BASICALLY, WHAT ALL THAT REALLY MEANS IS THAT THEY CAN HAVE THEIR TRUCKS, WHICH THEY ALREADY DO NOW, DON'T HAVE TO HAVE LICENSE PLATES OR REGISTRATIONS AND THEY COULD GO ON CITY ROADS. THEY DO THAT NOW. UM, IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL, I TALKED TO CHIEF HURLY ABOUT THAT AND HE SAID HE DIDN'T SEE PROBLEMS BUT HE WOULD LOOK INTO IT MORE BUT THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO PUT UP THE SIGNS.
THOSE ARE TWO SIMPLER THINGS, SO, I WOULD LIKE THE NEXT STEP TO BE HAVE A MEETING WITH PORT TO TALK ABOUT THEIR MASTER PLAN AND ALSO HEAR THAT YOUR THOUGHTS ARE ABOUT THEIR MASTER PLAN AND HAVE A JOINT SESSION IN THE NEXT 30-60 DAYS. THOUGHTS?
>> MAYOR: VICE MAYOR? >> MYSELF, AND, WE ACTUALLY HAVE A COUPLE OF PEOPLE VICTORIA AND TAMMI HAVE BEEN ON (INDISCERNIBLE) STAKEHOLDER COMMITTEE WHICH HAS WORKED WITH THE PORT, SOME INFORMATION, I MEAN, THEY ARE AWARE OF WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT CHIP AND THERE'LL BE A PUBLIC HEARING JANUARY 19TH, I THINK, FROM, 5:00 P.M. TO 7:00 P.M., I THINK IT'S ATLANTIC CENTER FOR THE PUBLIC, AND THEN THE PROCESS GOES INTO SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID BACK WHEN WE REJECTED THEIR COMP PLAN WAY BACK IS GO TO THE PORT WILL APPROVE IT, THEN IT WILL GO TO THE PAV AND IT WILL COME TO THE COMMISSION. THEY DID COVER MANY OF THESE THINGS, I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO DETAILS, ABOUT THE PAST, THERE WAS A LARGE DISCUSSION ABOUT PASSENGER SHIPS AND I'M SURE THEY'RE TRYING TO REFINE THINGS AND MAY BE TAMMI OR VICTORIA CAN, I WENT TO THE LAST MEETING, BUT, MAY BE THEY CAN COMMENT IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO ON SOME OF THESE ISSUES, IF
THEY WOULD LIKE TO. >> THE ONE THING THAT I WOULD HOPE IS THAT BEFORE THEY COME UP WITH THEIR FINAL PLAN THAT ADD LEAST WE COULD TALK ABOUT IT. BEFORE THEY COME UP WITH THE FINAL PLAN SO THERE'S SINGS THAT ARE TOTALLY CONTENTIOUS, WE
COULD TALK ABOUT IT. >> MAYOR: TAMMI, COME UP TO THE
PODIUM. >> THEY CHANGED IT FROM THE 19TH, SO, TENTATIVELY, IT'S JANUARY 26TH, FOR THE PUBLIC MEETING AND THEN IT WILL GO THROUGH THE REST OF THE PROCESS, BUT THAT'S STILL NOT OFFICIAL YET.
>> I'M TRYING TO MAKE THE POINT THAT THERE'LL BE A PUBLIC MEETING. I AGREE WITH CHIP THAT THEY'RE THERE. WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME DISCUSSING THE CRUISE SHIPS WITH YOU ALL. ONE INTERESTING THING THAT THEY DID BRING UP AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, WAS, THE SALE OF THE EXISTING PROPERTY IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, WHERE THEY COULD FUND THIS BUILDING THEY WANT TO BUILD WHICH WOULD BE, AND WE WOULD GET FIRST CALL ON THE PURCHASE OF THAT PROPERTY WHICH WOULD, YOU KNOW, WOULD BE A GOOD THING. NOW, TO GET THAT OUT OF THE PORT'S HANDS AND INTO THE CITY'S HANDS OR ANOTHER OWNER. I DIDN'T SEE -- I ASKED
[00:25:04]
THEM ABOUT REVENUE SHARING, THEY WEREN'T TOO BIG ON THAT, BUT, I DID ASK THEM, I ASKED FOR 80% OF THE REVENUE, BUT, THEY DIDN'TBUY THAT. >> COMMISSIONER STURGES?
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. UM, LEN I HAVE ONE QUESTION ON WHAT YOU BROUGHT UP ABOUT THEM SELLING THE HISTORIC PROPERTY, IS THIS THE PROPERTY THAT CHIP IS THINKING THAT WE COULD TRADE OUT NEXT TO THE ESCAMBIA RIGHT-OF-WAY?
>> CAN YOU GO BACK, DALE? I'LL SHOW YOU EXACTLY WHERE IT IS.
>> THE RIGHT-OF-WAY THING IS INTERESTING TOO, I THINK THAT'S
WELL WORTH DISCUSSING. >> WELL, IT'S WORTH DISCUSSING, I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD ENTERTAIN TRADING IT FOR A SLIVER, BUT, YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT PEOPLE WILL DO. SO,
>> I THINK THEY MAY BE MORE INTERESTED THAN YOU THINK. THE PROPERTY HE'S TALKING ABOUT, IF YOU GO DOWN, THIS IS WAY UP, THIS BILL OLE HOUSE OWNED BY NASSAU TERMINAL, THE PROPERTY THAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT IS ABOUT RIGHT HERE AND THERE ARE TWO PROPERTIES OVER HERE RIGHT ON DADE STREET, ONE-ON-ONE SIDE AND ONE ON THE OTHER. AND THOSE ARE BOTH ZONED RESIDENTIAL.
>> MAYORMAYOR >> ALL RIGHT, THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION. THAT WOULD WITH BE INTERESTING IF THEY WERE
INTERESTED IN EVEN HALF OF THAT. >> MAYOR: COMMISSIONER BEAN?
>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, I THINK THIS IS A GREAT START TO A PRODUCTIVE RELATIONSHIP, I LIKE THE FACT THAT WE'RE, THIS IS A GREAT IDEA, THIS IS A WIN/WIN, WE BOTH WIN. I LIKE THE IDEA, THERE'S A LOT OF GREAT THINGS GOING ON, I'M EXCITED TO GET A MEETING ON THE BOOKS MAY BE EARLY JANUARY, THAT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE IT ON THE NEXT MEETING.
>> SO, COULD WE HAVE THE CITY MANAGER APPROACH THEM AND COME
>> YES. >> SOMETIME IN THE FIRST TWO WEEKS OF JANUARY, THAT WOULD BE AWESOME.
>> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT.
GENTLEMEN, THAT CONCLUDES THE AGENDA ITEMS, ARE THERE ANY OTHER ITEMS THAT WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT IN THE WORKSHOP?
>> I HAVE A LIST OF THINGS THAT I WAS GOING TO PUT INTO COMMENTS OR HOW THEY FIT INTO THE AGENDA, ONE OF THEM FIT IN NICELY HERE IS, IS, UM, IS STREET LIGHTS. UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE DISCUSSED STREET LIGHTS, AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT DOWNTOWN STREET LIGHTS, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE CITY'S STREET LIGHTS AND WHAT'S HAPPENING OVER THE YEARS AND RECENTLY, IS, AS CERTAIN LIGHTS BECAME UNAVAILABLE, HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM LIGHTS, FLORIDA PUBLIC UTILITIES BEGAN PUTTING IN LED LIGHTING, SPARERADICALLY.
AND WHAT THE CHARGES ARE. SO, RECENTLY, A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO I HAPPENED TO BE TALKING TO YOU ABOUT OTHER ISSUES AND THEIR COMMENT TO ME WAS A COMMENT THAT SOME OF OUR CITIZENS HAVE PREVIOUSLY MADE RELATIVE TO THE INCONSISTENCY OF LIGHTING IN THE CITY. SO, AS YOU GO DOWN THE STREET -- LET ME HAVE ANOTHER.
>> I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH. >> I WANT TO GIVE IT TO --
>> UM, SO, WHAT HAPPENED WAS YOU GO DOWN THE IT STREET YOU HAVE A HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM LIGHT WHICH IS AN ORANGE/YELLOW COLOR AND YOU COME TO THE INTERSECTION AND THERE'S A BRIGHT LED. AND YOU TALK ABOUT THE INCONSISTENCY OF THE LIGHTING AND THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THAT. MY POINT IS IT'S NOT FOR THEM TO DO, BUT IT'S FOR THE CITY TO DO. FOR THE CITY TO SIT DOWN WITH THEM, AND LOOK AT THIS TARIFF AND TELL THEM WHAT WE WANT, IF THEY DON'T HAVE THE HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM, THEY NEED TO TAKE THEM OFF THE TARIFF. IF WE'RE GOING TO CHANGE OUT, WE NEED TO DIRECT THEM WHAT WE WANT. WE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY, OF WHICH, ONLY A SMALL PART IS THE ACTUAL ENERGY COST. SO, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS SIX MONTHS AGO. AND I JUST SUGGESTED THAT WOULD BE GOOD FOR THE CITY TO GET A HANDLE ON WHAT THEY'RE DOING WITH THIS AND SIT DOWN WITH FPU AND DETERMINE WHERE WE WANT TO GO. THERE ARE OTHER LIGHTS IN THE CITY BESIDE
[00:30:05]
DOWNTOWN. SO, I FIT THAT IN. >> I HAVE A QUESTION.
>> MAYOR: COMMISSIONER ROSS? >> CITY ATTORNEY, WHAT ARE YOUR RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE CONCERNING THIS ISSUE
UNDER THE TARIFF? >> I HAVE NOT -- I DON'T KNOW,
I'VE NOT HAD A -- >> MAYOR: CAN YOU COME UP TO
THE PODIUM? >> I DON'T KNOW, I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK INTO IT. IT'S NOT COVERED BY THE FRANCHISE GROUP, THE STREET LIGHT IS NOT. THE CITY'S STREET LIGHT'S WHICH ARE THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY, THE CITY RENTS AND PAYS.
>> IT'S NOT IN THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT. YOU ACTUALLY OWN 10% OF A STREET LIGHT IS IN ENERGY COST. I DIDN'T PRINT THE PAGE IN THE TARIFF, YOU CAN ACTUALLY SELECT DIFFERENT LIGHT POLES.
WE OWN THE STREET LIGHTS DOWNTOWN, WE DON'T OWN ANY OF THE OTHERS. SO, YOU PICK THE POLE, THE HEIGHT OF THE POLE, WHETHER YOU WANT A CONCRETE POLE AND YOU PICK THE LIGHT AND YOU PAY, YOU COULD SEE IN THE TARIFF WHAT YOU PAY, AND THE LIGHTS ARE DIFFERENT. YOU PICK, YOU NARCS THE VOLTAGE AND THE ILLUMINATION, THAT PROBABLY HASN'T HAPPENED IN YEARS AND YEARS. I'M JUST SAYING IT'S PROBABLY WORTH US DOING THAT, PARTICULARLY WITH THE LEDS COMING IN. LEDS ON THE TARIFF ARE A SHOE BOX. WE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWING FPU TO COME IN AND ARBITRARILY REPLACE A LIGHT WHERE THEY WANT TO. WE SHOULD HAVE SOME CONSISTENCY. AND WE SHOULD HAVE CONSISTENCY, TOO, YOU COULD ACTUALLY PUT IN A SAFETY ISSUE, I DON'T KNOW HOW DO YOU THAT, WHEN THE ILLUMINATION LEVELS HAVE CHANGED. AND WE TALKED ABOUT THIS SIX MONTHS AGO.
>> I KNOW, BUT, I DIDN'T REALIZE.
>> I'M NOT CRITICIZING, THIS IS MY LAST MEETING, SO, I GOT A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I WANT TO BRING UP. I HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY, SO, THERE WE ARE. >> THANKS, MAYOR.
>> I THINK IT'S WORTH FOLLOWING UP ON.
>> COMMISSIONER STURGES? >> THANK YOU, MAYOR, LEN, THE THE CONSISTENCY WAS THE TOPIC. I WAS UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY WERE WORKING ON THE CONSISTENCY OF THE BULBS. IF THAT'S NOT THE CASE, THEN AS A COMMISSION, WE MAY NEED TO REITERATE OR REGENERATE THE CITY MANAGER TO SEE WHERE WE ARE IN
THE PROCESS. >> IF YOU LOOK AT THE TARIFF ON THE BOTTOM LEFT-HAND SIDE, YOU SEE THE SHOE BOX, THOSE ARE THE LEDS, THEY ACTUALLY ACKNOWLEDGE, THE HEAD HERE AND RJ, WHO IS THE GUY THE POLITICAL GUY, YOU KNOW, THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM AND MY QUESTION WAS, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S YOUR PLAN? YOU KNOW, LIKE ARE YOU GOING TO COME TO THE CITY WITH A PLAN TO REPLACE THEM ALL? WHICH REALLY WOULDN'T COST US ANYTHING BECAUSE IT'S HERE. SO, WE'RE PAYING NOW, IF YOU'RE REPLACING THEM. IF YOU CAN'T GET HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM, WHICH WAS A CHOICE, THEN GET IT OFF THE TARIFF. I DON'T THINK THEY COULD GET ENOUGH TO REPLACE, THEN, COME UP WITH A PLAN OF THESE SHOE BOXES OF WHAT WE WANT. YOU KNOW, DO WE WANT THE ONE THAT'S, ONE'S $22.68 A MONTH, AND ONE IS $24 A MONTH.
AND YOU LOOK AT THE ILLUMINATION. WHAT ILLUMINATION DO WE WANT? THAT'S A CHOICE THE CITY SHOULD BE MAKING BASED ON WHATEVER CRITERIA WE WANT. DO WE WANT CONSISTENCY, DO WE WANT IT LIGHTER SOMEWHERE ELSE. WE DON'T WANT HIGH PRESSURE SODIUM GOING TO AN LED, YOU KNOW, A NICE ORANGE LIGHT TO A REAL BRIGHT WHITE LIGHT AND YOU SEE THAT ON THE STREETS DOWNTOWN.
>> I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, THAT'S WHY I'M VOICING. I THOUGHT THAT WE HAD SOME DIRECTION THAT WE WERE HEADING FOR CONSISTENCY, SO, HERE WE ARE SIX MONTHS LATER HAVING THE SAME
DISCUSSION. >> RIGHT. THE CITY NEEDS TO DRIVE IT. DON'T DEPEND ON FPU. AND I TOLD THEM I WOULD BE BRINGING THIS UP. THE CITY NEEDS TO DRIVE IT.
>> I HEAR WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. >> COMMISSIONER BEAN?
>> I WANT TO BE SURE THAT I'M CLEAR, WHAT YOU SAID IN THE END,
[00:35:03]
I THINK THAT'S YOUR END GOAL AND I WANT TO BE SURE THAT I'M UNDERSTANDING YOU CORRECTLY HERE, THAT IN NEIGHBORHOODS, YOU WANT TO BE SURE THAT THE ORANGE LIGHTS REMAIN AND THE LED LIGHTS TO BE RESERVED FOR THE MAIN ROADS?>> I DON'T HAVE A PERSONAL DESIRE, CAN THEY EVEN PROVIDE THAT? YOU KNOW, AND IF THEY CAN'T, WHAT'S THE PLAN TO CHANGE
OUT THE SYSTEM TO BE CONSISTENT? >> UNDERSTOOD, SO, CONSISTENCY
IS THE NUMBER ONE GOAL. >> RIGHT.
>> SO, IF I COULD JUST SUMMARIZE WHAT YOU JUST SAID THAT'S ACTIONABLE GOING FORWARD, THAT YOU WANT US TO START A DISCUSSION WITH FPU, AND MAKE SURE THAT THE CITY IS THE ONE
CALLING THE SHOTS? >> CORRECT, BECAUSE WE'RE THE
ONE PAYING THE BILL. >> POINT WELL TAKEN, VICE
MAYOR. THANK YOU. >> CITY MANAGER, ISN'T THERE A
LIGHT MEETING THIS WEEK? >> THAT'S GOT NOTHING TO DO
WITH THIS. >> NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS?
>> NO. >> IS MY LIGHT ON? I DON'T
KNOW. >> NO, YOU'RE LIGHT IS OFF.
>> I DGOT TO MAKE A PICTURE, O AND OFF.
>> A CHEAT SHEET. >> A CHEAT SHEET. I'M NOT TOO
BRIGHT. >> WHAT'S OUR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION AND WHAT'S THEIR CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION, IS THIS A FRANCHISE OR UNDER SOME CONTRACT?
>> THIS IS NOT UNDER THE FRANCHISE, LET'S START AT THE BEGINNING, WHO OWNS WHAT AND WHAT'S THE DEAL?
>> WELL, WE'LL START WITH THE CITY HAS CITY RIGHTS OF WAY. IN ORDER FOR FPU TO HAVE LIGHT POLES FOR ANYBODY OR POWER LINES, THEY HAVE TO HAVE A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY FOR THE PERMISSION FOR THE RIGHTS OF WAY. AND THEN THERE'S A FRANCHISE FEE THAT GETS CHARGED ON OUR BILLS, THAT'S THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT. STREET LIGHTS ARE DIFFERENT, I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT A STREET LIGHT AGREEMENT, I'M NOT SAYING THERE ISN'T ONE, BUT, I HAVEN'T SEEN ONE IN A LONG TIME, SO, IF WE ENTERED ONE, IT'S OLD. AND JERIMIAH IS NOT BACK HERE YET, BUT, HE WAS VERY CLEAR AS WAS REX LESTER WHO HANDLED THIS BEFORE HIM, THEY KNOW EXACTLY HOW MANY STREET LIGHTS THAT THE CITY RENTS, OBVIOUSLY, PAYS POWER ON. AND WHAT KIND OF
BULBS ARE THERE. >> SO, WE HAVE A RENTAL
AGREEMENT, WE THINK? >> RIGHT. EVEN IF IT'S IMPLIED. YES. YES. WE PAY RENT, WE GET AN INVOICE AND...
>> SO, WHERE I WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN IS FIRST SEE THE RENTAL
>> I MEAN, I MEAN, TO ME, THAT'S A GOOD PLACE TO BEGIN.
>> WELL, THAT'S FINE, AND THAT'S ACTUALLY WHAT I'M SAYING.
I FOR GOT THE NUMBER, I THOUGHT THE NUMBER THAT WE PAID, I DON'T WANT TO SAY A NUMBER, BUT, WE'RE PAYING BIG BUCKS FOR STREET
LIGHTS. >> WHEN YOU SAY "PAYING BIG BUCKS FOR STREET LIGHTS?" WE'RE PAYING FOR THE ELECTRICITY FOR
THE STREET LIGHTS? >> YOU'RE RENTING THE POLE,
WHICH WE CAN PRESCRIBE. >> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE IT
-- >> YOU KNOW, THE REPLACEMENT OF A STREET LIGHT IS ON THEM. AND THE CITY DOES REFER THOSE COMPLAINTS TO FPU. BUT, YEAH, IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE LOOKED AT
OUR AGREEMENT AND MOVED AHEAD. >> OKAY.
>> I JUST LEARNED OVER THE LAST SIX TO 12 MONTHS THAT WHEN YOU GO BACK TO ALL OF THESE OLD AGREEMENTS, YOU LEARN ALL KINDS OF THINGS. SO, MAY BE THE FIRST THING IS TO GO LOOK AT THE AGREEMENT AND SEE WHAT WE AGREED TO, AND WHAT THEY AGREED TO, AND THEN, I THINK, THAT'S A GREAT IDEA TO GO FORWARD.
>> CAN DO. >> MAYOR: ANYBODY ELSE? ANY
OTHER TOPICS TO BE COVERED? >> I'M SAVING THE REST FOR THE
>> ALL RIGHT. SINCE THERE'S
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.