[4.1 PROCLAMATION - "59TH ANNUAL ISLE OF EIGHT FLAGS SHRIMP FESTIVAL" – Proclaims May 3, 2024, through May 5, 2024, as the "59th Annual Isle of Eight Flags Shrimp Festival”. Members of the Isle of Eight Flags Shrimp Festival Committee will be present to accept the Proclamation.]

>> AMEN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU MAY BE SEATED. WE HAVE A FEW THINGS TO RECOGNIZE TONIGHT. NUMBER ONE. GET STARTED WITH THE SHRIMP FESTIVAL COMMITTEE. IT IS SHRIMP FAST COMING UP TO AN A!

>> ANYBODY ON THE COMMITTEE , COME ON DOWN. WE ARE GOING TO DO A SHRIMP FEST! PROCLAMATION. THAT IS YOU.

>> THANK YOU. YOU'RE TAKING PICTURES. YOU HAVE GOT TO GET IN HERE TOO.

>> IT'S ALL GOOD. >> BEFORE I GET STARTED, WELL, I WILL READ THIS AND I WILL SAY A QUICK WORD. WHEREAS THE FIRST SHRIMP FEST! TOOK BACK IN 1964 FOR THE PROMOTION OF TOURISM AND TO RECOGNIZE THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH AS THE BIRTHPLACE OF THE MODERN SHIPPING INDUSTRY. WHEREAS THE HUMBLE ORGANS OF THE SHRIMP FESTIVAL INCLUDED IN ANNUAL SHRIMP BOAT RAISED DURING WHICH THE STRIPPERS -- PREPARED SHRIMP DISHES. THIS IS THE LONGEST STANDING AND LARGEST SPECIAL EVENT. THE FESTIVAL CELEBRATES SHRIMP AND GREAT FOOD. VISITORS AND RESIDENTS ENJOY -- MUSIC, ENTERTAINMENT,, FINE ART , ON THAT MORE. . WHEREAS, THE SHRIMP FESTIVAL IS WANTED TO A NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED FESTIVAL THAT PROVIDES A FINANCIAL IMPACT IN EXCESS OF $60 MILLION TO OUR COMMUNITY. GREATER NASSAU COUNTY WE SAY THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU DO. WHEREAS 2024 COMMEMORATES THE 59TH ANNUAL SHRIMP FESTIVAL WHICH WILL BE CELEBRATED ON MAY 3, 2024 THROUGH MAY 5. FERNANDINA BEACH AND -- WHEREAS THE ALL VOLUNTEER SHRIMP FEST COMMITTEE PARTNERS WITH FERNANDINA BEACH IN APPROXIMATELY 50 DIFFERENT LOCAL NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS TO ENCOURAGE COMMUNITY VOLUNTEERISM WHILE INSTILLING A SENSE OF PRIDE ARE WORKING TOGETHER FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE SHRIMP FESTIVAL. WHEREAS , THE CITY COMMISSION HERE BY EXPANDS ITS SINCERE APPRECIATION AND GRATITUDE TO THE SHRIMP FESTIVAL COMMITTEE FOR ITS

[00:05:02]

DEDICATION IN KEEPING THE TIME-HONORED TRADITION AND REMINDERS OF THE SHIPPING INDUSTRY ALIKE. PRODUCING VISITORS TO THE GRACIOUS AMBIENCE OF DOWNTOWN FERNANDINA BEACH'S BEAUTIFUL DISTRICT AND THE RIVER. SO THERE FOR I, MAYOR BEAN, BY A AUTHORITY BASTED IN ME AS MAYOR OF OUR CITY TO CLAY MAE 3-5 THROUGH -- I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO GET OUT AND ENJOY A GOOD TIME. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR DOING THIS YOU BUT LET ME TELL YOU WHAT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH RECOGNITION.

THAT IS THE COMMITTEE. EVERYBODY KNOWS HOW GREAT A TIME SHRIMP FESTIVAL IS.

THESE GUYS OUT HERE WORKING YEAR-ROUND. OUR TREASURE ALL THE TIME ABOUT DIFFERENT THINGS ABOUT THE SHRIMP FESTIVAL MEETINGS WITH THEY WORKED TIRELESSLY TO MAKE IT SUCH A GOOD TIME. MR. CHAIRMAN, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY A FEW WORDS?

>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU TO THE CITY AND TO THE MAYOR, FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. YOUR COMMISSIONERS.

>> WHAT I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO DO IS TAKE THIS MOMENT TO, MAYBE YOU CAN HELP ME PRESENT THIS PRESTIGIOUS AWARD TO OUR GRAND

MARSHAL. >> OH, WOW.

>> THIS IS CAPTAIN JACK BUBBA JOINER .

THIS MEDAL ON YOU HERE . >> THIS IS A VERY PRESTIGIOUS MEDAL.

WEAR THIS AND TELL THE END OF SHRIMP FEST.

>> ABOUT THREE WEEKS. >>

OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS ] >> ONE MORE TIME, LET'S GET THIS FINE GENTLEMAN TO TAKE OUR PICTURE. LET'S ]DO THIS! THANK YOU AGAIN TO OUR SHRIMP FESTIVAL GROUP AND

FOR ALL THEY DO! >> THIS ONE IS YOURS.

>> I AM GOING TO FRAME IT IN MY ROOM.

[4.2 PROCLAMATION - FERNANDINA BEACH HIGH SCHOOL WRESTLING TEAM - Recognizing the Fernandina Beach High School Wrestling Team for outstanding achievement. Head Coach Eric Kubatzke and State Champion Enzo Gamba, State Runner-Up Cael Kubatzke, 4th Place Cole Misciagna, and 5th Place Nolan McKelvy, will be in attendance to accept the Proclamation.]

>> I APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. THANK YOU, GUYS.

>> UP NEXT, WE HAVE, OH , IS THIS FOURTH IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA? THE PIRATES , THE WRESTLING TEAM, WENT ALL THE WAY IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. LET'S INVITE EVERYONE TO COME ON DOWN. COACHES? CONGRATULATIONS. COACH, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. CONGRATS. EVERYBODY GET IN HERE. CONGRATULATIONS.

IT IS GOOD TO SEE YOU, MY FRIEND. ALL RIGHT. OKAY.

WHEREAS THE FERNANDINA BEACH HIGH SCHOOL WRESTLING TEAM WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE MID-1970S AND A SENSE OF ALL TO A YOUTH PROGRAM AND EIGHT GIRL ABOUT THIS PROGRAM BUT EACH OF WHICH ARE KNOWN FOR PROMOTING PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND EMOTIONAL RESILIENCE WHEREAS WRESTLING HAS LONG BEEN DESCRIBED AS THE MOST DIFFICULT VIRTUAL MASTER AND REQUIRES AN EXCEPTIONAL LEVEL OF DEDICATION AND PERSEVERANCE TO PURSUE THIS SPORT. WHEREAS THE 2024 FERNANDINA BEACH HIGH SCHOOL WRESTLING TEAM ACHIEVED A -- ELITE STATUS AT THE FLORIDA HIGH SCHOOL ASSOCIATION 1A ASSOCIATION. KISSIMMEE, FLORIDA, WHERE -- WON THE STATE TITLE IN THE 157 POUND WEIGHT CLASS. KYLE -- THE STATE RUNNER-UP.

>> KALE ONE BACK STATE RUNNER-UP IN THE 138 WEIGHT CLASS AND COAL -- 144 POUND WEIGHT CLASS AND THEN NOLAN PLACED FIFTH IN STATE IN THE 175 POUND WEIGHT CLASS. THANK YOU SO MUCH, SIR.

WHEREAS -- OH. >>

>> WHOLE THING. WHEREAS UNDER THE LEADERSHIP AND MEDICATION OF THE HEAD COACH, ERIC -- THE ENTIRE WRESTLING TEAM IMPEDED AND ONE BACK OF WRITING OF WRESTLING COMPETITIONS THROUGHOUT 2024, CULMINATING IN SEVENTH OVERALL IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. THAT IS AMAZING NEWS. PLEASE GIVE IT UP.

APPLAUSE ] WHEREAS THE WRESTLING TEAM IS A MODEL OF

[00:10:04]

EXCELLENCE, CONSISTENCY , DISCIPLINE. THEY SAY THAT MENTAL AND PHYSICAL CONDITIONING WHICH ENABLES THEM TO REMAIN POISED, CONFIDENT, AND ABLE TO EXECUTE UNDER COMPETITIVE TREASURE. THERE'S UNWAVERING PRIDE AND SELF-GOVERNANCE HELP DEVELOPS CHILDREN INTO ADULTS AND FUTURE LEADERS WOULD THE VESTED IN ME AS MAYOR FOR CITY, I DO HERE BY EXPRESS SINCERE CONGRATULATIONS TO THE FERNANDINA BEACH HIGH SCHOOL MEN'S WRESTLING TEAM. I HAVE FIXED MY ZEAL TO THAT EFFECT. THANK YOU SO MUCH, GUYS AND COACH.

BEAN. WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT .

FROM THE COMMUNITY. THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE FERNANDINA BEACH AND MIDDLE SCHOOL PROGRAM THIS YEAR. THE PROGRAM THIS YEAR. IT IS REALLY BEEN -- SUCH A GOOD SPORT FOR THESE KIDS READ THE LIFE LESSONS THEY LEARNED FROM THE HARD WORK AND DEDICATION IS ONE OF THE BEST THINGS WE SEE. THE GUYS TAKE IT TO ANOTHER LEVEL.

TRULY WORKED SO HARD. THESE GUYS ARE GREAT. THEY ARE EXCEPTIONAL STUDENTS. THE THREE GUYS UP HERE. DEFINITELY A FOUNDATION THESE GUYS. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR RECOGNIZING THEM. I REALLY

APPRECIATE IT >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME OVER HERE AND TAKE A QUICK PICTURE? WE WILL RE-ENACT THE PROCLAMATION.

TO SEE YOU. >> PERFECTLY THANK YOU SO MUCH, GUYS. THANK YOU, COACH.

>> I CONVINCED --

[4.3 PROCLAMATION - "NATIONAL ARBOR DAY" - Recognizing April 19, 2024, as "National Arbor Day." Planning and Conservation Department Urban Forester/Arborist David Neville and Amelia Tree Conservancy members will be in attendance to accept the Proclamation.]

ALL GOOD. ONE FINAL ONE. THE -- ATC IS HERE. COME ON DOWN.

WE ARE SO GLAD YOU GUYS ARE ALL HERE. HEY, WELCOME. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. IT IS A REAL PLEASURE TO HAVE YOU GUYS.

>> OKAY. I WISH YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN HERE TOO. ABSOLUTELY.

PROCLAMATION. WHEREAS IN 1872, -- PROPOSE TO THE BORDER, THE SPECIALTY BE SET ASIDE FOR THE PLANTING OF TREES BUT WHEREAS ENHANCING ECONOMIC VITALITY TO PROTECT IN HURRICANES AND STORMS, REDUCED WATER RUNOFF AND HELP TO RECHARGE THE GROUNDWATER USING -- REDUCING TEMPERATURES PROVIDE EXCEPTIONAL HABITAT -- TREES ARE A RENEWABLE RESOURCE INAUDIBLE ] CELLULOSE FIBERS WHICH ARE USED IN THOUSANDS OF PRODUCTS THAT ARE DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY MEETING THE NEEDS OF ENHANCING THE COMMITTEE. WHEREAS, THE CITY CELEBRATES ITS 22ND YEAR AS A DESIGNATED TREE CITY USA COMMUNITY. IT'S THIRD YEAR OF RECEIVING A GROWTH AWARD. THE SECOND YEAR OF THE DESIGNATED CITIES OF THE WORLD DOMINATION. WITHOUT A LOT OF THREE VICTORIES BUT I THINK THAT IS THANKS TO ALL OF THE ARBORISTS. DAVE, WE'LL KEEP GOING. THE FERNANDINA BEACH BEACHES -- AS OUR UNIQUE MARITIME FORCE READ AS SUCH, THIS YEAR THE TREE CONSERVANCY IS TO SUPPORT THE -- FELLOW TREE CANOPY WITH MAINTENANCE PRUNING AND THE PLANTING OF 22 NEW TREES, INCLUDING -- LIVE OAKS, PALM TREES, AND SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA TREES. I, BRADLEY BEAN, BY THE POWER INTEND EVERYONE TO ATTEND THE CELEBRATION THAT FRIDAY AT 10:00 A.M. AT THE CEMETERY TO APPRECIATE THE BEAUTY OF THESE NEW TREES. WITH THAT, PLEASE PUT YOUR HANDS TOGETHER FOR APPLAUSE ]OUR TREE CONSERVANCY.

>> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY A FEW WORDS?

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT WITH OUR TREE CANOPY, EVERYONE.

[00:15:04]

THANK YOU TO THE TREE CONSERVANCY. WE WILL PLANT 20 TREES FROM THERE. WE HAVE TWO EXTRA TREES BEING DELIVERED TOMORROW. KELLY SAID WHAT A BETTER IDEA THAN -- THE 22ND YEAR OF OUR TREE CITY USA. IT IS A REALLY BEAUTIFUL PLACE BUT AS THOSE TREES ARE STARTING TO AGE OUT AND MATURE, SOME ARE COMING DOWN IN STORMS AND STUFF. HE WILL TRY TO REPLENISH THOSE TREES.

IT IS KIND OF HARD TO GET TO THESE TREES THAT ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CEMETERY. SO IT WAS A NICE WAY WE COULD INAUDIBLE ] DID YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING?

>> I WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU, MAYOR BEAN, AND COMMISSIONERS , FOR THE PROCLAMATION. I WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU ALSO TO THE FUNDING WE GOT THROUGH THE -- THAT MADE THIS POSSIBLE. AND IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE TREE CRAFT WE GOT FROM THE CITY. IT WAS TRULY I FINANCIAL PARTNERSHIP. I ALSO WANTED TO RECOGNIZE THE WORK OF THE CITY STAFF. DAVID AND THE PLANNING AND CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT. AND THE PARKS AND REC DEPARTMENT. SCOTT MICHELSON AND DEBRA. THEY DID ALL THE HEAVY LIFTING. WE ARE SO FULL FOR THAT. IT WAS EXCELLENT.

PLEASE COME OUT TO CELEBRATE ARBOR DAY WITH US ON NEXT FRIDAY. 10:00 A.M.. IT IS A GORGEOUS SPOT. THANK YOU.

>> BEFORE YOU GO, WOULD YOU PLEASE COME TAKE A PICTURE RIGHT HERE, FRONT AND CENTER? ÚTHAT IS PART OF THE ROLES.

LAUGHTER ] MICHELLE, DO YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT REAL QUICK? SHRIMP FEST COMMITTEE. VOLUNTEERING MEANS A LOT AND THAT IS WHY OUR COMMUNITY IS SO GREAT THAT THERE IS SO MANY PEOPLE THAT WORK TO MAKE OUR COMMUNITY BETTER. I THINK THE COACH, YOU ARE VOLUNTEERING, YES?

>> . THEY WORK THEY DO IS ENTIRELY BECAUSE THEY LOVE NATURE.

THANK YOU FOR ALL THAT YOU DO.

TERMS OF THE MEETING. ITEM FIVE. THE CONSENT AGENDA. YOU

ARE ALLOWED TO LEAVE. >> MAYOR?

>> YES? >>

>> WE CANNOT FORGET THAT. THIS IS A VERY KEY PART OF THE

[4.4 BUDGET SUMMARY - Comptroller Pauline Testagrose will answer any questions regarding the budget summary for March 2024.]

MEETING. ON THE BUDGET SUMMARY.

>> GOOD EVENING. CALLING -- CITY COMPTROLLER. THE SIX-MONTH REPRESENTS 80% OF THE -- THE GENERAL FUND YOUR DATE IS AT 76.6% OF THE ANNUAL BUDGET.

YEAR-TO-DATE PROPERTY TAX RECEIPTS ARE 70 MILLION OR 92.4%. OVERALL YEAR-TO-DATE GENERAL EXPENSES ARE 37.8%.

HOWEVER, SOME DEPARTMENTS ARE OVER THE MARK DUE TO THE ANNUAL SERVICE. ALL THE -- COMPLETED. FOR THE FUN, ENCUMBRANCES AND PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR I.T. EQUIPMENT, STREET PAVING AND

[5. CONSENT AGENDA]

[6.1 CIVIC ORGANIZATION FEE WAIVER/COSPONSORSHIP APPLICATION APPROVAL - FERNANDINA BEACH MAIN STREET - RESOLUTION 2024-65 APPROVING A FERNANDINA BEACH MAIN STREET CIVIC ORGANIZATION FEE WAIVER/COSPONSORSHIP APPLICATION FOR THE FERNANDINA 200 BICENTENNIAL IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,965.00; AUTHORIZING EXECUTION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Approves the Fernandina Beach Main Street Civic Organization Fee Waiver/Cosponsorship Application for the Fernandina 200 Bicentennial in the amount of $8,965.00, for City support and in celebration of a commemorative year of events and observances.]

[6.2 DONATION OF SURPLUS PROPERTY - RESOLUTION 2024-66 DECLARING CERTAIN TITLED CITY PROPERTY SURPLUS; AUTHORIZING THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER TO DISPOSE OF SAID PROPERTY IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY’S POLICIES AND PROCEDURES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Donation of Unit #97, a 2017 Ford Explorer, to the Nassau County School Board.]

[00:25:49]

[00:25:53]

SAVES US A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY. I THINK IT'S ABOUT $35,000 PER CAR. EACH OFFICER.

>> THAT IS ABOUT WHAT A CAR COST ESTIMATE IS VERY VALUABLE TO RESPITE AND ALLOWS US TO SPEND THAT MONEY NO ON THAT TECHNOLOGY TO HELP KEEP OUR SCHOOL SAFE. SO IT IS REALLY A TREMENDOUS THING. WE APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT FROM THE CITY COMMISSION. WE APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT FROM THE FERNANDINA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT. THE CHIEF , THERE HAS NOT BEEN A PHONE CALL I HAVE MADE THAT IS BEEN UNANSWERED BUT ANYTHING I HAVE ASKED OF THEM, HE HAS STEPPED UP AND HELPED. WE TAKE THIS JOB TO HARTFORD WE CANNOT DO IT WITHOUT THE HELP OF THE COMMUNITY. IT IS A MONUMENTAL TASK YOU HAVE OVER 15,000 STUDENTS AND OVER 1500 EMPLOYEES. IN NASSAU COUNTY. THAT IS A MONUMENTAL TASK AND WE CANNOT DO IT WITHOUT THIS BOARD AND WITHOUT THE SUPPORT OF OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT PARTNERS. I THINK THANK YOU TO

THE CHIEF FOR HIS SUPPORT. >> FOR THE WORK IS DONE AT THIS DONATION AND I SAY THANK YOU TO ALL OF YOU AND WAS GOING TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE CHIEF FOR ALL YOU DO.

SCHOOL BOARD. IN THAT THANK YOU.

>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION. EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID THERE.

SO CHIEF, WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS THAT THIS DONATION WILL HELP

YOU KEEP OUR KIDS SAFE? >> ABSOLUTELY. IT SAVES US MONEY WHICH WE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO APPLY IN OTHER AREAS .

SAID THAT THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US TONIGHT, CHIEF. DO I

HAVE A MOTION? >> I PROMOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY DISCUSSION?

[6.3 ATHLETIC FACILITIES USE AGREEMENT - DIOCESE OF ST. AUGUSTINE (ST. MICHAEL'S ACADEMY) - RESOLUTION 2024-67 APPROVING AN ATHLETIC FACILITIES USE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH AND DIOCESE OF ST. AUGUSTINE (ST. MICHAEL’S ACADEMY) FOR THE USE OF THE PECK CENTER COACH NELSON P. WILLIAMS, JR GYMNASIUM AND YBOR ALVAREZ SPORTS COMPLEX; AUTHORIZING EXECUTION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Approving two Athletic Facilities Use Agreements between the City of Fernandina Beach and Diocese of St. Augustine (St. Michael's Academy) for the use of the Peck Center Coach Nelson P. Williams, Jr. Gymnasium and Ybor Alvarez Sports Complex from January 1, 2024, to December 31, 2024.]

[6.4 PROTECTED HERITAGE TREE DESIGNATIONS – VARIOUS CITY LOCATIONS - RESOLUTION 2024-68 DESIGNATING A TOTAL OF TEN (10) TREES AS FOLLOWS: EIGHT (8) PRIVATE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 404 S. 15TH STREET, 213 N. 19TH STREET, 432 S. 8TH STREET, 226 S. 7TH STREET, 1532 DADE STREET, 1521 FRANKLIN STREET, 103 S. 9TH STREET, 831 GARDEN STREET; AND TWO (2) PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY NEAR 808 STANLEY DRIVE AND 810 STANLEY DRIVE; AS PROTECTED HERITAGE TREES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Approves the designation of "Protected Heritage Tree" to eight (8) trees located on private properties and two (2) trees located on City right of ways in accordance with Land Development Code Section 4.05.15.]

[6.5 (Quasi-Judicial) - APPEAL - UNAUTHORIZED TREE REMOVAL FINES - RESOLUTION 2024-69 APPROVING A REDUCTION OF UNAUTHORIZED TREE REMOVAL FINES IN THE AMOUNT OF $_________ FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 901 SAN FERNANDO STREET; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Reduces unauthorized tree removal fines up to $41,000, for trees removed without a permit at 901 San Fernando Street, due to the trees removed being located within the boundaries of a proposed single family home footprint.]

[00:34:22]

WILL THAT TOOK PLACE. WE CONTRACTED DAVID NEVILLE FOR A PURCHASE AT 901 -- STREET IN OLD TOWN. WE WANTED TO SEE IF HE WOULD WALK A LOT AND TELL US WHAT WE NEED TO DO IN ORDER TO BUILD A HOME.

WE WERE TOLD THE LARD CEDAR HUCKLEBERRY TREE COULD BE

[00:35:09]

CONDEMNED WITHOUT REPLACEMENT AND HE WOULD HAVE TO REPLACE THE TREES THAT WOULD NOT BE CONDEMNED VIA CERTIFIED ARBORIST. VERY HELPFUL IN EXPLAINING TO US HOW MANY TREES WE WOULD MOST LIKELY NEED TO HAVE REPLACED. EXCUSE ME.

FEBRUARY 2ND OF 2023, WE CLOSED ON THIS LOT . STARTED THE PROCESS OF FINDING A HOUSE PLAN.

MET THE CRITERIA AND LOOKING FOR A BUILDER. ON OCTOBER 16, 2023, -- LANDSCAPING SURVEY FINALIZED OUR BOUNDARY TOPOGRAPHIC ENTRY SURVEY. ON OCTOBER 19, 2023, WE HIRED SAM FURR TREE SERVICE TO MARK ALL TREES THAT THEY SUGGESTED BE CONDEMNED WITH THEIR CERTIFIED ARBORIST FOR DAVID MARTIN AND TWO -- THAT HE WOULD NOT CONDEMN IT. WHEN MEETING WITH MR. MARTIN, HE STATED WE WOULD NOT NEED A PERMIT IN ORDER TO CUT DOWN THE CONDEMNED TREES. WHALEY NEEDED HIS OFFICIAL QUOTE UNQUOTE TREE REMOVAL REPORT. WITH GREAT CONCERN, I FELT THIS MAY NOT BE CORRECTLY IMMEDIATELY LEFT THE ARBORIST REPORT INADEQUATE DIRECTLY TO THE CITY HERE COULD IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DID NOT NEED PERMITS. UPON ARRIVAL AT THE CITY, WE WERE SPEAKING WITH THE RECEPTIONIST AND ASKING WE NEED TO SPEAK WITH IN ORDER TO IF WE NEEDED SUCH A PERMIT TO CUT DOWN TREES ON OUR PROPERTY. AT WHICH TIME, KELLY GIBSON INTRODUCED HERSELF AND STATED THAT MR. MARTIN WAS CORRECT. WE DID NOT QUOTE UNQUOTE NEED A PERMIT AS LONG AS WE HAD THE CONDEMNED TREE REPORT. HOWEVER, SHE ALSO STATED IT WOULD BE A GOOD GESTURE TO GET ONE ANYWAY. SOMEONE WILL COMPLAIN WHEN THE TREES STARTED COMING DOWN. WE DEFINITELY WERE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE ONE. ON OCTOBER 20, 2024, WE RECEIVED A CALL FROM SANFORD TREE SERVICE THAT HAD A CANCELLATION AND BE ABLE TO CUT DOWN THE TREES ON OCTOBER 25TH THAT WE WERE OUT OF TOWN AT THE TIME BUT IT FELT LIKE THERE WOULD BE NO ISSUE WITH THEM GOING AHEAD AND TAKING DOWN THE TREES AT THAT TIME. ON OCTOBER 27TH AT 10:00 A.M., I HAD A MEETING WITH ESTHER SALVADOR. I WILL PUTS HER HIS NAME. SO SORRY. TO DISCUSS THE NEXT STEP IN OUR PROCESS.

ONCE AGAIN WANTING TO MAKE SURE WE WERE FOLOWING ALL THE RULES. AS HE MET WITH ESTHER NEVILLE WHO WAS QUITE UPSET WITH US FOR REMOVING THE TREES WITHOUT A PERMIT, HE STATED WE WERE IN QUITE A BIT OF TROUBLE. AND THAT HE WOULD NOT SPEAK ON IT ANY FURTHER AS IT HAD BEEN TURNED OVER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY. THREE MONTHS LATER ON FEBRUARY 13TH AT 9:00 A.M., MY HUSBAND AND I MET WITH KELLY GIBSON, DAVID NEVILLE, AND CHARLIE CHARGE IN ORDER TO DISCUSS THIS TREE ISSUE. ALL AGREE IT WAS A HUGE MISUNDERSTANDING AND MISCOMMUNICATION. WE ASSURE THEM WE ARE RULE FOLLOWERS. WE WOULD NEVER WANT TO DO SOMETHING SO BLATANT AS TO REMOVE TREES WITHOUT BEING LAWFUL.

THAT THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR -- YEAH. COMMISSIONER

ROSS? >> FIRST OF ALL -- AN ACTUALLY HAVING A CONDITION SO I APOLOGIZE.

>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE CITY STAFF THAT YOU DID NOT NEED A PERMIT TO CUT THESE TREES DOWN.

>> CORRECT. >> 100%.

>> AND IN ALL FAIRNESS, WHAT MRS. GIBSON , WHAT WE ASKED AND WE NEVER THOUGHT TO TELL, BECAUSE WE DO NOT DO THIS. YOU DO NOT NEED A PERMIT IF YOU HAVE A HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY.

THIS WAS A LOT. WE STATED IT WAS A LOT.

[00:48:50]

[00:49:01]

APPLICANT HAS SAID IS, THEY DID NOT NEED A TREE PERMIT. IS THAT

CORRECT? >> WHAT I INFORMED WAS, SO LONG AS THEY MET THE FLORIDA STATUTES AND HAD THE ARBORIST ASSESS THE TREE CORRECTLY AND COMPLIANT WITH THE STATUTE, THEY WOULD NOT REQUIRE A LOCAL PERMIT. THAT'S WHAT THE STATUTE TELLS US. WE CANNOT REQUIRE A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OWNER TO OBTAIN A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT IF THEY HAVE MET THE STATUTE FOR -- THAT THE TREE IS HAZARDOUS ON THEIR PROPERTY.

>> HERE IS WHERE I AM HAVING MY PROBLEM. IF YOU CAN HELP ME OUT -- THE PROBLEM IS, THEY WOULD'VE GOTTEN A PERMIT IF THEY NEEDED. ONCE THEY CUT THE TREE DOWN, YOU TOLD THEM THEY NEEDED A PERMIT. SO, THERE'S ONE SET OF FACTS. THERE ARE A COUPLE STORIES HERE. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND -- I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT HAPPENED.

>> IT IS CONFUSING. >> OKAY. IN THE CITY LIMITS,

[00:50:09]

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A PERMIT FOR TREE REMOVAL IF IT IS 5 INCHES, DBH OR GREATER UNLESS IT'S AN INVASIVE TREE.

>> OKAY. >> THE STATUTE IS 160 THAT SAYS NO CITY ORDINANCE CAN STOP A TREE FROM BEING REMOVED IF A CERTIFIED -- I SAY CERTIFIED ARTIFICE RIGHTS AN ASSESSMENT SAYING THE TREE IS A MODERATE RISK OR GREATER. AND ONLY TOTAL REMOVAL OF THE TREE IS THE ONLY WAY TO ALLEVIATE THE RISK OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. SO, IN THIS CASE, MR. MARTIN WROTE THE ASSESSMENT OF THESE TREES BECAUSE THESE TREES WERE, BY HIS STANDARDS AND MINE AS WELL, CONSIDERED TO BE A HAZARD IF THERE WAS A STRUCTURE THERE. NOW, THE PROBLEM WAS, THIS WAS A VACANT LOT. THERE WAS NO MODERATE RISK BECAUSE THERE IS NO RISK AT ALL TO A VACANT LOT. THE TREE FALLS, IT'S A VACANT LOT. SO WHAT IS GIBSON TOLD THEM IS, YOU MEET THE STANDARDS, YOU DON'T NEED A PERMIT. AND IT IS VERY CONFUSING. I UNDERSTAND THEIR CONFUSION IN THIS BECAUSE IT IS ONE OR THE OTHER. IN THIS CASE, IT IS JUST SUPER CONFUSING. I DO FEEL BAD FOR THEM. THAT'S WHY --

>> I FEEL BAD FOR EVERYBODY. I AM STILL CONFUSED.

>> OKAY. >> WHY DID THEY GET THE IDEA IN HER HEAD THEY DIDN'T NEED A PERMIT IF THEY NEEDED THE PERMIT? OBVIOUSLY, THEY NEEDED A PERMIT BECAUSE YOU CAME BACK AND CITED THEM FOR NEEDING A PERMIT. SO HOW -- WHAT I AM

TRYING TO DO IS -- ♪ >> SORRY.

>> VICE MAYOR -- HEY, LISTEN. GO AHEAD.

>> SO, WHAT I AM NOT UNDERSTANDING, NUMBER ONE, IS TONIGHT -- NUMBER TWO, WHAT I AM TRYING TO SEE IS HOW WE CAN PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING IN THE FUTURE. THAT IS MORE IMPORTANT. IT IS JUST AS IMPORTANT. CAN YOU HELP ME

OUT? >> OKAY, SO, THE REASON WHY THERE WAS CONFUSION WAS THERE WAS NO BUILDING PERMIT. THAT'S HOW THE TREE MOVED. THERE WAS NO MODERATE RISK OR GREATER BECAUSE THERE WAS NO BUILDING THERE. THERE IS NO RISK TO PEOPLE ON A VACANT LOT. THERE IS NOBODY THERE. AND NUMBER THREE, THERE IS NO PERMIT ISSUE FOR TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. THEY WERE UNDER THE ASSUMPTION. THEY HAD TWO DIFFERENT ARBORIST'S OUT THERE, BOTH SAYING THESE TREES ARE A HAZARD . BUT IT IS A HAZARD IF THERE WERE PEOPLE THERE. THERE ARE NO PEOPLE THERE. SO IT'S NOT A MODERATE RISK OR GREATER. SO, IT'S A TECHNICALITY, WHICH IS WHAT IS HOLDING THIS UP, IS A TECHNICALITY ON THE VERGE -- THE VERBIAGE OF THE STATE

STATUTE. >> WHAT I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING,

HOW DO WE CONVINCE THEM? >> IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE A -- WHEN THE CITY STAFF GAVE THE INFORMATION, I AM NOT TESTIFYING TO HELP THE CITY COMMISSION. IT IS THEIR COUNSEL. IT SOUNDS TO ME, WHEN THE CITY STAFF GOT THE QUESTION, CITY STAFF MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AWARE IT WAS A VACANT LOT. OH, THEN IT WAS IN PERSON? YEAH. SO, MAYBE WE NEED TO ASK CITY STAFF. DID THEY KNOW THERE WAS A HOUSE?

>> NO. REAL QUICK, MR. ROSS, LET'S GO AHEAD AND GO WITH THE VICE MAYOR REAL QUICK TO SPEAK REAL FAST. THEN WE WILL GO BACK

TO THE COMMISSIONER. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. REAL QUICKLY, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE IS A BIG MISCOMMUNICATION. IT SOUNDS LIKE, TO ME, I'M GOING TO SAY -- I WILL POUR MY PLUG OUT OF MY MOUTH AND SAY IT SOUNDS LIKE CITY STAFF NEEDS MORE TRAINING ON THE ANSWER OR THE QUESTIONING OF THE PERSON COMING IN UNLESS -- I AM HEARING SOMETHING WRONG? CITY STAFF NEEDS TO SAY, HEY, IS THIS A VACANT LOT? DOES THIS HAVE A STRUCTURE? IF THIS IS A VACANT LOT, YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW PROCEDURE AND GET A PERMIT FIRST. I, PERSONALLY, MYSELF, AM VERY WELL AWARE OF THIS AS A BUILDER. THE PUBLIC IS NOT WELL AWARE OF IT. TO ME, IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS IS A SLIGHT MISCOMMUNICATION ERROR THAT COULD BE FIXED AND NOT HAPPEN AGAIN. MAYBE EVEN IF WE HAD A PIECE OF PAPER , BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN A BUILDER. I KNOW WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT IF YOU HAVE A PIECE OF PAPER WITH THE RULES IN BIG, BOLD PRINT, AND HAND IT

[00:55:01]

OUT EVERY TIME SOMEONE ASKS ABOUT A TREE ISSUE, THIS IS A TOUCHY SUBJECT. A LOT OF PEOPLE DO GET PROBLEMS. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THIS HAS HAPPENED. THIS IS NOT NEW. THIS HAPPENS MANY A TIMES WHERE SOMEONE WILL CUT TREES DOWN AND THEY DON'T HAVE PERMISSION. EVEN A DEAD TREE IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE A PERMIT. EVERYONE IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE A PERMIT

REGARDLESS. CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. THE WAY WE HAVE ALLEVIATED THIS IN THE PAST, MR. ROSS, THE WAY WE CONTINUE, WE DON'T ALLOW TREE REMOVAL PRIOR TO A BUILDING PERMIT ON A VACANT LOT. THAT IS BECAUSE THEY CAN SAY, THIS IS WHERE WE ARE GOING TO BUILD OUR HOUSE, ET CETERA, THIS IS THE SIDES, THIS IS WHERE WE WILL PUT IT. THEY CLEAR THE TREES.

THEY GO THROUGH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT OR THEY GO THROUGH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND THE SETBACKS ARE NOT CORRECT.

THEN THE HOUSE NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTED FOR THAT. AND THE TREES HAVE ALREADY BEEN REMOVED. THAT'S WHY WE DON'T

ALLOW TREE VAL -- >> PLANS CAN CHANGE ALL THE

TIME. >> CORRECT. WITHOUT THE BUILDING PERMIT, WE DON'T ALLOW TREE REMOVAL. WE ALLOW BRUSH CUTTING, THINGS LESS THAN 5 INCHES, BUT 5 INCHES OR GREATER, WE DON'T ALLOW TO BE CUT PRIOR TO THE PERMIT.

>> DID YOU TELL THEM THAT? >> I DID NOT.

>> I DAY. >> SO YOU DID TELL THEM?

>> I WILL BE VERY CLEAR. FOR THE RECORD, WE -- WHERE THE BREAKDOWN IN COMMUNICATION OCCURRED, WHAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS AFTER THE TREES HAD BEEN REMOVED. IT INDICATED THERE WAS A MODERATE RISK AT THAT POINT FOR THOSE TREES UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT THERE WAS A STRUCTURE LOCATED THERE. WHEN SPEAKING WITH THE MANTISES, I SO INDICATED IF THE ARBORIST REPORT WAS COMPLIANT WITH STATE STATUTE IN THIS CASE AND IS OUTLINED IN THE BACKGROUND MATERIAL, THE ARBORIST REPORT PROVIDED WAS NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE STATE STATUTE. THAT IS WHERE THE BREAKDOWN OCCURRED. OTHERWISE, IT WAS RECOMMENDED, PLEASE REMOVE THE TREES AT THE TIME A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED. IT IS THE ONLY WAY FOR US TO PROPERLY VALIDATE EVERYTHING. AND, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT PRIOR TO THAT, LET US ISSUE A COURTESY PERMIT SO WE CAN ENTER THE DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED TO US IS SUFFICIENT TO MEET

FLORIDA STATUTE. >> THANK YOU, MISS IBSEN.

COMMISSIONER ROSS, ANY QUESTIONS , ANY FURTHER

QUESTIONS? >> I JUST THINK WE NEED A LITTLE MORE PROCEDURE. AND I HATE TO SAY THAT. JUST DEFINING IN DETAIL IF THERE'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A STRUCTURE, THE PUBLIC IS NOT GOING TO KNOW THAT. THE ARBORIST SHOULD KNOW THAT. HOWEVER, THE PUBLIC IS NOT GOING TO KNOW THAT. AND IF THE TREES WERE DISEASED, OR THEY NEEDED TO BE REMOVED, REGARDLESS WHETHER THERE IS A HOUSE OR NOT, THEY STILL SHOULD'VE HAD A PERMIT. HOWEVER, THE COMMUNICATION HAS TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR. I JUST THINK IT IS SOME VERY BAD MISCOMMUNICATION. AND I DON'T THINK IT IS 100% THE STAFF'S FAULT. I DON'T THINK IT'S 100% THE OWNERS FAULT. I THINK THIS IS A COMBINATION. THAT'S MY PERSONAL OPINION. I HAVE A HARD TIME NOT UNDERSTANDING AS LONG AS THE FOOTPRINT FALLS HERE, HOPEFULLY, TO RESOLVE THIS AND MOVE ON. HOWEVER, I DO WANT TO SAY I THINK WE NEED TO BRUSH UP SOME SORT OF PROCEDURE WITH ALL STAFF THAT ARE DEALING WITH ANSWERING CALLS

ABOUT TREES. >> WE CAN ALWAYS MAKE

IMPROVEMENTS. SO -- >> THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR. WE ARE COMING TO YOU IN A SECOND. MR. ROSS, YOU HAVE FOLLOW-UP

QUESTIONS THERE. >> I HAVE COMMENTS LATER, BUT

NO FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS. >> LET'S GO TO COMMISSIONER

ANTON. >> YEAH. WE WENT TO THE EXTENT OF WHAT WE ALREADY DISCUSSED. IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S DEFINITELY A FLAW IN OUR PROCESS. WHETHER OR NOT WHAT YOU DESCRIBED IS THE FLAW YOU NEED CLEARED UP OR AS VICE MAYOR SAID, A SHEET THAT SAYS HERE'S A CHECKLIST, THAT WAY IF YOU DON'T CHECK ONE OF THESE MOVING FORWARD -- BECAUSE I CAN SAY FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, I KNOW THIS IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING AS A RESIDENT WHO WALKS TO THE CITY STAFF, THERE'S NO WAY THEY KNOW ALL THE THINGS THAT WE KNOW HERE.

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER SQ?

>> I WANT CLARIFICATION ON THE STATUTE AND THE CODE. THE STATUTE SAYS THAT YOU CAN REMOVE THE TREE THAT IS DEEMED DANGEROUS . THAT'S WHAT THE STATUTE SAYS. FLORIDA STATUTE.

>> THE STATUTE READS , A TREE CAN BE REMOVED WITHOUT A PERMIT ISSUED BY THE CITY IF THE EISA CERTIFIED ARBORIST STATES THAT THE TREE IS DEEMED A MODERATE RISK OR GREATER TO THE HOMEOWNER, AND THE ONLY WAY TO ALLEVIATE THAT MODERATE OR GREAT RISK IS BY TOTAL REMOVAL OF THE TREE, NOT JUST THE LAND BEING TRIMMED OFF OR ANYTHING. THE RISK IS MODERATE OR GREATER. THE ONLY WAY TO ALLEVIATE THE RISK IS TOTAL

REMOVAL OF THE TREE. >> OKAY. SO, WHETHER THERE'S

[01:00:01]

A HOUSE ON IT OR NOT, THE STATUTE SAYS YOU CAN REMOVE IT . THAT'S WHAT THE ARBORIST SAYS?

>> YES. IT'S AS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. IT DOESN'T STATE IF THERE HAS TO BE A STRUCTURE ON IT. IT IS MODERATE BY EISA STANDARDS. THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE A TARGET THERE.

>> YOU BRING IN AN ARBORIST. HE SAYS, I THINK THIS IS A RISK.

-- >> WHETHER THERE'S A HOUSE ON IT OR NOT -- I'M TRYING TO GET CLARIFICATION ON WHETHER OR NOT -- YOU KNOW, THE STATUTE IS OVERRULING THE CODE.

>> THE STATUTE DOES OVERRULE THE CODE. AND IT PUTS IT ONTO THE EISA CERTIFIED ARBORIST. BUT, THERE IS ALSO BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ON HOW TO COME UP WITH A MODERATE RISK LEVEL OR GREATER. AND PART OF THE RISK LEVEL RATING IS A TARGET WHICH IS A PERSON OR PROPERTY THAT IS THERE IN THE EQUATION OF THE RISK LEVEL. SO -- IF THAT IS OUT OF THE EQUATION, THAT DROPS IT DOWN TO A LOW RISK. BUT THAT IS --

ARBORIST TALK, KIND OF. >> I GOT YOU. -- AND THE CODE?

>> YEAH. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE MODERATE RISK OR GREATER. THAT GOES OVER ANY CITY TREE ORDINANCE IN THE STATE. AND I SA STANDS FOR INTERNATIONAL ARBORIST -- AND ARBORISTS CAN WRITE THAT, SAYING IT IS A MODERATE RISK OR GREATER.

>> THANK YOU. >> I HAVE A QUESTION.

>> EVERYBODY'S LIGHT IS ON. HERE'S HOW I WANT TO HANDLE THIS REAL QUICK. ESTHER MOSS, WE ARE GOING TO GO. MR. NEVILLE, IF YOU CAN TAKE A BRIEF PAUSE. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MR. GIBSON AND MR. NEVILLE, IN THE MEANTIME, WE HAVE TWO EFFECTIVE PARTIES WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. I WILL CALL IN THE AFFECTED PARTIES. YOU MIGHT GENERATE MORE QUESTIONS. LET'S CALL UP MISS LYNN TO MAKE COMMENTS AT THIS

TIME -- >> SHE IS NOT A PARTY --

>> YOU SWORE YOURSELF IN, CORRECT?

>> WELCOME. >>

>> HOW INTERESTING, THIS FOLLOWS THE ITEM ON THE AGENDA

-- >> START WITH YOUR NAME FOR THE

RECORD. >> LIND-BOHANON, NINE MARSH HAWK ROAD, REPRESENTING AMELIA TREE CONSERVANCY. HOW INTERESTING THAT THIS FOLLOWS THE ITEM WHERE YOU JUST DESIGNATED SOME TREES AS HERITAGE TREES. VERY INTERESTING. A COUPLE OF THINGS. AN ARBORIST WHO DOESN'T LOW -- KNOW THE LOCAL CODES HAS NO BUSINESS WORKING IN THE CITY. THAT SHOULDN'T HAPPEN. AND SAMFORD TREE COMPANY SHOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR WHATEVER THEY NEED TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR. I THINK, EVERYBODY NEEDS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE IN THIS SITUATION. AND IF WE DON'T STOP CUTTING DOWN THE TREES, WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY LEFT.

NOW, THIS IS TREE CITY, USA. WE NEED TO ACT LIKE WE ARE TREE CITY, USA. WE NEED TO PUT THE VALUE THESE TREES DESERVE ON

THE TREES. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. THEN WE WILL CALL UP MR. INAUDIBLE ] I WILL BE QUICK BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S LATE AND THIS IS TAKING A LONG TIME. JUST FOR THE RECORD, I WOULD LIKE TO CORRECT THE ARBORIST. IT IS NOT AN INVASIVE TREE. IT IS A NATIVE TREE. IT IS A HOST PLANT TO 5 NATIVE BUTTERFLIES INCLUDING ONE OF WHICH IT IS THE SOLE HOST PLANT FOR, MEANING IF IT DIDN'T EXIST, THAT BUTTERFLY WOULD NOT EXIST.

THAT'S ONE. NUMBER TWO, THE YELLOW BELLIED SAPSUCKER IS A NATIVE WOODPECKER. AND WHEN IT -- WHEN IT PECKS INTO THE BARK OF CERTAIN SPECIES OF TREES, IT DOES NOT DAMAGE THE TREE. IN FACT, IT CREATES TREMENDOUS ADDITIONAL HABITAT FOR DOZENS OF OTHER SPECIES, INCLUDING HUMMINGBIRDS WHICH OFTEN FOLLOW THE SAPSUCKER AROUND. SO, JUST FOR THE RECORD, BECAUSE WE ALL LOVE OUR TREES AND ANIMALS. WITHOUT OUR TREES, WE WON'T HAVE ANIMALS. WITHOUT NEED OF TREES, WE WON'T HAVE ANIMALS. I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT ON THE ARBORIST TO LEARN NATIVE TREES. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, MISSED TUTEN. MR. ROSS, WE WILL GO BACK TO YOU. I BELIEVE WE LEFT OFF QUESTIONS WITH MS. GIBSON. IS THAT

CORRECT? >> MR. NEVILLE? I WILL CALL

YOU BACK. >> MR. ROSS, YOU HAVE THE

FLOOR. >> HERE'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. EARLIER IN YOUR TESTIMONY, YOU SAID THIS WAS A LOW RISK TREE. BECAUSE THERE WAS NO -- NO STRUCTURE ON THE

PROPERTY THAT COULD DAMAGE? >> CORRECT.

[01:05:10]

>> SO, BUT LATER ON, YOU SAID -- HERE IS WHERE I GOT CONFUSED. THE STATE STATUTE SAYS IT HAS TO BE A MODERATE RISK TREE. THAT'S WHERE THIS WHOLE THING FELL APART. AM I

CORRECT? >> SO, WHERE IT FELL APART WAS THE REMOVAL OF THE TREES THAT WERE GOING TO BE REMOVED ANYWAY FOR THE BUILDING, FOR THE HOUSE TO BE BUILT. -- BEING REMOVED WITH AN ARBORIST ASSESSMENT, WRITTEN WHERE IT WASN'T BY BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. THAT'S WHERE IT FELL APART.

>> LET ME JUST ASK. IF THEY WERE GOING TO KEEP THIS LIVE, KEEP IT THE WAY IT WAS, THEY WOULD HAVE NOT BEEN ISSUED A PERMIT OR A TREE PERMIT EVEN UNDER THE STATE STATUTE,

CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. BUT THEY WERE GOING TO DEVELOP THE LOT.

>> I UNDERSTAND. >> I THINK A LOT OF THE CONFUSION IS, THEY WERE GOING TO DEVELOP THE LOT. THE TREES WERE GOING TO BE REMOVED. THEY JUST REMOVED THE TREES PRIOR TO THE BUILDING PERMIT BEING ISSUED.

>> THAT IS CLEAR. >> OKAY. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE.

>> THEY WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION -- THEY WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION BECAUSE THEIR TESTIMONY WAS THAT THEY WERE TOLD BY STAFF THAT THEY DID NOT NEED A PERMIT TO TAKE THOSE

TREES DOWN. >> IT APPEARS THAT WAY, YES.

>> THAT'S WHERE IT FALLS APART.

>> CORRECT. >> I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND

WHERE THAT HAPPENED. >> SO, WHY THAT HAPPENED, THEY WERE TOLD THEY DID NOT NEED THE PERMIT BECAUSE AN ASSESSMENT TAKES THE PLACE OF A PERMIT. THE ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE WRITTEN CORRECTLY. IT WAS NOT WRITTEN CORRECTLY BECAUSE IT WAS NOT MODERATE OR GREATER BY BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MR. ROSS. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS? I HAVE A FEW IN FRONT OF ME RIGHT NOW. I AM HOLDING THEIR TREE PLAN. I KNOW THIS WAS PROBABLY SUBMITTED WITH YAWLS AGENCY. HAS ANYONE GOTTEN THIS EXCEPT FOR US TONIGHT? PERFECT. OBVIOUSLY, I HAVEN'T SEEN IT.

>> PERFECT. >> WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, MR. ROSS, TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR ON THIS, BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THE CITY OVER A YEAR NOW ON THE ISSUE, AS YOU HAVE SEEN IT DEVELOP, YOU WOULD SAY IN YOUR OPINION THAT, HAD THIS COMMUNICATION NOT OCCURRED, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED? IT WOULD HAVE BEEN -- HAD DAVE FINISHED THE FINAL STEP, WHICH THEY WERE ON THE ONE YARD LINE HAVING FINISHED THE FINAL STEP, IT WOULD'VE BEEN APPROVED?

>> CORRECT. THEY WERE ON THE ASSUMPTION THEY WERE ON THE FINAL STEP. THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE DOING THE RIGHT THING.

BUT, UNFORTUNATELY, THE CODE WAS WRITTEN WHERE IT WASN'T.

>> OF COURSE. AND THEN, SO WITH THAT APPROVAL, WOULD THERE BE MITIGATION IN ADDITION TO THAT? THAT'S PART OF THE APPROVAL.

>> MITIGATION IS REQUIRED ON HEALTHY TREES ONLY. WITH MR. MARTIN'S ARBORIST ASSESSMENT, MANY OF THOSE TREES WOULD NOT HAVE TO BE MITIGATED BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T DEEMED HEALTHY

ACCORDING TO HIS ASSESSMENT. >> GOT IT. THANK YOU, MR. NEVILLE. I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MS. GIBSON AS WELL. I CAN CALL YOU TO THE PODIUM. SO, I HAVE HEARD FLOATED AROUND WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT, THIS PLAN -- THE BUILDING PERMIT HAS GONE TO THE HTC WHICH IS IN OLD TOWN AS WELL. AND WITH THAT PLAN, THE PLAN HAS BEEN APPROVED. HAVE THEY EVER PAID THE PERMIT FEE YET FOR THE TREE? IS THERE A FEE FOR THAT? WHAT IS THE FEE?

>> THERE IS NO PERMIT ISSUED FOR TREE REMOVAL FOR THE SLOT.

ONLY A CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL HAS BEEN DESIGNED FOR THE NEW HOME . AN APPLICATION TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, ONCE THAT IS MADE, WOULD DETERMINE TREE REMOVAL FEES AND HOW THAT

APPLIES. >> I HEARD FROM AN ARBORIST JUST NOW, HAD THEY FINISHED THE FINAL STEP, ON THE ONE YARD LINE, THEY WOULD -- IT WOULD BE AN OPEN AND SHUT CASE HAVING

FINISHED THE FINAL -- >> HAD THEY COME IN, YES, AND EVALUATED WHERE MITIGATION IS REQUIRED AND WHERE FEES ARE

PAID . >> WHAT FEED WE CHARGE FOR THE

PERMIT? >> IT IS $150 PER TREE REMOVED.

CORRECT? >> YES.

>> EXCUSE ME. FOUR TREES. >> IT WOULD BE $600? AND THAT'S WHAT THEY DIDN'T PAY BECAUSE THAT'S WHY WE ARE IN

THE SITUATION TODAY. >> CORRECT.

>> UNDERSTOOD. THOSE ARE THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE THERE.

SO, WITH THAT IN MIND, THE COST OF THE PERMIT WOULD'VE BEEN 600 HAD THEY FILED IT. DO I HEAR A MOTION?

[01:10:03]

>> THEY STILL NEED TO GET A PERMIT, AM I CORRECT?

>> IT WOULD BE REQUIRED. IT WOULD COME IN THE SAME TIME AS

THE BUILDING PERMIT. >> OH, SO THE BUILDING PERMIT -- EVEN IF THEY GET SLAPPED WITH A $41,000 FINE, THEY HAD TO COME BACK AND PAY THE $600 TREE PERMIT REMOVAL PLAN?

>> TECHNICALLY, YES. >> -- BEFORE THEY GET A BUILDING? GOT IT. THAT CHANGE IS WHAT I WAS ABOUT TO SAY IN A SECOND. THANK YOU, MISS GIBSON AND COMMISSIONER FOR POINTING THAT OUT. THAT'S IT. WE CAN ASK MORE QUESTIONS DURING COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION TIME. FOR US TO GET THERE, AS YOU KNOW, WE NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE TABLE. WE CAN DISCUSS THAT. DO I HEAR ANY MOTION?

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO WAIVE THE FEES DUE TO THE UNINTENDED MISCOMMUNICATION BETWEEN STAFF .

>> DO YOU MEAN WAIVE THE FEES WERE THE FINES?

>> THE FEES STILL STAND FOR THE CODE. WAIVING THE FINE, I

MISSPOKE. THANK YOU. >> SECOND PERIOD

>> I HEAR A MOTION AND 2ND TO WAIVE ALL FINES. WITH THAT, WE HAVE COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION TIME. DO I SEE ANY COMMISSIONER WISHING TO DISCUSS THE MOTION? COMMISSIONER ANTON?

>> I THINK, WE, IF THIS WERE TO BE APPROVED, DO SO WITH SOME CONTINGENCY THAT THERE WOULD BE EFFORTS TO CLARIFY WHEN OTHER CONSTITUENTS COME TO THE CITY TO MAKE SURE THIS TYPE OF ISSUE IS ABSOLUTELY GUARANTEED NOT TO HAPPEN AGAIN.

>> COMMISSIONER ANTON, I AGREE WITH YOU. WE NEED SOME SORT OF CHECKLIST. AND I THINK ASIDE FROM THIS MOTION -- RIGHT? THAT'S ALL, RIGHT NOW, TAKE A PAUSE AND ADDRESS MR. GEORGE AND SAY, CAN YOU PLEASE LOOK INTO SOME SORT OF CHECKLIST ? THANK YOU, MR. GEORGE. APPRECIATE THAT. COMMISSIONER

ROSS? >> SO, MY PERCEPTION IS A HE SAID SHE SAID STORY, OR HE SAID HE SAID, WHATEVER, STORY. THE PROBLEM IS, I THINK THESE PEOPLE WERE -- I THINK WE HAVE A PROBLEM IN THAT IT IS NOT COMMUNICATED IN ANY CLEAR, EFFECTIVE WAY WHAT THE RULES ARE. AND THERE IS AGREE JUST -- I THINK YOU USED OUTRAGEOUS FINES.

>> I SAID EGREGIOUS. BUT OUTRAGEOUS, I WOULDN'T ARGUE.

BEFORE. TO BE HONEST, THERE WERE PEOPLE IN THE ROOM WHO WANTED HIGHER PENALTIES THAN THAT. THE REASON WAS, AT THE TIME, PEOPLE WERE CUTTING DOWN TREES. THEY WANTED TO MAKE A STATEMENT. I THINK ONE OF THE PROPOSALS WAS TO HAVE A $50,000 FINE PER TIME PER TREE. THAT DIDN'T GET THROUGH. BUT I'M JUST TELLING YOU, THERE WAS A LONG CONVERSATION. I DON'T THINK ANY OF YOU WERE ON THE BOARD AT THE TIME. WERE YOU?

>> NO. >> SO THAT'S WHERE THOSE FINES CAME FROM. THERE WAS A RASH OF TREES GETTING CUT DOWN INAPPROPRIATELY. THERE WERE A BUNCH OF ARBORISTS WHO CAME INTO THE COMMUNITY WHO DIDN'T KNOW THE RULES, WERE NOT FOLLOWING THE RULES, AND IT WAS TO PREVENT THAT ALL FROM HAPPENING. SO, I AM NOT SURE THAT THE FINES ARE OUTRAGEOUS IF THEY ARE APPLIED. BUT, THAT BEING SAID, I THINK WITH CITY STAFF HERE, THEY DID NOT, IN AN APPROPRIATE WAY, INFORMED THE APPLICANTS OF WHAT THEY AND THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES WERE. I THINK THE IF THEY HAD KNOWN THEY HAD TO GET THE PERMITS AND WERE TOLD THAT, I GET THE FEELING, MY BELIEF IS, THEY WOULD'VE DONE THAT. I CAME IN HERE INCLINED TO VOTE , OR AT LEAST MAKE A PASSIONATE ARGUMENT THAT SOME FINE BE APPLIED BECAUSE I THOUGHT -- WELL, I THOUGHT THERE WAS A DIFFERENT SET OF FACTS. SO, I THINK , AND I BELIEVE THEM.

THEY WERE NOT TOLD IN A WAY THEY UNDERSTOOD WHAT THE RULES ARE. SO, I THINK WE NEED TO COME UP WITH A WAY, CITY MANAGER , WE NEED TO COME UP WITH A WAY IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR TO PEOPLE WHAT THE RESPONSIBILITIES ARE. SO, IN SOME WAY, HAVE IT BE DETERMINED SO PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT, MAYBE FOLLOW-UP WITH AN EMAIL. AND WHAT I'VE ALWAYS SAID, AND YOU COME IN TO TALK TO CITY HALL, YOU SHOULD COME IN , SEND AN EMAIL AFTERWARDS AND SAY, THIS IS WHAT WE UNDERSTOOD YOU TO SAY. AND IF YOU HAVE ANY DISAGREEMENT WITH THAT, LET ME KNOW. SO -- AND WITH THAT, I WILL, I THINK -- I DON'T THINK I WILL VOTE NOT TO --

INAUDIBLE ] >> COMMISSIONER ASKEW?

>> MAYOR, I AGREE WITH YOU. IT'S AN EGREGIOUS NUMBER. IT IS UP THERE. AT THE SAME TIME, I -- I CAN SEE WHY IT IS

[01:15:05]

THERE. I MEAN, FOR THE PEOPLE WHO COME IN, THEY WILL CLEAR CUT A LOT AND NOT SAY ANYTHING OR CARE, I UNDERSTAND WHY THE FINE IS THERE. IT IS A HIGH NUMBER. BUT I DON'T THINK THIS CASE -- WHICH IS WHY I MADE THE MOTION TO, YOU KNOW, GET RID OF ALL THE FINES HERE -- I DO NOT THINK THAT IS THE CASE HERE. I DON'T THINK THIS ARBORIST OR OUR CITY STAFF HAD ANY INTENTION WHATSOEVER TO REMOVE TREES THAT DIDN'T NEED TO BE REMOVED THROUGH THE NORMAL BUILDING PROCESS ANYWAYS. I WILL SAY, LET THIS NUMBER BE A LESSON TO ANYONE WHO IS OUT THERE. IF YOU GO CUTTING DOWN TREES AND YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO, IT IS HEFTY. IT IS UP THERE. I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT POINT. IT IS A BIG NUMBER. AND THE ONLY OTHER POINT I WOULD MAKE IS THAT, I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH THE CODE. I DON'T THINK THE CODE IS WRONG. BUT IT DOES SEEM TO TOUCH A FINE LINE WITH THE STATUTE . SO, I THINK WE WILL CONTINUE TO DEAL WITH THE SITUATION REGARDLESS OF WHAT STAFF ATTEMPTS TO DO. THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF CODE IS TOUCHING THAT STATUTE IN A VERY, VERY -- YOU KNOW -- CLOSE, CLOSE WAY. AND WE ARE GOING TO END UP IN THIS SITUATION AGAIN. LET'S JUST HOPE THAT FOR THE FUTURE -- FUTURE TREE REMOVAL COMPANIES, ARBORIST, STAFF, NAKED AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE. LET'S ALL WORK TOGETHER ON THIS ISSUE.

THAT IS IT. >> THANK YOU MR. ASKEW. MR.

ANTON? >> I DON'T BELIEVE THE FEES ARE EGREGIOUS WHEN THE OFFENSE IS BLATANT. BUT AS THESE CONSTITUENTS MENTIONED, THEY ARE TRYING TO FOLLOW THE RULES.

THERE IS NOTHING HERE THAT SMELLS TO ME IT IS FOUL PLAY. I BELIEVE AS A SUGGESTION TO STAFF, PART OF THE PROCESS COULD INCLUDE VETTING ARBORISTS MAKING SURE THEY ARE AWARE OF THE SEPARATE CODE. THAT COULD BE AS EASY AS A CHECKBOX. IF YOU DIDN'T WRITE IT, IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD ACQUIRE THE CONSTITUENT TO SEND A FOLLOW-UP EMAIL. OUR STAFF, EVEN FOR THEIR OWN PROTECTION, SHOULD HAVE DOCUMENTATION OF THIS. IF WE CAN GO BACK TO A SERIES OF EMAIL EXCHANGES OR WRITTEN CONVERSATION, WE WOULDN'T HAVE THE HE SAID SHE SAID WITH MISS GIBSON AND MR. NEVILLE VERSUS OUR CONSTITUENTS. WE CAN GO RIGHT TO THE CONTINGENCY. THAT

WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION SECONDED ON THE FLOOR. I WILL CLOSE WITH THIS.

MY DECISION TONIGHT IS BASED ON THE GOOD FAITH OF THE INAUDIBLE ] HERE. THE NUMBER THAT GOT ME WAS 15 MONTHS.

THEY STARTED IN JANUARY OF 2023. THE WHOLE WAY, THEY HAVE BEEN ACTIVE TALKING TO ARBORISTS. THEY INITIATED ALL OF THIS. I THINK THEY ACTED IN GOOD FAITH. I AM FINE WAIVING THESE FINES BECAUSE THEY ARE GOING TO COME BACK AND PAY THE FEES RIGHT AWAY. AND LOOK GREAT. I AM EXCITED. WITH THAT, LET'S GO AHEAD --

>> MR. ROSS? >> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION?

>> WAIVE ALL FINES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS OFFENSE.

>> BUT NOT FEES? >> FEES WILL BE PAID. NOT THE FINES. THE $41,000 IN FINES WILL BE WAIVED IN THIS. WITH THAT, LET'S CALL THE ROLE. MISSES BEST?

[6.6 AGREEMENT APPROVAL - BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF NORTHEAST FLORIDA - RESOLUTION 2024-70 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF NORTHEAST FLORIDA ESTABLISHING A YOUTH MENTORING PROGRAM WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND POLICE DEPARTMENT; AUTHORIZING EXECUTION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Approves an agreement with Big Brothers Big Sisters of Northeast Florida establishing a youth mentoring program with Fire Department personnel and Police Department personnel.]

>> COMMISSIONER ANTON? >> MAYOR?

>> YES. THAT PASSES 5-0. ALL RIGHT, WITH THAT, WE ARE HEADING DOWN TO ITEM 6.6, AGREEMENT APPROVAL FOR BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF NORTHEAST FLORIDA.

>> THIS IS 2024-70. THIS IS RECOMMENDING THE APPROVAL WITH BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF NORTHEAST FLORIDA ESTABLISHING A YOUTH MENTORING PROGRAM WITH FIRE DEPARTMENT AND POLICE

PERSONNEL. >> ANY QUESTIONS? MR. GEORGE?

>> I SEE NONE, DO I HEAR A MOTION?

>> MOVED TO APPROVE. >> I HEAR A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? I WILL SAY THIS IS A GREAT PROGRAM. I CAN SPEAK PERSONALLY. I THINK BEYOND SCHOOL WALLS IS THE PROGRAM. THEY DO THIS AT NO WHERE I WORK. THE KIDS ARE REALLY EXCITED. THEY GET TO COME TO THE JOB. THEY SEE IT. THEY BENEFIT FIRST-HAND FROM A MENTORSHIP EXPERIENCE. SO, I CAN PERSONALLY ATTEST IT MEANS A LOT TO THE KIDS. HONESTLY, THANK YOU TO OUR POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS FOR TAKING THESE ON. IT WILL BE A LOT.

WITH THAT, LET'S CALL THE ROLE.

>> COMMISSIONER ASKEW?

[6.8 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT - NASSAU COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS - RESOLUTION 2024-72 ADOPTING THE MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION (PPI) PLAN IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE NASSAU COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE NASSAU COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM (CRS) PROGRAM; AUTHORIZING EXECUTION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: The City and County work jointly on the CRS Program for Public Information (PPI). Nassau County and the City of Fernandina Beach desire to enter into the associated Interlocal Agreement to provide for a financial aid contribution from the County to the City for PPI contracted vendor expenses and associated outreach materials.]

[01:20:06]

>> MAYOR? >> AND YES. THAT PASSES 5-0.

6.7 WAS WITHDRAWN. ITEM 6.7, HABITAT FOR HUMANITY ASKED WE PUSH THAT TO A LATER DATE. WE WILL NOT BE HEARING THAT ONE TONIGHT. ITEM 6.8, INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, NASSAU COUNTY BOARD

OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. >> THIS IS AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH NASSAU COUNTY REQUIRING THE PROGRAM FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION WHICH DEALS WITH THE COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM, THE CRS SYSTEM, MR. WALSH WAS HERE. HE IS THE CITY'S CONSULTANT. THE COUNTY HAS AGREED TO WORK WITH THE CITY TO PAY A PORTION OF HIS COSTS WITH REGARD TO THE INFORMATIONAL PROGRAM. AND SO, THIS IS GREAT STUFF. PLUS, WE WILL GET REIMBURSED FOR THE PREVIOUS THREE YEARS THAT WE PAID HIM TO BE INVOLVED WITH THE COUNTY. IT IS GREAT NEWS.

>> THAT IS GREAT. >> ANY QUESTIONS? VICE MAYOR?

>> I WAS NOT GOING TO ASK ANYTHING. I WAS GOING TO MAKE A COMMENT. BUT SINCE I'M ALREADY SPEAKING, I THINK THIS IS ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR ME TO SAY, I WANT TO THANK NASSAU COUNTY, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, FOR SUPPORTING THE CITY. YOU KNOW, THE FLOOD PORTION IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR CITY , BEING PREPARED FOR ANY SORT OF FLOOD AND SEA LEVEL RISE. I'M GLAD TO SEE THE COUNTY IS WILLING TO HELP US WITH THIS AGREEMENT, AND WORK TOWARDS EVERY PREPAREDNESS WE CAN HAVE FOR THAT EVENT WHENEVER IT COULD HAPPEN. SO, THANK YOU FOR NASSAU COUNTY, THANK YOU FOR STAFF AND FOLLOWING UP AND WORKING WITH THIS. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR. DO I HEAR A MOTION?

>> MOVED TO APPROVE. >> SECOND PERIOD

>> ANY DISCUSSION? I WILL GO AHEAD AND ECHO THE VICE MAYOR.

I THINK THIS PARTICULAR COMMISSION, SOMETHING WE HAVE BEEN VERY GOOD AT, WE HAVE DONE VERY WELL INTERACTING WITH THE COUNTY. I WANT TO THANK THE FIVE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BECAUSE WE HAVE REALLY COME TOGETHER IN A WAY I DON'T THINK THE CITY AND COUNTY HAVE SEEN IN A LONG TIME. I APPRECIATE THE COUNTY AGAIN FOR THE WORK THEY ARE DOING TO HELP

US OUT HERE. >> YOUR LIGHT IS ON AS WELL DO YOU -- OKAY. WITH THAT IN MIND, LET'S CALL THE ROLE.

[6.9 BUDGET TRANSFERS - AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT FUNDS REALLOCATION - RESOLUTION 2024-73 APPROVING BUDGET TRANSFERS IN FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Approves reallocations to the Fiscal Year 2023- 2024 Budget to fund the Area 5 Drainage Improvement Project #18002 (Alachua Street) in the amount of $818,552 and the Area 6 Drainage Improvement Project #22013 (Ash Street) in the amount of $272,172.]

>> YES. >> YES.

>> YES. >> AND YES. THAT PASSES 5-0.

INAUDIBLE ] FUNDS, REALLOCATION, MR. GEORGE?

>> 2024-73, IF YOU RECALL, SEVERAL MEETINGS AGO, WE DISCUSSED REALLOCATING SOME OF OUR OUR POLL FUNDS TO MOVE THOSE FUNDS TO BRING A PROJECT DOWNTOWN, AREA SIX AND AREA FIVE. THIS IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE REALLOCATION FOR ABOUT 818,000 FOR AREA FIVE AND 272,000 FOR AREA 6 TO HELP THOSE PRODUCTS MOVE FORWARD.

>> ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. GEORGE? SEEING NONE, DO I

HEAR A MOTION? >> MOVED TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND PERIOD >> ANY COMMENTS? SEE NONE,

PLEASE CALL THE ROLE. >>

[6.10 WORK ORDER APPROVAL - PASSERO ASSOCIATES LLC - RESOLUTION 2024-74 APPROVING PASSERO ASSOCIATES LLC WORK ORDER 24-106R FOR THE CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION, PERIODIC CONSTRUCTION MONITORING AND OBSERVATION, QA MATERIAL TESTING, AND GRANT ADMINISTRATION SERVICES FOR THE MUNICIPAL AIRPORT BULK HANGAR B APRON REHABILITATION; AUTHORIZING EXECUTION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Approves Passero Associates LLC WO 24-106R in the amount of $47,500 for Bulk Hangar B Apron Rehabilitation.]

>> THAT PASSES, 5-0. >> 2024-74, THIS IS FOR A PROJECT TO REHABILITATE THE APRON OF HANGAR BE OUT OF THE AIRPORT. AWARDING A WORK ORDER TO WHO HAS WORKED WITH THE AIRPORT FOR MANY YEARS ON HANDLING THE CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION, CONSTRUCTION MONITORING OBSERVATION AND GRANT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES FOR THE PROJECT FOR A TOTAL OF $47,500.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. GEORGE ABOUT THIS? ALL RIGHT. SEEING

[6.11 GRANT APPLICATIONS - FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES AND FLORIDA LIGHTHOUSE ASSOCIATION - RESOLUTION 2024-75 AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF A FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES, SPECIAL CATEGORY GRANT APPLICATION FOR $500,000; AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF A FLORIDA LIGHTHOUSE ASSOCIATION GRANT APPLICATION FOR $125,000 CITY MATCH TOWARD THE COST OF REPAIRING THE AMELIA ISLAND LIGHTHOUSE, A BUILDING ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES; AUTHORIZING EXECUTION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Authorizes the submittal of a Historic Preservation Special Category Grant application in the amount of $500,000 and the submittal of a Florida Lighthouse Association Grant application in the amount of $125,000, to help fund necessary repairs to the Amelia Island Lighthouse, a historically- significant building.]

NONE, DO I HEAR A MOTION? >> MOVED TO APPROVE.

>> ANY COMMISSION OR DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, LET'S

CALL THAT ROLE. >> COMMISSIONER ANTON?

>> YES. >> COMMISSIONER ASK YOU?

>> YES. >> MAYOR?

>> AND YES. THAT PASSES 5-0. 6.11, GRANT APPLICATIONS FOR THE ORDER DEPARTMENT OF STATE DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES AND FLORIDA LIGHTHOUSE ASSOCIATION.

>> IF YOU RECALL BACK IN JANUARY, WHEN YOU TRAVEL TO TALLAHASSEE TO MEET REPRESENTATIVES, WE DISCUSSED TRYING TO GET FUNDING FOR LIGHTHOUSE REPAIRS, THE HISTORIC LIGHTHOUSE. SO, WE ARE SUBMITTING -- WE ARE REQUESTING AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT A GRANT APPLICATION FOR $500,000 FOR THIS LIGHTHOUSE REPAIR. AND ALSO, A GRANT APPLICATION FOR $125,000 FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES TO HELP MAKE THIS REPAIR TO THE LIGHTHOUSE COME TO FRUITION.

125,000 WOULD BE PART OF OUR MATCHING GRANT WITH THE 500.

WE ALSO HAVE -- IF WE DON'T GET THE 125 WE HAVE BUDGETED

[01:25:04]

125 IN THE BUDGET. >> THAT IS GREAT NEWS. ANY QUESTIONS, MR. GEORGE? VICE MAYOR?

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. CHARLIE, SO, REALLY, THE WHOLE AMOUNT.

-- WE NEED 900,000 TO TOTALLY RESTORE THE LIGHTHOUSE?

>> TO DO ALL THE RESTORATION, YES.

>> EVERYTHING? SO THIS WILL GET US, IF WE GOT ALL THE FUNDS APPROVED, OVER THREE QUARTERS OF THE WAY?

>> YES. >> SO WE WOULDN'T BE FAR AWAY IF THE CITY DECIDED TO MATCH IT OR COME UP WITH THE FUNDS ON

HER OWN. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> OKAY, GREAT. I THINK THIS IS A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY. IT IS NEAR AND DEAR TO MY HEART. WE NEED TO KEEP ESPECIALLY OUR HISTORIC BUILDINGS AND LIGHTHOUSE UP-TO-DATE AND RESTORED, AND FUNCTIONING PROPERLY. I'M GLAD THE CITY IS TAKING THIS ON. I KNOW WE OWN IT. I'M GLAD WE ARE TAKING IT ON ITS OWN S AND FOLLOWING THROUGH, ESPECIALLY WITH THE HISTORIC PORTION OF IT.

>> THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR. >> ANY QUESTIONS, MR. GEORGE? THE COAST GUARD WAS WORKING ON THE LIGHT?

>> THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTUAL LIGHT.

>> IS THAT BACK ONLINE NOW? >> THEY ARE WORKING ON IT.

IT'S GOT SOME WAYS TO GO. THE MAIN THING THIS IS COVERING HIS

INSTRUCTION. >> PERFECT. SO THE REASON THE LIGHT IS OFF, WAS NOT --

>> CHARLIE SAID THE MAIN THING. THIS IS THE WHOLE THING.

IT HAS TO DO WITH THE BILL. >> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> RIGHT. WE GOT THE BUILDING. THEY GOT THE LIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

VERY MUCH -- SECOND PERIOD >> SECOND, ANY COMMISSION OR DISCUSSION? STATE OF FLORIDA -- OH, GO AHEAD.

>> Y DID WE ONLY ASKED FOR 125,000?

>> THAT WAS THE MATCH WE COULD GET A GRANT FOR.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT, WITH THAT BEING

[6.12 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - MCLAUGHLIN - RESOLUTION 2024-76 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT WITH DAVID AND KRISTINA MCLAUGHLIN IN A PETITION FOR RELIEF MATTER PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 70.51, FLORIDA STATUTES; AUTHORIZING EXECUTION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Approves the settlement agreement relating to building height calculations for property located at 2200 South Fletcher Avenue.]

SAID, LET'S CALL THE ROLE. IS BEST?

>> THAT PASSES. >> THIS IS FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMITS. WHEN SOMEBODY REQUESTS A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT WHICH CAN BE FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR APPROVALS UNDER LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT, IN THIS CASE -- AND MCLACHLAN'S ARE THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY, AND THE ONES THAT ARE BRINGING THIS FORWARD . FIRST, A NOTICE IS GIVEN TO THE CITY AFTER A DENIAL. THIS IS WHEN I STARTED SAYING THE WRONG ITEM EARLIER. AT 2200 SOUTH FLETCHER, THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SHOWING THE PLANS OF THE HOUSE ON THE LOT, A NEW HOUSE, AND ACED UPON THE ELEVATION EXCEEDING THE 35 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT BECAUSE THE MEASUREMENT UNDER OUR CODE NOW, THIS JUST LAST FEW YEARS IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE AVERAGE NATIONAL, THAT'S WITHOUT FILLING ANY OTHER GRADING. SO THE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO BUILD THE HOME WAS DENIED BY PLANNING WHICH THEN TRIGGERS PROPERTY OWNERS ABILITY TO FILE UNDER THE ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION ACT. IS JUST FOR THE RECORD, 70.51 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES. THAT PROVIDES A PROCESS WHERE THE PROPERTY OWNER CAN SAY, I DON'T AGREE. I WISH TO APPEAL. BECAUSE THIS IS A BURDEN ON ME. I WISH TO APPEAL THIS DENIAL AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.