Jul 15, 2025 Regular Meeting

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:16]

>> GOOD EVENING, FOLKS, AND WELCOME TO OUR JULY 15TH REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING. I WILL HAVE MS. BESS PLEASE START THE VOTE FOR OUR ROLLCALL.

>> HERE. >>

>> HERE. >> PLEASE STAND FOR THE PLEDGE

OF ALLEGIANCE. >> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND

JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> PLEASE REMAIN STANDING FOR OUR INDICATION LED BY REVEREND BERNARD THOMPSON.

>> LET US PRAY. OUR FATHER, OUR ETERNAL GOD, WE HAVE COME TO YOU LORD WITH BOWED HEADS AND HUMBLED HEARTS. THANK YOU FOR HOW YOU'VE BLESSED US, I KEPT US, HOW YOU NEVER LEFT US. WE THANK YOU FOR OUR PROVISION. WE THANK YOU FOR PROTECTION. NOW, LORD, WE INVOKE YOUR PRESENCE IN THIS MEETING OF THE FERNANDINA BEACH CITY COMMISSION. ALLOW US TO DISAGREE WITHOUT BEING DISAGREEABLE, AND WE'LL GIVE YOU THE PRAISES, THE OWNER, AND THE GLORY, AND THE PEOPLE OF GOD SAID?

>> AMEN. >> THANK YOU, REVEREND. JUST A

[4.1 PROCLAMATION - MS. SUANNE THAMM - Honoring the life of Ms. Suanne Thamm and her dedicated and exemplary civic service. Mr. Timothy Zuzel (brother), Mayor Susan Hardee-Steger and distinguished community members will be in attendance to accept the Proclamation]

BACK WHEREAS MS. SUANNE THAMM WAS A TRULY DYNAMIC GENERAL RESIDENT OVER THE PAST THREE DECADES SOUNDLESSLY AND TIRELESSLY DEVOTED HER TIME AND CONSIDERABLE TOWNS TO OUR COMMITTEE FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT AND WHEREAS AS THE AUTHOR OF THAMM GRANTS DELIVERED INSIGHTFUL REPORTING, HER ARTICLES WERE WRITTEN WITH CLARITY AND PRECISION, HER COMMENTARY ARTICLES HAD COME SINCE SUBMISSIONS. WHEREAS, MS. SUANNE THAMM WAS A BELOVED, CHERISHED, AND TRULY DYNAMIC FERNANDINA BEACH RESIDENT WHO, OVER THE COURSE OF THE PAST THREE PLUS DECADES, SELFLESSLY AND TIRELESSLY DEVOTED HER TIME AND CONSIDERABLE TALENTS TO OUR COMMUNITY THROUGH JOURNALISM, HISTORICAL PRESERVATION, AND CIVIC ENGAGEMENT; AND WHEREAS, AS THE AUTHOR OF "THAMM-O-GRAMMS" AND A FERNANDINA OBSERVER CO-FOUNDER, MS. SUANNE DELIVERED WELL RESEARCHED, INSIGHTFUL LOCAL REPORTING; HER NEWS ARTICLES WERE WRITTEN WITH CLARITY AND PRECISION, OFTEN EXPLAINING COMPLEX GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS. HER COMMENTARY ARTICLES WERE RIFE WITH WIT, CANDOR, AND COMMON-SENSE SUMMATIONS; AND WHEREAS, MS. THAMM'S TENACIOUS COMMITMENT INVOLVED INNUMERABLE HOURS DOCUMENTING AND PRESERVING OUR RICH AND STORIED HERITAGE AS REFLECTED IN HER PARTICIPATION IN A VARIETY OF STATE AND LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS AND INITIATIVES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: THE AMELIA ISLAND FERNANDINA RESTORATION FOUNDATION, THE AMELIA ISLAND MUSEUM OF HISTORY, THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL, CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE(S), FORWARD FERNANDINA, VISION 2000; FLORIDA STATE COLLEGE AT JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT BOARD OF TRUSTEES, THE FLORIDA TRUST, THE GENERAL DUNCAN LAMONT CLINCH HISTORICAL SOCIETY, AND THE NORTHEAST FLORIDA PRESERVATION SOCIETY, TO NAME A FEW; AND WHEREAS, FERNANDINA BEACH IS A BETTER PLACE DUE TO MS. THAMM'S INDOMITABLE SPIRIT AND KEEN INFLUENCE. HER LEGACY AS A JOURNALIST, HISTORIAN, AND COMMUNITY ADVOCATE LEAVE AN INDELIBLE MARK ON OUR DISTINCTIVE TAPESTRY THAT WILL CONTINUE TO INSPIRE AND GUIDE FOR GENERATIONS TO COME. NOW, THEREFORE, I, JAMES ANTUN, BY VIRTUE OF THE AUTHORITY VESTED IN ME AS MAYOR OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA, DO HEREBY HUMBLY AND REVERENTLY PAY HOMAGE TO: MS. SUANNE THAMM. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT A COPY OF THIS PROCLAMATION IS PRESENTED AS A PERMANENT MATTER OF RECORD IN THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COMMISSION IN FURTHER TESTIMONY OF OUR SINCEREST CONDOLENCES TO THE FAMILY AND LOVED ONES OF MS. SUANNE THAMM. I HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND CAUSE THE OFFICIAL SEAL OF THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH, FLORIDA, TO BE AFFIXED THIS 15TH

DAY OF JULY, 2025. THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. MOVING RIGHT

[4.2 PRESENTATION - BUDGET SUMMARY - Comptroller Susan Carless will review the June 2025 budget summary and be available to answer any questions]

>> GOOD EVENING, Y'ALL. THERE WE GO. THIS IS OUR BUDGET SUMMARY FOR JUNE OF 2025. SO, GENERAL FUND REVENUES FROM JUNE

[00:05:04]

THERE WE GO. THAT SIGNIFICANT EXPENDITURES NOT ROUTINE INCLUDE THE PURCHASE OF A PARKS UTILITY TRUCK FOR 59 882 THIS MONTH. AND GENERAL FUND FUND BALANCE -- THE FUND BALANCE OF 16.3 MILLION REFLECTS AN INCREASE OF 3.2 MILLION OR 25% FROM THE SAME PERIOD LAST YEAR. ABOUT HALF OF THIS IS FROM CASH BALANCE CARRIED FORWARD AND THE REMAINDERS, THE EXCESSIVE REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES YEAR TO DATE, WHICH REFLECT THE INCREASED REVENUE.

MOVING ON, SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS. YEAR TO DATE REVENUES TO EXCEED EXPENDITURES FOR ALL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS ACCEPTED THE BUILDING FEES AND COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AREA. YEAR TO DATE EXPENDITURES EXCEED REVENUES BY 98,000 FOR THE BUILDING FUND.

BOUNCES IN THE CRA FUND REFLECT EXPENDITURES FOR THE -- PROJECT.

IMPROVEMENT FUNDS. FOR FUND 300, YEAR-TO-DATE REVENUES OF 49% OF BUDGETED. EXPENDITURES, 2.1% OF BUDGETED. SIGNIFICANT EXPENDITURES FOR JUNE INCLUDED 91,004 I.T. EQUIVALENT, 135,000 FOR STREET PAVING AND RESURFACING. AND 62,004 L.E.D.

LIGHTS AT THE TENNIS COURTS. FOR FUNDS 315, REVENUE OF 4319 WITH INTEREST. EXPENDITURES 689 FOR THE DRAINAGE PROJECT.

INAUDIBLE ] FOR FUNDS 330 CAT REVENUES OF 61,000 -- TRANSFERS FROM THE WASTEWATER FRONT. THERE WERE NO EXPENDITURES FOR THIS FUND IN JUNE. AND THEN FUND 310 IS OUR CAPITAL EXPENDITURE FUND WHICH IS EMBEDDED BY IMPACT FEES. JUNE EXPENDITURES INCLUDE A DOZEN FOR SOFTBALL FIELDS, 331,000 FOR WATERFRONT PARK, AND 142,000 FOR THE HICKORY STREET RESTROOMS. VOLUME ] TOTAL REVENUES FOR JUNE WERE 102,000 AND EXPENDITURES WERE 483,000. AND THEN ON TO OUR ENTERPRISE FUNDS. YEAR-TO-DATE OPERATING INCOME AND NET POSITION ARE POSITIVE FOR ALL ENTERPRISE FUNDS EXCEPT FOR STORMWATER, WHICH IS REGARDING A DEFICIT OF 90,500. AND THEN WE LOOK AT GOLF. THE SLIDESHOWS THE SUMMARY OF GOLF OPERATIONS. MORE DETAILED INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE IN THE PACKAGE AS USUAL. ITEMS OF NOTE MAY INAUDIBLE - LOW VOLUME ] WERE REPORTED IN JUNE. TO REFERENCE THE CORRECT GROSS PROFIT FOR GOLF INSTRUCTION IN JUNE IS $400. WE TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. ALTOGETHER, JEN WAS PRETTY STANDARD MONTH. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS?

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. CARLESS?

[4.3 PRESENTATION - PROJECT UPDATES - Deputy City Manager Jeremiah Glisson will provide an update on current and/or pending projects.]

>> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> WE WILL GO TO PROJECT UPDATES WITH DEPUTY CITY MANAGER,

[00:10:07]

JEREMIAH GLISSON. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. WE ARE HERE FOR ANOTHER PROJECT UPDATE. OKAY. THIS IS WHAT WE ARE WORKING WITH TODAY. WE HAVE ANOTHER PROJECT UPDATE AND AS A REMINDER, THIS PROJECT IS MARKED IN GREEN. OUR IN PROGRESS. THE L IS POSITIVE FOR REGULATORY REASONS. BLUE IS COMPLETED. WE WILL RUN THROUGH THESE REALLY QUICK. YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A LOT OF THINGS MOVED TO COMPLETION. WE ARE 75% THROUGH THIS FISCAL YEAR, SO YOU WILL SEE A NUMBER OF THESE PATRICK SMITH TO COMPLETION. SOME RECENT ONES THAT WE HAD MOVED TO GALICIAN WAS THAT BAKERY STREET RESTROOMS. THAT HAS BEEN MOVED TO COMPLETE.

WEEK. YOU ALSO SEE FIRE STATION ONE REMODEL NUMBER 43.

REFERENCE, THE LEFT AS THE PROJECT WE ARE REFERENCING. 43 HAS BEEN MOVED TO SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE. THAT HAS BEEN A LONG DISCUSSED PROJECT AS WE CONTINUE TO WORK ON PRESERVING AND IMPROVING OUR WATERFRONT. NUMBER 46 WAS THE PUTT PUTT BUILDING REPLACEMENT. THAT PROJECT IS NEARLY COMPLETE. SIGNAGE AND SOME CLOSEOUT DOCUMENTS NEED TO OCCUR WITH THAT. AND THEN STREET RESURFACING, NUMBER 47 FOR THIS YEAR IS ALSO COMPLETE.

INAUDIBLE ] WE MET THEM FOR THE CLOSEOUT PUNCHLIST WITH THE ARMY CORPS TO DISCUSS THAT PROJECT, AND IT IS WRAPPING UP. THEY ARE D MOBILIZING. THEY ARE LARGELY FINISHED. THEY HAVE SOME BEACH TELLING THAT WILL NEED TO BE COMPLETED. AND THAT IS PROJECT NUMBER NINE. BEACH MONITOR AND SURVEY. THAT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY AND WE ARE REIMBURSED THROUGH NASSAU COUNTY FOR THE EFFORT WITH THIS $20 MILLION PROJECT, WRAPPING UP SEVERAL MONTHS AHEAD OF SCHEDULE AND WE ARE EAGER TO GET OUR BEACHES BACK MUCH LARGER THAN WHAT THEY WERE BEFORE SO WE ARE HAPPY TO ME THAT WENT TO THE COMPLETED COLUMN, AS WELL. I WANT TO DIVE BRIEFLY INTO NUMBER 37. THIS IS THE NORTH 2ND STREET REDEVELOPMENT, AND JUST TO GIVE YOU A LOOK AT WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT HERE, A NUMBER OF POP-UPS HERE. LET'S GET RID OF THAT. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A DIVE DOWN SECOND STREET BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT IS ON THE AGENDA FOR YOU THIS EVENING. REVIEW OF THE STREETSCAPE PROJECT. THIS IS A PROJECT THAT HAS BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR A WHILE BUT WE HAD TO WAIT UNTIL THE OPENED. THIS IS A DATED VIEW WHEN THE THE RELATED PROJECT TO THAT IS IMPROVEMENT OF STORM WATER FACILITIES HERE ALONG NORTH YOU THIS EVENING, AND GO INTO THE IMPROVEMENT OF THIS QUARTER, ALL WITHIN THE CRA AND USING FUNDS FROM A NUMBER OF SOURCES WITHIN OUR DEMAND.

DOWNTOWN AND STREET PAVING AND SIDEWALKS. YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A NUDE SIDEWALK ALONG THE WEST SIDE HERE IN FRONT OF THE STANDARD MARINE BUILDING. THE CONVERSION TOE ONE WAY. THIS IS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN AND KEEP SO THAT WE DON'T -- WE ARE NOT LOOKING AT -- PARK. WE ARE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT IT HAD BEEN LARGELY UNRELATED SPACE FOR A WHILE NOW, SO IT IS CLEANING THIS UP AND MAKING IT NICE AND MAKING SOME STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS. CLOSING OUT THIS ENTRANCE HERE TO THE PARKING LOT THERE ON BROOME STREET SO WE CAN CONTINUE TO ADD PAID -- PAVED PARKING AND PAVING ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE

[5. PUBLIC COMMENT REGARDING ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA OR ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA]

>> THANK YOU, MR. GLISSON. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD? SEE NONE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THAT WILL BRING US INTO ADAM 5. OUR PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA. AND I HAVE ABOUT 10 SPEAKERS HERE, SO WE WILL START WITH MS. STACY BROWN.

THAT CORRECT. >> YEAH. NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD WHEN YOU'RE AT THE PODIUM.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON. MY NAME IS STACY BROWN ADDRESS IS 320 DIVISION STREET.

>> THANK YOU. >> I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION AND EVERYONE SITTING HERE TODAY TO DISCUSS THE CLOSURE OF THE TWO GROCERY STORES ON THE ISLAND AND ITS NEGATIVE IMPACT N OUR CITIZENS AND THIS COMMUNITY. THIS COMMUNITY. WE ALL KNOW THAT CLOSES TWO OUT OF THREE MAC, AND THE PROBLEMS IT CREATES IS LIMITED GROCERY OPTIONS FOR

[00:15:01]

THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GET TO THOSE LOCATIONS WITHOUT HARDSHIP. SO, BUT I WANTED TO PROPOSE THAT WE LOOK AT SOME SOLUTIONS THAT WE MIGHT COULD HAVE FOR THE TEMPORARY -- FOR THE NEXT 6 TO 9 MONTHS UNTIL ONE OF THE STORES REOPENED TO HELP THOSE CITIZENS. I FEEL THAT WE COULD HELP WITH TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE THROUGH THEY WERE ASSISTING RESIDENTS WITH GETTING TO THE STORE FOR BASIC NEEDS. SO I'M GOING TO ASK THAT THE CITY WORK WITH THE COUNTY AND LOCAL NONPROFITS TO SEE IF WE CAN WORK ON TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE FOR THESE RESIDENTS. AND THEN AFTER THAT I'M GOING TO ASK THAT ONCE SOLUTIONS ARE DEVELOPED THAT THERE'S A COMMUNICATION CAMPAIGN IN ORDER TO NOTIFY RESIDENTS OF SUBSTITUTES AND WAYS THEY CAN STILL OBTAIN GROCERIES. I'M ALSO GOING TO SUBMIT THE NEGATIVE IMPACT THIS IS HAVING ON OUR COMMUNITY ALONG WITH A COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN FOR YOU TO REVIEW WITH IDEAS ON HOW TO

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU.

>> MS. STACY, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BRINGING THAT UP. JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS, THE CITY IS WORKING IN PUTTING TOGETHER A LOT OF STAKEHOLDERS THAT THE VEGETABLE MARKET ON 44TH STREET , THE WALMART, THE FARMERS MARKET, AND SOMEBODY MAKE SURE I DON'T GET THIS WRONG. THE FARMERS MARKET IS GOING TO OPEN ON WEDNESDAYS NOW, ALSO. WHERE PUBLICS USED TO BE, FROM 9:00

TILL 1:00. STARTING SOON. >> JULY 22ND.

>> AND RUNNING THROUGH NEXT SUMMER. BUT I DO ALSO LIKE THE IDEA OF WORKING WITH NASSAU TRANSIT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. >> TO THE AUDIENCE, I WOULD LIKE TO REITERATE THAT ANY CLAPPING OR BOOING IS NOT PROPER DECORUM IN THE CHAMBER, SO PLEASE REFRAIN. NEXT, WE HAVE REVEREND DON MAYS.

>> DON MAYS, 510.

COMMISSION IS DOING ON THE ISSUE OF PAID PARKING. I ALREADY EMAILED ALL OF YOU ABOUT MY CONCERNS AND HOW PAID PARKING WILL IMPACT CHURCHES. I'M GRATEFUL FOR THE QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMISSION SUBMITTED TO THE VENDORS IN THEIR PROPOSITIONS THIS EVENING. I STILL HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS BECAUSE, AS YOU HAVE BEEN HEARING, CHURCHES ARE IN BUSINESS SEVEN DAYS A WEEK. THE MEMBERS OF MY CHURCH , ABOUT HALF OF THEM ARE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY AND THE OTHER HALF ARE NOT. THEY LIVE ON THE SOUTH END OF THE ISLAND AND THEY LIVE OVER THE BRIDGE. SO THOSE PEOPLE WILL CONTINUE TO BE IMPACTED BY PAID PARKING. ONE OLDER MEMBER TOLD ME TODAY THAT IF PAID PARKING IS IMPLEMENT IT AND SHE CAN'T PARK CLOSER, SHE HAS TO PAY, SHE WON'T BE ABLE TO COME BECAUSE SHE CAN'T WALK THE DISTANCE OF MORE THAN A BLOCK TO GET TO THE CHURCH, AND SHE SAID, I JUST WON'T BE ABLE TO COME. AGAIN, IT IS NOT JUST WORSHIP ON SUNDAY MORNINGS. IT IS ALL OF THE OTHER MINISTRIES AND SERVICES THAT THE CHURCH PROVIDES TO PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY TO HELP WITH THINGS LIKE FOOD INSECURITY THAT WE HAVE BEEN HEARING ABOUT THIS EVENING AND OTHER ISSUES. I HOPE THE COMMISSION AND I WOULD SINCERELY AND HUMBLY REQUEST TO THE COMMISSION TO LISTEN TO PEOPLE BEYOND THE VENDORS. THEY DID A GREAT JOB WITH THEIR PROPOSALS THIS EVENING. WHO ARE THE OTHER VOICES THE COMMISSION NEEDS TO HEAR FROM? THIS IS A COMPLEX ISSUE. THERE ARE MANY SOLUTIONS. THERE ARE MULTIPLE SOLUTIONS. WHO ARE THE EXPERTS? WHO ARE THE COMMUNITY PLANNERS? THIS WEEK, WE HAVE PEOPLE WITH MAIN STREET AND THE HISTORIC DIVISION HERE FOR A CONFERENCE. I WAS PART OF THAT THIS MORNING.

RAISING MONEY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE , THE PAID PARKING INCOME WILL

[00:20:03]

>> THANK YOU, IRREVERENT. NEXT UP, WE HAVE ASHLEY ALEXANDER.

>> ASHLEY ACCENTURE, 1318 FIRST STREET.

THANK YOU FOR LETTING US SPEAK. I WANT TO EXPRESS MY CONCERNS ABOUT THE PAID PARKING PROJECT. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT HAS UNDERPINNINGS OF BIG GOVERNMENT, CONTROL, AND EVEN DIGITAL SURVEILLANCE. I HOPE YOU WILL CAREFULLY EVALUATE HOW MUCH THIS WILL DISPROPORTIONATELY DISADVANTAGE THE 14,000 PERMANENT RESIDENTS WHO LIVE, SHOP, EAT, AND EVEN RUN BUSINESSES HERE IN THIS CITY. WHILE I APPRECIATE THE RESIDENT PERMIT OPTION IT WASN'T CLEARLY EXPRESSED IF THAT WOULD FOR SURE BE FREE AND IT SEEMS IT HAS INCONVENIENCED IN TRACKING FOR THE PROPOSED PERMITS FOR THE RESIDENTS. THE CITY RESIDENTS SPEND MORE TO BUY LOCAL. WE DO SO BECAUSE OF THE JOY IT BRINGS US TO SUPPORT OUR FELLOW NEIGHBORS. THIS PROPOSAL WILL FORCE US TO NOT ONLY SHOP BUT MAYBE EVEN LIVE ELSEWHERE. I HOPE YOU ALSO CONSIDER THE YOUNG PEOPLE, THE PERFORMERS, THE EMPLOYEES OF THE LOCAL RESTAURANTS AND SHOPS WHOSE NET INCOME WILL LIKELY BE NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO PAY OUT-OF-POCKET TO PARK, OR POTENTIALLY THEIR EMPLOYER WILL DEDUCTED FROM THEIR PAY. I HOPE YOU WILL ALSO CONSIDER HOW THE VALIDATION IDEA MIGHT IMPACT BUSINESSES BECAUSE THEY MIGHT HAVE TO EXTEND THAT COST TO THEM ON TO THEIR CUSTOMERS. I STILL AM UNCLEAR AS TO WHAT PROBLEM WE ARE TRYING TO SOLVE WITH THE PAID PARKING PROPOSITION. AND JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND THE MATH. IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THERE IS 750 SPOTS THAT WE ARE LOOKING TO POTENTIALLY TURN INTO PAID PARKING. IT WAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT IT COSTS ROUGHLY $600 TO MAINTAIN A FLAT LOT SPOT, WHICH IS THE ASPHALT STRIPING, PRESUMABLY. IF YOU MULTIPLY THAT 750 BY THIS ECCENTRIC, THAT IS ROUGHLY AN EXPENSE OF FRENCH AND $50,000 PER YEAR FOR MAINTENANCE.

HOWEVER, ONE OF THE PROPOSALS SUGGESTED A RATE OF $15 TO PARK.

IF YOU MULTIPLY $15 A DAY BY 750 SPOTS BY 365 DAYS FOR THE YEAR, THAT IS OVER $4 MILLION. I'M UNCLEAR AS TO WHY WE NEED TO COLLECT $4 MILLION IN ORDER TO PAY FOR WHAT SEEMS TO BE A $450,000 ANNUAL MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURE. TO ME, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE PROPOSAL IS PREDOMINANTLY FOCUSED ON SEEKING REVENUE AND I APPRECIATE DETAILED INFORMATION AS TO WHY THERE IS A PROBLEM IS THERE A PROBLEM WITH OUR BUDGET AND IF SO ARE THERE WAYS WE CAN LOOK AT REALLOCATING EXPENDITURES TO BRING THE CITY BUDGET UP TO WHERE IT NEEDS TO? ALSO, I HOPE YOU KNOW THERE IS A PETITION OUT THERE THAT ALREADY HAS MORE THAN 7100 SIGNATURES WHICH IS ROUGHLY 50% OF THE CITY ABLATION WHO ARE OPPOSED TO THE PAID PARKING IDEA. I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT OUR VOTING AGE PERMANENT RESIDENTS ARE BUT PRESUMABLY THAT IS MORE THAN 50%, SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE MAJORITY ARE OPPOSED. I HOPE YOU WILL TRULY CONSIDER WHAT YOUR CONSTITUENTS ARE EXPRESSING TO YOU AS YOU CONTINUE TO HEAR ABOUT THE PAID PARKING PROJECT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> NEXT UP, WE HAVE MR. DALE

SPENCER. >> DALE SPENCER. 542 PATRIOTS WAY. I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE MAYOR AND THE COMMISSION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR WORK. AND YOUR DILIGENCE HERE. I WOULD SUBMIT TO YOU THAT THERE'S A LOT OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES AND THE PLANS THAT YOU HEARD TONIGHT. THEY TALK ABOUT RENTING PERMITS AND, YOU KNOW, HAVING SPACES RESERVED FOR RESIDENTS OF A CERTAIN AREA. SAY BUT THE PAID PARKING DOWN AND PEOPLE WANT TO BOUNCE OUT TO ANOTHER AREA BUT THEY CAN'T PARK THERE BECAUSE THEIR PERMIT ISN'T ANY GOOD THERE. IT REALLY CAN BE A MESS.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THIS PLAN ARE A REAL THREAT TO THE COMMUNITY. TO THE COMMUNITY THAT YOU LIVE IN AND I LIVE IN AND EVERYONE ELSE HERE LIVES IN. SO THINK ABOUT THAT. ALSO, TECHNOLOGY, THE TRACKING, WHO IS DOING WHAT WITH THE INFORMATION.

I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO HAVE MY CAR TRACKED NECESSARILY. AND IF HOOKED INTO SOME NATIONWIDE SYSTEM, IS IT SAFE? IS IT SECURE? I SUBMIT THAT NOTHING IS SECURE ON THE WEB. EVERYTHING GETS HACKED. I WORKED FOR A LONG TIME IN THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY.

[00:25:01]

FOR YOUR TIME. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> NEXT UP, WE HAVE MR. MICHAEL SHARP.

>> NAME IS MICHAEL SHARP. I WOULD LIKE TO THINK - LOW VOLUME ] . IT IS MEANINGFUL. THANK YOU.

>> I'M MIKE SURE. 130 NORTH NINTH STREET. I'LL BE IN THE MINORITY HERE TONIGHT. I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THERE ARE VALID CONCERNS FROM CITY RESIDENTS ABOUT PAID. WHAT CONCERNS ME IS THE INFLAMMATORY STATEMENTS SOME ARE MAKING. THE MOST BLATANT IS THE MISINFORMATION THAT THAT CHANGE.ORG PETITION HAS 7100 SIGNATURES. THAT IS FALSE. ANYONE CAN LOOK AT THE CHANGE.ORG WEBSITE AND SEE THAT 60% OF THOSE STRANGERS COME FROM THREE DISTINCT ZIP CODES. THE OTHER 40% ARE WORLDWIDE AND INCLUDE DONALD DUCK THAT SIGNED UP FROM DISNEY WORLD. THAT SCIENCE DOES -- CREATES A CREDIBILITY QUESTION.

INAUDIBLE ] TO SAY THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO STOP ON SELLER'S NONSENSE. NUMEROUS COMPANIES HAVE GONE OUT OF BUSINESS ON SOUTHER OVER THE YEARS. THE MOST RECENT ONE BEING TUESDAY MORNING THAT SHOPPING CENTER IS KEPT ALIVE BY DRY CLEANERS AND INAUDIBLE ] NOBODY'S GOING TO GO DRIVER OF THE BRIDGE TO SPEND FIVE DOLLARS IN GAS TO AVOID A THREE DOLLAR PARKING FEE. PEOPLE SHOP AND SPEND TIME DOWNTOWN FOR THE EXPERIENCE OF ENJOYING THE NEEDS OF CENTER STREET IN THE STARTING BLOCKS. MOST PEOPLE THINK TWICE ABOUT PAYING A FEW DOLLARS TO PARK. THE ISSUE IS FAIRNESS TO THE CITY TAXPAYERS. ALL USERS SHOULD HELP PAY TO PARK FOR THE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN INFRASTRUCTURE AND EMERGENCY SERVICES REQUIRED TO KEEP OUR TOWN SAFE AND BEAUTIFUL. A YEARLY PARKING PASS OR EVEN FREAK IS LESS THAN $.28 PER DAY.

ARE YOU GOING TO BOYCOTT DOWNTOWN OVER $.28 PER DAY? THOSE FEW PENNIES ARE A BARGAIN TO ENJOY THIS PLACE INCLUDING THE NUMEROUS PLACES TO LISTEN TO LIVE MUSIC WITH NO COVER CHARGE, IN MY TRAVELS, I'VE NEVER FOUND A PLACE QUITE LIKE THIS BUT IT COMES AT A COST. RIGHT NOW, THAT COST IS SHOULDERED BY THE 8000 OF US CITY TAXPAYERS. I KNOW THAT SOME OF MY FRIENDS DON'T AGREE BUT WHAT I'VE JUST SAID IS REALITY AND TRUTH. IT HAS ALSO BEEN TOLD TO ME THAT PEOPLE ARE THREATENING TO BOYCOTT GENTLEMEN AS BUSINESSES FIRST FAIRNESS TO CITY TAXPAYER PARKING.

ON EVERYTHING. WHEN I DON'T, I SAY SO. HE HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THE DOWNTOWN AREA WITH BUSINESSES THAT ARE WELL RUN.

THAT HE AND PLACE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT NEED THOSE JOBS AND TO TRY TO RUN HIM OUT OF BUSINESS FOR HIS SUPPORT FOR DOING THE RIGHT THING FOR US IS WRONG. WE CAN DISAGREE AND STILL BE FRIENDS. AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE ALL LIVE IN A SMALL AND BEAUTIFUL TOWN WHERE YOU KNOW A LOT OF THE PEOPLE THAT YOU SEE EVERYDAY. DISAGREE IF YOU WANT TO, BUT BE CIVIL ABOUT IT. WE ALL WANT WHAT IS BEST FOR FERNANDINA BEACH.

>> THANK YOU, MR. SHARP. NEXT UP, I HAVE MR. TONY CRAWFORD.

>> TONY CRAWFORD. 3938 NORTH FIRST AVENUE.

THERE'S A COMMERCIAL THAT SAYS PAY ME NOW, PAY ME LATER.

INAUDIBLE ] WILL CHANGE. KICK IT DOWN THE ROAD. REPLACE YOUR ENGINE. THE INFRASTRUCTURE DOWNTOWN IS FALLING APART.

WHETHER IT IS LIGHTING, ELECTRICAL, I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE TO REPLACE LIGHT POLES NOW. IT'S FALLING APART. DO I WANT TO PAY THE CITY PARKING? NO. MOST OF YOU GUYS DON'T, EITHER.

DO YOU WANT YOUR TAXES TO GO UP? ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, YOU ARE

[00:30:01]

THERE'S GOT TO BE SUBMISSIONS FOR CHURCHES, FOR EVENTS DOWNTOWN. THAT ALL HAS TO BE WORKED OUT. WE HIRED THESE GUYS TO WORK THAT OUT. WE CAN THROW 1 MILLION CRUMBS AT THEM. IT IS THEIR JOB TO WORK IT OUT . THAT IS WHAT WE ARE PAYING THEM FOR.

THE CONCEPT OF SAYING NO, NO, NO, AND HOLDING OUR BREATH ISN'T FIXING WHAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED DOWNTOWN. NOW, AFTER LISTENING TO THESE PRESENTATIONS, WHAT I WOULD ASK THE COMMISSION TO DO IS SIMPLE. YOU HAVE A BIG PIPE. AND PART OF THE PIE ARE THE CITY RESIDENTS. HOW MANY CITY RESIDENTS GO DOWN TOWN AND PARK? IS IT 5% OF THAT PIE? IS IT 10%? IF THAT PERCENTAGE IS SMALL ENOUGH, GIVE THE RESIDENTS FREE PARKING. I DON'T THINK THERE IS A RESIDENT HERE -- AND I SAID, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE FREE PARKING BUT YOU ARE NOT, AND I SAY, OH, I DON'T WANT THAT. THE CITY DOESN'T WANT TO PAY. WE ARE GETTING A LITTLE BIT OF TIRED OF CARRYING THE WILDLIFE, THE TOURISTS. IT IS A BIG WEIGHT ON OUR SHOULDERS AND SELLING NEEDS TO BE DONE TO GET THAT WEIGHT OFF OUR SHOULDERS. IF THEY CAN DO IT WITHOUT US PAYING FOR IT, THAT IS A WIN-WIN, ISN'T IT? THAT'S KIND OF STUPID NOT TO AGREE WITH THAT. I HEARD ABOUT THIS, I SAID, THEY'RE CRAZY. THEN I HEARD, IS FORD. HE IS THE BIGGEST EMPLOYER TO MY KNOWLEDGE DOWNTOWN. HE EMPLOYS MORE PEOPLE DOWNTOWN. HE HAS A RESPONSIBILITY FOR A LOT OF EMPLOYEES AND THEIR ALLIES AND HE DOESN'T WANT TO LAY ANYBODY OFF. HE DOESN'T WANT TO FIRE ANYBODY. HE DOESN'T WANT THEIR WAGES TO GO DOWN. FOR SOME REASON, HE IS FOR THIS. HE IS PUTTING HIS OWN INTERESTS -- POSSIBLY HIS OWN MONEY AGAINST IT FOR WHAT HE FEELS IS THE GOOD OF THE CITY. I'VE KNOWN TIM FOR 20 YEARS AND WE HAVE BATTLED OVER 20 YEARS. BUT ON THIS, I HAVE TO AGREE WITH HIM. YOU NEED TO GET THIS DONE AND STOP KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD BECAUSE WE HAVE A GREAT HISTORY OF KICKING CANS DOWN THE RED. I'VE SEEN IT FOR 26 YEARS. SO WHAT I WOULD DO IS, YOU GUYS, DO THE HOMEWORK. BRING IT BACK TO US, AND WE'LL SEE WHAT WE CAN DO ABOUT IT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CRAWFORD. NEXT UP, I HAVE MR. JACK EMMERT.

>> JACK EMBER, 1603 BROOME STREET, FERNANDINA. GOOD SPEAKERS, ALL. I'M COMPLETELY DISAGREEING WITH PAID PARKING.

IT IS NOT OUR CULTURE. IT IS TOO EXPENSIVE. IT IS A BILL OF GOODS THAT WE DON'T NEED. IT IS ANOTHER COMPLICATION IN EVERYBODY'S LIVES, WE HAVE A CULTURE OF SIMPLICITY AND BROKENNESS. -- WELCOME-NESS. DO I GIVE TOURISTS FREE PARKING? ABSOLUTELY. YOU KNOW. I'M NOT GREEDY. I'M WELCOMING. AND I WELCOME THEM DOWN AT THE BUSINESSES. AND IN MY PARTICULAR LIFE, I RUN MY LIFE BY THE MANTRA, PROBLEMS I DON'T HAVE.

I DON'T HAVE APPS. I DON'T GET HACKED. BECAUSE THERE ARE SITUATIONS THAT I DON'T ENGAGE IN. PAID PARKING? NOT GOING TO PARTICIPATE. NOT GOING TO REGISTER. NOT GOING TO FREQUENT BUILDINGS THAT HAVE PAID PARKING. IF THAT IS A BUSINESS, SO BE IT. I'M JUST NOT GOING TO PLAY. SO, I REALLY RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY TAKE A HARD LOOK AT THIS AND THINK OF OUR CULTURE. THINK OF THE EXPENSE. THE HEADACHE AND EVERYTHING ELSE, AND VOTED DOWN. APPRECIATE YOU. LOVE YOU ALL. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. NEXT UP, MS. TYNA CHRISNER.

>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK. TYNA CHRISNER. I'M HERE TONIGHT BECAUSE THE CITY RECENTLY ISSUED ON THE MONDAY AFTER THE JULY 4TH WEEKEND, 16 BUILDING PERMITS FOR A PROJECT THAT UNDER BOTH LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND A STANDING COURT ORDER CANNOT LEGALLY PROCEED WITHOUT A VARIANCE FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THIS IS THE SAME PROJECT THAT WENT TO COURT A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. IN DECEMBER

[00:35:04]

NO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HEARING. NO VARIANCE. JUST, POOF.

APPROVED. THE DEVELOPER CLAIMS, ACCORDING TO THE FERNANDINA OBSERVER, THAT THIS IS A, QUOTE, COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PROJECT BECAUSE INSTEAD OF 12 UNITS AND SIX BUILDINGS, IT IS NOW 12 UNITS IN FOUR BUILDINGS, SO LET'S BE HONEST. THAT IS NOT A DIFFERENT PROJECT. THAT IS THE SAME VIOLATION IN A TIGHTER OUTFIT. SO, IT WOULD BE LIKE ME DRIVING DOWN BEECH STREET, GOING 55 MILES PER HOUR IN A 25 MILE PER HOUR ZONE, GETTING A TICKET, AND THEN THE NEXT WEEK, THE COPS STOP ME AGAIN AND I SAY, OH, IT'S OKAY. I PAID THE RENT THIS TIME, SO I'M NOT VIOLATING THE LAW. IT IS THE SAME SPEED. THE SAME ROAD. NOW I'M HEARING THAT THE HEAD OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS DIGGING IN THEIR HEELS, INSISTING THAT TRIPLEX'S ARE ALLOWED ON THE SITE, BUT THEY ARE NOT. THE CODE SAYS THEY'RE NOT. JUDGE ROBERSON'S RULING SAYS THEY'RE NOT. HE SAYS WE MUST FOLLOW THE CLEAR LANGUAGE OF SECTION 1.03.05. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE COMMISSION THIS. THE PERSON WHO APPROVED THESE PRINTS, THE CITY PAID MONEY TO HIRE AN OUTSIDE LEGAL TEAM TO REPRESENT US IN COURT AND THEY LOST. DID THE HEAD OF PLANNING CONSULT WITH THAT LEGAL TEAM PRIOR TO ISSUING THESE PERMITS? AND DID THAT LEGAL TEAM GIVE HER A WRITTEN LEGAL OPINION? IF SO, I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT WRITTEN LEGAL OPINION AND IF NOT, EXACTLY WHAT WAS THIS DECISION BASED ON? OPTIMISM? THIS ISN'T JUST BAD JUDGMENT. THIS IS DIRECT RELATION OF CODE, ALIENATION OF A COURT ORDER, AND A BREACH OF THE PUBLIC TRUST. I'M NOT HERE TO ATTACK THE CITY. I'M JUST HERE ASKING TO DO THE RIGHT THING. REVOKE THESE PERMITS. RESTORE THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROCESS BECAUSE TREMONT DESERVES MUCH BETTER THAN THIS. THANK

YOU. >> NEXT, PAUL LORI.

>> GOOD EVENING. PAUL LORI. I'M TRYING TO THINK WHERE TO GO BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH INFORMATION. WE HAVE A SHORT TIME TO SPEAK. AND ON THAT POINT, I'M VERY DISAPPOINTED IN THE WAY THE LEADERSHIP HAS HANDLED THE PAID PARKING THING AS FAR AS HOW WE CAN PRESENT INFORMATION. TODAY, I PUT OUT A PERSON. WHEN WE HAD THE ETHANOL ISSUE COME UP, WHEN WE HAVE WORKSHOP STORY TOWNHOME, I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A MODERATOR THERE. PEOPLE WERE ABLE TO SPEAK FOR THE FULL THREE MINUTES. THERE WERE SO MANY DIFFERENCES IN THE WAY THAT WE ARE HANDLING PAID PARKING, AND IT'S A SHAME. I THINK IT'S A REAL TRAGEDY, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY THIS IS GETTING CRAMPED THROUGH SO MUCH. WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO IS THE QUESTION SEPARATE WIDE PAID PARKING? YOU JUST WANT TO GET MONEY. IT'S REALLY THAT SIMPLE. AND IT'S A SHAME. BECAUSE MORE AND MORE I HEAR THAT WE NEED MORE MONEY, BUT I ALSO SEE THAT WE KEEP BUILDING ON OUR STRUCTURAL FOOTPRINT IN THIS TOWN. AND BUILDING ON OUR STRUCTURAL FOOTPRINT IS ONLY GOING TO MEET A SOUND LINE, WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO MAINTENANCE THAT STRUCTURAL FOOTPRINT, SO IN A SENSE, WHEN I WATCH A SCREENSHOT, AND WE ARE GOING TO MODERNIZE MORE DOWN SECOND STREET, AND WE CREATE ALL OF THIS TO PRESERVE THIS PARKING, WHICH, YOU'RE JUST WORRIED ABOUT GRABBING THE MONEY. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK AND RENAME IT NOW. IT IS LIKE WE ARE BUILDING THIS HAMSTER WHEEL. AND WE ARE GOING TO KEEP COMING BACK. THERE'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER GENERATION THAT IS GOING TO DEAL WITH PAID PARKING. PAID PARKING IS GOING TO BE THE GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING. THE COMPANIES THAT CAME IN HERE -- THEY HAVE TO MAKE A LIVING. ARE THEY LOCAL? ARE THEY IN OUR INTEREST? ABSOLUTELY NOT.

THEY'RE COMING IN AND THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE REVENUE AND MAKE A LIVING. THERE IS NOTHING THAT IS GOING TO BE GOOD ABOUT THIS FOR THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH. ABSOLUTELY ZERO. HE WILL GO BACK AND REVISIT THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN. YOU WILL RESEND SOME PIECES. YOU WILL MAKE SELECTIVE ENFORCEMENT SPREAD HE WILL GIVE OTHER PEOPLE PARKING LOT SPACES. YOU CAN ALREADY SEE

[00:40:03]

IT IS REALLY HEARTBREAKING. THE THINGS YOU DO THAT WOULD BE THE ANSWER TO EVERYTHING FOR THOSE THAT ARE FOR PAID PARKING AND THOSE THAT ARE NOT PAID PARKING, WHY DON'T YOU SIMPLY PUT OUT A REFERENDUM IN 2026 AND ACTUALLY MAKE THE RESIDENTS VOTE? THANK

YOU. >> THANK YOU, MR. LORI. NEXT UP IS MISS SHEILA KOKE.

>> SHEILA COKIE. 5353 INDIGO STREET. I DON'T LOVE PAID PARKING BUT I DO SUPPORT -- I UNDERSTAND THE REASON WHY WE NEED IT. I DEFINITELY -- I APOLOGIZE. I DIDN'T PREPARE PERMITS FOR TONIGHT. I WASN'T GOING TO SPEAK, BUT WE HAVE HEARD ABOUT THE PETITION THAT HAS BEEN SIGNED. FERNANDINA BEACH MAILING AND 32034 GOES ALL THE WAY AT TWO AMELIA CONGRESS, WHICH IS HOME DEPOT, 200, THAT AREA. SO THAT'S A LOT OF PEOPLE. WHO ARE NOT IN THE CITY. THE NUMBERS THAT ARE BEING TALKED ABOUT ARE INCORRECT FOR CITY RESIDENTS. I HAVE BEEN SAYING AND SAYING, EVERYBODY HAS AN INTEREST IN PAID PARKING. A FEW PEOPLE HAVE A STAKE IN PAID PARKING. WHETHER YOU WORK DOWNTOWN, I HAVE A BUSINESS, HAVE A BUSINESS DOWNTIME. YOU LIKE TO COME DOWNTOWN. THAT IS AN INTEREST BUT 13,000 OF US HAVE A BURDEN OF PAYING FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE. PAYING FOR THE ROADS TO GET US HERE. PAYING FOR A TOWN OUR SIZE DOES NOT NEED A 40 PERSON POLICE DEPARTMENT. A 40 PERSON -- I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY -- FIRE DEPARTMENT. THE PERSONNEL THAT WE HAVE, WE DON'T SERVE 13,000 PEOPLE. WE SERVE MANY MORE THAN THAT. THERE ARE 100,000 PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTY. AND MANY OF THEM COME HERE TO ENJOY ALL THE THINGS WE HAVE. THE COUNTY, UNTIL THEY HAVE HAD SO MUCH DEVELOPED IN THE LAST 10 TO 15 YEARS, DIDN'T HAVE PARKS. YOU KNOW WHO HAS PARKS? THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH. WE PROVIDED THAT. WE PROVIDED SOCCER AND BASEBALL AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS FOR MANY PEOPLE TO COME HERE AND ENJOY.

AND THIS IS ANOTHER ISSUE OF, UNOCAL AND PEOPLE SPEND THE NIGHT HERE IN OUR CITY, WE GET A BED TAX SO WE CAN CAPTURE SOME OF THOSE DOLLARS, BUT WE DON'T, FROM PEOPLE WHO DRIVE THE STREETS EVERY DAY BECAUSE THEY LIVE HERE, BUT NOT IN THE CITY.

WE HAVE A DIFFERENT BURDEN IN THE CITY FOR OUR TAXES THAN IN THE COUNTY. SOME PEOPLE MAKE THAT CHOICE DELIBERATELY. SOME PEOPLE MAKE THAT CHOICE BECAUSE THAT WAS THE HOUSE THAT WAS AVAILABLE THAT THEY BOUGHT. THERE ARE MANY REASONS WHY PEOPLE LIVE THERE, BUT IF YOU TAKE A TENNIS LESSON HERE AND YOU LIVE IN THE CITY, IT COSTS YOU $15. IF YOU TAKE THE SAME TENNIS LESSON AND LIVE IN THE COUNTY, IT IS $18. I'VE ALREADY PAID A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR THOSE AMENITIES. THE PLAINTIFF PAID PARKING IS THAT WE ARE JUST TRYING TO CAPTURE SOME SKIN IN THE GAME BECAUSE I REASON PEOPLE LIKE TO COME HERE IS BECAUSE IT IS NICE, AND IT IS MAINTAINED, AND THOSE THINGS COST MONEY. AND WE HAVE TO INVEST. IF YOU HAD A HOLE IN YOUR ROOF, YOU WOULDN'T JUST LET IT ALL CAVED IN. HE WOULD PUT A TARP ON IT AND GET IT FIXED. WE HAVE TO DO THAT WITH OUR CITY. WE HAVE A LOT OF THINGS TO MAINTAIN. WE NEED THE PEOPLE WHO ENJOYED, AS WELL, TO CONTINUE.

>> THANK YOU. >> NEXT UP, WE HAVE MARI

SULTREANA. >> MARI SULTREANA. I AM THE PROUD AUTHOR OF THE CHANGE.ORG PETITION THAT HAS BEEN GOING AROUND. AND IT SERVED ITS PURPOSE. APRIL 1ST CAME AROUND AND THERE WAS SENSE FROM MAIN STREET. SOUNDS FROM THE CITY.

SOUNDS FROM THE ELECTED OFFICIALS AND STAFF AS TO WHAT WAS GOING ON AND AS I'M TALKING TO MY CUSTOMERS, NOBODY SEEMS TO HAVE A CLUE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING. I CREATED THAT PROBABLY TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW WHAT WAS HAPPENING WITH PAID PARKING, AND IT WAS AN EASY AND CONVENIENT WAY TO DO IT BECAUSE AS A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER, I CANNOT STOP EDITING. I DIDN'T RUN FOR OFFICE. ATTENDING MORE MEETINGS THAN I EVER CARED TO SINCE APRIL, AND THAT IS A DISSERVICE TO ME. I'M NOT PUTTING FOOD ON

[00:45:03]

I'M GETTING CUT AND PASTE. I'M GETTING LIPSERVICE IN RETURN. IT IS NOT OKAY. PLEASE. WE ELECTED YOU TO LEAD. LEAD. I WOULD LIKE A POINT OF ORDER IF I MAY, AS WELL. I THOUGHT I HEARD -- I'M SORRY, JEREMIAH. MR. GLISSON SAID THAT, AND I COULD'VE MISUNDERSTOOD, BUT I UNDERSTOOD THAT HE SAID THAT PAID PARKING WILL THEN BE EXTENDED TO BROOME. IS THIS CORRECT?

>> THERE IS NO PART OF THIS PROPOSAL THAT INCLUDED EXTENDING

TO BROOME. >> WENT TO THE PROPOSALS, I LEARNED MORE ABOUT PARKING THAN I CARE TO. A LOT OF US MISUNDERSTOOD THAT BECAUSE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A BIKE THERE.

SAID WHEN YOU ARE SHOWING THE PAVILION, THAT ALL OF THAT NEW PARKING THAT IS GOING TO BE PUT IN, THAT IT SAID SOMETHING ABOUT -- AND MAYBE IT WAS JUST THE WAY THAT IT CARRIED.

>> WE USE THE WORD PAVED NOT PAID.

>> THANK GOD WE CLEARED THAT UP BECAUSE THAT BACK PART OF THE ROOM WAS A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT PAVED . IT SOUNDED LIKE PAVED. I'M GLAD WE GOT THE COVER THAT. I STAND BEHIND THE PETITION. YOU CAN DISREGARD IT ALL YOU WANT. WHETHER IT IS WITHIN THE CITY OR NOT WITHIN THE CITY. IT SERVED ITS PURPOSE, AND I WILL NOT APOLOGIZE FOR PUTTING IT OUT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. NEXT UP IS MISS TAMMY CUSACK.

>> TAMMY CUSACK. 2032 THIRD. I CAME UNPREPARED TO SPEAK. BUT, HEARING SO MANY ARGUMENTS -- LET'S BE FAMILY. SO MANY TOPICS ON BOTH SIDES. I FEEL COMPELLED BECAUSE THIS IS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WE HAVE DON AND TONY AND PAUL. MIRIAM, MIKE, ON DIFFERENT SIDES. THERE'S A LOT. THERE ARE GOOD ARGUMENTS. THERE ARE GOOD POINTS BEING MADE, AND I LISTENED TO THE GYM 12.

WORKSHOP. THERE ARE GOOD POINTS THERE. WE ARE NOT A COOKIE-CUTTER COMMUNITY HAS SOME OF THE VENDORS POINTED OUT.

THERE'S A LOT OF CARVEOUTS THAT NEED TO BE CONSIDERED. THERE'S A LOT OF BROAD CONSIDERATIONS. ALL I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST IS WE TAP THE BRAKES. DIVE DEEPER. LET'S MAKE THIS WORK FOR EVERYBODY. IF WE CAN KEEP OUR TAXES EVEN LOWER, LET ALONE GOING UP, WE GET CARVED OUT AS RESIDENCE. THERE'S A LOT OF VARIABLES. WE CAN'T JUST PICK A VENDOR AND SHOOT FOR IT. I THING WE NEED TO DIVE DEEP, AND MAKE ALL OF THIS WORK TOGETHER FOR THE COMMON GOOD. WE ARE ALL HERE FOR THE SAME REASON. LET'S JUST TRY TO KEEP IT MOVING IN A POSITIVE DIRECTION.

>> THANK YOU, MISS KOZAK. NEXT IS MISS MARION PHILLIPS.

>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MARION PHILLIPS. EVERY DECISION THAT WE MAKE MUST BE DONE WITH CONSIDERATION FOR THE NEXT SEVEN GENERATIONS. THIS IS A PHILOSOPHY OF THE IROQUOIS. I HAPPEN TO GO THROUGH MY OLD EMAIL LAST NIGHT, AND I BELIEVE THAT MY MOTHER MAY BE SPEAKING TO ME FROM THE GRAVE. I HAD TO CLEAR OUT MY EMAIL LAST NIGHT AND FOUND ONE THAT SHE HAD SENT ME WHERE I STOOD AT THIS VERY PODIUM. IN JULY OF 2018.

FIGHTING PAID PARKING AT THE BEACH. I'M AGAINST PAID PARKING CAN'T BE BEAT. IT IS NOT GOOD FOR THIS CITY. I'M ASKING FOR ALL OF OUR COMMISSIONERS NOT TO VOTE FOR THIS. SOME OF YOU ARE PRESSURED. I FEEL LIKE YOU WANT THIS FOR THIS CITY, BUT THAT PETITION THAT WE CIRCULATED, TOLD YOU THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THE CITY OF FERNANDINA BEACH DO NOT WANT IT.

IT IS NOT GOING TO BE GOOD. MISS WHITAKER THAT OWNS ROBIN'S

[00:50:05]

MY MIND IS STILL HERE IN FERNANDINA BEACH. MY -- MY PHONE RANG THE ENTIRE TIME I WAS THERE. I WAS CONTINUALLY MONITORING WHAT WAS HAPPENING ABOUT THE PAID PARKING.

INCLUDING THE PARKING DOWNTOWN. I GOT A CALL AT 5:00 A.M. MY TIME, WHICH WAS 8:00 YOUR TIME HERE, TO TELL ME THAT PEOPLE WERE PARKED THERE AND VOTERS COULDN'T GET ON THE BOATS TO GO OUT ON THE CHARTER. SO I MADE A PHONE CALL TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT BECAUSE I HAVE THAT NUMBER MEMORIZED AND THEN I CALLED MR. AYSCUE. CAN YOU MAKE SURE THE OFFICER HEARD WHAT I SAID? I'M NOT THE MAYOR. PEOPLE ARE SAYING THAT I AM THE UNOFFICIAL ONE BECAUSE I CARE SO MUCH ABOUT THIS CITY. BECAUSE I'M FROM HERE. MY SON IS GOING TO INHERIT MY HOME. I WANT HIM TO HAVE WHAT HE'S ALWAYS HAD WHEN HE COMES BACK TO THIS ISLAND. I'M ASKING Y'ALL. DO THE RIGHT THING. THIS IS WRONG, AND WE DON'T WANT IT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, MISS PHILLIPS. I HAVE NO MORE REQUESTS TO SPEAK UNLESS -- OH, MR. PETE STEVENSON. COME ON DOWN.

THANK YOU. DID I LOSE YOU? I'M SORRY.

>> PETE STEVENSON. 167 CONTENTION AND AS I LOT OF THE ITEMS THAT THIS COMMISSION HAS BEEN DISCUSSING, WE NEED SOMEWHERE AROUND THE RANGE OF $45-$50 MILLION OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS TO DO THINGS REQUIRED TO GET THIS CITY BACK ON TRACK. WE HAVE FORGOTTEN ABOUT MAINTENANCE FOR THE LAST 10 YEARS . WE HAVE LET THINGS FALL APART. WE HAVE A DOWNTOWN.

AND I'LL TELL YOU WHAT. EVERYONE OF YOU WILL BE SCREAMING WHEN THE SALTWATER IS COMING UP INTO THE PALACE SALOON. AND ALL I NEED IS ONE GOOD STORM. WE'VE GOT TO DO SOME ABOUT A STORM. SYSTEM PROTECTION. WE HAD TO DO THIS WE HAVE AN INVESTMENT NOW. A NEGATIVE INVESTMENT OF SOMEWHERE IN THE RANGE OF THREE TO $5 MILLION TO GET RID OF BRETT'S.

THINK THE CURRENT BUDGET WHICH HAS BEEN PRETTY MUCH FLAT FOR THE LAST TWO YEARS GIVE OR TAKE A LITTLE BIT FOR THE CITY RESIDENTS -- I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO FIND ENOUGH MONEY THERE TO HANDLE IT. I WENT DOWNTOWN TO BUY THERE WERE PEOPLE WAITING TO GET ON A CRUISE SHIP. THEY'RE GOING FOR A WEEK. THEY ARE PAYING FREE PARKING IN PARKING LOT SEE. I WOULD LOVE FOR THEM TO PAY A LITTLE BIT OF THAT MONEY BECAUSE I TELL YOU WHAT, ABOUT HALF THE TAGS WERE OUT OF STATE. NOW, I CAN PAY 100% OF THE TAX THAT'S GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO PAY THE BILLS FOR THE CITY, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE IT WITH SOMEBODY ELSE, PARTICULARLY WHEN THEY GET TO USE THE PARKING. THAT'S AN EXAMPLE. THE IDEA OF PARKING IS TO PROVIDE ANOTHER REVENUE STREAM FOR THE NEXT, LET'S SAY 25 YEARS. THAT WILL PREVENT OUR TAXES FROM HAVING TO GO UP. YES. IT IS A FORM OF A TAX. YOU CAN ARGUE THAT. BUT THE POINT IS, IT IS GOING TO BE PAID BY THE PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY GET THE BENEFIT FROM IT. THERE ARE A LOT OF HOMEOWNERS -- A LOT OF PRESENT OWNERS OF PROPERTY IN THE CITY THAT PROBABLY DON'T COME DOWNTOWN ONCE A MONTH. SO, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE BURDENED WITH IT. AND IF YOU THINK ABOUT, OKAY. I WON'T PAID MY THREE DOLLARS. I'LL GO ACROSS THE BRIDGE. YOU WILL SPEND FOUR DOLLARS IN GAS AND POLLUTE THE ENVIRONMENT THAT MUCH MORE. I DON'T THINK THAT IS A WIN-WIN. HIS SOLUTION, I'M SURE THERE ARE OTHER SOLUTIONS, AND I'LL TELL YOU ONE OF THEM IS -- JUST RAISE THE MILLAGE RATE. GIVE EVERYBODY $500 PER YEAR AND INCREASED TAXES.

THAT'S FINE. BUT I'M SAYING, I DON'T WANT TO PAY THE 500. I'LL PAY THE 250 BUT I'M NOT GOING TO PAY 500, OR I WOULD LIKE TO PAY ZERO SO THINK LONG AND HARD. THIS IS NOT A REVENUE STREAM FOR THE NEXT 24 MONTHS. IT IS FOR THE NUMBER OF YEARS, AND THE IDEA IS WE'VE GOT TO TAKE CARE OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE. DOWNTOWN.

THE SEAWALL. IF YOU ARE PROUD OF THE SEAWALL, THEN FINE. YOU DON'T NEED PAID PARKING BUT IF YOU THINK THE SEAWALL FOR THE DOWNTOWN RIVERFRONT LOOKS GREAT, WELL, I'M SORRY. I HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH YOU. I'M JUST TELLING YOU. THINK LONG AND HARD BEFORE YOU THROUGHOUT BASICALLY -- THROW OUT THE CONCEPT OF

PARKING AS A SOLUTION. >>

[00:55:01]

>>

YOUR WORD FOR IT. >> I'LL DO ANOTHER ONE. SO YOUR

GENTLE IS UP-TO-DATE. >> YOU DOUBLED UP WITH THE FIRST

ONE. DESPITE THAT HAPPENS. >> WELL, ANYWAY, THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME COME UP.

TAXES. PROPERTY TAXES, AND I DON'T WANT TO PAY ANYMORE. I DRIVE A 25-YEAR-OLD TRUCK BECAUSE I'M FRUGAL OR CHEAP WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT BUT WHEN IT COMES TO PAID PARKING COURTNEY PAYING MORE OF MY PROPERTY TAXES, I WOULD RATHER PAY MORE IN TAXES. PAID PARKING RUINS NEIGHBORHOODS. IT RUNS COMMUNITIES. THE VENDORS DID A GREAT JOB OF PRESENTING BUT IT COMES AT A COST. TO OUR LIFESTYLE. THERE ARE OTHER WAYS OF FUNDING THIS. WE CAN DO A BOND LIKE JEN 29 HAS TALKED ABOUT FOR YEARS AND TIED IT TO A QUARTER MILLION INCREASE OR HALF 1 MILLION INCREASE WITH A SPECIFIED LIST OF PROJECTS SO FUTURE CITY COMMISSIONERS CANNOT REDIRECT OUR MONEY. THOSE THINGS GET DONE. OUR SIDEWALKS HAVE NEEDED DOING FOR OVER 25 YEARS.

THAT KEEPS GETTING KICKED DOWN THE ROAD. THE INFRA STRUCTURE, THE WATER AND ELECTRIC UNDER THAT SIDEWALKS NEED REDOING.

THAT IS A KNOWN FACT. IF WE TIE IT TO MONEY WITH A VOTED ON REFERENDUM, AND IT CAN'T BE MESSED WITH. AS LONG AS THE LANGUAGE IS TIGHT. NOW, AS FAR AS THE PAID PARKING, PARKING LOTS BY THE LIBRARY AND OVERBUY THE CRAB TRAP -- THAT IS A LOT OF PARKING SPACES. A LOT. THAT'S THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION OF PARKING SPACES WE HAVE IN THIS DOWNTOWN DISTRICT OF PAID PARKING. WELL, THERE'S 11 BUSINESSES THAT DIRECTLY BENEFIT BY HAVING INCREASED TURNOVER IN THOSE PAVED PARKING BUT THERE. SOME OF THOSE BUSINESSES ARE RUN BY GENTLEMEN. THAT, TO ME, THE OPTICS DON'T LOOK GOOD. IT LOOKS LIKE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. CANDIDATE POINTER -- POYNTER SAID IF THE OPTICS LOOK BAD, HE WOULDN'T DO. HE WOULD BACK OUT. THAT WAS CANDIDATE POYNTER LUSTY. UNFORTUNATELY, CANDIDATE POYNTER ALSO HAD A CAMPAIGN MANAGER NAMED GENECE MINSHEW. HE GOT A DIFFERENT COMMISSIONER WHEN SHE DECIDED TO RUN FOR OFFICE. THE OPTICS LOOK REALLY BAD HERE. I'M NOT SAYING -- JEREMIAH GLISSON, I THINK HIGHLY OF HER. SHE IS VERY SMART. I'M JUST SAYING THE OPTICS DON'T LOOK GOOD. AND I AGREE WITH UNDOING A BOND. I WOULD PROMOTE THAT IF IT WAS TIED TO A SPECIFIED LIST THAT VOTERS APPROVED SO THAT NO FUTURE COMMISSIONERS CAN KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD AGAIN AND REDIRECT THOSE FUNDS WHICH HAS BEEN HAPPENING FOR GENERATIONS.

SO, THERE ARE WAYS TO DO IT. THE TDC CAN FUND ALL THE CONSTRUCTION WE NEED TO HAVE DONE AND BOTH OF THE PLAZA WE

HAVE THERE. >> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT.

>> MR. LORI, I HAVE YOUR SECOND REQUEST BUT USUALLY WE ONLY ALLOW ONE SPEAKER. IS THIS FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA REQUEST AND

[6. CONSENT AGENDA]

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. FOR THE BUDGET, I HAVE A VERY QUICK ITEM THAT I THINK IS A PROBLEM STRUCTURALLY IN OUR CITY. WHEN I HEAR TONIGHT THAT WE ARE GOING TO REDO A STREET, I ALSO HEAR TONIGHT THAT WE HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS FALLING APART, I WOULD AS THIS COMMISSION AND I WOULD ASK THE CITY STAFF TO GET BETTER IN PRIORITIZING PROJECT. WE SHOULDN'T MOVE TOWARDS REDOING SOMETHING THAT WE ARE GOING TO MAKE BRAND-NEW IF SOMETHING ELSE IS FEELING IN OUR CITY. IF THAT MAKES SENSE THERE WILL BE NO SENSE TO ME. I KNOW NONE OF US WOULD DO THAT IN OUR HOMES. IF OUR AIR CONDITIONER WAS FAILING DISH WE ARE NOT GOING TO WORK ON THE SETTING OF OUR HOUSE. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THE AIR CONDITIONER. IT'S A BETTER PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND BEING SELECTIVE WITH WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE INSTEAD OF WHAT WE WANT TO BE DONE, I THINK NEEDS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN OUR BUDGET. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. I HAVE A MISSION, AND DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> ANY FURTHER COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, MS. BESS, PLEASE START THE VOTE.

[01:00:07]

>> OH. THERE IT IS. THAT MOTION PASSES, 5-0, WHICH MOVES US

[7.1 SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT - BUDGET TRANSFERS - CENTER STREET RESTAURANT GROUP LTD, ET AL - RESOLUTION 2025-118 APPROVING A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH CENTER STREET RESTAURANT GROUP LTD, ET AL; APPROVING BUDGET TRANSFERS FROM IT AND THE CONTINGENCY FUND TO THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024/2025; AUTHORIZING EXECUTION; AUTHORIZING ADMINISTRATIVE CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER’S ERRORS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Approves a settlement agreement in the case styled Center Street Restaurant Group, Ltd, et al. v. City of Fernandina Beach, Case 2024-CA-414 and the necessary budget transfers.]

GROUP. >> THIS AGREEMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY BOTH SIDES AND PUTTING OUTSIDE COUNCIL AND MYSELF. AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY CUSHIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

DESPITE ANY COMMISSIONER CUSHIONS FOR MR. POOLE?

>> I WOULD MOVE -- >> I HAVE A CAUTION.

>> VICE MAYOR. >> COULD YOU STATE FOR THE RECORD THE AMOUNT OF THE SETTLEMENT?

>> IT IS $380,000. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, MR. POOLE. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? DO I HAVE A

MISSION? >> I WOULD MEET THE APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 225-118. BUCK SECOND.

>> I HAVE A MOTION AT A SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT.

>> CERTAINLY. >> YOU KNOW, BRAD -- IT IS EASY FOR US TO LOOK AT TODAY'S RULES AND EVERY THING AND WHAT WE HAVE DONE. THAT AGREEMENT WAS MADE 45 YEARS AGO. THAT BUILDING WAS BUILT BY THE GROUP WHEN THE CITY NEEDED PEOPLE TO COME DOWNTOWN.

-- GOT A BAD RAP ON A LOT OF STUFF. PLAY WITH THE CITY GOT.

GOT THIS DOWNTOWN GOING AGAIN BECAUSE OF BRETT S. 45 YEARS AGO, WE DIDN'T HAVE WHAT WE HAVE TODAY. WE DIDN'T HAVE ALL THE PEOPLE THAT WE HAVE TODAY. AND I PERSONALLY WANT TO THANK BRETT S AND THAT GROUP FOR WHAT THEY HAVE DONE, AND I'M SORRY THAT THE CITY DID WHAT THEY DID BECAUSE WE WERE CULPABLE ON SOME OF THIS STUFF, AND I JUST THINK OVER APB OF TIME, THEY GOT A BAD RAP, AND I JUST WANTED TO THANK THEM FOR DOING WHAT THEY DID TO

HELP SAVE THE CITY. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

>> COMMISSIONER TUTEN. >> I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THE SO PEOPLE KNOW HOW THIS WORKS BECAUSE I DIDN'T HOW THIS WORKS PRIOR TO BEING ON THE COMMISSION. A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR A LITIGATION THAT IS A RARE CASE WHEN THE FINALISTS ARE ALLOWED TO HAVE WHAT IS CALLED SHADE THAT IS NOT IN THE SESSION. A SHADE MEETING.

>> THERE WERE SEVEN OR EIGHT BE FOR THIS COMMISSION. DESPITE THE PREVIOUS COMMISSION HAD THEM BEFORE WE DID. WHILE WE ARE IN THAT MEETING, THERE IS A COURT-APPOINTED STENOGRAPHER TAKING NOT NOTES, BUT A COMPLETE TRANSCRIPTION OF EVERYTHING THAT IS SET. WE ALL HAVE TO BE CAREFUL NOT TO SPEAK AT ONE TIME. NOW THAT THE SETTLEMENT IS REACHED, THOSE ARE ALL PUBLIC RECORD NOW. SO, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO, YOU CAN GO BACK AND READ EXACTLY WHAT EVERY COMMISSIONER SAID AND WHAT TRANSPIRED IN REACHING THIS SETTLEMENT. $380,000 IN A SETTLEMENT IS A LOT OF MONEY. THAT'S IT.

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. >> DO I HAVE A MOTION?

>> MOVED TO APPROVE. >> I ALREADY DID.

>> SEEING NO FURTHER COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION, MS. BESS, PLEASE START THE VOTE.

[7.2 GRANT APPLICATION - FIREHOUSE SUBS PUBLIC SAFETY FOUNDATION - RESOLUTION 2025-119 AUTHORIZING A FIREHOUSE SUBS PUBLIC SAFETY FOUNDATION GRANT APPLICATION SUBMISSION FOR THE PURCHASE OF A MEDICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE VEHICLE IN FISCAL YEAR 2025/2026; AUTHORIZING ADMINISTRATIVE CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER’S ERRORS; AUTHORIZING EXECUTION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Approves grant application to the Firehouse Subs Public Safety Foundation to purchase a new Polaris Medical Emergency Response Vehicle ("MERV") equipped for medical and fire emergency response, to replace the Fire Department's 2008 MERV.]

>> THAT MOTION PASSES, 5-0, - WHICH MOVES US TO 7.2, EIGHT GRANT APPLICATION WITH FIREHOUSE SUBS PUBLIC SAFETY FOUNDATION.

TAKE US AWAY, MS. CAMPBELL. >> EXCUSE ME.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. WE ARE ASKING YOU TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION 2025-119, WHICH IS OUR APPLICATION IN THE AMOUNT OF $39,382 FOR THE PURCHASE OF A MEDICAL EMERGENCY VEHICLE, WE LIKE TO CALL THEM MERVS. THEY ARE USED BY FIRE AND OCEAN RESCUE IN TIGHT SPACES. THIS WOULD ALLOW US TO SUBMIT OUR APPLICATION AND YOUR APPROVAL GIVES US BONUS POINTS TO INCLUDE

[01:05:07]

>> THANK YOU, MS. CAMPBELL. ARE THERE ANY CUSHIONS FROM SCAM ON THIS ITEM? SEE NONE, DO I HAVE A MOTION?

>> MATURE APPROVE. >> I HAVE A MISSION AND A SECOND GRADE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING THEM, MS. BESS, PLEASE START THE VOTE. THAT MOTION PASSES, FIVE MINUTES THERE. WE

[7.3 STREETSCAPE REDEVELOPMENT - NORTH 2ND STREET - RESOLUTION 2025-120 APPROVING NORTH 2ND STREET STREETSCAPE REDEVELOPMENT; AUTHORIZING FLORIDA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMPANY, HUBBARD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, AND JAX UTILITIES MANAGEMENT, INC. TO FURNISH SERVICES; APPROVING BUDGET TRANSFERS; AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATIVE CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER’S ERRORS; AUTHORIZING EXECUTION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Approves the redevelopment of portions of North 2nd Street, and corresponding budget transfers, for a total Project #25073 amount not to exceed $350,000]

MOVED TO 7.3. TAKE US AWAY. >> THIS IS RESOLUTION 2025-120, WHICH WOULD APPROVE THESE IMPROVEMENTS AND AUTHORIZE US TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS WITH SEVERAL COMPANIES. THE AMOUNT WE ARE ASKING FOR IS AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED THE RANGE OF $50,000 AND WE WOULD BE WORKING WITH FLORIDA PUBLIC UTILITIES FOR THE ELECTRICAL THERE. WE WOULD BE WORKING WITH HUBBARD CONCESSION COMPANY FOR BATHING OF THE STREET, AND THE PARKING AREAS.

JAX UTILITIES MANAGEMENT FOR OTHER UNDERGROUND WORK AND MISCELLANEOUS SETUPS AND CURBING AND THAT TYPE OF THING. HAPPY TO HAVE STAFF ANSWER ANY DIFFICULT QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ABOUT THE PROJECT. WE REVIEW AND APPROVAL.

>> DO I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THIS GAMBLER STAFF?

>> JUST ONE QUESTION. WOULD YOU SAY THAT THAT STREET HAS FAILED?

>> YES, COMMISSIONER POYNTER.

>> IT IS NOT JUST THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, BUT THE STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURE UNDERNEATH THE SECOND. WE HAVE BEEN WAITING UNTIL THE STREET WAS COMPLETE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROJECT. YOU'LL SEE STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS UNDER NORTH SECOND PRINT THOSE ARE THE ORANGE LINES THERE. THE SYSTEMS ARE GOING IN PLACE. THIS IS WITHIN THE CRA, SO THIS WILL FOLLOW THE GUIDANCE WE HAVE WITH THE CRA PLAN. MAXIMIZE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS AND IMPROVE PARKING -- PAVE THIS ROAD. MY APOLOGIES FOR NOT BEING CLEAR EARLIER. ADDING LANDSCAPE BALANCE AND CLEANING THIS UP. AS A MISSION, UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. THIS WAS A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT WITH THE ADVISORY BOARD AND THE CRA ADVISORY BOARD AND MOST RECENTLY, WE GOT APPROVAL FROM THE HISTORIC DISTRICT. SO TO ANSWER YOUR AGGRESSION, YES. IT HAS BEEN ON OUR REPAVING LIST FOR YEARS. BATHING FROM HERE TO THE PORT. THE AREA THAT WE ARE GOING TO CONVERT THIS ONE MCCOY AND THE TEMPERAMENTS ARE HERE WITHIN THAT ONE BLOCK. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. GLISSON OR

STAFF OTHERWISE? >> I HAVE A QUESTION.

>> COMMISSIONER TUTEN. >> JEREMIAH, COULD YOU GO BACK TO THAT EXHIBIT EIGHT PICTURE ON THE BROOME STREET LOT? THE TWO TREES. I DO SEE THE SIDEWALK PINCHING THERE.

>> THOSE TWO OAK TREES WILL BE STAYING. YOU HAD TO TIGHTEN THE SET UP THERE TO KEEP THOSE TREES IN GOOD SHAPE, SO, THOSE TREES WOULD BE STAYING AND BY MOVING THE PARKING FURTHER ALONG, -- LETS SCROLL APPEAR FOR A BETTER VIEW. YOU CAN MAKE SURE THERE IS NO NET LOSS OF DELINEATED PARKING.

>> AT THE BOTTOM OF -- AT THE BOTTOM THE IS THIS THE TIME TO PUT IN MY PLUG AGAIN THAT WE DON'T PUT PARKING AT THE DEAD END -- THE DEAD WESTERN END OF --

>> ANY FOR THE CUSHIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING THEM, DO I HAVE A

MOTION? >> I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE

RESOLUTION 2025-120. >> I HAVE A MOTION. DO I HAVE A

SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> MOTION AND SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEE NONE,

MS. BESS, PLEASE START THE VOTE. >> IF SHE'S ME.

>> SORRY. >> TAKE IT AWAY.

>> WAIT. DON'T VOTE, ANYONE. >> OKAY. I DIDN'T.

>> OKAY. >> ARE IT. I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU

ARE UP THERE, TOO. >> YET. I DID WITHDRAW MY AFTER

IT WENT. >> SO, I LIKE THIS PROJECT. I LIKE THE LOOK OF IT. I THINK THAT ALL OF THAT IS REALLY GOOD.

ANY KIND OF IMPROVEMENT THAT WE CAN DO THAT HELPS WITH THE AESTHETICS AND HELPS WITH THE WAY THE PARKING WOULD BE WOULD BE MORE EFFICIENT. I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH THAT. THE PROBLEM

[01:10:02]

I THINK WE ARE DOING IT STRICTLY AS A, HEY, THIS IS GOING TO LOOK NICE RIGHT HERE, AND THEN WE ARE GOING TO RUN INTO A PROBLEM WITH TRAFFIC CONTROL, SPECIFICALLY WHEN WE HAVE A TRAFFIC STUDY COMING, THAT WE MAY ONE-WAY ALACHUA. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH FRONT STREET. ALL OF THOSE THINGS TO CONSIDER WITH TRAFFIC PATTERNS WHEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT LONG-TERM PLANNING, THIS IS PROBABLY A VERY POOR IDEA. AGAIN, I LIKE IT. I WOULD PREFER TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD ON IT TO SEE WHAT WE COULD DO, SO, THAT IS WHY I MADE NO ON IT.

>> THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR. >> ANY FURTHER COMMISSIONER

DISCUSSION? >>

>> MY APOLOGIES, VICE MAYOR. >> IT'S OKAY.

>> WE HAVE A MISSION AND A SECOND. THAT WAS OUR FINAL COMMISSIONER, AND WE HAVE OUR BOAT.

[7.5 (Quasi-Judicial) FINAL PLAT APPROVAL - KINGDOM MINISTRY LOT 8, BLOCK 233 - RESOLUTION 2025-121 APPROVING A FINAL PLAT TITLED “REPLAT LOT 8 BLOCK 233” FOR SEVEN (7) TOTAL HOME SITES LOCATED AT SOUTH 13TH STREET ON 0.79 ACRES OF LAND; AUTHORIZING ADMINISTRATIVE CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER’S ERRORS; AUTHORIZING EXECUTION; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Accepts and approves the final plat titled "Kingdom Ministry, Lot 8, Block 233" as a replat/final plat, for a subdivision consisting of seven (7) single-family lots]

MINISTRY. >> I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO MR. POOLE TO PRESENT THIS ITEM.

>> JUST AS A QUICK REMINDER, THIS IS GOVERNED BY QUASIJUDICIAL. THAT MEANS THE DECISION MUST BE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE BASED ON THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED THIS EVENING. THAT EVIDENCE CAN BE DOCUMENTARY. IT CAN BE RURAL EVIDENCE. IF ANYONE WISHES TO TESTIFY TONIGHT, YOU WILL NEED TO BE SWORN BY THE CLERK. AND, BEYOND THAT, IF ANYONE DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE DECISION, THEY WILL HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL THAT TO THE NASSAU COUNTY AFTER THE RESOLUTION IS SIGNED BY THE MAYOR. ANYONE HAVE CAUTIONS ABOUT THE QUASIJUDICIAL PROCEDURES IN EFFECT FOR THIS

ITEM? >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. POOLE?

>> OTHER THAN THAT, I WILL TURN IT OVER. I KNOW WE HAVE MR. GILLETT HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT SO IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BEYOND THAT ON THE PRESENTATION.

>> AND BEFORE WE HAVE MR. GILLETT COME, WE SHOULD OPEN THE

PUBLIC HEARING. >> YES. THAT'S CORRECT.

>> WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, PLEASE STAND AND BE RECOGNIZED.

>> AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ACTUAL STATEMENTS AND REPRESENTATIONS WHICH YOU ARE ABOUT TO PRESENT TO THIS COMMISSION DURING THIS PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE TRUTHFUL AND ACCURATE? THANK YOU.

>> WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. NOT CLOSE IT YET. HAS MISCANTHUS AND PROVIDE HER FEEDBACK. SPOKE VERY BRIEFLY, KELLY GIBSON. PLANNING CONSERVATION DIRECTOR. YOU ARE LOOKING TO REVIEW AND CONSIDER THE FINAL PLAT FOR THE DIVISION OF SEVEN SINGLE-FAMILY HOME SITES, OF WHICH, SIX WILL BE TOWNHOME SITES AND ONE WILL BE RETAINED AS A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. CURRENTLY, THE PROPERTY IS FOR APPROXIMATELY 86 BY 100 FOOT PLOTS THAT ARE BEING DIVIDED. STAFF HAS ANALYZED THIS FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPETENCE OF PLANT AS WELL AS THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS TO DETERMINE THE PROJECT EXCEEDS OR MEETS SERVICE STANDARDS. I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE THE CONDITION PROVIDED IN THE AGENDA ITEM THIS EVENING. IT WILL RELY ON THAT AS EVIDENCE OF THE STAFFS RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD ALSO ISSUED A RECOGNITION OF APPROVAL EARLIER THIS YEAR IN MAY.

>> THANK YOU, MISS GIBSON. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. GIBSON? SEE NONE, THANK YOU. AND MR. GILLETT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME

UP? >> NICK GILLETT, WE WILL JUST RELY ON THE APPLICATION AND STAFF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD. I'M HERE FOR

ANY CUSHIONS. >> ANY CAUTIONS FOR MR.

[01:15:02]

MOVE ON TO ITEM SEVEN POINT -- >> OH, IT DOES. I APOLOGIZE. I

HAVE A MISSION? >> I MOVED TO APPROVE.

>> MOTION ON THE FLOOR. AND A SECOND. ANY FURTHER COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION? COMMISSIONER MINSHEW.

>> DO YOU WANT ME TO PULL MY LITTLE THING?

>> GO RIGHT AHEAD. >> SO, I DON'T HAVE A COMMENT ABOUT THIS DISH I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THIS PARTICULAR FIGHT, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON -- I WAS AT THE MEETING TONIGHT THAT THIS CAME UP. AND THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TODAY WHO WERE AT THAT MEETING WHO WERE NEIGHBORS OF THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY.

WHO ASKED QUESTIONS THAT I WAS DISAPPOINTED IN THE RESPONSES THAT THEY RECEIVED AND HOW THEY WERE TREATED, AND FOR THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO APOLOGIZE, SIR, TO YOU. FOR THE LACK OF WHAT I CONSIDER CONCERN TO BE ABLE TO EASILY AND CLEARLY EXPLAIN TO RESIDENTS WHAT THESE PLATS MEAN AND WHAT THE DECISIONS WE ARE MAKING ARE. AND I WOULD JUST HOPE THAT IN THE FUTURE, WE WOULD DO BETTER WHEN SOMEONE WHO IS NOT KNOWLEDGEABLE OF OUR PROCESSES GETS UP AND ASKS A QUESTION, THAT WE TAKE THE TIME TO PROPERLY ANSWER THEM TO THEIR SATISFACTION. AND SO, I JUST THINK WE CAN DO BETTER IN THE FUTURE, AND THAT'S MY ONLY

COMMENT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

COMMISSIONER TUTEN. >> IS IT POSSIBLE AT THIS TIME TO ASK STAFF TO PUT UP WHAT WOULD BE THE FLOOD ZONE MAP? FOR

ANY OF THESE AREAS. >> WE CAN DO THAT.

>> WE ARE GETTING IT. >> THE STAFF REPORT MAYBE HAS A GOOD PICTURE.

I JUST WANTED TO SAY, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS PLAT, IF THERE EITHER. I WILL VOTE FOR IT IF IT MEETS THE STANDARDS OF OUR CODE. BUT I DID WANT TO MAKE CLEAR FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO DID NOT OPEN THE AGENDA COMPLETELY IS IT IS NEARLY A FULLY WOODED LOT. .78 ACRES OF NEARLY FULLY WOODED LOT. AND I BELIEVE LAST YEAR, TWO YEARS AGO, THE CITY BUDGETED $50,000 INTO LAND CONSERVATION THAT CAME FROM THE FEES. THEY HAVE TO PAY A FEE IN LIEU OF TAXES. THE NEXT TIME THERE'S THE PREVIOUS TIME THE CITY BUDGETED FOR LAND CONSERVATION WAS IN 2019. THAT COMMISSION PASSED A 0.5 MILLION AND RAISED THE PARSIMONY $1.5 MILLION FOR LAND CONSERVATION THAT WAS THEN SPENT OVER THE ENSUING YEARS. THE FACT IS, WE HAVE A FAIR NUMBER OF VACANT LOTS LEFT. A LOT OF TREES ON THEM. AND THEY'RE ALL GOING TO GET DEVELOPED IF WE CHOOSE NOT TO FUND LAND CONSERVATION BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY TO STOP SOMEONE FROM DEVELOPING SOMETHING IS TO BUY THE LAND OURSELVES AND PUT IT INTO CONSERVATION. I THINK IT IS SOMETHING TO CONSIDER AS WE ENTER THE BUDGET SEASON. THAT IS THE PROPERTY ON 13TH STREET. IT SPANS 13TH TO 14TH RIGHT BEHIND BARNABAS. CLOSE TO . THERE IS A BETTER PICTURE IF YOU SCROLL DOWN THAT ONE. THANK YOU. THAT'S IT. I JUST WANTED EVERYBODY TO THINK ABOUT WHERE OUR TAX MONEY GOES AND WHERE IT DOESN'T GO. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. I HAVE NO OTHER COMMISSIONER REQUEST TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM. DO I HAVE A MOTION?

>> I MADE A MOTION. >> I HAVE MY MOTION AND SECOND.

ANY FURTHER COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION? MS. BESS, PLEASE START THE VOTE.

[7.6 ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS - FINAL PLAT / REPLAT - RESOLUTION 2025- 122 APPROVING AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR FINAL PLATS AND REPLATS AS REQUIRED BY FLORIDA LAW; DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR SAME; AUTHORIZING ADMINISTRATIVE CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER’S ERRORS; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Approves an administrative approval process for final plats and replats as required by Florida Senate Bill 784 which became effective July 1, 2025]

[01:20:01]

>> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, YOU SHOULD HAVE IN THE PACKET -- WE DID AMEND THIS SLIGHTLY JUST IN FURTHER REFLECTION AND LOOKING OVER THE NEW STATUTORY LANGUAGE. I DID MAKE A FEW CHANGES TO IT AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY ADDED TO THE AGENDA. THIS COMES AS A RESULT OF A NEW LAW THAT CAME INTO EFFECT JULY 1ST SO EXACTLY 2 WEEKS AGO. AND IT REQUIRES THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF PLATS AND RE-PLATS AND REQUIRES THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO ADOPT A PROCESS FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL. FOR THE CITY, THAT IS GOING TO REQUIRE SOME PRETTY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. TO REFLECT THIS NEW PROCESS, AND SO, THIS IS A RESOLUTION THAT IS SORT OF A BAND-AID OR TEMPORARY APPROACH THAT WILL ALLOW FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL AND BEING COMPLIANT WITH THE NEW STATE STATUTE CHANGES I'LL STAFF HAS A CHANCE TO PREPARE THE APPROPRIATE CHANGES AND THIS RESOLUTION DIRECTS THEM TO THOSE, AS WELL. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT ANY OF

YOU MAY HAVE. >> THANK YOU, MR. POOLE. TO HAVE ANY COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR MR. POOLE?

>> IS THIS THE RULE THAT BASICALLY SAYS STAFF GETS TO

APPROVE IT ? >> IT SAYS, IT CANNOT GO -- YOU CAN'T REQUIRE IT TO GO BEFORE A BORDER ANYTHING IS. IT HAS TO BE DONE AT AN ADMINISTERED LEVEL AND THEN FOR FINAL APPROVALS, PLATS AND RE-PLATS, IT HAS TO BE DONE BY A HIGH-RANKING OFFICIAL WITHIN THE CITY SUCH AS THE STATE MANAGER, DEPUTY STATE MANAGER OR ONE OF THE DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS. AS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE CHANGES THAT WE ADDED TO THE RESOLUTION YESTERDAY.

>> COMMISSIONER MINSHEW. SO WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY OTHER HIGH-RANKING DEPARTMENT OR DIVISION DIRECTOR WITH OVERSIGHT FOR THE CITIES LAND DEVELOPMENT . WITH THAT IN DID THE PLANNING

DIRECTOR? >> IT WOULD.

>> AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS -- I TOOK THAT LANGUAGE FROM THE STATUTE THE LEGISLATOR PROVIDED TO US. I ALMOST COPIED AND PASTED IT IN THERE, LEAVING OUT THE PREFERENCES TO COUNTY

MANAGER OR COUNTY STAFF. >> BUT THIS DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE CITY MANAGER OR DEPUTY CITY MANAGER WITH CDS. THEY WOULD STILL GET APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR WITHOUT ANY

OTHER -- >> THAT IS ENTIRELY UP TO THE CITY MANAGER. SHE IS THE ONE THAT DESIGNATES EITHER HERSELF OR ANOTHER -- THE DEPUTY CITY MANAGER OR ANOTHER DIRECTOR.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> AND THEN THERE IS GOING TO BE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF CHANGES TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. I HAVE NOT READ THE STATUTE. I WILL ADMIT THAT. SO, ARE THERE PROVISIONS FOR APPEALS OR CHALLENGES? I MEAN, DOES EVERY SINGLE PLAT NO LONGER REQUIRES THIS, OR ARE THERE EXCEPTIONS?

>> IN THE STATUTE, THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS. IT SAYS EVERY

APPLICATION. >> IS IT GOODING PUBLIC NOTICE? WILL THERE STILL BE PUBLIC NOTICE?

>> WHAT WE INCLUDED IN THE RESOLUTION IS A REQUIREMENT TO POST IT ON THE SITE, AND SO, WHAT I DID WAS I ENDED UP FOLLOWING SOMETHING SIMILAR TO WHERE YOU HAVE CONTEXT-SENSITIVE SETBACKS. ADJUSTMENTS. AND THAT IS THE LANGUAGE IN OUR DEVELOPMENT THAT SAYS THAT IS A CITY MANAGER DESIGNATES THE DECISIONS AND THE CITY MANAGER INTENDS TO APPROVE THAT, AND IT GETS POSTED AT THE SITE, AND THERE IS A 10 DAY NOTICE OF REQUIREMENT FOR IT TO BE POSTED IN WHICH CASE, THAT WOULD BE ADVISED TO THE PUBLIC OF THE INTENTION FOR APPROVAL. BEYOND THAT, I BELIEVE YOUR QUESTION WAS, WHAT ABOUT ANY OTHER

APPEALS OR FURTHER REVIEW? >> SO, SO WE PUT THE NOTICE OUT.

SO IS THAT NOTICE GOING TO VENT -- SO WHAT WOULD -- IF SOMEONE HAD A QUESTION OR A CHALLENGE, THEY WOULD THEN GO TO THE CITY

MANAGER? >> RIGHT. OR TO THE PLANNING STAFF. IF THEY WANT MORE INFORMATION, I WOULD SAY THEY WOULD PROBABLY GO TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO GET A COPY OF THE APPLICATION TO GET PERMIT INFORMATION. BEYOND THAT, IT WOULD FALL UNDER AS FAR AS AN APPEAL, THE WAY OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS WRITTEN, THAT CAN BE AN APPEAL OF THE INAUDIBLE ] TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

>> OKAY. AND SO THE NEW STATUTE WOULD ALLOW THEM?

>> IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING ABOUT ADOPTION APPROVALS. IT

[01:25:01]

>> ALL RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

>> COMMISSIONER TUTEN. >> YES. I WILL NOT SUPPORT THIS RESOLUTION. I THINK THAT WE NEED TO VOTE TO MOVE THIS RESOLUTION BACK TO STAFF TO CHANGE SECTION 1. IF YOU READ THE SENATE BILL, THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING THE STATUTE, IT CLEARLY SAYS -- AND Y'ALL CAN OPEN IT IF YOU WANT. IT IS SENATE BILL 784. IF YOU OPEN IT AND GO DOWN TO SECTION B, THEN THERE ON THE FIRST PAGE, IT DEFINES WHAT IS ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY.

INAUDIBLE ] THE TERM ALSO INCLUDES ADMISSION OF OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE DESIGNATED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF A COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO A MINUTE -- COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR OR MANAGER, A CITY MANAGER, A DEPUTY COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR OR MANAGER, A DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, AN ASSISTANT COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR OR MANAGER, AN ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, OR OTHER HIGH- RANKING COUNTY THIS IS OUR CHOICE. WE COULD PUT THIS INTO AN AGENCY OR A GROUP JUST THE WAY WE KEEP -- CREATE THE TRC AND FIVE PEOPLE HAVE TO APPROVE IT. OR WE HAVE A BOA THAT HAS TO BE APPROVED. NO ONE PERSON SHOULD HAVE TO SHADOW CARE WHO THEY ARE. NO ONE PERSON SHOULD HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE A PLAT. AND I DEFINITELY DO NOT WANT TO GIVE IT TO OUR CITY MANAGER BECAUSE I ASSUME OUR CITY MANAGER WOULD GIVE IT TO OUR CLINIC DIRECTOR WHICH I DEFINITELY DO NOT WANT TO HAPPEN. SO, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS, AND I WILL ASK YOU ALL TO NOT ONLY NOT SUPPORT THIS, BUT TO PUSH THIS BACK TO STAFF AND ASK THEM TO REWORK THIS, FIND OUT FROM OTHER CITIES , WHAT ARE OUR OPTIONS? WE ARE NOT UNDER THE GUN. WE ARE PROBABLY ONE OF THE VERY FIRST CITIES -- THIS PAST JULY 1. WE ARE PROBABLY ONE OF THE FIRST CITIES. YOU DON'T NEED TO PASS THIS TONIGHT. I WANT TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE MAKE SOME KIND OF COMMITTEE OUT OF THIS AND WE GET THREE OR FIVE PEOPLE TO DO THIS.

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. I HAVE COMMISSIONER MINSHEW.

>> MY QUESTION IS BACK TO MR. POOLE. SO, CAN WE DO A COMMITTEE? BASED ON I MEAN -- I MEAN BASED ON THE READING OF THIS. I MEAN, I DON'T DISAGREE, NECESSARILY, WITH COMMISSIONER TUTEN, BUT I THINK IT IS A STRETCH, AND SO, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, BECAUSE I HAVE -- I UNDERSTAND THAT THE LEGISLATURE WANTS TO STREAMLINE PROCESSES. I GET IT.

AND IT DOES TAKE TOO LONG TO DO THESE THINGS. I AGREE WITH THAT.

I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT PUTTING IT IN THE HANDS OF ONE PERSON. IF THERE'S SOME WAY WE CAN WORK AROUND THAT.

>> THE STATUTE IS PRETTY CLEAR. IT IS AN ADMINISTERED OF APPROVAL. IF YOU WANT US TO, WE CAN GO BACK AND LOOK. WE CAN SEE WHAT OTHER CITIES ARE DOING. THE PROBLEM IS, WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM RIGHT NOW. WE ARE CONTINUING TO RECEIVE NEW APPLICATIONS TO BE PROCESSED, SO WE ARE NOT COMPLIANT WITH THE STATE STATUTE AND THAT IS THE RUSH TO GET THIS BEFORE YOU AS SOON AS WE COULD. SO THAT WE WOULD BE COMPLIED AND HAVE A PROCESS IN PLACE. WHAT DO WE DO IF THE APPLICATION COMES IN TOMORROW? AND I SAY, WELL, YOU HAVE THIS HERE, AND YOU HAVE TAKEN A SUPPLICATION FEE TO GO GET TO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD BUT CAN'T REQUIRE US TO DO THAT BY STATUTE. WE JUST DON'T HAVE A SYSTEM IN PLACE. AND SO, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE THIS BACK, AND TO LOOK AT IT, AND ALSO, WE WILL DISCUSS WITH MISPRINTS MORE LONG-TERM PLANS FOR HOW THIS IS GOING TO BE FLESHED OUT, AND HOW IT'S GOING TO BE ADOPTED AND ADDRESSED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. TO ME, IT IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE SOMETHING BECAUSE THE STATUTE REQUIRES US.

>> LET ME JUST -- OKAY. A THOUGHT POPPED INTO MY HEAD. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD SAY THAT WE WOULD DO THIS OR THAT THIS WOULD BE OUR POLICY FOR THE NEXT 120 DAYS? WHILE WE WORK OUT

A PROCESS? >> YOU DIDN'T SAY THAT.

[01:30:02]

>> YOU SAY THAT. YOU CAN ALSO ADOPT IT AS AMENDED BASED ON THE AMENDMENT. I WOULD WANT THERE TO BE A PROCESS FOR THE CITY GOING

FORWARD. >> I AGREE WITH THAT. AND I THINK IF WE DON'T PUT A TIME LIMIT -- IF IN FACT WE WANT TO DO WHAT COMMISSIONER TUTEN WANTS US TO DO, THAT IF WE DON'T PUT A TIMEFRAME ON IT, THAT IT WILL GET LOST IN THE SHUFFLE. AND IT

WILL NEVER COME BACK UP. >> THERE COULD BE SOME WISDOM TO THAT BECAUSE I THINK A LOT OF US WORK ON DEADLINES.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. >> WITHOUT A DEADLINE, IT IS NOT A PRIORITY. SO, IF WE WERE TO TIME BOX THIS, TO A CERTAIN TIME, THAT WOULD GIVE US THE ABILITY TO DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO TODAY, AND THEN IT WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE US TO CONTINUE TO LOOK AT AUCTIONS -- OPTIONS, TO COMMISSIONER TUTEN'S POINT .

JUST, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF THAT'S -- IF THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO YOU. NO? OKAY.

>> TO THAT POINT, IF YOU WOULD WANT TO, I WOULD SAY INAPPROPRIATE MOTION WOULD BE TO ADOPT IT AS PRESENTED WITH AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 4, WHICH STATES, THIS RESOLUTION SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY UPON PASSAGE AND SHALL REMAIN EFFECTIVE FOR THE NEXT 120 DAYS. UNLESS RENEWED OR EXTENDED BY

THE COMMISSION. >> AT LEAST IT WOULD THEN HAVE TO COME BACK TO US FOR ADDITIONAL

>> YES. >> I THINK THAT IS A REASONABLE APPROACH. I WAS -- SEE WHAT MY OTHER --

>> I THINK -- >>

>> YES. NINE, IF I MAY. >> EYMAN, THE LAW IS PRETTY CLEAR. I HAVE READ A LOT OF STATUTES. IT IS AS CLEAR AS DAY.

WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS, WE ARE GOING TO DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO COME UP WITH A COMMITTEE . WE ARE NOT GOING TO CHOOSE THE COMMITTEE? WHO IS CHOOSING THE COMMITTEE? IF WE CHOOSE IT, WE HAVE CHOSEN A GOVERNING BODY, AND WE JUST WANT TO SPIT IN THE FACE OF THIS LEGISLATION, AND THAT IS FINE.

WE ARE GOING TO GET SUED. THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS. WHEN YOU DON'T FOLLOW STATE STATUTES, YOU GET SUED, AND WE GET SUED A LOT. HE SETTLED A $380,000 SUIT, SO WE ARE GOING TO FORCE SOMEBODY TO SUE US OVER THIS POLICY. WE CAN'T PUT A GOVERNING BODY IN PLACE THROUGH THIS. I'M NOT SAYING I LIKE THIS. IT'S NOT MY FAVORITE LAW THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN. I AM REALLY NOT EXCITED ABOUT SEVEN DAYS. THAT, TO ME, I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW 70S WORKS.

I MEAN, IT IS A TIGHT SCHEDULE, BUT THE LAW IS THE LAW. IT SAYS IT IS ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO FORM A COMMITTEE -- OR IF WE FORM A GOVERNING BODY COMMITTEE, WE ARE THAN BREAKING THE STATUTE. I MEAN, TO ME, THIS IS CLEAR. THIS IS ONE OF THE EASIEST THINGS WE SHOULD DO TONIGHT. I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH IT. I'M NOT THE HAPPIEST ABOUT SENATE BILL 784. BUT WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE HERE. IT'S IS VERY CLEARLY WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO. AND ANYTHING THAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO TO SKIRT THIS LAW IS JUST INVITING THIS LAWSUIT. THAT IS ALL IT IS. AND THEY'RE GOING TO ENHANCE THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO WALK IN AND THEY'RE GOING TO SAY, HERE IS THE STATUTE, AND HERE IS WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN DOING, TRYING TO SKIRT THE STATUTE, AND THAT IS HOW YOU GET SUED. SO I'M KIND OF OUT ON THAT. I WOULD RATHER JUST GO FORWARD WITH WHAT THE STATUTE SAYS AND JUST BE DISPLEASED WITH THAT SEVEN DAYS, FOR SURE, BUT, I'M NOT HAPPY ABOUT THAT. BUT

IT IS STATE LAW. >> THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR.

COMMISSIONER POYNTER. >> YEAH. I'M IN AGREEMENT. IT IS STATE LAW. IF YOU TRY TO GET TOO CLEVER WITH IT, THERE COULD BE A PROBLEM. I DON'T KNOW IF WHAT YOU ARE SUGGESTNG -- THAT WE DO THIS AND SEE IF THERE IS ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE COULD DO, I'M OKAY WITH THAT. I THING WE NEED TO ADAPT TO THIS. AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, AND WE CAN PUT IN THERE, BECAUSE 120 DAYS IS A LONG TIME TO NOT HAVE A POLICY. WE HAVE TO HAVE A POLICY. AND I DON'T LIKE THIS 70S. I THINK IT IS ABSURD. I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF JUST ONE PERSON BEING ABLE TO DECIDE. WE DIDN'T WRITE THIS LAW. WE HAVE TO IMPLEMENT IT. SO, IF THE CITY ATTORNEY IS OKAY WITH ADDING -- WE CAN COME BACK AND REVIEW THIS AND 120

[01:35:12]

APPROVE THIS. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

COMMISSIONER TUTEN. >> MS. BESS, KENNY PUT UP SENATE BILL 784 FOR US?

>> IN MY OPINION, I AM READING THIS CORRECTLY -- THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF TERMS HERE. THERE IS THE TERM ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL. AND THEN THERE IS THE TERM ADMINISTERED OF AUTHORITY.

AND THEY ARE DIFFERENT HERE. AND IF YOU LOOK IN THE VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH, YOU WILL WAIT AND LOOK. THANK YOU. THE THIRD LINE DOWN. IT'S IS REQUIRING THE GOVERNING BODY. THAT IS US.

REQUIRING THE GOVERNING BODY OF SUCH COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY TO DESIGNATE AND DISH AN ADMINISTERED OF AUTHORITY. SO WE HAVE BEEN TASKED WITH DESIGNATING ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY, SO I THINK IT WOULD BE US. IT WOULD BE US TO DECIDE WHO IS GOING TO BE THIS DESIGNATED AUTHORITY. THE AUTHORITY. THIS ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY. AND WE HAVE TO DEFINE THE TERM ADMINISTERED OF AUTHORITY. IT HAS TO GO IN OUR CODE. AND MS. BESS, IF YOU GO DOWN ON THE FIRST PAGE TO BE -- B, THIS IS WHAT I SAID AT THE BEGINNING. THIS TERM THAT WE ARE GOING TO DEFINE IS ADMINISTERED OF AUTHORITY. IT MEANS, A WHOLE DEPARTMENT, AN ENTIRE DEPARTMENT -- OR A DIVISION, OR AN AGENCY.

AND IF YOU SCROLL DOWN MORE SO EVERYONE CAN READ, OR SOME OTHER PERSON. WE HAVE CHOSEN ONE OF THE MOST RESTRICTIVE OPTIONS. WE ARE ABOUT TO CHOOSE JUST A SINGLE PERSON AS OUR

ADMINISTERED OF AUTHORITY. >> IT IS THE DEPUTY CITY MANAGER. HE SPOKE AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT IS ONE PERSON.

>> I UNDERSTAND WHAT SHE IS SAYING.

>> YES. CORRECT. IT IS ONE PERSON BUT FIVE PEOPLE.

>> BUT THE AUTHORITY WHO APPROVES THIS CAN MEAN A DEFERMENT, A DIVISION, OR AN AGENCY. THE TERM ALSO INCLUDES AND BLAH BLAH BLAH. PICK AND CHOOSE HOW YOU WANT TO DO IT.

BUT IN PARENTHESES, ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY IS DIFFERENTLY DEFINED THAN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL. AND WE CAN CHOOSE THE AUTHORITY. AND I THINK WE ARE BEING REMISS IN CHOOSING ONE PERSON, AND I TOTALLY DISAGREE WE DO IT NOW FOR SHORT TERM. WE ALL KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING AROUND THE CORNER WITH THIS PROPERTY. WE HAVE LOST IN SUIT, AND THAT PROPERTY -- IT IS NOW PAST JULY 1. WE PASSED THIS, AND NOW, ONE PERSON CAN APPROVE THAT PLAT. WE ALL KNOW -- SOME OF US KNOW -- I KNOW -- 1.03 .05 IS BEING WRITTEN DIFFERENTLY BY DIFFERENT PEOPLE AND IF WE GIVE AUTHORITY TO ONE PERSON TO READ THIS, THEN, IT'S NOT A GOOD PLAN. I VOTE AGAINST THIS RESOLUTION AND I HIGHLY RECOMMEND WE ALL DO AND WE GET TOGETHER AND DECIDE. WE FIND OUT FROM OTHER DISABILITIES. WHAT ARE THEY DOING? HOW ARE THEY READING THIS? WE ARE A TINY LITTLE TOWN. WHAT IS TAMPA DOING? WHAT IS ARLINDA DOING? WHAT IS JACKSONVILLE DOING? FIND OUT HOW EVERYONE ELSE IS HANDLING THIS LAW. I DOUBT 50% OF THE CITIES ARE MOVING IT THIS FAST AND I COMPLETELY GET IT.

AND I'M VERY EMPATHETIC THAT WE ARE HOLDING UP PLATTS BY DOING THIS. SORRY. WE NEED A MINUTE. IT IS NOT MY FAULT WE NEED A MINUTE. THE STATE IS ENCUMBERING US WITH THIS DIFFICULT PROCESS.

>> THEY DON'T CARE AT ALL. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO TELL YOU.

[01:40:06]

>> I COMPLETELY BELIEVE THAT. ' LITTLE BIT.

>> I COMPLETELY BELIEVE IT. >> BASED -- THEY PASSED THIS LAW AND SET FOLLOW IT. IT'S NOT THAT DIFFICULT. I'M SORRY.

>> I'LL KEEP US IN ORDER HERE. I HAD COMMISSIONER MINSHEW AFTER COMMISSIONER TUTEN. AND THEN VICE MAYOR. EXPECTED THEY GIVE

US A DEADLINE? >> YES. JULY 1ST. THIS YEAR.

THAT WAS THE DEADLINE. IT GOES INTO EFFECT JULY 1ST, 2025. THAT

IS THE DEADLINE. >> SO, MR. POOLE, WOULD YOU SAY 100% OF CITIES IN THE STATE HAVE THIS IN PLACE BY JULY 1ST?

>> LAW IF WE DON'T HAVE THIS IN PLACE UNTIL AUGUST 5TH?

>> ARGUABLY, YES. >> ARE WE BREAKING THE LAW RIGHT NOW BECAUSE IT IS NOT IN PLACE?

>> YES. >> WE SHOULD PUT IN PLACE BY

JUNE 6TH? >> WE DIDN'T DO IT. THEY DID.

>> WHEN DID THE STATE PASSED THIS LAW? WHEN WAS IT SIGNED AND

PUT INTO LAW? >> I DO NOT KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. I'M NOT SURE WHEN IT MADE IT TO THE GOVERNOR'S DESK

SIGNED. >> I'M STILL NOT GOING TO VOTE

FOR IT. >> MR. STEPHENSON, IF I MAY, WE WILL HAVE TO TAKE COMES FROM THE PODIUM COPIES. I WOULD LIKE TO AVOID COME FROM THE PUBLIC. I HAVE COMMISSIONER MINSHEW

SPEAKING NEXT. >> SO, SO, THE TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE IS AN AUTHORITY IN THE CITY. IT IS NOT GOVERNMENTAL.

RIGHT? I MEAN, THEY ARE NOT -- THEY ARE NOT A GOVERNMENTAL BODY. THEY ARE A GROUP OF PEOPLE IN THE CITY STAFF THAT MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THINGS. WHY COULDN'T THIS GO TO THE TRC TO REVIEW AND RECOMMEND BEFORE IT WENT TO AN INDIVIDUAL? FOR

APPROVAL? >> PART OF THE PROBLEM IS AND HAS BEEN SEVEN BUSINESS DAYS, AND YOU HAVE TO GIVE PRETTY -- I MEAN, THERE IS A VERY DESCRIPTIVE LIST OF INFORMATION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IT IS A COMPLETE SUBMITTAL.

DEFICIENCIES. OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT. I DON'T KNOW THAT WITHIN SEVEN DAYS, THAT IS A TOUGH ASK.

>> I'M SAYING THAT, THERE ARE WAYS TO HAVE THIS LOOKED AT BY MORE PEOPLE THAN JUST SAYING IT HAS TO BE A GOVERNING BODY IS ALL I'M SAYING. I THINK THERE ARE SMART WAYS TO FIGURE THIS OUT. AND I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER TUTEN. WE NEED 10 MINUTES TO DO IT IN. NOT ONE MINUTE, SO.

>> TO THE MAYOR, THERE IS A PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REVIEW THAT TAKES PLACE AT THE TRC BEFORE SOMETHING CAN EVEN BE DEEMED, YOU KNOW, A COMPLETED APPLICATION. SO THAT STEP WILL TAKE PLACE REGARDLESS. OF WHAT YOU DECIDE TO DO TONIGHT. AND IF YOU WERE TO DESIGNATE ME AS THE AUTHORITY, I WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO TAP THAT TEAM QUICKLY. MORE QUICKLY THAN I COULD A BODY OF RESIDENTS TO GET A QUORUM AND ANSWER ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS I WOULD HAVE REMAINING.

>> THAT MAKES ME FEEL A LITTLE BETTER.

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. I HAVE VICE MAYOR AND THEN -- AND

THEN COMMISSIONER TUTEN. >> I MEAN, I JUST WOULD LIKE IDEAS OF WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. YOU DON'T WANT KELLY TO DO IT. LET'S JUST SAY THAT. YOU DON'T WANT KELLY TO BE IN CHARGE OF IT. OKAY. YOU WANT HER TEAM? DO YOU WANT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, DO YOU WANT THE BILLING DEPARTMENT? WHAT HAPPENS IF, YOU KNOW, THEY DISAGREE? DO THEY VOTE? I MEAN, THAT, I START TO QUESTION IT. I MEAN IF THE PLAINTIFF I'M AT AS A WHOLE IS THE ONE THAT YOU ARE TRYING TO LOOK TO DO THIS, THEN, WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY DISAGREE? ARE THEY GOING TO GO AGAINST KELLY? DO THEY BRING CITY MANAGER CAMPBELL INTO THE MIX? WHAT HAPPENS IF SHE SAYS, LISTEN, WE ARE JUST GOING TO APPROVE THIS.

ARE THEY GOING TO BUCK HER? I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT INDUSTRY MIGHT OF WHO IS IN CHARGE IN THIS PLACE, WHICH IS CITY MANAGER CAMPBELL, WHICH ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO OVERWRITE HER?

[01:45:06]

IT'S NOT MY FAVORITE LAW THAT I'VE EVER READ, BUT I DON'T HAVE A CHOICE. THIS IS THE LAW. IT'S THAT SIMPLE. IT IS SEVEN DAYS THE APPLICATION COMES IN. YOU HAVE SEVEN DAYS TO APPROVE, DISAPPROVE, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS, AND SEND IT BACK OUT. IT IS THAT SIMPLE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TEAM YOU'RE GOING TO GET TOGETHER. WHAT HAPPENS IF ONE OF THE TEAM MEMBERS IS MISSING? ARE YOU GOING TO GO OUTSIDE OF THE 70S? I MEAN, WHAT PROBLEMS ARE WE TRYING TO CAUSE? AND, THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS LIKE TO ME. WE JUST WANT TO CAUSE PROBLEMS WITH THIS INSTEAD OF JUST SAYING, YOU KNOW WHAT? SORRY. THE LEGISLATURE -- I DON'T LIKE THIS BILL, BUT YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF BILLS I DON'T LIKE, BUT THIS IS JUST ONE THAT, YOU JUST HAVE TO FOLLOW. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO CREATE. A PROBLEM WITH A BILL THAT HAS COME DOWN FROM THE LEGISLATURE AND SAYS, YOU ARE GOING TO DO THIS. I'VE NEVER EVEN SEEN JUST WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO THAT. SORRY. SORRY , SENATOR. WE DON'T REALLY CARE WHAT YOU HAD TO THINK WHEN YOU FILED THAT BILL AND HE PASSED IT AND GOT THE GOVERNOR TO SIGN IT. WE'RE JUST NOT GOING TO DO IT. I AM BAFFLED. BEYOND BAFFLED. I AM GOING TO VOTE TO APPROVE THIS TO GET THIS OFF OF OUR PLATE. THAT

IS WHERE I AM WITH IT. >> THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR.

COMMISSIONER TUTEN. >> MAILING QUESTION IS, WHY DOESN'T SHE USE THE SAME LINGUIST THAT IS IN THERE?

>> WHICH PART? >> WE DID.

>> WE DIDN'T. THE PART WHERE YOU CAN IDENTIFY ALL THESE VARIOUS -- INSTEAD OF JUST NAMING JUST THESE -- JUST PUT EVERYTHING IN THE BILL THAT IS THERE, AND ADD IT TO THIS INSTEAD OF WORDSMITHING IT DOWN TO A SMALLER THING, AND THEN WE'VE GOT EVERYTHING ACCOMPLISHED THAT WE WANT, AND THEN WE CAN DECIDE WHO THOSE PEOPLE ARE BECAUSE IT SAYS WE CAN DECIDE WHO THOSE PEOPLE ARE. AND WE JUST DO THAT. WHY DON'T WE JUST ACTUALLY COPY WHAT THEY SAID TO DO?

>> WE CAN DO THAT. >> LET'S DO THAT.

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER POYNTER. COMMISSIONER TUTEN.

>> TO TRENTON EVERS POINT COAT -- I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO ALL OF THE DISCUSSIONS. I JUST WOULD NOT LIKE TO PUT THIS IN THE HANDS OF ONE PERSON. GIVEN THAT WE NOW KNOW THE BILL WAS PASSED 10 DAYS BEFORE THE FIRST, I PRESUME THEY HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY IN ALLOWING MUNICIPALITIES TO SCRAMBLE AND

PUT TOGETHER THEIR LAW. >> THEY DON'T.

>> THEY DON'T. >> THEY DON'T. OKAY.

>> THE GOVERNOR SIGNED IT ON THE 20TH. IT DOESN'T GO INTO EFFECT UNTIL JULY THE FIRST. ALL HE DID WAS PUT HIS PEN ON IT. THERE IS NO GRACE. HERE. -- PERIOD HERE. WE ARE NOT HERE BARGAINING WITH THE STATE LEGISLATURE. WE'RE NOT. WE ARE NOT LIKE, HEY, FELLAS, WE WANT TO -- LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT BEFORE IT GOES IN. THAT IS NOT HOW THIS WORKS. THE STATE OF FLORIDA SAYS, THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING, AND YOU ARE GOING TO DO IT. I WISH IT WAS THAT WAY. THE TIME TO DO ALL OF THAT IS WHEN THEY ARE IN SESSION AND YOU SAY, HEY, LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS. THIS SEVEN DAYS IS RIDICULOUS. LET'S HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. YOU HAVE THAT CONVERSATION IN SENATE COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND HOUSE COMMITTEE MEETINGS ENETAI YOU DO THAT, BUT ONCE IT IS PASSED, THERE IS NO BARTERING WITH THE GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE. YOU DON'T DO THAT. THIS IS WHAT'S HAPPENING.

YOU ARE GOING TO DO THIS. IF WE NEED TO PUT THAT WHOLE COPY AND PASTE IN THERE, WHICH IS PRETTY MUCH JUST AN EXTENSION OF WHAT THIS IS, YOU KNOW. I'M FINE WITH THAT. JUST COPY AND PASTE THE ENTIRE, YOU KNOW, LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE IN THERE, AND THEN, WE WILL FIGURE IT OUT, BUT I MEAN, YOU'RE STILL TALKING -- THIS STILL COULD BE CHALLENGED. I MEAN, THIS COULD EASILY BE CHALLENGED BY THE CITY OR SOMEBODY WORK -- I MEAN, A GROUP OF CITIZENS OR NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION. THIS CAN BE

[01:50:02]

>> THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR. I HAVE NO FURTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS SO I WILL TAKE OUR PUBLIC IMAGE. I HAVE JEN 23.

>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SPEAK.

TYNA CHRISNER, 406 BEECH STREET. TONIGHT, I'M ASKING YOU TO SLOW DOWN. I DID A LOT OF RESEARCH ON THIS BILL TODAY AND WHAT OTHER CITIES AND COUNTIES ARE DOING AND THERE ARE SO MANY QUESTIONS AND SO MANY COUNTIES AND CITIES THAT ARE REALLY STRUGGLING WITH THIS ONE. WE ARE GOING TO BE ON THE BLEEDING EDGE IF WE PASS THIS RESOLUTION TONIGHT. AND LET'S FACE IT. EVEN IF WE DO 120 DAYS, THAT'S GOING TO BE 120 DAYS THAT WILL DESTROY THE CITY. THERE ARE LOTS OF RECORD IN THIS CITY. I BET YOU ANYTHING MANY OF THOSE ARE GOING TO GET APPROVED FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE NEXT 120 DAYS, AND I'M REALLY SORRY TO BE SO CYNICAL, BUT FROM MY EXPERIENCE, I DESERVE TO BE CYNICAL AT THIS POINT BECAUSE I HAVE SEEN IT IN ACTION. I'LL DISAGREE WITH ATTORNEY POOLE ON A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE ITEM IN THE BILL -- IT SAYS THAT HAS TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 177091 OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND SECTION 177091 REQUIRES COMPLIANCE WITH ALL LOCAL LAWS.

FOR THIS TO BE USED. FOR THIS INSTANCE, IT WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH 103.05 FOR THIS TO BE USED. BUT AS WE HAVE SEEN, MANY PEOPLE INTERPRET THINGS DIFFERENTLY, SO I FEEL TERRIBLE DISAGREEING WITH ATTORNEY POOLE, BUT I'VE DONE A LOT OF RESEARCH ON THIS ISSUE. SO I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE A GROUP OF PEOPLE IN THE CITY YOU DECIDE THAT SENATE WILL STILL HAVE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW. WE CAN HAVE THE HEAD OF PLANNING. 3 TO 5 PEOPLE AND MAKE IT A MAJORITY VOTE AND I KNOW WHEN I DO THINGS BY HIMSELF WITHOUT MY FRIENDS INPUT, THAT I'LL OFTEN MAKE MISTAKES BECAUSE I'LL GET SO FOCUSED AND IN THE HANDS OF ONE PERSON GOT THEY'RE GOING TO MISTAKES -- MAKE MISTAKES. ANY OF US WOULD.

IT'S BETTER TO HAVE FIVE PEOPLE. I URGE YOU NOT TO PASS THIS TONIGHT. NOT TO PASS IT WITH THE TIME LIMIT. WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE OTHERS. I MEAN, NOBODY HAS PASSED THIS YET. I THINK THERE MIGHT BE ONE OR TWO CITIES THAT HAVE PASSED THIS RESOLUTION, SO WE WILL DEFINITELY BE ON THE BLEEDING EDGE, AND IT WILL DESTROY OUR

CITY IN MY OPINION. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MS. CHRISNER. I HAVE THIS IS DEFINITELY ONE OF THE WORST STATE LAWS I'VE SEEN BUT MY QUESTION IS WHY DOES THIS HAVE TO BE TAKEN UP TODAY? THIS IS COMPLETE FRUIT BASKET TURNOVER FOR OUR COMMUNITY. FOR EVERYTHING WE HOLD DEAR IN OUR COMMUNITY ABOUT PUBLIC INPUT. I KNOW THAT IT IS A LAW, BUT I READ IT AND I SEE NOTHING THAT SAYS THAT THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPOINTMENT HAS TO BE COMPLETED IMMEDIATELY OR EVEN WITHIN 30 DAYS. I WILL THROW THIS OUT THERE. THE IDEA CAME TO ME A FEW MINUTES AGO. I DON'T KNOW.

EVERYBODY HATES THE WORD MORATORIUM IN THIS TOWN BUT WHY CAN'T WE HAVE A MORATORIUM ON THREE PLANTS UNTIL THIS IS FIGURED OUT? I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER TUTEN. THIS NEEDS TO BE A BIG DECISION IN OUR COMMUNITY ABOUT WHO IS THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE BOARD? I DON'T THINK CITIZENS WANT TO SEE ONE PERSON BE THE PERSON MAKING THIS DECISION. I AGREE THAT THERE ARE CITIES AND MUNICIPALITIES AND COUNTIES ALL OVER THE STATE THAT ARE FLUMMOXED BY THIS, AND HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TO DO. SO I DON'T KNOW WHY THE CITY CAN'T BE A LEADER. WHY CAN'T WE BE A LEADER IN THIS STATE, AND JUST LIKE LIVE LOCAL, THERE WAS PUSHBACK ON LIVE LOCAL. LIVE LOCAL WENT THROUGH A BUNCH OF ITERATIONS BEFORE EVERY YEAR, THERE SEEMS TO BE FOR SIX MONTHS OR WHATEVER, THERE SEEMS TO BE A NEW ITERATION, SO WHY CAN'T WE BE THE LEADER? IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA, SAYING, THIS THROWS EVERYTHING INTO COMPLETE CONFUSION FOR COMMUNITIES THAT WANT TO HAVE A ROBUST COMMUNITY INPUT. SO, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE THE LEADERS, JUST LIKE

[01:55:03]

MY CAN'T WE CHALLENGE IT? >> YEAH. WHY CAN'T WE CHALLENGE IT? WHY CAN'T WE BE THE ONES? WHY DO WE HAVE TO BE THE FIRST ONE OR ONE OF THE FIRST ONES TO DECIDE TO ADOPT THIS? I MEAN, IT IS VERY CONVENIENT THAT 1.03.05 MIGHT BE THROWN IN THE TOILET, BUT I DON'T THINK ANYONE IN THE COMMUNITY WANTS THAT TO HAPPEN.

LET'S LET US BE THE LEADER. FIGURE IT OUT IF IT IS THE CITY MANAGER. FIGURE OUT IF IT IS THE INCOMING CITY ATTORNEY. LET'S GET BUDDY JACOBS. HE IS OUR LOBBYIST. LET'S START IT NOW.

LET'S BE THE VOICE. LET'S BE THE LEADER. LET'S BE THE LIGHT THAT SHINES IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, MS. HERRERA. NEXT UP IS MRS. STEVENSON.

>> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, LAW, IS THAT GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL OF OFFICE FROM THE GOVERNOR?

>> POTENTIALLY. I MEAN, HE EACH TOOK AN OATH UPON ASSUMING OFFICE IF YOU'RE IGNORING THE STATE LAW OR CONSTITUTION OR ORDINANCES PRETTY COULD BE GROUNDS FOR

>> THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR. I HAVE MR. STEVENSON WHO WOULD LIKE TO

SPEAK. >> BEACH. WE HAVE A THING CALLED A LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. SECTION 1.0 4.1000. THE CHIEF THE CITY MANAGER IS THE CHIEF ADMISSION OF OFFICIAL OF THE CITY. YOU ALREADY HAVE ONE. THAT IS WHAT THE LOSSES. THE CITY MANAGER MAY DELEGATE SUCH RESPONSIBILITIES TO CITY STAFF.

FOOT TO STAND ON NOT TO GO AHEAD AND IMPLEMENT. YOU ALREADY HAVE AN ADMINISTRATOR WHO IS SO NAMED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

YOU START OFF THAT WAY. YOU CAN ALWAYS MODIFY IT LATER BUT WE ALREADY HAVE A PROJECT SITTING THERE WAITING. IT IS IN THAT SEVEN WORKDAYS. SO I DON'T SEE WHY YOU DON'T GET STARTED WITH IT. LET'S STOP KICKING THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD AND GET AHEAD OF IT. YOU'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE MORE PLANTS COMING. YOU GOT GUIDANCE IN THE DEVELOPMENT CODE. IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS, NOBODY CAN FIND FAULT WITH

IT. ANY QUESTIONS? >> THANK YOU, MR. STEVENS. I HAVE NO OTHER REQUESTS TO SPEAK. AND I DO NOT BELIEVE I HAVE A MOTION YET. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

>> CAN I SAY ONE MORE THING? >> CERTAINLY.

>> DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO ADD BACK THE LANGUAGE? OF THE BILL

INSTEAD OF WHAT WE DID HERE. >> I MEAN, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO, YOU CAN. ARE YOU LOOKING TO INCLUDE THE BROADER ADMISSION OF

AUTHORITY DEFINITION? >> I THINK IT GIVES US MORE ROOM, AND IT IS PART OF THE LAW. WHY WOULD WE NOT GO AHEAD AND ADD IT TO GIVE US AS MUCH FLEXIBILITY AS WE COULD? THAT'S

ALL. >> TONY.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THAT AMENDMENT OF ADDING BACK IN THE FULL VERBIAGE OF THAT SECTION.

>> I HAVE A MOTION. >> MAY I JUST ASK FOR CLARIFICATION? I KNOW I'M GOING TO BE ASKED BY THIS LETTER. WHEN YOU SAY THE FULL LANGUAGE, YOU DON'T MEAN THE ENTIRE STATUTE,

DO YOU? SUBSECTION B. IB. >> YEAH.

>> OKAY. YEAH. THE TWO THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT -- JOYCE MENTIONED.

>> 1B HAS THE DEFINITION OF ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY AND THEN ALSO THE FINAL ADMINISTRATIVE INAUDIBLE - OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS ]

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER TUTEN.

>> I MADE A MOTION. EXPECT WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> I WILL TAKE A SECOND. >> I SECOND THAT MOTION. FOR CLARIFICATION, IT IS A MOTION TO ADD, AS THE AMENDED RESOLUTION HERE. IN THE SECTION UNDERLINED AS NEW, YOU WANT TO ADD ALL OF

SUBSECTION B. >> YES.

>> I SECOND THAT MOTION. >> I HAVE A MOTION IN THE SECOND. WE WILL GO TO COMMISSIONER TUTEN.

>> WHAT HAPPENS TOMORROW? WE HAVEN'T DEFINED THE TERM ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY. WE HAVE JUST REITERATED IT.

>> IT IS DEFINED IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

>> OKAY. >> VICE MAYOR.

[02:00:03]

>> THAT WAS IT. SHE IS THE AUTHORITY.

>> ANY FURTHER COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, MS. BESS, PLEASE START THE VOTE.

>> MAYOR, THAT PAST, 3-2. NAY, COMMISSIONER MINSHEW, AND NAY,

[8.1 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) TEXT AMENDMENT - LANDSCAPING, BUFFERS, AND TREE PROTECTION - ORDINANCE 2025-04 AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 1.07.00 ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS, SECTION 4.05.00 LANDSCAPING, BUFFERS, AND TREE PROTECTION, SECTIONS 4.05.01 GENERALLY, 4.05.02 APPLICABILITY, 4.05.03 LANDSCAPE MATERIALS STANDARDS, 4.05.04 REQUIREMENTS FOR LANDSCAPE PLANS AND RENUMBERING SECTIONS WHICH FOLLOW AND INCORPORATING PLAIN OR CLARIFYING LANGUAGE IN SECTIONS 4.05.04 REQUIREMENTS FOR LANDSCAPE PLANS, AND 4.05.05 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT; AND MODIFYING SECTION 4.05.07 PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS; AND SECTION 4.05.13 HARDSHIP RELIEF IN APPLICABILITY TO ONLY LANDSCAPE STANDARDS; AUTHORIZING ADMINISTRATIVE CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER’S ERRORS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Amends the Land Development Code to modify Chapter 1 definitions and landscaping sections and subsections contained in Chapter 4, consistent with the Planning Advisory Board direction]

COMMISSIONER TUTEN. >> NEXT, WE HAVE ITEM SEVEN FOR LANDSCAPE OF HER SENTRY PROTECTION.

>> TO GET AWAY. >> WE HAVE FIVE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. I WILL READ THE TITLE OF EACH. ITEM 8.1. SECTION 10700, ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS. SECTION 40500 LANDSCAPING BUFFERS AND TREE PRODUCTION. SECTIONS 4.05.01 GENERALLY, 4.05.02 APPLICABILITY, 4.05.03 LANDSCAPE MATERIALS STANDARDS, RENUMBERING SECTIONS WHICH FOLLOW, AND INCORPORATING PLAIN LANGUAGE IN SECTION 4.05.04 REQUIREMENTS FOR LANDSCAPE PLANS, AND 4.05.05 MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT; AND MODIFYING SECTION 4.05.07 PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING; AND MODIFYING SECTION 4.05.13 HARDSHIP RELIEF IN APPLICABILITY TO ONLY LANDSCAPE STANDARDS. PROVIDING

FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >> THANK YOU, MR. POOL. THE

QUESTIONS ON 8.1? >> A COMMENT.

>> COMMISSIONER TUTEN. >> I JUST WANT TO THANK THE P.A.B. FOR ADDING SO MUCH NATIVE PLANT LANGUAGE TO THIS ORDINANCE. IT DOESN'T GO QUITE AS FAR AS I WOULD LIKE IT TO.

BOTH PLACES, IT STILL SAYS NATIVE, FLORIDA FRIENDLY. IT SAYS 60% NATIVE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE 100%. IT IS A HUGE IMPROVEMENT. THAT MAKES ME HAPPY AND I THINK WE CAN CONTINUE TO

IMPROVE IT. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. I SEE NO OTHER COMMISSIONER REQUESTS TO SPEAK. DO I HAVE A

MOTION? >> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ORDINATES 2025-04 AMENDING THE PLAN DEVELOPED CODE SECTION 107.

>> I HAVE A MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> MOTION AND SECOND.

] >> SEEING NONE, MS. BESS, PLEASE START THE VOTE.

[8.2 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (LDC) TEXT AMENDMENT - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY STANDARDS - ORDINANCE 2025-05 AMENDING LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 4.03.01 STANDARDS FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) OVERLAY BY REVISING PURPOSE, CHARACTERISTICS, DESIGN REQUIREMENTS, AND SITE STANDARDS; AUTHORIZING ADMINISTRATIVE CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER’S ERRORS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Amends the Land Development Code criteria and standards for Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), consistent with the Planning Advisory Board direction.]

PLAN DEVELOPED CODE DEVELOPMENT. >> STANDARDS FOR PUD OVERLAY .

DESIGNER GARMENTS, INSIGHTS, STANDARDS, ARISING SCRIVENERS ERRORS AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

>> THANK YOU, MR. POE. NEGLIGENCE ON ITEM 8.2 FROM THE COMMISSION? SEEING NONE, DO I HAVE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER

MINSHEW. >> THANK YOU.

>> SO, THIS HAS COME BEFORE, AND I KNOW IT GOT SENT BACK AND THERE WAS A LOT OF REWORK ON IT. BUT I HAVE TO TELL YOU. I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. I STILL DON'T SEE THE VALUE OF IT.

SOMEONE NEEDS TO EXPLAIN THIS TO ME LIKE I'M A FIFTH GRADER.

BECAUSE I DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW YOU COULD DO A PUD ON THREE QUARTERS OF AN ACRE. IT JUST DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME.

AT ALL. SO I'M VOTING AGAINST THIS. I'M JUST GOING TO TELL EVERYBODY RIGHT NOW. WE MAY NOT HAVE THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY IN THE CITY TO DO PUDS AS ARE DEFINED, BUT I WOULD TELL YOU THAT I BELIEVE STRONGLY THAT ALL OF THE PUDS WE MAY SEE IN THE

[02:05:07]

>> MY ONLY COMMENT IN RESPONSE TO THAT IS WHERE IT WOULD BE NEEDED AND WHERE IT WOULD BE HELPFUL. WE HAD A FINAL PLAT BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING THAT WOULD HAVE QUALIFIED FOR A PUD AND THAT WOULD'VE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAYBE SAVE SOME MORE TREES, TO ALTER SITE PLANS IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT BENEFIT.

FRANKLY, WITH THE STATE LAW WE DISCUSSED ABOUT GOING TO ADMISSION DATE OF APPROVAL OF PLATS, A PUD WOULD BE GOING BEFORE YOU, AND I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING.

>> YOU CAN'T MAKE SOMEBODY APPLY FOR A PUD.

>> ABSOLUTELY NOT. >> SO, YES. YOU SAID, WELL, THIS COULD'VE BEEN THAT WAY, BUT NOT UNLESS THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD. AND WHY WOULD THEY? IF IT'S NOT TO THEIR

ADVANTAGE. >> MORE FLEXIBILITY, I THINK.

IT'S JUST -- >> ONLY IF IT'S TO THEIR ADVANTAGE. LET'S BE CLEAR. THEY'RE ONLY GOING TO GO IF IT'S TO THEIR ADVANTAGE. THEY THINK THEY CAN GET ADVANTAGE BY DOING IT THAT WAY. SO, YOU KNOW, I STAND BY THAT ARGUMENT. SORRY.

IT IS A GOOD TRY, BUT. >> I'M INDIFFERENT.

>> I KNOW YOU ARE. BUT THIS WAS DISCUSSED IN GREAT DETAIL.

>> I WAS TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE BENEFITS OF IT.

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER TUTEN.

>> YEAH. I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS, ALSO. I THE SIZE OF THE LOT, AND ALSO, 403-1 SUBSECTION C LOW VOLUME ] THEY COULD JUST CHOOSE TO MAKE REALLY EASY ONES, LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, NUMBER NINE SAYS INCREASES BUFFERS TO PROTECT NATIVE VEGETATION AGAINST EGAN'S CREEK GREENWAY.

WITH THAT QUALIFY IF THEY INCREASE THE BUFFER BY ONE INCH? IT'S AN INCREASE. I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS. I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WE WOULD ALLOW THIS ON SUCH A SMALL PARCEL.

>> MR. POOL, I THINK YOU WANTED TO COMMENT ON THAT.

>> THE PUD GIVES YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO NEGOTIATE SO YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO ACCEPT ANYTHING. IT HAS TO DEMONSTRATE A PUBLIC BENEFIT. THERE IS A GIVE-AND-TAKE WITH IT, WHETHER THAT IS THE INFRASTRUCTURE, PARKS, TREE PRESERVATION, DRAINAGE, BUFFERS, LANDSCAPING. IT IS NOT JUST A, WELL, WE ARE INCREASING THIS BUFFER FROM FIVE FEET TO 5.5 FEET. THAT IS NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO SERVE A PUBLIC PURPOSE TO JUSTIFY THE PUD. IT IS NOT A STAFF DECISION. IT WOULD ULTIMATELY BECOME INTO THE COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL. WITH THAT PUBLIC BENEFIT HAS TO BE DEMONSTRATED AND ULTIMATELY SHOWN WOULD BE TO YOU.

>> I JUST HAVE TO KEEP SHELL COVE ON MY MIND AND IT DOESN'T

MAKE ME HAPPY WITH DECISIONS. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. WE

HAVE VICE MAYOR. >> SO, THE BENEFIT IS THAT THEY SHOW ALL OF THEIR CARDS. YOU KNOW. OUR CITIES RESIDENTS HAVE BEGGED TO HAVE THEIR INPUT ON DEVELOPMENT. A PUD IS THEIR INPUT ON DEVELOPMENT. THEY -- WE HAVE PRETTY MUCH SAID -- A LOT OF OUR CITIZENS HAVE SAID, IF YOU WANT TO PUT SOMETHING IN OUR CITY, YOU WILL TELL US WHAT YOU ARE BUILDING. YOU'RE GOING TO

[02:10:03]

THEY DON'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THAT PATH. THEY CAN DO WHATEVER IT IS UNDER THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OR WHATEVER. ALL THIS IS IS ANOTHER TOOL TO GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO A PUD. MAYBE IT IS A BIG TREE AND THEY'RE LIKE, YOU KNOW WHAT? I COULD CUT THAT TREE DOWN. I COULD BECAUSE THAT LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE IS ALLOWING ME TO CUT THAT BIG TREE RIGHT NOW, OR WHAT IF I BRING A PUD HERE BECAUSE I NEED TO MOVE IT WITHIN THE BUFFER ZONE TO TRY TO MAKE IT SO I CAN SAVE THIS TREE. AND THEN THEY BRING ALL OF THAT TO US, AND THEN WE LOOK AT IT, AND WE GO, THAT MAKES SENSE.

BUT, WE CAN'T DO THAT IF WE GIVE THEM THE AVAILABILITY TO HAVE THE PUD. THE REASON THE PUD IS THERE IS FOR THE CITIZENS TO HAVE MORE INPUT ON THE DEVELOPMENT. THAT IS ALL IT DOES. I'LL AGREE WITH YOU. I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN THAT OFTEN. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN HARDLY AT ALL, BUT, IT GIVES IT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR SOMEBODY TO AT LEAST HAVE ANOTHER TOOL IN THE TOOLBOX TO COME TO US AND SAY, INSTEAD OF CUTTING THIS BIG TREE DOWN, I'M GOING TO COME TO YOU GUYS, AND CAN GIVE ME A LITTLE BIT OF LEEWAY HERE? THAT IS ALL IT DOES. THAT IS ALL THIS DOES. THIS ISN'T ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT. I WILL AGREE 99 TIMES OUT OF 100, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ROUTE. THEY WILL TAKE WHAT IS IN THE LDC, AND THEY WILL MOVE ON, BUT THE ONE TIME WE GET TO SAVE ONE BIG TREE, OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES, WHY NOT? I MEAN, THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF IT. GIVE CONTROL BACK TO THE CITIZENS AND GIVE THEM THE ABILITY TO LOOK THIS OVER AND IF WE DON'T LIKE IT, WE SAY NO. SORRY. WE DON'T LIKE THAT. THAT'S WHY I'M FOR

IT. >> THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR.

>> COMMISSIONER POYNTER. >> I DON'T KNOW IF I'M FOR THIS OR NOT. I WAS PART OF THAT SHELL COVE THING AND I THOUGHT WE GOT SUCKERED, HONESTLY.

WE THOUGHT WE COULD TAKE ON MORE TREES BUT IF YOU GIVE US SMALLER ONES, WE CAN BUILD THESE HOUSES IN BETWEEN THESE TREES. AND, I DON'T KNOW. THERE ARE FIVE TREES LEFT, AND IT IS SO SQUEEZED IN THAT YOU CAN'T EVEN PULL INTO YOUR DRIVEWAY AND NOT BLOCK THE SIDEWALK. THAT WAS THE ARGUMENT. THE ARGUMENT, BECAUSE I WAS SITTING ON THE COMMISSION. THE ARGUMENT WAS, WE COULD SAVE ONE TREE, AND THEY SAVED THE ONE TREE OVER HERE. AND PUT A WHOLE LOT MORE UNITS ON THE LAND THAT OTHERWISE THEY WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO. MY PROBLEM WITH THIS IS, MAN, THREE QUARTERS OF AN ACRE IS JUST -- I MEAN, I HAVE NEVER IN MY LIFE HEARD OF ANYBODY DOING A PUD ON THREE QUARTERS OF AN ACRE. THAT IS A COUPLE OF HOUSES. THREE HOUSES. UNLESS YOU HAVE A PUD. I UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT OR THE DISCUSSION THAT THE VICE MAYOR HAS COMING TO THE COMMITTEE WITH THAT. BUT IT JUST SEEMS THAT SHE JUST SEEMS AWFUL SMALL TO HAVE TO BE ABLE TO TAKE THREE QUARTERS OF AN ACRE AND TURN IT INTO IN ESSENCE A HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT IT WOULD BECOME IF WE APPROVED

IT. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

COMMISSIONER TUTEN. >> AND COMMISSIONER POYNTER, YOU MAKE ME THINK OF THE FACT THAT WE ARE NOT PLANNING EXPERTS UP HERE. WHEN WE LOOK AT THE PUD FOR APPROVAL, WE ALMOST CERTAINLY ARE BOUND TO MISS SOMETHING, LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, AT SHELL COVE, EVERYONE SHOULD GO OVER AND AT HICKORY STREET, ACROSS CETRONIA, THERE IS A PUBLIC EASEMENT TO WALK INTO THE GREEN LIGHT, BUT THE MAJORITY OF THOSE HOUSES AND SHELL COVE THAT GO BACK TO THOSE DOES THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, BECAUSE THE BACKYARD -- YOU KNOW WHERE I'M GOING. WHAT IS THE BACKYARD? THE BACKYARD IS A FIT. I MEAN, LITERALLY. THE PROPERTY LINE IS TWO FEET AWAY. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THOSE PROPERTIES RIGHT NOW TODAY IS ILLEGALLY ENCROACHING ON THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY WITH GARDENS AND TREES AND PATIOS AND ALL SORTS OF THINGS. YOU CAN'T EVEN TELL IT IS A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. HE LIVED NEAR IT FOR THREE YEARS AND DIDN'T REALIZE THAT WAS ONE OF MY ACCESS POINTS. AND THAT IS WHAT WE RISK. DEVELOPERS ARE SMARTER

[02:15:01]

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. I HAVE THE VICE MAYOR UP NEXT.

>> SO, IF THIS -- IF THE COMMISSION DOESN'T SEE THE BENEFIT OF IT, THEY VOTED NOW. SHELL COVE PROBABLY WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN APPROVED TODAY. THAT'S JUST A FACT. BUT WITH THIS COMMISSION, SHELL COVE IS GETTING APPROVED. YOU WOULDN'T HAVE SEEN ALL THE CARDS. YOU GOT TO SEE ALL THE CARDS, SO YOU KNOW. I MEAN, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT IT IS. I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER TUTEN WHOLEHEARTEDLY. WE ARE NOT NECESSARILY PLANNING EXPERTS, HOWEVER, WE HAVE ONE AND WE CAN'T TRUST HER WITH THE NEW STATE LAW WE HAVE. I MEAN, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT. I HONESTLY TRULY DON'T. I MEAN, NONE OF IT MAKES SENSE TO ME ON ANY OF THAT. THIS IS FOR THE PEOPLE. THIS IS TO ALLOW THEM TO HAVE INPUT -- WAY MORE INPUT AND THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE WITH THE LDC. THE LDC IS GOING TO DICTATE IT, AND THEY'RE GOING TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO IT. THIS LAYS ALL THEIR CARDS ON THE TABLE. I MEAN FOR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS NOW. AND EVERY THING. THAT IS WITH THE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR. THEY HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR MORE INPUT AND THAT IS HOW THIS HAPPENS. OTHERWISE, THEY'RE GOING TO BUY UP A PIECE OF PROPERTY AND THEY ARE GOING TO BUY THE LDC, AND WHETHER THEY GET MORE OR LESS UNITS, THAT IS GOING TO BE UP TO THE LDC AND THE DENSITY. WE CAN MAKE A DECISION ON THAT AND MOVE FORWARD WITH IT. BUT, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW. THIS, TO ME, IS A NO-BRAINER, BUT WHAT DO I KNOW?

>> THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR.

>> I'M SORRY. I WAS GOING TO CALL AGGRESSION. THIS BOOK I HAVE NO FURTHER COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR MR. POOLE. DO I

HAVE A MOTION? >> I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> I HAVE A MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SEEING NONE, THAT MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND. DO I HAVE ANOTHER MOTION?

>> I WOULD MOVE TO DENY ORDINANCE -- FOR PLANNED UNIT

DEVELOPMENTS. >> I HAVE A MOTION. DO I HAVE A

SECOND? >> WHY DO YOU HAVE TO DENY IT IF

IT'S NOT APPROVED? >> IT DIES FOR LACK OF EMOTION.

[8.3 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS - ACRONYMS, DEFINITIONS, WATERFRONT MIXED USE - ORDINANCE 2025-06 AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO ADD TERMS IN SECTION 1.07.00 ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS TO DEFINE HEALTH STUDIOS, PERSONAL TRAINER, RESIDE/OWNER OCCUPIED, ROOFTOP GARDEN; AMENDING SECTION 2.03.02 TABLE OF LAND USES TO LOCATE HEALTH STUDIOS; AMENDING SECTION 3.03.03 DEVELOPMENT WITHIN WETLANDS TO EXEMPT W-1 (WATERFRONT MIXED USE) PROPERTIES FROM WETLAND BUFFER REQUIREMENTS; AUTHORIZING ADMINISTRATIVE CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER’S ERRORS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Request to add terms to Land Development Code Section 1.07.00 Acronyms and Definitions and amend Section 3.03.03 to exempt W-1 from the wetland buffer requirements, consistent with the Planning Advisory Board direction.]

>> IT DIES FOR A LACK OF EMOTION.

>> OKAY. WE'RE DONE. >> THAT MOTION DIES FOR LACK OF A SECOND. WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM 8.3. LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT

AMENDMENTS. >> MENDING SECTION 2-030-2.

AMENDING SECTION 30303 DEVELOPING WANTS TO EXEMPT THE B-1 WATERFRONT MIXED-USE PROPERTIES FROM WETLAND BUFFER GRANTS. PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR

AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >> THANK YOU, MR. POOLE.

COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS ON ITEM 8.3? SEEING NONE, DO I HAVE

EMOTION? >> I MOVE TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 2025-06.

SECOND? >>'S AGAIN. DO I HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, MS. BESS, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

THAT MOTION PASSES, 50. COMMISSIONER TUTEN, YOU ARE

RECOGNIZED. >> THIS IS A POTENTIAL TYPO. THE VERY FIRST DEFINITION. BED AND BREAKFAST. I THOUGHT WE WERE REMOVING THE WORD SHALL AND ADDING THE WORD MUST. CAN WE

[02:20:03]

>> MR. POOLE, CAN YOU VERIFY? >> WE CAN.

>> IT IS NOT A BIG DEAL. THAT IS A SCRIVENER'S ERROR.

>> THAT WOULD BE A SCRIVENERS ERROR BUT IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. WE CAN CHANGE THAT AND BRING IT BACK.

[8.4 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS - PARKING STANDARDS AND PARKING LOT DESIGN - ORDINANCE 2025-07 AMENDING LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 7.01.04 PARKING STANDARDS AND PARKING LOT DESIGN TO AFFIRM PARKING MAXIMUM REQUIREMENTS, TO ENABLE A FEE IN LIEU FOR PARKING WITHIN THE 8TH STREET MIXED USE OVERLAY/(MU-8) ZONING, ADDING CLARIFYING LANGUAGE IN TABLE 7.01.04(A) PARKING SPACE REQUIREMENTS, INCORPORATING STANDARDS FOR BARBER SHOPS, BEAUTY SALONS, NAIL SALONS, SKINCARE, OR TATTOO PARLORS, AND MODIFYING THE STANDARDS FOR MEDICAL OFFICES AND CLINICS; AUTHORIZING ADMINISTRATIVE CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER’S ERRORS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Amends the Land Development Code to modify parking standards and requirements for specific uses, consistent with the Planning Advisory Board direction]

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER AND THANK YOU, MR. POE. WE MOVED TO ITEM 8.4. PARKING STANDARDS AND PARKING LOT DESIGN.

>> LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXANS, PARKING STANDARDS AND PARKING LOT DESIGN, ORDINANCE 20 2507. TO AFFIRM PARKING MAXIMUM RECORDS, TO ENABLE A FEE IN THE OF PARKING WITHIN THE 8TH STREET MIXED-USE OVERLAY. ADDING CLARIFYING LANGUAGE IN TABLE 70104 SUB A, BRING CENTERS FOR BARBER SHOPS, SKINCARE, OR TATTOO PARLORS, AND MODIFYING THE STANDARDS FOR MEDICAL OFFICES AND CLINICS AUTHORIZING INITIATIVE CORRECTION OF SCRIVENERS ERRORS IN PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

>> ARE THERE ANY CUSHIONS ON ITEM 8.24?

>> I HAVE A CONCERN. SHOULD I BRING IT NOW?

>> YEAH. >> I HAVE A CONCERN WITH -- AND MAYBE MS. BESS, IF YOU GET PUT UP EXHIBIT A. YEAH. IT IS EXHIBIT A.

I HAVE A CONCERN WITH NUMBER FOUR. THE FEE IN LIEU OF PAYMENT. FOR PARKING. SOME OR ALL REQUIRED PARKING MAY BE ACHIEVED THROUGH A FEE.

DEVELOPMENT. ZERO PARKING. WHICH I GET WOULD BE ALLOWED DOWN HERE IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT, AND I GET THERE ARE SUPERTIGHT PARCELS ON EIGHTH STREET. I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT WHO IS SETTING THAT FEE BECAUSE AS WE ALL LEARNED MORE ABOUT PARKING THAN WE THOUGHT WE EVERWOOD, -- EVER WOULD.

>> IT HAS ALREADY BEEN SAID. >> IT IS PART OF THE FEE ORDINANCE WE ADOPT EVERY YEAR. BUT DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS OFF

THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD? >> $2000 PER SPACE.

>> THAT IS SO LOW. >> THAT $2000 FOR A DEVELOPER TO BUILD WAY BIGGER. WHEN THEY ARE DESIGNING A STRUCTURE, THEY ARE STARTING WITH THEIR PARKING REQUIREMENTS FIRST. YOU KNOW.

THEY ARE STARTING WITH THEIR PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND THAT IS DICTATING HOW BIG OR SMALL THEIR STRUCTURE IS GOING TO BE. AND IF THEY CAN SWAP OUT FOR 2000 BUCKS.

>> THIS ISN'T LIMITED TO 8TH STREET.

>> YEAH. 8TH STREET MIXED-USE. THE ZONING DISTRICT. ALL RIGHT.

I'M -- I'M -- I'M HAPPY TO -- IN GENERAL -- I -- SOMETHING LIKE OVER WHERE MISS CAROLINES IS -- THERE IS WAY TOO MUCH PARKING. THAT IS A PROBLEM. I SUPPORT REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF PARKING IN SOME PLACES BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT BE INCREASED. I DON'T KNOW HOW OR WHEN WE DO THAT.

>>

>> HE IS SCHEDULED IN SEPTEMBER FOR THE ANNUAL UPDATE.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER

TUTEN. COMMISSIONER POYNTER. >> I WANT TO MAKE THE POINT THAT ON EIGHTH STREET, YOU ARE TRYING TO DO BUSINESSES THOUGH SHE WOULD HAVE TO TEAR DOWN ANOTHER BUILDING FOR THE PARKING THAT'S REQUIRED. I MEAN, I THINK THIS IS VERY APPROPRIATE ON EIGHTH STREET TO TRY TO GET MORE BUSINESSES -- SUPPORTING BUSINESSES AND THAT TYPE OF STUFF ON EIGHTH STREET. I WOULD NEVER APPROVE THIS FOR THE WHOLE CITY, BUT 8TH STREET, IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE, AND I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS.

>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. I HAVE NO OTHER COMMISSIONER REQUESTS TO SPEAK. DO I HAVE A MOTION?

[8.5 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT AMENDMENTS - BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL, AND PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD - ORDINANCE 2025-08 AMENDING LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 9.03.01(B) MEMBERSHIP, REMOVING ALTERNATES FROM THE HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL TO ESTABLISH A SEVEN (7) REGULAR VOTING MEMBER COUNCIL, AMENDING SECTION 9.02.00 AND SECTION 9.04.00 TO MERGE THE ROLES OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT; AUTHORIZING ADMINISTRATIVE CORRECTION OF SCRIVENER’S ERRORS: PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Synopsis: Amending the Historic District Council membership to seven (7) voting members and eliminating alternate members and combining the roles and duties of the Planning Advisory Board and Board of Adjustment into a single board to be named as the "Planning and Adjustment Board"]

>> I MEANT TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION AND SECOND. ANY FURTHER COMMISSIONER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE, MS. BESS, PLEASE START THE ROLE. THAT MOTION PASSES, FIVE MINUTES ZERO, WHICH BRINGS US TO ITEM 8.5. AMENDS FOR THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND HISTORIC DISTRICT COUNCIL AND PAB CHANGES. AMENDING SECTION 902-00 AND SECTION 904-002 MUCH

[02:25:04]

>> WITH THIS ORDINANCE, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE PAB'S RECOGNITION WAS SPLIT. THEY WERE RECOMMENDING THAT YOU ADOPT THE CHANGE AS IT RELATES TO REMOVING THE ALTERNATES FROM THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, BUT THEY VOTED TO RECOMMEND THAT YOU DENY MERGING THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD AND THE HISTORIC DISTRICT, SO. JUST PLEASE TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.

WHEN YOU MAKE A MOTION REGARDING SETTING.

>> CLARIFICATION. CULMINATION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE

PAB. >> CORRECT.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. POOLE?

>> COMMISSIONER MINSHEW. >> WE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT IN A PRE-MEETING. HOW WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THAT WE PROCEED? CAN WE DO THIS AS TWO VOTES? I THINK I SEE IT AS TWO VERY DIFFERENT ISSUES. AND THE HDC ISSUE I THINK IS PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. THE OTHER ISSUE PROBABLY NEEDS A LITTLE MORE CONVERSATION. SO IS IT POSSIBLE THAT WE COULD DO THIS?

>> WE CAN DO A PARTIAL VOTE AND IF YOU WANTED TO REMOVE THE ALTERNATES, THERE COULD BE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE IN REGARDS TO SECTION 9301B -- THE CHANGES TO THE HDC AND BY SEPARATE MOTION ADDRESS THE CHANGES REGARDING THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

>> SO IF IT IS THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD, I WOULD LIKE TO DO IT THAT WAY, BECAUSE --

>> I WAS GOING TO SAY THE SAME THING.

>> I HAVE COMMISSIONER TUTEN AND COMMISSIONER POYNTER NEXT TO

SPEAK. >> I'M VERY HAPPY WITH THAT. I WOULD HAPPILY VOTE TO GIVE THE HDC TO WHATEVER VOTING MEMBERS THEY ARE. THEY TACKLE SOME INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT SPECIFIC INFORMATION AND NEED ALTERNATES TO BE VOTING. I AM VERY AGAINST MERGING THE PAB WITH THE POA SO I'M HAPPY TO SPLIT UP AND PUT

SEPARATELY. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. VICE

MAYOR. >> I'M HAPPY TO SPLIT IT. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE HDC ASPECT OF THINGS. I'M IN FAVOR -- AS WE LOOK TO COMBINE BOARDS -- AS WE HAVE SEEN HAPPEN WITH THE COUNTY, COMBINING THEIR TWO BOARDS , YOU KNOW, AND IT HAS WORKED OUT REALLY WELL. I HAVEN'T TALKED TO A SINGLE COUNTY COMMISSIONER THAT HASN'T SAID THAT THIS HAS BEEN AWESOME.

SO, I -- I'M IN FAVOR OF THAT, HOWEVER. I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF MOVING THAT FORWARD RIGHT NOW. AND THE REASON IS, WHERE I AM.

-- RYAN. RYAN HAS FILED SUIT AGAINST US BECAUSE WE CANNOT PUT TOGETHER A BOA THAT ISN'T CONFLICTED WITH THE FIVE-MEMBER BOARD, AND SO, I DON'T WANT TO -- IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, GET IN THE MIDDLE OF TRYING TO PUT THESE TWO BOARDS TOGETHER, AND WHETHER IT LOOKS LIKE RYAN -- WE ARE TRYING TO DO FOR RYAN'S SAKE OR IF IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO DO IT FOR THE CITIZENS THAT I WANT BIOETHANOL'S SAKE, I DON'T WE NEED TO BE GETTING IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS. WE DON'T HAVE A BOA THAT WE CAN FORM TOGETHER. WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, BEING COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY CONFLICTED, SO, I WOULD JUST ASSUME, LEAVE THAT ONE ALONE, AND COME BACK TO IT AFTER RYAN IS SETTLED AND JUST MOVE FORWARD WITH THE HDC NOW.

>> THANK YOU, VICE MAYOR. >> SECOND.

>> COMMISSIONER POYNTER. >> IF THAT WAS A MOTION, I WILL

SECOND THAT. >> UNLESS THERE ARE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR MR. POOLE, I DO HAVE TWO SPEAKERS FROM THE AUDIENCE.

SO WE HAVE MISS VICTORIA FIRST. COME ON UP.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. COMMISSIONERS, VICTORIA ROBLES.

61 SEVEN SOUTH FLETCHER AVENUE. AS A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD, I BELIEVE HAVING TWO SEPARATE BOARDS, ONE FOR PLANNING AND ONE FOR VARIANCES AND APPEALS -- THAT SERVES THE CITIZENS OF OUR CITY -- WHILE THE ACTIONS OF BOTH BOARDS INVOLVE THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN AND THE PLAN DEVELOPED CODE, THE PAB AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAVE DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT FUNCTIONS CONCERNING THE DEVELOPMENT OF FERNANDINA BEACH. THE PAB EXAMINES THE BIG PICTURE, LOOKING FORWARD AND ENVISIONING HOW THE CITY SHOULD EVOLVE AS A WHOLE. THE POA EVALUATES AN INDIVIDUAL'S SPECIFIC SITUATION AND CAN PROVIDE RELIEF FROM CODE

[02:30:01]

UNDER LIKE THE PAB, THE PORT OF ADJUSTMENT MEETINGS AND ACTIONS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE PAPER. THEREFORE, THERE ARE NO SUFFOCATE -- PREPARED AND POSTED TO THE CITY'S WEBSITE, BUT THAT IS A RELATIVELY MINOR AMOUNT OF STAFF TIME AND COST. IN MY OPINION, AND IN THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY MEMBERS WHO ATTENDED OUR JUNE 11TH TWO DOZEN 25 MEETING, IT WOULD BE MINIMAL SAVINGS IN THE COST OF RECORDING BOARD MEETINGS. MINIMAL REDUCTION IN STAFF TIME BECAUSE OF THE DETAILED STAFF ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION THAT IS PART OF THIS QUASIJUDICIAL PROCESS,

WHICH STILL MUST BE DONE. >> IT DOESN'T WARRANT THE JOINING OF THESE BOARDS. IT POTENTIALLY DEPRIVES CITIZENS OF FERNANDINA BEACH OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO FULLY PURCHASE PAID IN OUR GOVERNMENT FUNCTIONS. I JOINED MY FELLOW DECK 19 MEMBERS ON DO NOT BY NOT SUPPORTING THE JOINING OF THESE

BOARDS. >> THANK YOU.

ALSO HAVE MISS JULIE PEREIRA.

>> FUTURE, TO PLEASE NOT MERGE THE PAB AND THE BOA. THEY HAVE TWO DISTINCT DIFFERENCES. THE PAB IS LEGISLATIVE. THEY WORK WITH CREATING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE COMP PLAN AND THE BIBLE GENTLES OF THE CITY AND HOW WE ARE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD AS A CITY. THE BOA IS JUDICIAL. THEIR HEARINGS OFTEN INVOLVE QUASIJUDICIAL HEARINGS AND THEY ARE THE ONLY ADVISORY BOARDS AS THE ONLY MEMBERS OF THE ADVISORY BOARD THAT COULD BE INDIVIDUALLY SUED BECAUSE OF THEIR DECISION. NOW, I DON'T KNOW WHY ANY PAB MEMBER IN THE FUTURE WOULD WANT TO TAKE ON THAT BURDEN. I THINK COMBINING THE MEETINGS WOULD -- COMBINING THE TWO BOARDS WOULD CREATE EXTREMELY LONG MEETINGS. I HAVE SAT THROUGH PAB MEETINGS THAT GO ON UNTIL 11 CLOCK AT NIGHT. IT WAS A LONG TIME AGO BUT THEY STILL HAPPEN. I THINK THE MONEY SAVINGS IS QUITE MINIMAL WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT STAFF PUTTING IN TIME TO CREATE AGENDAS AND WHATEVER. I THINK IT DOESN'T SERVE OUR COMMUNITY TO TRY TO SAVE MONEY ON EVERYTHING AND THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK WE NEED TO PRESERVE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. I HAVE NO OTHER REQUESTS TO SPEAK AND I BELIEVE WE DISCUSSED BUT I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A FORMAL MOTION AS AMENDED, REQUESTING -- DO I HAVE EIGHT MOTION?

>> MOVE TO SEPARATE THE HDC FROM THIS.

>> YOU CAN DO THAT OR YOU CAN JUST DO A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CHANGES AS THEY RELATE TO SECTION 309B.

>> SO MOVED. >> YOU CAN SECONDED.

>> FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> SEEN THEM, MS. BESS, PLEASE START THE VOTE.

THAT MOTION PASSES, 5-0, WHICH BRINGS US TO THE CITY ATTORNEY

PRO TEM REPORTS. >> WE HAVE NO SECOND HALF OF THE

ORDINANCE. >> MR. MAYOR, I WOULD RECOMMEND CALLING FOR A MOTION TO EITHER DENY THAT SECTION OR TO TABLE

IT. >> OKAY. AND I WILL CALL FOR A

MOTION AS DESCRIBED. >> I WOULD MOVE TO TABLE THIS PORTION OF THE -- OF THE -- OF THE -- O GOD -- I MUST BE TIRED.

I MOVED TO TABLE THE REMAINING PORTION OF ORDINANCE 25 INAUDIBLE - OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS ]

[02:35:05]

>> I HAVE A MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING THEM, MS. BESS, PLEASE START THE VOTE.

[9. CITY ATTORNEY PRO TEM REPORTS]

>> IT IS GETTING LATE AND YOU HAVE HEARD ME TALK QUITE A BIT THIS EVENING.

TOO MUCH TIME, BUT I DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS IS MY LAST REGULAR MEETING AS THE CITY ATTORNEY PRO TEM. IT HAS BEEN AN HONOR AND A PRIVILEGE. THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN HOME. MY WIFE AND I ARE RAISING OUR THREE SONS AS FIFTH-GENERATION RESIDENTS OF TRENTON. I MAY BE BIASED BUT I THINK THIS IS THE BEST PLACE TO LIVE AND RAISE A FAMILY. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS AND FOR ALLOWING ME TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY THAT I KNOW AND LOVE AND TO GIVE A LITTLE ASSIST WHILE YOU FOUND YOUR REPLACEMENT CITY ATTORNEY. FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART, THANK YOU TO EACH OF YOU.

[11. CITY MANAGER REPORTS]

>> THANK YOU, MR. POOLE. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE, AS WELL. WE MOVE ON TO MADAME CLERK.

>> NO COMMENTS. >> AUDIT.

>> MISS CAMPBELL. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. WHAT IS BEING PASSED TO YOU IS THE SECOND QUARTER UPDATE FOR THAT COUNCIL STRATEGIC GOALS FOR THIS YEAR. I THINK WHEN WE ADOPTED THESE, WE WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FIRST QUARTER, SO THIS IS THE FIRST FULL QUARTER THAT WE HAVE GIVEN YOU AN UPDATE ON. I WOULD JUST POINT OUT A COUPLE OF HIGHLIGHTS. UNDER THE FIRST CAPITAL GOAL, BRETT'S DEMOLITION AND REPLACEMENT, THE WORK ORDER HAS BEEN ISSUED. TO AND WE COMPLETED THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ON THE REPLACEMENT.

TOMORROW, NOW THAT WE HAVE SECURED THAT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, I WILL BE ISSUING CORRESPONDENCE TO THE TENANTS, NOTIFYING THEM FIRMLY OF THE TERMINATION OF THE LEASE AND HOW WE WOULD LIKE TO PROCEED WITH THAT. UNDER THE SECOND ITEM WHICH IS THE SEAWALL DESIGN, WE HAVE COMPLETED THE EXTENSION OF THE GRANT AND WE HAVE ALSO ISSUED THAT WORK ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL DESIGN WORK IN PERMITTING. UNDER DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION, THERE IS ADDITIONAL SIDE STREET DESIGN THAT I WILL BE PUTTING IN YOUR BUDGET THAT GOES INTO EFFECT ON OCTOBER 1ST. FUNDING SOURCES YOU CONSIDERED FROM TONIGHT THAT IS UNDER REVIEW AND UNDERGO MITIGATION AND OUTREACH. UNDER OPERATIONAL GOALS, I WILL BE RECOMMENDING SOME AREAS OF CONSOLIDATION ON THE OCTOBER ONE BUDGET. GOING THROUGH THAT BUDGET WORKSHOP PROCESS. AND THEN DOWN UNDER TRAINING, WE HAVE COMPLETED AND GATHERED ALL OF OUR CURRENT TRAINING DATA IN DRAFT FOR. HR IS PUTTING THAT TOGETHER. AND WE ARE BUDGETING FOR SUPPORTING ONGOING TRAINING IN THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR. THE SECOND OPERATIONAL POLL WAS UNDER EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS.

WE HAVE COMPLETED NEARLY ALL OF THE TASKS UNDER CAPITAL PROJECTS MANAGER WHEN -- JOINED OUR TEAM. THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE THAT THE PURCHASE ORDER WAS ISSUED ON MAY 16TH. THAT AND ADMINISTRATIVE SOFTWARE WILL BE INFINITE IT'S AN AND OBVIOUSLY, AUNT AND CONDITION OF PAID PARKING, SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE THROUGH THE FIRST SEVEN STEPS THERE, AND WE WILL SEE IN THE COMING WEEKS HOW YOU DECIDE TO PROCEED WITH THAT ITEM. THAT'S ALL I HAVE ON THAT ONE UNLESS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR ME.

>> THANK YOU, MISS CAMPBELL. DO WE HAVE ANY CUSHIONS?

>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT THIS MAKES MY LITTLE PROCESS HEART HAPPY. I GOT A COPY OF THIS EARLIER TODAY, AND I SAID, CITY MANAGER BACK A NOTE THAT SAID THANK YOU. THIS IS REALLY A BIG STEP UP AND IMPROVEMENT ON KEEPING US INFORMED MOVING

FORWARD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

DESPITE THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE HAVE MET PUBLICLY SINCE FOURTH OF JULY. WHAT A NIGHT THAT WAS. I WAS STANDING ON THE STEP OF BRETZ WITH MY FAMILY WHEN THE STAMPEDE HAPPENED DID I

[02:40:02]

THE ABSOLUTE TERROR THAT WENT THROUGH THE DRIVE AT NIGHT.

FORTUNATELY, OUR TEAM WAS THERE HOLMES WAS ON SITE. FIRE AND EMS WAS ON SITE, AND WITHIN MINUTES, THEY WERE SUMMONED AND RESPONDED. WE WERE ON SITE UNTIL MIDNIGHT, SECURING THE SCENE AND MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE WERE TAKEN CARE OF. OBVIOUSLY, THE MINOR INJURIES THAT WERE SUSTAINED WERE A BLESSING, IF YOU CAN CALL IT THAT, THAT IT WASN'T WORSE. AND THEN YOU HAVE SEEN THE IMMEDIATE ACTIONS THAT WE HAVE TAKEN AT THE SITE TO REMOVE THE COLLAPSED GANGWAY. THE PRICE WAS FAIRLY REASONABLE, SO THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN OFF SITE. THE CLAIMS EXAMINER HAS ARRIVED TO REVIEW THAT. I'M GOING TO INVITE -- UP TO SPEAK FURTHER ABOUT THAT. WE ALSO CAN FIND -- CONVENED EIGHT POST INCIDENT ACTION GROUP ON MONDAY. WITH ALL OF THE EMERGENCY GROUP DOSE RESPONSE TEAMS OF THE CITY, AND INCLUDED THE EVENT ORGANIZERS IN THAT DISCUSSION, AS WELL, TO TALK THROUGH WHAT HAPPENED , WHAT WORKED WELL, WHAT DIDN'T WORK WELL, HOW WE CAN IMPROVE OUR RESPONSE GOING FORWARD, AND POLICE AND FIRE AND ALL THE TEAMS HAVE TAKEN STEPS TO ADJUST THINGS IN OUR EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLANS, SO WE TAKE IT VERY SERIOUSLY. IT WAS A TEST OF THE SYSTEM AND WE HAVE SOME ADJUSTMENTS TO MAKE OVERALL.

INAUDIBLE ] >> THANK YOU, MISS CAMPBELL.

>> THANK YOU. SO, THERE IS AN ONGOING INVESTIGATION GOING ON, AND WE ARE WORKING ON LOOKING INTO ALL OF THE REASONS AND ALL OF THAT WHEN THAT RESULT IS THERE, WE WILL REPORT THAT OUT TO YOU. ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT AN INCIDENT LIKE THIS IS IT SHOWS THE CHARACTER OF A COMMUNITY, SO I WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT TO RECOGNIZE THE PEOPLE WHO CAME TO AID. FIRST IS -- AND CITY MANAGER CAMPBELL MENTIONED OUR POLICE AND FIRE. THEIR RESPONSE WAS IMMEDIATE, AND INCREDIBLY EFFECTIVE. AND WE EXPECT THAT OF THEM. THEY EXPECT THAT OF THEMSELVES. IT NEEDS TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT WHEN EVERYONE ELSE IS RUNNING WAY, THEY WERE RUNNING TOWARDS IT. WE ALSO HAD A LOT OF CONTRACTORS AND FOLKS SHOW UP. THEY SHOWED UP TO HELP. THEY SHOULD UP WITHOUT BEING PAID TO GIVE US ADVICE. I WANTED TO NAME THEM.

FIRST, MCGONAGLE ELECTRIC SHOWED UP. THEY HELPED US WHILE WE WERE WORKING ON THE KIND OF THING. THEY WERE A -- AN INCREDIBLE HELP. ALSO COASTAL CURRENT ELECTRIC WHO VOLUNTEERED TO BE THERE AND BACK UP. THEY WERE THERE HELPING US, CREATING A PLAN TO GET US OUT OF THERE AND SECURE THE UTILITIES UNDERNEATH.

SOME SPECIAL RECOGNITION GOES TO CHRIS B AND BOBBY CORBIN. THEY SHOWED UP IMMEDIATELY AND STARTED WORKING ON THIS AND ARE STILL WORKING ON IT TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS HERE. YES. THEY ARE CONTRACTORS AND THEY ARE GETTING PAID BUT THEY WERE WAY ABOVE. THEY WERE OUT THERE IN THE MORNING , IN THE WATER, TRYING TO MEASURE THING WAS STABLE. THAT IS A SPECIAL COMMITMENT TO THIS COMMUNITY. AND THEN THERE'S JOE LACEY FROM OASIS. HE'S ONE OF THEIR MARINE SERVICE ASSOCIATES. HE WAS DOING THE SAME THING. WORKING MANY HOURS OTHER IN THE WATER, SUPPORTING BOBBY AND CHRIS AS WE WORKED THROUGH IT, AND THEN YOU CANNOT -- YOU CANNOT HAVE THIS EVENT AND NOT MENTION KATHY CHAPMAN. SHE ARRIVED WITHIN MINUTES. AND WAS THERE THROUGHOUT. I WAS TEXTING HER. I KNOW A NUMBER OF US WERE AT ANY HOUR OF THE DAY. SHE MADE SURE THIS WAS HAPPENING, THAT WE WERE DOING THE RIGHT THING. SHE ASKED FOR ADVICE AND WAS VERY OPEN AND WAS TOTALLY COMMITTED TO MAKING SURE IT WAS SAFE AND THAT WE COULD FUNCTION AND HAVE ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ENJOYED THE DOCK BECAUSE WITHIN 24 HOURS, WE HAD THE ELECTRIC BACKUP. WE WANT TO RECOGNIZE ALL THOSE PEOPLE. SO WE ARE NOW IN RECOVERY. WE HAVE NOW FINISHED THE RECOVERY STAGE. WE ARE NOW LOOKING AT

[02:45:03]

CUSHIONS? >> ANY QUESTIONS?

>> GREAT JOB. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> WE WILL MOVE ON TO MAYOR AND COMMISSIONER COMMENTS.

>> I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FIRST FOR THE CITY MANAGER.

>> MS. BESS, CAN YOU PUT UP THE PRESENTATION I PUT TOGETHER ABOUT THE PROPERTY? IT'S ACTUALLY -- IT'S -- IT'S -- I CAN LET YOU KNOW ABOUT THE QUESTION --

>> COULD YOU STARTED AT EXHIBIT ONE?

>> YOU HAVE THE FLOOR, COMMISSIONER.

>> SORRY. I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO GO TO A BIGGER VIEW.

SORRY. COULD YOU MOVE IT TO THE NEXT ONE? JUST AS A REMINDER, TO THE COMMUNITY, JUST RIGHT HERE, BETWEEN THIRD AND FOURTH STREET, ADJACENT TO BEACH, IT IS THE PROPERTY THAT HAS COMMONLY BEEN CALLED TO 14. IT HAD SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ON IT. THE HOMES WERE SPREAD ACROSS MULTIPLE THOUGHTS. -- LOTS. WOW.

WE CAN'T SEE MY

OKAY. WHAT? >> IT'S THERE. THE SCREEN IS EATING IT. YOU CAN SEE THE LONG PARALLEL LINES. THIS ARE CONSIDERED THE UNDERLYING LOTS OF RECORD SET IN THE 1850S. MS. BESS, COULD YOU PUT UP 2A? AND IS THERE NO WAY WE COULD GET OUT OF THE CITY INTO A PROPER VIEW?

>> YOU HAVE THAT PRESENTER MODE CHECK. I'M SORRY.

>> THAT'S FINE. WE CAN LIVE. SO, AS A REMINDER, IN 2003, THE FORMER COMMISSION APPROVED A TOWNHOME DEVELOPED ON THE PROPERTY AND THREE RESIDENTS SUED THE CITY IN THE COURT, CHALLENGING THE DEVELOPMENT. THE LAWSUIT WAS BASED ON THE GROUNDS

[02:50:06]

>> YEAH. SURE. WE VIOLATED 1.03.05 BECAUSE THE CITY FAILED TO SEND IT TO THE BOARD OF DEVELOPED FOR APPROVAL. THE CITY HIRED OUTSIDE COUNCIL. ALLISON CARR TO REPRESENT THE CITY IN THE CASE. WE ARGUED ON BEHALF OF THE CITY. MS. BESS, CAN YOU TO THE NEXT ONE?

>>> REJECTED THE CITY'S ARGUMENTS. JUDGE ROBERSON ORDER REJECTED HOW THE CITY INTERNETTED OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND RULED THAT WE MUST APPLY THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF SECTION 1.03.05. THE JUDGE REMANDED THAT THE CASE GO BACK TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR APPROVAL. THE DEVELOPER THEN APPEALED THE CASE. YESTERDAY, THE APPEAL CAME THROUGH. THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL DENIED THE DEVELOPER'S APPEAL.

IN A FIRM, JUDGE ROBERSON'S ORDER. CAN YOU GO TO EXHIBIT NUMBER 3? THIS IS THE CODE AT ISSUE. 1.03.05. I'LL READ THE BLUE REAL QUICK. IT'S A BIG CODE. IT SAYS, WHEREVER THERE MAY EXIST A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL UNIT CONSTRUCTED ON PROPERTY CONTAINING ONE OR MORE PLOTTED LOTS. SUCH LOTS AFTER CONSTITUTE ONE BUILDING SITE AND MUST BE CONSIDERED THE LOT OF RECORD. IN @ RED NOW, AND NO PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT. IF YOU MAKE ANY CHANGE FROM THAT, YOU GO FOR APPROVAL TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. SO MS. CAMPBELL, MY FIRST QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU. IF JUDGE ROBERSON RULED THAT 1.03.05 APPLIES FOR 12 TOWNHOUSES WHEN THEY ARE BUILT AS DUPLEXES, HOW DID WE ISSUE PERMITS FOR A NEW PROJECT THAT IS ALSO 12 TOWNHOMES, BUT THIS TIME THEY ARE FLEXES. I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO THE PUBLIC THAT I FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS ON THURSDAY BY A RESIDENT AND I CALLED MS. CAMPBELL WHO FOUND OUT ABOUT IT BY ME, DURING THAT PHONE CALL. AND I CAME IN FOR A MEETING AND OUR DEPUTY CITY MANAGER FOUND OUT ABOUT IT BY LISTENING TO OUR MEETING, BECAUSE HE WASN'T OVERHEARING.

WE LEFT THE DOOR OPEN. SO JUST FOR THE RECORD, THAT'S HOW MS. CAMPBELL FOUND OUT THAT 16 PERMITS WERE ISSUED FOR A NEW DEVELOPMENT JUST AROUND THE CORNER ON THE TRINGOLLY PROPERTY TO BUILD FOUR TRIPLEXES. HOW CAN WE ISSUE PERMITS FOR A NEW PROJECT THAT IS ALSO FOR 12 TOWNHOMES, THIS TIME AS TRIPLEXES, IF WE NEED TO APPLY 1.03.05?

>> IT'S A VERY COMPLICATED ISSUE. WE'VE HAD NUMEROUS CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. POOL AND MS. GIBSON ABOUT. I'M STILL IN THE INFORMATIONGATERRING STAGE. FROM WHAT I GATHER, JUDGE ROBERSON'S RULING WAS BASED ON A REPLAT. IN THE THIRD APPLICATION THAT HAS BEEN FILED ON THIS PROPERTY, THERE WAS NO REPLOT BEING CONSIDERED. THE TRIPLEXES SIT ON THE EXISTING FOUR COMBINED BUILDING LOTS AND SO THEY DID NOT GO THROUGH THE REPLOT PROCESS AND THEY DID NOT GO THROUGH THE B.O.A. APPROVAL PROCESS BECAUSE THOSE PARCELS AS COMBINED BY THE PREVIOUS STRUCTURES CONSTITUTED THE FOUR BUILDING LOTS.

>> SO WE HAVE FOUR BUILDING LOTS THAT 1.03 SAYS NO PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL

[02:55:03]

>> YES, BECAUSE STAFF ALSO LOOKED AT 1.03.04, WHICH ON THE SURFACE CONFLICTS WITH 103.105, THAT ONE BUILDING COULD BE BUILT

ON THE SITE. >> COULD YOU PUT UP EXHIBIT 4A PLEASE? WHERE'S THE DEFINITION FOR A?

>> YES , MA'AM. >> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT.

HERE'S THE DEFINITION OF DWELLING UNIT. IT'S A SINGLE HOUSING UNIT. COULD YOU GIVE ME THE NEXT? THIS IS OUR CODE AND THE DEFINITION YOU SEE IN THE BLUE, A SINGLE FAMILY IS DEFINED AS ONE DWELLING UNIT. SINGULAR. IF YOU SEE BELOW, A TRIPLEX IS DEFINED AS THREE DWELLING UNITS, PLURAL. A DUPLEX IS TWO DWELLING UNITS, PLURAL. CAN YOU GO BACK TO 1.03.05? I'M SORRY. IT'S EXHIBIT 3. SO, HOW CAN YOU RECONCILE PUTTING A TRIPLEX ON A PARCEL WHEN 103.05 SAYS NO PERMIT WILL BE ISSUED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT?

>> BECAUSE STAFF DETERMINATION WAS 1.03.04 IS IN DIRECT

CONFLICT WITH 1.03.05. >> MS. BESS --

>> MR. MAYOR, I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHERE WE'RE AT TONIGHT. IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE HAVING A TRIAL. IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA. SO WHAT IS THE GOAL? I THINK WHAT I HAVE ARE THREE OPTIONS. BUT I'M NERVOUS LEGALLY WHERE WE'RE HEADED

RIGHT NOW. >> I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CITY IS DOING. I WOULD LIKE MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CITY IS DOING. AND I WOULD LIKE THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CITY IS DOING.

>> SO LET ME -- >> THE ONLY WAY FOR US TO FULLY UNDERSTAND IS TO GET A LOT OF QUESTIONS ANSWERED.

>> AND I THINK THERE'S A RIGHT WAY TO DO THAT. THE CONFLICT IS BETWEEN 1.03.04 AND 1.03.05. AND I ALSO BELIEVE 1.05 COMES INTO PLAY, NOW THAT I RESEARCHED IT. I HAVE A CALL TOMORROW WITH ALLISON, BUT I BELIEVE THERE ARE THREE PATHS IN FRONT OF ME. ONE IS TO UPHOLD THE DECISION BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, AND ASSUME THAT NEIGHBORS WILL TAKE ACTION.

TWO, IS I COULD RESCIND THE ACTION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND ASSUME THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WILL TAKE ACTION. THERE MAY BE A THIRD PATH, WHICH WOULD BE FOR THE CITY TO SEEK OUT A JUDGE'S RULING PREEMPTIVELY BEFORE THE OTHER PARTY DOES. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S AVAILABLE TO US, BUT THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO ASK CAR ALLISON TOMORROW, WHAT THEIR PERSPECTIVE ON A PATH LIKE THAT MIGHT BE. THOSE ARE THE THREE PATHS AS I SEE THEM. I WOULD LIKE TO BRING IT TO RESOLUTION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER BY THE END OF THE WEEK.

>> THANK YOU MS. CAMPBELL. AS MUCH AS I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THIS UP, I WANT TO RESPECT MS. CAMPBELL, WE DO MORE FACT FINDING MOVING FORWARD.

>> SO YOU DON'T WANT ME TO ASK ANYMORE QUESTIONS?

>> I WOULD LIKE YOU TO BE CONCISE SO WE DON'T SPEND ANOTHER HOUR OR TWO TALKING ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC.

>> OKAY, I DON'T NEED TO SPEND ANOTHER HOUR OR TWO. I COULD SPEND FIVE MINUTES. CAN YOU PUT UP EXHIBIT NUMBER NINE? THIS IS 1.03.04, THAT IS ALSO BEING TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. THIS IS THE CODE JUST BEFORE 1.03.05. THAT SAYS ONE BUILDING ON THE

[03:00:01]

CODES. >> YES , MA'AM.

>> WITH 1.03.04 BEING ONE BUILDING AND 1.03.05 BEING ONE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT. SO I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY WE DON'T DEFAULT TO THE CONSISTENT READING OF IT. A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE IS CONSISTENT. IT IS BOTH A BUILDING AND IT IS A ONE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT. A TRIPLEX IS A BUILDING, BUT IT'S NOT ONE RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNIT. THE CODE, AND JUDGE ROBERSON STATE, THE CODE AND THE JUDGE'S ORDER CLEARLY STATE WHEN MET WITH CONFLICTING ORDERS, DEFAULT TO THE MORE STRINGENT. THAT IS COMMON LAW PRACTICE. AND SO WHY ARE WE NOT DEFAULTING TO THE MORE STRINGENT READING OF THE CODE?

>> IN THIS INSTANCE, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE LEGAL BACKGROUND WAS THAT WHILE 04.AND 05 WERE IN CONFLICT, THERE'S CASE LAW THAT COMES INTO PLACE, REGARDING PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS. THAT IS RINKER VERSUS NORTH MIAMI GARDENS, NORTH MIAMI BEACH. THAT WHEN TWO SECTIONS OF CODE ARE IN CONFLICT, YOU NEED TO TAKE THE MOST LIBERAL INTERPRETATION AND INTERPRET IN FAVOR OF THE PROPERTY OWNER BECAUSE ZONING CODES ARE DECK THERE WAS LEGAL ANALYSIS AND ERRED ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION.

>> CAN YOU SEND ME THAT SUPREME COURT CASE?

>> YES , MA'AM. >> WHEN YOU SPEAK TO ALLISON, CAN YOU GET A WRITTEN LEGAL OPINION FROM THEM AND SHARE IT WITH ALL OF THE COMMISSION? IN THE MEANTIME, TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. THEY HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT. THEY HAVE 16 BUILDING PERMITS FOR THESE. THERE'S AN EARTH MOVER OVER THERE.

>> THE MANAGER SAID SHE HOPES TO HAVE IT RESOLVED BY THE END OF

THE WEEK. >> STAKES ARE ALREADY OUT. THEY HAVE TAKEN DOWN TWO HUGE TREES. THE HUGE SYCAMORE IS NEXT. WE

ARE MOVING AS FAST AS WE CAN? >> I SAID NOT WE, THEY, THEY ARE MOVING AS FAST AS THEY CAN. THE DEVELOPER.

>> WHAT PREVENTS US FROM AT LEAST SUSPENDING THESE PERMITS UNTIL WE OBTAIN A DEFINITIVE LEGAL OPINION THAT THE CITY IS NOT VIOLATING THESE TWO COURT ORDERS? OTHERWISE, I'M AFRAID THE CITY IS GOING TO ONCE AGAIN FIND OURSELVES A DEFENDANT IN THE FOURTH CIRCUIT COURT. FOR THE EXACT SAME PROPERTY THAT WE'RE DOING ALMOST THE EXACT SAME DEVELOPMENT ON.

>> IT'S ONE OF THE THREE PATHS. IT'S A PATH THAT IS AVAILABLE TO US. WE COULD SUSPEND THE PERMIT.

>> I WOULD LIKE US TO FOLLOW OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND I WOULD LIKE US ALSO TO COMPLY WITH A COURT ORDER. AND I THINK

TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. >> YOU HAVE THE FLOOR FOR COMMENTS OR ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.

>> ARE WE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THIS RIGHT NOW? DO WE WANT TO

TALK ABOUT THIS? >> WE CAN ASK MS. CAMPBELL, YOU

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

[03:05:05]

WE'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THIS. THIS IS OUR FAULT. THIS IS NOT HER FAULT. DON'T BLAME HER FOR INTERPRETING A CODE THAT SHE HAS SAID MULTIPLE TIMES IS IN CONFLICT AND SHE CAN'T FIX

THAT. ONLY WE CAN. >> OKAY.

>> THANK YOU VICE MAYOR. >> BUT WE CAN ONLY FIX IT WHEN THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND THE P.A.B. WORK TOGETHER TO BRING IT TO US. WE CAN'T SIT UP HERE AND REWRITE IT OURSELVES. I ALSO MET WITH PLANNING DIRECTOR GIBSON RIGHT AFTER I WAS ELECTED AND WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AND WE TALKED ABOUT, SHE SHOWED ME ALL THESE DIFFERENT PROPOSALS. I SAID SO PUT THEM TOGETHER AND BRING THEM TO THE P.O.B. AND GET THEM TO US AND WE HAVE NOT SEEN ANYTHING.

SO, I MEAN, I OFFERED TO, YOU KNOW, DEAL WITH IT. AND IT'S NOT IN FRONT OF ME. SO HOW IS IT THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO FIX IT

WHEN NOBODY BRINGS IT TO US? >> IF YOU CAN PLEASE AT LEAST COME TO THE PODIUM. WE ARE BEYOND SPEAKER TIME.

>> I'LL TAKE TWO SECONDS. >> KING GEORGE LANE, CHAIR OF THE P.A.B. JUST SO YOU ALL KNOW, KELLY AND MARK BENNETT HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR SIX MONTHS. OR THREE OR FOUR MONTHS. SO THEY ARE WORKING AS A COMMITTEE OF TWO TO MAKE THESE THINGS SUCH THAT, AND THE REASON THE TWO OF THEM ARE DOING THAT. MARK BENNETT WAS PART OF THE INITIAL P.A.B. WHEN THOSE PIECES OF CODE WERE WRITTEN. HE HAS ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THEY MEAN OR WHAT THEY MEANT AT THE TIME THEY WERE WRITTEN. KELLY, WE INTERPRETED THOSE DIFFERENTLY. I ASKED FOR THEM TO COME TOGETHER TO COME TO AN UNDERSTANDING THAT BOTH OF THEM UNDERSTAND. THEY TRIED, THEY COME TOGETHER WITH ONE PIECE OF PAPER. MR. BENNETT PROVIDED ONE PIECE OF PAPER. IT'S NOT THERE YET. KELLY AND MARK BENNETT, WHO WAS PART OF THE INITIAL TEAM WHO WROTE THATHAD BEEN WORKING ON THAT AND ARE WORKING ON IT FOR A NUMBER

OF MONTHS. >> THANK YOU FOR ACKNOWLEDGING IT'S ONE MEMBER OF THE PAB THAT IS HOLDING THIS UP. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IS HAPPENING. BECAUSE MR. BENNETT DOESN'T UNDERSTAND IT, THANK YOU FOR MENTIONING THAT, BECAUSE THAT IS THE PROBLEM. THE PROBLEM IS, THAT THIS SHOULD GO AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN MONTHS AGO, EVEN YEARS AGO, GONE IN FRONT OF THE P.A.B.

BECAUSE THERE ARE MEMBERS WHO REFUSE TO TAKE IT UP OR REFUSE TO EVEN UNDERSTAND IT, OKAY? THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT MOVING FORWARD. IT'S NOT MOVING FORWARD SIMPLY BECAUSE ONE MEMBER HAS DECIDED THAT THEY TO HOLD UP THIS ENTIRE PROCESS.

THANK YOU FOR ACKNOWLEDGING THAT. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING ON. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN FRONT OF US MONTHS AGO. BECAUSE THERE'S ONE MEMBER THAT DOESN'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT AND DOESN'T WANT TO DO IT, THAT'S EXACTLY WHY WE HAVE HAD TO TAKE OUR TIME AND HAVING STAFF MEET WITH ONE MEMBER INSTEAD OF BRINGING IT IN FRONT OF THE P.A.B. AND THAT ONE MEMBER DECIDES THEY DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT, GUESS WHAT? THEY DON'T HAVE TO. WE CAN MOVE FORWARD THROUGH THE P.A.B. AND MOVE FORWARD INTO THIS COMMISSION AND WE COULD HVE FIXED THIS MONTHS AGO. THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME KNOW, OR AT LEAST SAYING IT PUBLICLY, THAT IT IS AN ISSUE WITH ONE P.A.B. MEMBER.

>> I THINK THAT'S UNFAIR. >> WE NEED TO AVOID DIALOGUE. I WOULD LIKE TO REFOCUS THIS CONVERSATION. WE'RE GETTING OUT OF HAND. LET'S TRY TO LAND A PLANE IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE AN ACTION AND A STRATEGY. IF WE'RE GOING TO TALK FOR THE NEXT TWO HOURS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO GET DONE.

>> I AGREE. CAN I MAKE ONE COMMENT? MR. BENNETT SAT ON THE P.A.B. WHEN THIS CODE WAS WRITTEN. THESE ARE THE MINUTES FROM WHEN THE CODE WAS WRITTEN. JANUARY 26, 2006. HE UNDERSTOOD EXACTLY WHAT THE INTENT OF THIS LAW. HE HELPED TO WRITE IT. AND IT WAS PUT INTO PLACE 19 YEARS AGO BECAUSE 19 YEARS AGO, THE POPULATION OF THIS CITY WAS EXPLODING. AND WE TALK ABOUT WANTING TO PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF THIS CITY. THIS IS THE MOST

[03:10:04]

THESE FOUR HOMES GOT TORN DOWN FOR FINANCIAL REASONS ONLY AND WE HAVE A CONFLICT IN OUR CODE, ABSOLUTELY. WE NEED TO FIX IT.

ABSOLUTELY. THE P.A.B. NEEDS TO DO THAT FOR US AND GET IT TO US AND NEEDS TO FIX IT. IN THE MEANTIME, WE HAVE AN OPTION OF HOW WE READ THIS CODE. DO WE READ IT THE WAY OUR PLANNING DIRECTOR WANTS TO READ IT? WITH ONE BUILDING? AND LET A DUPLEX OR TRIPLEX GO IN THERE? OR READ IT THE WAY I READ THE CODE, WHICH SAYS ONE DWELLING UNIT. AND HOW DO WE LAND THIS PLANE? I WOULD LIKE TO DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO FIGURE OUT AS FAST AS POSSIBLE, HOW TO PUT A STAY ON THIS BUILDING PERMIT. BECAUSE WE ARE IN VIOLATION OF NOT JUST ONE COURT ORDER FROM JUDGE ROBERSON, BUT TWO, WITH THE APPEAL IN THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEAL.

AND SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. WE ARE -- AND HOW DID WE EVEN GET HERE? THAT THE CITY MANAGER AND THE DEPUTY CITY MANAGER DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THIS WAS HAPPENING. FOR LITERALLY AN ISSUE THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR YEARS. ONE OF THE BIGGEST ISSUES THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON IN THIS CITY FOR YEARS.

>> THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. IF I MAY, I WOULD LIKE TO BRING MS. CAMPBELL BACK UP AND REFOCUS WHAT ACTION STEPS TO MOVE FORWARD. OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S A STRONG DESIRE TO ADDRESS THIS IMMEDIATELY AND TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE.

>> MY INTENTION IS TO HAVE THE CALL TOMORROW WITH CAR ALLISON, AND HEAR WHAT THEY SAY OVER THE PHONE. SEE IF THEY CAN PUT THAT IN WRITING VERY QUICKLY. IF NOT, I WILL CONVEY TO YOU BY PHONE CALL WHAT THEIR RESPONSE WAS AND MAKE A DETERMINATION BEFORE CLOSE OF BUSINESS ON FRIDAY WHETHER WE WILL UPHOLD THE PERMITS AS ISSUED OR RESCIND THE PERMITS AS ISSUED OR SEEK LEGAL

OPINION OF THE JUDGE. >> THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY CONSENSUS ON EITHER CHOICE OF ACTION THAT IF WE SHOULD HAVE ONE RISE ABOVE THE OTHER, THE COMMISSION CHOOSES TO GO WITH?

>> I THINK WE NEED TO GET OUR ACT TOGETHER AND FIGURE OUT WHAT IS GOING ON AS QUICK AS WE CAN. BUT I DON'T WANT TO PUT THE CITY IN FURTHER JEOPARDY BY JUST RUNNING OFF WITHOUT SOME LEGAL

INTERPRETATION. >> THANK YOU.

>> SO MORE OF -- >> WE HAVE TWO LEGAL INTERPRETATIONS. HOW IS -- HOW IS A JUDGE GOING TO RULE ON THIS DIFFERENTLY WHEN IT WAS 12 TOWNHOMES.

>> I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY.

>> MATCHED UP AS SIX BUILDINGS. NOW IT'S 12 TOWNHOMES MASHED UP

AS FOUR BUILDINGS. >> IT'S A FAIR QUESTION. BUT I DON'T THINK THIS COMMISSION WILL ANSWER THAT.

>> SO I DON'T LIKE THIS EITHER. YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GOING TO BE CRITICAL OF STAFF. I'M NOT THE BIGGEST FAN OF WHAT'S GOING ON.

HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, MS. CAMPBELL HAS STATED NOW TWICE SHE IS

[03:15:01]

>> YOU GIVE GUIDANCE DIRECTION TO YOUR EMPLOYEES, THE WAY THAT YOUR CHARTER IS STRUCTURED, SHE'S THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER. SHE REPORTS TO YOU, EVERY OTHER EMPLOYEE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF STAFF UNDER THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THEY GO TO HER. I'M SORRY. YOU KNOW, THEY RESPOND TO HER. THAT IS HER CHARGE, IS THE ULTIMATE ADMINISTRATION OF THE CITY AND THE DAY-TO-DAY BUSINESS. NOW, YOU CAN CERTAINLY GIVE POLICY AND GUIDANCE AND YOUR PREFERENCE AND YOUR DIRECTIONS TO HER AS YOUR EMPLOYEE. BUT ULTIMATELY, CARRYING IT OUT, THAT'S HER

OBLIGATION. >> I BELIEVE WE HAVE DIRECTION FOR WHAT WE CAN DO THIS EVENING. THANK YOU. I'LL REVERT BACK TO

[12. MAYOR/COMMISSIONER COMMENTS]

COMMISSIONER COMMENTS. PLEASE. >> UM, I HAVE JUST ONE COMMENT TONIGHT AND IT IS ACTUALLY A SHOUTOUT TO KENNETH, TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR I.T. HELP, BECAUSE ALL OF THIS NEW I.T. UP HERE HAS BEEN A LOT. I KNOW YOU HAVE -- YOU TOLD ME THAT YOU VOLUNTEER TO TAKE THIS SHIFT SO I'LL APOLOGIZE. BECAUSE KENNETH FROM I.T. HAS BEEN WITH US FOR MANY, MANY MEETINGS IN A ROW. AND VOLUNTARILY TO FLEX HIS HOURS TO COME. BECAUSE YOU GREW UP HERE, RIGHT? AND JUST THINKS IT'S INTERESTING. AND LIKES TO WORK HERE FOR US. AND IT IS STRESSFUL BECAUSE WE'RE ALL TRYING TO LOG IN AND THE CLOCK IS TICKING. SO THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER MITCHUM.

>> I CAN'T REMEMBER. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE FIRE AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR THEIR QUICK ACTION ON JULY 4. WE DODGED A BULLET AND I THINK THAT THERE ARE PROBABLY A LOT OF SPECIAL EVENT PROCESSES THAT AUGHT TO BE LOOKED AT WITH A MORE CRITICAL EYE. AND WHERE WE'RE HOLDING SPECIAL EVENTS AND WHAT KIND OF PROPERTIES SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR SPECIAL EVENTS. SO I THINK THOSE ARE ALL OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE HAVE AS A RESULT OF THIS REALLY UNFORTUNATE INCIDENT AND WE CAN MAKE CHANGES WITH THAT. SO, AGAIN, THANK YOU AND THANK ALL THE STAFF WHO WORKED REALLY HARD OVER THE LAST FEW DAYS TO MAKE SURE THE FOURTH OF JULY INCIDENT IS TAKEN CARE OF PROPERLY AND ALL THOSE PEOPLE ARE TAKEN CARE OF. THANK YOU ALL FOR MUCH.

>> THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER POINTER.

>> I WAS GOING TO BASICALLY SAY THE SAME THING, BECAUSE YOU KNOW, BECAUSE YOU'RE ALWAYS IN FRONT OF ME. IN ADDITION TO THAT, I WANT TO THANK EVERYONE SHOWING UP FOR THE MEETING AT 5:00. I KNOW IT'S A CONTENTIOUS DELIBERATION THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON. TAKE A LITTLE OFFENSE TO PEOPLE SAYING WE'RE RUSHING INTO THIS. WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT THIS THE FIRST WEEK OF FEBRUARY AND HOW THE THINGS THAT WE NEEDED TO DO AND HOW WE WERE GOING TO TRY TO FUND THEM AND HOPES AND WISHES IS NOT A WAY OF FUNDING NECESSARY PROJECTS, YOU KNOW, LOOKING FOR GRANTS TO DO EVERYTHING. I'M NOT SAYING YOU DON'T KEEP LOOKING FOR GRANTS, BUT GRANTS ARE GETTING HARDER AND HARDER TO COME BY. AND WE'VE GOT A LOT OF ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO FIX IN THIS COMMUNITY AND I AGREE WITH SOME OF THE SPEAKERS EARLIER. YOU CAN'T JUST KEEP THROWING IT ON THE 8,000 PEOPLE WHO PAY. WHEN MILLIONS OF PEOPLE

[03:20:03]

OUR TOWN IS OUR PEOPLE. AND I THINK WE HAVE THE GREATEST PEOPLE, I MEAN, I'M ALL IN. I LOVE THIS PLACE. AND MY WHOLE FAMILY LOVES THIS PLACE. WHEN PEOPLE SAY IF WE DO THIS, IT'S GOING TO RUIN THIS. I DISAGREE. I THINK IF WE DO THIS, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO RESPECT US MORE. WE'LL HAVE EVEN PRETTIER TOWN.

AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF OUR TOWN AND MAKE THIS TOWN BETTER THAN WHEN WE GOT HERE. AND I THINK THAT IS A RESPONSIBILITY OF EVERY GENERATION. IS TO MAKE THE PLACE BETTER WHEN WE LEAVE. THAT'S IT.

>> THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. VICE MAYOR.

>> NOTHING. AT ALL. I UNDERSTAND EVERYBODY HAS HAD A LONG NIGHT AND IT'S TIME TO WRAP UP. I'LL GIVE YOU A COUPLE LIGHT AND FLUFFY ONES. AS MENTIONED EARLIER, ONE ANSWER TO THE CONCERNS FOR THE GROCERY STORES. THE MIDWEEK FARMER'S MARKET WILL BEGIN ON JULY 23 AND CONTINUE EVERY WEDNESDAY THROUGH SUMMER OF '26. 9:00 A.M. TO 1:00 P.M. IN THE ISLAND WALK SHOP ON SADDLER ROAD. WE HAVE LIFE JACKET LOANER PROGRAM, INSTALLED A LIFE JACKET LOANER PROGRAM IN COLLABORATION WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. I WANT TO CONGRATULATE DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, JEREMIAH, ON THE UPCOMING SECRETARY OF STATE AWARD FOR THE LOCAL LEADER OF THE YEAR. CONGRATULATIONS IN ADVANCE.

AT THE PRESERVATION CONFERENCE AT THE FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. WE HAD OVER 300 MAIN STREET LEADERS, PRESERVATION PROFESSIONALS, AND ARCHITECTS FROM ACROSS FLORIDA HERE IN DOWNTOWN AND WE HOPE EVERYONE ENJOYS THEIR STAY. WITH THAT,

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.