READY, MAYOR. ALL RIGHT, LET'S DO IT. ALL RIGHT, LET'S DO IT. ALL RIGHT, LET'S DO IT. ALL RIGHT, LET'S DO IT. ALL RIGHT, LET'S DO IT. ALL RIGHT, LET'S DO IT. ALL RIGHT, LET'S DO IT. ALL RIGHT, LET'S DO IT. ALL RIGHT, LET'S DO IT. ALL RIGHT, LET'S DO IT. At this time, I would like to call Pastor Jeff Davis from First Presbyterian Church of Safety Harbor to please come forward to lead us in the invocation. So if everyone would please stand up and then remain standing for the pledge to the flag. Thank you. Let's pray. God, we thank you for this evening. We thank you for this change of weather. We thank you for this new year and the new things that you're calling us to. God, we pray for our evening. We pray that in this time we express or show our freedoms, that we show each other kindness, we show each other gentleness, and we show each other love. And we thank you for first loving us. It's in Jesus' name we pray. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Pastor. Thank you. So before we get started, I just want to make an announcement that the public hearing for the proposed project at 946 Main Street, known as the Barking Lot, will be held on February 16th, not tonight. The site plan is not on the agenda this evening. SO NEW PUBLIC NOTICES WILL BE SENT WITH A NEW DATE AND TIME FOR ANYONE INTERESTED IN THAT PROJECT. AND I THINK WE HAVE A FEW PEOPLE INTERESTED IN THE MARINA. THERE'S NO ITEM ON THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING ALSO TO DISCUSS THE MARINA FEES. SO WITH THAT, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY PRESENTATIONS, SO WE'RE GOING TO ROLL RIGHT INTO AUDIENCE TO BE HEARD. SO IF THERE'S ANYONE FROM THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO BE HEARD ON AN ITEM THAT'S NOT ON THE REGULAR AGENDA OR THAT'S ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, PLEASE COME FORWARD, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. BRIAN BLOOD, 879 HARBOR HILL DRIVE, SAFETY HARBOR. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL AND STAFF. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO FOLLOW UP ON NORMAN'S TALK AT THE LAST MEETING REGARDING THE PROPERTY We're 590 at McMullen Booth, the Kotler proposal. I just want to remind everyone that this is round two of what we had in 2013, the Furmanage project, which was voted unanimously by the city, the Pinellas County Council, 7-0 to defeat that project. And then appellate court also ruled in favor of that. This project is bigger, even bigger, and more scope in that project. So it behooves us to communicate. I'm very concerned about the communication standards that we've set up so far. It seems that communications are nonexistent. We can't disclose any information to the commissioners. We have to ask the director. FOR INFORMATION CONCERNING THE PROJECT, AND I BELIEVE WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND COME IN EVERY WEEK AND ASK FOR ANY PUBLIC DISCLOSURES SO THAT THE PUBLIC CAN UNDERSTAND AND THEN POSSIBLY SEND THE INFORMATION TO THE COMMISSIONERS SO THAT THAT COMMUNICATION CAN BE MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THIS PROJECT. IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO SHUT DOWN COMMUNICATIONS AND OPEN GOVERNMENT WHEN IT COMES TO THIS PROJECT. I just implore you to not sit back on your hands and help the community understand what's going on here and be active participants rather than saying, oh, the act won't allow us to do anything about this. So just want to keep an open mind and communicate we're legal, obviously. But the citizens are going to have to figure out a way to get the communications if it's not ABLE TO BE DISCLOSED TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO BE HEARD? OKAY. WE HAVE TWO ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. THE FIRST ONE IS APPROVAL OF THE JANUARY 20TH CITY COMMISSION GOAL SETTING WORKSHOP IN REGULAR MEETING MINUTES. AND THE SECOND IS LOOKING FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE CITY OF SAFETY HARBOR. ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 2024, AND THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2024. DOES ANYONE WISH TO PULL ANY OF THESE? DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I MOVE APPROVAL OF CONSENTAGENT ITEMS 1 AND 2, AND JUST LET THE PUBLIC KNOW THAT WE DID HAVE A CRA and Audit Committee meeting, during which time we had presentations of both the CAFRA and the CRA audit. Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion passes 5-0. All right, so now we have three public hearings. They're all quasi-judicial. Sarah, the first one is Ordinance Number 2025-09. An ordinance of the City of Safety Harbor, Florida, providing for the zoning designation of recently annexed property 2024-32AN-CO, located at 215 13th Avenue South, Safety Harbor, Florida, finding the request consistent with the review standards of Section 226.03 of the Safety Harbor Comprehensive Zoning and Land Development Code and providing for an effective date. And this is presented for first reading. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. SO FIRST QUESTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION IS, HAS ANYONE HAD ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATION WITH THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT, IT SEEMS LIKE A NO. NOW, SARAH, WE'RE LOOKING TO SEE IF WE HAVE ANY INTERVENING PARTIES. DO YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN THAT? AN INTERVENING PARTY WOULD BE A PARTY THAT HAS AN INTEREST THAT IS UNIQUE TO THIS PROPERTY. SO IF YOU, AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE IF YOU'RE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT OR SHARING ANY PROPERTY LINES WITH THIS PROPERTY, AND YOU WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED AND YOU WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED AND YOU WISH TO BE RECOGNIZED AS AN INTERVENING PARTY, AS AN INTERVENING PARTY, AS AN INTERVENING PARTY, PLEASE INDICATE. PLEASE INDICATE. PLEASE INDICATE. SEEING NONE. SEEING NONE. SEEING NONE. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. IS THE APPLICANT HERE IS THE APPLICANT HERE IS THE APPLICANT HERE FOR THIS ONE? FOR THIS ONE? FOR THIS ONE? NO. NO. NO. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. SO DO WE NEED TO SO DO WE NEED TO SO DO WE NEED TO SWEAR CECILIA IN THERE? SWEAR CECILIA IN THERE? SWEAR CECILIA IN THERE? SO I'M GOING TO SWEAR YOU IN SO I'M GOING TO and 3584 Enterprise Road East. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to present is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. All right. So there will be three zoning assignment ordinances tonight, and this is the first one. It is for 215 13th Avenue South. But this property was annexed into the city last December and it doesn't have a zoning designation yet. So the ordinance tonight is to assign a zoning designation to this property. This property is located on 13 Avenue South. It is approximately 0.280 acres. It is developed with a single family residential dwelling and the future land use designation is residential low. It's residential, residential low, I don't know what I said. IT IS AT THE CORNER RIGHT OUTSIDE OF THE CRD. SO THE PROPOSED ZONING IS R3 CONDITIONAL MIX RESIDENTIAL, THE SAME AS THE NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES OUTSIDE OF THE CRD. AND THEN IT IS ALSO R3 IS A ZONING DESIGNATION CONSISTENT WITH THE RESIDENTIAL LOW FISHER LAND USE DESIGNATION. So tonight, the city commission may approve or deny ordinance number 21509 to assign R3 zoning designation to this property. Thank you, Cecilia. So I don't think we have any, the applicant's already not here, so we don't have this applicant presentation. We had no intervening parties raise their hand. So the next item up would be any public comment on this. If none, so it comes to the commission for discussion or a motion. I just, I got a question. The conditional mixed use, all the houses on that street are in the, I guess, that you showed, those are all conditional mixed use residents? Correct. It's all R3. I guess the mixed use, you have a list. They could put two houses up there. They could put a church up there. They could put a school of a general education, a daycare center, et cetera. A lot of them are conditional uses. So there are only four permitted use by right, which is single-family residential, community garden electric station, and then another use that doesn't come up very often. But it's mostly still a single-family residential district, and then multifamily and two-family, those are allowable as a conditional use, which needs city commission approval. Are there any, I guess, structures that are... IN THAT AREA THAT ARE ACTUALLY BEING USED CONDITIONALLY OR WITH ONE OF THOSE CONDITIONAL USES? I DO NOT BELIEVE SO. SO ALL OF THESE AREAS ARE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. THAT'S MY STREET. OKAY. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY CONDITIONAL USE VERSUS JUST STRAIGHT RESIDENTIAL. I'M JUST CURIOUS. THIS IS A CONDITIONAL MIXED RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT. same as all the neighboring um district that's all in the same subdivision and then it will be consistent with the rest of the neighborhood all right anyone else do we have a motion yeah i'll make a motion to approve ordinance number 2025-09 second oh there's a favorite sorry You reminded me beforehand, too. I was going too fast. Rachel, can you call the roll? Vice Mayor Diaz? Aye. Commissioner Steingold? Aye. Commissioner Besor? Aye. Commissioner Burnett? Aye. Mayor Ayoub? Aye. Motion passes 5-0. All right. So next up, Ordinance 2025-10. Same thing. So I'll read the title first. An ordinance of the City of Safety Harbor, Florida, providing for the zoning designation of recently annexed property. 2025-39AN-CO, located at 655 Waddell Drive, Safety Harbor, Florida. Finding the request consistent with the review standards of Section 226.03 of the Safety Harbor Comprehensive Zoning and Land Development Code and providing for an effective date. Okay. So any ex parte communications by anyone on the board? No. All right. So the city attorney already explained what an intervening party is. Is there anyone in the audience that considers themselves an intervening party on this matter? No? All right. Cecilia is already sworn in, so. All right. So this is zoning assignment ordinance for 655 Woodout Drive. It's the same situation. The property was annexed last December, and it doesn't have a zoning designation yet. So here is an area map. The property is developed with a single-family residential dwelling. All the surrounding uses are single-family residential dwelling. Here is a vacant property across the street. The site is about 0.115 acres, and currently the fusion land use designation is residential low, the same as all the surrounding uses. So this ordinance is proposing to assign R2 single family residential to this property, the same as all the other single family residential properties in the same subdivision. And I think it is consistent with the residential low future land use designation in the consistency matrix. So tonight the city commission may approve or deny ordinance number 2510 on first reading. All right, just double checking. Is the applicant here? No. Anyone from the audience wish to be heard on this item? All right, any questions or motions? I will move approval. Let me get the right number. Of ordinance number 2025-10. Rachel, will you please call the roll? Commissioner Besor? Aye. Commissioner Steingold? Aye. Commissioner Burnett? Aye. Vice Mayor Diaz? Aye. Mayor Ayub? Aye. Motion passes 5-0. Next up is ordinance 2025-12. An ordinance of the City of Safety Harbor, Florida, providing for the zoning designation of recently annexed property 2025-43ANZO, located at 3584 Enterprise Road East, Safety Harbor, Florida, finding the request consistent with the review standards of Section 226.03 of the Safety Harbor Comprehensive Zoning and Land Development Code and providing for an effective date. And this is presented for first reading. Okay. Thank you. So just double checking, does anyone here consider themselves a party of interest in this matter? No? Did I ask about ex parte communications on this one yet? Nope. So do we have any? Nope. All righty. You're already sworn in, so turn it over to you. All right. This is the last zoning assignment for today. It is for 3584, enterprise released. This property was also annexed last December and then still needs a zoning designation. So here is a picture of the surrounding area. This property is developed with a single family residential dwelling as well. And then it is about 0.9 acres and then the future land use designation is residential estate. And all the surrounding properties are within the E1's estate residential zoning district. And so we're proposing to assign E1 residential to this property as well. So this is the ordinance. And then E1 is consistent with residential estate fusion and use designation. So tonight the City Commission may approve or deny ordinance number 215.12 to assign E1 zoning designation to this property. THANK YOU. ANYONE FROM THE AUDIENCE WISH TO BE HEARD ON THIS ITEM? ANY DISCUSSION OR MOTIONS ON THE BOARD? I'LL MOVE APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 2025-12. SECOND. RACHEL, YOU WANT TO CALL THE ROLL? COMMISSIONER BURNETT? AYE. COMMISSIONER STEINGOLD? AYE. COMMISSIONER BESSOER? AYE. VICE MAYOR DIAZ? AYE. Mayor Ayub? Aye, motion passes 5-0. Thank you, Cecilia. All right, so we have three new business items. The first one is the City-initiated Comprehensive Zoning and Land Development Code Amendment to provide for administrative review and approval of PLATS and REPLATS. That's Ordinance 2025-06. An ordinance of the City of Safety Harbor, Florida, amending the Safety Harbor Comprehensive Zoning and Land Development Code Sections 181, 182, 183, 184, and 239. TO PROVIDE FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TO PROVIDE FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW TO PROVIDE FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PLATS AND REPLATS, AND APPROVAL OF PLATS AND REPLATS, AND APPROVAL OF PLATS AND REPLATS, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING FOR CAUTIFICATION, PROVIDING FOR CAUTIFICATION, PROVIDING FOR CAUTIFICATION, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. AND THIS IS PRESENTED AND THIS IS PRESENTED AND THIS IS PRESENTED FOR A SECOND READING. FOR A THIS IS AN ORDINANCE IN RESPONSE TO SENATE BILL 784, WHICH WAS PASSED IN THE 2025 LEGISLATIVE SESSION, AMENDED THE STATUTES PRIMARILY FOR THE PROCESS OF APPROVAL OF PLATS AND REPLATS. LAST AUGUST, THE CITY COMMISSION ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2025-12 TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THAT STATUTE. AND WE HAVE FOLLOWED THAT UP WITH AMENDMENTS TO OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. ESSENTIALLY, A FINAL PLAT IS REQUIRED FOR SUBDIVISION OF PROPERTY CONSISTENT WITH AN APPROVED SITE PLAN, THE SAME WITH A REPLAT. CURRENTLY, OUR CODE REQUIRES CITY COMMISSION APPROVAL FOR PLATS AND REPLATS AFTER TECHNICAL REVIEW COMMITTEE REVIEW. The Senate bill requires local governments to review process and approve plats and replats administratively. It requires designation of what's called an administrative authority, an administrative official. That was done with the resolution that was passed in August. It also requires a timeline for written notice in response to a submittal. I think what's important to note here is Although it's changing the process for reviewing the plat and approving the plat to administrative, the city commission still has the ability to approve the site plan. And so that plat is reviewed for consistency with the site plan. So the city commission still has the ability to approve that development. The plat itself is primarily a technical document which subdivides the property into lots, puts in place easements, dedications of right-of-way, but all of those are consistent with what the City Commission originally approves in the site plan. So as I mentioned, the City Commission did approve a resolution outlining that process for administrative review back in August. Planning and Zoning Board reviewed it on January 14th. UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION. WE'RE HERE TONIGHT FOR FIRST READING, AND IF APPROVED, WE WILL BE BACK ON FEBRUARY 16TH FOR FINAL ADOPTION ON SECOND READING, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS? ANYONE FROM THE AUDIENCE WISH TO BE HEARD ON THIS? DOES ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? CAN I ASK ONE QUESTION? CAN I ASK ONE QUESTION? CAN I ASK ONE QUESTION? THIS IS AN EMOTIONAL QUESTION. THIS IS AN EMOTIONAL QUESTION. THIS IS AN EMOTIONAL QUESTION. WHY DOES IT FEEL THAT THIS IS WHY DOES IT FEEL THAT THIS IS WHY DOES IT FEEL THAT THIS IS A PREEMPTION? A PREEMPTION? A PREEMPTION? WHY DO I FEEL THE LEGISLATURE WHY DO I FEEL THE LEGISLATURE WHY DO I FEEL THE LEGISLATURE YET AGAIN PREEMPTED US? YET AGAIN PREEMPTED US? YET AGAIN PREEMPTED US? BECAUSE IT IS. BECAUSE IT IS. BECAUSE IT IS. BECAUSE IT IS. AND PART TWO, IS THIS PART OF AND PART TWO, IS THIS PART OF AND PART TWO, IS THIS PART OF MY LOBESOME LIVE LOC THE SIMILARITY IS THAT IT REQUIRES AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OF A DEVELOPMENT DECISION. I WILL PROBABLY DEFER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY WITH REGARD TO THE PREEMPTION QUESTION. YES, IT IS A PREEMPTION, YES. AND REALLY WITH NO EXPLANATION WHY THEY WANT US CUT OUT. IN REVIEWING THE LEGISLATIVE RECORD, I DID NOT SEE ANY BACKGROUND. in terms of why this was passed. Generally, these types of bills are intended to streamline the development process. Thank you. I think it's intended to take it away from the public. Not just us, but so whenever we have something on the agenda, whether it's applied, whatever it is, if the public wants to speak out against it, it's an opportunity to influence the governing board on whether it passes or not. So essentially, we'll have a site plan versus two reeds of a plat. So I just, again, it's not the Louisville Hook Act, but it's certainly the same intent. I think they're trying to speed the process up. But while they're speeding the process up, they're also taking it away from the public to speak up. And I just think it's bad legislation. again, I don't support it. And thank you for all your explanations. I just had a visceral... So, thank you. Well, this seems like... I haven't been involved in replatting anything since I've been up here that I can remember. But it does seem like one of those processes where you would decide how dense or undense you're going to make new builds. Am I right? Or is there... already over, like, pre-existing lines that somebody's following and this isn't a, this is a paperwork process? It's more a paperwork or ministerial process. An example might be you recently saw an eight-lot subdivision on Enterprise Road next to the CSX tracks. You reviewed that site plan, looked at the drainage, looked at tree preservation, looked at the layout of the lots and how the street would be private. That would come back once those public improvements were installed, once the water and sewer and stormwater are in, would come back to formalize the subdivision of that land into eight lots. There's a document that is prepared that establishes the corners and where all of the corners of the lots are for surveying purposes. It is signed and then recorded. So that's the essence of the PLAT process is memorializing the formation of those lots and the dedication of the private roadway. Okay, so that's making me feel better about this. I'm going to restate it so I understand. So the site plan comes before the platting. Correct. So if the site plan comes before the platting, if we have questions about density or too many, you know, what's the intention of this area, you're putting too many houses in there, then we have an opportunity, at least now, to say something about that and give direction to the people with the site plan to say, We'd like for there to be one less house, two less houses in this area, and then the plat would follow that site plan approval and come back to formalize what we've already discussed. Yes, the plat's required to be consistent with the commission's approval. Okay. That makes me feel a little better about it. But you understand what I'm hearing from Commissioner Steingold, that there would be one more opportunity for the public to jump in. I think at some point, when the pendulum swings the other way, a lot of law is going to be repealed. And I hope that happens. So hopefully it swings the other way because this is just one law after another on the state level. I was going to ask the same question. I just assumed, I wasn't going to ask because I assumed the plaque came before the site plan. So I don't want to I sound dumb by asking, but I'm glad you did. You were on the right track. I was on the wrong track. Okay. Well, that does give me a little comfort then, knowing the site plan does come before the plot. But that would not be applicable to a live local development, correct? Yeah. So they all kind of function independently a little bit. I mean, it may here impact you, but... ESSENTIALLY, IN A LOT OF JURISDICTIONS, PLATTING WAS REALLY ADMINISTRATIVE. BY THE TIME YOU GOT TO THE PLATT, IT HAD ALREADY BEEN GONE THROUGH ALL THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS. SO THERE WAS SOME SENSE THAT, WELL, YOU'VE ALREADY RECEIVED ALL YOUR APPROVALS, AND THEN AT THE LAST MINUTE, WHEN IT'S SOMETHING THAT REALLY FUNCTIONS ALMOST ADMINISTRATIVELY, THERE WAS KIND OF ROADBLOCKS THROWN UP, AND THEY'VE MET ALL THE REVIEW CRITERIA. IN THAT SENSE, IF YOU HAVE A PROCESS THAT FOLLOWS THAT, THEN SOMETHING LIKE THIS MAKES SENSE. BECAUSE YOU'VE ALREADY GONE THROUGH THAT. YOU'VE REVIEWED IT, YOU'VE CHECKED IT AGAINST YOUR CRITERIA, YOU'VE ALREADY, ANY IMPACTS OR ANYTHING HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED. BUT IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE THAT PROCESS REALLY VETTED, THEN THIS IS, THIS COULD BE PROBLEMATIC. NOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT, WE HAVE SENATE BILL 180, WHICH DOESN'T ALLOW US TO CHANGE OUR PROCESS IF IT CREATES ANYTHING MORE BURDENSOME. WELL, THEN YOU'VE REALLY KIND OF TIED OUR HANDS. THEN YOU LOOK AT LIVE LOCAL, WHICH BASICALLY DOESN'T ALLOW. SO THERE'S THESE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE WORKING THAT REALLY PREVENT THIS, BUT THIS ON ITS OWN, WITHOUT 180, WE COULD HAVE, IF THERE WAS SOMETHING WE NEEDED TO WORK ON IN OUR SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS, WE WOULD HAVE HAD MORE OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT THERE. SO THIS IS PROBABLY THE LEAST PROBLEMATIC OF THE PREEMPTIONS THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH. But, yeah. All right. Anyone from the audience wish to be heard on this? All right. Do we have a motion? I'll make a motion to approve ordinance number 2025-06. I'll second. All right. Rachel, do you want to call the roll? Vice Mayor Diaz? Aye. Commissioner Burnett? Aye. Commissioner Steingold? Aye. Commissioner Besor? Nay. Mayor Ayoub? I don't want to vote yes, but I feel like I... Thanks a lot, guys. You all would have voted yes. I could have voted nay, but... All right, I will vote yay, yes. Motion passes 3-2. Thank you. Next up is new business number two, public works fuel, island design permitting and construction services. GOOD EVENING. RENEE COOPER, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. HERE TONIGHT TO SEE THE APPROVAL OF A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER WITH KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES FOR DESIGN PERMITTING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS FUEL ISLAND IN THE AMOUNT OF $180,000 TOTAL. SO THE PUBLIC WORKS COMPLEX HOUSES THE CITY'S PRIMARY FUEL SUPPLY. WE SUPPORT FUEL DISTRIBUTION FOR ALL CITY VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT. WE HAVE TWO EXISTING 10,000-GALLON TANKS, ONE DIESEL, ONE GASOLINE, and they've reached their maximum lifespan of over 30 years old. If we do not do this type of project, we will not be able to receive our annual permit for operating this fuel island. So replacing these tanks is necessary to ensure continued compliance, operational readiness, cost efficiency, and emergency operations. Is that it? That's it. Alright, any questions for Rene? I would just make a comment. I like staying ahead of the curve here when things expire, so and I think is it expensive? Sure, but. When you look at all the vehicles being fueled. At that location, I mean. It's to me, it's just a necessary so. I like how we're staying ahead so. Thank you. I'll just underscore that a little bit too. I mean, when we had our disasters last year, we were able to go fill up from outside sources to keep those tanks full and have enough fuel to last, like, all the recovery efforts when nothing else was available. So it's a pretty important backup. Anyone from the audience who should be heard on this item? We have a motion. Move approval. Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Motion passes 5-0. So last item is looking for approval of a scope of services proposal for researching, developing, and planning a fire assessment fee. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Commissioners. On January 20, 2026, the City Commission provided... THE CITY MANAGER DIRECTIONED ON IDENTIFYING ADDITIONAL AND APPROPRIATE FEES ALLOWED BY THE STATE OF FLORIDA TO ASSIST IN BALANCING FUTURE CITY BUDGETS WHILE ENSURING LONG-TERM SUSTAINABILITY OF CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PROPOSAL IS TO REQUEST AUTHORIZATION FROM THE CITY COMMISSION TO PROCEED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AND INITIALS OF A DETAILED SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR THE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND PLANNING OF A POTENTIAL FUTURE FIRE ASSESSMENT FEE. THIS SCOPE WILL BE USED TO SOLICIT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, OBTAIN COST ESTIMATES, OR FURTHER EVALUATE The city has identified a need related to ensuring an adequately funded fire department while also being mindful of the community's desire for overall affordability and lower taxes. It is also apparent that the costs of operating a fire department, personnel, equipment, and facilities will soon begin to outpace existing revenue streams. Preliminary discussions and staff analysis indicate that professional assistance may be required to adequately address this matter. Staff is requesting authorization to prepare and issue a scope of services that would generally include but not be limited to the following elements. PROJECT ASSESSMENT AND DATA REVIEW, STAKEHOLDER COORDINATION, EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES OR OPTIONS, COST ESTIMATES AND IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS, PREPARATION OF REPORTS, FINDINGS OR RECOMMENDATIONS, PROJECT SCHEDULE AND MILESTONE IDENTIFICATION. THE FINAL SCOPE WILL BE PRESENTED TO THE CITY COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO ANY CONTRACT EXECUTION UNLESS OTHERWISE AUTHORIZED. AT THIS TIME, THERE'S NO BUDGETARY COMMITMENT REQUESTED FROM THE CITY COMMISSION. ANY COST ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED SCOPE OR SUBSEQUENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WILL BE IDENTIFIED AND PRESENTED FOR COMMISSION CONSIDERATION AT A FUTURE MEETING. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY COMMISSION APPROVE BY VOTE THE SCOPE OF SERVICES PROPOSAL FOR RESEARCHING, DEVELOPING, AND PLANNING A FIRE ASSESSMENT FEE AND DIRECT STAFF TO RETURN WITH RECOMMENDATIONS, COST INFORMATION, AND ANY NECESSARY APPROVALS. SO ESSENTIALLY, JUST SO I CAN FULLY UNDERSTAND, THIS IS, WE'RE TAKING THIS STEP In anticipation of a ballot measure to essentially get rid of property taxes on homesteaded property or reduction in property taxes, taxes that may be a ballot measure coming forth through our state legislature? Or is this separate and apart from? No, I'm equating this to the increased costs of the fire department. FOR PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES, BUT THIS IS, THAT IS MY MAIN REASON FOR THIS, BUT BASED ON A PREVIOUS DISCUSSION OF ENSURING THAT THE BUDGET IS BALANCED AND THAT WE HAVE ADEQUATE FUNDS, BUT I THINK THE SPECIFIC REASON FOR THIS WOULD BE FOR... TO SUPPLEMENT FIRE? YEAH, THE COST OF FIRE. SO THIS ISN'T TO RECLASE THE REVENUE WE RECEIVE FROM THE PROPERTY TAXES. THIS WOULD JUST BE It's a supplement to what we have right now. So I think that's something we would be part of exploring with this project. I actually thought, I was with Andy when he said, because I thought he brought the idea when we were talking about the amendments to reduce or eliminate property taxes, and you kind of were talking about the idea, well, maybe we need to look at a, you know, at least break it out. Other areas of... You were talking about breaking it out and have a separate millage for that, and I think the discussion may be... So I kind of thought that's where this came from. Did you say how much this would cost? There is no cost right now. So this is tied to the discussion, which it is tied to it, but that's not the main reason. We have discussed this before where there's increase of cost of personnel that we need for the fire department. There are options where we'd like to see how it would affect the millage rate. Staff has taken no action on this. Before we start working on this, before we start looking at what this would provide, because it will take a lot of personnel hours, I just want the blessing from this commission to start looking at this idea. I think basically what he's trying to do, he's trying to create a mechanism, a mechanism to supplement fire costs. I wouldn't, I'll just tell you, I don't, I wouldn't be in favor of this from the standpoint that it would be in addition to ad valorem taxes. I would be in favor of this if this is an avenue we were looking at in the event that there's a measure taken, it passes, and we don't have ad valorem taxes, and we need to supplement fire and safety with a fire and safety assessment fee. I just, I hate to add an additional cost to the citizens over and above our ad valorem taxes. That goes towards fire. I didn't, I mean, I know cost of doing business is going up every year. Insurance rates, employees, et cetera, I get it, but I still think that we need to operate without fire assessment fees on top of that. So if we need to look at increasing ad valorem rate versus the fire assessment fee, because I don't even know how you'd be able to do that. I mean, people that live in Safety Harbor would then have to shoulder an additional fee. And I don't want to even go there. I JUST DON'T WANT TO ADD ADDITIONAL COSTS. I JUST DON'T LIKE IT. WELL, I THINK, IF I COULD JUMP IN, SIR. I THINK PART OF THAT DISCUSSION IS WHAT WE WANT TO CAPTURE IS THIS BEING PART OF THE STAKEHOLDER GROUP. SO I THINK THAT'S GREAT INFORMATION. I THINK THAT WOULD BE PUT INTO WHAT THE PROJECT TEAM WOULD LOOK AT BEFORE WE WOULD COME BACK TO THIS GROUP, WHICH MAY NOT BE FOR NINE MONTHS TO A YEAR. YEAH, I'M TRYING TO GET MY HEAD AROUND IT, BUT YOU SAID ADDITIONAL COSTS. Why are you assuming it's an additional cost? No, no. I'm not assuming this is an additional cost. What I'm saying is every year costs go up in operating, whether it be fire personnel, whether it be insurance, whatever it is, I realize the cost is going up. And I'd rather address the cost within ad valorem rate versus having an assessment fee. I just don't like to add additional fees in addition to the ad valorem. Now, if we didn't have the ad valorem, that's a total, you know, then we have to go looking for what can we do to, you know, keep fire. What can we do to keep law enforcement? What can we do? But I just don't even want to go here and start looking at a fire assessment fee. I just don't like it. I don't like a separate fee. And then I want to back up what Commissioner Steingold just said, because the mayor said to me last time, we're talking fees in this discussion, and he worried that I was going to explode about fees. I won't be in any position to fuss about fees if we lose our ad valorem, if we lose our 39% or whatever it is. If we're pushed off the financial cliff, we will have to pay somehow. These costs will have to be absorbed. But I also didn't understand. I thought this was going to be an if we get kicked off the cliff. Then we'll still be able to support fire because we won't have enough. Here's what I thought. We wouldn't have enough if they took away our ad valorem and reduced it. We wouldn't have enough even though they said we couldn't do anything to fire. I didn't think we'd have enough money. Thus, we'd have to have this fee. But I don't want the fee. If they don't take away ad valorem, I'm with Commissioner Steingold, then we have to have some hard discussions about what we do with our military. Because just like I didn't want the streetlights outside of ad valorem, I wouldn't want fire outside of ad valorem. I'd be uncomfortable, too, if we got to pay both. Yeah, I think this is more like an investigational thing. I don't see any, there's no dollars associated with this or anything like that. But the investigation is in addition to. But it's a conceptual thing to figure out what needs to be in place for a fee which perhaps a fee maybe to supplement fire, maybe. I mean, you guys would be up here to vote it down, right? Or it could be a fire fee to take place over, you know, this new elimination of the ad valorem tax. But at the end of the day, it's something that's going to have to, may have to take place. You know, so it's, I don't think there's any harm to it. It's all conceptual and how you, how much of a fee and how you apply the fee, it's not going to be done underhandedly without you guys, without the commission knowing. It's something that's going to be discussed and argued, and at the end if you say, well, we don't want a fee for that, then there is no fee. I think there's two people saying they don't want a fee. Yeah, and then this stuff tumbles fast. Were you up here for the streetlight, what I would call debacle or conversation? I've been here many times with you. With the streetlight? But I mean when it first started. It started as a conceptual idea. It started as a discussion. It started with somebody mapping it out. Then it started with doing a plan, and then it happened. And the tumbleweed is just lost. The voice is lost once it gets going. So I'm just saying I'm fearful of this tumbling before we know that this is happening to us. If they kick us to the curb, it's one thing, but I'm worried about this discussion because I'm going to be out there trying to educate people, keep our property taxes intact so that we can pay for what we need. But... Mayor, I don't mean to interrupt the commission. Once again, I'm taking this feedback. This is great feedback. I would also just put out there as the commission decides that this does take time to do this work. So if it... IF IN NOVEMBER WE LEARNED THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, A SEVERE REDUCTION IN THE REVENUE THAT WE PROJECT, IF WE HAD TO COME BACK AT THIS TIME TO DO THIS, WE WOULD BE FAR BEHIND. SO, IT'S ALSO MY, YOU KNOW, I PLOTTED OUT JUST EVEN DO PRELIMINARY WORK IS GOING TO BE ABOUT A YEAR. AND TALKING TO VERY SENIOR RETIRED FINANCE, LOCAL MUNICIPAL FINANCE DIRECTORS THAT THIS IS ABOUT A TWO TO THREE YEAR PROCESS. ONCE AGAIN, NOT, I, THIS IS THE TYPE OF FEEDBACK I WANTED OF, YOU KNOW, SOME IF-THEN STATEMENTS, BUT I JUST WANT TO SHARE THAT WITH THE TIMELINE AS WELL FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS. DO YOU WANT SOMETHING? JUST TO BE MINDFUL OF THE POSSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL PREEMPTIONS, THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT ELIMINATING FEES THAT WEREN'T, OR THE ABILITY TO START ASSESSING FEES IF YOU, DIDN'T ALREADY HAVE THE ANALYSIS DONE AND YOU HADN'T BEEN ABLE TO IMPLEMENT IT. SO THAT HAS BEEN A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION AS WELL. AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. IT MAY BE SOMETHING AS THIS MOVES FORWARD THAT AT LEAST IF YOU'VE GOT THE, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T IMPLEMENT A FEE IF YOU DON'T KNOW THE COST AND YOU HAVEN'T DONE AT LEAST THIS PART, RIGHT, TO DETERMINE WHAT THE COST WOULD BE, WHAT IT IS. AND SO IF YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE THAT AND THEN THE DISCUSSION STARTS ABOUT THESE ADDITIONAL PREEMPTIONS, THAT OPTION WOULD BE DISCALLED. THIS COULD GIVE US A CHANCE TO GET IN FRONT IN CASE THERE'S A PREEMPTION THAT SAYS NO NEW FEES ARE ALLOWED TO BE ADDED OR, I DON'T KNOW. THAT SEEMS LIKE A STRETCH. THAT'S MY OPINION. THAT'S WHY I'VE ASKED FOR A VOTE. I'LL JUST SHARE MY OPINION. I'M RIGHT IN STEP, COMMISSIONER DEZOR AND STEINGOLD, WITH YOU GUYS. I DON'T WANT ANY FEES OUTSIDE OF OUR ADVALORUM. IF WE CAN HELP IT, ADVALORUM WORKS. And I'd rather raise the ad valorem rate, the millage rate, to make up lost ground if we could. I feel like that keeps it transparent with our residents to say, like, this is where we're going to bring the funds, right? We're not going to slip it in there on fees. So I would like to keep it that way too. And so it's kind of the same if then. If we end up with no effect to our ad valorem, I don't want to implement a fee. but I do think you're going to have to explore this and some other things. If we get the serious reduction in our ad valorem revenue, we're going to need to have options to pull the trigger, and we're going to need to know what those options are. Those options are going to have to be vetted by that time, so this is getting ahead of the game. So I'm in favor of doing the work, but I'm with the rest of the guys. If we're still getting our ad valorem, I don't want to put anything else in there. Great feedback. I DIDN'T REALIZE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT NEEDED EXTRA FUNDS. WAS THAT? SO, WHEN WE'VE HAD A MEETING DURING THE CONTRACT, WE TALKED ABOUT ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL AND THE SUPPORT TO KELLY DAY. BUT I'M JUST BRINGING THAT, YOU KNOW, BASED ON MY OPINION, YOU KNOW, JUST AS SOMETHING WE SHOULD LOOK AT BECAUSE OF THE COST. AND THIS IS BECOMING A MORE AND MORE COMMON program. It started, it was heavier in the southeast of Florida. It's now in central Florida and I know there's several municipalities in Pinellas County looking at this. I'd just say I agree with everyone up here. It just may be a way to get ahead of it as Commissioner Burnett said. I'd be in favor of keeping it open as an option but I've PROBABLY PREFER NOT TO DO IT IF WE DON'T HAVE TO. ALL RIGHT, GREAT FEEDBACK. THANK YOU. WHAT YOU JUST SAID MADE ME THINK THAT MAYBE IN THE FUTURE WHAT MUNICIPALITIES ARE DOING, ARE THEY PULLING FAR OUT OF ADVERTISEMENT AND HAVING IT STAND ALONE? I THINK IT'S TOO SOON TO SAY. I THINK EVERYBODY'S GOING TO START EXPLORING THEIR OPTIONS. And there's professionals that can help us look at those options. But those professional resources, I don't know how plentiful they are. And then are you full? I work in a jurisdiction where they have the fire assessment fees. And part of the reason they imposed it is they didn't want to raise the ad valorem, and it wasn't necessarily everybody. benefited from it because some of them were eligible for other, you know, for access for other rescue services. The benefit is it lets you know the costs. You know, doing this analysis, you're able to identify this is what it costs to provide these services. They, what happened was they didn't raise the fees as recommended with inflation, and so some now comes from ad valorem. And so there's consideration, do we go back and update to balance it? And so that's something you have to be mindful of. If you're gonna impose the fee and you wanna make sure it covers it so that you're not doing like a 50-50 split. So those are things to consider, but yeah. I think organizations do it differently. There's some they have a very high percentage that's recovered from fire assessment fees. Kissimmee, Florida, they put on a fourth shift. So they had to hire 63 additional personnel. They built a fire assessment fee for the 63 additional personnel only. So it's a vehicle that can be tailored, local, specific for needs. And some of them, so Kissimmee's experience, it was from their stakeholders, it was important that there was a benefit on the millage rate side, that the millage rate would reduce. SO, BUT THAT'S PART OF THAT STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK AS WELL. SO, IT'S NOT JUST ONE BLACK AND WHITE ASSESSMENT FEE. THERE'S DIFFERENT OPTIONS, AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE IS A LOT OF WORK AT THIS. SO, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THIS CONVERSATION, I'M GLAD I BROUGHT IT UP SO WE COULD START TALKING ABOUT THIS NOW, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS I'M SURE YOU HAVE THAT ARE UNANSWERED, BUT THIS APPROVAL WILL ALLOW US TO START DOING THAT WORK AND COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION AT A LATER DATE TO GIVE MORE OF AN UPDATE ABOUT WHAT WE FIND OUT. You want to vote? I think we should do a vote for the items that the city attorney mentioned. Does anyone from the audience wish to be heard on this item? All right. Does anyone want to make a motion? So I have a question because the city manager brought up that the whole idea behind fees is to one, look at fees on top of ad valorem and if they get rid of ad valorem. I'm in favor of doing this research in the event they get rid of it, but I certainly couldn't just vote blanketly knowing that it's being done both as an addition to ad valorem and or, you know, I just, I can't support something that's just going to be open. If it's going to be to vote so that we look into it in anticipation of the change in that form, then I'd certainly support it. But otherwise, I'm not going to support it. I think you can say comfortably that you're giving direction to prepare a scope to do an analysis for what fire assessment fees would look like. That way, just to identify the cost, that's sort of the initial part, is what is the cost to provide these services? That's how they get to what the fire assessment would be. But let me just say this, okay? This could, I mean, we don't have our own police department because it got too costly. I don't want to start heading in a direction where all of a sudden now, you know, we're going, wait a minute, it's way out of, you know, the cost of running our own fire department is too great. Let's talk to the county and see if we can, have a county manage our city fire department just like we do with law enforcement. You're going to have to approve an engagement agreement. I realize that, but I just see where this could potentially go. But just so you're aware, this authorization is to prepare a scope. Any agreement is going to exceed his authority, just knowing what this costs. So it's going to come back. That agreement will come back before this board. You'll be able to see the scope of work to actually do the... Again, I'll reiterate my approval would be to the scope of investigating if it's for a situation when there's no ad valorem. I will not support it if we don't tailor the scope. I would refine that just a little bit because we don't know what bill is going to be voted on yet. So to me it's kind of like I'm interested if there's a a hit to our ad valorem. You know, so I'm not interested if our authority still stays the same, but we may not eliminate it. We just might take a big hit and we're going to have to come up somewhere. But I like the idea of getting the scope because that helps us talk to our constituents out here and give them real data and say, listen, we've done research and we know that if you vote yes to what's on the ballot, we're going to come to you with a fire assessment fee in this range. We'll be able to talk real numbers at that point. And one point I didn't make earlier, too, just in case people are listening, don't understand why some of us are against fees, is that typically a fee is going to be the flight. Everybody pays the same, right? Not necessarily. What they do is they analyze the cost, and it's the cost for commercial properties, residential. And you sort of, in their scope, you kind of give them the feedback. And so they look at, when they do the analysis, You know, how the cost is, who benefits more. And so it's really just the first phase is analyzing what are the costs to provide these services. And that is dependent on the types of property and direction that's given. It's not typically, I haven't really seen it this way, and I don't know if that's a legislative change. I have not seen one of these types of engagement agreements in these studies based on whether or not there's a reduction in ad valorem. It's really just analyzing... HOW THE BREAKOUT IS. AND THEN THERE'S DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES, AND AT THAT POINT, THEY USUALLY, IN THE SOLICITATION, WILL KIND OF SAY THAT THESE ARE SOME OF THE METHODOLOGIES THAT WE CAN IMPROVE. YEAH, WE HEARD NUMEROUS EXAMPLES OF METHODOLOGY, WHETHER IT'S TIME ON TASK OR TYPES OF PROPERTY DIVIDED BY, YOU KNOW, AND IT WOULD JUST BE FOR THIS, YOU KNOW, IS IT STRAIGHT FIRE? IS IT FIRE AND EMS? SO, AND I THINK, COMMISSIONER BURNETT, YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT, TOO, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO TIRE YOU KNOW, TO REFRAME IT, I WOULD NOT WANT THE COMMISSION TO TIE THEIR HANDS IN THE VOTE TONIGHT THAT IF THERE IS A REDUCTION BUT NOT ELIMINATION, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THAT COULD CURTAIL WHAT WE COULD DO WITH THIS. ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS VERY INFANCY AND INVESTIGATION TO CHECK IT OUT BEFORE WE COMMIT STAFF RESOURCES TO LOOK AT IT. BUT IF YOU START DOING SOME OF THIS PRELIMINARY WORK NOW, AS SOON AS WE KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO BE ON THE BALLOT, YOU'LL BE ABLE TO RETURN SOME INFO TO US QUICKER. to say this is how you make up for it. We're going to know some ballot items that are going, I believe, by summer, you know, four to five months. I think this discussion is beneficial for anybody that would be looking to do this study, you know, to the analysis, to understand what this board is going to be looking at. So I think there's a benefit for them, too, because they can propose methodologies based on that. You know, the... I think that'll be helpful because then they'll understand kind of what you would potentially be looking at and only in what those circumstances would be. I'm leaning more and more toward it because as I'm listening to you, you are very sharp. You're much sharper than I was in similar straits. I wasn't as much a mad dog. So I think that's why it stuck up on me. I think I'd be more vociferous if all of a sudden something started to fly. So I'm not going to fight the scope either, although I do lean this way. But I don't want this to happen to us when we end up with a fee and ad valorem. But I think I have a good snarl on me, so I think I can fight if it gets too bad. But I want to caution Jacob and say, that said about your wit and your smarts, there's going to come a point when this stuff gets on the ballot where we're going to have to be very cautious what we do say because somebody might interpret what you just said as a threat. Hey, if you put this on, if you take away our money, doggies, this is what we'll do to you. I don't know if that's going to be education. That might be politicking. THERE'S GOING TO BE A FINE LINE. WELL, HAVING THE COSTS WILL BE HELPFUL BECAUSE THAT BECOMES FACTUAL. THIS IS WHAT IT COSTS TO PROVIDE THESE SERVICES. THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE. THE PERCEPTION OF A LOT OF PEOPLE OUT THERE IS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO GET RID OF PROPERTY TAXES AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PAY NOTHING. EVERYTHING ELSE IS FREE. I MEAN, I HAD A CONVERSATION ON SATURDAY NIGHT WITH THE COUPLE, AND THEY WERE LIKE, OH, WE CAN'T WAIT. WE CAN'T WAIT. YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO SAVE SO MUCH MONEY ON PROPERTY TAXES. I GO, OKAY. SO THIS WILL BE INFORMATION, YEAH. THE MONEY'S GOT TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE. WELL, THE MONEY COMES FROM SOMEWHERE. WE GOT TO CUT WHAT WE PROVIDE. YEAH, BUT WELL, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO CUT FIRE. WELL, NOT FIRE, BUT ANYWAY. NO, YOU'RE OKAY. ALL RIGHT. DOES ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS? YEAH, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE SCOPE OF SERVICES for researching, developing, and planning a fire assessment fee. I'll second. All right, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed say nay. All right, motion passes 5-0. Commission reports is next. Commissioner Stengel. Thanks. So I had a great time at Phil Thelumas' 90th birthday party. Quite interesting. quite the personality. But it was, I guess, the 100th anniversary of the Safety Harbor Spa, although the party really wasn't about the anniversary. It was about the birthday and his, I guess, engagement to his girlfriend. So that was fun. I still am getting some calls about a new business going in on the west end of Main Street. Again, I still, the intensity of certain areas along Main Street is going to be such that I really still hope that we move quickly towards kind of determining whether or not what the ratio is going to be for mitigation of parking, utilizing public parking, adjacent public parking, because I seriously think in that one block, along Main Street there by Nona's. It's going to be a very difficult situation for parking. It already is. I know there's a lot of overflow parking, people parking on Cherokee, people parking on properties all around there. You know, Nona's is a great restaurant. Not knocking the restaurant. I'm glad to see businesses come to downtown, but at the same time, we're creating a situation where I just want to remind you, this is a quasi-judicial item. I'm just talking about in general. I'm not talking about that piece of property. I'm talking about in general, and I've been bringing this up at each of the commission meetings, and I'm just using certain areas where we've approved in the past mitigation of parking by using on-street parking. And I've been asking and asking and asking because I can see there's going to be an issue going forward. We don't have a parking garage. People don't like to walk. And we've got parking in residential areas creating an issue throughout downtown. And Monday through Thursday, it's not an issue. But Friday and Saturday and sometimes Sunday it is. So, again. I wish we could take a look at that before it gets away from us. I know, I guess, stay tuned. I don't know where we are on the State Road 590 project, but I keep getting, now I'm getting calls on that, find out where we're at on that. I'm still waiting. If you want me jumping in. So I think from the last meeting, we're still at the same spot. We do not have a site plan. We do not have a site plan that's been submitted. And once we get one submitted for the admin policy, we'll bring it to this commission. Is that correct? Yes. Thank you. All right. Waterfront Park. Any news on something like 30 days, 60 days when it opens up? I know we were last waiting on... So per the permit, I'll let Carol correct me if I'm wrong, they were trying to get their contractor to put in the center gate conduit and wiring, but it looks like they have their lighting infrastructure is there. Their landscaping is in. So it is paved. It is striped. I think it's on the spa, general contractor. I'd hate to, you know, if you want me to give an idea, I'll say four to six weeks. Okay. All right. That's all I got. Thank you. Commissioner Besor? Yes, thank you, Mayor. I would like to compliment Ms. Rachel and staff on the wonderful volunteer appreciation event that we had over at the library. The food was delicious. The entertainment was fun. And it really gave a sense of family for the volunteers as well as for us commissioners. And Jacob, you did a great job as... Pat Sidgwick, I guess. He spun the wheel for people to win prizes. So it was very cool. And I enjoyed that a lot. And I did want to say something about Black History Month. This is February. And I want to give a shout out to the members of our community who are of African-American origin. But I also want to give a shout out to everybody, all of us who have this sense of community And I love the fact that people are waiting for our unity structure to go back up, our sculpture. I like the fact that you liked that. You liked having your pictures made with it. And no one ever is going to intimidate or doge me out of saying that I think... All of our initiatives have been wonderful. All of our diversity board ideas have been fantastic. And it shows in our community. It shows that we have African-American volunteers. It shows that we have people of interest in shopping with us and dining with us. And we're just not one. We're a mixture. We're the melting pot that I was raised to believe and that I love for this country. So thank you for listening, and that concludes my report. Thank you. Commissioner Diaz? Yes, I want to shout out to all the volunteers. The appreciation night was great. And once again, you know, the service that these volunteers do is just immeasurable. The advice they give us every couple weeks, the information they give us. And also, if they're all just looking in that room, they're just outstanding people. They're people that are very caring. who are sharing their time and are dedicating themselves not just to the city but they also are involved in charities and they seem like a very happy happy bunch. I too was at the Bill Tulumis 90th birthday party which had a great time and my one takeaway from there is Bill Tulumis one thing is 90 years old I mean incredible shape and The amount of people that he touches and he has touched in his lifetime. Everybody just looks at the spa as a business and of course at times it could be a little bit controversial. But the people that he has employed, the people that he's helped, it's just incredible. He's helped people, given them jobs. He's also helped just philanthropy and helping people. get-through-life advice. It's just, when you say it, it's just a life well-lived. And he's still in the process, and he still has a lot more to give. He's so vibrant, too. I also spent some time with Sips. You know, they had their year two anniversary. They did a total rebranding. You've got to go Take your time and go in there and look at the image and the inside. They really spent a lot of money going in there to improve their whole brand and the inside of their establishment. And it's a flourishing business. Erin Olking, she puts in her time and a lot of sweat. It's just like a lot of... SOLD BUSINESS OWNERS, AND IT'S A GREAT PLACE. SO I REALLY RECOMMEND FOR PEOPLE TO GO THERE AND SPEND SOME TIME THERE, HAVING A GLASS OF WINE AND SOME CHARCOAUTERY. AND ONE THING IS THAT SINCE YOU MENTIONED IT, COMMISSIONER STANGEL, SINCE YOU MENTIONED IT A COUPLE WEEKS AGO, THE GRASS AT THE CITY PARK, IT'S GETTING ROUGHED UP A LITTLE BIT. YOU THINK? YEAH, IT IS, YEAH. IT'S REALLY ROUGHED UP. I KNOW THAT THE CITY HAS PUT SIGNS OUT THERE SAYING, STAY OFF THE GRASS, BUT THERE'S PEOPLE JUST OUT THERE, YOU KNOW, JUST DOING WHAT THEY NEED TO DO. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT, I GUESS THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN KEEP THEM OFF THE GRASS IS IF YOU FLOOD IT WITH WATER, YOU KNOW, WHICH IS PROBABLY SOMETHING IT NEEDS ANYWAY. SPRAY IT AND PUT A BUNCH OF SIGNS UP SAYING, JUST SPRAYED WITH FUNGICIDE. ANYWAY, SO THAT'S WHAT I HAVE. THANK YOU. Thank you, Commissioner Burnett. Thank you, Mayor. I was also at the volunteer board reception. It was amazing seeing everybody there. The whole commission was on site. I just love those boards so much, love the people that are serving on them. If anybody else is watching and listening, go fill out an application, turn it in to our city clerk, Rachel, and get yourself in line to be placed on a board yourself. It's a great way to stay in touch with the community and be involved in what's shaping us. Other than that, I just kind of want to touch on preemptions here. We've been addressed in a couple of the audience-to-be-heard segments. We had a less impactful preemption on our agenda tonight. So for anybody that might be watching and listening, I think I can speak to all of us. None of us like these preemptions. And what you'll see up here, and we want to fight them, and we're fighting them in some different ways. Some of the things that's... That's sort of scary to us is we're safety harbor. We can't always be the tip of the spear to go take on the state and start getting noncompliant with some of the laws that they're passing down. We're asking and looking for opportunities. If somebody bands together, if a few cities can band together and challenge some of this, I think we are all ears and open to put ourselves in that group. We're paying to be members of the Florida League of Cities and the Suncoast League of Cities, both of which are sending droves of people to the state during every legislative session. We've got a good handful of lobbyists at our disposal trying to keep these things from happening or to drive for some amendments to past bills. So when we adopt some of our own code changes, it's not... none of us want to. We'd like to keep it the way it is and we'd like to keep our control local. But you're going to see some of us split on whether or not, you know, not being compliant is a way to challenge the state or picking and choosing compliance versus not and looking for other avenues to continue to fight for our local rights. So I just wanted to touch on that real quick because it can be lost in in the yeas and nays sometimes. So that's all I've got. And over to you, Mayor. Thank you. So I'm going to just reiterate what some of you said. I was also at the volunteer appreciation dinner. And again, compliments to Rachel and staff. Rebecca, I know you guys did a lot to put that dinner on. So well done. And thank you to all the volunteer members who served the city for $0. and just helping provide good services and insight for the city. I was also at the Bill Tulumis birthday party on Saturday evening. So he's an impactful man, Bill Tulumis. And as Carlos said, he does a lot for the people around him. And it's great to celebrate what he's done in his birthday. And I was also at an event at the American Legion on Sunday. called the Four Chaplains' Day of Service, and it's also known as the Immortal Chaplains or the Dorchester Chaplains. They were four individuals who sacrificed their lives while rescuing both civilian and military personnel during the sinking of the American troop ship SS Dorchester on February 3, 1943, a tragedy regarded as one of the most significant sea disasters of World War II. So they had a nice tribute to four members that are no longer with us that were heroic during that event. And it was very nice to see them just make that honor. That's all I have. Josh? Great, Mayor. I have a couple items. I WILL ASK STAFF TO PRESENT TO THE CITY COMMISSION WHAT OUR CURRENT STANDARDS ARE FOR PARKING AT A LATER DATE FOR THE COMMISSION. IF THE COMMISSION HAS DIRECTION AT THAT MEETING, WE'LL BE HAPPY TO TAKE FEEDBACK AND LOOK AT SOME NEXT STEPS FOR ANY RECOMMENDED EDITS. REGARDING CITY PARK, I KNOW I'VE COMMUNICATED WITH OUR PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR WHO'S WORKING WITH OUR RECREATION DIRECTOR. THEY HAVE ORDERED SEED. IT'S THE NONGROWING SEASON. THEY'VE ORDERED SEED. IT NEEDS WATER. IT NEEDS MORE SEED. OBVIOUSLY, THAT DOESN'T FIX THE ISSUE RIGHT NOW. SO OUR NEXT STEPS VERY RECENTLY IS WE REMOVED SOME OF THE SOCCER GOALS THAT WERE OUT THERE, WHICH ARE NOT THE CITIES. SO THAT WILL REDUCE TRAFFIC ON THERE. AND THEN BASED ON FEEDBACK FROM PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AND REC DIRECTOR, YOU KNOW, I WILL GO AHEAD AND IF IT'S EVEN LOOKING, IF IT'S NOT IMPROVING, I'LL GO AHEAD AND ASK THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO CLOSE OFF THAT AREA TO GIVE IT TIME TO BE LESS STRESSED OUT AND GROW BACK SO THERE'S NOT FURTHER DAMAGE. AND WE'LL WORK TO ACCOMMODATE ANY USERS THAT WANT TO HAVE A SCHEDULED EVENT FOR THAT AREA OF THE FIELD. MOVING ON, JUST A REMINDER, I'M GOING TO KEEP REITERATING, OUR PARADE, 4TH OF JULY, IS GOING TO START AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER. FIREWORKS FOR FOURTH OF JULY FIREWORKS FOR FOURTH OF JULY FIREWORKS FOR FOURTH OF JULY WILL ALSO BE AT CITY PARK WILL ALSO BE AT CITY PARK WILL ALSO BE AT CITY PARK AS OPPOSED TO THE WATERFRONT AS OPPOSED TO THE WATERFRONT AS OPPOSED TO THE WATERFRONT PARK DUE TO OUR SCHEDULING PARK DUE TO OUR SCHEDULING PARK DUE TO OUR SCHEDULING OF THE CONTRACTOR, OF THE CONTRACTOR, OF THE CONTRACTOR, AND THAT QUOTE WILL BE AND THAT QUOTE WILL BE AND THAT QUOTE WILL BE IN FRONT OF YOU, I BELIEVE, IN FRONT OF YOU, I BELIEVE, IN FRONT OF YOU, I BELIEVE, WITHIN THE NEXT ONE TO TWO WITHIN THE NEXT ONE or reflect it as we work on our fiscal year 27 budget. Speaking of budget, our budget prep season, it began with you last week, but staff meets tomorrow to kick off that process. In your folders, you should have had a budget calendar along with the city attorney. We'll ensure we get those dates sent to you electronically as well, but please look at that calendar now, and if you feel you have any major conflicts, feel free to let me know as soon as you can. I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THE WINDS. I KNOW I APPRECIATE YOU ALL DOING IT, BUT THERE MAY BE SOME OTHER THINGS HAPPENING THAT I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO SHARE WITH YOU, AND IT'S THE REASONS I LOVE LOCAL GOVERNMENT. SO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT RESPONDED TO A GARAGE FIRE LAST WEEK, AND OUR FUNDING ALLOWED THEM TO RESPOND AND BE ON SCENE WITH THE FIRST INCH AND WITHIN FOUR MINUTES AND SEVEN SECONDS, WHICH ALLOWED FOR THAT FIRE NOT TO SPREAD INTO THE ATTIC, AND ONCE THEY LEFT, THE RESIDENTS WERE ABLE TO RETURN IMMEDIATELY TO THEIR HOME. COMMISSIONERS, YOU ALL BROUGHT IT UP. YOU HONORED OUR 60-PLUS ADVISORY BO last week for the great volunteer work they do for the city at no cost. Our library, a new program, Books and Bagel Club, started off by our new director and heavily attended over the past two months by our residents and guests. In recreation, 30 plus seniors attended our senior strength and balance class very recently. A lot of these seniors have nobody to talk to. This is their outlet. This is their social network that gets them out of their home and gets to be part of the community. Public Works is maintaining the algae blooms at Rigsby Pond. And Fire Station 5-3 and Daisy Douglas Park, they have new trees. And our finance team, they've secured recently an email today. We've been obligated from FEMA $3.08 million from damages that were affected by Hurricane Helene in Milton. So that's huge work, and we're still looking at an additional $2 million to get for damages occurred by those storms. So I appreciate staff doing everything they do. Those are some of the reasons I love local government. On the last item, completely separate matter, has nothing to do with that. Property tax reform is still being discussed at the state legislature, and whether or not members of this commission or the public support or oppose that, I would recommend they contact their state rep or state senator. Their emails are on our city website, and this commission appreciates feedback from the public. I'm sure our state rep or state... Senator, would appreciate feedback as well, whether you support or oppose property tax reform. Commission, that's all I have. Your next meeting is February 16th at the normal time, 7 p.m. Thank you. Senator? So I was aware that we were asked to look at the City of Tampa's challenge to live local. We're looking at that. I also have a call scheduled this Friday. I believe with a county attorney, local county attorney, because I think they may be considering some litigation. So I'm just trying to get that update to see. And then I will bring it back to you so you can consider what options you'd like to take. So I did get that update from the last meeting. We are watching the preemption. Some of them are more ridiculous than we could consider. And some we're just trying to practically plan for. So we understand the frustration, but we're trying to position the city as best we can, depending on which way it goes. But we're watching them right now. The list of legislation that we are watching as a firm is very long. And so we're attending the league meetings, the county league meetings, looking at the updates. So there's too many to... ABOUT EVERY MEETING, BUT WE ARE WATCHING THEM. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR, JUST LET ME KNOW AND WE CAN POLL, BECAUSE WE HAVE A PRETTY LONG LIST RIGHT NOW THAT WE KEEP LOOKING AT. I PERIODICALLY CHECK TO SEE FOR SOME OF THE KEY PIECES, IF THERE'S BEEN A COMMITTEE MEETING, JUST TO SEE THE NOTES ON IT, SO WE CAN SEE ANY AMENDMENTS THAT ARE BEING CONSIDERED, BUT JUST WAIT AND SEE. Friends of mine published that Walden Lake had a win against Live Local. But as far as I'm concerned, Walden Lake, or as far as I know, Walden Lake Plant City won because they had a PUD, a planned unit development in place. We can't use our comprehensive plan to fight development of a big chunk of us because we don't have a PUD. Is that correct? I need to look at... that again, when I looked at it, the way they won was, it was very unique to that situation. I think it was how they, I think they proposed a PUD as opposed, but I'll look at it. I'll look and provide you the update. Because any information is wonderful. Thank you, Mayor. And thank you, Sarah. All right. Thank you, everyone. Meeting's adjourned.