Jul 22, 2024 Commission Meeting

OKAY. I THINK WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND HEAD AND HAVE A MEETING.

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:07]

GOD, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS WONDERFUL DAY AND WONDERFUL WEATHER IN THIS SPECIAL TOWN.

PLEASE LISTEN.

LET US HEAR ALL THE CONCERNS AND CONSIDERATIONS OF OUR POPULACE AND THE PEOPLE THAT REALLY ARE THE BOSSES IN THE CITY.

AMEN. AMEN.

PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER.

THIS CITY COMMISSION MEETING DATED JULY 22ND, 2024 WILL NOW COME TO ORDER.

DONNA, WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? SURE. COMMISSIONER BOLE PRESENT.

COMMISSIONER KELLY PRESENT.

COMMISSIONER RING PRESENT.

COMMISSIONER WATERS PRESENT.

MAYOR FORD PRESENT.

OKAY, WE'LL MOVE RIGHT INTO THE AGENDA MINUTES.

[1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

ARE THERE ANY CHANGES TO THE MINUTES? OKAY. HEARING NONE, THE MINUTES STAND AS SUBMITTED.

ITEM 1B APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON JUNE 24TH, 2024.

ARE THERE ANY CHANGES TO THOSE MINUTES? OKAY. HEARING NONE, THOSE MINUTES STAND AS PRESENTED.

WE'LL MOVE INTO ITEM 2 ON THE AGENDA, COURTESY OF THE FLOOR.

[2. COURTESY OF FLOOR TO VISITORS]

DONNA, DO YOU. HOW MANY PEOPLE DO WE HAVE SIGNED IN? I BELIEVE IT'S SIX MAYOR.

OKAY. YEAH. SO AND IS THERE ANYBODY HERE RAISE YOUR HAND IF.

WELL, THAT LOOKS LIKE ABOUT SIX.

ANYBODY WANT TO SPEAK THAT HASN'T SIGNED IN? OKAY. WE'RE GOOD.

SO WE'LL ALLOW THREE MINUTES.

I HOPE THAT'S ADEQUATE FOR EVERYBODY TO SPEAK.

I WILL TAP THE GAVEL AT FIVE SECONDS AFTER IF YOU GO OVER.

BUT BUT YOU'LL ALSO HEAR THE BUZZER WHEN THREE MINUTES WHEN THAT OCCURS.

SO OUR FIRST SPEAKER.

DON FORD.

GOOD EVENING EVERYBODY.

MY NAME IS DON FORD I JUST INTRODUCED MYSELF A LITTLE BIT.

I'M A RETIRED BUILDING OFFICIAL I WAS WITH ATLANTIC BEACH FOR 21 YEARS, ALSO SERVED AS THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR FOR ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF, AND I SERVED AS DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT OTHER POSITIONS AS MOST SMALL TOWNS YOU DO IF YOU'RE THERE VERY LONG.

BUT I'VE BEEN RETIRED NOW FOR ABOUT 19 YEARS.

WHAT I'M SPEAKING TO IS ITEM NUMBER 3C ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT, AND I'VE SENT YOU ALL, I THINK ALL OF YOU HAVE GOTTEN AN EMAIL FROM ME AND PROBABLY A LETTER AT SOME POINT IN TIME, AND I GOT SOME REPLIES.

AND THOSE OF YOU THAT REPLIED TO IT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

IT'S VERY NICE TO KNOW THAT YOU'RE AWAKE OUT THERE.

WE HAVEN'T HAD A COLA IN 20 YEARS.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE TO GO 20 YEARS WITHOUT A RAISE? THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.

OUR MONEY IS WORTH ABOUT 60% OF WHAT IT WAS WHEN WE FIRST.

WHEN I FIRST RETIRED, ANYWAY.

19 YEARS AGO.

AND AT THIS POINT IN TIME, IT'S STARTING TO HURT.

WE WE, WE TRY TO PLAN AHEAD AND I KNOW WHEN I WAS PLANNING, THERE WAS AN PART OF THE PENSION ORDINANCE, SAID THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD CONSIDER A 3% COLA OR HIGHER FOR FOR THE PENSIONERS AT LEAST EVERY THREE YEARS.

I REMEMBER THAT THREE, THREE THING.

AT SOME POINT IN TIME, ONE OF OUR MORE ASTUTE AND WISER COMMISSIONS TOOK THAT OUT OF THE PENSION PLAN AND TOOK IT OUT OF THE ORDINANCE.

SO THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR YOU EVER TO CONSIDER A COLA FOR PENSIONERS.

AND BECAUSE THAT WAS TAKEN OUT, IN MY OPINION IT'S NEVER BEEN CONSIDERED.

IT'S NEVER BEEN BROUGHT UP THAT I KNOW OF.

SO I'M BRINGING IT UP.

I HOPE YOU ALL WILL TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY.

THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT ARE REALLY HURTING.

I I'M LUCKY ENOUGH I'VE WORKED WITH ANOTHER JURISDICTION AND I'VE GOT ANOTHER PLAN ALSO THAT I DEPEND ON, BUT

[00:05:05]

AND APPARENTLY NOBODY HAS BOTHERED TO BROUGHT IT UP.

AND I'M THE ONLY ONE DUMB ENOUGH TO STAND UP HERE AND TALK TO IT.

SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU, MR. FORD.

JERRY BENJAMIN.

GOOD EVENING. JERRY BENJAMIN.

I ALSO LIKE DON I'M A FORMER, EXCUSE ME, FORMER EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH.

I WAS A DEPUTY FINANCE DIRECTOR AND RETIRED AFTER ABOUT 22 YEARS.

THIS WAS JUST ONE OF MY STOPS.

I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF WORKING FOR JEA AND CITY OF JACKSONVILLE BEACH AND CSX QUITE A FEW PLACES.

I'M A CPA, BOTH DON AND I ACTUALLY WERE ON THE PENSION BOARDS WHILE WE WERE HERE, AND WE'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE PLANS.

EXCUSE ME, THE PLANS.

WHEN DON FIRST KIND OF STARTED THIS PROJECT ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CHANGES.

AND I KNOW MR. KILLINGSWORTH, YOU'RE NEW TO THE CITY, AND WE HAD SPENT A LOT OF TIME WITH THE PENSION BOARDS DOING ACTUARIAL STUDIES AND SO FORTH, AND WE WERE VERY GRATEFUL THAT THE CITY APPROVED DOING THAT.

WE CAME UP WITH A PLAN, I THOUGHT, LAST NOVEMBER WITH A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE BOARDS THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO GO TO THE CITY COMMISSION, AND THAT KIND OF FELL BY THE WAYSIDE, I THINK, WITH WHAT HAPPENED IN THE WORLD AND MR. KILLINGSWORTH COMING ON BOARD AND SO FORTH.

BUT LIKE DON SAID THE PURCHASING POWER OF MONEY HAS JUST REALLY DECLINED DRAMATICALLY ESPECIALLY IN THE LAST TWO YEARS.

AND YOU KNOW, LIKE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE HAS AN AUTOMATIC COLA, I THINK AFTER FIVE YEARS OF RETIREMENT.

I ACTUALLY STILL SEE SOME OF MY JEA FRIENDS AND THEY HAVE VERY LUCRATIVE PLANS.

AND BACK IN THE DAY, DEFINED BENEFIT PLANS WERE THE GOLD STANDARD.

SO WE WERE VERY GRATEFUL FOR THAT.

BUT WE GAVE UP OTHER THINGS BY GETTING THAT.

NOWADAYS, THE 401 K PLAN TYPE THING IS ACTUALLY MORE BENEFICIAL BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY OF MAKING A LOT MORE MONEY IF YOU'RE SAVVY OR YOU INVEST YOUR MONEY WISELY, AND IF YOU DIE, YOU DON'T LOSE IT.

WHEREAS WITH DEFINED BENEFIT PLAN, DEPENDING ON THE CHOICE THAT YOU MAKE WHEN YOU'RE AT THE POINT OF RETIREMENT, YOU COULD DIE TWO YEARS LATER AND GET NOTHING.

SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S PROS AND CONS.

WE ALL MAKE CHOICES.

MY HOPE IS THAT THE CITY WILL STRONGLY CONSIDER GIVING US A ONE TIME COLA, THAT'S WHAT WE ASKED FOR, WE DIDN'T ASK FOR ONGOING COLA.

AND MAYBE TAKE IT INTO CONSIDERATION DURING THE NEXT BUDGET MEETING YOU HAVE OR POSSIBLY THE FOURTH ONE, AFTER YOU'VE EVALUATED ALL OF YOUR PRIORITIES FOR THE REST OF THE CITY.

I KNOW THERE'S A LOT THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.

AND, YOU KNOW, RETIREES ARE KIND OF OVER HERE, BUT I HOPE YOU CONSIDER IT.

AND WE DID GIVE A RECOMMENDATION, AND I HOPE THAT YOU LOOK AT IT SEPARATELY FROM THE POLICE, BECAUSE I KNOW THE POLICE, ESPECIALLY WITH WHAT THE MAYOR IS DOING IN JACKSONVILLE.

YOU NEED TO LOOK AT THEIR WHOLE PLAN, THEIR SALARIES, THEIR BENEFITS, THEIR PENSION.

THEY'RE GOING BACK TO DEFINED BENEFIT PLANS.

SO THERE'S ALL THAT. BUT WITH I'M SORRY, I'M GOING TO LOSE TIME.

BUT WITH US WE HAVE A CLOSED PLAN.

WE HAVE A LIMITED NUMBER OF PEOPLE AND WE KNOW WHAT OUR MONEY IS GOING TO BE.

AND I THINK WE SHOULD BE HANDLED SEPARATELY.

PLEASE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU, MISS BENJAMIN.

MARTY [INAUDIBLE] MY NAME IS MARTY, AND I LIVE ON AQUATIC DRIVE.

I'M HERE ABOUT THE POND.

OKAY. MARY GAVE YOU THE LETTER THE OTHER DAY.

OUR MAIN GOAL WITH THE MONEY THAT WAS ALLOTTED WHAT SHE SAID WAS WHAT SCOTT TOLD ME DIFFERENT.

WE WOULD LIKE THE BULKING TO GO BEHIND OUR HOUSES.

HE SAID TAKE THE MONEY FROM THAT DOG PARK.

WHO CARES IF THEIR LANDS CAVING IN? OUR HOUSES ARE LOSING 5 TO 8 WHAT DO YOU CALL IT LAWN BEHIND OUR HOUSES.

I CAN BARELY GET BACK THERE ANYMORE.

MY NEIGHBORS CAN GET REALLY CAN'T GET BACK THERE AT ALL.

SO WE WANT BULKING BEHIND OUR HOMES.

THE EIGHT PEOPLE THAT LIVE ALONG THERE THAT SECONDLY WE WANT A BETTER FENCE OVER THERE BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE CONSTANTLY JUMPING THAT FENCE, GOING AND FISHING ON THE SIDE WHETHER OR NOT YOU GAVE THEM THE FRONT, THEY NEED TO FISH IN THE FRONT.

YOU GAVE THEM A PICNIC TABLE, BENCHES.

WE DON'T WANT IT BEHIND OUR HOUSES.

WE DON'T WANT THEM WALKING AROUND THIS WAY AND CLIMBING THE FENCE.

THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING. KIDS AND ADULTS.

I CALLED THE POLICE.

THEY SAID, WHAT DO YOU WANT US TO DO? I SAID, IT'S A LOCKED FENCE.

[00:10:01]

NOBODY'S GOING TO FALL OFF THOSE BULKHEADS INTO THAT POND BECAUSE NO ONE IS SUPPOSED TO BE BACK THERE.

SOMEBODY WENT BACK THERE AND SCRATCHED MY DOG'S EYE AND DREW STUFF OVER HIS NOSE.

$500. IT COST ME TO TAKE HIM TO THE VET.

I WILL NOT HAVE PEOPLE BEHIND MY HOUSE.

I WANT ANOTHER FENCE GOING AROUND THAT POND TO KEEP THOSE PEOPLE FROM JUMPING THAT FENCE AND COMING OVER THERE, AND MAINLY WE WANT THE BULKHEADS, PERIOD.

HE SAID THEY AREN'T GOING TO DREDGE THE POND, SO WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE ANY MORE OF OUR LAND INTO THAT POND.

I DON'T WANT THAT SCUZZ WATER BACK IN MY BACKYARD, NEITHER DO THE REST OF US.

AND SEVEN OUT OF THE EIGHT PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE SIGNED THAT PETITION ASKING FOR THE BULKHEADS, ASKING FOR A BETTER FENCE OVER ON THIS SIDE.

IT'S PRETTY GOOD OVER ON THIS SIDE, ALTHOUGH THE NEIGHBOR KIDS DO CLIMB EVERY NOW AND THEN.

BUT OVER ON THAT OTHER SIDE, THERE WAS A SIGN THAT SAID NO PUBLIC ACCESS.

IT WAS GONE. SUDDENLY IT'S BACK, BUT IT'S LAYING ON THE GROUND.

SO WE WOULD LIKE SOME MORE SIGNAGE, WHICH WON'T COST A MILLION BUCKS TO PUT SIGNS UP THAT PUT THE NO PUBLIC ACCESS BACK UP, NO FISHING BEYOND THIS POINT ON BOTH SIDES WHEN THAT'S THAT'S WHAT WE WANT BECAUSE WE'RE TIRED OF IT.

AND I'M NOT GOING TO HAVE SOMEONE COME BACK THERE AND ABUSE THE LAST DOG I HAVE OR ANYBODY ELSE'S DOG OR OUR PROPERTY.

SO PLEASE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE BULKHEADS OR A BETTER FENCE, AT LEAST RIGHT OVER THERE AND OVER ON THIS SIDE WHERE THE DITCH COMES IN, BECAUSE THEY'RE COMING THROUGH THAT WAY TOO, AND SIGNS.

MAYBE SOME GARBAGE CANS WOULD HELP TOO.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU MARTY.

DOLLY MCCORMICK.

I'M ALSO IN AQUATIC GARDENS, AND I'M ONE OF THOSE HOMES.

OKAY, SO WE'RE JUST KIND OF DOUBLE TEAMING YOU GUYS RIGHT NOW, BUT IT IS BAD BECAUSE WHEN THEY GET BEHIND THERE, WE'RE STUCK CLEANING UP ALL THE GARBAGE.

I MEAN, I HAVE TO CLEAN IT UP ON MY I'M A CORNER PROPERTY.

SO EVERYBODY THAT COMES AROUND THAT CORNER, THAT'S HAVING SOMETHING LIKE MCDONALD'S OR SOMETHING AND IT'S EMPTY, GOES ON MY LAWN.

SO I'M ALWAYS POLICING IT IN THE MORNING AND THE DRAINS ALSO.

BUT YEAH, THE, THE BULKHEADING WE REALLY NEED THAT PROPERTY THAT PROPERTY THAT WAS BEHIND OUR FENCES, THAT'S A PROTECTIVE BARRIER FOR US.

YOU KNOW, WHEN A LOT OF PEOPLE FLOODED MORE THAN WE DID AND WE WERE ON THE POND BECAUSE WE HAD THAT FIRST FOR THE WATER TO COME UP TO.

AND NOW WE'VE LOST, WE'VE LOST FEET.

AND NOW, FROM WHAT SCOTT SAYS, THE NEW THING THEY'RE GOING TO PUT IN THERE, THAT WATER IS GOING TO MOVE FAST, MOVE OUT FAST, AND THAT MEANS OUR PROPERTY IS GOING TO MOVE FAST ALONG WITH IT, AND IT'LL GET AN HOUR AND AN HOUR AN HOUR.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE EVER BEEN IN THE FLOOD, BUT IT'S SCARY WHEN YOU LOOK OUT YOUR WINDOW AND YOU'RE LOOKING OUT, AND EVERY WINDOW YOU LOOK FROM IS WATER. YOU LOOK LIKE YOU'RE ON SOME KIND OF ISLAND.

I CAN'T SWIM, SO IT'S REAL SCARY WHEN WE FLOODED THAT YEAR, I REALLY DON'T WANT THAT TO HAPPEN AGAIN.

LOOK, I KNOW YOU CAN'T TAKE CARE OF HURRICANES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT WITH THE PUMP AND WITH SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU MIGHT DO, AT LEAST WE WON'T HAVE TO GET STUCK LIKE WE DID WITH THESE STORMS. THESE TROPICAL STORMS. THAT'S WHAT DOES IT BECAUSE THEY DROP SO MUCH RAIN.

SO I REALLY WOULD APPRECIATE YOU THINKING ABOUT GIVING US THE BULKHEAD INSTEAD OF THE POND THAT'S IN FRONT OF THE CHURCH OR THE DOG POND.

LET THEM WAIT.

YOU KNOW OUR HOMES I THINK LISTEN I OWN A DOG AND I LOVE MY LITTLE DOG BUT I DON'T WANT HER DYING IN A FLOOD EITHER.

OKAY. SO I'D APPRECIATE IF YOU REALLY GIVE THAT MUCH THOUGHT AND USE THE MONEY WISELY ON PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, DAN FRANKEL.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS DAN FRANKEL, 336 SECOND STREET.

I KNOW YOU DON'T NORMALLY ANSWER QUESTIONS, SO I WILL JUST POSE A COUPLE QUESTIONS AND PLEASE LET ME KNOW HOW I GET ANSWERS BACK FROM MY QUESTIONS.

UPDATE ON THE PARKING ISSUE SECOND STREET.

WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHO WOULD GET BACK TO THE RESIDENTS.

WE GAVE YOU A PETITION ABOUT SIX WEEKS AGO.

HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING.

IT DON'T HAVE TO BE ME IT COULD BE OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE ON IT, BUT I GUESS I'M THE PERSON THAT GETS UP HERE AND SAYS SOMETHING.

SO I'D LIKE TO KNOW HOW HOW YOU OR HOW MANAGERS OR SOMETHING COMMUNICATE WITH RESIDENTS.

YOU PROBABLY AREN'T GOING TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION RIGHT NOW.

[00:15:03]

I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CREATE A A LIST OF HOW ROADS GET PAVED.

WHAT IS THE CRITERIA? I'M NOT SAYING MY ROAD NEEDS TO BE PAVED, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IT PROBABLY DOES NEED TO BE PAVED.

I'M SURE THERE'S OTHER RESIDENTS WHO SAY THEY WOULD LIKE TO BE PAVED.

WHAT'S THE CRITERIA? WHO DOES IT? WHO? WHO SETS UP THOSE CRITERIA? IS IT JUST BECAUSE PEOPLE WHO YELL THE LOUDEST? OR IS IT THAT'S THAT'S ONE THING? OR IS IT REALLY NEED BE DONE? I'D LIKE TO KNOW THAT CRITERIA.

SOMEBODY GET BACK TO ME ON THAT ONE.

AND THE THIRD THING IS WITH ALL THE RAINS THAT EVERYBODY'S BEEN TALKING ABOUT.

SECOND STREET, ENTRANCE TO THE BEACH, FORGET EVERYTHING THAT'S BEING DONE.

AND I UNDERSTAND THERE'S WORKING AND EVERYTHING ON THE BEACH.

IT'S TERRIBLE, IT'S HORRIBLE.

IT'S OVERGROWN. IT'S JUST NEEDS I MISSED SOMETHING.

ENTRANCE TO THE SECOND STREET BEACH.

IT JUST IT'S RAGGEDY.

IT'S JUST. IT'S NOT CLEAN.

IT'S EASY FOR PUBLIC WORKS TO TAKE CARE OF IT.

THE ENTRANCE HAS BEEN OVERGROWN.

NOT A HARD, NOT A HARD LIFT.

SO IF I CAN GET SOME ANSWERS TO ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS TONIGHT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

TOMORROW THAT WOULD BE FANTASTIC.

JUST HOW DO YOU GET BACK TO THE RESIDENTS.

I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU DO THAT, BUT PLEASE COMMUNICATE.

THANK YOU. SURE. THANK YOU, MR. FRANKEL. BRINKLEY BY THE WAY, MR. FRANKEL, I'M NOT GOING TO ADDRESS YOUR YOUR CONCERNS HERE TONIGHT, BUT I AM GOING TO GET BACK TO YOU TOMORROW.

THANK YOU. BRINKLEY HARRELL.

HELLO AGAIN MAYOR COMMISSIONERS STAFF.

I'M UP HERE TO TALK ABOUT RESOLUTION 24-40 THAT DEALS WITH THE MILLAGE RATE FOR THE CURRENT BUDGET CYCLE THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH.

I PAID A LOT OF ATTENTION TO THE BUDGET MEETING TWO WEEKS AGO.

AND JUST TO REMIND YOU ABOUT SOME THINGS THAT I MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE SAID IN THE EMAIL THAT EACH OF YOU RECEIVED, EXCEPT JASON, I THINK I LEFT YOU OFF THE DISTRIBUTION SORRY.

AD VALOREM TAXES OR THE MILLAGE RATE IS THE SINGLE MOST THING THAT YOU FIVE CAN CAN HAVE A DECIDED EFFECT ON FOR ALL THE RESIDENTS, TAXPAYERS, AND VOTERS IN ATLANTIC BEACH.

NO MATTER WHAT ELSE YOU DO WHEN YOU SET THAT MILLAGE RATE, THAT IS THE SINGLE MOST THING THAT AFFECTS EVERY PROPERTY OWNER, RESIDENT, TAXPAYER AND VOTER IN ATLANTIC BEACH. NOW, INTERESTINGLY, THE OH AND THE AD VALOREM TAXES OR THE MILLAGE RATE ONLY AFFECTS THE GENERAL FUND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REST OF THE BUDGET, ONLY THE GENERAL FUND.

BUT THIS YEAR'S PROPOSED GENERAL FUND IS ACTUALLY $100,000 LESS THAN LAST YEAR'S FINAL GENERAL FUND BUDGET NUMBER.

OKAY, SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO TO SAY HERE IS THAT I AM ADAMANTLY OPPOSED TO THE PROPOSED RATE THAT'S LISTED IN RESOLUTION 24-40, WHICH IS USING 3.1035, WHICH WAS WHICH WAS THE MILLAGE RATE USED TWO YEARS AGO.

THAT RATE IS TOO HIGH HISTORICALLY.

AND TRADITIONALLY, THAT TOP END MILLAGE RATE IS THE PREVIOUS YEAR'S APPROVED RATE, WHICH SHOULD BE 2.8410. NOW, 2.8410 HAPPENS TO BE THE NUMBER THAT THE CITY MANAGER UTILIZED IN THIS CURRENT BUDGET PROPOSAL TO COME UP WITH THE TOTAL GENERAL FUND BUDGET.

SO WE DON'T NEED TO GO STARTING TO GET EVERYBODY ALL AGITATED OTHER THAN ME ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR THE 3.1035, WHICH, IF POTENTIALLY ADOPTED, WOULD RAISE AN ADDITIONAL $1.5 MILLION FOR THE GENERAL FUND THAT'S NOT NEEDED.

BUT EVEN WORSE THAN THAT, IT WOULD RAISE EVERY ONE OF YOUR PROPERTY TAXES ON THE ATLANTIC BEACH PORTION BY 20%.

I DON'T I DON'T THINK YOU WANT YOUR ATLANTIC BEACH PROPERTY TAXES TO GO UP BY 20% EITHER.

SO TRYING TO SUM IT UP, THE PROPOSED RATE THAT SHOWS IN RESOLUTION IS WAY TOO HIGH.

IT'S UNNECESSARY.

IT NEEDS TO BE DIALED DOWN TO LAST YEAR'S RATE.

OKAY. NOW, AT SOME POINT IN TIME, I'LL COME BEFORE YOU AND I'LL SAY THAT I'D REALLY LIKE FOR YOU TO CONSIDER THE ROLLBACK RATE.

AND AFTER MR. KILLINGSWORTH GETS ALL THE OTHER REVENUE NUMBERS IN, THAT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE.

SO THANK YOU AGAIN.

YOU HAVE MY EMAIL FOR MORE DETAILS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, MR. HARRELL. THAT'S ALL I HAVE, MAYOR.

OKAY. WE WILL CLOSE COURTESY OF THE FLOOR AND MOVE TO CITY MANAGER REPORTS.

[3. CITY MANAGER REPORTS]

[00:20:05]

SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS ON HERE.

WE HAVE A TOWN HALL MEETING ON THE 27TH AT THE IN THESE CHAMBERS AT 10:00.

AND WE HAVE WORKED WITH OLD CASTLE, IDEALLY, THEY WILL HAVE A DEMONSTRATION PROJECT OUT IN THE PARKING LOT WHERE WE'RE TAKING A SPACE THAT PEOPLE ARE CURRENTLY PARKING ON BUT IS NOT PARKING.

AND PUT THREE PARKING SPACES WITH THEIR PRODUCT AND THEIR RECOMMENDED UNDERLAYMENT.

AND THEN WE MAY EVEN DO AN EXPERIMENT WHERE WE GET THE PUBLIC UTILITIES, WATER TRUCK, PUBLIC WORKS WATER TRUCK, BRING IT OUT THERE AND DUMP A BUNCH OF WATER ON IT.

ON CAN YOU.

SINCE YOU'RE ON THAT, CAN YOU DESCRIBE WHAT THEY'RE DOING WITH THE WINDOW? SO IT'S NOT A WINDOW.

WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO IS THEY'RE GOING TO PUT IN A A PIPE, A VERTICAL PIPE, SO THAT YOU CAN LOOK DOWN INTO IT AND SEE, IN FACT, THAT THE WATER IS PERCOLATING THROUGH THE THE STONE AND THE UNDERLAYMENT AND REACHING THE THE GRAVEL UNDERNEATH WHICH IS THE STORAGE MECHANISM.

SO IT'S YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO LIKE FROM THE SIDE, BE ABLE TO SEE A WINDOW, BUT YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE A PIPE DOWN INTO IT.

ON THE 24TH OF AUGUST, WE HAVE A MOVIES IN JOHANSON PARK.

AND THEN ON THE 28TH OF SEPTEMBER, WE HAVE THE FALL FESTIVAL OVER AT GAIL BAKER, AS WELL AS OUR COMMISSION MEETINGS AND FARMERS MARKETS.

WITH THAT, MR. MAYOR.

I WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE 90 DAY CALENDAR.

OKAY. DO WE HAVE CONSENSUS? WE HAVE CONSENSUS APPROVED.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR.

WE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES IF ANYBODY IS ATTENDING THEIR ANNUAL CONFERENCE, WHICH IS IN HOLLYWOOD, FLORIDA, WE GET ONE DELEGATE WHO BECOMES A VOTING MEMBER, AND THEY'RE ASKING US TO DESIGNATE THAT DELEGATE NO LATER THAN JULY 31ST.

SO IF THE COMMISSION WOULD SO LIKE TO REACH A CONSENSUS ON WHO THAT MIGHT BE, I CAN FILL OUT THIS FORM AND SEND IT TO THEM.

SO I'D HAVE TO GO FIRST TO COMMISSIONER.

RING ARE YOU PLANNING ON ATTENDING? NO, I WAS NOT OKAY.

COMMISSIONER BOLE WAS DOWN THERE.

BUT WHAT THE. WHAT'S THE DATE? THE DATE IS SATURDAY, AUGUST 17TH.

THAT'S THE BUSINESS SESSION IN WHICH THE ACTUAL DELEGATE WOULD VOTE.

THE CONFERENCE IS THE 15TH THROUGH THE 17TH OF AUGUST.

BACK TO YOU TOMORROW.

COMMISSIONER KELLY ARE YOU INTERESTED? NO. OKAY.

AND COMMISSIONER WATERS.

I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT.

ARE YOU LAUGHING? SORRY.

I MIGHT I'LL GET BACK TO YOU TOMORROW.

OKAY. WELL DONE.

AND I'LL JUST STAND BACK.

AND IF YOU GUYS FIGURE IT OUT, GOOD.

OTHERWISE, I MIGHT HAVE TO STEP IN TO TO REPRESENT.

I WOULD LIKE IN YOUR REPORTING, I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT TWO THINGS, BUT I COULD ACTUALLY ASK YOU ABOUT THEM WHEN WE GET TO COMMISSIONER REQUEST.

THE TWO ITEMS ARE THE HOMELESS LAW AND BEACH RENOURISHMENT.

OKAY. SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THAT THERE WOULD BE COMMISSIONER BOLE UNLESS HE GETS BACK WITH ME AND SAYS NO.

YEAH. AND THEN POTENTIALLY COMMISSIONER WATERS UNLESS HE GETS BACK AND SAYS NO, WHICH SEEMS TO BE THE GENERAL PRE CONSENSUS.

AND THEN AND THEN DEFAULT TO THE MAYOR.

ALL RIGHT. OKAY.

MOVING ON. I DO WANT TO TALK ABOUT WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION ON THE PENSION AND THE COLA.

THERE'S NO DECISION.

I JUST WANTED TO BRIEF YOU QUICKLY ON THE TWO SCENARIOS IN WHICH THE PENSION BOARD'S RECOMMENDED.

EXCUSE ME. BOTH FOR THE POLICE PENSION AND FOR THE GENERAL EMPLOYEES PENSION.

AND THEN I HAD A SCENARIO RUN JUST TO SEE THE COST DIFFERENCES.

SO THE POLICE OFFICERS PENSION, THEIR RECOMMENDATION WAS A ONE TIME COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT FOR CURRENT RETIREES OF 1% FOR EVERY YEAR THAT'S ELAPSED SINCE THEIR DATE OF BENEFIT COMMENCEMENT AND AN ANNUAL COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT OF 1% PROSPECTIVELY FOR CURRENT AND FUTURE

[00:25:02]

THAT SCENARIO ENDS UP COSTING THE CITY $307,000 APPROXIMATELY THE VERY FIRST YEAR.

AND THEN AS WE GO FORWARD, IT INCREASES OUR UNFUNDED LIABILITY BY ABOUT $233,000 A YEAR.

SO THAT'S GOING FORWARD EVERY YEAR FROM NOW UNTIL ETERNITY.

THE GENERAL EMPLOYEES PENSION, THEIR SCENARIO WAS, WAS SIMILAR, BUT IT WAS 1% EVERY FULL YEAR THAT'S ELAPSED SINCE THE DATE OF BENEFIT WITHOUT THE 1% EACH YEAR GOING FORWARD.

THEIR ONE TIME COST TO THE CITY WOULD BE UP FRONT COST WOULD BE $199,459, BUT ONGOING COST WOULD BE ABOUT $190,000 A YEAR.

SO COLLECTIVELY YOU'RE LOOKING BETWEEN THE TWO ABOUT $400 PLUS THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR UNDER THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS.

I LOOKED AT A SCENARIO WHICH WAS ONE OF THE TWO HAD THIS SCENARIO, AND SO I ASKED TO LOOK AT THE OTHER ONE.

BUT THE SCENARIO IS A 3% FOR EVERY 4 OR 5 YEARS THAT'S ELAPSED FROM THE DATE OF BENEFIT COMMENCEMENT WITH PENSION FOR BOTH OF THEM.

OKAY, SO THEY WOULD END UP WITH THE SAME, SAME PINCH, THE SAME COST OF LIVING ALLOWANCE THAT WOULD COST UNDER THE POLICE OFFICER'S PENSION.

IT WOULD COST $51,000 APPROXIMATELY THAT FIRST YEAR.

AND THEN GOING FORWARD IT WOULD BE ABOUT A $50,000 UNFUNDED LIABILITY.

SO THAT'S AN ADDITIONAL $50,000 EVERY YEAR GOING FORWARD.

AND THEN THAT SAME PROGRAM, 3% FOR EVERY FIVE FULL YEARS FOR THE GENERAL EMPLOYEES, THAT WOULD BE ABOUT A $200,000 HIT THAT FIRST YEAR.

AND I THINK IT'S PROBABLY ABOUT A $200,000 HIT EVERY YEAR THEREAFTER.

NO, ACTUALLY, IT'S A SMALLER HIT.

SO IT'S 60 ABOUT $75,000 GOING FORWARD EVERY YEAR.

SO IT IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD PROBABLY PUT IN AS AN ENHANCEMENT INTO THE BUDGET IF THE COMMISSION'S INTERESTED IN MOVING FORWARD WITH SOME KIND OF COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT. WHAT I WHAT I THINK I'LL DO, UNLESS THE COMMISSION OBJECTS, IS I WILL PUT IN THE SCENARIO THAT I GRANT AND THEN IF THE COMMISSION, AS WE'RE WORKING THROUGH THE BUDGET, FEELS THAT THEY WANT TO RUN WITH THE EMPLOYEES THAT RUN THE PENSION BOARD RECOMMENDED THAT WE CAN DO THAT.

[INAUDIBLE] WHAT I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO DO IS JUST RESTATE WHAT YOU STATED ON YOUR NUMBERS, YOUR MATH.

BUT THEN SECONDLY, I HEARD THIS THE PREVIOUS MR. FORD, WHO SERVED THE CITY FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, SPEAK TO THE ISSUE OF A PRIOR COMMISSION TAKING AWAY A 3%.

WAS IT TAKING AWAY THE COLA PERIOD OR TAKING AWAY A 3% COLA? AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS EVER A COLA IN THAT PLAN.

HOWEVER, MAYBE IT WAS POLICY.

DO YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT? SO I'LL ANSWER THE LAST QUESTION FIRST.

TO MY KNOWLEDGE, AND I ASKED OUR FINANCE DIRECTOR, WHO IS THE STAFF TO THE PENSION, THAT QUESTION.

AND IT BASED OFF HER RESEARCH, THE TWO PENSIONS NEVER HAD A BUILT IN COLA IN THEM.

THE I THINK THE SCENARIO THAT MR. FORD IS REFERRING TO IS THE LAST COLA ADJUSTMENT WAS DONE UNDER MAYOR MESERVE, IN WHICH I BELIEVE HE DID A 3% ONE TIME COLA ADJUSTMENT. BUT THE TO MY KNOWLEDGE, BASED ON THE INFORMATION I GOT FROM OUR FINANCE DIRECTOR, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A 3% PROSPECTIVE COST OF LIVING ALLOWANCE TO THE EITHER PENSION PROGRAM.

SO, COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS ON THIS? YEAH, I'M A LITTLE SLOW, SO IT WOULD HELP ME, BILL, IS IF YOU GRAPH THIS OUT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WHAT I'M WORRIED ABOUT IS THE OUT YEARS.

I GET YOUR, YOU KNOW, THREE YEARS.

BUT A LOT OF TIMES, YOU KNOW, YOU CORRECT ME, YOU LOOK AT IT, IT'S PRETTY MUCH EXPONENTIAL AS YOU GET ON TOP, YOU KNOW, IN THE PAY AND I UNDERSTAND, BUT JUST GRAPHICALLY IF WE COULD SEE.

YEAH. SO THE OUT YEARS DON'T CHANGE.

IT'S BASICALLY SO THE LINE GOES UP AND ACROSS.

[00:30:02]

IT'S A BETWEEN THE TWO BASED OFF THEIR SCENARIO.

IT'S ABOUT A $450,000 HIT EVERY YEAR GOING FORWARD.

SO IT'S NOT IT'S NOT A COMPOUNDING.

MY SUSPICION IS THAT WHAT THE ACTUARY DOES IS THEY LOOK AT THE FUTURE CASH STREAM AND THEN AND THEN DO A, YOU KNOW, THEY CALCULATE THE PRESENT VALUE OF THAT AND THEN CALCULATE WHAT THEY AMORTIZE THAT AND THEN CALCULATE WHAT THE FIXED RATE WOULD BE EVERY YEAR GOING FORWARD.

OKAY, I GOT YOU AND WHEN THEY RETIRE, ETC., ETC..

YEAH, RIGHT. I GOT YOU OKAY.

AND HOW MUCH OF A MILLAGE RATE WOULD WE NEED TO HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT? HOW MANY MILLAGE POINTS DO WE NEED TO PAY FOR THAT COLA? IF YOU'D LIKE, I COULD CONVERT THAT TO A MILLAGE RATE.

BUT YOU, IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO THAT, YOU MAY JUST WEIGH IT AGAINST SOME OF THE OTHER PROJECTS.

COMMISSIONER. SO I HAD A QUESTION THAT HAD TO DO WITH WHAT MR. HALE BROUGHT UP REGARDING MATCHING OUR COLA, SETTING A PROCESS IN PLACE.

AS YOU SAID, THERE WASN'T ONE.

RIGHT? THAT MR. FORD HAD BROUGHT UP, MR. DUNFORD HAD BROUGHT UP.

BUT SETTING IT IN CONCURRENCE WITH THE CPI.

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT OTHER GOVERNMENTS DO, AND IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD LOOK INTO DOING? SO WHAT MR. HARROW, I THINK IS TALKING ABOUT IS THE COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT THAT I PUT IN THE BUDGET FOR CURRENT EMPLOYEES, SO ESSENTIALLY A PAY RAISE, THAT COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT IS PROBABLY PARTIALLY A MISNOMER, BECAUSE WHAT THAT DOES IS IN ADDITION TO ADJUSTING FOR INFLATION, IT ADJUSTS FOR THE COMPETITIVE MARKET THAT WE OPERATE IN.

IF YOU REMEMBER IN THE FIRST WORKSHOP, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT JAX BEACH AND NEPTUNE ARE BOTH LOOKING AT A 3% COST OF LIVING RAISE WITH A 2% UPON THE EMPLOYEES ANNUAL SERVICE STATE.

SO ON AVERAGE, WHAT THAT WILL WORK OUT TO IS ON THE FIRST YEAR IT'S GOING TO BE A 4% RAISE, AND THEN THE NEXT YEAR IT'LL BE A 5%.

AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FOR THE POLICE.

WELL THE POLICE YEAH SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT WITH THE POLICE, THE POLICE ALSO HAVE BECAUSE THIS IS THE THIRD YEAR OF THEIR CONTRACT, WHICH REQUIRES A 5% PAY RAISE TO THEIR STEP PLAN.

ONE OF THE ENHANCEMENTS THAT YOU SAW IN THERE WAS $372,000, WHICH IS SHOULD THE COMMISSION CHOOSE TO GO THAT WAY, WOULD WOULD EQUALIZE ROUGHLY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT SALARIES COMPARED TO WHAT HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED FOR THE JSO.

OKAY. SO THAT'S IT'S JSO IS GETTING ROUGHLY A 16.5%.

WE ALREADY HAVE 5% BUILT IN THE BUDGET.

SO THAT 372 REPRESENTS, IF YOU DO A LUMP SUM THE 12.5% DIFFERENTIAL.

SO I JUST WANT TO THROW A FEW THINGS OUT THERE TO THINK ABOUT.

FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO HONOR THE REQUEST TO GIVE AN ANSWER SOONER VERSUS LATER, SO THAT TODAY IS THE START OF THIS DISCUSSION, AND WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO DISCUSS THIS UNTIL WE BRING IT BRING IT HOME.

WHAT'S VERY CONCERNING TO ME IS THE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE TAXPAYERS OF ATLANTIC BEACH IN THE EMPLOYEES PENSION PLAN THEY'VE NEVER HAD A COLA.

SO WHY IS IT AFTER SO MANY YEARS AND DECADES ARE WE SUDDENLY REQUIRED TO GIVE A COLA? AND I THINK IF YOU LISTEN TO MR. FORD, WHO SPOKE EARLIER, HE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT WE ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO GIVE A COLA.

NOW, I THINK ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS, I HEAR HIM LOUD AND CLEAR THAT THE VALUE OF THAT PENSION CHECK THAT HE RECEIVES AND HE'S BEEN RETIRED, I THINK 20 YEARS, HE SAID FROM CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH.

THE VALUE IS NOW MAYBE 60% OF WHAT IT WAS WHEN HE RETIRED.

I GET THAT WE HAVE A VERY DIFFICULT DECISION THAT WE NEED TO MAKE, AND THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME HEART IN THIS THAT CAN'T JUST BE WE DON'T HAVE TO.

BUT IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT WE DO WHAT THEY HAVE ASKED FOR ON THE EXTREME.

SO WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW IS MR. KILLINGSWORTH HAS PUT TOGETHER HIS PROPOSAL.

YOU NEED TO BE LOOKING AT THAT OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS AND COMPARE TO WHAT THEY'VE ASKED FOR, AND THEN ASK YOURSELF THE NEXT QUESTION.

ONE BY GIVING THAT YOU ARE I DON'T WANT TO SAY YOU'RE SETTING PRECEDENT BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE MAYOR MESERVE BACK IN HIS MAYORSHIP, PROMOTED AND ACTUALLY GRANTED A 3% COLA ON THAT ONE YEAR.

SO THIS MAY NOT BE PRECEDENT, BUT YOU ARE SETTING YOURSELVES UP FOR A REPEAT PERFORMANCE IF INFLATION CONTINUES TO WHERE WE WILL BE

[00:35:01]

AND THESE ARE BIG NUMBERS OVER TIME.

NOW, TO BE CLEAR ON WHAT COMMISSIONER BOLE BROUGHT UP, THAT IS A ONE TIME.

SO IT WILL AFFECT THE TAXPAYERS AND OUR BUDGET FOR EVERY YEAR FROM YEAR ONE.

IT'LL AFFECT US BASICALLY IN THE SAME AMOUNT.

IT WON'T ESCALATE UP BECAUSE IT'S NOT A LAYERED ANNUAL COLA.

IT'S A ONE TIME UNTIL, OF COURSE, WHEN SOMEBODY COMES BACK FIVE YEARS FROM NOW AND SAYS, WE HAVEN'T BEEN GIVEN A COLA IN FIVE YEARS, AND WE GOT TO HAVE IT BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE BROKE.

SO VERY TOUGH DECISION THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE MADE SOONER VERSUS LATER.

THAT'S MY ASK. SO CAN YOU GIVE US COPIES OF YOUR OF THE PROPOSALS, THE ORIGINAL PROPOSALS, AND THEN YOUR WORKSHEETS? IT'S IN THE AGENDA. OH, WE ALREADY HAVE IT.

I'M SORRY. OF COURSE.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

IS THAT BILL, PAGE 116.

THE ONES THAT HAVE THE STARS NEXT TO THEM ARE THE PENSION BOARD'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE ONES THAT ARE HIGHLIGHTED ON MINE.

OKAY. SO YOU'RE DONE.

DO YOU WANT ME TO JUST ASK YOU WHEN WE GET TO ME ABOUT THE OTHER TWO, OR DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THEM? YOU DIDN'T ASK THE QUESTION.

WELL, THE FIRST ONE IS ON BEACH RENOURISHMENT.

WE HAVE COMPLETED THE DREDGING, I BELIEVE.

SO, DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHEN WE WILL GET PLANTED SEA OATS WHERE WE'VE REMOVED THEM? I DO NOT HAVE A TIMELINE ON THE PLANTED SEA OATS.

OKAY. WE COMMITTED TO BUYING SOME.

WE HAVE TO MY KNOWLEDGE, WE HAVE NOT COMMITTED TO OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT AFTER THE ACTUAL REPLANTING IS DONE, IF WE SEE DEFICIENCIES, WE NEED TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AND PLUG THAT HOLE.

AND WE HAVE PEOPLE IN THE CITY THAT WANT TO VOLUNTEER TO ASSIST ON THAT.

AND WHAT WAS THE OTHER QUESTION? THE OTHER ONE IS ON THE HOMELESS LAW SO WE HAVE THE THE ACTION TAKEN RECENTLY BY THE SUPREME COURT WITH REGARDS TO THE OREGON.

I THINK IT WAS OREGON'S CASE OR.

BUT ANYWAYS, AND THEN WE HAVE OUR, OUR FLORIDA STATUTE THAT JUST PASSED.

SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION? EARLIER YOU SAID IT REALLY IS ONLY ABOUT IF YOU ALLOW CAMPING THEN YOU HAVE TO DO YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE SERVICES.

THAT'S THE STATE STATUTE IN TERMS OF HOW THE IMPACT ON THE SUPREME COURT I ASKED CHIEF VIC TO BE PREPARED TO ANSWER THAT ONE.

SO, SO I'LL CALL HIM UP.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

AND ALSO WE'RE REALLY SUBJECT TO TO INFILTRATION FROM OTHER CITIES.

YOU KNOW, IF THEY GET PUSHED OUT OF NEPTUNE BEACH, THEY'RE GOING TO GO THIS WAY.

THEY GET PUSHED OUT OF JAX THEY'RE GOING TO CROSS THE BRIDGE.

FLORIDA AND TAMPA, JACKSONVILLE TO SOME DEGREE.

SO WITH REGARD TO THE SUPREME COURT RULING, THE SUPREME COURT SAID WAS THE NINTH CIRCUIT COURT SAID, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T ARREST SOMEONE WITHOUT THERE BEING IF UNLESS THERE'S A NO VACANCIES AT A HOMELESS SHELTER.

THAT WAS CHALLENGED, SUPREME COURT CAME BACK AND SAID, NO, THAT'S INCORRECT.

IT'S NOT UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR A MUNICIPALITY TO ARREST SOMEONE, EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO PLACE THERE MAY BE A BED FOR THEM TO GO TO.

SO THE QUESTION, I SUPPOSE, ON THAT ISSUE IS BACK TO THE COMMISSION OUR ORDINANCE CURRENTLY MIRRORS WHAT THAT OLD NINTH CIRCUIT RULING WAS, WHICH IS BEEN OVERTURNED BY THE SUPREME COURT.

IF YOU WISH TO NOW AMEND OUR ORDINANCE THAT TAKES AWAY THAT REQUIREMENT THAT WE CHECK FIRST AND MAKE SURE THERE IS A BED AVAILABLE AND NOT MAKE THE ARREST IF THERE IS A BED AVAILABLE AND TAKE THEM THERE.

WE COULD CHANGE THAT.

IT IS MORE DIFFICULT FOR US TO TO MAKE THE ARRESTS THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN.

IN FACT, WE COULDN'T, BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY THE LAW IS.

BUT I WOULD SAY THAT OUR PRACTICE IS ALWAYS TO WORK WITH ANYONE WHO'S HOMELESS.

WE FIND WE TRY AND ENCOURAGE THEM, OBVIOUSLY, THAT THEY CAN'T BE IN THE PLACE THAT THEY'RE IN AND IF THEY WANT A RIDE TO SERVICES, MY OFFICERS HAVE BEEN TOLD, GIVE THEM A RIDE TO SULZBACHER IF THEY WANT TO GO AND GET SERVICES DOWNTOWN, OR EVEN GO TO JAX BEACH TO GET SOMETHING TO EAT AT AT THE MISSION HOUSE.

THAT'S FINE. WE'LL TAKE THEM THERE.

WE DON'T MIND HELPING THEM FIND THE SERVICES.

IF YOU WANT TO REMOVE THAT REQUIREMENT THAT WE CHECK FOR BEDS FIRST, YOU ABSOLUTELY CAN DO THAT.

THAT'S A ORDINANCE CHANGE.

SO. AND THANK YOU, VIC, THAT CLARIFIES THE SUPREME COURT DECISION.

[00:40:02]

SO, LIKE MR. KILLINGSWORTH SAID EARLIER, WE DON'T ALLOW THE SITUATION TO OCCUR.

LIKE JACKSONVILLE DOWNTOWN, THEY'VE DESIGNATED CERTAIN AREA WHERE PEOPLE CAN GO WHO ARE HOMELESS TO CAMP BASICALLY, IF WE ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN, WE WOULD HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THEM CERTAIN SERVICES IN THAT AREA.

THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE ALLOW.

WE DON'T HAVE AREAS, PUBLIC AREAS THAT SAY, HEY, LOOK, YOU GUYS CAN PITCH A TENT HERE AND AND LIVE HERE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, BUT NOWHERE ELSE.

THERE'S A SPECIAL DISTRICT DOWNTOWN WHERE THEY ALLOWED THAT.

WE DON'T HAVE THAT SITUATION, SO I DON'T FEEL IT'S GOING TO AFFECT US BECAUSE WE WOULDN'T ALLOW THE CAMPING SITUATION IN THE FIRST PLACE.

UNDERSTOOD. OKAY.

SO THE CONCERN OR THE FEAR I THINK THAT LEAKED OUT FROM THE PASSAGE OF THAT STATUTE IS THAT CITIES ARE AT RISK FINANCIALLY AND PENALTY WISE FOR NONCOMPLIANCE.

BUT REALLY, IF YOU'RE NOT ALLOWING THE CAMPING IN THE FIRST PLACE, THEN YOU'RE NOT OUT OF COMPLIANCE.

CORRECT. AND A LARGER CITY WOULD HAVE A BIGGER PROBLEM THEY COULDN'T WRAP THEIR HANDS AROUND.

THAT'S WHY I SAID IN THE BEGINNING, WE DON'T HAVE THAT LARGEST HOMELESS POPULATION HERE THAT WE NEED TO BE CONCERNED THAT WE HAVE TO PROVIDE A PLACE FOR THEM, THAT WE'D HAVE TO ALLOW THEM TO, TO LIVE SOMEWHERE.

WE PROVIDE THEM SERVICES OR ACCESS TO SERVICES.

WE DON'T HAVE THAT LARGE HOMELESS POPULATION.

SO I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO AFFECT US.

WE WE'VE NEVER HAD THAT SITUATION IN THE PAST.

I BELIEVE WE HAVE IT NOW.

MOST OF THE CAMPING WE FIND MANY TIMES IS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, SOME UNDEVELOPED PIECE OF PROPERTY IN THE BACK HALF OF SOMEBODY'S BUSINESS.

THAT'S A WOODED AREA, LET'S SAY, YOU KNOW, BEHIND A CONVENIENCE STORE OR SOMETHING.

YOU SEE SOME OF THE ISSUES WHEN THERE'S WOODED AREAS, BUT THAT ISN'T A PUBLIC PIECE OF PROPERTY.

OKAY. SO I HAVE A QUESTION.

YES. WHAT CONSTITUTES AS LOITERING VERSUS CAMPING? SO WE HAVE SOME RESIDENTIAL HOMELESS PEOPLE, PEOPLE AROUND THAT I SEE CONTINUOUSLY AT THE SAME SPOT DOWN AT THE BEACH TOWN CENTER WITH THEIR THINGS.

AT WHAT POINT DOES THAT CONSTITUTE AS CAMPING VERSUS JUST LOITERING? SO THE STATE STATUTE GIVE US SOME MORE DEFINITION OF WHAT CAMPING LOOKS LIKE.

OUR ORDINANCE IS EVEN MORE SPECIFIC THAN THAT.

IF SOMEONE'S LIVING THERE, THEY HAVE PITCHED A TENT, THEY HAVE BEDDING THERE, THEY'RE COOKING OUTSIDE.

IT'S OBVIOUSLY THAT THEY'RE MAKING THAT A PLACE TO LIVE.

THAT'S THOSE ARE THE THINGS WE LOOK FOR TO CONSTITUTE CAMPING.

IF SOMEONE IS SOMEONE IS JUST THERE WITH THEIR BELONGINGS THAT HAPPENS TO BE, HAVE, HAVE ALL THEIR THINGS PACKED UP IN A SHOPPING CART AND THEY'RE SITTING ON A BENCH, THEY'RE NOT CAMPING. IF THEY HAPPEN TO FALL ASLEEP ON THE BENCH.

BUT THEY'RE JUST THEY HAVE THEIR STUFF NEXT TO THEM.

I CAN'T CALL THAT CAMPING, BECAUSE IF GRANDPA WALKS DOWN THERE TO FALL ASLEEP ON THE BENCH BECAUSE HE'S READING A BOOK, IS HE CAMPING? JUST BY THE FACT THEY HAVE THEIR THINGS WITH THEM AND THEY'RE SLEEPING OR SITTING ON THE BENCH I CAN'T CALL THAT CAMPING.

IF THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY SLEEPING THERE OVERNIGHT.

THEY ROLL OUT THEIR BED, ROLL.

THEY PITCH A TENT, THEY COOK THERE.

THEY, YOU KNOW, IT'S 11:00 AT NIGHT AND THEY'VE BEEN THERE SINCE, YOU KNOW, 6:00 IN THE EVENING.

WE COULD PROBABLY SAY THEN, HEY, YOU'VE PROBABLY BEEN HERE LONG ENOUGH.

YOU'RE YOU'RE INTENDING TO SLEEP HERE AND MAKE A HOME HERE.

IT'S NOT JUST YOU'RE PASSING THROUGH AND FELL ASLEEP.

WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN THAT PERSON REFUSES? IF THEY ARE, IN FACT CAMPING, REFUSES TO GO TO SULZBACHER OR SULZBACHER AND OR REFUSES THE HELP THAT YOU WERE MENTIONING ABOUT HOUSING.

SO CURRENTLY BY OUR ORDINANCE, WE WOULD NEED TO CHECK AND MAKE SURE THAT THERE WAS OR WAS NOT A BED AVAILABLE DOWNTOWN.

IF THERE WAS NOT A BED AVAILABLE FOR THEM OR ANY PLACE OTHER SHELTER WE COULD TAKE THEM TO, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE THE ARREST BY OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE.

SO YOUR ARE YOU REQUESTING THAT WE CHANGE THAT ORDINANCE TODAY? THAT'S A CALL FOR THE CITY COMMISSION.

THAT'S A COMMISSION LEVEL DECISION.

AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW.

OKAY. YEAH. THANK YOU.

YES, I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE BEACHES TOWN CENTER, AGENCIES ATTUNED TO THIS.

I SUPPORT THE CHIEF.

THEY KNOW THE NAMES.

I THINK YOU GUYS PROBABLY KNOW THE NAMES.

IF YOU GO TO POSE ON THE RIGHT AND LEFT AND BEACHES TOWN CENTER AGENCY THE SHOP OWNERS, THE BUSINESS OWNERS YOU KNOW, THEY'VE OFFERED TO MOVE THEM.

YOU PROBABLY KNOW THE NAMES OF THE PEOPLE AND MOVE THEM AROUND, BUT I DON'T SEE IT AS AN OVERWHELMING PROBLEM.

AND BY THE WAY, THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY KNOW WHO THEY ARE.

THEY KNOW WHAT THEIR ISSUES ARE, ETC., ETC..

SO WE'RE LUCKY IN THAT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THE PROBLEM IS OVERWHELMING.

THEY ARE THE THEY ARE OUR MOST VISIBLE HOMELESS FOLKS.

THAT IS NOT THE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION, I'LL TELL YOU THAT HISTORICALLY, MAYPORT ROAD DOWN TO JACKSONVILLE'S JURISDICTION, IS MUCH MORE HIGHLY CONCENTRATED.

WE HAVEN'T MADE AN ARREST, NOR HAVE WE HAD A PROBLEM WITH ANYBODY VIOLATING THE ORDINANCE THAT EXISTS CURRENTLY SINCE IT WAS PASSED.

THE MESSAGE GOT OUT THAT, YOU KNOW, THE ORDINANCE HAS PASSED AND WE WEREN'T GOING TO TOLERATE THIS ANY LONGER.

THOSE FOLKS WHO WERE THERE ON OCCASION MOVED ALONG.

WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY ISSUES SINCE THEN.

WE'VE HAD ONESIES AND TWOSIES HERE AND THERE THAT WERE ON THE BEACH, WHO WERE NEW FOLKS WHO HAD WANDERED INTO OUR JURISDICTION AND, YOU KNOW, DIDN'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS A CAMPING ORDINANCE. WE EXPLAINED TO THEM THEY COULDN'T CAMP HERE AND THEY HAVEN'T BEEN AN ONGOING PROBLEM.

[00:45:07]

THEY'RE ON THE PICNIC BENCH.

THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, TRASH EVERYWHERE.

THE POLICE HAVE COME THERE NUMEROUS TIMES EVERY MONTH OR TWO TO TRY TO GET THEM TO LEAVE.

AND FINALLY THEY JUST CAME IN THE OTHER DAY AND FILLED UP TWO ROLL OFF CONTAINERS WITH CAMPING WITH WITH PLYWOOD AND TARP AND CHAIRS AND EVERYTHING YOU COULD IMAGINE.

SO I GUESS I'M JUST KIND OF WAITING ON WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO RETURN? LIKE, WHERE DO THEY GO AND WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO RETURN? THEY'LL BE BACK. IT JUST MAY BE A TRANSIENT THING, I DON'T KNOW.

BUT THEY SURE, THEY EXCAVATED EVERYTHING FROM THERE.

SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

I'VE SEEN IT ALL AS WELL.

BUT WE'RE DEALING WITH THE PUBLIC PROPERTY ISSUE.

NOT PRIVATE PRIVATE.

YOU CAN FILE A TRESPASSING AFFIDAVIT WITH THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, AND THEY WILL ARREST ASSUMING THEY HAVEN'T CHANGED THEIR THEIR LAWS THERE.

I THINK THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS, SINCE WE ARE NO LONGER BOUND BY THE PREVIOUS RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CALIFORNIA OR WHATEVER CASE DO WE GO BACK TO WHAT WE HAD BEFORE, OR DO WE MODIFY AND ELIMINATE THAT PORTION OF OUR ORDINANCE THAT SAYS THAT WE MUST PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE PLACE FOR THEM TO SHELTER BEFORE WE CAN REMOVE THEM? AND I THINK RIGHT NOW, CHIEF VIC IS GOING TO BE HAMSTRUNG OR HANDCUFFED ON THIS ISSUE.

UNLESS WE DO THAT, HE SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO TAKE CARE OF OF THE ISSUE WITHOUT RELYING ON SOMETHING THAT'S NOT NO LONGER OF OF I DON'T WANT TO SAY IT'S NO LONGER OF IMPORT, BUT IT'S IT'S NO LONGER REQUIRED IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH WHAT WAS GOING ON IN THE WESTERN CASE DECISION, BECAUSE THAT WAS, THAT WAS OVERTURNED.

SO WE COULD, BY CONSENSUS, ASK THE CITY MANAGER TO WORK WITH CHIEF VIC AND SEE IF WE CAN ONE EITHER GO BACK OR REWRITE OR TAKE OUT OR LOOK AT OUR NEIGHBORING CITY AND SEE HOW THEIR ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN.

BECAUSE, AGAIN NEPTUNE BEACH, FROM WHAT I'VE OBSERVED OVER THE YEARS, HAS HAD LESS OF A PROBLEM.

I AM I DO WANT TO COMPLIMENT THE CHIEF IN WHAT OCCURRED WITH A CERTAIN HOMELESS PERSON.

WE WON'T USE NAMES, BUT ONE THAT WAS CAMPED FOR ABOUT SEVEN YEARS IN FRONT OF ONE OCEAN.

THAT PERSON NO LONGER CAMPS THERE.

NOW HE HE RETURNS DAILY.

THAT'S HIS ROUTINE.

BUT HE ISN'T CAMPED OVERNIGHT, AM I CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. YEAH. SO WE DID ACTUALLY GET RELIEF ON THAT ISSUE BASED ON THE REWRITE THAT VIC HAS BEEN OPERATING UNDER.

SO ANY DIRECTION FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO DO ANYTHING AT THIS TIME? YES, BUT LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT REWRITING THE ORDINANCE AND GIVING THE FREEDOM TO, YOU KNOW, TO ENFORCE.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? DO WE HAVE CONSENSUS ON THAT? I'D LIKE TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT.

YEAH. I MEAN, I'VE WORKED WITH THE CHIEF BECAUSE THIS MANPOWER.

AND EVEN THOUGH THERE MAY NOT BE THAT MANY OF THEM.

YEAH. IF YOU COULD WORK WITH THANK YOU CHIEF. ALL RIGHT.

ARE YOU FINISHED WITH MY ADD ONS? YES, I AM, MR. MAYOR. OKAY, THE QUESTION IS, ARE YOU FINISHED ADDING ON? I'M FINISHED FOR THE MOMENT.

OKAY. SO WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM THREE.

WAIT A SECOND. WE ALREADY DID THAT.

THE 3B THE VOTING.

YOU DID THAT. NEVER MIND.

OKAY. PENSION AND THEN.

OKAY, WE'RE ITEM 4.

[4. REPORTS AND/OR REQUESTS FROM CITY COMMISSIONERS]

MR. COMMISSIONER BOLE.

YEAH. JUST REAL QUICK.

YOU KNOW, WE VOTED RESILIENCY NUMBER ONE THE LAST FOUR YEARS.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS MENTIONED TONIGHT, THE STORMWATER MASTER PLAN, I THINK THAT'S CRITICAL BECAUSE WHAT THAT DOES IS REALLY TELL US WHERE TO SPEND MONEY AND NOT SPEND MONEY. SO THAT'S GOT TO BE AT LEAST ON THE TOP OF MY LIST.

AND NUMBER TWO YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN MENTIONED A FEW TIMES AND YOU KNOW WHAT I'M ABOUT TO SAY, THE 16TH STREET WALKOVER, MAYBE WE COULD GET A REPORT FOR EVERYBODY TO HEAR WHAT WE KNOW AND WHAT WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT WHAT THE ENGINEERING AND THE LAND USE, ETCETERA, ETCETERA ON THAT MAYBE NEXT TIME.

I MEAN, I THINK I KNOW, BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR IT FROM YOU GUYS, THE PERSPECTIVE OF WHERE WE'RE AT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT IT IN THE BUDGET.

AND YOU KNOW, HE'S RIGHT IT DOESN'T LOOK GOOD.

AND SOME PEOPLE MIGHT SAY UNSAFE.

SO I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT NEXT.

NEXT TIME THAT'S ALL.

AND JUST ADDING ON TO THAT, ARE WE, SINCE YOU'RE HAVING A MEETING OR SOMEBODY'S HAVING A MEETING THIS WEEK WITH THE SOUTHERLY NEIGHBOR NEXT WEEK.

NEXT WEEK? RIGHT. OKAY. GOOD.

COMMISSIONER KELLY. SO HOMELESSNESS ON MY LIST.

[00:50:02]

I THINK IT'S 12TH AUGUST WHEN THE LITTLE DARLINGS GO BACK TO SCHOOL.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH CHERRY DRIVE.

I'LL BE USING THE BACK GATE WITH MY RUGRAT.

I'M WONDERING IF BY CONTRACTING OUT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR.

I MEAN, THERE'S STANDARDS BY WHICH YOU SAY YES OR NO, BUT HOW DO YOU PREVENT PEOPLE FROM GOING ROGUE ON US? THAT THEY'RE NOT. THEY'RE NOT REPRESENTING THE CITY AS A MEMBER OF THE CITY.

THEY'RE JUST GETTING PAID TO DO THIS.

WELL, ONE, THE SO ALL THE DIFFERENT TRADES, WHETHER IT'S MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING, FRAMING THEY'RE ALL LICENSED.

SO WHAT HAPPENS IS WHEN THEY OPERATE AS THE CITY, THEN THEY'RE PROTECTED, ESSENTIALLY.

AND THEN YOU CAN TALK TO JASON ABOUT THIS, BUT THE THEY'RE SOMEWHAT PROTECTED BY THE CITY SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY.

BUT BY BEING CONTRACTED, THEIR LICENSE IS AT RISK.

SO THAT'S THE BIGGEST INCENTIVE FOR THEM TO PERFORM.

AND ADDITIONALLY, THEY, YOU KNOW, OUR CONTRACTORS CARRY ERROR, ERROR AND OMISSION INSURANCE.

SO IF THEY MAKE A MISTAKE, THEN, YOU KNOW, THEORETICALLY, THEY COULD BE SUED.

BECAUSE I FOLLOWED THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AND THE ON THE YOU KNOW, THE CITY AND THE THE SO I JUST WAS AFRAID THAT WE WEREN'T MAKING UNREASONABLE IN EXPECTATIONS OF OUR PEOPLE SO. ALSO THE SECOND STREET IS WHAT ARE WE DOING WITH SECOND STREET? THEIR PARKING.

THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

WE HAVEN'T COME TO A CONCLUSION.

I KNOW WHAT THE ASK IS.

THE ASK IS TO STRIPE IT LIKE WE DID FIRST STREET.

THE QUESTION IS SHOULD WE DO THAT? I DON'T THINK THAT WAS EXACTLY THE ASK.

THEN I MISUNDERSTOOD AT THE RISK OF EMBARRASSING MYSELF, I BELIEVE THE ASK WAS TO ELIMINATE PARKING ON THE STREET.

I DON'T THINK HE COULD DO THAT.

YEAH, WELL, SO ANYWAYS, LET'S LET'S VISIT THAT AND LET'S JUST MAKE A COMMITMENT.

WE'LL HAVE ANSWERS AT THE NEXT MEETING BECAUSE AND WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY GONE THROUGH THIS AS LONG AS I'VE BEEN MAYOR, WE HAVEN'T UTILIZED WHAT WAS REALLY ALREADY EITHER IN OUR CODE OR, OR PRACTICE, AND THAT IS THAT CITIZENS COULD PETITION FOR CHANGES BY STREET AND THEY WOULD BE LOOKED AT INDEPENDENT OF WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW ON THIS MASTER APPROACH THROUGH THE THE STOP COMMITTEE.

SO IT HAVING NOT CHANGED THAT PROCESS, IF A GROUP OF CITIZENS PETITIONS THE CITY FOR A SPECIFIC REQUEST ON THEIR STREET, WE SHOULD ADDRESS THAT POSTHASTE, I THINK.

MAYOR, ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT WE DO IT STREET BY STREET? NO, NO, ALL I'M SAYING IS WE HAVE A CITIZEN AND HIS GROUP THAT HAS COME ON BEHALF OF SECOND STREET AND ASKED, AND THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR A NUMBER OF WEEKS AND WE HAVE NOT RESPONDED.

SO IT'S WHOLLY APPROPRIATE THAT WE RESPOND.

WE WE HAD A PROCESS BEFORE AND IT'S AND MR. KILLINGSWORTH, YOU WOULDN'T KNOW IT WAS IT HADN'T BEEN ADDRESSED OR USED SINCE YOU GOT HERE.

BUT WE HAD THAT IN PLACE.

SO WE JUST NEED TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION SEPARATE FROM THIS MEETING AND THEN GIVE A RESPONSE BACK TO THE CITIZEN.

NOW, AS FAR AS THE STOP COMMITTEE AND THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS, THEY'RE MORE BROAD BRUSHED.

AND I DON'T KNOW THAT BASED ON WHAT I'VE OBSERVED, ON WHAT WE'VE SUCCESSFULLY DONE WITH THE STAFF COMMITTEE, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE REALLY WANT THEM GETTING INTO THE BUSINESS OF TAKING INDIVIDUAL REQUESTS AND TRYING TO DO SOMETHING WITH THAT.

WE I DON'T YOU AGREE, BILL, THAT WE ACTUALLY GOT THAT COMMITTEE RIGHTSIZED TO BE MORE EFFECTIVE THE WAY IT IS.

AND THE THE OTHER THING IS THAT WHENEVER WE DID CHANGE ALL THE PARKING ON FIRST STREET, IT WAS A STRETCH.

IT WAS WHEN THEY DIDN'T LOOK AT RENOURISHMENT, THEY DIDN'T LOOK AT A SPECIFIC NUMBER OF PARKING SPOTS.

IT WAS BASICALLY BASED UPON THE PROXIMITY TO THE TOWN CENTER, TO THE CORNER.

AND SO IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN ON EVERY STREET.

IT'S GOING TO GO FROM SECOND, THIRD ALL THE WAY UP.

AND SO THAT THAT'S JUST CLEAR.

THAT WAS JUST CLARIFYING.

THAT WAS A THAT WAS A KIND OF A LET'S JUST STRETCH THIS OUT TO SEE IF WE CAN GET THESE GUYS SOME RELIEF, BECAUSE HONESTLY, THEY'VE BEEN THEY'VE BEEN DEALING WITH IT FOR SO LONG, HAS SO MANY PEOPLE ALL THE TIME.

WE JUST FINALLY JUST KIND OF GAVE IN.

BUT NOW THIS IS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

SO YEAH, IT'S REALLY IT'S REALLY A POLICY THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.

YES I THINK SO. YES. IT'S IT'S OUR DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT POLICY.

[00:55:02]

WELL, IT MAY NOT BE DIFFERENT AFTER YOU DO SOMETHING.

YEAH. WELL, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY YOU GET THE BIG BUCKS BILL, YOU KNOW, POLICY.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

VERY GOOD. COMMISSIONER RING.

SO I DID WANT TO INQUIRE, INQUIRE ABOUT THE AQUATIC GARDENS BULKHEAD.

THAT'S THE FIRST I'VE HEARD ABOUT THIS PROJECT.

THEY ARE DISCUSSING THAT THERE'S A BULKHEAD THAT'S PLANNING ON GOING UP WHERE THE CHURCH IS.

AND THE DOG OKAY. AND THEN DO THEY SHARE THAT BECAUSE I, I'M NOT REALLY FAMILIAR.

OKAY. SO IT'S TWO DIFFERENT PONDS.

IT'S TWO DIFFERENT PONDS.

AND I THINK IF I CAN SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE CITIZEN, THEY'RE JUST MAKING THE CASE THAT THE DOG PARK BULKHEAD IS A NICE THING, BUT NOT SO IMPORTANT AS RESIDENTS WHO ARE IMPACTED RIGHT NOW AND HAVE BEEN IMPACTED FOR QUITE SOME TIME AND HAVE LITERALLY SEEN THE EROSION OF THE LAND BEHIND THEIR HOMES.

AND THIS IS THE HOPKINS CREEK.

IT'S PART OF THAT ULTIMATE SOLUTION, AND IT'S PART OF THE CURRENT ENGINEERING.

I SHOULD LET YOU SPEAK ON THAT.

BUT ACTUALLY WE'RE HAVING IT RE-ENGINEERED BECAUSE VALUE ENGINEERED BECAUSE THE INITIAL ESTIMATE WAS BULKHEADING THE, THE POND AND DOING THE OTHER IMPROVEMENTS WE WERE LOOKING AT WAS WAY OVER THE AMOUNT OF MONEY WE HAD BUDGETED FOR IT.

SO CURRENTLY STEVE'S WORKING WITH THE FIRM TO RE-ENGINEER IT TO TRY TO GET US THE SAME EFFECT IN TERMS OF FLOODING, BUT LOWER THE COST.

AND SO WE'RE WAITING ON THAT RIGHT NOW.

OKAY. BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THE HOPKINS CREEK AND THE AQUATIC GARDENS PROJECT, WE'VE WE'VE PUT A LOT MILLIONS, RIGHT? MILLIONS AND MATCHED UP WITH SOME GRANTS AS WELL.

AND THAT'S PART OF OUR A LARGER STORMWATER IMPROVEMENT PLAN.

CORRECT. DOES THAT REMEDY WHAT THEY'RE DISCUSSING THAT COULD TAKE THAT COULD TAKE A WHILE.

WELL, SO THE I THINK WHAT THEY'RE REFERRING TO IS ORIGINALLY THE IDEA WAS TO BULKHEAD THAT BUT THAT HAS PROVEN TO BE COST PROHIBITIVE.

AND SO WE'RE LOOKING AT HOW TO ENGINEER IT IN A WAY THAT HELPS ACHIEVE THE SAME LEVEL OF REDUCTION IN FLOODING AT A DIFFERENT COST.

WOULD IT BE SOMETHING SIMILAR TO WHAT JAX BEACHES HAS DONE, OR EVEN ON PENMON WHEN YOU'RE HEADING OUT TOWARDS FLETCHER SEAGATE.

AT THIS POINT, I HAVEN'T SEEN WHAT THEY'RE BRINGING BACK TO THE TABLE YET.

WELL, THAT'S SHEET PILE, AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE DOING, RIGHT? SO I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO YOUR BUSINESS.

AND AND OUR CITY ENGINEER, YOU GUYS WORK THAT OUT.

I DON'T BUT IN MY MIND, I THINK WHAT THE REQUEST IS FOR BULKHEADING ON THIS POND AT AQUATIC GARDENS IS MORE ABOUT WHAT I WOULD JUST CALL LIGHT BULKHEADING.

IT'S NOT SHEET PILE.

SO. SO WHEN WE'RE, WHEN WE'RE DOING THE PROJECT AND THE ENGINEERING FOR IT, IT WAS ALL ABOUT STORMWATER CAPACITY TO, TO STORE STORM WATER.

AND THAT MEANT WE NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO EXCAVATE THE POND, DIG DOWN, AND THE ONLY WAY TO KEEP THE SIDES OF IT FROM SLOUGHING OFF IS TO SHEET, PILE, AND SO ON.

ONE OF THE CURE OR ONE OF THE AND PLEASE CORRECT ME ON THIS IF I'M WRONG ON THIS, BUT ONE OF THE CONTRIBUTORS TO NOT HAVING TO DO OR BE AS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT IS OUR UPSTREAM ACQUISITION OF THE DORA DRIVE PROPERTY, WHERE WE CAN STORE WATER AT THE HEADWATERS.

INSTEAD OF HAVING ALL OF THAT WATER RUN INTO AQUATIC GARDENS, HOPKINS CREEK UNDER THE ATLANTIC BOULEVARD CULVERT, AND SO ON.

AM I CORRECT? THE AQUATIC GARDENS, I BELIEVE, FLOWS SOUTH THROUGH NEPTUNE.

THAT'S RIGHT IN HOPKINS CREEK.

SO YEAH, IT'S ALL PART OF THE HOPKINS CREEK DRAINAGE.

SO AGAIN, I, I HEARD THE CITIZEN AND I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED AND LOOKED AT IS, IS THERE A SIMPLE APPLICATION THAT IS NOT HUGELY EXPENSIVE FOR BULKHEADING JUST TO KEEP THE BACKYARD FROM CONTINUING TO ERODE? BUT THAT IS NOT THE SAME BULKHEADING AS WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY ENGINEERED FOR THERE.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SHEET PILE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, PILE DRIVING SHEETS OF METAL INTO THE GROUND SO THAT YOU CAN EXCAVATE AND STORE A LOT OF WATER.

AND I'VE WRITTEN DOWN THE QUESTION, SO I'LL TALK WITH STEVE ABOUT IT TOMORROW.

OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THEN THERE WAS JUST ONE OTHER THING AND THAT'S THE 100 WEST FIRST STREET I KNOW IT BROUGHT.

IT WAS BROUGHT UP IN OUR PREVIOUS COMMISSION MEETING.

IN THAT SURVEY, SENIOR ACTIVITIES, ADULT ACTIVITIES, WHICH WOULD ALSO INCLUDE VETERANS ACTIVITIES.

DO WE HAVE DRAWN UP PLANS THAT WE CAN SEE? THE COMMISSION CAN SEE AND ALSO FOR THAT 200 AND OH, IS THAT $226,000

[01:00:09]

THE MONEY THAT'S IN THE BUDGET IS LOOKING GOING FORWARD FOR MAINTENANCE.

OKAY. WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT THE LAST MEETING IS TWO THINGS.

ONE, WE'VE APPLIED FOR $100,000 CDBG GRANT TO REDO THE PARKING LOT.

AND I REACHED OUT TO COUNCIL MEMBER SALEM ABOUT MOVING THE $500,000 FROM GAIL BAKER TO 101ST STREET. OKAY, THAT THAT $500,000 WOULD GET US THE CONCEPTUAL DRAWINGS AND A NEW ROOF AND OPENING UP THE KITCHEN AND REDOING THE FACADES AND POTENTIALLY MOVING AN INTERIOR WALL.

OKAY, SO ONCE WE HAVE WE GOT THAT CONSENSUS FROM TWO WEEKS AGO.

NOW WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH SEEKING PERMISSION.

RIGHT. SO I'VE REACHED OUT TO HIM, AND HE'S AGREED TO MEET WITH ME.

I'M JUST WAITING ON A DATE FROM HIS AIDE.

OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER KELLY.

SO I LIKE THAT WE'RE STARTING WITH THE KITCHEN AND THE AND THE GREAT ROOM, BECAUSE THERE'S A NEED FOR SPACE LIKE THAT.

BUT WE I DON'T THINK WE'VE MADE ENOUGH DECISIONS ABOUT PROGRAMING TO DECIDE HOW TO RESIZE OR RIGHT SIZE THE 14 BEDROOMS TO SUIT THE KIND OF PROGRAMS WE WANT TO OFFER.

SO IT'S STILL THERE'S STILL NOT WE STILL HAVEN'T THERE'S STILL NO FALLOUT FROM THE SURVEY.

AND SOME OF THAT IS SORT OF WAITING FOR OUR EVENT COORDINATOR OR RECREATION DEPARTMENT REORGANIZATION.

COMMISSIONER. OKAY.

BUT JUST JUST TO ADD ON TO THAT, WHAT WE I THINK WHAT WE DECIDED IS WE WERE GOING TO ASK RIGHT TO IT WAS NOT I DON'T THINK WE HAD A CONSENSUS.

THAT'S WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO I KNOW YEAH, I KNEW WHAT WE WENT THROUGH TO GET THAT LAST TIME, SO.

OKAY. THANKS.

ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER YOU GOOD.

OKAY. COMMISSIONER WATERS.

WAIT UNTIL I'M THE LAST GUY, SO NO, I REALLY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD RIGHT NOW.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. MY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED.

ALL RIGHT. I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION, BECAUSE SEVERAL CITIZENS HAVE ASKED ME, WHERE DO WE STAND ON THE ACCESS TO ABE, THE SCHOOLYARD.

WE KNOW WE HAVE THE RIGHTS TO USE IT WITH OUR AGREEMENT WITH THE SCHOOL SYSTEM, BUT APPARENTLY PEOPLE ARE BEING DENIED ACCESS.

YEAH. SO I'VE REACHED AMANDA HAS REACHED OUT TO THE PRINCIPAL, AND THERE'S A THEY HAVE THE SAME UNDERSTANDING WE DO.

SO WE DON'T KNOW.

THE GATES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE OPEN OUTSIDE.

THEY ARE RUNNING SUMMER SCHOOL, SO DURING SUMMER SCHOOL, THE GATES ARE LOCKED.

DURING THE WEEKENDS, THEY SHOULD BE OPEN.

I REACHED OUT TO ONE RESIDENT WHO REACHED OUT TO ME.

I BELIEVE SHE REACHED OUT TO YOU TOO TO ASK WHEN SHE TRIED, SHE SAID IT WAS ON A SATURDAY.

SO WE'RE WORKING WITH THE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL THERE TO ADDRESS WHY AND HOW IT GOT LOCKED.

BUT HER UNDERSTANDING IS THE SAME AS OURS IS THAT IT SHOULD BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC OF ATLANTIC BEACH WHEN THEY DON'T HAVE SCHOOL IN SESSION.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

MOVING ALONG.

AND IT'S ONLY ACCESSIBLE FROM THE FRONT FROM FROM CHERRY.

OKAY. I'M GOING TO BE CLIMBING THE FENCE.

I WANT TO SEE THAT. ALL RIGHT.

[8.A. RESOLUTION NO. 24-36]

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA.

AWARDING BID NUMBER 2223-09 FOR WWTP HEADWORKS PIPING IMPROVEMENTS.

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS AND PURCHASE ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH, AND AS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS RESOLUTION AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, MR. KILLINGSWORTH. YES.

SO WE GOT A REPORT BACK.

WE HAVE OUR PIPES INSPECTED THEY RUN A CAMERA THROUGH THEM AND THE REPORT WE GOT BACK ON OUR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT WAS THAT WE HAD SOME CRITICAL FLAWS IN THE PIPING THERE.

SO WHAT THIS RESOLUTION DOES IS WE'RE COBBLING TOGETHER SOME MONEY THAT IS CURRENTLY NOT PROGRAMED FOR VARIOUS REASONS.

SO $456,000, BASICALLY $457,000 FROM THE 20TH STREET LIFT STATION, WHICH WOULD BE THE BULK HEADING IN THE ACCESS ROAD.

WERE TAKING THAT MONEY $300,000 THAT'S LEFT OVER FROM A HYPOCHLORITE BUILDING.

AND THEN MOVING THAT INTO PROJECT NUMBER PU 2307, WHICH IS THE HEADWORKS PIPING IMPROVEMENTS.

[01:05:04]

AND IT'S NOT AN EMERGENCY YET, BUT IT IS GETTING REAL CLOSE TO BEING AN EMERGENCY.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

WITH THAT, MR. MAYOR, I WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 23-36.

I MOVE WE ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 24-36 AS READ.

OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. WE'LL VOTE TO ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY WITH AYE.

AYE. OPPOSED.

MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU.

[INAUDIBLE] ITEM 8B RESOLUTION, NUMBER 24-37, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE 2024 AMENDMENT TO THE

[8.B. RESOLUTION NO. 24-37]

MR. KILLINGSWORTH, THANK YOU AGAIN.

MR. MAYOR. THIS IS OUR NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE PBA IN REGARDS TO OUR CONTRACT WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

THE ASK WAS ACTUALLY IN TERMS OF IMPACT TO THE CITY, PRETTY MINIMAL.

THEY ASKED FOR THE ABILITY TO INCREASE AN ADDITIONAL 12 HOURS OF LEAVE EVERY YEAR.

IT DOESN'T IMPACT THE BUYBACK RATE OR HOW MUCH WE BUYBACK, JUST THAT THEY WOULD COLLECT AN EXTRA 12 HOURS A YEAR.

IT ALSO DOESN'T AFFECT THE MAXIMUM THEY CAN CARRY.

IT, IT ADDS $2 AN HOUR IN TERMS OF SHIFT WORK BETWEEN 6 P.M.

AND 6 A.M., WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW.

SO IT JUST CODIFIES WHAT WE'RE CURRENTLY DOING.

AND THEN IT GIVES A PERCENTAGE OF AD PAY FOR OUR SPECIAL REPORT, EXCUSE ME, SPECIAL RESPONSE TEAM, FORMERLY KNOWN AS SWAT FROM 5% TO 10%.

AND LOOKING AT HOW IT IMPACTS THE BUDGET, WE BELIEVE IT WOULD BE LESS THAN A $300 IMPACT ANNUALLY.

SO WITH THAT, MR. MAYOR, I WOULD APPROVE RESOLUTION 24-37.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

I MAKE A MOTION WE ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 24-37.

SECOND. WE'LL TAKE THE SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER BOLE.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY WITH AYE, AYE.

OPPOSED. THANK YOU.

[8.C. RESOLUTION NO. 24-38]

THAT'S ITEM 8C RESOLUTION 24-38 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH AUTHORIZING THE ATLANTIC THE ABPD ATLANTIC BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ENTER INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN DUVAL COUNTY FIRST RESPONDER AGENCIES, GIVING THE CHIEF OF THE ATLANTIC BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT SIGNATORY AUTHORITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND UNLESS AS NECESSARY, TO EFFECTUATE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS RESOLUTION AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

MR. KILLINGSWORTH. MR. MAYOR, THIS IS A RESOLUTION AGAIN, THAT WOULD AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR, THE CHIEF, TO ENTER INTO A LOCAL INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN US AND JSO. BASICALLY, WHAT IT DOES IS IT ALLOWS DIRECT RADIO COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE 911 SYSTEM.

THE STATE AUTHORIZES IT, BUT IT HAS TO BE DONE THROUGH AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT.

WE DO THIS PERIODICALLY.

WITH THAT, MR. MAYOR, I WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 24-38.

OKAY. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

WE APPROVE RESOLUTION 24-38, SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I JUST HAVE QUESTIONS.

IS THIS ABOUT DISPATCHING? BECAUSE I KNOW WE HAVE A FEW DISPATCHERS.

DIDN'T WE NEED MORE OR.

NO. THIS IS MORE ABOUT LOCAL YEAH. WE HAVE OUR OWN DISPATCHERS.

CHIEF, YOU WANT TO ANSWER.

BUT THIS IS MORE ABOUT ALLOWING OUR RADIOS TO DIRECTLY INTERACT WITH THE DISPATCHER AT JSO.

SO THIS IS A STATUTE WAS PASSED IN AFTER THE MARJORY STONEMAN DOUGLAS ACT WENT THROUGH.

SO THE STATUTE SAYS BASICALLY THE SHERIFFS OF THE COUNTY IS REQUIRED TO REACH OUT TO OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND MAKE SURE THERE IS A WAY THAT WE CAN COMMUNICATE WITH EACH OTHER AND SHARE INFORMATION BACK AND FORTH ON CALLS.

ALTHOUGH IT WAS RELATED TO MARJORY STONEMAN DOUGLAS.

IT APPLIES TO ANYTHING ANYTIME THAT THERE'S A CALL THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO SHARE RESOURCES ON, THE PRIMARY THING IS THAT IT REQUIRES US TO HAVE THAT INTEROPERABILITY, TO HAVE THAT RADIO COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE TWO AGENCIES.

DO WE DO THE SAME THING WITH NEPTUNE AND JAX BEACH? WE DO SHARE INFORMATION.

WE DO. WE DO IT ON OUR.

WE HAVE A SEPARATE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BEACH COMMUNITIES, BETWEEN THE BEACH CITIES.

THIS IS REQUIRED BY STATUTE.

[01:10:01]

THIS HAS TO BE CREATED.

WE ALSO HAVE A MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT WITH THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE THAT ALLOWS US TO SHARE RESOURCES BACK AND FORTH.

BECAUSE THE STATUTE WAS WRITTEN SPECIFICALLY FOR MARJORY STONEMAN DOUGLAS AND INTEROPERABILITY FOR RADIO COMMUNICATIONS AND 911 INFORMATION, IT WENT A STEP FURTHER.

OKAY. THAT'S IT.

THANK YOU. FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY WITH AYE, AYE.

OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES.

THANK YOU. RESOLUTION NUMBER 24-39, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AN INCREASE IN THE ANNUAL LEAVE ACCRUAL OF

[8.D. RESOLUTION NO. 24-39]

MR. KILLINGSWORTH MR. MAYOR, SO THIS WOULD GIVE THE GENERAL EMPLOYEES BASICALLY THAT SAME 12 HOUR ADDITION AFTER THE FIRST YEAR TO THE ANNUAL ACCRUAL OF LEAVE.

IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT THEY CARRY.

IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT THEY CAN SELL BACK.

THERE IS NO IMPACT TO THE BUDGET.

WITH THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF 24-39.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION WE ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 24-39.

DISCUSSION MR. BOLE.

YEAH. WHAT'S THE I KNOW WE WENT THROUGH THIS ABOUT A YEAR AGO.

HOW MUCH CAN YOU CARRY OVER? YES, SIX A LOT.

680 IS HOW MUCH YOU CAN CARRY EACH YEAR.

YEAH. SO COME.

YEAH. SO SO COME SEPTEMBER 30TH OR WHATEVER YOU HAVE IT USED ON OCTOBER 1ST.

SO HOW MANY OF OUR EMPLOYEES SELL BACK? WE DON'T HAVE US SELL BACK.

THAT'S DONE.

WE DON'T HAVE AN ORGANIZED SELL BACK EVERY YEAR.

IT'S DONE BY SPECIAL PERMISSION.

THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THREE TIMES THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

NO, JUST JUST FRAMING IT.

YEAH. NO, THAT'S GOOD INFORMATION.

USE IT OR LOSE IT.

SECOND AND A MOTION AND A SECOND.

NO, BUT FURTHER DISCUSSION.

OKAY. HEARING NONE.

ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY WITH AYE, AYE.

OPPOSED. THANK YOU.

MOTION CARRIES.

[8.E. RESOLUTION NO. 24-40]

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING THE PROPOSED MILLAGE RATE, THE CURRENT YEAR ROLLBACK RATE, AND THE DATE, TIME AND PLACE FOR THE FIRST AND SECOND PUBLIC HEARINGS TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 MILLAGE RATE AND BUDGET AS REQUIRED BY LAW.

DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO FILE SAID RESOLUTION WITH THE PROPERTY APPRAISER OF DUVAL COUNTY.

PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF FLORIDA STATUTES AND THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

MR. KILLINGSWORTH.

THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SO THE RESOLUTION RECOMMENDS.

SO WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS YOU'RE SETTING THE MAXIMUM POTENTIAL THAT IT COULD BE.

YOU'RE NOT SETTING YOUR MILLAGE RATE.

THE MILLAGE RATE YOU'LL SET THAT FIRST HEARING IN SEPTEMBER.

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, AS YOU SAID IT, AT THE 3.1 AS MR. BRINKLEY SAID, WE HAVE BUILT THE BUDGET BASED OFF OF A 2.8 WHICH IS WHAT YOU APPROVED LAST YEAR.

BUT JUST OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, IT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION TO ALLOW YOURSELF A LITTLE BIT OF SLACK JUST IN CASE SOMETHING COMES UP THAT IS AN EMERGENCY. AND THERE EITHER ISN'T THE ABILITY TO CUT ENOUGH OUT OF THE BUDGET, OR THERE'S A LACK OF DESIRE TO CUT IT OUT OF THE BUDGET.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT I ANTICIPATE THAT YOU WOULD END UP RAISING THAT THE MILLAGE RATE, BUT IT WOULD JUST BE NICE TO HAVE THE CUSHION THERE.

AT LEAST THAT'S HOW I WOULD OPERATE.

IT ALSO SETS THE ROLLBACK RATE, WHICH CURRENTLY FOR THIS YEAR WOULD BE 2.6121 MILLS.

AND THEN IT SETS OUR HEARING DATES, WHICH IS SEPTEMBER 9TH AND SEPTEMBER 23RD.

AND SO WHATEVER MAXIMUM RATE YOU GIVE US TONIGHT, THAT'S THE THAT'S THE MAX CAP IT COULD BE.

AND WE HAVE TO REPORT THAT NUMBER TO THE STATE.

SO THERE'S A FORM WE HAVE TO FILL OUT.

AND I BELIEVE THE VOTING IS DIFFERENT DEPENDING UPON WHAT YOU SELECT AS WELL.

THERE'S A SUPERMAJORITY THRESHOLD IF YOU GO ABOVE A CERTAIN INCREASE.

SO YEAH, IF YOU GO TO IS IS THAT 3.0315 OR 3.1? IT'S IT'S 3.1035 OKAY.

[01:15:04]

RIGHT? RIGHT. FISCAL YEAR 23.

DO YOU HAVE ANY UPDATES ON THE REVENUE NOT THAT NOT FROM THE THE FUNDS THAT ARE PASSED THROUGH THROUGH THE STATE AND THROUGH THE COUNTY, WE DON'T HAVE THOSE YET.

I EXPECT TO HAVE THOSE BEFORE THE NEXT WORKSHOP MEETING.

OKAY. THE WE DO HAVE THE NUMBERS IN TERMS OF AD VALOREM TAXES, WHAT WE ANTICIPATE ON ON COLLECTING THERE.

SO WE JUST WANT TO DON'T WANT TO CAP OURSELVES, TO GIVE US A LATITUDE, TO GIVE YOU GIVE YOURSELF THE LATITUDE IN THE EVENT THAT SOMETHING HAPPENS BETWEEN NOW AND YEAH, ADOPTION.

SO I'M NOT HEARING ANYBODY ELSE.

SO I'LL MAKE MY COMMENTS.

I HEAR CITY MANAGER KILLINGSWORTH IN THE ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION AND SO ON, ALTHOUGH WE HAVE BEFORE US ALL OF THE REQUESTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT HEADS AND WHAT'S BEING DEFERRED PENDING FINAL RESOLUTION OF FUNDING.

I FIRST OF ALL, I DO NOT WANT UNLESS THERE WAS SOMETHING RIGHT IN FRONT OF US TODAY THAT HAD TO BE ADDRESSED THAT'S MONUMENTAL.

I DO NOT WANT TO GO BACK TO A 3.10 WHATEVER OF THE TWO YEARS AGO.

I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO SET THE CEILING AT 3.1 SOMETHING.

I THINK WE NEED TO STICK WITH OUR CURRENT MILLAGE RATE, WHICH YOU HEARD EARLIER, IS HISTORICALLY WHAT A CITY WOULD SET AS THEIR MAXIMUM ON THIS RANGE FOR THIS TIME IN PLACE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF IF YOU KNEW YOU HAD A HUGE FINANCIAL NEED, THAT YOU KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO UP.

BUT I DON'T SENSE THAT.

I DON'T BELIEVE MR. KILLINGSWORTH SENSES THAT.

I THINK HE'S BEING IN HIS MIND, PRUDENT AND PRACTICAL.

BUT I IT CONCERNS ME THAT WE WOULD EVEN CONSIDER GOING BACKWARDS.

WE FOUGHT HARD TO GET TO THE 2.84 LAST YEAR.

IT'S DEFENSIBLE.

WE'RE STILL WE'RE WE'RE DOING SO WELL AS A CITY THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO BLEED DOWN SOME OF THE EXCESS RESERVES IN THE GENERAL FUND TO ACQUIRE THE DORA STREET.

THAT'S OR I'M SORRY, FOR THE FIRST WEST FIRST STREET.

I'M SORRY TO RETIRE.

TO RETIRE. EXCUSE ME. LET ME GET MY FACTS STRAIGHT HERE TO RETIRE THE $1.2 MILLION OUTSTANDING DEBT ON THE THE PRESERVE AT AT SELVA MARINE YEAH. SO WE COULD MOVE IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THIS RESOLUTION AMENDED ON THE CAP TO THE CURRENT MILLAGE RATE OF 2.84.

WHAT IS THAT MILLAGE RATE CURRENTLY? ANYBODY HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF THEM? YEAH. 2.8401.

BUT THEN WE COULD VOTE ON THAT OR SOMEBODY CAN MOVE IT AS PRESENTED.

I'D LIKE TO [INAUDIBLE] I AGREE WITH BILL ON THIS ONE AND HERE'S WHY.

IF YOU LOOK AT OUR PROJECTS I AGREE WITH THE MAYOR ALSO.

SO I'M SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE HERE.

BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROJECTS, NOT EVERY ONE OF THOSE PROJECTS COME OUT COMES OUT AT A 2.84 IF EVERYTHING WAS APPROVED, CORRECT, THAT'S CORRECT.

YOU CAN'T MY POINT IS I DON'T WANT TO RESTRICT US DURING BUDGET TIME.

SO I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE A CAP, RIGHT, THAT WE CAN'T GO ANY HIGHER.

AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE TARGET IS IN FACT THAT SAME RATE.

AND I LIKE I SAID, IT HAPPENED I AGREE WITH THE MAYOR ON THAT, BUT I HATE RESTRICTING US WHEN WE'RE NOT THERE YET.

I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE PERMISSION DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE TO DO IT.

NO, I REMEMBER LAST YEAR GOING THAT LOW WAS, IN MY OPINION, A GESTURE THAT WE WERE DOING SO WELL. LET'S GET DOWN AS LOW AS WE CAN.

BUT IN THE BIG SCHEME OF THINGS, IT DIDN'T REALLY SAVE OUR RESIDENTS A LOT OF MONEY.

AND SO I'M I GUESS I'M WITH BILL, JUST I MEAN, I GET WHAT MAYOR SAYING EVERYTHING.

I GUESS HAVING THAT AS A CAP IN A EXTRAORDINARY CASE, YOU KNOW.

BUT I'M FINE WITH KEEPING IT RIGHT THERE, KNOWING THAT I AM NOT GOING TO GO NEAR IT, HOPEFULLY.

WELL, DIDN'T YOU SAY THAT YOU WERE GOING OVER THE ENHANCEMENTS, YOU LISTED ALL THE INCLUDED CAPITAL PROJECTS AND THEN YOU WENT OVER THOSE 30. 33 ENHANCEMENTS, ONE OF WHICH WAS TO PAY OFF THE BOND DEBT SERVICES OF THE SELVA PRESERVATION.

WE COULDN'T DO WE CAN'T DO ALL OF THEM IF WE DO GO TO 2.8.

SO THE PAYING OFF OF THE DEBT, I'M NOT PROPOSING THAT WE DO BASED OFF OF THIS YEAR'S REVENUE.

[01:20:01]

BUT BUT IN TERMS OF THE TOTAL PROJECTS THAT ARE ON THAT LIST, THEY WILL EXCEED WHAT I ESTIMATE WILL BE THE 2.8.

THE OTHER CHALLENGE IS I MENTIONED STORM WATER.

THERE ARE SOME CHALLENGES IN STORM WATER THAT I HAVEN'T BROUGHT UP YET, BUT THERE'S THE POTENTIAL FOR A MAJOR SHORTFALL THERE, NOT THE POTENTIAL. THE NUMBERS INDICATE THAT THERE'S A MAJOR SHORTFALL THERE.

WE'RE GOING TO LOOK BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT ONE ON WHERE WE CAN MAKE THAT MONEY UP.

IT WILL COME FROM CUTTING PROBABLY PROJECTS THAT ARE FUNDED CURRENTLY.

SO THE THE THINGS ARE STILL FLUID, RIGHT? SO MY THINKING HERE IS THAT WE WERE ABLE TO ROLL BACK LAST YEAR, YOU KNOW, NOT SO MUCH THAT WE DID SOMETHING FOR THE PEOPLE, BUT BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE WERE AT, YOU KNOW, WITH OUR CAPITAL PROJECTS, WHAT WE WANTED TO HAPPEN AND, AND ALSO WHERE OUR BUDGET WAS I'M REALLY ON THE FENCE WITH THIS ONE, BUT I THINK WHAT YOU JUST SAID, BILL WHEN YOU SAID YOU HADN'T BROUGHT UP ALL OF THE POSSIBILITY OF STORM WATER ISSUES AND WE HAVEN'T SEEN THAT PRESENTATION, WE WOULD BE HOLDING OURSELF AT A CAP IF WE SET IT AT 2.8.

WELL, WHAT WHAT SETTING IT AT 2.8 DOES WOULD NOT GIVE YOU ANY OPTIONS.

I MEAN, IF YOU SET IT AT 2.8, THAT DEFINITELY MEANS THAT THERE'S PROJECTS THAT AREN'T GOING TO BE DONE.

IF WE HAVE TO HIT THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE STORM WATER FUND THEN THAT'S MORE PROJECTS THAT WON'T GET DONE.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THAT MAY NOT BE YOUR CHOICE, ULTIMATELY AND YOU STICK WITH THE 2.8.

BUT I'M EVERYTHING THAT I'M PRESENTING TO YOU IS BASED OFF OF THAT 2.8.

THAT'S MY PLAN THROUGHOUT THE BUDGET CYCLE.

BUT YOUR DECISIONS MAY BE THAT YOU WANT SOME OF THESE PROJECTS THAT WON'T FALL WITHIN AD VALOREM OF 2.8.

IN PARTICULAR, SOME STORM WATER PROJECTS I SAW LISTED AS ENHANCEMENTS.

SO THE STORM WATER PROJECTS WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO GET INTO THE MEAT.

THE ISSUE WITH STORM WATER IS WE'VE BEEN SUBSIDIZING THE OPERATING COSTS USING RESERVES, AND THERE ARE NO MORE RESERVES IN STORM WATER ANYMORE. AND SO WE HAVE THE GRANT BECAUSE ALL OF OUR STORM WATER PROJECTS ARE FUNDED THROUGH GRANTS.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO MATCH THE GRANTS.

IT'S REALLY THE OPERATING COSTS THAT I'M HAVING A DIFFICULTY IN FUNDING BECAUSE WE'RE TAKING IT, IT WAS UNREALIZED BY FINANCE UNTIL TODAY, ACTUALLY, WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT IT AND I DID SOME ROUGH MATH THAT WE WERE SUBSIDIZING ESSENTIALLY THE STORM WATER FUND THROUGH OUR OUR GENERAL FUND.

SO IF I MAY, THIS IS WHAT YOU REFERRED TO EARLIER, THAT APPROXIMATELY $800 AND SOMETHING THOUSAND COMES TO THE STORM WATER FUND FROM THE STORM WATER FEE THAT WE CHARGE OUR CITIZENS.

SO RESTATE IF YOU WOULD, WHAT ARE THE OPERATING COSTS THAT ARE PAID FOR BY THAT FUND AND OR BY ADDITIONAL SUBSIDY FROM THE GENERAL FUND? SO WHAT'S BEING TWO THINGS SO YOU HAVE YOUR OPERATING COSTS AND THEN YOU HAVE THOSE PROJECTS.

THE PROJECTS REQUIRE A MATCH.

SO THOSE THE MATCH PART THAT THE TYPICALLY THE GENERAL FUND HAS SUPPORTED IN THE PAST.

THE OPERATING COSTS OF IT, WE GENERATE 860.

NOW I'M TRYING TO GO OFF OF MEMORY BECAUSE I WASN'T EXPECTING TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION AT THIS LEVEL OF DETAIL RIGHT NOW, BUT WE COLLECT $865,000, GIVE OR TAKE, THROUGH THE STORM WATER FEE, WHICH IS THAT $8 AND SOME ODD THAT YOU GET ON YOUR UTILITY BILL.

OUR OPERATING BUDGET IS SUBSTANTIALLY MORE THAN THAT.

AND WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING IS WE'VE COST ALLOCATED OUT MY SALARY, THE CITY ENGINEER'S SALARY, A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT THINGS TO THAT FUND. AND THEN WE'VE BEEN USING THAT FUND'S RESERVES TO PAY FOR THAT.

SO WHAT THE NET EFFECT OF THAT IS, IT GAVE US MORE MONEY TO SPEND IN THE GENERAL FUND.

BUT THOSE OPERATING COSTS ARE RECURRING EVERY YEAR WE HAVE THOSE SAME OPERATING COSTS.

AND WE'VE BEEN DRAWING DOWN THE RESERVES.

WELL, NOW WE'RE AT THE POINT WHERE THERE ISN'T RESERVES TO DRAW DOWN ANYMORE, BUT WE STILL HAVE THOSE OPERATING COSTS IN THERE.

SO IT'S HOW CAN I DEAL WITH THOSE OPERATING COSTS.

QUITE FRANKLY, THIS YEAR, I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN.

[01:25:01]

I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWERS RIGHT NOW.

I DISCOVERED THE PROBLEM TODAY.

SURE. SO. AND IF I MAY ASK YOU'RE GOING TO WHEN WILL THE STUDY BE COMPLETED ON POSSIBLE INCREASE TO THE STORM WATER FUND? BUT SO THE RATE STUDY IS IN THE BUDGET.

SO I WOULD EXPECT IT TO BE AND GIVEN THAT A LOT OF THE UNDERLYING DATA AND ANALYSIS IS BEING DONE BY JEA FOR AN ALTERNATE REASON, I WOULD EXPECT IT TO BE THE FIRST HALF OF THE YEAR OF THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR.

ALL RIGHT. SO THIS IS NOT A REMEDY FOR THE SHORTFALL IN THE STORM WATER FUND FOR THE OPERATING COSTS THIS YEAR THIS YEAR.

THAT'S CORRECT. ALL RIGHT.

SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 24-40.

SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION.

AND SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY WITH AYE, AYE.

OPPOSED? THAT'S UNANIMOUS.

LADAYIJA. OKAY.

[8.F. RESOLUTION NO. 24-41]

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE ACCEPTANCE OF A NON-EXCLUSIVE GRANT OF ACCESS AND PARKING EASEMENT ON REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE AMERICAN LEGION POST 316 AT 1127 ATLANTIC BOULEVARD, ATLANTIC BEACH REAL ESTATE PARCEL NUMBER 170711-0011 ADJACENT TO BEACHES VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK WEST, ONE WEST FIRST STREET ATLANTIC BEACH, SUBJECT TO THE TERMS THEREIN AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE EASEMENT AGREEMENT, MR. KILLINGSWORTH. SO HOPEFULLY THIS ONE'S EASIER THAN THE LAST ONE.

SO THIS IS ACTUALLY A GREAT EXAMPLE OF OUR PARTNERSHIP WITH THE WITH THE LEGION AND THE VETERANS HERE IN TOWN.

THE LEGION PARKING LOT, WHICH IS ADJACENT TO 101ST STREET, THEY'VE AGREED TO GIVE US A PARKING EASEMENT SO THAT FOR EVENTS, WE CAN LEGALLY PARK THERE.

SO IT REALLY ENHANCES, YOU KNOW, NOT JUST THE ON STREET PARKING OR THE PARKING THAT WE HAVE THAT CAME WITH 101ST STREET, BUT IT GIVES US A GREAT DEAL OF PARKING SO THAT IF IN THE FUTURE WE HOLD EVENTS THAT ARE LIKE YOU KNOW, MAYBE ACOUSTIC NIGHT OR WE HAVE A BLUES NIGHT OR A JAZZ NIGHT OR A COUNTRY MUSIC NIGHT, AND WE TIE THAT IN WITH THE WITH DINNER AND DRINKS THROUGH THE KITCHEN.

IT GIVES US A GREAT MANY PLACES WHERE WE CAN PARK AND PARK LEGALLY AND CLOSE.

SO THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF IS TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 24-41.

MAKE A RESOLUTION OR APPROVE RESOLUTION 24-41.

SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, ANY FURTHER, ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY WITH .

AYE, AYE. OPPOSED? THAT'S A UNANIMOUS VOTE.

THANK YOU. MOVING TO ITEM 9A ORDINANCE NUMBER 31-24-18 PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING.

[9.A. ORDINANCE NO. 31-24-18, Public Hearing and First Reading]

AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE 2030 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED EXHIBIT A FROM RESIDENTIAL LOW RL TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LI PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, MR. KILLINGSWORTH. MR. MAYOR, I BELIEVE YOU WANT TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ONE AND THEN IF THERE'S NOT ANY SPEAKERS, IF THERE ARE SPEAKERS, YOU NEED TO HEAR FROM THEM.

IF THERE AREN'T ANY SPEAKERS, THEN WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO DATE CERTAIN, WHICH IS WHATEVER THE DATE OF THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING IS.

OKAY.

OKAY. SO DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS? I HAVE NONE.

OKAY. SO WE OPEN AND CLOSE THE YOU WANT TO CONTINUE? OPEN AND CONTINUE.

OH, OPEN AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THANK YOU. SO WHAT ELSE ON THAT? JUST OPEN AND CONTINUE TO AUGUST 12TH.

OH, UNTIL AUGUST 12TH.

OKAY. WE'RE GOOD.

WE'RE GOOD. THIS IS ON 9A.

ARE WE ALSO DOING THE SAME, SAME THING FOR THE SO 9A JUST FOR THE RECORD, IS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE AMENDMENT, AND THEN THE 9B IS THE ASSOCIATED REZONING.

OKAY. SO BY YOUR ACTION, WE'RE POSTPONING ON BOTH.

I WOULD JUST FOR THE RECORD, I WOULD OPEN I SUPPOSE THERE'S NO HEARINGS OR NO PEOPLE TO SPEAK AT THE HEARING, AND THEN I WOULD JUST CONTINUE IT TO AUGUST 12TH AS WELL. OKAY.

[01:30:01]

[9.B. ORDINANCE NO. 90-24-252, Public Hearing and First Reading]

REZONING THOSE LANDS DESCRIBED IN ATTACHED EXHIBIT A FROM RESIDENTIAL GENERAL TWO-FAMILY RG TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND WAREHOUSE LIW, PROVIDING FINDINGS OF FACT REQUIRING RECORDATION AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY.

DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING? NO, WE DO NOT MAYOR.

OKAY. AND IT IS FIRST READING.

OKAY. THANK YOU, I THOUGHT SO.

I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND HOW I GOT FINAL ALREADY, BUT THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE GOING TO DEFER THIS TO AUGUST 12TH AND CONTINUE TO [INAUDIBLE] AND WE'LL CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THAT TIME.

SO ANYTHING ELSE? WE'RE GOOD. THAT WAS A LITTLE DIFFERENT.

YEAH. OKAY.

WE'LL MOVE TO THE ITEM 11, CITY ATTORNEY.

I KNOW YOU HAVE SOME COMMENTS.

I HAVE NOTHING TO REPORT TODAY, SIR.

ALL RIGHT. CITY CLERK DONNA.

NO, THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THANK YOU. LADAYIJA.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

CLOSING COMMENTS LET'S START AT THE OTHER END, COMMISSIONER WATERS.

[12. CLOSING COMMENTS BY CITY COMMISSIONERS AND CITY MANAGER]

I MEAN, I'VE SAID IT LAST TIME WITH BILL AND TROY AND SCOTT EVERYBODY'S WORKING SO HARD ON IT.

AND I JUST THINK THIS IS SO COMPREHENSIVE I FEEL SO MUCH BETTER ABOUT THIS TIME THAN THE LAST THREE SEASONS I'VE BEEN THROUGH.

AND ALSO, I JUST REALLY WANT TO PRAY FOR OUR COUNTRY.

I'M CONCERNED.

YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, I FEEL BETTER ABOUT ATLANTIC BEACH THAN I DO OUR COUNTRY.

AND I PRAY THAT EVERYBODY WILL STAY TOGETHER ON THIS AND NOT GET SO DIVIDED AND POLITICAL BECAUSE IT'S QUITE SCARY RIGHT NOW.

SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER RING.

I HAVE NOTHING COMMISSIONER BOLE.

NADA. COMMISSIONER KELLY.

WELL, I JUST RETURNED FROM NEW ENGLAND.

AND THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE WHINING ABOUT MILLING AND PAVING NEED TO TAKE A VACATION TO NEW ENGLAND AND APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'VE GOT.

OKAY, THERE YOU HAVE IT.

CITY MANAGER.

I BELIEVE I'M DONE FOR THE NIGHTMARE.

OKAY, I THINK I'LL FINISH IT OFF WITH I'M GOOD.

IF THERE'S NO FURTHER BUSINESS, THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.