Jan 27, 2025 Commission Meeting

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:04]

WELCOME NEIGHBORS, RESIDENTS AND GUESTS. BEFORE I OPEN THIS MEETING, WE'LL HAVE A SHORT INVOCATION AND THE PLEDGE.

IF YOU'LL JOIN US. LORD, THANK YOU FOR THIS SPECIAL TIME AND PLACE TO HEAR AND DISCUSS ISSUES OF OUR FAIR CITY.

HELP US APPRECIATE ONE ANOTHER AND TRULY LISTEN TO EVERYONE'S OPINION AND VIEWPOINT.

AMEN.

THIS CITY COMMISSION MEETING DATED JANUARY 27TH, 2025 WILL NOW COME TO ORDER.

DONNA, CAN WE DO A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? . THANK YOU. LET'S GO AHEAD AND JUMP RIGHT INTO THIS AGENDA.

[1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

WE GET TO MOVE STRAIGHT INTO COURTESY OF THE FLOOR. WE DON'T HAVE TOO MANY PEOPLE HERE, SO WE'RE GOING TO DO FIVE MINUTES.

[2. COURTESY OF FLOOR TO VISITORS]

IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY COMPLETED A SPEAKER'S CARD, GO AHEAD AND DO THAT AND HAND IT TO DONNA OR TO MICHELLE.

SO, ARE YOU READY? I AM GEORGE GARCIA. COMMISSION AND STAFF.

GEORGE GARCIA, 640 OCEAN BOULEVARD. I'M ADDRESSING OUR PROTECTING OUR DUNES DURING MY WALK TWO YEARS AGO AFTER HURRICANE IAN. I NOTICED NEPTUNE BEACH AND JAX BEACH HAD INSTALLED THEIR ROPE SYSTEM WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF THE HURRICANE.

ATLANTIC BEACH DOES NOT HAVE A ROPE SYSTEM TO KEEP PEOPLE OUT OF THE DUNES.

I'VE TALKED IN EMAILS, STAFF, AND COMMISSION ABOUT PROTECTING THE DUNES.

GOING ON THREE YEARS NOW. I RODE WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR IN 22, DISCUSSED THE PROTECTION WITH HIM, WITNESS OF PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYEE DIGGING SAND OUT OF THE DUNES WITH A FRONT END LOADER.

TOOK PICTURES. PROVIDED THAT STAFF. SAILBOATS ARE PULLED UP AND PARKED IN THE DUNES.

TRASH CANS BY PUBLIC WORKS ARE PUT HAVE BEEN PLACED BEHIND THE STAY OUT OF THE DUNES.

SIGNS. LIFEGUARD CHAIRS ARE PULLED INTO THE DUNES.

OUR BEACH WAS RENOURISHED, AND PLANTING A SEA OATS BY THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS WAS COMPLETED IN LATE AUGUST.

FIVE MONTHS HAVE PASSED AND WE STILL HAVE NO ROPE SYSTEM.

NOW MIGHT BE A GOOD TIME TO START. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. GARCIA. RICK CRAVEN. I'M ACTUALLY HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM TEN A, WHICH IS RE-REVIEW OF AN APPEAL THAT'S BEEN MADE FOR THE [INAUDIBLE] AND IT'S ON THEIR GARAGE UNIT FOR THEIR INTENT IS TO BUILD IT AND MAKE IT MORE COMFORTABLE FOR THEIR FAMILY.

ALSO, MAKE IT MORE APPEALING FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR TO THE [INAUDIBLE], SO I'M JUST HERE TO LEND MY SUPPORT TO THAT AND ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO PLEASE CONSIDER THAT.

THANK YOU, MR. CRAVEN. OH, AND BY THE WAY, JUST AS A CLARIFICATION, ANYBODY WANTING TO SPEAK ON THAT ITEM, WE HAVE A SPECIAL HEARING WHEN WE CALL THAT ORDINANCE.

SO IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK A SECOND TIME, FEEL FREE.

NEXT. CHRIS THOMAS [INAUDIBLE]. OKAY. THANK YOU.

ALAN WINTER. [INAUDIBLE]. STEVEN FOURAKER.

HI, STEVEN FOURAKER. ATLANTIC BEACH. A COUPLE OF THINGS.

IT'S NICE TO COME HERE AND AND LEARN ABOUT THINGS THAT I WASN'T AWARE OF AND MR.

[00:05:02]

ANOTHER REASON WHY I'M HERE IS TO EXPRESS A LITTLE DISSATISFACTION WITH THE TOWN HALL MEETING.

AS I LEFT, THERE WERE SEVERAL PEOPLE THAT REALLY WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING, BUT WE HAD TWO AGENDA ITEMS I DIDN'T KNOW.

SO I WAS YAKKING AWAY THAT IT WOULD NOT ALLOW GENERAL COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION WITH THE COMMISSION.

SO I THINK MAYBE WE OUGHT TO LOOK AT THAT WHEN WE HAVE ANOTHER TOWN HALL.

THE THIRD THING IS I JUST WANT EVERYONE TO KNOW THAT I SUPPORT THE WORK OF OUR ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP COMMITTEE WHOLEHEARTEDLY AND THE TREE SUBCOMMITTEE IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO THIS CITY. AND TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE RUMOR HAS IT FROM RUMORS THAT THE TREE SUBCOMMITTEE WAS NOT REALLY INTELLIGIBLE IN THEIR RESPONSES TO CERTAIN PERMITS AND SOMETIMES THEY MADE SUGGESTIONS THAT WERE NOT A PART OF THE PERMIT PROCESS.

AND THAT BOTHERED ME BECAUSE THIS WAS ALL HEARSAY ANYWAY.

SO I HAVE A SUGGESTION THAT THE CITY MANAGER AND ANY COMMISSION MEMBERS THAT CAN HAVE A MEETING AND DISCUSS WHAT THE PROBLEM IS WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP COMMITTEE.

HAVE THEY TAKEN ON TOO MUCH? IT ORIGINALLY CAME FROM THE CITY NOT ENFORCING THE TREE CODE PROPERLY WITH ITS PERMITS. IT WASN'T A FRIENDLY THING WITH THE CITY.

IT WAS A CHALLENGE TO THE CITY. LUCKILY, WE HAD A COMMISSION AND A MAYOR COMMISSIONER AT THAT TIME WHO WAS OPEN TO NOT ONLY THAT COMMITTEE, BUT THE TREE SUBCOMMITTEE TO GO THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS AND NOT DUPLICATE ANY EFFORTS, BUT TO REVIEW THAT PROCESS AND SEE THAT IT'S IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR TREE CODE. THE TREES WERE FALLING FAST, AND THEY MAY BE AGAIN SOON IF WE TAKE AWAY ANY OF THESE IMPORTANT CITIZEN FUNCTIONS AND IF THE CITY IS BEGINNING TO TURN AGAINST CITY COMMITTEES OF CITIZENS, I THINK THAT IS A VERY BAD TURN. SO I'M NOT SURE THAT'S HAPPENING. I WANT TO SEE HOW THIS PLAYS OUT, BUT I'M FOR KEEPING THINGS THE WAY THAT THEY ARE, OR AT LEAST WORKING ON COMMUNICATION AND FINDING OUT WHAT, IF ANY, PROBLEMS THERE ARE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. FOURAKER. MR. BROWN, ARE YOU WAITING FOR 10A? OKAY. [INAUDIBLE]. OKAY. LISA. HAROLD.

LISA HAROLD. MY ADDRESS IS ON FILE. I HAVE TWO THINGS TODAY.

THE FIRST THING IS, LIKE. MR. FOURAKER, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT THE ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP COMMITTEE.

WE HAVE SOME REALLY SMART FOLKS ON THERE WHO ARE EXPERTS IN THEIR FIELD, AND THEY'VE DONE A LOT FOR OUR CITY, AND THEY'VE SAVED US A LOT OF MONEY, AND THEY'VE SAVED A LOT OF TREES.

SO I SUPPORT THEM AND I THINK THE TREE SUBCOMMITTEE IS REALLY VITAL FOR US.

SO I HOPE THE CITY AND THE COMMITTEE CAN WORK TOGETHER AND MAYBE FIND SOME FIND SOME COMMON GROUND AND SOME RESOLUTION AND FIGURE OUT A PATH FORWARD. SO I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT.

THE SECOND THING IS TRAFFIC RELATED. SO I WAS HERE AT THE TOWN HALL ON SATURDAY AND IT WAS INTERESTING.

THE PEANUT DESIGN, I KIND OF LIKE THAT. BUT IT BROUGHT SOME QUESTIONS TO MY MIND AND I'VE BEEN UP HERE BEFORE SPEAKING ABOUT TRAFFIC

[00:10:05]

IT'S A VERY DIFFICULT TURN. THE LINE OF SIGHT ON SHERRY IS HORRIBLE.

IF YOU'RE PULLING RIGHT ON STURTEVANT, YOU'VE GOT THE HOTEL PARKING LOT.

NOW YOU'VE GOT A DENTIST OFFICE WITH PARKING ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING.

IT'S AND THEN YOU HAVE BIKERS THAT ARE IN THE BIKE LANE THAT YOU HAVE TO PULL UP PAST WHERE THEY'RE WALKING.

IT'S JUST BAD. IT'S BAD. SO I REALLY URGE YOU GUYS TO LOOK INTO THAT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU, MISS HAROLD. BRINKLEY.

HAROLD. GOOD EVENING, MR. MAYOR.

COMMISSIONERS STAFF. I'M BRINKLEY HAROLD TWO 66TH STREET BEACH, FLORIDA.

A COUPLE OF QUICK THINGS THAT I WANTED TO EXPRESS SOME VIEWS ON THAT I'VE SEEN ELSEWHERE.

NOT NECESSARILY, MY OWN OPINION IS CHANGING THE MEETING TIMES FROM 6:30 TO 6PM..

AS I READ THAT, THE THING THAT REALLY GOT ME WAS THE PRIMARY COMMENT WAS TO BETTER ACCOMMODATE THE SCHEDULES OF STAFF AND COMMISSIONERS.

WELL, WHAT ABOUT US? YOU KNOW, I'M RETIRED SO I CAN COME AT 6 OR 6:30.

NO SKIN OFF MY BACK. BUT WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF COMMISSIONERS THAT HAVE COME IN LATE AT TIMES BECAUSE THEY STILL WORK A JOB, UNLIKE A COUPLE OF Y'ALL LIKE ME.

YOU KNOW, SO THAT MIGHT BE AN ISSUE FOR MANY PEOPLE TRYING TO GET HERE BY 6:00 IF THEY'RE WORKING A JOB OR IF THEY'RE AT HOME TRYING TO EAT, GET READY TO COME HERE, YOU KNOW, BETWEEN 5 AND 6:00.

YEAH, THAT MIGHT BE A TOUGH ONE FOR THEM. SO ANYWAY, JUST TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.

WHAT MIGHT BE BETTER FOR THE PUBLIC RATHER THAN FOR THE STAFF? ANOTHER THING THAT'S COMING UP LATER ON IS 42 EAST COAST DRIVE.

IT SAID, AND THAT ONE CONCERNED ME BECAUSE IT SAID THE CITY IS CONCERNED THAT THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO MEET THEIR STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS.

CONCERN NOW AS THE BUILDING IS ALMOST COMPLETE.

AFTER A GREAT NUMBER OF ENGINEERING STUDIES, WHEN THEY SUBMITTED THEIR PLANS AND OUR OWN CITY ENGINEER AND NOW WE'RE CONCERNED.

OKAY, I'LL LISTEN FOR MORE ON THAT ONE LATER.

SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, YOU KNOW, I HOPE THAT THIS COMMISSION DOES NOT TAKE THAT AUTHORITY AWAY FROM YOURSELF TO GIVE THAT AUTHORITY TO SOMEONE ELSE, EVEN A CAPABLE CITY MANAGER. BECAUSE YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE THE CHECKS AND BALANCE.

YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE THE FINAL DUE DILIGENCE. YOU KNOW, THERE'S ANOTHER WAY TO GO ABOUT IT, RATHER THAN GIVING THAT AWAY, IS JUST CHANGE IT TO A TWO YEAR TERM RATHER THAN A ONE YEAR TERM.

YOU KNOW, EASY THING TO DO. LATER ON WITH THE VARIANCE OR EXCEPTION REQUEST COMING ON FOR 223 OCEAN BOULEVARD. THE PROBLEM ON THAT ISN'T NECESSARILY.

WELL, FIRST OFF, I'M OPPOSED TO THAT BECAUSE THAT IS ABOUT A NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY, THE GARAGE THAT ALREADY HAS A PREVIOUS VARIANCE AND THE PRECEDENT IS YOU DON'T GRANT AN EXCEPTION OR A VARIANCE ON TOP OF A PREVIOUS EXCEPTION OR A VARIANCE ON A NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY.

WELL, THE BIGGER PROBLEM ON THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY, 223 OCEAN BOULEVARD, IS THIS COMPRISED OF THREE LOTS.

IT IS A REALLY LARGE LOT WITH A REALLY LARGE HOUSE.

AND THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IS IN CHAPTER 24, THE NEW REWRITE OF CHAPTER 24 IS CHAPTER 24-84, WHERE IT SAYS MERGED OR COMBINED LOTS CANNOT BE SPLIT BACK APART. WELL, SO, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY WANTS TO I WAS GOING TO SAY [INAUDIBLE] ABOUT MCMANSIONS SPROUTING UP EVERYWHERE IN ATLANTIC BEACH, BUT BECAUSE LOTS THAT ONCE HAD A RANCH STYLE HOME ENCOMPASSING A COUPLE OR THREE LOTS.

THEY TEAR IT DOWN. THEY CAN'T SELL OFF THEIR THREE LOTS AND BUILD THREE, 2 OR 3 SMALLER HOUSES.

BUT IT'S GOING TO BE SOMEBODY WITH A BOATLOAD OF MONEY THAT'S GOING TO BUILD A MONSTER HOUSE. OKAY.

SO ANYWAY, SO CHAPTER 24-84 NEEDS TO BE RELOOKED AT AND I'LL GO BEFORE THE CDB TO EXPRESS THAT ALSO. AND I MADE SOME COMMENTS THAT I HOPE THE CITY MANAGER WILL REFLECT ON TONIGHT ABOUT PUBLIC WORKS DOING STREET STRIPING WITH THEIR WONDERFUL

[00:15:04]

THAT IS A WONDERFUL MULTI-USE ROAD, IF YOU WILL.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. PLEASURE TALKING TO YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. HAROLD. SUZANNE BARKER.

GOOD EVENING. COMMISSIONERS, STAFF. SUZANNE BARKER, 1938, BEACHSIDE COURT.

I'M HERE IN SUPPORT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP COMMITTEE.

SOME OF THE SUGGESTED CHANGES THAT I HAVE LEARNED ABOUT, I THINK WOULD NOT BE VIABLE.

I THINK THAT THE ESC HAS DONE A FANTASTIC JOB IN WORKING WITH STAFF AND COMMISSIONERS IN BRINGING THROUGH DIFFERENT PROJECTS FOR RESILIENCY. AND I THINK THAT TO WATER IT DOWN WOULD BE CONTRAINDICATED. SOME PEOPLE MAY NOT REALIZE THAT AT ONE POINT WE DID HAVE CITIZEN TREE COMMITTEES AND THEN THOSE WERE DISBANDED. I THINK THAT WAS AROUND 1999 AND THEN WE HAD A TIME WHEN THERE WASN'T A LOT OF STAFF, AND WE DID HAVE ONE MAN IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WHO WAS NOT ENFORCING THE TREE COURT CODE. SO A LOT, OF TREES CAME DOWN AND THERE WAS NO MITIGATION COLLECTED FOR THAT AND AT THAT TIME, THE PUBLIC TRUST INTERVENED AND ASKED THE CITY TO ABIDE BY THEIR OWN TREE CODES.

AND AS A RESULT, THE CITY ENDED UP SPENDING THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO PUT INTO A TREE FUND FOR THOSE TREES THAT HADN'T BEEN PERMITTED CORRECTLY. THAT'S WHY I THINK THE CURRENT TREE SUBCOMMITTEE IS SO IMPORTANT THAT RIGHT NOW, WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS THEY'RE AN ADVISORY, THAT THEY LOOK OVER WHAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS ALREADY DONE, AND IF THEY SEE ANYTHING UNTOWARD, THEN THEY LET THEM KNOW.

SO THAT'S ONE THING AND ANOTHER IS I CAN SEE WANTING TO STANDARDIZE AND THEN, YOU KNOW YOU KNOW, CHANGE THINGS AROUND. BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE THE STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION NOT TO HAVE ACTIVE PARKS ALSO UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP COMMITTEE, BECAUSE IF YOU TAKE THAT AWAY FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP COMMITTEE, THEY ARE THE ONES THAT HAVE THE PEOPLE, THE VOLUNTEERS THAT ARE SO KNOWLEDGEABLE WHO CAN HELP IN LOOKING AT WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE TREES IN THESE ACTIVE PARKS, WHAT IS NEEDED FOR SUSTAINABILITY AND RESILIENCY.

AND I WOULDN'T RECOMMEND REDUCING THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ON THE BOARD.

IT WAS A GROUP OF CITIZEN VOLUNTEERS WHO WORKED TIRELESSLY TO CREATE THE ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP COMMITTEE, AND IT WAS UNDER THE DIRECTION OF MITCH REES, WAS OUR MAYOR AT THE TIME.

AND SO THEY REALLY THOUGHT IT THROUGH AND THAT THIS WOULD GIVE THERE WOULD BE A REPRESENTATIVE IN EACH PART OF THE CITY BECAUSE EACH PART OF THE CITY IS DIFFERENT AND SO THAT'S WHY THERE WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, THE FOR EACH PART OF THE CITY AND SO I DON'T BELIEVE THAT REDUCING IT TO SEVEN JUST BECAUSE OTHER COMMITTEES HAVE SEVEN WOULD BE OF ANY USE AND I THINK THAT THE PROGRAMS THAT WERE TASKED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP WOULD THEN HAVE TO BE FOLLOWED UP BY STAFF AND I DON'T THINK THAT IF YOU'RE GETTING ALL THIS WORK FOR FREE, YOU WON'T BE PAYING FOR IT.

ALSO THAT THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH VISION FOR 2040 STATES, IN PART, OUR CITIZENS AND GOVERNMENT CARE DEEPLY ABOUT COMMUNITY CHARACTER, AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT UNIFIED SUPPORT IS REQUIRED TO PRESERVE IT AND I BELIEVE

[00:20:05]

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS BARKER. NANCY STOTTS.

GOOD EVENING. COMMISSIONERS. MAYOR. MY ADDRESS, DOCTOR NANCY STOTTS.

MY ADDRESS IS ON FILE. I WANT TO THANK MR. KILLINGSWORTH FOR MEETING WITH THE ATLANTIC BEACH PRESERVATION GROUP LAST WEEK, AND WE HAD AN EXTREMELY PRODUCTIVE MEETING. WE APPRECIATED HIS CANDOR AND HIS WILLINGNESS TO SPEAK TO US, BECAUSE I THINK, FRANKLY, ONE OF THE ISSUES IS SORT OF A COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN AND HAVING WORKED AS IN A MANAGERIAL POSITION, I THINK THAT'S THE SOURCE OF MANY PROBLEMS OFTEN.

SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THE ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP COMMITTEE IS A FULLY VOLUNTEER COMMITTEE.

IT COSTS OUR CITY NOTHING. WE HAVE LOTS OF FOLKS USING THEIR EXPERTISE IN THIS AREA, PROVIDING A LOT OF GOOD INFORMATION FOR US, AND REALLY SAVING US MONEY FROM NEEDING TO HIRE A FULL TIME PERSON TO HELP WITH SOME OF THESE THINGS.

IT IS A UNIQUE GROUP, AND I DO APPRECIATE MR. KILLINGSWORTH IDEA OF STANDARDIZING, BUT IT'S REALLY APPLES AND ORANGES BECAUSE THE ESC DOES SUCH A WIDER RANGE OF THINGS ACROSS YEARS, SOME OF THEIR PROJECTS AND SO I THINK TO JUST SAY, WELL, YOU MUST DECREASE YOUR COMMITTEE DOWN TO SEVEN BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE OTHER GROUPS HAVE. I THINK WE JUST SHOULD BE COGNIZANT OF WHAT DO THEY NEED? DO THEY ALL NEED SEVEN? I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE THEY NEED MORE, MAYBE THEY NEED LESS.

BUT ALSO I DON'T WANT TO BE REDUNDANT TO ANYONE, BUT THERE IS MONEY BEING SAVED AND THE STAFF HOPEFULLY UNDERSTANDS THAT THE ESC WOULD NEVER WANT TO INCREASE YOUR WORK.

THEY'RE REALLY THERE TO BE A CHECK ON SOME OF THE TREE PERMITS, BUT ALSO TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND AND REALLY DECREASE YOUR WORK AND HELP MAKE THE CITY AS GREAT AS IT IS. I WOULD ALSO REMIND YOU ALL, BACK IN NOVEMBER WE HAD AN ELECTION.

I'M SURE YOU REMEMBER IT WASN'T THAT LONG AGO AND WE HAD SIX REFERENDA ON THE BALLOT.

REFERENDUM 1, WAS ABOUT PUTTING ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP LANGUAGE IN OUR CHARTER AND THAT PARTICULAR REFERENDUM ACTUALLY GARNERED THE MOST NUMBER OF VOTES BY ATLANTIC BEACH CITIZENS AND HAD THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE OF YES VOTES, WHICH WAS NEARLY 72%. SO THERE IS A STRONG MESSAGE FROM THE CITIZENS THAT THEY REALLY CARE ABOUT ALL OF ATLANTIC BEACH'S WONDERFUL FEATURES, INCLUDING THE TREE CANOPY AND OUR BEACHES AND OUR MARSHES.

AND IT'S ALL IMPORTANT. IT'S ALL IMPORTANT. IN TERMS OF THE MORALE FOR THE VOLUNTEERS WHEN WHEN THESE THINGS COME DOWN, I THINK IT IS HARMFUL TO THE CITY. WE SHOULD BE ENCOURAGING FOLKS TO VOLUNTEER AND THEN I JUST WANT TO END BY THANKING EVERYBODY HERE.

THE STAFF HAS BEEN JUST OUTSTANDING WITH ANY AND ALL REQUESTS.

AMANDA, DONNA, KEVIN, STEVE SWANN EXPLAINS ENGINEERING LIKE WE'RE SIX AND SOMEHOW IT JUST HELPS WHEN HE EXPLAINS IT.

SO THANK YOU ALL AND THANK YOU. THANK YOU, DOCTOR STOTTS.

SARAH BOREN. HI, GOOD EVENING, SARAH BOREN. MY ADDRESS IS ALSO ON FILE.

I'M ACTUALLY NOT HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE STANDARDIZATION STUFF, BUT I DO WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR HIS WILLINGNESS TO MEET WITH ESC THIS WEEK. SO THAT THE FULL HE AND I HAVE BEEN MEETING WITH THE FULL COMMITTEE NOW GETS TO TALK TO HIM.

I HAVE A COUPLE SMALL THINGS, BUT I DID WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT OUR AWARDS ARE NOW SET FOR FEBRUARY 26TH WEDNESDAY.

IT'S GOING TO BE AT ABQ. YOU GUYS WERE GREAT AND KIND OF APPROVING OUR CATEGORIES.

SO WE ARE NOW MOVING INTO, YOU KNOW, SEEKING NOMINATIONS AND SPONSORSHIPS, ETC.

SO WE'RE GOING TO DO A BIG PUSH ON THAT. SO YOU'LL GET AN EMAIL FROM ME, YOU KNOW, IF YOU KNOW OF ANY GREAT YARDS COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL OR FEEL FREE TO EITHER NOMINATE THEM OR HAVE THEM NOMINATE THEMSELVES.

SELF NOMINATION IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. SO THAT'S THE 26TH.

AND THEN I DIDN'T SEE IT ON THE CALENDAR. BUT THE BRAZILIAN PEPPER TREE REMOVAL, INVASIVE REMOVAL IS ON FRIDAY THE 28TH.

SO WE'RE GOING TO KIND OF RECRUIT COMMUNITY TO COME OUT TO HELP WITH THAT.

[00:25:06]

THE ONLY THING I KIND OF DIDN'T SEE IN THE DRAFT LANGUAGE WAS LIKE, IN THE PAST WE'VE HAD YOU KNOW, A BAN ON STYROFOAM. SO KIND OF LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT KIND OF EITHER SAYS FOLLOW, YOU KNOW, CURRENT CITY POLICIES AND ORDINANCES OR, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING TO THAT EXTENT OR, YOU KNOW, HELP US, YOU KNOW, KEEP THE PARKS OPERATING AND HOW WE WANT THEM TO BE.

SO KIND OF ALONG THOSE LINES. AND THEN FINALLY EARLIER IN THE BEFORE THE MEETING STARTED, I PASSED OUT ESC'S PROPOSED, UNANIMOUSLY PROPOSED 2025 PRIORITIES. YOU'LL ALL GET THOSE EMAILED TO YOU AS WELL.

I THINK THE CITY MANAGER IS THINKING ABOUT PRIORITY SETTING IN MARCH.

KIND OF MORE IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE BUDGET. SO WE WANTED TO KIND OF GET YOU OUR THOUGHTS THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO FOR YOU GUYS TO LOOK AT THEM, YOU KNOW, KIND OF TELL US WHAT WE SHOULDN'T WORK ON.

YOU KNOW, KIND OF APPROVE AND BLESS AND SAY, YOU KNOW, GO FORTH AND HELP MAKE THE CITY CONTINUE TO BE HEALTHY AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND AND THEN FINALLY I DO THINK THAT HAVING A JOINT WORKSHOP.

ESC WITH THE COMMISSION WOULD BE SUPER HELPFUL NOT ONLY TO DISCUSS THE PRIORITIES, BUT ALSO KIND OF ADDRESS SOME OF THE DISCONNECTS THAT WE SEEM TO BE HAVING AS WELL AS, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE STANDARDIZATION CONVERSATION WILL BE THEN, BUT I THINK THERE THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.

THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS BOYER. THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR THE COURTESY.

OKAY. THEN WE'LL CLOSE, COURTESY OF THE FLOOR PUBLIC COMMENTS AND.

GO AHEAD. SIR. MY NAME IS MITCH REIF.

I DIDN'T COME HERE TO SPEAK TONIGHT AT ALL. I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THE ESC WAS EVEN ON THE AGENDA.

BUT SINCE SOME COMMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TONIGHT, I WANT TO CLEAR THE RECORD UP.

FIRST OF ALL, I HAVE NO IDEA BASICALLY WHAT THE FINAL CHANGES YOU WANT TO MAKE.

BUT I DO WANT TO REACH OUT TO YOU. IT'S REALLY EXCITING FOR ME TO BE ABLE TO STAND UP HERE AND LISTEN TO SOME CITIZENS STAND UP HERE AND GIVE ME CREDIT FOR FORMING THE ESC WHEN THEY FOUGHT ME SO HARD AND HATED ME WHEN I WAS MAYOR.

SO I'M HAPPY THAT MAYBE THEY'VE CHANGED THEIR MIND A LITTLE BIT ABOUT ME, BUT I'M NOT CONCERNED IF THEY HAVE OR HAVEN'T.

BUT LET ME JUST SAY THIS ABOUT THE ESC THAT WAS MY BRAINCHILD.

I CAME UP WITH IT BECAUSE I SAW OUR PARKS WAS NOT BEING TAKEN CARE OF.

WE WERE NOT TAKING CARE OF OUR CANOPIES. THE MONEY WASN'T BEING SPENT.

THE TREE CANOPY. WE HAVE A BEAUTIFUL TREE CANOPY HERE, BUT THE ONLY WAY THAT WE MAINTAIN THE TREES IS BY 18 WHEELERS COMING THROUGH IN TRUCKS, KNOCKING LIMBS OFF, KNOCKING THEM DOWN. WE'RE NOT DOING WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING.

I WANT TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE HISTORY. IT WAS A PUBLIC MEETING AS, YOU KNOW, UNDER THE SUNSHINE.

ANY COMMISSIONER. EACH OF YOU CAN TALK TO EACH OTHER ANYTIME YOU WANT.

YOU CAN MEET WITH EACH OTHER AND TALK. AS LONG AS YOU ADVERTISE.

YOU'RE HAVING THAT MEETING, AND CITIZENS CAN COME AND LISTEN TO WHAT YOU DISCUSSED.

WHEN I CAME UP WITH THE ESC, I RELIED ON A COMMISSIONER ON THE COMMISSION THAT SERVED WITH ME BECAUSE OF THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THEY HAD ABOUT PARKS AND TREES AND HISTORY, NOT JUST TREES, BUT OTHER THINGS AND I WENT TO I HAD THIS PUBLIC MEETING WITH THIS COMMISSIONER, WHOSE FATHER HAS A PARK NAMED AFTER HIM. AND I ASKED THIS COMMISSIONER IF SHE WOULD TAKE THE LEAD ON THIS. THIS IS WHAT I WANTED TO DO, BUT I KNEW THAT I DIDN'T HAVE THE SUPPORT BECAUSE A LOT OF THE PEOPLE DIDN'T LIKE ME.

I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU. AND I NEEDED. I REALLY WANTED TO PASS BECAUSE I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT.

IT'S INTERESTING IN THAT DISCUSSION OF ALL PEOPLE THAT I THOUGHT WOULD TAKE THE LEAD.

SHE SAID, MAYOR, I APPRECIATE YOU ASKING ME. MY FATHER WOULD APPRECIATE YOU ASKING ME, BUT NO WAY DO I WANT TO TAKE CHARGE OF THAT. I WENT, WHY? SHE SAID, BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO REGRET IT DOWN THE ROAD.

IT'S GOING TO GROW LEGS. IT'S GOING TO TURN OUT BEING SOMETHING THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU INTENDED FROM THE VERY BEGINNING.

OKAY. A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THAT IS LEADS. I NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT LEADS COMING IN.

[00:30:03]

IT HAS TOTALLY WENT A DIFFERENT DIRECTION. BUT HERE'S WHAT I'M GOING TO OFFER TO EACH OF YOU.

SINCE YOU CAN'T TALK TO EACH OTHER, I'M GOING TO OFFER MY TIME TO SIT DOWN WITH EACH ONE OF YOU AND TALK TO YOU ABOUT MY CONCERNS AFTER I SEE WHAT YOUR PLAN IS.

THE ORIGINAL THE ORIGINAL VOTE, IF I RECALL, WAS, IT WAS A 4-1. I DON'T THINK IT WAS A ALL FIVE. BUT ONE OF THE BIG DISCUSSIONS THAT NOBODY WANTED TO TREE BOARD AGAIN, NOBODY WANTED A TREE BOARD. THE TREE BOARD DID NOT WORK.

SO WE WEREN'T GOING THAT WAY WITH THE TREE BOARD.

SO I JUST WANT TO CLEAR THAT UP AND IT WAS A DIFFERENT PURPOSE.

SO I WANT TO OFFER MY TIME TO THE CITY MANAGER, MY TIME TO EACH OF YOU TO SIT DOWN AND TELL YOU SOME THINGS THAT AT WHAT I'VE SEEN AND WHAT I THINK. AND IT CAN BE A GOOD PROGRAM. IT'S A GOOD PROGRAM.

BUT SOMETIMES, WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT, IN OTHER CITIES AND OTHER PROGRAMS, A GOOD PROGRAM BEGINS TO BE A MISSION OF CERTAIN PEOPLE, AND THEY TAKE IT OVER AND OTHER PEOPLE DON'T HAVE A LOT TO DO.

AND IF YOU LOOK AT SOME PEOPLE DROPPED OFF, I'D GO BACK AND INTERVIEW SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT'S DROPPED OFF.

WHERE DID THEY GO? WHY DID THEY LEAVE? THAT'S YOUR HISTORY TO LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL WHEN IT CAME OUT, IT HAD 12 MEMBERS. THE MAYOR GOT TWO. EVERYBODY ELSE.

THE OTHER DISTRICTS GOT EACH COMMISSIONER GOT, EXCUSE ME, THREE.

SO I BELIEVE IT CAME OUT OF SUMMIT LODGE. EACH ONE OF THEM GOT ONE, AND THEN THERE'S SOME [INAUDIBLE].

BUT IT CAME OUT TO 12. THE ONLY REASON THAT CAME OUT, THE DISCUSSION WAS MADE IN THAT WE WOULD START OFF WITH 12.

IT DIDN'T MEAN IT WOULD STAY AT 12. MY PERSONAL OPINION, IT SHOULD BE 5 OR 7.

I HADN'T EVEN SEEN THE PLAN. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PLAN IS, BUT I'M HERE TO HELP YOU AND I JUST WANT ANYTHING WORRIED ABOUT IT.

I WANT IT STRAIGHT THAT IT COMES FROM ME. OKAY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MAYOR REEVES. OKAY. ANNETTE.

NOT SEEING ANY OTHER HANDS. I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE COURTESY OF THE FLOOR, AND MOVE TO ITEM THREE.

[3. CITY MANAGER REPORTS]

FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT.

MISTER KILLINGSWORTH. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. GOOD EVENING. COMMISSION.

WE HAVE RON WHITESIDES. HE'S GOING TO YOU'RE GOING TO PRESENT, RIGHT? NOT KEVIN. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. THEY'RE GOING TO PRESENT THE RESULTS OF OUR ANNUAL AUDIT.

IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO CUE THAT UP NOW. YES, PLEASE.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR. COMMISSIONERS. GOOD TO SEE YOU ALL AGAIN.

WITH ME TONIGHT IS KEVIN SMITH. KEVIN MADE THIS PRESENTATION FOR ME LAST YEAR.

I THINK I WAS ON VACATION, KEVIN TOLD ME. SO I APPRECIATE HIM STEPPING IN LAST YEAR, AND IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU ALL AGAIN.

THANK YOU. THERE WE GO. THANK YOU. SHARE REAL QUICK TOO.

SO I CAN DRIVE? YES, BUT TO COVER FOR THE VIDEO.

WHILE SHE'S GETTING THAT READY TO GO. THIS YEAR'S AUDIT.

WE JUST COMPLETED MAYBE A MONTH AGO. IT IS BEHIND THE TIME FRAME IN WHICH WE OPTIMALLY DO THAT.

I IMAGINE THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS ON YOUR MIND. SO WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT RIGHT UP FRONT.

AS I RECALL AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS AUDIT PERIOD.

SO WE'RE PRESENTING THE SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2023 AUDIT REPORT.

YOU HAD A CHANGE IN YOUR FINANCE TEAM, YOU HAD A FINANCE DIRECTOR LEAVE AND YOUR FINANCE DIRECTOR GET PROMOTED, CREATED A VACANCY IN THE DEPARTMENT. SO I THINK THAT KIND OF GOT THE YEAR OFF TO A SLOWER START THAN WAS TYPICAL.

THE TEAM HAS WORKED AT IT DILIGENTLY, AND WE HAVE FOLLOWED UP BEHIND THEM DILIGENTLY AS THINGS ARE READY FOR AUDIT AND SO THIS YEAR, THE AUDIT REPORT IS PAST THE STATUTORY DEADLINE.

IT IS DUE JUNE 30TH, 2024 FOR THE 2023 REPORT.

SO IT IS WILL BE IF IT HAS NOT ALREADY WILL BE SUBMITTED RIGHT AFTER THIS MEETING TO THE STATE.

THE STATE DOESN'T TEND TO YOU GO ON A LIST IF IT'S LATE, BUT THEY DON'T TEND TO DO MUCH MORE THAN THAT UNLESS YOU ARE LATE.

YOU KNOW, A FEW YEARS IN A ROW, THEY CAN TAKE OTHER ACTIONS.

SO I THINK ONCE WE GET THIS ONE DELIVERED. THE PLAN IS TO GIVE YOUR STAFF A COUPLE OF MONTHS HERE TO GET READY FOR THE NEXT ONE, AND WE'LL COMMENCE THE NEXT AUDIT IN EARLY MAY.

THAT'S THE PLAN. I HOPE TO MEET THE JUNE 30TH DEADLINE, BUT IF WE DON'T CERTAINLY HAVE IT SHORTLY THEREAFTER A LOT OF THAT'S,

[00:35:06]

SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE'VE GOT THE YEP, PRESENTATION READY TO GO.

SO WE'VE GOT A BOOK. YOU PROBABLY HAVE THAT IN YOUR AGENDA PACKET.

THAT IS THE AUDIT REPORT. BUT WE'LL STAY A LITTLE HIGHER LEVEL.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THERE ARE NUMBERS IN HERE THAT WE'VE LIFTED STRAIGHT OUT OF THAT REPORT.

SO THEY ARE THE SAME AMOUNTS IN THIS SLIDE PRESENTATION.

BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THAT I DON'T COVER AS WE GO THROUGH THIS BY ALL MEANS, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.

ANYWAY, SO WHAT DID WE DO? WE CONDUCTED THE FINANCIAL AUDIT, OBVIOUSLY SINCE YOU'RE A YOU'RE A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, WE DO ISSUE REPORTS ON ACCORDANCE WITH YOUR INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING.

THAT'S A BIG PART OF AN AUDIT ENGAGEMENT. THAT'S THE PROCESS BY WHICH MANAGEMENT HAS IN PLACE TO MAKE SURE ACCURATE INFORMATION IS BEING PROVIDED TO YOU AS THE ELECTED OFFICIALS AND THE CITIZENS. THIS YEAR WE PERFORMED AN EXAMINATION OF THE CORONAVIRUS STATE AND LOCAL RECOVERY FUND PROGRAM.

THAT SPENDING OF ARPA FUNDS. SO WE SPENT ABOUT $3 MILLION OF THAT THIS YEAR.

THAT REQUIRES DIFFERENT AUDIT THINGS TO BE DONE ON THAT PROGRAM, WHICH WE CONDUCTED AND WE ALSO LOOK AT A COMPLIANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTES ON HOW YOU HANDLE YOUR INVESTMENT OF FUNDS. SO STATUTE REQUIRES THAT YOU NOT PRIORITIZE RATE OF RETURN, BUT RATHER LIQUIDITY AND SECURITY OF THE INVESTMENTS.

SO THOSE RESULTS WE'VE ISSUED WHAT'S CALLED AN UNMODIFIED OPINION.

THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT. THAT'S A CLEAN OPINION. THAT'S THE HIGHEST FORM OF ASSURANCE YOUR AUDITORS CAN GIVE YOU. WE DO HAVE AN EMPHASIS OF MATTER PARAGRAPH IN THIS YEAR BECAUSE OF AN ERROR IN THE 22 REPORT. ESSENTIALLY, WHEN THERE'S AN ACCOUNTING ERROR AND WE DON'T RUN IT THROUGH CURRENT OPERATIONS, WE ADJUST. OPENING EQUITY REQUIRES THIS PARAGRAPH.

IT WAS $100,000 OF PAYABLES THAT GOT MISSED IN THE SANITATION FUND IN 2022.

SO IT'S BIG ENOUGH THAT'S THE REQUIREMENT. BUT THAT'S ALL THAT IS.

WE DO HAVE TWO RECOMMENDATIONS OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING OVER INTERNAL CONTROLS, OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING.

ONE IS THE CLOSED PROCESS. THAT'S WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT IN THE OPENING. WE WANT THAT PROCESS.

THAT HAPPENS ONCE A YEAR. ESSENTIALLY A HARD CLOSURE OF THE CITY'S BOOKS TO BE MORE TIMELY.

WE DID POST A NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT AUDIT ADJUSTMENTS AS PART OF THE PROCESS.

SO WE'RE CORRECTING THINGS THAT WE IDENTIFY IN THE AUDIT.

IDEALLY THERE'S NOT MUCH OF THAT. SO THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE'LL WORK WITH YOUR TEAM ON IMPROVING AS WE GO FORWARD AND THE BANK RECONCILIATIONS, WHICH ARE A KEY COMPONENT OF THE CITY'S INTERNAL CONTROL PROCESS.

AGAIN, THIS IS MOSTLY ABOUT THE TRANSITION AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR, BUT SEVERAL OF THEM WERE PREPARED SIX MONTHS OR SO AFTER THE PERIOD CLOSED AND YOU REALLY WANT TO HAVE THAT DONE WITHIN A MONTH OR TWO, JUST AS PART OF YOUR KEY CONTROLS.

DIDN'T FIND ANY ISSUES WITH THE PROCESS. THERE WERE A FEW MINOR ERRORS, BUT BASICALLY JUST WANT THAT TO BE MORE TIMELY.

AS FAR AS THE CORONAVIRUS FUNDING PROGRAM, THE CITY COMPLIED WITH ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT AS FAR AS THE COMPLIANCE WITH 218, 405 FLORIDA STATUTES, WHICH IS THE INVESTMENT OF PUBLIC FUNDS, THE CITY'S POLICIES AND PRACTICES ALL COMPLY WITH THAT AND WE HAD NO OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS. OR THE AUDITOR GENERAL REQUIRES US TO COMMENT ON WHETHER THE CITY IS IN A FINANCIAL EMERGENCY, WHICH BASICALLY MEANS YOU CAN'T PAY YOUR BILLS AND CLEARLY THAT IS NOT THE CASE. A COUPLE OF REQUIRED DISCLOSURES HERE THAT AUDITORS MAKE TO GOVERNING BODIES SO THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF ABOUT THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND AUDITS.

THERE ARE ESTIMATES IN HERE, SO NOT EVERYTHING IN HERE IS A KNOWN HISTORIC FACT.

THE BIGGEST ESTIMATES ARE THE NET PENSION LIABILITY AND THE OTHER POST-EMPLOYMENT BENEFIT OBLIGATIONS.

YOU HIRE OUTSIDE ACTUARIES THAT DEVELOP THOSE.

WE AUDIT THEM. THEY DO SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

BUT AGAIN THIS IS JUST TO MAKE YOU AWARE THAT THERE ARE ESTIMATES IN THESE AMOUNTS.

OTHER REQUIRED DISCLOSURES. WE DID ADOPT A NEW ACCOUNTING STANDARD THIS YEAR,[INAUDIBLE] 96, WHICH DEALS WITH SUBSCRIPTION BASED IT ARRANGEMENTS.

BUT THEY HAD NO EFFECT ON THE CITY'S FINANCIALS.

AND YOU HAVE NOT CHANGED YOUR ACCOUNTING POLICIES OTHERWISE. SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO LET YOU KNOW IF YOU'RE CHANGING POLICIES OR TREATMENTS.

THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT DISCLOSURES ARE ALL APPROPRIATE FOR A LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

WE'RE SUPPOSED TO NOTIFY YOU OF WHAT WE THINK THE MOST SIGNIFICANT DISCLOSURE IS. IN MY OPINION, THAT'S YOUR PENSION PLAN DISCLOSURE. BECAUSE OF THE MAGNITUDE OF THE PLANS, THE PLANS ARE REASONABLY FUNDED, BUT THOSE ARE LARGE PLANS AND SO THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT DISCLOSURE.

THE NEXT ITEM WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, OUR NEXT 2 ITEMS ADJUSTMENTS DURING THE AUDIT OR ANY DIFFICULTIES IN THE AUDIT AGAIN.

WE DID POST A NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT ADJUSTMENTS TO CORRECT THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, AND THE AUDIT WAS DELAYED AS AS THE TEAM GOT TOGETHER THE INFORMATION TO COMPLETE THE AUDIT. BRIEFLY, WE'LL LOOK AT A FEW OF THE FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS AND NOW REMEMBER WE'RE GOING BACK TO THESE ARE THE SEPTEMBER 30TH 2023 NUMBERS.

[00:40:07]

THIS IS THE GENERAL FUND INCOME AND EXPENSES.

SO THE MAIN OPERATING FUND OF THE CITY. YOU CAN SEE IN THE TOP SECTION TOTAL REVENUES ARE UP JUST UNDER $1 MILLION AT 995,000 INCREASE OVER THE PRIOR YEAR.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE COMPONENTS WHERE THAT'S COMING FROM, TAX REVENUE WAS UP A HALF A MILLION.

THAT WAS DRIVEN BY PROPERTY TAXES. NOW, IN 2023, YOU DID DO A MILLAGE RATE DECREASE WITH THE GROWTH IN TAXABLE VALUE OUTSTRIPPED THE MILLAGE RATE DECREASE AND THAT'S WHAT DRIVES THAT HALF MILLION DOLLAR REVENUE INCREASE AND OTHER REVENUE IS ALSO UP A HALF $1 MILLION.

IT WAS A NEGATIVE AMOUNT IN 2022. THAT'S INVESTMENT PERFORMANCE.

SO 2022 WAS A HORRIFIC YEAR FOR ALL TYPES OF INVESTMENTS.

CITY, ALL OF OUR CLIENTS SAW NEGATIVE RETURNS BECAUSE OF THE INTEREST RATE INCREASE COUPLED WITH POOR STOCK PERFORMANCE THAT YEAR.

SO THAT IS WHAT DROVE THAT HALF MILLION DOLLAR INCREASE IS THE INVESTMENT PERFORMANCE REBOUND.

SO IT'S ABOUT AN 8% REVENUE INCREASE. EXPENDITURES ARE UP ABOUT 8.5% OR 1.1 MILLION.

YOU CAN SEE WE BREAK IT DOWN BY FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT, GENERAL GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC SAFETY, TRANSPORTATION. BUT IT'S BEING DRIVEN BY PAYROLL.

SO THAT'S HEADCOUNT INCREASE RAISES AND ALSO PENSION ACCOUNTING.

AS CONTRIBUTIONS HAVE INCREASED FOR THE PLANTS THERE ARE A COUPLE MILLION DOLLARS OF TRANSFERS INTO THE GENERAL FUND FROM THE UTILITY FUND AND THE CORONAVIRUS FUND. SO FOR THE YEAR, THE FUND OPERATED A 1.4 MILLION INCOME AS COMPARED TO 1.8 MILLION OVER THE PRIOR YEAR.

SO FINANCIALLY, FISCALLY SPEAKING, A POSITIVE INCOME YEAR FOR THE FUND.

THIS IS THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE GENERAL FUND. HIGHLY SUMMARIZED TOTAL ASSETS.

THERE'S YOUR INCOME $1.3 MILLION INCREASE. THAT'S THE INCOME FOR THE YEAR.

TOTAL ASSETS ARE CASH INVESTMENTS AND RECEIVABLES IN THE GENERAL FUND.

SO THAT'S DRIVING THAT. TOTAL LIABILITIES ARE DOWN SLIGHTLY.

THAT'S JUST PAYABLES AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO IS FUND BALANCE.

SO YOU CAN SEE THE MAIN CATEGORIES ARE WHAT WE CALL ASSIGNED AND UNASSIGNED.

THAT MEANS THERE EITHER IS OR IS NOT A GENERAL PURPOSE USE FOR THOSE FUNDS.

SO THE BIG ASSIGNED ITEM FOR YOU IS YOUR OPERATING RESERVE.

A LOT OF TIMES THE QUESTION IS ASKED OF WHAT'S AN APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF FUND BALANCE FOR OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO MAINTAIN.

FOR THE ANSWER TO THAT, WE LOOK TO GUIDANCE FROM THE GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, A NATIONAL ASSOCIATION. THEY RECOMMEND THAT GENERAL FUNDS MAINTAIN AT LEAST TWO MONTHS OPERATING EXPENDITURES.

YOU CAN SEE WE'VE CALCULATED THIS AT 46%, WHICH PUTS YOU AT JUST UNDER SIX MONTHS.

SO BY THEIR METRIC, YOU ARE A GOOD FUND BALANCE POSITION.

I THINK TWO MONTHS FOR A MUNICIPALITY ON THE WATER IN FLORIDA IS PROBABLY NOT ENOUGH, IN MY EXPERIENCE.

SO I'M GLAD IT'S CLOSER TO FOUR. I THINK THAT'S MORE APPROPRIATE, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU AND THEN WE'LL LOOK AT THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS.

SO THIS IS ALL OF THEM. THE UTILITIES, STORMWATER SANITATION, CODE ENFORCEMENT.

YOU SEE THAT REVENUES ARE UNCHANGED. THERE WERE NO RATE INCREASES IN 2023 AND USAGE WAS FLAT, SO NO CHANGE TO REVENUES. EXPENSES INCREASED $1.5 MILLION.

AGAIN, YOU SEE, PAYROLL COSTS ARE UP. PENSION COSTS.

RAISES HEADCOUNT DRIVING THOSE THINGS. AND THEN OTHER OPERATING COSTS INCREASED PRETTY SIGNIFICANTLY IN 2023.

THERE WERE QUITE A FEW REPAIR PROJECTS IN 2023.

THERE WAS ALSO SOME CLEANUP OF SOME OLD PROJECTS THAT HAD BEEN COMMENCED, STUDIES DONE, THINGS OF THAT NATURE THAT HAD NOT COME TO FRUITION ULTIMATELY AND SO PERIODICALLY THOSE THINGS GET CLEANED UP AND WRITTEN OFF.

IF THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PROCEED WITH SOME OF THAT AND THEN JUST GENERAL RISING IN COSTS THAT WE SAW IN 2023.

SO FOR OPERATING INCOME WAS 1.7 MILLION VERSUS 3 MILLION THE YEAR BEFORE.

AGAIN WITH THE NON OPERATING EXPENSE, THERE WAS AN $890,000 INCREASE.

THAT'S INVESTMENT PERFORMANCE AGAIN. SO THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT LOSS IN 2022.

WE SAW THAT REBOUND IN 2023. SO THE BOTTOM LINE NUMBER OF $3.1 MILLION INCREASE IN THAT POSITION UTILITIES VERSUS 4.1 YEAR BEFORE AND IF WE LOOK AT WHERE THAT LEAVES US, WE CAN SEE THAT PROFIT WAS ROLLED INTO CAPITAL ASSETS.

SO YOU BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE OR A WATER TREATMENT PLANT OR PROJECTS IN 2023 AND OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS, AND PAY DOWN OF LONG TERM DEBTS OR BONDS USED TO CONSTRUCT CAPITAL FACILITIES.

THAT'S WHERE THE PROFIT IS. TWO BIG CHANGES, AND THAT DRIVES THE INCREASE IN DEBT POSITION OF 2.8 MILLION IN CAPITAL ASSETS.

SO AGAIN THE INFRASTRUCTURE RELATED DEBT SAME SORT OF METRIC WITH UNRESTRICTED FUND BALANCE.

WE LOOK AT 14 MILLION. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN. WELL IT'S OVER A YEAR'S WORTH OF EXPENDITURES.

[00:45:01]

THE OTHER HALF IS NEEDS FOR GROWTH, NEEDS CONDITION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE ITSELF.

YOU KNOW, THAT PART THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DON'T CAPTURE.

SO WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THESE NUMBERS, I SUGGEST YOU ALWAYS SORT OF KEEP THAT IN MIND AS YOU'RE ASSESSING THE ADEQUACY OF THE RESERVES.

FINALLY, THE PENSION PLANS POLICE IN GENERAL.

OF COURSE, THE GENERAL PLAN IS CLOSED. THE DEFINED BENEFIT PLAN.

POLICE PLAN IS OPEN. BOTH HAD. IF YOU LOOK AT THAT INVESTMENT RATE OF RETURN, YOU'RE AT THE BOTTOM.

GOOD RATES OF RETURN, 2023. I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT HOW INVESTMENT RATES OF RETURN WERE POOR.

THAT WAS IN 2022. THE WAY THE ACTUARIES REPORTS WORK IS THEY USE THE NUMBERS OF YEAR IN THE YEAR.

THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A DISCONNECT HERE BETWEEN WHAT YOU SEE IN THE PENSIONS. THIS IS 2023 NUMBERS VERSUS WHAT WE SAW IN THE STATEMENTS, WHICH WAS REALLY 2022 ACTIVITY THAT GIVES THE ACTUARIES TIME TO DO THEIR THING.

AND SO THAT'S WHY THERE'S A YEAR'S DIFFERENCE HERE.

BUT WE CAN SEE IN 2023 THAT THE PLANS BOTH EXCEEDED THEIR ACTUARIAL TARGETS OF 6.75%, OR 14 AND 13%, RESPECTIVELY. SO A GOOD REBOUND YEAR AND THIS IS THE ASSETS OF THE PLAN.

SO THERE'S $23 MILLION OF INVESTMENTS IN GENERAL 16IN POLICE.

THE TOTAL PENSION LIABILITIES, THE THIRD NUMBER FROM THE BOTTOM.

THAT'S THE ACTUARIALLY CALCULATED LIABILITY AT SEPTEMBER 30TH OF 2023.

IF YOU COMPARE THOSE INVESTMENTS TO THE LIABILITIES, THAT GIVES YOU THE FUNDED PERCENT. SO GENERAL EMPLOYEES AT 93%.

POLICE AT 91. YOU CAN SEE THOSE ARE UP FROM LAST YEAR AFTER THAT TOUGH INVESTMENT YEAR WHERE THEY WERE AT 83 AND 86.

THEY'RE NOT ALL THE WAY BACK TO WHERE THEY WERE IN 21.

THEY WERE BOTH OVER 100% FUNDED IN 2021. BUT 2023 STARTED THAT PROCESS OF THE PLAN'S FUNDING PERCENTAGE COMING BACK.

THERE'S NO MAGIC TO BEING 100% FUNDED. IT'S ALWAYS BETTER TO BE MORE FUNDED THAN LESS.

BUT TYPICALLY WHAT WE SEE IS PLANS IN THE 80, 90, SOMETIMES 100% FUNDED RANGE, JUST DEPENDING ON HOW THE MARKETS HAVE PERFORMED.

LAST SEVERAL YEARS, I WOULD SAY YOUR PLANS ARE PRETTY TYPICAL.

WHAT WE'RE SEEING AT THIS POINT ABOUT 90% FUNDED AS OF 2023.

I THINK THAT WAS IT. SO THAT'S THE PRESENTATION.

HAPPY, IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS TO ANSWER THEM OR TALK ABOUT ANYTHING I DIDN'T ADDRESS.

IF THERE IS SOMETHING YOU'D LIKE TO DISCUSS. COMMISSIONER BOLE. YEP.

I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW, WE SET THE MILLAGE RATE EVERY YEAR, AND THOSE ARE NUMBERS THAT I'D LIKE TO SEE OBVIOUSLY ARE WE ARE SIX MONTHS OUT CORRECT.

FROM WHEN WE SHOULD HAVE SEEN THIS PREVIOUSLY, AM I WRONG? OH YEAH. THE TIMING OF THIS PRESENTATION. YES, EXACTLY.

NORMALLY WE WOULD DO THIS IN APRIL PROBABLY. YEAH.

SO JUST MY POINT IS WE SET THE MILLAGE RATE. WE WILL SEE THIS BEFORE THOSE NUMBERS.

BEFORE WE DO THIS AGAIN. WELL YOUR STAFF WILL PROVIDE YOU RIGHT WITH THE ESTIMATES THAT THEY GET THROUGH THE COUNTY AS TO WHAT THE MILLAGE PROPOSED MILLAGE RATES WOULD YIELD. RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND THAT. I'M JUST I LIKE THIS REPORT.

I LIKE TO SEE THOSE NUMBERS BECAUSE I THINK, AT LEAST FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, IT WAS A LITTLE BIT IN THE DARK.

I SAW SOME OF THE NUMBERS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE PROJECTED, BUT YOU ALWAYS WANT TO SEE THE AUDITED NUMBERS.

SO CAN WE DO BETTER GETTING YOU GUYS THE DATA? IS THAT THE BOTTOM AS FAR AS GETTING THE AUDIT DONE? YEAH. THE TIMELINESS IS PRIMARILY THE ISSUE, RIGHT? AND SO LIKE I SAID, THERE WAS TURNOVER IN YOUR FINANCE TEAM.

THERE WERE VACANCIES IN YOUR FINANCE TEAM. BUT ABSOLUTELY.

WHAT SHOULD BE HAPPENING? YOU HAVE A SEPTEMBER CLOSE.

YOU GET YOUR BOOKS CLOSED AND READY FOR AUDIT.

YOU KNOW, THE FASTEST GOVERNMENTS THAT DO IT ARE READY AND MAYBE NOVEMBER.

TYPICALLY, I WOULD SAY THEY'RE READY IN JANUARY AND APRIL IS SORT OF THE END OF THE WINDOW, I WOULD SAY, WHERE YOU WANT TO BE BECAUSE YOU GOT TO MEET THE JUNE 30TH DEADLINE. SO IF YOU'RE NOT KIND OF CLOSED AND READY TO GO IN APRIL, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A HARD TIME MEETING THAT JUNE STATE DEADLINE. THAT'S WE CAN DO BETTER.

OKAY. THANKS. OKAY. COMMISSIONER KELLY. SO, SEVERAL SLIDES AGO, YOU SAID THERE'S A DISCLOSURE OF OUR PENSION PLAN.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? OH SO THAT SLIDE TALKED ABOUT.

SO AS YOUR AUDITOR, ONE OF OUR THINGS WE'RE CHARGED WITH IS TO LET YOU KNOW BASED ON OUR KNOWLEDGE IS WHAT WE THINK THE MOST SIGNIFICANT DISCLOSURE TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT WAS AND THAT WAS THE PENSION DISCLOSURE. SO THERE'S A SEVERAL PAGE DISCLOSURE IN THE ACTUAL AUDIT REPORT WITH PENSION PLANS.

THE REASON WE FEEL IT'S SIGNIFICANT IS JUST THE FACT THAT IT'S A VERY LARGE ESTIMATE, IT'S AN ACTUARIAL ESTIMATE AND IT SHOWS WHAT THE FUNDED STATUS OF THE PLAN IS, WHICH BIG NUMBERS. THOSE ARE IMPORTANT FOR OUR JUDGMENT, BUT OUR PLAN IS GENERICALLY HEALTHY.

YEAH. SO THAT THIS LAST SLIDE THAT WE LOOKED AT HERE, IT'S AT 93% FUNDED IN GENERAL, WHICH IS CLOSED TO NEW MEMBERS.

[00:50:04]

SO YEAH, I WOULD SAY THERE RIGHT IN THE RANGE OF WHAT WE'RE TYPICALLY SEEING AS FAR AS FUNDED PERCENTAGES.

YEAH. THANK YOU, MR. KILLINGSWORTH. YEAH. SO I WANT TO MAKE TWO POINTS.

YOU WON'T SEE AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, RON, BUT YOU WILL NOT SEE AUDITED 24 NUMBERS PRIOR TO THE BUDGET BECAUSE YOU ADOPT A BUDGET PRIOR TO YEAR 23 BEING CLOSED.

SO OUR REVENUE ESTIMATES ARE ESTIMATES BASED ON WHAT WE GET FROM THE STATE AND WHAT WE GET FROM THE COUNTY.

SO THE BOOKS WON'T CLOSE UNTIL IF WE DO A GOOD JOB, MAYBE APRIL SOMETIME.

RIGHT? YEAH. YES. AND IF NOT, MAYBE A LITTLE LATER.

BUT YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO SEE AUDITED NUMBERS FOR THE YEAR.

SO I GUESS MY POINT WAS WE'RE SIX MONTHS BEHIND WHERE WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN TODAY.

YEAH. CORRECT. YEAH. THANKS. ABSOLUTELY. THE OTHER THING IS THAT I WANT TO MENTION IS THE PENSION NUMBERS UP HERE ARE FROM SEPTEMBER.

SO YOU GUYS ADOPTED A COST OF LIVING ALLOWANCE SINCE THEN.

SO THEY'RE ACTUALLY NOW MY SUSPICION IS LOWER.

YES. RIGHT. YEAH. THESE NUMBERS DO NOT INCORPORATE THAT CHANGE.

YEAH. MR. WHITESIDES, THANK YOU, FIRST OF ALL, FOR A GREAT PRESENTATION.

I THINK I FOLLOWED PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING. YOU'VE DONE THESE A FEW TIMES.

MY QUESTION IS REALLY SEPARATE BUT TIED IN AND THAT IS IT OCCURRED TO ME AND I WANT YOUR FEEDBACK ON THIS.

WHEN MR. KILLINGSWORTH WAS HIRED AS CITY MANAGER, WE PROBABLY IN THAT YEAR, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN LAST YEAR, SHOULD HAVE DONE A FORENSIC AUDIT OR AT LEAST HAD A DISCUSSION ON WHETHER WE SHOULD DO ONE.

SO HERE'S MY QUESTION TODAY. DO WE SAY, WELL, THAT'S PAST AND IT'S TOO LATE, OR DO WE PUT THAT ON THE REGIMEN FOR THIS NEXT CYCLE? AND BEFORE YOU ANSWER THAT, I WANT EVERYBODY TO KNOW, AND ESPECIALLY BRITTANY, I'M NOT LOOKING FOR I'M NOT ASSUMING THAT THERE'S SOMETHING SOME MALFEASANCE OR IMPROPRIETY. BUT I DO WONDER, YOUR FRIEND, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GOING TO CHARGE UP FOR A FORENSIC AUDIT IF YOU DO IT.

WOULD YOU COME UP WITH SOME ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS AND PROCESSES, NOT JUST FACT FINDING OF SOMETHING THAT'S MALFEASANCE? WOULD YOU GIVE US BETTER FEEDBACK THAN WHAT WE'RE GETTING ON A GENERAL ANNUAL AUDIT? SO FORENSIC AUDITS ARE MUCH MORE THOROUGH THAN REGULAR AUDITS.

THEY'RE TYPICALLY USED IN COURT PROCEEDINGS. SO SOMEONE'S BEEN CHARGED WITH A CRIME AND SO AS PART OF THAT.

YOU KNOW, IDENTIFICATION OF EVIDENCE IN THAT CRIME.

FORENSIC AUDITS ARE CONDUCTED. SO FORENSIC AUDITS CAN BE DOING THINGS LIKE LOOKING AT SIGNATURES ON DOCUMENTS TO TRY AND DETERMINE IF THEY WERE FORGED. THEY ARE EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE. I COULD NOT I CAN'T EVEN GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHAT IT WOULD COST, BUT TO SAY IT WOULD BE, YOU TEN TIMES THE COST OF A REGULAR AUDIT IS CERTAINLY POSSIBLE.

I DON'T KNOW THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.

WELL, IT IS NOT. CERTAINLY NOT. HOWEVER, BEFORE I PASS IT TO MY CONTEMPORARIES HERE ARE WE ABLE TO ASK YOU, AND IS IT WORTH ASKING THAT WE PAY UP A LITTLE TO DO EVEN MORE THOROUGH PROCESS REVIEW? OR DO YOU FEEL LIKE OUR REGULAR AUDIT IS SUFFICIENT ON THE PROCESS REVIEW? SO I ASSUME YOU MEAN CONTROLS? SO THAT'S BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT AUDITORS FOCUS ON.

WE DON'T USUALLY FOCUS VERY MUCH ON EFFICIENCY OF PROCESSES.

WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT WORKS. WE'LL MAKE SUGGESTIONS SOMETIMES IF WE SEE SOMETHING THAT'S NOT SUPER EFFICIENT, BUT OUR PRIMARY FOCUS IS ON CHECKS AND BALANCES, PROTECTION OF THE FUNDS.

ACCURACY OF THE FINANCIAL REPORTING. EACH AUDIT CYCLE, WE IDENTIFY CERTAIN AREAS THAT WE GO LOOK AT IN DETAIL. WE VERIFY THAT THE PROCESSES ARE FUNCTIONING THE WAY THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE FUNCTIONING, BUT WE DON'T LOOK AT ALL. SO YES, YOU COULD ASK A FIRM TO DO MORE OF THAT THAN THEY WOULD ORDINARILY DO TO PERHAPS DELVE INTO MORE AREAS OR LESS SIGNIFICANT TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT AREA.

SO, FOR INSTANCE, WE DO VERY LITTLE WITH LOOKING AT PARKS AND REC CASH COLLECTIONS OR SOMETHING.

RIGHT. BECAUSE IT'S NOT SIGNIFICANT TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THAT'S NOT OUR FOCUS.

WE MIGHT OCCASIONALLY IF THERE'S SOMETHING COMES UP THAT SOMEBODY SAYS, HEY, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S AN ISSUE HERE, WHY DON'T YOU GUYS TAKE A LOOK? WE MIGHT OCCASIONALLY LOOK AT IT, BUT NOT JUST AS PART OF OUR PROCESS.

PROBABLY. THAT'S THE SORT OF THING WHERE IT'S LIKE, WELL, WE COULD LOOK AT IT, YOU KNOW, IF THAT'S WHAT THE CITY WANTS,

[00:55:03]

COMMISSIONERS, I HAVE NOTHING. OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU TO BOTH OF YOU AND AND KEVIN SMITH FOR ALL THE WORK YOU'VE DONE FOR THE CITY. AND LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU AGAIN SOONER THIS YEAR, SIR. YEAH. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY.

CITY MANAGER. NEXT. SO NEXT, WE HAVE THE 90 DAY CALENDAR.

THIS IS THE SAME 90 DAY CALENDAR THAT YOU SAW THE FIRST MEETING OR THE FIRST MEETING IN JANUARY, SO THERE AREN'T ANY CHANGES TO IT. SO THEREFORE, I WOULD MOVE ACCEPTANCE OF THE 90 DAY CALENDAR.

CONSENSUS ON 90 DAY CALENDAR. OKAY, YOU'VE GOT THAT AND THEN NEXT MR. MAYOR, COMMISSION, I'D LIKE TO INVITE KEVIN HOGENCAMP UP TO TALK ABOUT THE LEGISLATION THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT AND GET FEEDBACK ON IN TERMS OF BUSINESSES CONDUCTING THEIR OPERATIONS WITHIN OUR PARKS.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COMMISSION. KEVIN HOGENCAMP, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER.

AT THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF SOME OF THE SOME OF YOU ALL OUR STAFF IS PREPARING AN ORDINANCE.

WE HAVE A DRAFT AN EARLY DRAFT FOR YOUR KIND OF TO INTRODUCE TO YOU TONIGHT REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WITHIN PARKS AND FACILITIES.

THIS DRAFT AS PRESENTED REALLY AS A CONVERSATION STARTER.

WE DO HOPE TO HAVE THIS INTRODUCED AT THE FEBRUARY 10TH MEETING.

BASED ON FEEDBACK WE GET FROM YOU AND THE PUBLIC CITIES REGULATE BUSINESSES AND OFTEN PROHIBIT BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN PARKS AND FACILITIES FOR MANY REASONS. ONE IS MITIGATING LIABILITY. ANOTHER IS PRESERVING PUBLIC SPACE AND MAINTAINING THE PUBLIC PURPOSE OF CITY FACILITIES AND PARKS.

AND ANOTHER AMONG OTHERS, IS PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT.

IT'S OUR REQUEST QUEST THAT YOU'LL PROVIDE INPUT HELPFUL FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD.

JUST BASICALLY THE ORDINANCE GIVES A CITY MANAGER, THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES IN CITY PARKS OR FACILITIES CONDUCTED BY A NONPROFIT ENTITY OR CONDUCTED BY PERMIT AND OR IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY.

SO FAR IN THE ORDINANCE, WE HAVE THAT ANY PERSON OR ENTITY WHO VIOLATES THIS ORDINANCE IS SUBJECT TO A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $5,000 PER OCCURRENCE AMOUNT, $500 PER OCCURRENCE. SORRY AND THAT'S ALL. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

AND OF COURSE, THE CITY MANAGER'S JUST AS FAMILIAR WITH THIS TOPIC AS I COMMISSIONER KELLY I DID WAS MOVE THE MIC. CAN YOU GIVE SOME EXAMPLES OF FOR PROFIT OR LITTLE BUSINESSES THAT ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF OUR FREE PARKS.

SURE. THERE'S ATHLETIC PROGRAMS. WHO? YOU KNOW, I'VE ADDRESSED FOR PROFIT ATHLETIC PROGRAMS THAT WE HAVE ADMONISHED AND STRONGLY ENCOURAGED THEM WITHOUT ANY TEETH FOR ENFORCEMENT NOT TO DO BUSINESS IN PARKS.

THERE'S DAYCARE BUSINESSES, AND THERE'S SOME ACTIVITIES THAT WILL POP UP UNDER A TENT, FOR EXAMPLE, AT JOHANSEN PARK THAT WOULD SELL TICKETS. THOSE ARE SOME OF THE EXAMPLES.

THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER RING.

WHAT PROMPTED THIS? WELL, IT'S I STARTED TO SAY THIS IS THE LATEST OF OUR POSTURE OF BEING A MORE POLICY DRIVEN ORGANIZATION WHERE IDENTIFYING THE THINGS YOU'VE WE'VE COME TO YOU WITH SOME OF THE THINGS VIA RESOLUTION AND ORDINANCE.

THERE'S THE AFOREMENTIONED THINGS THAT WE DEALT WITH OVER THE RECENT YEARS, DAYCARES AND PARKS, ATHLETIC PROGRAMS AND BUSINESSES UNDER A TENT, A BUSINESS UNDER A TENT AT JOHANSEN PARK, ALL OF WHOM WE HAD TO ADDRESS.

SO THAT THOSE ARE ANECDOTALLY, SOME THINGS THAT PROMPTED MR. KILLINGSWORTH. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SO THIS IS AN ONGOING EFFORT TO CONTINUATION OF RISK MANAGEMENT.

SO TWO OF THE EXAMPLES THE ATHLETIC SPORTS IN THE PARK AND THE DAYCARE ATHLETIC ONE YOU KNOW, FRANKLY, IS WE HAVE A WHICH I'M IN STRONG SUPPORT OF.

WE JUST NEED A PROCESS TO IDENTIFY HOW TO GET THEM THERE AND TO ENSURE THAT THEY'RE COVERING THE MOST THAT THEY HAVE INSURANCE THAT COVERS THEIR ACTIVITIES.

WE HAVE. YOU'VE PROBABLY SEEN THEM I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO CALL THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE.

THEY'RE NOT EVEN PEEWEE. THEY'RE LESS THAN PEEWEE. THEY'RE BARELY CAPABLE OF WALKING.

[01:00:03]

THEY DIDN'T GET A PERMIT FROM THE CITY. THEY DON'T. THEY JUST SHOW UP AND CONDUCT IT.

NOW, IF ONE OF THOSE KIDS GETS SERIOUSLY HURT, THE CITY'S.

WHO'S GOING TO GET SUED? RIGHT. WHERE ARE THE DEEP POCKETS? WE HAVE THE SAME THING GOING ON.

WE HAVE A DAYCARE THAT WE'VE TALKED TO ABOUT OPERATING THEIR DAYCARE IN OUR PUBLIC PARK.

IT'S THE SAME THING. THEY PUT UP SWINGS AND TREES.

THEY CHANGED THE PARK FURNITURE. AT SOME POINT IN TIME, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A CHILD WHO GETS HURT THERE.

AND YOU KNOW, WHETHER THE COMMISSION WANTS TO ALLOW THOSE ACTIVITIES OR NOT.

IF YOU DO, MY RECOMMENDATION IS IF THEY'RE ALLOWED TO OCCUR, THAT THEY NEED TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY, AND THEY NEED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY HAVE INSURANCE THAT IS MEANINGFUL FOR THE ACTIVITIES THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO TRYING TO CONDUCT COMMISSIONER BOLE.

YEAH, I THINK THE PUSH FROM LAST YEAR IS A FOLLOW THROUGH ON LIABILITY IS THE KEY ISSUE HERE.

AS CITY MANAGER SAID, WE WERE LIABLE WHEN YOU SET A FOOT IN THAT PARK.

OTHER CITIES HAVE ACTUALLY HAVE A CONTRACT THAT YOU WRITE, SAY YOU WANT TO PLAY A BASEBALL GAME AND YOU WANT TO SELL.

ET CETERA. YOU GO AHEAD AND SHOW THAT YOU HAVE YOUR LIABILITY INSURANCE.

YOU SHOW AND THE CITY GETS A PIECE OF THAT. BY THE WAY.

BUT I THINK OUR WE'RE NOT OUT TO MAKE MONEY. I THINK WE'RE OUT TO PROTECT THE LIABILITY OF THE CITY AGAINST CLAIMS. BECAUSE UP TO THIS POINT, AS OF LAST YEAR, WE, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD BE SITTING IN COURT.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM. COMMISSIONER RING JUST A FOLLOW UP TO THAT.

WHAT ABOUT THE FARMERS MARKET AND ALL OF THE BOOTHS IN THERE? HOW DOES THAT FALL INTO PLAY WITH THIS? THEY HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY.

SO THE FARMERS MARKET ITSELF AND EACH OF THOSE BOOTHS THAT COME IN, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN BUSINESSES.

YEAH, SO I TALKED WITH KEVIN THIS MONDAY WHEN I CAME IN BECAUSE, AS YOU KNOW, I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET AND I WALKED THE DOG AROUND EVERY SUNDAY.

AND THE FARMERS MARKET, I THINK HAS GROWN BIGGER THAN WHAT OUR INITIAL AGREEMENT WAS.

I NOTICED THAT THERE WERE VENDORS, NOT JUST IN THE PARK, BUT THEY LINED THE WHOLE WESTERN SIDE OF THE PARKING LOT AND THEN ALL THE WAY THROUGH OVER BY THE TENNIS COURTS. SO THE NET RESULT OF THAT WAS THAT ALL OF THOSE PARKING SPACES WERE GONE.

SO IT WAS JUST PUSHING EVEN MORE PARKING INTO THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

WHEN THAT CONTRACT, MY UNDERSTANDING AND THE ORIGINAL THOUGHT OF THAT AGREEMENT WAS THAT IT WOULD STAY SMALL ENOUGH THAT THEY COULD TREAT THE PARK AS A PADDOCK, AND SO THEY COULD MOVE FROM ONE SIDE OF THE PARK TO THE OTHER SIDE SO THAT THE GRASS WOULDN'T ULTIMATELY BE DESTROYED IF YOU WALK THE PATH RIGHT NOW BETWEEN CITY HALL THAT COMES OUT RIGHT THERE AT PARKSIDE DRIVE, YOU CAN SEE WHERE EVERY TENT IS, BECAUSE THERE'S A WHOLE WALL INTO THE DIRT AND ALL THE GRASS IS GONE.

SO I'M TALKING WITH THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER ABOUT HOW WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO MANAGE THAT.

I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS WE MIGHT DO IS SOMETHING YOU JUST KIND OF ALLUDED TO, WHETHER IT WAS INTENTIONAL OR NOT, WAS ISSUE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF PERMITS AND BASICALLY DO THE SAME THING WE DO AT THE BEACH IS WE JUST WALK THROUGH WHEN THEY'RE SETTING UP, AND IF THEY HAVE A PERMIT, THEY'RE GOOD. IF THEY DON'T, THEN WE ASK THEM TO LEAVE.

BUT WE DO IT THROUGH THE ENTITY THAT'S MANAGING IT FOR US.

SO WE JUST GIVE THEM A HANDFUL OF PERMITS. AND IF THOSE PERMITS, IF SOMEBODY SETS UP THAT DOESN'T HAVE ONE OF THOSE PERMITS, THEN WE HAVE TO ASK THEM. IT'S GROWING QUITE A LOT.

[INAUDIBLE]. SO I THINK IT WAS BEFORE YOU WERE HERE.

SOME OF YOU PROBABLY REMEMBER THIS WAS RUN BY A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION PRIOR TO THE FOR PROFIT ORGANIZATION THAT CURRENTLY RUNS IT.

RIGHT. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S GROWN EXPONENTIALLY, AS THE CITY MANAGER SAID.

SO REMEMBER THAT THEY ARE FOR PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.

SO WHEN IT COMES UP AGAIN, UNLIKE THE NOT FOR PROFIT ORGANIZATION THAT WE TALK ABOUT IN HERE, WE REALLY NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE NUMBERS.

IT'S MY OPINION, MR. KILLINGSWORTH. WHAT IS YOUR ASK? SO I GUESS THE QUESTION IS THAT YOU'VE SEEN A DRAFT ORDINANCE.

IS THIS SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE US TO PURSUE AND GO AHEAD AND FILE, AND IS THERE ANY CHANGES THAT YOU WOULD LIKE MADE TO IT BEFORE WE FILE? JUST KIND OF A CONSENSUS. I'M GOOD WITH YOU PROCEEDING WITH AN ORDINANCE AS PER YOUR PREPARATION, WOULD IT MAKE ANY SENSE TO LOOP IN ARTS AND REC BECAUSE THEY PROVIDE YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE GRANTS, THEY PROVIDE ACTIVITIES. IF I MAY, MR. MAYOR.

[01:05:03]

BACK. THEN WE HAVE YOU HAVE CONSENSUS TO MOVE FORWARD ON THAT WITH AFTER ROUTING IT THROUGH OUR ART.

ALL RIGHT. THAT'S IT. YOU'RE. THAT'S IT. OKAY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. ALL RIGHT, MOVING TO ITEM 4 REPORTS AND REQUESTS FROM CITY COMMISSIONERS.

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

I KNOW IT'S NOT THE FUNNEST ORDINANCE, BUT I DON'T WANT TO DELAY IT.

SHOULD ARC HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. THAT'S MY INPUT BECAUSE THIS YOU KNOW WE CAN ASK OUR CITY ATTORNEY, YOU KNOW, HIS TAKE ON IT. BUT I THINK IT'S CRITICAL, TIMELY.

I WANT TO THANK THE MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER FOR SATURDAY FOR THE FIVE WAY STOP PRESENTATION.

I DIDN'T KNOW THERE WERE THAT FEW, FIVE WAY STOPS IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

BUT NOW NOW, I KNOW WE'RE UNIQUE AND ALSO THANK THE CHIEF FOR THE ELECTRIC BIKE ISSUES AND I ENCOURAGE ALL OF US TO GIVE OUR INPUT. I'VE HEARD FIVE DIFFERENT INPUTS ON AGE, SPEED, ETCETERA, BUT THANK YOU.

YEAH. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER GRANT.

YEAH, I'M GOING TO ECHO SOME OF WHAT COMMISSIONER BOLE TALKED ABOUT IN TERMS OF THE TOWN HALL MEETING.

WE HAD SOME, YOU KNOW, GREAT COMMENTARY FROM CITIZENS.

I WOULD ENCOURAGE, YOU KNOW, THOSE WATCHING AND AND SPREADING THE WORD VIA THE LINKS TO BOTH PRESENTATIONS VIA THE WEBSITE SO THAT MORE PEOPLE CAN CAN OFFER COMMENT.

I THINK IT'S A YOU KNOW, THE ROUNDABOUT PRESENTATION WAS VERY SHARP.

I THINK IT BEAUTIFIES THAT FIVE WAY AND WAYS THAT I COULD HAVE NEVER THOUGHT OF AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD DEFINITELY IN TIME ADDRESS, YOU KNOW, THE LANDSCAPE ISSUES, PROTECTING THE KIDS. YOU KNOW, CROSSING THE STREETS. HOW DO WE MAKE SURE SINCE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE STOPPING NOW, WE HAVE STOPPING BEGINNING, BUT THEY'RE ALSO BLOWING THROUGH ONCE THEY STOP TO THE NEXT INTERSECTION THEY'RE GOING THROUGH.

SO HOW DO WE, YOU KNOW, PROTECT THE KIDS? BECAUSE THERE'S NO STOPPING IT.

ALL RIGHT, SO CROSSING GUARDS, I THINK WOULD BE A GREAT ANSWER.

I THINK THERE'S ANSWERS TO MANY OF THE CONCERNS THAT WERE PRESENTED, IT THIS PAST SATURDAY.

SO I JUST, YOU KNOW, JUST I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY TO KEEP SPREADING THE WORD ABOUT IT AND LEARN MORE ABOUT IT AND COMMENT.

ONE OTHER THING I WANTED TO MENTION. YOU KNOW, STORM WATER RUNOFF WAS A VERY HOT TOPIC.

LEADING UP TO THE ELECTION. YOU KNOW, WE WERE, YOU KNOW, IT WAS EVERY TIME WE SPOKE, IT SEEMS LIKE WE BROUGHT IT UP.

RIGHT? SINCE I'VE BEEN SWORN IN, I HAVEN'T HEARD TOO MUCH ABOUT IT.

SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE KEEP IT ON THE FOREFRONT OF OUR MIND.

EVEN THOUGH THERE'S NOT A LOT OF RAIN GOING ON RIGHT NOW AND I DID ASK THE CITY MANAGER TO IF THERE WAS A LIST OF ALL THE DITCHES IN ATLANTIC BEACH AND ASSUMING THAT THERE WAS ONE IS ONE AND THAT WHAT IS THE SCHEDULE FOR CLEANING THOSE OUT? THOSE WE KNOW. THOSE WE DON'T KNOW. LET'S JUST, YOU KNOW, MAYBE HAVE IT AND SO WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE I'M SURE GOING TO AT SOME POINT ASK, HEY, YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS SAID WE'RE GOING TO CLEAN MY DITCH, AND IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S GOTTEN THE THE WORK HAD NOT BEEN PERFORMED YET.

SO I JUST THINK IT'D BE A GOOD SOURCE OF INFORMATION FOR PEOPLE TO LET THEM KNOW THAT WE ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH, YOU KNOW, TAKING CARE OF THEIR THOSE DITCHES AND RELIEVING THE PROBLEM.

SO THAT'S ALL, MR. MAYOR. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

COMMISSIONER KELLY. SO I CAME HERE TONIGHT PREPARED TO SORT OF SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE ESC AND I TOTALLY AGREE WITH WHAT THE MAYOR SAID ABOUT THEIR ORIGINAL PLAN, AND LEEDS, AND LEEDS SORT OF CAME AFTER THEM. AND THEY SUPPORT LEEDS BECAUSE IT DOES SOMETHING WE NEED TO DECIDE WHETHER WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO PURSUE LEEDS OR NOT. BUT WHAT I CAME TO ASK IS THAT THEY HAVE THE ESC HAS DONE A LOT OF WORK, AND AS FAR AS TRYING TO TARGET AND RESPOND TO ALL THE THINGS THAT THEY'RE CHARGED WITH IN THE ORDINANCE.

[01:10:01]

SO LET'S MEET AND TALK ABOUT IT. OKAY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

COMMISSIONER RING. OKAY. I KNOW WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED THE TOWN HALL THROUGH COMMISSIONER BOLE AND COMMISSIONER GRANT.

I WANTED TO ECHO A FEW THINGS. ONE, AS GOOD AS THAT PRESENTATION WAS BY TPO FOR THE ROUNDABOUT AS WELL AS THE PRESENTATION DRAFTED ORDINANCE FOR E-BIKES AND AS IMPORTANT AS IT IS, I THINK I WOULD BE REMISS TO NOT BRING UP THAT TOWN HALLS ARE NOT ABOUT A STAFF AGENDA, NOR COMMISSIONER AGENDA. IT IS TRULY ABOUT HEARING FROM THE PUBLIC AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT IN THE FUTURE THAT WE DON'T CROWD UP THE TOPICS FOR TOWN HALLS.

I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT WE WERE IN A CRUNCH TO GET IN THAT E-BIKE DRAFT ORDINANCE.

BUT WE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE MADE BOTH OF THOSE WORKSHOPS BECAUSE THEY CAN STAND ALONE ON THEIR OWN.

RIGHT? AND THERE WAS PLENTY OF CONVERSATION THAT NEEDED TO BE HAD BOTH AT THE COMMISSION LEVEL AND AT THE PUBLIC LEVEL.

AND AT THE TPO LEVEL AND THEN WITH THE E-BIKE ORDINANCE, THAT HAS BEEN A HOT TOPIC FOR THE PAST FOUR YEARS, AS LONG AS I CAN REMEMBER. SO WHAT I WANT TO MENTION FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AND ALSO CHALLENGE MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS AND MAYOR AS WELL, TO MAKE SURE THAT IF THERE'S A WAY TO MAKE THOSE TOPICS WORKSHOPS SOLELY THEN LET'S DO THAT.

IF WE CAN'T, THEN WE REALLY NEED TO KEEP THOSE TOPICS DOWN SO THAT WE ALLOW FOR THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK TO THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS DURING THE TOWN HALL, AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER, I'M JUST GOING TO SAY SPOT ON AND I DO HAVE TO APOLOGIZE, EVEN THOUGH THE THOSE FOLKS ARE NOT HERE TONIGHT.

I HAD INDICATED. LET'S TRY TO STAY WITH EACH TOPIC ON THE SPEAKER PORTIONS AND THAT WE REVISIT OPENING IT UP TO ANY TOPIC AND I FAILED TO DO THAT, AND THAT WAS AN OMISSION ON MY PART.

IT WAS NOT INTENTIONAL. SO IT IS I THINK I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR.

THE TOWN HALLS ARE THE PEOPLE'S VOICE, NOT THE COMMISSIONERS.

ALTHOUGH IT IS PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE FOR US TO SPEAK TO SOME OF THE THINGS WE HEAR.

BUT I THINK IF I'M HEARING YOU CORRECTLY, COMMISSIONER RING, WE NEED TO REALLY TEMPER OUR ENTHUSIASM.

WE GET TO SPEAK ON THIS DAIS AT THE REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING.

SO IT'S THE PEOPLE'S FORUM AND IT NEEDS TO GO BACK TO THAT.

SO LESS TOPICS IF ANY AND JUST KEEP IT CLEAN FOR ANY AND ALL.

CONVERSATION BY THE CITIZENS. THANK YOU. I WANT TO HIT TWO MORE THINGS.

THE GENTLEMAN WHO SPOKE EARLIER IS NOT HERE. NOW, REGARDING DUNE PROTECTION.

I THINK THAT'S CRITICAL AND HE MADE A POINT THAT IS VALID THAT NEPTUNE BEACH IMMEDIATELY GOT WITH IT AFTER THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS COMPLETION OF RENOURISHMENT, THEY PUT THEIR ROPES AND SIGNS UP.

CITY MANAGER KILLINGSWORTH AND I HAVE BEEN IN DIALOG ON THIS, AND WE ARE GOING TO GET THIS DONE.

BUT I'M GOING TO ASK FOR THIS COMMISSION TO GIVE CONSENSUS NOW, TO GIVE THE CITY MANAGER ALL AUTHORITY TO MAKE HASTE AND GET THOSE ROPES UP.

BECAUSE AT THIS POINT, WE'RE GOING TO BE INTO THE SPRING SEASON AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE FEET ALL OVER THOSE DUNES AND THAT'S THE ISSUE IS WE DON'T WANT PEOPLE ON THE DUNES.

SO THE EXPECTATION IS WE'RE ORDERING MORE ROPE TO FINISH CONNECTING THE ENTRYWAYS INTO THE WALKOVERS, AND WE'LL HAVE MORE POSTS AND WE'LL PUT UP SIGNAGE SAYING KEEP OFF THE DUNES.

NOT CLEAR ON THAT YET, BUT LET'S SAY EVERY THIRD POST.

SO WE DON'T NEED TO OVERDO THE SIGNAGE, BUT WE NEED TO HAVE ROPES ALL THE WAY AND, AND CITY MANAGER, YOU WOULD NEED TO COME BACK IF YOU WANT A SHORTFALL BEFORE WE ACTUALLY GET TO HANNA PARK.

I DON'T HAVE A BIG, YOU KNOW, ISSUE WITH STOPPING BEFORE HANNA PARK, BUT WE REALLY NEED TO GET PAST THE OCEAN WALK WALKOVER.

SO ANYWAYS, OR TO THAT WALKOVER. SO DO WE HAVE CONSENSUS FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO TAKE CARE OF THAT POSTHASTE? AND, HE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO GET THE BID, GET THE ROPE AND NOT COME BACK TO US BECAUSE IT'S REALLY NOT A BIG NUMBER.

[01:15:02]

IT IS. OKAY. LAST THING IS, I AM SO SAD WITH SOME OF YOU.

I'M JUST. IT'S THE END OF AN ERA. ALL THREE OF MY SONS CONTACTED ME TODAY.

THEY'RE SO DEVASTATED BY THE CLOSURE OF RAGTIME.

I DID REACH OUT TO CHRISTY. I THINK I PRONOUNCED THAT RIGHT.

BRUCE, IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH. SHE WORKS FOR RAD LOVETT, THE OWNER OF THAT STRIP, AND THEY'VE BEEN AWARE FOR A FEW DAYS, OR MAYBE EVEN A FEW WEEKS OF THE CLOSURE OF RAGTIME.

THEY ACTUALLY THOUGHT THEY WOULD TALK THEM OUT OF CLOSING IT.

NOW. THEY IT, I THINK, WAS IMMINENT. THAT RESTAURANT ALONG WITH, I THINK, 17 OR 18 OTHER RESTAURANTS WERE PURCHASED BACK IN NOVEMBER BY A NEW OWNER, AND THEY DEEM THAT RESTAURANT TO NOT BE VIABLE AND THEY DECIDED TO CLOSE SOONER THAN WHAT WAS EXPECTED.

THAT BEING SAID RAD LOVETT HAS SEVERAL INTERESTED PARTIES TO LEASE THAT SPACE.

SO NOW HE IS GOING TO WORK VERY QUICKLY WITH HIS ARCHITECT TO GET PLANS BACK TO THE CITY FOR RENOVATION.

THEY DID AUTHORIZE ME TO SAY AND I WILL SAY THIS IS KIND OF AN IMPORTANT THING.

THEY ARE NOT PLANNING TO EXPAND THE TABLE SEATING, WHICH MEANS THEY WILL NOT BE ASKING THE CITY FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING.

SOMEHOW THAT DOESN'T EXIST. OKAY. SO THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON AT RAGTIME.

IT'S A SHAME, BUT THEY ARE CLOSED WITH THAT. WE'LL CLOSE ITEM FOUR AND MOVE TO ITEM SIX.

[6. CONSENT AGENDA]

THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.

SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COMMISSION ON THESE ITEMS. ITEM SIX A AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO RADIO SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH AND THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE.

ITEM 6B APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 25-09 AND THAT'S IT DOESN'T SAY IT THERE, BUT THAT'S THE FEMA REIMBURSEMENT FOR HELENE.

IT IS IN YOUR AGENDA PACKET AND IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, THAT'S 220 SOMETHING THOUSAND.

CORRECT. AND I DID ASK MR. KILLINGSWORTH TODAY IF WE WOULD HAVE ANY CONSIDERATION FOR EXPENSES IN HURRICANE MILTON.

THE ANSWER IS NO BECAUSE WE DIDN'T SPEND MUCH, BUT IT WOULD BE NICE TO GET THE 227,000 ON HELENE.

SO WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO PULL EITHER OF THESE IN ORDER TO DISCUSS THEM? OKAY. HEARING NO REQUEST. ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY WITH, AYE? OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO ITEM 8A, RESOLUTION REAL QUICK.

DID WE NEED A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THAT? YEAH.

FOR NUMBER 25-09. JUST FOR THE CONSENT. DID I NOT GET A MOTION? I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 25-09. SECOND.

I GOT A MOTION AND A SECOND NOW. YES, SIR. WHAT'S ALL OF THE CONSENT? NOT JUST THE RESOLUTIONS. SO THERE'S AN AGREEMENT IN THERE AND A RESOLUTION.

RIGHT. IT'S A MOTION TO AGREE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. RIGHT. YEAH. OKAY.

I MAKE A MOTION TO AGREE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA TO INCLUDE 25-09.

HOW ABOUT THAT? SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? WELL, THERE IS NO DISCUSSION. IT'S CONSENT. SO ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY WITH AYE.

OPPOSED? CARRIES. THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR CATCHING THAT, MR. ATTORNEY. ITEM 8A RESOLUTION. NUMBER 25- 12. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA,

[8.A. RESOLUTION NO. 25-12]

AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

MR. KILLINGSWORTH. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SO THIS IS A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN GH HOLDINGS AND THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH WHICH IS IN REFERENCE TO 42 EAST COAST DRIVE. AS PART OF THAT PROJECT, THERE WAS SOME STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY HAD TO MEET.

I THINK THERE'S DISAGREEMENT AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY MET THOSE REQUIREMENTS IN LIEU OF LITIGATION.

WE HAVE AGREED TO SETTLE. THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS BASICALLY THAT THE CITY ON AHERN STREET, AS YOU RECALL, WE'RE DOING SOME DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ON AHERN STREET.

WE'RE BASICALLY PUTTING IN TWO UNDERGROUND STORAGE SYSTEMS. THERE IS SPACE TO DO A THIRD THE COST TO PUT THAT THIRD IN, BECAUSE EVERYBODY'S ALREADY MOBILIZED.

THE EQUIPMENT'S ALREADY THERE TO DIG. THE HOLE WAS ESTIMATED AT $40,000.

SO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, IN SHORT, IS THAT GPS WOULD GIVE $40,000 IN ESCROW AT THE TIME THAT THE CITY SIGNS THE

[01:20:09]

I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 25-12.

SECOND. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND DISCUSSION.

I HAVE A QUESTION. YES, COMMISSIONER. DO WE CHARGE OTHER BUSINESSES AROUND HERE? THE SAME SORT OF AMOUNT OR WHERE DID THE AMOUNT COME FROM? SO THE AMOUNT WAS THE AMOUNT WE'RE PUTTING INTO STORAGE SYSTEMS. THE CITY IS FOR OUR PURPOSES ON AHERN, THERE'S SPACE TO PUT IN A THIRD.

THAT SPACE THAT WE'RE PUTTING IN OFFSETS THE DRAINAGE STORAGE THAT WE BELIEVE WAS NEEDED AT 42 EAST COAST AND SO THAT'S WHERE THE $40,000 COMES IN. ARE YOU PUTTING IT ON THEIR PROPERTY OR ARE WE PUTTING IT IN AHERN.

IT'D BE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. OKAY. WHERE AHERN IS, THERE'S A THREE STORY I THINK THERE'S AT LEAST FOUR DIFFERENT UNITS OF THREE STORY TOWNHOMES. WHERE IS THEIR RETENTION BASIN? THE TOWNHOMES? TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THOSE HOMES DON'T HAVE ANY ON SITE RETENTION.

THEY WERE BUILT PRIOR TO THAT MAY NOT BE CORRECT, BUT THEIR WATER IS FLOWING INTO THE STREET AS WELL AS ONE OCEAN SO THAT WATER RUNS DOWNHILL TOWARDS 42 EAST COAST. SO WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE COLLECTING AN EQUAL VOLUME OF WATER THAT'S RUNNING DOWN THAT HILL.

THAT WOULD GET TO THE 42 EAST COAST SITE TO OFFSET WHAT WE BELIEVE 42 EAST COAST WOULD BE ADDING TO IT.

SO THE NET WOULD BE ZERO. OKAY. SO I THINK TO FULLY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THIS IS A ONE OFF THAT ISN'T REPEATABLE.

IT IN, YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE A PROJECT GOING ON DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO A NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.

SO I HAVING BEEN IN DIALOG ON THIS WITH THE CITY MANAGER FOR SEVERAL MONTHS, I WANT TO COMPLIMENT YOU FOR COMING UP WITH THIS AS A SOLUTION. BECAUSE IT IS IMPORTANT TO FINALIZE THIS AND I BELIEVE VERY SINCERELY, THE APPLICANT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AT 42 EAST COAST DID EVERYTHING IN GOOD FAITH AND THERE SOMETIMES THERE'S MISUNDERSTANDINGS.

BUT I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT A PROJECT OF THAT SCOPE, SIZE AND EXPENSE CLEARLY THERE WAS NO SPARING OF EXPENSE.

THE MONEY WAS SPENT AND I THINK THAT THE OWNER I THINK WE'RE VERY FORTUNATE TO HAVE THIS RESOLUTION AND I WANT TO THANK YOU, MR. KILLINGSWORTH. MR. BOLE. COMMISSIONER KELLY.

I'M CONFUSED AS HOW IT GOT PERMITTED IN THE FIRST PLACE IF THE CALCULATIONS WERE WRONG.

SO THE ISSUE IS THAT AS THE STAFF WAS DOING THE INSPECTION AFTER THEY DUG THE HOLE, IT WAS OBVIOUS FROM VISUAL INSPECTION THAT THE GROUNDWATER TABLE WAS HIGHER THAN THE CALCULATIONS DEMONSTRATED FOR THE STORMWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM. AND THAT'S WHERE THE RUB BECAME BETWEEN THE DEVELOPERS.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY.

ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY WITH AYE? OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES.

THANK YOU. AND CONGRATULATIONS TO THE OWNER, MR. ROBBIE AND FAMILY AND STAFF. WE HAVE A I MAY HAVE MISSED IT.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THAT AS WELL? WE ACTUALLY HAD ONE.

WE DID. RIGHT. WE DID. I MISSED IT. ALRIGHT. NOW, I DON'T KNOW WHERE I'M AT 9-8. THANK YOU. OKAY. ITEM 9A, ORDINANCE NUMBER 5-25- 69, PUBLIC HEARING AND

[9.A. ORDINANCE NO. 5-25-69, Public Hearing and Final Reading]

MR. KILLINGSWORTH. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SO YOU MAY REMEMBER AT THE COMMISSION WORKSHOP, THIS IS AN ITEM THAT THE COMMISSION ASKED STAFF TO BRING FORWARD. YOU'VE HAD YOUR FIRST HEARING. THIS WOULD BE THE SECOND HEARING.

THE STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT YOU CONSIDER APPROVING ORDINANCE 5-25-69.

[01:25:01]

OKAY. DONNA, DO WE HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED IN FOR SPEAKING AT THIS? AGAIN, IF ANYBODY SIGNED IN WITH THE INTENT OF SPEAKING ON THIS, RAISE YOUR HAND.

OKAY. I DON'T THINK SO, DONNA. NO HANDS WENT UP.

YEAH. IT'S NOT INDICATED. SO I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THANK YOU AND WE WILL GO BACK TO. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. I'LL SIMPLY SAY THAT WE HAD A GOOD DISCUSSION ON THIS AT THE LAST MEETING ON THE FIRST READING AND I HEARD THE CITIZEN TONIGHT ABOUT THE CHANGE TO THE 6:00 FROM 6:30 AND THE NEGATIVE IMPACT TO CITIZENS.

I ALWAYS WORRY ABOUT EXCLUDING CITIZENS FROM PARTICIPATION IN CITY GOVERNMENT, SO THAT'S IMPORTANT TO ME.

BUT I WANT TO STATE FOR THE RECORD ONCE AGAIN THAT I DID MY RESEARCH AND I THINK SOME OF YOU DID THE SAME RESEARCH.

CURRENTLY, THE CITY OF NEPTUNE BEACH, JACKSONVILLE BEACH, SAINT AUGUSTINE BEACH, AND FERNANDINA BEACH ALL MEET AT 6PM.

I WONDER WHY? IN ADDITION THE CITY OF SAINT AUGUSTINE, NOT SAINT AUGUSTINE BEACH AND THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE MEET AT 5:30.

SO THEY'RE MEETING EARLIER, AND I DID HEAR FROM ONE CITIZEN THAT SAID THAT THIS WAS AN IMPOSITION TO THEM, BUT I ALSO HEARD FROM NUMEROUS CITIZENS THAT SAID, THANK YOU.

WE'D LIKE TO GET OUT OF THERE SOONER THAN LATER.

SO I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING AND I APOLOGIZE TO ANYBODY THAT'S NEGATIVELY IMPACTED, BUT I CERTAINLY SUPPORT THIS ORDINANCE.

SO WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION STRONGLY TO APPROVE.

5-25-60. SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION. AND SECOND, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? YES. I'M OPPOSED TO THIS. I'M A WORKING PROFESSIONAL AND FOR OTHERS WHO ARE WORKING PROFESSIONALS AND PARENTS, THAT 30 MINUTE COUNTS AND YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THAT THIS INCLUDES THEM.

AND I THINK WE'LL BE HERE TILL NINE, WHETHER WE START AT 6 OR 6:30.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY, MAYOR. MAYOR, I DID A LITTLE HOMEWORK ALSO.

YES. OVER 85% OF THE MUNICIPALITIES MEET AT SIX OR EARLIER IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA.

I'M ALSO A WORKER WITH TWO FULL TIME JOBS. AND I'M TELLING YOU, I'VE HEARD MORE PEOPLE.

LET'S GET IT ON AND I DO CARE ABOUT THE STAFF BEING HERE.

YEAH, OKAY. I CARE ABOUT THE CITIZENS, BUT I ALSO CARE ABOUT CALLING OUR STAFF IN AND IT EXTENDS THEIR WORKDAY, SO IT'S A NO BRAINER FOR ME. ALL RIGHT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY WITH AYE. OPPOSED? NAY. OKAY. WE HAVE FOUR AYES AND ONE NAY. ALRIGHT.

[9.B. ORDINANCE NO. 5-25-70, Public Hearing and Final Reading]

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH. COUNTY OF DUVAL.

STATE OF FLORIDA. AMENDING CHAPTER TWO ADMINISTRATION DIVISION TWO SPECIAL MAGISTRATE, SECTION 2-143 SPECIAL MAGISTRATE APPOINTMENT QUALIFICATIONS TERM AND SECTION 2-144 SPECIAL MAGISTRATE COMPENSATION OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH CODE OF ORDINANCES PROVIDING FOR ADOPTION OF SAID AMENDMENTS.

PROVIDING FOR PURPOSE AND INTENT. PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT.

PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION. PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

MR. KILLINGSWORTH. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SO WE JUST RECENTLY REAPPOINTED THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AND LOOKING AT IT AND I WILL SAY THAT IT WAS MY RECOMMENDATION. THE WAY IT'S STRUCTURED IS BASICALLY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE GETS REAPPOINTED UNLESS THE COMMISSION SAYS NO, AND THEY HAVE 30 DAYS TO LET THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE KNOW THAT THEY'RE GOING TO MOVE IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.

SO IT SEEMED KIND OF MINISTERIAL, THE REAPPOINTMENT PIECE OF IT.

WE'RE NOT TAKING AWAY THE RIGHT OF THE COMMISSION TO TERMINATE OR TO PROVIDE A WRITTEN NOTICE LETTING THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE KNOW THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO GO A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.

SO BECAUSE OF THAT I RECOMMENDED THAT WE CHANGE THE REAPPOINTMENT PROCESS AND JUST HAVE IT DONE BY THE CITY MANAGER.

UNLESS WE GET A NOTICE FROM THE COMMISSION. FOR THOSE REASONS, MR. MAYOR, I RECOMMEND THAT YOU APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 5-25-70.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. OH. PUBLIC HEARING AND WE BETTER DO THAT.

LET'S OPEN IT UP. I DON'T HAVE ANY SPEAKERS. OKAY, THEN WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

[01:30:01]

OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND DISCUSSION.

OKAY, I'LL MAKE ONE POINT. IS IT REASONABLE TO ASK YOU TO ACCEPT, WITHOUT CODIFYING IT THAT YOU WILL GIVE US NOTICE EACH YEAR? I GUESS OUR OPPORTUNITY TO NOTIFY YOU THAT WE DON'T WANT TO PROCEED IS SOMETIME 30, 60, 90 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION OF THE CALENDAR OR OF THE YEAR FOR THE CONTRACT.

SO CAN WE ASK FOR YOU TO ACCEPT THAT? BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO FIND OUT.

WE JUST MISSED AND WE ALL THOUGHT WE MIGHT SHOULD DO SOMETHING.

I THINK MY POLICY WOULD BE A GOOD PRACTICE FOR ANY CITY MANAGER TO LET THE COMMISSION KNOW 30 OR 60 DAYS OUT, THAT THE CONTRACT IS SCHEDULED TO BE RENEWED AND THEN GET ANY FEEDBACK.

SO I'D BE GLAD TO DO THAT DURING THE CITY MANAGER REPORTS.

OKAY, GOOD WITH THAT. JUST TO REITERATE, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT ANYTIME DURING THE YEAR TO GIVE 30 DAYS NOTICE TO TERMINATE.

OH. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALSO WHAT I WANTED TO KNOW. OKAY.

THANK YOU. THAT GIVES US PLENTY OF LATITUDE, I THINK, AND ALLAYS THE CONCERNS EXPRESSED BY AT LEAST ONE CITIZEN, THAT WE'RE GIVING UP THE POWER TO MANAGE WHAT WE SHOULD BE MANAGING AS A COMMISSION.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY WITH AYE? AYE. OPPOSED? THAT'S UNANIMOUS. SO THAT IS FINAL READING.

OKAY. MOVING TO 9C ORDINANCE NUMBER 20-25-177.

[9.C. ORDINANCE NO. 20-25-177, Introduction and First Reading]

FOR APPROPRIATING ADDITIONAL FUNDS TO THE POLICE PENSION FUND AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

MISTER KILLINGSWORTH. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SO YOU GOT THE, RESULTS OF THE AUDIT AND THE BIG THING IS THAT WE WERE LATE THIS YEAR.

THE BIG STICK THAT THE STATE HAS FOR BEING LATE IS THEY WITHHOLD YOUR PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS FOR THE POLICE.

THEY ULTIMATELY PAY YOU FOR THEM ONCE YOU TURN YOUR AUDIT IN, BUT THEY WITHHOLD THEM.

AS A RESULT, WE HAVE A GAP IN OUR POLICE OFFICERS PENSION FUND IN WHICH WE NEED TO COVER PAYMENTS FOR NOW, AND THEN WE'LL GET REIMBURSED FOR THAT. SO THERE'S A NEED TO APPROPRIATE $130,000 IN REVENUE TO COVER THE POLICE OFFICER'S PENSION FUND UNTIL WE GET REIMBURSED BY THE STATE. AND IF I SAID ANYTHING WRONG, BRITTANY GETS TO COME UP AND SAY SO.

SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 2025-16.

OKAY. JUST ONE COMMENT. THAT AND PROBABLY A SMALL AMOUNT OF MONEY.

BUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US BEING ON TIME AND NOT BEING ON TIME, THAT'S MONEY THAT WE COULD HAVE MADE IN AN INTEREST OR BEEN IN A GENERAL FUND.

ET CETERA. CORRECT. SO IT'S KIND OF A WASH. SO THE MONEY WE'VE HAD $130,000 IN OUR GENERAL FUND SINCE THEN. SO THAT REVENUE WOULD NOT HAVE HIT US.

IT WOULD HAVE GONE INTO THE POLICE PENSION FUND.

RIGHT. OKAY, SO WE'RE WAITING JUST TO OPEN THE FLOODGATE.

YEAH. OKAY. DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? ALL RIGHT.

OKAY, I'LL. WE DON'T HAVE A MOTION, SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 20-25-177.

SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY WITH AYE.. OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES.

THANK YOU. TEN. A PUBLIC HEARING APP 25 ZERO ONE.

[10.A. Public Hearing - APP 25-0001 - Appeal of the Community Development Board (CDB) - Decision for ZVAR 24-0005 (223 Ocean Boulevard) ]

DECISION FOR ZBAR 24-0005 2223 OCEAN BOULEVARD AND SO I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE ATTORNEY. THIS IS A QUASI JUDICIAL ITEM.

SO IF ANYONE HAS HAD ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS NOW'S THE TIME TO DECLARE IT.

WHO YOU SPOKE WITH WHEN YOU MIGHT HAVE SPOKEN WITH THAT PERSON AND JUST VERY BRIEFLY, WHAT YOU DISCUSSED.

DECISIONS LIKE THIS ON APPEALS ARE QUASI JUDICIAL.

SO THAT ALSO MEANS THAT YOUR DECISION SHOULD BE FACT BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND NOT JUST ON MERE OPINION OR APPLAUD METER AND THAT SORT OF THING. SO WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT BACK. BUT TYPICALLY THE FORMAT IS STAFF WILL GIVE A STAFF REPORT RECOMMENDATION AND THEN THE APPLICANT WILL SPEAK WITH ANY FOLKS THAT MIGHT BE IN FAVOR AND THEN ANYONE WHO IS OPPOSED TO THE MEASURE

[01:35:02]

AND THEN YOU BRING IT BACK. ALL RIGHT. YOU KEEP ME HONEST ON THAT, RIGHT? BUT WE'LL START WITH SWEARING IN. CAN I SEE A SHOW OF HANDS? WHO'S GOING TO SPEAK TONIGHT ON THIS? SO, DONNA, ARE YOU GOING TO DO THE SWEARING IN? YES. IF YOU'LL STAND, PLEASE. ALL RIGHT AND DO YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? OKAY. THANK YOU. PLEASE BE SEATED.

ALL RIGHT, WE'LL HAVE AMANDA COME UP AND PRESENT THE CITY STAFF OVERVIEW.

HI. GOOD EVENING. AMANDA ASKEW, THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING.

DONNA'S GOING TO PULL UP MY POWERPOINT PRESENTATION FOR ME.

BUT TONIGHT WE'RE HEARING THE APPEAL OF A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD DECISION AND THE APPEAL IS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 223 OCEAN BOULEVARD.

THIS PROPERTY IS A THREE SIDED LOT. IT DOES HAVE PROPERTY ON THE OCEAN BOULEVARD SIDE SECOND STREET AND ON BEACH AVENUE. IF YOU GO TO. YEAH. LAST TIME THIS DID NOT WORK.

LOOKED LIKE IT FROM HERE. BUT IT'S NOT WORKING ONLINE.

I'M AFRAID TO DO THAT AGAIN THIS TIME. OKAY. WELL, A PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD IN NOVEMBER OF 2024 FOR THE BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MADE A MOTION TO DENY THE VARIANCE.

IT PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5 TO 2. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD FOUND THAT THE REQUEST DID NOT MEET ANY OF ANY OF THE GROUNDS SET FORTH IN SECTION 24-65. THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, AND THAT SECTION ESTABLISHES THE GROUNDS FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE.

THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS FOR TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS, 24-85 B, WHICH IS TO EXPAND AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING AND 24-106 E, AND THAT IS TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK. OKAY. I MENTIONED EARLIER THAT IT DOES HAVE THREE LOT FRONTAGES.

THIS IS A VERY LARGE LOT. IT'S THE LARGEST LOT.

IT'S REGULAR SHAPES THOUGH AND IT IS 150FT BY 127FT.

IT IS LOCATED IN A RESIDENTIAL FAMILY RS1 ZONING DISTRICT.

SO THIS IS AN AERIAL VIEW. AGAIN, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THE THREE SIDES TO THE LOT.

THE AREA IN CIRCLE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT.

IT WAS OR IT IS THE GARAGE FOR THE PROPERTY. IN 2003, A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME WAS BUILT ON THE PROPERTY. THE OWNERS AT THE TIME KEPT THE GARAGE ON THE PROPERTY.

THE GARAGE IS QUITE OLD. IT'S EXISTING, NON-CONFORMING.

A LOT OF PROPERTIES UP AND DOWN BEECH AVENUE ARE EXISTING, NON-CONFORMING, BUILT RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINES.

AS I MENTIONED, THE APPLICANTS ARE SEEKING A VARIANCE.

THE PURPOSE OF THE VARIANCE IS TO BUILD THAT SECOND STORY ADDITION, BASICALLY RIGHT OVER THE FOOTPRINT OF THE EXISTING GARAGE AND IN DOING SO, I MENTIONED THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO SEEK TWO VARIANCES BACK IN 2003 WHEN THEY REDID THEIR HOUSE.

THEY ALSO ADDED AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING GARAGE AS PART OF THE CONDITION THAT WAS PLACED ON THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME.

COMMISSION SAID THE GARAGE STRUCTURE SHALL NOT BE CONVERTED INTO A GARAGE APARTMENT AS DEFINED WITHIN THE CODE.

WHEN THEY DID THE ADDITION OR REDID THE HOUSE IN 2003, THE DETACHED GARAGE WAS CONNECTED TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.

SO THE HOUSE, ONCE YOU MAKE THAT CONNECTION, THE CODE REQUIRES OR CONSIDERS ALL OF IT IS THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.

THEREFORE, YOU NEED THE 20 FOOT SETBACK. THAT GOES OVER THE SETBACKS THAT I HAVE A BETTER.

WELL, THERE'S A 20 FOOT SETBACK AND ON THIS DIAGRAM HERE, OCEAN BOULEVARD IS ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE.

THERE'S A 20 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK THERE. THE AREA IN GREEN IS THE REAR YARD.

THAT'S A 20 FOOT SETBACK. THERE YOU DO HAVE A TEN FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK ON THE SECOND STREET SIDE.

THERE IS AMPLE SPACE ON THE SECOND STREET SIDE TO HAVE REASONABLE USE OF THIS PROPERTY.

WITHIN THE SETBACKS. THIS IS KIND OF HARD TO SEE, BUT THE GRAPHICS HERE.

THIS IS THE EXISTING GARAGE, THIS FAINT LINE HERE.

THIS CORNER OF THE GARAGE IS POINT NINE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, AND THIS CORNER OF THE GARAGE IS 1.1,

[01:40:05]

THIS IS TRYING TO DEPICT FROM THE ROAD VIEW OF WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE IS.

THIS IS APPROXIMATE. BUT AS I MENTIONED THIS CORNER OF THE STRUCTURE IS 0.9IN FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, AND THIS ONE IS 1.1IN. THE TOP GRAPHIC HERE IS THE GARAGE AS IT EXISTED WITH THE REFURBISHED IN 2003 AND THIS IS THE PROPOSED WITH THE SECOND STORY ADDED OVER THE EXISTING GARAGE, AS I MENTIONED, THERE'S TWO REQUESTS FROM TWO DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE CODE.

THE SECTION 24- 85 SAYS NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES SHALL NOT BE EXPANDED OR ENLARGED UNLESS SUCH EXPANSIONS OR ENLARGEMENTS COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS SECTION AND OTHER APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE CHAPTER, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, YOUR BUILDING SETBACKS.

REQUEST TWO IS THE ACTUAL SETBACK PORTION THAT THEY ARE SEEKING A VARIANCE REQUEST ON, AND THIS IS THE REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 20FT TO 0.9IN AND 1.1FT. ALTHOUGH THE NORTHERN ADDITION TO THE GARAGE WAS APPROVED THROUGH A VARIANCE, THE STRUCTURE'S STILL CONSIDERED A LEGAL NONCONFORMING AND AGAIN, THE CODE ALLOWS YOU TO HAVE LEGAL NONCONFORMING.

YOU CAN MAINTAIN THOSE AND AS I MENTIONED, THERE ARE MULTIPLE PROPERTIES AROUND THE CITY.

BUT SPECIFICALLY BEACH BOULEVARD THAT ARE CONSIDERED LEGAL.

NON-CONFORMITIES. TONIGHT YOU GUYS ARE CONSIDERING THIS APPEAL.

IF YOU DO APPROVE IT, YOU MUST FIND THAT ONE OF THE SIX CONDITIONS LISTED IN 24-65 C EXIST.

ONE EXCEPTIONAL TOPOGRAPHY CONDITIONS OF OR NEAR THE PROPERTY, TWO SURROUNDING CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES IMPACTING THE PROPERTY.

PROPERTY DISPARAGINGLY FROM NEARBY PROPERTIES.

THREE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES PREVENTING THE REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY AS COMPARED TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA.

NUMBER FOUR ONEROUS EFFECT OF REGULATIONS ENACTED AFTER PLATTING OR AFTER DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY, OR AFTER CONSTRUCTION OF THE IMPROVEMENT UPON THE PROPERTY.

NUMBER FIVE IS A REGULAR SHAPE OF THE PROPERTY WARRANTING SPECIAL CONSIDERATION AND NUMBER SIX IS SUBSTANDARD SIZE OF THE LOT WARRANTING A VARIANCE IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY. THE COMMISSION SHALL DENY IT IF YOU FIND THAT NONE OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE IN EXISTENCE? SO WHEN YOU REVIEW AND YOU VOTE ON IT, YOU'LL BE VOTING ON THE APPEAL AND A AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE WILL APPROVE THE VARIANCE IN A DENIAL.

A VOTE OF THE APPEAL WILL NOT APPROVE THE VARIANCE.

WE DID GET TWO LETTERS OF SUPPORT OVER THE WEEKEND.

IN THIS CASE, FROM NEIGHBORS. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

ALL RIGHT. WELL. THANK YOU. IF YOU'LL STAND BY, WE'LL BRING YOU BACK, I'M SURE, BUT WE'LL MOVE TO APPLICANT PRESENTATION OR REPRESENTATIVE. GOOD EVENING. I'M GOING TO CIRCULATE MY EXHIBITS THAT WILL ALSO BE ON THE SCREEN.

GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. MY NAME IS IAN BROWN HERE, ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.

SORRY, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE ONE MORE TIME. I DON'T KNOW, I'M SEEING AN INQUIRY. HAS EVERYONE.

IF THERE WERE ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, IS EVERYONE GONE AROUND TO DECLARE THEM? AND MAYBE THERE WEREN'T ANY. NO. OKAY. FOR THE RECORD, DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE ANY.

THANK YOU. SORRY. SURE. AGAIN, MY NAME IS IAN BROWN HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.

I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THE ORIGINAL VARIANCE APPLICATION.

I WAS CONTACTED AFTER THE DENIAL TO REVIEW IT AND BASED ON MY REVIEW, I THINK THERE'S THERE ARE GROUNDS TO PREVAIL ON THIS APPEAL, BUT WE'LL TALK THROUGH THEM ONE BY ONE. I DO HAVE THIS IN PDF EMAILED OVER, SO I'LL PAUSE SO WE CAN ALL FOLLOW ALONG. THERE WE GO. THIS IS THE SAME AS WHAT I'VE HANDED OUT.

SURE.

[01:45:07]

I'M APPROACHING A 20 YEAR EXPERIENCE IN REAL ESTATE, AND SPENT FOUR YEARS ON JACKSONVILLE'S PLANNING COMMISSION.

I DO SEE SOME FAMILIAR FACES UP HERE TONIGHT AND SO I HAD THE PLEASURE OF HEARING ABOUT 2000 ZONING AND VARIANCE RELATED APPLICATIONS OVER FOUR YEARS AND WHEN I LOOKED AT THIS ONE AND LOOKED AT THE CRITERIA, I DO BELIEVE WE SATISFY MORE THAN ONE, BUT WE'LL WORK THROUGH THEM.

STARTING WITH THE NEXT PAGE OR PAGE TWO IN YOUR.

IF YOU HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU. THIS IS A VERY LARGE LOT.

I ALWAYS. I KNOW WHEN I SAT IN A SIMILAR SEAT TO YOURS, I WAS ALWAYS CONCERNED ABOUT LIKE A SLIPPERY SLOPE OR A FLOODGATES ARGUMENT.

IF IT WERE APPROVED OR A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WANT TO DO THE SAME THING.

THIS IS A VERY UNIQUE PARCEL. IT'S VERY LARGE, TRIPLE LOT ON THREE FRONTAGE STREETS.

I'M GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT BEACH A LOT, EVEN THOUGH THE CIVIC ADDRESS IS OCEAN BECAUSE THE GARAGE FRONTS BEACH.

SO MOST OF THIS DISCUSSION IS ABOUT IS ABOUT BEACH.

REACH OUT. SO YOU HAVE THIS LARGE TRIPLE LOT 0.44 ACRES VERY LARGE.

YOU DO HAVE A LOT OF NON-CONFORMING GARAGE APARTMENTS ON BEACH.

NOT MANY THAT WERE BUILT LIKE THIS AND HAVE DORMERS AND THEY'RE KIND OF LIKE A STORY I WOULD IT'S REFLECTED AS A TWO STORY IN THE SURVEY.

YOU GUYS MIGHT DEBATE THAT, BUT IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A TRADITIONAL SINGLE STORY AS IT EXISTS.

SO YOU HAVE THESE THREE FRONTAGE STREETS OCEAN, SECOND AND BEACH.

THE GARAGE FACES BEACH. THIS IS OLD. I'VE COMMUNICATED WITH STAFF AND THE APPLICANT.

WE DON'T HAVE AN EXACT DATE ON THE GARAGE STRUCTURE, BUT 1927, 1936, SOMEWHERE IN THERE SEEMS TO BE SOMEWHERE IN THERE PREDATING CODE, TO SAY THE LEAST. THINGS THAT STRUCK ME WHEN I LOOKED AT THE DENIAL.

THIS SECOND STORY GARAGE. IT DOES ALREADY EXIST.

IT WAS PRESENTED AS IF THIS IS ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION.

I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU SOME INTERIOR PHOTOS LATER, BUT THERE IS ALREADY A SECOND STORY.

YOU CAN STAND UP THERE. THERE'S SOME FUNCTIONAL OBSOLESCENCE.

WE'LL GET INTO IT. BUT IT IS NOT AS IF THIS IS A LOW PITCHED SINGLE STORY STRUCTURE AND NOW COMES A FULL SECOND.

IT'S KIND OF IN BETWEEN. IT'S A STEEP PITCHED, FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLESCENT TWO STORY STRUCTURE THAT NEEDS TO BE RENOVATED FOR FAMILY USE.

THE OTHER THING THERE'S ALREADY A GARAGE APARTMENT UP THERE.

AND THAT STRUCK ME AS VERY RELEVANT. SO IT'S NOT AS IF THIS IS STORAGE NOW AND NEEDS TO BE, YOU KNOW, UPGRADED ELECTRIC. HERE COMES THE 220. HERE COMES THE PLUMBING AND THE BATHROOMS. IT'S ALREADY A FUNCTIONAL GARAGE APARTMENT, I SAY FUNCTIONAL. WE'LL GET INTO THAT. I DO WANT TO PAUSE FOR ONE MOMENT.

I HATE FLIPPING BACK AND FORTH, BUT IF YOU WOULD GO TO PAGE FOUR.

SO SKIP THE SURVEY. SKIP THE PROFILE PIC, I APOLOGIZE.

IT'S PAGE FIVE AND WE WILL COME BACK TO THIS LIST.

BUT YOU'LL SEE. I DO THINK IT WARRANTS LOOKING AT THIS BEFORE I CONTINUE INTERIOR PHOTOS OF THE SECOND STORY OF THE SUBJECT GARAGE RIGHT NOW AND MISS DONNA, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND ADVANCING THE SLIDES TO FIVE FOR ME.

ONE. YEAH. SO. YOU LOOK AT THIS. I DO THINK THAT THE PICTURES SPEAK LOUDER THAN I CAN ADVOCATE, BUT THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THIS SPACE AS BUILT OUT, I'M A LITTLE OVER SIX FEET TALL, BUT IT JUST LOOK AT THE RESTROOM.

YOU HAVE TO CROUCH TO GET BACK THERE. THERE ARE AGING FAMILY MEMBERS OCCUPYING THIS SPACE RIGHT NOW.

IT'S NOT FUNCTIONAL THE OWNER'S DESIRE TO MAKE IT FUNCTIONAL AND SO THIS IS PART OF WHAT WAS NEVER PRESENTED BEFORE.

IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO MY LIST ON PAGE TWO. SO YOU CAN SEE FROM THAT PHOTO YOU NEED MODERNIZATION.

YOU KNOW, THE FANCY APPRAISAL WORD IS FUNCTIONAL OBSOLESCENCE. BUT IT JUST DOESN'T WORK LIKE THAT.

THIS PROPERTY DOES COMPLY WITH SITE COVERAGE, WHICH IS, I KNOW, VERY IMPORTANT IN ATLANTIC BEACH.

IT ALSO ALREADY COMPLIES AND WILL COMPLY WITH THE HEIGHT LIMIT.

SO THERE'S NO RELIEF BEING SOUGHT FOR SITE COVERAGE OR HEIGHT UPON COMPLETION.

SO THE PROBLEM IS WHERE IT'S LOCATED AND IT WAS PUT THERE LONG BEFORE CODE 1927 1936, BUT LONG BEFORE CODE.

THIS IS A RARE STRUCTURE. WE'VE ALL PROBABLY EVERYBODY IN THIS ROOM'S WALKED OR BIKED OR, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER DOWN BEACH AND THERE ARE A LOT OF GARAGE APARTMENTS, AND I'M GOING TO GET TO A GRID LATER.

RIGHT UP. WITH SIMILAR SETBACKS TO THE SUBJECT, I'LL GET TO MY EXHIBIT.

SO THIS STRUCTURE IS ONE OF THE FEW THAT HAS THAT KIND OF DORMERED GABLE STORY AND A HALF SMALL TWO STORY CONSTRUCTION.

THIS SITE IS NOT OVERBUILT. I THINK THAT SOMEBODY MENTIONED EARLIER, LIKE MCMANSIONS OR LARGE STRUCTURES IN ATLANTIC BEACH AND THIS IS A TRIPLE

[01:50:07]

IT'S WITHIN HEIGHT. WE WANT TO FOCUS OUR ATTENTION JUST ON THIS GARAGE THAT WAS LEFT.

THAT WAS LEFT IN PLACE. THERE'S A LOT OF GREEN SPACE.

WE'LL GET TO AN TO AN EXHIBIT. WE DON'T NEED TO MOVE THE SLIDE JUST YET. WE'LL GET TO IT. YOU'LL SEE. THERE'S A LOT AND A HALF TO THE SOUTH OF THE GARAGE.

TOTALLY GREEN SPACE HEADS DOWN TO. SO YOU'RE NOT IN A TIGHT INTERIOR LOT.

YOU HAVE A LOT. YOU HAVE A TRIPLE LOT WITH A LOT OF GREEN SPACE.

IT'S JUST NOT CROWDED IN APPEARANCE. THE OTHER THING, I DON'T WANT TO GO TOO FAR DOWN PUBLIC POLICY, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE A TREND IN PLANNING THROUGHOUT THE NATION AND THROUGHOUT FLORIDA.

THERE'S SOME THINGS COMING OUT OF THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE. BUT THIS ADU AGE IN PLACE MULTI GENERATIONAL, YOU KNOW, FROM HOUSING CRISIS TO KEEPING THE ELDERLY WITH THEIR FAMILY.

THERE'S A LOT THERE. BUT PUBLIC POLICY SINCE THAT SINCE THIS HAS STARTED GO BACK TO 2003 WITH WHAT WE CAN GET INTO.

I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT STIPULATION CAME TO BE.

NO ONE'S TOLD ME MUCH ABOUT IT, BUT A LOT HAS CHANGED IN OVER 20 YEARS IN THE PUBLIC POLICY IS TO AGE IN PLACE WITH LOVED ONES AND IN THIS SPACE IS ALREADY SERVING IT INSUFFICIENTLY. I WILL MENTION AND I WAS NOT PRESENT, BUT AT THE CDB VARIANTS, EVEN WITH THE APPLICANT REPRESENTING HIMSELF AND HE DID THE BEST HE COULD, BUT HE DID NOT ARTICULATE THE ELEMENTS.

EVEN THEN IT WAS A SPLIT VOTE. SO IT WAS NOT A UNANIMOUS DENIAL.

IT WAS A52. I REVIEWED THE ZOOM LINK AND AND HE DID THE BEST HE COULD.

BUT THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO BE HERE TO HELP TODAY AND TALK THROUGH THE CRITERIA.

I DID MENTION THE SLIPPERY SLOPE FLOODGATES THING.

I REALLY DON'T SEE THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL. IT'S SO UNIQUE.

I DON'T SEE IT OPENING A FLOODGATES TYPE ARGUMENT AND WE DO HAVE SUPPORT FROM NEIGHBORS.

YOU DON'T ALWAYS HAVE THAT AND WE'LL HEAR MORE FROM THOSE. NEXT PAGE, PLEASE.

MISS DONNA. SO THIS JUST SHOWS THIS IS THE SURVEY.

IT'S IN STAFF REPORT AS WELL. IT IS A FULL TRIPLE LOT.

THE GARAGE HAS A STAR ON IT, AND IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO READ, BUT BY THE STAR, YOU'LL SEE IT SAYS TWO STORY FRAME GARAGE.

I DID NOT ADD THAT'S HOW THE SURVEY SURVEYOR REFLECTED IT.

I'M NOT HERE TO SAY THAT'S DISPOSITIVE OF WHETHER OR NOT IT'S TWO STORY OR NOT, BUT IT'S CLEARLY NOT A ONE STORY AND YOU CAN SEE YOU HAVE ABOUT ONE LOT TO THE NORTH. THAT WOULD BE GREEN SPACE AND YOU HAVE A LOT AND A HALF TO THE SOUTH OF THE GARAGE.

THAT'S GREEN SPACE AND YOU HAVE THE 3 PARCELS.

IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND ADVANCING ONE MORE SLIDE.

HERE'S THE SUBJECT. THIS IS WHAT ALL THE HUBBUB IS ABOUT.

SO ONE THING YOU'LL NOTICE IS THERE'S A LONG THERE'S A LARGE DISTANCE.

AND I WAS SCRATCHING MY HEAD ABOUT THIS BETWEEN THE PAVEMENT EDGE AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WHICH INSPIRED ME TO GO DOWN THIS RABBIT HOLE.

ABOUT A WEEK AGO, I WENT UP BEACH AVE FROM AHERN TO SEVENTH WITH A LASER AND A CLIPBOARD, AND I JUST MEASURED ALL THE ADUS I COULD FIND FROM THE PAVEMENT EDGE TO THE ADU.

BECAUSE 0.09. THAT SOUNDS. THAT SOUNDS BAD. IT'S RIGHT ON THE LINE AS YOU GO UP BEACH AND WE'LL GET TO THE EXHIBIT.

MANY OF THEM ARE JUST LIKE THIS. SO ALTHOUGH THEY'RE ON THE PROPERTY LINE, THEY'RE NOT ON THE PAVEMENT EDGE.

SINCE WE'RE ON THIS SLIDE, I THINK IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT WOULDN'T BE THE TRADITIONAL WAY TO BUILD A SINGLE STORY.

WITH THOSE DORMERS TO THE LEFT IS A FULL LOT AND A HALF OF GREEN SPACE, WHICH IS SOUTH TO THE RIGHT.

TO THE NORTH IS ALMOST ANOTHER COMPLETE LOT OF GREEN SPACE, AT LEAST UP ON BEACH AVE THE DISTANCE.

I HAVE ANOTHER EXHIBIT FROM PAVEMENT EDGE TO THE GARAGE.

IT'S 14.5FT. IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO SEE FROM THIS PICTURE.

THE UNIT TO THE RIGHT. THE FURTHEST NORTH BAY IS 16FT.

OKAY. IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, DONNA. LET'S ADVANCE.

OKAY, SO WE LOOKED AT THESE PHOTOS. THE NEXT ONE.

YOU'LL SEE SOME MORE VERY SHARP, STEEP ANGLES.

YOU NEED TO WALK MORE OR LESS THROUGH THE RIDGELINE, AT LEAST AS I DID TO NOT HIT YOUR HEAD.

OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE INTO AN EXHIBIT THAT I DECIDED TO CREATE FOR THIS.

NEXT SLIDE FROM AHERN TO SEVENTH. I COULD HAVE KEPT GOING ALL THE WAY TO THE END OF BEACH, BUT IT FELT LIKE AHERN TO SEVENTH WAS A GOOD SAMPLING.

JUST ON BEACH. SO I WENT WITH THE LASER AT THE PAVEMENT EDGE, AND I SHOT EVERYBODY'S ADU OR WHAT? EVERYTHING THAT LOOKED TO BE A TWO STORY ADU TO ME.

FORGIVE ME IF ONE IS WRONG. I'M NOT A LICENSED SURVEYOR, BUT STARTING WITH AHERN HEADING NORTH, YOU CAN SEE ALONG BEACH. THEY ARE INCREDIBLY PREVALENT.

WE ALL IN THIS ROOM KNOW THIS BECAUSE AS YOU GO UP BEACH YOU SEE THEM. BUT THESE TWO STORY GARAGE APARTMENTS ARE INCREDIBLY PREVALENT.

[01:55:07]

I WILL ALSO NOTE, I WASN'T PLANNING ON BRINGING THIS UP BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO MAKE IT CONFUSING, BUT IF YOU DON'T HAVE A LASER PORT, SOME OF THE LARGER PARCELS ON OCEAN WITH AN OCEAN ADDRESS AT SOME POINT WERE SPLIT IN THE REAR.

ON BEACH BECAME A SEPARATE SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

YOU'LL SEE SOME VERY SMALL PARCELS LIKE 556, 536.

SO ONE REASON WHY YOU DON'T SEE QUITE AS MANY LIKE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

SOME OF THESE LARGE LOTS HAVE BEEN CUT AND SO THAT REAR ADU OF TIMES PAST, WHICH IS RIGHT UP ON THE PROPERTY LINE LIKE THE SUBJECT BECAME ITS OWN SINGLE FAMILY HOME. PLEASE ADVANCE ONE MORE. I GOT TO PLAY WITH EXCEL ON THIS ONE.

SO I COUNTED 28. COULD BE WRONG BY ONE. THAT I'M WRONG BY MORE THAN A COUPLE.

BUT I WENT UP AND DOWN, AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS TO THE LEFT.

I HAVE MORE EXHIBITS, BUT WHAT I WANTED TO POINT OUT IS WITH THE 28, THE AVERAGE FROM PAVEMENT TO GARAGE DOOR, THE AVERAGE IS 18.1. BEAR IN MIND WE RANGE FROM 14.5 TO 16 BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO ELEVATIONS THERE AND THE MEDIAN WAS 16.75. SO WE'RE NOT WAY OFF FROM WHAT YOU SEE.

WE'RE FAIRLY CONSISTENT ACTUALLY WITH WHAT YOU SEE GOING DOWN BEACH.

I ALSO NOTED THERE WERE NINE SMALLER OR TIGHTER CLOSER TO BEACH AVE THAN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THERE'S 11, 11, 13, 11, 11, 12 AND 12,12. SO THERE'S MANY OF THEM THAT ARE ACTUALLY CLOSER TO THE PAVEMENT EDGE THAN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

AND I WANTED TO MAYBE THIS PERSON'S IN THE ROOM, BUT THIS ONE TO THE RIGHT SIX, THREE, ONE 31 BEACH.

I STOPPED AND STARED AT THIS ONE FOR A FEW MINUTES, BECAUSE IT IS SO UNCANNY HOW SIMILAR IT IS TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

IT EVEN HAS TWO GARAGE BAYS, GOES IN A ROUGHLY TWO FEET, AND THEN ANOTHER BAY JUST LIKE OURS AND IT'S A SO IT'S A THREE BAY ADU ON BEACH, AND IT RANGES FROM 14.5 TO 16.5 FROM THE PAVEMENT EDGE.

SO IT'S SPOT ON STRIKINGLY SIMILAR. SO THE NEXT COUPLE SLIDES, I JUST I DIDN'T WANT TO OMIT ALL THE PHOTOS SINCE I TOOK THEM, BUT THE NEXT COUPLE SLIDES ARE JUST ALL THE ADUS.

AND THERE ARE SOME THREE STORIES IN THERE. I'M SORRY, SOME THREE GARAGE BAY ONES IN THERE FROM AHERN TO SEVENTH.

SO I BELIEVE IT'S THREE PAGES TO GET EVERYBODY ON THERE.

ONE MORE SLIDE. YEAH, I DID STOP AT SEVENTH. THERE ARE OBVIOUSLY MORE OF THEM, ESPECIALLY ONCE YOU GET TO 10TH AND HEAD NORTH.

BUT I, STOPPED MY SURVEY AT SEVENTH. OKAY. IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND ADVANCING HERE.

SO HERE'S OUR CRITERIA FOR THIS WHOLE DECISION.

I THINK WE MEET 3 OF THEM. I DIDN'T PUT A YES NEXT TO TWO, BUT I THINK YOU COULD.

I THINK THERE'S A COLORABLE ARGUMENT FOR NUMBER TWO. I KNOW THAT AMANDA AND STAFF MAYBE DISAGREE ON NUMBER FIVE.

WE ONLY NEED ONE. I THINK WE HAVE MORE THAN ONE.

SO JUMPING INTO NUMBER THREE. AND IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND ADVANCING SLIDE.

SO CRITERIA THREE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES PREVENTING THE REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY COMPARED TO OTHER PROPERTIES.

WELL, PART OF WHY I TOOK YOU THROUGH THE WHOLE EXERCISE OF LOOKING AT EVERYBODY ELSE'S ADUS AND SHOOTING LASERS WAS TO SHOW YOU, I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY A REASONABLE MIND COULD CONCLUDE WE HAVE SOME EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND THAT OUR BUILDING PREDATES CODE 1927 1936, WHATEVER IT IS PREDATES CODE, AND WE'RE NOT ABLE TO USE IT LIKE ALL THESE OTHER ONES ON BEACH AVE.

AND ALSO THERE'S ALREADY THIS INEFFICIENT SECOND STORY UP THERE.

IT'S MORE OF A RENOVATION AND RECONFIGURATION OF THAT SPACE.

MORE OF A, YOU KNOW, CURING OBSOLESCENCE. SO I THINK WHEN YOU COMPARE IT TO THEIR PROPERTIES, WHICH IS WHY I TOOK THE TIME TO GET THOSE OTHER IMAGES UP THERE.

I THINK IT'S STRIKING. NEXT SLIDE IF YOU WOULD.

CRITERIA FOUR IS AN ONEROUS EFFECT AND I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY THAT THE THERE IS AN ONEROUS EFFECT ON THIS PROPERTY.

WITH THESE, WITH OUR CURRENT REGULATIONS, IF WE DENY THEM THE VARIANCE.

WELL, IS IT REASONABLE THAT THEY AND THEIR AGING FAMILY MEMBERS ARE IN THESE STEEPLY SLOPED, INEFFICIENT SPACES ABOVE A GARAGE, BUT CALL IT 28 OTHER NEIGHBORS ON A SEVEN BLOCK STRETCH ALL HAVE TWO STORY ADUS.

SEEMS ONEROUS TO ME, AND IT SEEMS SEEMS STRIKING ON ITS FACE.

SO THE PROPOSED RENOVATION IS TO REMODEL THE SECOND STORY AND IT WOULD RAISE.

[02:00:06]

SO IT'S THE SAME FOOTPRINT THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS.

SO NO CHANGE TO PARKING IN OR OUTSIDE OF THE GARAGE.

NEXT, SLIDE NUMBER FIVE. WE DON'T NECESSARILY NEED THIS CRITERIA PER SE, BUT IRREGULAR SHAPE I UNDERSTAND I KNOW WHERE AMANDA'S COMING FROM.

IT IS A RECTANGLE. SO IT'S A RECTANGULAR IRREGULAR OKAY.

MAYBE NOT, BUT IT IS A RARE 333 SIDED LOT, SO I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT.

IT'S A VERY UNCOMMON NONCONFORMING. IT'S A VERY UNCOMMON STRUCTURE ON A VERY LARGE LOT AND THE LOT IS NOT OVERBUILT AND HAS LOTS OF BUFFERING AND GREEN SPACE. I'M GOING TO PAUSE THERE. THE NEXT TWO SLIDES ARE SUPPORT LETTERS THAT YOU MAY ALREADY HAVE.

BUT THESE ARE NEIGHBORS CLOSE ENOUGH TO BE LETTERED.

SOME ARE VERY RIGHT AROUND RIGHT THERE A BLOCK AWAY AND COULD NOT MAKE THE MEETING, BUT THEY'RE IN SUPPORT AND WITH THAT, I'LL PAUSE AND LET OTHER PEOPLE TALK AND STAND BY FOR RECALL.

THANK YOU. OKAY. WE'LL OPEN UP PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS TIME.

DONNA. RICK. CRAVEN.

MAYOR, COUNCIL AND OFFICIALS HERE FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

I SPOKE A LITTLE BIT EARLIER, MAYBE OUT OF TURN, BUT I AM HERE TO SUPPORT THE THE PROPOSAL HERE TO ALLOW MR. TROFILMENKO TO BUILD THIS LOT OUT AS HE SEES FIT.

RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO HIM. I HAVE THE SAME SORT OF PROBLEM.

MY GARAGE IS PREDATES 1940 AND WAS BUILT RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE AS WELL.

SO I MEAN, I THINK IF YOU GO DOWN ANY SIDE OF THAT STREET, BEACH AVENUE IS VERY UNIQUE AND YOU'LL FIND THESE SITUATIONS.

IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I KNOW THE FAMILY VERY WELL, AND I THINK THEY WOULD BENEFIT FROM BEING ABLE TO IMPROVE THAT GARAGE.

I DON'T SEE IT IN ANY WAY AS A DETRIMENT TO THE COMMUNITY OR TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. CRAVEN. CHRIS THOMAS.

I'M CHRIS THOMAS. I'M A NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH, AND I'M HERE TO JUST VOICE MY SUPPORT.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO ASK HONORABLY, RESPECTFULLY, IF YOU APPROVE THIS VARIANCE.

THANK YOU, MR. THOMAS. ALAN WINTER. GOOD EVENING, MR. MAYOR. MR. CITY MANAGER, COUNCIL AND COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS ALAN WINTER. I HAVE LIVED SINCE 1996 ON THE CORNER OF OCEAN AND THIRD, SO I LIVE ABOUT 3 OR 4 HOUSES AWAY FROM THE TROFILMENKO'S. I WOULD ASK THIS BODY TO REQUEST TO GRANT THEIR REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE.

I THOUGHT THE PRESENTATION BY COUNCIL WAS EXCELLENT, AND IT CERTAINLY POINTS OUT A LOT OF THE PROBLEMS IN ATLANTIC BEACH.

SOME OF THE VERY OLD BUILDINGS THAT WE HAVE HERE THAT WE WANT TO KEEP THEM, WE WANT TO KEEP THE PROPERTY PIECES AND WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE DIFFERENT OR EXCUSE ME, WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE THE LOTS THAT LOOK ALL THE SAME.

THEY HAVE CHARACTER. THE TROFILMENKO'S, SINCE THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FROM JUDGE CARRITHERS WHO I KNEW WELL AND I WAS SORRY TO SEE HIM LEAVE, BUT THE TROFILMENKO'S ARE EXCELLENT NEIGHBORS.

THEY ARE WONDERFUL PEOPLE. EVERYTHING THEY HAVE DONE TO IMPROVE THAT HOUSE NOT ONLY HAS LOOKS LIKE IT HAS INCREASED ITS STRUCTURE AND CAPABILITIES, BUT ALSO BEAUTIFIED THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO I AM ASKING THE COMMISSION TO VOTE IN FAVOR AND TO GRANT THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. WINTER. IAN BROWN.

OKAY. THANK YOU. [INAUDIBLE] OH, THAT'S ALL FOR SPEAKERS, MR. MAYOR. OKAY. THEN I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENTS.

YES. DID YOU SIGN IN? I'M TEASING WITH YOU, ACTUALLY.

COME. MR. MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS AGAIN. I'M SORRY.

I WASN'T AREN'T GOING TO LIKE MY COMMENTS. I'M WELL VESTED IN ATLANTIC BEACH.

I'VE ONLY LIVED HERE SINCE 1972. I RIDE MY BIKE IN MY RETIREMENT YEARS, UP AND DOWN BEECH AVENUE NEARLY DAILY.

[02:05:07]

MANY OF THOSE ARE OCEANFRONT HOUSES, AND IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THAT COUNTS AS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF PROPERTY LINE IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE ON THE OCEAN SIDE, ON THOSE PROPERTIES ON THE EAST SIDE OF BEACH AVENUE.

MANY OF THOSE OTHER ONES ON THE WEST SIDE OF BEACH AVENUE ARE FULL RESIDENCES, NOT JUST A GARAGE APARTMENT.

NOW, THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS, BY MY ESTIMATION, THE LARGEST OVERALL PROPERTY FROM AHERN TO FIRST, ALL THE WAY UP TO SEVENTH STREET IN THAT OLD, ATLANTIC BEACH AREA.

THEY'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE KNOWN SINCE 2003 WHEN THEY REBUILT THAT REALLY LARGE HOUSE ON THREE LOTS AND TRIED TO KEEP THAT GARAGE APARTMENT RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE, THAT WAS EVENTUALLY GOING TO BE AN ISSUE AND NOW IT'S AN ISSUE ALREADY.

THERE'S TWO OTHER NEW BUILDS UP AND DOWN BEACH AVENUE.

ONE IS THE VERY FIRST HOUSE NEXT TO THE LIFEGUARD STATION, FIREHOUSE SUBS GUY.

I CAN'T REMEMBER HIS NAME. AND ANOTHER HOUSE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE 500 BLOCK OF BEACH AVENUE.

BOTH OF THOSE HOUSES, AS THEY BUILT THEIR GARAGE APARTMENTS.

20 FOOT SETBACKS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE REGULATION IS.

THAT'S WHAT EVERYBODY SHOULD BE ABIDING BY. NOW, SURE THAT THIS IS NOT A REBUILD.

IT'S A BIG MODIFICATION. BUT NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN THAT MODIFICATION IS RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE.

THEY CAN ONLY PARK THEIR CARS IN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY.

THEY CAN'T PARK THE CARS UNLESS THEY PUT THEM FULLY INTO THE GARAGES OFF THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY.

SO ONCE AGAIN, YOU KNOW, IT'S A NON-CONFORMING PROPERTY THAT'S ALREADY HAD A PREVIOUS VARIANCE AND IT'S ON THESE MERGED LOTS AND ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS MY OPPORTUNITY IN FRONT OF AMANDA ASKEW TO SAY, YOU KNOW, CHAPTER 24-84 ABOUT THE MERGE.

LOT OF THINGS NEEDS TO BE AXED SO THAT WE CAN DIVIDE.

MERGE LOTS DOESN'T AFFECT THESE GUYS, BUT IT WILL AFFECT OTHER ONES IN THE FUTURE, PARTICULARLY THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM ME.

WHEN MY NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE STREET DECIDE TO SELL THEIR TWO MERGED LOTS, AND ALL OF SUDDEN I'M GOING TO HAVE A MONSTER HOME RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE THAT I'VE BEEN IN FOR 52.5 YEARS. SO I CERTAINLY HOPE THAT YOU'LL SEE TO VOTE NO ON ALL THIS.

I REALLY LIKE THE CDB, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, MADE UP OF CITIZENS LIKE THOSE OF US AROUND HERE THAT AREN'T ELECTED.

WELL, THEY ARE ELECTED. THEY'RE ELECTED BY YOU 5 AND THEY HAVE REALLY HARD TASKS TO DO BY TELLING PEOPLE NO AT TIMES AND THEY'VE HAD TO TELL THESE PEOPLE NO BACK IN NOVEMBER. SO. THAT I MENTIONED THAT WAS THE LARGEST PROPERTY BETWEEN AHERN AND SEVENTH STREET.

YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY THEY COULD ABIDE BY OUR EXISTING REGULATIONS.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, MR. HARRELL.

OKAY. I THINK THAT'S IT FOR ANOTHER. YES, SIR.

COME ON UP. DID YOU ALREADY SWEAR IN. THEN YOU WILL NEED TO DO THAT.

BY THE WAY. PARDON? THE GENTLEMAN WHO SPOKE BEFORE ME WASN'T SWORN IN EITHER.

OKAY. ARE YOU. I'M READY TO SWEAR IN. YEAH. HOLD ON.

ARE YOU THE APPLICANT? YES I AM. YES. OKAY. LET'S GO AHEAD AND SWEAR HIM IN.

[INAUDIBLE]. YES. PLEASE GO AHEAD. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR LETTING US PRESENT TONIGHT. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT IT WOULD MATTER A LOT TO I THINK ATLANTIC BEACH IN GENERAL TO IMPROVE THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS HERE. WHEN WE MOVED HERE WE MOVED WITH THE EXPECTATION OF REMODELING DONE THE EASY WAY. WE VERY QUICKLY DISCOVERED THAT COMPARED TO OTHER TOWNS IN THE AREA, ATLANTIC BEACH HAS A REPUTATION AND THAT REPUTATION, UNFORTUNATELY, IS NOT IN THE FAVOR OF ATLANTIC BEACH.

THE REPUTATION IS THIS IS THE HARDEST PLACE TO GET A PERMIT.

WE ARE WORKING ON GETTING THIS PERMIT FOR A LONG TIME AND ALL THIS BECAUSE WE DO HAVE AGING FAMILY MEMBERS.

THEY 86 YEARS OLD AND MY FATHER IN LAW, HE'S SITTING RIGHT THERE AND THERE AND MY MOTHER IN LAW.

SHE IS DISABLED. SHE COULDN'T WHEELED HER IN TONIGHT AND ALL WE WANT TO DO IS REALLY.

YOU SAW THE INTERIOR OF OUR HOUSE THERE. IT'S SLOPING CEILINGS.

THEY NEED TO. WELL, THEY DESERVE A BETTER LIFE.

[02:10:02]

WHEN WE BOUGHT THIS HOUSE, IT WAS, WHAT, EIGHT YEARS AGO NOW? IT WAS MARKETED TO US AS THE FOUR BEDROOM HOUSE, WITH THIS BEDROOM BEING ONE OF THEM.

WE'RE PAYING TAXES ON THAT BEDROOM. THAT'S WHY THERE IS THIS BATHROOM THERE, THE PLUMBING, ELECTRICITY, WATER HEATER AND SO ON AND THEN WHEN WE APPLIED TO GET THE PERMIT TO MAKE IT NOT SQUALOR BUT LIVABLE CONDITIONS, WE DID AND THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE JUST AN AUTOMATIC PROCESS.

YOU JUST APPLY AND RECEIVE THE PERMIT BECAUSE IT'S A NO BRAINER.

WE'RE NOT EXPANDING ANYTHING. WE'RE JUST CHANGING THE ROOF STRUCTURE FROM THIS TO STRAIGHT LIKE THIS.

AND THEN WE HIT THE WALL. AND SO NOW, THEN I HAD TO GO THROUGH ALL THE PROCESS AND GATHERING ALL THE DOCUMENTS, ASKING THE NEIGHBORS. AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR FOR COMING UP HERE BECAUSE ALL THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY IS LIKE STUNNED.

IT'S, TO ME, IT WAS A NO BRAINER AND THEN SUDDENLY WE HIT THE BLOCK.

I DON'T WANT TO DISPARAGE ANYBODY BUT OBJECTING ON THE BASIS THAT SOMEBODY ELSE IN THE FUTURE MIGHT BUILD A HOUSE NEXT DOOR TO ME AND THAT'S WHY I WOULD BE AGAINST IMPROVING CONDITIONS OF THESE PEOPLE.

I DON'T THINK IT'S A VALID REASON. WE DO BELIEVE THAT AT LEAST THREE OF THOSE REASONS ARE VERY VALID REASONS.

NUMBER TWO, THREE, FOUR AND FIVE. YOU CAN PICK ALL OF THEM.

YOU CAN PICK ONE OF THEM. DOESN'T MATTER. BUT WE BEG YOU TO APPROVE THIS, BECAUSE WE DO WANT TO IMPROVE THIS PROCESS AND NOT PART WITH OUR FAMILY, NOT PUT THEM INTO RETIREMENT COMMUNITY. WE DO WANT TO THEM TO LIVE WITH US.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU SIR. OKAY, I THINK WE ARE COMPLETE ON PUBLIC COMMENTS, RIGHT. CLOSING COMMENTS AND REBUTTALS. SO AMANDA, PLEASE.

ALL RIGHT. SO AMANDA ASKEW, THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF GO BACK TO WHAT MR. BROWN SAID. HE GAVE SOME GREAT EXAMPLES. AND WE DO HAVE A LOT OF PROPERTIES THAT ARE NON-CONFORMING.

THEY'RE JUST EXISTING CONDITIONS. I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY THAT THE CODE DOES ALLOW THOSE TO BE MAINTAINED, BUT A LOT OF THOSE EXAMPLES HE SHOWED ARE DETACHED GARAGE APARTMENTS.

SO DETACHED GARAGE APARTMENTS FALL UNDER ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND SO THEY HAVE DIFFERENT SETBACKS.

THIS PARTICULAR GARAGE IS ATTACHED TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.

THEREFORE IT HAS THE REQUIREMENT OF A 20 FOOT SETBACK.

I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. ALL RIGHT. SO COMMISSIONER RING, WITH THAT IN MIND, IF HE THERE'S A BREEZEWAY OF SOME SORT, I THOUGHT I SAW. WHAT IF HE JUST TAKES DOWN THAT BREEZEWAY? CAN HE NOW HAVE IT? NO, HE STILL WOULD NOT MEET THE SETBACK FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WHICH WOULD BE TEN FEET.

OKAY. I WAS JUST WONDERING BECAUSE YOU JUST SAID DETACHED GARAGE APARTMENTS DO ALLOW FOR IT.

OKAY, SO THE MAJORITY OF HIS PICTURES, THEN, PROBABLY THE STARS THAT HE HAD ON THAT MAP ARE DETACHED GARAGE. I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE. I DON'T WANT TO ANSWER DISHONESTLY, BUT THERE ARE A LOT THAT ARE NONCONFORMING EXISTING THAT DON'T EVEN MEET THE TEN FOOT SETBACK. BUT THERE ARE MULTIPLE INSTANCES WHERE THEY MEET THE TEN FOOT SETBACK AND AND ARE DETACHED.

SO I THINK THAT'S HIS THIRD CRITERIA. HE FEELS THAT HE MEETS THE THIRD CRITERIA.

SO YOU WOULD SAY HE DOES NOT. I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

SO I HAVE A [INAUDIBLE]. YOU WANT TO GO FIRST? YEAH, IF I MAY. YES. I'LL FORGET IT IF I DON'T GET 'EM OUT.

SO WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS IN 2003, THE HOUSE WAS BUILT.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE WAS DEMOLISHED AND REBUILT? RIGHT AND SO THIS WAS GRANTED. THE PROPERTY WAS GRANTED A VARIANCE TO RETAIN THIS AS A NONCONFORMING USE.

BUT THE STATEMENT WAS MADE THAT IT COULD NOT BE EXPANDED FOR A SECOND STORY DWELLING.

CORRECT. SO IN IN 2003, THERE WAS A VARIANCE GRANTED.

THEY ALSO ADDED ON TO THE NORTH SIDE OF THE EXISTING GARAGE.

SO IT TURNED FROM LIKE A TWO CAR GARAGE TO A THREE CAR GARAGE.

SO THAT WAS DONE AND DID THAT EXPAND THE SUBPAR LIVING SPACE ABOVE, OR WE STILL HAVE THE SAME LIVING SPACE ABOVE.

I BELIEVE THAT'S WHEN THE DORMERS WERE ADDED IN 2003 WHEN THEY WENT THROUGH THAT.

SO VARIANCE PROCESS. SO ARE WE CLEAR THAT THIS IS ALWAYS OR AT LEAST AS FAR BACK AS ANYBODY KNOWS ON RECORD THAT IT ALWAYS HAD AN APARTMENT OR BEDROOM AND BATHROOM UPSTAIRS? OR COULD IT HAVE BEEN, I BELIEVE THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION WAS STORAGE SPACE.

[02:15:07]

OKAY. SO I'M GETTING THAT COMMISSIONER. GO AHEAD.

YEAH. SO I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS AS WELL AND MAYBE IAN CAN TELL US THE TOP OF THE EAVE.

WHAT HEIGHT IS THAT RIGHT NOW? I DON'T HAVE THAT MEASUREMENT.

IAN, DO YOU KNOW THAT? THE HEIGHT OF IT. NOW, WHAT'S THE TALLEST PIECE OF THAT STRUCTURE TODAY? [INAUDIBLE]. OUTSIDE. THE OUTSIDE? I MEAN, IS IT AT 25? BELOW RIGHT BELOW 25 AND 65. OKAY. BUT IT'S CURRENTLY, YOU KNOW, UNDER 25 IS WHAT YOU'RE.

OKAY. BY FOOT OR SO. OKAY. THE IT WAS MENTIONED ABOUT, I THINK BRINKLEY BROUGHT IT UP ABOUT BEACHSIDE PROPERTIES VERSUS THOSE ACROSS THE STREET.

IS THERE WHY SHOULD WE BE CONSIDERING THAT TO BE.

SO IS THERE SOME CONSIDERATION FOR THE BEACH PROPERTIES OF THE CODE THAT DEALS WITH ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.

SO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. ON THROUGH LOTS AND PARTICULARLY ON BEACH AVENUE CAN GO IN FRONT OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE.

SO ON THE OCEAN FRONT SIDE, THE OCEAN SIDE IS THE FRONT YARD AND THE BEACH AVENUE SIDE FOR THOSE OCEAN FRONT LOTS BECOMES THE REAR YARD.

SO THAT ALLOWS YOU TO HAVE THAT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN THE REAR YARD, WHICH IS BEACH AVENUE SIDE WITHIN TEN FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE.

I SEE. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND I GOT A COUPLE MORE, IF YOU DON'T MIND.

DO WE KNOW? I MEAN, IT WAS MENTIONED THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THIS LIVING SPACE, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, NOT SO YOU CAN REASONABLE. IS IT? ARE THEY. I MEAN, DO WE THINK THAT'S BEING TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION FOR THEIR, YOU KNOW, THE VALUE OF THEIR HOME AND PAYING TAXES ON.

IS THAT REASONABLE TO BELIEVE OR IS THAT UNDER THE CODE.

THAT'S NOT A CRITERIA THAT YOU WOULD USE TO. OH, I KNOW, I'M JUST CURIOUS.

THERE ARE REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY YOU CAN ADD ON TO THE PROPERTY IN DIFFERENT AREAS TO MEET CODE.

SO THERE IS REASONABLE USE ELSEWHERE ON THE PROPERTY AND DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA ABOUT THE PREMISE FOR ATTACHED, YOU KNOW, THIS BREEZEWAY VERSUS NOT HAVING. WHAT'S THE PREMISE OF CONSIDERING GARAGE APARTMENTS LIKE THAT DIFFERENTLY BECAUSE OF THOSE TWO CONDITIONS? SO WHEN YOU ATTACH ROOFLINE TO ROOFLINE, YOU'RE TAKING THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND NOW ATTACHING IT TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE SO IT BECOMES THE ENTIRE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. SO IF YOU TOOK THE BREEZEWAY DOWN, IT WOULD THEN BE CONSIDERED A DETACHED GARAGE AND THEY WOULD STILL NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE BECAUSE YOU WOULD NEED A TEN FOOT SETBACK. SO EITHER WAY, IT'S STILL NOT CONFORMING WHETHER IT'S ATTACHED OR DETACHED.

I UNDERSTAND THAT PIECE OF IT AND MAYBE YOU DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER, BUT LIKE WHAT? WHAT IMPACT TO THE PROPERTY DOES THAT TRULY HAVE? AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A COVERAGE ISSUE OR IT'S NOT RELATED TO LOT COVERAGE.

IT'S SETBACKS. SO YOUR SETBACK FROM THAT PROPERTY LINE, IF IT'S ATTACHED TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE IS 20FT.

SO YOU'RE BASICALLY IF YOU'RE ADDING RIGHT ON TOP.

SO THE DORMERS ARE SET IN NOW. SO THE VERTICAL NONCONFORMITY FOR THOSE DORMERS ARE NOT AS INTENSIVE.

IF YOU TAKE THAT OFF AND YOU GO IN THE ENTIRE FOOTPRINT OF THE DETACHED GARAGE, THEN YOU'RE CONTINUING THAT VERTICAL NONCONFORMITY CLOSER TO THE STREET. WHEREAS RIGHT NOW YOU JUST HAVE 1 OR 2 DORMERS AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE THE DRAWINGS, THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS ON PAGE 56, YOU ARE CONTINUING THE ENTIRE FOOTPRINT VERTICAL.

SO IT'S. OKAY. THANK YOU. YES, COMMISSIONER. I GOT A QUESTION FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY, AND I THINK YOU ANSWERED THIS IN AT A PREVIOUS HEARING.

CAN I ASK AMANDA WHAT THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OBJECTIONS WERE FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD HAVING NOT SEEN THE VIDEO? CAN SHE COMMENT ON THAT? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. I MEAN, IT'S A DE NOVO REVIEW THAT YOU HAVE HERE, WHICH MEANS THE RECORD IS OPEN TO CONSIDER. SO, AMANDA.

YES. SO IT'S ACTUALLY COVERED IN THE MINUTES IN YOUR AGENDA PACKET AND SPECIFICALLY IT'S ON PAGE 85. THE MOTION WAS TO DENY THE ZBA R24-0015 DUE TO THE REQUEST, NOT MEETING ANY OF THE GROUNDS FOR APPROVAL.

[02:20:01]

CORRECT. BUT SHE COMMENTED ON ANY OF THE DISCUSSIONS THAT THEY HAD.

JUST TAKE IT AS THAT SHE WOULD BE PARAPHRASING BECAUSE SHE DOESN'T HAVE A TRANSCRIPT.

BUT YOU COULD ASK THE GENERAL CONSENSUS. PERHAPS IT WAS A52 VOTE, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND.

OKAY. THANKS. RIGHT. I'M STILL. HOLD ON. I GOTTA TALK TO YOU BECAUSE I'M STILL UNCLEAR.

SO WE KNEW AS A CITY IN 2003 THAT THERE WAS LIVING SPACE, AND YET WE CONDITIONED THAT IT NOT BE USED AS AN APARTMENT. I THINK SO IN 2003, THEY WERE GRANTED THAT VARIANCE TO ADD ON TO THE FIRST FLOOR ON THE NORTH SIDE, WITH THE CONDITION THAT THERE'S NO APARTMENT ADDED.

SO THERE WAS SPACE ABOVE AS THE DORMER THAT YOU COULD SEE IN THE PICTURE, BUT THEY CONDITIONED THAT SPACE THAT YOU COULD NOT CONVERT IT INTO A GARAGE APARTMENT.

OKAY, SO MAYBE I'M JUST MISSING SOMETHING HERE.

IT WAS ALREADY A BEDROOM WITH A BATHROOM. OFTENTIMES ON FLOOR PLANS WE SEE SPACE.

SOMETIMES IT'S CALLED OUT, SOMETIMES IT'S. SO MAYBE THE CITY DIDN'T EVEN REALLY LOOK AT IT BECAUSE IT WAS EXISTING AND THEY WERE DEALING WITH THE PLANS FOR THE NEW ADDITION, THE NEW HOME, AND NOT I WOULD THINK THAT WE WON'T HOLD YOU ON THIS BECAUSE YOU WEREN'T HERE DOING THAT.

I WOULD THINK IF THEY PUT THAT SPECIFIC CONDITION ON THERE, THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT IT BEING CONVERTED TO A GARAGE APARTMENT.

I THINK THIS MAY BE MY LAST QUESTION. I DID NOT SEE A STAIRWELL ON THE EXISTING BUILDING, BUT I SAW A STAIRWELL ON THE CONVERSION TO THE OF THE SECOND FLOOR ON THE SOUTH SIDE, IS THAT CORRECT? SO THE STAIRWELL IS NOT CONSIDERED A CHANGE TO FOOTPRINT? NO. IT LOOKS LIKE THE STAIRWELL WOULD BE INTERIOR TO THE GARAGE.

OH, IT WAS INSIDE. I BELIEVE IT IS. IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS.

CAN THAT BE ANSWERED? IT'S INSIDE. SO THERE TRULY IS NO CHANGE TO THE FOOTPRINT AND EFFECTIVELY NO CHANGE TO THE ROOF AREA. IT JUST GOES UP IT THE HAT GOES UP.

IT'S NOT EXPANDING OUT. SO IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE 68 OF 85, YOU'LL SEE THE FLOOR PLAN.

SO WE'RE ON PAGE 68 OF 85 OF YOUR AGENDA PACKET.

ALL RIGHT. HANG ON ONE SECOND. I CAN PULL IT.

I DON'T THINK IT'S ON THE PRESENTATIONS. SO YOU CAN SEE THERE IS A VERY SMALL FOOTPRINT ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE DORMER AND THEN THE PROPOSED ADDITION WOULD BE BASICALLY DOUBLING THE SIZE OF THE GARAGE. I CALL IT POPPING THE TOP WHEN YOU POP THE TOP OF THE ROOF, AND THEN YOU JUST GO UP. YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

COMMISSIONERS. OTHER QUESTIONS. SO WE'RE AT THEY'RE AT NOT ASKING FOR A VARIANCE.

THEY'RE ASKING FOR TWO. TWO. CORRECT. IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THEY'RE THE PREVIOUS VARIANCE SAID NO.

GARAGE APARTMENT. CORRECT AND JUST BECAUSE ALL THE NEIGHBORS HAVE ONE, WE ARE NOT LEMMINGS, SO WE DON'T CARE. I WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU ENCOURAGE YOU TO USE THE CRITERIA SET FORTH IN 24-65 TO MAKE YOUR DECISION.

AMANDA'S LAWYER TOLD HER TO SAY THAT. ALL RIGHT.

DO WE HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS? YES, SIR. COME BACK.

THANK YOU. IAN BROWN, APPLICANT FOR THE OWNER.

THE OWNERS. ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT SIGNIFICANT TO THE PROJECT, THEY'D BE OPEN TO A CONDITION TO ELIMINATE THE BREEZEWAY.

IT DOES MAKE THE REQUEST GO FROM A 20 FOOT SETBACK TO A TEN.

WE'RE NOT COMPLIANT WITH THAT BECAUSE OF THE AGE OF THE STRUCTURE, BUT IT'S LESS SEVERE AND SO I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE.

THE OTHER COMMENTS, THESE OWNERS DID NOT HAVE THE PROPERTY IN 2003.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE RATIONALE WAS 22 YEARS AGO.

DIFFERENT OWNERS, PROBABLY DIFFERENT PUBLIC POLICY AS WELL.

PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT LESS ENTHUSIASM FOR THE ASIAN PLACE.

MULTI-GENERATIONAL HOUSING ARGUMENT. SO I DO THINK THIS LOT IS LARGE ENOUGH TO EASILY SUPPORT IT.

THERE'S NO HEIGHT AND THERE'S NO SITE COVERAGE ISSUE TO MR. BROWN. ARE YOU SAYING THAT IF THERE WAS CONSIDERATION TO GRANT THE VARIANCES THAT THERE WOULD BE THERE COULD BE CONSIDERATION FOR ELIMINATION OF THE BREEZEWAY? THE OWNERS, WE JUST SIDEBAR THEY WOULD BE IN AGREEMENT TO A CONDITION SHOULD YOU SEE FIT TO ELIMINATE THE BREEZEWAY.

IT'S KIND OF A PERGOLA WITH A ROOF, BUT IT COULD BE AGREED CONDITION TO ELIMINATE.

WHEN DID THEY TAKE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY? 2018.

OKAY. LONG AFTER AND THERE'S NOT A LOT OF TEXTURE ON THE 03 DECISION.

WE'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH BOARDS. I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY CAME TO THAT CONCLUSION, HONESTLY.

[02:25:06]

I MOTION WE APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE.

I GIVE THEM INCLUSIVE OF BOTH REQUESTS AND INCLUSIVE OF BOTH VARIANCE.

REQUEST TO APPROVE. WE HAVE A SECOND.

WE'RE GOING TO. THEN I'LL ENTERTAIN A DIFFERENT MOTION.

I MOVE, WE DENY THE REQUEST FOR THE BOTH VARIANCES.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND YOU. NOW WE'LL HAVE DISCUSSION ON THAT.

I'M GOING TO JUST START BY SAYING I REALLY HAVE A HARD TIME HERE.

I CAME HERE THINKING I KNEW WHAT I KNEW AND THAT I KNEW WHERE I STOOD AND I NOW DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T AGREE WITH WHAT I THOUGHT. THIS IS A VERY UNIQUE SITUATION.

I HAVE BUILT TWO HOMES ON BEACH AVENUE. I LIVE IN ONE.

THAT. YOU DIDN'T SHOW THE PICTURE OF MY HOUSE. THANK YOU, BUT I'M IN YOUR SUBSET.

IT I WOULD I ASK THE QUESTION MR. BROWN, WHETHER OR NOT THE APPLICANT WOULD BE WILLING TO ELIMINATE THE BREEZEWAY JUST TO SEE WHERE EVERYONE'S HEAD IS AT.

BUT I WOULD BE VERY. I WOULD BE VERY WRONG TO ASK FOR ELIMINATION OF THE BREEZEWAY JUST TO GET THE APPROVAL.

IT REALLY SHOULDN'T MATTER. OKAY. AND IT IS A VERY TOUGH DECISION.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS COMMISSION IS GOING TO FINALLY VOTE.

AND SO WHICHEVER WAY FOR THE APPLICANT, JUST KNOW THAT I UNDERSTAND YOUR DIFFICULTY IN THIS SITUATION, BUT THIS IS I'M SITTING HERE LISTENING TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WITH NO OBJECTION.

I'M LOOKING AT A PROPERTY THAT IS 0.44 OF AN ACRE.

IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, IT IS NOT OVERBUILT FOR THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY.

WE'RE NOT ADDING ADDITIONAL STORM WATER ISSUES BECAUSE WE'RE NOT INCREASING THE FOOTPRINT.

WE HAVE LOTS OF GREEN SPACE, AND IT'S JUST UNFORTUNATE THAT IT DOESN'T CONFORM TO OUR CODE.

SO I HAVE A HARD TIME ON THIS ONE. GUYS. COMMISSIONER.

MY STRUGGLE HERE IS AND I KNOW THE CITY MANAGER'S GOT THIS GRAPHIC.

THEY'VE GOT A GRAPHIC THAT SHOWS THE LASER VIEW LOOKING DOWN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY ALL ALONG BEACH IT VIOLATES THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY. I MEAN, YEAH, PLANNERS, STRUCTURES, DRIVEWAYS.

I'M STRUGGLING WITH WHAT WAS AND WHAT IS, AND LOOKING AT THE SIX DIFFERENT CATEGORIES.

THE ONLY ONE THAT I CAN PARTIALLY SUPPORT IS NUMBER THREE, AND PARTIALLY IT'S BECAUSE OF THE STRUCTURES WE CURRENTLY HAVE.

YOU KNOW, IT'S ALMOST LIKE GOING BACK IN TIME.

IN OTHER WORDS, I GUESS I'M NOT ARTICULATING THIS VERY WELL, BUT I UNDERSTAND WHERE THEY'RE COMING FROM.

ON THE OTHER HAND WE'VE GOT A CODE THAT OUR CITIZENS TOOK A LOOK AT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, DO A GREAT JOB, AND DID AN ANALYSIS AND SAID IT DID NOT MEET ANY OF THE SIX CRITERIA.

SO I'M TORN BETWEEN THOSE TWO REALLY WELL. AND ONE SECOND AND I HEAR YOU, I'M WITH YOU ON THAT.

EXCEPT THAT APPARENTLY TWO OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CDB DID VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

SO AND WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAID. YES.

COMMISSIONER. I'M WITH COMMISSIONER BOLE ON THIS ONE.

REGARDING THE FACT THAT IT IS ALREADY BEING UTILIZED AS AN APARTMENT.

FOR YOUR, YOU KNOW, ELDERLY OR FAMILY MEMBER, DOES IT MATTER? BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE CLEARLY IT'S BEEN RENOVATED FOR THAT.

HOWEVER, IT'S NON-CONFORMING. WE HAVE A CODE.

WE HAVE TO ABIDE BY OUR CODE. WE'RE NOT BEING ASKED TO CHANGE THE CODE TONIGHT.

THAT WAS LAST FALL WHERE WE SPENT A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME LOOKING AT THAT.

BUT THAT'S NOT TONIGHT. WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US ARE SIX CRITERIA, AND I'M JUST NOT SEEING IT BEING MET, UNFORTUNATELY. COMMISSIONER. YEP. SO I'M NEW TO THIS COMMISSION.

YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS I RAN ON WAS, YOU KNOW, COMMON SENSE GOVERNMENT.

[02:30:01]

NUMBER THREE IT'S VERY COMPARABLE TO ALL THE OTHER STRUCTURES ON BEACH AVE.

I DON'T THINK WE ARE GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, OPENING UP A CAN OF WORMS OR PANDORA'S BOX BY APPROVING THIS.

I THINK ALSO TOO, I THINK YOU KNOW IT WHILE IT IS ONE OF THE BIGGER PROPERTIES IN ATLANTIC BEACH IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'VE BEEN GOOD STEWARDS OF THAT PROPERTY.

IT SEEMS TO ME ONE OF THE GREENEST PROPERTIES IN ATLANTIC BEACH.

WHEN THEY PROBABLY COULD HAVE BUILT MORE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LOT COVERAGE IS.

AMANDA, DO YOU HAVE THAT? NO. THERE THAT PROPERTY IS AT 45.

OKAY. NO. OH, IT IS IN THE NOTES. OKAY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER.

SO I THINK THAT THIS IS A REASONABLE REQUEST.

IT'S ALREADY BEING USED AS AN APARTMENT. WE'RE JUST, YOU KNOW, I'M IN FAVOR OF IT.

OTHER COMMENTS. OKAY. DONNA, ARE YOU READY FOR A ROLL CALL? YES, SIR. MOTION IS TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR BOTH VARIANCES. DO WE NEED TO ELABORATE ON THAT? THERE'S A QUESTION WE NEED TO. WHAT YOU ELABORATE ON? ELABORATE ON IT. YOU ARE CURRENTLY ON THE DENIAL.

WE'VE GOT ONE MOTION. NO, NO, IT'S FOR BOTH. YEAH, I THINK EITHER ALL OR NOTHING.

OKAY. YEAH. COMMISSIONER. KELLY NAY. ALL RIGHT.

I SUPPORT THE MOTION FOR A SECOND. OH. THE MOTION? YEAH. GOOD. GOOD. I KNOW IT'S BACKWARDS. OKAY.

CALL]. THE MOTION CARRIES. WHICH IS TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE AND OR VARIANT.

THE DOUBLE VARIANCES. THANK YOU ALL. THAT WAS QUITE A BIT OF GREAT INPUT.

AND THANK YOU TO THE RESIDENTS FOR YOUR INPUT AS WELL.

OKAY. WE'LL CONCLUDE WITH ITEM 11, CITY ATTORNEY.

[11. CITY ATTORNEY/CITY CLERK REPORTS AND/OR REQUESTS]

OUR NOTICES FOR THESE HEARINGS, COMMISSION MEETINGS, ETC.

ARE NO LONGER BEING PRODUCED IN THE BEACHES LEADER BECAUSE BEACH LEADER, WE'RE NOT EVEN SURE IF THEY EXIST.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY DON'T EVEN TAKE PHONE CALLS ANYMORE. BUT I UNDERSTAND THEY'RE DIGITAL NOW. SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MOVE TO ANOTHER MEANS OF NOTICE.

FOR THE TIME BEING, WE'RE GOING TO BE NOTICING OUR MEETINGS AND HEARINGS AND ETCETERA IN THE DAILY RECORD.

BUT WE ARE LOOKING INTO WHETHER THERE'S A PROVISION IN THE STATE STATUTE THAT ALLOWS FOR NOTICES IN THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT WEBSITE, WHICH IN THIS CASE WOULD BE THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, BECAUSE OF OUR CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT. BUT IT HAS TO MEET CERTAIN CRITERIA IN THE STATUTE. SO WE'RE LOOKING INTO WHETHER THAT'S FEASIBLE AND WHETHER THE CITY CAN ACCOMMODATE IT OR NOT.

THAT WOULD BE AN EVEN LESS EXPENSIVE MEANS OF PUBLICATION.

BUT ANYWAY, WE'RE LOOKING INTO THAT AND WE'LL CERTAINLY LET YOU KNOW GOING FORWARD WHAT THE PLAN IS AND THEN ALSO, I BELIEVE FROM MY UNDERSTANDING WE'RE WORKING ON A WEBSITE LINK, HOPEFULLY SOMETHING THAT'S STREAMLINED, CLEAN AND, YOU KNOW, EASILY ACCESSIBLE FOR NOTICES AS WELL FOR THE HEARINGS AT LEAST AND WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO COMBINE THE HEARING NOTICES FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MEETINGS AND CITY COMMISSION MEETINGS IN ONE PLACE.

SO WE'RE WORKING ON THAT AS WELL. BUT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THANK YOU. SIR. DONNA, ANY COMMENTS? THAT'S ALL.

THANK YOU. OKAY, COMMISSIONERS. COMMISSIONER BOLE.

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

MY FAVORITE FESTIVALS IN APRIL, AND THEY'RE LOOKING FOR SPONSORS.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER GRANT. OKAY.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER. KELLY. I'M DONE. COMMISSIONER.

RING. JUST ONE FINAL THOUGHT. THE CLOSING OF RAGTIME IS THE END OF AN ERA.

[02:35:03]

IT ONCE WAS SILVER'S DRUGSTORE, I BELIEVE. OKAY, BUT IT WAS A DRUGSTORE.

THAT'S IT. OH, THEY ALSO HAD THE BEST BREAD PUDDING .

[INAUDIBLE]. ALL RIGHT. MR. KILLINGSWORTH. DID I SKIP ANY COMMISSIONERS? I GOT ALL THE COMMISSIONERS. MR. KELLY. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. SO LAST TIME WE HAD A DISCUSSION, I BELIEVE IT WAS LAST TIME ABOUT GETTING RID OF THE ELECTED OFFICIALS GROUP.

SO WE ARE WORKING TOWARDS THAT. I WANTED TO LET THE COMMISSION KNOW WE ARE GOING TO PROVIDE A ONLINE FORUM WHERE PEOPLE CAN SUBMIT, WHICH WOULD BE INTERNAL TO US. SO YEAH IT WOULD ELIMINATE SOME OF THE PROBLEMS. NOT ALL OF THEM, BUT IT WOULD PROVIDE A MECHANISM IN WHICH CITIZENS COULD DO AN ELECTED OFFICIAL'S EMAIL.

IT'S JUST THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO IT THROUGH OUR WEBSITE. THE OTHER THING WE'RE LOOKING AT IS BECAUSE YOU ARE MORE LIKELY NOW TO GET EMAILS IN WHICH A CITIZEN JUST SENT IT TO ALL OF YOU IN THE TWO LINE TO PREVENT YOU FROM INADVERTENTLY COMMENTING REPLY ALL TO EVERYBODY.

WE'RE LOOKING AT WHETHER OR NOT ON OUR EMAIL SERVER, IF THERE'S TWO OR MORE COMMISSIONERS IN THE TWO OR THE CC TO DISABLE THE REPLY ALL. SO THAT WOULD HELP PREVENT YOU FROM INADVERTENTLY VIOLATING THE SUNSHINE AND SO WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT, I WILL REPORT BACK. THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU AND I HAVE NO FINAL COMMENTS.

SO THIS MEETING IS ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.