>> WELCOME RESIDENTS NEIGHBORS AND GUESTS. [00:00:04] THANK YOU. DEPUTY WELCOME RESIDENTS NEIGHBORS AND GUESTS. [CALL TO ORDER ] THANK YOU FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DECIDED TO SPEND DATE NIGHT WITH YOUR SPOUSE RIGHT HERE AT OUR COMMISSION CHAMBERS. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED IN JUST A MINUTE. BUT BEFORE WE OPEN THIS MEETING, WE'LL BE LED IN INVOCATION AND PLEDGE BY COMMISSIONER KELLY. >> A LOT ABOUT WHAT TO SAY TONIGHT, I ENDED UP WITH THE PRAYER, ST. FRANCIS. LORD, MAKE ME AN INSTRUMENT OF YOUR PEACE, WHERE THERE IS HATRED, LET ME SO LOVE, WHERE THERE IS INJURY, PARDON, WHERE THERE IS DOUBT, FAITH, WHERE THERE IS DESPAIR, HOPE, WHERE THERE IS DARKNESS, LIGHT, AND WHERE THERE IS SADNESS, JOY. DIVINE MASTER, GRANT THAT I MAY NOT SEEK SO MUCH TO BE CONSOLED, AS TO, TO BE UNDERSTOOD, AS TO UNDERSTAND, TO BE LOVED, AS TO LOVE. FOR IT IS IN GIVING THAT WE RECEIVE. IT IS IN PARDONING THAT WE ARE PARDONED AND IT IS IN DYING THAT WE ARE BORN TO ETERNAL LIFE. AMEN. >> AMEN. >> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. THIS CITY COMMISSION MEETING DATED OCTOBER 13TH, 2025 OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH WILL NOW COME TO ORDER. DONALD, WOULD YOU DO A ROLL CALL, PLEASE? >> COMMISSIONER BOOL. >> PRESENT? >> COMMISSIONER GRANT. >> PRESENT. >> COMMISSIONER KELLY. >> PRESENT. >> COMMISSIONER RING. >> PRESENT. >> MAYOR FORT. >> PRESENT. >> THANK YOU, DONNA. BEFORE I START WITH THE AGENDA, WITH NO OBJECTION, I'M THINKING MOST OF THESE PEOPLE ARE HERE TO SPEAK ON STORM WATER TONIGHT. I SEE A SHOW OF HANDS, ANYBODY THAT'S INTERESTED. WITH NO OBJECTION FROM THE COMMISSIONERS, I'D LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD. OUR FIRST ITEM AFTER APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES WILL ACTUALLY BE WHAT IS NOW LABELED AS 9A, WHICH IS OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 90-20 5-257, PUBLIC HEARING AND FINAL READING. HEARING NO OBJECTION. THAT WILL BE OUR SECOND ITEM AFTER APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. ITEM 1A ON THE AGENDA, [1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES] APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR COMMISSION MEETING HELD ON SEPTEMBER 22ND, 2025. ARE THERE ANY CHANGES, CORRECTIONS, OR ADDITIONS? HEARING NONE, THE MINUTES STAND AS SUBMITTED. NOW WE'LL MOVE INTO ITEM 9A. WE'LL GET TO THAT. [9.A. ORDINANCE NO. 90-25-257, Public Hearing and Final Reading] THE PURPOSE OF THAT IS WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN. WE'LL START OFF WITH THAT ITEM. WE DO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. THOSE OF YOU WHO WANT TO SPEAK COURTESY OF THE FLOOR, WILL HAVE THAT AFTER THAT AT SOME POINT HERE. IF YOU'RE NOT SPEAKING ON THE STORM WATER, YOU'LL HOLD YOUR COMMENTS UNTIL WE GET TO THE COURTESY OF THE FLOOR. BUT FIRST ITEM WILL BE WHAT WAS LABELED IN OUR AGENDA 9A. BEFORE I READ THIS ORDINANCE, I AM GOING TO SHARE THAT I HAVE SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORDINANCE AS IT WAS APPROVED AT THE FIRST READING AT THE LAST COMMISSION MEETING THREE WEEKS AGO. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND READ THAT BECAUSE THIS IS SUCH A CRITICAL ISSUE. THERE'S TIME FOR EVERYBODY TO THINK ABOUT IT AND ACTUALLY COMMENT ON IT IF YOU SO CHOOSE DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT. BUT MY RECOMMENDATION, IF MOVED AND SECONDED BY ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS WOULD BE ON SITE STORAGE, DEVELOPMENT THAT RESULTS IN MORE THAN 35% IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ON SITE STORMWATER STORAGE FOR THE ENTIRE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA. PROJECTS THAT RESULT IN LESS THAN 400 SQUARE FEET OF ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM THIS REQUIREMENT, PROVIDED THAT THE TOTAL LOT COVERAGE REMAINS WITHIN THE APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT. THE 400 SQUARE FEET SHALL BE CALCULATED CUMULATIVELY FROM THE ADOPTION DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE. WE'LL GET INTO THE MEAT OF THIS AND UNPACK IT. ONCE WE GET INTO THE THE REVIEW OF THE MOTION AND POSSIBLY A MOTION TO AMEND. [00:05:01] BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT SINCE THE LAST MEETING, AT LEAST I AM AWARE AND I'M CONFIDENT THE COMMISSIONERS ARE AWARE THAT THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF AMENDING OUR STORMWATER ORDINANCE WITHOUT FIRST AMENDING OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THAT'S ITEM NUMBER 1. THERE'S ALSO AN POTENTIAL IMPACT TO OUR COSTS FOR FLOOD INSURANCE BASED ON THE RATING SYSTEM USED, AND I WAS UNAWARE, BUT I AM NOW MADE AWARE THAT JUST THIS YEAR, WE DID ACTUALLY FINALLY GET CREDIT FOR OUR STORMWATER PROGRAM IN THE RATING, AND IT TOOK US, I BELIEVE, 6-5 RATING. NOT THAT AT THIS POINT, I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT I KNOW HOW MUCH THAT IMPACTS AN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE HAVE SOME DISCOVERY. IF THIS ENDS UP BEING CONSIDERED TONIGHT, THIS WOULD ACTUALLY DELAY ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN STORMWATER CODE PENDING RECEIPT OF THE STUDY THAT IS YET TO BE COMMISSIONED BUT WILL BE DONE. WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO READ THE ORDINANCE. IT'S AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY THIS IS ORDINANCE NUMBER 90-20 5-257. IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING AND FINAL READING. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, COUNTY OF DUVAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING SECTION 24-89 STORMWATER DRAINAGE, STORAGE AND TREATMENT REQUIREMENT TO REDUCE THE REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL STORMWATER STORAGE, PROVIDING FOR RECREATION AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, MR. KILLINGSWORTH. >> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I'M GOING TO HAVE OUR DIRECTOR OF NEIGHBORHOOD COME UP AND PROVIDE A STAFF REPORT. >> HI, GOOD EVENING, AMANDA ASKEW, NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS SUBJECT FOR A LITTLE WHILE, BUT JUST AS A RECAP, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD IN 2024 WAS LOOKING AT OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. AT THE TIME, THEY LOOKED AT THE STORMWATER DRAINAGE AND STORAGE TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS. THERE WAS DISCUSSION AT THE TIME TO REMOVE THAT. FAST FORWARD TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY, THE CITY IS LOOKING AT POTENTIALLY SOME CHANGES TO THE STATER REGULATIONS. WE ARE ALSO LOOKING AT UPDATING OUR STORMWATER MASTER PLAN THIS FISCAL YEAR, WHICH WILL HELP GUIDE LONG TERM REVISION. HOWEVER, CITY COMMISSION HAS DIRECTED STAFF TO INITIATE A TEXT AMENDMENT, AND YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH AT THE LAST MEETING ON THE 22ND, COMMISSION VOTED 3-2 TO ELIMINATE ALL REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, AND THEY WERE DETAILED IN YOUR EXHIBIT. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE CHANGES ADOPTED AT THE SECOND ARE NOT ALIGNED WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SPECIFICALLY, THE INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT GOAL C2, OBJECTIVE C 2.1 POLICIES C2.11 AND C02.12. SHOULD THE COMMISSION WISH TO PROCEED WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE RESIDENTIAL STORMWATER STORAGE REQUIREMENTS, STAFF RECOMMENDS INITIATING AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY. I'M IN YOUR STAFF REPORT. WE DO GO THROUGH THE GOALS. AS A OVERALL SUMMARY, THE GOALS AND THE POLICIES BOIL DOWN TO IT SAYS THE CITY SHALL MAINTAIN PROVISIONS WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, WHICH REQUIRE DEVELOPMENT TO MINIMIZE STORMWATER RUNOFF AND ELIMINATE EROSION OF AREAS ADJACENT TO NATURAL DRAINAGE FEATURES. THE CITY SHALL MAINTAIN LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS THAT REQUIRE THE LAND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS TO SUBMIT PLANS, WHICH DEMONSTRATE DRAINAGE, DESIGN, AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S LEVEL OF SERVICE THAT ADDITIONAL STORMWATER GENERATED SHALL BE RETAINED ON SITE AND WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT EXISTING DRAINAGE AND STORMWATER SYSTEMS. I'LL ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE FOR STAFF? >> YES. COMMISSIONER. >> AMANDA, IF I UNDERSTAND, IF WE'RE NOT IN ALIGNED WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WE COULD OPEN THE CITY UP TWO LAWSUITS, IS THAT CORRECT? >> I WILL PROBABLY DEFER TO JASON, BUT THAT'S MY NON LEGAL TAKE ON THAT. YES. >> TO MAYBE REPHRASE IT. ANY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION CODE PROVISIONS THAT WE HAVE IN OUR CODE BOOK OR THAT WE CHANGE, ETC, HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE OVERRIDING COMP PLAN. >> IS THAT, COUNSELOR? >> OPENING IT UP TO LAWSUITS, OBVIOUSLY, I'D BE IN A POSITION TO HAVE TO DEFEND SUCH A THING, SO I WOULDN'T SAY THAT IT WOULD BE SUCCESSFUL OR NOT, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT CERTAINLY IS A POTENTIAL. IT WOULD BE A RISK TO THE CITY. >> COULD YOU SAY THAT, SIR. MAYOR. >> JASON, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, IF WE PASS SOMETHING THAT IS CONTRARY TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, [00:10:05] WE CAN PASS THAT ORDINANCE TONIGHT. EXCUSE ME, WITH A CONTINGENCY THAT WE REVISE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LANGUAGE, AND WE WOULD ONLY PASS SHOULD WE JOINTLY CHANGE THAT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LANGUAGE? >> THERE ARE TWO WAYS TO AGAIN, ASSUMING FOR A MOMENT THAT WHAT WERE PASSED TONIGHT WERE SOMETHING THAT WERE INCONSISTENT WITH THE COM PLAN. THE PREFERRED METHOD WOULD BE TO DEFER OR WITHDRAW THE CONFLICTING LDR UNTIL A TEXT AMENDMENT WAS PLACED THAT ACTUALLY HAD, THE CODE PROVISIONS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH. HOWEVER, YES, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YOU COULD PASS A CHANGE TO THE CODE TONIGHT THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. HOWEVER, THAT WOULD NOT BE IN ANY FORCE OR EFFECT AND NOT VALID UNTIL A FUTURE DATE WHEN THE COMP PLAN WERE CHANGED. HENCE, WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN IS THAT THE STATUS QUO WOULD BE IN EFFECT UNTIL THE COM PLAN WERE MADE TO MEET THE CODE. SPEAKER. >> COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE] >> BACK IN SPRING OF 2023, WE OPENED UP THE COMP PLAN, WHICH IS THE REASON WHY I BELIEVE WE'RE HERE TODAY. I'M LOOKING AT SOME OF THESE ORDINANCE CHANGING, MATCHING THE COMP PLAN WITH THE ORDINANCES AS SOME OF OUR COMP PLAN STATED BY OUR PLANNING DIRECTOR WAS OUT OF COMPLIANCE. WE HAD ORDINANCES THAT DIDN'T FIT OUR COMP PLAN, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, PERIODICALLY, WE DO UPDATE OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. TYPICALLY, THE STATE REQUIRES EVERY FIVE YEARS, BUT WE DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THESE SPECIFIC REGULATIONS, I DON'T BELIEVE ARE SPECIFIC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES WERE NOT SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGED IN THE LAST COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. >> I GUESS MY POINT IS THAT IT WOULDN'T BE THE FIRST TIME WE'VE HAD TO GO BACK AND MAKE SURE OUR COMP PLAN MATCHES OUR ORDINANCES. AS FAR AS PUTTING THAT BEFORE THE HORSE. CITY ATTORNEY, IS THAT CORRECT? HAVE WE DONE THAT? FOR EXAMPLE, THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE THAT ALLOWED HOMES TO BE BUILT TO CAPACITY ON THE FORMER PERVIOUS IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO. WE DID ASK THAT THAT BE CHANGED, AND THEN IS IT IN OUR COMP PLAN? >> NO, THAT PART IS NOT IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, JUST OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. >> I THINK TO SIMPLIFY IT, THE COMP PLAN IS MORE ABOUT BROAD BRUSH, SOME OF THE DETAIL, AND I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, THE COMP PLAN DOESN'T DISTINGUISH BETWEEN ON SITE STORMWATER BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. THAT'S A PROBLEM RIGHT THERE. IT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD DISCUSS CORRECTING IN THE FUTURE. BUT THE BOTTOM LINE I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER WHERE I WAS GOING WITH THAT, BUT THE COMP PLAN IS MORE BROAD BRUSH, AND IT DOESN'T ADDRESS EVERYTHING. AS AN EXAMPLE TO ELIMINATE ONSITE STORMWATER COMPLETELY WHEN THE COMP PLAN CLEARLY IDENTIFIES THAT WE DO THAT WITHOUT REGARD TO RESIDENTIAL VERSUS COMMERCIAL, IS PROBLEMATIC LEGALLY, BUT TO MAKE OTHER ADJUSTMENTS WITHIN THE STORMWATER CODE WITHOUT ELIMINATING ONSITE STORMWATER RETENTION WOULD NOT BE SO PROBLEMATIC. COUNSELOR, CAN YOU ADDRESS THAT, PLEASE? >> I THINK YOU START WITH THE PREMISE THAT THE COM PLAN SAYS WHAT IT SAYS, AND AS THE MAYOR HAS POINTED OUT, IT'S USUALLY IN MORE BROAD CONCEPTUAL TERMS. THEY HAVE THINGS IN THERE CALLED GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES, GOPS. THERE'S A MANDATE STATUTORILY THAT YOU HAVE TO UPDATE THESE EVERY FIVE YEARS AND SO FORTH. THAT'S THERE. THEN YOU HAVE THE CODE, WHICH ARE LIKE THE STATUTES THAT HAVE MORE DETAIL THAT ARE TYPICALLY WRITTEN IN IN CONSISTENCY WITH THE OVERRIDE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IN OTHER WORDS, BASICALLY, ANY CODE PROVISIONS YOU CHANGE HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CONFERENCE PLAN. HAVING SAID THAT, HAS IT HAPPENED IN THE PAST, CERTAINLY IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS I'VE DEALT WITH WHERE A CODE FORCES THE OVERRIDING COM PLAN TO HAVE TO CHANGE BECAUSE THE CODE IS WHAT'S AT HAND. YES, THAT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE. IT'S NOT AS COMMON, BUT IT CERTAINLY HAS HAPPENED BEFORE. TYPICALLY, WHAT'S DONE IS THAT'S ADDRESSED IN THE CODE, AND THEN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS FIXED AT A LATER DATE BECAUSE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS A TEXT AMENDMENT, IT HAS TO GO THROUGH A TWO READ PROCESS HAS TO BE SENT TO THE STATE BROUGHT BACK. IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A LONGER BUREAUCRATIC PROCESS. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, ANY CODE CHANGES WE MAKE HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COM PLAN, AND THE ELIMINATION OF THE STORMWATER RULE WOULD CERTAINLY [00:15:01] REQUIRE THE COM PLAN TO BE TEXT CHANGED, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. >> COMMISSIONER PAUL, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR AMANDA SPEAKING FOR THE STAFF. TAKING A PRAGMATIC VIEW HERE, WOULDN'T IT MAKE SENSE THAT ANYTHING WE DO HERE TONIGHT WOULD NOT BE IN EFFECT UNTIL AFTER THE STORMWATER STUDY, WHICH WE VOTED TO DO, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS AT A MINIMUM SIX MONTHS. A STORMWATER STUDY WON'T HAPPEN FOR A YEAR, MAYBE? WE COULD MAKE AN EFFECTIVE DATE POST THAT STORMWATER STUDY, WHERE WE COULD ACTUALLY ASK THE EXPERTS. SOMEONE SITTING IN THE ROOM TONIGHT WHAT EXACTLY IN THE RP AND SAY, WHAT EFFECT DOES THIS HAVE? I'M NOT AN EXPERT, BUT THERE'S ENGINEERS IN THIS ROOM THAT ARE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU AS A STAFF OR MR. KILENSOR? COULD YOU COMMENT ON THAT? >> AS STAFF, WE HAVE RECOMMENDED WAITING UNTIL WE UPDATE THE STORMWATER MASTER PLAN BEFORE WE CHANGE ANY OF THE REGULATIONS. >> BUT HOW ABOUT THE STORMWATER STUDY? >> WELL, YES, I'M SORRY, THE STORMWATER STUDY. >> THANK YOU. >> OTHER QUESTIONS? >> AMANDA, THE WAY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN READS WITH REGARDS TO ON-SITE STORMWATER RETENTION. TO ME, IT READS AS THE HOMEOWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL ADDITIONAL STORMWATER THAT RUNS OFF THEIR PROPERTY, DOES IT NOT? >> IT'S A LITTLE BIT BROAD BRUSH IN THAT IT SAYS THE CITY SHALL MAINTAIN LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THAT LEAVES IT UP TO THE LAND DEVELOPMENT. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS JUST SAYING THAT OVERALL, WE SHOULD HAVE A STORMWATER PLAN AND REGULATE IT, AND THEN WE REGULATE IT THROUGH CHAPTER 24. THEN CHAPTER 24 IS WHERE YOU ARE CORRECT THAT IT DOES REQUIRE THE RESIDENTS TO STORE THAT STORMWATER ON THEIR PROPERTY. >> BUT IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITSELF, THAT LANGUAGE, I DON'T HAVE IN FRONT OF ME. BUT IT WAS PRESENTED A WEEK OR SO AGO. IT REFERS TO WHAT I JUST SAID; ALL ADDITIONAL STORMWATER GENERATED BY THE RESIDENCE SHOULD BE CAPTURED. IT REFERENCES ON-SITE STORMWATER RETENTION. IT DOESN'T LEAVE THE BROADNESS YOU JUST PORTRAYED. IT STATES. >> IT SAYS SOMEWHERE THE LAST POLICY, POLICY C.2.1.2. THE LAST LITTLE BIT OF THAT SENTENCE SAYS, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS, AND THAT ADDITIONAL STORMWATER GENERATED SHALL BE RETAINED ON SITE AND WILL NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT EXISTING DRAINAGE OR STORMWATER SYSTEMS. THE SENTENCE PRIOR TO THAT, OR AT THE BEGINNING, THOUGH, IS HOW YOU WOULD IMPLEMENT IT, WHICH SAYS THE CITY SHALL MAINTAIN LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, SO THAT THE ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION IS IN CHAPTER 24 IN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, AMANDA. JUST A MOMENT, I'LL OPEN IT UP TO A PUBLIC HEARING. BUT BEFORE, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY FOR THE COMMISSIONERS, AS YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU HEAR FROM THE CITIZENS AND CONSIDER WHAT YOU THOUGHT WE WERE MOVING TOWARDS TODAY. THE REASON WHY I PUT TOGETHER THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS IT IS WHAT MR. KILLINGSWORTH REFERS TO AS DE [INAUDIBLE], IT IS MINIMAL IMPACT. IT ACTUALLY IS IN LINE WITH THE FACT THAT ORIGINALLY OUR CITY STORMWATER SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED FOR 35% COVERAGE. THAT'S WHY IT'S AT 35%. IT ACTUALLY REWARDS THOSE WHO DON'T OVERDEVELOP THE PROPERTY. ONE OF THE THINGS WE HEAR FROM OUR CITIZENS ALL THE TIME IS WE HATE THIS WALL-TO-WALL CONSTRUCTION. YOU ACTUALLY WOULD BE INCENTIVIZING PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO KEEP THEIR HOME FOOTPRINT AND IMPROVEMENTS TO A MAXIMUM OF 35%; THEY WOULD BE INCENTIVIZED BY NOT HAVING TO THEN ALSO PROVIDE ON-SITE STORAGE. THEN, QUITE FRANKLY, THOSE WHO WANT TO MAX IT OUT TO 45% WOULD SIMPLY BE PAYING A PREMIUM. THEY PAY A PREMIUM FOR THE LUXURY OF BEING ABLE TO PUT THE MAXIMUM DWELLING ON THE PROPERTY. THEN, FINALLY, SINCE SOME OF US ARE AWARE THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE CITY. WE'LL FLESH THIS OUT WHEN WE END UP DOING THE STORMWATER STUDY, THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT TOPOGRAPHIES AND LEVELS, OR THE MEAN HIGH WATER LEVEL IS MUCH LOWER IN PARTS OF THE CITY AND HIGHER IN OTHERS. BUT WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS WE'LL ACTUALLY GET A DIRECTION ON THIS. [00:20:01] THEN THERE WAS ONE OTHER THING. CERTAINLY, BY PASSING THIS, IT WILL ALLOW FOR US TO NOT ELIMINATE OUR STORMWATER CODE FOR NOW, AND THEREFORE PRESERVING THE ABILITY TO CONTINUE TO MANAGE THAT AND ADJUST UP OR DOWN BASED ON THE STUDY. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME UP THAT IS CERTAINLY ANOTHER CONCERN IS IF WE TOTALLY ELIMINATE ON-SITE RETENTION FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF CITIZENS THAT HAVE ALREADY PUT THAT IN ON THEIR PROPERTIES. DOES THAT GIVE THEM THE RIGHT TO NOW FILL IN THE SWALE OR REMOVE IT AND THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT ALSO NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. BUT I THINK TO FINISH MY SALIENT POINT ON THIS IS, THOSE OF YOU WHO LIVE IN OLD ATLANTIC BEACH KNOW THAT THE TYPICAL LOT IS 50 FEET WIDE BY 100 FEET DEEP, MAYBE 120 FEET DEEP. IT'S A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, AND THE LIKELIHOOD OF SOMEBODY PAYING $800,000 FOR A PIECE OF DIRT TODAY AND NOT MAXING IT TO 45 IS PROBABLY NOT LIKELY, AND THOSE PEOPLE WOULD, IN FACT, PAY OR INSTALL ON-SITE RETENTION. I'M ASKING EVERYBODY TO THINK THROUGH THIS AND THINK OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO NOT DO ANYTHING THAT'S REALLY THAT IMPACTFUL TO OUR STORMWATER CONCERNS, BUT IS IMPACTFUL TO ACTUALLY STARTING THE PROCESS OF BEING FAIR TO OUR CITIZENS, BUT ALSO PUTTING INCENTIVES INTO PLACE THAT GET THE DESIRED OUTCOME, BECAUSE DESIRED OUTCOME IS NOT JUST DEALING WITH STORMWATER. IT'S DEALING WITH THE SIZE OF THE HOMES, WALL TO WALL, THE FACT THAT WHEN WE INSTALL SWALES ON SOME OF THESE NARROW LOTS OF 50 FEET, WE HAVE TO REMOVE TREES WHEN WE WOULD RATHER RETAIN TREES. THINK THROUGH THE CONCERN OF JUST WE'RE GOING TO FLOOD. THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT. THIS IS ABOUT USING GOOD JUDGMENT, AND BY THE WAY, IT WILL BE. COMMISSIONER BOOL, YOU HIT IT ON THE HEAD. IT'S PROBABLY A YEAR FROM NOW BEFORE WE'LL BE ACTING ON ANY STORMWATER STUDY, JUST SO EVERYBODY'S AWARE WE VOTED TO BUDGET IT AND TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT THIS YEAR, BUT WE WANT TO DO AN EXPANDED STUDY, AND WE NEED ANOTHER ALMOST $300,000 FOR THAT. WE HAVE A GRANT REQUEST TO FEMA NOW, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT MONEY. SO WE ARE NOT IN A SITUATION OF PULLING THAT TRIGGER TODAY. I WAS GOING TO APOLOGIZE, MR. KILLINGSWORTH. I WAS GOING TO HOLD THIS TILL THE NEXT MEETING, BUT I DID REACH OUT TO OUR CONGRESSMAN RUTHERFORD TODAY TO SEE IF HE COULD LIGHT A LITTLE BIT OF A FIRE UNDER FEMA AND SEE IF WE COULD GET ANSWERS QUICKER ON THAT. BUT WE WILL DISCUSS AT OUR NEXT MEETING, IF IN FACT, WE DON'T HAVE THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING FROM FEMA BY A CERTAIN DATE THAT WE'LL MAKE THAT CALL AND PROBABLY FUNDED OUT OF CITY FUNDS INSTEAD OF WAITING. I WANT THESE FACTS TO BE OUT THERE AS WE HAVE THIS DIALOGUE, BECAUSE IT'S SO IMPORTANT THAT WE GET THIS RIGHT. WITH THAT, WHERE AM I? LET'S SEE. WE'RE GOING TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE'RE GOING TO USE TWO-MINUTE LIMIT. I ALWAYS TRY TO BE REASONABLE ON THE GAVEL, BUT WE'VE GOT A LOT OF PEOPLE TO SPEAK. IF I TAP THE GAVEL, DON'T TAKE OFFENSE, BUT PLEASE COME UP AND LET US KNOW WHAT'S ON YOUR MIND. IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK ON SOMETHING ELSE, LEAVE THAT FOR COURTESY OF THE FLOOR, RIGHT NOW, LET'S FOCUS ON STORMWATER. DONNA? >> RICHARD ARTHUR. >> HELLO, RICHARD ARTHUR, 1555 SELMAN DRIVE. I DID HAVE A FIVE-MINUTE PUBLIC COMMENT READY. IT WON'T BE AS GOOD, I WOULD ASSUME. QUICK NOTE IN THE LAST SUGGESTION OF 35% AND UNDER, IT READ THAT THE 35% AND UNDER WOULD EXEMPT AND THAT THE 35-45 YOU WOULD PROVIDE STORAGE FOR. TODAY IT READS THAT 35% AND UNDER IS EXEMPT, BUT ANYTHING ABOVE THAT, THE ENTIRE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR STORMWATER. THERE'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN THERE BETWEEN 35% EXEMPTION AND GOING TO 36 AND PROVIDING STORAGE FOR ALL 36% OF THE LOCK COVERAGE. OVER TIME, THESE REQUIREMENTS HAVE GROWN IN SCALE AND SCOPE. TODAY SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES FACE STORMWATER REGULATIONS THAT OFTEN EXCEED THOSE REQUIRED OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS AND LEADS TO A FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION, WHOSE BURDEN IS THIS AND WHO SHOULD PAY FOR IT? CITY'S REPORTS ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE'S NO EXCESS CAPACITY IN THE CITY'S STORMWATER SYSTEM AND THE RESPONSIBILITY HANDLING RUNOFF HAS BEEN SHIFTED TO INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS FOR THE CITY. THE CITY RATIONALE HAS BEEN THAT HOMEOWNERS SHOULD ABSORB THOSE COSTS, [00:25:03] BELIEVING THAT REQUIRING SMALL PRIVATE SYSTEMS WOULD DELAY THE NEED FOR LARGER PUBLIC ONES AND THAT THEY ARGUED THAT THE PRIVATE SYSTEMS WERE CHEAPER PER CUBIC FOOT THAN STORAGE AND PUBLICLY FUNDED INFRASTRUCTURE. IN SHORT, THE GOAL WAS TO SLOW DOWN THE RUNOFF ENTERING THE CITY SYSTEM AND POSTPONE EXPENSIVE UPGRADES AS LONG AS POSSIBLE. CITY REPORTS CITED FROM CDMS CONCLUDED THAT SWALES OR YARD RETENTION OF THE MOST COST-EFFECTIVE CONTROLS FOR PARCEL, ONLY $200 TO COMPLY. IN REALITY, THE COST TODAY IS FAR MORE THAN $200, OFTEN EXCEEDING $8,000 TO START. GETTING INTO $100,000, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE THE SWELL IN YOUR YARD. THE ORDINANCE FALLS ON A VERY LIMITED GROUP OF RESIDENTS. NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE OCEAN WALK, SEVEN LINK SIDE, SAVILA, TIFFANY BY THE SEAS, ETC, ARE EXEMPT. THE STORMWATER SYSTEMS ARE PERMITTED DECADES AGO, FAR LESS STRINGENT. I'LL HAND THIS OVER FOR SOMEWHERE I CITED [INAUDIBLE] GUYS, MIGHT HAVE SOME TIME TONIGHT TO LOOK THROUGH THEM WHILE YOU'RE WAITING. >> THANK YOU, MR. ARTHUR. >> STEVE PISCATELLI. >> GOOD EVENING, STEVE PISCATELLI, 374 MAGNOLIA STREET. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE, YOUR GUIDANCE. COMPLEX ISSUES. THIS IS ONE COMPLEX ISSUE. I SENT AN EMAIL TO THE COMMISSION LAST WEEK. COMMISSIONER RING ATTEMPTED TO EDUCATE ME. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THERE'S BEEN TALK ABOUT TRIGGERS. THAT'S BEEN A LABEL THAT I'VE HEARD QUITE A BIT. SOME WANT THE TRIGGERS TO REMAIN, SOME WANT THEM TO BE REMOVED. ONE OF MY FIRST QUESTIONS IS THE 45-55 AS A TRIGGER. IF THIS ORDINANCE IS PASSED, DOES THAT REMAIN, OR IS THAT REMOVED? THE BIGGER QUESTION IS, WOULD THE ELIMINATION OF SECTION 24 89 C ONE THROUGH SEVEN, WHAT WOULD THAT TRIGGER, SUCH AS IMPACT ON DAY-TO-DAY INFRASTRUCTURE? STORMS, RAIN, THEY'RE GOING TO CONTINUE. WHERE DOES THE WATER GO? WHO HANDLES THAT? WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS IT? WHAT'S THE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORS THE COMMUNITY? IF DUE TO THE REMOVAL OR REDUCTION OF REGULATIONS, WHAT HAPPENS IF A CITIZEN OR A PRIVATE ENTITY IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INCREASED FLOODING? THERE'S A VARIANCE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT FROM A STAFF REPORT OF SEPTEMBER 23RD ON SHERRY DRIVE FOR WETLANDS VARIANCE. IF THAT WERE TO BE APPROVED, WHAT'S THE IMPACT? WHERE DOES THE MITIGATION COME IN? MAYOR, YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING THAT I HAD THOUGHT ABOUT AND I HAD HEARD BEFORE ABOUT FEMA. IF YOU VOTE FOR AN ORDINANCE LIKE THIS, WHAT HAPPENS TO OUR FEMA PREMIUMS? DOES FEMA LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF VARIANCES THAT ARE PASSED BY A CITY TO EITHER INCREASE OR DECREASE? DOES IT LOOK AT WHETHER OR NOT WE LOOK AT A NEW STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN? WHAT'S THE IMPACT ON OUR PARKS? BACK IN THE ELECTION OF 2020, ONE OF THE CANDIDATES HAD SAID, TAKE HOWELL PARK AND TURN IT INTO A RETENTION POND BECAUSE IT WAS MUDDY AND MOSQUITO-INFESTED. I GET MORE BUG BITES AT THE BEACH THAN I DO AT HOWELL PARK. THANK YOU. THE INFRASTRUCTURE, EVERYTHING ELSE, THE IMPACT ON PROPERTY IS IN YOUR HANDS. >> THANK YOU, MR. PISCATELLI. >> STEVE FOREKER. >> STEVE FOREKER 387 SIXTH STREET, ATLANTIC BEACH. I'M LISTENING TO MAYOR FORD, AND HE SEEMS REASONABLE AS FAR AS WE NEED TO THINK THIS THROUGH. WE'VE GOT A LOT OF WORK TO DO BEFORE WE START PASSING ORDINANCES LIKE THIS, NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU THINK IT'S ONEROUS TO NOT PARTICULARLY RESIDENTS, IT'S ONEROUS TO BUILDERS AND SPECULATORS AND REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS. THE OTHER POINT I WANT TO MAKE IS THAT WE NEED TO HAVE MORE REGULAR TURNOVER WITH OUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MR. FOREKER. >> MICHAEL SCHMIDT. >> SCHMIDT. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR. COMMISSION, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. I'M MIKE SCHMIDT, 446 INLAND WAY, ATLANTIC BEACH. LIVED HERE FOR 31 YEARS. MY WIFE, BARBARA, AND I SAT ON CITIZENS COMMISSIONS IN THE MID-90S WITH COMMISSIONER BORNEO TO AVOID TAKING DOWN HOLLOW AND NAN HANSON PARK. [00:30:05] THAT WAS THE OPTION THEN FOR THE CORE CITY PROJECT. WE RECOMMENDED THE INVERTED CROWNS, SAVED 140 TALL TREES. BY THE WAY, THE FLOODING WAS JUST GOING TO BE MOVED TO SALVE MARINO. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ARE IN TWO FORMS. ONE, THE RUNOFF FROM PAVEMENT AND NEW PAVEMENT. SECONDLY, WHEN YOU FILL, THERE'S EXISTING STORAGE IN THE DUNE SYSTEMS THAT GETS PUSHED ONTO THE STREETS. I WROTE THE ORDINANCE IN 2002. WE DID AN UPDATE IN 2011. I SENT TO YOU APPENDIX 7, I THINK IT WAS FROM THAT STUDY. SIXTH STREET WAS A CASE STUDY TO LOOK AT OPTIONS FOR ON-SITE. PRICES HAVE PROBABLY GONE UP SINCE THEN, A BIT, BUT LANDSCAPING CAN DO A LOT HERE. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS CATCH THE FIRST INCH OR HALF INCH OF WATER. WATER THE PLANTS, AVOID THE FLOODING. IF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS CONTINUE TO INCREASE, YOU'LL BE FACED WITH POTENTIAL BLOCKAGE OF EVACUATION ROUTES FOR POLICE, FIRE, AND AMBULANCE, AND HURRICANE EVACUATION, OR OTHER COSTLY UPGRADES ON LANDS THAT WILL REQUIRE TAKINGS OR REDUCING OUR PARK SYSTEMS PLUS, THERE'LL BE A DEGRADATION IN WATER QUALITY, A REDUCTION IN AQUA RECHARGE, GREATER SALTWATER INTRUSION, REDUCTION OF TREES, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY SOME TREES WILL NOT BE WATERS AS MUCH, AND I APPRECIATE, DON'T KNOCK DOWN A TREE FOR A SWALE. DON'T LET THE ECOSYSTEM PROJECT KNOCK DOWN THE ECOSYSTEM. THIS IS WHERE, AS WE PUT IN OUR LANDSCAPING, WE CAN DO A LOT, JUST TO CATCH THE WATER OFF THE ROOFS. THERE'S RAINBARRELS. MY WIFE HAS FLOWERS. I'VE GOT A RAINBARREL. IT STORES QUITE A BIT OF WATER. THERE'S WAYS TO DO THIS AND WATER YOUR GARDENS, TOO. I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, I URGE YOU TO MAINTAIN THE ON-SITE REQUIREMENTS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MR. SCHMIDT. I'M SORRY. DECORUM SAYS, NO APPLAUSE OR BOOZE. BUT THANK YOU. NEXT. >> JACK [INAUDIBLE] >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONER, MR. MAYOR. MY NAME IS JEFF SELHURST. I'VE LIVED IN ATLANTIC BEACH FOR 29 YEARS. MY ADDRESS IS ON FILE. THERE ARE THREE POWERFUL REASONS TO RETAIN THE CURRENT ON SITE STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS. FIRST, IT'S A MATTER OF SOUND PLANNING. UNDER NEW FLORIDA LAW LEGISLATION, ONCE THIS TOOL IS GONE, IT'S GOING TO BE NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO REINSTATE, MEANING THAT WE HAVE FEWER TOOLS TO FIGHT FUTURE FLOODING. SECOND, ON SITE STORAGE IS PROVEN IT'S FAIR, AND BY FAR, IT'S THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE AVAILABLE. IT COSTS PRIVATE BUILDERS UNDER 1% ON AVERAGE OF THE PROJECT COSTS. IT SPARES THE ENTIRE CITY FROM MULTI MILLION DOLLAR INFRASTRUCTURE OVERHAULS AND MASSIVE TAX HIKES. THE CITY'S OWN STORMWATER FEES CAN'T KEEP UP WITH THOSE FUTURE BIG PROJECTS. THIRD, THE IMPACT GOES BEYOND MONEY. ON SITE STORAGE PROTECTS FIRST RESPONDERS ACCESS, PROTECTS OUR PARKS FROM BEING TURNED INTO EXPENSIVE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS, AND MAINTAINS PROPERTY VALUES BY PREVENTING FLOOD PRONE NEIGHBORHOODS. RUSSIAN REPEALS WITHOUT UPDATED, INDEPENDENT DATA, ESPECIALLY THROUGH LAST MINUTE AGENDA CHANGES. IT UNDERMINES PUBLIC TRUST AND DUE PROCESS. PLEASE WAIT FOR THE RESULTS FROM THE MASTER STORMWATER PLAN UPDATE, AS GOOD GOVERNANCE REQUIRES. DON'T ELIMINATE WHAT WORKS, MAKE POLICY BASED ON SCIENCE, FACTS, AND WHAT'S RIGHT FOR ALL RESIDENTS. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MR. SELHURST. >> MARK [INAUDIBLE] >> THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. MARK [INAUDIBLE]. I LEFT MY 30 MINUTE SPEECH AT HOME, SO THAT'S GOOD NEWS. THE BAD NEWS IS MY GRANDDAUGHTERS COME EVERY SUMMER, ALL FOUR GRANDDAUGHTERS, AND SOMETIMES THEIR PARENTS COME TOO, AND THEY'RE COMPLAINING ABOUT MY STORAGE SPACE FOR THEM. THEY WANT ME TO EXPAND. I'M INTERESTED IN EXPANDING, BUT THEY ALSO LIKE TO PLAY WITH PUZZLES. PICTURE PUZZLES. WE ALL HAVE PICTURE PUZZLES. GOING FORWARD WITHOUT A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IS LIKE PLAYING 1,000 GAME PICTURE PUZZLE WITH ONLY 500 PIECES. YOU WILL NEVER COMPLETE IT. WE HAVE HEARD FROM CITIZENS, WE'VE HEARD FROM PEOPLE THAT KNOW, YOU NEED TO HAVE A COMPLETE UNOPENED BOX OF PIECES TO PLAY THE GAME. WE'RE NOT DOING THAT, AND WE'RE WASTING TIME. WE'RE GOING TO WASTE A WHOLE LOT OF MONEY IF WE DON'T START WITH A COMPLETE GAME. I URGE YOU TO WAIT UNTIL WE HAVE A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IN PLACE, HOW WE GET THERE, WE LISTEN TO THE CITIZENS. WE HAVE WORKSHOPS. WE TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE VARIABLES THAT WE HAVE WITH SLOPES. WITH VEGETATION, WE HAVE THE MEANS WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY, IF WE DON'T HAVE THE MEANS WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY, WE CAN GET EXPERTISE. WE HAVE TO SIT DOWN WITH THOSE THAT WE AWARD THE CONTRACT TO, HAVE A VOICE TO THE CUSTOMER TYPE OF EXERCISE AND [00:35:02] SAY THAT WE CLEARLY UNDERSTAND EACH OTHER. WE KNOW WHAT WE WANT, AND WE WILL GET THERE. JUST SAYING THIS IS NICE TO HAVE. EVERYONE'S IMPORTANT. WE WISH THIS GOING TO HAPPEN. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DERIVES ALL THE OTHER PLANS WE HAVE. THOSE PLANS DRIVE OUR ORDINANCES. WE'VE GOT IT BACKWARDS. FIX IT. >> THANK YOU, MR. G. >> CHRISTINA KELCORS. >> CHRISTINA KELCORS, AT 890 SEMINOLE. HI, MAYOR FORD. HI COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ALL OF US. I AM HERE BECAUSE I AM CONCERNED AS A HOMEOWNER ON THE CREEK THAT GETTING RID OF OR ELIMINATING THE SWALES WILL DIRECTLY AFFECT MY PROPERTY, AS WELL AS MY NEIGHBORS, AS WELL AS HUNDREDS OF OTHER HOUSES THAT ARE ON THE CREEK SYSTEMS. HAVING READ THROUGH THE LAST STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN, I'VE SEEN A FEW CHANGES THAT HAVE HAPPENED WHICH ARE GOOD, BUT I FEEL LIKE WE'RE BEHIND. TO TAKE SOMETHING THAT IS IN PLACE, THAT IS WORKING CONCERNS ME THAT IT'S GOING TO DIRECTLY AFFECT ME AND MY NEIGHBORS. I'M ALSO CONCERNED THAT IF THE SWALES GO AWAY, THAT WE ARE GOING TO SEE A NEGATIVE IMPACT TO OUR PARK SYSTEMS, WHICH IS A PRECIOUS RESOURCE FOR ATLANTIC BEACH. BEING A PARENT OF THREE KIDS AND VERY ACTIVE IN THE BASEBALL COMMUNITY, I WILL TELL YOU WE'RE OUT THERE PROBABLY EVERY SINGLE DAY, AND THERE'S A LOT OF FLOODING ALREADY. YOU'RE SEEING THE PARKS WET, YOU'RE SEEING THE PARKS FLOODING. YOU'RE SEEING THE CREEK SYSTEMS TAKING ON MORE THAN WHAT THEY CAN. WHATEVER YOUR DECISION IS, I'M JUST HERE AS A CONCERNED CITIZEN TO LET YOU KNOW THAT WE ARE WATCHING THIS, AND WE REALLY HOPE THAT YOU MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE TO HELP PROTECT OUR COMMUNITY FROM FLOODING. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MS. KELCORS. >> ELLEN GLASSER. >> GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY, I'M ELLEN GLASSER, FORMER MAYOR, AND MY ADDRESS IS ON FILE. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HEAR FROM ME TWICE TONIGHT BECAUSE I HAD PLANNED TO DO ALL OF THIS DURING PUBLIC COMMENT. THE ISSUE THAT BRINGS MANY OF US OUT TONIGHT IS OBVIOUSLY THE VOTE TO ELIMINATE ON SITE STORAGE WATER RETENTION AFTER A SURPRISE AMENDMENT AND A SPLIT VOTE. IT CAME WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF THE DATA FROM UPDATED STORMWATER MASTER PLAN THAT CONSIDERED OUR MAJOR FLOOD BASINS, OUR NEIGHBORHOOD DENSITY, AND CHANGES IN THE LOOK AND FEEL TO ATLANTIC BEACH THAT WE'VE SEEN IN THE SEVERAL YEARS. I WONDER, CAN YOU MAKE A CHANGE LIKE THIS WITHOUT NOTICING IT ON THE AGENDA? BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE CHANGE UNTIL I GOT HERE. I WONDER IF THAT'S LEGAL. I ALSO WANT TO KNOW WHETHER YOU CONSIDERED WORK-SHOPPING THIS BECAUSE AGAIN, YOU'VE TRIGGERED THE COMMUNITY BY PASSING THIS ON THAT SURPRISE AMENDMENT, SO I'M CONCERNED. YOU'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ALMOST AD NAUSEAM, BUT I WOULD SAY THAT TAKING ACTION WITHOUT THE STUDY AND WITHOUT CHANGING THE COMP PLAN IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF THE OPPOSITE OF A BEST PRACTICE. I THINK SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS UP THERE ON THE DESK ARE SOMEWHAT DEFENSIVE ON THIS, AND I THINK YOU JUST NEED TO CALL IT FOR WHAT IT IS. IT WAS OUT OF ORDER. I COULD RESPOND TO MANY OF THE POINTS MADE ABOUT PEOPLE THAT WANT TO ELIMINATE THE STORAGE REQUIREMENT, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN TONIGHT. I THINK WE CAN BENEFIT FROM EXPERTS LIKE MIKE SCHMIDT, WHO WROTE THE FIRST ORDINANCE. I RAN STAFF, RICK CARPER, OUR ENGINEER, WHO I'M SURE GAVE YOU SUFFICIENT GUIDANCE ON THIS BEFORE YOU VOTED AT THE LAST MEETING. FOR THOSE WHO SUGGEST THAT MANAGING STORM WATER IS SOLELY THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY AND NOT HOMEOWNERS, I SAY THIS PREMISE IS UNREALISTIC, GIVEN THE COST AND TIME TO TEAR IT OUT, THE FACT THAT YOU'RE NOT FUNDING IT WITH AT LEAST STAYING WITH THE SAME MILAGE RATE, AND BECAUSE OUR CITY WAS NOT BUILT FOR THIS, I APPRECIATE THE CHANGE THAT YOU'VE SUGGESTED. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. HOWEVER, I DO NOT LIKE THE WAY THAT YOU'VE DONE THIS. WHY THE BIG RUSH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU, MS. GLASSER. >> PAUL KAUFMAN. >> WILL, EVERYBODY SAY HI TO ONE OF YOUR NEWEST NEIGHBORS. PAUL KAUFMAN WITH MY WIFE, VILMA, 1667 DRIVE FOR THOSE WHO'VE DRIVEN PAST IT IT'S ALL TORN APART. OURS IS A FOCUS QUESTION. WE DIDN'T SEE SOMETHING IN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE THAT YOU READ EARLIER, MAYOR. [00:40:01] JUST SOMETHING FOR CONSIDERATION. WE ARE NOT HERE TO ARGUE WHICH THE PARTICULAR STORAGE OF WATER, BUT WE DID HAVE A RETENTION BASIN BUILT ON OUR PROPERTY, WAS REQUIRED BY THE TOWN. THE QUESTION THAT WE ARE MERELY ASKING IS, IF PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO ANOTHER WATER RETENTION BASIN, IN THIS CASE, THE SEMINOLE ROAD DITCH, AS IT IS COMMONLY REFERRED TO, WHICH WE BACK UP AGAINST. WHY CAN'T WE JUST DRAIN INTO THAT? I'VE SEEN ON BOTH SIDES OF MY HOUSE, MY NEIGHBORS HAVE PIPES THAT ARE DRAINING WATER DURING A STORM, WENT OUT THERE IN THE RAIN. I KNOW THIS IS A FOCUSED QUESTION, BUT I JUST WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHY THAT LANGUAGE CAN'T BE INTRODUCED NOW AT A LATER DATE. SOUNDS LIKE THIS IS GOING TO TAKE A WHILE TO RESOLVE. WELL, WHY CAN'T WE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT SWELL AND JUST PUSH OUR RAINWATER. IT'S THE CLEANEST WATER THERE IS. IT'S RAINWATER. WE'RE JUST DUMPING IT OUT INTO THE SWELL THAT'S ALREADY THERE. JUST FOR CONSIDERATION. >> THANK YOU, MR. KAUFMAN. SORRY, WE DON'T ANSWER DIRECTLY AT COURTESY OF THE FLOOR, BUT I WILL MAKE A NOTE TO REACH OUT TO YOU AND WE'LL HAVE A CONVERSATION. >> THANK YOU. ALL I CAN ASK. >> COSMOS BALLAS. SORRY, BUT YOU CAN DO IT. >> COSMOS BALLAS, I'M A RESIDENT OF 53 YEARS. I LIVE AT 990 SEMINOLE ROAD. IT'S ON THE SHERMAN'S CREEK, AND I HAD NEVER SEEN IT FLOOD EVER FOR ALL THE YEARS THAT I GREW UP UNTIL ABOUT 10 YEARS AGO. IT'S NOW FLOODING ALL THE TIME. I THINK THAT IT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED FIRST BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE, EVEN, LANDSCAPING IS GOOD, KEEPING TREES, ALL THAT'S AWESOME, BUT I THINK WHAT WAS IT LIKE FIVE YEARS AGO AT THE PANDEMIC, THERE WAS GOING TO BE LIKE A DREDGING GOING ON AND INSTEAD, I THINK THEY DREDGED OVER HERE INSTEAD. IF YOU ADDRESS THAT FIRST, I THINK THAT WILL SOLVE A LOT AS FAR AS WHERE THE WATER'S GOING AND ALL THAT, BUT RIGHT NOW, IN FRONT OF MY NEIGHBORS HOUSES, IT'S THIS DEEP. IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE, IT'S A LOT DEEPER, BUT AS I SAY, IT COMES UP LIKE SIX FEET REGULARLY. THEN YOU GET TRASH AND STUFF THAT COMES UP ALONG WITH ALL THE FECAL COLIFORM AND BAD STUFF THAT'S IN THERE ANYWAY. I THINK THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED FIRST. >> SURE. >> THANKS. >> THANK YOU, MR. COSMOS BALLAS, I THINK. >> TERRY BROWN ANDERSON. >> HELLO. TERRY BROWN, 800 SHERRY DRIVE. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT WE'RE GETTING READY OR WE'RE TRYING TO ADD A SMALL OUTDOOR KITCHEN, AND WE'RE HAVING TO GO THROUGH ALL THESE HOOPS, AND I LOOK AT MY PROPERTY AS COMPARED TO SOME OF THESE OTHER PROPERTIES AROUND TOWN AND I WAS ABLE TO GET SOME OF THE RETENTION DATA FROM THOSE PROPERTIES. ALL I WOULD SAY IS WHATEVER WE DO NEEDS TO BE APPLIED FAIRLY ACROSS THE BOARD. IT JUST APPEARS THAT IS NOT THE CASE RIGHT NOW. I'M IN FAVOR OF DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT, WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW, BECAUSE IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM THAT IT'S BEING FAIRLY APPLIED RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MR. BROWN. >> SARAH BOREN. >> GOOD EVENING. SARAH BOREN. I LIVE ON EIGHTH STREET IN OLD LANG BEACH. I AM HERE ON A DATE NIGHT. I AM A LITTLE CONFUSED OF WHAT YOU GUYS ARE ACTUALLY VOTING ON TONIGHT, SO I'D LOVE AN EXPLANATION LATER. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE ELIMINATION OF ONSITE STORAGE FOR SEVERAL REASONS. LEGALLY, YOU KNOW, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE COMP PLAN, BUT BASICALLY, IF YOU'RE WILLING TO WAIT FOR THE COMP PLAN TO BE UPDATED, YOU'RE WILLING TO WAIT FOR A STORMWATER STUDY, IN MY OPINION. SECOND, I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT FLORIDA LAW SB180. IF WE REMOVE THIS STORMWATER RETENTION TOOL NOW, WE WILL PROBABLY NEVER BE ABLE TO GET IT BACK. THAT IS A VERY RESTRICTIVE. THEY'VE ALREADY REJECTED ST. JOHN'S COUNTY'S 2045 COMP PLAN. THEN THIRD, IT SEEMS LIKE COMING DOWN THE PIPE, SENATE BILL 7040, THIS NEW STORMWATER RULE, RIGHT IS ASKING US TO PROTECT BASICALLY OUR NON POINT SOURCE POLLUTION MORE, AND I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE APPLIED AT THE CITY EVEN THOUGH IT SAYS ONE ACRE OR MORE, SO THAT'S COMING DOWN THE PIPE. LEGALLY, I THINK THERE'S JUST THINGS THAT WE [00:45:01] REALLY NEED TO THINK OUT BEFORE MAKING ANY CHANGES. FISCALLY, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT OUR CURRENT STORMWATER FEES ONLY COVER THE MAINTENANCE OF THE CURRENT EXISTING SYSTEM, NOT FUTURE PROJECTS OR VOLUME. AS FAR AS THE FAIRNESS QUESTION, I GUESS, I UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE WANT TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO TO THEIR PROPERTIES, BUT HOMEOWNERS ARE CHOOSING TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO THEIR PROPERTY, IMPROVEMENTS THAT THEY ONLY GET TO ENJOY. THAT CAUSE IMPACT TO THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY AND SHOULD PROBABLY PAY FOR THAT IMPACT. I LIKE THE COMPROMISE THAT I THINK WE'RE THINKING ABOUT TONIGHT, BUT THEY SHOULD PROBABLY RETAIN THAT EXTRA RUNOFF WATER, NOT ASK THEIR NEIGHBORS TO PAY IN BOTH TAXES, BUT ALSO IN MORE FLOODING AND ALSO AN OPPORTUNITY COST. LIKE IF WE SPEND ALL MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON BIG INFRASTRUCTURE, WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO FOCUS ON OTHER PRIORITIES. THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY COST. I DIDN'T EVEN GET THROUGH. >> THANK YOU. >> ANYWAYS, YEAH, AND THEN THE ENVIRONMENTAL. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> BRINKLEY HAROLD. >> THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS, STAFF. I'M BRINKLEY HAROLD 266 STREET. I HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT THIS ON A GREAT NUMBER OF OCCASIONS, MULTIPLE TIMES BEFORE THE CDB AND MULTIPLE TIMES BEFORE THIS COMMISSION, AND I THINK ALSO MAYBE A TOWN HALL. WHAT THIS TRIGGER HAS CREATED IS TWO CLASSES OF CITIZENS IN ATLANTIC BEACH, THE HALVES AND THE HAVE NOTS. THOSE THAT WANT THE TRIGGER REMOVED, THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO FULLY DEVELOP THEIR PROPERTY LIKE THE HAVES HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO IN THE PAST. MOST OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE OPPOSED TO REMOVING THE TRIGGER, THEIR PROPERTY IS ALREADY WHERE THEY WANT IT TO BE. THEY'RE IMPOSING THIS ONEROUS AND CAPRICIOUS TRIGGER AGAINST ALL THE OTHER RESIDENTS THAT WANT TO FURTHER DEVELOP THEIR PROPERTY. REALLY, IT COMES DOWN TO IS A PROPERTY RIGHTS ISSUE AND THOSE THAT ARE OPPOSED TO REMOVING THE TRIGGER, THEY'RE NOT AFFECTED. THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT ARE AFFECTED ARE THE HOMEOWNERS THAT WANT TO IMPROVE THEIR PROPERTY AND HAVE THEIR 45% LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE. THE BIG QUESTION TO ASK YOURSELF IS, WHAT DOES THIS TRIGGER EVEN ACHIEVE? WE HAD A BIG RAINSTORM LAST WEEK. I WENT OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE RAIN, TOOK A PICTURE DOWN DOWN SIXTH STREET, AND ALL THE WATER IS JUST FLOODING DOWN BECAUSE THERE'S NO STORM DRAINS ON BEACH AVENUE, OCEAN BOULEVARD, AND MOST OF THE NUMBERED STREETS UNTIL YOU GET WEST OF EAST COAST DRIVE. THAT WAS A PROJECT THAT WENT ON TEN OR 15 YEARS AGO TO PUT IN A FEW STORM DRAINS TO EXPEDITE GETTING THE SURFACE WATER OFF THE CITY STREET INTO SHERMAN'S CREEK. THERE'S BEEN MULTIPLE VOTES BY THE CDB TO REMOVE THIS. IT'S TIME TO GO AHEAD AND REMOVE IT. MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE EXISTING CALCULATION, THE FORMULA FOR HOW MUCH WATER RETENTION YOU HAVE TO HAVE IS COMPLETELY OUT OF LINE. THAT HAS BEEN PROVEN BY ENGINEERS WITH DOCTRINES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU, MR. HAROLD. >> CLAUDIA LE BLANC. >> HELLO. >> HELLO. >> HELLO TO ALL OF YOU. MY NAME IS CLAUDE LE BLANC. MY FAMILY I WILL RESIDE AT 900 SEMINOLE ROAD. WE LIVE ALONG THE SHERMAN CREEK. OVER THE YEARS, MY FAMILY HAVE WITNESSED FIRSTHAND THE EFFECTS OF UNMANAGED RUNOFF SILK BUILD UP IN THE CREEK. DURING HEAVY RAINS, THE WATER RISES BELOW ITS BANKS, FLOODING OUR BACK YARD. THE WATER CARRIES DEBRIS, TRASH, AND DISPLACED WILDLIFE. I READ THE CITY STORMWATER MASTER PLAN THAT WAS UPDATED IN 2018. IT CLEARLY STATES SHERMAN'S CREEK IS ONE OF THE CITY'S MAIN DRAINAGE OUTLETS AND IT'S OPERATING UNDER ITS AGENT SYSTEM THAT HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED ACCORDING TO THE RECOMMENDATION CITED ON YOUR CURRENT PLAN. THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL ONSITE STORMWATER PLAYS A VITAL ROLE IN MANAGING THAT RUNOFF TO ENSURE EACH PROPERTY OWNER TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE WATER GENERATED ON THE PROPERTY. BUT I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S RIGHT FOR THE [INAUDIBLE] TO FOLLOW ENTIRELY ON THE HOMEOWNERS WHEN THE CITY ITSELF HAS NOT MAINTAINED OR IMPROVED THE BROADER STORM WATER SYSTEM IN THE CITY. THE CITY HAS FAILED TO PROPERLY CLEAN DREDGE MAINTAIN SHERMAN'S CREEK. THE ACT CONTINUES TO RELY ON ITS NATURAL RETENTION AS A TEMPORARY BANDAGE RATHER THAN A TRUE SOLUTION. I AM NOT AGAINST THIS ORIDINANCE. HOWEVER, I'M AGAINST THIS ORDINANCE UNDER THE CURRENT STORMWATER PLANT THAT IS IN PLACE TODAY. [00:50:04] APPROVING THIS CHANGE WITHOUT FIRST IMPROVING OUR STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE OR MAINTAINING OUR CREEKS AND DRAINAGE SYSTEM WOULD PUSH EVEN MORE WATER INTO OUR CREEKS, STREETS AND PARKS THAT MY KIDS USES EVERY SINGLE DAY, WHERE THE WATER IS SUPPOSED TO GO. I THINK EVERYONE SHOULD BE ASKING THIS QUESTION. FOR RESIDENTS LIKE ME ALONG THE CREEK, THAT MEANS MORE FLOODING, MORE EROSION, AND MORE PROPERTY DAMAGE. IT COULD EVEN LEAD TO RECLASSIFICATION OF PREVIEW SAFE AREAS OF FLOOD ZONE. >> THANK YOU, MRS BLANK. >> THANK YOU. >> MARY EMERSON SMITH. >> HAPPY BIRTHDAY. >> THANK YOU. >> THERE'S NOWHERE I'D RATHER BE. [LAUGHTER] NO, THAT'S GOD'S TRUTH. PEOPLE. >> I THINK THAT'S THE FUNNIEST. >> IT'S NOT ONLY SELFISH INTERESTS, BY THE WAY, IN RESPONSE TO BRINKLEY HARALD. MARY EMERSON SMITH, 40 YEARS ON EIGHTH STREET. IT'S NOT JUST SELFISH INTERESTS OF PEOPLE. WHO HAVE, COMPARED TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT. I KNOW IT WAS THE CHEROKEE NATION THAT TRIED TO THINK SEVEN GENERATIONS AHEAD. I CAN'T REALLY DO THAT. I'M NOT CAPABLE, BUT I CAN THINK OF MY GRANDCHILDREN'S GRANDCHILDREN. THAT IS WHO I AM THINKING OF. I'M THINKING OF THE GENERATIONS THAT ARE GOING TO LIVE IN ATLANTIC BEACH THAT ARE GOING TO COME AFTER ME AFTER I AM DEAD, AND THAT'S WHO I'M THINKING OF. I WOULD PUT ANYTHING ON MY PROPERTY TO SPARE MY NEIGHBORS IF IT CAME TO THAT. IT JUST HAPPENS THAT I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM ON MY PROPERTY BECAUSE THOSE STORMWATER DRAINS WERE PUT IN ON MY STREET. LYMAN FLETCHER SAID TO ME, MARY, THERE IS NOT EVEN A TEASPOON OF WATER ON THE STREET NOW. THAT'S NOT TRUE NOW, BUT IT WAS TRUE WHEN LYMAN SAID IT. I ONLY HAVE ONE BIG CONCERN. ALL TECHNICALITIES ASIDE. I'VE READ THE PROS AND THE CONS, AND I'VE STUDIED THIS UNTIL I'M HALF CRAZY. WHY THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE? I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. THE STAFF WANTS THE COMMISSION TO WAIT FOR THE STORMWATER STUDY, YOUR OWN STAFF. MOST OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM ARE ASKING YOU, PLEASE TO WAIT. WHAT'S THE RUSH? I HAD NOT HEARD ONE GOOD REASON, ONE SOLID REASON TO PUT THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. THE END. >> THANK YOU, MISS SMITH. >> NANCY STOTTS? >> HELLO, MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS AND ALL THE CITIZENS WHO CAME AND STAFF. I FIRST WANT TO JUST REALLY THANK THE EXPERTS IN OUR CITY WHO HAVE COME FORWARD AND WRITTEN SUCH ELOQUENT AND FACT DRIVEN PIECES. I'M GRATEFUL THAT WE HAVE SUCH FOLKS IN OUR CITIES, AND I'M ALSO GRATEFUL TO THE STAFF AND TO THE CITIZENS WHO HAVE COME OUT HERE TONIGHT BECAUSE IT SHOWS WE CARE A LOT. I HAVE A FEW ASKS OF YOU. FIRST IS, PLEASE START LISTENING TO THE CITIZENS. IT WAS LESS THAN A YEAR AGO THAT WE VOTED TO PUT ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP INTO OUR LANGUAGE. WE VOTED BY 65 OR 70%. YES, ON MAINTAINING OUR PARKS. WE ARE A LITTLE QUIRKY. WE LOVE OUR TREES. THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. I THINK START LISTENING TO US. THAT'S REALLY THE TAKE HOME. PLEASE ALSO START LISTENING TO EXPERTS. SOME OF YOU, IT FEELS LIKE THINK YOU'RE AN EXPERT AND YOU'RE NOT. I WOULD URGE YOU TO PLEASE PUSH AHEAD WITH THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. WE NEED A FEW HUNDRED THOUSAND MORE, AND I KNOW I SAY THAT IN A FLIPPANT WAY. BUT REALIZE WE SPENT TWO MILLION DOLLARS RECENTLY ON REAL ESTATE BETWEEN DORA DRIVE AND ALMOST HOME. A TWO OR 300,000 INVESTMENT IN WHAT IS OUR TOP PRIORITY, RESILIENCY, WHICH HAS BEEN VOTED ON AND AGREED UPON FOR MULTIPLE ADMINISTRATIONS. PLEASE, THAT IS THE HORSE. THAT IS THE HORSE THAT WE HAVE A CART BEFORE. ALSO, IT'S NOT JUST SWALES. THERE'S SO MANY CREATIVE WAYS TO STORE STORMWATER, AND WE NEED TO STOP JUST USING THAT SWALES. FINALLY, PLEASE DON'T ALLOW YOURSELVES TO BE INFLUENCED BY ANY BOARDS, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OR OTHERWISE, OR ANY OTHER SPECIAL INTERESTS. YOU ALL CAN THINK FOR YOURSELVES, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE WILLING TO MEET WITH US. I REALLY, TRULY DO. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, DOCTOR STOTTS. [00:55:01] >> JACKIE BECKENBAUER. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION AND STAFF. I THINK THAT ACTUALLY HAVING AN AUDIENCE LIKE THIS SHOULD BE A TRIGGER TO ALL OF YOU THAT ANYTIME THE CHAMBERS ARE FULL, WHATEVER IS HAPPENING HERE IS PROBABLY NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY. THAT'S WHY PEOPLE ARE HERE. I THINK WE'VE HAD ONSITE WATER STORAGE. I'VE IN THE COMP PLAN FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS. THERE'S GOOD REASON TO SUPPORT KEEPING IT AS PART OF THE COMP PLAN. THERE'S LEGAL RISKS WITH REMOVING IT, AND IT'S THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE WAY TO CONTROL FLOODING. I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT WE SIMPLIFY IT. I'D LIKE WHAT YOU SAID, MAYOR FORD, TO BRING US TO A 35% CUTOFF. ANYBODY GOES OVER THAT, YOU DO ON SITE WATER STORAGE. BE VERY SIMPLE TO DO THAT. I'D ALSO LIKE TO SEE IF THERE'S A WAY FOR US TO CREATE INCENTIVES FOR PEOPLE TO DO MORE ON SITE WATER STORAGE THAN THEY NEED TO. IF THERE'S A WAY THAT THE CITY COULD DO THAT, THAT WOULD BENEFIT EVERYBODY IN THE COMMUNITY. I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT THIS ORDINANCE TO SCRAP ON SITE WATER STORAGE ACTUALLY WAS PROPOSED TO BEGIN WITH. I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHY WE HAVE THIS IN FRONT OF US AT THIS POINT. IT BEGS THE QUESTION, WHY ARE WE RUSHING TO MAKE THIS CHANGE? IS THERE SOMEBODY BENEFITING FROM THIS? I THINK THAT ALL NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT. I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THE STORMWATER STUDY. I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD HAVE A DROP DEAD DATE IF FEMA WITH THE GOVERNMENT SHUT DOWN IS NOT GOING TO GIVE US THE MONEY FOR THAT. WE SHOULD JUST GO AHEAD AND INVEST AND MOVE FORWARD WITH RESILIENCY BEING OUR CORE AND MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE FOR THE CITY. THERE'S NOT A REASON WHY WE SHOULDN'T INVEST IN THAT. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT. APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT YOU GUYS DO. >> THANK YOU, MISS BECKENBAUER. >> SORRY. LISA HAROLD. >> HI, LISA HAROLD. MY ADDRESS IS ON FILE. I WON'T, BELABOR ALL OF THE POINTS THAT WERE MADE BEFORE THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED TONIGHT ABOUT THE WISDOM OF DOING AWAY WITH THE ONSITE STORAGE. I'VE MET WITH SEVERAL OF YOU AND I REALLY DO APPRECIATE YOU ALL TAKING THE TIME TO MEET WITH YOUR CONSTITUENTS. IT'S GREATLY APPRECIATED. I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE RUSH IS. WHAT'S THE RUSH? LET'S WAIT FOR THE DATA. LET'S WAIT FOR THE STORMWATER MASTER PLAN. I THINK THAT THIS TEMPORARY SOLUTION, IS GREAT. IT'S WORKABLE. IT'S NOT THROWING THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER, SO TO SPEAK. DOING AWAY WITH ON SITE STORAGE NOW IS A BIG MISTAKE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MISS HAROLD. >> CAROL SCHWARTZ. >> I'M NOT CAROL. [LAUGHTER] >> HI. I'M CAROL SCHWARTZ. I'VE LIVED HERE 41 YEARS, SO I'M OLD. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND ALL OF YOU WHO HAVE BEEN ELECTED. WE HAVE ELECTED YOU TO LOOK OUT FOR US, THE CITIZENS, NOT THE DEVELOPERS, NOT THE MONEYMAKERS WHO COME IN HERE AND BUY UP OUR LOTS, CLEAN THEM OFF TO WHERE THEY LOOK LIKE A PARKING LOT IS COMING UP AND BUILD A SPEC HOUSE. PLEASE KEEP US IN MIND. WE NEED OUR COMMUNITY TO BE NOT FLOODED AND HAVE WONDERFUL TREES. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MISS SCHWARTZ. >> SUSANNE BARKER. >> THE USUAL SUSPECTS. >> HI, COMMISSIONERS, AND I HAVE TO SAY, I WAS JUST LIVID AFTER I SAW WHAT YOU COMMISSIONERS DID AT THE LAST COMMISSION MEETING. I WAS SHOCKED. I COULDN'T BELIEVE THAT WITHOUT FOLLOWING OR ANY INPUT, [01:00:01] FOLLOWING STAFF OR ANY NOTICE TO CITIZENS THAT YOU JUST DECIDED TO REMOVE ON SITE STORMWATER STORAGE AS A PRACTICE THAT HAS BEEN IN EFFECT FOR DECADES, AND HAS BENEFITED OUR CITY FROM ANY ADDITIONAL FLOODING IN OUR STREETS. NOT ONLY WAS THIS A SLAP IN THE FACE TO CITY STAFF, BUT ALSO TO THE AB CITIZENS, THOSE CITIZENS WHO ELECTED YOU AND PUT FAITH IN YOU TO REPRESENT THEM RATHER THAN LISTENING TO A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, WHICH IS FINE, BUT YOU REPRESENT US ALL. YOU LOSE THE TRUST OF ATLANTIC BEACH CITIZENS WHEN YOU DO THIS. WITHOUT NOTIFICATION, WITHOUT A WORKSHOP, YOU ALL ACTUALLY SAID, IT'S BEEN WORKSHOP TO DEATH. WELL, IT HASN'T BEEN WORKSHOP TO DEATH, AND WE DO HAVE FLOODING PROBLEMS, AND REMOVING THE CURRENT CODE IS NOT GOING TO HELP. WE DO NEED A NEW MASTER PLAN. WE NEED EXPERTS TO LOOK AT DIFFERENT ZONES, AND THAT SHOULD BE DONE. I DO AGREE WITH THAT. BUT THE HASTE OF YOU ALL, IT WAS JUST STUNNING AT THE LAST COMMISSION MEETING THAT YOU ALL WERE JUST IN A RUSH TO GET THIS DONE. I REALLY THINK, IS THIS GOING TO HELP BECAUSE YOU ARE RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION? IS THIS GETTING MONEY FROM DEVELOPERS? THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MISS BARKER. >> ANGELA WATERS. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> HI. I'M ANGE WATERS, AND I'VE LIVED ON OCEAN GROVE DRIVE FOR 70 YEARS. MY DAD ACTUALLY BUILT THE FIRST HOUSE. FORTY YEARS AGO, I BURNT DOWN THE SMALL COTTAGE ON OCEAN GROVE DRIVE AND BUILT MY HOUSE. I HAD TO BUILD MY HOUSE ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS. IT HAD TO BE SO FAR AWAY FROM EACH SIDE AND FROM THE BACK AND FROM THE FRONT. I HAD NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. THERE WERE RESTRICTIONS. THAT WAS WHEN WE WERE COUNTING. I'VE BEEN THERE EVER SINCE. ATLANTIC BEACH IS MY HOME. I WAS RAISED HERE, RAN IN ALL OF DUNES, WHEN NONE OF YOU GUYS WERE HERE. MY MAIN PROBLEM IS YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT DOING SOMETHING THAT COULD RUN MY FLOOD INSURANCE UP. I'M 75-YEARS-OLD. SEVENTY YEARS I'VE BEEN ON THE BEACH. YOU'RE ABOUT TO TAX ME AND INSURANCE ME OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. WHEN MY PARENTS BOUGHT HERE, THEIR LOT WAS $500. THAT WAS BACK IN 1954. AS A RETIRED SCHOOL TEACHER? I NEVER EXPECTED I'D BE PAYING $26,000 IN TAXES A YEAR ON A LITTLE $76,000 HOUSE THAT MY EX HUSBAND AND I BUILT IN 1986. THAT'S MY BIG CONCERN. IS THERE LITTLE PEOPLE LIKE US STILL OUT THERE THAT ARE TRYING TO STILL LIVE HERE. YOU'RE LOOKING AT THINGS TO MAKE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BUYING THE LOTS AND PAYING GOD AWFUL PRICES FOR IT, THAT THE LITTLE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE LEFT BY THE SIDE. PLUS ATLANTIC BEACH NEEDS ALL THE HELP THEY CAN GET WITH FLOODING. BECAUSE ATLANTIC BEACH ELEMENTARY, THE STEPS HAVE FLOODED FOR 70 YEARS. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MISS WATERS. >> ELLEN GOLOMBEK. >> GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. THANK YOU. ELLEN GOLOMBEK, 375 THIRD STREET, ATLANTIC BEACH, AND MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD. I WILL SAY, I WAS THE ONLY MEMBER OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD AT THE LAST MEETING TO VOTE AGAINST THIS RECOMMENDATION TO YOU, AND THE REASON IS SIMPLE. I AM NOT A WATER. I AM NOT A WATER ENGINEER. I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A REASON WHY THIS ORDINANCE WAS PUT IN PLACE. WITHOUT BACKGROUND AS TO WHY WE SHOULD REMOVE IT. I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY MY COLLEAGUES VOTED TO DO SO. I HAVE CONSISTENTLY VOTED AGAINST REMOVING THIS LANGUAGE. I STILL OPPOSE REMOVING THIS LANGUAGE. I THINK IT'S CRITICAL THAT THAT WE USE THE EXPERTS WE HAVE ON STAFF, [01:05:03] AND WE BRING IN THE EXPERTS WITH A STORMWATER STUDY. LET'S STOP SLAPPING BAND AIDS ON THE PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE WITH WATER HERE IN ATLANTIC BEACH. LET'S FIND OUT WHAT THE PROBLEM IS. LET'S GET A PLAN, AND LET'S EXECUTE IT. LET'S STOP DOING THESE LITTLE TEENY FIXES ALL OVER. IF SOMEONE HAS AN ISSUE WITH THE 400 SQUARE FEET AND PUTTING IN A RETENTION, A SWALE, OR HOWEVER THEY CHOOSE TO DO THAT, THEY CAN ACTUALLY COME TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD AND REQUEST A VARIANCE. WE HAVE GRANTED VARIANCES TO PEOPLE. I KNOW IT'S A PAIN IN THE BUTT. I HAVE HAD TO APPLY FOR VARIANCES MYSELF. I AM NOT A HAVE. I WOULD NOT CONSIDER MYSELF A HAVE NOT. I HAVE A NEIGHBOR NEXT DOOR WHO PUT IN SWALE WITHOUT IT BEING REQUIRED BECAUSE WE FLOOD ON THIRD STREET. THE NEXT TIME THERE'S A MAJOR RAINSTORM, I INVITE YOU TO BRING YOUR CANOE AND COME DOWN OUR STREET. THE STEPS OF THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL THAT FLOOD, THAT'S WATER COMING DOWN THIRD STREET. WE HAVE A PROBLEM HERE. LET'S FIX IT, AND LET'S FIX IT RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MISS GOLOMBEK. >> MAYOR, ALL I HAVE LEFT ARE CARDS THAT DO NOT WANT TO SPEAK, BUT YOU WANT TO GO ON RECORD. >> DID ANYBODY SIGN UP AND EXPECT TO SPEAK ON STORMWATER THAT HAS NOT BEEN CALLED ON. IF THERE'S NO OTHER HANDS RAISED, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT AND WE'LL MOVE BACK. YOU WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE. PLEASE, GO AHEAD. >> DEBBIE BROWN IS IN SUPPORT OF 9(A). I HAVE LINDSEY YOUNG IS OPPOSED TO THE ORDINANCE. JASON LEBLANC, OPPOSED TO THE ORDINANCE. HERE'S A NO NAME AND NO ADDRESS IS OPPOSED TO 9(A). THEN WE HAVE RUTH BOWMAN. SHE IS OPPOSED TO 9(A). SHE'S IN FAVOR OF WAITING UNTIL THE STUDIES HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED. THAT'S IT. >> THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE ON TO DISCUSSION. FIRST OF ALL, I'M GOING TO NEED A MOTION. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THE ORDINANCE THAT IS, ACTUALLY, PUBLISHED AND IN THE AGENDA, AND THEN WE'LL GO FROM THERE. >> I RECOMMEND A MOTION. WE ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 90-25-257. >> MAYOR, DO YOU WANT TO? >> I'M GOING TO EXERCISE MY ABILITY TO CHANGE SEATS, AND I'M GOING TO ASK COMMISSIONER BOLD TO TAKE MY SEAT. >> I GO TO EXPLAIN WHAT WE JUST. >> JUST FOR EVERYONE'S EDIFICATION, WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW IS WE'VE, OBVIOUSLY, HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND NOW THAT PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED, IS BACK TO THE COMMISSION. THE COMMISSION WILL DELIBERATE. THERE HAS BEEN A MOTION THAT'S BEEN PLACED FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMISSION. THERE NEEDS TO EITHER BE A SECOND OR IT DIES. NOW IN THE INTERIM, THE MAYOR HAS TAKEN HIS PREROGATIVE TO PERHAPS ADVOCATE OR TAKE A POSITION ON THIS MATTER BY SWITCHING WITH THE MAYOR PRO TEM FOR THE PENDENCY OF THIS DISCUSSION. >> I'M GOING TO SECOND THE MOTION, AND I'LL TURN IT BACK TO MR. BOLD, AT THIS POINT. >> I BELIEVE WE CAN OPEN UP AND DISCUSSION AGAIN. >> WELL, I'M GOING TO START. BY THE WAY, THANK YOU, MAYOR. ONE THING I THINK I HEARD TONIGHT WAS THAT AT LEAST FROM MY CONSTITUENTS, WAS THAT THEY WANT TO SEE RELIABLE DATA IN A STORMWATER STUDY. I HEARD THAT LOUD AND CLEAR. I THINK I'M GOING TO DIVE INTO MY SECOND JOB. [01:10:02] I'M A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR, AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT IF WE WRITE AN RP AND WE SPEND THE MONEY, THEY WILL COME. DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A FULL BLOWN STORMWATER STUDY. BILL MAY OR MAY NOT AGREE WITH ME, BUT IF WE GO AHEAD AND PUBLISH WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE AND THE DATA THAT WE NEED, AND I'M LOOKING AT RICK RIGHT NOW AND I'M LOOKING AT OUR CITY ENGINEER, ETC, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND BUY WHAT WE NEED IN A FINITE PERIOD OF TIME. THAT'S ONE OF MY COMMENTS IS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT FEMA. I DON'T COUNT ON THEM ANYMORE. I WORK WITH THEM. IN MY OPINION, WE CAN WAIT TIL WE HAVE ACTIONABLE DATA, WHICH I DON'T THINK WE HAVE AT THIS POINT. I'M SURE MAYOR, YOU'RE GOING TO DISCUSS WHAT I JUST GOT AN HOUR AND 20 MINUTES AGO. GO AHEAD. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE AMEND THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO READ AS FOLLOWS ON THE AMENDMENT, DEVELOPMENT THAT RESULTS IN MORE THAN 35% IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ON SITE STORMWATER STORAGE FOR THE ENTIRE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA. PROJECTS THAT RESULT IN LESS THAN 400 SQUARE FEET OF ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM THIS REQUIREMENT, PROVIDING THAT THE TOTAL LOT COVERAGE REMAINS WITHIN THE APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT. THE 400 SQUARE FEET SHALL BE CALCULATED CUMULATIVELY FROM THE ADOPTION DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE. >> HERE A SECOND. >> OH SECOND. >> IF I MAY, I'D LIKE TO EXPLAIN MY REASONING FOR THAT. I STATED IT EARLIER, AND I HEAR THE CITIZENS VERY CLEARLY, WE SHOULD NOT BE MAKING ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES WITHOUT THE STORMWATER STUDY, WHICH I WILL ALSO AGREE THAT I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE PAYMENT OF THAT EXPENSE OUT OF OUR GENERAL FUND. IF IT'S DETERMINED THAT WE CANNOT REASONABLY EXPECT THE FUNDING FROM FEMA. BUT WHEN WE SAY THAT WE HAVE NOT WORKSHOP THIS, I'VE BEEN YOUR MAYOR FOR THREE YEARS, AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION. I'VE HAD CITIZENS FROM THE COMMUNITY, AND I APPRECIATE THE CITIZEN WHO'S ACTUALLY BEEN PART OF OUR STORMWATER. BUT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE WAY WE'VE COME TO HOW WE CALCULATE STORMWATER RETENTION, AND SO ON. I DON'T HAVE TIME, AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO LITIGATE THIS TONIGHT, I DON'T WANT TO SAY ONEROUS, BUT WE HAVE THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CALCULATIONS FOR ON SITE STORAGE IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA. WE ARE ALMOST DOUBLE, AND WE ACTUALLY HAVE A FEMA REPRESENTATIVE HERE, SO I'M NOT GOING TO PICK ON HIM, BUT WE ARE ALMOST DOUBLE WHAT FEMA WOULD REQUIRE ON A PLANNED STORMWATER SYSTEM IN A NEW COMMUNITY. I COULD GO ON AND ON ABOUT COMPARISON TO OTHER CITIES. THERE'S ONLY SEVEN CITIES IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA THAT EVEN HAVE RESIDENTIAL ON SITE STORAGE. IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT WE SHOULD SCRAP ONSITE STORAGE. ONSITE STORAGE DOES HAVE ITS BENEFITS AND DOES WORK. THE QUESTION IS, ARE APPLYING IT FAIRLY, AND ARE WE GETTING WHAT WE WANT OUT OF HAVING THIS PLAN AND TO SIMPLY SAY RELY ON THE EXPERTS. WELL, WE'VE BEEN RELYING SINCE 2006 ON EXPERTS, BOTH INTERNALLY WITHIN THE CITY AND EXTERNAL, AND I'M NOT SATISFIED BASED ON ALL THE DISCUSSION WE'VE HAD AND ALL THE ENGAGEMENT I'VE HAD WITH CITIZENS. I AM BRINGING FORTH THIS THIS MOTION TO AMEND THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE IN FAVOR OF USING SOME VERY REASONABLE CHANGES TO THE CODE THAT GIVE RELIEF WHERE IT'S APPROPRIATE. AGAIN, I WANT TO BE CLEAR. THOSE OF YOU I HEARD ON SEMINOLE ROAD AND ELSEWHERE THAT ARE WORRIED ABOUT FLOODING OF SHERMAN'S CREEK OR HOPKINS CREEK. THE CHANGES THAT I PROPOSED WILL IMPACT VIRTUALLY NOTHING IN THE OLD CITY AREA BECAUSE NOT TOO MANY PEOPLE ARE SPENDING $800,000 FOR A PIECE OF LAND AND THEY ARE GOING TO STOP AT 35%. SO THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD 45% AND, THEREFORE, COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT CODE. NO CHANGE THERE. IF BY CHANCE, YOU HAD SOMEBODY THAT REALLY WANTED TO DO A GOOD DEED AND DO 35% COVERAGE, WOULDN'T YOU BE HAPPY FOR A CHANGE THAT SOMEBODY DIDN'T OVERBUILD THE PROPERTY? I'M JUST SAYING, LET'S BE REASONABLE HERE AND NOT HANG OUR HAT ON, [01:15:01] WE CANNOT MOVE UNTIL WE GET THE LAST DETAIL FROM A PROFESSIONAL. ANYWAYS, I HAD MENTIONED EARLIER, THOSE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY BUILD A 45% WILL ACTUALLY PAY THE PREMIUM THAT'S INSTALLED TODAY UNDER THE CODE. THIS WOULD MOVE THE ISSUE DOWN THE ROAD TILL AFTER WE HAVE A STORMWATER STUDY FOR ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES, WHETHER THAT BE ELIMINATION OF ONSITE STORAGE OR MODIFICATION. I'M A BELIEVER THAT IT'S MOST LIKELY SIMPLY MODIFIED. ADDING SOME ADDITIONAL THINGS. I HEARD A COMMENT FROM A CITIZEN TODAY ABOUT MORE INCENTIVES. THAT'S WHAT THE 35% IS, IS TRYING TO PUT AN INCENTIVE INSTEAD OF JUST HITTING PEOPLE WITH A BAT AND THEN ACCOMPLISH THE GOAL. I'M HOPING THAT MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS WILL UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE MANY CITIZENS IN THIS COMMUNITY THAT FEEL THEY ARE NOT BEING LISTENED TO AND NOT JUST THE ONES HERE TONIGHT. I REALLY HOPE YOU'LL CONSIDER THIS MOTION. >> I'D LIKE TO CALL THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR UP TO THE PODIUM. RICK, I'D LIKE YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION. I'D LIKE YOU TO STATE YOUR QUALIFICATIONS. ALSO, I THINK WE SHOULD REITERATE A CONVERSATION AT YOU AND I HAD THAT, IN FACT, WE DO HAVE SOME CITIZENS WITH BUILDING PERMITS THAT ARE SMALLER THAN THE 35%? >> THERE ARE SEVERAL MOSTLY LARGE CORNER LOTS. MY NAME IS RICK CARPER. I'M A RETIRED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. PREVIOUSLY, THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR HERE 2004-2014, A LOT OF TIME SPENT ON PLAN REVIEWS AND IMPOSING ON SITE STORAGE DURING THAT TIME., AND I'M BACK DOING THE SAME THING FOR THE LAST NINE MONTHS. WE DO HAVE A FEW PERMIT APPLICATIONS FOR PEOPLE WITH LESS THAN 35%. MOST OF THEM ARE ANY MID '40S. WE DO VERY CLOSELY CONTROL. THEY DO NOT GO OVER 45. WE MEASURE WITH THE SOFTWARE THAT WE HAVE. I RECENTLY DID A STUDY AND I PROVIDED THIS TO THE CITY MANAGER, LOOKED AT 10 PERMITS IN THE LAST TWO YEARS THAT WERE NINE WERE NEW CONSTRUCTION, WHERE THEY REQUIRED TOTAL RETENTION FOR ALL ADDED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ON THE LOT. ONE WAS A ADDED SWIMMING POOL AND A POOL HOUSE THING. I CALCULATED WHAT THEIR TOTAL COST WAS BASED ON LAND PURCHASE, BASED ON DEMOLITION, ALL THE PERMITS THEY HAD TO HAVE, ELECTRICAL, BUILDING, TREES, EVEN CALCULATED WHAT THEIR TOTAL COST WAS. THEN I CALCULATED WHAT THE COST WAS OR THEIR SPECIFIC REQUIRED ONSITE STORAGE BY OUR STORMWATER PERMIT. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ADDITION AND SWIMMING POOL, ALL THE PERMITS WERE LESS THAN 1% TOTAL COST FOR STORM WATER STORAGE. IT'S NOT AN ONEROUS REQUIREMENT ON SOMEBODY THAT'S SCRAPING A LOT IN ATLANTIC BEACH BECAUSE THEY'RE PAYING A LOT OF MONEY FOR DIRT HERE. >> THAT'S YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION ON ORDINANCE 90-25-257? >> THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE THAT IS BEING AMENDED, I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE. I HAVEN'T REALLY LOOKED AT THE NUMBERS ON THE MAYOR'S PROPOSED AMENDMENT. THE ONE THAT CAME IN THE DOOR TONIGHT WAS AS ONE OF THE SPEAKER SPOKE EARLIER, I THOUGHT A HASTY THROWAWAY. MY OPINION HAS BEEN THE WHOLE TIME IS WE'VE GOT AN ORDINANCE THAT'S WORKING. LET'S KEEP THAT UNTIL THE STORMWATER STUDY IS COMPLETE. I THINK THE MAYOR'S AMENDMENT IS AN ADEQUATE SUBSTITUTE. >> ANYTHING ELSE? CITY ENGINEER, WOULD YOU LIKE TO WEIGH IN ON THIS, SIR? [LAUGHTER] >> YOU, STEVE. >> I'M BRINGING YOU UP, BIG GUY. AGAIN, SAME QUESTION I ASKED RACK, YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION? >> YEAH, STEVE SWAN I'M A CITY ENGINEER. MY PROFESSIONAL OPINION IS THAT OVER THE PAST 20 YEARS, I'VE SEEN IT GETTING A LITTLE WORSE AROUND HERE IN TERMS OF WATER TABLES RISING. THE SEA LEVELS RISING, IT IS GETTING HARDER TO GET RID OF OUR STORMWATER. WITH THE WORK THAT WE'VE DONE WITH THE ONSITE STORAGE, [01:20:02] IT'S ELIMINATED A LOT OF THE STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM THE SOURCE, WHICH IS THE CHEAPEST PLACE TO DO IT. WE DO NOT HAVE THE ROOM IN OUR RIGHT OF WAYS. TO DO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. WE DON'T HAVE LAND AVAILABLE TO DO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT EXCEPT FOR THE LITTLE PIECE OF LAND OF TWO ACRES WE BOUGHT ON DORA DRIVE THAT WE'RE WORKING ON RIGHT NOW, BUT FOR THE REST OF THE CITY, THE LAND'S NOT THERE. TO COMPLY WITH THE REGULATIONS FROM THE SCHONS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT THAT HAVE RECENTLY COME INTO EFFECT. WE'VE GOT TO PROVIDE A LOT OF WATER QUALITY TREATMENT, TOO, WHICH IS NOT JUST THE FLOODING, BUT IT'S A TREATMENT. HUGELY EXPENSIVE WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE THE LAND AREA. IN MY OPINION, WE NEED TO RETAIN WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW WITH THE ONSITE STORAGE RULE. WHAT WE DO HAVE NOW, WE DIDN'T HAVE BACK IN 2018 AND EARLIER, IS WE HAVE A VERY DETAILED LDR, WHICH IS MEASURES THE GROUND SURFACE ELEVATIONS TO A VERY FINE RESOLUTION. WE HAVE BETTER MODELING SOFTWARE, BETTER COMPUTER SOFTWARE, SO WE CAN MODEL THINGS ON BASICALLY A SUB-NEIGHBORHOOD, BY SUB-NEIGHBORHOOD BASIS, WHICH IS WHAT WE'D LIKE TO DO. THAT'S WHAT WE APPLIED FOR FMA FOR A GRANT MONEY TO HELP PAY FOR THAT. THAT'LL LET US TAILOR OUR ONSITE STORAGE REQUIREMENTS TO THE SPECIFIC AREAS OF THE CITY, SO WE CAN SEE HOW THINGS AFFECT EACH OTHER. WE KNOW THAT SALT AIR SUBDIVISION AT THE HEAD OF SHERMAN'S CREEK IS VERY LOW, HAS SOME FLOODING ISSUES THERE. BUT IF YOU GO SAY GO DOWN TO SAL MARINA AND YOU ELIMINATE THE ONSITE STORAGE, WHAT DOES THAT EXCESS WATER FLOWING INTO SHERMAN CREEK DO BACK UP HERE? THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT I'D LIKE TO STUDY BEFORE WE MAKE ANY WHOLESALE CHANGES IN THE RULE, BECAUSE IF WE MAKE A MISTAKE, WE'RE UNDOING 20 YEARS OF WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE, THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET BACK. >> THANKS. I APPRECIATE THAT. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. I APPRECIATE THE TERM WHOLESALE CHANGES, WHICH SUGGESTS TO ME SIGNIFICANT CHANGES. DO YOU BELIEVE 35% AND BELOW IS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE? >> I THINK THAT'S WORKABLE BECAUSE WHAT I WAS WORRIED ABOUT WITH THE PREVIOUS PROPOSAL WAS IF YOU ELIMINATE THE ONSITE STORAGE REQUIREMENT, THEN WE'D FILL IN 20 YEARS OF STORMWATER SWELLS AROUND THE CITY, AND WE'D HAVE A LOT MORE WATER. YOU PROPOSED CHANGE, WE'RE RETAINING THAT, WHICH I THINK IS A GOOD THING. WHEN WE GET DONE WITH OUR STORMWATER STUDIES, MAYBE WE CAN CHANGE IT AT THAT POINT, BUT I THINK THE 35% IS JUST FINE, I THINK RIGHT NOW. >> THANK YOU. >> STEVE, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON IN ADDITION TO 35, WHICH YOU JUST COMMENT ON THE 400 FOOT IMPROVEMENT OR ANYTHING DONE THAT ADDS AN ADDITIONAL 400 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE TO THE PROPERTY THAT THEY'D BE EXEMPT FROM HAVING TO PROVIDE? >> I THINK THAT'S REASONABLE. THERE HAS TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF GIVE AND TAKEN IN THERE SOMEWHERE. YOU CAN'T BE PUTTING A PAVER DOWN AND TRIP THE THRESHOLD. SO 400 SQUARE FEET, I THINK IS FAIRLY REASONABLE. >> THANK YOU. >>THANKS. I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. WE'RE LUCKY ENOUGH TO HAVE SOMEBODY FROM THE ST. JOHN'S WATER. WOULD YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY, SIR? YOU'RE WELCOME. I APPRECIATE YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION. >> I TOO. >> I KNOW. I'M DRAGGING YOU UP. >> APOLOGY. >> WELL, HAVING BEEN IN THE SEAT BEFORE, AND I DON'T HAVE ALL THE DETAILS, SO I'M VERY HESITANT TO SAY ANYTHING OTHER THAN I DO HAVE ONE OF MY ENGINEERS NEEDS TO ANSWER A WATER QUALITY CREDIT TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR TO TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR SYSTEM WITH ALL IT STORAGE AND UNDER THESE NEW RULES OF WATER QUALITY, DO YOU GET SOME OF THAT MITIGATION CREDITS, BUT THAT'S IN REGARDS TO THE CHANGE, DO AWAY, OR KEEP. I HAVEN'T BEEN INVOLVED IN THAT RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING. HAVING BEEN THERE, I WOULD BE VERY HESITANT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OTHER THAN I TRUST YOU AND THE CITIZENS AND YOUR STAFF ARE GOING TO COME TO THE RIGHT THINGS, BUT THERE IS A QUESTION, I WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO PUT A BLOW TOUCH ON THAT ENGINEER OR ENGINEERS TOMORROW TO GET THAT QUESTION ANSWERED. >> YES, PLEASE. >> AS A FORMER NAVY PILOT, YOU SOUND A LOT LIKE A POLITICIAN. I JUST WANT TO GO ON RECORD THERE, SIR. >> I'M GUILTY. >> OKAY. >> MR. CHAIRMAN? >> YES, SIR. >> I CALLED THE QUESTION. >> CALL IT. >> I CALLED THE QUESTION. >> WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? >> THAT CLOSES DEBATE. >> UNDERSTAND. >>NO. I'VE ALREADY CALLED THE QUESTION. >> IT'S NON DEBATABLE, SO YOU HAVE TO VOTE ON CALLING THE QUESTION, WHICH WOULD SHUT DOWN DEBATE AND GOES STRAIGHT INTO THE VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT. [01:25:03] WE HAVE TO VOTE. YES. IT'S NOT THE BILL. >> PUT THE BILL. ON THE AMENDMENT QUEST. >> THE AMENDMENT. THE FIRST VOTE IS ON CALLING THE QUESTION. DO YOU AGREE THAT YOU SHOULD SHUT DOWN DEBATE AT THIS POINT ON THE AMENDMENT? IF THAT PASSES, THEN YOU GO STRAIGHT INTO VOTING ON THE AMENDMENT. THIS IS JUST ON THE AMENDMENT, NOT ON THE WHOLE BILL. >> I'D LIKE YOU TO RECOGNIZE THAT AS ACTING MAY OR I VOTE LAST, CORRECT? >> YES. >> OKAY. >> ALL IN FAVOR OF CALLING THE QUESTION. >> ALL IN FAVOR OF CALLING THE QUESTION. >> I, NAY. >> NAY. THE QUESTION IS CALLED 3-2, SO THAT PASSES, WHICH MEANS NOW YOU VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT AS PRESENTED. YOU'RE JUST VOTING ON THE AMENDMENT. >> ORDINANCE BILL. I GUESS I SHOULD READ THE ORDINANCE OR THE AMENDMENT. AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NUMBER 90-25-237 WHICH READS DEVELOPMENT THAT RESULTS IN MORE THAN 35%. IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ON SITE STORMWATER STORAGE FOR THE ENTIRE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA. PROJECTS THAT RESULT IN LESS THAN 400 SQUARE FEET OF ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM THIS REQUIREMENT, PROVIDED THAT THE TOTAL LOT COVERAGE REMAINS WITHIN THE APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT. THE 400 SQUARE FEET SHALL BE CALCULATED CUMULATIVELY FROM THE ADOPTION DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE. >> I AM UNCLEAR. FOR THE ENTIRE IMPERVIOUS SERVICE AREA. THAT'S THE 35% PLUS WHATEVER ELSE YOU'VE ADDED. IS THAT WHAT IT'S SAYING? >> I BELIEVE SO. >> THEN IT'S SAYING THE APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT, I MEAN, ISN'T THAT LIKE RS 1, OR IS THAT THE 35 AND 45%? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ZONING DISTRICT MEANS IN THIS APPLICATION. >> WOULD IT BE RESIDENTIAL VERSUS COMMERCIAL. >> CAN YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION? WELL, I UNDERSTAND YOU. GO AHEAD. >> THE LOCK COVERAGE RATIO IS DIFFERENT IN DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS. WHAT THIS SAYS IS, YOU CAN'T EXCEED THE LOT COVERAGE RATIO IN WHATEVER ZONING DISTRICT. RS 1 IS 45%. THE DARK CODE NO DIFFERENTIATES BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL FOR THAT MATTER. IT'S JUST ALL THINGS. RATHER THAN IF WE PUT 45% THERE AND THE LOT COVERAGE FOR THAT ZONING DISTRICT WAS ACTUALLY 30%, WE DIDN'T WANT TO GRANT AN ADDITIONAL 15%. YOUR MAX IS WHATEVER THE ZONING DISTRICTS. >> NOT VERY CLEAR, BUT OKAY. >> CAN I ASK A QUESTION. WE'RE LETTING A LITTLE LATITUDE HERE BECAUSE WE WANT TO CLARIFY, I GUESS THE AMENDMENT. IF IT'S FOR JUST CLARIFYING THE AMENDMENT. >> IS IT POSSIBLE TO AMEND THIS AMENDMENT FOR THE DATE OF EXECUTION, IN OTHER WORDS, THE DATE IT WILL TAKE EFFECT? >> YOU CAN ASK THE MOVER IF HE WOULD TAKE THAT AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, BUT OTHERWISE, WE'D HAVE TO JUST VOTE ON IT. >> I'M ASKING YOU IF WE CAN AMEND THIS TO PUT AN EFFECTIVE DATA. >> I'M NOT AGREEING TO THAT. >> WE'RE AT THE VOTE STAGE, CORRECT? YES. THIS IS VOTING ON THE AMENDMENT THAT THE MAYOR HAS PROPOSED. >> DONNA, CAN WE GET A BRO CALL ON THAT? >> YES. THEN THAT WOULD BE MAYOR FORD. >> AYE. >> I'M SORRY, THINGS ARE IN A DIFFERENT ORDER NOW. COMMISSIONER GRANT? >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER KELLY. >> I THINK, AYE. AYE. >> MR. RAY. >> AYE >> MAYOR PROVE TIM BOTH. >> SOUNDS GOOD, DOESN'T IT?. >> JUST THE AMENDMENT. AYE. >> VOTE PASSES, AMENDMENT PASSES. >> BUT NOW I BELIEVE WE GO ON TO THE ORDINANCE. >> NOW WE'RE BACK TO THE ORDINANCE AS AMENDED. >> FURTHER DISPATCHER. >> THANKS. >> QUESTIONS >> I HAVE A QUESTION. IS THIS CONSIDERED THE FIRST OR SECOND READING? >> SECOND. >> WE'RE IN THE SECOND READING. >> AMENDMENT READING. >> THAT'S CORRECT. TONIGHT, WHATEVER YOU PASS. QUESTION. >> WELL, AT THIS TIME, IT'D BE APPROPRIATE TO RE-READ THE AMENDMENT. NOT THE AMENDMENT. RE-READ THE ORDINANCE AS AMENDED, [01:30:03] AND THEN WE CAN HAVE DISCUSSION. >> THE ORDINANCE 90-25-257, THIS PUBLIC HEARING AND FINAL READING. AN ORDINANCE TO THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH COUNTY OF DUVAL STATE OF FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATION, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING SECTION 24-89, STORMWATER DRAINAGE, STORAGE AND TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS TO REDUCE THE REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL STORMWATER STORAGE PROVIDED FOR RECORDINATION, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. CAN ALSO BE AMENDED. AS AMENDED, THE DEVELOPMENT THAT RESULTS IN MORE THAN 35% IMPERVIOUS LOT COVERAGE SHALL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ON STORMWATER STORAGE FOR THE ENTIRE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA. PROJECTS THAT RESULT IN LESS THAN 400 SQUARE FEET OF ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM THIS REQUIREMENT, PROVIDED THAT THE TOTAL LOT COVERAGE REMAINS WITHIN THE APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT. THE 400 SQUARE FEET SHALL BE CALCULATED CUMULATIVELY FROM THE ADOPTION DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE. DISCUSSION. >> IF YOU DON'T MIND. I JUST TO HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS. I GET THE EXTREMITY OF GETTING RID OF STORMWATER RETENTION, AND THAT'S I GUESS MY INITIAL THOUGHT THREE WEEKS AGO WERE THAT WE WOULD GET RID OF IT AND BUILD IT BACK UP TO A MORE TENABLE CONCLUSION. I'M NOT AGAINST AN ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES SOME SORT OF STORMWATER RETENTION. WHAT I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF IS THE EXTREMITY IN WHICH WE'VE GONE TO ASK OUR NEIGHBORS TO MAKE UP FOR THE SINS OF THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN HERE LONGER ASKING NEW RESIDENTS TO COME IN AND DO SOME VERY EXTREME THINGS WITH THEIR PROPERTY TO MAKE UP FOR LACK OF STORMWATER RETENTION ON CURRENT PROPERTIES THAT HAVEN'T BEEN RENOVATED SINCE THIS WENT INTO EFFECT. I HOPE EVERYBODY THAT CAME UP AND SPOKE IN FAVOR OF HOLDING THE ORDINANCE AS IS HAS STORMWATER RETENTION. I'D BE A BAD LOOK FOR YOU IF YOU DID, BECAUSE TO ME, IT'S A VERY HYPOCRITIC THING TO ASK YOUR NEIGHBOR TO DO SOMETHING THAT YOU YOURSELF DON'T WANT TO DO. I'VE HEARD THAT. I'VE HEARD SOME OF YOU WHO HAVE LOOK, EVERYBODY'S ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINION, BUT I'VE HEARD SOME OF YOU SAY, I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU'RE ON DOING THIS. I'M LISTENING. I MET WITH SOME OF YOU. THEN I FIND OUT, I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. I DON'T WANT THAT IN MY YARD. I GUESS I GET THAT. BUT I'M JUST AGAINST THE SEVERITY. I THINK, HERE'S A QUICK EXAMPLE. IF YOU GOT A 200, IF YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE STORMWATER AT THE CURRENT CALCULATION FOR 200 SQUARE FEET OF ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. SORRY. THAT'S YOU'RE LOOKING AT OVER A THOUSAND GALLONS OF STORAGE, WHICH RESULTS IN ABOUT 18*10*1 FOOT DEEP SWALE. THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A MINUTE. THAT'S A BIG FOOTPRINT IN YOUR PROPERTY. IF LOOK, IF WE WERE MORE LIKE FERNANDINA BEACH, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 10% OF US, THAT'S A COUPLE OF RAIN BARRELS. FOR THAT ALL DAY LONG. IF WE HAD THE CALCULATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS THAT THE FERNANDINA BEACH STORMWATER RETENTION ORDINANCE HAS IN PLACE UP THERE, NONE OF US WOULD BE HERE TALKING ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW. IT'D BE SO MANAGEABLE THAT NONE OF US WOULD BE THINKING ABOUT IT. I GET THAT THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE AGAINST IT UP HERE TODAY, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO SPENT A LOT OF MONEY WHO JUST ARE DONE WITH IT. I THINK, AND I'M A BIG ESC PROPONENT. I ASKED THEM. I LISTEN. I'VE SHARED IDEAS WITH HOW TO PROTECT OUR OAKS AND OUR CANOPY. I'VE TALKED TO A HOMEOWNER THAT HAS A LOT THEY'RE TRYING TO DEVELOP. THEY LIVE ON THE MARSH OFF WEST FIRST STREET. THEY HAVE DITCHES, THEY'RE ON A CORNER LOT. THEY HAVE DITCHES ON BOTH SIDES OF THEM. TWO SIDES OF THEIR LOT, IT HAS DITCHES. THEY'RE PUTTING A HOUSE ON PILINGS, EIGHT FOOT PILINGS, WHICH I HAVEN'T SEEN TOO MANY OF THOSE DOWN THERE, BUT TO MEET, CURRENT FLOODING REGULATIONS, IS GOING TO DO THAT. BUT THE SWELLS WE'RE REQUIRING IS GOING TO HAVE HIM CUT, 3-4 HERITAGE OAKS. [01:35:04] I SAY HERITAGE, LARGE OAKS. ONE OF THEM IS HUGE. THAT'S ONE OF THESE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES THAT REALLY GETS ME FRUSTRATED. THAT'S WHY I WANT THE MITIGATION TO OCCUR. THEN WHEN WE GET THE STUDY AND WE DO THE STUDY TO LOOK AT EVERY SECTION OF THIS CITY TO SEE WHAT'S REALLY NEEDED IN EACH NEIGHBORHOOD. THEN WE CAN MODIFY IT. BUT I THINK WE NEED SOME HELP RIGHT NOW. I REALLY DO THINK IF WE HAD A CALL BEFORE YOU BUY IN ATLANTIC BEACH, MUCH LIKE THE ESC HAS CALLED BEFORE YOU CUT, AND PEOPLE UNDERSTOOD WHAT THEY'RE SUBJECT TO COMING IN HERE AND DOING A RENOVATIONS AND BUILDING FROM SCRATCH. THEY'D PROBABLY HAVE A SECOND THOUGHT ABOUT BUYING HERE. >> I'M NOT ASKING FOR A RESPONSE. I'M SPEAKING. I KNOW EVERYBODY THINKS THAT, WE DO HAVE THE MOST DESIRABLE PLACE TO LIVE. I DO BELIEVE THAT. BUT WHEN THEY FIND OUT THEY HAVE TO SPEND MAYBE 100 TO $150,000 MORE TO MOVE IN, THEY MAY THINK TWICE ABOUT IT, THAT'S ALL I'LL SAY, BUT I JUST REALLY FEEL LIKE THIS IS A GOOD COMPROMISE FOR THE TIME BEING, AND WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BOARD. >> I'D LIKE TO SAY ONE THING. FERNANDINA BEACHES. I KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IT, AND THAT'S A HORRIBLE EXAMPLE TO USE. THERE ARE PEOPLE UP THERE CONVINCED THAT THE NEXT MAJOR STORM UP THERE COULD IN FACT WIPE THAT PLACE OFF THE PLANET WHAT THEY HAVE TODAY. CHECK IT OUT. DON'T BELIEVE COMMISSIONER BOL. NUMBER 2, THE REASON I WILL VOTE AGAINST THIS, AS I VOTED AGAINST IT LAST TIME IS I THINK THAT WE'RE SPENDING THE MONEY, AND WE HAVE THE TIME TO LOOK AT A PROFESSIONAL STUDY AND TARGET THAT SPECIFIC STUDY TO EXACTLY WHAT WE ASK. I TALKED TO OUR PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. HE'S WORRIED WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO SOME OF OUR PARKS. IS THAT CORRECT, OVER TIME? I AM, TOO. AND I THINK WE CAN GET PEOPLE IN HERE AND WE TALKED ABOUT THE LIDAR, ETC. WE HAVE REAL TECHNOLOGY THAT CAN TELL US THE RIGHT THING TO DO. THAT'S WHY I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THIS, AND HOPEFULLY IT'LL COME UP, AND I WOULD ASK THE CITY MANAGER IF WE CAN SPEED THAT UP IN ANY WAY. OUR CITY BUDGET IS HOW MUCH TODAY? >> ABOUT $57. >> FIFTY SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS. I THINK THIS IS A DAMN GOOD INVESTMENT THAT WE CAN MAKE AS A CITY. BUT I WILL YIELD TO I'M SURE MR. FORD WANTS TO SAY SO. >> WELL, NO, I HEAR YOU. I'LL JUST CONCLUDE WITH THIS. I'VE ALREADY SAID THIS IS A VERY LOW IMPACT ADJUSTMENT, AND YES, WE COULD WAIT FOR THE STORMWATER STUDY. THE STORMWATER STUDY IN AND OF ITSELF IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE MY OPINION THAT THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE WILLING TO BUILD LESS ON THEIR GIVEN PARCEL OF LAND, I'M GOING TO LOOK TO ASSIST THEM WITH A BENEFIT. THIS IS A GREAT WAY TO GET THE RESULTS THAT WE WANT AND PRESERVE MORE TREES. AGAIN, FOR THOSE WHO ARE INTO THE TREES, THIS REALLY DOES MATTER FOR TREES. WE CANNOT DIG SWALES AND PUT TREES IN SWALES. IT'S NOT JUST SWALES. I GET THE FACT THAT I'M GLAD IT'S COMING UP IN THIS CONVERSATION. WE NEED TO DO A BETTER JOB OF PUTTING STORMWATER RETENTION UNDER OUR DRIVEWAYS, UNDER OUR PERMEABLE PAVERS, AND THEN EVEN PUTTING IN VAULTS WHERE WE CAN AFFORD IT. IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE. BY THE WAY, I'M LOOKING AT OLD PAPERWORK FROM THE CITY. I'M LOOKING AT THE ORIGINAL 2006 ESTIMATED COST FOR A STORMWATER SYSTEM PER HOMEOWNER IS $200. RIGHT NOW, IT COSTS MORE THAN $200 JUST TO GET THE ATTORNEY TO DRAFT RESTRICTION AND FILE IT WITH THE COUNTY COURTHOUSE. THE COSTS ARE EXTREME. IF YOU WANT TO DO PRETTY STUFF, LIKE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, WHICH IS PUTTING IN VAULTS AND COVERING IT UP SO YOU HAVE A FLAT YARD. THAT'S EXPENSIVE. WHAT WE LEARNED, I HOPE, AND THIS AGAIN, GOES BACK TO WE'VE HAD A LOT OF COMMUNITY CONVERSATIONS. A YEAR AGO, WHEN WE PASSED THE CHANGE RELATIVE TO PERMEABILITY OF PERMEABLE PAVERS AND RE ALLOWED 50% PERMEABILITY, WE LEARNED THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY CREATE SIGNIFICANT STORAGE UNDER THE DRIVEWAY, AND AT VERY LITTLE ADDITIONAL COST, ASSUMING THE HOMEOWNER WAS ALREADY PLANNING TO PUT IN PAVERS. BECAUSE TO TELL THE ENGINEER, WE WANT TO GO ALL THE WAY AS FAR DOWN AS WE CAN TO THE SEASONAL HIGH WATER MARK PLUS ONE FT, IT PROBABLY DOESN'T COST ANYTHING MORE ON THE ENGINEERING, AND THEN IT DOESN'T COST THAT MUCH MORE ON THE AGGREGATE TO DO THAT AND INSTALL THAT. [01:40:03] WE CAN DO A LOT OF THINGS, BUT I THINK THE 35% SAYS, I'M NOT TONE DEAF TO THE FACT THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE IMPACTED UNNECESSARILY. BY THE WAY, I USED THE EXAMPLE EARLIER ABOUT OLD ATLANTIC BEACH. I REALLY DON'T THINK AND I HEARD WE HAVE A COUPLE OF THEM THAT ARE AT OR BELOW 35%. GOD LOVE THEM. LET'S PRAISE THEM AND PROMOTE THAT. I WAS REALLY BRINGING THIS FORTH MORE BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE LARGE LOTS THAT WE HAVE IN THE NORTH END OF THE CITY, THAT ARE WELL UNDER 45%, WELL UNDER 35% AND CONTRIBUTE LITTLE TO NO IMPACT TO OUR STORMWATER PROBLEM. BUT I LISTENED TO OUR CITY ENGINEER THAT THAT'S DOWNSTREAM ON SHERMAN'S CREEK. IF WE BOTTLENECK THERE, THEN WE BOTTLENECK BACK UPSTREAM AT THE HEADWATERS. I GET THAT. BUT LET'S BE REASONABLE IN OUR APPROACH AS LEADERS AND AS CITIZENS AND UNDERSTAND WE DON'T HAVE TO BE SO HARD NOSED ACROSS THE BOARD. WAITING FOR THE STORMWATER STUDY WON'T CHANGE MY OPINION ON SOMEBODY BUILDING 35% LOUD COVERAGE. THANK YOU. >> THANKS. COMMISSIONER RAY. >> I JUST WANT TO SAY, THANK Y'ALL FOR COMING OUT TONIGHT AND SPENDING YOUR DATE NIGHTS HERE AT CITY HALL. YOU WERE HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR. WHEN I WALKED IN TODAY, I DID NOT KNOW, HONESTLY, THIS CAME BEFORE ME IN AN EMAIL ABOUT 30 MINUTES BEFORE THE MEETING, MAYBE AN HOUR WHILE I WAS MAKING DINNER FOR MY CHILDREN BEFORE I CAME HERE. I DID NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO READ THE AMENDMENT UNTIL IT WAS PRESENTED BEFORE ME. I THINK THE BEST THING CAME TONIGHT FROM MISS LE BLANC, WHO SAID SOMETHING ABOUT BAND AIDS. THIS IS PART OF A BAND AID TO A VERY LARGE, COMPLICATED ISSUE. I SEE Y'ALL HERE, AND I HEAR WHAT MR. CARPER HAD TO SAY, AS WELL AS MR. SCHMIDT. BUT THE PROBLEM IS INCREASING EVEN WITH THIS ONSITE STORMWATER RETENTION REQUIREMENT. IT'S INCREASING EACH YEAR. WHAT BOTHERS ME IS WHEN WE OPEN UP DISCUSSION WITH THIS COMMISSION AND WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO EVEN HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT NEW TECHNOLOGY, PERMEABLE PAVERS VERSUS IMPERMEABLE, ALLOWING INCENTIVES FOR FEAR OF BEING CALLED OUT OF WHAT BEING IN THE POCKETS OF DEVELOPERS. THAT'S NOT FAIR. THAT'S NOT FAIR FOR US. WE STAND BEFORE YOU. ME, I LIVE ON THE WATER. IT FLOODED, AND DIGGING A BIG HOLE IN MY YARD WOULD NOT SOLVE THAT ISSUE, NOR WOULD IT SOLVE THE ISSUES OF MANY OF MY NEIGHBORS WEST OF MAYPORT ROAD. WE ARE A COASTAL CITY ON A BARRIER ISLAND. I'M NOT AN EXPERT, I'M A TEACHER AND A MOM. THAT'S WHAT I HAVE, AND I DO LISTEN TO EVERYONE'S CONCERNS. BUT IF WE KEEP DOING THINGS THE WAY WE HAVE DONE THEM FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS, WE WILL CONTINUE TO SEE THE WATER INCREASE, PUDDLE IN OUR STREETS BECAUSE THE ISSUES AREN'T REALLY BEING SOLVED BY JUST THIS ONE THING. THANK YOU, MAYOR, FOR BRINGING THIS AMENDMENT, WHICH IS A COMPROMISE BETWEEN, I THINK, GETTING RID OF THE ONSITE STORMWATER. WHICH WAS MY DRUTHERS, WALKING IN HERE TONIGHT AND ALLOWING OUR STAFF TO DO A LITTLE MORE WORK THAT'S NECESSARY. I SUPPORT THE STORMWATER STUDY THAT'S COMING BEFORE US. I WANT THAT RFP TO HAVE PARAMETERS IN PLACE, SO WE'RE NOT THROWING MONEY INTO THE OPEN AIR LIKE 2018. BUT TO JUST CATCH WIND. THERE ARE DIFFERENT ZONES, AND WE SHOULD LOOK AT IT LIKE THAT. WHAT WORKS IN WEST OF MAYPORT ROAD IS NOT GOING TO WORK IN OLD ATLANTIC BEACH. THE GRANDFATHER CLAUSE HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY BY THIS COMMISSION. SUBSTANTIALLY HELPS THE OVERDEVELOPMENT THAT IS OCCURRING IN OLD ATLANTIC BEACH, A PROBLEM THAT'S UNIQUE TO THAT AREA, BUT DIFFERENT IN ROYAL PALMS, DIFFERENT IN OCEAN WALK. THE INFRASTRUCTURES AND OUR ROADS, THEY NEED TO BE FIXED. LOOK AT DOWNTOWN ST. AUGUSTINE. WOULD ONSITE STORMWATER HELP THEM IN THEIR RESIDENTIAL AREAS? PROBABLY NOT. ALL I ASK IS THAT YOU NOT SEE US AS NEFARIOUS ELECTED OFFICIALS, [01:45:05] BUT ONES THAT ARE JUST TRYING OUR BEST, PUTTING ASIDE DINNER WITH OUR FAMILIES TO BE HERE BEFORE YOU TO MAKE GOOD DECISIONS WITH THE MOST INFORMATION WE HAVE. THANK YOU. >> MR. CHAIRMAN. I'M NOT SURE WHETHER YOU RECOGNIZE YOU DID A GREAT READING ON THE ORDINANCE AS AMENDED, BUT I'M GOING TO ACTUALLY MOVE THAT ORDINANCE. I MOVE ORDINANCE 90-25-257 AS AMENDED FOR APPROVAL. >> SECOND. >> I HEAR A MOTION, AND I HEAR A SECOND. I GUESS WE SHALL I READ IT ONE MORE TIME? >> NO. I THINK YOU'RE FINE. THERE'S ANY MORE DEBATE OR DISCUSSION. >> ANY MORE DISCUSSION ACROSS THE BOARD? YES. [OVERLAPPING] >> I JUST WANT TO ADD ON SOMETHING. >> YEAH. >> IN THE AGENDA PACKET, THE ACTION FROM THE LAST MEETING, HAD THAT ENTIRE C REMOVED? WE NEED TO INCLUDE IN THE MOTION THAT YOU'RE REINSTATING 2 THROUGH 7? >> LET ME JUST CLARIFY THE POSTURE WE'RE IN. WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE BILL AS AMENDED. THAT'S CORRECT. AS THE CLERK POINTED OUT, WHAT WAS BEFORE YOU WAS THE DELETED VERSION, THE TERMINATING THE WHOLE C 1 THROUGH 7. BUT NOW, BY VIRTUE OF THE AMENDMENT THAT THE MAYOR HAS PROPOSED, IT'S REINSTATED BASICALLY TWO THROUGH SEVEN, AND THEN THE NEW NUMBER 1 IS WHAT THE MAYOR HAD PROPOSED AS AMENDED. NOW WE'RE IN A POSTURE OF TAKING A ROLL CALL VOTE FOR THE AMENDED ORDINANCE AS PROPOSED BY THE MAYOR AS SECONDED. >> LET'S HAVE A VOTE ON ORDINANCE 90-25-257. I'D LIKE A ROLL CALL VOTE WITH, AS YOU SAID, TWO THROUGH SEVEN ARE INCLUDED. >> AS AMENDED? >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER GRANT. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER KELLY. >> AYE. >> COMMISSIONER RING. >> AYE. >> MAYOR FORD. >> AYE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM BOL. >> NAY. >> FOUR TO ONE. >> THANK YOU. WELL, WE'RE NOT DONE YET. MAYOR. IT'S BEEN A LONG HOUR AND 50 MINUTES. THIS IS GOOD. BUT YOU CAN HAVE THIS MAYOR THING AFTER DONE HERE. I RECOMMEND WE TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK AND TEN MINUTE. I'LL SEE Y'ALL BACK IN HERE HOPEFULLY IN 10 MINUTES. THANK YOU. >> SORRY. [INAUDIBLE] >> THIS MEETING WILL RECONVENE. THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING DATED OCTOBER 13, 2025. FOR REASONS THAT I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO. I'M GOING TO ASK THE COMMISSION FOR THEIR INDULGENCE AS I'D LIKE TO BRING FORWARD. LET'S SEE. THIS WOULD BE ITEM 10A. THIS IS THE PUBLIC HEARING ON APP 25-06, SO I'D LIKE TO BRING THAT FORWARD AND INSERT IT IN OUR AGENDA BEFORE COURTESY OF THE FLOOR PUBLIC COMMENTS. AGREED? >> NUMBER 10. IT'S ALL THE WAY AT THE END ON PAGE 6. LET ME READ THIS TO YOU. [10.A. Public Hearing - APP25-0006 - Appeal of a decision of the Community Development Board (CDB) for variance ZVAR25-0013 at 345 10th Street] THIS IS PUBLIC HEARING ON APP 25-006, APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD, CDB FOR VARIANCE ZVAR 25-013 AT 345 TENTH STREET. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO BUILD AN ADDITION ABOVE A LEGAL NON CONFORMING PORTION OF THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE EASTERN SIDE YARD OF THE PROPERTY. MR. GABRIEL. >> THIS IS A QUASI JUDICIAL PROCEEDING, SINCE IT'S AN APPEAL OF A VARIANCE AND VARIANCES THEMSELVES OR QUASI JUDICIAL. WITH THAT, THERE'S A FEW FORMAL PROTOCOLS. NUMBER 1, THE PROCEDURE FORMAT HERE IS THE STAFF WILL MAKE A PRESENTATION. THEN THE APPLICANT WILL BE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION FIRST. THAT WOULD BE FOLLOWED BY ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO ARE IN OPPOSITION TO SPEAK. THEN AFTER ALL THE PUBLIC AND THEN USUALLY YOU WOULD GIVE THE APPLICANT A REBUTTAL PERIOD JUST TO THE ISSUES THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP IN OPPOSITION. THEN IT'S BROUGHT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR ITS CONSIDERATION. BECAUSE IT'S YOUR QUASI JUDICIAL CONSIDERATION, AND ACTION MUST BE BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL COMPETENT EVIDENCE, WHICH MEANS THAT THE DECISION MUST BE SUPPORTED BY FACT BASED TESTIMONY OR EXPERT TESTIMONY, NOT GENERALIZED CONCERNS OR OPINIONS. [01:50:01] LASTLY, IF ANYONE HAS HAD ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME TO DISCLOSE THAT ON THE RECORD. ANY COMMUNICATIONS YOU MAY HAVE HAD WITH ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC OR THE APPLICANT, PRIOR TO THIS HEARING, YOU'D BASICALLY INCLUDE A BRIEF STATEMENT OF WHEN YOU SPOKE TO THE PERSON, WHO YOU SPOKE WITH, AND BRIEFLY WHAT WAS DISCUSSED. WITH THAT, WE CAN PROCEED. >> THANK YOU. ANY EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS? LIKE COMMISSIONERS, NONE. LIKEWISE, I HAVE HAD NONE. DONNA, CAN YOU DO THE SWEARING IN OF OUR SPEAKERS? >> ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK, PLEASE STAND AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. >> APPLICANT, IF YOU'RE SPEAKING, YOU WOULD DO THE SAME. >> YOU SWEAR TO TELL THE TRUTH THE WHOLE TRUTH AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? >> THANK YOU, DONNA. AMANDA, CAN YOU GIVE US THE OVERVIEW, PLEASE? >> GOOD EVENING, AMANDA [INAUDIBLE], NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR. THIS IS FOR THE APPEAL 25-0006, AND I'M GOING TO SHARE THE SCREEN, SO OUR PEOPLE AT HOME CAN FOLLOW ALONG ON OUR POWERPOINTS. IT'S A REQUEST TO APPEAL THE ORDER OF DENIAL FOR ZVAR25-0013 FOR A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 24-85(B)(1) TO EXPAND AN EXISTING LEGAL NON CONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND FROM SECTION 24-106 E(3) SIDE YARD SETBACKS TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A FULL STORY LOCATED ABOVE THE GARAGE AT 345 TENTH STREET. >> THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY RS-2. IT IS 50 FEET WIDE BY 150 FEET DEEP. IT IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 10TH STREET, AND IT CURRENTLY HAS A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AS IT IS DEVELOPED. A PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD ON JULY 15TH WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD DENIED THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO EXPAND THAT EXISTING LEGAL NONCONFORMING AND TO REDUCE THOSE SIDE YARD SETBACKS. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE. HOWEVER, IT DIDN'T GET A SECOND AND IT FAILED WITH A VOTE OF 3-3, SO THE MOTION FAILED DENYING THE REQUEST. THIS ZONING DISTRICT RS-2 DOES REQUIRE A COMBINED 15 FEET OF SIDE YARDS WITH NEITHER LESS THAN 5 FEET. TYPICALLY, YOU CAN HAVE 7.5 AND 7.5 OR YOU CAN HAVE 10 AND FIVE. THE EXISTING SIDE YARDS ON THE WEST, IT'S 5.9 FEET, AND THEN ON THE EAST, THE SIDE THAT THEY'RE SEEKING THE VARIANCE FOR IS 4.3 FEET. IN 2013, THE FORMER OWNER SPLIT THE LOT. IT WAS 100 FOOT LOT AND AT THE TIME, THE CODE DID ALLOW IT TO BE SPLIT INTO 250 FOOT PLATTED LOTS. HOWEVER, THEY DID SEEK A VARIANCE BECAUSE WHEN THEY SPLIT THE LOTS, IT CREATED A NON CONFORMITIES FOR THESE SIDE YARDS. THAT'S HOW WE CAME UP WITH THE 4.3 FEET AND 5.9 FEET. IT WAS SPLIT OUT FROM THE ORIGINAL LOT. ALTHOUGH THE REDUCED SETBACKS WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY A VARIANCE, THE STRUCTURE REMAINS A LEGAL NONCONFORMING, AND ANY ADDITIONS ABOVE THE ORIGINAL VARIANCE REQUIRE A NEW VARIANCE. THE CODE ALSO DOES ALLOW ANY ADDITIONS MEETING SETBACKS TO BE APPROVED AT THE STAFF LEVEL. AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TWO VARIANCES. ONE IS TO ALTER THE LEGAL NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE AND TO REDUCE THIS SIDE YARD SETBACK. THE PROPOSED VARIANCE, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, IS ABOVE A GARAGE. IT IS AN EXISTING, I'M GOING TO CALL IT 1.5 STORY. THIS AREA OVER HERE IS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THEY ARE SEEKING TO KEEP THE SAME LINE OF DEVELOPMENT AND HAVE A 4.3 FOOT SETBACK OVER HERE. THEN THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE IS GOING TO BE ALSO BUILT TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE LOT. HOWEVER, THAT FRONT YARD SETBACK WILL BE MAINTAINED OF 20 FEET. HERE'S A PHOTO OF THE EXISTING HOUSE. AS I MENTIONED, IT PREVIOUSLY ACTUALLY WAS A GARAGE. IT'S BEEN SINCE IN FILLED BUT THIS IS THE SECTION OF THE VARIANCE AND THEY ARE REDUCING AND SEEKING A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THAT DOWN TO 4.3 FEET ON THE SIDE YARD. HERE'S THE PROPOSED DRAWING FROM THE APPLICANT. THIS IS THE ORIGINAL HOUSE. [01:55:01] THEN AGAIN, THIS IS THE WHERE THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WOULD BE AND THEN HERE'S A PICTURE OF THE HOUSE AS IT EXISTS. GROUNDS FOR APPROVAL. YOU GUYS HAVE HEARD THIS BEFORE. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD USES THESE GROUNDS FOR APPROVAL TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE. 24-65 (C) COMES INTO PLAY. YOU HAVE TO FIND THAT ONE OR MORE OF THE ITEMS ARE FOUND. FIRST IS EXCEPTIONAL TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS OF OR NEAR THE PROPERTY. NUMBER 2, SURROUNDING CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES, IMPACTING THE PROPERTY DISPARATELY FROM NEARBY PROPERTIES. THREE IS EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES, PREVENTING THE REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY AS COMPARED TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA. FOUR IS ONEROUS EFFECTIVE REGULATIONS ENACTED AFTER PLATTING OR AFTER DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY OR AFTER CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENT UPON THE PROPERTY. NUMBER 5, A REGULAR SHAPE OF THE PROPERTY WARRANTING SPECIAL CONSIDERATION. SIX IS SUBSTANDARD LOT SIZE OF RECORD WARRANTING A VARIANCE IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY. A DENIAL IS THAT THERE IS NO OF THE FINDINGS IN 24-65 EXIST. THE REVIEW IN THE VOTE ON THIS APPEAL. IF YOU APPROVED THE APPEAL, YOU WOULD BASICALLY BE APPROVING THE VARIANCE, AND A DENIAL OF THE APPEAL WOULD BE DENYING THE VARIANCE. I'LL ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE FOR STAFF. >> YES. GO AHEAD. >> AMANDA, CAN YOU GO BACK ONE SLIDE? >> THIS ONE? >> YES. JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE WAY THIS DIAGRAM'S DRAFTED, IT LOOKS AS THOUGH THE ADDITION IS GOING TO BE ON THE SAME NONCONFORMING LINE BECAUSE WE GRANTED IT WHEN IT WAS REBUILT. IS THAT ACCURATE OR IS IT LOOKING TO MOVE THAT LINE CLOSER TO THEIR SIDE? >> CORRECT. THEY ARE LOOKING TO KEEP THIS SAME LINE AND NOT ENCROACH ANY FURTHER INTO THE REQUIRED SETBACK. THEY WANT TO CONTINUE THE 4.3 FEET FORWARD VERTICALLY AS A SECOND STORY AND THEN FORWARD TO THE FRONT YARD SETBACK. >> THANK YOU. >> AMANDA? >> YES. >> QUESTION. WHAT'S THE TOTAL LOT COVERAGE THERE? ANY IDEA? >> IT IS BELOW 45 PERCENT. THEY WOULD ALSO NEED A VARIANCE IF THEY WERE GOING TO SEE THAT. >> THANKS. >> I'M SURE WE HAVE A LOT OF THIS. WE HAVE A LOT OF LOTS THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT OUT NONCONFORMING BECAUSE THEY GOT A VARIANCE BACK IN THE DAY. ARE THEY ABLE TO DO ANYTHING TO A HOME LIKE THIS IF THEY'RE ALREADY NONCONFORMING? >> YES. OUR SECTION IN THE CODE THAT IS 24-85(B)(1) SAYS IF YOU HAVE A LEGAL NON CONFORMITY, YOU'RE ALLOWED TO KEEP IT, AND YOU'RE ALLOWED TO ADD ON TO IT, PROVIDED WHAT YOU'RE ADDING MEETS CURRENT SETBACKS. FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY HERE, THEY COULD ADD ON, AS LONG AS THEY MEET THE REAR YARD SETBACK, WHICH THEY HAVE 63 FEET. THEY CAN GET WITHIN 20 FEET, SO THEY COULD GO BACK 40 FEET HERE. THEY WOULD HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT SIDE YARD SETBACKS. IN THE ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH WOULD BE A 10 ON ONE SIDE AND A FIVE ON THE OTHER OR YOU COULD DO 7.5 AND 7.5. IT IS POSSIBLE TO ADD ON TO IT HERE. IT'S ALSO POSSIBLE TO ADD A SECOND STORY THAT STAIR STEPPED IN, THAT WOULD MEET THE REQUIRED SETBACK AS WELL. >> IF IT'S STEPPED INTO THE CURRENT REGULATION, THAT WOULD BE APPROVED? >> CORRECT. >> THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO COME FORWARD? >> HELLO. I'M DAVE LAMAR. THIS IS MY WIFE, MAUREEN LAMAR. WE LIVE AT 347 10TH STREET. THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS AT 345. I GUESS I WAS PREPARED WITH SOME REMARKS TO OUTLINE THIS. IT'S ALREADY BEEN OUTLINED. I THINK THE FIRST THING I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT IS SOME OF THE DATA HERE IS INACCURATE. IF YOU GO BACK A SLIDE, FIRST OF ALL, THERE'S A CLAIM THAT THERE'S A 5.9 FEET LINE SETBACK ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IT IS. BUT YOU SEE THAT IT'S STAIR STEPS MAKING THE ACTUAL SETBACK AT THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MEASURING THE SETBACKS. IT'S NOT 5.9. YOU ADD ANOTHER 2.9. [02:00:01] THE SETBACK IS MORE UPFRONT THAN IT IS IN BACK AND IT'S 14. >> 12.4. >> 12.4. STILL AN ISSUE. FLIP TO THE NEXT SLIDE, IF YOU WOULD. >> DONNA, ARE YOU DRIVING? >> DO WITH THIS. >> SORRY. THAT ONE? >> YEAH. GREAT. NO, I WANTED TO LOOK HERE. IF YOU SEE THE PROPOSED CHANGE, YOU CAN ACTUALLY ALSO NOTICE THAT THERE'S A FURTHER ADJUSTMENT TO THE SETBACK IN THE REAR OF THE HOUSE, WHICH IS ALSO PART OF OUR PLAN. WE WILL BE REDUCING OR INCREASING THE SETBACK IN THE BACK, IN THE REAR OF THE HOUSE, US, AND THEREFORE ACTUALLY IMPROVING OR ADJUSTING THE SETBACK IN A PART OF THE HOUSE. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WAS NECESSARILY. >> I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND YOU. >> IF YOU LOOK AT THE WEST SIDE OR THE LEFT SIDE OF THE HOUSE, THESE ARE PROPOSED AND EXISTING. THE PROPOSED IS STRAIGHT LINE STRAIGHT BACK, AND THE EXISTING, THERE'S TWO FEET THERE. WE'RE PROPOSING THAT WE ADJUST THAT IN. WE BRING IT MUCH CLOSER IN CONFORMITY WITH THE HOUSE. THE OTHER THING IS, WHILE WE COULD DO A LOT OF THINGS IN THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, I DON'T KNOW HOW I'D GET A CAR BACK THERE. I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S AN APPRECIATION THAT WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY ASKING TO PUT THERE IS A GARAGE. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S NO GARAGE IN THE HOUSE NOW. WE ARE PREPARING TO RETIRE. WE LIKE THE HOUSE. IT'S A CUTE LITTLE HOUSE, AND THERE'S A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT WE CAN DO TO CHANGE THE HOUSE TO MAKE IT TO WHERE WE WOULD MOVE INTO IT AND MAINTAIN ONE OF THESE OLDER HOUSES THAT EVERYBODY TALKS ABOUT WANTING TO MAINTAIN. HERE WE ARE WANTING TO MAINTAIN IT, AND WE'RE GETTING CAUGHT IN SEVEN INCHES OF A SETBACK, WHICH SEEMS ALL RIDICULOUS TO BE QUITE HONEST. >> HOW MANY INCHES? >> SEVEN INCHES. WE'VE SURVEYED OUR NEIGHBORS. WE'VE TALKED TO ALL OUR NEIGHBORS WHO WOULD LOOK AT THIS AND IMPACT IT MOST NOTABLY THE NEIGHBOR TO OUR EAST, AND THEY'VE ALL SIGNED A PETITION. THEY WERE ALL ACTUALLY SURPRISED THAT WE WERE STILL MESSING WITH IT. THEY'RE IN SUPPORT OF IT. >> IS THAT A PETITION THERE? >> YES, IT IS. MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT THIS EARLIER. >> THANK YOU. >> ESSENTIALLY, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING IS WE'RE GOING TO BE BRINGING THE HOUSE OUT PER THE DESIGN UP HERE AND TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE HOUSE, WE ARE GOING TO BE ADDING ADDITIONAL SPACE TO HAVE A GARAGE. NOW, IF YOU LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THE GARAGE, IT'S ACTUALLY A LITTLE LARGER THAN 10 FEET WIDE. I KNOW YOU ALL PROBABLY HAVE GARAGES. THE 10 FOOT WIDE GARAGE IS PRETTY TIGHT ALREADY. SEVEN INCHES, WE WOULD ADJUST IT VERY EASILY AND TAKEN THE SEVEN INCHES IN AND NOT MADE AN ISSUE OF IT. SEVEN INCHES OUT OF 10 FEET, IT DOES START TO MAKE A MATERIAL WITH TODAY'S CARS GETTING THEM INTO THAT SPACE. WE DIDN'T THINK IT WAS A BIG ISSUE BUT ALL OF THIS IS ADDING UP TO DOLLARS AND CENTS. IF I WAS TO MOVE THAT WALL IN TO KEEP 10 FEET, I'D HAVE TO TAKE A BEARING WALL THAT'S INSIDE OF THE HOUSE OUT. I START TO DO THESE THINGS AND I MIGHT AS WELL TEAR IT DOWN, THE HOUSE. BECAUSE REALLY, THAT'S ALL OUR ALTERNATIVE AT THIS POINT IS JUST TEAR IT DOWN AND BUILD WHAT'S BEST USE FOR THAT HOUSE IN THAT PROPERTY, THE MILLION DOLLAR LOT IS TO PUT A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT OR 3,000 SQUARE FOOT HOME. >> SURE. >> THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT TO DO. WE THOUGHT WE WERE FIXING UP AN OLD BUNGALOW AND KEEPING A LITTLE BIT OF AB IN PLACE. THAT'S OUR HOPE IS THAT THIS GROUP WILL SEE IT THAT WAY. I DON'T KNOW IF MAUREEN YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY. >> I JUST WANT TO SAY FULL DISCLOSURE, I AM A BUILDER. >> DEVELOPER. SHE'S ONE OF THE BAD. >> ONE OF THOSE GUYS. >> ONE OF THE BAD PEOPLE. I HAVE A HOME HERE THAT I WANT TO STAY. FROM A FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE, IT IS MUCH MORE FINANCIALLY SOUND DECISION FOR US TO TEAR THIS DOWN, BUILD A NEW HOUSE AND SELL IT TO WHOEVER WANTS TO END UP BUYING IT. MUCH MORE LUCRATIVE FOR US. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SEVEN INCHES ALONG ONE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY OUT APPROXIMATELY 15 FEET, [02:05:03] AND THEN HAVE US BE ABLE TO PUT A FULL HEIGHT ON TOP OF THE HALF STORY THAT'S THERE RIGHT NOW. I REALLY HOPE THAT YOU CONSIDER IT. >> I WOULD ADD THAT THERE WAS AN INDIVIDUAL ON EAST COAST THAT DID A VERY SIMILAR THING TO THIS HOUSE. WE SAW IT AND WE'VE INVITED OURSELVES AND WE'VE SEEN IT OR WE CAN DO THIS. THESE ARE THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO CAUSE MOMENTUM. PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SEE THESE HOUSES AND SEE HOW THEY CAN TURN THEM INTO OTHER THINGS THAN JUST TEARING THEM DOWN. I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU GUYS WOULD START TO THINK THAT HOW DO WE KEEP SOME OF THESE HOUSES? WELL, WE SHOW SOME EXAMPLES OF HOW FOLKS HAVE TAKEN THESE OLDER HOUSES AND DONE MORE WITH THEM. I THINK THIS WILL BE A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THAT MUCH LIKE THE ONE I NEED EAST COAST. >> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. DO WE HAVE ANYONE FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? >> NO, SIR. >> NOBODY SIGNED IN. WE'LL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT. LET'S ASK FOR A MOTION. WELL, FIRST OF ALL, WE DIDN'T GO OVER ALL OF THE CONDITIONS THAT WE COULD SELECT THAT WOULD JUSTIFY THIS REQUEST. ONE WAS HARDSHIP, IF YOU WANT TO GO. >> SHE HAD A SLIDE. >> SHE HAD A SLIDE. >> WELL, I MISSED IT. >> THERE YOU GO. TOO FAR. THERE YOU GO. >> AMANDA, IF YOU WOULD COME UP, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. MY HISTORY SUGGESTS TO ME THAT YOU'LL TRY NOT TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION. BUT IT WAS A SPLIT VOTE 3-3 ON THE CDB. DO YOU REMEMBER? WAS THERE CONSTERNATION ABOUT THE SECOND STORY ADDITION OR JUST THE NONCONFORMING ADD OF THE GARAGE OR THE SECOND STORY? DO YOU REMEMBER? >> A LITTLE BIT OF EVERYTHING. [LAUGHTER] IT WAS A SPLIT VOTE, AND I THINK THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD WAS LOOKING AT, LET'S SEE WHICH, NUMBER 4. THAT WAS DISCUSSED THE OWNERS EFFECT OF REGULATIONS ENACTED AFTER PLATTING OR AFTER DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY OR AFTER CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS UPON THE PROPERTY. I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE BASIS OF THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE WAS MADE ON, AND THEN IT WAS A SPLIT VOTE. >> THANK YOU. YES. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> IT HAS, YES. >> DO WE KNOW THE BASIS FOR THAT? >> THAT WAS BECAUSE OF THE LOT SPLIT. IT WAS ORIGINALLY THE HOUSE WAS THERE. THERE WAS ANOTHER PROPERTY, AN ADDITIONAL 50 FOOT WIDE LOT, AND IT WAS SUBDIVIDED CREATING A SHORTFALL ON ONE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. >> SURE. THAT SPLIT REALLY WAS SPLITTING BACK TO TWO ORIGINALLY PLATTED LOTS? >> CORRECT. >> IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN APPROPRIATE TO CARVE OUT TWO FEET FROM THE ONE LOT BECAUSE YOU STILL HAD TO MAINTAIN A 50 FOOT FRONT LOT, DIDN'T YOU? >> YES. YOU HAD TO REVERT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PLATTED LOT, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN THE 50 FEET. NUMBER SIX. THAT DEFINITELY CAN BE USED AS A DISCUSSION ITEM, THE SUBSTANDARD SIZE OF A LOT OF RECORD WARRANTING A VARIANCE. >> BAD BEFORE IT NEEDED A VARIANCE BECAUSE IT WAS SPLIT FACING THIS BIT. >> WELL, WE DO HAVE THAT PROVISION THAT WE CREATED THE LEGAL NONCONFORMITY. THEN SECTION 24-85 LETS YOU DEVELOP LEGAL NON CONFORMITIES PROVIDED THAT THE NEW DEVELOPMENT MEETS CODE. IT DOES GIVE YOU A DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY. >> AT THE TIME THAT WE GRANTED THE VARIANCE, DID WE NOT HAVE THE CURRENT RULE ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO? >> NO. THE RULES CHANGED. >> RULES DID CHANGE, SO IF WE SO CHOOSE, THAT WOULD BE A PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE TASK. YES, COMMISSIONER. >> I HAVE THAT THE APPLICANT SAYS 2, 3 AND 4 MORE GROUNDS. DO I HAVE THAT RIGHT, PAGE 130? I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS FOR THEM TO SHARE OR ELABORATE ON THOSE THREE FOR THE APPROVAL. YOU WROTE 2, 3, AND 4 WERE YOUR GROUNDS FOR APPROVAL FOR THIS? >> YES. THAT WAS SUBMITTED IN THE APPLICATION. YOU CAN CALL THE APPLICANT UP. >> YES. COULD THE APPLICANT COME UP AND SHARE? >> I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER. [02:10:03] WHEN I FIRST DID THE VARIANCE, I FILLED OUT JUST THE ONE, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS FOUR. THEN GOING BACK, IT WAS LOOKING AT, THE 10 FOOT WIDE GARAGE IS ALREADY NARROW. FORCING US TO COMPLY WITH THE SEVEN INCH SETBACK MAKES AN ALREADY NARROW GARAGE ALMOST UNUSABLE WITH THE VEHICLES FOR TODAY. IN ADDITION, THE PRIOR GARAGE SPACE HAD BEEN ENCLOSED AND THERE'S THE HALF STORY THAT'S ALREADY ABOVE IT. IT'S BELIEVED AT SOME POINT THAT THE DRIVEWAY WAS RAISED ABOVE THE EXISTING GARAGE SPACE TO PREVENT WATER INTRUSION. WHEN IT RAINS HEAVILY, WATER STILL ENTERS THAT SPACE, SO BRINGING THE DRIVEWAY BACK DOWN CREATES AN ADVERSE WATER ENVIRONMENT RENDERING GOING IN THAT WAY AND INEFFECTIVE SOLUTION. LASTLY, GIVEN THE ADVERSE WEATHER FLORIDA EXPERIENCES ALLOWING A GARAGE SPACE PROVIDES PROTECTION. THIS HOUSE DOESN'T HAVE PROTECTION FOR YOUR VEHICLE. GIVEN ALL THE OTHER HOUSES THAT ARE ON THE STREET, THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE THEIR VEHICLES PROTECTED. THIS ONE DOESN'T. WE ARE SURROUNDED BY TWO STORY HOUSES, EVEN THREE STORY HOUSES, AND BEING ABLE TO POP UP ON A HALF STORY GIVES IT A LITTLE BIT MORE SPACE. THERE'S NOT ANY UNDUE. >> IMPACT. >> AGAINST, WHAT OUR NEIGHBORS ARE, THEY'RE A LOT HIGHER THAN THIS PROPERTY IS EVER GOING TO END UP BEING. AND SO THAT'S WHERE THE OTHER TWO POINTS WERE BEING ADDRESSED. >> DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE OR DENY? >> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE VARIANCE 25, ARE WE DOING 0006 OR 0013? I HAVE 21 HERE. >> 0006. >> THE FIRST ONE. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE VARIANCE 25-0006. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION. >> SIX AND FOUR. >> YES. WHAT I'M HEARING IS THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE, WHICH IS A PART OF THE APPEAL AP25-0006, BASED ON THE CRITERIA OF NUMBER 4, ONEROUS EFFECT OF REGULATIONS ENACTED AFTER PLATTING OR AFTER DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY OR AFTER CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENT UPON THE PROPERTY AND THEN NUMBER 6, WHICH IS THE SUBSTANDARD SIZE OF A LOT OF RECORD WARRANTING A VARIANCE IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR THE REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY. THAT'S THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE FLOOR AT THE MOMENT. >> I SECOND IT. >> THERE'S A SECOND NOW. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. I'M INCLINED TO AGREE, EXCEPT ONE THING. I DON'T SEE THIS IS NOT A SUBSTANDARD SIZE LOT OF RECORD. THIS IS A 50 FOOT WIDE LOT BY WHAT IS IT 120 FEET DEEP OR 150? WHAT IS IT? >> YEAH. I THINK THE ISSUE, THE HISTORY OF IT IS, YOU HAD TWO STANDARD SIZED LOTS. ONE OWNER BOUGHT TWO OF THEM. THEY BUILT THE HOUSE. THEY MET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE THEY HAD 50 FEET PLUS EIGHT FEET. THEY HAD 50 FEET ON ONE SIDE, FOUR ON THE OTHER, WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS. THEY MET THE 10. >> ORIGINALLY. >> THE 15 ORIGINALLY. THEN IT GOT SUBDIVIDED, BUT THE BUILDING WAS ALREADY THERE. THE BUILDING NO LONGER CONFORM. BUT THE LOT OF RECORD I THINK IS CONFORMING, [BACKGROUND] THE STRUCTURE, NOT THE LOT. THE LOT ITSELF. THE LOT OF RECORD IS CONFORMING. >> THE SIX CANNOT BE. >> I THINK FOUR. >> I THINK FOUR IS FINE. WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO AMEND THAT MOTION? >> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE APPEAL 25-0006 UNDER 4. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. DO WE NEED ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY WITH AYE. >> AYE. >> AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. CONGRATULATIONS. I'M GOING TO BE WATCHING YOU GUYS. I WANT TO SEE WHAT YOU DO WITH THIS HOUSE. LOOK, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO PRESERVE OLD ATLANTIC BEACH. [02:15:04] GOOD LUCK. TO YOU ON THAT. THANK YOU, GUYS. [LAUGHTER] YES, SIR. LET'S TRY TO GET THE MAYOR BACK ON TRACK HERE. >> I DON'T WANT TO TAKE OVER AGAIN? I'M GOOD. [LAUGHTER] >> YOUR EXPERIENCE NOW. WE'RE GOING TO GO TO COURTESY OF THE FLOOR FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE PEOPLE, ALTHOUGH ARE WE STARTING WITH, LISA, ARE WE STARTING WITH YOU? I THINK. IS SHE SOMEWHERE ELSE? [BACKGROUND] LATER. I'M SO SORRY. WE'LL OPEN UP COURTESY OF THE FLOOR. [2. COURTESY OF FLOOR TO VISITORS] DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS LEFT? >> 37C. >> WE DO. I PICKED THE WOMAN. I THINK I JUST HAVE THREE LEFT. [INAUDIBLE] HOW MANY MINUTES MAYOR?. >> THREE MINUTES. >> BOY. WHAT AN EVENING, HUH? DOESN'T GET ANY MORE FUN. MY NAME IS [INAUDIBLE] >> BE NICE. >> I'M ON THE RECORD SOMEWHERE THAT I LIVE HERE. BUT I'M HERE TO JUST GIVE YOU A VERY BRIEF, I PROMISE, VERY BRIEF REPORT ON WHERE WE ARE WITH THE ESC AT THE MOMENT. A COUPLE OF KEY POINTS TO NOTE. ONE IS THAT WE'RE ALMOST THROUGH THE CHAPTER 23 REVISIONS. THERE'S IN THE FINAL STAGE. THE FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE OF THAT EFFORT THAT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR A WHILE, IS SIMPLIFICATION AND CLARITY SO THAT WE CAN UPDATE THE RULES BASED ON THE EXPERIENCE OF STAFF AND MAKING THINGS A BIT SMOOTHER AND CERTAINLY A LOT EASIER TO UNDERSTAND. WE'VE HAD A LOT OF GREAT HELP FROM CITY STAFF WHO, AMANDA IS NOT HERE, BUT IT'S BEEN PART OF THAT. OUR SPEAKER SERIES IS GOING AMAZINGLY. AMY FRANKIE'S BEEN DRIVING THAT. WE HAD A FULL HOUSE, THE TIME I WAS HERE. I MADE ALL OF THEM MYSELF. BUT THAT'S PRETTY EXTRAORDINARY BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT A FULL HOUSE LOOKS LIKE, NOT THAT COMMON. WE ARE PLANNING AN UPCOMING PLANTING DAY FOR THE CREEK SIDE IN HOWELL PARK, WHICH HAS BEEN RECENTLY REDONE. THANK YOU FOR ALL THE EFFORT THERE. WE'RE PLANNING A CLEANUP OF HOPKINS CREEK IN A FEW WEEKS AND A BEACH INVASIVES REMOVAL DAY. GETTING FOLKS ON THE BEACH AND THESE ARE ALL THREE VOLUNTEER EFFORTS THAT DRIVE INDIVIDUAL INITIATIVES. >> WHERE ON HOPKINS CREEK? >> WHERE EXACTLY? I'M NOT SURE I THINK THERE ARE THREE PLACES. ONE OF THE CHALLENGES IS GETTING THERE WHEN IT'S NOT TOO DEEP BECAUSE IT'S A LITTLE TRICKY TO GET VOLUNTEERS WHO IF THEY GET HURT, IT'S NOT PRETTY. WE'VE ADDRESSED THREE APPEALS FROM OUR FELLOW CITIZENS IN THE LAST MONTH AND WE HAVE I THINK THREE OR FOUR MORE COMING UP THIS WEEK. OUR TEAM LED BY CHRISTINE CARLOS. EVERYBODY'S GONE HOME. HAS BEEN SYSTEMATICALLY WORKING WITH STAFF AND THE COMMUNITY ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS KINDLY AND USEFULLY PROVIDED BY COMMISSIONER GRANT TO LOOK AT OPTIONS FOR GENERATING MORE INITIATIVES AND INCENTIVES FOR DOING THINGS RATHER THAN A DISINCENTIVE, IF YOU WILL. FINALLY, WE'RE COLLABORATING WITH BEACHES GO GREEN AND ARC ON A FILM SERIES TO EDUCATE ON ENVIRONMENTAL AWARENESS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS IN OUR NORTHEAST FLORIDA COMMUNITY. HOPEFULLY WE'LL SEE THAT IN THE COMING MONTHS. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT ONGOING, AND THANKS FOR ALL THE EFFORTS YOU GUYS STAYING LATE. AS WELL. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MR. [INAUDIBLE] >> ELLEN GLASSER. >> WELCOME BACK, MAYOR. >> THANK YOU. TESTING MY PATIENCE TONIGHT. AGAIN, ELLEN GLASSER, AND I'M A PROCESS GEEK. I HAD PLANNED TO SAY ALL OF THIS STUFF IN PUBLIC COMMENT BECAUSE I WANTED TO GET HOME TO BE WITH MY FAMILY AND MY SON WHO'S LEAVING TOWN TOMORROW, BUT SUCH IS THE WAY OF CITY BUSINESS. I DO WANT TO THANK YOU ALL, COMMISSION FOR ALL OF YOUR EFFORTS ON BEHALF OF ATLANTIC BEACH. I WANT TO SAY HELLO, AND THANK YOU TO ALL OF THE HARD WORKING STAFF WHO TONIGHT, WERE HEARD. AND I LOVE YOU ALL. I DON'T ALWAYS FEEL WELCOME IN CITY HALL, WHICH MAKES ME SAD BECAUSE I'M FOLLOWING WHAT YOU'RE DOING, PARTICULARLY THOSE ITEMS THAT MY COMMISSIONS STARTED LIKE TONIGHT WITH MARSH OAKS. I'M FOLLOWING THAT WITH GREAT INTEREST, AND I SUPPORT THAT. ANYWAY, AGAIN, I'M A PROCESS GEEK. I THOUGHT THAT THE PROCESS TONIGHT WAS A LITTLE BIT WONKY. [02:20:05] IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE TO HAVE A BETTER HANDLE ON WHAT YOU WERE GOING TO VOTE ON BEFORE YOU VOTED ON IT. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN A PREFERABLE OPTION TO RECONSIDER THE VOTE FROM LAST WEEK AND STARTED FRESH, SO YOU COULD HAVE HAD ANOTHER FIRST READING AND THEN BROUGHT IT BACK FOR A SECOND READING SO MORE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE KNOWN. BUT THAT'S JUST ME BEING A PROCESS GEEK. I HAVE A COUPLE OF CONCERNS, AND THEY REALLY GO BACK TO THE LAST MEETING AND I GOT TO SAY, I WAS SURPRISED WHEN I LEARNED THAT YOU HAD LOWERED THE MILEAGE RATE AGAIN. THE MAYOR TOLD ME YOU WEREN'T GOING TO DO THAT THIS YEAR, AND I TOOK THOSE WORDS TO HEART BECAUSE IN DOING SO, EVEN THOUGH TIMES ARE GOOD IN TERMS OF OUR REVENUE, WE HAVE TO BE THINKING LONG-TERM IN TERMS OF OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, AND SO THAT SUFFERS WHEN YOU LOWER THE MILEAGE RATE. MAYBE A SMALL THING. BUT I DO FEEL LIKE YOU ARE ACTING AS A FIDUCIARY FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS, WHEN WE MAY NOT HAVE AS MUCH REVENUE. THAT WAS A DISAPPOINTMENT TO ME. ON THE OTHER HAND, I WAS QUITE PLEASED THAT YOU GAVE YOURSELF A PAY RAISE. I WAS SURPRISED AND GRATIFIED THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY PEOPLE SAYING, NOPE TO RAISES THIS YEAR. YOU COULD HAVE HAD THAT. THAT'S HAPPENED DOWNTOWN IN CITY HALL, BUT YOU HAVE BEEN GROSSLY UNDERPAID. AND I RAISED THIS BEFORE THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE WITH SOME OF ITS MEMBERS. IT DIDN'T MAKE IT TO THE TOP OF THE LIST, BUT BY HAVING AN INDEX THAT'S BASED ON SALARIES AROUND THE STATE, THAT IS MORE THAN FAIR AND WAY OVERDUE. I REALLY WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT I SUPPORT THAT. I TRY TO STAY OUT OF THE LANE OF WHAT YOU'RE DOING BECAUSE I KNOW I'M A FORMER MAYOR. BUT I DO FOLLOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THE EFFORT LAST WEEK WITH THE MEMORIAL FOR THE FALLEN HEROES AT BEACH VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK WAS AWESOME. IT WAS OUTSTANDING. I WANT TO THANK MR. GABRIEL FOR COMING TO BEACHES WATCH ON WHICH I'M A BOARD MEMBER AND DOING AN EXCELLENT PRESENTATION. AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTINUING GOOD WORK ON SOME OF THE QUALITY OF LIFE INITIATIVES THAT ARE HAPPENING AROUND THE CITY. WITH THAT, I JUST WOULD ASK THAT YOU BE A LITTLE MORE TRANSPARENT IN THE PROCESS ON THE FRONT END SO THAT YOU DON'T TRIGGER ATLANTIC BEACH PRESERVATION. THEY'RE GOOD PEOPLE, YOU'RE GOOD PEOPLE, BUT THERE'S A BALANCE TO BE STRUCK ALWAYS. TONIGHT, YOU FOUND IT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> I THINK THAT'S IT, BECAUSE LISA HAROLD LEFT. >> THEN WE'LL CLOSE COURTESY OF THE FLOOR AND MOVE TO CITY MANAGER REPORTS. [3. CITY MANAGER REPORTS] >> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION. BEFORE YOU IS THE 90 DAY CALENDAR. I WILL NOTE THAT ON OCTOBER 18, WHICH THIS SATURDAY. THAT MIGHT BE A PROBLEM. BUT WE HAVE A TOWN HALL MEETING? [INAUDIBLE] THE OTHER THING THAT I DO WANT TO POINT OUT IS THE 27TH, WHICH WAS OUR NEXT COMMISSION MEETING. THERE WAS A FIVE O'CLOCK WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS THE $20,000 FOR THE SCHOOLS AND ANY CHANGES YOU MAY OR MAY NOT WANT TO MAKE TO THE CUTS THAT I RECOMMENDED THAT YOU PASS ON THE BUDGET HEARING NIGHT. THAT, MR. MAYOR SAP RECOMMENDS THAT YOU APPROVE THE 90 DAY CALENDAR? >> DO WE ACCEPT THE CALENDAR, COMMISSIONERS? [BACKGROUND] WE'LL MANAGE WITHOUT YOU IF THAT'S NECESSARY. YOU HAVE YOUR CALENDAR? ANY OTHER REPORTS? >> THAT IS IT FOR THE CITY MANAGERS REPORTS. >> COMMISSIONERS, IT'S YOUR OPPORTUNITY. [4. REPORTS AND/OR REQUESTS FROM CITY COMMISSIONERS] LET'S START WITH COMMISSIONER BOLE. >> YEAH, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK THE COMMISSION FOR LETTING ME JOIN LAST WEEK VIA ZOOM. I APPRECIATE IT. I DIDN'T WANT TO MISS THAT MEETING, AND I WOULD HAVE BEEN HERE EXCEPT I DID HAVE A COMMITMENT WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AT THE TIME. SO IT WAS ONE OF THOSE WHERE I REALLY COULDN'T MISS, BUT I APPRECIATE IT. THEY WERE WORKING. JUST REALLY QUICK. I WANT TO GO THROUGH, I'M NOT GOING TO WHINE, BUT I'M GOING TO COME UP WITH I THINK A WORKABLE SOLUTION. WE PRIDE OURSELVES ON TRANSPARENCY. WE USE THAT WORD. I THINK WE ALL ARE IN GENERAL. BUT WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE BASE BUDGET, OUR TALKS OF OUR SEVEN BUDGET MEETINGS, WE TALKED ABOUT, THE ASSUMPTION WAS THAT WE WERE GOING TO STAY AT THE CURRENT MILEAGE RATE. THEN WE PASSED A NON-NOTICED RATE. [02:25:03] IN OTHER WORDS, THE STATE OF FLORIDA IS VERY SPECIFICALLY NOTICED RATES. THERE WERE THREE. THE ROLLBACK RATE, THE REGULAR RATE. WE COULD HAVE GONE HIGHER. ROGER, THAT, THAT'S ALL LEGAL. BUT I THINK ONE OF THE FIXES IS, DURING THOSE MEETINGS, THE SEVEN BUDGET MEETINGS, THE CITY MANAGER, WE DIDN'T PRIORITIZE THAT LIST. WE JUST SAID, HEY, THIS IS A GOOD THING, THIS IS A GOOD THING, THIS IS A GOOD THING. THE LESSON THAT I'M LEARNING, AND I KNOW THAT WE CAN FIX THIS DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS. FULLY AWARE OF THAT. BUT I JUST DON'T WANT TO MOVE THINGS OUT AD HOC, WHICH WE STARTED TO DO A LITTLE BIT THE LAST MEETING. I THINK TO FIX THIS, WHEN WE GO THROUGH THE BUDGETING PROCESS AGAIN, WE SHOULD PRIORITIZE. THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT. NUMBER 2, NUMBER 3, NUMBER 4. WHEN IT COMES TIME AFTER DOING ALL THAT WORK, WE CAN LOOK AT THE CITY MANAGER IN THE EYE AND SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT? THAT WAS NUMBER 23 OF 24 OR 25, RIGHT? IF WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THAT, I THINK THAT'S A FIX FOR THE BUDGETING PROCESS, AND IT DOESN'T PUT OUR CITY MANAGER GOING, WOW, I GOT TO START OVER, OR I HAVE TO MAKE SOME CALLS. AGAIN, I THINK THAT IS A GOOD WAY TO APPROACH THAT. I WOULD APPRECIATE IF WE TALKED ABOUT THAT LATER. >> I THOUGHT THE MEMORIAL SERVICE WAS GREAT. IT BROUGHT A LOT OF THINGS HOME TO ME PERSONALLY. BUT THIS WEEK IS THE 250TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE NAVY, WHICH WAS TECHNICALLY YESTERDAY. DEPENDING ON WHO YOU TALKED TO. AS I LOOKED IN THE CROWD, I COUNTED PERSONALLY THAT I KNEW WE HAD 200 YEARS OF SERVICE IN THIS BUILDING, WHICH I WAS PROUD OF. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER GRANT. >> THANK YOU. JUST SOME COLOR FOR THE 250TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE NAVY, MY SON, WHO'S IN IWAKUNI, AS PART OF THE MARINE CORPS, GOT STEAK AND LOBSTER ON THAT DAY. >> THAT'S NEVER GOOD NEWS. >> HE WAS VERY EXCITED ABOUT THAT. A LITTLE UPGRADE IN NORMAL RATIONS. BUT I ALSO TOO REALLY APPRECIATED THE MEMORIAL SERVICE AND THANK YOU, CANDACE, FOR YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN THAT GROUP, AND AS MANY PEOPLE THAT DID A FABULOUS JOB. I WAS HOPING TO MAKES COMMENTS IN FRONT OF A LARGER GROUP, BUT I WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERYBODY TO GO THERE, AND TO MAKE SURE THAT FOLKS UNDERSTAND THAT FREEDOM ISN'T FREE. THAT WALL IS THE PRICE. IT WAS REALLY MOVING AS WELL FOR ME. ONE THING I WANT TO BRING UP, WE DID A LOT OF WORK ON ELECTRIC BIKES, AND I'M SORRY I DON'T KNOW YOUR NAME. THANK YOU, COMMANDER. I HAD HEARD FROM A BUNCH OF PEOPLE THAT WE TOOK THE E-BIKES OFF THE SIDEWALKS THAT WERE GOING OVER 10 MILES PER HOUR, I THINK IS THE NUMBER. WE'VE ALSO PUT A SIGN ON BEACH AD THAT YOU CAN DO PEDAL POWER IN EITHER DIRECTION, I BELIEVE, ON THAT STREET. BUT I'M CONTINUING TO GET SOME CONCERN FROM CITIZENS THAT THE E-BIKES ARE GOING IN BOTH DIRECTIONS, TOO, OR THEY CAN GO IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, BUT I DON'T THINK THEY CAN GO IN THE OPPOSITE. MAYBE CLARITY ON THAT, IF YOU DON'T MIND, BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING THE SPEED THEY LIKE TO GO. >> ARE THEY STOPPING? >> NO, THEY'RE NOT DOING ANY OF THIS. [LAUGHTER] >> COMMANDER CAMERON, PINE BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT. SITTING IN FOR CHIEF. >> YES. THEY ARE CONSIDERED BIKES BY LAW, SO THEY CAN GO THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION PROVIDED THEY YIELD AT EACH INTERSECTION. IF THEY'RE GOING FROM SOUTH TO NORTH, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO STOP AT EVERY STOP SIGN. JUST LIKE NORMAL BICYCLES. >> SINCE YOU'VE ASKED THE QUESTION AND COMMANDER IS STANDING IN FRONT OF ME, ARE WE SIGHTING PEOPLE OR ARE WE GIVING WARNINGS? I KNOW THE ANSWER IS YES, BUT ARE WE DOING MUCH OF IT? >> THAT, I'M NOT PREPARED TO ANSWER. I'M NOT IN THE PATROL DIVISION. I'M INVESTIGATIONS. I WOULD HAVE TO REFER BACK TO LIEUTENANT CHASE CHANSON TO SEE WHAT THEIR ACTIONS ARE AT THIS MOMENT. BUT I KNOW THEY GET OUT THERE AND THEY WATCH FORM, THEY CITE THOSE GRIEVOUS. STOP FINE RUNNING, FAILED TO YIELD. THOSE OTHER THINGS. >> ONE OF THE MOST RECENT EVENTS WAS, LIKE, KIDS BEING KIDS, LIKE I WAS ONE, I GET IT. >> OH, MY GOODNESS. >> BUT 7, 8 GUYS GOING 20 MILES AN HOUR ON THE E-BIKE, GOING THE WRONG WAY, NOT STOPPING FOR ANYTHING. THEY ALMOST RANSOM PEOPLE OVER WITH THEIR WALKING DOGS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. I'M LIKE, OH, THAT'S A UNDESIRABLE EVENT. I DON'T KNOW, MAY WE REVISIT WHAT DIRECTION THE E-BIKES CAN GO? I DON'T KNOW. [02:30:04] >> YOU CAN'T. WHATEVER YOU DO FOR BIKES MUST BE THE SAME FOR E-BIKES. BECAUSE UNDER FLORIDA STATUTE, THEY'RE ALL CONSIDERED BIKES. >> CORRECT. >> BUT HOW DO WE ABLE TO KEEP THEM OFF THE SIDEWALK? THEY'RE GOING TO A CERTAIN SPEED? >> SIDEWALKS CAN BE REGULATED BY THE CITY. THEY ARE CONSIDERED PEDESTRIANS ON SIDEWALKS, BUT BECAUSE THEY'RE ON A BICYCLE, THERE ARE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY HAVE TO GIVE WARNINGS AND SO FORTH. BUT THE CITY ITSELF CAN REGULATE THE SPEED OR KEEP THEM OFF OF SIDEWALKS? TOTALLY, WE CHOSE TO PUT A SPEED LIMIT ON THEM. >> WE'LL PUT SOME. >> WE ARE GOING TO REVISIT OUR E-BIKE LEGISLATION. THAT IS A FACT BECAUSE WE PASSED THE FIRST ITERATION OF IT WAS IT LAST YEAR OR THIS YEAR? >> THIS YEAR. >> IT'LL BE APPROPRIATE AT SOME POINT TO REVISIT. THANK YOU, COMMISSION. >> DIDN'T KNOW EVERYTHING. WE DIDN'T KNOW. >> YES, SIR >> COMMISSIONER RING AND I WERE AT THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES. I THINK I MENTIONED THIS. THIS IS A HUGE ISSUE THROUGHOUT THE STATE, BUT IT'S ACUTE AT THE COAST, I BELIEVE. THEY ARE PUSHING THE STATE OF FLORIDA, AS WE KNOW, WE CAN'T PASS AN ORDINANCE IN THE THREE STAGES OF THE E-BIKES, ETC. WE NEED TO LOBBY THE STATE OF FLORIDA TO, IN MY OPINION, BRING DOWN THE ORDINANCE. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH ME? >> YES. THEY'RE WORKING DILIGENTLY EVERY MONTH TO GET MORE AND MORE LEGISLATION INVOLVED. BUT DIDN'T WE HAVE SOME NEW LEGISLATION OUT OF THIS SESSION? >> I THINK THIS SESSION, DIDN'T THEY ALLOW US TO REGULATE BY AGE. >> THEY DID IT. THAT'S NEW TO ME. I HAVEN'T READ UP ON THE LATEST ONE. [OVERLAPPING] >> YOU'RE RIGHT, THOUGH, BUT I THINK THERE'S MORE ROOM FOR THAT. >> BILL, ARE WE SOLICITING OUR LOBBYISTS TO PUSH THAT FOR ON OUR BEHALF? >> THERE ISN'T A PARTICULAR ITEM. I THINK THE BIG ONE THAT WE WERE WAITING FOR WAS BY AGE, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE COMMISSION WANTED TO SET A MINIMUM AGE TO BE RIDING E-BIKES. I BELIEVE THEY DID THAT. >> ONE OF THE INTERESTING THINGS, I THINK WE AS PARENTS AND RESIDENTS, IS THAT IF ONE OF THEM GETS INTO A WRECK WITH CAR, IT'S THE PARENTS' INSURANCE FROM THAT E-BIKE RIDER. ONE OF THE CITIES, I THINK, ILLEGALLY, WHAT THEY DID WHEN THEY HAD A PROBLEM WITH THE E-BIKE WITH A 10-YEAR-OLD OR WHATEVER, IS THEY WENT BACK TO MOM AND DAD AND BROUGHT HIM IN. I KNOW I'M NOT ASKING YOU GUYS TO DO THAT. THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THEY STOPPED HIM. WHAT'S YOUR PHONE NUMBER? HEY, MOM AND DAD, YOU'RE JUST GOING 27 MILES DOWN THE OPPOSITE? >> I WOULD BE MUCH IN FAVOR OF THAT, MORE SO IN FAVOR OF THAT THAN GIVING HIM A CITATION. I THINK THAT CURES A LOT. >> WHEN IT COMES TO CRASHES, WE DEAL WITH IT AS [OVERLAPPING]. >> IF IT'S NOT STOPPING AND RACING THERE TOO FAST. >> WE STILL HAVE THE DISCRETION CALL. EITHER SITE, WARN EDUCATE. >> GOOD PEOPLE HERE. >> IF YOU'D PASS THAT ON TO LIEUTENANT JAMISON. WONDERFUL. >> YEAH. ABSOLUTELY. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT. >> YOU'RE DONE. ONTO COMMISSIONER KELLY. >> I'VE GOT A SACRED COW, AND I THINK IT'S TIME WE PUT OUR FOOT DOWN. EARLY LAST YEAR, THE COMMISSION EMBARKED ON A CAMPAIGN TO REDUCE THE RISK TO THE CITY BY FOR-PROFIT ENTITIES OPERATING IN OUR PARKS AND CITY FACILITIES. IN PARTICULAR, A BELOVED FOR-PROFIT OUTDOOR SCHOOL USING AB PARKS, SHE AMENDED HER PRACTICES TO COMPLY WITH OUR UPDATED POLICIES. SHE DID THE RIGHT THING. THERE'S ANOTHER FOR-PROFIT ENTITY USING OUR PARKS THAT HAS CONSISTENTLY RESISTED ALL EFFORTS TO BRING THEM INTO COMPLIANCE. I WROTE IN MY MARGIN, I WROTE EVASION AND DEFIANCE, AND THAT IS THE REGULAR BASEBALL PEOPLE, AND THE ALL-STARS. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE ALL-STARS ARE LIKE A SEPARATE ORGANIZATION. I'M WELL AWARE THAT BASEBALL IS CRITICAL TO YOUTH DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT'S NOT THE YOUTH THAT I HAVE A HEARTBURN WITH. IT'S THE ADULTS RUNNING THE ORGANIZATION. I PLAYED BASEBALL, MY KIDS PLAYING BASEBALL, BUT BILL'S MET WITH THEM, KEVIN'S MET WITH THEM, JORDAN'S MET WITH THEM, AND THEY'RE JUST NOT COMPLYING WITH THE SAME REGULATIONS THAT THE LITTLE DAYCARE SCHOOL DID. I THINK IT'S TIME FOR THE LEGAL TO GET INVOLVED, THAT THEY'RE USING OUR PARKS AND THEY REFUSE TO COMPLY. IT IS TIME FOR US TO DO SOMETHING. I WOULD LIKE THE COMMISSION TO HAVE A CONSENSUS TO PUSH THIS MORE REGULARLY, NOT TO INTERRUPT THE PLAY, BUT TO REQUIRE THE ADULTS TO COMPLY WITH OUR CITY REGULATIONS, PROTECT US, AND THE KIDS. >> WELL, I'M GOING TO RESPOND TO THAT. I AGREE. THEREFORE, I MET FOR THE SECOND OR THIRD TIME WITH KELLY FIVE WEEKS AGO. [02:35:04] THEN I WENT AWAY FOR THREE WEEKS. DID HE COMPLY WITH EVERYTHING REQUESTED OTHER THAN THE AUDIT? IF THE AUDIT IS THE ONLY THING OUTSTANDING, WHAT'S THE LATEST ON THAT? >> I DON'T HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON WHERE THEY ARE ON THE AUDIT. WE DO NOT HAVE THE AUDIT YET. WE'RE ALSO WAITING ON. >> SAID KIDS. >> SAD KIDS. [OVERLAPPING] DEMONSTRATING THAT THE COACHES HAVE RECEIVED TRAINING AND IDENTIFYING CHILD ABUSE AND THINGS LIKE THAT. ALL OF OUR TENNIS COACHES HAVE TO HAVE IT. >> JUST A QUICK COMMENT. NOW I AGREE WITH MR. KELLY AS WELL. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY ILL INTENT FOR SURE, AND A POINT OF CLARITY, ONCE THEY DO GET ALL THEIR PAPERWORK, THEY ARE A NONPROFIT. THEY'RE NOT A FOR-PROFIT. >> I DON'T THINK THAT ALL STARS ARE. >> WELL, THEY'RE ALL MANAGED WELL. I DON'T KNOW. THEY'RE MANAGED BY THE ATLANTA DC LEXI. I THOUGHT THEY ALL FELL UNDER THAT UMBRELLA. >> THEY DO MAKE MONEY. THE AUDIT IS WHAT? FOR THEIR FINANCES. IT COSTS US $500 FOR A 4-YEAR-OLD TO PLAY T-BALL. WHERE'S ALL THAT MONEY GOING? >> WELL, BUT THE ALL STARS. >> THE TRAVELING TEAMS CHARGE. >> TRADITIONALLY, I KNOW A TRAVEL TEAM IS. [OVERLAPPING]. THAT'S A WHOLE FULL INDUSTRY. THAT'S A FULL INDUSTRY ON ITS OWN, BUT I THINK THAT ALL STAR TEAM IS USING MONEY. IT'S ALL GOING BACK INTO TRAVEL AND TOURNAMENT REGISTRATION. >> WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A. >> I KNOW, BUT I THINK WE'LL GET KELLY BY FIRE AND THE TO GET IT ALL IN, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY BILL OF TEO [INAUDIBLE]. >> I'M GOING TO AGREE WITH YOU, EXCEPT I DISAGREE THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS FOR A LONG TIME. [OVERLAPPING] I LIKE KELLY VERY MUCH. BUT MY QUESTION IS, WHO'S GOING TO TAKE THIS ON? HAVE YOU HAD YOUR CONVERSATION WITH? >> HAVE YOU HAD TO COME TO JESUS WITH YOU? >> I HAVE. >> THEN, CITY MANAGER, WHAT DO YOU PROPOSE? >> WELL, I THINK YOU NEED TO GIVE THEM A TIMELINE. THE THREE THINGS THAT I SHARE OUTSTANDING IS THE SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM. BUT I RECOGNIZE THAT THEY WERE BASICALLY REGISTERED BEFORE WE MADE THE ASK. THIS YEAR IS DIFFICULT. THE AUDIT AND VERIFICATION IN SOME WAY THAT ALL OF THE COACHES HAVE RECEIVED SOME FORM OF KID-TYPE TRAINING. >> I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE THING YOU HAVE TO FALL BACK ON. BECAUSE THAT DOES PUT US AT RISK. IF THE COACHES DON'T HAVE THIS TRAINING, THEY CAN'T COACH, AND THEY CAN'T FILL A TEAM. >> IT'S PROBABLY ONLINE, TOO. >> THE SOCCER GUYS HAVE DONE IT. >> YEAH. I HEAR YOU. THAT'S OUR FALLBACK, EIGHT. >> I'M GOING TO ASK THE CITY MANAGER IF YOU WOULD WRITE A LETTER ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION. >> NO, JASON SHOULD WRITE IT. >> WELL, ARGUABLY, HE CAN COLLABORATE WITH JASON, WHATEVER, BUT A LETTER SHOULD BE WRITTEN BECAUSE WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY IS THE COMMISSION NEEDS TO PRESS THIS ISSUE. I'M HAPPY TO STAND FIRM AS THE COMMISSION. BUT I WOULD ELIMINATE THE ITEM THAT CAME IN AFTER THEY ALREADY MADE THE SELECTION. LET'S JUST CLEAN IT UP. YOU'D ONLY BE DOING THE TWO THINGS. >> ON THEIR WEBSITE NOW THAT THERE IS A SCHOLARSHIP. >> BUT THEN THE QUESTION IS, WHAT WOULD YOU TELL KELLY THAT THE DROP-DEAD DATE IS, AND WHAT'S THE PENALTY FOR FAILURE? >> IT'S IN THE ORDINANCE. >> WHAT'S THE PENALTY? >> THE PENALTY ACCORDING TO ORDINANCE IS $500 A DAY. >> FAIR. >> IT'S IN THE ORDINANCE. [OVERLAPPING] >> THEN YOU COULD DO THE LETTER AND ATTACH THE ORDINANCE, AND SEND IT TO HIM. >> ONE DECEMBER? >> BUT I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, MAYBE SIT WITH, MUTUALLY DETERMINE THE DEADLINE. DON'T SAY, I NEED TWO WEEKS, NOT THAT YOU WOULD. BUT JUST MAKE SURE IT'S, IS IT REASONABLE. NOT SIX MONTHS FROM NOW. >> ONE DECEMBER OR SPRING, CHRISTMAS BREAK. >> THANKS FOR BRINGING IT UP, BUT WE ALL AGREE. I THINK. >> AT MINIMUM. I WOULD SAY, FIND OUT WHEN THEIR SPRING SEASON STARTS, A MONTH BEFORE THAT, INTERVAL. >> EVERYBODY GOOD WITH THAT? THERE'S THAT DIRECTIVE. ARE YOU FINISHED, SIR? THANK YOU. THAT WAS YOU. >> ONE MORE THING. I WOULD LIKE TO APOLOGIZE TO OUR STAFF THAT SOME OF [02:40:04] THE THINGS THAT WE DID LAST MEETING PUT YOU GUYS INTO A WHOLE LOT OF EXTRA WORK. I DON'T THINK WE INTENDED TO DO THAT. WE APPRECIATE YOU, AND WE APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING BETTER ORGANIZED ON BEHALF OF WHAT YOU HAD TO DO TO COMPLY WITH WHAT WE ASKED. >> THANKS, BUT YOU SAID WE, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M APOLOGIZING FOR. >> WELL, WHEN WE CHANGED THE MILEAGE RATE AND THE BUDGET, PEOPLE HAD TO WORK OVERTIME TO CHANGE THE BUDGET, WHEN WE CHANGED THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND THE AMANDAZ PEOPLE HAD TO WORK OVERTIME. WHEN WE SLASHED THE PROJECTS AND PUBLIC WORKS HAD TO WORK OVERTIME, WE DID THOSE THINGS. >> THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP. WE HAVE ONE MORE, COMMISSIONER RING. >> I HAVE TWO THINGS. FIRST, MAIN STREET IS AND VERY POOR LIGHTING. LITERALLY. MY CHILD IS A HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT. THERE'S ABOUT 15 STUDENTS THERE THAT CATCH THEIR BUS THERE EARLY IN THE MORNING AT 6:42, AND IT'S COMPLETELY PITCH BLACK DARK. THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS ON MAIN STREET. I HAVE REQUESTED SPEED TABLES BE PUT IN OVER THERE TO NO AVAIL. ALSO, THE LIGHTING IS POOR. IF YOU ARE UP AT SIX IN THE MORNING, I JUST WOULD LOVE FOR YOU TO TAKE A DRIVE DOWN THAT MAIN STREET AND WATCH ALL THE CHILDREN THAT ARE HIGH SCHOOLERS WALKING THAT WAY IN THE DARK TO THAT ONE PIT STOP. I KNOW JEA IS IN CHARGE OF LIGHTING, BUT I REALLY HAVE TO PUSH FOR THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE. I KNOW WHEN IT COMES TO SIDEWALKS, EVERYBODY WANTS THEM AND NOBODY WANTS THEM IN THEIR YARD. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THIS, THERE'S GOT TO BE SOMETHING ELSE WE CAN DO. THAT WAS THE FIRST THING. THE SECOND THING I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT WAS THE BEACHES FALLEN OR FALLEN HEROES MONUMENT. BUT EVEN A BROADER SPECTRUM IS THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH PARTNERS WITH THE BEACHES VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK. WE ALSO PARTNER WITH OTHER NEIGHBORING CITIES, OUR BEACH CITIES, AS WELL AS CITY OF JACKSON, MEL. OUR POLICE CHIEF AND OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT DO SO MUCH, NOT JUST FOR OUR VETERANS, BUT FOR OUR HOMELESS. I JUST WANT TO HARP ON THEM FOR A MINUTE THERE. ONE, OUR MARSH OAKS COMMUNITY CENTER IS GOING TO SHARE PART OF ITS ROOMS WITH THE BEACHES VETERANS TO SHOW OUR SUPPORT FOR THE VETERANS. WE BRING IN RESOURCES. I KNOW THAT THERE ARE AT LEAST TWO CHURCHES IN ATLANTIC BEACH THAT HOST COMPASSION NIGHT. WE DO TOY DRIVES. WE DO COUNTLESS VETERAN EVENTS ALL THROUGHOUT ATLANTIC BEACH AND INTO THE OTHER BEACHES. I HAVE ASKED FOR SOME OF THOSE STATISTICS THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER TO COME UP, AND I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM THE DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, KEVIN HOGAN CAMP, ALL THAT WE DO IN SUPPORT OF NOT JUST OUR HOMELESS VETERANS, BUT OUR HOMELESS AND OUR VETERANS. >> KEVIN HOGAN CAMP, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, THROUGH THE MAYOR, AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY MANAGER, THE COMMISSIONER DID ASK US TO DO SOME RESEARCH, SPECIFICALLY, WHAT THE CITY SPENDS AT BEACHES MEMORIAL VETERANS PARK. I'M GOING TO MAKE THIS SHORT AND ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAD. DURING THE MOST RECENT FISCAL YEARS, THE ONE THAT JUST ENDED AND THE ONE THAT'S JUST BEGINNING, WE WOULD HAVE A TOTAL OF $110,000 BUDGET FOR IMPROVEMENTS AND EVENTS AT THE PARK. THAT'S NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO DO WITH MARSH OAKS COMMUNITY CENTER, THE PURCHASE OF AT THE REHAB AND THE PROGRAMMING THAT'S COMING UP. THEN A DIFFERENT TOPIC THAT THE COMMISSIONER ASKED US TO RESEARCH IS, OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT DOES INDEED ROUTINELY GET CALLED TO INTERACT WITH HOUSE PEOPLE AND WITH PEOPLE WHO PANHANDLE AND TO MERELY PANHANDLE OR ASK FOR MONEY ON PUBLIC PROPERTY IS NOT A CRIME. OUR POLICE OFFICERS ARE WELL VERSED IN THAT AND HAVE BEEN TRAINED AND ESTABLISHED RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE FOLKS ON THE STREET WITH THE PEOPLE WHO WORK WITH PEOPLE ON THE STREETS THROUGH THE SOULS BOCKER CENTER. [02:45:03] IT'S ROUTINE NOW. IF IT HASN'T ALWAYS BEEN THAT WE TREAT THE FOLKS WE COME ACROSS WITH DIGNITY AND RESPECT. WE PUT TOGETHER A RESOURCE GUIDE THAT WE ROUTINELY GIVE TO UNHOUSED PEOPLE, TO VETERANS AND PEOPLE WHO PAIN HANDLE. FINALLY, WE OFTEN GIVE TRANSPORTATION TO THE AFOREMENTIONED PEOPLE. I HOPE THAT ANSWERS YOU HAVE TO RESEARCH? >> YES. I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT AND THOSE STATISTICS. I SUPPOSE MY POINT TO JUST THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL, IT'S NOT JUST BY CITY STAFF OR BY OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT OR BY OUR CHIEF OF POLICE, [INAUDIBLE], WHO IS NOT HERE TODAY, BUT I REALLY SO MUCH COMPASSION COMES FROM HIM, AND IT BLEEDS INTO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ITSELF. BUT THROUGH NON PROFITS THAT ARE HERE AND OUTSIDE OF OUR CITY THAT WE PARTNER WITH. I'M VERY PROUD OF WHAT WE'VE DONE IN PARTNERSHIP WITH NON PROFITS AND FOR PROFITS AND WITH OUR CITY STAFF AND OUR CITY COMMISSION, BECAUSE I KNOW WE HAVE, AS A COMMISSION FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS, I'VE BEEN UP HERE, SUBSTANTIALLY FUNDED VETERANS EVENTS AND VETERANS PARKS. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. >> THANKS. >> ONE SMALL COMMENT. THANK YOU TO THE POLICE BECAUSE THERE WAS A CIVIL RIGHTS AUDIT, I GUESS HERE RECENTLY. I DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT EXISTED, BUT A GENTLEMAN HE MADE IT LOOK LIKE HE WAS PANHANDLING WITH A CARDBOARD, SIGN AND SAID SOMETHING. >> GOD BLESS. >> GOD BLESS OUR VETERANS. >> YES. >> WHICH IS THAT'S FINE. BUT, THE POLICE WERE CALLED. THEY HANDLED IT BEAUTIFULLY. HE WAS JUST INSIDE ATLANTA BEACH COUNTRY CLUB NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT STAFF HANDLED IT BEAUTIFULLY. I THINK THE ONLY NEGATIVE THING HE COULD SAY IS LIKE, SOMEONE CALLED THE POLICE. I'M LIKE, WELL, WE GOT KIDS. WE DON'T KNOW WHO YOU ARE. STRANGER DANGER. WE'RE GOING TO FIND OUT WHO YOU ARE BEFORE WE JUST LET YOU PLACE KIND OF THING. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S WRONG OR RIGHT, BUT THAT'S THE ONLY NEGATIVE YOU COULD POSSIBLY PUT ON THAT. I THINK HE DIDN'T SAY MUCH ABOUT IT, SO I THINK WE PASSED THE LAW ON IT. GOOD JOB. THANKS. >> THANK YOU. >> DID WE GET EVERYBODY? I'LL FINISH UP. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BOL, FOR STANDING IN FOR 2.5 WEEKS. YOU MADE ME LOOK GOOD. YOU KNOW WHY YOU MADE ME LOOK GOOD? >> I DIDN'T DO A DAMN THING. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT. YOU DIDN'T RENAME ANY STREETS OR PARKS IN MY ABSENCE. I APPRECIATE THAT SO VERY MUCH. >> I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING. EXCEPT FOR THE ONES YOU'VE DELAYED. >>THAT'S CORRECT. I DID. I'LL FIND OUT ABOUT THAT. I KNOW YOU'RE AWARE, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE AWARE THAT WE FINALLY GOT ONE OF OUR TWO PERFUNCTORY MEETINGS WITH THE DUVAL COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD. THAT WILL BE ON OCTOBER 23, AT 5:00 P.M. AT FLETCHER HIGH SCHOOL AUDITORIUM. I HOPE EVERYBODY CAN MAKE IT. IT'S NOT MANDATORY, BUT I REALLY WOULD LIKE YOU TO MAKE IT. I'LL SAY THIS FIRST, WE SET THE DATE. NOW WE'RE BUILDING THE AGENDA. PEOPLE SAY, WELL, WHY DON'T YOU HAVE AN AGENDA BEFORE YOU ASK FOR A MEETING? IT TOOK A YEAR AND A HALF TO GET A MEETING. WE GOT THE DATE. WE GOT THE MEETING. ALL OF THE SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS ARE PLEDGED TO BE THERE. THE ONE THAT'S MOST IMPORTANT, OF COURSE, IS APRIL CARNEY. SHE'S OUR REPRESENTATIVE. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE WILL HAVE CITIZENS SHOW OR NOT, BUT FEEL FREE TO SPREAD THE WORD AND HAVE CITIZENS COME. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE OPEN IT UP AND HAVE A CITIZEN FORUM. I AM INFORMED BY MY TWO SISTERS IN MAYORSHIP THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO BE OUT OF THAT ROOM BY 6:30 BECAUSE THERE'S AN EVENT THAT NIGHT WITH THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'LL MAKE IT OUT OF THERE BY 6:30, BUT I INTEND TO BE THERE AND BE RESPONSIVE TO CITIZENS AS LONG AS THEY WANT TO [INAUDIBLE]. >> WHAT TIME IS THAT START AT? >> 5:00 P.M. IT'S A LITTLE EARLY, BUT THAT WAS TRYING TO DOVETAIL IT IN WITH THE EVENT WITH THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. BUT AGAIN, THE EXERCISE IS IMPORTANT REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE AGENDA IS BECAUSE WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE GOT THEIR ATTENTION, WE'RE BACK ON THE DOCKET. WE HAVE OUR PERFUNCTORY MEETING. WE'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE TWO A YEAR. WE'LL ONLY GET ONE THIS YEAR, BUT GOING FORWARD, I EXPECT EVERY YEAR TO HAVE AT LEAST ONE MEETING, AND IT'S NOT THE MEETING WITH THE CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, BECAUSE THEY DO. THEY ALREADY KNEW, PROBABLY INTUITIVELY, IF NOT, ACTUALLY, THROUGH INTER LOCAL, [02:50:01] THEY KNEW THEY SHOULD MEET WITH COJ CITY COUNCIL, BUT THEY FORGOT ABOUT THE BEACHES. WE'RE BACK AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LATEST IS. I DON'T WANT TO TIE UP THIS MEETING GETTING INTO WHAT YOU DO OR DON'T KNOW, BUT I DO BELIEVE THEY'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE CONSOLIDATION OF ANCHOR ACADEMY AND MAYPORT ELEMENTARY. SOMEBODY MAY WANT TO HEAR ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THE ONE BIGGEST QUESTION WE SHOULD HAVE IS, IS YOUR MODEL STILL 750 STUDENTS PER FACILITY? HOW IS THAT GOING TO IMPACT ATLANTIC BEACH ELEMENTARY? BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THE GRIM REAPER WILL BE BACK ON ATLANTIC BEACH ELEMENTARY. ANYWAYS, I HOPE YOU MAKE IT AND SOME OF THE TOPICS ARE UPDATED USE ON THE SURTAX FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS AT BEACHES SCHOOLS, PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE RIDER SAFETY NEEDS AND OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATION AND COLLABORATION BETWEEN THE BEACHES CITIES AND SCHOOL BOARD. THOSE ARE ALREADY A TOPICS. IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS, SEE DONNA, SHE'S GOT THE CONNECTION WITH THE SCHOOL BOARD. >> YOU SAID THAT'S GOING TO BE AT FLETCHER HIGH SCHOOL? >> FLETCHER HIGH SCHOOL IN THE AUDITORY. NOW WE'RE BACK ON TRACK. WE ONLY HAVE A FULL AGENDA TO PROCESS NOW. LET'S MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER 6 CONSENT AGENDA? [6. CONSENT AGENDA] THIS SHOULD GO PRETTY QUICK. ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE CITY COMMISSION AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION IN THE FORM LISTED BELOW. 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 AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COMMISSION ON THESE ITEMS. ITEM 6A, APPROVED RESOLUTION NUMBER 25-796B, APPROVED RESOLUTION NUMBER 25-84. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO REMOVE EITHER OF THESE FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA? HEARING NONE, DO WE HAVE A MOTION? >> I MOVE WE ADOPT BOTH CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 6A AND 6B. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY WITH. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. NOW, WE GET TO A PART THAT SOMEBODY IS INTERESTED IN HERE, [7.A. Arts, Recreation, and Culture Committee (ARCC) Report] COMMITTEE REPORTS. MS. LISA. >> THANK YOU. I'M LISA GOODRICH, THE CHAIR OF THE ARTS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE, AND I'M HERE FOR MY QUARTERLY REPORT. I SUPPOSE WE'RE DOING QUARTERLY REPORTS NOW. I WANTED TO FIRST STATE THAT ON AUGUST 27TH, OUR COMMITTEE HELD ITS DAY LONG MEETING TO INTERVIEW THE SLATE OF GRANTEES THAT HAVE APPLIED FOR THE GRANT THIS YEAR. THE ARTS AND RECREATION GRANT. WE HAD $140,000 IN ASKS EVERY YEAR, IT INCREASES. THIS WAS A RECORD FOR US AGAIN. WE FOUND OUT THAT NIGHT THAT WE HAD $65,000 TO GIVE AWAY. WE SCORED EVERYBODY, AND I THINK WE ENDED UP WITH A PRETTY INTERESTING MIX, SOME RETURNING AND SOME NEW APPLICANTS, AND WE HOPE GRANT RECIPIENTS. BEFORE YOU HAVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 25-83, WHICH OUTLINES EACH ONE OF THE GRANTEES AND HOW MUCH WE NEGOTIATED WITH EACH OTHER ON OUR COMMITTEE TO AWARD EACH ONE. YOU'LL SEE THOSE NUMBERS THERE, AND WE DO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU APPROVE THAT. WE DID ALSO SCORE ALL THE SCHOOLS AND LISTENED TO THEM, AND I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A WORKSHOP. I HOPE THAT YOU HAVE BEEN FORWARDED THEIR APPLICATIONS SO THAT YOU CAN REVIEW THOSE FOR YOURSELVES, BUT WE DID GO AHEAD AND SCORE THEM, AND OUR TOTAL TO GIVE OUT TO THE SCHOOLS CAME OUT TO $25,000. I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE ALLOCATED ABOUT 20,000 FOR THAT. THAT'S UP TO YOU, AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, I CAN CERTAINLY HELP YOU WITH THAT. SINCE THEN, I HAVE PERSONALLY MET WITH STAFF TO TALK ABOUT DEBRIEF OUR WHOLE PROCESS, WHICH WE DO EVERY YEAR TO SEE WHERE WE CAN MAKE IMPROVEMENTS. BOTH AMANDA AND JORDAN HAVE MADE EXCELLENT SUGGESTIONS, AND WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT THOSE AT TOMORROW'S ARC MEETING, SO THAT WE CAN REFINE AND IMPROVE OUR PROCESS. LET'S SEE WHAT ELSE? THE STAFF CONTINUES TO WORK ON PLANNING FIRST NIGHT AND OTHER EVENTS TO CELEBRATE OUR CENTENNIAL AND OUR COMMITTEE AIMS TO SUPPORT STAFF IN THAT EFFORT. [02:55:01] EXCITING NEWS OUR TURTLES WILL BE INSTALLED IN MID NOVEMBER. I KNOW. THAT'S GOING TO BE FUN. NEXT WEEK, I WILL BE WALKING AROUND WITH JORDAN AND GENTLEMAN FROM PUBLIC WORKS ACTUALLY PINPOINTING WHERE THOSE WILL BE, AND THEN THERE'LL BE A REVEAL ABOUT. >> HOW MANY? >> THERE'S 24. YES. THERE'S 24, THROUGHOUT OUR PARKS AND SOME OF SOME OTHER PUBLIC SPACES, SOME HIGHLIGHTING OUR HERITAGE TREES, AND IT SHOULD BE AN INTERESTING PATH AROUND THE WHOLE CITY. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? >> NO, YOU GUYS DO A GREAT JOB. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE. >> [INAUDIBLE] JUST TO COMMENT. I WATCHED AS MUCH AS I POSSIBLY COULD OF THE DAY LONG. >> LONG ONE. >> YOU GUYS ARE PRETTY AMAZING THAT YOU STAYED IN THERE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. I TRY TO KEEP A TALLY. I KEPT SAYING, WE'RE AHEAD OF SCHEDULE, AND THEN WE CATCH UP WITH OURSELVES. WE GOT OUT OF THERE ABOUT 5:00, SO IT WORKS OUT EVERY YEAR. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MS. LISA. >>THANK YOU. >> NOW ON TO ITEM 8A, [8.A. RESOLUTION NO. 25-67 ] RESOLUTION NUMBER 25-67, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF A REPLACEMENT BLOWER AT THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS AND PURCHASE ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND AS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS RESOLUTION AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MR. KINGSWOR. >> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR GOOD EVENING COMMISSION. THIS IS A PLANNED IMPROVE [INAUDIBLE] THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLAN. IT'S A REPLACEMENT OF A BLOWER. [INAUDIBLE] TO GIVE YOU ANY DETAILS THAT YOU MIGHT NEED ABOUT THE BLOWER. THIS IS NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE ORDER ISSUE. THIS IS A PLAN. >> NOT A STINKY ONE? >> WELL, IT PROBABLY HELPS IN SOME WAYS, BUT THIS WAS A PLANNED CAPITAL PROGRAM. AS SUCH, IT WAS BUDGETED. IT'S UNDER THE PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ACCOUNT 41055OA-5356300 IT'S PROJECT PU 2516 AND THE AMOUNT OF $300,000. WHAT ACTUALLY SURPRISINGLY CAME IN LOWER THAN EXPECTED FOR $166,364. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT YOU APPROVE RESOLUTION 25-67. >> RECOMMEND WE APPROVE RESOLUTION 25-67. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND DISCUSSION. >> GIVE TORY, WHAT HE WANTS? >> HEARING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY WITH AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES. MOVING TO ITEM 9 OR PARDON ME, 8B. WAIT A SECOND. >> 8B. [8.B. RESOLUTION NO. 25-80] >> 8B. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A $313,922.32 CHANGE ORDER WITH AKON CONSTRUCTION FOR THE COMPLETION OF RENOVATIONS TO MARSHAKS COMMUNITY CENTER, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS AND PURCHASE ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND AS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS RESOLUTION AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MR. KELLY. >> THANK YOU. AS YOU MAY REMEMBER, WE ALLOCATED MONEY TO FINISH UP MARSH OAKS. ALL THE MONEY THAT'S IN MARSH OAKS RIGHT NOW WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE INITIAL PURCHASE PRICE IS OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY. IT'S HAZARD MITIGATION MONEY THAT WE GOT TO HARDEN IT AND $500,000 FROM COJ, AND WE HAVE ANOTHER 200,000, I BELIEVE, FOR THE PARKING LOT, WHICH WILL BE THE LAST THING THAT WE END UP DOING. WE GOT A MAXIMUM GUARANTEED PRICE OF $313,822.32 TO FINISH OUT THE BUILDING RENOVATIONS. >> THE WINDOWS? >> THE WINDOWS WERE PART OF THE HARDENING PROCESS, CORRECT, STEVE. THIS IS FOR TREATMENTS AND KITCHEN IMPROVEMENTS AND ALL OF THAT STUFF. ONCE WE FINISH THAT, THEN WE'LL INITIATE THE CDBG GRANT AND DO THE LANDSCAPING AND PARKING. WITH THAT STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION 25-80? >> I MOVE [OVERLAPPING]. GO AHEAD. >> I MOVE WITH WE APPROVED RESOLUTION NUMBER 25-80. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION SECOND DISCUSSION. >> I JUST WANT TO SAY, I LOOKED ONLINE. BY THE WAY, THE WEBSITE'S LOOKING GREAT, AND IT'S MUCH MORE USER FRIENDLY. BUT I LOVE THAT WE HAVE AN UPDATE ON WHERE WE'RE AT IN CONSTRUCTION, AND THAT WE HAVE ANOTHER 300,000 PLUS TO GO TOWARDS THIS. VERY HAPPY WITH STAFF AND THANK YOU FOR ALL OF THAT. HOW TO HANDLE THIS. THANKS TO RON BATISTA, OUR IT GUY, WHO'S REALLY HAMMERING OUT THIS WEBSITE. [03:00:01] >> COMMISSIONER. >> I HAD A QUICK QUESTION. WHEN DO WE THINK WE'RE GOING TO, RIBBON CUTTING? I MEAN, HOW FAR OUT DO WE THINK WE ARE? >> DO WE HAVE AN ESTIMATED TIME? >> BASED ON WHERE WE ARE NOW, MY BEST ESTIMATE WOULD BE PROBABLY THE END OF QUARTER 1, MAYBE MARCH, APRIL 26. >> YOU COULD HAVE YELLED BETTER. >> NO, I WOULD HAVE FUSSED AT YOU. THANK YOU. >> IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, ALL IN FAVOR SIGNIFY WITH AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES. MOVING TO ITEM 8C, [8.C. RESOLUTION NO. 25-81] RESOLUTION NUMBER 25-81, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING STAFF TO ISSUE A TASK AUTHORIZATION TO JOHNS COLLINS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, LLC FOR CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE PUBLIC UTILITIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT NUMBER 2 UPGRADES, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS AND PURCHASE ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND IS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS RESOLUTION AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, MR. KILLISWORTH. >> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THIS IS ALSO A PLANNED UPGRADE TO OUR WATER TREATMENT PLANT. THE BID CAME IN AT $125,000. THE FUNDS ARE CURRENTLY IN THE BUDGET IN ACCOUNT 400-5502-533-3100. WE CURRENTLY HAVE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH JOHN COLLINS ENGINEERING. THIS WOULD BE A TASK WORK ITEM FOR HIM TO UPGRADE. THIS IS THE NEW CHLORINE, GETTING RID OF THE [OVERLAPPING], FROM GAS TO HYPOCHLORIDE. WE HAVE ONE MORE CHLORINE GAS TREATMENT FACILITY. THAT'LL HAPPEN NEXT YEAR, HOPEFULLY, AND THEN WE WILL HAVE NO MORE CHLORINE GAS WITHIN THE CITY. >> I MOVE WE ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 25-81 AS READ. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION, SECOND DISCUSSION. >> SEWER GUY, ANYTHING HE WANTS. >> HEARING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY WITH AYE. >> AYE. >> AYE OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES. MOVING TO ITEM 8D, [8.D. RESOLUTION NO. 25-82] RESOLUTION NUMBER 25-82, OF RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING STAFF TO ISSUE A TASK AUTHORIZATION TO JOHNS COLLINS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, LLC FOR CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE PUBLIC UTILITIES WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, CHLORINATION, AND DECHLORINATION OR SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS AND PURCHASE ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND IS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS RESOLUTION AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, MR. KILLISWORTH. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THIS IS ANOTHER SCHEDULED IMPROVEMENT CHANGE-OUT. IS THIS THAT WATER PLANT OR THE WASTEWATER? IT'S THE SAME THING CHANGING OUT OUR CHLORINE SYSTEM THERE. >> WILL IT IMPROVE THE ODOR? >> YES. >> THAT'S RIGHT. I LIKE THAT, TROY. YOU GOT IT. >> CHLORINE ODOR. >> IT WON'T MAKE IT WORSE. AGAIN, WE ALREADY HAVE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONTRACT FOR ONGOING ENGINEERING SERVICES WITH JOHN COLLINS. THIS WOULD BE A SECOND TASK AGREEMENT. THIS IS PART OF THE NEW BUDGET. I'M NOT GOING TO READ OUT THE ACCOUNT NUMBER, BUT IT'S IN THE SAME ACCOUNT NUMBER THAT I READ OUT LAST TIME IN THE AMOUNT OF $69,500. STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2582. >> I MOVE WE ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 25-83 AS READ. >> 822. >> I'M SORRY. >> 2582. >> AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE. 25-82 AS READ. >> SECOND. MOTION IS SECOND. DISCUSSION. HEARING NONE, ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY WITH AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES. ITEM 8E, RESOLUTION NUMBER 25-83, [8.E. RESOLUTION NO. 25-83] A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PROVIDE $65,000 IN FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 GRANT FUNDING FOR ARTISTIC RECREATIONAL, AND CULTURAL PROGRAMS, EVENTS AND PROJECTS, UTILIZING FUNDS BUDGETED IN ACCOUNT NUMBER 001-6010-5702-82-00, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY CONTRACTS AND PURCHASE ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND IS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS RESOLUTION AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >> MR. KILLISWORTH. >> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. THIS IS FOR THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR, A BUDGET $65,000 FOR PROGRAMMING THAT WOULD BE RECOMMENDED BY ARC. [03:05:06] IF YOU LOOK AT THE RESOLUTION, IN SECTION 1, IT GIVES YOU THE AWARDEES AND THE AMOUNT. STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ISSUE THESE CONTRACTS, WHICH WOULD BE APPROVING RESOLUTION 25- 83. YES, SIR. >> I HAVE ONE THING, AND I KNOW COUNCILOR TALKED ABOUT THIS THE OTHER TIME. SOME OF THE THINGS IN THERE, I'M STILL TRYING TO DECIDE IF DUVAL COUNTY SHOULD PAY FOR. IF YOU'RE A CITIZEN OF ATLANTIC BEACH AND YOU PAY DUVAL COUNTY TAXES, YOU'RE PAYING FOR SCHOOLS. SOME OF THOSE THINGS IN THERE POSSIBLY COULD BE PAID FOR BY DUVAL COUNTY. A GOOD POINT THAT YOU BROUGHT UP. PEOPLE SHOULD BE DOWN THERE TALKING TO THEIR REPRESENTATIVE ON THE DUVAL COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD BECAUSE, IN SOME CASES, CITIZENS ARE PAYING DUVAL COUNTY TAXES. THEY'RE PAYING CITY TAXES. IN SOME CASES, EVEN IF THEY HAD A CHILD, THEY MAY BE IN A CHARTER SCHOOL. WE'RE ASKING OUR CITIZENS SOMETIMES, AND I KNOW OTHER PEOPLE HAVE FACED THIS TO BE DOUBLE-TAXED. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO GET DOWN THERE, TALK TO OUR SCHOOL BOARD REPRESENTATIVE, BECAUSE I KNOW MAYOR, YOU TALKED ABOUT NOT MAKING THIS CONTINUE. WE'VE GOT TO FACE THAT ISSUE BECAUSE IT'S OUT TO. >> I THINK ANNE OSKARANS' LETTER TO US WAS AN EXCELLENT SUMMARY OF WHERE WE STAND ON ALL THIS. I PERSONALLY WAS IN FAVOR OF MAKING THE PROGRAMS INDEPENDENT OF THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. BUT HER POINT IS THAT KIDS, EVEN HIGH SCHOOL KIDS, ARE NOT IN CONTROL OF THEIR OWN TRANSPORTATION. BY PLACING THESE PROGRAMS IN THE SCHOOLS OR RIGHT AFTER SCHOOL OR DURING LUNCH, THAT MORE KIDS HAVE ACCESS TO IT BECAUSE THEY CAN'T RELIABLY GET THEMSELVES TO WHERE WE COULD OFFER IT TO MORE KIDS. >> YES. >> THIS RESOLUTION DOESN'T INCLUDE ANY OF THE SCHOOL. [OVERLAPPING] THAT WOULD BE THE WORKSHOP THAT WE HAVE. NEXT MENTION. >> DO WE HAVE A MOTION? >> I MOVE, WE ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 25-83. SECOND, AS READ. >> MOTION AND SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY WITH AYE. >> AYE. >> AYE OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES. WE'VE ALREADY TACKLED ITEM 9A. MOVING TO 9B, [9.B. ORDINANCE NO. 90-25-258, Public Hearing and Final Reading] ORDINANCE NUMBER 90-25-258, PUBLIC HEARING AND FINAL READING. NOBODY HERE FOR THAT. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, COUNTY OF DUVAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, HEREBY AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AS ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NUMBER 90-24-253, INCLUDING ALL AMENDMENTS THERETO. THIS ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING SECTION 24-161, OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING, PROVIDING FOR RECREATION, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, MR. KILLISWORTH. >> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I'M GOING TO TAKE THIS ONE FROM AMANDA BECAUSE SHE HAD TO LEAVE. THIS IS A CHANGE TO CHAPTER 24 AT THE COMMISSION WORKSHOP. THIS IS FOR BOTH ONSITE AND OFFSITE SHARED PARKING. THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS CREATED DURING THE WORKSHOP WENT TO CBB. CBB RECOMMENDED APPROVAL IN A 61 VOTE. THIS IS THE SECOND HEARING. THE FIRST HEARING, I BELIEVE, GOT A UNANIMOUS VOTE FROM THE COMMISSION. NOTHING'S CHANGED SINCE THE FIRST HEARING. THIS IS THE SECOND HEARING, SO STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 90-25-258. >> I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY TO SPEAK? >> WE DO NOT. >> I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 90-25-258. >> SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, DISCUSSION. HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY WITH AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES. MOVING TO ITEM 9C, [9.C. ORDINANCE NO. 95-25-127, Introduction and First Reading] ORDINANCE NUMBER 95-25-127, INTRODUCTION IN FIRST READING, AND ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, COUNTY OF DUVAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 18 SOLICITATIONS, SECTION 18-1, DEFINITIONS TO MODIFY EXISTING DEFINITIONS, SECTION 18-2, PERMITS, REGISTRATION, AND FINGERPRINTING REQUIRED TO REQUIRE DUVAL COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS PERMIT PRIOR TO SUBMISSION. SECTION 18-8 EXCEPTIONS, SECTION 18-9, PENALTIES TO CLARIFY THIS PROCESS, PROVIDING FOR PURPOSE AND INTENT, PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT, PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, MR. KILLISWORTH. >> THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. IT CAME TO MY ATTENTION THAT THE CITY HAD [03:10:02] A SOLICITATION PERMIT ORDINANCE THAT HAD EXISTED FOR MANY YEARS. BUT WE HAD NO PROCESS TO ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT IT. THEN WE HAD SOMEBODY WHO CAME AND ASKED FOR ONE. WE LOOKED AT CREATING THE PROCESS, AND LOOKING AT CREATING THE PROCESS, IT BECAME APPARENT THAT THE STATUTE HAD CHANGED SINCE THE TIME WE ORIGINALLY CREATED THESE PROCESSES. WE'RE MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO CHANGE OUR LOCAL ORDINANCE. NOW UNDER STATUTE, THE CLERK OF THE COURT, YOU HAVE TO GET A SOLICITATION PERMIT FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT AND CLERK OF THE COURT AND THEY DO THE BACKGROUND CHECKS AND ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT THE STATUTE REQUIRES. WHAT WE'RE GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT THE CITY REQUIRES IS THAT BEFORE YOU CAN GET A PERMIT FROM THE CITY, YOU HAVE TO SHOW US A VALID PERMIT FROM THE CLERK OF THE COURT, AND THEN YOUR PERMIT WITH US WILL RIDE COEXISTENT WITH THAT CLERK PERMIT. WHEN THE CLERK'S PERMIT EXPIRES, YOUR CITY PERMIT WILL EXPIRE. THAT WOULD BE BASICALLY FOR ANYBODY WHO'S GOING TO WITH THE EXCEPTION OF TREE SERVICES. WITH TREE SERVICES TO GET A SOLICITATION PERMIT, THEY WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH. WE HAVE AN ONLINE CERTIFICATION PROGRAM ON THE LAWS REGARDING TREES HERE IN THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH. WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT A TREE SERVICE HAS TO HAVE THAT CERTIFICATE AS WELL. IT'S EASY TO OBTAIN FROM ITS TREES. >> I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 95-25-127. >> HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER. >> QUICK QUESTION. THERE ARE SOME NEIGHBORHOODS AND AREAS IN THIS TOWN THAT SAY NO SOLICITATION. HOW DO THEY STOP SOLICITATION IF THEY NOW HAVE A CERTIFICATE? >> IT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY, SO I'LL LET JASON TALK ABOUT. >> I MEAN, HOAS DO HAVE A COVENANT COMMUNITY. THEY CAN NOT ALLOW THAT AT ALL. THAT WOULD BE ABOVE AND BEYOND WHATEVER ZONING HAS; THEY CAN STOP THAT. >> EVEN IF IT'S ON A PUBLIC ROAD. >> YES. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT LIKE A COMMUNITY? >> LET'S SAY, LIKE THE LAKESIDE. >> THEY HAVE AN HOA? THEN THE HOA COULD COVENANT NOT TO HAVE ANY SOLICITATION. >> EVEN THOUGH IT'S PUBLIC ROADS ALL THE WAY? >> YES, SO THEY COULD WALK DOWN THE PUBLIC ROAD. WHAT THEY COULDN'T DO IS [OVERLAPPING] THEY COULDN'T GET UP THE DRIVEWAY TO THE DOOR BECAUSE THAT'S PRIVATE. >> I GUESS IT WOULD BE USELESS TO JUST BE DRIVING. >> SLOW. >> I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT CAMPAIGNS. DOES THAT STOP THE DOOR-TO-DOOR? >> NO. >> THAT'S IN THEM. THAT'S AN EXEMPTION LIST. LIKE THE BOY SCOUTS AREN'T COVERED, NON-PROFITS AREN'T COVERED. >> SPECIFICALLY, WHO GOES TO THE DOOR TO SOLICIT IQ FIBER? >> IT'S WHOEVER'S PARKING GOODS, A LOT OF THEM ARE. THEY'RE COMING IN FROM OUT OF STATE, AND THEY'RE MAKING THE ROUNDS. I THINK THE STAFF, AT LEAST, MAYBE NOT FOR THE HOMEOWNERS, BUT FOR STAFF AT LEAST, IT'S THE TREE SERVICE GUYS. IT'S JUST ONE WAY TO HELP CONTROL THEM IS TO REQUIRE THEM TO GET A SOLICITATION PERMIT. THEN IT'D BE MORE DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT. WE DIDN'T KNOW WE COULDN'T DO THAT. IF, AS PART OF THE PERMIT, THEY HAD TO HAVE A CITY CERTIFICATION ON OUR LAWS. >> WE HAVE A MOTION IN SECOND. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. ALL IN FAVOR, SIGNIFY WITH AYE. >> AYE. >> OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES. THIS BRINGS US TO OUR FAVORITE SEGMENT OF THIS AGENDA TONIGHT. ITEM 11. CITY ATTORNEY, I KNOW YOU HAVE COMMENTS. >> IT'S YOUR FAVORITE BECAUSE YOU KNOW I HAVE NOTHING TO SAY. >> MADAM CITY CLERK. >> SAME HERE. >> MOVING TO ITEM 12, CLOSING COMMENTS, STARTING WITH COMMISSIONER BOL. >> I ACTUALLY DO, AND I APOLOGIZE. I PROBABLY TALKED MORE TONIGHT THAN I HAVE. TOMORROW, I'VE GOT THE BEACHES TOWN CENTER AGENCY. I'M GOING TO CALL YOU AND TALK ABOUT THE LAMP POST BEFORE I GO TOMORROW NIGHT. THE OTHER THING, AS I WAS IN A BRIEFING THIS AFTERNOON, THIS GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN COULD LAST FOR A WHILE, WHERE YOU'RE GOING. WE HAVE SOME EXPERTS THAT ARE PAID TO FIGURE THIS OUT. WHO KNOWS? BUT NUMBER TWO, SOME OF OUR FAMILIES COULD VERY WELL BE AFFECTED BY THIS. YOU'RE GOING TO SEE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES COME OUT OF THIS IF YOU'RE IN THE MILITARY, ETC, BUT THERE ARE ALSO OTHER PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THIS. [03:15:01] I THINK THE CITY SHOULD BE PREPARED TO LISTEN, AND WE HAVE TO PROVIDE SOME HELP. THERE'S A WAY THAT A SERVICE MEMBER CAN GO TO OUR CREDIT UNIONS, FOR INSTANCE, AND GET A NO-COST LOAN. WE SHOULD HAVE A BANK OF THAT INFORMATION TO POINT THEM TO IF THEY COME. GO AHEAD. >> WELL, SO WE'RE ALREADY RAMPING UP. WITH OUR UTILITY BILLS, WE HAVE A DEFERRAL PROGRAM FOR PEOPLE LIKE THAT. BUT I GOT A LONG TERM, FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, I THINK WE'LL BE EFFECTIVE. THAT'S ALL. >> COMMISSIONER GRANT. >> JUST ONE THING, BILL, WE TALKED ABOUT THE FARMERS' MARKET AND PUTTING AN RP TOGETHER. ARE WE CLOSE ON THAT? >> IT WILL GO OUT AT THE END OF THIS MONTH OR THE BEGINNING OF NEXT MONTH. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT STAFF. WE'RE GETTING QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, TOO. [OVERLAPPING] >> TARGET AFFECTED THE DATE OF THAT NEW CONTRACT. >> WE'RE LOOKING AT MAKING AN AWARD FOR THE FIRST YEAR. PERFECT. THE REASON BEHIND THAT IS THAT THE EXISTING VENDOR HAS PERMITS ALL THE WAY THROUGH. >> NO, NO, THAT'S WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RP. >> SURE. I'LL BE GLAD TO GIVE YOU A COPY OF THE RP AND TAKE ANY COMMENTS. >> SURE. >> MR. KELLY. >> CITIZEN WRITING ABOUT THE TRAFFIC SITUATION ON AHERN IN FRONT OF THE ATP BUILDING CRUNCHY OVER THERE, WHICH IS PROBABLY DOES NOT HELP WITH BICYCLES. >> THE CHIEF, I BELIEVE, IS DOING A TRAFFIC STUDY THERE. WE ENDED UP PUTTING IT ON HOLD BECAUSE OF THE WEATHER. [OVERLAPPING] >> IS THERE A HOLIDAY OR CHRISTMAS ON DECEMBER 3? ARE WE DOING SOMETHING THAT DAY? IT'S NOT ON THE CALENDAR. IT SEEMS LIKE I REMEMBER. [OVERLAPPING]. >> IT'S SIXTH. I'M RIGHT, THAT'S A SATURDAY. >> THAT'S BEACHES TOWN CENTER, CHRISTMAS TREE LIGHTING. >> I THOUGHT IT WAS SOMETHING AT THE ARTIST. >> DECEMBER 4, THURSDAY, IS ARTISANS FAIR, AND WE'RE GOING TO KICK OFF OUR CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION THEN. >> I WAS AFRAID. >> SUBSTITUTE. IS THAT WHAT I THINK IT IS? >> COMMISSIONER RING? >> NOTHING. >> MAYOR FORD. I'M VERY HAPPY TO BE AT THE END OF THIS MEETING. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR ATTENTION THIS EVENING. SOMETHING I WANTED TO SAY. BUT I FORGOT. UNTIL NEXT TIME, HAVE A FABULOUS WEEK, AND I'LL SEE YOU AT THE FLETCHER AUDITORIUM BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT MEETING. >> YOU'LL SEE US SATURDAY. >> I'M SORRY. GOOD THING YOU REMINDED ME. I WOULD'VE LET YOU DO THAT ON YOUR OWN. [LAUGHTER] * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.