We're ready to start. I do. I'm a bit, I like that a little bit more. They're wake dumpsters. The first day back. Thank you. All right. Good morning, everyone. Welcome back. We will begin our Housing, Land, News, and Transportation Committee meeting for July 11th with a roll call. Please. Gabbard. Mohamed. Floyd. Curtis. Frisco. Here. All right. We have an agenda before us. Can I entertain a motion for approval? Approval. All in favor? Aye. And next we have our approval of our minutes from our May 30th, 2024. Can we please have a motion? Some move. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay, let's get right into our new business. We have three items on our agenda today, so we're going to start first with a discussion on a universal basic mobility pilot program. This item was actually referred by Council Member Driscoll and our presenters today are Evan Mori from our transportation and parking director and Cheryl Stax, our transportation manager. I'll go ahead and turn it over to councilmember Jessica. Thank you and good morning everyone. This is a new business item I brought forward after doing some research on different cities who have done pilot programs for universal basic mobility. The concept here is to create more access for more people to get from point A to point B. The basics are that a specific number of people are given a stipend, if you will, each month, to use for a variety of modes of transportation, pretty much anything except owning and maintaining a car. Through that pilot program, they were able to collect data to find out more about people's transportation diets and identify areas for improvement. It also was a really great study in creating equitable mobility and learning what that freedom, what that extra help with transportation needs can do for a person's life. So I found this very interesting and with St. Pete being a city that's known for being innovative and forward-thinking with transportation. I thought this might be a good fit for us. Today, Evan and Cheryl will be presenting the basic concept. The purpose here is just to give you all an introduction to the idea and get your feedback before we take some next steps. With that, I'll turn it over to Evan and Cheryl. Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Driscoll and good morning committee chair and members. I'm going to go over the whole presentation. I'm going to try to make it real quick because first off the councilmember just gave a great initial overview. Second we have three items today. So we're going to be quick. Cheryl and Elizabeth Staten did most of the research. They're both in the room and maybe able to help answer some of the questions, or I'm sure we'll be able to help answer some of the questions. So others have kind of defined what this is. ITS America said it's the concept of providing a foundational level of mobility to all members of society regardless of factors such as geographic location, income level through partnerships and policies. And as we looked into this, I kind of thought of it as, it's very like the Transportation Disadvantaged Program that is mostly paid for by the state of Florida, now augmented with city of St. Pete money, so that people that have low income and don't have a car to get around, they can get a bus pass for no charge. But this program would be a or a pilot, or a program and eventually would be something where if somebody's in that situation, their option isn't, here's your bus pass, I hope that works for you. It brings in other opportunities for them, which is the exciting part. So key tenants, basically, or the intent, is to allow people to successfully connect to education jobs, goods, and services that they need. And through the research that we conducted of the four cities, and then also some other aspects to research, is that there's really not one size fits all. Each program needs to be unique and individualized. So we're not here to say that we looked at this city and we should do it the same way. Some more work would need to be done in order to figure out how to use it here. But these are the four cities that have had programs that we looked at specifically. And again, eligibility requirements are usually based on income. It provides access to a range of transportation. So besides the buses that I mentioned, it may work on Uber, it might work on our bike share, it might work on our scooter share. So it builds on some of the programs that we have here specifically in St. Petersburg. Also, it could help people with, if they have multiple months saved up, they could buy a bicycle or they could maintain a bicycle at a bike shop. So it's not necessarily paying a transportation service, but it might be allowing your self-mobility to take care of on your own. The pilots were all deemed successful in their own rights for different ways. One of the things that we liked that we saw out of their cities was a mobility wallet. So that could be an app or it could be an actual card that people have the flexibility to spend. They get a certain amount of money per month that's usually in the $150 a month range and they can use that where they see fit within restrictions and then what that allows and what this what a pilot should be all about is the data that comes with that. How do they spend their money? Perhaps where they're going? What voids that we have that could be filled. A few key takeaways from the cities I want to certainly go into these for the sake of brevity, but we were able to pull a little bit from each one. And there's benefits to the users and there's benefits to the city. The benefits to the users might be a little bit more obvious, but again, the city would have access to data, helps with our planning, not just for future programs to provide these cards or this access, but perhaps new programs or changing bus routes, things like that. Also several other city benefits would be hopefully achieved. I mentioned earlier the partnership with PSTA that's really a step in the right direction if you will. If we're going to go down this route, we've already done some of it, but it would expand on it, got our micromobility providers. And also we've already begun discussions with the three agencies, PSTA, Lyme and Vio, our current vendors for a way to streamline access to those across the various modes. So based on the feedback that you all give us today, some other work that we could do is further discussions with PSDA, we've already been talking to them. Also the Center for Transportation Research is based out of Tampa. It's a nationally known organization. It happens to be just around the corner from us. And we think that they could help with some of the data analysis and surveying that would be good to get out of this. And then also, Council Member Driscoll's already talked to leadership at the downtown partnership, who might be able to help through the Car Freak Committee help administer a program in a way if the city finds portions that we would like to have a partner with that could be a partner Bless you We'd also continue review of other pilot programs and help form one here and also set up goals that we're trying to achieve so that we have a Direction and with that I'll turn it back over to you all for questions or comments. Thank you, Evan. Council member, questions, comments. Council member Floyd? Sure, yeah. I'm very intrigued by this idea. Thank you, Council member, Driscoff, for bringing it up. You know, something I'm imagining is, I think we focus mostly on like low income in this pilot. It would be interesting if it was like, you know, something that just streamed line transportation for everybody in our city at a certain point like maybe you can buy into it or something. Maybe there's one app that handles all of these things because now it may be talking more ambitious than we might imagine right this second, but one thing I find whenever I come to use transit options in the city is like there's just a lot of information in a lot of different places. So if you want to rent a scooter or a e-bike, it's one app or another depending on the vendor. And then if you want to take a bus, you have to get the, I don't know, a PSTA app or I'll use Google Maps sometimes and then if you want to take an Uber you have to pull up that app and it's just a lot of different things. It doesn't paint a coherent picture right now of how to get around our city without a car and just painting that coherent picture would be beneficial for everybody and then down the line it would be cool if you could be like, all right, I have this past. So let's me use all of these things I pay for it monthly. Anyway, that's just some of the ideas that popped in my head. But I'm glad that we're even starting this conversation. I'm glad with, I'm happy about the way that we've laid it out right now. and I look forward to what comes back in the future. I think this could be a really beneficial. I also really liked the idea of having the data as to how people are using the program and make it more efficient for our planning in the future. And just on that note, I just had the thought cross my mind that it would be interesting to see how I think this is focused at residents. I think there's a lot of tourists that use maybe a slightly different way to travel around our city and that might be interesting in the future, but not super relevant right this second. I just thought I'd tell you the thought that crossed through my head. But yeah, I'm excited and I look forward to seeing what we come up with. Thank you, Chair. I should mention two. And thank you for those comments. It's interesting if somebody doesn't qualify for income. Might there be a program that's attractive as somebody could buy into and serve a wider population? We did put hyperlinks in here. If anybody wants to do some more research, there's some great articles and webinars that are linked in your backup material. The city of Portland has a couple different programs. They have one kind of aimed at low income folks, but they also have another one that is aimed at new residents. As they move into the city, they can buy into a program. It kind of gets them set on more car light options in the new city, so it kind of starts good habits, if you will, before they start relying upon a car and then have to figure out a different way. And then they also have a program in certain neighborhoods or areas that are a little bit more conducive to transit and have a more urban form. If you live in this zone or this district, you could buy into a program. So we have seen that Portland has several different kind of iterations and opportunities exactly like what you had mentioned. Okay, cool. Great, thank you. Council members? Okay, Council member, just go ahead. Thank you. In doing the research with other cities, I just wanted to point out a few things that were discovered or uncovered in their processes. Not only is the data collected through the use of the card and the participant signs off on allowing that data to be collected. So you can see exactly what percentage of the pass is used for bike share, things like that. But also there are surveys and interviews that are done throughout the pilot period that get that anecdotal information. So how does that change your life? How has it been affected or what can you tell us about what can be improved? So in one city, there was a woman who took the bus to get to, it was either her job or a school. And the closest bus stop was about a quarter of a mile from her final destination. So she still walks the rest of the way. By looking at that, the transit authority was able to just move, either they moved or added a bus stop. So looking at things like that is really beneficial to agencies like PSCA. And then it's great for us, and like by share and scooter share, because there could be a scooter carol that's placed right at that bus. If adding a stop is not feasible. So there are so many different ways that we can tweak the system that we already have to create that connectivity. And how do we learn that best from the people who actually use it? Another person said that having that freedom of mobility allowed them to pick up extra shifts at night that ended after the buses stopped running because he was able to use another form of transportation to get home. Another woman said that she was able to spend more time with her child because that freedom gave her some of her time back. And she didn't have to wait for changing buses, things like that. So there are a lot of intangibles that we can really relate to that we can really relate to, that we can grab from this and really see what a difference that equitable mobility makes in people's lives. So I'm really interested in finding out some of that information and seeing how we can move forward. My vision for this pilot program would be to have a group of people with different backgrounds in situations. So an income limit, I think, is necessary, at least for the pilot. I'd also like to do something where we include students and not just students at St.P. College, for instance, but from a variety of our colleges and universities because a person who is living on campus at the USF St. Petersburg campus downtown has a very different mobility situation and options right by them compared to someone who is at Eckerd for instance. So I think getting students from different schools would be really helpful. So I think with all of these, the pilot really curated the first group of participants to make sure that they had a sampling of people with different backgrounds and situations. So when we get into the details and I'm hoping that today you all are agreeable for us to continue this work and put together a proposal for a pilot program, but I wanted to let you know that that's kind of what I have in mind so we can get a nice well-rounded view of things. Perfect, thank you. Council member Curtis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I wasn't gonna bring it up, but then Council member Triscoll touched on it. Do we, and this is getting a little off topic, so I apologize. Are we any closer to bringing bike surf scooters outside of the downtown core? We've been expanding, probably not as fast as we would like, but do you have some specifics you can share? We've been looking and generally, we're gonna have to kind of keep expanding a little by little. West, you can't just do kind of a remote system out on the West End because we want to connect it back to kind of the main system. Yeah, what about the North? The North. It will be a considerable part of the case of the forthcoming district in Nester Plane. So yes, we've really put that as a highlight in the fourth coming district to master plan is can we have kind of a remote system or because the roadways out in North St. Peter are a little bit less conducive than even out in West St. Pete where we found some success success recently in expanding bike share access in particular is partnership with our Parks and Recreation Department and so we can continue to pursue that opportunity as well, just kind of linking it, because it makes a natural destination. We already have space. It's outside the right of way. It's not likely to encourage a whole lot of sidewalk writing. So we've recently been able to do that. We'll continue to look in that direction. But I think that's why this program is really great too, because it gives you more options than just transit or where we have microbility options. It does also include, you know, ride-share options. There is an opportunity where you could code the debit card to be available for people at local bike shops, so they could get their own bike and maintain their own bike and have that as an option too. So I think it really does allow us to have an understanding of what are the different transportation modes that are easily accessible even in different parts of St. Petersburg. I think we've definitely gone outside of downtown like to the south we're in Koki Niki, to the southwest we're at Charles Park Rick Center, to the Southwest were at Chelsea Park Brick Center to the North on ML King Street we reach up to almost 30th so we're definitely outside of downtown but we could keep going. Yeah I mean I don't mean to like put the pressure on you without talking about it. You know when we're having this what I think is a very cool conversation I get nervous that it's like okay well and district one we have the bus yeah you do have the sun around me okay it'll really great bus that's that's that's stop since 66 there's like 29 more blocks that's to go but no I, I mean, I really like this. I mean, I certainly don't want to be negative Nancy. I really like this. I just want to make sure that when we're talking about universal mobility that there are multiple. And I like the bike shop and the ride share and those things, right? But the way it feels to me, and I'll be specific to District 1 right now, I'll be a little selfish, is that bikes are leaving the West Side. Like bike shops are leaving the West Side. Like the one that's been there for 30 years at Night Davenue in this trail is now gone, because electric bikes and other options have kind of taken over golf carts. And people aren't using them anymore. And so those options that we're talking about, my personal opinion are quickly leaving. And I wanna make sure that if we're gonna do something like this, they have those options there. And so that's my, I love this. Thank you for bringing it forward. I just wanna make sure that all of the districts have multiple ways to use this. That was the purpose of my question. So thank you, Chair. Did you have anything, Council Member? Just quickly. Thank you for bringing this forward, Council Member Driscoll. And I do think it's a great program. I'm supportive of the pilot. I do like having that broader sampling so that you can really gauge the different uses and what's needed and want it. And also you've mentioned about how in some cases a scooter might help get to a bus and be more efficient than an actual transfer. And so just being able to have the data to be able to see where that applies, I think, is something that would be great. And I'm supportive of it. Well, next up. Council Member Spill? Yes. I just wanted to follow up on what Council V. Chair Gurdison, as far as expanding networks, this really will help us to identify what makes sense. And we think of this as a focus group, not just a group of pilot participants. They are really going to help us identify that. And I think as we curate the group, it's got to be people from North Southeast West because we've got to have a picture of what all of our city looks like in terms of the lower income participants from disadvantaged communities were not at the beginning, they were not using the eScooter share program that was available. Diving a little deeper, what they discovered was that the barrier wasn't even so much cost as it was a lack of understanding of how to use it. And so they were able to do some training. You don't want to see me out. They were able to, so that was another opportunity, was we've got to make sure people understand how easy these are to use and how and get them comfortable with it. Just like there are some people who don't like riding the bus but what it comes down to is they don't know how to ride the bus. Like do I need cash do I need coins do I need you know like they just don't know how to do it and so and you don't want to look like a dummy and hold up the line or anything like that so you just avoid it. This this helps to identify those opportunities for education that really made a big difference once they once they found that. Thank you. Well, I will just quickly chime in. So I really appreciate the conversation today, very interested in seeing how we can kind of make this for us for Saint Pete. Like you had mentioned in your presentation, I love the idea of the mobility wallet and having that so that it's easy not only for people to use but also to track Right we talked about the data and how important that is to the success and then certainly a phased approach But thank you for mentioning mentioning the district to master plan because for me a phased approach Also needs to marry an expansion approach as well Because to councilmember Gertricks' point, there's a lot of people in our community across the city who do not have access currently and being able to connect them in better ways by utilizing a program like this specifically for our lower income residents. I'd be very, very favorable. So we will leave this on the referral list and continue to do your great work. Keep us posted and whenever you're ready to bring it back again for a second look, please let me know and then we will reschedule it. Sound good? Sounds good. All right, great. Thank you. Thank you. All right, we're going to move into our second presentation, which is an update on the milestone inspection. This one was a staff request and we're joined to move into our second presentation, which is an update on the milestone inspection. This one was a staff request, and we're joined by Liz Aberdaffee, planning a development director, and Don Tire, our building official manager. So good morning. Hi, good morning. Morning. We're covering from a cold, so my voice is a bit gravely, so excuse me. Don's going to do most of the talking here this morning, but this item today is really to give you an update on our team's role in implementing Senate Bill 4D, which is the milestone inspection requirements for condominiums, three stories or more. There's one part of this that we did want a little bit of feedback from you. We as local government do have the ability to add a fee for review of these inspections. We are not recommending that we do so because we have adequate staff to be able to review these, but that is something that we do have discretion on. And Don will go over that with you as well. So with that Don, tire our building official will go through the presentation, give you the background in the overview. Thanks. Good morning. A little bit of historical context here. The surfside tire that collapsed, killing 98 people back June 2021. A year later, approximately a year later, May 2022 is when Senate Bill 4D was approved. Prior to that, Miami-Dade and Broward counties were really the only two jurisdictions in Florida that had an existing building inspection program. It was a 40 year re-inspection and a 10 year recertification program. The Senate Bill 4D is requiring a 25 or 30 year program depending on your proximity to the coastline with a 10 year re-inspection on that. The Miami-Dade regulations were local ordinance and they were a little bit more broad in scope. It really covered almost any building other than single family homes. The Senate bill is really focused on really the building ownership group, which is condos and cooperative owned buildings, three stories or higher. There were a number of contributing factors that led to the collapse. It's still under investigation. I'm not convinced that they're really going to be able to, you know, pinpoint one specific issue that led to it. I think it was really kind of a perfect storm. In my opinion, one of the major factors were really the lack of response. They had an engineering document. They had known substantial structural deterioration of the parking garage. It should have been addressed much sooner. And that's kind of what led to the changes at the legislative level to institute a statewide requirement for an existing building inspection program. Senate Bill 4D, you know, again, it regulates cooperative or condo buildings, three stores are higher to this inspection program. It created Flora Statute 553.899, which is also in the latest edition of the Florida building code, which was adopted at the end of 2023. It requires mandatory structural inspection, either 30 years or 25 years based on your proximity to the coastline. Later on, you'll see the map of St. Pete. I mean, all the buildings have fall within those parameters, fall within the 25 year inspection program for us. So, I mean, that's what we're basically going to be following. A 25 year inspection program with a 10 year re-inspection portion. The initial milestone inspections, it's been postponed a few times, but currently it's the end of this year, where all those inspections are due. When you see the map, it's roughly 225 buildings in St. P that fall within those parameters. We've already got maybe 68 to 70 reports for those number of buildings. So about one third of the buildings have already been proactive in submitting the engineering reports earlier. The initial inspection is broken up into a different parts. Milestone inspection phase one is really just a visual inspection from an architect or an engineer. It's tried to pinpoint any possible substantial structural deterioration. It's not to cite for peeling pain or cracks in the stucco or anything like that. Now those could lead to a further investigation, but it's really, the responsibility falls to the condo ownership group and the architecture engineering firm they hire to provide that documentation. And then if they deem it necessary to go into a phase two inspection, that's a more forensic investigation. It could include sample testing for material, building movement measurements, soil investigation, a number of different building imaging options. So it really, it's going to be a case by case based on the building type of construction, the age of the building, a number of different environmental factors that's going to factor in the engineer architects determination of what actually needs to happen. There are a number of different timeline requirements with this. The city is required to provide a notice within 180 days of the December date for the deadline to the Condo Association. It's the Condo Association's responsibility within 14 days of that notification to provide the individual ownership of the condos. Their notification that the milestone inspection is required by that due date. After that initial inspection is submitted review by the city. They have 180 days after the phase one report to submit a phase two report if it is required. And then if substantial structural deterioration is determined on a phase two report, they have one year to actually pull the permit and start repairs for the construction. These timelines also have some penalties are outlined in the regulation. The main issue is if a phase two report is required and they do find substantial structural issues, the engineers required to either state that the building does have a dangerous condition or it needs to be postured if there's a life safety issue. That's when we would step in as a regulatory authority and potentially either evacuate the building, portion of the building, it could be limited just to a small area like a few balconies or something like that. It really is going to be a case by case. or something like that. It really is gonna be a case by case. This is a city map, 225 buildings. Basically, as I said before, the dark black line with the area in the city is that's the clear outside three miles of the coastline. There's no current building to fall into the criteria within that area. So everything within the city is going to be based on the 25 year threshold for the inspections. It will have a 10 year re-inspection. And currently we actually have 70 milestone reports currently. We're seeing about 12 months. I anticipate as we get closer to that deadline in December, that number is going to go up double or triple. I'm hoping to get a good three quarters of the buildings to submit by December. I mean, there are going to be some issues. This is a new regulatory requirement. There's only so many engineering firms that do this work. There are some provisions within the statute that allows the time extension based on extenuating circumstances and we'll just address that on a case-by-case basis. We did send the notices out June 28th. You know, that's 180 day notice that's required. There is a timeline later in the presentation. We're going to follow up, it's not required, but we're going to follow up with a 90 day notice that's required. There is a timeline later in the presentation. We're going to follow up. It's not required. We're going to follow up with a 90 day notice as well. Just to be kind of try to be proactive to make sure that everyone gets proper notification. The phase two inspection requirement that's a key factor within 180 days and again the 365 days to start construction if repairs are required. There is a specific requirement under the 365 days and I'll have to work closely with the engineering firm. If they fail to start construction and the building is not a candidate to post short depending on what the structural issue is, we do have to evaluate the building to either evacuate it or indicate that it's safe. And the problem with these type of inspections, even with the forensic investigation, you can't know everything about the bill. So if I'm hoping it's not a requirement, but if that happens, we're gonna air in the side of caution. So, we're gonna always air in the side of life safety and if it's required, we will move people out of the building. This is the timeline really from the collapse of the South Tower and Surfside in 21, up to 34, which would be the 10-year date for the recircuitations for buildings. The first actual legislation action failed Senate Bill 1702. The Senate Bill 4D was approved in May of 22. The building code was directed at the state level to do two things really to provide a standardized inspection requirements for the Milestone program and also to create a registration for the kind of buildings to file the paperwork so we know where to notify the building's register the buildings for each jurisdiction. Of course, you know, December of this year is the big day and it's been postponed once. I don't anticipate it being postponed again. You know, we have roughly a third of the buildings now or either provided the inspection reports. I'm kind of anticipating, you know, three quarters will be completed. Hopefully by that December date. And then we provided the first initial notice this month and we'll follow up with a notice in September. And then we'll look at doing the reinspections ten years thereafter. And of course, there is going to be some work for my group and also co-enforcement and kind of the due process. There's going to be some kind of associations or buildings that will require a deeper review. It could be an unfit unsafe building evaluation where it could be a partial building thing like I said before, or it could just be somebody not following the regulations and wanting to submit the paperwork in a timely manner. But we really have to do processes already in place. We're probably going to have to make some modifications to those with the unfit unseid building evaluation and also maybe with the code enforcement board for you know if somebody fails to file the paperwork or the proper navigation things like that. This is really just a slide that kind of focused on. Everyone knows the high-rise buildings fall under the, you know, the milestone inspection criteria. Now it's only kind of many of them, it's not business offices or anything like that because those buildings are owned by individual owner or corporation. They're responsible to maintain those buildings. But there is a number of buildings in St. Pete that fall into the parameters that are not high rises. The picture on the right, I mean, it could be a four-story wood frame building, which have a number of different environmental factors compared to a concrete or steel frame high-rise building. You know, there's termite issues, water intrusion, and a number of different things that kind of come into those low-rise type buildings. So, you know, it and a number of different things that kind of come into those low-rise-type buildings. So, you know, it's a case-by-case basis on the review of the different buildings that will actually determine what has to happen. The building owners have the responsibility to hire the engineering architecture for them to do the evaluation. Again, the phase one is purely a visual inspection, which is very difficult. I mean, there's going to be cracks in the building and they're going to have to determine one of the phase two more forensic investigations required or is it really just a superficial crack and a stuff or something like that? That can be determined by is there a recent building movement? Where the cracks are located near main structural bearing members, those type of things. So they're going to have to use that to determine if the phase two is required. Currently, it seems like about 20% of the reports that we're getting in are requiring the Phase 2 additional investigation, the Phase 2 milestone inspection requirements. The costs associated with both the evaluation and the repairs are the responsibility of the condo association. And the key here is we're looking at it not for compliance with the building code or the Florida Fire Prevention Code. It's really to determine if substantial structural deterioration is present. It's really not a building code or fire code compliance issue. They could have a number of different building violations for electric or the fire sprinkler system or something like that. That's not what this is focused on. This is strictly focused on main major structural issues. Kind of an example of Phase 1 report, Phase 1 and milestone inspection. It's really a visual inspection. Something that would kind of give you a clue of, you know, building age, type of construction and potential impacts that it could have to the overall building structural integrity. Phase two, more of a deconstructive type inspection where the engineer can require additional testing, monitoring the building for building movement, could include a number of different imaging options for building. This could be focused just on a specific area of the building like founties or stairs or something like that or parking garage. It may not impact the entire building, but it could also impact the entire structure. Number of different factors that are considered. Obviously the age of the building, location, proximity of the water, soil conditions, whether the use foundation system, soil conditions, there's a number of different factors here, and each one is going to be individual. There's not going to be one stop shopping here where everything is the same. And we'll really require the engineer to look at everything within the scope of the regulatory standards. Threshold buildings, so there's an important part here. Any building more than three stories and height is not inspected by my group. When it's originally built it's inspected by threshold inspection engineer. They do the material testing, they do all the structural inspection on all the high rises, a lot of the mid-rise buildings. So again, when those buildings have structural issues on them for repair work, it would not be inspected by my group. We would issue the permit, provide oversight, and still review the documents, but we would not be inspected by my group. We would issue the permit, provide oversight and still review the documents, but we would not perform the actual inspections themselves. That's really four-story buildings and higher and the Senate Bill 40 requirement includes three-story buildings. That's the group that my inspectors would actually go out. A lot of those projects, we will probably still require the architecture engineer to be heavily involved. I have the option to require an affidavit inspection permit, which puts all the focus on the architecture engineer to do those inspections. And the main reason we would do that is to try to speed up the repair process. They don't have to wait for us for an inspection. A lot of these type of inspections, the workers will be on swing staging or scaffolding. It's really not set up where my inspection staff would be out there doing those inspections anyway. We would want that work covered up immediately as they uncover it and repair it. So a lot of the permits will be issued as affidavit permits even if it is a three-story building. But we will provide oversight on all projects. This is a matrix originally the 225 buildings that have a milestone inspections do in December. And then the next 10 years, we have 54 buildings that come online that age out to that 25-year threshold. It just kind of shows you what the anticipated workload you know might be. I mean, it's a little bit heavy right now because of the December deadline, but after we get the program established, even with the recertifications in 10 years, it's really only a handful of buildings that come on the ice here. We do have a bunch of backup information and a copy of the statute is included, copy of the building code, applicable sections is included, copy of the building to it, applicable sections are included, sample letter that we sent out for the notifications and then I think there's also a milestone inspection report in there and just general background information examples of what we're seeing. Very good. Thank you so much for the presentation. I know this topic's been a long time coming. And I real quick, before I go to my colleagues, will these inspections be available online since we are collecting them? And that technically makes them a public record? Yes. The reason that I ask is because Florida realtors redid all of their state forms last year to include this as a disclosure mechanism to buyers of condos. And anybody who has ever bought or sold a condo knows, sometimes it is challenging to get all of the documentation regarding the condo association the way it is now. But then when you add this on top of it and the type of reserves that we could potentially see being increased, there is some concern over, I guess, transparency and how this information is going to get relayed to future buyers. So I'm just feeling like if the city is collecting these and they're going to be available online, now that is further disclosure to buyers who are going to be purchasing in this building. So I think that that is good for everyone, right? When people know what they're getting into, you know, eyes wide open, they can make a much better and much safer decision. So. Yeah, most of the reports we're getting are paper, but we are scanning them in. Okay. There is electronic file there and yeah, those are available for public records. We're also tracking the submittal of the milestone inspections of Naviline and we have a specific code from milestone inspection one and two when those permits are pulled to do that work. So you know it will be easy to search the database to see any kind of historical pattern that you know they have extensive repairs or minor repairs. Well people just be able to go on to our website and search for that, or will they actually have to ask? They do have to ask, because there are some reduction requirements for public records and drawings. So yeah, they have to go through that process, but yes, it's available. OK, got it. I mean, if I'm hearing you, we could look into what can we just have as online available for the public to search without asking? Absolutely. Yeah. Pull up an address and see if a copy of the report has been submitted and that would save the questions all coming through. At least people would know if the report has been done, if it's been submitted, that would at least give them part of the answer, so that I think they deserve. So, okay. I would be very supportive of that, so thank you. Council members. No? Oh. Well then, I have one more question. So, I mean, obviously you guys have sent out the notices to the 225 buildings already. You're working on them next year. Nobody turns, you know, 25. But the next year, there's five. So what is our process going to be for, I guess, alerting new buildings that are kind of coming into this requirement? Obviously, 180 days is not enough time to be able to even get started on that. We hope it's on their radar, but people have short memories and we'll forget that these things are requirements. So, what are we going to do to be proactive with the new buildings that are coming into that age? Yeah, so through the CO process once we document the CO and then we may age at it 25 years We envision doing a one-year notice. Okay. In the six month and the 90 day notice I mean we could change that I think once the initial you know workload happens with Florida here You know a couple years it won't be as As burdensome right now. I mean there. I mean we do we get a lot of reports from the same engineering companies Obviously, the closer we get to December, it's gonna be tough and I know we're gonna get some requests for extensions Okay, all right Is this an item that you need to bring back to us for an update or do you need any action today? I don't think there's any role. Well, we've had discussions with legal about whether or not we need to codify any of this. Right. It's really kind of optional. Okay. And whether or not we should institute a fee. Again, we feel we have adequate staff available to get through this initial push and it wouldn't be necessary to charge an additional fee for review of those reports. Any of these condos that are going to get to the level of needing repairs will get building permits and will get fees that process. Absolutely. So we were not asking to impose a fee, just wanted to get concurrence that there wasn't a desire to provide A fee for that service from Council, I mean I'll speak for myself. I have no desire to charge that I mean if we have the staff to be able to do that work Some of these reserve needs are going to be pretty hefty. So I don't think we need to pile on. Like you said, we're going to get permitting fees and things like that. So for me, I'm OK with it the way that it is. If you all tell us that you can handle the 225 that you have to deal with now, that gives me some relief that you'll be able to deal with the ones coming up. One last question and maybe you covered it Dawn, I apologize. What is the timeline for reinspection? After they do the initial? Ten years. Okay. Okay. Alright, so then every 10 years, well in 10 more years you're gonna have 225 plus. Yeah, okay. Alright, so when you get to that point you might need some bandwidth, but we'll see. And we'll continue to work with codes on compliance. So there is some, again, local government discretion on how to implement the program and how to deal with enforcement. And we are going to use our existing enforcement process in place to do so. So if necessary, we have that as a way to make sure that the associations are complying as needed, as required by the fantastic. All right, thank you. Thank you guys so much. I appreciate the presentation. All right, let's go on to our last item. This is a presentation also a staff request on a program that would provide assistance addressing code violation issues. And we are joined by Joe Warr, Director of Code's Compliance. Hello, Joe. Good morning. Good morning. Appreciate the opportunity to be here this morning. So we're excited to bring this proposed program to you all just to give you a little bit of background. So over the years as we have directed citizens that we've cited for code violations to our many assistance programs, we've realized that there are certain things that fall outside of scope of the current programs that we have. So with the foreclosure program that we were utilizing previously closing out in FY24, we saw an opportunity to reallocate those resources and utilize them for this assistance program. And we have allocated $100,000 in the FY25 budget for this potential program. So the goals of this would be to expand on the current programs that we have to make sure those residents that we've experienced in the past couldn't get the assistance that they have the ability to get that. We also believe that if we were able to expand the use of the accessibility accommodations program, that will free up the neighborhood team to do some additional projects, because a lot of times those ramp projects that can't be assisted through the accessibility program fall on the end team, and that is an extensive amount of work. It takes multiple weeks to get those ramps built, and then that can create a backlog with other assistance that's needed with other property owners. And then of course, it's gonna support the housing opportunities for all by preserving existing affordable housing units and making sure that residents can age in place. So the proposal is to create a new program and it's gonna target specific violations that currently fall outside of those other programs, specifically for things like driveway disrepair, accessory structure disrepair, and then hazardous tree removal. And then in addition to that, as I just referenced, we're open to provide supplemental funding beyond the existing $5,000 that is available for the accessibility grant program to ensure that owners can receive that assistance without having to get into a situation where they go beyond the grant and they get into a loan situation. So we are proposing that we limit the funding on this to $5,000 per property, but we did want to leave some flexibility in there in case we have an owner that goes above that. And so there is the potential to increase to $7,500 with the approval of the administrator and then we are not going to be requiring repayment for this. So eligibility, the property owner must, it must be their homestead and they can't own any other property and we are proposing that the household must be at or below 100% of AMI. So I know a lot of programs go up to 120%. And certainly at the end of this, we're happy to take feedback on that piece, but we are targeting 100% as it's currently proposed. We are going to have the work completed by contractors that are covered under current blanket purchase agreements with the city or possibly other city departments if resources are available. And then the owners would be signing a whole harmless agreement that's standard with many of other assistance programs. And then one other caveat that we put in here, understanding the goals, not only of council but of our sustainability department around tree preservation when we are removing hazardous tree we're going to be replanting a tree to make sure that we can preserve and enhance the canopy. With that our request is just to get some feedback on the proposed assistance program and then we would like this to be referred to full council. We're hoping to have it approved by the time the FY25 budget kicks in so we can start providing this assistance come September October timeframe. Great. Happy day. Great question. Thanks, Member of Mohammed. Thank you. Thanks, you're all. Amy, for the presentation, I'm really excited about this and happy to see it come forward. We've had several conversations about the assistance part of the COS compliance assistance. And so thank you for being responsive to that. The, I have a lot of questions, I'm sorry, in advance. How are the three violations determined? So that's what we've historically seen that fall outside of those other programs. So we don't have a program right now to remove hazardous trees. And a lot of times those are going to be larger trees that the end team they just don't have the capability to go and remove those trees safely. So obviously with the increase in hurricanes we have a lot more complaints coming in about hazardous trees. And we've had many property owners who are just, they don't have the funds. It can be $3 to $5,000 to take down a large tree. So we thought that that was a good option to include. With the driveways, again, it's the same situation. We don't have any programs currently, but that can create accessibility issues as well. So if you have an elderly resident who's driveways and disrepair. They have a code violation, but we can't direct them to a program. And then lastly, with the accessory structure repairs, the same thing, those aren't going to fall in line with some of our housing programs. And just wanted to be clear, we're not really going to be using that for like a shed or something like that. This is going to be an accessory structure where maybe they have their washer and dryer in there, their water heater, there's something in there that impacts their, you know, the main household. So it would be targeted towards that specifically. Okay, so it wasn't based upon like the frequency of violations. It was like these are some of these common violations. Yeah, these are the programs for. Correct, right. We're trying to fill that gap where we're currently. Okay, got it. I got it. And then the 5,000 per property. Tell me so does that like a lifetime thing or like is there a time when you can like reapply like if you have like this year I had a tree that needed to be removed in. At some point I have a driveway that needs to be repaired. Is there like a timeline on when we can apply or how does that work? So in the resolution, it's every five years. We had conversations that maybe be three, so we're absolutely open to feedback from everybody on that. Okay. Got it, got it, got it. And the work that's done on the property, you did mention that it's done by those who are covered under the blanket purchase agreements. How does a contractor get on that list? And I'm asking specifically because I know that we have someone in the community who like actively helping residents, you know, basically free to navigate codes, but I don't know if he's on the contractor list to be able to do that. Yes. So through the procurement process, there's already contracts that are out there right now, where they have put out proposals for this, contractors are responding whether it's for tree removal, the dryways. So it falls within that scope. So we already have a pool of contractors that we'd be able to utilize. And then of course, every, I don't have the time for anyone that would come back up. But through the procurement process, those would get procured again, and there would be the opportunity for other businesses to apply for that. Okay. I'd love to hear more about how somebody could, or how that pool, how people can get in that pool, because again, we have like some groups and some partners, like the eight kings collective, they've been interested in seeing how they can help residents who have coal violations, but they may not be in the pool. And so just a little more information on how you can get in and when that time will happen. So we appreciate it. And then are there opportunities like for work experience and some apprenticeships? I know there was some conversations about having maybe like the future ready or some other Opportunities for people to help with these I'll take that question councilmember We recently explored the idea of having the mayor's future ready Academy shadow the N team the feedback We got from HR is actually the N team isn't large enough in order to accommodate The future ready Academy would be larger than the N.T. isn't large enough in order to accommodate. The future ready academy would be larger than the N.T. itself. And so we are continuing to explore those ideas. One of the things that we've talked about recently is if in future iterations of the mayor's future ready academy, candidates can choose a department that they want to explore more about, and you're only needing to work with one candidate or two candidates versus the entire cohort, that that would be feasible. And so we've just started those conversations, and I expect them to be fruitful for, you know, some future iteration. Awesome. Thank you. I'll stop there because I don't want to apologize when I do have any questions. Thank you. Can I do a second round? Council Member Driscoll. Thank you. With this, so I'm trying to find how much are you budgeting for? It's $100,000 so we have for FY 25. Yeah. And I just want to, I wanted to say this earlier, but I'll say it now. I really only came up to compliment Joe and his leadership. Joe has really taken the idea of compliance assistance to the next level. And this is probably in my two-year tenure, the sixth or seventh program Joe has brought forward that did not require new budget dollars, but was a reallocation of either positions or resources from other areas. So he's constantly looking and trying to find a way to help our citizens. And the work that his team is doing with housing, these are the areas that came up over and over again where there were gaps. So we felt like a pilot was a good way to start and see what the needs were. And if there's a larger need, we'll certainly bring that to your attention but we felt like this was a good place to start. And I seem to remember that I think there was more than one council member who asked about this in our budget workshop and expanding the end team and giving more resources to this kind of assistance. So this feels like it really responds to that and I appreciate it with the dollars that would be allocated. Did you arrive at that based on some data that you had from people who have violations. But yeah, so I think it was just staying in line with what we've allocated, like I said, through the foreclosure program previously. So we weren't asking for an increase or decreasing that amount. So there's just kind of shifting those resources into another pot. And then understanding the dollar threshold for this. And the types of things we're going to be assisting with. You know, we're not going to have one property or that's going to take up shifting those resources into another pot. And then understanding the dollar threshold for this. And the types of things we're going to be assisting with, we're not going to have one property or that's going to take up 20 or $30,000 of this money. So we believe within this first pilot program, that's what we can see how many residents were we able to assist. Do we need more funds to be allocated there? So we thought it was the right number to pilot out to see how everything kind of plays out in that first year. That's great. I'd love to get an update when you're maybe halfway through the money just to see how it's going, what you've learned and is that the right amount, if this is something that's working, If this is something that's working, you know, with any tweaks, how much do we need to make sure that we have recurring funding for? So yeah, I like it. Thank you. All right, Council Member Floyd? Yeah, I'll just add two quick things. I'm looking forward to how this comes out. One is I had a constituents about a year and a half ago who had an issue with an accessory structure in disrepair. It was stares to above their garage and it was quite expensive and they were quite stressed out by it. I wish this would have existed back then. So I'm glad to see it just anecdotally. I guess the other thing is anecdotal as well, but the hazard history removal personally myself I mean I could afford to do it but I had a loral oak that was dropping large limbs and I think if anyone saw the news a loral oak fell on a house and a woman this past week and so I think that that's gonna be really important going forward. Those trees are very expensive to take down and they can be really large. And I think there's probably plenty of homeowners that in the coming years are going to need assistance for that. So I just figured I'd mention that I like what's been targeted here and I appreciate Council Member Trisco for bringing up getting an update. I think this is something we'll want to support and want to make sure we're doing the best we can with. So that's all, thanks. All right. Council Member Gertis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would repeat everything but I won't. I really like this. You mentioned three years by four or five years. I think right now I would keep it at five. And as we get updates about the need and what this looks like, maybe we can revisit it. I wanna make sure that the purpose of this is kept, meaning people can age in place and we've got programs to help them, but I wouldn't want to make a change without the data to support it from where you have it. And so that's just my two cents you brought it up. So I figured I would put my opinion in the ring. But I think as we get those updates, we can make that change. I don't think that's a big deal at all. Thank you Madam Chair. All right, Councilmember Rahame, did you want to finish your questions? Did you have anything left? I do, I'm trying to see what's burning. In the resolution, it applies to mobile homes, like homes that at mobile homes, may homesteaded, mobile homes, manufactured residential units. Like do all of them have to be homesteaded? Is that kind of the, yeah. Okay, all of them have, okay, got it. And then if we get an overwhelming number of applications, how will they be ranked and prioritized? Like how will we determine, because you know, like first come first serve, have some, you know, concerns about equity. Yeah, I think we'd have to take them on a case by case basis. You know, obviously if we ever has a registry, that's really in severe decline, that's something that's gonna go to the top of the list. Okay. If we just have a driveway that's in disrepair, but it's still usable, it just doesn't meet code requirements That might be something that falls, you know, further down the list and same thing with the accessory structure So Based on what we have seen, you know, with a number of cases that we have with this I don't think that we would have that overwhelm make a lot of applications immediately But you know, certainly you know, we would evaluate each one case by case and highest priority would go first Just based on the conditions at the property I think in councilmember we currently have a tearing structure in place that Joe put in place last year I believe For in-team jobs as well. So it's the same kind of thing life safety goes first Nice to have fences. fences, go last. And I'm not anticipating that this is really an application process. Codes and housing have a back and forth where when they become aware of a situation and somebody needs assistance, they then work with each other. Are they eligible for these housing programs? No, then they'd fall to this program. So it'd be less of something we would advertise and more of cases we're trying to resolve so that people don't have lanes put on their own. Right. I mean, as we're sitting here right now and coming into this, I can think of a handful of properties where you know come new budget time FY 25, we can go right to them and say, hey, these funds are available now, we can assist you here. So. No, I appreciate that. The title COS compliance assistance program, I like it, but it's only applying to these three things. I'm just thinking to make confused people, because we have other programs. And so just, I don't know how to resolve it or whatever, but just a thought, like when we say codes complies. We'll plug it into chat GB. We'll plug it into chat GB. We'll plug it into chat GB. We'll plug it into chat GB. We'll plug it into chat GB. We'll plug it into chat GB. We'll plug it into chat GB. We'll plug it into chat GB. We'll plug it into chat everything. We are currently taking suggestions. Chat GP. It works, I'm telling you. Scary. I think this is how you night with the goals of the program especially you know just making sure that those who need the assistance get it. And I also want to echo your sentiment, administrative foster about the work that Joe's done, the conversations that we've had, you know, about that assistance piece, and just what you've done with the resources that you've had, that you have has been amazing and I appreciate it. And thank you. All right. Any other council members before I go? No. We're real quick. So, love the program. I am always going to be a fan of increasing the work that the N team can do. Anything that we can do to help people be able to stay in their homes is critically important to our affordability goals overall. So thank you for putting this program together. I agree with Councilmember Gertas. I do think that we should kind of see how it goes with the five years and then go from there because you do have the limit of the 5,000, but you can with administrative approval go up to 75. And so I'm just curious to see how many times in this first year we have to go to the 75 because costs continue to go up on supplies, materials, everything. And so. So how ramps does that help? Chat. You didn't want to do it on that. But chat GPT-like, I turned. So yeah, I would like us to stick with the five years. I'm interested in kind of seeing what that data is after a year or so. Coincidentally enough, while we're sitting here, we got our mayor's recommended budget. So we're sitting here, you know, talking about budget. We're talking about, you know, the $100,000. And so I did just quickly search it for N team to see where we were. And I do see that it looks like 1.1 million 13,176, which is a little over 100,000 more than last year's budget. So are we looking at the increase to the N team only for being for this program or were there any other increases to the N team that were discussed? So this is actually within the code's budget general fund. It's not within the specific end team budget. OK. So I would assume that's mostly due to increases in salaries and wages and the value. OK, because there is one new, I think, your kind of assistant is budgeted for in this budget, too, I saw. OK, so this item goes under the Coates Compliance General. Correct. Got it and there is a healthy increase to that over 2024 so that's good news. But we are continuing to have conversations George Smith and with CRA they've been great partners. Yep. They funded some N team positions previously we're having some preliminary conversations right now about continuing to add to that. Okay, yeah, as council members, it's always interesting to dig into the line items and try to figure out like, okay, you got $100,000. Like, where does it live? And then compare that with other requests to council member Druskel's point. I think several of us were encouraging of increasing the funding to be able to provide these programs citywide. So thank you for laying this out for us. I understand here that do we need a motion to refer this to full council? It says refer proposal to council. Do we need that ahead of? Okay. So moved. Very good. We have a motion to refer this to full council. All in favor? Aye. Very good. Motion passes. So thank you all for the work. We appreciate it. All right. Great first meeting back everyone. So hope this sets the pace for the day. Appreciate everyone being here and with that meeting is adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks for watching!