Thank you for what you're doing for this great city God. We ask that you will continue to look upon us, Lord, and kept the angels about us and keep us of God. Lord, we thank you for granting us wisdom, knowledge, understanding, direction, and clarity God. So God, as we go before your people to do your will, we ask that you will keep us, keep us on focus, keep us on task, and keep us on point, oh God. And Lord, we thank You for this place we call home and we thank You for continuing to keep us safe and we thank You point, oh God. And Lord, we thank You for this place we call home and we thank You for continuing to keep us safe and we thank You God in Your Son, Jesus name we pray. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. So I am requesting that a... I am requesting an amendment to the agenda that we add under new business, grants, resolution CDBG small, city application, new business, item number four. May I have a motion to amend the agenda? I accept motion. motion by a motion by commission to grow. A second by commissioner Elliott. Any further discussion? Hearing none. All in favor. Any opposed? I was asked for discussion. Discussion? Commissioner George? I had asked through the clerk if we could possibly also amend the agenda to move the Parks and Recreation Committees presentation from unfinished business 1 to Before you business which I've realized is very in orthodox but the presenters daughter is visiting From South Korea where her husband is stationed for five years. They're here for a short period of time. And I really like to get him back to visiting with this daughter if that's an all possible to sit through an hour here before making the presentation. And who is the presenter, Mark Milliken? I'll and Director. Thank you. So we have an addition to the amendment, what say you? To move unfinished business one, up to before new business. What say you? the motion. I'll amend my second to the original motion if the original motion is amended by commissioner Grove Grove I'm in my motion We have an amended motion and a second to one add under new business item number four resolution CDBG small city application and unfinished business item number one will be placed under after public comment. We have a motion and a second. What say you? I. I. I. Any opposed motion carried. Before we open up the business I want to introduce and welcome to the city of Appalachia Cola the city manager Mr. Michael Brehart. Please welcome Mr. Brehart. Sometimes in the near future we will be hosting a meet and greet. We want him to get. We will be hosting a meeting greet. We will be hosting a meeting greet. We will be hosting a meeting greet. We will be hosting a meeting greet. We will be hosting a meeting greet. public hearing cemetery ordinance 2025-01. Attorney Hartman. All right. It's ordinance number 2025-01. It's an ordinance of the city of Applied Chocola Florida providing for the regulation of activity and city owned cemeteries amendment of the Applied Chocola Code ofnances Part two chapter 12 cemeteries to add sections 12 dash six through 12 dash 17 providing for severability and providing for an effective date. And this is the the I guess we have the second reading on it a little bit later. The we had a cler here for the cemetery ordinance 2025-01. Are there any comments regarding cemetery 20 25-01? Commissioner Grove? The prohibition of commercial activity. Where's that? So we removed the app, I say removed, the commission opted for restrictions on the types of commercial activity that could occur, but we removed the blanket prohibition on commercial activity. We will wait for that again. It is in section 12-10 where it talks about all commercial tours organize groups, special events. It talks about the different types of, let's see, say, do alcohol. They prohibit them from areas of open grave or funeral services. And I was like commercial insurance and restricts the hours. How about 12-7? Any tours of events, marketers, panic, paranormal, involving ghost, spiritualists, or minions are strictly prohibited from municipal subterrances? That's right. Cover our bases. It does. And it goes through the different. Talks about what will be allowed, what won't be allowed there as well. I'm missed a couple times too. I keep reading up. Thank you. Sure. Are there any other questions regarding cemetery ordinance 2025-01? We're in none. We will move on to public comment. Dennis Win in its winner-hanger? Okay. Ms. Linda White. Good evening. As a new curator for the Historical Society, I just wanted to report that the Water Street Archives excavated by Lee Willis and Lou Hill in 1996 have been donated to the Historical Society here in Appalachia, the first group of artifacts were arriving town next week and some of them will be installed as an exhibit in the kitchen building at Rainy House. Plans are underway for the development of other exhibits as well to be placed in Rainy House and money is currently being donated to fund the development of some of these exhibits by private individuals and I have one of the artifacts that came in. Thank you. Mr. Ken Essex. I guess this must be the historical society's time to speak. And first off, I would love to commend Linda on the work that she has done as far as getting the Lou Hill Artifact collection here and the work that she has done in Rainey House, I encourage any of you who have not been there recently to please make a visit and the exhibit that she's planning for these artifacts is really gonna be impressive. So that's a big feather in the city's cap, I think to get this kind kind of artifact collection here. And with that, as you guys are putting on your agenda, it's the grant season. And as you know, with the Rainey House, which is owned by the city, but has been managed in partnership with the Historical Society for many years now, has some structural issues, some foundation repairs which are going to need to be done with that the historical society is going to be putting in an application for phase 2 grant with the state. The phase 1, which Katie Green helped us with, was the renewing of the some windows and some of the facade features the columns and whatnot. We're really looking at doing some foundation work which needs to be done on that. That grant is due by the 1st of. We will be looking at the community. We will be looking at the community. some of it has to be essentially cash on hand. And that the state wants to see either that this historical society has that money in the bank account, or that there is a resolution from the city commission guaranteeing all or part of that funding also. So we'll be looking at obviously getting some donations from corporate sponsors, from patrons, from whatnot. But we are definitely asking that the city commission here look at giving us or working with us to make sure that we have that guarantee so we can apply for the state funds They the the city did that in the first grant to the tune of some 40,000 dollars and so we would be looking at At that the depending on on the engineering and how much money we're going to be requesting in the grant, it could range anywhere from a million dollar grant we would need to be having $62,500 in our account or guaranteed or if we were looking at a $300,000 grant we'd be looking at needing to have $18,750. So somewhere in that range, and as the grant deadline comes, then it's just these are things that we're going to need to be looking at in the quite near future if we're going to get into this funding cycle. And so I guess part of what we're also doing is looking forward to continuing to work with with Brea and the mayor and our new city manager as this is an ongoing process. And that's just just wanted to the commission to have a heads up that this is coming and that we're looking forward to working with the city on making this a good viable property for the years to come Any questions Thank you so much. I appreciate you what you do There are no other public comments Moving on to Parks and Rec Committee presentation and request. We're the front part. First off, thank you for speaking so I can get back to the house front there. I appreciate it. I'm Mark Rook and I'm the Vice Chair of Parks and Rec. We've sent you non-infomaching fountain in the middle of the park. We have a lot of things to do with the parking. We have a lot of things to do with the parking. We have a lot of things to do with the parking. We have a lot of things to do with the fountain is what are from the park. Two issues are of particular concern. First issue is a non-infomenting fountain in the middle of the park. Second issue is the safety. And an access issue that has been created by the removal of the floating dock from the park. First, decorative fountain in the park is no longer operational. Mechanical and electrical controls have been destroyed by water infiltration, creating a safety hazard. Found itself was also a safety hazard as you can see by the photos that we sent to you two weeks ago. I guess, yeah, two weeks ago. for your review. Park to recreation committee recently had a forum for citizens to offer their opinions about the found. One couple has appeared and has offered to provide private funding to assist us in repairing the found. However, it's unclear if the funding would include long-term maintenance for the found. Park to wreck committee that came to the majority of the citizens who spoke that form have given you a list of what some of their suggestions are. And overall major support ways for removing the fountain are coming up in a a turn away of using the phone. We've summarized the options. They were described. for removing the fountain or coming up with a turned away of using the fountain. We've summarized the options that were discussed in the form and subsequently in the Parks and Wreck Committee monthly meeting two weeks ago. There were six options of which are all creating real quickly here. Remove the fountain and make it an area of green space. Replace the fountain with raised their eyes, their eyes, their eyes, their eyes, their eyes, their eyes, their eyes, their eyes, their eyes, their structure of some type, and we had about four or five different options that we talked about. A large area for Appalachia Cola, a kinetic structure that has movement as part of the art, sculpture of large or oyster, oyster shells combined and make a structure, blocks of letters spelling out the name Appalachicola, or an exhibit of relics out of the community. Last one was installing our twig going to the park with the name of the city of Appalach Colony. And last, me and Parker Wreschkin committee determined that the most viable and least expensive option is to turn the fountain into a bed for low-lying plants such as flowers. In terms of space in the fountain would be drilled out for the water to be drained and filled with soil and low-lying plants. Including we also removed the mechanical box from the park which is off to its left as you're looking out to the water. With example, we'd like to have examined the tiles that are around that farm and replace them or come up with a painted art work around the base Which would also have a sitting area sitting on the edge Second one is one of safety cars by the loss of a floating dock This truly safety has a friend when trying to access the city from the water Weon Vigian, to pull their boats up to get supplies and fuel or just enjoy our town after day on the water. We recommend that an option be found to allow individuals to access our pledge code from the waterfront as well as to create an additional safety option for anyone who may jump or fall into the water. Today we ask that the city review and consider improving our recommendation for the fund as a temporary fix for the park. And that option be explored from more equipment and hurricane resistance structure. We ask that the city also replace theiery Doc for the same reasons that we noted above. You have three pictures there of the first two of the fountain and the last one of as a gentleman was trying to get up to our doc at low tide there from a sailboat it was anchored out. So we asked you if we can move forward a board of directors. We have a board of directors. We have a board of directors. We have a board of directors. We have a board of directors. We have a board of directors. We have a board of directors. We have a board of directors. We have a board of directors. We have a board comments for him? At this point, I would personally like to, because our new city manager is just getting in and having not had an opportunity to review and to look at the whole scheme of things. I would love the the the the the the the the the the staff to work on that then. I think it should go back to go to the city manager and let him review get cost of what have you and then make that recommendation based on that. That will be my opinion. What say you? I said you permission to air. I think it should go back to the city manager and let him review and get cost of what have you and then make that recommendation based on that. That would be my opinion. What say you? I have a something specific to request of Mr. Brill Hart regarding the floating dock. I know that's something we've all been concerned about and want to work on getting another one. To my understanding, the former city manager said that floating dock is in the possession of our hazemarine who is contracted to operate our boatyard. I am not familiar with any sort of agreement or documentation of that either being given or rented or anything like that. So because that is a city asset and I am unsure if that was obtained with grant funding or was spent out of general fund, I think that we have an obligation to return a floating dock there and ensure that the public asset is disposed of properly if that makes sense if it is being disposed of. Thank you. How does it? Thank you. Commissioner Grove. Yes, thank you for doing this work. The floating dock was taken out after summer storms and I worked with the city manager to try and return it. There's been a strong desire by a lot of people to see that returned the TDC has Suggested that they would be to fund it. But I think we need to figure out how to make it a nuisance. I know several times people have had to go retrieve the dock. And I think the city manager probably gave it to them or is letting them use it at the other facility because it was having trouble staying where it was supposed to stay. So I think with some engineering we might be able to find something that can work. The current is very fast there. It's difficult and the dock was a maintenance issue. So I would like to see it returned. Maybe we can figure out a smart way to do that, but I do know that I had several conversations with the TDC representatives and they were anxious to see it reinstalled also. Thank you, Commissioner George. Start with the floating doc. I also think that should be a top priority. Back in 2022, our last city manager gave us a quote for reconstructing the floating dock and the cost at that time was $317,000. So it would take some or see the TVC or some grant. It's unclear to me why we gave the floating dock to a private company. I don't know. I never got a good answer about whether it could be salvaged at this point and re-insolved in a different manner that would be more cost effective than starting from scratch. So maybe that's something we should look at first as, you know, where is our old floating dock? Can we get it back? Do we want to get it back? If we can, what can we do with it? And if we can't, what kind of funding sources can we look for to create a new floating dock? So I think that's kind of a going to be a messy project to work through. As far as the short term solution for the Fountain area, the City Commission had voted, I mean mean it's been almost a year ago now, we had voted to have the Fountain removed. So we took that vote, that was going to be done. And then later at Parks and Recreation meeting, some citizens came forward that wanted to and repair of the fountain and and contribute money with a group to maintain the fountain so parts came back to the City Commission and said well maybe we'll look at it again so They did and sort of have rolled it out and instead came up with the idea of having a public meeting to Sysilicit community input which they did knows a very good meeting I think what they've proposed is a good first step. There may be something we want to do in the future but you know as our summer sees on approaches if you look at these, the fountain is now an eye sore with brackish water trash thrown in at and a safety hazard for small children who is, I mean, it's an attractive nuisance. It would say that for a fairly reasonable cost, but the park's is recommending is that we dig out all the guts of the fountain, basically fill it with dirt and turning it into a planter, replace the tiles, or come up with some artwork for the fountain. So they've done all this work. We've been going through this for about a year. You know, I think probably, I mean, if we like this idea, I think we should approve the concept and direct the Parks Committee to work with the City Manager to get quotes to see, you know, what public works could do if we need, you know, outside vendors to do some of the work. But I think we've all the decision making. I mean, we asked parks to come up with a recommendation for us and it's our decision what to do. So I think we're at that point now. Thank you. So what say you commissioners? I'll make a motion that we direct parks and recreation committee to meet with City Manager and go over the proposal for converting the fountain at Riverfront Park into a planter. And... and also for converting the fountain at Riverfront Park into a planter. And and if and to bring back the cost proposals for us for our approval, over the scope that can be approved by the city manager. Does that include the options there? We should look at those options and get prices for those options for long term effect and also, you know, I want we want to do the betting there, but that's only a temporary stuff. But those other options we had, those six or seven options are costly. So it might just stay that way. That might be the flowers might be the only thing we can do financially. I think that's why it's important to me that there's a meeting of the minds with city manager. Right perhaps bring it back so that we can all be on and the questions can be ask and answered that you may have that city manager may have that we may have and go ahead and have that discussion instead of trying to pull together a motion that may not be fitting to what is needed. Mark, it's converting the fountain into a planner and getting out, I mean, that to me is a phase one. I mean, I think everything that was discussed in the committee, we needed to do that first. Everything else would be in addition. Like if we decided we wanted to plant trees, that would be a round that if we were going to have some sort of a statue, it basically would be in that center area, would be converted from a flower bed into a pet stove or whatever. What's the place? That was the whole idea is to get this at least safety-wise and have it look like something and then move on from there that people have seen all over the world on what to put in front of there that you can see from the water and also when you're driving in town possibly. It can be very expensive if you're not careful. May I make a point of order? We're in the middle of a motion and now discussion is started. Ma'am, please, it's okay, it's not your fault. Ma'am, please request that we dispose of the motion and restate it concisely, please. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Elliott. Commissioner George, please recite your motion. I I mean I was finished with the motion. I mean I was- So what was the motion? I make a motion that we direct the Parks Committee to work with the City Manager developing a plan to convert the fountain at Riverfront Park into a plan or by removing the fountain equipment and the electrical equipment and bringing in cost estimates if necessary back to the city commission if the cost of the project exceeds the spending authority of the city manager. You have a motion by commission of George may I have a second. Second. I have a motion and I can. Any further discussion? Yes. Will this motion not are we going to address the floating dock at all with a motion or are we going to leave that as just a direction for Mr. Burrill Hart to investigate? Second motion or just a direction but I think they should be separate. No further discussion. Having motion by commission George is second by commission or Elliot any further discussion. Hearing none to address the floating dock. I'll make a motion to direct city manager, real heart to engage with his marine and provide a report and pathways forward for obtaining a new one. I have a motion by commission Elliot second by commission George discussion. Commissioner Grove could we also add that we. My I'll be I'll volunteer to contact the TDC for. on that if you want to do that mayor since you sit on that. I think we need to have a bid to start with. We need to see if that bid was. I'll read just a bit. It was most likely that high due to inflation in 2022 as we've seen with some of the CDBGDR quotes that came in. came in, a lot of them are significantly under budget now, so I suspect that may be the case with this one. Since the motion is to direct City Manager Burrill Hart to provide a report in pathways forward, I would be comfortable leaving the motion as is and whether Commissioner Grove or Mayor Ash wants to work with the TDC. I don't think that requires a direction from this board at this point. Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner Elliott, a second by Commissioner George. Any further discussion? George, did you raise your—did you have a discussion? Yeah. I have a motion by Commissioner Elliott, a second by Commissioner George, all in favor. Hi. Hi. Hi. The opposed motion carried. Thank you. Thank you for letting me leap ahead here today. Thanks, Mark. Next on the agenda is new business. Aismate Extension request 400 Kevin Road. No, we'll Davidson. the amendment for the amendment for the amendment for the amendment for the amendment for the amendment for the amendment for the amendment for the amendment for the amendment for the amendment for the amendment for the amendment for the amendment for the Uh to consider an extension or a new easement adjacent to a property that we purchased as a subdivide in the county of five acre parcel that was subdivided into two parcels. The second page of the submittal, you can see the easement addition that we're requesting is essentially an extension of an existing easement recorded as official record book seven, 60 page five, 70. And it's on the south side of the, I think, 95 acre parcel that serves as the city's spray field. So it's in the county, but it's its own by the city. There's a pre-existing road that extends to the west. In order to subdivide the property to the south, we had to add a 15-foot easement to the residential parcel to the south that can be seen there. It's listed as proposed 15-foot easement on the survey that you see. Essentially to actually physically use that space of easement, we'd have to bring in fill, extend the road, cut down trees. But it was added to just ensure that we had legal access to that property to the west. But at this point, we're requesting to actually add a new easement, which is on the south side of the power lines there on the city property for ingress and egress and non-exclusive to the new parcel, the 1.3 equal parcel on the left. And it just basically encompasses a pre-existing road that goes to a utility gate at the end there. But I guess with that summary, I know you guys have the package. I would just stand for any questions or comments that you have from me directly. Thank you. Attorney Hartman, have you reviewed and what say you? I have reviewed. It's certainly possible for the city to grant this easement. It's really a question of, And it looks like there is an existing, you can see it on the area that's the pay a third page of that package. So I can certainly draft an easement to extend and cover the area indicated there. And it would be just a standard easement of ingress egress. Were you looking to put utilities or anything in that? No, there's already existing utilities. The existing easement includes the utility easement, but we wouldn't necessarily need this one too. If the commission's not posed to it, it might be wise to do it now, in case it's ever needed in the future, but I have no need to include utilities in that easement, just to ingress an egress. And then what was, I know you're talking about splitting it, but just so I can understand what is, obviously there's a structure on the property now, what was the existing access for that? The previous property prior to the subdivision was the total five acre parcel that included the 1.3 acre parcel to the west and then now 3.6 acre parcel to the east. Got it. The existing access essentially went through that through what is now a 3.6 acre parcel from the south. Got it. So the building on the 1.3 is some sort of outbuilding auxiliary act. Okay. And you You were the one who subdivided it. Yeah, through the process of the purchase of the property we worked with the owner and the county to subdivide that property. So it's really will of the commission as far as this goes. I can certainly draft the easement and you want the easement I'm looking at the red on there to go the entire distance there of the lot or why I know the road I see how the road kind of arcs in about midway through the lot. Would that not be adequate? Yeah, certainly would be. I drew it for simple purposes. I would assume the cost of performing of actual survey and drafting the exact extent of the easement at direction city. Essentially our request is just to connect to the existing easement to the new property. If that includes chopping that down tighter, then that's no issue for me. Yep, and that's my only, again, if the World of Commission is to grant the easement then it would just be the easement Kind of practically necessary to enter the property there on the existing road that I would think a portion of that is just There's there's no need for it Yes, it could not extend as far west as tentatively drawn the the the request before you is to extend is the extension of current easement on the city parcel as identified in What say you? I make a motion to direct city attorney Hartman to engage with Mr. Noble Davidson and determine via survey the to the existing easement and the new easement to existing easement. Second, have it motion by Commissioner Elliott, a second by Commissioner Grove discussion. My only discussion is was that clear. No further discussion. further discussion. Hearing none all in favor. Any opposed motion carried. Thank you. Thank you. Planning and zoning request to workshop storm water best management practices practice incentives. I'm sorry. the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Like our judges comment. in Zanginborg to workshop potential land development could changes to incentivize the use of stormwater best management practices. I'm an example of this that they mentioned is lot coverage is currently capped at 40%. Could homeowners be allowed an additional amount of lot coverage if they were to install a stormwater best management practice to treat that runoff? The record could you explain or define stormwater best management practice in the terms of this request for the workshop? I can give a few examples of the storm water best management practice. Typically ditches, swales, rain barrels. Sometimes you see this tanks underground that hold the storm water and then allow it to infiltrate into the ground. These are all examples of storm water best management practices. They're encouraged through our land development code already and people do use them as a way to treat their current storm water runoff to keep their yard from flooding. We've had a couple instances where people submit to planning and zoning for essentially a structure, but if it treats itself, they want to know if they're able to build it even though it's over the 40%. The planning and zoning board to keep it vague, they're wanting to workshop this and see if there's anything they can do to incentivize people to use these. I would caution the board to move forward with using lot coverage as an incentive. There's multiple reasons that it's capped at 40% storm waters just one of them. So the request before the commission is to have a workshop, a joint workshop with the planning and zoning. What say you? Make a motion that we have planned to join the workshop with the planning and zoning. What say you? Make a motion that we have planned a joint workshop with PNC on stormwater best management practices. Okay. Can I clarify something? I'm sorry. We weren't jumping straight to a joint workshop. They were just asking to workshop on their own. And if they come to something in in a grant they would then bring it back to you. Why is it coming before us? Because the city commission has to direct the planning and zoning board to workshop things that you feel are valid concerns potentially for future ordinance amendment or new. Yes. You weigh in on this please. Yes. My understanding to during my tenure here is that we did not want necessarily P and Z taking up issues of their own creation and kind of run in with them and then bring them to the City Commission. So it was on certainly my advice as well as the former chair, as well as current, that we would run it by you all before they spend time workshopping something at their meetings so that it would be well received by the Commission if they reach recommendations, conclusions, they would bring them to you. At that point, there might be a joint workshop. They might have a complete product for you to consider and move forward with draft warden's drafting. Commissioner Elliott. I do know that our changes to our LDC require two joint workshops. The PNZ has to have the two workshops. May I suggest we have joint workshop, then PNZ workshop, and then either the other joint workshop or PNZ workshop? The reason I say that is because if we have an initial joint workshop between the two of us, it doesn't say what order they have to be in. That'll be a good way for the City Commission and Planning and Zoning Committee to be able to hash out for us to give direction on what we do need to look at, give them direction to have workshop and either have both planning and zoning workshops and then finalize it with the joint workshop so then we can expedite this process and get it cleanly before the commission again so we don't spend six months on the issue. And I, it's totally up to you all, because that's absolutely fine. The, I'm looking at it a little bit, the opposite, but that doesn't mean it's right. I think either way is correct, meaning if it originated from you all, that you say, hey, I'm on PNZ, just PNZ doesn't know about it. That you guys decide we want PNZ to look at something then maybe my record was like a joint workshop so that they have defined direction. But this is PNZ bringing it to you. I think they do have ideas because they deal with this issue. It has not come before the city as far as folks who are becoming very creative on what best management practices, what constitutes a store-bought-of-best management practice. It's usually in historically cost prohibitive, but now because of just elevated property costs and just general wealth, they are able to like a forward, some pretty amazing best management practices that would have been, again, cost prohibitive before, but it's totally up to you all, the order in which you want to do it. I always think of it as if it's originates from you all, it would maybe start with a joint so you can direct them so they don't go off on a, on a, going in wrong direction, which is still applicable, certainly what Commissioner Elliott said, that'll, you can direct them, meaning if they, they're going to be presenting you with what they have been running into and I know some of you all attend PNZ so you are aware of this but they need to educate the commission certainly on why they think this is an issue that they want to workshop. So that could be done at a joint at the beginning or after they give you an idea and you can do your own research. So it's... they want a workshop. So that can be done at a joint at the beginning or after they give you an idea and you can do your own research. So it's totally pleasure of the commission. Commissioner Grove. I think I agree with Commissioner Elliott that if we have a joint workshop then City Commission can answer their questions, staff can weigh in on their input And I think that's a valuable way for both of these this session and the request the subsequent request about Advanced based definition. Do I need to withdraw my motion? Don't I have a motion on that? Was your original motion? I think we originally began discussion to clarify whether or not it would be joint. So was your motion to be joint or not joint? I mean I can let me withdraw the motion we started with. I withdraw my motion. Second withdrawn. I can't remember who the second was if we had one yet. I think we got interrupted. So Commissioner Gross motion has been withdrawn. Is there another motion on the table? I also had, I mean we wanted to kind of clarify where we were, I wanted to speak as well. Sure. Okay. And it's this, I miss the PNZ meeting that this was discussed. I mean, the current code says that these stormwater best practice devices or whatever don't count towards lock coverage. So are you saying you want to replace that was something that would quantify how much additional lock coverage? From a staff perspective and breathe can certainly weigh in if I get this wrong is we have It's sort of simple right the way the code reads now is at a best-manager practice is not counted against theirvious. So if you had ditches, swales, made out of concrete that are catching water, conveying water, the underground sisters, all that kind of stuff, well underground, but that they do not count towards impervious. The idea that we've re-and-I discussed a little bit of and just as an idea, and it came up at a P&Z meeting is much as we did decks where we had this, you know, they still count towards impervious but at a reduced rate. And because some people are getting pretty expansive with their best management practices. Now at the same time, there was also discussion about roofs where people are catching storm water with gutter systems and treating that as well as, you know, there's historically also been discharge under the buildings where they're elevated, where it's, you know, you're counting the impervious area of the roof against them, but not essentially crediting the surface area under the roof that's pervious. So you have all these issues going on and I think everybody's aware that over the last couple years it's been kind of a hot topic of discussion, and that maybe we need to kind of modernize our approach to best management practices. I say modernize, but come up with options to, the people that are trying to use them are we risk them outsmarting the code, basically, is what's going on. They're finding some pretty interesting workarounds that really were kind of against the intent of the code and the policy behind the best management practices exception and we just need to elevate our game to cover that. Thinking about offering some incentive but also sort of reigning it in with some, okay, I like that because I'm aware of some of the situations you've had. I also like the idea of having a joint workshop first because I've felt a couple of times in the past after PNZ has two workshops and goes in a certain direction and then the commission just has one joint workshop with them that there's not an opportunity to go off in a different direction if we disagree here when I take it to a different place. I like that. However, this is the same thing that comes up every time we have workshops is we had directed the gets been six or seven months ago for you, the City Manager and Commissioner Grove to get together and study what our current policy is as far as the requirements for workshops. We had state requirements, you were going to verify whether or not those were still in effect. We have city policies that require that any amendment to the land development code would be preceded by two PNZ workshops and a joint workshop with the city commission. So in recent years there's been some confusion about that where some people thought that our rules of procedure which were dated after that policy somehow superseded that policy, although to me they seem consistent with each other. I mean you can add additional work requirements to the rules. So every ordinance that we've passed that's effected the land development code We've used a different method including having no workshops So I mean, I think we need to go forward with that, but I think we need to Go forward with that meeting To come up with a solution of how we're going to handle these in the future so we do it consistently. Maybe that needs a workshop. Yeah, we'll have a whole... No, agreed. We need to... Yeah, we got to have a consistent process. The requested on the table is for a workshop. So, do you want to have a joint workshop or do you want a request or to give planning and zoning to go ahead with a singular workshop? What say you? I would like to request that we do a joint workshop first with planning and zoning. I have a motion by Commissioner Elliott to have a joint workshop with planning and to go to the committee to do the plan and to go to the committee to do the plan and to go to the committee to do the plan and to go to the May meeting is May 12th. They always meet at 6 p.m. We could just meet at 5 p.m. And we I'll tell them they need to be there a little early. I'm sorry, the 12th. Yes, that would be Monday, May 12th at 5 p.m. would be our workshop date. For me. So the motion, can we have an amendment to the Emotion Commission or Alliet to include the date and time? I am in to my motion to include the date and time of that joint workshop as May 12th at 5 p.m. preceding the planning and zoning regular meeting. I think the growth may have 8am in the second. The motion may have an amended second. My second. Any further discussion? Any opposed? Motion carried. The next agenda item. Similar. What say you do you want to also have a joint workshop to discuss event space definition planning and zoning. Question? I have no motion to make so. I make a motion that we. I'm sorry. I make a motion that we direct P and Z to begin in working on the definition of event space. And then we schedule a joint meeting. Motion by commission or Duncan may I have a second? Commissioner of Duncan, do you repeat the motion or cut in here? I apologize. I make a motion that we direct P and Z to begin the work on the definition of event space and then we schedule a joint workshop. I have a motion by commission of Duncan and second by commission of George discussion commission or Elliot discussion. Yes. I think for this issue too, I think this is something that we should be doing a joint workshop first. Can we get a little background on why this request is coming before us? Similar to the storm water one please. Yes. This one is more specific to the Gibbs and parking issue. That's where it kind of came up is that currently we do not have a parking requirement for event space in the city. So that and that some folks found that problematic and and also the fact that in our code there isn't really not really there is not a definition of event space. So the first step towards moving towards either determining whether there should be a parking requirement or not in the future as well as it probably since we're throwing that term around we probably should have a definition of it in the code. And yeah, that's it. But the idea is, and certainly again, it's the pleasure of the commission, how I believe this would go down is the way I envisioned it. And again, Breg, correct me if I'm wrong, is that staff would provide some examples of definitions of events based to PNZ, to workshop, discuss. They would say, yep, sure, we like this or that, or arrive at one or more good definitions, and then they would send them up to you all, you all could then direct staff to say, yes, we'd like to amend, I could give you a direction as far as where in the code that would go, and we would literally push an ordinance through kind of quickly, I mean, not quickly, but it would just be just a definition, or we'd add it to the definition section in the code. So if we want to, and again, we got to determine if something's required as far as multiple workshops, joint workshops, that sort of thing, but just kind of being careful of your time, I'm not sure how many meetings we'd want to have on a simple definition edition. But that is up to you all. If it's a very important definition, of course, then it can be a big deal. This one, I don't want to diminish it, but it's just adding a definition to the code. If you even choose to, you may say, you know what, we all know what an event space is, we're not worried about it. Thank you for that clarification. Based on that explanation, it seems like there's a lot more to consider than just an event space definition. There is more than one event space downtown. This is obviously in regards to the Gibson's parcel that they have said that they will use for special events in the future. There are other event spaces downtown that are actually in use at this time, not potentially going to be in use in the future. That, those are the spaces that are going to be directly affected by this in the present. A definition also doesn't take into account parking mitigation that needs to be required with that as well. I would dare say this is too preemptive and we need to have a broader workshop that actually includes the event space owners and we need to have a discussion on special events as well. I do know that Commissioner Duncan was working on coming up with impact fees and such with chief varns so I think that perhaps a workshop addressing downtown Appalachia Cola, maybe a little bit more productive than only tackling one small facet of what we need to worry about in that area and in that district. I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? I'm sorry. With that much broader now, I absolutely agree with what you're saying. When we're task with, when we were, when we, I'm thinking the question is, you know, how are we going to repeat what we just did with the best practices? Well, I'm thinking if we're just looking at a definition, then my goodness, let them work up a definition, then let's get together and do it. But yeah, I mean, if it's much broader than this, and this, then, I'd like to hear what the rest of the commissioner is saying, I'm not going to draw my motion. But I don't agree with your motion. I feel like we need to address it all in one. I don't think we can send the P and Z off to come up with a definition when we might be better spent subject matter looking at it all together. I think it's becoming a critical mass as someone who just had to went downtown this weekend where there was a wedding and this and that, you can't even walk down the street. It's so much traffic. So I think it's coming to a critical point and we need to address the many facets, not just send them off to come up with a definition and then have them deliver it back to us. I think it's a discussion and we need to probably have a workshop to work out this many facets of it, not just deciding what the definition for the rule would be. I have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Commissioner George? I also think we need to have broader discussion, but I like Commissioner Jenkins' original motion because I know what PNZ is struggling with on the Gibson parking issue. And you know, they're taking a parcel, the old AMP building and stripping all the parking from it and giving it to the Gibson complex. So it leaves this desert there where you can't have a business because there's no parking. So they were told that event space does not require parking but I don't believe PNZ has ever deliberated on that nor has the City Commission. I think in practice people have converted venues into event space and it has not the parking issue had not been dealt with. I think that's different from saying we've never required it. I think if we've overlooked something, that's not, I mean, we can do better going forward. And looking after that P and C meeting, I was looking at a lot of the events space, and a lot of them have more parking than you think. Like the ruling has, you know, parking on two streets. If they had to go to PNC, I think they would qualify for historic waivers, same for the ice house, you know, and others. So I don't, you know, with our existing code, I think they have parking spaces. So I think we had a, we have very extreme example that P and Z is dealing with now. We have a split P and Z decision on several issues about this project. And that was, it was a good idea that Greg Golgowski had was let's ask, you know, to define the space because I think they are uncomfortable leaving a piece of property with no parking. So I kind of see it as a more immediate problem that maybe they could, you know, if they had at their meeting discussed what they would think the definition would be and what the parking requirements are, I think that's something they could bring back to us. And then we could workshop, resolve that issue, and then move on to the larger project, which is probably going to be more time consuming. I have a motion by commission, I don't get a second by commission, George, would say you. Hi. Every motion. have a motion by commission Duncan the second by commission George what say you Every motion by commission Duncan the second by commission George all in favor Hi Pose Opposed I'm opposed. No. Um. We already have a joint workshop with PNZ scheduled in May. May I suggest that we plan another either a joint workshop or non-joint workshop that needs to be held to discuss downtown Appalachia Cola. If anyone has any suggestions on a date to do that in June, I would say it could potentially be done in May, but honestly with the joint meeting on the 12th and then Memorial Day weekend coming up, I don't think that's going to be a great time for the business community to step away. I know summer is busy and June isn't necessarily the most ideal time either, but we have to do it at some point. So your recommendation, Commissioner Elliott? I would suggest holding a workshop about downtown Apalachicola preceding the June 3rd, 2025 regular commission meeting at 5 p.m. I have a motion by Commissioner Elliott to have a downtown workshop on June 3rd at 5 p.m. What's that you? I have a second. Second the motion I think we need to clarify though exactly, exactly what the motion would be. Topic is going to be. Have a motion by Commissioner Elliott, a second by Commissioner Grove, discussion, Commissioner Grove. Like we need to be very specific on the topic and what it's going to resolve. If it's event space, I think we need to talk about it being event space. And, when in a commissioner Elliott, when in her motion to include that. So as part of discussion, so we can go ahead and hash this out before I am in the motion. So we specifically want to discuss event spaces and event parking. I think that we should consider them just kind of as two separate things because you have the space itself, it's definition, and then you have the parking and we have a whole parking ordinance in and of itself. So addressing the event spaces, addressing event parking, there should be a public comment portion as well to hear concerns from business owners in the district, as well as work on plans to improve downtown That's pretty broad. I think that's pretty broad. I'd like to see it include the situation we're dealing with at hand Which is the event spaces and the definition definition and requirements All right, so I will amend my motion to clarify that the workshop shall focus on event spaces, event parking and allowing public comment for business owners. I have a amended motion by Commissioner Elliott, Commissioner Grove, are you amending your second? I include event spacing, any event parking and public comments. We can include public comment on all of our agenda. So I don't want to see it specifically related to one group of people. I just say public comment. Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner Elliott any second or you second it's the workshop to include the topics event space and parking. Yes ma'am. Commissioner Grove are you amend them? It's a motion by Commissioner Elliott, a second by Commissioner Grove. Any further discussion? Commissioner George. Okay, I'm still not clear. It's okay discussion about event spaces and what respects, what the definitions are. Or... I mean, yes, we need to discuss the definition of them, what we need to quantify as we are considering the definition of them, how that will correlate going into parking and how we need to determine what formula to use for parking, for event spaces or special events that take place in them. A definition of event spaces and what the parking requirements should be for various categories of event spaces is that? Sure. That is where I left it at discussing the event spaces, workshop and the event spaces and the event parking because we do not have a definition for event spaces. We'll have to work out a definition for that. What all that quantifies, connecting parking to that and then addressing the parking ordinance as well, which will probably have to be addressed in time its entirety at a separate workshop. just for just for event spaces, not the entire? Correct. We only have an hour for this workshop. So if we discuss the event spaces and event parking, I think that'll clear the way for us to have another productive workshop in the future about a more collective picture of downtown Apollachicala's development. I would motion by commission Elliot, a second by commission of growth. All in favor? Hi. Any opposed? Motion carried. Mr. Winner-Ringer, you want to make a comment regarding tree ordinance. We have one more item. Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize. We do. Thank you for bringing that. Apologize for that. We have new business, the CDBG small cities application. Yes. So this is for a resolution for the CDBG small cities application. We're hoping to put an application in to rehabilitate the city's three wells. This is a follow-up of an application we put into the rural infrastructure fund. At the end of this last year. While that application was unsuccessful, commerce reached out and encouraged us to apply for this pot of money. We do not meet the initial LMI requirements for this program, but we meet the requirement for urgent need. So there's a specific pot of money within the overall pot of money, specifically for municipalities who can demonstrate a need. And because we've had regulatory action against our water system, we fall into that pot of money. So this resolution language, it's specific to this program. It's required as part of the application. It's a little lengthy, so I apologize to Dan who's going to have to read it. But if anybody's got any questions, I'm happy to answer them. I. Attorney Hartman will you read the ordinance and then we will open it up for discussion? I will. So this is Resolution 2025-202. It's Resolution of the City of Apatricola City Commission authorizing application to the community development block grant small cities program and statement of urgent need. Whereas Florida Commerce is designated as the designated the wording of the state of Florida of the state responsible for administering all U.S. Department of Housing, Urban Development, HUD, Community Development, Block Grant, Small Cities, CDBGSC funds awarded to the state. And whereas in federal fiscal year 2023 and 2024 the state received 38 million in CDBGSC funds for eligible activities including including neighborhood revitalization, housing rehabilitation, commercial revitalization, and economic development. And whereas under the CDBGSC program, funds will be made available to cities and counties on a competitive basis to undertake eligible activities. And whereas the city commission of the City of Apatria Colable submit applications to Florida Commerce for CDBGSC funds to assist in neighborhood revitalization efforts and to improve the quality of life of citizens of the city and the state. And whereas regulations governing the CDBGSC program allow the utilization of said funds to repair water and sewer facilities rehabilitation of public here privately owned commercial or industrial buildings and economic revitalization including any CDBG SC eligible activity that demonstrably restores and improves some aspect of local economy. Whereas the city is considered applying for CDBG SC funds and whereas under the requirements of the CDBG SC from time to time, the city must publish notices to the public regarding any proposed project and providing the public with information on how to provide input about the proposed project to make public comments regarding the same. Where's an April 10, 2025 the city will be in the city of the city of the city. And we're not going to be talking about the city of the city. And we're not going to be talking about the city of the city of the city. And we're not going to be talking about the city of the city of the city. And we're not going to be talking about the city of the city of the city. And we're not going to be is after considering any and all public comments, concerns and input. If it is in the best interest of the city and the best interest of the citizens of the city, then the city will apply for CDBGSC funds to accomplish the project to be known as the Water Well Restoration Project. And whereas after consideration of public comments concerns and input if it is in the best interest of the city and the citizens of the city will apply for the CDB GSC funds prior to applying for such funds the city will publish a second notice in the much a whole time said notice will contain specific information as required by HUD and Florida Commerce. And whereas HUD regulations break up the duplication of efforts, DOB, which occurs if Florida Commerce provides assistance to a participant for the same purpose as any previous financial or in-kind assistance provided to the participant for the same purpose and the state and the city, Florida Commerce, CD SC program are each prohibited from creating a DOB. And whereas to prevent a possible DOB, the city affirms that there are no other sources of funding for the project. And whereas HUD and floor commerce require participants in the CDBG SC program who utilize a national objective of urgent need to submit a certification regarding the urgent need for the project facility that is a facility that is a facility that is a facility that is a facility that is a facility that is a facility that is a facility that is a facility that is a facility that is a facility get it put up with water now. water supply for the entire city and surrounding areas, so was by the city owned facilities. This need for repairs became urgent in January of 2025 when the city was obligated to put a pool of water notice in place for the water utility customers. And whereas as part of the application process and to facilitate the city's receipt and use of CDBG SC funds for the project, it will be necessary for the mayor as the executive officer for the governing body to execute various documents and make certifications is required by HUD and floor commerce for the CDBG SC program. And whereas it is in the best interest of the citizens of the city and the best interest of the city for the mayor of the city to make such certifications and execute such documents required to apply for funding for the project and upon approval by the state to fill the city's obligations under the CDBG CS program. including but not limited to subrecipient agreements, contracts documents required as part of any environmental review process, requests for the release of funds, requests for cash funding and any other documents and certifications necessary to accomplish the objectives completed hereby and fulfill the city's obligations under any award received from CDBGSC and to complete the project. Now therefore be it resolved by the city of the Apple School of City Commission. Section 1, the foregoing whereas clauses are hereby ratified and confirmed as being true and correct and are incorporated hereby reference. Section 2, the city authorizes and structs the mayor as the executive officer for the city to execute all necessary documents to submit the application for CDBGSC funding and complete the project, pursuant to the applicable state and HUD regulations. And further, to make all such required public notices, to make all such required certifications, to facilitate the city's application to the state and compliance with state and HUD regulations, including but not limited to certifying that the staff, contractors, vendors, and community partners of the city, stormwater storm recovery initiative will comply with all HUD and state requirements in the administration of the proposed CDBGSC funded activities will work in a co-occurve manner to execute the subrecipient agreement that provides the pathway for successful CDBGSC programs and our projects and that all information submitted in the application is true and correct. Section 3, the governing body of the city certifies in a firms the pressing need for reliable, potable water supply for the entire city and surrounding areas service by the city owned utilities, which need for repairs became urgent in January of 2025 when the city was obligated to put a boil water notice in place for water utility customers. The reading of resolution number 2025-02. What say you make a motion. We approve the attached resolution for water real restoration project. Thank you. I'm a motion by commission to grow. If any second by commission, it's your or any discussion. Here and none all in favor. in favor. Any opposed motion carried. Good work. Great. Thank you. We are moving on to the first reading of the tree ordinance. It's 2025-02. Mr. Winner-Ringer. The one more seven eight straight among members. the the proposed revision to the tree protection requirements that are included in the ordinance that is scheduled for a reading tonight. Some of the site plan, not some, all of the site plan requirements are being moved in this ordinance from the historic preservation section, which is chapter 109, they're being moved over to chapter 111, which is a land use section. And so those are just simply being recodified as from 109 to 111. One of those requirements has to do with with the cycling review regulations as far as commencement of construction. And that's the one that was at such a 10950, which is now being recodified to 111-14. That says that the tunnel, tunnel tunnel approval, the site plan, the applicants will have one year to command construction on the site. It seems like a reasonable amount of time. That's what this commission adopted in May of 2020. But the problem is that there's another requirement elsewhere in the land development code that differs in the time frame. And that has to do with the building inspector as a section 1-120. And it has to do with exploration of development permits at paragraph A. It says that the work authorized by the development permit, which is the development permit is the building permit, as I come in within a hundred many days from the date of issue, it said permit shall expire and be deemed no longer valid be deemed no longer valid so There's this Problem of a contradiction it says one year and one place and it says 180 days in another which is basically six months so I don't have a problem with the one-year time period. I would suggest maybe that you proceed with the ordinance that's before you and do a reading of it and approve it, but perhaps direct the city's attorney and the city's planner to address and other requirement and make it consistent with this one year time period. And if you decide to do that, I think it would be a good idea to take a look at the requirements. that apply to the billing inspector. If you read them, they were developed a long time ago. They don't accurately really reflect what the building inspector does as far as I know. So if you decide to do that, also I'll address that at that time. The second comment that I have doesn't really address changes to the ordinance, changes to the trim protection requirements that it has to do with one of the sections that's included in the ordinance and it has to do with utility trimming along power lines. I became aware that Duke Energy's contractor is trimming along the power lines. They left a small notice. My residents are getting ready to trim along the power line along my place, both in the front and the rear of my properties. I actually went with the forming of the Berffords trays, which is the contractor for Duke Energy this afternoon and a couple other employees of Berffords and got a better idea of what they were doing and where they were going to be treating this go-around. They normally do this on like a five-year schedule or a three-year schedule, depending on upon the power line and question. I think this is the, they're on the three-year schedule and this particular go-around. So the reason I believe The section in the land of Elma code is section 10528. It says that. The utility is supposed to come to the city. With a plan for the trimming. And I contacted Dan and prayed today or I actually pray and scot boy the code enforcement officer and confirm that Duke had not actually contacted the city yet with their plan. So what I'd like to do is in one of the other requirements is, is that if they're gonna train a patriarch tree that they have to have a certified arborist present, when they're doing that trimming. So I talked to these people today, Major Bellany is the form and for purpose tree. for for for for for for We're getting in contact with Scott, and I believe is his name. I suggest getting contact with the city manager to get this plan submitted to the City and if that occurs to have the City post on its website, a notice including a link to a map which shows where these turnings will be done. So those are my two comments. Thank you. I did e-mail myself and city manager. Gerhardt with the plans and they have been forwarded to both attorney Ms. and to Miss Robinson. So they do have those plans as of now. Thank you for bringing that to our attention attorney Hartman. You've heard the comments. Yes. And I'll certainly I guess we did we dealt with the second comment on the first comment. We did have some a little bit of discussion on it. The difference between again a site plan, the year for the site plan to begin construction or if it's a development permit, it's 180 days. Right now, my comment on that was that those are two different development orders and that there may be some overlap but when you're dealing with a development permit, that literally can be a building permit. So you're dealing with a building official and that sort of thing on the site plan you're dealing with P and Z, that's typically more of a horizontal development situation. So there are two different types of, a site plan is not necessarily development permit, it is a development order, and a development permit is also a development order. So it's all words, I mean, but it's definitions and things. So I'm going to take another harder look at it, but I don't believe that they are necessarily in direct conflict. That the one year and the six months, there's a reason for each of them being, there could be a reason for them being different. We could make them the same, but they're two different animals. So that's the difference there. I want the the the the the City of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of you and the . Section 109-46 . Section 109-46 . Section 109-51 . Section 109-15 . Section 109-15 . Section 109-15 . Section 109-15 . Section 109-16 is. of ability and providing for an effective date. And as discussed before, this is, this implements the tree committees excellent additions to the tree ordinance. And we're also solving the site plan regulation issue where we had the site plan regulations in a less than ideal location in the code because it was under the historic district guidelines and we're moving them to where they more or less should be makes more sense to move them. So we accomplished those two things with this ordinance. Thank you for the first reading of Treat Ordnance 2025-02. Recommendation is to approve the first reading and proceed with the adoption process. What say you? I make a motion that we approve the first reading of the ordinance 25th and issue two, or 2025-02, proceed with the adoption process. We have a motion by Commissioner Grove, a second by Commissioner George discussion. Hearing none all in favor. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carried. Item on the agenda. Board recommendation, Avenue D for for Desterin's safety parking project. Attorney Hartman, Ms. Robinson. Item this is. Um. Mr. Robinson. We had commissioned requested staff to. staff to Take some quotes on an engineer a traffic engineer to look at the public Access on an engineer, a traffic engineer, to look at the public access and traffic kind of safety at the Avenue D kind of sidewalk parking situation there. And we received, re-handled these, but we received some estimates or some proposals. The lowest was urban catalyst at $13,750. And she provided looking at what our options are. We have as far as funding sources, the number one and two. So the public work sidewalk street repair, 10,000 being budgeted. There's been zero spent to date. The other is just out of the general fund reserve. So the staff would need if we want to proceed with this, how do we want to pay for it? So the recommendation is to award the project to Urban Catalyst Consultants. Service contract, but the caveat is the funding for the project is not there. There's a shortage of $3,750. And that's if we take the money from the public world's sidewalk street repair project or fund. Yep. What say you? Well, I'm going to make a motion that we award the project to urban catalyst and the funding source would first come from the public works. Sidewalk street repair and the balance from the general fund reserve. I have a motion by Commissioner George to award to urban catalyst and take the the overage. From the general fund reserve and the 10,000 from the public works sidewalk street repair may have a second. second by Commissioner Elliott. Discussion? Duncan. Duncan, I'm sorry. Second by Commissioner Duncan. Discussion? Commissioner George. This is a lot more than I thought it was going to be when Turning Hartman suggested that a way to resolve this issue of pedestrian access was to get some traffic guide to come and study the area and make some recommendations. I think we talked about that costing a couple of thousand dollars. So it's turned out to be, is there some reason? I mean, do you feel that what they've quoted is the minimum of what we need for this, or have they taken the description of the project and expanded it? We just think like our engineers could do a small project like this that a reasonable cost for us. I mean, I think this is, and I kind of, I know we're most cringing over, I mean, this is really, I think this is an important issue. And it came up again in PNZ, and PNZ was very passionate several members about the safety from the Gibson parking configuration at that corner of Avenue D and market street. So, you know, the commission's discussed it the public. PNC, I think it's, you know, there were changes into the design, there encroachment that changed the configuration where there was going to be a green space. Now there's just a narrow sidewalk and then parking. So I mean, it needs to be studied and safety needs to be considered. But I'd really like, I mean, I made the motions so we could discuss it. I mean, is there any way to I think that's a good idea. Dan can speak over me if he'd like to. I met with each of the engineers and went over the commission's priorities that were voice during the last meeting. I tried to keep it minimal. When engineers hear intersection, pedestrian safety, around the corner. the corner. They start throwing a lot of words about traffic studies and crash reports. And I think it's a situation where if you ask them to make a recommendation, they're going to have to stamp their recommendation and say as an engineer that they believe it's safe. So there's a lot more that goes into it than you think. I was also a little surprised by the pricing we received. It was higher than I thought it was going to be. And I asked them to keep it minimal. If you look through the quotes, you'll notice a lot of them omitted survey services. And this dollar amount does not include design. This dollar amount includes crash studies, traffic studies, other things listed, and then them to come before you to a public meeting and give you their recommendation and talk through options. And then an actual plan set would be a phase two. So more money. But yeah. With this project, we wouldn't have a proposed configuration of parking and walking space. We would have schematic designs and ask for at least three proposals of solutions. We talked about extending the right of way there to have a green space, the potential to omit parking if necessary for safety, just to make sure people can pull out on to 98 and have good visibility, is there anything we can do? I went over it with all of them. They'll come back to you with three options and visuals, and then if you pick one, you would go in that direction and ask for a plan set. Chew. Yeah, no, that would be 10 10 I mean it would be probably 25 30 the the brain made a really good point and it it occurred to me that I've been involved in cases in litigation cases where the design visibility all these things something gets sued the city city gets sued someone gets gets sued, someone gets sued, and then we look to the engineer and say, hey, you design this intersection and they're calling their insurance company and everything else. So yeah, that's why they're dotting eyes crossing T's. They're not, it's, I mean, what I envisioned was an engineer coming down, spending the day, walking it, giving us ideas that we could ponder and in our kind of make, I'm not going to call them informal adjustments, but eliminate those two spaces. These are the distances that are a problem and that's the sort of thing. But obviously when you read these proposals, even on this just initial review of it, just recommendations, concepts, everything else. They're building up to, hey, we're going to be signing and sealing this and it needs to be defensible if whatever is a problem, our design of that intersection. Whereas right now, you know, it was designed in 1835. And we have sovereign immunity, and it is what it is. It's just a problematic intersection, but we have, yeah. So comment. Yes. I will say, I think the cost for the actual plan set might not be as much, because you're getting a lot of the preliminary work out of the way. And if you do have a concept that you choose and you say we want this, then all they have to do is draft the plan set for that. They've already done all of the preliminary studies that they would need to feel comfortable stamping it. So, and it's hard to give a basis on price, but the most recent project on my mind was Leslie Street they did the whole extent and the plan sent for Leslie Street which included underground utilities was around 47,000. That was for the whole street and so I think especially if we let them do preliminary work and then we say we want this design that you've shown us I would like to think that's going to be a significantly less than what we're looking at now. We can just ask if we choose one of the recommendations, concepts, Bob Arcus, a price on a plan set to do it. But they may have to design stormwater and everything else if they're redesigning curb gutter, everything to deal with the street. So they can certainly give us a range we could hold them to. We can bring that back to you all. I mean, I think this is something that should be had been considered back in 2022 when the project was approved. I think we're at the point now where we have to deal with the safety issue. I don't I don't think we have a choice. I mean, I think we need to that has to be I mean, you know, 13,000 dollars or you know, somebody can hit by truck and flip up in the air. You know, I mean, you know, $13,000 or, you know, somebody getting hit by a truck and flipped up in the air, you know, I mean, I don't, I mean, I think we're negligent if we don't go forward with this. I mean, I don't like the cost at all, of course, but that's all I'm going to say is I think we have, we have to go forward. Commissioner Grove is there on Anyway, we can reduce the parking spots on that corner? So it can't be a problem. So instead of paying so many $30,000 to tell us that it's going to go ahead and just mix it and say, okay, we're going to take out two parking spots on this corner because visually most people can't see around it. I mean, yes. Just like we've eliminated other spots around the city for safety reasons. And DOT has actually come in the past and eliminated in off the corner. They've told us to take them out. So, I mean, they did along 98 closing on the Gibson. You should be at a park in front of the courthouse. They've got rid of different spots all up and down through there. So if we limited two spots on the corner, that one, sure, somebody could see around it and save us $13,000 or say $20,000 when the plans, I'm not trying to be naive, I'm just asking the question. I mean, I think, I mean, literally we could, that would be, if we want to say we have these continuing consultants, I mean, an hour of their time or when they're here on something else, I know, you know, I know Duberry is in town a lot or whoever and we just say, hey, is this, you know, just want your opinion, we're not nothing in writing even. Is this, does this make sense? And that would be absolutely inexpensive. of potential fix. It's a good idea. But then the sun will still right up again. Commissioner Elliott, did you have a comment? I did. Thank you. I'm not very comfortable with allocating the entire budget for the potential sidewalk and street repair to this project, especially considering how many complaints I personally receive on a daily basis about the budget. I'm not very comfortable with allocating the entire budget for the potential sidewalk and street repair to this project, especially considering how many complaints I personally receive on a daily basis about broken sidewalks and broken streets downtown. This issue is a bit confusing to me. I'm not sure exactly what the specific safety concern is on this. To my knowledge, the parking would be going back almost identically to how it was prior to it being shut down. So the concept of removing two parking spaces, which would have been, which I'm assuming, would be the two closest to stop sign. If my memory is correct, those were the two handicap spaces that were located right there, or at least one of them was a handicap space. I do not think we need to eliminate that. And continuing off of the point that Commissioner Grove made, FDOT did come through. It must have been about five years ago. It was about five years ago, and they did take away some parking specifically. I remember there was parking directly in front of the building that houses app, latch outfitters, they took that away. They redid parking around, redid the crosswalks. I would assume that when FDOT did all that and did their own studies, they took that into account and they did not change that side of the street, that corner, that parking. So I don't think we have reason to believe that FDOT or there is a higher entity that has already identified a safety problem in this area. There are correct. There is a building that was further back on that property. The parking spaces that remain on Highway 98, those spaces still remain there. So there is a visibility block there. The building itself has to be built according to the land development code standards for setbacks which are supposed to address visibility. Correct, Attorney Hartman? That is correct. I mean, yep. So if the building has been built in compliance with the land development code that addresses visibility at intersections, I'm unsure who, where the, I'm unsure where the problem is coming from. And what problem we specifically need to address, because the way that I have seen this problem go forward is this topic is a byproduct of disagreements over parking for the gifts and in. To me, this seems like trying to spend $13,750 to try to determine whether or not we can take away parking from them retroactively, which I don't think is what we're here for? So we have a motion by Commissioner George and a second by Commissioner Duncan. Is there any further discussion? Commissioner George The issue of taking away parking we do that all over town There was all the parking was taking up taken up on Water Street Turning Hartman has given the opinion that we can take away parking spaces, but can't exclude those spaces that were there from their parking requirements. So if they lost three spaces that wouldn't count against them so it wouldn't change their outcome it would just change the configuration of the parking. The issue which we've discussed at other commission meetings and P and C discussed at their last meeting it's not just disability, it's accessibility of the public because before there was a lot of open space there. Now there's a minimal sidewalk space under the balcony that encroaches on city property with diagonal supports that partially obstruct the air space. And on the other side of that corridor are going to be cars. I mean, right up against the balcony before you could, I mean the parking spaces were there but you could walk around so if someone doesn't want to or isn't able to access that corridor under the balcony they're going to have to walk out into Avenue D into parking spaces so that's where safety comes into play, but it's also an accessibility you've got. It's not gonna be a sidewalk. It's gonna have papers down there. And like I said, under a air space that's partially obstructed. So that was what we had discussed before. It's like perhaps there's some other configuration of parking, like maybe some parallel spaces or maybe some removed so there could be a buffer between the balcony and the parking spaces. So there'll be additional space for pedestrian access instead that of everybody going through that shoot under the balcony. I mean that was what the issues were. I just didn't think that would take somebody 13,000 dollars to figure that out. You, remitting the parking spaces as commissioner Graves suggested some of them would for part of that walkway. There would be a desk tree in access, but there would still, you know, where there were still parking spaces. People still have the option of under the balcony or walk in the street. We have a motion by Commissioner George and a second by Commissioner Duncan to accept catalyst, urban catalyst consulting. $17,750. I'm at regarding the reimbursable, the reimbursable expense that comes with this. Now, expense that will be, but there is, the 13, 750 is just a lump sum. It does not include the reimbursable. So you have to keep that in mind $10,000 will be coming from the budgeted item. And $3,750 will be coming from the operation. Motion on the table. Motion on a second. What say you? I, Paul in favor? Opposed? Opposed? May I make a follow-up recommendation before we move on from this topic? I'm going to go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and go ahead and another one. And if we each, I led the last workshop. I'm happy to send the old agenda out to everybody. And if everyone each, I led the last workshop. I'm happy to send the old agenda out to everybody. And if everyone wants to take a look at it, maybe we can all prepare for that workshop, prepare to have another one of those workshops. And we can identify some other traffic safety areas downtown. Because I think that would be the appropriate way for us to address this sort of topic downtown. A commitment from someone to take the lead. I would be happy to take the lead on that workshop again if nobody else would like to. I would make a motion that the City Commission move forward with having an annual traffic workshop as dictated by our land development code. I have a motion by Commissioner Elliott. May I have a second? I'll second. Second by Commissioner Duncan. Discussion? For discussion, I would like to ask if anyone has a proposed date. I would say since we have a workshop on the calendar already for May and one for June, would we like to save this for July? The only discussion I have on this is just picking a date for all of us. I have a motion by commissioner Elliott a second by commissioner Duncan to have an annual traffic study workshop discussion commissioner. Just for the record sick we we have had many traffic safety meetings. It's only been a recent history that we have it. We do a t used to meet with a son of regular basis and traffic safety committee. We also are part of the Florida do t traffic advisory council. So I sit on that committee. So, for information. I'll have the city clerk reach out to you so we can navigate sunshine and can get some more info on that from you. I have a motion by commission or Elliot a second by commission or. Traffic study workshop for a date certain in July. What say you? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Award recommendation for community center as builds and schematic design. Robinson. City manager was directed to obtain three quotes for preliminary design work including as build drawings of the community center as well as some schematic conceptual plans to go along with that. This is needed in order for the City Commission to determine the feasibility of moving City Hall to the community center location and make a decision on if you would like to obtain a USDA loan to fund the engineered building renovation plans and construction. Three quotes were obtained and the lowest was $1,700. The recommendation is to award the new city hall as built and schematic design project to him in design. What say you? Make a motion approve. Second second by commission Elliott discussion hearing none all in favor aye opposed motion you the agenda. The next item on the agenda is the cemetery ordinance. Reading. This is second reading ordinance number 25-01. It's an ordinance of the city of Aputch, California providing for the regulation of activity in cemeteries amendment of the Apach Code. the the second reading of ordinance 2025-01. What say you make a motion we approve ordinance. I've been motion by commissioner Grove may have a second to approve ordinance number 2025-01. Okay. Have a second by commission of George discussion. Hearing none. Call in favor. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carried. Hallelujah. Next on the agenda. Thank you. Yeswardship Act I did. Received comments from. a lobbyist Kate Deloche that the house has put in their budget 2.5 million for the Stewardship Act and the Senate is at 5 million. She is actively working with the representative chauff on getting the 2.5 raised to 5 million. So she is actively working on that so it's looking promising that we will be receiving funding from the stewardship act. Having said that and I hate to say this but we need to begin looking at our priorities based on the work plan. So we do need to have a meeting, a workshop on and prioritize. And prioritize the projects that we would like to see going forward. So I think this is very important and it's something that we need to look at right away. So I will ask City Clerk comments to look at dates and hopefully we can have a workshop this month. This topic is very important and so we do need to look at having a workshop and prioritizing the projects that we want to seek on for. So please prioritize that and get us some dates available dates for that. So if everyone, all the commissioners would just kind of send miscommons your unavailable dates. So show them what dates not to look at. that. Um, Leslie Street. One thing I want to so happy that the street is open and it is being, I mean, it's, yeah, I'm sorry, I missed the ribbon cutting. It was quite nice. But, um, one of the things that was brought to my attention during that conversation was the weight limit on that street. Do we want to restrict, is that possible? The weight limit, big 18 willers or what have you? The recommendation of staff like I Don't know We're thinking more of the the large heavy 18-willers those heavy axle trucks So that to prolong the life of Of the road of the city of love and since there It It's any heart. We do have the right to regulate for safety purposes and things like that local traffic. I floor statute. So if that's. Something we want to do we believe we have the legal authority to do so. We want to get the proper signage installed there, which could be a little tricky with it being an on 98 at DOT, but we could coordinate. We haven't one of our consultants that deals. We can project. Well, whether it be the project or not, we just would want someone to coordinate with DOT to see and get the MOT certified signage for that location. And I hand that over to you for more research. So yes. So that you can provide a recommendation. I don't know what the weight limit is. And I'm just, it's just something that we want to, may want to consider. The Rainy House brought up Mr. SX brought up— the the rainy house brought up Mr. S6 a request to further discuss having a workshop and I don't about a grant processing bring you may want to take the lead on this as far as the grant application process. Could you or have you met with them regarding the grant phase two? For the Rainy House. For the Stratrol? Yes. I've been helping them gather quotes for engineering on this so I'm happy to continue coordinating. Okay, thank you. We take the lead on that and then we will make sure that we work closely and get this done. Thank you. I think that's all I have at this moment. Commissioner. Prove. Thank you. Before the meeting, I passed out two pieces of paper. When is my monthly update on the partnership meeting? partnership a group that is trying to restore the bay and develop the management plan to make sure it stays that way. So I did get through 501C3 status. Just highlights, coaching is a big problem. Just reiterate that many people think in a year we're going to reopen the bay and it's going to be just like it was, but there's 500 acres or less oysters out there versus 10,000 that used to be. So trying the communications committee, which I outreach committee, which I'm on, is trying trying to let people know that we still have thousands of acres to restore. So we are beefing up our outreach and communications on website and the Facebook page. So that's all for that. And at the mayor's request, I've been looking into oyster licensing. As you know, it was delegated to the City of Apalachicola. And the City of Apalachicola would rather keep that responsibility, especially in statute. I know I've been talking to Kate, our lobbyist about getting us out of that legislation. Just in the meantime, I've also talked to FWC who's talking to their legislative people. They have not received any information on replacing Appalach Gola. So they gave us some suggested language, which I've included a paragraph there. So just some things to think about. And also a contacted Will Robinson's office. He is representative who oversees the State Affairs Committee agenda and asks them that they please put the House Bill 4311 on the agenda, which they did accomplish that. So hopefully that will be moving forward and get heard in this session. commission I mean representative shelves bill to prevent oil drilling in a moving forward and get heard in this session. That's a commission, I mean, representative Shows bill to prevent oil drilling in a National Estuarine Research Reserve, which has a companion bill in the Senate, working with some folks to try and get that language closer together so it has a better chance of going through this time. We have had a comment on Facebook that talked about the city of Apalachicola charging the you have fee for people who are on septic tanks and that is not the case. People who are on septic tanks and that is not the case. People who are on septic tanks do not get charged that fee. And just trying to put that out there to clarify that. City is well versed in what is charged and who owes it. It's only for people who are on the city sewer system. So just clarifying that piece of information that was put out there. And I'll going to go ahead and move to the next floor. Thank you for taking the lead on this or should I sing topic and I appreciate you working with Kate on that. Commissioner George, do you have anything? about the report, if it has encountered any instances of financial distress or emergency since the state's fiscal year 2018 to 19 forward. And whether it's been remedied and if we expect those type of situations in the future. The city has responded to this letter after consulting with the city's lobbyist and with the city's CPA, The commission was asked individually if we had items that we thought should be included at the beginning of the process. And I suggested that the two items were the cities to fault on the state revolving loan and also secondly, the city's and ability to fund its community reinvestment association obligation. The draft was created and the state revolving loan item was included but not the failure to fund the CRA. So I asked why it was not included, and it's the city attorney's opinion that only situations of emergency are distressed that meet the statutory definition in 218-503 should be included, although the language and the letter from DOGE specifically states that we were to report whether your municipality has encountered any instances of financial emergency or distress, including those listed in section 218, 503, but it doesn't limit it to the situations described in the statute. The letter went on to give a general list of what those situations would be. And I that the failure to find our CRA met those requirements. So I just want to be on the record and I want it noted in the minutes that I object to the exclusion of that situation from our response to Dage. Thank you. Commissioner Elliott. Thank you. The only thing I have that's not a specifically addressed in like the manager report was also related to the water system. I've had multiple people ask about the possibility of having water bills discounted, due to the water smell. I said I would bring it up personally. I think that it's such a variable on trying to calculate the offense to someone's sensibilities over smell and how much to compensate based off that, considering that you've got a difference in the effect if you're at the beginning of a line as towards the end of the line. So should we compensate people at the end of the line more than the person at the beginning of the line. So I don't know if with our appropriations and everything that we're looking forward in the future building our wastewater treatment plant. I know that we are preparing to at the end of 2027 pay off the state revolving loan fund loan that we have remaining that we're paying the sewer user fee on. So if there's any way we can investigate and we can give some more rebates to our customers in exchange for some of the troubles we've had, I would not reason why I think that was the reason why I think that was the reason why I think that was the reason why I think that was the reason why I think that was the reason why I think that was the reason why I think that was the reason why I think that was the reason why I think that was the reason why I think that was the reason why I think that was the reason why I think that He, the Chief Provided me. and Chase and we had a meeting in regards to impact fees. We were talking about comparisons. He, the chief provided me with numbers for overtime that he has to pay when it comes down to different events. So not immediately, but I am going to put together a report to bring to the board in May. And unfortunately, I think we, I'm gonna ask that we workshop adding some, because when I did a cursory review and looked at some of the other municipalities in different areas that charge for their vent spaces as per usual, with most things we're low. We don't charge for a lot of things that other municipalities charge for. We don't require that someone be in attendance from the city. There's different things that are on, that I want, we foreign us to look at because one of the difficulties that we have every day sitting up here is our inability to pay for this or our inability to pay for that. But yet we have some of the lowest fees out there and nobody wants to pay more money. I get that. I'm stressed out every day too. But at the same time, if there's no money to pay for it, there's no money to fix it. There's no money to maintain it. And the fact that we have more feet on the ground here causes more impact and it's going to cause more damage and we have to be proactive. And if that means increasing some fees or putting some, in fact, fees on some events that we have long enjoyed, then I think that's what we need to look at that. So, I'll ask that it be put on the agenda for May to bring forward some numbers for y'all some comparisons Thank you commissioner Next on the agenda is City Manager. Communications. Yes, I did put together this report so I'm going to go over just a couple of things and if if you want to talk about anything else, we will get to it. I also don't want to speak over Mr. Brillhart. So if he has anything he'd like to cover, I want him to speak over me and chime in. So on the interim city manager report, there's a couple of topics. One I specifically wanted to bring up was the closure of the splash pad temporary. It has not opened for the season, which to spark some questions. This is a direct result of the odorscrubber issues. We are flushing hydrants all over the city. If we turn on the splash pad it's an additional 30 to 40,000 gallons of water of usage a day. We're flushing water so much. One of our wells the other day we were just a hair under the the backs we could use for the day. So if we turn on the splash pad we might deplete our wells. So it's kind of a rough situation. Once the odors scrubber issue is remedied, absolutely we can repair it and get it going again. But for the time being it's in the best interest of the water department that we keep it closed. We will, we've ordered the parts necessary. We have them. Our water crew they're burning up both ends right now. So when they have time they will get to it. They'll make sure it's operational once this issue's been remedied. I have another update that's not listed in this report. It's just a follow up of the CDGDR workshop we had. The City Commission asked me to pull more lighting options for the hill. Engineers are working on that. They did send me one option that's the dark sky lighting. I asked them to provide three. So as soon as I have those, I will bring those to you, whether we can squeak it in at one of the many workshops we're scheduling or the next regular meeting, we'll see what happens first. Back on the odorskripper issue, I just do want to confirm that that equipment has been ordered. On that same topic, not this past Friday, but the Friday before last. We had a surprise visit from DEP. There have been numerous complaints calls, emails to DEP about the odors, so they did their due diligence and came to investigate. They went to many of the sites of the homes of the complainants and areas, there was water testing, sampling, they smelled the water. We explained the situation, their understanding of the predicament we're in. I will say there was no regulatory action taken. They didn't say great job, but they said we see no issues. We understand it's just a smell and they left. So that is good. So for those who call in to this ladies in the front office hoping for some kind of explanation or has this been reported. Yes, this has been reported. DEP has come to town. We're also taking samples constantly to make sure we have our chlorine levels in check. So the water department is on top of this. I just wanna make sure everybody's aware of that. And I just wanna give kudos to the water department and to the ladies in the front. I mean, the amount of calls complaints that they have received has been really insurmountable. I sat in there one Friday myself monitoring calls so I mean it is I applaud them they're doing one heck of a job with the minimal staff that they have so I ask that we'll just give a little more grace until we can get this matter resolved and show some appreciation that thank you is warranted. So thank you, ladies and gentlemen, to the Water Department. Mr. Brewerhart, would you like to make a comment? Staff does a great job of helping with what's been going on. We're going to be interviewing for the Bavarian Facial Position and also receptionists that will help. So there's a two-way position in the meeting we've seen. We're describing the working with the city to really be testing and specific areas where it will be more proven with the software. So we've talked to Dean in P today and said that we'll find out, but particular areas that are able to concern what going to be the testing. And again, as Greg mentioned, the data delights with the more required. That's where we'll see with the distance the lower issue. So, what we're working on is that. Thank you. So you've had boots on the ground for a week. So do you have an opinion or comments of your new home? There's a lot going on in the city of the size. A lot of projects, a lot of things going on. And I applied the commissions for Lucky Edge. When these things have been important to the community as a whole, And there's a staff will address the land time and make sure we're more full of money and deposit a banner. Thank you commissioners. Do you have any comments or questions for either Mr. Robinson or the city manager commissioner Elliott? Thank you. Briefly while we're on or close to the topic of the Otter Screpper, another one of the main questions that I'm getting from the public is timeline. Do we have any sort of update on that timeline at all? So every time I ask about timeline, I get a very generic answer. I'm being told anywhere from 16 to 20 weeks from the point we put the order in. We're hoping it's less and that's what they're telling me once they get into it. It's very likely that timeline drops. So once I have a definitive timeline, I'll pass that along to you. I've got calls in right now hoping to get a more specific time. Gotcha, thank you. It's, yeah, that's the best you can do when you're only getting generic answers. To speak to the second part of our odors grubber issue. So we approved in the expenditure out of our General fund reserves. You have an item in here about exploring options to replenish this funding. Would you kind of go through that with us a little bit? So the situation we're in, the reserve fund that that money was pulled from is essentially FEMA Hurricane money from Michael and Sally, They for small projects they typically pay first and then it's on the city to do our due diligence to make those sure those projects happen. Until Michael projects are fully closed out, which we still have a few remaining V peer, Bought-of-it-park and the Milpon Marina and still those are fully closed out. we need to be careful about utilizing those funds we did approve the emergency expenditure from that fund the goal should be to replenish it and put that money back where it came from obviously we hope that FEMA will accept our claim and pay for the odorscracker and everything that comes with it that is the goal and would be the preferred solution. If in the event FEMA comes back and they do not accept that claim and do not pay for it, puts the city into position where we need to be able to replenish that fund. And I know everybody wants to discuss grant funding as a solution. Grants don't pay for retroactive work. They pay for future projects. So we're in a situation where we would need to probably pull out a USDA loan, Florida Roll Water, has their own special version of that that we could go after. All right, yeah. I hate to say it, but that'll probably be a workshop topic. But we are fortunately moving very close to budget season, so it'll be rolled right on in there anyways. If FEMA covers, we're good. We won't need to talk about it. If FEMA does not cover, we'll discuss financing. That was all that I had related to the Manager report. The only other thing I wanted to say was, thank you very much for your work this past month, holding down the fort while we waited for Mr. Brillhart to get here. Things could have been really messy and they weren't so thank you very much. Thank you. I'm very thankful Mr. Brillhart is here. Thank you. Thank you. Just a follow-up on that question that Commissioner Elliot asked there was conversation about insurance on the odor scrubber. So is that still in the works as well? Is there, I mean, it was a little more information. I thought that the insurance agency would come down and do a site visit. I actually reached out to them yesterday. I still have not heard a response. So I have contacted Tom Conley, which is the account executive for us. And he was going to get with the adjuster. They had been assigned to the case and give me an update. But as of the meeting tonight, I had not heard anything. Thank you. Commissioner Grove, you had a comment? I just was going to thank me also for filling in. We're glad to have all hands on board here. Thank you for keeping the public up to date on what was going on with the Otiscarver on Facebook. I really appreciate that and I think it helps them a lot of questions. I appreciate that moving forward too is keeping everybody apprised of any kind of timeline. So Mayor George. I too want to talk about the reserve fund that we approved the $500,000 expenditure for the scrubber. That bank account is not a reserve fund. It's just a bank account. I mean, there's money in there that is part of our reserve, but it's just a bank account. So I think we need to be careful about what we call it. And I believe that the CDBGDR grant was scheduled to come from some of the insurance proceeds that were deposited in that account. So between that and this expenditure, that's probably more than the balance in the account. But we need to be careful about it. Or we will have to when we get figures and know whether or not we're going to be reimbursed. We have to find a home in our PNL for that expenditure. And I would suggest that it would first come from water, enterprise fund, water reserves and we do have some reserves built up. We don't know at this point what they are but we do have them. That's where they would come from first. And then secondly, if there was insurance money that we've decided we're not going to use for that purpose we may allocate some towards that expenditure. The last resort would be a remaining ARPA funds although we made the election to call our ARPA funds reimbursement for lost revenues, we're still tracking the projects that we're spending from those funds. So we would have from that alone we would have the money to pay for the scrubber. We wouldn't want to do that but we have it. We just need to be careful about where we're saying this money is coming from. I just wanted to make that point. The second thing is the advertising for the building official. When we set our budget for this fiscal year, that position was taken out of the budget at the request of the city manager and staff, they thought we could continue to use the service we are. We have, so if we're going to advertise for that position, we need to find the funds in the budget to pay for that. I don't think we can add that position without doing that. back to Commissioner Duncan's comments about the payments for special events for extra police work. It's my understanding that the TDC will now be reimbursing for police salaries for special events. So before you draft your proposal you may want to get get which on some and find out exactly what that's going to cover because I'm understanding that it will be substantial. Okay. A question about another item on the report about the Coast Guard property not being in the city's name. How and how that will impact the CDBGDR loan because that was that's one of the major city projects in that riverfront grant is the demolition of that building and creation of a parking lot there. So is that? Where are we on that? So we talked about the deadlines that the last workshop. So this first came on my radar as we're getting into the permitting and DEP in the core questioned why the city was the applicant but the property was showing is still belonging to the Coast Guard. I was under the impression that the former city manager was working on this and the process had been started. I found out it had not officially been started and once I reached out about it they say it's a two-year timeline to get it transferred into the city's name. They did offer a short term solution.. There's a form you can fill out that will basically. You kind of call it an event, but they'll allow you to do work or have an event on the property for an extended period of time. We did make that application. I've been in communication with Gustavo from the Coast Guard about this. He has not given me a timeline. He knows our timeline, and we're hoping it's not going to become an issue. We're still in the permitting process. So right now, it's not a red flag. It could, if I don't hear back from them, in a month or two. Well, we'll keep us posted on that. And I'm going to make one last comment about the odors grouper. I mean, I realize now, I mean, I applaud the water department for their diligence on this. And I don't think we can discount the public's discontent about this because the city dropped the ball. I mean, this is damage from Hurricane Helene. The city commission was informed at the next meeting that repairs were underway. We were likely to incur an expense of $29,000. That would come back to us to approve, which never happened. So it looks like nothing happened for a period of time. So I mean, I think we need to acknowledge that. I mean, now it became an issue again when the odor became so bad, but we really have inconveniences, citizens. I mean, I don't think we can, with a straight face, tell face tell them show us some more grace I think we just need to suck it up and take the criticism that's what I think and that's all I have thank you. Miss Mathes do you have anything that you want to say? I just wanted to give a quick update. I didn't have time to do a report. The financials for 2324 are 80% done. We have balanced bank statements from October 23 to June of 24. I'm working on July August and September. Audit will begin this month. We thought the 14th, me and Megan were talking, she's got a conflict to start on the 14th. So we're thinking the following week for that. The Angela, the finance clerk, has input all the expenses for 24, that were done and the quip books online and she's just about got all the deposits caught up so we are making progress. Any questions for Miss Mathis? Commissioner Duncan. I don't have a question for you, Ms. Mathis. I don't have a question for you, Ms. Mathis, but I did have a question for Ms. Mathis. After her comments. Oh, I'm sorry. No worries. I just wanted to go back to the water issue because we know that it is a smell. And I just want to get ahead of this that as it gets hotter, there's going to be more smell, correct? Yes. Okay, I just want to get ahead of that because it's going to get, and I'm not trying to minimize it. I know that it smells horrific to some people. I have said over and over to people I've spoken with also, I don't know if it's because I grew up out on Bluff Road and I was raised with it, but it does not. I have run over and tried to smell it for people and I just doesn't, I'm just thankful that the water is coming back testing clean and I'll be glad when this is behind us, but thank you all for your hard work and welcome Mr. Brewerhardt. And thank you for what you did during that interim time. Also, thank you. Thank you. And everyone else on everybody's stupcups. Thank you. I will comment, yes, it does seem to affect some more than others. If you grew up on well water, it might not bother you so much. If you were used to chlorinated water. I will say the cities do everything we can right now. We're flushing. We're having to do a lot of extra chlorine because when we flush it, chlorine's escaping, so we gotta put it back in. the city's doing everything we can right now. We're flushing, we're having to do a lot of extra chlorine because when we flush it, chlorine's escaping, so we've got to put it back in. We're also looking at short-term solutions. They are going to cost money though, so if we find one, we're going to bring it to you and that might be an additional expenditure. We did replace Mixer that also broke at the time of collapse. mixer that also broke at the time of collapse that should help a little bit because it's kind of it's not aerating necessarily but it's mixing things around which in turn does aerate a little bit. We did speak to, I'm speaking for a ret right now, he's been working on this. East Point Water and Sewer, they have a large aerator that sits on top of their tank. For a little bit, we thought they might have another one that we could use. don't have a way to mount it on top of our water tank without installation costs, which are pretty costly. So we're kind of looking at potentially buying a small area for the city to try and help the issue. It is gonna get worse as it gets hot, even if we could offset how much worse it's gonna get. It would be helpful. So we are looking at temporary solutions, and and if we find one we'll bring it to you and present it. Thank you. Great. And to the city team I can't say thank you enough. I will offer you grace and I appreciate everything that you do. One of the things that. I'll come back to it. I've lost my train of thought. Attorney Hartman. Yes, just a couple of quick items. One, just an update on the Denton Cove litigation. Revolving around the upgrade to the IJ lift station or Vain later this month with some city staff and then we'll have mediation on May 27th. Hopefully we'll reach some resolution there and get that. Moving because I understand from the water department that it is getting reaching critical mass on that. The other issue that came up at the last meeting, we've had a fair amount of back and forth. I've had some phone calls. We've had some lengthy emails back and forth with Waste 1 on yard debris pick up. I emphasized and it was I think think, well received, that I say well received. I think we will have a Zoom meeting, Commissioner Grove, myself and Manager Brillhart to get to the bottom of and brass tax on how are we gonna be picking up yard waste in in the city moving forward because but we are, it is, it is, we, there are some issues that I think are not clearly addressed in the contract that we can work with that are again that I think you all have been copied on a lot of these emails. So you see the discussion kind of the way it goes around around, but we are going to have some tough discussions on our interpretation of the contract versus theirs. So we'll have that Zoom meeting. Once that's over, I'll seek the direction of obviously the manager but then the commission on how we want to proceed depending on how far waste ones will work with us under the contract. And then finally one other thing, Commissioner George mentioned the DOGE letter that went out yesterday. If it pleases the Commission, I would recommend. Another thing, Commissioner George mentioned the doge letter that went out yesterday. If it pleases the commission, I would recommend ratification of the doge letter because of the timelines it was sent out before the meeting. But it just a simple vote ratifying that the commission collectively was either in favor of or not the form and content and the sending of the letter. Motion on that. Are you ready for us to move on that? Yes. Just someone. May I have a motion to ratify the doge response letter Make motion that we ratify the doge response letter I have a motion by commission to grow may I have a second second by commissioner Elliott discussion All in favor? I imposed motion carried 4 to 1. Just go ahead. No, that's it. So I'm just going to follow up on the the brand right of way. I have spoken to City Manager and This public works to put public works on seeing if they can pick up some of that underbreed. I've also reached out to the county to see if they can. If they are open to help us out a little bit until we can get this matter resolved. So hopefully we're back from them to me. So we are looking for avenues of getting this matter resolved until it can legally get resolved. So we are actively working to kind of get that static relief. It is looking pretty bad. Any questions or comments for attorney Hartman? Commissioner George. Attorney Hartman at the last P&C meeting in response to questions of P&C, you inform them that the City Commission was going to have an injury near look at the corner of Market Street in Avenue D for the pedestrian safety and accessibility issues. So as follow up at Monday's meeting, if you could report to them that the commission is not going through with that and you know advise them of what steps they can can take or not take going forward and because they'll be approving the plan this month so you'll need to address that issue with them. Just a comment. Commissioner Prove. writing. the the tenets in the building. Can you remind me have they received a notification of the city vacating that structure or has it been? No. What I did did I remember reporting on that meaning we had talked about that the city would like to relocate city offices. Following behind the times here I didn't know if we are I mean I understood that that was kind of where we were wanting to go, but we are doing it. I mean, that is happening. There was, if I remember correctly and take me on this, because I didn't go back and listen to the recording, but it was a UN manager way was going to reach out to the tenants and inform them of the discussion that was hailed regarding the relocation of city hall This commission approved to move forward with looking at moving to the community center and that's where we are, the schematics for that building which was the architect was approved tonight so we are moving. Okay and so what I'm going to do, what we do need a time line. What I reported on was the different timelines for that were required under the leases to notify them. I will proceed and execute on each of those leases. I'll send them each the required notification. We've discussed getting the the Maddox and everything but we haven't voted to move City Hall to one bay avenue. I mean that has not been done. I thought that the discussion was more just to tell the tenants that we're talking about relocating City Hall and that we, I mean, we wanted to give them about a year's notice, I think, was what we had discussed. But I mean, we haven't taken a vote to relocate Cityate. And I remember as well that what we talked about, that it was, you know, the question came up, well, can they stay on beyond the notice period? And I was like, well, yeah, we can work that out with them individually that, you know, they can stay on month to month. I mean, everybody's pretty flexible, I believe, on the different leases, but it wouldn't surprise me if we have a little pushback from a couple of them. So it's, I don't want to make this overly complicated. I mean, there's the friendly discussion with them saying, hey, we're going to be moving city hall. And so we may need, you know, we'll be shutting down the building and this is that. we don't want to, without firm plans ourselves, it's hard to, we could end up losing tenants early, we could end up, we don't want to give notice too late. That would be the big headache to maintain that building for minimal income from these tenants. So we don't want to wait too long, but I feel like it's either formal notice or certainly discussions fine, but you either give notice or you don't give notice, right? There's not a little in between too much. Just to clarify my initial inquiry, the city manager did not talk to them. I don't know. So they've probably been, I know I've had a lot of people come to me about it. So I know many people know about it, but you know we're talking about unearthing the nest program which is huge. That attaches all the childcare in the county to that building. And I think we've got to be ready. I think we have to have our ducks in a row of what we're going to do and we need to have a vote and all that before we give them a notice. Speaking of the nest, I was approached and asked if we are going to enter into a lease for the next school cycle. Because I think there's been discussion about a four day school, four day school period, and there will be open all day on Friday. I think we are out far enough that we could enter into a lease with them for next year. I, yeah, when Commissioner Grove brought that up, my, as a lawyer, my concern is always when a client says, hey, did you give them that notice and the times are running. I want to make sure that we, my major concern is that we give them, we don't want to maintain that building for one tenant for any length of time, right? It would just be such a money loser for us. So we just, we need to, from a legal perspective, I need, I can prepare the notices, I need to know when to give them to them. Could I speak to the timeline we could be dealing with as far as the whole process and then you could just. Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's what we need to know. I had laid out, this is a very basic time on that I had went over with Mr. Burrill Hart just as we were going over the project. So the preliminary design work was approved tonight. We're going to have at least one, probably more than one workshop around this concept and what you guys want to see and that will determine feasibility. And then if you guys say yes, we do want to move to one Bay Avenue full theme ahead, then that will signal staff to start the USDA financing. There's an application process. And at that point we would move forward and procure engineering and architectural services for the actual building plans. Because what Ham and Desan's going to be doing for preliminaries is just kind of conceptual, is it feasible? Can we fit everybody in the building as a layout going to work? And then the next step would be procuring somebody to create the actual building plans that we would eventually bid out for construction. And when you take procurement, Tom Wands into account, so you'd have architectural engineering bit award. Let's say you give them a few more months. You're already at December 2025 that your plans are going to be complete. Then you've got a bid out construction. I said 30, 60 days, most likely 90 by the time you get it awarded an under contract. That pushes you out to at least April 2026. It's very likely there's going to be lag time and it's not going to be April 2026. We're probably going to be summer 2026 when construction really starts. I feel like that puts us in a position where we are safe to sign at least for the next school year. But again, that's subject to conversation. So while we are on this topic right quick, how does this commission feel about at least with theness? That was great. Yes. Yes, correct. Yes, I'm just a little bit about the building. So, staff members have seen the building of confidence in me. So, what are you expecting today on emergency? Just to have the collect of samples to have been tested for the world. So, really, these results probably have fallen down and guessed away. But . We are not . We are not . We are not . We are not . We are not . We are not . We are'm consent agenda may I have a motion to approve the consent agenda? I motion to approve the consent agenda. I have a motion by commission of George, a second by commission of Elliot discussion. Here in none all in favor. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carried. The department report? Please be advised. On that, if there is no further business before this body may I have a motion to adjourn? Nice and move. Have a motion by commission or Elliot may I have a second? Second by commission or grove. All in favor? Meeting adjourned. Have a good night. Thank you. I'm from New York, Sanford. I'm from here. Well, I'm from here. I know. I have a smell. I want to try. Thank you so much. If you go on, I'll just smell a hint. I'm fine. I think rocks. No, it's a thing. I'm fine. I'm doing it do a big, big, big, big, big. President, I'm going to be in the North of Sydney. So, I'm going to be in the North of Sydney. I'm going to be in the North of Sydney. So, I'm going to be in the North of Sydney. So, I'm going to be in the North of Sydney. I'm going to be in the North of Sydney. We're going to be in folks to be on the streets. Oh, I know. I'm getting on that thing. Yeah, I'm getting on the streets. First, I'm going down. First, I'm down. First, I'm going to be on the streets. I'm going to be on the streets. I don't want to bring them. Thank you.