Welcome to the City of St. Petersburg City Council Meeting. Your elected officials are Mayor Ken Welch, District 1 and Council Vice Chair, Hopely Gertis, District 2, Brandy Gabbard, District 3, Edmonton area, District 4, LaSeth Panowitz, District 5, and Council Chair Deborah Fakes Sanders, District 6, Gina Driscoll, District 7, John Mohamed, and District District 8 Richie Floyd. Good afternoon everyone. We were called to order the September 5th, 2024 City Council meeting, beginning with the roll call please. Curtis. Excuse me, Gabber. Here. Montenegro. Here. Hannah Whist. Here. Big Sanders. Here. Excuse me, Gabber. Here. Montenegro. Here. Hannah Whist. Here. Exenders. Here. Grisco. Here. Muhammad. And Floyd. Here. Thank you. We will have our invocation given today by Minister Leontay Tuts from New Jerusalem Missionary Baptist Church. And after the invocation, we're going to ask for a moment of silence for two of our following officers, and then followed by that will be the pledge of allegiance. Would you please join me in standing. Thank you, Chair. Fig Sanders, each of you council members, and to the citizens. Will you bow with me? Dear God, we pause and humble submission in your presence to your will and to your way. Thank you for all the things that you've done for us, and thank you for the opportunity of assembly to confer and discuss for firemen in our communities and in our city. We pray now for covering, for shelter, for safety, for peace, and perpetual prosperity in our conversation and work, even in these unprecedented storms. In the attempt of elevation between citizens, council purpose, persons, and constituents, we pray for the exchange of some what may be argumentation for argumentation. Lastly, in all things, may we find common ground together in unity as we embrace diversity, equity, and inclusion for all persons despite race, age, gender, ethnicity, and et cetera. In this place we all call home. The great, tenacious and soaring city of St. Petersburg. God we ask that you cover us all. Amen. Please join me in a moment of silence for a cost of all Edward A. George, Ballin, September 16, 1908, Officer Charles Lee Estes, September 24, 1967. Thank you. Let me reach into the back of the United States of America Thank you so much. Thank you, minister Toots. I am so honored to have been able to watch you grow. And I am so proud of who you've become. And I'm just looking so forward to what you have yet still to show the world. Thank you so much for the identification. Thank you so much. Council members, we have an agenda before us with items deferring F1 and CR2 to our September 12th Council agenda with adding F6, a time change resolution for September 12th Council meeting, as well as adding F7 and CB25, which was pulled to report our entertain, a motion for approval. Now that we have a motion and approval, can you please open the machine for voting? Council members please cast your votes. Now that our president and council members have voted, can you please tell in and out the votes. Madam Chair, the motion to approve the agenda passes unanimously with council member Moham of being absent. Thank you. Council members, we have a consent agenda before us. Can you please do we have any public comment for the consent agenda? We have no cars. Madam Chair. Okay, I entertain a motion for the approval for the consent agenda. Now that we have a proper motion in second, can you please open the machine for voting? Council members, please cast your votes. Now that our present council members have voted, can you please tell in and out some votes. Madam Chair, the motion to approve the consent agenda passes unanimously with Councilmember Muhammad Bean absent. Thank you. At this time, with the storms and everything that our city has experienced, we're going to add a storm update. And I'm going to open the floor to administrative girders for the presentation. Oh, and we're also joined by our Mayor Mayor Canfee Welch. Welcome. Good afternoon. Madam Chair members of Council, our great St. Pete team and all members of the public. Reverend, thank you for being here. I won't mention Bethone Cookman. I thank you pray for them before USF, but good to see you as well. As you all know, we have a significant rainfall event over the last couple of days that led to heavy flooding across various parts of our city including parts of our city that don't normally have to deal with flood waters. I want to thank our team that's been working throughout the night and today and Madam Chair we thank you for giving us the opportunity to give you all the situation report to council and to the public Including what we expect if we receive more rain as has been forecast So I want to hand it off now to our emergency management manager Amber boulder Good afternoon council All right, you afternoon. Hello. So I'm going to give a brief overview of what we've seen. We're forecasted in kind of what we're planning for tonight with those protective actions. And then I'm going to hand it off to Claude, who'll be able to give you a more comprehensive report about the flooding events that we've seen. So just to give you a quick summary, usually I'm up here for name storms and things and this isn't one of those. So it's a sobering reminder that we are very vulnerable to many types of weather. It's not just those name storms. So we get in the habit of the, it's just a tropical storm or whatever, just a rain storm. Many days in a row can really impact our city. So that's what we're seeing I'm not gonna go in into two specific numbers because I know cloud will do that but speaking from a widespread standpoint and the last 14 days about 13 and a half inches of rainfall and St. Pete again, that's widespread. There's more locally heavy amounts 4 and a half inches of that is just in the last few days I did receive an email from the National Weather Service. They said we do have a few supplemental and unofficial reports in areas of St. Petersburg that reported 7 to 9 inches of rainfall over the past two days. And so what we're hearing tonight is the risk could be similar. So we've seen that pattern of those afternoon storms that have moved from the east into the west. So today is really that last, our highest risk with that weather pattern and it's starting to shift and we'll start seeing those storms move more to our east and those inland counties. So tonight we are watching. There is still a high probability of heavy rains, but hopefully the risk and what we've seen in the last few days will start decreasing after today. Quick recap on response and very preliminary numbers. Police and fire were very busy over the past week, but especially last night responding to several calls for service. 45 specific water rescue calls for fire that includes vehicles and flood water, other types of water rescues and sinking vehicles. Police responded to 73 community hazard calls, flooded intersections and stalled out vehicles. That doesn't include the additional vehicles and incidents that they rolled up on as they're responding to other events as well. For today, we've planned a little bit more just in case we see that weather pattern again and we start to experience flooding again in the city. Fire has added additional personnel at stations 8 and 9 to handle those flood related calls. We have our high water seven vehicle that will be at station 7 but it will be fully staffed tonight. And then we've also have two additional high water vehicles from water resources that fires pulled an overtime staff to fully staff those vehicles as well. So that will be a total of six additional staff to handle this evening from 12 noon to midnight tonight. Police crews will continue to monitor those problematic areas and will respond as needed. And the city has done the additional messaging to spread that flood safety message with residents and what to expect. Clouds going to talk more about the historic rainfall that we've seen and what that can cause. And we're getting flooding in those areas that are typical coastal flooded areas where we see storm surge. And it just shows the difference between coastal flooding, storm surge flooding and that freshwater flooding, what heavy rainfall. So with that, I will turn it over to God. Thank you. Thank you, Amber, Council Chair. Council, thank you for this opportunity. Claude Tankersley, Public Works Administrator. It's gonna be just a real quick recap of the last 10 days or so since August, of August 21st, 2024, Ruby yesterday. So I'll just remind you during this period we did have Hurricane Debbie occur and I showed you the last time some of the rainfall data that we had for Hurricane Debbie. Hurricane Debbie dumped somewhere between seven to 12 inches of rain over a 24 to 30 hour period. Very significant. And what you're gonna see in a few minutes of rain over a 24 to 30 hour period. Very significant. And what you're going to see in a few minutes is that, as Amber mentioned, we've had those same rainfalls over the last couple of days, even though it's not been a named storm. So for the entire month of August, if you look at the entire month of August, the average rainfall that we have for August is usually around 8.8 inches. As you can see from these numbers that I have up here from different rain gauges throughout the city, we significantly exceeded that. In some cases, almost three times the 8.8 inches that we would normally see during the month of August. The significance of that is this. When rainwater comes down, it has two ways to go, basically. One way is to percolate into the ground, percolate into the soils. And the other way is to run off on the top of the soils. Normally, we have enough dry soils in our system that whenever we get a rainfall, you will see some of that rainfall percolate down. So if we get three inches of rain in a one-hour period, not all three inches is going to run off. Some of it is going to seep into the ground and go into the groundwater, and then leaving the remaining two and a half inches as runoff. With this much rain during the month of August, our soil columns throughout the city are completely saturated. There's very little capacity in our soil to absorb any more water. You can think of it like a sponge. You know, a dry sponge, you can absorb a lot of water and it's great. Once that sponge gets wet. You know a dry sponge, you can absorb a lot of water, it's great. Once that sponge gets wet, no matter what you do, you can't pick up any more water with that sponge. So the significance of all this rain is that our groundwater is saturated, our soils are saturated. And so if we were to see a three inch rain during the month of April, and our soil is very dry, a lot of that gets absorbed. We see it after a month like August, none of it is being absorbed. It's all going to run off, which is why it feels different, why it feels different to be having these storms the last few days than it may have a couple months ago, because now all of it is going to run off. Yesterday, we had a very intense rain storm. You can see from this slide, one of the highest rain gauges in the city was 4.94 inches in one hour. The reason why I point out the one hour is that that's a lot of rain to come down in a very, very short time. And so when you have a situation like that, then all that water comes down at once and then our storm water system is trying to handle all that water that came at once. If you recall, I'm going to go back. If you recall during Hurricane Debbie, we would have 10, 7, 12 inches of rain over a 30-hour period. Yesterday, we had 5 inches of rain over one hour. That makes a huge difference in the capacity of our system to be able to handle and move and remove that stormwater. So to give you some more numbers here again I mentioned the August monthly average is 8.8 inches. The average across St. Pete based off of those those rain gauges I showed you was 20.15 inches. We often talk about a hundred year storm. Well a one hour a hundred year storm for St. Pete would be expected to dump 3.8 inches in one hour. Yesterday we had some areas four to five inches in one hour and the average across the city in that one hour was about three inches and so this is very close to the equivalent of a 100 year one hour storm. Now know that we get tired of hearing of 100 year storm, 50 year storm, 10 year storm. These numbers are established off of historical records. And we recognize that over the last few years, last five to 10 years, our rain storm patterns have changed. And so these numbers are going to be updated at some point. They no longer hold value for us. And so these numbers are going to be updated at some point. They no longer whole value for us. Finally, we received during this period 362 sea click fix requests to come out and examine inspect and possibly clean any of the stormwater conveyant systems. Of those 362, we've inspected 172 of them, the orange dots. The blue dots are the remaining ones to be inspected, about 190 remain to be inspected. Every day that goes by when we have one of these storms, we get more requests to have these inspections done. And this, what I want to show you now is, if you look at the map showing where the sea click fix requests came in versus the map on the right, the map on the right is what we call our 10 year floodplain map, floodplain map. This, the areas that are highlighted in the pink are areas that we would expect, that we predict predict would flood with a 10 year 24 hour storm, which is approximately seven and a half inches in the 24 hour period. And if you notice where the dots are from the C-Click Fix Request versus that map where we would expect the flooding to occur, you can see that where we would expect it to occur, it was happening, unfortunately, it was happening. So that's the data for the storms. That's an explanation of why these storms feel different because they are different. And that's the end of the presentation for this data. Do we have anything else? So at this point, Madam Chair, I'd like to take any questions that Council may add. Thank you. Council Member Floyd. Thank you. Thank you for the update. I appreciate it. I actually put myself on here just to say, I don't know if you have, because you send us these slides so we can share and explain to our constituents. Other than that, I'll just say it was literally a scary time yesterday. My neighborhood has never experienced flooding before and that I'm aware of and water came into my garage and a lot of homes went out this morning and check it out. There was a lot going on and a lot of people impacted. So I think we have fortunately some experience with it, because I guess unfortunately, because other parts of the city have expected it, but just encourage everybody to be patient with people right now who have never experienced this before and are really worried. But I'll leave it there. Thank you for the update. Sheriff, if I could, Councilmember Floyd talked about a lot of people being impacted, and that's true. Administrator Foster was out with her team today. I think she'd like to talk a little bit about what she saw out in the field with her team. Good afternoon, council. Normally we are deployed to areas that are more familiar with this type of event. So this was a little bit different to be in the center of our city, where folks are a little less familiar with this happening. We do have residents that received significant water into their homes. We will be doing the kinds of things you see us do for shoracers and Riviera Bay for those impacted. The areas that seem to be the worst are right around 5th, 4th, 3rd, 2nd, Burlington Avenue and 57th and 58th, those are kind of the intersections. There's also a large apartment complex right there. The entire first floor of that complex was also flooded. Folks are home, they're cleaning up. We have people going door to door, talking to them, finding out what their needs are. And we'll continue to provide outreach in the next day or so as well. Thank you. Councilmember Driscoll. Thank you. First and foremost, I wanna thank Claude, you and your team for your tireless work on this, for our police department and fire and rescue. It was really amazing to get the messages last night from PD from others saying we've got this. We're going and this started and it started before things got really bad. So it was just incredible to see everyone be able to respond and get into place really quickly to help out. I know a lot of people, I couldn't believe how many photos I saw on social media of flooded streets and then in flooded cars, you know. It's really good to hear that we're being proactive again and making sure that we get out there since we are expecting more of these heavy rainfalls. It's funny, someone was just asking me in an interview about, you know, our flooding during normal rains. And I know that they meant non-named storms, but to me, I said, I guess this is a new normal. And especially at this time of the year, it really is. And I have a lot of confidence in our staff and in the work that's been done on the stormwater master plan to work into the future. So we've got our short term response and what we can do right now. But then we also have that long range plan to make sure that our city is keeping up with this changing weather patterns. So I just wanted to thank all of you for everything that you're doing today and for tomorrow. A lot of folks who are seeing that water intrusion for the first time, we've got, you know, some people who unfortunately are seasoned veterans of water intrusion, but many people are now experiencing that for the first time. So they may not know, you know, where to go. So I'm very happy to and grateful for Administrator Foster and her team for what they're doing. I wonder if staff, if marketing can help get information out through the neighborhood associations, Kona, they are business, like I call the neighborhood business associations that could help to get the information out to folks who normally may not know where to go just to help with that because we want to think of every channel we can. Absolutely. So Council Member Driscoll, marketing has sent out some messaging for today. That is the messaging citywide. For targeted neighborhoods, we are providing messaging targeted to that neighborhood based on what we're seeing. So you know for example normally we pick up debris whenever we're reimbursed by FEMA this would not be one of those situations. So we are targeting our messages around debris pickup to the areas that we know were impacted and need that debris pickup Because we do not have the workforce to do that citywide So we we are making sure that messaging that needs to go to specific neighborhoods based on what we're seeing with the Street teams and on the ground is going to where it needs to go through the neighborhood Association newsletters and other communication tools That's great. Thank you and along with that through the neighborhood association newsletters and other communication tools. That's great, thank you. And along with that, I hope that there is some messaging going out regarding how to spot a scam because this type of season brings out some of the worst actors. And I think especially because we have folks dealing with this for the first time, it wouldn't hurt to have a little bit of messaging around that just to help people learn how to protect themselves. Well, definitely make a note of that. I know last week the county had a disaster housing workshop that I was out and they had some you know leave behind cards I'll call it that how you can check if a contractor is registered in license to do work and some other things that help people spot scams and so we'll connect and make sure we get those in the hands of people too that's a great idea. That's terrific. Thank you. And, Claude, thanks for going through those slides. I can't wait to get a copy of that so that I can share it and, you know, respond with facts to some of the misguided information that's out there right now. Thank you. Yes. Yes, guys. Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you Claude for the presentation and the update everyone was anxiously wanting to hear about what happened yesterday. I know that we all have heard from residents. I had the unfortunate task of I dropped off my daughter for dance yesterday at four o'clock. And then when I looked out my window, there was a huge storm happened. There's a river going down my street. And I had to get on the road, because they tell you don't get on the road, but I had to pick up my daughter. So I had to go towards Gandhi. And what I was wondering is, and I knew there was going to be flooding, is there a way, I mean, I tried to use ways to figure out where to go. I know that we get the updates on specifics, but is there a way to get something where you know specifically areas on a map that you can see? I'm a visual person, and so if I'm going to get on the road and there's a storm, is there a way to do that? And I don't know if there is, I'm just throwing it out there because there are people that were having to leave work. And that was just, you tell people, don't leave their house, but it's between five and six PM. Yep, Council Member Hannah Witts, I think this is a really, I'm a great safety point for us to talk about. PD does a great job in the middle of a rainstorm. They always update their social media right away with what streets they're seeing because they're in the field and seeing those. And then it gets shared through other platforms. And so I would encourage everybody to check that. I don't know about the map component. We'll have some further conversations. But one thing that I wanna mention based on what I saw in the field today, if it's flooded turn around, we saw so many cars in canals where and videos that I've seen from last night where people thought they were driving on the road and we could have lost lives from people just heading off into the canals. To my point, I agree with that. It would be helpful again. If there's a map, do not go into this area, because sometimes people find out a little too late. And sometimes people just don't make great decisions at that point when they stress or stress out, given the situation, I didn't go into one of those areas thankfully, but I'm just saying it would be helpful at some point to have some sort of maps somehow. But besides that, in terms of the historical records claw that we've been basing this information on, I feel like we were at a meeting before where historical records were mentioned and they were, those numbers are not measuring to what we're seeing lately, as you mentioned now. How are we using the updated information on these storms that are happening in their intensities, as opposed to just, I know we have to go by historical records, but if we're seeing a pattern in the last five years, let's say, how is that being used? So what we did for our stormowner master plan, we looked at what we believe the future rainfall events will be like as well as what the future sea level rise will be. And the sea level rise is important because all water on St. Pete eventually drains towards the bay or the Gulf The higher the bay and the Gulf is then the slower that Rainwater travels and so we need to be able to do our analysis and Come up with our plans based off of what we believe we're gonna be seeing in the future not on what we saw in the past Okay, okay. Well, thank you so much for the update. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Vice Chair Gertis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just clawed. I know lots of thank you. Thank you for all the work you and your team, the responsiveness, Amy, Sam, with Joe's on the phone with Joe multiple times today. Marshall, just everybody, PD, fire. It's pretty incredible and I know you're dealing with the eight of us and probably a few from that side of the building too and so just very, very appreciative. I did have one question, Claude. I know pre-named storms, we will lower lakes in anticipation. Is that a possibility? Did we do any of that? Did we think about doing any of that? That's really the one thing that caught me was, you know, certainly this year, I mean, we all experienced that lakes were at a significantly lower level. And then we've had this rainfall and they're back to normal slash even probably higher than some of them will be I'll speak specifically for the west side higher than they they are normally I'm just wondering if that's a part of the process is that something we should be looking at when we have this Saturation like we have in August and then we see that we might have a week like we just had is that something we might be able to do and Was at a conversation? So what we do right now is we have three lakes that we have the facility set up in order to be able to keep them pumped down during a storm. Two of them are in Riviera Bay, and those lakes were specifically designed for that purpose and they have dedicated permanent pump stations there. And the other is Lake Magori, which serves pretty much all the South St. Pete. And every summer we'll put a pump there that pumps around the weir, around the gate to make sure that Lake Magori is pumped out so we can absorb as much water as coming in as possible. The challenge with doing that with the other lakes is that oftentimes many of our interior lakes, if we drain that lake and we pump it out through our stormwater system, then it's gonna go to another lake further downstream. And so you're basically just compounding the problem further and further downstream. The reason why it works in Riviera Bay and Lake McGorrius because Lake McGorri we can pump it to Salt Creek, which goes out, you know, to Bayboro Bay. And then with Riviera Bay, which goes out you know to Bayboro Bay and then with with River Bay it goes right out into Tampa Bay. So we'll certainly look at it. I'm not confident or optimistic that we'll have a lot of opportunities to really do something with it. Okay. Again and I really try not to do this especially when we're talking about something city wide but I think that some of the lakes on the west side of St. Petersburg that flow to jungle creek or to Joe's Creek or even Walter Fuller that flows straight to the intercoastal. That might be an opportunity to help, especially when you look at that flood map and that pink that big pink ball on the west side. And so I'd be interested in it, but I totally appreciate that you don't want to push the problem down the system. And I certainly don't want to do that. But those coastal ones that are a little closer to areas where we can push them, I think it's at least something this couple last couple of weeks has made me think about it. But otherwise, just I'm just thankful for everything. Everybody is done, man. That's the point of this whole thing. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And seeing no further requests to speak. Thank you for the update and thank you all for all you've done. And we're going to hope today is a little bit better than yesterday. Thank you, Madam. We're going to go ahead and move on to open form. Mr. Clerk, can you please read the word? Ma'am, if you wish to address City Council on subjects rather than public hearing or cries out judicial, item to list it on the agenda, please sign up with the clerk. Only the individual wishing to speak may sign the open form sheet, only city residents, owners of property, business owners, in the city or their employees may speak. All issues discussed under open form must be limited to issues related to the city of St. Petersburg government. If you are speaking to an item on the agenda, you may only speak once. During the open form or when the item comes up on the agenda. In order to provide an opportunity for all citizens to address council, each individual will be given three minutes to speak and after which the microphone will be muted. If you wish to address city council through the Zoom meeting, you must use the raise hand feature button in the Zoom app or enter star nine on your phone at the time the agenda item is addressed. When it's your turn to speak, you will be unmuted and access state your name and address. At the conclusion of your comments or when you reach the three minute time limit, you will be muted. All raised hands will be lowered after each agenda item. Regardless of the method of participation used, normal rules apply, including the three minute time limit on comments, the requirement that any presentation materials must be submitted in advance of the meeting and the rules of the quorum. If live public comment is disrupted by violations of the rule of the quorum, the chair is authorized to accept the public comment by alternate means, including by email only and my chair. We do have some speakers. I'm calling them to at a time. Thank you. First two speakers, Madam Chair, Brad McCoy, and Trevor Petterfort. Please go to Ithaphodium, state's your name and address for the record, and you will have three minutes to address City Council. Hi, my name is Brad McCoy, 1856, Salmiri, Wei, South. Council members, today I'll discuss some urgent concerns that demand immediate action from you our elected Representatives findings from my two-month analysis of the city's transparency process show the city is currently non-compliant with Florida statute 119 regarding public disclosure and transparency Mayor Ken Welch and council chair Deborah fixaners have repeatedly failed to provide public records in a timely manner and often withholding requested information As of August 30th 2024 mayor Welch has 14 overdue and unanswered public record requests repeatedly failed to provide public records in a timely manner and often withholding requested information. As of August 30, 2024, Mayor Welch has 14 overdue and unanswered public record request. Councilmember Chair Fick Sanders has three overdue and unanswered request. And there are five requests overdue related to the bonuses. The city's records databases inconsistently managed with missing clarifications, inconsistent status, field updates, and incomplete responses. Of particular concern is the refusal to provide non-exempt cell phone records and the potential misshandling of public records on personal devices. Moving on to unaddressed conflicts. The Gertis family presents a serious conflict of interest. Robert Gertis negotiated the gas plant deal, his nephew Copley Gertis approved it and his brother, Charles Gertis, represented a party receiving 10 million from this deal. These three people are Father, Son, and Uncle. This is a clear conflict that demands investigation and immediate corrective action. Regarding the recent illegal bonuses, the mayor and others involved in awarding illegal bonuses have diverted funds from an already indebted water resources fund. Some employees appear to have received both overtime and bonuses, with potential raises still unclear to do to unfulfilled record requests. Alongside the potential for double and triple dipping in the cookie jar, these findings suggest possible finding financial mismanagement and misuse of public funds. Most unsettling is the fact that the city attorneys did not write a check to return the funds until after they were caught. I am calling for the following. One, a full fact that the city attorneys did not write a check to return the funds until after they were caught. I'm calling for the following. One, a full review of the city's transparency and public records processes to ensure compliance with state law and consistent use of all data fields within the database. Two, the immediate release of all overdue public record requests, especially those related to the bonuses. Additionally, an analysis of record request completion timing for 2024 is split out by the party providing records. Three, an investigation into conflicts of interest involving Council Chair Fixanders and Kobli Gurdas. Four, the creation of an ethics commission that does not have loyalty to anyone person and can take immediate action for ethics and transparency complaints. In your emails, you'll find a summary of my findings and I'll follow up later today with my requested actions. To the people listening today or watching from home, if you're coming forward as a whistleblower or have concerns about ethics and transparency with this administration, please contact me. There's a large number of anger taxpayers collaborating to fight this corruption and negligence. We have made great strides in recent weeks and we will continue to put pressure on this administration to do better. In conclusion, select individuals of this administration have marked the death of the democratic process for the city of St. Petersburg. I hope every member of this administration will take time to reflect on your actions and the actions of people around you and make changes we desperately need. Thank you. I Trevor Peta-Ford, 3036-4th Avenue North. Madam Chair and this Auguste Council, I wanted to come before you as a grateful citizen. The decision to run for public office is a difficult one. I know because my mother ran for public office and served in Dayton, Ohio. There's possibly no person more vetted, questioned, ridiculed, second guest, and targeted for my verbal attacks than a politician. Well, maybe a journalist, but I digress. ridiculed second-guest and targeted for my verbal attacks than a politician. Well, maybe I'll be a journalist, but I'd like to rest. I've had the honor and privilege of watching and covering you as a veteran journalist of 38 years. I want to thank you for your willingness first to sit on this dius and not in the seats. I want to thank you for making the tough decisions, realizing that they're not always perfect decisions, they're just tough decisions. And I want to thank you for following your conscience more than your constituency when you must decide what's best and set of what's popular or what's easy. A wise man once said, you can please, you can't please everyone, but you can please yourself by staying true to who you are. Don't waste your energy trying to win over people who will never truly appreciate you. Facing public criticism, scrutiny in this job is part of it. I know because I've strutnized you. But for anyone to make an obsession of constantly speaking and publishing this role, fang-toothed venomous words of criticism, I challenge them to publish two more most important words than that anyone could ever print for the public view. Put your first and last name on a ballot. Then you'll know what it's like to be in the hot seats instead of the cheat seats. Thank you. All right, I'll move on. Next to the speakers, please. Jean-Aid, I believe, around. Next to the speakers please. Janay, I believe it was Prebie and Paul Carter. Please go to Ithapodium. State your name and address for the record. And you have three minutes to address the council. My name is Janay Prebie. I live at 4047, 24th Avenue North in St. Petersburg. I'm the director of the Shines St. Petersburg mural festival for the St. Petersburg and the director of the Shrine St. Petersburg Mural Festival for the St. Petersburg Arts Alliance. I am here today to say thank you to all of you on City Council. I'm here to say thank you to Mayor Welch, Celeste Davis, Tracy Canard, and especially to Council Member Driscoll for being at the forefront of advocating for the arts in St. Pete. Your support sends an important message to the artists and the arts organizations that work tirelessly to make St. Petersburg not just a city that's functional, but a city that's thriving and lovable, not just livable. I am especially grateful to hear that the city is including shine and the efforts to restore the funds cut by the state. We lost 25,000 in grant funding from the state this year, and this is shine's 10th anniversary coming up in October. And I want to take a moment just to share what I've experienced through Shine because of the city support. We talk a lot about the economic impact of the arts. We know from a previous study that when people come out to see a Shine mural on average they're spending $67 a day at all the businesses that surround the murals, the restaurants, the bars, the cafes, the galleries, those are the places that are benefiting from the art in addition to the artist being paid. When you support shine, you're supporting a dynamic ecosystem of businesses and individuals with every dollar. Beyond the economic value, I can tell you from years of being out in the street during this event, these murals have been woven into the lives of our residents. I can't tell you how many people have told me I moved here because of the murals. This is my favorite part of St. Pete. This is why I'm here. This is what I love. This is my favorite time of the year. My kids got, people have told me they've gotten engaged in front of the murals. They did their wedding photos in front of the murals. They changed their route to work so that they can see the murals on their way. Every time this happens, people are forming an emotional connection with our city, and people that are more connected to their city are more likely to vote, more likely to volunteer, more likely to give of their time and their resources and their talents. These are the kind of residents I think we all would like to have. Lastly, as part of the city sponsorship of Shine, you all are entitled for a private mural tour. During Shine we have offered this every year and City doesn't ever take us up on it but we really would love for you to come on a tour. We can take you around and show you what your money and your support is really doing. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker please. Good afternoon. My name is Paul Carter. Live at 341 fifth street south in St. Pete. And I would just encourage you all to take Janay up on her offer. The murals are wonderful and the tour is great. So I've been before you on many occasions asking for something. And today I'm not doing that. I'm here to say thank you to the Council, to the Mayor, to administration, and particularly Council Member Driscoll for the incremental arts funding that you've approved. We talk about this as the city of the arts, and often it's just a kind of throwaway line, but I think you've made it really tangible by your action in terms of supporting the arts financially. So one big thank you much appreciated and we hope that we can make this permanent on a going basis. Thank you all. Thank you. Any more cards? We have one speaker. Zoom speaker about it here. Our, I think the field, are the field, are the field need better glasses? What's your inter-interimating space? Please enter your, state your name and address for the record and you have three minutes to address city council. Welcome to the Art of Field, I live at 1017, 930 Southeast South. I'm gonna respect, we disagree with that prior speaker's position that the majority of this council is displaying any ethics. Like the previous speakers said, I spent last night helping my friend clean out her business as it flooded uncontrollably. I'm sure there's hundreds of others just like her today who are dealing with sudden flooding that was ruining our homes, our cars, and our businesses with all the other skyrocketing costs of daily life, your constituents are dealing with constant devastating losses from a failing, underfunded infrastructure. It's really laughable. I want to take the chance again to congratulate everyone on the council who supported that brand new stadium deal. You really showed all these unfortunate citizens who were drying out their homes and businesses today that their well-being doesn't matter as much as handing over almost $2 billion to build a baseball stadium for an $1 billion air. As an added bonus, now every week brings a new disgraceful wrinkle to the public theft that everyone just supported. Councilman Gertis, special kudos to you for your ace negotiation skills. Apparently you extracted what amounts to a pinky promise from the developers to build that promise Black History Museum. So of course, now they're refusing to fully fund their share. Great job on that Councilman. You and the mayor just designated the legacy of the gas plant community for a second time. Congratulations. And while we're at it, Councilman and supposed, mayoral hopeful, Driscoll, who just mentioned quote, had a spot of scam. In light of the museum funding news, I'm sure you can totally reassure the rest of us that the team will absolutely definitely follow through on those demands you made to build a daycare and a grocery store. Maybe you need to take your own advice on falling for scams and recognizing them. And finally, it was really amusing last week to hear the Lone GOP Council member Ed Montenerry go all top-done Maverick with indignation over the story on those $250,000 bonuses paid to city employees. Ed, you just voted to hand over 6,000 times that much to a multi-billionaire without a seagully, legally binding demand for profit sharing or relocation restrictions. It would be nice if you would just stop play acting like you're some fiscally conservative budget hawk. There's hundreds of families driving through flooded streets every time we get a storm. You've just shown them you're totally unfit to represent them. I'd like to finally thank Council members Hanowitz, Floyd and Mohammed. I'd want to thank you all three of you for showing what true ethics and integrity looks like on this vote. The citizens of St. Petersburg really need to demand more qualified and honest officials like you to represent us. Thank you. Next speaker, Stacia Strader and Leslie Kerr and please go to I the podium. States your name and address for the record and you have three minutes to address the council. Hello, councilwoman Figsanders and council. I am here to actually thank you. And get your name in address. Yes, I'm sorry. I'm Stacey Schrader. I live at 692, 10th Avenue South in Rosia Park. I am the current chair of the city's Public Arts commission. I am a founding and board member still, committee member for Shine the mural festival. I am also a board member for the Florida craft art on Central Avenue. And for my profession, I'm a vice president of our local community bank Bay First. I'm here to thank you for the economic driver of the arts in St. Pete. Cultural tourism is three times, I believe, above just a beach tourist that will come to Artown. So we have built St. Pete on the arts. And when I think of sustainability, I think of sustaining our economy with the arts. When the state pulled back, I went to my own corporation, I said we need more funding. I hold the companies that I work for accountable to give money locally. And we've been able to come up with more money. My civic responsibility, if I've got extra money in my checking account, I spend it locally. I just choose it to spend in the arts. And I want to thank you for digging deeper to find funding to keep our economy moving and our city as Special as it is it will continue to to drive people moving here and give you money to Within the tax coffers to help solve some of our bigger problems. So thank you Thank you Hi good afternoon. I'm Leslie Curran. one, two, three, four. Dr. Martin Luther came Jr. Street North. Thank you for the opportunity to speak this afternoon. The speakers before me of course alluded to a lot of what I wanted to talk about. I want to thank you for the proposed 1% allocation, which really is modest compared to the economic and oneless benefits that was reported in the American for the art study. Thank you to Council Member Driscoff for really spare-heading this and for everybody else to realize the importance of like what Stacia was just talking about, the economic eco, the tourism, the cultural tourism, the really this city is in the midst of. It's important to recognize that the arts encompass both nonprofit and for-profit sectors. While nonprofits often rely on government funding, for-profit art businesses contribute equally to our vibrant art scene and receive no such support. We look to the city to create a conducive, safe environment for all art related enterprises and increasing the arts budget could enhance our city's ability to market itself more effectively. St. Peter's latest solid foundation for thriving arts community, but we need to elevate that and take it up a notch for all kinds of arts. Visual, performance, musical, having buyers is the crucial link. Whether, you know, if we have affordable housing and studio space for artists, that's important, but without a market for their works or buyers, you know, those resources really fall short. I think we need a strategic marketing plan to attract national and international buyers, collaborating with Visit St. Pete Clearwater on a major ad campaign could be a great step. While our beaches are the major draw, we also pride ourselves as being the city of the arts. For instance, setting up a booth at Art Basel, I think we've discussed this for a number of years, a simple task that could help us connect our patrons and collectors, but also integrate some of the artists that come in for that event to this area. The arts community consistently supports each other and those in need. And now it's time for the city to support its artists and arts businesses, whether it's for profit or non-profit. If we don't, we risk losing our claim as the city of the arts. So thank you for the proposed 1% and hopefully that will continue to grow and we can really bring in the market that so many of the artists need to get the buyers that are so important to their livelihood. Thank you. Thank you. Next year please. Excuse me. Final two speakers, Madam Chair. Sandra Anthony and Math Widener, please go to I the podium. State your name and address for the record. And you have three minutes to address the council. Good afternoon. My first time here, I hope my last. I'd rather be at the raise game today. And I wouldn't have been here today had I not call the offices just to, oh sorry, Sandra Anthony, 50135th Avenue, Northeast. I wouldn't be here today had I not called the office to express my concern about what was happening in my neighborhood. And I just thought maybe with my voice and I don't have prepared statements so I'm just speaking extemporaneously. The only time I've ever put any tickets in the click-it app was for mosquitoes but recently about two months ago I put in because the storm drain right outside on my street was flooding and not draining. I put in the first ticket, gave it a couple weeks, nothing happened, I put in a second ticket, gave it a couple weeks, nothing happened. And so I called at that time in August, mid August, and I was told that you know it was acknowledged but it was still pending. So I appreciated today's presentation, and I'm hoping that today I'm still on that pending list because nothing has happened. In fact, sometimes that water sits for about two weeks and doesn't dry out. I've been here since 2018. Something's wrong. It has never been like this. We've been through all the hurricanes, all the storms, and even in my first while I was waiting in my first submission, I said even with a little bit of rain, something is happening here. A couple of weeks ago there was a crew that was there. I thought they were here from the town to fix what I thought was the drain, but they were there to fix a sewer pipe. I ran over and I thanked them for coming and I just showed them and he says, no, no, we're not here for that we're here for the sewer that storm and he goes that's normal that's from full full moon. I said no no no it's never been like this. Our neighbors have been putting in as well to the app. My fear is that something is wrong and someone thinks that it's normal. And so I guess I wanted to come today just to share my concern. First maybe just to take the opportunity to thank you. We love being here. We love St. Pete. And I thank you for your service for everything that you're doing. I think I just wanted to have you humbly hear my voice that some things are wrong in my neighborhood. I was told I was district four today. I was transferred to a voice mail. I didn't leave my voice that something's wrong in my neighborhood. I was told I was district four today. I was transferred to a voice mail. I didn't leave a voice mail. But sitting here, I think I'm even district three. I don't even know. All I know is I have a lot of mosquitoes. And I don't like my water bill. I really like my taxes, actually. And I appreciate the work. But something's wrong. I'm gonna continue to follow up to see if something does fix. You know, if somebody comes and I'm hoping a month's still that list, but if someone doesn't come to fix that storm drain, I think I'm gonna come back because something's really wrong. I just think it's a lot. Thank you. We got you. Thank you. Thank you for everything. Thank you so much. Yes, sir. Ma'am. Thank you so much for coming out today I'll have staff follow up with you directly Yes, sir, maybe not just madam chair. Thank you so much. My name is Matthew widen your own property just across the lake They're at 250 mirror lake. I wanted to come before you to talk about two cases circuit court and an appellate court case They're gonna have a dramatic impact on how y'all practice for the rest of your careers. Just a couple weeks ago, I watched when staff explained to you about the Florida Gulf Coast case. That's right here in front of us. And I was compelled to come before you because I heard lots of questions that you folks were asking. And the best answer to the questions is in what I'm going to give to the clerk and I urge you to read the cases. Read what the Appellate Court said when it bumped it back down here. These are three learned judges who heard everything. And I think you folks really should pay attention to the case. Read it carefully. But when circuit court and the Appellate Court judges start telling us that what we're doing is unconstitutional, that's a big warning force that we should all be paying real careful attention to. That's the first case. The most important part about, though, and the most important question that wasn't asked, I was waiting for somebody to ask, it was, well, what's the impact? And that's this order right here out of this case. This is the order granting attorney's fees. So the question out of council in all these cases has to be, hey, what's this going to cost us? And the answer to the question is, I don't know, 500,250,000. If I had to testify an expert and look at five years worth of litigation going back and forth, we're all going to write a check for that. And I come before you to ask as legislators to pay attention to this stuff early on and pay attention to this case because there's a lesson there when the judges are saying unconstitutional, that means something. The second case is even more fascinating and really interesting, liberty, hospitality versus city of Tampa. This case is a mind-blowing and really interesting case. What it says essentially is that the legislative branch cannot sit in a quasi judicial capacity and I want all y'all to think about your careers and I want you to think about that the legislative branch cannot sit in a quasi-judicial capacity. And I want all y'all to think about your careers. And I want you to think about when someone who might have come up to you along the way, instead of want to talk to you about something. And you said, can't talk to you. I've been told this is quasi-judicial, and so no matter what it is, I'm not talking to you. What the judge over in Hillsborough County says is legislative judicial executive branch. There's no such thing as quasi-judicial for elected officials. I've been talking to some of the brightest people we all know. We all know they're the smartest ones that have sat in those very seats. And they say, you know what? That very concept is something that I struggled with. In fact, one said that is the concept I struggled with most. How can I be an elected official that is not permitted to talk to the people that I represent about a certain subject because someone's told me it's quasi-judicial? What Liberty says is, your legislators, your most important job is to listen to the people that you represent. It's going to be heard in that courthouse right across the street because it's been appealed. But I want you to think about that going forward I want you to think about the concept of quasi judicial and your most important job to always be listening to the people that you're representing Thank you Thank you so much no more speakers no more speakers I'm what after Since we have no more speakers and no requests to speak I wanted to Allow from a legal perspective I want to ask our assistant city attorney, Janine Williams, as well as our city clerk champion of Oster to speak on behalf of public records request. So I don't know who's going to go first, but I think we need to kind of clarify some things in regards to public records requests. Based on open form comment. Well, general. How does the process actually work? Well, that's a mouthful. But in general, for public records requests that are received by the city of St. Petersburg, they're coordinated through the Clarks office unless they're sent to an individual department who has all of the records that are requested in that public records request. So if all records are within a department that department may respond on its own, however, if the records come from several departments, then the city clerk is going to coordinate the response. If the city clerk is going to coordinate the response. If the records request is less than 30 minutes of time to respond to, then that record request will be put together and responded to you by the city clerk's office. If it's more than 30 minutes according to policy, then the public record request will receive a cost estimate. And that cost estimate must be paid before records are provided. If the records are, if the cost estimate is paid for, then the records are produced. And that production doesn't begin until the cost estimates are paid. If the cost estimates are not paid, then eventually the public records request is closed out after some time without payment. Okay. Thank you. Did you want to add anything to that? She pretty much covered everything. There's multiple methods that we can't receive public records. It's not just necessarily through our GOV QA system. It can be done through email, it can be done through phone call, it can be done through walk-in, it can be done through email, can be done through phone call, can be done through walk-in, can be done anonymously. So there's multiple facts as how public records can be received. And we do adhere to Fort State Statute, 119 as well as our administrative policy, as it relates to not only providing public records request, but the production of records as Attorney Williams indicated. If a request exceeds more than 30 minutes, we provide cost estimates to those requesters. Oftentimes they go unpaid. If those cost estimates are not paid, we don't release those records or have staff begin the production of those records because the production doesn't begin until those fees have been paid. All I have to add to it, is there something else that you want us to address? No, I was just interested in making sure that the constituents that are listening understand that you just don't request a public-tracker request and don't pay it if it's over 30 minutes and without receiving that public records request is negligent on the city. You had to pay for it. The public requests over 30 minutes are not free. And I was interested when I saw that as a city government, we received 25 to 35,000 public requests annually. So there's a reason for us having to estimate and guarantee payment of time. So thank you. I just wanted to clarify that. And so now we're going to go ahead and close open form and move to our new ordinances beginning with item E1 and E2. Can they be presented and we'll just do E1 first. Clerk, can you please read the title for E1? Individually. Individually? Okay. Madam Chair, propose ordinance 597H. In the ordinance, repealing division 8 of Article 5, Section 2-268 through 2-270 of the city code relating to major construction project requirements for employing disadvantaged workers and providing an effective date. Public hearing for this particular ordinance is on October 3rd, 2024. Move, Crowell. Second. Okay, now there's been post, now that this has been properly motioned and seconded, I was seeing no further requests to speak. Can you please open the machine for voting? Council members, please cash your votes. Seeing that our president council members have voted, can you please tell in and outs the votes? Madam Chair, the motion to approve agenda item E1 passes unanimously with Council member Muhammad Dean absent. Thank you, Clerk, can you please read the title for E2 please? I'm Chair proposed ordinance number 598H. In ordinance repealing Division 7 of Article 5, Section 2-261 through 2-264 of the city code relating to major construction project requirements for employing apprentices and providing an effective date. The public here for this is also October 3rd, 2024 and we do have one card, Madam Chair. Thank you. James Johnson, please go to either podium, state your name and address for the record and you have three minutes to address City Council. Good afternoon. Members. My name is James Johnson. I live at 2 390-14000 Southwest in Largo, Florida. Thank you, Attorney Jeanine Williams, for saying me today. Having skilled construction workers to fulfill the needs of our ever growing state is coming on to attack by the number of skilled laborers retiring. They're retiring in far greater numbers than those applying. So there is a shortage and will be an even greater shortage in the coming years. The repealing of this ordinance is unfortunate, but I'm told that it's preempted by the state. That's politics. The city may no longer dictate who contractors hire, where they hire them from, nor how much they pay them. But the Verbidge and Florida statute 255.092, regarding prohibited governmental actions pertaining to public works projects does not necessarily prohibit the city from having a preference of having apprentices employed by contractors and their request for proposals. This will still promote the use of apprentices and public works projects, but give the contractors more say in how the work is completed. Because I must say, having requirements of the current ordinance seem a bit exhausting and unfair for contractors. While training apprentices is a very important task, telling a person how they must run their business is confining. I will say the city is doing a fantastic job in employing apprentices participating in apprenticeship programs and even providing apprenticeship opportunities for the youth. Thank you guys for keeping up with good work and again thank you go turn in Jeannine Williams for seeing me today. Thank you so much. I'm moving forward. It's been approved, we need a second. Second. Thank you. Now that I have no further requests to speak and it's been properly motioned and seconded, can you please open the machine for voting for E2 please? Council member, ask your votes. Seeing that our president council member, so voted can you please tell you an announcement? Madam Chair, the motion to approve agenda item E2 passes unanimously. Thank you so much. So now we're going to move on to our legal item and joining us as Assistant City Attorney Mr. Brett Pettigrew in regards to potential charter amendments concerning the City Council and marijuana vacancies and update and request for referral to committee on the hold. How are you, Attorney? Doing well, thank you, Chair. Vice Chair, members of Council, excuse me while I raise this up a bit. Didn't say it would be fast. There we go. Thank you very much. So this item started as a new business item in October of 2022 to discuss potential changes to charter provisions governing vacancies on city council including elimination of the appointment process to have all city council vacancies filled through a special election. What followed was three meetings of the Public Services and Infrastructure Committee in July of 23, November of 23 and March of 24. Those three meetings culminated in an action item recommending that Council refer to a cow, two amendments related to the appointment process for council vacancies, one related to the voting threshold, and the other related to not making an appointment during the regular election cycle for the vacant position. Before council had voted on that PS and I action item, the city attorney's office identified an issue related to the mayoral vacancy process, which had not been part of the discussion up until that point related to the timeline that was inconsistent with what the supervisor of elections indicated that they would accommodate. So the City Attorney's Office recommended that issue be added to the referral. All three items were referred to a cow that met on April 18, 2024 to discuss those two amendments from PSNI and the one recommended by our office. At the conclusion of that discussion of the cow, the City Attorney's Office was requested to draft a referendum ordinance addressing the three amendments referred to the cow and another amendment that would add a special election process for council vacancies that were not filled through an appointment during the 45-day window. So putting all of that together, the ordinance that was requested, the charter amendment that was requested, would have simplified the mayoral vacancy filling process by eliminating a special election component and filling the mayoral vacancy through the next regular municipal election cycle. Depending on the timing of that vacancy and whether a runoff was required, the city administrator would serve in the capacity of acting mayor for a period of three to 29 months. For council members, the vacancy filling process for would be modified as follows. To avoid making an appointment during the most active period of the regular election cycle for the vacant position appointments would be prohibited during that period and the position would be left open until the winner of the election cycle was appointed to fill the vacancy. The window to make an appointment would be maintained at 45 days but the threshold for voting would be raised to a super majority. And because raising that threshold would increase the likelihood that an appointment was not made, a fallback option was added so that if no appointment occurred during the 45 day period, City Council would then call a special election to fill the vacancy with the timing and structure dependent determined at that time. Depending on the timing of the vacancy, that special election, how quickly that could occur, the council vacancy would exist for a period of six to 29 months. The briefing materials said three to 29. I inadvertently included the mayoral timing for that. It would actually be closer to six when you factor in the 45-day window for appointments, negotiation with a supervisor, and the 90-day window that the supervisor would need to get spun up for the election. I apologize for that inadvertent typo. In any event, after receiving that direction from the cow, our office worked to draft a textual amendment to effectuate all of those changes and identified other related issues, which is our practice. Those included addressing related amendments that would address temporary vacancies and the Office of Marin Council Chair. Vacancies related to the resign to run process, extraordinary vacancies of three or more council members, and notice and other considerations for calling a special election. After developing a robust draft of the textual changes to the charter that would effectuate all of those amendments, several items of concern became apparent. For the amendments requested by the cow, there were outstanding policy questions related to special elections primarily, questions of the type that would normally be addressed at the committee level. The related amendments were significant enough that they would ordinarily be discussed at a committee, and taken together this package of amendments would likely be better addressed through multiple referendum questions, which is also something that would be discussed at committee. And with that in mind, our office informed council that rather than bringing back the requested ordinance, we would provide a report on this matter and respectfully request direction, including referral back to a cow for further discussion. With that, I thank you for your attention, and I welcome the council's questions. Thank you. Council member Gavry. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you so much, Brett, for all of your hard work on this. I've said it before. I don't know if I should thank you or say I'm sorry, because myself and Council member Hanowitz were the co-sponsors of this item. It isn't often that we have an item that not only has two sponsors but also goes through quite as many committees as this has to still not have a resolution. And I just feel like there's still so many questions that are answered, unanswered. The fact that this process has not only brought about the conversation on the council vacancies, but also the issue with the mayoral vacancies and all of the housekeeping items that you also have brought forward to us. It's my opinion that this exercise is worthy of continuing to move forward with, but timing is everything. And so I really feel like I'm hopeful that Council will look to move this to a committee of the whole per your recommendation but that we can take it up maybe towards the end of next year because it'll be 2026 before we can actually put this on a ballot anyway. So with that I will go ahead and move that City Council move this item to a committee of the whole to be heard No sooner than in January or December of 2025 Okay So okay, we do have motion has been properly seconded councilmember drisco Thank you. I I can support this There are parts of this that I think are definitely a need of change. There are other parts that I have some concerns about. We have been talking about this for a long time, and there are still multiple issues that need to be worked out. And it's actually for that reason that I don't know that we want to put this off for over a year before we talk about it again. So I mean I think it should go to committee to talk about what we have. I don't want the City Attorney's Office to do more on this. I do think it's worthy of a committee discussion so that we can pick it apart when it comes to referendums. It's something that's very serious. We want to make sure that we're bringing something on that is easily understood and that will truly improve our city charter. So I mean, I'll vote yes on this, but I, it would be unfortunate that we would wait that long to discuss this again as a group. I can have a one-on-one and let Brett know what I think if we actually already have. I think we should keep it fresh until we've got it right. And I think it's worth taking as long as it's taken for us to get this far. We could keep talking about it and it'll still be like under the wire to get it on the 2026 ballot. So I'll vote yes, but I wanted to put in my two cents on the timing because I think we might want to rethink that. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Hannones. We've opened up Handoora's box. My mind spins just like thinking about all the issues that have been brought up. And then it spins even more when I think that we are going to have possible new people on city council to deal with this issue. Fresh! We've been having the conversation for a long time and it's you know my concern is at this point where they're going to be people on City Council that have no idea what this issue is, in terms of a delay, is that where we wanna go, versus the people that already know what's happening, that we've been dealing with this, just deal with it, and figure it out. And that's where I'm kind of having a hard time. I don't know if there's an easy answer to this. I think this is, it's going to be a lot no matter how we slice it or dice it. We've opened up something that there are things that probably need to be addressed that are in our charter that have to be clear. Elections are important. Appointments are important and I'd be happy to hear from councilmember Gabbard whether or not like what's her thought process in terms of putting out that long versus doing it sooner during now so but I'm happy I think we just have to do this however if it's now or later. So thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Gavard, if I can, mm-hmm. I'm looking at, we have about four more cows before the end of the year. Okay. And I'm looking to see if we would have additional time to add this discussion, because December 2025 is a little bit far out. If the motion stands and I will support it, I will do my best to move it sooner. If that's okay. May I? Yes, please, Council Committee. So the rationale of the timing came from a one-on-one Breton I had earlier this week. And we kind of batted this around. What makes sense timing wise? Recognizing that we will have a new council here very soon. And I think aren't naive enough to think that we can bring this in for a landing and one more meeting. I think that it is going to take more than that, unfortunately. We do have other business that we have to get done, so I appreciate the offer to bring it this year, Madame Chair, and if that is the will of the body, so be it. I think the reasoning for the later in the year of next year is because we will have new council members, and we all remember what it was like to be new. I mean mean you're drinking from a fire hose anyway and so I wanted to be respectful of them and give them enough time to really get their feet wet just doing the job before we bring something back of this caliber. So that was the rationale, that was kind of what I came up with after my conversation with Brett. As long as we talk about it again and we keep it moving forward because to Councilmember Hanowitz's point, there's nothing more important than making sure that the process under our charter gives people the ability to be able to choose their representatives whenever possible. And so I'm open to a change on the date. I threw the date in there because of our conversation, but I'm like I said, I just want to make sure the conversation stays moving forward. We have a motion and it's been probably seconded with that date. So that will be my effort to get it done sooner, unless you want to amend your motion, but I think you will get approval on as it stands now. So it's okay to do it. Okay, so my motion was no sooner than December 2025. So that's my motion and it was seconded, so we'll. Seconded. Yeah. Okay, Council member Drisco. Thank you, so by voting yes, we're saying that we we are agreeing not to talk about it. No center. No sooner than not to talk about it right for a year. That's fine. All right. Thank you. Okay. This has been motion in a properly seconded. Can you please open the machine for voting? In that our president council members have voted can you please tell in an ounce of votes? Madam chair the motion to approve agenda item I1 Passes unanimously with council member Muhammad bean absent. Thank you. Thank you. Yes enjoy your vacation, Brad Might take me that long to distill and consolidate the more than 100 pages I've already presented on this topic and I'm just going to digestible for the next cow. I will see you before that, however. Thank you. We'll see. How big the beard is. I know. If it's good to give for that. Now we're going to next. We're going to move to our report. I announce the beginning with F2 and F2 we're being joined by our Transportation and Parking Management Director, Mr. Evan Moore. How are you, Mr. Moore? Doing very well. Thank you, Chair. Members of the Council, thank you for the introduction. I'm here with good news. We can celebrate winning a grant, another grant from Ford Penelos. Just a little bit of information about this grant type. It's a complete streets and local government assistance grant program. They have two funding categories, a planning or concept planning and a construction. And we usually go for both every year. Sometimes we might go for one or the other. The best thing about the concept planning is that when we win one of these awards, when we're granted one of these awards The money's available almost immediately Whereas for construction you have to wait about six years because it has to go into the CIP program So fortunately we're gonna be able to get going on this study very soon if council approves it today and Just a little history. We've been very successful with this program since four panelists rolled it out about six years ago. Chelsea Feveros here with four panelists, I just consulted with her and she said I can not only celebrate that we're the most winning municipality or government entity within Penales County, but our awards surpass all the other ones combined. So only being a quarter of the population or so and having the majority of the funding speaks to, you know, our team as well as the administration's leadership and council support. So thank you for that. The program is changing moving forward. It's gonna be a little bit more broad so we could go for similar concepts or we can go for more different things in the future and they're also adding funding to it. So more to come moving forward. Actually, this is not the first time that we applied. We did not win funding the first time we applied for 31st Street. So we took the advice that they gave us for how we could improve the application. We came back again and this time we were successful. So for Penales Board has already approved these funds for us and it's a $100,000 award. The study would develop concepts for continuous bike and pedestrian accommodations, identify safety and operational improvements, but also maintaining travel time reliability for people driving motor vehicles. Recommended list of prioritized projects would be an outcome of the study, and we're using one of the on-call consultants that Ford Panell panelists has already acquired through competitive procurement. So 31st Street is unique. It's a unique corridor. It extends all the way to Penalist Point and South St. Petersburg. It connects up to the Sun on our corridor and points north of that. It is, you know, it touches, as you can see on the right side, we've got a lot of plans that touch this area. And we also really consider it needing improvement in part due to the isolation that I-275 creates here for East West connection. We will have a community engagement plan that goes into this so we can get buy-in from the community. We have some of that already interest from the community and making changes here as you can see where we have letters of support from these three different entities. We have a lot of other things to do. Back to one of our hotspot maps that you've seen before on other corridors. 31st street itself is not part of our Hay and Dree network but we do have some high-endery intersections here. In fact, the intersection of 31st street and 54th avenue south. Currently we have had more crashes at this intersection than any other section in the whole city. So we will need to take a look at that as well as longitudinally. There's no continuous dedicated infrastructure for bicyclists along 31st street that meets current standards and I'll show you a couple pictures in a minute. We do also have an opportunity and opportunity to improve connections with the Penales Trail, Skyway Trail and Sunrunner. And I would also point out that the southern part of this is not generally thought to be in the Skyway Marina District, but we do have a south planning area of the Skyway Marina District and 31st Street from 54th down to Penales Point is part of that. And some of the ideas there are to connect that portion with the rest of the Skyward Marina District. So we were awarded $100,000 and the local match will be $55,000, $50 to $55,000. And so for Penales is covering about two thirds of the cost and the city will cover a third. So this is a good example of leveraging limited resources for more effective outcomes. And these pictures notice in the center picture that we actually have made some improvements on 31st Street through a project in cooperation with FDOT This is the intersection where the interstate on and off ramp interact with 31st Street We've been able to add some green paint. We've improved a crossing and so this section's already been improved But if you look at some of the other ones, the picture on the far right is the southern most section of 31st Street. And what kind of looks like a bike lane on the right is actually a marked shoulder. It doesn't meet the minimum standards to be a bike lane. So we don't call it a bike lane. We actually don't put any bike emblems in that striped area, and that's why there's a sign there that says, share the road because we don't want to require people to ride in that bike lane when it doesn't meet the width that we'd really like to have. So we'd like to get that studied and reviewed. We, some people think that we have a trail on the west side of 31st Street, north of 54th, but it's also 8 foot wide and we can't call it a trail unless it's 10 foot wide because the 8 foot doesn't really serve the purpose. So that's really just a wide sidewalk and not a trail. So a lot of things that we could look at through this corridor and we'd like to get moving on it and therefore I ask for council's approval on the resolution. Move approval. Second. Thank you. Vice Chair Grotis. Thank you Madam Chair. Can we go back to the last slide please? I'm all in favor of this very happy about it, but I'll be honest with you that sign with how the lane is marked is confusing. Like I would definitely would have thought, share the road meant that's my bike lane. So I just throwing it out there for future use on how that's, it would make way more sense that that white line wasn't there and then that sign said, share the road. That to me is confusing and I bike on our streets all the time. So I'm glad that there's some space, but that makes it seem like share the road because you have your space in the car has its own. Just from like somebody that doesn't deal with this every day, right? Like, I mean, this is... That's why the picture on the right and the picture on the left are the way that we don't think that it should be in the future. Yeah. The picture in the middle is something that looks good that's designed to current standards that we like. So we would not design something like you see in the picture on the right anymore. That's a very old design and it's something that we plan on fixing and getting away from. We're not even using sure the road on anything new anymore. We use bike may use full lane. OK, there you go. All right, that makes me feel better that if we're doing anything that we're not doing that. That's really all right. No, perfect. Thank you. Because just from like a non-engineering planning standpoint, that's confusing. So I'm glad to hear that we're doing something different other than that that that is super helpful thank you I mean this is awesome great job thank you councilmember driscoll thank you and thanks for all the work that you have put in on this and thank you to Ford Pinellas who is represented here today by Chelsea job. I can't wait to see the results from this. Yeah, Vice-Sharger just made a great point about that. The skinny. It's like, share the road and be super skinny. Like, squish it, you know, and it doesn't need but today we know that it doesn't need to be that way and the work that you're doing is going to help make it make it so much safer for people to get around my bike and for the drivers who need to be able to coexist with them to get a skin. Oh my goodness. Suck it in, Gartis. Okay, seeing no more requests to speak. And it's been motioned in a properly second. Can you please open the scene for vote and for up to? Councillor Mimba's please cast your votes. Seeing that all present Councillor Mimba's have voted. Can you please tally and announcer votes. Madam Chair the motion to approve agenda item F2 passes unanimously with council member Muhammad Bean absent. Thank you. Now we're going to move to F3 which is a resolution approving a supplemental appropriation of $1 million from the unappropriated balance of the opioid settlement proceeds to fund to the housing and Housing and neighborhood services administration and joining us is our Senior Operations Analyst, Ms. Jess, right now. How are you? Great, how are you? Great. All right. Good afternoon, Chair and Council. Council member, sorry, Jess Fidel. I heard to talk with you today about the opioid settlement and funds grant program. So to give you a brief history about how we got here in 2018 and 2019, the city signed on to several lawsuits against prescription opiate manufacturers, distributors and retailers for their role in the opioid epidemic. So all the lawsuits in the U.S. were centralized into one court in Ohio and then fell under one overarching litigation effort, the National Prescription Opiate Litigation. So the state brought their local governments together and that whole process culminated in the state of Florida's statewide response agreement being signed in November 2021 which outlines how the dollars are allocated through the state through state regional and local buckets of funding So that statewide response agreement outlines several guidelines for using these dollars with the overarching rule being that All settlement dollars must be used to fund opioid education, treatment, and prevention strategies. So the full statewide agreement was in the backup and you probably noticed Exhibits A and B, which outline the approved uses that the state has set forth. All expenditures must fall under one of those approved uses. It's a pretty long and varied list, but we must use the dollars in those ways. The Department of Children and Families is now overseeing this whole process and has convened the statewide council on opioid abatement as required by Florida Statue and we do have local representation on that council with Commissioner Peters being appointed to the Florida League of Counties. So for us, the city will receive approximately $6 million spread over a period of 18 years. The amount we receive every year varies depending on the settlement payment schedule for each company. To date we've received about 1.084 million dollars in some change and you can see on the slide there the variety between the years, receiving about $300,000 in FY23, and then almost $800,000 this fiscal year. We have not spent any dollars to date, which is why we're here today, bringing this grant program forward to start getting dollars out the door now that we have that pool of money to work with to start funding these needed initiatives. So to ground us in kind of what the needs are here locally, I wanna share some data with you. In 2022, there were 597 accidental overdose deaths in Penel's County, 80% of which were caused by opioids. This dot you see around usually is that means one person died from an overdose every 14 hours in Penel's County. I do want to add a caveat quickly about the data bank from 2022, which sounds like it's outdated. The 2022 official numbers were released in January of this year. It's on a very delayed schedule to receive the official numbers. So we did recently receive the interim 2023 medical examiners report that covers January to June 2023, but we just got that like a month ago. And so it's all just on a kind of delayed schedule. So I wanted to share that with you all. But the NRM 2023 report does show that overall statewide overdose is an overdose death has decreased, which is great news. But however, fentanyl continues to be the most prevalent drug causing overdose deaths. And also there's been an increase in the newer drugs eye-losing being present in individuals after an overdose death as well. In 2021, again, this being the most recent data for this marker, Penel's County was ranked the highest, meaning the worst in the state on their opioid index and vulnerability index. And these represent increased adverse outcomes from opioid use and also represent a higher need for additional services and supports compared to other counties in the state. And that's a state dashboard metric that they use. And I'll share a bit about what the county is doing as well. So, Penales County receives county funding, just like we're receiving city funding, but they also manage the regional bucket of funds. And as part of that oversight, they were required to convene the opioid abatement funding advisory board or the OFAB as they call it. And we do a local representation there too with St. Pete Fire Rescue Division Chief Wilmac before and now Chief Judah serving on that board. And to start the process of identifying their funding strategy for that regional bucket of funding they procured a gap analysis to identify needs and gaps in the county. And I've listed a few high-level takeaways here that I'll share. There's a need for more targeted awareness campaigns specifically around reducing stigma, affordability, weightless, and not knowing where to go for help. Our major barriers to care for folks who want to access services, harm reduction strategies need to be scaled including the locks on distribution efforts. This is the opioid overdose reversal drug, also known as NARCAN. Education about goods merit in laws, access to fentanyl testing strips, and service programs. Peer specialist should be included in services more often as a best practice. And also housing options have limited capacity and also sometimes place barriers on residents who are receiving medication assistance to treatment or MAT, which is a medically accepted best practice for treatment, but some programs do not allow people who are on MAT to enter their programs. So all of this has led to what we're seeking approval for today, which is the opioid support grants program. We will award up to a total of $1 million, be a grant-making cycle. We'll have two tiers of funding available for applicants. Tier one is up to $25,000, and tier two is up to $100,000. This is set up this way to allow for a variety of organization sizes and capacities, as well as project sizes and scopes. And organizations can apply to both tiers, as long as they are applying under separate projects, not applying to both tiers for the same project. We are prioritizing proposals that include these priority areas here, respite housing, harm reduction, peer support, with an overall focus on filling service or resource gaps in the community that are not being funded by other sources and scaling programs that we know works we can increase that impact. This is what we've heard from stakeholders as needed areas specifically, which is also underscored by the findings I shared previously from the county's gap analysis. Applicants will be nonprofit 501-C3 organizations who have a history of serving St. Pete residents and also all of these grant dollars will be spent specifically on St. Peter's Board residents. As far as next steps go we're seeking y'all's approval today from council. The application will be open for approximately 45 days and then we will follow our typical city grants process where the review committee scores applications then comes together publicly for final determinations. We'll bring this selected applicants back to y'all on consent for approval, execute agreements, and the performance period will be approximately February, 2025 through a year through January, 2026. With invoicing and reporting due to the city and the state and also impact reporting, we'll share with council. That's all I have for you today and happy to answer any questions. Thank you so much. Thank you, Seeing no acquiesces. Okay. Councilmember Monteneering. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Jess, for the report. I do have a couple of questions. And I remember going back, I guess it was 2018, Jane and I had a lot of meetings on this. And Jane, if I recall, you were leading the city's effort to get this funding. Can you kind of just do a quick refresher for me? When did you first get involved? This has been going on for many years. The city originally became involved when the city retained outside council to become involved in the opioid litigation that was going on throughout the country. I've come to you several times on this over the years. The first time was to get the permission to hire the outside council and the lawsuits were brought. There was a time period when they were trying to figure out since there were so many governmental entities that were involved, how they would even begin to fashion any kind of a situation that would create finality to these lawsuits. And I came back to you with the state agreement to approve for the city to be part of the state structure That was going to dictate how the funding came through that was the structure that set up these three buckets one is the state bucket One is the regional bucket and one is the city bucket state approximately getting 50% Regional getting 35% in the city, getting 15%. Through part of that, there were requirements for the counties, the way the regional buckets were set up. If counties met certain requirements in population, having an opioid task force, and some other things, they were allowed to become a qualified county and oversee the regional bucket. And another thing that I brought to you was an agreement that we negotiated with the county, also with Pinellas Park and Clearwater, who were also litigants in the opioid litigation, to create OFAB, which is the advisory board that oversees the regional bucket. The permission still is required from the county commission for the funding coming out of that bucket, but the committee really dictates where that funding goes. So in a roundabout way, I've been to multiple times over the years, and this is finally coming to you with, hey, we've got some money now. It's time for you to start making some changes and some differences in the community with the money, And that's why this funding program has been put together. Well, good, good. And I remember our long conversations and I asked a whole lot of questions. And you were just totally on top of this whole issue. And I know it's been a journey for you and I just wanted to recognize you and thank you for all that you did to kind of get us to this point so that we have this funding so we can use it to help people that were affected by this crisis. So thank you for that refresher. Jess, thank you again for the presentation. I just had just a couple questions. You mentioned a review committee. Tell me about the committee. Who's going to serve on it? And will it be like city staff, community members? Yes, it's made up of city staff since internal review committee. Made up of a variety of people from different departments. I can share their names. Okay, so it's made up of CitySof, since Internal Review Committee, made up of a variety of people from different departments. I can share their names. Okay, so it's me, Carly Penella from Housing, Beatrice from Codes, Chief Judas also serving on it, from Fire, George Smith from CRA, and Kormack Hoverty from Sanitation. I think I'm getting everyone. Oh, Sean Eastbury, just well from Social Services. Okay, thank you. And then you mentioned that 501C3 organizations can apply to this. Do we have some idea of who those organizations are at this time? I'm not sure there's a lot of organizations locally that do this kind of work. I'm not sure and give you a list of them, but I mean, I'm doing it. Fill in. I was just I was just curious. I mean, some of the organizations that I would anticipate might apply would be somebody like Operation Par who provides substance abuse treatment, Westcare provides substance abuse treatment, Perk has services available as well as a whole host of other nonprofits. tomorrow. So, you know, we haven't seen any pre-applications. Of course, it will only open if you approve it. And so we'll have to see who takes us up on that offer. I would anticipate that maybe other counseling providers that do substance use disorder treatment could apply as well. Okay. That's all I was looking for. I just wanted to. My brain went blank then you asked me that question. I just wanted to have an idea of like who's out there that might apply for this. Well thank you for answering my questions. I'll go ahead and move approval. Okay, thank you. Okay, seeing no further requests to speak. And has been motion in properly seconded. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Thank you. We're going to now move on to report item F4, which is a resolution, which is a resolution approving the 2024 Emergency Medical Services AOLESTS. First, responder agreement between the city and the Pinellas County EMS Authority. And joining us is fire rescue division chief Lindsay Judah. How are you? I'm good. Thank you. Thank you to you and your team here on the council. I appreciate being here today to provide some insight on the ALS First Responder Agreement. The 2024 EMS ALS First Responder Agreement here is a clean copy from the 2022 agreement and the number one amendment. And I'd also like to acknowledge Attorney Jane Wallace for her assistance on this project. And before we get into the business, I just wanna make sure that we recognize the people that are doing the hard work in the streets of our community and serving the residents and visitors, especially based on the conversations here today. They were definitely working hard yesterday during the flooding and just as Jess mentioned with the opioid epidemic, they are constantly going to overdose in our community as well. The first slide here just acknowledges the language that was already approved in the City Council in the ALS First Responder Agreement 22 and the Amendment number one. We used that language and just put it into the 2024 agreement that included the traffic preemption utilization of Regional 911 Center and staffing to relief multiplier. The additional language that's included in the ALS First Responder Agreement for 2024 includes the capital EMS vehicle replacement amounts. The amounts are capped now at medic units are 125 staff vehicles are 75,000 and the rescue units are 380,000. That is an increase for the medic units of 25,000. The staff vehicles of 25,000 and the rescue units are 380,000. That is an increase for the medic units of 25,000. The staff vehicles of 25,000 and the rescue units are increased by $50,000. This also includes our annual compensation. For this agreement, 2024 is FY25. The budget's listed there, and that also includes eight additional 24-7 paramedic positions. It also includes in Appendix A, the projected capital, which includes the medic units will be provided there, three medic units, four staff vehicles, and 11 rescue units. Throughout this five-year agreement, and there is also the possibility for a five-year extension of this agreement. Those are the years that we anticipate the apparatus deliveries for the rescues just for your awareness. Those are for the remountable rescues. To highlight the paramedic positions that we have, we currently have 112 county-funded paramedic positions. And as of October 1st, if this is approved by you all, we will now have 120. That is an increase of 8 and we also anticipate an increase of 8 positions for next FY as well. That will be for a total of 22 additional 24-7 paramedic positions. I would also like to share some information related to the firefighter paramedic transition. So we have firefighter EMTs and we also have firefighter paramedics. We hope that our firefighter EMTs will consider joining in as a paramedic but that does require additional schooling. As you may be aware in your fields, the workforce and recruitment is challenging. And so we want to try to encourage our EMTs to become paramedics. We want to encourage the advancement and we do sponsor our firefighter EMTs through paramedics school if they so choose. We currently have our firefighter EMTs through paramedic school if they so choose. We currently have four firefighter EMTs who are attending paramedic school. We have two firefighter EMTs who are studying to complete the national registry. They have already went to school. And we have six now that are working toward the standalone paramedic status. They have already finished school and they have tested and passed the national registry. And lastly, I would like to highlight the peak paramedics that we have. In addition to our firefighter paramedics, we have a paramedic job classification, which is very helpful in reducing the workload on our 24-7 personnel. And we do offer a sponsorship to these individuals as well, to ascend them to fire academy. The difference between sending a firefighter EMT to paramedic school, which requires at least 12 months of training, is a little bit different for us for the peak paramedics in which we can send them to fire academy and that can take up to five months. So this is a faster route for them to be able to become dual certs and serve our community as firefighter paramedics. Aside from hiring current firefighter paramedics, which has become increasingly difficult, hiring our paramedics and offering dispenser them through fire academy is one of the fastest ways that we can increase our numbers of firefighter paramedics who are serving our community. We had two paramedics who are serving our community. We had two paramedics complete fire academy. Just recently they went through the New Heart orientation process and we have three additional peak paramedics currently in fire academy. We anticipate that they will transition to the firefighter paramedic positions and attend the New Heart orientation just after the first of the year, the next New Hire orientation class in 2025. That is all I have for updates. We appreciate your time and support for St. Petersburg Fire Rescue, especially as it pertains to providing exceptional emergency services to our residents and visitors. We hope that you approve this agreement, and I am available for any questions you may have. Thank you. Council member Mortonieri. Thank you, Chief. And thank you, Chair. And good to see you, Chief. Thank you for the presentation. Usually these agreements are one-year agreements. Why are we going to a five-year agreement? The county approached all of the fire departments and asked if they were interested in a five-year agreement. We do have the ability and we do go each year to discuss the different caps that we have to increase generally. So we will address each year what caps we need to increase. We need to change any language. If something comes up that we need to address within the agreement, we have the ability to do that. We just have it set for five years. So if we don't have anything or maybe other departments don't have anything that they address, they may keep the same agreement and not adjust any language. Okay. Thank you. On slide four, you mentioned the increased positions and then the capital with the units are the units that are listed are they replacement or are these new? So we have a capital replacement plan for our vehicles and because this is listed as a five year agreement, we listed all of the units that will be replaced throughout those five years in the Pendex A of the 2024 agreement. They're not new vehicles that don't exist already in our system, they're just replacements. Okay, and as we're, because it seems in your presentation you talked about like staffing up with an additional 22 people should we have More equipment for those new people. That's that's kind of where I'm going No, we really need to increase our staffing levels when it comes to firefighter paramedics so that we can Have more depth within our system. They will still ride the same apparatus that we already have, but we'll be able to have more opportunities for our personnel to do what I consider some cross-pollination. So then we can have a paramedic that is acting as an officer on an engine or we can have a paramedic driving the truck. So the apparatus are already there to provide the service. We just want to make sure that they have different opportunities throughout their career. And I believe that that will help with recruitment and retention. Okay, all right, good. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Vice Chair Gertis. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks, Chief, for the update. I just have one quick question. So we have 112 available positions. How many are full at this point? We have four vacancies for paramedics currently. Okay, I would say that's pretty good with where we are in economic time. So just to check in, so thank you very much. And I'll move approval. Second. Thank you. Just to further requests to speak. We will please open the machine for voting for F4, please. Council members please catch your votes. Seeing that our president council members have voted, can you please tell in an answer vote? Madam Chair, the motion to approve agenda item F4 passes unanimously with council members Driscoll, Hannah Witts and Mohammed Bean absent. Thank you. Thank you so much, Chief. We appreciate the presentation. Now we're gonna go ahead and move on to F5, declaring the results of the primary election held on August 20th, 2024, and that will be our city clerk, Mr. Chancellor, and Avassa. Madam Chair, is it okay if I stay right here? Yes, sure. Madam Chair, I'm I say to council, you have before you a resident, resident loosened and acknowledging the results of the primary election held on August 20th, 2024. There was no primary held for council district one with only one candidate, so there will be no primary or no general election for district one. For district five, there are only two candidates, so there was no primary. So they will go directly to the general election for district three. Our two top goalgators, vote goalgators are Pete Volen and Mike Harding and for district seven are Cory Gibbons and Wingay Newton. So we're requesting your approval of this resolution. Okay. Okay. You're seeing the north further requests to speak. Can you please open the, and just been motion a property seconded. Can you please open the machine for voting for F5, please? Council members cast your votes. Seeing that our president council members have voted, can you please tell in and out the votes? Item chair of the motion to approve agenda item F5A. As you may, let's see what council members, Hannah Whitteson, Muhammad Bean, abs. Okay, so I have F5A, but I don't see anything else that goes with that. Okay. I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. It does, you know, it's kind of bad. What is that? Some other city I bet. Okay. So now we're gonna go ahead and move to F6, which is a time change resolution for the September 12, 2024 Council meeting and I have the resolution before me. The resolution of proving the change to start time was September 12, City Council meeting from 1.30 to 3pm and providing an effective day. I'm in the chain of motion for live approval. Now, F6 has been motioned and properly seconded Can you please open the machine for voting for F6 please council members cash your votes Seeing that all present council members have voted can you please tell and announce the votes I'm chair the motion to approve agenda item F6 passes unanimously with council members to school and mohamad bean absent Thank you so How our vote didn't okay do we need to vote again yeah we need a motion for we just read up look it was I had a green light on hold on yeah I think it's more of a technical issue with the, I mean, unless any of you are thinking something different in terms of not understanding the motion, I think it was more technical. It was a technical issue. I just wanted to make sure there was no reconsideration. Yeah. Yeah. Anything else? As long as it's technical or you can just vote. All right. Thank you. So can you please tell him announce the votes? Item 2, the motion to choose. We begin the item F6. And we'll see with Council Member Muhammad being absent. Thank you. OK, so we're going to recess until 510. We have. Not sure. Give him a second. Well, no, F7 is being moved to public hearing because Mr. McCann is not here. Is he here? No, he's not here. Is he here? No, he's not. So we moved that to the beginning of public hearing, and we can't start public hearing before 501. So I'll see everybody at 5'10". I'm going to make a little bit of a hole in the middle of the hole. I'm going to make a hole in the middle of the hole. I'm going to make a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. . . . . Okay. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. . you I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. . you . I'm going to put the you you you you . I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a gonna say I'm gonna say I'm gonna say I'm gonna say I'm gonna say I'm gonna say I'm gonna say I'm gonna say I'm gonna say I'm gonna say I'm gonna say I'm gonna say I'm gonna say I'm gonna say I'm gonna say I'm gonna say I'm gonna say I'm gonna say I'm gonna say I'm gonna say I'm gonna say I'm gonna say I'm gonna say I'm gonna say I'm gonna say I'm gonna say I'm gonna say I'm gonna say I'm gonna say I'm gonna say I'm going to do a little the top right corner of the head. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. you you I'm going to put the you I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put it on the table. I'm going to put a little bit more. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. Thank you. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm going to put it on the top right corner. I'm I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. music Yes. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Thank you. you you you you you you you you you you Okay. Okay. We want to end resource recess and we call the meeting back to order. I moved and called F7 from consent, because I wanted to properly welcome our PSTA representative that was voted on at Cal for that we can have our own welcome vote for Mr. Max McCann. If you would stand, come forward Mr. Max McCann. We had 11 applications and we voted last year if you would stand, come forward Mr. Max from CAN. We had 11 applications and we voted last week before and you were successfully voted to represent us on the PSTA board and I know that you are going to do a fantastic job. So I wanted to give you a couple of seconds just to say hello and if there are any council members I know councilmember drissler is going to because she's the chair of the PSTA board But I want to just give you a couple of minutes just to say hello Hi everybody. Thank you and and thank you so much for the appointment. It really is an honor I'm humbled and I just hope that I can be of use to the board It's it's a really important job and I'm going to take it seriously. I promise you, as you know, I live, breathe, and eat this stuff. So it's right up my alley. I'm looking forward to getting to work right away. Thank you. We saw you many, many times at PSC. As a resident, you're very versed in transportation and we appreciate that. So we have Councilmember St. Light, would like to speak. Councilmember Driscoll. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. McKin for stepping up to serve in this capacity. It's really a pleasure to be able to confirm your appointment and welcome you to the PSCA board, especially at a time when we have so much going on in our county as it relates to public transportation. And I think that you are so well suited for this role because of the advocacy that you have shown around both transportation and land use issues. I've seen you speak here at City Council in front of the PSJA Board, in front of the Forward Penelas Board. And I know that you've been out and about it a lot of community meetings as well, advocating for good transportation decisions. And I have always appreciated that so much. We need more citizens like you, stuffing up and speaking up. And now you will have a microphone all to yourself on the dias with the PSCA board and with the challenges and the opportunities that we have facing us with that. I'm really happy that we'll be able to count on you to be on our team. So thank you. Thank you. And I'll move approval. Second. I'm really happy that we'll be able to count on you to be on our team. So thank you. Thank you. And I'll move approval. Second. Councillor Remember Gever. Thank you Madam Chair and Max. I just wanted to say I was unfortunately not able to be at the committee of the whole, but I'm very, very happy with the selection my colleagues made. Very happy to vote for your confirmation today and I just want to thank you so much for stepping up. This is one of the most important roles that you can play as a citizen's advocate. And so I just really want to thank you and I know you'll do a great job. So thank you for your service. Thank you so much. Thank you. Council Member Hanowitz. Thank you and like everyone here on City Council, we've seen you come here and advocate so much on transportation issues and you're right. You live and breathe this stuff. We had a lot of qualified applicants and I will tell you, even with all those qualified applicants, I thought that you were just above in terms of your knowledge and passion for the issues. That's what you want in the representative of our community on the board. Someone who actually deeply cares about the issues and I think you do that and you're gonna do a fantastic job. So we look forward to seeing what you do. Thank you. So much. Thank you so much. We have a motion. It's been properly second. Seeing no request to speak. Can you please open the machine for F7? Council members cast your votes. Seeing that all pressing council members have voted can you please tell and announce the votes? Madam Chair, the motion to approve agenda item F7 as is unanimously with council member Muhammad being absent. Yay congratulations Mr. McCann thank you. So now we're going to go and take up our public hearings beginning with J1. We have B and C but we're going to listen to them and vote on them separately and I also need to Make a reminder for the record that the information at first reading the ordinance that was read by the clerk's office was the actual correct version That was being read so clerk and you please read the title Those ordinance 593H, in ordinance relating to sanitation rates and charges, emitting chapter 27, excuse me, section 27-557, of the St. Petersburg City Code, emitting rates and charges for sanitation services, providing for severability of provisions, providing an explanation of work struck through and underline, establishing a date to begin calculating new rates for building purposes and providing an effective date. And we have one card. Okay. Dennis, Jay Keaton, you and do them. I'm going to do the presentation first. So joining us is a senior public works manager, Ms. Angela Miller. Welcome. Good evening, Angela Miller, Public Works Services Manager. Joining me today is Andy Burnham, Vice President of Stantic Consulting Services. We do have him here with us as well. Just as with this presentation, we are doing our final recommendation to you all on our fiscal year 25 utility rates. So as all of you are very much well aware of our processes, we begin this with our kickoff in January with our budget season. And so we begin meeting with you all on our goals and objectives for our utility rate study. And this evening is our sixth time meeting with you all on this material. And so we're hoping that we're at now at a point where we can kind of tonight plan on a bigger picture. We're going to kind of focus on the goals and objectives of the program. The recommended just rates and where we're at today. A summary of our customer billing impacts as well as Andy's going to just do a quick recap on each of the utility programs and then we're going to close out from there. We have a significant amount of reference material in the back of your packets. So all of those technical slides on the retail rate structure, the building market comparisons, the affordability, the marketing and communications, all of that is there. So if there's something in particular, you'd like us to pull up after the presentation and highlight we can do that as well. So starting with this rate study goals for this year is always first and foremost balancing those long term resiliency sustainability objectives. These are really large, cap-up improvement programs for these utility systems, operations and maintenance. So planning for that out into the forecast to ensure that we're having resiliency for these systems as well as sustainability. And of course, we always look to the affordability of our customers when we're going through these great studies. All of our planning models have that 10 to 20 year planning horizon and we also are looking at the master plans that are now built in with the water resources and the stormwater utility programs. We also are lucky to have these rate studies every year. Some communities do these in three to five year increments. Here at St. Pete we do this every single year. We look at this annually. And so we do address any immediate concerns or upcoming projects that need to be adjusted. The example this year was the stormwater utility as we're all aware of some of the adjustments to our CIP plan for projects being moved up sooner, as well as some additional funding for operations and maintenance, and he's going to kind of dive into that a little bit. But those are the types of things that we try to look at and focus every year for some of our goals and objectives. Our program does have that sustain, sustainment of the 5050 cash versus debt, and that's built into the entire program. And every year, we look at the different revenue structures. This year we focused on the retail rate structure. It's actually been two years, I think, of focusing on this piece. And so this year the goal was really to bring that forward tonight for request for implementation moving forward into fiscal year 25. So this is where our rates are right now. If we think of these systems individually, the overall rate adjustment is going to be on that table to the left. So the green column where the rates that we are originally anticipating this year, the yellow is the forecasted recommendations for fiscal year 25. And so you can see each of those individually. When you net these across the funds, we're looking at about a 6.1% overall revenue increase for the utility systems. Those with reclaimed water, it's about 7.5. Inside of that revenue requirement, there's a lot of different ways we receive the revenue internally. And so again, that retail rate structure was the piece that we looked at adjusting this year and so that's adjusting the utility fixed charges and the volume tiers to reflect those current costs in usage patterns. So this is kind of example I think the simplest way to think about this and this is the way our city has been set up specifically on our water tiers. We have five water tiers in St. Pete and you can kind of think of it as the more water you use periodically your rate of pay goes up. And so that happens five times across the tiers for our customers. We did an analysis to review what that looked like in our revenues that came in. 83% of our customers were in that tier one. And so that retail rate structure redistributes it that equitably to have the revenue burden to the individual customers based more on their services and then the demand characteristics that we're in now today. So that second bar kind of changes that from the 83% to 59% in that tier one, 32% in that tier two. And then you can see it kind of smooth out from there for tier three and tier four. You're really going to see this. I think the bills kind of give you that example of what that means to our customers. So this is a low usage monthly utility bill example. This would be one to two people living in a single family residential home, about 2,000 gallons of water waste water usage and a storm water tier one. So if you kind of draw your attention to that green bar, the overall rate change for this customer would be about 3.77%. Because of that retail rate structure, this went down from what would have originally been about 7.5. So they're seeing that savings. If you look at that water, that first water line, you can see that reduction of almost 10% on their bill. On the water bill, water piece. For a typical usage customer, this is your average family of four. So 3,500 gallons of water waste water usage was all services consistent. With that retail rate structure, again, you're seeing a little bit of rate reduction. And so, they're at 6.14 versus the original, like, 8% that would have been with the regular rate changes. Once you move into the 5,000 gallon, this is your higher volume usage customer. That rate increase starts to adjust for a higher rate of pay. So this customer is at 9.65%. It's very close. This is kind of where the tears begin right around where they're netted. Originally this would have been 8.9%, so it's a little bit higher about $1.00. And on those higher, higher usage customers at 6,500 gallons, that's the top of tier 2, this is 11.62%. So again, the rate of pay went up by about 2% from the 9.5%. And that's where we're at on our bills. I'm going to pass it over to Andy so he can do a quick update on the actual financial plans for each of the systems. Thanks, Angel. Good evening, Council. to a quick update on the actual financial plans for each of the systems. Thanks, Angela. Good evening, Council. What I'd like to do is just give a quick overview of some of the drivers behind these rating creases and what the outlooks are for each of the funds. And then just spend a little bit more time on the rate structure for the water and sewer system just to make sure we've got a good understanding of some of the customer impacts in a bit more detail. But first starting with the sanitation system, we've really cheered by way of conducting the rate studies or able to identify kind of changes from one year to the next, both in actual data than the current year that we're in, but also in some of the future trends that we're assuming, relative to growth in revenues as well as expenses. And for the wastewater or excuse me for the sanitation system, we're in a pretty good place on the revenues. They're coming in slightly above forecast, which is always a good thing, but it's also helping us to offset some pressure that we're seeing on operations and maintenance spending. So we are seeing higher expenses in 25 and beyond versus what we were forecasting last year. A couple of the drivers on that, the predominant one is something that's a bit outside of our control and that we have to take our ways to the Penells County landfill and they charge a tipping fee for those disposal costs. They're completing the end of a three-year rate plan that has a 6.8% increase for 25 and for future assumptions we've included a 7.8% increase in the out years for that expense going forward. The counties currently are going to be evaluating updates to a new rate plan but that's not available at this time. And then we've also had impacts associated with just continued cost increases from contract services. So for recycling, we've had to make some adjustments to make sure that we had adequate contract vendors for services. We had to extend our current vendor at a higher price than was anticipated because of some timing issues on when we went to the procurement for that particular contract. So again, these are things that are a bit beyond our control that we have to factor into our cost both today and then going forward. But the biggest driver for sanitation is if you think about it, the fleet, the vehicles themselves, those costs continue to increase. In last year's analysis, we had an average annual capital spend for vehicle replacement. That's about $4.4 million, but now reflecting current cost and needs that's about $5.7 million per year. So generally the positive benefits we've seen on the revenue side have been offset to a large degree by increases on the operating expenses and on the vehicles. So as we kind of take a look at the forecast for this year for sanitation, we were able to really stay with the previous forecast for rate increase for 25, that 5.75% that Angela presented on the earlier slides. However, at this point, we have raised our outlook for future increases slightly, from 5.75% a year to 6% a year, because of the impact to some of those cost pressures. And we've just identified for you the individual impacts that each of those increases represent to both the residential collection rate as well as the recycling rate for residential service so that you can see those. But generally sanitation is in a pretty good place and we're just going to have to watch those drivers. Penelope County tipping fees and vehicle costs will be the predominant things we have to keep our eye on with sanitation. Relative to stormwater, here what we're seeingistant cost-pressure and I think Angel alluded to this in terms of maintaining our assets and getting the highest level of service out of them. We've identified in the budget for 25 additional maintenance crews, the attendant equipment and vehicles to enhance our level of service for cleaning activities and other maintenance activities. But then also on capital spending, we've kind of accelerated some of the projects in the master plan and also integrated some local scale mitigation projects that's really increased our capital spending in 25 and 26 to a fairly substantial degree. So we've got additional inflation as well as on operating expenses. So when you kind of add this up, it's about $8 million of additional cost in 25 on 32 million of revenue. So with this fund, we really don't have a significant reserve that we can use to offset that, so it means it really translates to rate impacts, hence the 25% increase that we've identified for this year, which is higher than last year because of those increases in operations and maintenance cost, as well as the acceleration of capital projects. But one thing to continue to note about stormwater is that this is something we do look at each year and this forecast of the three enterprises probably has the most variability because of the timing and potential funding sources for capital and at the end angel is going to talk more about some of that relative to grants. So if you rewind the conversation to last year we actually were looking at lower increases than the prior year because of some grant funds that we'd received. And so that's gonna be a continue to be a conversation each year as how does our capital needs look and what are the funding sources for those. To the extent we get grants for our projects, that's gonna have a positive impact on these increases all else being equal. And lastly for the Water Resources Program, we've had some significant benefit from some kind of one-time items in 24 additional interest earnings from our water cost stabilization fund. That's the proceeds from the sale of our well fields to Tampa Bay water and that's above the forecast as well as some interest earnings on bonds, net of amounts that we have to do for our arbitrage rebate purposes. So those have been some kind of one time helps. We've also continued to just really dial in our assumptions about future expenses, really looked at vacancy rates on personnel and future assumptions for that to try to make sure we've got a very sharp pencil on our personnel expense forecast. And as we continue to be mindful of our water use within the city and other communities continue to grow that are part of Tampa Baywater, our share of that pie goes down a little bit so we're showing a forecast of a slightly lower Tampa Baywater expense forecast. And all those things help us combat some increased operational cost above forecast, key things like electricity and chemicals, where the driver is there, and also just increases in the cost of capital projects. It's about 5 million more per year, so we're looking at about 127, almost 128 million versus about 122, 123 million per year. It's important for everyone to understand that these are very infrastructure intensive services for water and waste water. We have hundreds of miles of pipe underground that we have to replace, and it's a very significant expense for water and waste water. We have hundreds of miles of pipe underground that we have to replace, and it's a very significant expense for water utilities, not just here in St. Pete, but across Florida and the country. So because of the near-term benefits from some of those items, this year we were able to look at a bit lower rate increased trajectory than what we had identified last year. So if you were a call last year, we were looking at seven and a half percent increases for a few years and then six and five and a half. And because of those some positive occurrences, we're able to really smooth out, excuse me, and levelize that rate increased plan versus what we were looking at last year. And one thing we did include for references, just the benefit of the decision to utilize some penny funding for some of our infrastructure needs. You know, if we were to discontinue that program that would also cause these adjustments to be higher. So, said differently, the use of penny funding is saving our customers about $2 on average on that utility bill by the time you get to 2029. So that's helping mitigate some of the cost pressures that we have for the infrastructure. But one of the big things for water resources this year that Angela talked about were the retail rate structure adjustments. And they really fall into categories of updating the fixed charges to just really capture billing and collection costs and debt-related expenses. So right sizing this, the kind of the structure, the way we collect the rates is something that we haven't looked at in a number of years. And so this was an opportunity to really tie some of these costs more specifically to our rates and specifically to our rates and also update our rates to take into account current usage profiles in the city that have changed over time. And so that's the volumetric side. Whereas Angela mentioned part of the rates before you today include restructuring of your tiers to reflect those current costs as well as current customer usage patterns. And so Angela was kind of mentioning this distribution of your bills that you have in each of the different tiers, and you can see we've got 83% of our bills in the current tier one, and our average use today is actually about 3500 gallons. So over time, customers have conserved, and so we have so many customers in tier one through conservation, modernization of fixtures, that we've really, you know, it's time to advance our rate structure to reflect today's customer usage patterns. And so that's where the tier adjustments came from the angel dimension to really develop tiers that are based on our average use today, which is tier one of the 3500 gallons, and then set it in multiples of that average use to establish tiers two, tier three, and then tier four is everything above that. And moreover, it was an opportunity to reconcile and alleviate some inconsistencies in the rate structure. So this is applied on a per unit basis for multi-family and commercial rates individually are based on average use and these same multiples of their average use as well. So we've been able to really synchronize the rate structure to have some of that equity across the different customer classes that we have. And so the revised distribution looks a little bit more even if you will. So there's always going to be a high concentration in that first tier. But then you can see tier two now has 32% of the bills, tier three is six, and then tier four is 3% whereas in the current structure, the top two tiers actually only have about one percent of your bills. So we're really right sizing the number of tiers based upon our current usage in the system. And so what that does is it really has an impact in terms of how the increases that we're looking at this year are effectively seen on bills of different usage. By adjusting these tiers and updating the rates for the tiers, you can see that for most low volume and average users, they may, if they're very low volume users, see a potential reduction in their bill. At 1 gallons, you can see it would actually be a small reduction in the bill. But also for not only low volume but average users, the increase in the bill is a little bit less than just simply applying the 6.75% increase across the board. Because now we have updated these tier break points and now we have some higher bills in those higher tiers and so That's where you start to see above say five and ten thousand gallons some of those higher volume bills May see increases above that six point seven five percent if they don't conserve so these bill impacts are all Assuming the same amount of water use before and after the rate structure. So again, that's part of the benefit Some in declining block rate structure such as what the city has and many other communities have, is that it provides an incentive and a price signal for those that do have this higher volume uses to maybe do some conservation to mitigate their bill impacts, where they have the ability to do so. And so when you kind of look at the percentages on the far right, you can basically kind of add up the numbers from 1 to 4,000 gallons that represents about two-thirds of the single family bills would either have a reduction or an increase that's less than the overall 6.75 percent increase. The 5,000 gallon point, as Angel mentioned, is kind of that break point. That's about at the overall level of increase. If you include that, we're talking about three-quarters of customers. We'll see an increase that would be about the same with the current rate structure or less for those uses in below. of customers will see an increase that would be about the same with the current rate structure or less for those uses in below. We also looked at and did a number of bill impacts not just for single family customers, but also took some sample bills for various multi-family customers that reflect different combinations of meter size, number of dwelling units, and average usage per dwelling unit. And so you can kind of see the range of impacts here for those that maybe have very low usage per dwelling unit. You can see there may be some reductions in the bill for those that have kind of more typical or average usage per dwelling unit. You'll see those will have a pretty moderate increase, you know, very comparable to or less than the overall amount. And for those that maybe start to get to higher levels of usage per unit, that's where you may see an increase above the overall average. But nothing too significant in terms of an impact jumped out at us from doing the sampling analysis. And also we've looked at various types of commercial enterprises. And again, the impacts vary here because each commercial customers' tiers are based upon their average use. And that average use is reflective of their business profile. Some are very seasonal and have high periods of use based upon their average use. And that average use is reflective of their business profile. Some are very seasonal and have high periods of use that may cause their tier sizes to be different. But generally, again, this gives you an idea of how some of the impacts might be seen for different business types. But they are going to be individual for commercial customers is the takeaway here because of the fact that the tiers are really based on their own individual usage characteristics. So overall though, a lot of the impacts that we're seeing are not necessarily between the different types of service, between say single family and multi-family customers. It's really again within each of those customer classes. We tend to see the impacts of updating the tiers, be that lower volume and average users have less of an increase than the overall amount angel identified and that those that have higher levels of usage would see slightly higher increases than the overall amount when you factor in the rate restructuring. And so one last thing I wanted to talk about before I turn it over to Angelette to wrap up. Part of the ordinances that are before you do include adjustments to the sewer capacity or what's also been known as the water closet fee. This is a one-time fee that's really assessed to new development or redevelopment for the additional capacity needs that they're placing on the system. We've looked at the fee and identified that the actual cost per water closet was about a thousand dollars and previously looked at a plan that would phase that in over ten years. However, as part of this study we looked at an accelerated plan in consultation with your staff and legal team to make sure that we were all comfortable with it, that would accelerate the plan to get to that full-cost recovery period, instead of within 10 years to do that within three years. We presently get about 1.2 million a year from our water closet fees. You know, when we get to that $1,000 amount per water closet, that might get to about three million a year. This goes straight to our capital projects and this represents a way that we can utilize other revenue streams besides rates to help pay for some of the capital cost on the system. And so this is one of the things that can help us, you know, as we go forward do as much as we can to try to moderate the impacts on rates to cover our infrastructure needs. But Angel also has a few other things that are pretty powerful to talk about as well. So I'd like to let her do that and we'll both be available for questions when she's done. Thank you. So just to close out, we wanted to bring something forward to you, just kind of an update. Last year we presented the alternative funding strategy where we've really started looking at grants and possible loans. And so I know these are a lot of numbers but this is just kind of a snapshot of what we have done this year in fiscal year 24. The table on the left are current awarded grants that we are currently managing under public works administration and then the table on the right shows you all of the grants that we've applied for this year in fiscal year 24 under that grants administration program. So we've been working very closely internally with our departments as well as our city grants management team in the budget office to try to get these applications looked at it and reviewed. So to date for this year fiscal year 24 we've applied for almost $80 million in grant funding for our water resources and stormwater utility program. So I just wanted to give that as a heads up and share the news with you that we're looking forward to hopefully getting some movement on that and continuing this process annually to start submitting more grants and possible loan applications. And that's our presentation. So we open up for questions and also ask for approval for this year's Fiscal Year 25 Utility Rates. Thank you. What I wanted to do was to go ahead and have the click office also read B and C to get those out of the way. We're going to vote on them separately. And then that also opens up for council members to just ask questions in regards to the entire presentation. So if you could please read ordinance, please and follow it by seat. Opposed ordinance 5, 94 H. In ordinance relating to utility rates and mending section 27-405, subsections B1 and B2 of the St. Petersburg City Code, amending the stormwater utility fee, amending the tiered rate structure fees for single-family residential parcels, providing for survivability of provisions, providing an explanation of where it struck through and underline, establishing a date to begin calculating new rates for billing, purposes, and providing an effective date. Opposed ordinance number 595H. In ordinance relating to utility rates and charges, 3G, 27-4, 27-6A, 27-6D, 27-109B, 27-109D, 27-113B, 27-141A, 27-141B, 27-142A, 27-143A, 27-143B, 27-143B, 27-143B, 27-143B, 27-143B, 27-143B, 27-143B, 27-143B, 27-143B, 27-143A, 27-143B, 27-144, 27-146B, 27-146D, 27-177A, 27-177D, 27-177D, 27-250A, 27-283A, 27-144B, 27-146D, 27-146D, 27-177D, 27-177D, 27-177D, 27-213A, 27-284A, 27-284D, 27-334D, 8, 27-335D and 27-337 of the St. Petersburg City Code, amending requirements for customer deposits, amending liability for certain charges, amending method of determining adjustment to the accounts, amending charges for portable, portable water connection, amending base and volume charges for water service, amending various service charges, amending wholesale water service charges for the city of Gulfport, amending the definition of combination fire service, amending base and volume charges for irrigation only accounts, amending base charges for commercial water only accounts, amending rates and charges for reclaimed water service, amending sewer capacity fee, amending retail and reclaimed water service, and remaining sewer capacity fee, remaining retail and wholesale waste water service charges, and remaining provisions of the Greece Management Program, remaining Greece discharge permit fees, providing for survivability and provisions, providing an explanation of where to shrug through and underline, establishing a date to begin calculating new charges for building purposes and providing an effective date. Right. Thank you. So do you have a presentation for B and C and then we'll go ahead and go to public comment? No, no presentation. I just I was everything. I just want to make sure she didn't have anything else they have no that was a complete present. Okay I just want to make sure I want to make sure okay So now you want to go to public comment we have one card madden chair Dennis Keaton please go to either podium state your name and address for the record and you will have three minutes to address city council Yes, that's fine Yeah, my name is Dennis Keaton. I've been a resident here in three months 65 years and We've been here probably 65 years before that. You're dressed sir. It's really difficult anymore I mean, I just have one simple question Tempting to run us out of this city that we've 546 60-second Avenue North and It's just getting really difficult. And every time they raise the rates, and I mean, well, I look at it, I didn't beg everybody to come here and build all these condos. And I know consumption has something to do with how much the price of everything is. Well, I don't think you should take it out on the people that's been here so long. I think maybe you should figure out how to grandfather it into us us or do something to help us rather than push us away. I've had friends that have moved from this state that have lived here for years and years because they just can't afford to live here anymore. It's getting ridiculous and that's just my opinion as being an honest person and a resident of this city for many, many years and as basically all I've got to say is please don't raise our rates anymore. Thank you. No other cards, are there any? Okay. Council member Floyd. Thank you. I'm just gonna recap a little bit. Some of the things that Shola heard me say since the last time we're talking about it this year. First, yeah, I don't like the situation we're in with rates every year. First, yeah, I don't like the situation we're in with rates every year. I voted against the increase last year. But this year I think we've made a great stride in two respects. One is the retail rate structure changes and the way that we're not impacting people quite so much that are at the lower end of usage. I think that's really important. It was one of the first things I feel like I brought up whenever I sat down and had a conversation about retail rates when I first got here and I'm really glad to see it come to fruition. The slide where it shows lesser usage, having less of an impact that really is important to me. And then the Stewart capacity fees, I think that's really impactful. I think it was quite frankly unjust that we were letting them get away with paying so little into our system when they connected to it. And I think it has been causing regular residents to subsidize the cost of development. I'm glad we're correcting that. So I'm really grateful for the work that we did this year. I look forward to continuing to do this kind of work where we get more innovative every year on seeing how we can lessen the impact of increases on regular people. And so I just wanted to say thank you to everyone involved. And just acknowledge that we, I do feel like this year we've done the best we can. And whereas I didn't feel that previously, and I think there's still room to improve. And I look forward to doing that in the future. So thanks. Thank you. Nice to hear, thanks. Thank you. Vice chair Goed. Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you for all the hard work. I know I've said it before truly and all start team. It's very appreciated. I know we ask a lot of questions and you guys continue to try to come up with innovative ways to make sure we're doing the best we can. I specifically, like Council Member Floyd, I specifically wanna go to the water closet fee. I wanna thank the team, the legal team, for really diving into that, to try to find a way to make it more equitable. When I see this chart, this makes me super happy, and it gives us the opportunity to continue to catch up four years from now too, four years from now too. Four years from now too. So very happy about that. I'll just make one request for next year. Thinking about this kind of in the same vein as when we talk about the milledrate. If we could see the overall, and I'm not asking for this today, just going forward, if we could see the overall cost for water resources in comparison year by year and what that increases we look at it in each section by percentage I think most of the time but if we could look at it as a whole so that we know okay so in 2024 our total overall cost for water resources outside it are including, excuse me, excluding CIP, comparison to the next year, I think that would be really helpful. Kind of like what we do with the milledrate. I think that would just be an exercise that would be good for me on looking at the cost year over year, because then it gives us an idea, and I think this goes to Council Member Floyd's point, of like, what would it take for us to get to a point where we don't have to raise utility rates? What's that delta from a cost comparison? I just think that would be helpful as we have these conversations, because when you look at it in silos, it's harder to come up with that number, at least that's my experience of it. But otherwise, I just thank you for all the hard work and big thank you to my colleagues because this is a bunch of innovative work and thanks for asking all the hard questions. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Seeing no further requests to speak and we're gonna vote on these separately. Move approval, J1A. Thank you. Second. All right. Now that we've had a motion in properly second, can you please open the machine for voting for J1A? Council members, please cast your votes. Seeing that our president Council member Savota, can you please tell in an ounce of votes? Madam Chair, the motion to approve agenda item J1A passes unanimously with Council members Hannah Witts and Will Hammond being absent. Thank you. Move approval, J1B. unanimously with council members hand on what's in will homin bean absent thank you move approval j1 b that's going to see if we need it in a one-speed we have a motion for j1 b second sorry it's been privately seconded seeing no request to speak and you please don't out of chair i just want to double check to be not have any cards for b or c okay great thank you thank you and you please open the machine for voting for J1B? Council members cast your votes. Now that all President Council members have voted can you please Sally and announce the votes. Madam Chair of the Commissioner of the item J1B passes unanimously with Council members Hanowitz and Muhammad Bean absent. Thank you Now we're gonna go to J1C no cards Approval J1C second is been motion and privately seconded can you please open machine for J1C council members please cast your votes Seeing that our president council members have voted can you please tell in an ounce of votes? Adam chair the motion to approve agenda item J1C passes unanimously with council members Hanowitz and Muhammad being absent All right, let's go to the next All right, let's go to the next All right, let's go to the next All right, let's go to the next All right, let's go to the next All right, let's go to the next All right, let's go to the next All right, let's go to the next All right, let's go to the next All right, let's go to the next All right, let's go to the next the State of California, the State of California, the State of California, the State of California, the State of California, the State of California, the State of California, the State of California, the State of California, the State of California, the State of California, the State of California, the State of California, the State of California, the State of California, the State of California, the State of California, the State of California, Section 22-280E by providing a minimum service requirement for Section 185, non-service connected disability benefits, applications providing for serviceability and providing an effective date and we do not have any cars for this item. Move approval. Well joining us is our Pension Manager, Mr. Stephen Carnegie. How are you? I'm doing well. Thank you chair Chair. Good evening, Council. Administration. My name is Steve Carnegie, and I'm the pension manager for the City of St. Petersburg. So we've had emotion in properly seconded, so are my colleagues saying that you don't need a presentation. Here's one. That's me. Thumbs up, okay. Good to see you, Mr. Carter. So can we, we have, however, they have a motion in the second for J2. Can you please open the machine for voting? Council members, please cast your votes. Seeing that our present council members have voted, can you please tell and announce the votes? Madam Chair of the motion to approve a dinner item J2 passes unanimously with council members Hanowitz and Muhammad Bean absent. Thank you. Thank you so much. and the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of the motion of the Amending is comprehensive plan. Amending chapter one general introduction data and analysis. Amending chapter three future land use element pertaining to commercial corridors and sunrunner corridor station areas. Providing for survivability and providing an effective date and we do have one card for this item out here. Thank you. So I see our urban design in historic preservation manager, Mr. Derek Keroborn, because I have a different name, so you're gonna do J3s? All right. I'm just introducing. Okay, very good. Thank you, good evening, Derek Keroborn manager for City's Urban Planning and Historic Preservation Division. Tonight, you're gonna receive a series of presentations on three applications and that is starting with this first application ordinance 577H. All of them relate to the group work that we've been doing over the last few years on the Sunrunner Station area planning specifically for the warehouse arch district area. And so that requires a combination of changes to the city's comprehensive plan, changes to the city's land development regulations, and also changes to the land use and zoning map. So the first presentation you're going to receive is from Britain Wilson, who's a planner on her staff, and she's going to talk to you first about the comprehensive plan text amendment and then I'll move into a presentation in the land development regulations text amendment. Okay. Good evening. Britain Wilson City city planner for the record. I'm presenting this first item, which is a comprehensive plan text amendments that were first heard on June 6th. We're transmitted to the state and county planning authority where they were subsequently approved. This presentation has not changed since it was first presented in June, but I'm happy to present it again if council wishes. Then it take the no changes at all. Do you want to hear them? No changes. Move approval. It's been a properly motion for item J3. Can you please open the machine for vote? We do have one in part. Oh, you do have, I'm so sorry. You do have one card. Okay, thank you. I don't see it on Max McCann please go to an open podium state your name and address for the record you'll have three minutes to address city council Max McCann 2648 third Avenue South Here on behalf of myself for this comment I have a card in for the next agenda item on behalf of the Palmetto Park Neighborhood Association. But I just want to say a quick word about how important transit-oriented development is for our urban fabric. Because for a long time we've been building cities where we put the houses over here, the offices over there, and the shopping over here. And it means you have to drive for every trip and you've got to spend a gallon of gas to buy a gallon of milk and it just It's led to a lot of unintended consequences for our cities. So this will Allow us to build cities for people instead of for cars and it's gonna be a game changer It's gonna let us live work and enjoy social amenities all within walking distance of our houses So I think I don't officially speak on behalf of my neighbors but we're really excited about this. So I hope you all support it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any more cards? No matter. Okay. Seeing no further requests to speak. We've had motion and properly second. Can we go ahead and open the machine for voting? Council members please cast your votes. Seeing that our president, seeing that our president, Council members have voted, can you please tell in and out the votes? Madam Chair, the motion to approve agenda item J3 passes unanimously with council members Hanowitz and Mohamed Bean absent. Okay, thank you. Now we're gonna move to item J4 in ordinance remaining the city code and creating a new section for the Sunrunner Target Employment Center and joining us for that is our urban design and historic preservation manager, Mr. Derek Kearleborn. Read the title, Madam Chair. Please read the title. In ordinance, excuse me, proposed ordinance number 583H. In ordinance, submitting the city code, creating a new section 16.30.05.0. Sunrunner Target Employment Center local overlay, providing for definitions, including local overlay specific uses, providing standards for development and design. In the overlay district, providing for survivability, and providing an effective date. And we do have several cards for this item, Madam Chair. OK, thank you. Mr. Kilbourne, how are you? Good, thank you again. Derek Kilbourne, Manager of Implanning and Historic Preservation. And this is the second part of the presentations this evening on the Land Development Regulations Text Amendment portion. What we're going to do for this presentation is not repeat the presentation from the first public hearing, rather just kind of walk you through what has happened since and update you on some of the information requests that came out of our first discussion together. Okay so in terms of timeline the way that this application works is it is a text amendment to the LDRs. So the first step in the process is to go to the city's development review commission. That development review commission is required to make a finding of consistency with the city's comprehensive plan. And then they make a recommendation to City Council. So that development review commission hearing was on May 1st. And from that development review commission hearing, there were some comments and suggestions for us to look at clarifying language and also considering other adjustments. So as we've moved through this timeline, you have seen where the application has modified in response to feedback that we have received. This LDR text amendment then came to City Council for first reading and first public hearing on June 6th. Following that hearing it then went on to Pinellas County for a county level review, with the Ford Pinellas Board and the countywide Planning Authority in July and August. Both those agencies unanimously voted to, in one case, recommend approval and then the other actually approve the countywide changes. It also went out for consistency review with county staff and so that was some of the findings that they were making. And so this City Council public hearing is the final step in that process. Now some of what I'm going to present to you tonight extends from our conversation in the first reading and first public hearing. And so we're going to walk you through these details. But this slide kind of summarizes some of the key areas of focus, starting with clarifying the calculation of the first floor area requirement for sites. The second bullet point is a change to the maximum base intensity before the bonus provisions click in. The third thing is modifying the FAR bonus table standards and that really is just some cleanup work where we were removing some duplication and then also adding flexibility for roadside bending was something that we talked about in that first hearing. And I have additional details that we're going to go over, but those were kind of the key points. So the first critical piece of conversation, I think, there has definitely been public comment on this. We've had stakeholder conversations about this, and it is clarifying the language in the code regarding the provision of target employment center uses. So in the code, there is a requirement that development projects provide a target employment center, target employment use reservation of either 30% of the land area or 40% of the building footprint at the ground floor. Now when we went to the DRC there was some question about how that number was calculated. Was it a net number that excluded parking areas and mechanical rooms or was it a net number that included all square footage of the ground floor of the building? And so coming out of that DRC meeting we looked at clarifying the language and the language that we have put into the recommendation is that it that we have put into the recommendation is that it includes the square footage of the entirety of the building footprint or footprints if there are multiple buildings on the site. So our recommendation is 30% of the lot area or 40% of the total ground floor square footage, whichever is less. Now, the stakeholder feedback has requested that we either not look at the entirety of the ground floor and that we only look at the habitable square footage. But in response to those suggestions, we have a staff expressed concern that individuals could design projects in a way that minimizes and nearly eliminates a target employment use. Because in the ground floor, if you, for example, design in a very large parking area and you design in mechanical rooms and then you design a small residential lobby for the multi-family units upstairs. Now your 40% is a very small portion of what you've already made small because of your parking everywhere else on that ground floor. So we were concerned that you could essentially design out the target employment use requirement that's in the provision that's proposed here with the overlay. So that is why we have written this to be a standard that includes all square footage in the ground floor of the buildings. Now another thing that has been mentioned is that well the code allows 95% site coverage. So if I do like a large lot coverage, up to the 95% to take advantage of what the code allows, I would have to provide a very large or substantial square footage for the target employment use. And that is assuming you're doing full coverage. We are also allowing three additional floors of building height that are not allowed under the industrial traditional zoning. So there are ways to design projects that start to reduce the building footprint at the ground floor that would reduce your target employment center obligation because again we're only measuring that ground floor of the buildings that are proposed. So this is a key area that we expect will continue to have conversation as we go through this particular hearing. OK, the next thing that we discussed and Council asked us to address was increasing the base FAR from 1.5 to 2.0. And so after the first discussion, we went back and looked at how to do that. We ran some different models to see if we can come up with an alternative recommendation that addressed your comments and concerns from the last meeting. And we think we have done that here by actually proposing something that increases to 2.0. But also protects some of the housing and workforce housing initiatives that have always been part of our conversation here. And so going through this graphic, you asked us to provide you an amended graphic to demonstrate what it is that we're talking about. And so that's what we're doing here on this slide. You can see that the original proposal allowed up to 1.5 flurry ratio base at which point you were then required to do for the next 1.0 FAR. If you're including multi-family units, a workforce housing bonus. And that would get you to 2.5 and then you can see as you move up through the progression. So what we have designed now is a proposal that allows up to 2.0 FAR base before that workforce housing bonus kicks in at 2.0. Now because we were concerned that this particular change would have an impact on workforce housing units. We put together a recommendation for projects that are 2.0 FAR or below to say that if you are proposing a workforce housing project at 2.0 or below, the first 20 units of that multif-family would be allowed by right. Once you get over 20 units then it starts to become a 1-4 ratio. For every one workforce housing unit you get an additional 4 market rate units And that again would be for those projects that are 2.0 or below on the flurry ratio. If you're developing a project more than 2.0 FAR, then you're just using the standard FAR bonus system. So this chart is included in the presentation to show you the effect of going from the 1.5 original proposal to the 2.0 that is proposed today. And you can see what we've done here is just right here in this column. These are just some different modeling scenarios showing you the number of market rate units and then the number of workforce housing units. And when you cross over and you look at what's being proposed now, you can see that the number of market rate units increases a little more substantially as you get down to larger projects. And the workforce housing units do increase, but on a slightly smaller increase. And so in the final column over here on the right, we tried to show you the unit difference. So for a larger project, for example, by making this change from 1.5 to 2, you see that on that bottom line of somebody is doing a 3.0 acre development, you are looking at potentially a difference of 56 market rate units and three workforce housing units. So we continue to look at that. Now in the workforce housing bonuses that were proposed originally and included in the ordinance materials that you receive for this hearing, the bonus says as you move into the workforce housing bonus for each additional 1.0 FAR or fraction of the bonus FAR requested, 5% of the total number of housing units shall be provided. And so this is what was provided to you in the ordinance language. Leading up to this hearing, we continue to do some modeling to look at and try to understand what are some of the impacts or consequences of what we're evaluating. And so having that information, we wanted to provide that to you as well for discussion. But I did want to emphasize again that the ordinance that you have in front of you does identify 5%. So if we went through that same chart that I just showed you at a 10% requirement, you can see using the same modeling that in the new 2.0 column, the increase in the workforce housing units under the 10% versus 5% proposal. And then on the far right column, you'll see the unit difference where there's a larger increase in the workforce housing units and a little more parity between the workforce housing increase and the market rate increase. Okay. And of course we can come back to any of this. As part of the multifamily discussion, there is also a number of stakeholder comments and responses to the requirement for an environmental report. And so let me just pull up that language. In the ordinance that you have you will see there is a statement that requires an environmental report when multifamily units are provided and the environmental report is language that is slightly different and I will highlight that. But it is borrowed from the city's current chapter 17.5 which regulates affordable housing that is being provided through the state preemption because the state preemption allows affordable housing units to go into industrially-zoned areas. And so there is language in that section of the court today that says when you're doing that, you have to provide an environmental report. And so we have brought that language over from chapter 17.5. There were some additional language added. And so in the discussion piece we can maybe come back and address that. There are two phrases that are included in the ordinance you have that are different from the chapter 17.5 language. And the first one of those refers to potential future industrial uses. And the second phrase was included as an example. The example says such as, but not limited to a noise impact assessment and an air quality analysis is provided. So one of the concerns that we've heard is that the added phrases refer to a potential future industrial use. How will the applicant know what a potential future industrial use might be? And I think the answer to that question leads into another concern or comment that we received regarding the environmental report, which is, how will the report be provided by the applicant, who is required to do the report? And second, who on the city review team analyzes the report and makes decisions about whether it satisfies the requirement or not. And so we wanted to clarify tonight in the presentation on the record is that this provision is borrowed from chapter 17.5 and the intention is to show in a site plan review that the applicant has thought through the potential impacts of developing in what is an industrialized zone area. And the applicant in the submission of their application for site plan review will do all the same things that they normally do in trying to address different standards for site plan review and showing that first that they're acknowledging that there's a potential issue and then describing how they may mitigate that issue through modifications to their proposal. So that could be building in site orientation where our pool and outdoor amenities being located. It could mean providing additional custom window locations to mitigate for noise or having special air circulation systems to protect residents from nuisances that might be next door like a salvage yard or a concrete plant. So what we were looking for in this provision is for the applicant to just provide support information showing, first acknowledging they're aware of the issue and then attempting to address it in their narrative. On the city side we would evaluate that and use our own staff or review. We could consult with different city departments. We could consult with external agencies but the intention here is to treat this just like any other standard in a site plan review process and consider external impacts. Or in this case for multi-family internal impacts with the residents. The additional comment that came up was in the ordinance language. It refers to dwelling, multi-family, and this would be page 16, six of 17 of the ordinance. And there's language there that talks about when multi-family is provided. It says maybe permitted up to 20 dwelling dwelling units and then it goes on to describe the environmental report requirement. So there was some question does the environmental report apply to all multifamily projects or only those that include more than 20 units? And the answer is that the environmental report, just like it does in chapter 17.5, would apply to all multifamily projects, not just those that are more than 20 units. Okay. I'm kind of closing out the development potential Okay. I'm kind of closing out the development potential and the uses related to multi-family. We did put this chart in the presentation to just show you what is the existing IT zoning and what is the new development potential that would result from the changes that you're being asked to make. And so you can see in the difference column that there are some substantial increases to the development potential for these sites. And in the process of doing this, of course, our kind of lead principle has always been to first protect what exists in the industrial area today, which are industrial manufacturing uses and art related uses. And then from that position, how can we complement or enhance that activity by adding additional land use opportunities or additional development potential. And so we think that the recommendation we've put together for you achieves that, it protects and then it adds to complement. Regarding temporary uses, we had some discussion about temporary uses. In the revisions that we've brought to you this time, the vending roadside market has been edited to allow for additional time requests. So the roadside market has already been expanded in our description within the overlay to include hand fabricated material goods produced by TEC use. So these roadside markets are usually more food-vending only in this case. We've tried to expand the types of users that can benefit from the roadside market section, and then we've added the additional time option for operating hours. Those roadside markets are renewed on an annual basis, and there is no limit to the number of years that somebody can go through the annual renewal process. So this is just like roadside markets, push card vending. These are on annual review cycles. Okay, and then the vending for mobile food trucks is another subcategory under temporary uses. Mobile food trucks are allowed on a property up to two days per week. In the overlay proposal, we had amended that language to allow up to five days per week. There has been some request that the food trucks be permitted on properties the full seven calendar days. And we've heard different variations on that. So the first is that they should just be allowed up to the full calendar week. Another variation of that is that they should be allowed up to the five days. But after the five days, not be required to leave the property and just be allowed to stay on property but in a closed status. And so for us because the language says that it's up to five days, but then the trucks typically have to leave the site in order to be considered a temporary use. Otherwise we interpret that to be a more permanent use and that perhaps the use should then go through the normal permitting process and target employment center requirements to become a full time permanent use for the site. But I expect that we'll come back and we'll have some additional discussion on that as well. And then finally, under parking, there have been a number of public comments coming in suggesting that parking be eliminated within the Target Employment Center District overlay. And so this really hasn't changed from our previous proposal. We think there are substantial reductions already written into this overlay section, which are highlighted in this example on the screen. So there are a number of reductions that are already in here that we think provide a balance between this new creative and innovative approach to how to deal with mixed industrial, but also protect some baseline for minimum parking to be provided. And perhaps in the future we learn more from this experience that would allow us to further reduce these part numbers. But our recommendation continues to be the parking that was included in the original discussion. Okay, that completes our initial presentation and we can take any, obviously any questions you might have following public comment. Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Cureborn. Can you go ahead and call the first two speakers, right, Mr. J4? First two speakers, Madam Chair. Max McCann and Madison Rice, please go to I the podium. State your name and address with a record. You have three minutes to address city council. Good evening, Max McCann, 26483rd Avenue, South. Here as the president, sorry, vice president of the Palmetto Park Neighborhood Association in my official capacity. I hear to let you know we approve of the code as a whole but we do ask that council remove parking mandates from this code. We've put together a strong coalition that supports this, the neighborhood association, the deuces live, three daughters brewery, residential construction developer, Yembe St. Pete, the Mayor's Bike Pet Advisory Committee. You have those letters in your inbox and I think they're really compelling. I hope you will consider them. Quick story. A few weeks ago my friend was in town from Phoenix, Arizona and we were outside in front of my house and after a few minutes he said, what's going on? Why are all these people walking around? And I said, because it's Saturday, it was so foreign to him that you would have foot traffic in a residential neighborhood, and that shows you how rare it is to have a walkable neighborhood in America and how special our neighborhood is. So removing parking mandates is only gonna help that. It's only gonna make our area more walkable because what we're seeing here, okay, what are we talking about? Parking mandates require property owners to build parking regardless of demand. So if I wanna open up a bicycle repair shop on the Pinellas Trail, where I don't expect any of my customers to show up by car. Well, if it's more than 30 feet wide, I got to build parking. It's going to sit there empty. If I want to open up a neighborhood bar, I don't want my customers driving to the bar. Too bad, I got to build parking. I want to build housing for starving artists who can't afford cars. Well you better hope they don't have families because if it's over 750 square feet, I'm going to have to build parking anyway. So there are a lot of these unintended consequences of parking mandates and things like more driving, higher housing costs, more pollution, more flooding. But what I want to assure you is this is a really modest reform to remove parking mandates. There will still be parking here. Every property owner is free to build as much parking as she likes. In the short term, this is going to be, have practically no impact at all on our built environment. But what it'll do is it'll give us the freedom in the decades to come to shift away from building, being forced to build spaces for cars instead of people. The Minneapolis planning directors said the elimination of parking requirements has been the most effective regulatory reform we've made. And it's not just progressive strongholds like Minneapolis, cities like Lexington, Kentucky, Birmingham, Alabama have completely removed parking mandates. We should be at the forefront of this movement, frankly, and we're being left behind instead. So please remove parking mandates from this zone. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Hello, hello. Can you move the mic a little closer to you? Thank you. Is this better? Much better. Okay, okay, okay. Hi. Is this better? Much better. OK, OK, OK. Hi. Hi, I'm Madison Rice 3245 Jackson Street North. I'm here to ask that you remove parking mandates from this zoning code. The whole point of transit oriented development is to allow for residents and businesses along, oh, I lost my note. Along the BRT corridor to not need or minimize the use of a car. And requiring parking does not help achieve this goal. According to the Parking Reform Network, 28% of our downtown is dedicated to off-street parking. Almost one-third of our downtown is already dedicated to cars, not people, and required parking minimums will continue this trend. Parking is one of the largest costs of new development, and this cost gets passed down to tenants, to renters, to homeowners. Parking lots contribute to the heat island effect and make places less walkable by spacing out businesses. And arbitrary parking requirements are sometimes an insurmountable hurdle for the construction of affordable housing. Removing parking mandates doesn't mean that no parking will be built as Mac said. If developers want to build parking and the demand is there, they are free to do so. City planner Jeff Speck said the twin gods of smooth traffic and ample parking have turned our downtowns into places that are easy to get to but not worth arriving at. So what do you want St. Pete to be? Do you want it to be easy to get in an out by car? Or do you want downtown to be a vibrant walkable human scale space? It's not possible to have both at the same time. Overall I support the zoning change. I like the increase in density around sunrunner stops, and I'm excited that we're promoting transit and lifestyles that depend less on cars, if at all. But if we want this to be really, really successful, we need to remove parking mandates. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Warren, Wilingham and Justin Cornier. I believe that's how you say it. Please go to either podium. Stay today. I'm going to address with a record and you have three minutes to address the council. Hey, Warren, Willingham, 3245, Jackson Street, North. I love the TOD plan generally, other than the requirements of the parking minimums. I strongly recommend that we remove parking minimums from the TOD area. I, a bunch of my friends and many, many people my age, more and more every day, do not have nor want cars. I would love to live somewhere more dense and walkable, just because you personally don't want to live in live somewhere without parking, where you can actually walk to a bakery, doesn't mean that there aren't people chomping at the bit for it. It's already bad enough that I can't dig up my driveway and plant more fruit trees. Instead, I must keep parking spaces for a car that does not exist. That stinks, but to mandate this downtown along a transit corridor is insane. TOD is not a new concept that we are the guinea pigs for, though mandating parking minimum spreads out businesses and makes them harder to access on foot, immediately negating the benefits of TOD. Requiring parking increases cost for the business. They have to buy more land or shrink their building and waste that space to subsidize cars. One business parking lot could have just been a whole other business. It's fine if a business decides on their own to build parking, go right ahead, who cares. But blanket requiring if for everyone is a destructive subsidy to car drivers at the expense of every other mode of transit. Requiring parking is a holdover from previous decades where we thought that car-centric development could scale well with population. It does not. I worry that upzoning along the TOD corridor while still requiring parking minimums will cause the corridor to be underutilized and underdeveloped. It will then be used to argue why TOD or transit doesn't work even though we didn't try in the first place. Please vote for TOD but first please strip out these arbitrary parking minimums. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker please. My name is Justin Cornway. I live at 1026, 9th Avenue South. And so it's Midtown neighborhood. So this TOD is within a walking distance of my house biking distance transit. My family uses transit bikes and walks everywhere we go. I don't own a car. You'll hear a lot of comments from folks that are very passionate about this. So I'll give my unique perspective. I'm a nurse at all children's hospital. I do trauma shifts, 24 hour shifts. So I see what happens to the kids in our city that are hit by cars. I see just the trauma that's associated with that. If you design something for cars, you get exactly that. You get a bunch of cars. If you design it for people and pedestrians and bicyclists and make it safe and vibrant, you get exactly that. You get a bunch of cars if you design it for people and pedestrians and bicyclists and make it safe and vibrant. You get exactly that. So it's all by design and that's what you guys are all here for. And I'm excited to support the removal of parking mandates for this project. Excited to be able to walk to this from my house and enjoy it for decades to come. So thank you so, thank you very much. Thank you. Next to speakers please. Next to speakers, Lindsay Wolfe and I believe it's Daniel, camera, Adelia, Adelia. Please go to either podium. State your name and address for the record. You have three minutes to address city council. Hi, I'm Lindsay Wolfe, 24th, 39th, 4th Avenue South. And I'm the president of Palma de Varkin, the rest of Palmetto Park Neighborhood Association. I'm also speaking on my own behalf. We are the neighborhood located in this area. So this directly affects our neighborhood, and I believe we're the only one actually touching this area we're talking about. If you talked to our neighbors, we love the walkability. We love what's coming our way, and we're really excited. I don't want to reiterate what other people have said. I see how important it is to get rid of the parking and just as a new mom to be able to get out with the stroller and if there were fewer cars, that would be great, but the walkability to get to businesses and make it super easy has just made a huge change in our lives and I just see as we grow, if we can make sure that the transit flourishes the walkability flourishes and getting rid of the parking makes a huge difference and I know our neighborhood really appreciates it. Thank you. Thank you. Yes sir. I'm Daniel Camardella I live at 2726 second Avenue South so I am right there. I'm about as close as you can get to the Central Avenue first Avenue South Sunrunner Quarter and yeah we invested a lot of money in public transit but So I am right there. I'm about as close as you can get to the Central Avenue, First Avenue, South, Son and Runder Quarter. And yeah, we invested a lot of money in public transit, but simultaneously we're also suppressing demand by still focusing on parking mandates. So I am generally for it, but I'm against the parking mandates. You can't build public transit. Like he said, while also subsidizing cars. So strongly against that. And also they just aren't urban areas that are desirable and car centric at the same time. That's how you get into these sprawls of verbs that nobody really wants to be around. So when you think about your classic Main Street USA, it's not parking lots. And if St.P. wants to be a desirable urban center, then we can't be car centric at the same time. Let people at least make their own choices when developing. Thank you. Thank you. Next two speakers please. Neil Conrad here. And Ben Rodriguez, please go to I the podium. State's name and address with a record. You have three minutes to address the council. Agreed. And council, my name is Neil Camadilla. I'm at 2427 Second Avenue South in the Palmetto Park neighborhood. I also want to say that I support the TOD center runner changes zoning changes. I would also like to see the parking minimums removed. For all the reasons that we've spoken about here. I believe that cities built for people are more pleasant and more desirable. And again parking will still exist. It'll just be up to the property owners and the residents to decide the parking that they want, and the parking that they don't want can be put to uses like housing, green space to reduce flooding, and things like that. So thank you. Thank you. Yes, sir. Good evening, city council. And happy Friday, Eve. Happy Friday. Yes, sir. Good evening, city council. And happy Friday, Eve. Happy Friday. My name is Dan Rodriguez. I live at 2715 Second Avenue South with my wife and cute little puppy Lucy. This is Lucy. She couldn't make it today. But Lucy is a frequent rider of the Sunrunner and the Central Avenue trolley. And she enjoys the walkability of St. Pete. So I'm here to ask for the removal of any parking mandates right for the center under 20 Second Street corridor. I grew up in Brooklyn, New York. I was able to walk to get groceries, bread, biscuits, and lottery tickets and cigarettes. All those of the last two items my parents had known nothing about for my aunt. I love this city. I've been here since 2014. I lived in the Tampa Bay area since 1989 and I love how walkable and how much of a chill vibe the city has I have a car, but I also have a bike a scooter and I can walk to get my haircut I can bike to get my teeth cleaned and I can take the sunrunner to the beach and the central avenue, Charlie, to the pier. I think it's important that we just consider removing mandates because we're not removing the ability to add new parking. We're simply saying that we can add more housing and more affordable housing in those spaces that those would normally take up. And as some of the other people have mentioned, you know, a lot of other cities have removed parking mandates, including port towns in Washington. I have no idea where that is. But it's a city of about 10,000 people that took a look at that and said, hey, we want to build a more walkable city. I think it's an opportunity here for us. And so if you look at the walkability score for Tampa versus St. Petersburg, we're actually a little bit under Tampa in terms of walkability. So I guess my overall reason for asking for this removal of mandates is so that Tampa doesn't catch us. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. The next two speakers please. Next two speakers Madam Chair. Garrett, Marple and Christine McCann. Please go to I the podium. State your name and address with a record and you have three minutes to address City Council. Good evening. Garrett, Marple. 4021, 38th Avenue North. To avoid repeating things other people have already said, I just wanted to say that I am in full support of the zoning change but that we absolutely have to get rid of parking minimums. And that is because we want to support public transit in any possible way that we can. We don't want to get run into a situation where we have half measures in place that cause people to say public transit doesn't work in Tampa or Florida and so it gets defunded. So we need to remove parking minimums so that we can you know have a situation where each and every single one of the Sunrunner stops is a place where people can live, work, and play. Each stop is its own destination. And then people will ride it. You know, and as ridership increases, we'll be able to expand the system and the urban core of the city as well. So I believe that we can set a precedent here today, by not only up zoning this area, but also removing the parking mandates as well. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. My name is Christine McCann, and this is Sloan. And we live at 2648 Third Avenue South. We are residents of Palmetto, Park neighborhood, which, so this area that we're talking about, we're really super excited about zoning plans and we are very for that. But yes, we do want to talk about the parking mandates. This area is super tiny compared to the whole city. It's very small and it's really just our neighborhood. And Sloan would like to walk around more. So there's a couple gaps in our neighborhood. We love our neighborhood because it's very walkable and bikeable. I was in a car accident when we first moved here and I can't really drive. It's painful. So we can bike a lot. But sometimes it's difficult to walk because, excuse me. Parking lots create a lot of empty space. It's not shaded. It's really dangerous because cars are, there's no sidewalks and parking lots. So it's just, it's really dangerous for kids. And then, you know, we can have more trees if we have less parking. And this is really about a future thing. You know, I don't know if you guys want to do this later, but like it's much easier to just do it now. You know, we're not changing the parking right now. easier to just do it now. We're not changing the parking right now. We're just making it an option to change it in the future when we can use it. And I think it would encourage, especially since we're in a transit zone. A lot of people are still not using the sunrunner when they could easily use the sunrunner. When we have visitors, we always prioritize biking and walking. But it's hard sometimes. There's a lot of stuff in the way. It's hot. But we do our best, right? We got so just today. But you know what? All those cars were stuck in the lakes. And we just biked right through the lakes. We just got a little wet, but we were already wet. So I would appreciate it if you thought about the citizens and the people and not the cars. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so long. Next two speakers, please. Two speakers, Madam Chair. Joseph, First, and Mark Ailing. Please go to Ivo Podium. State your name and address for the record, and you will have three minutes to address to the council. Hello everybody. Joseph, First, 423rd Street South. I thought I was coming here with my party hat on, but unfortunately, I think we have to get through a few issues first. I thought Derek did a beautiful job of explaining the issues that were in the middle of discussing. The unfortunate reality is that we as a neighborhood and as a community just got to see those issues and have that discussion about an hour and a half before this meeting today. When you work on something for six years for me personally and many of these other people for many more years than that, seems like there should be a little bit more time spent making thoughtful decisions when you have such significant changes happening from the draft that we've been working with through the last 10 public hearings to a significant change to today. So in the three minutes that I have or two minutes and 18 seconds, I'm not gonna be able to get into the details and mechanics of all those things, but let's talk about them very specifically. Yes, it is a goal to retain and keep TEC uses arts, artists, and light industrial, all of those things. It is also a goal, heard loudly from the artist community, to have commercial uses that mix with those as well to get people hanging out there, spending more time on the streets to help actually sell art by the change that has been made requiring that 40% of the entire first floor, without any exclusion of other areas, BTC uses will preclude any of those non-TEC uses, the commercial uses, the bars, the restaurants, et cetera, from existing on the ground floors of vertical developments. That's not the goal that we're trying to accomplish. The second piece about environmental concerns. You cannot have a development project that does not have clarity or has a series of contingencies related to future industrial uses. I think that was removed from what I heard. I think. But there has to be a very clear understanding of exactly what we're showing and what types of mediation or how you are addressing those concerns. And I'm not sure there's enough clarity on that. I'd like Derek to actually present that again if I could ask. The second, the third piece is just related to the temporary uses. We got most of what we want. You can have food trucks and roadside vending and you can have that for a year and then you can extend the permanent extend the permit That's great But how could you ask somebody who's investing in a food truck a lot or roadside vending Location to tell the the trucks that are there to have to leave The site to go to another site within the IT zoning which is what this, to then park overnight rather than be able to stay in place for seven days. That makes no logical sense. There should be a very clear allowance of in these situations for roadside vending for those trucks to remain on site 24-7, yet only be able to operate and serve within the time periods that Derek laid out before. That's all I can do with three minutes, but I'm happy to answer any additional questions if people have them for me after I sit down. Thank you, yes sir. Hello, my name is Mark Aling, and I have a business at 515, 22nd Street South, right in the heart of the warehouse arts district. And I'm going to talk a little bit about the food truck consideration that Joe was just mentioning. You know, I think it's incredibly progressive of the city of St. Pete to consider this I-Mix. And I think it's going to take the city forward into the 21st century. We're redefining how industry functions today. And what we're basically doing is creating the entertainment district for the city. And the way that this zoning is structured, and I think Joe has had a lot to do with helping to put this together. It's really going to create a focal point for the arts and it's gonna allow people to live there as well. And have retail, it's gonna be a completely different way for a city to function and it's very progressive and I think it's gonna be a really amazing innovation for the city of Saint Petersburg. Allowing the food trucks to stay in place is going to aid in that process. Just because they're parked overnight, you've got to reconsider the way that the city is going to function and the way that that entertainment district is going to function. It doesn't make sense to have these vehicles moving off. If we've got a festival going on that's a multi-day festival and that truck has to relocate. There's no reason for that. There's no cause for that. If they can stay in place for the duration of a permit, you get a control. How long that truck is there for that duration of that permit, you can still control how that functions. So, I think it's very helpful to allow for that. And I just want to say that I really appreciate Council considering all of this and I think it's a huge step forward for the city of St. Petersburg. Thank you. Thank you. At least the last two cards. Next to speakers Madam Chair and last two cards. Marcus Gautschlick and Don Mastry. Please go to either podium. State your name and address for the record. You have three minutes to address the council. Okay. Madam Chair, City Council, thanks so much. Good evening. My name is Marcus Gautchich, business address 515, 22nd Street South. We've been extremely excited about the zoning change. I have not had a chance to speak about it. I'm not going to take up the entire time anyways about it. But also what you should know from coming from me is that the work that Joe has done has been with the artist in mind. I remember since day one that I landed here in St. Pete, he's been coming around trying to understand the needs of the district, trying to understand the needs of the arts community. And I just want to highlight one item specifically is that in order for the arts community to thrive where we are, we need TEC and non-TEC businesses to be allowed in our zone. That's my message for it, for this evening for you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Mr. Master. Good evening, thank you. My name is Don Mastery. My dress is 200 central Avenue. And I'm representing Mr. Duncan McClellan tonight, who I consider the founder of the warehouse arts district. And he is certainly in favor of the sun runner ordinance. He has a problem with respect to the food trucks if they have to relocate. I also think it would be ridiculous for a food truck to have to go through a site plan review process, because I don't believe they would ever meet the requirements. I remember when this city first considered food trucks long before any of you were on this council and all the fears that were thought of that would come from having food trucks and I don't believe any of those fears have ever materialized and I think that to cause the relocation of food trucks every so many days is just a waste of effort and a waste of time and I would urge you to disregard and remove that from the ordinance. Thank you very much. No guards okay councilmember Floyd. Oh okay I didn't realize I was up first. Okay. Let me get my bearings. I just have two things I want to bring up first. I want to ask. I guess, Derek. When you were talking about moving from 1.5 base FAR to two. And you mentioned the workforce housing requirements and you had 10% up there with 5% struck through. Are you asking us to consider that? Is that what that was? Yes, those were in insurance that we provided to you says 5% yes, you know, we have to provide things in advance. So we continue to do some modeling to just go the workforce housing number, but we also realized that we provided you an ordinance that says 5%. So because we were doing the additional modeling, we did feel some obligation to show you what that looks like if you wanted to have that discussion and consider changing the number 5 to 10%. But that is why we brought that and included it in the presentation. There is a second workforce housing bonus that we are recommending no change to and that is the payment and lieu of option. So that option does still exist in the workforce housing bonus table. But we did feel some obligation to show you our work if that reinforced or supported the discussion you were having. OK, no, I appreciate that because I would have preferred if it stayed at 1.5. And then the bonus would have been right there. But I'd like to see it move to 10%, I think that's reasonable. So I'll just, but I'll wait to hear from everyone else and see if they feel the same and if we can make that change. The only other thing I wanted to add was to echo my support for changing the way that the parking is mandated. I don't wanna frame it at all as removing all parking. I wanted to be known that like I support letting property owners decide how much parking should be on site. You know we have residents who have clearly indicated that they want to live without cars. I think they're representative of a significant number of people and a growing number of people in our city and in our world really. And then I think if a business owner wants to have a business that doesn't have parking at it, I think that should be their prerogative, especially want to hear from everyone else. I'm sure other people have opinions. I think something really easy that I've seen done in other places was to change the minimums to a suggestion instead of a requirement. That way, if someone's building a business there, building a property there and they maybe don't have in mind continuing to own it. They can build to the suggested minimum, but if someone is developing there with the potential of owning it and continuing into the future, they have the option to build a residential place that doesn't have parking or have a business that doesn't have parking. And so I just figured I'd throw that out there. As far as the other things, I'm not sure what to think right this second. I see some other reactions as well. So I look forward to how the conversation progresses about the food trucks and the environmental things as well. Because that was kind of put on my plate at the last second too. So, but I did want to just throw out there my support for moving workforce housing bonus to 10%. As well as my support for finding a path forward on the parking changes as well. But I'll leave it there for now. I look forward to hearing what everyone else has to say. Thanks. Thank you. Council Member Driscoll. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation and particularly to everyone who took the time to be here tonight for this. This is important and hopefully by the time we finish this discussion it'll be exciting. But at the moment I do have to start by saying I was kind of just appointed to see the the presentation that we received this morning had some changes in it that I hadn't seen in the in the back up that it just didn't give me a whole lot of time to even try to talk about it. And I think, you know, there could be members of the public who, if they had known some of this, that they may have come to speak as well. So here we are. I had been excited because we were increasing the base FAR from 1.5 to 2. I remember during the first reading, I was cheering for 2.5. But I felt that 2 was a great compromise and something that gives developers the flexibility to build what we're envisioning. We don't want to go through all of this work only to limit to severely what can be done there. And I think that would have done that. So I was excited about the 2.0, but then I'm seeing that that comes with a catch. So a base FAR is supposed to be a base FAR period. Like that's what you can just do. Tying conditions to it doesn't make it a base FAR anymore, really. I mean, it really didn't move from 1.5. Help me understand this because I don't know what I'm missing. I have paged through this agenda trying to figure out what I missed. But then, you know, in your, I mean, it's spelled out so clearly in these slides. Okay, so let me start by just clarifying a point in the beginning. There are no changes to the ordinance that you have in front of you. In the presentation today, the only thing that is different is us showing you the additional research related to the five versus 10% on workforce housing. Everything else in our presentation is already included in the ordinance language that you have in front of you. So that is the only distinction between the two. Paul, if we could have the presentation back up, please. Okay, for us when it comes to the consideration of the 1.5 versus 2, we are consistently looking at the workforce housing bonus system and the opportunities for the city to include and provide workforce housing. So in this particular case, the request to go from 1.5 to 2.0 was going to directly affect the workforce housing requirement in the bonus system. So knowing that we tried to include some additional language that would permit up to 20 units by right, and then if you were proposing something more than 20 units it would be a 1 to 4 ratio. So for each workforce housing unit you get an additional 3 market rate units and that was something we thought was a reasonable compromise to go from the 1.5 to 2 but still provide and protect some access to workforce housing units at that smaller scale below 2.0 FAR. Can you tell me where that is in here? Yes. In the page six of 17. There is a list. It2, TOD supportive uses. Eric page six at the at the bottom of the print it's Page six of 17 I believe it says I've got two versions one so mine's the 14 page Okay. So in that section there's a list of TOD supportive uses and it identifies the multi-family dwelling option. And then it, this is the section where you have the environmental report requirement and then you have the breakdown for projects that are 2.0, FAR in more or less than 2.0. So can you tell me at what point we were talking about this in the June in first reading? I mean we talked about the base FAR, but we didn't have, I don't know call a robust discussion about, or first housing, it was about the base FAR and where the starting point was. Yes? We weren't talking about having a requirement for affordable housing as part of this. As you go up, yes. But what I was looking for and what I want now is to start at 2.0. We have to be able to allow enough to be built for the numbers to make sense, especially when we're requiring all of these, when we have all of these supportive uses, the TEC uses, that can end up, that's like the riskier part of this, you know? I want, I want what I said last time, which is 2.0. And then we start doing bonuses after that. It's still not that much. And I remember going through and finding, using building heights to talk with you about, you know, examples around the city of what that would look like. And we're not talking about high rises, you guys. These are like the mid-rise, they're the mid-rise buildings that we're not building downtown anymore because everyone's doing high rises now. So, I mean, if we're going to go through all of this, I want us to allow for some good development, don't you? Eric, you can correct me if I'm wrong. My recollection of the conversation on the FAR was, we did discuss the impact that raising the FAR would have on the workforce housing bonus. That was part of the discussion. So we tried to split the difference, go to 2.0, but put in the workforce density bonus. But it's at the discretion of city council. If you guys want to base 2.0 with no workforce bonus related to that, That's fine. If there's five votes for that, there's no problem. Thank you. You know what would help to bring down the prices on this would be to take a look at that parking. Now we've talked about that. It was actually one of the selling points that we had when we when we did the no minimum parking for certain buildings for certain units downtown and part of that was to help the market drive some of those prices down. Since one that I know of has opened and yes it's mid-rise just a few floors they've got a wine bar on the first floor. No problem filling, no problem seeing folks enjoying a glass of wine there at the Beast Row and guess what? No problems with finding parking pretty much any time of and I'm not sure if it's going to be a good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be a good idea to be The speakers said this part of the city we're talking about a small area here and we're talking about transit oriented development. We have the sun runner right there, we've got central avenue trolley and we have the panelist trail. Not to mention all of our shared devices that are out there that we've made available, the e-bikes, the scooters. This is the perfect place for no minimum parking. Let the market decide. Let the builders decide what they want. We're not going to end up with zero parking. It's going to be the amount of parking that people feel is right for what they're going to build based on what they want to attract. Customers, residents, it will work. And if it's going to work anywhere, it's going to work in this neighborhood. The residents of the area themselves are telling us they're in support of this plan and they want more neighbors less parking. How often do we hear that? Let's let's go for it. This is the place to do it. This is the place to create a truly walkable, bikeable neighborhood that has that easy access. I want us to give that some thought because it will. That could be the trade-off. We do 2.0, no parking minimums. Now you're talking about volume where you actually might be able to charge a little bit less. You know? And then with the parking spaces that don't have to be built, guess what can go there? Housing. And we know we need more of it. We need as much of it as we can put together. But we've got to help people make the numbers work. And y'all know that. This TEC use percentage on the ground floor, we've really got to work on that. I know that can get a little bit complicated for people who haven't been studying this for a while, but the bottom line is that it really hurts the opportunity for businesses. And that needs to be resolved somehow. And I would like to have another option given to us before we vote on that. I really think that we just have to drastically reduce that percentage. Again, there is no sense in going through this for as long as we have only to create limits that prevent what we say we want. Finally, for now, the food trucks. I say let them stay. My question is, why wouldn't we? In this particular situation with this kind of atmosphere. Is there a safety reason or a... I don't know, because when I asked myself why not, I couldn't come up with an answer at all. So, I think if we're going to allow temporary use, let's allow temporary use for that whole time. And let the people, let the people creating this decide how often they need to switch people out. This is really about Listening to our Neighbors the creative class and our developers Along with what we know about what we want for our city and for this part of our city I I think we can get to yes, but we've got some of these tweaks that need to be made I think we can get there now. everyone knows how I feel about it. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Councilmember Gabby. All right, thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Derek, for the presentation and thank you administration for all the hard work over a number of years. I think we've been talking about this at least five. I think the first time I ever met Joe first was when we were in the police station for our offices. So that tells me, that's how I date things, right? Where were we? But I also want to thank the Palmetto Park neighborhood. You guys are such a great example of neighborhood advocacy. So thank you for coming out and for all the stakeholders. And I definitely want to thank what I consider to be the pioneers of this area. Those who invested in this area long ago before we ever knew what it could possibly be. So I'm very, very happy about where that that we are here today after all of these years, but to be quite honest, I think there's a little more juice we can get out of the orange. So I'm like, kind of in the mood to squeeze it. I'm along the same lines as Council Member Druskel on a lot of these things, but I wanna kind of dig into a couple of additional questions that I have. So I'll start, I guess, with the easy thing and kind of where Councilmember Driscoll ended, which is the food trucks. Didn't really get an answer to that. So I kind of want to hear why we think that we need to ask small business owners to have this additional burden on them to remove their trucks during that time. I don't understand it. And we've come so far to now add this and just seems a little regressive to me. So I need a why. Okay. I need a why. Okay. I'll work backwards on some of those comments. Okay. So there isn't a new add-in for this meeting. I understand. Okay also the food trucks are normally allowed only up to two days per calendar week and we have written in an extension to five days per calendar week only in this overlay so there has been some accommodation for the food trucks already. Now the concern we have from a design perspective is that you could eventually get to creating essentially an outdoor food hauler food court, bringing the food trucks, have them operating full time, and completely circumvent the target employment center requirement to provide 40% of your first floor or 30% of lot area and then you're not providing the target employment center requirement, but you are getting a benefit of essentially a full-time restaurant on site, which is a TOD supportive use. Now that being said, this isn't something that we are particularly committed to. So that is our rationale and approaching it this way. We've already provided an extension and because food trucks are more of a temporary use, we're trying to stop from going to making them a permanent use that circumvents the target employment center requirement. Okay. Can I add to that? Food trucks generally, why we do what we do with food trucks generally. So under the state law, we are preempted from regulating things related to the types of trucks, like how they work in a regulatory sense. But we still do have zoning, time, place, and manner. We just can't ban them from the city. So with that, we do have, as Derek says, the regular sections of food trucks and their dates. And then as Derek said, and you'll see outline in here, if you get permits, you can have extended periods for extended events. And when Derek's talking about temporary use, while we see food trucks as a temporary use, is also a function of their permitting, because again, when Derek says there's concerns on the planning side from making it more of a permanent use, you would also, potentially, be implicating requirements for building, fire, and other life safety if it's remating in a more permanent sense. That's not always the case, but when you're getting into a permanency at a certain size for a certain use and occupancy, you could be triggering those extra things. When you're not moving, you don't because you maintain that temporary, that mobility and that automobile centric state, which is in with your preemption, that we don't touch, but when you get into that permanency, you're kind of coming out of that. So that may, that's originally why we have time limits on what we have now. Okay. I hear you. I still just. I still just disagree. I disagree with what I see as being very cumbersome on these small business owners and I just don't agree with you and I think that we should change it. I'll listen to my colleagues but I think that we should be we're trying to be creative here. We're trying to create something brand new and something that the community is asking us for. Yet everywhere we turn, we're trying to find like these workarounds that I'm afraid in their totality is going to limit the vision of the area. That's my concern. So I'll move on then from there to the environmental report. So I want to talk about that a little bit, because I have some concerns about that as well. And Derek, you mentioned that we were attempting to model chapter 17 when it comes to the housing and industrial zoning districts. So I've gone to that language and this language is pretty substantially different. It models it to a point and then it kind of goes off the rails. And this future industrial uses is very ambiguous to me. And I have concerns about when we have these requirements, what that does to a developer's ability to be able to secure financing. It's additional contingencies that, from a real estate point of view, and a redevelopment point of view, I have real concerns about. And I'm worried that there's some unintended consequence here that will actually stifle development. So I need you to explain to me more about future industrial uses and what we believe that means because chapter 17.5 does not say that. You're correct chapter 17.5 does not say that which is why I isolated that in the original presentation to tell you that there are some additional phrases that have been included here that I expected to talk about later. So thank you. Here we are. For us we kind of I'll tell you our approach and if council would like to see this phrasing removed, I think we would be okay with that but let me explain to you our approach to this for you. So we kind of see this almost as a right to farm situation. We have people coming to the nuisance, which is an industrial area. And what we're trying to do through this language is make sure that any applicant for site plan development is prescribing in their application an awareness of what they're moving to, the new since they're coming to, potentially. So that in the future, if there is a problem, we are not put in a position where we have to somehow deal with an industrial user because the residential project who came to the new sense is now complaining about this industrial development that came up next door. So that has been our approach in the phrasing, but the reference to potential future industrial use is not in chapter 17.5. No, it's not. I would like that phrasing removed and I don't know legal what that looks like. For this one in particular, I would be ready to make a motion or however you direct that I do this because I just think we are setting ourselves up for a stifling of development by having this additional language in there. And trust me, nobody here understands the right to far-mact better than I do. I've been there. I know that. And we're talking about a boogie man that may or may not ever exist. And I just, I can't go there with this language and the concern about what it could potentially do down the way. So. Yeah, so Madam Chair, I'll jump in. Kind of procedurally just listening to your discussion. Yes, Council Member Gavry, you can make a motion at any time for changes to the ordinance. Obviously, there's been discussions about other potential changes. What I would recommend hearing that is that there be a motion for any change that Council would like to see, that any that council would like to see, that any council member would like to see. And then maybe at the end of that we assess kind of where we're at. You know, depending on, you know, when it comes to an ordinance compared to the resolution, we have to be very precise on the language. So if there's too many moving parts, you could continue, you could consider continuing this public hearing if there was too much, if it is targeted changes that we could have a recess like we've done in the past sometimes and give you something specific back. But what we can't do with an ordinance is obviously having any of you voting on something without seeing with precision, right, The exact changes that would be made, so you're on the same page before you make a final vote. So that's a long-winded way of saying, considering everything going on, I'd say motions for every change, and then maybe we take it from there. Okay, so my desire would be, and I think the simplest way to do this is for this language to mirror chapter 17.5. We did the work on that language in, I mean, if the property is located in an industrial zoning district, an environmental report of the subject property, and an analysis of the surrounding industrial uses, including any mitigation measures needed to address the health and safety of future residents due to proximity of set uses. Simple. We did the work once, we wrote that language, we all like council approved that language. Now here we are, why would we not use that language again? So that is what I would like to see so that we're not recrafting something brand new, sitting here. We already have it. And then, as I'm always a fan of, we have consistency in our code. I never like to see wild differences within our code when it's around the same topics. So that is what I would like to see. I guess I can make a motion for that. Is that okay? You could. I guess I can make a motion for that. Is that okay? You could. I mean, so motion, any motion that any counselor wants to make, you can make more of a conceptual motion like that. And then there'd be a follow-up with okay, where would the exact changes? How would the language change in what section or sections? Yes, you, it's certainly fine for you to make that motion. Okay. So I would make the motion that the language in regards to the multi-family dwelling be changed to mirror the language that is in chapter 17.5 around the environmental report requirement. Second. Oh, look. Thank you, Derek. Okay, it took us a minute to get there, but we got it. So this is sorry for the pink highlighting, but that is showing the section and the language in chapter 17.5 as you just read aloud. And we'll see if I can get this in here. And then. And there's the old language. Hopefully. And so this is what is in the ordinance right now. And so we've highlighted the reference to ant potential future industrial uses because we knew that that would be a discussion point. And then also the example language that's included there says such as but not limited to so those were the modifications to the language but the top highlighted in pink is what is in chapter 17.5 today. So before I move on do we have to vote on this one or do we? I need a comment. So that was going to be okay. So what I'll do is I'll yield my time since I've made the motion so that we can have discussion on it. For clarification since you made the comment that everyone that we have to make individual motions to the changes that we've stressed here today because I know I've heard council member Driscoll make at least two or three. I haven't made any motions. I know what you like to see. No, you haven't made any motions yet, but she made some recommendations or some things that you like to see prior to getting your instruction about making the motion. So how do we back up so that everybody's on the same page? Right, so I think right now you can discuss the motion on the floor, vote on that motion and then any other council member can make subsequent motions that for changes that they would like to see. Okay so you ready for that council member gather? I would love first to have a discussion on the motion thank you. Again there's already been probably a second it so I don't see anyone. No. I've got my button pushed. I'm getting ready to call you today. Give me a minute. So you're speaking on Councilmember Gavard's motion. So Councilmember Driscoll. Thank you. I do have, so I think about when we collect this information, when we get an environmental report, it's for us it's something that we're paying for. With this information and perhaps council member gathered with her expertise in real estate, might have something to lend to this, but I'm wondering if that could be considered sensitive information that if it's submitted to us, it becomes a public record. And we're talking about you know folks who are trying to pull financing together and just I think I think some of that is none of our business. What is our business is to know that a report has been done and that know, to some satisfaction that it's buildable land. So I'm looking for a way to get what we want while protecting the interest of the developer in getting the financing that they need. We certainly defer to City Council and happy to hear from the development community. If they wanna address that, I'll just share with you my own direct experience because we've had several applications under chapter 17.5. And there's been no objections to handing over a phase one environmental. And it's been very effective there. We've had some things happen out of it. So for example, one was near school. So they put in some windows that had better sound protection than maybe otherwise they would have. But the process has been pretty smooth under 17.5. So I'll just share that with you. Now that's great to know. I just know that with some of these things, and especially these days, they think financing gets more and more complicated. And so I'm just trying to make sure that we're not throwing up a barrier that maybe I just didn't know about. So as Vice Chair Curtis says sometimes tell me like I'm in kindergarten. So if there's no concern about that sort of thing, then I'm supportive. Thank you. Council member Gabbert. Well, I would just respond to the question as well. Just from my experience with commercial real estate, phase one is very common. And so lenders are very familiar with that process. The heartburn for me was this additional language, and I think by removing that, it does no more harm than it does to any of the other multifamily housing units that are being built in other industrial areas with our current code. Got it. Thank you. Okay, seeing no further requests to speak, we do have a motion on the floor. That's been properly second Can you please open the machine for voting for the first? I don't know how to what to call it J4 Because we're gonna have said met one. I mean yeah, cuz we're gonna have several amendments So how do we need to class? Amendment one, okay, we'll take J4 member Amendment one. Can you please open the machine for voting? Council members, can you please cast your vote? I'll change the title. I was gonna change it, okay. All right. Council members, can you please cast your votes? Now that our present council members have voted, can you please tell in and out the votes? Madam Chair, the motion to approve agenda item j4 amendment one Passes unanimously with council member Muhammad being absent all right So I see no other requests to speak, but I still won't okay Okay, so I still want to make sure that we get Councilmember Driscoff's amendment. I think Ed had his button pushed and so did I. Well, they did. They're not showing, but now I'm here. I'm happy to do it on the second round. Okay. I do want to hear from my colleagues before I start moving. Okay. Now you're back up. Councilmember Monteneering. Yes. I didn't have any comments on the motion. Okay. Yes, I didn't have any comments on the motion. So that's why I didn't keep my button pressed. So thank you for the presentation. Thank you everybody for coming out. I too had some questions on the base FAR. And so we received two versions of this ordinance. We received a clean copy, and then we had a strike through an underlying copy. And when I was reviewing this, on the strike through an underlying copy, page 5 of 14,, yeah, yeah, so What did this look like before? It just said dwelling comma multifamily and that was it I Believe so yes Okay I believe so, yes. Okay. And then one of the changes was to bring forward the Environmental Report Language, which was originally in the design standards. So it was pulled up to the multifamily line. And then the additional language regarding the 20 units and the one to four ratio was a new ad. Okay. Well, I, when we brought this up back in June, I guess it was, and we discussed this and we discussed the base FAR and increasing it to either 2.0 or 2.5. I too thought that that was going to be the base. and this requirement, the 10% requirement. To me, we are so close to trying to get this ordinance approved. And it just seems like all these changes kind of came up out of the blue. And it's almost like we can see the promise land. We wanna get this thing done, but we are gonna have to make some changes. I just wanted to say on this requirement, I'm just not in agreement of moving it to 10%. I didn't wanna mention the food trucks, in agreement of moving it to 10%. I didn't wanna mention the food trucks, because there was a lot of comments about the food trucks. And a lot of times I've got the contrarian point of view here on City Council. I love food trucks. I think they're good, they're flexible. But if you're trying to develop something and you want permanent development, it's hard for somebody to stand up a restaurant if you've got a competition right there. So I kind of see things a little bit different with food trucks. I want to have them, but I also want the development to happen at the same time. And then, sticking with my contrarian porn review, I do agree with the staff on the parking requirements. I'm sure that's not going to be a shock to anybody here. No. I would like to ask Mr. First to come to the podium because I want to see get his thoughts on the parking issue. Okay. So I guess I am like the sole developer in the room, although I don't really consider myself that. But I'm generally supportive of no parking mandates, So I guess I am like the sole developer in the room, although I don't really consider myself that, but I'm generally supportive of no parking mandates because I do believe the private sector should Make those decisions as to what is marketable for those proposed developments The reason why I've not been an advocate to remove the parking mandates here Although I've been very much in support of max and obviously the the no parking Advocates that came out tonight is that I do think that the requirements that are put in the code are relatively benign, not only are they using the downtown standard but there's a 25% reduction on top of that given the fact that it's in proximity to the panelists trail and transit or to development in the BRT. So my sole anxiety with the parking mandates being completely removed, although candidly, it can probably work better for me economically, because there'll be another economic driver from parking spaces, because I have the sites at the scale and magnitudes to be able to provide parking. But my rationale for not being a diehard, no parking person for this area is that as it currently stands today, the parking infrastructure for three daughters, the parking infrastructure for the urban still house, the parking infrastructure for other surrounding businesses are all of my vacant properties. There's not a single on street parking space along 22nd street. That should change as part of the street scape redesign and through the development process. And there's not a single structure parking facility that exists in the area. So it is a little bit different than downtown where you have existing parking infrastructure and you have years of maybe over parking being built that can absorb the demand for cars. So it is unique here that we don't have any of that. But I am generally supportive of no parking mandates. There's just that wrinkle with what is the infrastructure in place in this area to actually support that. And that's good to hear. Because I'm all for the flexibility. I get concerned about how do you get people to that part of town. You know if you live outside of, if you're not in close proximity to the sunrunner or have access to a trolley or something like that. Like where I live, I've got to get in a car to get someplace. And so if we want this to be successful, I want to give the development community the flexibility. But I also want this to succeed. So I struggle with not having a parking requirement. I see other parts of our city that have the same kind of situation where they need parking so people can make that a destination. I just want to add one thing just really out of respect for the Palmetto Park Neighborhood Association which obviously maxes a part of and many of the others are. The people that should be most concerned about no parking requirements are the group that, through resolution, I believe is advocating to have no parking requirements. Because all of that parking spillover is going to spill west into Palmetto Park. I mean, that is the reality of what's going to take place. And so I do think that their opinions should be taken into deep consideration. I just want to make that clear because I so deeply respect their progressive nature about urbanism. And I very much subscribe to it. And having them as neighbors for a project of the scale and magnitude that I hope to deliver here is something that gives me extreme confidence and I want to make sure that they were appropriately heard and have that appreciation as to where that spillover would occur. Okay, thank you. I'll leave it right there. Madam Chair, thank you. All right, Vice Chair Gertis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll just start on parking because that's where we were. I was actually open to the no parking, but that concerns me about urban still house and three daughters, but I appreciate what you said about Paul Meadow Park. So I'll table that. I'm open to it, but that certainly is concerning because most of that parking is on lots. I'm assuming you want to develop. And so, but I'll listen to my colleagues, because I'm sure everybody has comments on what Mr. First just shared. But so I'm open to it, but that does concern me. I don't want to hurt other businesses by creating no parking on this development, and there's a hurt to somebody else by doing it. So I'm open to it but I want to hear what my colleagues have to say. Joe, can you come back for a second? Sorry, I should have kept you up there. So obviously there's this conversation about TEC which in the 40% which hasn't really been talked about since kind of the beginning of this conversation. I think Councilmember Driscoll brought up maybe there's some in between and I was trying to come up with something I don't think I did a very good job so I won't even say what I wrote. But is there is there some combination to make sure that we're getting, that's written in the ordinance that gets us where we want to be on TDC but also, you know, ensures that we have these other commercial uses. Because I totally understand your point, that you want to have, you know, the restaurants and the bars and the non-TEC and if the TEC is taking up all of the square foot of the John the bottom, that hurts that. I don't want that to happen. But I also understand staff's point of view where it's like not every developer is you and could come in and just make the bottom floor real small and the TEC essentially disappears and I have a concern about that. And so is there somewhere in the middle, can you see somewhere in the middle and Derek, I'd love your point of view on this too, is there somewhere in the middle, can you see somewhere in the middle, and Derek, I'd love your point of view on this too, is there somewhere in the middle where we can achieve both? And I'm hoping that one of the two guys at the podium who are smarter than me can help me out with us. The answer is I think we can, and I wanna give Derek a lot of credit for finding a very material issue that I completely understand their desire to avoid, which is basically somebody putting the development together, putting parking primarily on the ground floor because they don't want to spend the money to do it vertically in a structured setting. And as a result being left over with very little habitable space, which is to be fully transparent, our expectation was that the definition was going to be 40% of the habitable ground floor space. So when the definition came out, we were quite surprised that it was saying that it was including all of the back of house since space because we thought it was going to say excluding that. That's where this sort of rub has come. I think that there's an easy path. For me, if you are investing in development where you're putting structured parking and you're paying the additional cost for that, you are obviously going to have parking ramps, you're going to be parking, you're going to be loading inside of the building, you're going to have all sorts of back-up house space that you need to service a vertical development. So for me, if the definition said something more like excluding parking ramps and loading space, that would surely not be the majority of the ground floor. It wouldn't allow somebody to then put a bunch of random parking. And in my studies, I do have ground floor parking on some. And I get that, OK, maybe that should not help me avoid my TEC number. But loading parking ramps and other, back of house service elements for a building should not preclude you from achieving this TEC balance. And I want to just point out one other thing. When the code originally came out, it said 30% of the lot area. And Derrick will remember this, there were two issues with that. The first was, if you adaptively reuse a building that is only on a small portion of a large lot, how do you accomplish 30% if your building is less than 30% of a lot area? So that was number one. That's why that didn't work. And the second reason was that for again for vertical developments that have all of this of a back-of-house junk Our expectation was okay, you know that that 40% number would be of that habitable space The thing that I think shows the intent very clearly is that with a 95% lot coverage ratio and a 40% as they've defined it, the actual TEC requirement is 38% of the area, which is greater than the 30% of the lot area. So I think that very clearly shows that there's sort of a mismeeting of the minds on that intent. And I know this stuff is very detailed and complex, but I think if you just focus on that one key fact, how is the 40% of the first floor greater than 30% of the lot area when you're trying to ensure that you have a balanced mix of TEC and non-TEC uses, meaning a balanced mix of light industrial maker, arts and artisan, while still having general commercial uses so that the folks from Palmetto Park have a place to walk to, to grab a drink, a bite, and a place to get basic services. So I think if you tweak the definition by removing those necessary guts of a vertical building, parking ramps, back of house and loading, I think that's probably a fair compromise for me. I don't know if that would work for staff. Thank you. Derek, any feedback thoughts? Yeah. Thank you. Couple comments. Something that didn't come up, but I think is important to this discussion to make sure everybody understands the rule application correctly. So in the earlier discussion, there was a reference to target employment center use being on the first floor. And I want to make sure it's understood that the calculation to determine what is the TEC requirement is based on the ground floor. But there is no requirement that the TEC use be included on the ground floor. But there is no requirement that the TEC use be included on the ground floor. And so the TEC use, when provided, doesn't have to take away from a transit supportive use on the ground floor because it can be located upstairs, it could be located in the back of the property. It does not have to be on the first floor. So I just want to make sure everybody understands that distinction. in the back of the property, it does not have to be on the first floor. So I just want to make sure everybody understands that distinction. That's helpful, thank you. The second thing, and it's kind of an extension of the first point, and then I'll come back to you here. Okay. The target employment uses, in some case, you know, we have on in the ordinance, we have explicitly stated what our target employment uses. And a number of those target employment uses, arts education, arts related sales and service, museum, office, performing arts venue. We have a performing arts venue downtown that is located on the second floor, not the first. So there are opportunities to satisfy the target employment uses that are supportive of an active street facing storefront or they could be provided elsewhere in the building upstairs. Okay relating to the percentage in much of the analysis that we did first the origin of the 30 and the 40 percent is based on an analysis of existing conditions in the industrial area. So what do we see there today in terms of development? And some of those numbers were originally footnoted in our earlier studies that talked about the entirety of the district boundary was showing, I think, approximately 30% FAR, if you included the vacant lots. It was 40% if you included the vacant lots. It was 40% if you include the vacant lots. It was 30% if you exclude the vacant lots. And so those numbers were based on some of that early analysis. Going forward here, the other point I wanted to make is that it's correct. There were some adjustments because we could see where you have a standalone single story building. There was potential for the FAR number to require something more than what physically exists on the site, so we adjusted some of that language. And the other thing we found was that, there is this alternative. It's 30% of the lot area, whichever is less. So it's 40% of the ground floor, or 30% of the lot, whichever is less. So in a scenario where the lot does allow something less, that would apply. And so in some of the modeling, we could see as you went through, many of the different development scenarios, this isn't an exact number, it's a generalization, but when you go through the whole chart, once your building gets to approximately 75% lock coverage, you're getting into a scenario where you're probably switching over to the 30% of lot area, rather than using the 40% of the first floor. But that's kind of more of a generalization, but we went through all the scenarios, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 story buildings based on a whole range of different FAR numbers to see where these breakpoints. And so this is all the underlying information that went into the language that was drafted the way that it was. Okay. Thank you, Dirk. All right. I'll table that one for now. I'm interested to hear what everybody else has to think on that because I don't think that one's been discussed very much. I see it both ways so I'm interested to see what we come up with as a group there. Quickly I'll touch on the food trucks. Again, I'm kind of in the middle on this. I could go either way. Food trucks are made to be mobile. I think most of the time they want to be mobile. So I get the increase of going from two days to five days, I think that's making an accommodation. But again, what I am not willing to do is put this entire project on hold or in jeopardy because of food trucks. And so, you know, again, I think I'm happy to support it either way because again, I do think we're making an accommodation there. The last thing I'll talk about is the housing derrick and council member Driscoll quoted me about the kindergarten. I'm a little confused with the new language. And so you get 20 developments right off the bat, or 20 units right off the bat, excuse me. And so what this language is saying is that 16 of them are market rate and four of them are affordable housing. Is that what it is? You get up to 20 units market rate. Okay, up to 20 units market rate. Okay, up to 20 units market rate. Then anything else that you're adding above 20 becomes the one to four. Okay. And. So, so if we got rid of the 20, or I guess I probably need some clarification on what councilmember Driscoll is asking but if we got rid of that how does it affect the chart that you have here on page 28 or does it because this is what got me a little confused. This is the 5% originally on 26 and then this is 10% on 28. Is that what you're showing us? Yeah, I mean, just catch up to where you're at here. That's 5%. Right? Right? And then where you have it redlined and added on slide 28 is 10%. Right. So this is just showing you this straight, straight changes. and added on slide 28 is 10%. Right, so this is just showing you the straight, straight changes at 5%. So this is showing that 5%, right? And then go to 28. So this shows the difference between 5% or the 10% number on the bonus. So that's what the red is. Yeah. Okay. All right. So I'll just quickly, I'll just quickly and then I'll give it up. I'm sorry I've taken so much time. I agree with Council Member Floyd. I'm in on 10%. When we talk about these types of developments, I think we are trying to be, it's very clear we're trying to make this work for this area when we look at other developments that use chapter 17.5 if there's there's some give to get and I don't mind going to 10 whatsoever if that ends up being the motion I think that's completely reasonable when I look at that unit count on other developments that we've approved so I'll sit back and listen to my comments, but thank you for the feedback folks. Thank you, Joe. Thank you. Council member Gavry. Thank you, Madam Chair. So since we're on the FAR, I'll just start there. Because I think I only have one question left after all my colleagues. So looking at the chart where what you proposed in June to what the amended proposal is now with the 2.0, the language that is on here for the 1.0 FAR bonus, the half units at 80, half units at 120. That comes out of chapter 16, so that stays consistent, right? It's the AMI unit limits are still the same. That's correct. I should have copied and pasted it over in the new column. I just needed to ask. If I would have walked away tonight and not asked, I would have been like, yeah, is it still there? Because what they're doing is they're required to do the workforce housing agreement. Like you said through chapter six, the map puts them in the road. And all of this is built into chapter six. That's correct. Why we don't see it in the code here spelled out. Right. Got it. OK, I just wanted to make sure of that. I am still a little torn between the five and the 10%. I do see the rationale of going to the 10% because you do get more of those units. I think for me, it's only a hangout because I feel like it's just now being discussed. And so it gives me a little pause, just because I worry about the implications because I don't really feel like we've discussed that thoroughly But I'll leave that one right there now for the parking requirements Max could I have you come up and answer a question for me is that legal? I can do that right? Okay? Absolutely The reason that I have you come up is because I completely support what Palmetto Park is asking for and what I'm hearing from the area because I believe what we're creating here is a live work and play area and so I have less heartburn with worrying about parking mandates because let's be honest, the market will decide. Developers will build what they need to build that fits their development. But this point about if they don't, then there's the flow over that goes into your neighborhood. Can you discuss, have you all had a conversation about the potential for that happening to you guys and how do you feel about that potential? Yes ma'am we specifically mentioned spill over parking. I specifically mentioned spill over parking at the meeting where we voted overwhelmingly to support removing parking mandates in this code. Because we know there's still going to be parking. This is a long-term plan here. My fear is we're not going to change this for 20 more years. Let's be realistic. We're setting in stone today's level of card dependency for the next two decades. And that's a problem. In the short term, nothing's going to change. That's why Joe doesn't care about this. Water doesn't care about this. They didn't even have a vote on it. They just, I can't, it's hard to find people who want the parking mandates outside of city staff, frankly. Okay, thank you for kind of sharing the point of view because I'm very sensitive to what your neighborhood specifically is going to encounter with this redevelopment. I completely agree. Like I don't see the point in taking kind of a car centric mentality and laying it on top of a TOD project. I just have a hard time with that. So I would be in favor of removing the parking mandate, but I'll leave that. I'm not going to make a motion on it. I'm going to kind of leave it there right now. But I want us to get somewhere at least to compromise on this issue, because I just, I agree. I think that there's more work we could do here. So thank you for coming up. I appreciate it. Madam Chairman, I'll leave it there for right now. Council member Floyd. Thank you. I will pick it right back up in that exact spot. So I had here just a quick note on the parking to try to make it not mandated that I want to get to in a second. But first, I do want to comment on something that Mr. First said. I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think like that removing parking mandates is going to solve the problem that there's existing businesses there that don't have adequate infrastructure because we can't expect any of the other property owners around to be building parking for an existing business. They're going to be building parking just for there. They're going to be building parking just for their business. And so I'm not sure, I think like the idea of public parking is still going to have to be a part of the conversation when it comes to the street and whatnot later on. And you know, one of the businesses that you cited was three daughters that endorsed removing the parking mandates. So, but I understand we were coming from, but I'm not sure that what you're describing is going to be solved even if we leave the minimums in right now. So you know, my preference would be in section 16 point, wow, that's a lot of numbers, parking requirements, just to remove sections B and C. But I think, you know, if we wanted to still maybe encourage, but not require it, I think I have a couple of word changes here that would make it like just a suggestion. For example, in section B, it says, a TOD support of usage shall provide. We can just change that to may provide. And in section C, where it says it's in the first sentence after the second comma, the minimum number of parking spaces required, we could change required to suggested. Those two things I think, and I would love Legals and staff's opinion as to if that would successfully make it more of a suggestion than just than a requirement. So we could do that. I would like to look through a little bit and make sure we're properly changing all of this because if we are making it more subject Suggestive instead of mandatory it might not need these extra Sections that are kind of being like Exemptions because we wouldn't there wouldn't need to be an exemption so that would require Just maybe a holistic reorganization there. Okay. Well, I was doing that to provide like a simple path forward that would still suggest something, but I personally would just prefer sections B and C or items B and C. I don't know what to call them legally, just not to be here at all. And there's just a, that says they're exempt and d, that has bicycle parking. Well, to address that, and I think general comments from other members including council members or school and council member gathered, if we were going to do a targeted amendment like that, it would probably be a target employment uses and TOD supportive uses to get those both in there that are addressed currently, and then we would get rid of B and C and re-number D to B. And that way we're capturing everything that isn't a target employment use or a TOD supportive use would just be complying with regular parking or no parking. But it would get capture the benefit of the majority of these items that are coming into this zoning district. And I would love Mr. Kilborn to comment on the if he sees any issues with that or needs further explanation from a planning standpoint for consistency. Do you have a couple comments on that? So with I understand your intention to be go to zero parking within the overlay. That's what you're asking. I think it would be cleaner for us to just say that rather than have suggestions we can offer suggestions through separate information sheets provided by the planning office but we don't typically suggest through code language so my my suggestion would be to keep it real clean and if that's where you're trying to get, just say it. With the amendment that was discussed to just amend a and say target employment uses and transit supportive uses, you still have all the other uses. So my only comment for our question, I think, for legal would be whatever exemption we are writing into this section to be clear that it applies to this overlay section and does not transfer back to the underlying industrial traditional zoning if somebody is developing under the industrial traditional zoning. And that's what I was trying to get to, and elegantly, but yes, that was the understanding is that for these uses that are being created by the overlay, those would be exempt, but the underlying zoning would be exempt but we're the underlying zoning would be remaining. Right. There. I think we I mean we can we can do that if that's the direction is we can go to zero parking requirement within this overlay section that applies to land uses that are being considered under the application of this alternative overlay. So if you're coming into the overlay and you're using it, then what I'm hearing is you would like to see it say no parking requirement. Period. Yeah. And so that gets us the inclusion of TOD uses in A, and the removal of B and C, and then D change to B. That gets us there. I mean that's what. I think it might be cleaner to refer to all uses, land uses approved through under or through the application of the overlay. Just to make sure, because my only concern is if you're referring to target employment center use or transit supportive uses there's something we're missing that could still be used under this overlay option. So I think it would be just a general reference to land uses approved under or through the application of this overlay alternative. All uses approved under the application of this overlay are exempt from the minimum number of parking spaces required. Yes, and then you would have a declarative statement like that. And then the, and then I think D is a separate item for discussion because that's bicycle parking that's separate. I think I'm happy to leave that in. I'd like to make a motion that we change item A here to what I just previously said. All uses approved under the overlay are exempt from the minimum number of parking spaces required. Remove items B and C and then re-number item D to B. So that's my motion. Second. Okay. So we have, Councillor Member Hanoes, did you want to speak on that motion or no? Oh, I haven't spoken at all. I mean, frankly, I feel like we were making sausage on the dius and I just don't like it. Okay. So we have a motion. At this point, I am like, if I'm hearing legal, having to interpret like what they're gonna do and asking staff and everybody's trying to figure out language on the dias, I just, I can't support this. I can't. So we have a motion on the floor that has been properly second. I see no further requests to speak on the motion that's on the floor. Can you please open? I don't think she want to speak on this one. So can you please open the machine for what are we calling this now? Amendment two. Amendment two. Amendment two, J4 amendment two. Madam Chair, could I just make one quick comment? Similar to Council Member Hannah, which is point, we're viewing this at the moment as kind of direction on the general nature of the amendments that you would want. And then once you're through that process, this is a fair amount of changes. I think at that point, we absolutely do need to evaluate. Number one, you'd have to see exact language. So bare minimum, there would have to be a recess and language brought back before you. We also have to consider any additional procedural steps in light of the changes as anything need to be redone, things like that. So at a minimum once you're done with this, we will have a discussion and then come back to you or it could be the will of the body that you've given direction by virtue of these motions and you continue the hearing and you have all of the language brought back to you at a subsequent public hearing. That's also your progative would be my preference. Okay. So we thank you for that Jackie. So we have an emotion and a proper second on the J4 amendment 2. Can you please open the machine for voting? Council members, can you please cast your votes? Since all the President Council members have Council members can you please cast your votes. Since all the president council members have voted can you please tally and announce the vote. Madam Chair the motion to approve agenda item j4 amendment 2 passes 5 to 2 with council members Driscoll, fix Sanders Floyd, Gabbard and Gertis voting yes. Council members Hannah Wentz and Montenegro voting no. Councilmember Muhammad being absent. So before we go to Councilmember Drisco, Jackie, with the three options that you just gave, after Councilmember Drisco gives her recommendations for amendments, then we'll need to have another motion to defer how we want to handle it. Yeah, I think at that point, what I think regardless, at least from our perspective here, I think everyone would need some this level, at least of specificity on what you would want the next, the amended ordinance to look like. Once you're through that process, I do think it would be appropriate for you to discuss the next steps after that, which would be continuance, which typically for changes of this magnitude would be something that would, if we look back at your precedent of what typically would happen when there's this many changes, and to ensure there's no language errors or inconsistencies or unintended consequences that either administration or we haven't had an opportunity to think through, that is typically what would happen. Council member Driscoll. Thank you. And if we did that, continuance, could it be for one week from today? Yes. Is it continuing? You're continuing. As long as you announce the date of the public hearing, when it will be continued, yes, you could do that. You could set that tonight after you're done with the other motions. Thank you. Well, I think in order for all of us to have an opportunity to absorb these changes and hopefully there'll be a couple more, but then also to give the public an opportunity to look at this and comment on the changes just in case. We've already heard from a lot, but I would be perfectly open to continuing if this discussion is going to continue for a while. A recess tonight, if we wrap this up soon, I think a recess tonight could do the trick, but there are definitely some benefits to just giving this one more. We've waited five years, right? Some more. One more week to make sure that we get this right. I think is worth it. Excited about the parking, I think, you I think the lack of parking infrastructure that Jeff first was talking about, it doesn't, I think the lack of the infrastructure makes it more likely that someone would include parking in their development naturally. So I think we're gonna be okay. I'm excited about that. There was, let's see. So we've done environmental report so far and parking. I'd like to go back to the food trucks. And Joe, I'm wondering because councilmember Montenegro was talking about it competing with restaurants and what I understand is that there's a whole different kind of concept and not food trucks part across from restaurants that are trying to get started, but more of a unique creative setup that's food trick, centric. And with your experience and knowledge, I would love for you to paint the picture for us, so that everyone understands what we're talking about here. Sure. Of course, if you don't mind me, let me interject. The ears going off at nine o'clock. So I'm going to need the conversations to be a little more brief because we still have a few one, two, three, four, five more items. So just wanted to just give you a run down on it. I do. Maybe you can speak to thank you. Just for everyone else's benefit. I do. Maybe you can speak too. Thank you. Just for everyone else's benefit, I was the owner and operator of a food truck lot in Miami, which is why Council Member Driscoll suggested that I might have some knowledge on it. Yes, I think that there are great economic engines, especially for emerging districts. Of course, we mentioned three daughters, and we mentioned urban distillery, but urban stillhouse rather, but those are two businesses that are functioning with food and beverage operations, but really under the guise of them being manufacturing facilities, which is why they have the ability to open there. So as you think about having neighborhood services and food and beverage in existing buildings, obviously there's extensive infrastructure and expense to do that. And when you have an emerging district, it can be quite favorable for growth and vibrancy to have more temporary uses of vacant land, such as food truck lots, et cetera. So I've found them to be quite useful. Of course, the question is, as additional uses come into play, do those sort of go by the wayside, or do they sort of become competition for others? But I do think that there are two different opportunities for two different customers on two different days. So I think that they co-exist quite well with the existing food and beverage operations and buildings. Okay. Thank you so much for that explanation. Yes, Mr. Mastery, if you just have a minute. Very great. Thank you so much for that explanation. She asked Mr. Mastery if you just have a minute. Thank you. In a city adjacent to this city that came up and some of the commission members were worried about the competition. We had the public hearing and the nearby restaurants came and spoke in favor of the food trucks. They had no fear of losing business to them at all and it passed. So that is a fear that I don't think anybody is worried. Right, right. People like to go to places where they have multiple food options and it keeps them coming back too. So Derek, what can we do here? Can you tell me how we can make this so that the food trucks are not subject to having to leave? I just I just have a question for the for the city attorney's office for Heather if it's okay. I think if city council wanted to have the food trucks there without a time limit, the administration would have no objection to that, but what I want to know is are we going to run into any issue whether that's a permanent use. If we run into that type of issue, then the administration would have a concern. We have had food trucks in the past where we made them strap down, where we made them put in fire safety. We made them go through the site plan approval that Mr. Manish tree's talking about. So if council wants food trucks to be there on a vacant lot, you know, all week it's fine. I just want to make sure we're not violating any law or doing anything in a permitting situation that's going to cause us a concern. And as a minister to girders, that is exactly what I was trying to say. You actually said it much better than I did, but it could. It is, we could make it allowable, but again, if the use develops into a permanent use, it could trigger life safety, floor to fire code. When you get into a mobile kitchen situation and I'd had this discussion previously with you chair about mobile cushions, yes, it could trigger things that we can't really amend around through zoning and just want to be aware of that just because it might be allowable here. It, when you turn into a permanent use, you could have rather expensive when it comes to the fire code upgrades and requirements that need to be made. I don't know if it's a compromise. Maybe that Mr. Judd might be okay with and City Council might be okay with is they could stay there seven days, 24 hours a day and then after seven days they have to relocate and could come back. Maybe that keeps some temporary but they don't have to move if there's a festival, they don't have to drive away at 1 a.m. and come back at 6 a.m. or whatever. So. And to really provide the best guidance on that from a technical sense, I am aware of this and from having previous discussions about mobile kitchens, permanent sites, or food truck lots. But this is an evolving area as we move towards these new concepts or newer concepts. And I would like to confirm before I provided it, it didn't move for more information on that with our fire marshal and just make sure that it would be hard to draw a distinction right now and be like, yes, if they move once a week, then they're never going to be a permanent use. There may be other mitigating factors that if we are going to take time to amend this that I would want to check with him first. I mean, Mr. Jett, I mean we could make it the City Council wanted to. They could make a motion. We're going to come back anyways next week contingent upon review by the Fire Marshal in the building official. That would help with the frequency if we're going to adjust that. I would just's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. And so I will give the time for that, because I'm kind of wondering why is it not, why can't it just be part of a temporary use permit? Temporary use means not permanent. So why, I mean. And that might be the simplest way to do it. Yeah. It's required that they all have temporary. For use permits. But again, in the consistency with how we regulate food trucks generally, they don't require one, as long as they're within that time. Yeah. So I think that's generally. But within this, within this. Yes, council member. Overlay. They could be required to have a temporary use permit that would then allow them to not have to move for the duration of that permit. And what do we have the temporary use permit set out right now? Six months, I believe. And that's generally as a finishing when you're talking about structures the six months are less is that permanence but again if they're concurrently issued then again, but yes, that would be a place to start and I can definitely look into that. That's better than what we have right now. So I would love for you to look into that and I would love for us to take that particular element up again once there's been an opportunity for that research and hopefully some one-on-ones or something to help us get through this faster. The TEC use percentage with the ground floor. Could we listening to the other conversations? Could we take out those back-of-house elements? The parking ramp, the, I don't know. You probably have a term for it that would, you know, be a catch all phrase, but eliminated that from the calculation. If you don't want to come off the 40% and take it way down, and I understand why. But I'm looking at a different way that doesn't put us at risk, but still create something that's a little bit, but I think is more reasonable. So what if we excluded the parking ramps, the loading, and other back of the house elements? I don't think these things are any of these things are really necessary. I mean, that's not the part that we want, you know. We really want to focus on that other, the other part. So, do you see any negative consequences of taking that out of the calculation? Yes. You will get less target employment center uses is what will happen. Because you will be cutting down or reducing the square footage required for the target employment center use that has been the foundation and principle that we've been trying to protect from the beginning of this process. So if you're modifying that definition, it will result in less target employment center square footage. Is the city ready to go in a different direction in that area? I think we were demonstrating that through the changes that we've recommended in the staff report. That would be another step even further, reducing the potential for target employment center uses to locate there. I think in the definition, we usually work in definition of net or grow square footage, which includes everything or excludes that habitable area. So we, based on what you're describing, you want ramps and mechanical service areas excluded, but you want parking spaces and parking lot drive lanes included. We would have to probably explicitly state that in how the calculation is to be done. Because we couldn't just say net or gross and split the description that you just gave us. Would another option be to allow for someone to request a apply for a variance? Yes. Somebody could apply for a variance and go through demonstrating the standards for approving a variance that they have a unique hardship that justifies approving the variance that is requested. Admittedly, that's going to be a hard standard to demonstrate when you have a vacant site and you're building new construction. What is the hardship that prevents you from meeting the 40 percent? It's probably going to be described as a financial hardship for the developer, but a financial hardship is not typically something that has taken new consideration for the granting of a variance. It's usually some physical constraint or physical hardship associated with the site. Okay. Thanks. It doesn't sound like that's the direction we want to go in. So this one I'm going to leave on the on the table as well because we're not all in we're, I think there's still too much daylight between the two concepts, the two approaches to this. And I think enough ideas have been thrown out that there's one that we haven't mentioned yet. Y'all are the experts. Please figure something out and bring us back something we can vote yes on that will actually encourage more business opportunities. Ms. Koval Archimai, I might like to ask a question, Mr. First. As long as I can. Sure, yes. Sir, could you please, I don't recall exactly what you said on this issue. I know you said the parking ramps, removing the parking ramp square footage. I don't recall you saying back-of-house. I thought you said maybe something else besides parking ramps and something. No, I believe I did say back of house. You did. I believe so. And how would you define that? Yeah, so to me, let me make one quick point. I will be brief, so apologies. The TEC uses that we want are the arts and artists and uses that exist on the ground floors of buildings. Yes, there is a loophole in the TECs that you can office counts as a TEC use and therefore, yeah, you could put that on a second or third story, but the uses that we want, the museums, the craft operations, the process enabled retailers, all that stuff lives on the ground. So I just want to be clear because I mean the point is obviously very well taken that yes you can just put it upstairs, but the use is we want our going upstairs. I think for me, I want to deliver, and I know this isn't about me, this is about trying to protect the greater good, but I want to deliver the most commercial space that I possibly can on the ground floors of buildings, because that's what creates human-centric development, and that's what creates vibrancy. So in order to do that, there needs to be a mix of the TEC and the non-TEC, and the only way that I can see that happening, given the requirements that are in place. For example, on one of my sites, it's three acres. You do 30% of the lot area. That's 40,000 square feet. How on earth can I put 40,000 square feet of TECUs on the ground floor and have anything else that's going to service that neighborhood with commercial vitality that's impossible when you think about all of those elements. So whether it's parking ramps, loading and service, I haven't done the massings in the math, but maybe that's a way to do it. If it's parking ramps, loading service, and maybe other ancillary back-of-house, that's one way to do it. But what I think we should be precluding to protect the staff's point, which I think is a very good one, is that surface level ground floor spaces should not be excluded from your calculation, because that's what we're trying to prevent against, is people using the ground floor to park as opposed to create commercial opportunity. I think that's the distinction that I think is most relevant for this discussion. What about ramps, mechanical space, and loading areas? That probably works, yes. Well, we would accept that as the administration. Deal, I don't know. This is very bizarre, so I'm not sure. Yes, I think that that obviously delivers the intent of what I'm describing. I mean, I mean, yes, I agree. All right. Then I'll make a motion. But I'm not sure what to say so I could use some help with this one. Before we do that, can just question the clarification. Oh, yes. So in that exchange, ramps in mechanical rooms would be excluded or I'm sorry included and parking spaces would be excluded. What about drive lanes servicing the parking spaces themselves? Is that considered part of the parking structure? Is it considered drive lanes? Because there's going to be a square footage associated with that, then it needs to be included in the calculation as well. So when we come back to you with specific language, we need to identify that point. Can I comment on that? I'd love for you too. What's that? Yes. I would think that the drive lanes that are servicing ramps and obviously vertical parking also need to be excluded. I think what we're trying to avoid is somebody filling their entire ground floor with parking spaces instead of commercial space. But the the nuts and bolts that are necessary to get people to drive up to vertical parking structured parking above the first floor should be excluded. And Rob, I think that's what you were referencing. Yeah, maybe I need to apologize to everybody because maybe I misunderstood and had it completely backwards. I thought we were excluding the ramps, the mechanical room and the loading dogs. Not from the public. Yeah, I think Derek Miss spoke not putting words in your mouth, but I heard what I thought you, yes, communicate it. Okay. Thank you. I consider the driveway to be part of the ramp, because that's how you get to the ramp. So I would have... Okay. Yeah, I mean, maybe it's a good time for me to just make a general comment that, you know, we're super supportive of what we're trying to do here obviously it's very creative and I just have to say in my experience this is one of the most amazing urban planning conversations I've ever been able to participate in with the council and really I mean it and I've been so impressed with all the comments tonight in your passion around trying to do something different and we want to compromise and we want to try and find a way with you but you know Derek and Liz their responsibility is to try and protect you know potential adverse impacts and, their responsibility is to try and protect, you know, potential adverse impacts and other things. And so we try and balance all those things, but we want to find a middle ground with you. Oh, yes. Thank you. And I do so appreciate that. Knowing that you're there to provide those protections and that steady guidance is really important. Even when at the end of the day, we decide we want to do things a little bit differently. But without you as the foundation for that, I don't know where would be right now. So thank you. Great, great that you brought that up. So I would like to make a motion, but I'm sorry to say I'm really not sure what that needs to sound like. Would it be a motion? We'd be on Amendment 3. Right, three. A motion to make amendment three, and we're talking about in the 16.30.05.0.4.1 permitted usage subsection A when we're talking about A1 and then when it goes into the 30% floor area for the purposes of calculating the required floor area of target employment uses, the area, the first floor shall include the total gross floor area of all buildings on a site. Right now it says including ground floor level area associated with certain things. So this is where you would like the amendment correct? Right. This is the language. Yes, I'd like to amend that section too. Remove the inclusion of ground floor level associated with stair and elevator towers and closed common space and it closed or partially enclosed with hicular use areas. So we're going to keep the calculation of all gross floor area on the site, but we're going to amend to exclude the three things that were mentioned. Yes. Okay. Is that okay? So that does it for us. Can I just say so moved then? Yes. I know. I'm all we're looking for at this point is direction on how to work with administration. It's exactly what I want. So moved. All right, we have a motion is we're probably second for J4 amendment three. And please open the machine for voting. Now that our president council members have voted can you please tell in and outs evokes. Item chair the motion to approve agenda item j4 amendment 3 passes unanimously with council members Hannah wits and Mohammed bean absent. Thank you and council member Hannah wits had to leave to get her daughter so I told I make the announcement for her so we've gotten that done councilmember, I mean I'm sorry, Councilmember Driscoe you done? I'm still not happy about the FAR situation but I'm willing to continue listening. Okay. Thank you Madam Chair. Councilmember Floyd. Well that's I'm going to go to FAR bonuses get straight to the point. I will make a motion that instead of 5% in the total number of housing units shall be provided in a bonus A work for housing section 1 it be 10%. All right now see you know further request to speak can you please change that amendment to the FER to 10%. Council members, can you please cast your votes? Now that all present council members have voted, can you please tell in an ounce of votes? Madam Chair, the motion to approve agenda item J4 amendment four. Passes four to two. Council members, Driscoll and Montenegro no council members fix Sanders Floyd gathered girders voting yes Council members Hannah what's in the vomit voting? Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm okay. Thank you All right, we're gonna keep moving. I was gonna make comments because one thing about here You generally speak last but everybody said or everything I want to say and I'm looking for another round For that so it's okay with everybody can we go ahead and move J5 All right, we're gonna go ahead and move J5 No, we move to continue J4. I'm sorry. I forgot about that. I forgot about that motion. Oh, you don't want? Not yet. Okay, I apologize. I forgot. I'll withdraw the motion. Wait a minute. I did forget we do have to have a motion to do the motion. Right, a couple things. So I guess the first thing is finishing like any other motion requesting amendments to the ordinance. And it seemed like that was still on councilmember Driscoll was the last one because I didn't see councilmember Gavart's name on here. I'm sorry. Councilmember Gavart. We didn't come this far. It just comes from the office. Yes, and then we'll take mine off. OK. All right. We just got a settle food trucks somehow. So we left that at your conversation about the permitted special use of temporary uses. But I didn't hear a motion on that. Do we need a motion to have staff come back with that as well in the continuation? I already asked for that. Okay, but I didn't hear a motion. So I just want to make sure. I'm not ready because they got to bring us back. Okay. All right, but you don't need a motion for the direction to come back. So I mean, we could do it either way in light of the fact in this situation that there's because there's additional research to do. Yeah. There's nothing specific like that we could propose and tell you now that would be okay or not. I think what not to put words in your mouth council member, Driscoe, I think that's why a specific motion wasn't made and more of the request for us in administration to kind of go back to the drawing board and present an option or two. The temporary use permit did come up, I think, as a starting point. So that's what we'll do. Obviously, if you would like another motion. I just wanted to make sure it was fully addressed and that when we see this come back in Continuance that there will be another proposal that is going to come forward. That's what I ended with it Councilmember Gabbard Councilmember Driscoll did not make a motion for that very reason. Okay. All right. I just wanted to make sure and I will prepare. We'll have This language you'll see again, but there will be alternative language that either addresses it as a temporary use permit to supplement under the vending sections. Number two, frequency, I would anticipate the amendments would just be to that section and we would be removing that and replacing it either with a different permitting system that's special to this district, but if there was any other considerations regarding that frequency, I wanted to be able to show you what those were and possible in amendment. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. We want to continue J4 to September 12th. Second. Okay. We... Hold on. I'll call it over. I'll let Mr. Gertis go. Thank you. I just had a question and I might have missed it. And I just want to bring you back what you want. There was discussion about the base FAR2 without the workforce bonus. And I don't think we address that. Or we did. We did. I thought we did the 10%. That was just the bonus. But I'm talking about the base FAR. The base that with no requirement for workforce units if you're over 20 units total. We did not vote on that. We did not vote on that. Thank you, Administrator Gertriff. We did not. I thought that was your request, Councilmember Driscoll. No. I thought that was your request, Councillor Member, Driscoll? No? You said you wanted the two point. I'll make a motion to establish the base FAR at 2.0. Second. All right. So that will be a minimum of five. Yes, ma'am. Second. Okay. Yeah, I asked clarification on that. I'm sorry. So the motion is for base FAR 2.0, I got the second. I'm sorry. I asked clarification on that. I'm sorry. So the motion is for base FAR 2.0. Is that inclusive or exclusive of the 20 units that because the ordinance already proposes a base FAR 2.0. We're removing the workforce. I don't know if that needed to be included in the state emotional. I want to speak. Okay, so it's been motion and I think I heard a second for them. I didn't get a second. Who did the second? Okay, council member Monteneer did the second for J4 amendment five. Can you please let them update the you want to speak on J4 amendment five? Please. Okay, vice your girders. I just want to make make it clear. So the so the motion on the floor is for a base FAR of 2.0 with an exclusion of the workforce housing. Mm-hmm. Oh, yeah, basically it's a base FAR of 2.0 with no other requirements. No other requirements. Yeah. it's a base FAR of 2.0 with no other requirements. No other requirements. So that would be in the text going back to that definition of dwelling multifamily. The first amendment was to revise the language to about the environmental studies to be identical to 17.5. And then after that, it talks about additional units may be permitted with a workforce hounising bonus in accordance and then it has for projects with an intensity of less than 2.0 FAR. So we're going to be removing that second part and leaving the base 2.0 and then they will go to the bonus chart without this additional language. Correct. You're on it. Beautifully said. You're okay with that administrative court issue. Obviously it's your motion and it's at your will, but that's what I was referencing, yes. Okay, I just wanted to make sure you were clear with that. Vice, you good? Council member Floyd. I'll just say real quick that I wanted to say at 1.5 FAR, I'm not going to support this but I understand Respect it. Okay, so J4 amendment five can you please open the machine for voting? Councilmember to place your votes Seeing that our president council members have voted can you please tell in and out so votes Madam chair the motion to approve agenda item J4 amendment 5 passes 5 to 1 with council members jiskell, fixanders, gabbard, girders, mottonary voting yes. Council member Floyd voting no. Council members Hanowitz and Mohammed Bean absent. Okay, so we're done with J4. No other amendment. My motion is still on floor. Actually, I thought I heard, did you say you withdrew your book? That was worse. Yes. And he made it again. OK. Oh, so you made it again. OK. So just one quick comment before you would vote on the continuance. The only thing we can absolutely do this for next week and work with administration and jump on this right away, your normal deadline for ads to leads, as you know, would be tomorrow. So I wouldn't think that that is feasible, but we will do it as quickly as possible to get it to you. But I just didn't, I didn't wanna not at least mention that this would take a little bit more time in that. I can handle that. You got it. You can handle that. Got it. All good. OK, we good. OK, so now we have a motion on the floor for the conference so I set up September 12. Council meeting, that would be, is that that's not an amendment. That's a whole nother motion, isn't it? It's a continuous. It's a continuous. Or the continuous. Can you go ahead and change the title for who second it? I'm not sure. The brand. Yeah, sure. Made to say well. Yeah, put me down. Just put it. Just put it down. All right. The continuous for J4 to September 12. Please cast your votes. Seeing that our president council members have voted. Can you please tell in and out the votes. Madam Chair, the motion to continue J4 to the 9th to the September 12th, 2024. Should the council meeting pass as unanimously with council members Hannah Watson, Mohammed Bean Hapson? Thank you. We are going to expeditiously move now to... Actually, I'm just gonna keep it up. I'm just gonna keep it up. You're not gonna interrupt as much. Considering that you just continued the prior ordinance, it would have to do J5. It would be more appropriate for you to also continue that item. I'll move to continue J5 next week. Next week. That works for me as well. We have a motion by Councilmember Floyd and the second by Vice Chair Gerdas to continue J5 to September 12. Can you please change the title? Okay Councilmember's please catch your votes seeing that our present council members have voted. Can you please tally and announce the votes? Madam Chair, the motion to continue agenda item J5 to the September 12th, 2024 city council meeting. As is unanimously with council members Hannah Watson, Mohammed Bean Hapson. Okay, we got through that very well. Next we're gonna move now to our new business items and that would be G1 and we'll go ahead and let you do G2 as well, but we'll vote separately. Council member Montenegro. Respectfully requesting referral to the public services and infrastructure committee or other relevant committee for discussion of no wake zones on roads during flood events, potential signage to promote compliance and enforcement under Florida statutes. And I Move approval. Second. Mm-hmm. Okay, now that we've had a motion, it has been properly seconded. Can you please open the machine for voting? Council members, please cast your votes. Now that all President Council members have voted, can you please tally and announce the votes? Madam Chair, the motion to approve agenda item G1 passes unanimously with Council member Watson-Mohamed. Beans. She won passes unanimously with Councilmember Watson-Mohamed being this. Thank you. G2. Respectfully requesting a referral to the budget taxation of finance committee, or other relevant committee for a discussion report on capital needs for non-enterprise capital improvement projects. I move approval. Second. You've been motion and privately seconded. Please cast your vote. Open the machine. Cast your votes with G2. Now that all present council members have voted, can you please tell in an ounce of votes. Madam Chair, the motion to approve agenda item G2. Passed unanimously with council members' handouts. And Muhammad Beanhapson. Thank you. We're going to move right along to council committee reports. H1 by Chair Gertis. Thank you, Madam Chair. We're respectfully requesting City Council approval of the budget finance and taxation committee's recommendation to approve a supplemental appropriation in the amount of just over a million dollars from the unappropriated fund balance. The general fund, do I need to read the number? Okay, thank you. Additional BP settlement funds to the Public Works Administration sustainability and resiliency division for the projects identified in the attached resolution and I'll move approval. Second. Okay, now that H1A, okay, I know we had an AFB if they would H1, can you go ahead and open the machine for voting? Council members, please cast your votes. Now that I've present, Council members, I vote it. Now that our president, councilmembers are voted, can you please tell me in a nice vote. Madam Chair, the motion to approve agenda item H1A passes unanimously with councilmembers, hand and wits and will hama gvin absent. Okay, H2 is respectfully requesting approval of a resolution approving funding for the Northwest Park Youth Baseball Lighting Project. In an amount not to exceed 300,000 from Wiki Watchy Funds. Move approval. Okay. Thank you. Can you open the machine for voting for H2? Council members cast your votes. Seeing that our President and Council members have voted, can you please tally and announce the votes. Madam Chair, the motion to approve agenda item H2a passes unanimously with council members Hannahweights and Mohammed bean absent Thank you will now have our final open form. Is there any speakers anyone on zoom? Doesn't look like it People signed up and then you can call their names. I don't see anybody in the room. So Thank you. I'm your, call the names. Just for the record. Monica Garcia, Lou Jinks, Dylan Danes, and that's it. That's it. All right. Do we have any announcements? No, ma'am. What is happening? Oh, vice chair, good. Thank you, Madam Chair Gurders. Thank you Madam Chair. No birthdays, but I just wanted to thank my colleagues for the weeky watchy appropriation. And I know Northwest is very thankful. I just wanted to thank administration, especially Mike Jeffries and his team for working with me on that. I'm very grateful. Thank you Madam Chair. You are so welcome. No other announcements? Seeing no requests to speak. Meeting as adjourned. Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you.