CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - Aug 07, 2025

August 7, 2025, City Commission meeting. I'd like to call the meeting to order. I would like to say today we had a wonderful ceremony at Purple Heart Park for our Purple Heart veterans. And actually, the keynote speaker was a gentleman who in Iraq lost his best friend and both his legs. And it was very inspirational, reminds us what it's all about. And so I thought it set the tone because it's Purple Heart Day. So be sure and have gratitude in your heart. Okay, so we're going to start with invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. Jen, can you do that? Yes. Let us begin this meeting by taking a moment of silence and reflection for the family of Greg Gracie. Amen. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, we have no presentations tonight. That's rare. But so we'll keep on moving. So the next item is citizen input. So if there's anyone in the audience who wants, wishes to speak on an item that is not on the agenda tonight, this would be your time to come forward. And three minutes, name and address for the record. How are you doing? Hi, Mayor. Good to see you. Good to see you, too. My name is David Ballard Geddes Jr. I live at 802 Georgia Avenue in Palm Harbor. Again, based on Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution, reflective of the 14th Amendment, does the city within its 10-mile square parameter allow businesses to conduct themselves in an ill-willed and fraudulent manner, allowing businesses being as imposts in the city to betray their customer base and ultimately deny their contractual obligation after being paid to conduct themselves legitimately in that contractual obligations are being respected and performed honorably not to disrespect the customer or depart from their paid contractual obligations, ultimately in the end, not to deceive the customer who paid for such trusted performance. My father hired and paid attorney Freeborn in Dunedin, entrusting Freeborn with his last will and testament in that it be honored. Six months had passed before, disgustedly, I went to Freeborn's office to retrieve my father's will. The last will and testament that Freeborn's office handed to me is not my father's will. It's a fake. I suspect my mother conspired with Freeborn to forge my father's will and replace it with my mother's intentions, ultimately betraying my father. Furthermore, just because my father was elderly doesn't necessarily mean that my father died of natural causes. I suspect that my mother had played a direct role in my father's role in my father's murder, possibly using the sedative ketamine and removing my father's oxygen, allowing him to suffocate and die while being sedated. My father's life insurance policy also has seemed to disappear as well. I wonder what freebie my mother used to bribe Freeborn embezzling money from my father's wealth used to entice Freeborn to agree to the forgery of my father's will so my mother could have time to dissolve my father's trust account, giving her time to liquidate my father's assets and further stealing his life insurance policy claim in her process. This is an inexcusable crime that will ultimately include the Achilles heel of the city itself as constituted in its fortnight therein as based on the 14th amendment. And Freeborn never even bothered to give me a copy of my father's death certificate after he was paid for that as well. I have a big problem here and we need to get to the bottom of it. Thank you. Thank you, David. And if you feel that strong, you might want to go to the Dallas County Sheriff's Office. Okay. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak to an item that is not on the agenda? Oh, hi. So name and address and three minutes. I'm Jenny Funderburg, 1373 Curlew Road, part of Curlew Trails. Just coming again to speak about repairing the way bridge. I know our residents overwhelmingly want to provide the city with the public easement on our side so that we can get that repaired as well as we have seven children in our neighborhood. Curlew Road is still extremely dangerous just to even cross as a pedestrian. But with school starting next week, I know we have two high schoolers that used to ride their bike and take their bike across the bridge to get over to school and now they're having to go out on Curlew. So I'm just concerned about them and just, you know, our neighborhood being able to have access to go to the city to get on the trail, which is part of why we live where we live, so we could ride the trail and get to the downtown shopping, commerce, whatnot. So I just wanted to speak to that again and as well ask if there's anything being done to clean out the Curlew Creek behind our residence in advance of hurricane season and whatnot. I haven't seen anything going on other than the lift station workers working on the lift station, which I know that they would like the bridge to be open as well because they used to be able to traverse the bridge to check both sides on lift station. And it's my belief the structure is fine. It just needs frequently new planks to be replaced and that was being done, it seemed like, for 20 years. So we would just like to see it open again. That's it. Thank you. And we'll answer your question as soon as all input's done. Okay. Anyone else in the audience wish to come forward and speak to an issue that is not on the agenda? Okay. Seeing no one, I'll close that. And Jennifer, are you able to say anything about Curlew Creek cleaning out or? I'm going to ask Sue Bartlett to come up. Not Curlew Creek. And I will say while we're waiting for that, the Weybridge Bridge, we've been talking about, we talked about what we talked about briefly in our budget, but it's also something that staff will be coming forward with the options of costs and what can be done there and what can't be done there. So that's in process. Sue? Yes. We surveyed the Curlew Creek area with a drone and documented the situation there. We had submitted to, for a grant for cleaning that and also expect reimbursement from FEMA for some of that. And so we, that grant was on hold, but has been released. We filled out the paperwork, working with Camille to make sure that that progresses and engineering is doing great deal of the legwork behind us along with our maintenance staff. And we, we, we don't have a date, a start date yet, but the city attorney has reviewed the contract and then we'll be coming back before you with a contract to let that work out. That's our plan. We've been steady at it. We just, and we have, with our maintenance staff, we have cleaned out a couple of small areas, but it's really beyond the scope of what we have the capability to do in-house. So we'll, we're just plodding, plodding along really. I know, I'm sure it seems like that to everybody out there, but we are moving as quickly as we can to get the trees and the debris cleaned out of there. Okay. Thank you, Sue. And I mean, obviously people are concerned because storm season's here. We are somebody that just got back in their house. I understand those concerns. We want to make sure we're doing everything we can possibly do, but thank you for the update. Okay. So we'll go to the consent agenda and the consent agenda is approval of the minutes for the six, five, 20, 25, regular meeting and the seven, one, 20, 25 workshop committee board and committee appointments, mainly to committee on aging. We have to see award of bid number 25 dash 25, 15 for Skinner Boulevard, electrical improvements for undergrounding to KCI construction services, LLC, Tampa, Florida, doing business as KC communications infrastructure in the amount of 172,000 992.25 to D approval of a GEC service authorization to Tetra Tech Inc in the amount of 149,694 for design permitting and bidding services for the wastewater treatment plant, emergency generator building rehabilitation project, 2E is award of a maintenance management system for the public works department via piggybacking and agreement with the town of Davie, Florida, ITN RM 22-17 for a planning work and asset management software system to Mainstar Inc in the amount of 110,500, 2F purchase of two trailer mounted wastewater bypass pumps from Mercino dewatering LLC of Jacksonville, Florida via piggybacking the Florida Sheriff's Association cooperative purchasing program at a cost of $138,701.40. And that is the consent agenda. And is there anybody want to pull anything? Okay. Mayor, can we pull 2E, please? 2E. Okay. So 2E has been pulled. Anything else? Okay. So absent 2E, could I have a motion to approve? So moved. Second. Okay. And let me ask if there is any public input on any of those items on our consent agenda. If there is, please come forward. Okay. Seeing no one, I'll close public input on that. And I just will do a voice vote. So all in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? And that motion passes unanimously. Okay. So we'll go back to 2E, which is the asset management software system. So Vice Mayor, did you want a full presentation or just some questions? Just some questions that might lead to a presentation. I don't know, but we'll see how it goes. Okay. I know that we've been talking about software to basically help us be a little more efficient in managing projects. And is that what this software is? Sue Bartlett, Public Works Director. Sorry, I missed that before. Yes, that is correct. Okay. And so I'm just wondering after a full day budget conversation, is this something that could we accomplish the same results by using the software that we currently have? And we've had a wonderful partnership with Tyler in that. We cannot. We have worked with them. We have met with them. And they don't have the specific features that we need in order to plan the work and then compare the work to the plan. And therefore, we can't use that tool to gain the same efficiencies. We have it. It's a very effective financial system. But as work management and the needs we have to plan and track against that work, it doesn't have those features. Okay. And I guess it's on the agenda tonight because you all feel that you need it. Absolutely. And we do believe that we will. Actually, we have in our plan to pay for this software from the efficiencies that we achieve. Okay. Thank you. That's all, Mayor. Anyone else? Mr. Sandberg? Is Mainstar, is that a company? What does that word mean? That is a company, yes. Kind of to jump on what Jeff just said, I mean, was this discussed with anybody in the IT division of the city? I mean, do they agree that this is the path forward? We have discussed with the IT department. They have been with us all along. They want us to meet our business needs. The company was properly vetted through IT for security concerns. It's a hosted solution, web solution. So it'll be hosted not in our city. But so, yes, we have been hand-in-hand partners with IT as we've gone along. Okay. I just wanted to make sure. I know there's been a question about departments working together. So, good. That's all I had, Mayor. Okay. Anyone else have any questions about it? Okay. All right. So on that note, I need a motion. So moved. And a second? Second. Okay. And is there anyone in the audience that wishes to speak to this issue? If you would, come forward. Seeing no one rushing the podium, I will close public input and ask for a voice vote. So all in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, Sue. Okay. We are going to go to our first action item, which is 3A, first reading of Ordinance 25-02, amending Chapter 111 of Land Development Code, Historic Preservation. Jen, could you please read Ordinance 25-02 by title only? Ordinance 25-02, an ordinance of the City of Dunedin, Florida, amending Chapter 111, Historic Preservation of the City of Dunedin Land Development Code to provide for more comprehensive requirements and procedures for properties and structures to be designated as local historic landmarks, landmark sites, and districts. Amending Table 104-1, Development Approval Requirements of the City of Dunedin Land Development Code to provide for approval requirements related to historic landmark or historic landmark site applications, certificates of appropriateness for historic landmark and landmark sites, and for historic district applications consistent with the amended language of Chapter 111. Amending Table 102.1.2, Notice Requirements of the City of Dunedin Land Development Code related to historic landmark or landmark site applications, certificates of appropriateness for historic landmark or landmark sites, and for historic district applications consistent with the amended language of Chapter 111. Amending Section 104-20.1, generally recognized historic landmark sites and historic districts consistent with the language of Chapter 111, creating Chapter 109, Administrative Agencies Division V, Historic Preservation Committee to codify the Historic Preservation Committee as the board responsible for overseeing various parts of Chapter 111, providing for codification, providing for severability, providing for conflict, and providing for an effective date. That was Ordinance 25-02, read by title only. Okay, could I have a motion to approve Ordinance 25-02? So moved. And I need a second. Second. Okay, so Commissioner Dugard and Commissioner Walker. And so we will now go to staff presentation. Francis and George with, I guess, Blair Lighting of Kimberly Horn. Yes. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners. Thank you for having us, George Keeney, on behalf of Community Development Department. I am absolutely going to give way here to our Planner 2 and liaison to the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee, as you all know, is Francis Leong Sharp and our consultant, Blair Lighting with Kim Lee Horn. Before they start, I just wanted to quickly, though, thank not only Blair and Francis, but also our city attorney and the entire Historic Preservation Advisory Committee for all the time, effort, and work that went into this update of both the Ordinance and the Certificate of Appropriate Matrix, which you'll see at the next meeting. So at this point, I will turn it over to Francis, and we'll be happy to take and answer any questions that result from the presentation after they're through. So thank you. Great. Thank you, George. Good evening. Francis Leong Sharp, Planner 2, and also staff liaison to the Historic Preservation Advisory Committee, as George has mentioned. We are going to provide you a presentation of the Historic Preservation Ordinance revisions. As many of you are familiar with that we went in front of you back in December of 2024 with our first iteration of the draft of the Historic Preservation Ordinance. And since then, we also have met back in March with a second revision to the draft based on the comments that were raised from the initial meeting. And since then, we did have another draft, as you will, another revision that was done since meeting with the LPA for two hearings. And based upon that, we have given a recommendation from the local planning agency of a vote of five to one to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance and resolution with a condition that the language that permits the city manager to initiate a historic district application based on failure to designate a proposed district as a historic district would result in irreparable harm to the character of the city to be removed. That is one of the typos that was found in my staffing, and I am addressing it right now to correct that that is the condition that the LPA's recommendation is to approve the ordinance provided that specific language to be removed. And here we have Blair to present to you the recap of the ordinance. Thank you all for the time. Blair Knighting with Kim Lee Horn. Nice to see you all again. So we're just going to quickly recap what's kind of happened prior. So major updates to the ordinance. We added the landmark site in addition to a landmark. So instead of just having the whole site, you can landmark a building too now. We also allowed that you add the language that only the owner can approve the designation of a landmark. So I want to make sure that was clear. And then clarified notice sections and then also added the ability to create historic districts. So also more updates to the COA process and just an FYI clarification that COAs are only required after the property is designated. We wanted to clarify in the ordinance how COAs are processed via the matrix. So there's administrative now, historic preservation committee review, and then city commission review. So the matrix has been updated. We removed a lot of the kind of minor things that the city commission were reviewing. We created an easy flow chart. And then COAs are required pre-app with staff. So just to clarify, the current COA matrix is used when you have a landmark and you want to make alterations. You kind of look at the COA matrix to see who approves those. And a lot of the items city commission had to approve, like replacement of windows for historic windows. And so we wanted to clean that matrix up. And so we added a column for contributing, non-contributing, if we do end up approving the historic district, ability to do historic districts. And now you only need commission approval for demolition over 20%. And non-contributing structures do not need commission approval. So this does be here. I just wanted to tell some of the people in the back, there are some seats up front if you decide to come up. I know sometimes you don't want to sit in the front, but I just want to make sure you knew there's quite a few seats up here in the very front. So there's probably about 10 of them. So, okay, sorry, go ahead. So this does allow a little bit quicker of a process, this COA matrix review update. And now we just want to briefly go over the changes after we sat with y'all in the workshops. We did have two hearings with the LPA, like Francis had said. And most of the changes after the commission workshops were really for the historic districts. There was concern about not having 100% owner required for a historic district application. So that's what we changed. We made sure that it was 100% owner. So the only people that can apply for a historic district in the current revision is 100% property owners or the city manager. And the language is essentially, I'll read it to you in a minute. Let me see. So the city manager and 100% owner property to apply for historic districts. And then we did remove, there was concerns at the commission workshops about the HPC applying for historic districts. So we removed that. So at the LPA meetings, we, they were really concerned about having questions for the public. And so we created a frequently asked questions document for them. Uh, we clarified that in a historic district, uh, structures have to be contiguous. So that was a little bit of a concern from some citizens. So we made sure that was clear in the ordinance. Uh, we did address a numerous questions about flood damage and how the application process works. And so we wanted to just make sure it's clear. Um, there were questions. So for example, one of the questions was if, um, the city manager applied for historic district, there was damage. What happens, um, because we currently, as the ordinance reads is if there's a historic district application in place, permits are paused. So no changes to those structures have happened during that. And so what we did is we added a provision with that concern that allows the city commission. And it's, it's a little converse, uh, confusing, but it, we added language that you, the city commission can make a resolution to remove that pause, does that permit pause? So we wanted to make sure that was pretty clear. And then, um, some of the hot topic questions we got at the LPA were who can apply for a local landmark? So currently local landmark, it's HPAC, city commission, city manager, Dunedin Historic Museum staff can all apply. Um, and then now the proposed ordinance is property owners can apply for a local landmark. That's not a historic district is a local landmark. So now the question is who can apply for a local historic district in the current revisions. We have property owners with 100% owner support or city manager when failure to designate a proposed district would result in irreparable harm to the character of the city. So that's two people can apply for a historic district. So now the question is who can approve a historic district that is city commission. Y'all have the final decision on a historic district. So just wanted to make sure that was very clear. And then we did want to make sure that, um, we gave you examples of other municipalities and how they handle historic district applications and who can apply. We just wanted to give you some examples so you know, um, where, you know, there's, it's, it varies, essentially. And so those are the questions. I know it was pretty quick, but, um, we're here if you have any questions. Okay. Um, so questions, um, we'll start with, uh, we're ready. Do you have anything else to add before we go with questions? Uh, city manager? Nothing, Dan. You're good. Okay. Uh, we'll start over here with, uh, Commissioner Walker. Oh, thank you, Mayor. Um, so my understanding from reading the, uh, LPA minutes was that there was a five to one vote to, um, to essentially go forwarded with the ordinance absent the city manager designation. Correct. And it's also my understanding that, uh, staff's recommendation before the commission here is for us to still review the ordinance with, that includes the city manager's designation. Correct. Um, can I get some background in terms of why, why that decision was made, um, specifically not going forward with the LPA recommendation? Excuse me. Um, essentially, um, we, we understand the LPA's recommendation under the premises that, that, that particular language to be removed. Um, we ultimately leave it to the city commission, um, to determine whether that is something that you would be support of the, of the condition or based on the LPA's recommendation or if there is, you know, another, um, decision that the city commission feels otherwise, um, at, at this point, um, that's, that's where I understand. Yes. Yes. Please. Um, so I'm going to put on my planner hat now. It's, it hasn't been on for a long, long time, but, but I'm going to pop it on for a little bit. Um, typically the, uh, staff will make a professionally sound technical recommendation to both the local planning agency and the city commission. The, um, then the local planning agency is the citizen board appointed by the city commission to provide you with their recommendations. The professionally sound technical recommendation does not always, uh, uh, uh, is not always concurrent with the, the recommendation of the local planning agency. It usually is, but it isn't always. And, uh, in, in any city, typically they're called zoning boards, planning and zoning boards. We call it the LPA here. Um, staff's recommendation to the board, the LPA, was a sound recommendation. It was predicated upon the fact that, um, if the HPAC is not initiating the designation, it's the property owners and the city manager, um, then who would? And you can see a list of cities, uh, that either it's a commission, it's the council, it's the property owners, it's, and so on and so forth. It's in our city. In that case, the city commission cannot be the initiator because you're the final decision maker. And so staff's recommendation was sound before the local planning agency. And as such, it's sound before the city commission in a, from our professional perspective, it doesn't mean we think that the LPA is necessarily wrong or they provided you with the wrong recommendation at all. They're a citizen board appointed by you to give you their recommendation. We are your professional staff appointed by you to give us your, our professional recommendation. Thank you. And yeah, thank you for that. Um, and so this slide that you currently have, uh, this, this is how other municipalities, cities basically manage their, the historic preservation. Um, so let me, but it, it appears that nowhere on this list actually provides a process by which the city manager can designate a historic district. Is there, I guess the real question is what's the precedence for this? So we wanted to make sure there was some kind of, um, fail safe, right? If there was some extraordinary situation. And I think we've kind of talked about this last time that the city manager could designate a historic district. Okay. Um, yeah. Start the process for a historic district. Right. Apply for a historic district. Thank you, mayor. Absolutely. Right. Okay. And I, I'm sorry, uh, Jennifer Cohen would like to say something. I just wanted to, um, bring forth one, um, idea, which is some of these you may see where it talks about the city council or city commission. And then some, you'll see where it talks about the mayor in some of those cities, they have a strong mayor. So the strong mayor may be why they've designated that person versus the type of government that you have is a city managed city commission. No, that, uh, that makes sense. I, but I, I do think we need to be very clear on this though. This is not the designation of, this is not unilaterally being able to designate a historic district. This is just an initiation of the process through application, correct? Which then ultimately would been, be voted on by the commission. Correct. Okay. All right. Um, and this, this may be a question for the city attorney, but, um, and I, at least this is gonna, this is, so one of the things that, that just concerns me about this part of it is, is just the optic and so let's just say for instance, we know today what the intent of the ordinance, what, what the intention of that ordinance is. And my, my, my, my thoughts are, okay, so how could this possibly, um, be construed five years from now, 10 years from now? I, because they're, you know, the, the optic is, it's, it's, it's difficult. So I, I guess my question is really about, um, how, how can this potentially be interpreted outside of this governing body five years from now? I'm not sure that your, your question is, is really about the interpretation of it as much as it is whether or not somebody's going to be a good actor or a bad actor. Well, that's, that's, that's a good, that's, yeah, that's actually a good characterization of it. So let's, let's focus on the interpretation. So if you were, so you would, let's say, um, because the concern is with the city manager. So would the city manager be a bad actor? Okay. A couple of things. First of all, you're going to most likely hire somebody who, um, is with ICMA and following those ethics. Second of all, if the city manager, international city managers association, I just stopped for the audience. Yes. Thank you. Um, and they have a code of ethics that they have to follow in order to keep that credentialing. Um, the other item is, is that they answer to you five. So if they really are going rogue or being a bad actor, they're going, they're still, the ultimate responsibility is going to lie with you. Um, also understand with regard to this, they're initiating an application, but then the owner has to get noticed right of way. Then it has to go through H PAC and they have to, you know, evaluate it and decide. And then it ultimately comes to you all for the ultimate decision of yes, we're going to designate or no, we're not in all of those stages, the property owner is going to have notice and there's going to be an evaluation of not only is this appropriate for the historic district, but is this an appropriate use? Is it, um, would it be a reparable harm if we didn't grant it? So both of those will be considered throughout that process. And like I said, ultimately the control will rest with you five. No, and I actually, excellent answer because if my takeaway from that is, is that there are fail-safe there in this that would prevent that from happening. Yeah, that's good. Um, how are we defining irreparable? So irreparable harm, when we first brought this, um, ordinance to you, there was, I think we said extraordinary circumstances and there was some question about, well, what would constitute an extraordinary circumstance? So we went back and changed it to irreparable harm. So irreparable harm is harm that is done that can't be compensated for by money. Um, there's something more than that. And that's a legal standard. And the reason why that was put in this is because essentially an ordinance is a law. So we're putting in language that's a, uh, legally recognized term. So if there ever is a challenge outside of this room, but in a court, the court knows what that term means as well. And there is a set standard for them to evaluate it on. This is the same standards that's used when we're dealing with injunctions. Um, so it'd be, so we did it for clear, believe it or not, for clarity. And so it was a set legal standard. Okay. So appreciate that explanation. Um, so basically to just kind of walk through the process, let's say that there's a district that, uh, is in danger of having irreparable damage to that district and the city manager deems it such that we need to act or possibly lose the, in the charm, the culture, the history of a district that might be, you know, a focal point of what our history is based on. And that would be just to initiate that application. Correct. And that application then would go through review. And then ultimately the decision would be, have to be made by the city commission who we would fall under for the most part, all the processes that are currently in this ordinance. Correct. And specifically, um, is there any part of that process where this goes back to, uh, citizen vote or in the district, the people who live in the district? Because right now there's, there's two paths. One is a hundred percent of all the residents have to vote in favor of a historic district or the city manager in the event of irreparable damage or the potential for irreparable damage, um, could then initiate the application. Does, does any part of this go back, you know, for consideration amongst the residents? So there's not a vote of the property owners that are being considered, um, for the district. But what there is, is there is notice to the property owners upon the filing of the application. They have to be provided notice that lets them know this, these properties are being considered for a district. Um, then there's also notice prior to the H-PAC reviewing it and there's notice prior to commission reviewing it. So that way the property, um, owners are kept informed throughout the process and as early as the application can begin to assess whether or not this is something they support or not and reach out. So then considered, uh, residents, public hearing, those are all tools, channels and by which they can communicate with the commission on that. Absolutely. Okay. All right. Uh, well, thank you. Um, those are all the questions I have. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Degard. Thank you, Mayor. By the way, I hate going after Rob. He stole that my question. But there is one that I have that might help us understand what damage we can cause a citizen whose property has been, has fallen, has fallen in this irreparable harm category where the manager would start the process. And what I want to know is in, all of these have to go ultimately to the commission. And that's a fact. We've established that. But I'm looking for the amount of time that would be lost where the owner of the property would lose usability or change to their property relative to when it would finally be determined by the commission, yay or nay. Can you help me on that? So I do believe we have in the ordinance that it has to be heard by the HPC within 60 days. So there's no dragging of the feet, so to speak. So it needs that, needs to move forward. Would you say that in almost every case it would be within less than three or four months? I would say, I mean, I would say realistically, probably, yes. But during that period of time, the homeowner or owner of the site would not have the ability to make changes or anything at all. They'd kind of be frozen. Is that correct? So they could do repairs. Okay. They can certainly do repairs, but they cannot pull, like, permits for things or major changes. But remember, this is in the situation that we, you know, if this situation ever comes up and the city manager has to step in. So all of these stars have to kind of align. I just want to kind of keep that. And let me add something. First of all, at no time do they lose the use of their property. If their home is a residential home, they continue to use it as a residential home. This is only for exterior modifications. So if they had interior modifications, I believe they could move forward with that because it's not regulated by the historic district. If they had exterior modifications, then there would be a pause. That being said, if they need ordinary repair or maintenance, that can still continue. Very good. Okay. I need, because of the concerns around this, I need to understand, maybe through example, irreparable harm. Has that been used anywhere we know of, and how do we define it as we see it there? I know that there is a legal definition, but I'd like to see how it might be applied in a community. Do you have any examples of that? I, you know, I think we talked about it last time, you know, for example, maybe at one point, if there was two or three, I'm kind of picturing, and these are what if scenarios, right? So what if there was three structures that we knew that were designed by a really amazing architect that is from the city of Dunedin, and y'all are super proud of these three structures. They were owned by a very, maybe an owner who is not taking care of them, and they are dilapidated, they're falling apart, they're in danger of being lost. Maybe that's where the city manager could potentially apply, but again, it would have to be these circumstances where it really was a danger to the culture or the heritage of the city. All right, I'm going to put you on the spot here. Let's wind back the clock to the Kellogg Mansion. Would we have declared irreparable harm on the Kellogg Mansion to try to stop its demise? So that's not a historic district. That would have been a landmark, and so we actually have changed the ordinance where the only person that can apply for a landmark is the property owner, and during the Kellogg Mansion issue, H-PAC could have applied for a landmark, and I think they did apply. So we're actually making that piece less stringent on the property owner. Can you add to that, city manager? I just want... I can, yes, absolutely. So, and I'll give you a couple of examples, if I may. The, as far as the Kellogg Mansion went, there was an effort to designate historic. I'm sure the H-PAC remembers that. The property owner was not reluctant to designate historic. We needed a signature on the application, which would have been mine, to move forward to the city commission, and I did not execute the application. The Kellogg Mansion was in disrepair. It was... It could not be repaired, in the opinion of many, many folks, and so the property owner moved ahead with demolition, and in order to address that, we did our best to memorialize that building through the virtual exhibit that we did, and the historic museum did their gala, and so on and so forth. So we did our best to preserve the memory of that marvelous mansion. So irreparable damage, then. Let's talk about that a little bit. You know, a long time ago, it seems, I'm coming up on eight years for the city, and this has been an effort underway. It started before then. We discussed the historic districts many, many years ago before Francis, and I think members of the H-PAC may remember that. And one of the reasons why we discussed the historic districts was in the context of the south side of Dunedin, and many of you know that a lot of those properties are zoned either MF 7.5 or MF 15, and that's a multifamily zoning designation. So MF 7.5 is 7.5 units to the acre. MF 15 is 15 units to the acre. A lot of people do not understand that their property is zoned for multifamily, and I'll give you an example. Across Wood Street, right to the north on Wood Street, are maybe five or six or seven delightful cottages. One was built in 1929, another in the 30s, and so on and so forth. One is designated historic site, one of them. Their zoning is 7.5 units to the acre. They are in disrepair, a lot of them. They were an original architect to the city. Some of them are called the Wood Street cottages and so on and so forth. So they are important, most certainly to the character of that neighborhood. Where the character of the neighborhood could be impacted, and keep in mind that the criteria is the character of the city, not just the neighborhood but the city. I mean, the criteria is the bar is incredibly high on designating that type of harm. But regardless, if one entity were to come in and buy up that entire street, it's possible that they could build townhouses and condominiums on that property. So I think you have to be very cognizant of what our zoning is underlying a lot of the areas in the southern part of the city. It was originally, many, many, many years ago, meant for multifamily development. And it was developed as single family. And so, you know, way down the line, I'm seeing that that could be an example of irreparable harm. That said, the city manager would not be working in a vacuum in any way, shape, or form. The city manager would be working with members of the community, with HPAC, with staff, and so on and so forth, to analyze what the impact is on that neighborhood and the city itself, the city in general, if that were to happen, because it could happen there and elsewhere in the south side of Dunedin, and in other areas as well. We know that there are areas of Baywood Shores that are currently being purchased by some corporations. And so on. So there are some neighborhoods that are of concern. And we originally talked about the districts because of that multifamily zoning designation. We did approach, I believe it was on Bell Trees, a number of single-family property owners. And right in the middle, I think it was Bell Trees, is a multifamily. And they would not designate, they would not rezone their property to a single-family residential, and that effort kind of died. So, and that's one example, and it's certainly not an example that I am forwarding to you as a real-life example or even a threat right now. But, you know, I feel that the local planning agency and the city commission and the residents and so on are striving to identify what that would mean and what that could possibly look like. And I just wanted to give you that example. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Mr. DeGuard. Thank you, Manager. That is all I have. Thank you. Okay. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. This is probably, I'll direct this to the city manager. Jennifer, in your examples, you talked about the many properties that are zoned, multifamily, 7.5, 15, and the concern that somebody could, and actually, you can see where that is happening. You've got one owner that's buying up two, three of those, and what that concept might look like. But where in that scenario, with what's being proposed tonight, is that you would, without any other, or there might be one house that is designated historic, we could, with that one house, declare an entire district historic? Or, I'm just wrestling with that, obviously. I'm wrestling with that. But I'm trying to figure out the scenario of where all the homes are historic, but one or two, and trying to protect that historic, and wanting to make a district out of it, versus there's little to no homes that are already deemed historic. But us going in and making an entire neighborhood street, et cetera, historic, without any other homes involved. Right. Would need to meet, whatever homes you were designating for that district would need to meet the criteria within the ordinance as to what makes them historic. What is their, what is that characteristic? So they'd still have to meet that threshold, whether they are individually already designated, and you're taking a bunch of individual homes that are designated, and just saying now they're a district, or whether or not you're taking homes that have yet to be designated, and those are being proposed as a district. All of the homes would need to meet that criteria. So there isn't a number, if that's what you're looking for, of homes that already have to be designated in order to bring them as a district. But they do all have to meet that criteria. All the homes. Yes. Okay. And you would, and you'd have to demonstrate it. Okay. Okay. And in some sort of definition of a district, is there a low number? Is it two homes? Is it one street? Is it 12 homes? So that's been left very flexible. It's more than one. But it's flexible. And part of that, again, is because, you know, when individuals want to come forward and say, we want this to be a district, it may be that there are 10 homes on a block, and there are five property owners that want it. Those five could still come in and make a district out of their five. So we've left that number flexible for whoever wanted to take advantage of the program. Okay. All right. That's all, Mayor. Thank you. Okay. And Commissioner Sandbergen. So, Francis, the first couple sentences that you talked about was the LPA voted to remove the city manager. And then your follow-up included the city manager. I understood that correctly, right? Okay. If we, you think this increases values in neighborhoods? That's something that Blair could. I do. I think local historic districts are proven to increase value. So making the city more appealing to that type of buyer that was looking for them? And I think also creating a sense of place for existing residents. Okay. If I understand, if my next-door neighbor's home was eligible, I could register or, like I said, would be the word, I could register my neighbor's home. No. I cannot? You cannot. Okay. You are not allowed to do that. Okay. The only people that can apply for a historic district or a landmark are property owners. Okay. Or the city manager may apply for a historic district if there's reparable harm. Okay. And I know we talked about this before. Partial damage, fire, flood, hurricane. It seems like that property owner would have to go through more steps because now they are going to have to comply with the requirements for the historic as well as just normal building, you know, Dunedin building codes. Am I right? Would it cost more and take more effort by the homeowner to bring it back to livable standards? If there is property in either a landmark or a property in a local historic district, so the district is in place and they have to repair, they have to follow the COA process. Blair? Blair? I think people are having a hard time hearing you. Oh, I'm sorry. Is your microphone on? Yeah. I apologize. Thank you. I'm too far from the microphone. I have it on. It's green. So if you have a local landmark, you've volunteered to designate your house, you have to follow the COA process for exterior changes. Repairs, though, you don't need a COA. So if you're repairing your structure to pre-damaged condition, you don't need a COA. Who initiates a COA? The owner? Yep. And who reviews that COA? So we have that COA matrix. So if the COA matrix is actually approved, whatever type of alteration they want to do follows that matrix. We tried to make it to where staff had some leeway to make it easier for property owners. So staff could approve COAs quickly instead of having to go through a public hearing process. There are some items that the HPC reviews, and then the City Commission reviews demolition over 20% of contributing structures. Okay. You know, post-hurricane, I watch the Dunedin real estate market very close. And things are changing. Things are changing in the real estate market. If someone came to town today and wanted to purchase a house and it had the designation, can they opt out of it? Or are they required to keep it? Nope. So the structure is in the district. It's in the district. But when you buy it, it would be a deed. It would be very obvious that you're purchasing a home in a local historic district or you're purchasing a home as a landmark. So either way, historic district or landmark, same thing. You know, when you hear that term district, for some reason, if you visit, you know, Savannah, you may visit, why isn't the downtown included in this? We're so worried and focused on these residential homes. Why wouldn't we convert the downtown into a historical district? You could. We're not saying... That's never been worked on or started? So I think there is some confusion about, like, what... We don't have a historic district in mind right now. That's not on the table. Okay. The HPAC did hire Kimley Horn. They wanted to survey the entire city of all historic structures. Well, that's not really plausible. So what we did is we created a heat map. And we found the oldest structures in the city. And so we started getting grants to survey the oldest structures in the city. So that's how that happened. It was very trying to just chip away. Because most cities that are historic, like Dunedin, an older city, has already had this full survey done for years and years and years. They're actually updating their surveys now. So the HPAC was really trying to just see what's out there. And so that's what... There's no historic district on the table right now. Because I actually went out and read the heat map. And I looked at, I mean, hundreds of houses on it. And I get what you're saying. I guess the last thing, you know, by removing the city manager, and I'm anxious to hear the citizen input that's going to come up after this. You know, not only do we have to think about that, but, you know, our boards and committees now have term limits. So this could, you know, this is going to change going forward, the way people view it, that are on these boards and committees now. And I'm giving that a lot of thought, that, you know, what works today may not be favorable going forward. So that's all that I have. And I'll be more anxious to hear what the citizens have to say. Thank you. So a couple questions. Most of the questions have been asked. But so when we originally looked at this, what was the approval percentage that was going to be needed to create a historic district? So what we did originally is the very first version of this, it was 100% for commercial structures, the property owners. Because there was, you know, we had to, there's a lot of zoning implications with that. And then for residential, it was 60%. And so after talking with y'all, we had workshops, there was a concern. And so what we did is we put it to 100% based on your concerns. So, I mean, my takeaway from that was it was kind of a respect for people's concerns about their property rights and, you know, they want to make choices about their home. I agree, Mayor. And then the other change, big change, and you alluded to it, was the HPC was taken out as an initiator. And again, what's your view of why you did that? That was a concern of y'all. So that, we talked about that at the workshops. And that was one of the major concerns is you were concerned about another entity designating properties of historic, you know. And so we said, okay, let's do 100% owner required, and then let's have a fail-safe with the city manager. So it has, this has evolved, I would say, over months and months. And a lot of those concerns originally for the commission and where this has evolved has really been about making sure to, to the extent we think we should or can to ease the minds of property owners like all of us. You know, we don't want somebody coming in and telling us what to do. Would that be accurate, that it's been that concern and sensitivity for the property owners' rights that we've done these things? Absolutely, Mayor. So, Jennifer, I'm going to ask you, because the city attorney, you know, she basically spoke for you about International City Manager's Association, your code of ethics. And so, and I know it is a big fear that you'll go rogue and take people's property rights. And also that if it's not you, that some other person is going to go rogue that's in your seat. Can you please, you know, tell us your view on that? Absolutely. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you for the opportunity to give a little bit of background about the profession. I hope you all have a couple hours. So, you know, the city manager is the chief administrator, the CEO of the city. And it's interesting that we're talking in the context of initiating an application for a historic district when, number one, the city manager is tasked and responsible for enforcement of all laws within the city of Dunedin. Responsible for drafting, develop, drafting, and recommending a budget and then implementing that budget for the city of Dunedin. And also in hiring all of your staff. I'm appointed by you to hire all of your staff. You appoint the city attorney, you appoint the auditor, and you appoint the city clerk. But the responsibility for the other staff rests with me. Just out of curiosity, who fires you? You do. The city commissioner fires me. That's right. A rogue city manager might not last long, for one thing. Go ahead. Correct. So, you know, as far as the criteria and the position within the city of Dunedin, it's interesting. Last Tuesday, we heard that there's a 100th birthday coming up for the city of Dunedin being incorporated as a municipality and establishing the form of government that you have right now, which is called a commission manager form of government, which means that the city commission sets the policy and does all the things that I just described. You appoint me to run the day-to-day operations of the city, but the city manager is responsible for the professional administration of the organization. The city of Dunedin is about 36,000 people, as you know. The city commission hires a professional administrator. And the job description, the criteria is such that there's a certain amount of education that you're looking for, most certainly. You actually, a master's degree is preferred. You look for somebody with management experience and not just a few years, but 20 years of management experience. You look for somebody in particular now, you know, and it's more prevalent as the organization becomes more well-respected, I think, in the world, actually, the International City Management Association, a credentialed city manager, which means that you have to essentially swear an oath to the 12 tenants of the ICMA. And the number one, you know, tenant, is that everything you do is in the general public interest, that your true star, your north star, is what you do is in the general public interest. And salary-wise, as well, you compensate your city manager well. And the reason why I'm saying this is that the city of Dunedin will always have a professional administrator in this position. Some of them are more popular than others. I'd like to think I'm on the popular spectrum, and I'm just kidding, but, you know, the important part is you will always have a professional in this seat. As far as the city manager-initiated application for historic district, I can tell you this one thing. It would be the last thing that I pick up to do. The first thing would be to work with those property owners to try to get them to maintain and, you know, the character of the city and the community in that way. This is not something that would be taken lightly by anyone in this seat because, potentially, it could be career-ending, quite honestly. You have to be very careful. There are very specific certain criteria. There's a very high bar. And, really, fundamentally, the community has got to be behind you. And I'm not just saying one or two. I mean the community. And so, you know, and then also it's a very arduous process to get through. You've got to understand, you know, all the information that you need and then get it through three public hearings to the end to either approval or not. So this is not something that would be done easily or lightly for anybody sitting in this seat moving forward. You know, it's interesting because we arrived at the city manager-initiated historic district application in order to have the one thing in our tool belt as a fail-safe moving forward. And, you know, it's not something, quite honestly, that I asked for or wanted. But I think it's an important tool for us to have and for future administrators to have to preserve the character of the city as a whole. And, you know, our strategic plan talks in depth about the character of the city as a whole, the historic character of the city as a whole. It supports our property values. It supports our feeling of community. It supports just about everything the city is about moving forward. And so when you're talking about historic districts, whatever it is that's going on there has to impact that on a very broad approach in order for a city manager to initiate an application. Thank you. I don't really have any other questions right now. I'm anxious to hear what our citizens' input will be. So are we good? Anybody want to take a break before we start or are we ready just to go into it? Okay. Okay. So we're going to do our – I'm going to open public input. I will say basically whoever wants to come forward, it's going to be name and address for the record. You'll get three minutes. And I'll say this up front, please no clapping because we don't know who's for what in this room. And so with Robert's rules, you try to be respectful because it can intimidate one side or the other, depending if you've got a smaller group on one side and a larger group on the other. So if you could respect that boundary, I'd really appreciate it. But so I will open it up for public input and come forward, name and address for the record, and you've got three minutes. Thank you, sir. Don't worry, all these papers – it's 24-point font, so it's not as long as it looks. My name is Tom Bowers. I reside at 827 Victoria Drive. My wife, Jan, and I have lived in Dunedin since 1984, first on Buena Vista Drive in a 1950s home, which we sold in 1987 and moved to Victoria Drive. Six years ago, we were able to purchase the home next to us from the family of our neighbor of 32 years at 835 Victoria Drive. So we now have the responsibility of maintaining two historic homes. Since 1977, we've owned 14 older homes and have always restored these homes back to their original designs or as close as possible. One of the largest homes we've done is in Tarpon Springs on Tarpon Avenue. It's the 1910 Bread and Breakfast Inn. We have always loved and appreciated the designs, construction, styles, and durability of older homes. When we found our home on Victoria Drive, we knew that we were there for life. These two homes are now 123 years old and 130. They both are very close to being in their original state. The hard pine wood used in those homes was harvested in 100 and 150 years. And adding 130 years and 125, that's old wood. And it's at least 230. We're on the water. And needless to say, you know, it's no easy task to maintain. But we do the best that we can. So having said all that, I hopefully have established that we are historic home people. And as I have found, are all the residents on Victoria Drive. Now, the reality of all this is that we're not wealthy. We have sacrificed a great deal to be where we are. And our goal in life is to hold on to these two homes and leave our sons an inheritance that our families have not been able to do before. As I understand the situation we're discussing tonight, the allowing of the city manager and the staff to designate Victoria Drive or any area it desires as an historic district, I'm very concerned that it will impose irreparable harm to us, the residents there. We have spoken to most of the neighbors, and we have found no one that is in favor of this. My main concern is that when we go to sell either or both of our homes, the potential buyer may want to buy the property simply because it's a Waterview property. So after all the heart and soul that we've poured into maintaining these two old houses, a potential buyer may want to, A, buy and maintain the home as it is, which would be preferable, B, remove the home and create a larger, more hurricane-resistant and updated version, most likely designed to be compatible with the other historic homes on the street, or C, in our situation, buy both of our homes and create a larger home on two spacious lots, as our neighbors Gary and Amy Connors did very successfully. Also, there's this consideration. What if another hurricane damages, beyond repair, any home on the street? Many residents here are still recovering from the damages from the hurricanes last year. Most of it was interior damages. But what if it's... Yeah, if you could wrap up. Sorry. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else wish to come forward to speak on this issue? Name and address for the record, and... Okay, well... And then, Deborah, after that. Hello. Ryan Saunders, 250 Lynnhurst Street. We've heard a few things tonight talking about fail-safes burden still remains on the resident. Let's keep that in mind. If a city manager-initiated historic district takes place, part of the process doesn't include the vote by the people. Maybe there's hearings. Maybe it's not defined in everything that's been talked about. The timeline we heard is maybe 60 days. That's not defined. 60 days to be heard, but actually get that application through could take longer. And remember, when that application starts, permits stop. So, why does this matter? When we think about a city manager-initiated historic, that burden shifts to the homeowners who now must fight after the fact for their property rights. We just heard it just now, what it could mean to somebody. We keep hearing residents will have the opportunities to weigh in throughout the process, but that's not defined and unknown. And this ordinance flips consent into reaction for us as a resident. So, let me walk you through a scenario. We kind of heard scenarios similar. This is the way I read and interpret the ordinance. So, imagine a two-block stretch of mid-century homes in Dunedin. Together, they create a unique character. Now, imagine a storm. One home is destroyed. That family wants to rebuild. Higher elevation, more room for a growing family. But a neighbor next to them says, this threatens my sense of place. The city manager agrees, interprets this as harm to the neighborhood character, and a district can be just two homes. A neighborhood could do that. A city manager that maybe is on a different track doesn't, takes this action and initiates a historic district. And this can happen at any time. The minute the city manager files the application, all exterior changes are restricted, even if the district is never approved. During that time, everybody's stuck. So, imagine a resident after a storm, your home is damaged, you're trying to rebuild, but now you're told you can't because someone believes your rebuild would harm the city's character. We already have Historic Preservation Committee. We already have the Architecture Review Board. If neighbors want to preserve the area, they can apply on their own, individually, voluntarily. That process already exists. The 100% process exists as well in this new ordinance. But let's take the LPA's recommendation. There was a meeting here, a lot of back-and-forth conversations, a lot of really good points made, and I hope everybody on this council has had a chance to listen to that meeting because those discussions were very ongoing and I think very well heard. And if you choose to ignore that recommendation by the LPA, you need to explain to the residents tonight, if the city manager initiates an application that's put in place, how does this immediately impact repairs and work for consent? You need to explain the process and time that residents have to argue an exclusion for themselves and how much of their own money they have to put up, how much they have to be in front of their mailbox and not traveling over the summer and miss that 14-day notice. You need to explain how you're going to make sure everybody actually gets that notice. You need to explain the financial stress that's going to be put on residents as part of this. And you also need to understand how these homes will be flagged and the potential resale of that home will be affected. That needs to be made transparent. I just need to wrap up. Thank you. Wrapping up, I just ask you to listen to what the LPA said and remove the city manager from this ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate your input. I think Deborah Kynes is next. I do want to say that I recused my... Name and address for the record. Deborah Kynes, 265 Edgewater Drive. And I did recuse myself from the LPA because it was an adjudicatory process, even though it wasn't ex-part, it wasn't quasi-judicial, but still, this is a legislative issue. But because I wanted to be totally clear and very fair, I recused myself. So first of all, there's no intervener. You can't intervene and say, we're going to take that person's property, not your next door neighbor. That's false. That's out of the ordinance. And you know what? I'm totally for the 100%. I have no issue with that because I really feel that the best kind of historic neighborhoods are going to germinate. They're going to come about organically. They're going to come about with maybe three houses at a time. And that's okay. Or two houses. And then the next three, four, five, they may opt out and say, it's not my cup of tea and I'm not for it. Fine. Because the next three houses or the four houses, they will be their own historic district. I have no problem. I'm undeterred and I, it's, you know, I'm not disappointed. And I think that's absolutely fine. And I think that's how it should be. You know, I, a lot of things with this survey, they were paid for by the state. That was a, that was misspoken. You all, the state reimbursed the cost of this survey. The surveys are under the certified local government. There are 86 in the state of Florida of 441 cities, towns, and villages. It's a very, and it links state, federal, and local. And surveying and seeing what historic properties you have. The only people that can, there's no intervener status. I cannot, and neither can I, it's not like the orange people that slapped oranges on buildings. We can't do that. It's a real process. I mean, you have to go through all these criteria that are, it's from the federal level in order for you voluntarily to designate. There is a world of difference between taking, which is an eminent domain, or an intervener saying we want to take your property, and voluntary, it is voluntary, historic preservation. And that's how it should be. And I'm for it. And I will tell you that I have seen historic preservation across the nation because I've been interested. Thank you, Deborah. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. Okay, anyone else wish to speak to this issue? Terry? Name and address for the record in three minutes. And it's nice to be back in your house, isn't it? It is. Yeah. Good to be back in yours, too. It is. Terry Hopkins, 200 Severa Drive, Dunedin, Florida. I've been listening to this, and I've been with the history committee, what it used to be called, for about five or six years, trying to work on this same project of getting the boat club as a historic designation. And finally, finally, we're getting here. And the one major thing seems to be everybody's concerned about the city manager having some say so in this. But the truth of the matter is that you guys sitting right here are the ones that's going to make the final decision on this. And if we, as citizens, don't like that, you won't be sitting there. Somebody else will. Because that's the way the world works. Because as citizens, we have the last say. And if you don't do what they like, whatever that might be, then we'll come after you. That's the way it works. And you know that. I know that. And very few people say that. But that's all I have to say. And if the city manager has one little part in this to suggest that something be brought forward, then I see no problem with that at all. Because it still comes back to you guys. And you are voted in by us. Thank you. Thank you, Terry. Anyone else wish to come forward to speak on this issue? Hi. How you doing? Name and address for the record in three minutes. Paul Gionis, 159 Beltree Street. Okay. So I'm a lawyer. And I've heard some things that concern me. Irreparable harm in the context of a historic district would be changing one home. Taking off the dormer. Changing the windows. Because that historic home is no longer the same. So that's irreparable, right? You can't fix it with money. Okay. It's gone. You can't go back in reverse time. That means anytime somebody changes something, could be the catalyst to engage in the creation of a historic district. Now, it's important that everybody goes back and rereads these surveys. Because they're not surveys. The first one says it's part of a master plan with a 52 home district. Two years later, in 2022, they came out with another one, part two. And it proposed a 270 home district. My home is in there on Belltree's. Part three proposes two future historic districts. All they talk about is districts in these documents. They're hundreds of pages long. It costs 150 grand of taxpayer dollars. And they're all districts. And why is that important? Because these documents create the basis to create the district, right? So for five years, they're creating their evidentiary basis for the city manager to say, this is a district. And then we'll come in front of you guys. And it might probably won't be you guys. It'll be somebody else. But they'll say, oh, we have all the evidence we need to create phase 152 homes or part two, 270 homes or part three, 269 homes, totaling 591 homes, plus every vacant lot and every new construction. Because as Ms. Sharp advised, that is to maintain the integrity of the historic district. So this is going to be a blanket district. All the evidence is there. So now what did they do before? It used to be 30 days. They lowered it to 14. They only have to notify the people on the exterior of the district. That means the manager says, we're going to go forward with this district. 14 days later, it comes before you guys for the vote. Come back. Done. And I'm going to say, no, no, no, it's wrong. But the problem is that the evidence already exists in these surveys, and that's why they were created. They weren't surveys to look at individual homes. Otherwise, they'd be spread out. There are four discrete districts along Edgewater between Union and Main Street. And that's what's happening here. And everybody understands the expression, to a man holding a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you give the city manager this authority, she will use it. It's just going to happen. And all of a sudden, we're going to have these districts. We're going to be in the middle of them. Go ahead and look up the facts. This does not add value. It adds value when it's grassroots, not when it's imposed on people. Thank you, Paul. Appreciate your input. Anyone else wish to come forward to speak to this issue? Name and address for the record in three minutes. Rob Kozen, 1417 Truskafield Drive. First of all, as a veteran and as a citizen of this town, I just want to thank you for today. Our Purple Heart Ceremony made us proud. And it was because of all of your efforts. So I want to thank you for that. Thank you. Several months ago, I sat in the chair right here when you gave your state of the city presentation. And on that screen, you had your mission statement. And the number one mission statement was historic preservation. I think that that notion becomes that much more critical as our little town of Dunedin stops being the best-kept secret in Florida. As all of us said, I've only lived here for six years, but I have seen a dramatic change in infrastructure, in traffic, in the amount of people that are just flowing into the town. And that's a good thing. I cannot speak from the posture of being a property owner in a potentially historic district, but I will speak from the posture of being the vice-commandor of the Dunedin Boat Club. And I know that since I've been a member of that club for years, it has always been on the table of why we are not a historically designated property. If anything reflects the historic legacy of Dunedin and its vast and wonderful maritime history, it is the Dunedin Boat Club and its property. I'm a little, I'm not sure if I'm concerned or confused by who then, because it's a city-owned property, who would make application for that designation. All I can ask is that serious consideration be made to make us historic. It will expedite our whole process of rebuilding and, again, bringing us back to serving, again, the welfare of this entire community. But thank you all for everything that you do. I know this is a conundrum. I know this is not an easy subject. But from our standpoint, from that peninsula, that's where everybody goes. That's where the charm and the history and the legacy of this town is. And I ask your support as commissioners to help us become historic so we can rebuild our property. Thank you. Thank you, Bob. Appreciate it. Anyone else wish to come forward to speak on this issue? Okay, I've got Mr. Schein first, or you go ahead. Yeah, he's going to let you come, so you can come forward. Yep. Yeah, he's going to wait for you. He's going to wait for you. Just name an address for the record in three minutes. Hi, Hillary Gionis at 159 Bell Trees. I just kind of wanted to build off of what the first gentleman was saying about Victoria Drive and them wanting to, they took their own initiative to preserve the history of their home, which was the same thing that my husband and I did, from our flooring to our wood-clad windows to having a mill worker reproduce our interior doors. And just as that gentleman said, we're not like, we don't have all this money to do this. We saved so that we could, we rented, we rented the house out for a while so we could save the money to keep the house the way that it was. It's a little bit, I don't understand how here now we're a year later, after seeing what happened to this community last year with Helene, that we would do anything that would make things more difficult for people to rebuild. My in-laws, they lost their home of 50 years, and the trauma of losing your home, they lost their business, they're still not back in their house. And knowing that this happened to our community a year ago, I don't know why we're even having this historic conversation. Our conversation should just be, what are we going to do for people if this happens again? Making it more difficult for someone is not the right thing to do. If the person has the money and they can do it, that's great. But if they don't, I, the decisions that we made with our home, I don't know if I would do those again. If, knowing what I know now, like I didn't want to raise my house, I didn't want to have plasticky windows, I wanted it to feel the way that it was. But now seeing the devastation of what's happened from these storms, maybe I would make different decisions. And looking at what happened to my in-laws, to think of them going through that process and someone saying, no, but it has to be this way because you're a historic district when they just want to feel safe again because it's so traumatizing what happened to them. So it's just something I want everybody to think about, especially in light of what happened to us last year. Thank you. Thank you very much. Does anyone else wish to come forward to speak on this issue? Okay, we've got Sylvia now. Hi, Sylvia. Hi, Sylvia Tazikas, 221 Main Street. I just want to say that thank you, everybody, for even going through all this process. But my husband and I have invested in Dunedin for over 37 years. All of our properties that we own are in this district that you're talking about. And it's really concerning because not only we take the initiative to, again, restore our properties and keep it the way it should be and maintain it, so we took that initiative ourselves to do that and not have somebody sit there and say, you have to do this or you have to do that. We enjoy doing that. But to put those restrictions on there is very concerning for us, especially being an active realtor in this community. I see that I know for a fact because I've sold homes in this community as well. But the property values tend to be coming down a little bit because of the economy and everything. But having those restrictions on there, we're not seeing the buyers coming in and wanting to purchase something like that in light of all the hurricanes as well. And people are like, okay, what do we do now? Like, we're going to buy this historic piece of property or it's going to be in the designated area. It's affecting property values, too. And I'm just really concerned about that. I think people should take the initiative. I don't think that any particular avenue should have control over that. And it's really concerning for me. But I want to thank you, everybody. Thank you, Sylvia. Anyone else wish to come forward to speak on this issue? Hi. Name and address for the record in three minutes. How are you doing? Doug Lewis, 1047 Victoria Drive. I swore I wouldn't come up and speak. Just had to do it, right? And I had to do it, so sorry. It's okay. My concern is really the stop gap of having the city manager. And this has nothing to do with our city manager or the current council. I have a lot of experience with city councils. I was a growth management director for a city. I was a developer for 42 years. I was also a building official. So I have a little inside knowledge. The things that happen in the back room in city halls all across this country are atrocious. Again, I'm not saying that would happen here. But this group has to remember that the things you decide tonight, everybody gets stuck with for years until somebody has the guts to go, oh, we've got to change that. That didn't work. And there's cities that made decisions and the unintended consequences that happen. You can't see them all. But having, you know, somebody has a plan for a piece of property and the city goes, that's really good. And it would be the thing to do. And we need to help that person do that. There's always those scenarios. Listen, I look at the board up here and I go, I like Mount Dora property owners. The people that actually own the property. You guys have to remember the city belongs to all these people. Well, this is a group that was elected or hired to manage it and run it, but you don't own it. These people own it. They also own their homes. They should have 100 percent authority over their home. You know, the governor is trying to get rid of property taxes, which I think is amazing if somebody actually ever pulls that off. You know, we don't ever actually get to own our homes. But we certainly have enough rules and enough things that we have to worry about with our homes to not have to sit and go, well, you know, we personally live in a historic district. We don't own a historic home. Our home was built in the 90s. The historic house there burned down many, many years ago. So this doesn't necessarily affect us, but it could. But I'm more worried about the homeowners in general. There's a lot of elderly people that probably couldn't come here tonight or that aren't going to get up and speak that are not in favor of this. I know that everybody we've talked to in our neighborhood, nobody is for this. They don't want anybody to be able to force them to be in a historic district. I don't know that there's a more historic district than our street, but it's important to those people. And I think I'm okay with it if it's 100 percent voluntary. The second there's any little thing that says it's not 100 percent voluntary, then I'm against the whole thing. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Doug. Appreciate it. Okay. Anyone else wish to come forward and speak to this issue? Okay. David, name and address for the record in three minutes. Mayor, thanks again. David Ballard-Gettis, Jr. I live at 802 Georgia Avenue in Palm Harbor. Let's say, for instance, that I live in a 90-year-old sharecropping home that was originally bought out of a Sears catalog, and legislation has just recently passed statutory requirements that I upgrade my household plumbing to include modern-day plumbing for reclaimed water for indoor use, such as laundry and toilet use, as based on Dana Young's House Bill 639. With such modern-day plumbing contrivances, would I still qualify as a historic preserved home? Or what if I wanted to voluntarily upgrade my plumbing to include a waterless incinerating toilet, as referenced in Statute 381.0065, and modernize my home that way? Would I still qualify as a historically preserved home? Based on Maloney's Water Code, Section 1.13, what if they dictated every home and they required every home that reclaimed water must be used indoors, as based on Statute 163.3167, Section 1D? Would such modern-day upgrades still allow us to fall underneath a historic preservation home? Tapping into such reclaimed water contrivances, how does that affect us as historically preserved homes? Thank you. Thank you, David. Appreciate your input. Anyone else wish to come forward to speak on this issue? I name an address for the record in three minutes. Thank you. Hi, yes. My name is Amy Connors. I live at 937 Victoria Drive. I'm speaking on behalf of both myself and my husband, who's not here today. I'm going to start with a short timeline. In December of 2011, there was a Christmas Eve fire in an old wood Victorian home in Connecticut. If you're not familiar with it, Google it. A mom lost all three of her daughters and her parents in the fire. Two months later, in February of 2012, Gary and I purchased the home at 937 Victoria Drive. By the way, we checked to see if it had a historical designation before we bought it. We would not have bought it if it did, and we certainly wouldn't have paid what we paid for it if it did. We spent over a year researching what to do with our 100-year-old-plus home. We met with contractors and architects who all told us that the home was in disrepair, some of whom admitted that they came to talk us into keeping the original structure, but could not in good conscience say that after the inspection. In April, by the way, anybody looking from the outside would not have known that. In April of 2013, we held an auction and sold off any piece of the home that locals wanted. Many of you might remember that. 100% of the profits went to the Dunning History Museum. In October of 2015, we moved into our new home that we built using current materials and materials from the original home, including the red brick, heart of pine flooring, floor beams, and a wooden sailboat boom that we found underneath the original home. We now have a home that is built to code in Zone A. We have hurricane-rated doors and windows. We have hurricane straps on our roof. We have raised our family in a safe, secure home that we would not have been able to do if that home had been designated as a historic landmark. If any of our neighbors or Dunnington residents would like to establish their home as a historic landmark, that's great. We support that. But I encourage those people to act on their own behalf for their specific property that they own. Under no circumstance should a government official, staff member, volunteer committee member, museum staff, or any other resident be authorized to request a historical designation on our property, individually or as part of a district or neighborhood. To clarify, and I know there's been some changes since this was sent out, but the only person that should be able to request a designation on real property is the property owner. I request that this language is amended promptly because it's already on the historic preservation page of Dunedin.gov that includes staff members and the history museum can start the process. And any similar initiatives or motions be defeated. We do not authorize the city of Dunedin to decide this unilaterally. We do not cede our property rights to the city of Dunedin. Thank you. Thank you, Amy. Appreciate it. Okay. Anyone else wish to come forward to speak on this issue? Hi, name and address for the record and three minutes. Thank you. My name is Autumn Miss Tamalajay. I live at 1121 Victoria Drive. My family moved here in 1978. I went to Dunedin Middle and Dunedin High. After high school, I moved 11 times in 11 years and missed this town. I came home. I made an investment in a property that is very unique with unique zoning. Single family, multifamily, tourist facility, and commercial property. I felt it was a great investment on a unique piece of land. And I did not buy it for the homes. I bought it for the zoning. I'm 26 years into this plan. That was a 30-year plan. And here I am today, feeling as though the city of Dunedin is pulling the rug right out from underneath my feet. I want to be able to do with my property what I want to do with it now and tomorrow. I should have the right to do that. I put my heart, my soul, my money, my time, my effort, my energy, not only into my property, but into the city of Dunedin. I've done everything I could to make it a more wonderful place for people to come and visit. I run a very small business there, which I love, called the Dunedin Cottages. I picked the name because I love Dunedin and the homes are cottages. I do not believe that any one entity should have the right to come in and take the investment that I have made away from me. I ask you just to put yourself in my position and ask yourself, would you want a city manager coming in and saying to you, we've designated your property. You are no longer allowed to do with it what you will. That's all I'm asking. I'd like each and every one of you to consider my position and how you would feel if you were in it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else wish to come forward to speak on this issue? Okay. Mr. Schein? Address for the record. My name is John Schein. I'm at 217 Aberdeen Street. I'm right next to a historical home. Good actor. Bad actor. Rogue city manager. Irreparable harm. Opinions? Legal terms? Yes. Black and white? No. Oftentimes, all of those things result from something in the gray. I think this is irreparable harm. I don't. Gray. What's not gray is when you take away someone's rights to their own home. What's not gray is this process. Okay? What's not gray is the opinions that you've been given. Kinley Horn benefits from conflict and litigation. They benefit if you put together a law that doesn't work because now you need them to change it and help you consult through it. The city attorney benefits when there's litigation. Benefits when there's conflict. I'm sorry. You do. You're not a disinterested third party advisor to this city commission. Let's talk about the process. So the city manager, for I don't know, whatever reason, determines there's irreparable harm. Then she hands it over to the historic preservation committee. Do they have a bias? I think it's in the name. Historic preservation. Right? I don't think they're going to vote against anything like that. And then they hand it over to you. And brave as you are to say, we're the city commission. The benefit of AI is I was able to take all 20 years of minutes and download them the AI. Do you know how often you guys voted against the city manager's recommendation? 0%. 0%. 0%. So when the city manager makes a recommendation, unlike today, you do have the right to say no. But do you ever do it? I challenge you to do it today. I challenge you to do it today. There's been discussion about how it's all been voluntary to date. Well, let me give you two examples. There was a woman who got behind and was charged code enforcement liens. The settlement was that she would come and speak to the city about marine biology and that she would make her home historically preserved. Yeah, it was in there. The second is my neighbor, whose home was taken from her under foreclosure for mental illness and wasn't able to maintain her lawn. The new owner was forced by stipulation of the purchase agreement, which was illegal, to take her home and make it historic. Thank you, John. Thank you. And just for clarification, I've been, it's okay, I don't want you to come back to the mic. I've been here 40 years and there's many, many, many times that the city commission has voted against the city manager. So we can have that discussion offline, but I just want to clarify. Thank you. Okay, so anyone else wish to come forward to speak to the issue? Name your address for the record in three minutes. Thank you. Brent Irish, 969 Victoria Drive. Let's see, a little nervous here, but I'm here to speak on behalf of Marcy Wilhelm and myself. We purchased Kern and Webb's old home about a year ago. As you probably have seen, it's in a full restoration right now and it's about 10 feet up in the air. We are committed, we love the city of Dunedin, we also own another historic older home here on Scotland. We chose the city because of its character and this wonderful community. It's our forever home. We are committed to restoring this home and we've got a great team behind us helping us with that, including some people we've met here, but we do, you know, recognize the significance of it maintaining its character and its older home, but we feel like that's a voluntary decision that we should make, not a forced one. So, I know that we have some risk here, but at the end of the day, we're putting our time, effort, money, and resource to make sure that we preserve this home to the best of our ability, just like our neighbors have and done such a wonderful job. That's the reason that we have moved to Dunedin. And I just respectfully want to request that we have that right and it not be forced upon us by designation. Thank you for your input. Appreciate it very much. Anyone else wish to come forward to speak to this issue? Hi. Name an address for the record in three minutes. John Harrison, 234 Lendhurst Street. That's what I'm going to say. Historic designation permanently changes property rights and that of property owners. It limits what we can go ahead and do with delays, repairs, and it's going to go ahead and add additional cost. I'd just like to go ahead and state the decision should never be left in the hands of an unelected official. Respectfully, that should be up to the homeowners themselves to be able to go ahead and to choose. And if Dunedin truly values preservation, it should respect the property owners and look at them as partners and not look at potential advisors to determine what's going to be historic and what's not going to be historic. So I ask that you guys go ahead and leave that in the hands of the property owners. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Anyone else wish to come forward to speak on this issue? Okay. Seeing no one else, I'll return back to the City Commission and we'll go for, I guess, some, do you all want to discuss or I guess we'll discuss it. Anyone else have any other questions based on the citizen input? Yeah. Let me start with Vice Mayor. We'll kind of do a full run. Thank you. Frances, can you walk me through the process upon the City Manager's application? What's the timeline on that? And what's the impact from the resident point of view as far as the timeline and appearance? So once a, excuse me, once a City Manager initiates an application, it gives a 60-day period for the Historic Preservation Committee. That would be the first step where this application is going to be reviewed upon to... I'm sorry, but actually once the application is filed, there's five business days where this, after the submission of the application, where the City Manager must let all of the property owners now. Right, right. That's okay. Yeah. Then goes to the City Manager's. I just skipped a step. Sorry. I'm going to grab it back. Yeah. Sorry, I'm going to grab it back for a minute because I did have a list of some things that came up during the citizen comments. So let me do those first, if you don't mind. And one was the whole issue of hurricane damage, building for sustainability. Can you explain how that works and how, you know, that that's not going to be burdensome on homeowners, a homeowner? Thank you, Mayor. Essentially, when a historic district is approved, along with that goes design guidelines for the historic district that will address what is compatible for alterations, what is compatible for, you know, exterior changes, typically. They're called design regulations. And with that, we're assuming, because this is not on the table, we don't know what's happening, but typically the design regulations nowadays are addressing resiliency and how that happens. So like Charleston, for example, is addressing that with like how it looks when you raise the buildings and those types of alterations to make it still resilient but also compatible. And so those design guidelines that go with the historic district would essentially, in our mind, would follow that. Okay. And so the issue of timeline, which we were just talking about, and notice assurance, I think that came up, might have been Mr. Jonas or Brian, I'm not sure which. But so how do you know for sure that somebody's going to get their notice, that they're not away, they're up north? So as it's written, it says that all property owners in a proposed district at the property owner's address listed at the tax collector office. Yeah. But it just says that a written notice must be provided. So, Mayor, I can speak on that. Yeah, could you? Yes. This is drafted very similar to how you have for code enforcement. So if you were away from your home and there was a code enforcement issue, notice would be provided to you at the address that's listed at the property appraiser or tax collector's office. Similarly, here, notice is provided at the property that's listed at the property appraiser or tax collector. Additionally, before it ever goes to an HPAC hearing or before the commission, there's not only the notice that's provided, but there's a sign that's posted in the yard. And there's also a notice that's posted either at City Hall for HPAC or in the newspaper with regard to a local district. So do you have any concerns that people wouldn't get their notice if they have all their address information up to date? No, only because this is where they would get any information from the property appraiser or tax collector. So in order to pay their property taxes, this would be, you know, the address that they have. So I think it's probably the best address that we have. And again, we're talking about the rare, probably never going to happen circumstance of irreputable harm to the city where, you know, it's outside the voluntary realm. And so let me ask you this because I think Mr. Jonas brought this up. The whole issue of irreputable harm and remove, I think you used the example of removing a doorknob or some kind of part of a house. And that could be an illegal terminology. You could say that's irreputable harm. So I think even, you know, historic homes when you have, I mean, there's a certificate of appropriateness. I'm sorry, there's a certificate of appropriateness that you go through that allows for exchange of windows and different things like that. So I don't know that merely an exchange of windows, which I believe was one of the examples that we'd use, would rise to that level. But ultimately, that's a determination that's going to be made by this commission. Okay, gotcha. And then who makes the Vote Club site application for a historic site? The city of Dunedin. Okay, the city of Dunedin. So that's for Mr. Kozin. And I think an issue came up, too, with, you know, plumbing and toilets. I'm assuming that's all internal. So it's not really part of the, part of it. Exterior alterations only. Right. I think I know somebody to my left that actually changed all their pipes and they're in a historic home. Am I correct on that? Yeah. Let's see. And there was a comment made that any staff member or any, or the history museum could start the process. And again, that's not in there. Or any, that's, was it ever in there? I think there was some confusion because currently as a landmark application, let me go back. Let me see. Here we go. Currently. Oh, yeah, here we go. So currently for a local landmark, HPAC, city commission, city manager, Dunedin history museum staff can apply for a local landmark. But we're changing that to only property owners. Okay. So it's less burdensome. Okay. Good. I just want to clarify that so that I can put out there. Okay. I think that I didn't see any other questions. So again, let's just make sure we all, if there's any questions that left on the table that everybody gets a chance to ask them. So again, back to you, Vice Mayor. Yeah. I just wanted to understand the process and better. So five days after this theoretical situation where the city manager applies for a historic district, letters go out to the people in the historic district. Within 60 days, you have to have the HPAC hearing. And so, and we have to remember that these historic district applications are not just a piece of paper. I mean, it's evaluation of the structure by a professional, and it says whether or not it meets the criteria and what's the boundary of this proposed district. So it's essentially a packet. It's not just a piece of paper. So I think that we wanted to kind of bring that up, too. So, and then after, and then it follows the typical hearing process after the HPAC. So we tried to keep those notice requirements the same as like a rezoning. Right. And what is that typical process? I mean, when, when, when, how long before, when the city manager, the city notifies the homeowner, does it come before the commission? Within 60 days, the HPAC makes a decision. And then, and then the next cycle after HPAC, the next city commission first reading. Okay. So it goes from the HPAC to city commission. Okay. And are, is there anything in the ordinance about how the city manager becomes aware of a situation? And can the city manager just drive around and look in the house? Or would it be permits have been filed for demolition? Is it all of the above? None of the above? We kept it, we kept it, just the city manager may apply for a historic district. Right. Okay. And is there anything in there that before the, the city files, the city manager files the application, it first needs to be heard by the city commission. So at least they're aware of the process. We do not have that process in place right now. Okay. How do you feel about that process? I, we are, whatever you guys decide is what we're happy to implement. Great. That's all I have. All right. Were you kind of asking as a professional what she feels about the process? Yes. Okay. I can answer that. Right. I think it would add more time, but it does give a little bit more transparency. Um, so there is pros and cons to it. Um, I, I do believe that in that circumstance, the faster, the better, because then it gets to you and you guys can make the ultimate decision, right? The hearings, the public process starts, you know, that would be. Yeah. Also that can appear faster, the better means that we can blow through and a little impact from the residents when you'll hear from them. Yeah, that's a valid point. Um, can you tell me about a scenario to where speed is of the essence? There, there isn't, you know, because we're, to do this, we are impacting the resident. And so even the concept of let's rush it through is a very negative connotation. Yeah. Even if it's for a good reason, just the, the concept just is horrid. Um, and, and so what, again, what is the purpose of, of speeding it through and not giving the homeowner as much? I know we don't want to wait a year, right? But to where at least everybody is aware of the process. So, uh, at least from my stance, I would say it, that way it's less time for, um, this to drag out. But, you know, you could see it from your point of view where you give people time to build their, you know, um, you know, their case. And so there's, there's pros and cons to either way. Um, I, I would say that because right now, um, if there's an open historic district application, permits are paused. So that could be a negative too. Ah, okay. Um, you know, I'm just trying to think of all scenarios. So is there a way to build into the ordinance that the homeowner can request that be, uh, fast tracked because of permitting things of that nature? So what we did build into, um, after the LPA, um, response to some of the questions about flood damage and things, we did build in that city commission may make a resolution to remove the permit cause, um, during a historic district application. So if, for example, there's an existing historic district application and there's some issues with, um, damage, you can say, hey, go get your permits and we'll keep that historic district application in place. Or they, um, you can, you can, uh, make a resolution that it, it doesn't, the historic district is not, um, irreparable harm. Maybe I, you know, the process. So, or is it also possible that the homeowner can request a special meeting of H-PAC so we don't even have to wait the 60 days? It's within the 60 days. Right, right. Yep. So, so they could, um, if time allows, because sometimes with notice requirements and things like that, it's, you don't want to rush the notice requirements. Right. I mean, I get, I'm thinking of a typical monthly cycle of a meeting. Yep. Oh, we missed April. We got to wait till May. Oh, yeah, by one day. Yeah. You know, those things. Um, yeah, I mean, we could, we could bake that in. That it would be, it's the next cycle versus 60 days, you know, that kind of language. Yeah. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Okay. Commissioner Sandberg, any other questions? First, I want to say, I think we've lost our air conditioning. It's, uh, it's really humid in here. They came in, yeah, they, they worked on it. They're on, they're here. Okay. Um, yeah. I wondered why it felt hot. I thought it was hot. The jacket's coming off. I thought it was the topic. Yeah. Yeah. Uh, first, I just wanted to clarify, I think I've heard, I think I heard this, but I want to make sure my good friend, Tom Bowers back there probably couldn't live any closer to the water. If his home would have been destroyed, would you say, Tom, 120 years old, wouldn't his new home have to be FEMA compliant and elevated and raised? Yeah. I mean, what's the, yeah. I'm not a building official, but if the entire structure is gone, it would have to follow, I'm sure, the, the building code, the new current FEMA building code. All right. Good. Uh, we're going to be asked to vote on 25-02. Does 25-02 allow, does it allow or not allow the city manager to initiate the action? Okay. That way it's being presented that we're going to vote on. So the, the ordinance in front of you has the ability for the city manager to apply for a local historic district. Okay. Does 25-02 require just 100% voluntary of a property owner? So there's two ways that a historic district application may be submitted, either 100% property owner or city manager with irreparable harm. Okay. So 25-02 allows the city manager in the event of irreparable harm, we've been beating that back and forth. Yep. Or it does not have to be 100, well, in that case, again, so that rolls right into my second part. It would not have to be 100% voluntary. And I need, this isn't, this isn't the last city manager we're ever going to have. We know that. So, so again, so the way we have it written right now is there's two ways a historic district application may be presented to staff. Could you get into the microphone a little bit better? I think it's just really hard to hear. I am so sorry. I don't want to like push my face into it. So there's two ways a historic district may come to staff and be accepted. Either 100% property owner is on board, or the city manager has applied for a historic district and has to prove that there's irreparable harm. Okay. So, Francis, this is it, then I'm done. It's 2502, the way it's written in front of us tonight, what the LPA turned down. If ordinance 2502 that I'm reading in front of me, that is the ordinance that the LPA turned down in a five to one vote. I think it's your microphone now. Yeah. I get that high sign every now. Yeah. Okay. I like the way you answered that. So say it again, now that the microphone's on. Yes. So the LPA recommended approval with a vote of five to one of the ordinance that is written with the condition that the city manager provision of that language to be removed. Okay. I just wanted to hear that. That's all I needed. Thank you. Is that loud enough? Okay. Well, I'd be honest. Yeah. So just to be very clear, though, it's a recommendation to the city commission. It is not approval. Correct. They're a recommending body, not a final authority. I sat on that for many years. I have a lot of admiration and respect for, and I know the people that are on it. So thank you. Okay. Any other questions, Commissioner Walker? Yeah. I just want to confirm something. So let's just say, for instance, historically designated home or district, another series of bad hurricanes, extensive damage to the structures or the district. How does that process work? And just one thing I'm interested to hear is that does the certificate of appropriateness still apply in that case? So, yes. So if you have a local historic landmark or a local historic district and you are doing anything other than repairs, you have to apply for a COA. You have to get approval for a COA. Okay. So repairs back to the condition of as was? So repairs, like normal maintenance and repair. I would assume that if, let's say, for example, half of an addition is taken down and you want to completely replace that, that's a permit situation. So you would probably need a COA for that. Well, in addition, yeah, let's just say, for instance, you need to bring it up to code FEMA, elevate. How does that work? Yeah. So you would have to get a COA. And depending on the level and whether the matrix, who approves that COA. So the H-PAC could approve it or it could essentially go to City Commission, but probably the H-PAC for a major repair, major modification, I would say. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Degard, any other questions? No more questions. Move to comments. Okay. I mean, I don't have any other questions either. Vice Mayor, I just wanted to make one quick clarification. Did you still want to do that? If you don't mind, yeah, to Deborah Kynes. Deborah, when you were up here, you spoke and mentioned several times that you believed in 100% voluntary. And to me, that didn't address the issue at hand. So do you want to share your opinion on whether or not the city manager? He's asking for a clarification. You can choose to- Yeah, that was it. Thank you very much. You can choose to come up and respond or you don't have to. And I'm asking just because your experience on that committee, not necessarily about the- Other jurisdictions have many. They have the mayor. They have their historic preservation. They have the city manager. They have, you know, they have many, many fail-safes that they can come forward and do, you know, initiate. It's initiate. It's initiate. Not designate. Initiate. That they can this many- Understanding, there's 86 certified local governments. And each of them has come up with their ordinances on how they best want to handle historic preservation. I'm totally for a hundred percent voluntary. No intervener. Nobody can- A neighbor cannot come up and say, you're going to designate your house. That is nowhere in the ordinance. The fail-safe is, you know, instead of, say, the mayor, the Dunedin History Museum, the H-PAC, the whole long list, they said in extraordinary, irreparable damage or extraordinary circumstances, would there be one fail-safe? Would there be one to be able to say, and, you know, irreparable damage? It is an actual term of art in the law. Now, you know, if you're looking at, and it was taken out, you saw the multitude of people that could weigh in on different things. That's gone. So, you know, that's the one thing left as a fail-safe, and that is irreparable damage. And, you know, that's a difficult circumstance. I mean, it's a difficult circumstance for us to envision and say exactly what that circumstance would be. You know, and the law says, I know pornography when I see it. You know? So, come on. I mean, it's going to be an extraordinary circumstance, probably unforeseen. She could only initiate it. Only. And then it has to go through the entire process. That's for you all to struggle with. But I see with so many other CLGs having so many different fail-safes, and this has provided one. That's for you to struggle with. But I think that in the future, there may be a fail-safe, that there may be a situation. And I think irreparable harm is a term of legal art, just as sense of place. So that's it. Thank you. Thank you, Debra. Thank you, Debra. Okay. We're going to go to... Sure. Yeah. Sure. Go ahead. Your home, it's one of the Malone brothers' homes on the pink home on Victoria. And you're raising it and bringing it forward a bit. And your home, is it historically designated or you've made all of these changes voluntarily to raise and actually... Yeah. Could you come forward? Sorry. I should have said that. Thank you, City Attorney. Sorry about that. So, basically... Yeah. It's 100% voluntary. Yeah. We're... We've done... To take your historical home, not designated historical home, but to actually build storm resiliency into the home. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Correct. Yes. Okay. Appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Are we good? Okay. I will call vote. And I will turn to the maker of the motion, Commissioner DeGarden. Thank you, Mayor. I understand the passion in this room. I understand those people that have built their beautiful homes, restored them. I built my home. I know what every step is like when you're having to pick out from 750 different options what kind of faucets you're going to have. Went through that. A lot of love and a lot of passion here. And you want to protect that home. And I don't blame you. I want to protect mine, too. One of the reasons I insisted on a higher standard than 60% is that I felt we should have the right to say what happens to our homes. That's where I came from. That's my belief. But the city is not your only challenge. If it were, this would be real easy. We're being challenged by economic forces we haven't faced, ever. Gentrification is going on in our community, and we can't seem to stop it. Because, guess what, the prices have gone up on all the homes in this community. And people are buying up property after the storm. And if it's not protected with anything but zoning, they can put most anything there they want to. It could be right next to you, unless you're historically designated. And then you can keep the integrity of your community. Otherwise, you can have a Frank Lloyd Wrong put right next to you. And I've lived there. That happened to me in Michigan. A wonderful Victorian little community. And then the next thing I know, I've got a modern just piece of... Never mind. You know what I'm talking about. And you have no way to protect yourself from that. Because, by the way, those people that buy that property next door to you can do anything they want within the zoning ordinances. This gives you a tool. Gives you a tool that will allow you to protect what you bought. Not just the home you live in, but the community you chose to reside that home in. You don't have any protection unless you do this. Now, I'm right there with you with homeowner rights. But I'm also wanting you to be able to protect that home you built. And you don't know what's coming in next door, unless we do something like this. Now, this may not be the exact wording we want. It may not make you comfortable. But let me assure you, this is a process that allows you to be able to walk it through and oppose it if you so choose, as well as you have tonight. I think it's a good idea. That's all I have, Mayor. Okay. Secondary of the motion is Commissioner Walker. Thank you, Mayor. First of all, you know, I did a lot of research on the economic impact of historical preservation and even historical districts. And I've looked at a lot of data, but I'll summarize for the benefit of not putting everybody to sleep here. Florida alone estimated conservative estimate $4.2 billion in annual economic impact, which includes heritage tourism, rehabilitation, Main Street initiatives, and elevated property values. Looking at some other communities, Charleston, South Carolina, job creation, both direct and indirect. Roughly $500 million in heritage tourism spending annually. $9,000 direct, $2,300 indirect jobs. And on top of that, almost $500 million in downtown reinvestment. So, and I know we're not Charleston, but there's other cities on this list, Savannah, Nashville. And to me, the data is compelling to the point where there is an economic impact to the program. One of the things that, you know, we're challenged with here is that, you know, growth is inevitable, but managed growth is what we need to achieve. And my portraying the economic impact is not to be a proponent of saying, look, we need to turn this into a tourism mecca. And I don't think anybody in this room, you know, we love our tourists, but we also have a community here. So, as far as the program's concerned, there are two benefits. One is, is we're preserving our history. And the second is, through the retention of that cultural and charm that Dunedin is, we are also providing an economic, a positive economic impact to our businesses. Now, with that said, you know, and I appreciate all the comments. And I have to tell you, I, you know, I think, in my opinion, the feeling is pretty overwhelming in terms of, one, making sure that we keep this voluntary. Two, that we are not providing a perception that we are impacting property owner rights. And let me just say before, you know, so, the, I, I understand why this, the, the city manager designation is in this. And my colleague, Commissioner de Gard, stated that quite eloquently. Zoning alone is not going to protect our, our, our historical or our preservation situation. Um, however, I start looking at the likelihood of that scenario getting invoked, city manager designation. And I have to say, at least my, my reference point here is the current commission, our current city manager, our staff. And I honestly don't even see a scenario where that could possibly happen now. But you, we have to look down the road here. And, you know, the thing that worries me about the way that this is written is irreparable. I, I, I understand it's a legal term. But I really, the fact that we asked the question, so what specifically is irreparable? And we don't have an answer for that. And I, so I worry, I worry five, ten years from now. And I think, you know, well, okay, what's, what's to keep, uh, a different commission and another city manager to formulating a definition of that, that ultimately impacts the worst case scenario. And oh, by the way, that scenario has a very low probability of occurring, in my opinion. Uh, with that said, uh, I, I can't support the, the ordinance as it's been recommended by staff. Uh, I'm, I read the LPA minutes three times now. And I, I have to say, I, I think we can maintain the program as it is, as it's voluntary. But with that said, I, I think we need to take out the, the optic that the city has the ability to enforce, albeit a very unlikely scenario on the community. So, that's where I stand. Okay, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. I gotta follow those two. Okay. Um, I'll tell you now, I don't know. I, I, I don't know. I, I, I don't know. I see both sides. I understand. Um, I'm also one who has talked. I wanna be in your mic. Wanna be in my mic? Okay. Um, incessantly about the definition of charm in the city. And how much we love our city and the number of people that love our city so much they move here and then start to change or destroy the things that made the city something. And so I, I, you know, where, where does that lie? Um, concern over, we actually do have, and it's, it's not necessarily homeowners, it's corporations, private equity for firms are buying up a lot of property, not just in Dunedin, but everywhere. And they're, they're buying properties next to each other for the purpose of tearing down and rebuilding, um, all for profit, not for the love of Dunedin, but they just see the market value. So how do we, as residents that live here, protect ourselves against that? Uh, how do we, how do we, how do we protect ourselves, but also give ourselves rights? And, uh, there's nothing more valuable to, to anyone than, than property rights, right? If there's one thing that we can hold on to, um, um, I, I, I talk way too much about Dunedin is changing and, and Commissioner Walker is absolutely correct. You can't stop growth. So the goal should be to manage it. And that management is what takes love and care and precision and, uh, just almost a surgical effort to make Dunedin. Dunedin is going to change. And the way Dunedin is today is nowhere close to what it's going to look like 30 to 50 years from now. Um, I think we're moving closer and closer to Clearwater Beach, whether we like it or not. And I apologize to Clearwater. Um, and I know that we have some people in the audience that, uh, went to school here. And I did as well. And for those of you who love Dunedin now, you should have seen it 30, 40, 50 years ago. It was just amazing. And, and so with, not that I want to stay in the 1950s, but it's that quality of life that comes in that feeling, right? And it's our downtown and what it looks like. And, and to not have any tool in the toolbox for, for the city other than, well, that sucks to see that one go. Sucks to see that one go. Oh, look at that. You know, when we had the conversation about the overlay, uh, that was a great conversation between those homeowners that wanted their property rights. Don't change those. And then the neighbors that are saying, I love my property too. And my property is negatively impacted by what happened next door, which was also addressed by Commissioner Walker. Um, and so it's how do you balance those? You know, when does a homeowner's right allow to impact the rights of the negatively impact the rights of the neighbor or more importantly, a community? And I'm not saying that one home can negatively impact the community, but it certainly can make a dent. Um, and, and so I don't know where I am. I'm, I am considering offering an amendment to this that, and I don't know how to do this mayor. So please. I think we should make our final comments. Final comments. Let's let everybody make their final comments. Um, um, I, I, I don't know. So I'm done. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Sandberg. Um, say thank you. You know, when I, when I hear your names, you know, I know, I know who all of you are, but I hear your addresses. You know, I know those homes and you all are proud property owners. Um, and, uh, it's nice to see the, the passion and everybody that came to this microphone was ready. Um, and I think that's an example of what Dunedin offers. And there's been times where people have said, you don't listen anyway, you know, up here. And I can tell you, I can speak for only for myself. And I heard you tonight. And, uh, and I understand what you're looking for. And I too am in favor of what you all are looking for as property owners. So thank you. Thank you, commissioner. Um, so we went from 60% to a hundred percent because we did care about property owners rights. And commissioner Dugard was the one that really, I think, as I recall, kind of drove that a little bit, but then we all concurred. And, um, we took out the ability for the, um, historical preservation committee to start that process. Um, I just think we've done a lot that a lot of communities haven't done to make it as voluntary as possible. You know, to the point I, I was wonder, like, are we ever going to have one, right? Are we going to have that, that perfect district? And maybe we won't, but maybe we won't. We've got a lot of homes that singly have done this. So, but again, I get it. You know, I've got my home. I don't want somebody telling me what to do with my home. Um, I, so what's the threat? You know, when I think of the threat, I think of corporate America. Dunning's a popular place. Buy up properties, especially in some of the multifamily areas. And guess what? You guys that don't want this might be one of the groups yelling, do something. This is going to be right across from me. Do something. It's going to ruin our neighborhood. Do something. And we better have a fail safe. Or let me tell you, we're going to be sorry. And I'm not going to want to be the commissioner that said, I don't have a fail safe when the whole community knows it when they see it. And they're like, holy crap, it's going to change the landscape of who we are. And it will be that kind of, you know, extraordinary, irreparable harm that we don't have any kind of fail safe. To me, it's a big, big mistake. Um, you know, you don't, you just have to go a little bit north of us right now. I would consider something happening a little to the north of us right now. Irreputable harm with buying up properties, sitting on the properties, destroying neighborhoods. So we will know it when we see it. And I'm going to tell you when the whole community is screaming at me to do something, I'm going to thank God I've got a fail safe. And do I believe for two seconds that any city manager, certainly not this one, I've heard everything from she's got a plan in her drawer. She's got no plan in her drawer. She doesn't have any targets. This is for us. This is for our community. This is for one of our big goals that the whole community said is important. Historical preservation. It's not to take away from your rights. Quite frankly, it could be to preserve your rights. We'll know it when we see it. And we better have a fail safe like other communities have tons of them. We just want one. And no city manager that I ever knew, and I've been here 40 years and I worked for this city, is ever going to be crazy enough to just raise that flag unless we all know it when we see it. And we'll wish to God we had a fail safe. So I want the safety valve. I have great respect for the LPA. I always read their minutes. Mostly I always watch their meetings because I want every nuance of the situation. I want to understand what people have said about it. Great respect. And most of the time I always go with them. But I don't agree in this case. I think we will make a future horrible decision if we don't provide for that irreputable harm that we will all know it when we see it. And it might be right across the street from you. I think Commissioner Dugard said it right. So I am absolutely for staff's recommendation. But trust me, I know most of you. I love you guys. This is just what I feel. And I know that it's scary when it's your home. I really do. You know, I live on Santa Barbara Drive. It's not like it can't happen there. I just think that it's just so important that we have a fail safe. Whether it will ever be used, who knows. But we'll know it when we see it. Thank you. And thank you for all your comments. Okay, I think it's a roll call vote. Oh, did you want to do anything? Yeah, I wanted to make an amendment if I could. Just, I'm hearing from the residents and I understand it, but I also agree with you, Mayor. So I'm wondering if just one more layer of protection is that the city manager has to advise us before they take action. Do you want to respond to that? I mean, I think a city manager would be some kind of crazy person ready for the package. And certainly I'm not talking about the current city manager. If you could speak for future current manager. I think actually I would answer that with a question. What form of notification? At a publicly advertised city commission meeting? Yes. Okay. Or workshop. I think that's acceptable. Most certainly. To advise the city commissioner of my intent to initiate, yes, at a public workshop, public forum. That would work? Yes. Would that hinder the process? It would not. I would bring it to you as soon as possible. Okay. And what if you couldn't get us all together? If it's, if it's, as you're saying, and I think you'd befriend that very well. If it's an impactful enough issue, we would call a special meeting. Do you have any concerns about it? City attorney? Yep. We can write that into the process. That's not what's before you. It will length it, lengthen it a little bit because, you know, just from the standpoint of having to get the five of you together if it's not happening just before a regularly scheduled meeting. And then the. You have a meeting every two weeks, typically, as you know. But. So, anyway. Yeah. But no, I don't have any concerns. Okay. Staff. Staff, any concerns? I mean, I'm just saying, if you know it, we'll see it. How fast can something happen? How fast can we get together? I'm asking you. Yeah. Yeah. You guys and Joey, you know how fast things can happen. Yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely, Mary. And then, you know, the one thing I just kind of want to mention now that you turned to me really quickly, to the point about this district really coming to fruition, you have so many things that you put in place to protect the city from a charm perspective that you've given me these tools that I can use to help us not get to that spot. The South Overlay was a great example. But I just want to kind of stay to the question of timing. I mean, is there, if we, she calls us together, is there any chance of something irreparable happening before she can get us together? I guess that's what I'm asking. So, you have to figure out what the, I don't know what that situation would be. So, I mean, we, there. What I'd like to do, if I may, George, is there would be, there is that possibility. Yeah. I mean, in having sufficient time, notice the city commission meeting properly and that type of thing. I mean, there could be, you know, something could occur. That said, what I'd like to do is, between first and second reading, is talk with staff a little bit about what that would look like in terms of notice to the city commission, and then put something to you that would be acceptable for all of you to have a look at. Yeah. I mean, I think it's a great idea. And I'm fine with that. I just don't want, you know, you know it when you see it and then all of a sudden, oh, well, we built this in and we don't have time to stop it before it's, you know. We'll get the next one, hopefully. Yeah. That's all. But, so, that being said, they're going to resource it. Okay. So, after two and a half hours, we're not going to vote on it? Well, no. I think, no. Okay. Okay. But, what do you recommend that we do with that, if she's going to do that? Should we vote on the current motion and then that come back for an amended thing next in the second reading? So, I would vote to move this forward with the addition of notice to the commission prior to the city manager's initiation of the application. Based on research by staff. And what that language will look like as far as how that notice is provided. Okay. Because it could be something that could happen quicker. Okay. So, no. Maker accepts that amendment. Okay. And then, if on second reading, we decide that that may not be the avenue, but we still want to move forward, we can vote yes, removing that amendment. And it's still a final vote. And what does that look like on the second reading? You would have the language in the ordinance that would, for your consideration, that would provide for that notice of the commission. Okay. All right. And then, at that point, we would either vote up or down? Mm-hmm. Okay. So, no. Before we start, if we could repeat the motion, because the seconder also needs to agree with the amendment, right? Okay. The motion would be to approve ordinance 2502 on first reading with the addition, with additional language that the city manager notify the commission prior to filing the city-initiated application for historic districts. Notice the city commission a public meeting. Well, that's to be determined. So, it's what. Right. Yeah. Jennifer, are you good with the, are you okay with the seconder? Well, I just want to get something clarified here. And, first of all, your comments with regards to the fail safe and are spot on. I, in terms of, you know, we, the last thing we want to do is be caught in a conundrum where a mistake is about to be made and we don't have the ability to fix it. I totally agree with that. But, back to the amendment part of it. I think it absolutely has to be a public meeting. I think the word has to be in there because the public or community, the residents, need to have the ability to comment. Because that, to me, will satisfy the intent. So, yes, I will. Assuming we put public in there. Yeah. Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner. Before we start making these changes, what if it gets voted down? Then it's done. I mean, so, before we do what you're trying to do, I think we should vote. Well. And if it gets voted down, then we can come back again. I mean, we've sat here and listened to these folks. No, no, no. But, technically, we had a motion. We had a second. We had a proposed amendment. And if the motioner agrees to the amendment and the seconder agrees to the amendment, then that's the motion. I thought it was a motion to accept 2502. I mean, unless you want to interpret it differently. You're the Robert's Rules expert. No, no. So, that's what it is. Right now, you have a motion. You have a second. You had somebody who proposed an amendment. If the motioner and the second agree to that amendment, treat it as a friendly amendment, then the motion will be amended and you'll be voting on that. If they don't agree to it, then we can handle it as a motion and a second for the amendment, vote on the amendment, and then vote on that. So, we can vote yes on the amendment, but the amendment can't fail. Everybody get that? Well, we're going to be voting on the motion with the amendment because both the motioner and the seconder have agreed to that amended motion. Right? That's right. Then the motion before, if both have agreed to it, then the motion before the commission right now is for approval of 2502 with the addition of language that before the city manager files a city-initiated application for a historic district, she must provide notice to the commission at a public meeting. So, the motion is good. The seconder is good. And again, it's moving it forward. If we find out something in between, it may change the scenario. Okay. So, roll call vote. Commissioner Sandbergen. Nay. Vice Mayor Gow. Aye. Commissioner Walker. Aye. Commissioner Dugard. Aye. And Mayor Franey. Aye. And that motion passes four to one. And that will move it forward for further research. But, thank you everybody. I mean, this is a hard issue and we understand, but we'll thank you for coming and providing your input. We're going to take a break. Meeting. Go back to our agenda. I do want to make sure I announce that the second reading of Ordinance 25-02, amending Chapter 111 of the Land Development Code, Historic Preservation. The second reading is September 4th, 2024. 2025, sorry. Okay. So, the next item is 3B. First reading of Ordinance 25-06, City Commission Salary Adjustment. Jen, can you please read Ordinance 25-06 by title only? Ordinance 25-06, an ordinance of the City of Dunedin, Florida, establishing the annual salary of the City Commission of the City of Dunedin, providing for the effective date of the new salaries, providing for a review of the salaries every five years, and providing for an effective date. That was Ordinance 25-06, read by title only. Okay. And can I get a motion to approve Ordinance 25-06? I need a motion. So moved. Okay. Somebody. Shiley second. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, Vice Mayor and Commissioner Sandbergen, and staff presentation, Teresa. This probably doesn't have to be too long, does it? Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commission. Teresa Smalling, Director of HR and Risk Management for the City. You may remember at our last budget workshop on August 2024, staff had researched commission salaries of the neighboring cities and made a recommendation to increase commission salaries as follows. The commission salaries would be increased to the current city minimum wage of $15 an hour, and then the mayor's salary would be… That was $15, right? It sounded like $50. I want to make sure nobody heard. $15 per hour. Yeah. And then the mayor's salary would be adjusted in the same difference that it was currently, putting it at $18.3654 per hour, or $15,600. Oh, that kind of hurts when you say it like that. $15,600 per year for the commission, and $19,100 per year for the mayor, based on a 20-hour work week, even though we know you probably work more than that. This is kind of an abusive item, I think. We're trying to… Yes. As our city clerk notified us recently that this has to be memorialized through ordinance, hence we have put forward ordinance 2506 asking the commission to go ahead and approve the salaries effective October 1st, 2024. So, again, it's memorializing something that we did last year. Actually, two commissioners, I don't even think we're here at the time. It's just what has already been acted, but legally we have to do this. Yes. And if I could just add, Mayor, also, we increased that as part of the pay plan when we brought it to the city commission during the budget. So, it wasn't even a request of the commissioner just to ring everybody up to minimum wage. I just know when I talk to Girl Scout and Boy Scout groups, they almost always ask what you make, because they're thinking you're making millions. Because here, they're the mayor, and then you tell them, and they're like, what? You know, like, really? Like, how could that be? A true act of service. Yeah. Anyway, it is, and that's exactly… You do. Okay. Any questions for staff? Okay. Oh, you do have a question for staff? Okay, go ahead. So, I just want to clarify, you know, I know that this is memorializing an action that was taken last year, but I think there's another caveat to that, that this brings us up to minimum wage, right? Yes. Okay. Yes, and we are required, Florida law will put $15 as the minimum wage in 2026. Okay. But that's only if you don't put in more than 20 hours a week. Other than that, we're way below minimum wage. Just saying. Well, that was my second question, actually. Okay. But I do, sometimes I'm shocked I actually get paid for this. So, thank you. That's great. Commissioner Dugard? So, this is the recommendation you came back with after that extensive salary study that you did on… Never mind. I'm stopping there. Okay. Any other questions? So, I'll open it up to public comment. Anybody in the audience wish to come forward and speak to this item? Hopefully, the demand to get us more. I mean… Apparently, all… Apparently, all the homeowners from the first… Yeah. Probably shouldn't have brought it. We wouldn't want to bring it up the last time. We're deserving of minimum wage. Anyway. Okay. Seriously, anyone in the audience wish to come forward to speak to it? Okay. Seeing no one will close public comment. And any final comments by the City Commission? No comment. Vice Mayor? No comment. Commissioner Sandberg? Commissioner Walker? Commissioner DeGarden? Theresa, thank you for your work, first of all. Didn't mean to disparage anything you do. You do great work here. Thank you. It is impossible to explain to a candidate, me being one last year, what this job is. But what's amazing is how ceremonial it is. Every event, every activity, we're invited to and expected to attend. And by the way, that sometimes includes costumes. So, for those of you considering running for office, just come see me. I have some information you may want to have. It is a labor of love, for sure. It's not a labor about money. So, I will go to roll call vote. Commissioner Dugard? Aye. Commissioner Walker? Aye. Commissioner Sandbergen? Aye. Vice Mayor Gao? Aye. And Mayor Franey? Aye. And that motion passes unanimously. And the second reading of this will be on September 4th, 2025. Okay. Thank you, Teresa. Thank you. I wonder if we vote no on that. We have to give the money back, I guess. Yeah. Okay. We're going to go to the next item, which is first reading of application. DR-2025-001, request for design review approval for the development of an affordable multifamily residential housing project called The Flats on Main Street, consisting of 78 departments on 3.34 acres of property located at 1419, 1421, 1422, 1440, 1445, Carnation Drive, and 1150 Friendly Lane. So, first of all, this item is quasi-judicial, and therefore, I'm going to request the City Clerk to swear in all who intend to speak on application DR-2025-001. Do you swear the testimony you are about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Thank you. And I will ask the City Commission if anyone has to disclose any ex parte contact for the record on this? No. Okay. Seeing no one. Okay. So, I'll ask for a motion. So moved. Second. Okay. Commissioner Sandbergen, Commissioner DeGuard for a second. Okay. Staff presentation. I think George and Bob. Thank you, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners. George Kinney, again, on behalf of the Community Development Department, seated to my right, as you all know, is Bob Ironsmith, who is the department head at the Economic Development Division. So, I will kind of be presenting the staff report first and going through the technical criteria, then Bob will jump in afterwards and talk a little bit about the financing and the project in general. And, of course, we have applicants here. We also have our third-party engineer here who did a review of the transportation impact analysis. So, he is here as well if you have questions on that. So, I'm going to work through this fairly quickly because I know it's been a long night already. But, certainly, if you have questions as I go along, feel free to stop me. So, first slide is generally just showing the location of the property. Most of you are already familiar with it. The applicant is Archway Partners. They have assembled six parcels, totaling 3.34 acres. The addresses are certainly noted on the slide of those parcels. And the site, as you can see, is positioned between commercial uses along Main Street and residential uses to the east, west, and north, primarily San Christopher Villas. To the east are several properties that abut Friendly Lane and are located in unincorporated Pinellas County. And I'll show a slide a little bit down the road as to, you know, where those exactly are in relationship to the development. Access to the site is via Main Street through Cardinal Drive. Friendly Lane is also kind of abuts the site or goes through the site to a certain extent, but is not considered accessible for this purpose. Currently located on the site are three single-family homes and one two-family home, all of which would be removed to make way for the project. And I'll hit a little more on the detail of the zoning, which is multifamily 12.5 in the land use, which is residential medium in the upcoming slides. Just a quick project description. The flats on Main Street is an obtainable housing development consisting of 78 apartments on 3.34 acres. The project will be built, as mentioned by the mayor, as two three-story garden-style apartment buildings consisting of 42 one-bedroom units and 36 two-bedroom units, plus a clubhouse building, surface parking, and common green areas. Proximity is afforded to public bus service, which is really a nice amenity to this site, particularly because it's obtainable housing. And specifically, PSTA Route 78 stop exists in close proximity along Main Street, actually on both sides, east and west. Additionally, there are two, as the commission knows, two markets and several commercial and service uses exist within walking distance to the project site. And that, I'm sorry, that bottom slide, you can't see it, but that's the bus stop. That's one of the bus stops, actually, right there in that bottom photo. So, past city commission actions, I'll just kind of work through these quickly. Bob will expand a little bit more on the financial commitment, I'm sure. But on June 4, 2024, as the city commission knows, they approved the financial commitment letter to the Florida Housing Finance Corporation in the amount of $610,000. The commissioner will also recall recently seeing the development agreement for this particular site. That was authorized for negotiation to the city manager back in February of 2025, concluding those negotiations, it moved forward to the land local planning agency and onto the commission. And you recall, there was really just two pieces to that. It was an affordable housing density bonus of 50%, which was permitted by our land development code pursuant to section 10527. And then there was a half, basically a 50% ask for reduction on the public art requirement, which is also allowed pursuant to our land development code. And you all ultimately approved that development agreement, which is in place. This is just a quick snapshot of the land use and zoning for the parcel. Pretty lucky here in that all six parcels are consistent, both from a land use perspective and a zoning perspective. So all six parcels reside in residential medium from a land use perspective and from MF multifamily, 12 and a half from a zoning perspective. And again, I'll provide a little bit more detail on the following slides for each of those to kind of break it down a little bit more. The six properties, so this is the land use plan evaluation. As mentioned, the six properties are in residential medium. That land use category actually permits up to 15 dwelling units per acre. And then you're looking at then the breakdown in that graph, I'm sure, of the number of dwelling units. And you're seeing, well, why is it 12 and a half dwelling units per acre instead of the 15 that the land use offers? And that's really a product of the zoning. So the zoning is more restrictive with respect to the density that it can offer the site. So, you know, in looking at that table, you can see the density calculations noted in it. And this is how they arrived at the number, which is the 78 dwelling units that are being requested. And that is 12 and a half units per acre at 3.34 acres is 42 dwelling units. They get the 50% affordable housing bonus pursuant to our land development code because the majority, in fact, in this case, the entire project is affordable. So they get a 50% density bonus. And that's the second line that you see, the 6.25 dwelling units per acre times the acreage for 21 additional dwelling units. And then I think we mentioned this as part of the development agreement process, but there's also a you can take advantage of a state regulation that's called a gray water bonus or gray water density bonus. They elected to do that. And then you can see that 35% density bonus that's offered at 4.375 dwelling units per acre times the acreage. And that gives you the 15 dwelling units. And that leads up to the ultimate ask of 78 dwelling units, which is what the property owner is requesting. From a zoning district standpoint, really the takeaway from this table is, you know, again, all six properties are located in the MF 12 and a half zoning district. That table kind of shows you each of those, the dimensional standards that are offered by that development district. You can kind of work through them all, and you'll see through the table that they either meet or exceed every one of those dimensional standards. My takeaway, I guess, for you all on this one, and it's kind of a segue into the next slide, is looking at the number of stories and the building height. So the zoning permits five stories of building height on this particular site, and the applicant is offering a three-story product here. So well under what would be a maximum consideration. And then building height, very similar, there's a 50-foot maximum building height requirement. The proposal that you have before you is at 43 feet. And it's kind of a perfect segue because I'm going to walk now through the compatibility analysis so you can see how we kind of looked at this project from a compatibility perspective. And I'm just going to spend a little time on this because it's a little bit different than ones you've seen in the past where you've had like-to-like zoning. Because you've got kind of a mixture of zoning categories in here, including commercial up front, residential to the rear, and then even some unincorporated properties. So the first thing we did is we looked at the purpose of the MF 12.5 Multifamily Residential District, which is to, and I quote, provide a medium to high-density district, which offers a convenience and cost savings of urban living. This district can be applied to areas adjacent to commercial development and urban activity centers and freestanding locations if well buffered from low-density residential uses. So purpose helps from a compatibility perspective when we're looking at this lot as its position into the surrounding area. As noted previously, the surrounding area is predominantly built out and includes a mix of uses ranging from low to medium-density single-family residential and multifamily residential to commercial and retail. So a really good mix of projects out here. Given the locational characteristics, existing land use and zoning district designation, and the economic conditions of subject property is really ideally situated for medium-density affordable housing to effectively transition between the more intense existing commercial and retail uses that are south there along Main Street into that low to medium-density residential development that's occurring to the northeast and west. You know, I kind of hit on this, but again, the analysis is a little bit unique in that adjacent zoning categories are not like-to-like, and further includes the unincorporated. And I just want to kind of point to this one slide so you can see where those unincorporated parcels are off to the east side of Friendly Lane there. But it's somewhat unique in that the site lies adjacent to unincorporated zoning categories and adjacent zoning categories that are not exactly what you're going to see from an MF 12.5 zoning category. A couple of quick references specific to Friendly Lane. There is one occupied structure there, and as you can kind of see, it's that first yellow arrow pointing to that. It's been kind of called the cruise property. It is occupied structure, and it's located in a zoning category called R4 in unincorporated Pinellas County. And what's interesting about R4 in unincorporated Pinellas County is they allow maximum height of up to 35 feet, whereas our R60 zoning categories would limit that to 27 feet. So there is an opportunity in an unincorporated Pinellas County to go up to 35 feet in height. So it's somewhat when you start thinking about the 43 feet and then the 35 height, that juxtaposition isn't as great as you would have if that was a surrounding Dunedin property. In addition, the applicant has really gone above and beyond because they have offered to enhance the landscaping, and that's that second picture, the centered picture. They've offered to enhance the landscaping along that eastern property line to include additional palm trees and a hedge structure. And that is recommended, you'll see as I get to the recommendation for this project, that is a recommended condition of approval that has been offered by staff in the LPA to assure that the palms are planted at a maximum survivable height as determined by the city arborist. So we'd like to get something in there that's substantial from the onset, but something that we know that can be supported and live through that planning period. So I'll kind of defer the applicant to explain further, but it's our understanding also that Archway has further agreed to allow the owner of that, the Cruz property owner, to traverse the property by easement to get to the occupied home that they have on Friendly Lane. So currently Friendly Lane kind of, there's a portion of it that runs through the subject property, and the applicants, it's my understanding, have reached out to Mrs. Cruz and offered to allow her, to offer to basically create an easement to allow her to continue to use that parcel to get to her property. In addition, I believe the applicant is committed to work with the property owner for consideration of placement in one of their developments should the occupant desire to leave her home in the future or sometime in the future. So again, I'll defer to the applicant on that, but I know there's been some conversation with the property owner regarding that. As noted in Exhibit F of your packet, the developer and applicant has actually analyzed four other alternatives for building site location, and ultimately staff does concur that this is the best site layout to assure the preservation of the mature trees at the north end of the property and to assure internal circulation that can be best accessed by emergency responders. So the development that you've seen is really, we think, based on all of the scenarios that were fleshed out by the developer, the best approach. Given this criteria and analysis, this 78-unit affordable residential housing development as designed on this assembled property, we would consider to be compatible to the surrounding development. Next slide is really more about our design review criteria. You know, as the commission knows, there are articulated land development code design criteria that any design review application must meet. This is a listing of those criteria, and I'll kind of work through a few of them. But I just wanted to also point out that the commission also knows that all staff agencies are involved in the design review process and effectively assure the project meets any policies or standards held by that particular office. And in this particular case, all offices have signed off on this project as being compliant with their standards or policies. The slide, as I mentioned, notes some of those policies. I won't go through them all, but I do want to touch on a couple of them. From a common open space perspective, just as an example, the minimum requirement is 7,800 square feet. The applicant is offering 14,300 square feet, so almost double what is required by code. From an off-street parking perspective, our land development code requires one and a half spaces per dwelling unit or 117 spaces. The applicant has provided 119 spaces. And I'm going to speak a little bit more to this on the next slide because they actually support that parking count through a parking analysis that they did. And I'll talk a little bit about that in a second. From an architectural style perspective, while not required in this location, they did voluntarily attend the Architecture Review Committee and asked for some feedback and landed on a coastal architectural style, which they can share with you if you're interested in seeing that. From a public art perspective, as the commission knows, they did grant the 50% reduction in development agreement, and they are suggesting as part of this application that the balance will be located on site. From a parkland impact fee perspective, the commission may recall that this exemption was actually not part of the development agreement. So that payment will be the responsibility of the applicant if this project is approved. I just wanted to hit on citizen participation as well. That was also not required by the by the Land Development Code. But the applicant did actually conduct a public participation program. And if interested, the results of that participation process is noted in exhibit B. Traffic impact. So their traffic impact analysis shows 375 daily trips, 75 of those trips occurring at peak times. We did, because of some earlier concerns as we were working through the development agreement, subject that traffic impact analysis to a third-party review. Jerry Dobkowski is here with ICE, and he's available for any questions that might come up regarding this. But his office confirmed the findings, noted in the submission that was supplied by the applicant. And he did confirm that Carnation Drive is adequate to serve the site with no significant impacts to traffic levels of service. A couple of additional items. And this is in your Exhibit F. But these are some things that we wanted to kind of, which really are above and beyond. As the commission knows, design review is really about, it's conceptual, but you want to hit on those hot button issues as hard as you can as you're working through this. And to the applicant's credit, they've provided some additional offerings to the design review process, which would carry through the infrastructure review. And, you know, we asked them to do this to get out in front of some of the issues associated with the development. And I just want to walk through a couple of things that they responded to specifically. The first being regarding fire emergency access. And this is really going back to our fire marshal and asking him, is this the best layout for you? Do you need a secondary access? Can, you know, can you navigate the site as it's shown? And the fire marshal has assured us on multiple occasions that there is no secondary access needed. He's comfortable with the ingress and egress through Carnation and is comfortable being able to move within the subdivision once he's in there with any of his apparatus. From a stormwater management perspective, you know, stormwater concerns have been raised by the residents throughout the process. Per city code, the minimum design storage capacity must be based on not less than a 25 year storm event over a 24 hour duration. It is my understanding over the last few days that there is some additional information with respect to stormwater. And I'm going to actually defer to the applicant to kind of walk you through some of those considerations. From a resident, there was a lot of discussion about resident occupancy. And in that exhibit F, the applicant has provided anticipated resident occupancy numbers based on other similar housing projects that they actually operate in the area. Approximately 128 people are expected to reside in this particular subdivision. And some of that backup data on and that kind of goes back to that parking count. So, you know, in essence, it's really the minimum co-requirement is really going to be able to accommodate that kind of that kind of occupancy load relatively easily. And then that that segues into the parking study. So the applicant did also authorize a parking study to evaluate the adequacy and efficiency of the proposed parking plan for the project. An average to parking demand of 0.57 to one space per apartment is expected based on the study findings. And then one final thing that they did, which I want to compliment them on, because there was one comment that came up about spillover, light spillover. And they actually put together a photometric study and submitted that and showed no spillover onto adjacent properties. So we actually have that photometric study as part of the application package. Okay. A couple more. I know you want to talk. He's just dying to talk. It's a limited time, too. He's taking it all. So really quick on the development on the committee action. This was to the development review committee, as you might expect, on December 18th of last year. All those comments that were provided and offered through the design review committee have been addressed as part of this application. It went to the architectural review committee on January 7th, where it was unanimously approved. And then it was just most recently, obviously, at the local planning agency on July 9th, where they unanimously recommended design review subject to staff conditions. And they also had a little extra condition where they talked about, since there was so much concern about the stormwater, they suggested if the city was willing to do it, would you be willing to do a peer review on the stormwater analysis prior to infrastructure review? And we said, you know, that's something that staff can do if that's something that the commission would like to do to have further comfort in that stormwater design. So finally, my last slide, and then you got it. Staff finds that application DR 2025-001 for design review is consistent with the applicable review criteria for approval subject to the following conditions. And I'll just read those quickly for the record. Number one, that the applicant developer is responsible for meeting the minimum criteria of the land development code and for acquiring all their jurisdictional permits and approvals. Number two, construction plans shall be consistent with the approved design review plans and drawings. Number three, design review approval shall expire in 12 months from the date of city commission design review approval unless the applicant obtains infrastructure review and approval and vertical building permits. Number four, and this goes back to that offered hedgerow and palm trees, that the city arborist shall approve the landscaping between friendly lane and consideration of the maximum realistic planning size as it pertains to proposed palms and hedge. And number five, this is that LPA recommendation. So this is not necessarily a staff recommendation, but for consideration that the flats on Main Street affordable multifamily residential housing project to include consideration of a third-party review of the stormwater. So with that, I'm going to stop. And I know Bob will want to talk a little bit about the financing. Thanks, George. No, he's very thorough. And I'll be brief and brilliant, right? That's what former Commissioner Kynes would say. Sounds good. Be brief and brilliant. Actually, that was originally quoted by the city manager, Jennifer Bramley. Oh, was it? Okay. All right. Just want to credit him, you know, accurately. Okay. I've got to give credit then. Yeah, well, I gave up on it. Give credit to Jennifer then. That's fine. But, no, I will be brief. A couple things. Through various public forums, you know, myself, the city manager, staff, direction from the commission was we need to get an affordable housing, something going, something that's an initiative in Dunedin. We have a situation where we are getting expensive. Real estate is a lot. And where are our workers going to work? And why do they have to commute from Pasco County? So the direction has been pretty consistent through these public forums and input we've received from even our city employees. Where can we live? Where can we rent? So working on that basis, we've been trying to put together an affordable housing deal for several years. But for the last four years, I've come before this commission. And I'm very happy to announce that through a great partnership with various players, I'm going to mention them here, we're able to come before you today with this affordable housing initiative. This came because of Archways. The developer has been extremely responsive. They made an application. They got a $30 million commitment from the state streamed over time. We have Neil Brickfield here with the Pinellas County Housing Authority, who's offering $10 million in credit vouchers over a 10-year time period to reduce the rent. We have the property owner, Mario, who's been extremely patient. We've had various developers try to get this done on his property, and he's stayed consistent. So I'm pretty excited about the team we have. And Archways is here right behind me, and they have the consultants also as part of their team. And, you know, Dunedin is also always known as being an inclusive community, and I think this kind of represents this. This is a workforce. This is attainable housing. This is instead of paying $2,000 for a one-bedroom apartment, you probably can get down to $1,200 or $1,300. You know, Brett here or Dave Hayslip or Archways can answer that a little bit better than I can. But this is that avenue to go ahead and ensure that people can not only work in Dunedin, they can live in Dunedin. These are the waiters, the waitresses, the service workers, all those different people would now have a place to call home. And as George mentioned, these are 78 apartments. I think we've checked all the boxes on this. And I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have. But pretty excited about bringing this to you. And I think this might be the first of another one that we're going to look to bring forward to you in the future. So. Okay. Questions for staff? And I will turn it over to Vice Mayor. Questions? Thank you, Mayor. Friendly Lane. George, remind me. I was thinking a whole lot of thoughts. That property is unincorporated and it's going to stay. It's not part of this project. Correct. Correct. Okay. But it lies within about 60 feet of the property line. And are you aware of any discussions the county's having on what they may do with that property? No, sir. Because that does allow for a greater height, correct? It does. Right. So you could effectively. And there are obviously some other lots just south of that that are not improved at the moment. But certainly somebody could go in with up to a maximum of 35 feet and height without advance. It would be a way that we could get right our first refusal with the county if they're thinking about doing something there. I guess it's actually private homeowners that live there, right? Yeah, they're private. Maybe work with them then so we can kind of control our destiny. The voucher credit, sir, for 10 years? Yeah, you know, we have Nick for it. Nick? Yeah, Neil. Neil, you're here. Can you talk for us a little bit about the credit vouchers, Neil? How that works? It's over. Yeah. 40 years. Come on up, Neil. Right to the microphone there. Yeah. And Neil is Pinellas County Housing Authority. He makes things work. He was a former county commissioner, of course. And he has this new role here. And he's been very. He was a county commissioner when I was assistant, you know. Yeah. Yeah. He was tough, too. He was tough. Okay. Wow. I do my best. All right, Neil. Good evening, everybody. Neil Brickfield, executive director of Pinellas County Housing Authority. We're very excited to be partnering with the city of Dunedin and Archway and make this project a reality. We invested project-based vouchers into this project. And those vouchers are good for 20 years. They don't go to the person. They stay with the unit. So you have to qualify financially to go in a unit. Just so you know, if you get a voucher and you go out on the street, you're looking. That has about a 50% success rate. Our vouchers that are project-based vouchers, they're leased up 98% of the time. They're a much more efficient way to do it. And if there's any questions, I'm happy to answer them. That's 20 years? 20 years. Okay. No, I thought it was mentioned 10 years. I did mention 10 years. Okay. I didn't realize it was 20 years. I was going to ask what happens in year 11. Yeah. No, I got corrected right here. So thank you. But in 20 years, what does happen in year 21? This project is so great that I know that Brent and Dave are going to be working on me in year 15 to renew that for another 20 years. Okay. So that is something that can be renewed? All the time. Oh, okay. All right. So that's good. I just want to know that all of a sudden in year 21. I'm not going to be working here in 20 years. I can't guarantee this tonight. Thank you, Neil. Thank you. Thanks, Neil. And the graywater density, how sellable is that? How? Sellable to the renters. Yeah. From a marketing perspective, I'll defer to the African. Typically, you know, I'll let Brett talk, but typically these projects, usually when they have the most success, I think you have told me, are usually at 100 units when you go to the state. And so this one really needed the gray to get up to 78 units. That'll make this thing feasible. That's right. I mean, it's Brett Green, 7575 Dr. Phillips Boulevard for the record. So the graywater is more of an environmental proffering and benefit rather than necessarily a thing that residents are going to, you know, want or be excited about as far as in their homes. But we actually include all the water and sewer expenses in our rent, so they won't be absorbing any of the costs for water expenses. Right. And I understand on that, but I would think so. So you think the residents don't care about the graywater? No. It's not that I do, but it's one from a selling point. What? I think they like it from a sustainability resiliency. I think it kind of fits in with our model. I'm not arguing the benefits. Full disclosure. I'm arguing the icky point, right? No, I think it got the density up to a point that it made it feasible for the developer and for the state to look at it. But I understand what you're saying, that they may have concerns about it. Is that what you're looking to? Yeah. Quite honestly, I'm not sure. We have graywater consultants who work with us in the manufacturer and we've had a lot of discussions. And, you know, people are going out of their way to put these on properties that they own premiums and single family homes and we haven't heard that it's, you know, any type of concern. Okay. So this will be your first project where you're incorporating? It'll be our second project. Second project? Yes, sir. And how full is your first project? The first one's under construction in St. Pete. Under construction. Okay. So you haven't addressed runners yet that go, yeah, no, I'm good. For whatever reason, right? And we don't like toilet to tap. We don't, we freak out at all that. Definitely not toilet to tap. That's for sure. It's definitely not that. Yeah. They're not drinking that. Sorry to make anybody cringe when you talk about that. No. You talked about the height of the structures. And at three stories, and I can't remember what the feet, how many feet that was? Forty-three. Forty-three. And is that, and I'm, and I don't know the terms, George, so I'm sorry. But when you talk about forty-three feet, you're talking about maybe the, the roof portion. But we do allow higher than that for cosmetics and things of that nature. Yes, that's right. And so, and I know we haven't really got to design yet, but do you see it going, how much higher than forty-three? They can probably give you the ultimate. It's forty-three to the midpoint. And that can wait for design. Just, I mean, that's the peak of the roof. It is, that is the basis of that. Forty-three to the peak. Okay. Jessica? Yeah, so they measure the peak. I'm assuming that we, the code allows to measure the midpoint. Right. If it's got a, if it's hipped. Yeah. Mission point. Okay, that's true. So that's peak, not midpoint? That's peak. Yeah. Okay. Correct. Cool. Very good. That's it. That's all I have. Thank you, Mayor. Okay. Commissioner Sandberg. Are we going to have him alone, so I don't want to keep bringing him up like that? Oh, sure. No, I mean, no. No, no, what he's asking is, is there going to be the applicant presentation to cover all this, or shall we? No. No, this was pretty much a presentation from George. Okay. Yeah. Okay, but I mean, I do have it on the agenda. Because I need you, but I just had one. Sure. Yeah. Hold, hold. So I have it on that there's an applicant presentation. So there's really not. I think typically. Which is fine. Yeah, I think typically the commission during design review will ask the applicant to come up and make a brief presentation. Right. Or at least answer questions, yes. Yeah. Right. Okay. The LLC that owns this property, is that a for-profit or a non-profit LLC? It is for-profit? Okay. You know I was kind of going with that. Answering to the microphone, sir. Sure. It's a partnership between Archway Partners and the Housing Authority collectively. Okay. Because I was concerned about something being tax exempt or not. It is not going to be tax exempt. We will pay taxes. All right. I have a couple of quick questions for you. Sure. So everything seems to be satisfactory with Dunedin Fire Rescue in, out. Okay. I'm assuming we're going to have families. Has there been any forecasts or ideas where the Pinellas County school bus would pick those kids up? I don't have an answer for that. Okay. I mean it's just concerning that there's a lot of traffic around Lukens and that area. Sure. I'm not sure if a, I mean, can a Pinellas school bus stop on Main Street or State Road 580? Can they, where they? Regular buses do. I have seen them. Okay. I just want, I mean, obviously kids aren't running across the street. Good question. That's a good question. Yeah. All right. If you have families like that, did you provide any space for those kids to play rather than playing baseball in the parking lot? Is there anything for the kids or the dogs? Well, I mean, we do have a pretty significant amount of open space there. We don't have any dedicated playgrounds, but I think we're double the amount of what was required, obviously. I wasn't looking for you to build a playground. I'm sorry if you took it like that. I'm just talking about, you know, kids going out. Some still probably go out and play, throw the baseball. Yeah, sure. So, and that was actually one of my points. Okay. So the area that you're seeing is the park area. That was up there. In a very preliminary concept plan, that was the whole thing was going to be a dog park. Okay. I personally, you know, made the decision to change that to be more of an open space that, you know, can be used for more than just people walking their dogs and becoming a little bit more. Yeah. That's perfect. That's what I was getting at. I just, you know, get kids back out and enjoying themselves. So. And I think we're, that's why typically for us, we do more often than not lower density residential for families because you don't want large families or families in general in high rise apartments or even mid rise apartments that can, you know, because you just don't have, in like an urban environment, kids just don't have, you know, places to go and things to do. And they find themselves, like you say, in the. Yeah. Cars are getting hit by baseballs and kids doing stuff that they shouldn't be doing. Sure. I've pulled into that parking lot before. There's a store at Lukens, I guess it's called. As you drive. He talks like he doesn't. Come on. I don't know. I wonder if anybody was listening. So. Yeah. I was going somewhere. I go, you know. Yeah. So as you, as you pull back through, I did notice a few parking spots. It would be on the east side of the Lukens building. Is that, are they on like a right of way? Are they blocked? You know, you don't, it's hard to describe. So Lukens being a box store, there's vehicles that would pull in from the east and their cars would be facing west. On, you know, is there, is there anything, are those cars, is that their parking lot or are they parking on the right of way there? I mean, it may be a situation where they're, they're illegally parked. Well, geez, I don't, I didn't want to go there, but I mean, that's. It's a parking lot? Okay. That's their parking lot. Oh, okay. Okay. No, it's not. It's not a public right of way. Okay. So that's. That's a private roadway. Correct? There's an easement in it. Right. With easements for all. Yeah, it's an easement area. So Carnation is a city of Dunedin Street, isn't it? Or is it, you know, I don't want to make this thing, whoa. No, it's privately owned and everyone who has property there has easements for access. Okay. So that we knew that. Okay. Okay. And the last thing is, I've had a couple of people come to me about this. I'm glad the drainage. I'm not worried about that. That was one of them. You know, the neighbors have been here. You've heard them. You've listened to them. I'm sure you've heard them outside of here. Are you going to have, I know you told me you were, I just want to hold you to it. Are you still going to have onsite security and onsite management to make those neighbors feel like the kids aren't messing around at night or whatever? Sure. So we will have onsite management. Okay. You know, during all business hours, we'll have after hours phone lines so that residents can get in touch with them, you know, at all hours. I think in our development agreement, we have commitments to respond within a certain timeframe if there's any type of issue. We won't have, you know, guard security. We do have, we do have CCTV. We follow crime prevention through environmental design. It was a very big thing that we are involved in. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the tort reform that went through last year at the state level. It basically, you know, provides benefits to property owners like ourselves for assault and battery, basically giving you protections. Okay. If you follow crime prevention through environmental design, have an audit done and implement that. We do that on all of our properties. We have a third party come audit our property after it's built and then comply with any of their findings so that, so that we're, you know, ensuring that our property is as designed and monitored as best as possible. But, but absolutely. We, we are 100%. Okay. I know that this, I've heard of them. And I mean, the sheriff's office is in the building right now. And, you know, I know they do a great job, but, you know, just reassuring to the neighbors around there. So that's all I had. I appreciate your, your answers. Thank you, Commissioner. Okay. Commissioner Walker. Questions? I think most of my questions have been answered. The, the drainage was, was one. And then if a fire and rescue is satisfied that there's sufficient ingress, egress, then, you know, I think that covers any of the questions or concerns that I had. Thanks. Commissioner Degard. I think you guys have done a great job, developed a great job. I appreciate you coming. You're here every time. Thanks so much. That's all I have. Okay. I don't have any additional questions for staff. I do have applicant presentation or do you not really have anything additional at all? We don't have anything additional. Okay. So, any, any additional questions for the applicant? I think we covered both things at the same time, but I just want to run to the thing. Okay, then. Thank you. And I will open it for public hearing. If anybody in the audience wishes to come forward to speak on this issue, please come forward. Name and address for the record in three minutes, and hi, how are you? You've sat here a long time tonight, so. I did sit here. Nancy Schmidt, 1380 Daffodil Place. It's a shame we're held to three minutes. First thing is, I think you're all really underpaid considering what you have to listen to. Thank you for that. Okay. I've previously addressed to the commission about some of my concerns about this project, and I have a couple of questions from the planning agency meeting. There was a lot of discussion about the stormwater, and they talked about doing another independent study to consider the stormwater issues and the runoffs. And no matter what study is going to be done, and what guidelines they're looking at, I don't think they apply to this particular project. For the same reason, we had issues with the project that was done to the west of us, where we wound up still incurring over $20,000 and continuing in expenses with the drainage. If this project was in a park with all grass and trees and surrounded by grass and trees, I could understand how they talk about the stormwater runoff. But it's not. This is a few acres of trees and grass on a slope, and you're going to take away all those trees and grass, same way as they did to the west of us. And now you're going to replace it with cement, and it's surrounded by cement. And there's only one thing, and it's all going to run downhill. This is adding to some of the issues that Dunedin has with stormwater runoff. You can take these standards and apply them to this very tiny spot, and I think all those standards apply. They're just very general standards. I don't think they apply to this spot at all. Second, at the planning meeting, I mentioned the fees that we have incurred. And I asked, who's going to pay for it if we run into water issues? And I was told we'd have to sue. Really? We brought this up so many times that we're concerned about the potential water issues. And I think it would be really a shame if we got to that point and we'd have to sue in order to deal with any expenses that we have. Okay. Everybody realizes we have a need for this project. I just think you're trying to get a square peg in a round hole. It's important that we have this. I just wish it could be somewhere else where everybody here is trying to explain why the traffic's not a problem, the police aren't a problem, the fire isn't a problem, the water drainage isn't a problem. There must be some problems that so many people have to come and justify this. And that's my concern. And by the way, will residents, will you have to be a resident to live in this community? In this community? You got 15 extra seconds if you want them. No, I could go on and on and on. Okay. All right. Thank you very much, Nancy. Okay. Anyone else in the audience wish to come forward to speak on this issue? Okay. Come on up. So name and address for the record in three minutes. Thank you. Rob, last name is Refo, 1341 Azalea Drive, Dunedin. All right. So I'm going to just reiterate something that I did last month that was also brought up two months ago, but it was to the local planning association. So there are, which is going to reiterate what Nancy was just saying there, is that a major concern has been, that's been voiced by residents, has been in previous meetings, was that of the stormwater runoff and that within our condo community we paid about $20,000 for something that from a smaller development that was done there. And it tends to sum up where if an engineer comes out and says, well, it meets code, then there's not much, there's no recourse, it seems. So there was a question two months ago to this committee that was asked by three separate people. And it was answered last month by the local planning association, but I would like an answer from at least a representative of this commission. And the basic question was, what Nancy just said, what assurance will the city provide, and what responsibility will the city or developer take for any damage that is caused to property or homes of residents as a result of this development? Which should be pretty easy to see. If a property has existed for 40 years in this established community, and all of them are, never flooded, there's no big insurance claims, suddenly this development goes in, and it floods, and a home floods. This is not going into the category, and two months ago it was stated sacrifices have to be made. Obviously, I think it would be assumed this is not one of those sacrifices, that someone's home and property is going to be damaged due to this development. And if you just look at it, you know, it's going to go in, and I understand the water's going to flow into a retention area. But even if it flows off the sides of this, of the parking lot, it's very easy, unless it's very well designed, then it's likely that could happen. If it does, that is the question. And it was answered by two nice folks at the local planning association, which they said, yeah, you're going to have to, if an engineer comes out and says it meets code, you've got no recourse besides to sue the city. But I would like to hear a representative say, yep, that's true. If it happens, you're going to have to sue us in order to get any kind of. So when we've taken all public input, we'll answer questions. Okay. And that's, that's really, that's it. Okay, thanks. Thank you, Rob. Anyone else in the audience wish to speak to this issue? Okay. Seeing no one, I will close it. So I heard a couple of things come up here. Maybe we can address. So the whole issue of stormwater drainage applying to this particular property, when maybe there's some issues with Lucan's property, I'm assuming that's what we're talking about. And this is kind of a different spot. So it's different. It's in some way uniquely different to what the drainage standards would provide. I think that was kind of what Nancy was saying. Can you respond to that? Go ahead. I'll go ahead. No, I do have Archway's consultant team here to talk a little bit about the drainage. But basically the site's been designed to control two thirds at a hundred year. And the other one is above or meets the 25 year. So everything does meet and is above. And in fact, they're putting in a vault, too, on one of the sides. So they certainly understand and have heard these public forums that the drainage is key, you know. And by law, they really can't have any post runoff from their development site. That's what the city puts that in line, the 25 year. But they're looking at the majority of 100 year. But there is a portion that is at the 25 year. I don't know if Jesse's available. We had remote there. Yeah. With the map. Yeah. Okay. Just before, just to introduce Jesse, our stormwater engineer. Just high level, as has been discussed earlier, everything that we've done so far is conceptual. We haven't been able to run full detailed calculations and modeling at this point. That will all be completed at permitting. We've all had discussions and we hear the residents. We totally understand what that they're concerned about the runoff. And we're going to do everything within our power to ensure that there's no negative impacts to the people that are around us. As Bob mentioned, approximately, we expect approximately two thirds of the site to flow to the FDOT drainage system. And then the stormwater pond will hold a portion of the site as well. At the LPA, there was some detailed questions about, you know, specifics about stormwater. I'm not a stormwater engineer. We hire people specifically for that. So we brought Jesse Pacheco, or didn't bring her. We virtually brought her. And the principal of Stantex here as well. And Jesse, I don't know if you just want to give a high level summary of kind of your plans for the stormwater design here. And, you know, very brief and then we can answer any questions. Sure. Do you want me to, I don't know if I can, but share my screen with the director? I think we just can discuss for now. Okay. Cool. Yeah. Well, if it helps the conversation, it wouldn't be bad to share the screen if we can do that. Yeah. Add your wish. Yeah. Yeah, go ahead. Because it's a big issue to the residents. I think we should try to explain it. I'm going to try it. The green button right there in the middle. Right in the middle. And let me know when you can see. I don't know. Maybe I'll. Yeah. Got it? Yep. Okay. Okay. I'll go through everything. I'll start with kind of the blue. You can see it's approximately two thirds of the site. This map kind of shows the general existing condition drainage patterns based on the topography. And this area that's in blue drains towards the DOT right away. You can kind of see these little blue arrows. A little bit goes this way for the blue pins. The majority of it goes here to the family dollar. And then there's a little bit coming to these other storage as well. We also have a little off site area that comes on. So anything that's in this blue shaded area that's going towards the DOT right away. Will be fine for the DOT criteria. Which essentially 36 storm events have to be modeled. Up to the hundred year storm. And show no increasing discharge. There's an existing stormwater pond here. For this area we would be proposing to discharge into that existing system. And it would be designed again to meet the existing condition. Flow rate and stormwater. If at any point I'm talking to tech. Polar to pass please interrupt. So that's the southern. Or the area that brings to the south. And of course DOT criteria is above and beyond the water management district. Or the city criteria. In continuing in this area. Even though in the existing condition. You can see that there's some that drains over here. And these other stores. We're only proposing at this time. To discharge to this existing pond. So there's going to be a decrease in flow. Leaving the site. For this area. For this area. For this area. For this area. There's going to be no proposed discharge. Or flow rate stormwater coming from these areas. Similarly this area will continue to train on site. It will be accommodated in this system. So there's not going to be any adverse impact upstream. And no proposed stormwater. Will be discharged from the east. Nor the north. Over here. There's. There's no. It drains south. So there's not going to be a proposed discharge up this way. So. This other portion. Essentially the other. Third of the site. It drains in a. West and then north direction. There's. A little. Swale. That kind of. Goes along the western. Boundary. And for this area. Is not draining. To the dot. Right away. It's. Helping to the city. And the state. The water management district criteria. That criteria. Is. To show no. Increases. The 25 year. Storm. However. Because we are. Close. To the dot. Right away. They are. Requiring. There will also. Need to be modeled. For a hundred year. Storm. And ensure. That the stormwater. Pond. Has at least one foot. Of three board. For the hundred year. And what that means is. In the hundred year. Storm. There has to be at least. A foot. Of available. Space. From the top. Of the maximum. Water elevation. To the top. Of the pond. So there's. Extra capacity. Even in. Up to the hundred year. Storm. That's. Significantly more. Criteria. Than the. This. State water management district. Or the. City would require. And additionally. I want to point out. Because I know. That there's. Concerns from the residents. To the west. And again. As I mentioned. We haven't done. Full calculations. Yet. But. It's assumed. That potentially. There's some drainage. That comes. To the west. Even though. There is a swale. That goes up. This way. It looks like. It's a smaller swale. So if. Even if. In the existing condition. There is some. Drainage. That goes to the west. The proposed condition. Is going to have. No alcohol. Going to the west. No. Proposed. Discharge. Residents. Here to the west. Of the property. The only discharge. In addition. To the. One in the south. We already talked about. Will be. Directly. To the north. There's an existing. Stormwater pond. Here. This is where. About one third. Of the site. Currently. Drains to. And so. Per the. A criteria. To be determined. To be determined. Size. And shape. That will. Make sure. That we're able. To meet. All of that. Right. criteria. Accordingly. So we will have. A stormwater pond. Here. And we're going to have. A vault. To be determined. Size. And shape. That will make sure. That we're able. To meet. All of that criteria. I know. That's a lot. But. The short version. Is that. Everything. Within the system. Is going to be. Sized above. And beyond. That of the city. Criteria. And even. The water management. District. Because it is. A significant portion. Going to do. And they're also. Holding the pond. To higher standards. And additionally. We're going to be. A significant portion. Going to do. And they're also. Holding the pond. To higher standards. And additionally. We're going to be. Eliminating. Stormwater. Discharging. In certain areas. Beyond that. So. That's all I have. Okay. Let me just. Let me give the commissioners. A chance. If they have a question. Specific to this. This is. This is very helpful. To see the actual chart. You know. Commissioner Walker. Any. Do you have any. Specific question about it. Well. I guess. There's a couple of things. That have. Kind of come up. As a result. And this goes back. To the. We're doing. A design review. Now. At which point. Are you able. To go in. And do the modeling. And calculations. Permitting. Permitting. Yes sir. But by then. The designs. Already finalized. And we're going. To permit. To develop. So. Does that seem. A little late. In the process. Typically. Infrastructure review process. Yeah. They can hit. Simultaneous. With permitting. But it would go. To our engineering division. For review. And make sure. It meets. Or exceeds. Our standards. And what. If it doesn't meet. Or exceed. It wouldn't be approved. By our engineering division. And. I think. I followed. What's her name. Jesse. Jesse. Yeah. I think I was. Tracking on that. But I just. Want to make sure. That. The. The sway. On the western part. Sway. Is that the right word? Swale. Swale. Sure. On the western part. Of the property. Does that. Like. A swale. Is that. Like. A drainage. Ditch. It's. It's really. Just. A conveyance. That. Is. A depression. You know. That. Drinks. In a direction. And. They can be. Trapezoidal. They can be. Triangular. A lot of different shapes. And sizes. This one. Looks. To be. Fairly. Shallow. I can't speak. To exactly. How. It is. But. I was. And then. Okay. So. In. My. Terms. I. Say. Layman. But. I don't even know. I'm there yet. But. The. You. What I did. Understand. Is. Is. One foot of freeboard. For the hundred year storm. Which to me means. That. The water. During. The. The more water. During a hundred year storm. Will rise to a level. That's literally. One foot. Or so. Below. The edge of the swale. On the western side. That's. My layman's understanding as well. But you. Jessie. You go ahead. That swale. Is going to go. Bye bye. That swale will no longer be there. In the proposed condition. It will be. The pond. And. But you have the. The. You have the idea. Right. The. The maximum. Elevation of water. During a hundred year storm. Because. All of this. At least part of the site. Will go. Drain to the pond. The water will. Raise up. To that. Highest elevation. And. There will still be another. Hook. Above that. To the top of the pond. Okay. Yeah. So. Yeah. There. That's where I got a little bit. Confused. Because the. The slide before this one. Had that pond. So that's where the pond is. Yes. And. Sorry about that. I. I kind of. Made my. Existing map. Work for the. This exercise. Okay. Nope. I'm good. Thank you. That along the area. Where we only have 25 year flood. Um. We also have residences. And that's right up against that soil. I have a hard question here. We had an. Eight inch rain last year. And. Twelve. Fourteen hours. Would that have flooded into those. Homes there. If that had been the case. Well. I will tell you. I. Unfortunately. Don't know. Um. The. The storm event. Equivalent. Numbers. Off the top of my head. Um. I can tell you. If that. Each storm. Was a hundred year. Twenty five year. Or what. Have you. But. Um. What I can tell you. Is that. I'm not sure. Um. I don't know what's happening. I haven't done. Modeling. Obviously you guys have. The experience of. The actual storm. Um. The. The. The design. We'll be doing a lot of. Modeling. Because. If this was just. The city. Water management district. We would be running. You know. Two storm events. But because. It's. We'll be running. Thirty six storm events. One for existing. One for close. So we'll have 70 storm events. We'll be able to. Get a lot of information on that. But. You know. What we're looking at there. Is. Is. A. Comparison. Of flow rate. Um. And. And that. That's all the information that we get. We're not doing a full. You know. Um. Regional. Flood model. That would be able to give us. What the. You know. Where the flooding would go. Um. That's. That's a much more complex. And large scale model. Um. And this is a. A fairly small site. So I can only. Is. The impact. Of. This development. When. Once we do the modeling. You know. You do. You do the best. Available data that you have. And you. Uh. Determine the impact. Between these. Um. And that's. That's all that we. Kind of gain from. The model. Uh. Thank you for that. I'm not sure I understood half of it. Um. To be honest. Sorry about that. Uh. But. You know. I. The solution. The mother has. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. The. for. I just don't know how we get from that question to an answer. I think the only thing that I can speak to on that is that, you know, this project is not necessarily a quality problem project, but what we are trying to do with our design and criteria, trying to do with the design, is not causing any hazardous impact. And we're not just meeting the criteria, we're doing above that criteria in multiple ways to try to, you know, address those concerns. But I don't think that there's anything that could be done to say we'll never, never flood anywhere, everywhere, you know, in the city. Because there's been some crazy storms. If I could just jump in here briefly, maybe provide a little bit of a more layman's perspective on it. So what I think Jesse mentioned is the area on the left side that I think you're mentioning the four, five or six homes, the west side. In the current condition, there is water currently flowing from our site onto that site. And it enters that swale. Similarly to how on the east side of our property, it's flowing from our neighbors onto our property. Okay. What Jesse's proposed conceptual design is to not allow any of our water to flow into that adjacent property, you know, into the adjacent property. In the event of a, you know, extensive storm, 100-year storm, however many inches of rainfall, it's my understanding that first, in the event of something like that, it would go to the swale to the north, which would be into an existing pond, not directly towards the western homes. The idea is to have less water flowing to those western homes because they don't have any way to treat it. Whereas to the north, I think it can be even more properly managed. Jesse, did I say anything out of line there? No, I think that was good. I think the only thing I would say is that it would be, it would have to be above a 100-year storm for there to be runoff going to the west in our proposed conditions because, like I mentioned, for the 100-year, we have to still have another foot of available storage in that pond of available volume for stormwater. So even in a 100-year storm, you know, you still have a foot down to the water from the edge of the pond, which means there should be no flow coming to these houses in a 100-year storm. That's certainly not that cannot be said in the existing conditions. So that's why, you know, we're really going to definitely be showing a decrease going to these residences. For the residences up here, we're making sure that there's no increase, you know, based on the water management district. And you're exactly right. That's where we're proposing to discharge. So during the storm, that's where it's going to be going. Thank you. That's all I have. Any questions on this side as far as the drainage goes, or Vice Mayor? Can you talk about... Thank you. This thing right now, I think we're all kind of focused on that northwest corner and the ability of what that pond can do. At what point are we considering the amount of moisture that's already currently in the soil? And when that... And because the problem we have is a lot of times of the storms later in the season, the ground is already saturated. And so all that water isn't seeping into the ground. It's staying on the surface for a number of days. And so is that taken into account or is... I'll let Jessie chime in on that. Jessie? So the way that we would account for the surface is we calculate something called the curve number. Account for what kind of surface it grabs. Is it partially converged or is it different? If you have a roller, then that accounts for the available, you know, absorption of water water to the ground. And when it's a higher curve number light, it's going to have more runoff. In terms of saturation level, it's the main difference for our model. What's out there now and what's out... what's going to be there in the proposed. We know that it is mostly perpias, mostly grass. It's got... It falls out in the land use and the way that we calculate the existing. In the proposed condition, it's going to be modeled with a much higher curve not for the increase in impervious. It's also, you know, the land use will look out for how heavily wooded or... Jessie, I need you to... Jessie, I need you to stop a second. I need to make a motion that the meeting is extended past 10 o'clock. Oh, thank you. Yeah, actually, it is 10 o'clock, which means we have to vote on whether we're going to extend the meeting or not. So do I have a motion to extend? Second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. And that motion passes unanimously, so we'll continue. Sorry. Right on the button. There you go. We got a... We got a Robert's Rules guy right there. Our following our... I love it. Okay. So go ahead, Jessie. We're going to let you keep going. Hopefully, hopefully you're following me to the part, but that's the main impact that the ground is going to have is between the existing and proposed increasing curve number. The only other time that we're going to for saturation is the proposed modeling of the vault system, because that is a underground vault system that relates it to the ground. A wet detention system would require that. So I hope that answers your question. Basically, it's being counted for based on what type of land use. Okay. Thank you. And you did say that water is now running off that northwest, and we're using the swale that's there. In the existing condition? No, no. Just right now. Yeah. That's... Correct. Existing condition, right? Jessie? Yes. In the existing condition, it's drained this way, and there's an existing swale that comes up here. Okay. And does that swale... And does that water end up in that canal pond that's there? Yes. It comes to this pond. Okay. And are we taking into consideration during storm events that that pond gets water from other sources, and that pond can fill as well? Well, we won't be modeling this pond. Essentially, we're modeling what's leaving our site, and we're going to ensure that what's leaving our site does not increase in the proposed condition for the 25-year storm, and that up to the 100-year, we still have a freeboard. One put a freeboard in the pond. Okay. I don't think somebody needs to be concerned about what happens downstream. Well, it is. It is being considered because we are making sure we're not worsening it. What we're spending is not being worsening because there's flow going there in the existing, so we will continue to have the flow, and we're making sure that we're not increasing that flow. Okay. And my last question is, is the verbiage that is currently right there in the middle of that northwest, I'm going to call purple color, is still acknowledging up to 25-year storm. So are you saying that that information in this slide is now incorrect, that it will be changed to 100-year storm? No. This information is correct. The criteria for this purple-y area is that we have to show for the 25-year storm, there's no increasing discharge leaving the site, and we have to show for the 100-year storm that there is still a foot of freeboard in the pond. So there's kind of – that's why it can be a little confusing because it really depends on what you're looking at for each storm event. But for this area, we have to make sure there's no increasing discharge for the 25-year storm, but we still need a model 100-year to show that we're providing the adequate freeboard. Okay. So for the comfort of the residents that live there, where is their comfort level to be able to see what you're going to do? Because it sounds like this is what we have to put, but just trust us. It's going to be at a 100-year level. Right? Yeah, go ahead. My name is John Evelyn. I'm a Stantec. My address is 15804, Soar Water Drive in Lithia, Florida. So I get a long drive home. So I'm going to be the licensed engineer on this project. And I know the gentleman back here said that, you know, it's going to have to be a really good design. He's right. It does have to be a really good design. I'm licensed by the state to put forward a really good design on every one of my projects. I want to be able to give you some comfort in that and that I've been doing this for 30-plus years. I've never been sued. I am required by all the permit requirements that all these permits that I have conditions as associated with them. I'm going to be getting a city permit that will have conditions associated with it. I will have a swift mud permit that will have very strict conditions associated with it. And the DOT permit that we have to get. It's a drainage permit as well. And it has very strict conditions. All of them require me not to have any adverse impacts to any of the offsite properties. Any one of the neighbors here, not just come at me and sue me. They can do that if they want to. But they can also call the city. They can call the water manager district. And they can call DOT. And they can demand that an investigation be done and that a case be opened. And they can pull our permits if they want to. I mean, this can all be done as we're getting the permits. So I just want you to understand that there's a lot that goes into getting those permits. And then for the next lifetime of this project, those conditions stand. Okay. So there is recourse for them without hearing from engineers going, well, we built the code. Sucks to be you. Absolutely. That's what's resonating up here. We're all hearing that. Yep. And I don't want to be one of those residents where I have to hear that from my city. We built it to code. So where's their reassurance other than, but if they pull the permits, if they stay active and engaged, they'll be able to see this. Yes. All the permits will be posted on site all through the project. And they're easily accessible. It's all public record. All the permit conditions in there. And throughout it, all of them, they all say no adverse impacts. If there are, call this number, email us, whatever, we will shut it down. And it's that simple. No adverse. That simple language. Pretty much, yes. Other than what I'm bound by, by the state of Florida with my license. Well, they're, and I know we're getting off topic. And so Mayor, reel me in if not. But I'm hearing their comments from their own history on other developments. And they're saying that's what they're being told. Is this your comments of, um, no, are they being told something different from prior projects? Or is this something new in engineering school? I, you know. I cannot speak to prior projects or the talent level of the other engineers. Um, I did look at the Lucans property. Um, if the Lucans property does, did cause any issues. I, I mean, I, I'm not going to say that I, I noticed them, but, um, I, I can understand why they would have complained about the Lucas development. I'll just say that. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Anything, Commissioner Sandberg? I have no more questions on, Mayor. Okay. Um, yeah, I, I, I don't have any other questions either. Um, and I think we kind of answered the question of, um, you know, what, what they, you know, what they can do if the things are, if things have happened and they're still flooding. And do you have anything else to add, city attorney? Does that pretty cover it? Yeah, I think it's covered pretty well. I mean, I think if, in the standpoint of the residence, if there was, if it was designed and constructed in accordance with the plans and was operating in that way, they, you know, if there was an issue, they could certainly bring it forth. Code enforcement would, would, um, evaluate it to see whether or not it's functioning in accordance with the permit. Assuming it is and there's some other, um, you know, issue with it, um, it may be a question for SWIFT MUD and the permit with SWIFT MUD and whether it's operating in accordance with that or FDOT. Um, and then of course there's always private action. Great. Okay. Thank you. Um, okay. I think that's it. We're going to go to commission comments and I'm going to go to the maker of the motion. Commissioner Sam. Oh, sorry. Yeah, no, we already had public input. Yeah, we already had public input. Would it be possible to add one more thing? Sure. And just to make the polite request, if, if you all approve to roll the two meetings, the two commission meetings into a single public hearing, um, we've, this is our fifth, fifth public hearing. Um, and we're just, you know, if that would be possible, that would just want to make that request. They have some deadlines relative to the property closing, also the state relative to that grant funding, the $30 million. So they're asking if they can collapse the two meetings into one, uh, something that certainly has been done before, but certainly up to the commission deliberation. Um, city manager, what's your recommendation on this city manager, city attorney? Yeah. So it's design review. They can ask for the, they can ask for a collapsed second read. You can't do it for an ordinance, but this is not. Right. But we, we have, we, we've rarely, rarely, rarely done it. We did it. One time you did it was, uh, the causeway. I know, I know. No, I'm aware. It was recently the causeway project. Yeah. They've done an awful lot of thorough research. Right. And that one we saw about 10 times. Yeah. At least. They've done a lot of research here relative to the drainage and all. So there is going to be done. Oh, say that again. So sure. Pursuing to your code, you do have a provision in there that says that first of all, they're going to go before the LPA. That's hearing one. Second hearing will be before the city commission at a regular schedule meeting. If you approve or approve with conditions and there are no changes required, then the city commission may waive the third hearing. The third hearing would be another hearing before the city commission. So it is up to the commission as to whether or not they choose to waive it. Okay. Well, um, let's first of all, um, do our, uh, comments overall. And that, I think that's a secondary issue. Yeah. Mayor, if, if I may. Go ahead. Yes. Yes. Staff recommendation. If we could get through comments and then get to that recommendation. Okay. That sounds good. So again, so we're good. We're just going to go on the motion as it is, which is approval of first reading. Um, we'll deal with the second issue later. So, uh, maker of the motion is commissioner Samberg. Nope. I appreciate you guys have jumped through every hoop and that was probably the most comprehensive water runoff explanation I've ever heard. So, uh, thank you. Okay. And commissioner guard was the seconder. I have no comments. I'm in agreement. Okay. And I'll go to vice mayor. Thank you, mayor. Uh, this is a long time coming, right? Um, we've been talking about this for a long time. We have, um, I, we have certainly heard from the residents and share their pain. Um, I do think that they have jumped through as many hoops as, um, we've asked them to, and they have done more for stormwater drainage than any project that I'm aware of as far as they focus to it on the front end. Um, and so thank you to the residents for coming forward. That might not have happened had you not. So your, your, your voices were heard. Um, uh, but we, but affordable housing is a crisis. So, um, yeah, I'm, I'm in support of this. So thank you, mayor. Okay. Uh, commissioner Walker. Uh, thank you, mayor. Um, yeah, I, I'm, I'm satisfied with the, the analysis to this point. And there is another gate or off ramp, if you will, through the permitting process. Um, and just one, one very quick question. I just want to confirm I heard this correctly. Um, there's no pond there now. Essentially the pond is intend this, this will actually improve the current runoff in that particular part of the property. Is that, did I hear that correctly? Uh, that's my understanding. I would let the drainage engineer speak again because they're looking at the additional one foot of freeboard too for the hundred, but I don't want to speak. The engineer's shaking his head yes behind him, but why don't you come up? Okay. Go ahead, John. You can answer it. What's your name again? Uh, John Evelyn. John Evelyn. Thank you. Um, yes, it will be an improvement. Um, you know, we're going to be berming up around that pond and then elevating it. All the water that goes in there is only going to get within a foot at a, in a hundred year. I mean, you know, if another Helene or Milton comes along, then that's beyond our design, but we've got that freeboard in there to accommodate some of that. So, but it's, it's definitely an improvement to what it is now. Yeah, no, I appreciate that. And then as part of the surfacing of the pond, I'm assuming that it's, uh, less saturable material that goes in there, or? The pond's going to end up being a wet pond by the time we dig it all out. You've got to dig below the water line for something like this, and we want to do it for aesthetics as well, but we want to, we got to dig below the water line to get some mixing to provide treatments. Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Now that was a question, you know, that wasn't a final comment. Right. But we're going to let it go. Okay. Um, actually I, and my final comment are just that, you know, I'm, I'm for this project. I definitely appreciate the drill down into the drainage issue. Um, I think that's just really important. And I don't know if, if there were some issues with Lukens or not, but we definitely don't want this on John. I'm glad you came forward. I, I, you just, you seem like, you know, a guy that's calling it straight. So that makes me feel better. And I hope maybe it makes the residents feel better too. So, but we're going to hold you to it. Um, so, um, anyways, so let's do a roll call vote. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. And a motion passes unanimously. Okay. So mayor, um, if I may, I think that there were no, uh, conditions of your approval, no content, nothing in your comments of substance. There's nothing that would change between now and a second reading. So I'm going to recommend that you waive the second, the third public hearing. Okay, great. So then on that basis, um, I would need a motion to waive the third public hearing. So moved. Second. Okay. Okay. And, um, do I have any public comment on that? I guess I should ask that, right? Public comment. Anyone wish to come forward to, to Rob? Is it? Yes. Name and address for the record again. Thank you for allowing that. I'm glad that you asked for that. Uh, because there were at least four residents that were here, but due to the, they were, most of them are a little older. And I know two of the ladies said they had to leave because they can't drive at night. So they had to leave and not bring. And, and I have seen that some of these, these, these issues that are brought up and questions from the residents do prompt actions. And there were still questions being asked. So kind of fast tracking is a little unnerving because there's just some residents that would have come in and they actually had to, that were here and left and may still have some concerns and questions to, to ask that could stimulate other conversation with you. It just seems like it's obvious this, this project is going to move along, but at least from our view, the more scrutiny that's on it, it does, and it does give assurance. Every meeting I come to, I get more assurance that it's, should turn out okay. You know, when you prepare for the worst, hope for the best. But it looks like, okay, this is, and the more I hear from the developer, it, it is at least easing my mind a bit. But anyway, I think the main point is, there were residents and they had to leave that. Okay. No, thank you, Rob. And, and potentially, perhaps, you know, if there's any input of significance that they have, they can get it to the city. And I think you guys would be open to it, you know, including it into your thoughts. Anyone else wish to come forward and speak to the commission? Yes, you can come forward. Name and address again for the record. Nancy Schmidt. And I'm glad I have an opportunity to speak again, because sometimes it's just closed. You know, decision is done, and we don't have a chance to ask some questions. I did ask one question, and that is, are they going to limit the people at this facility to people who live here in Dunedin? Because the whole purpose of this is to have places for people who work here. Right. We're actually not legally. Yeah, we're actually not legally allowed to do that. Not only, so this could be anywhere while we're creating affordable housing, but not necessarily for people who live here. Right. But, but you could, but you could also say that people that work here now can't afford to live here, and this gives them an opportunity to actually move closer to where they work and be in the city of Dunedin. But legally, we can't actually restrict it. Because actually, probably just about everybody out here asks that in the very beginning of it. But, so it's a great question, Nancy. Yeah, I was just curious about that. Yeah, the Fair Housing Act. But I know they're looking to get the marketing out, too, in Dunedin. So they're going to see that first. So I want to at least share that. Okay. And I'm kind of pleased that the questions that we have asked have resulted in all these people coming to talk to these issues. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Anyone else wish to speak kind of on the new issue here of the waiver? Okay. So I would need a motion, if someone chooses to, for waiver of third public hearing. Did I? Well, I guess I did get it. I got Degard, and I got Walker. I apologize. So, so I will do a roll call vote on that. Commissioner Degard? Aye. Commissioner Sandbergen? Aye. Commissioner Walker? Aye. Vice Mayor Gow? Aye. And Mayor Franey? Aye. And that motion passes unanimously. And just so we're in agreement, Commissioner Degard did the, the motion and Commissioner Walker did the second. And thank you very much. And again, if there's any other residents with questions, get them to us, get them to you, but make sure they know. So thank you very much. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. We're just going to keep going, right? No break. Okay. Okay. We are going to keep going. We are going to go to resolution. I actually think the next two are, I think we can get through this. Let's just see how we do. Okay. Resolution 25-19, authorizing an increase of reclaimed water user rates, establishing a surcharge for the use of such watering during the months of February through June of each year, establishing the amount of capital cost recovery fee, providing that reclaimed water service may be discontinued for failure to pay reclaimed water charges, and repealing resolution 04-06 in its entirety. Jen, could you please read resolution 25-19 by title only? Resolution 25-19, a resolution of the City Commission of the City of Dunedin, Florida, to increase the reclaimed water user rate, establishing a surcharge for use of such water during the months of February through June of each year, establishing the amount of capital cost recovery fee, providing that reclaimed water service may be discontinued for failure to pay reclaimed water charges, repealing resolution 04-06 in its entirety, providing for publication, providing for severability, and providing for an effective date. That was resolution 25-19, read by title only. Okay, could I have a motion? So moved. Second. Okay. Commissioner Sandbergen and Commissioner Dugard. Okay. And staff presentation, brief and brilliant. Yes. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Commissioner of Staff. My name is Alex Gonzalez, engineering, and I will make this as speedy as possible. Speedy Gonzalez is what they call me. I'm here today to present the recommendation of Commission adoption of Resolution 25-19, which Jen just read in its entirety. The previous water and sewer study was completed in 2020 and established the current rates up until the end of fiscal year 2025. And at that time, the funding was adequate to satisfy the projected financial capital and operational needs of the Water and West Water Utility Fund. However, the Water and Sewer Utility Fund has experienced higher than anticipated operational and maintenance costs increases due to inflation over the last several years. As such, back last year in June 2024, the Commission approved a contract with Reptilis to provide a comprehensive water and wastewater utility revenue study. On May 22, 2025, Reptilis provided an overview presentation at the first reading for the water, sewer, and reclaimed water rates through fiscal year 26 through fiscal year 2030. And that was Ordinance 25-04. That was adopted to increase the water and sewer rate after its second public hearing on June 5, 2025. The third and final component of that utility revenue efficiency study was to increase the reclaimed water rates. The City Municipal Code, Section 78-381, Part D, establishes that charges applicable to the reclaimed water system shall be set by resolution only. As such, Resolution 25-19, if adopted, increases the reclaimed water user rates as recommended in the water and wastewater utility revenue sufficiency study. This would be the final action required in order to stabilize the financial adequacy of the enterprise fund through fiscal year 2030. As such, staff recommends commission approval and adoption of Resolution 25-19. Okay. We've obviously seen this before, been through it extensively, but on that note, I'll still turn and ask for any questions. Commissioner Walker. No questions. We did go through this very thoroughly, and I'm in favor of it. Commissioner Dugard. Does this amend any of the May 22 commission meeting? Is this an amendment to that? It is in addition to. Those were ordinances which set up the water and wastewater charges. However, reclaimed water is its own separate entity, and it can only be, those user rates can only be increased by resolution, which is a different mechanism, and that's why we're here today for our third time, to increase the reclaimed water rates. Okay. So it does not change anything this is in addition to. It is in addition to those rates, so this would be an increased rate, or is it the same rate, just restated? In other words, this is memorializing what we decided in our workshop. Is that correct? Okay, but we have to do it in resolution. We just, Nan Bennett, Utilities Operations Manager, we discussed the recommendations when Raftelis was here in both of the public hearings that we were going to recommend $1.50 per thousand for the reclaimed water, but they were not adopted within the ordinance. This is the mechanism for adopting them. So this, okay, this is, I'm sorry, I'm a little slow. It's 1025. I know. I'm having a little, okay, thank you for that little ad. We do get a three-week break after tonight. I just want to be sure what, if this is simply ensconcing those rates we did on the 22nd, or additionally, this is something more. It's ensconcing. It's ensconcing. That's what I need to know. I have no further questions. Thank you. Vice Mayor. No questions. Commissioner Sandbergen. I do remember the Raftelis presentation that we listened to one afternoon, and I, I'm satisfied that was a very good, that was, we've been, we went over this before. We spent a day doing this, so thank you. Yes, we did. Yep. Okay, and I don't, I don't have any additional. Again, we've been through this thoroughly, you know, exhaustively. So I will open it to public comment. Anyone in the audience wish to come forward and speak to this issue? Okay, seeing no one, I will close public input. I will go to commission comments, starting with the maker of the motion, Commissioner Sandbergen. No, I, I knew this was coming, and it's the proper thing. No cutting corners, and I know you guys are doing the right thing, so thank you. Commissioner Dugard, it's a seconder of the motion. No comments. Okay, Commissioner Walker. No comments. Vice Mayor. No comments. I have no comments either. We'll go to roll call vote. Vice Mayor Gow. Aye. Commissioner Walker. Aye. Commissioner Dugard. Aye. Commissioner Sandbergen. Aye. And Mayor Franey. Aye, and that motion passes unanimously. Okay, thank you. Okay, we're going to go to 3E, Resolution 25-21, regarding application number 25-04V, request to vacate an approximately 3,912 square foot existing platted right away at 968 Douglas Ave. Denny in Florida is recorded in Platte Book 5, page 66 of the official records of Pinellas County, Florida. Jen, could you please read a resolution 25-21 by title only? Resolution 25-21, a resolution of the City Commission of the City of Dunedin, Florida, vacating a right away recorded in Platte Book 5, page 66 of the official records of Pinellas County, Florida, on the property of 968 Douglas Ave. Denny in Florida, 34698, parcel identification number 272815230760130050, and consisting of approximately 3,912 square feet, providing for severability and providing for an effective date. That was Resolution 25-12, read by title only. Okay. Okay, may I have a motion to adopt Resolution? Do you need something else before I ask for a motion? Okay, can I have a motion to adopt Resolution 25-21? So moved. I need a second? Second. Okay, and I will go to staff presentation, brief and brilliant. Good evening, Jorge Hacienda's Deputy City Manager, and given the lateness of the hour, I thought I'd be very brief and brilliant. The reason this is before you is the property appraiser's office shows this area as having been vacated. There is, however, no record of that actually having occurred. So this is basically following up on having a recorded vacation that then coincides with what is represented in the property appraiser's office that apparently happened in the 40s. We can't find a record that it actually ever got recorded. So this is a follow-up paperwork effort. Yeah, I'm just going to add to that. Mr. Pappas is here representing Bill Mazas. So I just want to make sure as the title that, as Jorge mentioned, there isn't a cloud on it. And God bless you. Yeah. You're sitting here all through this. He did. I figured this was the item you were here for, but go ahead. Yeah, he did. So as you know, Bill Mazas is also the gentleman with the Ocean Optics for the Main Street Exchange, and he's looking to go ahead and acquire this property also, and looking at some opportunities there for that mixed use with a parking garage and some retail-type shops. So we want to clear up the title, and that's why Mr. Pappas is here. Okay. Great. So any questions for staff related to this particular aspect of the request to vacate? Right. I'll start. Commissioner Walker? No, no questions. Commissioner Dugard? Vice Mayor? No questions. Commissioner Sandbergen? No questions. Okay. So we'll open it to public input. Anybody in the audience wish to come forward and speak on this issue? After all this time, right? No. You just want to get out of here, I know. Okay. I'll close public input, and I will go to Commission comments, starting with the maker of the motion. Commissioner Dugard? No comments. Vice Mayor Gao? Seconder. The only comment would be that if the Ocean Optics property, we need more residential, not transient. That's it. Okay. Commissioner Sandbergen? No additional comments, Mayor. Okay. Commissioner Walker? No comments. Okay. A roll call vote. Commissioner Sandbergen? Aye. Commissioner Walker? Aye. Vice Mayor Gao? Aye. Commissioner Dugard? Aye. And Mayor Freining? Aye. And that motion passes unanimously. And thank you for your patience, sir. Okay. 3F, we've got Resolution 25-28, Purchasing Policy Change. Staff is requesting this item to be tabled. So can I have a motion to table? Oh, I wanted to talk about it. Yeah. Motion to table, please. So moved. Second. Second. Okay. And all in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? And that motion passes unanimously. Okay. Thank God for one table. Okay. 3G, award the construction of the fiscal year 25, fiscal year 25 wastewater lift stations rehabilitation project to TLC Diversified, Inc. of Palmetto, Florida, in the total amount of 888,309.08. Staff presentation, Alex and Nan. I'll go to you guys. Okay. Nan Bennett, Utilities Operations Manager. We've been before you many other times. This is an annual program where we look at all of our lift stations, we evaluate them, and we take the ones that are in the most need, and we upgrade those to keep our lift stations working continuously. So this is an award of that work to TLC Diversified of Palmetto, Florida. They have a piggyback contract with the Pinellas County for this specific type of work. It's sort of a, if you will, a cafeteria type style contract. Pinellas County has almost 400 lift stations, and so they've put this together so that whatever's needed for a lift station, you just do exactly what's needed. You don't do more, you don't do less. And so that's how we've set this contract up, so that we can do exactly what's needed at each station. There's four stations listed in the staffing that we're going to do some fairly expansive improvements to. Another four stations that we're going to do some minor valving and some ability to hook up emergency bypass pumps a little easier to, and get eight stations upgraded in this next year for the $888,309.08 via this Pinellas County contract, if awarded by the Commission. Well, that was very brief and brilliant. And actually, you still look rested to me, just so you know. Okay. Questions for staff? I'm starting Commissioner Walker. No questions. I just note that TLC Diversified, they do a lot of our lift station work, and... It's their bread and butter. Yes. No other questions. Okay. Commissioner Dugard. Nan, I think I know the answer to this because I know you, but I believe I have to ask the question just for the record. How do we feel deficient in any of our lift stations at this time and as we go into the storm season? We feel... For instance, the first one, Franklin Way, has a graded top. That's not the best choice when we have eight inches of rain, because rain is getting in. It's much better to be solid. There are things that could be approved. Do they function 24-7 and do what we need them to do, and have they been doing so? Yes. Could they be better? Yes. Do we have a high standard for what we expect of our lift stations? Yes, we do. And we're trying to keep that and maintain that on a continuous basis through all conditions, including, you know, very significant hurricanes and rain events. I have high confidence in you and the manager both, but if you ever have a concern and don't feel properly responded to, I would hope you'd come directly to us, or through the manager to us. Just the best you can. Just, I'm just... We get support, and in that case, we do an emergency repair, and we come to you after the fact. I mean, if it's something that just has to be done, then we don't go through all the motions. We do an emergency and do an after the fact. With what we're facing, if you've got an itch, I want to know we can scratch it. That's what I'm saying. Okay. Thank you very much. Yeah. Okay. We're going to go to vice mayor on that one, Eric. Not touching it. Yeah, I got nothing. Okay. Commissioner Sandbergen. Did you say that these are the ones that are in most need of repair? Did I miss? We evaluate all of our lift stations every year, and there's some criteria. I was trying to be brief and brilliant, but we look at the structural integrity, the mechanical integrity, and the electrical integrity of every station, and then we prioritize which ones need the most. Wastewater is incredibly corrosive, and we use these things 24-7, so they're always in a state of going towards chaos, and we're trying to keep them in good working order, and so of the 47, we pick the ones that need the most loving... That's a perfect answer. Love and care. Thank you. Okay, and I don't have any additional questions. I'm going to open it to public input. Anyone in... Well, since no one in the audience, but anyone in the audience who wishes to come forward and speak to this issue? Maybe the sheriff's deputy would like... No? No? Okay. Okay. Seeing no one come forward, we'll close the public input. She's thinking she got the wrong detail. Yes, I know. You definitely did, but good for you. You're still awake, so... Okay, I need a motion. So moved. Second. Okay, Vice Mayor and Commissioner Walker. Any final comments, the Vice Mayor? No comments. Going in. And Commissioner Walker, any final comments? No, I want to make sure our lift stations keep working. Yeah, that's important. Commissioner Dugard? No comments. Commissioner Sanborn? Nothing else, Mayor. No comments from me either, so all in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion passes unanimously. Okay. Addendum number two for construction phase professional services to the contract with Engineering Design Technologies Corporation of Tampa, Florida for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Electrical Systems Upgrade Project for a not-to-exceed amount of $396,159 in the citywide lift station control panel replacement and SCADA system upgrades for a NTE amount, $146,332 totaling $542,491. So we go to staff presentation. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commission, and Staff. Alison Gonzalez, Engineering. In 2019, Engineering Design Technologies was authorized to design the Westwater Treatment Plant Electrical Systems Upgrade Project following the valuation negotiations and execution of a RFQ 19-1123 for the design services of the electrical system upgrade project and the lift station SCADA upgrades project. The original intent was to construct as one large project. However, due to the SRF loan agreement currently in place, we decided to split it up into three and construct them all separately. The lift station SCADA project started in 2022, and the wastewater electrical system upgrade project was recently approved at the June 5th City Commission meeting and will commence in the fall. The city is preparing for the construction activities of the electrical systems upgrade project for the next two years. It's a 700-day project, and it is necessary to extend the engineering services contract of EDT as the engineer of record. This proposed addendum 2 is for the required engineering construction phase services, such as the review of all submittals and shop drawings, request for information, weekly inspections of law construction activities, change order evaluations, arc flash compliance, record drawings, everything that you need the engineering on board for, and that is for the not-to-exceed amount of $396,159, and this encompasses all facets of engineering duties required to fulfill the project needs and see-through closeout. EDT is still needed on the lift station SCADA upgrade project, which is currently ongoing. We have completed 26 out of the 41 lift stations, and there are 15 left to be completed. EDT requires additional funds to complete the necessary construction services through the remainder of the project. Services still needed are the arc flash assessment risk studies, shop burning views, doing on-site inspections, and preparing the record drawings for each of the lift stations. We do not have any electrical engineering expertise in-house, so we rely heavily on the engineer of record EDT to provide all these services, so we have to defer them a lot of things, and they spend a lot of time making sure all their lift stations are precisely constructed as we needed to, and the electrical project, as you know, it is quite possibly be the biggest project we have currently on board. So as such, staff hereby recommends the approval of addendum 2 for additional construction phase services to complete the electrical project and the city-wide SCADA upgrades project for a not-to-exceed amount of $542,491. And that's it. Okay, great. Thank you. Questions for staff starting with Vice Mayor? Is this a budgeted item? Yes. Okay. Commissioner Sandbergen? No questions. Commissioner Walker? Yeah, so we just recently voted on addendum number one, right, for this, for the electrical upgrades. You recently voted to award the project to the contractor on June 5th for $16 million and some change. So now we have to get the engineer record on board as well. Okay, and that's what this covers? This covers the engineer, yes, the engineering services along with it. Okay. All right. Yep. No further questions. Okay. Commissioner Dugard? No questions. Okay. I don't have any additional questions either. So we will go to motion. I need a motion. Right? Did I get a motion? I'm losing my train of thought here now. Did I get a motion? Yeah. Nobody's out there. Okay. Yes. And I was pushing the bucket. Sorry. I skipped ahead. It's, you know, it's getting late. Anyone in the public wish to come forward to speak on this issue? Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. Now I will ask for a motion. So moved. Second. Okay. And commission comments, starting with the vice mayor as the maker of the motion. No comment. Okay. Commissioner Walker? Seconder? No comment. And Commissioner Dugard? No comments. Commissioner Sandbergen? No comment. And I have no comments either. All in favor? Aye. All right. Any opposed? Okay. Motion passes unanimously. On these no comments, I wonder if we actually started the meeting at 10 o'clock. Yeah. Needed me a lot quicker. Oh, I love it. Okay. We are going to go to the proposed agenda for September 4th commission meeting. Any additions or deletions? I know the second hearing of the flats would come off. Anything else? Okay. Anything else over here? Anything else over here? It's library card sign-up month, so everybody needs to get their library cards. Okay. So motion to, do I have a motion to approve? So moved. Second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion passes unanimously. Okay. So now we're going to go to informational items. We're going to go to commission discussion and comments. And I'll start with Commissioner Walker. Well, I really don't have any updates. I will say this, though. Caladesi Ferry is up and running, both boats, limiting 300 people per day, which is a step in the right direction. I think I talked about my tour of the Coca-Cola plant. It was really very interesting. You feel the history in there. It's pretty amazing. And that's all I've got. Commissioner DeGaughn? I'm going to defer. I have nothing to add. And Vice Mayor? As you all know, on August 2nd, there were the North American Pipe Band Championships. Yeah. And our city of Dunning and Pipe Band won a wonderful second place. And they're on to the World Championships, which are Saturday. Well, they're Friday, August 15th. But the big show is the 16th on Saturday. And there actually is a watch party that we get together and watch the world because they're televised. And because of the time difference, that party starts at 5 a.m. What's it date? The 16th, August 16th. And it's actually a lot more fun than you would think. There wouldn't be adult beverages involved in that at all. Yeah. There's always. Bloody Mary at 5 a.m. There's something glorious about that, especially when you wake up to drink it. It's not like the last drink of the night before. It's the first one of the day. So, but anyway, and you all are cordially invited. And yes, it does start at 5. But typically, the Pipe Band will come on around 10 a.m., something like that. So, and then just to acknowledge that school grades are out. And all of our Dunning schools are marvelous. And the middle school that has got the second A in a row, San Jose is an A. So, there are just some good schools doing good work. And Pinellas County schools in general as a county, school county is an A. So, it's all wonderful. And just a reminder that the first day of school is this Monday, August 11th. So, please drive carefully. Good. Mr. Sandberg. Mr. Sandberg. Ribbon cutting at Cold Stone Creamery tomorrow. Anybody want to join me, welcome to. I have my speech ready. And I'll represent all of us if you don't show up. I love doing ribbon cuttings. Awesome. I do really have something ready to go. Mr. Ribbon cutting. Mr. Ribbon cutting. What time is it? It's at 12. With no sugar. Sugarless ice cream, right? No. Do you want to say anything about the Toronto Blue Jays being like four games ahead and the, you know, leading the division? When I stood in, I promised that we would come up. If they go deep in the playoffs, they were in fourth place. Yeah. Now, they got the best record in baseball. Nice. So, I've, yeah, I, I, well, we, we, we, we may be. It's still early, but. Yeah. Yeah. They're playing well. Like, let's keep it going. Doing well, yes. They're playing the Dodgers now or something. Aren't they going to be playing the Dodgers? Yeah. So, that'll be a little. Okay. Um, so, uh, well, I do have one official business. Sorry, guys, but we've got to do this. Um, so, City of Dineen has one appointment to the Governing Board of the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority. Per the state statute, the official term on the PSTA Board of Directors started on October 1st, 2022, and expires September 30th, 2025, which, of course, we won't meet, well, we will meet again. We could do this later, but Commissioner Walker is the current employee appointee serving since 2024, and PSTA is requesting that an appointment or reappointment be made for the three-year term that starts on October 1st, 2025, and ends on September 30th, 2028. Now, as I read on, it does say, um, it has to be made by the membership of the City Commission. Each appointed member of the authority should be a person who is a qualified elector of the county with an outstanding reputation for civic pride, interest, integrity, responsibility, and a business, a business ability. So, I, I thought that was very limiting. That was, I, I don't know, I don't know if we're able to really declare anybody. Um, but no, actually, um, I, I guess I would turn to Commissioner Walker and say, are you interested in continuing and being our representative? Yes, I'm interested. However, um, this, uh, with my, uh, with my business and with, uh, an election coming up next year, I don't know that, uh, I would be able to devote the time to it that I should. Um, so, I would be willing to pass the torch to one of my colleagues. And, uh, yeah. So, why don't we put this on the agenda? And that way, um, and maybe give an understanding of what's involved, um, with the PSTA representation. And that gives everybody a chance to think about it. And, uh, and then we can actually officially do what we need to do. Yeah. Sure. For September 4th, then. September 4th, right. I mean, we could actually do that. Is that our workshop? So, September 2nd is our workshop. September 4th is a Thursday night meeting. Yeah, I mean, we can. We could be taking action, too, so. Hmm? Right. Yeah. You'll be taking an action, so it needs to be at a meeting as opposed to the workshop. Oh, okay. I didn't know we've made a hard line on that, depending on the issue. But, yeah, we could talk about it on Tuesday. Just take the official action on Thursday, because, I mean, I don't see it as a thing that's... Or what we... Yeah. Okay. Jennifer, does this affect the motion for the proposed agenda? If they're going to add it to the September 4th. Right. Um, yeah. I mean, I, I actually think it's a great workshop discussion item. And then maybe if we have to formalize it, we'll just formalize it. Okay. All right. That's okay. Okay. It sounds like what we're hearing, though, is PSDA just wants us to reaffirm a seat, not necessarily Commissioner Walker. And, and... No, no. We're requesting that an appointment or re-appointment be made for the three-year term that starts. So they... So they want a name. They want a name. They want a name. Mm-hmm. Well, Jeff's there already. Okay. Great time. Okay. Well, so... Okay. Okay. All right. So everybody think about it. It'll be on for the workshop. We can discuss it and then we'll formalize that on Thursday night. And therefore, uh, can we, uh, can I have a motion to add that to the September 4th meeting, the appointment for PSDA? So moved. Second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Uh, motion passes unanimously. Okay. Great. And, um, and then just remembering, I, I know that, um, Commissioner Walker brought it up the other day, but Greg Gracie's funeral is tomorrow at 11. And, uh, so, I mean, I will not be able to attend. So please give my regrets because I hate that I'm not going to be there. I thought the world of Greg Gracie and, you know, his wife had passed away too, Sheila. Um, and so whoever can go, I think that'd be great. I mean... I'll, I'll be, I'll be attending. I think you're... I'll take care of the ice cream. He's gonna go eat ice cream and... Yeah. Okay. Yeah. That's great. Um... So is Tom. Yeah. And, uh, other than that, um, I guess everybody just have a great... Wait, no, wait. We got more of the agenda. Sorry. I'm not giving everybody a chance to do it. I was gonna say, have a great three-week break. We've got to go home now. Okay. My gosh. Michelle has a list of things. I'm sorry. She's got a list of things. City Clerk update. No update. City Manager update. Yes, Mayor. Uh, sorry. Seriously? Okay. No, I'm just kidding. There's an attachment to the City Manager update. There was a, uh, a U.S. Department of Agriculture grant. This is the, uh, Watershed Protection Program for $4.2 million. We were awarded in April and informed in May that, that they were setting the program aside and informed in June that they are not. And they're moving forward with, it's about $4.6 million for us. And that is to remove trees, debris, um, and so on from Jerry Branch and Cedar Creek. Yes. So just want to let you know we're actively working on that grant, um, and it is active. Well, that's good news. You can update us on that stuff anytime. I figured. Anything else? No. Thank you. Okay. Um, and City Attorney, Jen? Yes, I have a 25-page update. No, no update. Actually. Did you need some? I mean, it's almost 11 anyway, so. Was the restaurant at the golf club closed or is it closed? Is there anything we need to be concerned about? So, um, during, uh, a routine, um, uh, inspection, the restaurant was closed, um, by the Department of Professional Regulations. Um, it was re-inspected and they did not reopen it. Um, it was, my understanding was it was re-inspected again and it is open. So, yes. Um, there is, uh, I talked to, um, uh, Blair Klein today. I've, I've been, uh, corresponding with, with, um, Zach Feinstein in regards to, to the closure. So, um, not a lot of detail to give you. Um, you know, the, the, uh, the restaurant is in charge of, of pest control in the kitchen area. Um, and then the city's in charge of pest control in the outlying areas. And so they have taken care of the problem and it's not open. Yeah. And was there some issues with the city part? Because I saw the Facebook chatter happening today and that was, there was a little bit of finger pointing to holes in the building because of the city area or something. So there, there, uh, we did not find any holes in the building. And they apparently, if you read some of that chatter, the, what they found was, uh, was, uh, rat droppings outside in the exterior area, um, which is not in the kitchen. And I don't know why they would close it if it's not in the kitchen. So, um, and, and as we know, unfortunately, having, having, uh, those types of pests outside is not uncommon. So, um, we did, uh, about two months ago, there was a, there was a, an issue with a soffit. We, we enclosed that soffit that couldn't have contributed to this. And we did have staff out inspecting the, the structure, um, immediately. And, and that's not the problem. So. Good. No, good question. But, you know, yeah, don't you just, it makes you crazy. I, you know, I, poor, poor Zach was just working hard to offset it. Um, okay. So everybody have a great three week break and, uh, and, uh, we'll, uh, see you on September 2nd, I guess, right? Yep. Okay. Wow. Um, thank you. Meeting adjourned.