CITY COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING - Oct 08, 2026

So I'm going to restart the meeting inside, but before we get back to the official meeting, I did want to make one more presentation, even though, I guess, Nancy Duggan has left the building. Again, for what the virtual world may or may not have heard, Nancy was part of the study team that led to the contracting with the sheriff, and she graciously made us all a gift. So I want to, some of us, she's still out there, you know, I still see her. Teresa, can you have her come in? Yeah. And these will be in demand, so don't blame her if everybody doesn't get one, but they can be more made. I just, I wanted you here because I know that you had these made, and Sheriff, if you want to get the first official one, I'll open it up so you can see what it is. This is Cheers to 30 Years, and City of Dunedin with the Sheriff's Star. And Nancy got those, and yeah, there's your box. And again, thanks for being here. We value you. We value you. Thank you so much. Okay, and each of the commissioners has one. And Jennifer has one as well. You can pass one to Jennifer. Go Jennifer. Thank you. No. Unfortunately, no. And then, who else am I forgetting, Nancy? Anybody else right now? Oh, Captain Harvey? I should have just let you do it. Captain Harvey? There he is. Yeah. You got to have one. If anybody else wants to order them, talk to Nancy. Okay. Thank Nancy. She did it. She did it. It was all her idea and her surprise. Yeah. So, awesome. That good? All right. Okay. Well, in that note, I think we're going to move, and we'll let the Sheriff leave. But again, Sheriff, let's give another big hand. We really appreciate it. And Captain Harvey, you and your team, we appreciate you so much. We love our law enforcement service in Dunedin. Thank you. So, and we are going to have to do a do-over on the, you know, the touch-a-truck for kids, I think. So, all right. And the weather's a little better. So, thank you. Okay. We are going to go to 2027 Florida City Week Proclamation. Commissioner Gow, if you could take that. I would be more than happy to take it, although there's no pressure to follow the proclamation we just did. So, if we could have everybody step outside again. No. I'm kidding. But, city clerk, if you could, who is coming forward on this? Is anybody? Teresa. Fantastic. Teresa. Florida City Week, October 19th through the 25th, 2026. Whereas, October 19th through the 25th, 2026 has been declared Florida City Week. And whereas, city government is the government closest to most citizens and the one with the most direct daily impact upon its residents. And whereas, municipal government provides services and programs that enhance the quality of life for residents, making their city their home. And whereas, city government is administered for and by its citizens and is dependent upon public commitment to and understanding of its many responsibilities. And whereas, city government officials and employees share the responsibility to pass along the understanding of public services and their benefits. And whereas, Florida City Week offers an important opportunity for elected officials and city staff to spread the word to all citizens of Florida that they can shape and influence this branch of government. And whereas, the Florida League of Cities and its member cities have joined together to teach citizens about municipal government through a variety of activities to actively promote and sponsor Florida City Week. Now, therefore, I, Jeff Gow, by the virtue of the authority vested in me by the mayor of the city of Dunedin, and on behalf of this entire city commission, do hereby recognize October 29th through October 25th, 2026, as Florida City Week. And encourage all citizens, city government officials, and employees to participate in events that recognize and celebrate the week. While promoting Dunedin through civic education and volunteerism. She was excited. Mayor, Commission, Teresa Smalling, Director of HR and Risk Management for the city. Thank you for acknowledging and supporting this important event. As the proclamation says, Florida City Week provides an opportunity to bring public awareness of city government's role in enhancing the quality of life in our community. All cities are encouraged to participate. And every day, City of Dunedin departments, represented by teams of our dedicated public servants, work together to make our community a vibrant, welcoming place to live, visit, and work. Our city team makes public service in Dunedin meaningful. One grounded in professionalism, inclusivity, and community pride. Together, we're not just delivering services. We're shaping a city that our residents can be proud to call home, upholding the city's mission to improve the quality of life for all by listening to the voices of our citizens and providing quality services through responsible financial stewardship. Please, I hope our community will join us in celebrating our accomplishments during Florida City Week. Thank you. Thank you. I guess we're going to get pictures, right? Yes. Okay. You're a busy girl today, Teresa. Okay. We are going to go to citizen input. Anyone in the audience wish to come forward and speak on an issue that is not on the agenda, this would be your time. Okay. Rob, name and address for the record in three minutes. How are you? Thank you. Rob Cozen, Chesterfield Drive, Dunedin. I just want to say something to the commission that you probably don't hear often enough, and that is thank you. Last week, we lost. Today, we laid to rest and celebrated the life of an irreplaceable veteran of our community. Mal Klingin was a battlefield wounded Vietnam veteran. He was the commander of the Military Order of Purple Hearts and spent his entire life serving the needs of the veterans of our community and the community at large. On the day that Mal died, I made an impossible request to this commission because immediately the American Legion and the VFW lowered our American flags for the day. And I called up and asked Jennifer and Mo, can we not do the in-kind because it's Mal. I mean, I'm not asking it for anyone else. And, of course, it was an impossible ask, and I didn't expect to get a yes. But in any case, you did something one step better. What you did was you lowered the city flag, and you lowered it for the three days, and it showed remarkable regard and remarkable respect for Mal. And it is my understanding, and I may be wrong, that this is a unique situation, that it was the first time that the city flag had ever been lowered for a non-city official. And if that's true, that only multiplies the respect and love and regard that we showed for Mal. So I speak for Mal's family, and I speak for the veterans community in thanking you for showing that love and respect for a veteran that gave his entire life to this city and to the veterans of our town. Thank you. Thank you, Rob. And Mal was a great guy, and actually, I don't know of any other time other than the death of former elected officials like former Mayor Hackworth, who just passed. So it was a big deal. But he was a special person. So thank you. Okay. Anyone else in the audience wish to come forward and speak on an issue that is not on the agenda? Sure. Come on forward. Name and address for the record. And you have three minutes. Hi. Hello. My name is Lisa O'Donnell. My address is 940 Curlew in Dunedin. Good evening, everybody. I'm a rule follower. I follow the law. In fact, anyone who knows me may tell you that I'm probably a little bit excessive about following the rules. And that's why what my fiancé and I have experienced with the city of Dunedin has been a little shocking. We bought property here. We're building our home here, and I assumed that the city government would approach the law the same as we do. The rules are the rules, and we follow them. But that hasn't been our experience. We were denied pulling a demolition permit as owner-builders. We didn't just ignore the city's decision. We followed the rules. We talked to city officials and looked for a process that exists to resolve disagreements between residents and the city building's officials. And that's where things became very troubling. Dunedin has a building board of adjustment and appeal, the BBAA. In fact, new appointments are being made tonight for people on this exact board. The city's own website says that the BBAA hears appeals involving the city's building codes and floodplain management ordinance, including appeals involving the Florida Building Code. The city even has a formal application hearing for those appeals, so we tried to follow that process. We attempted to appeal, and our request to have the BBAA hear our case was declined at the direction of the city's attorney, Jennifer Cowan, who said, and I quote, This is not a decision that is appealable to the BBAA. No explanation. No rationale. We've asked Jennifer Cowan twice now, and she hasn't answered. So we are not allowed to have our case heard by the BBAA. That's the part I simply cannot reconcile. The city tells its residents to follow the law. We do. The city tells residents to follow its permitting procedures. We did. The city has created an appeals process for disputes involving building code decisions. We tried to use it. But when we actually needed that process, it wasn't available to us. That concerns me. It should concern everybody. Because an appeals board isn't meaningful simply because it exists on paper. It has to be available to the people it's supposed to serve. I'm not asking the commission to agree about the permit, granting us, anything like that. I'm asking something far more fundamental. Are the city's rules actually going to apply to everyone, including the city itself? Because if Dunedin expects residents to follow its laws, its ordinance, its permitting procedures, and its deadlines, then residents should be able to expect the city to follow its own laws, ordinances, and procedures as well. Allow us to please accept the application for the BB Board of Adjustments to hear our case. Thank you. Thank you, Lisa. Did you want to offer anything, or do we just want to maybe handle this, you know, with a conversation? Either way, I'm happy to explain it. Okay. Yeah, go ahead, please. So, the issue at hand was an interpretation of a Florida statute that dealt with contracting licensing requirements. And there was an exemption in there for homeowner builders to do certain improvements on residential property, specifically construction. There was an application, I believe, or there was a request for demolition, and that statute doesn't provide for homeowner demolition. That was explained to the homeowner. At the time, I believe it was a trust or something, and then it transferred hands, and it was explained again. The lady that spoke is absolutely right that the Board of Adjustment looks at both appeals dealing with the city's code and with the building code. But the issue that's being determined is neither in the city's code nor in the building code. It's a matter of Florida statute. And that information, I believe, has been provided by staff and by others. So, we don't have the illegal authority to change that in any way. It's not appealable to us. Right. I mean, we've read the statute and interpreted it. That's it. Okay. All right. Well, thank you for that. Is there anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak on an item that is not on the agenda? No, no, ma'am. If you want to have a private meeting behind the scenes, that's really the best place to resolve it. We're not going to be able to resolve it here. I'm sorry for your situation, but it's Florida statute. But I'll let you have a private conversation. So, thank you. Okay. I am going to ask, again, does anyone in the audience wish to come forward and speak on any other issue that's not on the agenda? Okay. Okay. We're going to go to consent agenda. Approval of the minutes for the 8-6-2026 regular meeting. 2B is Board and Committee Appointments, which is Board of Adjustment and Appeal, Board of Finance. 2C is Dunning-Wines of Blues Celebration Revocable License Agreement, 2026. 2D is Authorization to Issue a Purchase Order to Long and Associates Architects, Engineers, Inc., in the amount of $87,420 for the condition assessment of fire stations 60, 61, and 62 per a GEC task assignment. So, does anyone wish to pull anything from the consent agenda? Okay. Seeing no one, could I have a motion to approve the consent agenda? So moved. Second. Third. Okay. Okay. And anyone in the public wish to come forward and speak on any of the consent agenda items? Okay. Seeing no one coming forward. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Motion passed unanimously. Does that include an aye from Vice Mayor? I know we've got him up there. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Aye. We can't hear you. I think it would be good if we could hear you. Aye. How did he get there? Yeah. He's actually out of town. Beautiful day there. Some blue skies. Okay. All right. So we're good. All right. So first action item is Resolution 26-18 regarding Application Number 26-01V. requests to vacate approximately 1,440 square feet of an existing platted easement at 1768 Santa Barbara Drive, Dunedin, Florida, as recorded in Platte Book 20, page 34, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. Jen, could you please read Resolution 26-18 by title only? Yes. Resolution 26-18, a resolution of the City Commission of the City of Dunedin, Florida, vacating the three-foot-wide platted utility easements lying along the common side lines of Lot 14 and a portion of Lot 13, Block 13, Dunedin Isles Unit Number 1, Re-Plat, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Platte Book 20, page 34 through 37, Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida, consisting of approximately 1,440 square feet or .03 acres more or less on the property of 1768 Santa Barbara Drive, Dunedin, Florida, 34698, Parcel Identification Number 22-28-15-33310-013-0140 as described in the official records book at Books 20935. Page 1690, Pinellas County, Florida, providing for recording, providing for severability, and providing for an effective date. That was Resolution 26-18, read by title only. Okay. Can I have a motion? So moved. Second. I think Commissioner Gow, you might have been first, and Commissioner DeGuard will be seconder, and we have staff presentation. Clay? Yes. Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Commissioners, Clayton Watkins, Utilities and Engineering. As noted before, this is Item 3A, which is the Resolution 26-18 regarding the Application 2601-V to request to vacate an approximate 1,400 square foot easement of a parcel located at 1768 Santa Barbara Drive in Dunedin. The applicant has contacted local utilities, including Clearwater Gas, Charter Communications Spectrum, Duke, Florida Gas Transmission, Frontier, Lumen Century Link, Wild Open West, or WOW, ZOW, and all of which have provided letters of no objections. Additionally, all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property were mailed a letter of notice regarding this application and corresponding public hearing. The city did receive two emails from residents who expressed concerns. Most of those were just expressing concerns from damage that happened from the recent hurricanes. And then we also had another resident come in just to understand what was happening in another call to see you just understand what the application was. The city utilities division has no facilities in the area and thus no objections to the easement. The city's public services division has no maintenance responsibilities related to the existing easement to be vacated. The easement to be vacated is located along two platted property lines and not the current tax parcel lines, as depicted in the exhibit presented. The property does contain other easements that will remain, including an easement that does have a city stormwater pipe that will remain. Therefore, it is determined that there exists no public need for the retained, the platted utility easement on the property at 1768 Santa Barbara Drive. As such, staff hereby recommends adoption of Resolution 2618 and approval of Application 2601V, to vacate the platted utility easement as recorded in Book 20, page 34 of the records of Pinellas County, Florida. And that's the end of my conclusion. I'm here to answer any questions, and the applicant's representative is also here. Okay. All right. So any questions from staff? I'll start with Commissioner Sandberg. When I was reading that, it refers to the platted lot line versus the tax? Yeah. So the exhibit up here sort of shows a little bit better. If you see where there is the dark line, that is the parcel line, that is the tax parcel line. Then you can see that there is a dotted line that has the red hatching through it. That is, and then there's a lot 13, and then there's a portion of lot, or excuse me, there's a lot 14 and a portion of lot 13. That is what was originally platted as the parcels on this is when it was subdivided. And as you can see, most of the houses in this neighborhood are probably more than just that lot. So as the lot was platted, all these easements, when it was platted, there was all three-foot easements on each side of every one. And so this lies in the middle of what is now the tax parcel. Okay. And currently used simply as a lawn? Is it? Yeah. It's just the middle of this lot. It's a lawn. Yes. And getting back to those folks that had made a comment, there's no concerns about any drainage issues then with anything being changed? Not dealing with this easement because there is existing structures on the property, and they are remaining in an easement that's separate from the one that is asked to be vacated. Good. That clarifies. That's all I had, Mayor. Vice Mayor, do you have any questions? Can you hear me okay? Yep. Okay, good. I actually have kind of the same questions with regards to drainage on the property. In terms of the easement, I'm going to assume that the standard drainage infrastructure has been put in place. Is that correct? There is drainage for the roadway that runs through this parcel and along the northern property line. When they do come in for their building permit, it will be then looked at that the lot has proper drainage as suspect to that development. Okay. All right. I have no further questions. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Gao. Questions? And the proposed vacated easement portion here has been there since it was planted? Yes. Around 1920s? Yeah. Around 1920s. Correct. That's okay. Why? Why? If you could go back in time, do you have any understanding on why? Yeah. Why these were planted this way? Yeah. So standard platting protocol was to put three-foot easements around all property sides to allow any future development if you needed other utilities in the future as you came through. It, you know, gave the rights to that area. And unfortunately, there has been development that when they then sold the parcels and became tax parcels, they were not the same area as the platted parcels, leaving instances where there's easements that are sort of just sitting in the middle of a property. Okay. And so those easements and going into the future, future needs utilities that might need, that isn't, there are other avenues to accomplish those? Correct. Around their current, the taxed parcel lines, there are easements around those. Okay. That will remain. And is there any downside to this at all? Anything that, unforeseen circumstances that, oh, man, we made a mistake 50 years ago, right? We shouldn't have done this. Like I said, that was just standard practice at the time. I mean, even today when we plat, if somebody was platting something individual, it's like we still put easements on all of them. Yes. All right. Thank you. That's all that I have. Questions? Commissioner Gardner. Thank you, Mayor. There are no activity, there's no activity in that easement? Not in the easement that's being requested. Correct. Okay. All right. I'm a little confused by the black lines. I'm looking at the, what is those, what are the black lines? Because they're crossing three lots there. Correct. So this parcel's legal description includes lot 13, a portion of lot 13, and a portion of lot 12. And a portion of 12. Yes. That little corner on the northeast just above the word Santa Barbara, the Santa in Santa Barbara, is a portion of lot 12. So that easement actually affected those three lots? Is that what you're telling me? It would just have been lots 13 and 14. Just lots 13 and 14. Yeah, and also the instance where you see the green line between lots 13 and 14, that was a platted easement between lots 12 and 13. 12 and 13. I see. So it denotes ownership and not the underlying plan. That's right. Correct. Yes. Yeah. All right. Do you see any reason why we should object to this? No. Not this. All right. No more questions, Mayor. Thank you. I mean, kind of the point is, it's not billable if we don't do this, right? Not really. I know, realistically, right. I know the lot because I live down the street, but yeah. So, yeah. Yeah. Okay. It makes the lot billable, yes. I understand. I understand. Walking through. Yeah. Yeah. I understand I might have a situation under my house, so I'm like, shouldn't I get rid of mine too? And then Jennifer was like, for 1,500 bucks, you can. So I'll wait until I can build that. I'll process your application if you would like. I'll wait. But no, no. I, yeah, I've had this thoroughly explained behind the scenes. It makes complete sense to me. So, okay. So if nobody else has any other questions, open it up to public input. Anyone wish to come forward and speak on this issue? Okay. I'll close public input and I'll go to final comments. I will start with Vice Mayor. Commissioner Sandbergen. Nothing to add, Mayor. Commissioner Gow. Nothing further. Commissioner Dugard. Nothing further. And nothing further for me. So we'll do a roll call vote. Vice Mayor Walker. Aye. Commissioner Sandbergen. Aye. Commissioner Dugard. Aye. Commissioner Gow. Aye. And Mayor Franey. Aye. And that decision passes unanimously. Thank you. Okay. Good. So I guess that means building will occur. So good. Go forward. Okay. So 3B is first written amendment to the agreement with Malley Contracting Corporation for bid number 26-2614. Wastewater Treatment Plan Emergency Generator Building Rehabilitation Project. There is no cost associated with this amendment, which adds required newly adopted state statute language. So if you could present Clay or Jen Cohen, whichever is appropriate. I will go ahead and start this off. Okay. Again, good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Commissioners. Clayton Watkins Utilities and Engineering. Item 3B is the first written amendment to the agreement with Malley Contracting Corporation for bid 26-16, excuse me, 26-14, Wastewater Treatment Plan Emergency Generator Building. This project was bid in May of 2026, and our contract and our bid documents did not include the, excuse me, it was bid in June 26, and then it was awarded by commission in August of 2026. The agreement in the bid documents did not have the new state statutes that were effective July 1, 2026. This first amendment includes these agreements that are from the Florida statutes. These items are regarding contractor certifications related to terrorist organizations, restrictions on the city's funds for net zero policy, and a prohibition on using city funds to support diversity, equity, and inclusion. That's all I have for this. This is all this is for. Okay. Anything additional? Jennifer Cohen? No. This is just a matter of timing. Yes. Okay. Gotcha. Okay. So questions for staff starting with Commissioner Gow. No questions. Commissioner Dugard. No questions. Vice Mayor. No questions. Commissioner Sandbergen. No questions, Mayor. Okay. I don't have any either. Is anyone in the public wish to come forward and speak on this issue? Okay. Seeing no one, I'll close public input, and I will ask for a motion. So moved. Second. Okay. And I'll commission comments starting with Commissioner Sandbergen. Nothing to add, Mayor. Commissioner Dugard. Nothing to add. Vice Mayor. Nothing to add. Actually, Vice Mayor. Okay. Vice Mayor. Nothing to add. Okay. And Commissioner Gow? I'm waiting for Bob to speak for me. Nothing to add. Slipping back in time there. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. Okay. 3C, and I guess this is pretty much the same. First written amendment to the agreement with Vortex Services, LLC, doing business as Vortex Infrastructure Services, LLC, for bid number 25-2542, stormwater and sanitary sewer cured in place pipelining for the multi-year continuing services contract. There's no cost associated with this amendment, which adds required, newly adopted state statute language. I'll give you the quick version this time. Yeah. Again, Clayton Watkins Utilities and Engineering. This contract was bid in December 25 and approved by commission in January 25. This is a multi-year contract, so we'll be doing the same thing again next year, and it is also just to update the language in the contract. Okay. I'm just going to ask. Anybody have any questions? Vice Mayor, you either. Everybody's good. I don't have any. So open it to public input. Anyone in the audience wish to speak on this issue? I will close public input, and I will ask for a motion. So moved. Wow. You guys were perfectly in sync. All right. Alphabetical. DeGuard. Sandbergen. Okay. So final comments. Commissioner DeGuard. No comments. Commissioner Sandbergen, final comments? Nothing dead, Mayor. Vice Mayor. No comments. Nothing dead. You still here? Commissioner Gall. No comments. I'm sorry, Rob. Okay. All right. So one of those days. One day will come. So I'm the last one in line, so I thought. You know, before we go to the next one, I'm still, I wish I would have done something a little differently with Lisa. Have we, I mean, does she have any ability to go to the state or anything on her issue? So they've previously brought litigation, and then they abandoned it. Oh. They've also gone to the state. Okay. And I believe that's concluded. Okay. So, okay. Well, okay. Well, then I wouldn't have made sense for me to say it anyway. So I just, you know, always like to help a citizen if we can. Okay. Thank you. Let's go to three. If you can ask for all in favor. Oh, sorry. Well, I really did jump in in the middle. It is one of those nights. All in favor. Aye. Aye. And motion passes unanimously. Okay. Three-D. First written amendment to the agreement with TLC Diversified Inc. For bid number 26-2613. The replacement of the wastewater treatment plant return activated sludge, waste activated sludge, and filter feed pumps replacement project. Well, that's, that's disgusting. Sorry. There is no cost associated with this amendment, which adds required newly adopted state statute language. Okay. Clay. This keeps us in compliance. As noted before, this project was bid out in March of 2026 and approved in July of 2026. And this is just the amendment for the new state statutes. Okay. Anybody have any questions on this one? Seems like the same thing going here. Okay. So I'm going to open it to public input. Anyone wish to speak on this issue? This would be the time to come forward. Seeing no one, I'll close public input and I will ask for a motion. So moved. So moved. So moved. Okay. So I have Commissioner Sandbergen and Vice Mayor. Okay. And so go to final comments. Commissioner Sandbergen. Nothing to add, Mayor. Vice Mayor Rob Walker. Nothing to add, Mayor. Okay. Commissioner Gao. Nothing to add. Okay. Commissioner Dugard. Nothing to add. Thank you, Mayor. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passed unanimously. Okay. We'll go to something a little more meaty. 3E. Amendment to the agreement between Pinellas County and the City of Dunedin for Emergency Medical Services, EMS, Advanced Life Support, ALS, First Responder Agreement for the fiscal year 27 payment from Pinellas County of $3,241,474. And that is if Florida Constitutional Amendment 3 is ratified or if it is not ratified, $4,041,474. Um, so let's go to staff presentation and, uh, Chief Handoga and Deputy Chief Cepetto. Chief Handoga. Okay. There we go. Good evening. You gave Mark the ability to go home, I think. I did. He, uh, did a late night at Students Academy, so I gave him the night. Okay. Well, that's good. Michael Handoga, Fire Chief. Gotcha. Mayor, Commissioners, uh, City Manager, Vice Mayor. Uh, this is the annual, uh, amendment to the EMS agreement that we have from, uh, with Pinellas County. So this, this year is a little bit unique. Um, it comes with two numbers, two figures here. Uh, one is if, uh, amendment three is ratified, we are getting, we are staying, uh, we keep the same level of service and we do not lose any money, uh, this time. Uh, and we keep the same amount of staffing and units in service. If amendment three is not ratified, so if amendment three fails, we actually will be, uh, we have, we have shown that Engine 60, which is located on Virginia, is, uh, has met the call volume and the activity levels to be a staffed, uh, to be a funded unit from the authority from Pinellas County. So what that means is that they, Pinellas County, would then pay for one paramedic on that unit. One paramedic actually means three individuals, one for each shift. So this is a, this is a big, um, this is, this is one of the biggest thing that, uh, we've done in a while as far as justifying our, our, our call volume and the, the staffing. So we'll see what happens on November 3rd. Okay. I'm sorry. One, one other, uh, thing to that is with, it's basically, it's $800,000 more if amendment three, uh, is not ratified. And that also, in addition to Engine 60, it would require us to put an EMS supervisor in place, but that is paid for by Pinellas County. And that is a, uh, 40 hour day shift, uh, essentially supervisor, uh, to, to do the, to do a lot of administrative duties that are required. Okay. Um, okay. Um, so, uh, questions and I'll start with Vice Mayor Rob Walker. I'm not really sure I have any questions on this, but, um, I hope that I might be able to ask them if I have to. Okay. So we'll, I'll move to the next person. Is that what we're saying? Okay. Yes. All right. Okay. So, uh, Commissioner Sandberg, any questions? So the 3.2 or the 4 million, what is there, there's a, is there any adjustments that could occur? Number of calls, amount of hours, or is that a set amount that we're talking about? So the, the county would pay us 3.2 million? Correct. Okay. Is that, could that ever be adjusted? No, that, that is the, the, so what that 3.2 for 1 million is, that pays for, for 12 paramedics and, uh, the EMS coordinators position, which is chief. Regardless of the amount of time spent. Okay. Yep. I get, that's, that's all I had then, Mayor. Okay. Uh, Commissioner Gow. Thank you, Mayor. Um, and this is just for fiscal year 27. Correct. Right. So even if Amendment 3 passes, this gets us through 27, we still don't know what happens in 28, 29. Correct. Right. Okay. And, uh, not to beat a dead horse, but for the C students in the room, uh, the, uh, the 3.2 million is if it fails, I'm sorry, if it passes and we're just staying the same. Correct. Affirmative. Right. So if it fails, it's going to go up to the 4 million, but with the 4 million, we get extra staff because of the numbers. So that's a great question. Um, the only additional staff that we would actually be bringing on is a, uh, EMS supervisor position. So that would be an additional position for the city. Yes. What it's doing is we are currently, we are what's called a contractor funding engine 60. That means the city of Dunedin is the contractor and we are actually paying for the paramedic that is on engine 60. It works out. I mean, because we have, we have to have the fire engine. We have to have a minimum of three people on that fire engine. So we, one of those individuals is a paramedic. Pinellas County then supplies us all the equipment to make that an ALS engine. So we have been funding that for the last four years since we've had the rescue. But if this goes through, then we will, Pinellas County will pick up that, that person, that third person, that paramedic on engine 60 and pay for them. So we won't be adding any positions, but we will be shifting some of the cost over to the county. Thank you. Okay. Questions, uh, Commissioner DeGuard. Uh, yes. Thanks, Mayor. Um, I want to understand service impact here. Uh, I'd like to get an, I understand the cost factors. I understand that. Got that down. Thank you very much. Share with me if we do not pass, uh, if the state does not pass the referendum, Prop 3, we're going to actually pay more. Is that what I see? Negative. Oh, it's ratified. If it ratifies, we pay more. So we're not paying anything. Uh, well. Okay. That's where I'm confused. Yeah, this is money coming, this is the money coming from Pinellas County to, uh, the city of Dunedin for providing the, uh, paramedic ALS service contracts. Okay. What, what is our service impact in, in this particular case? That's what I really need. So if amendment three is ratified, everything can basically stay exactly the same. Okay. For this next, next fiscal year. We will look at some, we have some contingency plan budget items. So the one, the one unit that we are not required to, to, to put in service is engine 60 as an ALS unit. That is a contractor funded unit. So we as a city are paying to, to have that unit in service as a paramedic unit. What it means is that it, we, if amendment three does not, or if amendment three is ratified, we would look at, you know, the level of service with engine 60, and we may make that a BLS unit based on staffing and overtime costs. So that would be one of the, what's that? Basic life support. Basic life support. Yeah. Rather than having a paramedic on there, we may, based on overtime needs or staffing, we may only have EMTs on there. So our service increases in the case of what we're able to do with that unit? If amendment three does not, does not pay. Correct. Yes. We would then, it would maintain as a ALS unit, advanced life support unit, and we would get the funding from Pinellas County for that. What does that mean to our citizens? So, and that's a great question. We, what it means to the citizens is that if, when we have an ALS rescue 60, which is a advanced life support unit, you've seen it, it looks like an ambulance. That is our first out ALS unit. So in station 60's area, if there is a medical call and need for paramedics, rescue 60 is the first unit dispatched. A second call comes in, in, in, in station 60's area. We then can send engine 60 with paramedics to that second call. And that call has the resources that are needed to, to go to that call. If amendment three is ratified and that same scenario happens, rescue 60 with paramedics go to a call for service and a second call comes in, engine 60 will not have paramedics on board essentially to go provide that advanced life support right away. What that does is, and then it draws in engine 61 with their paramedic, squad 62 with their paramedic, or even engine 51 or engine 48 from Clearwater. So what it's doing is it's requiring more resources from further away to serve that same call. Our response time should be better for that particular type of call? No, it would actually be, if amendment three is ratified, it will be, it will impact response times negatively. If it does not get ratified. Then yes, our, our response times will stay the same as what we're doing right now and providing the same level of service. I'm a little confused. I must confess. I'm sorry. That may be my fault. It sounds like we've got a backup if we're able to see the referendum fail that we don't have if it passes. That's what I'm hearing. Am I hearing that right? One more time on that one. I believe that's right though. If the referendum passes, we will not be able to have the depth of backup that we do if it fails. Yes. That's affirmative. So that's a diminished service in essence. Absolutely. All right. That's all I need to know. Thank you, Mayor. So I just want to make sure. So you're saying this is a station 60? Yes. And just to be clear, which station is station 60? Virginia, just east of Patricia. Which is one of the busiest stations in the county. Yes. So the backup is there probably just because of the call volume, correct? Correct. So we look at what's called call concurrency. And we can analyze essentially how many calls are happening in a particular station's zone at the same time. So I don't have that figure right in front of me, but the call concurrency in station 60's area is high. And that's because, number one, of the number of skilled nursing facilities and just the demographics of the station 60's area. Station 61 doesn't have that same call concurrency because of the demographics in the area that it serves. So you start seeing a lot more calls happening at the same time. And a lot of times it's in rapid succession. It's really, it's an interesting phenomenon to start seeing that. You also, because Meese Life would be in that zone, right? Oh, yeah. And Meese Life, of course, is nine stories and, you know, got lots of people in there. So... Yeah, right across from station 60, they're right there all the time. Right, right. It was also, if I may, Mayor, if I'm correct, it was Rescue 60 that pulled the gentleman out of the house. That is absolutely correct. Yeah. Yep. Right. Right. They were first on there. They pulled him out of the house and rendered medical care. Yep. Gotcha. Mary, you may have also gotten a ride in Rescue 60. What's that? You may have also gotten a ride in Rescue 60. I completely did. And I also got some medication along the way to the emergency room. So thank you. Yeah. Yeah. It took good care of me. So if Amendment 3, I'd just rather say passes because it's just easier to say ratified. So if it passes and the money starts, you know, I think what by the second year, like it's a 25% decrease in what we get for emergency medical services. I mean, what happens to their, you know, they are the EMS authority. Like how does that start to decline and then what's our responsibility? I mean, it just seems like it starts to break apart. It absolutely falls apart. So how I like to explain it to people is the city of Dunedin is a contractor to the Pinellas County who is the authority. I look at it like they are the general contractor of a project and we are just a trade contractor. It, I don't want to sound, but we don't have the responsibility to provide EMS services to any of the residents in the county. That is solely on the, on Pinellas County EMS authority. Unfortunately, with, when this goes, if this goes down that route, EMS does not have the same ability to, to have like a fire assessment. So there will not be an EMS assessment. I, I don't know how, what it's going to look like if it happens. I've run about five scenarios, 10 scenarios of trying to figure out how we can continue the same, the same level of services. It's not going to happen. There will be diminished services. Well, I think it's one of the toughest pieces of the amendment because when you have just a dedicated EMS taxing and like 25% goes away. Yeah. I mean, how do you, how do you just make that up? And I've heard nothing out of the county commission to act like they're going to supplement that at all. Absolutely nothing now. It doesn't mean they wouldn't, but they're, since 50% of their budget is the sheriff, they're going to have big challenges as it is. Um, okay, well, I just think this is, uh, you know, a classic case of how it's going to start to happen and the reality of, if, if it passes, you know, these are big numbers and it's unclear how we're going to safeguard what is one of the best EMS systems in the world. Response times are going to start getting severely impacted. Um, and you're also going to see workload on the, on the units increasing significantly, um, where you have rescue 60 and engine 60 kind of, you know, covering that same load. Now you have a lot of these other units coming in from other areas and like squad six, two out on Belcher road, they're busy. That is a very busy unit. And now to add on all of our good portion of the second medical calls in station sixties area to them, that's going to impact the, their, their quality of, you know, of work and it, it will, it will impact them. Um, so on unincorporated fire coverage, have we heard anything about how do we get funded? I mean, will there be, is there a similar contract and then what, how are they going to handle that? So, uh, I know the County is looking at potentially some, some avenues along the same lines as we are with fire assessments. Okay. Okay. Because they could do that for that. Correct. All right. Okay. Got it. Okay. That makes sense. As of this next budget year, there had been no, no changes, uh, that they, they, they've not indicated there's going to be any changes. Because we have a right to demand, you know, full service costs. So, okay. I got you. If I may, Mayor, they are, um, just starting their, their process. The County is, as far as the fire assessment goes. Okay. So we're, we're a good, way ahead of them at this point. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And just a question. And then I want vice mayor, if he's got anything else real quick. So when someone, more, more comments, uh, than any. Uh, I mean, this is pretty straightforward because obviously this is money we've gotten from the County and obviously if this gets passed, then we get less money for this. So anyway, I guess that's my comment. Okay. Um, uh, I think we have a couple other questions though. Commissioner Sanberg. Yeah. Just a real quick one. So when someone calls 9-1-1, Mike, are they charged for that or is that free? You can call as many times as you want for free. So that's, that's the answer. Yeah. No, so, uh, there is no, there is no cost for, for, for that, for us to respond out to them. The, the cost comes in if there's a transport, uh, and that is, uh, billed through Pinellas County. Absolutely. We've got a lot of money on the table. I guess I'd never, you know, knock on wood and never had to call them. Wait, what's your, what's your point though? I'm trying to understand. I kind of missed it. Oh, I just was just curious if any of the, the call money is recoverable, say by, you know, someone falls, they have health insurance, they have Medicare or whatever. If there was also a charge that could be made to the city. No. That's the answer is no. It's no. Yeah. Because essentially we are being compensated by Pinellas County to provide that service. And they, they charge the cost of the ambulances. They have an ambulance, a whole ambulance billing section. Okay. That's all I have. Thank you. Mayor, may I? Uh, yes, please. Yeah. What is the difference between fire and EMS as far as the way it is structured, right? We can talk about a fire assessment, but we can't talk about an EMS assessment. Why? What's the difference between those two agencies? So it, there's, if you're talking in the, in the realm of the assessments, if that's really, you know, that's kind of the question, is that what you're looking for? Yeah. Because ultimately I'm going to ask, why can't we go down the road of creating that structure so that we can have an assessment? I think the attorney would love to weigh in on this and I'm going to be quiet. So generally the way that that is dealt with is assessments go to the property. So for fire is clearly, um, something that occurs with the property, right? There's a fire on the property. So you could have a fire assessment. EMS is as to the person. So it can happen anywhere. So there wouldn't be an assessment to that property. In other words, that property isn't gaining a special benefit by having, by EMS service, but that property is gaining a benefit. And this is what the legal requirements are within it, um, by having fire service. Okay. I've got all kinds of things in my head, but it would be irrelevant. I mean, you wouldn't be able to risk, we can't, we can't solve it tonight, but I'm going to go. Mr. Degard, do you have additional questions? Doesn't the property benefit for the fact that EMS services exist? It's considered, so in assessments, because this is a different, um, when looking at the different funding pools for a local government, you have ad valorem, which is generally considered your general services, which is why EMS falls into that, but not everything that you can assess, you can't assess everything that's, that's a general service. So it's not just EMS, you also, um, fire or, um, law enforcement, you don't hear their discussion on that. So there are many things that are funded with the general fund that cannot be funded through assessments because of the requirements, the legal requirements in making a legal assessment. Our citizens don't have any idea of what's going to crater in the way of services. They just have no idea. But that's just a, a state function, right? This, could the state take a look at that structure and make the appropriate changes to statute? Um, possibly. This has been based on how the courts have interpreted assessments all throughout history. So this is a, there's a large body on this. This isn't just, um, out of a statute. Okay. Now, do we know whether or not a quality EMS system adds market value to your home? I don't know about the EMS. I know the fire does because the fire impacts your insurance, but I don't know about that there's any study with regard to EMS. Interesting. Okay. As I understand it, the home insurance policy also covers injuries on the property. Is that correct? Yes. Your, your homeowner's insurance would cover you for, like, if somebody comes on your property. And insurance is likely to go up if these services are not present. Well, just from fire alone, if there was. You have injuries on your property. There's no EMS. Right. Wouldn't that drive up home insurance policies? Potentially, yes. I mean, potentially it would. I'm not an insurance broker. What I'm just telling you is, is it. You seem so capable on all matters. You know, I. You're just saying the courts have said, this is what you can do and this is what you couldn't do. And it's a huge body of litigation. You can't use that tool. We just think you know everything. I'm sorry. No, no, no. You can't use that tool for that service. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Okay. So, um, I am going to open it for public input. Anyone in the audience wish to come forward and speak on this issue? Okay. I will close public input and I will ask for a motion. So moved. Can I hear a vice mayor? Yes. Okay. Vice mayor. And who? Second. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. We're all racing it. All right. Everybody's backing off on me. Okay. So, uh, final commission comments, starting with the vice mayor. Yeah. I mean, uh, this is just, this is just another consequence and, you know, I, it's, it's not really, I'm not sure exactly what we're approving or not approving here, but the fact of the matter is, is that, um, if this is passed, we, we get, you know, we get less benefit. So, um, anyway, yes, I'm in favor of it. Okay. And, uh, seconder of the motion is commissioner Gow. Yeah. I'm in favor of the 4 million. Yeah. The voters will decide that. So, um, okay. And, uh, commissioner Dugard final comments. I, I think that was well said a moment ago by my colleague. Um, this is just the beginning of a litany of accommodations we'll be making if amendment three is passed. We'll be doing this for the next two years on service impact and it's going to be a declining service environment. Thank you, mayor. Uh, final comments. Commissioner Sandbergen. Um, cause it, we simply heard what we didn't want to hear, but you brought it out into the light. So that, you know, we heard it, we know it if it, if it, if this happens. So thank you. Yeah. I think this is one of the toughest impacts, you know, of, of, uh, amendment three. I mean, I, um, just a little history. I used to be assistant county administrator at the county over EMS and I went around to every one of the municipalities in this county with efficiencies to try to bring the cost down for EMS during the great crash of 2008, 2009. And let me tell you, I, I went home with, you know, with my tail between my legs because nobody wanted to touch this. Nobody. It was too important. It was too vital. Not even a millisecond of, of difference in time, response time. There was anybody willing to take chances on some efficiency. So I, um, you know, I, I, I, I think this again, it, it is, uh, the beginning of, you know, what could happen. And, and I think this is one of the scariest to me. So, um, because I just don't know how we, we're going to have enough to deal with in our own general fund, let alone dealing with what the county doesn't give us anymore and what they may charge us more for our sheriff's services. So, um, okay. So before the vote, I was just going to ask, did you call for public comment? I did. Okay. I did. No, that's okay. That's all right. Usually you guys are right if you're catching me on that, but you know, not this time. Yeah. It's nice to know sometimes I, you know, anyway. Okay. So all in favor. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you, chief. Okay. Um, at three F award of RFP number 26 dash 2604 recyclables, collection, processing, and marketing services to waste pro of Florida, Inc of killer water, Florida in the amount of 1 million, 170,000. Um, and I will do staff presentation by Sue, Michelle, Megan, and Laura, a whole team here. Whoa. Good evening, mayor, vice mayor, and commissioners. Sue Bartlett, public works director. Keep forgetting to say that. I wrote it down this time. Um, we're, um, I'm going to have a very brief, uh, time of this one. Um, just letting you know that we're asking for a motion to award this contract for RFP 26, 2604, as, uh, the mayor already has repeated for recycling. We have tonight, uh, Michelle Monteclaro. She's going to do the introductions for, uh, Megan and Laura. I think this might be their first time before you, and, uh, give you a little background, and then they're going to take the presentation away. We also have, uh, happen to have the vendor, uh, of the contract, our current contractor, as well here tonight, should, uh, any other questions arise. Michelle. Thank you, Sue. Uh, Michelle Monteclaro, public works, um, I'm just really proud to introduce, we have, um, Megan McCormick, who is our environmental program manager, um, and just a little bit of background on Megan so that, you know, formal introduction for you all. She has her PhD in aquatic biology. She has worked for NOAA in St. Pete, um, and as well as the New York State Environmental Department, and she is a published and distinguished scientist who really supports our solid waste operations and our stormwater program. Okay, I'm leaving now. That's just way too much, that's way too much intelligence for me. It's so good. Very impressive. Um, and Laura Valetti, um, she has her bachelor's from the University of Florida. She's a gator, um, and sociology with a minor and, a minor in soil and water sciences. She has also worked for Pinellas County Water Navigation, so very proud to introduce these two, and, um, and yeah, I'll pass it off to them. Thank you, Michelle. Uh, good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, virtually, uh, City Commission, City Staff. Um, yeah, so we're here to request approval for the award of RFP 26-2604, Recyclable Collection, Processing, and Marketing Services to Waste Pro of Florida in the amount of $1,170,000. Um, so a little bit about the contract. So recycling is an integral part of our waste management system, and by recycling, we're able to divert waste from our landfill, which has limited space, as well as conserve natural resources. So this contract, um, includes collection, processing, and marketing. So the collection costs are fixed, and the processing and marketing, um, varies depending on the average market value of the recyclable materials. So specifically for our collections, we have curbside collection once a week for single family homes. For, we also have a drop-off recycling for serving residents in multifamily homes. Um, there are two locations, one in Lake Haven Recycling Center and one at the Highlander Pool, and these are open 24-7, and they're serviced as needed as they're filled. We also have internal recycling for the 23 city facilities, and that's at no cost to the city. Um, prior to this upcoming contract, we've had our contract with Ways Pro for the past nine years. Um, so we're going to have a continuation of service, um, with this proposed new contract. Um, a request for proposal was put out, um, in May of this year, um, and we received two proposals. We had a five-person evaluation committee of city staff that independently evaluated these proposals, and we met for an evaluation meeting in August where we determined that Ways Pro was the consensus for the selection of this new contract. So I'm going to pass it to Laura now, who's going to give some new aspects of our contract, the terms, and also some new educational material and outreach components that we have added that weren't in the previous, um, contract. Um, mayor, vice mayor, commissioners, and city staff, my name is Laura Valetti, and I am the environmental specialist within Solid Ways Public Works. Um, four new contract details, um, so this contract will be a term of five years beginning in March 31st, 2027, um, with an option to renew for two additional two-year terms. Um, some of the new components, like Megan mentioned, were items on education and outreach, um, so that we can have increased participation, decrease in contamination, an increase in value of the recyclables, and an increase in diverting recyclable material from the landfill. One of the ways, or a couple of ways that we are doing that, um, that we put into the contract was to provide two hours of the material recovering facility, some B-rolls, so that we can show kind of behind the scenes how the recycling material gets, um, processed. And we also asked, um, if we could collaborate and develop two educational videos annually with the contractor, and then, um, to participate in up to, with the contractor, to participate in up to five city-approved events or presentations per year. And then we also asked if we could host one annual two-hour tour at the material recovery facility, um, with up to 20 city representatives, and commission is welcome to attend as well. Um, and that will be at the, at the MRF, um, at Recycling Services Florida. So that kind of gives you guys kind of background of the new contract, and if you guys have any questions, we would love to answer. Okay, um, starting with, um, Commissioner Gow. Questions? Thank you. No, did you, was that me or Rob? Commissioner Gow. Commissioner Jeff Gow. Because one of us is getting very confused. Um, uh, thank you, Mayor. Um, what is our current contamination rate? We're at 20, was it 22.4% is our current contamination rate from our last study, um, our last audit in 2024. And is that trending up or down? Um, so there's a, Pinellas County holds a waste, uh, like composition audit every four years. Um, so the last one was done in 2024, and a new one will be conducted in 2028. So in terms of, you know, um, trend, we have to wait and see once we do another composition audit. We hope it to be lower, that way more of the material is, you know, processed, um, and not contaminated, but we'll, we'll have to see. If I may, there, there's, um, also internally, we're doing, um, intermittent audits, and we have, uh, established that with this new contract that they will be working with the contractor to do independent audits so we can see if our recycling education is being effective at what, what that kind of effect it's having. Thank you. And that's kind of where I was leading with, with, with my questions, right? Because we want to try and get to a goal of 10%. Yes, yes, yes. 10% would be amazing. Would be. Yeah. Um, and I, and actually I did, I have written down here that is there a possible way that we could partner with our contractor and, uh, for educational purposes. And so it sounds like we're doing that because this isn't just us. We need everybody to talk about recycling and, and I would recommend anybody, if anybody hasn't been to a, to a Murph or haven't seen, uh, the big, the big systems in action, you really need to go. It is incredible to, to watch them. Um, I'm just, I really choke on that dollar amount. No disrespect to, to WastePro, but recycling has just gone through the roof. Um, and so I just want to remind the public that there is reduce and reuse also in the R's so, um, and repurpose. So, um, anyway, try and do what you can in your homes. So thank you. No other questions, Mayor. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Gard, questions? Yes. What was this? Um, now this is a new contract, uh, with one year and two years of renewable. Is that right? What was, what did, what did we pay last year for this service? And was it, WastePro was our contractor during that year, correct? That's correct. Um, last year, well, year to date, it was $931,200. We still had, uh, I think three different, three weeks worth of, um, expenses that haven't hit the account yet. So it was under, it's going to be under a million? Mm-hmm. For this current year? Yeah. It'll be close to a million though. Right at close to a million. So we're talking about it, basically a 17% increase. Is that what I'm saying? Yeah. $170,000 extra. Yeah. That we've budgeted. It will, uh, that is what we have in the budget. We'll have to see how those, um, AMVs, the average, um, market values come in and how that works. Okay, and the, um, uh, options, uh, are there any, are those options at a given rate or are they going to be at, in, also increasing rates? Do you all have a slide of that? Thanks. These girls are prepared. With all the brain power over there, they better be, am I? Um, go ahead. Okay. So it's late and there's a table, but I will walk you through it. Um, so the second column here where it says, uh, grade description of material. Well, in the first column, that's the types of recyclable materials that we have. Um, the composition study that Laura was talking about earlier, um, gives us that percentage of the material value. So roughly we'd say 17.6% of overall of our recyclable material that we collect is paper. So every month we'll get a market value per ton for that particular material. And then we will multiply that by the percent of material that that material encompasses of our waste stream or our cycling stream, sorry. And then that gets us to our average market value per ton for that type of material. Um, so then that totals up for all of our material types. Um, and then we take that value in this example, it's about a hundred dollars and this is for our current contract rates. And you would go over here to a hundred dollars line, um, and you go over and we see in this scenario, we pay zero dollars for the processing at that average market value. Essentially the materials are marketable enough that it's covering the cost of our processing costs. Um, you can see in our new contract rates, um, we would be, um, yeah, we would be paying up to $25 per ton for that rate. So the rates have changed. Um, I can go back to one student. Are you done? Yes. Okay. I'm sorry. I just want to be sure I didn't interrupt you. Um, now let's say we did not recycle. Let's say we didn't have that program. That material would then shift to our regular solid waste. Correct. What is, what would be the corresponding cost if that were the case? Can we figure that out? Is that beyond our... We, uh, we would have to get the disposal tons to figure that out, but we also would have an increase in operating costs because we'd have to pick up the recycling. I mean, we'd have to pick up the, it'd be trash. Um, and so that would be a greater quantity. Um, so we haven't done that. I'm all for recycling. I'm just trying to figure out the marginal added cost, uh, of recycling. Recycling as opposed to if we were picking that up as just simple solid waste in a single container. This is a choice. Yes. This is a choice. And, um, we haven't actually done a comparison direct to what disposal cost and increased operating costs would be to pick up this material as, um, trash. Uh, I don't know another word to say it, but something that has to go to the land, landfall, something that doesn't get reused, doesn't get re, you know, um, repurposed. So at the direction of commission, um, and the city, uh, this was a desirable, um, thing to do, you know, the right thing to do for our environment. So we would, we could do that analysis. It is a desirable thing to do. And I'm agreeing on that. Yes. But with the future we're facing, that may be some of the choices we face when we measure recycling up against single pickup of one container with solid waste. Yes, that's true. Okay. Uh, that, but, but we pay for this through the enterprise fund. That's correct. It's not general fund money. It is baked into the rates. Baked into the rates. Correct. That's correct. Okay. Um, the education aspect of this, I'd like to hear a little bit more about the marketing because that's part of the program too. Help me understand that. When, when you say marketing, do you mind just expounding? That's in the contract. It says there's marketing services provided. And, okay. In terms of like the processing of our material, um, like when they go, you know, when our material sold, or are you talking just for educational components? I just wondered what is all encompassed inside the marketing aspect of, uh, recyclable, the recycling portion of your contract with WastePro? So I can, I can help answer that. Okay. It includes, um, two videos. So B-roll for, um, for educational purposes. So, you know, the purpose of recycling, the benefits of recycling, um, we'd partner with our communications group, right, how it aligns with our dream plan, how it aligns with our strategic plan. Um, and then we also do a lot of social media and communications work across, um, you know, with WastePro in terms of educating the public. And so in terms of marketing and focusing on really education, you know, it's, it's video, it's them attending our events. So they'll attend our events and they'll. I, I probably said the question wrong. I'm sorry, Michelle. That's okay. What I was trying to get, understand is what is WastePro's contribution to the marketing plan? We're going to market this thing, but I see in the contract that they're involved in the marketing. I think we could actually leave it up to WastePro to answer that question. Yeah. Good evening. Mayor, commissioners, city manager. My name's Ed Farmer. I'm with WastePro, Andrew McKimpson. Um, the marketing I believe you're talking about, Mr. Dugard, is once we collect the materials collected and goes to the facility, gets separated back out, air marketing part now is then making sure that those commodities are put back into use and reused and sold. So we're going to try to maximize the amount of money that can be got for any, any commodity that's out there. And that's what goes back into the AMV value that is based, the rebates are based upon. That's a distinction that I needed to know. Well, thank you very much for that, because I thought that, I didn't understand it on the collection end, a marketing program, but you're talking about a commodity end. Correct. All right. Thank you. Very helpful. No problem. I have no more questions. Okay. Questions, Vice Mayor Walker. Thank you, Mayor. Can you hear me? I've got a, just so, I'm a little confused by the procurement. You know, we're, we're used to seeing in the purchasing memo, comparison of the two companies. We know what the, what the bid price was for WastePro. Can you tell me what the bid price was for Waste Management? Because I can't find it. And if I'm missing it somewhere, I'm, which I probably am, let me know. Megan, do you have that? Yes. Laura. We do, we don't have in the PowerPoint, I believe, but for Waste Management, for, for five-day per week collection schedule, $7.49. For roll-off container maintenance and servicing, $850 per pull. And I'm not sure that, do you want me to go through the whole, the A and B table as well? There's some slight variations in the cost structure. Well, actually, what I'd like to do is just understand the bottom line price, because WastePro's bid was $1,170,000. How did that compare to Waste Management? There is not a bottom line price because of the variability in the AMV, but what we did calculate the committee individually, and then we discussed it collectively, is that the number of roll-offs and the pulls at $2.25 versus, what did you say it was? $8.50. $8.50 per pull. And so, even though the individual resident was $0.10 difference, cheap, you know, less for the other contractor, the pulls and then the whole chart for the AMV was higher, every single category was, and there was no provision to negotiate should the market increase, and there be more marketable, and there's a negotiation piece where we can actually receive more through negotiation with our current contractor, if you award this bid with this contractor. So, those were the differences primarily in the financial picture. It was significant in the pulls specifically. Those are the recyclable roll-offs and the sites that Laura was describing for our community. Where in our packet are those AMV curbs? So, in the WastePro proposal, it's, I think, the last page, it's actually in the purchasing memo, thank you, Jorge, as well, which is at the back of your packet, and then I had also attached at the very end of the exhibits the letter for the current cost, so you could have that for comparison, because the contract was pretty dated in the price in there, so we gave you current costs, and the proposals that, she included the scoring for the committee, but I see that the costs are not in there, but contract your fees. Yeah, well, that leads me to my next question. I saw the scoring, WastePro 480, Waste Management 434, but if you go to the RFP, there's only 100 total points. These are, it's a total of all committee members. Okay, that wasn't clear. Okay, so. Yes, one of the, the criteria laid out in the, in the RFP, but costing was one of the scores. Well, yeah, and it's, but the thing is, is typically we put this into the purchasing memo, and it, it's not, it's not a straight line in terms of costs for price comparison. I'm sorry, finance is not here to speak to that. Yeah, Tammy is here. Oh, Tammy, great. I'm sorry, I missed her. I saw her earlier. Thank you, Tammy. Good evening. That's Tammy Winson, purchasing manager. For an RFP, cost is not a deciding factor. So this, the score shows the score of the committee collectively. Okay. All right. Well, I can, I can understand that. Of which, I'm sorry, Vice Mayor, of which cost is taken into consideration? Cost is one of the evaluation criteria. Right, that is correct. How many evaluation criteria are there? Three. For this one? Three. Okay. So you, okay. That's what, four? Four. There were four criteria. Four. Okay, four. What was the fourth one? Cost, the response, evaluations, and the proposal. The RFP lists three, qualifications, technical, approach, financial. Yeah, that's correct. Yes. Yes. Okay. Yes. I'm having trouble here, and I'm sorry. That's all right. Sorry about that. Yeah, no, no further questions, Mayor. Okay, questions, Commissioner Sandbergen. I guess it'll be, I'll make it real simple. Last year, it was $5.40 per house. This year, it's $7.57. Is that, is that simple? Yes. That's correct. How about, have we felt anything financially after removing those, it was like 1,200 homes from unincorporated Pinellas? Yes. Actually, it's helped so that we don't have an increase from this. I mean, as much of an increase. So yes, we have. Okay. And if I'm not mistaken, still, we don't have a commercial recycling program. Is that correct? They, it's not under franchise, so they can independently work with the, any, any recycling business. So they have to do it on their own, then? That's correct. Okay. Good. That's all I had, Mayor. Okay. So my question is to the Lady Brainiacs on this side. Um, so when you look at a million, 170,000, uh, recycling, just why bother with recycling? Do you think that we should do this or should we just not bother because it's getting too expensive? Um, we get that question from citizens as well. You know, why bother? And, um, it's part of the waste management system. I would also say, you know, for Dunedin, it's a core identity, um, it's a core core identity of like Dunedin residents, um, you know, green practices environmentally. And then not only for, you know, those reasons, but also for landfill reduction, um, Pinellas County on their website, they have a statistic where if all municipalities stopped recycling, it would actually, uh, take away 20 years of, from the life of the landfill. And that's something that we're concerned about because, um, if the landfill, you know, it loses lifespan, trash needs someplace to go. And ultimately that will increase rates later down the line. I think, believe we're sitting at about 66 years left of life of the landfill. Um, so that's definitely a consideration. And then, you know, just a conservation of energy. So it takes less energy to recycle, um, than in creating virgin material. Anything to add? Anything additional? Yeah. No, I think it's great, John. Thank you. Covered it. Um, so, so you both feel it's, it's important. Um, I do. I think that, um, you know, we went to, uh, a county meeting on recycling a few months ago. I think, you know, everyone in the county is grappling with these costs and when, whether or not to continue. And I don't know if there is an answer yet, but, um, we're not, we're certainly not the only ones grappling with this choice and, um, weighing, um, you know, the benefits to the cost of this, um, service. Um, but I will say that all the counties are still participating and recycling that we're there, so. All right. Thank you. Thank you, ladies. Um, Michelle, anything you wanted to add to that? You know, for our citizens too, right, this really aligns with our dream plan and also our strategic plan. So our core is sustainability here in Dunedin. We're known for that. When we went to that recycling meeting, when they heard Dunedin, they said, oh, you know, you guys are environmentally friendly. You care about recycling and that's absolutely true. We do. Um, so talking about identity and then also the life of the landfill is important as well. You know, you're reducing, as if we get more storms, you know, we also have to bring more debris to the landfill. So we, you, you lose that, that shelf life of the landfill. So recycle, the recycling contract really helps, you know, preserve the landfill, our sustainability efforts, and then also that circular economy that we really much promote through the dream plan. Great. Those are great answers. Um, okay. I don't have any additional questions. Sure. Go ahead. Just where, where's the MERF? Where, where's our recycling going when they pick it up? Sure. You should say what MERF stands for. So the rest of the world knows what you're talking about. Uh, it's the recycling center. It's okay. Um, I can, yeah, the material recycling facility. Um, it's Recycling Services of Florida and it's located in Clearwater. It's about five minutes from the solid waste disposal, um, in Pinellas County. Okay. And is that the final destination? Ed, do you want to, uh, come up and add to that what our options are? Is that a transfer station or is that? That is the final MERF. That is the final MERF. We, we, um, subcontract that to them because they're closer here in Pinellas County. When we first started your contract nine years ago, we were transferring it from Pinellas County to the city of Sarasota where we have a single stream MERF. But obviously with cost going up and we want to try to keep everything down. Somebody doesn't have their microphone on. Sure, Mike. Commissioner Gallagher. You're yelling at me. You're good. It was Commissioner Gallagher. I'm a mess tonight. So, yeah, in order to reduce costs, two years ago, we started subcontracting it locally so it would reduce your cost and it was reflected in your rate schedules because we brought down the transportation cost in it. So that was a big plus to do it locally, but it's processed locally so it's not transferring it again. And that was the reason we went with a third party vendor to do that portion only. We still have complete control over the material. So if something were to happen, we've got, not only do we have the MERF in Sarasota, we've got another processing, single stream processing facility in Ocala. So we've got options if something were to happen. But for the past two years, nothing has gone. You know, we've had no need to move it somewhere else. Just a few other things that we were talking about while y'all were talking about. A couple of things to bring back. You were talking about the rate going from, you know, $5.40 to $7.57. That's a function of basically resetting the contract. We started the contract nine years ago, pre-COVID, pre-New World. It was $4.27 is what the rates were somewhere in that area. And our contract with you guys is capped at 3%. So if you do the math up for the last nine years, CPI has gone up significantly more than that. That's what your solid waste department has recently been fighting is their last five years it's gone up over 30% and we're the same way. We can only recoup in the last five years 15% of that. So we've been going backwards every year. So this is basically just a resetting of getting it back to where the market rate should be is where we're going with that. As far as the other numbers, we did some math obviously as well. The difference between our proposal and our competitors works out to be a little under $200,000. If you took the average of like an $85 ton AMV, which would have been about the average for last year by the number of tons, take our price, their price, plus the roll-off pools, it works out to be about a $200,000 difference is what that number is. Very good. All right. And when we talk about the opportunity for people to tour the facility, are we talking about the Clearwater facility or are we talking about your facility? We've got right. Clearwater, they have given us, they know the contract and they've agreed full access to the Clearwater. And if you need it, by all means, we've got other MRFs to show you if you want to see other material facility recovery. As you brought up, those are wonderful machines. Watching one of those MRFs in action, it's crazy. You see all these belts and mechanical operations going on. You just see, you saw something that looks like trash. And the next thing you know, you see it being sorted into different commodities. It really is an amazing thing to see that in action. Very good. All right. Thank you. And my last question, Mayor, is, is the county ever going to get around to doing recycling or creating a, building a MRF? So I, I know there are, I'll answer that question by saying that I know that there are conversations about it going on right now. And when did those conversations start? When we went to our meeting a few months ago, maybe in, in the summer. I used to say, about 10. That's what I was going, yeah. Yeah. David. Yeah. That's a very long time. That's what I know. But you, you say that, there seems to be a hint of optimism in your tone. Remember who you're talking to. I am naturally optimistic. Yes. As a person. They're always, they're all very optimistic and we love that. Very good. Well, and we should be, but we should also encourage them to be optimistic as well. Right. But I'm leaning into comments, so I'll back up. Correct. Correct. Okay. I've got a question. Any, any, any, anyone else have an additional question? Vice Mayor? Vice Mayor, go ahead. I've got a question. Good. Actually, yeah. So one question. So what, what happens if this is a no vote? Only because of the fact that I am, I am absolutely in favor of recycling. And the problem I'm having right now is price, or the cost and price transparency. If it's a no vote, then we won't have a contract and we don't have resources to pick up the recycling. Okay. Second question. And I, I most certainly appreciate Waste Pro's qualifications and technical approach. Um, and I, but more importantly, I respect the staff's evaluation of this. Um, but as if we're voting to award this contract or not, I, I really think we need to have a, a valid price comparison and commensurate. If, if they were, if there were, there was a different approach in the way that we calculated the price, then, you know, so be it. But I would, I would love to have that explanation. Um, and I, I appreciate the comments that it was about $200,000 between the two contracts. But what, do we have any, any validation or verification of that? Yeah. We, we individually did it in our scoring. And then as a committee, we discussed it. And then we came up with the scores that we had based on those, uh, evaluations. Okay. Now that, but that's not in our packet, is it? No, it is not in your packet. It, it was recorded, a recorded public meeting that was open for, um, all to attend. And Tammy's going to get up and talk about that. Thank you. I could add for you, typically we don't include that in, in the memo, but I can provide that information. We have it. Well, I, I appreciate that, but it, it has been in the memo before. We've seen it. There, there has been a price of the respective competitors in a solicitation of procurement like this. You're correct in an, in an ITB, but not in an RFP. So in, in a bid, we typically show, right, the, the proposed cost for the project. But in an RFP, we do not. We do not. Correct. So, right. The proposal is essentially, you're looking at, at the quality of the services and you're relying upon the committee who has criteria for scoring the RFP, which includes in all of them, the cost. We do not have criteria to put together. Right. Right. Which includes the cost. Okay. Thank you. I would, if I may, Mayor, and I don't know if this would, would help Vice Mayor along a little bit, is that there was, and Jorge just brought it up, there was, and I, you know, when I read the purchasing memo, there was a disparity between Waste Pro and Waste Management as far as the scoring of the committee goes. If it were close, I would say I would be more concerned, but it was not. Yeah. So. Well, I was thinking, and part of the issue was that you obviously extrapolated based on the individual rates to get to $1,170,000. Did you extrapolate the, the other bid to show what that total? We sure did. Okay. So that was done. Yes. The committee did that, and it was all? Individually. Okay. Yes. All right. I'm not sure if Vice Mayor heard that definitively. Vice Mayor? Well, I, I heard that the, the bid for the, for Waste Management was extrapolated. Right. By the committee. Added up and extrapolated by the committee themselves when they were scoring the RFP and that criteria. Okay. All right. Thank you. That, thank you. You're welcome. And that is all part of the public record, right? Absolutely. Yes. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, I think we're going to open it to public input. Anyone in the audience wish to come forward and speak on this issue? Well, okay. We have, uh, name and address for the record in three minutes. Hi. Nan Bennett, um, 1990 Saddle Hill Road North. So, we just heard that this material is being collected and then marketed at an average of $85, uh, average market value. The cost this year to dispose of that same waste, whatever you take to Pinellas County, if there were no other concerns, is $63.57 to tip the truck. You've got to pick it up either way. So, that's a pretty wide range. It will cost a lot more to throw it away as garbage than to market it as something reusable. Thank you. Thank you for that. Okay, um, anyone else in the public wish to come forward and speak on this issue? Okay, um, then I will close public input and ask for a motion. So moved. Okay, I have Commissioner Gow. Can I have a second? Second. Okay. And, uh, Commission, final comments? Um, I will go to the maker of the motion, Commissioner Gow. I think that's why you probably had a lot of hesitation. Uh, who wants to go first on this? Um, certainly I think one of the things we're all grappling with is the cost of all this. Uh, but, um, you know the history of recycling. I think sometimes the municipalities brought it on themselves, on where we're here. Um, need recycling. It costs more to throw it away than to recycle it, as you've heard. Um, I know that Pounce County Waste on, on their tipping fees have gone really crazy. Um, and tipping fees are what you pay at the dump when you dump it. Uh, for anybody in the audience, um, I'm certainly not happy about the, the, the price, but it was bid competitively. That's kind of what the market is, is showing. So that's why I'm a big fan of, of education. And we have got to teach people, honestly, what's good for recycling, and those things that they think are recyclable, throw them away. Just, it's easier on the system. Um, and I, at one point, uh, suggested to Natalie, who is probably at home, screaming at the TV, um, or her laptop, uh, about we should, recycling's too expensive. And she lectured me for about 20 minutes on what a really bad idea that was and why. And it was, I was so enamored and awed by the level of her education and knowledge. It was quite impressive, uh, to hear her speak. So I just said, yes, ma'am, and went back to my office. Um, uh, certainly I, anybody who's within the right to choke on this dollar amount. Um, it's expensive and it's worth choking over. Um, but we need recycling. We just need, as a, uh, municipality, as a city, which includes the residents, we need to learn and understand and do it better than we're doing. So thank you. Okay. Uh, seconder of the motion, Commissioner Gard, final comments. Thank you, Mayor. Uh, the reason I seconded this motion is I think we had to get into comments on this. We couldn't just leave it with questions. And so I wanted to be sure we got here. Um, just to be candid, Americans are sloppy with trash. Now, what I mean by that is if you go to Europe and you see how they manage waste over there, it's entirely different than in this country. I have, my daughter lives in England. And I was there visiting and she slapped my hand when I just threw some paper into the garbage can because they pay for it differently than our people pay for it. They pay for it by the pound, not just pounds because they have that, but they pay for it by the pound. It's not just a service fee that's individually cost to a household. And that changes behavior. That's what I mean with we're sloppy with trash. Until we get some policies that allow us to deal with trash properly, we're going to have landfills keep filling up. We're going to see the wrong kinds of plastics in our recycle. We're going to see all kinds of things because it's not difficult for them to be wasteful with trash. I don't like what we're facing here. The costs are rising. We can see why. And yes, we, uh, we all give your same speech on the pandemic and the cost of things. We have that down, uh, because we're all experiencing that on everything else. So that's, that's understandable. We can see why this is rising, but we're going to have to change a lot of things as we face the costs of living. And that's what this is. I'm not sure which way I'm going to go. Um, this is one of those where it's a Hobson's choice. We're facing rising costs with a population that is not understanding what trash is really doing to the environment and their own, their own standard of living. But they will, when we raise the rates on them as an enterprise fund and they'll complain about it and they'll blame us. And yet it starts at their back door. Thank you, mayor. Okay. Final comments. Uh, vice mayor. Thank you, mayor. This is, uh, this is killing me because I am very pro recycling. And I have a profound respect for the evaluator, the evaluators and the evaluation criteria that followed. I, I understand the point breakout. Um, and I most understand, most also understand that the highest ranked factor in this was cost at 50 points per evaluator. Uh, my problem right now is, is not with the company. My problem right now is with the procurement. This is an expensive ask. This is an expensive, this is expensive to our budget. And if we're able to provide an extrapolation for waste pro, why couldn't we put that in the packet or put it readily accessible so that it was comparable to waste pro waste management's bid? We owe that to our community. And subsequently, without that answer, I can't vote in favor of this. And that, that, that, that is killing me. That's all I've got. Okay, uh, final comments, Commissioner Sandberg. The only house that, uh, I mean, I feel like we represent every citizen of Dunedin. The only house that I can really, uh, speak firsthand about is the big, that blue trash can that I wheel out with recycles. And I would take it out on Sunday night and there's probably about three items in it. I think every neighbor in my community could put it into one can. So, we need to reduce some money in this city and I will not vote for this. That's one million of the four million we're looking for. I've, I've tried and, uh, all I can speak for is what I put out and that's it. So, that's all I have, Mayor. So, um, I am going to vote for this. I think recycling is really important. I think it's a, it is a core value of our community. They believe in it. The costs are getting higher, I agree. But we're going to pay for it one way or another. We're going to pay extra tipping fees to take care of it or we're going to pay it through recycling. And it seems like this makes the most sense to do it through recycling. Um, so, uh, appreciate the educated opinions we got here from our professional staff. I think, I think you're right on. I think, uh, again, this is a long-term issue everybody's grappling with. But, but to not do it, this makes zero sense to me. Um, and, uh, to, in respect to what commission or vice mayor is asking for, I think if you could just provide us this. I'm not going to hold up a vote. I think this is important to move forward. We need to have this service. Uh, so I, uh, if you guys could provide, um, you know, that information, um, so that we can feel comfortable with that, even though we will have voted. Um, but I absolutely support this. And I think, um, I think, I think this is imperative. So, uh, so let's go to a voice vote. All in favor. Aye. Aye. Any, all opposed. Aye. Nay. Nay. Okay. So the motion fails three to two. Okay. So what's our next steps, city manager? All right. So, um, this is actually very surprising, uh, for staff. Yeah. I'm shocked actually. Actually. So, and, you know, I just have to be really candid with you. Uh, you know, I, I had asked the city attorney if perhaps I would be able to speak before you took the vote, but. Oh, I mean. I, no, that's my fault. I didn't, you know, because it, it, it, uh, you, you know, we wanted to move to the vote and I, and I, and I've, and I've got that. But, um, this is really something that would, we would workshop first and really look at the impact on the community and, um, the change management involved in this, uh, and so on and so forth. Instead of, uh, deciding this on one, one evening. And so to, to set aside our recycle program after it's been in place for this many years. Right. Because what's the cost of just throwing it away? Right. I don't, I don't get the, I don't get the decision here. Right. At all. So, and, and I'm not sure, you know, this evening, whether or not, um, I'm not sure what we can do this evening to, to kind of forestall, uh, moving forward with the nay vote until we can actually, um, give you the full impact of that. And how the plan, as far as how we're going to manage this change in the community and work with WastePro, as far as there's equipment that they have that has to be picked up. There's, you know, all sorts of implications here regarding a nay vote instead of ending a, essentially not extending a contract here this evening. What is the expiration date? It's expired. We, yeah, we have an extension. Oh, so if we say not now, we're done. We're currently under an extension. Right. Okay. And when does the extension end? March 31st, 2027. No, March 31st. So, I guess six months. Okay. So, are we able to get the information that Vice Mayor is looking for, um, so that we can maybe move forward with this and, uh, any other additional information that our commissioners are looking for? Okay. So, and maybe our commissioners need to be clear on what that information is, or maybe it won't change their vote. I didn't know that. So, um, let me, if I may, put together the information that Vice Mayor is looking for, right? And also put together for you, again, the impact on the community, right? And, and how it is we would communicate with the community. And perhaps you should hear from your constituents, too, in the intervening period between now and March, as far as the recycle program goes. So, um. May I make a comment? Vice, uh, well, wait a minute. Were you done? Sorry. I'm sorry. Yeah, that's okay. I want to hear it. But no, just in closing, I, I would like to, like I said, staff did not expect this this evening. And so I would like to, uh, have an opportunity to present the case for recycling again. Okay. And when can we do that? As soon as possible. Okay. Because, all right. Okay. But we do have a little bit of breathing room. Yes. Okay. I'm grateful for that. I didn't know that. Do we have any restrictions on this bid? It's time-wise. How long is this bid good for? So, if you can double-check that. Right. It's important. Are your extensions usually granted? Are extensions usually granted? Yes. Okay. Right. Um, okay. Um, and if I may, Mayor, the, the other part of this is, frankly, that I didn't hear any of this during agenda briefing. And, um, and that's important because I would have gone to work as far as putting together this information for all of you this evening so that you would have it under, for consideration. Yeah, I, it's important that people use agenda briefings for what they're for, which is getting their questions answered ahead of time and getting additional information they don't see. Um, okay, uh, uh, uh, Jennifer. Well, I've got Vice Mayor wanting to say something. Vice Mayor, what would you like to say? Vice Mayor? Yeah. Um, you know, I, I don't, I don't think that it, there, there was a lot of material in the packet. And what I am asking for is, is not hard. We extrapolated the cost of WastePro, but we did not extrapolate the cost for presentation in our board packet for waste management. All I want to see is how that decision was reached to establish the point basis for the highest ranked factor in the solicitation. Well, I would assume that that can be done prior to the next meeting. Oh, yes. Right. Okay. So, yeah, absolutely. Uh, yeah, um, okay, go ahead. Just real quick. Go ahead, Commissioner. Is this going to be able to come back for the current commission? That's what, so this is, this is. That's a good point. Fairly good point. This is one of the things that I wanted to bring up is, at this point, you've taken a vote, and so the matter's concluded. So, if, if you want to bring it back, then there needs to be a motion to reconsider, which you can do, um, and then after the, to say to reconsider, you know, you, whether that motion passed, then there could be a motion to take this up, to delay this, postpone until a time certain, and you could pick what that meeting is. But first is a motion to reconsider, because as it sits right now, this is done. And I believe the motion to reconsider has to be done by one of the three that were in the majority. Correct. Okay, so. So moved. Motion, motion to reconsider. Okay. All right, well, I think we had a motion by Commissioner DeGuard and a second by Vice Mayor. Okay, so then what do we do next, uh, Jennifer? So now we vote on, on the motion as to whether or not the board wants to reconsider. Okay, so all in favor of the motion on the table, which is reconsideration. Aye. Aye. Aye. Well, we have a motion on the table. I just had a question. Okay. So how far down the road before this comes back up? So what we're going to do is we're going to have the same presentation. Is that what we're looking to do? No. New information. Okay. It's reconsed by Vice Mayor. Yeah. So at this point, all you're doing is determining whether or not you want to reconsider the no vote. And so if that passes, then you all will talk amongst yourselves and determine what you want your new motion to be. Do you want your motion to be postpone it till next meeting, postpone it till March, postpone it till whatever? And of course, some of this is dependent on Tammy being able to obtain an extension from the contractor who's willing to honor their bid. Okay. Okay. So by approving the motion, then we will continue our discussion yet tonight about when this would, when we were talking. Okay. Then, okay. Then I would, then I. Okay. So yeah, let me do that. So the motion on the table is to reconsider. So all in favor? Can I? Aye. Aye. Sorry to do this. I'd like to add an amendment to my own motion. Okay. Which is at the earliest possible date. Okay. But I think that Jennifer's saying we'll do that right after we do the reconsider. Okay. I just want to be sure that's understood. Right. Okay. Okay. Because I agree with you. So motion on the table is to reconsider. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. See you opposed? Okay. So that's been changed. So now, is there a new motion on the table of how we want to move forward with this? Boy, I don't know how to put that in a form. I mean, what? As far as timing? Yeah, I'm thinking let's, you know, the motion would be for staff to add, to get the additional information that's been requested and bring it back to us at the next meeting. I mean, that's kind of my thought. But I understand that we're not back. I mean, if we can get the motion. I will make that motion, but I do understand that we have some aspects of agenda approval and things like that that might interfere with our timing. You have not approved the agenda for the October 22nd. I would recommend that if you're going to reconsider it, we reconsider it on October 22nd. And is that enough time for staff? We will make time. This is important enough. We will make sure it gets back on the agenda on October 22nd. Plus, I think some of what the vice mayor is asking for, it exists. I mean, yeah, we've done it. So it's not, it's just that he doesn't have it, so he doesn't feel comfortable voting for this. Their public record, too. Well, in addition, for the City Commission to truly make a decision here that's in the general public interest, you need to understand what the impact is of discontinuing the recycling program. That's right. Right. Correct. Yeah. And that's what I wanted clarification on. And so if this comes back to us and it's a no vote, we are saying no to recycling. Yes. Right. Okay. And I'm sorry, Commissioner Goddard, but the other aspect of that is, is that you need to have a full understanding of the financial impacts of that decision. Correct. And that would include what are the tipping fees? What are, what's the impact on our solid waste? Correct. Right. Okay. So one more, please. Sure. Go ahead. Sure. So I've got a question, too. So, Vice Mayor, we've got Commissioner Sandbergen's on. Let Rob go first. Already talking. Okay. Vice, he's deferring to you, Vice Mayor. Go ahead, Vice Mayor. You know, I don't, well, I don't know. This, this is all about, this is just all about transparency. I hear public record and everything associated with that. But, you know, I think the expectation for us is, is that we have the information in our packet and that should be, that should be adequate for us. And it has been, I will say over the last four years, I have not had an issue with making a decision based on what's in the packet. And it was literally within the last hour, as I was going back through the document, I realized there's some disparities. So I, I hear public record. I hear that, you know, that the information was out there. But my problem is, it wasn't in our packet. Okay. And I think, Commissioner Sandbergen, you wanted to say something else? I understand, I understand what Commissioner, or Vice Mayor is saying, and my concern is solely the cost. I mean, I want, I would love to know what it costs to drive that truck, to pick up those three milk cartons out of my recycle bin, to what we're getting reimbursed. You know, in this time of, you know, instead of worrying about, I mean, you know, telling people that when they call 911, it's going to take longer. Or if we have a chance to save money in the city, I want to know, I guess, exactly what it costs, or what financial benefit we have for our recycle program with WastePro. I mean, I, my can's out there every Sunday night, and I, I guess I'd really like to see what the financial advantage is to it. So, thanks, Jen. Yeah, and I think that's all wrapped in what we're going to pay anyway, right? I mean, what, how does that affect you? So, it's an enterprise fund, and it's considered in any, any sort of a fee, fee schedule that we put out there, and rate study as well. Correct, and we can't use that money for emergency medical services. We cannot. Okay. Just point of clarification. Okay, yeah. I mean, it's, yeah, so, okay, Commissioner Nugard? In the material being prepared for the next possible, what was the date on that? October 22nd. On the 22nd, I would like to have inside the packet, which was not anticipated, an actual cost to our residents under both models, under a recycle model and a no-recycle model, because I want to check those points, and I want to be sure what we understand the expense is going to be. Thank you. And then also the impact that we'll have at the county. Okay, maybe November. No, I'm just kidding. Yeah, November 22nd. Well, we don't have any forums, so that's good. So, so we still need a motion now, a formal motion on, I don't know if you made it or not, Commissioner Nugard, you were getting ready to? I don't know if you did. I move that we move this item forward to October 22nd, the agenda, with enhanced materials. Okay, is there a second? Second. Okay, all in favor? Aye. Aye. Where should that come from? No, you're allowed a second. Once we've reconsidered, it's just that the no's have to, yeah, no. Okay, so all in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, motion passes unanimously. Okay, we will go to the proposed agenda for October 22nd, City Commission meeting, and thank you, ladies. Excellent job. Well, we're going to work you a little more next time. Okay, I'm pulling my thing up here. Just one second. I wanted to get to it. Okay, so, oh, wait. I'm at the, yeah, okay, I'm sorry. Okay, so is there any additions or deletions? Obviously, now we're going to be adding the recycling to it. Is there anything else that anybody notices that we... Yes, ma'am. Go ahead. Item 3G has been moved to a future date, and that would be amended right away use agreement between the City of Dunedin and the... Okay, all right. Good enough. Okay, so with the, taking that one off and putting on recycling, any... Okay, do I have a motion? So moved. So moved. Second. Okay, a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Okay. So we are going to go to informational items, commission discussion and comments. I will start with Commissioner Gall. Oh, thank you. I don't want to... I'm sure this is on everybody's list of things to talk about. But I get to go first and say, raise one. Raise one. Go into the championship series. Swept the Yanks. So that was... You know, and it was just so nice that last year that the Yankees were pushed out by the Blue Jays, and this year they're pushed out by our Tampa Bay Rays. So Penalas County is not very good for the Yankees, and I'm kind of proud of that a little bit. And I say that in a loving way, because that's a tough team. And they beat them last night at their house. And that is rare to do. So congratulations to them. But that's all I have, Mayor. Thank you. So speaking on that, did you see Phoebe at the airport, what they had? Like, they showed Phoebe with a Rays outfit on and was sweeping up the Yankees stuff. It was awesome. It was on their website. I loved it. It was great. Yeah, look at it. Pull it up, because it's awesome. Okay. Informational discussion, comments, Commissioner DeGuard. Microphone. Thank you. I have nothing to add. Thank you. Okay. And I will go to Vice Mayor. Well, last night, I yelled myself hoarse in the hopes that the Braves would beat the dreaded Dodgers. Yeah. But it was not to be. So regarding anything else, yeah, I've got nothing further to add. Okay. Commissioner Sandbergen. I just want to say it was really nice to see the commission and some other business leaders come together last night and work hard to, boy, when we work together, man, we can move mountains. And we all took that charity of our choice, and that was really important. That was really impressive to see. And Tampa Bay Buccaneers are down 7-0. Oh, geez. Of course they are. Speaking of the struggle bus, speaking of the struggle bus. Yeah, and just for anybody who doesn't know, there was a celebrity server event, and many of us, well, all of us up here were servers. And, yeah, it was fun, but raised a lot of money for a lot of great charities, and it was awesome. It was at Lucky Lobster. 14 different charities? 14 or 15 different charities, yeah. I know mine was House of Mercy and Encouragement. Yours was what? Team Chelsea. Team Chelsea, Chelsea Foundation, Commissioner DeGuard, what was yours? DeVean Fine Arts. Yeah. Pack a Snack. Pack a Snack with the Presbyterian Church. Diabetes has hit my family real hard, so mine was for type 1 diabetes. Yeah, that's awesome. So very good. And plus money went to the Rotary as well, who basically 100% goes to charity. So, Mayor, all the guests at my table told me not to quit my day job. I'm grateful for that. Yeah, well, I had trouble keeping mine happy. That's totally, you know, just couldn't service them well enough, although my group got dinner way before your group, so that's all I can say. So they were wishing they were at my table, tables. Anyway, yeah, so I was going to bring up the celebrity server thing, too, as well. You know, since we're talking sports, I do have to say I was raised in Cleveland, so Guardians is still 0-0 with the White Sox. I mean, ultimately, it's going to be, if they win, they are going to be against the Rays, and then I have to boot for the Rays. But for now, I've got to root for Cleveland. So, and then I guess that's it. I can't think of anything else right now. So I had a really good forum the other night on Tuesday with the sheriff, with the chief trip bars, the head of the Florida Fire Chiefs Association, and, of course, Representative Kim Beerfield and myself. And I think it was good. And it's actually on our website for anybody who wants to tune in, and obviously strictly education, because on November 3rd, everybody gets to decide, yes or no, for Amendment 3. So, okay. City clerk update. Nothing new to report, Mayor. Thank you. Okay. City manager update. Nothing to update. But I haven't had my dinner yet, so. Okay. That's my update. I gave you a chance, didn't I, Mayor? Okay, I did. No, I've got one more thing that I forgot to say. Okay, hold on. Just let me get city attorney update. Nothing. Okay, nothing. Okay, so, Vice Mayor. Anyway, I was going to send you all an email, but it's better to tell you in person, well, at least in my case, over Zoom. I just want to just say that I greatly appreciate you all, and I also greatly appreciate the fact that you have been understanding in my absence. I will tell you that for every day that I am not there is killing me, and anyway, I, you know, thank you for your understanding. Well, we appreciate that you're hanging out at the marina, making sure the work gets done, so. Yeah, it's bright and sunny over here, so. No, no, we appreciate, we miss you, and I know when you're done with this important work, you'll be back, so we appreciate that. Okay, if there's nothing else good for the order. One more thing, if I can. Okay, sure, go ahead. It's that kind of night, so what the heck. What the heck. I would, I would just thinking with the Rays win, going to the championship series, I will leave it to staff, but maybe a big screen TV in Pioneer Park, we can, I know it's one of Commissioner Degard's favorite things to do, but I, but it's, it's a, it's a community thing, and. But I will leave it to staff. Yeah, and we can decide whether that would be more appropriate, like, when they're in the World Series, which I'm confident they're going to be. Okay, so, on obviously off nights. Okay, I am going to adjourn this meeting. No more last words.