City Council - Dec 12, 2024

Welcome to the City of St. Petersburg City Council Meeting. Your elected officials are Mayor Ken Welch, District 1 and Council Vice Chair, Hopley Gerdes, District 2, Brandi Gabbard, District 4, Lisette Hanowitz, District 5 and Council Chair, Deborah Fig Sanders, District 6, Gina Driscoll, District 7, John Muhammad, and District 8, Richie Floyd. The new one we now call to order are December 12, 2024 City Council Meeting with the roll call please. Hanowitz? Here. Nick Sanders? Here. Driscoll? Here. Muhammad? Floyd? Here. Gerdes? Here. Gabbard? Here. Thank you. Joining us today, we will have our invitation given by Pastor Couture Pittman from Greater Mount Zion AME, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Will everyone please join me in standing? Oh, thou in whose presence my soul takes delight, on whom in affliction I call. You are my song in the night. You are my hope, my salvation, and my all. Heavenly Father, we come this afternoon, the last council meeting of 2024, giving you thanks, Lord, for the things that has happened this year, that our council member, led by our chair, has had the opportunity to deal with for us, your people. I come thanking you, Lord God, for the wisdom that has been given, that has caused us to weather the storms. Now, Lord God, in this last meeting of this year, we ask that they continue to use godly judgment in things that are done that will affect us all into the new year and beyond. You are, Father God, our hope. You are our salvation. But most of all, dear God, you are all and all for us. We thank you. We ask that you continue to bless this council as they proceed to do those things that are beneficial to our city. And for this, Heavenly Father, we give you thanks, we praise you, and amen. Amen. To the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Pastor Kay, for that invocation. I love you. Thank you so much. Be blessed. So, council members, we have an agenda before us today with the request to add items F5 and F6. With those changes, I'll entertain a motion for approval. Move approval. Second. Now that we have a motion and a second, can you please open the machine for voting? Council members, please cast your votes. Seeing that our present council members have voted, can you please tell any of them? Madam Chair, motion to approve the agenda passes unanimously. We have a consent agenda before us. I entertain a motion for approval of the consent agenda. Move approval. Second. We have no cards, Madam Chair. No cards on the consent agenda. Having no cards, can you please open the machine for voting? Seeing that all present council members have voted, can you please tell and announce the vote? Madam Chair, motion to approve the consent agenda passes unanimously. Thank you. Now we'll go into open form. Clerk, can you please read the rule? Yes, ma'am. If you wish to address city council on subjects other than public hearing or quasi-judicial items listed on the agenda, please sign up with the clerk. Only the individual wishing to speak may sign the open form sheet. Only city residents, owners of property, business owners in the city, or their employees may speak. All issues discussed under open form must be limited to issues related to the city of St. Petersburg government. If you are speaking to an item on the agenda, you may only speak once, during the open form, or when the item comes up on the agenda. In order to provide an opportunity for all citizens to address council, each individual will be given three minutes to speak, and after which the microphone will be muted. If you wish to address city council through the Zoom meeting, you must use the raise hand feature button in the Zoom app or enter star 9 on your phone at the time of the meeting. The agenda item is addressed. When it is your turn to speak, you'll be unmuted and ask to state your name and address. At the conclusion of your comments, or when you reach the three-minute time limit, you will be muted. All raised hands will be lowered after each agenda item. Regardless of the method of participation used, normal rules apply, including the three-minute time limit on comments, the requirement that any presentation materials must be submitted in advance of the meeting, and the rules of decorum. If live public comment is disrupted by violations of the rules of decorum, the chair is authorized to accept public comment by alternate means, including by e-mail only, and we do have some speakers, Madam Chair. I'm going to call the speakers two at a time. Peter Kent and I believe it's Christine Bruner. Please go to either podium, state your name and address for the record, and you will have three minutes to address city council. Good afternoon. I'm Peter Kent. I live at 8 Academy Way in St. Pete. As a retired commissioner of public works and city engineer, I listened carefully to the city staff's presentation at the last council meeting for the recovery plans for the recent hurricanes and the hardening of the city against future storms. The plans I heard call for way too little too late. The city needs to spend way more money now. Now I quote from a letter of retired attorney William Ballard, former president of the St. Petersburg Bar Association, recently wrote to each of you. The Rays' statement in their letter, November 19th letter, in the opinion of this retired attorney, looked like a classic anticipatory breach of contract. This is not a trivial breach. It was a material breach. This allows the non-breaching party to take legal action even before the actual breach occurs. He said that both the city and the county wrote the Rays demanding that they reaffirm the obligations about the cost overruns. The Rays' response ignored this core issue and thereby repudiating the agreement package. He states that the city and county leaders should not commit more public funds to this project when the counterparty to this deal has demonstrated an unwillingness, a financial inability, or both to honor the core agreements it assumes under the stadium development and funding agreement. He concludes, quote, wasting public funds to appease the Rays would not be a responsible plan. It is an irresponsible act. The city's stance should be that it will honor its commitments, but it now has real concerns as to what its rights and duties are under these agreements. He urges the city council to initiate a declaratory judgment against the Rays. Please consider delaying items F1 and F2 today, which would authorize $1.65 million for emergency Tropicana roof replacement design. The Rays have said do not proceed with truck repairs. The Rays have said the team would have more certainty about working out a deal with the city, such as a settlement check, than dealing with the additional uncertainties of a repair plan. Please also consider delaying items H2 for a $50 million bond plus its $23 million in interest, which presumably funds the $55 million Tropicana field replacement. If passed, the city residents will be paying over $80 million to extend the life of this statement, which might or might not be used, and it might or might not be played in for one or two more years. So you've got an attorney and a former retired attorney and a commissioner at Bully Works telling me you don't do this. Thank you, and thank you for your service. Good afternoon. My name is Christy Bruner. I'm the vice president of advocacy at the St. Petersburg Area Chamber of Commerce, 102nd Avenue North. We come to you today sharing views from our members about two agenda items scheduled for later in the meeting. I will be at a holiday concert and not able to join you. I also send an email with this information. First, I'm here to voice our support for the ordinance concerning amendment of the city's 99-year lease to the Dolly Museum for use for expansion of the museum. The chamber previously supported the citywide referendum in 2022 regarding the lease amendment. It's a public hearing item. Oh, okay. Can't do quasi-judicial or Mayor Lake. No. No. I sent letters about both of those. Please let us know if you have any questions. But I also wanted to share holiday greetings with you and your families. And I did want to share a special thank you to Council Member Mohammed, as this is one of his final meetings. Your commitment to continued service to your community is so appreciated. And thank you for your work here on Council. Looking forward to working with you in the future. Thank you. One more speaker. Jason Mathis. Please go to either podium. State your name and address for the record. You have three minutes to address City Council. I will be very brief. Jason Mathis with the St. Petersburg Downtown Partnership. Our address is 244 2nd Ave North in beautiful downtown St. Pete. I'm going to be brief because the two things I was going to talk about are the same things Christy was just talking to you about. And so I will just sit down and also wish you a joyous holiday season. Thanks very much. No sooner. Okay, now we will close open forum and move to our awards and presentations, beginning with item D1, our Pinellas Opportunity Council. And joining us is Patty Sawyer, the Executive Director of Pinellas Opportunity Council. Let me say who pulled this. Council Member Mohammed, since you brought this and it's brought to my attention, would you like to introduce this item? Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. I mean, the Pinellas Opportunity Council, as you'll see, is doing some amazing work in our community. And so, as a board member of POC, it's just an honor to serve and I'm looking forward to the presentation. Lots of great work and I'm sure you'll be as pleased with the work as I am. So, thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Patty. Thank you, Council Member Mohammed and good afternoon to members of City Council. So, as already stated, I'm Patty Sawyer, Executive Director of Pinellas Opportunity Council, Incorporated. And I'm joined today by some members of our staff, some members from our board of directors, and one of our clients. As a part of the Community Action Network, we are Pinellas County's first anti-poverty organization and have been serving the people of Pinellas County for 56 years. Our mission of helping to alleviate conditions of poverty, revitalize local communities, and promote self-sufficiency allows us to serve our community with programs and services that impact the lives of our residents, such as emergency financial assistance, youth development and employment, financial literacy training, wraparound and family development services that provide case management assistance and support to families. And we want to push those families along toward achieving, excuse me, economic self-sufficiency. Thus far, nearly 90% of the families that are served through our self-sufficiency programs have successfully achieved their goals and are now sustaining long-term independence on their journey toward generational wealth. All of these programs and services are part of POC's vision of a community in which every individual is self-sufficient, is empowered to help bring about positive change in their neighborhoods, and has access to resources that enable them to reach their full potential. We're passionate about breaking the cycle of generational poverty and finding meaningful solutions to situational poverty with the support of our new and existing community partners. On the average, POC receives an estimated 1,500 calls per month requesting services. Clients complete an online application. They submit the required documentation that supports their request, and funds are distributed based upon availability on a first-come, first-served basis. Since COVID and the reduction of funding after CARES dollars were no longer available, we've been unable to help as many people. However, through our partnerships with other local organizations, we are able to respond to the ever-growing needs in our community. Last year, we were able to assist over 1,200 individuals with electric, water, rent and mortgage, fuel oil, and clothing assistance. We're here today to shine the light on our Family Wraparound Program, which is conducted in partnership with the City of St. Petersburg. And we'd especially like to extend our thanks to Ms. Lisa Wheeler-Bowman, the Community Impact and Safety Liaison, who was instrumental in getting POC additional funding and expanded eligibility criteria for this program year. POC has played a significant role in helping residents grow their income and to exit poverty through our involvement with initiatives such as the 2020 plan. And although we have had various economic self-sufficiency programs for over 40 years here in our community, initiatives like the Family Wraparound Program have significantly helped to move the needle on poverty reduction right here in St. Petersburg. The City of St. Pete has funded the Wraparound Program for the past 10 years, and through it we serve approximately 20 individuals annually where we provide case management, referrals and resources, education and training, emergency assistance, and much more. Previously, we were only funded to provide services to individuals with children. However, with this new funding this year in the expansion, 25% of those served do not have to have children and will be able to serve at least 30 clients this year. The best way we can demonstrate the success of the Family Wraparound Program is to give you an example of the City's dollars at work. We have many success stories, but we only have enough time to give one for you today. Ms. Shabria Tinson is a single mother to an 8-year-old son, and she's a shining example of resilience, determination, and the power of support in overcoming life's challenges. Her journey began as a certified nursing assistant at BayCare Health, where she worked tirelessly to provide for herself and for her family. She had many dreams of becoming a registered nurse, and despite advice from many to take a step-by-step approach to becoming an LPN first, her vision was clear. She was determined to go straight for her RN credentials. Her unwavering commitment to her future led her to enroll in and successfully graduate from St. Petersburg College's RN program in December 2023. Her hard work paid off as she earned a promotion from CNA to RN with her current employer, and it's a true testament to her dedication, resilience, and persistence in pursuing her goals. Shabria is here with us today to share her story, and she wants to let you know about the integral part that POC played in helping her to make her dream a reality. Thank you for this opportunity to share with you about POC, and I want to give the rest of the time to Ms. Shabria Tinson. Hello. Good evening, everyone. My name is Shabria Tinson. I stayed on 2025 56th Avenue South. I originally became a CNA at the age of 18. I graduated from Bogusiega High School throughout the medical program and been a CNA for 11 years, and then decided I wanted to do nursing because I was like, I got to climb up the clinical ladder and provide more patient care for my patients. So I started the RN program in 2019. I finished my last semester, 2023, but unfortunately, I had a few financial setbacks. My dad passed away towards the end of 2023 unexpectedly, and then my son's father became incarcerated. So I'm like, oh, goodness, you know, financial burden, strain. Everything going on. And then one of my friends referred me to the family wraparound program and everything for, like, testing fees, licensing fees, and everything. For licensing and testing fees, like, $600, like, just along with fingerprints and everything. And I'm like, how am I going to pay for this? You know, stressful. I got to study. I wasn't working during the time because I had to go to school full time. But the POC program was great. I had Joyce Robinson as my case manager. She provided great support. She was able to give me financial support with gift cards, gas cards, help me with scrubs, and just emotional support as well just to help me get through and study for my NCLEX. So now I'm a registered nurse. I work in Progressive Care Unit at St. Anthony's Hospital and been a nurse for six, seven months, and I just love it. And I just hope to finally go up the clinical ladder as a nurse practitioner and provide great patient care throughout the community and everything else. Thank you. Thank you. The program was really awesome. It was really awesome and beneficial with the people, the staff, everything. This was a great program. I appreciate it so much. Thank you. Happy holidays. Thank you. Council Member Gabbard. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Council Member Mohamed, for bringing this forward. POC, I have had a lot of experience with your organization. And, Ms. Patty, it's good to see you today. Thank you for being here, you know, for about the past 15 years, you have engaged in activities with the local Pinellas Realtors and their Young Professionals Network. And I'm very proud to say that way back in the day, I was part of initial, like, getting that relationship together and just seeing the work that you guys do with the residents that you serve, the care that you give for people, it is nothing short of amazing, the work that you do. And you do it, quite frankly, with so little. You really bring together resources from so many different places. And even that relationship, there has been leveraging of other relationships that have made that impact even greater. And so a few years ago, the local firefighter chapter union came in, and they started adding to those donations. And now you've got, you know, several children at back-to-school time that are getting backpacks and school supplies, families that are getting fed for Thanksgiving. And those things would not be happening for individuals if you guys were not at the helm of bringing people together. And so I just want to thank you so much for what you do, because I have seen it firsthand. It is so beautiful. Your organization is such a treasure to our community. And I just want to thank you for what you do. And I also heard Joyce Robinson's name mentioned, Ms. Shabria. And let me tell you, she's an angel on earth. And I'm sure she is listening right now. I wish she were with us today here. But definitely appreciate the work that she does and all of the staff of POC. Thank you. Thank you. You all deserve all of the thanks in the world. And we're here to help you however we can. So thank you. Council Member Gabbard, thank you so much for those wonderful comments. And Ms. Joyce is out of town. Otherwise, she would be here front and center with us. But we appreciate everything that you have done for us in terms of establishing that partnership with the Pinellas Realtors organization. It was just two weeks ago that we were out distributing the turkey dinners and everything to clients in our community. And so thank you so much for your continued support of all of our efforts. Absolutely. You make it very easy to support you. So thank you. Thank you. Council Member Mohammed. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Ms. Patty, again, wonderful presentation. I'm sure it's a lot that could be covered. But I want to, like, maybe for those who are not familiar with the program, we can talk about some of the programmatic questions, you know, and things that how people can get involved. And so knowing that you're working with little and you can't take everyone, what are some of the reasons that you may have to deny a student enrollment? Well, if they do not meet the income guidelines, that would be one of the reasons. And if they're not going to complete the educational goals that they've set within the time of the grant that we have, and they don't have the remainder of the balance that's owed, then we wouldn't be able to assist them. We have to have an end in sight, and it has to be within that grant period. If, for some reason, they cannot come within that grant period, then we do have a waiting list that we can put them on, and hopefully with the next year of funding, we would be able to assist them at that time. Okay, got it. We need more funding. And then once they're in the program, how often do you maintain contact with them? They receive contact at least once a month. Okay. For most of the clients, and Shabria can probably attest to this, because they contact Ms. Joyce specifically multiple times throughout the month. And the beauty of the program is that that contact does not end then. I mean, it can be face-to-face contact. It can be virtual. It can be by phone. It can be by email or whatever. But her commitment is so strong, and our commitment as an agency is so strong, that we'll follow those clients. And so many times they may come to us. It may be five years since we helped them, but they're able to come back for occasions like this to present or to help mentor another student that's in the program. So it's like family. I mean, once they're in, they're in. You can't get out very easily. And so we pride ourselves on being able to keep in touch with them and to follow their progress in their careers. Amazing stuff. And then other than tuition, what are some other financial assistance that you're able to provide to the clients? Well, emergency assistance, of course, and that's going to include things like rent and mortgage and utilities, books, uniforms, licenses, transportation, food, and even daycare. Maybe they're taking classes at night and they might need assistance with daycare during the evening hours. We're able to assist with things of that nature. So if it's something that we are not funded to provide, then we work with other community partners to try to make sure that there are no barriers to the client receiving all the services that they need to get as well as achieving their educational goals successfully. Okay. And speaking of like educational goals, let's say you have an educational goal, you reach that goal, but then you, you know, continue to shoot for the stars. Like Shabria. Do you provide assistance with another goal? Like, can I come back after like? You can come back. There's usually at least two or three years in between that because we want to try to serve as many new clients as we possibly can. But yes, people do come back to us sometimes for additional assistance. Okay. And then areas other than nursing that you assist clients with? Well, we've had people that have gone through programs like pharmacy tech, cosmetology, surgical tech, guardianship programs, and other short-term certificate programs, daycare, and even folks that are looking to get their CDL. So. And then last question, is there an age limit or age requirement? The age limit, they have to be at least 21 to enroll in our program. Again, Ms. Patty, thank you so much for all that you're doing. Thank the staff, the team, the board members, and really looking forward to continuing to work with you on my days as a private citizen. So thank you. We look forward to your continued involvement. And again, thank you very much, Madam Chair, and to City Council for this opportunity to share with you about the community treasure that is Pinellas Opportunity Council. Thank you. Thank you. And with that being said, Ms. Patty, I'm going to go ahead and close it out. It does my heart good. But every time we have the opportunity to showcase the hidden treasures that's in our community, those that are in the social services arena and those that actually provide services to those who normally wouldn't think that they had that opportunity, opportunity is in your name. And you all have been in the community for so long, and I love your staff. Hey. What you all bring to the table, you bring not only the skills to help advance our community to another level, but you bring that personality, and you bring those smiles. And a lot of times when people are coming seeking help, that's all they need is that smile. That's all they need is that welcoming spirit. And Joyce Robinson is that person, and everyone that's there in that person. They're not looked upon as, why are you here? But we are here for you. Every single time I enter that door, every time I see POC's presence in the community, you bring it. And I've said it over and over again, it's all in presentation, it's all in perception, it's all in the welcoming. And with the resources that you provide, and Council Member Gabbard hit it on the head, you do so much with so little. You do so much with so little. But that's who we are. It is. That's who we are. We take and we do the best we can for as many people as we can. So I am glad that Council Member Mohamed brought you forward, again, another light to shine in the community of the city of St. Petersburg. Because a lot of times our unsung heroes don't get the recognition that they deserve. And what you've done and will continue to do, because we know POC is going to be around for a minute, because you all are a strong chain of support to the community. So thank you, POC. Thank you, Patty. And look forward to, I still haven't got my little patty cakes yet, but I'm going to have to catch you on now. Oh, yes. Oh, yes, she makes the best desserts, everybody. Oh, yeah. The best desserts. But thank you so much for your community service, and thank you, everyone, at POC. Thank you. So next, we will have a presentation, the Sunshine Mural Festival, and that was also presented by Council Member Floyd. And I'll let you introduce item D2. Thank you. Unfortunately, I'm having some computer issues right now, so I don't have my prepared comments. But the Shine Mural Festival was recently, it got knocked off course because of the storms. Courtney and I had a proclamation ready for it. It's 10 years of shine, and we were super excited to do all of that. Well, you know, the storms led us here, so now we're just here for an update about how it's gone, and I'm really looking forward to it. I'm sorry I can't pull my stuff up, but I'll let you go ahead and take it away then. Thank you, Council Member Floyd. My name is Janae Preby. I'm the director of the Shine Mural Festival for the St. Petersburg Arts Alliance. I'm really honored to be here today. I appreciate the opportunity to share a recap on Shine's 10th anniversary that wrapped up, for the most part, in November. This is our 10th anniversary. As Council Member Floyd mentioned, we were originally scheduled to begin the festival the day after Milton hit, so we did some very quick rescheduling for November as best we could. Amazingly, we were able to get all the same artists and all the same property owners on board. Scheduling was a little bit different, but we pulled it off, and it's all come together, so I'm going to share briefly. I'm going to go through some of these slides pretty quickly just for the purposes of time, but this is our mission statement, which is essentially just celebrating the power of art in public spaces. We're produced by the St. Petersburg Arts Alliance, and since 2015 have created 180 murals. Primarily throughout the art districts of St. Pete by local, national, and international artists. This is the map for this year's festival. You can find this online and download it, but I'm going to go through and just kind of show you the finished results that you can see on the map. This is Emmanuel Jaris from Canada. This is the tallest mural we've ever created in St. Pete. It's 14 stories tall. This is an incredible process, and again, typically, Shine takes place over the course of 9 or 10 days. This mural in particular took about a month. All the painting, as I'll get to later, took about 35 days this year. This is Quinn Kale. She's a local artist from Tampa at Mangrove. George F. Baker III from Atlanta. This is at the Studio 620. Finton McGee from Australia. This is at Reflection St. Pete. Reflection is our two-year title sponsor for Shine, and really a great example of how developers can support the art community and how we really both can benefit. Stevie Chow from Seattle. Chris Markovich and Johnny Vitale from St. Petersburg. This is at Anchor Skate Supply. Abyss from France. This mural, the alligator, was his main Shine mural. He painted this whole thing in four days, so he had time left over. We found him another wall, and then we still had time left over, and we went kayaking at Wikiwachi. This is Up and Over at the corner of Madera St. Pete here. This is an exciting one for us because it's a collaboration with Tess One and the Vitale Brothers. Tess One is one of the original founders of the Shine Festival 10 years ago, so it was really exciting for us to be able to bring him back as an artist this year. Nespun from Poland. This was really a cool project. Her work is always based on lace-making patterns. This is the first time she's ever done an abstract pattern where you can see sort of her nod to Milton there where it's sort of twisted in the middle. She's never done that before. All of her patterns are usually replicas of actual lace patterns, but she did that for us. Frankie G. from Tampa. This is at the south side of Florida Rama. Christy Lopez, also a local artist. This is in the Warehouse Arts District. And then we have a series of Bright Spot projects. So the Bright Spots every year are more community-based murals that we do, usually in partnership with another nonprofit organization or a youth organization. Typically, the art is more geared towards a mission or a cause or it has community involvement. So this is Dwayne Shepard and Brian McAllister, who are two visual arts teachers for Pinellas County Schools. They partnered with FAEA in their annual conference. So there was 80 visual arts teachers from across the state of Florida that came out and helped paint this mural and then all went back to their respective communities with this sort of hands-on experience making murals. This is Zulu Painter, the AMI Kids. This is the first time we've ever done a Shrine mural in District 2. So we're slowly working our way through all the districts of St. Pete. We've got a couple more to do. But this was a really exciting project. AMI Kids is an amazing program. And originally, some of the kids from the program were supposed to help Zulu paint the mural. Unfortunately, due to flooding in Helene, the program is not operational right now at this location. This is Naomi Haverland with the City of St. Pete. This was a really exciting project for us. And I really want to take a moment and thank the City Arts and Culture Department, specifically Celeste Davis and Tracy Kennard, for pushing this project forward with us along with the City Legal Department. Ben and Brett really came through at the end to make this project possible. It was an exciting partnership. It's on the pier. It's the first time we've ever been able to paint a mural on the pier, which is really exciting for us. And I wanted to share this quote from Naomi because it kind of captures the experience that a lot of artists have when they come here for Shrine. We hear similar stories of this every year. But she says, I've participated in quite a few art festivals over the years. And Shrine Festival is by far the most well-organized and sophisticated event I've had the privilege to be a part of. The hospitality and warmth from everyone involved made me feel appreciated and created an amazingly fun and rewarding experience. Throughout the festival, I had the opportunity to grow as an artist while making lifelong friends and unforgettable memories. Best of all, thanks to the seamless logistics and thoughtful planning, I was able to focus on my work and leave behind a piece of art that truly reflects the best of my abilities. Shrine Festival set a new standard for what an arts festival can be. So love to hear that. We have one more project that's happening tomorrow. I invite you all to come attend at the MFA with Yala Ford. I believe Mayor Welch will be there for that. And I think about 100 students from Mount Zion will come out and help Yala paint this mural. I will mention about that that the reason why this has been delayed is because Yala Ford was invited to represent the United States in Senegal for the Dakar Biennial. She was the only artist from all of America invited to participate in that. So she's back now and painting for us tomorrow. Mural tours, this is new for us. We started this partnership with Star Trolley earlier this year. They've been hugely successful. We sold out a whole bunch of those tours, sold 440 tickets just during the week of Shine alone, and then those are ongoing now for the rest of the year. We also have ongoing partnerships with Florida Craft Art for the bike tours. They capped those bike tours like 8 to 10 riders. The numbers are much lower, but again, selling out those tickets as well. By the numbers, we did 15 new murals this year. We tracked about 19,000 attendees over the course of 35 days of painting. We tracked 53 media features. That includes TV, digital media, and print media, which reached about 50 million viewers across the world. None of that includes our social media numbers. We're still gathering those numbers, but those will be significantly higher. We've tracked about 21,000 photos using our hashtag, ShineOnStPete, for one beautiful city of the arts. And just real quickly, I just want to kind of talk about why all of this matters, right? They're beautiful paintings, they look cool, but why does public art matter? This is museum-quality art that's free and accessible to the public 24-7, right? It's an incredible opportunity for anyone to be able to walk up and enjoy a piece of art that they may not have even known they were into art. It signals that we have a vibrant city, right? Businesses are drawn to move their headquarters here because they know that St. Pete is a place that you want to live. It's an opportunity to reflect a community's values. One of the things I love most about Shine is the fact that it's never been about marketing, it's never been about branding, it's not about a theme even, it's truly just about celebrating art for the sake of art in a city and how that can transform your community. It supports year-round tourism. This is a really unique thing about Shine that most other events will pop up for a day or a weekend, but what we're doing with Shine, the impacts of that are available and accessible all year round. So when we, you know, know that 19,000 people came out for the festival, we're not even tracking the other, you know, 11 months out of the year where people are coming to visit those murals and spending their money on all the businesses nearby. We don't even track those numbers, but it's significantly higher, obviously. And it increases the quality of life for residents. These are our sponsors this year. Again, so much thanks to the City of St. Pete, who increased their sponsorship for this year's festival and also came through to cover what the state had cut and the state veto. And I just wanted to acknowledge also my team. Everybody works so hard this year, especially with all the rescheduling, the staff at the Arts Alliance, the Shine Steering Committee, which is all volunteers, many of whom have been a part of the committee since year one and 10 years later are still out there in the streets making this an incredible event. The Shine Street team, people like Daniel Brojas, who's here today, out there making sure that hospitality piece is really there and all the artists have what they need so they can have an experience like Naomi had. And also just our media team who captured everything. I didn't end up showing the video today, but they're out there making us all look good. So thank you all very much. I appreciate the opportunity to share that. Thank you. Vice Chair Good. This is awesome. This is awesome. And thank you so much for the presentation. Council Member Floyd, thank you for making sure that we highlight this. Just first of all, the artwork is incredible. I mean, it seems like every time, and I drive into downtown every day from the west side, there is a new piece of art on a building. It's incredible. And the showcase of this, the reach of it is just magnificent. It's like I'm struggling to describe it. And I just wanted to highlight one thing that I thought was really important. I think three of these, if not four, can be seen from the interstate. You don't even have to visit us. And you get to see this. That's incredible. Now, you can come out west. All right. But I'm very happy. I mean, I love ways to celebrate the city when you don't even have to really be here is incredible. I mean, I am on the verge of tears. Some of this is so cool. And so I just wanted to say thank you. I think, I mean, I've got a pretty good guest. I can speak for all of us. We love this. This is something that we love to celebrate, and we want to continue to support. And this is what makes us so special. Your slide about the data and the impressions, and then, or excuse me, the one right before it. Yeah, about the impressions and the photos tagged, one beautiful city of the arts. Like, that is, I'll go back to my original statement. That is awesome. And so just thank you so much to the whole entire team, everybody that puts it, the artists that come from around the world. I mean, you just can't say enough about it. Thank you so much for everything that you do here. And I know that there's other things that you're a part of, too. But this is just, what a celebration of St. Pete and its uniqueness and the vitality of it all. It's just absolutely incredible. Thank you so much. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Council Member Mohammed. Thank you, Madam Chair. Janaye. Thank you. Amazing presentation. Thank you for bringing this forward, Council Member Floyd. I actually attended a ribbon cutting at Bell Pharmacy. So happy to see them on the slide. And then I drove by the AMI Kids mural and just saw it, you know, on a whim. And I was like, wow. Not knowing that it was connected to Shine. So just really quickly want to thank you for your partnership and your collaboration over the years. I heard Council Member Gurdas say come to the west side. That's how our collaboration started. We wanted you to come to the southwest side. And the Dream Big, Be Big mural was like our first, you know, project together. And it's become iconic. I mean, it shows up in multiple places. I see printed materials from the city. I actually interviewed for our Lakeside Chat a local hip-hop artist. And he, you know, shot a scene in front of the mural. And so it's like incorporated in, you know, multiple venues for art. My grandson's hands are on that wall. You know, and that's a moment of pride for them. And I remember some conversations about, you know, concerns about vandalism and whether or not, like, oh, my God. Attractive nuisance and all of that stuff came up. And I inspected it a few months ago. And the only tag on it, unfortunately, but I guess there's a silver lining, was a Sharpie marker where somebody wrote, long live Amir. And he was, you know, murdered by accident with gun violence. But that was it. And all of the, you know, concerns about would it be vandalized, would people tag it, all of that has been debunked. And so thank you for that. And then there's Lift Station 87, you know, working with the city, looking at, like, how we can beautify and make this thing, you know, a thing. Just amazing work. And then lastly, I worked together with the mural on 46th Street and 11th Avenue to help traffic, you know, calm traffic, which was another one of those outside-of-the-box ideas that we worked together. And I guess the last thing that I'll say and really let you know how much I appreciate is that each one of those started with the conversation, and it included, you know, feedback and input from residents. And I don't know if you know anything about Brother John, but that stuff's kind of important to me. And so just to be able to craft the vision and then have the artist present making notes is just mind-blowing to be able to be engaged in the process from the start of it conceptually all the way to the finished product. And so it's really a community effort. When the youth see it, they see themselves in it, and they see their contribution to it. And I think that's what's allowed it to stay intact for so long. And thank you again for all that you're doing, and congratulations on 10 years of shine. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Council Member Driscoll. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation, and thank you, Council Member Floyd, for bringing this forward. Because shine is one of the things that really stands out when people who don't live in St. Pete talk about St. Pete. I can't tell you how many times, you know, I have friends from Orlando who come over for a weekend, and they want to go see the murals, you know. And it helps, it enables me to discover them all over again when I'm showing them to friends who are visiting. This presentation needs to go to Tallahassee. This is the reality of what happens with arts funding, and I want to remind everyone that, and thank everyone again for hearing my call for help for shine and others. Shine specifically didn't even make it to the governor's desk to veto. And that was $25,000 that we were able to find to contribute to this to help make it happen. And you see that this is an organization that is not just waiting for the next handout. They're doing it themselves. They're finding the collaborations to make these things possible. I'm so glad that you collaborated with Star Trolley to do the mural tour, and they were a hit. So I'm hoping that that will be something that continues. And, you know, you had a lot of other sponsors, too, right, that did everything from sponsoring lunches to bring to the artists and to give of their time to take lunches to the artists. And host them and all of that. I don't know if you wanted to say anything about that part. Yeah, thank you. We had over 100 volunteers sign up this year to do a variety of things. But one of the things that Shine is really known for is our hospitality. So when the artists come, I mean, we hear these stories all the time about other people participating in festivals where they basically have a wall, and you show up, and you have nothing else, which is mind-blowing to me because we do everything. We prep the wall. We get the lifts. We pay them. We buy their paint. We feed them every day from a different local restaurant that used to donate. And then when COVID hit, we started raising sponsorships so that we could support the restaurants. And that's the thing is, like, it's not just supporting artists. It is supporting artists, but it's supporting all these local businesses, all of these property owners, all of these. I mean, it just, the ripple effect in the community. And that's what we've seen with the economic impact studies is, like, that's where all the money goes. It goes back to the community. It goes back to the business owners, all the bars and the galleries and everything surrounding this art. That's who's benefiting financially from this, which is incredible, right? So we rely on the support from the city and from all of these other sponsors who understand that and know that they're not just supporting art. They're supporting the whole city. It's incredible. Right. Absolutely. So tell us, how could someone find out about volunteering or sponsoring for next year? Yes, thank you. So shinemuralfest.com is the easiest website that will kick you over to the St. Petersburg Arts Alliance website, where you can learn all about shine and volunteer and find out about sponsorship opportunities there. Great. Thank you. And looking through the examples that you gave here, it's hard to pick a favorite, but I do want to give a shout-out to the folks at Reflection for that incredible mural by Fenton McGee. That just blew my mind. And the folks from Reflection, the developers there, were so committed to having this mural. It's almost as if they designed the building to make sure that an extraordinary mural could be put there. Yeah. They are so committed. It's the enthusiasm is just incredible around this, not just from art lovers, but from the community that chips in to help make this happen, whether it's with a wall, a lunch, or some time. And I think that makes it even more special because it is such a collaborative effort across the community. Yes. Thank you. And thank you for attending that event. Oh, yeah. That was a lot of fun. All right. Good. Well, thank you. And I can't wait to see what you do next year. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Council Member Hanowitz. Thank you, Chair. And thank you so much for a wonderful presentation. I have to say, Council Member Driscoll left off where I wanted to start, which is on that mural. Last night, I was in an event, and we were driving by the building. And I remember the building before the mural, and then after the mural. And the thing was, at night, it's lit up. And that extra level of just lighting and how it reflects, because it has an abstract feel to it. First, the building's called Reflection, and then you see it. It was spectacular. Like, it made me smile. Like, I was like, this is great. And just, like, it lights up the whole area. So it wasn't just the painting. It was just, like, how it was presented and the lighting itself. And just that whole area, that corner there is just lit up, you know. So, and I would love to see the whole city just flash with color like that. I will tell you, of course, you're going to hear this from me, like you've heard from other council members. You're welcome in District 4 whenever you want, okay? You can call. We can drive along, find places. We'll tour. I'll be happy to show you all around. But, you know, finding locations, because I know in my district, we have people that actually do the murals in their homes. Like, in the alleys and brighten up even an alley. And it's amazing where you can find all of a sudden you're walking around and you find a mural nowadays. And I remember the days where I think the only mural you would see was probably Crescent Lake Tower back in the day. And that was it. And from then to now, our city has been transformed because of you all and what you do. And so kudos to you for improving our quality of life and bringing, like, free public art to everyone to see. Because it is free public art for everyone to see. So thank you. Councilmember Gabbert. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Councilmember Floyd, thank you for bringing this presentation. I was very sad to feel like we kind of missed Shine this year. So we didn't miss it. We've been able to enjoy it, even though we couldn't come together the way that we normally do. But specifically, I can pick a favorite this year. I normally can't, but this year I will. Because you finally came to District 2. And Celeste has heard me say this. Like, please, more public art in District 2. You know, we have a lot of business. And, you know, it's a lot of multifamily. And so I think, like, sometimes that flavor and that vibe gets a little lost as it carries down or, you know, up 4th Street. But we are a vibrant community. We are a vibrant area. And we want that artistic vitality to come to our district. So thank you and how beautiful the marriage is between the artist and the organization on this mural. Very, very happy for this. We're doing a lot of work around the District 2 master plan and placemaking and really trying to create that sense of community in the district. And this is exactly the sort of thing we need to do that and to further connect us to the rest of the city. So thank you, thank you, thank you for making a spotlight on District 2 this year. We appreciate it. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Council Member Floyd. Thank you. Thank you, Janae, for the presentation. I just, you know, after everyone else went, I wanted to just thank you one more time for this and for including me in things this year. I'm really grateful that we were able to connect. My time on City Council has been spent, a huge chunk of it's been spent on learning about, more and more about the arts community in the city. And this really has been like the cherry on top of it all for me. I have something nice to say about every single mural, and I've seen almost all of them. But I wanted to comment on two of them. One is, I believe it was Jarrus, the piece, the really tall piece. It was kind of, I don't want to say controversial, but there were some people who, like, didn't grab onto it right away. And I might have included myself in that, but as soon as I was told, like, take a step back and, like, if you see it as something that you're looking at, and it's really, I guess, the person standing, like, on the waterfront, and, like, that's the water behind them. And then all of a sudden, like, the orange glow made sense. It was, like, sort of as the sun was going down, and it really, like, being able to be provided the whole perspective for it made me love it so much. And I think it's so good. And then the other thing I wanted to comment on was the piece of the pier. It was Naomi Haverland. I had not seen that until I saw your presentation. I haven't been over there to see it yet. And it looks incredible. I can't wait to go see it. It's really exciting, the location that it's in. And it's really exciting that it was able to come together and get done in the last second because that was a work that people were worried about. It might not cross the finish line. So I really enjoyed this, and it really does make our city feel unique. And it was really nice to go on the tour and see so many people that cared, and it was sold out. And I'm just really grateful to have been able to have this conversation today. So thank you. Thank you so much for the invitation. I really do appreciate it. And thank you for the proclamation. I know, yeah, we didn't really get to do what we were planning to do with that, but it still means a lot, and I appreciate it. I think we can get to that again next year and the year after and the year after. Thank you. Vice Chair Gurders. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm sorry for buzzing in again, but I couldn't help but think not to put any pressure on administration or Mike Jeffries, but all districts have rec centers. So I'm just saying I'm supportive of that, but I think it's an amazing opportunity, and go see this one in person. This one's awesome. Yeah, I will. It is cool. It's cool. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation, and as I was looking at the map, you don't have any in District 5, so I have to throw D5 in the mix as a request. But I will say art is something that continues to make us smile, and anything that we can do in the city of St. Petersburg, and it brings people together. No matter what, no matter where, it brings people together, but I definitely have to put District 5 in the mix, and Celeste also knows how much of an advocate I am for local artists, so I am just so glad to see that we utilize a lot of local artists in our murals. But again, as long as we continue to spread beauty and love and smiles, you know we're going to support you. I'm still thanking Councilmember Driscoll for us providing financial assistance to the local art community, because that's something that we don't want to get lost with everything that's going on, because it does do good for everybody involved with that. So again, thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Floyd, for bringing this. It is greatly appreciated, and we do appreciate you and all that you're doing for the city of St. Petersburg. Thank you. Thank you. So now we're going to move on to our report items, beginning with item F6, which is the State of Emergency Update, and joining us is our Fire Emergency Management Manager, Ms. Amber Boulding. Hi, Amber. Thank you, Chair. Before Amber gets started, just say a few words, and I think most of the Council knows that this is a required update related to the Mayor's State of Emergency. It's not a full storm update for City Council. If you want us to come back in January and kind of get a full report with the administrators on the activities again, we're happy to do that. But today is just a brief report on the emergency powers. So Amber's going to talk a little bit about the activity that's going on, and then I'll share how we've been using the emergency powers in the current moment and how we plan to use them going forward, and then we'll be happy to take any questions. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. First, I just want to, before I hop into the update, I just wanted to take a second to thank all of you. As you know, it has been a year of firsts and historics, you know, for the city with different weather events. I just want to thank you for your leadership and coordination through all of it. It certainly has helped our city in our preparation and response and in our recovery and certainly helps us to be a more resilient community. As we look for next year, while I certainly hope 2025 isn't as history-making as 2024 was, I know the city is ready because we have good leadership. So with that, I will hop in to the update. So in response to Hurricanes Helene and Milton, we do have city debris operations ongoing to date. I checked this morning or right before the meeting. We've had 34,000 truckloads have been collected, totaling just over 1.9 million cubic yards citywide. We're continuing the remediation and repair of damaged city infrastructure. Substantial damage assessment is ongoing, as well as the post-disaster emergency permitting. Those are the city operational points as to why we're extending that state of local emergency. I also wanted to provide a quick recovery update on some other areas. FEMA assistance, the deadline to apply is January 7, 2025, so that was an extension, and that is coming back up fairly quickly. So residents can apply at disasterassistance.gov. The disaster recovery center, the DRC, remains open at Enoch Davis, Monday through Saturday, 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., and that will be open at least through January 7. It's possible there will be extensions, but right now we have a contract through January 7. I did want to mention that the DRC will be closed on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, so December 24th and 25th, as well as New Year's Day on January 1. We've heard a lot about this much-anticipated program from the state, the Florida Division of Emergency Management, about the residential mitigation program. We did finally receive some guidance on what that program is. It's called Elevate Florida, and it will provide grant funding for the elevation, mitigation, construction, and acquisition of residential structures. What's really exciting about this program is it will be a much abbreviated timeline than the traditional FEMA mitigation programs, which is normally years in the making. Right now, according to their flyer, in as little as 12 months, from construction and project closeout in a year. So that's really exciting. We're waiting on more details of that. For now, residents can go to floridadisaster.org forward slash residential mitigation for more information on that. But as soon as we get more guidance, we'll be sure to push that out to our residents. Thank you so much, Amber. And so the city code also requires that we summarize for city council how the emergency powers have been exercised since our last report and how we expect them to be exercised going forward. So the emergency powers have really been exercised in relationship to the city code. So, for example, debris being placed in the right-of-way before a house. You may or may not be aware that that's actually a violation of the city code, right? So that's not something that we've been enforcing because of the emergency powers. Let us not enforce that. Waiving permit fees for storm repair, which we've shared with city council. We're also doing that under the emergency order. Suspension of late fees and lock-offs for utility payments. That's another area where we've been using the emergency order. And then not enforcing domestic equipment, such as RVs in the front yards where there's been storm-damaged property. Somebody's repairing their home, and they're living in an RV in the front yard. Those are the ways that we're currently using the mayor's state of emergency. We have not done any expenditures, any emergency expenditures since our last report. We're bringing everything to city council now related to expenditures. Going forward, we'll be doing the same code provisions that we're doing now. We don't anticipate any changes moving forward. If there are, we'll let you know. And that's our report, Chair. Okay, thank you. Councilmember Gabbert. Thank you. And thank you for the report, Amber. And great news about the elevation program. I have residents that are very, like, kind of waiting on the edge of their seat for that. So look forward to learning more about that and getting that out to the residents. Might suggest that maybe we could do some sort of forum, town hall, something like that with affected residents to be able to help kind of guide them through that program. So I'd be happy to work with your office on that. And then I have one question about the suspension of the domestic equipment. Do we know how long we're going to leave that open? Like, what are kind of the behind-the-scenes conversations? You know, we haven't set a date. We definitely want to be accommodating and flexible. So, you know, we're going to see how repairs go and what that timeline looks like. But, you know, we're going to continue to extend it while people are repairing their homes. Yeah, okay. So it's going to be fairly lengthy. Okay. You know, we may reach a point where if that's the only item left, city council might prefer the state of emergency to end. And maybe we can look at a different way of doing that portion of it. But we'll see when we get there. And do we have an update on the number of permits issued to date? We can certainly. Substantial damage permits, I should say. I do have, it's a couple days old. So as of December 10th, you said permits or the substantial damage? If you have different numbers for each, yeah. I have, as of December 10th, just over 6,000 substantial damage assessments have been completed. I don't have the number of letters that have been substantially damaged. And then for permits, as of December 8th, 2,869 emergency permits have been issued with 883 in process. That's amazing. I mean, people should know that there are other municipalities across Pinellas County that, I mean, the number of permits they've been able to issue are in the teens. I mean, it has been for other areas. It has been incredibly challenging for their staff to actually be able to mobilize and get that work done. And our permitting staff, I mean, oh, my God. I cannot even say enough about what they have done, the way that they are walking people through, how to rebuild, what everything means, how cumbersome that is, and just the amount of care and diligence and hard work that has gone into what our permitting staff has done so far. And the work is really just beginning, right? So I just want to publicly say a huge thank you to our permitting staff. Even after working 10-, 12-hour days, they are still going out to neighborhood meetings and having lengthy conversations with our residents, and it is so appreciated. So I just wanted to publicly say that. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Council Member Floyd. Thank you. I just wanted to bring up one thing real quick about the domestic equipment conversation. Council Member Montaneri put in a new business item about RVs, or am I mistaken? Yeah, okay. So I assume we will have that conversation in more depth in the future. But since it got brought up, I just wanted to confirm that I was remembering correctly. All right. Yes, I. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Seeing no further requests to speak. Thank you, Amber, for the update. Thank you. Now we will move on to report item F1, which is the resolution authorizing the mayor to execute a design-build agreement with Tennessee Construction Services to provide pre-construction phase and construction phase services for the Tropicana Field Emergency Roof Placement Project. And joining us is our City Architect Manager, Mr. Rahul Quintana. Good afternoon. How are you? Very well, Council. Good afternoon. Rahul Quintana, City Engineering and Capital Improvements Department. Madam Chair, I'll go ahead and walk through F1 and F2 in the presentation. Obviously, there are two separate resolutions. So first, I thought I'd just step back real quickly and just back on the last time we were in front of Council. We shared with Council the findings of the facility damage assessment that resulted in an estimated cost of $55.7 million. The findings included that the structure was confirmed that there was structural integrity left to the main structure of the roof and that a PTFE roofing membrane could be viably reinstalled and that the other systems and the building systems were minimally affected. We presented a design-build agreement with Hennessey Construction to provide for the new roof at $23.7 million. That resolution was denied due to just a number of concerns that were brought up. So I wanted to just reiterate really the obligations that we are now meeting by virtue of approval of F1 and F2, effectively that within three months, the city shall begin to repair or rebuild the dome using the proceeds from the insurance, and that once a city contracts with an architect or an engineer to draw the plans for the repair or rebuilding of the dome, the city shall be deemed to have begun those repairs and rebuilding of the dome. And effectively, both of these items, item F1 and F2, will accomplish that. So as of following November 21st, just wanted to share with you what we've been doing and kind of where we were authorized to proceed. Obviously, the completion of the removal of the damaged membrane has been done. There's one element that will be presented as part of F5 that shares with you one last issue that we've got to deal with on that, but all of the membrane itself has been removed. The weather protection and diversion activities have been fairly completed. There's still some work left to be done, but those are well underway. We've had numerous coordination meetings with FEMA, all-day meetings walking through the facility, and then obtaining the proposal for those pre-construction services for the roof replacement, which is F1, and obtaining the proposal for the architectural design of the balance, which is F2, and then really just confirming that, yeah, we've had meetings confirming that this is a viable path in terms of availability, in terms of schedule, in terms of opportunities to do this work, and then confirming those schedules. So pertaining to F1, this is to execute a design-build agreement with Hennessey to provide for the pre-construction phase and the construction phase ultimately, but this is for the services to replace the roof and approving a payment to Hennessey of $1,450,272 for that pre-construction phase. That's all we're asking approval for here. It's in order to provide the services to do the engineering, do the design, develop the support materials in order to submit those drawings for permitting. The team that is involved here, a lot of experience. It's the team that's helped us put together the report, led by Hennessey Construction, a local firm with AECOM Hunt, who has significant stadium construction experience as well as experience with this facility. ETS, Enclosed Tensile Structures, is the firm that's going to be the subcontractor, the specialty subcontractor that's also going to be part of the engineering of the membrane. They're ultimately going to be the installer. They're going to be responsible for obtaining the material, fabricating it, and installing it. Geiger Engineering is the engineer of record for the original dome roof. They are the structural engineer of record here. They will be responsible for doing all the engineering calculations, submitting plans for permitting, obtaining the permit. And then WJHW is a specialty engineer that's one of the top engineers in the country dealing with acoustics and lighting analysis for Major League Baseball. They're their part of the team. And then the Global Rope Access Team is also under this contract to help support within the roof installation. And George F. Young is providing survey force to actually do the point surveys on the structure. So you see the totality of this initial service, which would complete our obligation for the engineering of the roof, is $1,450,272. So just stepping through kind of the sequence and the process involved, the very first thing we're going to do is meet with the building official and the fire marshal. We're already beginning to contemplate the timing of that. We really need to confirm the design criteria, the wind loading, the performance criteria from a fire standpoint. And those are pretty well understood right now, but having that discussion with our engineers and the building officials is going to be pretty critical. So then the structural inspections that George F. Young and ETS are going to continue to do as part of this process is to really dig into the structure, the cabling, all of the elements that are either not totally visible previously, but we're going to start to, like, pull some things apart and actually investigate and see what those are. And then Geiger is going to begin their engineering, ETS, now that they're going to be on board. They're going to start helping us actually develop that fabric, that material, the characteristics of that fabric, provide us all of the details so that we can start using that information both to submit for the permitting and also with the MLB approvals. So their calculations are going to be what effectively provides us the information we need to get to the Rays and to MLB. So Geiger and Hennessey will assist us in submitting those plans for the permitting department, obtaining our permits. We're going to conduct those detailed acoustic and lighting analysis that then will be provided through the Rays to get the actual peer approvals and MLB approvals on the lighting and the acoustic analysis and then, obviously, the building department. So through this process, it would lead us to a point where we have all the answers that we need in order to know what this ultimate material is going to be and how long it's going to take to do the schedule. And then we're going to receive a GMP proposal from Hennessey to actually perform the work that will come back to City Council to be authorized at that time. Just a real quick schedule. We feel like the critical, these next four months, the work that's in blue is the work that I just described. Those are going to be about four months' worth of effort. In green, those are the approval points first today, the approval of this pre-construction services agreement, and then sometime in March, hopefully, once we get through all of these steps I just went over, we'll come back to City Council with a request for approval of the actual GMP. And the next couple of months, I'm just showing, just projecting out what we understand right now from talking to ETS could be the durations for the purchase, the fabrication of the material, and then the delivery of the material, and then the installation. So if all goes well on the front end and we can get these approvals and we can start obtaining the material itself and the fabrication by November, again, if all these milestones are met, we should have the roof completed, which would leave the last 10 weeks or so for actually reinstalling the turf. Now, there would be other opportunities to complete the non-roof work concurrent with this schedule, the work that I'm going to speak to in F2. That's not going to be delayed. That work is outside of this particular critical path, but it could be work that could be done simultaneously. So just a little bit about the material itself. And there's a lot that's been said about, you know, what is this, you know, this PTFE fiberglass membrane. Just, you know, the fact that this is a material that's been widely used in sports complexes. This is a very strong material. It's got characteristics that make it favorable for these kind of long spans. The material is sourced in Europe and it's fabricated in Asia. So it's not anything that can be purchased here in this country, but we do know that it is available and that there is an understanding through ETS who has got a lot of global experience in this market that the material can be obtained and it's available. We anticipate the five months for that procurement and fabrication process. And then if needed, there's an opportunity to, with discussion with council administration, if we think that we had to reserve a spot in the kind of the production line, there's an opportunity in this GMP, in this proposal to do so. And then the detailed installation and planning that's going to take to really get this done, and all of that is a very strong input from the ETS team and the Hunt and Hennessey team as well. So ETS, just, again, their experience, their industry leader in tensile membrane structures. These are just a couple of examples of stadiums throughout the country. I think the middle one is SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles, which, although it's not a PTFE roof, they were the installing contractor for that roof system. So they're well known and a lot of experience in the world of these roofs. So the last item, particularly on F1, is the playability approvals of Major League Baseball. There are two that we are focused on, the lighting, which has to be evaluated, again, by a lighting engineer with significant experience in professional sports lighting, and that's WJFHW, and as well as the acoustic properties. And once they complete their evaluation, that's going to be submitted both to the Rays and ultimately to MLB. There's going to be a peer review that will be conducted to analyze that, the design and the engineering that's done on the front end, and then that is going to be submitted based on recommendations ultimately to MLB and obtain the approval. We think that's about a four- to five-week process. Hopefully, I mean, that's the schedule that we're tracking right now, and if we run into any issues related to ultimately that, we'll have to adjust that schedule. So we anticipate that that would conclude the pre-construction phase of this agreement. And so I'll then turn over to F2, and this is just real briefly. This is executing an agreement with an architect, Associated Space Design, ASD, to provide for the design of the areas that are outside of the stadium that were damaged, to putting the drawings together to provide us that package of work that will ultimately be permitted, submitted for permitting, and then obtaining construction pricing. And the fee for those services is $206,000. Of the duration that we have here, 26 weeks, about eight or nine weeks of that is actual permitting. So really, the work itself will be done in about 16 weeks. We're prepared to commence immediately. And once those plans are done and we obtain pricing, the construction bids will be brought to City Council for approval at that time. That concludes both F1 and F2. I'm happy to answer any questions the Council might have. So before we go into public comment, I want to make sure F1 and F2 have to be voted on separately, correct? I'm sorry. F1 and F2 have to be voted on separately. No, they can be voted on separately. Okay. I just wanted to make sure they can be voted on. Do we have any cards on? Okay. One card, Madam Chair. William Ballard, please approach either podium. State your name and address. You'll have three minutes to address City Council. Thank you. Good afternoon. I really enjoyed the presentation on... Please state your name and address. Shine. Excuse me. Name and address. William C. Ballard 5560 Bahama Shores Drive South, Unit 608-33705. When I submitted the memorandum to each of you a week ago, I really had... I knew this was coming because, logically, it had already been announced. I strongly feel that you should have not a 87-year-old retired attorney standing in front of you, but council should have its own special assistant to advise it on what this outside council perceives to be, the rights that the city has, and the duties that the city continues to have under the 12 bundle of 12 agreements. It's not simple. I don't think any attorney could give you a crystal clear answer, but I think you need to have, you should have, an internal discussion with a qualified commercial and construction litigation lawyer. I won't go into my reasoning and my belief, other than I do not believe that the city attorneys are in a position to give you, as an independent legislative body, the kind of information that would lead to the kind of discussion that you should be having at this point. And I wish you a wonderful holiday season, and I really do thank you for opening my eyes as to some of the wonderful other things that are happening in our city. We do have a great city. Thank you. Vice Chair Gerdes. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, obviously, we took up this discussion a couple weeks ago, and it's since changed. And so, just double-clicking on it, this fulfills our contractual obligation for the current use agreement. It's step one. Step one. Correct. Right. Yeah. Not in totality. Excuse me. Exactly. So, this is what is necessary to comply with the agreement for the three-month period. What has to happen initially under the existing use agreement, this would satisfy it. Okay. And just because we approve this and a week goes by or a month goes by and administration and the team come together and decide there's a different outcome on the current use agreement, that work could be stopped, and this $1.5 million plus another couple hundred thousand, right, let's call it $1.7 million, doesn't get totally spent if that were to happen. It doesn't mean this just automatically goes. Correct. Approval F1 and 2. Second. Council Member Driscoll. Thank you. If I could ask Administrator Gerdes to weigh in on that, let us know if there's anything new to share regarding conversations with the race on chop repairs. Thank you, Council Member. No, there's nothing new to share today. Obviously, there's a potential significant vote, Pinellas County, next week. I would anticipate potentially after that vote, regardless how it goes, one way or the other, that might loosen up the conversation. But right now, there's nothing new to report. Okay. Thank you. If you'll keep us posted on that, that would be really helpful. And in the current use agreement, oh, wait, before I go on, I just want to state that I have absolute confidence in the city attorney's office, the entire team that advises us on such matters. Thank you for all you do and for being so helpful, so knowledgeable, and having such great integrity in everything that you do. The current use agreement states that we are obligated to diligently pursue repairs to make this playable for home games. And that's what we're doing here by taking this step. We are honoring our part of the use agreement. This has to be done in part to agreement by MLB. So, I wonder if we have gotten any other information. And it sounds like you have some information on what they need to approve as far as lighting, things like that. And I think Raul covered it quite a bit. He's been working with the team on what the process would be, and he laid that out in the presentation. At the same time, the mayor and I met with Commissioner Manfred recently, and we spoke about this issue. And the commissioner said very nicely that they would work very closely with us. They gave us direct contact information to work with their team on approvals and assured us that Major League Baseball had no interest in sending us down a path of spending money on something they wouldn't approve. Excellent. So, gave us some strong assurances. Excellent. Thank you. And I would like to know, I think we should all get the information sooner than later on what the real scope is here of the work that needs to be completed in order to meet those standards. You know, I mentioned this in a prior meeting, but there is damage big and small. But we don't know exactly what they're expecting overall. And the sooner we know that, the sooner we can understand and plan accordingly. So, I really hope that we get that information soon, like how far this goes. I believe Vice Chair Gerdes helped with the other questions that I had, so that's all I have for now. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Floyd. Thank you. Thank you. And, yeah, the substance of what I wanted to say was taken up by both of you already. But I do have a couple other things that I'll touch on. First, I just wanted to say thank you to everybody in here for taking this path forward. It was my preferred path from the get-go, and I'm glad to see that we're doing what we are legally required to do in a deliberate way. Having said that, yeah, I was going to ask if there had been any updates with, you know, negotiations with the team. I hear that, you know, we're still nothing new yet, but obviously there will be something new after next week, you know, whichever direction that goes, the county. And I would just ask, like, I'm willing to support this today because I see that unless, you know, some new information comes to light in the next two minutes, like I see that we are required to, like, enter into this kind of agreement. Otherwise, we're, you know, outside of our obligation. And this is much more reasonable than the $50 million to fix it right away in my view. But after the next vote and before anything else gets brought back to us, I know it could be a while, I would really ask administration, like, to please give us some sort of public update as to what the negotiations with the Rays look like for some sort of settlement. Just on its face, rebuilding a stadium with $50 million of money minimum, it's probably going to be more than that, you know. On its face, it's just wasteful when we know it's going to get, well, depending on next week, we assume it's going to be knocked down soon. And so I'm not going to be able to go with you there unless we can, like, have a more public conversation about what the alternative is and what a settlement would look like. So just, like, you know, I don't know. You all might not take that tact. You might take a different direction. I'm just laying out right now, like, where I'm coming from and the decisions that I'll be making when we go forward. But I am grateful for where we're at today compared to any sort of alternative. And so I will leave it there. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Hanowitz. Thank you, Chair. I would like to say thank you to my colleagues for bringing up issues that I think are relevant and important and ask the questions that I think are important to the issue today that I think we've brought up in different ways in the past meetings and what caused kind of the issues with some of the previous votes. I will say in terms of, and for those that are watching, you know, there are lots of different agreements in play, but this is the use agreement, the existing agreement right now. And there are times when attorneys could argue whether or not contractual obligations are clear or ambiguous. I think these are pretty clear. You have a time period, it says, within three months of the event. So that's crystal clear. We know this is our last meeting of the year. So if we're going to take action, it has to be now. And it says that once the city contracts with the architect or an engineer to draw plans for the repair or rebuilding of the dome, the city shall be deemed to have begun repair or rebuilding of the dome. Those provisions are pretty clear. And so I feel fine with this. Of course, like Council Member Floyd said, I would have issues going further without understanding where we are with the parties. And I trust, I know I've had conversations with the administration. They're definitely diligently having those conversations. And I would expect that at some point or the other, we will hear more as to where the parties are. I think the parties are where they've been right now. We're doing what we need to do. And there's going to be a little bit more time that's going to pass. And I think once the vote happens at the county commission and the parties have time to chat further, we will have more clarity, which is, I think, what we all need is clarity in terms of what's going to happen with the drop and what's going to happen with the other agreements. So with that, I'm very supportive of this. And I thank administration and staff for working on this and getting us this. Thank you also for contacting me yesterday. I could not call you back, but you definitely reached out to me to discuss it. Thank you. Thank you. I also want to say thank you to administration for moving forward with this. And I'm in total agreeance that clarity is what we need. But then I'm also hoping that once whatever happens happens next week, that because of the amount of money that we are investing in the repair of this, that we are also having the financial foresight to see if other options can be utilized with that location. For example, if it doesn't need to be torn down and we can still use it as a revenue generator for the city of St. Petersburg, what that looks like as well. I want us to be a little bit more proactive, barring whatever happens next week at the county commission's office, and that we will have those future conversations in regards to that. So with that being said, and having no further requests to speak, we have F1 and F2 that can be voted on. And I think we had a motion and a second on F1? Yes, Madam Chair. Okay, can you please open the machine for voting? Council members, please cast your votes. Seeing that all present council members have voted, can you please tally and announce the votes? Madam Chair, motion to approve agenda items F1 and F2. Passes unanimously. Thank you. And now we're going to also move on to F5, which is another resolution approving an amendment to the agreement with Global Road Access to expand the scope of work to remove the metal panels from the trough. And also joining us is City Development Administration and Finance Manager Director Beth Herringdean. How do you all remember your titles, right? We shorten them. You have to shorten them and write them down. So we have Ms. Herringdean, if you want to go ahead with your presentation. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of council. I'm happy to be here this afternoon. In this case, I think a picture will say a lot more than I can, so I'll be brief. But in essence, as you know, Global Rope Access was in. They removed the fabric from the roof structure. While they were removing the fabric, they found, they were discovered, metal panels were in place to cover some of the cabling. Any loose metal panels that they discovered, they took down. And when they went through the whole thing, they took down any loose panels, deemed it safe. But, you know, with weather and wind and such over the last few weeks, it's become clear that some of the metal panels are starting to loosen and becoming a safety issue. So this is strictly to bring Global Rope Access back in, to remobilize, have them come in. They estimated about 400 metal panels are up there based on what they witnessed, and they've only taken down about 40 that were loose. So this would be to have them come in and remove all of them for safety. Move approval. Second. Thank you. Okay. Council Member Driscoll. Thank you. I had this item pulled from the consent agenda because I believe that any item that is related to repairs to Tropicana Field should be report items and not on consent. So I hope that is heard for future reference. I also asked for the memo that Beth provided for us detailing what the total amounts have been approved for so far. For each repair item and then with the new, like, with the new ask that's in front of us here. So that's why you have the memo here. I've also asked for that to be provided and updated and provided each time an item is brought to us regarding truck repairs. So that along with the items we can see what this running total is each time. And thank you for taking the time to come and prepare all of this for us. Absolutely. And if anyone has any questions about that memo, I'd be happy to answer any. Thank you. Seeing no further requests to speak, I'm not sure if we have a motion and it has been seconded for F5. Okay, so can you please open the machine for voting? Council members, please cast your votes. Seeing that our present council members have voted, can you please tally and announce the votes? Madam Chair, motion to approve the gen item F5 passes unanimously. Thank you. So now we're going to go ahead and recess as City Council and convene as CRA. And joining us for CRA2 is our Economic Development Manager, Mr. George Smith. How are you? Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Council members. Again, George Smith, Economic Development Manager, bringing forward for your consideration and hopefully approval a request that we're able to amend the affordable single-family residential sod improvement grant program. The amendments that we're requesting will allow us to increase the maximum grant amount to $15,000 to clarify the program procedures and eligibility requirements and to expand the list of eligible projects. A brief description of the program is that it provides grant funding to upgrade and refresh the exterior of residential properties. And these grants are limited to owner-occupied households whose income is 80% and below area medium income. This chart gives you an indication of what that threshold is. As an example, for a family of four, the household income cannot exceed $76,400. This is an example of the impact that a facade improvement grant can provide to a home where we're able to repair the exterior by painting, including, including repair of the soffit and fascia, new windows and screens, and you can see that it does have a dramatic impact on the home. The maximum grant amount is currently $10,000. We'd like to increase that to $15,000. We'd also like to repair, replace, and add exterior lighting for safety reasons. Included will be sidewalk and driveway repair for health and safety, as well as to repair and replace awnings and gutters. In addition, we'd like to prioritize the applications in the event of limited funding, which would include need for repair, the code, if it is a code violation, if the applicant is either disabled or elderly, and their type of income, whether it be fixed or salaried. In addition, the applications are now online rather than just paper applications. So we're requesting that you approve the amendments, which would increase the maximum grant award amount to $15,000, to clarify the program procedures and eligibility requirements, and to expand the list of eligible projects. We're available for any questions that you may have. Thank you. Vice Chair Gerdes. Thank you, Madam Chair. George, thanks for the presentation. I'm supportive of the item. Do we know, I mean, is there any data based on past applications? How many more people this would have, like, how many more projects would we have done in the past year? Are we retracking that at all? Sure. We'll have Dr. Avery to come forth and answer the questions. Thank you so much for your question, Vice Chair. One thing that I, I don't have those exact numbers, but the one thing I do have for you is that oftentimes the facade is going to cost more than our current limit, and we have to then go into our rehabilitation funding, and so this will allow us definitely to do much more and extend those funds out. Yeah, I mean, I'm already supportive because you're obviously widening the scope, which if you're widening the scope, automatically it's going to be more expensive, right? But I was just wondering if there was any data behind it saying, okay, you know, we did 12 last year. Had we had this, had we had this cap, maybe we could have gotten to 15 or 17 because we would have been able to do all that work. I don't have that now, but I can get that. That'd be great. I'd appreciate that. You can absolutely get that. But happy to see this and glad we're expanding the program. I'd move approval. Second. Thank you. Council Member Mahalman. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the presentation, and thank you for always including that AMI as a part of your slides, because we hear 80% AMI, but it's, so I really appreciate, I always appreciate that, seeing that. And just the one question that I have is, are we no longer doing paper applications, or are we doing online in addition to paper applications? In addition to. Okay. The preference is for it to be online. Okay. But we do have staff in the housing department that is available to work with applicants who may not be as tech-savvy as others. Awesome. Thank you. Thank you. That's it. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. I have a, Council Member Gabbard. Sorry, I just thought of something real quick, and very supportive of this item, but I did just want to say, the other evening I was watching the news, Dr. Slykler, Slykler, I'm sorry, I always say your name wrong, and George, the two of you were both on there talking about these programs that we're doing, the votes that we took at our last council meeting, the improvement in our programs, continuing to work to meet the need, and I just wanted to say, as a resident, I was very, very proud to see the two of you there talking about the programs and the services that we offer. This is just another great example of that, and I just would be remiss if I didn't say that to the two of you. So thank you for everything that you do. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you, George, for the presentation. I have a quick question that I could not find, but I had a case similar to this. The single-family home owners, would it make them ineligible if they ran a small business inside the home? If the property is still their primary residence. And it's still homesteaded, should it matter? It would not make them ineligible. Okay. I just wanted to make sure. All right. Thank you so much for that. We've had CRA2. It has been motioned and properly seconded. Can you please open the machine for voting? Council members cast your vote. Seeing that all present council members have voted, can you please tell and announce the votes? Madam Chair, motion to approve a agenda item, CRA2. Passes unanimously. Thank you. And now we're going to continue on with CRA3. Very good. We are bringing forward a request for property acquisition and site preparation program amendment. So we're requesting that you approve the amendment to the program, which is primarily just to clarify some language, which is to indicate that multi-year projects may be approved, subject to annual appropriations, and the city administration will review potential properties and projects. And, again, this is just to clarify the language in the program description that was previously stated, that city council could commit to funding out of future years' budgets. A better approach is that it indicates that the project could be approved, but subject to annual appropriations. So, in essence, the program description is as follows, that the program allows for the city to acquire properties to promote housing, economic development, and revitalization in the CRA. That allowable costs would include surveying, appraisals, environmental reviews, as well as relocation of residents if it is required that we can pay for the cost incurred. It also will allow for us to purchase tax certificates, demolition of existing structures, vacating streets and alleyways, to relocate utilities, such as the water, sewer, and stormwater facilities, and to mitigate any environmental contamination, such as Phase I and or Phase II environmental studies. So, again, we're asking your approval for us to move forward with the amendments to the property acquisition and site preparation program, which will include, again, multi-year projects may be approved, but subject to annual appropriations, and that the city administration will review any potential properties and projects available for any questions that you may have. Okay, CRA3, I see no request to speak. Do we have a motion? Move, approve. Second. Okay, having been properly motioned with a second, can you please open the machine for voting for CRA3? Council members, please cast your votes. Seeing that our present council members have voted, can you please tally and announce the votes? Madam Chair, motion to approve agenda item CRA3 passes unanimously. Okay, thank you. Now we're going to adjourn the CRA and reconvene at City Council, and Mr. Smith, you're still on with items F3. Move approval. Second. Okay, seeing no request to speak, can you please open the machine for voting for item F3? Seeing that our present council members have voted, can you please tally and announce the votes? Madam Chair, motion to approve agenda item F3. Passes unanimously. Item F4, another resolution, Mr. Smith? Move approval. Second. F4 being properly motioned and in second, can you please open the machine for voting? Council members, cast your votes. Seeing that our present council members have voted, can you please tally and announce your votes? Madam Chair, motion to approve agenda item F4, passes unanimously. Thank you so much. Happy holidays to everyone. Same as you. Thank you. Now we're going to move on to our council committee reports, item H1A and B from our September 12th HWT, and that will be Council Member Gabbard. Thank you, Madam Chair. At the September 12th, 2024 Housing, Land, Use, and Transportation Committee meeting, the committee took two actions. Both are before you as items H1A and B. These are both a resolution approving the reappointment of Kimberly Brown-Williams and Angel Charlton to the St. Petersburg Housing Authority Board, and I so move. Second. Okay. Seeing no request to speak on items H1A and B, the machine is open. Council members, please cast your votes. Seeing that our present council members have voted, can you please tally and announce the votes? Madam Chair, motion to approve agenda item H1A and B, passes unanimously. Thank you. Our next item is H2, and that will be Vice Chair Gerdes. Thank you, Madam Chair. This morning at BF&T, we discussed a non-advalorem revenue note of $50 million to really create some flexibility during our disaster cleanup, and Anne Fritz is here. If we need the presentation, otherwise, really, I think everybody at BF&T agreed this was a good thing, creates flexibility for the city, and frankly, it's the cheapest option, even not using cash, cash on hand, but I'll leave it there. Thank you. Council Member Gabbard. Thank you. Just a quick question of clarification, because I do believe I heard in open forum someone mention that we were going to be approving this $50 million in order to somehow use it just to repair Tropicana Field. And I just wanted to have that conversation very clearly, because we just talked about it this morning. We talked clearly about what we're going to use it for. It's laid out clearly in the resolution, but it was mentioned in open forum, so I thought that it was only appropriate that we have that conversation and we address that concern. So, Administration, Tom, Anne, I don't know who wants to take that, but I just wanted us to be very transparent for the public who maybe did not hear our BF&T meeting this morning. Yeah, thank you for that question, Council Member. And, you know, we have damage around the city, you know, we've got Mahaffey Theater, we've got Outline Stadium, we've got Lake Vista. We have a lot of facilities that could qualify for this type of use of these borrowed resources. So this is not a goal of just financing one particular project, but a myriad of projects that we are going to be repairing over the next series of months. And the debris pickup? Oh, and debris pickup, which we do have a commitment from FEMA. In fact, we have received those resources for approximately 50% of the debris removal. I think it's about $36 or $37 million that we have kind of in-house, so to speak, now. But certainly, as we receive those invoices, we could also draw on this $50 million that we borrow to meet that obligation. And then when we get reimbursed, pay down the credit facility. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Council Member Hanwitz. Thank you. And, Tom, don't leave. I just want to make sure, because we just had the meeting today, and not everyone was there, and they may have not watched. So we talked a little bit, first of all, of we don't have any numbers right now for the total cost in terms of damage. And can you kind of go over, because here we were in a meeting, we're approving a loan and borrowing money without knowing what the total costs are. And so I want you to kind of explain kind of the process and why we landed on this and why you landed on the $50 million and all that, so council can understand. Sure. Sure. And, you know, I think, Council, we've shared with Council estimates of $80, $90 million was kind of a number that we've used. But that is still in process. You know, we are doing damage assessments now. We've got FEMA inspectors out with our staff looking at all the locations. We've had insurance adjusters out working with our risk management team. So this is an evolving number. And so as we bring projects to be addressed to council, we will have the, you know, the amounts. But so we started out looking at, you know, understanding that we were going to have a really large expense associated with debris removal. And so when we first started talking about this credit facility, we were at $100 million potentially and then moved down to $75 and down to $50 because we were able to secure that advance from FEMA to address approximately 50% of our debris management costs. So we were trying to find the sweet spot of, you know, how much should we borrow and avoid spending all our fund balance, which has a cost to it as well, and not borrow too much, so to speak. So it has been a process of evaluating what resources we have and how we can best manage those resources to address our future needs. And in terms of, and Council Member Gabbard mentioned a little bit as to what someone said in open forum, this is not a blank check for $50 million. You have to come to city council for any approvals that are over the $100. And I just want to make that clear. This is a loan that's taken out. You draw money. And if you use money, you have to come to city council, and you have to explain why. Exactly right. Okay. And just by way of example, some of the things that we've already brought to you that you have approved could qualify for use of, you know, those type of resources could be used to replenish or reimburse us for those expenses. And how are we going to keep track of what's being used, or how are you going to keep us advised in terms of this money that we're borrowing and what's it being used for? And it kind of goes with what Council Member Driscoll just said about we approved, you know, for the roof. And a lot of things happening, and it's like we don't know what a running balance is and what's going on. So how are we going to keep track of this? Absolutely. Just, you may not be aware, but every single note issue, bond issue of the city, we track via a separate award for each issue. Because we are required by IRS regulations to track all payments out. Literally, each payment that goes out the door every day has to be tracked in interest allocated to the bond funds. So we track that using an award through the budgetary process. So, you know, there'll be an award number. Okay. That award number will be tied to this debt issue. So we'll be able to report off of that, of anything that we use this debt issue for. And, again, we have to do that for IRS compliance. So that way that allows us to have the data to be able to pull reports and report back at any time on the use of those funds. And given the amounts that we're dealing with, I think you've heard loud and clear from Council. They want to be updated in terms of what the status is and what we're using the monies and, you know, where we are in terms of the costs associated with the storm. And I believe there was a conversation about having in January an update at BFNT in terms of where we were. So I just wanted to share that with everyone. And that was part of the conversation. Thank you so much. And I know, like, this morning I described the flexibility that we have with that. But we also have to deal with the tax compliance piece because we are issuing this tax exempt. So we have to follow all of those rules. So, you know, there's many different rules we have to follow for that. And part of that is all that we'll call that daily tracking. Thank you. Council Member Floyd. Thank you. Actually, yeah, what I wanted to bring up has been covered already, just ensuring that, you know, we're still overseeing how the funds get expended. And then I wanted to get clarification because I think this is what I heard you say, Tom, that some of this could be reimbursable expenses like, you know, debris pickup. And I just wondered what you're thinking was along that vein, like, say, we spend this on debris, it gets reimbursed. Then we're freeing up these resources to use for other capital projects or storm-related things. I'm assuming that's what you're thinking. Or we pay back what we owe. So, okay, so either or, okay, all right. Okay. And then while we're on the topic of debris cleanup, I meant to bring it up earlier. I think I saw a note that said, like, we're going to do a second pass on December 22nd, after December 22nd. I'm sorry? A second pass through the city after December 22nd on debris cleanup. Is that accurate? I think I just saw that online. I'd have to go back and look. Okay, okay. We're starting second pass. I don't have the exact date in front of it. Okay, okay, okay. Finishing first pass in some areas while we start second pass in other areas. Okay. And then just to that point, can you repeat the deadline for debris pickup that we have to meet as a city? January 11th. January 11th. Okay. So I'm just wondering, like, hell, I'll just be transparent. I got more debris I need to put out at my house. Like, at what point should I not put it out there is really what I'm wondering. Like, I would put it out now. Yeah. When it gets picked up, I wouldn't put any more out. Okay. All right. I'm not quite ready, but okay. I'll do the best I can. Yeah. All right. Thank you very much. And we can talk about that more offline. I just figured since we were here. Thanks. Thank you, Vice Chair Gurds. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to Council Member Hanowitz's point, thank you, Council Member Hanowitz, for mentioning that. We are going to do an update at BF&T on storm-related expenses throughout the entire city, both capital and debris pickup, on January 23rd. And so we've added that to the schedule. Administration has agreed. And so that'll be coming. And I'll move approval. Second. Thank you. With H2 being properly motioned in a second, can you please open the machine for voting? Council Members, please cast your votes. Seeing that all present Council Members have voted, can you please tally and announce the votes? Madam Chair, motion to approve of Gen Item H2, passes unanimously. Thank you. Council Members, we will now recess City Council Member until public hearings, beginning at 5.01. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Madam Chair. Good evening, everyone. Now we're going to take up our public hearing, beginning with Item J1. Clerk, can you please read the title? Ordinance number 603H, an ordinance modifying the capital improvement elements of the comprehensive plan of the city of St. Petersburg, Florida. By updating the five-year capital improvement schedule and replacing all previously adopted capital improvement schedules. Adopting fund summaries for the general capital improvement fund 3001. Bicycle pedestrian safety improvements fund 3004, citywide infrastructure fund 3027, recreation and cultural capital fund 3029, multimodal impact fee capital improvement fund 3071, downtown parking improvement fund 3073, water resources capital projects fund 4003, stormwater drainage capital fund 4013, airport capital projects fund 4033, marina capital improvements fund 4043, and port capital improvement fund 4093 for the fiscal years 2025 through 2029. Adopting the FDOT District 7's adopted five-year work program for the fiscal years 2024-25 to 2028-29, providing for servability and providing an effective date, and we do not have any cards. Move approval. Second. So joining us is Planner 2, Britton Wilson. Yes, good evening, Madam Chair, fellow council members. Britton Wilson, city planner. I do have a presentation prepared. However, I did give it to you guys last Thursday. Is everyone okay with the presentation? Well, thank you. Now that we have this been properly motioned and a second, can you please open the scene for voting for item J1? Council members, place your votes. Seeing that our present council members have voted, can you please tally and announce a vote? Madam Chair, motion to approve the agenda item J1 passes unanimously. Thank you. J2, please. Clerk, can you please read the title? Ordinance number 605H, an ordinance concerning amendment of the city's 99-year lease of waterfront property for use by the Dolly Museum to allow for expansion of the museum as conditionally authorized by the referendum called by City Ordinance 512H and approved on November 8th, 2022. Making findings concerning such an amendment, approving such an amendment, providing for servability, and providing an effective date, and we do not have any. We do have cards, I'm sorry. Jan, there's one that was placed while you're speaking. We do have cards. I have cards. Okay, thank you. First two speakers, please. Kay Bronstein and Maxwell Tuleen. Tuleen, please go to either podium, state your name and address for the record, and you have three minutes to address City Council. Good evening. I'm Kay Bronstein, 1303 Paso Grill Way, St. Pete Beach, and I'm here to discuss the Dolly Museum. I'm a volunteer. I'm a docent. I'm a guild member. I'm a trustee. I'm on the executive committee, and I am the chair of the Education Volunteers and Support Group Committee. As you know, the Dolly Museum is an educational institution. We have many programs that benefit the community, but tonight I want to talk about one. I want to talk about our junior docent program. This is a program in the summertime. Students that are 9 years old to 14 come and spend a week with us. They learn art. They create art. They learn about Salvador Dali, about surrealism. And then they choose their favorite painting, and they write their own docent presentation. On Fridays, they are in the galleries, and they are giving the public tours. They do a great job. This is a program. It sells out quickly, and I wish we could expand it, but we just don't have the space. We have too many groups that are trying to use our one public room. So, with the expansion, we will be able to have dedicated space for our education programs. So, I hope you will support this, and I hope you will vote yes, and I want to thank you very much. But I don't want you just to trust me. I have three students here today. They're junior docents, and they've all sent you letters, and so they're going to tell you and ask you for tonight. Thank you very much. Thank you. Dear city council members, my name is Max Tuleen. I'm in the fifth grade, and I'm homeschooled. I've gone to the Dali Jr. Dawson Art Program for the past two years, and I had a lot of fun, and I learned a lot about Salvador Dali. For starters, Mr. John, he's one of the teachers there, he always says good writing is specific, and that always helps me be a better writer. One thing I loved about the Dali Jr. Dawson Art Program was when we got to go to the galleries and look at all of his artwork. Another thing I loved about it was when we got exclusive access to see his sketches before his new gallery was open to the public. But the most thing I loved was on the last day when we got to be Dawson's and tell everybody about the paintings we learned about. I got a pug puppy a few days ago, and his name is Salvador Pugsley because I love the Dali so much and all of the artwork there, and I think it would be wonderful if they expanded. After all, who wouldn't want to learn more about the Dali? Thank you. Next two speakers, Aria Taraski, Christopher Wilkstein Sky. Please approach either podium, state your name and address. You'll have three minutes to address city council. Dear city council student members, my name is Aria Taraski, and I'm in sixth grade at John Hopkins Middle School. I've been in the Dali Museum's junior docent program for two years. I started doing their summer camp, but it sparked an interest with art in me. I represented the museum in many showcases with the paintings I have learned about. In the summer camp, students have the opportunity to choose a painting in the museum to study, then make a final presentation for the end of the week. Along with learning about your paintings using the museum's many resources and amazing teachers, we get to learn more about Dali and his surrealist art style. I've learned how this art connects with math, science, and history. Junior docents also make their own art projects and even write literary projects that fit the yearly theme. I believe the camp is a fun way for students to get a good education about something that isn't widely available to others. I think every young adult in the city has been impacted by the Dali. If not in the program I am in, then something like mobile classes or field trips. I'm so grateful to have such an amazing opportunity so close to me. The creativity I get to express and how free my imagination gets to roam when I'm at the museum is something I can simply not imagine not getting to experience. The museum's expansion will allow more learning opportunities for students like me. I encourage the city council to approve the Dali's lease to allow the museum to build on the small section of land west of the current building in use. Please do all you can to make the project happen to allow for even more creative minds to grow and express themselves through art. Thank you. Hello, my name is Christopher Walensky and I'm an 8th grader who has the incredible privilege of being part of the junior docent program at the Dali Museum. Today, I'm honored to share how this museum has profoundly impacted my life and why I wholeheartedly support its expansion. First, let me say how fortunate I feel to have the Dali Museum right in my hometown. It's more than just a building filled with art. It's a hub of creativity, exploration, and personal growth. It's a place where imagination knows no limits and where people of all ages can discover new perspectives about the world and themselves. One of the things I love most about surrealism is how it challenges you to look beyond the surface. Dali's work rarely has straightforward meanings, so they encourage you to research, interpret, and form your own opinions. This process has taught me to think critically, not only about art, but also the world around me. Through programs like the junior docent summer camp, I've gained more than just knowledge about Dali's masterpieces. I've developed confidence, improved my public speaking, and discovered a deeper appreciation for creativity. When I attended my first summer camp two years ago, I didn't know what to expect, but it turned out to be a life-changing experience. Before joining the program, I rarely experimented with my own art, but Dali's willingness to explore different styles like Impressionism and Cubism inspired me to take risks. I began using bolder colors, stronger, thicker outlines, and more complex compositions. Today, I'm a better artist because of the lessons I've learned. One of my proudest moments was being asked to present Lobster Telephone again for the museum's 40th anniversary celebration of the junior docent program. Speaking in front of 50 people and 2,000 more online was nerve-wracking, but it was also exhilarating. Public speaking, which once terrified me, has become a skill I embrace. Moments like these remind me how much I've grown thanks to the Dali Museum. Beyond the skills and knowledge, the museum has given me a sense of community. Being surrounded by other passionate students has shown me how art can connect. We weren't just building friendship and creating memories that would last a lifetime. This is why I believe so strongly in the museum's expansion. It's not just adding more space. It's about creating more opportunities for young minds to grow, dream, and be inspired. An expanded museum could offer even more programs to nurture creativity and provide a safe space for students like me to explore their potential. Not every aspiring artist has access to a resource like the Dali Museum. I'm incredibly lucky to have this treasured 20 minutes away, and I want other students to have the same chance. Expanding the museum isn't just an investment in art, it's an investment in the future of our community. The Dali Museum has given me so much, a place to grow, the tools, to become a better artist, and the memories I'll cherish forever. I hope this committee will support its expansion so that students can experience the transformative power of art. Thank you for your time and for the consideration of this important project, not just for the museum, but for the countless young lives it can inspire. Thank you. Our last two speakers, John Stewart, Hank Hine, please approach either podium, state your name and address. You'll have three minutes to address to the council. Good afternoon. My name is John Stewart, 2130 Burlington Avenue North. I am an instructor at the Dali Museum, and I was going to tell you about how great the programs are. I don't think I need to do that. You've seen it here. But I will talk about the fact that I was, for 25 years, I taught general humanities, and for 12 years, I taught AP Art History at Osceola High School. And the Dali was invaluable. What a great museum and a great artist for teenagers because they love symbolism and they like weird. And so Dali is, I couldn't pick a better one. The Dali in the past has had a teen docent program where the high school students learn to be docents. For a couple of years, they took my students from Osceola High School and my wife's students, her gifted students from Thurgood Marshall Middle School, paired them up so there was a mentor thing going on as well. It was absolutely wonderful. They've also done the Teen Voices program. Teenagers chose a painting, took the information, shaped a speech, wrote a script. It is still on the headsets at the Dali Museum. And if they want to say, here's something wonderful I did in the future, they can point to that. My students who have been part of the Dali have gone on to work at the Dali, to work at the Museum of Fine Arts, to work at the Ringling, and elsewhere. And I also want to point out that in the last two weeks, I have run into four students who were associated with the Dali, went through the program, were active there. One of them is Simone. She's the head of volunteers at the Dali Museum. The second one, my wife and I were out and I ran into a student. And I knew she had gone through the program, become an intern at the Dali, and she was home on Christmas break from New York City, where she was pursuing a bachelor's degree in museum studies. The third one, my wife and I, we are such art nerds. We went to Art Basel, Miami Beach last weekend, went to the Perez Art Museum, and there were artworks by a Syrian-Cuban artist named Jason, let me make sure, Jason Ciefe. And they were large murals painted like Persian rugs, flaking to suggest age, like Dali's, you know, he had a lot of age in his symbolism. But he was Syrian-Cuban. I immediately thought of a student who went through the Dali Museum who was Syrian-Cuban. I texted her the photos, the information. She said, oh, yes, I know her work. By the way, I am studying Persian rugs on a Fulbright in Istanbul. The fourth one, I'm going to fly out of here as soon as I'm done because another former student is reading her poetry tonight at the Dali Poetry Reading. So not just these wonderful students, but also a whole heritage. Please vote yes so I can continue to work with kids like this. Thank you. Chairman Fig Sanders, members of council, I'm Hank Hine. I live at 525 16th Avenue Northeast in the city of St. Petersburg. I want to express my appreciation to council for their openness to receiving me when I've come to talk to you about our need for more space and to the city staff for working assiduously to find a ground where all the parties to this agreement could be satisfied that they're going forward equally. You've seen the many letters in addition to these wonderful kids who are our dearest project at the museum. You've also received letters from business leaders, from the Woodson, from Arts Pinellas, from Pinellas Schools, from Arts Conservancy for Teens, all in support of the museum as what we do raises all boats and dovetails so beautifully with all the other initiatives in our city to make this a finer place to live. So we urge your agreement with the lease put forward by staff and thank you for your attention. Thank you. No more speakers, Madam Chair. Council Member Driscoll. Thank you and thanks to all who spoke in favor of this, especially Max, Aria, and Christopher. You speak of how you've been inspired but you are the ones who are inspiring us in so many ways. So thank you for being here and sharing your stories. The Dali Museum opened about 42 years ago when St. Petersburg wasn't known for much else. In the 80s, I was in high school and we would have, one of my friend's moms would take us to the Dali Museum and then to Haslam's Bookstore. That was our St. Pete trip. And today, the Dali still is one of the jewels in the crown of our arts community here. It's something that's been around for so long that I think some of us might take it for granted sometimes. And I think this item before us today reminds us that we have to recognize the legacy and the importance of the legacy of this museum and what it has inspired throughout our community. It is part of what makes us proud to live here in St. Petersburg. No one else in the United States can say that they have this. And people come from everywhere to see it. And I love that those masterworks that are in the museum, I can go pretty much whenever I want to and go and just sit and admire them. Every time I go, if I do a docent tour, it's exciting because each person has their own stories to tell as you go through. And so I learn something new to this day every time I go in. What they do best is give back. And we've seen the examples of that here tonight. I want this expansion to happen because I want the expansion of these offerings to the community so that more children, more scholars can come in and learn not just about the art, but about public speaking, about critical thinking, and about what makes St. Petersburg so special. So I'm very supportive of this, but I do have a couple of questions, Chris, thank you for being here tonight. I know that this was, this is a plan that's been, that's been moving along for a long time. And we've gotten to the point where there is funding from the county that could expire at the end of this year if we don't have, excuse me, if we don't have something in place. But in the backup material here, it says that the museum's response, on November 17th, the museum's response proposed changes to the fundamental structure of the city's document that could not be fully evaluated, much less negotiated in the four business days remaining before the submission deadline. And then a little bit after that, it says, accordingly, the city and the museum have made best efforts to develop an agreement that satisfies ordinance 512-H in the hopes of keeping the project alive. I was wondering if, between you and Mr. Pettigrew, if you could speak to that, just so that we understand that this was, this was put together quickly, but it's still solid. That's what I want to make sure of. Yes, Council Member Driscoll, Chris Palestra, City Development. Thank you for the question. Thank you for all the speakers today. And again, we're thrilled to be here today to share this, leading hopefully towards a positive result. To answer your question specifically, we had a lot of challenges getting to this point. There clearly is a hard deadline via our own referendum, which was approved by the voters upwards of 70 percent back in 2022 to allow this negotiation to happen, to get to where we are today. There's approximately $25 million of TDC money that is in the balance, expiring at the end of this year if it is subject to this moving forward. So more specifically, we had a lot of challenges like any negotiation, and they have to do not just with basic items, but with detailed items, as the young speaker who stood here a moment ago focused on. It's really about the future of the DALI. I would take it a step further. It's the future of the Center for the Arts. We'll come before you in the next couple of months with some ideas and vision for the Center of the Arts project, and this is really phase one of that. Very specifically, the details, I think, that we came to agreement with between city staff, including James Corbett, myself, Beth Herondine, legal staff, and Dolly's staff and council. While we don't think that we perfected the agreement, I would not be surprised if there's an amendment downstream that would not be substantive from a staff perspective, but just perfecting it even further. But I believe that all of the parties involved to get to where we are today created really a rock-solid agreement. It just wasn't, it was a rocky road to get there, no hiding behind that, but I feel very thankful and hopeful that we're here at this position because it's such an important project. We have the ability, it's not just about the funding, it's about the growth and the future of the museum and the Center for the Arts, and I think we're positioned well to advance that. Thank you, and I agree, looking over this, it looks like the biggest thing that could change would be that the design might go from being on grade to being elevated, and with that still in flux, there could be an amendment that's based on that? That's correct, as well as deliverables. There are core deliverables that are hard to change on the city side, but at the end of the day, some of the timing and the duration of how those take place, as long as the DALI is able to retain their funding commitments along the way, there's opportunities, I think, to talk about those downstream. Those are probably the two core issues at this juncture, and unless Brett had anything to add, I'm not aware at this juncture of any substantive issues, certainly nothing that prevents us from proceeding from an administration recommendation perspective. Thank you, and I also appreciate that you made sure that there are protections in place for the Mahaffey and the Grand Prix through this. Correct, yes, that's a critical part. It's a big family out there, even though they're all in silos in some respects. They have to and need to interact together. We've got a history of doing that since DALI's construction completed in their opening in 2011, so it's not new for any of us. Every year, there's a new challenge, and the good news is I think we've got very professional staff on all sides that have been able to work through them, and we've tried to embed in the agreement the mechanisms to ensure that those continue to happen. Okay, terrific. Thank you. Brent, did you have anything to add? Thank you, Council Member. I think what that letter referred to, the memo referred to, was the museum put forth a number of suggestions for things that it would like to see addressed in the amended and restated lease. There was not time to address all of those and negotiate all of those, but what was negotiated, what is in there, is more than enough to protect the city's interests, to provide a robust coordination program with the other stakeholders, to satisfy the requirements of the referendum. And I think some of those changes really have opened, have made sure that the door is open to an elevated concept that the museum is considering right now, which might allow them to the garage access route to actually return post-construction to its original, its current location. And I just want to especially, I want to thank the flexibility of museum officials and staff, and especially Joel Giles with Carlton Fields, who's out there somewhere, for just, this could not have happened without his assistance, and I'm really, it was a pleasure to work with them, and I'm really happy after all the hard work to be here before you tonight with this document that I'm very pleased with. Thank you. All right. Thank you. That helps a lot. And Hank, thank you for being such an incredibly good steward of this extraordinary asset in our city. Thank you, Madam Chair. Vice Chair Gurdist. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be quick. I'm obviously supportive of the item, but I don't know how my colleagues feel, but I think Dolly may have figured out the cheat code on how to get, how to sway us with three just absolutely bright, I'll call them youngsters, in front of us. That was, you guys just made my night. So I appreciate all three of you being out here. Anybody coming in front of us should take note of that tactic. But obviously support this, excited to have it, excited to be both a part of this from the TDC's perspective and City Council. So thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Council Member Hanewick. Thank you, Chair. Well, first, I do want to echo what the other council members have said about the junior docents that appeared here today. I have to commend you. You did a fantastic job in terms of public speaking and presenting yourself. I will tell you there are times that in court I didn't see attorneys present themselves like you presented yourselves here in City Council Chambers. And that's impressive. And those skills are just going to get better through time. So I can't wait to see where you all land. Your future is definitely bright. So thanks to your parents, your teachers, and the Dali for making sure that they encourage you to grow and learn different skills to prepare you for your future. And I think our future is bright here in St. Pete because of it. I also want to thank the parties that are involved in this. And I know everyone that's here has not been here through the process, but this started back with a referendum back in 2022, as was mentioned earlier, and it was overwhelmingly approved by the voters, which shows the support that the community has for this. I mean, it was over 70%. But, you know, like everything else, things come down to the details, and sometimes parties, you know, have to get to the table and agree on the details. And I will say that it took a lot of work. I know Hank Heine is here. The other stakeholders are not here. But you all worked so well to get us to this place where we can approve this. And, by the way, this is the last meeting where this can be approved. This was it to date. And also the attorneys. I have been so thoroughly impressed by the work that you all put in, both Brett Pettigrew and Joel Giles. You know, people always bust on attorneys, but you know what? Until you need the attorneys, you can't appreciate how much they can bring to the table. And I think the work that was done that you could see in the agreement, all the changes and how they got the parties to come to the table and come up with a plan going forward that I think is fantastic. And so it's going to meet your needs. So I'm very excited. I saw some of the pictures and the drawings. I can't wait to hear more about what happens. And I will say, we were just at the National League of Cities in Tampa, and I met attendees from other places, and they said, we have to make it over. They were only there for a couple of days. We're going to make it over to Tampa. We're going to want to go to the Dali. And I said, when you go there, make sure you go to other places to visit in St. Petersburg because the Dali is fantastic, and we have lots of other places. But you know what? They knew. Like, the Dali is here. So it says something about what you do and bring to the community. So thank you so much. Thank you, everyone that has worked on this. Thank you. Thank you. I just want to just thank Mr. Hank Hines because actually we started talking about this in 2020, longer than that. It's been going on for a while. So I want to, again, I have to concur with Vice Chair Gerdes. You all hit the nail on the head having the young people come and actually impact us emotionally as well as understanding the need for growth. So with that being said, I don't know if I've received a motion and a second. Okay. Is it having being properly motioned and seconded? Item J2, can you please open the machine for voting? Council members, cast your votes. Seeing that all present council members have voted, can you please tally and announce the votes? Madam Chair, motion to approve with your item J2, passes unanimously. Thank you. So now we will move on to item J3, which is a quasi-judicial item. But before we swear in our speakers, I'm going to ask Attorney Michael Dima if he could please come and explain an amendment to the hearing. Well, yeah. I don't know if I described it correctly, but you'll explain what you're getting ready to do. I'm just loving Max's fashion sense, too, by the way. I know I almost said something about going against you and Claude. All right. Good evening, Chair, Council. As Chair alludes to, we've got a little – just a little bit of housekeeping before we go into the normal quasi-judicial procedure speech that Chair usually gives. And it relates to the registered opponent or, indeed, the person who was the registered opponent at the CPPC. And he would like to – we'd like to kind of clear that up. There's a – in legal's opinion, the procedural requirements to be named the registered opponent for the city council meeting were not met by this individual, by Mr. Widener. But he would like to place an objection on the record, and there is an alternative process for what we'll call registered opponent light under the city council policies and procedures manual that would allow Mr. Widener to have cross-examination and rebuttal-slash-closing argument, but would not be able to make an initial presentation would entitle Mr. Widener to the three minutes that everybody else gets during public comment, though. So I'll let him do that. He also has, I believe, something to distribute regarding his objection. And, again, we'll need one, and the clerk will need one to put into the quasi-judicial record. And if you have an extra one, you can give one to Mr. Herman as well. Okay, and Mr. Widener, I will call you up. Thank you. Oh, so – I will call you up. Yes, sir. So that was – that's what I wanted to kind of start off with there, Chair. Okay. So before we – clerk, can you please swear in all speakers, including city staff? Thank you. Clerk, can you please read the ordinance titles? Ma'am. Ordinance number 135-HL, an ordinance of the city of St. Petersburg, Florida, designating the Mirror Lake Local Historic District, which generally includes Mirror Lake Park and the parcels within 200 feet of Mirror Lake Park with frontages along Mirror Lake Drive North, Burlington Avenue North, Grove Street North, Fourth Avenue North, and Fifth Street North as a local historic district and adding the district to the St. Petersburg Register of Historic Places, pursuant to Section 16.30.070, City Code, and providing an effective date. And we do have cards. Okay. We do have cards. Okay. So we're going to go ahead and move to our presentations. Each party will have 10 minutes for their initial presentation, and we will begin with the city staff's presentation. Chair, I would like to figure out the registered opponent issue first. So I was just kind of putting that out there. And maybe it would help if I can read verbatim what your manual says. So if anyone wishes to utilize the time provided for cross-examination and rebuttal as an opponent and no one has previously registered with the city clerk as an opponent, said individual shall notify the city clerk prior to the beginning of initial presentations for the applicable public hearing. If no one gives such notice, there shall be no cross-examination or rebuttal by opponents. So we have to figure this issue out now, and then we'll get into the initial presentations. Okay. Okay. So let me know where you want me to go since we've changed. I mean, I think it's as simple as accepting Mr. Widener as the registered opponent under that registered opponent. Yeah, opponent, right. Okay. Madam Chair, thank you so much. Members of Council. May I? Do we have to vote? I have a question. Yeah, how do we accept? Well, hold on a minute. So I know Vice Chair has a question, but I think, I guess because I'm confused, since we didn't talk about this prior to, because I was supposed to call him up according to this. Yeah. Because I knew he was going to be the registered opponent with Mr. Kilbourne actually starting the presentations, and he wouldn't get the opportunity to have a presentation. So I'm going to need you to walk me through this now as to where we are. Okay. So really all Mr. Widener needs to do is say that he wants to be an opponent. I mean, there's no other action taken by the Council at that point. I do believe that Mr. Widener has an objection to this. But he's preparing to make a presentation. I think he's, if Mr. Widener, are you prepared to speak as to the status of your registered opponent? That limited issue right now. I'll start with that if you'd like. And Chair, if you're interested in hearing that. Let's just be blunt here. I've got to create a record, an appellate record. This is about rights, and we have a dispute over my status and my ability to come before this Council and exercise my rights. So this is a threshold issue. I have been communicating with Council as a registered opponent. I have been communicating with CPPC and explicitly designating that as a registered opponent. Now, when I, just a couple days ago, responded with additional e-mails, Council, your attorney, responded back that because I didn't tag it as explicitly registered opponent, then I shouldn't be designated as a registered opponent. I actually would say that it was the fact that you said registered opponent in your e-mail of a couple of days ago, which was after the one-week prior deadline, that's what flagged this as an issue for us. Easy enough. But the bottom line is this. What this is about is, will this Council recognize me, one of your citizens, as a registered opponent on this issue? And I've handed you a packet because while Council has made an analysis, your attorney has made an analysis, I'm asking individual counsel to look at, in particular, the November 19th e-mail to the Council address and the other communication to Council. Because the question before you is, as I communicate as objecting, is that enough to trigger my right as a registered opponent? I'm asking Council to say, yes, we want to recognize that your right as a registered opponent was triggered by at least the November 19th e-mail in which I provided that objection. I got September 6th behind that, December 7th, December 9th. Now, what Mr. Dima has said is, hey, you had a date December 5th to, I guess, formally trigger and say registered opponent. You didn't do it until December 7th. And so, because of that, your rights are terminated, you're out the door. I just think that's not appropriate because the notice doesn't say that. The notice that was sent out says, you must register. But it doesn't provide any specific procedure for that. So, the threshold issue before Council is, I wish to be recognized as a registered opponent so that I can present a registered opponent's case. And if the answer is no, then I respectfully request a continuance to move for a writ on this narrow issue right now. Thank you. So, for my understanding, Attorney Dima, we're to decide whether or not we accept him as a registered opponent. Would we be making an exception in doing so? Here's what I'm going to say. I'm going to tell you exactly what the letter said. Okay. So, this is the notice letter. This is the official notice sent by the city. It's every property owner within the proposed district. And it says, and I know Mr. Kilbourne has this if you want to see it, too. But I'm going to just read to you the impertinent part here. And this is bolded. A registered opponent must independently file for each public hearing on or before Tuesday, November 5, 2024, for CPPC. And on or before Thursday, December 5, 2024, for City Council. Must independently file. It's a pretty straightforward process. One that Mr. Widener was able to accomplish for the CPPC, but for whatever reason did not do so, again, as expressly stated in the notice letter for City Council. So, my question is, you know, we talk about fundamental fairness and we talk about processes. Well, we have another individual stakeholder here on behalf of the applicant who, you know, I'm concerned about exposure if there are exceptions to the rule, too. So, I just wanted to, I thought, you know, it's appropriate for City Council to hear this. And as Mr. Widener stated for the appellate record to be able to put an objection on the record, I'll leave it in your hands. That's what the notice said. Okay. I don't see any council members wanting to speak on this p.m. Yeah, I just saw it just come up. Council Member Hanowitz. Thank you. So, can you explain, so our policies allow for someone not to do an opening, but could kind of preserve some of the issues through cross-examination and rebuttal? That's right. For lack of a better term, I call it registered opponent law. Right, right. So, what's the harm in that if our procedures allow it? I know he may not want that, and that's not what he's arguing for, and I think he's made that clear, but our procedures allow this. So, what's the harm in doing that if our procedures allow it? To me, that is the legal procedure that is appropriate in this scenario. Okay. It's specifically provided for, and it's specifically for these instances where somebody comes in either late or misses that cutoff. We're not going to cut you off completely, right? Right. But it's limited to cross and a rebuttal slash closing argument. Right. So, there's rebuttal, so issues can be raised. There's cross-examination you can question. And then there's the period, the three minutes, where a statement can be made. So, that could cover a lot during that time in terms of the issues. So, that's just my thoughts of where we are. I think the record's clear where he stands and if he wants to bring up any issues, but he can probably cover those during that period. Thanks. Okay. So, thank you for that, Council Member Hanowitz. So, basically, we don't need, if we're following our policy, we don't need to vote whether or not he's a registered opponent or not. We just follow what has already been prescribed to. That's correct. You'll be able to, he'll be able to proceed as an opponent with the limited purpose of cross and closing, as well as three minutes during public comment after submittal of a card. Okay. All right. So, I'll call you up. In the request for continuance tonight as well? We're not talking about that. I mean, that would be done by motion of City Council. So, you've brought it up. Thank you. Second objection, the application fails to comply with essential requirements of law. That's going to be for you to bring up during your testimony. So, have a seat and I'll call you up. We're going to go ahead and proceed. I just want to preserve the record. Can I make a proffer? Okay. So, Clerk, if you would, please, could you, we're going to go ahead and move on to our presentations. Each party will have 10 minutes for their initial presentation and we'll begin with the City Staff presentation. Joining us is Urban Design and Historic Preservation Manager, Mr. Derrick Kilborn and planner. Welcome, Mr. Kilborn. Good evening. Again, Derrick Kilborn, Manager, City of St. Petersburg's Urban Planning and Historic Preservation Division. I'll be giving you the initial presentation. We can revisit anything that if you have follow-up questions or discussion. Starting in mid-2023, the City of St. Petersburg was first contacted by several residents in the Lake Palms Co-op and Mirror Lake Condos for information on starting a citizen-initiated district application. In late 2023, these residents initiated the formal designation process. The boundary proposed by the applicants encompasses a compact area in a roughly 200-foot radius of Mirror Lake Park. The proposed district consists of intact, lower-density historic resources that help tell the story of the evolution of St. Petersburg as a winter tourist destination. Resources in the district include buildings, sites, objects, and structures that support residential, commercial, governmental, religious, and recreational uses. The proposed Mirror Lake Historic District is part of the existing downtown St. Petersburg National Register Historic District. The National Register District encompasses approximately 42 acres in size, includes approximately 448 resources, and was listed in the National Register on April 30, 2004. The applicants submitted a proposed designation boundary along with proposed contributing and non-contributing resources as shown on the screen. Contributing properties shown in yellow add to the district's historic significance. Non-contributing properties shown in pink are buildings, objects, or sites that exist within the proposed boundary, but do not add to its historic significance, either because of construction dates that are not in the period of significance, or because there is a loss of historic integrity resulting from alterations, or the site is now vacant. Staff's non-contributing determination differs from that of the applicants regarding two resources. First, the senior center was constructed in 1977 and is part of the larger parcel, including the Lawn Bowling Club, and that's this parcel that you see up here. City staff identifies this building as a non-contributing resource because it does not meet the 50-year threshold test. Constructed in 1977, the building is only 47 years old. The second property is owned by the city. It is located southeast of Mirror Lake, and we identified this as non-contributing because it is currently a surface parking lot. The CPPC voted to support the application as it was submitted and did not incorporate city staff recommendations as we just described. The applicant has proposed a period of significance that ranges from 1900 to 1977. Staff's proposed period of significance is 1876 to 1974. Due to Mirror Lake being a contributing resource to the district, city staff believes the period of significance should relate back to the lake itself. The area around Mirror Lake was settled as early as 1876 when H.A. Ware from Ohio settled on 40 acres west and north of the lake. This provides a clear documented settlement date for property on the lake and the start of staff's proposed period of significance. The end of the period proposed by staff is 1974 to align with the 50-year mark required by city code. Contributing buildings, objects, and structures were constructed between approximately 1912 and the 50-year-old threshold date of 1974, representing a 62-year time span. Mediterranean Revival and Mid-Century Modern are the predominant styles, but the district is home to some more rare styles in St. Petersburg, including Beaux Arts and Brutalist. The vernacular building types, frame, and masonry do not necessarily reference a formal architectural style, but are demonstrative of local building practices and materials of their time. The proposed district is united by Mirror Lake and the surrounding park at the center and has retained a number of historic landscape features, such as brick streets, granite curbs, hexagon block pavers, sidewalks, and mature trees, along with other objects like signs, walls, a fountain, and recreation courts. For this process, we did create a dedicated website to share and distribute information. The website was published prior to the public information meeting, which was scheduled in January of 2024. In preparation for that public information meeting, we also created a summary of next steps and procedures. We created a frequently asked questions document that included over 24 different questions and answers and was amended shortly after the public information meeting to incorporate other questions that came up, but were not originally included. We also sent information emails to anybody who signed up on our contact list, and we created a share drive folder so that people could access public comments that were being received by our office in real time. We continued to update that share drive folder through 12 noon yesterday, so it wasn't just the static document that you received. Anybody from the public, anybody from the public could access that information. In the end, what we had received was a total of 327 public comments. 322 were in support. Five comments were opposed, not including Mr. Widener, who is the registered opponent at the CPPC. This is the application timeline. You can see that this process goes back almost a year, starting in January 10 with the public information meeting. According to the code for this process, we are required to start with a public information meeting. That is if the citizen applicants are interested in continuing, followed by a balloting process, and then following the balloting process, if that meets the minimum threshold, they are required to submit an application within the six-month time frame. The first part of the evaluation to determine eligibility examines a resource's historic significance with relation to nine criteria. One or more of these criteria must be met in order for a property to qualify for designation and listing in the St. Petersburg Register. The nine criteria are based on National Park Service criteria for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and are designed to assess resources' importance and given historic context with objectivity and comprehensiveness. Staff's evaluation concurs with the applicant's assertion that the proposed Muir Lake Historic District meets six of the nine criteria, and those six are displayed on the screen. The application further included reference to areas of significance, as including architecture, community planning, and development, entertainment, and recreation, and social history. For the most part, these are the same that were listed in the downtown St. Petersburg National Register Historic District designation. Under the second part of the two-part test of eligibility, staff finds that the subject district meets six of seven factors of integrity, surpassing the requirement of one or more. This, again, differs from the applicant's contention in their application that all seven factors of integrity are met. Association is the difference. Association is defined by code as the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. While some of the properties in the proposed district have a direct link to a locally or nationally significant architect or builder, many structures are vernacular in nature and do not have that association. In addition to the nine criteria for eligibility and seven factors of integrity, City Council may also consider the relationship of the proposed designation to existing and future development plans of the city. With regard to character-defining features, in addition to the architectural significance of each property, the proposed Mirror Lake Historic District's overall significance is enhanced by elements that unite its resources as listed here on the screen and describe further in the staff report and submitted application. For these reasons, the city staff and CPPC made a finding of consistency with the review criteria and recommend approval of the proposed application. Finally, with one minute left, what I'd like to do is respond to some testimony you heard at the first reading. At the first reading, two public speakers presented that the first reading was rushed onto ads deletes, and these statements were misleading. The City Council public hearing date was advertised in the October 28 mail notice and simultaneously updated on the website. City Council materials were submitted in accordance with all internal deadlines and published online Friday, November 8, as part of the City Council agenda. However, the prescribed deadlines preceded the CPPC public hearing date, which was held on Tuesday, November 12. The notation in ads deletes reflected that city staff simply updated our memo to add the CPPC vote and recommendation. So you can see the comparative paragraph here from our City Council memo, first on November 8, followed by November 15. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kilbourne. So next, we're going to have an applicant presentation. We worked. I'm just following this. The applicant is. Did not want to make a presentation. He's going to be able to present, yes. Okay. So now we'll take public comment. Clerk, do we have any cards? No, Chair. If applicant. Oh, sorry. The applicant has an initial presentation. Okay, I thought you said she did not. Okay, thank you. I'm hearing things. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Drexie. My name is Drexie Smith. I live at 750 Burlington Ave North, Lake Palms Apartments, and I've been sworn in. Local historic districts are special. Most zoning or code changes start as the visions of an urban planner or city council member, but not our local historic district. To borrow some of John Adams' famous words, we the people who live around Mirror Lake saw development that did not preserve the surroundings of this historic lake. We the citizens most impacted by this new district took it upon ourselves to restart the stalled local historic district process. Our hard work of telephoning and knocking on the neighbors' doors resulted in the solid level of support that this district has. We were happy to partner with Preserve the Berg, and I would now like to turn this over to Bill Herman, who will present our case. Good evening. My name is Bill Herman. I live at 134th Avenue North. I have been sworn. Unfortunately, I couldn't find a nine-year-old, but I've got a 69-year-old for you. I'm honored tonight to speak on behalf of the citizens of Mirror Lake, as well as Preserve the Berg. Tonight's agenda, I want to give you a quick overview of the code mandated evaluation criteria. We're going to discuss the code mandated evaluation criteria that apply to the district. We're going to talk about the borders and CPPC findings. We're going to touch upon a registered opponent and other parties' filed objections. Going through the code, it's 1630-070.2.5, paragraph 1. Tonight you can approve, deny, or approve with modifications. Number 2 says you have the right to defer if adequate information is not made available. We'll touch on that. Third, you may consider the relationship of the proposed designation to existing and future plans. We're going to come back to these. Don't worry. So we've got two and three to look at. Continuing on, we have four that speaks to individual designation. This is not an individual designation, so it doesn't apply. Five is the same thing. Individual doesn't apply. Six, we need a simple majority today, even if people object. We're going to come back to that. Seven also talks about if the CPPC recommends against, well, we had a 5-0 at CPPC, so that doesn't apply. Continuing on, you can modify the borders tonight. Items 9 talks about the comp plan after you approve it. Item 10 also speaks about actions after you approve it. So my presentation is going to focus on 2, 3, 6, and 8. Those are the decision factors for this evening that I've got to demonstrate to you that we meet. You may defer the decision if adequate information is not made available. We have the experts, both within the city as well as Preserve the Berg, here to answer any questions you may have about this. You may consider the relationship of the proposed designation to existing and future plans. So we did our due diligence. There are no 60-day development notices. There is nothing in any master plan, planning documents, vision statements, nothing speaks to future plans around Merrill Lake. But we did find Vision 2050. That's a keeper. It states, quoting, allowing for growth while preserving the many desirable aspects of the community's character is key. And that last part is not a quote. It's just an analysis. So a local historic district is really the best way to comply with that Vision 2050 directive. Big takeaway here is just some misinformation. Designation will not prevent development. It protects the community's character. Number six, we need a simple majority to approve the application, regardless of whether a property owner located within the district is opposed to the designation. A historic district differs with some objection, differs from a third-party designation. This is not a third party. And the various sections of the code express that and make that clear. The Merrill Lake historic district is about the same level, supports other districts, which have been approved. And the last item here is the boundaries. We started, when we restarted the historic district, I wanted to get something that we could hang our hat on. So I said, well, what does the code say? Well, if you go for a variance, if you want to build a house too close to the lot next to you, you've got to notice everybody within 200 feet, because the general benchmark is if you're within 200 feet of something, you relate back to it, whether it be the variance, or in this case, Merrill Lake. So we did that, and what we ended up with is that map on the right, which really kind of makes sense. We have a good collection of older homes, good collection of historic buildings. It was so good that staff found it complied. CPPC voted five to nothing and said that this district complies with all of the standards. So let's look at what the registered opponent has said. And boundaries, well, as we've just said, they're accepted by CPPC, the competent professionals on staff, as well as professional historic people that Preserve the Burgh has working with them. Negative economic impact has been mentioned. That is outside the scope of your review. Of this being a quasi-judicial hearing, the competent professional evidence of the place economic study takes precedent over the anecdotal data being provided by others. And that study, as you hear, supports local historic districts. Noncompliance with procedure, not according to staff. In fact, we work with your attorney, Ms. Judd, and she did you proud, driving us appropriately crazy, making sure we followed all the rules. Legality of the ordinances, that's been questioned. That is outside the scope of review. And Council Member Gabbard, that was a genuine compliment. Funny. They want, someone wants to create a landocracy. And I read this and I said, what? They want to create second class homeowners or property owners. If you live vertically, okay, your rights should be somehow diminished and your voice counts less in these proceedings than the landed gentry who owned dirt. That is one of the filed objections. And we feel that, well, we have issues with it. Third-party designation, we've heard that bantered about. Local historic district is not a third-party designation, and the code addresses that. So, as promised, we did an overview of the code mandated evaluation criteria. We dove into those four points that you saw, and I showed you how we met every one of them. We touched on the CPPC findings in the district borders. We showed you how they're logical and they make sense. And finally, we looked at the registered opponent and other parties' filed objections. Those objections are either outside the scope of your review today. Well, actually, they're all outside the scope of your review today because no one has ever challenged that we met the code mandated standards for a local historic district. I respectfully ask you to ask that you vote yes on this and move this matter forward. Thank you. Thank you. Now we'll take public comment. Clerk, can you please call the first of cards? Madam Chair, we do have some other speakers that need to be sworn in that has brought up some cards. But we also have several speakers that filled out cards but do not wish to speak. But I'll read those in at the end because we've gone through everything else. So, Jordan, if you want to swear those other individuals in while I call two cards. If you have not been sworn in, please stand up and raise your right hand. I swear on for the evidence you are about to give the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you. Please be seated. First two speakers, Madam Chair, Peggy Green and David Hislop. Please go to either podium, state your name and address for the record. And you have three minutes to address to the council. Madam Chair, members of council, my name is Peggy Green. I am a Mirror Lake resident and property owner. I have lived downtown for 20 years, four of those at 750 Burlington Avenue. And I have been sworn. I love my neighborhood and its closeness to downtown while not being busy like the rest of downtown. I am an avid walker. I love walking around the lake in the sun rather than in the shadow of tall buildings. I want to mention some facts about St. Petersburg historic districts and property owner support. Today, St. Petersburg has nine local historic districts. They are all relatively small compared to our national register districts. There is a reason for that, but that is a discussion for another day. Our local districts range in size from 10 to 242 parcels. Only two districts, both within the historic Kenwood neighborhood, have more than 100 parcels. Mirror Lake would be the third. Four local districts have fewer than 15 parcels. Each of our nine local historic districts has been a neighborhood-initiated district, not a city-initiated district. Although each has been initiated by neighborhood property owners, and some districts have only 10 parcels, no St. Petersburg local historic district has had 100% support from the parcel owners and no opposition. Thus, if Council were to require all parcels to be in support of a local district, there would be no local historic districts in St. Petersburg. I believe local historic districts are good for our neighborhoods and good for the city. That is why, as a Mirror Lake property owner, I am in support of a Mirror Lake historic district. Thank you for considering my comments. Please vote yes. Thank you. Good afternoon, or good evening. My name is David Hislop, and I have owned an apartment at 130 4th Avenue North in St. Petersburg for over 12 years. I am the immediate past chair of the town of Essex planning board, and currently the executive director of an historic preservation group named the Essex Community Heritage Organization. You might think that St. Pete building icons, like the Detroit Hotel, would have been easy to designate as a local landmark, but it wasn't. The Detroit Hotel application was submitted in 2010 by Preserve the Burg, then known as St. Petersburg Preservation. The submittal was over the objection of its Building Owners Association. It put city council in a quandary, having to determine whether to give landmark status to the building, often viewed as the building which gave birth to the city, or to reject doing so and accede to the complaining voices of the owners. The words of then-Mayor Bill Foster, not known as a particularly strong preservation supporter, presaged the vote outcome when he told the rest of council, quote, If we can't landmark the Detroit, what building can we landmark? Unquote. And today, the Detroit Hotel is the only individually designated landmark on Central Avenue's important first block. I suggest a similar question could be asked of you today regarding the community-initiated Mirror Lake District. If you can't landmark the area around Mirror Lake, then what area can you designate a district? The designation question is not primarily about whether there is owner opposition. The code speaks to the fact that a local historic district may not have unanimous support. Rather, the issue is, does it make sense to designate these special areas because of their unique nature, their role in city history, and their compliance with the standards in the code of ordinances? Everything I have seen is that this project accomplishes and complies to all these standards. I urge you to please make the right decision and approve the Mirror Lake Historic District. Thank you. Thank you. Next two speakers. Next two speakers. Mary Murphy and Lisa Bean. Please go to either podium. State your name and address for the record. You have three minutes to address city council. My name is Mary Anna Murphy, and I live at 5471 4th Street South, and I have been sworn. I serve as a vice president of Preserve the Berg. I know you want to hear from the property owners who live in the district, but I also ask you to give equal ears to the opinion of those living in other St. Petersburg neighborhoods. After all, downtown is everybody's neighborhood. A little about me and why I'm speaking. We moved to St. Petersburg in 1981 when we were the newlyweds living amongst the nearly deads. I believe change is good. For example, I remember a long-ago letter to the editor of the St. Pete Times by Ray Arsenault asking the city to change its ordinance to allow outdoor seating at restaurants. We're all in a better place for that, so thanks, Ray. And culture is good. I put in my fair share of hours promoting St. Pete's arts and culture, serving as the head on the board at the Florida International Museum, Florida Craft Arts, St. Pete Arts Alliance, and the city's Public Arts Commission. Some of those twice. We can all agree that St. Pete has a much cooler vibe for its embrace of the arts and its culture. Neighborhoods with distinctive character are really good. Walking around Mirror Lake before dawn many mornings, I see the mist rise up from the mirror like water, and it reflects the open sky and not tall buildings. This neighborhood so close to downtown and so much a part of the city's rich history deserves to be designated as a historic district, so your kids and grandkids can learn its history from its built architecture and not from historic landmarks. What gives Mirror Lake its sense of place is baked into its architecture, the scale of its building, the sidewalks, around the lake, the shuffleboard courts, and the historic Carnegie Library. You've received tons of messages from folks in favor of the historic designation. Some are form letters and some are personalized. Doesn't that say to you that the many, many of your own constituents care about preserving this neighborhood? That number is no comparison to the few negative messages and letters you've received. There is neighborhood support and overwhelming public support to designate Mirror Lake as a historic district. So many people move into St. Pete, so many people move into St. Pete, say they did it for the city's arts, the city's hip historic vibe, and the city's size and scale. Y'all don't mess that up. And then a quick last minute aside to you, city council, to mayor and dedicated city staff who are working so hard to put our city back together to heal its hurt citizens and to move forward with an eye to developing more resiliency. I've been on the receiving end, speedy building permits, and the claw. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Lisa Bean, and I live at 200 4th Avenue South, but I spend a good deal of time around Mirror Lake because I'm a member of the Unitarian Universalist Church there, which is an historic church. It's about 100 years old. I'm also a member of the Downtown Neighborhood Association, and I'm also an owner in Manhattan at Tudor City, which is the oldest skyscraper community in the world. The building that I have a unit there in has 800 units in that building. I would like you to imagine what it would look like in the future if Mirror Lake had 800 units. One of the most interesting things about having property there is how many people out of 800 units own dogs. There's probably 600 to 700 dogs in the neighborhood, and they all go to the park, and that's what I want to talk about because Mirror Lake is not just a neighborhood. It's also a sanctuary for migrating birds. I noticed that you have birds here and here, so the council must really value the fact that we have birds in the city, that they can actually fly into the city, and they nest here. They don't just visit here. They nest here, and they've made their home all around Mirror Lake, and with dogs in the park and people and, you know, an overwhelming presence of people and progress. I'm very concerned that we would lose the flavor of Mirror Lake by losing all the bird life there and the turtles and also just the many aquatic fish and so forth that live there. So I'd like you to think into the future. You don't want it to look like Tudor City. You don't want to see what looks like 600 dogs all running around Mirror Lake. I guarantee it. Thank you. Next two speakers. Carol Apollonia and Kristen Alicuin-Lukian, please go to either podium, state your name and address for the record, and you have three minutes to address city council. Hello, council. My name is Carol Apollonia, and I live at 750 Burlington Avenue North, and I have been sworn. I'm a Mirror Lake property owner and resident. I want to voice support for my neighbors who initiated this request. You may not realize, but city council has slowly and steadily been adopting historic districts over the years. The city has nine local historic districts, one located downtown. There are five national register districts. The proposed Mirror Lake historic district is not unlike the other local historic districts in terms of public support. They've all had strong support, but none had 100 percent owner support. Sometimes a louder voice or two in opposition can make it seem like there's too much opposition within a proposed district, even when most of the neighborhoods supports the district, some of who do so silently. As you're hearing, the Mirror Lake application has widespread owner support. I don't think it matters whether the owner is a condo owner or owner of a lot. They're all district property owners. I know some opponents question the role of condo owners in the approval process, but I think the opinion of a condo owner is just as worthy as the opinion of an individual lot owner, particularly as we're all taxpayers. I doubt you as a council member would tell me that my property rights are any less than those of a lot owner, and you're certainly not telling me that my property tax will be discounted in being a condo owner. So please do not discount our opinions. Thank you for considering my comments, and I hope you will create the Mirror Lake Historic District. Thank you. Good evening, counselors. My name is Kristen Alukian. I live at 701 Mirror Lake, and I've been sworn in. I own a condo along the shore of Mirror Lake, so I am a property owner within the proposed district, and I'm one of the citizen applicants. I bought my condo in early 2019, and so for almost the last six years, Mirror Lake has been my home. I absolutely love living there. Mirror Lake has a vibrant and community-minded residential population. It's a very unique and special neighborhood in St. Pete, and I feel very lucky to live there. My neighbors, owners, and residents agree. We frequently comment on how lucky we are to live at Mirror Lake, and it's important to us that it be designated as a historic district to keep it special. To this point, you might note that out of the 142 tax parcels within the proposed district, only 14 returned a ballot not in support. I'd also like to point out that the Place Economic Study completed earlier this year, funded in part by the city, demonstrates the value of historic districts to the city in dollars and cents. The study found the per-square-foot values of both residential and commercial structures within St. Petersburg's historic districts outperform non-designated neighborhoods, and this fact is important to Mirror Lake property owners. Mirror Lake is my home. It's a special neighborhood in St. Pete, and I want it to be designated as a historic district to help keep it special. I support the application and urge you to accept the CPPC's unanimous recommendation and vote yes. Thank you. Thank you. Next two speakers, please. Diane Drutowski and Cheryl Van Messel, please go to either podium. State your name and address for the record, and you have three minutes to address city council. My name is Diane Drutowski. My address is 701 Mirror Lake, Drive Unit 122, and I have been sworn. I live and own property within this proposed district. Mirror Lake is my neighborhood, and I also feel lucky to live there. I know that neighborhood support for the district is important to you, as it is to me. The designation process has been lengthy, and it included a neighborhood meeting led by city staff, and for which all property owners were mailed a notice 10 days in advance. A page on the city website for the Mirror Lake Historic District, which has been regularly updated to keep property owners and others aware of the process and to allow the public to ask questions or offer comments, and multiple emails sent by the city to all property owners, including one prior to each step in the process with opportunities to offer input. These efforts by staff, as well as those of the applicants, have resulted in a neighborhood-supported application. At the CPPC public hearing, only one property owner spoke against the application. Of the approximately 150 written comments received by the CPPC, only two were by property owners opposed to the district. I believe these facts show you the overwhelming property owner support for our proposed district. I urge you to accept the unanimous CPPC recommendation and to vote yes on creating the Mirror Lake Local Historic District. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Hello. My name is Cheryl Van Mesel. I live at 750 Burlington Avenue North, and I've been sworn. My husband and I have lived at Mirror Lake Co-op for 35 years and love living in a historic building surrounded by trees and beautiful old buildings. But those are my subjective feelings. What does the objective data show? The largest body of empirical data over the years has concluded that historic districts are good for communities. They are good for property values, good for local business, good for maintaining affordable housing, and good for keeping communities' sense of place. Studies within Florida have occurred in Miami and Palm Beach, and finally this last year a study examined St. Petersburg's historic districts. The Place Economic Study was jointly funded by the City, the Downtown Partnership, and Preserve the Burg, so it can hardly be said the study was biased. The study, undertaken by Place Economics, examined historic and non-historic properties across the city, so you will have accurate data to better understand how historic properties help the cities economically and culturally. The data shows property values in historic districts outperform those in the rest of the city. The study also demonstrates that local businesses are attracted to historic buildings and that historic buildings significantly contribute to affordable housing opportunities. One more point found in the study, just like you were seeing here today for Mirror Lake, it is that St. Petersburg residents support historic preservation. So I urge you to follow the data and vote yes on Mirror Lake Historic District. Thank you. Thank you. Next two speakers, Drexie Smith and Teresa Derikas, please go to either podium, state your name and address for the record, and you have three minutes to address City Council. What's your name? She spoke as part of the applicant. All right, Teresa Derikas and Susan Vincent, please go to either podium, state your name and address for the record, and you have three minutes to address City Council. Good evening. My name is Teresa Derikas, and I live at 750 Burlington Avenue, and I have been sworn in. I've been a Mirror Lake property owner and resident for nearly five years, and I absolutely love my neighborhood. I'm here to voice support for my neighbors who initiated this request. I'd like to offer some very brief facts about the lengthy designation process, part of which you know, but just a quick summary. In early January 2024, staff conducted a neighborhood meeting to exchange information. All property owners were mailed a meeting notice. The city then sent out ballots to property owners two months after the neighborhood meeting. Property owners were allowed 60 days to speak with their neighbors or to learn more about the district before ballots were due. After ballot returns, it was nearly four months before the CPPC public hearing. Unfortunately, the September CPPC meeting was continued because of a lack of quorum, so those who came to City Hall in support of the district were told to go home. The following month was Hurricane Milton, and understandably, the public hearing was canceled again. So I sincerely hope that we won't be going home again today without any sort of decision in this process. Your CPPC says the application meets the designation criteria. Most of my neighbors say yes to the district, and you've heard a lot of evidence. Let's add another jewel to the St. Petersburg crown. Thank you for listening, and please vote yes for the historic district. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Good evening. My name is Susan Vincent, and I live at 430 Bay Street Northeast, and I have been sworn. I have lived or owned property in downtown St. Petersburg for over 12 years. Prior to retiring to St. Petersburg, I taught high school in East Harlem and wetlands research at Columbia University. While I miss New York, I so appreciate the green spaces that St. Petersburg offers. Mirror Lake is one of my favorite places to walk because it reminds me, in a lot of ways, of my walks in Central Park around the Jacqueline Onassis Reservoir. That location was between Central Park West and 5th Avenue. Our little gym, Mirror Lake, is nestled between iconic landmarks on 4th Avenue North and 1st Avenue North. The area provides a peaceful, restorative respite in the midst of our bustling downtown. But my experience of Mirror Lake as a special area in St. Petersburg, it's not unique. John Nolan, a preeminent planner of the 1920s, was an early advocate of what became known as designing with nature. He was a visionary, much like the designers of Central Park, who designed the park to knit together the social fabric of the city by creating a space to bring people together. Nolan was brought to St. Petersburg in early 1920s, drafting the state's first comprehensive city plan. Within the plan, Nolan viewed Mirror Lake as a natural civic center. Whether or not it's the city's civic center, it is certainly the neighborhood's civic center. And I urge you to help protect it by designating the area around Mirror Lake as a historic district. I support the application and urge you to create Mirror Lake Local Historic District. Thank you. Thank you. Next two speakers, Will Conroy and Manny Lato. Please go to either podium. State your name and address for the record. You have three minutes to address city council. Thank you all. Will Conroy, 250 Mirror Lake. I want to actually begin my remarks by acknowledging something Mr. Kilbourne said earlier when he talked about one of the filed opponents, which was or filed remarks, which was me. Incorrectly, last time making a comment about the procedure, he was correct. I withdrew those from tonight's remarks, and he let me know that after, so I thank him. I think I'm the only person in the city who has moved a historic home, has renovated a historic home. I hear a lot of people talking about condos here. I've built two high-rise condos in the city and have plans for more. I've also owned or currently own seven parcels on Mirror Lake. So I do feel as though a lot of the statements that get thrown around are ones that people maybe don't have the same sort of experience, particularly on the development side, that I do. I'm once again here to encourage this council to oppose the Mirror Lake Historic District. My objections, again, to this district are about process and policy and not about the fine people that you see here and have spoken here, many of whom I've got to know on a personal basis and enjoy their company very much. I would like to ask you all why a change in zoning is being initiated by a small group of citizens and not by city staff and or you all as our duly elected city representatives. The process being employed today, and I know Mr. Herman disagrees with this, but I believe this is a third-party designation where it allows one property owner to effectively designate another's property as historic. This is not voluntary for me. It's not optional, and it's not a scenario where my consent is a requirement before my property is designated historic. I find that outrageous, but that is what our city code currently allows. Secondly, I urge you to consider taking your careful time before downzoning a 20-plus-acre area in the heart of our downtown. And make no mistake, this is a downzone. We can talk about property values however we want, but it is a downzone. For a full and robust consideration of the implications of a downzoning to an entire district, I would encourage you to delay consideration of this agenda item until you can more carefully consider a zoning change. Have you heard from enough experts? Have you heard from enough constituents? Maybe. Have you conducted your own individual or meetings? I would also ask, are you aware of the several pending lawsuits concerning this district and their legal and financial implications for the city of St. Petersburg? You all rightfully took years in the proper consideration of the Warehouse Arts IMIC zoning changes. A downzone of Mirror Lake deserves the same lengthy consideration. As a developer, I have repeatedly saved historic buildings. We're in the process of saving two right now. I see value in preservation. I see value in the work that Preserve the Burg is doing, and I see value in the neighborhood organization that has taken place and what you're seeing here today. Thank you. I encourage you to vote no. Good evening. My name is Manny Leto. I'm the executive director of Preserve the Burg. I'm at 3302 North Ridge Avenue, and I have been sworn. You clearly have heard quite a bit about Mirror Lake this evening, but I thought it would be helpful to understand the history of this application and how we all arrived at this particular moment. As the application explains and as our speakers have explained, Mirror Lake is one of downtown's most intact collections of historic structures. Many are tucked away on small parcels along narrow courts and alleys, and the point is that this is already an incredibly dense urban neighborhood. It is packed with a wide mix of uses. Zoom out. You'll, of course, find 11 locally designated landmarks, City Hall, the Coliseum, but the vast majority are unprotected. In 2019, the City Council approved a 21-story high-rise across from the Mirror Lake Library. The plan included or proposed the demolition of four multifamily residential buildings to make way for one residential tower. Council concluded that absent a designation, the project had to be approved that the residential units that had served in-town renters for nearly 100 years had to come down. Those, you know, non-luxury apartments dating from the early 1900s, offering 97 unsubsidized, relatively affordable housing units in downtown, were demolished earlier this year, and the parcel remains undeveloped five years later. In July of 2021, a public hearing was held to discuss initiating a Mirror Lake Historic District application with considerably wider boundaries than what is before you today. Council, as today, received hundreds of emails in support of beginning that application process, which would have been a city-initiated designation, but the discussion was continued and then officially withdrawn in 2021. At the end of 2022, residents approached Preserve the Berg about assisting with another application. The result, after almost two years of research, review, and public comment, is a much more modest proposal before you. As you have heard, the application has been undertaken in strict compliance with the city's long-standing historic preservation code. The comp plan calls on you to protect historic assets. City staff, with scrutiny by legal, supports this application and recommends passage. The CPPC unanimously recommends passage, and more than 80 percent, 80 percent of the Mirror Lake residents have voted for advancement. We encourage you, do not delay this any longer. We encourage you to approve this designation. Next two speakers, Madam Chair, Ellen Hayes and Maria Erickson. Please go to either podium. State your name and address for the record. We have three minutes to address City Council. Good evening. My name is Ellen Hayes, and I have been sworn in. I'm here tonight representing the Unitarian Universalist Church of St. Petersburg, which is one of the buildings that would be protected by a local historic district. The church building, which was dedicated in 1929, and its Mediterranean revival architecture and quiet setting on Mirror Lake, were two of the things that attracted me to that community when I moved here in 2012. The church has roughly 160 active members. Early in 2024, these members carefully weighed the pluses and minuses of being a part of a local historic district. Unitarians carefully weigh everything. Ultimately, our board of trustees voted to support the local historic district, and the congregation registered its two yes ballots with the city's historic preservation staff. We were thrilled to hear that the Community Planning and Preservation Commission unanimously approved the local historic designation. On a personal level, I must say that the St. Petersburg I fell in love with more than a decade ago now seems unrecognizable. So many condo towers sprouting up all over downtown. Can you imagine Mirror Lake surrounded by and reflected in glassy, high-rise towers? I don't want to. The Mirror Lake Local Historic District represents a wonderful microcosm of our collective history. An historic district is best for maintaining Mirror Lake's sense of place, a feel that's unmatched in any other part of downtown. Please, let's create an historic district while there are still historic buildings remaining. Please vote in favor of saving Mirror Lake. Thank you very much. Thank you. My name is Maria Erickson. My address is 2209 Sunrise Drive, and I've been sworn in. I live in St. Pete, and I want to help keep the area special. I'm a volunteer with Preserve the Berg, and I lead walking and bicycling tours all over historic districts and around Mirror Lake, and I've seen firsthand with hundreds of residents and visitors how amazed they are at the concentration of historic buildings in such a small area. I've taken probably 400 residents through the past seven years through Mirror Lake, and they're just blown away by the history. And invariably, someone will raise their hand and want to tell a story of their family and some great event they had there, parents, grandparents, people that have been here a while. You know, the social history is rich, as well as the, you know, the history of the buildings, which I get to talk about a lot as a tour guide. And we're not, we're very lucky to have many that were designed by nationally recognized architects in the 1920s and 30s. For example, the two school buildings, one now a condo, and the Tomlinson Building, designed by William Itner, who was like the rock star of architects, the most sought-after school architect in the nation, came to what was Little St. Pete at the time and designed these amazing school buildings. You know, some of the most energy on my tours is we stop in front of the Tomlinson Junior High building, and after the pandemic, we had a few tours there and talked about, you know, that it was at risk of demolition, and people were shocked. They're like, how could this happen? Why would it happen? You know, what can we do? Who can we talk to? So the idea that, you know, a building like that can fall to the wrecking ball gets people really riled up. But, you know, there's a couple other, you know, nationally known architects from the 1920s that were behind buildings like the Shuffleboard Clubhouse. Mirror Lake has two Kate Allen buildings by master builder Kate Allen, whom the Allendale Neighborhood is named after. And also we heard about the Unitarian Universalist Church and their amazing architecture. I just wanted to share that and support the application. You're welcome on a tour anytime, and I hope you'll vote yes on this application. Thank you. Thank you. The next two speakers, Ray Arsenault and Robert Klusen. Please go to either podium. State your name and address for the record. You have three minutes to address city council. Yes, I'm Ray Arsenault. I live at 767 36th Avenue North in the Allendale section that Kate Allen created many years ago. I'm a retired historian, history professor, and the author of St. Petersburg and the Florida Dream, which was the centennial history of the city that I wrote in 1988. I want to offer you a bit of historical background, which you may or may not know all of it, to try to enhance your appreciation for how important this is to the city to designate this particular plot of land and water. For years, I taught courses on the history of St. Petersburg, and part of that would be a walking tour that I would give my students. And I always made sure that I included Mirror Lake. In fact, it was kind of the high point of the tour because I would take them into the shuffleboard courts, and I'd make them sit in those old grandstands from the mid-20s. And many of them had never been there before. They'd never seen anything like that. And I would say to them, look around you. You couldn't be anywhere else on Earth. You are in St. Petersburg. This is kind of the signature of the city. You know, we often talk, and I think a lot of people who live here are proud of our sense of place. That's the term we use. And I think Mirror Lake is as good as any place in the city to feel that sense of place, that distinctiveness. And I know we all know about kind of 1920s culture that flourished around the lake with the Coliseum and shuffleboard courts and the lawn bowling and all the crazy things that John Lodwick, the publicity director, created there. You know, international championships of arm wrestling and geriatric boxing, you name it. We had it. But there's an older history of this area. You know, David Moffat was the first mayor of St. Petersburg. When he incorporated it as a town in 1892, he became the mayor. He was from Indiana. He'd been here since 1881. He beat General Williams, who was generally regarded as kind of the patriarch of the city. General Williams was so upset he had a stroke and died afterwards, sadly. But the focus has often been on General Williams and on Piotr de Mensheff and their negotiation of bringing the Orange Belt Railroad here in 1888, which really created the modern city. But Williams and de Mensheff were fighting so much over essentially what was known as the Williams Track that they wouldn't let any development for a long time. And so the only place really where people could buy land for a number of years was around Mirror Lake. It was David Moffat owned a citrus. Anyway, its significance goes way back. Thank you. Next two speakers, please. We have one more. Who's coming? Robert Kluson. Robert Kluson. Robert Kluson. He's four. Four. Rebecca Falkenberry and Joseph Welsh, please go to either podium. State your name and address for the record. You have three minutes to address city council. Joseph Welsh. Who is that? Mr. Welsh. Mr. Welsh. Mr. Welsh is four. Me? Hi. Rebecca Falkenberry. I live at 301 2nd Street North. I've lived there, unbelievably, for 24 years after moving here from Alabama. I've been sworn in. I'd like to say that I consider Mirror Lake my neighborhood, even though I am a grand total of two blocks away. But I love living in a downtown where there's a sense of place, there's a mixture of old and new, and that there are things interesting from the structures from the past. I think one of my favorite places in St. Pete is the historic Carnegie Library. I'm so proud the city has taken such great care of it. I read quite a bit, and I go there quite a bit. And when I do, I walk around Mirror Lake, which is a great walking path. If any of you like to go out and walk from City Hall, it's not very far. It's a great, about one-mile route, and it's a great place to be in the middle of the city. I just want to address some of the misconceptions about historic districts that I've heard from opponents. A district designation does not stop development. A designation does not impose a lower FAR limit than what's already in the zoning code. It doesn't impose a lower height limit than is already in the zoning code. It doesn't require a particular type of architecture for new development, and it does not dictate the use of the buildings. In short, the suggestions that the Mirror Lake Historic District would prevent downtown development and it's bad for property values is really a wrong concept. So I thank you for listening to my comments. I support the Mirror Lake Historic District. I urge you to vote yes. I would note that the townhouse I live in was built in 1982, so I'm almost a contributing structure. I was surprised to hear that some of those dates made that difference. And I'd like to give my remaining 48 seconds back to Ray. Second. Thank you. Next two speakers. Next two speakers, Matt Widener and Susan Allen. Please go to either podium. State your name and address for the record. We have three minutes to address city council. You can take this three minutes now, Mr. Widener, and still have cross and closing. As I'm sitting there, I'm thinking, oh, that's fantastic, but it's precisely the reason why Tallahassee had to step in and pass this law against a referenda. These are passionate people. I respect my neighbors. I respect their opinions. But there's a larger issue here, folks, and that is there are 260,000 residents in this community. And we got difficult economic times in front of us. We know that. And as we all know, this is downzoning. We're taking the most valuable property in our community, and we're scraping away the density rights that builders, developers, and property owners have. And what legislature said was, we can't have land use changes that are initiated by the referendum process. That's what this is. And the reason why this is so problematic, the referendum process, is because it subverts the professionals, land use planners, engineers, architects, economic professionals, and puts the mob, I call it the preservation mob, in charge of how a city develops. One thing that's missing from your analysis, this is quasi-judicial, right, so the only thing you're supposed to be relying on is what happens in here. There's not one single bit of economic information. It's crazy to me to think that we would take 20-plus acres in our city's core and that you folks would be asked to make a decision that lasts until the end of time about how this economic would work. Think about that. You're going to scrape away 7FAR, 5FAR, dispute what the woman said, but the reality is what you're doing here is if you vote to down zone, you're eliminating the rights of existing property owners and robbing us of hundreds of millions of dollars in potential projects. Gravel Road might not happen. The Red Apple Project might not happen. Other projects that are shovel-ready, as we say, might not happen because of the economic impacts of this. You would be removing the ad valorem impact of all those other properties on top of that. That's hugely problematic. The whole concept that this is quasi-judicial, I'll take a step back and think about that for a second. I've given you the liberty opinion. I encourage you to think very carefully about that. The liberty opinion says that when you sit in a legislative capacity, you should not be quasi-judicial because it prevents you from listening to your constituents. You've had this wall up, and you've all been very serious about that. Can't talk to anybody about this because we're going to wait and see what happens right here in quasi-judicial. But the idea that you would be asked to make a permanent decision about the heart of this city based only on what you've heard right here, that's crazy to me. I want to make sure I get into the record. A couple other critical points. The application itself fails as a matter of law because it doesn't have a legal description. It's a critically important point, and it's in your material right there. And you really need to drill into me about that on cross-examination. Finally, the clerk has queued up the last time this historic district was withdrawn. Please, Madam Chair, ask to review that. They've got it queued up right there. Thank you. Thank you. Next two speakers, please. Susan Allen. Susan. Susan Allen. She's four. Okay. Next two speakers, Emily, I believe it's Evelyn, and Robin Reed. Please go to either podium. State your name and address for the record. You have three minutes to address city council. Hello. I'm Emily Elwin, and I am a professional historic preservationist with an expertise in architectural history, public history, and historic preservation. I volunteer my time to preserve the burg because I believe St. Pete is special, and I believe in the importance of protecting our historic resources. I have three points I want to make today. This application meets the criteria for local designation. This is an owner-supported historic district application. And finally, one small point. The Sunshine Center should be considered a contributing resource to the historic district. First, this application is a result of two years of thoughtful research that went on. I am the primary author of this report. I worked with a number of members from the community and residents to be sure that our boundaries were as tight and as defensible as possible from a historic preservation standard, that all of the properties that were considered contributing were fully researched and where we fully understood that they had the integrity to be considered historic. Finally, or also, this district, as we have heard, has property owner support. Our local ordinance is one of the most, it's outside the norm in historic preservation in other communities. It is much harder to initiate a designation in St. Petersburg than in other places. But we met that very difficult hurdle by a number of, by over 50% of the property owners actively submitting a ballot that's saying they wanted to have this considered. Finally, I want to talk just briefly about the Sunshine Center. The 50-year rule is a guideline, not a rule. Exceptions can be made for structures of historic significance, or exceptional historic significance, or contributing to the context of the historic district, and as long as they meet the areas of significance. The Sunshine Center was developed for our senior citizens at a time when we were considered, frankly, God's waiting room. So it is important who we were, who we were, to understand that this Sunshine Center really meets who we are as a community and really showed the importance of the senior citizens in our community. This is the first time they had a place to meet in the district, and it was specifically located in Mirror Lake, because in addition to having a place to meet, this is where all the seniors' resources were as well, the entertainment, the recreation. So I really think you should consider this. There's also no way to go back and add this to the district later if you don't consider the entire, not part of the entire district. I'm here to answer any other professional questions you may have about the application or about the process in general later on in the hearing. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next is speaking. Oh, Ms. Reed. Okay. My name is Robin Reed, and I live at 705 16th Avenue Northeast, and I have been sworn. I've been involved in community fairs and preservation in St. Pete for the last 25 years. I am currently the president of Preserve the Burke. In all that time, in my opinion, no proposed landmark designation application has been more important for St. Pete than the one that is currently before you for Mirror Lake. All of us can agree about the importance of the Mirror Lake neighborhood to the history of our city, and today you have heard Ray talk about that importance and have it confirmed for all of us. A few additional points to consider just in kind of review. The process for designation is clearly outlined in the city code and was approved by a previous city council. Residents in the area acted in good faith, garnering the required support for the application to move forward. The city staff followed the process as outlined in the city code. They held the requisite number of meetings. They communicated with all property owners and others and mailed ballots at the appropriate time. The application, when presented to the CPPC, was unanimously recommended for approval by city council. We now respectfully request that you reaffirm the city's process for designating a local historic district being the Mirror Lake neighborhood and preserving this lovely and historically important area for future generations to enjoy. Thank you. Thank you. Next two speakers. Next two speakers, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, Alexander Smith and Joe Reed, please go to either podium. State your name and address for the record. You have three minutes to address city council. Good evening. Alexander Smith, 2624 Burlington Avenue North, and I've been sworn in. I'm here representing a few different hats tonight. I am currently the vice president of Historic Kenwood, so I think it's important to come in here and speak on behalf of the Neighborhood Association that currently has 79% of the protected properties in a local historic district citywide. So, you know, we know the process really well. I was in Mr. Herman's shoes three years ago in 2021, speaking to you and city council as the last local historic district applicant. And so the local historic districts matter a lot to me. I'm also a local licensed architect, so I understand the process that goes through CPPC and to have development within these local historic districts. When the applicants reached out about two years ago to talk about becoming a local historic district, they reached out to me to ask about how we did it in Kenwood and what is the kind of playbook that we need to follow to have this support of a local historic district. We followed that kind of playbook that we've developed in Kenwood, and you know what? We had the same results when you compare the ballots for the last local historic district in 2021. The percentages are only 3% difference in support, which the city council at the time praised us as a model neighborhood and actually voted unanimously to approve the local last designation that had the same results. I think it's also important to speak on my professional background as an architect. Development still occurs in local historic districts. I've based my entire career off of development because I'm in the architecture field, and I specifically focus on local historic districts. So to say that development doesn't occur in these districts is flat-out false. What it does provide is appropriate development. When you look at the city zoning codes, they're written with a broad brush. We try to do our best to apply zoning in a citywide way that is applicable. The bonus that comes with the local historic district is that design guidelines are written that are specific to that district that help to focus on what is important within that area. And I think it's really important that we support this local historic district, and I ask for your support. Thank you. Thank you. For Mr. Reed's card, for the record, was he for or against? He was for. Okay, thank you. Last two speakers before we call those who did not want to speak. Lynn Morino and Gary Morimo. Morino, please go to either podium. State your name and address for the record. You have three minutes to address city council. My name is Lynn Mormino, 235 10th Avenue North. I get to go before my husband for once. Okay, I have had the opportunity to go to Mirror Lake on many, many occasions, and one of those was to take a group from the St. Pete Museum of History, a group of kids, and we were helping them build their model city, and that model city included coming here, meeting the mayor, walking around all over the city, but they kept coming back to Mirror Lake. Because as a kid, they saw it as a magical place, a place where, sure, they could go to shuffleboard, they could see these incredible little churches. The Carnegie Library was amazing to them. And just walking around the lake, seeing all the bird life, that was, you can call it a child's sense of place, but a lot of adults find it that, too. You know, you give progress reports at the city. You talk about how the library is coming along. You talk about how the sewer treatment plants are being updated. You talk about those things, but one of the things I'd love to see in those progress reports is how we're protecting and treasuring and preserving our treasures. And there's been so much devastation in the last two months. People are heart sick. But when the gentleman earlier talked about the heart of the city, I would say Mirror Lake is the heart of this city. It's something that people want to hold on to. And so, for all the walking tours that my husband has given, that others have given in this audience, I would say those visitors and those families and those kids will not remember Condo Canyons, but they will remember the charm of Mirror Lake. So, I ask you to please designate it as the wonderful district it deserves to be. Thank you. Thank you. I agree with her. My name is Gary Mormino. I live at 235 10th Avenue North, and I'm sworn. I have taught a class in Florida history at USF Tampa and USF St. Pete for 50 years. And I emphasize how lucky we are here to live in one of the most beautiful neighborhoods I've ever seen. And where else can you find a world-class shuffleboard court with stadium seating, along with historic library, churches, and ducts? And if the class were held at night, a tour of Mirror Lake at night is pure magic. In a world where status and prestige are increasingly defined by high-rise condos, Mirror Lake is beloved because it fits all the qualities one hopes to find in a historic neighborhood. Harmony, a sense of place, and an unhurried community. In the Florida Studies program at USF St. Pete that Ray and I created, we explored the idea of a sense of place. And Mirror Lake and St. Petersburg perfectly fit a sense you know you're here when you see it. In today's Florida, bigger is better, and the high-rise condo is king, but not in Mirror Lake. In Mirror Lake, these structures tower over neighborhoods with little connection to neighbors or community. The designation of Mirror Lake as a historic district is not only appropriate, but urgently needed. Consider the Mirror Lake Library that I find the crown jewel of this area. And remember, there was a gift from a Scottish immigrant, Andrew Carnegie. It was the People's Library. And by the way, the Carnegie Code of Arms read, Death to Privilege. So, thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Madam Chair, these are individuals who signed up that did not wish to speak, and they are four, Gail Herman, Debbie Mazur, George, it looks like S.T., I can't see. Steinleck. Maureen Goff, Charles Bross, Christine Kane, Gary Bates, Mary Petson, Peter Chan, Erica Schroger, Raquel Marcel, Adam Pitesh. They're all four, Madam Chair. Okay. Thank you. And no against. No more cards. Okay. Very good. Okay. So, staff, would you like to cross-examine? Our opponent, would you like to cross-examine? Staff, if I may, I'll move over here. I haven't heard any discussion at all about the ballots and support, but I want you to explain to the City Council why it is that I have in my possession six ballots when I should have at most gotten three, and we'll start with that question. Sure. In the balloting process, every registered parcel is sent a ballot. There was an analysis by the City Attorney's Office related to trust when there is a trust ownership, and our division followed direction from City Attorney's Office about how those ballots should be mailed in those instances. So, City Attorney's Office made the mistake in mailing out double ballots to trust properties when it wasn't appropriate. Maybe we could bring up your count of the ballots, because I count like 30 ballots around that were improperly sent out. When I'm a trustee, I only get one ballot. Instead, I got two ballots. Legal made an error in judgment if they mailed two ballots to a property owner. The second error relates to the remainder interest ballots. I counted, I think, seven. Do you have a question, Mr. Wyden? Okay. How many ballots were mailed out that were improperly mailed out? I would say no ballots were mailed out improperly. As Mr. Coborn stated, every property must receive a ballot. Every listed property owner receives a ballot. So, if you own a property within a mailing, and you own it with your siblings, per se, and all three of you are on the property appraiser, all three of you have the opportunity to vote. However, as it clearly stated, on the ballots themselves and the information sheet that goes out with the ballots explaining what they do and how to use them, only one vote may be counted from each parcel. But we do provide every possible property owner that we can find, per the property appraiser's information, with an opportunity to do that. Now, Mr. Wyden may have a trust structure that we are not aware of, but we mail something to everyone who is on that list. If it is an LLC, we find the mailing information for that. Thank you. When do I get to cut off when it precludes me for asking additional questions? Go ahead, Mr. Wyden. Ask your next question. Thank you. So, remainder interest. I count seven ballots in which they were mailed out on your own list. They list remainder interest, but it's basics of property law that a remainder interest is not an interest in the property. They're not entitled to a ballot. What they're entitled to is what the code provides, which is all owners. Ownerships are defined as which is listed on the Pinellas County property. All right, let me stop. Let me stop. Because remainder interest is not an ownership. It's a legal issue. We'll get to that on appeal. But a remainder interest in property is not an ownership interest that should be entitled to a ballot. But I'll move to the next set of questions. In the CPPC, you admitted that the application did not comport with the essential requirements of law because it didn't have a legal description, correct? At CPPC, I said exactly that when we became aware that the application did not have that, which was well in advance of the CPPC meeting, that Mr. Coborn's staff informed the applicants that they did not have a complete application. And the application itself wasn't changed. If you members will look in your packet, you will note that there's no indication that it's an amended application. And a problem that I have is the application that was sent out, it's 202 pages long. The application that's now before you has ballooned into 312 pages long with absolutely no notice to anybody. I mean, think about it as an attorney. If an application changes dramatically from 202 pages... With your line of question. All right, so why wasn't anybody notified that there was a change in the application? As Mr. Coborn stated, all of the updated documents were put as soon as we had them onto the website and we were informed of that. The application that was completed with all required elements was the application that was heard at the CPPC meeting. But you would agree that the signature that's on the 312 page application that's in front of council right now is not an accurate representation, correct? Can we have staff answer that question? Thanks. Could you restate that, please? The application that started this process was 202 pages long, it was signed by Manny Lido and Peter Belmont. When you guys amended it, you didn't change the application, you just added in, slipped in 112 pages, correct? 110 pages, right? I may have to defer to our team, I don't, we did not do an addition of that scale. There was a modification to the patient that added the legal descriptions. But there's not a legal description in this application right now. You guys took a rough scrape from property appraiser data, and the application- Chair, we've historically allowed the final question to continue through in this line of questioning to conclude after the five minutes. Okay. It's sort of preserved for the record, the application doesn't comply with the central requirements of law, because it doesn't have legal description. The second one is, you guys don't get the public records- Well, now you're just testifying, so I do believe Mr. Kilborn provided an answer for your last question. Okay. I consulted with the historic preservation team to see if they knew about the additional 112 pages that you're referring to. We're not aware of that type of modification to the package. There was the addition of the legal descriptions at the back of the package, but that did not take 112 pages. That was a much smaller subset of probably 8 to 10 pages, which are included as the appendix to the ordinance. I hope the council members will cross-examine me on this particular issue. It's important. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Would the applicant like to also cross-examine? Me or him? Derek, just for the record, is this application complete? Does it meet all the requirements and standards? It's our belief that the application is complete, yes. Thank you. Thank you. So now we'll move to rebuttal or closing remarks. Each party will have five minutes to provide closing arguments or rebuttal. Staff, any closing remarks or rebuttal? I do have several. I just want to maybe correct a couple comments that came up during the public comment portion. Starting with a reference to advance notice for the public information meeting. The comment was that there was a 10-day advance notice. I did want to clarify for council the city code requirement is 14 days. City staff mailed out our notices 28 days ahead of that first public information meeting. The second thing is there was a reference to 80% of the residents in the district support the application. I just want to be clear for the council. There is no way for city staff to verify that number. Obviously, we have the ballot count for what was remitted back to our office. There were 77 affirmative votes. There's a total of 148 parcels in the district. That is 52 parcels of the total. Remitted affirmative ballots. But that is not an indication of residents. We don't have a way to verify that. There was a reference to projects around Muir Lake that may be jeopardized by a decision to designate. I want to clarify for city council that those projects are approved. And they are grandfathered in with that approval. So, a designation today does not retroactively compromise approvals that have already been granted through the DRC. In fact, there was an application during this process that went to the DRC on August 23rd and involves property at 250 Muir Lake. It was a request for two variances that included a partial demolition. I am the author of the memo from our division that acknowledged that partial demolition and also included a statement of no objection to those variances being approved through DRC. So, that is a real-time evidence that change can be approved through the process. I was the author of that memo and stated no objection in my conclusions. Finally, there was a reference that city staff maybe should be the one initiating designations. Our staff are administrators of the city code. I have a fundamental belief that these types of designation applications should come from the residents up or from their elected representatives down acting on behalf of the residents. It is not something that should be coming from the city staff. In my time as the manager of our division, I don't think that I have ever brought you an application and requested that you initiate a designation. We are available to answer questions. Council residents assist city council when you have questions for our team. We also work on other projects. Right now, we've been answering a lot of questions about the 49% rule exemption for historic properties when it comes to flood resiliency and substantial damage. We work on other quality of life issues, legacy businesses, historic signs. But when it comes to designation, I fundamentally believe it should not come from staff. It should come from the residents themselves or from their elected representatives. And that is what's happened here. The residents came to us, asked questions, we counseled them on process, and they triggered the process which we then administered from start to this point tonight. The balloting did not conclude with an official designation. It triggered this process. And you have the responsibility tonight, per the code, to make a decision on whether it's going to be designated or not. But it is an action initiated by the residents and will conclude with the council. And that's all I want to close with at this time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Does the opponent have any closing remarks or rebuttal? I find it bizarre and troubling that staff is urging you wholeheartedly to support this and completely ignoring the existence of two pending lawsuits targeting this very process. It's like you're in a vacuum here, right? So we got staff just wholeheartedly saying go forward, support this, without even a mention of a lawsuit. Well, included within the packet that I handed out to you is the language, the most important language I think is there, that I urge you to read. It says the legislature in 2023 changed an existing law and said land use change shall not begin with a referendum. I think it's black and white. And if you look at that language and you say that I believe that I can read the language and we've been preempted, you can't support this. The analysis in the lawsuit is exactly on all four squares of where you recently got reversed in the Florida Gulf Coast litigation. It was city had an ordinance that you all felt strongly in and the legislature came along and preempted you. We may not like it. I get it. But when the legislature speaks and they say you can't do this, you got to listen to what the legislature says because it's unconstitutional not to. So for staff not even to mention that to you, not even giving you the frame of reference about that, I find deeply problematic. There's a second lawsuit pending. It's called a Burt Harris taking action. Burt Harris action says an inordinate burden placed upon a property subjects the city to liability for the burdens that are imposed. There can be no question at all, but that a down zoning of the property is an inordinate burden. No question whatsoever. You're exposing the city to significant financial liability. Staff may say, hey, we don't know how it's going to turn out. It's true. But to make this decision about down zoning hundreds of properties without even considering that or staff even talking to you about that legal, not even giving you legal analysis about the potential risk there strikes me as very irresponsible. I want you to focus on another thing when you get the packet up there and I hope you'll show it on the screen. We fixated a lot on just that blue line. Right. And we think, hey, this is the beautiful area and this is all that matters. Staff didn't mention to you at all the site planning process, which is properties, all properties within 200 feet of that boundary are impacted by. Yeah, let's bring that up there right there. So when you fixate on that right there, please understand that the true impact of this is 200 feet beyond there. And we saw with the lake house approval and what happened, historic preservation staff came in and they argued against approval of the lake house because it was in 200 feet of the lake. That's crazy. So, again, I find it very problematic that you're being asked to vote on this stuff without being fully advised of the larger economic consequences. We've talked a lot about commentary from people, but I'm going to put for the record another objection to the fact that all of these public comments for or against are not part of your packets. This QR code situation, I don't think comports with the requirements for public record and comports with your requirements of deliberation because that's not before this council. If we're being true about quasi judicial, then you got hundreds of pages or hundreds and hundreds of pages worth of documents that CPPC considered, that staff considered, that are not before you right now. So I think that's another argument against the essential requirements of law. Finally, in that packet as well, I included the Driftwood order in opinion. And it's critical that you folks read that and pay attention to the fact that when Driftwood, it was a historic designation that applied a couple of years ago, it was reversed on circuit court for exactly the reasons that are before you tonight. And that is in the opinion, it says that the spreadsheet that staff uses is not competent substantial evidence of the necessary 51% votes that would have brought this thing forward. And finally, I have just one other point, and that is we got to understand what happened the last time this near lake thing got reversed September 9th, 2021. I beg of one of you ask staff to play that so that you can hear what happened. Council member Driscoll and I were standing right out there where the message came from the governor about the courthouse and said, we will, he will not fund the courthouse unless that historic designation thing is pulled back. And it was because of the drain on economic development. Council member Fig Sanders, you had some questions immediately thereafter in which you said, we want an inclusive process where people are engaged in this. You directed staff, historic preservation staff to do that. They didn't do that. And it happens over and over again. So this is dumped in your lap without engagement. Thank you. Thank you. Does the applicant have any closing remarks or rebuttal? Well, let me start by saying a big thank you. Thank you for taking the time and the effort to hear this. It's greatly appreciated. And most of all, no matter which way you vote tonight, I want to wish everybody the happiest of holidays. Enjoy them. Well, the opponent has mentioned his lawsuit, but you know something? I have great faith in the best law firm in St. Petersburg that doesn't have their name on the building. Okay. And that's the city's legal staff. If there was significant credibility to those lawsuits, I'm kind of comfortable they would have told you upfront and pulled this back somehow. They didn't. This has been discussed about the economic impact. We've had a place economic study, a professional competent economic study by an international firm that says local historic districts benefit the city. It's part of what brings people to St. Petersburg, but the opponents and others seem to ignore that because it doesn't fit into their narrative. That said, there are three very valid reasons to approve this local historic district. The ballots are overwhelmingly in support. 80% agree. Getting 80% to agree on anything is a mandate. You have 327 messages. 327 people took the time to fill out a form or write an original email. 98% support this. The loudest voices you're hearing are speaking opposition outside the scope of your code mandated review today. Any zoning change is going to have objectors. The code recognizes that and specifically states not everyone has to agree to this change, but we do have to meet the standards set forth in the code. Second reason to say yes is that it does meet the code standards. Staff said so. CPPC voted 5-0 and said that we met the standards. Neither the opponent nor anybody else that has spoken or written in has spoken to the standards within the code and told you how we don't meet them. We do suggest you look no further than the St. Pete 2050. That's the document that states that a key factor in growth is preserving the desirable aspect of the community's character. Third and final point is that approving this is just the right thing to do. Like the downtown waterfront, Mirror Lake deserves a more comprehensive set of rules than the rest of downtown. You know, I moved to St. Petersburg about nine years ago and I appeared here the first time about eight years ago. When council or the DRC has ruled against the position I've taken almost every time they say the same thing. You know, Bill, if that was a local historic district, we probably would have voted your way. So I heard about this. I jumped in and I said, yeah, I want to be part of this. I want to support this because Mirror Lake is someplace special. Mirror Lake is one of the things we have to make sure we preserve in downtown St. Petersburg. So that we keep the thing which brings people here alive and keeps on bringing them to us. And it's not the great big tall buildings. It's the unique architecture of downtown St. Petersburg as place economics confirmed. In conclusion, the special neighborhoods that make St. Petersburg unique, the thing that drives our development and our tourism and our economy. These special neighborhoods require work. They're not easy to keep. They require thought and they require good planning to remain someplace special. Mirror Lake is just such a neighborhood. One hundred years ago, John Nolan identified Mirror Lake as a respite from the crazy hubbub of a booming 1920s St. Petersburg. And a hundred years later, Lordy, it is still a special, unique place in downtown. We ask you to give staff, DRC and indeed yourselves the tools that you need to guide future development around the lake by approving this local historic district as recommended by staff and CPPC. We urge you to say yes to keeping Mirror Lake special by designating Mirror Lake as St. Petersburg's second downtown and 10th local historic district. Thank you. Thank you. City Council will now go into executive session. Councilmember Hanowitz. Thank you, Chair. I'm going to start with a question. Mr. Herman, at the end of your presentation, I missed part of what you said. You said you mentioned that something was outside of the scope of City Council. What was outside the scope of City Council? Because I, sorry, I didn't get that. In order to stay within five minutes, I script myself. That's all right. The objections. We have, the city code calls out those four criteria. We got the 10, which I whittled down to four. You have not heard an objection that spoke to those four criteria. We meet all the standards. We meet all the standards in there. Don't ask me to call them out again. I'll get my presentation. No, that's just fine. You had said it was outside of scope. My understanding is that is within our scope. We are the final arbiters at the end of the day. The CPPC has whatever opinion and we hear evidence, but I just don't understand outside the scope. If you go back to the original presentation, it shows you the code of ordinances, the 10 standards within the code of ordinances. I boiled that down to four specific sections of the code of ordinance, which you would be applying here. If you give me a second, I'll grab my presentation and show you. I'll ask legal. The economic impact? I just want to make sure with legal. Mr. Herman's referring to really what I would describe as procedural requirements and the rules that govern how the procedure and what the effect of the CPPC's decision is on this board. Right. But that doesn't mean procedurally. Obviously, it's before us and we can agree with the PPC, deny, modify. That's correct. Okay. I got my clarification. Thank you. Um, I also have a question on the boundaries and I'm going to want to hear both from staff and from Mr. Herman, probably from staff first. Um, so there's 200 feet to notify neighbors. This was how the boundaries were determined is my understanding. And in the staff report, it says the boundary justification is roughly 200 feet radius of Mirror Lake Park. The proposed district consists of intact, lower density, historic resources to help tell the story of the evolution of St. Petersburg, the winter tourist designation. I'm trying to understand why 200. Like, and I understand that you said there's a notice requirement for other things, but I don't, I don't see the relationship between, I want to hear so you understand where I'm coming from. I don't understand the relationship of 200 feet to the criteria and the two part test that we're looking at. We see the last iteration of the local historic district. As I understand, it was failed in several, for several reasons. One of them was one of them is that was much larger. So the goal was to get a reasonably sized local historic district, try to come up with a reasonable benchmark. And the 200 foot was grabbed because of the variance. And we did that on our initial pass through. We did the initial pass through with that 200 feet. Then we looked at it. We're like, Hey, this makes sense. And then we, we kept on going through it further and further. And if we did anything else, we could be accused of gerrymandering. So we tried to come up with an objective number. Does it make sense? Yes, it makes sense. Could you argue you should have made a bigger year? You can argue that the Carnegie library should be in this. But now we get into this whole argument, you can argue 750 Burlington shouldn't be in this. I mean, I, I'm just looking at the boundaries. I'm having a hard time with the boundaries, frankly, and, and there are parts where it cuts off in half a street. And I'm trying to really reconcile this. It seems very arbitrary to me. And so this is really at the gist of everything. And frankly, it's balloting that triggers the process that we're here. Right? So for instance, you take out 750 Burlington, right? People mentioned ballots. I understand that's just, it has nothing to do with our criteria. But for instance, if we're looking at boundaries, you take that out the way I counted it. There are 36 votes that came from that. You had 77 votes in favor. You don't have that property. This application doesn't come forward to us. Am I wrong? That property does have a higher number of units in it. Correct. But my point is, then the application would have not met, right, the criteria to come before us. Is that right or wrong? If, if we had that, you don't count those votes and you needed 72 votes, you subtract 36. This isn't before us, right? That's correct. Okay. You have to get to the 71 plus one. 72. And y'all, trust me, you'll have a chance to respond. So this is where I'm at. I'm having a hard time when I'm looking at this and saying, well, I mean, I look at Grove Street North. And by the way, I'm very familiar with this. I probably take all these streets at one point or the other leaving City Hall, depending on the day outside how I get home. So I take all these streets. So I've gone through them. So you look at Grove Street, like it stops there. It could be other property. You could say, oh, it has historical value. It meets all these things. So please explain to me why. I'll give you the initial answer and then for a more technical response, I'll ask Kelly Perkins to come up. Okay. Initially, the application that was provided to us showed the 200-foot distance. And so the reason that there is some depth variation along that Mirror Lake Drive is because some parcels are obviously deeper than others and some are combined ownership. And so initially when it was presented to us, I think the applicant was starting with a 200-foot number and they were grabbing any parcel that was with any parcel or portion of a parcel that was within that 200 feet and then including the entirety of the parcel. When it got to the analysis and what we look at in the staff report itself, I can have Kelly come up and maybe or Cindy come up and just talk to you a little bit about the analysis that goes into the boundary. Typically, before they do that, typically when we're doing these, and this is something that has come up following the small local districts in the historical Northeast, we initially started doing individual block groups if a block group wanted to come forward. After processing several of those, there was some internal policy decision on our part that we would look at it more holistically like a subdivision grouping. In this case, it's designed around a very unique geographic feature, much in the same way that Seminole Park local historic district was designated in Kenwood. It was the parcels fronting onto Seminole Park. And so the approach here was very similar to that in what we were looking at as historic preservation. Before you leave, you just said the parcels fronting Seminole Park. So why not the parcels fronting Murrow Lake Drive? Because the application that was given to us was asking us to evaluate 200 feet. Yeah, I think Derek addressed a lot of the issues. The 200-foot number came from the applicant. So why they chose 200 feet, I would appreciate there. And it looks like someone is ready to defend that. But for us, when it comes to boundaries, you know, there's sort of a lot of ways that you can address. And one is sort of geographic or cultural features. So in this case, the lake is sort of the geographic feature to encompass properties that front the lake, but also significant properties around it that are also sort of cultural features of the area as well. Our advice to the applicant was to pick a consistent number and use that all the way around, though there were some decisions to cut out some vacant lots or lots that were not contributing, because that is also a recommendation by the National Park Service to cut out some lots that do not add to the historic significance, but you're not supposed to arbitrarily cut in some or cut out some. But we wanted or they wanted it to be a we wanted to be a clearly consistent line around. And I think for the record, could you please state your name and title? Oh, I'm so sorry. I realize I haven't presented yet. I'm Kelly Perkins, historic preservationist with the city of St. Petersburg. Thank you. Thank you. I can further address that a little bit. Emily Elton, again, I'm the historic preservation professional. And I think Kelly actually did a really great job of what we did. One of my biggest concerns was this not be an arbitrary boundary. We use 200 feet because that's sort of an area of you still are very much part of the lake. The lake reflects where you are. You asked about the, I believe it was the 750 Burlington building, Lake Palms. Lake Palms was very specifically designed and when it was designed, if you'll look at the report, we really discussed how the architect and how the marketing was very much talking about always how it was part of Mirror Lake. It was designed to have the Mirror Lake breezes, to have views from Mirror Lake. So that was really important culturally to Mirror Lake. And to take it out, you would then be arbitrarily turning your boundary on like a 50 foot area instead of our 200 foot area. We had to make sure we wanted to be consistent and definable. And once you get outside this kind of general 200 feet area, we found that the historic integrity really diminished very quickly, whether through demolitions or whether through new construction. So it really was sort of this compact area that was easily definable for me as a historic preservation professional. I was less concerned about political geomandering, you know, thinking about where the votes are coming from. I wanted to make sure this was definable as a preservationist. And if you look at the National Register guidelines, which is what we use, the Secretary of the Interior, they talk a lot about this. So I go into great detail on this on page, I think it's 86, sorry, 86 of your report. There's three pages discussing the boundaries, so. Yeah, and I appreciate that. Because I know there was a previous application, boundaries were larger. Yes. I understand that this is defined as a Mirror Lake neighborhood. But frankly, I can't imagine the people that live on Grove Street that aren't included in this. That are or aren't, I'm sorry. That are not included in this, do not consider themselves part of Mirror Lake. And I've seen some of the buildings. They look historic to me. And they look actually as historic as some of the other ones. And I'm just, by the way, I'm not trying to, you know, pick their other ones just because I use that as an example. But, you know, for me, it's very difficult to divide. I see those lines the way they are. And I understand where you're coming from. I have a hard time understanding how the historic part of it, and by the way, the Coliseum was mentioned in this. Is the Coliseum part of this? No, that's on the other side. It's not. It's outside of it. But again, but that was mentioned as part of the history. And there's other history around there. So not within the boundaries. And so we've had different boundaries for this for this district. And I'm really having a hard time with the boundary issue. Setting aside that on the on the city owned parcels there in the reports. And this is for for Derek. I'm sorry. There are six city owned parcels. There's nothing mentioned about Pinellas County parcels. Which are the six city owned parcels? And my are those including the Pinellas County parcels? Because when I started looking at it, it appeared that that may include the Pinellas County parcels. No, they're there. The reference to the six parcels are city of St. Petersburg owned parcels. Okay. And the code explicitly excludes them from the balloting process, which is why the city of St. Petersburg is parcels are removed. But county and state parcels are not removed. They are included. Right. So I'm wondering, I know and it came up in this meeting in terms and I wasn't here for that with the state site and what happened. But that was obviously they didn't want to be part of it. There's nothing about Pinellas County. So somehow the process was stopped at some point or it ended whatever. However, I wasn't here for it. The state was allowed to do their thing. Now, you know, they're not going to be part or whatever. So, okay. So Pinellas County, what about those parcels? Do we know anything about it? Pinellas County was sent notification as a parcel owner. So at every step in the process, they were being sent notifications and they had opportunities to respond. We do not have any official correspondence to the record related to the case. So we don't have any formal response from them. I was just wondering because I know that there was a lot of conversation about the state. So I was wondering if there was anything on the county side. Okay. Those are my questions for now. I may come back with some other questions. Oh, I know what the zoning. We haven't discussed the underlying zoning. So basically what we're looking at, we're looking at a two part test. Okay. We have the district part, the criteria, the nine criteria. We have the historic integrity part, but then there is the relationship with existing and future plans of the city, which by the way, we have not even discussed what the zoning is of that area. So can you please explain to me the zoning of that area, which I believe is downtown center too, which is tell me a little bit about that downtown center to zoning since it's something that we are supposed to consider. So downtown center to zoning category that is on the outer perimeter. So the downtown core, it does allow obviously intense, uh, mixed use development, commercial and multifamily residential. There are a number of projects around the proposed district that have been approved using the DC two standards. Um, a number of those were referred to in public comments and I confirm that, um, there were a number of approvals there. So, um, if you, are you, are you looking for discussion about density intensity or? Yeah. Just to make the record in terms of what the density, what the intensity is and what is the definition basically of DC two. So we understand this is an overlay, but that's the zoning that we're talking about. That's the underlying zoning. Sure. DC two's zoning has a base approval of 3.0 floor area ratio. Um, there are allowances through bonus provisions to go up to 7.0 floor area ratio. Um, a number of those bonuses are historic preservation bonuses. Uh, so if you have a landmark building on the property, the square footage or floor area of that designated landmark is exempt from the floor area ratio calculation. Uh, there's also a transfer of development right option related to historic preservation that can help you move up those, uh, bonus provisions. So the code is acknowledging the importance of historic preservation, uh, by having that as a priority in the bonus system. And in terms of, I know it was touched upon, there are landmark already within the district, right? How many landmarks that are locally designated within this area? Uh, Mirror Lake Condos, Shuffleboard Club. So Mirror Lake Condos is which one? What's that? That's the, uh, former St. Petersburg High School at the north edge of the, um, lake. If you want to pull the map up, we can. That's 701 Mirror Lake? I believe it's 701. Yes. That's going to be, that's this one right here. Okay. That's 701 Mirror Lake Drive. Yep. And it's Mirror Lake Condos. That's a former St. Pete. Shuffleboard Club. Mm-hmm. Carnegie Library. Lawn Vine. Yeah. And, uh, I'm sorry, and Lawn Bowling Club right here. Unitarian Church is not a individual local landmark. And in terms of the county buildings, it was mentioned, obviously, some of the historic, uh, aspects of these buildings. Obviously, we have city buildings that have been designated with local landmark designation. The county has never proceeded with any, uh, local landmark designation in these buildings. Do you know of? I'm just wondering. No. Yeah. Oh, yeah. We do. So there is, um, continue with your question and then I'll. Yeah. What I was trying to understand is it's, I think it's a brutalist style and it won an award and the, the courthouse. Yes. County building. Sorry. That's this one down here. I should have said courthouse from the beginning. Well, there's, there's also the Pinellas County school board, uh, owns a building on the northwest corner, right? Sorry. I confused. I was thinking of the courthouse. It's a brutalist style and all that. So in terms of the county building, uh, that's been there for a long time. Have they ever sought local landmark designation or anything for that building? Not that I'm aware of. No. Okay. Those are my questions for now. Thank you. Okay. Council member Driscoll. Thank you. I want to follow up on something that was just said, um, Derek, Derek, just stay there. Yeah. Uh, when we have, when we've had other neighborhoods with local historic district designations, um, I know you like squares. And when we first brought forward this idea, it was in a square. Um, that's been, this has been more tailored. And I think this is, um, more in keeping with the spirit of what we want. But in other neighborhoods, let's say, um, historic Kenwood, how many different times have we had the, uh, local historic district updated or expanded? A couple of times. In Kenwood, there are four local historic districts. Um, they're fairly new dating from, uh, 2017, I believe to 2022. And those district boundaries have not changed since their original designation. And those, uh, right. So there are four different ones, but that doesn't mean that there are no other historic homes in the neighborhood. It's just that that's what the, the boundaries were determined to be at that time for that designation. So just because something, just because the boundaries don't include every single historic home in the area doesn't mean that it's any less important, right? Or less valid. I would agree with that. Yes. Um, I want to thank the folks who worked to bring this back. Um, when I brought it forward a couple of years ago, um, we had, we were covering a much bigger area. And I knew that, you know, after the first time I brought it forward, I knew I could tell we needed to do some work on this. And that's why we kind of put it on the shelf. And I'm really glad that this came forward the way that it really should. And that's, um, by the community. And I know it takes a lot of work to get this done. So I have a great deal of respect for, um, preserve the Berg, the neighbors in the area, the, the property owners, and also our, um, city staff and city attorney's office who worked on this. So this is, this is the most important hit historic designation case. I will have as a city council member because of the historic significance of this area. I can't tell you how important it is to me. And it should be to everyone that through this process, 89% of the ballots were in support. 89%. Any of us who's ever run for office before, if you get 89% of the vote, you're doing all right. That's a yes. That's a mandate. And sometimes you have to look at that and you have to pay attention to what the people want. The fact that it was unanimous from CPPC, that says a lot. And I'm grateful to the members of CPPC who worked to study this, ask the right questions, listen to the information and make an informed decision. 89% of the ballots were in support and CPPC voted unanimously to approve it, to move forward to us. Now there, a question came up about, um, taking more time to understand the, um, the topic and the process. But I think because I had already brought this up once before, got people talking about it. That's been a while. I remember when it was, but then this has been going on for this entire year. I think city council members have had plenty of time. And if the members of the CPPC can get together and have an intelligent conversation, listen to everyone and make their decision, then you better believe we can. Now we've also heard a story that we've heard many times before. If we move forward with the historic designation. Oh, everybody's going to pack. All the developers will pack up and leave St. Pete and no one's going to build anything here anymore. And St. Pete's going to be a ghost town. Well, guess what? I don't buy it. I don't buy it because this is who we are too. We are the past, the present and the future, and we must honor all three. We can do that by having this historic, this local historic designation or local historic district designation, which doesn't necessarily mean down zoning. I know that that has become like this trigger word now that people are trying to use to scare everyone, but it's not true. We're still going to have development. And I, for one, am happy whenever we have thoughtful development and thoughtful redevelopment. And we have people in this room who have done just that in the past. And I know that they'll continue to do so once this is passed. Mirror Lake has a special place in my heart. I lived downtown for 17 years and walked my dogs all over downtown. But my favorite dog walk, and I'll speak for my dachshunds as well, theirs too, were the walks around Mirror Lake. From my home to Mirror Lake and back, it was just over a mile, maybe a mile and a half, to do the whole thing. And getting up there, I just really, you get a sense of what that area was created for. It was that respite, and it still is that respite from our urban life. You go to Mirror Lake, and you have all of these different trees. You have the water. You have so many birds. You can stop and check out the turtles. I mean, to have something like that in the middle of our downtown, and to have just like a place that's peaceful, it's really special. And I didn't even know it at first, that I was going there for the exact reason that it was created. For that sort of laid back, St. Pete style recreation. Whether it's walking around the lake, playing a game of shuffleboard, or taking lawn bowling lessons. It's all there. And then a real neighborhood has been built around that. It's outside of the core, but still close to everything. They took a high school and turned it into condos. And yes, those of you who live in the condos, your vote counts as much as everybody else's. Right next to this area is a little tiny spot called Lang's Bungalow Court, another area that had historic designation maybe about 10 years ago. Derek, were you involved in that? Michael Dima, were you involved in that? Yes. Asking a question on the sidebar. Sure. You know, as far as I know, the Lang's Bungalow Court process was a little smoother, right? But there were some, there was some pushback as there always is. And the argument then was, why would you want to say this? You know, this is just going to make property values go down. Looking at those properties, their value has not gone down. I mean, it's, these myths have got to be busted once and for all. Because I don't think that a historic designation is going to make Mirror Lake a crappy place to live. It's going to make it even better. And it really is going to speak to what we think of our past. The lake itself is a historic, is a place of historic significance. That's why, Derek, I was wondering in the criteria, for I, the answer, the response was listed as no. And with that, with that, when it says it has contributed or is likely to contribute information important to the prehistory or history of the city, state or nation. And the story of Mirror Lake itself as a water source and the fact that that, that lake was settled like before St. Pete was even a city. I would, I would have, I would have said yes to that particular criteria. So I wanted to find out why, why it was decided that that was not the case. Sure. This is, I've just got on page 13 of the CBPC case. I just want to be clear. You're asking why we wrote no for criterion I. Right. Generally that criterion is related to archeological sites that have been like determined eligible for their archeological significance. And this area at this point does not have that determination. Oh, okay. Okay. That's why. Got it. Thank you. You're welcome. So no shell mounds or anything? Not that has been identified in our prior archeological surveys, but you never know what you can find in the future. Right. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Well, I will sum things up by, by saying that I'm absolutely delighted that we have an opportunity to really honor a part of our city that is so significant to our city's history. Even before it was even a city and the folks who live in that area now have spoken. I think we should listen and I think we should give them the opportunity to create even more of the neighborhood that they've always wanted and that they have right now. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Gabbert. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to everyone who came out and spent your evening with us, our last evening for 2024 together. Um, so we always appreciate seeing our residents here. And I will say, uh, because, you know, very much remember where we started with this, uh, the first time that this came along. And while I had similar questions about kind of the boundary and how we ended up where we are today, I definitely think this boundary is much more reasonable than where we were all those years ago. Um, so I do, you know, still have some questions, but I'm much happier today than I was when we saw this last time. Um, so I'm going to start with, I want to ask the question about the comment in the staff report on page 12 about the sunshine center. I think that that is an important piece for us to discuss because Derek, correct me if I'm understanding this wrong, but you are proposing as the staff that this be non contributing. However, the CPPC and the applicant want it to be contributing. What is before us today has it as contributing. Correct. That setup is all correct. Okay. And so then you have some, you know, very clear verbiage in here as to why, um, specifically to the age and, and all of that. So can you just kind of explain a little bit staff's rationale for why you think that is non contributing? Sure. Uh, it's very straightforward in city code under the criteria for designation of property opening paragraph D the sentence says as part of the first test for local landmark designation, a property proposed for designation must meet the general 50 years of age requirement. The building is three years short. There is some merit for including the building, but on this point alone related to the 50 year age threshold for us, it was a very simple answer. It doesn't meet the 50 year first test. Uh, we would recommend it as non contributing. And so if city council agreed with you, we would need, and we wanted to approve this, but we wanted to remove that legal. How would that process go? Could you repeat that? So if we agreed with staff, we wanted to approve the designation, but we wanted to remove the sunshine center or make the sunshine center non contributing. How would we do that? You'd do that by motion. Okay. Um, that, that, that, that falls squarely under the term modify and the procedural rules for, uh, the council decision making process. Okay. And the reason that I'm honing in on the sunshine centers, I'll just be incredibly transparent. Um, you know, city council, we're very familiar with the sunshine center. Uh, some of us actually served some time in the sunshine center whenever city hall was under renovation. And those of us, I call it serve in time because those were some rough days. Let me tell you. Um, and the reason being like, I was just there again last week and I was meeting with the staff. Um, the, uh, recreation center supervisor is retiring. Actually today was her retirement party and they were talking about the future of the sunshine center. And they were talking about kind of their vision and what, you know, the residents who enjoy that facility are looking for. And so as kind of the first thing on my list for budget priorities next year, I want us to have a conversation about the sunshine center and what it looks like to redevelop the sunshine center because we could do so much more with that property for our seniors than just a recreation center. And so I'm concerned that if we add this as a contributing property against your recommendation, we could also potentially be kind of, you know, handicapping ourselves a little bit with what we could do with it. And maybe I'm, maybe I'm, maybe I'm off base here. Maybe it doesn't affect to the extent that I'm worried that it will, but I don't, I don't want to do any harm to our ability to make that a vibrant senior center into the future, which could even potentially have a housing opportunity at it. So can we talk about that? Can we talk about that? Can we talk about that misnomer of redevelopment may be harmed if we have these properties as contributing? Okay. So when it comes to historic district designation and landmark designation, any building within the defined boundary line will need to undergo review through the certificate of appropriateness process called COA. That will, when it comes to demolition, whether you're talking about a new construction or a historic building, that will need to go before the community planning and preservation commission. There is a demolition criteria for what can be proposed. Generally, you need to show that the building cannot be feasibly repaired or restored, and it will go before the commission staff will make a technical analysis. The applicant will have the ability to make their own case. And I can tell you that we have had properties go before the commission that staff recommended denial on demolition and the commission approved. So it is not just a set. If it's contributing, there's no way you could demo it in the future. And even if it's non-contributing, staff could still come to the conclusion to recommend against denial based on our criteria as written. But that is not the final determination. There will be the commission review where all of the evidence can be taken in. And then even then, there are further appeal process such as to this council. So what I'm hearing you say is that it could be demoed and redeveloped, but it isn't the threshold for doing so is much harder. The process is much harder. The criteria for demolition is the same for contributing or non-contributing as currently written. Okay. All right. I'd like to hear what my colleagues think about that particular piece. I mean, even without, you know, future forethought of what we could do with that particular piece, I still am always inclined to lean on your expertise because you are the experts in what we do here. I'm not a historic preservationist, so I have to lean on your advice. And the parking lot that has the exact same analysis, applicant and CPPC both say contributing, you say it's not. Is that specifically because it's a vacant parcel? Yeah, that's generally how our division has sort of approached it. That is currently used as a parking lot. I think the applicant's argument is that it's part of the park. It is a city owned parcel. I don't know any future plans for that parcel. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. Well, I'd like to hear what my colleagues think about that. I'd like to put a clarification in on the record in terms of what the COA for demolition states. It does start off by, I believe that Ms. Perkins is saying that this is the same criteria for contributing or non-contributing. But the prefatory statement on the additional guidelines for demolition for a COA, the purpose and intent of these additional requirements is to determine that no other feasible alternative to demolition of the local landmark or contributing property can be found. So I do think that the code does differentiate between a contributing and non-contributing. I apologize for misspeaking on that. Thank you. No worries. That's a very important distinction for the point that I'm making about the future of that property. I agree. That's why I interjected. Thank you. If we were in a time machine three years into the future, I think it'd be a different conversation. But we're not. And it's my hopes that three years into the future, we're looking at a much better facility opportunity for our seniors in that area. So I'll sit with that for a minute. I want to ask legal some of these questions that we're getting about pending lawsuits, about state litigation or legislation, about Burt Harris, about driftwood. So can you kind of, I guess, let's start with the Senate Bill 718, I guess it is, that was passed in 2023. Can we start with that? Sure. And your analysis of that. Absolutely. Absolutely. So actually, in 2023, the legislature added on to include land development regulations as prohibited by referenda. But it already included comprehensive plan amendments and development orders and permits. So really what this does, it dates back to 2010. And I don't know if folks remember the hometown democracy amendment proposal that would have given local governments the ability to ask their electors, the voters of the city writ large, whether they should make a land development regulation change or to approve this development order for a specific project. That was rejected, and then part and parcel to that the next year, 2011, is really when this broader prohibition on referenda for land use decisions was statutorily put in. And it speaks fundamentally to the fact that the council can't give away its power to make these decisions to the electors of the city. But it's about elections and those processes, those ballot initiatives, and those referenda that are governed by the supervisor of elections. I've gone back. I've looked at the legislative history for the 2011 bill. There's nothing in 2023. They were more worried about annexation changes. But back in 2011, it's very clear. And all the case law on this has to do with elections, not these more informal procedural. I mean, really, this is a procedural requirement to just bring an application before you. It has nothing to do with the decision-making process that this board is still entrusted with. And that's what I thought. And I just can't find anything that suggests the legislative intent or a plain reading of this was designed to reach this level of granularity of a local government's application process. I don't guarantee any outcome in a lawsuit. If I thought it was of such, and if our office thought of it, and I'm not the only one who's looked at this in our office, if we thought it was so troublesome, then, A, we wouldn't have amended the procedures years ago to allow for this, and we would have let you know heading into this. And to go even further, I mean, considering the fact that this is a process that we have used for other historic designations, that that process would have been preempted all along. I think where that would have come up, and I do believe it did come up, and it was in the driftwood process. And the city lost on a technicality. It was a narrow, the order speaks to the method that we received the ballots, and the city used a spreadsheet to document and missed some stamps. There's a timestamp. The legal argument from the city was that the time on the spreadsheet for receipt of a ballot constituted a timestamp. But nope, the judge really wanted to see that stamp. Yeah. And that was it. That was the only thing that the order spoke of. It didn't get into the rest of the ordinance. Had it, you would have seen other amendments to the ordinance responsive to that order and opinion of the court. Well, and I very clearly remember sitting here on city council debating that very same issue and voting no on driftwood because of that concern. I don't see that concern here. But it was brought up today, so I just wanted to ask to make sure that it wasn't something that we were reenacting. Burt Harris. Talk about Burt Harris. Okay. So there is a pending lawsuit on a Burt Harris claim. I am not going to comment much on the merits of the pending litigation. I think that there are certain procedural requirements that are ongoing right now that this council is doing that, quite frankly, are clearly required to have occurred for such a claim to be taken. As to the merits of, I mean, I'm happy to dig into and just basically talk broadly about what the Harris Act is. I mean, it's a taking's light, basically. It's a state cause of action where if an act of a local government inordinately burdens the existing use of a property or a vested right to a specific use in the future, that prospective aspect of it, then it's compensable under law. There's a ton of pleading requirements regarding that. It's a fact-intensive inquiry. It's not speculative. And what it doesn't do is compensate folks who ask for things from the city, get those requests, and then seek to be enriched on the back end of that. So there's properties in the district where the pendency or even just the mere discussion of a potential Mirror Lake district where folks have come in, sought state plan approvals or variances, received them. And it's the exact opposite of what a Burt Harris claim is available for. So without getting into the merits of any specific case, during the pendency of this action and even the discussion of historic designation, every single application that came through eventually was approved. There were no denials based on the pendency of this. Thank you. Pairing all of that up, I think it's very important when those things come up in public discussion and members of the public and property owners are concerned about these things. I think we should have those conversations and we should understand kind of the legalities of everything that we're doing and how past cases might relate to what we're doing today. So thank you for explaining all of that. And then the last thing that I'll say, and then I would love, like I said, to hear what my colleagues think about the Sunshine Center and whether or not that should be contributing or non-contributing. I just wanted to say, you know, originally when we kind of heard, you hear things, even though we don't talk to anybody about things, you hear things, you know things are coming. And there was kind of this idea that, you know, staff maybe was the one who was putting this forward. You kind of wait to see what's going to happen when you sit here today. And I just want to say to our staff, thank you, because I'm very relieved, Derek, to hear what you said today, that your philosophical belief is that that is not your role. I agree with you wholeheartedly. Anybody that knows me knows that not only with the staff, but third party designation, I do not believe in whatsoever. I do believe that citizens should be initiating these actions. And I'm just really glad that we cleared the air on that today, that we set the record straight on that, that this was a citizen initiated action that then Preserve the Berg partnered with to help get you all over the finish line to this point. I just think it's really very important to clear the air about that. So I will leave my questions there for right now. But I do want to hear from my colleagues as you all speak, if you would, because I may potentially make a motion to see if the Sunshine Center could be nonconforming. But we'll leave it there for now. Thank you. Vice Chair Gervis. Thank you, Madam Chair. Well, I'll start off right there. And I'm laughing at myself for a second, questioning what I'm about to say. But actually, I really like my predecessor's idea about the Sunshine Center. And I was listening to that conversation, I think it was just about this time of year, three years ago, and one of his last meetings about the possibility of redeveloping the Sunshine Center and having it be a place for all at the bottom with the possibility of housing on top. I actually really, really like that idea. And so I'll just start with the end. I struggle with this whole process, to be honest with you. I try to think about it, if I lived here, and I was on CPPC for four years, I chaired it for three, I would call the COA process stringent and extra. And don't get me wrong, I enjoyed my time on CPPC. I had a blast doing it. I learned a ton. And I think it's very needed. But I think about somebody sticking that COA process on top of me. I struggle with that mightily. And there's been lots of different sayings, right? Like designation doesn't prevent development, de-zoning. Mr. Herman used, this is I think probably the most accurate one, a comprehensive set of rules. That's what the COA is. And it's, again, I would call it stringent. And I struggle to think, if I were a property owner, that somebody else gets to dictate what the process I go through in order to redevelop my property. Because, I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, and I'd like to hear the non-contributing. But on a contributing, essentially, the building has to be falling down. I mean, there's no coming back from demolition. That's my kindergarten term. Yeah, that's more of a qualitative statement on, you know, what it is, is it is a set of criteria that have to be met. And what is literally said here is that no COA for demolition shall be issued by the commission until the applicant has demonstrated that there is no reasonable beneficial use of the property, or the applicant cannot receive a reasonable return on a commercial or income-producing property. Okay. That's your threshold standard right there. There's a few other things that, you know, speak to whatever evidentiary requirements for that, but that's the threshold question. While we're on it, can we talk about non-contributing and the threshold for non-contributing? I would like an assist from staff on that in terms of the administration of this portion on. So, I don't know that it's completely exempt from the COA process for demolition. We had non-contributing properties in front of CPPC for demolition. Yeah. Yeah. I think I want to maybe take a step back and clarify how this discussion about the senior center would be applied through the staff report and how it might be addressed through a particular motion. So, we're having some discussion about contributing or non-contributing in the overall parcel itself. We know the overall parcel has the Lawn Bowling Club. That's a contributing resource. So, the parcel itself on the map would stay yellow, contributing. On page 10 of the staff report, at the bottom of the table under 4th Avenue North, 536 4th Avenue North, St. Petersburg Lawn Bowling Club is identified as the only historic resource for this particular parcel. We do note that the property also contains the Sunshine Center. So, what that means is if there was a development action proposed for the parcel and it was approved in accordance with staff recommendation, we would come into this table and we would see only the Lawn Bowling Club is the contributing resource here subject to that enhanced review. And the Senior Center would be reviewed as if it was a non-contributing resource, even though the parcel is identified yellow as contributing. This line in the table is what clarifies the distinction. If the Sunshine Center was subject to the full contributing resource review, it would be line item separately here in addition to the St. Petersburg Lawn Bowling Club. Okay, so I go back to my original question of the difference between non-contributing and contributing when it comes to a COA or demo. So, the COA, it is reviewed very similarly procedurally, but when the analysis is being performed, obviously the importance of a non-contributing resource is considered individually less than a contributing resource. So, there is a perceived amount of flexibility that can go into that determination that is not at that heightened level of a contributing resource. Perceived. Yeah. And one of my technical staff might be able to add additional clarification to that. I mean, I am basing this on my experience of CPPC where I tried to go back and look at some of the cases and I just, I couldn't find any like glaring differences between contributing and non-contributing. And that's, again, one of my struggles. I'll just add, while this slide is up, I don't think the parking lot should be contributing either. So, I mean, again, to put the city through these comprehensive set of rules, I don't think we should be doing that. Yeah. Go ahead, Kelly. So, just from the parking lot stand, that's not a structure. Generally, the list is related to structures. So, no, that parking lot would not be considered a contributing feature to this district because of parking lots. Yeah. I just thought I'd add. As staff has also recommended for another parcel that is primarily a parking lot. So, that we are being listed and that they were not called out as significant features of this district. Yeah. I'm just really struggling with this whole thing. And I appreciate the downsize of this compared to the last application. But, essentially, to have properties or pieces of parcels on here that shouldn't be contributing factors that have to go through a process. And, I mean, just transparently for one building to really dictate the entire district I'm struggling with. And so, nine times out of ten, I am deferring to the council member in something like this. I'm really struggling with this one. And maybe I'm in the minority, but I try to think about if I were a neighbor and I just wouldn't want it. So, I'll leave it there for now. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Council Member Driscoll. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Gabbard for bringing up the Sunshine Center and especially its future life and what plans we can put together for that. Sunshine Center has been on my list of budget priorities every year since we left there. And I have new energy and optimism that we will be able to get on a good road with improvements there in the coming year. And, really, my issue with having the Sunshine Center included is that it's not 50 years old. So, I mean, Derek and his team, they have this specific threshold and it's pretty much black and white. So, I don't think that the Sunshine Center should be included, but it sounds like the way that Derek is explaining it, it's actually the Lawn Bowling Club and the Sunshine Center happens to sit on it. So, I don't know how we need to change that. I mean, can you make the Sunshine Center non-contributing without and still have the Lawn Bowling Club be contributing? Do we have a legal or some measurement of just the Sunshine Center sub-part? We've sub-parceled out portions in the past. Yeah. And generally, this is a unique situation for a district designation. Mostly, you'll have a parcel that has one structure, one parcel, one use. But we do have situations, for example, in Kenwood where a main residence may be a contributing structure, but they have a new garage and that's not a non-contributing structure. Okay. And so, we can do that. Generally, because we do have contributing and non-contributing and other things all on this one city-owned parcel, it's marked as contributing on the map because that's the highest level. And we can always work down from that, but we can't work up from it. So, it's marked contributing. We can make a notation further in the ordinance to specifically call out that that decision by council was to leave that, as that Sunshine Center itself is non-contributing. We can make that amendment. We just couldn't have created anything that was listed as non-contributing to contributing. Okay. So, we still, if we want to make a motion to approve this, but designate the Sunshine Center and that one parking lot as non-contributing, then that doesn't do anything to hurt the Lawn Bullying Club. As far, no ma'am, and as far as staff has, as what Ms. Perkins indicated, is that's already indicated in the staff report when we have the list of all the structures of contributing and non-contributing, that's already included. If tomorrow this passed and we, an application came in for a COA review on the Sunshine Center, it would be reviewed as a non-contributing structure. If an application for a COA came in as for the Lawn Bullying Club, it would be evaluated as a contributing structure. The parcel as a whole requires a COA because it is within the district. Right. So, what you're saying is that we can just pass this without any changes and it will not include the Sunshine Center or that parking lot as contributing properties. As of the staff review right now, they do not meet the criteria for a contributing property. Now, that was different from what the request from the applicant was and they are entitled to have that reviewed by this body. If you would like it to be more specific in the ordinance, we could also do that. I don't know. Just tell me what to do so that the Sunshine Center are non-contributing. So, just as a recap, the exhibit A to the ordinance shows the entirety of that parcel as contributing. A motion would have to be made that would call out, and I believe that the ordinance of such detail, Mr. Kilbourne, that a non-contributing structure alone would be sufficient. So, the motion would be to state that the Sunshine Center structure and parking lot is non-contributing to the Mirror Lake Local Historic District. I don't believe so. That's why I asked Mr. Kilbourne about a non-contributing structure alone. Thank you, Madam Chair. Okay, Council Member Mohammed. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just real quick, laying in, I would be supportive of a motion to have the Senior Center added, I don't know if added or removed, have it non-contributing and following staff's recommendations. I just wanted to respond to the inquiry. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Council Member Floyd. Thank you. I'll start with the Senior Center. I guess my first question is, I know the answer, I just want to, I think I know the answer. You know, if we decide something's a contributing, I'm sorry, it's been a long day. We decide that something is contributing to the Historic District, like the Senior Center, we're not dictating its use at all. So, it's easily something that could not be a Senior Center like pretty soon after. Yes. Obviously, basically. Historic designation does not dictate the use of a property. Okay. And I ask that question on purpose because I do not believe that that building itself, with its architecture and its age, are historically significant to this area. And so, when we're saying, like, we're going to protect something, it's like, about the building. It's not about its usage. And I heard the advocate say that, you know, it is important that there's a Senior Center there. But, you know, we can't guarantee that it will be a Senior Center. Honestly, if there's not a Senior Center there, you should probably come and yell at whatever city council is trying to get rid of the Senior Center. Because that's where a Senior Center should be, but that's another thing completely. So, literally for that reason, I don't think it should be included. Like, it's just not a historic building. And, yes, it's nice that it's a Senior Center and that's a historic contribution to the area, but the building itself doesn't contribute. So, that's how I'm interpreting it. And so, I don't think it should be included for that reason. I did have other questions about the legalities, or I'm sorry, the lawsuits. But those you've answered sufficiently. I have run across, I think it was Burt Harris issues before. You know, I'm not personally concerned about that in this situation. I think it would have much more broad-reaching impacts than just the interpretation that the opponent gave would have much more broad-reaching impacts than just this one right here. And I think I'm just not concerned right this second with it. But one thing I do want to get across as someone who represents a historic district is that I am always happy to listen to the community that comes out and asks for it. And I support historic preservation. But we've had problems. And I want people to be aware of this. Like, there has been problems in historic Kenwood. And Councilmember Gerdes is absolutely right. Like, with the COAs, like, there are people who are really struggling with them. And there's a lot of people upset right now. And I know everybody who's interacted with Kenwood knows, like, I'm not saying that I don't support historic districts for that reason or anything. I just want, you know, the community while we're here to be aware that, like, it's not been a utopia afterwards. It's been something that you continue to struggle with afterwards, getting historic designation. And I think that's why you see some dissent, like, existing at all is because they know what kind of hoops are going to have to be jumped through. And it will apply to people who live in condos because the outside of your building will need renovations at some point. And you will have to go through that COA process. And, you know, I don't know what the process looks like for your condo association, but it may be that you have to hire help to get through the COA process. That's one reason why, also to Councilmember Curtis's point, I'm not super concerned about the city having to go through the COA process because the city is, like, going to have the expertise to get through it. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So, but, yeah, I just want people to know it will be tricky to deal with. But I generally, you know, do support historic preservation. So, like, I'm not really struggling with this too much. And I know, like, we've already heard the words appeal from the opponent. We've already, we know what's coming. I have to trust our legal team to handle anything like that. And some of the outside issues that have been brought up, I am going to lean on them to get us through that. But as far as the application to me today, I'm pleased with it. And I guess I will, let me look at my notes. Yeah, I'll leave it there for now. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Hanowitz. Thank you, Chair. I'll first address the Sunshine Center. So, here we are making a decision for property owners that don't want this to apply to them. We actually have sat here and want to exclude property that we own. And I have a hard time with that. And if a court would see that, I think they would have a hard time with it. The conversations in terms of excluding, and by the way, we excluded the state of Florida property because we wouldn't get the courthouse. So, they get a pass, too. And we're going to get a pass. And I have to mention that. And I just think it's a thing of fairness. I think if you were the person that was on that side and people were making arguments like that, you'd be like, what? Are you hearing yourself? So, frankly, I think it's non-contribute, but that's not the point. The point is the process and what we're doing. And I just, that I have to say out loud. Whatever you do is going to be fine whatever you want to do, but you have to be consistent in terms of if we're going to apply this to the district, they apply it to the district. And then the city has to deal with it, period. End of story. Because other property owners are going to have to deal with it. And so they're going to have to go to the process. And we should go through the process because we're the ones that write the code and we're the ones that are making the decision. And we should not be excluding ourselves from the process. I don't care what the plans are. I would like to see the Sunshine Center be something else. But that's not fair to other people who want to do something on their property. So that I just can't. I love historic preservation. I've written a local landmark designation for Huggins-Tanglefield. Did it myself. Did all the research. Came to city council. And did all the legwork. So I get where you're coming from. I absolutely love the fact that citizens go and want to protect your neighborhood and want to protect historic assets. I get that. What I'm having a hard time with is how this has come before us. I do think parts of historic of Merrill Lake are absolutely historic. But the process in terms of picking out what if it's 100 feet or 200 feet that logically to me isn't clicking. Historic Henwood and you have straight lines and you go into a neighborhood and by the way typically they're just all single family homes. You know if historic Henwood had a block of you know 20 bungalows and then there was one condo there with 40 homes and maybe you know they didn't want it. Guess what. And so they're so different. It's such a different analysis to me looking at this and the layout of the land. And frankly I think the majority of this whole area to me the majority is protected because it has those local landmarks. And a lot of these buildings if you wanted to get local landmark designation you could. So I just I am really struggling again with how we have come up with this and then hearing us try to opt out of it that bothers me. And I just I had to say that I am struggling with this. I would love to give the Merrill Lake a local landmark designation. I'm just not sure this is the right way in terms of how we define the boundaries. And knowing that it could be one property that changes whether or not this is before us or not. And that's how the boundaries were picked that I'm having a hard time with. And I don't think we've had another another application where you do have a majority of people that agree. And it's not just one one property that may change whether or not it's before us. So in terms of fairness to everyone and I understand that everyone's going to agree. That's the process, but I I'm not going to be able to support it like this. And in terms of of us having a conversation of opting out, I'm having a hard time with that. Thank you. Councilmember Gamber. Thank you. And to that point, Councilmember Hanowitz, I kind of sidebar it over here with Heather to ask her, you know, because I'm sitting here in my head thinking, OK, well, my justification for bringing this up is not only about the future of the Sunshine Center, but the fact that we have staff recommending to us that it should be nonconforming. The parking lot should be nonconforming. Why is that? Is that consistent? OK, so then you go through the list of the other nonconforming. So my concern was, OK, am I trying to put us down a path that could potentially make it seem as though, you know, rules for you, not for us? Right. So I don't I don't want us to go there. And that is not my intention. But very clearly, after speaking with Heather and, you know, going back to my original point of it does not meet the 50 years that is in our code, you know, then I go and I look here at the list of the other nonconforming properties. And the reasons that these properties are on this list are consistent with the same reason that staff is recommending these two parcels. And that consistency for me is very important. And I know that we have property to property owners. I've heard here tonight, I think, who own a combined eight parcels. I think I'm hearing seven, eight parcels that are against this. But as I understand it, those parcels are older than 50. The buildings are older than 50 years old and the parcels are not vacant. So there is a consistency with including those as contributing properties and not if you agree with this being the boundary. And I completely understand your point about kind of the arbitrary nature of the boundary. I'm still not 100 percent sold on that either. But I am, for consistency purposes, sold on the idea that if it is not 50 years, it is a vacant property, it would meet this same criteria of the other parcels that are already in the noncontributing list. So I just wanted to kind of address that because I was spinning up that same concern of like, I said this, but now am I creating some rules that seem out of boundaries? And after going back and reviewing it, I feel confident that we are in line. If this were three years into the future, I would have never even brought it up. So I just wanted to kind of explain my rationale for that. So with that, I will go ahead and make a motion at this time that we look at the staff recommendation of the Sunshine Center and the vacant parcel or the vacant parking lot and make those two nonconforming. And can we add to that motion, please, council member, a parcel ID number? Do we can? Hold on. How do I do a parcel ID number on the Sunshine Center when the parcel is? Part of a parcel ID number. Part of a parcel. You want me to go dig for parcel ID numbers? Well, I believe. It's on page 12 of the CDC backup material. And as far as amendments to the ordinance, which you would see physically, is if they're taking the staff recommendation, then the color for the Sunshine Center parcel, as it does contain contributing resources, will remain yellow. But that small parcel towards the south, that's, I don't know what shape that is, I'm sorry, would switch from the yellow to the noncontributing because the entire parcel would include the noncontributing structure. I'm sorry. But it's not a structures parking lot. Or is it? Is this the map you're talking about? Yes. So it would go from yellow to pink. Can we put that? Yes. Thank you. It's going to stay yellow. But the Sunshine Center will stay yellow. But the other one, if they're taking the full staff recommendation, includes that southern parcel that is the parking lot. Yeah. If that was also included in the motion, because the only thing on there would then be a noncontributing, it would go to a pink. And is that street address 132 Mirror Lake Drive North? No. It's 536 4th Avenue North, Council Member. Got it. That's the Sunshine Center. No, that's the Sunshine Center. Oh, I'm sorry. I was asking about the vacant parking lot. Yeah. Disregard. I'm sorry. It would be zero Mirror Lake Drive North, but you would want to do the partial ID number because it's specific to that parcel. Because any vacant lot often will have a zero as the address. Okay. Which one is it? There's three. So I'm going to need staff to give me the two. I've been clear that my motion is the Senior Center and the parking lot. So if legal needs, parcel ID numbers, then. Okay. I can get on the microphone and I can read to you the parcel ID number for that southern parking lot. Fantastic. Okay. The parcel ID number is on page 12 of your staff report in the noncontributing properties table, the very first line. It says zero Mirror Lake Drive North. The number is 1931-17-0000-240-0100. And you'll see that right there on the first line. And then what would be the parcel ID number for the Sunshine Center? It's located on there. It's the second to the bottom on that same list. You see it says 536 4th Avenue North, specifically the Sunshine Center on the center east side and parking lot on the south side. Okay. So my motion is to make nonconforming parcel ID numbers 1931. Noncontributing council member. Noncontributing. Thank you. 931 1-7-0000-240-0100 and 1931 1-7-58213-0010010. Second. Second. You don't want to repeat it? No, we need to change the clarification. Just a clarification, council member for staff. For the Sunshine Center parcel 19-31-17-58213-001-0010. Would you like the entire parcel to be switched to noncontributing or only the Sunshine Center on the east side portion of the parcel and southern parking lot? Only the Sunshine Center on the center east side portion of the parcel and the southern parking lot. Yes. Thank you very much. Does the seconder agree? Yes. All right. Thank you. Okay. Seeing no further requests to speak, generally the chair speaks last, which is really good because you get to hear what everybody else has to say. So I agree with a lot of things that my colleagues said. My number one thought again was the Sunshine Center and that has also been on my budget priority list. So I needed to know and glad they received the clarification in regards to what the future of the Sunshine Center looks like. But I'm going to be super simple when it comes down to the boundaries. Whatever works at the request of the residents works for me. And I just want to see some grass. I just want to see some grass. I just want to see some nature. I just want to see something preserved in what is growing vastly around downtown. I mean, we're seeing buildings after buildings and I support development, but I even once, once that land is gone, it's gone. It's no coming back from that. So I really do like the fact that the neighbors came together to pull this together. So with this being my last official vote as the chair of St. Petersburg City Council. It'll be at least your second to last. Yeah. One chair because this is just a motion for an amendment. Lord have mercy. Okay. Well, this is my next to last. We've had a motion. I apologize for the interjections. I know, but that's okay. You got it right for the records because I was excited. I was excited. So we have a, it's been properly motioned and seconded. Can you open the machine for voting for Jaysteen Sunshine Center parking lot? Seeing that our president council members have voted. Can you please tell and announce the votes? Madam chair, the motion for the Sunshine Center in the parking lot to go to not contributing. Passes six to one with council member Gerdes voting no. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And next. See, I don't have anything else listed. So make a motion to approve. Okay. I need to say anything more than that. Subject to the amended. Subject to the amended. Yep. So that's you making the motion. Council member Gaber. Yes, ma'am. Has it been seconded? Second. Okay. Please open the machine for voting for Jay three as amended. Council members, please cast your votes. None at all present council members have voted. Can you please tally and announce the votes? Madam chair, the motion to approve agenda item J three as amended. Passes five to two with council members Gerdes and Hanowitz voting no. Thank you. Thank you all for hanging out with us today. Some of us have been here since like 8, 830. 745. We've been here for a while. That's true. I'll wait a minute. I'm about to blow you up about city business. Yeah. Give me a minute. Obviously. Yeah. Well, look, I'm trying not to think about it. Look at your sweater. Yeah. Yeah. I'll be in there. I need those documents. I don't have a gum. Please look at Bill Herman's sweater. Oh, listen. I saw him put it on and I turned the other way. Please look at Bill Herman's sweater. I do avert my eyes. Not in the Christmas mood. Christmas mood. You will be. I see it under there. He took his jacket off. I saw it. What? Yeah. Okay. Councilor. I know we'll be here all night if we wait on everybody to leave. Can we go ahead and have open forum? Do we have any cards for open forum? Okay. Do we have any announcements? Oh. Any announcements? Excuse us. Council member is still in session. Yes. We are. We are. That's okay. Be excited. I'm happy for you. Do we have any announcements, council members? Oh. Council member Hanowitz. Well, first I want to say it's council member Muhammad's last city council meeting. We'll be here on January 2nd. We'll be here on January 2nd. We'll be here on January 2nd. We'll be here on January 2nd. I know, but it's the last time to vote. But it's like the last time, right, that you're going to vote, right? Yes. I mean, this is, to me, I just wanted to say, like, this is like the last official one. You'll be here on the 2nd and then we'll, but it's going to be, it's your last official one. And I, you know, in terms of voting, I just wanted to say this year before the holidays, it's been so wonderful to work with you. I know that at the beginning, obviously, we have differences in terms of, you know, some of the issues that were brought up when you're appointed, but you, I said it when you were appointed, I've always thought that you are a great representative for the people in your community and the work that you do. And I've always known you do fantastic work in your community. And you continued that on city council. You represented your city count, your constituents well. Thank you. You fought for the issues you believed in. And I really wanted to say that before the holidays. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Council member Muhammad. I got like this whole flowery thing I want to say. So I'll just try and stick to it. Um, should I do it now? Yeah. You'll be back. You'll be back on the 2nd. We got time to say something? I'll be, Cindy said I'll be out there on the 2nd. No. Not the beginning. You'll be here. Okay. You'll be up here. You're going to, you'll gavel in with us. Okay. And then. You'll have a whole opportunity. It's up to you. We take a recess. Yeah. Thank you. No, it's a long day. Yeah. So, I'll save it because I like. But on January 2nd, it's a short day. No. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. But this is the last official vote. Would you like to say something on your calendar? Oh, I got it. Um, I have that day. I'm not going to call you out of saying it because I don't want you to go home and say I should have said it. Go ahead and say what you're going to say, but you will have an opportunity to speak on January 2nd. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. If you insist. Yeah. Knowing that it's been a long day, I'll try and be as brief as possible. But as I do prepare to step away from my role as a member of the St. Petersburg City Council, I'm filled with gratitude and reflection. I'm serving alongside each one of you has been an honor and I want to take this opportunity to express my thanks and appreciation. And this wouldn't work on the second because in that reflection, I looked at the date of, you know, 12-12. Um, I heard it this morning that, you know, 12 and 12 is 24. Um, and you know, two 24s is 48 and eight and four gets you back to 12. So 12 years ago, um, is when I started, you know, as my first term of president of the neighborhood association organizing and became a hub for the stop the violence movement. Um, and our STV-12 increase the peace moments. And it was during that time that I reconnected with a mother who had, um, I met her a few years prior to that and she had lost her son to gun violence. And, um, she became a community champion as a result of that and her name was Lisa Willow Bowman. Um, one day after a community meeting, she asked me if I was going to run. I said, run for what? Mm-hm. And, um, she said for council and I gave her an emphatic no. And, um, she said, well, if you're not going to do it, I'm going to run and the rest is a history that we can share at another time. Um, but in the years that will follow, I would continue to reiterate my disinterest and dismiss the thought of ever holding public office as an elected official. And the few times that I did consider it, I told a group of friends, if there was ever a way that I can do that job without having to go through all the rigmarole of running a campaign and shaking hands, kissing babies, asking for endorsements and all that stuff, I'd love the opportunity to serve. When I said that, I knew that there was no way that that would ever happen. So I thought, um, and then that thought left my mind and I just continued to do the work in the community. And then during a meeting in the summer of 2012, the thought came back and I tentatively decided to do it. Uh, one of the considerations that I had at the time was when was the actual election going to be held because of the ballot initiative that was happening that year. And that would determine when the actual election would be. And so I thought I had some time, true to form, God knows me better than I know myself. And so if he would have given me at that time, who knows what would have happened. But in September, um, of that year, I asked my wife's permission as I should have and did. And, um, she gave me her blessing to, to pursue elected office. And I'm thinking still we have time. Right. But then 13 days later, council member, uh, Wheeler Bowman resigned and it expedited my timeline tremendously. So even then I wasn't sure. So I asked God for a sign and the sign came when the hurricane moved the application deadline back to October 7th, which is the birth date of the honorable Elijah Muhammad. Um, so for me, that was my green light to move forward and to submit the application. Um, the prayer that I prayed about opening up a way for me to do it here, it is. And so during that process, the application put me in a spotlight that I did not expect. Um, but I do thank God for everything that I experienced in that moment. And following the case that we made, the majority of you saw fit to appoint me to complete the term of the sister who confided in me that she was going to run. Um, and I'm truly grateful for that. Um, one of the other things as I began my, my work on council and still dealing with this was a lot of questions about, uh, what's it like on this side of the table? Um, it's different on this side. And as I've been reflecting on that, it's been becoming abundantly clear to me that there is no this side or that side is one side, uh, one team, but we're moving in different positions. And so, uh, while I look at, you know, the size and the roles that I'll play, it's not a us against them or that side or this side. It's all of us on the same team, uh, because I believe for the most part that everyone wants what's best for the city. Um, we have our ideas about how to make that happen. Um, and that's what we debate, but we're all on the same team. Um, after doing that soul search and prayer and all the things I do my process, um, considering my strengths and what I bring to the table, I did decide not to seek election to the, uh, to the post and to make way for someone else. Um, and then continue to commit myself to the work that we've been doing to represent the people in the district. And I continue that commitment and I'm looking forward to, to serving the community. I'll skip past all of the individual thank yous. And we'll do that on a second. But while I do have a moment, I would like to thank JC, Cindy, Janey, like all the legislative aides, the legal department, clerk's office, Marceline and the security team, cleaning crew, shout out to Chanel and Mr. Johnny. Um, the mayor, Tom, Rob James, I'm calling names and this is when you get in trouble. Um, so I'll stop there, but so many others and I'm really grateful for the opportunity to serve. Um, also a huge shout out to, and thank you to the community that has supported me through this, this journey. Um, my wife, my children, my grandchildren, neighborhood leaders, business leaders. Um, Christie, when she came in this morning, wasn't expecting that, but we've done work together again, prior to council. And so I appreciate that acknowledgement and those who have supported me in ways that I have no idea. Um, and those who have been inspired by what we've been able to accomplish. I really appreciate that. And, uh, as I close this chapter, I am planning on taking a short break. So the phone will probably be, you know, do not disturb for a week or so. Um, but in conclusion, thank you again, Madam Chair for creating the space. And, and when I reflected on this date and the meaning again, uh, we did the, the, the day in the month, but also the year in our Supreme mathematics code. Uh, 12 also embodies the principle of knowledge and wisdom that leads to understanding. Uh, and I've tried to demonstrate that and be guided by that in my work. And the need for that is also included in the repetition. So you got 12, 12. So it's like, just in case you missed it the first time, um, knowledge and wisdom that leads to understanding is significant in this moment. And I'm excited about, you know, what's ahead. So I think it should serve as a reminder for us to continue to be guided, uh, in our desire to build on positive realities, dismantle those that negatively impact us in our cities and our lives and, uh, those who we serve. So it's not a goodbye. Um, I look forward to continuing to work with all of you in the future. I'm gonna say that again, all of you in the future, uh, cause we have a lot of work to do and now I can talk to all of you in the future at some point. And so I'm really excited about that. And I just want to thank you for your camaraderie, um, your insights and your commitment to this city. Um, if there was ever any doubt about it or if anyone has any, any doubt about the commitment that you have, I challenge that all the time. Um, there are those in the community who have, you know, bad things to say. And I'm like, wait, wait, wait, wait, no, you're not gonna do that because we have, uh, developed the camaraderie and I have an appreciation for your service and your sacrifice. And it's definitely been a privilege and an honor to serve alongside of you. So thank you. Thank you. You are appreciated. Council member Gabbert. Thank you, madam chair. Um, I just want to say thank you to you and congratulations on a very successful year. It has been an incredibly challenging year. Um, sometimes when I reflect back on this year, it's hard to find the bright spots because there's been a lot of negative, unfortunately, but we're still here. And that is the bright spot. We are still a beautiful city and we have been led beautifully by you this year. So I just want to thank you from the bottom of my heart. I know not only is it difficult being a council member, it's difficult running for reelection, but it's difficult being chair. And you did all three. So I just want to thank you for your willingness to serve. Thank you, vice chair for being her right hand and always keeping us going when she had to step out for a moment. I don't think you've missed a single council meeting, but every now and then you had to just step out. And vice chair Gerdes, you did a great job filling in for her. So you guys were a great pair. I really want to thank you both. I also want to say thank you to Cindy Shepherd. Um, we'll give everybody all their flowers on the second. Um, but I don't even know if she's hopefully she's not still here. Hopefully she's at home. Um, but if she's listening or she hears this tomorrow, I just want to thank her for everything. I want to thank the mayor and administration for navigating us through a challenging year. And, uh, council member Muhammad, I'm gonna save it for you on the second. But, um, I echo what you said. I look forward to being able to speak with you. Um, we were friends before you came here. We will remain friends after you leave, but I'll get to actually talk to you again. So I, uh, am looking forward to that, but I just wanted to wish y'all very, very happy holidays. I hope you have wonderful time off wonderful time with your friends and family. Thank you, illegal. Thank you, clerk and security and everyone. We couldn't do what we do without everyone who makes it happen. So thank you all and happy holidays. Okay. Vice chair Gerdes. Thank you, madam chair. Um, I will save my comments. Uh, but just, you know, big thank you for your service. Um, for Muhammad and I, and I'll go into a little bit more depth, uh, in a few weeks. Uh, I'll, I'll echo council member Gabbard. Um, chair fig Sanders, thank you for your service. Uh, not, I mean, I didn't have to do much to be honest with you. Um, and so, uh, you know, your, your dedication, uh, council member Gabbard hit it on the head. I mean, um, hurricanes raise election chair, the whole nine yards. Um, I think you, you handled it fallously. So thank you for your service. Um, and, um, big shoes to fill. Um, I didn't, I didn't make any comments earlier, uh, this morning, but I do want to thank, um, my colleagues for their vote of confidence. I'm looking forward to next year. Um, um, frankly, I got a lot more nervous at about 1130 this morning. Um, but, uh, I'm willing to serve and happy to do it with all of you and our, and our new council members. And I just want you to know it meant a lot, um, from me. Lastly, uh, there were two births. I missed the birthday last week, which I'm not sure Janie will ever forgive me for. And so I'm going to blame it on a lost sticky note, but, uh, and then JC's birthday is tomorrow. No, it was a couple of days ago. It was a couple of days ago. Yeah. Yeah. I'm all, it's been a long day. Uh, so we're going to sing happy birthday to Janie and JC. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday, dear Janie and JC. Happy birthday to you. Happy holidays, everybody. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Administrative Gerdes. Thank you so much, Chair. And Councilman, Brother John, we'll see you in early January. And I just real briefly wanted to thank council for all your service this year. Thank you all for all your hard work. And, uh, I want to thank Ms. Kovalarch and her team. They, they put in a lot of hours this year. So thank you, Jackie, for all your hard work and chair. You know, on behalf of the mayor and all of us, I want to say thank you to you. You showed us a lot of courtesy and graciousness this year. There were some times where we screwed up the agenda or messed up the agenda. You were always there for us. You're always kind to us. And thank you so much for all you did this year. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. And before we adjourn, because I know we're going to get time on January 2nd, but each of you know how I feel about presentation, about our perspectives. Um, that's why there were eight of us, because we're not going to always get along. And I didn't expect it. And you guys have heard me say, I don't agree with my husband all the time, but he's not going anywhere. And so, you know, and he gets that side of me too. Right. So, um, this has been an honor. It's been a, it's been a challenge. It was a challenge trying to navigate it. But one thing that I've learned, um, the calmness in the storm comes from within. You don't let people on the outside influence who you are. You take you everywhere you go. You don't have to look back. You don't have to repeat. You don't have to remember what you said. And as long as you're respectful, as long as you have that respect for others, but more important, that respect for yourself, the job you do will always be a one. It will always be. And that's what got me through a campaign. 16 months, y'all, 16 months. That's what got me through a campaign. That's what got me through being chair in mayor's office. Thank you again, because there are a whole lot of phone calls and texts going back and forth. I'm looking forward to 2025 to see, I'm going to be able to sit back and watch chair and vice chair, do what it is that, um, that we do because, and, and we're, we're not, we're not going to all agree. Um, but we take that stand and we take that step and you just be true to you. Um, and I'm looking forward to what's yet still to come because we had a lot going on in 2024. And just think about it. My last vote was Mirror Lake historic preservation that would never change. So I can go down in history as saying, I voted on this. I voted on that. I chaired this. I chaired that. And so I'm so excited. And, you know, again, and so I appreciate all of the constituents, um, that will have me be reinstalled in January. And that's when it's really going to get fun. Cause you, you know, you, your term limits, you can't run anymore. So, um, look at Administrator Curtis, here we come, here we come. So with that, but thank you so much, um, to everybody. And I'm looking forward to, you know, being able to move forward. I'm hoping with the end of this year and the beginning of next year that everybody takes the dust, shake it off, move forward. Cause we have a lot to do, but more importantly, we have a whole lot more to look forward to. The meeting is now adjourned. Madam Chair, can I. Good night. Good night.