Welcome to the City of St. Petersburg City Council Meeting. Your elected officials are Mayor Ken Welch, District 1 and Council Chair, Copley Gerdes, District 2, Brandi Gabbard, District 3, Mike Harding, District 4 and Council Vice Chair, Lissette Kanowitz, District 5, Deborah Figgs-Sanders, District 6, Gina Driscoll, District 7, Cory Givens, Jr. and District 8, Richie Floyd. Welcome everyone to the September 4th, 2025 City Council Meeting. Clerk, could I please have a roll call? Curtis, Gabbard, Harding, Kanowitz, Figgs-Sanders, Driscoll, Givens, here. Welcome everyone. We will have our invocation given today by our own Council Member Figgs-Sanders, followed by a moment of silence. Then please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. Please go with me. Lord, as we come before you today, we are just so grateful for the blessings that you've bestowed upon us and that you've provided more for us than we could have ever imagined. You've surrounded us with people who always look out for us, which is why we are here to say thank you and to serve. You have given us family and you've given us friends who you've blessed us with every day. And we just want to ask you to continue to keep those around us safe and loved. But then we also pray to you, Lord, for a godly life. We thank you for the gift of today, your continued nourishment and refreshments as you invite us to discover your presence in each and every one of us. Teach us that when we speak, that we should always listen. Or turn our hearts to the whispers of your wisdom. And when our days go well, that we continue to rejoice. But when those days grow weary and difficult, that you constantly surprise us with your new possibilities. But finally, Lord, just teach us to love ourselves. You gave us this life. You gave us these blessings. You formed who we are. You've shown us what it means to live, love, and serve unconditionally. Help us continue to listen, to learn, and to love. This prayer is based on self-reflection, God, because we realize that we are not perfect. And without you, there is no guidance and direction. As we continue to conduct the business of the city of St. Petersburg, let us not put ourselves first before the business at hand that benefits the greatest of all. Let us continue to walk under your guidance, continue to look to you during our journey. With these blessings, we continuously ask you in your mighty, matchless name. Amen. Amen. Thank you, Council Member, for the beautiful invocation. Please stay standing for a moment of silence and then followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Constable Edward A. George, end of watch, September 16, 1908. And Officer Charles Lee Eustace, end of watch, September 24, 1967. Thank you. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and into the Republic for which stands, one nation, under God, invisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Please be seated. Council Members, we have an agenda before you. I'll entertain a motion for approval. Move approval. Second. Clerk, we have a motion and a second. Please open the machine for voting. Council Members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present Council Members have voted, please tally and announce the votes. Madam Chair, motion to approve the agenda passes unanimously with Council Members Driscoll and Gerdes being absent. Thank you. Council Members, we have a consent agenda before you. Clerk, are there any public comments? No public comments. I'll entertain a motion. Move approval. Second. We have a motion and a second. Clerk, you please open the machine for voting. Council Members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present Council Members have voted, Clerk, please tally and announce the votes. Madam Chair, motion to approve the consent agenda passes unanimously with Council Members Driscoll and Gerdes being absent. Thank you. Now we move on to open forum. Clerk, can you please read the rules? 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 forum sheet. Only city residents, owners of property, business owners in the city, or their employees may speak. All issues discussed under open forum 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 forum 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 to 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 the agenda item is addressed. When it is your turn to speak, you will be unmuted and ask to state your name and address. At the conclusion of your comments or when you have reached 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, no more 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 email only. And we do have some speakers, Madam Chair. Thank you, Clerk. And for those who have signed up and are speaking, you can go up once your name is called to either podium and then state your name and address before speaking. Thank you, Clerk. First two speakers, Walt Driggers and Daniel Marasarars. I think that's how you say it. Marasarars. Daniel. Well, good afternoon. My name is Walt Driggers. I live at One Beach Drive, Southeast, number 1811, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33701. And I'm just here today. I'm not sure I'm going to be able to make it back for your 5 o'clock hearing on the airport. If it's going to be on a public hearing at 5 o'clock, the public comment has to be at that time. Does it have to be at that time? Unfortunately, yes. Even if I just wanted to encourage you to do it? You can always send an email to city council members before that time. Okay. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. My name is Daniel Marasarars. I live at 246 Mystic Lake Drive North in St. Pete, 33702. I'm here today because I'm trying to get our neighborhood safe. There's a map. I think you all have a picture of that where some of the roads right next to us have several stop signs. Mystic Lake Drive is the only road that is pretty much a straight through from 1st Street to 4th or opposite 4th Street to 1st. I've been in touch with the traffic division. They said we don't qualify for speed bumps, but yet the speeding still continues. And the neighbors, I've brought my neighbor Mark here, everybody that walks their dogs, the kids, the Chinese people that live across the street have stopped riding their bikes around the lake because it's too dangerous. The kid's like 6, maybe 9, and 14. The other neighbors have a hard time walking their dogs. It's just ridiculous. Everybody, they avoid the light at 62nd Avenue and 4th Street because it all gets backed up. So when they're coming east or heading west, they hit 1st Street, they cut through our street, go to 4th Street, and then they head north on to work. And it's the same situation on the way home in the afternoon. They'll use Mystic Lake Drive because they see the lights all backed up at 4th Street and 62nd Avenue. So they use our street, rip through there, go to 1st Street, take a right, and then they go on about their business. It's very unsafe, and someone's going to get hurt. It's only a matter of time. I'm pleading to you all to the curriculum or criteria that they set to allow these speed bumps is way, way too high. In a situation like this, they either need to curb it, lower it, or see that there's an emergency situation and something needs to be done regardless of what the statistics show because statistics don't save lives. Speed bumps do. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. I appreciate the time. Next speaker. Speaker. Excuse me. Shawnee Barnes. Please go to either podium, state your name and address for the record, and you have three minutes to address City Council. Good afternoon. Shannery Barnes, 318 72nd Street South. I do not have a formal stance on the utility rate increase. I'm just speaking about flooding as a whole. So I stand here today as a few different roles. In my role as a real estate agent, I have seen property values that belong to residents in flood zone X plummet through no fault of their own. In my role as a resident who has not yet flooded, I voice my concern about the direction of the city. As a friend to many people living in flood zone X who did flood, I'm here to support them. I'm sure residents would gladly pay a few more dollars in their monthly bill to feel safer. However, St. Pete residents have dutifully paid their water bills and have just been handed issue after issue. I'm assuming the Pennington family of 56th Street has paid their water bills, and yet the City of St. Pete continues to fail them. For seven years, City of St. Pete has allowed sewage to back up into their home. While I understand that rising costs are inevitable and infrastructure needs to be financially supported, the City of St. Pete needs to take a good hard look at the decisions that have historically been made and the decisions that keep occurring, examples being construction where it should not occur, variances being granted gratuitously, and the complete disregard for our disappearing green spaces and trees. A quote from a recent St. Pete Catalyst article reads as follows. Quote, Council Member Corey Givens said developers should shoulder more of the burden. Administrators plan to increase sewer capacity fees from $600 to $1,000 per restroom. However, those revenues can only support sewer projects. Tankersley declined to opine on any other potential impact fees that the City could impose on developers during the utility rate discussion. End quote. Developers will take everything they can get. We know this. And a few thousand dollars is often a drop in the bucket to them. We have in place City Council, CPPC, DRC, and permitting to review land development regulations and to ensure compliance with the appropriate city regulations. Yet more often than not, they seem to accommodate developers in spite of pleas from long-time tax-paying residents who are worried for our city and their homes. Please remember that vegetation prevents erosion. One tree can draw up over 100 gallons of water per day. And permeable green space mitigates flooding risks. All of the developer fees in the world won't magically save our water, green space, trees, or our homes. I wonder if the stormwater rate is connected to impervious surface, then why does the City keep greenlighting more impervious surface to begin with? I don't feel inclined to throw more money at the problem, but rather ask where has the money gone and can we be making better decisions proactively? Thank you. More speakers, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair. The forum is closed. We move on to awards and presentations. D1, a proclamation honoring Ferg's Sport Bar and Grill Day, and it's going to be presented by our own mayor. Good afternoon, Mayor Welch. Thank you, Madam Chair. Do not adjust your glasses. I am not Copley Gerdes. He has not gained a lot of weight lately. It's an honor here to honor a true St. Pete icon. As we all know before, we had a wide range of choices for food and drink. Before the expansion of downtown, there was Ferg's. And we are here to honor a recognition. Finally, the nation knows what we've known all along, that Ferg's is the best local sports bar in the nation. And we're proud to be joined today by Mark and Sherry Ferguson, if y'all want to join me. Councilmember Givis, Mark was going to wear his Lakewood gear, but he didn't. I don't know why he changed his mind. We'll hold it against him. You see you? Although the watch is black and gold, so he did have a little bit on there. And I do want to recognize that the Chair, Chair Gerdes, brought this forward. He raves about Ferg's, the blue cheese and chicken wings, in that order. It's the blue cheese first to get to the, the chicken wings to get to the blue cheese. But he cannot be here today, so I'm proud to present this on his behalf. And it reads, Whereas in 1991, Mark Ferg Ferguson, a St. Petersburg native and former teacher, purchased a weathered gas station with a dream to create more than a restaurant, but a place where the community could gather, connect, and celebrate together. And whereas with hard work, creativity, and the support of family and friends, that small property was transformed into Ferg's Sports Bar and Grill, opening its doors in November of 1992 as a neighborhood spot known for good food and local pride. And whereas Ferg's has grown into a St. Petersburg landmark, expanding across nearly two blocks, offering unique event spaces, and welcoming thousands of patrons to concerts, charity events, watch parties, and countless celebrations that capture the spirit of our city. And whereas Mark's vision has always been about more than TVs and game days, it's been about creating an atmosphere where everyone feels like family, where newcomers are greeted with warmth, and longtime patrons visit regularly. And whereas that family-focused vision has become a true legacy, with Mark's son, Jake Ferguson, joining the team as general manager, bringing new energy and ideas while honoring the welcoming spirit and community values his father built. And whereas on August 28th, Ferg's Sports Bar and Grill was nationally recognized by USA Today as the number one best local sports bar in America, a distinction that celebrates the Ferguson family, their team, and the unique atmosphere that has made Ferg's a beloved St. Petersburg institution. Now, therefore, I, Kennedy Welch, Mayor of St. Petersburg, Florida, do hereby proclaim Thursday, September 4th, 2025, as Ferg's Sports Bar and Grill Day in St. Petersburg, and encourage all residents and visitors to join in celebrating this achievement, this family legacy, and this story of vision and community brought to life. Thank you. I am so humbled, and I am so proud of what we have done along with the city. I mean, if you all think about where we've been the last 35 years, and to see where we were and where we came, this city, we have grown with the city. The city, dog-friendly, you know, bicycles, scooters, downtown is growing, and you guys have led and got behind in doing it the right way. We are now on the map. We are on the map now. We are a major league city because of Tampa Bay Rays, the Rowdies, everything else. People know they can come here and have a good time, and they've been coming year after year after year, and it's just I can't tell you how much support we have gotten from our customers and fans and all the people voted for us, and we're just elated to be moving forward into the next realm of things. I want you all to know one thing. We have had a lot of developers come to us and say we want to pay you a lot of money to build a high-rise, and you can go back in the bottom, and I listen to all of them, but I'm honest. My family, me, we believe St. Pete needs a place, a local place where people can gather, watch music and sports, enjoy their time. So luckily we were named number one sports bar in the country because we live in the best city in the country. Thank you very much. Stay there. We have a few council members who want to make some comments. Thank you. Councilmember Harding. Thank you, Chair. Mark, I couldn't be any more proud of you and grateful for your friendship. This is the industry that I grew up in and been working in for quite some number of decades, and I don't think that folks really grasp the level of success that you have had coming from a whole different industry. You didn't even – this wasn't even your profession. Just decided one day to go do it. The success that you've had, I would bet, and you can opine with me, I would doubt there are many restaurants in all of St. Pete that can do the kind of volume you do. And it's because of the heart that you and your team have put into it. The life cycle, for those who don't know of places like what Mark has, is typically somewhere around 10 years. Sometimes you get to 15 years. Mark, you've built a place that's generational. It will outlive us, and it will continue to be there. And it's really, truthfully, it is never the food in the end. It is always the service and the commitment to community. And I'm sure that we could sit here for a very long time and just talk about all the things that you've done for the community, the charities that you've supported, not only the restaurant, but your family. So I couldn't be any happier for you. I couldn't be any more proud of you. And thank you very much. Thank you. Councilmember Gibbon. Thank you. And first and foremost, go Spartans. Good to see you, Mark. And I just want to congratulate you. You know, Councilmember Harding said it. You are generational. You all have built a legacy here in St. Petersburg that we can be proud of. I think about you, and I think about your family. You know, we grew up with Jake, and, you know, I'm just so impressed by the work that you have done, especially in this past year, Mark. I know it hasn't been easy for you, especially with everything right after the hurricanes. But you guys have persevered. And I think this is a credit to your perseverance, the fact that not just the city, but USA Today, the nation has recognized you in your efforts to really create a family-friendly environment. Not only are you serving up good chicken wings, but you even open up the doors to the church. My good friend, Mr. Ash, he has service over there at your church, excuse me, on your property on Sundays. And I really appreciate you, again, just creating outlets for the community to be a part of the community. We really can go to Ferg's, we can have some good wings, have some good church, and just be amongst good friends. And so I thank you for being a good value partner in this community. So thank you, Mark. Thank you. And I want to say, unfortunately, Chair Gerdes could not be here, and I know that he absolutely wishes he could be here. So I'm sure you're going to hear from him. But you have a huge honor, because when you hear of Ferg's, it's synonymous with St. Petersburg, and there are few businesses that get to that level. So congratulations to you and to everything that you've done for our community. It's super appreciated, and I will tell you, there is not one person here that I talk to in our city and in my district that doesn't know Ferg's. That says a lot to you, what you've done. Well, thank you. Thank you. Okay. Madam Chair, could I bother you to come down and take a quick photo? Absolutely. We didn't get a chance to do one with the chair. Right in the middle. Take the Post-it note off. I'm a visual person. I don't need that. Okay. I just added to my steps. There you go. There you go. You get many answers. So now we move on to ordinances, and we have E1, an ordinance approving a vacation of a 20-foot-wide dead-end alley located at 7925 4th Street North. Clerk, you read the ordinance. Opposed ordinance number 1174V, an ordinance approving a vacation of a 20-foot-wide dead-end alley generally located at 7925 4th Street North, setting forth conditions for the vacation to become effective and providing an effective date. The public hearing is scheduled for October 2nd, 2025, and we have no cards. Thank you. Second. We have a motion and a second. Clerk, you open the machine for voting. Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present council members have voted, clerk, you please tally and announce the vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve agenda item E1, passes unanimously, with council members Driscoll and Gerdes being absent. Thank you, Scott, for joining us. Thank you. Now we move on to E2, an ordinance amending the future land use map of the comprehensive plan by changing the designations for two parcels totaling 17.25 acres located at 3200 34th Street South from Institutional to Planned Redevelopment Commercial. Clerk. Opposed ordinance number 764L, an ordinance amending the future land use map of the comprehensive plan for the city of St. Petersburg, Florida, by changing the future land use map designations for two parcels totaling 17.25 acres located at 3200 34th Street South from Institutional I to Planned Redevelopment Commercial, PR-C, providing for a repeal of conflicting ordinances and provisions thereof and providing an effective date. The public hearing for this item is on October 16th, 2025, and we have no cards. Okay. Unless there's a motion. Move approval. Do you want to hear it? This is your first reading. Oh, it's your first reading. Okay. Move approval. Second. We have a motion and a second. Clerk, can you please open the machine for voting? Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present council members have voted, clerk, please tally and announce the vote. Madam Chair, motion to approve agenda item E2, passes unanimously. With Council members Driscoll and Gerdes being absent. Thank you. Thank you for joining us. Okay. We move on to reports. F1, which is the St. Petersburg Housing Authority update. And we have Mr. Lundy here. Welcome. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Madam Chair, City Council members, thank you for the opportunity to be able to appear before you this afternoon to give you an update of the St. Petersburg Housing Authority. Today, I'm honored to have also in our presence my Chairman, Chair Dates, the Housing Authority Board, Chairman of the Board, and Commissioner Seymour. Thank you, Commissioner Seymour and Chair Dates, for being here today and in support of your one employee. Thank you. So I'd like to begin my, so I will give you an update of the St. Petersburg Housing Authority, and I'd like to begin the presentation by highlighting a few housing facts. Okay? So the first housing fact is, as you may know, the St. Petersburg Housing Authority is the largest affordable housing provider in the city of St. Petersburg, serving 4,000 families. Fact number two, in partnership with the private sector, the Housing Authority is under contract with approximately 500 property owners to house 3,600 families through our Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. Fact number three, with respect to the financial impact that the Housing Authority has on this city, I want you to know that every year we spend a little over $36 million in housing assistance payments to those 500 property owners' landlords who provide housing services to our citizens of St. Petersburg. Mr. Lundy, there's a clicker there if you want. I think you're on page. Okay, just to make sure. Okay. I didn't know if you had somebody there. Thank you. I would like you to know also, by the way, that those funds are reinvested in the local economy here. And so many of those funds are the $36 million. It's reinvested in the local economy through purchases of building materials, property management, maintenance services, mortgage payments, and I would imagine some of the property owners on the way home from the office probably stop by Publix and spend a lot of money there as well. My whole point is that many of the funds that the Housing Authority spend to provide housing services for its customers are reinvested right into the city of St. Petersburg and to this local economy. Fact number four, the Housing Authority own and operate about 500 affordable housing units. And to be specific is actually 458. And I'll share a little bit more in detail a little later about the specific units. And fact number five, with all of the affordable housing that is currently being provided through the St. Petersburg Housing Authority, we currently maintain a waiting list of citizens who are waiting to access our programs in excess of not 1,000 people on the waiting list, not even 5,000 people on the waiting list. And that's a significant number, not even 10,000 people on the waiting list, but 15,000 people on our combined waiting list. Now that's a large number. I'll ask you to dwell on that fact for a moment. The current waiting list of 15,000 people was generated within a couple of days of opening the waiting list. And we have to close it because we can't manage any more than that. Had we kept it open, we probably could double that number. Just give you a sense of the unmet affordable housing needs here. But those are the facts. And so inquiring minds might ask, what is the St. Petersburg Housing Authority doing to enhance the affordable housing services for its customers while expanding affordable housing opportunities? That's a fair question. I'm glad you asked. I'm glad you answered. I would like to take a moment or so to share with you an overview of our current housing services, as well as the Housing Authority strategic initiative to increase affordable housing supply here in our great city of St. Petersburg. So first, I'd like to provide you a quick overview of our real estate portfolio. So the first property that we're showing, I think we have a little problem with that. The first property that, I don't know if you have a copy, do you have a copy of the, yes, okay. So the first property that you see there is Clearview, which is located on 37th Avenue North, and it has 22 units. Also, I would remind you that the Clearview property has about an acre in the rear of the property that we're looking to redevelop and add additional affordable housing units. So that's an opportunity to add additional affordable housing. I just want to stop. Is there another presentation, or do you want to make sure that you have, there's a version, too? You want to see if you can find it for him, just to make sure that way council members can see and follow what he's talking about and the audience. Was your life on the way to go forward? If you want to just wait one second, just give him a minute. We're doing good on time. There you go. We found it. All right. Technology, see? Right. Okay. So, yeah, you just. There you go. Yay. There we go. All right. So we're at the Clearview. We'll go back to Clearview. Again, that's our first property at 37th Avenue North, 22 units. And in the rear of it, we're going to do a major, we're looking to do a major redevelopment of units there. The next property is Romaine, and it's located on Dr. MLK Jr. Street North. It has 20 units. And then that same slot, we have Gateway Place is on the same street, and we have 20 units there. And I will tell you that Gateway Place is scheduled for major renovation of the interiors, the kitchens, and baths. And some good news, it's already been approved by HUD, and we've already identified funding. So that's good news. We expect to have the renovations completed within the next 12 to 18 months. The next property would be Distant Place, which is located on 55th Street North, and it has 33 apartments. And about a year and a half ago, it underwent an interior renovation of kitchens and baths. So we've repositioned that property. It's good for another 20 years, 25 years. We're excited about that. Palm Bayou is an apartment complex that we have. It's located on 1st Street North, 24 units there. Saratoga is on 32nd Avenue North and has 34 apartments scheduled for major renovation in connection with another development deal that we have. I'll share a little bit more about that a little later into my presentation. Sunset Oats. Yes, so that is located on 21st Avenue North, and it is, I think, one of our senior complexes. It has 38 apartments. And then we come to Jordan Park, which is located on Jordan Park Street South. It's recently redeveloped in the last couple years, and I would be remiss if I didn't take the opportunity to thank the City Council and the Honorable Mayor Welch for your support and financial support in bringing, repositioning Jordan Park. Jordan Park has 206 apartments, so we're very excited and happy that we've been able to reposition that property. The legacy is the last property we want to share with you. That's right up the street from the Jordan Park 206 units. It is located on 9th Avenue South. It has 60 units, senior complex, and, again, thanks to this council, to the mayor of St. Petersburg, and this administration for assisting us in identifying the funding and finding the funding and assisting us with funding to redevelop and to do new units there at the legacy. So that completes the snapshot of affordable housing units owned and operated by the St. Petersburg Housing Authority. So I'd like to switch gears a little bit and share with you, give you an update with respect to the soft services that we provide to our customers. As a means to enhance the quality of life for families we serve, we have a small but effective social service department, which is very active and results-oriented. Our team collaborates with local organizations to provide quality services to affordable housing communities. Our team is currently assisting 147 affordable housing families to become economically independent from governmental housing assistance through a program called Family Self-Sufficiency. This is a five-year program that is incentivized with earned escrow account. Upon graduation, the earned funds can be used for educational pursuits, home ownership, et cetera. One of the programs that, I'm just giving you a highlight of some of our programs, one of the programs that's near and dear to me is our home ownership program. And over the last three years, we've been able to assist 22 families to become homeowners. I think that's pretty phenomenal. And I recall I was at a conference not very long ago, and one of my colleagues asked me, well, Lundy, how is it that the St. Petersburg Housing Authority, with its size, could help that many people in this economic environment? Because I'm at a large housing authority. We don't have those kind of numbers. And I basically said to them, it's how we think about the people we serve. We meet them where they are, and we connect with them. We try to connect them to services, and we try to instill the whole thought process, the idea that, yes, you can become a homeowner. This is not pie in the sky. You actually can. It's part of the American dream. You've actually achieved this. You've got to go through certain steps. We're going to work with you. We're going to hold your hand, and we're going to work you through the process. And so we have results. Twenty-two families at this point have become homeowners in three years. And so I kind of iterated our conversation with, well, you know, friend, kind of reminds me back from grade school. The St. Petersburg Housing Authority is that engine that could. We just keep chucking and chucking and chucking up the hill. And that's kind of, you know, that's how we feel about it. We've got a remarkable team, very dedicated. Love those guys. So now I'd like to kind of brief you with some of the real estate activities currently underway at the St. Petersburg Housing Authority. So let us begin with Ed White property, which is located on Ninth Avenue North. The former Ed White Hospital is currently under construction as a three-component mixed-use property with 71 affordable housing units for seniors. The St. Petersburg Housing Authority also will be moving into the space to provide services to those residents and actually to be closer in to the city connected to the communities we serve, where we're currently located, is really disconnected. A bus stop is, you know, some far-flung location. And so that's the second component. The third component is the lease agreement with a health provider, Everard Health, which will be in the property. They will be providing health care services, health screenings for the residents and for the larger communities. And so you get three for one. So we're excited about that. The renovation is scheduled to complete in 2026 thanks to the city's administration, thanks to the city council, thanks to the Honorable Mayor, Kim Welch, for your moral and financial support. So I just wanted to tell you a heartfelt thank you, thank you, thank you for what you, how you support the St. Petersburg Housing Authority. The next site is the Hartford site, which is located on a 1.3-acre site on 32nd Avenue North, in which the Housing Authority is collaborating with Blue Sky to redevelop and construct a 75-unit apartment complex, a family complex. And also as part of the redevelopment plan, we will renovate the existing adjacent property of ours, known as the Saratoga Apartments, which has 34 apartments. So we are currently, right now, we're currently undergoing a fair amount of due diligence, such as engineering, architecture, and demolition. And we're working through the permitting process in preparation for this year's funding applications. And if we're fortunate to obtain funding this year, we expect to offer the 75 apartments, family apartments, into the marketplace within 18, 24 months of receiving the funding. So shifting gears a little bit and looking through our windshield into the future, I'd like to report on one of the Housing Authority's strategic initiatives to increase affordable housing supply here in St. Petersburg. So it's called a path to the future. At the outset, you know, I talked about and highlighted the size of the St. Petersburg Housing Authority waiting list, which underscores the affordable housing need here in St. Petersburg. And it's safe to say that the lack of housing supply, affordable housing supply, is a major factor in our housing challenge. And so to that end, in August of this year, the St. Petersburg Housing Authority Board of Commissioners approved a bold resolution of the procurement of multiple qualified real estate development entities to contract with the St. Petersburg Housing Authority to increase the supply of affordable housing here in the St. Petersburg marketplace. Essentially, this strategy would provide the capacity to explore and develop multiple affordable housing units simultaneously. So in closing, I hope that this update has helped to remind us of the powerful impact of partnership and collaboration and our collective efforts to address the significant affordable housing needs here in our great city. And finally, I want you to know that the St. Petersburg Housing Authority is working every day to assist many of the families we serve to move beyond governmental-assisted housing as we know it while working to increase the supply of affordable housing here in our marketplace. On behalf of the St. Petersburg Housing Authority Board of Commissioners, our entire staff, and our customer base, I want to thank you for your service to this community and the opportunity to provide you an update of the program activities of the St. Petersburg Housing Authority. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Lundy. We have a few council members wishing to speak. First up is Council Member Floyd. Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. I pressed my button before the end because I was excited to talk about the Edward White Hospital redevelopment and the Hartford development as well. I'm grateful to see those things moving forward. Glad to see my first time seeing a rendering of the stuff at Hartford. So I'm excited by that and just wanted to say I'm looking forward to hearing more about your bold initiative you're moving ahead with and going to be here whenever you need so that we can talk about how we can get more affordable housing built. But just mostly wanted to say thank you. Well, thank you, Councilman, and thank you for your support. And throughout this process, you've been accessible. You've actually come out to the sites and take a look. So we really appreciate the support that we get from this entire council, but in particular, since Ed White is in your district, we really appreciate your support. And this has not been easy. It's not an easy one. It's not for the faint of heart. I know there's been some hurdles, yeah. But we're going to get there. And so just thank you for your support. Along with my board of commissioners, they're just spectacular in terms of supporting and giving ideas on how we can get to the next step. Yeah, well, you all have been great partners over the last few years, so I appreciate it. Thank you. Councilmember Gabbard. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for coming to see us today, Mr. Lundy. Always a pleasure. And Commissioner Dates and Commissioner Seymour, good to see you as well. And thank you for your service to our community. You all were part of the driving force that really turned around the St. Pete Housing Authority. And so very glad that you're still there and that your leadership is still, it's so important to how we move forward. The properties that are located in my district, Romaine and Gateway Place, thank you for highlighting those. And very excited to learn more. I'd like to maybe schedule a one-on-one with you about the Gateway Place re-renovation. Quick question on that, though. Are they going to be moving everyone out to renovate all at once, or will it be a phased renovation? It's a phased, and we've gotten approved through the Department of Housing and Urban Development. We have, just by attrition, we have about five vacancies. And so, you know, it's not a large site, so we'll do five units, and then we'll move people to those five units, and then create five vacancies, and we'll do that. And it's going to take 18, 24 months. The good news is that we have the funding and assuming that the costs stay within, you know, reason. We don't go over costs. We try to stay within the budgetary constraints. But we feel good about that. We've already had conversations with the residents, and they're excited about the upcoming renovations. And so they're working with us as a partnership. Great. Well, both of those, one sits at one entrance to my neighborhood. One sits at the other entrance to my neighborhood. And so, I mean, I think that when I talk about affordable housing developments in different parts of the city and people go, oh, you wouldn't want that in your backyard. And I said, well, it's right in my backyard, and it doesn't bother me at all because, you know, I feel like those are really great examples of, you know, that they just kind of blend right into the neighborhood, and they just fit right there along that corridor. So thank you for continuing to invest in them and keep them up to speed and keep them nice and make them a good place for people in my district. One of the good things about St. Petersburg and affordable housing units here in St. Petersburg, you don't see, as you see in some cities, these large concentrations of public housing units that they all look the same. And people can drive down the street and identify and say, oh, okay, that's public housing. And those are the properties that I showed you this afternoon. They blend right into the community. Right. And so if you keep them up and you do your lease enforcement, it's sort of a seamless sort of existence. And so that's the desired outcome. Amen. A lot of cities don't have that benefit. Yeah, we're very blessed in that way. And I just also wanted to real quickly thank you for your leadership on the homeownership program. The very first time I ever met you, you told me that you were going to bring that program to St. Petersburg. And I believed you then, and it shows now, and so I just wanted to congratulate you on the success. 22, I believe you said, homeowners who would probably have not been able to achieve that dream had it not been for your vision. So thank you. Thank you for doing that. Thank you for your support. All right. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Fink Sanders. Thank you. Well, again, thank you for the presentation. You know, I always look forward to having these conversations, but I definitely want to publicly say thank you, thank you, thank you. I have been around long enough to have seen different leaderships. And one thing that I will say from the heart, leadership matters. It definitely matters. You can tell about an organization based on who your leadership is. And with the commissions that you have now, you have changed the perspective of public housing, as they say, from where we are now, from where we were in the past. So, Mr. Lundy, you have never not answered my call personally. You didn't tell me to call someone else. You didn't have anyone else call and return the call to me. You spoke to me. And so that says a lot about who you are and the organization that you are leading. And so I definitely want to say thank you for that. I also want to congratulate you on your kudos. You already knew who to hit it when I saw the first lady in one of your slides. You knew what you were doing on that, Mr. Lundy. For those that don't know, you see our first lady. I love that. Thank you, sir. And then also, I'm just so glad of the partnership you have with Habitat. You know, Habitat is like one of my most favorite organizations ever because it allows home ownership. Zero interest loans. Can you imagine that? And for your home ownership program to transfer, transition one to another, that is building not only the foundation of the homeowner, but of their children, their families, legacy. I always say land is legacy. And so you are instilling that foundation in them. And so I'm always going to thank you every time I see you for doing that as well. So, again, I have to publicly say leadership matters. You have come in and you've done exactly what you said you were going to do, and that means a whole lot, not only to those of us that are watching, but to those that you've impacted on their lives. So, again, Mr. Lundy and your commissioners, you also have an awesome board, too. Completely different board, completely different feel, and they've made a difference with you and your leadership. And you do have an awesome staff. So I just definitely have to give you kudos on that. And I appreciate everything that you're doing. Thank you, Councilor Walton. Thank you. Appreciate those. Thank you, Chair. Councilmember Gibbons. Thank you very much, Vice Chair. And thank you so much, Mr. Lundy, for being here. Thank you to your commissioners, Commissioner Dates, and Commissioner Seymour. I appreciate you both for your service. Mr. Lundy, you know we have many conversations. The highest concentration of your housing units are in my district. And so this is near and dear to my heart, having grown up in public housing. I understand the importance of making sure that we have quality housing for all of our residents because that is a human right. I do have a couple of questions for you. You talked a little bit about your wait list, 15,000 people. That number is just hard to believe. But I believe it because I understand that we have a housing crisis in our city and across the country. But I want to talk a little bit about how long that window stays open. How long, on average, do your application portals, how long do they stay open? And then how long does it take to get that 15,000 applicants? Well, so to get that amount of people on the waiting list, it's probably a common age. It's probably a total of three or four days each waiting list, right? So we have several waiting lists. We have Section 8 waiting list, which has about 10,000. And then we have public housing, which has quite a few. And then we have some of them are site-based. And so we have affordable housing. So the Saratoga Apartments and Palm Bayou are affordable housing. So a person can make a little more than 80% in order to be there. They pay a little higher rent. It's affordable probably between 80% and 100%. But it's less than 100% of the area median income. So that's a waiting list. And then the legacy is a waiting list. And what happens is that the only way that we have movement is when people move out. And that's why it's important. And you're not going to ever – I can just tell you this. You're not going to ever have enough housing to satisfy the entire need, the total need. And I'm just – that's been my experience. I don't care where you go, whether you're in New York, Chicago, St. Petersburg, you're going to always have more people who need affordable housing than the supply that you have. And so the St. Petersburg Housing Authority, one of the things that we want to do that's near and dear to us, how can we work with families to move them beyond the affordable housing programs that we have? And one way – the way that, you know, we believe that's very effective is helping them to grow and become economically independent, to don't have a job, to give them the kind of training, get a job or start a business. They have a job to increase, to grow in that profession, and to receive increases, right? So you get to the point where you don't need the assisted housing any longer. Then you create space for people on the waiting list to come in who need our service, be in need of our services. So that's one way of doing it. The other way, of course, develop more affordable housing to the extent that you can. But it's always – you're going to always be chasing that number. You're going to always be chasing it, unfortunately, at this point in time. When you think about our economy, I don't know if that answers your question. Yeah, we'll never have enough, Mr. Lundy, but I do think you guys are certainly making a dent in the effort, so I commend you on that. I'm excited about the Edward White property. I did have a question. You mentioned creating space. With the Live Local Act, do you see any benefit of that to your organization? And if so, how can we support you in that effort? And what do you see the future looking like because of that? I didn't quite get the totality of your question. The Live Local Act, I was asking about if you saw any benefits out of that for your organization with creating more affordable housing. Are you familiar with that? So do I see any benefit in creating more affordable housing? Are you familiar with the Live Local Act and the benefits? Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah, the Live Local. Yes. So are there any opportunities for your organization? In fact, the developer partners that we're engaging a master development agreement with, several of them, so over 10. And we've talked about the Live Local Act, which gives us flexibility to build just about anywhere. And so what I've said to them is to put on your creative hats and come up with ideas. And so our strategy is that we have a few parcels that we want to develop, number one. Some of our developer partners, they have property as well that they would want to develop, and so they'll bring those ideas to us. And we think about it. We talk about it. And then we enter into a contract to move forward. But, yes, that act does make a huge difference in what you can do. The other thing is I've said to developer partners, over the last few years I've seen RFPs and RFQs, request for proposals, request for qualifications, come out of the city of St. Petersburg for properties that you own and that you were asking the general public to respond. Well, sitting at my desk, it was hard for me to respond. We didn't have the capacity. It was something we wanted to do, but we didn't have the team. We just didn't have the capacity. Now that we have procured some of these developer partners, we'll be able to respond more quickly to some of those solicitations. Gotcha. I appreciate that, Ms. Lundy. And another question for you. You talked a little bit about partnerships. I understand that the American Heart Association has been advocating for an increase in funding from the city to expand their groceries on the go program. We know that food insecurity is a major issue, specifically in my district. And a couple of those properties are food insecure. And they don't have access to healthy and nutritious food. And, you know, there have been a number of projects. I know there was a partnership with the Boys and Girls Club at Jordan Park. But can you talk a little bit about that effort and where we stand with the Groceries on the Go program and how those expansion efforts are looking? So, Councilman, thank you for your work in the community and to help spearhead some of these efforts, in particular with the food pantry. And we established, I think when I first met you, you came to a ribbon-cutting exercise through the housing authority where we established a food pantry there at Jordan Park. And you wanted to expand it. You made, right from the beginning, you expressed the need to expand that, to have more locations. And since then, we've met with different providers across the city. In fact, I think you coordinated a meeting or two. And we're moving along with that. We actually looked at a couple of our sites to determine the feasibility of converting some of that space into food pantries. I will tell you today, one of the ideas that seemed to have a lot of traction are the, the food lockers I hear about. There's a system where they have lockers and where you put food in and I guess they're refrigerated or what have you. And all you need is just a piece of land that you can actually install them on. And so we're looking at where on one of our sites, in particular Jordan Park, that we can actually install maybe some food lockers to increase the supply of food in the area. So we're excited about that. And, you know, sometimes with partnerships, it takes a while to get through or get to where you want to be as far as the operations of it. Because everybody's got rules and regulations. They've got to follow. And, you know, if they get federal funds or state funds, there's attachments. There's certain specific regulations attached to those funds. And so you've got to navigate all of that as well. Well, I'm excited about the work that we've been doing here. I love it. It's been a great partner in this effort. So I want to give her a, her shout out as well. But as we look at converting some of this site space into a pantry, it's just amazing to know that you are so hands on, Mr. Lundy. I didn't have the privilege of working with past CEOs, but I know for a fact that you have been there every step of the way, answering every question, trying to make sure that we can have a conversation with all these partners that I brought your way. I'm excited to know that Feeding Tampa Bay is ready to partner with us with these food lockers. That's an exciting concept. My last question for you, Mr. Lundy, is do you have what you need? And if not, I really want to recommend that you consider the Sunrise St. Pete funds that are going to be coming out, because I certainly think that is a great idea, and it could be funded through that effort. So those dollars are there for projects like that. Well, thank you, Councilman. I appreciate that. We will be back. I've been in contact with my staff. I understand that she's been invited to one of the committee meetings to speak about some of the programs that are near and dear to social services, and so we're going to remain engaged. Thank you so much, Mr. Lundy, and excited to build together with you. So thank you so much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Well, thank you very much for the update, Mr. Lundy. Obviously, we're very excited about all the happenings that are happening, whether it's Ed White Hospital site, the Hartford. You're getting senior units online, which is critical. So we're very excited about that. You have great partners. Blue Sky is one of the partners, and we're talking about people that know how to navigate kind of what's happening in Tallahassee. And otherwise, those are great partners. So you're checking all those boxes. So thank you, and thank you for the commissioners for being here and showing the support. We'll see you again soon. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you. Okay, now we move on to F3, a resolution authorizing the mayor to execute a tax order to the professional services agreement between the city and Clearwater Clearview land design to provide professional services, including but not limited to the development, deployment, and operation of a GIS-based coastal flood forecasting and impact assessment system related to the coastal conditions monitoring project in an amount not to exceed 216, 297.20. And that's a mouthful. This was pulled from consent by Councilmember Gabbard. So I'll let her introduce it, and then we'll go over to Brajesh. Well, thank you. So, Brajesh, thank you for entertaining me to have this come as a good news item today. You know, we have a lot of conversations about flooding and resiliency impacts and all of that. And so I really felt like this was an opportunity to kind of talk about something that's a little bit more forward thinking and the forecasting and all of that critical data that we need in order to be able to make our decisions. So with that, I'll go ahead and turn it over to you for a short presentation. Thank you. Councilmembers, always a pleasure. Brajesh Prune, Insure and Capital Improvement Department. And honestly, we thank you for the opportunity because this really starts a conversation of forward thinking. You know, you couldn't have fit that nail even better. But, you know, what we've done in the engineering department as we do some of these projects, some of these plans, some of these programs, is how we leverage all that data that we collect with that bigger picture vision and actually combine it. So what this model is doing, and we've actually developed a beta. And just to let you know, it was done at such a good level. It was presented nationally at the ESRI GIS conference in San Diego as best practices on how to model and forecast impacts. Now, the data that it is including in this modeling purpose is the stormwater 12,000 subbasins plus the LIDAR data that we've collected. So it's not that we're collecting the data and we're not going to use it. It's how we leverage it for continuous steps forward. So what the model is going to do is actually taking all this information and every time while we're going to build it and have it ready, the intention is as a storm approaches, we flip the search, we go live with it. So it's almost like a dormant ready for us to use. Every time there's a storm alignment that comes, that is taking that data from the NOAA buoy plus the rain gauge data, then the alignment from the storm and overlaying all that information with the contour data, the stormwater basins, and our infrastructure and projecting where our actual impacts are going to be at what time. So it's real-time monitoring of that. And one of the key elements in this is storms hit always at the middle of the night or on a weekend. So we need that support to run that model remotely and not put us at risk while we're in here so we don't sacrifice our ability to response. Now, the data as it comes out is what we'll then push back from the engineering side and public work side into our response to provide information to all the departments, whether it be police, sanitation, fire, you know, even damage assessments and community services. So, again, it's a follow-thinking. You hit that right. And how we take that information plus all the information we're getting on other sources. And this is not the end of it. The seawall vulnerability study that we'll be coming with, we've picked up seawall elevations for all the publicly owned seawalls, all 72,000 linear feet. And just so we'll be able to upload that as well. So you'll see how that information is compounding. And right now we are continuing to work with USF. And we will also be looking at, and I'm not going to try and pronounce the name of this tidal buoy. I will stay away from that. But it's the same buoy that's utilized by NOAA. Because what we noticed during Helene, by example, the surge that was experienced was drastically different. We had one buoy. And there was one point in time that that buoy went down at the Coast Guard, I think, for 45 minutes. And Claude and I were ready to run around police department trying to figure out how we can get down there. But what we noticed is that on the northern part, it's like a cup, when you blow that water in a cup, that it pushes up on the other side. So what we saw is that the impacts of the surge was pushed up onto the northeastern quadrant of Tampa Bay because we had that dominant wind for over 24 hours, even though the tide surge. So surge happens in different ways. It could happen this way or it could happen with a dominant wind force. So we got both. And what we noticed is that Lake Magori, the channel, Salt Creek, in this particular instance, was a surge of about 4.6 feet. But when you look up at Venetian Isles, they got almost 7 feet on NAVD. So that's the dynamic difference. So we'll be looking to continue to evolve this, bringing in more tidal buoy locations across the city so we can calibrate that information more efficiently. And then post-storm, we also go out. We have specific locations across the city and actually pick up what we call the rack lines after a storm. And we use that data to further calibrate the model. So I appreciate you letting me nerd out here for a few minutes. Thank you. Council Member Gabbard. Thank you, Chair. Just one quick follow-up question, Brugesh, before I move approval. Is in the backup, it did ask, it said that there was a map attached, but I know that then you got back to us and said that there wasn't a map. So I just want to understand, like, are these sensors throughout this city or, like, I guess I'm just kind of curious, like, the actual mechanics of it. So this is essentially a model. So it's a computer program that is taking, we have loaded up our surface terrain in it, and what we've also loaded is connection points to rain gauge data, as well as the NOAA buoy, as well as the projections that will come out from NOAA for the alignments of the storm. So every time an alignment comes in, the computer, which simulates C&P under these conditions, will then recalculate and say, okay, the storm has shifted this much. When it's anticipated at this time, based on that model, the tidal buoy says the tide should be at this level, so what's the surge? Okay, now let's look at where the highlighted areas of the community are impacted. So it's really a computer program that's digesting all that information dynamically and then pushing it out to us every time we get an update on the NOAA buoy. It takes, honestly, it takes a few minutes, probably 20, 30, because it's 20, 30 minutes. It's a lot of information to digest for that program to run, but it is helpful for us to understand our risk and be able to plan appropriately as well. So it's really a program. Okay, understood. So thank you for that clarification. I'm very excited about, you know, us being able to see this play out and how this can be used for our first responders and just kind of all the implications that will come from this. So I'm very excited about it. Thank you, Council, for letting us nerd out a little bit in this meeting on this. These are the kind of things Brjesh and I get way into in our one-on-ones. So I really appreciate you taking the time to do this. And with that, I'll move approval. We have a motion and a second. Clerk, can you please open the machine for voting? Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present council members have voted now, can you please tally and announce the vote? Madam Chair, motion to approve the F3 passes unanimously with Council members Driscoll and Gerdes being absent. Thank you. And thank you, Brjesh, for the presentation. Thank you all for the support. F2, we have Pinellas County Property Appraiser Update on the FEMA 49% Rule and Property Valuations. Mr. Mike Twitty is here. He has a presentation. And I believe Council Member Gabbard asked for this item. Thank you. So thank you to Mr. Twitty for being here with us today. You know, this conversation kind of came about a little bit because I was getting some outreach from some individual residents because as we all became very intimately aware last year after the storms, the FEMA letters on Mr. Twitty's website have a lot of implications for individuals as it pertains to rebuilding after a storm. And so the 2025 letters came out, and people weren't quite sure how to interpret that, and they were a little concerned, a little confused. I reached out to Mike's office, and immediately he and I were able to jump on a call. And after about an hour and a half, I said, okay, I will never be able to explain all of this to individuals, so let's bring the source of the information to City Council, have a transparent conversation, make sure that everybody really understands what it is, what it isn't, and really what the impacts to property values and some of our more vulnerable neighborhoods have been after the storms of last year. So that's kind of the setup for how we got here today. And so with that, I will go ahead and turn it over to Mr. Twitty, and I just want to thank you so much for taking the time to be with us today. Thank you, Brandy. I didn't realize I had to do an hour and a half today, but... You don't. Please don't. Please don't. And I won't ask all the same questions. So, yes. We could go for days, but no, thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Council Members, for having me in. Yeah, we want to add as much transparency as we can in this process. Obviously, my staff's done a yeoman's job trying to weather the storm, so to speak, and help people navigate through what is our lane that has seemed to have widened some from just assessments and exemptions. And we've been trying to help people because they come in and are having trouble navigating our 25 different building departments around the county and understanding the FEMA 50% letters and knowing what that really means and those implications. And then, of course, Florida statutes and interpreting that and how that might affect their Save Our Homes cap and their 10% non-homestead cap, all those things. So we're answering all of those questions, and I want to try and go through some of those today. So, first of all, we do have very robust FAQs on our website, not only related to the storms. So we have a dedicated area for the storm damage information, but then we also have our general FAQs. You know, we have a top 10, which is kind of the things that are happening all the time. Every time this year when trim notices, you know, just you may have noticed trim notices came in your mailboxes recently. Unfortunately, in most years, the average life cycle of a trim notice is about seven seconds, and that is the average distance from the mailbox to the garbage can because they say this is not a bill on them. But we really encourage people to really digest that information. It is more complicated than just, you know, getting an outside third-party appraisal that has one value in it. Our valuations have three values. You have a just market, you have an assessed value, and you have a taxable value. That's all a function of our legislature and our state constitution that requires that and how that structure works. So it is a little more complicated and encourage people to review their values. Any questions whatsoever, call our office. Do not hesitate to reach out. Ask for your area appraiser, especially if you were a storm-impacted property owner because those are tough to get 100% right. You know, we had over 30,000 properties get water in them. We're having to value almost 450,000 parcels each and every year as of January 1. So, you know, it's a moving target a bit, you know, and we're going to have to have good communication with our citizens. So we encourage them. You know, it's a two-way street, and we want them to not hesitate. And trust me, they are calling. So we are getting lots of calls, and we relish that. So we want to try and get it right. But anyway, so that's where some of those resources are. The normal FAQs, the general ones you can find are under how do I or learn about. Lots of information there related to homestead, the calamity provision. We're going to touch on some of these specifically that really impact those that were storm-impacted. So there is a deadline coming up, which is the late file deadline, September 12th. That will be the late file homestead deadline as well as other exemption applications. That is the absolute final line in the sand. You know, the timely file deadline was back in March. So people have had a long runway here to get up to September 12th. But that's where it has to shut down because that's 25 days out from TRIM, which also aligns with the petition filing deadline for the value adjustment board. So, you know, if you're working with our office, and we encourage people to have informal conversations with our office if they have any value or exemptions concerns, please do so. But if you're not satisfied by the time you get closer to that September 12th, go ahead and file a petition with the value adjustment board that's administered through the clerk of the court's office. You can do that online. Unfortunately, there is a small fee associated with that for the administrative piece on the clerk's side, and that's $25 this year on their side. But that is totally independent from what we do. But I wanted to let people know there still is that window from if you were displaced for 30 days or more from the storms of 2024, you may still be eligible for a property tax, partial property tax rebate from your 24, as long as you timely paid your 24 taxes. So if you have constituents out there that have not done so, please take a look at that. That can still get in. But to do that, because it's late, they have to file a VAB petition. And then apply with our office. I know it's a little additional red tape, but it's late in the game. So that's the rules of the road at this point. And then we work with the tax collector who ends up issuing refunds. Post-storm valuation. So a lot of people are asking those questions. A lot of people are, as Brandy pointed out, very poignantly. They were looking at their FEMA letters and noticing some structure values went down, but they might have just finished repairing their property, right? But they're looking at real-time valuations. We're a January 1 snapshot. So on January 1, that home was damaged. It was not repaired in most cases. If that's not the case, they need to let us know. But so that January 1 snapshot for many, many residents, especially in St. Pete, if you look at the data, you'll see most of the people that were storm impacted received not only a just value decrease, but also an assessed value, partial assessed value decrease. The decrease on the just value side is going to be larger than it would be on the assessed value, particularly the ones that are homesteaded because of the Save Our Homes cap. So the capping plays into that. So it might not look like you're getting as much relief as you thought, but you might have several hundreds of thousands of dollars that moved under the just value. So just to let people know, if they were still damaged on January 1 and if their numbers don't seem to reflect that, please reach out to us. And then if they're already repaired and reoccupied by January 1, then they should be business as usual, essentially, in our valuation process. And then if we found a demo permit or somebody notified us that, hey, I had four feet of water, the house is coming down, even if they pull the demo permit after January 1, we know it's coming or it's happened to this point, we'll pull that structure value off the roll and take them essentially down to land. So we're trying to be as taxpayer-friendly as we can through this process. We know that people have suffered a lot. And unfortunately, those refund amounts, because of the way the legislature designed the formula, it's really only a pro rata share on the structure value. So they were not getting as big of a rebate as their expectations might have aligned with. And I did lobby in Tallahassee this last year to try and get them to change. That formula, and I'll work on them again this year to grant a little more relief. Okay, so let's talk about the FEMA letter, and let's dispel a couple of misconceptions. First of all, this letter is not issued by FEMA. The values are simply from our data. They're depreciated structure values or depreciated building values. As far as I know, I think we may be the only property appraiser's office in the state that even does something like this and puts this data out readily accessible for people to obtain, you know, free of charge and use. And this is your first stop-free look, right, because they always have the ability to go and get an actual cash value appraisal in the private sector to help when they're navigating the repair process with the 50% or 49% rule as we face here in St. Pete and unincorporated Pinellas. So we've had this out there for over a decade, but it came to a lot of people's attention for the first time in the past year. What we did, I foresaw we were going to have an issue. I knew that, well, we're going to have a lot of people that are going to be damaged still on January 1. I knew the 25 structure values were going to fall, and people would still need access because they're still pulling permits to repair the 24 damage. They were going to need access to the 24 letter. So we set it up to where you have two buttons at the bottom. You have language that gives you some guidance on kind of which one to select, under which circumstances you're dealing with. If you didn't have any damage, you would just go right to the 2025. That's going to be most reflective of your structure value today. But if you did on January 1 and you were unrepaired at that point, you want to lean back on that 2024 letter for the time being. Now, what that brought to light is people said, well, what happens? I'm in mid-year 2025. You wrote down my structure value, but I've closed my permit now. So now what happens if there's a storm in 2025? Well, first of all, Mr. Gerdes said we are having no storms in 2025, and I agree with that. We've got a whole other situation. So if that case does happen, then we will be addressing how the letters are structured. We started a new process last year called a building value reconsideration, which I'm going to touch on here in a second. Well, it's referenced right there too. But that gave essentially anybody that applied, they had to submit pre-storm photos and evidence, and we could relook at their improvements. Because, you know, we don't get inside most houses. We don't see the interiors. A lot of people do. You know, believe it or not, some people do unpermitted work. You know, I'm just saying. But so we don't have the window into everybody's world and know exactly what's going on behind those walls. So obviously, when we do have that vision, it gave us the opportunity to move the needle on some of those structure values, which helped people navigate the 49% rule. And we issued those building value reconsiderations. So if we do have a storm in 2025, we will reopen a new BVR database for 2025 and we'll be able to process those. Now, we did over 1,000 of those for 2024. They're still trickling in for 2024. We're still keeping that process open for those that, you know, some people have just come out now and starting the permit process. Some people left, you know, rolled out right before the storm and haven't even come back. So we've got a lot of different situations going on. So I just want to assure people that there will be another avenue there that we can address some of that quickly. Because we have to be able to address it quickly to work with the cities and pass that structure value information on. And you still have the ability to go get that private appraisal, obviously. So this is just showing. So the other thing we had to tackle by, we had always rolled out the FEMA letter for a long time on a single parcel. But we were presented with new challenges. We had never done it with condominiums because FEMA looks at, they look at structures. They don't look at parcels. And when you look at a condominium building, so say it's a 50-unit condo, well, it's 50 parcel numbers, right? That's for assessment purposes. We're not valuing that whole building, that whole structure. We're looking at the individual unit values for assessment purposes. So we had to go in and literally value over 100,000 condominium units, but roll them all up into buildings and get structure values for those. That helped many, many jurisdictions navigate through that process. And then we had multi-building parcels. And those required a little more hands-on, a little more one-off. But we're working to try and automate more things as we go through. So we're hoping to build out more of this where it works a little more seamlessly. The BVR, we already touched on that, but that is still living out there for 2024 at present. And then we touched on private sector appraisers. There are still many that are qualified in the market that are out there providing those services. When I set up the BVR, I knew that at the time we did not have a lot of appraisers in the private sector that knew how to perform ACV appraisals for FEMA purposes. I used to do them in the private sector eons ago. And I knew that there just wasn't that many people that were prepared to tackle this. So that's why I said we've got to have something out there where we can kind of fill that void until they can help fill in. So that's why we started the BVRs. Another thing we tackled, because we ran into this, when a lot of homeowners have their property in a trust. So their ownership structure is in a trust. Well, they couldn't find a contractor. They might have only had a little bit of water, and they just wanted to pull an owner-builder permit to do some minor work that they were going to do themselves. Because they couldn't even find a contractor, it would take them on. And they were getting shut down by the building departments because they said, well, no, trust is like a corporation. Well, we all know the trust is not like a corporation, but it was easier for the building departments to kind of view it that way, put it in that lane. They didn't have the resources to really vet that appropriately to make sure they met the criteria of the owner permanently residing on the property and things of that nature. Well, we took that on and said, well, we're actually already doing that. We're vetting those for homesteads. So we look at those trust documents to vet them for that. So we're writing preparing trust ownership verification letters that we provide not only to the property owner but to the building department upon request. So that process has helped kind of smooth that out for those. Now, unfortunately, you know, keep in mind, state law requires if you do pull an owner-builder permit, you have a one-year moratorium on selling or renting that property. And that really goes back to the issues that were happening with flippers that were coming in, buying, and then rolling those properties right around. It's not meant to really penalize a homeowner, but unfortunately, that's the rules of the road that we're facing right now. I just want to make you aware that's out there. The calamity provision, this is huge for our property owners, not only our non-homesteaders, but particularly our homesteaders. And there was a recent change in state law, part of Senate Bill 180 and the emergencies bill, there was a change to how calamity is dealt with for homesteaders. So historically, non-homesteaders and homesteaders, if they were damaged in a calamity event, they could repair or rebuild their property up to 110% of its original square footage or 1,500 square feet, whichever was greater. So, for example, if you had a 700-foot house, you could go all the way to the 1,500, but if you already had something that was bigger than that, you'd want to use the 110. That's how it was up until late June. That law was signed into law right before July 1, and so it increased it for homesteaders from 110 to 130, and it increased that minimum from 1,500 to 2,000 square feet. So a little more relief there. A lot of the reason for the increase for the 130 is they really looked at most of the people that are really having these type of events are in special flood hazard areas, and the immense cost just to elevate your property and just to get to where you're going to start to build your finished first floor is going to cost you several hundred thousands of dollars, not to mention you're going to lose square footage related to your access. So trying to get in and out, you're not walking in at grade. Now you have to carve out areas for stairs and elevators or however you're going to get up, and it's going to take away square footage essentially up above. So that was the genesis of some of that. The other thing is the time window to be eligible to leverage the calamity provision. And wait a second, I'm getting ahead of myself because I didn't tell you what the calamity provision really does. What it does is it protects your Save Our Homes cap or your 10% non-homestead cap. So if, for example, if you had a house that was valued at $500,000, just value, but your Save Our Homes cap is only at $250,000. So your assessed value is $250,000 below, and you're basically taking your $50,000 homestead exemption off of that. Now you're paying a taxable, based on a taxable, of $200,000. Okay, so a nice savings there for calculating your tax bill. What happens is if you leverage calamity and fall under those guidelines, you do not reset your cap. You are not treated as new construction. So that can either be a repair or a complete rebuild, as long as you don't break those parameters. If you go above the $130,000 or the $110,000, then you're just treated as new construction for the portion that goes over, the square footage that goes over. And you have a five-year window for homestead and a three-year window for non-homestead. And that is triggered by pulling a permit. So as long as you pull a permit to start that activity within that window, and you need to, if you're a homesteader, you need to leave your homestead on the property the entire time. So even if you go buy something else, you decide to live there, do not remove your homestead. Leave it on that other prior parcel. This kind of gives you the factors and steps for eligibility on the calamity provision. And please inform our office. We generally know because we pick up the demo permits, and then that triggers a letter that comes out from our office that reminds them not to pull their homestead and things like that. But still, it always is very helpful just to reach out to our office. Portability after the storm. So, again, like we talked about, that difference in that example of a $250,000 assessed value versus a $500,000 just value, that would equate to $250,000 of portability that you could take to another homestead. Some property owners are at a stage of life and a stage of unfortunate frustration from, you know, the storm recovery that they may not want to rebuild. They may not want to go through all of that. And we have, unfortunately, a lot of homeowners in that situation. A lot of them are, you know, some of our seniors that it's, they're moving closer to their family members. It's just, you know, it's maybe a little quicker than they were planning to, but it was kind of part of their master plan anyway. Well, they still have the ability to leverage portability with anywhere within the state of Florida. So they can move that, and they actually will have three tax years from the January 1 following the date of the event to take advantage of that. And you can port up to $500,000 of value, and then if you, as long as you stay lateral or upward in movement of your just value. So if you go from what we value in one property in just value to an equivalent or higher, you get to carry the full amount. If you go down, then it gets prorated downward. This one's a little busy, but I want to try and explain it because we are going through this scenario right now. We went through this a little bit in a big way during the Great Recession, and this graphic kind of represents what happened in the Great Recession. You can see just market value is rising at a very rapid clip, and the assessed value is capped, which is the gold line, by the Save Our Homes cap or the non-homestead cap. In this case, this example is probably more representative of a Save Our Homes cap. You see that big delta that gets created between those two. That's your portability amount, your Save Our Homes benefit, so a property owner is paying far less that's trickling down to their taxable value as a result of that protection. However, then the market can start to turn, and we're at a pivotal point in the market right now. We kind of flattened out in a lot of areas with values through 24. We've seen some interesting things with the storm because we have seen elevated properties rise in value because now they're more desirable, and a bunch of homes rose that were inland because people went inland and bought those homes up, and there was a bit of a supply shortage for the good ones. So we've got a little bit of it depends on where you are, how much supply is around. We know we've got properties in all different states of disrepair or partial repair, so a lot of moving targets with our data. But so let's talk about the Great Recession. You know, we kind of fell off a cliff with just value. However, people still saw their assessed value continue to rise because of recapture. So they were confused on how could my tax bill possibly rise, my assessed value and my tax bill end up going up when the market is falling. And that is why, because they don't really realize that they've had that protection under the Save Our Homes cap, and it's just recapturing back towards that just market. And then, but assessed value cannot exceed just. So once those two meet, then the just market value can recalibrate where the baseline is for assessed value. So that's what that graphic is basically representing. And then you can see again where they deviate there off to the right in year six and start to deviate again, and then you start to build your Save Our Homes benefit once again. So just wanted to point that out because that question will be coming up more and more, and as the market changes, you'll get those types of questions. So I appreciate all the educators I can get on this effort because it, you know, we're answering these kind of questions all day long and on Saturday and Sunday too. But so that's all I had for slides, but happy to talk through any other scenarios or things that you all are seeing. And I really appreciate, you know, we've all, everybody's been affected in one way or another through this, whether it's us directly, our friends, family members, our constituents. And, you know, it's just been unprecedented for, you know, for us in Pinellas. I was born and raised in St. Pete. You know, I'm a Mountain Park baby, and it was great to see Mark Ferguson and Sherry here. I think I had the honor of being the first musician to play in Ferg's in the early 90s. We were kind of the little house band duo, and we'll play there on Friday and Saturday. Lots of great memories of the Thunderdome and all the concerts rolling through, and so a lot of great memories there. Well, thank you. We have Council Member Floyd. Thank you. Thank you very much for the presentation. This has been tricky getting questions from constituents on it, and it was a lot of information. I also want to thank you because I think your website's excellent. Thank you. And I use it all the time. So I do have a question. It's overarching. I'm going to do my best to ask it, is what I'll say. So first, I guess, if your just market value was affected by the storm because you had damage or whatever, and then you repair your home, forgive me if I miss this, but what happens to your just market value? Does it go back up over time? So if you repaired in 2025, then when we get to 2026 on January 1, the extra depreciation related to the damage will come off the property, and it'll go back to a repair. And you will know that that happens via what mechanism? Permits primarily, yep. Okay. We're doing that, field inspections, communication with property owners. So a lot of people do report and let us know what's going on with their property to make sure we have it right. And, you know, we're not too proud of our numbers to know in how many of them we have to touch that, you know, if you see something that looks off, just give us a call. And we had some unique circumstances where, because most of the damage was Helene-related and flood-related, but then we had some that showed up through damage assessment data because we had to rely on data coming from all the jurisdictions, from damage assessment, as well as we were using flood inundation tools, LIDAR, you know, tools that the county floodplain manager has, and then our own field reviews as well. So a mixed bag of different things. And there were some where they appeared, because of descriptions on permits and things, that it looked like it was flood damage. However, it might have been a tree fell on somebody's roof and punched a hole at it. And then the rain came in. So it wasn't really from rising water. It was really from water coming from above. So then we can address those accordingly. Okay, great. And then so, yeah, it sounds like you're using a variety of sources of information. And you mentioned homeowners can reach out as well, so I'll be sure to tell people that. And as permit data, as permits get closed out, you'll use that as an assumption as well. Okay. And then I saw that in the context of portability, you were still allowing people to take that portability from before the storm. Is that okay? Just to make sure I understood. Thank you for pointing that out, because I forgot to mention that. Yes. Yes. So if you were, you know, normally your portability is calculated from the year you dispose of your property. That's where you take it from. So if you sold in 25, that's where it would normally come from. But because it might have had damage at that point, you're allowed to use the 24 port amount to take forward. Yeah. I thought that's what you had mentioned, and I just wanted to make sure I understood. Okay. All that makes sense. One last thing, you know, when you go to the website, it has, like, land value listed on there for properties. It doesn't, it just has, like, the current land value. If we wanted to get information about, like, years past, is that something we could reach out and ask about? Absolutely. Okay, cool. I know that a lot of people, myself included, used that for tax purposes for damaged homes. And so I saw that it updates every year, and so if we need to prove what it was in the past, we can still get that from you. Yes. Okay. That's great to know. All right. Don't have that in, it's not in our advanced search where we can download, where you can download the year over year on the land. But you can get the current year, but just not the prior years. But we have it, obviously, if we can. That's great to know. Thank you very much. Well, thank you so much for the presentation. It's been really helpful, and glad to hear that if we have any questions, we can reach out to your office to get clarity. Yep. All right. Wonderful. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Gavard. Thank you again, Chair. And, Mike, thank you so much for the presentation and taking the time to be here. The only thing that I just wanted to make sure, because, you know, we have a lot of residents in the city that we fully know have not pulled their permits yet, and we are still trying to encourage people to pull their permits. I don't know. I see Hannah's here and the whole team, so I'm sure you all probably have an idea of about how many people. Last I had heard, it was maybe a few thousand. Oh, okay. So there's a bigger number, maybe, than I was even thinking. We're still trying to encourage that. And so where people may end up, because I think it's important for these 2025 letters to kind of put a pin in the fact that this was if you had a permit on January 1st. If you pulled your permit after January 1st, and it is still open come the next January 1st, aren't they going to again see that change in their evaluation on their FEMA letter for the next year? Because that permit will still be open, because it was pulled during 2025? It depends. Okay. So just always remember, January 1st is a snapshot of the condition of the property at that time. That's what we're trying to capture. Right. So they may have an open permit, but usually what we do is we put backouts on. So they'll do year-end runs before January, as we're approaching January 1, to try and see, are they, especially if it's new build or things like that, to see how close to substantial completion are they. So we'll probably be doing a lot of that with repair-related this year and communicating. Okay, so you can tell in the notes through the permitting system and the feed how close they are to be done. Well, hopefully. Yeah, the notes don't necessarily are going to tell us the exact status. Right. But a lot of times we can see, as the trades are moving through, it's like, okay, they're starting to get close. They're probably going to make it before year-end, or they're going to be really close. And so we try to read those tea leaves as best we can. Well, and I think there's a lesson to be learned in all of this as well, right? Absolutely. Because I think that there's a lot of collaboration that could be done through the way that, you know, our system feeds, the way that it's coded. I mean, I had made a note from when you and I – because you mentioned the example of the house that everybody else flooded, but this house didn't flood, and it got a tree on it instead. That's me. Let's just say it. It's me. We used me as an example when we were talking. And so all Mr. Twitty could see was that I'm in an AE flood zone, and I have a post-disaster storm permit. He couldn't see that it wasn't flood damage. And so when I get my 2025 letter, it is, like, cut in half. My rebuild value is now half. Of course, as a homeowner, you're very concerned because you are in hurricane season, and all you can see is that, oh, wait, I'm only going to be able to rebuild up to this if, God forbid, the worst does happen and I do have more damage. So I think that, you know, it's important for people to understand that it's really all about that data feed. And communicating back to your office what really happened is how you all are going to be able to kind of sift through those anomalies. Right. Because there's no way for you to know. Right. But I think that there is ways that we as the city could look at the way that that information is being communicated. And instead of it just being this blanketed, I think it says, what, like, fire, flood, vehicle, I think is what it looks like. Okay. Fire, flood, vehicle. Okay. Well, none of that matches a tree falling on your house. Right. So it's that sort of intricate data that I think we have an opportunity to be able to work with your office and find ways that when that comes into you, it is more clear to whatever bots you have within your system that are pulling all of that and kind of creating these valuation letters. I think we've got an opportunity to improve. Yeah, the more descriptive the better. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. And with us being the biggest municipality, you know, and really, you know, having so much damage, I think that these are lessons learned. And so I would love to see us work with your office on that so that we are making your lives a little easier, making it a little bit clearer for the residents, and then just being better prepared because it's not when or if, it is when we get another event, and we want to make sure that the rebuilding process is more transparent, more clear, and easier for people to navigate, and easier for your office too. We're happy to partner on any of those efforts to improve the process. Also, we'd like to reinforce the need for everybody to take pictures of their properties inside and out, not only for, you know, potential recovery from damage, you know, that may help our office and help you in that process, but obviously for insurance purposes. And you may need it for IRS purposes if you're trying to defend repairs that had to be made or things like that. So pictures, pictures, pictures, and not really video. Video is not a great thing because it's really problematic if you're interacting with any other agencies trying to get that information over. Videos are, you know, very, very heavy, you know, in data and take up a lot of space and don't manage well and upload systems when we're trying to do online forms and all those things. So encouraged pictures are the best. And then my last question, just curious if you could explain fairly high level, hopefully, the percentages that were used for the depreciation for individuals who maybe had that open permit at the time. Is there kind of a magic number for how that's figured out? So we had to factor it into our models because there was so many properties and there were so many things. So we were leveraging, you know, damage assessment data coupled with depth information that we had and looking through that with the major miners and effecteds and then the water depths. And then we were looking at, okay, well, where, you know, the water that was essentially in most cases below, say, an electrical outlet. We were able to write those down to a certain level of what we call percent good. So it's applying different levels of depreciation because there's a certain amount of repair relative to that home's value. It's not a flat number. It's relative to that home's value. So if they were, you know, say, under the electric in general, then that was – those went to, like, 35 percent good. So we were favoring the taxpayer in most cases in those situations. If it was an excess of that, they went down to 25 percent good. So more depreciation went on those properties. If we knew they were demolishing or they let us know and had already pulled a demo permit or we knew for sure that it was substantially damaged and was not going to make it back through a reassessment process, then we wrote those down to, like, 1 percent. So they were essentially in land value. Okay. All right. Very good. Well, I just can't thank you enough, especially immediately after the storms, the work that your team did. I mean, just – we by far have the best – and I'm not just saying this because we're friends. Like, you are the best property appraiser in the state, hands down. You are very well respected at the – even the federal level with FEMA, some of the work we've done together with FEMA before. And so having you as a partner through the recovery process, a lot of the residents in District 2 are very, very appreciative of you and the work that you do. And I always say, like, they don't always like the answer. They just like having an answer. And you're really good at making sure that you're always honest, transparent. And even when the answer isn't what they want to hear, you'll try to help find a way through it. And I just appreciate that about you and your entire team. Thank you. I appreciate that. And any of you all know, within any of your respective districts, if you need me to be at anything, I'm always willing to be there. You know, I'm pretty good at dealing with pitchforks. One of the best. Yes. Always a good soldier to have next to you when you're in front of the pitchforks. So, yes. And a lot of it is just information and confusion. You know, I told Brandy this morning I, you know, wanted to get my blood pressure up, so I read a little bit of Next Door and got whipped up on how many things I need to jump in there and answer because they've got things all twisted around. And, you know, they're getting out of their lane and spinning people up. And the problem is as soon as you engage, then, you know, about 10 people down, you get buried again, and it just all starts. Well, thank you again. Thank you for bringing the presentation, and thank you for all the good work. Thank you. Oh, and just to let people know, we just did another public ed session. It's on our YouTube channel. We've got lots of – you can always follow our social media. We always have relevant posts. We've got that homestead deadline coming up September 12th as well as the other deadlines like the VAB petition and the partial property tax refund. So check out our Facebook page there and our website. We always have good guidance there. So thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Brown-D for – Gabbard for actually bringing this item. That is very timely. I will tell you, Mike, I've spent a lot of time looking at your website lately because the trim notices went out, and we get questions. You're a much braver person than I am going on next door and engaging with people. That's all I have to say. But you do fantastic work, and your presentation was actually really helpful with a lot of information that answers a lot of questions that I've been asked. So thank you for that, and hopefully we see you again in the future. Maybe you come even play here at City Council. Oh, there you go. Oh, and on your affordable housing stuff, if you ever find a need on the Live Local, the exemption pieces, and getting kind of an inventory and an update there, if we can help because we're managing those exemptions from our side, we're happy to come back and do that as well. Thank you. Okay. Thanks. Well, we move on to items F4, F5, F6, F7, which are all going to be together. They involve resolutions of negotiated agreements with the collective bargaining units with the St. Petersburg Police Department and the firefighters, and I believe we have our mayor here. Madam Chair, good to see you again. Good to see you. Let me first share in the kudos, and thank you, Councilmember Gabbard. Our property appraiser is the best in the nation. And he's also a heck of a singer and a guitar player, so we do need to have him back. We're also blessed to have the finest first responders in the nation as well. And I just wanted to, as you review these items, just say a thank you to our partners with Suncoast PBA, Jonathan Vasquez and Sasha Lone, who are with us today, and also Rick Pauley from the St. Pete Association of Firefighters for working with us and with Chief Holloway and Chief Watts and their command staff. We have Chief Gerarder with us today. To shape a really strong set of agreements in a really tough budget cycle, these are three-year agreements. And we all know we can never compensate our first responders enough for the job they go into. They walk into danger when folks are walking away. But these are a strong set of agreements and have received overwhelming support from the members. So I want to say thank you to all of our partners and say a special thank you to our team who worked on this as well, the godfather of finance, Tom Green. I'm going to call you that. Where's Tom? He took off. Okay. Chris Guellar, who's just been a rock for us with a lot of historical knowledge. And for the first time, Charles Alexander, who's not only the best-dressed person here today, Charles, you're doing it. But he led these negotiations for the first time and did an outstanding job. So I wanted to thank our team as well. It is a great day for our city to get these done so quickly and early in the process. And just wanted to say thank you for everyone as council considers this. So thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. And on these items, we can all vote with one vote. Move approval. Second. We have a motion and a second on F4, F5, F6, and F7. Clerk, can you please open the machine for voting? Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present council members have voted, can you please tally and announce the votes? Madam Chair, motion to approve with unanimous F4, F5, and F6. It passes unanimously with Council members Driscoll and Gerdes being absent. Great. Congratulations, everyone. Thank you. Easiest presentation ever. Thank you. This took up a lot of space on the page, and it was the quickest one. Amen. Thank you all for coming. Thank you. I prefer a short time. Next time, Rick. Rick. Have it in your bourbon room. Yeah, right. And we move on to G1, which is a referral to EWD by Council Member Fig Sanders. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I'll let them get their. Yep. One C. Their courtesies. Yeah. Courtesies, yeah. I know they are. I don't blame them. So thank you, Chair, or Vice Chair. Sorry. That's all right. So, as you all know, we have had much use for food truck vendors over the last couple of years, and I know that, you know, I am working on, well, we have been for the past year and a half, almost two, on a food truck vendor academy, and thank you to the other council members that have acquired, because we're going to need your support on this. Well, one of the things that I wanted to do was to bring awareness to where we are as a city in, you know, in regards to our food trucks, and that includes the regulations and requirements that we currently have to see where we can move that particular population forward, because they are valuable, and they've proven to be very valuable in the city of St. Petersburg, especially during, you know, dramatic events and after the hurricane. So, with that being said, I'm respectfully requesting referral to the Economic Workforce Development Committee or other relevant committee for discussion on the city's policy process for food trucks to include regulations and requirements to operate within city limits. Discussion is to include a partnership with the Fire Department and Environmental Services, and with that, I move approval. Second. We have a motion and a second. Clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present council members have voted, Clerk, you please tally and announce the votes. Madam Chair, motion to approve with G9MG. One passes unanimously with Council members Driscoll and Gerdes being absent. Move on to G2, which is a referral to PSI by Council Member Gibbons. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. This business item I'm bringing forward, simply just to get an update on where we stand with stand text data analysis related to customer usage data and leak detections, find out where we stand with our replacement on all of our water meters citywide. So, just looking for an update on this issue. So, that's why I'm bringing this forward. So, respectfully requesting referral to the Public Services and Infrastructure Committee or other relevant committee for an update on the plans to replace water meters and how this effort will improve customer usage data and leak detection. And with that, I move for approval. Second. We have a motion and a second. Clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present council members have voted, can you please tally and announce the votes. Madam Chair, motion to approve with G9MG. Two passes unanimously with Ms. Lippon, Driscoll, and Gerdes being absent. Great. Okay. We have come to the part where public hearings are at 501. So, at this point, we will recess until public hearings at 501. Thank you, everyone. That was loud. The September 4th, 2025 City Council meeting picks up our public hearings. We have J1, J2, and J3, which all can be taken together. Joe Wah, hi. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Move approval. Second. Second. We have a motion and a second. Clerk, can you please open the machine for voting? Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present council members have voted, can you please tally and announce the vote? Madam Chair, motion to approve with G1, J2, and J3. Passes unanimously with Council members Driscoll and Gerdes being absent. Thank you. Next up, we have J4. We have three ordinances. Clerk, if you could read all the ordinances. Opposed ordinance number 616H, an ordinance relating to sanitation rates and charges amending Chapter 27, Section 27-557 of the St. Petersburg City Code, amending rates and charges for sanitation services, providing for servability of provisions, providing for an explanation of words struck through and underlined in a date to begin calculating new rates for billing purposes and providing an effective date. Proposed Ordinance No. 615H, an ordinance related to utility rates amending Section 27-405 of Section 1 and B2 of the St. Petersburg City Code, amending the stormwater utility fee, amending the tiered rate structure fees for single-family residential parcels, providing for servability of provisions, providing an explanation of words struck through and underlined, establishing a date to begin calculating new rates for billing purposes and providing an effective date. Proposed Ordinance No. 617H, an ordinance relating to utility rates and charges, amending Chapter 27, Sections 27-4C, 27-6, 27-109B, 27-109D, 27-113B, 27-141A, 27-141B, 27-142A, 27-143B, 27-144, 27-146B, 27-146D, 27-177A, 27-177D, 27-250A, 27-183A, 27-184A, 27-184D, and 27-237 of the St. Petersburg City Code, amending owner liability for certain charges, amending adjustment relief for pool refills following a declared state of emergency, amending charges for portable water connection, amending base and volume charges for water service, amending various service charges, amending wholesale water service charges for the City of Gulfport, amending fire service charges, amending rates and charges for irrigation-only accounts, amending rates and charges for commercial water-only accounts, amending rates and charges for reclaimed water service, amending sewer capacity fee, amending retail and wholesale wastewater service charges, amending grease management fees, providing for servability of provisions, providing an explanation of words struck through and underlined, and establishing a date to begin calculating new charges for billing purposes and providing an effective date. And we do have some calls. Thank you, Clerk. If you could please call speakers at a time. For those who are speaking on this item, please state your name and address before you speak. There are two podiums. You can go to each podium once you're called. First two speakers, Philip Tibbs and Will Michaels. Please go to either podium. State your name and address for the record. You have three minutes to address City Council. Either podium is fine. You can start, sir. Let that gentleman speak with your advice, sir. Whoever would like to start. Good evening. I'm Will Michaels. I live at 6215 Bahama Shores Drive South. Last year, our city was impacted by three major hurricanes and several instances of other extreme rainfall. Over 15,000 homes were flooded, including my own and my neighbors. Property damage in Pinellas exceeded $2.4 billion. The probability of intense storms, hurricanes, surge, and other flooding is significantly greater than it was even a decade or two ago. Our city must adapt quickly to deal with this crisis. The city has developed the Agile Resiliency Plan, SPAR Plan, for addressing the current crisis. The plan calls for accelerating $611 million over five years to implement $271 million in stormwater master plan projects and additional projects relating to resiliency. It is understood the proposed stormwater drainage capital budget for next year includes 33 projects, 10 of which involve SPAR plan accelerated projects. Nine of the SPAR projects include $250,000 each for developing and implementing infrastructure improvements in specific neighborhoods, plus $1.4 million for additional citywide projects and $6.2 million in wastewater work in fiscal year 26. This totals approximately a limited $10 million for SPAR projects out of a need of $611 million. The stormwater budget is proposed to be funded by a 17.5% increase in the stormwater utility rate. While every dollar counts, the monthly rate increases would range from between $1.74 for lots with minimal impervious surface to $811. It is noted that between fiscal year 1991 and fiscal year 20, there were no increases in the stormwater rate in 18 of those years. As recently as fiscal year 2020, the rate was actually reduced. We are catching up for years when no additional investment was made in the stormwater system. I support the stormwater rate increase to fund critically needed stormwater infrastructure projects. It is understood there is the capacity to possibly do additional flood prevention work in fiscal year 2026 than what is currently budgeted were additional funds provided. While I support that, it is appreciated the Council has given considerable thought to developing a funding plan for flood control projects that is both fiscally fair to residents and responsive to the urgent needs of our neighborhoods. Thank you, sir. Thank you. You'll go ahead, sir. Yes, good evening. My name is Philip Tibbs. I reside at 1247 Monticello Boulevard North, St. Pete. I'm rising today in front of your council to respectfully disagree with some of the particular aspects of what the rate increase will actually be. But in the other aspect of it, I have at least proposed, and I hope that this will take it under consideration to the councilperson from the district, Mr. Harting, in regards to the water rates and specifically the stormwater components. I, for the last number of years that I have resided in this particular locale, have asked for and received a once-a-week pickup from your refuse. The refuse, the water, the recycling is all built into one particular bill. We understand that that is the aspects of doing able to then proceed forward. But all the infrastructure that you're having to deal with, the twice-a-week components, if I don't fit into that particular category of being able to then generate enough refuse or put my recycling out to the particular curb, I'm being asked to then pay for particular things that I'm not going to ever utilize. And what I'm proposing is that if you are going to raise the particular rates, make an incentive for persons within the particular confines, the environs of your particular city, to then do more recycling, get a compost container, and then retain just once a week. Or in my particular case, I don't put the trash container out maybe once a month. But if I don't generate that, I'm still paying for it, and especially when it comes to lot size. I have a lot size that then is in Category 4, and the most money that I actually pay for is the stormwater. So I'd like to know where the stormwater is actually going to be able to be utilized effectively. And it also goes towards that the more that you keep running those large diesel-fueled trucks to actually come twice a week, you're contributing more to the environment of greenhouse gases, and that twice a week is just something that you're having to be able to deal with. Other particular aspects of it don't need me to come to my particular location to pick it up because it's not going to be out there. But I'm still having to pay for it. So if you would incentivize persons within your particular city to then do this, perhaps they would be able to then look at that as a positive. So I hope that you'll take this into consideration. Mr. Harting said that he distributed this to you. I have suggested this to persons within the Water Department several times to no avail. So now you're the legislators, you're going to have to put this into some aspect of then the other departments will then follow your picker lead. If I'm one of the innovators for it, so be it. Thanks. I need to be able to get something done, and we hope that this can be accomplished. Thank you very much. Two speakers. Two speakers. Joe Craig and Elka Zwick. Please go to either podium, state your name and address for the record. You have three minutes to address city council. Go ahead, sir. Yes, my name is Joe Craig, and I reside at 1931 Kansas Avenue Northeast in Venetian Isles, and I'm a member of the Venetian Isles Homeowners Association, and I just wanted to strongly support the consideration of all funding, including raising the utility fees as needed to implement the SPAR program and to get as many projects underway in fiscal year 2026. So I'm in favor of the utility rate increases to help the city manage its flooding problems. Thank you. Ma'am. My name is Elka Zwick. I live at 6457 23rd Street, North St. Pete, over in the Meadowlawn area. I am outraged that you continue to allow an influx of newcomers when the community's infrastructure is already at a breaking point. Our antiquated sewer system was failing even before last year's hurricanes, and our streets are now choked with traffic. I was born here. Like many lifelong residents, I am in a predicament where moving is not an option, and why should I be forced out of the place where we call home? Nearly every local I speak with agrees there is no longer the laid-back paradise it once was. It has become stressful, hectic, and unsustainable. I mean, this is among the most densely populated counties from what I understand in the country. I think it ranks up there with, I think, Los Angeles. And for the sake of our community and its fragile infrastructure, I demand that you place a permanent moratorium on growth. Our town cannot absorb another wave of development without collapsing under its own weight. Thank you. Thank you. Next two speakers. Donna Babcock and James Hennessey. Please go to either podium. State your name and address for the record. And you have three minutes to address the council. Hello. I'm Donna Babcock. Normally, I would reside at 8071 Causeway Boulevard South. I say normally because we still aren't to a point where we can live at our house due to the two hurricanes. The first one put four and a half feet into the house. The second one decided to take out two sections of the seawall. So we could not move forward until we repaired that because it was undermining the foundation. So this is just off the cuff. And I know there's a lot of people out there that agree and feel very strongly. However, obviously, people have their own agenda. People are on fixed income. And this keeps happening. We're always, every time we open the envelope for our utilities and we read and another raise is happening. And I'm not saying that we don't need better sanitation processing plants. I'm not saying that, but we were told that years and years, I've lived here, I wasn't born, but I moved here at two weeks. So I claim this as my home. And I haven't strayed far from where my parents lived. So this is all personal. It may be business too, but to me it's personal. And I don't want to move. I want my daughter to continue living in this city. But if we see the constant trend of going up, I mean, I have never, I don't have much time these days still working at the house. But I'm sure if someone did a quick rally of how many raises have happened and occurred in the last, just say, five years, to the homeowners, it's like, holy smokes, I'd rather open the electric bills in this day and age with the heat being above normal than to open the water bill. And there's always been that question of what was ever figured out with the bogus high bills. We see them still coming. And we're staying with our daughter, who's been gracious enough to harbor us, and we're trying to conserve everything. So it's not their fault. And we appreciate you, your help on this. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Your time's up. Hi, my name is James Hennessey, 3309 29th Street North, St. Pete. I just would reiterate what she said about the constant rates going up and all the unplanned growth that goes up in the city. You have, you know, these probably million-dollar condos now with these big towers and stuff. Let them pay for it. They're the ones that moved here. I've been a resident here for 60 years at least. And it goes up. The rate goes up twice a year. And then, like she said, the electric bill is almost, you know, it's lower. My electric bill is lower than the utility bill in the winter months. And, you know, it's just constantly going up. So that's all I have to say. Thank you, sir. Next two speakers. Madam Speaker, Madam Chair, Mecca, Sir Fustini, please go to Ida Podium. State your name and address for the record. And you have three minutes to address City Council. Mecca. Good evening. My name is Mecca Sir Fustini, 4518 25th Avenue, South St. Pete. I agree that investment in stormwater infrastructure is essential, but I'm concerned that we haven't explored stormwater impact fees on new development before putting this entire burden on our existing residents. In the past year, the city permitted one house on my block to be replaced with five houses. With all of the extra pavement and rooftop, there's more runoff the area can handle, causing our road to flood and erode away with every summer storm. Existing homeowners didn't create this problem, but we're already paying for it through broken driveways from the erosion and less comfort due to the muddy conditions that we're left with. Now we're being asked to increase our monetary contribution through this utility. I believe new development should contribute directly to the cost of stormwater system strains as it does for roads and sewer. Currently, our city charges developers impact fees to cover transportation and wastewater capacity impacts, but there is no dedicated stormwater impact fee for new development. Many cities around the state have already successfully implemented these stormwater fees to offset the burden on their existing residents. North Miami Beach charges by the square foot of new impervious cover, while the city of Niceville requires an impact fee equal to five years of the utility billing for the new property. Applying these fees to the development on my block alone would have produced about $6,000 in revenue under Niceville's policy and about $7,000 in revenue for North Miami beaches. And this is just one St. Pete block. The blocks on either side of me have also experienced a significant decrease in impervious services due to the city's permitted development. So I respectfully ask the city to explore a stormwater impact fee on new development before placing this entire burden on the existing residents. Thank you for your time and consideration. Thank you. No more speakers. Okay. And Andy Burnham here from Stanket. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. We do have a presentation. Yes. There you go. Angela Miller, Senior Business Manager for the Public Works Administration. Good evening, everyone. And joining me is Andy Burnham, Vice President of Stantec Consulting Services. I know Andy is not a new face to this program. He's been working on our utility rates for us for many, many years. And him and his team have done another great job reviewing this analysis and our final recommendations for us today. The agenda for today, what we've decided is we're going to move forward with reviewing the final recommendations as well as a summary of those customer bill impacts upon approval of the rates. And then Andy is going to take over reviewing the financial management programs by each utility. We had a lot of discussion. Thank you all so much for your time the last few weeks just on some additional one-on-ones. And we had a lot of discussion on some additional information and things that you'd like to see in the deck. So we have supporting documentation in the back of the presentation. So we're going to kind of go through the first piece. And then if there's anything in particular you'd like us to bring up and run through, we can certainly do that as well. So we have some affordability discussion slides as well as the grants and loans program that the Public Works Administration has completed this year in fiscal year 25. We also have a slide on our customer education, conservation, and rebate programs. We have a rate history and CPI indexing by each utility program. And then we also have some project and system program highlights in the back for each utility program as well. So just kind of want to highlight that for you all. And please let us know if you'd like us to bring anything up. So this is our final recommendation for this evening. The overall monthly utility bill upon approval of the updated recommended rates would be 8.6% around on average for each customer's utility bill. This is split up across a variety of fees on the bill. We have the water, wastewater, and reclaimed water utility system on the utility bill. The overall rate recommendation for that was 7.25%. But when you kind of split those up across each utility program within water, our potable water is at a 6.25%, wastewater is at 7.75%, and reclaimed water customers are at 9.75%, just under 10%. Stormwater is recommended at a 17.5%, and then our sanitation with recycling is at a 7%. So what does this mean? We have a couple of example bills depending on the level of service that you utilize. So our first example is a low-usage monthly utility bill. So this example is a 2,000 gallons of water, wastewater usage in a household. Typically, this is one to two people in a residential home here. And in this example, we have them in a stormwater Tier 1 impervious surface charge. So upon approval of the rates, if you kind of draw your eyesight to that orange line, if these rates did go into approval, this would be about an 8% increase on their bill or about $9.23. It is a little higher for our reclaimed water customers with that higher 9.75% increase or right at about $13, 8.5%. As the usage goes up, the fees go up. So this is a 3,500-gallon usage. This is our average customer in St. Pete, so about the family of four. 3,500 gallons of water, wastewater usage. In this example, we have them in a stormwater Tier 2. 51% of our residents are in the stormwater Tier 2. And so, again, the overall proposed recommended rates upon approval would be just under $13 for these customers per month or 8.5%. The reclaimed water customers are about $16 to $17 or 8.8%. High usage example, this is a stormwater Tier 3, 5,000 gallons of water, wastewater usage. These customers are looking just under about $17 or 8.86%. The reclaimed waters are at $20, 9%. And then our highest end-user example that we have, this is a 6,500-gallons of water, wastewater usage, stormwater Tier 4. So about 10% of our customers are in that Tier 4 stormwater fee. And these folks are looking at about $21 or 9% increase on their bill per month. Reclaimed water is at $25. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Andy so he can dive into the specifics of each utility. Good evening. As Angela indicated, I'd like to just go through kind of some of the drivers for each of the enterprise funds that are behind those increases that Angela just highlighted for you, as well as take a minute to talk about what some of the outlooks are for future increases, provide some benchmarking as well against some other communities, to just add some context to the conversation behind the increases that are being contemplated today. So first I'd like to start with the sanitation utility system. And with that utility system, I know it's a little tough to see with the lighting, but fundamentally we have three drivers for the sanitation system. The first being that the cost of disposal for the solid waste that we collect at the Pinellas County landfill, it's called a tipping fee, is increasing at 8% a year, and that's expected to continue for the next few years. And so that's not a cost that we have per se control over. It's a cost that we have to manage for the waste that we collect within the community and take to the landfill. The second driver is really associated with increases in cost of repairing and maintaining our vehicles, just increases in parts and labor for maintenance on those vehicles, has gone up fairly significantly from last year, and the actual expenses have gone up over about 20% from 25 to 26 in the budget. And the third is just the cost of the vehicles themselves. So we have to replace our fleet, not just repair our fleet to help it achieve its useful life, but at a certain point it can't be repaired anymore and it has to be replaced. And so the replacement costs have gone up about $700,000 per year from $6.1 million in last year study to about $6.8 million. And so the sanitation utility, it's really about our cost of disposing of the waste that's collected and fundamentally the cost of maintaining the vehicles that are used to really collect and convey that waste to the landfill. And so as we have these conversations each year, we like to identify those drivers and those changes and compare how things look now versus what were projected last year. And so last year we had projected having a conversation this year around a 6% increase, but the disposal costs have increased slightly above last year's forecast, as have the vehicle expenses. So our current outlook and recommendation for this year is a 7% increase, and that's the current forecast for the next couple of years. But then at 2030, we're hopeful that we're able to have a more inflationary-like increase at 4.75%. What this means on our sanitation bill is about $2.50 in round numbers with those 7% increases, and then it'll be about $2 at that 2030 level as well with a 4.75% increase. But those are projections. We update those each year to take into account actual performance. And to the extent that revenues come in greater and expenses come in less, you know, we're always happy to have conversations about lower rate increases than what was anticipated, to the extent the current data indicates that. Contextually, the level of increases that we're looking at not only for next year but beyond, very consistent with what we see in other communities, especially those that are in Pinellas County and have to take the waste to the same landfills. But even outside of that, Hillsborough County has just published their proposed increases for next year at 7.8% for solid waste collection and disposal. Gulfport just approved an 8% increase next year. So, again, these levels of increases are what we're seeing generally throughout the area because there's similar issues for all the sanitation systems. The cost of vehicles have gone up and the cost of disposal have gone up. So, we're currently very comparable for a very high level of sanitation and recycling service that's provided in the community, and I expect we're going to continue to be very comparable in cost for a high level of service going forward into the future. For the stormwater system, some of the bigger changes for this system have already been highlighted in some of those that offer public comments in terms of the capital program. That's really where a lot of the differences are. Just in the baseline costs themselves, they're a little bit higher because of acceleration of certain projects in the master plan as well as just inflation on capital. It's moderated over what we've seen in the last couple of years, but there's still inflation on capital costs that we're seeing from last year to this year. And as part of the analysis, we did run through a number of scenarios evaluating the impacts and funding strategies for that St. Pete Agile Resilience Program and the acceleration of those projects beyond what's included in the 26 budget. This would be talking about adding those costs in for 27 and beyond to see what that impact might have if that were funded with utility rates and how that might be funded between cash versus debt resources. But ultimately, there's a lot of capital discussion on stormwater that's been occurring already in the community even leading up to today. If you think back to 10 years ago, the average annual capital improvement program for stormwater at that time was $1.7 million. In 2025, this current year that we're in, the budget's about $21.9 million. So that's a 1,300% increase in our annual capital improvement budget. And if we look to 26, that budget without the SPAR program is $32 million. The year after in 27, it's about $40 million. The cost of projects, especially those identified in the master plan, are significant for stormwater. And they're much greater than what rates have contemplated in the past. I think it was mentioned by one of the public speakers that, you know, 18 out of the last 34 years, there haven't been adjustments on the stormwater rates. And so we've been making adjustments to the rates, to the level of capital spending, but the point here is there's still more work to be done, even notwithstanding the SPAR conversation and how we maybe even accelerate things. So, again, just giving some context to we've made great progress. There's still more to be made, and that's going to be embodied in the increases in 26 and in 27 to cover that level of capital improvement program, even outside of the SPAR. So the recommendation for this year to, again, help us get to that $32 million of capital funding for stormwater is that 17.5% increase. It's comparable to last year's projection, but slightly higher given the increase in capital cost. And then next year would be a 15%. And then at that point, we would be indexing to keep pace to allow us to gradually deal with inflation on capital and operating expenses at that time outside of the SPAR program. There's obviously a much bigger conversation to be had about how that program is funded, and there's been discussions that you've had at different committee levels at budget, finance, and taxation about exploring a potential general obligation measure, so looking at different funding strategies. So that'll certainly be something that we come back to in next year's conversation about rates is where do those costs ultimately be funded from, and what's the timing for those. And in terms of context on stormwater rates, many communities have different structures. They also have different definitions of how much impervious area is representative of a typical residential property. So we did our best to try to get an apples-to-apples survey on a cost-per-square-foot basis of impervious area, but there's a number of caveats with these sorts of comparison charts as well, because for stormwater, there are other funding sources that communities have historically utilized to pay for stormwater, like Penny for Pinellas, and that's still being utilized by Pinellas County to cover their capital cost for stormwater. So their rate really isn't reflective of capital for their stormwater cost. Others haven't completed the master plans that we've recently completed here and haven't made decisions yet on how to fund that through rates. So we've been making adjustments on our rates, and others here are starting to have similar conversations. Largo has approved a 15% increase on their stormwater rate next year. I think Dunedin is about 23%, so there's a lot of active conversations here about funding of stormwater and understanding there's a lot of progress that needs to be made relative to addressing stormwater infrastructure. And lastly, I have water resources. Here, the biggest changes on capital, both expenses that come into the operating budget as expense capital for smaller minor capital outlays like generators and things of that nature, but then just the annual capital improvement program itself is about $9 to $10 million more per year on average. A lot of that's associated with inflation and cost across the program. The water and sewer system is incredibly infrastructure intensive, and so our annual capital budget is in excess of $125 million a year. With adjustments for inflation, it's now about $134 million. But generally, a lot of the numbers are very comparable to what we had last year, just slightly elevated on those annualized capital costs. So when we look at the updated rates that we're talking about this year for water resources, again, absent the SPAR program, which is a bit of a separate conversation, just looking at what's in the 26 budget and the baseline CIP without SPAR, it's very comparable, but about half a percent higher than what we were looking at last year. So we were contemplating and anticipating with last year's projections a 6.75% increase this year. It's 7.25%, as Angela mentioned, this year, accounting for that slightly higher capital cost and at that level for the next few years, but very comparable to last year. By the time you get to 2030, it's about a dollar more on the monthly bill. So things are holding fairly steady on water resources absent the funding of SPAR, which would obviously have an impact to this plan if it were to be included in utility rates as opposed to something separate like a geobond. With rate comparisons, we did update that typical or that average bill that Angela mentioned at 3,500 gallons to give you a snapshot of where things are today. Obviously, there's a lot of movement on all of these rate charts as communities are dealing with similar challenges for funding of infrastructure. Gulfport approved a new three-year plan that has 8% increases for the next couple of years. Hillsborough County is in the midst of a four-year plan that's a 5% index, plus they pass through Tampa Bay water cost, plus they do CPI. So it's about a 9% average annual increase in Hillsborough County. So Clearwater is about 3%, I think, per year right now. Pinellas has a 5% for water, 4% for sewer through 27. So there's, again, a lot of ongoing conversations on utility rates, and Tampa has rate adjustments approved through, I believe, 2034 that will continue to escalate their base fees and usage rates in support of a master plan that was done several years ago. But again, we'll expect to be very comparable in cost, given similar levels of increases that we're seeing for others, again, tackling similar utility challenges. Two other things on water resources before I wrap up. One is just an adjustment to rate structure for potable water irrigation-only meters. So you have about 90,000 active services on your system, and of those, about 250 irrigation-only meters. This is not for Reekland water. This is for separate potable water irrigation. Last year's part of the rate restructuring, that tier system was changed to a two-tier system, picking up the amount of usage and rates for your inclining block rate structure that all of your other customers pay at the highest two tiers, tiers three and tier four. But again, these customers, those investments in those meters have happened a number of years ago, and based on other pricing and other rate structures. So you have options in terms of pricing irrigation that are well accepted within the industry, the current structure, or what's being proposed for next year, which is recognizing that possibly some of this irrigation would be happening at the lower tier level, say, from zero to 7,000 gallons, instead of starting from that third tier rate at zero to 10,500. So this would be kind of a customer-centric adjustment for these customers to recognize that if they didn't have a potable irrigation meter, they might start irrigating in tier two instead of tiers three and four. So it's a small adjustment for a limited number of customers that is, again, well within accepted industry practices, but it's, again, a bit more customer-centric and recognizes some of the investment that they've made in those separate systems. And the last item that's also included in the ordinance is an adjustment to the sewer capacity fee or the water closet fee. This is the fee that's applied to cover some of the infrastructure costs for new development or redevelopments that create additional demands on the system. An analysis was done in 24 to identify what that full cost recovery fee was. We've made a couple of adjustments in 24 and 25 and 25 to adjust the fees. We had been looking at, as part of last year's plan, to phase it in over 26 and 27, but given the infrastructure increases in cost and some of the considerations, the recommendation was made and it's before you now to accelerate that phase in to get to the full cost recovery fee in 26. And then that would fall on kind of your master plan roadmap for rate study initiatives to be updated again, likely in fiscal 27. And so from a context of comparison, we're currently very comparable and will be comparable. A number of fees are looking at these fees, or a number of communities are looking at these fees right now because of the changes of infrastructure and impacts of growth. And so all those with asterisks have studies in progress that are looking at considering raising or adjusting their fees that we're aware of. There may be others too, but those are just ones that we knew readily were considering updating their fees and performing studies now. And so with that, that concludes the presentation. We have the supporting material and obviously Angela and I are here and happy to support the discussion and answer questions. Great. Thank you very much for the presentation. So we're going to go to council members. Before that, council members, just so you know, we will vote on B separately. Consider J4A, B, and C separately, but we'll have discussion on everything that was presented first. So council member Gabbard. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you for the presentation. Thank you for the work that you do all year long to get us to this place. As soon as we finish today, we will start all over again, right? So I just really wanted to thank everybody who kind of works together as a team to get us to this place where we're at today. Been a lot of, I think, engagement above and beyond even what we normally have through our utility rate process, simply because I don't think our city looks the same today as it did even this time last year. And so just wanted to say, you know, since the time that we had our last meeting and our robust conversation around specifically stormwater, I have had quite a few meetings, one of which was with Jay Glover, our financial advisor, and then even today with Andy on the extensive material that I requested from administration on all of the different rate modeling, all of the different studies, how we get to the recommendations that come before us. Because anybody who has been paying attention to all of the meetings, you recognize that we start all the way back in our June BF&T, given a recommendation, but also given other scenarios that we could contemplate. And through that process, I had brought up the idea of us actually going a little bit farther on our stormwater based upon what we were presented as options in order to be able to accelerate some of these projects so that we could get to a place where we are actually getting shovel in the ground sooner on more projects. So it's been an interesting kind of exercise, even through the seven years that I have sat here and voted on utility rates. I didn't really get into the meat of kind of how the sausage is made until this year. And so, you know, one of the things that I think is really important for us to start with, and it is in the backup, but in the additional slides, is the affordability discussion. Because I think when we can start with what the reality is based upon the information that we are given and how these recommendations come forward to us, I think that that is a good level set for us to have a little bit more, I guess, open-minded conversation. So, Andy, do you want to share some of the affordability pieces that you shared with me today and kind of explain the rationale of how you take this information and then you take it with the modeling and you provide a recommendation to administration that ultimately comes to us? Sure. I'd be happy to go through it. And the affordability analysis is something that, you know, is kind of running in parallel to a lot of the rate modeling that's done. So there's, throughout the process that Councilmember Gabbard described, there is an extensive amount of information relative to the mathematics. What do we need to support in terms of cost? And so we work through iterations of updates of that data consistent with your budget processes. You make changes to the operating budget. We need to feed that into the rate models because they need to capture those costs. And same thing with capital. And then through that process, we look at and create different rate scenarios iteratively with the administration and ultimately, to a degree, through counsel at the BF&T sessions to look at and consider those. But what's also running in parallel with that process is an affordability analysis and calculation. And so periodically we'll do very robust analyses of really a litany of different metrics that are available. And I've kind of summarized them in three buckets on this slide. You know, the financial or the municipal rating agencies that assign credit ratings for utilities when they issue debt, the higher the credit rating, the lower the interest rate on the debt because they believe it's a better credit to warrant lower interest rate and less risk. And, you know, through those measures, you know, we've looked at and included here just one from Fitch Ratings to say, like, the way that they look at and consider affordability in their context from that financial lens is the cost of, you know, water, sewer, and stormwater. You know, how many households does it represent more than 5% of their income? And so there's a number of criteria that the rating agency used to assign the credit rating for a particular agency. This is just one thing they look at. They look at a lot of others. And so you can see where we stand. You know, we'd be kind of in, on this criteria by itself, kind of an A category. Our overall rating is a double A. We're a well-rated credit because of a number of other things. But on this one, we'd kind of be straddling that double A to A line more in that A category. So the financial indicators give us a sense of how external rating agencies view affordability in our community. There's a regulatory lens that the Environmental Protection Agency looks at compliance to regulations in terms of is the cost of building infrastructure going to cause community and household affordability challenges, and they use that to inform timelines for compliance schedules. And so they periodically will update the ways that they view affordability at a community level and a household level to inform that process to determine when they're reaching high burdens, medium burdens, and low burdens. And so running through our information through their current capability assessments, from a community profile basis, we're kind of in a good spot. We're in that lower range where if we had to invest more in our infrastructure, the community would have the ability as a whole to be able to do that without a significant burden. However, if you look at some of the other measures that they've incorporated around lowest quintile incomes, that lowest 20% of incomes in the community and poverty prevalence indicators, there we would have a medium impact. We're kind of more in the middle on our lower income households in terms of where we're at today with affordability and what additional costs might do to that portion of the community. So kind of mixed results with the regulatory perspective. And then there's more contemporary measures that Dr. Manny Teodoro included a link to his website. He does fantastic water policy work and has been an advocate for more moderate and effective affordability measures that really focus on lower income households. And so these are measures that look at the residual income at the 20th percentile after you pay for food, transportation, housing, essential expenses. What's left, the water and sewer bill, as his suggestion, should be no more than 10% of what's left. In our community, right now it's about 11%. So it's kind of right at that threshold as Dr. Teodoro identified it. And then there's also the hours of minimum wage work it would take for paying a typical water and sewer bill in a community. And so looking at that, you know, the threshold establishes a day of work, basically eight hours, and we're at 7.3 hours with where we sit today. So the takeaways on affordability is, you know, Tom Green likes to say this as part of the rate study process, it's a balance. We look at all these measures and we try to understand, are we keeping pace with, affordability measures in terms of each year, as we adjust our utility rates, how are they comparing in these calculations, many of which look at also how incomes are trending, trying to not exacerbate the affordability burden and cause these ratios to go higher, but trying to really keep them steady and do that balance of investing in our infrastructure, but not causing affordability to really rise above, you know, some of these major indicator thresholds. So it's, it's a very, um, challenging process each year to go through and balance these things. And I think it's also incumbent on each individual to, to look at this information and make assessments of affordability. It's individual households. It's, it's going to be very much within the community. I am certain there are households in the community that the water and sewer bills are an absolute burden. And I don't need this data to tell me that that's just everywhere that we work. We know that's, that's a fact. And there are some, some measures that we have, albeit limited for assistance programs. Um, but generally speaking by a lot of these measures, I think we're on, uh, we're okay, but that's, that's in everyone's viewpoint in terms of what's affordable. What are, what are we hearing from constituents about utility bills against real incomes and real expenses that they're having? So from a data standpoint, this is what I can tell you, but there's a lot of anecdotal evidence that you're probably hearing and seeing individually to help inform this process and inform your decision making about weighing these options. And thank you for explaining all of that. Um, I think it's important for the public to understand, um, the information that goes into the affordability, uh, and the balance that we as council have to strike, right? Because we, we don't want to overburden our residents. We don't want to make those utility rates so incredibly high that no one can afford to pay them or a large portion of our community can't afford, but we also have to balance that with investment in our infrastructure because, I mean, we saw it firsthand. And so that's the balance that I continue to try to strike and understanding, you know, that, that day to day affordability versus the longterm affordability of our city. When we know that these investments are going to have to be done at some point, just when, and will they be done before the next storm comes for the, the stat is probably a little old, but, um, for every dollar that is invested in mitigation and resiliency efforts, when a disaster strikes, you save $4 for every dollar. So that is a longterm affordability issue, right? And that isn't just the city saving that money, that's individual residents saving that money from the time that they actually have a disaster. So, um, that's, that's really kind of where I come to all of this from when I look at affordability and I wanted to make sure that we've talked about it because I, I hear my colleagues and I hear the concerns that they have, um, but some of us also lean, I think a little bit more on this other side of realizing that if we're not going to invest now, then when and what is that going to look like and how long into the future are we going to continue to delay and then what is going to be the escalated cost of all of this as we continue to push it out? We already know that the stormwater master plan and the almost $700 million probably isn't really $700 million even today. And so, um, I just kind of wanted to have that conversation very transparently in the public so that it was very clear, uh, what goes into all of that affordability and what we're trying to balance. Um, I wanted to ask a couple of questions specifically on stormwater and, um, I guess the first thing that I wanted just to kind of share a little bit with my colleagues that was very kind of eye-opening for me is understanding exactly kind of how that $1.16 that came out of scenario B that I then coined as scenario E because it would have accelerated it from 2017 to 2016 and the presentation that we were given at the last council meeting. And so the first thing that I just wanted to set very straight was, um, in the BF&T meeting, it was $1.16, if you all recall, the presentation that we were given was $1 and we were told $32 million was the amount of capacity at the $1.16. It's actually $37 million. When you add that with the $25 million coming from CDBG, that is $62 million. And whenever you look at the FY27 projected, um, CIP that was in that, um, scenario B, that is actually $56 million. So had we made the decision that we would have moved forward with that extra $1.16 to escalate projects in 2026 and married that with that $25 million, we would have had enough to actually go ahead and accelerate that entire year from 27 to 26. So I just wanted to be really clear about that. That is the math. It's right here. So, um, it is possible. We've just made the determination that it is not appropriate at this time and that's okay. That's fine. Um, I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'm going to vote yes on stormwater rates today, whether I think it is good enough or not, because I want us to continue to move forward. But at some point, this is going to come home to us and we're going to have to make a decision. And so what I've really started to understand, I think more so than resources is bandwidth. I think we have a real challenge with what is actually feasible for our city to be able to perform in a timely manner. So Rob, I don't know if you want to talk about this, if this is a question for you or not, but have you all had conversations about what it looks like to do some staff augmentation? I know that we have some extra positions in here. I'm not a hundred percent sure. I'm sure in the numerous presentations we've had, we know what those are. Um, but like, what can we do from a staff perspective to use the money that we have, that we are going to approve and actually do more of these projects faster? There's planning. There's, you know, all of that that has to go in first. How do we accelerate that piece of it and move some of that bureaucracy out of the way and really start to get residents seeing projects happening? Yeah, I think that's a great question, council member and a good evening city council. I'm going to let Projesh go into the details, but I'll just say a couple of things. One is we have been aggressive on staff additions, especially in stormwater. So that has been happening. That doesn't necessarily directly address your point because a lot of those folks are in the field or maintenance work and things like that. We are planning to bring on some project managers and, uh, Mr. Praman and Mr. Tankersley recently brought an item to council, uh, to use outside firms for, um, taking on project management and a lot of things we're doing. So we're trying to kind of build a library of things that we can use. I'll let Mr. Praman kind of, uh, explain that further and add any details that you'd like to. Yes. Thank you. So, um, I really appreciate the question. Um, so council graciously approved, um, as needed professional services for the engineering department. Sorry about that. Um, allergies will dry through. Um, and so as part of that process, it allows us to utilize, um, consulting services to act as project managers as staff augmentation, because there's a balancing point of, you know, I mean, to be honest, it's very challenging also to also recruit people to the city, but we can also, we can bring in the consultants quickly, uh, because once we bring them in, it's easy. We're getting qualified. They trained, they understand. It's just a matter of training them on the business processes within the city. Um, so with council's approval, we do have that once the projects and October comes around and some of the contracts we already started utilizing right now, and it goes everything from inspection services to, um, professional services for design to support us or even technical because what also bombards a lot of our time is numerous requests coming in, look into this, take a look at that. And, you know, having the dedicated consultant who can just follow up on these items for us while we focus on projects is also critical. So we're looking at it across the band, not just for the projects, but how else can we also alleviate the resources, um, alleviate the burden on our staff and spread that workload out? Because at any given day, there's a reality that, you know, you, you know, as staff, you want to be able to do your job, but you also want to be responsive. So, you know, you can't run an engine at 110% all the time. So there are going to be times that I want to have staff and the consultants with some bandwidth because emergencies do happen. And if emergencies do happen, we have to have that flexibility. So that bandwidth allows us to do that. So I'm, I'm very grateful for the support council gave us on that. And some of the funding that will be used for the projects will be used to, um, implement these individual project managers. Yeah, if I could just add to that, we, we had some good conversation recently, uh, about procurement and some of it was around, you know, how are we able to expedite certain projects, especially after the hurricane? So we, we went back and had some really good meetings on that. Um, we could talk about this for hours. So, so I won't do that, but a lot of that was around the state of emergency and certain state statutes not being in effect during that time that allowed us to expedite those things. But we're looking at some other possible ways, um, to expedite procurement. It wouldn't be as significant, but it would still be helpful. I'll be reaching out to council members within probably the next month to kind of talk to you about that. It may be something council likes, or maybe, maybe you don't, but we'll have that conversation. But we are trying to cut red tape where we can. Yeah. I mean, I think that, like I said, I mean, we could give you all $700 million, but if you can't actually utilize it, what good is it? Um, also understanding, I think we've got to get in a place where we have our hands around the manpower piece of it and the processes piece, because we can't be lingering in, you know, process for three years before we start to get a shovel in the ground on some of these really large projects that may again, take another two years to get done. And I know that that is really challenging because that's kind of just the way we've always done it. Right. Um, and it's worked out, but it's not really working out anymore. So we've got to get our hands around that piece of it before we even get to a place where we're talking about, let's say the general obligation bond passes. Um, great. But are we at a place with our processes where we're ready to start implementing those dollars? So, good question. And so to elaborate a little bit on it, so what you see in 26, a lot of these projects that you see in 26 in the CIP, they're also duplicated in, um, actually fully supplemented in the general obligation bond commitment, um, if it is approved. Now, the reason it's a, it, we included it in 26 is we can get started on a preliminary work. Um, and that's key because there are, and you bring up such a good point because there are requirements that we can't get around. There, you know, ultimately, you know, these projects are going to have to be bid for construction. And there's a, you know, you look at, um, you know, the statutory requirements. If it's more than $500,000, it's 30 days. If it's 250, I believe 250,000 is 21 days. So we can't get around that. So there are things we can't get around and also take into context as well. Stormwater projects are essentially highly regulated process because projects, because they are surface discharges to, um, equestrians, well, um, ecosystems, open, um, surface water bodies of the state or, um, of the U S water body itself. So they are regulated processes. So we can't get a pass that. So those are the two things, but we can shave months in between, which is crucial. So by starting some of these projects in 26, that if they approved in 27, October, November, which was fiscal year 27, we are at a stage that we could implement and go straight into detail selection, um, detail design. So that's some of the prep work we can do. Um, then some of the other things that really slow down the project implementation, I'll use an example. Um, you know, we've completed the design of Bartlett Lake dredging, but the grant requirements required us to monitor the site for 365 days. So even though we finished the design, you know, grant money comes with strings, um, as opposed to bond or city funds, we can spend that faster. So that's another context to take into consideration. It's not that we can't get it done, but the funding source, um, also has constraints to take into consideration. Well, and I heard the, the, if we get the general obligation bond, right. And I think I have a lot of concern about the realities around that, um, personally, I think like, hallelujah, if we get it, like we need it, we need to move forward. And I think that there is a lot of value value in getting that, that nod from the residents, that that is what they want us to invest those dollars in. My concern is that we have a governor who is going to put on the ballot in November, the same time I just heard him speak last week in Orlando, and they're going to put on the ballot to do away with property taxes, at least for homesteaded properties. The same ballot we're looking at putting a general obligation bond on to ask people to increase property taxes to pay for stormwater or for all of our water resources. I don't know how that's going to shake out. I mean, you're asking at the top of a ballot for people to remove property taxes, and then you're going all the way down to the bottom of a ballot to ask them to increase them. I have real concern about that. And I think that that gives me even more concern because it feels like it's our only plan. And, and I just, I don't know. I don't, I don't know what getting to be a resilient city looks like if we have all of our eggs in that basket and it doesn't happen. We're kind of back to square one. We're back to this conversation and I won't be sitting in this seat anymore, but as a resident, I will be equally concerned about what our city is going to do to actually improve our infrastructure. So, um, there's still a lot of questions to be answered. I think a lot of work to be done on the acceleration issue on the efficiency of the dollars and the resources we have. Um, I, I just, it gives me a lot of heartache today to vote for, um, what I'm looking at as kind of the bare minimum of moving us forward, but it continues to move the needle somewhat. And, um, now I have just enough information to be dangerous about how this, uh, sausage gets made. So I look forward to starting the, uh, next process with you all very soon. Yeah. One thing you brought up about as, um, you know, acceleration projects, I want to give a little context as well. And, you know, I took a quick look at the CIP budgets that was approved, you know, when you look at from 21 to 26, and I'm just going to go respectively from 21 to 26, we're looking on 4.9, I'll round it out to the millions, 4.9, 8.4, 13.5, 16.8, 21.8, and then 32.2. That amounts to 97 million. Now let's take that into context, um, you know, within the last three years, we've only completed 9.3 million, but here's the reality, the majority, and we have to take 25 and 26 out because those were the grant funded projects of the timeline within the next 12 months, we're going to have $86 million in construction. So if you total that out, out of the 97 million that was approved, we would have 95.7 million in construction within the next 12 months. And that's taken into account the grant constraints that we had to work within. So, you know, the reality is, you know, you can't move with that velocity. You know, it takes a while for a project because internet, stormwater projects are right away, to right away, and, you know, environmental compliance. Um, so it takes a while to get up to that. Our plan, it would be starting that in 26. Yeah. Next month. Uh, we're going to start the preliminary projects and, you know, to your point, um, if it is general, if it is funds as opposed to grants, that we can move faster. As you could see, um, you know, within the next 12, 1, 7, 80, 6 million in construction. We have a big job ahead of us. Yeah. Um, I just know that we no longer have the luxury of kind of waiting and the job just can't be too big for us. We have to step up and make it happen one way or the other. And I believe that we can, um, it's just a matter of, you know, kind of moving some of that stuff out of our way to get there. So, all right, very good. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Floyd. Thank you. Um, you know, we had our conversation last time about, uh, wanting to, uh, have more resources for stormwater. So I won't get into that. I'll just ask a question real quickly about, uh, the stormwater master plan and, uh, how we, we had discussions in the past about, you know, the city's level of service. We also had discussions about, uh, what the private sector would have to take on, particularly regulations around runoff. Uh, and I think impact fees were mentioned and it's been a long time since we've had that conversation. And so I just wanted to hear, you know, from administration as to what the status of those talks have been lately. So, you know, there's a lot of interesting things happening both on the state level as well as within the city. So I will tell you that, um, we have had conversations, um, with Council Member Hanowitz and, um, you know, it is something that we are moving very aggressively. Legal is, um, we've engaged legal as part of that discussion, but there are certain things just to put on the level playing field. And as you mentioned on account, like the governor's guidance, there is a preemption on the land development code requirements on making anything more onerous on developments. So that, that sort of puts a barrier. But on the flip side, which is very interesting, the state also, and I believe, and Jane, I may need to confirm this, but they did approve the increased, um, stormwater regulations. Correct. But there are, and that's something I will have to confirm that if that was officially approved and goes into effect, because I believe that goes into effect of December of 2025. Now, if that goes into place in December 2025, there are two steps of approval. The first step is, uh, the water, the Florida administrative code has to be updated with the water management district and offering rules and guidance on the permitting. Now, what's really interesting about the, um, the stormwater water quality and quantity improvements, um, is the fact of they have substantially increased the water quality requirements as part of permitting. Now, everybody here ever used a Brita filter? Okay. So you know when you just put your pipe on, that water is flowing. It's flowing with the velocity. It's filling a pipe. It's filling a sink. Here's the reality. They're now requiring water essentially at 80% total nitrogen reduction. So what that means is you have to have a reservoir on your site to slow that water down to get that amount of treatment before it discharges. So by default, just to have that amount of treatment, you have to have a Brita filter essentially. So now you're putting a big reservoir before the water quality requirements is you don't add more flow into the system than your pre-development condition. But now, on top of that, if you have to reduce your total phosphorus and your total nitrogen, you have to treat that somehow. You have to create that amount of storage volume somehow. So if you do have to create it, that means you essentially have to build a big enough or treatment train system that will allow the treatment of that stormwater before it can be discharged. And by nature of going through that much treatment, you're increasing your reservoir size and probably going to end up reducing a discharge rate in the city stormwater system. And that's a state regulation. We had been talking about doing something like that here as well, but the conversation hadn't progressed very far. We were preempted by the previous regulation of not touching because that's within Chapter 16 of the city code. And we got like a little window of time because I will have to confirm, but it expired around late last year. And then it came back in effect again. So, again, it puts basically you can't do any changes on land development code that puts more onerous requirements on a developer. Okay, yeah. And then so that's, I guess, for legal. Senate Bill 180 impacts the conversation around the impact fees as well? Yes. Yeah. I mean, it impacts conversation around everything. So, we're limited until 2027, potentially longer, based off of storms? Yes. Yeah, okay. Okay. Because, look, I completely support raising impact fees, but we've had a lot of state legislation make it impossible for us recently. So, I guess that leads me to another question. I mean, we have increases for our stormwater closet fee in this. How does that get around? How are we able to do that but not? Wastewater closet. Wastewater. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sorry. So, and before I depart for my replacement, I think this is the beauty of open forum. The resident who spoke here, and I'll gladly follow up with her, is, you know, there are opportunities that I could probably take a look at the codes, how it was done in the other sections. And there may be something that we could think of innovatively on the approaches, but it's worth looking into, the approaches that are done by different agencies. We've done some research, but at the same time, you know, the more people who do research, it's always helpful. I'm always willing to listen, so I would say that's the beauty of open forum. We'll follow up on that. I've always appreciated that from you. Thank you. And then as it relates to the sewer capacity fee, there's been past conversations that we've had with legal counsel about whether or not it's a, quote, impact fee or not, and if it's exempted from that section of the state statutes. And the finding has been that, you know, we believe it is not to be considered an impact fee and fall under that statute, which would, I think, be limited, and legal can certainly correct me if I'm misstating. All right. I'm not really sure how that works, but I mean, if you want to say. There was a detailed analysis of that, and Devin can speak to it more, but we did think there was a distinction in that particular fee. Okay. And in terms of, Council Member, any ideas or anything that obviously you wanted us to look at, it is a SB 180. Obviously, everything has to be viewed through that lens, but we'll do it on a case-by-case basis. So it's not like everything is 100% off the table before we have a specific analysis of a particular idea. Okay. So I don't want to overstate it. We need to consider it for everything, but it doesn't mean we won't analyze every idea separately. Okay. All right. Thank you for that. Okay. I'll move on from stormwater to talk about just related to water and wastewater in general. I just want to mention I'm not supportive of the changes to irrigation-only meters. My personal belief is we should not really be allowing people to water their lawns with potable water. And if we are, they should be paying – we shouldn't be reducing their fees for doing so. I understand it had an impact because it was a big impact when we increased them. Bringing them back down is not something that I support. So I'm struggling with that because in our water and wastewater ordinance, C here, we also do increase the sewer capacity fee, which I've been very supportive of and have been pushing to get done faster for a while. So not sure how I feel overall about item C here because of that. A little frustrating. You know, we didn't really get into much discussion about it last time, but it's a new thing from the last time we had this presented. And since it had been explained to me in a one-on-one, I did not feel like I supported reducing the fees for potable water landscape gardening – or landscape watering. And if I may, I just want to be careful about the phrasing, too. So we're really kind of restructuring the rates to create a three-tier system instead of two. The rates for irrigation for tiers two and three are going up. So, yeah, we're not – you're right. You're right. I just want to be careful. Technically speaking, we are not lowering rates. We are restructuring the tiers. Yes, you're right. Yeah. Okay. All right. I'll leave it there for now. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Harding. Thank you, Chair. Annie, thank you. The presentation is truly impressive. Beyond – the math behind it is beyond my scope. You've dumbed it down and presented it. Thank you. I am curious, how do we factor in – when we look at this in its totality, how do you factor in with confidence that the purveyors we work with, that the landfill will run out of useful life? How do things like that get factored in? That's interesting. I think as we go through the conversations about the various pieces of infrastructure, in this case with sanitation, you know, Pinellas County has a flow control ordinance that basically dictates we take our waste to it and they have to dispose of it. And so with the waste to energy facility, there should be adequate capacity to address our waste long term, and they have a requirement to do so. So in terms of us planning for them not to be able to do so, I guess that would be us extending and assuming responsibilities that are Pinellas counties in that scenario. But we try to take into account considerations like that or forecasted increases in Tampa Bay water expenses from their budgets and forecasts. So we try to get those external factors as best understood as we could, as well as their latest projections of cost increases, to factor in with our own. And each year we update those. And those externalities are mostly with sanitation and water and sewer, but sometimes they manifest themselves as well as those increases in capital cost when we see unit cost of construction come in higher. And thank you. And that was my concern is how do we factor in what's out of our control, whether we can do it or not inside the city. But we use electricity, we use water, and we use landfill. As best we can. And we have discussions about the inflation factors. And we have macroeconomists that produced, you know, and pulled some of the income data for the city that can help inform those escalation factors and validate what we're assuming for capital cost. Based on the latest indicators that we have and doing their historical regression analyses to try to at least get some site 12 to 18 months out beyond that, it gets fuzzy very quickly, right? So that's where, again, this update process each year helps us really refine those assumptions and trends and understand them as best we can. So that's where, again, we do the projections each year, but we also update this every year to take into account those variances because they are projections. So we have as high a degree of confidence in them as we can, but we know, especially after COVID, it's hard to really predict things entirely accurately these days. Thank you. I appreciate that. Chair, thank you. Thank you. Council Member Gibbons. Thank you so much, Chair. I appreciate it. And thank you for your presentation. Very in-depth and knowledgeable. Got to pick off where Council Member Harding left. I want to talk about the tipping fee. So I think it was, was it an 8% increase each year that we're seeing? 8% increase. I believe that's contemplated to be approved through 28. Got you. So we're managing the costs. We have to, I guess, take into consideration those forecasted costs increase. Have we given any consideration into the city perhaps purchasing our own incinerator? As we look into owning our own public utility with electric, this is something that I've thought about, and I'm wondering where we stand with administration. Because, again, if the county is to reach their life expectancy or capacity, is this something that the city has thought about? Hey, maybe this is something we can afford to invest in. As part of the rate study, we didn't look at scenarios like that, but perhaps Ms. Foster could speak to, you know, what's being contemplated from that kind of business forecasting perspective. Council Member Gibbons, I think Mr. Burnham already mentioned, we are required by ordinance to use the county's facility. So we don't have an option to do something different. I did request, based on another council member's request, to understand the life capacity of the incinerator. Received an email from the county that I can provide to you. So there's no concern about the capacity at the incinerator at this time. Gotcha. I appreciate that. So being required by ordinance question for legal, is that just a matter of us voting to amend that ordinance? If this is something we want to look at exploring? Yeah, we could certainly explore that. We'd have to obviously discuss with administration any operational impacts, et cetera. But any ordinance can be changed. I thought. Thank you very much. And as you talk about looking for other revenues, right, I'm glad Council Member Floyd mentioned impact fees because this is something that I've also been exploring as well. The last thing I want to do is burden rate payers who are already overburdened. We had some of them speak today. If there's any kind of way that we can look at developers shouldering some of this burden, I'd like to share that. So I just want to know, well, I guess more so a comment, I guess since we're in the sunshine, Council Member Floyd, I have been looking at other impact fees, right, other local municipalities, even in the Tampa Bay region, who have implemented some of these fees, whether it be stormwater or sanitation or just sewer, whatever. What are some other creative ways? Transportation that we can look at, again, sharing some of that cost so that way our constituents who come here and say, hey, we see all this development happening, but we also hear that we have some of the lowest impact fees for development in the Tampa Bay region. What can we do? Can we do more? So I just want you to know that I am exploring that conversation also because we have to do more. I get you saying, you know, we're preempted every which way we turn, but there has to be some alternative solutions if other cities are doing it. We heard it. There are cities in the panhandle that are doing it. So my conversations with legal in the future, just so we know it, and we're all clear, is what can we legally take the chance of risking without litigation? And I know it's tough, but I at least want my constituents to know that I'm exploring all options. So I just wanted to be forthcoming and clear there. And then, you know, we talk about accelerating projects. You know, I go to neighborhood association meetings every week, and District 7 residents are concerned that they have been ignored, that they have been overlooked, and they're just as abandoned as those homes that they left vacant last year. And they are concerned that if we pay for these additional costs in utility rates, which we're being told are going to be funding these capital improvements for stormwater and whatever other capital improvement costs that we have out there, they don't feel that there is a guarantee that there's going to be a return on their investment. So I really need some help, y'all, explaining this to them and putting this in perspective so that way they understand that you are a priority. How have we, can we kind of just quickly rehash how we determined what projects are going to be priority, and, again, how residents can expect to really see a return on their investment? Is there a dashboard or something like that where we can track these projects in real time? I know, again, it takes $20 million just to fund one project, and we're just barely cutting it. So how can we hold ourselves accountable and be more transparent? So, Council Member Givens, excellent question. You know, context-appropriate and strategic planning is key. So lessons that we've learned and, you know, going back to the presentation I did earlier as far as using everything that we receive to make appropriate decisions. So the stormwater master plan showing all the floodplains was really validated by what we experienced during Milton. And taking that information, we were able to understand which communities were impacted. Now also taking and overlaying, and this is kind of going through how we do our planning, strategic planning, is taking that information. We knew where the floodplains, now we know where the floodplains, yes, it did flood there. Then we overlaid that information with what were the properties that got the damage. Then we looked at the stormwater master plan to which projects needed to be accelerated for those locations that were impacted by flooding that resulted in structural damage. And that's how we prioritize the projects across the city, because you have to use the best available information you have to make those decisions. Now we are preparing a viewer that has all the capital, all these projects outlined in it, and lists out the benefits and, you know, what the improvements that are being proposed. Now the improvements are a little bit more vague, because I'm not going to, at this point, going back to the earlier point of the conversation, in October, once it starts, we're going to start the preliminary design reports. Then I'll know if I'm putting a 66-inch pipe or a 72-inch pipe, which corridor I'm going down. So I'll know more details. So the project scope will continue to evolve and be further defined and refined, but at least we have those projects that are defined within the locations that we saw the most impacted communities. I really appreciate that, Bridges. You explained it as only you could. I appreciate the question. Yes, thank you. But that's what I've been trying to explain to my constituents in my district is it's not that you're ignored, Live Oak or Broadwater. We care about you. We see you. But there are some areas that were a little harder hit. And so, therefore, where we can accelerate these projects, we are trying to. Where it's possible, we are doing that. And so I just want them to know that we are trying, and the work is being done. It may take a little longer, because as someone said earlier, it's been a decade, only a decade since we really start investing in trying to fix our infrastructure problems. And when you have hundreds of miles of crumbling and aging infrastructure running throughout this city, this is going to be an ongoing project that is going to take some time and going to take some money. And it's going to take some patience. And it's a challenge. It really is a challenge. And it's a tough balance when it comes to investing in infrastructure, because I'm hearing it from both sides. I'm hearing it from those residents who say, hey, my neighborhood is flooded. My home has been flooded. And I want to get back into my home, because it's been a year. But I'm also hearing it from those residents who say, hey, you know, $15 or $20 may be nothing to you. But when you talk about affordability, that's not affordable to me. So, again, it is very tough. When I have the highest concentration of poverty in my district, I am getting these complaints. I'm hearing the cries for help. But I also recognize that we cannot continue to prolong this issue, because if we don't take care of it now, it's just going to get worse later. So with that, thank you, Madam Vice Chair. Thank you, Bridges. I appreciate it. Thank you. Before going the second time around, I'm going to make some comments on some of the things that have been brought up. First of all, thank you for the presentation. And thank you for everyone that's here that's interested in this issue. It is a very complex, challenging issue that not only we face as a city, but, frankly, every county and every municipality faces, is how do you pay for the infrastructure? This is through utility systems that we pay for this, and it's the cost of running these systems at the end of the day. These are not, they're not making profit. They're actually trying to get the work done to make sure you get water to your home, to make sure you get your services and your sewer and all that sort of stuff. And it is always a challenge. We've talked about the money that we can put into the system. Frankly, it's what people can, at one point, we need to put much more money than we can pay. That's just a fact. And we're always trying to find ways to make sure that we can do what we can to give the level of service to residents in our city that they want and that they deserve, but it still costs money no matter what. And so that's part of the conversation we're having here, and I'm trying to put in layman's terms. The other thing I want to really touch upon is I heard a lot of residents here today, and we've touched upon it, as to wanting us to do certain things regarding development that people do not understand we are preempted by the state and their legal requirements. And I'm going to touch on that a little bit. We've touched on it today, but I don't think people understand that issue. The state of Florida can preempt us from doing things, period. They make cities. They made counties. They are the sovereign. They give you power, and they take it away. And that is a fact. And this year, Senate Bill 180 that they passed has preempted us from doing a lot of things that we would like to do through October 1, 2027. And for those of you who are interested in reading, you can look up the bill, you can go up to Section 28, and I will read some of it because I think it's important for people to understand what the state has done in terms of this preemption. It's all the way at the end of the bill. So we cannot propose or adopt more restrictive or burdensome amendments to our comprehensive plan or land development regulations or propose or adopt more restrictive or burdensome procedures concerning review, approval, issuance of site plans, development permits, or development orders, or do any moratoriums or restrictive or burdensome comprehensive plan amendments, land development regulations, or procedures. So they're null. At the end of the day, the state, when I hear someone say, do a moratorium, you can't do that. We are preempted. And it is literally the law here in the state of Florida. And we have attorneys here in the room, and I just want the legal department to make just to please just, if I was wrong, let me know or make it clear what maybe I explained that was not clear on the law. I agree with your reading of SB 180. Okay. And before SB 180, there was SB 250. And it did the same things. SB 180 actually made it worse for cities. So bad that it's almost like every time you try to solve an issue, you talk to legal, and they tell you, you can't do it. That's what really happens. When council members go and they have, well, we are going to try to do something, they go have a conversation. It's not like they're not trying, like everyone here is not trying to find a solution to these issues, but it's like our hands are tied in many ways. So it's not for a lack of trying. I will tell you, there are a lot of professionals in this room right now that have extensive experience, extensive in their areas of expertise. And when we do these studies, we try to use every bit of that experience to make sure that we come up with a plan that we can present to council, to pay for the things that we can right now, to plan for the future, to make those investments. And so I just want to kind of try to put it in layman's terms out there. It is challenging because every time we look, the costs go up higher. Costs that, when you're looking and you go to the store, it's like you can't control what they're paying, what you're paying for the eggs, because the person who's producing the eggs, their costs are going higher, so now you're paying more. And it's the same thing for us. Everything that we do, and you can ask all the engineers, every project has come up with larger numbers. So it is challenging as a city because I will tell you this, every time I go out, no matter what I'm doing, it is costing more. And to pretend that it's not happening to us as a city, everything we pay is with tax dollars. We don't make widgets. We don't. It all comes out of our pocket, one way or the other. And if it's state money, if it's federal money, it's all the same. It's all our money. But we're trying to make the best use of resources. So I just wanted to put that out there. I really appreciate the conversation we've had and the council members struggling with some of the issues that we have this year, more so than other years because of all the inflationary pressures we have. Then you add the storms that happened last year where we have a lot of residents that are suffering and they want projects done that they can't get done fast enough as they want them because it's impossible. And those are some of the challenges that we are facing. Administration has been trying to balance those issues and trying to get as much as we can out the door. I want to say in terms of the general obligation bond, look, at one point this question is going to come up to voters because we hear it so much that at one point people have to decide either we're going forward or not. Either we want to tax ourselves and say we are going to invest in our system by X amount or we're not. And that's going to be up to the voters. And I do believe this conversation is going to happen. Whatever is on the ballot, I don't know what's going to happen in the future. But we are having this conversation enough that we have to have that conversation and let the voters decide whether they want to invest in their systems or not. Because I think they need to understand the reality. We have a stormwater master plan that is a billion dollars that if we were actually doing it within the time frame we needed to, it would be 50 million a year that we'd be investing. We're not investing that. We're investing 30 something a year because that's what people can pay. And the same thing with our water systems. Our portal water system, at the current rate that we are investing in the system, to replace the entire system, which is 1,550 miles, goes all the way to Montreal, it would take us to 2,329 to replace the entire system. The year, 2329. That is the reality of what we deal with. And I want people to understand this. So we are investing what we can because we do need a working system. We do need water to go into people's homes. We actually do need a sanitary system that works. And so those are the challenges we have. And at the same time, it's not a capacity system, you know, a capacity issue. People say, and if anybody from public works wants to interrupt me if I'm wrong, but we don't have a capacity issue in our system. It's an old system that needs a lot of maintenance and repair and replacement, period. It's not the new buildings. It's all the old pipes that go into every home here. This city was built over 100 years ago. And so when you see people out there fixing the streets and changing pipes and all that, those are the things that are going into our system. So I felt like I needed to say a little bit about that. I get frustrated, too, because I know it's challenging, and I wish there was a quicker fix. But I know that I just want everyone that's watching and following this to understand we're trying to do what we can based on all the legal restrictions we have, under the preemptions that we have, under the monetary issues that we have, and maintain a system that provides a service, the level of service that people expect. So that's all I have to say on that. Councilmember Gaffrey. Thank you, Chair. Very quickly, I just wanted to address the concerns that you have with your residents in District 7, and their feeling as though they're being left behind, they're ignored, that we may not prioritize projects for them. I know that we've been a little bit delayed on finishing up our Resilient St. Pete Action Plan, but I do just want to reassure that the neighborhoods that you're speaking of, that, let's be frank, they were being impacted by storms before Helene and Milton, they were seeing flooding happening in these neighborhoods, even before that. The city has really taken them in and been part of that project with them. So we have a lot of feedback that we will be sharing with all of you when we bring that back, that is coming from those specific neighborhoods, as well as several of the coastal neighborhoods. So I want to just reassure that through that St. Pete Resilient Action Plan process, which Will Michaels was part of, representing Kona, and, you know, all of our city team was there, boots on the ground with those residents. They have not been forgotten, and as we use that as part of the landscape of how we prioritize into the future, they will certainly be considered, and those projects, we hope to be able to move forward. So I just wanted to share that. We can't talk off the dais, so it was important that I share that with you, and I expect that that final work product will probably be coming in the next maybe six weeks to two months or so. So we're almost there. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Well, I don't see any other further comments. We have J-4A. If there's no move approval. We have a motion. Is there a second? Motion and a second. Clerk, can you please open the machine for voting? Council members, please enter your vote. Seeing that all present council members have voted, can you please tally and announce the vote? Madam Chair, motion to approve with unanimous J-4A passes unanimously with Councilmembers Driscoll and Gerdes being absent. Thank you, Clerk. We now go to J-4B. Is there a motion? I have a motion. Is there a second? Motion and a second. Clerk, can you please open the machine for voting? Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all council members have voted, can you please tally and announce the vote? Madam Chair, motion to approve with J-4B. Passes 5-1 with Councilmember Floyd voting no. Councilmembers Vic Sanders, Gabbard, Givens, Hanowitz, and Harding voting yes. And council members Driscoll and Gerdes being absent. Thank you. Now we have J-4C. Is there a motion? Second. We have a motion and a second. Clerk, can you please open the machine for voting? Council members, please enter your votes. Mike? Mike? Seeing that all council members have voted, can you please tally and announce the votes? Madam Chair, motion to approve, J-4C passes unanimously with Councilmembers Driscoll and Gerdes being absent. Thank you. Thank you, Angela and Andy for your presentation and for answering all the questions and Rajesh and everyone here that's present and for those who attended. Thank you very much. And now we move on to J-5, an ordinance authorizing the execution of the restrictions and assurances regarding airport availability required as a condition of acceptance of an FAA grant in the amount not to exceed 95% of the total cost for the construction phase of the rehab airfield vault project for the Albert Whitted Airport. And just for council members to be aware, per the charter, because it involves the airport, it requires six votes of approval to pass. Correct. Okay. The Chinese are the... Yep. Opposed orders number 618H in accordance with section 1.02C5B, Charter of the City of St. Petersburg, Florida, authorizing the execution of restrictions and assurances regarding airport availability required as a condition of acceptance of a Federal Aviation Administration grant in the amount not to exceed 95% of the total cost for the construction phase of the rehab airfield vault project for the Albert Whitted Airport 19235, estimated to be $1,163,000 FAA grant. Upon the city being awarded such grant, authorizes the mayor or his designee to accept the FAA grant. Upon the city being awarded such grant, authorizing the mayor or his designee to execute all documents necessary to effectuate this ordinance, providing an effective date and providing for expiration. And we do have one card for this item, Madam Chair. Okay. Walt Driggers approaching the podium. State your name and address. You have three minutes to address city council. Good afternoon, it's Walt Driggers, One Beach Drive, Southeast, 1811, St. Petersburg, Florida, 33701. I think I'm here at the right time this time. Thank you for what you do. First off, I sit through this stuff and watch what you do. I really appreciate what you do for the community. It's hard work. I'm here today as a member of the Airport Advisory Committee. I know Jack Tunstall, who's the chairman of that committee, sent a letter of encouraging you to accept this money. I assume you have that, but I thought I would show up and talk about it just a little bit. The grant and the minimal funding for the city to increase the resilience of the airport electrical vault makes just perfect sense. It brings it up to the electrical system, makes it more resilient, and it brings it up to code. I think it's a savvy business decision because the overwhelming portion of it is paid by the FAA and the DOT. I think you're down to like 1%. So, you know, both the FAA and the DOT believe that this airport is an important component for this MSA as part of the national airspace system, and we agree with that. So, we'd encourage you to vote for that. I think your share is about $12,000 or something like that. So, you get a $1.2 million grant to do all that work for the price of just painting a couple crosswalks. Thank you. Second. We have a motion and a second. Clerk, please open the machine for voting. Council members, please enter your votes. Seeing that all present council members have voted, clerk, you please tally and announce the vote. Madam Chair, I want you to approve a unanimous J5 passes unanimously with Councilmembers Driscoll and Gerdes being absent. Thank you. And thank you, Rich, for showing up. And now we have open forum. We do have some speakers, Madam Chair. Shaquilla Robinson. I think she's left. I can't read this. It looks like a 2 and a Y and some other letters. It's almost like a Zorro symbol, so I can't read who that is. Okay. So, for the record, it's not legible. Just check to make sure. I ask if anybody is here for open forum. It doesn't seem like it. Okay. Well, then we close open forum and go to announcements. Any announcements? The only thing... Oh, okay. Thank you very much, Madam Vice Chair. I just want to make a brief announcement. It is my legislative aide, Millicent Battles, birthday this coming Friday. So, I want to wish her a happy early birthday tomorrow. So, Millicent is awesome, and District 7 wouldn't be what we are without her. So, I just wanted to put that out there. So, I'm glad you mentioned that, because we have, as you know, Chair Gerdes is not here, and he always has a list of people. So, I have her listed here as a birthday. We have to celebrate. We also have Liz Makowski, whose birthday was September 30th. And someone else in the room, Rob Gerdes, was September 1st. So, I think it's a good time to sing happy birthday. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday, Millie and Millie. Happy birthday to you. Well, thank you, everyone, for a good meeting. Meeting is adjourned. We'll be right back.