[a. Letter from Clara Beckley thanking Fort Pierce Police Officers Troy Carter, Shayne Stokes, Cory Bernardini and Angelo Tsaousis for their benevolence while providing her with assistance.]

>> THE FOLLOWING LETTER WILL BE KEPT ON FILE IN THE CITY CLERK'S FILE. WE RECEIVE ADD LETTER FROM CLARA BECKLEY THANKING POLICE OFFICERS TROY CARTER, SHAYNE STOKES, COREY BERNARDINI AND ANGLO TSAOUSIS FOR THEIR BENEVOLENCE WHILE PROVIDING HER WITH ASSISTANCE.

WE HAD NO ONE SIGN UP FOR COMMENTS.

>> I DO WANT TO SAY CONGRATULATIONS FOR GOING TO SCHOOL. I THINK THAT'S GREAT.

>> THANK YOU. >> I HAVE BEEN THERE AND I

ENJOYED IT THOROUGHLY. >> MORE TO COME

[9. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO AGENDA AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA]

>> ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONS OR DELICIOUSS TO THE AGENDA?

>> I MOVE TO APPROVE THE AGENDA. >> SECOND.

>> CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> COMMISSIONER C. JOHNSON.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> COMMISSIONER JVMENTS JOHNSON.

[11. CONSENT AGENDA]

>> YES, MA'AM. COMMI

COMMISSIONER PEARON? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> MAYOR HUDSON. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO PULL ITEMS D, E, AND F.

[00:05:04]

>> ALL RIGHT, ANYBODY ELSE? ALL RIGHT.

I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE CONSENT

AGENDA. >> MOVE TO APROVE.

>> SECOND. >> A MOTION AND A SECOND, CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

[d. Approve Amendment Employment Contract and position description with Linda Cox, City Clerk effective July 6, 2021.]

>> 11D IS APPROVE AMENDMENT EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT AND POSITION DESCRIPTION WITH LINDA COX, CITY CLERK EFFECTIVE JULY 6, 2021.

>> I WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT IN LOOKING AT THIS AND BOTH OF THESE ITEMS BUT I WILL START WITH THIS ONE FIRST.

>> YOU MAY HAVE MADE A CIGS ABOUT THE SALARY POTENTIAL WHICH ISSUGGESTION ABOUT THE SALARY POTENTIAL WHICH IS WHAT WE STATED HERE. I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I TOOK A LOOK AT THAT, LOOKING AT IT VERY CLOSELY AND I FIND THIS ITEM TO BE RIGHT IN LINE WITH THE OTHER CITY CLERKS AND I

>> I MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> SECOND.

>> CALL FOR ROLL, PLEASE. >> COMMISSIONER C. JOHNSON?

[e. Approval of Employment Agreement with Nicholas Mimms, City Manager effective July 6, 2021]

>> YES, MA'AM. >> COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON.

>> YES, MA'AM. >> COMMISSIONER PERONA?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> MAYOR HUDSON?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> THIS ONE HERE, WE LOOKED AT THIS ONE PRETTY CLOSE. MR. MIMS HAS A LARGE BAND OF PEOPLE THAT REPORT TO HIM, CLOSE TO ABOUT 350 OR 400 PEOPLE WITH THE CITY. I LOOKED AT THIS IN SUPPORT OF LOOKING AT THE OTHER CITY MANAGERS AND HIS ALIGNMENT WITH THAT. ONE OF THE THINGS I NOTICED IS WHEN I LOOKED AT THE OTHER SALARIES, MR. MIMS WAS JUST SLIGHTLY EARNED SOME OF THE OTHER AREAS BUT WAS SLOWLY PROGRESSING UP. I THINK AT THAT POINT, WEUNDER R AREAS BUT WAS SLOWLY PROGRESSING UP.

I THINK AT THAT POINT, WE MADE A RECOMMENDATION TO BRING HIM IN AT THE SALARY PROPOSED HERE. I TOOK ANOTHER FURTHER LOOK TO LOOK AT THE BALANCE BETWEEN ALL OF OUR CHARTER OFFICERS BECAUSE OF THE WORK THAT THEY DO TO SUPPORT US AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION HERE BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US MOVE THAT A LITTLE FURTHER NORTH FOR MR. MIMS BASED ON, YOU KNOW, MY EXPERIENCES WITH HIM, WHAT HE'S DOING TO PROMOTE THE ACTIONS AT ONE FORTPIERCE AND BALANCING THINGS OUT AS FAR AS THE OBJECTIVES AND THE THINGS WE TAKE ON WITH THE CITY AND WHEN I LOOKED AT IT, WHAT I'M LOOKING AT AMOUNTED TO ABOUT ALMOST A 5% INCREASE, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.

>> OVER AND ABOVE THE 4? >> RIGHT. HIS CARNALITY SALARY IS 163 AND GOING TOURRENT SALARY IS 163 AN GOING TO 171 I THINK IS THE PROPOSAL.

ALMOST 5%, RIGHT? AND SO I LOOKED AT THAT AND WENT BACK AND FORTH AND LOOKED AT THAT DATA AND I LOOKED AT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HE AND THE OTHER CHARTER OFFICER THAT WE JUST APROVED AND I WOULD LIKE TO INCH THAT UP ABOUT 6.8, ROUND IT OFF AT A HIGHER NUMBER FOR MR. MIMS AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION TO GET YOUR THOUGHTS OF IT.

I WAS THINKING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF $174,500. >> ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO WEIGH IN

ON THIS? >> THAT WOULD PUT HIM IN THE RANGE OF, YOU KNOW, SOMEWHERE

ABOUT 6% MAYBE, A LITTLE BIT UNDER 6.8. >> HAVE YOU DISCUSSED THIS WITH

[00:10:16]

HIM? >> I HAVE NOT DISCUSSED THIS WITH HIM.

I WANTED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH YOU. THIS IS JUST ME LOOKING AT MY ANALYSIS OF WHAT HE DOES. I THINK THE BUDGET IS DIFFERENT FROM CITY BUDGETS AND LOOKING ADD IT FROM THE STAND POINT OF WHAT WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO COME THROUGH AS FAR AS THE PANDEMIC THIS YEAR, HOW WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MEET FISCAL BUDGET AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT MR. MIMS HAS BEEN ABLE TO DO WITH TASKING THE STAFF SO WHEN I ASKED FOR THAT INFORMATION AT OUR CITY COMMISSION MEETING, I WAS INTELLECTUALLY CURIOUS AS TO WHAT OTHER CITY MANAGERS WERE PAYING. THERE'S ALWAYS A CONCERN, OBVIOUSLY, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE RETAIN OUR INSTITUTIONAL KNOWLEDGE, OUR INVESTMENT IN OUR CITY MANAGER AND MR. MIMS HOLDS A NUMBER OF CERTIFY CAUGHTSES AND CONTINUES TO EDUCATE HIMSELF ON THOSE POLICIES AND SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS LOCKS IN AND SO THAT'S WHERE I'M AT.

IT'S A CONVERSATION I'M WILLING TO HAVE. >> DID YOU CHECK IF WE HAVE IT

IN THE BUDGET? >> I DID NOT. >> SO, LISTEN, I AGREE WITH ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU SAY. THIS IS JUST SORT OF THROWING ME A LITTLE BIT.

I HAVE ACTUALLY HAD THIS DISCUSSION WITH MR. MIMS AND HAD IT OVER 2 YEARS AND LAST YEAR WHEN HE AND I HAD DISCUSSED IT EARLIER IN THE YEAR AND THEN WHEN IT CAME TIME FOR HIS REVIEW I SAID ARE YOU EXPECTING -- ABSOLUTELY NOT. IT'S COVID.

I DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANY -- AND I REALLY RESPECTED THAT BECAUSE, IN FACT, BOTH MS. COX AND MR. MIMS SAID NO, DO NO CHANGE, WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A PANDEMIC AND IT'S NOT THE APPROPRIATE TIME SO I HAVE HAD THIS DISCUSSION OVER 2 YEARS AND I'M CERTAINLY IN FAVOR OF HIM BEING IN LINE WITH OTHER -- I KNOW HOW HARD HE WORKS FOR THE FPRA AND THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE AND I KNOW HOW HE DOES TREAT US ALL EQUALLY AND WORKS HARD FOR ALL OF US.

PLUGSER PERONA? >>COMMISSIONER PERONA? >> REALLY NOT PREPARED, REALLY, BUT I DO AGREE WITH THE CON SEN SIS. I THOUGHT THE BIG WIN FOR MR. MIMS WAS ELIMINATING THE MAXIMUM PENSION ANNUITY. I KNOW THERE'S SOME LIABILITY THAT GOES FORWARD. I THINK THAT MADE HIM SMILE MORE THAN THE RAISE SO I THINK THE PACKAGE DEAL TOGETHER I THOUGHT WAS GENEROUS FOR THIS YEAR AND AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, I WOULD KEEP THOSE COMMENTS AND THOSE THOUGHTS FORWARD. WE HAVE ANOTHER SHOT AT THIS IN 12 MONTHS AND TO BE ABLE TO BRING THAT UP AND MAYBE DO ANOTHER ONE BUT TO ME, IF YOU REALLY KNOW THE IMPACT OF ELIMINATING THAT MAXIMUM PENSION AT 75, THAT'S A BIG MOVE.

IT'S NOT A LOT OF MONEY, AGAIN, AMMORTIZED OVER 30 YEARS BUT THOSE TWO TOGETHER WAS A BIG MOVE FOR US AT THE TIME. I CAN BE TALKED INTO ANYTHING BUT I JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU MY

IMPRESSION WHEN WE CONSIDERED THAT INITIALLY. >> MADAM MAYOR, I WAS COMFORTABLE WITH WHERE WE ARE. REMEMBER, DURING THE PANDEMIC, WE HAD TO GO THROUGH AND WE HELD EVERYTHING, HELD THE LINE UNTIL MARCH AND APRIL AND I THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD DISCUSSION LAST MEETING. I THOUGHT THE INCREASE WOULD BE RIGHT ON POINT ALONG WITH THE OTHER BENEFITS. THE REASON I WAS THERE WITH THAT NUMBER IS BECAUSE, AND MR. MIMS AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT THIS, HE DOESN'T HAVE A DIRECT ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER AND SO THAT PUTS MORE RESPONSIBILITY ON HIM TO CARRY THAT LOAD AND TO CARRY THAT BURDEN, SO THAT MIGHT BE A

[00:15:05]

GOOD ARGUMENT FOR WHAT YOU'RE STATING HERE BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I THOUGHT IT WAS THE RIGHT SPOT AND THE RIGHT SALARY AND I THINK MR. MIMS IS APPRECIATIVE OF THE ENTIRE THING AND WHAT WE'RE PRESENTING HERE TONIGHT I JUST HAD NOT THOUGHT ABOUT IT. I JUST HAD NOT I JUST HAD NOT T JUST HAD NOT TI JUST HAD NOT TH ANY MORE THAN THAT.

>> MY IDEA WAS TO JUST HAVE A DISCUSSION AS A COMMISSION AND ONE OF THE THINGS I'M CONCERNED WITH MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS IS THAT IF WE AREN'T THERE, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'D LIKE TO SEE US DO IS COME UP WITH AN EVALUATION PROCESS TO LOOK AT THIS, TO PUT OBJECTIVELY SOME MEASURES THERE, SOME STRETCH GOALS THAT COULD BE OPPORTUNITIES AND ONE OF THE THINGS WHEN I LOOK AT THIS AND I STARTED TO LOOK AT THIS IS THAT I WANTED TO BEO ABLE TO DO THA I WANT TO BE ABLE TO OBJECTIVELY DOCUMENT AND EVEN SHARE TO OUR CONSTITUENTS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT WHEN WE MAKE THESE SALARY NUMBERS, SO THIS IS JUST WHAT MY OPINION IS AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT. I CLEARLY UNDERSTAND. I WANTED TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION, I WANTED TO BE ON RECORD, BUT I REALLY THINK AND I WOULD LIKE TO TASK MR. MIMS WITH COMING BACK WITH MAYBE SOME OTHER CITIES ARE LOOKING AT A FORMAL PROCESS AND HOW THEY WRITE THAT UP AND JUSTIFY THESE THINGS MOVING FORWARD, GIVES US A CHANCE TO BE OBJECTIVE IN WRITING DOWN WHAT THOSE THINGS ARE. FOR INSTANCE, YOU MENTIONED THAT WE DON'T HAVE A DEPUTY SO IF THAT'S PART OF THAT GOALING PROCESS THAT COULD BE ACHIEVED AT SOME POINT, MAYBE THAT'S A STRETCH BUCKET OF MONEY THAT WE LOOK AT BUT I, TOO, AM CONCERNED WITH THAT BUT I WANTED TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION IN OPEN FORUM, LIKE WE CAN HERE, BUT THAT WAS CLEARLY MY RECOMMENDATION BASED ON WHAT THE CURRENT IS, SO WITH THAT --

>> I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. MR. MIMS, WE'RE COMING INTO BUDGET SEASON, WHAT DO WE HAVE PROPOSED FOR SALARIES FOR NEXT FISCAL YEAR? THIS YEAR WE DELAYED IT, REMEMBER? I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IN OCTOBER AS

FAR AS YOUR RECOMMENDATION? >> WELL, AS YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE A PLAN MOVING FORWARD OVER THE NEXT THREE TO 4 FISCAL YEARS BECAUSE WE HAVE TO MEET A CERTAIN MINIMUM STANDARD.

ALL OF OUR EMPLOYEES HAVE TO BE PAID A MINIMUM OF $15 PER HOUR IN FY2025, SO WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS THAT. WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OR DOLLAR PER HOUR ADJUSTMENT FOR ALL EMPLOYEES SO WE DON'T EXPERIENCE COMPRESSION. WE'RE LOOKING AT $1.22 OR 2% OR 3% TO GET THAT WRIGHTFUL ADJUSTMENT TO ENSURE OUR EMPLOYEES MEET THESE GOALS AND

WE AS AN ORGANIZATION MEET THOSE GOALS AS WELL. >> THINK FOR THAT.

I BRING THAT UP BECAUSE AS WE PREPARE FOR THIS BUDGET CYCLE WE'RE ALSO GOING TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AND WE USUALLY RECOMMEND, LAST YEAR WAS DIFFERENT, THE COST OF LIVING INCREASES OF 2% TO 3%, THAT DOES APPLY TO OUR CHARTER OFFICERS WHEN WE FEEL IT NECESSARY SO WE CAN HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. BASICALLY WHAT I'M SAYING IS PROBABLY WE'RE GOING TO MEET

YOUR GOAL WITHIN THREE OR 4 MONTHS. >> WELL, IT'S NOT MY GOAL, I'M TRYING TO POSITION THE CITY OF WHERE TO GO. I WOULD LIKE TO LET MR. MIMS KNOW WE PREESHLT HIS SERVICES. WE DEMAND A LOT OF HIM. HE'S LISTENING TO FOUR AND FIVE OF US AT A TIME AND I CAN ONLY SEE OUR DEMAND GOING UP. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THAT CONVERSATION AND EVEN AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH ALL OF OUR CHARTER OFFICERS, I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO EXPLORE MORE OF HOW WE OBJECTIVELY GIVE SOME BENCHMARKS AND ACHIEVABLES SO WE CAN PLOWEDLY SAY YES, THAT'S A PERSON THAT'S GOING TO REACH THAT MILESTONE.

>> JUSTIFICATION. >> SORRY, I DON'T CONTROL THE DICE.

>> THE FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES HAS THOSE RESOURCES SO WHEN YOU REVIEW THE CITY LEASHING AND MYSELF YOU CAN HAVE A STRUCTURED TYPE OF EVALUATION. YOU CAN DO IT AS A GROUP, INDIVIDUALLY, HOWEVER YOU WOULD LIKE BUT I WILL DEFINITELY GET THAT INFORMATION TO YOU.

>> COMMISSIONER PERONA? >> SOMEWHAT WE DO DO THAT, WE HAVE A STRATEGIC PLAN AND WE

[00:20:09]

HEAR ON A REGULAR BASIS HOW THOSE INDIVIDUAL ISSUES ARE BEING MET.

THOSE DELIVERABLES ARE BEING TRANSLATED. THEN YOU'RE NOT JUST WINGING IT SAYING MY IMPRESSION IS THIS, YOU HAVE DATA SUPPORTED, SHOWING THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS COMMENSURATE TO AN INCREASE IN SALARY AND EVERYTHING ELSE GOING ON.

I THINK THAT'S MORE RESPONSIBLE WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE.

I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THAT UP. I THINK IT GETS US FOCUSED ON

WHAT'S GOING FORWARD. >> RIGHT. OKAY.

>> I DO, TOO. I THINK THAT WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO BE MOVING TOWARD THAT ANYWAY SO YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK LIKE YOU'RE THE ONE WHO THOUGHT OF IT FIRST.

>> NO, NO. I JUST WENT TO SCHOOL, NO MORE SCHOOLS, RIGHT?

>> RIGHT, RIGHT. >> BUT WITH THAT BEING SAID, LET'S JUST MOVE ON FROM WHERE WE

ARE SO I MOVE FOR THE APPROVAL OF I TEAM E. >> IS THERE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> COMMISSIONER C. JOHNSON?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> COMMISSIONER PERONA? >> YES, MA'AM. >> MAYOR HUDSON?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> F IS THE APPROVAL OF A 12-MONTH LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN

[f. Approval of a twelve (12) month Lease Agreement between the City of Fort Pierce and the Woods Family Limited Partnership II, for 7 parcels along Seaway Drive to provide additional parking for the public.]

THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE AND THE WOODS FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP II FOR 7 PARCELS ALONG SEAWAY

DRIVE. >> I WAS VERY PLEASED WHEN I SAW THIS ON OUR CONSENT AGENDA AND I THINK IT'S WORTHY THAT WE RECOGNIZE THE PARTNERSHIP HERE. THIS WAS A COMMITMENT FROM THE WOODS FAMILY, A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP TO HELP US ALLEVIATE THOSE PARKING CHALLENGES THAT WE HAVE ON THE BEACH. THEY HAVE A BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF PROPERTY ON THAT WATER AND I THINK THAT WILL SATISFY IN ALLOWING FOR US TO BRING MORE PEOPLE AND COMMERCE TO THAT AREA AND I'M SURE THE BEACH OWNERS AND PEOPLE THAT FREQUENT THERE WILL GREATLY APPRECIATE THAT AND ECHTED TO GO ON THE RECORD AND THANK SANDY AND HIS FAMILY FOR ALLOWING US TO HAVE A TEMPORARY SHORT TERM SOLUTION TO OUR PARKING ISSUE ON THE BEACH. WITH THAT, I MOVE FOR APPROVAL

OF ITEM F >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND

>> CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> COMMISSIONER C. JOHNSON? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON. >> YES, MA'AM. >> COMMISSIONER PERONA?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> MAYOR HUDSON? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> OKAY, WE MOVE ON TO PUBLIC HEARINGS. THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING IS

[a. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 21-017 - extending the territorial limits of the City of Fort Pierce, to include six (6) properties at or near 2261 Peters Road in Fort Pierce, Florida. SECOND READING]

ORDINANCE 21-017 EXTENDING THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA TO INCLUDE SIX PROPERTIES AT OR NEAR 2261 PETERS ROAD IN FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA ASSESS THAT PROPERTY AS OF JANUARY 1, 25021, DIRECTING THE ST. LUCIE TAX COLLECTOR TO ESTABLISH THE ZONING DESIGNATION ESTABLISHING THE LAND USE DEG IING NATION DIRECTING FILING WITH THE CLERK OF COURT DIRECTING REVISION OF THE CHARTER BOUNDARY ARTICLE TO BE FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND SUBMITTED TO THE OFFICE OF DEMOGRAPHIC RESEARCH REPEALING ALL ARID NANCES AND

PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE THIS IS THE SECOND READING. >> THIS IS THE SECOND READING, ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE

PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION >> APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> COMMISSIONER C. JOHNSON?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> COMMISSIONER PERONA? >> YES, MA'AM. >> MAYOR HUDSON?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> THANK YOU. >> NEXT WE HAVE ORDINANCE 21-019

[b. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 21-019 establishing a registration program for vacation rentals, including standards, rules and enforcement. FIRST READING]

CREATING CHAPTER 22 ARTICLE 150 SHORT TERM AND VACATION RENTAL REGULATIONS ESTABLISHING STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT, PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCES OR PARTS THEREOF AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE, THIS IS THE FIRST READING.

>> ALL RIGHT, YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION? >> YES, MA'AM, AND I WANT TO MAKE YOU ALL AWARE WHEN I DID THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR THIS ORDINANCE, UNFORTUNATELY I HAD THE DATE FOR THIS MEETING STARTING AT 4:30 INSTEAD OF 6:00.

IT WAS PUBLISHED CORRECTLY ON THE WEBSITE. I DID PUT A NOTICE OUT FRONT, I APOLOGIZE TO ANYBODY WHO GOT HERE EARLY AND WAS EXPECTING THE READING AT 4:30, BUT NONETHELESS, I TALKED WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AND UNDER THE STATE STATUTES WE ARE ONLY REQUIRED TO ADVERTISE THE ORDINANCE 10 DAYS OF ADVANCE OF THE ADOPTION HEARING WHICH IS IN THE SCHEDULED UNTIL JULY 19TH SO WE'RE IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH ALL THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR

[00:25:01]

THIS ORDINANCE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THAT'S THE WRONG ONE.

OKAY. I HAVE WITH ME MERRIAM GARCIA. JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE HISTORY. NEXT SLIDE. THE PLANNING COMMISSION BACK IN DECEMBER OF 2020 RECOMMENDED TO ALL OF YOU THAT EYE ESTABLISH A VACATION RENTAL STAFK FORCE TO RESEARCH HIGHWAY VACATION RENTALS ARETASK FORCE TO RESEARCH HIGHWAY VACATION RENTALS ARE HANDLED IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS. YOU GAVE THAT DIRECTIVE TO MR. MIMS WHO SHEN TOLD THE STAFF TO COME UP WITH A WORK GROUP WITH PLANNING BOARD, REALTY PROFESSIONALS AND THEY BEGAN THOSE MEETINGS IN FEBRUARY. IN JUNE 2021 THAT WORK GROUP CAME TO THE CITY COMMISSION AT A CONFERENCE AGENDA AND PRESENTED ITS FINDINGS TO YOU.

AFTER THAT HAPPENED, STAFF CAME INTO THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, DRAFTED THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE REVIEWING THIS EVENING AND THAT INCORPORATED A LOT OF THE FEEDBACK FROM THE WORK GROUP THAT WAS DOING ALL THE RESEARCH, BUT IT ALSO INCORPORATED SOME OF THE CHANGES TO IT AND YOU WILL KNOW IT, IT WAS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE TASK FORCE DID. WE HEARD THE OUTCRY FROM THE PUBLIC AND IN THE SHORT TERM RENTAL COMMUNITY AND THE REALTY COMMUNITY AND WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WHAT WE WERE PUTTING FORWARD IS SOMETHING WE COULD DO SO THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE HERE TODAY.

SO JUST SOME IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS TO KEEP IN MIND, VACATION RENTALS ARE THE RENTAL UNITS BEING RENTED FOR 30 DAYS OR LESS. THOSE ARE REGULATED BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION AND THEY DO REQUIRE A STATE LICENSE.

SHORT TERM RENTALS, A LOT OF TIMES WE CALL THEM SEASONAL UNITS, THEY'RE RENTED FOR GREATER THAN 1 MONTH BUT LESS THAN 6 MONTHS. THOSE ARE NOT REGULATED OR LICENSED BUT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO COLLECT AND REMIT BED TAX AND SALES TAX.

SOME OF THE THINGS THE TASK FORCE RESEARCH FINDINGS COME UP WITH IN ESTABLISHING THE STANDARDS IN REQUIREMENTS IN VACATION AND SHORT TERM RENTALS IS THAT ALL UNITS MUST BE REGISTERED WITH THE CITY AND RENEWED ANNUALLY. THEY MUST MEET THE FLORIDA FIRE SAFETY CODES. THERE MUST BE A PERSON AVAILABLE 24/7 TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINTS INCLUDING PARKING REQUIREMENTS, LIMITATIONS, EVENT AND NOISE REQUIREMENTS, SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION WITH ST. LUCIE COUNTY, INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR POSTING REQUIREMENTS.

THE RESPONSIBLE PERSON OR MANAGEMENT COMPANY WITH ALL THE DIFFERENT APPLICATION COMPONENTS, ADDRESS ISSUES FOR DENIAL AND REVOCATION. ONE OF THE BIG THINGS IS THAT IT INCLUDED INITIAL AND BIANNUAL UNIT INSPECTIONS OF EACH UNIT IS WHAT -- AND THAT INCLUDED THE ACTUAL RENTAL UNITS AS WELL AS SWIMMING POOLS AND THOSE WERE TO BE DONE BY CODE ENFORCEMENT.

THEY ALSO CAME UP WITH THE REGISTRATION FEE OF $1,200, WHICH WAS TO INCLUDE AND COVER THE COST TO THE CITY FOR THOSE CODE ENFORCEMENT INSPECTIONS AND THE FEE WAS EXPECTED TO FUND THE TWO OFFICERS. SO AFTER STAFF GOT IT AND WE DUG INTO IT, WE AGREE THAT A RENTAL UNIT REGISTRATION SHOULD BE REQUIRED FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL UNIT.

WE WILL NOT BE RECOMMENDING TO YOU FOR THE POOL AND THE RENTAL UNIT INSPECTIONS.

INSPECTIONS CAN BE CONDUCTED BY THE STATE AT ANY TIME IF THERE'S A HEALTH OR SAFETY CONCERN.

OUR BUILDING DEPARTMENT, OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT CAN ALWAYS GO OUT AND MAKE A SAFETY INSPECTION. MANY OF THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS ARE IN THIS ORDINANCE.

BASED ON THE FACT THAT WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT DO THE INSPECTIONS, WE BELIEVE A $250 PER UNIT FEE IS IN LINE AND IT IS OUR HOPE THAT WITH THAT FEE, ONE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER BE FUNDED BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE OF IS THAT WE HAVE PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT OF THIS ORDINANCE OR ELSE IT DOESN'T WORK, SO HAVING ONE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FUNDED BY THE FEES WOULD HELP THEM MAKE SURE THEY CAN DO ENFORCEMENT IN A PROACTIVE MANNER AND NOT JUST REACTIVE. SO BASICALLY THE CITY COMMISSION

[00:30:07]

CAN APPROVE THE ORDINANCE WITH THE TASK FORCE FINDINGS AND INCORPORATING THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE INCORPORATED IN THE ORDINANCE ATTACHED TO THIS AGENDA ITEM.

YOU CAN APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AND MAKE ANY CHANGE THAT IS YOU WANT OR DISAPPROVE THE ORDINANCE AND ASK THAT THE TASK FORCE CONTINUE ITS RESEARCH. I'M SURE YOU HAVE LOTS OF

QUESTIONS. >> IS THAT THE -- >> THAT'S IT.

>> IT'S COMPLETE. >> ANY QUESTIONS OF CITY CLERK? ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

>> I DID PROVIDE FOR YOU A COPY OF THE ORDINANCE WITH EACH LINE NUMBERED IF YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC

QUESTION WE CAN ALWAYS REFER BACK TO THAT LINE NUMBER. >> HOW DID YOU COME UP WITH THE

$250 FEE? >> WE LIKENED IT TO THE VENDOR PERMIT.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT TAKES -- IT TAKES STAFF TIME, THE REGISTRATION PROCESS IN MAKING SURE THAT ALL THE ITEMS AND INFORMATION IS COMPLETE AND INCLUDED.

THE FEE FOR $250 AND THAT'S BASICALLY ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT OF WORK.

THAT WOULD BE A STANDARD, COMPARABLE FEE. >> AND WILL THAT ACCOMPLISH

BEING ABLE TO BE PROACTIVE DID YOU SAY? >> I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S GOING TO FULLY FUND IT. I THINK THAT RIGHT NOW WE HAVE 196 VACATION RENTALS CURRENTLY REGISTERED WITH THE CITY. I THINK WE ALL FULLY RECOGNIZE THAT THERE'S A LOT MORE OUT THERE THAT ARE NOT RENAL GISTER WITH THE CITY. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT FEE WILL COVER THE COST OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER STARTING OUT.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM STAFF? COMMISSIONER C. JOHNSON?

>> YES, THINK MRS. COX FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS I HAVE. I NEED SOME CLARIFICATION, MAYBE SOME EXAMPLES.

COMMERCIAL EVENTS, I'M WONDERING IF YOU HAVE -- IT'S LINE 238. >> YES.

COMMERCIAL EVENTS. WE DID HAVE -- I HAVE CLARIFIED THIS DEFINITION SINCE IT CAME OUT OF THE TASK FORCE BECAUSE I WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT WAS CLEAR THAT -- A COMMERCIAL EVENT THAT SOMEONE COMES AND PAYS TO ATTEND. I'M HAVING A HOUSE PARTY, COME VISIT ME AND THERE'S A $5 COVER. IT'S NOT PROHIBITING YOUR ABILITY TO HAVE A BIRTHDAY PARTY AT THIS SHORT TERM RENTAL. SO I WAS HOPING THAT THAT ITEM, IF YOU LOOK BACK, THERE'S A DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL EVENT FOUND ON PAGE TWO, LINE 76. A COMMERCIAL EVENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING MONEY OR ATTENDESS ARE CHARGED ENTRY WHICH MAY INCLUDE BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO EVENTS SUCH AS PARTIES, ENTERTAINMENT EVENTS AND ATTRACTIONS.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

SO SOME OF THE CHANGES AND RECK MEN OCCASIONS FROM STAFF, HAS THAT BEEN DELINEATED FROM THIS?

YOU SAY THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE PART OF THIS. >> THIS IS THE STAFF RECOMMENDED ORDINANCE. ANYTHING THAT THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDED THAT STAFF DIDN'T

FEEL WAS APPROPRIATE, IT SHOULD BE GONE OUT OF THIS ORDINANCE. >> OKAY.

>> SO THERE ARE NO INSPECTIONS IN THIS BY OUR STAFF UNLESS THERE'S A COMPLAINT.

IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT AND THAT'S NOT -- ANY TYPE OF INSPECTION IS NOT BASED ON THIS NECESSARILY. IT'S THE TYPE OF A COMPLAINT THAT ANYBODY, A SAFETY COMPLAINT

THAT ANYBODY MAY FILE. >> ABOUT ANYTHING? >> ABOUT ANYTHING.

>> RIGHT, RIGHT. THERE'S BEEN SOME EXPRESSION THAT CERTAIN THINGS IN HERE ARE

[00:35:07]

NOT LEGAL OR DON'T FOLLOW STATE LAW, ETC., ETC. DIDN'T THE TASK FORCE GATHER UP OTHER CITIES'

PROCEDURES? >> THEY DID. >> AND THEY DID QUITE A BIT OF

RESEARCH, RIGHT? >> MOST DEFINITELY. >> IF I REMEMBER RIGHTLY, M MR. BRODERICK SAID NOTHING IN THERE THAT WAS RECOMMENDED WAS OUTSIDE OF THE BOUNDARIES OF WHAT'S DONE IN TERMS OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, TRYING TO BE CONSISTENT.

>> CORRECT AND I THINK EVERYTHING THAT'S IN HERE IS TAKEN FROM SOME OTHER ORDINANCE

FROM SOMEWHERE. THEY ALL DID A LOT OF RESEARCH. >> RIGHT, QUITE A BIT OF WORK.

>> UNDER THE CURRENT SYSTEM, IF SOMEBODY WANTED A -- I WANT TO GET THIS ONE RIGHT, VACATION RENTAL, LET'S JUST SAY, THEY GO THROUGH A PROCESS. CAN YOU TAKE US TO THAT PROCESS

AND TELL US WHAT THAT COST? >> SURE. CURRENTLY DEPENDING ON THE ZONING DISTRICT IN WHICH YOUR PROPERTY IS LOCATED, YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS. SO THAT PROCESS, I THINK IT'S $150 APPLICATION FEE, THEN YOU HAVE A MEETING AND THEN TO TRC AND THEN TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND THEN COMES BEFORE YOU.

SO WHEN IT'S ALL SAID AND DONE, AFTER THE APPLICANT PAYS THE ADVERTISING AND THE NOTICE FEES, IT'S APPROXIMATELY $700 IS WHAT THE PROCESS COSTS AND IT TAKES AT A MINIMUM OF 90 DAYS.

THERE'S NO SHORT CIRCUIT TO THAT TIME FRAME. >> COULD TAKE LONGER, RIGHT?

>> MOST DEFINITELY COULD TAKE LONGER. IT COULD TAKE A LOT LONGER.

YEAH. >> SO UNDER THIS PROS PROCESS THEY WOULD COME IN AND ONCE THE THEY WOULD COME IN AND ONCE THE APPLICESS THEY WOULD COME IN AND ONCE THE APPLICATION IS COMPLETE, IT'S AN UH UNDER THE COUNTER APPLICATION.

>> AND YOU WOULD BE INVOLVED? >> WE'RE THE ONLY ONES INVOLVED. YOUR NEXT ORDINANCE WOULD BE

MODIFYING THE PROCESS FOR DWELLING RENTALS. >> SO THAT, IN EFFECT, GETS RID

OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS FOR DWELLING RENTERS? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> SO IT BECOMES A REGISTRATION PROCESS AND WE ELIMINATE ONE, THE E1 ZONING DISTRICT AS --

>> IT'S PROHIBITED AND IT WOULD BE -- >> RIGHT.

RI RIGHT. RIGHT.

>> AND STREAKS ST. LUCIE COUNTY HAS NO RESTRICTIONS ON VACATION RENTALS, ISRESTRICTIONS ON VACA

RENTALS, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THEY OWN A TAX RECEIPT IF OWNED BY A CORPORATE ENTITY BUT IF MERRIAM IS OWNER, SHE'S NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE A BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT.

WE REQUIRE A BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT FOR THOSE REQUIRED TO HAVE THE DBPR LICENSE.

THE REALITY IS WE'RE DIAGNOSE THIS ALREADY. WE REGISTER THESE UNITS ALREADY AS PART OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS. WE DO IT IF IT'S 30 DAYS OR LESS. YOU HAVE TO HAVE A BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT.

WE GATHER THAT RESPONSIBLE PERSON, INFORMATION AT THAT TIME.

THAT GOES INTO OUR CITY DATABASE AND THERE'S NO FEE INVOLVED IN THAT.

ALL THESE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT PART OF THAT PROCESS. IT'S STRICTLY MAKING SURE I HAVE YOUR STATE LICENSE IF IT'S REQUIRED. YOUR SALES TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER WITH THE STATE AND YOUR BED TAX ACCOUNT WITH THE COUNTY. WE DON'T MAKE SURE YOU'RE COLLECTING THE TAXES, YOU'RE JUST REQUIRED TO HAVE THOSE ACCOUNTS TO PROPERLY REGISTER YOUR VACATION RENTAL. IF GREATER THAN 30 DAYS, WE STILL ISSUE A BUSINESS TAX MUST REMEMBER BUT THERE'S NO CHARGE FOR IT. WE TRY TO TIE BUSINESS TAX

[00:40:02]

RECEIPTS TO THE STATE LICENSES AS MUCH AS WE POSSIBLY CAN BUT IT'S THE WAY THAT WE CAN TRIGGER KEEP IT IN THE SYSTEM SO EVERYBODY IN CITY HALL CA SEE YOU.

PEGGY CAN TELL YOU IF IT'S THERE AND SEE IF THEY'RE REGISTERED WITH THE CITY

>> WHAT'S PROPOSED IS $250 FOR BOTH VACATION RENTALS AND SHORT TERM RENTALS?

>> YES, MA'AM, THEY'RE BEING TREATED EQUALLY. >> COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON?

>> YOU TALKED ABOUT BED TAX AND HAS THE TAX COLLECTOR OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY ESTABLISHING

ANYTHING NEW? >> HE CONTRACTED WITH A VENDOR THAT GOES OUT AND DOES THE RESEARCH TO TRY TO IDENTIFY PROPERTIES THAT ARE ACTIVELY ADVERTISING ON VRBO AND AIRBNB AND NOT REMITTING TAX BUT I DON'T KNOW. I'M WORKING WITH OUR TOURIST DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL AND TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT IT IS THAT HE HAS AND HOW MUCH, IF ANYTHING,

HE'S WILLING TO SHARE. >> THAT'S GOING TO BE HELPFUL IN THIS PROCESS.

>> IT IS. >> PART OF THE $250, DID STAFF TAKE A LOOK AT, AND I BELIEVE YOU JUST SAID IT A MINUTE AGO BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE. IN LINE NUMBER 482, VERIFICATION OF NO PENDING CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE UNIT. IS THAT STANDARD FOR EVERY APPLICATION? IS THAT PART OF THE CALCULATION FOR THE FEE?

>> THAT RESEARCH IS INCLUDED IN THE FEE. IF YOU WERE TO JUST DO IT RAW, IT'S $25 BUT THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL FEE TO DO THAT SEARCH.

>> OKAY, IT'S INCLUDED. ALL RIGHT. REGISTRATION.

SO THIS COMES TO THE CLERK'S OFFICE SPECIFICALLY. RENEWED ANNUALLY PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE OF SEPTEMBER 30TH. WHAT OTHER LICENSES ARE TRIGGERED BY SEPTEMBER 30TH IN YOUR OFFICE AND IS THAT THE BEST DATE TO YOU?

>> IT IS BECAUSE IT RUNS CONCURRENTLY WITH THE BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT CYCLE.

>> SO YOU DON'T SEE ANYTHING DID I BELIEVE OR ANY BURDENS AS FAR AS PRODUCING RENEWALS WITH ALL

THE ITEMS? >> NO. NO.

>> ALL RIGHT. I WAS A LITTLE WORRIED ABOUT THAT.

THE OTHER QUESTION -- >> IF WE CHANGE THE DATE, I WILL HAVE A PROBLEM.

>> THAT'S WHY I ASKED. LINE 487, IN THE EVENT THE RENEWAL IS NOT PLEATED IN THE SPECIFIED TIME FRAME, A WRITTEN REQUEST MUST BE SUBMITTED. WHY WOULD WE EXTEND SUCH A

THING? >> WE CAN DO AWAY WITH THAT LANGUAGE.

IF IT'S NOT REGISTERED AND THEY DON'T RENEW THEIR BUSINESS TAX, WE HAVE A CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS. WE GIVE THEM -- THE BUSINESS TAX RESEAT FEE INCREASES AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE TAX DEPENDING ON HOW LATE THE LICENSE IS AND IF YOU'RE TOO LATE, IT GOES TO

CODE ENFORCEMENT AND IT GOES BEFORE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. >> SO WE'RE ALL HUMAN BEINGS, WE ALL PROCRASTINATE IN DIFFERENT WAYS. SHOULD WE NOT EXPAND THAT OR DELETE THAT SECTION? IT'S GOING TO BE $250, RIGHT? NO MATTER WHEN YOU DO IT.

IF IT LAPSES, THERE'S NO PENALTY. >> RIGHT, I'M IN FAVOR OF STRIKING THAT OUT. I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT, COMMISSIONER.

>> DO WE DO IT LIKE BTRS ARE FORMALLY DONE OR CONTRACTOR LICENSING AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

THERE ARE PENALTIES IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA AND THE CITY, JUST LIKE YOU SAID.

SO EITHER WE IMPLEMENT PENALTIES OR JUST SAY COME BACK AND REGISTER WHEN IT'S TIME.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DELETING THREE ALTOGETHER?

TREATING IT LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE? >> I BELIEVE SO.

>> THE FEE WOULDN'T CHANGE. THE BUSINESS TAX WOULD CHANGE. >> THAT'S RIGHT

>> IF YOU HAVE ONE BUT THE FEE WOULD NOT CHANGE. >> SO LINE 487 THROUGH 493, THE

ENTIRE PARAGRAPH, I THINK. >> OKAY. >> MR. SWEENY, DOES THAT TIE TO

ANYTHING? >> NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. THE CLERK WOULD KNOW, SHE DOES

THE RENEWALS. >> THAT'S FINE. >> GOOD WITH THAT?

>> THAT'S FINE. >> GOOD SUGGESTION. >> I SAW THAT AND NEEDED TO ASK.

>> THERE WAS ONE OTHER ONE BUT GO AHEAD MAYOR. >> THANK YOU COMMISSIONER JOHNSON FOR BRINGING UP SOME OF THE LANGUAGE. I, TOO, FOUND A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT MAYBE I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE US LOOK AT STARTING AT LINE 391 SECTION 5.

[00:45:04]

>> OH, YEAH, I HAD THAT UNDER LINED. >> SO THIS AREA HERE, I THINK THAT AS WE LOOK AT THIS AND GO WITH ME FOR A MOMENT, PART OF THIS WHOLE SECTION HERE, I WOULD MAYBE EVEN LIKE TO SEE LANGUAGE ADDED THAT ARE MORE DESCRIPTIVE OF ACTIONS TO BE TAKEN.

FOR INSTANCE, IF THERE ARE EMERGENCY SERVICES, IF SOMETHING IS ON FIRE, THEY NEED POLICE, THEY NEED TO BE DIRECTED TO CALL 911 PARTICULARLY, RIGHT? AND NOT PUT THAT ON THE OWNER.

IN THAT LANGUAGE RIGHT THERE, I WOULD LIKE TO LOOK AT THE 24-HOUR PERIOD FOR RESPONSE BUT AS THE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS 12-MONTH PERIOD SHALL RESULT AND I THINK THE WORD SHALL IS TOO RESTRICTIVE THERE. IT MAY RESULT IN THAT SO I THINK IT LEAVES LENIENCY THERE THAT WE DON'T WANT TO DICTATE WHATEVER IT IS THAT'S GOING TO REVOKE THAT, THERE MAY BE SOME ABSOLUTELY LEGITIMATE CONCERNS THERE BUT I THINK AS A WAY OF NOT BEING RESTRICTIVE BUT BEING, I DON'T KNOW, PUNITIVE, I'M NOT A LAWYER, DON'T START ME TO BEING A LAWYER HERE BUT I THINK THAT LANGUAGE WAS A LITTLE CONCERNING AS I READ THAT IN THAT AREA 5, I THINK THAT AS PART OF MY CONCERN, LIKE I SAID, WHEN I LOOKED AT THIS WAS, OKAY, WHAT THE REAL CONCERN HERE IS IF SOMETHING IS GOING ON, THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO BE INFORMED OF WHAT TO DO, RIGHT? IF THERE'S AN EMERGENCY, THE HOUSE IS ON FIRE OR THERE'S A DISTURBANCE OF SOME TYPE, WE DON'T WANT NEIGHBORS INTERTACTING WITH THAT. WE WANT THEM TO CALL OUR PROFESSIONALS THAT HANDLE THAT, THE PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE, 911 TO DEAL WITH THAT.

THAT WAS A CONCERN AS I READ THAT AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE ADDING ANYTHING BUT CERTAIN THINGS, ALL EMERGENCY CALLS, NOISE DISTURBANCE CALLS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO 911 SERVICES.

MAYBE IT'S TOO RESTRICTIVE THERE BY I'M TRYING TO FIND THE RIGHT LANGUAGE THERE.

>> WHY COULDN'T WE HAVE THE LANGUAGE WHEN YOU CALL THE DOCTOR'S LANGUAGE AND THEY SAY IF THIS IS AN EMERGENCY PLEASE -- RIGHT? SO WHAT YOU NEED IS BECAUSE I THINK A SENTENCE IN THERE THAT SAYS IN AN EMERGENCY, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WRITE IT, CALL 911 BUT I'M NOT UPSET ABOUT THE 1 HOUR THREE TIMES FOR 12-MONTH PERIOD.

IS THAT OKAY IF COMMISSIONER PERONA TALKS HERE? >> I DON'T WANT TO PULL THE TEETH OUT OF THIS AT ALL AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN. THE ONLY THING I CAN THINK OF IS IF THERE WERE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES WE CAN GO TO THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE AND GET IT THERE. FOR THE MOST PART. IF WE START TAKING THE TEETH AT OF THIS AS WE GO ON WE WON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT BECAUSE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE LANDLORDS ARE THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE EXPECTING US TO BE ABLE TO PUT SOMETHING IN HERE THAT HAS SUBSTANCE THAT CAN HELP CONTROL WHAT WE CAN CONTROL AS THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE SINCE THE STATE TOOK AWAY ALL OUR OTHER RULE, SO I'M VERY POSSESSIVE OF MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE STRONG WORDS IN THERE. UNDERSTAND ONE BUT IF IT'S THREE TIMES, THERE'S NORMALLY A MAJOR ISSUE AND THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT AND IT SHOULD HAVE

THAT STRONG LANGUAGE IN THERE. >> YEAH, I HEAR YOU AND I CAN APPRECIATE THAT.

I WENT BACK AND FORTH ON THAT AND WHERE I'M ADD WITH IT IS I'M REALLY TRYING TO PULL OUT THAT EMERGENCY PART. I NEED THAT TO BE MORE DEFINED, GIVE THE DIRECTION TO THE NEIGHBORS OR WHOEVER LIVES THERE TO SAY IF THIS IS THE CASE, CALL 911, DON'T CALL THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY. YES, YOU CAN CALL THEM, BY I NEED THEM TO PUT THAT ON RECORD, THAT'S DOCUMENTED. IF THE POLICE GO THERE FOR A NOISE DISTURBANCE.

>> YOU WOULD CALL EMERGENCY IF YOU SAW FLAMES OR HEARD GUNSHOTS OR WHATEVER BUT YOU WOULD ALSO PROBABLY CALL THAT NUMBER OR PERHAPS THE EMERGENCY PEOPLE MIGHT CALL THAT NUMBER.

>> MAYBE, MAYBE NOT. THIS IS BROAD LAW AND I'M JUST A LITTLE CONCERNED WITH IT.

I WOULD RATHER OVERSTATE IT THAN TO DEAL WITH THAT, RIGHT? SO THAT WAS MY CONCERN THERE AND CERTAINLY ALL OTHER NONEMERGENCY CALLS OR COMPLAINTS CAN BE FILED WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT, ABSOLUTELY. THAT'S THE DOCUMENTATION, COMMISSIONER PERONA, WHEN YOU'RE

[00:50:03]

DEALING WITH THREE TIMES OR MORE. THAT'S A WAY FOR PEOPLE TO DOCUMENT THEIR CONCERNS OR CHALLENGES IN THE NEIGHBOHOOD, RIGHT? I DIDN'T SEE THAT AS WELL. I'M TRYING TO FLESH THAT OUT AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THAT DISCUSSION HERE AND THAT WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH IT, AT LEAST MY OPINION WAS 24 BUT YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING AT AN HOUR. I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT EXPECTATION IS.

IF THERE'S A NOISE DISTURBANCE, I WANT LAW ENFORCEMENT TO DEAL WITH IT.

>> IT CREATES A RECORD, TOO. >> IT CREATES A RECORD, ABSOLUTELY.

THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING AT THERE. WE CAN COME BACK TO THAT.

I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. SO IF YOU COULD MARK THAT AREA, MAYBE WE CAN HAVE A FURTHER DISCUSSION. I'M SURE WE WILL HEAR FROM SOME PEOPLE OUT THERE.

ALONG WITH COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, SOME OF THE LANGUAGE I'M LOOKING AT 290 TO I GUESS SECTION 21.

SO ONE OF THE THINGS MS. COX YOU JUST MENTIONED IS THAT THIS CREATES A DATABASE SO THAT IF PEOPLE WERE SEARCHING, I'M A LITTLE LEERY ABOUT POSTING SOMETHING AND SOMEBODY WOULD GO UP AND ATTEMPT TO GET INFORMATION TO CALL SOMEBODY OR MAKE A COMPLAINT.

I'M CONCERNED WITH THAT PART OF IT. IF THEY ARE REGISTERED, THEY CAN GO AND LOOK IT UP ONLINE, FIND OUT THAT THIS HOUSE IS A REGISTERED WHATEVER AND WHOEVER IS LISTED TO BE THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY WOULD BE THERE. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I KNOW

WE TALKED ABOUT INITIALLY. I'M JUST CONCERNED >> ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE

INTERIOR POSTING? >> NO, I'M SORRY, THE EXTERIOR. >> SO NUMBER 22?

>> YES, YES, I'M SORRY. 22. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT

ONE? >> IT'S A GOOD POINT. YOU'RE IN THE BUSINESS AND THERE MAY BE NEIGHBORS IN YOUR COMMUNITY THAT AREN'T REALLY THRILLED WITH THAT IDEA.

I THINK IT GIVES AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE. IF YOU PUT A GREAT BIG X OUT FRONT THAT SHOWS THAT YOU ARE ONE OF THEM, LET'S JUST SAY THAT THAT COULD CAUSE SOME ISSUES.

THERE'S GOT TO BE A BETTER WAY TO DO THAT THAN ADVERTISE THE FACT THAT YOU'RE NOT ONE OF THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORS THAT LIVE IN THAT COMMUNITY. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE

IDENTIFY WHERE WE'RE AT. WE MAY HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THAT. >> IT'S A SAFETY CONCERN, RIGHT? I DON'T WANT TO IDENTIFY SOMEONE AND PUT THEM IN HARM'S WAY OR THERE BE A CHALLENGE ABOUT THAT.

MUCH OF THIS IS GOING TO NEED TO BE EDUCATION, TOO, AS THIS ROLLS OUT BUT I HAVE A CONCERN WITH

THAT AREA.ND PEOPLE GOING IN - >> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT BEING POSTED BECAUSE IF PEOPLE CAN'T GET INTO THE HOUSE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT HAS TO BE ALL THAT.

IT COULD BE SOME WAY OF BEING ABLE TOO -- NOT EVERYBODY HAS ACCESS TO ONLINE.

NOT EVERYBODY IS COMPUTER LITERATE AND THINGS. >> I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS, MADAM MAYOR, AS YOU SAID, IF IT WERE A TRUE EMERGENCY AS I WAS TRYING TO DEFINE AND LOOK AT

OTHER AREAS, I WOULD HOPE PEOPLE WOULD CALL 911. >> BUT IF YOU HAVE THE EMERGENCY

PERSONNEL THERE IS WHAT I'M SAYING, THEY WOULD KNOW. >> I'M A LITTLE CHALLENGED ON THIS, TOO. I THINK THERE'S IMPLICATIONS THAT COULD BE MADE TO TAKE CARE OF THIS. ONE OF THE BIGGEST ARGUMENTS IS NOT TURNING OUR NEIGHBORHOODS

[00:55:06]

INTO COMMERCIALIZED ENVIRONMENTS AND THE QUESTION I HAVE IS DOES THIS DO THAT?

>> IT'S ALREADY DONE. >> RIGHT, BUT BY POSTING SIGNAGE.

THE INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE, IT'S IN OUR DATABASE, I THINK WE CAN GET -- INSTEAD OF ME LOOKING UP ON MY SMART PHONE, NOT EVERYONE HAS A SMART PHONE, BUT WITH THESE PARTICULAR THINGS, SOME PEOPLE'S IDEAS ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT AND WE END UP WITH SOMETHING WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE HERE. IT STILL DOESN'T PRECLUDE THE FACT THAT PEOPLE CALL CITY HALL OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE IF THEY HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT AN ADDRESS AND THEY CAN FIGURE IT OUT IF THEY DON'T HAVE COMPUTERS. WE ANSWER THE PHONES AND MS. COX AND HER STAR STILL DO A GOOD JOB. THIS ONE CONCERNS ME WITH THE CONFORMITY STANDPOINT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT ACCOMPLISHES HERE.

>> IF I COULD, MADAM MAYOR. I AGREE, COMMISSIONER. I'M NOT SURE WHAT SAFETY ISSUE

THERE IS. >> I'M GOING THERE AND WHOEVER, I'M TRYING TO TEMP DOWN ANY POTENTIAL THERE. WHAT ARE YOU DOING OVER HERE? IT'S JUST NOT NECESSARY.

>> YEAH, IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN THE GRUMPY NOISES IN THE AUDIENCES RIGHT NOW.

THE HOOTING AND HOLLERING, DON'T MATTER. OH MY GOD, I DISAGREE.

>> THE BIG ORANGE SIGN IN EVERYBODY'S YARDS. >> YEAH, I HAVE SEEN THOSE.

I HAVE RIDDEN BY, SO. >> YES, SIR? >> SO I GUESS ONE OF THE THINGS I HAVE BEEN TOSSING WITH IS WE WENT FROM 1200 IN THE RECOMMENDATION TO A $250 CHARGE.

I'M PEEP WITH THAT. UP THAT'S REALLY IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION BUT WHAT THIS THING IS ALL ABOUT IS ENFORCEMENT. I HAVE A REASONABLE FEELING THAT AT $250, IT WILL HAVE A DEDICATED ENFORCEMENT AGENT VEHICLE, ALL THE BENEFITS AND ALL THAT TO GO WITH IT AND I DON'T THINK $50,000 COVERS THAT. I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE THE CHARGE THAT WE HAVE HERE TONIGHT WHEN WE GET DOWN TO THE END, TO BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH SOME REASONABLE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT BECAUSE THIS IS AN IMPACT TO NEIGHBORHOODS, IT'S AN IMPACT TO CITY OF FORT PIERCE AND WE HAVE -- IT'S SOMEWHAT OF A USER FEE, I LOOK AT IT AS, AND IT HAS TO BE COMMENSURATE WITH THE AMOUNT OF ACTIVITY THAT WE HAVE TO PROVIDE TO TRY TO MAKE EVERYBODY EQUALLY UNHAPPY WHEN

IT'S ALL OVER WITH. >> NOBODY IS GOING TO BE HAPPY, WE KNOW THAT.

>> I WOULD EVENTUALLY LIKE TO HEAR MR. MIMS WEIGH IN ON THIS AND GIVE US AN IDEA OF WHAT NUMBERS WE NEED TO BE DEALING WITH. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE NOW, BUT BEFORE WE START MAKING THAT DECISION. THAT'S A NUMBER I NEED TO BE

COMFORTABLE WITH. >> I AGREE. I AGREE.

YES, SIR? >> I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY MAKE A PHONE CALL TYPE OF THING AND RELATE IT TO TH, T -- THAT'S 391. I WOULD LIKE TO RELATE IT TO LINES 515 AND LINES 524 AND IT GETS INTO THE FACT OF SOMEONE BEING DENIED OR A REVOCATION OF THE REGISTRATION AND COMMISSIONER SWEENEY, THIS GETS INTO THE LEGAL ASPECTS BECAUSE

[01:00:07]

IT SAYS IT SHALL APPEAL TO THE CITY COMMISSION IN LINE 516, FOR INSTANCE.

LINE 524 TALKS ABOUT IF YOU HAVE BEEN DENIED OR REVOKED YOU MAY REPLY AFTER 12 MONTHS.

HERE'S MY QUESTION AND I WILL GO BACK TO 391 IN A SECOND BUT ARE THERE NOT STIPULATIONS FOR THAT? SAY IT CHANGES OWNERSHIP BUT STILL OUT OF CODE COMPLIANCE, IS THAT ASSUMED?

>> I THINK IT'S ASSUMED BECAUSE THERE'S ALWAYS A DEFAULT PROVISION AT THE BEGINNING OF OUR CODE THAT A VIOLATION OF ANYTHING IN HERE IS CONSIDERED A CODE VIOLATION AND CAN BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE. WE HAVE THAT GLOBALLY AT THE BEGINNING OF OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES. I THINK THE REASON YOU SEE THE TWO DIFFERENTS HERE, NUMBER ONE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AN INITIAL APPLICATION THROUGH A CHARTER OFFICE AND THE APPROPRIATE ENTITY ABOVEAPPROPRIATE ENTITY WOULD BE THE COMMISSION.

YOU CAN'T GO FROM ME TO MR. MIMS, THAT'S JUST NOT APPROPRIATE.

THE SECOND, 12 MONTHS, THAT'S FOLLOWING SOME OF THE OTHER LANGUAGE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY LOSING THEIR ABILITY TO BE THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE VACATION RENTAL ITSELF COULDN'T CONTINUE BECAUSE YOU COULD GET A NEW MANAGEMENT COMPANY. WE'RE TRYING TO, AT LEAST FROM MY VIEW OF IT, TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE RESPONSIBLE ENTITY, WHETHER IT'S THE OWNER, THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, WHOEVER IT IS, IS HELD TO ACCOUNT FOR WHATEVER THE ISSUE IS AND I WILL GO BACK TO SOME OF THE DISCUSSION EARLIER. IF THERE'S TRULY A 300 PERSON PARTY WITH FIREWORKS AND A ROCK BAND AND MUSIC UNTIL 4:00 IN THE MORNING, YOU'RE GOING TO BE CALLING THE POLICE.

YOU'RE NOT CALLING THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY. THAT DOESN'T ABSOLVE THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, THOUGH, AS YOU CAN SEE BACK IN THAT SECTION, THEY'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR GUESTS. TIME AND TIME AGAIN, WE HAVE HEARD FROM APPLICANTS SAYING I DON'T WANT TO HAVE THAT AGAINST MY REPUTATION BECAUSE I WILL GO OUT OF BUSINESS.

I THINK IT'S PURPOSEFULLY THERE ON BOTH LEVELS JUST TO TRY TO PROTECT TWO DIFFERENT AVENUES.

>> ALL RIGHT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE SINCE WE'RE UPDATING CHANGING, CREATING NEW ORDINANCE THAT I DON'T NEED TO HAVE SOME LANGUAGE THERE THAT SAYS OH, NO, YOU'RE PREEMPTED. IF I CHANGE OWNERSHIP OR IF I CHANGE THE NAME ON THE PROPERTY FROM LLC TO ANOTHER LLC, WHICH COSTS LIKE $75, BY THE WAY, THAT NOW I'M AUTOMATICALLY ABLE TO

APPLY AGAIN. >> I THINK THAT'S A VALID CONCERN, BUT I THINK YOU'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE THEM AS THEY SEE THEM. THERE'S GOING TO BE A CROSS REFERENCE IN OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT STUFF THAT SHOWS THAT THIS SAME APPLICANT MAY HAVE CHANGED THEIR NAME FROM LLC TO .INC BUT I THINK WE CAN TRACK THESE THINGS WITH THE

ENFORCEMENT. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. AND THE NEXT QUESTION I HAVE AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S FOR YOU OR MS. COX BUT GOING BACK TO LINE ITEM 391, MANAGEMENT COMPANY, BACK TO THAT, DO WE NEED MORE LANGUAGE IN THERE? IS THERE AN APPEAL PROCESS FOR THAT GROUP AND ALSO TO BE CONSISTENT, DO WE NEED IT? MAYBE WE DON'T, AND ALSO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE TERM ON LINE 395, MANAGEMENT THE RENTAL UNIT, IS SPECIFIC TO THEY HAVE BEEN REVOKED FOR THAT RENTAL UNIT. IS THAT YOUR INTERPRETATION?

>> I WILL DEFER -- >> TO THAT UNIT. ONE RENTAL OR PROPERTY MANAGER MAY HAVE MULTIPLE UNITS. IT'S GOING TO BE SPECIFIC TO THAT RENTAL UNIT, NOT THEIR

ABILITY TO MANAGE OTHER PROPERTIES. >> OKAY.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE >> THAT WAS THE INTENT. >> THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE, IN ADDITION TO THAT ONE AND JUST IN GENERAL, HOW DO WE MEASURE THIS? I LIKE TO MEASURE THINGS AND I LIKE TO KNOW. WHO STARTS THE STOPWATCH? THAT TYPE OF THING THAT'S A

CHALLENGE. >> IF A COMPLAINT IS FILED, ANY VIOLATION OF THIS ENFORCEMENT IS

[01:05:08]

WRITTEN BY CODE AND GOES TO THE MAGISTRATE. I'M NOT MAKING THE DETERMINATION IF THEY RESPONDED IN AN HOUR OR TWO. THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE WILL MAKE A DETERMINATION IF A VIOLATION OCCURRED OR NOT. IF SHE SAYS THERE WAS NO VIOLATION, THERE'S NO VIOLATION AND THERE'S NO ISSUE. WE'RE NOT MAKING THOSE KIND OF CALLS. IT'S THREE TIMES BEFORE THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE WITHIN A 12-MONTH PERIOD. I JUST HAVE THE CONFIDENCE THAT IT'S NEVER GOING TO GET TO THAT.

>> I DON'T THINK SO, EITHER. >> THESE APPLICANTS WANTS THAT. NOBODY WANTS THAT ON THEIR

REPUTATION. >> OKAY. I AGREE.

THANK YOU.

>> FURTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? FURTHER DISCUSSION? BEFOR BEFORE WE GO

TO THE PUBLIC HEARING? >> NO, LET'S DO IT. >> YOU HAVEN'T MADE ANY DETERMINATION YET ABOUT THE POSTING OR ANYTHING. WE'RE GOING TO WAIT FOR PUBLIC

COMMENT? >> OH, YEAH, I'M READY TO HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT.

[LAUGHTER] . >> JUST THINKING WE MIGHT RESOLVE SOME OF THE CONCERNS IF YOU'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT TO REMOVE IT.

>> CON CENSUSCENSUSENSUSSENSUS THINGS TO REMOVE. >> IF THERE ARE THREE PEOPLE

WITH CONCERNS ABOUT THAT, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. >> WHICH ONE?

>> LINE 3150, 22. . JUST0, 22.

. JUST CJUST CONCERNS ON MY PART. I WANT TO LEAVE IT.

>> NO, MAYBE JUST COME UP WITH A BETTER PLAN. >> RIGHT.

>> ALL RIGHT, YOU CLEAR ON THAT MS. COX? >> CLEAR AS MUD.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO NOW IT'S TIME FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND SO WE HAVE 3 MINUTES AND PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND MS. COX WILL BE DOING THE TIMING AND YOU WILL

HAVE THREE SECOND NOTICE? >> A FEW MORE CLARIFICATIONS IF YOU COULD.

WE'RE JUST GOING TO BE KIND AND COURTEOUS, CORRECT? >> WE ARE.

YES. ON THE DIASIS AND ON THE PODIUM. WE DON'T GET AN EXTENDED

3 MINUTES, CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> ALL RIGHT.

WHO WOULD LIKE TO GO FIRST? THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

>> HELLO, TIFFANY, 715 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE UNIT E, FORT PIERCE 34949.

THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO TALK ABOUT A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE, I DO THINK IT'S A SAFETY CONCERN POSTING THE POST. I REMEMBER IN MY PLANNING MEETING WHEN I GOT MY CONDITIONAL USE, A BOARD MEMBER BROUGHT UP THE SAFETY CONCERN NOT JUST FOR THE PEOPLE WHO SEE THE HOUSE BUT IT ADVERTISE THAT IS THE HOUSE MIGHT BE EMPTY AND THAT THERE MIGHT BE SOMEONE WHO IS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMING IN AND PEOPLE WHO TRAVEL HAVE CASH SO I THINK THAT WOULD NOT BE A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE PEOPLE GET ROBBED THAT ARE ON WAY FORT PIERCE IS KNOWN AS A PLACE WHERE YOU GO ON VACATION AND GET ROBBED. IT JUST ADVERTISES IT.

WE HAVE A SYSTEM IN PLACE FOR THAT. AND ALSO I PAY WELL OVER $700.

I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE 3-MONTH AND I TRAVELED FROM OUT OF STATE FOR 3 MONTHS TO GET MY PERMIT AND NOW I HAVE TO PAY $250 A YEAR? I THINK THAT QUASI JUDICIAL HEARINGS THAT I WENT THROUGH SHOULD STAND AND I SHOULD BE GRANDFATHERED IN.

ANOTHER THING IS A LOT OF THESE THINGS I FEEL ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE.

[01:10:10]

ONE IS THE SEX OFFENDER LIST. I WONDER IF MY LONG TERM TENANTS ARE SEXUAL OFFENDERS.

LUCKILY THERE ARE LAYS ABOUT THEM REGISTERING BUT I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD HAVE TO DO THAT.

LAND LINES. WHO HAS A LAND LINE ANYMORE? SECOND OF ALL, THE IDEA OF 1 HOUR. IT SAYS ANY AND ALL. YOU HAVE SEEN PEOPLE COME IN HERE AND HARASS PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES. I HATE TO USE THOSE WORDS, BUT ON BOTH SIDES SO YOU'RE ASKING ANY AND ALL, SO IF MY NEIGHBOR CALLS ME AND SAYS YOUR TRASH CAN IS OUT ONE TIME, DO I HAVE TO ANSWER THEM IN AN HOUR? I THINK ANY AND ALL, THAT'S NOT FAIR. YOU GUYS ARE COMMISSIONERS. I'M SURE THAT YOU DECIDE PRIORITY WISE HOW LONG IT TAKES YOU TO ANSWER PEOPLE AND WE WOULD DECIDE THE SAME THING.

EMERGENCIES, OBVIOUSLY IF THE POLICE ARE AT MY PLACE, I WANT TO RESPOND IMMEDIATELY.

I JUST SAY ALL OF THIS AND YOU SAID YOU DON'T THINK IT SHOULD HAPPEN, I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S THE HISTORY ALREADY? I HAVE ANOTHER VACATION RENTAL IN INDIAN RIVER.

>> THAT'S YOUR TIME, THANK YOU. >> WE DIDN'T GO THROUGH ALL THIS AND WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM

>> OKAY. GOOD. THANK YOU, MA'AM.

WHO IS NEXT? WHO WOULD LIKE TO GO NEXT? >> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE, SCOTT MCALLISTER. I RUN A LOCAL AND INTERNATIONAL REAL ESTATE BUSINESS OUT OF THE CITY HERE AND I'M THE FOUNDER OF A NUMBER OF SOCIAL MEDIA GROUPS DEDICATED TO SUPPORTING LOCAL BUSINESSES HERE ON THE TREASURE COAST. ONE THING WE HAVE SEEN THAT I HAVE SEEN THROUGH MY PROFESSIONAL AND SOCIAL MEDIA BUSINESS IS THAT FORT PIERCE, THE NAME FORT PIERCE IS REALLY STARTING TO MOVE UP ON PEOPLE'S LIST AS A PLACE WHERE THEY WANT TO BRING INVESTMENT AND COME FOR VACATIONING. I THINK WE ALL KNOW THE JOBS THAT THAT BRINGS AND THE TAXES THAT BRINGS TO OUR COMMUNITIES AND IT'S A VERY BIG POSITIVE.

WE DO KNOW THIS BUSINESS NEEDS TO BE REGULATED. THERE ARE SOME BAD APPLES.

WE DON'T WANT TO PUNISH EVERYOE FOR BEING THOSE BAD APPLES. I WORK WITH INVESTORS ALL THE TIME. YOU ADD EXTRA OVERBURDENING TO THEM, THAT'S GOING TO ADD TO THE AMOUNT OF INVESTING THEY'RE GOING TO DO WHICH WILL REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF TOURISM.

WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT ADDING TOO MANY CONDITIONS ON INVESTORS, SPECIFICALLY IN LOWERING THE REGISTRATION FEE TO $250 WHEN WE DON'T NEED THE EXTRA FLOATED INFRASTRUCTURE, I THINK HAVING THAT ONE PERSON, IF WE CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT THE SALARY FOR THAT ONE PERSON WOULD BE TO AND LEA THE LOCAL INFRASHAND LEA THL THE E THE LO INFRASTRUCTURE.

THE FACT THAT THE SUNRISE CITY IS REALLY BECOMING SOMETHING WELL-KNOWN AND WELL LOVED.

THINK. >> THANK YOU, STIR. >> WHO IS NEXT?IR.

>> WHO IS NEXT?

>> LISA, 1831 CRESTVIEW DRIVE. FIRST, MADAM MAYOR AND COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TAKING THE TIME TO REVIEW THIS PROCESS. I KNOW IT'S BEEN CUMBERSOME, I HAVE BEEN HERE PLENTY OF TIMES. THE COMPANY THAT I WORK FOR, I THINK AT THE MOMENT WE HAVE 130 REGISTERED UNITS NOW SO I'M QUITE FAMILIAR WITH THIS PROCESS AND SO I AM REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO SOME OF THE CHANGES COMING FORWARD IF THEY DO COME TO FRUITION BUT I DID WANT TO TALK ABOUT SECTION 22.509 IN REGARDS TO THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY.

I KNOW ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS WAS THAT THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY OR THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY HAD TO LIVE IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY. THE COMPANY THAT I WORK IN, WE SPAN THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT COUNTIES NOW. WHEN WE LOOK AT THE LOGISTICS OF TRYING TO GET THERE, HAVING SOMEBODY -- I HAVE PROPERTY MANAGERS THAT LIVE IN ST. LUCI COUNTY AND OTHERS THAT LIVE JUST OVER THE COUNTY LINE IN INDIAN RIVER AND THEY CAN BE HERE QUICKER AND IN A MORE RESPONSIBLE TIME THAN SOMEBODY THAT DOES LIVE IN ST. LUCIE SOMETIMES.

I WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER MAYBE NOT HAVING THEM BE RERIGHT SIDED IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY AND LOOK AT A DISTANCEST. LUCIE COUNTY AND DISTANCE THAT THEY CAN RESPOND. UH JUST ASK THAT YOU TAKE THAT

[01:15:03]

INTO CONSIDERATION. COMMI COMMI COMMI COMMI COMMISSIONER PERONA YOU TALKED ABOUT THE ENFORCEMENT AND THE FEE. YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE NOT PAYING THEIR TAXES. IF WE HAD ENFORCEMENT WHERE EVERY INDIVIDUAL WAS PAYING THEIR APPROPRIATE TAXES, THAT WOULD HELP KEEP OUR FEES DOWN.

NOT EVERY INDIVIDUAL WAS RENTING WOULD HAVE TO PAY OVER THE $250 BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT THE RECOMMENDATION TO BRING IT DOWN TO $250 WAS FAIR AND REASONABLE. I DO APPRECIATE THAT.

THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR TIME AND EFFORT IN THIS MATTER. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM.

WHO IS NEXT?

>> GOOD EVENING, TERRA, 411 U.S. HIGHWAY 1. >> WHAT WAS YOUR LAST NAME?

>> MARCACELLO. AS FAR AS THE POSTED INFORMATION IN THE EXTERIOR, I'M IN COMPLETE DISAGREEMENT WITH HAVING THE SIGNS POSTED OUT FRONT. AS A FORMER LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, I REALLY, TRULY, STRONGLY FEEL THAT POSTING A VACATION RENTAL FOR EVERYBODY TO SEE IS GOING TO BRING IN THE UNWANTEDS, TO BE HONEST, AS WE STATED BEFORE.

YOU HAVE PEOPLE COMING IN FROM OUT OF TOWN, CASH IN THEIR POCKETS, YOU BECOME A TARGET.

FORT PIERCE IS A GROWING, WONDERFUL COMMUNITY AND TO BRING IN MORE ISSUES TO THE COMMUNITY I THINK IS GOING TO BE A BIG CHANNEL SO I DO COMPLETELY AGREE THAT THE SIGNAGE NEEDS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE EXTERIOR OF THE PROPERTIES. THE SECOND ISSUE I HAVE IS I WANT TO BRING UP THE VERBIAGE OF THE NOISE ORDINANCE. NOBODY SPOKE ABOUT IT YET TODAY BUT IN THE DESCRIPTION DEFINITIONS NOISE MEANS ANY SOUND THAT ANNOYS OR DISTURBS HUMANS OR CAUSES OR TENDS TO CAUSE ADVERSE PSYCHOLOGICAL OR PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECT ON HUMAN THAT IS WOULD INTERFERE WITH THE UNENJOYMENT OF LIFE OR PROPERTY? WHY WOULD WE NOT HAVE THE SAME CODE AS WE DO FOR RESIDENTS? DETERRENT TO PUBLIC HEALTH, HEALTH AND SAFETY.

IT DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT TO SEGREGATE THE SHORT TERM RENTALS WITH HAVING A NEWS THAT A HUMAN MAY BE ANNOYED WITH SO IF THE RENTER NEXT DOOR IS A LOUD SNORER AND THE WINDOWS ARE OPEN, IS THAT AN ISSUE? THAT WOULD DISTURB ME. IN THE REGULAR CODE THAT YOU HAVE CURRENTLY, IT SEEMS LIKE IT SHOULD BE PARALLEL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU. WHO WOULD LIKE TO GO NEXT? >> HELLO, RICHARD, 8404 BAIRD ROAD FORT PIERCE. I WOULD LIKE TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT SECTION 22.506.

WE TOUCHED ON IT EARLIER WITH THE PHONE SERVICE. HAVING A LAND LINE IN YOUR HOUSE IS KIND OF 1990. A LONG TIME AGO, NOBODY HAS LAND LINES, I CERTAINLY DON'T AND MOST OF MY CLIENTS DON'T AS WELL. IF YOU DO, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO ANSWER IT ANYWAY. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE BIG THING I HAVE A COMPLAINT ABOUT THAT I THOUGHT DOESN'T MAKE A LOT OF SENSE. WE HAVE A LOT OF OTHER THINGS IN HERE BUT REALLY IT COMES DOWN TO PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE BEST USE OF YOUR PROPERTY AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET AND THAT'S WHAT REALTORS DO, RIGHT? SO THIS IS WHAT I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT BUT Y'ALL HAVE A GREAT DAY AND THANKS FOR LETTING ME TALK.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. SO THAT IS ON LINE 175. WHO IS NEXT?

>> GOOD EVENING, NICK, 715 SOUTH OCEAN APARTMENT M. I AGREE WITH TIFFANY O WHO SUGGESTED THAT WE GRANDFATHER EXISTING PERMITS. I HAVE TWO OF THEM IN THAT SAME BUILDING. ANY CHANGE IN ORDINANCE MUST COMPLY WITH THE FLORIDA DBPR.

IT WAS ALREADY LITIGATED ON MARCH 3, 2020 IN THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE BINDING INTERPRETATION REPORT NUMBER 179. LEGALLY THERE'S NO CHANGE IN THE USE OF THE PROPERTY REGARDING VACATION RENTALS AND SHORT TERM RENTALS.

[01:20:07]

THEY'RE STILL PROTECTED BY A HOME OWNER'S RIGHT TO USE AS NEEDED WITHOUT PLACING THEM INTO A COMMERCIAL CLASSIFICATION, SO THEY SHOULD BE TREATED LIKE LONG TERM RENTALS AND PRIMARY RESIDENCES AND JUST AS VACATION RENTALS CANNOT BE FORCED TO INSTALL FIRE SPRINKLERS UNDER AN EXISTING FLORIDA BUILDING CODE 509, THEY ALSO CANNOT BE FORCED TO COMPLY WITH THE ADDITIONAL BURDENSOME REGULATIONS SUCH AS MANDATORY PHONES AND CARBON MONOXIDE MONITORS, HOWEVER, AN POLITICAL FLORIDA DBPR REGULATION INCLUDES MANDATORY FIRE EXTINGUISHERS AND HEARING IMPAIRED SMOKE ALARMS, NOT CARBON MONOXIDE MONITORS. IN ADDITION, THERE WERE OTHER UNCONSTITUTIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS MADE TO THE COMMITTEE SUCH AS MIDNIGHT GUEST CURFEWS AND TO HOLDING PROPERTY OWNERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR MAXIMUM NOISE ALLOWANCES.

CURFEWS ARE UNLAWFUL AND THERE ARE ALREADY LAWS ON THE BOOKS REGULATING NOISE AND ILLICIT BEHAVIOR. HOLDING OWNERS ACCOUNTABLE IS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS.

THEN THERE'S UNREASONABLE RESPONSE TIMES AND 24/7 AVAILABILITY.

AROUND THE CLOAK SERVICE IS A GOAL BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE AN ORDINANCE BECAUSE NOBODY IS AVAILABLE BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE ORDINANCE BECAUSE NOBODY IS AVAIGOAL BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE A ORDINANCE BECAUSE NOBODY IS AVAILABLE 24/7/365 FOR ANYTHING. MOST SHORT TERM RENTAL OWNERS BREAK EVEN AT BEST AND SIMPLY COVER THEIR FINANCING, ANNUAL TAXES AND HOA FEES.

THE MARKET EVENTUALLY WEEDS OUT BAD OWNERS. ALL RESPONSIBLE OWNERS WANT TO DO IS RENT THEIR PROCESS FOR LESS THAN SIX MONTHS SO THEY CAN ALSO USE IT AND HAVE BEEN TARGETED LIKE CRIMINALS FOR EXERCISING THEIR SHORT TERM PROPERTY RIGHTS.

A BALANCED APPROACH WOULD BE GRANTING AN OPERATING LICENSE SAME AS ALL THE OTHER BTRS IN THE CITY AS LONG AS IT DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH HOA RULES, THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. WHO IS NEXT? [INAUDIBLE]

>> BE READY, PEOPLE. THERE'S A STATUTE I HAVE NOD HEARD YET, COVER THE LEGAL COST FOR THE CITY. IF THEY TAKE YOU TO COURT, AS THE RESIDENTS, IF THEY TAKE YOU TO COURT, WHO IS PAYING THE COSTS OF THESE LEGAL FEES? WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT HAVING ONE MORE ENFORCEMENT, ONE PERSON MAYBE THE $250 COVERS IT BUT NOT ALL THE OTHER COSTS THAT COME AT THE CITY. PLEASE THINK ABOUT WHO WILL PAY THE LEGAL FEES BECAUSE THE

LAWYERS ARE HERE. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

WHO WOULD LIKE TO BE NEXT? PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> HELLO, MY NAME IS MIKE NOLE, I RESIDE [INDISCERNIBLE] I WANT TO SAY THINK FOR TAKING THIS ISSUE SERIOUSLY AND LOOKING AT DOING SOMETHING. I WISH THERE HAD BEEN MORE REPRESENTATION FROM SHORT TERM RENTAL OWNERS TO GET THEIR INPUT. I FEEL LIKE NOW WE ARE ABLE TO DO IT AND ARE HAPPY, BUT I THINK IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE MONTHS AGO.

ONE OF MY BIGGEST PROBLEMS I HAVE WITH THE LIST OF RULES IS SOME OF THE RULES ON THERE ARE LAWS THAT ARE ALREADY IN PLACE, LIKE THE LEASE LAW, THAT DOESN'T NEED TO BE PART OF THAT.

[01:25:04]

THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. ANOTHER ISSUE I HAVE IS THE $250.

I FIRMLY BELIEF IT'S GOING TO BE A POSITIVE IMPACT. IT WILL MORE THAN OUTWAY THE $250 FEE. I ALSO THINK THAT $250 FEE WILL DETER PEOPLE.

IF IT'S A SMALLER FEE, MORE PEOPLE MAY SIGN UP AND WE DOENLT KNOW WHO ARE IN THESE

PROPERTIES. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> I HAVEN'T BEEN SWORN IN. >> YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE SWORN IN.

>> DAVID HICKS, 1502 THUMB POINT DRIVE. I SAW THAT THE CHANGES AFTER THE READING AT THE LAST MEETING. THESE SCOOTERS, OKAY, ONLY ONE PERSON, EVERYBODY HAD TO BE 16 YEARS OLD, NOT AFTER DARK, EVERY RULE WAS BROKEN. I SAW I'M ASSUMING A MOTHER WITH A 4-YEAR-OLD CHILD GOING DOWN THE STREET AND THE CHILD FELL OFF IN THE STREET, SO -- OR WALKING WITH MY WIFE, I SAW THESE SCOOTERS COMING THROUGH, I'M SURE NONE OF THESE PEOPLE HAVE LIABILITY INSURANCE TO COVER RUNNING AROUND. AND THEN GUN CONTROL, WE HAVE MORE DEATHS IN THE CITIES WITH THE STRICTEST GUN CONTROL LAWS OF ANYBODY ELSE IN THE COUNTRY AND YET MURDER AFTER MURDER.

THE POINT WITH DOING THESE RULES IS TO HAVE ENFORCEMENT THAT GOES ALONG WITH IT.

TO SAY WE'LL HAVE ONE PERSON WHO WILL -- AND NOW WE DEPTH EVEN WANT TO DOON'T EVEN WANT TO DO AN INSPECTION BEFOREHAND. MY SENSE IS, NUMBER ONE, YOU NEED TO HAVE INSPECTORS TO CHECK IT OUT, TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM LIKE WE HAD WITH OTHER ISSUES, OKAY? AND THE OTHER IS THAT THEY SHOULDN'T BE MADE TO HAVE THE PRO BE MADE TO HAVE THE PROPERTY LIABILITY INSURANCE BUT A HOME OWNER'S INSURANCE WON'T COVER WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR HOUSE AS A HOTEL. THE WHEN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE GETS ENOUGH COMPENSATION THAT THEY CAN ENFORCE THESE RULES, WHATEVER RULES THEY PUT.

THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. >> [INDISCERNIBLE] I AGREE THERE SHOULD BE RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THIS BUT I STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THE ORDINANCE YOU'RE PASSING.

I DON'T BELIEVE YOU CAN EVEN REGULATE THIS. I THINK YOU HAVE LOST YOUR GRANDFATHERING USING A COVERUP THAT EVEN DURING ONE OF OUR APPLICATIONS, THE PLANNING DIRECTOR STATED IT COULD NOT BE AN [INDISCERNIBLE] ERROR IN FROPT OF THE COMMISSIONERS SO RIFRONT OF THE COMMISSIONERS SO RIGHT THERE DUE TO THE JUNE 1, 2011, RULING SHOWS YOU LOST YOUR GRANDFATHERING IN AFTER THAT RULING. IN OTHER WORDS, EVERYTHING ELSE GOING ON YOU HOLD WORKSHOPS AND YET YOU DON'T DO SOMETHING FOR SOMETHING THIS MAJOR.

THE ONE CITIZEN ON THERE THAT REPRESENTED THE MASS MAJORITY WAS ONE THAT SOMEONE WHO IS DEAD SET AGAINST SHORT TERM RENTALS. YOU'RE TRYING TO RECREATE THE WHEEL HERE, TOO.

YOU'RE TRYING TO ADD LIKE THE TAXES. YOU CAN HAVE AIRBNB AND THOSE PEOPLE COLLECT THE TAXES ON YOUR BEHALF. YOU CAN PUT THAT IN THERE AND MAKE AN AGREEMENT WITH THEM AND ENYOU HAVE THEIR TAXES COLLECTED.

YOU'RE TRYING TO RECREATE BUT YOU CAN PUT THIS LEGISLATION IN PLACE.

WE HAVE A VERY SUCCESSFUL, ONE OF THE TOP RENTAL PROPERTIES IN ARUBA, OUT OF THE COUNTRY.

WE HAVE NO ISSUES. THERE ARE OTHER THINGS YOU CAN DO.

WE HAVE CONTRACTS THAT THE GUEST HAS TO SIGN BEFORE THEY ARE ALLOWED TO BOOK OUR PROPERTY.

[01:30:04]

THERE'S A LOT OF QUICK FIXES YOU CAN PUT IF THERE TO HELP FIX THESE ISSUES BUT YOU'RE NOT DOING THAT. YOU'RE NOT ASKING THE PEOPLE THAT DO THIS SUCCESSFULLY TO HELP YOU AND SET THESE PROCEDURES. INJURY JUST SHOOTING AT THE HIP.

IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THE TASK FORT WENT AND PICKED THE MOST RESTRICTIVE LEGISLATION ACROSS THE U.S. AND PUT THEM IN THIS LEGISLATION. YOU DIDN'T LOOK AT WAYS THAT PEOPLE HAVE THIS IN PLACE NOW. I WISH YOU WOULD STEP BACK, REDO THE TASK FORCE, GET THE PEOPLE WHO KNOW HOW TO DO THIS AND ASK FOR THEIR INPUT. WE STEPPED IN AND MADE SURE BED AND BREAKFASTS WERE NOT PERMITTED ACROSS THE CITY BECAUSE WE KNEW YOU DON'T HAVE THE RULES AND REGULATIONS IN PLACE. WE OWN THE BED AND BREAKFAST BUT WE DIDN'T WANT TOO SEE THAT GO DOWN THE SAME PATH THESE SHORT TERM RENTALS ARE GOING DOWN BUT YOU DON'T ASK PEOPLE WHO DO THIS PROFESSIONALLY, FOR A LIVING, FOR THEIR INPUT.

YOU'RE TRYING TO RECREATE THE RULE, YOU CAN REACH OUT AND ASK THE BOOKING ENGINES AND PUT THESE PROCEDURES AND PLACE AND THEN HAVE GUIDELINES AND MAKE THE GUESTS AWARE.

IF YOU EDUCATE IS HOME OWNERS AND THE HOME OWNERS EDUCATE THE GUESTS, THEN YOU CAN MOVE

FORWARD. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU? ANYBODY ELSE BEFORE I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? ANYBODY ELSE BEFORE I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING?

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE? [LAUGHTER] >> GOOD EVENING.

FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO THANK -- >> YOUR NAME, PLEASE. >> [INDISCERNIBLE] I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE TASK FORCE FOR ALL THE HARD WORK THEY DID. I WAS HERE FOR SEVERAL MEETINGS AND I UNDERSTAND. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO BRING UP A COUPLE OF POINTS.

AS A HOME OWNER, A TAXPAYER, I HAVE ALSO MADE A SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT IN FORT PIERCE.

I AGREE WITH THE ITEM OF NOT PUTTING A POSTING OUTSIDE THE BUILDINGS.

I AGREE THAT WOULD CAUSE ISSUES. THERE SHOULD BE A POSTING IN THE BUILDINGS FOR THE CLIENTS, BUT THE FACT THAT WE WOULD HAVE A 24-HOUR A DAY CODE ENFORCEMENT PERSON FOR US TO CONTACT IF THERE WERE A CONCERN OR A PROBLEM WOULD MAKE AN OUTSIDE POSTING NOT NECESSARY.

ALSO, THE FEES. YOUR LAWN MAINTENANCE COMPANY PAYS A FEE, YOUR NAIL TECH, YOUR REAL ESTATE AGENT, YOUR PHYSICIAN, YOUR REGISTERED NURSE.

THEY ALL PAY FEES. THEY ALL PAY FOR EXTRA EDUCATION EVERY YEAR TO KEEP THEIR LICENSES. HAVING A LICENSE OR PAYING A FEE IS A GENERAL COST OF DOING BUSINESS. SHORT TERM RENTALS ARE BUSINESSES AND A NOMINAL KNEE OF $250 A YEAR IS NOTEE OF $250 A YFEE OF $250 A YEAR IS NOT SIGNIFICANT.

THAT'S ABOUT ALL I HAVE TO SAY. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> APPRECIATE IT. ANYONE ELSE? ANYONE ELSE?

>> HI, SUSAN BAKER. 1577 THUMB POINT DRIVE. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO US TODAY. I JUST WANT TO PIGGY BACK OFF EVERYONE ELSE.

I ALREADY WROTE MY LETTER. I DO FEEL LIKE POSTING IS A SAFETY ISSUE.

YOU'RE PUTTING IT OUT THERE FOR SEX OFFENDERS, BURGLARS, RAPISTS, PEOPLE TO COME AND TARGET OUR GUESTS. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A STREAMLINE PROCESS BUT FOR ALL OF US WHO HAVE GONE THROUGH THE QUASI JUDICIAL, WE HAVE BEEN HARASSED. WE FOUGHT A GOOD FIGHT TO HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY AND NOW YOU'RE SAYING LET'S JUST STREAMLINE IT AND DO IT LIKE THIS, YES, STREAMLINE IT FOR NEW APPLICANTS OR IF WE GET NEW UNITS BUT THE WHOLE ISSUE OF GOING THROUGH THE QUASI JUDICIAL MEET SINGS SO WE COULD EXERCISE OUR RIGHTS TO DO WHAT WE DO WITH OUR PROPERTY AND THESEINGS SO WE COULD EXERCISE OUR RIGHTS TO DO WHAT WE DO WITH OUR PROPERTY AND THESE ARE REALLY OUR HOMES. I TREAT MY HOME LIKE MY HOME AND SHARE IT WITH PEOPLE.

WE HOLD A BIG LIABILITY HERE. YOU DON'T NEED TO CREATE A 250 PAGE APPLICATION.

WE KNOW THE RESPONSIBILITY WE HAVE AND YOU'RE JUST MAKING THE RED LINE TAPE TO PROMOTE MORE

PEOPLE TO DO IT ILLEGALLY. THAT'S MY 2¢, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM.

ANYONE ELSE? ANYONE ELSE BEFORE I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING?

[01:35:04]

>> CLOSE IT. >> SHAWN DUVAL [INDISCERNIBLE] THANK YOU MAYORS AND COMMISSIONERS FOR THIS EVENING AND TRYING TO GET THINGS STRAIGHTENED OUT.

I DON'T THINK THIS IS GOING TO DO IT, HONESTLY. I HAVE BEEN RUNNING FOR 20 YEARS. THERE ARE THINGS WITHIN YOUR APPARATUS THAT HAVE NO MEANING AND NO REASON BEHIND THEM IN TERMS OF THE REALITY OF RENTING VACATION RENTINGS.

WHY WE SHOULD BE SUBJECTED TO RULES AND REGULATIONS OF LONG TERM RENTALS WHO HAVE A WHOLE LOT MORE TROUBLE THAN SHORT TERM RENTINGS SO I DO NOT UNDERSTAND. IT TOOK ME 5 MONTHS, A LAWYER, $1,700 TO THE CITY INCLUDING A $1,000 SIDEWALK WHEN THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS IN MY COMMUNITY AT ALL WITHIN MY NEIGHBORHOOD OR MOST OF THEM ON THE ISLAND. THE REASON I WENT THROUGH ALL THAT WAS SO THAT I COULD OFFER HOUSING TO TRAVELING NURSES WHO I HAVE RIGHT NOW.

I HAVE ANOTHER ONE COMING UP SOON. THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE IN NEED OF A SHORTER TERM THAN 6 MONTHS AND YOU ARE JUST PUSHING THEM OUT.

OUR CITY CANNOT SURVIVE WITHOUT SHORTER THAN 6-MONTH RENTALS THAT ARE AFFORDABLE FOR THESE PEOPLE TO COME AND WORK FOR UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES US AND GIVE US THE QUALITY OF LIFE WE'REAND GIVE US THE QUALITY OF WE'RE LOOKING FOR HERE. I WENT THROUGH A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING. I WAS TOLD THIS WAS TRANSABLE WITH THE HOUSE AND IT LASTED A LIFETIME AND NOW TO HAVE THAT YANKED, IT SEEMS AS THOUGH MY RIGHTS NOT HAVING ANOTHER QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING, NOT HAVING BEEN TOLD THERE WAS A CHANCE OF THIS CHANGING AND BEING ABLE TO BE HEARD ON MY SIDE IS MAYBE NOT A LEGAL THING. I'M NOT A LEGAL PERSON, I DON'T DEAL IN THE LAW, BUT IT SEEMS AS THOUGH MY RIGHTS THAT SUPPOSEDLY CAME WITH MY HARD FOUGHT BATTLE TO GET A SHORT TERM RENTAL AGREEMENT ARE JUST BEING NULLIFIED AND I DON'T SEE HOW

THAT'S FAIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES, SIR? >> LARRY WINTER, SOMETIMES TO SHAWN I WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS, GOT A PERMIT. I ALSO HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH BOTH JOHNSON COMMISSIONERS AND COMMISSIONER PERONA AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I SAID IS THE TASK FORCE LOOKED LIKE THEY THEY CUT AND PASTED ORDINANCES FROM OTHER CITIES BUT DIDN'T SAY WHY THEY DID IT. MERRIAM YOU MENTIONED THEY DID HARD WORK AND I AGREE WITH THAT BUT ONE THING THAT WAS NOT SAID IS WHEN THOSE ORDINANCES WENT INTO EFFECT FOR THOSE CITIES.

PRIOR TO 2011, SOME CITIES COULD HAVE HAD IT AND YOU COULD HAVE CUT AND PASTED AND PUT IT IN.

SOMEWHERE IN YOUR DOCUMENT HERE IT TALKS ABOUT TENTS. I DON'T CARE ABOUT TENTS, BUT IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE, WHY IS THAT EVEN IN THERE? I OWN A DUPLEX.

IF YOU ALLOW TENTS IN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, WASN'T CAN'T I, AS A DUPLEX, HAVE ONE? GOING BACK TO STATE ISSUES, YOU HAVE TO TREAT EVERYBODY IS SAME, WHETHER IT'S SINGLE FAMILY LIKE THAT. ONE THING I WISH YOU WOULD DO IS LOOK AT THE CITY OF L ARGO, THREE PAGES AND A COUPLE OF SENTENCES. IT COVERS ALL THEIT COVERS ALL CONCERNS. IT'S SIMPLE, IT'S AFFORDABLE, AND SOMETHING THAT COMES UP,

WHAT CAN YOU ENFORCE? >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> ANYONE ELSE BEFORE I CLOSE

[01:40:01]

THE PUBLIC HEARING?

>> MICHELLE, 715 SOUTH OCEAN. AS YOU KNOW, I HAVE SENT E-MAILS AND I'M ENTITLED TO MORE THAN 3 MINUTES BECAUSE THIS IS AFFECTS OUR CURRENT PERMIT. THIS IS UNLAWFUL TO NOT ALLOW US TO SPEAK LONGER THAN 3 MINUTES. PLEASE SEE YOUR E-MAILS. WITH REGARDS TO THIS ORDINANCE, YOU DO NOT HAVE GRANDFATHERING. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS THAT YOU GUYS THINK YOU CAN TREAT US DIFFERENTLY THAN ANY OTHER PERSON. THE LAWS STATE OTHERWISE.

YOU HAVE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE WHO OWN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN PROPERTY AND YOU ARE TRYING TO LITERALLY ENFORCE SOMETHING AND PICK ON A GROUP OF PEOPLE IN PARTICULAR AND BE HIGHLY PREJUDICIAL AGAINST US. YOU DO NOT WANT OR REQUIRE THE SAME THING FROM A 12-MONTH PERSON. I CAN PERSONALLY ATTEST TO THE FACT THAT I HAVE BEEN RUNNING OUR SHORT TERM RENTALS WITH NO PROBLEMS, VIRTUALLY FLAWLESS, NO INFORMATION HAS EVER BEEN GIVEN TO ME THAT WOULD WARRANT THE POLICE OR FIRE DEPARTMENT. IN ADDITION, YOU ALSO HAVE A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE THREE DIFFERENT ZONES OF PROCEDURAL BEHAVIOR, OCEAN GETS TREATED ONE WAY, SEAWAY IS TREATED ANOTHER WAY AND THEN THE REST OF US GET STUCK WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS THAT WE PAID A LOT OF MONEY FOR. OUR COST OVER $60,000, OKAY? THE FIRST ONE. YOU REMEMBER ME IN UNIT D, I'M SURE.

ENGINEER, LAWYER FEES. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR. MR. MIMS KINDLY HAD A MEETING WITH ME AND INFORMED ME EACH WIN OF THE PERMITS COST $8,000 FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE TO PROCESS, THAT'S $80,000 JUST FOR THE ONES I HAVE WORKED ON. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT GO TO JC PARK BUT WE'RE TALK ABOUT SOMETHING YOU HAVE NO BEARING OER.

YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY REASON TO HAVE THESE SHORT TERM PERMITS AT ALL, BUT SINCE YOU MADE US GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, WE ARE GRANDFATHERED INTO THIS. YOU CANNOT TAKE THAT AWAY.

WE ARE ENTITLED TO DUE PROCESS. MY HIS AND I WERE NOT NOTIFIED PROPERLY.

MR. SWEENEY, UNFORTUNATELY, HAS MISINFORMED SOME OF YOU ABOUT SOME OF THESE LAWS.

I HAVE LITERALLY PUT INTO PLACE THE LAWS THAT YOU HIRED, OKAY? YOU HIRED SUSAN AND THEN YOU DON'T EVEN FOLLOW YOUR OWN QUASI JUDICIAL. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE BEHAVIOR.

YOU DON'T ALLOW CROSS-EXAMINATION IN THIS WHEN WE GO UP.

I HAVE HAD THE POLICE IN MY FACE TELLING ME NOT TO OBJECT FOR A CLIENT.

YOU REALLY NEED TO GET IT TOGETHER. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WHO WOULD LIKE TO GO NEXT? WHO IS NEXT? >> GOOD EVENING, MY NAME IS TREVES BURDEN. I'M NOT A FORT PIERCEAVIS BURDE. I'M NOT A FORT PIERCE RESIDENT, I'M A CHAIRMAN FOR THE SHORT TERM RENTAL ORGANIZATION FOR TREASURE COAST.

THANK YOU FOR TAKING THIS MATTER SO SERIOUSLY AND TABING ALL THESE COMMENTS AND I APPRECIATE THE THOROUGHNESS OF THECOMMENTS THOROUGHNTHESE COMMENTS AND I A THE THOROUGHNESS OF THE COMMENTS FROM THE GROUP. THE VACATION RENTAL ASSOCIATION HAVE HIGH STANDARDS.

WE WANT AN INDUSTRY PEOPLE CAN RELY ON THAT PROMOTES THE LOCAL VALUES AND IS PART OF THE COMMUNITY. SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE GOOD OVERSIGHT ON THOSE THINGS AND I THINK THE STATE IT HAS PUT INTO PLACE A PROCESS THAT 95% OF THE RESIDENT FOLLOW.

[01:45:13]

THERE'S A VALID CONCERN THAT IF IT'S GRANDFATHERED FOR THEM IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT YOU CAN JUST TRANSPORT IT OVER BUZZ BECAUSE IT'S NEW HERE SO I SHOULD WARN YOU THAT'S SOMETHIN SHOULD WARN YOU THAT'S SOMETHING YOU SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT. THIS TASK FORCE SHOULD ALSO LOOK AT THE CITIES RELYING ON THE STATE'S POLICIES AND REGULATIONS AND THE LICENSE THAT'S REQUIRED AND SEE HOW IT WORKS THERE AND WHERE IT WORKS AND WHERE IT DOESN'T.

I SAY THAT NOT TO SAY YOU SHOULD JUST BLINDLY DO THAT BUT IF YOU FIND CITIES DOING TO SAME THING AS FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, WHAT ARE THEY DOING? LET'S NOT JUST CUT AND PASTE THINGS FROM 2011. THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION, THE 1 HOUR RESPONSE OPEN UP THE PATH TO PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BE AN UH NUISANCE TO OWNERS.

YOU'RE OPENING ANNUISANCE TO OWNERS. YOU'RE A NUISANCE TO OWNERS. YOU'RE OPENING PANDORA'S BOX. I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONSIDER A RECOURSE FOR THAT. THE OTHER THING IS THE PROXIMITY.

I'M NOT A RESIDENT OF THE COUNTY, SO OBVIOUSLY THIS WOULD PROHIBIT ME FROM OPERATING AND I'M A VACATION RENTAL MANAGER BUT I HAVE A VERY HIGH STANDARD SO IF I WERE OPERATING IN FORT PIERCE, I WOULD BE COMPETITION THAT WOULD RAISE THE BAR FOR COMPETITION IN THIS COUNTY, BUT YOU'RE PROHIBITING ME FROM DOING THAT SO YOU'RE ACCEPTING OF PEOPLE THAT DON'T WANT THE

COMPETITION'S RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. >> THINK, SIR.

>> ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO -- ANYONE ELSE? >> CHRIS GARDENER, 207 ORANGE AVENUE. I JUST STRUCK WILL THE FACT THAT THIS CITY STRUGGLED WITH HOME RENTALS AND SHORT TERM FOR 8 YEARS AND DECIDED TO DO EVERYTHING IN 4 WEEKS AND CRAM THIS LEGISLATION DOWN OUR THROAT WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION WITH ANY RESIDENTS OR ANY PARTICIPATION WITH PEOPLE THAT ACTUALLY DO THE WORK THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. SHAME ON YOU FOR DOING THAT.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE? ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. GOING ONCE, GOING TWICE. WE'RE CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT.

SO. GENTLEMEN? DISCUSSION.

>> I HAVE A FEW THINGS BUT LET'S JUST TAKE THE EASY ONE FOREST ABOUT THE EXTERIOR POSTING.

ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? I STILL STAND, I DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING TO COMPEL ME TO SWITCH MY THOUGHT OR IDEA. I DON'T KNOW IF WE SHOULD HAVE IT OR NOT.

I DON'T THINK SO. >> JUST FOR CLARITY, YOU'RE FOR IT OR AGAINST IT?

>> AGAINST IT. AGAINST HAVING IT THERE. TAKING IT OUT.

THERE ARE OTHER MEANS AND METHOD OF NOTIFICATION. >> RIGHT.

>> I'M JUST NOT SURE IT'S WARRANTED >>.

>> SO WE BROUGHT THAT UP. >> SO 310 THROUGH 315, YOU WANT IT OUT?

>> YEAH. >> ALL RIGHT. SCRATCH THAT AREA THERE.

>> ANY IDEAS OR THOUGHTS ON THAT, MAYOR? >> NO.

I'M NOT SURE THAT I -- I'M OKAY WITH IT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S A BIG PROBLEM BUT I UNDERSTOOD SOME OF THE THINGS SAID TONIGHT AND I CAN SEE THAT SO I'M OKAY.

>> MADAM MAYOR, THERE'S A LOT HERE. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I SEPTEMBER HEARING AND MAYBE MR. SWEENEY CAN HELP AND I WOULD LIKECAN HELP AND I WOULD LIKE FS TO HAVE A DISCUSSION. THE CONCERNS OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE GONE THROUGH CONDITIONAL USES BEFORE AND NOW THIS PRODS. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND AND I REALIZE AND HAVE EMPATHY

[01:50:03]

WHO PAID THEIR MONEY AND WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS AND NOW WE'RE IMPLEMENTING THIS.

AS FAR AS ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE RITED OR GRANTED WHAT WAS A CONDITIONAL USE AND PERMITTING, CAN YOU COMMENT, MR. SWEENEY, ON WHAT'S GAINED, LOSS, WHAT'S IN THE FLUX BETWEEN THAT VERSUS THIS NEW PAPER PROCESS OF APPLICATION? WHAT'S LOST OR GAINED?

>> MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS, IF YOU LOOK AT IT ON A VERY BASIC LEVEL, THIS IS GOING TO OPEN UP AND ALLOW A LOT MORE PEOPLE TO APPLY THAT INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE A CONDITIONAL USE, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO FUNCTION UNDER THE SAME RIB RICK AND MOVE RIGHT THROUGH THE PROCESS.

THEUBRIC AND MOVE RIGHT THROUGH THE PROCESS. THE ONLY GAIN OR LOSS THAT I SEE IS THERE WAS A COST THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS HAVE PAID. THERE WILL BE A COST GOING FORWARD BUT, AGAIN, THERE ARE WAYS TO FOREBARE OR DEFER THAT PRIOR INVESTMENT TO, AGAIN, LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD FOR SOMEBODY WHO HAS ALREADY BEEN THROUGH THE PROCESS.

THAT WOULD BE A POLICY DECISION FOR THIS COMMISSION AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A NUMBER THAT'S GOING TO MAKE EVERY SINGLE PERSON RIGHT. THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

LET'S BE VERY REALISTIC ABOUT THAT BUT IS THERE A FOREBARAL FOR THAT? I DON'T KNOW, ONE LADY SAID $1,700. THAT'S THE ONLY ISSUE I SEE BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, EVERYTHING ELSE IN HERE THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO A RENTAL.

>> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, PLEASE. WE LISTENED TO YOU. IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANT TO SAY AND TALK ABOUT, YOU CAN GO OUT IN THE FORIER AND TALK TO EACH OTHER AND THEN COME BACK IN. I8D APP APPR APPRWO APPRUAPPREC. THANK YOU.

>> I THINK THAT'S A VALID POINT. WE HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN TO THE END OF THIS AND WE'RE CONSIDERING EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE AND IT JUST GIVES ME A LITTLE INDY JEST.

PERHAPS WE CAN DISCUSS THIS AND SAY HOW DO THOSE WHO HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS, THE TIME, THE MONEY, THE PAIN AND AGONY, I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THAT BUT WE HAVE NOT EVEN ESTABLISH ALLED THE NUANCES THAT I THINK WE NEED TO TWEAK. WE NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THEWE NEED TO HAVE A DISC ABOUTO TWEAK. WE NEED TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS SO WE CAN ANTICIPATE THAT WE HAVE SOME FORM OF ENFORCEMENT THAT WE PROMISED WE WOULD HAVE. THAT'S THE THE WHOLE REASON THAT WE'RE DOING THIS.

WE CAN GO BACK TO CONDITIONAL USE AND PUT EVERYBODY THROUGH THAT SAME PROCESS WE HAD BEFORE.

YOU WOULD BE PAYING YOUR $1,700 AND PUTTING IN YOUR SIDEWALKS AND EVERYTHING ELSE LIKE THAT BECAUSE THAT'S THE WAY WE DID IT. WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THIS EASIER

FOR EVERYBODY. >> FAIR. >> AND FAIR.

IT'S NOT ONLY THAT. THE DOLLARS SPENT, TO ME, REFLECTS STAFF TIME THAT'S BEEN USED UP IN THIS PROCESS AND I CAN TELL YOU A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER THINGS I WOULD RATHER STAFF BE DOING AND I'M SURE YOU HAVE GOT TON THAT SAME CONCLUSION.

I THINK THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT BEFORE WE FINISH 24 WHOLE THING BUT I WOULD RATHER DISCUSS IT NEAR THE END OF THE PROCESS RATHER THAN THE BEGINNING

>> SO WOULD YOU SAY LOW HANGING FRUIT . >> SO WOULD YOU SAY LOW HANGING

FRUIT WOULD BE THE LAND LINE. IT SAYS LAND LINE OR CELL PHONE. >> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH

THAT, IT SAYS OR. >> IT SAYS OR. OF THE ONE OR THE OTHER.

>> I HAVE A LAND LINE. I'M CONFESSING TO THE WHOLE PUBLIC.

[LAUGHTER] I'M NOT GIVING IT UP ANY TIME SOON BECAUSE THOSE ARE US WHO WERE BORN IN FLORIDA AND KNOW FLORIDA, YOU GO THROUGH A HURRICANE, YOU WANT A LAND LINE.

>> THAT'S LOW HANGING. HERE'S AN EXAMPLE. WHAT IF SOMEONE COMES AND

DOESN'T HAVE A PHONE. >> IT'S OR, SO THAT'S LOW HANGING FRUIT.

I SEA WE LEAVE THAT IN THERE BECAUSE IT'S NOT PUNITIVE. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CELL PHONES,

[01:55:15]

USUALLY THE FOLKS USING A VOW OCCASION RENTAL HAS ONE. THE TASK FORCE LOOKED AT IT AS A SAFETY PRECAUTION, YOU GET PEOPLE HERE UNFAMILIAR WITH THE AREAVACATION RENTAL HAS ONE.

THE TASK FORCE LOOKED AT IT AS A SAFETY PRECAUTION, YOU GET PEOPLE HERE UNFAMILIAR WITH THE AREA THAT DO NOT HAVE ANY WAY TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE OUTSIDE WORLD, OKAY, I GET IT, BUT IDENTIFYING THAT THEY HAVE A CELL PHONE, YOU'RE GOOD TO GO. IF NOT, YOU CAN PROVIDE THEM

ONE. >> IF I COULD INPUT THERE, TOO. VOICE OVER IP IS A LAND LINE.

WE TALK WITH THESE NARROW BLINDERS. I CAN HAVE A GOOGLE CHAT ACCOUNT, A GOOGLE PHONE LINE ACCOUNT, IT'S ON A LAND LINE. WE GET IN THESE NARROW FOCUSES.

>> MESSENGER OR WHATEVER. >> IT'S A LAND LINE. IT'S OKAY.

IT'S ETHERNET. >> OKAY, ANY OTHER LOW HANGING FRUIT?

>> I THINK THE POINT MADE ABOUT IS IT REALLY ABOUT LIVING IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE OR IS IT REALLY A POINT ABOUT THE DISTANCE TO BE ABLE TO HANDLE THE SITUATION? I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THERE FOR ME IS THE RESPONSE TIME.

I DON'T CARE IF THEY COME FROM MARS IF THEY CAN GET HERE IN TIME.

>> BEAM ME UP, SCOTTY. >> SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO COME DO REPAIRS AT MY HOUSE I THINK COME FROM MARS BUT I THINK THAT WAS A GOOD POINT, ESPECIALLY FOR THOSE THAT ARE VERY SEASONED AND HAVE A GREAT ORGANIZATION TO MAKE SURE THAT THESE THINGS HAPPEN.

THERE ARE SATELLITES ALL OVER THE PLACE. THEY'RE ABLE TO CALL PEOPLE.

THEY'RE ABLE TO DETERMINE WHO CAN GET THERE AT THE FASTEST SYME.

I WOULD RATHER IT BE -- >> WE SAID ST. LUCIEI WOULD RAT >> WE SAITIM.

I WOULD RATHER IT BE -- >> WE SAIE. I WOULD RATHER IT BE --

>> WE SAID ST. LUCIE COUNTY. >> BUT EVEN THAT. I THINK WE WANT TO GIVE CREDIT TO OUR OWN COUNTY BUT YOU CAN BE IN THE SOUTHWEST END OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY AND IT WOULD TAKE YOU AN HOUR AND A HALF TO GET HERE. WE KNOW THAT, SO I THINK IT'S

ABOUT RESPONSE TIME. >> HOW DO YOU DO IT IF YOU DON'T DO IT THAT WAY.

>> THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO THE ISSUE WITHIN ONE HOUR, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE.

I DON'T KNOW. I DIDN'T THINK THROUGH IT BY I THOUGHT TFT IT WAS A GOOD

POINT. >> IF WE'RE SAYING RESPONSE TIME WITHIN AN HOUR, THAT'S MAKING A PHONE CALL OR BEING RESPONSE I HAVE. THAT SEEMS TO LEVITATE BETWEEN THAT AND THE ABILITY TO LIVE FLEXIBLE WHEREVER YOU LIVE. YOU COULD BE LIVING AT THE FAR NORTH END OF THE COUNTY, AT THE LINE OF INDIAN RIVER AND GET TO YOUR RESPECTIVE PLACE IF NEEDED BUT IT'S THE RESPONSE, I THINK, THAT WE WANT PEOPLE TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THEIR CLIENTS' NEEDS BUT ALSO IF THERE'S A NEED AND THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO DIFFERENTIATE, WHAT ARE YOU CALLING FOR? CALL THE POLICE OR ENFORCEMENT OR WHATEVER, SO I THINK WITH WHAT COMMISSIONER PERONA IS BRINGING UP I'M TENDING TO AGREE.

OUR LANGUAGE IS RESTRICTIVE. I WANTED TO LOOK AT IT SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE IT'S

22.509. >> LINE 374. >> 374? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. SIDE MANAGEMENT COMPANY SHOULD HAVE AN OFFICE LOCATED WITHIN ST. LUCIE COUNTY. RESPONSIBLE PERSON SHALL OFFICIALLY RESIDE IN A DWELLING UNIT WITHIN THE COUNTY. PROOF OF RESIDENCY SHALL BE DEMONSTRATED.

SO THE ENFORCEABILITY WOULD SHOW THAT THEY LIVE WITHIN THE COUNTY.

>> RIGHT. >> OTHERWISE YOU WOULD HAVE TO TAKE SOMEBODY'S WORD FOR IT.

>> AGAIN, IT'S ALREADY IN THERE THAT WE HAVE A RESPONSE TIME OF ONE HOUR.

I DON'T CARE HOW A COMPANY HAS TO BE ABLE TO GET THAT ACCOMPLISHED.

AGAIN, I KNOW WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP EVERYTHING LOCAL AND IT LOOKS GOOD BUT THE INTENT THERE IS RESPONSE TIME, NOT SO MUCH COUNTY. I DON'T CARE WHERE YOU LIVE AS

LONG AS YOU'RE ABLE TO RESPOND. >> I AGREE. RESPONSE IS NOT PHYSICALLY.

I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE

[02:00:07]

INTENTION OF THE RESPONSE. THE INTENT IS TO RESPOND TO SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED.

MAYBE YOU HAVE TO SHOW UP ON SITE. I THINK THE COUNTY, WE HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. WE WENT FROM FORT PIERCE REGISTERED AGENT, PROPERTY MANAGER, THERE ARE SOME THINGS IN THE STATE CODE THAT TALKS ABOUT REAL ESTATE AGENTS AND I GO BACK TO OUR LOCAL PREFERENCE TYPE OF ORDINANCES WHICH IS BEING DISCUSSED OR IS ON THE GOVERNOR'S DESK FOR SIGNATURE OR VETO.

>> HE SIGNED IT. >> DID HE SIGN IT? OKAY.

THERE ARE CONVERSATIONS LIKE THAT THAT I GO BACK TO, THAT LOCAL PREFERENCE TYPE OF THING THAT I BELIEVE THAT WAS PROBABLY PART OF OUR LANGUAGE OR THAT UNDERLYING INTENTION.

GET SOMEBODY LOCAL. >> ALWAYS PREFER LOCAL BUSINESSES TO SUPPORT THEM, YEP.

>> SO I DON'T KNOW. >> MS. COX, CAN YOU TELL US FROM THE TASK FORCE REPORT WHAT THAT

DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT? >> I DIDN'T PARTICIPATE IN THE ENTIRE TASK FORCE BUT WHEN I HAD THE FEEDBACK FROM SOME OF THE FOLKS OPPOSED TO THAT, ST. LUCIE COUNTY IS WHAT YOU, THE CITY COMMISSION, HAVE DONE WHEN WE HAVE BEEN DOING ALL THESE AND I THINK THIS IS A CARRY OVER FOR THAT. IT CAN BE A RADIUS WITHIN IS IT 25 MILES? I DON'T KNOW. I THINK THIS IS KIND OF A HOLDOVER FROM ALL THE CONDITIONS THAT YOU HAVE BEEN PLACING ON ALL THOUGHTS CONDSE CONDITIONAL APPLICATIONS THAT ARE IN PLACE

REQUIRE SOMEONE TO LIVE IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY. >> I THINK ORIGINALLY WE DIDN'T WANT THE PROPERTY MANAGER TO BE IN MICHIGAN. THE RESPONSIBLE PARTY.

>> I THINK THAT'S THE -- >> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. >> CAN'T STOP.

>> I THINK THAT PERHAPS IF YOU HAVE TO HAVE EDITORIAL COMMENTS THAT YOU GO OUTSIDE AND MAKE THEM AND THEN COME BACK IN BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT HELPING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ALL RIGHT. >> ON THAT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, AGAIN, WE'LL HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHATEVER THE ISSUE IS AND MAKE A RESPONSE TO IT AND THAT RESPONSE WILL PROBABLY BE SOMEBODY LIVING IN THE LOCAL AREA OF FORT PIERCE. WE HAVE AN ISSUE GOING ON, WE NEED SOMEONE THERE RIGHT AWAY AND I'M NOT TRYING TO THINK THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS BUT I AGREE WITH YOU, COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON THAT WHEN WE FIRST STARTED THIS, WE TRIED TO MAKE THIS AS HOMETOWN AS WE COULD TO MAKE SURE WE'RE LOOKING OUT FOR ONE ANOTHER.

WE'RE TRYING TO GET THIS TO WORK IN A SENSIBLE WAY. I WOULD RATHER NOT TELL THEM WHAT THEIR SYSTEM IS. YOU HAVE FOLKS HERE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY THAT CAN CORRECT THE SITUATION. I'M GOOD WITH THAT. IF NOT, WE HAVE SOMETHING.

WE HAVE TEETH IN THIS THING THAT WILL CATCH THAT AND WILL CAUSE A PROBLEM.

THERE WILL BE A PENALTY. THERE'S A CONSEQUENCE TO THAT. TELLING THEM THEY HAVE TO BE HERE AND THERE'S A CONSEQUENCE ON IT, I WOULD RATHER GIVE A FREE WAY ON IT TO MAKE YOUR OWN CONCLUSION OF WHERE THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY IS. AS LONG AS THEY CAN RESPOND IN

THE TIME THEY HAVE TO RESPOND. >> THERE ARE TWO ELEMENTS TO THIS, A MANAGEMENT COMPANY AND A RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL. IS THERE A DIFFERENCE IN YOUR MIND OR NOT? I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS THE PATH? HOW DO WE DEFINE THAT?

>> IT SAYS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, THAT'S ALL I'M TALKING ABOUT. >> LINE 375, IT SAYS IT HAS TO BE EITHER/OR. I GUESS YOU COULD HAVE BOTH BUT WHY WOULD YOU?

>> IF YOU TAKE IT LINE BY LINE. IF WE'RE JUST DEALING WITH A MANAGEMENT COMPANY, I JUST DON'T

SEE -- >> I DON'T THINK THEY'RE THE SAME.

>> THEY'RE NOT THE SAME BUT I DON'T SEE WHERE -- WHAT ARE WE GAINING WITH THAT? I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT BUT I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT WE GAIN WHEN WE SAY THE COMPANY HAS

[02:05:07]

TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE COUNTY. WE DEAL WITH A RESPONSIBLE AGENT BASED ON WHATEVER SO TO ME THAT

TAKES CARE OF THAT. >> YEAH, I THINK IT GOES BAG TO WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT FOR YEARS AND YEARS ON END. I HIRE A CONTRACTOR AND THEY HIRE 87% OR GREETATER LOCAL JOB.

THAT'S WHY. THAT'S A CARRY THROUGH FROM DECADES OF THE DISCUSSION.

I'M NOT UNWILLING TO CHANGE IT BUT THAT'S WHAT MAKES THE FABRIC OF A COMMUNITY A COMMUNITY.

I'M NOT TRYING TO SWAY YOU ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.

>> THEY JUST SNIPPED THAT A LITTLE BIT. I APPRECIATE IT AND I UNDERSTAND

IT, I WANT IT, I SUGGEST IT. >> SO WHAT'S THE REACH. I'M TALKING ABOUT LIFE CHANGING ISSUES. SOMETHING IS GOING ON. THEY CAN ONLY GET THEM BY PHONE.

>> IF I MAY. IT TALKS ABOUT THE OWNER OR A MANAGEMENT COMPANY.

YOU CAN HAVE JUST THE OWNER WHO IS THE RESPONSIBLE PERSON, OR YOU CAN HAVE THE OWNER WHO ALSO HAS A MANAGEMENT COMPANY AND THAT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, THAT'S ALL I'M TALKING ABOUT, THAT ONE SENTENCE RIGHT THERE THAT MAKES IT A REQUIREMENT FOR THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY TO HAVE AN

OFFICE LOCATED IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY >> SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE

ONE ELEMENT? >> THE ONE ELEMENT. THEN IF YOU WANT TO TAKE APART THE REST OF IT, WE CAN DO THAT, BUT THAT'S THE ONE IDEA THAT JUST DIDN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.

>> WELL, ONLINE 391 WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE RESPONSE OF AN HOUR, DOES THAT MEAN RESPOND BY

PHONE IN ONE HOUR? >> IT'S NOT INTENDED TO MEAN THEY PHYSICALLY HAVE TO BE ON SITE. IF A COMPLAINT COMES IN, THERE'S A PARTY AT THE HOUSE, WITHIN AN HOUR, THE EXPECTATION IS THAT THE RESPONSIBLE PERSON WOULD CONTACT THE TENANT AND SAY CUT IT OUT. THEY HAVE TO TRY TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE.

>> SO I THINK YOU'RE CONFLATING THE TWO, AREN'T YOU, COMMISSIONER PERONA? THE RESPONSE IN ONE HOUR IF THAT'S RESPONDING TO A CALL. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ST. LUCIE

COUNTY. >> THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY HAS TO RESIDE IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, THAT'S THE SIMPLE PART, JUST REMOVE THAT SENTENCE AND KEEP GOING.

>> WHICH IS WHAT? WHICH SENTENCE? 372.

>> SAID MANAGEMENT COMPANY SHALL HAVE AN OFFICE LOCATED IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY.

>> THAT ONE SENTENCE? THE REST OF IT WE CAN TALK ABOUT OR ARE YOU OKAY WITH THE REST OF

IT? >> I DON'T TREAT THEM THE SAME, SO.

>> OKAY. WHAT ABOUT 375 THROUGH 378. HIGHWAY DOES THE REST OPHTH COMMISSIONOF COMMISSION FEEL ABOUT DOES THE COMMISSIONO DOES THE REST OF TH

COMMISSIONW DOES THE REST OF TH COMMISSION FEEL ABOUT THAT? >> SOME PEOPLE HAVE A MANAGEMENT COMPANY. IT'S KINDOVER AN EITHER/OR, IT'S NOT BOTH.

SO IF IT'S A MANAGEMENT COMPANY, THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY SERVES AS THAT RESPONSIBLE PERSON.

[02:10:01]

IT'S ONE OR THE OTHER AND NOT BOTH, IF THAT HELPS. >> BY THERE'S ALSO AN OWNER

USUALLY. >> OF COURSE. >> AND IT COULD BE THE SAME.

>> WE JUST NEED SOMEBODY THAT'S HERE THAT'S RESPONSIBLE THAT'S ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.

IF THE MANAGEMENT COMPANY OR THE RESPONSIBLE PERSON DOES NOT DO WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO, WE NEED SOMEBODY HERE LOCALLY THAT WE CAN HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. I DON'T WANT TO REWRITE THIS.

>> YEAH, AND WE RECOGNIZE THAT IN OTHER RENTAL SITUATIONS BEYOND THIS, ABSENTEE LANDLORDS ARE A PROBLEM, RIGHT? WE RECOGNIZE THAT. AS A GENERAL RULE, THEY'RE HARD

TO REACH, THEY DON'T NECESSARILY CARE ABOUT OUR COMMUNITY. >> LET'S NOT BE SHORTSIGHTED ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN 2009 WHEN YOU HAD 10,000 VACANT PARCELS UNDER FORE CLOSURE AND THEY CAME UNDER THE EXTERIOR POSTING OF SOMEBODY ELSE AND THEY HAD VIOLATION AFTER WAYLATION BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T GET MOWED OR MAINTAINED. IT'S PART OF THIS WHOLE THING, PART OF GETTING SOMEBODY RESPONSIBLE. THAT'S ALL IT IS.

ARE WE SAYING THAT -- SPOOVENL PERSON TO MANAGE ON THEIR BEHALF.

IF YOU RESPOND WITHIN AN HOUR, THAT'S THAT NOW WE'RE SAYING THIS PERSON MUST RESIDE IN ST.

LUCIE COUNTY. THE PURPOSE OF THAT IS TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THAT PERSON IF

THEY NEED TO BE ACCESSED. IS THAT WHAT WE'RE HEARING? >> I THINK THAT AS MS. COX SAID

IT'S A CARRYOVER. >> I READ THIS, TOO, AND THE RESPONSIBLE PERSON TO ME IS DIFFERENT THAN A MANAGEMENT COMPANY. I'M EXPECTING IT HAS MAYBE AN ARMY OF FOLKS THAT CAN HELP OUT A RESPONSIBLE PERSON. I DON'T THINK WE CAN HAVE A LIC FOR THAT PERSON. IT COULD BE MY 75-YEAR-OLD GRANDFATHER.

I WOULDN'T HAVE A 75-YEAR-OLD GRANDFATHER ANYBODY BUT SOMEBODY'S 75-YEAR-OLD GRANDFATHER. I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT PERSON LIVING IN A LOCAL.

I STILL HAVE NO PROBLEM REMOVING THE FIRST ONE AND IT CAN REMAIN THE RESPONSIBLE PERSON IF THAT'S

WHO YOU DEEM FIT SHOULD LIVE IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY. >> OTHER ISSUES?

>> LOW HANGING FRUIT? >> ONE MORE QUESTION. I'M TRYING TO FIND IT AND I THOUGHT I READ IT. MANAGEMENT COMPANY, BTR IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE?

THAT'S ANY MY QMY QUESTION TO COMMISSIONER PERONA. >> I WILL DEFER TO THE CLERK.

>> I THINK THE DBPR LICENSE IS LICENSING THEIR FUNCTION WHEREVER THEY ARE.

[02:15:04]

THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO TO HAVE A TAX RECEIPT OUTSIDE THE LIMITS.

>> SORRY, COMMISSIONER, BROKE YOUR TRAIN OF THOUGHT. >> I THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE AT THIS FOR A WHILE. THIS IS FIRST READING AND I'M SURE IT'S GOING TO COME BACK AND WE'LL HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. WE'RE TRYING TO ADD REALTIME BUT THIS IS FIRST READING.

I THINK WE'LL HAVE THE OPTION TO MAKE SOME CHANGES, RIGHT? >> YEAH, I CAN'T CALL YOU ON THE

PHONE. >> YEAH, WE HAVE TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION, ABSOLUTELY.

I GOT IT. THERE WAS ONE I THOUGHT I HEARD FROM THE AUDIENCE CONCERNING NORTH ORDINANCE AND I THOUGHT IF THERE WAS ANY ORDINANCE, COULD THAT BE IN ALIGNMENT.

>> I THOUGHT THEY WERE ALIGNED. I DO BELIEVE -- >> IT SOUNDED VERY --

>> SOUNDS LIKE OUR NOISE ORDINANCE. >> WE WERE TRYING TO DO THAT.

IT SOUNDED LIKE IT HAD THE SAME EFFECT. >> CAN YOU PULL THAT ORDINANCE

AND READ IT SO WE KNOW WHAT'S FACTUAL? >> LET ME JUST PULL THAT UP,

GIVE ME A SECOND. >> ANOTHER LOW HANGING FRUIT, THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT TENTS AND I BELIEVE THAT IN HERE, IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE TENTS, THEY'RE IN THE BACKYARD, RIGHT?

>> I CAN'T GIVE YOU THE BACKGROUND ON THE TENTS. >> THERE WAS SOMETHING ABOUT

THAT. >> I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO KNOW IF THAT'S THE SAME AS IF PEOPLE HAVE TENTS IN THEIR YARD, THEY HAVE TO HAVE THEM IN THE BACKYARD, RIGHT? IS THAT POLITICAL TO ALL PEOPLE? I DON'T KNOW. YES, SIR, MR. MIMS.

>> I'M NOT TRYING TO COMPLICATE ANYTHING. >> BY YOU'RE ABOUT TO.

>> NO, I WOULDN'T DO SUCH A THING. IF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE HAS CURRENT ORDINANCES, JUST REFER TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES INSTEAD OF TRYING TO HAVE MR. SWEENEY READ THIS [APPLAUSE] [CHEERING]

>> GIVE THAT MAN A RAISE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR APPROVAL OF MR. MIMS'

PERFORMANCE AND HIS RAISE THAT HE GOT TONIGHT. >> I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING ELSE.

>> SO I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU NOT APPLAUDING, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> WE HAVE A VERY EXTENSIVE SECTION IN OUR COAT THAT TALKS ABOUT NOISE AND I AM ALL FOR NOT CREATING DES PUBLICTIVE LEGISLATION. THERE'S AUPLICATIVE LEGISLATION. THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF IN HERE, AGAIN, THIS IS ALL NEW.

WE'RE TRYING TO DO THE BEST WE CAN IN A WHOLE NEW WORLD THAT'S COME TO FORT PIERCE BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS WE ALREADY HAVE SO MANY THINGS IN OUR CODE THAT I SAID BEFORE WILL PROTECT US.

IF THERE'S A FIRE AT THE RESIDENCE, THE LAST THING ON ANYBODY'S MIND IS GOING TO BE MANAGEMENT OR A RESPONSIBLE PERSON BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE 911.

IF ASKED ANIMALS, WE TALKED ABOUT PEOPPEOPLE BRINGING THAT . AGAIN, WE DO HAVE A SECTION HERE. I'M LOOKING AT IT STARTING AT 206 BUT WE HAVE A DEFINITION OF NOISE AT 91. THAT'S A LITTLE PROBLEMATIC TO HAVE A DEFINITION AND THEN HAVE ANOTHER THAT'S NOT THE SAME. SOME OF THE THINGS WE DON'T HAVE IN THE ORDINANCE LIKE RESPONSE PERSON OR MANAGEMENT COMPANY VERSUS THE THINGS THAT WE DO SO THAT PROBABLY COULD COME OUT AND I WOULD FEEL PERFECTLY C COMFORTABLE. OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT ALREADY

[02:20:07]

RESPONDS TO TOO MANY COMPLAINTS FOR NOISES A IT HAS. >> I WANT TO GO BACK TO ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT TRYING TO SET AN AMOUNT THAT CAME FROM $1,200 DOWN TO $250 AND $250 CAME FROM THE LEASH OFFICE.

WE HAVE TO TRY TO SET THAT NUMBER. SINCE YOU JUST ENDED UP WITH A PROP LAIR STATEMENT, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM HIM NOW TO GIVE US AN IDEA.

IF WE'RE GOING TO FUND THIS ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, CAR, BENEFITS, ALL THOSE THINGS, WHAT

DOLLAR AMOUNT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? >> WELL, BASED ON WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT THAT BEING STATED, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT $250.

THAT GENERATE ABOUT $50,000. THIS WOULD NOT COVER THE COST OF A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WITH SALARY AND BENEFITS COMBINED. IF WE WOULD HIKE AN OFFICER DEDICATED TO THIS I WOULD SAY $100,000 WOULD COVER THAT INCLUDING THEIR SALARY, BENEFITS, VEHICLE, AND ALL OTHER

RESOURCES THAT THEY NEED TO DO THEIR JOB. >> SO ON THAT AND STICKING WITH THAT 200 NUMBER, I IMAGINE ONCE WE OPEN THAT UP AND CLEAR THIS PROCESS AND DON'T MAKE IT A CONDITIONAL USE ANYMORE, I'M GUESSING THAT THAT NUMBER COULD DOCUMENT OVER THE NEXT YEAR AND IF SO, WE COULD REACH THAT GOAL. DO WE WANT TO GRAB THAT RIGHT NOW? THE MORE YOU ADD, YOU MAY HAVE ANOTHER OFFICER TO ADD TO THE FLEET OF THOSE TO MAKE SURE WE'RE KEEPING THOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ENFORCING THEM.

THIS IS A NUMBER THAT WE NEED TO BE COMFORTABLE WITH. >> IF THE STAFF IS DIRECTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ENFORCEMENT TO PARTNER WITH ENFORCEMENT, WE WOULD FIND A WAY TO IMMEDIATELY FUND THE NECESSARY STAFF TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.

OF COURSE WE COULD THEN LOOK AT THE POPULARITY OR FUNCTIONALITY OF THE ACTUAL PROCESS ITS.

IF WE'RE RECEIVING MORE, THE PROGRAM WOULD FUND ITSELF. IF WE DON'T RECEIVE ANY, WE MAY NEED TO LOOK AT OTHER MECHANISMS TO GET THIS DONE BUT I BELIEVE WE WOULD HAVE TO STAFF IT, WE WOULD FIND A WAY TO DO IT AND WE WOULD LOOK AT IT ON A 1 YEAR TRIAL BASIS TO ENSURE WE HAVE PROPER STAFF FOR PROPER COVERAGE. WE HAVE BEEN ASKING A LOT OF

PEGGY AND HER TEAM, PARKING, PARKS. >> ANIMALS.

>> THEY'RE EASY. THEY'RE CUTE AND CUDDLY. IT'S THE PEOPLE THAT ARE A

PROBLEM. >> RIGHT. >> THIS WEEKEND, OUR BEACHES WERE OVERRUN. PARKING HAS BECOME AN ISSUE SO WE'RE DEFINITELY STRETCHING HER

[02:25:04]

RESOURCES VERY THIN SO WE NEED TO PROPERLY HELP HER AND HER TEAM.

>> TALKING ABOUT THE FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS, I DON'T KNOW.

I'M TORN ALSO. IT SHOULD NOT BE THE BURDEN OF OUR COMMUNITY AND THE RESIDENTS WHO LIVE HERE TO FUND THOSE TYPE OF ACTIVITIES IF THERE'S AN EXCESS SEWED ISSUE.

THIS IS A BUSINESS, AT THE END OF THE DAY. SOMEONE IS MAKING REVENUE, SO THAT'S CONSIDERED A BUSINESS. SMALL BUSINESSES DO IT EVERY DAY, SO MY POINT IN THIS STORY IS THAT IF IT'S A $250 THING, LOOKING AT OTHER OPTIONS FOR TOURISM REVENUE.

IF THAT MEANS LETTING OUR OWN TOURISM TAX HEADS IN BEDS BECAUSE WE GET ONE-THIRD OF A FIFTH CENT WHICH IS NOT ENOUGH. WE WOULD DESIGNATE IT FOR TOURISM ACTIVITY, PROMOTE OUR

CITY, THINGS LIKE THAT. >> THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE IS NOT GUARANTEED THAT HALF A CENT.

>> IT'S ONLY NORTH -- >> AND IT CAN GO TO A COUNTY FACILITY.

>> YOU'RE RIGHT. >> THE NAVY SEAL MUSEUM. >> AGREE.

AGREE. IT'S JUST A BAD DEAL AND WE'RE LOOKING AT THE ENTIRE CITY AND THE ASPECTS THAT ENCOMPASS ALL OF FORT PIERCE. WHEN YOU'RE WANTING TO PROMOTE THE CITY IN A GOOD WAY, IN A DIFFERENT WAY AND A GOOD WAY, IT HELPS US TO FUND ALL OF IT.

IT'S NOT TO LEVY TAXES. I'M ANTILEVYING TAXES, HONESTLY. HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I VOTED GNS THE BUDGET. I WANT TO LOWER THE MILLAGE BUT THAT'S ANOTHER DISCUSSION.

>> THAT'S NEXT WEEK. >> THAT'S RIGHT. ANYWAY.

THE $250 NUMBER CONCERNS ME A LITTLE BIT. WE'RE NOT ABLE TO DO ADDITIONAL,

WHETHER IT'S ADVERTISING, TOURISM. >> EVEN PROACTIVE.

>> BARELY MAKING IT. >> RIGHT. >> BUT WHERE IS THE MAGIC LINE THERE? BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS ORDINANCE TODAY.

NOT A TOURISM THING. STAFF RECOMMENDED THE $250. ORIGINALALLY THE STAFF RECOMMENDED $1,200 OR THE INPUT RECOMMENDED $1,200 OR THE INPUT OFY THE STAFF RECOMMENDED

$1,200 OR THE INPUT OF THE TASK FORCE. >> THAT INCLUDED INSPECTIONS AND IT WAS VERY INTENSIVE AND WE DON'T WANT THE INSPECTIONS BUT IT STARTS WITH ENFORCEMENT.

THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON FOR THE TASK FORCE. >> THE TASK FORCE EMPHASIZED

THAT. >> AND WE HAVE TO WALK AWAY, NO MATTER WHAT, FROM THIS TABLE, WITH A GREAT, FUNDED PLAN ABOUT ENFORCEMENT. ALL THE REST OF IT IS IMPORTANT BUT IT HAS TO START WITH THIS. WE PROMISED THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE THAT THAT'S WHAT WE WERE OUT TO DO. IF NOT, WE HAVE A CONDITION USE PROCESS AND WE CAN GO THROUGH

THAT AGAIN. >> AND I SORT OF WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE TESTIMONY TONIGHT HAS BEEN OVERWHELMINGLY WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE ORDINANCE AND SUGGESTIONS FOR CORRECTION AND MUCH OF THAT HAS COME FHAT BUSINESS AND THE PEOPLE IN THAT BUSINESS WANT US TO DO WHAT MAKES IT BEST FOR THEM TO DO WHATEVER THEIR BUSINESS IS, BUT THERE IS A WHOLE 'NOTHER SIDE TO THIS, WHICH IS OUR RESIDENTS, WHO LIVE HERE FULL TIME WHO WANT US TO DO CERTAIN THINGS TO

[02:30:04]

PROTECT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND PROTECT OUR TAXES AND OUR TAX BASE AND SO WHAT THE TASK FORCE TRIED TO DO AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO UP HERE IS BALANCE WHAT OUR RESIDENTS FEEL NEEDS TO HAPPEN WITH WHAT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE BUYING PROPERTY THAT DON'T LIVE IN THIS AREA AND ARE ESTABLISHING A BUSINESS. I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO STRIKE THAT BALANCE.

WE DON'T HAVE TO PLEASE EVERYBODY. WE CAN'T BLISS EVERYBODY.

WE'RE GOING TO WALK AWAY FROM HERE WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THIS BUSINESS WHO ARE NOT HAPPY WITH IT AND PEOPLE WHO ARE RESIDENT WHO IS ARE NOT HAPPY WITH IT. WE KNOW THAT.

THERE'S NO HAPPY ENDING FOR THIS PARTICULAR THING AND I WILL TELL YOU IF YOU CARRY IT TO ITS ULTIMATE DEGREE AND EVERY HOUSE IN FORT PIERCE WERE RENTED ON A LESS THAN 30 DAYS, YOU WOULD HAVE A VERY, VERY DIFFERENT FORT PIERCE. MAYBE THAT'S THE WAVE OF THE FUTURE. I DON'T KNOW. HERE'S AN EXCERPT FROM A BLOOMBERG ARTICLE THAT REALLY STRUCK ME. FROM THE OUTSET, AIRBNB HAS ENCOURAGED STRANGERS TO CONNECT ONLINE, EXCHANGE MONEY AND MEET IN REAL LIFE, OFTEN SLEEPING UNDER THE SAME ROOF, SOMEWHERE BETWEEN A TECH PLATFORM AND HOTEL OPERATOR, INABLE TO DISAVOW RESPONSIBILITY FOR ENSURING ITS USERS ARE SAFE AS SOME TECH COMPANIES MIGHT OR TO PROVIDE SECURITY GUARDS OR OTHER ON SITE STAFF AS A HOTEL WOULD. THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING NOT ONLY IN OUR COMMUNITY BUT THROUGHOUT FLORIDA, THE COUNTRY, THE WORLD. IT'S CHANGING THE WAY WE THINK ABOUT SAFETY AND SECURITY AND NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOME AND IT'S CHANGING OUR WHOLE WAY OF LIFE.

I THINK SOME OF THE SPEAKERS TONIGHT WAR LITTLE IRRITATED WITH US BECAUSE WE DIDN'T DO EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANTED. WE DIDN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT THEY THOUGHT SHOULD HAPPEN AND I THINK WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A CHANGE THAT'S COMING OVER AND PERHAPS SOME PEOPLE ARE MUCH FURTHER ALONG IN THIS WHOLE TRANSITION AND ARE USED TO IT AND OTHERS AREN'T SO AND I THINK OUR JOB IS TO TRY TO BE FAIR TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND TO BE FAIR TO OUR OWN RESIDENTS WHO LIVE HERE, INVEST HERE, RAISE THEIR KIDS HERE, LIVE HERE YEAR ROUND, WANT THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS

SAFE. >> A COUPLE OF COMMENTS ON THAT. NOT TOO LONG AGO, AND THIS IS FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCE FOR ME WHEN I WAS ON THE REGIONAL PLANNING COUNSEL.

TREASURE COAST PLANNING COUNSEL HAS AN ANNUAL MEETING WITH MIAMI-DADE AND THEY'RE STRUCK WELLING THEIR RESIDENTS HAVING A PLACE TO LIVE STRYGGLING THEIR RESIDENTS HAVING A PLACE TO LIVE BECAUSE OF THE RENTAL ENVIRONMENT AND THE RATES OF THE RENTAL AND THEY CAN'T HIRE LABORERS ARE BECAUSE THERE'S NOWHERE FOR THE LABORERS TO LIVE.

>>LIVE. >> TO LIVE. >> IT'S ALREADY HAPPENED THERE.

THAT'S MY FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCE. I DON'T HAVE TO READ A RARITY. >> REDUCESEPORT.

>> REDUCES AFFORDABLE HOUSING. >> THERE'S NO PLACE FOR THE LABORERS TOO LIVE.

THAT'S THE POINT. THE MEDIUM INCOME WORKERS EVERY DAY THAT GO TO WORK.

ADDITIONALLY, THIS WHOLE THING IS BROUGHT ON BY THIS COMMISSION AND FOLKS SEEM TO FORGET THAT, THAT WE'RE THE ONES SPURRING THIS BASED ON INPUT AND YET WE'RE GETTING CHASTISED, HATED FROM BOTH SIDES, NOT JUST ONE SIDE BUT THE RUDE E-MAILS AND THE CORRESPONDENTS AND THE EXCLAMATION POINTS AND UNDERLINES AND IT'S STUFF THAT'S NOT NEEDED.

WE'RE THE ONES INITIATING THIS. THERE'S ALREADY A PROGRAM ON THE BOOKS, WE'LL JUST RUN THE PROGRAM IF WE HAVE TO. I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.

>> WE CAN KEEP THE CONDITIONAL USE. >> I WILL TAKE MY CHANCES AND

[02:35:03]

SAY WHAT I NEED TO SAY BUT IT'S INTERESTING, THE WHOLE THING. >> MADAM MAYOR.

IF WE COULD DO OUR JOB THE WAY WE'RE SUPPOSED TO, I WOULD SEE BRINGING THE WHOLE ZONING ISSUE FORWARD. WE TALK ABOUT IT, WE PROBABLY WOULD REMOVE R1 AND R2 ZONING FROM THIS, CONTINUE WITH THE CONDITIONAL USE, IT WOULD BE AN EASY PROCESS.

>> CLEAR FOR EVERYBODY. >> WE WOULD STILL HAVE SOME ISSUES, BUT WE CAN'T DO IT.

IT'S BEEN STOPPED BY THE STATE AND RIGHT NOW IT HAS CAUSED SUCH A LOG JAM WITH STAFF, WITH US, THE RELATIONSHIP WITH OUR CITIZENS, EVERY BETWEEN NEIGHBORS AND THOSE THAT WANT TO PURSUE THE SHORT TERM VACATION RENTAL SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET THROUGH THE IT ALL AND COME UP WITH SOMETHING WHERE WE DO HAVE AUTHORITY AND I UNDERSTAND WE DO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GO FORWARD AND PUT IN THESE MANAGEMENT ISSUES THAT CAN HELP WITH THE

ENFORCEMENT MANY GIVE SOME RELIEF TO RESIDENTS AND ALSO -- >> ASSURANCE TOO RESIDENTS.

>> AND ALSO TO STREAMLINE THE PROCESS TO THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS WHO WANT TO USE IT AS A RENTAL

PROPERTY. >> AND HERE WE ARE. IS THERE OTHER AREAS WHERE WE

WANT TO WORK ON THE LANGUAGE? >> I HAD A COUPLE MORE UNDERLINED.

IT WAS MENTIONED TONIGHT, TALKING ABOUT GUESTS IN THE HOURS OF 12:00 A.M. TO 8:00 A.M.

MS. COX, IS THERE ANYTHING -- THAT'S LINE 242. ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT OR TAKE AWAY FROM THAT, ANY DISCUSSION FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE BEFORE I TALK ABOUT IT?

>> NO. I THINK IT WAS INTENDED SO THAT PEOPLE WERE NOT STAY THERING OVERNIGHT. IT WAS NOT EXCEEDING THE ACUMEN PSI, BUT I HAVE NOTHING TO ADD.

>> I ALMOST FEEL LIKE OUR EXISTING CODE GOES IN TO SAY SOME OF THIS STUFF GOING ON BECAUSE THERE COULD BE SOMETHING ELSE GOING ON, PARKING OR SOMETHING.

IT'S IN THE CODE, I FEEL LIKE IT'S ADDITIONAL. DO WE NEED IT?

>> NUMBEL 2I 2N 2E 242? >> NUMBER 14. >> MY CONCERN IS THE ENFORCEMENT

OF THAT. >> YEAH, HOW UH DO YOU ENFORCE THAT? WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE PEOPLE OUT THERE COUNTING GUESTS. I THINK WE'RE BARKING DOWN THE

WRONG PATH. >> AGREED. IT'S GOING TO ENFORCE ITSELF.

I THINK OF ALL THE PARAMETERS, IT'S PARKING, PARKING IN THE GRASS, THE RIGHT OF WAY, ALL

THOSE THINGS CAUSING A NUISANCE, LET'S SAY. >> I HAVE LISTENED, RIGHT? AND YOU'RE RIGHT, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, THIS WHOLE INDUSTRY POLICES ITSELF, BELIEVE IT OR NOT. THE REVIEWS ARE HIGHLY SCRUTINIZED ON BOTH SIDES, MEANING AS A PERSON WHO STAYS THERE, AN OPPORTUNITY TO WRITE THAT BACK AND PEOPLE SEE THOSE COMMENTS ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND EXPERIENCE, ETC., ETC., SO I THINK WE HAVE TO BE COGNIZANT OF THAT BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL BE WRITING ABOUT THEIR EXPERIENCES IN FORT PIERCE SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT. IF THEY HAVE A BAD EXPERIENCE, OUR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SPEECH IS OUT THE WINDOW. PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE WHAT'S WRITTEN THERE AS OPPOSED TO WHAT WE PUT OUT THERE FROM A MARKETING STANDPOINT SO THAT'S ONE WAY IT POLICES AND OBVIOUSLY THE PEOPLE IN THIS INDUSTRY THAT DO THIS, THEY ALSO ARE TRYING TO PROTECT THEIR REPUTATION BECAUSE THE EXPERIENCE RATING THAT GOES OUT THERE IS, AGAIN, ON THAT PERSON AND THEIR EXPERIENCE THAT THEY PROVIDED AND THOSE PEOPLE THAT RENT THESE TYPES OF FACILITIES WILL BE ABLE TO COMMENT TO THAT. I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING TO UNDO THE ORDINANCES, THE EXTRA LAYERS ARE ALREADY THERE AND THOSE COMMENTS ARE WIDELY SEARCHED, WIDELY LOOKED UPON TO PEOPLE THAT TAKE THESE TYPES OF RENTALS AND TAKE THEM VERY SERIOUSLY. I SAY ALL THIS TO SAY I THINK WE

[02:40:05]

HAVE SOME THINGS HERE, COMMISSIONER PERONA'S COMMENT ABOUT THE ENFORCEMENT PART ABOUT THIS IS THE ONE THAT WE HAVE TO REALLY MAKE SURE. I HEARD MR. MIMS SAY WE'LL FIND A WAY, RIGHT? SO THAT PROBABLY CONCERNS ME A LITTLE BIT MORE, HOW DO WE FIND THAT WAY? I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE TALKING 60, 70, 80? WE SAID 100. I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT SURE ABOUT ALL THAT.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND ALL THAT BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT IT'S CONCERNING, BUT I THINK IT'S NEEDED TO PUT THE ASSURANCE THERE FOR BOTH. WE HAVE A PERSON WHO PROTECTS THE CITIZENS AND THIS CODE ENFORCEMENT ALSO PROTECTS THE BUSINESS ITSELF TO MAKE SURE THERE'S A FAIR BALANCE OF REPORTING THAT'S OBJECTIVE REPORT TAKING AND UNDERSTANDING AND DOCUMENTATION AND THAT'S THE PART THAT I THINK I TAKE TRUE CONFIDENCE, THAT HERE'S A SWORN ENFORCEMENT OFFICER WHO IS CERTIFIED AND THAT WILL HELP TO TAKE THE REPORT AND WE GET THE

DOCUMENTATION AND WE GO FROM THERE. >> THE BOTTOM LINE, WE WANT TO

PROTECT OUR CITIZENS. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> AND OUR VISITORS.

>> ABSOLUTELY. >> SO WE'RE TRYING TO STRIKE A BALANCE HERE.

>> FROM THE GET-GO. >> FROM THE GET-GO. THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING.

SO 14, 15, 16, IN OUR CODE. 17 PROBABLY IS, TOO. MAYBE NOT.

>> DOMESTICATED ANIMALS? >> THAT'S IN OUR CODE. SO 14, 15, 16, 17, ARE ALREADY

IN THE CODE >> SOMEBODY SAID FOUR PAGES, WE'RE GETTING CLOSE.

>> I GET IT. WE WANT TO SAY WHOEVER IS STAYING IN THE HOUSE HAS TO FOLLOW OUR LAWS, RIGHT? SO THEY HAVE TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE.

IS THAT WHY MS. COX, SOME OF THESE WERE PUT IF HERE TO, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE IN OTHER PARTS OF

THE CODE? >> I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARILY WHY.

IN THE ADVERTISING REQUIREMENTS, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO PUT A LINK TO THE CITY'S CODE OF ORDINANCES. THAT'S PART OF THE ADVERTISING REQUIREMENTS ON THE WEBSITE SO WE'RE COVERING A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE THERE ARE IN THE CODE BY TELLING THEM THAT THEY HAVE

TO GO THERE. >> AND THAT PUTS THE RESPONSIBILITY ON THEM.

THEY MAY OR MAY NOT GO BUT YOU PROVIDED IT. >> THESE WOULD CERTAINLY BE

HELPFUL THINGS TO KNOW. >> ABSOLUTELY. OH MY GOODNESS, YES.

>> BETWEEN NOW AND THE SECOND READING, I WOULD LIKE CODE ENFORCEMENT TO LOOK AT THOSE THINGS WE AMENDED TO SEE IF WE HAVE TAKEN OUT SOMETHING, A TOOL THEY MAY NEED.

EVEN IF IT'S REDUNDANT, IT MAY HAVE MADE IT EASIER FOR THEM TO DO THEIR ENFORCEMENT.

I JUST THINK WE NEED A COMMENT ON THAT. >> YEAH, AND I WAS NOT

ADVOCATING FOR DELETION, JUST A QUESTION MARK AND MORE RESEARCH. >> OR REFERENCE.

WASN'T SOMEBODY SAYING EARLIER THAT THE NOISE COULD STAY IN THERE AND SAY REFER TO SECTION

SO AND SO. >> MR. SWEENEY, YEAH. >> IS THAT CORRECT?

SO WE CAN DO THAT WITH OTHER THINGS? >> RIGHT, I THINK THAT'S FAIR.

>> SO IT'S IN THIS BUT IT'S REFERRING TO ANOTHER BECAUSE IT WOULD BE FAIR TO PEOPLE.

FAIR TO VISITORS AND FAIR TO RESIDENCE DEBITS. >> ANOTHER ONE, 270.

EVACUATION. IF THERE'S A DECLARED EMERGENCY, DO WE HAVE THE ABLE TO SAY YOU HAVE TO EVACUATE, HAVE A NICE DAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH? MONROE COUNTY DOES THAT.

>> TALKING TO MR. SWEENEY? >> ANYBODY WHO CAN ANSWER THAT. WE'RE WATCHING A PUBLIC EMERGENCY TO THE SOUTH OF US RIGHT NOW AND DO THEY KNOW WHO IS IN THERE?

[02:45:04]

THEY DON'T KNOW WHO IS IN THERE? THERE'S A LOT OF WHAT-IFS IN AN EMERGENCY LIKE THAT OR DECLARED

DISASTER. >> I GUESS THAT'S A CONCERN BECAUSE I THINK IT'S TWO LEVELS.

YOU MAY HAVE AN OUT OF TOWN VISITOR THAT JUST DOESN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND WHAT A HURRICANE IS AND DON'T EVEN KNOW STORM SURGE AND EVERYTHING ELSE. YOU MAY HAVE LONG TERM RESIDENTS WHO DON'T CARE, EITHER, AND I DON'T BELIEVE, AT LEAST IN MY EXPERIENCE, THAT WE HAVE, AS THE EVACUATION AT ALL.DATORY - IT MAY BE A VERY DIFFICULT PROPOSITION TO HAVE THAT IN THERE BECAUSE YOU WOULD BE TREATING DIFFERENT CLASSES DIFFERENTLY, BUT I ALSO WOULD EXPECT, AND I WILL GO BACK, BECAUSE SEVERAL OF YOU SAID IT IN DIFFERENT ITERATIONS, THIS IS A VERY, VERY LUCRATIVE BUSINESS. NOBODY WANTS TO HAVE THEIR TENANT IN THERE SUFFER HARM BECAUSE A HURRICANE IS GOING TO HIT. IT'S A PRIVATE, CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP. I WOULD BE LEERILY ABOUT HAVING THATEY ABOUT HAVING

TRY ABOUT HAVING THAT LANGUAGE IN THERE. >> YOU'RE TOLD IF THERE'S A MANDATORY EVACUATION BUT IF YOU DON'T, YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN AND PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW THAT, TOO.

>> YEP, YOU'RE RIGHT. >> ON THE BARRIER ISLANDS, WHEN IT GETS TO 39 MILES PER HOUR OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEY DO NOT HAVE TO RESPOND TO EMERGENCIES AND THEY DO NOT.

>> I AGREE AND THAT'S BEEN STANDING FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. >> SOMEBODY FROM IOWA MAY NOT

KNOW THAT. >> MAYBE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED AS OPPOSED TO REQUIRED?

>> IT'S A LANGUAGE THING NOW. >> AND I'M TALKING IN ADDITION THAT THE POTENTIAL BURDEN ON PUBLIC SAFETY PROFESSIONALS BECAUSE PEOPLE JUST DON'T KNOW. THERE COULD BE BURDEN ON FOLKS WHO NEED TO BE RESCUED BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T KNOW THEY NEED TO GO.

THAT'S JUST PLAIN TRUTH. THEY DIDN'T KNOW. I'M NOT INTO THAT.

YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DECLARED DISASTER. TIME FOR YOU TO MOVE ON NOW, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BECAUSE WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE AFTERMATH PANELLY AND WE DON'T WANT YOU TO BE PART OF THAT. WE WANTOLY AND WE DON'T WANT YOU TO BE PART OF THAT.

WE WATLY AND WE DON'T WANT YOU TO BE PART OF THAT. WE WAELY AND WE DON'T WANT YOU TO BE PART OF THAT. WE WANLY AND WE DON'T WANT YOU TO BE PART OF THAT.

WE WATLY AND WE DON'T WANT YOU TO BE PART OF THAT. WE WAILY AND WE DON'T WANT YOU TO BE PART OF THAT. WE WAALY AND WE DON'T WANT YOU TO BE PART OF THAT. WE WALY AND WE DON'T WANT YOU TO BE PART OF

THAT. WE WANT YOUR SAFETY TO BE FIRST. >> SO DO YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE

LANGUAGE? >> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 19, EVACUATION.

I THINK WITH THE LANGUAG THERE, THIS IS LAW. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S ENFORCEABLE AND I THINK IF ANYTHING IT SHOULD BE WORDED TO THE POINT THAT IN THIS CASE HERE, TO ME, THE WAY I READ IT IS IF IT'S NOT REQUIRED, IF YOU ARE REQUIRES AND YOU DON'T, WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES? WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE AND IS THIS NECESSARY? WE MAKE THE WARNING, YOU LET THEM KNOW THAT -- I THINK THE BIGGEST THING IS PEOPLE MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW YOU'RE ON A BARRIER ISLAND. THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS AN ISLAND THAT MAY SUFFER MORE AND WE DON'T COME ACROSS THAT BRIDGE IF IT GETS TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF WIND. ONE WAY IN AND ONE WAY OUT UNLESS YOU GO DOWN THE COASTLINE

WHICH WOULD BE COMPLICATED. >> I THINK WE NEED LANGUAGE IN THERE ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS.

A MANDATORY EVACUATION MEANS YOU EVACUATE THE ISLAND AND IF YOU DON'T, FIRST RESPONDERS MAY

WHATEVER. MR. MIMS? >> I WAS JUST WHISPERING TO HIM.

I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT ALL THESE UNIT HAVES TO HAVE SOME SORT OF TELEPHONIC COMMUNICATION, RIGHT? WE HAVE ALERT ST. LUCIE, A TELEVISION CITY, IF THEY DON'T KNOW THERE'S AN EVACUATION ORDER, THERE'S A PROBLEM. I DON'T EVEN THINK THAT LANGUAGE IS NEEDED. I THINK AT SOME POINT WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME SORT OF COMMON SENSE.

IF THESE PEOPLE CAN'T SEE THERE'S A HURRICANE COMING. >> BUT THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT

TRANSLATES TO. >> SOME PEOPLE GET SCARED TO DEATH TO MOVE.

THEY PANIC AND GO I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO SO I'M GOING TO SIT RIGHT HERE AND NOW OUR PUBLIC

[02:50:03]

SAFETY PROFESSIONALS HAVE TO GET INTO ACTION. >> MADAM MAYOR?

>> YES, SIR. >> I THINK WE HAVE THREE HOTELS ON THE BARRIER ISLAND AND I'M NOT AWARE THAT ANY OF THEM HAVE BEEN FORCED TO EVACUATE OVER THE LAST 2 DECADES BACK TOO FRANCIS AND JEAN. IT SAYS POSTED SO THAT WOULD REQUIRE MR. MIMS' POLICE OFFICERS TO GO DOOR TO DOOR AND PUT A POSTING AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE EVEN HAVE THAT

AUTHORITY. >> HERE'S WHAT HAPPENS, PETE. THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT DRIVES

AROUND WITH THEIR PA SYSTEMS AND ANNOUNCE YOU NEED TO EVACUATE. >> AND I THINK THAT'S VALID ANYWAY BUT TO MR. MIMS CREATE, WE'RE NOT ARRESTING PEOPLE IF THEY DON'T COME OUT.

WE'RE NOT TRANSPORTING THEM TO ROCK ROAD AND SAYING YOU DIDN'T EVACUATE.

[LAUGHTER] AND I'M NOT BEING FUNNY BECAUSE WHAT J. JOHNSON IS SAYING IS -- HOPEFULLY NO ONE HAS FORGOTTEN ABOUT WHAT ABOUT WITH HURRICANE KATRINA, SO I AGREE COMPLETELY

BY I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WOULD DO IT. >> MONROE COUNTY SAYS SEE YOU

LATER NOW. >> BUT IF I LIVED THERE, I WOULD BE OUT OF THERE, TOO.

>> PUBLIC SAFETY. >> RIGHT. SO WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE?

>> THAT'S OKAY, I JUST WANTED TO TALK ABOUT IT. I HAD IT NOTED.

IT'S A REAL ISSUE. >> ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT IT STAY OR TAKE IT OUT?

>> I LIKE IT. I JUST WANTED TO BRING IT UP FOR DISCUSSION.

IT'S A REAL THING. IT SAYS BY STATE AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES.

WE'VE DECLARED EVACUATIONS, LOCAL DISASTERS, WE HAVE DONE ALL THOSE THINGS.

>> LIKE ANY ORDINANCE, IF IT'S STATED HERE AND THEY DON'T DO IT, THEY DON'T DO IT.

>> THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT HAS THE JURISDICTION IF IT'S A SEWAGE SPILL.

THE LOCAL, NOT THE STATE, THE LOCAL. >> WOULDN'T THE RESPONSIBLE

PARTY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS PARTICULAR THING? >> I WOULD HOPE SO, BUT.

>> IF THEY WERE RESPONSIBLE. >> ANYWAY. NOT TRYING TO CAUSE ISSUE, JUST

WANTED TO TALK ABOUT IT. >> YEAH, THAT'S FINE BY ME. IT'S LIKE VERY OBVIOUS THAT

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT -- >> IF I HAD THIS AS A BUSINESS AND I WAS GOING TO HAVE SOMEBODY IN THE MONTHS OF JUNE, JULY, AUGUST, SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER, I WOULD HAVE THESE INSTRUCTIONS IN

THAT UNIT FOR SURE. >> AND I'M SURE THEY WILL. >> WHAT ELSE, GENTLEMEN?

>> I JUST HAVE A TECHNICAL QUESTION, SOMETHING I HEARD FROM ONE OF THE COMMENTS OUT THERE.

IT'S BEEN STATED A COUPLE OF TIMES NOW THAT THIS INDUSTRY IS CURRENTLY REGULATED BY DPBR AND THEY HAVE A SET OF ORDINANCES OR CODES OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT REGULATING THIS INDUSTRY. AS COMMISSIONER PERONA STATED, HE WANTED OUR CURRENT OFFICERS TO LOOK AT THIS BASED ON COMMENTS WE MADE AND PROVIDE FEEDBACK AS TO THIS AND HOW THEY MAY OR MAY NOT APPLY. MY CONCERN HERE, TOO, IS JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE NOT IN VIOLATION OF DPBR AS WELL. THAT'S SELF-REGULATED. IS THERE STUFF THERE THAT MAYBE

THEY HAVE THAT MAYBE WE CAN ADD TO THIS? >> IT WAS CONSIDERED AND REVIEWED, BUT KEEP IN MIND THAT DBPR ONLY REGULAR LACE TEED THOSE RENTING FOR LESS THAN 30 DAYS. ? S A GREATTHIS IS A GREATER RE. IT DOES INCLUDE MORE.

[02:55:06]

>> WELL. ANYBODY? ARE YOU CLEAR ON SOME OF THE

CHANGES? >> I WOULD LIKE TO RUN THROUGH IT BEFORE YOU TAKE A VOTE.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO BE CLEAR HERE. >> CAN SHE RUN THROUGH IT RIGHT

NOW, ARE YOU READY COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON? >> SO AS TO THE DEFINITION OF NOISE ONLINE ITEM 91 THROUGH 93, NOISE NEEDS TO BE EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE NOISE ORDINANCE.

>> OR REFER THE ORDINANCE. >> TAKE IT OUT ALTOGETHER. >> I LIKE IT IN THERE JUST TO REFER TO WHAT THE STANDARD IS. AND THEN ON ITEM -- ON PAGE FOUR BEGINNING AT LINE 206, NUMBER 12 AS TO NOISE, IT IS DELETED BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO REFER BACK TO OUR EXISTING NOISE ORDINANCE. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S DIFFERENT.

>> NUMBER 12, RIGHT? >> LINE 206. >> LINE 206 THROUGH 237.

>> NOISE ORDINANCE. OKAY. WE WILL REFERENCE THAT UNDER THE DEFINITION. ITEM 242 TO 245, GUESTS. I THINK I HEARD YOU SAY DELETE

IT. >> UH-HUH. >> AS FOR ITEMS 15, 16, 17,

WE'RE GOING TO REFERENCE THE APPROPRIATE CODE SECTIONS. >> ONE MORE TIME ON THAT.

15, 16, 17 -- >> DOMESTICATED ANIMALS SHALL BE HANDLED IN COMPLIANCE WITH ROAD

SECTION BLANK. >> YEP. >> YOU WILL STILL HAVE THE

NUMBERS AND THE SUBJECT MATTER. >> AND THE SUBJECT MATTER BUT JUST THE CODE REFERENCE.

>> CHANGING THE WORD POSTING TO DECLARATION. >> THE EXTERIOR POSTINGS I THINK

THE CONSENSUS WAS THAT IT STAYS. >> NO. >> NO?

>> NO. >> I HAVE IT XED OUT. >> OKAY.

22 IS GONE. >> YES. UNDER MANAGEMENT COMPANY OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON, LINE 374. ARE WE DELETING SAID MANAGEMENT COMPANY SHOULD HAVE AN OFFICE IN

ST. LUCIE COUNTY AND THE REMAINDER STAYS? >> I THINK FOR SURE WE'RE

DELETING THAT SENTENCE. >> THAT'S OKAY WITH ME. >> THAT ONE SENTENCE.

>> OKAY. ON LINE 394, SHALL RESULT IN THE REVOCATION WILL BE CHANGED TO

MAY RESULT IN THE REVOCATION. >> I'M NOT -- NO. >> WE'RE GOING TO KEEP IT SHALL?

>> I'M OKAY WITH SHALL. >> AGAIN, WE'RE BACK TO LEAVING THE TEETH IN THIS.

I WOULD RATHER THE SHALL. >> I DISAGREE WITH THAT FOR THE RECORD.

I THINK THAT STATES PUNITIVE ACTION BEFORE ACTION IS TAKEN AND THAT'S WHY I WANTED THE WORD

MAY. IT SEEMS PREDETERMINED. >> THEY STILL HAVE TO GET A

GUILTY VERDICT. >> YEAH. >> I AGREE BUT JUST THE WAY IT READ TO ME. I'M NOT LAWYER, THAT'S WHY I WANTED PETE TO HELP WITH THAT.

DID NIT SIT WELL WITH ME SO I WANTED TO PUBLICLYT SIT WELL WI WANTED TOT SIT WELL WITH ME SO

[03:00:03]

WANTED TO PUBLICLY STATE THAT. >> I WANT TO KEEP IT. >> LINES 486 TO 493, THE RENEWAL

IF NOT COMPLETED THE GONE. >> ONE MORE TIME? >> PAGE 9.

>> THAT WAS THE EVENT THE RENEWAL ISN'T COMPLETED, THEY CAN DO A WRITTEN REQUEST, THAT

GOES AWAY. >> OKAY, GOT THAT. >> AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

>> OH, BOY. >> MADAM MAYOR. COMMISSIONER PERONA BROUGHT UP SOMETHING EARLIER ABOUT HAVING RESPONSE BACK THAT YOU WANTED TO HEAR CODE RESPONDING TO SOMETHING IN HERE. HOW ARE WE GOING TO LOOK AT THAT AND PROCESS WISE, WHAT DOES THAT

LOOK LIKE? >> I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE CITY STAFF JUST LOOK AT IT, CODE, POLICE, WHOEVER, ALSO THE CLERK, AND WE'LL GET -- I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY, WE COME BACK HERE IN 2 WEEKS, RIGHT? IF WE CAN HAVE THAT INFORMATION IN OUR RESPONSE AS PART OF THE BACKUP DOCUMENTATION FOR THE SECOND READING, YOU ALL WITH CONSIDER THAT IF YOU WOULD LIKE.

>> SO NO OTHER OPPORTUNITY BETWEEN NOW AND THEN TO DISCUSS, I THINK OUR AGENDA IS PACKED

ALREADY. >> THE BUDGET, YEAH, SHEESH. >> THE ONLY OTHER TIME YOU HAVE

THE OPPORTUNITY WOULD BE ON JULY 19TH. >> WE CAN DO IT.

>> I WOULD BE OKAY WITH THAT BUT THE PUBLIC NOTICE OF THIS, ONCE THESE CHANGES AND COMMENTS AND SO I THINK DUE DILIGENCE FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS DOCUMENTS, READ IT, CONTINUE TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK LIKE THEY ALWAYS HAVE TO THAT WOULD BE THE PROCESS WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S UNDERSTOOD.

>> THE AGENDA WILL BE PUBLISHED NEXT WEDNESDAY. >> OKAY.

>> SO THE REVISIONS TO THIS ORDINANCE WOULD BE ON THE AGENDA NEXT WHEN.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THE 14TH.

>> WHEN WE GET THE ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK INFORMATION, TOO, I'M NOT AFRAID TO PUNT AND START THE PROCESS BACK TO PHASE ONE AGAIN, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE DOING TONIGHT.

IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WE NEED TO GO BACK AND WORK AGAIN, LET'S NOT BE SCARED OF GOING BACK TO FIRST READING TO GET IT RIGHT AND MOVE THROUGH THE PROCESS.

>> THAT'S FINE BY ME. >> YEAH. JUST PART OF THE DEAL, JUST KEEP

ON WORKING ON IT. >> TRY TO MAKE IT THE BEST WE CAN.

>> AND WE'RE ASKING FOR THIS AND DOING IT WITH THE PUBLIC INVOLVED.

>> RIGHT. RIGHT. >> MADAM MAYOR.

HAVE WE SETTLED ON A FIGURE YET? >> THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT.

THAT'S ON THE NEXT AGENDA. >> BUT WE HAVE ENOUGH DISCUSSION GOING FORWARD SO WE CAN KIND OF COME UP WITH -- I HAVE HEARD FROM EVERYBODY SO FAR ON THAT AND I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT THAT WE CONTEMPLATE THAT TO MAKE SURE WE INTEGRATE IT IN WITH ALL THE OTHER ISSUES

WE HAVE HEARD TONIGHT. >> I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE HELPFUL SO THAT THAT DISCUSSION WILL BE HAD, WE'LL HAVE DOCUMENTS, HOPEFULLY SOME BECAUSE THERE'S ONE ASPECT THAT YOU HAVE TO MODEL OUT OF WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE TAKE RATE OF THIS $250 AND WHAT WE MAY OR MAY NOT LOSE BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS AND STAFF FEEDBACK, OKAY, WE HAVE A NUMBER AND THERE'S ALSO A PART WE HAVE TO MAKE UP SO WE HAVE A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF WHERE WE ARE SO I'M ASKING HOW DO WE MODEL THIS OUT TO LOOK AT IT, RIGHT? WE'LL HAVE A BUDGET DISCUSSION, RIGHT? BUT, YEAH, I UNDERSTAND. A LOT OF MOVING PARTS BUT I AGREE AND ECHO WITH COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON, THAT WE'RE NOT IN A RUSH TO GET IT DONE.

I DO THINK THE INPUT HAS BEEN GOOD, WE'RE ENCOURAGED THAT IT CONTINUES AND WE'RE TRYING TO STREAMLINE THIS PROCESS TO MAKE IT FEASIBLE. I THINK PART OF THAT, TOO, WE DID NOT TALK ABOUT THE GRANDFATHERING PART OF THIS AS WELL.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION ON THAT AT THE NEXT AGENDA ABOUT THE GRANDFATHERING WITH WHAT'S REAL, WHAT'S ON THE BOOKS TO GIVE US A SENSE OF WHAT'S GOING THROUGH AND MAYBE A

[03:05:08]

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S BEEN 10 CASES, 20 CASES, I DON'T KNOW.

WE NEED SOME HELP WITH THAT. >> I CAN GIVE YOU THAT NUMBER, A ROUGH NUMBER RIGHT NOW THAT 37 OF THEM, I BELIEVE IT'S 37 OF THEM THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS.

>> WE HAVE HEARD HIGH, MEDIUM AND LOW AND. >> WAS THAT DISCUSSIONED AT THE TASK FORCE LEVEL, THE GRANDFATHERING OF ALREADY APPROVED? NOT IN ANY GREAT DETAIL. THIS IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PROCESS.

>> OKAY. >> SO JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, DO WE HAVE ANY IN THE PIPELINE

RIGHT NOW? >> YES. >> WE HAVE SOME IN THE PIPELINE.

>> THREE. >> THAT HAVE PAID? THEY'RE NOT PIPELINE, THEY PAID THEIR APPLICATION FEE AND THEY'RE ALREADY IN THE PIPELINE, SO ANOTHER QUESTION WOULD BE ARE THEY INCLUDED IN THE GRANDFATHER, SO THESE ARE THINGS WE'LL HAVE TO DISCUSS.

THINK ABOUT IT. I WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL TO THAT. >> OKAY.

SO SOMEBODY READY TO MAKE A MOTION? >> SO MADAM MAYOR, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 21-019 AS AMENDED. I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THEM ALL.

>> IT'S ON THE RECORD. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND THAT.

>> ALL RIGHT. READY TO VOTE? >> COMMISSIONER C. JOHNSON?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> COMMISSIONER PERONA? >> YES, MA'AM. >> MAYOR HUDSON?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> CAN WE GO HOME? >> I GOT TO GO TO THE BATHROOM.

[c. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 21-020 - Text Amendment to Section 125-187: "Use Table" in order to allow for Dwelling Rentals to be permitted by right in every zoning district. FIRST READING]

>> I WAS JUST TALKING TO THE CITY CLERK AND I'M WONDERING DO WE EVEN WANT TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION ON THE NEXT ITEM RIGHT NOW? WE STILL HAVE A LOT OF WORK TO DO AS FAR AS THIS RENTAL REGISTRATION ORDINANCE. DO WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE CHANGING FROM C TO P FOR THE DHOLLING UNIT? WE CAN, BUT I THINK WE STILL HAVEWELLING UNIT? WE CAN, BUT I THINK WE STILL HAVE QUITE A BIT OF WORK TO DO.

THAT'S COMPLETELY UP TO YOU. >> WE CAN POSTPONE IT TO THE NEXT MEETING.

>> ABSOLUTELY, MAYOR. >> IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE AT THIS MEETING, DOES IT?

I AGREE. >> IT DOESN'T. WE ARE READY BUT BASED ON THE LEVEL OF REVISION THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE TODAY, WE MAY HAVE TO GO BACK TO A FIRST READING AND DO THIS AGAIN. I'M JUST VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

>> LET'S BE CAREFUL AND DO IT RIGHT. >> ITEM C?

>> SO DO YOU MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE IT? >> YES.

>> ITEM C? >> SO WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING IS ORDINANCE 21-020, THE TEXT

AMENDMENT TO THE USE TABLE. >> OKAY. SOMEBODY WANT TO MAKE THAT

MOTION? >>LY MAKE A MOTIONMAKEL MAKE A POSTPONE ORDINANCE 21-020 TO

JULY 19TH, OUR NEXT MEETING SOCIALITY THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> IS THERE A DISCUSSION? CALL THE REAL. >> COMMISSIONER C. JOHNSON?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> COMMISSIONER PERONA? >> YES, MA'AM. >> MAYOR HUDSON?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> NEXT WE HAVE ORDINANCE 21-021, MODIFYING THE EXISTING

[d. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 21-021 modifying the existing vendor code to eliminate the requirement for a Vendor Permit, Application and the payment of the fee as a result of the preemption by Florida Statute 509.102. FIRST READING]

VENDOR CODE TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A VENDOR PERMIT, DELETING ALL REFERENCES AND

[03:10:06]

REQUIREMENTS FOR AN APPLICATION PERMIT OR FEE CLARIFYING GENERAL PROVISIONS PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY CLAUSE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THIS IS THE FIRST READING.

>> ARE YOU MAKING A PRESENTATION? >> I AM MAKING A PRESENTATION WITH THE HELP OF MS. GARCIA. THIS IS PRETTY SIMPLE. FLORIDA STATUTE 509.102 PREVENTED THE CITY FROM REQUIRING FEES FROM MOBILE FOOD VENN DORIS.

THEY CAN'T HAVE A LICENSE, WE CAN'T CHARGE THEM A FEE, SO NONE OF THAT IS ALLOWABLE ANY LONGER SO THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BEFORE YOU, NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, BASICALLY IT'S JUST THE GENERAL REGULATIONS OF VENDING REMAIN, THE MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM A SCHOOL, CHARNLEY, CHURCH, CITY PARK, A THOUSAND FEET FROM AN APPROVED SPECIAL EVENT. THEY HAVE TO DISPLAY THEIR STATE LICENSE. THEY CAN'T BLOCK ANY EGRESS OR INGRESS FOR ANY PUBLIC STREET.

THEY CANNOT BE ON A CITY PARK, CITY PROPERTY, RIGHT OF WAY OR ON A STREET AND ALL VENDING MUST OCCUR ON PROPERTIES WITH A MIXED USE COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION.

>> THEN WE'RE FOLLOWING STATE STATUTE? >> WE'RE FOLLOWING STATE STATUTE. IF THEY WILL STILL BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A BUSINESS TAX RECEIPT IF THEY'RE BASED IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE BUT NO MORE VENDOR PERMITS.

ALL RIGHT. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE,

PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> MICHELLE, 715 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE.

I JUST WANT TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF A FEW PEOPLE THAT I KNOW PERSONALLY IN THE CITY.

THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE. SO YOU GUYS WERE NOT FOLLOWING THE STATE LICENSE, OKAY? YOU MADE THINGS DIFFICULT FOR A FRIEND OF MINE WHO OWNS A BAR HERE THAT HAD TO GET A FOOD TRUCK JUST TO BEGIN TO BE ABLE TO OPEN AGAIN, OKAY? IT WAS ALL OVER CNN NEWS AND THEN NEW YOU DECIDE TO FOLLOW THE STATE LAWS, SO WHY DON'T YOU FOLLOW THE STATE LAWS IN EVERY ASPECT IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, INCLUDING SHORT TERM RENTALS?

>> ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE? PLEASE COME FORWARD.

SEEING NO ONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION OR DISCUSSION.

>> MOVE FOR THE APPROVAL. >> SECOND. >> THERE'S A MOTION AND A

SECOND. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> COMMISSIONER C. JOHNSON?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> COMMISSIONER PERONA? >> YES, MA'AM. >> MAYOR HUDSON?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> NEXT WE HAVE RESOLUTION 21-R34, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY

[a. Resolution 21-R34 appointing Caleta Scott to the Fort Pierce Housing Authority Board.]

OF XHITHS CERTIFYING THE MAYOR'S APPOINTMENT FOR THE HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD.

MAYOR HUDSON IS RECOMMENDING THE PAYMENT OF CALETA SCOTT. >> IS THERE A MOTION?

>> MOVE FOR THE APPROVAL. >> MAY I COMMENT? >> PERFECT APPOINTMENT.

>> THANK YOU, I THOUGHT SO, TOO. CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> COMMISSIONER C. JOHNSON?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> COMMISSIONER PERONA? >> YES, MA'AM. >> MAYOR HUDSON?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> NEXT RESOLUTION 21-R35, APPOINTING FOR THE ARTS AND

[b. Resolution 21-R35 appointing Megan Dirsa-DuBois to the Arts and Culture Committee as Commissioner Perona's appointee.]

CULTURE COMMITTEE THIS IS MEGAN DIRSA-DUBOIS. >> I WAS GETTING A LOT OF HEAT FROM THE MADAM CLERK WHO WANTED THIS APPOINTMENT AND I WAS REACHING OUT INTO THE COMMUNITY AND I FOUND THIS LADY WHO WAS SLOWER GETTING TO HER CAR THAN I WAS, UNFORTUNATELY, AND IN SPEAKING WITH HER, I FOUND THE PERFECT APPOINTMENT TO THIS POSITION AND I'M THRILLED TO DEATH. MS. DIRSA-DUBOIS IS SOMEONE I JUST MET BY HAS BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG TIME AND UNDERSTANDS WHO WE ARE AND WHAT WE NEED. SO I WILL MAKE THE MOTION TO

APPROVE. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

[03:15:01]

>> CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> COMMISSIONER C. JOHNSON? >> YES, MA'AM.

>> COMMISSIONER J. JOHNSON. >> YES, MA'AM. >> COMMISSIONER PERONA?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> MAYOR HUDSON? >> YES, MA'AM.

[14. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC Any person who wishes to comment on any subject may be heard at this time. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less, as directed by the Mayor, as this section of the Agenda is limited to thirty minutes. The City Commission will not be able to take any official actions under Comments from the Public. Speakers will address the Mayor, Commissioners, and the Public with respect. Inappropriate language will not be tolerated.]

>> NEXT WE HAVE COMMENT FROMS THE PUBLIC. >>S FROM

THE PUBLIC. >> THIS IS A TIME FOR THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON ANY SUBJECT YOU WANT. YOU HAVE 3 MINUTES AND YOU WILL GET A 15 SECOND WARNING.

>> [INDISCERNIBLE] JUST WANTED TO GO BACK TO A COUPLE OF THINGS ABOUT THE SHORT TERM RENTALS.

THERE ARE SOME OTHER THINGS THAT YOU DIDN'T EVEN TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION TO PUT IN HERE AND I WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THAT. WE FLY BACK FROM ARUBA JUST FOR THIS MEETING. TALKING ABOUT THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF TIME, UNDER 30 DAYS.

THE MEN MUM LENGTH OF RENTAL, NO LESS THAN 24 HOURS, THAT WOULD ALSO HELP SOME OF THE POSSIBLE ISSUES WITH SHIRT TOMORROW DWEORT TOMORROW DWELLING RENTALS AND THAT STATE, B AND BS DWELLING RENTALS AND THAT STATE, B AND BS MOTEE DWELLING RENTALS AND THAT STATE, B AND BS MOTER DWELLING RENTALS AND THAT STATE, B AND BS MOTEM DWELLING RENTALS AND THAT STATE, B AND BS MOTELS AND HOTELS THAT COULD FALL UNDER THESE RULES. SOME OF THE ISSUES COULD FALL INTO CONFLICT WITH THE FAIR HOUSING ACT AND THE KEETING MEMORANDUM DUE TO THAT THESE ARE NOT EXPLICITLY EXCLUDING SHORT TERM RENTALS SO THAT'S ANOTHER CATEGORY. IT'S LIKE A GENTLEMAN THANE TO GO AROUND AND SUE FOR ADA ISSUES, PEOPLE HAVE BEEN BEING SUED UNDER THESE FOR FAMILYPEOP UNDER THESISSUES, PEOPLE HAVE B SUED UNDER THPEOPLE HAVE BEEN B UNDER THESISSUES, PEOPLE HAVE B SUED UNDER THESE FOR FAMILY DISCRIMINATION WHEN YOU DISCRIMINATE AGAINST CHILDREN OR THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ALLOWED. THERE ARE ALSO SOME LOOPHOLES TO SOME OF YOUR REGULATIONS THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED AS FAR AS RESIDENCY OR STAYING IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY.

THERE ARE WAYS AND I WILL NOT GO INTO IT, TO GET PEOPLE THE AVENUES TO GO DOWN THIS BUT YOU CAN HAVE DIFFERENT RESIDENTS HERE AND IN OTHER CITIES ANDDIF OTHER CITIESCAN HAVE DIFFERENT HERE AND IN OTHER CITIES AND COUNTIES AND STATES. THERE ARE WAYS TO HAVE CONTRACTS DROWN AND I CAN GO INTO THOSE DETAILS WITH YOU BUT WE HAVE SEEN THIS HAPPEN AND YOU DON'T HAVE SOME EXTRA LEGISLATION IN PLACE TO PREVENT THESE LOOPHOLES AND PEOPLE CIRCUMVENTING WHAT YOU'RE PUTTING INTO PLACE. ALSO, IT WOULD BE NICE IF THESE LIGHTS, IF SOMEBODY COULD SIT ON THIS SIDE AND DO SOFTER LIGHTING OR SOMETHING. SOFTER LIGHTING WOULD BE

AWESOME. >> ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION PLEASE

COME FORWARD. >> DO I NEED TO STATE MY NAME PLEASE?

>> [INDISCERNIBLE] SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE. I GIST WANT TO PIGUST WANT TO P WHAT SHE SAID. THERE'S A LOT THAT'S NOT CONSIDERED.

FOR EXAMPLE, I HAVE A ONE BEDROOM APARTMENT SIZE, PLACE, I TYPICALLY HOST SMALL FAMILIES.

THIS NEW ORDINANCE WOULD BRING ME DOWN TO THREE PEOPLE. A HOTEL ROOM IS ALLOWED TO HAVE MORE THAN THAT. THE THING IS, IT DEFEATS THE WHOLE PURPOSE, I JUST BOUGHT A NEW PLACE. SHE HAD SEVEN PEOPLE LIVING IN THAT ONE BEDROOM, OKAY? SEVEN PEOPLE. IT MAKES ME REALLY DISHEARTENED BECAUSE PEOPLE KEEP TALKING ABOUT TAXPAYERS AND STUFF. I PAY TAXES HERE. I PAY NINE HOMESTEAD TAXES.

I PAY MORE TAXES BECAUSE I DON'T CONSIDER HOMESTEAD TAXES. I PAY MORE TAXES BECAUSE I DON'T CON HOMESTEAD TAXES. I PAY MORE TAXES BECAUSE I DON'T CONN HOMESTEAD TAXES.