[A. Thank you from Tricia Hamid commending Shaun Coss, Katherine Calderon and Charmaine Kirkland of Community Response for their professional, kind and courteous service which was provided in assisting her with her father's new Property Owners Association.]

WE LOOK FORWARD TO ANOTHER 50 YEARS OF SERVING THIS BEAUTIFUL

CITY. THANK YOU, AGAIN. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> OKAY. WE HAVE A LETTER OF THANKS FROM TRICIA COMMENTING KATHERINE CALDERON AND CHARMAINE KIRKLAND OF THE COMMUNITY RESPONSE FOR THEIR PROFESSIONAL,

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

KIND, AND COURTEOUS SERVICE WHICH WAS PROVIDED ASSISTING WITH NEW PROPERTY OWNER'S ASSOCIATION, AND THEN WE HAVE ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA AND APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. AND THE CITY MANAGER WOULD LIKE TO PULL ITEM 11-K AND IT WILL COME BACK TO YOU AT A LATER MEETING.

>> RAD. ARE THERE ANY OTHER CHANGES? IF NOT, I WILL

ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> MADAM, I MOVE WE APPROVE THE AGENDA WITH THE SAID ITEM BEING PULLED, 11-A.

>> THERE IS A MOTION AND A SECOND. IT IS 11-K. ISN'T IT?

>> K. I THOUGHT HE SAID A, TOO.

>> CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >>

[11. CONSENT AGENDA]

>> OKAY. WE HAD NO ONE SIGN UP FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. SO WILL MOVE STRAIGHT INTO THE CONSENT AGENDA.

>> META MAYOR, I WANT TO PULL ITEM C FOR JUST A QUICK DISCUSSION WITH MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS.

>> ANYTHING ELSE? >> ALL RIGHT. I WAS GOING TO

PULL A, B, OR C. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE ALSO. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A

MOTION? >> SO MOVED, EXCEPT FOR ITEM

[C. Approval to award Bid No. 2026-012 for CDBG Residential Rehabilitation for 1701 N. 19th Street, Fort Pierce, FL to DMS Contractors, LLC for an amount not to exceed $64,367.50.]

11-C. >> THERE IS A MOTION AND SECOND.

CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >>

>> SO ITEM 11-C IS THE APPROVAL TOWARD THE NUMBER 2026-12 FOR CDBG RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION FOR NORTH 19TH STREET, FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, TO DMS CONTRACTORS, LLC IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED 64,003 STICKY $7.50.

>> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? >> SO, FIRST, I WANT TO SAY THAT THIS IS NOT POINTED DIRECTLY AT THIS ACTUAL ITEM. I SIMPLY JUST LOOKED AT A PULLING ITEM TO HAVE A DISCUSSION. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE AGENDA, THERE WERE A NUMBER OF OTHERS THAT WERE APPROVED AND HAD TO DO WITH CHIP AND CDBD FUNDING. FIRST I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE DEPARTMENT FOR GOING OUT AND FINDING CITIZENS IN OUR COMMUNITY TO ACTUALLY APPLY FOR THESE APPLICATION FUNDS TO GET THROUGH THE PROCESS AND NOW WE ARE MOVED FORWARD.

THE REASON I PULLED THIS IS SIMPLY BECAUSE I WANT TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A BRIEF DISCUSSION, WITH YOU, MY COLLEAGUES, AND THINGS I LEARNED IN MY MEETING WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY AS WE MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE, IN THE PAST, WE HAVE ISSUED THESE FUNDS IN OUR COMMUNITY. WE HAVE DONE GREAT WORK TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CITIZENS THAT NEED THE SUPPORT THROUGH THESE FEDERAL FUNDS TO REHAB HOUSES, ET CETERA, GET THOSE FUNDS, BUT WE HAVE ALSO HAD SOME CHALLENGES WITH THAT.

AND THOSE ARE DISCUSSIONS THAT I BROUGHT UP IN MAKING SURE THAT, NUMBER ONE, WE ARE ADDRESSING THOSE CHALLENGES. AND THERE WERE A COUPLE OF RECOMMENDATIONS. I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THEM TONIGHT. BUT WE HAD A GREAT DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND THE ATTORNEY TO HAVE SOME ACCOUNTABILITY, NOT ONLY FOR THE FUNDS BEING SPENT BUT ALSO THE WORK BEING DONE BY THE CONTRACTOR TO ENSURE THAT THE WORK IS UP TO PAR AND NOT ONLY WILL IT PASS THE BUSINESS INSPECTION BY THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, BUT TO MAKE SURE WHAT IS DONE IS DONE CORRECTLY. I RECALL LAST TIME WE WERE HERE, WE HAD SOME CONSTITUENT COME AND SEND US SOME PICTURES. COME MAKE CONTACT ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO CONTACT THE CONTRACTOR DOING THE WORK. WHAT I WOULD CALL SHODDY WORK AND THINGS THAT WENT UP TO EXPECTATION. SO THOSE WERE PART OF MY DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF TO ENSURE THE PUBLIC, AND I WANTED THE PUBLIC TO HEAR THIS AS WELL. THAT THE FUNDS HAVE BEEN ALLOCATED. THEY ARE THERE. THERE ARE GOING TO BE SOME STEPS PUT IN PLACE SO THAT WE CAN BEGIN TO ASSURE THAT THOSE FUNDS ARE USED CORRECTLY. THOSE FUNDS ARE USED APPROPRIATELY, AND RIGHTLY SO TO BUILD THE CRAFTSMANSHIP AND WORK TO THE STANDARDS THAT WE EXPECT, AND THEN MORE IMPORTANTLY THE END-USER, OBVIOUSLY THE RESIDENTS WILL HAVE SOME SENSE OF KNOWING THAT THERE IS SOMEONE

[00:10:04]

THEY CAN ASK QUESTIONS TO COME ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT THE WORK THAT IS BEING DONE AND ANY QUESTIONS AND OUR RESULT IS THAT WE WILL GET A GREAT PRODUCT. WE WILL GET HAPPY CONSTITUENTS THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS TO GET THESE NEEDS ADDRESSED, AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, WE WILL UTILIZE THESE FUNDS APPROPRIATELY AND ON TIME FOR CDBG AND CHIP PURPOSES. IT IS IMPORTANT THE PUBLIC ALSO HEARS OF THIS TO LET THEM KNOW THAT I HEARD THEM. I THINK WE ALL HEARD THEM . AND THERE ARE MEASURES BEING PUT IN PLACE. AND I'LL LET THE CITY MANAGER AT WHATEVER POINT HE WANTS TO INTERJECT HAVE SOME ACCOUNTABILITY SO THAT THAT END-USER WILL HAVE ASSURANCE THAT THE WORK IS UP TO PAR.

>> AND IN YOUR DISCUSSIONS, WHO HAS OVERSIGHT? WHO HAS OVERSIGHT OF THE CONTRACTORS WHEN THEY ARE ON SITE?

>> SOMEBODY IN THE GRANTS DIVISION THAT HAS ULTIMATE

OVERSIGHT. >> OKAY.

>> SO WE WILL HAVE THE CONTRACTORS OR CITY STAFF. SO OUR GRANT IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE. WE NEED SOMEONE IN THE FIELD WITH EXPERTISE. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE FOCUSING ON.

>> RIGHT. >> THAT'S EXACTLY IT. WE CAN'T EXPECT GRANTS TO NO CONSTRUCTION STUFF. RIGHT? SO WE ARE EXPLORING THAT OPPORTUNITY OF HOW DO WE GET THAT SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTISE SO THAT WE CAN GET AN ASSURANCE THINGS ARE DONE RIGHT, THE RIGHT MATERIALS ARE BEING USED, THEY HAVE BEEN APPLIED THE CORRECT WAY, SO THAT WHEN WE DO SEND OUR INSPECTION THERE FROM THE CITY TO OFFICIALLY INSPECT IT THAT IT IS THERE. I SEE AS CLEARLY HAVING A SEPARATION OF DUTY. NOT THAT WE ARE GOING TO USE CITY STAFF TO DO THIS PROJECT WERE, BUT MR. CHES IS GOING TO FIGURE THIS OUT. HOW WE HAVE THIS PROJECT

MANAGER COME ALONG. >> THAT IS A GOOD THING. YES,

SIR? >> I AM GLAD THAT COMMISSIONER JOHNSON PULLED THIS. I WAS ONE THAT RAISED CONCERNS LAST YEAR FROM A FEW RESIDENTS THAT CAME TO ME. AND ONE OF THE RESIDENTS IS STILL NOT IN HER PROPERTY. IT IS THAT BAD. SO I LOVE THAT WE ARE MOVING FORWARD AND PUTTING IN PROTECTIONS MOVING FORWARD.

BUT WE STILL HAVE SOME RESIDENTS OUT THERE WHO HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS THAT THE PROPERTY IS SITTING THERE VACANT BECAUSE THERE IS A BUILDING ON IT BUT IT IS UNSAFE. IT IS UNSAFE. SO WE REALLY NEED TO PROTECTOUR RESIDENTS . DEPARTMENT IS DOING A GREAT JOB GETTING THE MONEY UP, GETTING IT TO THE PEOPLE THAT NEED IT. BUT ALL HARBERT IS TO NOT IF SOMETHING IS BUILT AND OUR RESIDENTS CAN'T LIVE IN IT BECAUSE OF SHODDY WORK. LOOKING FORWARD TO HAVING THIS DISCUSSION BUT JUST WANTED TO PUT ON RECORD THAT THE YOUNG LADY I SPOKE TO ABOUT IT LAST YEAR AT THIS TIME, SHE IS STILL NOT IN HER HOUSE. YOU KNOW? I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE STATE LEVELS AND THE CONTRACTORS HAVE JUST GONE AWAY. AND SHE IS JUST LEFT STRANDED. YOU KNOW? IT IS A BAD TASTE IN HER MOUTH. THE GRANT WAS TO FORT PIERCE. ALWAYS COMES BACK TO US. I'M GLAD WE'RE GOING THIS ROUTE. WE NEED TO HOLD THESE CONTRACTORS ACCOUNTABLE AND THEY NEED TO KNOW THAT NOT JUST GOING TO GET THIS MONEY FROM THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE THROUGH THESE GRANTS AND GO OUT AND NOT DO A GOOD JOB.

SO, WITH THAT, IT WILL JUST PUT IT ON RECORD.

>> AND I'M GLAD YOU SAID THAT, COMMISSIONER. METIVIER, WHILE WE HAVE APPROVED THE PRICE AND THE CONTRACT AND THE AMOUNT, THERE IS STILL SOME APPLICATION A PROCESS THAT IS GOING TO BE PUT IN PLACE. THE ATTORNEY IS PUTTING TOGETHER CONTRACTS. THE CONTRACT MANAGER PERSON WILL BE BROUGHT ABOARD TO DO THIS.

ALTHOUGH YOU SEE IT HERE, THE MONIES WILL BE ALLOCATED. WE WILL MOVE FORWARD. BUT THERE IS STILL GOING TO BE SOME PAPERWORK ON OUR END TO COMBINETHESE CONTRACTORS AND LET THE PEOPLE KNOW THAT GRANTS AND CHIP REHABILITATION GRANTS. LET THEM KNOW IT IS COMING. IT MAY BE SLIGHTLY DELAYED AND WE WILL WORK QUICKLY TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE ALL OF OUR I'S DOTTED AND

T'S CROSSED. >> YOU WANT TO MOVE?

[A. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 26-001 - Amending Chapter 8, Article II, Section 8-19 of the Code of Ordinances to Extend the FPRA Sunset Date to Its Original Expiration of December 8, 2042. SECOND READING]

>> YES. >> CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

[00:15:01]

THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE .

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY SECTION 8-19 FROM ESTABLISHMENT PURPOSE AS FOLLOWS AMENDING SECTION 8-19 TO EXTEND THE EXPIRATION DATE OF THE FORT PIERCE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO DECEMBER 8TH , 2042, AS AUTHORIZED UNDER SECTION 163.3755 FLORIDA STATUTES.

REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT WITH PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING CODIFICATION, 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. SEE NO ONE, I WILL ENTERTAIN A

[B. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 26-002. An Ordinance of the City Commission of the City of Fort Pierce, Florida, relating to Comprehensive Planning; Amending the City's Comprehensive Plan Pursuant to the Evaluation and Appraisal Review Based Amendments; to include revisions to the Land Use Element; Transportation Element, Infrastructure Element, Conservation Element, Coastal Management Element; Housing Element; Recreational and Open Space Element; Intergovernmental Coordination Element; Public Facilities Management Element; and the Public Schools Facilities Element; providing for a severability clause; providing for repeal of Ordinances or parts thereof in conflict; providing for an effective date. FIRST READING]

MOTION. >> 2026-001.

>> CALL ROLE. >>

>> NEXT, WE HAVE ORDINANCE 26-002, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, AMENDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PURSUANT TO THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REVIEW, PROVIDING FOR INCORPORATION OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LANE PLANNING AGENCY AND APPLICABLE REVIEWING AGENCIES, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AFFIDAVIT ATTESTING TO THE LEGAL COMPLIANCE OF THE COMPETENCE OF PLAN AMENDMENTS, REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES OR PARTS IN CONFLICT HEREWITH, PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THIS IS THE FIRST READING. >> MR. CHES, DO YOU HAVE A LEAD

INTO THIS? >> YES. HI. WILL GIVE A PRESENTATION ON THE PLAN, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN I SHOULD SAY.

>> YEP. THIS IS A BIG DEAL. PROCEED, MS. HEIGHT.

>> FOR THE RECORD, STEPHANIE HEIGHT. THIS IS OUR TRANSMITTAL.

WE HAVE WORKED HARD AND HAD A LOT OF INPUT FROM ANYBODY SO THAT IS ALWAYS GREAT TO HAVE. JUST A QUICK, BRIEF THING. THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REVIEW THAT WE ARE DOING IS SOMETHING THAT IS REQUIRED BY THE STATE EVERY SEVEN YEARS TO DO. A CHANCE TO LOOK AT YOUR PLAN. MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE ADDRESSED ANY LOCAL ISSUES BECAUSE THINGS DO CHANGE.

PROVIDE LEGISLATIVE CONSISTENCY. SO LOOKING TO MAKE SURE THAT LOSS -- LAWS IMPACTING THE STATE ARE CONSISTENT IN YOUR PLAN. SO IN YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, YOU DO HAVE 12 ELEMENTS. YOU KNOW? PEOPLE THINK IT IS ABOUT PLANNING BECAUSE THAT IS WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT MOST OFTEN. IT IS ABOUT ELEMENTS WORKING TOGETHER TO REACH THE CITY'S GOALS. SO ALL ARE RELEVANT. ALL ARE NEEDED. SO LOCAL ISSUES ENVISIONED. SO AS WE DID OUR -- WEEDED STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS. TWO WORKSHOPS. TWO PRESENTATIONS. THINGS IDENTIFIED THE MOST THAT WE HEARD ABOUT, A RATIONAL BOUNDARY TO THE CITY SO THAT DO STRATEGIC ANNEXATION.

WITH THAT, CONSIDERING INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE ARE NOT ANNEXING OR MAKING DECISIONS WHERE THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS NOT IN PLACE. ENSURING THAT ZONING AND LAND USE IS CONSISTENT.

SUPPORT SMALL BUSINESSES. ADDRESSING HOUSING NEEDS.

TRANSPORTATION. AND PROTECTING THE COASTAL COMMUNITY. SAID BRISKLY PROTECTING WHAT FORT PIERCE IS AND THE COMMUNITY THAT YOU HAVE CREATED. SO THIS IS JUST A FEW THINGS.THERE WERE A LOT OF OTHERS. SOME OF THE MAIN ITEMS AS WE MADE OUR CHANGES TO THE COMP PLAN. SO ALSO I WANTED TO SAY AT THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION LAST TIME I WAS HERE, IT WAS SAID DON'T THINK ABOUT SB-180 TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT FOR YOUR PLAN. WE DID WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE FOR THE PLAN TO BE COMPLIANT. AND BE A RELEVANT DOCUMENT FOR THE CITY. SO, ALSO, WHAT WE DID IS WE ADDED NARRATIVES AND DATA ANALYSIS TO EACH OF THE ELEMENTS. SO IN THE FUTURE LAND USE, THESE ARE ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU LOOK AT AS YOU ARE MAKING YOUR DECISION. SO WE UPDATED THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION TABLES. POPULATION PROJECTIONS. ALL THAT KIND OF DATA YOU NEED WHEN YOU'RE MAKING DECISIONS SO THAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE. THINGS FOR HOUSING.

HOUSING IS VERY IMPORTANT RIGHT NOW. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE LOOKING AT DATA AND MAKING DECISIONS. WE ALSO DID BY OWNER AND RENTER, SO YOU CAN LOOK AT BOTH HOMEOWNERSHIP AND THE RENTAL. RECREATION, OPEN SPACE.'S -- SPACE. PROJECTED

[00:20:05]

NEIGHBORHOOD PARK AND COMMUNITY PARK NEEDS. PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT. A LOT OF THAT WAS UPDATING THE LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD FOR THE DIFFERENT INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS. YOU HAVE ROADWAYS. WATER. SEWERS. THOSE TYPE OF THINGS. THEN WE ALSO UPDATED THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES KNOW YOU KNOW WHO YOU'RE TALKING WITH AND WORKING WITH. JUST BY PUTTING THIS INTO THE ELEMENT, IT MAKES IT A LOT EASIER FOR PEOPLE WHEN THEY'RE MAKING DECISIONS TO LOOK AT THAT, SEE THE DATA, SEE WHY THE POLICIES ARE THERE AND THEN ALSO LOOK AT THE DATA IS YOUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS LOOKING AT UP. THE REQUIRE A TENURE PERIOD AND A 20 YEAR PERIOD. SO THE MATH SERIES. UPDATED ALL OF THE MAPS. THERE ARE A LOT OF MAPS. THESE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE REQUIRED BY THE STATE TO BE IN YOUR CONFERENCE OF PLAN WITH THE ADDITION OF THE FUTURE ADVISORY MAP WITH THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARIES. NOW, THAT URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY IS WHAT IS FPUA'S WATER AND SEWER BOUNDARY. IT IS GOING TO SERVE ALSO WHEN YOUR STAFF IS LOOKING AT PROPERTIES. THEY CAN LOOK AT IT. THEY CAN LOOK AT IT FOR APPLICATIONS. DOES IT HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE IT NEEDS? COMPLIANCE WITH ADJACENT LANDS.

ALSO CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMP PLAN. FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENTS.

SO, AGAIN, WE ADDED A LOT OF DATA. ONE OF THE TABLES THAT WE ADDED IN WAS A CROSS-REFERENCE SO YOU CAN SEE WHICH ZONING DISTRICTS FALL UNDER FUTURE LAND USES. THAT'S VERY HELPFUL.

PRESERVING RECREATIONAL WORKING WATER FUNDS. THERE WERE A LOT OF LEVEL OF SERVICES THAT NEEDED TO BE UPDATED. THE ANNEXATION POLICIES. WE WENT IN AND LOOKED AT THOSE ANNEXATION POLICIES AND UPDATED THEM TO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE HEARD THERE. SO THAT IS SOMETHING IMPORTANT TO SET THOSE STANDARDS FOR ANNEXATION. REVISE SOME OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO PROMOTE SOME OF YOUR BIG INDUSTRIES. YOU KNOW? MARINE. AVIATION. AND THEN WE ADDED NEW POLICY THAT DEFINES THE FUTURE LAND USE AREA IS THAT FPUA MAP AND THAT PROHIBITS ANNEXATION OUTSIDE OF THE URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY. TRANSPORTATION. THERE WAS SOME OUTDATED LANGUAGE IN THERE ABOUT A MOBILITY THEME METHODOLOGY STUDY. SOMETHING BEING TALKED ABOUT NOW SO THAT CAN COME IN THE FUTURE. THE CITY SHELL WAS ADDED TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT. THERE WAS ALSO POLICY AS I DO STATE REVIEWS WEARING MY OTHER HAT, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT D.O.T. ALWAYS WANTS TO DO IS MAKE SURE THERE'S CORONATION WITH ANYTHING HAPPENING TO THEIR STRATEGIC INTERMODAL SYSTEM. SO ADDED THAT IN. THEN IMPLEMENTED A BICYCLE IMPROVEMENT POLICY BECAUSE AS WE START TO DO STREETS, THEY ARE INCLUDING BICYCLES AND BIKE LANES AND SIDEWALKS. WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE INCORPORATING AS WELL. INFRASTRUCTURE. ADDED THE POLICY TO WHAT IS KNOWN AS THE 2023 SEPTIC TO SEWER BILL. IN THAT BILL, THERE IS STATE STATUTES THAT ADDRESS LOTS THAT ARE 50 OR MORE LOTS OF ONE ACRE LOTS. AND THEN THERE IS SOMETHING THAT ADDRESSES ONE ACRE LOTS. MAKE SURE IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT LEGISLATION. WE REVISED OUTDATED LANGUAGE. REFERENCES TO REPORTS.

THEN REVISED THE POLICY THAT ADOPTS YOUR 2025 WATER FACILITIES WORK PLAN. WHICH WAS ADOPTED LAST YEAR. IT HAS TO BE ADOPTED 18 MONTHS WITHIN THE LAST TIME THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HAS UPDATED THERE IS AND I WAS IN SEPTEMBER OF '24.

SO YOU ARE WAY AHEAD ON THAT ONE. OBSERVATION COASTAL MANAGE ELEMENTS. YOU HAVE A GREAT PLAN. IT IS VERY STRONG. IT LOOKS AT THOSE THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT. THESE RESOURCES. THESE NATURAL RESOURCES THEY HAVE. IT WAS ALREADY VERY STRONG. A FEW SPELLING ERRORS. COASTAL MANAGEMENT. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS SPOTTED BY THIS COUNCIL WAS MAKING SURE THAT THE LEGISLATION, REGARDING DERELICT OR DETERIORATED VESSELS WAS ADDRESSED. WE DID ADD POLICIES FOR THAT. ADDED A POLICY RELATING TO MAINTAINING, RESTORING, AND ENHANCING THE OVERALL QUALITY OF THE COASTAL ZONE, AND ADDED POLICIES INSURING FLOOD RESISTANT REQUIREMENTS. SOME OF THOSE CAME OUT OF LEGISLATION CALLED THE PEERLESS FLOOD LEGISLATION IN 2015. WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GOT THAT IN THERE. AND WE LOOK BACK AT, THAT WERE MADE BEFORE. SO WE THINK YOU ARE SOLID ON THAT NOW. HOUSING ELEMENT. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT IS IMPORTANT NOW. AGAIN, WE LOOKED AT THE OWNERSHIP AND THE RENTAL NEEDS. THERE IS A COMMENT OR POLICY WE PUT IN THERE TO TALK ABOUT WORKING WITH NONPROFITS BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS, HABITAT FOR HUMANITY IS ONE OF THE PEOPLE WE WORK WITH BUT MAKING SURE ALIGNED WITH WHAT THEIR PLAN IS AND WORKING WITH

[00:25:02]

THOSE PEOPLE, PROFIT AND NONPROFIT BUILDERS, TO BRING IN WHAT YOU NEED. AND THEN A POLICY WAS ADDED RELATING TO SUPPORTING THE PRIVATE SECTOR FUNDING. I HAVE THE CHURCH THERE BECAUSE LAST YEAR IN THE LEGISLATION THAT WAS LEGISLATION PASSED CALLED YIGBY, SO YES IN GOD'S BACKYARD. WE DIDN'T NEED TO PUT ANYTHING IN THE POLICY OF BUT IT IS SOMETHING TO KEEP IN YOUR MIND THAT THAT IS AVAILABLE TO US NOW. RECREATION OPEN SPACE.

AGAIN, WE DID LEVEL OF SERVICE UPDATES. WE CREATED A POLICY THAT SAYS THAT THE CITY WILL CREATE AN INVENTORY OF PRIVATE AND PUBLIC RECREATION OPEN SPACE BY JANUARY 2027 AND THEN ALSO MAINTAINED THAT. WE HAVE REVISED POLICIES FOR REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO HAVE HURRICANE-HARDENED BUILDINGS FOR SHELTERING . A POLICY TO STATE THAT THE CITY IS NOT GOING TO SELL OR DISPOSE OF ANY COMMUNAL -- I'M SORRY. ANY RECREATION LANDS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS ARE WITHIN THE ANNEXATION AREA. THEN ADDED A POLICY RELATED TO PRIVATE RECREATION AMENITIES.

WHEN YOU'RE GETTING, WHEN YOU ARE ASKING FOR THOSE, THAT THEY STAY IN PERPETUITY AND REMAIN ACCESSIBLE AND ARE NOT SOLD OR DISCONTINUED FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION. BUT DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICY. JUST HAD TO UPDATE THAT. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCILS DUE. SO WE UPDATED THAT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH STATUTES.

UPDATED REFERENCES TO REGIONAL PASSENGER RAIL. AMTRAK. WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS OPENED TO ANY KIND OF REGIONAL PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE. THEN WE UPDATED TABLE 8-1. WHO ARE YOU TALKING TO? IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU ARE TALKING TO THE DIFFERENT AGENCIES AND WORKING WITH EACH OTHER BECAUSE NOT EVERYTHING IS LOCAL. RIGHT? THINGS CROSS INTO THE STATE OR THE COUNTY. WATER, ROADS, DOES NOT ADHERE TO THOSE JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS. WE ADDED IN THE CURRENT FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT. THAT IS PART OF THE LEGISLATION EQUIREMENTS. LEVEL OF SERVI WE MADE A NOTE THAT THAT ALL RESIDES IN THE PUBLIC FACILITIES MANAGEMENT. WE START GETTING THAT INTO TOO MANY ELEMENTS. IT STARTS BECOMING CONFUSING WHEN IT IS TIME TO UPDATE IT. AGAIN, SOME POLICIES NEEDED "THE CITY SHELL." THEN A NEW POLICY TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH STORMWATER GOALS WITH YOUR ACTION PLANS. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT CAME ABOUT IN 2023, AS WELL. THAT THEY WANTED TO HAVE -- NOT SURE WHY -- BUT INTO THE DEVELOPMENT. PUBLIC FACILITIES MANAGEMENT. AT FIRST WE THOUGHT MAYBE WHAT IS THIS. THAT IS DUE OUT. WHY DO HAVE A SEPARATE ELEMENT? HAD A VERY STRONG ELEMENT. IT IS VERY GOOD. IT LAYS OUT WHAT YOUR STAFF NEEDS TO LOOK AT WHEN IT IS LOOKING AT POTENTIAL MISCELLANEOUS CHANGES OR ANYTHING. THEY ARE LOOKING AT WHAT THE IMPACTS ARE. BUT THEN ALSO IT IS VERY TRANSPARENT FOR THE PUBLIC AND YOU AS ELECTED OFFICIALS TO ALSO LOOK AT THOSE AND KNOW WHAT THOSE -- WHAT THOSE IMPACTS ARE GOING TO BE ON DEVELOPMENT AND WHAT YOUR LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS ARE. SO WHAT THE CONCURRENCY IS THAT THEY HAVE TO MEET. PUBLIC SCHOOLS FACILITIES. THIS IS ANOTHER ONE WE THOUGHT SINCE I WASN'T THE CONCURRENCY ANYMORE, DO WE NEED THIS ELEMENT? ACTUALLY IT IS PART OF YOUR ENTER DEVELOPMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. SOME ACRONYMS. THINGS LIKE THAT. JUST UPDATED THE NAME TO ST. LUCIE COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS. SO ERRORS OR JUST UPDATING TO CURRENT TITLES. PROPERTY RIGHTS ELEMENT. THIS REALLY WE JUST ADDED A PURPOSE TO WHAT IT WAS FROM THE LEGISLATION IN 2021. THE THING THAT YOU ABSOLUTELY GOT RIGHT ON THIS ELEMENT THAT THE STATE WILL TALK ABOUT IS THAT IT NEEDS TO BE ALL LOCAL DECISION-MAKING. A LOT OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES DID PLANNING DECISIONS BUT IT IS A LOCAL. DID NOT NEED TO BE CHANGED BECAUSE YOU HAD IT CORRECT. SO WE BOUGHT THESE AMENDMENTS TO THE PLANNING BOARD ON JANUARY 12TH. AND THEY APPROVED IT WITH JUST ONE MODIFICATION. FUTURE LENDERS POLICY 1-11-10. NOW, WHEN WE DID THE CHANGES IN THEIR RED WAS THOSE THINGS YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO DO TO MAKE YOUR PLAN CONSISTENT OR WITH LEGISLATION OR WITH THE REST OF YOUR PLAN. SO THIS BLUE ONE, WE HAD IT IN BLUE. SOMETHING. THE PLANNING BOARD, WE RECOMMENDED THIS POLICY. THE AREA WITHIN THE FPUA, WATER AND SEWER SERVICE BOUNDARY, AND NOT THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, SHALL BE REFERRED TO AS A FUTURE ANNEXATION AREA. THE ANNEXATION OF LAND OUTSIDE

[00:30:02]

IS PROHIBITED. THEY DID NOT WANT TO LIMIT THAT SO THEY JUST ASKED THAT WE STRIKE THAT LAST SENTENCE. SO THAT WILL BE UP TO YOU TO DECIDE, YOU KNOW, AS WE PRESENTED IT, DO YOU WANT TO STRIKE THAT AS WELL? OR DO WE MOVE ON WITH IT THE WAY WE HAVE PRESENTED IT TO YOU? SO NEXT STEPS. WE HAVE HEARING. WITHIN 10 DAYS, YOUR STAFF WILL SEND THIS UP TO THE STATE. THERE WILL BE A 30 DAY REVIEW. COMMENTS WILL COME BACK FROM FLORIDA COMMERCE AND ALSO THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. THE D.O.T.

DOES NOT GET TO COMMENT AT THIS TIME. THEN YOU WILL GET THOSE CHANGES. WE WILL COME BACK TO YOU AND OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, COMMENTS REPORT OR IT IS IN COMPLIANCE OR WHATEVER THEY ARE RECOMMENDING FOR THAT. THEN YOU WOULD MAKE THOSE NECESSARY CHANGES AND HOLD YOUR ADOPTION HEARING. NEXT STEPS. SO I AM AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

>> SO THE ADOPTION HEARING IS THE SECOND HEARING THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE? ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONERS, I HAVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS. MAYBE SOMEBODY ELSE WANTS TO GO FIRST? WANT ME TO START? MY FIRST COMMENT IS ON THE FPUA LANGUAGE. WHY DID YOU WANT TO PROHIBIT ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE WATER AND SEWER

ANNEXATION? >> I BELIEVE, IF I MAY, I AM GOING TO CALL OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR UP. HE IS OUR EXPERT.

HE DID THAT SECTION MAINLY TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE NOT

DRINKING EXTRA COSTS. >> DON'T CALL ME UP AND THEN ANSWER THE QUESTION. YEAH. THANK YOU. TOM LANAHAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. PLANNING COUNSEL. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU FOR ENGAGING US TO WORK ON THIS PROJECT WITH YOU. IT HAS BEEN A GREAT PROJECT. REALLY ENJOYED GETTING OUT WITH THE COMMUNITY.

YOU KNOW? GIVES US A CHANCE TO READ YOUR COMP PLAN FROM FRONT PAGE ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE BACK PAGE. REALLY IDENTIFY SOME OF THE THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO DO BUT THEN ALSO SOME THINGS THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO DO. SO TO THE QUESTION AT HAND, YOU KNOW, THERE IS A -- THERE IS AN APPROACH THAT YOU CAN TAKE. IF YOU DON'T HAVE A -- IF YOU DON'T HAVE A GOAL, YOU WILL NEVER KNOW YOU HAVE GOT IN THERE. THERE IS SOME CONCERN THAT I WOULD HAVE WITH CONTINUING TO STRETCH OUT THE FOOTPRINT OF THE CITY WHILE YOU STILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT AREAS INSIDE OR NEARBY THAT ARE NOT YET PART OF THE CITY. SO THAT WAS KIND OF THE GENESIS BEHIND THAT. THE FPUA BOUNDARY AS YOUR FUTURE ANNEXATION BOUNDARY IS -- IT DOES EXTEND BEYOND YOUR CURRENT LIMITS. AND IT DOES RECOGNIZE THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE IS KIND OF A -- THERE IS A SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP THERE, WHERE THEY -- WHEN THEY EXTEND SERVICE THERE FOR PEOPLE TO SIGN THOSE AGREEMENTS THAT THEY HAVE TO COME INTO THE CITY. WHEN YOU'RE READY TO TAKE THEM. IT DOESN'T MANDATE. BUT IT BASICALLY MANDATES THAT THEY SAY YES IF YOU ASK. THAT IS KIND OF WHAT I WAS THINKING. THAT THAT MADE SOME SENSE. TO MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE DISCUSSION AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT THERE IS A DESIRE TO DO AN ANNEXATION PLAN FOR THE CITY AND TO LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS A GOOD, LOGICAL ULTIMATE BOUNDARY.

AND THAT BOUNDARY MIGHT BE DIFFERENT FROM THAT WATER AND SEWER SERVICE BOUNDARY. THAT IS THE ONLY LINE I HAD TO GO WITH SO THAT IS WHY I CHOSE THAT. IF YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT LAST SENTENCE OUT, THAT IS PERFECTLY FINE. BUT I THINK JUST RECOGNIZE THAT YOU SHOULD BE CAREFUL IN OVEREXTENDING YOURSELF FARTHER AND FARTHER FROM THE CORE OF THE AREA THAT YOU ARE SERVING. THERE IS AN EFFICIENCY CHALLENGE THAT HAPPENS. AS YOU STRESS PATROL ZONES OUT. AS YOU EXTEND SERVICES FARTHER AND FARTHER OUT, IS IT ACTUALLY GOING TO BE BENEFICIAL TO BRING IN THAT B'S OR IS IT GOING TO COST MORE TO SERVE IT THEN YOU WOULD OTHERWISE? SO HAVING THAT BOUNDARY AND HAVING THAT GOAL GIVES YOU A LITTLE BIT BETTER ABILITY TO PLAN ON WHAT THAT IS GOING TO BE. BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT TO PUT THE CITY IN A NEGATIVE POSITION AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, COMPETING WITH OTHER FOLKS THAT MAY WANT TO DO SOME THINGS IN THOSE OUTSIDE AREAS. SO I THINK WORKING WITH YOURSELF AND ALSO WITH THE COUNTY AND NEIGHBORS TO TALK ABOUT WHAT OUR FUTURE ANNEXATION BOUNDARIES.

WHERE DO PEOPLE WANT TO GO? WHERE DO PEOPLE SEE GROWTH STOPPING? WHAT IS ENOUGH? THAT KIND OF A THING. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A USEFUL DIALOGUE TO HAVE AND WE COULD CERTAINLY

[00:35:03]

ASSIST IN THAT IF YOU WANTED TO.

>> OKAY. YEAH . >> I KNOW I CIRCLED AROUND ALL THAT, BUT IT IS A RECOMMENDATION. THAT'S WHY IT IS IN BLUE. IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT. OF EVENTUALLY ESTABLISHING A BOUNDARY IS A VERY GOOD IDEA FOR YOU.

>> YES. AND IT HAS BEEN A GOAL AND IT HAS WORKED FOR US. BUT I GUESS I WOULD SAY TWO THINGS. WE ARE TALKING A LOT ABOUT ANNEXATION RIGHT NOW. AND I DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING THAT PROHIBITS US FROM DOING SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE VALUABLE EVEN THOUGH WE CAN'T THINK OF IT RIGHT NOW. I TOTALLY AGREE WE DON'T WANT TO BITE OFF MORE THAN WE CAN CHEW. BUT ALSO UTILITIES ARE CHANGING. AND THE UTILITY SCENE IS CHANGING IN TERMS OF OUR MOVING THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. OUR SERVICE. WE HAVE A SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY THAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT. THAT IS A WORK IN PROGRESS RIGHT NOW. SO I DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING THAT PROHIBITS US. I WOULD RATHER NOT BE CUT OFF TOTALLY FROM DOING SOMETHING THAT WE MAY WANT TO DO IN THE FUTURE. THAT IS THE WAY I FEEL ABOUT IT. BUT WE WILL SEE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT.

>> MADAM MAYOR, REAL QUICK. STEPHANIE, COULD YOU GO BACK TO THAT ONE LINE. BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS THE POINT OF CONTENTION.

THIS ONE LINE HERE THAT HAS SOME LIMIT TO IT. IS THAT WHAT YOU

WERE REFERRING TO, MAYOR? >> SETTING A POLICY. GOING TO BE OUR ANNEXATION AREA. AND IF WE CAN'T GET RID OF THAT STRUGGLE PROHIBITING IT" IT GIVES YOU SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. THIS IS WHERE WE WILL GO. WE CAN MAKE A CHANGE AT THAT TIME.

>> OKAY. >> I JUST DON'T WANT US TO PROHIBIT OURSELVES FROM DOING SOMETHING SINCE THE STATE IS SO GOOD AT THAT ALREADY. SO THAT WAS MY CONCERN. THAT WAS A CONCERN. AND WHEN IT COMES TO HUTCHINSON ISLAND AT SOUTH BEACH, I GUESS I WANT TO KNOW THAT THE HUTCHINSON ISLAND OVERLAY DISTRICT IS, EVEN THOUGH THAT IS NOT FUTURE LAND USE, THAT THAT PLAYS A PART IN WHAT YOU DID FOR FUTURE LAND USE. IS THAT -- IS THAT A FACT OR ANYTHING THAT YOU PROPOSED?

>> I BELIEVE THAT IS WITHIN THAT BOUNDARY, THE FPUA BOUNDARY, SO THAT WOULD STILL BE CONSIDERED ANNEXATION.

>> YEAH. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT FPUA NOW. I AM CHANGING THE SUBJECT. SORRY. SO I WANT TO KNOW FOR THE ISLAND, FOR ALL THE FUTURE LAND USE, THE HUTCHINSON ISLAND OVERLAY DISTRICT IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AND HERE COMES MR. FREEMAN. HE IS GOING TO HELP ME

OUT. >> CALVARY IS HERE. FREEMAN.

PLANNING DIRECTOR. WHAT WE HAVE DONE AND WHAT THE TREASURE COAST DID DO IS CREATE A TABLE OF COORDINATION BETWEEN FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING DISTRICTS. SO WITHIN THAT, IN ESSENCE, WE HAVE THE ISLAND ZONING DISTRICTS ALLOCATED TO CERTAIN FUTURE LAND

USES. AND VICE VERSA. >> YOU HAVEN'T CHANGED ANYTHING

FOR THAT. >> EVERYTHING HAS REMAINED

INTACT. >> YOU HAVE A NEW TITLE FOR ONE OF THEM THOUGH. HUTCHINSON ISLAND MIXED-USE. ISN'T THAT A NEW TITLE FOR SOMETHING OR WAS THAT ALWAYS THERE?

>> I THINK THAT WAS ALWAYS THERE.

>> OKAY. >> HOW WE TABULATE THOSE SO THEY ARE ALIGNED. MORE ABLE TO BE EASILY INTERPRETED BY ANYBODY LOOKING AT THE CODE. IT ALSO REINFORCES OUR LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS SO THAT WE KNOW WHICH ZONING DISTRICTS CAN GO

INTO CERTAIN FUTURE LAND USES. >> OKAY.

>> THEY ARE MORE ALIGNED NOW THAN THEY WERE. THE PROPOSAL HAS

TO DO THAT. >> OKAY.

>> SO THE CODE IS NOT CHANGING. THE OVERLAY IS STILL IN PLACE IN

THE CODE ORDINANCE. >> OKAY. YEAH . I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE HOW THAT FIT IN. I COULD KEEP GOING BUT ANYBODY ELSE WANT TO CHIME IN HERE NOW?

>> STEPHANIE, I AM MORE CONCERNED ABOUT, YOU HAVE KIND OF DONE THIS AND TAKEN THE STANCE OF KIND OF BREAKING US UP SOME THINGS. ANY IMPACT YOU ANTICIPATE WITH LEGISLATURE AND BILLS WE ARE HEARING IS GOING TO BE FILED? ANNEXATION SEEMED TO BE SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT -- I AM HEARING SOME DIFFERENT THINGS, MAYBE. I AM JUST CURIOUS AS TO HAVE YOU LOOK FORWARD TO SAYING, IF WE MAKE THESE CHANGES, WILL WE HAVE TO COME RIGHT BACK OR DO WE LOSE ALL CONTROL? LET LEGISLATURE

[00:40:05]

TELL CITIES AND COUNTIES. PRETTY MUCH OVER. THEY ARE GOING TO RUN

EVERYTHING OUT OF TALLAHASSEE. >> YEAH. WE HAVEN'T TAKEN ANYTHING OUT. WE ARE DOING MODIFICATIONS TO WHAT YOU HAVE THERE. AS FAR AS WHAT THE STATE IS GOING TO SAY ONE COMES BACK AND LOOK AT IT, I DON'T KNOW. WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO TRACK THAT AS IT COMES BACK TO SAY, YOU KNOW, IS IT MORE CUMBERSOME.

WHATEVER THEIR WORDING IS. AND WE DON'T KNOW THAT UNTIL WE HEAR IT. WE DON'T THINK IT'S TAKING AWAY ANY OF YOUR CONTROL.

>> YET. >> THAT YOU HAVE CURRENTLY IN YOUR PLAN. AND WHAT HAPPENS ON FUTURE LEGISLATION, I CAN'T

SAY. >> EVERYTHING IS STATUTORILY

CORRECT AS THEY STAND NOW. >> OKAY.

>> IS THAT? YEAH. SO ANOTHER QUESTION I HAD WAS, THE STORM WATER POLLUTION REDUCTION GOALS , WERE THOSE THINGS THAT -- AND I DIDN'T KNOW THE RED AND THE BLUE, SO WAS THAT SOMETHING THAT WAS -- DID ENGINEERING HAVE AN INPUT ON THAT? THAT IS 9.1.9.

>> IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS. LIKE I SAID, THAT WAS STATUE

THAT WAS PASSED. >> OKAY. SO THAT A STATUTORY.

>> I DO BELIEVE 9.1 POINT -- >> 9.

>> YES. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WAS IN THE STATUTE IN 2023 THAT

WAS PASSED. >> OKAY. AND IN 10, PUBLIC FACILITIES MANAGEMENT, DID FPUA HAVE COORDINATION WITH THAT? WITH CHAPTER 10? I ASSUME THEY DID BECAUSE THEY WERE PART OF

YOUR -- >> THEY PROVIDED US A LOT OF INFORMATION. WHAT ARE THE SERVICE STANDARDS NOW? THEY WENT THROUGH THEIR PLAN AND PROVIDED INFORMATION.

>> OKAY. SO THEY HAD STRONG INPUT IN THAT. SO THE EXEMPTIONS FROM CONCURRENCY, IN 11.2.4, IS THAT STATUTORY? 11.2.4.2.

>> 4-2. NO. THERE AREN'T ANY CHANGES TO THAT. WE JUST DID LIKE SOME LITTLE ERROR . MAKING SOME, IT LOOKS LIKE, JUST PUTTING IN SOME ACRONYMS WHERE THEY BELONG. CHANGING THE SCHOOL BOARD'S NAME. OH. HERE WE GO. SCHOOL. YES. THAT WAS STATUTORY.

>> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND ALL RIGHT. THESE MAY BE MINOR, BUT ON 7.6.2, REFRAIN FROM SELLING RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE LANDS.

SO REFRAIN IS A -- SORT OF A SOFT NO? WE CAN STILL DO IT? I DON'T WANT TO DO IT. I DON'T SEE A TIME WHEN I WOULD DO IT BUT I SEE A TIME WHEN WE MIGHT DO IT. I WOULD LIKE TO REFRAIN FROM SELLING THAT BUT THERE MIGHT BE A TIME WHEN WE WANT TO

DO THAT. >> MAYBE A LITTLE DIFFERENT WORDING. THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE WILL --

>> COULD YOU PUT THAT ON THE SCREEN?

>> I DON'T HAVE YOUR CHANGES. I DON'T THINK. DO WE?

>> THE AGENDA. PULL THEM UP HERE.

>> MADAM MAYOR, THAT -- WORDS MATTER. I THINK, K,YOU KNOW, REFRAIN FROM I AM THINKING ABOUT SOMETHING WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST. SOME SITUATIONS THERE. YEAH .

>> I JUST DON'T WANT TO TIE OUR HANDS. EVEN THOUGH I WANT US TO THINK REAL HARD BEFORE WE DO THAT AND I DON'T HAVE ANY

DESIRE TO DO THAT. >> 7.6.2. UP ONE PAGE. THERE YOU

GO. >> REFRAIN FROM SELLING

UNAUTHORIZED. >> I THINK THE CHANGES WE ARE MAKING HER REWORDING THAT. LIQUIDATING. BUT WE CAN ALSO PUT IN THERE, YEAH. REFRAIN WAS ALREADY IN THERE.

>> YEAH. OKAY. >> IF THAT IS SOMETHING, MAYBE THE CITY SHALL CONSIDER . YEAH. WE CAN TAKE THE WORD REFRAIN OUT

[00:45:06]

BUT WE HAVE TO PUT A WORD IN THERE. SO CAREFULLY CONSIDER SELLING SOMETHING TO THAT NATURE.

>> SOMETHING TO THAT NATURE. YEAH. I MEAN , I DON'T WANT THIS TO BE AT, BUT WE ARE GOING TO THINK LONG AND HARD BEFORE WE DO THIS. RIGHT? I MEAN, AND I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT. I JUST

DON'T WANT TO. >> OKAY.

>> YEAH. AND. >> MADAM MAYOR, WHEN THE FOLLOWING BULLETIN BE A CONCERN AS WELL? POLICY RELATED TO AMENITIES REMAIN PERPETUITY, BE MADE ACCESSIBLE, AND NOT BE SOLD DISCONTINUED. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT NOT BE SOLD DISCONTINUED.

WE DID AND ADD A POLICY. IS THAT THE RECOMMENDATION TO ADD A

POLICY? >> YEAH. THE 7.6.9?

>> TO SO ABSOLUTE AND NOT RESOLD OR DISCONTINUED. OF COURSE WE HAVE THE ASSET. WE GOING TO MAINTAIN IT. BUT WE MAY WANT TO

SELL IT. I'M JUST CONCERNED. >> YEAH. I HAVE THAT MARK, TOO.

MAINTAINED AND NOT SOLD. >> SO ONE -- WHEN ARE ASKING THE DEVELOPER TO PUT THOSE IN THAT THEY DON'T LATER ON SAY, WELL, NO. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUT THOSE AMENITIES. SO THAT IS FOR

PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT. >> SO THAT MIGHT BE IN OUR

AGREEMENT. RIGHT? MR. LENIHAN? >> JUST TO SUGGEST THERE, WE COULD ADD WITHOUT APPROVAL. OF -- OH. THE IDEA THERE IS BASICALLY TO HOLD THEM TO WHAT THEY SAID.

>> YES. TO MAKE THEM ACCOUNTABLE.

>> THE PRIVATE DEVELOPER WOULD BE GETTING CREDIT AGAINST A RECREATION AND DEDICATION REQUIREMENT, SO TO TAKE THE . % RIGHT? AND I WILL PAY YOU AND SELL IT OFF, THAT IS A PROBLEM.

SO THIS IS DESIGNED TO GIVE YOU SOME STRENGTH THERE . STILL A DEVELOPMENT ORDER VIOLATION BUT THIS WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE FUEL FOR THE FIRE, PREVENTING SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> MR. CHES? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

>> THE REFRAIN AND ALL THE REST OF THAT. MAYBE WE WORK A BETTER WORD. REFRAIN WAS ALREADY IN THERE THOUGH.

>> YEAH. SO I'M GOING TO CHANGE MY WORDING. ON 7.1.4, JANUARY NUMBER ONE, 2027, INVENTORY OF ALL WHAT? ALL WHAT? I CAN'T READ

MY OWN WRITING. >> OPEN SPACE LAND.

>> YES. IS THAT STATUTORY? OR ARE WE GOING TO DO THAT IN ONE YEAR? AN INVENTORY THAT WE HAVE TO DO? WE ARE TELLING OURSELVES THAT WE ARE GOING TO DO THAT IN ONE YEAR? SO OUR STAFF IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT IN ONE YEAR?

>> PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RECREATION OPEN SPACE. REALLY, DISCUSSION WITH THE FINANCE DIRECTOR FACILITIES MANAGEMENT BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO DO AN ASSESSMENT OF OUR MAJOR ASSETS. BUT I DON'T KNOW 100% WITHIN ONE YEAR. BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE RECREATION SPACE. SO WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT FROM A SCOPE PERSPECTIVE .

AND MAYBE AS SOON AS TOMORROW MORNING, JUST GET AN IDEA BECAUSE THAT IS A LOT AT ONE TIME. IN TERMS OF ALL OF OUR

PROPERTIES. TWO YEARS. YEAH. >> BARGAIN. TWO YEARS. I DON'T WANT TO PUT OURSELVES IN A SITUATION WHERE --

>> TONIGHT. >> SO TWO YEARS.

>> WE HAVE GOT TO MAKE OUR DECISION TONIGHT.

>> SO TOM LENIHAN, AGAIN. SO YOU HAVE A LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARD EXISTING IN YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT SAYS YOU WILL HAVE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF ACRES OF COMMUNITY PARK AND A CERTAIN NUMBER OF ACRES OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARK OR WHATEVER THE TWO

CATEGORIES ARE. >> OKAY. OKAY.

>> SO WHEN YOU'RE DOING LAND-USE CHANGES AND APPROVING PROJECTS, YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE CHECKING THAT YOUR MEETING THAT LEVEL BEFORE YOU ADD RESIDENTIAL UNITS. YOU DON'T HAVE AN INVENTORY. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ACRES ARE. THE PURPOSE OF PUTTING THAT IN THERE IS YOU NEED THAT INVENTORY SO YOU CAN DO THOSE ANALYSES AS YOU GO FORWARD. SO THAT IS WHY IT SHOULD HAVE A TIMELINE. OTHERWISE, YOU KNOW, WHEN DOES IT EVER HAPPEN? TWO YEARS IS REASONABLE. I SUPPOSE THAT IS OKAY. THERE IS NO LIKE PERFECT RIGHT ANSWER OR WRONG ANSWER BUT

YOU DO NEED THE INVENTORY. >> OKAY. WELL, THEN WE DO NEED

[00:50:04]

IT. >> NEED TO HAVE IT.

>> MR. CHES, ONE YEAR? 18 MONTHS? TWO YEARS?

>> IF THAT IS THE REQUIREMENT, RIGHT AWAY. IF YOU'RE SAYING WE SHOULD NOT PUSH IT OUT TO 2028, IF WE NEED TO HAVE IT ALIGNED WITH THE LEVEL OF SERVICE, THAT'S WHAT WE WILL DO. WE WILL GET TOGETHER WITH THE G.I.S. TEAM. WE DO HAVE THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN SOME FORM I KNOW. FINE WITH IT. WE WILL DO IT. WE WILL GET IT DONE.

>> MAYOR? >> YES, SIR?

>> I'M GLAD WE ARE BRINGING THESE UP BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH HE IS NOT HERE TONIGHT, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT COMMISSIONER BRODERICK HAS BEEN ASKING FOR SINCE HE HAS BEEN SITTING ON THE OTHER END OF THIS DIOCESE ABOUT THIS. SO MY QUESTION IS WE HAD SAID TWO YEARS. THEN I HEARD 18 MONTHS AND NOW WE ARE BACK TO A YEAR. THAT'S WHAT I'VE HEARD. SO I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR. AND I DON'T WANT TO PUT EXTRA BURDEN ON MY STAFF WHO IS ALREADY. AN UNREASONABLE BURDEN THAT IF WE CAN'T GET IT DONE IN A YEAR, WILL WE BE IN TROUBLE FOR 18 MONTHS? I AM TRYING TO GIVE US SOME LEEWAY. I UNDERSTAND. INITIALLY LESS THAN A YEAR BECAUSE TODAY'S JANUARY THE 20TH. SO IT IS REALLY LESS THAN A YEAR. YOU KNOW? STAFF IS ALREADY WORKING HARD. SO BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS AND SAY A YEAR, I MEAN,

>> OR WE SAID TWO YEARS, HOW DOES THAT IMPACT THE PLAN? DO WE HAVE TO GO BACK AND CHANGE ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE PLAN? IF THAT ALIGNMENT, IT WOULD SAY 2028, DOES THAT IMPACT THE LEVEL OF SERVICES ANYWAY? BECAUSE WE DO HAVE TO CONTRACT THIS TO BE DONE. DO THIS WITHIN SAY 11 MONTHS. WE WILL DEFINITELY HAVE TO CONTRACT WITH A FIRM TO GO OUT AND GET OUR INFORMATION ON ALL THE OPEN SPACE. WE ARE NOT TALKING STRUCTURES?

>> RIGHT. >> OPEN SPACE.

>> YOUR RECREATIONAL AMENITIES.

>> COMFORTABLE WOULD BE '28 BUT IF WE HAVE TO CONTRACT IT OUT WE

CAN GET IT DONE BY JANUARY '27. >> MR. CITY MANAGER, I'M TRYING TO WORK WITH YOU HERE. WE HAVE JUMPED TO '28. I'M ACTUALLY JUST TRYING TO GET OFF JANUARY 1ST, 2027. IT CAN BE JUNE '27.

JULY 1ST, 2027. SO I JUST DON'T WANT TO JUMP A WHOLE ANOTHER YEAR. IF WE CAN HAVE SOMETHING IN THEIR, WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF '27 AND GIVE STAFF A LITTLE MORE TIME TO DO IT, WHERE WOULD THAT PUT US? ARE THERE ANY TYPE OF PENALTIES THAT I DON'T HAVE AT JANUARY THE 1ST? MARTINE TO PUSH IT TO '28, BUT IF I GET TO THE MIDDLE OF THE YEAR, GIVE ME A LITTLE MORE LEEWAY AND WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO IT JANUARY 1ST. I DON'T KNOW. BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S OUT THERE. BUT IF I GIVE MY STAFF A LITTLE MORE TIME, THEN I KNOW WILL GET IT DONE. THAT'S WHAT I'M

TRYING TO GET AT. >> YEAH. THERE'S TO BE NO PENALTY OR ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHEN YOU'RE CONSIDERING LAND-USE CHANGES AND DEVELOPMENTS AND STUFF LIKE

THAT. >> HAVE TO HAVE THE CALCULATION TO SEE IF YOUR MEETING WHAT YOUR POLICY SAYS YOU WILL MEET.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER GAINES. SO I AM HEARING JULY 1ST, 2027. AND I'M FINE WITH THAT.

>> AND I DO UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF IT NOW. BECAUSE WE DO HAVE TO DO SOME CALCULATION. AND I DO UNDERSTAND THAT. YEAH.

OKAY. AND THEN I JUST GOT A FEW MORE AND I WILL QUIT MONOPOLIZING EVERYTHING. INFRASTRUCTURE. WHAT IS THAT NUMBER? IT IS 3. ADD A NEW POLICY RELATED TO SEWAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL SYSTEMS FOR DEVELOPMENT. DID YOU SAY

THAT WAS STATUTORY? >> YES. THAT'S SEWER LEGISLATION THAT CAME AND ALL THIS NEEDS TO BE DONE BY, YOU KNOW, 2030. BUT YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE AS THINGS ARE COMING IN THEY ARE MEETING

THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS. >> AND I HEARD MY FELLOW COUNCIL PEOPLE FROM SEBASTIAN TALK ABOUT THE INTERPRETATION OF IT HAS TO BE DONE BY 2030 OR DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PLAN TO HAVE IT DONE BY 2030? APPARENTLY, YEAH, DEPENDING ON WHICH LEGISLATOR YOU TALK TO, THAT'S RIGHT. AND THEN I THINK THAT MIGHT BE -- LET'S SEE. POLICY TO CHANGE. FUTURE RESIDENTIAL AND UNITS PROVIDED. YEAH. THAT IS STATE STATUTE. IT IS 7.4. THE ONE

[00:55:10]

ABOUT HARDENING THE BUILDINGS THAT YOU HAVE IN A DEVELOPMENT OF 100 UNITS OR MORE. HURRICANE HARDENING. IS THAT STATE

STATUTE? >> I BELIEVE. OKAY. IS THAT IN

COASTAL MANAGEMENT OR -- >> YES. WAIT. IT IS IN 7.4.1.1.

>> I BELIEVE IT WAS -- >> IT IS RIGHT WITH THE REFRAIN FROM SELLING RECREATION LAND AND OPEN SPACE. RIGHT BEFORE.

>> SEVEN? >> 7.4.1.1.

>> THAT IS ACTUALLY YOUR POLICY.

>> OKAY. >> THE ONLY THING WE ARE RECOMMENDING IS YOU HAVE THE POLICY. WE ARE PUTTING IN THE LANGUAGE OF AN APPROPRIATE SIZE.

>> WELL, I AM NOT AGAINST IT. YEAH .

>> THEY HAVE A -- YOU KNOW? YOU ARE REQUIRING THEM TO HAVE THE COMMUNAL HURRICANE-HARDENED BUILDING. BUT WE ARE JUST PUTTING IN THAT LANGUAGE "OF A APPROPRIATE SIZE." DID YOU HAVE THAT COMMUNITY OF 1000 PEOPLE AND THEY MADE IT FOR 10?

>> FOR A HURRICANE SHELTER IF THEY NEED IT. THAT IS GOOD

PLANNING ON OUR PART. >> YES. A LOT OF GOOD PLANNING.

>> AND I AM ASSUMING THAT THE THINGS ON WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT WERE VETTED WITH THE FPUA, WITH THE FORT PIERCE .

8.1 .15, REVISED POLICY RELATED TO PLANT CAPACITY THROUGH 2045.

>> YES. THAT IS THEIR -- YES . THAT IS THE DATE I BELIEVE THAT THEIR PLAN GOES THROUGH. FPUA'S PLAN .

>> WHAT? >> FPUA'S PLAN. THAT IS WHERE THEY ARE PLANNING OUT TWO. 2045. UPDATE. IT WAS 2030.

>> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAD INPUT ON THAT. I

THINK THAT WAS MY QUESTIONS. >> ANYBODY?

>> JUST LIKE I SAID, WE ARE GOING TO CLEAN THIS UP BASED ON WHAT YOU HEARD TONIGHT. IT IS GOING TO GO TO THE ACTUAL STATE.

RIGHT? THEN WE WILL HEAR BACK FROM THEM. I GUESS WE WILL HEAR BACK FROM THEM ON THEIR RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE, POINTS, AND THIS AND THIS, AND YOU WILL INFORM US AT A MEETING LIKE THIS

OR WILL THAT COME WITH STAFF? >> THAT WILL COME BACK FROM YOUR ADOPTION HEARING. GET THAT RECOMMENDATION REPORT. WHATEVER THE STATE HAS DONE, WE WILL GO THROUGH IT ONE BY ONE. A LOT OF TIMES IT WILL BE COMMENTS. YOU SHOULD DO THIS. OR YOU WILL GET A COMMENT FROM D.O.T., WE WANT YOU TO ADD IN THIS TABLE OR WHATEVER. THINGS THAT YOU WILL DO AND WANT TO DO AND ARE REQUIRED TO DO AND WE WILL BRING THAT BACK YOU FOR THE ADOPTION.

WHAT WE HAVE HERE PLUS MAYBE WE WILL USE GREEN THIS TIME. THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE ARE GOING TO DO. THEN YOU WILL ADOPT THAT WHOLE PACKAGE. AND ONCE YOU DO THAT AND IT GETS ACCEPTED BY THE STATE, THEN WILL CODIFY ALL THAT.

>> RIGHT. YOU KNOW? THE PART ABOUT THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WILL COME BACK AND STAFF WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO WAIT -- WEIGH ON THAT AND WE CAN SAY NO IF IT IS JUST RECOMMENDATION. OKAY.

VERY WELL. SO THE PUBLIC CAN ALSO HEAR. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE PUBLIC HEARS THAT.

>> AGAIN, WE WILL USE A DIFFERENT COLOR SO YOU CAN SEE THIS IS WHAT THE STATE CAME BACK THAT THE STATE OR STATE AGENCY

IS RECOMMENDING THAT YOU DO. >> ARE THEY RECOMMENDATIONS?

>> THAT IS KIND OF WHAT I'M GETTING AT.

>> YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO SAY NO TO THE STATE. ARE WE?

>> COMMON OR IF THEY FOUND SOMETHING IN THE LEGISLATION THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE BECAUSE IT IS INCONSISTENT. LIKE

WE MISSED SOMETHING. >> THAT THE PUBLIC WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT, TOO. THAT THE STATE HAS PREEMPTIVE ON CERTAIN THINGS . OKAY. IT WILL ALL BE PUBLIC.

>> IT WILL ALL BE PUBLIC. >> AND THIS GOES OBVIOUSLY TO PEOPLE IN THE STATE THAT LOOK AT THESE DOCUMENTS ALL THE TIME AND

THINK ABOUT THIS ALL THE TIME. >> IT GOES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF FLORIDA COMMERCE. WHAT HAPPENS IS THEY WILL SEND OUT TO SEVERAL AGENCIES. DEPARTMENT OF STATE. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUES. WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICTS. THE D.O.T. THE RPC. I KNOW THERE IS A

[01:00:03]

COUPLE MORE. HISTORIC RESOURCES. ALL THAT LOOKS AND WE HAVE 30 DAYS TO SAY WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS GOOD OR WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS NOT. THOUGH IN THIS CASE THE RPC'S STATUE PROHIBITS US BECAUSE WE HAVE ALREADY GIVEN YOU OUR COMMENTS, BASICALLY, SO WE CAN'T COMMENT ON WHAT IS BEING DONE. BUT THEY WILL CONSOLIDATE ALL OF THAT, SEND IT BACK TO THE CITY.

>> ALREADY. YEAH, I DO. ONCE WE GET EVERYTHING BACK. GREEN.

BLUE. >> RED. YELLOW.

>> RED. YELLOW. FROM THE STATE. WE GO OVER IT. STAFF GOES OVER AT. WE COME TO OUR FINAL VOTE, THE FIVE OF US, APPEAR. RIGHT? IS THERE ANY TIME AFTER THAT THAT ONCE IT'S DONE THAT SOMEBODY CAN COME EXPLAIN EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE DONE TO THE PUBLIC? BECAUSE, WHEN I WAS READING THIS I WAS LIKE, OKAY, AND EVERYBODY IS NOT WATCHING THIS RIGHT NOW AND EVERYBODY IS NOT GOING TO WATCH THE HEARING WHEN WE GET MAD OR BE HAPPY WHEN STUFF COMES BACK FROM THE STATE SO I DON'T WANT US TO DO ALL THIS WORK AND SEE THAT WE ARE FIGHTING FOR HOME RULE AND WHATEVER WE ARE DOING AND THE PUBLIC NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE DOING. SO I'M JUST ASKING. AND MOST OF THE PUBLIC IS NOT GOING TO WANT TO HEAR 7.51 THROUGH 7.59 BUT THE KEY POINTS.

I WOULD LOVE TO GIVE SOME KIND OF RECAP OUT TO THE RESIDENTS AND PUBLIC. BECAUSE I'M SITTING THERE READING IT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT. OKAY. I GET IT. AND THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW HARD YOU HAVE WORKED ON THIS. SO I WANT TO GET IT OUT THERE.

SOLID IDEA. >> WE WILL WORK WITH YOUR STAFF.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT WILL BE A WORKSHOP. SPECIAL PRESENTATION.

>> MAYBE A DATE MEETING. >> SO, MY LAST THING, MADAM

MAYOR, NOW. YOU CAN -- AND -- >> I THINK IT IS IN MY

PRESENTATION. >> ALL RIGHT. MADAM MAYOR, I HEARD WHAT YOU SAID. THIS IS THE ISSUE I HAVE. AND I HEARD WHAT HE SAID ABOUT KEEPING IT IN OR WHATEVER. IF WE -- I DON'T MIND TAKING IT OUT WITH PROHIBITED. RIGHT? BUT BY US NOT PUTTING ANYTHING THERE, BY US NOT PUTTING ANYTHING THERE, JUST STOP IT AT THE FUTURE ANNEX AREA, AN EX-SENSATION -- ANNEXATION AREA, ARE WE COMING BACK TO STAY? THIS AREA, THEY PUT SOMETHING THERE. YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT THEY COULD SAY OUTSIDE. OR BY US LEAVING IT BLANK, ARE WE ACTUALLY PUTTING A PREVENTATIVE FROM HAPPENING BECAUSE WE HAVE A CHANCE TO DEFINE IT NOW. WHAT WE WON ON THIS AREA OR AM I OVERTHINKING THIS? I COULD BE OVERTHINKING BUT BY NOT HAVING ANYTHING THERE OTHER THAN FUTURE ANNEXATION AREA, WE ARE LEAVING INTERPRETATION TO OTHER AREA OUTSIDE OF THAT UP TO SOMEBODY ELSE TO COME IN AND DEFINE IT OR SOMEBODY COME BACK AND SAY WELL, YOU DIDN'T CLAIM THIS 10 YEARS AGO. YOU DIDN'T CLAIM THIS 10 YEARS AGO SO OBVIOUSLY YOU DIDN'T WANT IT.

>> OKAY. I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW. I HADN'T THOUGHT ABOUT THAT. BUT IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS ALMOST "SHALL BE REFERRED TO

> WE HAD THE WORKSHOPS AND Select to skip to this part of the video">AS." A SEMANTIC THING. >> WE HAD THE WORKSHOPS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. PEOPLE WERE SAYING, WHAT ARE OUR CITY LIMITS? I DON'T KNOW. BASICALLY WHAT YOU ARE DEFINING IS THIS IS WHERE WE ARE PLANNING TO DO OUR FUTURE ANNEXATIONS. BY TAKING THAT LAST SENTENCE OUT, IT IS JUST SAYING THIS IS OUR FUTURE ANNEXATION AREA. IT DOESN'T PROHIBIT YOU FROM EXTENDING THAT AREA. IT WOULD -- LEAVING AND THAT PROHIBITING, THAT IS PROHIBITING DUE. THAT IS NOT PROHIBITING YOU FROM DOING IT.

THAT IS WHY I WANTED TO TAKE THE PROHIBITION OUT. MAYBE YOU WANT TO GET SOME LAND TO THE NORTH. THERE ARE SOME LAND THAT WANTS TO BE ANNEXED . THIS POLICY, IF YOU LEAVE THE PROHIBITION IN,

WOULD NOT ALLOW YOU TO DO THAT. >> I DON'T WANT ANYTHING TO STOP US FROM -- BECAUSE I MIGHT NOT BE HERE IN 10 YEARS. 20 YEARS. I DON'T WANT TO STOP ANYBODY FROM SITTING IN THIS SEAT IF WE CAN GET SOME WENT UP NORTH AROUND WEST OR WHATEVER.

WE HAVE IT. I JUST DON'T LIKE LEAVING BLANKS BECAUSE WHEN YOU LEAVE BLANKS OTHER PEOPLE CAN COME IN AND PUT IN WHAT THEY

[01:05:02]

THOUGHT YOU MEANT. WE DEAL WITH THIS NOW. SO I WOULD RATHER US COME TOGETHER, THE THREE OF US COME TOGETHER OR US COME TOGETHER AND PUT SOMETHING THERE TO LET THEM KNOW THAT, YES, THIS IS OUR AREA BUT IF WE WANT AND IF WE NEED TO, IF WE WANT AND

NEED TO, WE CAN EXTEND IT. >> NOT LIMITED.

>> HAD A GOOD IDEA BUT SAID I NEED TO COME UP AND TELL YOU. WE SUGGEST THAT IN THE SENTENCE THAT IS UNDERLINED THAT WE KEEP THAT IT'S A SHALL BE REFERRED TO AS A PRIORITY FUTURE ANNEXATION AREA. SO THIS AREA WE WANT TO REALLY FOCUS ON. BUT IT DOESN'T SAY YOU CAN'T ANNEX BEYOND THAT AREA, SO I THINK THAT ACCOMPLISHES WHAT EVERYBODY IS TRYING TO DO. THAT IS KIND OF WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DEAL WITH. I HEAR YOU. YEAH. THEY ARE

TRICKY. >> WITH THAT WORD, YOU GAVE ME

SOMETHING TO ARGUE WITH. >> HE LOOKS AT CONTRACTS. HE

KNOWS. >> THEN WE WILL TAKE OUT THE PROHIBITED SENTENCE. REFERRED TO AS A PRIORITY FUTURE ANNEXATION

AREA. >> CORRECT.

>> GOOD IDEA, MR. FREEMAN, OR MR. LENIHAN OR WHOEVER.

>> ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT THIS? THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. YES, MA'AM?

>> WHAT DATE DID YOU GUYS DECIDE ON?

>> JULY 1, 2028. >> 2027.

>> THANK YOU. >> '27. THAT'S RIGHT .

>> NOT YET. >> OH, YES, MA'AM.

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE ALL IN AGREEMENT WITH WHAT YOU DIRECTED THE CHANGES TO BE. I HAVE THAT AT 1.11.10 WE WILL BE STRIKING THE LAST SENTENCE OF THEY HAVE ALREADY DONE FOR THE PLANNING BOARD DIRECTION. WE WILL BE CHANGING THE FIRST SENTENCE TO READ THE PRIORITY FUTURE ANNEXATION AREA. ALL CAPITALIZED. THEN WE WILL BE AMENDING 7.1.4 TO JULY 1ST, OF 23 SEVEN. AND THEN I DON'T KNOW THAT WE SPECIFICALLY AGREED ON THE LANGUAGE BUT THE LANGUAGE AND PROPOSING BASED ON WHAT YOU SAID, FOR 7.6.2 WOULD READ THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE SHALL CAREFULLY CONSIDER THE SALE OR DISPOSITION OF OPEN SPACE LAND LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING CITY LIMITS AND FUTURE ANNEXATION

AREAS. >> THAT'S WHAT WE SAID. YEAH.

>> THAT'S WHAT I HAVE. >> OKAY WITH THAT?

>> I'M OKAY WITH THAT. >> ALL RIGHT. SO THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEE NO MOVEMENT, I WILL COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION AND ENTERTAIN DISCUSSION OR EMOTION.

>> MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ORDINANCE 26-00-2.

>> CLARIFICATION. IS THAT WITH THE THREE CHANGES?

>> WITH THE CHANGES THAT CITY ATTORNEY LISTED OUT.

>> I WILL SECOND THAT. >> ALL RIGHT. CALL THE ROLL,

PLEASE. >>

YOU ALL, VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU FOR COMMENTS AND FOR READING. I KNOW IT IS A LOT

[C. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 25-009: An Ordinance by the City Commission of the City of Fort Pierce, Florida; Amending the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan to change the designation of two (2) parcels generally located at or near 2721 South Jenkins Road, from City of Fort Pierce (GC) General Commercial to City of Fort Pierce (RM) Medium Density Residential; Parcel (IDs): 2324-413-0000-000-9 and 2324-431-0001-000-2. FIRST READING]

TO READ. >> IT IS A LOT TO READ. YES. WE WILL SAY THAT OVER A THREE-DAY WEEKEND. IT TOOK UP A LOT OF

TIME. >> OKAY. NOW, WE HAVE A LEGISLATIVE HEARING FOR ORDINANCE 25-009. IT IS AN ORDINANCE BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF TWO PARCELS GENERALLY LOCATED AT OR NEAR 2721 SOUTH JENKINS ROAD FROM THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO CITY OF FORT PIERCE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT HERE WITH, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THIS IS THE FIRST READING. >> THIS IS A LEGISLATIVE

HEARING. PROCEED. >> GOOD EVENING, MADAM MAYOR.

COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS DENNIS GILMORE, SENIOR PLANNER. WE HAVE A FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2721 SOUTH JENKINS ROAD, PERSONAL I.D. 23-24-413-0000 -000-9, 324-431-0001-000-2 . THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM GENERAL COMMERCIAL TO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. AND THIS IS TO PERMIT THE

[01:10:07]

DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT WITH PROXIMITY TO GOODS, SERVICES, AND THE STATE'S INTERMODAL TRANSPORTATION NETWORK. THIS IS THE HIGHLIGHTED SUBJECT SITE WHICH CONSISTS OF THE TWO PARCELS. IT IS APPROXIMATELY 49.92 ACRES PLUS OR MINUS. ALL AFFECTED DEPARTMENTS HAVE PROPOSED LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT WITH REGARDS TO ESTABLISH ORDINANCES AND DEPARTMENTS OF THE CITY CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE IS THE GC, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP . CURRENT ZONING IS C3, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, WHICH HAS A ORDINANCE TO REQUEST TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT REZONING. THIS IS A FUTURE LAND USE COMPARISON MAXIMUM BUILDOUT POTENTIAL.

THROUGH THE CHANGE OF THE FUTURE LAND USE, THE APPLICANT IS ACTUALLY DECREASING THE POSSIBLE NUMBER OF UNITS BY 149, AND ALSO REDUCING THE MAXIMUM FLOOR SPACE BY APPROXIMATELY 2.1 MILLION.

PLANNING BOARD. UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT ON DECEMBER 9TH, 2024, MEETING. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT. THE SUBJECT IS ADJACENT TO EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS OF RM, WHICH IS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL CONSISTENT WITH 125-136 OF THE CITY CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND IT DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE PUBLIC, HEALTH, SAFETY, GENERAL WELFARE. ALTERNATIVES ARE APPROVAL WITH CHANGES OR DISAPPROVAL. THANK YOU.

>> QUESTIONS OF STAFF? ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF?

>> NO QUESTION AT ALL. >> THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, PLEASE COME FORWARD. MS.

OLSON, PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> GOOD EVENING, MADAM MAYOR.

MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION, MY NAME IS LESLIE OLSON. SO PLEASED TO BE HERE TONIGHT. WE ARE LOCATED IN DOWNTOWN PIERCE AT 130 SOUTH INDIAN RIVER DRIVE. TODAY, WE ARE GOING TO DO THINGS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. I HAVE PRINTED EXHIBITS FOR YOU SO I WILL HAND THEM TO OFFICER -- THE OFFICER OVER HERE. I THOUGHT IT WAS SPOTS, BUT HE MOVED. THEY WILL DISTRIBUTE.

>> LET ME REMIND YOU, THIS IS NOT THE QUASIJUDICIAL.

>> YEAH. THIS IS ONLY THE LEGISLATIVE.

>> THIS IS REALLY THE THREE MINUTE RULE AT THIS POINT. SO THE BIG ONE IS GOING TO BE YOUR NEXT HEARING WHERE YOU HAVE YOUR

20 MINUTES. >> OKAY. SO DO YOU WANT ME TO -- YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT? I WILL JUST PULLED IT. NO QUESTIONS? I WILL SIT DOWN FOR A

MOMENT. >> ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, PLEASE COME FORWARD. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. I WILL BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION AND ENTERTAIN A

DISCUSSION OR EMOTION. >> SO, MADAME, I'LL MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS AND THEN MOVE THE MOTION ON IT. BASED ON -- AND YOU CAN GO BACK, MR. GILMORE, TO ONE OF THOSE SLIDES.

THIS IS A VERY BUSY INTERSECTION AS IT IS. IT IS A GROWING SECTOR. WE ARE TRYING TO CATCH UP WITH THE ROADWAY WE KNOW IS GOING TO BE CONNECTING AND REALLY BEING A THOROUGH FAIR MOVING A LOT OF TRAFFIC THROUGH AND OUT. I DO WANT TO SAY TO THE PUBLIC THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE STEPS THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN HERE IS, A WORD I'M GOING TO USE IS LESS INTRUSIVE THAN WHAT IT COULD BE BUILT TO RIGHT NOW BECAUSE YOU GO FROM A GENERAL COMMERCIAL THAT WILL ALLOW UP TO 2.1 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING SPACE THAT PEOPLE WOULD USE COMMERCIAL BUSINESS FOR.

THAT COULD BE A WHOLE BUNCH OF THINGS. RETAIL. A LOT OF OPERATIONS. OPERATIONS THROUGHOUT THE DAY, NIGHT, ET CETERA. SO I THINK THAT SECTION AND THAT AREA, I RECEIVED THIS WELL THAT THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD NOT BE MORE INTRUSIVE THAN WHAT IT WOULD BE AND IS ACTUALLY DOWNSIZING WHAT THE ACTUAL CURRENT USE OF IT COULD BE. SO I AM IN FAVOR OF IT. MADAM MAYOR, I WOULD MOVE FOR THE APPROVAL OF THIS LAND AMENDMENT CHANGE.

[D. Quasi-Judicial Hearing - Ordinance 25-037 - Review and approval of a Zoning Map Amendment by applicant Leslie Olson to change the zoning of two (2) parcels of land from General Commercial Zone, C-3, to Planned Development, PD at 2721 S Jenkins Road, more specifically at Parcel ID(s): 2324-413-0000-000-9 & 2324-431-0001-000-2 - FIRST READING.]

>> SECOND. >> CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE.

>> HEARING FOR ORDINANCE 25-037, CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE FLORIDA AMENDING THE CITY ZONING ATLAS AND REZONING

[01:15:01]

TWO PARCELS CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 49.92 ACRES MORE OR LESS AND BEING LOCATED AT OR NEAR 27-21 SOUTH JENKINS ROAD IN FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, FROM C3 COMMERCIAL ZONE TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, PD. DEVELOPMENT ZONE WITH A MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT SITE PLAN, PROVING ZONING AGREEMENT, PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ORDINANCES OR PART THEREOF IN CONFLICT HEREWITH, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THIS IS THE FIRST READING.

>> THIS IS A QUASIJUDICIAL HEARING. IT IS THE ONLY ONE FOR TONIGHT. THE CITY ATTORNEY WILL READ OUR PROCESSES FOR TONIGHT.

>> YES, MAN. THE CITY COMMISSION SERVES BUT THEY LEGISLATIVE AND QUASIJUDICIAL ROLE. THE COMMISSION ENGAGES IN LAWMAKING ACTIVITY BY PASSING LAWS AND ESTABLISHING POLICIES. WHEN ACTING AS A QUASIJUDICIAL BODY, THE COMMISSION APPLIES THOSE LAWS AND POLICIES AND IS HOW TO PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS.

QUASIJUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS ARE LESS FORMAL THAN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE A CIRCUIT COURT BUT ARE MORE FORMAL THAN THE NORMAL COMMISSION MEETING. QUASIJUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS MUST FOLLOW BASIC STANDARDS OF NOTICE AND DUE PROCESS AND DECISIONS MUST BE MADE ON COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, COMMISSIONERS HAVE A DUTY TO CONDUCT A QUASIJUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS MORE LIKE JUDGES THAN LEGISLATORS. THAT IS WHY THE COMMISSION HAS ESTABLISHED THE UNIFORM PROCEDURES FOR QUASIJUDICIAL HEARINGS THAT WILL BE FOLLOWED THIS EVENING. PRIMA, NO ONE SHOULD APPROACH ANY MEMBER ON THE DAIS, THE CITY ATTORNEY OR THE CITY CLERK. DOCUMENT ARE TO BE GIVEN TO THE CITY CLERK, PLEASE GIVE THEM TO THE SERGEANT IN ARMS WHICH ARE ANY OF THE POLICE OFFICERS IN THE CHAMBER.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MADAM CLERK, BEEN MET?

>> ADVERTISING NOTICE REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN MET.

>> AND WOULD YOU ASK COMMISSIONERS ABOUT X PARTAKE

COMMUNICATIONS? >> YES, MA'AM. COMMISSIONER GAINES? MET WITH THE APPLICANT?

>> COUPLE OF TIMES. SO I HAVE MET.