[1. CALL TO ORDER]
          [00:01:32]
          >>AMEN. >> >> 
          [5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
          >>
          >>FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA. >> A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM 
          THE MARCH 2, 2026 SHADE MEETING. MOVE APPROVAL. >>
          >>  THE MARCH 2, 2026 REGULAR MEETING. 
          6. PROCLAMATIONS  
          [8. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO AGENDA AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA]
          >>NEXT, WE HAVE 8. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO AGENDA AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA   
          [9. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS NOT REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARINGS Any person who wishes to comment on an agenda item which is not under Public Hearings on the Agenda may be heard at this time and must sign up to speak in advance. 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.]
          >>
          REQUIRING PUBLIC HEARINGS. >>WE HAVE FIVE PEOPLE WHO SIGNED UP. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. 
          PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. >>FIRST PERSON IS PHILLIP. 
          >> PLEASE COME TO THE MIC. >> 
          >>PUBLIC SPEAKER: GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. PHYLLIS, HERE ON BEHALF OF HIGH POINT AND WHAT IS SEPARATING THE TWO AND I'M ONE OF THE TENANTS FACING ALL THE NOISE AND DISCREPANCIES THAT HAS BEEN GOING ON IN THE PAST. I'M HOPING THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO GET THEM TO REPLACE THE RETAINER, A WALL TO BLOCK OFF THAT SECTION DUE TO A LOT OF ISSUES THAT WE CAN FORESEE RISING. BECAUSE OF THE ISSUES IN PLACE THAT ARE NOT GOOD FOR OUR COMPLEX. 
          >> >> NEXT SPEAKER, PLEASE. >>PUBLIC SPEAKER: I LIVE IN HIGH 
          POINT BLVD. SECTION 3. >>FIRST OF ALL, I LISTENED TO ALL OF YOU PEOPLE MONDAY. 
          >>SO, THE OTHER THING WAS A YEAR AGO TO HAND IN COMPLAINTS, ONE TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, COMPLAINT DEPARTMENT AND ENGINEERING FOR WHAT WAS GOING ON THERE. EVERYBODY TOLD ME THEY 
          [00:05:03]
SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE ALL THE CLEAR CUTTING. THEY DIDN'T HAVE A PERMIT. A MONTH LATER THEY FINALLY SHUT THEM DOWN. SO THEY WERE MADE WELL ENOUGH AHEAD OF TIME. WHEN I CAME IN, THERE WAS WATER ALONG THE FRONT LANE. WHEN I GOT THE COMPLAINT, A BUNCH OF PEOPLE CAME OVER THERE. WATER WAS TURNING BROWN AND GETTING INTO OUR OTHER LAKERS. THAT'S WHAT I CALLED ABOUT AND THEY SAID THEY WILL GET IT TAKEN CARE  
          ISSUES. >>THE LAST THING TO ASK. THE STATE, WHEN I TALKED TO THE STATE, I KNOW YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE STATE. THE STATE MADE THEM PULL A PERMIT. I WAS THE ONE THAT LET THEM IN TO GO FIND THEM IS WHAT I SAID AND THE STATES SAID, YOU 
          TELL THEM YOU WILL FILE A COMPLAINT WITH US. >>DID EVERYONE GET THE PICTURES? 
          >> THIS IS NOT A DIALOGUE. >>THANK YOU. I'M DONE. >>KAREN BAUTISTA. 
          >> >>PUBLIC SPEAKER: MY NAME IS KAREN MANISTA. I LIVE IN HIGH POINT TOO. I TALKED TO YOU LAST WEEK. I FEEL THAT TALKING TO YOU IS NOT REALLY GETTING ANYTHING DONE. I FEEL THAT WE NEED TO TALK TO THE DEVELOPER. I WANT THE DEVELOPER TO VISIT HIGH POINT AND COME HERE TO TALK TO US PERSONALLY BECAUSE WE ARE NOT GETTING ANYTHING DONE. ALL WE ARE DOING IS COMING HERE AND COMPLAINING AND WE ARE NOT SEEING ANYTHING DONE WITH IT. 
          THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. >>THANK YOU, MA'AM. >>JULIE MOORE? 
          >>PUBLIC SPEAKER: JULIE MOORE, HIGH POINT. I HAVE BEEN THERE FOR TEN YEARS AND THE STANDING WATER REMAINS THE SAME. IT DID NOT CHANGE AT ALL UNTIL THEY CUT BACK THERE AND DESTROYED THAT PROPERTY. RIGHT NOW, WE ARE IN A DROUGHT. AND NOW OUR BACKYARD IS SO SATURATED THAT ALL THE STANDING WATER THAT USED TO BE BY THE FENCE IS NO LONGER THERE AND NOW IN THE MIDDLE OF OUR YARD BY THE BUILDINGS. MY UNDERSTANDING IS I WAS TOLD THAT BERM WAS FINISHED AND IT HAS DONE NOTHING AT ALL. WE HAVE NEVER HAD WATER SATURATION LIKE THAT WITH 15 MINUTES RAIN AND WE HAVEN'T HAD THE RAINY SEASON YET. SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE. THANK YOU. 
          >> >>PUBLIC SPEAKER: JIM MCCONNELL. IN HIGH POINT ALSO. I WAS BACK THERE LOOKING AT A RETENTION BASIN BACK THERE. WHEN WE HAD THE HARD RAIN, THAT BASIN COMING UP AND NOW WITH THE PROJECT NEXT DOOR, NOW YOU HAVE THE BRIDGE, POSSIBLE 2,000 SQUARE FOOT HOMES, SIDEWALKS, AND ALL THAT WORK IS COMING IN THE RETENTION BASINS. WE WORKED IN RETENTION AND DETENTION BASINS. I WOULD SUGGEST THEY PUT A DETENTION BASIN OF SOME SORT TO TAKE THAT WATER AWAY FROM THAT AREA AND PUT IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. I DON'T KNOW WHERE ELSE, BUT SOMEWHERE OTHER THAN THAT BECAUSE SOME OF THAT WATER GETS VERY CLOSE TO THE CONDOS. WITH ALL THE 
          [00:10:05]
DISBURSEMENT IN THE GROUND THERE, THAT RETENTION BASIN IS COMING RIGHT UP TO THE BACK 
          DOORS OF THESE CONDOS. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. >>THANK YOU, SIR. . 
          >>DEVON WHITNEY? >>PUBLIC SPEAKER: MY NAME IS DEVON WHITNEY. WE LIVE BEHIND THERE. AT THE TIME OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, WE WERE TOLD WE HAD TO GIVE A RIGHT OF WAY DONATION FOR IMPROVEMENTS OF THE ROAD AND THAT WE WOULD BE GIVEN CREDITS FOR THOSE RIGHT AWAY DONATIONS. BACK IN APRIL, WHEN WE FINISHED THE BUILDING, WE WENT TO THE COUNTY AND CITY TO START THE PROCESS FOR THE CREDIT AND REFUNDS. THE COUNTY WAS VERY EASY TO DEAL WITH. THEY GAVE ME A FORM TO FILL OUT. WE CONTACTED KEVIN FREEMAN AND ABOUT THEIR ENDS AND HAD NO IDEA. NOW THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN IN A SITUATION BEFORE. THIS STARTED IN APRIL AND WAS READY TO PROCESS THE REFUND. COULDN'T DO IT UNTIL THE CITY HAD THEIR REIMBURSEMENT PROCESS. IT HAD TO GO THAT WAY. 
          I'M NOT SURE OF THE LEGALITIES OF THAT. ONCE WE FINALLY GOT THE FORM FROM THE CITY AND SHE DID PROCESS THE REFUND RIGHT AWAY, MONTHS WENT BY, DOZENS OF E-MAILS TO LINDA, CITY MANAGER. 
          I'M NOT BLAMING THEM. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT MUST HAVE GONE THROUGH AND HEARD THEY ARE REJECTING THE $18,000 FUND FROM THE CITY AND HERE TO SPEAK TO RECEIVE THAT CREDIT. 
          [A.  Savannah Preserve Developer/High Point Update]
          >>THANK YOU. >>MAYOR L >>MAYO   
          >>  
          DEVELOPER/HIGH POINT UPDATE WE'LL HAVE A PRESENTATION. >>GOOD EVENING, WALLACE, CITY MANAGER. THIS ITEM IS ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE FROM THE PLANNING, BUILDING, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS AS IT RELATES TO THIS PROJECT PER THE CITY REQUIREMENTS AND CITY CODE. WE WILL START WITH THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, FOLLOWED BY OFFICIAL PARKS, THOMAS, INTERNAL DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL CONTROL AND MARK. THANK YOU. 
          >>OUR CITY ENGINEER WILL BE SPEAKING ON THIS TOO. KNOLL >>THANK YOU. 
          >> PRESENTER:  FREEMAN, DIRECTOR. I'M GOING THROUGH THE PLANNING APPROVAL OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THEN THE SPECIFIC PERMIT ISSUANCES AND CODE ENFORCEMENT 
          AND EVERYTHING ELSE GOING ON AT THE TIME. >>SO THIS PROJECT, WAS IN REVIEW, PRIOR TO MAY 2022, AND APPROVED SUBSEQUENTLY BY THE PLANNING BOARD. IT WENT TO THE 
          CITY COMMISSION JULY 28, 2022. MY FIRST DAY WITH THE CITY. >>WELCOME. 
          >>THANK YOU. >>THERE WAS A DISCUSSION WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CITY COMMISSION REGARDING THE DRAINAGE ISSUES AND AT THAT TIME WE DID HEAR FROM THE NEIGHBORING 
          [00:15:06]
PROPERTIES AT HIGH POINT. THAT WAS HEARD AND APPROVED BASED ON WHAT THE APPLICANT BROUGHT IN AND SHOWED ON ENGINEERING PLANS. A PLAT CAME IN AND APPROVED JULY 17TH, THE FINAL PLAT WAS APPROVED BY CITY COMMISSION IN MAY 2025. SUBSEQUENTLY TO THAT, THE PROJECT STARTED ITS CONSTRUCTION. THIS PARTY PLANNING RIGHT NOW TO THE NORTH HERE AND TRACE TO THE SOUTH. WE MONITOR THE PERMITS IN TERMS OF DO THEY COMPLY WITH WHAT WAS APPROVED PREVIOUSLY ON THE SITE PLAN. THERE HAVE BEEN SOME MINOR AMENDMENTS TO THE SITE PLAN ALONG THE WAY. THERE ALWAYS ARE AND THOSE HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH, THEY ARE IN A MINOR PROCESS AT THE MOMENT DEALING WITH SOME OF THE MODEL HOMES AND THE AMENITY CENTER AND THE ARRANGEMENT OF THOSE. THEY WERE APPROVED ON THE REGIONAL PLAN AND WE HAVE BEEN SHOWING THAT THEY MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS. AS FAR AS THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS CONCERNED RIGHT NOW. WE ARE HELPING THE DEPARTMENTS MONITOR THE SITUATION AND LOOKING TO SEE WHAT IS DONE TO RECTIFY THOSE ISSUES. DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ON 
          THAT? >> I HAVE A QUESTION. MONDAY -- IS THE DEVELOPER HERE? 
          >> YES. >>OKAY. I AM HEARING COMPLAINTS ABOUT STUFF THAT WASN'T SUPPOSED TO BE BUILT AND DONE. I NEED TO SEE WHAT'S GOING ON WHICH IS WHY EVERYBODY IS HERE BECAUSE WE ARE SAYING ONE THING, THE DEVELOPERS ARE SAYING ONE THING AND THE RESIDENTS ARE SAYING ONE THING. 
          I NEED TO KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON BECAUSE CONSTRUCTION IS NOT MY A AREA. AS LONG AS THE DEVELOPER IS HERE, I WILL STEP BACK TO LISTEN BECAUSE I'M GLAD YOU SAID 
          YES BECAUSE YOU WOULD PUT ME IN A BAD MOOD IF YOU SAID NO. >> THE PLAN IS TO ALLOW THE CITY TO SHARE ITS PERSPECTIVE AND THEN COME TO GIVE YOU MORE DETAILS. 
          >>THANK YOU. >>YOU'RE WELCOME. >>ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? 
          >> MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS. PAUL THOMAS, DIRECTOR OF BUILDING. AS YOU CAN SEE THIS IS VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD. IN THE SLIDE, WE RESPONDED MARCH 27, 2024. SITE WORK STARTED IN ADVANCE OF THE ISSUE OFD SITE PER PERMITS. THEY REPRESENT THE DIFFERENT PHASES. ONCE THE PERMITS WERE ISSUED, LEGALLY THEY CAN OPERATE AND FUNCTION AND CONDUCT WORK ON-SITE. THAT'S REALLY THE EXTENT OF THE REPORT THAT I HAVE TO GET FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. ALSO IMPORTANT, SITE WORK DOESN'T REALLY ENCOMPASS VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION. SITE WORK IS HORIZONTAL WHICH IS TREE REMOVAL AND PARKING IN DIFFERENT AREAS THAT WAY. SO I DON'T HAVE REALLY HAVE THAT MUCH TO SAY ABOUT THIS. 
          >>QUESTIONS FOR MR. THOMAS? >> MR. THOMAS, A QUICK QUESTION. WHAT IS PART OF THIS PROCESS? IS THERE A PENALTY, A FINE ISSUE, ETC, TO HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT TOOK PLACE WHEN WE STOPPED THIS AND TO WHAT DEGREE MAYBE YOU CAN GIVE US AS TO HOW MUCH YOUR LEGAL WORK WAS 
          [00:20:09]
          DONE IN YOUR ESTIMATION OF WHAT WAS DOCUMENTED? >> YES, SO THE PROCEDURE IS THAT IF WORK IS COMMENCED BEFORE THEY ARE APPROVED OR AUTHORIZED TO HAVE THE WORK ON-SITE, THEN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT IS ABLE TO ISSUE A STOP WORK ORDER. THE TOP WORK ORDER COMES WITH THE FIRST ONE WHICH IS $100 FEE BUT ALSO, INCURS WHATEVER THE COST OF THE PERMIT WOULD BE. THERE IS A PUNITIVE COMPONENT. IF THEY CONTINUE PAST THAT, THEN THE NEXT FEE WOULD BE $500 FOR THE 
          NEXT STOP WORK ORDER AND SO FORTH. >>SO ONLY ONE STOP WORK ORDER 
          WAS ISSUED? >> YES, AND THEY IMMEDIATELY STOPPED AND CORRECTED THE 
          ISSUES. >> NOW A QUESTION FOR YOU OR MAYBE ENGINEERING. THAT ENTIRE AREA IS WET. I UNDERSTAND THEY HAVE A PUMP SYSTEM?  IT'S FOR ENGINEERING?  I WILL WAIT. 
          >>WHEN WE DO STOP WORK ORDERS AND THESE FINES, ARE THEY CODE, FLORIDA STATUTE, SOMETHING WE 
          CAME UP WITH? >> IT'S FLORIDA STATUTE, THE BUILDING CODE. 
          >>SO WE HAVE TO CHARGE THEM. >>YES, THE DOUBLE FEE IS A BIG ONE. 
          >>DOUBLE FEE, ALL RIGHT. >>PAUL, WHEN YOUR TEAM WAS HERE TO STOP THE WORK ORDER, WAS IT 
          CLEAR CUT? >> IT WAS IN THE PROCESS. DIRT WAS BEING REMOVED. 
          >>YOU ARE NOT THE CITY ARBORIST, I KNOW THAT, BUT WERE OLD TREES TAKEN OUT THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO REMAIN ON THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS IDENTIFIED ON THE GENERAL LANDSCAPING PLAN? 
          >> UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T HAVE THAT ANSWER. >>DR. FREEMAN, WOULD THAT FALL 
          UNDER YOU? >> MR. FREEMAN? >> TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MOST OF THE TREES ARE ON THE PROPERTY WERE TO BE REMOVED THERE IN ANY CASE DUE TO THE ACTUAL LEVEL THE ULTIMATE LEVEL OF THAT PROPERTY NEEDED TO BE RAISED DUE TO THE FLOOD ELEVATION AND PROPERTY TO 
          REMAIN OUT OF THE FLOOD ELEVATION. >>AS A QUICK FOLLOW-UP TO THAT. 
          THE HEIGHT THEY WERE FILLING THIS PROPERTY TO, DOES IT SIT SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN THE 
          OTHER SIDE? >> >>LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THIS IS 
          A CONVERSATION BETWEEN MR. FREEMAN. >>WE CANNOT HEAR. 
          >>THE RESULTING HEIGHT OF THE LEVEL OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS BEING DEVELOPED NOW HIGHER THAN THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, AND I DON'T HAVE THE ACTUAL NUMBERS, BUT I KNOW THAT IT IS. IT'S A REQUIREMENT TO GET TO A CERTAIN HEIGHT TO PREVENT FLOODING OF NEW DEVELOPMENT. THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HAS A BETTER READ ON THAT. ALSO, I WOULD ALSO DIRECT SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS TO THE 
          APPLICANT'S ENGINEER AND DESIGN. >>YES, OKAY, I RECOLLECT THESE CONVERSATIONS. I WAS ON THE PLANNING BOARD PRIOR TO THE DUTIES HERE IN THE CITY. THE FLOODING WAS A MASSIVE ISSUE FOR HIGH POINT AND THE PLANNING BOARD SPENT A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME ON THIS, AND WE REQUIRED THAT BERMS BE INSTALLED ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY AND THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT BERMS. ON THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY THE MITIGATION THERE. HOWEVER, MARK MIGHT BE ABLE TO SHEDD SOME LIGHT ON THIS. AS PART OF THE APPROVAL PACKAGE, THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE TO MAINTAIN THE STORMWATER ON THEIR SIDE, IS 
          THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >>IS THAT WITH ENGINEERING? 
          >> YES, MAINLY WITH ENGINEERING. >>YOU PRESENTED A SITE PLAN EARLIER FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE. IF WE CAN GO BACK TO THAT. THE ARBORIST IS IN YOUR DEPARTMENT, TREES. 
          [00:25:05]
          >>WE REGULATE THE CODE AT THIS TIME. WITH THIS APPLICATION IN PARTICULAR, WE HAD THE WAS IN THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. WHAT I HEARD IS IN OUR SITE PLAN SUBMITTALS, YOU 
          TAKE THE TRAFFIC STUDY AND SHOW US THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. >>YES. 
          >>SO WHAT I HEARD EARLIER FROM MR. TO ME THAT THERE WAS SOME CUTTING AND I HEARD THE PLAN CALLS FOR THE MAJORITY OF REMOVAL OF THOSE TREES. I WANTED TO KNOW WHAT WAS IN TREE 
          PLANTING ON THIS SITE PLAN. I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THAT. >>THERE ARE SOME VEGETATION REMAINING ON-SITE DUE TO THE WETLANDS AND THAT WAS GOING TO BE MAINTAINED. ACTUALLY, AS A RESULT OF THIS AND THE OPERATION, IT SHOULD BE ACTUALLY ENHANCED AND IMPROVED. THE REMAINDER OF THIS PROPERTY WHERE WE SEE THE BUILDINGS BEING LOCATED, REQUIRE IT FOR IT TO BE BROUGHT IN ON-SITE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTIES ESPECIALLY PROPERTIES THAT ARE LOWER. WE HAVE DIFFERENT REGULATIONS NOW THAT WE DID WITH THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES WERE DEVELOPED. SO NOW WHEN WE LOOK AT THE RESULT IN HEIGHT REQUIRED FOR PROPERTIES WHEN THEY WERE BUILT TO AVOID FLOODINGS THEMSELVES THEY WERE BUILT HIGHER. WITH THOSE INDICATIONS, THE APPLICANT WAS PROVIDED TREES TO PLANT WITH THE NUMBER OF TREES TO BE REPLACED AND THE TREES TO EXCEED CITY CODE. WE HAVE A RATIO, A PROPOSAL THAT COMES IN TO LOOK AT THE OVERALL SITE. THOSE AREAS WERE DEFINED WITHIN THAT, AND ALSO THE TREES PROPOSED AND WE WILL HAVE THE 
          FINAL INSPECTION. >>RIGHT. SO TREES DOUN'T GO IN FIRST OR LAST, JUST PER THE 
          FINAL IN TERMS OF THE TIMING ETC. >>THINGS THAT WOULD CREATE 
          PREVIOUS, ETC, ETC. GOT IT. THANK YOU. >>MR. FREEMAN, BEFORE YOU GO, MR. THOMAS SAID THAT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT ONLY CHECKS WHEN THERE IS CONSTRUCTION. WHO 
          IN OUR STAFF MONITORS IN THE CLEARING OF THAT? >> THERE IS A COMBINATION OF THE CITY ARBORIST AT THAT TIME DOING THAT THEN AS THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS BEING PLACED THE HORIZONTAL WORK, THE DRAINAGE THAT GOES UNDERGROUND, THAT IS MONITORED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. 
          ALSO, AGAIN, I'M SPEAKING OUT OF MY SCOPE HERE, BUT ALSO, BY THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT. SO THERE WAS A LOT OF MONITORING GOING ON. ONCE THE CONSTRUCTION STARTS, THEN THE BUILDING 
          DEPARTMENT GETS MORE INVOLVED IN THAT ASPECT. >>THERE IS A LOT OF CHECKS AND BALANCES THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. YES, WE ARE NOT ALWAYS THERE WHEN SOMETHING HAPPENS BUT WE 
          TAKE ACTION WHEN WE HEAR ABOUT THAT. >>ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? 
          WHO IS NEXT?  THANK YOU, MR. THOMAS. THANK YOU, MR. FREEMAN. >>GOOD EVENING, SEAN KHAN, COMMUNITY RESPONSE DIRECTOR. NORMALLY THIS GETS PROCESSED -- IN THIS CASE, THE INITIAL NOISE 
          [00:30:02]
COMPLAINTS WERE ROUTED TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT ACTUALLY WHEN THE FIRST COMPLAINT WAS RECEIVED IN THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE BACK IN MAY 17, 2024. AT THAT TIME, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT DID GO OUT AND WE ACTUALLY CONFIRMED THAT CONSTRUCTION WAS TAKING PLACE PRIOR TO 7:00 A.M.. AT THAT TIME, MAY 20, 2024, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT NOTIFIED THE DEVELOPER, THE CONTRACTOR OF THE NOISE ORDINANCE WAS WAS THAT CONSTRUCTION CANNOT BEGIN PRIOR TO 7:00 A.M.. THAT IS A SEVEN DAYS A WEEK REQUIREMENT. SO SECTION 26-41 PARAGRAPH 89 PROVIDES NOISE LEVEL CONSTRUCTION FROM 7:00 A.M. TO 7:00 P.M. THE SECOND COMPLAINT MARCH 3, 2025, AT THAT TIME, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT ADVICED THE COMPLAINANT TO CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT SINCE IT SEEMED TO BE A RECURRING ISSUE AND RESPONDING FROM THE COMMISSION AID TO MARCH 2025. THAT WAS THE LAST TIME WE RECEIVED A NOISE COMPLAINT. I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO LOCATE ANY NOISE COMPLAINTS SENT TO CODE ENFORCEMENT. DEPUTY CITY MANAGER CHECKED WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. THERE WERE SEVERAL CALLS HOWEVER, NONE WERE FOR 
          NOISE COMPLAINTS. >>THE SECOND ISSUE THAT THE DEPUTY WOULD BE INVOLVED IN IS COMPLAINT OF FUMES AND ODORS. THE COMPLAINANT COMPLAINED THAT THEY HAD DIFFICULTY BREATHING, NAUSEA AND VOMITING AND COMPLAINTS SHOULD BE GOING TO 911 IF YOU ARE IN PHYSICAL DURESS OR PHYSICAL HARM. THOSE ISSUES CAN BE REPORTED TO CODE ENFORCEMENT AND WE CERTAINLY INVESTIGATE THOSE. THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT HAS RECEIVED A COMPLAINT REGARDING THE ODDORS AND THE FUMES. THE FIRST COMPLAINT JULY 21, 2025, AT THE TIME OF THE FCC FILED A COMPLAINT AND WE HAVE NOT FOUND THAT. WE HAVE CONDUCTED OUR OWN INVESTIGATION. NO CONSTRUCTION STARTED BEFORE 7:00 A.M. AND AROUND THE TIME WHEN BOTH OF THESE COMPLAINTS WERE MADE ABOUT FUMES AND ODORS AND I WAS UNABLE TO IDENTIFY THE EXISTENCE OF 
          THAT. >>ARE YOU SAYING THAT CONSTRUCTION IS ALLOWED SEVEN 
          DAYS A WEEK? >> YES, MA'AM. THIS IS FOR PERMANENT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ONCE A BUILDING PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED AND THAT IS AN EXEMPTION FROM 7:00 A.M. 
          TO SUNSET. FROM A NOISE LEVEL EXEMPTION. THE NOISE ORDINANCE THERE IS A CHART THAT'S BROKEN DOWN BY COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL. THERE ARE DIFFERENT DAYS AND TIMES WITH DIFFERENT NOISE LEVELS. BUT THE EXEMPTION PROVIDES A BLANKET EXCEPTION FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. 
          >>SEAN, HAVE YOU BEEN GETTING E-MAILS COMPLAINTS RECENTLY ABOUT THE FENCING CHALLENGE AND HOGS HAVE BEEN LEFT TO CROSS OVER THE HIGH POINT PROPERTIES AND THEIR LANDSCAPING HAS BEEN 
          ATTACKED BY THE HOGS? >> SORRY, I DID SEE ONE IN THE COMPLAINTS EARLIER, YES, SIR. 
          >>BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE, DID YOU FOLLOW-UP ON ANY OF THAT?  DID YOU DO A SITE VISIT. I THOUGHT YOU WERE THERE THIS MORNING. CAN YOU VERIFY THAT. WAS THERE SOMETHING IN THE CODE THAT YOU 
          PROVIDE FOR? >> MOVING CLOSER TO THE MIC. >>I'M USUALLY THE LOUD ONE. 
          [00:35:09]
          >>WHEN WE WERE IN A DIFFERENT CHAMBER PERHAPS. >>AS THOSE COMPLAINTS COME IN AND THEY ARE CHALLENGED, DO WE LOOK INTO THAT BECAUSE THERE ARE SEVERAL COMPLAINTS. TO BE ABLE TO VERIFY THIS STUFF IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IF WE ARE GOING AFTER THE DEVELOPER, WE HAVE TO HAVE A GOOD STANDING ON THOSE ISSUES. I APPRECIATE THE NEIGHBORS PROVIDING THE INFORMATION. I WOULD ASK THAT YOU GIVE NARRATION TO THE PICTURES BECAUSE WE NEED TO KNOW THAT AND THAT WILL HELP US TO VERIFY WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IF THERE IS A COMPLAINT. SHARE WITH US HOW CODE ENFORCEMENT MANAGES THOSE COMPLAINTS BECAUSE WE HAVE SOME NEW DEVELOPMENT COMING THROUGH FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS. THIS IS AN ONGOING SITUATION AND IF WE NEED TO PROVIDE POLICY TO HELP YOU WITH MANAGING THE CODE ENFORCEMENT SIDE, WE ARE GOING TO NEED TO KNOW THAT. IF THE COMPLAINTS ARE REGARDING THE PROVOCATION CODE, THAT IS HANDLED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPARTMENT HAS THEIR FINDINGS TO THE CODE ENFORCEMENT AND WE WILL FOLLOW-UP WITH THE 
          ENFORCEMENT OF THAT. >>IT SOUNDS LIKE WE NEED TO HAVE THE CASE NOTES WHERE EACH OF THE DEPARTMENTS HAVE WHATEVER INFORMATION IS COMING FROM THE COMPLAINTS SO THEY CAN BE FOLLOWED UP ON BECAUSE IF ONE OF THOSE DROPS OFF, THEN WE LOSE THAT CONTINUITY OF MANAGEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT. MAYBE SOMETHING WE DEVELOP GOING FORWARD SO IN THIS CASE, A CASE NOTES SO EACH DEPARTMENT GETS IT AND PASSES IT BACK AND FORTH AND WE CAN MANAGE IT BETTER ON THE PROCESS. 
          >>WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF YOU GOT COMPLAINTS ABOUT HOGS COMING ONTO THEIR YARD WITH THE 
          DEVELOPMENT, HOW WOULD THAT BE HANDLED? >> THAT WOULD BE ROUTED TO ANIMAL CONTROL AND ARE DISPATCHED THROUGH 911 TO PROVIDE THE QUICKEST RESPONSE. 
          ANIMAL CONTROL IS ON CALL 24/7. ANIMALS RUNNING AT LARGE IS ONE OF THE CALLS FOR SERVICE THAT THEY WILL DO EVEN AN ON CALL CAPACITY. BUT SINCE CITY HALL IS ONLY OPEN MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY 8-5 WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE THE CALLS THROUGH 911 TO GET THEM TO RESPOND TO THE CALLS QUICKLY. 
          >>THAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF MAKING THE CALLS THROUGH 911. >>I THINK WE ARE IDENTIFYING A CHALLENGE HERE WITH MULTIPLE DEPARTMENTS BEING CALLED OUT FOR DIFFERENT COMPLAINTS FOR THE SAME PROPERTY. I THINK WE NEED TO DEVELOP SOMETHING THERE THAT THE COMMISSION CAN BUY INTO AS A POLICY TO BE ABLE TO MANAGE HOW THOSE COMPLAINTS COME IN AND HOW THEY ARE DIVVIED UP AND HOW EACH OF THE DEPARTMENTS CAN INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER. I SAW A COUPLE OF HEADS NODDING WITH THIS SAYING THIS IS BUREAUCRAT. I THINK WE CAN DO THIS IN-HOUSE AND I CHALLENGE YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT TO WORK WITH DIRECTORS TO MANAGE THAT BETTER. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE DEVELOP THESE TYPES OF POLICIES TO MANAGE THAT FOR THE EXPECTATION OF THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND WE HAVE A PROCESS BUT IT'S NOT BOGGED DOWN IN BUREAUCRACY. 
          >> THIS IS MORE OF A QUESTION. I HAVE HAD THE ABILITY TO PONDER THIS ISSUE AND REMEMBER THIS QUESTION SPECIFICALLY ON THE ANIMAL CONTROL MATTER THAT THE DEVELOPER IS PRESENT AND HAVE OUTSIDE PROFESSIONALS DEALING WITH THIS AND MANAGING THE PROBLEM FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROJECT AS LONG AS IT'S GOING TO TAKE. I'M VERY CURIOUS TO SEE THE RESPONSE TO THE MANAGEMENT OF THAT BECAUSE IT'S THEIR ISSUE THAT IS NOW INVADING THE PROCESS SURROUNDING THEM. THAT IS NOT A 
          [00:40:02]
CITY OF FORT PIERCE ISSUE. WE ARE JUST RESPONDING TO THE COMPLAINT. 
          >>YES, THE REAL PROBLEM IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO MANAGE. SO I'M VERY INTERESTED TO HEAR. I HAVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS FOR THEM INCLUDING THAT SCOPE OF ANIMAL CONTROL THAT THEY HAVE UNDER 
          TAKEN. >>ANYTHING ELSE?  MR. GAINES? >> CITY COMMISSIONER ARNOLD GAINES; CAN WE LOOK AT THIS BECAUSE I'M STILL NOT HAPPY WITH THIS. YOU HAVE TO GET CALLED FOUR TIMES BEFORE SOMETHING HAPPENS. SO THAT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT I DON'T KNOW IF WE DID IT, I JUST CAN'T REMEMBER RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I HAVE A LOT OF OTHER THINGS ON MY MIND. WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW, NOT ONLY FOR THIS SITUATION, BUT THROUGHOUT OUR CITY, THE POLICE HAVE TO GET CALLED FOUR TIMES BEFORE SOMETHING CAN HAPPEN. THEY DON'T STOP IN 24 HOUR PERIOD. JUST PUTTING THAT IN YOUR NOTES TO GET SOME KIND OF UPDATE FOR ME, 
          THANK YOU. >>MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONER IS LOOKING AT ME. I SAW WRITING 
          THAT NOTE SINCE THAT ISN'T HIS LINE OF COMMAND. >>I'M SITTING HERE PUZZLED. WE HAVE A CONSTRUCTION GOING ON AND THEY ARE VIOLATING ORDINANCE NOISE AND SOMEONE WE JUST HEARD GOT A BUCKET OPERATING IN OUR ORDINANCE. SO WHAT WE JUST SAID. ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT I HAVE MY OFFICERS IN THE STREETS TO COME TO STOP A CONSTRUCTION TRACTOR?  IS THIS WHAT I'M HEARING, ARE YOU SAYING CALL THE POLICE AND TAKE THEM FROM WHAT THEIR DOING TO STOP A TRACTOR OR 
          BULLDOZER. IS THIS WHAT I'M HEARING? >> THE PAST PRACTICE FOR THE NOISE ENFORCEMENT BECAUSE IT CAN BE CRIMINALLY PROSECUTED IS THAT POLICE IS INVOLVED FROM THE INITIAL INVESTIGATION TO ENSURE PROBABLE CAUSE, CUSTODY. TO BE SURE A FOUNDATION IS SET FOR PROSECUTION TAKING PLACE. THAT GOES AS WELL WITH ILLEGAL DUMPING. IF THE STATE IS INVOLVED AND IF WE HAVE THE VIOLATION THAT LEADS TO THE CRIMINAL PROSECUTION, THAT WOULD START OVER. THAT'S CORRECT. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IS INVOLVED WITH ENFORCEMENT OF NOISE 
          ORDINANCE. >>ALL RIGHT. I WILL WAIT UNTIL THE DEVELOPER. 
          >>SEAN, WE WORKED TOGETHER ON THE CODE ENFORCEMENT AND THERE IS A CASE WHERE THE CODE OFFICER WILL TAKE THE INFORMATION AND REPORT IT TO THE CODE BOARD AND NOW TO THE MAGISTRATE AND BUILDS A RECORD. I TAKE IT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WOULD ACCEPT THAT BECAUSE YOU ARE BASICALLY A LEGAL ARM OF THE CITY ON THE CODE ENFORCEMENT SIDE. I BELIEVE THAT WHILE IT CAN TURN INTO A POLICE ISSUE, I THINK WE NEED TO BUILD THE CASE WITHOUT SWORN OFFICERS DOING THAT AND THEN UNTIL IT REACHES OUR LEVEL BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT IS A GOOD USE OF OUR OFFICERS. GOING BACK TO POLICIES AND PROCEDURES TO BETTER BENEFIT YOU AND THE PROCESS, IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR 
          US TO DO BETTER TODAY. >>I JUST WANT TO SAY, WHAT I'M HEARING IS WE'LL LOOK BACK TO SEE WHAT THIS IS AND FOLLOW-UP ON COMPLAINTS TO SEE WHAT MAKES SENSE AND KEEPING IN LINE WHAT 
          [00:45:01]
WE HAVE TODAY AND WE STILL HAVE TO LOOK AT THE ORDINANCE AND WHAT WE NEED TO REWRITE. 
          >>YES, THIS IS GOING BEYOND JUST THE NOISE. I HEARD THERE WAS TRASH DUMPING AND SO FORTH AND A LOT OF ISSUES THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT SHOULD ONLY COME IN WHEN IT REACHES A CERTAIN 
          CRITERIA. >>UNIFORMED OFFICERS NEED TO BE WHERE THEY NEED TO BE UNTIL SUCH TIME. WHETHER YOU GO TO UNIFORMED OFFICERS OR DETECTIVE UNITS. I'M NOT TELLING THE CHIEF HOW TO MANAGE HIS BUSINESS. BUT THAT'S A DIFFERENT LEVEL FOR HOW ENFORCEMENT NEEDS TO OCCUR. WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY AND WHAT WE SHOULD DO IS TAKE THE CHALLENGE AND FIND A BETTER OUTCOME. 
          >>MS. HEDGES: TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE IS THAT PERSON THERE, THAT IS A LITTLE CHALLENGE. 
          >>WE WANT TO WORK COLLABORATIVELY AND PROVIDE AN APPROACH THAT MAKES SENSE. 
          >>WE UNDERSTAND THAT. THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU. WHO IS NEXT. >>ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. WE HAVE A FEW SLIDES HERE. WE WANT TO GO OVER SOME TIMELINES OF THE PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS AS FAR AS THE DRAINAGE AND FLOODING IS CONCERNED AT THE PRESERVE PROJECT. THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AS YOU SAW FROM SOME OF THE PAST SLIDES GAVE THESE SITE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PRIOR IN 2023. THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINT RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT WAS RECEIVED OCTOBER 29, 2024. OCTOBER 18, 2024, CITY ENGINEER STAFF AS WELL AS SOUTH FLORIDA STAFF CONDUCTED A SITE INSPECTION. THERE WAS SOME DISCHARGES HAPPENING OFF SITE WHICH IS IN VIOLATION OF THE FLORIDA PERMIT AND RELATED TO SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT CODE ENFORCEMENT. THEY ISSUED A VIOLATION LETTER TO DEVELOPERS OCTOBER 25, 2024. AS SOON AS THIS VIOLATION IS ISSUED, SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT CONDUCTS NUMEROUS SITE INSPECTIONS OVER SEEING WHAT THE DEVELOPER IS DOING TO MITIGATE THESE ILLICIT DISCHARGES OFF-SITE. SPEAKING TO THE RECORD, ALL OF THESE ILLICIT CHARGES WERE BROUGHT TO COMPLIANCE AND THE FEED S WERE PAID AS OF MARCH 1ST OF THIS YEAR. AND THERE IS A WATER MANAGEMENT INSPECTION AND NO WATER ISSUES HAPPENING ON-SITE AND THERE IS APPROVAL FOR THIS. 
          THIS IS ANOTHER SLIDE WE PUT TOGETHER FOR IT. THIS IS THE BASIN MAP, SOME OF THE MINIMUM FOUR ELEVATIONS THAT YOU WILL SEE FOR THE PRESERVE DEVELOPMENT. YOU HAVE ALL OF YOUR FLOOD ELEVATION, SAVANNAH PRESERVE, AND WITH CPR CALCULATIONS AND WILL COME OUT WITH A MAP FOR ELEVATION AND YOUR PERIMETER BERM THAT PERTAINS TO THE SOUTH FLORIDA PERMIT REVIEWED BY SOUTH FLORIDA PRIOR TO GETTING THEIR SITE ACCEPTANCE, DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 
          AND RELATED TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW. >>AS I STATED BEFORE, THE PARTIAL CERTIFICATION FOR PHASE 1 WAS RECEIVED MARCH 10TH OF THIS YEAR IN SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT WITH THE SITE PLAN, WHICH INCLUDE YOU THE DRAINAGE SYSTEMS. 
          >>THIS SLIDE IS SHOWING THEY ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND THERE IS QUITE A LIST OF ITEMS THAT WE ARE GOING TO REQUIRE THE DEVELOPER TO COMPLETE PRIOR TO 
          [00:50:05]
THE CEO. THIS HAS NOT BEEN DEVELOPED YET AND THE SITE INSPECTION WAS DONE WITH TRACY 
          AND HAS NOT BEEN DISBURSED TO THE DEVELOPER AND HIS TEAM. >>THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR YOU. 
          >>ANY QUESTIONS? >> THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, THE CANAL WAS ON THE SIDE OF THE COUNTY, NOT FORT PIERCE. MY CONCERN AT THAT TIME IF WE HAVE WATER DRAINAGE ISSUES WITH THAT CANAL AND IT WAS COMPLETELY CLOGGED WITH DEBRIS. THE DEVELOPER WAS SUPPOSED TO 
          HAVE THAT CLEARED. ARE WE AWARE IF THAT WAS DONE OR NOT? >> I'M NOT AWARE. 
          >>THE PLAN WAS TO DRAIN THE WATER TO THE SOUTH SO WE HAVE FLOW TO THE SOUTH CONTINUOUSLY AND THERE WAS A BERM GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE SIDE OF THE CANAL SO ANY OVERFLOW FROM THAT CANAL WAS GOING TO BE CONTAINED WITH THAT BERM. HAS THAT BERM BEEN CONSTRUCTED? 
          >> I WILL HAVE TO CHECK WITH THE DEVELOPER. THE ULTIMATE OUT FALL FROM THE SITE FROM THE CANAL. 
          THERE IS A CANAL THAT RUNS TO THAT ON THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY AND THAT WAS THE CONCERN. THEY SAID NO, IT WILL NOT DRAIN IT AND IT'S NOT GOING TO GET THERE IF IT'S COMPLETELY CLOGGED AND THEY GUARANTEED THEY WERE GOING TO MAINTAIN THAT, WHOEVER RESPONSIBLE FOR IT, BUT I WILL 
          HOLD MY COMMENTARY. >>WE CAN GET THAT INSPECTION GOING. WE CAN LOOK AT THAT. 
          >>IF IT'S NOT FLOWING, IT'S GOING TO BACK UP INTO GATOR TRACE AND HIGH POINT. LET'S HEAR 
          THAT RELATIVE TO THAT. >>ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE HISTORIC FLOW OF THIS ENTIRE AREA?  IT NORMALLY FLOWS TO THE SOUTH. I SHOULD LET YOU ANSWER THAT? 
          >> YES, REMAINING NOW AND I DID REACH OUT TO THE DIRECTOR FOR THIS PROJECT, MR. TOM, TO DO A LITTLE RESEARCH TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE HISTORIC FLOWS BEING MITIGATED. YOU HAVE TO PROVE ANY FLOWS FROM YOUR SITE ARE CONTAINED AND MITIGATED ALONG 
          WITH YOUR DEVELOPMENTS RUNOFF. >>I WILL SHARE WITH YOU A PREVIOUS SLIDE, I VISITED SAVANNAH, HIGH POINT AND ALONG THE SAVANNAHS. IT'S BEEN A PROBLEM. IN 2010, 11, 12, HIGH POINT WAS UNDERWATER AND THE NEW PHASE WHICH WAS THE EASTERN PORTION. CAN YOU TELL ME, WHICH 
          PHASE 123. THIS IS MY FIRST REAL LOOK AT THAT PLAN. >> 
          >> SURE. I THINK THE MAP KEVIN HAD ON THE SLIDE. PHASE 1 IS TTHE MO -- MOST OF THE PHASES THAT RUN EAST FROM THE CANAL THAT RUN NORTH AND SOUTH AND THE WEST OF SOUTH PHASE DEVELOPMENT IS ABOVE HIGH POINT PART OF PHASE 1. 
          >>ALL RIGHT. RECALLING THIS ST. LUCIE CANAL, THE WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, THEY HAVE 
          CANALS IN THE SAME AREA? >> THEY HAVE THEM IN THE SAME AREAS MAINTAINING CANALS AND 
          DID NOT REACH THAT IN THE SOUTH. >>I HAD THE SAME ISSUES WITH ST. LUCIE NOT MAINTAINING THEIR DITCHES. AND BACK PROBABLY 2010, 11, 12, IN THAT THE CANAL THAT SEPARATES IN THESE COMMUNITIES 
          [00:55:21]
BY THE CROSSOVERS AND PUTTING IN 18 INCH PIPES FOR THE CROSS OVER AND CREATED OVERFLOW UNTIL THE COUNTY GOT INTO THE ISSUE AND PUSHED IT OUT OF THE WAY. THAT'S WHY I'M CONFUSED HERE WHY THERE IS STILL STANDING WATER. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT HIGH POINT SPECIFICALLY HAS PUMPS TO PUMP THEIR WATER. HAVE YOU CHECKED IN WHETHER THOSE PUMPS ARE BEING RUN REGULARLY? 
          >> I HAVE NOT. I SPOKE WITH MR. TOM ABOUT THE OPERATIONS OF THE HIGH POINT COMMUNITY STORMWATER WAS MANAGED. WE SPOKE BRIEFLY ABOUT THE ANNUAL PUMP SERVICE WHICH IS UNUSUAL GIVEN THE STANDARDS AND PROVIDING DIRECTION AND A LITTLE BIT RESEARCH HERE TODAY. HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION THAT HIGH POINT HAS IN PLACE. 
          >>SOMETIMES IT'S THE EASIEST ANSWER THAT MAYBE WE ARE NOT PUMPING THE WATER AS WE SHOULD BECAUSE IT SHOULD NOT BE COMING FROM THE SOUTH NORTH. I WILL WAIT TO HEAR FROM THE DEVELOPER AND HOW THAT'S GOING TO BE UNFOLDING. I THINK ALL OF THIS HISTORY IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T GET HERE YESTERDAY AND THERE IS A LOT OF INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE TO 
          CONTINUE TO FIND. >>IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? >> THAT'S IT FOR THE STAFF. NOW WE CAN ASK THE PROJECT REPRESENTATIVE COME FORWARD. THEY ARE HERE TONIGHT. 
          >>PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> MA'AM MAYOR, I'M REPRESENTING THE PRESERVE PROJECT. 
          >>WITH ME TONIGHT IS MR. TOM DEGRACE, AND ENGINEERING OF RECORD. RICHARD, FROM CULTURAL 
          LAND DEVELOPMENT. THE DEVELOPER OF THE PRIMARY PROJECT. >>AND THE SAVANNAH PRESERVE. 
          WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO HERE REAL QUICK IS GO THROUGH A VERY COUPLE HIGH POINTS. YOU HAVE VERY GOOD HIGH POINT PRESENTATION BY YOUR STAFF. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF BIG PICTURE THINGS THAT WE'LL TALK ABOUT MOSTLY FOCUSED ON DRAINAGE AND TALK BRIEFLY ABOUT THE STATUS AND COMPLIANCE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER FOR THE PROJECT AND THEY ALL COME TOGETHER. I KNOW THERE WILL BE A LONG LIST OF QUESTIONS AND WE WILL ATTEMPT TO ANSWER THEM AS BEST AS WE CAN. I HAVE HEARD THE COMMENTS TONIGHT. WE KNOW SOME OF THE ANSWERS, SOME WE'LL HAVE 
          TO GO BACK AND DIG TO GET MORE INFORMATION. >> TOM, ENGINEER OF RECORD. 
          [01:00:09]
          >> I WILL START WITH THE HISTORICAL PREDEVELOPED HYDRAULIC CONDITIONS. THE SAVANNAH PRESERVE SITE GENERALLY DRAINS TO THE CENTER TO THE EXISTING 
          WETLANDS. >>THE EXISTING WETLANDS EXTENDED BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINE SLIGHTLY INTO GATOR TRACE. WE DID HAVE, THERE IS THAT FLOODPLAIN IN THE NORTHEAST 
          CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. >>AND GENERALLY THE FLOW WAS NORTH SOUTH ON OUR SITE. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPED CONDITIONS PRETTY MUCH DIRECT THE WATER THE SAME WAY THE PREDEVELOPMENT HIS HISTORICAL FLOWS DID. WE DIRECT THE FLOW, WE HAVE A SERIES OF WATER QUALITY PUMPS THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE PERIMETER OF THE WETLANDS THAT TAKES CARE OF THE WATER REMOVAL THAT ENTER INTO THE WETLANDS THAT IS A STRUCTURE THAT CONTROLS THE WATER THAT LEAVES THE WETLANDS AND DISCHARGES INTO THE COUNTY CANAL THAT RUNS NORTH AND SOUTH. AS PART OF THAT ATTENUATION SYSTEM, THERE WAS A BERM CONSTRUCTED ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINES THAT TAKE THE WATER ON THE SAVANNAH PROPERTY TO PREVENT IT FROM THE SOUTH SIDE TO THE CONSTRUCTION CANAL THAT RUNS NORTH AND SOUTH. THERE IS A COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY LINE, BUT IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE A CONVEYANCE FOR OUR POST DEVELOPED FLOW. A POINT OF INTEREST, ON THE NORTHEAST PROPERTY THERE WAS A DRAINAGE SUB BASIN THAT DISCHARGED TO THE NORTHEAST OFF SITE. THAT DRAINAGE AREA WAS 14.1 ACRES. AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND REDIRECTING THE FLOW TO THE CENTER OF THE PROPERTY TO THE WATER QUALITY PALMS OF THE WETLANDS TO THE STORM ORDER FOR THE AREAS ALONG THE PROPERTY LINES OF THE SAVANNAH PRESERVE, A SUBSTANTIAL MAJORITY OF THE DRAINAGE BASINS WERE REDIRECTED TO THE SUM OF THE PROPERTY. YOU HAVE A SLIVER OF LAND, THE DOWNSIDE SLOPE OF THE EMBANKMENT THAT IS CREATED TO CREATE THE BUILDING PADS ALONG THAT NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE.   THAT'S THE ONLY WATER THAT FLOWS DOWN 
          THE SLOPE TO THE NORTH. >>THAT SMALL AMOUNT OF DRAINAGE IS COLLECTED AT THE DITCH AT THE SURVEIL AT THE SLOPE AND DIRECTED TO EITHER THE WEST TO THE NORTH, SOUTH COUNTY CANAL. 
          OR A SMALL PORTION IS DIRECT TO THE EAST INTO THE WETLAND AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF OUR PROPERTY. THAT IS STILL, THAT REMAINS. THERE IS ALSO IN A NORTHEAST CORNER A FLOOD COMPENSATION AREA TO COMPENSATE FOR STORMWATER FLOOD VOLUMES AFFECTED BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE LOTS JUST TO THE WEST OF THE EXISTING WETLAND. 
          >>ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PREOR POST DEVELOPED HYDROLOGY FOR SAVANNAH PRESERVE? 
          [01:05:02]
          >> QUESTIONS? >> PROCEED. >>ALTHOUGH, IT WAS NOT COLD PEPPER INTERPRETING OUR SCOPE TO ASSESS THE HYDROLOGY OF HIGH POINT, I PERSONALLY LEARNED ABOUT SOME OF THIS FROM THE VARIOUS MEETINGS I HAVE HAD WITH HIGH POINT. ONE OF WHICH WAS ON-SITE WITH, I CAN'T REMEMBER HIS NAME, BUT IT WAS A GENTLEMAN WHO WAS IN CHARGE OF THE PUMPS THAT CONTROLLED THE WATER THAT LEAVES HIGH POINT. FROM WHAT HE TOLD ME, AND AGAIN, I DID NOT VERIFY ANY OF THIS BECAUSE IT REALLY WASN'T IN MY SCOPE OF WORK TO DO OFF SITE WORK. HE TOLD ME THAT THERE ARE PUMPS THAT CONTROL THE WATER THAT LEAVE HIGH POINT AND THAT THEY 
          ARE MANUALLY OPERATED. >>BASED ON WHAT HE TOLD ME, THE DISCHARGING IS TO THE SAVANNAHS. 
          >>AS FAR AS GATOR TRACE OFF-SITE, AS A POINT OF INTEREST. AS PART OF THE PERMITS OF THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, WE HAD TO MAINTAIN THE WETLANDS OFF-SITE TO GATOR TRACE WHICH WAS FOR US TO CONTROL THE AMOUNT OF WATER, WE COULDN'T DRAIN THE WETLANDS TO THE SOUTH OF OUR BERM TO DRY UP THE WETLANDS IN GATOR TRACE. THER THERE IS A CONTROL STRUCTURE ALONG THE SOUTH PROPERTY LINE THAT ALLOWS THE WATER TO POND TO THE PREDEVELOPED CONDITIONS, AND WHEN IT REACHES THAT PREDEVELOPED STAGE, IT GOES INTO OUR CONTROL STRUCTURE OR A STRUCTURE ON THE SOUTH OF THE BERM TO HAVE WATER DIRECT INTO 
          THE CANAL. >> LET ME FOLLOW-UP ON A COUPLE OF TOM'S COMMENTS TO GET A 
          BETTER APPRECIATION FOR WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. >>SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE. YOU 
          ARE DROPPING. >>I'M SORRY. YOU REALLY HAVE TO EAT THESE THINGS. 
          >>FOLLOWING UP ON A COUPLE OF TOM'S COMMENTS JUST FOR CLARIFY THE PURPOSES AND HOPEFULLY THIS LITTLE ARROW IS SHOWING UP. THESE RED BLOCKS HERE INDICATE THE LOCATION OF THE BERMS WE WERE REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT TO RETAIN THE WATER COMING INTO THIS WETLAND AREA HERE. THIS DARK GREEN AREA HER THAT IS THE MITIGATION BANK THAT'S BEING KEPT IN PLACE AND LEFT ALONE. 
          YOU DO SEE THE BLACK LINE THROUGH THERE, THE PART OF THE RECREATION PACKET THROUGH THE TRAILS THAT WAS THERE WHEN WE BROUGHT THIS PLAN FORWARD. THIS SMALL BLUE AREA HERE AND HERE REPRESENTS THE MAPPED OUT WETLAND AREA THAT IS CONTROLLED AND MAINTAINED IN SOME HYDROPERIOD INTO BECAUSE WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO REMOVE THEM AS PART OF THE INITIAL WORK. THE PROPERTY THAT RUNS ALONG THROUGH HERE AND WIDENS OUT THROUGH HERE AND CURVES TO THE NORTH IS A DRAINAGE RIGHT OF WAY. THAT HAS BEEN THERE FOREVER AND EVER THAT IS RELATIVE TO HOW LONG PEOPLE HAVE LIVED HERE. THAT PARTICULAR RIGHT OF WAY WAS IDENTIFIED IN ROAD AND DRAINAGE HAS A SMALL DITCH IN IT THAT RUNS ALONG PRETTY MUCH THE WESTERN EDGE OF THE PROPERTY THAT ALLOWS TO FLOW THROUGH THE SOUTH. THAT IS NOT PART OF THE ST. LUCIE FARM RIVER CONTROL DISTRICT. THIS DOES GO INTO THIS SYSTEM. THIS IS WHERE THE HEAD WATER AREA OF FLAT BRANCH. IF YOU GO TO A MILE AND MAKE A TURN SOUTH, WEST TO YOUR WAY TO THE AVENUE TOWARDS THE RIVER. THAT IS THE AREA THAT WE ARE DRAINING DOWN INTO AND THE AREA WE DISCHARGED INTO. WHEN WE SUBMITTED OUR CONSTRUCTION PLANS TO THE COUNTY AND THE CITY IDENTIFIED THE ROUTE OF TRAVEL. WHEN WE WORKED WITH THIS, IF WE 
          [01:10:05]
HAD TO AND WERE REQUIRED TO, WE WOULD MAKE ADJUSTMENTS, WHICH WE COULD WITH ONE MAJOR CAVEAT. THE COUNTY DOESN'T OWN MUCH OF THE THAT PATH THAT THE WATER FOLLOWS. IT'S KIND OF BEEN THERE AND THERE ARE MANY LEGAL QUESTIONS THAT WE AS A PRIVATE COULDN'T DO BUT THE COUNTY COULD IF THEY WANTED TO ADDRESS A TREATMENT PLAN THERE. THAT'S WELL-KNOWN FOR THE FACT THAT THE COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE A CLEAR PATH TO GET TO TEN MILE CREEK, BUT THAT IS THE WAY THE WATER 
          FLOWS. SO WE GO FROM THERE. >>ONE POINT I DO NEED TO SHARE, TOM MENTIONED THE FACT THAT THE HIGH POINT PROJECT HERE BASICALLY DRAINS INTO THE SAVANNAHS, YES. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THEIR PERMITS, IT DRAINS INTO THE SAVANNAH BY COLLECTING THE WATER INTO THE LAKERS AND PUMPING IT INTO THE LAKERS. THERE IS A PORTION OF THE COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY NORTH OF US AND YOU CAN SEE FROM THIS PARTICULAR MAP HERE THIS LITTLE DARK AREA HERE. THAT IS ACTUALLY WITHIN THE COUNTY ROADWAY AND DRAINAGE RIGHT OF WAY. THAT IS A POND THAT WAS AUTHORIZED FOR CONSTRUCTION BACK IN THE 1970S, WHEN HIGH POINT WAS INITIALLY DEVELOPED THAT ALLOWED DRAINAGE FROM THESE AREAS HERE TO WORK THEIR WAY NORTH AND THEN INTO THE LAKE SYSTEM THAT IS THERE CURRENTLY INTO THE SAVANNAH. THE PROJECT IS ARCHAIC, BUT IT SHOWS NORTH. THE ONLY PLACE THAT THERE WOULD BE ANY POSSIBLE DRAINAGE COMING SOUTH FALL ON THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS MAYBE THIS SMALL LITTLE WETLAND AREA. ALL OF THIS WAS MODELED, LOOKED AT AND PERMITTED AND SATISFIED BY THE WATER DISTRICT, THE COUNTY AND THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. WE MET THESE REQUIREMENTS. 
          >>WHEN WE RECEIVED OUR DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL IN 2022, WE HAD SIX DEVELOPMENT ORDER CONDITIONS THAT WE WERE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH. THESE CONDITIONS BASICALLY AND SO FO FORTH, THEY SET OUT PERMITS FROM VARIOUS AGENCIES. WE DID. WE GOT THE PERMIT IN 2023, A COUNTY SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT IN 2023, THE FORT PIERCE PERMITS IN 2025. 
          I CAN GET YOU THE LIST OF EVERYBODY ELSE IF YOU WANT IT. IT SHOWS THAT WE CAME AND GOD THEM AS WE WERE REQUIRED TO DO. WE DID A CONDITION NO. 3, CAME IN AND PROVIDED THE CITY WITH ALL THE REQUIRED STORMWATER VERIFICATION DOCUMENTS. EVERYTHING THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE IS IS THERE. I THINK YOUR STAFF HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT AS WELL TOO. THERE WAS CONCERN WHEN WE WERE DEALING WITH THE DRIVEWAY CONNECTION DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATIONS AND WORKED THAT OUT AND EVERYTHING IS IN PLACE AND BEING OUT THERE YOU SEE HOW IT ALL WORKS. EVERYONE WAS SATISFIED WITH THAT PARTICULAR ELEMENT OF THE PROJECT. WE THEN NEEDED TO DEAL WITH THE BERM AND THE RIGHT OF WAY COMMISSION TALKING ABOUT ALLIGATOR TRACE A THAT WAS ENTIRELY UPON OUR PROPERTY AND NONE OF IT BECAME APPLICABLE AND WE COULDN'T NEGATIVELY IMPACT. FINALLY THE LAST CONDITION OF APPROVAL DEALT WITH THE DISCHARGES OFF THE SITE INTO THE COUNTY'S SYSTEM AND BY COUNTY ISSUING THEIR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, THEY LOOKED AT THE INFORMATION WE GAVE THEM AND SHOWED THEM WHERE IT IS AND HERE IS YOUR PERMIT. THAT'S HOW WE HAVE BEEN OPERATING AND 
          MOVING FROM THERE. >>BACK TO THE RECENT AERIAL TAKEN OF THE PROPERTY WAS ABOUT THREE WEEKS AGO OF THE SITE AND LOOKING TO THE EAST. AND THIS CORNER HERE BASICALLY REPRESENTS THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WHAT WE HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY TERMED PHASE ONE DEVELOPMENT. THE BALANCE OF THE PROPERTY IS THE PHASE 2 DEVELOPMENT, THE AREAS EAST OF THE LARGE WETLAND IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PROJECT. YOU CAN SEE WE HAVE CLEARED A LOT OF THE LAND AND PROBABLY CLEARED A LITTLE 
          [01:15:02]
BIT MORE SINCE THEN. THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE NUMBER OF TREES BEING TAKEN OUT. YES, THERE WERE A LARGE NUMBER OF THESE BEING TAKEN OUT. THE CHALLENGE THAT WE HAD TO PROTECT THE TREES FROM THE SITE IS BECAUSE OF HAVING TO COME IN AND MEET CURRENT STORMWATER GUIDELINES, CURRENT STORMWATER REGULATIONS, CURRENT ELEVATIONS, WE ARE BRINGING ANYTHING BETWEEN 3-5 FEET FILL OF THE PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH, YES, WE WERE GOING TO BE HIGHER UP. 
          THE WORKING ORDER WORKING AROUND THE E-MAILS IS SHOWING THE LARGER CHANGE IN ELEVATION. 
          THAT'S BECAUSE WE ARE HAVING TO COMPLY WITH CURRENT STORMWATER PROTECTION GUIDELINES. AS TOM POINTED OUT A MOMENT AGO, EVERYTHING IN OUR PROJECT GOES INWARD. WE GO INTO THE THE WETLAND AND DISCHARGE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. THE ONLY THING THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE COMING OFF THE PROPERTY WOULD BE THE SMALL SLOPE AREAS FROM THE BACK OF THE 
          LOT LINES. I'M GOING TO TRY TO ZOOM IN HERE. THAT DIDN'T WORK. >>THESE SLOPE AREAS, YOU CAN SEE IT FROM HERE. THERE IS A SMALL SURVEIL, A DRAINAGE CONTROL, DRAINAGE CONVEYANCE SYSTEM. KEEP SITE SO THINGS WILL CHANGE. IT'S UP ON THAT SLOPE INTO THE SURVEIL AND THEN WORK OFF THE FLANK AND NOTHING SHOULD BE COMING ONTO THE PROPERTY. ALL THE TREES THAT YOU SEE HERE, THOSE ARE ON HIGH POINT PROPERTY AND WE HAVEN'T TOUCHED THEM. THAT'S THERE. WE WILL BE AND AGAIN, IT'S A CONSTRUCTION SITE SO IT'S NOT DONE YET. WE WILL BE AS PART OF OUR TREE MITIGATION AND PART OF THE PROJECT LANDSCAPING PROVIDING FOR ENHANCING LANDSCAPING AND VEGETATIVE DEVELOPMENT ALONG THOSE SLOPES. WE WORKED VERY HARD WITH THE CITY ENGINEER THAT WAS GOING TO GET US SOME TREE PLANTINGS, AND GET EVERYTHING THAT EVERYBODY NEEDED TO GET OVERTIME A NICE VEGE TATED BUFFER TO WORK IN COMMUNITIES. THOSE ARE THINGS WE HAVE TRIED TO DO. AS POINTED OUT, PARTICULARLY WHEN IT COMES TO LANDSCAPING, THAT IS REALLY ONE OF THE LAST PUNCH LIST ITEMS VERIFIED BECAUSE I CAN'T GO AND PLANT THINGS NOW BECAUSE WE MIGHT DESTROY IT AND HAVE TO PUT IT BACKEN. WE SHOULD HAVE ABOUT 3,000 NEW TREES BY THE TIME THIS IS ALL DONE IN TREE PLANTINGS AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CITY DEPENDING ON THE HAORTICULTURE 
          SITE. >>I HAVE SEEN SOME OF THE E-MAILS THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT SECTION 8 HOUSING. THIS IS A MARKET RATE DEVELOPMENT. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A MARKET RATE DEVELOPMENT. IT'S NOT INTENDED TO BE AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMUNITY. WE CONFIRMED THAT WITH THE DEVELOPER AND IT HASN'T CHANGED. THERE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT TORTOISES ON THE PROPERTY. 
          WE HAVE THE PERMITS AND APPROVALS AND PRIOR TO THE COMMENCING OF THE CLEARING ACTIVITY, THERE WERE VARIOUS PORTIONS TO THE DEVELOPMENT, WE DID REQUISITE SURVEYS AND MOVED THE TORTOISES ON-SITE INTO A TORTOISE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY IN SOUTH FLORIDA. THEY WERE DONE DURING PERMIT. IF THEY SHOW UP DURING CONSTRUCTION, THERE IS A METHOD AND PLACE WE DEAL WITH IT. IT'S RELOCATION OF THE TORTOISE. WE WILL DEAL WITH THAT AS IT COMES UP. 
          >>THE OTHER ELEMENTS THAT WE WERE DEALING WITH, WE TALKED ABOUT NOISE. WE WERE MADE AWARE OF A PROBLEM OVER THE WEEKEND AND I THINK THE OWNERS HAVE ALREADY SPOKEN TO THE CONTRACTORS ABOUT IT AND WE WILL COMPLY WITH CITY NOISE CODES AND REGULATIONS. IF ANYBODY HEARS 
          [01:20:09]
ANYTHING, LET US KNOW. IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG, LET US KNOW. I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE ISSUE OVER THE WEEKEND UNTIL ABOUT 3:00 THIS AFTERNOON. I THOUGHT, OH, THAT'S NOT GOOD. 
          LET US KNOW, PLEASE. >>MR. MURPHY CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE ALLEGATION OF THE 50 KNOWN 
          TORTOISES THAT WERE REMOVED? >> NO, I CAN'T CONFIRM THAT. PER THE PLANS GOING BACK TO THE CODES AND REQUIREMENTS. I CAN GO BACK TO THE COMMENTS. I BELIEVE THE NUMBER IS A REFERENCE TO THE NUMBER OF TORTOISES. I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFIC NUMBER. THAT'S ONE I HAVE TO GO BACK TO GET 
          MORE INFORMATION AND GET BACK TO YOU. >>THE EMAIL ALLEGATION WAS ALSO THAT MANY OF THEM WERE BULLDOZED UNDER BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE? 
          >> THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND THE SPECIFIC CONTRACTOR HAD SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS NOT TO BE DOING THAT. IF THEY FIND ANYTHING, THEY KNOW RULES. THEY HAVE TO STOP, I THINK IT'S A 50 FOOT RADIUS IMMEDIATELY GOES AROUND THE BOROUGH AND YOU HAVE TO IDENTIFY THE APPROPRIATE 
          AUTHORITIES AND OFFICIALS. >>IT SOUNDS LIKE THE CONTRACTOR HASN'T REALLY PAID ATTENTION TO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU ARE DOING. SO I WOULD ASK THAT YOUR GROUP LOOK INTO THAT BECAUSE THAT'S A SERIES ALLEGATION ESPECIALLY THE NUMBER. IT'S AN EXPENSIVE PROCESS, I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT YOUR CONTRACTOR, JUST THIS WEEKEND APPARENTLY VIOLATED THE PROCESS. SO, I'M NOT SURE 
          THAT THEY ARE FOLLOWING THE RULES. >>WE WILL BE HAVING THE CONVERSATIONS. A LOT OF THIS IS HAPPENING REAL-TIME. I CAN'T GIVE YOU THE FINAL ANSWERS TO IT RIGT NOW EXCEPT THAT WE WILL BE GETTING BACK INTO IT. FINALLY THE TRAPPING OF THE ANIMALS. 
          THAT KIND OF THING. >>I RECALL YOUR COMMENTS TO SEE WE WERE GOING TO MONITOR WHAT IS GOING ON. IF WE FIND THAT WE ARE HAVING HOG PROBLEMS OR ANY OTHER KIND OF PROBLEM BECAUSE AT THE TIME WE WERE WORRIED ABOUT ALLIGATORS TOO. BECAUSE NOW IN PUTTING HOMES AND YARDS, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE SOME NICE FRESH VEGETABLES FOR THEM AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT. WE ARE GOING TO BE SURE WE ARE IN GOOD SHAPE WITH THAT AND WILL REPORT BACK TO YOU ON A REGULAR BASIS TO 
          GIVE YOU A STATUS REPORT ON WHAT HAPPENS THERE. >>I KIND OF HIT A BUNCH OF 
          POINTS THROUGH HERE. >>I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. THERE WAS A FENCE AND THE FENCE 
          WAS TAKEN DOWN. CAN YOU ADDRESS THE FENCE ISSUE? >> THE FENCE ISSUE IS BASICALLY FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THERE IS A CHAIN LINK FENCE THAT RUNS PRETTY MUCH RIGHT ALONG THROUGH HERE ON THE HIGH POINT PROPERTY. I BELIEVE IT IS ABOUT A SIX FOOT HIGH FENCE GIVE OR TAKE A LITTLE BIT. THERE WAS SOME DAMAGE TO IT SOMEWHERE DURING THE CONSTRUCTION CYCLES AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT DAMAGED FENCE WAS REPAIRED AND REPLACED ACCORDINGLY. WE DO NOT HAVE NOR HAVE WE EVER HAD A FENCE IN OUR DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY LINE. WE DIDN'T THINK ONE WAS NECESSARY. IT'S MORE ATTRACTIVE TO HAVE A DENCHLY LANDSCAPED STRUCTURE THROUGH THERE THAN A FENCE OR A WALL. IT DID NOT APPEAR AT THE TIME TO BE A REASON FOR DOING THAT, AND AT 
          THE MOMENT, WE WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE THAT PARTICULAR WAY. >>AS FAR AS YOU ARE CONCERNED, 
          THE FENCE REMAINS IN PLACE? >> THERE IS A FENCE THAT REMAINS IN PLACE ON THIS PROPERTY. IF I CAN ZOOM HERE. THIS PHOTO WAS 3 WEEKS AGO. YOU CAN SEE RIGHT WHERE MY HAND IS SHOWN HERE. 
          THAT'S A FENCE, A CHAIN LINK FENCE. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT FENCE IS A PROPERTY OF HIGH POINT. THAT FENCE IS, AGAIN, IF THE FENCE IS DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION, IF WE DAMAGE IT, IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO GO AND FIX IT, BUT THAT'S WHAT WE ARE GOING TO BE LEADING IT AS 
          [01:25:04]
          FROM THERE IN SLOPE AREA. >> YOU CAN GO NEXT. >>IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU WERE GOING TO BE TRAPPING AND ELIMINATING FROM ANIMALS LONG BEFORE THE CONSTRUCTION 
          STARTED. DID THAT ACTUALLY TAKE PLACE? >> THERE IS SOME ANIMAL COLLECTION TYPE WORK DONE EARLY ON, BUT THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ON PROBABLY SOME TIME AGO AND IT'S POSSIBLE THAT SOME COLONIES COULD HAVE REESTABLISHED THEMSELVES. THAT'S WHY I SAID, SOME OF THIS STUFF, WE HAVE TO COME BACK TO GET YOU MORE SPECIFIC DETAILS NOW THAT I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR. I KNOW WE DID SOME THINGS EARLY ON. CAN I SAY SOMETHING DIDN'T COME BACK AND REESTABLISH?  NO. IS IT SOMETHING TO LOOK INTO AND 
          RESPOND BACK?  YES. >>WE ARE RECEIVING A NUMBER OF HOGS COMPLAINT AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU HAVE TO ANSWER ON AND YOU WERE GOING TO HANDLE COMPLAINTS CONTINUOUSLY 
          SO IF THEY CAME IN, YOU WOULD DISPATCH FOLKS TO DEAL WITH. >>I WILL LOOK INTO THAT AND GET 
          BACK TO YOU. >>LET'S TALK ABOUT THE ISRASWAI AREA ON THE PROPERTY LINE. SIT YOUR POSITION THAT YOU HAD MITIGATED TO THE FULL EXTENT ON THE PLANS APPROVED THAT YOU WERE 
          DEALING WITH ALL WATER DRAINAGE? >> YES, WE HAVE SATISFIED ALL OF THE APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS FOR DEMONSTRATION OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CONSISTENT WITH STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS. 
          >>OKAY, WE HAVE THIS BACK SLOPE ISSUE ON THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS GOING TO 
          BE LANDSCAPED AT SOME POINT IN TIME. >>YES. 
          >>IT IS MY CONJECTURE THAT PER THIS SWAIL IS INSUFFICIENT BECAUSE HIGH POINT RESIDENTS ARE COMPLAINING THAT WATER IS BACKING UP TO THE BACK OF THEIR BUILDING. IF YOU COMPLIED WITH ALL OF YOUR REQUIREMENTS, WHAT HE IS -- WHAT IS THE THEORY BEHIND THE WATER BUILDING UP 
          BEHIND THEIR HOMES? >> WE HAVE AND I'M NOT SURE WE'LL ACCOMPLISH THIS TONIGHT BECAUSE WE'LL BE HERE ALL NIGHT. THIS SHOWS THE ELEVATIONS IN THIS AREA. THIS SHOWS WHERE WE ARE AT SWAIL WISE. IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THIS PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH, THAT'S IN THIS ELEVATION AND WORK BACK UP THIS WAY. I CAN SHOW YOU THE GRAPH WITH THE INFORMATION ON IT. I'M P PARA PHRASING AND GENERALIZING. THE WATER IS GOING WHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO GO FROM THE HIGH POINT SIDE AND THEN GET INTO THE SYSTEM WORKING THEIR WAY NORTH. 
          NONE OF OUR WATER IS GOING THAT WAY. OUR WATER HISTORICALLY FLOWED SOUTH. 
          >>IF YOU HAVE A BACK SLIP SLOPE, IT'S GOING THE OTHER WAY. >>WE HAD IT WHERE IT WAS ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE IT GOING BACK AND FORTH. WE SPENT A YEAR 1/2 IN SOUTH FLORIDA PERMITTING GOING THROUGH EVERY CALCULATION POSSIBLE TO SHOW THAT THE WATERS WERE GOING TO FLOW WHERE WE 
          EXPECTED THEM TO FLOW. >>SO, I GUESS IN CONCLUSION, YOUR POSITION 1245 THE PONDING WATER ON HIGH POINT'S PROPERTY IS HIGH POINT'S PROBLEM, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOUR 
          DEVELOPMENT? >> MY CONCLUSION AND LAND PLANNING CONCLUSION, IS THAT THE WAY THE PERMIT READS, THERE IS A HIGH PROBABILITY THAT IT IS THEIR ISSUE THAT IT'S CAUSING 
          THE PROBLEM, YES. >>PLEASE, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. PLEASE. 
          >>THAT'S NOT AN ENGINEERING COMMENT. THAT'S LOOKING AT A MAP SEEING HOW THE FLOW WORKS AND 
          RUN FROM THERE. >>I'M NOT LOOKING AT THE TYPOGRAPHICAL EFFORTS, SOMETHING 
          [01:30:09]
CHANGED BECAUSE THIS FLOOD WATER WAS NOT THERE PREVIOUSLY AND THIS SWAIL WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO MAINTAINING THE BACK FLOWS. I'M NOT AN ENGINEER. I HAVE WALKED THAT AREA BEHIND THOSE BUILDINGS AND I HAVE SEEN THAT AREA AND KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT WITH THE PITCH, BUT THIS WATER IS BEING GENERATED FROM SOMEPLACE AND THE FIRST PLACE I WOULD GO IS THE 
          BACK SLOPES THAT ARE CREATED THERE INTO HIGH POINT. >>IDENTIFY YOURSELF, SIR. 
          >>YES. >>STATE YOUR NAME? >> ENGINEER OF RECORD. I THINK WE NEED TO REMEMBER THAT THE DRAINAGE BASIN THAT WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE AREA ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE WAS REDIRECTED INTERNALLY THE POST DEVELOPED FLOWS. THE ONLY REMAINING PORTION OF THAT BASIN TO GO OFF SITE OR TO GO TO THE NORTH, REALLY, WOULD BE THE BACK SLOPE OF THAT EM EMBANKMENT THAT IS CAUGHT BY THE SWAIL AT THE TOE OF THE SLOPE. SO THAT SURVEIL IS NOT INTENDED TO TAKE ACRES AND ACRES OF DRAINAGE AREA. IT'S TO TAKE THE REDUCED AMOUNT OF THE DRAINAGE AREA THAT'S CONTRIBUTED TO THAT DOWNHILL SLOPE WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY ABOUT A 20-24 FOOT WIDE BY WHATEVER THE LENGTH OF THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE, THE LIMITS OF THAT DRAINAGE BASIN. WHERE IT WERE IT WAS PROBABLY, I DON'T HAVE THE ACTUAL NUMBERS BUT ACRES AND ACRES OF THE DRAINAGE AREAS IF YOU ADD IT ALL UP ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE. THE THING TO REMEMBER IS TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE DRAINAGE BASINS HAVE CHANGED. THAT HAS BEEN REDUCED. THE DRAINAGE BASINS, THE AREA OF THE DRAINAGE BASINS HAVE BEEN REDUCED AND REDIRECTED INTERNALLY BECAUSE THEY HAD TO BE. SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT REQUIRES US TO CONTROL ANY WATER ALONG IMPERVIOUS AREAS, DRIVEWAYS, ROADWAYS, HAS TO BE CONTROLLED FOR WATER QUALITY AND THAT'S WHAT WE DID. THAT'S WHAT OUR LAKERS AND PONDS ARE THERE FOR IS TO TREAT THAT WATER QUALITY AND THEN THE WETLAND ITSELF IN THE CENTER OF THE PROPERTY IS TO ADDRESS THE ATTENUATION, THE AMOUNT OF VOLUME OF WATER, NOT THE QUALITY OF THE WATER, BUT THE VOLUME OF THE WATER. THE THEORY IS BY THE TIME THE WATER REACHES THE WETLAND, IT'S ALREADY CLEAN BECAUSE IT'S GONE THROUGH FIVE OR SIX WATER QUALITY PONDS. 
          WHICH BY THE WAY, AS A SIDE NOTE USES VERY HIGH-TECH TECHNOLOGY TO IMPROVE WATER QUALITY USING A FILTER RING AROUND THE PONDS THAT FILTER THE WATER AS IT GOES THROUGH TO REMOVE NUTRIENTS AND 
          IMPROVE THE WATER QUALITY, JUST A SIDE NOTE. >>OKAY, HAVING SAID THAT, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE OVERHEAD PICTURE THAT YOU HAD PREVIOUSLY? THIS IS THREE WEEKS AGO. AS OF RIGHT NOW, YOU HAVE NO NON-IMPERVIOUS AREA CONSTRUCTED, NO AREAS, NO ROOF TOPS. SO THIS IS GOING TO GET WORSE WHEN YOU START PUTTING IN ASPHALT. ALL THIS IMPERVIOUS AREA IS GOING TO LEAD THE RUNOFF AND YOU ARE INDICATING IT'S GOING INTERNAL INTO THE DEVELOPMENT, BUT CLEARLY YOU CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THIS DRAINAGE FROM HIGH POINT AND THAT'S NOT THE CASE. THE CLAIM IS THAT IT IS THEIR ISSUE TO MANAGE AND YOU HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. I'M CONCERNED WITH THAT BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS ACCURATE. I'M NOT AN ENGINEER, BUT THE CHANGES THAT ARE MAKING THERE ARE REQUIRING THAT WATER, ALONG THAT FENCE LINE, 24 FEET WIDE WITH DRAINAGE TO THE NORTH INTO THAT SWAIL WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY, OVERWHELMED BY THE AMOUNT OF 
          VOLUME OF WATER IT IS TAKING IN. >>I'M GOING TO MAKE AN UNFRIENDLY STATEMENT. 
          >>I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE BEEN GOOD NEIGHBORS TO THE FOLKS AT HIGH POINT. 
          [01:35:07]
UNDERSTAND WHAT THESE FOLKS ARE GOING THROUGH WITH WATER, ANIMALS, THE STUDY, PROPER TIMES, PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT PERMITS BEING ISSUED. THIS IS NOT WHAT WE WANT AT FORT PIERCE. 
          THAT RECORD IS HERE AND ALREADY DISCUSSED BY DEPARTMENT HEADS AND CLEARLY THERE ARE ISSUES. SO I'M GOING TO BE PAST THE PERMITTING ISSUES AND WORK WITH OUR PERMITS AND WORK HOURS, ETC. 
          I WANT THIS ISSUE MANAGED WITH THE FOLKS AT HIGH POINT AND GATOR TRACE TO FIND OUT WHAT'S GOING ON HERE AND WORK WITH OUR TEAM TO MAKE SOME DETERMINATION WHY THIS WATER IS ENDING UP IN HIGH POINT AND GATOR TRACE, WHEN YOU ARE SAYING IT'S ALL DRAINING INTERNALLY, NONE OF THIS WATER IS OUR CONCERN. IT'S A CONCERN FOR ALL OF THESE FOLKS OUT HERE. SO AS A GOOD NEIGHBOR, THIS HAS TO BE YOUR CONCERN AS WELL. I'M ASKING YOU TO PLEASE FIND OUT WHAT IS GOING ON HERE TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO GET A CALL FROM HIGH POINT WITH THIS NEXT RAINY SEASON THAT THEY NOW HAVE SWIMMING POOLS IN THEIR RELIVIN ROOMS. THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. 
          YOU ARE THE EXPERTS, SOMETHING IS CREATING THIS. MAYBE THE GUY IS NOT RUNNING THE PUMPS WHEN 
          HE'S SUPPOSED TO, I DON'T KNOW. BUT IT NEEDS TO BE RESOLVED. >>COMMISSIONER COMMISSIONER 
          DZADOVSKY? >> CAN YOU SAY THE VEGETATIVE THAT IS MOVED AROUND WOULD NOT IF THERE WERE GRASS AND TREES AND THE IDEA THAT IF YOU HAD A SIGNIFICANT CLEARLY A LOT OF TREES AND VEGETATION HAS BEEN REMOVED, THAT SLOWS DOWN THE RUNOFF OF ANY RAINWATER AND SO FORTH. COULD THAT BE PART OF THE ISSUE?  IS THAT EXPECTATION GOING FORWARD WITH ALL THAT MOVING INTO THE CENTER AREA AND THERE IS NO AREA FOR THE WATER TO MOVE. IT PONDS AND MOVES. IS 
          THAT A REASONABLE APPROACH TO WHAT WE ARE SEEING HERE? >> WELL, IT TOOK ME YEARS AT GEORGIA TECH TO LEARN HYDROLOGY, BUT YES, YOU HAVE THE GENERAL IDEA. WHEN LAND HAS WHAT WE CALL A C FACTOR, C VALUE. A FOREST HAS GOT A LOW NUMBER, PAVEMENT HAS A HIGH NUMBER. THAT NUMBER INDICATES PERCOLATION INTO THE GROUND. ALL THAT, HAS BEEN CONSIDERED WHEN WE DESIGNED THE HYDROLOGY SYSTEM FOR THIS PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF FORT PIERCE, SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT RULES AND REGULATIONS, AND AS A WHOLE WHAT HAPPENS IS, YES, THERE ARE SOME AREAS THAT WAS FOREST AND NOW IS GRASS OR WAS FOREST AND NOW ROOF TOPS OR PAVEMENTS. ALL THAT IS CONSIDERED WHEN WE SIZE THE WATER QUALITY PUMPS AND ANALYZE THE EXISTING WETLAND THAT WE ARE USING FOR ATTENUATION. IT LEADS INTO THE DESIGN OF THE CONTROL STRUCTURE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF OUR PROPERTY THAT CONTROLS THE WATER THAT LEAVES THE WETLAND, WHICH ATTENUATES THE FLOW OF THE PROJECT. YES, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT THAT THE CONDITION OF THE LAND HAS AN EFFECT ON HYDROLOGY. AND THAT'S BEEN ADDRESSED AND INCORPORATED INTO 
          THE HYDROLOGY DESIGN FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT. >>OKAY. 
          >>CITY COMMIS >>CITY COMMISSIONER ARNOLD GAINES: I'M NOT GOING TO QUESTION AN ENGINEER BECAUSE I'M NOT AN ENGINEER. HOWEVER,, I'M A COMMON SENSE TYPE OF PERSON. 
          THERE WAS NO WATER THERE BEFORE YOU STARTED. I DON'T KNOW WHO IS PROBLEM IT IS. IF YOU ARE SAYING IT'S THEIR PUMP, YOUR RUNOFF, ALL I KNOW IS THERE WAS NO WATER THERE BEFORE YOU STARTED. I'M TRYING TO HOLD BACK BECAUSE I WORK ON A THOUSAND PROJECTS AND I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO AN 
          [01:40:01]
ARGUMENT HERE, BUT YOU GUYS STARTED OFF WRONG, AND WE HAD TO STOP IT. ONE OF ALL THE E-MAILS THAT I RECEIVED, THIS BURN OVER OF TORTOISES, I HOPE IT'S NOT TRUE. I HOPE NO ONE SEND ME AN EMAIL OR A PICTURE OF A TORTOISE THAT HAS BEEN BURIED OVER BY THE ENGINEER OR WHOEVER IS OUT THERE, THAT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE A PROBLEM. LAST MONDAY, YOU WERE HERE AND YOUR PEOPLE HEARD EVERYTHING AND BEFORE WE GET BACK HERE TUESDAY, WE WERE GETTING COMPLAINTS. LIKE THIS WEEKEND WE HAD COMPLAINTS OF WHAT THEY DID SUNDAY. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE THINKING WE ARE JOKING UP HERE OR WE ARE NOT REALLY SERIOUS UP HERE, BUT WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR DISCUSSION, AND I KNOW YOU WILL. WHEN YOU HAVE YOUR DISCUSSION, PLEASE DON'T LET ANY EVIDENCE COME TO ME THAT SOME OF THESE ALLEGATIONS THAT I HAVE BEEN GIVEN FROM THESE RESIDENTS IS TRUE, BECAUSE I'M GOING TO PUSH IT TO THE FARREST LEVEL AS I CAN TO MAKE SURE THAT NEVER HAPPENS AGAIN IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. IT'S NOT A THREAT. I'M JUST LETTING YOU KNOW I STAND ON MY WORD. I'M UPSET RIGHT NOW. BUT AGAIN, I'M NOT AN ENGINEER. THE ENGINEER IS OVER THERE. THE CITY ENGINEER COMES IN FRONT OF ME, I TELL HIM EVERY DAY, I'M NOT AN ENGINEER, SO I'M GOING TO TAKE YOUR WORD. AI ALL I KNOW IS SOMETHING IS NOT WORKING. I DON'T KNOW WHERE TO PUT THE BRAIN BETWEEN YOUR ENGINEER, GEORGIA TECH, CITY MANAGER ENGINEER, SOMEBODY PLEASE FIGURE IT OUT. THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING. AS MANY PLEASE FIGURE IT OUT AND SHOW US WHAT IS GOING ON BECAUSE WE DESERVE AN ANSWER. YOU DESERVE AN ANSWER. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, THESE RESIDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN THERE BEFORE THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS APPROVED DESERVE AN ANSWER BECAUSE IF IT TURNS OUT THAT IT IS AND I DON'T KNOW SOMETHING ON THEIR END THAT SOMEBODY THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE DOING THE PUMP IS NOT DOING IT RIGHT, WHICH I DON'T KNOW, IF THAT'S THE ANSWER, EVERYBODY NEEDS TO KNOW SO THE POINTING OF FINGERS NEED TO STOP BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, THIS IS WHAT I DO KNOW. AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF THEY ARE GETTING WATER RIGHT NOW AND WE PUT CONCRETE AND OTHER STUFF THERE AND WE GET A HEAVY RAINSTORM OR SOMETHING COMING IN, I HATE TO USE THE NUMBERS, STARTS WITH H, COMES IN BETWEEN JUNE AND OCTOBER, I DON'T WANT TO BE SITTING HERE AND I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO TURN OFF MY PHONE, WHICH I NEVER DO ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF E-MAILS SHOWING ME PICTURES OF THESE RESIDENTS UNDERWATER. I'M TRYING TO PREVENT THIS NOW. I NEED SOME ANSWERS AND WHY I ASKED YOU TO BE HERE TONIGHT. I'M SITTING HERE QUIET BUT I NEED SOME ANSWERS AS QUICKLY AS YOU CAN 
          GET THEM TO ME. >>MADAM MAYOR, ONE LEVEL HAVE COMMENTARY AND ASSURANCE. WE LIVE HERE TOO. WE HAVE AN INVESTMENT AND WE WANT TO BE SURE IT'S RIGHT TOO. WE WANT TO HAVE THE SAME ANSWERS AND KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON. WE WILL BE REPORTING BACK TO OUR COMPLIENT YES. PART OF IT IS KNOWING WHO TO TALK TO. WHEN THE FOCUSES ARE OUT -- FOLKS ARE OUT THERE TALKING TO THOSE ON THE SEEITE, THEY MA NOT KNOW. WE NEED TO TALK TO THEM TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND AND IF IT IS SOMETHING INCONSISTENT, WE'LL ADDRESS IT. 
          WE LIVE HERE TOO AND WANT TO BE SURE EVERYTHING IS WORKING RIGHT. WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE A 
          PROBLEM WITH THAT LETTER H IN OCTOBER THAT NO ONE TALKS ABOUT. >>CITY COMMISSIONER CURTIS JONSON JR.: WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU WERE THERE ON THE PROPERTY? 
          [01:45:10]
          >> ABOUT A MONTH AGO. >>THIS IS SOMETHING. I HAVE PASSED BY THERE AND I HAVE SEEN 
          HOMES OR BUILDINGS. >>WE HAVE MODELS. >>HOW MANY? 
          >> WE HAVE ONE STRING OF TOWNHOME MODELS. >>STRING, THERE IS MORE THAN 
          O ONE. >>EIGHT STRENGING OF TOWNHOMES. 
          >>THERE ARE ROADS THAT HAVE BEEN PAID. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS AN ACTUAL DESCRIPTION OF WHAT 
          HAPPENED THERE. >>THIS PARTICULAR ANGLE IS NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU WHAT'S ALREADY 
          BUILT ANGLE. IT'S ALL BACK INTO HERE. >>I CAN SEE THAT FROM HERE. THE HOMES AND I GUESS THAT'S MY CONCERN IS TRYING TO GET MY HEAD AROUND THIS. I'M LOOKING AT THE PICTURE AND DOESN'T SHOW WHAT YOU HAVE OUT THERE. THE QUESTION WAS ASKED ABOUT WHAT COULD BE CAUSING THIS, OBVIOUSLY,. IF YOU HAVE STRUCTURES OUT THERE, H STRING UNIT AND WORK WAY ALREADY. I'M NOT AN ENGINEER, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT'S AN IMPERVIOUS AREA AND THAT DOES NOT PENETRATE THE EARTH AND GOING TO RUN SOMEWHERE. TO ME IT WOULD SEEM THAT YOU WOULD LOOK AT THE ROADWAY NETWORK THAT'S BEEN DESIGNED. UNDERSTAND YOU BUILT SOME MODELS OUT THERE AND WHAT WE ARE HEARING IS MAYBE WHAT WAS DESIGNED TO NOT FAIL IS FAILING OR HAS FAILED. AND SO THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO BE LOOKING TO SEE WHEN I GO OUT THERE BECAUSE WE ARE ALL HERE SPECULATING ON THIS STUFF. I UNDERSTAND ENGINEER AND THE SPECS AND EVERYBODY HAS A SEAL ON IT. I THINK WE ARE ASKING FOR AN OPPORTUNITY THAT WE'LL ALL BE LOOKING TO TRY TO PROVIDE SOME ANSWERS TO US AND THE PUBLIC. PH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT BECAUSE THEY ARE REALLY THE HEAVYWEIGHT WHEN IT COMES TO THIS ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT OF WATER BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONES THAT HAVE THEIR OFFICIAL STAMP ON THIS ALONG WITH THE ENGINEER DEPARTMENT AND THE BERMS, BUT STUFF FAILS. WE UNDERSTAND THAT. WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR HERE IS TO IDENTIFY DO YOU HAVE BREACHES AND FAILURES. AND THERE IS RAIN STANDING HERE. I'M GOING TO BE DRIVING BY THERE IN THE NEXT 24 HOURS. I WOULD ADVISE THAT, SIR. I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. MOST OF US ARE ON WEDNESDAY 
          HERE. IT WOULD BE A GOOD UPDATE. >>WHAT YOU ARE HEARING, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT FORT PIERCE PRIDES ITSELF IN IS NEW DEVELOPMENT IS NOT GOING TO ADVERSELY AFFECT OUR NEIGHBORS. 
          THAT'S WHAT WE TELL THEM IN DEVELOPMENT NOT TO ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NEIGHBORS. SECONDLY, WE WANT TO TREAT OUR PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN HERE FOR YEARS AS GOOD AS WE TREAT THE NEW PEOPLE. 
          RIGHT?  EQUALLY, WE WANT TO PROTECT THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE OLDER. AND FROM THE NEW KIDS ON THE BLOCK COMING IN THAT IS GOING TO AFFECT OUR NEIGHBORS. THAT'S BOTTOM LINE WHAT WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU. I AGREE WITH MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS. YOU CAN HAVE ALL SORTS OF COMPUTATIONS. I KNOW THE ENGINEERS CONFUSE A LOT OF THINGS AND THEY DON'T WORK. 
          [01:50:05]
SOMEBODY NEEDS TO GO BACK DTO TE DRAWING BOARD TO SEE WHAT IS NOT WORKING BECAUSE THAT'S JUST 
          BETTER FOR EVERYBODY. >>ON THIS NORTHERN SLOPE AREA, HAS THAT AREA BEEN ALREADY 
          AFFECTED BY THAT? >> I BELIEVE THIS AREA THROUGH HERE HAS BEEN FILLED IN. I THINK 
          THIS AREA WAS MAYBE A LITTLE BIT, BUT I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE. >>IS THIS A SECURE ENTRANCE WAY? 
          >> NO. >>CAN I GET IN THERE ANYTIME I WANT TO? 
          >> YES. >>I HAVE NOT SEEN THAT AREA WAS FILLED BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO 
          TO AGGRAVATE IT MORE. I NEED TO GET MY EYES ON THIS AS WELL. >>I'M PRETTY SURE WE HAVE THIS 
          FILLED ALREADY. THIS WAS AN AREA WE WERE TRYING TO CLOSE OUT. >>ALL RIGHT. THIS IS FOR INFORMATION. I THINK IT'S FOR YOUR ACTION. I THINK EVERYBODY HERE WOULD LIKE IT PROMPT. THANK 
          YOU. >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>THANK YOU. 
          >>WE'LL MOVE ON. >>IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS OR LEAVE, IT WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO DO IT NOW BECAUSE WE HAVE MORE BUSINESS TO TAKE CARE OF. 
          >>THE MEETING IS NOT CLOSED ? >> NO. I JUST DIDN'T WANT CONVERSATIONS TAKING PLACE IN 
          THE CHAMBER. >>IF YOU WILL TAKE YOUR CONVERSATIONS OUTSIDE, WE WOULD 
          [B.  Update on Crabby's Dockside Lease]
          APPRECIATE IT. >>OKAY, NOW I THINK WE CAN MOVE ON. 
          >>NEXT, WE HAVE THE  
          DOCKSIDE LEASE >>YES, I BELIEVE WE HAVE A BRIEF UPDATE ON THE TITLE AND 
          COMPLETED AND SEEKING DIRECTIONS ON THE COMMENTS. >> MADAM MAYOR. I'M HERE FOR AN UPDATE ON WHERE WE STOOD WITH THIS CURRENT LEASE AND WE WEREN'T SURE IF WE WERE GOING TO HAVE THE TITLE REPORT BACK FOR THIS MEETING, BUT WE DO. IT IS ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA. THIS DISCUSSION ITEM HERE TODAY IS REALLY TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THAT TITLE REPORT WHICH IS AGAIN ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA. WE JUST RECEIVED IT IN THE MIDDLE OF LAST WEEK. IT DID SHARE AND INDICATE THERE WAS NOT ADDITIONAL ENCUMBRANCES ON THE PROPERTY AND THAT CAME FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY TO INDICATE WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ADDITIONAL LOANS OR MORTGAGES ON THE PROPERTY. BASED ON THAT INFORMATION, WE WOULD LIKE TO GET DIRECTION FROM YOU ON HOW TO MOVE FORWARD AND COLLECTING OUTSTANDING AMOUNTS THAT ARE OWED AND SELECTION FOR THE TENANT. THESE ARE NEXT STEPS BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE LEASE. 
          >>COMMISSIONERS? >> CITY COMMISSIONER ARNOLD GAINES: THANK YOU FOR THE TITLE REPORT. AS FAR AS THE LEASE, I WOULD LIKE FOR THE LEASE TO BEGIN AND FOR COLLECTION FOR 
          WHATEVER THE CITY AND TAXPAYERS ARE OWED. >>I WOULD ECHO THAT. AND TO BE CLEAR FOR THE PUBLIC. I UNDERSTAND THEY ARE THE ONLY TITLE HOLDER ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY. THEY DIDN'T GO OUT AND DO A SIDE DEAL WITH SOMEBODY ELSE AND BRING THEM ON. SO WE HAVE A CLEAR TITLE JUST WITH THEM, SO THAT SHOULDN'T PROVIDE ANY HINDRANCE WITH US PURSUING THEM FOR ANY DAMAGES OBVIOUSLY, FOR A TERM LEASE AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT AND UNDERSTAND THE 
          [01:55:06]
FINANCIAL OPPORTUNITY, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO LEARNING ALL OF THAT BECAUSE IT'S A FINAL CALCULATION AT THIS POINT TO LEARN WHAT IS THE POTENTIAL BENEFIT IF IT HAD BEEN IN GOOD STEWARDS AND DID NOT PAY NOW UNTIL THE PROPERTY WAS PAID AND THAT DOES TELL ONE BIG FINANCIAL P PICTURE OF WHAT WAS OWED TO FORT PIERCE. 
          >>THE TITLE REPORT, THERE IS NO ONE HAUNTING US ANYTIME SOON. THIS IS A LAND LEASE DEAL AND 
          THEIR IMPROVEMENTS ON TOP OF THAT. >>CORRECT. 
          >>SO, BEING THAT'S THE CASE, FROM A COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE PERSPECTIVE, MADAM ATTORNEY, IS 
          THERE AN ACCELERATOR ON THE LEASE? >> I WILL LOOK INTO THAT. 
          >>IT'S TO ACCELERATE ALL THE RENT THAT IS DUE FOR THE LEASE WHICH IS IN THE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS BUT WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO MITIGATE THE DAMAGES TO RERENT THE SPACE TO LIMIT THE FAULTING TENANTS THE FAULT. SO HAVING SAID THAT, IT WOULD APPEAR WE HAVE MULTIPLE TRACKS TO GO DOWN HERE. I'M NOT SURE ON THE IMPROVEMENTS OF THE LEASE LAND IS CONVEYED. IT'S IMPROVEMENT ON THE REAL ESTATE THAT THE CITY OWNS, BUT TECHNICALLY BY THEM DEFAULTING, 
          DO WE THEN TAKE OWNERSHIP OF THE IMPROVEMENTS? >> MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS, WE DO. ONCE THE DETERMINATION OF THE LEASE IS FINALIZED WHETHER IT'S THE TERMINATION FOR OTHER RECESS, THE PROJECT DOES BECOME OURS UNDER THE LEASE, WHAT IS BUILT BECOMES OURS. BASICALLY ANYTHING NOT AFFIXED TO THE BUILDING IS REMOVED WITH A CORE PLUGGED IN. ANYTHING IN THE BUILDING AFFIXED TO THE BUILDING, THE BUILDING ITSELF BECOMES OUR PROPERTY. 
          >>HAVING SAID THAT, THERE IS NOT TO MITIGATE THE DAMAGES BY SECURES ANOTHER TENANT? 
          >> CORRECT. >>SO WE HAVE A CLEAR SCOPE TO TRY TO RERENT THE SPACE TO MITIGATE THE DAMAGES FOR THE CITY. WE HAVE A DEFAULT OBJECT A COUPLE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS, AND THIS DEFAULT COULD BECOME EXTENSIVELY LARGER THAN THAT BUT WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO MITIGATE THAT. HAVING SAID THAT, MY POSITION IS ANYTHING THAT GUARANTEE US THAT WE HAVE THE OWNERSHIP OF IMPROVEMENT BECAUSE WE CAN'T LEASE SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T OWN. I THINK WE TRIED SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN THE PAST. THAT'S A DISCUSSION FOR ANOTHER DAY. HAVING SAID THAT, IF THE IMPROVEMENT IS THERE, NOW TO OUR BENEFIT, GREAT. WE CAN GET ANOTHER TENANT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE TO NOT ONLY COMMENCE WITH GENERATING THE INCOME BUT THE TENANTS DEFAULTING ON THE MONEYS OWED. THIS IS A ONE BUSINESS LLC THAT OWN THIS RESTAURANT HERE IN THAT WHEN WE PUSH FOR COLLECTION ON THIS, WILL ROLL THIS INTO BANKRUPTCY COURT AND WALK AWAY WITH NOTHING. HOWEVER, WE IMMEDIATELY PURSUE ALL DAMAGES ALLOWABLE TO US ON THE LAW, PRESS THE ISSUE AND THEY HAVE TO RESPOND TO THAT. AS LONG AS WE HAVE CONTROL O THE STRUCTURE AND THE BUILDING ITSELF AND THE PROPERTY, WE CAN THEN GO ON THE SECOND TRACK TO RELEASE THE SPACE TO ANOTHER QUALIFIED TENANT. THEY MAY WANT TO SETTLE THIS. SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS SHOULD TAKE PLACE CURRENTLY. THAT'S GOING TO BE A TRICKY SCENARIO. SO I'M STRONGLY SUGGESTING TO MOVE FORWARD TO COLLECT ON THE ENTIRETY OF THAT. THAT'S GOING TO BRING IT TO THE TABLE UNLESS I WANT TO WALK INTO BANKRUPTCY COURT AND THE ASSETS ARE SITTING THERE. IF THAT DOESN'T GO BACK TO US, THEY HAVE NOTHING. SO I'M SPECULATING. I'M SURE THE ATTORNEYS HAVE ADVISED 
          [02:00:11]
ON THIS ALREADY. THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE COMES OUT THE LOSERS HERE, THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, HOWEVER, THIS GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET THE POTENTIAL TENANTS WHO ARE WILLING TO TAKE 
          THIS PROPERTY ON AND MAKE IT A SUCCESS? >> COMMISSIONER DZADOVSKY: THE 
          COMMISSION HAS YET TO TERMINATE IT, CORRECT? >> I DON'T THINK THAT IS 
          CORRECT. THE TENANTS DEFAULTED. >>IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THIS IS A $4 MILLION BUILD WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY DONE. THE CITY IS GOING TO GET AN ASSET, A REVENUE STREAM. FOR THOSE FOLKS TO JUST WALK AWAY IS INTERESTING, BUT THERE COULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY TO GET A RESTAURANTER YOU TO GET THERE QUICKER TO GET THESE OPPORTUNITIES TO PAY THE LEASE PAYMENTS AND THE TAXES ABOUT $215,000, GIVE OR TAKE. THE CITY WOULD NOT BE OUT FOR THAT 215, REGAIN THE ASSET OF THE BUILDING AND A LEASE AND THE PROPERTY GOING FORWARD BECAUSE WE ARE 
          GOING TO OWN THE BUILDING AND THE LAND. >>YOU ARE SAYING A SUB LET AND 
          ASSIGNMENT?  I DON'T RECALL SEEING THIS PROVISION. >>IF IT DOESN'T EXIST, IT COULD 
          BE AUCTIONED, I BELIEVE. >>COMMISSIONERS, THIS LEASE DOES ALLOW FOR ASSIGNMENT. THAT HAS TO BE DONE AT THE CITY COMMISSION'S PERMISSION. THERE HAS TO BE WRITTEN PERMISSION FOR THAT. IT DOES SPECIFY IN THE LEASE. THE LEASE STILL DOES EXIST. WE HAVE NOT OFFICIALLY TERMINATED THAT LEASE AT THIS POINT IN TIME. THE ASSIGNMENT WOULD BE UNDER THE LEASE IF THAT 
          IS SOMETHING THE CITY COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER. >> SO I'M RAISING THIS ISSUE TO YOU BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL TAKES A TIME. AND RESERVATIONS ARE GOING TO BE NECESSARY TO MAKE IT MORE VIABLE GOING FORWARD FOR THE OPINIONS OF THE WORLD. I CAN TELL YOU THERE IS AN OPTION TO MOVE IT FASTER. IF WE GIVE THE CURRENT OWNER 60 DAYS TO NEGOTIATE A TRANSFER OF A LEASE WITH A PROVISION THAT CAN BE REVIEWED AND BRING TO US AS A BEST POSSIBLE OPTION AND THAT WAY YOU GET A NEW VIABLE RESTAURANTEUR AND THEY PAY $15,000 BACK TO THE TAXPAYERS AND WE GET THE BUILDING THAT IS THE BUILDING AND THE LAND GOING FORWARD, SO THAT'S THE LEASE OF THE WHOLE BUILDING. WE GET A $4 MILLION BENEFIT. I COULDN'T BELIEVE THERE WASN'T A MORTGAGE ON THIS. WHEN I SAW THAT, I ABOUT CHOKED BACK. I THINK THAT ALSO PROVIDES FOR WHOEVER MIGHT WANT TO COME IN TO INVEST SIGNIFICANTLY. THEY HAVE TO KNOW THE WHEREWITHAL TO RUN A RESTAURANT TO MAKE IT VIABLE. I THINK THE AREA IS CONDUCIVE FOR A SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT TO OVERLOOK THE MARINA WHICH WAS ONE OF THE ARGUES THAT WAS NOT THE BEST POSSIBLE DESIGN FOR WHAT WAS INTENDED. I SUGGEST WE TAKE A LOOK AT THAT THROUGH, MADAM ATTORNEY, THINK ABOUT THAT TO GET IT DONE FASTER AND SECURING THE INVESTMENT ON THE TAXPAYERS 
          TO TRANSFER THE LEASE. >>CITY COMMISSIONER ARNOLD GAINES: COMMISSIONER, IT IS MY 
          [02:05:09]
UNDERSTANDING THAT WAS ALREADY UNDER THE LEASE AND WAS ALREADY TALKED ABOUT IN DEALING WITH THIS WHOLE LEASE. TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, IF I GOT A TENANT, I DON'T WANT THEM DOING ANYTHING THEY HAVE ALREADY SHOWN THEIR HANDS TO US AND I AGREE IT'S A QUICK WAY. IF THE ASSIGNMENT HASN'T COME WITH ALL THE COMMUNICATIONS THAT WE HAVE WITH THIS TENANT, IT'S NOT GOING TO COME BACK NOW. IF YOU SAY 60 DAYS TO DO SOMETHING, I DON'T THINK THEY WILL DO. THEY 
          LITERALLY JUST WALKED AWAY. >>I DON'T THINK IT'S OFFICIAL WHICH IS WHY THIS MEETING WE ARE 
          HAVING IT AND IF THERE IS SOME KIND OF OFFICIAL POSITION. >>I THINK THE REAL OPPORTUNITY, THIS MEETING IS GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THIS AN OFFICIAL OPPORTUNITY TO GET OUR FOLKS TO CONSIDER THAT. I AGREE WITH YOU AND THAT'S FINE. IF THE COMMISSION WANTS TO GO THAT ROUTE, I WOULD SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO GET IT OUT, BECAUSE, ME PERSONALLY, I THINK THE FIVE OF US THE HELP OF OUR CITY STAFF, CAN FIND A BETTER PERSON TO GO DOWN ON THAT SPOT BECAUSE IT'S AN IDEAL SPOT. PEOPLE HAVE BEEN WATCHING IT AND I'M PRETTY SURE THERE IS SOME PERSON WHO OWNS A RESTAURANT OR BEEN WATCHING ALL OF THIS ON THE NEWS WAITING ON US TO MAKE A MOVE TO APPROACH US. THEY MIGHT CALL THE FORMER TENANT AND SAY, HEY, TAKE THEM UP ON THSIS. LET'S TALK. I DON' KNOW. I DON'T HAVE GOOD FAITH THAT IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. I HAVE TO NOT LET THIS KEEP GOING. 
          THAT SPOT IS TOO CRITICAL TO DOWNTOWN AREA. AND JUST TO CLOSE THEIR DOORS AND WALK AWAY, THAT'S NOT HOW YOU DO BUSINESS WITH A CALL. THAT'S WHAT THE COMMISSION WANTS TO DO. I WILL 
          THINK ABOUT IT AND GO FROM THERE. >>DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING. MADAM 
          ATTORNEY, SHE WAS TRYING TO SAY SOMETHING. >>I'M SORRY. 
          >>MS. HEDGES? >> I DID HAVE A BRIEF CONVERSATION WITH THEIR ATTORNEY. THEY DO HAVE AN ATTORNEY ON THIS CASE AND REQUESTED ALL COMMUNICATIONS GO THROUGH THEIR ATTORNEY. SOMETHING WE DO AS WELL. WEIGHED CONVERSATION LAST WEEK ABOUT THEIR PLANS GOING FORWARD, THE IDEA OF AN ASSIGNMENT DID COME UP. MR. CHESS INDICATED THAT PREVIOUSLY AND WE DID BRING THAT UP TO THEM. I'M AWAITING PROVIDING INFORMATION WITH THE POSSIBILITY REGARDING AN ASSIGNMENT. PRELIMINARY CONVERSATIONS, WE NEED TO WORK OUT A SETTLEMENT. IF THERE IS AN INTEREST, THEY WILL GET BACK TO ME. IT IS AN UPDATE ON THE CRAB SIDE LEASE. WE DON'T TAKE OFFICIAL ACTION, MORE OF A COURTESY TO THE PUBLIC SO THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE DOING. IF WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OFFICIAL ACTION, I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE IN LINE WITH OUR PAST PRACTICES TO PLACE THAT ON THE NEXT MEETING. WE DO SO WITH A RESOLUTION. IF THE CONSENSUS TONIGHT IS TO LOOK TOWARDS SOME SORT OF ASSIGNMENT OR 
          SETTLEMENT, IN THE MEANTIME, I CAN CONTINUE TO DO THAT. >>I'M GLAD THERE IS THAT PATHWAY 
          [02:10:04]
AND I'M GLAD YOU HAD THAT CONVERSATION WITH THEIR ATTORNEY. I THINK FOR ME, IT'S LOOKING AT, WE HAVE A SCHEDULED COMMISSION MEETING WHERE WE WILL BE NOTICING THAT. I WOULD LIKE TO BE IN THE POSITION TO COME INTO THAT MEETING, BUT ALSO, LETTING THEM KNOW THAT YOU HAVE UNTIL NOW OR THEN TO GET INTO THIS ASSIGNMENT AND GET BACK TO US. IF BY NOT THEN, THEN I'M HERE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE TERMINATE THIS AND BEGIN THE CLAW BACK TO BE SURE WE HAVE EVERYTHING WE NEED AND LET'S STAND UP WHATEVER WE NEED TO WITH AN RFP PROCESS, PUT IT OUT THERE FOR SOLICIT WHATEVER WE NEED TO GET THIS ASSET BACK ONLINE. FOR ME THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. IT'S REAL SIMPLE. THREE WEEKS, I THINK THAT'S PLENTY OF TIME TO SEE IF THEY WANT TO TAKE THIS ASSIGNMENT. IF THEY DO, THEY NEED TO COMMIT TO IT AND WE GIVE THEM A PERIOD OF TIME. I'M NOT GOING MORE THAN TWO MONTHS, 60 DAYS, MAYBE TWO MONTHS. IF THEY CAN'T MOVE FORWARD, WE HAVE 
          TO MOVE ON. THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. >>ON THE ASSIGNMENT ISSUE, ON THE LEASE ASSIGNMENT, THE TENANT IS SIGNING THE LEASE AND BENEFITS AND RESPONSIBILITY TO A NEW TENANT, WHICH AS A LANDLORD WE HAVE TO GIVE A BLESSING TO THAT. LET'S FOLLOW THE PATH TO THE IMPROVEMENTS. THE IMPROVEMENTS WERE INSTALLED BY THE TENANT. IN A LEASE ASSIGNMENT, DO THE IMPROVEMENTS FLOW TO THE ASSIGNED TENANT?  WE DON'T TAKE POSSESSION OF THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE PROPERTY, THE NEW TENANT DOES. I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THAT. BECAUSE HE'S SAYING, I WANT OWNERSHIP TO THOSE IMPROVEMENTS AND BEING ABLE TO PUT IT OUT TO THE TENANT AND WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE 
          OBLIGATIONS. THOSE IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE ASSIGNMENT. >>MADAM MAYOR, MAYBE SEMANTICS. 
          THE PROPERTY WOULD RUN WITH THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE ASSIGNMENT. THOSE WILL STAY WITH THE CITY'S OWNERSHIP AT THIS POINT THAT WOULD MOVE TO THE NEXT OPERATOR. TYPICALLY UNDER AN ASSIGNMENT, THEY REMAIN AS THEY ARE. IF THERE IS AN AMENDMENT, WE WILL DO AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT AS WELL. FOR EXAMPLE, IF THEY NEED ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION, THAT WOULD BE AN AMENDMENT AND THERE WOULD BE A VETTING PROCESS BY THE CITY. IT'S NOT W WILLY-NILLY. 
          >>WHERE DOES THE PUBLIC COME IN BECAUSE THAT WAS THE PROBLEM FROM THE GET-GO WITH THIS WHOLE SITUATION BECAUSE EVERYBODY WANTED A TICKET AND CRABBIES CAME IN AND IT IS WHAT IT IS. MY QUESTION IS IF IT HAPPENS, WILL THE PUBLIC HAVE THE CHANCE TO SAY COME IN TO MAKE COMMENTS. 
          BECAUSE I WANT THE PUBLIC INVOLVED IN IT BECAUSE WHAT I DON'T WANT IS WE ALL READ IT AND THE WHOLE DISCUSSIONS THAT IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN THERE. WHATEVER WE DO, LET'S MAKE SURE WE HEAR THE PUBLIC'S VOICE BEFORE THIS ASSIGNMENT IF IT'S CAN PUT THE CHAIN THAT WE WANT OR SOMETHING WE ALL WANT. IF THE PUBLIC DOESN'T WANT IT, THEY ARE NOT GOING TO EAT THERE AND WE'LL BE IN THE SAME SITUATION WE ARE IN NOW. SO LET'S MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE PUBLIC INPUT. THANK 
          YOU, MA'AM. >>YES, THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC MEETING AND PUBLIC COMMENT AVAILABLE. ASSIGNED FROM THE PREVIOUS OPERATOR TO THE CURRENT OPERATOR WITH THE SAME PROVISION 
          [02:15:05]
          AND PROCESS. >>I THINK WE HAVE A CONSENSUS THAT WE ARE GOING TO INVESTIGATE THROUGH YOUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THEIR ATTORNEY THE POSSIBILITY, IF THEY ARE INTERESTED IN IT AND IF THEY ARE, A TIME LIMIT, BUT I THINK THIS COMMISSION'S FEELING IS AND STRONG WISHES, WE WANT THIS ASSET TO BE PRODUCING AND BRINGING PEOPLE TO DOWNTOWN. WE WANT IT OPERATING LEGALLY AS 
          SOON AS POSSIBLE SUCCESSFULLY. >>CORRECT. >>NO VOTE, DID I SAY THAT RIGHT? 
          >> MADAM MAYOR, YOU COINED IT RIGHT. THIS IS A CENTERPIECE OF DOWNTOWN, AND WE ARE EXPLORING ALL OPTIONS TO LOOK AT THIS. I THINK IT'S REFRESHING TO HEAR IT AND AT LEAST MS. HEDGES HAS HAD CONTACT WITH THEIR ATTORNEY. I THINK WE HAVE ANOTHER TIME CERTAIN DATE THAT WE ARE MEETING AND I JUST WANT THAT, IF IT'S OKAY WITH THE COMMISSION THAT WE CONVEY THAT BY THAT TIME WE READ 
          IN -- WE NEED TO HEAR THIS ACTION. >>OKAY. 
          [11. CONSENT AGENDA]
          >>ARE WE CLEAR? >> YES, MA'AM. >>THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA   
          WOULD ANYONE WANT TO PULL ANY ITEM? >> I WOULD LIKE TO PULL ITEM C. 
          >>OKAY. I'M GLAD YOU ARE DOING THAT. ANY OTHER ITEM? >> 
          >>WITH THAT, I MOVE WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA EXCEPT FOR ITEM C. 
          [C.  Approval of expenditure for Annual Purchase Order with Waste Management for Solid Waste Landfill Fees in an amount not to exceed $1,650,000.00.]
          >>WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. >> CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. 
          >> C. APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURE FOR ANNUAL PURCHASE ORDER WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT FOR SOLID WASTE LANDFILL FEES IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,650,000.00. 
          >>YES, WE ARE WAITING ON, WHO FROM PUBLIC WORKS IS GOING TO ADDRESS THIS?  MR. JOHNSON WILL 
          BE ADDRESSING THIS. >>THANK YOU. >>COMMISSIONERS, ONE OF THE REASONS I WANTED TO PULL THIS IS I RECALL UNDER PREVIOUS PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT SOME IMBALANCES, OF LANDFILL INCREASES. I NOTED SOME ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS DONE ON BULK PICK UP SYSTEM HERE AND WE WERE GOING WITH THINGS BEING ANNE ANNEXATION, AND WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE AND ARE WE SEEING A TREND THAT HAVE GONE UP IN PRICES, I'M SURE FOR THAT. THERE WAS A BIG DISCUSSION ABOUT TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE AMOUNT OF DEBRIS OUT THERE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A LIMIT AND PEOPLE ARE PUTTING IT OUT AND WE ARE STILL BEING CHARGED TO DUMP IT. THERE WAS A WHOLE EXERCISE TO BRING THE COMMUNITY ALONG TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND THAT. BECAUSE THE COST WILL BE PASSED ALONG SOMEWHERE. WHAT IS THE TREND, WHAT ARE WE SEEING AND OBVIOUSLY, THIS HAS BEEN MORE THAN WE HAVE PAID LAST YEAR. I 
          WANT TO UNDERSTANDING AND WANT THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND THAT. >>DEPARTMENT CITY MANAGER, INTERIM DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS. COMMISSION, AS YOU STATED PER THE DIRECTOR, MR. ATKINSON AND SOLID WASTE MANAGER AND WE CAME UP WITH A PRICE INCREASE. THERE IS A PUBLIC INFORMATION PERSPECTIVE AND ALSO WHAT WE ARE BEGINNING TO DO AND SEE THAT WILL COME BEFORE THIS COMMISSION SUCH AS COMING UP WITH METHODOLOGIES FOR, WHICH TO CHART FOR THOSE PICK UPS. I HAVE 
          [02:20:01]
BEEN WORKING WITH OUR CITY MANAGER AND OUR DEPUTY CITY MANAGER WITH REGARD TO PLACING IN OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT IN REGARD TO PLACING CAMERAS IN SOME OF THESE AREAS THAT BECOME NUANCES WHERE THERE IS DUMPING ON THEIR PROPERTIES. THEY ARE NOT DOING IT BUT SOMEONE IS. WE ARE FIGURING OUT WHAT WE ARE ABLE TO DO. A CITY HAS A LOT THAT OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT HAS BEEN GOING FORWARD AND WILL BE OUR PET PROJECT IN PROOF OF CONCEPT IN PARKED CARS, FISH FRIES, A BUNCH OF STUFF GOING ON ON THE NORTH SIDE. IF IT'S PUBLIC PROPERTY ON THE CITY SIDE AND SOME OF THESE OTHER PLACES, WE HAVE IDENTIFIED HOT SPOTS THAT WE ARE AWARE OF AND TO MITIGATE THESE SPACES AND FINE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING IT. I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT TRENDS IN FRONT OF ME. WE WILL GET THOSE TO YOU. WE PRESENTED THE CASE TO YOU AND YOU ARE LOOKING FOR THE 
          CHANGE IN THE STRUCTURE RATE? >> RIGHT. THAT LEADS ME TO THE QUESTION. WE MAY NEED TO 
          REVISIT. HAS THAT GONE INTO EFFECT? >> YES, SIR. 
          >>YES, IN OCTOBER. >>WE ARE OBVIOUSLY, ABLE TO MEET THIS OBLIGATION AS A RESULT OF 
          THAT OR STILL FALLING SHORT? >> IT'S INCREASING BUT BASED ON THE PROJECTION IT WAS PRESENTED DURING THAT PRESENTATION, THIS WOULD HAVE COVERED WHERE WE KNEW WE WERE HEADED. 
          >>OKAY. DEALING WITH THIS, IF WE NEED TO KEEP AN EYE ON THIS, OBVIOUSLY, BUDGET AND WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ADDRESS THIS, AND WHERE I SEE IT TROUBLES THIS COMMUNITY AND I HAVE SEEN ENTIRE BLOCKS AND PEOPLE PUT IT ON THE BLOCK. ONE ASPECT IS MAKING IMPROVEMENTS. I GET IT, BUT I KNOW THERE IS A COST AND WE ARE PROBABLY ONE OF THE FEW CITIES THAT PICK UP ANY AND EVERYTHING AND THE AMOUNT THAT IS BEING PICKED UP BETWEEN YARD DEBRIS VERSUS CONSTRUCTION. LITERALLY SOMEONE GETS EVICTED AND THE LANDLORD PUTS IT ALL ON THE CURB. AND WE SEE TIRES AND THIS HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION TO HOW MUCH YOU DUMP BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DO THAT ALTOGETHER AND REQUIRES SOME TRIPS AND WE ARE CHARGED BY THE TONNAGE. THE MORE TONNAGE THAT'S THERE, WE ARE CHARGED. THIS IS SOME PUBLIC INFORMATION. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BEGIN TO HELP OUR COMMUNITY UNDERSTAND BECAUSE THE ANSWER IS GOING TO TO BE REAL SIMPLE FOR ME. THE PRICE IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO GO UP AS THE SYSTEM CONTINUES TO BE ABUSED. 
          >>YES, SIR. WE ARE PUTTING FORTH EFFORTS TO THE KNOWN ISSUES SUCH AS TIRES, DEBRIS. SOLID WASTE IS WORKING WITH OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT TEAM BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN INSTANCES WHERE THERE IS A CASE WITH A CODE AND THEY GO PICK IT UP. WE HAVE AN ISSUE. THERE IS A GREATER COMMUNICATION THERE. WE HAVE PUT IN PLACE THE SOLID WASTE TEAM. THEY GO OUT AND IF THEY SEE A PARTICULAR AREA OR SITE, THEY IMMEDIATELY CALL CODE ENFORCEMENT. IF THAT SITE HAS A CASE AGAINST IT, COVERED GOES OUT TO DETERMINE THE NEXT STEPS. WE MAKE SURE IT'S DOCUMENTED AND WE ARE NOT 
          JUST PICKING IT UP AND WONDERING. >>THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME KNOW THAT. MAYBE I WILL STOP CALLING SO MUCH. I'M GOING TO GIVE IT THE BENEFIT OF THE DOWN, BUT EVEN AT SOME POINT WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME FINALITY BECAUSE WE WANT A CLEAN CITY AND SOME OF 
          THIS STUFF IS OUT OF CONTROL. >>YES, SIR. >>MAYOR LINDA HUDSON: OKAY. 
          [02:25:09]
          COMMISSIONER BRODERICK? >> CITY COMMISSIONER MICHAEL BRODERICK: THIS IS A GREAT QUESTION. THIS INFURIATES ME. THERE IS NOTHING TO DO ABOUT IT AND SHUT UP. I WILL NOT APPROVE ONE SENT FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT. I'M GOING TO BE A PROTEST VOTE TO SAY NO. I'M UNWILLING TO SPEND A DIME WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT AND WATER TO SUBJECTING THEIR RESIDENTS OF FORT PIERCE FOR THIS AND HAULING OUT IN OTHER PLACES TO DUMP INSTEAD OF HANDLING IT IN MIAMI. 
          I VOTE FIRST ANYTIME. I'M GOING TO VOTE NO BECAUSE I'M NOT GOING TO APPROVE SPENDING ONE PENNY TO THE BENEFIT OF WASTE MANAGEMENT. WE ARE BOTH MAKING MONEY OFF THESE TRASH TRAINS COMING FROM MIAMI RUNNING THROUGH OUR CITY CAUSING PROBLEMS. THEY ARE NOT MY FAVORITE VENDOR. 
          >>IF I MAY, SUPPOSEDLY I HAVE A MEETING WITH THE GOVERNMENT OF AFFAIRS IN WASTE MANAGEMENT OFFICES, AND ON THE 30TH OF MARCH, THEY HAD THIS PROPOSED TIM 
          TIMELINE. >>I WILL GIVE YOU WHAT THEY TOLD ME, THAT WAS SIX MONTHS AGO. 
          THEY ARE FULL OF IT. THERE WAS FIVE OF THEM THAT CAME LIKE A SWAT TEAM AND THEY LECTURD ME FOR AN HOUR. SO TO CONTACT THE CITY AND STICK IT. I'M APOLOGIZING FOR MY SENTIMENTS ON THIS. THEY ARE BOTH SHOULD BE TAKEN OUT BEHIND THE WOODSHED AND HAVE THE CRAP BEATEN OUT OF 
          THEM. I HAVE A NO VOTE. >>THE FACT THAT THIS COULD BE A 20 YEAR CONTRACT, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING IT FOR ARE THAT REASON, NO. 1. THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS IS THE NOTION TOOLS ARE IN OUR HANDS WHETHER TO APPROVE THIS OR NOT. AND AS YOU SAID, THEY HAVEN'T BEEN GOOD NEIGHBORS. THEY HAVE NOT BEEN GOOD PARTICIPANTS IN THIS. I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE SHOPPED THIS AROUND FOR A BETTER PRICE OR BETTER OPPORTUNITIES. OF COURSE THE COUNTY HAS THEIR OWN. 
          IT'S JUST DOWN THE STREET RATHER THAN GOING ALL THE WAY OUT THERE TO KECHOBIE -- I BELIEVE THERE IS A BETTER OPPORTUNITY. I'M CERTAINLY NOT MOVING TOWARDS A 25 YEAR OPTION. I'M INGESTION 
          IT'S 90 DAYS. >>YES, 90 DAYS. >>COMMERC 
          >>COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A CONTRACT IN PLACE. THIS IS SIMPLY TO APPROVE PUBLIC WORKS EXPENDITURE UNDER AN EXISTING CONTRACT. THERE ARE TERMS FOR TERMINATING THAT CONTRACT, TERMS FOR RENEWAL OF THE CONTRACT. MY UNDERSTANDING, SPEAKING WITH THE CITY MANAGER IS HE IS WELL AWARE OF THE DEADLINES AND LOOKING INTO THAT FOR THE FUTURE. CURRENTLY THIS CONTRACT ALREADY EXISTS AND WE ARE ALREADY IN AN AGREEMENT FOR THIS PURCHASE. SO, WITH THAT BEING SAID, I DON'T 
          KNOW HOW MUCH WIGGLE ROOM YOU HAVE. >>WITH THAT 15 YEAR CONTRACT, 2027. WE HAVE ONE YEAR LEFT ON THIS CONTRACT. WE DON'T HAVE TO APPROVE THE OTHER TWO FIVE YEAR RENEWALS AND WE CAN START WITH THIS IN JANUARY 27TH. I THINK THE COMPETITION BODES WELL FOR THE TAXPAYERS, BEING ABLE TO MANAGE IT IN A MUCH BETTER PROCESS. BACK WITH THE IDEA THEY ARE NOT GOOD NEIGHBORS. THEY HAVE NOT BEEN APPROPRIATE AND WE EVEN HAD THE CONGRESSMAN WEIGH IN. HE'S GETTING NOWHERE EITHER. IF YOUR CONGRESSMAN CAN'T GET ANYWHERE AND FORT PIERCE IS 
          [02:30:08]
TRYING TO DO WHAT THEY CAN TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS, AND THE FACT THAT MIAMI AND FDC REALLY ARE JUST ABUSING THIS TOWN IS JUST WRONG. IT'S ABSOLUTELY WRONG. I DON'T WANT TO TAKE THIS ANY FURTHER. IT'S GOOD TO JANUARY 2027. I THINK THERE IS PLENTY OF TIME AND TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THEM AND LOOK TO SEE WHAT OTHER OPPORTUNITIES ARE AVAILABLE TO US. IT HAS A LANDFILL, ST. LUCIE HAS A LANDFILL. THERE IS OPTIONS. I THINK THIS IS A GOOD TIME TO 
          HAVE THAT CONVERSATION TO GET A BETTER DEAL FOR THE CITIZENS. >> I HEAR YOU, COMMISSIONERS. I AGREE. THERE ARE TWO VOTES AND WE HAVEN'T HAD A VOTE YET. WHAT HAPPENS IF WHEN WE CALL THESE NAMES AND YOU GET A THIRD VOTE TONIGHT, HOW DOES THIS AFFECT THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE IF WE DON'T APPROVE THIS?  HOW DOES THIS AFFECT THE OPERATIONS? 
          >> WE NEED TO CONTINUE OPERATIONS TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE SERVICE. THIS IS IN ADDITION FOR PO THIS EXPIRES MARCH 31, 2027. WE HAVE TO LET THEM KNOW 90 DAYS BEFORE. I CERTAINLY RECOMMEND WE APPROVE THIS PURCHASE ORDER TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THE SERVICES BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE AT THIS STAGE AND WE HAVE TO PREPARE FOR THAT AND THEN WE ARE START THE PROCESS OF SHOPPING OUT AND GETTING A BETTER PRICE AND BETTER SERVICES. 
          >>MAYOR LINDA HUDSON: MR. CHESS AND I HAVE COME UP WITH A NUMBER OF CONVERSATIONS WITH THE TRACK TIME AND HOW MUCH TIME IT TAKES TO TERMINATE IT AND TO BE READY TO DO SOMETHING ELSE AND YOU ARE ALREADY THINKING ALONG THOSE LINES. I THINK THE COMMISSION OUGHT TO HAVE INPUT INTO THAT IF 
          WE WANT TO TERMINATE IT EARLY, WE HAVE A CONTRACT IN PLACE. >>WHEN I SPOKE TO THEM, I LET THEM KNOW THAT WE ARE IN A POSITION THAT WE ARE NOT CONSIDERING GOING FORWARD BASED ON THEM NOT BEING RESPONSIVE TO THIS WHOLE TRAIN TRASH AND TRUCK TRASH WITHIN THIS CITY. 
          >>I APPRECIATE THAT. YOU ARE THE CITY MANAGER, THE FACE OF THE CITY. I'M JUST UP HERE AND PISSED AT THESE GUYS COLLECTIVELY. IF THAT MEANS THE CONVENIENCE OF BEING HERE, IT'S NOT GOING TO END PRETTY. I WON'T EVEN GO INTO DETAIL. I HAVE NO SUPPORT FOR THIS COMPANY PERIOD. 
          >> I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER GAINS. I'M VERY CURIOUS BECAUSE MY MEETING ALSO DID NOT GO WELL. 
          I WAS TALKED DOWN TO AND TOLD -- >>THAT IS A CONTRACT. >>I UNDERSTAND, WE ARE OUT THERE LOOKING NOW FOR A NEW CONTRACT. WE WILL BE. I DON'T WANT WHAT LANDFILLS DON'T THINK OWN. MY VOTE IS A NO PROTEST. I WANT THEM TO KNOW, TO COME BACK AND WATCH THIS TO KNOW WHEN THEY ARE COMING AND SENDING A REPRESENTATIVE HERE TO SIT DOWN AND TALK TO US, HE'S GOING TO 
          HAVE ONE HELL OF A NIGHT. >>IT WAS REALLY TWO THINGS. I HAD TO MAKE MY POINT ABOUT THE COMMUNITY. WE STILL HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL CHALLENGE WHEREVER WE GO THEY ARE CHARGING FOR WASTE DUMPING AND WE HAVE A CHALLENGE IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE OUR COMMUNITY UNDERSTAND. IF YOU PUT THE THE WHOLE BLOCK OUT THERE AND WE PICK IT UP, AND EVENTUALLY THEY ARE GOING TO CHARGE US FOR PICKING UP THE WHOLE BLOCK. AND WANT THE PUBLIC TO BE CLEAR 
          [02:35:02]
TONIGHT THAT WE ARE NOT VOTING ON A CONTRACT. WE ARE GOING TO EXPLORE THAT TALK NOW TO SEE WHAT'S OUT THERE FOR FUTURE BUSINESS, BUT RIGHT NOW, THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF SERVICE BECAUSE WE ARE ACTIVELY IN A CONTRACT RIGHT NOW. OUR FEES THAT WE HAVE TO MEET. WITH THAT, I'M READY NOVEMBER THIS FORWARD. REAL QUICK, COMMISSIONER JOHNSON, THE WORD IS OUT I HAVE ACTUALLY SEEN STUFF ON SOCIAL MEDIA AND I HAVE HEARD CONVERSATIONS IN FORT PIERCE. 
          OKAY, YOU ARE CUTTING ALL THESE TREES AND YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. THE WORD IS OUT AND THEY ARE NOT PAYING FOR IT. I THINK WHAT THE CITY MANAGER IS TALKING ABOUT AND WE HAVE A THREE MONTH TIMEFRAME TO GET THE WORD OUT. LA LASTLY, WE HAVE TO VOTE FOR THIS BECAUSE IF WE DON'T VOTE, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A BUNCH OF STREETS FULL OF TRASH. 
          >>MAYOR LINDA HUDSON: GUYS, WE NEED TO MOVE ON. >>I READ THIS TO BE THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE FOR THE LAST YEAR OF THE CONTRACT, BUT THE WAY I READ IT, IT WAS GOING TO TO INCLUDE TWO ADDITIONAL FIVE YEAR RENEWALS. THERE IS SOMETHING THERE, A COUPLE WORDS THAT I DIDN'T READ THROUGH. SO I WILL BE SUPPORTING THIS AND NEGOTIATE IMMEDIATELY TO GET 
          THAT DONE. >>I MOVE APPROVAL OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEM C. 
          >>SECOND. >>WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. >>CITY COMMISSIONER MICHAEL 
          BRODERICK: NO. >>THERE IS A CONSENSUS OUT THERE. 
          >>IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA. >>I THINK YOU CAN ADD IT IN TO START CONVERSATIONS WITH OTHER 
          LANDFILL OPPORTUNITIES. >>I'M NOT GOING TO ADD THAT TO MY MOTION. WE HAVE A CONSENT THAT IS ALREADY PUBLISHED. I THINK WE NEED TO PROCEED WITH THE CONSENT AS IT IS AND THEN DO WHATEVER AND DIRECT STAFF IN ANOTHER MOTION THAT WOULD BE I THINK A HIGHLY APPROPRIATE IF 
          THE COMMISSIONER WANTS TO DO THAT. >>COMMISSIONER, JOHNSON, I THINK THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO BOTH. IT DOESN'T AFFECT THE MOTION, WHICH YOU ARE MAKING. IT SIMPLY DIRECTS STAFF TO LOOK INTO OTHER ALTERNATIVES TO NEGOTIATE AND DOES BOTH AT THE 
          SAME TIME. >>WE HAVE THAT DIRECTION NOW, TOO. 
          >>MR. CHESS, DO YOU HAVE THAT DIRECTION? >> THERE WILL BE NO NEGOTIATION BECAUSE WE HAVE TO PUT OUT THE RFP. THAT WILL BE THE PROCESS. IF YOU ARE RECOMMENDING WE CONSIDER DEVELOPING AN RFP FOR FUTURE NEGOTIATION CONSIDERATION, I CAN SEE THAT DIRECTION BEING GIVEN. I CANNOT START SPEAKING TO VENDORS AND START NEGOTIATING. WE HAVE TO 
          HAVE A COMPETITIVE PROCESS. >>AS LONG AS THERE IS A CONSENSUS HERE TO BEGIN DEVELOP 
          THAT PROCESS TO SEE WHAT'S GOING TO UNFOLD. >>YES. 
          >>DID YOU VOTE? >> YES. >>THANK YOU. 
          [A.  Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 26-005 - Review and approval of a Voluntary Annexation by owner, Tony Acerra, to extend the territorial limits of the City of Fort Pierce, Florida, to include one (1) parcel containing 0.19 acres, generally located at or near 2528 South Ocean Drive. The proposed City Future Land Use is Low Density Residential (RL) and the proposed Zoning is Single Family Low Density Zone (R-1). Parcel ID: 2413-501-0154-000-6. FIRST READING.]
          >>
          MR. JOHNSON. >>WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS. WE HAVE A LEGISLATIVE HEARING.  ORDINANCE 26-005 - REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION BY OWNER, TONY ACERRA, TO EXTEND THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, TO INCLUDE ONE (1) PARCEL CONTAINING 0.19 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED AT OR NEAR 2528 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE. THE PROPOSED CITY FUTURE LAND USE IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) AND THE PROPOSED ZONING IS SINGLE FAMILY LOW DENSITY ZONE (R-1). PARCEL ID: 2413-501-0154-000-6. FIRST READING. 
          [02:40:33]
          >>MAYOR LINDA HUDSON: WHO IS BEGINNING. >>I AM YOUR PLANNING DIRECTOR. I HAVE THIS REALLY CLOSE TO MY MOUTH. IF I STRAY AWAY, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. IN ORDER TO CONSIDER EVERYBODY'S TIME THIS EVENING, I HAVE TAKEN ONE PRESENTATION FOR THE NEXT FOUR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA BECAUSE THEY ARE SIMILAR IN NATURE. THEY ARE ALL BROUGHT BY THE SAME APPLICANT. THEY ARE SIMILARLY SITUATED AND THEY HAVE THE SAME REVIEW CRITERIA. 
          >>IN THAT EFFORT, LET'S BEGIN. >>THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED FOUR PETITIONS FOR VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION TO EXTEND THE TERRITORIAL AREAS FOR FORT PIERCE FOR 25-28 SOUTH OCEAN 
          DRIVE. >>MAYOR LINDA HUDSON: ARE YOU PART OF THIS PRESENTATION?  WE 
          ARE NOT READY FOR YOU YET. >>I WILL SPEAK INTO THE MIC. >>PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS VARY BY PROPERTY. AGAIN, WE HAVE FOUR PROPERTIES SUBJECT PROPERTY NO. 
          1 OWNED BY MR. SIERRA. WITH THE PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE OF RESIDENTIAL LOW AND RESIDENTIAL 1 WHICH IS A LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ZONE. THE SECOND TO THE SOUTH OF THE FIRST AND I WILL POINT THESE OUT TO YOU. THE FIRST ONE IS HERE. THE SECOND ONE IS ZONED BY JOHN, WITH PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE OF RESIDENTIAL LOW AND ZONING OF R 1. THEN WE MOVE ON TO THE THIRD PROPERTY WHICH IS THE FALLER MURRAY PROPERTY WHICH IS 1.42 ACRES WITH A PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE OF GENERAL COMMERCIAL AND THE ZONING OF C 3 GENERAL COMMERCIAL. THEN THE FINAL PROPERTY IS NO. 4 DOWN HERE IN THE CORNER. ACERRA NO. 2, RESIDENTIAL LOW FUTURE LAND USE 
          WITH ZONING OF R 1. >>THE SUBJECT PARCELS LOCATE IN THE CITY LIMITS OF THE ISLAND BLUE HERRING AND INTERSECTION. THE PARCELS ARE CURRENTLY VACANT AND CONTAIN MANGROVES. THE VALUE TOTALS $213,000. THE APPLICATIONS FOR VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION BE APPROVED AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF LAND OCCURS, EACH PROPERTY COULD CREATE A NEW SOURCE OF TAX 
          REVENUE. >>FOUR VOLUNTARY ANNEXATIONS LIKE THOSE ON THE DOCKET THIS EVENING, STAFF REVIEWS THEM WITH STATE STATUTE FOR COLONY ANNEXATION. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF ANNEXATION. IS THE LAND REASONABLY COMPACT, REASONABLE IN THE BOUNDARY AND IS AN ENCLAVE CREATED. FOR AN ENC ENCLAVE, IS THE CITY SURROUNDING UNINCORPORATED PROPERTY. NONE OF THESE CASES IS THAT A CONSIDERATION. 
          >>THE ORDER OF CONSIDERATION FOR TONIGHT IS VERY IMPORTANT. I LABELED THEM 1234 FOR A REASON. 
          PROPERTY NO. 1 AND 3, THE ONES IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO A STANDARD OUT RIGHT. THEY ARE ADJACENT TO THE SOUTHERN MOST BOUNDARY OF THE CITY. PROPERTIES 2-4, ONLY IF 1 AND 3 ARE ANNEXED AND BOUNDARY IS EXPANDED. AND ALBERTI IF ACERRA, AND 1 AND 3 IF FOWLER IS PASSED. MUST MEET 
          [02:45:13]
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES. THE PLAN INCLUDES MANY PLANS OF CONSIDERATION AND 11 BE FULFILLED. LOCATION WITHIN THE SERVICE BOUNDARY. AS YOU SEE IN THE BOUNDARY MAP ON THE SLIDE, 
          THE PARCELS LIE WITHIN THIS SERVICE BOUNDARY. >>THE COMP PLAN POLICY 1.11.5 ANNEXED LAND MUST BE ASSIGNED TO SIMILAR LAND USE IN THE COUNTY. IN THE MAP YOU SEE A COMPOSITE OF BOTH THE CITIES FUTURE LAND USE WITH THE COUNTY'S FUTURE LAND USE FOR THESE LANDS. FOR THE LOTS ON THE WEST SIDE OF SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE, THE COUNTY'S USAGE OF RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN TO THE ACRE. UNDER THE PROPOSALS, CITY LAND USE WOULD BE RESIDENTIAL LOW. FOR THE PROPERTY ON THE EAST SIDE, THERE IS A MIXED LAND USE OF COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL URBAN WITH FIVE UNITS TO THE ACRE. THEN FOR THE CITY'S PROPOSED LAND USE IT WOULD BE GENERAL COMMERCIAL. RS ON THE WEST AND SPLIT NOW WHICH WOULD THEN BECOME COMMERCIAL. AS YOU SEE THAT PATTERN FOLLOWS DEVELOPMENT WITH RL AS IS CONTAINED IN THE CITY FOR THE PROPOSAL. WITH CONSIDERATION OF THE LAND USE COMPARED. FOR THE FIRST ANNEXATION, NO. 1, THERE IS THOUGH INCREASE OR DECREASE IN DENSITY AND MAXIMUM OF ONE DWELLING UNIT REGARDLESS OF IN THE COUNTY OR THE CITY. THE SECOND ONE, ALBERTI, THERE IS NO INCREASE OR DECREASE IN DENSITY ALLOWANCES BUT A MAXIMUM OF ONE DWELLING UNIT WOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER THE LAND USE. 
          >>PROPERTY NO. 3 OF THE FOWLER AND MURRAY ANNEXATION, THERE IS NO DECREASE TO THREE RESIDENTIAL UNITS. AND NET LOSS OF ABOUT 15500 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL FLOOR SPACE IF BROUGHT INTO THE 
          CITY. >>FINALLY, THE NO. 4 PROPERTY SHOWS NO DECREASE OR INCREASE, BUT A MAXIMUM OF ONE DWELLING UNIT WOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER THE FUTURE LAND USE PROPOSED. 
          >>SO, SIMILAR TO LAND USE POLICIES, AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, CITY POLICY HAS BEEN TO ASSIGN SIMILAR ZONING DISTRICTS AS THE COUNTY FULL ANNEXATION. CASE BY C IN THIS CASE, THE COUNTY HAS PROVIDED THE ISLAND DISTRICT FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED WEST OF SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE AND SORT OF A MIX WITH THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST WITH GENERAL COMMERCIAL FRONTING ALONG A 1A AND THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY BEING HUTCHINSON ISLAND RESIDENTIAL. THESE FLOW TO LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL R 1 CATEGORY FOR THE CITY AS WELL AS C 3 GENERAL COMMERCIAL WITHIN THE CITY. REQUIRED UNDER THE R 1 ZONING DISTRICT. EITHER THROUGH NON-CONFORMING DISTRICT FOR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. THE POLICY 11.1 PROVIDES FOR REVIEW FOR CRITERIA FOR ANNEXATIONS. 
          THESE ARE THE BASES FOR THE DECISIONS TO ANNEX OR NOT. >>FIRST OFF, CAN THE CITY PROVIDE SERVICES AT EQUAL OR BETTER LEVELS THAN CURRENT PROVIDERS. CAN THE CITY PROVIDE LEVELS AT THE ADOPTED SERVICE, OR COULD BE EXPANDED TO ELIMINATE AN ENCLAVE AND DOES THE CITY REGULATE IN THE CITY BOUNDARY. STAFF ANALYSIS INDICATE THESE STANDARDS HAVE 
          [02:50:01]
          BEEN MET. >>IN COORDINATION WITH THE AFFECTED, THERE ARE ESTABLISHED ORDINANCES AND REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY CODE COMPREHENSION PLAN AND GIVEN THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CONSTRUCT SYSTEMS ON THE PROPERTIES AND REQUIRED TO CONNECT TO WATER AND SEWER SERVICES REQUIRED WHICH WOULD BE REGULATED BY PERMITTING. 1226 MEETING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED 2-1 FOR ANNEXATION. WE AS STAFF RECOMMEND YOU APPROVE THE ANNEXATION, FOR CONSISTENCY WITH STATUTE, TWO BECAUSE OF ITS CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE POLICIES, LIKE TO 11.1, LASTLY, IT DOES NOT AFFECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH SAFE CONVENIENCE AND GENERAL WELFARE. THE COMMISSION MAY RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH CHANGES OR RECOMMEND DENIAL. THAT IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION FOR FOUR ORDINANCES. I THINK THAT IS 
          RECORD TIME. >>MADAM MAYOR? >> I AM OPEN FOR QUESTIONS. 
          >> LINDA COX.. I ONLY READ THE FIRST ORDINANCE. I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY WILL BE DIFFERENT FOR 
          EACH ONE, BUT FOR THE RECORD, WE NEED TO HANDLE EACH SEPARATELY. >>THANK YOU. I AGREE WITH YOU. 
          >>QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >> COMMISSIONER DZADOVSKY: AS PART OF YOUR PRESENTATION, DOES BUILD ON THE PROPERTY CONSIDERATION STATE REGULATIONS WITH MANGROVES AND FOREST? 
          >> THEY ARE NOT ANNEXATION FOR BUILD. WITH DIFFERENT LEVELS OF PERMITTING, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH POLICY TO CONNECT TO SEWER PROVIDED BY WHAT IS FUNDAMENTAL TO POLICIES IN PLACE. THAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE PROCESS AND COMMENTARY WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICANT BUILDING THEIR OWN PRIVATE SEWER CONNECTION TO FPUA, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE VALUE ON ANNEXATION. ARE THESE 
          PARCELS IN A SYSTEM OF COBRA? >> THEY ARE. >>THEY WOULD FALL UNDER SOME 
          FEDERAL REGULATIONS ON WHAT CAN AND CANNOT BE BUILT? >> I THINK THAT IS A LITTLE 
          MISLEADING. >>PLEASE CLARIFY. >>AS FAR AS FUTURE CONSTRUCTION AND AS LONG AS FEDERAL DOLLARS ARE NOT INVOLVED WITH THE PROCESS. 
          >>MY CONCERN WAS THAT FPLA CONSIDERED MULTIPLE GRANTS TO REMOVE WITH MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. 
          SHOULD IT BE CONSTRUCTED, WOULD THERE BE A CLAW BACK UNDER THE FEDERAL GRANTS THAT WOULD ELIMINATE OPTIONS FOR THE FUTURE GRANTS GOING FORWARD. I HEARD FROM THE DIRECTOR AND SAID THERE 
          IS A PARAMETER >> IT'S A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE, RIGHT. THERE ARE 1200 LOTS IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA. THERE ARE ONLY FOUR BEING CONSIDERED TONIGHT. 
          >>THAT'S CORRECT. >>SHOULD THIS OPEN THIS BARN AND ALL 1200 TRY TO BECOME ANNEXED INTO THE CITY. FIRST OF ALL, THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE THEIR OWN PRIVATE SEWER PAID FOR, THAT WOULD BE ONE THING. THE OTHER ASPECT IS IF THE UTILITIES HAD TO SERVICE, THERE WOULD BE A COST FACTOR BECAUSE THAT WOULD GO UP IN THE NUMBER OF PERCENTAGES. I'M RATING IT 
          [02:55:03]
BECAUSE IT'S A CONCERN OF MY LOSING FEDERAL DOLLARS FOR THE CITY'S UTILITY. I WILL LIVE IT THERE. I KNOW PRIVATE PROPERTY YOU CAN BUILD YOUR OWN AND PAY FOR IT. 
          >>THAT'S CORRECT. >>I READ THE INFORMATION FROM ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT AND INDICATES THE PROPERTY IS.19 ACRES, APPROXIMATELY 95% IS RED, BLACK AND WHITE MANGROVES, AND THE APPROXIMATE WETLANDS 05%. WHEN I DID THE CALCULATION OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ABOUT 8900 SQUARE FEET, IF YOU TAKE 5% OF THAT, IT'S NOW REDUCED DOWN THE 45 SQUARE FEET. WHAT CAN BE 
          BUILT ON 445 SQUARE FEET? >> I THINK YOU OVER LOOKED THE FACT THAT HE HAS PAID INTO THE WETLAND MITIGATION BANK, WHICH ALLOWS FOR PERMITTING TO BASICALLY WIPE OUT THOSE 
          WETLANDS AND MANGROVES ONCE THEY HAVE BEEN OFFSET. >>I'M NOT GOING TO ASK YOU FOR 
          YOUR OPINION WHETHER WE SHOULD PULL THOSE WETLANDS OR NOT. >>I WILL BE GLAD TO OFFER IT. 
          >>I'M SURE YOU WOULD. >>I DON'T THINK YOU UNDERSTAND. I SUPPORT THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS THAT YOU ARE RAISING, BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THAT IS NOT THE REVIEW CRITERIA 
          UNDER ANNEXATIONS THAT ARE REVIEWED. >>THESE ARE ALL CONCERNS GOING FORWARD. I THINK THE INDIVIDUAL SHOULD BE WELL AWARE OF THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH THE MITIGATION AND ALL THAT GOES ALONG WITH IT. GETTING INSURANCE IN A COBRA ZONE IS A CHALLENGE. THERE IS ADDITIONAL COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH IT. I WOULD BE REMISS IN NOT SHARING THESE THOUGHTS AND CONCERNS. YOU KNOW I DEALT WITH MR. ACERRA FOR YEARS AND TRIED TO GET TO THESE OPPORTUNITIES FOR HIM TAND THERE WERE BARRIER IN THE REGULATION. GOING FORWARD HE UNDERSTAND THE FULL ISSUES AROUND WHAT MAY HAPPEN GOING FORWARD. WE TALKED ABOUT THE FEDERALLY FUNDED UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE, WE DEALT WITH THAT.   THAT'S IT FROM THAT SIDE. AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU HAVE COBRA, WETLAND REGULATIONS, YOU SAID YOU PURCHASED THOSE REQUIREMENTS AND PERMITS AND REGULATIONS FOR THE OUTSTANDING FLORIDA WATER AND NATURAL SIGNIFICANCE BECAUSE THEY ARE IMPACTING LAGOONS THAT ARE CLOSELY RELATED. ALL OF THOSE ARE TRUE. I'M RAISING ALL OF THIS BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION UPFRONT SO ANYBODY THAT WOULD CHOOSE TO INVEST AND WANT TO BUILD, ALL OF THOSE ARE INCREDIBLE COSTS TO DOING BUSINES. I WILL STOP 
          THERE. >>THE SEWER ISSUE, WATER AND SEWER RUN DOWN TO PIE HOLE? 
          >> IT RUNS ALL THE WAY SOUTH TO THE NUCLEAR PLANT. >>I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE EXTENT 
          OF THE SEWER LIES. I HAVE TO ASSUME WITH THE RESTAURANT. >>I THINK HE INDICATED YES. 
          SORRY. >>HAVING SAID THAT, IF THESE PROPERTIES WANT TO BE SERVED BY S SEWER, THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR THE EXTENSION DOWN THE 
          STREET. IT'S ON THEM, THEIR NICKEL. >>ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. AND 
          INDICATED TO STAFF THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO TAKE THAT COST ON. >>I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH MY PARTNERS COMMENTARY HERE. HOWEVER, I BELIEVE WE HAVE TWO SEPARATE CAMPS OF ISSUES, ONE IS THE ACTUAL ANNEXATION, SECONDLY IS CONSTRUCTION PERMITS. I'M ALL THAT FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS, THE LOTS ARE UNDER SIZED, THE WETLANDS, IT'S GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE TO GET TO THAT POINT AND WILL COME BACK TO BE REVISITED AGAIN. UNDERSTANDING THAT, THE ANNEXATION PORTION OF THIS, HAS REALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH POTENTIAL FUTURE CONSTRUCTION. 
          >>THAT'S CORRECT. THE ISSUES RAISED ARE GOOD POINTS. >>I AGREE WITH THE POINTS. DOWN 
          [03:00:08]
THERE IT'S WET. WETLANDS IS PUTTING IT MILDLY. IT'S SWAMPS. SO, I BELIEVE THE ANNEXATION ISSUE IS NO REASON TO DENY THE ANNEXATION, HOWEVER, THE CONSTRUCTION IS GOING TO BE A REAL SLOG TO GETTING SOMETHING THERE. AND RUNNING THE SEWER. I DON'T WANT THE RESIDENTS PAYING 
          FOR THE CONSTRUCTION. THAT'S ON THE RECORD. SO I'M GOOD. >>ANYBODY ELSE?  COMMISSIONER 
          JOHNSON, ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? >> NO MA'AM. >>WITH THE TITLING AND ZONING, 
          WHAT COMES WITH THAT? >> I THINK THE BEST WAY IS TO LOOK AT THE SLIDES. WHAT YOU SEE THERE AS THE PROPOSED LAND USE, LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, UNDER THE COMP PLAN, THAT ALLOWS A MAXIMUM OF 6.5 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE PARCEL, WE ARE ONLY TALKING ABOUT 8300 SQUARE FEET. YOU WOULD CUT THAT DOWN TO ONE. SO, WHAT THIS DOES IS, WHATEVER THE COINED WAS ALLOWING UNDER THEIR LAND USE SCHEME, UNDER THEIR ZONING SCHEME, CONTINUES IN THE 
          CITY. >>RIGHT. >>SO THAT'S TRUE FOR EACH OF THE LOTS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE, I KEEP WANTING TO SAY, IS OKAY. SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE. 
          >>IT'S A JIMMY BUFFET HIGHWAY TOO. IT HAS A LOT OF NAMES. >>WITH REGARD TO THE LARGER PARCEL OF 1 H.42 ACRES. AND THE LET US AND COUNTY REGULATIONS FOR RESIDENTIAL IS 5 UNITS TO THE ACRE. GENERAL COMMERCIAL DOESN'T GENERALLY ALLOW RESIDENTIAL. SO THE ANALYSIS INVOLVES HOW MUCH SQUARE FOOTAGE. SO BY COMING INTO THE CITY, THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY IS LOSING THE ABILITY TO BUILD THREE UNITS, MAXIMUM OF THREE UNITS, AS WELL AS LOSING THE ABILITY TO CONSTRUCT APPROXIMATELY 15500 SQUARE FEET. THE ENTITLEMENTS, THEY CAN BUILD SOMETHING THAT WILL BE EVALUATED LATER. WE ARE GETTING LAND USE IN PLACE. 
          >>THERE ARE CONSIDERATIONS BEYOND THIS THAT MAY AFFECT THEIR ABILITY TO BUILD? 
          >> THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. AS THE COMMISSIONER POINTED OUT. AND IT'S A SHRUG THROUGH THE MUD 
          IF YOU WILL FORGIVE THE PUN: >>THE BIG THING AND I WILL QUOTE YOU, COMMISSIONER, THERE IS OTHER BITES AT THE APPLE FOR DEVELOPMENT, NOT NECESSARILY THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, BUT THE 
          ENGINEERS, AND THEY HAVE A SAY BECAUSE OF THE PROTECTIONS. >>THIS DOESN'T GUARANTEE A 
          BUILDING? >> IT DOESN'T. >>I WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. 
          >>WHAT THIS DOES IS THE FORT PIERCE HAS A LITTLE BIT MORE TAX RECEIVE 
          REVENUE AT THE ENTER D OF THE Y. >>MADAM MAYOR, IT MAY. REAL QUICK WHAT IS TO BE EXPECTED. 
          FIRST, THE CONSTRUCTION COST OF THE RESIDENTS IS A CONSIDERS. AND SERVICE CONNECTION, UTILITY CONNECTION FEES, STORMWATER AND TITLE DRAINAGE DESIGNS AND BUFFER WITH THE MANGROVES REGARDLESS WITH THE ABILITY TO DEAL WITH THE WETLAND ISSUE. SOIL TESTING AND GEOTECHNIQUE ENGINEERING AND HAS TO HAVE PILINGS AND MITIGATION CREDITS, YOU'VE ALREADY WORKED ON THAT. 
          ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING, ARMY CORP, THE WETLAND DELINEATION STUDIES. THAT CAN BE ANOTHER $25,000. SO ALL OF THOSE ARE TRUE. AND AGAIN, HAVING LOOKED AT ALL OF THESE THINGS, I WANT 
          [03:05:07]
TO BE SURE THE APPLICANT UNDERSTAND THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT COSTS AND BARRIERS AND I 
          UNDERSTAND. BUT I WILL LEAVE IT THERE AND WAIT TO HEAR. >>IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS OF STAFF, NO OTHER DISCUSSION HERE. MS. COX, WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING JUST FOR THREE MINUTES, 
          RIGHT? >> >>ON ORDINANCE 25-005. 
          >>YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME. >>PUBLIC SPEAKER: MY NAME IS 
          TONY. I ONLY HAVE THREE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THIS WHOLE THING? >> FOR EACH ITEM. 
          >>THEY ALREADY MITIGATED THE MANGROVES FOR THE MITIGATION BANK. I ALREADY HAVE MY DEP APPROVAL IN THE UPLOAD. DAVID WHITE AND I HAVE LOOKED AND EVEN APPROVED FOR A SEPTIC FROM THE DEP. I KNOW NOBODY WANTS A SEPTIC. THE FUNDING WITH THE SEWER LINE IS GOING TO BE SELF FUNDED. I DID MSPU, I TALKED TO -- 26 PARCELS, ONLY TEN LOTS THAT ARE COUNTY LOTS THAT WE ARE ANNEXING. THE FOUR NOW TO SEE HOW IT GOES.   IT TOOK 3 MINUTES AND 23 YEARS TO DO THIS TO EXPLAIN THIS IN 3 MINUTES IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE. I HAVE A PROGRAM TO SUPPLY US WITH THE SEWER LINE. I HAVE ACROSS $75,000 ONLY AND $12,300 OF THAT IS JUST A RESIDUAL FEE IN CASE THERE IS AN EXTRA PROBLEM, WHICH MOST OF THAT I WILL GET BACK. 3,000 IN SOD AND BECAUSE IT'S FUNDED EVEN IN THE CBRA ZONE IT'S SELF FUNDING AND I HAVE A PROGRAM FROM FLORIDA NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE PATRICIA KELLY, A CONVERSATION IN THE E-MAILS AND THOSE E-MAILS ARE IN THE PACKET. I HAVE ALL THE APPROVALS. I KNOW HOW MUCH IT COSTS. I KNOW ALL THE COSTS. 
          THAT'S WHY WHEN YOU BUILD A HOUSE, IT'S GOING TO BE WORTH $1.5 TO 2 MILLION AND THE TAX THROUGH THE ROOF. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO BUILD THERE. IT'S OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BE GIVEN A CHANCE TO BUILD. THE WETLANDS YOU TALK ABOUT, THAT WASN'T THERE WHEN WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY IN 2003 WHEN MOST OF THESE LOTS WERE SOLD. THE PUMPS WERE INSTALLED SIX MONTHS AFTER I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY. IN THE 19 MONTHS WHEN THOSE PUMPS WERE TURNED OFF, THERE IS 29 GALLONS 
          PER MINUTE. JUST LIKE THE PROPERTY OWNERS. >>THAT'S YOUR TIME. THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE, PLEASE COME FORWARD. OKAY, I WILL BRING IT 
          BACK TO THE COMMISSION. WHAT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE COMMISSION. >>MADAM MAYOR, I COME BACK FROM THE CONSTRUCTION ISSUE THAT IS A WHOLE LINE OF ISSUE TO DEAL WITH. I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION 
          TO APPROVE ALL FOUR. >>WE CAN ONLY DO ONE AT A TIME. >>I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 
          ITEM 26-005. >>THANK YOU. >>IS THERE A SECOND? 
          >> I WILL SECOND. >> CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. 
          [B.  Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 26-006 - Review and approval of a Voluntary Annexation by owner, John Alberti, represented by Tony Acerra, to extend the territorial limits of the City of Fort Pierce, Florida, to include one (1) parcel containing 0.19 acres, generally located at or near 2528 South Ocean Drive. The proposed City Future Land Use is Low Density Residential (RL) and the proposed Zoning is Single-Family Low Density Zone (R-1). Parcel ID: 2413-501-0155-000-3. FIRST READING.]
          >>ALL RIGHT. NEXT ITEM B. >> >>CLERK: I HAVE TO READ IT. 
          >>  
          [03:10:01]
ORDINANCE 26-006 - REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION BY OWNER, JOHN ALBERTI, REPRESENTED BY TONY ACERRA, TO EXTEND THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, TO INCLUDE ONE (1) PARCEL CONTAINING 0.19 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED AT OR NEAR 2528 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE. THE PROPOSED CITY FUTURE LAND USE IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) AND THE PROPOSED ZONING IS SINGLE-FAMILY LOW DENSITY ZONE (R-1). PRCEL ID: 2413-501-0155-000-3. FIRST READING. 
          >>ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF?  OKAY, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. YOU HAVE ANOTHER THREE MINUTES. 
          >>I COULDN'T HEAR IT. >> I VOGTED NO. >>STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE 
          RECORD. >>PUBLIC SPEAKER: MY NAME IS MR. ACERRA, OWNER OF ALL FOUR LOTS. 
          THIS DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE # FUND. IT'S OUR LAND. IT'S BEEN THERE FOR 70 YEARS. SOMEONE BOUGHT IT IN 1950. THE COUNTY TOOK THAT FROM US. BACK IN JULY OF 1984, CHANGING THE LOT SIZE. 
          I DON'T THINK THAT'S FAIR. I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY DID IT. IN ORDER TO BECOME A BUILDABLE LOT IS TO ANNEX IT TO FORT PIERCE. LOT NO. 9, ACCORDING TO YOUR AGREEMENT, YOUR ORDINANCE. WHICH ALLOWED THIS. HE PAID OVER $200,000 FOR THAT LOT AND THE CITY GOT $3,000 FOR PROPERTY TAX THAT YEAR FOR A LOT THAT THEY ARE SAYING WAS NOT BILLABLE. HE SOLD THE LOT FOR $12,000. WHEN I WENT TO HIS HOUSE TO FIND OUT ABOUT IT. HE SOLD IT BECAUSE HE ORIGINALLY BOUGHT IT FOR HIS SON AS A GIFT TO GET STARTED IN LIFE, BUT HE DIDN'T WANT TO BURY HIS SON WITH BUREAUCRACY AND WHY HE SOLD IT. A MOTHER ACROSS THE STREET WANTED TO BUILD A SNEAKER STORE. SHE SAW IN MY NOTEBOOK AND SAID ARE YOU HERE TO TAKE MY LAND. AND PAYING PROPERTY TAXES FOR 76 YEARS ON THE PROPERTY. WE HAVE ALL THE RIGHT TO AT LEAST TRY. I HAVE ALREADY SATISFIED THE DEP AND FOR THE STATE FOR 
          THE CORP OF ENGINEERS. HE SAID I CAN HAVE APPROVAL FOR A SECOND. >>THANK YOU, SIR. . 
          [03:15:14]
          >>THERE IS NO MOVEMENT. >>I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED LISTENING TO THE APPLICANT'S STATEMENTS. I KNOW THIS COMMISSION HAS SAID AND PLANNING SAID MULTIPLE TIMES THAT HE HAS NO GUARANTEE TO BUILD UNDER THE CITY'S RULES BUT THE STATEMENT HE BELIEVES THAT HE'S ENTITLED UNDER THE CITY'S RULES THAT HE IS CONFORMING UPON NOT COMING TO THE CITY. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IS NOT CORRECT AND BEST CONFORMING LOT OR BY LEGAL VARIANCE. THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE AND HE AND THE OTHER OWNERS UNDERSTAND THAT THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO AUTOMATIC HE BUILD IN THIS CITY AND TO HAVE A NON-CONFORMING LOT. IF THEY DO NOT HAVE THAT UNDERSTAND, I WANT TO BE SURE THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THESE ANNEXATIONS AND NOT GOING FORWARD WITH THE APPLICATIONS. I UNDERSTAND HE HAS A HEARING ISSUE SO I'M TALKING A LITTLE BIT LOUDER. 
          >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE ARE BACK AT THE COMMISSION. >>MADAM MAYOR, I DO HAVE A COMMENT TO MAKE. I'M A STRONG SUPPORTER OF PROPERTY RIGHTS, A COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE AGENT BY TRADE. I APPLAUD YOU 23 YEARS TO DO THIS BATTLE. YOU HAVE DONE A PHENOMENAL AMOUNT OF WORK TO SALVAGE YOUR INVESTMENT AND BEING ABLE TO DO SOMETHING ENJOYABLE WITH IT. HAVING SAID 
          THAT, I MOTION TO APPROVE. >>SECOND. >> 
          >> CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. 
          [C.  Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 26-007 - Review and approval of a Voluntary Annexation by owners, Michael Fowler and Sean Murray, represented by Tony Acerra, to extend the territorial limits of the City of Fort Pierce, Florida, to include one (1) parcel containing 1.42 acres, generally located at or near 2528 South Ocean Drive. The proposed City Future Land Use is General Commercial (GC) and the proposed Zoning is General Commercial Zone (C-3). Parcel ID: 2413-501-0102-000-07. FIRST READING.]
  APPROVAL OF A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION BY OWNERS, MICHAEL FOWLER AND SEAN MURRAY, REPRESENTED BY TONY ACERRA, TO EXTEND THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, TO INCLUDE ONE (1) PARCEL CONTAINING 1.42 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED AT OR NEAR 2528 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE. THE PROPOSED CITY FUTURE LAND USE IS GENERAL COMMERCIAL (GC) AND THE PROPOSED ZONING IS GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE (C-3). PARCEL ID: 2413-501-0102-000-07. FIRST READING. 
          >>ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF?  THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE 
          COMMISSION, PLEASE COME FORWARD. YOU GET 3 MORE MINUTES. >> 
          >>PUBLIC SPEAKER: I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE ATTORNEYS SAID LIKE AUTOMATICALLY CONSIDERED A BUILDABLE LOT.   WHAT YOU SAID IT'S CONSIDERED NON-CONFORMING LOT, BUT IT CAN BE CONSIDERED TO 
          BE BUILT ON. WHAT IS THE TERM HE USED? >> 
          >>THIS IS VERY UNUSUAL TO ASK A QUESTION OF STAFF. WHY DON'T YOU ASK THE QUESTION AND WE'LL TRY 
          TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION LATER. >>TO MY UNDERSTANDING, IT'S CONSIDERED A NON-CONFORMING LOT, BUT IT CAN BE WORKED OUT WHERE OR BROUGHT IN IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSION TO BE BUILT ON. IF WE HAVE EVERYTHING IN PLACE, THE DEP APPROVAL, ALL THAT, MITIGATION, EVERYTHING DONE, THEN YOU WILL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO BUILD ON IT, AM I 
          CORRECT? >> SO YOU JUST KEEP TALKING AND WE'LL GIVE YOU THE ANSWER LATER. 
          >>OKAY. >>SO, I THOUGHT I READ SOMETHING IN THIS ANNEXATION WHERE WE 
          [03:20:20]
WOULD BE ABLE TO CONSIDER TO BE BUILT ON. IS THERE SOMETHING THAT WOULD STOP YOU FROM 
          ALLOWING TO US BUILD ON IT AS FAR AS THE CONFORMITY GOES? >> IS THAT THE EXTENT OF YOUR 
          QUESTIONS? >> EXCUSE ME? >> JUST ASK THE QUESTION, WE ARE NOT GOING TO ANSWER UNTIL THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OVER. WE ARE ALL FAMILIAR WITH WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE AND WHAT YOU ARE ASKING TO DO AND WE ARE READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO DO IT. WE SHOULD AT LEAST BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO TRY TO BUILD ON OUR OWN LAND. IT WILL BE A BENEFIT FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN PAYING ON THIS LAND FOR 76 YEARS AND TAX CODE FOR US TOO. 
          >>NOW, YOUR TIME IS UP. YOU HAVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY. THANK YOU, SIR. . 
          >>ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, PLEASE COME FORWARD. 
          >>THANK YOU. >> >>PUBLIC SPEAKER: MY NAME IS CHRIS, A RESIDENT OF FORT PIERCE. I HAVE BEEN GRAPPLING ABOUT SPEAKING ABOUT THIS AND APPRECIATE YOUR CITY ATTORNEY THAT ADDRESSES THIS AND AS SOMEONE THAT RESIDES HERE I'M WONDERING IF THE CITY IS BUYING THIS COUNTY PROBLEM AS SOMEONE GOING FORWARD GOING TO MAKE AN EFFORT TO DEVELOP AND CHALLENGE SOME OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS BECAUSE IN MY PERSPECTIVE, YOU ARE HEARING IT ADVERSARIAL APPLICANT ALREADY. SO I INTELLECTUALLY AND LEGALLY UNDERSTAND POTENTIALLY THAT SIMPLY OFFERING THE CARE OF ANNEXATION DOESN'T GUARANTEE IT BUT YOU ARE HEARING THE COMMENTARY OF THIS APPLICANT ALREADY. I THINK I WOULD URGE YOU TO TAKE SOME CAUTION ABOUT THAT. SO, ANYWAY, THAT'S THE EXTENT OF IT. SOMETIMES YOU SIT IN A PUBLIC HEARING AND YOU GET TO PAUSE A MINUTE. BUT I APPLAUD YOUR CITY ATTORNEY FOR RAISING 
          THESE ISSUES. THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU, MA'AM. ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. I'M COMING BACK TO THE COMMISSION. BEFORE, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF YOU HEARD THE QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT, AND 
          IF YOU CAN ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS? >> I'M GOING TO DO MY BEST. I WOULD CONSIDER THESE NON-CONFORMING LOTS. AS NON-CONFORMITIES ARE DEALT WITH. 
          >>HE CANNOT HEAR WELL, SO YOU REALLY HAVE TO GET CLOSE TO THAT. 
          >>YES, SIR. >>THAT'S BETTER. >>FIRST OFF, THESE ARE ALL NON-CONFORMING LOTS. EXCUSE ME, THE THREE PROPERTIES ON THE WEST SIDE, JIMMY BUFFET, ARE THE NON-CONFORMING LOTS AS IDENTIFIED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND PRESENTATION THIS EVENING. 
          THEY ARE NON-CONFORMING TO LOTA AND LOT WIDTH. WITHOUT GOING TOO FAR DOWN THE PATH OF HOW WE WOULD DEAL WITH IT, THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TWO OPTIONS IF YOU WILL WORKS THE PATHS TO DETERMINE WHETHER HE WOULD BE ALLOWED TO BUILD UNDER ZONING REGULATIONS AND THAT'S THE IMPORTANT DISTINCTION. ONE IS TO UTILIZE THE NON-CONFORMING SECTION OF THE CODE AND I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WILL DEAL WITH THAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PROVIDE THAT GUIDANCE TO THE APPLICANT. FURTHER, THOSE TWO CONDITIONS COUD ALSO BE RELIEVED THROUGH A VARIANCE PROJECT IN A FORM OF ADJUSTMENT. THOSE CRITERIA ARE HARD TO MEET BUT THERE ARE GROUNDS FOR GRANTING THAT AND NOT GRANTING THAT DEPENDING ON HOW THE CASE IS PRESENTED TO THE 
          [03:25:01]
BOARD. BEYOND THAT, MOVING TO BUILDING PERMITTING, AS WITH A LOT OF ISSUES TALKING ABOUT EARLIER AS PART OF THE LARGER DISCUSSION OF THE STAFF PRESENTATION WILL BE EVALUATED. 
          BEFORE BUILDING PERMIT CAN GET ISSUED, IT HAS WE WILL BE LOOKI THOSE NON-CONFORMING AND VARIANCES THAT NEED TO HAPPEN. IN ADDITION, THE PERMITS, WHAT ABOUT THE FULL PERMITS, ALL OF THOSE AGENCIES THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO SIGN OFF BEFORE BUILDING PERMIT FOR ANY KIND OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION TO BE ISSUED. THOSE ARE PROCESSES LATER IN THE DEVELOPMENT CHAIN IF YOU WILL. 
          THAT SUM UP THE ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS? >> I THEY SO. DO YOU WANT TO ADD 
          ANYTHING? >> THERE IS A CORRECTION THAT I LEGALLY HAVE TO MAKE. THERE IS A FLORIDA STATUTE THAT SAYS WE CANNOT WITH HOLD A BUILDING PERMIT AWAITING PERMIT APPROVALS 
          FROM OTHER EXTERNAL AGENCIES. SO SINCE WHEN? >> THE STATE STATUTE THAT YOU 
          ARE REFERRING TO RELATES PRIMARILY TO PLANNING. >>PERHAPS I'M NOT GETTING, THE STATE STATUTE THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO, I BELIEVE IN THE WAY THAT WE'VE APPLIED IT IS THAT PLANNING CAN HOLD PLANNING APPROVAL, SORRY, PLANNING CANNOT HOLD THAT WITHOUT AGENCY APPROVAL BUT BUILDING CAN. SO BUILDING NEED TO SEE EXTERNAL AGENCY. 
          >>SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT HAS TO BE IN PLACE BEFORE THE PERMIT CAN GO. 
          >>IT HAS TO BE IN MPLACE BEFOREA PERMIT IS ISSUED. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE. 
          >>I AGREE WITH THAT ASSESSMENT. THIS IS AN UPHILL SLOG FOR THESE FOLKS TO GET THIS ACCOMPLISHED. 
          >>COMMISSIONER DZADOVSKY: A COUPLE THINGS. THE APPLICANT SHOULD KNOW THAT THE STATE IS WORKING TOWARDS A BLUE WAY CONCEPT FROM TAKING THE BARRIER ISLAND AND ALL PROPERTIES THAT ARE CONSIDERED ON THE CAN YOU BE EVERT ZONE AND SO FORTH. THEY HAVE DONE FINANCIAL STUDIES OF IT ALL, THEY HAVE AL-INDICATED MILLION AND INVESTED A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY TO CREATE THESE ELEMENTS. FURTHER MORE, WHAT THE SPEAKER WAS SAYING WAS AS SOON AS WE ANNEX THESE PROPERTIES, IT BECOMES OUR BABY. MEAN IF IT'S COMING THROUGH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR A PROCESS AND DENIED, THERE IS AN OPENING FOR BIRD HARRIS CLAIM AND THAT IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. THE CITY HAS BEEN WORKING ON THAT FOR 25-30 YEARS. 
          THEY HAVE BEEN THROUGH THE PROCESS MULTIPLE TIMES. SO WHY WOULD WE WANT TO TAKE THAT ON. 
          THAT HAS BEEN MY CONCERN FROM THE GET-GO. THERE IS A LOT OF MOVING PARTS HERE. IF WE TAKE THEM ALL ON, WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY TAKEN FOR THE POSSIBLE BIRD HAIR CLAIM AND AM TOO A PROPERTY RIGHTS ADVOCATE, BUT IN THIS CASE, THERE ARE SO MANY MOVING PARTS AND CHALLENGES, I DON'T WANT THESE APPLICANTS. IT'S ALREADY BAD ENOUGH THAT SOMEBODY SOLD THEM THESE PROPERTIES. AS A REALTOR, I'M EMBARRASSED THAT THESE CONSIDERATIONS WEREN'T TOLD TO 
          SOME OF THESE FOLKS. THOUGHTS ARE MY POSITIONS. >>THERE ARE TERMS, AND APPROVALS HAVE THE SAME DEFINITION FOR 163 AND MAY INCLUDE BUILDING PERMIT. I WILL WORK WITH KEVIN BEFORE 
          [03:30:16]
MR. FREEMAN SIDE FOR THE NEXT READING ON THIS TO GET A MORE SOLID ANSWER. 
          >>MS. HEDGES, THE COMMISSIONER IS ASKING FOR SOMETHING YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT IN PRIVATE IN 
          TERMS OF A BIRD HARRIS CLAIM. >>I CAN'T HEAR YOU. >>SORRY. IT'S PROBABLY A GOOD IDEA. SO DO YOU HAVE ANY OPINION IN TERMS OF THIS PROPERTY IF IT'S ALLOWED IN THE CITY AS A 
          CANDIDATE FOR A BIRD HARRIS CLAIM? >> MADAM MAYOR COMMISSIONERS, HE BELIEVES HE'S ENTITLED TO BUILD WITHIN THE CITY. I'M NOT SURE THAT IS CORRECT. THERE IS A LOT OF INFORMATION RELATED TO THIS THAT I HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO GO THROUGH COMPLETELY. FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE CITY, AS LONG AS HE IS OF THE UNDERSTANDING THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE AN ENTITLEMENT TO BUILD. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT HE WOULD CURRENTLY NOT MEET THE SIZING REQUIREMENT FOR BUILDING. HIS LOT IS TOO SMALL TO BUILD A HOUSE ON. DOES HEAVY A NON-CONFORMING RIGHT THAT IT IS GOING TO REVERT BACK TO A PLIERS CRUDE ALLOWANCE TO ALLOW HIM TO BUILD, OR HE COULD OBTAIN A VARIANCE. THERE IS A WHOLE QUASI-JUDICIAL FOR VARIANCES. AS LONG AS HE UNDERSTANDS THAT HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO BUILD. THAT SO FAST MY PROBLEM. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO BETWEEN NOW AND SECOND READING IS TO HAVE THE ACTUAL OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY, BECAUSE THE APPLICANT IS NOT THE OWNER OF THESE PROPERTIES AND SIGNING THAT THEY STILL UNDERSTAND THAT AND STILL WILLING TO GO FORWARD WITH ANNEXATIONS. IT APPEARS THAT MAYBE NOT EVERYTHING HAS BEEN EXPLAINED IN THE BEST WAY POSSIBLE FOR THE CITY NOR UNDERSTOOD IN THE BEST WAY POSSIBLE FOR THE CITY. I BELIEVE THERE IS A BIRD HARRIS ISSUE THAT OCCURS AND THEY MAY STILL BE IN THE POSITION THEY ARE IN THE COUNTY WHEN THEY CANNOT BUILD UNDER THE CITY'S REGULATIONS. AS LONG AS WE HAVE SOMETHING IN PLACE FOR THAT, I THINK THAT RESOLVES A ROBERT HARRIS CLAIM, BUT WITHOUT THAT, THIS ISSUE EXISTS. 
          >>OKAY. >>MADAM MAYOR, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE ATTORNEY. OFTENTIMES WHEN WE ARE IN THESE THINGS, WE HAVE QUASI SO-JUDICIAL AND JUDIL HEARINGS WHERE ONE IS LESS STRINGENT AND BOUND TO TESTIMONY, ETC. ESPECIALLY IN A CASE OF ANNEXATION, SOMEONE IS COMING TO US TO VOLUNTEER TO WANT TO BE IN THE CITY. HELP ME UNDERSTAND FROM AN OBLIGATION SITTING HERE LISTENING TO THIS APPEAL ON THE ASPECTS OF APPROVAL VERSUS NOT APPROVAL AND THE PROOF OF BURDEN THAT LIES WITH DISAPPROVING SOMETHING LIKE THIS? 
          >> AND THIS QUASI-JUDICIAL AND WOULD LIKE TO BE REFRESHED ON 
          TH THAT. >>MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS. 
          THIS IS NOT A QUASI-JUDICIAL PROCEEDING. THIS IS BASED ON TAKING ONE'S TESTIMONY. 
          LEGISLATIVE HEARING FOR CREATING POLICIES FOR THE CITY. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO TAKE FACTUAL TESTIMONY. YOUR JOB IS TO ESSENTIALLY DO WHAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY AND ITS CITIZENS. YOU CAN SIMPLY DISAPPROVE. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE A REASON, BUT YOU EXPRESSLY EXPRESSED. WITH THE LEGISLATIVE HEARINGS, THESE ARE TWO READINGS. FIRST REASONING BECAUSE SOME HAVE BEEN APPROVED ON FIRST READING AND SECOND READING, THEY DON'T PASS. IT 
          [03:35:03]
TAKES TWO READINGS TO APPROVE THEM. ESSENTIALLY YOU ARE HERE TO DO WHAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY AND ITSELF CITIZENS IN A POLICY MAKING SETTING. 
          >>THANK YOU. >>WE ARE BACK TO THE COMMISSION AND READY FOR A MOTION. 
          >>I MOTION TO APPROVE. >>SECOND. >> 
          [D.  Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 26-008 - Review and approval of a Voluntary Annexation by owner, Tony Acerra, to extend the territorial limits of the City of Fort Pierce, Florida, to include one (1) parcel containing 0.21 acres, generally located at or near 2528 South Ocean Drive. The proposed City Future Land Use is Low Density Residential (RL) and the proposed Zoning is Single Family Low Density Zone (R-1). FIRST READING.]
          >> ROLL CALL, PLEASE. >>  APPROVAL OF A VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION BY OWNER, TONY ACERRA, TO EXTEND THE TERRITORIAL LIMITS OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, TO INCLUDE ONE (1) PARCEL CONTAINING 0.21 ACRES, GENERALLY LOCATED AT OR NEAR 2528 SOUTH OCEAN DRIVE. THE PROPOSED CITY FUTURE LAND USE IS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) AND THE PROPOSED ZONING IS SINGLE FAMILY LOW DENSITY ZONE (R-1). FIRST READING. 
          >>TWO THINGS I WANT TO BE SURE WE TOUCH UPON. WHEN WE DID SPEAK WITH PATRICIA KELLY FROM NATIONAL FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND TALKED ABOUT GETTING A SEWER LINE BECAUSE WE DON'T REALLY WANT A SEPTIC AND SHE SAID OF COURSE IT'S A NO BRAINER AND I'M GOING TO APPROVE A SEWER 
          LINE BUT ONLY FOR THE 26 LOTS FRONTING 1A, NOTHING BEHIND US. >>WHERE ARE THOSE LOTS? 
          >> I DON'T THINK THEY GO FRONT TO BACK. >>YOU CONTINUE TALKING. WE'LL 
          ANSWER IT LATER. >>ANYWAY, THERE IS 26 LOTS. ALL THE LOTS LEFT ALREADY. ALL OF THE LOTS ON THE EAST SIDE, OF THOSE 26 LOTS, ONLY 10 LOTS ARE COUNTY LOTS. ALL THE REST ARE ALREADY CITY LOTS. THAT WHOLE SUBDIVISION. WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO UNIFY THIS WHOLE SUBDIVISION. 
          EVERYONE ELSE IS ALREADY ANNEXING TO THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. BOTH SIDES OF THE ROAD, NO ONE WILL EVER BE ABLE TO BUILD BEHIND THOSE LOTS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THE MANGROVES. WHEN IT COMES TO THE MANGROVES, IF YOU LOOKED ON MY DEP APPROVAL, ONE IS 60 FOOT LOT, 135 FEET BASICALLY. THE LOT I WOULD HAVE MITIGATED IS 68 MOTIVATE 3 FEET WIDE. I'M ONLY ALLOWED 135 FEET BACK BECAUSE THERE IS A LIMIT TO WHAT YOU CAN CLEAR. I'M ONLY ALLOWED TO GO BACK 111 FEET. BECAUSE AND WHEN I DID MY MITIGATION, IT WAS UPLAND SCRUB AND ONE WASSERMAN GROVE AND ONE STAYS UNCLEAR. ONE MITIGATION .4500 SQUARE FEET THAT IS ALL THE MANGROVES THAT 
          ARE GETTING CLEARED. 1/3 IS GETTING SCRUBBED. >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          >>ANYONE ELSE?  PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NO MOVEMENT, I WILL BRING IT BACK TO THE 
          [03:40:07]
          COMMISSION. >>MADAM MAYOR, MOTION TO APPROVE. 
          >>SE >>SECOND. >> 
          >> CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >>
          [E.  Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 26-009 - Final Budget Amendment of the FY 2024-25 General Fund Budget.  FIRST READING]
          >>MS. HEDGES: MR. FREEMAN, I GAVE YOU THE WRONG STATUTE. THE ONE IS FOR COUNTIES. 
          >>THANK YOU. >>NEXT ITEM. >>   AMENDMENT OF THE FY 2024-25 GENERAL FUND BUDGET.  FIRST READING 
          >># MS. MORRIS: GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. THE 2025, GENERAL BUDGET, I CHANGED THE FORMAT THIS YEAR TO PROVIDE AN ACTUAL LINE ITEM BUDGET LIMIT FOR YOU ALL TO SEE FROM THE REVENUE AND THE EXPENDITURES BYLINE WHAT WAS RECEIVED, WHAT WE APPROVED AND WHAT WE ACTUALLY RECEIVED. OUR APPROVED BUDGET WAS $6,466$64,668,104. WE ARE AMENDING IT. 
          >>OUR GENERAL FUND REVENUE THAT WE RECEIVED WAS A TOTAL OF $66,8 $66,850,527. WE STILL HAVE THE 650,000 FOR NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET, THE TOTAL BUDGET WAS $666,500.55. IF YOU LOOK AT THE REVENUE, THERE WERE TWO OUTLIERS THAT WE HAD THAT WERE NOT IN THE 
          GENERAL REVENUE AND THE BUDGET WE HAD $949,000 IN GRANTS. >>FROM IRMA, THAT WAS 10 YEARS 
          AGO. >>IT WAS HURRICANE IRMA.   WE DID GET FUNDING FOR HURRICANE 
          IRMA. >>ARE WE SUPPOSED TO BE SEEING THESE NUMBERS? 
          >> IT'S IN THE DOCUMENT OF THE ATTACHMENT. WHEN YOU SAW THIS, WE GOT ALL THIS REVENUE IN BUT THERE WERE TWO THINGS, THE STATE GRANTS AND FEDERAL GRANT DOLLARS THAT WE GOT THAT WERE ONE TIME 
          REVENUE SOURCES. WE MAY NOT GET IT AGAIN. >>DON'T COUNT ON IT NEXT YEAR. 
          >>RIGHT, AN THE ARPA FUNDS AND THE ONE TIME REVENUE SOURCE. WE ARE SEEING THIS 1.8 REVENUE IN OUR GENERAL FUND IS A ONE TIME REVENUE SOURCES. WE WON'T SEE THAT 1 POINT $8 MILLION. 
          >>THESE ARE THE NUMBERS? >> YES, BEFORE THE AUDIT. >>BEFORE THE AUDIT GETS 
          [03:45:03]
          PRESENTED. OKAY. >>THIS IS WHAT WE ARE AMENDING THE BUDGET TO. AGAIN, YOU HAVE PROVIDED IT ALSO SO YOU CAN SEE FROM DEPARTMENT WISE FROM THE EXPENDITURES WHERE WE HAD TO DO THE AMENDMENTS WHERE WE WERE OVER AND UNDER AND WHY WE AMENDED IT TO $63 MILLION FOR 
          OUR EXPENDITURE BUDGET. >>ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? >> ANY QUESTIONS? 
          >> ALL RIGHT. THAT'S THE EXTEND OF THE PRESENTATION. >>YES. 
          >>THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, PLEASE COME FORWARD. 
          SEEING NO MOVEMENT, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK FOR A MOTION OR DISCUSSION. 
          [A.  Resolution 26-R17 approving Interlocal Agreement between the City of Fort Pierce and FPRA for the Purchase of Flock Safety Equipment not to exceed $238,400.]
          >>I MOVE APPROVAL. >>SECOND. >> 
          >> ROLL CALL, PLEASE. >>  A. RESOLUTION 26-R17 APPROVING INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE AND FPRA FOR THE PURCHASE OF FLOCK SAFETY EQUIPMENT NOT TO EXCEED $238,400. 
          [B.  Resolution 26-R18 considering an Application for an Impact Fee Offset Agreement in respect of Transportation Impact Fees for property dedication by Wheaton Holdings in the sum of $8,857.73. ]
          >>THIS IS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE BEEN PROVIDED. >>SECOND. 
          >> >> ROLL CALL, PLEASE. >>
          >>NEXT,  CONSIDERING AN APPLICATION FOR AN IMPACT FEE OFFSET AGREEMENT IN RESPECT OF TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES FOR PROPERTY DEDICATION BY WHEATON HOLDINGS IN THE SUM OF $8,857.73. 
          >>MR. FREEMAN, DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION? >> APPARENTLY NOT. 
          >>YOU HEARD FROM MR. WHELAN AND I IEMPHASIZE WHAT HE HAD TO GO THROUGH. WE READ IT VERY CLOSELY. ENGAGED WITH SOME COST SAVINGS WITH THAT SITE PLAN AND HELPED THAT THROUGH THE PROCESS. 
          I DO HAVE A GREAT SYMPATHY IN WHAT HE FACED DURING THIS PROCESS OF APPLYING FOR THIS IMPACT FEE AGREEMENT. I TAKE A LOT OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS DELAY AND WHERE WE ARE NOW. WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN-HOUSE, NOTHING I COULD USE THAT WAS AVAILABLE TO ME OR STAFF TO HELP THIS THROUGH. WE ARE VERY CLOSE WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AS TO HOW WE MOVE THIS FORWARD TO CITY 
          COMMISSION FOR A DECISION. >>AS PART OF THIS, THERE IS SIGNIFICANT CITY CODE FOR YOU TO REVIEW AND ENSURE THAT WE DID THAT CORRECTLY. PART OF THAT WAS ENGAGING WITH THE SIMPLE THING OF CREATING TO BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR THIS. THAT WAS ESSENTIALLY GETTING THIS TO A POINT WHERE WE CAN CONSIDER IT.   THE CITY ORDINANCE IS FAIRLY SPECIFIC IN TERMS OF WHAT THE PLANNING DIRECTOR'S PART OF THIS IS. AS A CRITERIA THAT WOAH WENT THROUGH WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AND 
          LOOKED AT THIS CAREFULLY. >>SO YOU CAN APPLY FOR THIS IMPACT FEE AGREEMENT THROUGH 
          [03:50:11]
          STATION 113-10 OF THE CITY CODE. >>THAT GOES THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND SERIES OF ANALYSIS AND HAS TO MEET ALL THE CRITERIA. SO WHEN WE REVIEWING THE PLAN REVIEW FOR THE PROGRAM, WE REVIEWED THE PURPOSE OF THE REQ REQUEST, DOES IT FIT WITH THE IMPACT FEES AND THE IMPROVEMENT, CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT MADE TO THE ROAD WHICH IS THE COUNTY ROAD AND PLANNING REVIEW PROCESS, THAT WAS REALLY THE CONDITIONS THAT THE COUNTY PLACED, REQUESTED THE APPLICANT TO CONVEY AND AREA OF PROPERTY SO THEY CAN EXPAND THAT AREA OF ROAD TO INCREASE THAT CAPACITY. WHEN WE REVIEWED THE CRITERIA FOR THIS, ONE OF THE CRITERIA IS THAT IT IS A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT THAT IS IN CITY CODE AND DEFINITIONS THERE. AND WHICH IS A CITY'S CIP AND CITY COMMISSION BY RESOLUTION AND LATER THAN THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED UPDATE. 
          SORRY. I MISS QUOTED THAT. IT SHOULD BE A SITE RELATED IMPROVEMENT TO THE CITY'S CIP AND THE CITY COMMISSION ADDED TO THE CIP AND NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED UPDATE. AND FURTHER DEFINED ON THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. BECAUSE THE ROADWAY IS A COUNTY ROADWAY, IT COULD NEVER QUALIFY TO BE A CITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT UNDER THESE CODE REQUIREMENTS. SO GOING THROUGH A RISK AND PUTTING THE WORK INTO IT, COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT CANNOT QUALIFY FOR THE OFFSET CREDIT. SO THIS IS THE REASON WHY I HAVE TO BRING IT THROUGH TO THE CITY COMMISSION WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION. WITH THE CODE, I CANNOT RECOMMEND THE AGREEMENT TO BE MOVED FORWARD. THAT IS STAFF'S POSITION.   THAT'S WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY. 
          >>I COPIED THIS ON THE E-MAILS OVER THE MONTHS WHEN MEASURE WH MAN WAS TRYING TO GET CLARITY AND THE FACT THAT IT'S A COUNTY ROAD AND WOULD NEVER QUALIFY FOR THE CIP. TO ME, I BELIEVE THAT IN THIS CASE, SINCE IT WAS SOMETHING THAT YOU WEREN'T FAMILIAR WITH, I'M ASSUMING AND HONESTLY, AS LONG AS I HAVE BEEN MAYOR, I DON'T THINK I HAVE ENCOUNTERED AN OFFSET. I BELIEVE THEY DESERVE THE REIMBURSEMENT MYSELF. 
          >>I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE CITY CODE NEEDS ADDRESSING AND TO ASK FOR THE CONTRIBUTIONS OR ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS OR CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS THAT WOULD NORMALLY QUALIFY FOR CAPACITY 
          IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE IMPACT FEE. >> I THINK IN GOOD FAITH WERE LED TO BELIEVE THAT AND I JUST BELIEVE WE ARE NOT SETTING A PRECEDENT HERE BECAUSE WE REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT THIS AS SOMETHING THAT NOBODY HAS EXPERIENCES WITH AND SOMETHING THEY COULD DO IN GOOD FAITH. 
          [03:55:08]
          >>I AGREE. SOME RESPONSIBILITY ON THAT TO LIE WITH MYSELF. I WANT TO GET IT RIGHT. AND 
          UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS. >>AND WHAT I DIDN'T WANT TO BE DOING WAS COME HERE WITH A 
          RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVING IT WHEN WE DIDN'T MEET CITY CODE. >>RIGHT. 
          >>COMMISSIONERS? >> >>ONE THING, AGAIN WITH THIS AGENDA. WE KNEW THIS WAS COMING IN AND TRYING TO PUT THIS IN. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN CONTROL. 
          MY THING IS THIS, WHERE DO WE GET THE INITIAL INFORMATION OR THOUGHT THAT HE COULD APPLY FOR 
          THE OFFSET?  WAS THAT IN THE PLANNING STAGES? >> IT WAS WHEN THE COUNTY 
          GRANTED THEIR CREDIT IMPACT REFUND. >>SO THE COUNTY TOLD THEM, MY UNDERSTANDING, THE COUNTY TOLD THEM HE HAD SOMETHING. THEY GAVE HIM THE MONEY BACK AND TOLD HIM 
          TO COME TO US TO GET THE OTHER PART OF THE MONEY?  IS THAT IT? >> THEY GAVE US THE BREAKDOWN AND PART OF THE REASON AND THE COUNTY WAS APPROACHING THEM FOR THE BREAKDOWN. 
          >>BEFORE THE BREAKDOWN, THEY NEVER SAID THIS IS WHAT'S GOING ON? 
          >> APPARENTLY NOT. >>I HAVE A DEVELOPER COMING IN OR BUSINESS MAN COMING IN AND ACCESS TO FORT PIERCE, IMPROVE A ROAD, EVEN THOUGH IT'S A COUNTY ROAD, THAT WE ALL USE, AND NOW WE ARE SAYING BECAUSE IT'S A COUNTY ROAD AND ASSIGN THE CONTRACT THAT WE SHOULD GIVE HIM 
          MONEY, IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING? >> THAT'S WHAT THE CODE SAYS. >>OKAY, SO NOW, WE DO PROJECTS ALL THE TIME WITH THE COUNTY, AND WE HAVE, WE JUST APPROVED SEVERAL DEVELOPMENTS AND SEVERAL STUFF WHERE THERE ARE GOING TO BE COUNTY ROADS, NOW BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN THE CODE AND THESE PEOPLE ARE COMING IN AND IMPROVING THESE ROADS, THAT WE CAN'T GIVE THEM THE MONEY? 
          >> THAT'S THE POSITION I HAVE TO TAKE. >>IF THE COMMISSION'S DIRECTION 
          IS TO LOOK INTO THIS CODE. >>THAT'S MY DIRECTION. >>THE SIMPLE FACT WHEN THIS WAS WRITTEN, I DON'T THINK IT WAS RECOGNIZED THAT THIS COULD HAPPEN. 
          >>WE HAVE SO MANY ROADS. THE ONLY REASON I'M SAYING THAT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MANY ROADS IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE AND THE FIRST LIGHT IN THE COUNTY, SECOND LIGHT WE ARE IN THE CITY, THIRD LIGHT WE ARE IN THE STATE. YOU KNOW WE HAVE ROADS LIKE THAT. WHAT I DON'T WANT IS FOR US TO HAVE THESE DEVELOPERS OR BUSINESSES TO COME IN TO BENEFIT US WITH SOME TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT FOR THE ROAD BECAUSE IF THEY HELP US WITH THE ROAD, WE SHOULDN'T BE HERE AND SHOULDN'T WAIT FOR ANYBODY IN TEN MONTHS TO DO SOMETHING TO HELP ALL THE RESIDENTS IN FORT PIERCE. MADAM MAYOR, WE HAVE BEEN HERE A LONG NIGHT. I'M WITH YOU AND TRYING TO GET WITH DIRECTOR FREEMAN AND COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT YOU THINK WITH ALL OF WHY YOU ARE PLANNING AND EVERYTHING WE ARE GOING THROUGH HOW WE CAN AMEND OR FIX THIS CODE AND GETTING, MADAM ATTORNEY, HOW WE CAN FIX 
          THIS CODE BECAUSE TO TELL SOMEBODY -- >>YOU WILL NEVER BE ELIGIBLE 
          BECAUSE YOU DON'T MEET THE CRITERIA. >>AFTER THE FACT TOO, THAT 
          DOESN'T SIT WELL WITH ME. I AGREE WITH MADAM MAYOR. >>MADAM MAYOR? 
          >> YES, SIR. F >>IF I MAY SPEAK? >> YOU MAY. 
          [04:00:05]
          >>I THINK THE SIMPLE DEFINITION IS TO LOOK AT AN ELIGIBLE IMPROVEMENT AND LOOK AT THAT SIMPLE DEFINITION OF THAT. SO, WE RECOGNIZE THAT IT COULD BE A COUNTY ROADWAY OR EVEN A FDOT ROADWAY BECAUSE WE HAVE THAT AS WE WELL. 
          >> YES. AND WE HAVE ANNEXED LOTS OF PROPERTIES AS WELL. >>JUST SO I CLEARLY UNDERSTAND THIS, WE COLLECTED THE IMPACT FEE ON A COUNTY ROAD AND WE CAN'T GIVE IT BACK BECAUSE IT'S A COUNTY ROAD. THAT'S THE ESSENCE OF THIS BUT WE COLLECT IT ANYWAY EVEN THOUGH IT'S A 
          COUNTY ROAD. >>CORRECT. >>I'M WITH YOU. THIS NEEDS TO BE 
          CHANGED. >>MR. JOHNSON?  CITY COMMISSIONER CURTIS JONSON JR.: I GUESS THE CONCERN I HAVE, FUNDAMENTALLY, ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT ALL OF THOSE DEVELOPERS THAT ARE NOW IN THE PROCESS OF KL COLLECTING THAT IMPACT FEE. MY CONCERN IS WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO START LINING UP THESE MONEYS. THAT'S A CONCERN OF MINE AND TO UNDERSTAND THIS MAGNITUDE. I UNDERSTAND WE ARE TRYING TO PLUG THIS GAP. BUT TO ME, I JUST KNOW DIRT NEXT TO THE SCHOOL AND HIG- THERE IS AN IMPACT FEE WE COLLECTED. THAT'S THE COUNTY ROAD.   SO, HAVE WE MADE THAT IMPACT AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE BECAUSE WE HAVE THIS TODAY AND WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE FOR THESE MONEYS INCUMBERED, SITTING THERE?  WHAT'S HAPPENIG 
          TO THE MONEY? >> THIS IS A RESTRICTED FUND. >>THAT'S GOOD. 
          >>IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE GENERAL FUND. >>OKAY. 
          >>IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE USED FOR CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE ROADWAYS WHICH IS WHAT'S BEING DONE. SO, THAT IS BEING ADDRESSED. THE EQUIVALENT COST OF THE CITY GOING OUT THERE OR 
          THE COUNTY GOING OUT THERE AND DOING THAT. >>SO THE APPLICANT OR DEVELOPER 
          DOES THAT. >>SO, WE ARE LIKE DOUBLE DIPPING IN A WAY. 
          >> WE ASSESS THE IMPACT ON THAT AND THE ARGUMENT OF APPLYING THE CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE LOCATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND THAT SHOULD GO TO THAT AREA IN ANY CASE IF THAT CAPACITY 
          IMPROVEMENT WAS REQUIRED. >>IT'S ALL IN FAIRNESS. IT'S NOT FAIR. 
          >>I GET IT. BUT IF THE COUNTY COLLECTED THE IMPACT FEE, I JUST HEARD YOU SAY THEY GAVE IT BACK 
          TO THEM? >> I THINK THEY GAVE A PORTION OF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES THAT THEY CONVEYED. THAT WAS SPLIT BETWEEN AND PROPORTIONALLY SPLIT BECAUSE THE IMPACT FEE 
          BECAUSE OF THIS. >>I GET THAT AND THE ROAD ETC WHATEVER THEY ASSESS TO WHATEVER CAPACITY EXPANSION, THEY WOULD BE DOING IF ANY AT ALL, THEY PROPORTION TO KEPT THAT TO DO 
          THAT BACK TO THE APPLICANT. >>HOWEVER, THEY CALCULATE. >>I GET THAT. COMMISSIONER, MY CONCERN IS FAR GREATER THAN WHAT WE ARE HERE BECAUSE WE HAVE STATE ROADS, COUNTY ROADS, WE HAVE DONE A NUMBER OF DEVELOPMENTS HERE AND THERE AND I'M JUST WONDERING HOW LONG THIS 
          HAS BEEN GOING ON, RIGHT? >> IT'S THE FIRST TIME SOMEBODY HAS APPLIED. IT IS THE FIRST TIME. YOU HAVE A WHOLE PROCESS NOW THAT YOU UNDERSTAND. IF THEY APPLY FOR THE, FE THEY ARE INTERESTED IN THE OFFSET, THEY HAVE TO START AT THE VERY BEGINNING AND LET YOU KNOW. IN THEIR MINDS, THEY WERE DOING THAT BECAUSE THEY WRE WORKING WITH THE COUNTY AND THE COUNTY 
          WAS MAKING PROMISES THAT THE COUNTY, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY. >>RIGHT. AND WE HAVE THE COUNTY EXPERT HERE AND I'M INTERESTED TO HEAR WHAT MY COLLEAGUES HAVE TO SAY BECAUSE AS WE GET OUR STRATEGIC PLAN WITH THE COUNTY, WE REALLY NEED TO HAVE THIS TO DISCUSS BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND IT AND UNDERSTAND WHY WE ARE DOING IT, BUT YOU ARE MAKING A COMMITMENT TO A CONSTITUENT THAT 
          [04:05:11]
WE ARE GETTING THIS MONEY BACK THAT WE DIDN'T KNOW WE HAD. THAT'S A CONCERN THAT IDENTIFY THAT Y -- I HAVE THAT WE WOTHEY WOULD US DOWN THIS PATH. 
          >>IS THIS AN AREA THAT HAS BEEN ANNEXED IN THE CITY, YOU ARE RIGHT WITH CITY AND COUNTY CODES AND WE CROSS AND DEVELOP IN CITY AND COUNTY. THE OPPORTUNITY DOES EXIST AND I'M GOING TO KEEP IDENTIFYING AREAS WHERE WE APPROVE POLICY. HERE IS A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF THAT. I THINK THE MECHANISM IS EASY TO DO FROM A POLICY STANDPOINT. I THINK YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED THAT. I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ENGAGE DEVELOPERS. IMPACT FEES ARE IMPORTANT FOR THE FUTURE OF MOVEMENT OF CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS AND TOURIST AND THOSE THAT WOULD COME TO VISIT OUR COMMUNITY. DEVELOPERS OFTENTIMES DO IT BETTER AND FASTER AND HAVE IMPROVEMENT IN THE GROUND LONGER THAN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY BUILDING UP FUNDS TO GO AHEAD AND DO IT. FIVE YEARS AFTER THE DEVELOPMENT WHEN THE IMPROVEMENTS GET DONE. MY POSITION IS, FOR THE CITY MOVING FORWARD AND CONSIDER OF TONIGHT. WE NEED TO CONSIDER THIS TONIGHT, AND THE REASON BEING IS THE AREA WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY, ANYBODY? 
          >> YES. >>BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW. WE HAVE A HODGEPODGE THERE. WHOSE 
          PROPERTY WAS DONATED?  THE APPLICANT? >> YES. 
          >>BECAUSE OF THE REFUND, BECAUSE WE ARE NOT PAYING FOR THIS PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE PAID FOR. I SAW 15 FEET. I THINK IT'S EQUALLY EQUIVALENT TO THE $8,000 PLUS. ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, WHETHER IT'S THE IMPACT FEE CREDIT, FOR THE ACTUALLY EASEMENT, THAT'S FOR THE INDIVIDUAL IN FRONT OF US. IN ORDER TO DO THIS, IN LIEU OF HAVING THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE CREDIT. I THINK IT SHOULD BE A PROCESS BY, WHICH THE CITY PARTICIPATED IN PURCHASING THE PROPERTY FOR THE $857.73. IN ORDER TO MOVE PAST THIS FOR THE POLICIES GOING FORWARD, THAT WOULD BE THE WAY TO GO. BACK TO THE IDEA THAT THE FACT IS WE WANT DEVELOPERS TO APPRECIATE THEIR IMPACT AND THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS IN THE COMMUNITY, BUT WHENEVER THEY COME TO THE TABLE VOLUNTARILY AND MAKE ACCESS AND DO WHAT THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO, THEY SHOULDN'T BE PENALIZED FOR THAT. I THINK I'M HEARING A CONSENSUS THAT PICK A PROCESS WHETHER IT'S THE IMPACT FEE CREDIT. I THINK FOR THE AMOUNT OF PROPERTY ALONG HARTMAN ROAD, I THINK THE $857 IS PROBABLY REASONABLE FOR PAYING FOR THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY DONATED BY THEM. THAT'S 
          JUST MY PROCESS. >>MAYOR LINDA HUDSON: MAKE A MOTION. 
          >>I HAVE TO REITERATE WHAT WAS STATED IN MY MOTION, IF IT DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVAL, IT IS MY RECOMMENDATION TO YOU ALL THAT YOU DO NOT APPROVE THIS AGREEMENT. IF YOU APPROVE THIS CODE, YOU ARE CREATING LIABILITY ON THIS CITY. IF IT DOES NOT MEET THE CODE REQUIREMENTS, MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT YOU HAVE TO DENY THIS. IF WE WANT TO LATER ON CHANGE THE CODE TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT WE WANT THE POLICIES TO BE, THAT IS WHAT WE CAN DO TO BRING THAT FORWARD SO THAT THIS TYPE OF ISSUE DOESN'T HAPPEN BEFORE. 
          BUT, UNFORTUNATELY, YOU ARE BOUND BY THE RULES THAT EXIST CURRENTLY. 
          >>I HAVE A QUESTION. IF THAT WERE TO BE THE CASE. I UNDERSTAND THE LOGIC BEHIND THAT. I UNDERSTAND WHAT DIRECTOR FREEMAN IS SAYING. IF THAT WERE TO BE THE CASE AND THIS DENIED, DOES THIS APPLICANT HAVE THE ABILITY IF THERE IS AN AMENDMENT TO THIS TO BRING BACK THEIR 
          APPLICATION? >> THERE IS NOTHING CURRENTLY IN THE CODE THAT I HAVE SEEN THAT PROHIBITS A REAPPLICATION. I'M LOOKING AT MR. FREEMAN TO SEE IF THERE IS ANYTHING IN THERE. 
          [04:10:01]
          >>MADAM MAYOR, ONE OTHER OPTION IS NOT TO DENY IT BUT TO TABLE IT. 
          >>HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE TO FIX THIS. >>I THINK WE WOULD NEED TO UNDERSTAND IMPACT FEES. BECAUSE THIS IS BUILT ON A COUNTY ROAD, AND TO GET TO COUNTY ROADS. I -- THE 8800 IS 1 COUNTY ROAD. I THINK YOU WANT TO LOOK AT WHERE AND HOW THESE FEES ARE CALCULATED BEFORE YOU START CHANGING THE CODE UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS NOT THE GREATEST NEWS FOR THE APPLICANT BUT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT IT FOR WHAT IT IS. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO TABLE THIS FOR RECONSIDERATION LATER, I THINK YOU CAN DO THAT, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THE CODE NECESSARILY WILL CHANGE UNTIL YOU ALL LOOK AT WHAT IT IS CURRENTLY AND WHAT IT COULD BE. 
          >> MADAM ATTORNEY, THE LAND IS A DONATION OF LAND. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE DONATION OF THE LAND. 
          >>ARE YOU LOOKING AT A SPECIFIC DOCUMENT OR JUST TALKING IN GENERAL? 
          >> I'M JUST TALKING. YOU INDICATED THAT IT'S IN VIOLATION OF THE COUNTY CODE AS CURRENTLY DRAFTED. IF WE WERE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT, RIGHT?  YOU'VE SAID THAT. 
          >>COMMISSIONER, JUST IT'S CITY CODE AND IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE CODE AND YOU CANNOT APPROVE 
          IT. >>OKAY, WE ARE CLEAR ON THAT. HOWEVER, THERE WAS A DONATION PROCESS BY THE APPLICANT WITH AN EXPECTATION THERE WOULD BE SOME KIND OF FINANCIAL COMPONENT AT 
          THE END OF THE DAY. >>WITH THE COUNTY. >>HOWEVER, THE BENEFIT IS FOR ALSO THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. SO THE LAND WAS DONATED FOR THAT PROCESS AND I BELIEVE THAT IF IT'S IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE FOR AN IMPACT FEE CREDIT, COMPENSATION FOR GIVING THE PROPERTY TO THE COUNTY AND THE BENEFIT TO THE CITIZENS OF FORT PIERCE BECAUSE WE'VE UNDERSTOOD THAT THE CITY AND THE COUNTY ARE PART OF THAT WHOLE ROAD STRUCTURE, I THINK THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE PAID FOR THEIR DONATION OF PROPERTY. SO, I THINK IT'S A DIFFERENT -- SO, YOU SAY NO TO THE SO-CALLED VOLITION OF THE CODE AND CREATE THE PROCESS BY, WHICH THE APPLICANT SAYS HERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY, YOU'VE DONATED THIS LAND, WE ARE GOING TO PAY YOU WHATEVER THE AMOUNT WAS FOR THAT SLIVER OF LAND, 15 FEET BY 60 FEET. I CAN'T REMEMBER. 
          >> IT'S A SIGNIFICANT CHUNK. >>I UNDERSTAND ABOUT WHAT I WILL SAY IS THERE IS NO WAY THAT THIS 
          APPLICANT CAN EVER MEET THIS CODE. >>CHANGE THE CODE. 
          >>RIGHT. >>I THINK CLEARLY THIS IS NOT THE INTENT. THE INTENT OF THE COLON IS DRAFTED AS THAT, BUT NOW IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE BECAUSE THIS TYPE OF ACTIVITY IS GOING TO TAKE PLACE ALL THE TIME AND WILL PING-PONG BETWEEN US AND THE COUNTY AND THIS IS A POLICY OF FORT PIERCE. THAT HAPPENED. I CAN'T IN GOOD CONSCIOUS VIOLATE THAT CODE. I WOULD SUGGEST WE TABLE THIS, GET THE CODE STRAIGHTENED OUT AND GET THIS APPLICATION PROCESSED AND UNTIL A HEARING WHAT THESE REVENUES APPLY TO AND CONTINUE ON DOWN THAT PATH. I THINK THEY DESERVE THE MONEY, BUT THE CODE SAYS WE CAN'T GIVE IT TO THEM. SO LET'S FIX THE CODE, MAKE THIS CODE A WORKABLE PIECE OF DOCUMENTATION THAT OTHER PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO DEAL WITH AS 
          [04:15:15]
          WELL. >>THERE IS A TON OF THESE. WE NEED TO CLEAN IT UP. 
          >>THEY ARE GOING TO COME UP WITH CALCULATIONS. I THINK WE DESERVE THE MONEY IF THAT'S HOW THIS IS ROLLED OUT. BUT THIS CAN'T BE DONE WITH THE WAY THE CODE READING DOES. I AGREE WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY IS THAT ARBITRARILY WE CAN'T DECIDE TO STOP PAYING MONEY IN VIOLATION OF CITY CODE. THAT REALLY INTEGRATES ON ME. WE DESERVE THE MONEY. 
          >>HAVING SAID THAT, IT'S MONEY IN THE BANK. I TAKE GREAT PRECEDENT TO WHAT THE STCITY ATTORNEY IS ADVISING HERE. TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS IMPACT FEE AND HOW IT'S COLLECTED AND FORMULA AND WHAT IT CAN AND CANNOT BE USED FOR. I DON'T THINK IT'S THAT WE CAN'T EXTEND AND CONTINUE THIS IN THE PROCESS SO THE PEOPLE ARE INFORMED. THE APPLICANT IS INFORMED THAT WE ARE NOT SAYING NO RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO GET MORE ANSWERS AND HAVE MORE CONVERSATION AND I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WE ARE MAKING THE RIGHT DECISION FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT AT STAKE HERE. THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. 
          >>WHO WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION? >> I MOTION WE TABLE THIS MATTER FOR 90 DAYS FOR WHOEVER NEEDS TO GET THEIR HANDS-ON THIS, THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME UP WITH A REWRITE AND HAVE A PRESENTATION AS COMMISSIONER JOHNSON IS STATING RELATIVE TO THE DETAILS ON WHAT THESE FUNDS ARE 
          COLLECTED FROM AND WHAT THEY ARE EXPENDED TO. >>I WOULD SECOND THAT MOTION. 
          >>IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? >> IS THAT SUFFICIENT TIME?  MS. HEDGES? 
          >> IT IS SUFFICIENT TIME FOR AT LEAST COME BACK TO YOU WITH AN UPDATE. 
          >>IS THIS A PUBLIC HEARING? >> NO. >>WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. 
          >>I ASKED FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION. >>I MOVE THAT WE TABLE THIS MATTER FOR 90 DAYS TIMELINE TO HAVE WHOEVER THE AUTHORITY IS ON THESE REVENUES COME TO GIVE US INFORMATION ON WHAT THEY ARE COLLECTED ON AND EXTENDED FOR TO GIVE THE CITY ATTORNEY THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK ON THE ORDINANCE TO DO THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT IT IS NOW. 
          >>YOU ARE ASKING FOR A POLICY CHANGE OF THE CODE. >>YES. 
          >>YOU SECONDED IT? >> YES. >> 
          >> CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >>
          [C.  Resolution 26-R19 considering an Application for an Impact Fee Offset Agreement in respect of Transportation Impact Fees for roadway capacity improvements by LDL of Fort Pierce, LLC in the amount of $56,719.67.]
          19. >> C. RESOLUTION 26-R19 CONSIDERING AN APPLICATION FOR AN IMPACT FEE OFFSET AGREEMENT IN RESPECT OF TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES FOR ROADWAY CAPACITY IMPROVEMENTS BY LDL OF FORT PIERCE, LLC IN THE AMOUNT OF $56,719.67. 
          >>HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE, THE DEVELOPER BUILT OUT THE ROADWAY IN CACCORDANCE TO STAFF FOR 
          [04:20:01]
MAKING THE LANE ADDITION. THE COUNTY AGREED TO BE CREDITED NOT TO EXCEED. THAT'S WHAT THEY PUT IN PLACE. THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, HAD A REQUIREMENT FOR $56, $56,719.67. WHAT THE CITY APPLIED FOR AND GRANT THE OFFSET REFUND. 
          >> >>IT'S THE SAME SITUATION. SAME ROAD OF THE COUNTY ROAD. YOU 
          CAN'T GO ANY FURTHER. >>I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS COME BACK ON THE SAME TRACK. 
          >>IS THAT A MOTION? >> YES. >>ONE QUESTION. 
          >>WHAT ARE WE DOING WITH THIS MONEY? >> IT'S IN A FUND FOR THE CAPACITY IMPROVEMENT. IT'S NOT A REPAIR. IT'S A NEW LANE WIDENING. IT'S SOMETHING THAT INCREASES THE VOLUME OF THE STREET. AND IF YOU REALIZE THAT MOST OF THE CITY STREETS ARE BUILT OUT. SO I WOULD HAVE TO CONFER WITH THE CITY DEPARTMENT AND WE HAVE TO EVERY YEAR REPORT 
          TO THE COUNTY FOR HOW IT IS SPENT. >> SO WE GIVE THESE NUMBERS TO 
          THE COUNTY. >>WE HAVE TO AS PART OF THE AGREEMENT. WHAT THEY MAY BE USED 
          FOR. >>IS THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OR THE COUNTY? 
          >> THIS DEVELOPMENT IS IN THE SE, ROADWAY TO COUNTY. >>THERE IS A BENEFIT TO THE CITY. THE DEVELOPMENT. IT'S A POLICY ISSUE WE HAVE TO CHANGE. AGAIN, BACK TO FIXING THINGS AND 
          OPPORTUNITY TO WHAT IS BROKE. START FIXING IT NOW. >>WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO ME NOW WHAT WE ARE SEEING THIS DECISION WAS MADE 10 MONTHS AGO. THAT'S MY CONCERN FOR THE CONTRACT IS THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO YOU NOT FROM THE COUNTY, BUT SOMEONE SHOULD HAVE COME TO THE OFFICE TO EXPLAIN THIS PROCESS. THIS COMES AFTER THE FACT. WE DON'T HAVE A PROCESS IN PLACE, AN AGREEMENT, BACK AND FORTH ALL THESE MONTHS AND THAT WE CAN'T SEE THESE FUNDS BECAUSE THE CODE DOESN'T ALLOW IT. WE HAVE TO GET THE PROCESSES DOWN. WE HAVE TO CHANGE THE CODE ALL WE WANT. IF WE CHANGE THE CODE FOR THE PROCESS, THEN IF WE CHANGE THE CODE AND NO ONE COMES TO THE COUNTY AFTER THE PROJECT IS COMPLETE AND WANT TO PROCESS THIS IMPACT FEE. ARE WE GOING TO ALLOW THEM TO DO IT OR PROCESS THIS GOING UPFRONT. WE STILL HAVE THE PROCESS GOING FORWARD. WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THIS PROCESS. 
          >>WHEN WE HAVE TO KNOW THIS PROCESS. >>WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT, UNDERSTAND FIRST OF ALL AND GIVE THE RIGHT DIRECTION. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, IF WE CHANGE OUR CODE, THOSE WHO WANT TO BENEFIT FROM WHAT THE CHANGE IS, HAS TO FILE THE PROCESS UPFRONT, NOT THE BACK END. I THINK IS FAIR WHAT WE ARE SAYING AND DOING. I SEE THIS BEING A PROCESS PROBLEM AS WELL. BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T COME TO THE CITY AS YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO, IF WE HAVE IT AVAILABLE AND EXPLAIN TO WHAT THE SITUATION IS, THERE SHOULDN'T BE A ZAGS COMING BACK 
          IN. >>THEY WERE WORKING WITH THE CITY. 
          >>AFTER THE FACT. >>THEY WERE WORKING WITH THE CITY FOR TEN MONTHS. 
          >>I'M SAYING THEY SHOULD HAVE COME TO US FIRST. >>THEY ARE FINDING THAT OUT NOW. 
          >>THE COUNTY LED THEM TO BELIEVE. NOW MAYBE YOU COULD SAY, WELL, I'M NOT GOING TO DOUBT THE COUNTY. I'M JUST SAYING THERE IS A SITUATION WHERE IN THEIR MINDS THEY WERE 
          DOING EVERYTHING THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO. IN THEIR MINDS. >>I CAN'T SPEAK FOR WHAT'S IN THEIR MIND, BUT FOR WHAT THE PROCESS SHOULD BE. THE POINT I'M MAKING IS THERE IS A PROCESS AND 
          [04:25:11]
THE CITY SHOULD UNDERSTAND PROCESS. WE COULD CHANGE THE CODE AND STILL BE IN THE SAME SITUATION IF SOMEONE DOESN'T COME TO US FOR IMPACT FEE CREDIT. 
          >>MADAM MAYOR, THIS IS WHY I WANT 90 DAYS BECAUSE NOW I'M HEARING SOMETHING A LITTLE DIFFERENT. THE PROCESS OF THESE BUILDING ESTABLISHMENT ON HARFORD ROAD FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY TO BUILD AND I HEAR YOU RIGHT. THE CITY, RIGHT?  THEY MAY BE ANNEX INTO THE CITY. I HEAR YOU DOING THAT. SOMETHING SHOULD HAVE TRIGGERED RIGHT THERE AT THE BEGINNING WHEN IT COMES TO THE COLLECTION OF ALL THE FEES GOING TO BE CONNECTED AND SOMEHOW THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY HERE THAT WE NEED TO IDENTIFY FIRST HOW IT IS MISSED AND TO MAKE SURE IT'S NOT MIXED AGAIN. AND BY THE WAY, FIX AND CORRECT WHAT WE NOW KNOW IS WRONG. I NEED TO UNDERSTAND THIS FROM THE BEGINNING PROCESS AND WHAT TRIGGERS BECAUSE HE IS RIGHT. IF WE DON'T FIGURE THAT OUT, WE HAVE MORE DEVELOPMENTS BUILDING LITERALLY RIGHT NOW AND HAD WE TALKED TO THEM UPFRONT AND HAVE THEY BEEN INFORMED. THAT'S MY CONCERN. LITERALLY RIGHT NOW, ACROSS FROM CAMPING 
          WORLD IS A MOUND OF DIRT WHAT THAT GUY STARTED BUILDING. >>BUT, I'M GETTING FOR A GRAPHIC THAT WE CAN OUGHT ALL SEE THAT. TOOK US TWO YEARS FOR THAT PROCESS. I'M JUST SAYING WE EVER 
          A LOT OF WORK TO DO. >>WE ARE GOING TO NEED STAFF TO ACCELERATE THIS AND MAKE SURE. 
          >>IS THERE A MOTION FOR THIS? >> MADAM MAYOR, I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS REQUEST FOR 90 DAYS TO THE PRIOR ITEM. AND I WOULD LIKE THEM BOTH BROUGHT BACK AT THE SAME TIME. 
          >>I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION. >> >> CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. 
          [D.  Resolution 26-R20 approving the FY 2025 Final Budget Amendment for Grant Funds.]
          >>D. RESOLUTION 26-R20 APPROVING THE FY 2025 FINAL BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR GRANT FUNDS.  
          >>MS. MORRIS? >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS. WE HAVE OUR GRANT FUND BUDGETS. WE ARE AMENDING OUR CDBG GRANT ADMINISTRATION FUNDS. WE START WITH CDBG, THE APPROVED BUDGET WITH $1,701 MILLION. ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE MOVE ON? 
          >> >>IT'S PRETTY CLOSE. >>THAT DIDN'T HELP. 
          >> OUR APPROVED BUDGET WAS $37,909, TO $11,228. THE GRANTS ADMINISTRATION FUND WAS APPROVED AT $548,143, AMENDED TO $527,237. 
          >>QUESTIONS? >> IS THERE A MOTION? >> MOVE APPROVAL. 
          [E.  Resolution 26-R21 approving MOU between FDLE and FPPD for investigations regarding Officer Involved Shootings and in-custody deaths.]
          >>SECOND. >> >> CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. 
          >>APPROVING MOU BETWEEN FDLE AND FPPD FOR INVESTIGATIONS REGARDING OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTINGS AND IN-CUSTODY DEATHS. 
          [04:30:12]
          TH >>CHIEF OF POLICE: THIS NEEDED NEW SIGNATURES. 
          >>THERE IS NO CHANGES EXCEPT NEW NAMES. >>OTHER THAN THE SIGNATURES ON IT TO ALLOW THE FDLA TO DO CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS FOR OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTINGS AND CUSTODY DEATHS AND STILL RESPONSIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATION INVESTIGATION. 
          >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>IS THERE A MOTION?  WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND. 
          >> CLERK, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. 
          [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.]
14. COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC PLEASE COME FORWARD. ANYONE WHO 
          IS INTERESTED. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES, STATE YOUR NAME. >> 
          >>PUBLIC SPEAKER: I WANT TO CLEAR UP SOME MISINFORMATION I HEARD UP HERE. ONE IS, THIS JUST DIDN'T HAPPEN TEN MONTHS AGO. WE HAVE A PLAN REVIEW, PROCESS THAT WE SAT IN YOUR MEETING ROOM AND DISCUSSED WITH COUNTY OFFICIALS AS WELL THAT SAID WE WOULD RECEIVE A CREDIT FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY DONATION. IT HAPPENED THREE YEARS AGO.   THE OTHER THING IS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 86 E-MAILS TO YOUR DEPARTMENT. 86, THEY WERE RESPONSES FROM YOUR DEPARTMENT. FOUR OF THOSE WERE NO SUBSTANCE WHATSOEVER BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T KNOW. THEY HAD NO IDEA. THEY DIDN'T CALL ME, NO COMMUNICATION, NOTHING. THE COUNTY DID NOT START THIS IN, THIS WAS LIKE A SAID WAS STARTED BACK IN PLAN REVIEW. IT WAS AT THE TIME BECAUSE OF MY DRIVEWAY ACCESS, THEY BROUGHT THIS UP THEN. THEN THROUGH THE PROCESS, THE COUNTY WAS THE ONE WHO STARTED THE PROCESS TO DETERMINE WHAT I RECEIVED BACK. THIS WAS LEAP LOOPED IN TO KEVIN. YOU COLLECTED MORE IMPACT FEES IN THE COUNTY THAT IS NOT YOUR OWN. TELL ME HOW THAT IS. SHE'S SAYING ALL THIS IS FOR TRANSPORTATION FEES. YOU ARE NOT COLLECTING. WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE?  WEDNESDAY I RECEIVED AN EMAIL AND HAD NO TIME TO PREPARE. IT'S BASICALLY JARGON AND GIBBERISH. WE CAN CHARGE YOU FOR THE IMPACT FEES BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO GIVE YOU ANYTHING BACK. 
          I'M A CONTRACTOR.   THEY DIDN'T WANT TO. IT'S BECAUSE OF STUFF LIKE THIS. IT'S RIDICULOUS. 
          THANK YOU. >>THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >>ANYONE ELSE?  PLEASE COME 
          FOR FORWARD. >> 
          >>PUBLIC SPEAKER: HELLO, MY NAME IS JAMERICK, I WANTED TO COMMENT ON THE FACT THAT YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS A CITY PICK UP AND I HAD A GREAT TIME MEETING THE VOLUNTEERS, SEEING HOW MANY PEOPLE ACTUALLY ENDED UPCOMING OUT, AND GOING AROUND WITH PEOPLE TO PICK UP A PROBLEM THAT I NOTICED IN THE COMMUNITY AND SEEING WHO WAS WILLING TO HELP. THANK YOU FOR THAT AND I WAS APPRECIATIVE OF THE EVENT. THANK YOU GUYS. I'M HAPPY WITH THE CONVERSATIONS THAT ARE BEING 
          HAD. I HAVE. >>THANK YOU, SIR.. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          [15. COMMENTS FROM THE CITY MANAGER]
          >>ANYONE ELSE?  PLEASE COME FORWARD?  ANYONE ELSE?  OKAY, WE'LL MOVE ON. 
          >> 15. COMMENTS FROM THE CITY MANAGER 
          >>TO THE YOUNG MAN THAT CAME UP, THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE CLEAN UP LAST WEEKEND. I WENT TO THE HOSTING FESTIVAL. IT WAS NICE. NICE FESTIVAL, BEAUTIFUL DAY. BEAUTIFUL 
          WEATHER. THAT'S IT. >>THANK YOU. >>MS. COX, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? 
          >> A QUICK REMINDER THAT WE HAVE A SPECIAL MEETING THURSDAY MORNING AT 8:30 A.M. AND 9:00. 
          [16. COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION]
          [04:35:09]
          >>THANK YOU. >>MS. HEDGES? >> NOTHING ELSE. 
          >>ALL RIGHT. >>SHOULD WE MOVE ON TO COMMISSION COMMENTS? 
          >> WHO WOULD LIKE TO START? >> I WILL START. I HAVE NO COMMENTS. 
          >>NO COMMENTS. >>CITY COMMISSIONER ARNOLD GAINES: I'M JUST SITTING HERE. 
          WHEN I HEAR COMMENTS FROM A CONTRACTOR, COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC THAT THERE WAS A MEETING WITH CITY OFFICIALS THREE YEARS AGO, AND WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW DOES THIS KEEP HAPPENING?  THREE YEARS AGO, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN 23. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF WE CAN WHOEVER HAS CONTACT FOR THIS INDIVIDUAL, WHAT MEETING HAPPENED AND WHERE DID IT HAPPEN, BECAUSE IF THAT IS THE CASE, HOW COULD THIS NOT BE KNOWN THREE YEARS AGO THAT THEY WERE APPLYING FOR THIS MONEY?  IT JUST SMELLS BAD, LOOKS BAD AND I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, IF THE CITY KNEW THIS OR SOMEONE IN THE CITY KNEW THIS THREE YEARS AGO, WE SHOULD HAVE HAD THIS PROCESS IN PLACE THREE YEARS AGO. BUT WE ARE GETTING IT NOW AND I AGREE WITH OUR CITY MANAGER THAT THE PROCESS HAS TO BE FOLLOWED, BUT PROCESS HAS TO BE FOLLOWED BUT I'M JUST SITTING HERE UPSET BECAUSE IF HE IS RIGHT THAT HE MET WITH SOMEBODY THREE YEARS AGO AND WE WERE TOLD THAT, I JUST DON'T UNDER WHY ALL OF US ARE SITTING HERE AND DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT BECAUSE I WAS HERE THREE YEARS AGO AND I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS. 
          I NEED SOME ANSWERS TO SEE WHERE THAT MEETING OCCURRED TO GET MORE DETAIL. 
          >>THE GREAT AMERICAN CLEAN UP WAS A GREAT EVENT.   I NEED TO APOLOGIZE TO THE COMMISSION AND MADAM MAYOR, IF I SAID SOMETHING BECAUSE I WAS KIND OF TICKED OFF ABOUT THE GREAT AMERICAN CLEAN UP BECAUSE LESS THAN 24 HOURS WE TOOK 15 STREET AND CLEANED UP AVENUE 0. PEOPLE WERE STILL THROWING TRASH OUT. I MEAN, AREN'T YOU TIRED OF PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT HOW DIRTY OUR CITY IS? SO IF YOU SEE SOMEONE THROWING TRASH OUT, STOP AND SAY SOMETHING TO THEM. MAKE THEM HAVE PRIDE, DO SOMETHING BECAUSE IT'S RIDICULOUS TO SEE THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT CAME OUT TO HELP CLEAN UP OUR CITY FOR PEOPLE TO RIDE BY AND DON'T CARE. I HAD ONE GENTLEMAN WRITING ME BACK, HE SAID HE WAS CLEANING UP AND THE PEOPLE THROUGH THE TRASH AT HIM. I'M JUST TELLING YOU WHAT H'S GOING ON. TOMORROW IS SAINT PATRICK'S 
          DAY?  HAPPY SAINT PATRICK'S DAY AND GREAT MEETING. >>I THINK SOME OF THE CHALLENGES WE FACE HERE IN THE CITY IS WE HAVE GONE THROUGH A LOT OF EMPLOYEES, AND I TALK ABOUT CASE NOTES AND MEETING NOTES AND SO FORTH, AGAIN, FROM A CHANCE OF CHANGING A DYNAMIC WITH A POLICY CHANGE OF HOW THESE MEETINGS OCCUR, CASE NOTES WITH THE NAMES OF THOSE FOLKS THERE, SHOULD BE AVAILABLE SOMEWHERE. SO, AGAIN, IT'S GOING TO TO BE A TRANSITION GOING FORWARD. ALL OF THESE LITTLE CHALLENGES HAVE TO BE ADMITTED TO AND MOVED FORWARD SO INFORMATION GETS PASSED ON TO THE NEXT PERSON. WE CAN'T PAY WITH THE COUNTY'S PAYING AND SOME OF THE BIGGER CITIES AND WE ARE GOING TO HAVE ROTATION OF EMPLOYEES. WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PASS INFORMATION ON. I AGREE, THERE IS A PROCESS AND SHOULD BE FOLLOWED. I GET THAT. WHAT I'M HEARING TOO NOW IS THAT THERE WAS A LITTLE DIFFERENT TAKE ON IT FROM THE OTHER SIDE. SO WE HAVE WORK TO DO. 
          >> THERE IS ALWAYS TWO SIDES. THEN -- WELL, I DO WANT TO SAY THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE GET ACCUSED OF AND WE SHOULD BE MINDFUL OF INCLUDING OUR STAFF IS WE TEND TO FAVOR PEOPLE COMING INTO THE CITY AND WANT TO BUILD SOMETHING NEW AND SOMETIMES WE GET ACCUSED OF NOT 
          [04:40:09]
PAYING AS MUCH ATTENTION TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ALREADY HERE. I THINK THE HIGH POINT THING, THAT SITS INTO THAT. AND DEVON AND JACQUELINE, THE FORT PIERCE PEOPLE, HE'S A PERSON THAT'S BEEN HERE AND WORKED IN THIS SYSTEM, SO, I JUST WANT EVERYBODY TO BE TREATED FAIRLY. 
          SO, AND EVERYBODY GIVEN THE EQUAL AND THE BEST OF OUR SERVICE AS OUR STAFF. I WON'T CLOSE ON THAT NOTE. I WILL SAY THAT I HAD SEVERAL DIFFERENT THINGS ON SATURDAY, THE GREAT AMERICAN CLEAN UP AND WENT TO THE MUSEUM TO SEE THE MURAL WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY GORGEOUS AND I WALKED BACK IN THE PATIO THERE. I DIDN'T GET TO SEE THE FULL EFFECT OF THE MUSEUM WHEN WE HAD ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE THERE FOR THE OPENING, BUT I THINK THAT THE MURAL IS JUST OUTSTANDING AND THE WHOLE PLAZA PART OF IT, I'M SO GLAD THAT YOU BROUGHT THAT UP BECAUSE WITH THE BENCHES OUT THERE AND THE BRICKS AND IT'S ALL FENCED IN. NOW, IF THEY CAN KEEP THE CHICKENS OUT OF THERE. SHE'S WORRIED ABOUT THE CHICKENS ALL THE TIME. BUT IT'S MAKING THAT AVENUE D LOOK REALLY GOOD, REALLY SPECIAL. YES. SO WITH THAT, UNLESS THERE IS ANYTHING?  COMMISSIONER GAINES?  CITY COMMISSIONER ARNOLD GAINES: HE SAID THAT WAS ONE OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL THINGS 
          HE'S SEEN IN A LONG TIME. >>IT JUST JUMPS OUT AT YOU. BASED ON AN AMERICAN CAROL 
          MOVING. A REALLY WONDERFUL JOB. >>HE RECOGNIZED WHERE
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.