[1. CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:05] >> I'D LIKE TO CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. THIS IS MONDAY, JUNE 1, 2026, AND THIS IS THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE COMMISSION. AND PLEASE STAND FOR THE OPENING PRAYER BY PASTOR PAULINE WILLIAMS OF ST. PAUL AME CHURCH AND REMAIN STAND FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. >> THANK YOU TODAY FOR OUR MAYOR, CITY MANAGER, AND OUR COMMISSIONERS. BUT AS WE GO TO GRACE WE JUST THANK OUR FATHER TODAY. WE ASK AS WE BOW OUR HEADS. GOD OF ALL PEOPLE, WE COME TO YOU ON THE BRINK OF TRANSITION IN OUR NATION. AN AS WE PREPARE EARTHLY LEADERS, WE CONFESS THE WAYS WE FORGOTTEN TO LIVE OUR IDENTITY A CITIZENS OF YOUR KINGDOM. O LORD OUR GOD, YOU ARE THE ULTIMATE RULER OF ALL NATIONS YET YOU HAVE ENTRUSTED US WITH THE STEWARDSHIP OF OUR COMMUNITIES AND THE PRIVILEGE OF A VOICE IN OUR SOCIETY. FOR THE GRACE TO VIEW OUR CIVIC DISTINCTION OF OUR CALL TO LOVE- OUR NEIGHBOUR AS OURSELVES. FOR WISDOM TO LOOK BEYOND OUR OWN INTERESTS THAT WE MAY PRIORITIZE THE VULNERABLE, THE POOR, AND THE CITIZENS OF OUR COMMUNITY. WE THANK YOU, LORD, THIS NIGHT AS WE UNITE TOGETHER REACHING YOU FOR THIS PRAYER TONIGHT. WE THANK YOU, FATHER, AS YOU LEAD AND GUIDE US IN OUR COMMUNITY. WE ASK ALL OUR PRAYERS IN JESUS NAME WE PRAY, AMEN. >> AMEN. >> I LOGOPLEGIA LIEGE TONS THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. >> CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> MAYOR HUDSON. >> PRESENT. >> COMMISSIONER. >> PRESENT. >> HERE, MAYOR. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. [5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES] >> PRESENT. >> OKAY. FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE MAY 18, 2026, REGULAR MEETING. >> MOVE FOR APPROVAL. >> SECOND. >> THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. CALL THE ROLL. >> COMMISSIONER -- COMMISSIONER GAINS. >> YES, MA'AM. >> MAYOR HUDSON. [A. National Gun Violence Awareness Day, Treasure Coast–Moms Demand Action] >> YES, MA'AM. >> OKAY. WE HAVE THREE PROCLAMATIONS THIS EVENING. THE FIRST IS NATIONAL GUN VIOLENCE AWARENESS DAY. FOR THE TREASURY COAST MOMS DEMAND ACTION IS GOING TO BE RECEIVING IT. ARE YOU HERE? THEY'RE NOT HERE. DO YOU WANT TO READ IT? [B. Revive Awareness Day, Florida Health] >> JUST PUT IT ASIDE AND DO THE NEXT ONE. >> NEXT ONE IS REVIVE AWARENESS DAY. BEING ACCEPTED BY THE FLORIDA HEALTH. WHEREAS THE OPIOID CRISIS CONTINUES TO SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT OUR COMMUNITY RESULTING IN PREVENTIBLE LOSS OF LIFE. AND WHEREAS REVIVE AWARENESS DAY ESTABLISHED STATE-WIDE THROUGH SENATE BILL 66 AND KNOWN AS VICTORY'S LAW INSPIRED A STATE-WIDE MOVEMENT TO EXPAND NALOXONE ACCESS, INCREASE AWARENESS, AND PREVENT FUTURE OVERDOSE DEATHS, AND WHEREAS THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE RECOGNIZES AND REMAINS COMMITTED TO SUPPORTING PREVENTION, TREATMENT, RECOVERY, EDUCATION, AND STIGMA REDUCTION EFFORTS, AND WHEREAS THE OPIOID ABATEMENT TEAMS AT THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH IS COMMITTED TO EXPANDING ACCESS TO I THINK IT'S NALOXONE COORDINATING OVERDOSE PREVENTION INITIATIVES SUPPORTING COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS AND PROMOTING DUCATION, RECOVERY, AND STIGMA REDUCTION THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY. AND WHEREAS REVIVE AWARENESS DAY OFFERS AN IMPORTANT OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR COMMUNITY TO HONOUR THE LIVES LOST TO OVERDOSE AND ENGAGE THE COMMUNITY IN ACTIVITIES THAT SYMBOLIZE RESILIENCE, RECOVERY, AND OUR COLLECTIVE COMMITMENT TO SAVING LIVES, AND WHEREAS COMMUNITY ACROSS FLORIDA UNITE EACH YEAR ON JUNE 6TH TO REAFFIRM THEIR SHARED COMMITMENT TO REDUCING STIGMA, EXPANDING LIFE SAVING RESOURCES, AND STRENGTHENING SUPPORT FOR INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES AFFECTED BY SUBSTANCE USE DISORDERS. NOW, THEREFORE I LINDA HUDSON, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE, FELLOWER, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM JUNEIVE, 2026, AS REVIVE AWARENESS DAY AND ENCOURAGE HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS, COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS, AND LOCAL BUSINESS TO PARTICIPATE IN ACTIVITIES THAT PROMOTE OVERDOSE PREVENTION, RECOVERY SUPPORT, AND COMMUNITY HEALING. >> CONGRATULATIONS. >> THANK YOU.% >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY A FEW WORDS? >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND MEMBERS [00:05:01] OF THE FORT PIERCE CITY COMMISSION. ON BEHALF OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND OUR COMMUNITY PARTNERS, I AM HONOURED TO ACCEPT THIS PROCLAMATION FOR REVIVE AWARENESS DAY. JUNE 6 IS A DAY OF REMEMBRANCE AND ACTION. IT HONOURS THE LIVES LOST, STRENGTHENS OUR COMMITMENT TO EDUCATION AND ACCESS TO NALOXONE. THIS YEAR OUR COMMUNITY WILL COMMEMORATE THE DAY WITH A TREE PLANTING CEREMONY ON SATURDAY, JUNE 26TH FROM 10 A.M. TO 11 A.M. AT THE PAULA A LEWIS LIBRARY. THE TREE WE PLANT TOGETHER WILL SERVE AS A LIVING MEMORIAL SYMBOLIZING HEALING, RESILIENCE, AND THE HOPE WE CONTINUE TO GROW IN ST. LUCY COUNTY. AFTER THE CEREMONY, THE COUNTY WILL PROVIDE FREE TREE SEEDLINGS AND FREE NALOXONE KITS. ANOTHER STEP FORWARD TOWARDS EMPOWER OUR COMMUNITY WITH LIFE-SAVING TOOLS. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO RECOGNIZE MY COLLEAGUES HERE THIS AFTERNOON WHO WORK WITH ME IN OUR OPIOID PROGRAM. WE HAVE MICHELLE PEASELY, OUR HEALTH SERVICES MANAGER AND JESSICA OUR OPIOID OVERDOSE PREVENTION PROGRAM TRAINING SPECIALIST. THEIR COMMITMENT TO THIS WORK STRENGTHENS COMMUNITY EVERY DAY. ONCE AGAIN THANK YOU FOR RECOGNIZING THIS AWARENESS DAY AND FOR STANDING WITH US AS WE WORK TOGETHER TO SAVE LIVES AND SUPPORT FAMILIES ACROSS OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR WHAT THANK YOU. >> OKAY. [C. Community Action Month, The Agricultural and Labor Program Inc.] NEXT WE HAVE COMMUNITY ACTION MONTH BEING RECEIVED BY THE AGRICULTURE AND LABOUR PROGRAM. THEY'RE NOT HERE EITHER. [8. ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS TO AGENDA AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA] OKAY. SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO DIGS OR DELETIONS TO THE AGENDA AND APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA. AND MAYOR HUDSON, I CIRCULATED A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR FORT PIERCE UTILITIES AUTHORITY APPROPRIATION THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD AS CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 11K IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE TO EVERYONE. >> A? >> K. >> AND ARE THERE ANY OTHER ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS OR CHANGES? IF NOT. >> MAYOR. >> YES, SIR. >> I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH MY COLLEAGUES AT SOME POINT ON, AND IT CAN COME AT THE BACK. WE HAD AN ACTION THAT WE TOOK AS A BODY AND A VOTE. AND I HAVE SOME UNCERTAINTY AND SOME CONFUSION THAT RESULTED, AND I WANT TO HAVE A PUBLIC DISCUSSION WITH MY COLLEAGUES HERE TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME ACCORD REGARDING THE CITY ATTORNEY'S CONTRACT. >> OB. WHERE WOULD YOU LIKE TO PUT THAT? IT SHOULD PROBABLY BE UNDER. >> CITY COMMISSION MAYBE 13A? >> 13A THAT. WOULD BE GREAT. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER CHANGES OR ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS? IF NOT I'LL ENTRAIN A MOTION. >> MAKE A MOTION WITH THE NECESSARY CORRECTIONS OR ADDITIONS. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> CALL THE ROLL, PLEASE. >> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK. COMMISSIONER GAINS. >> YES, MA'AM. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. >> YES, MA'AM. >> MAYOR. >> YES, MA'AM. >> WE DID NOT HAVE ANYONE SIGN UP UNDER COMMENS FROM THE PUBLIC, SO WE WILL GO STRAIGHT TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. [11. CONSENT AGENDA] >> ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANY ITEM THAT ANY COMMISSIONER WOULD LIKE TO PULL? >> HI, MAYOR. I JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT 11C. >> ALL RIGHTY. >> CONVERSATION TO HAVE. >> OKAY. ANY OTHER ITEM. >> I'M GONNA PULL ITEMS 11E AND J. >> OKAY. THE ANY OTHERS? IF NOT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REST OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. >> CALL THE ROLL, PRODUCE EASY. >> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK. >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER ZIDOVSKY. >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER GAINS. [C. Approval of Ferreira Construction Change Order No. 1 in the amount of negative $226,261.52; a net savings of $55,873.72 after a direct material purchase from FPUA on the Indian River Drive Roadway Reconstruction project.] >> YES, MA'AM. >> JIGSER JOHNSON. >> YES, MA'AM. >> MAYOR. >> YES, MA'AM. >> 11C IS APPROVAL OF THE FERREIRA CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION CHANGE ORDER NUMBER 1 IN THE AMOUNT OF NEGATIVE $226,261 AND 52 CENTS, A NET SAVINGS OF $55,873 AND 72 CENTS AFTER A DIRECT MATERIAL PURCHASE FROM FPUA ON THE INDIAN RIVER DRIVE REDWAY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. >> COMMISSIONER. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. THIS IS A GOOD NEWS STORY. THIS IS ABOUT USING LOCAL ASSETS THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO US AND UTILIZING OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENTS OR AGENCIES TO HELP REDUCE THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS IN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THESE OPTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES WHEN WE CAN DO THAT CONSIDERING SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE BEING CONSIDERED BY THE STATE AT THIS TIME ON WHERE OUR REVENUES AND BEING ABLE TO RUN THE CITY IN THE FUTURE MIGHT LIE. SO I JUST WANT TO RAISE THAT AND [00:10:02] SHOW THAT THE FORT PIERCE UTILITIES IS A GOOD PARTNER IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND HAVING DONE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REDUCE THE COST OF THIS PROJECT I THINK IS IMPORTANT FOR THE CITIZENS TO KNOW. >> GOOD. WOULD YOU LIKE TO MEDICATION A MOTION? IS THERE A SECOND. >> SECOND. CALL THE ROLL. >> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK. >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER ZIDOVSKY. >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER GAINS. >> YES, MA'AM. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. [E. Approval for City Attorney Sara Hedges to attend the 44th Annual Seminar of the Florida Municipal Attorneys Association (FMAA) in Bonita Springs, Florida from July 8 to July 11, 2026 at a cost of $1,733.51.] >> YES, MA'AM. >> MAYOR HUDSON. >> YES, MA'AM. >> 11E IS APPROVAL FOR CITY ATTORNEY SARAH HEDGES TO ATTEND THE 44TH ANNUAL SEMINAR OF THE FLORIDA MUNICIPAL ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION FROM JULY 8 TO THE 11 AT A COST OF $1,733 AND 51-CENT. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. >> I HAVE AND I APPRECIATE YOUR ADDING ON THE AGENDA FOR OUR DISCUSSION. AS WE APPROACH THAT SITUATION THAT WE VOTED ON, I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE TWO ITEMS WE PULLED SPECIFICALLY THIS ONE. FOR ME, I LIKE FOR US TO HAVE A DISCUSSION REGARDING THIS. I HAVE AN INTERPRETATION OF WHAT TOOK PLACE AT OUR LAST MEETING. AND IT WAS CLEAR TO ME THAT WE ARE IN A PHASE OF SEPARATION, AND AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT, BEING A STEWARD OF THE CITY FUNDS, I'VE GOT CONCERNS WITH THIS EXPENDITURE AT THIS TIME. AND IF I'M UNCLEAR ON OFF BASE HERE, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION PUBLICLY BUT AS A GOOD STEWART HERE, I WANT TO PULL THESE TWO ITEMS AND THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR WHO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT FISCALLY BEING RESPONSIBLE HERE, AND MY INTERPRETATION IS THIS IS SOMETHING I CANNOT AND WILL NOT SUPPORT. I THINK THAT OUR DISCUSSION AND HOW WE GO ABOUT THIS AND GO ABOUT A THE BUSINESS OF WHAT I INTERPRET WHAT HAPPENED LAST WEEK PROHIBITS ME FROM SUPPORTING THIS AT THIS POINT IN TIME. AFTER WE HAD OUR DISCUSSION OR DISCUSSION NOW AND THINGS CAN SET ME STRAIGHT OR PROVIDE INFORMATION THAT I'M NOT AWARE OF, THEN I AM HAPPY TO SUPPORT IT. BUT YOU JUST WANTED TO LET MY COLLEAGUES KNOW I WILL NOT BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS. >> COMMISSIONER, ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE MOTION THAT WAS MADE TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT FOR AN ADDITIONAL YEAR AT THE LAST MEETING? >> I AM. >> AND THEN THE VOTE WAS 3-2 AGAINST THAT MOTION. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> CAN YOU PULL YOUR MICROPHONE CLOSER, COMMISSIONER. >> DO I NEED TO REPEAT THAT? OKAY. SO I WAS ASKING THE COMMISSIONER IF WHAT HE'S REFERRING TO IS ON THE LAST AGENDA. AL WE TALKED ABOUT THE CONTRACT AND THAT THERE WAS A MOTION MADE RELATIVELY EARLY IN THE CONVERSATION AND AS PART OF THAT, IT WAS THE MOTION WAS TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT FOR A YEAR AND THEN THERE WAS A CONVERSATION AND THEN A VOTE TAKEN, AND THE VOTE CAME 3-2 NOT SUPPORTING THAT MOTION. SO IS IT YOUR INTERPRETATION THAT THAT CONTRACT WAS NOT RENEWED WHICH I THINK I HAVE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC TOO IS THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION AS TO MAKING THE MOTION TO APPROVE IT AND THEN DENYING IT DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY DENY BECAUSE THIS COMMISSION THEN HAD TO CREATE A LETTER STATING THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO RENEW THAT CONTRACT. DOESN'T MEAN THERE WAS ANY OTHER ACTION BEING TAKEN. JUST SIMPLY THE CONTRACT WOULD RUN OUT IN THE REMAINING 90 DAYS. THAT'S HOW I UNDERSTOOD THAT TO BE. I'LL TAKE YOUR -- >> THAT IS EXACTLY IT, COMMISSIONER. AND I THINK WE HAVE GOT TO BE CLEAR. THE MOTION WAS MADE. IT WAS VOTED NO. MY UNDERSTANDING AND INTERPRETATION WAS THAT IT WOULD NOT BE RENEWED. SIGNALING THAT THE ACTIONS NEEDED TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE. SO THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. SINCE IT IS NOT GOING TO RENEW AND WILL TERMINATE IN THIS THREE-YEAR PERIOD WHICH IS COMING UP IN SEPTEMBER. I WANT TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WITH THIS COMMISSION AS TO AKULIVIK THAT IS MAY OR MAY NOT OR SHOULD NOT OR SHOULD BE TAKEN BETWEEN NOW AND THEN. I HAVE SEEN YOURS CONCERNS WITH THAT. I HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS WITH MORALE AT CITY HALL. I HAD A DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY THIS WEEK DOING MY ONE OFFS. I WAS ERR PLEXED BY A DIRECT COMMENT I RECEIVED FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY. AND HER CONFUSION OF THE FUTURE WITH THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. SO THAT UNCERTAINTY PROMPTED ME [00:15:02] TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION TO PULL THESE ITEMS THAT WE NEED TO PROVIDE SOME CLARITY TO NOT ONLY OUR CITY ATTORNEY BUT TO OURSELVES AND TO THE PUBLIC. AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S A TOUGH CONVERSATION, BUT WE CAN'T GO STICK OUR HEAD IN THE SAND AND HAVE UNCERTINTY IN OUR CITY. >> MADAM MAYOR? >> COMMISSIONER, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO SHARE WHAT YOUR CONVERSATION WAS? BECAUSE I DID NOT HAVE A STAFF MEETING THIS WEEK. THE SO I DID NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK TO THE ATTORNEY AND INFORMATION WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO ME THAT YOU LEARNED. >> UNDERSTOOD. WE SIMPLY DID OUR USUAL REVIEW OF AGENDA TOWARDS THE END OF THAT PARTICULAR CONVERSATION. MY RECOLLECTION AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT WAS TO RECOUNT AND WAS PROVIDING FEEDBACK TO ATTORNEY HEDGES ABOUT MY CONCERNS ABOUT THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND INTERACTION WITH CITY HALL, CITY STAFF, DIRECTION, ET CETERA. THAT OFFICE, IS IT I MANAGER HES OFFICE AND CONCERNS THAT I COULD NOT SUPPORT FURTHER AND THAT BASED ON THE ACTIONS THAT WERE TAKEN BY THE CITY COMMISSION THAT THIS RELATIONSHIP WAS GOING TO END IN SEPTEMBER. I WAS THEN INFORMED THAT THAT WAS NOT THE INTERPRETATION THE CITY ATTORNEY HAD AND THAT IT RENEWED AUTOMATICALLY. >> WELL. >> AND IF I'M MISTAKEN, I CERTAINLY NEED TO BE CORRECTED. >> MS. HEDGE, DO YOU WANT TO CHIME IN HERE? >> SURE. MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS. WEIRD LEGAL POSITION BECAUSE I CAN'T GIVE YOU LEGAL ADVICE ON MY CONTRACT, BUT I CAN TELL YOU MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE EMPLOYEE IS I HAVE A CONTRACT THAT STATES THAT IT AUTO RENEWS UNLESS THIS COMMISSION GIVES ME NOTICE 90 DAYS BEFORE THAT YOU WILL NOT BE RENEWING THAT CONTRACT. SO THAT IS RELATED TO JUST THE EXISTENCE OF THE CONTRACT. MY UNDERSTANDING AS AN EMPLOYEE WAS TO NOT RENEW IT WHICH WAS NOT REQUIRED UNDER MY CONTRACT BECAUSE THERE IS AN AUTOMATIC RENEWAL. THAT MOTION DID NOT PASS WHICH ESSENTIALLY MEANS NO ACTION IS TAKEN. SO MY UNDERSTANDING AS THE EMPLOYEE IS UNLESS THIS BODY AFFIRMATIVELY SAYS NOT TO RENEW AND GIVE WRITTEN IN THE UNDER MY CONTRACT, IT WILL AUTO RENEW. THAT IS THE REASON TO MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE JUNE 8TH ITEM WAS PUT BACK ON TO FINISH THAT DISCUSSION. >> ACTUALLY YOU AND I HAD THIS DISCUSSION TOO AND I READ THE MINUTES CAREFULLY TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND AND THEN I READ THE CONTRACT. AND THE CONTRACT SAYS IT RENEWS AUTOMATICALLY UNLESS HE WITH GIVE YOU A LETTER OF NONRENEWAL 90 DAYS AHEAD OF TIME. AND SO I THOUGHT THE WAY WE LEFT IT WAS EVERYBODY WOULD HAVE AN COMMISSIONERS TO TALK TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, SO I THOUGHT THAT THIS ITEM WAS GOING TO BE ON THE JUNE 8TH MEETING IN TERMS OF THE REVIEWS OF THE EMPLOYEES. AND FURTHER MS. HEDGES IS OUR CITY ATTORNEY, AND THIS IS THE ANNUAL SEMINAR OF THE FLORIDA MUNICIPAL ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION. SHE IS OUR CITY ATTORNEY NOW. I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO HER ATTENDING THIS MEETING. >> MADAM MAYOR, I THINK THAT YOUR INTERPRETATION OR YOUR STATEMENT IS ACCURATE TO THE POINT THAT YES, THE MOTION WAS DENIED. THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE TALKED ABOUT IN OUR BRIEFS THIS WEEK, THAT THOSE WHO HAD QUESTIONS COULD HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WITH THE ATTORNEY. AND THEN CLERK COX CORRECTED MY MATH AND BY JUNE 12TH WE HAD TO PROVIDE A LETTER SAYING THAT THE CONTRACT WAS NOT GOING TO BE RENEWED AND THAT ITEM SHOULD BE ON THE AGENDA FOR JUNE 8TH. THAT BEING SAID, IT IS A LIT LITTLE -- FIRST OF ALL, LET'S SAY THIS. NOT RENEWING A CONTRACT TODAY DOES NOT PROHIBIT THE ATTORNEY FROM CONTINUING THROUGH HER CONTRACT THROUGH SEPTEMBER. IT DOES GIVE OPTIONS AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO REFLECT ON IS THERE OTHER ATTORNEYS OUT THERE THAT WOULD BETTER SUIT THE CITY? I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO DO [00:20:05] THAT DUE DILIGENCE TO USE YOUR PHRASE, TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS AVAILABLE TO THE CITY IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE OPERATIONS, CITYMORALLA, INTERACTION WITH THE PUBLIC, OUR PROFESSIONALS SO WHILE MY POSITION HAS NOT BEEN TO TERMINATE THE CITY ATTORNEY, MY POSITION HAS BEEN TO GIVE US OPTIONS TO GET TO SEPTEMBER AND USE THAT 90 DAYS IN ORDER TO SEEK OR HAVE ANOTHER ATTORNEY SEEK EMPLOYMENT HERE. THERE MAY BE FOLKS OUT THERE THAT HAVE MORE GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL ACTIONS AND EXPERIENCE, MORE CONTRACT LAW, MORE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS. SOME ATTORNEYS HAVE BEEN CITY MANAGERS WHICH WILL BE BENEFICIAL FOR US AS WELL. SO MY POSITION WAS SIMPLY TO NOT RENEW IT AT THIS TIME. LET THE 90 DAYS RUN. HAVE HR DO A SEARCH FOR A NEW ATTORNEY OR WHATEVER OPTIONS MIGHT BE OUT THERE. AND THEN THIS BOARD CAN THEN CONSIDER IT AGAIN PRIOR TO THAT EXPIRATION. THAT'S WHAT I SAID. THAT WAS MY POSITION FROM THE BEGINNING. >> I WOULD LIKE TO GET SOMEBODY ELSE IN HERE NOW. COMMISSIONER BRODERICK. >> OR COMMISSIONER GAINS UNLESS YOU WANT TO GO BEFORE ME. SO I AM NOW MORE CONFUSED THAN I WAS WALKING IN HERE THIS EVENING ON THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC. AND I WILL EXPLAIN WHY. THIS TOPIC HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AT SEVERAL MEETINGS. AT THE LAST MEETING A STATEMENT WAS MADE THAT THIS WAS NOT A LITMUS TEST OF THE CITY ATTORNEY, THAT THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HER. THAT THIS WAS A LITMUS TEST OF THE ISSUES IN THE CITY CHARTER CAUSING OVERLAP OF CHARTER OFFICERS RESPONSIBILITIES. SO HOW THIS WHOLE THING NOW HAS NOW FOCUSED ON ARE WE GIVING HER A TERMS LETTER OR NOT? WHEN THE DISCUSSION IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT. SO I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING WHY NOW THERE'S A FOCUS ON SARA HEDGES CITY ATTORNEY VERSUS CITY OF FORT PIERCE CHARTER AND WHAT THE CHARTER OFFICER IS SUPPOSED TO BE DOING AND THE OVERLAPS IN THEIR ASSIGNMENTS. I AM VERY CONFUSED ABOUT THIS BECAUSE WE HEARD BOTH THEE SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT. AND THEN TONIGHT WE'RE BACK TO TERMINATING THE CITY ATTORNEY. THAT'S WHY WE FIND OURSELVES. >> CAN I CLARIFY? >> LET ME JUST FINISH. THE I SAID AT THE BEGINNING THIS IS A WITCH HUNT. GOING AFTER SARA HEDGE AS CITY ATTORNEY. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POLICIES AND PROCEDURES IN THE CITY CHARTER. UNLESS THIS ENTIRE DISCUSSION SHIFTS BACK TO THAT BECAUSE SHE'S NOT -- THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM THAT SARA HEDGES IS CREATING. THE CITY CHARTER IS THE CITY CHARTER. TO CHANGE THAT IS DONE THROUGH EITHER A VOTE OF THE CITIZENRY OR BY THIS COMMISSION TO CHANGE THOSE JOB DESCRIPTIONS IN ESSENCE. SO I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE. MAYBE COMMISSIONER CAN ENLIGHTEN ME BECAUSE I HAVE HEARD NOW IMPASSIONED TALK ABOUT NOT RENEWING A CONTRACT AND HIRING SOMEBODY NEW WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHARTER POSITIONS CAUSING POTENTIAL TURF WARS. SO I'M AT A LOSS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THIS. AND I DON'T KNOW AT THE JUNE 8TH MEETING WHAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE TALKING ABOUT. I'LL JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT. >> COMMISSIONER GAINS, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU NEXT. >> ALL RIGHT. I'M REALLY SITTING HERE DUMB FOUNDED. COMMISSIONER BRODERICK, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THE COMMUNICATION STARTED OFF WITH CHARTER STUFF AND OVERLAPPING AND EVERYTHING, AND YOU PUT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. YOU PUT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO SAY RENEW HER CONTRACT. >> THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CHARTER. >> BUT YOU PUT IT ON THE FLOOR. >> I WOULD DO IT AGAIN. >> THAT MOWING WAS DENIED 3-2. SO NOW I'M HEARING THAT OKAY, SO SINCE IT WAS DENIED IT WASN'T APPROVED. THE DENIAL WAS NOT REALLY A DENIAL. DENIAL MEANS OH, WELL. NO ACTION. OR MAYBE WE'LL DO SOMETHING LATER. IT WAS A 3-2 VOTE NOT TO APPROVE PERIOD. THAT'S WHAT THAT VOTE MEANT. YOU CAN TURN IT ANY KIND OF WAY YOU IT WOULDN'T TURN IT. THAT'S WHAT IT WAS MEANT. I WAS ONE, MADAM MAYOR, THAT SAID I DIDN'T MIND MOVING IT TO THE8TH OR WHATEVER BECAUSE I ATTORNEY HEDGES.ANCE TO SPEAK TO I HAD THAT CHANCE. HOWEVER, LET'S NOT GET UP HERE AND ACT LIKE THAT VOTE DIDN'T HAPPEN AND IT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT NOW WE'RE FLIPPING IT. [00:25:02] HAD IT BEEN 3-2 OR 4-1 APPROVAL FOR WHAT COMMISSIONER BRODERICK WE WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN HERE. IT WAS 3-2 NO. THREE COMMISSIONERS SAID NO. DIFFERENT REASONS BUT NOW WHAT'S FRUSTRATING ME IS I'M HEARING NOW WE'RE TWISTING VOTES NOW. THE NOW A 3-2 VOTE NOT TO APPROVE SOMETHING DOESN'T MEAN NOT TO APPROVE. WHAT ARE WE DOING GUYS? I MEAN COME ON. THAT'S HOW IT. I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. BUT I ALSO KNEW THAT WE SAID TO THE 8. THAT'S WHAT WE SAID. AND COMMISSIONER, YOU WAS CORRECT. MADAM CLERK SAID WE'RE TO THE 12TH SO WE'LL DO IT TO THE 8TH. SO LET'S PUT OUR PANTS ON. LET'S ADDRESS THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM. EITHER WE'RE GOING TO RENEW OR WE'RE NOT. AND IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO RENEW, WE DON'T NEED TO SPEND THE TAXPAYER'S MONEY. IF WE'RE GOING TO, IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO LET HER HAVE HER 90 DAYS, THEN I HAVE NO PROBLEM BECAUSE SHE WILL STILL BE THE ATTORNEY FOR THE 90 DAYS. AND IF THIS IS IN JULY, SHE'S REPRESENTING THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE AND WE GO. BUT THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. LET'S NOT START PLAYING WITH MOTIONS BEING DENIED AND MEANING SOMETHING ELSE. >> I NEVER BROUGHT THAT UP, ARNOLD. >> I DIDN'T SAY YOU DID. BUT YOU ASKED A QUESTION HOW DID WE GET HERE. AND WE GOT HERE BECAUSE IN THE MIDDLE OF A DISCUSSION, YOU PUT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. YOU ASKED FOR THAT MOTION. AND THE MOTION WAS TO RENEW HER CONTRACT. SO THAT'S HOW THE ISSUE GOT WHERE WE ARE BECAUSE WE ASKED FOR THAT MOTION. IT WAS SECONDED. WE TALKED FOR ABOUT AN HOUR AFTER THAT, AND IT WAS A 3-2 VOTE NOT AN APPROVE THAT. SO WE CAN'T SAY THAT'S NO ACTION. THE THERE WAS ACTION. THE COMMISSION VOTED 3-2 NOT TO APPROVE, NOT TO RENEW HER CONTRACT. THAT'S WHAT THE VOTE WITH A. WAS. SO THAT NIGHT. THEN IT CAME AND SAID WE GOT TO THE 8. SO LET'S NOT GET UP HERE AND SAY THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED AND IT DIDN'T MEAN THAT. THAT'S WHAT IT MEANT. AND THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. >> CAN I JUST GIVE A RESPONSE TO THAT? IT RAISES ANOTHER QUESTION. IS THAT MY MOTION TO EXTEND OUR CONTRACT FOR A YEAR WAS MADE BECAUSE THE DISCUSSION HAD SHIFTED FROM WHAT THE CHARTER PROVISIONS ARE TO HER ONGOING EMPLOYMENT HERE. SO SUBSEQUENTLY I MADE THE MOTION EARLY ON IN THE CONVERSATION BUT AGAIN I COME BACK TO THE SAME QUESTION. WHY ARE WE DELIBERATING SARA HEDGE FUTURE WHEN THERE SEEMS TO BE AN UNDERLYING AGREEMENT THAT THE CORE ISSUE HERE IS BASED IN THE CITY CHARTER AND THE OVERLAP AND IS THE CONFUSION BETWEEN THE THREE CHARTER OFFICER OFFICERSES AS TO WHO SHOULD BE DOING WHAT AND WHO HAS CONTROL. SO IS THAT THE DISCUSSION? OR IS THE EXTENSION OF HER EMPLOYMENT THE DISCUSSION? IT'S ONE OR THE OTHER. >> MADAM MAYOR -- COMMISSIONER BEFORE ME. I'LL ANSWER THAT DIRECTLY. I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH BOTH. I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE CHARTER. AND I HAVE AN ISSUE ABOUT MY CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICER AND CONDUCT. >> FAIR ENOUGH. >> COMMISSIONER. >> THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. SO TO REITERATE, MY POSITION AND THE AGENDA ITEM THAT I BROUGHT FORWARD AND I SPOKE TO WAS ABOUT CHARTER OFFICES AND HOW THE CHARTER OPERATES WITH THE CITY MANAGER BEING THE DECISION MAKER, THE CITY ATTORNEY BEING A LEGAL ADVISER, NOT A DECISIONMAKER, AND THE CLERK IN RECORDS AND IS MANAGEMENT OF THAT PARTICULAR POSITION. AND THERE'S A SEPARATION OF DUTIES. THERE'S A SEPARATION OF RESPONSIBILITY. HOWEVER, WHEN IT WENT SIDEWAYS, AND I DON'T KNOW IF WITCH HUNT WAS A PROPER TERM TO BE USED BUT I ACCEPTED IT AS EMOTION AND THAT'S OKAY. I CAN HANDLE THAT. BUT WHEN IT MOVED ON TO THEN WITHOUT DISCUSSION BY THE BOARD TO A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT FOR ONE YEAR, THAT WAS PROBABLY NOT THE BEST MOVE AT THAT TIME. BECAUSE I THINK AGAIN AT THAT POINT IT MOVED TO A DISCUSSION CONTRACT, PLAY OUT THE 90 DAYS, NEVER DID I SAY ANYTHING ABOUT TERMINATION, AND COMMISSIONER BRODERICK, YOU KEEP GOING DOWN THAT ROAD. THAT'S NOT WHAT I SAID. >> THAT'S CLEARLY WHERE THIS IS GOING. >> NO. THAT'S MAYBE YOUR INTERPRETATION, AND IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE TO WHAT I HAD PUT OUT THERE. 90 DAYS, DON'T RENEW THE CONTRACT, LET THE 90 DAYS PLAY OUT, HR TAKES THE ROAD TO SEEK OTHER ATTORNEYS. IF WE MAINTAIN THAT POSITION AFTER THE BREAK BUT WITHOUT THE 90-DAY NOTICE, THEN WE HAVE TO [00:30:01] GO THROUGH A WHOLE PROCESS OF TERMINATION. AND IF TERMINATION IS THE OUTCOME, WHY WOULD -- MY PERSONAL, I DON'T WANT TO TERMINATE THE CITY MANAGER. I WANT HER TO BE ABLE TO PLAY OUT HER CARDS, FIND WHATEVER APPROPRIATE SOLUTIONS THAT ARE FOR HER AND HER FAMILY. BUT THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE NEEDS WHAT I THINK IS GOING TO BE BETTER MANAGEMENT, BETTER PROFESSIONALISM, BETTER OPTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE INVESTORS THAT MAY COME TO THIS CITY ARC CUSTOMER SERVICE PRESENTATION TO THOSE WHO COME TO THE CITY. THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES THERE THAT I WASN'T TO GO INTO AT ALL. MY SIMPLE POSITION IS NOW TO NOT RENEW THE CONTRACT AND LET IT RUN OUT. AT THE END OF THE DAY IF THE CITY ATTORNEY IS THE BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB, SO BE IT. THIS COMMISSION IS THEN RENATIONAL FORECAST THE CONTRACT, BUT YOU HAVE OPTIONS. YOU HAVE 90 DAYS TO HAVE OPTIONS. THAT'S ALL I'M GIVING THIS COMMISSION AN OPPORTUNITY. THAT'S WHERE I'M AT AND AGAIN THE 8TH IS COMING UP. THAT CONVERSATION CAN BE HAD. THE COMMISSIONERS AND THE MAYOR CAN GO BACK AND TALK TO WHOMEVER THEY WISH. HR COULD BE ON IN THE TO SAY HERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE IF THERE'S OPTIONS OUT THERE FOR OTHER ATTORNEYS TO COME TO THE TABLE. THAT'S WHERE IT IS. >> MADAM MAYOR. >> YES, MA'AM. >> MAY I ADDRESS THE VOTING SITUATION? >> YES, PLEASE. >> SO WHAT HAPPENED THAT DAY WAS THERE WAS A VOTE, THE VOTE TO RENEW HER CONTRACT FAILED. THAT DOES NOT MEAN THE OPPOSITE HAPPENS. IT'S JUST LIKE WHEN WE DO OUR CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATIONS OR OUR ORDINANCES. IF THE VOTE FAILS, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SUBSEQUENT VOTE TO THEN EFFECTUATE THAT HAPPENING. AND THE COMMISSIONER MADE THAT MOTION, AND IT DIDN'T PASS OR DIDN'T GET A SECOND. SO THAT IS WHY AFTER WE HAD THAT LONG DISCUSSION THAT EVENING, IT IS BACK ON THE AGENDA FOR THE 8TH AT THE CONCLUSION OF ALL OF THE EVALUATIONS. >> SO THE QUESTION IS WITH THAT STATEMENT IS I HEARD THE CITY ATTORNEY SAY THAT IT AUTOMATICALLY RENEWED. NOW, I QUESTION THAT. SO YOU SAID IT HERE IN THE RECORD. SO CAN YOU IF I MAY. >> YES. >> TO THE MAYOR. >> SURE. >> IS IT YOUR POSITION THAT THE CONTRACT RENEWED SINCE OUR LAST MEETING? >> MADAM MAYOR, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE EMPLOYEE IS THAT AS OF SEPTEMBER 11TH THAT IT WON'T RENEW IF YOU HAVE NOT GIVEN ME NOTICE 90 DAYS BEFORE THAT DATE WHICH IS JUNE 12TH. >> CORRECT. >> YES, SIR. >> SO IT'S NOT RENEWED TODAY. >> CORRECT. IT AUTO RENEWS UNLESS YOU MEET THAT 90-DAY TRIGGER. >> SO IN THE DISCUSSION TODAY THAT THAT DECISION HAS TO BE ON THE 8TH TO MEET THAT CRITERIA UNLESS ANOTHER ONE WAS TO BE CALLED. >> PUT IT ON THE AGENDA. >> RIGHT. YEAH. SO I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, AND I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS HR WILL BE LOOKING FOR -- THIS IS YOUR ARE PROPOSAL. NONE OF THE REST OF US HAVE AGREED TO IT. RIGHT. YOU'RE PROPOSING THAT MS. HEDGES STAYS ON STAFF AND HR LOOKS FOR SOMEBODY THAT YOU THINK WOULD BE BETTER FOR THE CITY? >> THAT WE THINK AS A COLLECTIVE BOARD. >> I'M HAPPY WITH MS. HEDGES, SO I'M NOT LOOKING FOR ANYBODY ELSE. BUT THAT IS A VERY PECULIAR POSITION TO PUT A CURRENT EMPLOYEE IN. YOU TALK ABOUTMORALLA, I FIND THIS TO BE TOTALLY, THIS HAS SNOWBALLED AND BECOME ABOUT ONE PERSON. AND WHAT WE SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT ONE PERSON BUT THREE CHARTER OFFICERS ON JUNE 8TH. AND ONE PERSON ISN'T ALWAYS, [00:35:02] ALWAYS THE CAUSE. IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO. SO I'M OKAY WITH MS. HEDGES GOING TO THE CONFERENCE, AND I'M OKAY WITH US DISCUSSING ON JUNE 8TH THE REVIEWS. AND THE VOTES ARE TAKING THERE FOR WHATEVER, THEN THE VOTES WILL HAPPEN THERE. >> I WOULD LIKE TO ADD ONE OTHER COMMENT. WERE YOU IN FRONT OF ME? >> YESTERDAY. >> UM, I APPRECIATE YOUR CLARIFICATION ON THAT. I STILL BELIEVE THAT THERE'S TWO SEPARATE DISCUSSIONS TAKING PLACE HERE RIGHT NOW. AND I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THIS COMMISSION IS SLIDING INTO THE AREA OF LET ME TERM THIS CORRECTLY. MY CONCERN IS THAT WE HAVE A DOUBLE STANDARD HERE. WE HAVE A DOUBLE STANDARD IN HOW WE'RE TREATING THE CHARTER OFFICERS. WE HAVE A DOUBLE STANDARD IN HOW WE'RE RECEIVING INFORMATION BACK ON WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH DEPARTMENT HEADS, ET CETERA. AND I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THIS TOPIC NOW. I'LL GET INTO IT IN MUCH GREATER DETAIL IN THE MEETING ON THE 8TH. BUT I JUST WANT YOU TO DO SOME REFLECTION BETWEEN NOW AND THEN. ARE WE TRULY CREATING A DOUBLE STANDARD HERE? AND I WILL GET INTO MORE DETAIL OF THAT NEXT WEEK. >> MADAM MAYOR. >> YES, SIR. >> SO I THINK THE FIVE OF US NEED TO LOOK AT OURSELVES BECAUSE WE LET THIS GET OUT OF CONTROL. >> CLEARLY. >> US AND I'M WILLING TO HAVE THAT TOUGH CONVERSATION BECAUSE MADAM MAYOR YOU MADE THE COMMENT ABOUT ONE PERSON BUT I ALSO HAVE FEEDBACK FROM MY OTHER TWO CONSTITUTION OFFICERS THAT MAY BE A SURPRISE TO THEM AS WELL. WE -- CHARTER OFFICERS I MEAN. WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE THREE PEOPLE. AND THE LEVEL OF LEADERSHIP AND THE AUTHORITY FOR LINES TO BE ENCROACHED AND THEN POSITIONS AND AREAS MAKING DECISIONS THAT FOR ME PROVIDE A GREAT HR CHALLENGE BECAUSE THIS IS MY AREA OF UNDERSTANDING, COMMISSIONER, I HAVE GREAT CONCERN WITH. AND IT'S COME TO THIS POINT THAT WE'VE GOTTA PUT THIS HOUSE IN ORDER, AND WE HAVE TO DO SOME TOUGH WORK AND TOUGH CONVERSATIONS TO PUT THINGS BACK TO LIFT THE MORALE HERE. IT WASN'T TOO LONG AGO WE SET UP HERE AND NOT SAYING THAT THAT COMMISSIONER WAS RIGHT OR WRONG BUT THEY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT DEPARTMENT. THAT SAME THING IS HAPPENING IN CITY HALL. WE MADE A DECISION THEN. IT WAS 3-2. AND WE HAVE MOVED ON. IT'S NOT ABOUT A PERSON. IT'S NOT PERSONAL. IT'S ABOUT UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS GOING ON FROM OUR LEADERS THAT WE COUNT ON TO LEAD EVERYDAY BECAUSE WE'RE NOT HERE EVERY DAY. WE DON'T DO THIS. WE'RE POLICY MAKER. AND OUR POLICY HAS FAILED THEM. AND IT'S FAILING US. AND WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT. THE SO YES, IT IS POLICY. BUT IN MY CONVERSATIONS, I HAVE SOME CHARGE WITH A PARTICULAR CHARTER OFFICERS AND THE LEADERSHIP CAPABILITIES. SO THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHTY. SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM E SO THAT WE HAVE BUSINESS TO CONDUCT AND WE HAVE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT ARE WAITING FOR THAT BUSINESS. SO IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE WE WILL BE DECIDING THIS RIGHT AT THIS PARTICULAR TIME. >> E? >> YES, ITEM E. >> MOTION TO SEE IF IT'S -- OKAY. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM E. >> IS THERE A SECOND? IS THERE A SECOND? OKAY. I'M GONNA PASS IT TO COMMISSIONER CANES AND I WILL SECOND THE MOTION. >> MY COMMENT IS GOING TO BE THAT ON VIRTUALLY EVERY AGENDA THERE IS TRAVEL PAID FOR BY THE CITY ON BEHALF OF AN EMPLOYEE OR COMMISSIONER ET CETERA MAYOR. THIS IS A COMMON PLACE HERE TO SEND OUR CHARTER OFFICERS ET CETERA OFF TO THE SPECIALIZED TRAINING SESSIONS TO KEEP THEM [00:40:03] AS SHARP AS POSSIBLE AND PROVIDE THEM WITH AS MUCH CURRENT INFORMATION AS WE POSSIBLY CAN. SO WHY WILL WE SELECT THIS PARTICULAR ONE EVENT FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY TO ATTEND? IT JUST SMACKS A SLAP UPSIDE THE FACE. I DO SUPPORT OBVIOUSLY BY MAKING THE MOTION SENDING HER TO THIS SEMINAR. AND EVERY MEETING WE HAVE ONE OF THESE ON HERE. I SOMETIMES SIT BACK AND SCRATCH MY HEAD AND SAY REALLY? THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH CITY MONEY? BUT THAT'S THERE. YOU CAN CALL THE ROLL. >> NO. I WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT. SO EVERY ONE OF THESE WE HAVE NOT HAD THE CONVERSATION WE ARE HAVING NOW, COMMISSIONER, SO WITH ALL DUE RESPECT EVEN IF THERE WERE SOME THINGS THAT CHALLENGED AND WE WERE IN BROAD OR ONE OF US I WOULD EXPECT MY COLLEAGUES NOT TO AT LEAST GIVE GOOD UNDERSTANDING AND GOOD CONVERSATION. SO WHILE I DISAGREE, YOU MAY, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR AND YOU HAVE YOUR VOTE. WE ALL HAVE OUR VOTE. AND I'M DONE WITH MAKING MY COMMENT. >> MADAM MAYOR. >> MS. HEDGES. >> CAN I MAKE A COMMENT? >> PLEASE. >> SURE. SO I THINK THE BACKUP MATERIAL HAS THE MATERIAL FOR THE TRAINING ATTACHED TO IT. SO ITEMS ON THERE RELATE TO OPEN CARRY, DATA CENTRES, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, MUNICIPAL CONTRACTS, EASEMENTS, PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT LAW, LET'S SEE, CITY ATTORNEY ROLE IN CONFLICT RESOLUTION, LEANS, SUPREME COURT UPGRADES, IMMUNITY, FEMA, TRAFFIC CONTROL LAWS, ENTERTAINMENT SPECIAL DISTRICTS, SPECIAL CONSTRUCTS, DRONES, HOUSING CAMPAIGN ADVOCACY, AND DOGE. SO IT IS UPDATES ON THESE AREAS OF THE LAW. SO THAT IS WHAT I WOULD BE DOING AT THE CONFERENCE. SO JUST SO YOU KNOW IT'S NOT, LIKE, A FUN TRIP. I'M GOING TO BE THERE LEARNING. THE MATERIAL WILL COME BACK FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE CITY. OR IF YOU ALL CHOOSE NOT TO SEND ME TO THE UPDATE IT WILL BE LEGAL UPDATES THAT I DON'T RECEIVE. >> THERE IS ALSO AN OPPORTUNITY FOR EARLY REGISTRATION AND ALSO FOR CANCELING THAT OPPORTUNITY. THE OTHER OPPORTUNITY I SEE HERE IS JUNE 8TH IS EXACTLY 30 DAYS FROM THE JULY 8TH PROCESS. SO NOT TAKING ACTION TONIGHT AGAIN GIVES AUTOS OPPORTUNITY FOR JUNE 8TH TO HAVE BOTH CONVERSATIONS. DEPENDING ON ONE, ONE MAY BE AFFECTED OR BOTH COULD GO WHATEVER DIRECTION. SO AGAIN LEAVING OPPORTUNITY OPEN TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION DURING THE JUNE 8TH PROCESS STILL LEAVES PLENTY OF TIME TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS SHOULD THAT PROCESS UNFOLD IN A CERTAIN WAY. >> MADAM CLERK, I HAVE A QUESTION SINCE I DON'T USUALLY HAVE THIS. CAN I SAY SOMETHING? >> YES, YOU CAN. >> OH, CAN I. >> MY CONCERN IS WE VOTE FOR THIS AND JUNE 8TH WE DON'T RENEW. THEN WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT MONEY? SHE GOES. I GOT IT BUT SHE STILL CAN GO. AND SHE'LL TAKE THAT TRAINING TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE IF WE DECIDE NOT TO RENEW OR WHATEVER WE DECIDE TO DO ON JUNE 8TH. AND SO WHAT YOU JUST SAID BECAUSE WE SAY A LOT OF UP HERE. I NEED TO KNOW IF WE WAIT TO JUNE 8TH THAT SHE COULD STILL REGISTER OR COULDN'T REGISTER OR THE COST OF PRAYERS IS MORE MONEY WAITING TO JUNE 8TH OR WHAT IS THE WHOLE DEAL WITH THE REGISTRATION BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO SPEND THE MONEY AND HAVE TO SAY HEY, YOU CAN'T GO AFTER WE VOTED. YOU CAN GO OR ON JUNE 8TH. >> PAGE 2 IT TALKS ABOUT REFUNDS. IN THE EVENT PREPAID RESIDENTS FIND IT -- >> MICROPHONE. YOUR MICROPHONE. >> I HATE TO YELL AT YOU GUYS. IT SAYS IN THE EVENT OF REGISTERING IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ATTEND, AN EMAIL SENT BY 5 FRIDAY, JUNE 26TH WILL AUTHORIZE A FULL REFUND. PREPAID REGISTRANTS CANNOT [00:45:05] CANCEL, IF THEY CANNOT CANCEL BY THE TIME WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE GUARANTEED ATTENDANCE COUNT BECAUSE GIVING ADVANCE GUARANTEES. NO REFUND CAN BE MADE AFTER JUNE 26TH. SO THERE'S YOUR ANSWER TO THAT. >> RIGHT. COMMISSIONER, THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND I KNEW IT WAS IN THERE WHICH IS WHY I WANTED THE CLERK TO READ IT FOR THE RECORD. SO I THINK YOUR OFFICE DID THE. >> I DIDN'T READ. >> NOT THIS ONE. >> HER OFFICE TAKES CARE OF IT. >> OKAY THAT'S WHERE MY CONFUSION IS BECAUSE I KNOW OUR TRAVEL THE CLERK TAKES CARE OF IT. SO ALL QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? SEEING NONE. >> OH, SORRY. YOU HAVE THE GAVEL. SORRY. >> I'M ABOUT TO GIVE IT BACK REAL QUICK. >> CAN YOU JUST TELL ME WHAT ACTUALLY IS THE LINE ITEM FOR JUNE 8TH? BECAUSE I WANT TO KNOW, I WANT TO PREPARE SUFFICIENTLY FOR THIS MEETING. I'M JUST NOT SURE WHAT LINE ITEM WE'RE REFERRING TO. >> GIMME ONE SECOND. I'LL READ IT TO YOU. GO AHEAD. >> IT IS REVIEW AND DISCUSSION REGARDING THE CITY ATTORNEY'S CONTRACT RENEWAL. >> BUT WE ALSO HAVE EVALUATIONS OF THE THREE CHARTER -- >> SO THIS IS SPECIFICALLY ABOUT HER CONTRACT. HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHARTER MODIFICATIONS. >> NO, SIR. THIS WAS A SPECIFIC RESULT AFTER WHAT THE DISCUSSION WAS AND THAT YOU ALL AGREED YOU WANTED TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION AT THIS MEETING. THAT'S WHAT THIS IS. >> MADAM CLERK. THE MOTION HAS BEEN SECONDED. CALL THE ROLL PLEASE. >> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK. >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER ZADOVSKY. >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER GAINS. >> NO, MA'AM. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. >> NO, MA'AM. >> MAYOR HUDSON. >> YES. >> MOTION PASSES. >> MAYOR? >> YES. >> SO IT'S KNOWN THE REASON I SAID YES IS THERE ARE TWO PROVISIONS. ONE, TH RESERVATION SHOULD BE MADE BY JUNE 17TH AND CAN BE REFUNDED BEFORE JUNE 26TH. SO WHATEVER THE OUTCOME IS ON JUNE 8TH, THOSE OPTIONS STILL APPLY. JUST WANTED TO CLEAR THAT FOR THE RECORD. >> ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE ON. >> THIS IS KIND OF NAGGING AT ME HERE. IS THAT THERE WAS -- I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER GAINS. THIS IS PREPPING FOR THE JUNE 8TH MEETING. MADE A COMMENT EARLIER THAT HASH KICKING AROUND IN MY HEAD THAT THE CITY MANAGER'S JOB IS TO RUN ALL OPERATIONS OF THE CITY. THAT'S A FAIRLY LOOSE INTERPRETATION OF WHAT YOU SAID. >> CORRECT. >> THAT'S NOT ACTUALLY COMPLETELY ACCURATE. THE CITY ATTORNEY IS CHARGED WITH MAKING ANY AND ALL DECISIONS PERSONNEL-WISE ET CETERA IN HER OFFICE. >> ADVISORY POSITION ACCORDING TO THE CHARTER. [J. Approval of Informed consent and waiver of potential conflict of interest for the representation of the City by C. Valentin Law.] >> OKAY. WE'LL DEBATE THAT NEXT WEEK. >> LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM J. >> ITEM J IS APPROVAL OF AN INFORMED CONSENT AND WAVER OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST FOR THE REPRESENTATION OF THE CITY BY C VALENTINE LAW. >> SO IN MY DISCUSSION WITH ATTORNEY HEDGES, SHE REVIEWED THIS WITH ME. I JUST HAD A COUPLE AND SINCE SHE DID MEET WITH YOU GUYS, I DIDN'T KNOW BUT I JUST LEARNED THAT HERE. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS THIS IS JUST A PIECE OF PAPER THAT ALLOWS YOU TO EXTEND THE CONTRACT TO THIS PARTICULAR LAW FIRM. >> YES, SIR. SHE WILL BE COMING ON IN A CONTRACT ROLE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SERVICES. WE HAVE HAD AN OPENING FOR SEVERAL MONTHS AT THIS POINT. SO SHE WILL BE WORKING AT THIS POINT TWO DAYS A WEEK IN CITY HALL. THE POSSIBLE CONFLICT, POTENTIAL CONFLICT, HOWEVER WE WANT TO TERM IT IS THAT OUR FIRM HE DOES, AND SHE DOES REPRESENT THE ST. LUCY CLERK OF THE COURT ON TAX DEED MATTER. THE CITY DOES SOMETIMES HAVE TAX DEED MATTERS. HER REPRESENTATION SPECIFICALLY WILL EXCLUDE ANY TAX DEED MATTER. BUT THE FLORIDA BAR OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION ASKED FOR A WAVER OF ANY CONFLICT AND INFORMED CONSENT TO THAT DUAL REPRESENTATION. >> OKAY. SO MY OTHER CONCERN IS AND I GET THAT PART. DOES THIS AUTOMATICALLY HAS A CONTRACT BEEN DRAWN UP AND UNDER YOUR LETTER HEAD OR TUTELAGE AS A PERSON OF THE LEGAL OFFICE? SO I GUESS I WANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT SAID CONTRACT. [00:50:01] THAT WOULD HAVE TO COME BEFORE US FOR REVIEW. THAT'S UNDER YOUR BUDGET AND DISCRETION, CORRECT? >> MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS, YES. THAT IS HOW IT'S ALWAYS HAPPENED. RETAINING LEGAL SERVICES. IT HAS COME THROUGH OUR OFFICE. I DO HAVE A LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT SHE PROVIDED ME WHICH IS WHAT WOULD BRING HER ON. IT WOULDN'T BE HR HIRING ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE DONE A BACKGROUND CHECK. I HAVE COMMUNICATED WITH THEM, IT, TRYING TO SEE IF I'M MISSING A DEPARTMENT TO GET HER ON BOARDED AS A CONTRACT EMPLOYEE. SO THAT CONTRACT WOULD NOT COME BACK BEFORE YOU ALL SPECIFICALLY. >> OKAY. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE US AWARE OF THAT AS A COMMISSION THAT THAT'S UNDER THE SOLE AUTHORITY. I DON'T QUESTION WHAT THEY DO IN THEIR RSPECTIVE OFFICES BUT IN LIGHT OF ALL THE DISCUSSION THAT'S GOING ON, I JUST WANTED US TO BE AWARE THAT SAID CONTRACT IS PENDING BASED ON THE SIGNATURE HERE BECAUSE IT CAN'T BE SIGNED RIGHT NOW DUE TO WE WANT TO RULE OUT A POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. >> MADAM MAYOR, IF I MAY GIVE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE ATTORNEY SHE WORKED FOR THE COUNTY FOR QUITE SOME TIME. HER WORK IS EXEMPLARY, AND I WOULD SUPPORT THIS. >> WE ALL KNOW HER TOO. >> I KNOW HER. SHE'S BEEN AT FPUA AND WE'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH HER. >> I JUST HAVE TO STATE THIS FOR THE RECORD. NOTHING AGAINST THE ATTORNEY. I KNOW HER VERY WELL. A CONFLICT OF INTEREST SCARES ME, MAKE ME NERVOUS DOWN HERE FROM MY OTHER PROFESSIONS. THE SO IF IT COMES TO ME AND I SAY NO, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ATTORNEY IN QUESTION. IT'S JUST I'M NERVOUS OF WAIVERS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN MY PROFESSION. >> ALL RIGHTY. SO DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THIS ITEM, ITEM J? >> YEAH, I MAKE A MOTION WE MOVE THIS FORWARD FOR A VOTE. >> SECOND? >> SECOND. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION. CALL THE ROLL. >> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK. >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER. >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER GAINS. >> NO, MA'AM. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. >> NO, MA'AM. >> MAYOR HUDSON. >> YES, MA'AM. >> OKAY. THAT MOTION PASSES. [A. Legislative Hearing - Ordinance 26-010 - An Ordinance by the City Commission of the City of Fort Pierce, Florida; Amending the Pulte Cornerstone Planned Development Zone in respect of two (2) parcels containing approximately 49.92 acres, more or less, and being located at or near 2721 South Jenkins Road in Fort Pierce, Florida; To approve the Pulte Cornerstone Final Site Plan; Approving the first amendment to the Planned Development Zoning Agreement; Providing for a severability clause; providing for repeal of ordinances or parts thereof in conflict; providing for an effective date. Subject Property: Parcel (IDs): 2324-413-0000-000-9 and 2324-431-0001-000-2. SECOND READING] THAT IS THE END OF OUR CONSENT AGENDA. WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS. WE HAVE ORDINANCE 26-010 FORT PIERCE FLORIDA AMENDING THE CORNERSTONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT ZONE IN RESPECT TWO PARCELS CONTAINING 49.2 ERICS MORE OR LESS AND BEING LOCATED AT OR NEAR 2721 SOUTH JENKINS ROAD IN FORT PIERCE, FLORIDA, TO APPROVE THE CORNERSTONE FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT ZONING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PROVIDING FOR A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE PROVIDING FOR REPEAL ORDINANCE OR PARTS THAT ARE IN CONFLICT AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THIS IS THE SECOND READING. >> THIS IS THE SECOND READING. DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD, MR? IS. >> YES, EDMONTON MALLED MAYOR. LATE LAST WEEK THURSDAY OR FRIDAY WE LEARNED THAT THE PROPERTY HAD CLOSED AND OWNERSHIP HAD CHANGED. THE ISSUE WITH THAT SITUATION IS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS SET UP TO BE SIGNED BY DIFFERENT PARTIES. THE OWNER, THE NOW OWNER WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. SO THE CITY ATTORNEY HAS WORKED WITH THE ATTORNEY OF THE APPLICANT TO AMEND THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THE TERMS OF THAT AGREEMENT HAVE NOT CHANGED. ESSENTIALLY THE BACKGROUND TO THE HISTORY OF THAT AGREEMENT COMING BEFORE THE BOARD AND THE SIGNATURE ARTS OF THAT AGREEMENT HAVE BEEN AMENDED AND AGREED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. I NOTED THAT THE APPLICANTS ATTORNEY IS HERE AND CAN PROVIDE ADDITIONAL DETAILS IF YOU WIRE THOSE. BUT THE STAFF'S POSITION IS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CAN BE SIGNED BY THE NEW PARTIES BEING CORRECTED. >> ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? IS. >> YES. IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT THAT STATEMENT, THAT POSITION WAS BEING STATED AT EVERY HEARING WHETHER IT BE PNZ OR HERE THAT THERE IS ANOTHER POSSIBLE OWNER. SO I THINK THAT SHOULD BE PART OF THE RECORD AS WELL. >> YEAH. NO SURPRISE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, PLEASE COME FORWARD. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTRAIN DISCUSSION OR [00:55:01] MOTION. >> MADAM, I MOVE TO APPROVE. >> COMMISSIONER. >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER GAINS. >> YES, MA'AM. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. >> YES, MA'AM. >> MAYOR HUDSON. >> YES, MA'AM. [B. Quasi-Judicial Hearing - Review and Approval of an application (PZCON2025-00010) for a Conditional Use to operate a private school serving Pre-Kindergarten through 8th Grade, with a capacity for up to 200 students at 510 Orange Avenue, Fort Pierce, FL.  The property is zoned General Commercial (C-3). Parcel ID: 2410-606-0004-000-3.  ] CONGRATULATIONS, THANK YOU. >> NEXT WE HAVE A QUASIJUDICIAL HEARING FOR APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE TO OPERATE A PRIVATE SCHOOL SERVING PREKINDERGARTEN THROUGH 8TH GRADE WITH A CAPACITY OF UP TO 200 STUDENT AT 510 ORANGE AVENUE, FORT PIERCE FLORIDA. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED GENERAL COMMERCIAL C-3. >> ALL RIGHTY. THIS IS A QUASIJUDICIAL HEARING SO, MS. HEDGES, WOULD YOU READ THE RULES FOR OUR PROCESS PLEASE? >> YES, MA'AM. THE CITY COMMISSION SERVES A QUASIJUDICIAL ROLE. THE COMMISSION INS IN ACTIVITY BY ESTABLISHING LAWS AND POLICIES. WHEN ACTING AS A QUASIJUDICIAL BODY, THE COMMISSION APPLIES THOSE LAWS AND POLICIES AND IS HELD TO STRICT REQUIREMENTS. PROCEEDINGS ARE LESS FORMAL THAN BEFORE A CIRCUIT COURT BUT ARE MORE FORMAL UNANIMOUS THAN THE NORMAL COMMISSION MEETING. PROCEEDINGS MUST FOLLOW BASIC STANDARDS OF NOTICE AND DUE PROCESS AND DECISIONS MUST BE MADE BASED ON COMPETENT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. THEREFORE THERE IS A DUTY TO CONDUCT THE PROCEEDINGS MORE LIKE JUDGE THAN LEGISLATORS. THAT IS WHY THE COMMISSION HAS ESTABLISHED THE UNIFORM PROCEDURES FOR QUASIJUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS THAT WILL BE FOLLOWED THIS EVENING. FINALLY, NO ONE SHOULD APPROACH ANY MEMBER ON THE CITY COMMISSION ON THE DAIS, THE CITY CLERK DURING THE HEARING. IF DOCUMENTS ARE TO BE GIVEN, PLEASE GIVE THEM TO THE SERGEANT AT ARMS WHICH ARE ANY OF THE POLICE OFFICERS IN THE CHAMBER. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM. HAVE THE ADVERTISING REQUIREMENTS BEEN MET? >> YES, THEY HAVE BEEN MET. >> WOULD YOU ASK COMMISSIONERS ABOUT EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS. >> YES, MA'AM. >> I HAVE SPOKEN TO THE PROPOSED TENANT AND PROPERTY OWNER MULTIPLE TIMES IN EMAILS, TEXTS, AND IN PERSON MEETINGS. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER ZADOVSKY. >> I HAVE WATCHED THE PNZ MEETINGS AND LISTENED TO THE COMPLICATED FROM THAT VISUAL. >> OKAY. YOU HAVEN'T TALKED TO THEM. >> CORRECT. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER GAINS. >> I'M GOING TO SAY NO. I'LL GO BACK TO MY EMAILS BUT I DON'T REMEMBER SPEAKING TO THEM. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? >> PNZ, WATCHEDDED THAT. AND SOME OF THE LANDLORDS AND PEOPLE THAT OWN PROPERTY THAT WERE A PART OF THIS AGREEMENT. I HAVE HAD A DISCUSSION WITH THEM TO TRY TOWNS THAT. >> OKAY. MAYOR HUDSON. >> AND I WATCHED THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING, AND I HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH NEIGHBOURS IN THAT AREA, AND THAT'S ALL. >> WOULD YOU LIKE TO SWEAR IN THE WITNESS? >> ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK ON THE UM IT, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM TO TELL THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> PROCEED. >> GOOD EVENING, MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONERS. BEFORE YOU IS A CONDITIONAL USE WITH NO NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR LEGACY FUTURE SCHOLARS ACADEMY LOCATED AT 510 ORANGE AVENUE PARCEL ID2410-60-004-0003. MIKE MENARD OWNER BUNWIN INCORPORATED. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS PLUS OR MINUS 5.43 ACRES. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING CONDITIONAL USE TO OPERATE A PRIVATE SCHOOL SERVING PREK THROUGH 8TH GRADE WITH A CAPACITY OF UP TO 400 STUDENT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED 3 COMMERCIAL WITH GC GENERAL COMMERCIAL. THE ACADEMY WILL CONSIST OF THE EIGHT CLASSROOMS, ADMINISTRATIVE SPACE, MULTIPURPOSE ROOMA DESIGNATED PLAY AREA IN ADDITION TO CORE SPACES. THE SCHOOL HAS SECURED STRATEGIC COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS TO ENSURE SAFE AND EFFECTIVE OPERATIONS. THERE IS A SHARED PLAYGROUND THAT THEY SHARE WITH METHODIST CHURCH. THE CHURCH HAS AGREED TO SHARE THE SPACE AND A SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT. THE NEIGHBOURING PROPERTY AGREED TO SHARE PARKING ACCESS, BUT T THE. [01:00:06] >> EXCUSE ME, UM AND. THERE IS SOME KIND OF SOMETHING GOING ON IN THE AUDIENCE, SO I, IT SOUNDS LIKE A CELL PHONE. IF YOU COULD SILENCE IT PLEASE. GO AHEAD, DENNIS. >> FIRST, THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH ALSO AGREED, AND THE APPLICANT FINALIZED TO AGREEING WITH USING THE FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH AS A SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT FOR ARRIVAL AND DISMISSAL TO ENSURE SAFE PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS. BEFORE YOU IS THE ARRIVAL AND DISMISSAL PLAN. START TIMES FOR PRESCHOOL 8 8 A.M., KINDERGARTEN, FIRST GRADE 8:30. SECOND TO 5TH, 6 THROUGH 5TH 8:45 A.M. PREK WOULD BE 12:30 P.M. KINDERGARTEN, 1ST GRADE 1:50 P.M. 2 TO 5TH 3 P.M. AND MIDDLE SCHOOL WOULD BE 3:30 P.M. THE STAGGERED SCHEDULE ENSURES SMOOTH TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT, LIMITS OVERLAP BETWEEN GROUPS AND REDUCES THE IMPACT ON LOCAL ROADS DURING PEAK HOURS. THE PROPOSED FACILITY OPERATION WOULD BE FROM 8 TO 3:30 MACHINED THROUGH FRIDAY A TOTAL OF 26 STAFF MEMBERS AND THE LOCATION THEY ARE ACCOMMODATING UP TO APPROXIMATELY 200 STUDENTS ON AVERAGE. WE ARE BAG OUR REVIEW BASED ON CITY CODE 227. THIS IS AN AERIAL OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHICH IS THE 0.53 ACRES, AND THE CHURCH IS TO THE WEST, THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH. THE FUTURE LAND USE IS GENERAL COMMERCIAL GC ZONING C3. AND THIS IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN WHICH INCLUDES PARKING OF THE FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH TO THE NORTH WHERE THE PICKUP AND DROPOFF OF STUDENTS WILL OCCUR. THE PARKING LOT TO THE SOUTHEAST WHICH IS ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WILL BE FOR THE EMPLOYEES, THE 26 PROPOSED EMPLOYEES. APPLICANT PROVIDING 18 SPACES. THIS IS THE FLOOR PLAN OF THE FIRST FLOOR. THE OCCUPANT WILL BE OCCUPYING FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR. HOWEVER, THE MOST USED WILL BE THE FIRST FLOOR WHICH INCLUDES THE RECEPTION AREA, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFERSES, NURSE OFFICE, STORAGE ROOMS, CLASSROOMS, KITCHEN, TEACHER LOUNGE, STUDENT CAFETERIA, INDOOR PLAYGROUND, ADULT REST ROOMS, BOYS AND GIRLS RESTROOMS. AND THE SECOND FLOOR WILL ONLY CONSIST OF STORAGE ROOMS AND ADDITIONAL RESTROOMS FOR EMERGENCIES. THIS IS THE PROPOSED DESIGN ELEVATIONS THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING FOR THE FRONT FACADE. HOME OF THE PEACOCKS. AND THIS IS THE SIDE ELEVATION THAT FACES THE EAST. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN ADDITIONAL SIX LIVE OAK STREETS TO BE INSTALLED OUTLINING THE LANDSCAPE BUFFERING OF THE PARKING LOT WHICH IS ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING AND ON THE PROPERTY IS WHERE THE EMPLOYEES WILL BE PARKING. THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A STUDENT ARRIVAL AND DISMISSAL SAFETY PLAN. THE SCHOOL WILL ASSIGN TRAIN CROSSING GUARDS. THEY WILL COORDINATE WITH LOCAL AUTHORITIES. THEY STATE THAT THEY WILL INCLUDE VISIBLE SIGNAGE SUCH AS REDUCED SPEED, TRUCK ROOT AWARENESS AND SCHOOL ZONE, AND IT WILL IMPLEMENT A PARENT AND STUDENT ORIENTATION PROGRAM. ALSO SCHOOL LEADERSHIP WILL REGULARLY REVIEW SAFETY PROCEDURES AND OBSERVE ARRIVAL AND DISMISSAL OPERATIONS AND ADJUST AS NEEDED. THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS THAT WAS DONE BY THE APPLICANT SHOWS THAT THE HIGHEST PEAKS WILL BE DURING THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS 2ND THROUGH 5TH DURING THE 8 A.. DISMISSAL. THE RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS WERE AS FOLLOWED. THERE WERE SIX CONDITIONS. THE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WILL BE REQUIRED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY. NUMBER 2, LANDSCAPE WILL BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRIORITY CERTIFICATE [01:05:02] AND NUMBER 3, COORDINATE WITH FORT PIERCE SOLID WORKS TO ENSURE PROPOSED DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE MEETS CITY STANDARDS AND IS ACCESSIBLE FOR CITY GARBAGE TRUCKS. NUMBERH SHOULD VEHICLES STAGING ENCROACH ON AVENUE A RIGHT OF WAY, THE SCHOOL SHALL PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION PERSPECTIVE TO ALLEVIATE ANY ROADWAY IMPACT. NUMBER 5, ANY IMPACT SUCH ASININAGE, CROSSWALKS, TEMPORARY LANE CLOSURES ET CETERA REQUIRE A CITY OF FORT PIERCE APPROVED ENGINEER. AND NUMBER 6 THIS IS BASED ON THE MAXIMUM CAPACITY OF 200 STUDENTS. I WILL STATE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS AGREESED NUMBER 3 WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. AT THE PLANNING BOARD. THE PLANNING BOARD AT THEIR APRIL 13TH, 2026, MEETING HAD CONCERNS WITH THE SUBJECT APPLICANTS SHARED PARKING LOT AGREEMENT WITH FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH SUCH AS THE CLARITY ON THE BOUNDARY OF THE SHARE THE PARKING LOT. THE SCHOOLS HOURS AND OPERATION. THE AGREEMENT NOT BEING SIGNED BY BOTH PARTY. NOT HAVING A BACKUP PLAN FOR THE PARENT PICKUP AND DROPOFF SHOULD THE LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH IS DISSOLVED. THE PLANNING BOARD ADDED TWO ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS AND RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. THE TWO ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS WERE SEVEN PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THIS APPLICATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION. THE LEASE AGREEMENT WILL BE REVISED TO CLEARLY DEFINE THE LOCATION, BOUNDARIES OF THE PARKING LOT USE, AND TIME OF OPERATION SIGNED BY BOTH PARTIES. AND NUMBER 8, PRIOR TO PRESENTATION OF THIS APPLICATION TO CITY COMMISSION, THE APPLICATION WILL INCLUDE A BACKUP PLAN FOR DROPOFF AND PICKUP SHOULD THE LEASE AGREEMENT BE DISSOLVED. THE APPLICANT HAS SINCE RESUBMITTED AFTER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD. STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THE TWO ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED THEREFORE IT DOES NOT MEET THE STANDARD OF THE CITY CODE 235 AND 135, 237. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT CITY CONDITION DENY THE ADDITIONAL USE WITH NO NEW CONSTRUCTION SUBJECT TO THE TEN CONCERNS AS NOTED WHICH I WILL SHOW YOU NEXT. AFTER THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED THEIR PLAN B, THESE WERE THE CONCERNS THAT WERE SENT TO THE APPLICANT. NUMBER 1, ADD A MAP OF POSSIBLY A MOCKUP AERIAL THAT SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIES THE LOCATION OF THE PICKUP AND DROPOFF AREA. AND THE LEASING AGREEMENT. THIS WAS MENTIONED IN THE MEETING BY THE CITY ATTORNEY AS WELL WITH SOME TYPE OF MAP BE INCLUDED AND THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. NUMBER 2, APPEARS THAT THE CHURCH RETAINS THE RIGHT TO UTILIZE THE PARKING AREA FOR CHURCH OPERATIONS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO OTHER SCHOOL DROPOFF AND PICKUP WEEKLY ACTIVITIES. PLEASE IDENTIFY THE KIND OF DAYTIME CHURCH ACTIVITIES THAT COULD CAUSE A CONFLICT WITH THE USE OF THE PARENT PICKUP AND DROPOFF IN THE LEASE AGREEMENT. NUMBER 3, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT IDENTIFY OPERATING HOURS, ONLY ARRIVAL AND DISMISSAL TERMS AS FAR AS IN THE AGREEMENT THEY DON'T MENTION THAN. NUMBER 4, THE PICKUP PLAN DOES NOT IDENTIFY IF ALL STUDENTS WILL ONLY LIVE IN FORT PIERCE OR CAN LIVE ANYWHERE THROUGHOUT THE COAST. IF ALL STUDENTS FROM OTHER AREAS ARE ALLOWED TO ATTEND, WHERE WILL THEIR PICKUP AND DROPOFF BE? THE BACKUP PLAN DOES NOT SEEM TO ALIGN WITH THE CONCERNS OF THE PLANNING BOARD AND WHAT THEY ADDRESSED OVERALL. THE BACKUP PLAN MENTIONS CENTRALLED PICKUP AND DROPOFF LOCATIONS AND EXAMPLES WERE SOMEWHAT VAGUE. THE ISSUES WERE WHETHER IT WAS FUNCTIONAL AND ADDRESSES THE CONCERNS. NUMBER 5, THREE BUSES WOULD HAVE A MAXIMUM CAPACITY OF 195 STUDENTS AND THE SCHOOL ALLOWS FOR TOWN 200 STUDENT. MORE DETAIL ABOUT PICKUP, DROPOFF, AND IF THERE CAN BE PARENT PICKUP, DROPOFFS AND HOW THE ADDITIONAL FIVE STUDENTS WILL BE ACCOUNTED FOR. THEN THERE WAS NUMBER 6. WHERE WILL THE BUSES DO THEIR PARENT PICKUP AND DROPOFF WITHOUT THE PARKING LOT. THIS SHOULDN'T OCCUR ALONG ORANGE AVENUE BECAUSE THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT STACKING AND BACKED UP TRAFFIC. THAT SHOULD BE IDENTIFIED IN THE BACKUP PLAN. AND NUMBER 7, WHERE SHOULD THEY BE STORED WHEN NOT IN USE BECAUSE THE PARKING LOT ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING IS ONLY FOR EMPLOYEES WHICH WAS 8 PARKING SPACES. NUMBER 8, THE ADJACENT PARKING LOT HAS A TOTAL OF 18 SPACES WITH TWO OF THEM BEING HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE YET THERE ARE 26 [01:10:02] STAFF MEMBERS. IDENTIFY HOW THIS WOULD BE ADDRESSED AND THE IMPACT MINIMIZED. THE WILL THE ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES BE USING ON STREET PARKING, CITY PARKING LOT AT THE CORNER OF 7TH AND ORANGE, ET CETERA. NINE, IF THE LEASE ENDS, WILL THE PLAYGROUND BE REMOVED? PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON HOW YOU WILL ADDRESS THE STATE OF FLORIDA REQUIREMENT FOR PLAYGROUND. AND FOR 10, THE PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE SCHOOL SHOULD ALSO BE SIGNING THE BACKUP PLAN. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS RECOMMENDED BY APPROVAL. THANK YOU. >> SO THESE ARE THE STAFF CONCERNS BUT THE PLANNING ORDER ADDED THE OTHER TWO. AND SO THESE ARE RESPONSES TO WHAT THE PLANNING BOARD ASKED FOR AND WHAT THE APPLICANT SUPPLIED. >> CORRECT. AND I WENT AND LOOKED AT WHAT WAS SAID DURING THE MEETING, AND I HAVE SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE MINUTES. ASKED IF THE SCHOOL WOULD REQUIRE SCHOOL ZONES ON AVENUE A. ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE ON BOTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. HE ALSO ASKED IF IT INDICATES A TIME PERIOD. HE ALSO HAD CONCERNS WITH THE LOCATION THAT THE SCHOOL DOES NOT HAVE CONTROL OF THE QUEUING OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE THE PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CHURCH COULD BE TERMINATED AT ANY TIME. HE ASKED THAT THE PLAN BE IF THE SHARED AGREEMENT DISSOLVES, HOW IS THE SCHOOL GOING TO ACCOMMODATE THE PICKUP AND DROPOFF IF THE AGREEMENT IS NO LONG FOR PLACE. HE AGREED THAT THE CHURCH IS A BETTER PLAN, YOU BE HE HAD CONCERNS WITH THE PARKING LEASE AGREEMENT IF THE AGREEMENT IS DISSOLVED, THE AGREEMENT FOR USE IS NO LONGER VALID AND BECOMES AN ENFORCEMENT ISSUE. HE SAID THAT HE WAS HESITANT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL UNLESS A BACKUP PLAN IN PLACE TO KEEP IT OPERATING. SAID ANOTHER CONCERN IS PARENTS PICKING UP, DROP OFF AND NEEDS TO BE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD. THE PARENTS KNOW THAT TRAFFIC REGULATIONS AND NOT VIOLATE THEM. >> YEAH. I WATCHED THE PLANNING, SEVERAL OF US WATCHED THE PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS. SO IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE READING THIS HIGHLIGHTED? >> YES. THEN HE STATED THERE WERE A LOT OF USES THAT HAD SIGNIFICANT MORE TRIPS THAN SCHOOLS. HE STATED THAT LOW INTENSITY VERSUS BUSINESS COULD HAVE TRAFFIC EFFECT ALL DAY AND EVENING AND NOT DEAL WITH AVENUE A AT ALL. THE DROPOFF ISSUE HAS BEEN THE SAME. HE SAID THE SCHOOL IS INVESTING A MILLION DOLLARS. THEN ATTORNEY HEDGES SAID SHE WAS CONFUSED ABOUT THERE WAS TWO AGREEMENT. THEY ORIGINALLY WERE GOING TO UTILIZE THE 500 ORANGE AVENUE. SHE WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE WAS LOOKING AT THE FIRST METHODIST UNITED CHURCH AGREEMENT. THE PORTION OF SHE ALSO MENTIONED IT WAS VERY HEAVY ON THE PLAYGROUND AND THE PARKING LOT LIGHTING IN THE PARKING LOT. THERE WAS NOT A LOT OF THE LEASE AGREEMENT THAT CONTROLS HOW THE PARKING AND DROPOFF IS GOING TO HAPPEN. AND IF THE BOARD WAS UNCOMFORTABLE SHE DID STATE THAT THEY COULD CREATE CONDITIONS SO IF THE AGREEMENT GOES AWAY WHICH THEY DID. SAID THAT THE BOARD IS NOT HAPPY WITH WHAT EXISTS COLONEL. OR THEY COULD ASK THEM TO BRING BETTER PLANS ON HOW TO FOLLOW BACKUP PARKING AND IF THE LEASING AGREEMENT DOES GO AWAY IF SHE ADVISED THE BOARD ON WHAT THEY SHOULD BE LOOKING FOR AS FAR AS A LEASE AGREEMENT. IN RELATION TO THE ACTUAL AREAS COVERED BY THE LEASE AGREEMENT. SHE ALSO SUGGESTS TO PROVIDE AN IMAGE THAT WAS NOT PROVIDED WITH THE SPECIFIC LOCATION. THE AGREEMENT DOES NOT DISCUSS THE FLOW IN WHERE THE SCARS ARE FLOWING. THE TERMS OF CONDITIONS FOR BACKUP AND DROPOFF INCLUDING TIMEFRAMES, DAYS OF THE WEEK, WHAT TIME DROPOFF BEGINS AND ENDS. SHE ALSO INFORMED THAT THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL IF THE LEASE DOES NOT ALLOW THEM TO DO THE CONDITIONS, THEN THEY CAN'T OPERATE BUT IF IT IS HAMMERED OUT, THERE'S NO QUESTION. BASICALLY THAT'S HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE WITH THE CONCERNS OVER WHAT THEY SUBMITTED. >> RIGHT. I WATCHED A PLANNING BOARD MEETING, SO I SAW THEM HAVE A LOT OF ISSUES WITH THIS. AND THEN PUT THE CONDITIONS ON. AND THEN WHAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE IS THE STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL BASED ON THE EIGHT OR NINE THINGS THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN IS THAT RIGHT? >> THE TWO, BUT THEN YOU HAD WHERE IS THAT LIST OF WHAT YOUR STAFF. >> JUST QUESTIONS. OH, THIS. >> THOSE ARE CONDITIONS BUT WHERE IS THE OTHER LIST THAT YOU HAD. >> THESE WERE THE QUESTIONS ABOUT. >> THE STAFF CONCERNS. THAT'S WHAT I MEAN. >> THESE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AGREEMENT THAT WAS SUBMITTED. [01:15:07] >> THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET TO. THANK YOU. HAVE. QUESTIONS OF STAFF. >> MADAM MAYOR, COULD YOU GO BACK TWO SLIDES BECAUSE I THINK THIS WAS A POINT THAT I WANT TO SAY THIS IS THE PART WHERE THESE CONDITIONS WERE NOT MET ALTHOUGH THEY WERE ASKED FOR. BY THE PLANNING BOARD. AND SO THAT'S MY WHOLE CONCERN IS IF THIS NOT MET, IT SEEMS INVITE TOLL ME ALONG WITH SOME OF THE OTHER CONCERNS. I DO HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION. MAYBE YOU KNOW THE ANSWER, MAYBE NOT. MAYBE ENGINEERING KNOWS. ORANGE AVENUE IS STATE ROAD, RIGHT? 68? AND CAN TRUCKS, SEMI TRUCKS USE THAT IF THEY WERE TO TURN OFF U.S. 1? IS THAT PERMISSIBLE? >> I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT. >> THEY HAVE A MAP OF WHERE THE TRUCKS SHOULD GO. >> YEAH. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. >> I'M NOT SURE THAT ORANGE IS ALL THE WAY INTO U.S. ONE. IS ONE OR NOT. >> WHAT ABOUT AVENUE A THEN? CAN THEY USE A? TO GO AND CONNECT ON THE BACK SIDE OF THE WEST SIDE OF THE ORANGE EVAN A. THAT IS THE PREFERRED ROUTE? AND IF WE DON'T, I JUST ASK THE QUESTION. I SAW SOMETHING THAT CONCERNED ME THE OTHER DAY. AND I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS. BECAUSE I DID NOT KNOW TECHNICALLY AND YOU CLARIFIED SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN -- >> GO TO 25TH STREET FROM THE WEST. I THINK THAT'S WHAT I REMEMBER OF THE MAP. >> RIGHT, OB. AND I CAN STILL GO BACK, BUT I JUST THOUGHT MAYBE YOU KNEW AS PLANNING AND IF NOT, THAT'S FINE F STAFF CAN HELP ME OUT. THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER GAINS. >> YEAH. I'M JUST CURIOUS. THE THANK YOU FOR THE REPORT. I'M JUST CURIOUS. IF THE PLANNING BOARD HAS ALL THESE CONCERNS. AND THEN THEY GAVE TWO CONCERNS THAT WERE NOT MET. RIGHT? WHY ARE Y'ALL SITTING IN FRONT OF ME TONIGHT SAYING WHY ARE WE PRESENTING THIS IF IT'S NOT MET? WHY DIDN'T WE GET IT PULLED? WHY DIDN'T WE SAY HEY, IT'S NOT READY. I'M JUST CURIOUS OF THE POLICY BECAUSE IF YOUR PRESENTATION IS DENIED, THAT MEANS SOMETHING AIN'T RIGHT. SO I'M TRYING TO I GOER IF OUT WHAT'S THE PROCEDURE IF YOU'RE NOT READY FOR IT. I KNOW WE'RE NOT READY FOR IT. SO WHY PRESENT IT? >> MR. FREEMAN? >> MADAM MAYOR, COMMISSIONER, THE APPLICANT REQUESTED THAT IT BE. >> AND THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO KNOW. THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF AND COMMISSION? >> YEAH. TO OUR PROFESSIONALS, WHAT WAS THE BUSINESS THAT WAS THERE PRIOR TO TO THIS REQUESTED CHANGE? >> VACANT ABOUT 30 YEARS. >> WHAT WAS? WHAT WAS IT A DEPARTMENT STORE? >> IT WAS A DIME STORE WHEN I WAS GROWING UP. WE USED TO CALL THEM DIME STORES. >> MY NECK OF THE WOODS THEY CALLED IT 5 AND 10. >> RIGHT. SAME THING. BUT THE REASON WHY I AM HAVING REALLY SOME DIFFICULTY WITH THIS AND WHY I WATCHED IT IS THIS IS AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT. WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO PUT A SUBURBAN USE IN HERE AND NOT THE USE SPECIFICALLY BUT THE URBAN COMPONENTS THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED HERE. AND I'M JUST GOING TO TAKE YOU BACK WHEN I WAS WITH THE JAZZ SOCIETY, WE WORKED WITH THE SUN RISE THEATRE. WE HAD HUNDREDS OF KIDS, I MEAN SEVEN, EIGHT HUNDRED KIDS WE BROUGHT IN ON BUSES AND WORKED WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. WE MANAGED THAT PROCESS IN AND OUT. AND IT WORKED FINE. WE HAVE A COURT SYSTEM WHERE HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE COME TO THE DOWNTOWN EVERY SINGLE DAY. AND IT'S LIMITED PARKING IN THE COUNTY'S PARKING LOT. AND CERTAINLY WE HAVE THE CITY PARKING LOT. BUT THERE ARE HUNDREDS IF NOT THOUSANDS OF CARS THAT COME INTO THE CITY ON A DAILY BASIS. AND TO LIMIT A BUSINESS FROM COMING HERE BECAUSE THERE MAY BE SOME TRAFFIC, AND I LOOK AT THE HOURS OF OPERATION. 8 A.M. TO 3:30 IN THE AFTERNOON, I JUST HAVE A CONCERN THAT THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE SENDS PAST U.S. 1 TO THE WEST. TO THE WEST IS PART OF DOWNTOWN. AND IF WE'RE EVER GOING TO DEVELOP THE WESTERN PART OF DOWNTOWN WE HAVE TO START THINKING THAT THIS IS AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT. AND WE HAVE TO MAKE THE [01:20:01] DISCUSSIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES TO ACCOMMODATE THIS SITUATION. ST. A'S RIGHT DOWN THE STREET HERE ON INDY RIVER DRIVE HAS BEEN THERE FOR NOW I WOULD SAY TEN YEARS. AND THEY OPERATE JUST FINE. THEY DO HAVE ADDITIONAL PARKING, THAT'S TRUE. AND IT'S THEIR OWN LOT. >> WE HAVE A QUESTION, COMMISSIONER. >> WELL, THE QUESTION IS FIRST WAS WAS IT A FIVE AND TEN. AND THE ANSWER I BELIEVE WAS AFFIRMATIVE. AND THEN THE OTHER WAS DO WE HAVE IN STATE STATUTE THE ABILITY TO THE LIMIT A BUSINESS FOR THIS TYPE OF USE IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT. >> THE ANSWER IS YES. THE ISSUE WITH THIS APPLICATION IS IT'S A CONDITIONAL USE THE USE OF THE BUILDING IN TERMS OF ZONING ENTITLEMENTS COULD BE USED FOR ANY USE LISTED ON THE C3 POTENTIALS. IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A NONCONFORMING USE, NONCONFORMING LOT. SO THERE WOULD BE EXCEPTIONS TO THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS IF THE USE WAS WITHIN THAT RANGE OF ALLOWABLE USES IN THE ZONING DISTRICT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A SCHOOL THAT'S A CONDITIONAL USE AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE IT'S A I AM WHY PACT ON AN AREA. IT'S DIFFERENT FROM RETAIL. RETAIL USES ARE SPREAD THROUGHOUT THE DAY. SO THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC EVEN THOUGH THROUGHOUT THE DAY. THE IMPACT OF A SCHOOL IS BOOK ENDED THROUGH PRIMARILY RUSH HOURS. AND IF YOU DON'T OR IF YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THAT AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC WITHIN CERTAIN STACKING AREAS WHICH HAS BEEN CALCULATED HERE,S THEN THAT'S GOING TO BE THE CONCERN BOTH ORANGE AVENUE AND AVENUE A. AND IF YOU CAN'T CONSOLIDATE THE FACT THAT YOU GOT AN AGREEMENT IN PLACE TO MAINTAIN THAT AT ALL TIMES OR AS A PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDED WHAT HAPPENS IF THAT AGREEMENT WITH THE ADJACENT LAND OWNER PROPERTY OWNER GOES AWAY, WHAT ARE YOUR PLANS. WHAT ARE YOUR PLANS IF THE ADJACENT LAND OWNER DECIDE TO NEGATE THAT AGREEMENT WHICH THEY'RE ENTITLED TO DO I WOULD ASSUME. WE HAVE A DIFFERENT S SITUATION. YOU BROUGHT UP A THEATRE. A THEATRE IS A THEATRE. THE EXISTING PROPERTIES HAVE BEEN IN USE AND ARE OPERATING. AND WE COULD SEE THE AMOUNT OF PARKING AND CIRCULATION TO THE EXISTING PROPERTY AND THE CHURCH PROPERTY IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT TO WHAT WE SEE ON ORANGE AVENUE AND BETWEEN ORANGE AVENUE. THERE'S A LOT OF COMPLEXITY WITH THIS. AND BELIEVE ME THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WANTS TO GET THIS INTO SOME USE THAT WE CAN'T IGNORE THE POTENTIAL IMPACT ON OTHER BUSINESSES AROUND THAT AREA OR COMMUTERS THAT PASS THROUGH ORANGE AVENUE OR AVENUE A. >> MADAM MAYOR, WE'RE NEVER GOING TO BRING BUSINESSES THERE IF WE CAN'T, IF WE'RE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE AN URBAN USE INTO AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT NUMBER 1. WE CAN LOOK TO FAIR WINDS ELEMENTARY OFF OF 23RD STREET NEXT TO THE COUNTY BUILDING. THOSE CARS WERE QUEUING UP BUT FOUND MULTIPLE WAYS OF TRYING TO FIND THAT. AND THEY DID IT OVER TIME BECAUSE WHEN THEY FOUND ONE ISSUE THEY WERE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO MOVE AROUND AND MAKE NEW ARRANGEMENTS ON HOW THAT TRAFFIC WOULD COME AND GO. SAME THING WITH THE DROP OFF, PICK UP. HIBISCUS PARK WAS ALWAYS THE AREA WHERE THE CARS WERE COMING AND GOING AND IN CONCERT WITH BUSES. I JUST HAVE A CONCERN THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO AN URBANIZED COMMUNITY THAT IS FORT PIERCE AND THAT IS 125 YEARS OLD, WE WILL HAVE TO BE ABLE TO BE FLEXIBLE IN SOME OF THESE THINGS WHERE IF IT WAS PORT ST. LUCY AND JUST HAD RAW LAND AND BUILT LIKE THEY BUILT WE'RE NOT THAT LUCKY. WE'RE LUCKY TO HAVE AN HISTORIC CITY. BUT WE WILL HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THIS. >> I STUDIED THIS IN GREAT DETAIL AND HAVE BEEN IN THE COMMUNICATION LOOP WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THE PROPOSED INITTENT ET CETERA SO I'VE GOT A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF INFORMATION THAT'S COME IN ON THIS. [01:25:06] AND I COME BACK TO THE ISSUE WITH THE VACANT PROPERTY OF THE CITY ESPECIALLY THE URBAN CORE AND I CONSIDER THAT TO BE PART OF THE URBAN CORE. AND YOU LOOK AT A PROPOSED SCHOOL. AND THE ONLY THING DRIVING A CONDITIONAL USE IS A SCHOOL HAS TO BE A CONDITIONAL USE IN ALL ZONING CLASS FICTIONS; IS THAT CORRECT? >> FOR THE RECORD, YES. >> SO IT'S NOT EXACTLY A ZONE CLARIFICATION FOR A SCHOOL, CORRECT IS THIS. >> ESSENTIALLY NO. >> SO LET'S FOLLOW THE BOUNCING BALL HERE. RECENTLY A SCHOOL AND RENOVATED BUILDING JUST TO THE WEST OF THIS, THE OLD PHARMACY BUILDING. AND THAT BUILDING HAD A VARIETY OF ISSUES WITH ITS ACCESS AND PARKING ET CETERA. AND THEY WERE ABLE TO RESOLVE THOSE. ALTHOUGH I'M SOMEWHAT DISAPPOINTED THEY HAVEN'T STARTED RENOVATIONS YET. BUT IN MY MIND THE SHIFT ABOUT DOWNTOWN CORES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY FIVE AND DIMES. IT WAS A FIVE AND DIME WHERE I SO WE LOOK AT DIFFERING USES. AND I LOOK AT THAT SECTION OF ORANGE AVENUE, FOR EXAMPLE. AND FOR FULL DISCLOSURE THE BUILDING LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF 7TH AVENUE AND ORANGE AVENUE WHERE A GYM LOCATED, I OWN THAT BUILDING. JUST SO PEOPLE KNOW. BUT FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES WE HAVE THAT WHICH IS A CONGREGATION AREA. WHAT'S THE TERM I'M LOOKING FOR. >> CHURCH YOU MEAN? >> IT'S USED BY A NUMBER OF PEOPLE. >> ARE YOU GOING FOR A QUESTION HERE? >> I AM COMING TO A QUESTION. IT MIGHT TAKE ABOUT 30 MORE MINUTES. COMMISSIONER GAINS IS GOING TO START THROWING PAPER BALLS AT ME. HAVING SAID THAT, MY CONCERN IS THAT WE START PIGEON HOLING THIS BECAUSE OF A LACK OF PARKING ET CETERA. BUT WHEN THOSE BUILDINGS WERE THE BE, THEY WOULDN'T EVEN MOAT CODE TODAY. YOU HAVE 18 ON SITE SPACES AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE TO REPEAT THIS AS RETAIL. GO AHEAD AND PUT A STRAIGHT RETAIL USE IN THERE AND JUST CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THEY ARE COMING IN LOOKING FOR SOME TYPE OF CONDITIONAL USE ON PARKING. HOW WOULD THAT WORK OUT SOME. >> MR. FREEMAN. >> WE WOULD LOOK AT THE FACT THAT WE'RE IN THIS SITUATION WHICH IS A NONCONFORMING USE WITHIN THAT LOT AND THERE ARE EXEMPTIONS WITHIN THE CODE THAT ALLOWS US TO, YOU KNOW, ADJUST THINGS THERE MAY BE VARIANCES COMING OUT OF THAT, BUT THE ISSUE THAT WE ARE IN TODAY IF I COULD JUST GO BACK TO THIS IS THE FACT THAT THEY DIDN'T MEET PLANNING BOARD REQUIREMENTS. >> THERE IS AN INTERESTING POINT THERE THAT NEEDS TO BE DEALT WITH OBVIOUSLY. BUT WE CLARIFIED THE CONDITIONAL USE ISSUE AND CLARIFIED THAT THIS BUILDING, YOU COULDN'T BUILD THIS BUILDING TODAY WITH THIS AMOUNT OF PARKING TEST. SO THAT BUILDING IS FUNCTIONALLY OBSOLETE PERIOD. IT'S NOT GOOD FOR ANY USE. SO I'M AT A LOSS. THAT'S WHAT I WOULD DO FOR WORK. THE OTHER QUESTIN. WHEN THE PEACOCK OVERLAY WAS PUT INTO PLAYTIOUS THE PARKING REQUIREMENT WERE CUT BY 50% HAS THAT BEEN APPLIED TO THIS BUILDING? >> YES. >> SO THEY HAVE ALREADY TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THAT. YOU TALK ABOUT THE OCCURRENCE OF TRAFFIC. THAT'S 226 DAILY TRIPS BY TWO. SO 450 ROUNDED UP TO 500 TRIPS. BUT A LOT OF THIS IS GOING TO BE TAKEN BY BUS, AND THE APPLICANTS ARE HERE. I KNOW THAT. MAYBE MIKE CAN COMMENT ON THIS. WE HAVE THREE BUSES COMING ONTO THE PROPERTY. SO WE DON'T HAVE 226 VEHICLES QUEUING UP TO DROP OFF KIDS. THAT'S A MISNOMER BECAUSE WELL; IS THAT CORRECT?SERVICE A- >> NOT FOR THE BACKUP PLAN. >> FOR THE BACKUP PLAN, THEY'RE PROPOSING IF THEY LOST THE STACKING, THE BUSES WOULD BE ENGAGED. WITH THAT COMES A WHOLE RAFT OF [01:30:04] ISSUES. AND IF I COULD JUST WANT TO GO THROUGH THE PREAPPLICATION OF THIS PROPERTY, THE REVIEW OF THIS PROPERTY ALL ALONG THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND CITY DEPARTMENTS ARE LOOKING TO GET SOMETHING TO FUNCTION IN THIS BUILDING. IT'S NOT THROUGH LEADING SOMEBODY DOWN A BLIND PATH TO SAY WE'RE GETTING YOU TO THIS POINT BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO RECOMMEND YOU. WE HAVE CONDITIONS SET BY THE PLANNING BOARD. WE SUSPECT THAT THOSE CONDITIONS CAN BE MET OTHERWISE WE WOULDN'T HAVE PUSHED IT ON. >> CAN OR CAN'T? >> CAN. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF THE DETAIL OF THOSE PLANS SO IF THE MESSAGE IS BEING HEARD THAT WE ARE REOBSTRUCTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF URBAN AREAS, THAT'S NOT THE CASE. >> I AM NOT GOING DOWN THAT PATH. YOU KNOW WHAT RESPECT I HAVE FOR YOU AND YOUR DEPARTMENT. I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT AT ALL. WHAT I AM SUGGESTING IS THAT CORRIDOR WHAT DO THEY CALL IT -- ASSEMBLY. ASSEMBLY OF USE. THAT WAS THE WORD I WAS LOOK FOR. SO YOU HAVE A GYM. YOU HAVE GOT A CHURCH, 500 ORANGE AS A FUNCTION THE IF A. >> ARCADE BUILDING. >> EXACTLY. SO WE HAVE THESE DISPARATE USES IN A VERY UNIQUE AREA SIMPLY BECAUSE THESE BUILDINGS WERE NOT RENTABLE SO THEY HAD TO BE MORE CREATIVE IN WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO HERE. AND I THINK IN THIS CASE THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY OWNER AND INITTENT HAVE FINALLY COME UP WITH A CURE FOR THAT. WHILE WE MAY NOT BE SAYING THIS THE BEST USE, BUT IT A USE. THAT WOULD TAKE AN AGING BUILDING THAT'S IN FAIRLY ROUGH CONDITION AND TURN IT INTO SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE A DRAW AND HELP BEAUTIFY THE NEIGHBOURHOOD OVER THERE AND WILL HELP BRING BODIES DOWN THERE BECAUSE WE HAVE PEOPLE TRYING TO BRING RESTAURANTS IN THAT AREA JUST WEST OF 7TH. SO IT WILL BE PHYSICALLY BRING PEOPLE INTO THAT MARKETPLACE THAT WOULD HELP THOSE NEW BUSINESSES POTENTIALLY TAKE OFF. SO I SEE SYNERGY HERE AS WELL. SO I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS. ON THESE ITEM 7 AND 8, I DON'T EVEN SEE WHAT THE ARGUMENT IS. WITH THE PARKING LOT ET CETERA. THE NUMBER 8 I CONSIDER TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE THORNY. THAT IS UP TO THEM. IF ANYBODY IS HERE TO SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF. I KNOW MIKE IS HERE BUT I'M DONE. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? STAFF, DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING? >> NO, MA'AM. >> SO I WANT TO THE OPEN IT UP TO THE APPLICANT. PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STUNNER AND DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF. >> MIKE MENARD FROM ARCHITECT TONIC. NO QUESTIONS FROM STAFF. >> OKAY. >> AND THIS IS THE -- >> BRIAN VARGAS. I WILL BE THE CEO. NO QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> WHAT WAS YOUR FIRST NAME? >> BRIAN VARGAS. >> AND YOU WERE BOTH SWORN IN? >> YOU BOTH WERE SWORN? SO PROCEED. I GIVE IT TO THE OFFICER. THANK YOU. >> I'LL GO THROUGH ALL THE COMMENTS AND SO FORTH. >> YOU HAVE 20 MINUTES. >> I BETTER TALK FAST THEN. >> AND WE MAY ASK YOU QUESTIONS BUT THAT DOESN'T COUNT. >> THERE WAS A TIMELINE PROVIDED. DID YOU GUYS GET IT? FROM THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY? >> I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING IT. >> OKAY. WELL, JUST BASICALLY WE STARTED THIS MAY 28TH LAST YEAR. AND WE HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH IT. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH STAFF AND PLANNING AND ENGINEERING AND PLANS THAT ARE BEING PRESENTED TO YOU I'LL GO THROUGH IT IN A MINUTE. BUT TO ADDRESS A LOT OF THE PARKING QUESTIONS BASED ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING, STANDARD RETAIL PARKING AT ONE PER 200 WOULD BE 93 SPACES REQUIRED WITH 50% REDUCTION FOR THE PEACOCK DISTRICT. 47 SPACES WOULD BE REQUIRED BY TODAY'S STANDARDS. THERE'S ONLY 18 AVAILABLE. THE IF IT'S BUSINESS PARKING, IT WOULD BE 62. WITH THE 50% REDUCTION, 31 SPAYS. STILL WAY SHORT WITH 18. [01:35:04] RESTAURANT PARKING AT 1 PER 100 WOULD BE 185 SPACES. AND WITH A 50% REDUCTION WOULD BE 93 SPACES. SCHOOLS AND EDUCATIONAL REQUIRE TWO SPACES PER CLASSROOM. WE HAVE EIGHT RELEVANCE WHICH. WE HAVE 16 REQUIRED SPACES. SO TECHNICALLY WE'RE MEETING IT WITHOUT EVEN A 50% REDUCTION. SO BASED ON JUST THE PARKING CALCULATIONS ALONE, THE BEST USE FOR THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE A CALCULATION.BASED ON THE PARKIN- IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THE PLAN, WE ORIGINALLY MET WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ON THE 500 BUILDING F YOU WATCHED THE LEASE, THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE LEASE WITH THE 500 BUILDING AND THE UNITED METHODIST. WE STILL HAVE THE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH STAN WHICH IS HERE. HE CAN CONFIRM THAT. FOR US TO UTILIZE AND DO A JOINT VENTURE PARKING ARRANGEMENT WITH CUTTING A CURB ACCESS IN WHICH WILL ALLOW ONE FOR THE 500 BUILDING A ONE-WAY IN AND OUT BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THAT DRIVEWAY IS NOT TECHNICALLY WIDE MUST HAVE FOR TWO CARS TO PULL IN AND OUT FOR THE BANQUET HALL AT 500. SO BY DOING THIS, IT CREATES ADDITIONAL PARK FOR THE SCHOOL, FOR STAFF MEMBERS OR SECONDARY EMERGENCY PICKUP AND DROPOFF FOR THE YOUNG CHILDREN BECAUSE WE CAN STAGE TEN STAGING JUST IN THE 5 TO 10 AND 400 ORANGE AVENUE CAPABILITIES. I ALSO HAVE ON THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND SIDE THE BREAKDOWN OF ALL THE DIFFERENT PARKING FOR THE 500 TO 510. I HAVE AN INVENTORY OF ALL THE ON STREET PARKING. SO FOR THE STAGING AND DROPOFF FOR 510 STAGING UNITED METHODIST 18. SO IF WE DO A COMBINATION BETWEEN THE TWO WE HAVE STAGING FOR 28 CARS. WE HAVE BETWEEN 500 UNITED METHODIST AND 410 ORANGE AVENUE WE HAVE ACCESS TO 52 PARKING SPACES. NOW, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ORANGE STREET ON STREET PARKING ON THE IN ORDER OF THE ROAD WE HAVE 15 SPACES, SOUTH SIDES 11 SPACES, AND IF YOU GO BACK ON 6TH STREET. I ONLY WENT A LITTLE BIT. THERE'S SPACES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET THERE. THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL 37 PARKING SPACES ON STREET WITH WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE SCHOOL. AND SO AS FAR A THE LEASE AGREEMENT AND EVERYTHING, WE GOT THE COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. WE DID ADDRESS SOME OF THEM TO THE CITY ATTORNEY. AND SINCE IT'S TAKEN SO LONG AND BETWEEN ATTORNEYS AND GETTING ALL PARTIES TOGETHER TO FINE TUNE THIS AGREEMENT, WE DECIDED AND THE LANDLORD KIND OF PUSHED IT AND ALSO THE SCHOOL, YOU KNOW, CAN WE GET THE CONDITIONAL USE? DO WE KEEP SPENDING MONEY AND KEEP GOING THROUGH THIS? OR DO WE JUST GIVE UP? SO WE DECIDED TO GO AHEAD AND PUSH FOR COMMISSION FOR YOU GUYS TO APPROVE YOU SEE THAT TIME IS OF THE EASIENS BECAUSE NOW IT'S ALREADY SUMMER TRYING TO GET A SCHOOL DONE FIRE, SPRINKLERS, 88 AND COMPLIANCE WE'RE KIND OF PUSHING. WE ALREADY LOST A YEAR. >> ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO ADD? >> I THINK THAT COVERS IT FOR ME. >> DO YOU HAVE SOMEONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO PRESENT? OR COMMISSIONER, DO YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR MANY THIS SPEAKER SOMEOR YOU WANT TO PRESENT FIRST AND THEN WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR BOTH? >> I CAN WAIT UNTIL THE PRESENTER AND I HAVE A QUESTION. >> YES, SIR. >> I HAVE TWO MAIN CONCERNS. FIRST THE TRAFFIC STUDY WHICH WE HAD A PROFESSIONAL PRESENT THEM WITH A LICENCE STUDY. MIKE DID ONE BUT WE ALSO HAD A COMPANY COME. AND THE SECOND THING WAS THE LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE CHURCH. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SAT WITH THE CHURCH. WE HAVE THE PROPOSED LEASE AGREEMENT. IF THE LEASE AGREEMENT -- NOBODY [01:40:02] IS GOING TO GIVE YOU A BLANKET AGREEMENT. WHAT THEY WANT, WHAT THE ATTORNEY WANT US TO DO IS SAY THIS CAN NEVER BE VOID. IT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN, GUYS. SO WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CHURCH IN GOOD FAITH THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO CONTINUE WITH THE AGREEMENT. WE HAVE PROPOSED ALL OF THIS TO THE CHURCH AND THEY'RE OKAY WITH IT. THEY'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH THEIR SCHEDULES AS WELL. IT SHOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE. BUT IF THE ISSUE DOES ARRIVE, WE DID ALL THOSE CONCERNS THAT THEY HAD THE TEN CONCERNS WHICH IT STARTED AT 6. IT WENT TO 8. THEN IT WENT TO 10. THE GOAL POST KEEPS GETTING PUSHED BACK HERE. WE CAN'T OPERATE LIKE THAT. SO THE CONCERNS WE DID ADDRESS THEM, BUT THEY'RE NOT TO THEIR LIKING. SO WE JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHERE WE'RE GOING HERE. THAT'S WHY WE PUSHED TO BE HERE. IT'S EITHER A YES OR A NO BECAUSE WE CAN'T CONTINUE THIS WAY. WE HAVE WASTED AND WE'RE CLOSE TO 50 GRAND. WE HAVEN'T EVEN BROKE GROUND. SO WE HAVE ADDRESSED THE CONCERNS THAT THEY HAVE. WE HAVE ADDRESS ALL THE THINGS. IT JUST FEELS LIKE THE GOAL POST KEEPS GETTING PUSHED EVERY SINGLE I AM TOO. SO WE HAVE EVEN ADDRESSED IT TO SAY WE CAN USE A COMBINATION. I JUST CAN'T SEE WHAT ELSE WE WOULD BE DOING IN THIS SENSE. >> OKAY. IS THAT IT? SO. >> MADAM MAYOR. CERTAINLY I APPRECIATE AND THIS IS MR. MENARD. I HAVE A QUESTION. I THOUGHTED I HEARD IN YOUR PRESENTATION YOU MENTIONED A BUILDING AT 500 ORANGE USED AS A STAGING FOR PEOPLE DROPPING OFF, PICKING UP. I THOUGHT THAT WAS HAPPENING WITH AVENUE A AND THE CHURCH PARKING LOT. DID I MISHEAR YOU ON THAT? >> YES AND NO. >> OKAY. >> THE MAIN STAGING WILL BE THE UNITED METHODIST OFF OF AVENUE A. >> RIGHT, OKAY. >> NOW, WITH DOING THE JOINT ACCESS WITH 500 ORANGE AS PART OF THE EMERGENCY BACKUP PLAN AND/OR FOR CHILDCARE -- NOT CHILDCARE. THE ELEMENTARY OR KINDERGARTEN STUDENT DROPOFF COULD BE USED JUST FROM 510 AND 500 ORANGE. BUT IT IS MORE OR LESS FOR THE PLAN B FOR THE FEW PICKUPS AND DROPOFFS WITH THE BUSES. >> SO I'M TO ASSUME THAT IF PLAN B TRIGGERS WHICH WOULD BE THE BUSES. THAT'S WHAT I'LL CALL IT. THEN THE BUSES WOULD HAVE TO NAVIGATE IN THERE AND NAVIGATE THAT LOSS TO PICKUP, DROP OFF THEIR STUDENTS THERE WHICH IS AT. SO OKAY. THE OTHER THING IS I THOUGHT I HEARD JUST A MINUTE AGO THAT THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH AND CORRECT ME THEY HAVE NOT SIGNED THIS AGREEMENT WITH THEM. IS IT SIGNED BY THEM? IT'S JUST NOT FULLY CLARIFIED TO THE ATTORNEYED AS FAR AS SPECIFIC LOCATION, QUADRANTS, AND THE NEVER ENDING LEASE. >> SO HERE'S WHERE I'M AT. THIS IS A QUASIJUDICIAL HEARING. I HAVE TO GO ON FACTS. I'M TRYING TO REMOVE SPECULATION AND WHAT IFS AND POSSIBLE SCENARIO HERE. THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M LOOKING TO RENDER HERE. I'M LOOKING AT THE FACTS OF WHAT'S BEFORE ME. AND, YOU KNOW, I HAVE GOT CONCERNS OF THE ADDRESSING OF THE TWO CONDITIONS. AND I AM EMPATHETIC TO UNDERSTANDING THIS, AND GOD KNOWS I'M PROBABLY ONE CONSISTENTLY IN THE MIDDLE OF MY DISTRICT THAT WANTS THIS PLACE HERE AND THIS PLACE HAS BEEN OCCUPIED SINCE I WAS A KID WITH MY GRANDMOTHER. SO I JUST I'M TRYING TO RULE OUT SPECULATION BUT I'M GOING OFF FACTS AND THE FACTS RIGHT NOW AREN'T QUITE HAPPENING. I GOT SOME GAPS. >> WE DO HAVE A SIGNED LEASE AGREEMENT WITH UNITED METHODIST. >> OKAY. >> BUT IT'S NOT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S LIKING TO THIS POINT. >> WHAT AREA WOULD WE BE ABLE TO USE AND AT WHAT TIMES? SO THEY ARE OFFERING US USE OF THE ENTIRE PARKING LOT. BUT HE'S NOT GOING TO BLANKET THAT THAT'S THE PART THAT WE CAN USE. IT'S A SHARED AGREEMENT. SO I JUST DON'T SEE HOW ANYBODY WOULD DO THAT BLANKET, LIKE, ONE AREA WHERE THEY ARE GOING TO ALLOW US TO USE IT UNCONDITIONALLY WITHOUT THEM HAVING, YOU KNOW, ACCESS AT ALL TO IT. >> MS. HEDGES,S DID YOU WANT TO [01:45:07] CHIME IN IN? >> YEAH, MADAM MAYOR. THE STATEMENT KEEPS BEING MADE THAT IT'S NOT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY'S LIKING. IT'S NOT ABOUT WHETHER I LIKE IT OR DON'T LIKE IT HERE. I'M NOT SURE WHY THAT'S MADE. WHEN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT CAME TO ME, THEY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT WAS INT NOT IN IT. I WENT THROUGH IT WITH MR. GILMOUR ABOUT WHAT HIS CONCERNS WERE, HOW I SAW IT, BUT ULTIMATELY I EXPLAINED IT'S YOUR DECISION. WHAT TO DO AT THE CITY COMMISSION LEVEL. THE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE RECOMMENDATIONS. SO THE ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS THEY INCLUDED YOU ALL AS A BOARD CAN APPROVE WITH THOSE CONDITIONS, WITHOUT THOSE CONDITIONS. YOU CAN MODIFY THOSE CONDITIONS. YOU CAN CREATE YOUR OWN NEW CONDITIONS. IF YOU ARE CHOOSING TO APPROVE THIS. MUCH LIKE YOU SAW WHAT WE DID WITH POULTY RELATED TO THE SIGN A FEW WEEKS AGO. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR ULTIMATELY YOU ALL DECIDE WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WITH YOUR APPROVALS AND CONDITIONS OF YOUR APPROVAL. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM. >> MAYOR. >> YES. >> CAN YOU PUT UP THE CONDITIONS? AND WHAT I'M GOING TO ASK YOU GUYS IS WHAT CAN YOU AGREE TO, AND WHAT DO YOU HAVE A CHALLENGE WITH AND GIVE ME EXPLANATIONS ALREADY AGREED TO THE FIRST SIX. THOSE ARE ALREADY AGREED TO. SO THESE ARE THE ONES IN QUESTION. OR THERE'S TWO MORE I GUESS AT THE END OF THIS. OKAY, PLEASE. >> IT'S JUST A MATTER OF GETTING ACCEPTANCE BETWEEN PLANNING BOARD OR STAFF OR CITY ATTORNEY AS TO THE LEASE AGREEMENT WHICH I SAID, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE ONE. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF CLARIFICATION AS TO HOW SPECIFIC IT HAS TO BE. FROM OUR UNDERSTANDING THEY'RE TRYING TO PINPOINT EXACTLY THEE 25 SPAYS, AND IT'S ONLY FOR YOU GUYS TO USE. THAT'S OUR INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR WHICH AS A PROPERTY OWNER MYSELF A SHARED AGREEMENT IS A SHARED AGREEMENT. I CAN USE IT. YOU CAN USE IT WE'RE SHARING T THAT'S QUESTIONABLE IN MY OPINION.% THE BACKUP PLAN WE DID PROVIDE A BACKUP PLAN WITH THE BUSES AND SO FORTH. SO I GUESS WE NEED MORE CLARIFICATION AS TO WHAT SPECIFICALLY YOU NEARED THE BACKUP PLAN. THEY PROVIDED ONE WITH THE SCHOOL BUSES AND EVERYTHING. THE ALSO PUT TOGETHER AN EXTRA PLAN SHOWING THE USE OF 500 AS A POTENTIAL BACKUP FOR ADDITIONAL DROP OFF WITH THE BUTS AS WELL. >> I'M JUST GONNA SHARE WITH MY COMMISSIONERS AND THE MAYOR IS THAT MY POSITION IS THAT NO LEASE AGREEMENT, AND I THINK YOU SAID IT SIR IS FOOL PROF. THAT COULD BE RENEGOTIATED. I THINK IN ANY AND I HAVE ATTORNEYS ALL OVER THE PLACE TONIGHT, COMMISSIONER GAINS, AND AGREEMENTS CHANGE. AND SO TO PUT SOMETHING AND HAVE THIS THING NAILED DOWN SO TIGHT IS I THINK SOMEWHAT PROBLEMATIC TRYING TO DEAL WITH AN URBAN CORRIDOR. THE OTHER IS THE BACKUP PLAN YOU PROVIDED JUST NOW WITH THE NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES THAT ARE WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE. THE QUEUING SPACES IS INDEED IMPORTANTIM THAT YOU SHOWED US HERE TODAY. AND THE OTHER IS THE CITY PARKING LOT. I CAME IN TODAY THERE WERE 300 SPAYS STILL AVAILABLE. AND WHEN I COME DOWNTOWN AT 8 IN THE MORNING UNLESS THE COURT HAS JURY DUTY THERE'S STILL 120 SPACES IN THE DOWNTOWN PARKING GARAGE. SO I THINK THERE IS ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY AROUND THIS AREA. I THINK THAT IT WAS NOT LONG AGO IF THEY STILL HAVE IT NOR NOT BUT THEY HAD PRESCHOOL IN THE CHURCH FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. AND SO I THINK THIS APPLICATION EXISTS ALTHOUGH A CHURCH IS A DIFFERENT IDENTITY THAN A COMMERCIAL SCHOOL LIKE THIS. SO THEY HAVE THEIR OWN ELEMENTS FROM PLANNING AND USE COMPONENT. SO FOR ME THESE TWO I THINK PERSONALLY THAT YOU MET THOSE CONDITIONS FROM WHAT YOU PROVIDED HERE. WHAT ARE THE NEXT TWO? >> THAT WAS THE ONLY TWO. >> I THOUGHT YOU HAD 10. >> NO. THOSE WERE THE CONCERN. >> TEN CONCERNS. THEY HAVE CONCERNS. >> OKAY. >> TEN CONCERN. >> YEAH. [01:50:01] COMMISSIONER GAINS. >> MAYOR, THANK YOU. THE EARLIER QUESTION FROM THE CITY. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT BECAUSE IT'S STARTING TO MAKE A WHOLE BUNCH OF SENSE TO WHERE WE ARE. MY QUESTION TO YOU IS SIMPLE BECAUSE I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR. IS WHAT I'M HEARING FOR NUMBER 7 IS THAT YOU HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CHURCH TO USE THEIR PARKING LOT. AND SOMEONE WANTS -- THE HOLDUP IS THAT WE WANT TO DESIGNATE WHAT PART OF THE PARKING LOT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO USE. IS THIS WHAT I'M HEARING? OR IS IT SOMETHING ELSE? >> WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CHURCH TO USE THE PARKING LOT AND THE PLAYGROUND. SO WE HAVE THE, YOU KNOW, IT'S AN AGREEMENT TO USE THE WHOLE FACILITY. >> THE ENTIRE PARKING LOT. >> THE WHOLE AREA. AND AGAIN THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE SAYING HERE IS THEY'RE SAY THAT GO THEY WANTED TO BE REVISED AND DEFINE THE LOCATIONS, BOUNDARIES OF THE PARKING LOT USED AND THE TIME OF OPERATION. SO THEY WANT TO KNOW WHAT TIME CAN WE USE IT. WHAT TIME CAN THE CHURCH USE IT? THAT'S NOT HOW SHARED PARKING SPACES WORK. >> AND THE BACKUP PLAN YOU WERE CALLING A BACKUP PLAN IS THE 500 BUILDING, THE PARKING LOT WITH THE BUSING. >> WE HAD THE BACKUP PLAN FOR THE BUSES AND EVERYTHING AND WE ALWAYS HAD THE AGREEMENT WITH THE 500 BUILDING. SO IN MY PRESENTATION I'M SHOWING THAT WE CAN UTILIZE IT AS PART OF THE FACT. >> THAT'S FINE. JUST MAKING SURE I'M HEARING EVERYTHING. NOW ONE THING MY COMMISSIONER HERE SAID AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SCHOOL FROM K THROUGH 8 AND YOU MENTION THE PARKING LOT HERE. PLEASE DON'T PUT NO KIDS WALKING ACROSS YOU'RE TRYING TO GET TO A SCHOOL. >> I EXPECTED PARENTS. >> I DON'T EVEN WANT PARENTS. JUST LET THAT FLY. JUST THAT WAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. I'M CLEAR NOW. >> OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE. YUP, YUP. SO I THINK I UNDERSTAND KIND OF WHY A SHARED USE PARKING LOT AND A SHARED USE, I THINK YOU CAN RIGHT NOW SAY THAT IT'S ALL GOING TO WORK OUT FINE AND I KNOW WHAT HAPPENS, WHAT COULD HAPPEN IS THE CHURCH IS GOING TO HAVE A FUNCTION. COULD IT INTERFERE WITH YOU IF WE DO THIS OR WHATEVER. I'M ASSUME THAT GO NOW EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT THE CHURCH KNOWS WHAT TIMES THE SCHOOL OPENS AND CLOSES AND KNOW WHAT I'M AND IT'S ONLY MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY. AND THE CHURCH MEET ON SUNDAY. THEY HAVE A COMMUNITY GARDEN ACROSS THE WAY. I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE I'M NOT SURE ABOUT WHAT KIND OF TRACK THEY HAVE THAT GOES TO THAT COMMUNITY GARDEN. BUT WHAT YOU DON'T FORESEE PROBLEMS WHEN YOU WATCH THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING I WONDERED WHY THEY WERE SO INCONSISTENT. IT WASN'T THE STAFF. IT WASN'T THE ATTORNEY. IT WAS THE BOARD, THE PLANNING BOARD THAT SAID THEY WANTED A PLAN B THAT THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ASKED FOR THAT. IT SEEMS AS IF YOU PRESENTED ONE. AND AS LONG AS YOU FEEL AND WE FEEL THAT THIS CAN ALL BE DONE SAFELY FOR THE CHILDREN. THAT'S THE IMPORTANT THING. SO RIGHT. TRYING TO REDUCE ANY KIND OF CROSSING OF STREET, AND ALSO WE HAVE TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC ESPECIALLY ON AVENUE A. I THINK WE KIND OF WORKED OUT ORANGE AVENUE. I MEAN WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT FROM WHAT YOU SAID, BUT AVENUE A COULD BE A TRAFFIC ISSUE. >> ACCORDING TO THE TRAFFIC NETWORK, ORANGE AVENUE OR AVENUE A IS NOT A TRUCK ROUTE. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION. >> GOOD. I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT. I WAS TRYING TO REMEMBER IF I EVER SEEN ONE ON THERE. BUT I GO DOWN AVENUE A A LOT. SO I'M FAMILIAR WITH THAT STREET. >> MADAM MAYOR. >> YES. >> I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF. >> I'M DONE. >> SO I HAVE SAT HERE AND I'M LOOKING AT THE RENTAL AGREEMENT OF THAT PROVIDED IN MY DOCUMENT. AND THE FACT COMMISSIONER GAINS QUESTION, IT DOES NOT, IT SAYS YOU'RE LEASING THE PLAYGROUND AREA FOR THE METHODIST CHURCH. AM I READING THIS WRONG? IT DOES NOT SAY SHARED USE. >> THE UPDATED ONE SHOULD. >> THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKINGAL A.M. I LOOKING AT THE WRONG THING HERE, MS. COX. I'M JUST CLICKING WHAT'S ONLINE. >> DEPARTMENT PUTS IT UP THERE. [01:55:01] >> MAYBE IT'S ANOTHER ONE THAT ADDED. I COULD BE I D WRONG. I'M ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION BECAUSE THAT LANGUAGE WHAT I'M HEARING FROM THE APPLICANT THAT THEY HAVE PERMISSION TO USE COMING OFF AVENUE A TO PULL IN THERE TO DROP KIDS OFF AS WELL AS USING THE PLAYGROUND. THE PLAYGROUND IS SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT IN WHAT I'M LOOKING AT. IT DOES NOT STATE THAT THERE'S AN AGREEMENT THAT WOULD BE SIGNED. THAT'S MY FIRST CONCERN. >> I DIDN'T GET ANY INFORMATION TO PRESENT TONIGHT. YOU GUYS LOOKING AT THE SAME. >> I THINK THEY'RE CHECKING IF THERE'S SOMETHING. >> I HAVE THE AGREEMENT. >> BUT THE PROBLEM I HAVE IS THAT THIS IS ONLINE RIGHT NOW AND WHAT THE PUBLIC SEES. I DON'T HAVE WHAT YOU HAVE. >> YES, SIR. >> NOR DO MY COLLEAGUES. >> DO WE HAVE WHAT YOU HAVE. DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE HAVE? >> WELL, HE HAS THE. >> MADAM MAYOR, CAN I JUST CLARIFY ARE YOU CLICKING ON THE LINK THAT SAYS SHARED PLAYGROUND SLASH PARKING LOT AGREEMENT? I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S -- YES. AND IF YOU SCROLL DOWN TOO THAT ONE IS NOT EXECUTED. THAT ONE IS BLANK. SO I THINK THERE MIGHT BE SOMETHING ELSE SOMEWHERE. THE LINK THAT SPECIFICALLY SAYS SHARED PLAYGROUND SLASH SHARED PARKING LOT AGREEMENT. >> THAT'S WHAT I CLICKED ON AND READ THIS SEVERAL TIMES SITTING HERE. I'M NO LAWYER BUT. >> BUT THERE IS A FIRST ADDENDUM THAT'S ATTACHED AS NUMBER 12. >> I THINK TO COMMISSIONER JOHNSON'S POINT, THOUGH, THAT THAT WOULD BE THE BASE OF WHAT WE'RE WORKING OFF OF AND THEN THE ADDENDUM WOULD ADEND THAT ONE. I DON'T KNOW THE WORD. MAKE SURE WE'RE ARRAYER OF EVERYTHING AND IF IT'S THERE IT'S THERE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE IF IT'S THERE F THE COMMISSION MOST FORWARD WITH IT. I'LL MAKE ONE OTHER COMMENT AND I'M DONE AND MADAM MAYOR, I APPRECIATE YOUR POINT AND GLAD THAT WE NOW KNOW THAT NEITHER ONE OF THOSE STREETS SHOULD BE USED BY TRUCKS. BUT I KNOW WHAT I SEE. AND I KNOW WHAT HAPPENS. AND I GOT PEOPLE GOING THE WRONG WAY THERE. BUT THAT'S NOT YOUR CONCERN. THAT'S A CITY CONCERN I'M RAISING THAT I WANT YOU TO BE AWARE OF. >> DID YOU FIND WHAT YOU WERE LOOK FOR? >> PLAYGROUND AND PARKING LOT AGREEMENT ON THE SCREEN RIGHT THERE. >> MAYBE I WAS LOOKING AT THE WRONG -- >> AND COMMISSION, DID YOU WANT TO CHIME IN HERE? >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. AND YES. THE PARTIES ENTERED INTO THE AGREEMENT FOR THE USE OF THE PLAYGROUND LOCATED 515A WHEREAS THE PARTIES DESIRE TO CLARIFY AND EXPAND THE PERMITTED USE OF ADDITIONAL AREAS OF THE PREMISES INCLUDING THE PARKING AREA AND TO FIND SPECIFIC TIMES OF USE. SO THERE IS THE WAREHOUSE. >> GOOD WITH THAT? >> THE EAST PARKING AREA LOCATED ON PREMISES SPECIFICALLY TO THE AREA EAST OF THE OAK TREES AND DESIGNATED PLAYGROUND AREAS. AND THEN IT GOES TO NUMBER 3, ARRIVAL AND DISMISSAL ONLY. SHALL HAVE NONINCLUSIVE USE OF THE PARKING LOT LOCATED EAST OF THE OAK TREES STRICTLY FOR STUDENT ARRIVAL, DISMISSAL OPERATIONS DURING THE FOLLOWING TIMES. IT'S THERE IN BLACK AND WHITE. >> JUST WANTED TO BE AWARE. >> SURE, THANK YOU. THAT ADDENDUM WAS SITTING THERE ON IT OWN. SHOULD PROBABLY HAVE THAT TOGETHER I GUESS. >> OKAY. OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT. ANYBODY GOT ANYTHING MORE? ALL RIGHT. I MIGHT CALL YOU BACK UP. I'M GONNA OPEN THE PUBLIC COMMENT AND YOU MIGHT WANT TO RESPOND TO ANYTHING THAT THE PUBLIC HAS TO SAY. ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, PLEASE COME FORWARD. STUSTAYED YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES AND WE WILL GIVE AUTO WARNING OF 10 SECONDS. >> THANK YOU. MY NAME IS STANLEY. I OWN THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THIS AT 500 ORANGE AVENUE COLLECTIVELY WITH MY WIFE. IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'M GONNA READ MY COMMENT. SO I'M 100% ACCURATE. AS I SAID, MY NAME IS STAN. MY WIFE AND I OWN THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. I AM HERE TONIGHT TO EXPRESS MY FULL SUPPORT FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE AND SUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTION AND FUTURE OPERATION OF THE LEGACY FUTURE SCHOLARS ACADEMY. MY WIFE AND I PURCHASED THE 500 ORANGE BUILDING IN 2017 AND COMPLETED EXTENSIVE RENOVATIONS IN 2021. [02:00:02] PRIOR TO OUR TAKEOVER, THIS BUILDING WAS VACANT FOR 18 PLUS YEARS AND WAS AN EYESORE TO LOCALS AND VISITERS IN FOR PIERCE. IT IS NOW A BEAUTIFUL AWARD-WINNING VIBRANT EVENT CENTRE AND A SIGNIFICANT ENHANCEMENT TO THE ORANGE AVENUE CORRIDOR, THE GATEWAY TO OUR GREAT CITY OF FORT PIERCE. WE TAKE GREAT PRIDE IN HOPEFULLY BEING A CATALYST FOR ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE IN THIS HIGHLY VISIBLE GATEWAY CORRIDOR. WE FEEL THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS AN EXCLLENT OPTION FOR THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THIS 20,000 PLUS SQUARE FOOT BUILDING THAT HAS ALSO BEEN VACANT FOR MANY YEARS. BY THE WAY, IT USED TO BE THE WTB GRANT BUILDING. >> YES. >> OKAY. I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET WITH THE OWNERS, ARCHITECT, ENGINEERS WORKING ON THIS PROJECT, AND I HAVE SEEN THE BEAUTIFUL DESIGNS AND RENDERINGS OF THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE BUILDING EXTERIOR, AND I MUST SAY THAT I'M QUITE IMPRESSED. I HAVE EXECUTED A SHARED USE AGREEMENT THAT WILL ALLOW THE ACADEMY TO USE OUR MAIN PARKING AREA DURING DAYTIME HOURS FOR PARKING, DROPOFF, AND PICKUP. THEY CAN ALSO USE OUR REAR PARKING LOT FOR EMPLOYEE PARKING DURING DAYTIME HOURS. ONCE AGAIN I STRONGLY SUPPORT THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT AS THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE AND FEAR THAT IF IT NOT APPROVED, THIS BUILDING THAT'S BEEN VACANT FOR MANY, MANY YEARS LOCATED MINUTES FROM DOWNTOWN FORT PIERCE WILL REMAIN VACANT FOR MANY MORE YEARS OR POSSIBLY BECOME ANOTHER MATTRESS STORE, USED CAR LOT, AUTO PART STORE, OR HEAVEN FORBID CANNABIS DISPENSARY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR. WHO WOULD LIKE TO GO NEXT. >> FOR THE RECORD HE WAS SWORN IN. >> GOOD EVENING. WERE YOU SWORN IN, SIR? >> MY NAME IS JIM. I OWN RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO STAN'S 500 BUILDING. THIS BUILDING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THIS PROPOSAL THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THAT BUILDING HAS BEEN EMPTY FOREVER. 20 YEARS, 30 YEARS. EACH TIME WE DO SOMETHING WITH IT. IF WE'RE GONNA USE IT FOR TEACHING KIDS, I DON'T KNOW. CAN ANYONE THINK OF ANYTHING BETTER TO DO WITH IT? SO I JUST WANTED TO COME HERE AND GIVE MY SUPPORT TO IT. AND THAT'S REALLY THAT'S IT. I HOPE. >> CAN I GET YOUR LAST NAME AGAIN? >> KIRKLER. >> THANK YOU. >> GOOD LUCK GUYS. >> THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE, PLEASE COME FORWARD. ANYONE ELSE. OKAY. FOR THE APPLICANT, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO ADD. ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO ADD THE APPLICANT. NOPE. YOU'RE GOOD? OKAY. I'LL BRING IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION. AND YES. >> JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF AN OLD CITY 125 YEARS OLD IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT. AND NOT THAT THEY NEED ANY MORE WORK IS THAT HERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY WHEN WE SEE THINGS LIKE THIS TO MAYBE DEVELOP SOME UNIQUE OPPORTUNITIES FOR HOW WE ADMINISTER THE PLANNING PROCESS CONDITIONAL USES ET CETERA. IT MAY TAKE A LITTLE EXTRA WORK AND TAKE THE EXTRAORDINARY OUT OF THE ORDINARY, BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF OLD CITIES AROUND THIS COUNTRY THAT WE COULD LOOK TO, AND THERE ARE PLENTY OF OLD CITIES IN FLORIDA THAT WE COULD LOOK TO TO TRY AND FIND WAYS TO DEAL WITH THESE TYPES OF CHALLENGES. SO I HOPE WE CAN DO THAT MAYBE GOING THROUGH STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS GOING FORWARD. >> I AM WILL MINDFUL OF THAT WE ALREADY HAVE A DOWNTOWN SCHOOL THAT FUNCTIONS AT THE WATERFRONT, ST. ANDREW'S ACADEMY. AND SO THAT SCHOOL AND THE CITY HAVE KIND OF WORKED OUT A WAY TO WORK TOGETHER AND SO IT HAS WORKED THERE FOR THEM. AND THEY GO ALL THE WAY TO A THEY DON'T HAVE AS MANY STUDENTS BUT THEY DO HAVE, WE DO HAVE A DOWNTOWN SCHOOL ALREADY FUNCTIONING WITH LIMITED CHALLENGES. ANY OTHER COMMISSIONER. >> YEAH, COUPLE. THANK YOU FOR PUTTING US ON THE SCREEN. ITEM 7 AND 8 CAME FROM THE PLANNING BOARD THAT THESE WERE NOT MET BUT I THINK I HAVE SEEN SOMETHING TONIGHT THAT SAYS THEY HAVE BEEN MET. THERE IS A PLAN B. AND THEN THERE IS THIS AGREEMENT THAT WE ALL SAW THAT WAS SIGNED, AN ADDENDUM AGREEMENT THAT BASICALLY GIVES THEM PLAYGROUND AND THE USE OF THAT, RIGHT. SO AGAIN CITY STAFF, WE HAVE AN [02:05:02] AVENUE A IS THE CITY-OWNED ROAD. THE AND AVENUE ORANGE IS A STATE ROAD. SO WHAT, WE'RE PUTTING A SCHOOL INTO AN AREA THAT IS NOT A SCHOOL AREA RIGHT NOW. AND I KNOW WHEN YOU GO THROUGH SCHOOL ZONES, THEY HAVE CROSSINGS AND SIGNS ET CETERA. WILL THAT HAVE TO TRIGGER HERE AS WELL BECAUSE I AM WORRIED ABOUT PEDESTRIAN SAFETY. THESE PARENTS WILL DO WHATEVER THEY DO EVERY DAY TRY TO GET THESE KIDS IN HERE BUT WHAT I CAN'T CONTROL IS PEDESTRIANS MARKINGS. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. I AM ASKING US HERE. SO THAT'S GOING TO BE PUT IN PLACE, RIGHT? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND THAT'S PART OF THE CONDITION AND THE APPLICANT KNOWS THAT. >> RIGHT. >> SO THEN WE HAVE AVENUE A. THAT'S CITY. BUT ORANGE AVENUE IS A DIFFERENT BEAST. THAT'S STATE. SO HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE STATE AND HOW THE STATE NEEDS THEM TO IDENTIFY THAT. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO BE CLEAR ON. >> NOT THE PEACOCK. >> WHAT ABOUT THE PEACOCKS? >> THAT'S THEIR NEIGHBOURHOOD. COMMISSIONER BRODERICK. >> THE HUNTER TO TAKE THOSE OUT. YOU WEREN'T HERE THEN. >> I DON'T KNOW EITHER. I, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I LOOK AT THIS FROM THE REAL ESTATE SLANT IS THAT DIRECTOR FREEMAN ALREADY TOLD US THAT IF WE WERE TO BUILD THIS BUILDING TODAY WE NEED WHAT, A HUNDRED ON SITE SPACES? TO MAKE THIS WORK AS RETAIL. SO THIS BUILDING I KNOW IS A REAL ESTATE TERM BUT IT'S A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF FUNCTIONAL ON FUNCTIONALOBSOLETE. IT DOESN'T MEET REQUIREMENTS ANY LONGER TEST. YOU HAVE TO TAKE PROPERTY LIKE THIS AND DO A WHOLESALE CHANGE BECAUSE YOU WON'T PUT THE SAME THING IN THERE ANYMORE. DOESN'T HAVE THE PARKING. SO, YOU KNOW, WE ARE GOING TO RUN INTO THIS CONUNDRUM OVER AND OVER AGAIN ON THESE INFILL COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN OLDER AREAS OF THE CITY. SO WHEN WE HAVE A CREATIVE USE LIKE THESE FOLKS COME ALONG WITH, I GET IT. IT HAS PROBLEMS. IT'S NOT THE PERFECT SOLUTION. BUT THEN AGAIN IF MEMORY SERVES ME RIGHT, THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN TURNED DOWN ON TWO PRIOR APPLICATIONS DUE TO PARKING. SO HAVING SAID THAT, I COME BACK CREATIVE SOLUTION TO A VERY CHALLENGING PROBLEM BECAUSE THIS BUILDING IN ESSENCE IS WORTH ZERO IF THEY CAN'T LEASE IT. AND THEY CAN'T LEASE IT BECAUSE WHAT OUR ORDINANCE REQUIRES TO GO BACK AND LEASE IT TO WHAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT FOR, CAN'T DO IT. TO DO SOMETHING NEW WITH THAT BUILDING, YOU CAN'T DO T THE SCHOOL IS A CONDITIONAL USE. PROBABLY THE CLOSEST THING TO ACTUALLY MEETING THE ZONING QUALIFICATIONS HERE VERSUS SOME OTHER USE THAT'S GOING TO HAVE THE PEACOCK DISTRICT. THE PARKING RATIO IS ALREADY CUT BY 50%. SO THIS TAKES CREATIVE THINKING TO FIX A VERY UNIQUE PROBLEM THAT'S JUST NOT GOING TO BE THIS ONE BUILDING IN THE CITY. WHY DO YOU THINK IT SAT VACANT FOR 30 YEARS? THE BUILDING I OWN SAT VACANT FOR 27 YEARS. THE USE THAT THE CITY COULD AGREE WITH AND IT WORKED OUT WELL. THIS IS A SIMILAR SITUATION TO THAT. IF YOU LOOK AT ALL THE OTHER BUILDINGS IN THE CORRIDOR, NONE OF THEM ARE BEING UTILIZED FOR WHAT THEY ARE ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED FOR. THEY ALL COULD GO THROUGH MODIFICATION OF USE. >> THE CHURCH HAS BEEN THERE OVER A HUNDRED YEARS. >> AND THEY'RE ONE OF THE MORE UNIQUE NEIGHBOURS IN THAT PARTICULAR STRETCH. SO THAT'S MY SLANT ON IT. FUNCTIONAL OBSOLETE IS NOT THE FAULT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. WHAT IT DOES ALLOW IS A CREATIVE REUSE OF THE BUILDING TO GENERATE REVENUE AND GENERATE ACTIVITY, AND I UNDERSTAND THE SAFETY ISSUES ALTHOUGH I THINK THAT THEY HAVE ADDRESSED THOSE. CAN'T HAVE KIDS GETTING DROPPED OFF ON THE SOUTH SIDE AND ACROSS THE STREET PLAY IN TRAFFIC IN ORDER TO GET TO SCHOOL. I JUST DON'T SEE THAT AS A. >> NO, AND THEY SOMEWHERE IN THERE THEY'RE GOING TO DO A LOT OF EDUCATION FOR THE PARENT. >> THE OTHER THING I DISAGREE WITH THEIR ANALYSIS ON IS THEY CAN'T COUNT INTO THE PARKING ANALYSIS ON STREET PARKING. YOU JUST CAN'T DO IT. WHILE I RESPECT THE IDEA THAT THERE IS A COMPARABLE X NUMBER OF SPACES THAT ARE AVAILABLE, WHAT YOU CAN COUNT IS PARKING AT THE 500 ORANGE BUILDING, PARKING AT THE CHURCH. THIS IS CONTROLLED, OWNED BY PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS, SO IT'S NOT FOR PUBLIC USE. SO I THINK THAT THEY HAVE A PLAN THAT IS WORKABLE IN PLACE. THEY ARE TAKING A BUILDING THAT IS AN EYESORE TO THE AREA OVER THERE. AND THEY ARE GOING TO INVEST A MILLION DOLLARS IN THAT BILLION. BUILDING. AS A LEASE HOLD IMPROVEMENT. SO IN THIS SITUATION WHILE UNDERSTAND WHAT THE PLANNING [02:10:01] BOARD IS SAYING AND THE CONCERNS OF THE PLANNING THE DID, I THINK THEIR PLANS TRUMP THAT. AND I THINK WHEN THIS WAS ORIGINALLY BEING DISCUSSED, THE NUMBER OF STUDENT WAS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER BECAUSE THEY WERE GOING TO BE USING BOTH FLOORS FOR CLASSROOMS AND SUCH. THEY REDUCE THAT IN AN EFFORT TO REDUCE THE PARKING ISSUES. SO I THINK THAT THEY HAVE GONE, THEY HAVE TAKEN MULTIPLE LEVELS OF DIFFERENT STEPS TO FIX THESE ISSUES. AND AS ALL THIS STUFF EASILY FIXABLE? I WOULD SAY NO. BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE RESOLVED THE INTENT OF ITEMS 7 AND 8 EVEN THOUGH THEIR LEASE MAY NOT ARTICULATE THAT SPECIFICALLY. >> MADAM MAYOR, ONE FINAL STATEMENT. >> OKAY. >> I FIRST WANT TO THANK OUR PROFESSIONAL PLANNING STAFF. YOU HAVE WORKED HARD. YOU HAVE DONE EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO. AND YOU PROVIDE THIS BOARD WITH ALL THE ELEMENT THAT ARE NECESSARY TO MAKE A PROPER JUDGMENT. AND SOMETIMES IT'S OUT OF YOUR HANDS LIKE THIS ONE I THINK IS TONIGHT. I DO RECOGNIZE AND WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE HAVE POLICY ISSUES THAT WE NEED TO INCUMBENT WHICH. AND I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A POINT IN TIME WHERE THE MAYOR AND THE COMMISSIONERS SIT WITH YOU AND WALK THROUGH OPPORTUNITY THAT MAY NOT BE KNOWN YET. I WORK WITH THE REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS. I'M YOUR APPOINTEE TO THE PLANNING COUNCIL. THERE ARE OTHER PROFESSIONALS OUT THERE. I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO DO ALL THE WORK. IT'S A LOT OF WORK. I MEAN WE'RE SITTING HERE AND NEXT UP IS THE PORT MASTER PLAN THAT THE COUNTY JUST STARTED WORKING ON TONIGHT AT 5:30 DOWN AT THE JACKET CLUB. THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS FROM A PLANNING STANDPOINT. BUT IF WE CREATE THE MECHANISM THAT PROVIDES YOU WITH THE PROVISIONS TO DO YOUR JOB AND PROVIDE IT TO THE CITY AND MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS A WAY TO GET THROUGH THE PROCESS AND MAKE IT A CLEANER PROCESS, THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL OF US TO BE HAPPY AND CREATE A CITY THAT WE LOVE AND THAT WE ALREADY LOVE BUT CAN SEE GROW AND PROSPER IN THE BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOME. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MAYOR. >> I THINK WE NEED A MOTION. >> I MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE THIS RECOMMENDED ITEM WITH THE SIX CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. >> SECOND. >> AT THIS POINT WAS A SIX. >> WEREN'T THERE SEVEN OR EIGHT? >> EIGHT. >> EIGHT. THERE WERE EIGHT. I THOUGHT WE HAD SAID THAT -- EIGHT. I ADD EIGHT. MADAM MAYOR, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THIS AGENDA ITEM WITH THE EIGHT WHAT WAS IT CONDITIONS. EIGHT CONDITIONS. >> QUESTION TO THE MAKER OF THE MOTION. I WON'T BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THAT WITH SEVEN AND EIGHT. AND THE REASON BEING IS WE DID HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. WE FOUND THE PARKING COMPONENTS, THE AMENDMENTS TO THE PARKING AGREEMENT THAT WAS INITIALLY REVIEWED. SO THAT IS WHY. >> I ORIGINALLY SAID SIX BECAUSE I THOUGHT WE HAD SAID THAT BASED ON THE TESTIMONY. >> YOU SAY YOU CAN'T SUPPORT IT. IS THERE A SECOND TO COMMISSIONER GAINS MOTION? >> OH, YEAH. SECOND. >> HE STOPPED IT. SO. >> CAN I JUST CLARIFY. >> WOULD YOU PLEASIVE. >> COMMISSIONER GAINS, WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT SEVEN AND EIGHT, YOU KNOW, IT TALKS ABOUT THE PARKING USE AND THE AGREEMENT. WELL, WE FOUND IN THE AGREEMENT THAT IT TALKED ABOUT BOTH THE SCHOOL GROUNDS AND THE PARKING AREA. THAT AMENDMENT WASN'T IMMEDIATELY KNOWN BY COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. AND HE QUESTIONED THAT PART. AND SO WHEN WE FOUND THAT FOR ME THAT TAKES AWAY THE ISSUE FOR NUMBER 7. THE OTHER IS THE BACKUP PLAN SHOWED ADDITIONAL QUEUING AREAS IN THE 500 AND 510 BUILDING THAT PROVIDES THAT OPPORTUNITY. AND THE OTHER IS THE DROPOFF ON THE AVENUE A SIDE. SO I THINK THAT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR MOVING THOSE TWO OFF OF THE CONDITIONS. >> WELL, THEY'RE ALREADY MET. THEY'RE ALREADY MET. IS THAT WHAT. >> UNDERSTOOD. BUT. >> SO IT'S NOT A PROBLEM. >> MY MOTION IS IF IT FAILS IT FAILS, IF NOT GO FOR IT. THAT'S WHAT I ORIGINALLY INTENDED TO DO WITH THE SIX CONDITIONS SO THAT'S MY MOTION. >> MADAM MAYOR. YOU CONTEND THAT THOSE TWO HAVE BEEN TAKEN CARE OF, PLANNING [02:15:04] AGREE THAT THIS CONVERSATION INCLUDES 7 AND 8 AS ALREADY CONFIRMED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OR IS IT UP TO THE BOARD TO MAKE IT THE COMMISSION TO MAKE A DECISION TO INCLUDE THOSE AS CONDITIONS. >> MR. FREEMAN. >> MADAM MAYOR, IF YOU LOOK AT THE CONDITIONS BOTH OF THEM SAY PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THIS APPLICATION TO THE CITY COMMISSION. SO IN EFFECT THEY HAVE BEEN MET BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN NOW MET. WHETHER OR NOT THE COMMISSION WANT TO INCLUDE THAT THE LEASE AGREEMENT IS PART OF THIS AND THE PLAN B IS PART OF THIS APPROVAL AND THE APPLICATION SHOULD HAVE A PLAN B IN PLACE AT ALL, AND THE APPLICATION SHOULD HAVE A LEASE AGREEMENT IN PLACE AT ALL TIMES. >> OKAY. WELL, THAT'S THE LANGUAGE I'M HAVING A REAL HARD TIME WITH IS THAT LEASE AGREEMENT COME AND GO. AND TO HOLD THE APPLICANT TO A LEASE THAT IS IRON CLAD FOR HOW MANY YEARS I THINK THAT'S INAPPROPRIATE FROM ANY BUSINESS DISCUSSION. SO I AGREE WITH YOUR MOTION FOR THE SIX CONDITIONS AND I'LL SECOND THAT. >> IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? >> GOOD. >> CALL ROLL. >> I'M GONNA MAKE A POINT. AND I'M SORRY. BUT I'MMA MAKE THIS POINT. I WAS LOOKING TO CODIFY FOR THE RECORD. SO YOU MADE YOUR MOTION. I'M GONNA SUPPORT IT. BUT IN THE FUTURE, I THINK WE HAVE TO REALLY UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS ONLY CODIFYING FOR THE RECORD THAT THEY MET IT AND WOULD HAVE MET IT AND PUT THEM IN AN EARLY CHECKOFF. BUT WE IN SEMANTICS UP HERE. I'M NOT SURES WHAT GOING ON. BUT WE'RE IN THE SEMANTIC WEEDS ON THIS. SO I'M GOING, YOU KNOW, WE'RE AT A QUASIJUDICIAL HEARING. FACTS WERE PRESENTED HERE ON RECORD. I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULDN'T CODIFY THAT. >> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? CALL ROLL. >> COMMISSIONER BRODERICK. >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER ZADOVSKY. >> YES. >> COMMISSIONER GAINS. >> YES, MA'AM. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. >> MAYOR HUDSON. >> YES. >> OKAY. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM IS THE ADDED ON ITEM OF THE CITY ATTORNEY'S CONTRACT. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON. >> IN LIGHT OF OUR DISCUSSION EARLIER I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. I'M WITHDRAWING THAT IF IT'S OKAY. >> IT'S OKAY WITH ME ALREADY. [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.] SHALL WE MOVE ON? >> COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. >> ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION PLEASE COME FORWARD. ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION PLEASE COME FORWARD. >> LETTER. >> THAT WAS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. >> ARE YOU A PUBLIC COMMENT? I THOUGHT YOU MIGHT. I SAW YOU WERE TALKING BUT COME ON. NO, THIS IS THE TIME. WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU. I THINK. >> THANK YOU. I'M CHRISTA STORY, AND I'M A CITY RESIDENT. SO WHAT I WANTED TO TALK TO YOU ALL ABOUT TODAY IS CURRENTLY IN TALLAHASSEE AND I THINK THEY HAVE ACTUALLY MADE A DECISION THIS AFTERNOON ON WHAT I CALL AN EFFORT TO ABSOLUTELY DEFUND LOCAL GOVERNMENT. SO I HAVE BEEN KIND OF IN REAL TIME CHECKING. THE SENATE BOTH THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE COMMITTEES APPARENTLY HAVE MOVED THOSE ITEM FORWARD. SO I'M TALKING ABOUT SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 2F AND SENATE BILL 4-F WHICH WERE PUT FORWARD BY THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE. I LISTENED BEFORE I CAME HERE TODAY TO THE FLORIDA SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. JUST DUMB. DUMB FOUNDING TO ME. BUT ANYWAY, WHAT THE PROPOSAL NOW DOES IS INCREASES THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION FROM THE CURRENT $50,000 TO $150,000 BEGINNING JANUARY 1, 2027 AND $250,000 BEGINNING JANUARY 28TH. I LISTENED TO THE LEAGUE OF CITIES DISCUSSION THIS MORNING AND INDICATED THAT IN MANY JURISDICTIONS THERE WILL BE NO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES THAT ARE SUBJECT TO TAXATION. I VIEW THE CURRENT PROPOSALS AS EFFORTS TO COMPLETELY PREAMP LOCAL GOVERNMENT. THE GOVERNOR IN THE LEGISLATURE HAVE CHISELED AWAY AT HOME RULE AND NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH THOSE EFFORTS, THEY HAVE NOW EMBARKED ON THE ULTIMATE [02:20:01] PREEMPTION, GUTTING THE MAJOR SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT. WE ALL SHOULD BE WORRIED ABOUT IT. I OBJECT TO THE SCAPEGOATING OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT BUDGETS AND THE UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS THAT HAVE COME FORWARD FROM THE CFO. THOSE INCLUDED UNSUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE AND COUNTY. BE GOOD STEWARDS OF TAXPAYER MONEY. BUT I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT THE LEGISLATURE OR SOME REPRESENTATIVE OR STATE SENATOR FROM MIAMI DADE OR PENSACOLA OR SOMEBODY LIKE THAT. SUBSTITUTING IT JUDGMENT FOR OUR RESIDENTS, ELECTED OFFICIALS IN TERMS OF WHAT SHOULD BE FUNDING PRIORITY. ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL. WE ARE NOT MIAMI DADE. MIAMI DADE IS NOT US. SO THE TWO PROPOSALS AND THE PRIOR ONES PUT FORTH BY THE FLORIDA HOUSE, WHAT YOU'RE HEARING IN THE RHETORIC IS THE PROPERTY TAX CUTS, THAT'S A CARROT. AND VOTERS HEAR THAT. WHO WOULDN'T WANT THEIR TAXES CUT. BUT THERE'S A STICK. NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT A STICK. AND THAT STICK IS POTENTIAL REDUCTION IN SERVICES OR FEES. >> THANK YOU. I'M SORRY. YOUR TIME -- >> DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. >> TOTALLY AGREE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE. ANYONE ELSE WANTING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. >> YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE LEFT. [15. COMMENTS FROM THE CITY MANAGER] >> YEAH. LET'S MOVE ON. >> COMMENTS FROM THE CITY MANAGER. >> I DON'T HAVE MUCH TO SAY BUT I WILL EXPOUND ON WHAT WAS JUST MENTIONED BY A CITIZEN AND RESIDENT. WE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSING THE PROPERTY TAX PROPOSALS. AND WE ARE LOOKING AT OPTIONS OF TO ADDRESS THAT. SO WE WILL BE ADDRESSING THAT WITH YOU COMMISSION AND DOING THE BUDGET AND WORKSHOP. >> GOOD, GOOD, GOOD. AND IT'S NOT A DONE DEAL. IT HAS TO GO, IT HAS TO BE VOTED ON. BUT IT'S AN UPHILL CLIMB TO GET PEOPLE NOT TO VOTE TO CUT THEIR OWN TAXES. SO YES. SO THAT'S ITERING OKAY. [16. COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION] MS. COX, DO YOU HAVE MY? >> I'M GOOD TONIGHT. >> MS. HEDGES. WE'LL MOVE ON. >> COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION. >> ALL RIGHT. WOULD WOULD LIKE TO START? >> I'LL START REAL QUICK. THERE WAS A CITIZEN SITTING HERE. I THINK SHE WAS A PERSON FROM MOMS AT WE WERE GIVEN A PROCLAMATION FOR. YES, SHE SLID IN, AND WE WERE IN EVERY CONVERSATION. >> GOT BEYOND THAT. >> WELL BEYOND THAT. I JUST. >> SO MAYBE I WILL HAVE HER COME BACK. >> I CAN'T WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE SHE WAS HERE. I SAW HER SITTING WITH A RED T-SHIRT. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I'M CONCERNED. WOKE UP THIS MORNING LISTENING TO THAT CONVERSATION AND NOW OUR COMMUNITY IS GOING TO BE PUT OUT IN FRONT OF THE FREIGHT TRAIN AND THEY DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW THAT FREIGHT TRAIN WILL IMPACT THEMSELVES. I AM HAPPY TO BEGIN MODELING THAT EXERCISE AND WE WILL HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO EDUCATE OUR COMMUNITY AND CONSTITUENTS THAT ELECT US ALL. THE CITY ELECTS US AS COMMISSIONERS. AND THAT WE OWE IT TO CONSTITUENTS TO HELP THEM UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF WHAT IS TRANSPIRING RIGHT NOW. YOU'RE RIGHT T WILL BE ON THE BALLOT I GUESS IN NOVEMBER. IT'S GOING TO DRIVE PEOPLE I GUESS TO VOTE IN A MID YEAR WHICH MOST PEOPLE DON'T. SO MAYBE THAT'S THE GOOD SIDE. MAYBE MORE PEOPLE WILL SHOW UP AND VOTE AND REALLY BE INVOLVED WITH THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESS DEMOCRATIC PROCESS AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT WHEREAS MOST KAYS THEY TUNE OUT WHETHER IT'S A PRESIDENTIAL RUN HERE. SO THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. WHO WOULD LIKE TO GO NEXT. IVE. >> I ACTUALLY HAVE NO COMMENTS TONIGHT. >> WHO WOULD LIKE TO GO NEXT. >> I'M GOOD. >> MADAM MAYOR, THE CITIZEN STOLE MY THUNDER A LITTLE BIT. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE THE CONVERSATION BECAUSE I WAS TERRIBLY DISTURBED AND LISTENING AND READING ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WAS COMING OUT. SO I'LL JUST TRY AND PARAPHRASE THROUGH THIS. WE AS LOCAL OFFICIALS HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO HELP RESIDENT UNDERSTAND THAT THESE PROPOSALS COULD MEAN SERVICES THEY RELY ON EVERY DAY COULD BE CUT. THE QUESTION IS NO LONGER WHETHER TAXES SHOULD BE REDUCED. WE KNOW THAT THEY SHOULD. THE QUESTION IS HOW WILL LOCAL SERVICES BE FUNDED IF THEY ARE. SO WHETHER DOES THAT MINE COME FROM? DOES IT COME FROM PARKING FEES? DOES IT COME FROM HIGHER PERMIT FEES, HIGHER IMPACT FEES, ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE IMPORTANT. WE ALSO NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE IRSHIP . THE CITY PROCESS SERVICES FOR POLICE PROTECTION, NEIGHBOURHOOD IMPROVEMENTS, POLICE PROTECTION N A PREVIOUS VERSION OF THIS IT WAS TO BE HELD HARMLESS. [02:25:02] LAW ENFORCEMENT WAS TO BE HELD HARMLESS. I HAVEN'T SEEN THE LAST REVISION BUT THE ONE THAT WAS PRESENTED EARLIER DOES NOT HAVE THAT HARMLESS LANGUAGE. SO WE NEED TO BE CONCERNED WITH HOW TO FUND OR POLICE PROTECTION. IT ALSO DEALS WITH IMPROVEMENTS TO, PARKS, RECREATION, AND MAINTAIN OF CITY STREET. WE WENT THROUGH THE RECESSION. THAT'S ONE THING I WANT TO BRING TO THE TABLE IS IN 2008, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 THE CITY AND THE COUNTY WENT THROUGH A RECESSION WHERE IN THE COUNTY'S BUDGET THE FIRST BUDGET WAS A $54 MILLION DEFICIT. WELL, CITIES AND COUNTIES DON'T OPERATE ON DEFICIT SPENDING. THEY HAD TO FIND THE RESERVES. FORTUNATELY AT THE TIME THE COUNTY HAD $84 MILLION IN RESERVES AND WAS ABLE TO FILL THE GAP FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. WE SAW WHAT HAPPENED INSPECT CITY AND COUNTY GOVERNMENT IS THAT ROADS WEREN'T BEING MAINTAINED. VEHICLES, WHEN I TOOK OFFICE IN 2008, 9 THE SHERIFF STILL HAD THE OLD CRUISER, WHAT HAVE THE NAME OF THOSE? CROWN VICS. >> THANK YOU. AND THEY WERE ALREADY 15 YEARS OLD WITH 300,000 MILES ON THEM. BUT WHAT HAPPENS THEN IS YOU HAVE THAT SITUATION WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE THE FUND TO MAINTAIN EQUIPMENT AND GET SO FAR BEHIND. NOW THAT WE HAD, YOU KNOW, NEW REVENUE COMING IN, NEW ASSESSMENTS COMING IN, NEW TAXES BEING ABLE TO GO BACK AND FIX SOME OF THE MAINTENANCE ISSUES, YEAH, THOSE WERE NECESSARY. BUT WITH THIS PRESENTATION RIGHT HERE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A HARD TIME EVER RECOVERING. WHEN THE RECESSION HIT, WE LOST ALL THAT REVENUE. AND WE HAD A SO-CALLED BOOM. AT THE END OF THE DAY WE WERE ABLE TO RECOVER. WE PROVIDED THE HALF CENT SALES TAX TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR INFRASTRUCTURE. AND WE WERE ABLE TO DO GOOD THINGS HERE IN THE CITY. AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO REFLECT. THAT BEING SAID I AM PROVIDING YOU THIS DOCUMENTATION. I GAVE IT TO THE CLERK. I'M NOT GONNA READ IT ALL INTO THE RECORD. BUT IT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW AND FOR YOU TO REVIEW. AND THAT IS THAT ON TAX RELIEF. THE NEXT ITEM REAL QUICK IS THE PERIOD IS BEING LOOKED AT FOR THE PORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE. THE LAST TIME IT WAS DONE WAS IN 2020. THE FORT MASTER PLAN UPDATE IS AN IMPORTANT ASPECT FOR WHAT WE NEED TO DO THE OPPORTUNITIES I'LL DAHL CALL IT THE OPPORTUNITIES DISTRICT. YOU MAY RECALL THE PORT MOVES FORWARD WITH THE SOUTHERN GROVE. AND THEY HAVE AN OVERLAY IN A PROCESS BY WHICH THEY CREATED AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO INVEST. AS PART OF THAT, THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO FOLLOW THAT LEAD AND CREATE A SOUTHERN GROVE-LIKE SUCCESS. SORT OF WHAT HAPPENS WITH SOUTHERN GROVE AND I'LL READ IT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO MISLEAD YOU. SO THE IDEA OF THE PORT MASTER PLAN WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE FOR CONSIDERATION ESTABLISHES A VISION. HOWEVER, THE SUCCESS OF THAT VISION IS ULTIMATELY DEPENDING ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF OUR ABILITY TO ATTRACT PRIVATE INVESTMENT IN ALLIANCE WITH COMMUNITY GOAL. SEVERAL YEARS AGO THE CITY CREATED WHAT BECAME KNOWN AS SOUTHERN GROVE. WHILE THE PROJECT ITSELF IS DIFFERENT FROM THE PORT, THE PROCESS THEY DEVELOPED OFFERS VALUABLE LESSONS. SOUTHERN GROVE SUCCEEDED BECAUSE IT REDUCED UNCERTAINTY. INVESTORS UNDERSTAND THE CITY'S VISION, KNEW THE RULES, UNDERSTOOD TIMELINES, AND HAD CLEAR PATHS FOR CONCEPT TO CONSTRUCTION. AND I BELIEVE THAT FORT PIERCE SHOULD EXPLORE A SIMILAR FRAMEWORK FOR PORT-RELATED INVESTMENT. THIS ISN'T ABOUT LOWERING STANDARDS. QUITE HONESTLY IT'S THE OTHER WAY AROUND. IT ACTUALLY INCREASES THE STANDARDS AND PUTS DEVELOPERS AT A HIGHER LEVEL. IT IS ALSO ABOUT BYPASSING PUBLIC INPUT, PREDICTABILITY, ACCOUNTABILITY, COORDINATION BETWEEN CITY, COUNTY, AND PORT AUTHORITY IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR. I LEAVE THIS FOR YOU BECAUSE THEY HAVE A PUBLIC MEETING TODAY AT 5:30 AT THE YACHT CLUB. THERE'S INFORMATION. I HAVEN'T HEARD FROM INSIDE THE CITY THAT WE WERE INVITED TO THAT OR HAD ANYBODY THERE. IT CONFLICTED WITH OUR MEETING OF COURSE. SO I DON'T EXPECT THAT WE WOULD HAVE HAD ANYBODY THERE. SO IT'S ON OUR AGENDAAL COMING FORWARD. IF WE WANT TO SEE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IN THIS CITY, THAT'S A PRIME PLACE TO DO THAT. IN MY OPINION. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON IS OUR REPRESENTATIVE AND CONFLICTED WITH THIS MEETING. >> IT DID, MADAM MAYOR. BUT I WOULD SHARE ONE THING IS THAT I HAD A CONCERN. I DIDN'T LEARN ABOUT THIS. AND THAT'S MY ISSUE IS I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THIS MEETING TODAY. AND I WAS ALERTED AT OUR GROUNDBREAKING BY SOMEBODY WHO BROUGHT IT TO THEIR ATTENTION. AND SO I'M GONNA REACH OUT. >> I GOT. [02:30:03] WHEN I WENT TO, I COVERED THE LAST MEETING FOR YOU IF YOU REMEMBER. >> OKAY. >> AND I ASKED THEM TO PUT ME ON THE MAILING LIST. >> OKAY. >> AND I GOT IN THE OF IT. THE SO I'M, I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU. >> MAYBE I OVERLOOKED IT. >> BUT THE THING THAT I THOUGHT WAS INTERESTING FROM THAT MEETING WAS IN THE PAPER TODAY IS THAT THE SPACE ASPECT. THE SPACE. >> YES, I SAW THAT. >> THE SPACE COAST, YES. THEY ARE LOOKING TO OUR PORT TO DO SOME OF THEIR STORAGE AND SOME OF THEIR OPERATIONS AND NOT TO LAUNCH A SPACESHIP OR ANYTHING DARNIT BUT SOME PART OF IT WHICH IS KIND OF EXCITING. IS THAT IT? IS. >> JUST ONE MORE THING. TODAY WAS THE FIRST DAY OF THE ANCHORING PROVISION BY THE COUNTY. SO IF YOU HAVE A SAILBOAT. >> WE PARTICIPATED IN THAT. >> YES, MA'AM. AND SO THE IDEA IS TO GO TO THE WEBSITE AT THE COUNTY. TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. ENFORCEMENT OPTIONS GOING FORWARD. IT STARTED TODAY. SO FOR THOSE WHO ARE IN THE SAILBOATS AND THOSE IN THE ANCHORAGE OF OUR BEAUTIFUL INLET, NOTICE THAT THAT DOES EXIST, AND IT STARTED TODAY. >> AND WE'RE TRYING TO UNCLOG THE INLET AND KEEP PEOPLE FROM DUMPING WASTE IN THE INLET, AND WE HAVE A CODE ENFORCEMENT OPERATION ON THE WATER. SO THAT'S GOOD NEWS. IS THAT IT? >> THAT'S ALL I HAVE, MA'AM. THANK YOU. I WILL BE REAL QUICK. I WANT TO SAY THAT THE LEAGUE A ON ITS WEBSITE AND IT PROPERTY TAX TOOLKIT WHAT EACH CITY'S SPECIFIC STATISTIC. SO I LOOKED UP FOR FORT PIERCE, OUR PERCENT OF TAXABLE VALUE WILL BE WHEN THEY HAVE A $250,000 EXEMPTION WILL BE 16%. CITY WIDE. AND IT WILL BE 80% OF THE TOTAL HOMESTEAD TAXABLE VALUE. 80%. SO THAT'S WITH THE 250. >> WHAT'S THE ACTUAL AMOUNT? >> 26 MILLION THE FIRST YEAR. >> THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF THE HERE'S ALL THE STATISTICS. IT'S PAINFUL. I WANT TO LET YOU ALL KNOW THAT THE TRUE SALES HUSBAND DIED AND THE FUNERAL IS FRIDAY AT 11 AT STONE BROTHERS. AND I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU HAD ALL GOTTEN THAT WORD. AND ON A GOOD NEWS THING, I ATTENDED A BIRTHDAY PARTY FOR A 102-YEAR-OLD WORLD WAR II VET AND A 100-YEAR-OLD WORLD WAR II VET, AND IT WAS ONE OF THE BEST FEEL GOOD THINGS THAT YOU COULD DO IS THANK THESE GENTLEMEN FOR THEIR SERVICE. SO WITH THAT UNLESS THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE, I SAY ERR WITH ADJOURNED. WE'RE GOING TO BE EMPTYING THE CH * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.